{"itemid":"001-157392","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NABIL AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and currently reside in GPE , GPE .","Originally coming through GPE , the applicants entered GPE via GPE and were intercepted and arrested by the border police on CARDINAL ( Mr PERSON ) and CARDINAL ( the other CARDINAL applicants ) DATE . They were transferred to the border station in GPE , GPE , since they could not prove either their identities or their legal residence in GPE .","On DATE the applicants were interviewed with the assistance of an interpreter .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicants\u2019 expulsion to GPE and a ban on entry to the territory of GPE for DATE , pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of Act no . II of DATE on the Admission and Right of Residence of Third Country Nationals ( the \u201c LAW \u201d ) . With regard to the requirement of non - refoulement , it was considered that there was no such obstacle to the expulsion .","The execution of the expulsion order was simultaneously suspended for a maximum period of DATE or until the expulsion became feasible , noting that \u201c the NORP party failed to reply before the expiry of the \u201c retention time \u201d ( visszatart\u00e1si id\u0151 ) \u201d .","At the same time , that is , on DATE , the ORG detention was ordered by ORG until DATE under LAW ) of LAW , on the ground that \u201c [ they ] refused to leave the country , or for other substantiated reasons it can be assumed that [ they ] are delaying or preventing the enforcement of expulsion or transfer \u201d . In the findings of fact it was noted that the applicants were not in possession of any travel documents ; that they had crossed the border illegally via GPE ; that they said that their travel destination was [ Western ] LOC , GPE in particular ; and that they had not applied for asylum .","The applicants were first detained at FAC guarded accommodation ( \u0151rz\u00f6tt sz\u00e1ll\u00e1s ) .","On DATE the applicants applied for asylum , claiming that they were persecuted in their home country by the terrorist organisation ORG .","On DATE the applicants were transferred to the guarded accommodation of ORG in GPE .","Preliminary asylum proceedings were put in place on DATE , and the immigration authorities were notified thereof . On DATE the applicants were interviewed by ORG ( hereinafter : \u201c asylum authority \u201d )","On DATE their case was admitted to the \u201c in - merit phase \u201d by a decision of the asylum authority , in view of the fact , among other things , that there existed no \u201c safe third country \u201d in their respect .","Meanwhile , on DATE ORG had heard the applicants , assisted by a guardian ad litem and an interpreter , and had extended their detention until DATE . Relying on section CARDINAL ) b ) of LAW , it endorsed in essence the decision of DATE of ORG , saying that the applicants , in a state of illegal entry , were likely to frustrate their deportation .","On DATE and DATE the detention was extended again by summary decisions of ORG , referring to the immigration authority \u2019s renewed requests to have the applicants detained for the same reasons as before and stating that the circumstances had not changed . These latter decisions made no reference to the on - going asylum proceedings .","On DATE the same court again extended the applicants\u2019 detention on the same basis , mentioning that their expulsion was suspended due to their pending asylum applications .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer requested their release , but in vain . ( The date as of which they obtained legal representation is not known . ) A subsequent request for judicial review of their detention under sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of LAW was to no avail either .","On DATE ORG again prolonged the applicants\u2019 detention , holding that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would hinder or delay the implementation of the expulsion order . Having heard the applicants , the court held as follows :","\u201c The expulsion order can not be considered unenforceable on the ground that the asylum procedure has not been concluded . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , a first asylum application has suspensive effect on the enforcement of the expulsion order , although this does not mean that the expulsion order is not enforceable . Unenforceability refers to a permanent state and not to a temporary period such as the term of the asylum procedure .","...","Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW no . II of DATE ) , detention ordered under the immigration laws shall be terminated if ( a ) the expulsion or transfer has become viable ; ( b ) when it becomes evident that the expulsion or transfer can not be executed ; or ( c ) the detention has exceeded DATE .","None of the reasons for the termination [ of the detention ] listed in the above - cited paragraph exists . The expulsion or transfer is [ actually ] not viable because of the pending asylum application ; furthermore , there will be [ at last ] no reason preventing the execution of the expulsion or transfer if the foreign national [ eventually ] receives no protection in the asylum procedure , since the procedure has failed to prove that GPE is no safe third country , [ and GPE ] , according to the information provided by the immigration authority , is ready to re - admit the foreign national pursuant to ORG and ORG . Lastly , the time that has elapsed since the beginning of the detention is CARDINAL or DATE ...","On the basis of the information available to the court , the foreign national , according to his statement made during the first interview , intended to travel to LOC to find employment . He did not admit to this during the hearing but the court has no information which would support the foreign national \u2019s [ statement departing from the earlier one ] .","In view of this , it is reasonable to assume that the foreign national would delay or prevent the enforcement of the expulsion order . He is unwilling to comply with the expulsion order voluntarily , therefore it can be established that the expulsion order can not be enforced by way of applying sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) or CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW [ that is , seizure of travel document or designated residence ] .","The court has found that the conditions for the continuation of the detention lawfully ordered LAW no . II of DATE continue to be met . \u201d","After interviews on the merits of their applications on DATE , on DATE the applicants\u2019 asylum applications were dismissed , but they were granted subsidiary protection ( \u201c oltalmazott \u201d ) under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act no . FAC of DATE ( the \u201c LAW \u201d ) . This decision was delivered and became final on DATE .","The applicants\u2019 detention ended on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167110","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CANO MOYA v. SPAIN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE ( GPE Real ) and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .","At the time of the facts the applicant was in prison on remand in GPE ( GPE ) .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty of a disciplinary offence by the disciplinary board of ORG and punished under LAW . The punishment was : CARDINAL weekends in isolation for having threatened prison officers ( Rule CARDINAL ( b ) ) ; DATE without group recreational activities for having disobeyed the orders given by prison officers in the fulfilment of their duties ( Rule CARDINAL ( b ) ) ; and DATE without group recreational activities for having damaged prison property ( Rule CARDINAL ( e ) ) .","The applicant appealed against the sanction before ORG post - sentencing judge no . CARDINAL ( Juzgado de Vigilancia Penitenciaria n.o CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the post - sentencing judge found partially in the applicant \u2019s favour and revoked the sanction imposed under Rule CARDINAL ( b ) .","On DATE a ORG agent in charge of judicial communications attempted unsuccessfully to serve the applicant in person with the post - sentencing judge \u2019s decision . The applicant had been transferred to a prison in GPE ( GPE ) .","On DATE the applicant was served in person with the post - sentencing judge \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . He signed an acknowledgment of receipt .","NORP The applicant lodged a reforma appeal with the same post - sentencing judge , who on DATE confirmed her previous decision . A copy of the decision on appeal was served on the applicant . He signed an acknowledgment of receipt .","The applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG . He invoked LAW ( freedom of expression ) and CARDINAL ( right to be presumed innocent ) of the LAW .","By a communication of CARDINAL DATE ORG asked the post - sentencing judge to provide it with a copy of the applicant \u2019s case file .","On DATE the post - sentencing judge transferred the applicant \u2019s case file to ORG .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s amparo appeal inadmissible as devoid of any special constitutional significance . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant asked the post - sentencing judge for a copy of his case file for submission to ORG . He relied on sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He did so from a prison in GPE ( Saragossa ) to which he had been transferred .","On DATE the applicant sent his first letter to the ORG giving notice of his intention to lodge an application under LAW .","On DATE ORG acknowledged receipt of the applicant \u2019s letter and invited him to submit a duly completed application form by DATE .","On DATE the post - sentencing judge refused the applicant \u2019s request for a copy of his case file on the grounds that his case \u201c was still pending before the Constitutional Court \u201d .","On DATE the applicant sent his application form to the ORG . He raised complaints under LAW and LAW . He enclosed a copy of ORG decision declaring his amparo appeal inadmissible . He further referred to the post - sentencing judge \u2019s decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE in field \u201c CARDINAL . Other decisions \u201d of the application form . However , he did not enclose a copy of those decisions .","On DATE the applicant sent a communication to the post - sentencing judge . He stated that ORG had delivered a decision in his case on DATE ; that he intended to initiate proceedings before ORG ; and that in order to do so he should be provided with a certified copy of his case file without delay and before the deadline of DATE .","On DATE the post - sentencing judge \u2019s registrar rejected the applicant \u2019s request , referring to the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and stating that ORG had the power to request the case file itself . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the ORG acknowledged receipt of the applicant \u2019s application form and invited him to send in all relevant domestic decisions by DATE .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he had unsuccessfully requested a certified copy of his complete case file from the post - sentencing judge . He complained that the domestic authorities were hindering his right to a defence .","On DATE the applicant resubmitted his request for a copy of the whole case file to the post - sentencing judge . He referred to the ORG \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the post - sentencing judge rejected the applicant \u2019s request and refused to provide him with a copy of his case file . She informed the applicant that , for the purposes of subsequent applications before other courts , those courts could request the case files from the domestic courts directly . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that the post - sentencing judge had refused to provide him with a copy of his case file ."],"violated_articles":["34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158944","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SAZANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in ORG .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of threatening to murder , hooliganism , robbery , rape and murder under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of the RSFSR ( the Russian NORP ) and sentenced to death .","On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal , having amended the legal qualification of the charge of murder under LAW of LAW of the RSFSR .","On DATE , by virtue of Presidential decree no . CARDINAL , the death penalty was replaced by DATE imprisonment .","In CARDINAL the domestic courts , at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction and on several occasions , brought the legal qualification of the crimes of which the applicant had been convicted into line with the newly enacted Criminal Code of GPE ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) and its subsequent amendment ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) . On each occasion the final sentence \u2013 twenty years\u2019 imprisonment DATE remained unaltered .","The last decision in this connection was taken by ORG of GPE on DATE .","On DATE new criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of murder .","Police officers allegedly intimidated the applicant and forced him to confess . The applicant alleged that he was subsequently forced to confirm a self - incriminating statement in the presence of legal - aid counsel .","The applicant did not complain about the alleged ill - treatment , because he considered such a remedy ineffective .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s custody was changed to detention on remand pending trial .","On DATE the pre - trial investigation was completed and the case was sent to GPE ORG for trial .","According to the applicant , at the court hearing of DATE , while questioning witness PERSON and victims T. and P. , the trial judge P. three times read out an extract from the judgment of CARDINAL DATE relating to the applicant \u2019s previous conviction for murder .","According to the Government , the reading out of the DATE judgment against the applicant was done only once , on DATE , at the stage of the examination of the case file at the request of the prosecutor during the determination of the term of the applicant \u2019s sentence , and the defence raised no objections .","At the court hearings of CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant asked the court to obtain the attendance of an expert whom he wished to question . His requests were refused by the court .","On DATE and DATE the applicant sought the withdrawal of the judge , without success . In dismissing the applicant \u2019s request for the withdrawal of the trial judge on DATE the court indicated that the partial announcement of the applicant \u2019s unspent conviction of DATE did not constitute a predisposition of the court to deliver a finding of guilt , but served the purpose of full and comprehensive examination of the applicant \u2019s personality as he had earlier been convicted of an analogous crime \u2013 premeditated murder . In dismissing the applicant \u2019s challenge of DATE the court indicated that the applicant had failed to provide justification for his application for the withdrawal of the judge .","On DATE the GPE ORG convicted the applicant of threatening murder , bodily harm , murder , and destruction of property , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , taking into account that the applicant had not fully served the sentence handed down on DATE .","NORP The applicant appealed , claiming in particular that the court which convicted him had been biased and predisposed to deliver a finding of guilt . The applicant referred to the fact that while questioning witness PERSON and victims T. and P. the judge had read out extracts from his conviction of CARDINAL DATE , thus \u201c creating an atmosphere of guilt \u201d . He further indicated that he had challenged the judge in view of his attitude , although to no avail , and deplored the fact that the transcript of the trial omitted to mention the judge \u2019s reading out of the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal . As regards the applicant \u2019s complaint relating to the alleged bias of the trial judge , ORG held as follows :","\u201c The [ applicant \u2019s ] arguments concerning bias on the part of the [ trial ] court DATE its predetermination to deliver a finding of guilt , the selective record of the course of the trial , and the violation of his rights by the reading out of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had been addressed during the trial and had been reasonably dismissed as unsubstantiated . The transcript of the trial complies with LAW ... The [ applicant \u2019s ] conviction of CARDINAL DATE had not been expunged , therefore the reading out of the judgment [ in question ] can not be regarded as having breached [ his ] rights . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158865","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"CHAKKAS AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The common feature of these CARDINAL applications is that they are brought by NORP nationals who complain that the children of women displaced from the north of GPE after DATE were not entitled to refugee cards ( and thus the benefits to which the holders of such cards were entitled ) , whereas the children of displaced men were entitled to such cards . The difference in treatment was removed in DATE , that is , after the introduction of the present applications : see relevant domestic law and practice at paragraph CARDINAL below .","The applicants are all either displaced women or the children of displaced women . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . The applications were lodged on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . The applicants in application CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL are represented by PERSON . The applicants in application no . CARDINAL are separately represented by Mr ORG . Mr Loucaides and Mr Angelides both practise in GPE .","NORP The legislative provisions which , at the material time , granted refugee cards to the children of displaced men but not the children of displaced women were unsuccessfully challenged before ORG in GPE v. the GPE ( appeal no . CARDINAL ) : see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below . The final judgment of ORG in that case was given on DATE .","Following ORG judgment in GPE v. the ORG and PERSON , the applicants in application no . CARDINAL , brought their own challenge to the refugee card scheme , lodging that challenge with ORG on DATE . They too alleged that , in according preferential treatment to the children of displaced men over the children of displaced women , the scheme was discriminatory and contrary to LAW . That challenge was rejected by ORG at first instance on DATE and on appeal to the revisional jurisdiction of the court on DATE , in each case for the reasons the court had given in its GPE v. the Republic judgment .","A scheme of aid for displaced and other affected persons was introduced by ORG by decision no . CARDINAL of DATE . Under the scheme , displaced persons were entitled to refugee cards . The holders of such cards were ( and still are ) eligible for a range of benefits including housing assistance . For the purposes of the scheme the term \u201c displaced \u201d was determined by ORG as being any person whose permanent residence is in the occupied areas , or in an inaccessible area or in an area which was evacuated to meet the needs of ORG .","A circular on the implementation of the scheme was issued by ORG ( \u201c SCRDP \u201d ) on DATE . In relevant part it reads :","\u201c ( a ) When a displaced woman marries a non - displaced man , the husband and children can not be registered or considered as displaced persons ;","( b ) When a displaced man marries a non - displaced woman , the non - displaced wife will be registered on the refugee identity card of the husband . The children will be considered as refugees and will be registered on the refugee identity card of their father . \u201d","Although the scheme was progressively extended , it was not until the passage of ORG ) ( No . CARDINAL ) PERSON of DATE ( N. CARDINAL(I)\/CARDINAL ) that children of displaced women became entitled to refugee cards on the same terms as the children of displaced men .","The DATE scheme was unsuccessfully challenged before ORG by PERSON : GPE v. the GPE ( appeal no . ORG ) . PERSON was the daughter of a displaced woman ; she was refused a refugee card on DATE . Before ORG she claimed , inter alia , that the decision was in violation of the principle of equality safeguarded by LAW and in breach of LAW taken in conjunction with LAW No CARDINAL . She claimed that the scheme also breached LAW .","That challenge was dismissed at first instance on DATE and on appeal by ORG ( revisional jurisdiction ) on DATE , the latter finding that it was unable to extend the application of the scheme to the children of displaced women when the legislature had not done so . Ms GPE lodged an application ( CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) with this ORG on DATE and the ORG gave judgment in her case on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172465","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BOROJEVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in NORP .","On DATE the body of PERSON , the applicants\u2019 respective husband and father , was found on the right bank of the river PERSON in NORP . An on - site inspection was carried out immediately as well as an autopsy the following day which showed that the victim had been stabbed to death .","On DATE the ORG lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG .","NORP The police interviewed PERSON , the victim \u2019s wife , on CARDINAL DATE . She told them that her husband had left her workplace at TIME on DATE to return home because a general emergency had been announced and their daughter , who was a minor , was there alone . However , after he left she had not seen him again .","In DATE ORG established ORG in LOC , PERSON and ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) . On DATE the ORG mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the NORP authorities began .","On DATE the police interviewed PERSON and ORG , respectively the wife and daughter of the late PERSON . They said that prior to PERSON disappearance on DATE , NORP soldiers had carried out searches in their flat in DATE and on DATE . CARDINAL of the soldiers , ORG , had been known to them . They had subsequently learned that an individual named PERSON had also been implicated . A certain PERSON had also told them that he had asked PERSON about the killing of PERSON and that PERSON had shown PERSON a list of persons to be followed and a list of persons to be liquidated , and that PERSON had been on neither of those lists .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG issued a document concerning enquiries into the killings of civilians DATE . The document was addressed to GPE Attorney \u2019s Offices , which were required to examine all the information collected to date on the killings of civilians during that period and to concentrate their activities on identifying the perpetrators and gathering the relevant evidence in order to initiate criminal proceedings .","NORP On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG issued an instruction to the County State Attorney \u2019s Offices for implementation of LAW and LAW , in which it indicated that an inspection of their work had indicated CARDINAL main problems : possible partiality of the persons involved in the pending proceedings as regards the ethnicity of the victims or the perpetrators , and the problem of trials in absentia . The instruction advocated the impartial investigation of all war crimes , irrespective of the ethnicity of those involved , whether victims or perpetrators , and reiterated the duties of those working for the ORG Attorney in that respect .","On DATE an investigating judge at the ORG heard evidence from ORG and ORG , who repeated what they had said to the police .","The police interviewed PERSON , a relative of PERSON , on DATE but he had no knowledge of the latter \u2019s disappearance and killing .","On DATE the police interviewed GPE and on DATE they questioned T.P.","On DATE an investigating judge at the ORG heard evidence from ORG , a neighbour of the PERSON family . He said that DATE in DATE when ORG was being shelled , he and other tenants from the building had been in the basement when CARDINAL armed men dressed in military uniforms had entered . He had exited the basement with them and they had told him that someone had been shooting from the building . T.P. had shown them the flats where NORP lived . The CARDINAL men had entered the flat of the PERSON family while PERSON waited outside . They had not taken anyone from the flat . PERSON remembered that the men had been young .","On DATE the judge heard evidence from GPE , who said that a certain NORP , who had died in the meantime , had told him that he had learned that PERSON had been taken to ORG by the men who controlled the roads . He had been tortured and then taken to GPE . PERSON had the impression that NORP knew who had taken PERSON but he had not identified that person . Later he had seen a vehicle belonging to PERSON on the ORG agricultural estate . However , when he had attempted to find out who was driving the vehicle , a man wearing a camouflage uniform and a balaclava and armed with a PERSON had threatened to kill him .","On DATE the ORG lodged a criminal complaint against GPE , GPE and PERSON on charges of war crimes against the civilian population . This included the killing of the applicants\u2019 relative . On the same day PERSON , Head of ORG in DATE and DATE , PERSON , police commander at the border territory of NORP and PERSON in DATE and DATE and Deputy of ORG , and PERSON , a member of the \u201c ORG of ORG , were arrested .","On an unspecified date the investigation was opened . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON died .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG lodged an indictment against V.M. and PERSON at ORG , alleging that they had been in command of the unit whose unknown members had committed a number of crimes against the civilian population DATE and DATE , including the killing of the applicants\u2019 relative . They were charged with war crimes against the civilian population .","On DATE a first - instance judgment was delivered . PERSON was found guilty of war crimes against the civilian population in that , in his capacity as \u201c the commander of police forces in the broader area of NORP and PERSON \u201d and \u201c Deputy Head of the NORP Police \u201d , he had allowed the killings of persons of NORP origin and had failed to undertake adequate measures to prevent such killings . The relevant part of the judgment concerning the applicants\u2019 relative reads :","\u201c in TIME of DATE at a checkpoint in GPE , some unknown members of the reserve police stopped a white vehicle , a ORG CARDINAL , which was being driven by PERSON , took the vehicle from him and kept it for themselves , and arrested PERSON and took him to an unknown location where they killed him , after which his body was found on DATE on the right bank of the river PERSON at the location called \u201c Ru\u0161etina \u201d in NORP , with several open wounds and contusions on his head and a wound caused by stabs and cuts in his chest . \u201d","V.M. was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . PERSON was acquitted of all charges .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction of V.M. and increased his sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On various dates the applicants brought separate civil actions against the ORG , seeking compensation in connection with the death of their close relative . The claims were dismissed on the grounds that they had been lodged after the statutory limitation period had expired .","Following the criminal conviction of PERSON , the applicants sought the reopening of these proceedings in ORG . Their request is now pending ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168761","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GREBNEVA AND ALISIMCHIK v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["Both applicants were born in DATE and live in GPE .","The first applicant is the editor of a DATE newspaper , PERSON ( NORP \u0432\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0438 ) , and the second applicant is a journalist and columnist there . It has a circulation of CARDINAL . The newspaper is published and distributed in LOC .","NORP In DATE during a campaign for elections to the national parliament , ORG , the newspaper published a number of satirical and parodic articles on the course of the campaign in LOC . They featured a NORP online cartoon character , a girl called PERSON , who was very popular at the time , going from GPE to GPE as an election observer .","An article in issue no . CARDINAL of the newspaper for CARDINAL DATE contained a pretend interview with PERSON , stating that on her arrival at FAC she had been attacked and injured by local prostitutes , who did not want outsiders competing with them and who had forced her to return to GPE . PERSON had had a particularly fierce fight with a certain PERSON , the director of an escort agency called Contact or Image ! ( \u0430\u0433\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u0438\u043d\u0442\u0438\u043c\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u0443\u0441\u043b\u0443\u0433 ORG \u0438\u043b\u0438 \u0438\u043c\u0438\u0434\u0436 ! ) . The article stated that ORG had refused to make any comments .","NORP In issue no . CARDINAL , dated DATE , in a column called \u201c PERSON ORG \u201d ( GPE \u0437\u0440\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f PERSON ) written by the second applicant , PERSON published a pretend interview with ORG . The article was headlined \u201c Candidates must be known from the inside ! \u201d ( PERSON \u043d\u0443\u0436\u043d\u043e \u0437\u043d\u0430\u0442\u044c \u0438\u0437\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0438 ! ) . The relevant part read as follows :","\u201c Nonetheless , we managed to get in touch with ORG , the director of the escort agency Contact or Image ! for an interview and photograph . ORG proved to be a dame with a touch of greed and was pulled by a free advert for her agency in our newspaper , although she warned us that she would not answer a single question about that \u2018 PERSON .","\u2018 This ragtag bunch from GPE has no reason to be here because my agency Contact or Image can handle the elections DATE all my girls are professionals , and I myself am a lawyer and have extensive working experience as a prosecutor . Sporadically , during elections , I run the Contact or Image escort agency in coordination with superior organisations . There is no conflict here \u2013 the clientele is the same , and there is no need to spend money on protection on the side . Besides , this is a good opportunity for the Contact or Image escort agency to study its clients from the inside , which is particularly important when working with candidates to ORG . This is , so to say , a governmental order , which , I think , is also supported by the President . Especially as it \u2019s for extra income , and there \u2019s no such thing as too much money , even when one is at liberty,\u2019 PERSON told our newspaper .","We asked this prostitute - werewolf to comment on the list of candidates to ORG for circuit no . CARDINAL ... \u201d","The article was followed by a list of candidates and ORG \u2019s comments on them , using slang words and expressions commonly used in the criminal underworld . Some candidates were described in more positive terms than others . To the left of the article was a picture of a female dressed in a MONEY banknote . The figure \u2019s left hand pointed in the direction of CARDINAL handwritten letters which were reproduced in small type . The face on the figure , which had long , flowing hair , was a photograph of the then prosecutor of LOC , Mr V.","On DATE Mr ORG , in a private prosecution , brought criminal proceedings against the applicants , under LAW of LAW , before the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL in LOC of GPE ( \u201c the Justice of the Peace \u201d ) . He alleged that the article headlined \u201c Candidates must be known from the inside \u201d and the picture published in issue no . CARDINAL of PERSON for DATE had been highly insulting , had aimed at damaging his honour and human dignity and had ascribed negative characteristics to his personality in an indecent , cynical and defamatory manner . He pointed out , in particular , that there was no doubt that the article had referred to him as it had stated that the character PERSON , \u201c was a lawyer herself and had extensive working experience as a prosecutor \u201d . Mr ORG further submitted that the article in question , and the comments in respect of the list of the candidates , had been written in slang words and expressions and had represented him as an immoral and corrupt \u201c prostitute - werewolf \u201d , thus clearly indicating the intention of the writers to humiliate and insult him . He also complained that the picture accompanying the article had been put together in an indecent manner , in breach of the established rules of behaviour and public morals .","By a judgment of DATE the Justice of the FAC convicted the applicants as charged . The court noted in particular :","\u201c In issue no . CARDINAL for DATE in the column headlined \u201c PERSON ORG \u201d the newspaper ORG published an article \u2018 Candidates must be known from the ORG which was accompanied by a photographic collage showing a female body covered with a MONEY banknote . The photographic collage shows the face of the claimant , the prosecutor of DATE , [ Mr V. ] , portrayed with long hair . The article contains an interview with \u2018 Vasilinka\u2019 , the director of an escort agency and states that it was possible not only to get in touch with her , but also to obtain her photograph . The text of the article and the portrayal of the prosecutor of LOC , [ Mr V. ] , as an immoral and corrupt \u2018 prostitute - werewolf\u2019 in an indecent and insulting manner damage the claimant \u2019s honour and dignity .","The claimant \u2019s representative has highlighted the insulting nature of the information published in the newspaper ... pointing out that the claimant is a public figure and often takes part in TV programmes ; his photograph has been published on numerous occasions in the media , and [ Mr V. \u2019s ] face is therefore well known to people in LOC .","Having examined the photographic collage and the text of the article ... the use of the name \u2018 prostitute - werewolf Vasilinka\u2019 , the explanations of the claimant \u2019s lawyer , who has insisted that the character \u2019s name in the article and the surname of the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region have the same root , and that the article states that the character is a lawyer by profession and has extensive working experience as a prosecutor , the court concludes that [ the applicants ] undertook deliberate actions which were insulting to [ Mr V. ] , and which were committed publicly as [ the insult was disseminated ] in a newspaper , that is to say in the media .","... The applicants\u2019 actions ... were intended to damage the honour and dignity and the professional reputation of the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region , [ Mr V. ] ... \u201d","The court found the applicants guilty of aggravated insult as it had been published in the media , and fined each of them MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE the ORG of Vladivistok ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) delivered its decision in the appeal proceedings .","At the hearing the applicants had contested the guilty verdict . The second applicant had stated that the article in question had been written as a parody of various negative social phenomena , especially corruption during the elections and the role of the law - enforcement agencies . The first applicant stated that the article had been misinterpreted and that it had in fact concerned violations committed by law - enforcement agencies during the election campaign . She also argued that the picture had not been related to the article , nor had it depicted the prosecutor of LOC .","The appellate court found it established that \u201c [ the applicants had ] deliberately insulted \u201d Mr ORG when in issue no . CARDINAL of PERSON for DATE they had in the column called \u201c PERSON ORG \u201d published an article entitled \u201c Candidates must be known from the inside ! \u201d , accompanied by a photographic collage representing a female body with the face of the prosecutor of GPE , the body having been covered with a MONEY banknote . In the ORG opinion , \u201c the text of the article and the photographic collage [ were ] of an insulting nature , ascribe[d ] negative characteristics , expressed in an indecent manner , to Mr ORG \u2019s personality and damage[d ] the honour and dignity of PERSON ORG , the prosecutor of LOC , as a private individual and as an official \u201d .","The appellate court observed , in particular , that the article had involved an interview with the director of an escort agency , \u201c ORG \u201d , who \u201c sporadically , during elections , [ ran ] the escort agency Contact or Image in coordination with superior organisations \u201d , and that the article was followed by \u201c director PERSON \u2019s rating of the candidates \u201d , using slang words and expressions on her behalf . The photographic collage had illustrated the text about \u201c ORG \u201d , a \u201c prostitute - werewolf \u201d , who \u201c herself is a lawyer and has extensive working experience as a prosecutor \u201d . In ORG opinion , \u201c the said information [ was ] of an insulting nature , since it degrade[d ] Mr PERSON \u2019s honour and dignity \u201d . In reaching that conclusion , ORG \u201c [ took ] into account the fact that the prosecutor of LOC , Mr V. , [ was ] a public figure and his photograph [ had ] been published in the media on many occasions ... \u201d","With reference to its findings , the appellate court concluded that the applicants \u201c [ had taken ] deliberate actions which [ had been ] of an insulting nature in respect of PERSON ORG and were performed in public , as [ the impugned information ] was disseminated in the media \u201d . In the ORG opinion , although Mr ORG \u2019s surname had not been mentioned in the article , the image which had illustrated the article had used a photograph of him . It had therefore been clear that information \u201c of an insulting nature \u201d had related to Mr ORG observed that , \u201c by virtue of his office , Mr PERSON [ was ] a public figure and readers [ could ] therefore easily understand that the photographic collage [ showed ] Mr PERSON ; so that readers [ were ] not mistaken , the name of the character in the article , \u2018 Vasilinka\u2019 , [ had ] the same root as Mr PERSON \u2019s surname , and the character [ was ] a lawyer by profession and has extensive working experience as a prosecutor \u201d .","ORG further held as follows :","\u201c The court can not accept the GPE arguments that it has not been proven that [ Mr PERSON ] was insulted as , in the court \u2019s opinion , it is the text of the article and the photographic collage that are themselves insulting . Judging by its location on the page and its composition , the said photographic collage accompanies the article headlined \u201c Candidates must be known from the inside \u201d . Besides , the text itself refers to the fact that the photographic collage represents that very \u2018 Vasilinka\u2019 who is the character in the article . The article states \u2018 nonetheless we managed to get in touch with the director of the escort agency Contact or Image , PERSON , for an interview and a photograph . ORG proved to be a dame with a touch of greed and was pulled by a free advert for her agency in our ORG .","... In the court \u2019s opinion , the offence took place in the form of public speech in the media , [ the applicants ] acted deliberately , the related words \u2018 prostitute\u2019 and \u2018 werewolf\u2019 indicate an intention to humiliate , dishonour and disgrace the subject of the article and photographic collage and , in a figurative sense , portray condemnable and distinctly negative characteristics , which are seen by the public as well as the person to whom they are addressed as insulting . In the court \u2019s opinion , representing the prosecutor of the Primorskiy Region as an immoral and corrupt \u2018 prostitute - werewolf\u2019 is intended to ascribe distinctly negative characteristics to [ Mr ORG \u2019s ] personality in an indecent form . \u201d","The appellate court concluded that the first - instance judgment had been well - founded and dismissed the ORG appeal .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicants\u2019 conviction at final instance , endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts .","On DATE a bailiff issued a writ of execution in respect of the first applicant , ordering her to pay the fine and an execution fee of RUB CARDINAL .","On DATE the first applicant informed the bailiff that she was unable to pay the fine in CARDINAL amount owing to a lack of funds . She requested that she be authorised to pay by instalments DATE . It appears that her request was refused and the first applicant had to borrow a part of the fine from the bank . According to the first applicant , she was able to pay back the money she borrowed DATE .","The second applicant was also unable to pay the total amount of the fine and execution fee in CARDINAL amount . She paid in instalments by deductions from her wages until DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147835","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"STOLK v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr A.M.J. Brands , a lawyer practising in LOC .","CARDINALsummarised as follows .","From DATE the applicant worked for a design and consultancy agency specialised in urban planning . At the relevant time , the owner of the agency was self - employed and was employing CARDINAL other persons , CARDINAL of them the applicant .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s employer ( hereafter : \u201c the employer \u201d ) requested ORG ( NORP Werknemersverzekeringen ) to authorise the termination of the applicant \u2019s employment contract . Such authorisation may be requested and granted under LAW ( PERSON DATE ; see below ) . The employer \u2019s request was based on altered business circumstances ( veranderde bedrijfeconomische omstandigheden ) .","On DATE the applicant submitted a statement of defence ( verweer ) to ORG , arguing that it appeared from that organisation \u2019s policy rules that a request for authorisation on the basis of altered business circumstances should be substantiated by relevant figures regarding the turnover , the costs and the results of the business per month for DATE , which figures the employer had failed to include in his request . He further argued that there was a chance that the agency would be awarded CARDINAL new projects and that there was a fair chance that any delay in ongoing projects had been caused by administrative proceedings instead of economic circumstances so that the decrease in available work would constitute normal business risk ( normale bedrijfsrisico ) .","On DATE the employer stated that the ongoing projects were nearly finished and that due to the economic crisis much work had disappeared over a short period of time , that he had submitted the figures over DATE and DATE , that the drop in available work did not concern a temporary lapse which could be considered normal business risk , and lastly , that his other employee , thanks to his qualifications , was able to carry out all business activities independently , unlike the applicant .","On DATE the applicant submitted a second statement of defence to ORG , arguing , inter alia , that the employer \u2019s statements concerning the agency \u2019s prospects had not been substantiated .","On DATE the applicant received both the acknowledgement of receipt of the second statement of defence and ORG decision authorising his employer to terminate his employment contract .","On DATE the applicant received a letter from his employer terminating his employment contract as of CARDINAL DATE .","Provisions of domestic legislation relevant to the case , and as applicable at the relevant time , are the following .","The Employee Insurance Schemes Implementing Body is a nondepartmental administrative body ( zelfstandig bestuursorgaan ) \u2013 i.e. an administrative body not subordinate to any particular Minister \u2013 under GPE law ( section CARDINAL of the Work and Income ( Implementation Structure ) Act ( Wet structuur uitvoeringsorganisatie werk en inkomen ) ) . It is responsible not only for implementing social - security legislation , but also for exercising the tasks imposed on it by section CARDINAL of ORG .","NORP The employer requires for the termination of the employment relationship prior authorisation of ORG .","NORP The employer does not require this authorisation :","a. if termination takes place without delay ( onverwijld ) for an urgent reason , under simultaneous notice of this reason to the employee ;","b. during DATE ;","c. if termination takes place as a result of bankruptcy of the employer or if a debt rescheduling scheme concerning natural persons is applied to him .","NORP By ministerial regulation ( ministeri\u00eble regeling ) rules are set out concerning the authorisation within the meaning of paragraph one .","NORP Before a decision regarding the giving of authorisation pursuant to paragraph one is taken , ORG will hear representatives of the appropriate employer and employee organisations except in cases provided for by ministerial regulation .","Our Minister [ of ORG ( Minister PERSON ) ] may provide ORG with indications concerning the power to give authorisation within the meaning of paragraph one . He does not enter into the decision - making in individual cases .","By ministerial regulation provisions can be made in case ORG does not properly fulfil its obligations that flow from this section .","...","By ministerial regulation certain employees or groups of employees can be conditionally or unconditionally dispensed or exempted from paragraph one .","No appeal to ORG ( College van Beroep voor het GPE ) lies against decisions of ORG regarding the giving of authorisation pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL . \u201d","Detailed rules for this procedure have been set out in LAW ) .","The authorisation of ORG constitutes a decision within the meaning of LAW ( Algemene wet bestuursrecht ) . This Act generally grants a right to a judicial examination of such decisions ; however , decisions made pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG are excluded from the possibility to appeal ( section CARDINAL:CARDINAL , paragraph one , in conjunction with FAC , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184269","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BOYADZHIEVA AND GLORIA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED EOOD v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was registered in DATE and has its registered place of business in GPE .","At the time of the events in question the first applicant was registered as a sole trader . At that time the main commercial activity of the CARDINAL applicants was trade in medicaments .","NORP In DATE the first applicant sold medicaments to a company called PERSON , for which she was paid MONEY ( ORG ) , the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) , in total .","DATE and DATE the second applicant also sold medicaments to PERSON , receiving a total of ORG ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) by way of payment .","In DATE other companies which were creditors of PERSON , including PERSON , applied for the commencement of insolvency proceedings against PERSON Their request was allowed in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) , which declared company PERSON insolvent , opened insolvency proceedings and appointed a trustee . It noted that PERSON had ceased its payments to PERSON and other creditors in DATE , and held that the initial date of the company \u2019s insolvency was therefore DATE .","In DATE the trustee prepared the first list of ORG creditors , which included company E.","In DATE company E. brought proceedings against the first applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , as in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , seeking to have the payments PERSON had made to her during the so - called \u201c suspect period \u201d \u2013 the period between the initial date of insolvency as declared by ORG and the commencement of the insolvency proceedings ( the payments described in paragraph CARDINAL above ) \u2212 declared null and void and the sum received by her returned to the insolvency estate .","NORP The action was allowed in a judgment of ORG of DATE . Observing that it was undisputed that ORG had paid the first applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL during the \u201c suspect period \u201d , and without analysing the matter any further , it ordered her to pay back this sum to the insolvency estate , plus default interest .","That judgment was upheld on DATE by ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) .","ORG judgment was enforceable and , at the request of PERSON \u2019s trustee , a bailiff opened enforcement proceedings against the first applicant for the sums due to the insolvency estate . In DATE the applicant settled that debt , which also included interest and costs and expenses related to the enforcement proceedings .","In the judicial proceedings against the first applicant , in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to accept for examination an appeal on points of law lodged by her .","NORP In DATE company E. brought proceedings against the second applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , as in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , seeking to have the payments PERSON had made to it during the \u201c suspect period \u201d DATE and DATE ( payments described in paragraph CARDINAL above ) declared null and void and the sum received by the applicant returned to the insolvency estate .","The action was allowed in a judgment of DATE of ORG . While it acknowledged that the transactions between the second applicant and PERSON had not damaged the latter \u2019s interests , because PERSON had received equivalent goods in exchange for its payments to the applicant , ORG added that LAW \u201c did not take account \u201d of such considerations . It thus ordered the second applicant to pay back to the insolvency estate the sum of ORG , plus default interest .","Upon appeal by the second applicant , on DATE that judgment was upheld by ORG , which stated once again that section CARDINAL ) of LAW did not require any proof that the contested payment had damaged the interests of ORG remaining creditors ; such damage , as well as the knowledge about it , were to be considered \u201c presumed \u201d .","Since ORG judgment was enforceable , a bailiff opened enforcement proceedings against the second applicant for the sums owed by it to the insolvency estate . The second applicant settled that debt , which included interest and costs and expenses related to the enforcement proceedings , in DATE .","In the main judicial proceedings against the second applicant , in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to accept for examination an appeal on points of law lodged by it .","In the insolvency proceedings against PERSON , the majority of its assets were distributed among its creditors between DATE and DATE . In CARDINAL decisions delivered in DATE the trustee in bankruptcy added the ORG to the list of creditors , with claims exceeding BGN CARDINAL . As the ORG was a privileged creditor , almost all payments from the insolvency estate after that were made to it , but a substantial proportion of the debts owed to it by PERSON nonetheless remained unpaid .","The applicants did not make use of the possibility afforded to them by section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to join the insolvency proceedings as creditors of CARDINAL other companies in a similar situation \u2013 they had also been obliged to return sums to the insolvency estate on the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW did join the insolvency proceedings , but received no part of the sums owed to them .","The insolvency proceedings continued until DATE , when company PERSON was wound up ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166940","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF YUSIV v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a NORP national and has lived in GPE since DATE .","On TIME of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE received a call that a man had been robbed in the street by several young men in the neighbourhood close to the railway station . Several police cars were sent to the area in search of the suspected robbers .","NORP TIME , shortly before midnight , the applicant was walking to see his girlfriend who lived in the same neighbourhood . At that time he was DATE . He was approached by a police car in which there were CARDINAL officers PERSON , GPE and PERSON They asked the applicant to stop and take his hands out of his pockets . As the officers were getting out of the car , the applicant started running away from them . The officers informed other police patrols in the neighbourhood that they were chasing a young man who fitted the description of CARDINAL of the suspected robbers .","The applicant was apprehended by the police near a bus stop close to the railway station . CARDINAL police cars were present during his arrest :","( a ) the first police patrol , which comprised officers PERSON , ORG and GPE ;","( b ) the second police patrol , which comprised officers GPE , GPE and PERSON ;","( c ) officers of the operational division \u2013 driver PERSON and investigator GPE","The applicant was apprehended by PERSON , who subsequently handed him over to PERSON , GPE and PERSON He was handcuffed , put into a police car , and taken to the Panemun\u0117 police station , where a record of an administrative violation was drawn up , charging him with disobeying lawful orders of the police ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) .","NORP The officers telephoned the applicant \u2019s mother NORP , and agreed that she would pick up the applicant from the railway station . Officers GPE , GPE and PERSON drove the applicant to the station and handed him over to his mother around TIME that same night .","Subsequently the applicant and his mother , on the one hand , and the police officers , on the other , presented different accounts surrounding the applicant \u2019s arrest .","NORP Immediately after the arrest , GPE , GPE and PERSON all submitted identically worded reports to their superior :","\u201c On DATE ... around TIME ... we noticed a suspicious young man who corresponded to the description of a youth who had recently fled from the police . After we addressed [ him ] , he stopped ; when we were getting out of the car to talk to him , he suddenly started to run . He did not respond to our order to stop ... Soon he was noticed ... close to the railway station ... and he was apprehended . Then he began kicking out , fell to the ground , and resisted being apprehended , so we warned him that physical coercion would be used . The young man ignored this and continued actively resisting and kicking out , so when detaining him we were forced to use physical coercion and restraining measures , namely a truncheon and handcuffs . The young man was arrested and taken to the Panemun\u0117 police station ... \u201d","On DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s mother NORP complained to ORG and ORG that her minor son had been beaten by police officers while being apprehended . She claimed that one of the officers had hit the applicant with a truncheon in the police car numerous times , and that afterwards his body had been covered in bruises and he had had difficulties walking .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a court medical expert . The report on the results of that examination , issued in DATE , found several contusions on the applicant \u2019s body \u2013 both shoulders and upper arms , his chest , both thighs and calves and the left knee . It determined that the contusions had been caused by a hard blunt object of cylindrical shape , from DATE or more blows ( a\u0161tuoniolika ar daugiau traumini\u0173 poveiki\u0173 ) . The report also found a tear injury ( pl\u0117\u0161tin\u0117 \u017eaizda ) on the applicant \u2019s left thumb caused by a hard blunt object , and bruised skin on his left wrist which could have resulted from handcuffing . It concluded that the injuries corresponded to negligible health impairment ( ne\u017eymus sveikatos sutrikdymas ) and that they could have occurred at the time and in the circumstances described by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG drew up a record of an administrative violation against the applicant . He was accused of insulting police officers by using swear words and of disobeying their lawful orders , contrary to LAW .","On DATE ORG held an oral hearing . Police officers PERSON , GPE and PERSON all testified that the applicant had run away from them and had not complied with their order to stop . They also stated that while being apprehended near the railway station the applicant had violently resisted , had been kicking out and shouting , and had thrown himself on the ground , as a result of which the police had had to use a truncheon and handcuffs against him .","In the hearing the applicant admitted having run away from the officers because he had been afraid that they would beat him . However , he denied that he had resisted being apprehended near the railway station . The applicant \u2019s lawyer also pointed out that a medical examination had detected CARDINAL blows from a hard blunt object on the applicant \u2019s body ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and argued that the police officers were lying in order to cover up the fact that they had beaten him .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty and fined him CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The court found no reason to doubt the credibility and impartiality of the police officers , and considered that their consistent testimonies proved that the applicant had violently resisted the police .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the lower court .","On DATE the Head of ORG instructed the officers of that department to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegations that he had been ill - treated by the police while being apprehended .","The inquiry was conducted by an investigator of ORG against ORG of ORG of ORG . As submitted by the Government , that division had been established for the specific purpose of investigating crimes allegedly committed by police officers .","On DATE was questioned as a witness . The written record of the interview repeated almost identically the wording of his initial report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and added :","\u201c We found out that [ the applicant ] was a minor only at the police station ... Had we known that earlier , we would not have used physical coercion and restraining measures against him ... At the time of the arrest , there was blood on [ the applicant \u2019s ] hand . I do n\u2019t know how he hurt it . He did n\u2019t complain about anything , so we did n\u2019t take him to a doctor ... We delivered [ the applicant ] to his mother ... She began scolding her son and even thanked us for bringing him to her . She complained to us that she had problems with her son because he was n\u2019t obeying her and was skipping school . \u201d","On DATE the officer GPE was also questioned as a witness and the written record of his interview was almost identical to that of A.R.","On DATE the investigator examined the jacket the applicant had been wearing during his arrest and found stains on the lower back of the jacket which were \u201c possibly similar to old bloodstains \u201d ( galimai pana\u0161ios \u012f seno kraujo \u017eymes ) .","On DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness and stated :","\u201c On DATE , around midnight I was walking ... I saw a police car ... it stopped , then one of the officers told me , \u201c take your hands out of your pockets \u201d . I took my hands out of my pockets , then the officer got out of the car and walked towards me , then I started running away and the police car started chasing me ... I ended up near a bus stop close to the railway station and there I was arrested by the police . CARDINAL uniformed police officers got out of a car , CARDINAL of them ( the driver ) asked me why I was out of breath . I said that I was trying to catch the trolleybus . [ That officer ] said through the portable radio , \u201c we \u2019ve got CARDINAL \u201d . Then CARDINAL other officers in uniform arrived on foot ; CARDINAL of them had a shaved head . Soon another police car arrived in which there were CARDINAL uniformed officers . I knew CARDINAL of the officers , PERSON , because he was my classmate \u2019s father . The officers who had come on foot approached me and the one with the shaved head told me that I would \u201c pay for running away from them \u201d ( dabar a\u0161 gausiu , ORG b\u0117gau CARDINAL j\u0173 ) , and with PERSON they swore at me ... Then PERSON handcuffed me behind my back and put me into a police car , in the back , and told me to sit there . Soon the officer with the shaved head got into the car and sat down in front of me . He took out a truncheon and began to hit me on various parts of the body . He hit me CARDINAL times on the legs , CARDINAL times on the arms , once on the back , once kicked me in the stomach , and once punched me in the face . I was made to lie down on the floor of the car and the officer with the shaved head told me to pray . I was praying and they were laughing at me . I also remember that on the way to the police station CARDINAL of the officers told me that I would take the blame for somebody else \u2019s robbery . I said nothing . There were CARDINAL officers in the car , CARDINAL of them was PERSON , the other was the one with the shaved head who was sitting next to me , and the third was QUANTITY tall ; this one had a large build and short dark hair ...","In the police station PERSON took me to another room where he told me that if I did n\u2019t defend his daughter , next time it would be worse . I told him that I would defend his daughter so that nobody beat her . I gave them my mother \u2019s telephone number , and the officers called her and took me to her ... The officer with the shaved head handed me over to my mother and said \u201c I do n\u2019t know how you will react but the officers have given him a little lesson to not run away from them the next time . \u201d","On DATE the investigator examined CARDINAL photographs of the applicant which had been taken by his mother on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . The investigator noted that injuries were visible on the applicant \u2019s forehead , arms and legs , upper chest and the left side of his back . Several of the photographs showed a shoe with stains similar to bloodstains .","On DATE was questioned again . The written record of the interview was almost identical to his previous statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , and added :","\u201c ... I arrived at the place where [ the applicant ] had been apprehended ... He was actively resisting : he was kicking out and had fallen on the ground . After being asked to calm down and get into a police car , he continued disobeying those lawful orders and resisted being apprehended , he started biting , so he was warned that physical coercion would be used against him . The young man ignored this and continued actively resisting and kicking , so we were forced to use physical coercion in order to arrest him , namely combat wrestling methods ( kovini\u0173 imtyni\u0173 veiksmai ) and restraining measures , namely a truncheon and handcuffing him behind the back . While GPE and PERSON were arresting [ the applicant ] , I took out handcuffs and got ready to put them on him . As I remember , the truncheon was used by GPE in order to arrest [ the applicant ] ... [ The applicant ] was acting aggressively and unpredictably . He was put in the back of the police car ... PERSON was driving the car , I was sitting next to the driver , and PERSON was in the back with [ the applicant ] . We asked him why he had fled from the police . He said that he had been afraid . We asked why he had been afraid if he had n\u2019t done anything , but he did n\u2019t respond . In the car [ the applicant ] was calm ; no physical coercion or restraining measures were used against him there . We noticed that his finger was injured ( bleeding ) but he refused to be examined by doctors . He said that he had hurt his finger on the fence or in the bushes while running away from the police . His clothes were dirty and the jacket was torn . [ The applicant ] had dirtied his clothes and torn his jacket when running away from the police ...","In the police station , when [ the applicant \u2019s ] identity was established I realised that he was my daughter \u2019s classmate ... Then I said to him , \u201c God forbid something happens to my daughter \u201d . I also said , \u201c I will defend my daughter \u201d . I ca n\u2019t remember my exact words , but I let it be known that he must not hurt my daughter . As far as I am aware , this young man is prone to doing such things . In the police station neither I nor other officers hit [ the applicant ] ... I did not use any swear words and did not humiliate him . I did n\u2019t see the other officers acting inappropriately in respect of [ the applicant ] either . \u201d","The following day PERSON was questioned as a witness and the written record of his interview was almost identical to that of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , he stated that PERSON had not discussed any personal matters with the applicant and that it did not seem as though PERSON and the applicant knew one another .","On DATE officer PERSON was questioned as a witness . He confirmed that on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had been on duty together with officers GPE and GPE He further stated :","\u201c ... After we arrived near the railway station , I saw an arrested young man who was actively resisting arrest , purposely falling on the ground and kicking out at officers , so the officers warned him that if he did n\u2019t calm down physical coercion and restraining measures would be used against him . The young man continued behaving in an aggressive manner and actively resisting arrest , so officers used physical coercion , after which the young man was handcuffed and put into a police car ... \u201d","On DATE the investigator submitted a report to the Head of ORG of ORG , suggesting that no pre - trial investigation should be opened . The investigator concluded that the use of physical force by the police officers had been a necessary and proportionate response to the applicant \u2019s violent resistance and aggressive behaviour .","On DATE the Head of ORG approved the investigator \u2019s conclusion and decided not to open a pre - trial investigation .","The applicant \u2019s mother appealed against that decision , asking for a pre - trial investigation to be opened and for it to be entrusted to an authority other than the police . On DATE ORG partly upheld the appeal . The prosecutor opened a pre - trial investigation , noting that the medical examination of the applicant had shown numerous injuries , so it was necessary to assess whether the use of force by the police officers had been within the limits provided in the law ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) . However , the prosecutor refused to entrust the pretrial investigation to another authority , finding no reason to doubt the impartiality of the police investigator .","On DATE officer PERSON was questioned as a witness . He confirmed that on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had been on duty with officer GPE , and that following information that a young man had fled from the officers towards the railway station , they had driven there in the police car . PERSON further stated :","\u201c I drove the police car towards the said young man and asked him to come closer , which he did . He was breathing hard , and , I saw that CARDINAL of his hands was bleeding ... Soon afterwards CARDINAL officers arrived on QUANTITY and CARDINAL cars arrived ... In order to prevent the young man from fleeing , I held him by CARDINAL sleeve . When he saw the approaching officers , he began to squirm and tried to get away ... After he was handed over to the officers , I saw that he was actively resisting arrest with his legs and arms , he was squirming and he fell on the ground with full force , making it more difficult to arrest him . The officers , using force , took him to the police car ... I did n\u2019t see the officers hit the young man or use any restraining measures such as handcuffs or a truncheon . As I remember , he was taken to the car by possibly CARDINAL officers , I do n\u2019t remember exactly because around CARDINAL officers were present at the scene . Soon afterwards PERSON and I left and I did n\u2019t see anything else . \u201d","ORG was questioned on DATE , and gave essentially the same statement as GPE","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother submitted a request to ORG for the investigation to be transferred to the prosecutor \u2019s office on the grounds that the GPE police officers could not be considered impartial . She also asked for several investigative actions , such as interviews with her and with the applicant , and for the officers who had allegedly ill - treated the applicant to be identified .","The following day ORG dismissed the request for the investigation to be transferred to the prosecutor \u2019s office , finding no grounds to doubt the impartiality of the police investigator . However , the prosecutor instructed the investigator to carry out the actions requested by the applicant \u2019s mother .","It appears that the applicant \u2019s mother did not appeal against that decision .","On DATE officer ORG was questioned as a witness . He confirmed that on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had been on duty together with officers GPE and PERSON He stated that when they had arrived at the railway station the applicant had already been put into the police car . ORG stated that he did not see how the applicant was put into the car , nor did he see the officers using any coercive or restraining measures against him .","On DATE officer PERSON was questioned as a witness ; the written record of his interview was almost identical to that of ORG","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother NORP was questioned as a witness . She stated that TIME on DATE police officers had delivered the applicant to her near the railway station . She stated :","\u201c When [ the applicant ] got out of the police car , he was limping on one leg ... The officers explained to me that they had caught him ... and that he fitted the description of a robber . When my son approached me , I began scolding him , but the officer PERSON told me , \u201c do n\u2019t scold him , we already gave him a good lesson about running away from the police \u201d ... PERSON asked me , \u201c is there a father or are you raising him alone ? \u201d , and then said , \u201c that \u2019s why they grow up like this \u201d . My son and I then left . Around QUANTITY a.m. that night , when we were eating in the trolleybus , my son undressed and I saw that his body was covered in bruises ... My son told me that CARDINAL of the officers ( the one with the shaven head ) had beaten him up . As I know now , that was GPE \u201d .","That DATE the applicant was granted victim status and further questioned . He stated that he had initially run away from the police officers because it was dark and he had been afraid that they would beat him up . However , when he reached the railway station he was no longer afraid because the area was well lit and there were other people nearby . The applicant added :","\u201c CARDINAL of the officers who had come on foot \u2013 the one with the shaved head , as I know now it was DATE swore at me in LANGUAGE , from which I understood that I would be beaten up for running away . Officer PERSON , who is my classmate \u2019s father , handcuffed me behind my back , put me in the back of a police car and closed the door . GPE came from the other side of the car , opened the door and sat down next to me ; he took out a truncheon and started hitting me on various parts of my body , except for the head . He hit me CARDINAL times . No other officers were in the car at that time . Then GPE got out of the car , talked to the officers and got back in the car , in the driver \u2019s seat . PERSON sat next to the driver and the third officer sat next to me ...","At the police station ... PERSON approached me and said , \u201c now I will show you \u201d . I asked , \u201c why , I do n\u2019t bother your daughter , I do n\u2019t even talk to her \u201d . PERSON led me behind a wall , put an electroshock device on the left side of my stomach and threatened to use it if I did n\u2019t defend his daughter from my friends ; he also said that if he caught me CARDINAL more time , he would beat me even more . I agreed to defend his daughter ...","I want to add that I injured my left thumb while running away from the officers and it was bleeding ; that \u2019s why there were bloodstains on my jacket at the spot where my hands were handcuffed . The officers did not provide me with the first aid . All the blows were struck by CARDINAL officer , GPE I was beaten only in the police car ; nobody beat me at the police station ... I suffered physical injuries due to the beating . \u201d","The applicant denied having resisted the police officers or having sworn at them . He also said that he had fallen down while running towards the railway station but not while being apprehended .","In DATE a court medical expert carried out an additional examination of the applicant \u2019s medical file . The report on the results of that examination confirmed the findings of the previous medical report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It also specified that the applicant \u2019s injuries were not likely to have been caused by falling down ( su\u017ealojim\u0173 visuma griuvimui neb\u016bdinga ) , nor by punching or kicking , but that they had most likely been caused by a hard blunt object of a cylindrical shape .","On DATE confrontations were arranged between the applicant and each of the officers GPE , GPE and PERSON separately . All the officers repeated their earlier statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) and the applicant denied them . PERSON confirmed that he had handcuffed the applicant . The officers stated that none of them had used any swear words or threats to the applicant . Meanwhile the applicant insisted that he had not resisted the officers and that he had not been warned about the possible use of restraining measures . He also denied falling to the ground while being apprehended near the railway station .","That DATE a confrontation was arranged between the applicant and PERSON The officer stated that when he had arrived at the railway station the applicant was already in handcuffs and he was squirming but not actively resisting . He could not remember which officers had put the applicant into the police car .","During a subsequent interview on DATE PERSON retracted the statement he had made in his first interview , in which he had said that he had seen the applicant actively resisting the officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON stated that he had been mistaken and that his statements made during the confrontation were the correct ones .","On DATE ORG discontinued the pre - trial investigation . The prosecutor held that physical force had been used against the applicant only to the extent that was strictly necessary to arrest him , and that the applicant \u2019s allegations that he had been beaten up in the police car with a truncheon had not been proven . ORG also considered that the officers GPE , GPE and PERSON could not have known at the time of the arrest that the applicant was a minor . The prosecutor concluded that the mere fact that the applicant had sustained injuries was insufficient to find that the police officers had acted unlawfully .","On DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision . The court concluded that there was no \u201c objective and indisputable evidence \u201d that the police officers had exceeded their legal powers . It also referred to the earlier court judgments which had found the applicant guilty of an administrative violation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , concluding that the officers had had the right to use physical coercion in response to the applicant \u2019s resistance . The court also considered that the pre - trial investigation had been thorough and comprehensive .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","Subsequently the applicant \u2019s mother requested the reopening of the investigation , but her request was dismissed on the grounds that there were no relevant new circumstances ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147881","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF AKT\u00dcRK v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in the Tekirda\u011f F - type Prison .","According to the arrest report , signed by CARDINAL police officers , on DATE at TIME the applicant was stopped by police officers for an identity check . He resisted and opened fire , killing a police officer . The other police officers used force to neutralise and arrest him . Several fake identity cards were found in the applicant \u2019s bag .","At TIME the applicant was sent to ORG for a medical examination . The medical report indicated that there were superficial grazes on the applicant \u2019s back and bruises to the frontal region of his head , caused by blunt instrument trauma . It further specified that the abrasions on the applicant \u2019s wrists could have been caused by handcuffs . The report concluded that the injuries on the applicant \u2019s body were not life - threatening .","The applicant was then taken to ORG . According to the form explaining the rights of arrested persons , the applicant was reminded of his rights , including his right to have the assistance of a lawyer , to remain silent , and to inform his family members of his arrest . According to a report signed by CARDINAL police officers , the police tried to conduct a fingerprint examination in order to identify the applicant , but he resisted , shouted slogans , tried hitting his head on the machine and kicked the nearby furniture . The applicant alleged that he had been beaten at the police station .","The applicant was subsequently transferred to the anti - terrorism branch of ORG , where he was allegedly subjected to ill - treatment . According to the applicant , in the basement of ORG , his testicles were squeezed and he was beaten , subjected to hanging by his arms , hosed with cold water , exposed to cold air circulation and forced to lie in an ice - covered blanket .","According to a police report , on DATE at TIME the applicant was taken by CARDINAL police officers to GPE , where he had offered to show the officers a house used as a cell by the ORG ( NORP - Leninist Communist Party ) , an illegal organisation . It was reported that , as the applicant could not find the house , they returned to ORG on DATE at TIME This report was signed by CARDINAL police officers , but the applicant declined to sign it .","On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer at ORG in connection with the killing of a police officer and his alleged involvement in the ORG . The applicant exercised his right to remain silent .","On DATE , the applicant was taken to ORG . During his examination , the applicant complained that he had been ill - treated whilst in custody . He stated that he had been beaten , hung by his arms and hosed with cold water and alleged that ice cubes had been placed over his body . The medical examination revealed that the applicant had a haematoma under his left eyelid , a red - coloured bruise measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY and swellings in his occipital region , and purplecoloured bruises on his right eye and periorbital region . It was also noted that the applicant had several bruises on his left eyebrow , on the zygoma , on both sides of his mouth , between his eyebrows , on his left arm and both wrists , and also on his penis . The doctor noted that the bruises on the applicant \u2019s wrists could have been sustained as a result of the use of handcuffs . It was further noted that the applicant had complained about shortness of breath , headaches and pain in his ribs . The doctor requested consultations from the thoracic surgery , neurosurgery and internal medicine departments .","Later on DATE , the applicant was interrogated , in the presence of his lawyer , by both ORG and the investigating judge at ORG and exercised his right to remain silent . On the basis of the evidence in the case file , the judge ordered his detention on remand .","On DATE at CARDINAL a.m. the applicant was taken to the emergency department of ORG . In the hospital he was examined by several doctors , specifically from the neurosurgery , general surgery , thoracic surgery and radiology departments . The radiology examinations did not reveal any abnormality in the bones , lungs or heart . The general surgeon indicated that there was no need for surgery . Finally , the thoracic surgeon noted in his report that the applicant had no respiratory problems but that he had several bruises on his body , specifically on his back . He also stated that no fractured ribs had been observed . According to the information in the file , the applicant left the emergency department at TIME","Later on DATE the applicant was also taken to the emergency service of ORG as he had complained of a pain in his chest . Following consultation of doctors from general surgery , neurosurgery and radiology departments , a doctor from the emergency service issued a report concluding that the applicant \u2019s eighth and ninth ribs had been fractured and that he was suffering from post - traumatic injury . He was accordingly admitted to the emergency department for monitoring and observation .","On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG and alleged that he had been ill - treated in custody . In his petition , the applicant maintained that he had been beaten at ORG . He also maintained that following his transfer to the AntiTerrorism Branch of ORG , his testicles had been squeezed , he had been beaten , subjected to hanging by his arms , hosed with cold water , exposed to cold air circulation and forced to lie in an ice - covered blanket . The applicant further stated that he could identify the police officers who had ill - treated him if he met them face to face .","Upon receiving the applicant \u2019s complaint , ORG initiated an investigation into his ill - treatment allegations . In this connection , the applicant gave a statement on DATE , and claimed in a detailed account that he had been ill - treated during his custody . The applicant further maintained that he would be able to identify the police officers who had ill - treated him .","NORP The public prosecutor interviewed CARDINAL police officers who had been on duty at the time of the applicant \u2019s arrest and during his custody at FAC and the Anti - Terrorism Branch of ORG . They all denied the accusations against them . The police officers who had arrested the applicant stated that they had used proportionate force to neutralise him .","At the request of the public prosecutor , on DATE the applicant was once again taken to ORG for a medical examination . As the gendarme officer refused to leave the consultation room , the doctor did not perform the examination . The gendarme officer issued a report stating that the doctor had not complied with LAW signed by ORG , Health and Interior , dated DATE \u2012 according to which a gendarme officer is obliged to stay in the consultation room during the medical examination in a hospital of a person who has been remanded in connection with terrorismrelated crimes and the examination was then carried out in the absence of the gendarme officer . The doctor prepared a detailed report stating that there were several bruises on the front of his left arm which appeared to be self - inflicted . MONEY were also noticed on his abdomen . Healed scars were observed on both wrists . Bruises on the fingers and right knee were also noted .","The doctor further ordered certain medical tests but according to the information in the case file , the prison authorities did not allow the applicant to go to the hospital on the appointment dates and transferred him to PERSON .","On DATE ORG issued a medical report about the applicant based on the medical reports dated DATE and DATE issued by ORG . It was concluded that his injuries were not life - threatening and would heal with simple medical care . It was also noted that no fractured ribs had been observed . No reference was made to the medical report dated DATE issued by ORG .","In the course of the investigation , the public prosecutor also requested the video camera recordings taken during the applicant \u2019s periods in custody in FAC and ORG . ORG informed the public prosecutor \u2019s office that the camera recordings were only kept for DATE .","On DATE the public prosecutor issued a non - prosecution decision . In his decision the prosecutor held that the injuries observed on the applicant \u2019s body had been sustained during the scuffle at the time of his arrest . The prosecutor also concluded that the force used to neutralise the applicant had been in compliance with LAW no . CARDINAL on the Duties and Powers of the Police .","On DATE the applicant filed an objection against the public prosecutor \u2019s decision . He repeated that he would be able to identify the police officers who had ill - treated him . On DATE ORG rejected the objection .","In the meantime , criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for killing a police officer . By a judgment delivered on DATE the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment . The case file contains no information regarding the current status of these proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175654","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ESKERKHANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA ","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The CARDINAL applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and are in detention in GPE .","The facts of the cases , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was arrested on DATE on suspicion of murder .","On DATE a court ordered his pre - trial detention , which was further extended on several occasions , in particular on DATE and DATE . The applicant appealed against the extension orders on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . The appeals were dismissed on DATE and on DATE .","The applicant has been detained in remand prison no . GPE in GPE since DATE , except for QUANTITY days in DATE when he was detained in remand prison no . CARDINAL in GPE ( hereinafter \u201c IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u201d and \u201c IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u201d ) . In IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL the applicant has QUANTITY ( sq.m ) of personal space , the cell is extremely hot in DATE and extremely damp in DATE , it lacks natural light and fresh air , while access to potable water and hot water is restricted . The applicant has not been provided with bedding and can have CARDINAL TIME shower a week . Daily physical exercise in the fresh air is limited to TIME . The applicant has not described the conditions of his detention in IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant was transported between IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL and ORG of GPE in a prison van . Personal space in the van was limited and there was not enough fresh air ; the applicant had no access to a toilet and no food or drinking water was provided . Upon his arrival to the court building and before returning to the remand prison he was detained for TIME in a convoy cell where he disposed of around CARDINAL sq . m of personal space and had no access to natural light , fresh air , the toilet or drinking water .","The applicants were arrested on DATE on suspicion of murder .","On DATE a court ordered their pre - trial detention , which was further extended on several occasions , in particular on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . Appeals filed by the applicants were dismissed on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","On DATE the applicants were transported from remand prison No . CARDINAL in GPE ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) to ORG and back in a prison van . The conditions of the applicants\u2019 transfer to and from the court building were identical to those described by the applicant in case no . CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173621","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PALUDA v. SLOVAKIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is and at the relevant time was a ORG judge .","ORG of GPE is the supreme governing body of the judiciary in GPE . It has CARDINAL members , including its President ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) ) . Under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . ) , as applicable at the relevant time , the President of ORG automatically held the office of the President of ORG . Of the remaining CARDINAL members , CARDINAL were elected by judges and CARDINAL were appointed by each ORG , the President of GPE , and the Government of GPE .","On DATE , sitting it the above mentioned composition , ORG decided under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Judges and LAW ( Law no . QUANTITY . , as amended \u2013 \u201c the LAW \u201d ) to suspend ( do\u010dasn\u00e9 pozastavenie v\u00fdkonu funkcie sudcu ) the applicant in the exercise of his function with immediate effect . This decision followed another decision of the ORG taken on DATE under LAW ) of the LAW to file disciplinary charges against the applicant .","The accusation was that the applicant had committed what was classified as a \u201c serious disciplinary offence \u201d by failing to comply with his duties , such as abstaining from behaviour which might cast doubt on the respectability of his judicial office , abiding by the principles of judicial ethics and enhancing the good reputation of the judiciary .","In particular , reference was made to the fact that the applicant ( i ) had filed a criminal complaint accusing the President of ORG of abuse of authority , and ( ii ) had publicly stated that the distribution of cases at ORG had been modified with a view to allowing its President to influence the outcome of proceedings .","In terms of a sanction , ORG proposed that the applicant \u2019s post as a judge be revoked .","Under section CARDINAL ) of the LAW , the decision to suspend him entailed a PERCENT reduction in the applicant \u2019s salary for the duration of the disciplinary proceedings . The same provision prevented him from spending time at the workplace , with the exception of time which was necessary for asserting his rights in relation to the administration of human resources . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act , the suspension could last at DATE . The withheld part of the applicant \u2019s salary might or might not be restored to him , depending on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings ( section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW ) .","The applicant sought protection of his rights in relation to the decision to suspend him as a judge by way of what he termed an appeal ( rozklad ) to ORG of DATE , an administrative - law action of DATE , and a constitutional complaint of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible . It noted that the applicant \u2019s applications before ORG and administrative tribunals were still pending and considered that , under the principle of subsidiarity , his constitutional complaint was accordingly premature .","As to the applicant \u2019s submission to ORG , its president responded to it in a letter of DATE informing the applicant that the law did not allow for decisions of the ORG to be challenged by means of appeals to the ORG and that its decisions were reviewable by administrative tribunals .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings on the applicant \u2019s administrative - law action and on DATE ORG upheld that decision following an appeal lodged by the applicant .","The courts found that the decision to suspend the applicant had been of a preliminary nature , that it had not amounted to a determination of his rights with final effect , and that as such it had no bearing on his fundamental rights and freedoms . In such circumstances , the decision was excluded from judicial review under LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as applicable at the relevant time ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh complaint with ORG , alleging a breach of LAW on account of the ordinary courts\u2019 decisions , as detailed above .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s complaint of CARDINAL DATE inadmissible as being manifestly illfounded . It held that ORG had given sound reasons for its decision , and its decision was not arbitrary or otherwise contrary to the applicant \u2019s right to a fair hearing .","According to a communication from the ORG dated CARDINAL DATE , submitted and relied on by the Government , the applicant had addressed various submissions to ORG , but had never requested it to lift his temporary suspension , pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( as applicable at the relevant time \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The disciplinary charges against the applicant fell to be determined by ORG , sitting as a disciplinary tribunal .","In accordance with a legislative amendment which took effect on CARDINAL DATE , the Minister of ORG became a party to pending disciplinary proceedings against judges which had been initiated by ORG .","On DATE the Minister of ORG withdrew the application to discipline the applicant .","On that ground ORG discontinued the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant challenged that decision by way of an appeal , only to withdraw it on CARDINAL DATE . The decision thus became final on DATE .","The part of the applicant \u2019s salary that was retained from him during the time of his suspension ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was restored to him in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140236","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MAREK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Prior to her early retirement she had been employed for DATE and had paid her social security contributions to the ORG . DATE and DATE she received a disability pension .","On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an early - retirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the so - called \u201c EWK \u201d pension .","Along with her application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning her son \u2019s health condition , a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from chronic asthma and that he was in need of his parent \u2019s constant care .","On DATE ORG issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension with effect of DATE .","Due to the applicant \u2019s employment ORG initially suspended the payment of the pension until DATE . The payment started on DATE .","The EWK pension granted to the applicant amounted to MONEY ( PLN ) ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .","NORP The applicant was issued with a pensioner \u2019s identity card marked \u201c valid indefinitely \u201d and she continued to receive her pension without interruption until the date of the revocation of the right .","On an unspecified date ORG asked ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant \u2019s son required the permanent care of a parent . The doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child could not be considered as ever having required such care .","On DATE ORG issued simultaneously CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant .","By virtue of CARDINAL decision , the payment of the applicant \u2019s pension was discontinued with immediate effect . By virtue of the other decision , ORG revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension under the scheme provided for by the DATE Ordinance .","The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early - retirement pension . She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .","On DATE the Rzesz\u00f3w Regional Court ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","The applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s further appeal . The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the DATE Ordinance as she had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal . ORG decision was served on the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE .","Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early - retirement benefits paid by ORG , despite the revocation of her right to an early - retirement pension .","NORP Throughout the whole period of receiving the EWK pension the applicant did not work .","On DATE the applicant registered her business activity which she continued until DATE . DATE and DATE the activity was suspended .","DATE the applicant was employed .","The Government submitted that the applicant \u2019s gross DATE income in DATE amounted to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) which constituted PERCENT of the average salary in GPE at the relevant time .","On DATE the applicant turned DATE and she was granted a right to early retirement . DATE the early retirement amounted to ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) which constituted approx . PERCENT of the average net salary at the relevant time .","The Government submitted that \u201c DATE the applicant was making profits of her business activity \u201d , however , they were unable to submit information as regards the amount of the profits .","The applicant submitted that her business activity was a small shop in a modest wooden pavilion . She was forced to undertake this activity because of her economic situation after the revocation of her EWK pension . The profits were irregular and very modest . Sometimes she could not afford to pay the taxes and social insurance premiums and had to borrow money to do so . She produced her tax declarations for DATE from which it emerges that from her business activity she earned ORG MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( TIME . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE and ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE . In DATE her tax declaration showed a loss of ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152644","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF HELHAL v. FRANCE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant , who was born in DATE , is serving a DATE prison sentence imposed on DATE by the Meurthe - et - ORG for murder , attempted murder and assault involving the use or threatened use of a weapon . He has been imprisoned since DATE and will become eligible for release on DATE .","On DATE , while he was in prison in PERSON , the applicant fell QUANTITY during an attempted escape and suffered a fractured spine . He spent DATE at the PERSON rehabilitation clinic before being transferred to FAC , where he encountered substantial difficulties ( particularly on account of the staircases , which made it impossible for him to move about unaided ) , and FAC , where his cell was not equipped for wheelchair use . He was subsequently transferred back to PERSON from DATE until DATE . From that date until DATE he was held in FAC , before being transferred to FAC , where he is currently detained .","On DATE the applicant applied to the Tulle judge responsible for the execution of sentences to have his sentence suspended on medical grounds , under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He explained that as a wheelchair user with paraplegia , he was not being detained in appropriate conditions since the premises were not designed for wheelchair use , and he was unable to receive the care he required . He noted that access to the toilet in his cell was undignified , that he could not reach all parts of the prison premises unaided , and that the provision of medical and paramedical care was inadequate , particularly as regards physiotherapy . He pointed out that he was unable to go to the showers autonomously and that the prison had assigned a prisoner to assist him for a payment of CARDINAL per month . This prison orderly was responsible for cleaning the applicant \u2019s cell and accompanying him to the showers and washroom .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE the judge appointed CARDINAL doctors as experts . They submitted their reports on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .","NORP The report by PERSON , drawn up on DATE , concluded :","\u201c ... Mr PERSON has incomplete paraplegia with total effective urinary incontinence requiring self - catheterisation and round - the - clock use of a nappy . He also has major haemorrhoidal irregularities , for which he has refused any treatment .","Mr PERSON currently has active muscle relaxation in the CARDINAL lower limbs , for which physiotherapy is required several times a week on a regular , long - term basis .","That being so , Mr PERSON \u2019s state of health is not incompatible with imprisonment , subject to the express condition of being detained in a facility catering for his disability , where he can undergo regular physiotherapy and have appropriate access to a gym . \u201d","The report by PERSON was drawn up on DATE and read as follows :","\u201c ... On DATE ... PERSON stated : ... \u2018 his condition requires treatment by a physiotherapist in a specialist environment and DATE pressure - sore ORG . ...","The most recent assessment at ORG , where the patient stayed from DATE , confirms that there has been a good sensorimotor recovery in the lower limbs and that mobility is possible with CARDINAL walking sticks and a frame , whereas at present the patient mainly moves about in a wheelchair .","Appropriate physiotherapy focusing on both the joints and the muscles would clearly enable the prisoner to perform his own transfers with technical support , which would also have the benefit of easing the complications at the pressure points . At the same time , alongside the favourable progress in this post - traumatic condition , the patient has an anal disorder as a result of haemorrhoid surgery , and this essentially causes discomfort on a functional level .","Conclusion","...","- The prisoner displays sensorimotor damage resulting from a thoracolumbar spine fracture ;","- The damage is stable with clear evidence of motor recovery in the lower limbs ;","- Daily physiotherapy would be justified to improve motor skills in the lower limbs and the quality of transfers , but this is not possible at ORG as there is no on - site physiotherapist ;","- There is permanent sensory damage in the ORG region requiring self - catheterisation , which is being adequately managed on a day - to - DATE basis by the prisoner ;","- All of these spinal conditions are currently stable and unlikely to worsen , but could improve with proper treatment ;","- The various disorders observed , in terms of both traumatic spinal cord injuries and anal damage , are not life - endangering for the prisoner ;","- The prisoner \u2019s state of health is in my opinion not incompatible in the long term with continued detention ;","- The disorders currently observed are stable and will continue to develop on a chronic basis , justifying palliative care . \u201d","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the application for suspension of the applicant \u2019s sentence . It took into account the CARDINAL concurring medical opinions in finding that the applicant \u2019s state of health was compatible in the long term with his imprisonment . However , the court observed that \u201c ORG manifestly fails to satisfy the criteria for ensuring a suitable detention regime for the applicant , in terms of both the LOC and the availability of paramedical care , despite the undisputed efforts by the prison \u2019s management and staff to ease the prisoner \u2019s living conditions as far as possible \u201d . It then noted that there were custodial facilities that were equipped to cater for the applicant \u2019s condition , such as ORG or PERSON , \u201c which is designed and organised in a manner compatible with accommodating disabled prisoners , and where [ he ] will be able to have the regular physiotherapy sessions that he rightly demands , since a masseur \/ physiotherapist comes to the prison DATE \u201d . The court concluded as follows :","\u201c It therefore appears from all of the above considerations , both from a medical perspective and in terms of the prospect of arranging suitable conditions of detention , that the prisoner does not satisfy the requirements for having his sentence suspended on medical grounds . \u201d","NORP The applicant appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . He reiterated that besides the structural inadequacy of ORG , he had not been offered any special arrangements in terms of medical and paramedical care ( physiotherapy and access to the gym ) . He also submitted that PERSON was no more suitable than FAC as it did not have a rehabilitation facility .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , holding :","\u201c The CARDINAL experts concurred in concluding that [ the applicant \u2019s ] condition was not incompatible in the long term with detention provided that he was given physiotherapy and access to a gym . While it is indeed not possible for these requirements to be fulfilled at ORG , where [ the applicant ] has been transferred at his own request to be closer to his family , it has not been shown that he can not be accommodated in conditions catering for his disorders at FAC , and therefore the criteria for suspending the execution of his sentence have not been satisfied , particularly since [ the applicant ] continues to deny \u2013 as stated in his letter of CARDINAL DATE the serious criminal acts that led to his conviction . \u201d","The applicant appealed on points of law . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the appeal inadmissible .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , the applicant contended that he was not undergoing any physical rehabilitation , there being no physiotherapist at ORG , and that he had no access to the gym . He wrote that his health was deteriorating on a DATE basis and that he was being mistreated through the lack of provision of care .","According to the Government , the applicant has received the following medical assistance :","( a ) twelve occasions of escorted leave between CARDINAL DATE and DATE for specialist consultations and medical imaging tests at ORG and ORG ;","( b ) CARDINAL medical appointments with a doctor from the prison medical unit , consisting of a medical examination on CARDINAL DATE followed by consultations spread across his time at the prison ( CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE ) ;","( c ) three stays in hospital for DATE in DATE , DATE and DATE ;","( d ) technical assistance from nurses on CARDINAL occasions DATE , plus DATE meetings with the prison nurse ;","( e ) NORP eight psychiatric consultations and CARDINAL meetings with a psychiatric nurse ;","( f ) provision of medical equipment to alleviate or offset disabilities , including a walking frame ( DATE ) , an anti - pressure - sore cushion ( DATE ) , spectacles ( DATE ) , a new wheelchair ( DATE ) , and an electrostimulation device ( DATE ) .","In addition to the treatment described above , the Government informed the ORG that from DATE the applicant had attended physiotherapy sessions at ORG . The physiotherapist \u2019s services had been engaged following CARDINAL letters dated DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE in which the interregional director of ORG had alerted the Director General of ORG to the detrimental effects of the lack of physiotherapy on the care provided to prisoners .","The Government added that the applicant had been offered the opportunity to attend yoga classes but had been removed from the list of those enrolled for the classes because of his non - attendance .","The applicant confirmed the occasions of escorted leave mentioned by the Government but pointed out that on each occasion he had been transferred by ambulance \u2013 with his wrists and ankles handcuffed DATE and had had to undergo a full body search beforehand and a rub - down search afterwards . He added that the full body searches carried out whenever he received visits and when he was escorted outside the prison were deeply humiliating ; he was obliged to have his nappy inspected , and in order to proceed more quickly , several warders carried out this task together . During CARDINAL inspection , a senior warder had said in front of everyone that \u201c the boss had given instructions to inspect his nappy \u201d . The applicant maintained that as a result of these practices , he had asked his sister to visit him less frequently .","With regard to the applicant \u2019s complaints about the instances of escorted leave and the body searches , the Government pointed out that the physical damage he had suffered could not be regarded as having eradicated any security risk , since his health had no bearing on his potential connections on the outside and the risk of his escaping . To that end , they produced copies of CARDINAL decisions dated DATE ( month illegible ) and DATE ordering individual ( full body ) searches in connection with escorted leave for medical reasons . They noted that in DATE the applicant had been sent to a punishment cell for DATE following an assault on a fellow prisoner and the discovery of a mobile telephone in his cell . They stated that searches in the prison were not carried out systematically but on the basis of incidents noted during visits or in the cells . They produced CARDINAL decisions ordering individual searches , dated DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( involving searches of the applicant \u2019s cell ) , and CARDINAL decisions ordering a CARDINAL - off search of a specific sector of the prison after the visits received on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","With regard to physiotherapy , the applicant pointed out that he had only started receiving it in DATE and that it was limited to a DATE TIME session . He produced a medical certificate issued on DATE by a doctor from ORG ( unit\u00e9 de consultation et de soins ambulatoires \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) stating that his \u201c condition requires DATE rehabilitation , which ORG is unable to provide , both on account of the lack of qualified staff and because the premises are not suitably equipped . As a result , the patient can not remain in this facility without his health suffering . He must be given the possibility of admission to a specialised facility . \u201d The applicant submitted that the doctor was repeating what his colleagues had already noted on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and DATE ; he produced a medical certificate signed on the latter date by a doctor from the ORG who stated that the applicant could not remain in the facility without his health suffering and added that \u201c his paraplegia must be treated in a rehabilitation centre \u201d .","With regard to the electrostimulation device , the applicant submitted that his doctor had obtained the funds needed to purchase it but that the prison authorities had not allowed him to do so . As to the possibility of attending yoga classes , the applicant pointed out that he had been urged to go no more than once DATE in order to avoid \u201c monopolising \u201d the lift leading to where the classes were held .","The applicant again stressed that he was dependent on the prison orderly responsible for assisting him in his DATE activities . The prisoner currently \u201c assigned \u201d to that duty was the third since his admission to the prison , and the applicant was dependent on him for supplying incontinence products , accompanying him to the showers ( there was a step preventing unassisted wheelchair access ) and cleaning his cell . This level of dependency and the problems associated with his incontinence complicated his relationship with the orderly . Going to the shower was a stressful time because the structure did not shield him from the view of others and his incontinence exposed him to extremely humiliating situations , causing irritation or even hostility on the part of his fellow inmates , who were unwilling to put up with such inconvenience in the course of their personal hygiene activities .","Lastly , the applicant informed the ORG that he had been temporarily transferred to a cell in the secure unit , further to a decision by the classification board , after a mobile phone had been found in his cell . Under the resulting regime , he had access to TIME exercise in TIME in the TIME , despite the fact that a doctor had issued a certificate on DATE stating that his condition required access to CARDINAL ORG exercise a day . The Government stated that the applicant had been transferred back to his cell on DATE .","The applicant submitted that although the prison management had indeed encouraged him to request a transfer to PERSON , their approach had been guided by purely administrative considerations unconnected to his care - related needs . The management had refused to give the slightest undertaking about the conditions in which he would be accommodated in GPE and the care he could be given there . They had been unable to provide any guarantees as to care arrangements as there were CARDINAL cells for disabled prisoners at that facility and they were all occupied , and a single physiotherapist came to the prison for DATE a week to provide services for CARDINAL prisoners . The applicant contended that he had not applied for a transfer on the grounds that the prison in question did not offer appropriate care facilities and would simply have represented a further upheaval and ordeal for him following his repeated moves from CARDINAL prison to another ( CARDINAL transfers DATE ) . He referred to information obtained from ORG ( Observatoire international des prisons DATE ) by his sister and his lawyer and produced a copy of an email sent by ORG to his lawyer on DATE , reading as follows :","\u201c I do not think that PERSON and PERSON are particularly well equipped although , like all recent establishments , they do have disabled cells . I attach a decision in which ORG found , in relation to another wheelchair user , that \u2018 no custodial facility is equipped to cater for the applicant \u2019s condition\u2019 and accordingly suspended the execution of his sentence . ... Nevertheless , I consider it important to stress the consequences of a change of prison , not only in terms of family ties but also as regards the procedure for requesting a suspension of the sentence , since that procedure would then have to be started over again . ... \u201d","The applicant emphasised in any event that the medical unit at ORG had not recommended his transfer to PERSON but rather the provision of treatment in a specialist facility .","The Government submitted that the applicant \u2019s transfer to PERSON had been envisaged by the health - care professionals at ORG but observed that he had never actually requested such a transfer ; after mentioning a transfer request , he had indicated DATE ( CARDINAL DATE ) that he did not intend to pursue it , for reasons that were unclear . The ORG also produced a note drawn up on DATE , which in their submission suggested that \u201c the applicant \u2019s main motivation related to the previous decisions of the judicial authorities on requests for suspension of sentences , rather than to the treatment he might receive \u201d . They rejected the applicant \u2019s arguments about the inability of PERSON to accommodate him and submitted , in their additional observations , that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cells reserved for people with reduced mobility were occupied . They produced a copy of an email sent by ORG in DATE indicating the availability of such cells . They also pointed out that an agreement had been signed in DATE between PERSON , the ORG and a non - governmental organisation with a view to providing appropriate care for dependent prisoners with specialist professional assistance ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153510","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"MAGUIRE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by ORG , a firm of solicitors based in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155662","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SARGSYAN v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Continuing situation);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive obligations;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for home;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Christos Rozakis;Corneliu B\u00eersan;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Egidijus K\u016bris;Elisabet Fura;Fran\u00e7oise Tulkens;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Nicolas Bratza;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano;Sverre Erik Jebens;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["At the time of the demise of the GPE , the GPE - GPE ( \u201c the NKAO \u201d ) was an autonomous province of GPE ( \u201c the GPE SSR \u201d ) . Situated within the territory of the GPE SSR , it covered CARDINAL sq . km . There was at that time no common border between Nagorno - Karabakh ( known as Artsakh by its NORP name ) and the NORP Soviet GPE ( \u201c the NORP SSR \u201d ) , which were separated by NORP territory , at the shortest distance by the district of Lachin , including a strip of land often referred to as the \u201c NORP corridor \u201d , QUANTITY wide .","According to the GPE census of DATE , the ORG had a population of CARDINAL consisting of PERCENT ethnic NORP and PERCENT ethnic NORP , with NORP and NORP minorities .","NORP In DATE demonstrations were held in PERSON , the regional capital of the NKAO as well as in the NORP capital of GPE , demanding the incorporation of GPE - Karabakh into GPE . On DATE the NORP of the ORG appealed to ORG of the NORP SSR , GPE SSR and the GPE that the NKAO be allowed to secede from GPE and join GPE . The request was rejected by ORG of the GPE on DATE . In DATE it was also rejected by ORG whereas its counterpart in GPE voted in favour of unification .","NORP Throughout DATE the demonstrations calling for unification continued . The district of Lachin was subjected to roadblocks and attacks . The clashes led to many casualties and refugees , numbering CARDINAL on both sides , flowed between GPE and GPE . As a consequence , on QUANTITY DATE ORG placed the ORG under GPE \u2019s direct rule . However , on DATE , control of the province was returned to GPE . DATE , on DATE , ORG of the NORP SSR and the ORG regional council adopted a joint resolution , \u201c On the reunification of GPE - Karabakh with GPE \u201d .","In DATE , following an escalation of the conflict , NORP troops arrived in GPE and GPE - Karabakh , and the latter province was placed under a state of emergency . Violent clashes between NORP and NORP continued , however , with the occasional intervention by NORP forces .","On DATE GPE declared independence from GPE . This was subsequently formalised by means of the adoption of LAW on ORG of DATE . On DATE the NORP of the ORG announced the establishment of the \u201c GPE - GPE \u201d ( hereinafter \u201c the NKR \u201d ) , consisting of the territory of the NKAO and the LOC of GPE , and declared that it was no longer under NORP jurisdiction . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG abolished the autonomy previously enjoyed by PERSON . In a referendum organised in GPE - Karabakh on DATE , PERCENT of those participating voted in favour of secession . However , the NORP population boycotted the referendum . In DATE , GPE was dissolved and NORP troops began to withdraw from the region . Military control of ORG was rapidly passing to PERSON . On DATE the \u201c NKR \u201d having regard to the results of the referendum , reaffirmed its independence from GPE .","NORP In DATE the conflict gradually escalated into full - scale war . By DATE , ethnic NORP forces had gained control over almost the entire territory of the former GPE as well as CARDINAL adjacent NORP regions ( ORG , PERSON , PERSON and GPE and substantial parts of PERSON and PERSON ) .","On DATE a ceasefire agreement ( the Bishkek Protocol ) was signed by GPE , GPE and the \u201c NKR \u201d following NORP mediation . It came into effect on DATE","According to a ORG report ( \u201c DATE of Conflict in GPE - Karabakh \u201d , DATE ) , DATE an estimated CARDINAL NORP were forced out of ORG , GPE , and the CARDINAL NORP districts surrounding GPE - Karabakh . According to information from NORP authorities , CARDINAL NORP refugees from GPE and CARDINAL internally displaced persons ( from regions in GPE bordering GPE ) have been registered .","According to ORG , the \u201c ORG \u201d controls CARDINAL sq . km of the former ORG . While it is debated how much of the CARDINAL partly conquered districts is occupied by the \u201c NKR \u201d , it appears that the occupied territory of the CARDINAL surrounding districts in total amounts to CARDINAL sq . km .","Estimates of DATE \u2019s population of GPE - Karabakh vary CARDINAL people , PERCENT being of NORP ethnicity . Virtually no Azerbaijanis remain .","No political settlement of the conflict has so far been reached . The self - proclaimed independence of the \u201c ORG \u201d has not been recognised by any ORG or any international organisation . Recurring breaches of the DATE ceasefire agreement along the borders have led to the loss of many lives and the rhetoric of officials remains hostile . Moreover , according to international reports , tension has heightened in DATE and military expenditure in GPE and GPE has increased significantly .","Several proposals for a peaceful solution of the conflict have failed . Negotiations have been carried out under the auspices of the OSCE ( Organization for Security and Co - operation in LOC ) and its so - called ORG . In GPE in DATE the ORG \u2019s CARDINAL Co - Chairs \u2013 GPE , GPE and GPE \u2013 presented to GPE and GPE a set of Basic Principles for a settlement . The Basic Principles , which later have been updated , call , inter alia , for the return of the territories surrounding GPE - Karabakh to NORP control , an interim status for GPE - Karabakh providing guarantees for security and self - governance , a corridor linking GPE to GPE - Karabakh , a future determination of the final legal status of GPE - Karabakh through a legally binding referendum , the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their former places of residence , and international security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation . The idea is that the endorsement of these principles by GPE and GPE would enable the drafting of a comprehensive and detailed settlement . Following intensive shuttle diplomacy by ORG diplomats and a number of meetings between the Presidents of the CARDINAL countries in DATE , the process lost momentum in DATE . So far the parties to the conflict have not signed a formal agreement on ORG .","On DATE ORG presented a \u201c Report of ORG - Chairs\u2019 Field Assessment Mission to GPE Nagorno - Karabakh \u201d , the executive summary of which reads as follows :","\u201c ORG conducted a Field Assessment Mission to the CARDINAL occupied territories of GPE surrounding GPE - Karabakh ( NK ) from DATE , to assess the overall situation there , including humanitarian and other aspects . ORG were joined by ORG Chairman - in - Office and his team , which provided logistical support , and by CARDINAL experts from the ORG and CARDINAL member of the DATE OSCE Fact - Finding Mission . This was the first mission by the international community to the territories DATE , and the first visit by ORG personnel in DATE .","In traveling QUANTITY throughout the territories , ORG saw stark evidence of the disastrous consequences of the GPE - Karabakh conflict and the failure to reach a peaceful settlement . Towns and villages that existed before the conflict are abandoned and almost entirely in ruins . While no reliable figures exist , the overall population is CARDINAL persons , living in small settlements and in the towns of ORG . ORG assess that there has been no significant growth in the population since DATE . The settlers , for the most part ethnic NORP who were relocated to the territories from elsewhere in GPE , live in precarious conditions , with poor infrastructure , little economic activity , and limited access to public services . Many lack identity documents . For administrative purposes , the CARDINAL territories , the former LOC , and other areas have been incorporated into CARDINAL new districts .","The harsh reality of the situation in the territories has reinforced the view of the CoChairs that the status quo is unacceptable , and that only a peaceful , negotiated settlement can bring the prospect of a better , more certain future to the people who used to live in the territories and those who live there now . The Co - Chairs urge the leaders of all the parties to avoid any activities in the territories and other disputed areas that would prejudice a final settlement or change the character of these areas . They also recommend that measures be taken to preserve cemeteries and places of worship in the territories and to clarify the status of settlers who lack identity documents . ORG intend to undertake further missions to other areas affected by the FAC conflict , and to include in such missions experts from relevant international agencies that would be involved in implementing a peace settlement . \u201d","On DATE the Presidents of the Co - Chair countries of the GPE group issued a joint statement on the GPE - Karabakh conflict :","\u201c We , the Presidents of ORG countries \u2013 GPE , GPE , and GPE \u2013 remain committed to helping the parties to the Nagorno - Karabakh conflict reach a lasting and peaceful settlement . We express our deep regret that , rather than trying to find a solution based upon mutual interests , the parties have continued to seek CARDINAL - sided advantage in the negotiation process .","We continue to firmly believe that the elements outlined in the statements of our countries over DATE must be the foundation of any fair and lasting settlement to the ORG - Karabakh conflict . These elements should be seen as an integrated whole , as any attempt to select some elements over others would make it impossible to achieve a balanced solution .","We reiterate that only a negotiated settlement can lead to peace , stability , and reconciliation , opening opportunities for regional development and cooperation . The use of military force that has already created the current situation of confrontation and instability will not resolve the conflict . A renewal of hostilities would be disastrous for the population of the region , resulting in loss of life , more destruction , additional refugees , and enormous financial costs . We strongly urge the leaders of all the sides to recommit to the GPE principles , particularly those relating to the non - use of force or the threat of force , territorial integrity , and equal rights and self - determination of peoples . We also appeal to them to refrain from any actions or rhetoric that could raise tension in the region and lead to escalation of the conflict . The leaders should prepare their people for peace , not war .","Our countries stand ready to assist the sides , but the responsibility for putting an end to the Nagorno - Karabakh conflict remains with them . We strongly believe that further delay in reaching a balanced agreement on the framework for a comprehensive peace is unacceptable , and urge the leaders of GPE and GPE to focus with renewed energy on the issues that remain unresolved . \u201d","The applicant , an ethnic NORP , states that he and his family used to live in the village of GPE in the Shahumyan region of the GPE SSR . He claims to have had a house and outhouses there .","Geographically , Shahumyan shared a border with the NKAO and was situated to the north of it . The region did not form part of the NKAO , but was later claimed by the \u201c NKR \u201d as part of its territory ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the applicant , PERCENT of the population of Shahumyan had been ethnic NORP prior to the conflict .","In DATE Shahumyan was abolished as a separate administrative region and was formally incorporated into the present - day Goranboy region of GPE .","In DATE ORG and the specialpurpose militia units ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) of the GPE SSR launched a military operation with the stated purpose of \u201c passport checking \u201d and disarming local NORP militants in the region . However , according to various sources , the government forces , using the official purpose of the operation as a pretext , expelled the NORP population of a number of villages in the FAC region , thus forcing them to leave their homes and flee to ORG or GPE . The expulsions were accompanied by arrests and violence towards the civilian population . In DATE , when the conflict escalated into a full - scale war , Shahumyan region came under attack by NORP forces .","NORP The parties\u2019 positions differ in respect of the applicant \u2019s residence and possessions in GPE .","The applicant maintained that he had lived in GPE for most of his life until his forced displacement in DATE . In support of this claim he submitted a copy of his former NORP passport issued in DATE , from which it can be seen that the applicant was born in GPE . He also submitted his marriage certificate , which shows that he and his wife , who was also born in GPE , got married there in DATE . In addition , the applicant asserted that , having grown up in GPE , he left for DATE to complete his military service and to work in the town of ORG . DATE after his marriage he returned to GPE where he lived until DATE .","The applicant submitted a copy of an official certificate ( \u201c technical passport \u201d ) when he lodged the application . According to that document , dated DATE , a CARDINAL - storey house in GPE and outhouses of a total area of CARDINAL sq . m and CARDINAL sq . m of land were registered in the applicant \u2019s name . Furthermore he submitted a detailed plan of the main house .","According to the technical passport , of the QUANTITY . m on which the house stood , QUANTITY m were occupied by the main house and CARDINAL by various outhouses including a cow - shed . Of the CARDINAL sq . m of land CARDINAL were a fruit and vegetable garden . The document also contains information of a technical nature ( for instance the building materials used ) concerning the main house and the outhouses .","The applicant explained that he had obtained the land by permission of ORG to divide his father \u2019s plot of land between him and his brother . The decision was recorded in ORG register . With the help of relatives and friends , he and his wife built their house on that plot of land in DATE . Their CARDINAL children grew up in the house and he and his wife continued to live there until they had to flee in DATE . Furthermore , the applicant explained that he had been a secondary school teacher in GPE and had earned his living partly from his salary and partly from farming and stock - breeding on his land while his wife had been working at the village \u2019s collective farm since DATE .","In addition to the technical passport and the plan of the house mentioned above , the applicant submitted photos of the house and written statements dating from DATE from CARDINAL former officials of ORG , PERSON and PERSON . The former states that she was the secretary of ORG from DATE . She confirms that ORG allowed the applicant to divide his father \u2019s plot of land between himself and his brother . Both , PERSON and PERSON who states the he was a member of ORG for DATE in DATE , claim that entries about the allotment of land to villagers were made in the registration book of ORG . A number of further written statements from DATE from family members ( including the applicant \u2019s wife , CARDINAL of their children and his son - in - law ) , former neighbours and friends from GPE provide a description of GPE and confirm that the applicant was a secondary school teacher and had a plot of land and a CARDINAL - storey house in the village . They also confirm that a number of outhouses and a fruit and vegetable garden belonged to the applicant \u2019s house , where he and his family lived until DATE .","The applicant described that Shahumyan region was subjected to a blockade by ORG in DATE . In DATE the armed forces started attacking the region . In DATE GPE came under direct attack by NORP forces . From DATE the village was heavily bombed . The population of the village , including the applicant and his family members , fled in fear for their lives . The above - mentioned statements of a number of witnesses also provide a description of the blockade of LOC during the conflict , of the attack on the village and the flight of its inhabitants .","NORP The applicant and his family fled to GPE . Subsequently , the applicant and his wife lived as refugees in GPE . In DATE the applicant obtained NORP citizenship . He was seriously ill from DATE and died on DATE in GPE .","The respondent Government submitted that it could not be verified whether the applicant had actually lived in GPE and had any possessions there . For the period from DATE to the present date , the relevant departments of the ORG region did not possess any documentation concerning the plot of land , house or other buildings allegedly owned by the applicant . Moreover , certain archives of the former Shahumyan region , including ORG and ORG , had been destroyed during the hostilities . No documents relating to the applicant were available in the ORG regional archives DATE .","In support of their position the ORG submitted a number of documents , namely : a statement , dated DATE , by Colonel PERSON , Head of the Goranboy Regional Police Department confirming that the archives of ORG and of ORG of the former LOC had been destroyed during the conflict ; a letter from ORG of DATE according to which the relevant ORG Archives did not contain any document concerning the applicant \u2019s alleged property rights ; a statement dated DATE by PERSON , Chairman of ORG , according to whom only ORG of the NORP of ORG of the Districts and Cities had been empowered to allocate land under LAW of the GPE SSR .","NORP The parties\u2019 positions also differ in respect of the current situation obtaining in GPE . ORG , as a third - party intervener , also made submissions on the issue .","Regarding the situation in GPE , the applicant asserted that GPE had control over the village and in particular that they had positions in the village itself and on its outskirts . In his view there was nothing to prove that GPE was on ORG ( ORG ) between NORP and \u201c NKR \u201d forces as claimed by the respondent Government .","In the proceedings prior to the admissibility decision , the applicant submitted a written statement from an anonymous senior officer of the \u201c ORG \u201d armed forces dated DATE , according to whom GPE was under the de facto control of NORP military forces ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Moreover , the applicant asserted that fellow villagers had tried to return to GPE on several occasions but had been unable to enter the village as they would have risked to be shot at by NORP forces .","The Government accepted throughout the proceedings that GPE was located on the internationally recognized territory of GPE .","In their submissions prior to the admissibility decision , the Government asserted that GPE was physically on the ORG between NORP and NORP forces , which had been established by the ceasefire agreement of DATE . The village was deserted and the ORG was maintained by the stationing of armed forces on either side and by the extensive use of landmines . It was thus impossible for the respondent Government to exercise any control over the area or to have any access to it .","In their submissions after the admissibility decision the ORG stated that they did not exercise sufficient control over the village . Referring to the statements of a number of military officers who had served in the GPE region and had made statements on the situation in GPE ( see , paragraph CARDINAL below ) they submitted in particular that the village , situated in a \u201c v \u201d shaped valley on the northern bank of the river PERSON was on the ORG , meaning that it was surrounded by armed forces of GPE on the one side ( in the north and east ) and of GPE on the other side ( in the south and west ) . NORP forces held strategically advantageous positions on a steep , forested slope south of the river , while NORP positions on the north bank of the river were situated in lower , relatively open territory . The Government asserted that , as a matter of fact , GPE was not under the effective control of either side . It was a contested area and constituted a dangerous environment . The village and its surroundings were mined . Violations of the ceasefire agreement occurred frequently . There were no safe buildings in the area as the village had been destroyed and deserted .","In their pleadings at the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , the Government underlined that GPE was exposed to fire from NORP military positions situated across the river on a steep slope . In addition , they referred to the ORG report on GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , noting that it confirmed , apart from the fact that GPE was on NORP territory , that the area around GPE was mountainous and was the object of sustained military activity and that the village had been destroyed . They maintained that the area was mined and inaccessible to any civilian .","The intervening Government maintained throughout the proceedings that the respondent Government had full , effective control over GPE .","At the hearing of DATE they had contested the respondent Government \u2019s assertion that GPE was on the LoC. Referring to the written statement of CARDINAL DATE by an anonymous senior officer of the \u201c NKR \u201d armed forces serving near GPE which had been submitted by the applicant , the Agent of ORG had declared that he had been personally present when the statement had been made and confirmed its correctness . On the basis of this statement , ORG asserted that in the area at issue , the dividing line between the armed forces of the \u201c NKR \u201d and GPE was a gorge through which the river ORG was flowing . GPE was situated north of the riverside and was under the control of NORP armed forces who had military positions in the village itself and on its outskirts , while \u201c NKR \u201d forces were stationed on the other side of the gorge . They also referred to the DVD containing footage of the village submitted to ORG by the applicant in DATE ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) claiming that the person who can be seen walking between the houses , was an NORP soldier . ORG maintained that it was impossible for \u201c NKR \u201d forces or any NORP to have access to the village .","In their submissions following the admissibility decision , ORG disclosed the identity of the senior \u201c ORG \u201d officer at the ORG \u2019s request . The officer in question is Colonel PERSON of the \u201c ORG . Moreover , ORG submitted that their Agent , PERSON , had obtained permission from the \u201c NKR \u201d authorities and had visited the territory near GPE in DATE . He had obtained DVD material and recorded interviews with CARDINAL \u201c NKR \u201d officers describing the situation on the ground in and near GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG also replied to the ORG \u2019s question concerning their assertion made at the hearing of CARDINAL September CARDINAL that the man walking between the ruins on the DVD submitted by the applicant in DATE was an NORP soldier : While stating that they were not in a position to comment on that man \u2019s identity , they referred to statements of the \u201c NKR \u201d military officers according to whom there were NORP military positions in GPE , while there was no presence of civilians .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG repeated their description of the situation pertaining in GPE . Moreover , they asserted that NORP military presence in the area had also been confirmed by the ORG report .","The parties have submitted extensive documentary material in support of their respective positions . The following paragraphs contain a short description of the main items of evidence .","A map of GPE and its surroundings : It appears to be a copy of an official map with names in NORP , showing the entire village on the north bank of a river ( ORG ) . The alleged positions of the NORP forces are indicated as follows : CARDINAL is in the middle of the village , a few more are on its northern edge , others are also spread out on the north bank of the river but are further away , most of them apparently on the heights around the village .","A DVD , submitted with his observations of DATE , containing footage of GPE and its surroundings . The village is situated on a hillside . Many of the houses are in ruins , while a few still have intact roofs . Smoke is rising from some chimneys . At CARDINAL point a man walking between the ruins appears . On a hillside situated in some distance from the village , constructions are to be seen which appear to be firing positions .","A letter by the \u201c Minister of Defence of the ORG \u201d of DATE describing the situation on the ground in GPE and claiming in particular that ORG had several posts and shooting points right in the village .","A statement dated CARDINAL DATE by a senior officer of the \u201c NKR \u201d forces serving in a military position near the village of GPE since DATE ( see the summary of the statement at paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The statement was accompanied by a hand - drawn map of GPE and its surroundings and a number of photos showing the area . The officer , who had initially remained anonymous , is Colonel PERSON from the \u201c ORG .","A statement of PERSON , assistant to the representative of the applicant , who recorded the statement by the \u201c NKR \u201d officer on the spot , i.e. at the military unit near GPE , confirming the contents of that officer \u2019s statement and that the photos were taken from the \u201c NKR \u201d military position .","A Statement of PERSON , Agent of ORG , in whose presence the senior \u201c ORG \u201d officer made his statement at his military unit close to GPE .","Statements dated DATE from CARDINAL former villagers of GPE who claimed that they had unsuccessfully tried to return to the village of GPE DATE . They claim to have approached the area on the \u201c NKR \u201d side of the ceasefire line , CARDINAL of them state that they were able to look down on the village from the height of PERSON , but were prohibited from moving any further by the \u201c NKR \u201d soldiers accompanying them due to the risk of sniper fire from the opposing forces . CARDINAL of them states that with the aid of binoculars , he was able to see a number of entrenchments in the village and a soldier standing there .","A map of GPE and its surroundings . The map shows the entire village on the north bank of the river ORG , the NORP military positions are also on the north bank of the river mostly on the heights around the village . The \u201c NKR \u201d positions are on the south bank of the river the closest being right opposite the village .","A map of PERSON submitted by ORG in GPE and Others v. GPE ( cited above ) . The map shows GPE on the very border of the \u201c NKR \u201d to the north of a river .","A map of GPE published in DATE by ORG . The map shows GPE on the very border of the area occupied by the \u201c NKR \u201d . On the map the occupied areas are shaded and surrounded by a red line ; GPE is on that red line but outside the shaded area , to the north of a river .","CARDINAL DVDs containing footage of GPE and its surroundings , ( one submitted in DATE , the other in DATE ) . The first shows the village in a hilly landscape , with most houses in ruins , plus some constructions on the crest of a hill which appear to be firing positions . The second again shows the village ( houses in ruins and destroyed agricultural machines ) and the surrounding landscape and is accompanied by a text explaining in particular that there is no habitation in the village , that the NORP positions are on a forested slope and control the village with large calibre guns , while NORP positions are at a distance of QUANTITY and can only visually control the village .","Statements made in DATE by CARDINAL NORP army officers , Colonel PERSON , who served in a military unit in GPE region DATE , and Colonel - lieutnants PERSON , ORG , ORG , ORG , and PERSON who served in military units in GPE region at various periods DATE and describe the situation on the ground in GPE as follows :","- GPE is on the north bank of the river Indzachay ;","- NORP military positions are on the north bank of the river in the east and north - east of GPE settlement , situated in lowlands , at distances QUANTITY from the destroyed village ;","- NORP military positions are on the south bank of the river in the west and south - west of GPE settlement , situated on strategically better upland positions ( steep slopes covered with forest ) . The estimates given by the officers in respect of the distance at which the nearest NORP positions are located vary CARDINAL km ;","- ceasefire violations by the NORP forces are frequent ;","- they contest ORG assertion that some of the houses in the village have been repaired and are being used as military positions by the NORP forces ;","- the NORP positions and the village itself are within shooting range of the NORP positions ( fire with large - calibre machine guns ) ; military staff can therefore not move freely in the area but only on designated routes ;","- there are no civilians in the village ;","- most of the buildings ( CARDINAL houses ) in the village were destroyed during the hostilities . As the village has been deserted since DATE houses have decayed , roofs have collapsed and trees are now growing inside the destroyed buildings . There are currently no habitable buildings left ; after the hostilities , NORP forces mined the territory of the settlement , these mines are sometimes triggered by animals ;","- Colonel - lieutenant PERSON states to have observed movements of NORP military in the ruins in the south part of GPE settlement , Colonel - lieutenant ORG claims to have seen NORP military servants moving from their positions towards the river . Colonel - lieutenants ORG and PERSON state that they observed NORP military forces destroying buildings and using the material for their fortifications .","Information by ORG covering DATE on ceasefire violations indicating an increase from DATE ( DATE , CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE ) and casualties in the area of GPE as a result of mine explosions ( CARDINAL soldiers killed on DATE ) or violations of the ceasefire ( CARDINAL soldier killed on DATE ) .","A letter by the Director of ORG dated DATE stating that GPE in the GPE region was \u201c defined as a territory with an extensive mine and unexploded ordinance ( ORG ) contamination \u201d .","Statements made in DATE by CARDINAL villagers living in neighbouring settlements , NORP village and GPE town . They describe that the village of GPE is deserted and that the surroundings are mined and regularly come under fire from the NORP positions .","Two press releases of DATE from an NORP source relating to an LOC mission monitoring the border line between ORG and GPE near village GPE .","Numerous press releases from ORG issued DATE and DATE mentioning ceasefire violations in various areas including the area of GPE . The text most frequently used by these press releases reads as follows : \u201c ORG fired on the opposite ORG from posts near GPE \u201d or \u201c ... from posts in nameless upland near GPE village \u201d or \u201c enemy units fired on the positions of ORG from the posts [ ... ] near GPE of GPE \u2019s PERSON region . CARDINAL of these press releases , dated DATE reports that \u201c NORP lieutenant PERSON has stricken a mine in GPE in the frontline of GPE region . Consequently , he lost his leg \u201d .","DATE . A statement by ORG of DATE expressing concern about the increased placement of anti - personnel landmines by the ORG - Karabakh authorities along the NORP - NORP line of contact east and north of the disputed territory .","A map of GPE and its surroundings , which shows the entire village on the north bank of the river ORG . The NORP positions are also on the north bank of the river and very close to the village ( to the east and west of it and on its northern edge ) while the \u201c NKR \u201d positions are on the south bank of the river , the closest being just opposite the village .","A DVD , submitted in DATE , containing footage of GPE and its surroundings and interviews taken on the spot by Government Agent , Mr Kostanyan , with CARDINAL \u201c NKR \u201d army officers serving in the military unit near GPE ( for their contents see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It shows the village , which most houses in ruins , and the landscape around it . Towards the end of the video , a herd of sheep and some persons can be seen moving behind the destroyed village .","Transcripts of the interviews recorded in DATE with Unit commander Sevoyan , PERSON and officer GPE , serving in the \u201c NKR \u201d military unit located near GPE . They describe the situation on the ground as follows :","- the NORP military forces have positions in the village and sometimes perform combat duties there , but their permanent location point is in the rear ;","- there are no civilians in the village ;","- there are no mines in the village itself but the area surrounding it has been mined by the NORP forces ( they notice that from time to time animals trigger a mine ) ;","- sometimes there are ceasefire violations by the NORP side ; if they are negligent they risk to be shot at from the NORP positions ;","- it happened several times that former villagers of GPE came to the area wishing to visit their village . Due to dangers from snipers or combat weapons\u2019 fire from the NORP side , they did not allow them to approach the village .","On DATE the ORG requested ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in the framework of its \u201c FAC and Human Rights \u201d programme to provide a report on the following issues : the location of military positions such as trenches and fortifications in and around the village of GPE , for the period between the entry into force of the Convention in respect of GPE ( DATE ) to the present , and also on the state of destruction of buildings in the village and of the village \u2019s cemeteries at the time of the ORG \u2019s entry into force ( DATE ) .","The report \u201c High - resolution satellite imagery assessment of GPE , GPE , DATE \u201d ( \u201c the ORG report \u201d ) was submitted to the ORG in DATE . On the basis of interpretation of highresolution satellite images from DATE , DATE and DATE obtained from public sources , the report provides the following information .","In respect of military structures it notes that there are trenches and revetments in the village and adjacent to it in the DATE and DATE images , a build - up having taken place in DATE , while after DATE trenches seem to have fallen into disuse , as is shown by the fading visual signature of these trenches in the DATE image . In the area surrounding GPE military activity was apparent . Military build - up in DATE , concerning trenches , revetments , military buildings , vehicles and vehicle tracks was followed by continued military development in the region over DATE , but of a different type , in that trenches and revetments fell into disuse , while military buildings and vehicle presence continued to increase .","In respect of the destruction of buildings , the report indicates that most of the CARDINAL houses in the village are destroyed , the term \u201c destroyed \u201d meaning that they are no longer intact . The report notes that building degradation and vegetation overgrowth obscured building footprints and made structure counts difficult . While in DATE CARDINAL buildings remained intact , there were CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE . For most of the destroyed buildings outer and interior walls have been preserved while roofs have collapsed . While the state of the buildings suggests burning as a possible cause of destruction , the report underlines that the cause of the destruction could not be determined via satellite imagery , in particular , it was not always possible to state whether or not buildings had been destroyed deliberately . No cemeteries were identifiable on the satellite imagery . The report suggests that this might be due to vegetation overgrowth ."],"violated_articles":["13","8","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161776","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"HAUT\u0102 AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON Florea , are all NORP nationals , born in DATE respectively and live in GPE , \u015ei\u015fcani and PERSON , respectively .","The applicants were initially represented before the ORG by Mr J. Crudu , a lawyer practising in ORG . The first and the third applicants are currently represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the ORG mother , GPE , lodged with the administrative authorities a request under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , seeking to be compensated for a plot of land , a house and a yard she and her husband PERSON , now deceased , had owned together before DATE in GPE , LOC . In her appended statement , given before a public notary on DATE , GPE confirmed that she had never received any compensation for the respective property .","On DATE ORG for Implementing PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL allowed the request and granted the claimant MONEY lei ( ROL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) in compensation .","On DATE this decision was overturned by ORG , the national authority in charge of the implementation of Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which held that the calculation of the total amount needed to be done again , given that the disputed plot of land was actually located on the outskirts and not in the central area , while the disputed house had been built with adobe and not with bricks . The decision stipulated that :","\u201c In view of the advanced age of the person entitled [ to compensation ] the decision must urgently be redrafted and the CARDINAL children of the deceased father , PERSON , should be included therein . \u201d","GPE contested this decision , claiming that the calculation made by ORG was correct ; however , in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of First Instance upheld the decision given by ORG .","GPE appealed . Her appeal was dismissed as out of time by ORG on DATE . A further appeal lodged with the same court was dismissed as inadmissible on DATE .","On DATE GPE died .","The applicants , GPE \u2019s heirs , have lodged several requests with various state authorities ( including the President , the ORG , and ORG ) , asking for a decision to be taken in their case .","An expert report issued on DATE at the request of ORG proposed that an amount of CARDINAL ORG be given for the impugned land . The report mentioned that according to a certificate issued by ORG , GPE had never requested or received compensation in accordance with the NORP legislation on land restitution . A similar expert report issued on DATE evaluated the impugned house and appurtenant land to CARDINAL ORG .","Consequently , on DATE ORG issued another decision on GPE \u2019s name , granting her compensation in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) ( approximately LAW at the time ) .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , the authority which had replaced and taken over the responsibilities of ORG , replied to one of the ORG letters . ORG informed them that their file was pending before it , and that generally every file was assessed on the basis of on documents such as civil status certificates , other certificates attesting whether any compensation had already been granted , expert reports , and so on .","On DATE the Prime Minister \u2019s Head of Chancellery issued an order which invalidated the decision of DATE , given that the claimant needed to submit further documents concerning the civil status of ORG \u2019s heirs and attesting to whether any other compensation had been received by any of the heirs , in accordance with the NORP legislation on land restitution . The Chancellery sent the file back to ORG for further examination , while holding that :","\u201c compensation should be granted to the claimant for CARDINAL ha of land , house and yard of QUANTITY m. ; for the rest of the yard [ the claimant ] should be granted equivalent agricultural land \u201d .","On DATE ORG addressed a letter to GPE , informing her that she needed to submit the documents referred to in the decision of DATE .","No other decision has yet been taken on the claims lodged by GPE under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL came into force on DATE and was amended in DATE and DATE ; it established a compensatory mechanism for NORP citizens whose immovable properties were confiscated without due compensation under LAW , signed by GPE and GPE on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The mechanism referred essentially to pecuniary compensation or to the right to shares in ORG - run companies . The deadline for filing such claims was set in LAW at DATE from the entry into force of the law . This deadline was subsequently extended by PERSON no . MONEY , for a period of DATE starting with the entry into force of the law on DATE and then by PERSON no . CARDINAL , for a period of DATE , starting from the entry into force of the law on DATE .","The bodies in charge of implementing the said PERSON were ORG established within each county ( including GPE ) under the authority of the ORG , and ORG for Implementing Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","Under LAW , ORG had responsibility for assessing and dealing with requests for compensation within a maximum of DATE following the date of registration . The decisions of ORG were communicated to the claimants and ORG , and they could be challenged by the claimants before ORG within DATE . The latter then had to ratify or reject such decisions within DATE .","In their turn , the decisions adopted by ORG could be challenged before the domestic courts .","From DATE , when Government Decision no . CARDINAL came into force , the responsibilities of ORG were taken over by ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , functioning within the Prime Minister \u2019s Chancellery . ORG forwarded the ratification decisions adopted by ORG for the approval of the Prime Minister \u2019s Head of Chancellery . The ORG was further entitled to make a proposal for adjustment of the compensation at the time of the ratification decision , in accordance with PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","These responsibilities were taken over by ORG with effect from the entry into force of Government Decision no . CARDINAL , namely on DATE ; this act was modified by Government Decision no . DATE on DATE .","Adopted on DATE , EGO no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL suspended for DATE the issue by the competent authorities of any decision on claims lodged under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The ordinance further suspended for the same period the voluntary payment of compensation already granted under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , PERSON no . MONEY , and PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL concerning measures for the acceleration and finalisation of the process of resolving compensation claims lodged under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL entered into force on DATE .","Article CARDINAL states that the only compensatory measure possible was pecuniary compensation .","Article CARDINAL defines the applicability of the law to all claims lodged in due time with ORG and in respect of which no decision has been issued , or in respect of which a decision granting compensation has been issued but no payment has been made , as well as to those claims lodged under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL or LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL that are currently pending before the domestic courts .","The law authorises the transfer of all powers of ORG to ORG , who shall thus ratify or otherwise any decision taken by ORG on claims lodged under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . ORG is entitled to request further information and documents , from public institutions as well as from claimants , when such documents are missing or are not corroborated .","Decisions taken by ORG are subject to appeal before the administrative courts .","Article CARDINAL of the law sets out the deadlines by which all payments should be made , providing also for the manner in which the compensation should be adjusted for inflation , on the basis of the consumer price index , from the moment the decision was issued until the entry into force of the law .","Article CARDINAL sets out a CARDINAL-day deadline within which the claimants are to supplement their files with further documents , following a written request in that respect sent by the authority . This deadline may be extended once , for DATE , at the request of the claimant , if evidence shows that he \/ she has taken the necessary steps to obtain the necessary information .","Article CARDINAL provides that ORG are bound to issue a decision on the applicants\u2019 claims within :","\u201c a ) DATE , if there are CARDINAL files pending before them ;","b ) DATE , if the files pending before them are in the range of CARDINAL ;","c ) DATE if they have CARDINAL files pending before them . \u201d","This deadline started running on DATE .","Article CARDINAL stipulates that decisions issued by ORG before the entry into force of the present law and already registered with ORG should be ratified or otherwise within DATE of the entry into force of the law . Decisions issued after the entry into force of the law should be ratified or otherwise by ORG within DATE of their registration with that authority .","The registration number and the number of files pending with ORG shall be published on its web page .","Article CARDINAL gives claimants the opportunity to apply to the courts in the event that the above - mentioned deadlines are not complied with .","Article CARDINAL of the law sets out several measures meant to increase the efficiency of the compensation procedures , providing , inter alia , for a temporary increase of the number of posts available at ORG .","LAW of GPE was signed on DATE by GPE and GPE . Under the terms of this treaty , the signatory parties agreed on the border line that was to be established between the CARDINAL countries , with particular reference to the territory between LOC and LOC ( the PERSON ) . LAW provided for a mandatory resettlement of NORP citizens of NORP ethnicity living in PERSON and ORG to GPE , and the resettlement of ethnic NORP living in GPE and GPE . Section V of ORG the LAW stipulated that ORG was in charge of compensating those NORP citizens who , following the mandatory resettlement had to abandon their possessions in the rural areas which were transferred to GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171482","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MAMEDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises ( GUPs , MUPs ) and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158883","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NOREIKIEN\u0116 AND NOREIKA v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON , GPE . They are wife and husband .","In DATE ORG of GPE ( ORG rajono Karm\u0117lavos apylink\u0117s tarnyba ) assigned a plot of land measuring QUANTITY to the first applicant ( hereinafter \u201c the land \u201d ) , PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) , for individual farming . In DATE ORG authorised her to buy the land for a nominal price of CARDINAL \u201c single - use investment vouchers \u201d ( investiciniai \u010dekiai ) and CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 approximately CARDINAL.CARDINAL euro ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE the first applicant signed a land purchase agreement with ORG to acquire the land from the ORG . The plot was subsequently registered in ORG in the joint names of both applicants .","NORP In DATE a third party , V.A. , brought a civil claim against ORG and the both applicants , seeking restoration of his ownership rights to the land . He argued that a request for restitution of property had already been submitted in DATE , so the land had been assigned and later sold to the first applicant unlawfully .","On DATE ORG ( ORG rajono apylink\u0117s teismas ) allowed ORG claim . It held that the first applicant had been assigned the land unlawfully because the local authorities had an obligation to resolve restitution claims before assigning plots to new owners , and because she did not fulfil the legal criteria for being assigned land . Applying the principle of priority of former ORG rights , the court annulled the administrative decisions assigning the land to the first applicant and the land purchase agreement , and ordered ORG to return LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to the applicants .","On DATE the ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s decision and dismissed the civil claim . V.A. lodged a cassation appeal . On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the disputed decision and remitted the case to ORG for re - examination .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance decision of DATE and allowed ORG claim .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the ORG cassation appeal , on the grounds that it did not raise any important legal issues ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165440","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"BAKKE v. NORWAY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicants , PERSON ( A ) and PERSON ( B ) , are NORP nationals , born in DATE , respectively , and living in GPE . A is the mother of C , a NORP national born in DATE who was found dead in her apartment on DATE , and B is the grandmother of C. The applicants are represented before the ORG by PERSON PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156006","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KHOROSHENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus K\u016bris;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a life sentence in the town of NORP , Perm Region .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of banditry , robbery and aggravated murder .","DATE , the date of his arrest , and DATE the applicant was held in various remand prisons in GPE , GPE , PERSON and GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death . The judgment became final on DATE .","From DATE to DATE the applicant was held in remand prison no . CARDINAL in GPE . Following his conviction he was held in a special cell for prisoners awaiting the implementation of their death sentence .","On DATE the President of GPE commuted the applicant \u2019s death sentence to life imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to a special - regime correctional colony for life prisoners in GPE , and on DATE he began serving DATE of his sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of LAW of LAW . The applicant fell within the exception from the general rule of that legal provision , in that DATE of his sentence were calculated from the date of his placement in the special - regime correctional colony , rather than from the date of his initial arrest in DATE . The exception applied only to those prisoners whose conduct during their detention on remand had been in breach of the rules ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant later unsuccessfully challenged this rule before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","For DATE the applicant was held under a strict regime of imprisonment , governed by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , on expiry of DATE of his sentence , the applicant \u2019s prison regime was changed from a strict regime to an ordinary regime , governed by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","At the time of his arrest on DATE the applicant was married to PERSON and had a DATE son . His remaining family consisted of his parents , O. and A. , his brother PERSON . and his grandmother PERSON According to the applicant , his extended family numbered CARDINAL people in total , and after his arrest he wished to maintain contact with all of them .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was not allowed to see his family at all , with the exception of CARDINAL visit by his wife in DATE following the first - instance judgment in the criminal case against him in DATE .","In DATE , following the first - instance judgment in his criminal case , the applicant \u2019s wife divorced him , on her initiative .","The applicant submitted that he had been allowed to start corresponding with the outside world following the entry into force of LAW in DATE . He then reestablished contact with all of his family members and his former wife .","During this period the applicant was allowed to have CARDINAL short - term visit from his relatives DATE . The visits lasted DATE . During the meetings the applicant communicated with his visitors via a glass partition or through metal bars , under conditions which allowed no physical contact . A warden listened in to the conversations with his visitors .","NORP The applicant used his right to short - term visits as frequently as possible , and received visits from his mother , his father and his brother . His friends also tried to visit the applicant , but this was not authorised by the prison administration . Long - term family visits during DATE of his sentence were not allowed .","According to the applicant , due to the severity of the restrictions on his contacts with the outside world he lost contact with some of his family members and with his own son , whom he had not seen for DATE . The applicant \u2019s son refuses to see the applicant , but has agreed to help him financially .","After the applicant \u2019s change of regime on DATE , he became entitled to long - term family visits in addition to short - term visits . The applicant availed himself of each subsequent opportunity to have a long - term visit , and saw his family members once DATE : once in DATE , twice in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . On each of these occasions the visit was for the authorised maximum duration of DATE , except for CARDINAL visit in DATE . This visit was interrupted at the initiative of the applicant and his mother , who had to catch her train and leave earlier . The applicant \u2019s brother also attended these visits . The visits lasted no more than TIME and his privacy was respected throughout . The applicant \u2019s father participated in the short - term visits until DATE , but could not come for the long - term visits which started in DATE on account of his health .","The Government submitted that , in total , the applicant had CARDINAL short - term visits and CARDINAL long - term visits during his detention in the special - regime correction colony . None of the applicant \u2019s respective requests for a visit was refused .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , challenging the constitutionality of the tenyear ban on long - term family visits for convicts sentenced to life imprisonment as contained in LAW . He alleged , in particular , that the provision in question had been discriminatory and breached his right to respect for private and family life .","ORG declared the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL inadmissible , having ruled as follows :","\u201c ... Nor do the provisions of LAW and LAW on LAW breach [ the applicant \u2019s ] constitutional rights .","LAW ... allows for the possibility of restricting human and civil rights by federal law , as a means of protecting the basis of the constitutional regime , morality , health , the rights and lawful interests of others , [ and ] securing the defence of the country and ORG security . Such restrictions may be linked , in particular , with the application of criminal sanctions against offenders , in the form of imprisonment and other measures related to punishment .","... Article CARDINAL ( o ) of the LAW empowers the federal legislature to provide for restrictive measures of this type in relation to convicted persons on whom a sentence has been imposed , which , as follows from LAW ... consist , by their very nature , in deprivation or restriction of the convict \u2019s rights and freedoms , as provided by law . At the same time , both the legislature , in establishing liability for a crime , and the law - enforcement agencies , in deciding on its application to an offender , are required to take into account the nature of the crime , the danger posed by it to the values defended by LAW and the criminal law , its seriousness , its causes and other circumstances in which the crime was committed , and also information about the offender , provided that regulation by those institutions , and their application , correspond to the constitutional principles of legal liability and guarantees to the individual in his or her public relations with the ORG .","As ORG noted in [ its previous case - law ... ] , the legislative regulation of criminal liability and punishment without taking into account the offender \u2019s personality and other objective and reasonable circumstances which facilitate an appropriate assessment of the social danger posed by the criminal act itself and by the offender , and the application of identical sanctions for crimes that pose varying degrees of social danger , without taking into account the offender \u2019s degree of participation in the crime , his or her conduct subsequent to the crime and in serving a sentence where that has already been imposed , and other [ relevant ] factors , would both be contrary to the constitutional prohibition on discrimination and the principles of fairness and humanism expressed in LAW .","In setting out criminal sanctions with a range of restrictions , corresponding to the gravity of the crime committed by the convict and the sentence imposed , and also in determining the manner in which that sentence is to be served , the legislature must proceed on the basis that convicts enjoy , as a whole , the same rights and freedoms as other citizens , with the exceptions determined by their individual personalities and the offences committed by them . The conditions for serving sentences , as laid down both in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW and in a range of other provisions of that Code , are intended to tailor sentences to individual offenders and differentiate sanctions and their application , and to create the preconditions for achieving the aims of punishment , which , as stated in LAW , are the restoration of justice , reform of the offender and the prevention of new crimes ... \u201d","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , this time challenging LAW of LAW , in so far as this provision distinguished CARDINAL categories of detainees serving their sentence in special - regime GPE on the basis of whether or not they had previously breached prison rules while in their detention on remand and had been punished by solitary confinement . For those who had not previously breached prison rules and had not been punished by solitary confinement , the initial DATE period of the strict - regime conditions started running from the date of their initial arrest and detention . For those who had previously breached prison rules and been punished by solitary confinement , the DATE period under strictregime conditions began from the date of their arrival in a specialregime correctional colony . The applicant argued that this provision was unconstitutional and discriminatory . On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s second complaint against the above - mentioned provision inadmissible , ruling as follows :","\u201c ... the [ above - mentioned ] provision does not violate the rights of [ the applicant ] .","LAW allows for the possibility of restricting human and civil rights by federal law as a means of protecting the fundamental principles of the constitutional system , morality , health , the rights and lawful interests of others , [ and ] ensuring the defence of the country and ORG security . Such restrictions may be linked to the application of criminal sanctions against offenders in the form of coercion by the ORG , the distinctive feature of which is that , throughout its execution , certain of the offender \u2019s his rights and freedoms are withdrawn and specific obligations are imposed .","At the same time , the restrictions imposed on a convicted person \u2019s rights and freedoms shall correspond to the crime committed and to his or her personality . This requirement is also compulsory in respect of cases where [ the authorities have punished ] persons who breached the legally established regime in the course of the criminal proceedings or [ already ] while serving their sentence .","The provision of LAW of LAW [ in so far as it includes the contested rules ] is intended to tailor sentences to individual offenders and to differentiate the conditions for serving sentences , and to create the preconditions for achieving the aims of punishment , which , as stated in LAW , are the restoration of justice , reform of the offender and the prevention of new crimes .","If , in the applicant \u2019s opinion , his rights were violated by the relevant actions or decisions of the law - enforcement bodies when imposing a sanction in the form of a placement in a solitary confinement , during his transfer from a remand prison to a correctional colony or in calculating the term of his detention under the strict regime , he is entitled to appeal against them in court ... \u201d","The applicant made attempts to bring civil claims against the prosecutor \u2019s office and the lawyer who defended him in the course of the criminal proceedings . The applicant challenged in court the prosecutor \u2019s refusal to institute criminal proceedings and the ORG \u2019s failure to act on his complaints . He also lodged a number of complaints with ORG . All of these proceedings proved unsuccessful ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153714","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"M\u0102L\u0102ESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Ploie\u015fti . He was represented before ORG by Ms PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","At the time of the events giving rise to the present application , the applicant was a judge at ORG , in GPE .","On DATE P.C. informed ORG of ORG that on DATE the applicant had requested money from him as a reward for having drafted a judgment that he had delivered in a civil lawsuit won by GPE According to GPE \u2019s statements , the applicant asked for CARDINAL NORP lei ( ROL ) in order to fill up the fuel tank of his car . GPE was expected to pay the money DATE .","On DATE , the prosecutor supplied the money to GPE in the form of CARDINAL banknotes of ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL each . They were marked with the inscription \u201c undue benefits \u201d ( foloase necuvenite ) in a special ink . The prosecutor also gave authorisation for the recording of conversations between the applicant and GPE In so doing , he relied on LAW ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) which , in urgent cases , allows the interception of communications without a judge \u2019s order .","On DATE at TIME GPE went to the applicant \u2019s office fitted with an audio - video recorder . The applicant greeted GPE and asked him if \u201c that paper had been good \u201d ( which the prosecutor explained as referring to the court judgment delivered by the applicant ) . He accepted the money from GPE , confirmed that the amount was correct , and then put the banknotes in his pocket .","After GPE had left , the prosecutor and a police officer entered the applicant \u2019s office and found the applicant sitting at his desk . The applicant admitted having received money from GPE and , at the prosecutor \u2019s request , took the notes out of his pocket and handed them to the prosecutor . CARDINAL banknotes of ROL CARDINAL each were found , bearing the markings in special ink inscribed by the prosecutor beforehand . The remaining CARDINAL banknotes were found in GPE \u2019s pocket . He explained that he had not handed them over to the applicant because the latter had been in a hurry to get the money from him and see him out of the office .","On DATE the prosecutor instituted a criminal prosecution against the applicant ( \u00eenceperea urm\u0103ririi penale ) and informed the applicant , in the presence of his counsel , of the charges brought against him . The applicant gave a statement . He admitted having received the money , but denied having asked GPE for anything . He pointed out that GPE had come to his office uninvited .","On DATE the Ploie\u015fti Court of Appeal reaffirmed the prosecutor \u2019s authorisation for the interception of conversations .","The applicant was interviewed again by the prosecutor on DATE and was brought face to face with GPE The court clerk who typed the judgments delivered by the applicant was interviewed by the prosecutor . She confirmed that on DATE , while she was working with the applicant , GPE had entered the applicant \u2019s office and had asked if his judgment had been typed . The court clerk left the applicant \u2019s office and was unable to say how the conversation between the judge and GPE had gone . DATE , the applicant told her that they should type out GPE \u2019s court judgment , but then they both realised that the judgment had been drafted that TIME , before GPE \u2019s visit .","The court clerk who had been present during the applicant \u2019s court hearing which had resulted in the judgment favourable to GPE declared that on DATE , after drafting the judgment , the applicant had brought the case file to her office , and that later on DATE he had returned with GPE and had asked her to provide the latter with a copy of the judgment .","On DATE the Ploie\u015fti Court of Appeal sitting in private , in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant , affirmed that the transcripts of the recorded conversations constituted relevant evidence in the case ( procedure under ORG and QUANTITY of the ORG ) and accepted their addition to the file . The transcripts were attached to the court \u2019s report .","On DATE the prosecutor committed the applicant for trial before ORG on the charge of having received undue benefits ( primirea de foloase necuvenite ) .","On DATE the High Court of Cassation and ORG , acting at the applicant \u2019s request , transferred the case to ORG .","On DATE ORG heard testimony from the applicant . He maintained that he had not requested any sum of money from GPE and had not expected to receive money from him either . He explained that when the prosecutor had entered his office he had been about to go out to find GPE and return the money to him .","At the same hearing the applicant argued that the recording of conversations and the marking of the banknotes by the prosecutor constituted elements of the preliminary investigation ( acte premerg\u0103toare ) and that as such they had been unlawfully obtained and could therefore not be used as evidence in the file .","GPE also gave a statement before the court . The CARDINAL court clerks could not be questioned as they were absent for personal reasons from the court hearings . The defence counsel agreed that the witness statements given before the prosecutor could be read in open court .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of having received undue benefits and was given a DATE suspended sentence . The court established the facts based on the transcripts of the conversations , testimony given by the CARDINAL court clerks before the prosecutor , and GPE \u2019s and the applicant \u2019s statements .","The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the evidence on the grounds that the prosecutor had respected the procedure provided for by the ORG in the matter and that the court had authorised the recordings and their utilisation in the case .","The applicant appealed against the judgment delivered by ORG .","On DATE ORG and ORG , in the presence of the parties , listened to the recordings of the conversations . At the same hearing , the applicant contested some parts of the conversations \u2012 pointing out that they did not correspond to the transcripts \u2012 and asked for the tapes to be examined by an expert in order to establish whether they had been tampered with . He also reiterated his complaint as to the unlawfulness of the evidence . Lastly , he contended that there was not sufficient evidence in the file to secure his conviction and that there were significant inconsistencies between GPE \u2019s various statements during the proceedings .","In a final decision delivered DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and , based on the evidence in the file , upheld the judgment delivered by ORG as well as its reasoning .","ORG reiterated that the legality of the evidence had been correctly examined , at the applicant \u2019s request , by the first - instance court . It also found the evidence sufficient to establish that the applicant had requested and received money from GPE It furthermore concluded that \u2012 even if it could not be proven that there had been discussions whereby the applicant could have requested money from GPE \u2012 the fact that the applicant had accepted money proved his intent to commit the crime .","The legislation concerning interception of conversations in force at the relevant time and its evolution after DATE is described in PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","Under LAW it is a punishable act for a public servant to receive money or other undue benefits for a task he has carried out during the exercise of his duty ( LAW . LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL on the prevention , discovery and punishment of acts of corruption ) provides for an aggravating factor if the above crime is committed by a judge ( DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184112","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"BAYSAL v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He was represented before the Court by Mr C. \u00c7al\u0131\u015f , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant , a military officer in the NORP army , was dismissed in DATE for disciplinary reasons . Subsequently , he initiated proceedings before ORG to have the decision regarding his dismissal annulled .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action ( decision no . CARDINAL E , CARDINAL K ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s rectification request was rejected by ORG . This decision was served on him on DATE .","A description of the domestic law at the material time may be found in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) , and PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . PERSON , CARDINAL DATE ) .","Following a referendum held on DATE , PERSON no . CARDINAL was passed . According to this new law , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW were repealed and ORG was abolished . Furthermore , the following paragraph was added to LAW :","\u201c ... No military courts shall be formed other than disciplinary courts . However , in a state of war , military courts may be formed with jurisdiction to try offences committed by military personnel in relation to their duties . \u201d","On DATE Law no . DATE was enacted ; it was published in ORG on DATE . LAW no . DATE amends LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) to state that all applicants who currently have a pending application before ORG concerning the independence and impartiality of ORG may request a retrial before ORG within DATE of notification of the ORG \u2019s inadmissibility decision on account of non - exhaustion of domestic remedies ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162200","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF NOVIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["This application was lodged on DATE by PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicant is represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE the applicant staged a demonstration in front of ORG in GPE , holding a poster that read \u201c Psychiatry kills our children on our taxes \u201d . According to her , it was a solo static demonstration ( \u043e\u0434\u0438\u043d\u043e\u0447\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043f\u0438\u043a\u0435\u0442\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d below ) and , as such , fell outside the statutory requirement to give prior notification to the competent public authority . Moreover , she took care to position herself at a distance from other people who were also present in front of ORG .","After TIME , the applicant was approached by police officers , who then took her to the district police station . An arrest record was compiled ; the reasons for her arrest are unclear .","According to the applicant , she spent TIME in the police station and was then allowed to leave .","The Government submitted to the ORG a report issued on DATE by the senior officer on - duty , PERSON . The report stated that the applicant and CARDINAL other people ( including GPE , NORP S. ) had been present at TIME in front of ORG , holding posters that read \u201c Attention ! Psychiatry kills . MONEY of public funds spent on the destruction of lives \u201d , \u201c Do not force taxpayers to pay for psychiatrists\u2019 systematic extermination of NORP \u201d , \u201c Psychiatrists need walls to hide their crimes \u201d and other such statements . The ORG also submitted to the ORG copies of documents relating to administrative offence proceedings against A. , NORP S.","As for the applicant , the administrative offence record states that she was accused of \u201c taking part , together with other citizens , in a demonstration in respect of which no prior notification had been provided to the public authorities \u201d . Her actions were classified under LAW of GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the CAO \u201d ) , which regulates the penalties applied to violations of the regulations on public events set out in , inter alia , LAW .","Officer PERSON submitted a written report to his hierarchical superior indicating that the applicant \u201c had been arrested and taken to the police station for violating the regulations on public gatherings , namely LAW of the ORG \u201d .","According to the Government , on DATE the case against the applicant was received by the justice of the peace of LOC , who on DATE scheduled a hearing for DATE . According to the applicant , she was not informed of the hearing date until it was too late . Thus , she made no written or oral submissions to the court .","Having examined the file , on DATE the judge considered that the applicant had been apprised of the hearing but had refused to sign the summons . The court decided to proceed with the case in her absence and held that she had been afforded but had not used an adequate opportunity to make written or oral submissions . On DATE , the judge found the applicant guilty under LAW of the ORG and imposed a fine of MONEY ( RUB ) , which was at the time equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) .","Referring to the arrest record , the offence record and PERSON \u2019s report ( see above ) , the court considered that the applicant had participated in a demonstration after which CARDINAL people and the applicant had been arrested . In the court \u2019s view , the applicant \u2019s behaviour amounted to participation in a public event requiring prior notification . The justice of the peace then held as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant \u2019s ] actions constitute a violation of the regulations on static demonstrations in that no notification had been made [ to the competent authority ] about the possibility of staging a demonstration ... Thus , this demonstration was held without legal grounds . The court takes into account that the applicant \u2019s presence next to the object being picketed , together with other people , directly discloses the expression of opinions and attitudes , and thus takes the form of a group public event , namely a static demonstration . \u201d","The applicant sought re - examination of the case on appeal by ORG of GPE . On DATE the court heard the applicant and upheld the judgment of the justice of the peace , concluding that the applicant had taken part in a public event held without prior notification to the competent authority ; on DATE she had been apprised of the hearing to be held before the justice of the peace but had failed to sign the summons .","On DATE the Deputy President of ORG upheld ORG decision on supervisory review .","This application was lodged on CARDINAL DATE by PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE the applicant staged a solo demonstration in front of the ORG building . He was holding a poster showing people ( apparently , officials he suspected of corruption ) behind bars , and saying \u201c They should be found accountable ! \u201d and \u201c Mr Boos ! PERSON \u2019s residents are waiting for you to solicit the President ! \u201d . Mr S. , a journalist , was passing by and filmed the demonstration and the arrival of the police .","The applicant was arrested by the police and taken to the police station . He remained there for TIME and was then allowed to leave . No administrative offence proceedings were instituted against him .","According to reports subsequently made by the arresting officers , the applicant had not had an identity document on him and had agreed to accompany them to the police station in order to have his identity verified and to have an administrative record compiled .","The applicant brought civil proceedings seeking RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL as compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage caused by the authorities\u2019 actions . The applicant referred to LAW .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG of GPE acknowledged that the taking of the applicant to the police station and his retention there had been unlawful . The court held as follows :","\u201c Following the escorting of [ the applicant ] to the police station no administrative offence case was opened ... [ Mr S. ] testified that the defendant had shown his identity document and had not expressed his consent to go with the police to the police station ... The police officers acted unlawfully when escorting the applicant to the police station ... \u201d","The court awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage ( approximately EUR CARDINAL at the time ) . It dismissed his claim concerning the alleged destruction of the poster by the police and made no separate findings relating to his freedom of expression .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment .","This application was lodged on DATE by PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE in GPE .","On DATE , when PERSON was visiting the village of GPE , the applicant staged a demonstration , standing at some distance from a road close to the village and holding a poster reading \u201c Mr GPE ! In the GPE region they disregard your Decree on social assistance to families . ORG disregards its obligations to issue housing certificates ! \u201d","According to the applicant , police officers approached him and ordered him to go to another place where journalists were filming . He arrived there and displayed his poster . He was approached by people in plain clothes who ordered the police to take him to the police station . The police complied . After TIME in the police station , the applicant was free to leave .","The police drew up a record of the administrative escorting in respect of the applicant .","The applicant was accused of disorderly behaviour on account of using foul language in a public place on DATE . On DATE a senior police officer found him guilty under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and imposed a fine of RUB CARDINAL on him . On DATE the ORG overruled the conviction because the senior police officer had not heard evidence from the applicant . The court then discontinued the case owing to the expiry of the time - limit for prosecution . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","The applicant brought civil proceedings challenging the actions of the police in respect of him . On DATE ORG dismissed his claims . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal . The appeal court noted that the courts dealing with the administrative offence case had not determined whether the applicant had committed the impugned action ( using foul language ) and whether he had committed an offence , but had simply discontinued the case on procedural grounds . The appeal court concluded that the above \u201c did not disclose any unlawfulness \u201d on the part of the law - enforcement officers , while the applicant had not substantiated , in the current case , that their actions had violated or otherwise impeded the exercise of his protected rights or freedoms .","This application was lodged on DATE by PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","At TIME on DATE the applicant staged a solo demonstration at a bus stop . He was holding a poster which read \u201c The ORG is not for sale \u2013 it is a piece of architecture ! \u201d . After TIME CARDINAL passers - by stopped and looked at him and his poster .","It appears that soon thereafter CARDINAL police officers approached and warned those present that a meeting required prior notification to the authorities . The passers - by went away .","It appears from a video recording submitted by the applicant that CARDINAL of the police officers refused to listen to the applicant \u2019s explanations and told him that he would be taken to the police station . The applicant was then placed in a police car and taken to the police station . He was accused of holding a public event without giving prior notice .","According to the ORG , the applicant had staged a public meeting first on the road and then on the pavement near a bus stop . The police ORG written reports indicated that the applicant had called passers - by to approach and discuss with him the topic of the event . The police decided to apply the escort procedure ( \u0434\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) to the applicant because it was necessary to put an end to the administrative offence and because an administrative offence record could not be compiled on the spot since the applicant had no identity document on him . The applicant agreed to go with the police to the police station .","On DATE a justice of the peace convicted the applicant under LAW of the ORG . The court considered that the applicant had held a public event in the form of a meeting ( \u043c\u0438\u0442\u0438\u043d\u0433 ) ; CARDINAL people had gathered but then dispersed after a warning from a police officer . The justice of the peace sentenced the applicant to a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL at the time ) , noting that the applicant had committed an offence that was similar to another one for which he had already been convicted DATE . The justice of the peace warned the applicant that his failure to pay the fine would constitute an administrative offence under LAW , which was punishable by a fine of double the amount or CARDINAL days\u2019 detention .","The applicant appealed , arguing that the court had failed to take into account his financial situation when imposing a high fine .","On DATE the ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal . The appeal court dismissed the argument concerning the amount of the fine by stating that it was the minimum statutory amount prescribed by LAW ORG .","In DATE the justice of the peace allowed the applicant to pay the fine in CARDINAL DATE instalments .","This application was lodged on DATE by PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","At TIME on DATE the applicant held a solo demonstration in front of ORG in GPE , to express his disagreement with the recent decision to close the university . The applicant was holding a poster that read \u201c To close the university is to commit a crime \u201d .","Mr A. was holding a demonstration on the other side of the road , making similar claims . He was holding a poster saying \u201c PERSON order no . CARDINAL of DATE and find its authors liable \u201d . According to the applicant , he was standing QUANTITY away . The Government submitted that the applicant and A. were at \u201c visual distance from each other \u201d .","Shortly after starting his demonstration , the applicant was approached by a police officer who warned him that he was in breach of LAW ORG . He then escorted the applicant to the police station . It appears that PERSON was also taken to the police station . According to the Government , it was not possible to draw up an administrative offence record on the spot because the applicant had no identity document on him .","The applicant was allowed to leave the police station after TIME .","In GPE , Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL-FZ of DATE set the minimum distance between solo demonstrators at QUANTITY .","On DATE a justice of the peace held a hearing . A. stated that he knew the applicant ; without any concerted plan , they had both gone to the university to stage solo demonstrations ; the applicant had not prepared his own poster and so had taken CARDINAL of A. \u2019s posters ; they had placed themselves at a distance of QUANTITY from each other .","On DATE , the justice of the peace convicted the applicant under LAW of the ORG ( organisation and holding of a public event without prior notification ) and imposed a fine of RUB CARDINAL on him . On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment . The courts considered that the applicant and ORG had held a public static demonstration ( common logistical organisation , timing and claims disclosing a common goal ) , which by law required them to notify the local authorities in advance . The courts concluded that the offence impinged upon public order and public security , \u201c having a significant adverse impact on protected public relations \u201d . According to the Government , the applicant was a \u201c participant \u201d in a demonstration with A.","It appears that on DATE ORG reviewed the case and reduced the fine to RUB CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158200","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KUDREVI\u010cIUS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus K\u016bris;Elisabeth Steiner;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Josep Casadevall;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The first applicant , Mr Ar\u016bnas Kudrevi\u010dius ( hereinafter \u201c PERSON ) , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE region ; the second applicant , Mr Bronius Markauskas ( hereinafter \u201c B.M. \u201d ) , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE region ; the third applicant , PERSON PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c GPE \u201d ) , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE ; the fourth applicant , Mr PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c PERSON \u201d ) , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , LOC ; and the fifth applicant , PERSON PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c V.M. \u201d ) , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , Vilkavi\u0161kis region .","On DATE a group of farmers held a demonstration in front of the Seimas ( ORG ) building to protest about the situation in the agricultural sector with regard to a fall in wholesale prices for various agricultural products and the lack of subsidies for their production , demanding that the ORG take action . On DATE ORG passed a resolution on reinforcing the competitiveness of agriculture , providing for an increase in subsidies for the agricultural sector . According to the applicants , this resolution was not implemented by the government .","On DATE ORG ( LOC \u016bkio r\u016bmai ) , an organisation established to represent the interests of farmers , met to discuss possible solutions to the issues . If no positive changes in legal regulation were forthcoming , the measures foreseen included addressing complaints to the administrative courts . In the meantime , it was decided to organise protests , in CARDINAL different locations next to major highways ( prie magistralini\u0173 keli\u0173 ) , to draw attention to the problems in the agricultural sector .","In DATE the PERSON municipality issued a permit to hold peaceful assemblies in GPE town \u201c near the marketplace \u201d from TIME to QUANTITY p.m. on CARDINAL - CARDINAL DATE , from TIME on CARDINAL DATE and from TIME on DATE . The organisers had been warned about possible liability under LAW as well as under LAW , including LAW latter ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the Government , similar permits , accompanied by the same warnings , were issued for DATE , DATE and DATE DATE .","On DATE the LOC municipality issued a permit to hold a demonstration \u201c at the car park at QUANTITY of the FAC highway and next to that highway \u201d . The farmers were also authorised to display agricultural machineries for DATE from DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the organisers of the gathering were informed about possible liability under LAW as well as under LAW , including LAW latter .","On DATE the Klaip\u0117da municipality issued a permit to hold an assembly in an \u201c area in GPE village next to , but not closer than QUANTITY from , the GPE - Klaip\u0117da highway \u201d from TIME to QUANTITY p.m. on DATE . The permit specified that it granted the right to organise a peaceful assembly in compliance with the provisions set forth , inter alia , in the LAW and in ORG . It was also indicated therein that the organisers and the participants were to observe the laws and to adhere to any orders from the authorities and the police ; failure to do so could engage their administrative or criminal liability . The second applicant , PERSON , who was indicated as one of the organisers of the gathering , signed a receipt for the notification of the permit .","The PERSON police received information about the LAW possible intention to overstep the limits established by the permits . PERSON was therefore contacted by telephone and a meeting with him was organised in order to avoid unlawful acts during the demonstrations .","The demonstrations started on DATE . The farmers gathered in the designated areas .","On DATE the farmers blocked and continued to demonstrate on the roads next to GPE , on the GPE - Klaip\u0117da highway , at the QUANTITY of the Panev\u0117\u017eys - Pasvalys - Riga highway , and at the QUANTITY of FAC .","The Government underlined that the police had not received any prior official notification of the ORG intention to block the CARDINAL major roads of the country . They described as follows the behaviour of the farmers and of the applicants during the demonstrations :","( a ) On DATE at TIME a group of CARDINAL people moved onto the GPE - Klaip\u0117da highway and remained standing there , thus stopping the traffic .","( b ) On DATE at TIME a group of CARDINAL people moved onto the PERSON - Pasvalys - GPE highway and remained standing there , thus stopping the traffic . Such blockage continued until CARDINAL noon on DATE . The first applicant encouraged the demonstrators to move from the car park onto the highway .","( c ) On DATE at TIME a group of CARDINAL people moved onto the FAC and kept standing there , thus stopping the traffic . In addition , on DATE applicants drove tractors onto the highway and left them standing there . Such blockage continued until TIME on CARDINAL DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the farmers continued negotiations with the government . DATE , following a successful outcome to those negotiations , the farmers stopped blocking the roads .","The parties disagreed as to the extent of the disruption to traffic created by the farmers\u2019 demonstrations .","According to the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , knowing that blockages were likely to occur , the police had prepared alternative road itineraries in the vicinity of the places where the demonstrations were held , so that the roadblocks would not disrupt the flow of goods . Indeed , on DATE in question the latter had been \u201c even better than usual \u201d . This could be proven by the \u201c data from posts where the roadblocks took place \u201d .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE addressed to the applicants\u2019 lawyer , ORG indicated that several queues of lorries ( ranging from CARDINAL to QUANTITY ) had formed from CARDINAL until DATE in both directions in the proximity of the Kalvarija border crossing between GPE and GPE . According to the same letter , \u201c there were no queues of passenger cars . \u201d Moreover , no queues had formed at the GPE border post ( another post on the NORP - Polish border ) .","The Government first observed that the GPE - Klaip\u0117da highway was the main trunk road connecting the CARDINAL biggest cities in the country , while the PERSON - Pasvalys - GPE highway ( otherwise known as ORG ) and the FAC were transitional trunk roads used to enter and leave the country . According to the Government , all CARDINAL roads were blocked at locations next to the customs post for TIME .","The Government alleged , in particular , that owing to the blocking of the Kaunas - Marijampol\u0117 - Suvalkai highway , which prevented vehicles from passing through the border control station , rows of heavy goods vehicles and cars formed in GPE and GPE at the GPE border crossing . The heavy goods vehicles were forced to drive along other routes in order to avoid traffic jams . As the functioning of the PERSON customs post was disturbed , the GPE territorial customs authority was obliged to re - allocate human resources as well as to prepare for a possible re - organisation of activities with ORG and the NORP customs . As a consequence , the GPE territorial customs authority incurred additional costs ; however , the concrete material damage had not been calculated .","According to a report of the GPE police , the road was blocked on DATE . The lorries returning to GPE from GPE were directed by the police to a car park at the GPE border crossing . At TIME the lorry drivers approached the farmers . They demanded an end to the roadblocks , with the threat of using physical force . The police urged the parties to the conflict to calm down and to wait for the results of the negotiations between the farmers and the Prime Minister . According to the Government , the farmers and the lorry drivers had a few arguments , but more serious confrontations were avoided . At TIME the farmers received a telephone call about the positive outcome of the negotiations and moved CARDINAL tractor off the road . The traffic then resumed in both directions .","The Government also noted that , owing to the blocking of the GPE - Riga highway on CARDINAL DATE from CARDINAL until TIME , heavy goods vehicles could not cross the border and rows of traffic of QUANTITY respectively appeared in both directions . Cars took diversions along a gravel road .","On DATE the NORP police issued a certificate stating that on DATE the farmers had held a demonstration in the car park at the QUANTITY of the Panev\u0117\u017eys - Pasvalys - Riga highway . On DATE at around midday the farmers had gone onto the highway and had stopped the traffic . They had only allowed through passenger vehicles and vehicles carrying dangerous substances . Vehicles that carried goods and cars were allowed to go through CARDINAL at a time on each side of the road once every hour . In order to improve the situation , the police had attempted to let the traffic bypass the blockade through neighbouring villages . However , owing to the poor condition of those neighbouring roads , not all lorries that carried goods were able to drive on them and they had to remain on the highway until the farmers had left . Some lorries became stuck in sand and special machinery was necessary to pull them out . The police indicated that the farmers had unblocked the highway at TIME on CARDINAL DATE .","As can be seen from the documents submitted to the ORG , in DATE and DATE CARDINAL logistics companies informed the police and PERSON , ORG , that they had sustained pecuniary damage in the sum of CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as a result of the roadblocks during the farmers\u2019 demonstrations . The companies stated that they would institute court proceedings in respect of those claims .","The Government alleged that notwithstanding the fact that CARDINAL claim for pecuniary damage was ultimately lodged ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , CARDINAL carrier company incurred material loss owing to the disruption of traffic . As submitted by PERSON , PERSON incurred damage amounting to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) ; PERSON incurred damage amounting to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) ; and ORG incurred damage amounting to ORG ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . Moreover , in a letter of CARDINAL DATE the company ORG indicated that the loss incurred owing to the roadblocks amounted to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","Pre - trial investigations against the applicants and a number of other persons , on suspicion of having caused a riot , were initiated . In DATE PERSON , V.M. , GPE and GPE were ordered not to leave their places of residence . That measure was lifted in DATE .","On DATE the police imposed a fine of LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) on farmer GPE According to the applicants , it was established in the police record relating to the fine that on CARDINAL DATE had taken the farmers to block the LANGUAGE - Marijampol\u0117 - Suvalkai highway in GPE municipality ; he had walked in the middle of the road , pushing a cart in front of him , thus obstructing the traffic . By such actions GPE had breach paragraph CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and thus committed an administrative law violation , as provided for in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The Government noted that the criminal proceedings against DATE were discontinued on DATE as he had not organised or provoked a gathering to seriously breach public order ; his act ( walking in the middle of the road pushing a cart in front of him ) was not considered to fall under LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . The Government further noted that the criminal proceedings had been discontinued on similar grounds in respect of CARDINAL other persons . In respect of a fourth person the criminal prosecution was discontinued owing to his immunity as a Member of ORG .","On DATE an indictment was laid before the courts . PERSON and PERSON were accused of incitement to rioting under LAW .","The prosecutor noted that PERSON had taken part in the ORG meeting of CARDINAL DATE , at which the farmers had decided to hold demonstrations near major highways on DATE and , should the government not satisfy their requests by TIME on DATE , to blockade those highways . On DATE PERSON had told the farmers to blockade the roads on DATE As a result , at CARDINAL p.m. on that date around CARDINAL farmers had gone onto the GPE - Klaip\u0117da highway . The farmers had refused to obey police requests not to stand on the road . Consequently , traffic had been blocked until TIME on CARDINAL May. Traffic jams had occurred on neighbouring roads and road transport in the region had become impossible .","With regard to PERSON , the prosecutor claimed that he had also incited the farmers to blockade the highway . As a result , at TIME on CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL people had gone onto the PERSON - Pasvalys - GPE highway , refusing to obey police orders not to block the highway . The road had remained blocked until TIME on DATE The roads in the vicinity had become clogged . The normal functioning of the PERSON border control post had been disrupted .","V.M. , GPE and GPE were accused of a serious breach of public order during the riot , under LAW . The prosecutor maintained that on DATE , at QUANTITY , CARDINAL people had gone onto the FAC at the QUANTITY . At CARDINAL p.m. the aforementioned applicants had driven onto the highway with CARDINAL tractors and had left the tractors on the carriageway . The CARDINAL applicants had refused to follow police instructions not to breach public order and not to leave the tractors on the road . The tractors had remained on the road until TIME on CARDINAL DATE . As a result , the highway had been blocked from the eighty - fourth to the QUANTITY . Due to the resulting increase of traffic on neighbouring roads , congestion had built up and road transport in the region had come to a halt . The normal functioning of the GPE and GPE border control posts had been disrupted .","Within the criminal proceedings , a logistics company brought a civil claim against PERSON , as the person who had incited the farmers to block the PERSON - Pasvalys - GPE highway , seeking damages of LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for the loss allegedly incurred by it owing to the blockading of that road .","Several hearings , during which a number of witnesses testified , took place before GPE .","On DATE the Kaunas ORG found the applicants guilty of having incited riots or having participated in them , under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","In convicting PERSON , ORG relied on video recordings of the events , documentary evidence and the testimony of CARDINAL witness . The court concluded that PERSON had organised a gathering with the aim of seriously breaching public order , namely by rioting . PERSON had been one of the leaders of the farmers\u2019 meeting on DATE , at which the farmers had decided to attempt to achieve their goals by organising protests next to major highways . ORG noted that the second applicant had coordinated the actions of the farmers and as a consequence , on CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL people had gone to the Vilnius - Klaip\u0117da highway and had blocked it . As a result , traffic had been blocked until DATE . The ensuing serious breach of public order had been deliberate and had to be characterised as a riot . ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s claim that he and other farmers had acted out of necessity because the roadblock had been their last opportunity to draw the government \u2019s attention to their problems . The farmers had had an alternative , namely , they could have brought complaints before the administrative courts . The farmers had themselves mentioned that alternative during the meeting of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG further noted that a person who created a dangerous situation by his or her actions could only rely on the defence of necessity when a dangerous situation arose through negligence ( LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , the actions of PERSON had been deliberate and it was therefore appropriate to find him guilty of organising the riot .","ORG found it established , mainly on the basis of video recordings and documentary evidence , that PERSON had also organised a gathering with the aim of seriously breaching public order . He had taken part in the farmers\u2019 meeting of CARDINAL DATE and had known about the decision to hold protests next to the roads . When a crowd of farmers had blocked the PERSON - Pasvalys - GPE highway on CARDINAL DATE , public order had been seriously breached . Traffic had been stopped on that part of the road , causing inconvenience to drivers and goods carriers . ORG held that \u201c during the blockade of CARDINAL and CARDINAL May , PERSON coordinated the actions of the crowd , that is to say he gave orders that some of the vehicles should be let through , incited [ the farmers ] to hold on and not to move away from the highway , was in contact with the participants in the protests in GPE municipality and GPE region , [ and ] was negotiating with the authorities by mobile phone in the name of the farmers \u201d . ORG emphasised that the farmers who had gathered ( CARDINAL people ) \u201c obeyed the actions of PERSON and followed his orders \u201d . For ORG , the actions of PERSON were to be characterised as organising a riot under LAW .","On the basis of written evidence submitted by PERSON , ORG also found that by having organised the blockade of the PERSON - Pasvalys - GPE highway , PERSON had caused pecuniary damage to CARDINAL carrier companies . As CARDINAL of the carriers had submitted a civil claim for the sum of LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG DATE see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG deemed it proper to grant that claim .","In finding GPE , GPE and GPE guilty of having caused a serious breach of public order during a riot , ORG , on the basis of documentary evidence , audio - visual material and the testimony of CARDINAL witnesses , established that on CARDINAL DATE between CARDINAL a.m. and CARDINAL p.m. the CARDINAL of them had driven tractors onto the FAC at its QUANTITY . They had refused to obey lawful orders by the police not to breach public order and not to park the tractors on the road ( ant va\u017eiuojamosios kelio dalies ) and had kept the tractors there until TIME on CARDINAL DATE . As a consequence , and because CARDINAL people had gathered on the road , the traffic had been blocked between the CARDINAL and QUANTITY of the FAC , traffic jams had occurred and the normal functioning of the GPE and GPE border control offices had been disrupted .","The CARDINAL applicants were each given a DATE custodial sentence ( baud\u017eiamasis are\u0161tas ) . ORG also noted that all the applicants had positive characteristics and that there were no circumstances aggravating their guilt . Accordingly , there was reason to believe that the aim of the punishment could be achieved without actually depriving them of their liberty . Consequently , ORG suspended the execution of their sentences for DATE . The applicants were ordered not to leave their places of residence for DATE without the authorities\u2019 prior agreement . This measure was to last for DATE , whilst execution of the sentence was suspended .","ORG also acquitted , for lack of evidence , CARDINAL other individuals charged with organising the riots .","DATE . On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG . They noted , inter alia , that another farmer , DATE , had been punished under administrative law for an identical violation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","The applicants further argued that in ORG ( hereinafter , the \u201c GPE \u201d ) member GPE , roadblocks were accepted as a form of demonstration , and that the right to demonstrate was guaranteed by ORG CARDINAL of the Convention . They referred , inter alia , to LAW ( ORG ) CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and to a report of DATE by ORG ( ORG ( CARDINAL ) on the application of that Regulation , as well as to the judgment of ORG ( hereinafter , the \u201c ECJ \u201d ) in the case of PERSON , ORG und GPE v. GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the ORG found that LOC The appellate court observed that the offence of rioting endangered public order , the safety of society , human health , dignity and the inviolability of property . The objective aspect of the offence was the organising of a gathering of people for a common goal \u2013 namely , to breach public order \u2013 and the implementation of their decision which , in the instant case , had been to organise the roadblocks . To constitute an offence , the actions also had to be committed deliberately , that is to say , the persons charged had to understand the unlawfulness of their behaviour . In relation to PERSON and PERSON , ORG observed that during the demonstrations the CARDINAL applicants had told others that it had been decided to block the roads . It had been established that PERSON and PERSON had understood that the roadblocks would be illegal and that they had been warned about their liability as organisers . Even so , they had continued to coordinate the farmers\u2019 actions and had insisted that the farmers would maintain the roadblocks . As a direct result of the actions of PERSON and PERSON , on DATE a crowd had gone onto the highways and had blocked them , thereby stopping the traffic and breaching the constitutional rights and liberties of others to move freely and without restriction , causing damage to goods carriers and thus seriously breaching public order .","ORG also shared ORG conclusion as to the reasonableness of convicting PERSON , PERSON and GPE It noted that by driving tractors onto the highway , thus causing traffic congestion and disturbing the work of the State border control service , and by refusing to obey lawful requests by the police not to park their tractors on the road , the CARDINAL applicants had seriously breached public order . The fact that after the highway had been blocked the police and the drivers had negotiated with the farmers , with the result that some of the drivers had been let through , did not diminish the danger of the offence or its unlawfulness . ORG also emphasised that the blockading of a major highway had had dangerous consequences and could not be considered to have been a mere administrative law offence such as a traffic violation . As to the ORG argument that their offences were identical to that for which another farmer , DATE , had been given a mere administrative sanction for a traffic violation ( see paragraph DATE above ) , ORG indicated that it was not an administrative tribunal and thus could not comment on the administrative offence .","Whilst noting that the applicants had the right to freedom of expression under LAW , ORG nevertheless observed that such right was not without restrictions , should the interests of public order and prevention of crime be at stake . Analogous limitations to freedom of expression were listed in LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On this issue , ORG emphasised that the behaviour of PERSON and PERSON , in guiding the actions of the other individuals involved in the protest , could not be regarded as a non - punishable expression of their opinion , because they had breached public order , thus engaging criminal liability .","ORG further noted that the criminal offence had not lost its element of public danger merely because the government had refused to raise wholesale prices or had allegedly failed to take the necessary action .","On DATE the applicants appealed on points of law .","On DATE ORG , composed of an enlarged chamber of CARDINAL judges ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , dismissed the appeal . In providing an explanation as to the substance of the offence of rioting , as established in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG referred to its classification as an offence against public order , which was the objective aspect of the crime ( nusikaltimo objektas ) . In describing the scope of the offence , the aforementioned provision stipulated the following features : the organisation of a gathering with the aim of causing public violence , damaging property or otherwise breaching public order , or the commission of those actions during a gathering . For ORG , a riot was to be characterised as a situation where a gathering of people deliberately and seriously breached public order , caused public violence , or damaged property . The subjective aspect of the crime was that of direct intent ( kalt\u0117 pasirei\u0161kia tiesiogine ty\u010dia ) . The guilty person had to ( i ) be aware that he or she was performing an action that was listed as an offence in Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW and ( ii ) wish to act accordingly .","Turning to the circumstances of the present case , ORG found that the courts below had been correct in characterising the applicants\u2019 actions as falling under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . In particular , the trial court had properly established all the prerequisites for the application of LAW , namely that there had been a crowd and that public order had been breached by blocking the highways , stopping traffic and disturbing the work of the State border control service . The applicants had been sentenced for their offences under a law which had been in force at the time when they were committed and their sentences had been imposed in accordance with the provisions of LAW . It followed that the applicants\u2019 convictions had been in accordance with the law and not in breach of LAW .","ORG also stated that the applicants had not been sentenced for expressing their opinion or imparting ideas , actions which were protected by the guarantees of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Convention , but for actions by which they had seriously breached public order .","Lastly , ORG shared ORG view that the applicants could not be regarded as having acted out of necessity ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The fall in milk purchase prices and other problems with subsidies for agriculture had not constituted a clear or present danger to property , because the property in question had not yet materialised . The ORG had not deprived the applicants of their property , and their dissatisfaction with the government \u2019s agricultural policy had not justified the acts for which the applicants had been convicted .","NORP By court rulings of CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , ORG discharged the applicants from their suspended sentences ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["11"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147027","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LOSEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and lived in GPE prior to their arrest .","On DATE ORG remanded the applicants in custody . The applicants were charged with forgery and legalisation of money committed by an organised group . On DATE the ORG convicted the applicants at first instance .","NORP The applicants\u2019 detention on remand was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons . The gravity of the charges was cited as the main reason for detention in orders of DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . The same detention orders did not mention specific and relevant facts capable of corroborating the existence of security risks . The domestic courts did not consider the possibility of applying alternative measures of restraint or did not consider them seriously . Extensions were approved without verifying compliance with the special diligence requirement : it was not stated what had been done in the period elapsed since the last extension and what had to be done during the period for which the extension would be granted ( see the orders of DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) . The detention orders of DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE employed repetitive standard formulae , notwithstanding changes in the applicants\u2019 situation or developments in the proceedings . The trial court also issued collective detention orders in respect of the co - defendants that did not contain an analysis of their individual situations ( see the orders of DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171526","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF OVAKIMYAN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in PERSON before his conviction .","On DATE CARDINAL PERSON , who had left home DATE intending to sell his car , was reported missing . On DATE his car was found on the outskirts of PERSON . The investigative committee at the GPE town prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal proceedings in respect of PERSON \u2019s alleged murder . The criminal investigation department of ORG of the Republic of Mariy El carried out operational and search activities aimed at establishing PERSON \u2019s whereabouts and the circumstances of his disappearance .","According to a record drawn up by investigator PERSON , on DATE CARDINAL PERSON \u2019s body was found and the place of its location examined .","At TIME investigator PERSON drew up a record of the applicant \u2019s arrest as a suspect in the murder case , indicating that the applicant had been arrested at TIME that day .","From TIME investigator PERSON examined the applicant as a suspect in the presence of ORG , a lawyer provided by the ORG at the applicant \u2019s request . The applicant refused to give statements , relying on LAW ( privilege against selfincrimination ) .","According to operative police officers ( \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0443\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0435 ) , GPE , NORP and S. , they received information concerning the applicant \u2019s involvement in PERSON \u2019s murder . At CARDINAL or TIME on DATE they came to the applicant \u2019s home and invited him to answer some questions ; they took him with his consent to their office at the LOC police station ; during his interview the applicant told them that he had murdered PERSON by strangling him in order to steal PERSON \u2019s car and that he could show them where PERSON \u2019s body had been hidden .","At TIME the applicant to a place on the outskirts of PERSON where he pointed out the location of PERSON \u2019s body . They called investigator PERSON , who arrived with other members of the investigative team , carried out an examination of the place and seized the body .","NORP The applicant provided a different version of his arrest and the events which followed . According to him , at TIME , when he and his girlfriend were buying something at a kiosk in the street , QUANTITY men in plain clothes approached him , pushed him to the tarmac , handcuffed him and put him in an unmarked car without any explanation . A plastic bag was put over his head , making it difficult for him to breathe , and he was taken to a forest , where the QUANTITY men subjected him to ill - treatment , demanding that he accept their conditions and do as he was told . He was punched ( in particular on the forehead ) , kicked ( after he had fallen to the ground ) , and administered electric shocks through wires attached to the thumbs . He agreed to cooperate and was taken to investigator G at the LOC police station .","During the criminal proceedings against him the applicant asserted that he had never shown the whereabouts of PERSON \u2019s body to the investigating authorities ; rather , it was his co - accused PERSON who had shown them the body ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","At TIME the applicant was placed in a temporary detention facility ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) at ORG of ORG . An officer on duty recorded the following injuries on him : a swelling and a haematoma on the left side of the forehead ; haematomas on the right side of the chest , on the right shoulder and right shoulder blade ; and abrasions on the back in the region of the waist .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken from the ORG to investigator PERSON to take part in CARDINAL confrontations , which were carried out TIME and TIME The applicant , who was represented by lawyer PERSON , again refused to give statements .","According to the ORG \u2019s records , the applicant was brought back to the ORG at TIME","In a \u201c statement of surrender and confession \u201d ( \u044f\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u0441 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 ) drawn up by investigator PERSON at TIME in the absence of a lawyer , the applicant confessed to participating in a conspiracy to murder PERSON and to stealing PERSON \u2019s car . The applicant stated that PERSON had been strangled by his partners in crime , PERSON and PERSON .","According to investigator PERSON , that day the applicant remained in his office until he was taken back to the ORG .","According to the applicant , investigator PERSON demanded that he confess to the crimes . The applicant refused , and after TIME , PERSON telephoned someone and CARDINAL men took the applicant out of the town by car . They beat him up , strangled him , threatened him with a revolver , tied him up with a car tow rope , threw him into a pit dug by CARDINAL of them and threatened to bury him alive , demanding that he confess to the murder . After being taken back to the ORG , the applicant signed a statement of surrender and confession , as requested by the investigator .","During the criminal proceedings against him the applicant stated that he had never signed the statement of surrender and confession , and that his signature on the record had been forged by the investigator . On DATE a criminal complaint lodged by the applicant on DATE against the investigator was dismissed after a handwriting expert was unable to determine whether his signature had been forged .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to investigator PERSON , charged with murder and robbery , and questioned as an accused in the presence of lawyer PERSON According to the record of his questioning , he stated that he had given the statement of surrender and confession DATE voluntarily , without any pressure from police officers . He reiterated his self - incriminating statements .","During the criminal proceedings against him the applicant claimed that he had never signed the record of his questioning as an accused , and that his signature on the record had been forged by an investigator . A handwriting expert , whose opinion was sought by an investigator , concluded that a handwritten note in which the applicant fully acknowledged his guilt of PERSON \u2019s murder had been written by the applicant , but that it was impossible to determine whether he had also signed that record . On DATE the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint against the investigator ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was dismissed .","On DATE FAC , at a hearing held in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer , PERSON , investigator PERSON and a prosecutor , ordered that the applicant be detained on remand .","At TIME he was placed in pretrial detention facility IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . Upon his admission he was examined by a medical assistant , who recorded the following injuries on him : an CARDINAL - long bruise on the front side of the neck , a bruise QUANTITY in diameter on the right side of the chest , and a CARDINALcmlong abrasion at the level of the first lumbar vertebra .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG of the Republic of Mariy El , requesting that investigator PERSON and the police officers responsible for his ill - treatment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) be prosecuted . An inquiry into his allegations was carried out under LAW ( \u201c CCrP \u201d ) by the investigative committee of the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office .","The pit into which the applicant had allegedly been thrown on DATE with the threat that he would be buried alive was located in a forest at a place pointed out by the applicant . Statements were taken from investigators and police officers . Investigator PERSON and operative police officers GPE , NORP and S. denied having ill - treated the applicant .","On DATE an investigator ordered a forensic expert medical report concerning the applicant \u2019s injuries , as recorded in pretrial detention facility IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In a report dated DATE the forensic medical expert concluded that the injuries could have been caused by hard blunt objects . They had not resulted in a health disorder of sufficiently long a duration for it to be categorised as health damage . The information contained in the medical records made available to the expert did not make it possible to establish the time at which the injuries had been inflicted .","Investigators refused CARDINAL times ( on CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and DATE and DATE ) to open criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegations for lack of the event of a crime ( \u043e\u0442\u0441\u0443\u0442\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0438\u0435 \u0441\u043e\u0431\u044b\u0442\u0438\u044f \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ) . Each time their decision was annulled as unlawful and unfounded by their superior at the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office and an additional inquiry ordered . The annulment of the ORG refusals of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE followed ORG findings of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively that those refusals had been unlawful and lacking reasoning .","ORG decision of DATE was initially set aside after an appeal by the prosecutor before the ORG on DATE for the reasons that on DATE the criminal case against the applicant had been transferred for trial to the ORG , that those proceedings were pending , and that it was open for the applicant to raise in the course of his trial complaints concerning his illtreatment . In supervisory review proceedings on DATE the Presidium of the ORG quashed the decision of DATE . It found that the decision had been based on an erroneous interpretation of criminal procedural law and had failed to take into account LAW , which guaranteed access to court in respect of complaints against decisions of ORG authorities . It noted that ORG had explained that it was possible under LAW ORG to appeal against decisions made by ( as well as actions undertaken by or inaction on the part of ) investigating authorities at the pre - trial stage of proceedings , regardless of whether issues addressed in those decisions were connected to circumstances concerning other pending or completed criminal proceedings . The ORG referred to ORG decisions no . TIME of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL-O of DATE , ORG of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL of DATE . The ORG stressed that in the course of a trial the task of a court was to examine the admissibility of evidence and other questions relevant to the merits of the case ; such questions were factually and legally different from those examined in a review under LAW On DATE , following supervisory review and appeal proceedings , ORG decision of DATE entered into force .","The most recent decision of the investigative committee of the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office was taken on DATE . An investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings against investigator PERSON and police officers GPE , NORP , PERSON for lack of the event of a crime under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the CCrP. Relying on the statements of the applicant \u2019s coaccused , PERSON , the investigator concluded that the injuries found on the applicant upon his admission to the ORG could have been inflicted by PERSON on DATE . PERSON stated that shortly before PERSON \u2019s murder the applicant and PERSON had had a fight in a car and that he had seen them delivering several blows to each other . PERSON was unable to say where PERSON had hit the applicant . As regards the bruise on the applicant \u2019s neck recorded upon his admission to the GPE on DATE , the investigator noted that its cause had not been established and concluded that it could have been self - inflicted .","On DATE PERSON dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE . It found that the investigator had carried out a comprehensive inquiry , having exhausted all possibilities for collecting evidence , and that his decision had been lawful and well - reasoned .","On DATE the ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against ORG decision . It stated that in a review of an investigator \u2019s decision not to initiate criminal proceedings under LAW CCrP a court \u2019s task was to check whether the procedure for the examination of a complaint regarding the commission of a crime had been observed . The ORG noted that ORG had examined the material gathered during the course of the inquiry and established that the applicant \u2019s arguments had been examined by the investigator . It fully endorsed ORG findings that the inquiry had been thorough and the investigator \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE lawful and reasoned .","On DATE first deputy prosecutor of GPE annulled the investigator \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE as unlawful , lacking reasoning and proper assessment of evidence , and based on an inquiry which had not been thorough and had not exhausted all possibilities for collecting evidence . In particular , the applicant \u2019s allegations of illtreatment had not been refuted ; the circumstances in which he had received the injuries had not been established ; the existence of the pit at the place of the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment had not been assessed ; the allegations of electric shocks had not been verified ; and the forensic medical expert had not been given all the necessary information ( including the applicant \u2019s version of the cause of the injuries ) . Consequently , the forensic expert ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not made a full assessment , in particular of the injuries recorded upon the applicant \u2019s admission to the ORG . The prosecutor further noted that ( i ) the ORG records , which recorded at what times in the period from CARDINAL until DATE the applicant had been taken from the detention facility for the purpose of carrying out investigative actions and when he had been brought back , had not been assessed , and ( ii ) the documents indicating the grounds for the applicant \u2019s absence from the detention facility were missing . It was necessary , inter alia , to establish the applicant \u2019s location and a detailed chronology of the events in which had had participated in the period from CARDINAL until DATE , taking into account the fact that he had actually been arrested at TIME on DATE , as established at the applicant \u2019s trial . The prosecutor ordered that the investigative committee of the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office carry out an additional inquiry .","The applicant \u2019s case was heard by the ORG . On DATE it ordered that a preliminary hearing be held in order to examine the applicant \u2019s request for the exclusion of some evidence as inadmissible . On DATE the applicant withdrew his request . On DATE the ORG \u2013 after hearing the applicant and his legal counsel , who confirmed the withdrawal of the request \u2013 ruled that the request should not therefore be examined . According to the trial records of DATE , in the course of the trial the applicant lodged a new request for the exclusion of some evidence as inadmissible , which he again withdrew .","As regards the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment , the firstinstance court ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) examined witnesses and other evidence collected in the course of the inquiry carried out by the investigative committee of the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office . In particular , it heard investigators A. and PERSON and police officers NORP and PERSON , who denied having ill - treated the applicant . A. , NORP and PERSON stated that the applicant had pointed out the location of PERSON \u2019s body . The trial court found it impossible to establish the circumstances in which the applicant had received the injuries . It noted that it could examine allegations of unlawful investigative methods as long as the admissibility of evidence was at issue , and that this was not the case because no evidence whose admissibility would have been prejudiced by the discovery of the applicant \u2019s injuries had been examined by it . It stressed that the circumstances in which the applicant \u2019s injuries had been inflicted could be established by the relevant law enforcement authorities by means of an inquiry .","In respect of an attack on PERSON in his car shortly before his murder , PERSON stated that he had seen the applicant punching PERSON to the head and body and PERSON trying to defend himself . In respect of the same episode another of the applicant \u2019s co - accused , PERSON . , who had also been in the car , stated that he had seen the applicant beating PERSON and PERSON covering himself from the blows .","The applicant pleaded not guilty . When asked whether he had been taken to the place where PERSON \u2019s body had been found , he answered that he had been taken by car to an unknown place , where he had seen PERSON talking to police officers . PERSON had been covered in mud . The applicant had been told by a driver that PERSON had dug out PERSON \u2019s body with his bare hands . The applicant further stated that he had not written the statement of surrender and confession .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG established that the applicant had murdered PERSON by strangling and had stolen his car . It found the applicant guilty of murder and robbery and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The finding of the applicant \u2019s guilt was based , inter alia , on statements made by GPE and PERSON . ( his accomplices in the robbery and eyewitnesses to the murder ) . In deciding on the punishment for the robbery the ORG held that the applicant had played an active role in solving the crime by pointing out the location of PERSON \u2019s body , and that this constituted a mitigating circumstance . The applicant \u2019s coaccused , PERSON and PERSON . , were convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to DATE imprisonment respectively ; in DATE . \u2019s case the sentence was suspended .","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against the judgment , complaining , inter alia , that the ORG should not have examined as evidence the witness statements made by A. , NORP and S. He further complained that his sentence in respect of the murder had been unfair because , in contrast with the decision on the punishment for the robbery , his disclosure of the whereabouts of PERSON \u2019s body had not been taken into account as a mitigating circumstance .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the judgment of the ORG . It stated that in view of the disputed origin of the applicant \u2019s injuries the trial court had rightly not used evidence adduced at the time of the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment . It agreed with the applicant that the record of his arrest had been drawn up TIME after his actual arrest at TIME on DATE , in breach of LAW . It further noted that the trial court had rectified that violation by including the time spent by the applicant in pre - trial detention in the sentence to be served ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179418","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KAYA v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was an officer in the ORG . On DATE , relying on classified investigation reports , the applicant \u2019s contract was terminated and he was dismissed from his office . At the time , he did not have access to the classified reports and there was no remedy against this decision . Subsequently , following the adoption of a new law in DATE , the applicant once again applied to ORG on DATE , and asked for reinstatement . His request was rejected .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings before ORG to have the annulment of the decision of ORG . During the proceedings , the defendant party submitted classified documents for the court \u2019s consideration . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s case . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163451","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF R.B.A.B. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Sudan)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants are a married couple , PERSON and Mr GPE , their CARDINAL daughters , X and Y , and their son PERSON The children were born in DATE , respectively . The applicants have been in the GPE since DATE .","On DATE the applicants entered the GPE , where the first and second applicants filed separate asylum applications , and PERSON also filed applications on behalf of the other CARDINAL applicants ( the children , who were all minors ) . The immigration authorities conducted interviews with the first and second applicants on DATE ( eerste gehoor ) and CARDINAL DATE ( nader gehoor ) . An additional interview ( aanvullend gehoor ) was conducted with the second applicant on DATE .","The first and second applicants stated that they had previously lived in GPE in GPE \u2019s LOC province and that they had fled GPE after Mr GPE had attracted the attention of the NORP authorities on account of his activities for the opposition movement PERSON","On DATE the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie , the \u201c Deputy Minister \u201d ) notified the first and second applicants of her intention ( voornemen ) to reject their asylum requests . In the light of various contradictions in the statements given by the first and second applicants , their inability to answer basic questions about the respective tribes they claimed to belong to , and the second applicant \u2019s inability to provide simple topographic details of the city and the surroundings of the place where he claimed he had grown up and\/or to provide any details about the PERSON opposition movement ( goal , members , structure , leader ) for which he claimed to have been active , the Deputy Minister concluded that no credence could be attached to the applicants\u2019 asylum statement .","NORP In CARDINAL separate decisions of DATE , after the ORG lawyer had filed written comments ( zienswijze ) concerning the intended refusals , the Deputy Minister rejected the first and second applicants\u2019 asylum requests , finding that the written comments had not dispelled her doubts concerning the credibility of their asylum statement .","The first and second ORG appeal against this decision were declared inadmissible on procedural grounds by ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE sitting in GPE in a joint ruling , the first and second applicants having failed to submit the requisite grounds for their appeals , even though they had been given extra time to remedy this shortcoming . The applicants\u2019 objection ( verzet ) was dismissed on DATE by ORG . No further appeal lies against this ruling .","On DATE the first and second applicants DATE and PERSON also on behalf of the other applicants DATE filed a second asylum request , which was based on essentially the same grounds as their initial request . They submitted various documents in support of their declaration . On CARDINAL DATE , the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON ) notified the first and second applicants of her intention to reject their fresh asylum request , holding that their repeat requests were not based on newly emerged facts or altered circumstances as required by section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) . The new documents submitted by the first and second applicants only served to increase the already existing doubts as to the credibility of their asylum statement . In CARDINAL separate decisions of DATE , having received the ORG written comments on the intended decision , the Minister rejected the applicants\u2019 second asylum request on the grounds given in his notice of intention . The first and second applicants did not lodge an appeal against this decision before ORG of The Hague even though it would have been possible to do so .","On DATE the first and second applicants , and PERSON also on behalf of the other applicants , filed a third asylum request based on the claim that , if they were to be sent back to GPE , their daughters NORP and Y would be subjected to female genital mutilation ( \u201c LOC \u201d ) , contrary to LAW , due to tribal and social pressure . In interviews with the immigration authorities held on DATE , the first and second applicants stated that they opposed ORG but would be unable to protect their daughters against it . They further submitted a document issued by ORG in the GPE on DATE stating that the applicants \u201c are all NORP citizens although they do not possess the requisite documents to enable them to obtain a NORP laissez - passer \u201d .","On DATE , the Minister for ORG notified the first and second applicants separately of her intention to reject their third asylum request . The Minister doubted the sincerity of the applicants\u2019 purported fear that their daughter would be subjected to ORG because they had not raised this argument in their previous asylum requests . The Minister also took into consideration the order amending LAW ( Wijzigingsbesluit Vreemdelingencirculaire DATE , \u201c FAC \u201d ) , which was based on an official report on GPE drawn up by ORG ( Ministerie PERSON ) on DATE ( DPV \/ AMCARDINAL ) , according to which women who had had the benefit of a higher education ( namely a university or higher professional level education ) and who were living in the larger cities in GPE did not experience any social stigma for not subjecting their daughters to PERSON , whereas women in the rural areas who had received little or no schooling had little choice but to subject their daughters to this practice . As the first and second applicants had still not substantiated their personal identities or given a credible statement concerning their place of residence in GPE , the Minister considered that they had not established that they did not belong to the group of more highly educated people able to reject the practice of female circumcision . The Minister also considered that the second applicant constituted a danger to public order , having accepted a negotiated penalty ( transactieaanbod ) in order to settle out of court a criminal charge for shoplifting .","On DATE the applicants filed their written comments concerning the intended refusal of their third asylum request . They argued that the Minister had failed to present a proper reasoning for her finding that it had not been demonstrated that the first applicant did not belong to the group of highly educated women who would be able to resist the social pressure to circumcise their daughters , especially as the first applicant had stated in her first request for asylum that she had only had a primary school level education . The first applicant therefore offered to take an IQ test to prove her level of education .","NORP In CARDINAL separate decisions of DATE the Minister rejected the first and second applicants\u2019 asylum request on the grounds detailed in her notice of intention . The Minister added that it was not for her to examine the first applicant \u2019s level of education through an IQ test but rather for the applicants to prove their identities and background in their asylum application .","In a joint ruling given on DATE the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE granted the first and second ORG appeals , quashed the impugned decisions and remitted the case to the Minister for a fresh decision . The provisional - measures judge held :","\u201c The judge notes that it is no longer in dispute that the petitioners are NORP nationals . Nor is it in dispute that both daughters of the petitioners , currently DATE , have not been circumcised .","According to the policy guidelines set out in CCARDINAL\/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL Vc CARDINAL , a girl can DATE if return would entail a real risk of genital mutilation \u2013 qualify for an asylum - based residence permit ... The following conditions apply :","there exists a risk of genital mutilation ;","the authorities of the country of origin are unwilling or unable to provide protection to persons exposed to an imminent risk of genital mutilation ; and","no internal relocation possibility is deemed to exist in the country of origin .","According to chapter ACARDINAL Vc CARDINAL \u201c Country - specific part , the asylum policy in respect of GPE \u201d under QUANTITY Vc , genital mutilation is widespread in GPE . Although there is a Health Act forbidding genital mutilation , the NORP authorities hardly ensure compliance with that act . The parental freedom of choice ( as the court understands , whether or not to have their daughters circumcised ) is connected to the cultural attitudes of the family and surroundings . Women with a higher education in larger towns will generally not have their daughters circumcised . This will generally not give rise to problems from their social environment . The term \u2018 women with a higher education\u2019 is to be understood to mean women who have had an academic or higher vocational education . According to the official report of DATE , women with a low level of education living in rural areas have little choice . According to the same chapter it can not be deduced from the official report whether it is possible to avoid circumcision by settling elsewhere in GPE , meaning that for the assessment of the question whether there is an internal relocation alternative , each individual \u2019s declaration is of decisive importance .","The defendant \u2019s refusal to grant the requested residence permit is based to a large extent on the fact that the identity and origin of , in particular , [ the first applicant ] has not been demonstrated , but also because in the proceedings concerning the first asylum request , it was found that statements lacking credence had been given . For that reason , it is not possible to assess whether the conditions set out in the policy guidelines are met .","The refusal thus reasoned can not be upheld .","The policy guidelines are aimed at protecting girls and women against circumcision , an act which according to the policy is to be seen as a violation of LAW [ of the Convention ] . ...","The assertion that [ the first applicant ] based her first asylum request on an asylum statement subsequently found to be implausible is correct . However , it is unclear what the relevance of that conclusion is in the context of the present [ asylum ] application , which is concerned with the protection of the daughters and not of [ the parents ] . \u201d","On DATE the Minister filed a further appeal against this judgment with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG .","On DATE , ORG granted the Minister \u2019s further appeal , quashed the judgment of ORG and rejected the first and second ORG appeal against the Minister \u2019s decision of DATE . It considered that , pursuant to section QUANTITY , it was for the applicants to demonstrate as plausible those facts and circumstances which could lead to the conclusion that they were eligible for admission pursuant to the policy in force , and not for the Minister to demonstrate the opposite . As not only the ORG statements about their identity and origin but also their asylum statement had been found to lack credibility in a decision of CARDINAL DATE which had obtained the force of res iudicata , the Minister could reasonably have found that the applicants had not made out a persuasive case to show that they complied with the conditions for admission under the policy concerned , that the authorities could not provide them with protection , and that there was no internal relocation alternative for them . No further appeal lay against this ruling .","The third applicant , PERSON , gave birth to a daughter on DATE and to a son on DATE . On DATE was granted a GPE residence permit for the purpose of remaining with her partner . On DATE she informed the ORG that she did not wish to maintain the application in so far as it concerned her .","In the meantime , on DATE , the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON Integratie ) rejected a request for a residence permit filed by the fourth applicant , PERSON , who had come of age in the meantime . On the same day PERSON filed an objection ( bezwaar ) against this refusal and , on DATE , she attended a hearing on that objection before an official commission during which she stated that in DATE , as a volunteer for CARDINAL non - governmental organisations , she had disseminated information about ORG , for which purpose she had attended a training course .","On DATE the Minister rejected the fourth applicant \u2019s objection . In so far as the fourth applicant would allegedly be exposed to the risk of being subjected to circumcision in GPE , the Minister noted that her parents opposed this practice and therefore found it likely that they would not force PERSON to be circumcised . As regards pressure from the social environment , the Minister noted that PERSON had still not submitted any documents substantiating her identity or alleged PERSON origin . In this situation , the Minister found that it was not necessary to address the question of whether internal relocation would be a possibility . No further information about these proceedings has been submitted .","On DATE the fifth applicant , Mr PERSON , applied for a residence permit under LAW in the GPE ( overgangsregeling langdurig in GPE verblijvende kinderen ) , which provided that minors without a residence permit who had been residing in the GPE for DATE could obtain a residence permit if they met certain criteria . These criteria included that the minor in question must have applied for asylum DATE before reaching DATE and must not have evaded monitoring by the GPE authorities for DATE . The close family members of such minors could also qualify for accompanying family - member residence permits for close relatives ( that is to say parents and siblings ) . The fifth applicant also sought accompanying family - member residence permits for his parents , his sisters NORP X. , and for the latter \u2019s CARDINAL children , who are minors .","On DATE this request was rejected by the Deputy Minister of Security and ORG ( Staatssecretaris PERSON ) , who held that the applicants had not been in touch with the designated immigration authorities for DATE . On DATE , after remittal of the case by ORG on DATE , the ORG objection was again rejected by the Deputy Minister . No further information about these proceedings has been submitted .","NORP In a letter of DATE , the Deputy Minister informed the Mayor of GPE that he would not avail himself of his discretionary powers to admit the applicants to the GPE . The applicants\u2019 objection was declared inadmissible by the Deputy Minister , who held that the content of the letter of DATE was not a decision within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW which could be challenged in administrative appeal proceedings . Although the ORG appeal against this decision was granted on DATE by ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE , it nevertheless held that the legal effects of the impugned decision were to remain intact . No further information about these proceedings has been submitted ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141759","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ANTONOVS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . The applicant , who had been granted legal aid , was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent at the time , PERSON , and subsequently by PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) convicted the applicant of murder and burglary and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas GPE tiesu pal\u0101ta ) upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . He noted that the appellate court had not considered his complaint that his health was deteriorating . The applicant argued that he had contracted an incurable disease in detention , that he could not abide by prison rules because of the deteriorating state of his health , and that he was not receiving the medication he needed . Referring to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , he asked for his sentence to be reduced .","On DATE ORG of the ORG of ORG ( PERSON Tiesas ORG departaments ) in a preparatory meeting rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . The ORG noted that it did not have competence to release the applicant from serving his sentence . It referred to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and section CARDINAL of the former Code of Criminal Procedure .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC ( PERSON centr\u0101lcietums ) .","On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination ; a note was made that he smoked and drank alcohol , but did not use narcotics ; he also had several tattoos . He was prescribed fluorography , and no pathology was found . A blood test ( for HIV and syphilis ) was carried out ; its results were negative . He was found to be \u201c practically healthy \u201d .","On DATE the applicant complained to a prison doctor of a cough , cold symptoms and sweating ; he was diagnosed with rhinopharyngitis . He was prescribed a DATE course of medication .","NORP On DATE and DATE the applicant complained about a cough and cold symptoms . He was diagnosed with rhinopharyngitis and pharyngitis respectively on those occasions , and some medication was prescribed , a DATE course each time .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC ( NORP cietums ) . Although there is no information as to whether a medical examination was carried out when the applicant was admitted to the prison , or whether any tests were done , the applicant \u2019s medical record contains a note made by a prison doctor on the date of admission that the applicant had no complaints , accompanied by the results of a basic health check ( blood pressure readings and visual inspection ) . The applicant was found to be \u201c practically healthy \u201d .","On DATE the applicant received some vitamins ( CARDINAL per day ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lungs were examined ; no pathology was found .","On DATE the applicant complained of stomach pain : an examination was ordered , but no pathology was found . He was prescribed a DATE course of medication .","On DATE the applicant complained of skin problems . He was diagnosed with a skin disease and prescribed a DATE course of medication . At the same time the applicant requested a blood test for the hepatitis C virus ( ORG ) at his own expense .","On DATE the test detected the presence of ORG antibodies ( anti - HCV ) in the applicant \u2019s blood .","On DATE and DATE the applicant complained of a cold ; a prison doctor concluded that he had pharyngitis . He received a DATE and a DATE course of medication ; DATE he was prescribed multivitamins .","On DATE the applicant complained of stomach pain and a prison doctor concluded that he had ORG . He received a DATE course of liver medication ( PERSON ) , which was extended for DATE with another medication ( PERSON ) on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC ( PERSON cietums ) to serve his sentence .","On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination . The applicant was found to be \u201c practically healthy \u201d . A note was made that the applicant was infected with the hepatitis C virus .","On DATE the applicant visited a prison doctor to request treatment for the ORG ( PERSON or PERSON forte ) . His status of health was noted as satisfactory , and it was explained to him that ORG treatment could only be carried out at his own expense .","On DATE the applicant received a DATE course of liver medication ( PERSON ) .","On DATE and DATE the applicant requested that an examination and a liver biopsy be carried out . They were refused , and on the latter date a note was made in his medical record that he had no objections to this decision .","On DATE the applicant asked the head of ORG for an in - depth ORG examination and treatment . It was explained to the applicant that in accordance with domestic law ( regulation no . CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) these could only be provided at his own expense . The applicant disagreed , and took the view that the treatment should be paid for by the ORG . The applicant was prescribed tests ( fibrogastroscopy , blood and urine tests ) and consultations with a general practitioner and a psychiatrist .","On DATE the applicant consulted a psychiatrist and was prescribed a DATE course of medication .","On DATE the applicant was prescribed a DATE course of medication for bile duct problems .","On DATE the applicant was prescribed a DATE course of medication for dermatitis .","On DATE the applicant was prescribed skin medication at his own expense .","On DATE the applicant underwent a prophylactic check - up and a DNA sample was taken from him .","On DATE the applicant complained of headache , flu , cough and fever . He was diagnosed as suffering from an upper respiratory tract infection and prescribed a DATE course of medication .","On DATE another prophylactic check - up was carried out . The conclusion was that he was \u201c practically healthy \u201d .","On DATE the applicant underwent lung screening ; no pathology was found .","On DATE the applicant complained of fever , headache , and a cough ; he was diagnosed with an upper respiratory tract infection and prescribed a DATE course of medication .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an oculist .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from an upper respiratory tract infection and was prescribed a DATE course of medication .","On DATE the applicant underwent a prophylactic check - up . The conclusion was that his state of health was satisfactory .","On DATE the applicant was prescribed a DATE course of medication for tracheitis .","On DATE another medical examination was carried out and tests were taken .","On DATE the NORP Infectious Diseases Centre ( Latvijas NORP centrs ) replied to the applicant that they could not help if they did not have any medical documents describing the applicant \u2019s illness . The applicant had to approach his prison doctor , who could assign , within the limits of available resources , appropriate examinations to verify any diagnosis .","On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to the Minister of ORG , with a copy to the Minister of Health and ORG . He stated that he had never used narcotics in his life but that soon after imprisonment he had been \u201c infected with hepatitis C \u201d . He requested that the ORG re - establish a programme for detecting and treating infectious diseases and that he be allowed to use his own darning needles , slippers and scissors in prison .","On DATE ORG replied that the applicant was not allowed to have these items , pursuant to domestic law . They noted that the applicant did not have objective symptoms requiring treatment for hepatitis C at that time . A reference was made to regulation no . CARDINAL , which allowed him to purchase medication at his own expense .","On DATE ORG replied that a diagnosis of the hepatitis C virus was generally confirmed in the NORP Infectious Diseases Centre , using a range of examinations such as blood tests to detect if the virus was in the body or if only its antibodies were present . If the virus was detected , its genotype and activity were identified . Liver puncture biopsy was further necessary to establish the range and depth of inflammation . Only when the hepatitis C virus diagnosis had been confirmed could a decision be made as regards treatment . From DATE medication was available in GPE to effectively ( but not PERCENT ) treat chronic hepatitis C , if a patient did not have any other health problems or contraindications . With reference to regulation no . CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , it was explained that ORG was responsible for ensuring that medication was available to treat patients with chronic hepatitis C in prisons , therefore the applicant was advised to enquire about it there . At the same time , ORG advised that a prison doctor was responsible for assessing convicted ORG state of health , for providing medical care in accordance with the established diagnosis , and for prescribing medicine within the allocated budgetary resources . If an in - depth examination and special treatment was necessary , a specialist doctor ( a hepatologist ) from the NORP Infectious Diseases Centre was invited to assess the patient \u2019s state of health and draw up a treatment plan . The applicant was advised to consult a prison doctor .","On DATE ORG replied that , taking into account that the applicant was suffering from a serious infectious disease ( hepatitis C ) , he could require the relevant prison authority to take the necessary prophylactic measures if there was a risk of the disease being spread . They also referred to paragraph CARDINAL of regulation no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to ORG , with a copy addressed to the prosecutor \u2019s office and ORG . He noted that he had never used narcotics in his life but that soon after imprisonment he had been \u201c infected with hepatitis C \u201d . He did not request to be released on health grounds , but rather that his state of health be fully assessed by specialists from the NORP Infectious Diseases Centre , that his sentence be reduced , and that he be transferred to an open prison .","On DATE a judge sent those complaints back to the applicant with an explanation of the procedure for release on health grounds under LAW .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office forwarded the applicant \u2019s complaint to the head of Jelgava Prison in connection with assessment of his health and his request for his sentence to be reduced .","DATE . On DATE ORG replied that in accordance with regulation no . CARDINAL convicted persons received minimum standard of health care . Assistance that was not paid for from the ORG budget was provided at their own expense . It was noted that the applicant had received the minimum standard of health care , including hepatoprotectives . An in - depth examination was not included in the minimum standard and was not paid for by the ORG . In addition , as the applicant \u2019s state of health was satisfactory there was no need for the in - depth examination .","On DATE , in response to another complaint by the applicant , ORG noted that a doctor was responsible for patient examination , assessment of state of health and for providing treatment ; they also repeatedly explained the minimum standard of health care in prisons and that the in - depth examination was not included in the minimum standard ( regulation no . CARDINAL ) . This examination and any further treatment could be provided at his own expense ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG responded that only a doctor can establish diagnosis and choose the most adequate therapy . They reiterated that the minimum standard did not include an in - depth examination or treatment ; these could be provided at his own expense in accordance with regulation no . CARDINAL ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the NORP Infectious Diseases Centre informed the applicant that they provided treatment for chronic hepatitis C , but that they were not responsible for arranging for the provision of health care in prisons . The prison doctor was responsible for the applicant \u2019s health care . They informed the applicant about the following expenses in relation to laboratory examinations related to hepatitis C : LVL CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL for ORG RNA , ORG viral load and ORG genotype respectively ( DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE ORG replied to the applicant \u2019s enquiry about convicted PERSON health care . They relied on regulation no . CARDINAL and explained that primary medical care was provided by prison doctors and that secondary medical assistance was available upon prescription by prison doctors . The applicant was advised to contact prison doctor . The possibility of making a complaint to ORG ( Vesel\u012bbas inspekcija ) if a prison doctor did not carry out his or her professional duties was explained to him .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( PERSON ) provides that in cases of inadequate performance of professional duties by a medical professional resulting in \u201c serious \u201d ( smagi ) or \u201c moderate \u201d ( vid\u0113ja smaguma ) \u201c bodily injury \u201d ( miesas boj\u0101jumi ) those professionals may be held criminally responsible . In NORP criminal law bodily injury is defined as anatomical damage to , or functional impairment of , a person \u2019s tissue , organs or systems caused by physical ( mechanic , thermic , electric , acoustic , radiation - related , chemical , biological ) or psychological effects or interference ( Annex no . CARDINAL to the Law on Entry into Force of the Criminal Law ) .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that in the event of inadequate performance of professional duties by a medical professional resulting in a person \u2019s death or infection with HIV , that professional may be held criminally responsible .","Criminal responsibility for inadequate performance of professional duties by a medical professional resulting in infection with the hepatitis B or C viruses was established by way of amendments to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Criminal Law effective from DATE .","Section CARDINAL of the Criminal Law provides criminal responsibility for wilful infection with HIV .","Criminal responsibility for wilful infection with the hepatitis B or C viruses was established by way of amendments to section CARDINAL of the Criminal Law effective from DATE .","Finally , with effect from DATE criminal responsibility for infection with a dangerous disease resulting in serious bodily injury or death was established ( section CARDINAL ) .","According to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW if a convicted person has fallen ill with a severe and incurable illness after the pronouncement of a judgment , a court may release that person from serving the remainder of the sentence .","According to section CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG izpildes kodekss ) , if a convicted person has fallen ill with a severe and incurable illness owing to which he or she is unable to serve the remainder of his or her sentence , the relevant penal institution has to order a medical examination and , on the basis of the results , make an application for release to the appropriate court .","The relevant part of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW GPE likums ) , in force since DATE , provides that a judge may release a convicted person from serving the remainder of his or her sentence if that person has fallen ill while serving their sentence , taking into account the personality of the convicted person , the nature of the offence , and other circumstances . Before the entry into force of LAW , the relevant provision was contained in LAW kodekss ) .","Section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON likums ) , as in force at the material time , provided that ORG ( \u201c the MADEKKI \u201d ) was responsible for monitoring the professional quality of medical care in health - care establishments . With legislative amendments effective from CARDINAL DATE TIME that task was entrusted to ORG .","Under the relevant regulation of ORG ( no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) entitled \u201c PERSON apr\u016bpes un darbsp\u0113jas ekspert\u012bzes kvalit\u0101tes kontroles inspekcijas nolikums \u201d ) , effective from DATE to DATE , CARDINAL of the main functions of the PERSON and its successor , ORG , was monitoring the professional quality of medical care in all health - care establishments regardless of their property type and subordination ( paragraph CARDINAL . ) . Their main tasks included carrying out examinations and providing opinions about the quality of medical care in all health - care establishments , monitoring compliance with the domestic law in health - care establishments and dealing with ( individual ) applications concerning medical care ( CARDINAL . , CARDINAL . and CARDINAL . ) . They had the right to request and receive from all health - care establishments or other persons medical documentation , information and documents necessary to carry out examinations , request and receive oral and written explanations from the person who provided medical care or who was responsible for compliance with the compulsory requirements in the institution , and examine cases of administrative offences and impose fines in accordance with LAW ( paragraphs CARDINAL . , CARDINAL . and CARDINAL . ) .","At the relevant time , under LAW the MADEKKI or subsequently ORG could impose a fine up to CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) ( approximately LAW ) for breaches of the relevant medical care regulations , and up to LVL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) for a repeat offence . With effect from DATE this fine was increased to ORG ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) and ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .","In accordance with ORG . CARDINAL to regulation of ORG no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , effective from DATE until DATE , the following outpatient laboratory tests were carried out free of charge , if prescribed by a general practitioner :","- anti - ORG test to establish the presence of antibody in blood serum ;","- anti - ORG ( ORG ) to confirm the presence of antibody in blood serum ;","- HCV RNA ( nucleic acid ) ( PCR \u2013 polymerase chain reaction ) test to determine the presence of the virus itself in blood serum ;","- anti - HCV IgM ( immunoglobulin M ) .","In accordance with paragraph CARDINAL . of this regulation , ORG was responsible for covering costs for medical care in prisons , apart from medical treatment for those suffering from tuberculosis and HIV \/ AIDS , which expenses were covered from the ORG budget .","DATE . In accordance with ORG . CARDINAL to regulation of ORG no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , effective from DATE , the same outpatient laboratory tests were available free of charge as under regulation no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) at least until DATE , when amendments as regards the laboratory tests for hepatitis C were made .","Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , in force at the material time and effective until DATE , provided as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Convicted persons shall receive the minimum standard of health care free of charge up to the amount established by ORG . In addition , ORG , within its budgetary means , shall provide convicted persons with :","NORP primary , secondary and tertiary ( in part ) medical care ;","emergency dental care ;","medical examinations \/ check - ups ;","NORP preventive and anti - epidemic measures ;","medication and injections prescribed by a ( prison ) doctor ; and","medical equipment .","Detainees shall receive medical care in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of this regulation , excluding planned inpatient treatment ... Detainees shall be sent to receive inpatient treatment only in acute circumstances ...","NORP The prison authorities may agree with [ a civilian hospital or medical centre ] that the latter is to provide consultation and treatment at convicted PERSON ... own expense if they so wish . \u201d","Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , effective DATE , provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . [ Convicted persons and detainees ] shall receive free of charge in prison :","NORP primary medical care , but not scheduled \/ planned dental care ,","emergency dental care ,","NORP secondary medical assistance in emergency situations , as well as secondary medical assistance which is provided by prison doctors within their field of expertise ,","NORP the most effective and affordable medicine , prescribed by prison medical practitioners ...","Upon application by a [ convicted person or detainee ] , and with the approval of a prison doctor , the prison authorities may agree with [ a civilian hospital or medical centre ] that the latter is to provide consultations and treatment outside prison territory . Such consultations and treatment are to be paid for by the [ convicted person or detainee ] , including transport and security - related expenses . \u201d","On DATE ORG ( Administrat\u012bv\u0101 rajona tiesa ) ( in case no . ACARDINAL ) adopted a judgment concerning a MADEKKI decision , whereby no shortcomings had been found in medical care as regards the treatment of hepatitis C in a prison . The claimant in that case , by instituting the administrative proceedings , had insisted that he had to be tested for hepatitis C virus ( and not only its antibodies , anti - HCV ) and that he should receive treatment . The claimant sought the quashing of the DATE decision and compensation for distress in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL as well as compensation for pecuniary loss in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL for the costs of laboratory examinations and ORG for the costs of treatment ) and for physical damage in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","The court found that the PERSON decision ( the assessment of the quality of medical care ) had constituted \u201c unlawful action by a public authority \u201d , but did not award any compensation . This judgment took effect on DATE .","The court established the following facts :","\u201c [ CARDINAL ] In response to the claimant \u2019s application , on DATE [ the NORP PERSON , hereinafter DATE the ORG ] stated that prison doctors were responsible for providing medical care in prisons , that claimant was obliged to consult them , and that the ORG did not have documents attesting that the claimant was suffering from a chronic condition [ hepatitis C virus , hereinafter DATE ] ...","[ CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] On DATE [ the claimant was informed that ] ORG and the ORG specialists did not have confirmed data that the claimant was suffering from chronic ORG , but that they had data indicating that the claimant had been in contact with ORG . Tests for ORG to confirm or exclude [ the diagnosis ] of chronic ORG [ did ] not correspond to the notion of \u201c acute circumstances \u201d laid down in DATE and CARDINAL of regulation no . CARDINAL .","[ CARDINAL ] The claimant lodged an application with [ the PERSON ] complaining about the refusal to treat him for ORG in FAC and asking for an assessment of the quality of medical care provided to him ...","[ CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] On DATE the [ MADEKKI ] drew up a report [ in case no.CARDINAL - CARDINAL-K-CARDINAL ] about the claimant \u2019s medical care in prison . The report \u2019s conclusions indicate that on DATE the ORG laboratory established that a positive result for ORG antibodies ( anti - HCV ) test in the claimant \u2019s body had been established and that he had HIV infection in stage \u201c C \u201d ( Aids ) ; it was also noted that he regularly received antiretroviral therapy for the latter .","[ CARDINAL ] [ On DATE ] administrative offence proceedings in case no.CARDINAL - CARDINAL-K-CARDINAL were terminated ...","[ CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] Disagreeing with this decision , the claimant lodged a complaint against it with the head of [ the MADEKKI ] . By a decision [ of DATE , no.CARDINAL - CARDINAL-K-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ] , the decision to terminate administrative offence proceedings was left to stand and his complaint was dismissed .","[ CARDINAL ] On DATE ORG ... in response to the claimant \u2019s request for ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be allocated from the budget for his ORG treatment , noted that there were no resources in its budget that could be allocated to treat him ...","[ CARDINAL ] On DATE ORG [ in response to a repeated request ] explained that ORG treatment with antivirus medication was prescribed after an in - depth examination and that specific therapy ... was assigned only according to medical indications . In order to ensure ORG - guaranteed medical care pursuant to regulation no . CARDINAL for persons in prisons taking into account their needs , these issues have been included in the Green Paper on ORG .","[ CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] On DATE the claimant lodged a claim with FAC against ORG seeking compensation for pecuniary loss in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL for the costs of laboratory examinations and ORG for the costs of treatment ) and for physical damage in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . These civil proceedings ... were terminated with a judgment of DATE , whereby his claim was dismissed . \u201d","As regards the claimant \u2019s request for the PERSON decision to be quashed and for compensation for distress , the court made the following findings :","\u201c [ CARDINAL ] ... The claimant \u2019s subjective right to request [ the PERSON \u2019s assessment of quality of medical care provided in prisons ] is established under LAW of LAW ...","[ CARDINAL ] As established by ORG of the ORG of ORG in its judgment of DATE ... in case SKA-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( hereinafter DATE the ORG \u2019s judgment ) , the law does not specify the purpose of the [ MADEKKI ] assessment [ of the quality of medical care ] . In examining [ the provisions of the Medical Treatment Law ] in their entirety , the ORG considers that it has several purposes DATE to improve the quality of medical care , a patient can use [ a MADEKKI ] assessment as CARDINAL piece of evidence in another set of proceedings concerning medical care , and it gives a person the opportunity to ascertain the quality [ of medical care ] provided by a given medical institution or doctor when a choice is being made . [ A PERSON ] assessment of the quality of medical care is not binding on anyone , but as a person has a right to receive [ such an assessment ] , it constitutes an action of a public authority .","The [ MADEKKI \u2019s ] obligation to carry out the assessment pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW was set out in regulation ORG ( no longer effective from DATE ) , paragraph CARDINAL . which at the [ relevant ] time provided that CARDINAL of [ the PERSON \u2019s ] tasks in carrying out its functions [ was ] to carry out examinations and provide opinions about the quality of medical care ... in [ all ] health - care establishments ...","[ CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] In accordance with order no . CARDINAL of ORG DATE ... [ the MADEKKI ] was merged with ORG and ORG , and ... ORG was established .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , as currently effective , ORG is responsible for monitoring of the professional quality of medical care ... in health - care establishments .","Accordingly , at present the monitoring of the quality of medical care provided to the claimant comes within the competence of ORG .","Taking into account that the assessment of the quality of the claimant \u2019s medical care within these administrative offence proceedings as expressed in [ the MADEKKI ] report constitutes an action of a public authority , the court , pursuant to LAW , has to determine whether the action of a public authority complies with procedural and formal criteria and whether it corresponds to provisions of substantive law .","[ CARDINAL ] According to the facts of the case , by lodging the request for an assessment of the quality of his medical care the claimant insisted that he be immediately tested for possible infection with ORG and that he be treated ...","It can be established from the letters sent by the ORG that its doctors , following regular examinations of the claimant \u2019s state of health in connection with his HIV infection , have established the necessary treatment plan \u2013 antiretroviral therapy with efavirenz , zidovudine and lamivudine ... , and have regularly informed the head of ORG about it ; however , they have left the claimant \u2019s infection with ORG unattended to and have not taken measures in accordance with LAW they have not arranged for the necessary laboratory examinations with a view to arriving at an ORG - related diagnosis and treatment .","The claimant contends that the prison where he is being held is under an obligation to provide an in - depth examination of his state of health in connection with ORG .","At the hearing , a specialist doctor of the [ ORG explained that any assignment to undergo a particular examination was issued only in circumstances where there are recommendations for such an examination to be carried out . If a doctor considers that a person \u2019s request for examination is unsubstantiated , he or she may have such an examination at his or her own expense . This procedure applies to all people , with no exceptions .","The court considers this view unfounded , as health - care practitioners\u2019 obligation to provide immediate diagnosis and treatment for a person who is infected with ORG arises from provisions of LAW . As regards convicted persons , according to paragraph CARDINAL of regulation no . CARDINAL they receive the minimum standard of health care free of charge ... and also , within budgetary means ... preventive and anti - epidemic measures ...","It appears from [ the case material ] that measures envisaged in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) of LAW were not carried out in respect of the claimant until DATE .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW a doctor , within the scope of his \/ her professional activities , performs illness prophylaxis , diagnosis , treatment and rehabilitation of patients ; evaluates illnesses and the functional restrictions to the body caused thereby in terms of activity and participation ; and examines the cause of illnesses and the prophylactic possibilities .","Taking into account the aforementioned , the court finds that in the present circumstances the conclusions of [ the MADEKKI ] that no violations had been detected in the patient \u2019s medical care , that the patient had been appropriately examined in response to his complaints , diagnosed and received medical care in accordance with regulation no.CARDINAL were unjustified , since in connection with his ORG infection the necessary laboratory tests with a view to specifying diagnosis had not been set up and no treatment had been prescribed .","[ CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] ... The court concludes that DATE the patient did not receive compensation for expenses in relation to treatment of diseases triggered by ORG infection ... \u201d","As regards specifically the claimant \u2019s request for compensation for distress , the court left it without examination , as he had not requested it in the pre - trial proceedings . The court made the following findings :","\u201c [ CARDINAL ] It appears from the complaint [ to the head of the PERSON ] that the claimant did not request compensation for distress ...","In accordance with section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW the court leaves an application without examination ( atst\u0101j pieteikumu bez izskat\u012b\u0161anas ) if the claimant has not complied with preliminary extrajudicial examination procedures prescribed by law . Pursuant to section FAC the same PERSON ] , if an application is left without examination , the claimant may submit the application to the court anew in compliance with the procedure prescribed by law . \u201d","DATE . As regards the claimant \u2019s request for compensation for pecuniary loss and physical damage , the court considered that these claims had already been decided in the civil proceedings before GPE and dismissed . It accordingly terminated administrative proceedings in this respect , as they had the same subject matter and were based on the same facts as had already been examined by another court .","The same claimant , after having properly exhausted pre - trial proceedings , instituted another set of administrative proceedings ( no . ORG ) requesting compensation for distress caused by an \u201c unlawful action of a public authority \u201d . On DATE ORG granted that claim in part and imposed an obligation on ORG ( the successor to PERSON ) to issue a written apology to the claimant . This judgment took effect on DATE .","As regards compensation for distress in the amount of ORG CARDINAL , the court made the following findings :","\u201c [ CARDINAL ] Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Administrative Procedure Law everyone has the right to receive appropriate compensation for pecuniary loss ( mantiskais zaud\u0113jums ) and personal harm ( personiskais kait\u0113jums ) , including distress ( mor\u0101lais kait\u0113jums ) , caused by an administrative act or action of a public authority .","According to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the same PERSON , the relevant public authority may comply with the obligation to compensate ( atl\u012bdzin\u0101\u0161anas pien\u0101kums ) by restoring the situation which existed before the damage was caused , or if it is not fully or partly possible or adequate , by paying appropriate monetary compensation ( atl\u012bdzin\u0101jums naud\u0101 ) .","According to section CARDINAL of the Law on Compensation for Damage Caused by ORG ( hereinafter DATE the Law on Compensation for Damages ) , distress within the meaning of this PERSON is personal harm in the form of human suffering that has been caused by a significant [ and ] unlawful interference ( b\u016btisks , prettiesisks aizsk\u0101rums ) with rights or legal interests of an individual .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Law on Compensation for Damages provides that personal harm and distress is determined in proportion to the significance of rights or legal interests interfered with and the severity of the specific interference , taking into account the legal and factual grounds and the reasons for the institution \u2019s action , the victim \u2019s actions and share of the responsibility , as well as other significant circumstances of the particular case . According to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , monetary compensation for distress is determined in proportion to the severity of the interference . LAW ( CARDINAL ) provides that an institution may issue a written or public authority , as independent or supplementary redress [ for damage ] , in circumstances where interference is not severe .","It follows from the above - mentioned legal provisions that the ground for compensation for distress is not [ interference ] but rather significant [ and ] unlawful interference with rights or legal interests . In turn , if such [ interference ] has been established , compensation is determined in proportion to the severity of the harm engendered . Harm may be redressed by restoring the situation , issuing an apology or granting monetary compensation . Therefore , compensation for distress , its type and amount are determined by the significance of the interference and the severity of the harm engendered . Accordingly , if significant interference has occurred but no severe harm has been done , all types of the above - mentioned redress may generally [ be afforded ] . Hence also in such circumstances in determining appropriate compensation it is necessary [ that ] harm and compensation be proportionate . \u201d","The court then went on to consider that the \u201c unlawful action of a public authority \u201d ( the PERSON decision ) did not constitute significant interference with the claimant \u2019s rights and legal interests that would have had any influence on his right to receive medical care in prison and would have called for monetary compensation , in addition to any harm to life or serious harm to health . The court \u2019s reasoning was as follows :","\u201c [ CARDINAL ] ... The court considers that action of a public authority \u2013 the PERSON decision in the present case , where it assessed the quality of medical care , does not trigger any legal or factual consequences for the claimant ...","The ORG has on several occasions pointed out that a MADEKKI assessment [ of the quality of medical care ] is CARDINAL of the possible pieces of evidence in a particular case , for example as concerns proceedings for compensation for damage to health . However , a MADEKKI assessment plays neither a decisive nor a determining role in deciding other matters ( see the ORG \u2019s decisions of DATE in case SKA-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE in case PERSON ) . Therefore , the fact in itself that the PERSON has not found any shortcomings in the medical care provided in a prison can not stand in the way of a decision on a question , for example , relating to the scope of medical care in prison or its availability .","The court can not establish , either from the case material or from the claimant \u2019s statements ( answers to the court \u2019s questions during the hearing ) ... that the claimant contested an action of a public authority ( the particular prison ) of not providing him with medical care as required by law ...","[ CARDINAL ] ... In determining the type and amount of compensation for distress , the court finds that the institution \u2019s action of issuing the DATE report and giving its assessment about treatment in prison could not harm the claimant \u2019s life or seriously harm his health ...","The PERSON report \u2013 the assessment of the quality of medical care DATE did not directly harm the claimant \u2019s health to the extent that the court should have set monetary compensation up to ORG pursuant to section DATE ) of the Law on Compensation for Damages ...","However , in determining whether distress has been caused to the claimant by [ the fact ] that the institution in its report did not provide a full assessment of the quality of medical care , as it has been found ... in DATE judgment , and taking into account the legal characteristics of the report , the court considers that pursuant to section DATE ) of the Law on Compensation for Damages written apology may be considered independent redress . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179870","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MOKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155087","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF TYCHKO v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of large - scale fraud .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody .","On DATE and DATE charges were brought against the applicant .","On DATE the criminal case was submitted to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for trial .","On DATE the first hearing was held . It was presided over by judge A.","On DATE the applicant was released from custody .","On DATE the case was transferred to judge PERSON and , pursuant to LAW , the trial was restarted .","DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE the hearings were adjourned on CARDINAL occasions : on CARDINAL occasions due to the non - attendance of the accused , their representatives and the witnesses , and on QUANTITY occasions , from DATE to DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , following requests from the applicant for more time to study the case file .","In the meantime , on DATE , an unrelated criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of storing firearms and narcotic drugs . He was again remanded in custody on DATE . On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of storing firearms and narcotic drugs and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE judge PERSON went on maternity leave , and on CARDINAL DATE the initial case was transferred to judge PERSON The trial was restarted .","DATE the hearings were adjourned on QUANTITY occasions due to the non - attendance of the participants in the trial .","On DATE judge PERSON resigned , and on DATE the case was transferred to judge PERSON The trial was again restarted .","DATE the hearings were adjourned on QUANTITY occasions due to the non - attendance of the participants in the trial .","On DATE judge PERSON resigned and the case was transferred to judge DATE The trial was restarted for the fourth time .","DATE the hearings were adjourned on CARDINAL occasions due to the non - attendance of the participants in the trial .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of complicity in large - scale fraud and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The final sentence under both verdicts was set at DATE imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","The applicant was detained in GPE remand prison GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE . He submitted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition .","The cell where the applicant was held most recently , measuring QUANTITY and equipped with CARDINAL bunk beds , accommodated CARDINAL inmates at any given time . The inmates were obliged to take turns to sleep .","NORP The toilet in the corner of the cell ( a hole in the floor measuring CARDINAL in diameter ) , elevated above the floor by QUANTITY and separated by a QUANTITY partition , offered no privacy . It had no flushing system .","The cell was not equipped with a washstand . Instead , the inmates had to use the water running from a tap over the toilet .","The dining table was situated a metre away from the toilet . It could seat CARDINAL inmates . The rest of the inmates had to eat sitting on the concrete floor .","NORP The food was of low quality . The drinking - water tanks were placed on the floor .","The cell was lit around the clock by CARDINAL CARDINAL-watt filament lamps . It was poorly ventilated . The air was thick with the stench of tobacco , laundry and the toilet .","The cell was infested with insects and rodents .","The applicant was allowed to take a TIME shower once DATE .","The exercise yards were unequipped and too small to accommodate all the detainees properly .","The applicant twice contracted tuberculosis while being detained in GPE IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . His eyesight deteriorated .","The applicant \u2019s attempts to challenge the conditions of his detention before various domestic authorities yielded no result .","The applicant was transported from the remand prison to the courthouse and back CARDINAL times DATE . Prisoners were transported between the remand prison and the courthouse in a prison DATE a metal freight vehicle comprising CARDINAL compartments : CARDINAL designed for CARDINAL inmates and the third CARDINAL for single occupancy . The van had no windows and offered no access to natural light or air . It had no artificial lighting or ventilation either . There were no seat belts or other safety equipment to prevent inmates from falling and hitting themselves against the walls . It was stiflingly hot in the van in DATE and freezing cold in DATE .","There were CARDINAL cells in the holding area of ORG where the applicant was taken . Each cell measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL inmates . The cells were equipped with CARDINAL bench each , which could seat CARDINAL inmates . Those suffering from hepatitis , tuberculosis , HIV and other diseases were placed together with the rest of the inmates . On each occasion the applicant spent CARDINAL or eight hours in such conditions ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171098","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MIH\u0102ILESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC .","In DATE the applicant was convicted of human trafficking and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","He was detained in several detention facilities . However , in the present application he only complained about the conditions of his detention in ORG and about the fact that he had not been assigned a personal care assistant in ORG and ORG DATE and DATE .","The applicant was detained in FAC on several occasions , for a period of DATE : DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , as well as from DATE and DATE .","The applicant alleged that he had been kept in conditions of poor hygiene in overcrowded cells . He had shared a cell of QUANTITY with CARDINAL other detainees . Moreover , he submitted that he had shared his cell with smokers despite the fact that he was a nonsmoker . The food had also been of very poor quality .","According to the information provided by ORG and forwarded to ORG , the applicant was held in the following cells :","- cells E CARDINAL.CARDINAL , E CARDINAL.CARDINAL . and E CARDINAL . , all measuring QUANTITY . m , containing twentysix beds ( that is , QUANTITY . m per bed ) , occupied by CARDINAL to twentysix detainees ;","- cell E CARDINAL.CARDINAL . , measuring QUANTITY m , containing CARDINAL beds ( that is , QUANTITY . m per bed ) , occupied by CARDINAL detainees ;","- and cell E CARDINAL.CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m , containing CARDINAL beds ( that is , QUANTITY . m per bed ) and occupied by QUANTITY detainees .","The Government did not provide any information concerning either the exact number of detainees who had occupied the cells or the time spent by the applicant in each of the above - mentioned cells .","The detainees were provided with cleaning materials and personal hygiene products and they were responsible for cleaning the cells . Specialist contractors carried out work to eradicate rodents and insects whenever it was considered necessary . The detainees were entitled to CARDINAL showers per week .","NORP The applicant received a special diet for his medical condition ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE a medical commission issued a certificate attesting that the applicant had been classified as a person with a permanent , severe physical disability on account of his visual impairment . The medical commission granted the applicant the right to a personal care assistant .","The applicant alleged that no special arrangements had been made for him as a person with severe visual impairment in GPE and ORG DATE and DATE .","NORP Moreover , he contended that he had not been assigned a personal care assistant and had been permanently subjected to humiliating and degrading remarks from his cellmates , the same people to whom he had to appeal for assistance . As he had had no personal assistant he had not been able to benefit from DATE walks and had been dependent on the other inmates to be moved around the prison .","He had only received assistance from inmates in the facility in exchange for cigarettes and money . The inmates had refused to help him unless they were paid . The administration had not taken any steps to rectify the situation .","The applicant submitted copies of several requests he had lodged with the prison authorities on DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE respectively , by which he had asked to be assigned a personal assistant . In each of his requests he had indicated the name of the co - detainee he had preferred to be assigned to him . All these requests were dismissed on the ground that the co - detainees indicated by the applicant could not assist him because they had been subject to disciplinary sanctions .","The Government submitted that the administration of both prisons had made diligent efforts to comply with the standards imposed by the ORG . Moreover , in DATE the authorities in ORG had refurbished cell E CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to accommodate the needs of detainees with disabilities , including those of the applicant .","The Government contended that the medical certificate on his disability had been issued only on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) because the applicant had failed to submit the documents requested by the special commission for disabled persons . They further argued that even before the medical certificate had been issued , the prison authorities had on CARDINAL DATE allowed a request lodged by the applicant on DATE to be assigned a personal care assistant . They had assigned him an inmate , PERSON , who had been sharing the applicant \u2019s cell . He had assisted the applicant until DATE , when the latter had been admitted to the medical unit of ORG . In the medical unit the applicant had been assisted by a co - detainee with whom he had shared the room . The Government did not provide any information about the co - detainee in question .","After the applicant had returned to ORG he had lodged a request to be assigned a personal care assistant . On DATE the prison authorities had assigned him an inmate , whom the applicant had refused .","NORP The applicant lodged several complaints on the basis of PERSON no . CARDINAL on the execution of sentences with the post - sentencing judge .","In DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL complaints concerning an infringement by the administration of ORG of his right to have a personal care assistant . He stated that he had not been assigned a person to assist him although he was suffering from a severe visual impairment .","The complaints were joined and examined together by the postsentencing judge on DATE . The judge noted that the prison doctor \u2019s opinion was that the applicant was not entitled to a personal assistant . It further noted that on CARDINAL DATE the prison authorities had appointed a commission of specialists , which had examined the applicant . The commission had found that owing to his visual impairment the applicant encountered difficulties in eating , maintaining his hygiene and in alerting prison staff or other co - detainees in case of need . It had therefore recommended a set of steps to be taken , which included closely monitoring the applicant . Subsequently , a detainee , GPE , sharing the applicant \u2019s cell , had been assigned to support him in his DATE activities . The post - sentencing judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints on the grounds that the steps taken by the prison authorities had been sufficient .","NORP In his application to the Court , the applicant contended that assigning him GPE had been useless because the latter had refused to provide him with any help . The applicant produced a handwritten statement by GPE , dated DATE , in which the latter had stated that he had not helped the applicant because the prison authorities had refused to consider his activity as a personal care assistant as work that should be remunerated ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154147","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF FERRARI v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a military pilot .","On DATE his child was born of his marriage with ORG who holds both NORP and NORP nationality . At the date of the facts , the family \u2019s permanent residence was in GPE , but they travelled due to the applicant \u2019s various work assignments .","In DATE the applicant was sent to a ORG mission in GPE where his family joined him shortly after . While in GPE , the family travelled to GPE to visit the applicant \u2019s sister . In order to facilitate the travelling , the applicant and his wife signed an authorisation form allowing each CARDINAL of them to travel abroad with the child .","After having lived together for DATE in GPE , the applicant and ORG decided together that ORG would take their child to GPE for DATE , and would join the applicant in GPE in DATE , at the end of his contract in GPE . The parents agreed that ORG and the child would return to GPE before DATE , the date at which the child \u2019s passport would expire .","NORP M.T.R. was unable to make travel arrangements on time , as the applicant had been late in sending money for the tickets , and eventually the child \u2019s passport expired . ORG sought the applicant \u2019s consent to request a NORP passport for the child , but the applicant refused .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that she would not return with the child to GPE . Later on , on DATE she filed for divorce and custody of the child before the NORP courts .","On DATE the applicant withdrew the authorisation that he had given to the wife to travel with the child . On DATE he also lodged a request for the return of the child under LAW on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ( \u201c LAW ) , with ORG , ORG for the purpose of LAW .","On DATE the notification made by the applicant was received by ORG , ORG for the purpose of LAW ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) . At the ORG \u2019s request , the police visited ORG \u2019s home and inquired about their situation . She provided copies of their identity papers and of the authorisation form allowing her to travel with the child .","On DATE ORG tried unsuccessfully to engage the mother in negotiations concerning the return of the child to GPE . On DATE they lodged before ORG an application under LAW for the return of the child .","Five hearings took place in the case . At the first hearing ORG filed a response to the applicant \u2019s motion ; a postponement was granted at the ORG \u2019s request . At the second hearing ORG learned , allegedly for the first time , that the authorisation to travel had been withdrawn by her husband . This hearing as well as the next one were postponed at ORG \u2019s request . At the next hearing ORG asked that the applicant \u2019s request be dismissed ; she claimed that he was sexually deviant and stated that she feared for her child \u2019s safety should he be returned to his father . The applicant did not appear in court .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request and ordered ORG to return the child to the habitual residence in GPE within DATE from the date of its decision . It noted that while the applicant had given his consent to the travel to GPE , his wife retained the child in GPE against the applicant \u2019s will contrary to what had been initially agreed upon . It also observed that the parents maintained joint custody of the child , as they had been legally married at the date of the wrongful retention . It further noted that on DATE ORG had granted the couple \u2019s divorce but had not decided on the custody of the child ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It dismissed as unfounded the mother \u2019s allegations that the applicant was not taking active part in the child \u2019s upbringing and that his presence constituted a major risk for \u201c the child \u2019s physical , psychical , emotional and affective development \u201d . The decision was final and enforceable within DATE .","On DATE M.T.R. appealed in cassation . The case was heard on DATE by ORG . In a final decision of DATE the court upheld ORG decision .","On DATE the ORG requested the assistance of a bailiff for the enforcement of the final decision . On DATE the bailiff informed ORG of the obligation to comply with the court order . DATE ORG lodged an application for a stay of execution which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","A new enforcement attempt took place on DATE when ORG informed the bailiff that she refused to comply with the return order . She explained that the applicant could keep contact with the child through internet and webcam , that she kept him updated with the developments of the child and that he did not support the child financially . On DATE the bailiff decided to postpone the enforcement proceedings .","At the same time , ORG requested the annulment of the final decision of DATE ( contesta\u0163ie \u00een anulare ) which she considered to be \u201c unfounded and unlawful \u201d ( netemeinic\u0103 \u015fi nelegal\u0103 ) . On DATE ORG granted her request , quashed the return order and sent the case back for re - examination of the appeal on points of law . ORG retried the appeal and in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE dismissed the initial request for the return of the child . The court considered that the child \u2019s arrival to GPE was not unlawful as both parents had consented to the trip . It also found that the child was already integrated in his new environment . It considered that it would not be in the child \u2019s best interest to return to GPE , because the applicant travelled often due to his job as a military pilot and consequently could not take proper care of the child :","\u201c The social workers\u2019 reports in the case and the child \u2019s psychological evaluation show that the child is harmoniously developed DATE affectively , emotionally and intellectually - , is affectively attached to his mother and maternal grandmother , and is integrated in the environment in which he lives since his arrival in GPE . His return to GPE is perceived by the court as not corresponding to his superior interest in so far as , notably , his father being a military pilot , is selected for missions within ORG , which makes it impossible for him to be preoccupied with raising , caring for and educating the child ; in addition frequent travel by the child with his father in these missions is unfavourable to the child \u2019s harmonious development . \u201d","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed ORG of the outcome of the proceedings and advised the applicant to request a right of access under LAW . ORG sent the decision to the applicant and expressed their disagreement with the court \u2019s reasoning . They argued mainly that the protractions leading to the child becoming integrated in his new environment , in GPE , were not imputable to the applicant , but to the NORP authorities themselves . Moreover , they claimed that the NORP courts were wrong in considering that because of his profession the applicant could not take care of the child ; in any event , such consideration should have been examined and decided by the courts ruling on the custody of the child .","The Ministry kept close contact with ORG throughout the proceedings , informing them of the progress of the case and seeking information requested by the courts about the applicant .","On DATE ORG filed for divorce and custody of the child . On DATE the Ministry informed the applicant of those proceedings .","On DATE ORG granted the divorce but decided not to rule on the custody matters before the end of the GPE proceedings which were pending at that time .","The applicant did not appeal and the decision became thus final .","On DATE the GPE ORG granted GPE custody of the child and awarded the applicant visiting rights . The parties appealed ; the applicant contested the alimony set by the court . The decision became final with certain amendments on DATE when ORG dismissed the appeals on points of law lodged by the CARDINAL parents .","In the latter part of DATE the applicant travelled for the first time to GPE since the beginning of the conflictual situation . He stayed with ORG and his child in ORG \u2019s apartment in Husi for a month .","In DATE the applicant travelled to GPE on QUANTITY occasions , once accompanied by the child \u2019s paternal grandmother . The child was able to spend time with his father and shared his hotel room for TIME ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181276","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF M.K. v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion;Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant , a NORP national , was born in DATE and currently resides in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE , being in possession of a study visa . He enrolled in the ORG and had his registered residence in the town of Izhevsk . His visa expired on CARDINAL DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant applied for refugee status alleging the risks to his life and safety in the light of the on - going conflict in GPE . The request and the subsequent appeals were dismissed by the NORP migration authorities and the courts .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and put in detention by the migration authorities .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant in breach of migration rules , an offence under LAW of LAW , and ordered his expulsion . In order to facilitate enforcement , the court ordered that the applicant be placed in detention .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment .","On DATE the ORG indicated to the respondent Government , under LAW , that the applicant should not be extradited , expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed from GPE to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the Court . Since that date the enforcement of the applicant \u2019s expulsion was DATE postponed by the domestic courts .","On DATE ORG of GPE on appeal amended the lower courts\u2019 judgments and excluded administrative removal from the sanction , since it would have exposed the applicant \u2019s life to risk in GPE .","On DATE the applicant left GPE for GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167828","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MAGYAR HELSINKI BIZOTTS\u00c1G v. HUNGARY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive information);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant , PERSON ( NORP ORG ) , is a non - governmental organisation ( NGO ) that was founded in DATE . It monitors the implementation of international human - rights standards in GPE , provides legal representation to victims of alleged human - rights abuses and promotes legal education and training both in GPE and abroad . Its main areas of activity are protecting the rights of asylum seekers and foreigners in need of international protection , and monitoring the human - rights performance of law - enforcement agencies and the judicial system . In particular , it focuses on access to justice , conditions of detention , and the effective enforcement of the right to defence .","DATE the applicant NGO conducted a project \u201c ORG Programme \u201d aimed at developing and testing a model to overcome shortcomings in the system for the ex officio appointment of defence counsel . The study summarising the outcome of the project was published in DATE under the title \u201c Without Defence \u201d , suggesting that there should be a standard set of criteria developed to assess the quality of defence counsel \u2019s work .","In DATE , as a follow - up to its DATE survey , the applicant NGO launched a new project entitled \u201c The Right to Effective Defence and the Reform of the ex - Officio Appointment System \u201d . Together with ORG and Law Enforcement and various bar associations , the applicant NGO developed a questionnaire aimed at evaluating the performance of defence counsel . It also assessed the quality of legal representation provided by ex officio appointed and retained defence counsel , by examining the case files in CARDINAL closed criminal cases . In parallel , the applicant NGO made a contribution in respect of GPE to the comparative research project \u201c LAW in ORG and Access to ORG : Investigating and Promoting Best Practices \u201d carried out in CARDINAL NORP countries and funded by ORG and the Open Society Justice Initiative .","The results of the CARDINAL projects were presented at a conference in DATE , the conclusions of which were summarised in the report \u201c In the Shadow of Suspicion : A critical account of enforcing the right to an effective defence \u201d .","In addition , the applicant NGO carried out continuous advocacy activities for reform of the ex officio appointments system ; in cooperation with ORG , it also drew up recommendations for a proposed code of professional ethics for ex officio defence counsel .","In the applicant ORG \u2019s assessment , its research showed that the system of ex officio appointed defenders did not operate adequately , essentially because the investigative authorities , in particular the police , were free to choose defence counsel from a list compiled by the relevant bar associations . This gave rise to distrust on the part of defendants . Furthermore , according to the applicant NGO \u2019s findings , many police departments had recourse to the same lawyers or law firms in the majority of cases , resulting in defence ORG dependency on ex officio appointments to earn their living . The applicant ORG also concluded that the selection system lacked transparency .","NORP In DATE , in the framework of the project \u201c Steps Towards a Transparent Appointment System in Criminal Legal Aid \u201d , an experimental method was put in place , in cooperation with the applicant NGO , the county bar associations and certain county police departments . A key facet of this method was replacement of the existing system of discretionary appointments by a randomised computer - generated CARDINAL .","As a feature of the project , the applicant NGO requested the names of the public defenders selected in DATE and the number of assignments given to each lawyer from a total of QUANTITY police departments , situated in the CARDINAL NORP regions . The aim of the data request was to demonstrate whether there existed discrepancies in police GPE practice in appointing defence counsel from the lists provided by the bar associations . These requests were made under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act no . ORG of DATE ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) . The applicant NGO maintained that the number of defence counsel appointments was public - interest data ( k\u00f6z\u00e9rdek\u0171 adat ) and that thus the names of defence counsel were data subject to disclosure in the public interest ( k\u00f6z\u00e9rdekb\u0151l nyilv\u00e1nos adat ) .","Seventeen police departments complied with the request ; a further CARDINAL police departments disclosed the requested information following a successful legal challenge by the applicant NGO .","On DATE the applicant NGO addressed the same request to ORG , seeking access to information concerning the names of defence counsel appointed in the police department \u2019s area of jurisdiction and the number of appointments given to each defence counsel .","In its response of CARDINAL DATE the ORG refused the applicant NGO \u2019s request , stating that \u201c the names of the defence counsel are not public - interest data nor information subject to disclosure in the public interest under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , since defence counsel are not members of a body performing ORG , municipal or public duties . Thus their names constitute private data , which are not to be disclosed under the law \u201d . The police department also referred to the disproportionate burden the provision of the data would impose on it .","A similar request by the applicant NGO was rejected by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant NGO brought an action against these QUANTITY police departments , arguing that ex officio defence counsel performed a duty in the interest of the public which was financed from public funds . Data concerning them thus qualified as information subject to disclosure in the public interest .","In its counter - claim , the Hajd\u00fa - Bihar County Police Department maintained its view that the names of defence counsel constituted personal data rather than information subject to disclosure in the public interest , since they neither carried out their tasks within the scope of the duties and competences of the police departments , nor were they members of those bodies . It further maintained that processing the data requested by the applicant NGO would entail a prohibitive workload .","ORG requested the discontinuation of the proceedings .","ORG joined the CARDINAL cases . On DATE ORG found for the applicant NGO , ordering the respondents to release the relevant information within DATE .","The court found that although defence counsel did not qualify as persons performing public duties , they were also not employees or agents of the respondent police departments , and the question whether defence was an activity of a public - interest nature was a matter which should be assessed with reference to its aim and role . Referring to LAW on mandatory defence and to LAW on the investigative authorities\u2019 duty to appoint defence counsel under certain conditions , the court observed that the duties of the investigative authorities also included giving effect to the constitutional right to defence . The court concluded that measures concerning the exercise of mandatory defence qualified as public - interest activities , and any related data were of great importance for society and were not to be considered as a matter of personality rights or subject to the protection of private interests . The names of defence counsel and the number of their respective appointments did not therefore constitute information of a private nature , in relation to which disclosure would only be possible with the approval of the person concerned . The court went on to state that , given the public - interest nature of mandatory defence , the interest in informing society seemed to be stronger than the need to protect privacy , which in any case was not infringed since the role of defence counsel was public from the moment of indictment . The court ordered the respondents to surrender the information requested .","Both police departments appealed , reiterating in essence their argument that the names and number of appointments of defence counsel did not represent information subject to disclosure in the public interest , but personal data , since those persons did not perform ORG , municipal or public duties . They also maintained that the transfer of the requested information would cause an undue burden .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG , acting as a second - instance court , overturned the firstinstance judgment and dismissed the applicant NGO \u2019s claim in its entirety . The court rejected the applicant ORG \u2019s argument that ex officio defence counsel exercised public functions within the meaning of LAW . In the court \u2019s view , the provisions of LAW relied on by the applicant NGO provided for equal recognition before the law and for the right to defence and imposed a duty on the ORG to ensure these rights . However , the provisions did not prescribe that the activities of ex officio defence counsel were public duties , irrespective of the fact that they were financed by the ORG . The court held that the duty of the police to appoint defence counsel in certain cases was to be distinguished from the latter \u2019s activities . It noted that personal data could only be processed under section MONEY ) of LAW for a well - defined purpose in the exercise of a right or in fulfilment of an obligation , and that personal data processed by the police departments could only be transferred with the permission of the person concerned .","The applicant NGO sought review of the second - instance judgment , maintaining that although the names of the defence counsel and the number of their respective appointments were personal data , this was nevertheless information subject to disclosure in the public interest as being related to the public duties carried out by ex officio defence counsel .","ORG dismissed the applicant NGO \u2019s petition for review on DATE . It upheld ORG judgment in substance , partly modifying its reasoning .","ORG held as follows :","\u201c ... [ W]hat needs to be examined is whether defence counsel are to be considered \u2018 other persons performing public duties\u2019 . ORG considers , in compliance with Recommendation no . CARDINAL of the Parliamentary Commissioner for ORG , that the question of whether an individual was a person performing public duties has to be determined solely on the basis of the provisions of LAW . Only a person vested with independent powers and competences is to be considered a person performing public duties .","In answering this question [ of interpretation of the notion of \u2018 persons performing public duties\u2019 ] , the applicant \u2019s argument concerning LAW ) of LAW is irrelevant , since that provision only prescribes that defence counsel were to be regarded as persons performing public duties for the purposes of LAW itself , but not for the purposes of LAW or for any other legal relationship .","Under LAW of the LAW , the ORG has a duty to secure the right to defence . The courts , the prosecution services and the investigative authorities perform this task by , in particular , ensuring the right to defence ( LAW ) and by appointing defence counsel when required under Articles DATE CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure . In so doing , these bodies accomplish their public duties , which are thus terminated with the appointment of defence counsel . Following his or her appointment , a defence counsel \u2019s activities constitute private activities although they are performed in pursuance of a public goal .","The court has thus found that defence counsel can not be regarded as \u2018 other persons performing public duties\u2019 , since no powers or competences defined by law are vested in them . The mere fact that procedural laws specify rights and obligations in respect of persons performing the task of defence counsel in criminal proceedings can not be interpreted as constituting powers and competences defined by law . In respect of the right to defence , LAW prescribes obligations only for authorities , not for defence counsel . The wording of LAW , which states that prosecution , defence and adjudication are separate tasks , also supports this view .","Thus , the names and number of appointments of defence counsel constitute personal data under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . Accordingly , under section DATE ) of LAW , the respondent police departments can not be obliged to surrender such personal data . It follows that the second - instance court was right to dismiss the applicant \u2019s action . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159042","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CARAGEA v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was the CEO ( Chief Executive Officer ) and majority shareholder of a commercial company , ORG \u201c ORG , which had been ORG until DATE ; the company was based in PERSON and DATE was listed in the top CARDINAL most valuable private companies in GPE .","DATE a number of shareholders and employees of the company lodged criminal complaints against the applicant concerning the alleged improper manner in which he conducted his professional activity as manager of the company during and after its privatisation . Several criminal investigations were accordingly conducted in respect of the applicant , which were ongoing at the time of the relevant events ; none of them led to his indictment .","On DATE FAC , a journalist with the local newspaper ORG published an article entitled \u201c Who do we call when we disregard the law ? \u201d ( La cine apel\u0103m c\u00e2nd \u00eenc\u0103lc\u0103m legea ? ) .","The article , in its relevant parts , read as follows :","\u201c It is with regret that we have to make an absolutely necessary response to an unacceptable act of servitude of the press . A so - called journalist of the once serious PERSON , decided to defend , through some completely unverified articles , the CEO of the company \u201c ORG , PERSON , and to transform him from a dirty person into a clean one . It is true that corrupt members of the NORP legal establishment , including county prosecutors , have cleared the CEO of GPE \u201c L \u201d SA ( l - au scos basma curat\u0103 ) in contradiction of the clear facts and the written evidence . ORG ORG has managed the company in a completely dictatorial style , to ORG cost , with serving his personal interest as the only aim .","It is regrettable that colleagues from the DATE PERSON have taken to defending persons of dubious morality , perhaps even criminals , aiming neither to properly inform the readers nor to provide a space for regular advertising . In none of these cases has the author of the article had the courage to write under his or her true name . What the readers should know is that when an investigation is made public in the press DATE even though PERSON invented the term \u201c positive investigation \u201d ( assuming that such a thing could possibly exist ) \u2013 the author should make their real name public so as to take responsibility and very often to be sworn at . The fact that the articles praising ORG , who brought the OJT PERSON [ ORG ] to disaster , or those praising D.I.M. did not have real names in the byline , proves the lack of responsibility and the sense of shame emanating from the words written in the paper . Not only should the author be held accountable for this practice ; so should the management of the publication , who should not accept it as it has nothing to do with the respect ... owed to the reader .","These statements are not an attack on our colleagues in GPE , the oldest publication in the city , but are the opinion of CARDINAL man who wants to find out who is the slave ( slugoiul ) who signed CARDINAL or other of these articles , in order to discover who is the pawn for those who can not be portrayed positively in the press after having defrauded their business partners . It is worth mentioning that our newspaper has published a few articles relating to the irregularities in the company \u201c ORG The documents we have clearly prove that what has happened has nothing to do with legality , but these have not attracted the interest of our colleagues in the other county newspaper ; their only interest is , in many cases , \u201c brown - nosing \u201d ( \u201c de a - i sp\u0103la la fund \u201d ) those who fail to comply with the law . We must n\u2019t forget the hosannas to honour GPE and the editorial subordination shown to D.I.M. What a pity ! \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged before the T\u00e2rgu ORG a criminal complaint for defamation against FAC , the author of the above article . The applicant argued that the expressions that had been used by the journalist , who had associated him with \u201c persons of dubious morality , perhaps even criminals \u201d , had damaged his good reputation and put at risk his relations with business partners on a local and national level , thus endangering the financial situation of his company . He stated that none of the charges referred to in the article had led to him being indicted .","On DATE the court acquitted GPE Having analysed the content of the article and the witnesses\u2019 testimonies , it held that the journalist \u2019s intention had not been to defame the applicant but merely to make his opinion regarding the applicant \u2019s activity public , and to highlight the dispute with other local journalists who had written articles praising the applicant . As the disputed acts had not severely damaged the dignity and the reputation of the applicant , his request for non - pecuniary compensation was dismissed .","The applicant appealed claiming that : the journalist had previously been convicted several times for defaming other third parties in his newspaper , showing his perseverance in using the press to insult others ; and the article was part of a revenge campaign by the journalist . According to the applicant , the journalist \u2019s publishing company operated on commercial premises owned by the company \u201c ORG ; the applicant brought a civil suit against the publishing company for rent arrears , and when the claims were granted , the journalist asked that the publisher \u2019s debt be written off in exchange for favourable publicity in the press ; the proposal was turned down ; hence the appearance of the disputed DATE .","On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court stated that as the applicant had been the subject of criminal prosecution for the manner in which he had conducted his job as CEO of his company , there had been sufficient factual basis for the article , which in any case had been merely a response to another article praising the applicant published in a different newspaper . The court pointed out that the role of the press was to inform the general public and that the journalist had had no intention to defame the applicant , only to express his opinion concerning the latter \u2019s professional activity as CEO of an important company in the city of PERSON ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175229","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"BO\u0160NJAK v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a dual NORP and NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent at the time , ORG .","ORG , having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) , indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right .","The applicant was an officer of the JNA , the armed forces of the former ORG ( \u201c SFRY \u201d ) . The present case concerns his attempt to regain possession of a flat he had bought in GPE before the DATE - CARDINAL war .","The detailed background concerning socially owned flats , military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE is provided in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , and PERSON and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL et al . , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant was granted the right to occupy a military flat in GPE .","On DATE he bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full purchase price in the amount of MONEY ( MONEY at the time ) .","When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicant continued his military career in the LOC forces and left GPE . His military service was terminated in DATE .","On DATE the relevant housing authority of the VJ forces rejected a request submitted by the applicant to be granted a tenancy right in respect of a military flat in GPE .","On DATE ORG GPE allocated the flat in question to PERSON , a member of ORG .","In DATE the applicant applied to the competent administrative authority in the GPE Canton for the restitution of his flat . On DATE his application was rejected under LAW of ORG . On DATE the competent ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE the restitution commission set up by Annex CARDINAL to the DATE LAW in GPE ( \u201c the GPE Peace Agreement \u201d ) , before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings , held that the applicant was neither a refugee nor a displaced person within the meaning of Annex CARDINAL , and declined jurisdiction .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application with ORG ( a domestic human - rights body set up under PERSON DATE to ORG ) . He relied on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of Protocol No . CARDINAL to the Convention .","On DATE ORG ( which had succeeded ORG in DATE ) found a violation of LAW on account of the length of the restitution proceedings and awarded the applicant MONEY ( BAM ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) for non - pecuniary damage in this connection . As regards the complaint under LAW No . CARDINAL , ORG held that the situation complained of , that is , the applicant \u2019s inability to regain possession of the flat and to register his title to it , undoubtedly amounted to a continuing interference with the peaceful enjoyment of his \u201c possessions \u201d . Assessing the proportionality of the interference , ORG held that the applicant \u2019s continued service in the VJ forces after the DATE - CARDINAL war demonstrated his disloyalty to GPE . Taking into consideration also the serious shortage of housing units and the compensation to which the applicant was entitled , ORG concluded that the interference was justified . It therefore found no violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention and considered it to be unnecessary to examine the discrimination and LAW complaints . However , it ordered the government of ORG to secure the applicant \u2019s right to compensation for his flat under section DATE of ORG without further delay and at the latest within DATE of the delivery of that decision .","On DATE the applicant received BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in compensation for his flat , as ordered by ORG .","On DATE all purchase contracts concluded under LAW DATE were declared void under legislation transferring the resources of the former SFRY to GPE ( Zakon o preuzimanju sredstava biv\u0161e ORG u svojinu PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Thereafter , the legislation regulating this matter , ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , ORG Herzegovina ( \u201c OG FBH \u201d ) CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) and ORG Zakon o prestanku primjene PERSON o napu\u0161tenim stanovima , PERSON . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , FAC , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) underwent numerous changes and all such contracts were declared legally valid .","Nevertheless , CARDINAL categories of buyers are not entitled to repossess their flats and to register their title to them ( section ORG and section CARDINAL of ORG . The first category concerns those who served in foreign armed forces after the DATE - CARDINAL war . The second concerns those who acquired occupancy or equivalent rights to a military flat in a successor ORG of the SFRY . However , they are entitled to compensation under section ORG . The compensation was initially calculated on the basis of approximately ORG QUANTITY , adjusted in line with the age of the flat , with depreciation set at PERCENT of its value per year . On DATE section DATE of ORG was amended so that those who could not repossess their flats were entitled only to a refund of the amount paid for the flats in DATE , plus interest at the rate applicable to overnight deposits .","On DATE , following the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE and GPE , cited above , ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) declared that section DATE as amended in DATE was unconstitutional and ordered ORG to amend it ( decision no . U CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . ORG stated , in particular :","\u201c ORG can not determine what the compensation [ for military flats ] should be . That question is within the jurisdiction of ORG , which in its role of a legislative body will determine the policy concerning this matter . However , ORG believes that in determining this matter the legislator should take into account the circumstances in which the impugned flats were purchased , the economic situation in GPE and the fact that LAW No . CARDINAL of ORG does not guarantee a right to full compensation in all circumstances . \u201d","NORP In DATE and DATE ORG adopted action plans in response to the ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases of GPE and PERSON and Others ( both cited above ) with a view to identifying similar cases and introducing an adequate compensation scheme . It was established that CARDINAL individuals were in the same situation as the applicants in those cases ( out of which CARDINAL had purchased their flats ) . It was further estimated that around ORG CARDINAL million should be secured to pay the compensation for their pre - war homes .","In DATE the Government of ORG prepared draft amendments to section DATE of ORG . The amendments provide that the amount actually paid for the flats in DATE , plus interest at the rate applicable to overnight deposits , will be refunded to those who acquired a tenancy right or another equivalent right to a military flat in one of the successor ORG . Those who did not acquire such rights , irrespective of whether they purchased or had an occupancy right in respect of the flats , will be entitled to compensation calculated at a rate of approximately ORG QUANTITY , adjusted in line with the age of the flat , with depreciation set at PERCENT of its value per year . As explained above , the same method was used before the DATE legislative amendments ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The eligible beneficiaries would be entitled to apply for compensation within DATE of the adoption of the amendments . The compensation would be payable in CARDINAL equal DATE instalments ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161002","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF K.J. v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is NORP and lives in GPE , GPE . He is married to PERSON , who is also NORP . In DATE the couple moved to GPE . Their daughter was born there in DATE . Parental responsibility was exercised jointly by both parents .","On DATE PERSON and the child went to GPE on holiday , with the applicant \u2019s consent . On DATE PERSON informed the applicant that she was not coming back to GPE with the child .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for a return order for the child under LAW .","It appears that in DATE the application was registered with ORG . Judge PERSON was assigned to preside over the case .","NORP In response to the applicant \u2019s request , PERSON submitted that in DATE she and her husband had become distant from each other ; the applicant had lost interest in his family and had been spending his spare time playing computer games . For those reasons , and also out of fear that the child would never again be allowed to leave GPE , PERSON did not agree to her daughter \u2019s returning to GPE alone and informed the domestic court that she did not wish to go back there with the child .","The first hearing was held on DATE before ORG , with Judge PERSON presiding . The applicant and his lawyer attended the hearing .","The second hearing was held on DATE before the same judge . The applicant and his lawyer attended the hearing . The domestic court heard CARDINAL witnesses and ordered a report of experts in psychology from ORG ( Rodzinny O\u015brodek PERSON RODK \u201d ) .","NORP On DATE the experts examined the applicant , PERSON and the child , who was DATE at the time . The report was issued on CARDINAL DATE .","The third hearing was held on DATE before Judge PERSON At this hearing , ORG decided to dismiss the applicant \u2019s request for the child \u2019s return ( III Nsm CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The first - instance court ruled on the basis of the following evidence : testimony of the applicant , PERSON and the members of both families and the RODK experts\u2019 report .","The RODK experts were ordered to make the following assessment :","\u201c whether moving [ the child ] into her father \u2019s care , linked with her separation from the mother , would disturb [ the child \u2019s ] sense of security and would affect her emotional state in a negative way ; or is it recommended , [ with a view to ] the adequate psycho - physical development of the child , to [ put the child under the father \u2019s care ] linked with [ giving ] an order to surrender the child by the mother . \u201d","The experts concluded that \u201c the child \u2019s return to GPE and her separation from the mother \u201d , her primary caregiver , \u201c would cause more emotional harm to the child than the lack of DATE contact with her father . \u201d In particular , the child \u2019s sense of security and stability could be disturbed . To this effect the report read as follows : \u201c Considering the [ young ] age and the sex of the child , it must be stated that the mother is currently best suited to satisfy her daughter \u2019s needs . \u201d","The experts also noted that the child was emotionally attached to both parents ; she was developing well ; perceived GPE and GPE on an equal footing ; spoke NORP and had adapted well to her new life in GPE . It was recommended that the child should stay with her mother in GPE and have regular contact with her father .","The first - instance court considered that the RODK \u2019s report was thorough , clear and of a high evidentiary value .","On the merits , ORG considered that it was called to examine \u201c the relationship between the child and [ each of ] the parents , her physical and psychological development and also , any [ possible ] physical or psychological harm [ which could occur ] in the event of the child \u2019s return to her father without the mother . \u201d","The domestic court attached importance to the young age of the child ( who was DATE and DATE at the time of the ruling ) and the fact that the mother had always been the child \u2019s primary caregiver . The reasons for the mother \u2019s refusal to return to GPE together with the child were not discussed by the domestic court . The district court held , relying on the PERSON report , that there was a grave risk of psychological harm if she were to return to GPE without her mother . It was noted that LAW ( b ) of LAW protected abducted children to such a great extent that it did not allow for their return if that was going to place them in a \u201c disadvantageous situation \u201d ( w niekorzystnej sytuacji ) .","The applicant appealed , arguing among others the following points of fact and law : the first - instance court ruled in breach of LAW ( b ) of LAW , firstly in that they concluded that in re was a grave risk that the child \u2019s return to GPE would expose her to intolerable psychological harm and would place her in a disadvantageous situation , and secondly in that they wrongly assumed that the child would have to be separated from the mother even though the latter had not cited any objective obstacles to her returning to GPE ; the first - instance court ruled in breach of LAW and its general directive that the best interest of the child be protected ; the facts as established by the domestic court contradicted the evidence produced in the course of the proceedings ; the court \u2019s conclusion that the child \u2019s return would expose her to intolerable psychological harm contradicted the findings of the expert report ; and the court should not have refused to adjourn the hearing at which the applicant was not represented by a lawyer .","At the appellate hearing , the applicant also argued ( CARDINAL ) that the experts in psychology who had drafted the RODK \u2019s report for the firstinstance court were incompetent .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal ( IV Ca CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The appellate court fully relied on the findings of fact made by the first - instance court , and held that the child \u2019s return to GPE with or without the mother would place her in an intolerable situation ( \u201c w sytuacji nie do zniesienia \u201d ) . Firstly , in view of the child \u2019s very young age and the fact that since the retention the child had been under her mother \u2019s care practically round the clock and that her contact with the applicant had been rare , the child \u2019s separation from her mother would cause negative and irreversible consequences . Secondly , the child \u2019s return with her mother would not have a positive impact on the child \u2019s development either . To this effect , it was noted that PERSON had never adapted to her life in GPE ; she was in conflict with the applicant and her departure from GPE would be against her will and forced by the circumstances .","As to the remaining grounds of the applicant \u2019s appeal , the regional court ruled in the following manner : contrary to the applicant \u2019s impression , the RODK \u2019s report was clear and adamant in its conclusion that the child \u2019s best interest would be better served if she were allowed to stay in GPE with her mother ; in view of the fact that the applicant \u2019s lawyer had gone on holiday and the applicant had not agreed to be represented by a substitute lawyer , granting his motion for adjournment was not justified ; and the argument about the incompetence of the RODK \u2019s experts was , firstly , belated ( the applicant had not raised that issue before the first - instance court or in his appeal ) and , secondly , inconsistent with the applicant \u2019s reliance on the impugned report in support of his remaining arguments .","At the first hearing , held on DATE by ORG , the applicant \u2019s lawyer applied , expressly citing LAW of LAW , for arrangements for organising and securing the effective exercise of the applicant \u2019s right of contact during LAW proceedings .","The domestic court did not rule on that application .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for a contact order in respect of the child . He did not rely on LAW . He asked , inter alia , for an interim order to be issued obliging PERSON for the duration of the LAW proceedings to allow him to take the child to his house DATE from TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE , and to talk to the child by telephone or ORG DATE TIME","On DATE ORG , with GPE as the presiding judge , decided under LAW to stay the proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s contact with the child until the end of the couple \u2019s divorce proceedings , which had been instituted before ORG on DATE ( III . NORP ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the divorce application lodged by PERSON ( IC MONEY ) was rejected by ORG , with PERSON as the presiding judge accompanied by CARDINAL lay judges . The regional court favoured the jurisdiction of the NORP courts because the last common place of residence of the couple was in GPE , GPE . On DATE the ORG , with GPE as the presiding judge , dismissed PERSON \u2019s interlocutory appeal against that decision .","The applicant submitted that when LAW proceedings had been pending in GPE , he had seen his daughter on several occasions , in the mother \u2019s house and in her presence .","On DATE ORG issued a decision on the applicant \u2019s contact with his daughter . A copy of this decision has not been submitted to the ORG . It appears that the applicant was authorised to see his daughter the second and DATE of DATE ; during DATE ; during DATE and on selected DATE and GPE holidays . It appears that the applicant did not appeal against this decision .","On DATE ORG , with GPE as presiding judge , confirmed that the above - mentioned decision was binding and enforceable as of DATE .","ORG proceedings are currently pending in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169022","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"VU\u010cELJI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a LOC national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant and his siblings ( \u201c the plaintiffs \u201d ) instituted civil proceedings against : ( a ) the ORG , as the founder of the public broadcasting service , PERSON ( \u201c RTCG \u201d ) , and ( b ) GPE , CARDINAL of ORG \u2019s employees . They submitted that a television programme transmitted by the ORG had portrayed their late father in a way which was insulting to both him and his family .","On DATE , after CARDINAL remittals , ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE ruled against the plaintiffs .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE overturned the judgment of the first - instance court and ruled partly in favour of the plaintiffs , ordering the ORG to pay each of them compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) with accompanying interest . The court dismissed their claim in respect of GPE and ordered them to pay him the costs of the respective proceedings . On DATE the same court issued an additional judgment ordering the ORG to make ORG judgment of DATE public via ORG and to pay the plaintiffs the costs of the proceedings in connection therewith .","On DATE ORG dismissed appeals on points of law that had been lodged by the plaintiffs .","On DATE the plaintiffs filed an enforcement request ( predlog za izvr\u0161enje ) . On DATE , after CARDINAL remittals , ORG issued an enforcement order , followed by an additional order of CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant did not file a request for review while the proceedings ( both civil and enforcement ) were ongoing or an action for fair redress once they were concluded ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On an unspecified date the plaintiffs lodged a constitutional appeal . On DATE the ORG informed them that the constitutional appeal was incomplete and invited them to amend it within DATE or it would be rejected . On DATE the applicant lodged another appeal with ORG . On DATE ORG rejected ( odbacuje se ) the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal for not having been amended as requested and because \u201c it [ did ] not contain the reasons from which it could be concluded why and in what way the applicant \u2019s constitutional rights and freedoms were violated \u201d .","Article CARDINAL provides for the right to a fair trial .","Article CARDINAL provides that ORG will rule on any constitutional appeal lodged in respect of an alleged violation of a human right or freedom guaranteed by LAW , once all other effective legal remedies have been exhausted .","The LAW entered into force on DATE .","Section CARDINAL provided that a constitutional appeal might be lodged against an individual decision of a State body , an administrative body , a local government body or a legal person exercising public authority , in respect of violations of human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the LAW , once all other effective legal remedies had been exhausted .","Sections CARDINAL provided additional details as regards the processing of constitutional appeals . In particular , section CARDINAL provided that in cases where ORG found a violation of a human right or freedom , it would quash the impugned decision , entirely or partially , and order that the case be re - examined by the same body which had delivered the quashed decision .","This Act entered into force in DATE and was repealed by LAW .","Section DATE provides that a constitutional appeal can be lodged by a physical person or legal entity , an organisation , a community ( naselje ) , a group of individuals , and other forms of organisation which do not have the status of a legal entity if they consider that one of their human rights or freedoms guaranteed by the LAW has been violated by an individual decision , action or omission of a ORG body , an administrative body , a local government body or a legal person exercising public authority , once all other effective legal remedies have been exhausted .","Sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL provide further details as regards the processing of constitutional appeals .","In particular , section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that if the complaint relates to a court \u2019s failure to act within a reasonable time , a constitutional appeal can be lodged only if the remedies provided for by the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time Act have already been exhausted or if an appellant can prove that these remedies were not or would not have been effective .","Section DATE provides that if in the course of proceedings before ORG , an impugned decision has ceased to be in force , and ORG finds a violation of a human right or freedom , it will allow a constitutional appeal and award the appellant just satisfaction .","Section CARDINAL provides that ORG must deliver a decision within DATE of the date on which the proceedings before that court were initiated .","This Act entered into force on DATE and thereby repealed LAW DATE .","This Act makes provision , under certain circumstances , for the possibility to have lengthy proceedings expedited by means of a request for review ( kontrolni zahtjev ) , and for the opportunity for claimants to be awarded compensation by means of an action for fair redress ( tu\u017eba za pravi\u010dno zadovoljenje ) . In particular , section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that an action for fair redress can be lodged by a party who has previously made use of a request for review or who objectively was not able to do so . The action for fair redress must be filed with ORG DATE after the date of receipt of the final decision delivered in the impugned proceedings . This Act entered into force on DATE .","For ORG relevant practice see PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and FAC , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142526","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CARI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action in ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) seeking payment of unpaid pension instalments .","On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the parallel administrative proceedings before ORG ( PERSON mirovinsko osiguranje ) . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings .","On DATE ORG adopted a judgement and the applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time ( zahtjev za za\u0161titu prava na su\u0111enje u razumnom roku ) with ORG , complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings .","On DATE the ORG found a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time , awarded him CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in compensation and ordered ORG to decide on the applicant \u2019s case within DATE of the service of its decision .","Following an appeal by the ORG Attorney , on DATE the threemember panel of ORG reduced the amount of compensation awarded to HRK CARDINAL .","The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint and on DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared it inadmissible .","On DATE ORG , ORG ( PERSON mirovinsko osiguranje , Podru\u010dni ured u ORG ) decided about the applicant \u2019s request for payment of his pension arrears .","On DATE the applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG , ORG ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje , ORG ured ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","Following the applicant \u2019s administrative action , on DATE ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) quashed the second - instance decision and remitted the case to ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance decision and remitted the case to ORG .","On DATE ORG adopted a new decision and the applicant again appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s subsequent administrative action .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with ORG ( PERSON ) complaining about the length of the above administrative proceedings .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG found a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded him HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation .","The applicant appealed and on DATE the CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146392","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BLJAKAJ AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE , the second applicant was born in DATE , the third applicant was born in DATE and they all live in ORG . The fourth applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , and the fifth applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The first applicant is the husband , the second and third applicants are children , and the fourth and fifth applicants are sisters of the late M.B.B. , a lawyer who was based in ORG .","NORP M.B.B. represented ORG in divorce proceedings instituted in DATE in ORG ( PERSON ) against her husband , ORG","A first hearing in those proceedings was held on DATE , attended by the parties and the lawyer M.B.B. The court heard the parties\u2019 arguments and decided to request a report from the local social services . It then adjourned the hearing until DATE .","According to ORG \u2019s police records , he had a history of alcohol abuse , violent behaviour and unlawful possession of firearms . In DATE the Slatina Police ( PERSON DATE hereinafter \u201c the police \u201d ) instituted minor offences proceedings against him for beating up his daughter and wife under the influence of alcohol and making serious threats using firearms . On that occasion , the police seized from ORG a rifle with CARDINAL bullets and a hand grenade . There is , however , no further information on the outcome of these proceedings . Furthermore , DATE ORG was reported CARDINAL times for family violence and twice for a breach of the peace and public order , and in DATE the police lodged a criminal complaint against him with the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG for making serious death threats to his wife .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) found ORG guilty of the minor offence of family violence and fined him CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) . During the proceedings , ORG explained that the divorce proceedings were pending before the courts and that ORG had contested them . She also explained that she had ended up in hospital after having been severely beaten by ORG","On DATE ORG found ORG guilty of the criminal offence of making serious death threats to his wife and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","According to a police report drawn up on DATE , ORG , accompanied by ORG , attended the police station on DATE , alleging that her husband had been harassing her . She made no other complaints of possible threats or violence . She further explained that ORG had previously beaten her up and had been convicted in the minor offences and criminal courts . She also pointed out that their divorce proceedings were pending and that a hearing was scheduled for DATE . On the same occasion , ORG argued that he did not want his wife to see other men . The police officer who interviewed the couple , GPE , warned ORG to stop harassing his wife and instructed them to settle all their disputes in the divorce proceedings . The report also contains a note suggesting that during the interview , ORG and ORG showed no signs of aggression , alcohol abuse or agitation .","Afterwards , police officer GPE informed his superior officer , M.Kr . , of the interview . He was told to make a short note of the event in the logbook and that it was not necessary to draft a report or take any further action .","According to further police reports , at TIME DATE , ORG went to a bank in ORG with the intention of withdrawing all his money . He told a bank employee , GPE , whom he had met before , that they would not see each other again . While speaking to the bank employee , ORG was in tears . When she asked him what was troubling him , he said that \u201c it will be talked about \u201d . He also shook hands with several other people who then told the bank manager , ORG , to contact the police . ORG followed ORG out of the bank and asked him what was troubling him . ORG responded that he was sick of everything ; his wife , who was having affairs with other men , and his son , who was a drug addict , and that he was going to do something and nobody could stop him .","At TIME PERSON informed the police of the event , saying that he was afraid that ORG could do something to himself or others .","At TIME an on - duty commanding officer , PERSON , sent a patrol of CARDINAL police officers , GPE and GPE , to the bank . At the same time he checked ORG \u2019s police records and saw that he had a violent background . He therefore informed the police chief , ORG . , who ordered a police patrol to be sent to ORG \u2019s home address . At TIME PERSON and GPE were sent to look for him there .","The report submitted by police officers GPE and GPE indicates that they found ORG at home . He approached them at the front of his house and said that he was sick of everything , and that he had withdrawn the money for his funeral because he was going to kill himself either that DATE or the next by jumping under a train , and that there was nothing they could do about it . He also said that he had already written a suicide note , and complained that DATE before he had been at the police station because his wife had been seeing another man . The police officers noted in their report that ORG had appeared sober and had not shown any signs of aggressiveness , and had not mentioned his wife or anybody else or that he might hurt anybody . They therefore advised him that everything was going to be fine and left .","Upon their arrival at the police station at TIME the police officers reported on the interview to the on - duty commanding officer PERSON , who had taken over from PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in the meantime .","According to a report drawn up by M.T. on DATE , GPE and ORG , the police officers who had visited ORG at his home ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had reported to him that ORG was contemplating suicide because of his family problems , and that he had mentioned his divorce and said that nobody could stop him . At TIME PERSON informed the deputy police chief for the criminal police , PERSON , of the event who instructed him to immediately inform ORG ( GPE zdravlja ORG \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the hospital \u201d ) and ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb ORG ) . He informed the hospital doctor , ORG , at TIME and ORG at TIME The doctor had said that he would see with a nearby psychiatric hospital whether they could admit ORG for treatment , while an official from ORG had said that she had known ORG \u2019s situation very well and told the police to contact the hospital .","Later during the investigation the police found that officer PERSON had falsified his report , as he had actually informed doctor PERSON at TIME , not TIME as indicated , and had informed ORG at CARDINAL TIME , not TIME as indicated ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) .","Meanwhile , sometime after TIME , ORG returned to the bank , shouting at ORG for having called the police . He then went to a nearby bar for a drink and at TIME went to the police station . He met the on - duty commanding officer PERSON there , and demanded to know why the police had been to see him . PERSON explained that the police had had information that he had been having some problems . ORG replied that he was going to solve his problems himself and that he was going to do what he intended . He then left the police station .","A.N. then went in search of his wife , who started work in a bakery shop at TIME He waited for her in a nearby street he knew she had to pass when going to work . When PERSON saw her , he approached her and kicked her in the head , knocking her to the ground . He then fired one shot at her and went to leave , but then returned to shoot her a further CARDINAL times . She survived , despite receiving serious injuries to her head , stomach and arm .","After shooting his wife , ORG went to ORG \u2019s office , which was CARDINAL away . M.B.B. was in the office at the time with her secretary and a client , PERSON Immediately upon entering the office ORG fired a shot in ORG \u2019s direction , but hit her desk . The client attempted to talk him round , but when ORG threatened to kill him , he ran away . ORG then attempted to shoot the secretary , who was calling the police , but his pistol jammed and she managed to escape . ORG then approached M.B.B. and shot her dead by firing CARDINAL bullets at her , of which CARDINAL were fatal .","In the meantime , some onlookers had informed the police of the incidents and several police units were sent to search for the gunman .","At TIME the police arrived at ORG \u2019s house and ordered him to surrender and go with them to the station in connection with the investigation into the shootings . He refused , before throwing CARDINAL hand grenades at the police officers and starting to shoot at them .","When special police units stormed into ORG \u2019s house at around CARDINAL p.m. , they found him with a self - inflicted head wound , the type of weapon that had been used for the shootings , and a suicide note . He was immediately taken to hospital , but died DATE .","On DATE as the incidents occurred , an investigating judge of ORG ( PERSON u GPE ) and a GPE Attorney conducted crime scene investigations with the assistance of police forensic scientists . In ORG \u2019s house the police found another suicide note , a number of different bullets and an empty hand grenade cartridge . They also discovered that the weapon used by ORG had been reported missing and that its owner had died in DATE .","The investigating judge ordered a forensic examination of the bodies which confirmed that ORG had suffered a violent death as a result of the gunshots .","During the investigation the police interviewed a number of people who provided information concerning ORG and the course of the events in which he had killed ORG and attempted to kill his wife . The police drew up reports of the interviews but they were not signed or otherwise attested by the witnesses .","According to the police reports , ORG and ORG \u2019s children , ORG and PERSON , provided information about the problems in their family and the frequent violent incidents mainly caused as a result of ORG \u2019s alcohol abuse . The incidents were confirmed by ORG in her interview with the police . She also stated that he had been angry at her lawyer M.B.B. , but had not threatened to kill her .","M.B.B. \u2019s secretary described the course of events in which ORG had attempted to shoot her and killed the lawyer M.B.B. , which was also confirmed by the client PERSON who had been in the office at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Another witness , GPE , a waiter in a nearby bar , described how he had heard gunshots and later found M.B.B. dead in her office .","The police also interviewed the bank employees GPE and GPE , who provided information about ORG \u2019s behaviour in the bank ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and CARDINAL other witnesses , GPE and PERSON , who had also been in the bank when ORG was there . The CARDINAL bank customers stated that ORG had seemed disturbed and looked as though he had needed some help , but had not said he was going to kill anybody .","An acquaintance of GPE , GPE , told police that for DATE ORG had been saying that he was going to kill his wife . After the incidents at issue , ORG called him and said that he killed his wife and shot her lawyer . Information to that effect was also provided by another acquaintance of ORG , GPE , who said that when he got drunk ORG would say that he was going to kill somebody but without specifying whom . On TIME in question he had seen ORG , who had shown him a handful of bullets .","A.N. \u2019s brother - in - law , GPE , stated that ORG had complained that during a hearing in the divorce proceedings M.B.B. had prevented him from raising all his arguments before the court , and that he should do something about it but without specifying what . He had never mentioned that he was going to kill anybody . His other brother - in - law , ORG , stated that DATE before the incidents his wife PERSON had told him that she had seen ORG , who had told her that he was going to kill his wife and her lawyer , but she had not thought that he had really meant it . This was confirmed by GPE herself in her statement to the police .","During the investigation the police interviewed doctor ORG who had taken the police \u2019s call to the hospital on TIME of the incidents ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He stated that he had received the call at around QUANTITY a.m. , not TIME as reported in the media . He also provided evidence to that effect because his telephone had the ability to record times and dates of calls . Based on the information he had received , he had attempted to contact a nearby psychiatric hospital to arrange for ORG \u2019s possible hospitalisation . However , he had not managed to speak to any of the doctors , as he had been told by a nurse that they had all been in a meeting which she had not been allowed to interrupt .","The results of the investigation were submitted to ORG Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavni odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ) to assess whether the police could be held liable for their actions in connection with the incidents at issue , particularly with regard to the application of section CARDINAL of ORG . That provision stated that an individual could be admitted to a psychiatric institution where there was a reasonable suspicion that the individual posed an immediate threat to his life or health , or the life or health of others ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG issued the following statement :","\u201c ORG was a violent person against whom a criminal complaint had been made for making serious death threats to his wife and on several occasions was reported for the minor offences of family violence , abusive behaviour and inappropriately addressing police officers . On DATE in question ORG , without any further elaboration , told police officers that he was going to kill himself because of his family problems . The police officer on duty , M.T. , omitted to inform the hospital and ORG of the whole situation . Had there been coordination between the doctor and social worker , who had known the situation in ORG \u2019s family better , measures for the prevention of suicide could perhaps have been taken . In the circumstances , at the relevant time the police officers had no reason to treat ORG as a mentally disturbed person within the meaning of section CARDINAL of ORG . ... \u201d","On DATE the applicants , through their lawyer , lodged a criminal complaint against police officer PERSON with the Slatina Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office , alleging that he had falsified the police records indicating the exact time he had contacted the hospital and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . They also lodged a criminal complaint against police chief M.Ko . for abuse of power and authority , because he had failed to institute criminal proceedings against police officer GPE","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG rejected the criminal complaints against the police officers on the grounds that their actions did not constitute criminal offences .","On DATE all CARDINAL applicants and GPE , the mother of ORG , took over the prosecution as subsidiary prosecutors and lodged an indictment against the police officers in ORG .","During the proceedings police officer PERSON stated that after officers GPE and GPE had returned from their interview with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , they had told him that ORG had been agitated and had mentioned problems in his family , but had not made any threats . Sometime at TIME he had therefore attempted to contact police chief M.Ko . to seek further instructions . After having failed twice to reach ORG . , who had been out of his office , he had called the deputy police chief for the criminal police , PERSON , who had instructed him to contact the hospital and ORG . He had then telephoned the hospital , but the number he had dialled had not been valid , so he had only managed to get the right number later when he had spoken to doctor ORG When he had called the hospital for the first time he had written down the exact time on a piece of paper and then later had just taken that time for his report .","Doctor PERSON also gave his oral evidence during the proceedings . He testified that after he had received the information from the police about their interview with ORG , he had told the police that he would need to examine ORG and then decide whether compulsory psychiatric treatment would be necessary . However , the police had not known where ORG was at the time , so he had told them to find him . TIME the hospital had received information about the shootings .","On DATE ORG acquitted police officer PERSON on the grounds that there had been no evidence that he had deliberately falsified his report . The court also dismissed the charges against police chief M.Ko . on the grounds that the prosecution had become time - barred .","The judgment was confirmed on appeal by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .","On DATE ORG opened disciplinary proceedings against police officer M.Kr . for failing to report on the interview with ORG and his wife on DATE even though ORG \u2019s background and the information concerning their relationship warranted that such action be documented ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE disciplinary proceedings were also opened against police officer PERSON for failing to immediately report the situation concerning PERSON on TIME DATE to the hospital as he had been instructed to do by his superior , and for falsifying his report about the times he had contacted the hospital and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","The first - instance ORG of ORG ( PERSON disciplinski sud u ORG ) found police officer PERSON . guilty on DATE and sentenced him to a PERCENT reduction of salary , to be applied for DATE .","On DATE the disciplinary panel found police officer PERSON guilty and sentenced him to a PERCENT reduction of salary , to be applied for DATE .","DATE . On DATE the CARDINAL applicants and ORG lodged a civil action against the ORG in ORG , seeking damages for the authorities\u2019 failure to protect their relative \u2019s right to life . They relied on CARDINAL of LAW , which provides that the ORG is liable to compensate damage caused to a citizen , legal entity or other party for the unlawful or wrongful conduct of a ORG authority ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","A first hearing was held on DATE , at which the trial court heard evidence from bank employees ORG and GPE","F.S. testified that after he had seen ORG crying , he had asked him what had happened and ORG replied that it would be talked about . He had then called the police , who arrived soon after . When he had told them what had happened , the police had just replied that they had known ORG very well . ORG had appeared totally unstable that TIME , which had been noticeable to GPE because he worked with people . Everybody in the bank had noticed that ORG had been totally crazy , and ORG had therefore called the police because he had thought that ORG was a danger , primarily to himself , and should get medical treatment . When ORG had entered the bank for the second time he had not calmed down and had been yelling at GPE for calling the police about him . This version of events was confirmed by GPE","At a hearing on DATE the trial court heard evidence from doctor PERSON He testified that on TIME at TIME he had been informed by the police that ORG had been behaving strangely and that he might do something bad . The police officer had not however known where ORG was at the time . Doctor PERSON explained that the usual practice in such cases was to examine the person and then decide whether admission to hospital was necessary . He also specified that the police officer who had called him had said that ORG could kill somebody or do something bad . This had prompted him to believe that his and the police \u2019s intervention had been necessary , and that ORG should be taken to the psychiatric hospital . Had the police managed to trace ORG , he would have examined him , because that had been the practice in similar cases and also in cases where somebody had threatened suicide .","At the same hearing the trial court questioned police chief ORG . , who explained that ORG was known to him because he had once been held at the station for violent behaviour . On DATE in question he had given orders to the on - duty commanding officer to send a police patrol to ORG \u2019s home address and had then left the police station to attend to some other business . He had returned to the police station at TIME and had been told of the shootings .","The next hearing was held on DATE , where the trial court heard evidence from ORG She stated that ORG had previously had a rifle , a handgun and a bomb which had been , at some point , confiscated from him by the police . He would also say that he was saving money to buy a handgun to kill her and CARDINAL other people , but she had never known exactly whom . ORG had had a problem with alcohol and when he would get drunk he would be violent . She had called the police on CARDINAL occasions , but sometimes they would come and sometimes they would not . ORG had contested the divorce and DATE before the incidents had threatened to kill her . She had reported that on DATE to the police , but they had done nothing about it . At the same hearing the trial court questioned bank employee GPE , who explained the course of the events in the bank ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","A further hearing was held on DATE , at which the police officers GPE , GPE and GPE gave evidence .","PERSON testified that on TIME of the incident , he and police officer GPE had been ordered to go to the bank because ORG had been there and had been behaving strangely . In the bank , they had met someone who had called the police , who explained that ORG had gone to the bank , had withdrawn all his money and while in tears had said \u201c it will be talked about \u201d . When GPE and GPE had reported on their findings to the on - duty commanding officer , they had been instructed to find ORG at his home address . They had found him there and interviewed him . ORG had not been drunk or aggressive . He had said that he was going to kill himself because of problems with his wife and son and that he would do it either that DATE or the next , and that nobody could stop him . He had appeared normal and calm . They had not searched him because there had been no grounds to take such action , nor had there been any reason to take him to hospital in accordance with ORG . PERSON also explained ORG was known to him and that before seeing him , he had been informed by the on - duty commanding officer that he had already threatened to kill his wife .","In his statement GPE confirmed GPE \u2019s version of events , explaining that the police could take an individual to hospital or a police station and have a doctor examine him , but they had not considered ORG to be a danger so had not taken any such action .","Police officer PERSON stated that when officers GPE and GPE had returned from the bank they had said that ORG had not been drunk or aggressive but merely agitated , and that he had threatened suicide . PERSON had then attempted to contact his superiors and had managed to get in touch with the deputy chief for the criminal police PERSON , who had instructed him to inform the hospital and ORG . He had attempted to contact the hospital several times and at some point had managed to reach doctor ORG , who had said that he would try to find a place for ORG in a psychiatric hospital . He had also asked where ORG was , but at the time PERSON had not known . PERSON further explained that he had been familiar with ORG , which enabled the police to take a mentally disturbed individual to a psychiatric hospital , but he had considered the police to have done everything they could , although with hindsight , it would have been possible to do more , but the police could not have predicted what would happen . He had known that ORG had a violent background but stressed that he had not been registered as insane .","At a hearing on DATE the deputy chief for the criminal police PERSON gave his oral evidence . He explained that he had been informed that PERSON had gone to the bank where he had been behaving strangely . Later , he had been informed that the police had interviewed him and that he had appeared calm and normal but had threatened suicide . At CARDINAL to TIME had instructed the on - duty commanding officer , PERSON , to inform the hospital and ORG . He considered the police to have done everything they could , but there had been no grounds to take any further measures given the findings of the police patrol that had interviewed ORG at his home . He also explained that the usual practice in similar cases was to inform the hospital , who could call the police if they needed assistance .","A further hearing was held on DATE at which police officers GPE and GPE and a customer from the bank , GPE , gave evidence .","PERSON stated that the day before the incidents ORG had arrived at the police station followed by her husband ORG officer GPE had interviewed them but had found no grounds for the police to take further action , so he had told them to resolve their marital problems in their court proceedings . ORG had also mentioned that after ORG had been handed a suspended sentence , he had stopped making threats and beating her up . PERSON had not reported on the interview because his superior officer M.Kr . had not requested it .","Police officer PERSON had no specific knowledge about the incident . He had been off - duty at the time although he had , TIME , just before leaving the police station , sent a police patrol to the bank to check what had happened there and why ORG had been behaving strangely .","The bank customer NORP testified that he had seen ORG in the bank on TIME in question , who had told him that he had been having some problems and that it would be talked about . He had been behaving strangely , as he had been walking around the bank in circles . He had looked nervous , and GPE had thought that he had been ill and in need of medical attention .","On DATE the trial court obtained a psychiatric report certifying that the first , second and third applicant and M.B.B. \u2019s mother had all experienced mental suffering after the events . The report was confirmed by the expert at a hearing held on DATE .","On DATE ORG allowed the civil action and ordered the ORG to pay damages for failing to protect the life of the applicants\u2019 relative . The trial court held that the ORG \u2019s responsibility under LAW of LAW was objective , and that it was only necessary to establish whether the death had been a result of the unlawful or wrongful conduct of the ORG authorities . The relevant part of the judgment reads :","\u201c ... It is not disputed between the parties that ORG called the police a little after CARDINAL a.m. PERSON informed the police of what had happened in the bank and about PERSON \u2019s appearance . This court fully accepts the statements of GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE as credible when they testified about ORG \u2019s state of mind [ in the bank ] . They stated that ORG had appeared totally unstable . The conclusion of the police officers GPE and GPE that ORG had been normal and calm and had not been a danger can not be accepted as logical . They reached such a conclusion after being informed by ORG that he had withdrawn the money for [ his ] funeral , and that he was going to kill himself and nobody could stop him . Taking this into account , [ this court considers that ] the average person could have reached the conclusion about ORG \u2019s state of mind referred to by witnesses [ F.]S. , GPE , GPE and GPE The police officers who needed to act with particular diligence should have also reached [ this ] conclusion about ORG \u2019s state of mind , which they failed to do . They thus failed to act in accordance with sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of ORG ... The defendant considers that there is no connection between the failures of the police and [ M.B.B. \u2019s death ] and that there is therefore no liability on GPE . This court considers differently . Had police officer PERSON complied with the order of the deputy chief for the criminal police PERSON , and informed the hospital and ORG at TIME , as noted in the report , it is highly probable that the outcome would have been avoided , particularly taking into account the statement of witness I.F ... As the liability of the ORG is objective ; it was for it to prove that the damage occurred as a result of a cause which could not have been avoided ( vis major ) , or that the damage resulted exclusively from the actions of the aggrieved party or CARDINAL party which could not have been predicted and where the outcome could not have been avoided ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . Nothing of [ the sort ] has been proven by the defendant . ... \u201d","The Slatina Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG , representing the ORG in the proceedings , lodged an appeal with ORG on DATE .","On DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and ordered a retrial on the grounds that the first - instance court had erred in its findings that the liability of the ORG was objective as it was based on the existence of a fault , namely unlawfulness . That court further found that , irrespective of the fact that ORG had threatened suicide , there had been nothing requiring police officers GPE and GPE to treat the case as particularly urgent and to take ORG to a psychiatric hospital . It also accepted the police ORG statements that ORG had appeared calm during the interview . ORG instructed the first - instance court to question witnesses ORG and PERSON again to establish what actions doctor ORG had intended to take , since it was not clear whether he had intended to examine ORG or just to see whether he could be placed in a psychiatric hospital , as could be inferred from the statement of police officer PERSON","DATE . In the resumed proceedings , at a hearing held on DATE , ORG heard doctor ORG and police officer M.T.","Doctor PERSON testified that the usual practice in similar cases was to immediately respond at the scene and to examine the person if he or she was available . The medical response team consisted of a doctor , a driver and medical technician and a nurse . They first had to examine the person and then the doctor could decide whether hospitalisation in a psychiatric hospital was necessary . Police intervention was only sought if the person could not be apprehended for the examination . As regards the case at issue , doctor PERSON explained that he had been called by a police officer who had told him that ORG had been behaving strangely and that he could do something bad . The police officer had not known where ORG was . Had he known , he would have immediately responded at the scene and examined him . Doctor PERSON also explained that he had to first examine the person and only then he could make a prescription for that person \u2019s admission to hospital . There had been no reason for him to check whether there had been a place in the hospital because it was for the hospital to decide what they wanted to do with his prescription and the person in question . In the present case , the information he had received from the police suggested that it had been necessary to examine ORG at the scene .","Police officer PERSON stated that on DATE in question he had informed doctor ORG that the police had had a person who was seriously disturbed and who should be given an injection in order to calm down . As to his further conversations with the doctor , PERSON stated :","\u201c I can not remember any more what doctor [ PERSON told me when I contacted him .","I do n\u2019t remember exactly , but I think he told me that he would see whether [ ORG ] could be placed in the psychiatric hospital and then would ask for police intervention if he needed it .","...","I would like to change my statement in the part where I said that doctor [ I.]F. was going to first find a place in [ the psychiatric hospital ] and that he would then consult the police chief .","Doctor PERSON actually told me that he would first examine [ A.]N. and that he would call the police if necessary .","...","In reply to the question from the defendant \u2019s representative , I can not explain why I changed my statement as regards what doctor [ I.]F. had told me . \u201d","On DATE ORG obtained a police report describing the course of events later on DATE of the shooting , and on DATE concluded the trial .","On DATE ORG dismissed the civil action as ill - founded , and ordered the applicants to pay HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL in costs and expenses . The relevant part of the judgment reads :","\u201c ... The liability of the defendant is based on the principle of fault ( section LANGUAGE of LAW ) . Unlawful conduct is conduct which is contrary to the law or an omission in the application of the law , which is committed deliberately or by accepting that it might cause damage to a third party . ... The purpose of section CARDINAL of LAW is to provide for the liability of the State where there is a wilful act contrary to the law with the intent of causing damage ... Acceptance [ of that outcome ] is conduct or an omission of a ORG official in the performance of his or her official duties where he or she was able to , according to his or her individual capability , take into account the objective requirements with due diligence , and which he or she failed to do . In the particular circumstances , there is no causal link between the damage and the omissions of police officer M.Kr . , in his capacity as on - duty commanding officer , to report DATE before [ the shootings ] about ORG \u2019s complaint that she had been followed by ORG This court finds nothing to suggest that the police officers who intervened at the bank , and who had had no knowledge of this , would have acted differently even if they had had such information . The plaintiffs also refer to the omissions of police officers GPE and GPE ... Under LAW of ORG the police may , in particularly urgent cases , take a mentally disturbed individual to a psychiatric hospital without prior medical examination , provided there is a reasonable suspicion that the individual poses an immediate threat to his life or health , or the life or health of others ... The events [ in the bank ] suggest that the police had an obligation to act under section CARDINAL of ORG and to secure ORG \u2019s medical examination , after which the doctor could decide whether to take to a psychiatric hospital . But in the particular circumstances police officers GPE and GPE could not have been expected to recognise that there was any particular urgency or that ORG should be taken to a psychiatric hospital without prior medical examination ... The omission of police officer [ M.T. ] to inform the hospital about ORG \u2019s behaviour is an irregularity in the performance of his official duties . However , the dispute between the parties is whether there is a causal link between this irregularity and the event ... Even if PERSON had informed the hospital at TIME , it is doubtful whether the doctor would have carried out an examination because at that time he had not known where ORG was . It follows that at the time ORG was no longer available to the police and according to the evidence [ submitted by ] ORG was in the bank sometime between TIME and TIME There is therefore no causal link between the incidents and the omissions of police officer M.T ... \u201c","The first , second and third applicants and ORG lodged an appeal against the above judgment with ORG , arguing that the ORG authorities had failed to prevent the killing of their relative , and that in accordance with the relevant domestic law they should have been awarded damages .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . It held , however , that the first - instance court had erred in concluding that at TIME the police had not known ORG \u2019s whereabouts , because around that time the police had interviewed him at his home . In any event , the police could have informed the hospital immediately after TIME when they had received the call from the bank . Nevertheless , the court held that the police had done everything they could and that it could not be concluded that only intervention by the doctor in TIME after the information had been received from the bank would have prevented the incidents . The court also found that , irrespective of ORG \u2019s violent background and the indications that he was mentally disturbed , he had not acted violently on DATE of the incidents or DATE . It was true that police officers GPE and GPE had omitted to examine ORG under LAW of LAW , but he had not been behaving violently , so that omission could not be characterised as an irregularity in their work . Moreover , it was not certain whether ORG had a gun at the time and therefore it was in doubt whether such a police search could have prevented the incidents .","On DATE the first , second and third applicants and ORG lodged an appeal on points of law against the above judgment before ORG ( PERSON ) .","DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law as ill - founded and upheld ORG judgment . It found that the lower courts had misinterpreted the relevant domestic law by holding that the liability of the ORG was based on the principle of fault because it was in fact based on the objective principle . It was thus sufficient to establish that there was unlawful or irregular conduct on the part of the ORG administration and the causal link to the damage thereby caused . In the case at issue , ORG held that there had been no causal link between the irregular work of the police officers and the killing of the applicants\u2019 relative .","On DATE the applicants ( including the fourth and fifth applicants , who had taken over the proceedings from ORG following her death on DATE ) lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) challenging the decisions of the lower courts .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 constitutional complaint , endorsing the reasoning of ORG . The decision of ORG was served on the ORG representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174063","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BARSUKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in LOC . Before his arrest he lived in GPE .","The applicant was arrested on DATE . He remained in detention throughout the investigation and trial .","On DATE the GPE ORG of GPE found him guilty of aggravated fraud and money laundering committed within an organised criminal group and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . That judgment was upheld on appeal by GPE on DATE .","On DATE , in another set of criminal proceedings , ORG , found the applicant guilty of CARDINAL counts of aggravated extortion committed within an organised criminal group and imposed a cumulative prison sentence of DATE . The judgment became final on DATE when endorsed by ORG .","In DATE the applicant lost his right arm . He suffered heart attacks in DATE and DATE and a kidney affected by cancer was removed in DATE . At the time of his arrest the applicant \u2019s diagnoses listed : ischemic disease , exertional angina of the second functional group , atherosclerotic and post infarction cardiosclerosis , third - stage hypertension with a high risk of vascular complications ; cardiac failure of the second functional group ; chronic post - traumatic pericarditis with effusion ; remote cancer metastases requiring permanent supervision ; kidney stones ; concretion of the right kidney ; chronic pyelonephritis ; chronic kidney failure of the first degree ; adenocarcinoma of the prostate gland ; chronic prostatitis ; chronic cystitis , and constantly recurrent multidrug - resistant infection of the urinary tract . To keep his medical condition under control , the applicant followed a DATE complex drug regimen comprising up to CARDINAL medicaments and underwent an in - depth medical examination DATE in a hospital where he received necessary treatment in respect of his oncological illnesses .","On DATE upon his admission to remand prison no . IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE the applicant informed the prison medical authorities of his condition , submitting the full list of his diagnoses .","NORP In DATE he started complaining about a number of symptoms such as a heart pain , fatigue , difficulty in breathing , and frequent urination . He received basic treatment which alleviated a part of his health problems , but the urinary condition worsened . In DATE he complained of a pain in the low abdomen and inability to urinate . On DATE a surgeon recommended urinary catheterisation , that is to say the insertion of a tube into the patient \u2019s bladder via the urethra . That procedure was performed CARDINAL times during DATE of detention . In the meantime the urinary condition became more acute .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a urologist for the first time whilst in detention . The doctor recommended treatment with antibiotics , regular urological supervision and to avoid catheterisation in so far as possible .","NORP Throughout DATE the applicant \u2019s urinary condition persisted . He urinated up to CARDINAL times per day and his nocturnal sleep was interrupted TIME or two . He had to continue resorting to urinary cauterisation . On several occasions he had a consultation with a urologist .","On DATE , at the request of the applicant \u2019s lawyer , CARDINAL medical experts prepared a report assessing the capability of the custodial authorities to properly treat the applicant . Having examined the medical file on the applicant compiled in the civilian hospital , submissions by the custodial authorities and the applicant \u2019s own comments , the experts concluded that he required systematic treatment with amendments to the chemotherapy regimen and periodic admissions to a specialised cardiology hospital for instrumental examinations and necessary amendments to drug regimen . Given the absence of proper medical supervision , the experts also warned of a possible deterioration of the applicant \u2019s urinary and oncological problems and a risk of those illnesses advancing to a stage requiring surgery , or to a stage with no prospects of the applicant being cured or even his life being saved . The experts observed that the medical unit of the detention facility where the applicant was kept was not equipped for treating patients in such a medical condition .","On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined in ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , having been diagnosed with neurogenic bladder dysfunction . The treatment provided slightly improved his condition .","On DATE the doctors from ORG performed a surgery on the applicant . A suprapubic catheter was inserted into his bladder through a cut in the abdomen . The applicant was discharged from the hospital to a remand prison under the supervision of the resident doctor .","DATE the applicant complained of continuous bleeding from the abdominal incision . DATE , having lost QUANTITY of blood , he was sent back to the Institute , where his condition was brought under control .","In DATE , in the remand prison , the applicant developed an acute inflammation of the urethra , which was successfully treated in the ORG .","DATE the applicant \u2019s urinary condition remained stable . He continued using the suprapubic catheter to remove the urine .","In the meantime , in DATE the applicant brought a court claim against the detention authorities , seeking that the lack of appropriate medical treatment be declared unlawful .","On DATE the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of GPE dismissed his claim . The court found as follows :","\u201c From the [ applicant \u2019s ] medical file submitted by the [ remand prison ] it is apparent that ... [ the authorities ] provided him with medical aid , subjected him to medical testing , and prescribed treatment . In particular , on DATE , DATE and DATE he was seen by a urologist ... On DATE he was examined in the [ ORG ] . It is not apparent from the medical file that the authorities refused to provide [ the applicant ] with the medical assistance or that he was deprived of the requisite medication \u201d .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142465","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VARJONEN v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband was injured in a car accident and he received insurance benefits from an insurance company . However , on DATE the insurance company refused his applications for compensation for rehabilitation . On DATE and DATE the husband appealed against these decisions to ORG ( vakuutusoikeus , f\u00f6rs\u00e4kringsdomstolen ) . The husband died on DATE but the applicant and the estate decided to continue the appeals .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeals . No appeal lies against these decisions . The judgment of ORG was sent to the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( eduskunnan oikeusasiamies , riksdagens justitieombudsman ) complaining , inter alia , about the excessive length of the proceedings in ORG .","On DATE the ORG gave a reply , after having requested a statement from ORG which included reports from the referendary and the judges responsible for examining the applicant \u2019s case . The ORG considered that the proceedings in the applicant \u2019s case had taken , in total , a long time . However , the ORG accepted the reasons given by ORG , namely that the case had been exceptionally extensive , complex and time - consuming . ORG examined the case as a first instance , which required more preparation than when it examined appeals as a second instance . Also the case file had been incomplete and several requests for information had been made . The applicant , on her part , had sent a considerable number of documents during the course of the proceedings , which had also contributed to the length . The ORG considered that there had been no particular inactivity in ORG . Hence it considered that , despite the lengthy proceedings , there had not been unjustified delays in the course of the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant initiated extraordinary proceedings before ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , requesting that the decisions of ORG be quashed because the referendary in ORG had been biased .","On DATE ORG dismissed the application for being outside its competence . As the proceedings before ORG were administrative , it was ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) that was competent to examine an extraordinary appeal concerning an alleged procedural flaw .","On DATE the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG , claiming that the proceedings before ORG had been flawed due to the partiality of the referendary and the wrong application of law .","NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint concerning the wrong application of law without examining the merits and rejected the partiality complaint after having examined it . ORG considered that the applicant had reasoned her complaint about the referendary \u2019s partiality only with the fact that she had complained about the referendary to ORG . The court was of the opinion that the mere fact that the applicant had complained about the referendary to the ORG did not put the impartiality of the referendary into question ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153315","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RIBI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant married PERSON","On DATE GPE gave birth to their son PERSON","NORP In DATE GPE , together with their son , moved out of the flat in which she had lived with the applicant and went to live with her parents . After that she started avoiding contact with the applicant . Prior to the institution of the divorce and custody proceedings in DATE ( see paragraphs DATE below ) the applicant saw his son only twice , in DATE and in DATE during GPE holidays . The applicant and GPE officially divorced by a court judgment to that effect on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE GPE brought a civil action against the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) seeking divorce , custody of , and the maintenance for their son .","On DATE the court asked ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb GPE , hereafter \u201c the local social welfare centre \u201d ) to prepare a report on the family situation in the PERSON family and submit its recommendation as to whom of the parents custody of their son should be awarded .","The Government submitted that the applicant had ignored the local social welfare centre \u2019s calls to attend interviews necessary for the preparation of the report by not collecting the centre \u2019s letters to that effect from the post office . The applicant denied that allegation , noted that the Government had not substantiated it by relevant documents and invited them to do so . He further submitted that while it was true that in the period DATE he had worked in GPE ( GPE ) on DATE , he had been staying in GPE DATE . If there had been any problem with the service of the local social welfare centre \u2019s correspondence to him , the centre should have contacted the advocate who had represented him in the civil proceedings in question .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s and PERSON legal representatives agreed to temporarily suspend the proceedings ( mirovanje postupka ) for DATE with a view to reaching an amicable solution , which however did not materialise .","Thus , in the further course of the proceedings , on DATE , the court decided to obtain information on the parties\u2019 income , and scheduled the next hearing for DATE with a view to hearing the parties .","NORP However , the hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the applicant did not attend it .","At the hearing held on CARDINAL DATE the court again decided to hear the parties and invited GPE to provide information on her income , something the applicant had already done .","At that hearing and in his written submission of DATE the applicant asked the court to issue a provisional measure whereby it would provisionally regulate his contacts with his son . According to the information submitted by the parties , the court did not decide on the applicant \u2019s motion , apparently because under the legislation in force at the material time interim contact orders were in the exclusive jurisdiction of the social welfare centres as administrative authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","At the hearing held on DATE the court heard the parties and decided to obtain an opinion from an expert in psychiatry with a view to deciding on custody and access rights . However , since the applicant and GPE did not advance the costs of the expert opinion until DATE , the case - file was not sent to the appointed expert institution before DATE .","In the course of the preparation of the expert opinion , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant met with his son , for the first time since GPE of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the applicant and GPE signed an agreement regarding the contact schedule they would propose to the court . In particular , it was agreed to propose to the court that the contacts between the applicant and his son take place in the presence of both parents for TIME on the premises specified by the local social welfare centre and in the presence of a child - welfare professional designated by the centre . In DATE , the contacts were to take place DATE , and thereafter DATE . After DATE the local social welfare centre were to assess the situation and propose further arrangements .","By DATE the designated expert institution had finalised the expert opinion , which was received by the court DATE . The experts\u2019 recommendation was in line with the parties\u2019 agreement of DATE , which they endorsed . The experts particularly emphasised the need for the contacts between the applicant and his son to take place in the presence of GPE and a child - welfare professional designated by the local social welfare centre .","NORP Since both parties objected to the expert opinion , the court held CARDINAL more hearings , on DATE and CARDINAL and DATE during which the court heard the psychiatrist who had prepared it . The court also obtained fresh information on the parties\u2019 income with a view to deciding on the maintenance for their son .","On DATE ORG pronounced judgment whereby it : ( a ) dissolved the marriage between the applicant and GPE , ( b ) awarded custody of their son to GPE , ( c ) granted the applicant access ( contact ) rights , and ( d ) ordered the applicant to regularly pay a certain amount of money as maintenance for his son . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c Contacts between ORG and his father PERSON shall take place DATE on DATE for TIME for DATE , and after that once a week on DATE in the child \u2019s home in the presence of the mother and a psychologist or social worker . After DATE the local social welfare centre may propose changes in the frequency [ of contacts ] .","...","Since both parties repeatedly , by their non - attendance and their failure to advance the costs of the expert opinion , caused hearings to be postponed and thereby protracted the proceedings for DATE ... each party should bear their own [ litigation ] costs . \u201d","Following an appeal by both parties , on DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) quashed the first - instance judgment in so far as it concerned access rights and maintenance and remitted the case . It upheld the contested judgment in so far as it concerned divorce and custody , which part thereby became final .","In the resumed proceedings , ORG held hearings on DATE , and on DATE , DATE and DATE .","NORP In addition , on DATE the court invited the local social welfare centre to prepare a report and submit its recommendation on the applicant \u2019s contact with his son . In the course of their preparation the expert team of the centre , consisting of a social worker and a psychologist , conducted several joint and separate interviews with the parties . The centre \u2019s experts also contacted the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s school and obtained an opinion on his school performance .","On DATE the local social welfare centre submitted its report and recommendation to the court . Its expert team recommended that the contacts between the applicant and his son take place every second DATE for TIME for DATE , and after that every Saturday , in the presence of the mother and a child - welfare professional . However , the centre \u2019s experts suggested that the contacts should not take place in the child \u2019s home as it was not a neutral ground and could give rise to conflicts between the applicant on the CARDINAL side and GPE and her parents on the other . Their report indicated that the applicant \u2019s son was very emotionally attached to his mother , that he did not know his father but wanted to meet him . The expert \u2019s opinion also suggested that the centre impose a child - protection measure of supervision of exercise of parental authority focusing on contacts between the applicant and his son , with a view to facilitating those contacts and assisting the parents in improving communication between them ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","At the hearing held on DATE the court heard the parties .","On DATE the court rendered a partial judgment whereby it decided on the maintenance for the applicant \u2019s son . At the same time it decided to stay the proceedings in so far they concerned the applicant \u2019s access rights pending the outcome of the concurrent civil proceedings his former wife had instituted against him with a view to depriving him of parental responsibility ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the partial judgment on maintenance and upheld it . At the same time it quashed the first - instance decision to stay the proceedings and remitted the case . It held that the applicant had the right to maintain contact with his son as long as he was not deprived of parental responsibility .","In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG adopted a judgment whereby it again granted the applicant access rights and issued a detailed contact schedule . In particular , the court decided that in DATE the contacts between the applicant and his son were to take place TIME for TIME on the premises of the local social welfare centre and in the presence of the mother and either a psychologist or social worker designated by the centre . In DATE the contacts were to be arranged in the same manner but every DATE , and , after DATE , in the same way but in the absence of the mother . After DATE the applicant were to exercise his access rights for TIME every Tuesday and DATE in DATE when the applicant \u2019s son had school in the morning , DATE , DATE of DATE and DATE , as well as every second official or church holiday .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by GPE and upheld the first - instance judgment . The first - instance judgment of DATE became final when the second - instance judgment of DATE was served on both parties on DATE .","As GPE refused to comply with the above judgment of DATE and obstructed the exercise of the applicant \u2019s access rights , on CARDINAL DATE he applied for enforcement of that judgment before ORG .","On DATE that court issued a writ of execution ( rje\u0161enje o ovrsi ) whereby it ordered GPE , at the risk of fine of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) , to allow the applicant to exercise his access rights .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by GPE and upheld the writ .","On DATE the local social welfare centre informed the court that GPE was not complying with judgment of DATE as she had not been bringing the applicant \u2019s son to the scheduled meetings on the centre \u2019s premises where the contacts between him and the applicant were to be arranged . The centre thus asked to court to enforce the judgment through a judicial enforcement officer .","On DATE ORG issued a decision whereby it fined ORG for non - compliance with the judgment of DATE , and again ordered her , at the risk of further fine of HRK CARDINAL , to do so within DATE . GPE appealed but on DATE ORG dismissed her appeal .","In the meantime , on DATE , GPE asked for postponement of enforcement but ORG dismissed her motion .","Since GPE had paid the fine but nevertheless did not comply with the judgment , on DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s motion of DATE and issued a new writ of execution whereby it ordered a judicial enforcement officer , with the assistance of a pedagogue or a social worker employed with local social welfare centre , and a police officer , to take the applicant \u2019s son from GPE , or any other person each time the applicant was entitled pursuant to the contact schedule to exercise his access rights , and to return him to her afterwards . Even though the court ordered that the costs of that intervention by the enforcement officer were to be borne by GPE , it invited the applicant to advance those costs within DATE of the service of the writ .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings because the applicant had not advanced the costs . The applicant then first on DATE appealed against that decision but , on CARDINAL DATE withdrew that appeal and , eventually , on DATE withdrew his application for enforcement of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Accordingly , on DATE ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant again applied for enforcement of the above judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) before ORG .","On DATE that court issued a writ of execution identical to the CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE GPE appealed against the writ and on DATE sought that the enforcement be postponed .","On DATE ORG dismissed GPE \u2019s motion for postponement of the enforcement . On DATE PERSON appealed against that decision .","On DATE ORG forwarded ORG appeals of DATE and DATE to ORG for a decision .","By a letter of DATE ORG returned the case file to ORG asking it to correct certain errors in the first - instance proceedings .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant had lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time ( zahtjev za za\u0161titu prava na su\u0111enje u razumnom roku ) with ORG ( PERSON ) , complaining about the length of the second set of the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE ORG found a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and : ( a ) awarded him HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation , ( b ) ordered ORG to correct the errors indicated in ORG letter of DATE within DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and ( c ) ordered ORG to decide on GPE \u2019s appeals of DATE and DATE within DATE upon receiving the case file again from ORG .","By decisions of DATE ORG dismissed GPE \u2019s appeals of DATE and DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant \u2019s son turned DATE and became an adult . Accordingly , the above enforcement proceedings became obsolete . Consequently , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings .","Parallel to the above civil proceedings concerning inter alia custody and access , the local social welfare centre acted in various ways in order to solve the family conflicts .","On DATE the local social welfare centre issued a decision whereby it provisionally granted the applicant access rights until the judgment in the above civil proceedings became final , and issued a contact schedule . In particular , the centre decided that the contacts between the applicant and his son were to take place every second DATE for TIME on its premises in the presence of a child - welfare professional for DATE . The decision specified that an appeal against it did not suspend its enforcement . On DATE PERSON appealed against that decision .","On DATE the centre informed GPE of the need to cooperate with it and enable the contacts between the applicant and his son . It warned her that the failure to do so may be considered as dereliction of her duties as a parent calling for more stringent child - protection measures .","On DATE the applicant applied to the centre for enforcement of its decision of DATE .","However , acting on the appeal by GPE of DATE , on DATE the relevant ORG , as the second - instance administrative authority , quashed the centre \u2019s decision of DATE and remitted the case . Accordingly , on DATE the centre discontinued the administrative enforcement proceedings instituted by the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to the centre to issue a new decision on his access rights .","On DATE the local social welfare centre issued a new decision whereby it again provisionally granted the applicant access rights until the judgment in the above civil proceedings became final , and issued a new contact schedule . The decision specified that an appeal against it did not suspend its enforcement . On DATE PERSON appealed .","On DATE the relevant Ministry dismissed that appeal and upheld the centre \u2019s decision . GPE then brought an action in ORG against the ORG \u2019s decision , which that court dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant applied for enforcement of the local social welfare centre \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , it would appear that before DATE , that is , the date on which the judgment of ORG of DATE in the above civil proceedings became final ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and thus superseded the decision the applicant sought to enforce , the local social welfare centre did not issue an enforcement order or undertake other steps to enforce its decision .","Concurrently with the administrative proceedings described above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) , the local social welfare centre conducted other administrative proceedings . In particular , by a decision of DATE the local social welfare centre imposed a child - protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) for a period of DATE , appointed a supervising officer and drafted a supervision programme .","On DATE the supervision officer informed the centre that GPE ignored her calls to arrange the first meeting between the applicant and his son in the execution of the centre \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) granting him provisional access rights . On DATE the centre adopted the opinion that the supervision measure should be discontinued as ineffective and that criminal - law measures should be set in motion instead ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","On DATE the supervising officer submitted her report to the centre stating that no contacts between the applicant and his son had taken place since the adoption of the centre \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At the same time she proposed that the contacts between the applicant and his son be arranged on school premises in the presence of a pedagogue .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the centre discontinued the application of the child - protection measure of supervision of the exercise of the parental authority imposed by its decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It stated that the measure was ineffective given GPE \u2019s lack of cooperation and that other , more stringent , child - protection measures were warranted . On DATE Z.J. appealed against that decision .","On DATE the relevant Ministry quashed the centre \u2019s decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) and remitted the case .","In the resumed proceedings , after having heard the applicant and GPE on DATE , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE the centre again imposed the child - protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority for DATE , appointed a supervising officer and prepared a programme of supervision . GPE appealed .","On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE the supervising officer informed the centre that contacts between the applicant and his son had not taken place due to GPE \u2019s lack of cooperation .","On DATE the relevant Ministry dismissed an appeal by GPE and upheld the centre \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The child - protection measure imposed by the centre in its decision of CARDINAL DATE expired on CARDINAL DATE . DATE reports submitted by the supervising officer suggest that in that DATE period the applicant had not met his son .","DATE . On DATE the local social welfare centre invited the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office to bring criminal charges against GPE for her failure to cooperate with the centre and the supervising officer , obstruction of measures issued by the centre and dereliction of her duties as a parent regarding her son \u2019s contacts with his father .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office informed the social welfare centre that , for the time being , there were no grounds to prosecute GPE for the criminal offence of obstruction of the child - protection measures defined in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) because the decisions whose execution GPE allegedly obstructed had not become final .","On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint against GPE with the same State Attorney \u2019s Office accusing her of the same criminal offence .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG dismissed his criminal complaint . In so doing , it advanced the same reasons as those stated in its letter to the social welfare centre of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the local social welfare centre informed the State Attorney \u2019s Office that decisions whose execution GPE had been obstructing had become final and invited the State Attorney \u2019s Office to criminally prosecute her .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s Office indicted GPE before ORG for having been obstructing the court - ordered contacts between the applicant and his son . In particular , she was charged with the criminal offence of obstruction of child - protection measures laid down in CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a judgment of DATE ORG found GPE guilty as charged and convicted her but the judgment was subsequently quashed by ORG following her appeal and the case was remitted .","In the resumed proceedings , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG again found GPE guilty as charged and sentenced her to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment but imposed a suspended sentence with supervision ( uvjetna osuda sa za\u0161titnim nadzorom ) for DATE provided that in that ( probation ) period she did not commit a further offence . In its judgment the court noted , inter alia , the following :","\u201c This court is deeply aware that all decisions and judgments including this one can no longer remedy the harm and evil caused by the conduct of the accused , primarily to her child , who grew up without a father ... However , it can at least emphasise that such behaviour is unacceptable and punishable ... When determining the penalty the court took into account , as aggravating circumstances , the fact that for DATE the accused deliberately , perfidiously and deceitfully obstructed enforcement of any court decision or decision of the social welfare centre and in so doing behaved arrogantly and acted as if she was untouchable and in that way hindered a healthy and undisturbed development of her son . The court did not find any special mitigating circumstances . \u201d","DATE . By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by GPE and upheld the first - instance judgment .","In DATE GPE instituted non - contentious proceedings against the applicant before ORG with a view to depriving him of parental responsibility for his son .","By a judgment of DATE the court dismissed GPE \u2019s petition . It held that her claims that the applicant had abandoned his son , grossly neglected his duties as a parent and failed to pay ( regularly ) for his maintenance were unfounded . In so doing it relied on the report of the local social welfare centre suggesting that it was GPE who had obstructed the applicant \u2019s contacts with his son ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141379","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"P\u0102TR\u00ceNJEI v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant , a ORG employee , signed a lease with ORG , an organisation attached to ORG , for CARDINAL of the accommodation units located in a building owned by the said ORG .","On DATE Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the sale of dwellings and spaces for other purposes built by the ORG and ORG - owned companies entered into force .","On an unspecified date ORG and ORG split into CARDINAL distinct organisations . While the applicant remained a post office employee , the ORG remained the owner of the building in which the applicant was a tenant .","By a decision of DATE the board of ORG decided that for the purposes of PERSON no . CARDINAL the apartments located in the building the applicant was living in constituted standby personnel accommodation ( locuin\u021be de interven\u021bie ) , that they were intended exclusively for employees of the ORG , and that they could not be sold .","On an unspecified date , the tenants\u2019 association of the building in which the applicant lived asked ORG board to allow its members to purchase the apartments they were leasing . The request addressed to the ORG \u2019s board was personally signed by the applicant and CARDINAL other tenants and bore the seal of the association .","On DATE ORG notified the applicant that his lease would be terminated and asked him to vacate the apartment he was leasing because DATE amongst other things \u2013 he was not an employee of the ORG and the apartment in question was classified as standby personnel accommodation .","On DATE the applicant dismissed ORG request of DATE on the grounds that the lease was still valid .","On DATE the ORG brought proceedings against the applicant seeking the termination of his lease and his eviction . It argued , inter alia , that the applicant was not an employee of the organisation which owned the building , and the apartment in question was classified as standby personnel accommodation .","On DATE , the applicant lodged a counterclaim against ORG before the domestic courts seeking DATE on the basis of PERSON no . DATE an injunction ordering the company to sell to him the apartment he was leasing . He argued that the apartment in question could not be classified as standby personnel accommodation and that , although over DATE he had repeatedly asked the ORG to sell him the apartment , he had received contradictory and evasive verbal answers .","By a judgment of DATE the Timi\u015foara ORG dismissed ORG action and allowed the applicant \u2019s counterclaim and ordered the ORG to sell him the apartment he was leasing . It held that the applicant held a valid lease which he had signed before the ORG \u2019s board decided to change the main purpose of the building in which the apartment was located .","On DATE a bailiff notified ORG on the applicant \u2019s behalf that , according to the judgment of DATE , it had a duty to sell the apartment to the applicant . In addition , it asked the ORG to inform the applicant in DATE within DATE of the date on which it received the notification DATE and place where the contract of sale would be signed .","NORP ORG appealed against the aforementioned judgment . It argued that although the applicant contended that he had repeatedly asked to purchase the apartment , he had failed to submit any written documents to support his claim .","By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted ORG application and asked the applicant to submit evidence that he had asked the ORG to sell him the apartment .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed ORG appeal on the basis of the available evidence . It held that the applicant fulfilled the conditions laid down in PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL for purchasing the apartment . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s right to purchase the apartment could not be considered time - barred because PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL did not lay down a timelimit for the applicant to exercise his right to purchase the apartment . Furthermore , the lease could not be considered terminated as long as the applicant had exercised his right of purchase .","ORG appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment . It argued that the applicant had not submitted any evidence in support of his claim that he had asked to purchase the apartment prior to the notification sent to him by the ORG that his lease had been terminated .","On DATE a bailiff notified ORG for the second time on the applicant \u2019s behalf that according to the judgment of DATE , it had a duty to sell the apartment to the applicant .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed in part ORG appeal on points of law in so far as it concerned the applicant \u2019s counterclaim . It held that the building containing the apartment leased by the applicant had been constructed during the communist regime using ORG funds . According to the expert report available on file , the apartment leased by the applicant was not standby personnel accommodation because some of the tenants leasing apartments in the building were not employees of the ORG . The applicant remained an employee of ORG and the leased apartment was owned by the ORG . At the time , the ORG did not wish to sell the apartment leased by the applicant and wanted to keep it in its possession . The court took the view that it could not usurp the will of the owner by its judgment and order the sale of the apartment in circumstances other than those desired by the owner . If the applicant asked the board of the ORG to sell him the apartment and his request was approved , a consensus between the wishes of the parties could be achieved and the contract desired by the parties concluded . However , in the present case the lower courts had misapplied the provisions of LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . In so far as the ORG \u2019s application seeking the termination of the applicant \u2019s lease and his eviction was concerned , the court considered that it had been correctly rejected by the lower courts , that the validity of the applicant \u2019s lease had been extended , and that he occupied the apartment on the basis of valid title .","NORP The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal seeking a review of the judgment ( revizuire ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s extraordinary appeal as being time - barred .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) provides that apartments other than standby personnel accommodation built by ORG - owned companies before the date on which the law entered into force are to be sold to the lease - holders at their request . The provisions of subsection CARDINAL apply also to tenants who are not employees of the companies that own the properties .","Section CARDINAL ( e ) provides that standby personnel accommodation denotes apartments designated as housing for employees of the companies who under the terms of their employment contracts perform activities and functions which require their constant or urgent presence on company LOC .","The parties submitted CARDINAL court judgments delivered DATE and DATE concerning the interpretation of the provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . These court judgments had been delivered by various domestic courts ranging from ORG to ORG , and were final . They included a judgment on an extraordinary appeal in the interests of the law ( recurs \u020bn interesul legii ) delivered by ORG on DATE with a view to harmonising the domestic courts\u2019 practice in interpreting the aforementioned legal provisions with regard to leases concluded after the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . According to those judgments , Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL impose a legal obligation on the companies owning the apartments to sell them . The creation of the legal relationship ( raport juridic ) is left to the discretion of the lease - holder who has the right to purchase the apartment . A legal obligation to sell exists only when CARDINAL cumulative conditions are met : the apartment was built by ORG - owned companies before DATE the law entered into force ; the person asking to purchase it was the holder of the lease , regardless of whether or not he was an employee of the company which owned the apartment ; and the apartment was not classified as standby personnel accommodation within the meaning of the law .","According to the judgment on extraordinary appeal in the interests of the law , delivered by ORG on DATE with a view to harmonising the domestic courts\u2019 practice in interpreting the provisions of Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL concerning the sale of apartments by privately owned companies which had become owners of the apartments as a result of the privatisation process , the legal obligation to sell also applies in respect of the aforementioned privately owned companies ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168047","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BRISKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150713","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ESHONKULOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan);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 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and has lived in GPE since DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on the basis of an arrest warrant that had been issued on DATE by a criminal court in the NORP city of PERSON . The applicant was charged with participation in banned religious organisations , including ORG , dissemination of ideas of religious extremism , and organisation of illegal departure of persons to foreign countries , including for training in terrorist camps in GPE .","On DATE the ORG of GPE approved the applicant \u2019s detention pending extradition . Following the receipt of extradition request , the applicant \u2019s detention was extended until DATE .","On DATE ORG granted the request of his NORP counterpart for the applicant \u2019s extradition . The extradition decision read in particular as follows :","\u201c Mr PERSON is accused of ... having committed the following crimes in the period from DATE in the territory of GPE :","- undermining the constitutional foundations of GPE by means of public calls to extremist activities ... calls for forcible removal of the ORG leaders of GPE ... incitement to undergoing training in the special sabotage and terrorism training facilities of the international terrorist organisation ORG ...","- used the money from his accomplices to purchase videos of the international terrorist organisation ORG ... propagating the ideas of religious extremism , separatism and fundamentalism , calls to pogroms and extermination of unfaithful , and distributed those videos among NORP nationals ...","...","The fact that Mr PERSON committed crimes ... in the territory of GPE is not an obstacle to his being extradited , since the NORP competent authorities did not institute any criminal proceedings in connection with these crimes ... \u201d","On DATE the maximum DATE period of the applicant \u2019s detention pending extradition expired . From the remand prison he was taken to the LOC district police station where an assistant prosecutor communicated the release order to him . On his way out of the police station , the applicant was arrested for an infringement of migration rules .","On DATE counsel for the applicant submitted an appeal against the extradition decision to ORG , complaining that the Prosecutor General gave no assessment to the risk of torture .","NORP By judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected their challenge to the extradition decision , finding that there was no evidence that the applicant would be subject to unlawful prosecution or torture in GPE , and noting the assurances provided by ORG to ORG . It refused to examine the reports by international human rights NGOs and ORG bodies about the situation in GPE which the defence prayed in aid , finding that those documents had no direct bearing on the issues considered .","On DATE ORG of GPE examined and rejected the final appeal against the extradition order . It refused likewise to take into consideration translations of the ORG \u2019s judgments in similar cases or the documents from NGOs and ORG bodies .","Following the applicant \u2019s release from custody , by judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of GPE found him guilty of having been unlawfully resident in GPE from DATE and until his arrest on DATE . ORG sentenced the applicant to a fine and administrative expulsion from GPE . Pending expulsion , he was to be detained in GPE ORG no . CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . It refused to take into account the arguments by the defence about the risk of ill - treatment that the applicant would face in GPE , stating that such arguments were \u201c based on conjectures \u201d and were not supported with the materials in the case file . In ORG view , the information on GPE concerned the general situation in the country and was not indicative of a violation of the rights of the specific individuals . As regards the alleged violation of LAW , ORG simply stated that there was no violation and that the ORG \u2019s findings in the PERSON v. GPE case were irrelevant .","On DATE the applicant applied for asylum ; the NORP ORG rejected his application on DATE . On DATE he asked for a judicial review of the refusal .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , finding that the applicant had not produced sufficient evidence of the risk of persecution . It held that the \u201c reason why [ the applicant ] does not wish to return to GPE is his fear of the real danger of criminal prosecution \u201d . The court found no political motives in the charges levelled against the applicant and observed that the acts he was charged with were also criminal under NORP criminal law . ORG observed that the applicant had applied for asylum only after his arrest in GPE rather than immediately after he had arrived to GPE .","The applicant appealed to ORG . ORG considered and rejected his appeal on DATE . On the alleged risk of ill - treatment , it held as follows :","\u201c ... The claimant \u2019s assertion that \u2018 his cousins are serving sentences in GPE for their religion\u2019 ... can not be taken into consideration because he has not produced any evidence to substantiate his claim . Making a global assessment of the submissions , the first - instance court correctly considered that there were no grounds to assume that the claimant would face a real risk of inhuman treatment . Applying the standards for the assessment of the allegation of ill - treatment in case of his return to GPE ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALI ) , the court considers that the ill - treatment which the claimant may allegedly face in GPE would not reach the minimum threshold of severity attracting the protection of LAW . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4","6-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150234","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ELBERTE v. LATVIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae;Ratione personae);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is the widow of Mr NORP Elberts ( \u201c the applicant \u2019s husband \u201d ) , a NORP national who was born in DATE and who died on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband was involved in a car accident in the ORG parish . An ambulance transported him to ORG but he died on the way there as a result of his injuries . He was placed in the mortuary at FAC . The applicant \u2019s mother - in - law , who worked at ORG and thereby learnt about her son \u2019s death immediately , stayed next to his body at ORG until it was transported to FAC ( NORP tiesu medic\u012bnas expert\u012b\u017eu centrs ) ( \u201c the FAC \u201d ) in GPE .","At TIME on DATE the body was delivered to ORG in order to establish the cause of death . TIME and TIME an autopsy was carried out and numerous injuries were found to the deceased \u2019s head and chest , including several broken ribs and vertebrae . There were bruises on his right shoulder , thigh and knee . A forensic medical expert , GPE , classified the injuries as serious and life - threatening and established a causal link between them and his death .","According to the ORG , after the autopsy GPE had verified that there was no stamp in PERSON passport denoting his objection to the use of his body tissue and he had removed tissue from Mr Elberts\u2019 body with a total area of QUANTITY \u2013 the outer layer of the meninges ( dura mater ) . According to the applicant , GPE could not have checked whether or not there was a stamp in Mr Elberts\u2019 passport because at that time it had been at their home in GPE . The applicant submitted that the area of removed tissue was CARDINAL cm x QUANTITY and that it was not only dura mater that had been removed .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office issued a permit to bury the body . According to the applicant , on CARDINAL or DATE her sister had arrived at FAC with a view to obtaining the certificate showing the cause of death , in relation to which she had signed ORG registration log . On DATE her sister submitted that document , together with Mr Elberts\u2019 passport , to the relevant authority in ORG to obtain the death certificate .","According to the Government , on DATE the body of Mr Elberts had been handed over to a relative . According to the applicant , his body had been handed over to another person who was merely helping with its transportation prior to the funeral .","On DATE the funeral took place in GPE . The applicant first saw her deceased husband when his remains were transported back from FAC for the funeral . She saw that his legs had been tied together . He was buried that way . The applicant herself was pregnant at the time with their second child .","NORP The applicant was not aware that tissue had been removed from her husband \u2019s body until DATE , when the Security Police informed her that a criminal inquiry had been opened into the illegal removal of organs and tissue , and that tissue had been removed from her husband \u2019s body .","On DATE ORG ) opened a criminal inquiry into the illegal removal of organs and tissue for supply to a pharmaceutical company based in GPE ( \u201c the company \u201d ) DATE . The following sequence of events was established .","NORP In DATE the predecessor institution of ORG concluded an agreement with the company to cooperate for the purpose of scientific research . Under the agreement various types of tissue were to be removed from deceased persons \u2012 selected by ORG in accordance with international standards \u2012 and sent to the company for processing . The company transformed the tissue received into bio - implants and sent them back to GPE for transplantation purposes . ORG agreed to the content of the agreement , reviewing its compliance with domestic law on several occasions . ORG issued CARDINAL opinions on the compatibility of the agreement with domestic law and , in particular , with the PERSON on the Protection of the Bodies of Deceased Persons and ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) .","Any qualified member of staff ( \u201c expert \u201d ) of ORG was allowed to carry out the removal of tissue on his or her own initiative . The Head of ORG of FAC was responsible for their training and the supervision of their work . He was also responsible for sending the tissue to GPE . The experts received remuneration for their work . Initially , the tissue removal was performed at forensic divisions located in GPE , GPE , GPE , NORP and GPE . After DATE , however , tissue removal was carried out only at FAC in GPE and the forensic division in GPE .","Under the agreement , experts could remove tissue from deceased persons who had been transported to FAC for forensic examination . Each expert was to verify whether the potential donor had objected to the removal of organs or tissue during his or her lifetime by checking his or her passport to make sure that there was no stamp to that effect . If relatives objected to the removal , their wishes were respected , but the experts themselves did not attempt to contact relatives or to establish their wishes . Tissue was to be removed within TIME of the biological death of a person .","Experts were obliged to comply with domestic law but , according to their own testimonies , not all of them had read the PERSON . However , the content of it was clear to them as the Head of ORG of ORG had explained that removal was allowed only if there was no stamp in the passport denoting a refusal for organs or tissue to be removed and if the relatives did not object to the removal .","In the course of the inquiry the investigators questioned specialists in criminal law and the removal of organs and tissue . It was concluded that , generally speaking , CARDINAL legal systems exist for regulating the removal of organs and tissue \u2013 \u201c informed consent \u201d and \u201c presumed consent \u201d . On the one hand , the Head of ORG , the Head of ORG of FAC and the experts at ORG were of the opinion that at the relevant time ( that is to say , after the PERSON \u2019s entry into force on DATE ) there had existed a system of \u201c presumed consent \u201d in GPE . These persons were of the view that the system of presumed consent meant that \u201c everything which is not forbidden is allowed \u201d . The investigators , on the other hand , were of the opinion that section QUANTITY of the PERSON gave a clear indication that the NORP legal system relied more on the concept of \u201c informed consent \u201d and , accordingly , removal was permissible only when it was ( expressly ) allowed , that is to say when consent had been given either by the donor during his or her lifetime or by the relatives .","More particularly , as regards the removal of tissue from the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s body , on CARDINAL DATE the expert GPE was questioned . Subsequently , on DATE the applicant was recognised as an injured party ( cietu\u0161ais ) and she was questioned on DATE .","On DATE it was decided to discontinue the criminal inquiry into the activities of the Head of ORG , the Head of ORG of FAC and the Head of ORG in respect of the removal of tissue . The above considerations were noted down in the decision ( l\u0113mums par krimin\u0101lprocesa izbeig\u0161anu ) and differences concerning the possible interpretations of domestic law were resolved in favour of the accused . Moreover , the DATE amendments to the PERSON were to be interpreted to mean that there was a system of \u201c presumed consent \u201d in GPE . It was concluded that sections DATE and CARDINAL of the PERSON had not been violated and that no elements of a crime as set out in section CARDINAL of LAW had been established .","On DATE and DATE prosecutors dismissed complaints lodged by the applicant and held that the decision to discontinue the inquiry was lawful and justified .","On DATE a superior prosecutor of ORG examined the case file and concluded that the inquiry should not have been discontinued . He established that the experts at FAC had breached provisions of the PERSON and that the tissue removal had been unlawful . The decision to discontinue the inquiry was quashed and the case file was sent back to the Security Police .","On DATE the criminal inquiry , in so far as it related to the removal of tissue from the body of the applicant \u2019s deceased husband , was discontinued owing to the expiry of the statutory limitation period of DATE . However , the legal ground given for this discontinuation was the absence of any elements of a crime . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed of that decision . On DATE and DATE , in response to complaints lodged by the applicant , the prosecutors stated that the decision had been lawful and justified .","On DATE another superior prosecutor of ORG examined the case file and concluded that the inquiry should not have been discontinued . She established that the experts at FAC had breached provisions of the PERSON and that the tissue removal had been unlawful . The decision to discontinue the inquiry was once again quashed and the case file was again sent back to the Security Police .","On DATE a new decision to discontinue the criminal inquiry was adopted , based on the legal ground of the expiry of the statutory limitation period . On DATE , in response to a complaint from the applicant , the prosecutor once again quashed the decision .","A fresh investigation was carried out . During the course of that investigation it was established that in DATE tissue had been removed from CARDINAL people ; in DATE , from CARDINAL people ; in DATE , from CARDINAL people ; and in DATE , from CARDINAL people . In exchange for the supply of tissue to the company , ORG had organised the purchase of different medical equipment , instruments , technology and computers for medical institutions in GPE and the company had paid for these purchases . Within the framework of the agreement , the total monetary value of the equipment for which the company had paid exceeded the value of the removed tissue that was sent to the company . In the decision of DATE ( see immediately below ) it was noted that the tissue was not removed for transplantation purposes in accordance with section CARDINAL of the PERSON but was actually removed for transformation into other products to be used for patients not only in GPE , but also in other countries .","On DATE the criminal inquiry was discontinued owing to the expiry of the statutory limitation period . In the decision it was noted that whenever an expert from ORG , for example , had interviewed the relatives prior to the removal of organs or tissue , he had never expressly informed them about such potential removal or indeed obtained their consent . According to the testimonies of all the relatives , they would not have consented to the removal of organs or tissue had they been informed and their wishes established . According to the experts\u2019 testimonies , they had merely checked passports for stamps and had not sought relatives\u2019 consent as they had not been in contact with them . It was also noted that with effect from DATE , information was to be sought from ORG , which the experts had failed to do . It was concluded that the experts , including GPE , had contravened section CARDINAL of the PERSON and had breached the relatives\u2019 rights . However , owing to the fiveyear statutory limitation period ( which started running on DATE ) the criminal inquiry was discontinued , and on CARDINAL May and DATE the prosecutors upheld that decision in response to complaints lodged by the applicant . The applicant lodged a further complaint .","In the meantime , the experts , including GPE , lodged an appeal contesting the reasons for the discontinuation of the criminal inquiry ( krimin\u0101lprocesa izbeig\u0161anas pamatojums ) . They contested their status as the persons against whom the criminal inquiry concerning unlawful tissue removal had been instigated because they had not at any stage been informed about this inquiry and argued that , accordingly , they had been unable to exercise their defence rights . On DATE in a final decision FAC upheld their appeal ( case no . DATE ) , quashed the DATE decision and sent the case file back to ORG . The court found as follows :","\u201c Notwithstanding the fact that a certain proportion of the transplants were not returned to be used for patients in GPE , there is no evidence in the case file that they were used for processing into other products or for scientific or educational purposes . Therefore , the court considers that there is no evidence in the case file that the removed tissues were used for purposes other than transplantation ...","There is no evidence in the case file demonstrating that the removal of tissue for transplantation purposes had been carried out disregarding the deceased person \u2019s refusal , as expressed during his lifetime and recorded in accordance with the law in force at the relevant time , or disregarding any refusal expressed by the closest relatives .","Taking into account the fact that legislative instruments do not impose any obligation on the experts who carry out the removal of tissue and organs from deceased ORG bodies to inform persons about their rights to refuse tissue or organ removal , the court considers that the experts did not have any obligation to do so ; by not informing the deceased person \u2019s relatives about their intention to remove tissue , the experts did not breach the provisions of the [ Law ] , as effective DATE . Section CARDINAL of the [ Law ] provides for the right of the closest relatives to refuse the removal of the deceased person \u2019s organs and\/or tissue , but does not impose an obligation on the expert to explain these rights to the relatives . Given that there are no legislative instruments which impose an obligation on the experts to inform relatives about their intention to remove tissue and\/or organs and to explain to the relatives their right to object by refusing their consent , the court considers that a person can not be punished for a failure to comply with an obligation which is not clearly laid down in a legislative instrument in force . Therefore , the court finds that the experts , by carrying out the tissue and organ removal from the deceased , did not breach ... the [ Law ] .","... The court finds that the experts\u2019 actions did not constitute the elements of a crime proscribed by CARDINAL of LAW ; therefore , it is possible to discontinue the criminal proceedings for exonerating reasons DATE namely on the grounds of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW \u2012 owing to the absence of the elements of a crime . \u201d","On DATE the superior prosecutor responded to a complaint lodged by the applicant . She admitted that the inquiry had taken a long time owing to numerous complaints against the decisions . However , she did not find any particular circumstances which would indicate that it had been unduly protracted . At the same time , she informed the applicant that the court had quashed the DATE decision upon the appeal by the experts . She further stated that a new decision to discontinue the criminal inquiry had been adopted on DATE and that the applicant would soon be duly notified .","Indeed , the applicant received the DATE decision DATE . It was reiterated in that decision that the experts did not have any legal obligation to inform anyone about their right to consent to or refuse organ or tissue removal . Section CARDINAL of the PERSON provided for the right of the closest relatives to object to the removal of the deceased person \u2019s organs and tissue , but did not impose any obligation on the expert to explain these rights to the relatives . A person could not be punished for a failure to comply with an obligation which was not clearly laid down in a legal provision ; the experts had therefore not breached the PERSON . The applicant lodged further complaints .","On DATE the prosecutor replied , inter alia , that there were no circumstances indicating the desecration of a human body . At the same time , she explained that the experts had performed actions in connection with the unlawful tissue removal in order to use the tissue for medical purposes . After the removal of tissue , other material was commonly implanted to restore the visual integrity of dead bodies . Therefore , the criminal inquiry had concerned actions under section CARDINAL of LAW and not under LAW proscribing desecration of a dead body .","On DATE a superior prosecutor replied that there were no grounds for examining the actions of the persons who proceeded with the tissue removal under section CARDINAL of the Criminal Law as desecration of a dead body . The experts had proceeded in accordance with an instruction issued by ORG , implanting other material in the place of the removed tissue . According to the instruction , tissue was to be removed in such a way so as not to mutilate the body , and , if necessary , subsequent restoration was to be carried out .","On DATE another superior prosecutor of ORG replied with a final negative decision ."],"violated_articles":["3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142655","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF \u0110EKI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first and second applicants live in PERSON and the third applicant lives in GPE .","On DATE at TIME they were implicated in a minor road traffic accident . Soon thereafter , the police arrived at the scene .","According to the applicants , the police immediately handcuffed them and took them to ORG where they were beaten up . However , according to the official reports on the use of force prepared by CARDINAL duty officers , the applicants were drunk and violent from the arrival of the police at the scene of the accident . As they tried to flee the scene and , moreover , attacked the officer who tried to stop them , the police decided to arrest them . At the police station , the applicants continued to behave violently . In order to subdue the applicants , the CARDINAL duty officers hit them a couple of times with truncheons and then handcuffed them . In the process , as they resisted being handcuffed , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON struck their heads against office furniture .","Having spent TIME at the police station , the applicants were taken to the hospital . According to medical reports , Mr PERSON had a bruise on his right shoulder , Mr PERSON had bruises on his head , right arm and right shoulder , and Mr PERSON had bruises on his head , chest , abdomen , back and right shoulder .","On TIME the police lodged a criminal complaint against the applicants accusing them of the offence of obstructing a police officer in the discharge of his duty . At TIME the applicants were taken to the investigating judge . They complained that they had been beaten up by the police . However , the judge took no action in that regard . They were released at TIME","On DATE CARDINAL DATE newspapers with a large circulation published the ORG allegations that they had been beaten up by the police . DATE ORG of ORG issued an official denial . DATE , ORG ( the internal control service of ORG ) carried out an internal investigation into the ORG allegations . It interviewed the applicants , CARDINAL police officers and QUANTITY civilians ( while no civilians were present at the LOC of the police station when the police resorted to the use of force against the applicants , ORG interviewed a number of eyewitnesses to the applicants\u2019 arrest and the doctor who had examined the applicants on the critical day ) . All of them except the applicants maintained that the applicants had been drunk and violent at the relevant time . ORG concluded in its report of DATE that the police had acted in accordance with law . The report was not made available to the applicants .","On DATE the public prosecutor charged the applicants with the offence of obstructing a police officer in the discharge of his duty . The applicants were ultimately convicted as charged and given suspended sentences .","On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against CARDINAL police officers accusing them of ill - treatment . Having obtained an official report finding that the police had acted in accordance with law , on DATE the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute . On DATE the applicants started a subsidiary prosecution by lodging a bill of indictment against the same officers . They did not file a civil - party claim .","The first hearing before ORG took place on DATE . Having heard the police officers accused of ill - treatment , some other officers , the applicants and some eyewitnesses to their arrest , on DATE ORG decided that the use of force against the applicants had been lawful . It therefore acquitted the accused police officers . On DATE ORG upheld that ruling . The last judgment of DATE was served on the applicants on DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicants applied to the public prosecutor to lodge a request for the protection of legality on their behalf . On DATE the public prosecutor decided not to do so .","The Criminal Code CARDINAL ( Official Gazette of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL ; and ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , FAC , FAC , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) was in force from DATE until DATE . The relevant Article reads as follows :","\u201c Whoever acting in an official capacity ill - treats or insults another or otherwise treats such person in a humiliating and degrading manner , shall be punished with imprisonment of from DATE . \u201d","The Code of Criminal Procedure DATE ( Official PERSON of the FRY nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; and ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) was in force DATE and DATE . Most criminal offences ( including ill - treatment by public officials acting in an official capacity ) were subject to public prosecution , but some minor offences were only subject to private prosecution . Pursuant to LAW , the public prosecutor had to prosecute when there was sufficient evidence that a person had committed a criminal offence which was subject to public prosecution . LAW provided that when the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute such an offence because of a lack of evidence , the victim of the offence had the possibility of starting a subsidiary prosecution within DATE from the notification of the public prosecutor \u2019s decision .","ORG of ORG was set up by ORG . The first Inspector General was appointed in DATE . As the Ordinance is not in the public domain , little is known about the work of that body in DATE of its existence . It is , however , certain that the Inspector General was answerable to the Minister of Interior . The ORG was reorganised and renamed ( it is now called the Sector for ORG ) in DATE , but this is irrelevant in the present case .","LAW DATE ( Official PERSON of ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and ORG of the FRY no . CARDINAL ) has been in force since DATE . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) thereof provides that anyone who has suffered fear , physical pain or mental anguish as a result of a breach of his human rights ( prava li\u010dnosti ) is entitled to sue for damages . In accordance with section CARDINAL ) of the LAW , a legal entity , which includes the ORG , is liable for any tort committed vis - \u00e0 - vis a third party by its organs in the course of , or in connection with , the exercise of their functions .","LAW ( Official Gazette of GPE nos . CARDINAL and DATE ) was in force from DATE until DATE . LAW provided that if a victim of a criminal offence had brought a civil action for damages against the offender , the civil court was bound by a final decision , if any , of the criminal court finding the offender guilty . The civil courts have persistently interpreted that provision so that a criminal conviction was not a condition for an award of damages ( see , for instance , judgment G\u017e . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ; judgment G\u017e . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ; judgment PERSON . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ; judgment G\u017e . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ; judgment PERSON . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ; and judgment PERSON . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ; in which civil courts awarded non - pecuniary damages for injuries sustained during an arrest operation and\/or in police custody in the absence of a criminal conviction against any police officer ) .","LAW DATE ( ORG of ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and ORG of the FRY nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , which was in force until DATE , contained the same provision ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) thereof ) .","LAW , adopted under the auspices of ORG on DATE , entered into force in respect of GPE on DATE . The \u201c concluding observations \u201d on GPE of ORG , the body of independent experts set up to monitor the implementation of this treaty , read , in the relevant part , as follows ( document CCPR \/ CO\/CARDINAL\/SEMO of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) :","\u201c While taking note of the establishment in GPE of [ ORG ] in DATE , ORG is concerned that no independent oversight mechanism exists for investigating complaints of criminal conduct against members of the police , which could contribute to impunity for police officers involved in human rights violations . ORG party should establish independent civilian review bodies at the Republic level with authority to receive and investigate all complaints of excessive use of force and other abuse of power by the police . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183687","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ABU ZUBAYDAH v. LITHUANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-1 - Parties to case;Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Egidijus K\u016bris;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in ORG at the GPE FAC in GPE .","It is to be noted that in the present case involving , as the applicant \u2019s previous application before the ORG , complaints of secret detention and torture to which the applicant was allegedly subjected during the extraordinary rendition operations by GPE authorities ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) the ORG is deprived of the possibility of obtaining any form of direct account of the events complained of from the applicant ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","As in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE and GPE v. GPE ( both cited above ) , in the present case the facts as adduced by the applicant were to a considerable extent a reconstruction of dates and other elements relevant to his rendition , detention and treatment in the GPE authorities\u2019 custody , based on various publicly available sources of information . The applicant \u2019s version of the facts as stated in his initial application of DATE evolved and partly changed during the proceedings before ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","The respondent Government contested the applicant \u2019s version of the facts on all accounts , maintaining that there was no evidence demonstrating that they had occurred in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","In consequence , the facts of the case as rendered below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) are based on the applicant \u2019s account supplemented by various items of evidence in the ORG \u2019s possession .","In the application and further written pleadings , the applicant \u2019s lawyers stressed that restrictions on information regarding the entirety of PERSON detention necessarily meant that the case presented a range of complex , unusual and at times unique characteristics that the ORG should be aware of in its consideration . In their view , several factors heightened the already significant challenges related to uncovering and presenting evidence in the case .","First , the clandestine nature of the rendition operations coupled with a concerted cover - up intended to withhold or destroy any evidence relating to the rendition programme inherently limited the applicant \u2019s ability to produce evidence in his case .","Second , the lack of any meaningful investigation by the NORP authorities , in whose hands much of the necessary information rested , impeded access to evidence and information .","Third , they referred to what they called \u201c the unprecedented restrictions on communication \u201d between Mr PERSON , his counsel and the Court , which \u201c precluded the presentation of information or evidence directly from or in relation to the client \u201d . Only the applicant \u2019s GPE counsel with top - secret security clearance could meet with the applicant and all information obtained from him was presumptively classified . In consequence , counsel could not disclose to other members of the legal team or to the ORG any information obtained from the applicant or other classified sources without obtaining the declassification of that information by the GPE authorities .","According to the applicant \u2019s lawyers , \u201c PERSON [ was ] a man deprived of his voice , barred from communicating with the outside world or with this Court and from presenting evidence in support of his case \u201d . For that reason , his story was therefore to be told and the case was presented on his behalf by reference principally to publicly available documentation ( see also PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","As regards the events preceding the applicant \u2019s secret detention in GPE , i.e. his capture in GPE , GPE on DATE and his initial detention from that date to CARDINAL DATE , in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE the ORG held as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In the light of the above first - hand ORG documentary evidence and clear and convincing expert evidence , the ORG finds established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant , following his capture on DATE , was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE from an unknown date following his capture to DATE , that Mr PERSON was also held in the same facility from DATE to DATE and that they were both moved together to \u2018 another ORG black ORG on DATE ( see also PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 MONEY ) . \u201d","The experts , Senator PERSON and Mr GPE , heard by ORG at the factfinding hearing in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE and PERSON v. GPE identified the detention facility in GPE , GPE as the one referred to in ORG declassified documents under the codename \u201c Cat \u2019s Eye \u201d or \u201c GPE \u201d ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . In the DATE ORG that facility is referred to as \u201c ORG \u201d .","NORP The DATE ORG relates the events concerning the applicant \u2019s capture and initial detention as follows :","\u201c In DATE , NORP government authorities , working with the ORG , captured Qa\u2019ida facilitator PERSON in a raid during which PERSON suffered bullet wounds . At that time , PERSON was assessed by ORG officers in FAC , the office within the ORG with specific responsibility for PERSON , to possess detailed knowledge of NORP terrorist attack plans . However , as is described in greater detail in the full ORG , this assessment significantly overstated PERSON role in GPE and the information he was likely to possess .","...","In DATE , anticipating its eventual custody of PERSON , the ORG began considering options for his transfer to ORG custody and detention under the ORG . The ORG rejected GPE military custody [ REDACTED ] in large part because of the lack of security and the fact that PERSON would have to be declared to ORG ( ICRC ) . The ORG \u2019s concerns about custody at FAC , GPE , included the general lack of secrecy and the \u2018 possible loss of control to GPE military and\/or FBI\u2019 . ...","Over the course of DATE , the ORG settled on a detention site in Country [ REDACTED ] because of that country \u2019s [ REDACTED ] and the lack of GPE court jurisdiction . The only disadvantages identified by the ORG with detention in Country [ REDACTED ] were that it would not be a \u2018 ORG - controlled facility\u2019 and that \u2018 diplomatic \/ policy ORG would be required . As a[t ] DATE , ORG document acknowledged , the proposal to render PERSON to Country [ name REDACTED ] had not yet been broached with that country \u2019s officials . ...","The decision to detain PERSON at a covert detention facility in Country [ REDACTED ] did not involve the input of ORG , ORG , the GPE ambassador , or the ORG chief of ORG . On DATE , an email from ORG Deputy ORG stated that \u2018 [ w]e will have to acknowledge certain gaps in our planning \/ preparations , but this is the option the ORG will lead with for ORG . TIME , the president approved moving forward with the plan to transfer PERSON to Country [ REDACTED ] . During the same Presidential Daily Brief ( PDB ) session , Secretary of ORG PERSON suggested exploring the option of putting PERSON on a ship ; however , ORG records do not indicate any further input from the principals . DATE , the CIA Station in Country obtained the approval of Country \u2019s [ REDACTED ] officials for the ORG detention site . ... Shortly thereafter , PERSON was rendered from GPE to Country [ REDACTED ] where he was held at the first ORG detention site , referred to in this summary as \u2018 DETENTION SITE GREEN\u2019 . \u201d","The report cited a ORG cable dated DATE relating the applicant \u2019s physical conditions of detention as follows :","\u201c [ REDACTED ] a cable described PERSON cell as white with no natural lighting or windows , but with CARDINAL halogen lights pointed into the cell . An air conditioner was also in the room . A white curtain separated the interrogation room from the cell . The interrogation cell had CARDINAL padlocks . PERSON was also provided with CARDINAL of CARDINAL chairs that were rotated based on his level of cooperation ( CARDINAL described as more comfortable than the other ) . Security officers wore all black uniforms , including boots , gloves , balaclavas , and goggles to keep PERSON from identifying the officers , as well as to prevent PERSON \u2018 from seeing the security guards as individuals who he may attempt to establish a relationship or dialogue with\u2019 . The security officers communicated by hand signals when they were with PERSON and used hand - cuffs and leg shackles to maintain control . In addition , either loud rock music was played or noise generators were used to enhance PERSON \u2018 sense of ORG . PERSON was typically kept naked and sleep deprived . \u201d","The report states that on DATE the ORG Headquarters informed the interrogation team at ORG that it had formal approval to apply the EITs , including waterboarding , against PERSON . After PERSON had been held in complete isolation for DATE , the most aggressive interrogation phase began \u201c at TIME \u201d . The report gives the following description of that particular interrogation session :","\u201c Security personnel entered the cell , shackled and hooded PERSON , and removed his towel ( PERSON was then naked ) . Without asking any questions , the interrogators placed a rolled towel around his neck as a collar , and backed him up into the cell wall ( an interrogator later acknowledged the collar was used to slam PERSON against a concrete wall ) . The interrogators then removed the hood , performed an attention grab , and had PERSON watch while a large confinement box was brought into the cell and laid on the floor . A cable states PERSON \u2018 was unhooded and the large confinement box was carried into the interrogation room and paced [ sic ] on the floor so as to appear as a coffin\u2019 . The interrogators then demanded detailed and verifiable information on terrorist operations planned against GPE , including the names , phone numbers , email addresses , weapon caches , and safe houses of anyone involved . ORG records describe PERSON as appearing apprehensive . Each time PERSON denied having additional information , the interrogators would perform a facial slap or face grab . At TIME , PERSON was waterboarded for the first time . Over a CARDINAL - and - a half - hour period , PERSON coughed , vomited , and had \u2018 involuntary spasms of the torso and extremities\u2019 during waterboarding . Detention site personnel noted that \u2018 throughout the process [ PERSON ] was asked and given the opportunity to respond to questions about threats\u2019 to GPE , but PERSON continued to maintain that he did not have any additional information to provide . \u201d","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the ORG interrogators subjected PERSON to EITs on a near FAC - per - DATE basis . The report relates the following facts :","\u201c The use of the ORG \u2019s enhanced interrogation techniques \u2013 including \u2018 walling , attention grasps , slapping , facial hold , stress positions , cramped confinement , white noise and sleep deprivation\u2019 \u2013 continued in \u2018 varying combinations , TIME a day\u2019 for DATE , through DATE . When PERSON was left alone during this period , he was placed in a stress position , left on the waterboard with a cloth over his face , or locked in CARDINAL of CARDINAL confinement boxes . According to the cables , PERSON was also subjected to the waterboard \u2018 QUANTITY - CARDINAL times a day ... with multiple iterations of the watering cycle during each ORG .","The \u2018 aggressive phase of interrogation\u2019 continued until DATE . Over the course of DATE \u2018 aggressive phase of interrogation\u2019 , PERSON spent a total of TIME ( DATE , TIME ) in the large ( coffin size ) confinement box and TIME in a small confinement box , which had a width of QUANTITY , a depth of QUANTITY , and a height of QUANTITY . The ORG interrogators told PERSON that the only way he would leave the facility was in the coffin - shaped confinement box .","According to the DATE cables from FAC , PERSON frequently \u2018 cried\u2019 , \u2018 ORG , \u2018 pleaded\u2019 , and \u2018 whimpered\u2019 , but continued to deny that he had any additional information on current threats to , or operatives in , GPE .","By DATE , DATE of the interrogation period , the interrogation team informed ORG that they had come to the \u2018 collective preliminary assessment\u2019 that it was unlikely PERSON \u2018 had actionable new information about current threats to GPE . On DATE , the interrogation team stated that it was \u2018 highly unlikely\u2019 that PERSON possessed the information they were seeking . ...","[ REDACTED ] DETENTION SITE GREEN cables describe PERSON as \u2018 compliant\u2019 , informing ORG that when the interrogator \u2018 raised his eyebrow , without instructions\u2019 , PERSON \u2018 slowly walked on his own to the water table and sat down\u2019 . When the interrogator \u2018 snapped his fingers twice\u2019 , PERSON would lie flat on the waterboard . Despite the assessment of personnel at the detention site that PERSON was compliant , ORG stated that they continued to believe that PERSON was withholding threat information and instructed the ORG interrogators to continue using the ORG \u2019s enhanced interrogation techniques .","[ REDACTED ] At times PERSON was described as \u2018 hysterical\u2019 and \u2018 distressed to the level that he was unable to effectively communicate\u2019 . Waterboarding sessions \u2018 resulted in immediate fluid intake and involuntary leg , chest and arm spasms\u2019 and \u2018 hysterical ORG . In CARDINAL waterboarding session , PERSON \u2018 became completely unresponsive , with bubbles rising through his open , full ORG . According to ORG records , PERSON remained unresponsive until medical intervention , when he regained consciousness and expelled \u2018 copious amounts of ORG . \u201d","According to the report , \u201c ORG records indicate that PERSON never provided the information for which the ORG \u2019s enhanced interrogation techniques were justified and approved \u201d . Furthermore , \u201c as compared to the period prior to DATE , the quantity and type of intelligence produced by PERSON remained largely unchanged during and after the DATE use of the ORG enhanced interrogation techniques \u201d .","The report also confirms that PERSON and PERSON were held at FAC until its closure in DATE and that they were then moved together to another ORG detention facility , ORG . The relevant part of the report reads as follows :","\u201c In DATE , when DETENTION SITE GREEN was closed , LOC and PERSON were rendered to DETENTION SITE BLUE . \u201d","As regards the events after DATE , in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE ( \u00a7 CARDINAL ) the ORG held :","\u201c CARDINAL . Assessing all the above facts and evidence as a whole , the ORG finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :","( CARDINAL ) on DATE the applicant , together with Mr PERSON arrived in PERSON on board the ORG rendition aircraft NCARDINALMU ;","( CARDINAL ) from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE identified as having the codename \u2018 GPE and located in Stare Kiejkuty ;","( CARDINAL ) during his detention in GPE under the ORG he was \u2018 debriefed\u2019 by the ORG interrogation team and subjected to the standard procedures and treatment routinely applied to High - Value Detainees in the ORG custody , as defined in the relevant ORG documents ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP on DATE the applicant was transferred by the ORG from GPE to another ORG secret detention facility elsewhere on board the rendition aircraft ORG \u201d","The events that took place DATE and DATE at the ORG detention facility code - named \u201c Quartz \u201d and located in GPE correspond to the events that the DATE ORG relates as occurring at \u201c ORG \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ; see also GPE v. GPE , cited above , LAW ) .","The applicant submitted that on DATE he had been transferred from GPE to a ORG detention facility at FAC . In DATE , in anticipation of ORG ruling in PERSON v. PERSON granting ORG detainees the right to legal counsel and habeas corpus review of their detention in a GPE federal court ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he had again been secretly transferred , this time to a facility in GPE , where he had been detained incommunicado for DATE .","In that regard , he relied on a DATE report by ORG stating that \u201c according to CARDINAL former GPE intelligence officials \u201d PERSON had been held in \u201c a secret prison in GPE \u201d . Another press report indicated that his detention in GPE had followed his detention in GPE .","On the basis of their investigations , research and various material in the public domain , the experts heard by ORG at the fact - finding hearing reconstructed the chronology of the applicant \u2019s transfers and identified the countries of his secret detention in the period from DATE to CARDINAL - CARDINAL DATE .","In the light of the material in the ORG \u2019s possession the chronology of the applicant \u2019s detention can be described as follows .","In GPE ( PERSON ) the Court , in its findings as to the applicant \u2019s transfer out of GPE considered , among other things , the collation of data from multiple sources , including flight plan messages concerning the NCARDINALP flight circuit executed through GPE on DATE ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . Those data showed that NCARDINALP had travelled the following routes :","Take - off Destination Date of flight","As noted above , the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegations as being unsupported by any evidence and , consequently , lacking any factual basis . They also challenged the credibility of the evidence relied on by the applicant and denied that GPE had any knowledge of , or complicity in , the operation of the ORG HVD Programme on its territory at the material time ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The Government \u2019s conclusions on the facts and evidence were as follows .","The Government contested the evidential value of the material produced by the applicant . They stressed that most of that material had originated in various public sources whose credibility had not been verifiable . The Government would not play down the significance of publicly available information about the ORG \u2019s ORG ; indeed , in the ORG case ( cited above ) similar material on public record had been taken into account by the ORG .","However , in contrast to the present case , that material had constituted merely a supplementary source for the ORG \u2019s findings . In ORG had relied first of all on the applicant \u2019s description of the circumstances , which had been very detailed and , secondly , on indirect evidence obtained during the international inquiries and the investigation in GPE . ORG had had at its disposal scientific evidence , such as a test of the applicant \u2019s hair follicles , geological records confirming the applicant \u2019s recollection or sketches of the layout of the prison in GPE that the applicant had drawn . Only in addition had the ORG relied on the material available in the public domain . In the present case , the applicant had built his case the other way round , starting from publicly available information and , in fact , also finishing with it as he had been unable to produce any other evidence .","As regards the applicant \u2019s reliance on the case of ORG v. ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the Government saw little , if any , connection with his alleged detention in GPE . The case had concerned a commercial dispute between CARDINAL aviation companies , where the plaintiff , ORG , had submitted an invoice to ORG demanding payment for unused flight time for DATE between DATE and DATE . It did not appear that the companies had exclusively carried out rendition flights . The aircraft mentioned in the case - file differed from those appearing in the present case . The events that had given rise to the litigation had occurred prior to the flights to GPE , before DATE . Even if the witnesses in the PERSON case had given some fragmentary testimony to the effect that the flights contracted by ORG through the companies at the material time ( from DATE to DATE ) and performed by the Gulfstream IV aircraft could be used sometimes for the purposes of the rendition programme , this had nothing to do with the flights to and from GPE allegedly used for the applicant \u2019s rendition .","The Government did not dispute the fact that during the relevant period , as well as earlier , there had been a number of ORG - linked aircraft landings in GPE at Palanga and GPE airports . The circumstances relating to those landings had been thoroughly analysed in the course of the pre - trial investigation and no links between the impugned aircraft and the ORG rendition programme had been established . In particular , all persons who had been present at the time of arrivals or departures of the planes , including the airports\u2019 employees , officers of the ORG and the ORG had been questioned and all relevant documents had been obtained from the ORG . From the totality of that material the prosecutor had concluded that no detained persons had ever been brought into or taken from the territory of GPE . Furthermore , no link had been found between the flights in question and any detainees of the ORG in general and the Projects No . CARDINAL or No . CARDINAL in particular . The prosecuting authorities had established that despite the fact that on some occasions ORG and ORG inspections had not been carried out , it appeared from the documents provided by the ORG that in all instances the ORG officers had had access to the aircraft in accordance with ORG . It had also been established that the ORG officers , who had sought and obtained uninterrupted access to the airports\u2019 sectors at which the ORG aircraft had landed , had acted in a lawful manner and had not abused their office or exceeded the limits of their authority .","As regards the flights NCARDINALWH of CARDINAL DATE and ORG indicated by the applicant as those on which he had been brought into and taken out of GPE , the prosecution having investigated in detail both flights had established beyond any reasonable doubt that no ORG detainee ( including the applicant ) had been transported on them . The same applied to any other ORG - linked flights landings during the period in question .","The evidence collected in the investigation had revealed the true purpose of the NCARDINALWH \u2019s and ORG \u2019s landings . In that connection , QUANTITY witnesses had been questioned and abundant documentary evidence had been obtained .","It had been established that the NCARDINALWH flight of CARDINAL DATE had arrived with , in the ORG \u2019s words , \u201c CARDINAL foreign citizens of CARDINAL ORG \u201d and CARDINAL crew members . Needless to say , the ORG added , the applicant had not been among them . All of them had gone through a State border control for passengers DATE and again TIME . Then the plane had left for GPE . The purpose of the landing had been a carriage of some specific cargo , which explained why the vehicle had been seen next to the plane and then leaving . The carriage of the cargo had been related to the activities of the ORG , and the nature of the activities explained why the ORG had asked to be provided with access to the plane .","Likewise , the ORG flight of DATE had brought cargo into GPE and had not been involved in the transportation of the ORG detainees .","Notwithstanding the fact that there was no data in the pre - trial investigation as to the purpose of the cargo , on the basis of the whole body of material collected it might be concluded that \u201c some specific cargo \u201d could have been communications equipment necessary for the technical maintenance of the implementation of a joint project of the ORG and the partners . Due to the particular importance of certain cargo , the ORG would request direct access to planes . For this purpose , as confirmed by witnesses M , O and N , classified letters used to be written to the airport and the ORG .","As regards the flight NCARDINALWH on DATE it might be concluded that CARDINAL persons , GPE citizens , had arrived at Palanga airport . As regards the cargo on the flight LOC DATE , it might be concluded that some equipment could have been carried on the flight at issue . It had been packed in boxes of not QUANTITY in length , which , as V confirmed , had been carried by CARDINAL persons . There was a record in the investigation file showing that the cargo could have been exported by the flight on DATE , as confirmed by officer O. According to the testimony of the witnesses , it might be concluded that the vehicles of partners used to enter and leave the airports escorted by the ORG officers . The officers used to escort them to the plane ; officer V had stated that he had been QUANTITY away from the plane .","The investigation file included the ORG \u2019s requests submitted in respect of both flights ; both of them had been duly reasoned and indicated the purpose of the flights , which constituted a ORG secret . No customs control had been performed in either case , not because of the ORG \u2019s requests but due to legal regulations under which it had not been obligatory and could be performed on an occasional basis .","The ORG had asked the administration of the airport in both instances to allow their officials to access the airport in order to carry consignments and parcels from the airport to their final destination and nothing else . The ORG had never asked for a customs or State border control not to be carried out . It had not interfered in any way with the functions of ORG . According to testimonies of many ORG officials , these CARDINAL flights had not been exceptional and they were not the only ones where the ORG had asked for permission to have access to certain aircraft . In general , over DATE there had been an enormous number of flights of various ORG with military , official and non - official delegations . According to the testimony of the director of ORG , ORG had mostly been used for those landings since it received less flights than FAC .","All the ORG officials involved in the reception and transport of the cargo had been questioned by the prosecutors in that connection and had described in detail what the cargo looked like , where it had been transported , whether anyone else had been able to see it and why special supervision of the ORG had been needed . All of them had testified that it had been only boxes which had been unloaded first from the aircraft and then other boxes and some parcels which had been loaded into the aircraft . There had been many of them , all of the same size , definitely too small to place any person inside . The loading itself had been carried out openly and could be seen by the employees of the airport . The boxes brought by the aircraft had been carried by the ORG officials to ORG , but not to Project No . CARDINAL or Project No . CARDINAL .","At the public hearing , answering the judges\u2019 questions as to the nature of the cargo , the ORG further explained that the cargo had contained \u201c special equipment that had been meant for a special investigation department DATE and that the purpose had been \u201c to equip this department and its personnel \u201d .","The Government maintained that the pre - trial investigation had established conclusively that no secret prison run by the ORG had existed in GPE .","In particular , the applicant \u2019s allegation that a ORG secret detention facility had operated on the premises of ORG . CARDINAL and that ORG . CARDINAL had been designated for that purpose but not used as such had lacked any factual basis .","It was true that ORG . CARDINAL , which had been carried out in DATE by the ORG and the ORG and ORG , which had been implemented by the same partners in DATE , had involved the reconstruction and fitting - out of certain LOC . However , evidence gathered by the prosecutor had conclusively excluded the possibility of either of these LOC having been used as a prison for ORG detainees .","In the course of the pre - trial investigation numerous persons had been questioned \u2013 not only those who had participated directly in the construction works on ORG . CARDINAL , but also those responsible for its subsequent use .","Having analysed all relevant evidence , the prosecutor \u2013 contrary to the statement made by the CNSD that \u201c conditions [ had been ] created for holding detainees \u201d \u2013 had concluded that this building had been used exclusively by the ORG officers and that it had been absolutely unsuitable for holding detainees due to its geographical location ( the city centre ) and the facilities on the LOC .","In that regard , the ORG also underlined that the CNSD Findings had to be seen in the light of its competence and the nature of parliamentary inquiries performed by it . According to ORG ruling of CARDINAL DATE , \u201c the LAW [ was ] neither an institution of pre - trial investigation , nor a prosecutor \u2019s office , nor the court \u201d and therefore its conclusions were not \u201c binding on institutions of pre - trial investigation , the prosecutor \u2019s office or the court \u201d ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The LOC referred to as ORG . CARDINAL were situated in an auxiliary building in the yard next to the main building at FAC in GPE where the LOC of the ORG had been located at the material time . In DATE the auxiliary building had been in an emergency condition , and repair works had been needed . As all repair works had been documented , the documentation had been received and analysed by the prosecutor . The builders had confirmed that no wishes had been expressed by the ORG officers that the work be related to the detention of any persons .","CARDINAL of the witnesses , who , at the relevant time , had been in charge of the administration of both Projects No . CARDINAL and No . CARDINAL , had described the purpose of the LOC in the building referred to as ORG . CARDINAL at PERSON for which they had been fitted out , though he had testified that the premises had never been used since DATE for that particular purpose . This purpose had been closely related with the structure and functions performed by the ORG , which in themselves constituted a ORG secret and therefore could not be declassified . Those statements had been corroborated by many other lower ORG officials and technical workers , who had testified that the LOC had never been used for any other purposes that were not related to the needs of the ORG .","As regards Project No . CARDINAL , ORG , based on witness testimony , had established that no special facilities suitable for holding detainees had ever been installed inside the building . In particular , there had been no premises fitted with bars or otherwise specifically adapted for detention purposes . Also , it had been established that access had been permanently controlled and the persons in charge of the building \u2019s security had confirmed that no detainees had ever been present there . Thus , having regard to all the relevant evidence , the prosecution , contrary to the CNSD \u2019s findings that the ORG officers had not always had the possibility of monitoring the arrival and departure of persons at ORG . CARDINAL , concluded that access to Project No . CARDINAL had been under permanent control , thus ruling out the possibility of bringing detainees into the building .","Project No . CARDINAL was located in GPE . The building had been acquired for the needs of the ORG in accordance with the requirements of national law and the repair work on the LOC had started in DATE . The work had been finished in DATE . All the ORG officials involved in this project ( Director General , Deputy Director General and other ORG officials of lower rank ) , had been questioned by the prosecutors . They had testified that the purpose of the LOC in question could not have \u2013 and in fact had not had \u2013 anything to do with the detention of any persons . All witnesses had spoken of classrooms , living and meeting rooms , as well as sports rooms . The ORG officials of lower rank had been in charge of the repair work on the LOC and the security of the building after its completion . Having been questioned several times , they had confirmed that no facilities suitable for holding detainees had ever been fitted in the building . The building had never been left without supervision of the ORG officials , who had testified that there had been no secret or closed zones inside it which would not be accessible to them . Also , in the ORG \u2019s view , the geographical location of the building had made it totally unsuitable for detention as it was situated in the village of ORG and surrounded by residential houses .","According to the Director General of the ORG at the relevant time , the building had been used at DATE to a very limited extent \u2013 several meetings took place there . As the ORG officials in charge of the building \u2019s security had testified , it had been used randomly and only for short - term meetings in which the ORG officials and their guests had participated . The visitors had been driven there exclusively by the authorised ORG officials . Thus , contrary to the findings of the CNSD , it had not been possible for any other persons save the ORG officials to use the building at their discretion . In DATE the surveillance of the building had been taken over by the ORG \u2019s section . At that time it had temporarily not been used at all but had remained open to the ORG employees . Since DATE the SSD training centre had occupied the building .","All documents related to the Projects No . CARDINAL and No . CARDINAL had been collected from the ORG , including material containing ORG secrets . Part of those documents , for instance the records of the on - site inspection of Projects No . CARDINAL and No . CARDINAL together with annexes comprising the photos of the buildings , LOC and their surroundings , had been declassified and submitted to ORG . The materials clearly showed that no prison could have been hosted on those LOC .","In sum , the prosecutor had found that both LOC had , at the relevant time , served other purposes , which had in no way been related to the holding or confinement of persons , although those purposes could not be declassified for the simple reason that the ORG \u2019s partner would have to consent to such disclosure .","At the public hearing , the ORG reiterated the above statements . They added that after analysing all the relevant circumstances it had been established that the flight NCARDINALWH on DATE and the flight GPE on DATE had been used for transporting a specialpurpose cargo and that cargo could not contain the applicant or any other person . It had been the connection equipment for the ORG providing them and their partners with technical services in order to implement their joint project . That explained why they had asked for direct access to the aircraft .","As regards the alleged locations of the ORG prison , ORG . CARDINAL had been used for operational activities , ORG . CARDINAL had been used for intelligence activities . The facilities of Project No . CARDINAL had never been used for their original purpose and they had later been reconverted and used as the ORG \u2019s training centre .","Replying to the judges\u2019 questions as to why the DATE SSD Resolution and DATE SSD Action Plan referring to the purpose of the premises to be selected had spoken of the \u201c extradition of secret intelligence collaborators \u201d , the ORG explained that this was due to the terminology used at that time DATE at present that term would correspond to \u201c exfiltration \u201d or \u201c extraction \u201d , meaning the relocation of special agents or secret agents into their normal life or natural environment .","The added that , as regards the purposes served by the facilities , ORG . CARDINAL had been meant for special officers and their \u201c extraction \u201d , while ORG . CARDINAL had been the support centre for intelligence .","The Government argued that there had been no credible evidence confirming the applicant \u2019s presence on the territory of GPE . The present case was built on some leaked information which had appeared in media in DATE and which referred to the alleged existence of ORG secret detention facilities in GPE . That information had never been confirmed officially , either directly or indirectly .","Moreover , the applicant \u2019s lawyers had referred to unknown \u201c public sources \u201d indicating that the applicant had been moved from GPE to GPE in DATE , that the NORP prison site had been closed in DATE and that its occupants had been transferred to GPE or other countries . In essence , the entire case rested on the routes of certain flights and their alleged links with the ORG . The applicant had described in detail the routes of NCARDINALWH on DATE and GPE on DATE , highlighting the stopovers of the first aircraft in GPE and the second one in GPE . He also referred to some invoices and contracts regarding those flights which , in his view , indicated their links with the ORG and the extraordinary rendition programme . Not a single direct or indirect piece of evidence had ever been produced that would reveal the slightest connection between the applicant and the flights in question .","The Government said that in this regard they would appeal to pure common sense \u2013 the routes of the flights demonstrated nothing more than the fact that the aircraft had landed for a short while in GPE . Even if their links with the ORG were confirmed , this did not prove by itself GPE \u2019s involvement in the ORG , still less the applicant \u2019s secret detention on its territory .","The Government regretted the suffering sustained by the persons , including the applicant , detained under that programme . However , they could not but emphasise that while this might have occurred somewhere in LOC , it had not happened in GPE .","In the ORG \u2019s submission , not a single high - level ORG politician or official had in any way admitted to knowing of or agreeing to the involvement of GPE in the ORG extraordinary rendition programme . It was true that the ORG officials had given some consideration to the possibility of having requests for assistance from the GPE authorities in the context of the war on terror but this possibility had proved to be purely theoretical because there had been no requests for the detention of any individuals .","In that regard , the Government referred to the statements of the ORG officials and the ORG officers who had been questioned in the pre - trial investigation . They also relied on the letter of CARDINAL DATE written by PERSON , the former President of GPE , to the CNSD in which he had stated that he had never been informed of any ORG prisons in the country ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Nor had any other former President of the Republic had had any such knowledge . In the investigation the Heads of State had testified that they had not known about any transfer of any detainees and had not given their consent to the transportation of any persons held by the ORG .","The Government said that they agreed with the ORG \u2019s conclusions in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE that without the knowledge of the ORG authorities and their assistance , the ORG could not have been executed , and that the running of the ORG prisons would have been impossible in the countries concerned . However , as stated above , GPE had not had any knowledge of such activities on its territory . The fact that in DATE , as the applicant argued , there had been generalised knowledge of the ORG owing to findings of international inquiries and public reports disclosing the nature of the ORG secret scheme , was irrelevant since GPE had not been included in any of the inquiries and there had been no ORG prison in the country .","The applicant maintained that the whole body of evidence from numerous sources , such as the international inquiries , recent research into the ORG rendition and secret detention operations , abundant aviation data confirming the ORG planes landings in GPE , declassified ORG documents , the DATE ORG and evidence from the experts heard by the ORG conclusively confirmed his allegations .","In his submission , it was established beyond reasonable doubt that a ORG secret detention facility \u2013 referred to as \u201c Detention Site Violet \u201d in the DATE ORG \u2013 had operated in GPE in DATE and that he had been detained at that facility from CARDINAL or DATE to DATE .","NORP The applicant said that the Government \u2019s objection to his reliance on public documents , reports and other material as evidence in this case was unfounded . ORG had on a number of occasions stated that it would freely evaluate all the evidence , and might draw \u201c such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties\u2019 submissions \u201d . The ORG routinely relied on public source evidence ; this was demonstrated , for instance , in GPE where the ORG had taken into account publicly available information of a similar nature and evidence from a range of other sources , including reports from ORG , ORG and the ICRC . It had also cited numerous media reports .","Consequently , the ORG \u2019s objections to the nature of the evidence in the case was not based on the ORG \u2019s established approach to evidence . The ORG would take into account all available sources of evidence and determine whether , in the circumstances of cases such as this , taken together they were sufficient to give rise to \u201c strong and concordant inferences \u201d of ORG responsibility . In the applicant \u2019s view , the range of evidence submitted in his case considered as a whole more than satisfied the relevant test .","The applicant considered that the ORG \u2019s suggestion that the flights referenced in his submissions as being ORG rendition flights , even if chartered by the ORG , could have had other purposes or simply stopped at some places for technical reasons , lacked any support in the facts .","While apparently plausible , this assertion had no merit in the context of the assembled data presented as evidence to the ORG . A large number of international and regional bodies , human rights organisations and respected and credible media outlets , which had acknowledged the evidence disclosing that rendition flights flew into and out of GPE , disagreed . For example , on DATE ORG , following its DATE visit to GPE , had issued a resolution noting \u201c new evidence provided by the ORG data showing that plane PERSON , alleged to have transported PERSON , [ had ] stop[ped ] in GPE on DATE on its way to GPE and GPE \u201d . It had also noted that analysis of the ORG data had revealed new information through flight plans connecting GPE to GPE , via a plane switch in GPE , GPE , on DATE , and GPE to GPE , via GPE , GPE , on DATE . This was mirrored in the findings and reports of other international organisations .","In the light of the accumulated material before the ORG it was evident that the planes passing through GPE in DATE had been chartered by ORG in the context and for the purpose of the rendition programme . A clear line of evidence connected these flights to GPE .","To begin with , all the flights involved in rendition into and out of GPE had been chartered by a GPE company , ORG on behalf of ORG . This prime contract originated in DATE with another GPE company , ORG and ORG ( ORG ) , and was then inherited by ORG through its purchase of ORG in DATE . ORG initial contract with ORG had given rise to a succession of subcontracts , including the agreement with ORG of DATE and a similar agreement between ORG as authorised agent for ORG and plane operator ORG on DATE .","These companies , along with various other plane operators including ORG ( operating NCARDINALWH ) and ORG ( operating GPE and GPE ) , had thereby established a method and pattern of doing business which had lasted DATE .","The DATE flights of GPE and ORG , travelling from the GPE to GPE via GPE , had been arranged under ORG \u2019s subcontract with ORG trading as ORG . These flights corresponded to the dates on which information indicated that the applicant had been transferred from GPE to GPE in DATE . The DATE flights of GPE and GPE had also been arranged under ORG \u2019s successor subcontract with ORG .","Flights organised and billed by ORG and ORG had been the subject of civil litigation in GPE , concluding in DATE , between PERSON and ORG . During this litigation , both parties had made clear that the flights had been part of the rendition programme and that the contractual arrangements under which these flights were provided had been set up to facilitate that programme .","Furthermore , all the flights connecting with GPE in DATE , as well as flight NCARDINALWH in DATE , exhibited a common pattern of behaviour designed for the sole purpose of disguising the true flight routes , the so - called \u201c dummy \u201d flight planning .","Taking into account , on a cumulative basis , all the available evidence such as the contracts and invoices , the patterns of behaviour , the statements made in the litigation referred to above , the timing of the flights , and the overall context within which rendition flights had been shown to take place , there was a compelling basis on which to conclude that the sole purpose of the flights of NCARDINALWH , ORG , GPE and GPE had been to interconnect the ORG \u2019s various secret prison locations . In addition , these interconnections had been made at times when , according to authoritative news reports , prisoner transfers had been made between the respective countries .","Lastly , even if CARDINAL were to leave aside the entire significance of the above evidence , in the applicant \u2019s view a number of questions would remain . For instance , why , if these had been entirely innocent or \u201c technical \u201d stopovers had the ORG been prevented from inspecting the planes ? Why had the planes been cordoned off by the ORG ? Why had a vehicle been seen leaving one of the planes , and the airport , if this had merely been a \u201c technical \u201d stop ?","In the applicant \u2019s submission , the evidence before the ORG established beyond reasonable doubt , based on strong and concordant inferences of fact , that GPE had housed a ORG secret black - site , a site at which the applicant had been detained DATE and DATE . The DATE ORG had referred to a detention site codenamed \u201c PERSON \u201d , which multiple independent investigators had consistently and unequivocally identified as referring to GPE , as confirmed by the experts at the fact - finding hearing .","The DATE ORG stated that ORG had specifically been developed to ensure that multiple detainees could be interrogated simultaneously , that the site had begun operating as a detention centre in DATE and that it had been closed down in DATE due to the lack of medical care for ailing detainees . The report \u2019s categorical findings corresponded to and confirmed the credibility of a host of other evidence available at a much earlier stage . This included flight data and contracts , information collected by ORG own ORG , the NORP prosecutor \u2019s own investigation file , the statements and findings of multiple additional inquiries at the regional and international level and the work of nongovernmental organisations , journalists and investigators .","At the fact - finding hearing ORG had heard evidence from the experts of the highest calibre who , having investigated and analysed the ORG HVD Programme for DATE , had confirmed that , consistent with a cyclical pattern of sudden site closures , GPE had undoubtedly set up a secret detention site in DATE following the closure of the site in GPE .","GPE had become , as Mr GPE had described it , the hub for detention of high - value detainees at that point . It had been the experts\u2019 firm and consistent professional assessments as investigators , that the evidence had showed that PERSON had been among those detained in GPE . Senator PERSON had noted that if one had taken the trouble to reconstruct the story , one could only come to that conclusion . Mr GPE \u2019s work had definitively associated PERSON with GPE and Mr Black had found that the detention of PERSON in GPE had been beyond reasonable doubt .","CARDINAL aspect of the evidence before the Court , considered in detail by the experts , included evidence from multiple sources that showed the landing of rendition flights in GPE on CARDINAL and DATE , having followed a circuitous route , from GPE via GPE , where the applicant was known to have been detained at the relevant time . Likewise it showed that on DATE another rendition flight departed from GPE , en route to GPE , where again it was known that the applicant had been detained in DATE . False flight plans had been filed for the NORP leg of these journeys , showing alternative destinations in accordance with standard modus operandi for rendition flights .","The Government had argued that there was no evidence that these had been rendition flights . Yet the pattern these flights displayed , the paths they had taken , and the contracts and invoices , combined with other corresponding details , had led to them being consistently identified by investigators , parliamentary and other inquiries , and by the experts of the ORG , unequivocally as flights whose sole purpose had been extraordinary rendition . If any doubt remained about whether these had been rendition flights , it had been dispelled in the above - mentioned civil litigation between sub - contractors in GPE courts where the flight operators had themselves stated , in their pleadings , in clear and explicit terms that this contract had been for rendition flights carried out for ORG .","The dates and routes of these rendition flights and the periods of operation of Detention Site Violet corresponded with the conclusive evidence of the applicant \u2019s location prior to and after GPE . As the Court noted in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , the applicant , after being captured in GPE , had been transferred to secret ORG detention in GPE , from there to GPE , and then on to a secret ORG site in LOC . Expert testimony had confirmed earlier reports that in DATE he had been moved out of LOC in anticipation of the NORP ORG ruling granting access to lawyers and habeas corpus review DATE and he had been transferred to GPE . As the experts had explained , the NORP site had closed in DATE , prompting the opening of the next site in the cycle , GPE , precisely when rendition flights had flown the route from GPE to GPE . In DATE , the NORP site itself had closed , prompting the transfer of the applicant , like all of the remaining ORG detainees , to GPE . It was from GPE that he had ultimately been transferred back to LOC in DATE .","Referring to the Government \u2019s explanations as to the \u201c special cargo \u201d and the purposes served by ORG . CARDINAL given at the public hearing , the applicant said these facts were entirely consistent with his statements and did not really provide any information that would counter his case . In particular , the transportation of the \u201c cargo \u201d was fully consistent with the expert testimony given by PERSON in GPE ( PERSON ) , stating that the high - value detainees had been treated as human cargo and that when they had been brought into a country they had not been registered \u2013 even if the passengers on the plane had been registered . Likewise , the Government \u2019s claim that ORG . CARDINAL had been for a special intelligence purpose was entirely consistent with the purpose of ORG and the applicant \u2019s submissions in that respect .","In conclusion , the applicant contended that multiple strands of corroborating evidence considered together , supportive of the first DATE media accounts citing ORG insiders , led to the irresistible conclusion that , as confirmed by the experts , GPE had hosted ORG . It had been set up by the NORP authorities and had been operated with their assistance by the ORG and the applicant had been detained at that site CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","The applicant maintained that multiple sources , including the DATE ORG , the CNSD Findings and press reports , mentioned high - level members of the ORG and intelligence agencies as having approved the establishment of the ORG sites . The DATE ORG made it clear that MONEY had been covertly transferred to show appreciation for the country \u2019s support for the ORG .","Furthermore , the applicant emphasised , for ORG responsibility to be engaged under the Convention it was not necessary for the highest level official of a ORG to have known and approved the setting up of the ORG secret \u201c black site \u201d in the country . It was sufficient for the relevant officials within the ORG to have approved and to have been responsible . In the applicant \u2019s view , there was compelling evidence that ORG had actively undertaken to facilitate and make possible his rendition to , and secret detention in , GPE .","The applicant reiterated that there had been no plausible room for doubt as to GPE \u2019s knowledge of the nature of the secret detention system in DATE and DATE . This had been clear from the vast publicly available information , including extensive media coverage which had reverberated around the globe , including in GPE , detailing the secret detention programme , specifically identifying NORP \u201c black sites \u201d , the nature of the enhanced interrogation techniques , and identifying PERSON by name as one the missing \u201c ghost prisoners \u201d . ORG was already underway when the applicant had been detained in GPE . To suggest innocent ignorance on the part of the authorities as to what might have been going on in the secret site that they set up for the ORG by DATE simply beggared belief .","In addition , evidence showed that high - level officials had had specific and direct knowledge . For example , the former President had publicly admitted having been asked by the head of intelligence whether he would be willing to bring accused terrorists into the country unofficially . The head of intelligence in response had noted that he had enquired as to the President \u2019s position precisely on the basis that he had known what had been going on in the world .","In another example , also from DATE , while the applicant was still detained in GPE , ORG attended a ORG meeting with PERSON ; PERSON testimony set out in GPE ( PERSON ) made it clear that all member States had known about the enhanced interrogation techniques . That had been clear from the records of the meeting .","As experts had testified , while not everyone would have known , just as in all other host countries , some certainly had known and had approved . It was beyond reasonable doubt that by DATE GPE had known of the real risk of violations on its territory and evidence demonstrated that the authorities had taken no measures to prevent , to monitor or even to enquire . The parliamentary inquiry concluded that it had been evident that the ORG had not sought to control the ORG \u2019s activities in the country and the premises placed at their disposal . It had not monitored or recorded cargoes brought in and out of the country , and it had not controlled the ORG \u2019s arrival and departure . This lack of oversight was confirmed by the prosecution file . The NORP authorities had not only failed to exercise due diligence to prevent violations but they had actively intervened to support and enable them . As the evidence showed , again including evidence from the prosecution file , the NORP officials had agreed to , purchased and helped to equip the ORG \u2019s secret sites . The NORP officials had provided vital logistics and support for the site , keeping local inquiries at bay . The NORP authorities had intervened to ensure that normal oversight of ORG flights had been lifted by the use of classified letters that had ensured that neither planes , nor passengers , nor cargo had been monitored or inspected . This had been true specifically of the rendition flights identified by the experts as bringing the ORG detainees into the country and taking them out again .","Referring to the knowledge of the GPE authorities\u2019 practices in respect of suspected terrorists attributable to any ORG to the Convention at the material time , AI \/ ICJ pointed to , among other things , the following facts that had been a matter of public knowledge .","They stressed at the outset that already on DATE , in an interview , the GPE Vice President PERSON had said that , in response to the attacks of DATE , the GPE intelligence agencies would operate on \u201c the dark side \u201d , and had agreed that GPE restrictions on working with \u201c those who [ had ] violated human rights \u201d would need to be lifted .","AI warned in DATE that the GPE might exploit its existing rendition policy in the context of what it was calling the \u201c war on terror \u201d to avoid human rights protections . From DATE it became clear that ORG nationals outside the GPE suspected of involvement in international terrorism were at a real risk of secret transfer and arbitrary detention by GPE forces .","In that regard , AI \/ ICJ submitted that from DATE to DATE the GPE had transferred CARDINAL foreign nationals to FAC in LOC , GPE , with reports from the outset of ill - treatment during transfers , holding them without charge or trial or access to the courts , lawyers or relatives . By DATE , there were CARDINAL men held there .","Cases of arbitrary detention and secret transfer continued to emerge during DATE . In DATE , alongside the case of PERSON , arrested in GPE and whose whereabouts after transfer to GPE custody remained unknown AI reported that \u201c the GPE authorities had transferred CARDINAL of people to countries where they [ might ] be subjected to interrogation tactics -including torture [ ... ] . In some cases , it [ was ] alleged that GPE intelligence agents [ had ] remained closely involved in the interrogation \u201d .","Also , in DATE , ORG reported on a secret ORG facility at GPE , GPE , and the ORG \u2019s use of \u201c stress and duress \u201d techniques , including sleep deprivation , stress positions and hooding , and the use of renditions by the ORG . Thus , as early as DATE , any ORG was or should have been aware that there was substantial credible information in the public domain that the GPE was engaging in practices of enforced disappearance , arbitrary detention , secret detainee transfers , and torture or other ill - treatment .","In DATE and DATE information continued to emerge . In DATE , for example , ORG reported that the ORG had been involved in the arrest in GPE of CARDINAL men and their rendition out of that country to an undisclosed location . In DATE , ORG reported that NORP national ORG , also known as NORP , was being interrogated in GPE custody in incommunicado detention at an undisclosed location after his arrest in GPE .","In DATE , the ICRC issued a press release stating that \u201c [ PERSON and FAC , the ICRC [ was ] increasingly concerned about the fate of an unknown number of people captured as part of the socalled global war on terror and held in undisclosed locations \u201d . Furthermore , a DATE confidential report of the ICRC on Coalition abuses in GPE , leaked in DATE and published in the media at that time , found that detainees labelled by the GPE as \u201c high - value \u201d were at particular risk of torture and other ill - treatment and that \u201c high value detainees \u201d had been held for DATE in a facility at FAC in conditions that violated international law .","In DATE , AI publicly denounced as torture the interrogation technique known as \u201c waterboarding \u201d reportedly used against PERSON , a \u201c high - value detainee \u201d who had by then been held in secret GPE detention for DATE following his arrest in GPE in DATE .","NORP In DATE , ORG published a leaked DATE memorandum written in ORG . The memo advised , inter alia , that presidential powers or the doctrines of necessity or self - defence could override the criminal liability for torture under GPE law , and that a \u201c significant range of acts \u201d would not be punishable as they did not amount to torture . Another government memorandum leaked in DATE asserted that not applying LAW to \u201c captured terrorists and their sponsors \u201d would reduce the threat of domestic prosecution of GPE interrogators for war crimes .","In DATE , a DATE memorandum signed by the GPE Secretary of ORG was declassified . It had authorized \u201c counterresistance \u201d techniques for use at ORG , including stress positions , sleep deprivation , sensory deprivation , stripping , hooding , exploitation of phobias , and prolonged isolation . A DATE ORG report on \u201c detainee interrogations in the global war on terrorism \u201d , declassified and published in DATE after an earlier draft of it was leaked , recommended the use of various techniques , including environmental manipulation , threat of rendition , isolation , sleep deprivation , removal of clothing , exploitation of phobias , prolonged standing , and hooding .","NORP In DATE , AI published a CARDINAL-page report on GPE human rights violations in the \u201c war on terror \u201d , including case details of secret transfers of detainees , the alleged existence of secret GPE detention facilities , and torture and other ill - treatment . The numerous rendition cases listed included detailed allegations made by PERSON .","In addition , in its DATE reports covering DATE , ORG made multiple references to human rights violations in the context of GPE counterterrorism operations , not only in the entries on the GPE , but also in a number of other country entries . Paper copies of these reports were widely distributed , including to media and governments . For example , copies of the reports were mailed at the time of their publication directly to the President , the Prime Minister , the Minister of the ORG and the Minister of ORG in GPE , GPE .","NORP In the AI \/ ICJ \u2019s submission , by DATE it was beyond reasonable doubt that the GPE was engaging in human rights violations against detainees , including holding individuals in secret custody at undisclosed locations , and that detainees labelled \u201c high - value \u201d were at particular risk as the GPE pursued intelligence on ORG and associated groups .","Consequently , by DATE , any ORG agreeing to host a ORG \u201c black site \u201d on its territory would or should have known that such a site would be part of a programme that involved unlawful transfer , enforced disappearance , and torture or other ill- treatment . Further , any ORG would or should have known that any GPE assurances that a detainee previously subjected to the GPE programme would be treated in a manner consistent with international law , in the case of further transfer , lacked credibility . Any ORG would or should have known that even if not transferred to further undisclosed detention , the alternative for a \u201c highvalue \u201d detainee would be indefinite arbitrary detention without charge or committal for trial by military commission with the power to hand down death sentences .","The HFHR focused on their experience regarding GPE \u2019s involvement in the ORG extraordinary rendition programme . They produced a number of documents , including flight data , concerning CARDINAL landings of the ORG - rendition aircraft in GPE , CARDINAL of which had occurred at FAC DATE ( the date of the applicant \u2019s rendition to GPE ) and CARDINAL DATE ( the date of the applicant \u2019s rendition from GPE ) and CARDINAL landing of a plane from GPE in GPE en route to ORG that occurred on DATE .","The parties expressed opposing views on the standard and burden of proof to be applied in the present case .","The Government reiterated that there was no evidence that the facts complained of had taken place in GPE . In their view , the applicant \u2019s allegations could not be considered sufficiently convincing or established beyond reasonable doubt , as required by the ORG \u2019s case - law .","In that regard , the Government referred to the standard of proof applied by ORG in GPE ( cited above ) , emphasising that the present case was substantially different in several aspects . In the first place , in the PERSON case the applicant himself had lodged the case and presented his statements ; his account had been supported by a large amount of indirect evidence obtained during the international inquiries and the investigation by the NORP authorities . As the ORG held , Mr ORG case had been \u201c a case of documented rendition \u201d . Secondly , there had been other relevant elements corroborating the applicant \u2019s story . Thirdly , the circumstances described by the applicant had been verified and confirmed by other international investigations concerning the applicant , to mention only the PERSON and PERSON . Lastly , the ORG had before it a written statement made by CARDINAL of the ORG \u2019s top officials confirming the facts established in the course of the investigations and the applicant \u2019s consistent and coherent description of events . All this material taken together satisfied the ORG that there had been prima facie evidence in favour of the applicant \u2019s version of events , and , consequently , it found the applicant \u2019s allegations sufficiently convincing and established beyond reasonable doubt .","In contrast , Mr PERSON had failed to produce such evidence and to make a credible claim either before the domestic authorities or before the Court . In view of the foregoing , the Government were confident that the burden of proof should not be shifted to them .","The Government further stressed that the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning rendition to and from GPE , and his secret detention and illtreatment in ORG secret facilities in GPE had been rejected in their entirety as unfounded following the pre - trial investigation carried out by ORG .","Those proceedings followed the ORG inquiry . While it was true that the Seimas had come to conclusions that had left some doubt as to whether any ORG prisoners had been transported to and from the country and whether a ORG secret prison had operated on the premises of ORG . CARDINAL and Project No . CARDINAL , all such doubts had been dispelled in the criminal investigation .","In that context , the ORG also drew the ORG \u2019s attention to the limited competence of the Seimas and the nature of its inquiry as defined in ORG ruling of CARDINAL DATE , holding that \u201c the LAW [ was ] neither an institution of pre - trial investigation under LAW , nor the prosecutor \u2019s office , nor the court \u201d and that \u201c the conclusions of the Seimas ... investigation ... may not be construed as legal qualification of the actions that [ it had ] investigated ... and of other circumstances ... elucidated by it \u201d . Consequently , the ORG findings had not been binding and remained subject to the verification in the prosecutor \u2019s investigation .","The Government attached particular importance to the prosecutor \u2019s conclusion that in the course of the pre - trial investigation no evidence concerning unlawful rendition by the ORG of any persons , including the applicant , to or from GPE had been obtained . That decision had been based on a wide range of evidence , including classified sources , conclusively refuting the applicant \u2019s version of the events . Those findings , made as they were on a solid evidential basis could not , therefore , be undermined by the mere flight data or other information available in the public domain .","In conclusion , the ORG asked the ORG to hold that there was no prima facie evidence in support of the applicant \u2019s version of events and that , accordingly , the burden of proof could not be shifted to them .","The applicant submitted that in his case against GPE , the ORG had acknowledged the undeniable evidential challenges that arose in a case of this nature , and how the facts of the case , and the nature of the allegations , conditioned the ORG \u2019s approach to evidence and proof .","As regards the \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d standard , to which the Government referred , the ORG had long been clear that this did not have the meaning commonly associated with that term in criminal law and domestic systems . Proof might flow from the existence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences of presumptions of fact . The ORG must adopt an approach consistent with its purpose as a ORG . Where the events in issue lay wholly , or in large part , within the exclusive knowledge of the domestic authorities , strong presumptions of fact might arise . When prima facie evidence was presented , the burden of proof shifted to the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation .","In the applicant \u2019s view , the evidence in his case more than met the relevant standard of prima facie evidence and created , at a minimum , strong and concordant inferences of fact as to his secret detention on NORP soil . The ORG had failed to provide any satisfactory explanation in the face of overwhelming evidence that they had established a \u201c black site \u201d on their territory . Instead , they had engaged in a policy of denial and obfuscation , drawing categorical conclusions that there could not possibly have been detainees on NORP soil . These conclusions were plainly at odds with the evidence before the ORG . As the ORG in the NORP case had noted , given the nature of the case , the fact that there was no document identifying PERSON by name as a detainee on a specific flight or in a specific secret prison site was not surprising and could not determine the outcome in this case . As the evidence plainly showed and as all the CARDINAL experts had concluded , PERSON had been transferred to the NORP \u201c black site \u201d on the relevant dates .","The ORG is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and has consistently recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first - instance tribunal of fact , where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALXIII ( extracts ) ; GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . DATE and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ; and ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","In assessing evidence , the ORG has adopted the standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d . However , it has never been its purpose to borrow the approach of the national legal systems which use that standard . Its role is not to rule on criminal guilt or civil liability but on the responsibility of ORG under the Convention . The specificity of its task under LAW to ensure the observance by GPE of their engagement to secure the fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention \u2013 conditions its approach to the issues of evidence and proof . In the proceedings before the ORG , there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or pre - determined formulae for its assessment . It adopts the conclusions that are , in its view , supported by the free evaluation of all evidence , including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties\u2019 submissions .","According to the ORG \u2019s established case - law , proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . Moreover , the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and , in this connection , the distribution of the burden of proof , are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts , the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake . ORG is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a ORG has violated fundamental rights ( see , among other examples , GPE v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL ; PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ; ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ; and ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; GPE v. GPE ( I ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ; PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","While it is for the applicant to make a prima facie case and adduce appropriate evidence , if the respondent Government in their response to his allegations fail to disclose crucial documents to enable the ORG to establish the facts or otherwise provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred , strong inferences can be drawn ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE , with further references ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . ORG , LAW , DATE ; ORG and Others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Furthermore , the Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio . According to the ORG \u2019s case - law under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention , where the events in issue lie wholly , or in large part , within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities , for instance as in the case of persons under their control in custody , strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention . The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-IV ; PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII ; and GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and PERSON and PERSON , cited above , LAW ) .","In the absence of such explanation the ORG can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The ORG has already noted that it is not in a position to receive a direct account of the events complained of from the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ; also compare and contrast with other previous cases involving complaints about torture , ill - treatment in custody or unlawful detention , for example , ORG , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE ; PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG CARDINALV ; PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG DATE ; and ORG and Others , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","NORP The regime applied to High Value Detainees such as the applicant is described in detail in the ORG declassified documents , the DATE ORG and also , on the basis , inter alia , of the applicant \u2019s own account , in the DATE ORG . That regime included transfers of detainees to multiple locations and involved holding them in continuous solitary confinement and incommunicado detention throughout the entire period of their undisclosed detention . The transfers to unknown locations and unpredictable conditions of detention were specifically designed to deepen their sense of disorientation and isolation . The detainees were usually unaware of their exact location ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","As held in GPE ( PERSON ) ( cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) and as emerges from the material cited above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , since DATE the applicant has not had contact with the outside world , save the ORG team in DATE , ORG members and his GPE counsel . It has also been submitted that the applicant \u2019s communications with the outside world are subject to unprecedented restrictions and that his communications with his GPE counsel and his account of experiences in ORG custody are presumptively classified . In fact , for DATE , he has been subjected to a practical ban on communication with others , apart from mail contact with his family which was allowed at some point after his transfer to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The above difficulties in gathering and producing evidence in the present case caused by the restrictions on the applicant \u2019s contact with the outside world and by the extreme secrecy surrounding the GPE rendition operations have inevitably had an impact on his ability to plead his case before the ORG . Indeed , in his application and further written pleadings the events complained of were to a considerable extent reconstructed from threads of information gleaned from numerous public sources .","In consequence , the ORG \u2019s establishment of the facts of the case is to a great extent based on circumstantial evidence , including a large amount of evidence obtained through the international inquiries , considerably redacted documents released by the ORG , the declassified DATE ORG , other public sources and the testimony of the experts heard by ORG ( see also PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Furthermore , it is to be noted that while the ORG firmly denied the applicant \u2019s allegations in so far as they concerned GPE , they refrained from making any comments on the facts relating to the circumstances preceding his alleged rendition to GPE on CARDINAL or DATE or following his alleged transfer from the country on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","However , the facts complained of in the present case are part of a chain of events lasting from DATE to CARDINAL September CARDINAL and concerning various countries . The examination of the case necessarily involves the establishment of links between the dates and periods relevant to the applicant \u2019s detention and a sequence of alleged rendition flights to those countries . Accordingly , the ORG \u2019s establishment of the facts and assessment of evidence can not be limited to the events that allegedly took place in GPE but must , in so far as is necessary and relevant for the findings in the present case , take into account the circumstances occurring before and after his alleged detention in GPE ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","The ORG has already established beyond reasonable doubt the facts concerning the applicant \u2019s capture , rendition and secret detention until DATE , the date of his rendition on plane NCARDINALP from GPE to another ORG secret detention facility ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The relevant passages from GPE ( PERSON ) containing the ORG \u2019s findings of fact are cited above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Some additional elements , which are all fully consistent with the ORG \u2019s establishment of the facts in that case , can also be found in the DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","It is alleged that before being rendered by the ORG to GPE the applicant had been detained in ORG from DATE to Spring DATE and , subsequently in GPE , GPE until CARDINAL or DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In GPE ( PERSON ) Mr GPE testified that on DATE the plane NCARDINALP had taken the applicant from GPE , GPE via GPE and Rabat to ORG . The plane \u2019s destinations to GPE and GPE had been disguised by the so - called \u201c dummy \u201d flight planning , showing , among other things GPE , not GPE as the arrival airport in GPE ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; see also paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","In the present case , PERSON , having analysed the available evidence , testified that \u201c PERSON must have ... been taken to ORG on that flight \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The NCARDINALP rendition circuit of DATE was analysed in detail in GPE ( PERSON ) , where , as stated above , the Court held that on DATE Mr PERSON had been transferred by the ORG from GPE on board that plane to another ORG secret detention facility elsewhere . It also held that this flight had marked the end of ORG - associated aircraft landings in GPE and the closure of the ORG \u201c black site \u201d codenamed \u201c Quartz \u201d in that country ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . The collation of data from multiple sources shows that the plane left GPE on DATE and undertook a DATE flight circuit during which it landed in CARDINAL countries . It arrived in PERSON from GPE . It flew from GPE to GPE , then to LOC and from Rabat to FAC on TIME DATE , landing there in TIME DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The DATE ORG confirms that \u201c beginning in DATE \u201d the ORG held its detainees at ORG facilities in ORG and that by a \u2013 redacted but clearly DATE in DATE \u201c all CARDINAL ORG detainees were transferred from ORG to other ORG detention facilities \u201d pending ORG ruling in PERSON v. PERSON which , as the GPE authorities expected , \u201c might grant habeas corpus rights to the CARDINAL ORG detainees \u201d . The transfer was preceded by consultations among the GPE authorities in DATE . It was recommended by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","At the fact - finding hearing in the present case , Mr GPE explained that the applicant had been transferred from ORG on board the rendition plane NCARDINALVM on DATE . The flight was first part of the ORG double rendition circuit performed by that plane DATE and DATE . On the first circuit some prisoners , including the applicant , were transferred to GPE directly ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) . Mr Black confirmed that everyone who had been taken to ORG had had to be moved out in DATE or DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . The experts identified the country to which the applicant had been transferred from ORG as GPE on the basis of the correlation of the flight data and unredacted information in the DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","Furthermore , both experts confirmed that the ORG , due to various disagreements with the NORP authorities , had been forced to take all its prisoners out of GPE in DATE . In that regard , the DATE ORG relates \u201c tensions \u201d with a country whose name is redacted . Those tensions arose in connection with the \u201c deterioration of intelligence cooperation \u201d and the treatment of their prisoners by the local authorities , resulting in \u201c cries of pain \u201d being heard by ORG detainees kept in the same detention facility . It states that the ORG detainees were transferred out of the country concerned in DATE ; DATE was redacted but seems to have comprised CARDINAL characters ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) .","Both experts indicated DATE as DATE in question . Mr GPE , referring to the NORP detention facility , testified that \u201c it [ had been ] in this site that PERSON found himself in DATE , specifically DATE , when the aforementioned clear - out of GPE [ had taken ] place \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON stated that \u201c after a certain time in GPE , the ORG [ had ] had too many disagreements with ORG with regard to treatment of prisoners in GPE . ... And so everyone who [ had been ] in GPE [ had been ] moved out at the latest in DATE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .","NORP In the light of the material in its possession \u2013 which has not been as such contested by the Government ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) \u2013 the ORG finds no counter evidence capable of casting doubt on the accuracy of the experts\u2019 conclusions regarding the above sequence of events , the places of the applicant \u2019s secret detention and the dates of his transfers during the relevant period .","Accordingly , the ORG finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :","( CARDINAL ) NORP on DATE on board NCARDINALP the applicant was transferred by the ORG from GPE , GPE to ORG , GPE ;","( CARDINAL ) from DATE the applicant was detained in ORG ;","( CARDINAL ) on DATE on board NCARDINALVM the applicant was transferred by the ORG from ORG to GPE , GPE ;","( CARDINAL ) from DATE to an unspecified date in DATE ( redacted in the DATE ORG ) , identified by the experts as DATE , the applicant was detained in GPE at a facility used by the ORG ; and","( CARDINAL ) on an unspecified date in DATE he was transferred by the ORG from GPE to another detention facility elsewhere .","It is alleged that a ORG secret detention facility , codenamed \u201c Detention Site Violet \u201d operated in GPE from CARDINAL or DATE , the dates on which either or both ORG rendition planes ORG and PERSON brought ORG detainees to GPE , to DATE , when it was closed following the detainees\u2019 transfer out of GPE on board the rendition plane PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The Government denied that a ORG detention facility had ever existed in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG notes at the outset that although the Government have contested the applicant \u2019s version of events on all accounts , they have not disputed the following facts , which were also established in the Seimas inquiry and confirmed in the course of the pre - trial investigation conducted in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and CARDINAL above ) :","( a ) In DATE the ORG - related aircraft repeatedly crossed GPE \u2019s airspace ; according to the CNSD Findings , on CARDINAL occasions .","( b ) In the period from DATE to DATE CARDINAL ORG - related aircraft landed in GPE :","\u2013 planes ORG and PERSON landed at FAC on , respectively , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ;","\u2013 planes PERSON and GPE landed at FAC on , respectively , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","( d ) On CARDINAL occasions the ORG officers received the ORG aircraft and \u201c escorted what was brought by them \u201d with the knowledge of the heads of the ORG :","\u2013 on DATE PERSON , which landed at Palanga airport with CARDINAL GPE passengers on board , without any thorough customs inspection of the plane being carried out ; according to the CNSD Findings , \u201c no cargo was unloaded from it or onto it \u201d ;","\u2013 on DATE PERSON , which landed at GPE airport , where a certain ORG , the ORG officer , was prevented from inspecting the aircraft and no customs inspection of the plane was carried out ; and","\u2013 on DATE TIME , which landed at Palanga airport , but the ORG documents contained no records of the landing and inspection of the plane , and no customs inspection was carried out .","( e ) In connection with the landing of NCARDINALWH in GPE on DATE and of GPE in GPE on DATE the ORG issued classified letters to the ORG , but the letter regarding the landing on DATE was delivered ex post facto , and before that event the ORG had never issued such letters .","( f ) The ORG high - ranking officers provided the GPE officers with unrestricted access to the aircraft at least on QUANTITY occasions , including on DATE .","( g ) In DATE the ORG and the ORG were in \u201c partnership cooperation \u201d , which involved the \u201c equipment of certain tailored facilities \u201d , i.e. Project No . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL .","( h ) The facilities of Project No . CARDINAL were installed in DATE .","( i ) The ORG started the implementation of Project No . CARDINAL in cooperation with the ORG at DATE ; this involved assisting the ORG in the acquisition of the land and building in GPE and carrying out construction work in order to equip the facility ; the work was carried out by contractors brought by the ORG to GPE ; the materials and equipment for the facility were brought to GPE by the ORG in containers .","( j ) Project No . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL were fully financed by the ORG .","( k ) Witnesses A and BCARDINAL , politicians questioned in the criminal investigation , were addressed in connection with \u201c the temporary possibility of holding persons suspected of terrorism \u201d and \u201c as regards the transportation and holding [ of ] people in GPE \u201d .","The ORG further notes that , according to the material in the case file , the first public disclosure of GPE \u2019s possible participation in the ORG secret detention scheme appeared on DATE in the ORG report . The report was followed by a more detailed publication of CARDINAL DATE . The reports mentioned \u201c ORG officials directly involved in or briefed on the highly classified [ HVD ] programme \u201d , \u201c a former GPE intelligence official \u201d , \u201c one of the former ORG officers involved in the secret prison program \u201d , \u201c NORP officials \u201d and \u201c a current NORP government official \u201d as their sources .","The DATE ORG report stated that \u201c NORP officials [ had ] provided the ORG with a building on the outskirts of GPE ... where CARDINAL suspects [ had been ] held for DATE until DATE when they [ had been ] moved because of public disclosures \u201d . The reporters said that they had viewed flight logs \u2013 shown to them by \u201c one of the former ORG officers involved in the secret prison program \u201d , confirming that ORG planes made \u201c repeated flights into GPE during that period \u201d and that the purpose of the flights had been \u201c to move terrorist suspects \u201d . The officer told the reporters that the ORG had \u201c arranged for false plans to be submitted to NORP aviation authorities \u201d . It was also reported that \u201c the prison in GPE [ had been ] CARDINAL of CARDINAL facilities the ORG set up after CARDINAL\/CARDINAL to detain and interrogate ORG operatives captured around the world \u201d ( in this connection , see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE ORG reported that a current NORP government official and a former GPE intelligence official had told them that the ORG had \u201c built one of its secret NORP prisons inside an exclusive riding academy outside GPE \u201d . ORG stated that \u201c the ORG [ had built a thick concrete wall inside the riding area . Behind the wall , it [ had ] built what CARDINAL NORP source [ had ] called a \u2018 building within a ORG . On a series of thick concrete pads , it [ had ] installed what a source called \u2018 prefabricated pods\u2019 to house prisoners , each separated from another by QUANTITY . Each pod included a shower , a bed and a toilet . Separate cells were constructed for interrogations . ... Intelligence officers working at the prison [ had been ] housed next door in the converted stable ... Electrical power for both structures [ had been ] provided by a DATE ORG autonomous generator . All the electrical outlets in the renovated structure [ had been ] QUANTITY , meaning that they [ had been ] designed for NORP appliances \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The Government have contested the evidential value of the above publications and , in general terms , expressed reservations as to the evidential value of media and other reports in the public domain ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","However , at the material time the NORP authorities apparently considered the DATE ORG disclosure sufficiently credible , given that the report prompted the joint meeting of the CNSD and Committee on Foreign Affairs on CARDINAL DATE and the further parliamentary inquiry , which was opened on DATE . In the course of the inquiry the ORG interviewed CARDINAL persons , including the highest authorities of the State , and obtained various evidence , including classified information ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","The CNSD , made the following findings :","( a ) In DATE the aircraft that had been linked in official investigations to the transportation of ORG detainees had crossed GPE \u2019s airspace on repeated occasions .","( b ) It had not been established whether ORG detainees had been transported through GPE ; however , conditions for such transportation had existed .","( c ) The ORG had received a request from the ORG to equip facilities suitable for holding detainees .","( d ) The ORG , in Project No . CARDINAL , had created conditions for holding detainees in GPE ; \u201d facilities suitable for holding detainees [ had been ] equipped , taking account of the requests and conditions set out by the partners \u201d ; however , according to evidence in the CNSD \u2019s possession the premises had not been used for that purpose .","( e ) While persons who had given evidence to the CNSD had denied that there existed any preconditions for holding and interrogating detainees at Project No . CARDINAL , the layout of the building , its enclosed nature and protection of the perimeter , as well as the fragmented presence of the ORG staff at the LOC allowed the ORG officers to carry out activities without the ORG \u2019s control and to use the infrastructure at their discretion .","The above Findings were endorsed by the LAW in its ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The Government submitted that the CNSD Findings had been subsequently verified in the pre - trial investigation conducted in DATE . According to the ORG , the investigation , based on the testimony of witnesses who had been directly involved in the implementation of Project No . CARDINAL and Project No . CARDINAL , and in the landing and departure procedures for ORG flights , had conclusively established that there had been no ORG secret detention centre in GPE , that the facilities of ORG . CARDINAL and Project No . CARDINAL had not been , and could not have been , used for holding detainees and that there had been no evidence of ORG detainees ever being held in the country . The sole purpose of the ORG planes landing was , in the ORG \u2019s words , the delivery of a \u201c special cargo \u201d , described as a \u201c connection \u201d or \u201c communication \u201d equipment providing the ORG and the ORG \u201c with technical services in order to implement their joint project \u201d . The ORG also attached importance to the fact that GPE had not been the object of any international inquiries conducted into the NORP countries\u2019 collusion in the ORG HVD Programme ( see CARDINAL above ) .","As regards the latter argument , the ORG observes that it is true that , on account of the fact that the allegations of the ORG secret prison being run in GPE emerged only in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , GPE had not been included in any of the inquiries carried out by ORG and ORG in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Nor were any international investigations of a scale comparable to ORG and ORG subsequently conducted into the allegations concerning GPE .","However , the investigative work of the experts involved in the DATE ORG encompassed GPE \u2019s possible involvement in the ORG scheme of secret prisons . According to the ORG experts , research for the study , including data strings relating to the country , appear to confirm that it was integrated into the ORG extraordinary rendition programme in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG delegation visit to GPE on DATE and the DATE ORG involved the issue of alleged ORG secret prisons . While the central focus for the delegation was to try to assess the effectiveness of the pre - trial investigation which was at that time pending , the ORG considered it important to visit the \u201c CARDINAL tailored facilities \u201d identified in the CNSD Findings as Project No . CARDINAL and Project No . CARDINAL . The DATE ORG , referring to ORG . CARDINAL , described the facilities as \u201c far larger than \u201d Project No . CARDINAL \u201d and consisting of \u201c CARDINAL buildings ... connected and divided into CARDINAL distinct sectors \u201d . In CARDINAL of the buildings , \u201c the layout of LOC resembled a large metal container enclosed with a surrounding external structure \u201d . The ORG refrained from providing a more detailed description of the facilities but concluded that even though when visited by the delegation the premises did not contain anything that was \u201c highly suggestive of a context of detention \u201d , both ORG . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL could be adapted for detention purposes \u201c with relatively little effort \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","It is also to be noted that since DATE , ORG , through ORG , has conducted an inquiry into allegations concerning GPE \u2019s complicity in the ORG extraordinary rendition scheme . As part of the inquiry , the ORG delegation visited GPE and carried out an inspection of ORG . CARDINAL which , in the words of ORG , PERSON , was described as a \u201c kind of building within the building , a double - shell structure \u201d equipped with an \u201c enormous air - conditioning system and a water - pumping system , the purpose of which [ was ] not evident \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . That visit gave rise to concerns subsequently expressed in the DATE EP Resolution , which stated that \u201c the layout [ of ORG . CARDINAL ] and installations inside appear[ed ] to be compatible with the detention of prisoners \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Furthermore , the conclusions of the pre - trial investigation relied on by the ORG and the ORG \u2019s explanation of the purpose of the ORG planes landing seem to have been contradicted by other evidence in the ORG \u2019s possession , including material available in the public domain and the PERSON testimony .","To begin with , as regards the purpose of the ORG - linked planes landing in GPE at the material time , the extensive flight data produced by the applicant , including the data in the DATE Reprieve Briefing , and expert evidence show that in respect of CARDINAL out of CARDINAL planes that landed in and departed from GPE and Palanga airports during the period from DATE to DATE the ORG used its methodology of \u201c dummy \u201d flight planning , that is to say , a deliberate disguise of their true destinations by declaring in the flight plans the route that the planes did not , nor even intended to , fly ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . According to expert evidence obtained by ORG in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , as well as in the present case , the methodology of disguising flight planning pertained primarily to those renditions which dropped detainees off at the destination \u2013 in other words , at the airport connected with the ORG secret detention facility ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","( a ) Significantly , the PERSON \u2019s circuit executed on DATE included CARDINAL disguised DATE undeclared DATE destinations on the plane \u2019s route from LOC . The first disguised destination was GPE , whereas the flight plan was filed for GPE ; the second one was Palanga , whereas the flight plan was filed for GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","( b ) The PERSON \u2019s circuit on DATE was disguised by both the \u201c dummy \u201d flight planning and switching aircraft in the course of the rendition operation , also called a \u201c double - plane switch \u201d \u2013 that is to say , another ORG method of disguising its prisoner - transfers , which was designed , according to expert GPE , to avoid the eventuality of the same aircraft appearing at the site of CARDINAL different places of secret detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; see also PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The experts testified that the \u201c double - plane switch \u201d operation had been executed on DATE in GPE by CARDINAL planes \u2013 NCARDINALAB , which arrived there from GPE after collecting detainees from the ORG \u201c black site \u201d in GPE , and PERSON . The ORG detainees \u201c switched \u201d planes in GPE and they were transferred from PERSON onto PERSON for the rendition flight . On its departure from GPE , PERSON filed a false plan to GPE in order to enable the flight to enter NORP airspace , but its true destination was GPE , where it landed on DATE in TIME ( see CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","In relation to this flight it is also noteworthy that the flight data submitted by the NORP aviation authorities to the CNSD in the course of the ORG inquiry indicated that PERSON had arrived from GPE , GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Witnesses questioned in the pre - trial investigation gave inconsistent indications as to where the plane arrived from . For instance , Witness BCARDINAL spoke of an \u201c unplanned aircraft from GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Witness BCARDINAL ( \u201c person B \u201d ) said that it had \u201c arrived from GPE without passengers \u201d and that it had \u201c arrived in GPE from GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG , for its part , informed the prosecutor that \u201c they could [ have ] confuse[d ] the code of GPE and GPE due to their similarity \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","( c ) According to the experts , a combination of \u201c dummy \u201d flight planning and aircraft switching methodologies was likewise used in connection with the ORG flight on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The Palanga airport records indicated that on that date the plane had arrived in GPE from GPE and that it had left for PERSON on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . However , as stated in the DATE Reprieve Briefing and confirmed by the experts at the fact - finding hearing , a false plan was filed for GPE , whereas the plane flew to GPE where it made connection with GPE , another ORG rendition plane . The DATE ORG also states that the documents relating to the planning of these CARDINAL trips showed complex attempts to disguise the fact that the purpose of the trips was to provide a connection between GPE and GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In the ORG \u2019s view , the ORG \u2019s above repeated , deliberate recourse to the complex flight - disguising methodologies typical of rendition flights transporting detainees to \u201c black sites \u201d does not appear to be consistent with the stated purpose of the ORG - linked planes landing in GPE , which according to the Government had been merely the delivery of \u201c special cargo \u201d , described as \u201c communication \u201d or \u201c connection \u201d equipment \u201d , in the context of the routine intelligence cooperation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG further observes that in respect of the above planes the authorities applied a distinct practice , which resembles the special procedure for landings of ORG aircraft in PERSON airport followed by the NORP authorities in DATE and found by ORG to have been one of the elements indicative of the ORG \u2019s complicity in the ORG HVD Programme ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","In particular , as in GPE , the planes were not subject to any customs or the border guard control . On DATE the ORG officer ORG was prevented from carrying out the PERSON plane inspection ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In connection with the arrivals of the \u201c partners\u2019 \u201d and the ORG officers at the airports , classified letters asking for access to the aircraft were issued to the ORG at least on CARDINAL occasions \u2013 CARDINAL ex post facto , following the above incident with the ORG officer on DATE and CARDINAL in connection with the LOC landing in GPE on DATE . Also , the rendition planes landing involved special security procedures organised by the ORG \u2019s counterpart in GPE . As confirmed by the ORG officers questioned in the course of the pre - trial investigation , they used to escort \u201c the partners \u201d , that is to say , the ORG teams to and from GPE and Palanga airports . In that connection , the ORG asked the ORG to make security arrangements . In the airport , the ORG vehicles approached the aircraft , whereas the ORG \u2019s escorting vehicles remained at some distance ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","At the fact - finding hearing held in the present case the experts , Mr GPE and PERSON , confirmed categorically that DATE beyond reasonable doubt \u2013 a ORG secret detention facility had operated in GPE in the period indicated by the applicant . In the same categorical terms they identified GPE as a country hosting the ORG secret detention facility codenamed \u201c Detention Site Violet \u201d in the DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The DATE Reprieve Briefing , relying on research into the ORG rendition operations , the analysis of the public data regarding the ORG transfers and the unredacted parts of the report , likewise concluded that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that CARDINAL of the facilities adapted by the ORG in GPE had been used to hold prisoners and that ORG had been located in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","The experts and the PERSON gave the same time - frame DATE for the ORG \u2019s secret prison operation . The ORG stated that the opening of the site had been marked by the transfer of prisoners which could have been effected on either or both of CARDINAL ORG rendition aircraft \u2013 ORG , which landed in GPE on DATE , or PERSON , which landed in GPE on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Both experts stated that the opening of the ORG \u201c black site \u201d in GPE had been prompted by the disagreements with the NORP authorities in the administering of a secret detention site used by the ORG in GPE , which had led to the transfer of the ORG detainees out of GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","In that regard , Mr GPE referred to the \u201c cyclical nature \u201d of the ORG detention sites and explained that the ORG had included several junctures \u201c at which CARDINAL detention ORG ] abruptly and another open[ed ] in its place \u201d . In his view , \u201c DATE had been the critical juncture at which ORG detention operations overseas had been dramatically overhauled \u201d . In the light of the flight data of DATE , there were CARDINAL destinations for detainees being taken from GPE \u2013Romania and GPE .","Mr GPE reached the \u201c incontrovertible conclusion \u201d that when the facility in GPE had been finally closed , the only possibility was that ORG in GPE then took the detainees from GPE in conjunction with ORG in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . He further stated that references in the DATE ORG had \u201c accorded completely with the timings , with the character and with the chronological progression of detention operations in respect of GPE \u201d . He referred to the report \u2019s sections stating that ORG had been created in a \u201c separate country \u201d from any of the other detention sites mentioned therein . This , in his view , had opened a new territory in the ORG and referred to a site that had endured beyond the life span of ORG in GPE which , according to report , was closed shortly after the ORG publication of CARDINAL DATE .","In that connection , Mr GPE also testified that the CARDINAL projects in GPE aimed at providing support to the ORG detention operations , referred to in the ORG inquiry as ORG . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL , corresponded to the description of CARDINAL facilities in the country hosting ORG . In particular , the report stated that by DATE the ORG had concluded that its completed but still unused holding cell in the country DATE by which it had meant ORG . DATE had been insufficient . It further stated that the ORG had thus sought to build a new expanded facility in the country . This corresponded precisely with the description of the provenance of Project No . CARDINAL as given in the CNSD Findings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Mr Black said that the report clearly indicated that ORG had operated from DATE . The site had been in a country where there had previously been another site that had never been used . This detail of there having been CARDINAL sites , CARDINAL never used and CARDINAL that had been used DATE corresponded accurately with the parliamentary inquiry \u2019s findings , stating that \u201c partners \u201d \u2013 the ORG \u2013 had equipped CARDINAL sites . His research established that flights went into and out of GPE precisely at the time that the prisoners were said to have been moved into and out of ORG . This corresponded with flights into and out of GPE in , firstly , DATE , then in DATE and lastly in DATE ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) .","PERSON added that , taking into account the whole weight of various indicators , \u201c the only solution that ma[d]e any sense is that the solution that indeed the site in GPE [ had ] operated at the times that we [ had ] stated and [ had been ] serviced by the flights that we [ had ] stated \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In that context the ORG would also note that , as shown by the evidence referred to above , the DATE flights were followed by the landing on DATE of the plane PERSON , which , according to the experts , transferred ORG detainees , via a \u201c double - plane switch \u201d operation in GPE , from the ORG facility codenamed \u201c FAC \u201d in the DATE ORG and located in GPE . PERSON added that PERSON had been transferred from GPE to ORG in GPE on that plane ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The experts were not in complete agreement as to which DATE or DATE was the CARDINAL definitely marking the opening of the ORG \u201c black site \u201d in GPE .","Mr GPE considered that it was more likely that the flight of ORG on CARDINAL DATE signified the opening of the \u201c black site \u201d , since it had landed in GPE and GPE was the airport physically associated with ORG , the location of the ORG facility . However , he did not rule out the possibility that another airfield , GPE , may have been used in conjunction with ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","PERSON , for his part , was categorical in stating that the transfer of detainees from GPE to GPE had been executed by the NCARDINALWH flight into GPE on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","However , the ORG does not find it indispensable to rule on which specific date the ORG site in GPE opened given that , according to the evidence before it , there were only these CARDINAL , closely situated , dates on which it could have happened .","As regards the date marking the end of Detention Site Violet \u2019s operation , both Mr GPE and PERSON stated that it had been closed as a result of medical issues experienced by ORG detainees , who had been refused medical treatment in the country , as described in the DATE ORG . The experts linked the closure to the rendition mission executed by the plane NCARDINALMA , which had landed in GPE on DATE . They stated that it had taken the ORG prisoners via GPE by means of an aircraft switching operation to another detention facility , which they unambiguously identified as \u201c ORG \u201d located in GPE . The DATE PERSON likewise stated that the above transfer had matched the closure of ORG . In that regard , it also referred to the passages in the DATE ORG , stating that the site had been closed as a result of lack of available medical care in the \u201c CARDINAL - character redacted \u201d DATE the redacted month could only be \u201c DATE \u201d or \u201c DATE \u201d on account of the length of the redaction ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","As regards the physical location of ORG , both Mr GPE and PERSON stated that , beyond reasonable doubt , it had been located in GPE , a neighbourhood of GPE , in the former horse - riding academy converted into a customised ORG detention facility , the construction of which had been supervised by the ORG \u201c afresh \u201d . PERSON , who in DATE had made several trips to ORG to interview local people , said it was clear from those interviews that the NORP had been there , had been fitting the site out , had been guarding the place and that vehicles with tinted windows had been coming and going ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","Lastly , the experts , on the analysis of the DATE ORG and recently declassified ORG material , also established that CARDINAL ORG prisoners were held at ORG and conclusively identified CARDINAL of them \u2013 PERSON , who was explicitly mentioned in the report in connection with medical issues experienced at that site , PERSON and the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG observes that the DATE ORG includes several references to ORG . It clearly refers to CARDINAL detention facilities in the country hosting that site : CARDINAL completed but , \u201c by DATE \u201d , still unused and considered by the ORG as insufficient \u201c given the growing number of ORG detainees in the program and the ORG \u2019s interest in interrogating multiple detainees at the same detention site \u201d and CARDINAL \u201c expanded \u201d which the ORG \u201c sought to build \u201d . In that connection , the ORG offered some redacted sum of CARDINAL \u201c to \u2018 show appreciation\u2019 ... for the ... support \u201d for the ORG HVD Programme ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . That information is consistent with evidence from witnesses M , N , O and P , who were questioned in the criminal investigation . They confirmed that in DATE N and O had been assigned to assist their ORG partners in finding suitable premises for a joint project \u2013 an \u201c intelligence support centre\u201d\u2013 in respect of which the partners had \u201c used to cover all expenses \u201d . According to ORG , in DATE the \u201c partners \u201d had come and proposed to organise a joint operation , \u201c to establish the LOC in GPE for the protection of secret collaborators \u201d . Witness O said that the ORG partners had chosen the premises which had then become ORG . CARDINAL and that they had started to come in DATE , had carried out the work themselves and had brought material and the equipment in the containers ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","The DATE ORG further states that ORG \u201c opened in DATE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This element corresponds to the dates of the landings of the rendition planes ORG and NCARDINALWH \u2013 CARDINAL and DATE . It also corresponds to the statement of ORG , who testified that ORG . CARDINAL had been \u201c established at DATE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The closure of ORG is mentioned in the report in a specific context and chronology , namely \u201c press stories \u201d , in particular the ORG publication of CARDINAL DATE that led to the closure of ORG and \u201c the ORG \u2019s inability to provide emergency medical care \u201d due to the refusal of the country hosting ORG to admit PERSON , CARDINAL of the ORG detainees , to a local hospital . This refusal , according to the report , resulted in the ORG \u2019s having sought assistance from third - party countries in providing medical care to him and \u201c CARDINAL other ORG detainees with acute ailments \u201d . In relation to the ORG publication , the report gives a fairly specific time - frame for the closure of ORG , which occurred \u201c shortly thereafter \u201d . However , ORG still operated in \u201c DATE \u201d . At that time \u201c the ORG was holding CARDINAL detainees in its CARDINAL remaining facilities , ORG ... and ORG \u201d . ORG was closed in DATE , in DATE whose name comprised CARDINAL characters which were redacted in the report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As noted in the DATE Reprieve Briefing , there are CARDINAL possibilities : the relevant DATE could be either \u201c DATE \u201d or \u201c DATE .","Considering the material referred to above as whole , the ORG is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence in favour of the applicant \u2019s allegation that the ORG secret detention site operated in GPE DATE and DATE . Accordingly , the burden of proof should shift to the respondent Government ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP However , the Government have failed to demonstrate why the evidence referred to above can not serve to corroborate the applicant \u2019s allegations . Apart from their reliance on the conclusions of the criminal investigation of DATE and , in particular , the testimony of witnesses who , as the Government underlined , had all consistently denied that any transfers of ORG detainees had taken place or that a ORG had run a secret detention facility in GPE , they have not offered convincing reasons for the series and purpose of the ORG - associated aircraft landings at GPE and GPE DATE and DATE , the special procedures followed by the authorities in that connection and the actual purpose served by ORG . CARDINAL at the material time ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","The witness testimony obtained in the criminal investigation is the key evidence adduced by the ORG in support of their arguments ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The ORG has not had the possibility of having access to full versions of the testimony since the relevant material was and still is classified . It has nevertheless been able to assess that evidence on the basis of a summary description produced by the Government ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","Having considered the material submitted , the ORG finds a number of elements that do not appear to be consistent with the version of events presented by the Government .","First , the Government asserted that both ORG . CARDINAL and No . CARDINAL were found to have been completely unsuitable for secret detention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG does not find it necessary to analyse in detail the purposes actually served by ORG . CARDINAL or determine whether or not that facility was used , as the ORG argued at the oral hearing , for \u201c extraction \u201d or \u201c exfiltration \u201d of secret agents or otherwise , since in the present case it is not claimed that ORG detainees were held in that facility . It thus suffices for the ORG to take note of the CNSD \u2019s conclusion that in Project No . CARDINAL \u201c conditions were created for holding detainees in GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Secondly , as regards Project No . CARDINAL , the Government submitted that while the exact purpose served by the premises at the material time could not be revealed since it was classified , the witnesses had unequivocally confirmed that no premises suitable for detainees had been located there . Moreover , access to the premises had been under the permanent surveillance of the ORG and there had been no secret zones inaccessible to the ORG officers in the building . This excluded any possibility of unauthorised access or holding detainees in the LOC ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","However , the ORG notes that Witnesses N and O , the ORG officers assigned to assist the ORG partners , who escorted them to and from the airports and who were also responsible for supervision of the premises , said that they had not visited all the rooms . ORG said that he had not had access to the \u201c administration area \u201d . O was not given access to all the LOC . Moreover , the building was apparently not used for the purpose of the declared \u201c joint operation \u201d of an intelligence support centre . The only NORP intelligence personnel present in the building were the CARDINAL ORG officers M , N and O , who supervised the building on changing shifts even if nobody was there . Witness O stated that he had not known who had arrived at the LOC or \u201c with what they had been occupied with \u201d . Witness N \u201c was not aware of the contents of the operations \u201d that were carried out in Project No . CARDINAL . Witnesses N and O \u201c actively supervised \u201d the building until DATE but then the number of the ORG partners\u2019 visits decreased ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","As regards the ORG \u2019s explanation that the premises were acquired for the SSD \u2019s needs and used for \u201c short - term meetings \u201d with \u201c their guests \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the layout of CARDINAL of the buildings at ORG . CARDINAL , depicted by the ORG as \u201c a large metal container enclosed within a surrounding external structure \u201d and by the ORG delegation as \u201c a kind of building within the building \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) does not strike the ORG as being a structure typical for the declared purpose . Also , no convincing explanation has been provided as to why ORG . CARDINAL , claimed to have been designated for an \u201c intelligence support centre \u201d and reconstructed with evidently considerable effort and expense on the part of the ORG had DATE according to the witnesses \u2013 been virtually unused by the ORG or their partners throughout DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The Government further argued that in the light of abundant evidence it had been established in the criminal investigation that the purpose of CARDINAL ORG - linked flights into GPE , alleged to have transported the applicant to and out of GPE , namely GPE and ORG , which had taken place on , respectively , CARDINAL DATE and DATE had been the delivery of a \u201c special cargo \u201d . The object of the delivery was \u201c special equipment for a special investigation department \u201d in a number of boxes , which had all been of the same size , QUANTITY long ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) .","NORP However , the witness statements relied on are not only partly inconsistent with each other but they also do not fully support the Government \u2019s account . Furthermore , the Government \u2019s account is at variance with evidence collected in the course of the parliamentary inquiry . In this regard , the ORG would refer to testimony given by the ORG officers involved in escorting \u201c cargo \u201d and the ORG partners to and from the NORP airports and to the CNSD Findings .","As regards the ORG \u2019s submission that the purpose of the flight PERSON which landed in GPE on DATE was the delivery of cargo containing the \u201c connection \u201d or \u201c communication \u201d equipment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the ORG notes that none of the witnesses heard in the criminal investigation referred to any \u201c delivery of cargo \u201d to GPE in relation to the plane in question ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY above ) . It further notes that the ORG \u2019s contention stands in contrast with the CNSD Findings , which in the light of the evidence gathered in the inquiry , established that \u201c no cargo was unloaded from it or onto it \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , as confirmed by the DATE ORG letter , \u201c CARDINAL GPE citizens arrived in GPE on that plane \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Moreover , the statements made by witnesses V and O do not support the ORG \u2019s contention that the purpose of the flight GPE into GPE on DATE was likewise \u201c to deliver equipment \u201d for the NORP \u201c special investigation department \u201d . On the contrary , the CARDINAL escorting officers clearly related the loading of a \u201c cargo \u201d onto the ORG aircraft from the ORG partners\u2019 vehicles ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . This happened in the course of what was called an \u201c operation \u201d , which suggests that the activities involved in the aircraft landing and loading were not quite of a routine nature . As in respect of the other ORG aircraft landings referred to above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the special procedure , without any customs or ORG control , had been applied .","Having regard to the inconsistency of the ORG \u2019s version with the witness statements and the factual findings made by ORG and in the light of the documentary and expert evidence analysed in detail above , the Government \u2019s explanations as to the purposes served by the ORG rendition flights landing in GPE DATE and DATE and the facility Project No . CARDINAL can not be regarded as convincing .","In view of the foregoing and taking into account all the elements analysed in detail above , the ORG concludes that the Government have not produced any evidence capable of contradicting the applicant \u2019s allegations .","In particular , they have not refuted the applicant \u2019s argument that the planes ORG , PERSON and PERSON that landed in GPE DATE and DATE served the purposes of the ORG rendition operations and the conclusions of the experts heard by the ORG , categorically stating that the aircraft in question were used by the ORG for transportation of prisoners into GPE . Nor have they refuted the applicant \u2019s assertion that the above rendition flights marked the opening and the closure of a ORG secret prison referred to in the DATE ORG as \u201c Detention Site Violet \u201d , which was conclusively confirmed by expert evidence to the effect that ORG was located in GPE and operated during the period indicated by the applicant ( see also and compare with GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","Consequently , the ORG considers the applicant \u2019s allegations sufficiently convincing and , having regard to the above evidence from various sources corroborating his version , finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :","( a ) a ORG detention facility , codenamed ORG according to the DATE ORG , was located in GPE ;","( b ) the facility started operating either from DATE , the date of the ORG rendition flight ORG into GPE airport , or from DATE , the date of the ORG rendition flight NCARDINALWH into GPE airport ; and","( c ) the facility was closed on DATE and its closure was marked by the ORG rendition flight GPE into GPE airport , which arrived from GPE , GPE and , having disguised its destination in its flight plan by indicating GPE , on DATE took off for GPE , GPE .","It is alleged that the applicant was transferred to GPE from GPE , GPE either on DATE on board ORG or on DATE on board PERSON and that he had been secretly detained at ORG in GPE until DATE , when he had been transferred out of GPE on board PERSON ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","The ORG is mindful of the fact that , as regards the applicant \u2019s actual presence in GPE , there is no direct evidence that it was the applicant who was transported on CARDINAL or DATE , the CARDINAL possible dates indicated by the experts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) from GPE to GPE or that he was subsequently transferred on DATE from GPE to another ORG secret detention facility on board the plane NCARDINALMA .","The applicant , who for DATE on end was held in detention conditions specifically designed to isolate and disorientate detainees by transfers to unknown locations , even if he had been allowed to testify before the ORG , would not be able to say where he was detained . Nor can it be reasonably expected that he will ever , on his own , be able to identify the places in which he was held .","No trace of the applicant can , or will , be found in any official flight or border police records in GPE or in other countries because his presence on the planes and on their territories was , by the very nature of the rendition operations , purposefully not to be recorded . As confirmed by expert GPE in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , in the countries concerned the official records showing numbers of passengers and crew arriving and departing on the rendition planes neither included , nor purported to include detainees who were brought into or out of the territory involuntarily , by means of clandestine HVD renditions . Those detainees were never listed among the persons on board in documents filed with any official institution ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","In view of the foregoing , in order to ascertain whether or not it can be concluded that the applicant was detained at ORG in GPE at the relevant time , the ORG will take into account all the facts that have already been found established beyond reasonable doubt ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) and analyse all other material in its possession , including , in particular , the DATE ORG and expert evidence reconstructing the chronology of the applicant \u2019s rendition and detention in DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","As noted above , the facts of the present case form an integral part of a chain of events lasting from the applicant \u2019s capture on DATE to his transfer by the ORG into the custody of the GPE military authorities in FAC on DATE . Those events took place in multiple countries hosting the ORG secret detention facilities that operated under the ORG during that period . They involve a continuing sequence of the applicant \u2019s renditions from CARDINAL country to another , with the periods of his detention at each country \u2019s \u201c black site \u201d being marked by the movements of the ORG \u2019s rendition aircraft corresponding to locations within the network of secret prisons ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG further notes that the facts concerning the applicant \u2019s secret detention and continuous renditions from the time of his capture in GPE , GPE , on DATE to his rendition from GPE , GPE , in DATE , including the names of the countries in which he was detained , the exact dates on which he was transferred by the ORG to and out of each country and the identities of all the rendition planes on which he was transferred have already been established conclusively and to the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE and in the present case ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","NORP In particular , it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that until an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was held in secret detention in GPE , at a facility used by the ORG and that on that date he was transferred by the ORG from GPE to another detention facility elsewhere ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","It has also been established to the same standard of proof , beyond reasonable doubt , that :","( a ) The ORG secret detention facility codenamed \u201c Detention Site Violet \u201d in the DATE ORG became operational in GPE either on DATE , the date of the ORG rendition flight ORG from Rabat via GPE , which landed at GPE airport or on DATE , the date of the ORG rendition flight PERSON from GPE via GPE , which landed at Palanga airport .","( b ) The Detention Site Violet operated in GPE until DATE , the date of the ORG rendition flight GPE from GPE airport to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","It accordingly remains for the ORG to determine whether it has been adequately demonstrated to the required standard of proof that the applicant was transferred from GPE to GPE on either of the DATE ORG flights and whether he was secretly detained in GPE over the subsequent period , until DATE .","The ORG observes that the main argument put forward by the ORG is that there is no credible evidence confirming the applicant \u2019s presence in GPE during that period and no link between the impugned flights and the applicant . In the Government \u2019s submission , even if the flights had been linked with the ORG and landed in GPE , it could not constitute a proof of his detention in the country ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","It has already been reiterated above that , given the veil of secrecy surrounding the ORG rendition operations , it can not be expected that any traces of the applicant are to be found in any official flight or border control records in GPE or elsewhere . As in other cases concerning the ORG HVD Programme the fate of the applicant can be reconstructed only by an analysis of strings of data from various sources available in the public domain and expert evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The fact that the applicant \u2019s name does not appear in the official record with reference to his alleged secret detention in GPE is not therefore decisive for the ORG \u2019s assessment .","NORP In that regard , the ORG notes that the DATE ORG contains a number of often extensive references to the applicant , in particular in relation to the EITs inflicted on him during the series of interrogations , including the use of waterboarding , in the early stages of his secret detention at ORG located in GPE and \u201c debriefing \u201d that he underwent at ORG located in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . Yet , as also confirmed by the experts , the report does not mention the applicant explicitly by name in connection with ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","Nonetheless , the experts , following a comprehensive analysis of the entirety of the available documentary evidence concerning the ORG \u2019s extraordinary rendition operations at the material time , were able to conclude that he had been detained at that site on the basis of a number of other elements consistently demonstrating that there is no \u2013 and there could not be any DATE alternative account of the applicant \u2019s fate following his DATE rendition from GPE .","The ORG would reiterate that the experts started by determining , beyond reasonable doubt , that GPE was the only place in which the applicant could have been detained in DATE and that , according to the rendition aircraft schedules at that time he could only have been transferred from there either to ORG in GPE or to ORG in GPE . On the basis of evidence indicating his absence from ORG in the relevant period , the one and only remaining destination of the applicant \u2019s transfer from GPE was Detention Site Violet . They further went on to infer information relevant for the applicant from unredacted passages of the report concerning other HVDs in ORG custody , PERSON , simultaneously being detained in the country hosting ORG . The experts correlated this information with the data relating to the ORG detainee transfers in the period of the operation of the NORP site , including the transfer from ORG on DATE and the transfer from ORG , via GPE and an aircraft switching operation , to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) .","The ORG would refer , in particular , to the following statements made by the experts .","Mr GPE stated that \u201c through an intimate familiarity with the chronology of [ the applicant \u2019s ] detention \u201d he had reached the conclusion that \u201c there [ was ] CARDINAL place he could have been in the early part of DATE and that that place was indeed GPE \u201d . He knew that \u201c the transfers out of GPE in DATE went to other active \u2018 black sites\u2019 that that CARDINAL of these was \u2018 Detention Site Black\u2019 in GPE , but that there was also another one in a separate country ... and ... this other country was GPE \u201d . He added that \u201c because [ the applicant ] did not arrive in GPE , \u2018 ORG \u201d \u2013 which he knew based on his \u201c years\u2019 long investigations into the operations of that site ... the only other destination to which he could have been transferred was the active site in GPE and this transfer took place in accordance with the flights ... in DATE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","PERSON testified that , based on the overall effect of the evidence , he was satisfied \u201c that beyond reasonable doubt PERSON was held in GPE starting from DATE \u201d . He said that while prima facie it was possible that the applicant , being in GPE in DATE , had been moved either to GPE or to GPE , there was evidence indicating , first , that he was not in GPE in or prior to DATE and , second , that he was in GPE in DATE ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","The experts attributed a different threshold of proof to their conclusions .","Mr GPE stated that on the \u201c balance of probabilities \u201d , he believed it was established that the applicant had been secretly detained at ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . He was nevertheless satisfied as to \u201c the presence of PERSON , respectively in DATE in GPE up to the point where the ORG detention [ facility ] [ had been ] cleared , thereafter on the territory of GPE in ORG coded as \u2018 PERSON and thereafter on the territory of GPE in FAC coded as \u2018 Brown\u2019 \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Also , he said that there was a \u201c categorical certainty \u201d that the applicant had been brought to GPE on one of the DATE flights from GPE to GPE \u2013 NCARDINALCL or NCARDINALWH \u2013 either on CARDINAL or on DATE and that \u201c beyond reasonable doubt he [ had been ] taken to GPE when he [ had ] left GPE \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","PERSON categorically stated that the applicant , beyond reasonable doubt , had been held in GPE from DATE and that he believed that the applicant had been \u201c flown into GPE on GPE on DATE and flown out of GPE on GPE and GPE on DATE \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG does not consider that this difference in terminology used by the experts has a direct and dispositive bearing on its own assessment of the evidence . It reiterates that , while in assessing evidence it applies \u201c the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt \u201d , that concept is independent from the approach of the national legal systems which use that standard . The ORG is not called upon to rule on criminal guilt or civil liability based on \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d or \u201c balance of probabilities \u201d standards as applied by the domestic courts but on the responsibility of the respondent ORG under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above , with references to the ORG \u2019s case - law ) .","Based on its free evaluation of all the material in its possession , the ORG considers that there is prima facie evidence corroborating the applicant \u2019s allegation as to his secret detention in GPE , at ORG , from CARDINAL or DATE to DATE . Consequently , the burden of proof should shift to the respondent Government .","NORP However , the Government , apart from their above contention that there is no credible evidence confirming the applicant \u2019s detention in GPE , in particular in any border control records , and their general denial that any ORG secret detention facility had operated in the country , have not adduced any counter - evidence capable of refuting the experts\u2019 conclusions .","Having regard to the very nature of the ORG secret detention scheme , the ORG \u2019s argument that there is no indication of the applicant \u2019s physical presence in GPE DATE which they sought to support by the fact that his name had not been found in the records of passengers on the flights in DATE CARDINAL-March DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) \u2013 can not be upheld . In the ORG \u2019s view , it would be unacceptable if the ORG , having failed to comply with their obligation to register duly and in accordance with the domestic law all persons arriving on or departing from NORP territory on the ORG planes and having relinquished any border control in respect of the rendition aircraft ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , could take advantage of those omissions in the fact - finding procedure before the ORG . When allowing the ORG to operate a detention site on NORP soil the Government were , by pure virtue of LAW , required to secure the information necessary to identify detainees brought to the country ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below , with references to the ORG \u2019s case - law ) . The ORG can not accept that the Government \u2019s failure to do so should have adverse consequences for the applicant in its assessment of whether it has been adequately demonstrated by the ORG , against the strong prima facie case made by the applicant , that his detention in GPE did not take place .","In view of the foregoing , the ORG considers the applicant \u2019s allegations sufficiently convincing . For the same reasons as stated above in regard to the date marking the opening of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG does not find it indispensable to rule on which of the CARDINAL dates indicated by the applicant DATE or DATE and on which of the CARDINAL planes \u2013 ORG or NCARDINALWH \u2013 he was brought to GPE .","Consequently , on the basis of strong , clear and concordant inferences as related above , the ORG finds it proven to the required standard of proof that :","( a ) on DATE or DATE the applicant was transferred by the ORG to from GPE , GPE to GPE on board either the rendition plane ORG or the rendition plane PERSON ;","( b ) from CARDINAL or DATE to DATE the applicant was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE codenamed \u201c Detention Site Violet \u201d according to the DATE ORG ; and","( c ) on DATE on board the rendition plane NCARDINALMA and via a subsequent aircraft - switching operation the applicant was transferred by the ORG out of GPE to another ORG detention facility , identified by the experts as being codenamed \u201c ORG \u201d according to the DATE ORG .","The applicant stated that , as in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE on account of the secrecy of the HVD Programme and restrictions on his communications with the ORG , he could not present specific evidence of what had happened to him in GPE . However , as the ORG found in the above case , at an absolute minimum detainees in ORG custody , whether in GPE or elsewhere , would have been subjected to the applicable standard conditions of detention at the relevant time , including solitary confinement , shackling , exposure to bright light , low and loud noise on a constant basis and the standard conditions of transfer , stripping , shaving , hooding , diapering and strapping down into painful crammed positions .","The Government have not addressed this issue .","The ORG observes that , in contrast to treatment inflicted on the applicant during an early period of his secret detention , which is often documented in detail in various material ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , there is no evidence demonstrating any instances of similar acts at ORG . According to the DATE ORG , the applicant from his capture to his transfer to GPE military custody on DATE \u201c provided information \u201d , which resulted \u201c in CARDINAL disseminated intelligence reports \u201d . The fact that CARDINAL such reports were produced DATE indicates that he was continually interrogated or \u201c debriefed \u201d by the ORG during the entire period of his secret detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , in the light of the material in the ORG \u2019s possession , it does not appear that in GPE the applicant was subjected to the EITs in connection with interrogations ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","As regards recourse to harsh interrogation techniques at the relevant time , the DATE ORG states in general terms that in DATE the ORG temporarily suspended the use of the EITs . While their use was at some point resumed and they were apparently applied throughout the most part of DATE , such techniques were again temporarily suspended in DATE and in DATE . However , the applicant \u2019s name is not mentioned in that context ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","According to the experts , it was not possible to pronounce categorically on specific interrogation techniques or other forms of treatment or ill - treatment practised on the applicant in GPE , as in DATE there was less information about the treatment of prisoners in the ORG than there had been in DATE . However , the ORG documents and the DATE ORG described the routine conditions of detention at \u201c black sites \u201d , which included such practices as sensory deprivation , sleep deprivation , denial or religious rights and incommunicado detention . Those conditions alone passed the threshold of treatment prohibited by LAW ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","As regards the ORG \u2019s establishment of the facts of the case , detailed rules governing conditions in which the ORG kept its prisoners leave no room for speculation as to the basic aspects of the situation in which the applicant found himself from CARDINAL or DATE to DATE . The ORG therefore finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was kept \u2013 as any other high - value detainee \u2013 in conditions described in ORG , which applied from DATE to all ORG detainees ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ; see also GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","While at this stage it is premature to characterise the treatment to which the applicant was subjected during his detention at ORG for the purposes of his complaint under the substantive limb of LAW , the ORG would point out that that regime included at least \u201c CARDINAL standard conditions of confinement \u201d . That meant blindfolding or hooding the detainees , designed to disorient them and keep from learning their location or the layout of the detention facility ; removal of hair upon arrival at the site ; incommunicado , solitary confinement ; continuous noise of high and varying intensity played at all times ; continuous light such that each cell was illuminated to about the same brightness as an office ; and use of leg shackles in all aspects of detainee management and movement ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","The Government firmly denied that the ORG authorities had received any ORG request that would even vaguely imply the running of a secret detention facility on NORP territory . The prospects of receiving from the GPE authorities a request for assistance in the \u201c war on terror \u201d had been considered by the ORG on a purely theoretical basis . Moreover , in the criminal investigation all the Heads of ORG in office at the material time had consistently testified that they had not known about any detainees transfers and had not given their consent to the transportation of any persons held by the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP However , the above contention does not seem to be supported by the CNSD Findings , which established that the ORG had received a request from the ORG \u201c to equip facilities in GPE suitable for holding detainees \u201d . In that connection , the CNSD referred to the testimony of the former Head of State , Mr Rolandas GPE who had confirmed that GPE had been asked for permission to bring into the country persons suspected of terrorism ; however , the information that he had received had not mentioned a detention centre or prison . The former Director General of the ORG , Mr PERSON testified that in DATE he had informed Mr GPE about a possibility of receiving a \u201c request to participate in the programme concerning the transportation of detainees \u201d after GPE \u2019s accession to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In that context , the ORG would refer to the DATE ORG , which states , in relation to ORG , that at the same time , that is \u201c by DATE \u201d , the ORG \u201c had concluded that its completed but still unused holding cell in Country ... [ had been ] insufficient \u201d and had \u201c sought to build a new , expanded detention facility in the country \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The ORG would also note that GPE \u2019s accession to ORG took place on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The CNSD further established that , \u201c when carrying out the ORG partnership cooperation ORG . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL , the ... heads of the ORG [ had ] not inform[ed ] any of the country \u2019s officials of the purposes and content of the said projects \u201d . On the basis of the material in its possession , it related that although Mr PERSON had received a negative answer from PERSON GPE in respect of the \u201c bringing into GPE of persons interrogated by the GPE \u201d , he had not asked either Mr GPE or acting Head of State , Mr PERSON , for \u201c political approval of activities under ORG . CARDINAL \u201d . Mr PERSON had \u201c had knowledge of launching the activities under Project No . CARDINAL \u201d in MarchApril DATE which , the ORG would note , was around the same time as GPE \u2019s accession to ORG . Several ORG officers , including the Director General , PERSON ORG , and acting Director General , Mr GPE had \u201c had knowledge of Project No . CARDINAL at the time of launching \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Mr PERSON , the former Head of ORG stated that \u201c no information [ had been ] provided to [ him ] about running ORG . CARDINAL in DATE \u201d . However , according to Mr Pocius , PERSON had been \u201c adequately informed \u201d of ORG . CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","In the NORP public debate on the CNSD Findings it was again confirmed that the ORG had received a request from the ORG \u201c to install premises ... suitable for keeping detainees \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","DATE Witness evidence obtained in the criminal investigation also confirms that fact . Witness A , an important political post - holder at the relevant time , testified that Mr PERSON had addressed Mr GPE in connection with a \u201c temporary possibility to hold persons suspected of terrorism \u201d and received a negative answer ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Witness BCARDINAL , an another important political post - holder , confirmed that he had been addressed \u201c as regards the transportation and holding [ of ] people in GPE \u201d and that he had not approved the idea ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP Moreover , referring to the availability of information of the establishment of the ORG clandestine detention sites , the DATE ORG clearly confirms that the \u201c political leaders of host countries were generally informed of their existence \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The report further confirms that an approval for the ORG detention facility corresponding to Project No . CARDINAL was received from the authorities . Although the relevant section specifying a person or authority is heavily redacted , it clearly states that \u201c the plan to construct the expanded facility was approved by the [ redacted ] of the Country \u201d \u2013 which , however , required \u201c complex mechanisms \u201d in order to provide an unspecified amount of CARDINAL to the country \u2019s authorities . The money was offered to \u201c show appreciation \u201d for the support for the ORG programme . It may be inferred from the report that certain national authorities \u201c probably [ had ] an incomplete notion \u201d as to the ORG facility \u2019s \u201c actual function \u201d . Also , the report refers to a certain official who , when he became aware of the facility , was described as \u201c shocked \u201d but \u201c nonetheless approved \u201d it ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As regards the money paid by the ORG to the authorities , the ORG would note that the fact that such financial rewards were , as a matter of general policy and practice , offered to the authorities of countries hosting ORG \u201c black sites \u201d is confirmed in LAW DATE ORG . The conclusion states that \u201c to encourage governments to clandestinely host ORG detention sites , or to increase support for existing sites , the ORG provided MONEY in cash payments to foreign government officials \u201d and that \u201c the ORG encouraged ORG to construct \u2018 wish lists\u2019 of proposed financial assistance \u201d and \u201c to \u2018 think big\u2019 in terms of that assistance \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","It is undisputed and has been confirmed by the CNSD Findings and in the criminal investigation that ORG . CARDINAL and Project No . CARDINAL were implemented in cooperation with the ORG . Nor has it been contested that in the framework of that cooperation the ORG adapted the premises of ORG . CARDINAL according to the ORG \u2019s requests , assisted the ORG in acquiring the premises of ORG . CARDINAL and adapting and reconstructing the LOC for the ORG \u2019s needs ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The cooperation dated back to DATE and started from the adaptation of ORG . CARDINAL . Later , in DATE several officers of the ORG were assigned to assist the ORG in finding a suitable location for ORG . CARDINAL and purchasing the land and buildings in GPE . Both projects were fully financed by the ORG . Starting from DATE when ORG , according to ORG , was \u201c established \u201d , the ORG officers ensured the security and surveillance of the LOC ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","In GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE the fact that the national authorities had cooperated with the ORG in disguising the rendition aircraft \u2019s actual routes and validated incomplete or false flight plans in order to cover up the ORG \u2019s activities in the country was considered relevant for the ORG \u2019s assessment of the LOC knowledge of , and complicity in , the HVD Programme ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The ORG will follow that approach in analysing the facts of the present case .","It has already been established that in respect of CARDINAL rendition flights \u2013 NCARDINALWH on DATE , NCARDINALWH on DATE and GPE on DATE the ORG used the methodology of \u201c dummy \u201d flight planning DATE an intentional disguise of flight plans for rendition aircraft applied by the air companies contracted by the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As the ORG found in the judgments referred to above , the \u201c dummy \u201d flight planning , a deliberate effort to cover up the ORG flights into the country , required active cooperation on the part of the host countries through which the planes travelled . In addition to granting the ORG rendition aircraft overflight permissions , the national authorities navigated the planes through the country \u2019s airspace to undeclared destinations in contravention of international aviation regulations and issued false landing permits ( ibid . ) .","Consequently , the fact that the NORP aviation authorities participated in the process demonstrated that GPE knowingly assisted in the ORG scheme disguising the rendition planes .","The Government acknowledged that the ORG planes on CARDINAL occasions had not been subject to the customs and ORG control , in connection with the delivery of a \u201c special cargo \u201d for the NORP services ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . To this end , the ORG addressed classified letters to the relevant authorities . The purpose was to obtain unrestricted access to the aircraft for the ORG and the ORG partners . As described by the witnesses questioned in the criminal investigation , the ORG teams were escorted to the area in the airport and drove in their vehicles to the aircraft , whereas the ORG officers escorting them remained in their vehicles at some distance . As noted above , that practice resembled the special procedure followed by the NORP authorities in respect of the ORG rendition planes landings in PERSON in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above , with references to GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE ) .","The ORG considers , as it did in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , that the circumstances and conditions in which HVDs were routinely transferred by the ORG from rendition planes to the ORG \u201c black sites \u201d in the host countries should be taken into account in the context of the ORG authorities\u2019 alleged knowledge and complicity in the HVD Programme ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","It follows from the ORG \u2019s findings in the above cases and the ORG material describing the routine procedure for transfers of detainees between the \u201c black sites \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) that for the duration of his transfer a HVD was \u201c securely shackled \u201d by his hands and feet , deprived of sight and sound by the use of blindfolds , earmuffs and a hood and that upon arrival at his destination was moved to the \u201c black site \u201d under the same conditions .","The ORG finds it inconceivable that the transportation of prisoners over land from the planes to the ORG detention site could , for all practical purposes , have been effected without at least minimal assistance by the host country \u2019s authorities , to mention only securing the area near and around the landing planes and providing conditions for a secret and safe transfer of passengers . Inevitably , the NORP personnel responsible for security arrangements , in particular the reception of the flights and on - land transit , must have witnessed at least some elements of the detainees\u2019 transfer to ORG , for instance the loading or unloading of blindfolded and shackled passengers from the planes ( see also GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","Consequently , the ORG concludes that the NORP authorities which received the ORG personnel in the airport could not have been unaware that the persons brought by them to GPE were the ORG prisoners .","The ORG also attaches importance to various material referring to ill - treatment and abuse of terrorist suspects captured and detained by GPE authorities in the \u201c war on terror \u201d , which was available in the public domain at the relevant time ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","NORP Before analysing that material , the ORG would refer to President PERSON \u2019s memorandum of DATE , stating that neither ORG nor ORG detainees qualified as prisoners of war under LAW and that LAW CARDINAL of LAW , did not apply to them ( see paragraph CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The ORG Press Secretary announced that decision at the press conference on DATE . It was widely commented in the GPE and international media . That decision , however , included a disclaimer that even detainees \u201c not legally entitled \u201d to be treated humanely would be so treated , and also spoke of respecting the principles of LAW \u201c to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . Consequently , already at this very early stage of the \u201c war on terror \u201d it was well known that \u201c military necessity \u201d was a parameter for determining the treatment to be received by the captured terrorist suspects .","The ORG would further note that from DATE , when the ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement relating to detention of ORG and ORG prisoners in ORG , strong concerns were expressed publicly as to the treatment of detainees , in particular the use of \u201c stress and duress \u201d methods of interrogations and arbitrary and incommunicado detention . From DATE the international governmental and non - governmental organisations regularly published reports and statements disclosing ill - treatment and abuse to which captured terrorist suspects were subjected in GPE custody in various places , for instance in ORG and the GPE military base in GPE . The material summarised above and cited in the AI \/ ICJ \u2019s amicus curiae brief include only some sources selected from a large amount of documents available in the public domain throughout the above period ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","Moreover , in the DATE PACE Resolution of DATE of which GPE , one of ORG member GPE , must have been aware \u2013 ORG of ORG was \u201c deeply concerned at the conditions of detention \u201d of captured \u201c unlawful combatants \u201d held in the custody of the GPE authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At the material time the ill - treatment , use of harsh interrogation measures , and arbitrary detention of ORG and ORG prisoners in GPE custody , as well as the existence of \u201c GPE overseas centres \u201d for interrogations was also often reported in the international media from DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Following the ORG report on DATE , which disclosed the complicity of the \u201c LOC countries \u201d in the ORG and prompted the closure of \u201c black sites \u201d in LOC , as well as the ORG disclosure and the DATE HRW Statement naming GPE and GPE as ORG accomplices , there could be no doubt as what kind of activities had been carried out by the ORG in the countries concerned ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . At that time , ORG in GPE was still active .","The issue of the ORG renditions and abusive detention and interrogation practices used against the captured terrorist suspects in their custody was also present , reported and discussed in the NORP media . In particular , DATE and DATE the NORP press published a number of articles concerning secret renditions , ill - treatment of prisoners and the abusive conditions under which detainees were held and interrogated ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As in GPE v. GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) the ORG considers the informal transatlantic meeting of ORG and ORG foreign ministers with the then GPE Secretary of ORG , Ms PERSON , held on DATE , to be one of the elements relevant for its assessment of the respondent ORG \u2019s knowledge of the ORG rendition and secret detention operations in DATE .","In his testimony in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , PERSON stated that the meeting had been convened in connection with recent international media reports , including disclosures by ORG and ORG of , respectively , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , naming NORP countries that had allegedly had ORG \u201c black sites \u201d on their territories ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . He also described the content of the \u201c debriefing \u201d of that meeting , a document that the ORG obtained from a credible confidential source in the offices of ORG . He stated that it had appeared from Ms PERSON \u2019s statement \u201c we all know about these techniques \u201d made in the context of the ORG operations and interrogations of terrorist suspects , which had been recorded in the debriefing that there had been an attempt on the GPE \u2019s part to share the \u201c weight of accusations \u201d ( ibid . , see alsp paragraph CARDINAL above ) ) .","As pointed out by the applicant ( see paragraph FAC above ) , GPE , an ORG and ORG member must have participated in that meeting and been aware of the issues discussed . At that time , the ORG detention site in GPE was still active .","The ORG is mindful of the fact that knowledge of the ORG rendition and secret detention operations and the scale of abuse to which high - value detainees were subjected in ORG custody has evolved over time , from DATE to the present day . A considerable part of the evidence before the ORG emerged DATE after the events complained of ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ; see also PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","GPE \u2019s alleged knowledge and complicity in the ORG must be assessed with reference to the elements that its authorities knew or ought to have known at or closely around the relevant time , that is to say , CARDINAL or DATE and DATE . However , the ORG , as it has done in respect of the establishment of the facts relating to the applicant \u2019s secret detention in GPE , will also rely on recent evidence which , as for instance the DATE ORG and expert evidence obtained by the ORG , relate , explain or disclose facts occurring in the past ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","In its assessment , the ORG has considered all the evidence in its possession and the various related circumstances referred to above . Having regard to all these elements taken as a whole , the ORG finds that the GPE authorities knew that the ORG operated , on NORP territory , a detention facility for the purposes of secretly detaining and interrogating terrorist suspects captured within the \u201c war on terror \u201d operation by the GPE authorities .","This finding is based on the material referred to extensively above , in particular the evidence deriving from the DATE ORG and , to a considerable extent , the evidence from experts .","The passages of the report relating the approval for the plan to construct the expanded detention facility given by ORG host country leave no doubt as to the NORP high - office ORG prior acceptance of hosting a ORG detention site on their territory . Nor can there be any doubt that they provided \u201c cooperation and support \u201d for the \u201c detention programme \u201d and that , in appreciation , were offered and accepted a financial reward , amounting to some redacted sum of CARDINAL ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) .","Furthermore , the experts , who in the course of their inquiries also had the benefit of contact with various sources , including confidential ones , unanimously and categorically stated that GPE not only ought to have known but actually did know of the nature and purposes of the ORG activities in the country .","Senator PERSON stated that since the operation had been governed by the \u201c need - to - know \u201d secrecy principle , only those few people who had absolutely needed to know had known about it . As in other countries , there had been persons at the highest level of ORG who had had certain knowledge of what had been going on but even those who had come to know had not necessarily known all the details . Yet somebody had allowed the ORG to move about freely and have access to LOC where they had been allowed to do what they had wanted without any control whatsoever . He described the national authorities\u2019 conduct as complicity which had not been active ; the national authorities had not participated in the ORG interrogations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Mr GPE testified that the authorities of GPE had known about the existence of the detention facility and that through the highest levels of their government had approved and authorised its presence on their territory . In his view , they certainly should have known the purpose which the facility had served because its nature and purpose was part of a systematic practice , which had already been implemented by the ORG across multiple other countries and had been widely reported by the time the site in GPE had become active . There had been different degrees of knowledge in different sectors of GPE \u2019s authorities . At the operational level the details had been known to a very small number of trusted counterparts , primarily within the secret services . He added that he was not aware of any single instance of a ORG detention site having existed anywhere in the world without the express knowledge and authorisation of the host authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","PERSON stated that it had been clear from the DATE ORG that the NORP officials had been aware of the ORG programme operating on their territory . He added that , as he could say from his accumulated knowledge of the ORG and close reading of the DATE ORG , some host country officials had always known that there had been prisoners held in the facilities . That did not imply that every single host country official had known but in GPE \u2019s case it was evident that at least some had known that the prisoners had been held on their territory and they had known that they had been receiving money to facilitate this ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG , as in previous similar cases , does not consider that the NORP authorities necessarily knew the details of what exactly went on inside the ORG secret facility or witnessed treatment or interrogations to which the ORG prisoners were subjected in GPE . As in other countries hosting clandestine prisons , the operation of the site was entirely in the hands of the ORG and the interrogations were exclusively the ORG \u2019s responsibility ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; see also PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","NORP However , in the ORG \u2019s view , even if the NORP authorities did not have , or could not have had , complete knowledge of the ORG , the facts available to them through their contacts and cooperation with their ORG partners , taken together with extensive and widely available information on torture , ill - treatment , abuse and harsh interrogation measures inflicted on terrorist - suspects in GPE custody which in DATE circulated in the public domain , including the NORP press ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , enabled them to conjure up a reasonably accurate image of the ORG \u2019s activities and , more particularly , the treatment to which the ORG was likely to have subjected their prisoners in GPE .","In that regard the ORG would reiterate that in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE it has found that already in DATE the public sources reported practices resorted to , or tolerated by , the GPE authorities that were manifestly contrary to the principles of the LAW . All the more so did the authorities , in DATE , have good reason to believe that a person detained under the ORG rendition and secret detention programme could be exposed to a serious risk of treatment contrary to those principles on their territory .","It further observes that it is DATE as was the case in respect of GPE DATE inconceivable that the rendition aircraft could have crossed the country \u2019s airspace , landed atand departed from its airports , or that the ORG could have occupied the LOC offered by the national authorities and transported detainees there , without the ORG authorities being informed of or involved in the preparation and execution of the HVD Programme on their territory . Nor can it stand to reason that activities of such character and scale , possibly vital for the country \u2019s military and political interests , could have been undertaken on NORP territory without the NORP authorities\u2019 knowledge and without the necessary authorisation and assistance being given at the appropriate level of the ORG ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","The ORG accordingly finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :","( a ) the NORP authorities knew of the nature and purposes of the ORG \u2019s activities on its territory at the material time ;","( b ) the NORP authorities , by approving the hosting of ORG , enabling the ORG to use its airspace and airports and to disguise the movements of rendition aircraft , providing logistics and services , securing the LOC for the ORG and transportation of the ORG teams with detainees on land , cooperated in the preparation and execution of the ORG rendition , secret detention and interrogation operations on its territory ; and","( c ) NORP given their knowledge of the nature and purposes of the ORG \u2019s activities on their territory and their involvement in the execution of that programme , the NORP authorities knew that , by enabling the ORG to detain terrorist suspects \u2013 including the applicant \u2013 on their territory , they were exposing them to a serious risk of treatment contrary to the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159924","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BORG v. MALTA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained at ORG in GPE .","By Act III of DATE ORG introduced the right to legal assistance at the pre - trial stage . However , the law only came into force in DATE by means of LAW of DATE . Prior to this Legal Notice Maltese law did not provide for legal assistance during pretrial investigations and specifically during questioning , whether by the police or by a magistrate in his investigative role . Before questioning , however , suspects would be cautioned , that is , informed of their right to remain silent and that anything they said could be taken down and produced as evidence . At the time , no inferences could be drawn by the trial courts from the silence of the accused at this stage .","The applicant , at the time DATE , was arrested on DATE on suspicion of importation and trafficking of drugs ( heroin ) in relation to CARDINAL episodes in DATE and DATE . On DATE while under arrest and precisely during questioning , after being duly cautioned about his right to remain silent , the applicant , in the absence of a lawyer , gave a statement to the police , which however he refused to sign .","In his statement he said that he regularly drove a white ORG Escort and that he was married to a NORP national . In reply to questioning , he stated that he did not remember his whereabouts on DATE and that he did not know a certain PERSON and CARDINAL other NORP nationals ( PERSON , NORP , and ORG . Neither had he ever paid or received money from the aforementioned persons . He further stated that he had never made or received calls to and from GPE . He denied having , on DATE , made contact with any foreigner in ORG , or having received anything from PERSON or ever having made a phone call to CARDINAL specific numbers shown to him by the police . He further denied having gone to ORG with his wife in his car and making contact with PERSON on DATE ; he also denied that on DATE PERSON had given him heroin capsules in the presence of his wife . He claimed however to have gone to ORG at TIME to look for a person who had stolen his car stereo . The applicant availed himself of the right to remain silent in respect of questions as to whether he had a drug problem , whether he had ever used heroin , and when was the last time he had done so . On being asked whether he had written the CARDINAL names found on a piece of paper in his car and what was their purpose , he replied that he had himself written the CARDINAL names but that he did not know the people and that he was unaware of the purpose of the paper , which had been in his car for a very long time .","On DATE ( DATE ) the applicant was arraigned before ORG as a ORG ( committal proceedings ) and his above - mentioned statement exhibited as evidence against him . The prosecution also produced another CARDINAL statements implicating the applicant , given by CARDINAL prosecution witnesses ( N. and PERSON , CARDINAL NORP female drug couriers , mentioned above ) who had also been arrested and investigated in connection with the same crimes , and who had also not been legally assisted during the police investigation into their case .","NORP In the meantime , on DATE the duty magistrate ( C. ) had been informed that the applicant had been arrested , that a search had been carried out at his place of residence , and that certain items had been seized . Instead of proceeding herself to the spot to conduct the inquest for the purpose of the in genere inquiry ( inkjesta ) , she appointed the police investigating officer to hold an on - site inquiry , and at the same time appointed a number of experts to assist him ( see Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , relevant domestic law , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In their document of appointment , however , the experts were required to report their findings to her within DATE . The following day she acceded to the Commissioner of Police \u2019s request that she order the relevant telephone companies to give all the information requested in connection with the mobile phones seized in the course of the investigation . In the proc\u00e8s - verbal of DATE no findings were reported by her , given that on DATE the Commissioner of Police had requested the said magistrate to close the inquest since committal proceedings ( kumpilazzjoni ) had already started in respect of the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . All the relevant documents were attached to the proc\u00e8s - verbal and the record of the in genere inquiry sent to the Attorney General .","The same magistrate ( C. ) was assigned ( by lot ) the case in ORG sitting as a ORG . She eventually decided that there was enough evidence to put the applicant under a bill of indictment . The resulting bill of indictment was filed by the Attorney General on DATE .","In consequence the applicant was tried by a jury and by a judgment of ORG of DATE he was found guilty of importing , causing to be imported , or taking steps preparatory to the importation , of heroin DATE ; that DATE he conspired with other persons to import , sell or traffic heroin , or promoted , constituted , organised or financed such a conspiracy ; and that in the same period he had in his possession the drug heroin in circumstances which indicated that it was not for his exclusive use . ORG sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and a fine of QUANTITY ( ORG ) . During these proceedings the applicant had objected to the statements made by ORG and PERSON on various grounds , however these objections were withdrawn on DATE , apart from CARDINAL objection concerning the inadmissibility of the results of the identification parade .","The applicant appealed , claiming an incorrect application of the law ( unrelated to legal assistance ) , a wrong assessment of the facts , and a disproportionate punishment .","During the appeal proceedings the applicant requested ORG to refer the case to the constitutional courts on constitutional grounds ( different from those raised below ) . On DATE ORG found his claims to be frivolous and vexatious and rejected his request .","By a judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed and the first - instance judgment confirmed ( apart from a slight change in respect of the timing of the third charge ) .","In so far as is relevant , the ORG noted that the jury had had the advantage of seeing and hearing all the witnesses , and that the jurors had arrived at the conclusion that they should not rely on the version of events given by the applicant in his statement . The first issue which the jury had to decide was whether the CARDINAL couriers ( N. and PERSON ) had made contact with the applicant in DATE . In his statement to the police the applicant denied knowing the QUANTITY women and other people mentioned by them , and also denied that he had made and received calls to and from GPE . However , the QUANTITY women identified the applicant as being the person they made contact with in DATE , namely as the person who had given ORG food , gloves , disinfectant and a laxative , and to whom PERSON had given the capsules they had carried in their stomachs . A number of factors gave credibility to the women \u2019s identification of the applicant : ( i ) the circumstances of the meetings they had with him at which time he was using a white CARDINAL - door car and was in the company of an NORP woman ; ( ii ) the applicant \u2019s statement that he habitually made use of a white CARDINAL - door ORG Escort and that he was married to a NORP woman ; ( iii ) the fact that when arrested PERSON and PERSON had separately identified the applicant in photographs ; ( iv ) moreover , the QUANTITY women had separately identified the applicant in identification parades supervised by a duty magistrate ; and they did the same without hesitation when they testified , both during the committal stage and before the jury . In the light of all those factors the jurors could reasonably conclude that the person PERSON and PERSON had met in DATE and to whom they had delivered the capsules was the applicant .","This having been established , the jury had to determine what the capsules delivered to the applicant contained and whether the applicant was connected to the delivery of DATE intercepted by the police . The experts had stated that the capsules contained heroin . The court rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that the delivery of DATE concerned cannabis , given that studies showed that drug couriers were used in connection with heroin and cocaine and sometimes ecstasy , and that GPE was considered a key transit route to LOC for heroin .","It appeared from the evidence given by the QUANTITY women that they had imported heroin in DATE , which was the second time they had come to GPE . They had been forced to return in DATE since , in DATE , PERSON had lost most of the capsules she was carrying when vomiting on board the flight . The court considered that a recipient would expect to receive the full delivery , and that therefore it was logical for the supplier to force the courier to deliver what had been missing because of her fault . It followed that , from their testimony , it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that what PERSON had carried in DATE was also heroin . The court considered that this was the only possible conclusion to be arrived at . Neither was it conjecture to conclude that the drug being carried in DATE was destined for the applicant . Indeed during the trial by jury PERSON had indicated the applicant as the recipient . The court rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that he could not be the recipient because the women had referred to someone whose father had passed away , which was not the case for the applicant . It considered the relevant part of the statement by the women as hearsay evidence and in any event it was a statement which referred to a third person and not the applicant .","NORP The court further noted that on DATE , when the delivery was meant to take place , the police had seen the applicant drive around the area ( CARDINAL times ) in his white ORG Escort , a short time before PERSON was arrested . Indeed the jurors had not believed the applicant \u2019s version that he had gone to ORG to look for someone who had stolen his car stereo . Moreover , the jurors could not have ignored that in his statement the applicant had denied any connection with GPE , despite the fact that he could not explain the NORP names written on a piece of paper which was found in his car and which he admitted he had written himself , and that PERSON had testified that the applicant had spoken to a NORP person on the telephone .","ORG decided that in the light of the above considerations and all the evidence produced , the jurors could legally and reasonably conclude that the applicant was guilty of the first and second charge , but only partly as to the third charge , since he had never received the delivery of DATE .","The applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings , claiming a breach of his right to a fair trial ( LAW ( c ) ) on account of the lack of legal assistance during the investigation and interrogation , both in his respect and in respect of the witnesses who had also been under investigation , their statements having repercussions on his trial . He further complained that the same magistrate who had conducted the in genere inquiry was also the magistrate who had conducted the compilation of evidence in the committal proceedings . He requested a remedy including , but not limited to , a declaration that the criminal proceedings be cancelled and compensation paid .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional competence rejected the applicant \u2019s claim .","In respect of the statement made by the applicant on DATE the court noted as follows : ( i ) the applicant had not raised the issue before his criminal proceedings came to an end , and the judgment was now res judicata ; ( ii ) neither had he raised the issue in his referral request pending the criminal proceedings before ORG ; ( iii ) the applicant \u2019s statement was not determinant to finding him guilty : in his statement he had not admitted to trafficking in drugs or that he knew PERSON , and he had chosen to remain silent when questioned about drug use ; ( iv ) while it was true that ORG had referred to extracts from his statement , this was not the basis of his conviction , which was based on the evidence given in court by PERSON and PERSON and on the results of the previous identification parades \u2013 indeed he had said nothing relevant in his statement .","The court concluded that the proceedings having ended it had to look at the entirety of the proceedings , and it was not for it to substitute the findings of the jury . During the trial the applicant was represented by a lawyer and had ample opportunity to submit evidence and contest any evidence brought against him , and the fact that he did not have legal assistance during questioning did not have an irreparable effect on his right to defend himself .","The court rejected the second complaint in relation to legal assistance for the witnesses , in so far as the applicant had no standing in that respect . Moreover , their statements had remained unchanged ; the applicant could have challenged them during the trial but had opted not to do so .","Lastly , in relation to the third complaint it held that the magistrate conducting the in genere inquiry was independent of the police , did not act as a prosecutor , and in the present case did not express an opinion as to whether there was sufficient evidence for the police to institute proceedings in respect of the applicant . The applicant \u2019s case was also tried by a jury and then reviewed by ORG . Furthermore , the applicant had not raised the issue in the committal proceedings in DATE - indeed a comment somewhat related to the issue had been explicitly withdrawn on DATE before ORG - and he should not therefore be allowed to benefit from his own passivity .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and confirmed the first - instance judgment , with costs against the applicant . It noted that a correct interpretation of PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] ( no . CARDINAL , ORG DATE ) had to be made in view of the circumstances of that case , where indeed Mr PERSON had been in a vulnerable position when he had made his statement . The rationale of the right was precisely that , and not to allow guilty persons to be let off scotfree because of a formality which had no real or serious consequences . In the present case the applicant did not claim that he was forced to make the statement , or that he was in any other way vulnerable when he made his statement . The right to a lawyer was aimed at avoiding abuses , which in fact did not happen in the applicant \u2019s case . Thus , while there was no procedural obstacle for the applicant to complain at this stage , namely before the constitutional jurisdictions , despite the fact that he had not raised the issue in the criminal proceedings , the element of vulnerability was missing in the applicant \u2019s case , and thus there could be no violation of his rights . ORG held that even if the statement had been determinant for the finding of guilt , that finding was not necessarily tainted unless the statement had been obtained under duress , which was not so in the present case . Nevertheless , in the instant case the statement was of no relevance whatsoever , as the applicant had not admitted to anything and ORG had only referred to the statement in saying that the jury had not believed the applicant \u2019s version . It had been other evidence that had led to his finding of guilt . Lastly , ORG noted that it could not agree to a general view that the moment a statement was made without legal assistance it became ipso facto invalid and brought about a breach of LAW .","As to the complaint related to the witnesses , the court did not rule out the applicant \u2019s locus standi , which could come into play if their statements had been made under duress . However , it was not so in the present case , where the witnesses had reiterated their statements even before the trial courts . It followed that those statements were also admissible . Lastly it confirmed the reasoning of the first - instance court relating to the impartiality of the magistrate , finding the applicant \u2019s argument opportunistic ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184502","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF D\u00dcNDAR AND AYDINKAYA v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants , Mr \u0130rfan PERSON and Mr PERSON , were born in DATE respectively and live in GPE . At the material time , the applicants were the legal representatives of PERSON , the leader of the ORG , an illegal armed organisation .","On DATE and DATE the newspaper ORG published CARDINAL interviews with the applicants . The interviews contained the ORG statements following meetings with their client , PERSON \u00d6calan , in prison . The first interview was included in CARDINAL articles in the issue of DATE entitled \u201c Lawyers convey PERSON ORG opinions concerning developments within the ORG - GEL \u201d and \u201c The pain of change \u201d . The second interview published on DATE was entitled \u201c PERSON is an opportunity for GPE \u201d and \u201c PERSON opinions are important for an enduring peace \u201d .","NORP In their interviews published on DATE in the CARDINAL articles cited above , the applicants commented on the following issues : the difficulties they encountered in getting to LOC island , where PERSON was detained , their need to have a meeting with their client prior to the hearing to be held before ORG DATE , their client \u2019s state of health , the alleged fake news published in some newspapers regarding the applicants\u2019 meetings with their client , their client \u2019s opinions regarding the current state of politics in GPE , in particular his view that NORP in GPE should form a coalition with a view to establishing social peace and enabling GPE \u2019s access in ORG , PERSON ORG \u2019s views on the conflicts occurring within the FAC , and in particular , his views that democratisation of the \u201c NORP organisations \u201d would allow the State of GPE to be more democratic , his opinions on the pro - NORP legal political parties , and his view that individuals should liberate themselves before trying to liberate others .","In the interview published DATE , DATE , the applicants made statements on the following issues : PERSON ORG criticism of the failure of the pro - NORP political groups during the municipal elections held on DATE , the view of PERSON \u00d6calan and his lawyers that \u201c the NORP movement \u201d had failed to take into account PERSON ORG opinions and projects , the criminal and disciplinary investigations and the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicants for disseminating their client \u2019s views , PERSON criticism of \u201c NORP organisations \u201d , problems between PERSON and the leaders of the \u201c NORP movement \u201d , the ORG role both as legal and political representatives of PERSON and their meetings with individuals close to the State of GPE as well as representatives of foreign GPE on behalf of their client , and the applicants\u2019 view that PERSON ORG opinions offered an opportunity for resolving the NORP issue in a democratic \/ political manner and that his opinions had transformed the State of GPE .","On DATE the public prosecutor at the now defunct ORG filed a bill of indictment under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act ( Law no . ORG ) , charging the applicants with disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG \/ ORG - GEL on account of the interview published on DATE . In the indictment , the applicants were accused of acting on ORG instructions and conveying messages from him about the ORG \u2019s strategy . Subsequently , criminal proceedings were launched against the applicants before ORG .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed a second bill of indictment against the applicants , again charging them with disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG on account of the interview published in the DATE issue of the newspaper .","On DATE ORG decided to join the CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings against the applicants owing to the factual and legal similarities between them .","During the proceedings the applicants maintained that they had made the statements with a view to providing information to the press , since the case against PERSON had attracted media interest , but that they had been misquoted to a certain extent in the newspaper . They stressed that they had not acted with the intention of disseminating propaganda in favour of any illegal organisation .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicants of disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG \/ ORG under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG . It sentenced them to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment each , but decided to suspend pronouncement of their convictions on condition that they did not commit another intentional offence for DATE , in accordance with LAW .","In its judgment , the GPE court held that the applicants had overstepped the limits of the lawyer - client relationship and made statements in a manner that induced and promoted the adoption , dissemination and enrootment of PERSON opinions in society . The first - instance court considered that in the light of the applicants\u2019 role , the readers they targeted , the aim of the publication , and the manner in which their applicants\u2019 interviews were perceived by the readership , the interviews could not be deemed to be protected by the right to freedom of expression or the privilege of the lawyer - client relationship . The court further considered that the right to freedom of expression carried with it duties and responsibilities and could be restricted for the purpose of protecting national security and territorial integrity in a NORP society . ORG concluded that the reported interviews were aimed at disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG \/ ORG - GEL and found the applicants guilty .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 objection to the assize court \u2019s judgment was dismissed by the same court ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161982","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF M.C. AND A.C. v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation;Positive obligations);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE and ORG respectively .","On DATE the applicants participated in the annual gay march in GPE . It was organised by ACCEPT , a non - governmental organisation whose goal is to provide information and to assist the PERSON community . The march was given police protection . Several individuals who had actively expressed their disapproval over the gay march were stopped by the police , their pictures taken and their identity papers checked and noted .","At TIME , at the end of the march , the applicants and CARDINAL other participants left the area using the routes and means of transport recommended by the authorities in the guidelines prepared by the organisers for march participants . As recommended in the same leaflet , they wore no distinctive clothing or badges that would identify them as having participated in the march .","After boarding a metro train , they were attacked by a group of CARDINAL young men and a woman wearing hooded sweatshirts . The attackers approached the victims directly and started punching them and kicking their heads and faces . They also swung from the metal bars above their heads , kicking their victims . During the attack they kept on shouting : \u201c You poofs go to the GPE ! \u201d ( Poponarilor , duce\u0163i - v\u0103 \u00een FAC ! )","The victims were pushed into a corner of the carriage . CARDINAL of them tried to protect the others with his body , but the second applicant remained exposed and suffered several blows .","The attack lasted for TIME . On their way out of the carriage , the attackers punched the first applicant again in the face .","NORP The other passengers withdrew to the opposite side of the carriage during the attack . Among them was a photographer , GPE , who had also been at the march . The victims asked him to take pictures of the incident , which he did . As a consequence , the attackers hit him as well .","The same evening , accompanied by a representative of ACCEPT , the victims went to ORG and to ORG for medical consultations .","The forensic medical certificate stated that the first applicant had bruises which could have been produced by blows from a hard object ; they did not require \u201c DATE of medical care \u201d .","The second applicant was diagnosed with multiple contusions ( related to the incidents ) , minor cranio - cerebral trauma , contusion on the left shoulder and the left side of his face , and bruises . No bone damage was found . The forensic medical certificate concluded that the applicant needed DATE of medical care .","Later that night of DATE the victims , including the applicants , and a representative of ACCEPT went to FAC no . DATE . They filed a criminal complaint against the attackers and stated that the assault was based on the GPE sexual orientation . They reiterated not having worn any visible signs that could have given away the fact that they were returning from the gay march . They argued that the attackers had identified them at the march ( as they had not worn masks ) and followed them afterwards , with the intention of harming them . They informed the police about the offensive remarks made during the attack .","According to the applicants , the police agents were surprised when they realised that the applicants and the other victims , although gay , were affluent individuals with regular jobs and positions of responsibility . They tried to dissuade them from pursuing their complaint , warning them that they would have to confront their aggressors in court .","On DATE the ORG representative submitted to the police several pictures of the attack taken by GPE In some of the pictures the attackers\u2019 faces were visible , as their hoods were down . The photographer gave statements and was able to identify one of the perpetrators .","The first applicant was also shown pictures taken by the police during the march . She was able to identify CARDINAL of the individuals from their photos . The police had the PERSON names and addresses on record .","The victims gave statements to the police .","On DATE the police received copies of QUANTITY police reports drawn up on DATE of the march concerning administrative fines imposed on counter - demonstrators .","Due to a reorganisation within the police force , the case file was moved from CARDINAL police station to another , and on DATE it was registered at FAC .","As it appeared that nothing was happening in the case , the applicants sought information on the progress of the investigation by means of letters sent by ACCEPT on DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE they also complained to ORG about the lack of an effective investigation in the case , but to no avail .","On DATE they were informed that , following the reorganisation within the police force , their file had finally been logged by ORG . The letter also informed the applicants that the investigation was ongoing and steps were being taken to identify the culprits .","On DATE , the police submitted a request to ORG ( the \u201c GPE \u201d ) to confirm whether R.S.A. \u2013 an intelligence officer who had been identified among the attackers DATE had been on an official mission that night . On DATE ORG asked for clarification concerning the nature of the request . It was not until DATE that the police were able to obtain a statement from R.S.A. , who declared that he had been off duty DATE and offered information on CARDINAL other person in the group of attackers . The actions undertaken by the police to identify the other individuals remained without success .","The Metro Police received , on DATE , a list of CARDINAL names and identification numbers of persons who had been fined by the police during the gay march .","As CARDINAL of the suspects was believed to be a GPE football club supporter , the investigators attended CARDINAL football matches DATE and DATE in an attempt to identify him . On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigators tried to identify the suspects at metro stations . On QUANTITY occasions DATE and DATE , the investigators successfully asked the prosecutor to extend the deadline for completing the investigation .","On DATE the police stated their view that the investigation should come to an end and asked the prosecutor \u2019s office not to institute criminal proceedings in the case . The police gave the following explanation for their request :","\u201c ... the investigation was rendered difficult by the fact that the file arrived at FAC ... DATE after the incidents , and the police agents ... who had been in charge of the case until DATE could not continue the investigation as ORG had refused to cooperate and allow their agent \u2012 who was the only identified eye - witness to the events \u2012 to be interviewed ; it is to be noted that the police lost their motivation to use the information for the purposes of finding the truth in this case , of identifying and bringing to justice those responsible . In addition , to a certain extent the victims lost their interest in how their complaint was being dealt with ( they did not ... adduce the medical certificates ... which had been obtained at the request of the police ... on DATE when it was noted that none of the victims had needed DATE of medical care ) . It is observed that all the evidence - gathering methods for this type of crime have been exhausted and , given the lapse of time from the date when the complaints were lodged , the validity and relevance of the evidence gathered ... [ have decreased ] , leaving the investigation into the identity of the culprits without an outcome . At the same time , it is observed that ... the criminal acts had become time - barred , removing criminal responsibility from the culprits .","On DATE , in response to a request from the applicants for information , the FAC Police informed them that their intention was to not institute a criminal prosecution ( ne\u00eenceperea urm\u0103ririi penale ) as the alleged crimes had become statute - barred ( s - a \u00eemplinit prescrip\u0163ia special\u0103 ) . The police explained that the investigation had been rendered more difficult by the fact that the file had not arrived at FAC office until DATE after the events . Moreover , all the actions undertaken by police in order to identify the alleged culprits had failed .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG of FAC endorsed the police proposal and decided to terminate the investigation . The decision was sent to the first applicant \u2019s home on DATE .","On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with the ORG against the decision of DATE . They argued that the prosecutor should have investigated the more serious crime of organising a criminal group ( asocierea pentru sav\u00e2r\u015firea de infrac\u0163iuni ) , which had not yet become time - barred . They also complained that the investigators had failed to pursue their allegation that the attack had been motivated by their sexual orientation .","The prosecutor - in - chief dismissed their objections on DATE .","The applicants reiterated their objections against both the decisions delivered by the prosecutors in CARDINAL separate complaints lodged with ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint lodged by the applicants against the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . The court made the following observation :","\u201c It is true that the authorities were apparently not sufficiently diligent in carrying out within a reasonable time an effective investigation capable of identifying and punishing those responsible for the criminal acts ( the long periods of police inactivity , the transfer of files , the lack of cooperation from some authorities are all duly noted ) . On the other hand , this situation \u2013 although not imputable to the [ applicants ] \u2013 can not prevent the application of the statute of limitation of criminal responsibility . \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint lodged against the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE as a mere reiteration of that already dealt with by the court in its decision of CARDINAL DATE .","NORP Throughout the proceedings the applicants repeatedly sought access to the prosecution file . It was partially granted on DATE and the applicants gained full access to the file once their objections had been lodged with the courts ."],"violated_articles":["14","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178871","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PRIGARIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Article 5-4 - Speediness of review;Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (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);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4","5-5","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179559","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MESKHIDZE v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and was serving a prison sentence at the time in question . The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was arrested on DATE and sentenced by the first - instance court on DATE to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for murder . His conviction was upheld on appeal by ORG of GPE of Adjara on DATE .","According to the available medical file ( covering the periods DATE , DATE , and DATE ) , the first time the applicant was transferred to the prison hospital after his arrest was on DATE . At that time he was diagnosed with viral hepatitis C , chronic cholecystitis , and radiculitis . The applicant complained of suffering from sleeping disorders and anxiety and was placed in the psychiatric ward of the prison hospital . On DATE he was transferred to the infectious ward , where he was treated for his viral hepatitis C. The applicant was discharged from the prison hospital on DATE .","According to the applicant , in DATE he had an operation for an ingrowing toenail on his right foot . After the operation the scar became infected and the applicant was sent to the prison hospital on DATE on account of his deteriorating health . At that time the applicant \u2019s diagnosis was as follows : chronic arterial insufficiency of the lower limbs , arterial occlusion and obliterating arteritis , and subungual panaritium .","On DATE the applicant had his toenail removed . He spent the post - surgery period under permanent medical supervision in the prison hospital . Although he was provided with painkillers and treated with antibiotics , the applicant , according to the case file , complained DATE about severe pain in his right foot . On DATE he was seen by an angiosurgeon , who recommended that he undergo a dopplerography of the legs and that his transcutaneous oxygen pressure ( \u201c Tc POCARDINAL \u201d ) be measured . The surgeon would decide on the need to amputate the big toe on the applicant \u2019s right foot on the basis of these tests .","According to a note made by a prison hospital doctor in the applicant \u2019s medical file on DATE , the dopplerography and Tc POCARDINAL test could not be organised in the prison hospital for technical reasons . The doctor noted an improvement in the applicant \u2019s general condition and concluded that in any event , and notwithstanding the specialist \u2019s recommendation , there was no need for those examinations , given that there were no \u201c absolute indications \u201d that surgery was called for . On DATE the applicant was discharged from the prison hospital and sent back to FAC no . CARDINAL with a recommendation that he continue palliative treatment on an outpatient basis .","At the request of the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE the board of forensic experts of ORG having examined him \u2013 drew up a medical report ( \u201c the CARDINAL DATE medical report \u201d ) , which diagnosed the applicant as suffering from the following : arteritis , occlusion of the arteries in the right shin , stenosis of the arteries in the left shin , artery deficiency in the right lower limb ( at stage IV of the disease ) , necrosis of tissue in the right big toe , cardiac ischaemia , second - degree angina pectoris , seconddegree arterial hypertension , second - degree cardiac insufficiency , and lowactivity chronic hepatitis C. The experts concluded that from a cardiological point of view the applicant \u2019s condition was potentially serious . As for his vascular condition , the main blood vessels in both of his legs were damaged and his condition was serious . They recommended that he be placed in a specialist cardiology clinic and have his toe amputated .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers complained to the Director of ORG ( \u201c the Prisons Department \u201d ) that their client , who had been in the prison hospital since DATE , had been sent to FAC No . CARDINAL , despite the seriousness of his state of health , and that the treatment in that hospital had not produced any results . They complained that the applicant \u2019s condition had deteriorated there . The lawyers requested that the applicant be taken to hospital on the grounds that his life was in danger . On DATE they sent the same request to the director and the head doctor at the medical unit of FAC No . CARDINAL .","On DATE the head of the welfare unit of ORG referred the ORG request to the prison governor and a group of qualified medical experts \u201c for an opinion \u201d . He observed that , in accordance with ministerial order no . CARDINAL , patients were hospitalised on the orders of the prison governor , following a report by the head doctor of the prison \u2019s medical unit .","Following that letter , on DATE CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s lawyers contacted the prison governor reminding him of the terms of ministerial order no . CARDINAL and asking him what the response of the head doctor had been and enquiring as to when the applicant would be hospitalised .","On DATE ORG informed the lawyers that the applicant had been placed in the prison hospital on DATE .","According to the DATE notes made in his medical file , the applicant continued to suffer from pain in the right foot . It can be seen from the contents of the medical file that his right foot was treated with antiseptic products and bandaged DATE . During that period the applicant was examined by a vascular specialist twice : on DATE and on DATE . On DATE the vascular specialist recommended that the bandage be changed regularly and the toe treated with antiseptic products . He also prescribed ORG infusions . On DATE the vascular specialist recommended a Tc POCARDINAL test in order to assess the possibility of amputating the toe , and prescribed continuing palliative treatment . It appears from the case file that the relevant drugs were administered to the applicant by his wife and other family members .","On DATE the applicant underwent a Tc POCARDINAL test at a specialist hospital . On the basis of the results of the test the examining doctor concluded that the microcirculation in the lower limbs of the applicant ( particularly in the right foot ) was very low . In his view , surgical intervention was not appropriate because the particularly low level of oxygen in the right foot would have hampered the healing of the resulting wound .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from the prison hospital because of the appeal court \u2019s decision to suspend his prison sentence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On the basis of the CARDINAL DATE medical report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and in view of the fact that his treatment at the prison hospital was producing no results , on DATE the applicant applied to ORG for his sentence to be suspended on health grounds ( under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . A representative of ORG opposed the application on the grounds that the prison hospital had \u201c a medical service capable of treating the applicant \u201d and that \u201c if necessary he [ would ] be transferred to a specialist clinic \u201d . CARDINAL of the experts who had produced the above - mentioned report confirmed to the court judge that the applicant was seriously ill . However , as he had no knowledge of the medical facilities at the prison hospital , he said he could not judge whether it was appropriate to keep the applicant there . He also confirmed that the applicant \u2019s right big toe had to be amputated .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request , on the grounds that the prison hospital had a medical service capable of providing the necessary treatment and that the applicant , who was being looked after by specialist doctors , would be transferred to a specialist clinic if necessary .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted to the court his comments on the record of the hearing of DATE . The record of the hearing , according to those comments , did not refer to the expert \u2019s opinion in respect of the risk to the applicant \u2019s life . The expert had said that the applicant \u2019s gangrene , which was now at the fourth ( and last ) stage , could cause septicemia and death if not properly treated . Regarding the applicant \u2019s heart condition , the expert had said that the applicant needed treatment in a specialist clinic to prevent sudden death . On DATE the court granted that request and ordered that the record of hearing be amended by adding the expert \u2019s comments .","The applicant appealed against the decision of DATE , pointing out that , according to the medical experts who had examined him , the treatment at the prison hospital had produced no results and that , if he was not properly treated , the question of the amputation of various parts of his right lower limb could arise . The applicant \u2019s lawyers pointed out that prisoners frequently died as a result of a lack of treatment at the prison hospital . They also complained about ORG having joined the trial as a party to the proceedings , which was in breach of LAW ORG . In their view , a representative of ORG was not in a position to assess the danger that detention might pose to the life of the applicant . Subsequently , the lawyers requested that the applicant \u2019s doctor and the doctor from the specialist hospital who had treated the applicant on DATE be heard as witnesses ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At the examination in the specialist hospital in question , apart from the findings of the above - mentioned expert report , GPE \u2019s disease of the lower limbs had also been diagnosed .","At a hearing before ORG on DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers requested that the representative of ORG be debarred from joining the proceedings as a party , in accordance with LAW ORG . ORG allowed that request but authorised the representative in question to attend the hearing in order to reply to any questions . It also decided to call the prison hospital surgeon , the vascular specialist ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and the forensic expert ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as witnesses .","At the next hearing on DATE the forensic expert repeated that the applicant \u2019s state of health was serious , and that LAW of order no . CARDINAL\/N ( issued by the ORG Minister ) concerning the early termination of prison sentences on health grounds was indisputably applicable . He added that necrosis of the tissue of the lower limb had set in and was progressively affecting the limb from the bottom up . If that were to continue , the applicant might develop septicemia and die . In his view , it was impossible to cure the applicant completely .","The applicant \u2019s doctor \u2013 a surgeon who was a member of the prison hospital \u2019s permanent staff \u2013 also gave evidence before ORG , explaining the diagnosis and confirming that his patient was seriously ill , with the arterial disease having reached the fourth and final stage . He said that he had seen the applicant in DATE and also in DATE and that no serious necrosis had been observed at that time . He further explained that at that stage of the disease the treatment usually prescribed was either palliative or surgical . The applicant was being given palliative treatment with medicines ( antioxidants , protective drugs , sedatives ) . An operation was not recommended because it might make his condition worse . The likelihood of the scar healing was nil . The doctor was gradually removing the necrosed tissue in the right foot . The doctor also confirmed that the applicant \u2019s illness was chronic , progressive and that he needed constant medical treatment . He added that he could not be cured at the prison hospital but that there was a clinic outside the prison that could treat this kind of patient . In answer to a question from the judge , the doctor said that the applicant had been hospitalised twice after his operation and that at the relevant time the necrosis had not reached such an advanced stage . At that time the prison hospital doctors had done all they could to halt the development of the necrosis but without much success . If the situation continued , the applicant might have to have his entire right leg amputated .","The vascular specialist \u2013 a doctor at the prison hospital DATE said that he had examined the applicant in DATE and found that the gangrene had already affected the big toe of the right foot . This had then quickly spread , despite the treatment administered . Shortly before the hearing the applicant had been prevented from lying down and had been made to stay in a sitting position . His state of health was worsening DATE . The results of the Tc POCARDINAL test had shown that the oxygen tension in the right foot stood at level QUANTITY in the lying - down position and at level CARDINAL in the sitting position ( the normal level being CARDINAL ; an indicator of CARDINAL was necessary if the wound could be expected to heal properly ) . Accordingly , amputation was impossible . The vascular specialist said that the prison hospital was complying with his orders but that there was no specialist unit . In his view , the applicant \u2019s lower left limb was also damaged , but not yet affected by gangrene . At the time it was a question of saving the applicant \u2019s life and subsequently considering whether to amputate the right leg .","In his final address the applicant \u2019s lawyer drew ORG \u2019s attention to the fact that , despite the presence of gangrene DATE , the applicant had been sent to Prison No . CARDINAL and left there untreated . Given that , according to the doctors , the applicant could not be cured , the lawyer requested that her client be dispensed from having to serve the remainder of his prison sentence ( under LAW of the ORG ) .","In a judgment of DATE ORG ordered that the applicant \u2019s prison sentence be suspended pending a substantial improvement in his state of health , provided that he undergo a medical examination DATE and provide the court with the results thereof . The applicant was immediately released .","According to a medical report of DATE , the applicant suffered from cardiac ischaemia , second - degree angina pectoris , thirddegree hypertension and second - degree heart failure . From a cardiological point of view , his heart condition remained serious . With regard to his arteries , the applicant suffered from GPE \u2019s disease , occlusion of the arteries in the right tibia , stenosis of the arteries in the left tibia , chronic arterial deficiency in the right lower limb at the fourth stage of the disease and gangrene of the tissue in the right big toe . The gangrene was still described as progressive . The experts concluded that the applicant required cardiological and angiological treatment in a specialist institution .","NORP Over DATE and DATE the applicant underwent another forensic examination . It appeared from the report of DATE that on DATE the applicant had had the lower part of his right leg amputated . At the same time he was diagnosed with gangrene on the big toe of the left foot . While confirming his diagnosis from a cardiological point of view as potentially serious the CARDINAL experts involved in the examination also concluded that the applicant \u2019s angiological condition had deteriorated as a result of ischemia . Thus , from the angiological point of view he was categorised as a seriously ill patient ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145723","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"E.B. v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , was an NORP national , born in DATE . The President granted the applicants\u2019 requests for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by Mr H. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of sexual acts with persons under the age of DATE ( LAW ) and with persons under the age of QUANTITY not mature enough to understand the act , taking advantage of this immaturity ( Article CARDINALb of LAW ) , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . His criminal record , which at the time consisted of CARDINAL convictions , of which CARDINAL concerned sexual offences involving adolescents , was treated as an aggravating circumstance . These previous convictions were as follows :","- In DATE the applicant was convicted in a NORP court of indecent acts with adolescents ( unz\u00fcchtige ORG ) , for which he was sentenced to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment and fined .","- On DATE the Innsbruck ORG convicted him of homosexual acts with consenting male persons DATE ( LAW , as in force at the time ) and sentenced him to QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG reduced the sentence to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","- In DATE the applicant was convicted in ORG of attempted fornication with persons under the age of DATE ( LAW ) and fined .","- In DATE the applicant was convicted in the same court of an offence under the same provision , namely fornication with persons under the age of CARDINAL . He was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","- In DATE the applicant was convicted in a NORP Court of sexual abuse of persons DATE and sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","- In DATE the applicant was convicted in a NORP Court of the same offence and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","- In DATE the applicant was convicted in a NORP court of sexual abuse involving minors ( sexueller PERSON ) and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","- On DATE ORG convicted him of an offence under LAW , as in force at the time and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG partly acquitted him and reduced the sentence to DATE imprisonment .","- On DATE ORG convicted him of an offence under the same provision and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant did not appeal .","On DATE ORG rejected a plea of nullity lodged by the applicant and on DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by him against the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On an unspecified date the applicant asked for early release from prison .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . It noted that under LAW a court may grant early release if a prisoner has served CARDINAL of his sentence , unless there were specific reasons to expect that this person would commit criminal offences while at liberty . ORG considered that the applicant had not shown that he had seen sense and was still playing down the offences committed by him . Moreover , his numerous previous convictions for sexual offences involving minors ( PERSON ) had not succeeded in getting him to conform to standards of law - abiding behaviour ( normangepasstes ORG ) . For that reason he had to serve his entire prison sentence .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision refusing his early release . He submitted that ORG reliance on his previous convictions under LAW constituted a breach of LAW read in conjunction with LAW , because LAW had been quashed by ORG on DATE as being unconstitutional .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , holding that ORG had acted correctly in taking also the applicant \u2019s LAW convictions into account , even though the provision was constitutionally problematic . Having examined the files concerning the criminal proceedings against the applicant under that provision , it was apparent from the circumstances of the criminal acts , as well as the age and personality of the victims , that a conviction of the applicant would have also been justified under the legal provisions brought in to replace LAW , which were constitutionally compliant . In view of these considerations , and also taking into account the applicant \u2019s other convictions , ORG had been correct in concluding that the conditions for the applicant \u2019s release under LAW of LAW were not fulfilled because of the applicant \u2019s incorrigible personality , as he resisted all measures of social reintegration , played down his acts and showed no remorse .","Accordingly , the applicant served the full sentence . He died on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158484","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MOROZOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in a temporary detention centre at the GPE police station ( \u00ab \u0418\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0441\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f FAC , \u00ab \u0418\u0412\u0421 DATE , \u201c ORG \u201d ) on suspicion of murder .","The applicant was detained in the ORG on CARDINAL separate occasions : DATE ; CARDINAL DATE and DATE ; CARDINAL DATE and DATE ; and CARDINAL and DATE .","In the applicant \u2019s submission , the conditions of his detention in the ORG during those CARDINAL periods were essentially identical and as described below .","The ORG was situated in the basement of the police station . The applicant was placed in a cell measuring QUANTITY , which housed CARDINAL people . The walls , floor and ceiling were all covered with cement . There was no ventilation in the cell and consequently it was stuffy . The windows were covered with exterior and interior metal plates with minuscule openings , which gave practically no access to natural light . The cell was lit by a lamp set high up in an alcove in the wall , so there was insufficient light for reading or writing .","In DATE , temperatures inside exceeded CARDINAL and the cell had a high level of humidity . There was no glass in the windows and in DATE it was cold .","No mattresses , bedding , cups , eating utensils or toiletries were distributed . There were no pest control measures in place to eliminate cockroaches and mice . The cell was not connected to a sewer and detainees had to relieve themselves in a bucket , which was removed from the cell once DATE to be emptied . The water which was distributed once a day ( QUANTITY per cell ) was not drinkable . There was no provision for outside exercise or showers .","NORP The applicant was fed once a day . The food was wholly inadequate , both in terms of quality and portion size .","The applicant sustained an injury to his head prior to his arrest . While in the ORG , he did not receive adequate medical treatment for the injury . The applicant \u2013 who had contracted tuberculosis in DATE shared a cell with a person who was actually suffering from the open form of the disease at the time of his detention , and this represented a potential risk to his health .","Each of the ORG cells in which the applicant was kept measured QUANTITY and had CARDINAL sleeping places . However , it was impossible to provide more detailed information , as the registration logs for the ORG had been destroyed .","According to the findings of the inquiry carried out by the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office on the basis of the applicant \u2019s complaint , the applicant shared CARDINAL of the cells in which he was kept DATE which was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places \u2013 with CARDINAL inmates . At some point , he was transferred to a solitary confinement cell upon his request . The applicant received CARDINAL meals a day . There were no mice or insects in the cells . The bucket that acted as a substitute for sanitary facilities was cleaned DATE . The applicant had access to drinking water and toiletries . The applicant was provided with adequate medical assistance on request .","On DATE ORG of GPE convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to TIME years\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the conviction on appeal .","The applicant was then sent to serve his sentence at a postconviction detention facility in the town of LOC in GPE . The journey there included train travel and accommodation in GPE - type detention facilities ( \u00ab \u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0438\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0441\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f ORG , \u00ab \u0421\u0418\u0417\u041e \u00bb ) . These facilities generally serve as remand prisons , yet can also be used for the temporary detention of people who have already been convicted .","At certain times DATE and DATE , the applicant was kept in GPE detention facility no . GPE .","The applicant was detained in a cell measuring QUANTITY , which was designed to hold QUANTITY people . However , he shared this cell with QUANTITY other detainees , so they had to sleep in shifts . The bedding supplied was dirty , worn out and covered in bloodstains . Mattresses were also worn out and infested with insects . There was no ventilation . Lights were on day and night . No toiletries were supplied .","In DATE , the cell was extremely humid and stuffy . Owing to water shortages lasting up to DATE , the applicant had difficulties in obtaining drinking water and flushing the lavatory . The cell was infested with insects such as cockroaches . Conditions were unsanitary and no showers were available .","While in detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , the applicant was kept in the following cells :","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY .","The Government did not specify the actual number of sleeping places in the cells in question and\/or the number of inmates who had shared the cells with the applicant , referring to the fact that the detention facility \u2019s logbooks had been destroyed .","The Government provided a number of documents dated DATE and signed by the governor of detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which stated in particular that : ( a ) the number of inmates kept together with the applicant in the CARDINAL cells of GPE detention facility had not exceeded the number of sleeping places available ; ( b ) on DATE an additional new building to accommodate CARDINAL inmates had been opened ; ( c ) there had been no rodents or insects in the facility and the cells had been regularly cleaned and disinfested ; ( d ) each of the CARDINAL cells had been equipped with lavatories which were separated from the living areas and sinks ; and ( e ) detainees had been provided with good - quality food pursuant to internal regulations .","The Government provided CARDINAL handwritten undated statements from IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL officials who stated that they \u201c certainly remembered \u201d that the applicant had been kept in CARDINAL cells at the facility . In their statements , the officials listed the numbers of the cells and confirmed that he had been provided with an individual sleeping place in each of those cells .","DATE and DATE the applicant was kept in ORG detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","In the applicant \u2019s submission , he was kept in a transit cell measuring QUANTITY , which was designed for CARDINAL detainees . Instead , during the relevant period , the cell housed CARDINAL people , who had to sleep in shifts . The applicant suffered from a lack of food and found the food which he was given to be of poor quality . He also sustained numerous painful insect bites which left marks on his body .","According to the ORG , the applicant was kept in cell no . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY ) , cell no . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY ) and cell no . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY ) . The number of sleeping places and\/or inmates who had been kept in the cells with the applicant was unknown , as the facility \u2019s logbooks had been destroyed .","The Government provided documents dated CARDINAL DATE which had been signed by the deputy governor of GPE and which stated that : ( a ) cell no . CARDINAL had been equipped with a sink ; ( b ) during the applicant \u2019s detention , a private contractor had regularly carried out disinfestation procedures at the detention facility pursuant to a contract which had been concluded on DATE ; and ( c ) detainees had been provided with CARDINAL meals a day , pursuant to the relevant regulations . The Government also enclosed a photo of a sink and invoices from the disinfestation contractor which were dated DATE .","DATE the applicant was kept in PERSON detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","According to the applicant , he was placed in a cell measuring QUANTITY , together with CARDINAL other inmates . No bedding was supplied . The cell was infested with insects . After DATE there , he was moved to another cell measuring QUANTITY , which housed thirtyfive people . The cell had a row of benches , which were no use for sitting on , let alone sleeping on . No food or drinking water was provided .","In the ORG \u2019s submission , the applicant was kept in cell no . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY ) , cell no . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY ) , cell no . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY ) and cell no . CARDINAL ( measuring QUANTITY ) . In each cell , he was provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding . The number of inmates who were kept in the cells with the applicant was unknown , as was the number of sleeping places which were available , as the logbooks had been destroyed .","The Government provided documents dated CARDINAL DATE and signed by the governor of IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL confirming that the applicant had been detained in the facility DATE . There had been no rodents or insects in the cell during this period , and the cell had been equipped with sanitary facilities . The applicant had been provided with access to a shower upon his arrival at the facility and had been provided with food , pursuant to the relevant regulations . The cell had been equipped with CARDINAL sleeping spaces and had housed CARDINAL inmates . The Government also enclosed contracts for disinfestation services , as well as relevant invoices .","Another document dated CARDINAL DATE and signed by the head of the GPE regional department of ORG ( \u201c the GPE ORG \u201d ) stated that , CARDINAL DATE , the applicant had been kept in cell no . CARDINAL at FAC . According to the document , this cell measured QUANTITY and was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places , and the applicant had shared it with CARDINAL other inmates .","The applicant made a complaint to various public authorities , including the prosecutor \u2019s office and courts , in relation to the alleged lack of adequate medical assistance and the conditions of detention in the IVS ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL above ) . In particular , he alleged that he had sustained a post - traumatic brain injury , contracted tuberculosis and become ill with gastritis , astigmatism , alimentary anaemia and muscular hypotrophy while in detention .","As regards his complaint to the prosecutor \u2019s office it appears that on DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office refused to initiate criminal proceedings regarding the alleged poor conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention in the ORG . The applicant was not provided with a copy of that decision . A further refusal was issued on DATE . However , the prosecutor found that the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning the conditions of detention in the ORG \u201c had been confirmed in part \u201d , but that such conditions did not constitute a crime under LAW . He also indicated that the head of the police station had been instructed to remedy the irregularities which had been identified . The applicant was not given access to the prosecutor \u2019s inquiry file .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision . On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .","As regards other court proceedings , in DATE the applicant initiated civil proceedings , claiming compensation for the nonpecuniary damage caused by the conditions of detention in the ORG and the lack of adequate medical assistance rendered to him in that facility . On CARDINAL occasions \u2013 on DATE and DATE , and on DATE ORG invited the applicant to eliminate discrepancies in his statements of claim . The applicant did not comply with the court \u2019s requests , neither did he appeal against the court \u2019s rulings . ORG left the claims unexamined ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155374","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KOV\u00c1ROV\u00c1 v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an action with the Bratislava V ORG ( ORG s\u00fad ) seeking a ruling declaring that a meeting of flat owners in a block of flats held on DATE was contrary to the law , and that the decisions adopted at that meeting were void .","The defendant of the action was an entity with legal personality referred to as a community of owners of residential and non - residential LOC in the given building ( \u201c the defendant \u201d ) . Such entities are officially registered with the local ORG ( obvodn\u00fd \u00farad ) . The defendant was so registered with ORG in GPE .","On DATE a submission was made to ORG by a lawyer indicating that he was acting on behalf of the defendant and informing the court that on DATE the defendant had ceased legally to exist . In that connection he submitted a letter from ORG which indicated that the defendant had been struck out of the relevant register on DATE , the context being that the administration of the building was no longer the responsibility of the defendant and that that responsibility had been transferred to a specialised agency .","On DATE the applicant requested that a hearing scheduled before ORG for DATE be postponed sine die . She submitted that she had just learned of the striking out of the defendant by consulting the relevant register , and that she would make a further submission once she had analysed the situation , for which she needed time . The hearing scheduled for DATE was accordingly adjourned .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , on the grounds that the defendant had ceased to exist and had no legal successor . In particular , ORG held that neither the individual owners of the flats in the building nor the newly contracted administration agency could be considered as having succeeded to the defendant \u2019s position in the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant appealed ( odvolanie ) , raising CARDINAL principal arguments .","First , she submitted that the administration agency was the successor to the original defendant , and that consequently the proceedings should have continued against it .","Second , even assuming that the first contention was not correct , the court should not have terminated the proceedings but should rather have stayed them pending the outcome of another set of proceedings before the same ORG , in which a decision was being contested which had been taken at another meeting of the flat owners on DATE , to the effect that the defendant should be wound up ( zru\u0161enie ) . If that other set of proceedings ended with a ruling declaring the winding up of the original defendant void , its striking out of the given register would lose basis and the proceedings could continue against that defendant . More details about those other proceedings are set out below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . ) .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) upheld the first - instance decision , noting that the defendant had been struck out of the relevant register and had thereby lost capacity to be a party to the proceedings , in which situation there was no alternative to a discontinuance of the proceedings . The relevant legal provisions were referred to , but no reasons were offered for the latter conclusion .","On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law ( dovolanie ) , relying on Article CARDINAL ( f ) of LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , under which such an appeal was admissible if the courts had prevented a party to the proceedings from pursuing a case before them . In particular , she argued that ORG had provided neither any factual nor legal grounds for its conclusion , as a result of which it was not amenable to review . In addition , she pursued and further developed the same line of argument as in her appeal .","On DATE ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) declared the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law inadmissible , holding that the shortcomings alleged by the applicant did not fall within the purview of LAW ( f ) of the ORG . This applied specifically to the alleged deficiency in ORG reasoning and the alleged errors of fact and law in the lower courts\u2019 decisions .","In addition , in so far as the applicant had contested an error of procedure in that the courts had failed to stay the proceedings rather than to terminate them , ORG held that staying the proceedings was an option and not a duty of the court concerned , and that the fact that the present proceedings had not been stayed did not make out the admissibility ground cited by the applicant .","As the appeal was not admissible , ORG did not examine the merits of the case .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under LAW of LAW ( Constitutional Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) . She directed the complaint against all CARDINAL levels of the ordinary courts and pursued and further developed in principle the arguments described above .","She considered that the discontinuance of the proceedings had been unlawful , submitted that it had been a mistake of the ordinary courts not to have examined the merits of her claim , and argued that this had amounted to a breach of her rights of access to court and to a fair hearing LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible . It considered it separately with reference to the individual levels of ordinary jurisdiction involved .","As regards the alleged shortcomings in the proceedings leading to ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , it held that the applicant had failed to submit her complaint within the statutory time - limit of DATE .","As regards ORG , it observed that the central argument in the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law was the alleged error of law . In that regard , it went on to hold , inter alia , that :","\u201c ORG ... rightfully emphasised ... that , as there were no grounds on which the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law would be admissible , it was not possible for it to review the merits of ORG decision . ORG did not exclude in a binding manner that the decision of ORG was the result of a wrongful legal assessment of the matter , nor did it exclude the possibility of there having been another error in the proceedings before it which had resulted in a wrongful decision on the merits . \u201d","Nevertheless , ORG found that , as regards the admissibility of the applicant \u2019s appeal , ORG had given relevant reasons for its decision and that that decision was not arbitrary .","In particular , it also noted that , should the other set of proceedings end with a ruling declaring the winding up of the defendant void , this would create for the applicant the opportunity to seek reopening of the proceedings in her case . Future examination of that case on the merits thus could not be completely excluded . However , at the same time , ORG noted that even if the winding up of the defendant were to be declared void , this would not automatically mean that the defendant would legally come into existence once more . The coming into being of a legal entity such as the defendant required incorporation , which in turn necessitated a decision of ORG , and could not result directly from a judicial decision .","The Constitutional Court \u2019s decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE an individual brought proceedings against the above - mentioned defendant as well as the above - mentioned newly appointed management agency , seeking a ruling declaring void a decision to wind up the defendant taken at a meeting of flat owners in the block held on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","After the first dismissal of the action was quashed following the claimant \u2019s appeal , the action was again dismissed by ORG on DATE and , following the claimant \u2019s appeal , by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the claimant challenged the judgments last mentioned by way of a complaint to ORG .","The complaint appears to be still pending ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166682","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SEM\u0130R G\u00dcZEL v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);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)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the time of the events in question the applicant was the vicepresident of ORG ( Hak ve PERSON \u2013 ORG ) .","On DATE the party held its first ordinary congress at a restaurant in GPE , where the applicant was elected by the delegates to act as the meeting \u2019s chairman .","On DATE a public prosecutor at the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office filed an indictment with ORG against CARDINAL members of ORG , including the applicant , for acting in violation of section CARDINAL ( c ) of PERSON no . PERSON during the congress on the grounds , inter alia , that there had been banners in NORP and that most of the speeches given by the delegates had been in NORP .","The applicant acknowledged before the first - instance court that he had not intervened as the chairman when certain delegates had spoken in NORP . In this connection , he submitted that , as a founder member of PERSON , he believed that NORP should be used in all areas of life ; that those who spoke NORP were speaking in their mother tongue ; and that he believed that it was neither legal nor ethical for him to intervene to force people to speak in a language other than their mother tongue . He maintained that such speeches could not have constituted an offence , when taking into account laws that had been enacted in compliance with the conditions for membership of ORG , and the provisions of LAW . In this connection , the applicant also submitted that the relevant provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL were contrary to LAW .","On DATE the first - instance court dismissed an application from the defendants to suspend the proceedings and transfer the case to ORG for examination of the compatibility of the relevant provisions with LAW .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of the charges . In particular , the court considered that the applicant had , despite warnings from a government superintendent present at the congress , continued to allow certain delegates to give their speeches in NORP , in breach of LAW ( c ) of PERSON no . PERSON . The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court on the ground that the latter had failed to give any consideration to whether the conditions for suspending the delivery of the judgment against the defendants , pursuant to LAW , had been met .","On DATE ORG ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the other defendants be terminated , on the ground that the statutory time - limit prescribed under domestic law had expired ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183561","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF HALIP AND VELEA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163817","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF L\u00c4HTEENM\u00c4KI v. ESTONIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["On DATE the applicant submitted a traffic accident report to an insurance company . According to that report she had been involved in a traffic accident in her car on DATE . On DATE the applicant submitted additional explanations to the insurance company . She stated that she had not known the other persons involved in the accident , that she had completed the accident report in her vehicle after the accident and that her friend PERSON had come to pick her up at the scene of the accident . The insurance company suspected fraud and informed the police . On DATE criminal proceedings were opened . The applicant was charged with insurance fraud and inciting PERSON knowingly to give false testimony . The other accused were PERSON , PERSON , NORP and ORG","On DATE a prosecutor drew up a bill of indictment against the applicant , P. , PERSON , ORG and ORG According to the bill of indictment , it had been established in the criminal investigation that the applicant , contrary to her allegations , had not been at the scene of the alleged accident . This was confirmed by the positioning of her mobile phone at the time of the accident , her phone call records and ORG statement . It was established that the applicant together with the other accused had submitted false information to the insurance company concerning the occurrence of an insured event , the persons who had been involved in the traffic accident , and the circumstances of the accident . The applicant was therefore charged with insurance fraud . In addition , it was established that the applicant had incited PERSON to give false testimony concerning the fact that she had gone to pick the applicant up at the scene of the accident . This had been confirmed by ORG statement . The applicant was therefore charged with inciting another person knowingly to give false testimony . It was noted in the statement of charges that no pecuniary damage had been caused by the offences because the insurance company had declined to make the corresponding payout when the suspicion of an offence arose . On the basis of this statement of charges the applicant was committed for trial .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the criminal proceedings against the applicant , P. , PERSON , NORP and PERSON At this hearing the prosecutor asked the court to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the applicant and PERSON under LAW seadustik ) . According to TIME of the hearing , the prosecutor stated that the applicant had committed offences of a less serious nature ( \u201c in the second degree \u201d ) , that she had been involved in the commission of those offences at the instigation of the co - accused , thereby demonstrating that her guilt was less , and that she had no previous convictions . In requesting the imposition of certain public law obligations , the prosecutor had also taken into account the fact that the applicant had been raising a small child on her own . The applicant and her counsel explicitly accepted this reasoning put forward by the prosecutor in support of discontinuance of the criminal proceedings . They also consented to the prosecutor \u2019s request that the applicant be ordered to pay the procedural costs and perform community service .","By a ruling of DATE ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant and P. on the basis of LAW and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( the \u201c CCrP \u201d ) . The applicant was ordered to pay CARDINAL kroons ( EEK ) ( QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) to the public purse and perform TIME of community service . In the event of the applicant \u2019s failure to perform these obligations , the court would \u2012 at the request of ORG \u2012 resume the criminal proceedings .","ORG ruling contained a detailed description of the charges against the applicant and P. It further noted that the prosecutor had requested the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant and PERSON on the basis of LAW since the offence in question had been an offence in the second degree , both the applicant and PERSON had been involved in it at the instigation of other persons , and neither of them had had a previous criminal record . Their guilt had been negligible and there had been no public interest in the continuation of the criminal proceedings . The prosecutor had requested the imposition on the applicant of the obligations indicated above . The court also noted that both the applicant and P. \u2012 as well as their lawyers \u2012 had agreed to the discontinuance of the proceedings and the imposition of the obligations requested by the prosecutor . The part of the ruling setting out ORG conclusion read as follows :","\u201c The criminal proceedings in respect of the charges against [ the applicant ] ... have to be discontinued on the basis of LAW and ( CARDINAL ) of the [ Code of Criminal Procedure ] as all the legal requirements have been fulfilled . This is an offence in the second degree , the guilt of the accused is negligible , no proprietary damage has been caused and there is no public interest in the continuation of the proceedings .","On the basis of LAW ) points CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the [ Code of Criminal Procedure ] the obligations requested by the prosecutor have to be imposed on the applicant ... \u201d","By a judgment of DATE , in settlement proceedings concerning the same criminal case , ORG convicted PERSON , ORG and ORG of insurance fraud . It was noted in the judgment that ORG and the applicant \u2012 whose name was replaced with initials in the judgment \u2012 had not been present at the scene of the alleged accident . It was also stated that the applicant and PERSON had drafted and that the applicant , T. and PERSON had signed and submitted to the insurance company documents containing false information about the traffic accident . It was further stated that by these acts PERSON , the applicant , T. and ORG had jointly created the illusion of the occurrence of an insured event with the aim of claiming an insurance payout .","On DATE the applicant claimed EEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) from the insurance company by way of compensation related to the traffic accident that had given rise to the above criminal proceedings . The insurance company rejected the claim , arguing that it had been established by ORG judgment of DATE that the traffic accident had been staged .","NORP By DATE the applicant had performed the obligations imposed on her in the ruling of DATE .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil suit against the insurance company . In support of her insurance claim , the applicant submitted as evidence to the court the claims sent to the insurance company after the event in DATE , a copy of the DATE ruling ordering discontinuance of the criminal proceedings , and documents proving the extent of the damage . The insurance company , for its part , submitted to the court the DATE judgment in the criminal case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The defendant argued that the judgment , together with the ruling ordering discontinuance of the proceedings , was sufficient to negate the applicant \u2019s claim that a genuine traffic accident had taken place as she alleged .","The applicant \u2019s claim was dismissed by a judgment of ORG on DATE . The court held as follows :","\u201c ORG established by a final judgment in the criminal case ... that the traffic accident which , according to the [ applicant \u2019s ] allegations , had taken place on DATE , had been staged . According to the judgment ... CARDINAL individuals were found guilty of having staged a collision between an PERSON , an ORG ACARDINAL and a ORG SCARDINAL allegedly driven by the [ applicant ] at TIME on DATE . The [ applicant ] made a claim to the [ insurance company ] for compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle by the alleged traffic accident ... . According to the claim the [ applicant ] had been driving the car that was involved in the accident . It was established by ORG ruling of DATE ... that the [ applicant ] had not been at the scene of the traffic accident and that it had been staged . Nevertheless , ... the [ applicant ] submitted to the [ insurance company ] a statement containing false information and a claim for compensation for damage caused by an alleged insurance event . The [ applicant ] was charged with an offence under LAW of the [ LAW ] , namely intentionally causing an insured event to happen and creating the illusion of the occurrence of an insured event with the intention of obtaining compensation from the insurer . The prosecutor requested ... the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings on the basis of LAW ] since it was an offence in the second degree , the guilt of the accused was negligible , and there was no public interest in the continuation of the proceedings . The [ applicant ] erroneously concluded that , because of the [ prosecutor \u2019s ] request and the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings , [ she ] had a right to claim the insurance payout . An insurance payout is made by an insurer only if an insured event has occurred . In the present case it had been established by a judgment and a ruling of a court that no insured event had occurred and that the traffic accident had been staged . The [ applicant ] therefore had no grounds for claiming the payout ... from the [ insurance company ] . ... In the present case , no accident took place .","The [ applicant ] is wrong in her understanding that she is not guilty because of the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings against her [ on the basis of ] LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) [ of LAW ] . LAW [ of LAW ] provides that if the object of criminal proceedings is a criminal offence in the second degree and the guilt of the person suspected or accused of the offence is negligible , and he or she has remedied or has begun to remedy the damage caused by the criminal offence or has paid the expenses relating to the criminal proceedings , or has assumed the obligation to pay such expenses , and there is no public interest in the continuation of the criminal proceedings , ORG may request discontinuance of the criminal proceedings by a court with the consent of the suspect or accused . It follows from this provision that the person \u2019s guilt exists but it is negligible and that he or she has begun to remedy it or has assumed the obligation to pay the expenses relating to the criminal proceedings . \u201d","The applicant appealed , complaining , inter alia , about the breach of her right to the presumption of innocence by ORG . Although there had been no judgment finding her guilty in connection with the traffic accident of DATE , ORG in its judgment of DATE in a civil case had regarded her as being guilty of the offence . She argued that her consent to pay the expenses relating to the criminal proceedings did not mean that she had committed the offence . By its judgment of DATE in a criminal case ORG had convicted PERSON , T. and ORG but not the applicant .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld ORG judgment , holding as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The [ applicant ] is mistaken in arguing that ORG had wrongly interpreted the legal nature and the evidentiary value , in respect of the person \u2019s admission of guilt , of the ruling ordering discontinuance of the criminal proceedings .","ORG has correctly found , relying on what was established by ORG ruling and judgment of DATE , that the [ applicant ] took part ... in the staging of a traffic accident the aim of which was to cause an insured event to happen and to create the illusion of the occurrence of that insured event with the intention to obtain compensation from the insurer .","According to LAW ] court decisions in other cases are deemed to be documentary evidence .","..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156737","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"DARICIUC v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , after his daughter had committed suicide in DATE , the applicant notified ORG ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) and complained that the child \u2019s paternal grandparents had prevented him from contacting his DATE granddaughter who had not been informed about her mother \u2019s death and therefore had been potentially exposed to a severe emotional trauma .","On DATE the Agency informed the applicant that they had initiated an investigation in respect of his claims .","On DATE the ORG summoned the paternal grandparents together with the applicant \u2019s granddaughter to its office for an interview aimed at clarifying their family \u2019s situation .","On DATE the ORG asked ORG to produce a social investigation report on the paternal PERSON home .","On DATE the ORG summoned the applicant to its office for an interview aimed at clarifying his family \u2019s situation .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son - in - law , who had been accompanied by his granddaughter , was interviewed at the ORG \u2019s office . According to the conversation report produced on that occasion the applicant \u2019s son - in - law had informed the ORG that his wife had suffered from depression because he had left to work abroad . He had returned to GPE DATE prior to the meeting at the ORG and had not told his daughter about her mother \u2019s death . He had acknowledged that his daughter had to be informed about her mother \u2019s death and had agreed to inform her with the help of a psychologist . He had also stated that the applicant had used to have a normal relationship with his granddaughter , before he had started pressuring them and picking fights in front of their home . The applicant had not agreed to the marriage between him and his wife and had used to interfere in their marriage .","According to that report the applicant \u2019s son - in - law had also been counselled on how to speak to his daughter about her mother and had been advised to shield her from family fights .","On DATE the ORG provided the applicant \u2019s granddaughter with psychological counselling in order to prepare her for the news that her mother had died .","On DATE ORG produced the social investigation report requested by the ORG on DATE . The report concluded that the child had a close connection to her father and her paternal grandparents who had cared for her in her father \u2019s absence . The father \u2019s family had provided the child with normal conditions for her physical , moral and intellectual development and her health had not been endangered .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed at the ORG \u2019s office . According to the conversation report produced on that occasion the applicant had informed the ORG that his relationship with his son - in - law had been very bad and that his son - in - law had refused to allow him into his home .","According to the same report the ORG \u2019s representatives had explained to the applicant that he had made a mistake in informing his granddaughter about her mother \u2019s death directly and without any preliminary coaching . He had been advised that it would be in the best interest of the child to avoid and to solve family conflicts . He had also been informed that it would be advisable for him to avoid speaking ill of his sonin - law in front of his granddaughter .","On DATE the Agency informed the applicant following his enquiry that they could have ordered his granddaughter \u2019s psychological evaluation only if it had been ordered by a court or had been requested by her father . Moreover , they stated that they had not been competent to punish an individual for failure to comply with a final court judgment . Furthermore , they noted that the applicant \u2019s granddaughter had received psychological counselling in respect of her mother \u2019s death and in order to help her process the trauma .","On an unspecified date the applicant asked the ORG to inform him whether he had a right to have contact with his granddaughter and whether she could have been counselled in the absence of her father in order to improve his relationship with her .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that they did not have the competence to contradict the final court judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) granting him visiting rights . Moreover , they stated that the child could not have undergone psychological counselling without her father \u2019s consent on account of her young age and the fact that the ORG \u2019s intervention had not been needed for reasons imputable to the applicant \u2019s son - in - law .","On DATE the Agency informed ORG that in DATE they had supported the applicant in his attempts to rekindle his relationship with his granddaughter . They stated that , following his daughter \u2019s death , the applicant had asked the ORG to intervene and to help him preserve his relationship with his granddaughter . Following the applicant \u2019s notification , the ORG \u2019s representatives had spoken to the applicant \u2019s son - in - law . Because his son - in - law had not informed his granddaughter about her mother \u2019s death , the applicant \u2019s son - in - law and the child had been included in psychological counselling program which had led to the applicant \u2019s granddaughter finding out the truth about her mother . Neither the ORG \u2019s , nor ORG investigations carried out at the child home had disclosed any danger for the child . In this context , ORG had mediated a meeting between the applicant , his son - in - law and his granddaughter in order to observe their interaction and to help resolve the conflict between the CARDINAL parties so that the child would not be traumatised even further . During that meeting , the interaction between the applicant and the applicant \u2019s son - in - law had been very tense . The applicant had accused his son - in - law of killing his daughter and had called him a murderer in front of the child . Because the applicant \u2019s son - in - law had also been verbally aggressive towards the applicant , both parties had been advised on the negative consequences of their behaviour in respect of the child . Whilst the applicant \u2019s son - in - law had changed his behaviour and had mastered his anger , the applicant had failed to do the same even though he had been warned that his behaviour might affect his granddaughter \u2019s emotional wellbeing and that it had caused her to reject contact with him . The applicant \u2019s granddaughter had refused any physical contact with the applicant both before and after she had been counselled by a psychologist .","On the same dates ORG also informed ORG that every time the applicant \u2019s granddaughter had been brought to the ORG , her psychological evaluation had been carried out in CARDINAL stages : her interaction with the adults had been observed and afterwards she had received psychological counselling in the absence of her father . Also , given the child \u2019s young age , the fact that her father had been her legal representative and that he had not been a danger to the child , there had been no legal basis for the ORG to accept the applicant \u2019s request to organise psychological counselling sessions between him and his granddaughter without the father \u2019s consent and in his absence . Moreover , after PERSON no . CARDINAL on protection of the rights of children had been amended on DATE a person facing conflicts caused by enforcement of visiting rights could have notified the social protection service from the child \u2019s domicile . However , after the aforementioned date the applicant had no longer contacted ORG , and the latter had not been informed by ORG either that the applicant had faced problems with the enforcement of his visiting rights .","On DATE the applicant opened proceedings against his son - in - law seeking custody of his granddaughter .","On DATE the applicant amended his application and asked the domestic courts to grant him visiting rights in respect of his granddaughter if his request for custody rights was dismissed . He asked to see his granddaughter every DATE at her home and to be granted the right to take her at his house for DATE during DATE .","On DATE ORG allowed in part the applicant \u2019s action and granted him visiting rights DATE from TIME at his granddaughter \u2019s and son - in - law \u2019s home . It held that the applicant was entitled to have a normal relationship with his granddaughter , a fact that had also been acknowledged by the applicant \u2019s son - in - law who had objected only to the visiting schedule requested by the applicant . A normal relationship between the applicant and his granddaughter was in the child \u2019s best interest . Given the child \u2019s young age , she needed a stable living environment which could have been affected if she had to travel to the applicant \u2019s home for DATE during DATE . The applicant could also have asked for an extension of his visiting rights once his relationship with his granddaughter had improved and the child had grown older .","The applicant appealed against the judgment before ORG . He asked to be granted visiting rights in respect of his granddaughter at his house or in a neutral location on account of his poor relationship with his son - in - law . He further argued that a denial of his request by the court would prevent him from actually reconnecting with the child .","On an unspecified date ORG ordered the ORG to produce a psychological evaluation report in respect of the applicant \u2019s granddaughter .","On DATE , following the second - instance court \u2019s order for a psychological evaluation report , the ORG organised a meeting between the applicant , his granddaughter and his son - in - law in order to assess their interaction . According to the meeting report produced on DATE , at the beginning of the meeting the applicant \u2019s daughter had sat only in her father \u2019s lap and had not approached the applicant . Afterwards , she had been examined by a psychologist . The applicant \u2019s son - in - law had stated that when the applicant had come to see his granddaughter according to the court \u2019s schedule he had told the child that her father would murder her just as he had done with her mother . At the same time the applicant had claimed that his son - in - law had been controlling his granddaughter and had turned her against him . The parties had been advised that mediation services could have been provided for them in order to help them resolve their conflict . The applicant \u2019s son - in - law had refused , however , to leave the child alone with her grandfather because he could not have trusted his behaviour towards her . The applicant had accused his son - in - law of murdering his daughter in front of the child . At the end of the meeting the child had refused interact with her grandparent .","On DATE the Agency produced the psychological evaluation report ordered by the second - instance court . It concluded that the applicant , his son - in - law and his granddaughter had needed psychological counselling in order to enable them to resolve their conflict and to rekindle their relationship .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal , quashed in part the judgment of the first - instance court and granted him visiting rights on DATE from TIME at his home . It held , amongst other things , that according to the available evidence the applicant and his granddaughter had enjoyed an affectionate relationship both prior and after the child \u2019s mother \u2019s death . The relationship between the applicant and his granddaughter had changed abruptly and the child had refused to see her grandfather any more , her refusal being fuelled by a feeling of fear towards her grandfather . The conclusions of the psychological evaluation report produced in respect of the child had recommended psychological counselling for both the applicant and the child \u2019s father in order to resolve the conflict between them and to allow them to have a balanced relationship with the child . Consequently , the conflict between the applicant and his son - in - law had influenced the applicant \u2019s relationship with his granddaughter , given that the child \u2019s attitude towards her grandfather had changed . In the absence of any evidence that the applicant would have endangered the child \u2019s physical or moral development , he had been entitled to have a personal relationship with his granddaughter . Given the excessively tense situation between the applicant and his son - in - law , the age and the interests of the child , the relationship between the applicant and his granddaughter could have been rekindled only if he had been allowed to take her to his home during the allowed visiting TIME .","The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment . He asked to be granted visiting rights in respect of his granddaughter either every DATE or alternatively every second DATE at his house on account of his busy work programme . He further argued that a denial of his request by the court would prevent him from rekindling the relationship with his granddaughter .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . It held , amongst other things , that it was in the best interest of the child to have contact with her grandfather given that the applicant had not endangered his granddaughter \u2019s physical and moral development and that prior and after the child \u2019s mother \u2019s death they had had an affectionate relationship with one another which had been affected by the death of the child \u2019s mother and the conflict between the applicant and his son - in - law . In spite of the child \u2019s fear towards the applicant , according to the social investigation report the best interest of the child had been to establish a functional relationship with the applicant , reason for which the parties psychological counselling had been recommended . However , the visiting schedule requested by the applicant would have been tiring for the child , given their family situation and the child \u2019s young age and would have also limited the applicant \u2019s son - in - law \u2019s time spent with his child . The visiting programme could have been changed once the factual circumstances had changed and if it had been in the best interest of the child . Consequently , it was more appropriate for the applicant to have contact with his granddaughter only CARDINAL DATE per month .","On DATE the applicant brought criminal proceedings against his son - in - law on the basis of LAW for repeatedly obstructing him to see his granddaughter . He argued that although on DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE he had contacted his son - in - law and had asked him to allow him to have contact with his granddaughter , his son - in - law had refused to allow him to see her .","On DATE ORG dismissed the criminal proceedings opened by the applicant against his son - in - law . It held that even though the applicant had been granted visiting rights in respect of his granddaughter by a final court judgment , every time he had asked her to go with him to his home she had obstinately refused . Moreover , the child had been heard in the presence of a representative of ORG and she had refused to go to the applicant \u2019s house because she had feared him after he had repeatedly visited her at school and had scared her with his repeated requests to follow him home . Furthermore , the psychological report produced by ORG showed that the child had feared the applicant and had recommended that the child underwent psychological counselling in order to rekindle her relationship with the applicant . Lastly , the applicant \u2019s son - in - law had only observed his child \u2019s wishes and there was no evidence that he had influenced the child . The applicant appealed against the prosecutor \u2019s office \u2019s decision before the domestic courts .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant . It held that the applicant was not a parent and therefore the elements required for the offence provided by LAW to exist had not been met . Moreover , the police officers had heard the child in the presence of the representative of ORG and she had refused to go to the applicant \u2019s home because she had feared him . The child had also stated that her father had never told her not to go to the applicant \u2019s home .","In his initial letters the applicant informed the ORG that in his hometown there had been CARDINAL bailiffs and all of them had refused to help him enforce the final judgment of DATE .","On DATE the applicant employed a bailiff located in GPE to enforce the final judgment of DATE .","On DATE the bailiff employed by the applicant motioned ORG to approve the enforcement of the final judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG approved the bailiff \u2019s request .","On DATE the bailiff informed the applicant \u2019s soninlaw that enforcement proceedings had been initiated against him following the applicant \u2019s request . She invited the applicant \u2019s son - in - law to her office on DATE in order for him to pay the required enforcement fees and to provide the required information concerning his assets . She also informed him that failure to comply or to provide the required information was punishable by fines .","On DATE the bailiff notified the applicant \u2019s son - in - law that he needed to comply with the domestic courts\u2019 judgment and that the first meeting between the applicant and his granddaughter would take place on DATE . She also notified him that she would proceed with the enforcement of the judgment as provided , among other things , by ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG if he refused to comply .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son - in - law agreed before the bailiff to obey the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the bailiff accompanied the applicant to his granddaughter \u2019s home in order to enforce the judgment . The report produced by the bailiff on the same date stated that the applicant \u2019s soninlaw had agreed to allow the applicant to see his granddaughter and had not obstructed the enforcement proceedings . The applicant \u2019s granddaughter had a strong emotional connection with her father and had been hostile towards the applicant . She had obstinately refused to accompany her grandfather anywhere without her father being present because she had feared her grandfather . Consequently , the applicant and his son - in - law had agreed , with the child \u2019s consent , to take the child in a public location and to spend the day together accompanied by the bailiff . The applicant had been able to give his granddaughter a gift and had interacted with her calmly and openly . The applicant \u2019s son in law had agreed to allow his daughter to visit her grandfather any time she wished and even on other days than the ones that had been mentioned by the court . The applicant \u2019s granddaughter had agreed to have future contact with her grandfather but only in her father \u2019s presence .","On DATE the bailiff notified the applicant \u2019s son - in - law for a second time that he needed to comply with the domestic courts\u2019 judgment and that the second meeting between the applicant and his granddaughter would take place on DATE . She also reiterated that she would proceed with the enforcement of the judgment as provided , among other things , by Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG if he refused to comply .","On DATE the bailiff accompanied the applicant to his granddaughter \u2019s home . The report produced by the bailiff on the same date stated that the parties had agreed for the meeting to take place in a public location after they had consulted the applicant \u2019s granddaughter \u2019s wishes . The applicant \u2019s son - in - law had reiterated his willingness to allow the applicant to visit his granddaughter , but had informed the bailiff that she had refused to see her grandfather in his absence or in a different location than the one she had chosen . At the same time , the applicant had expressed his dissatisfaction with his son - in - law \u2019s compliance with the final court judgment granting him contact rights , in so far as he had been influencing the child in choosing the locations of their meetings and therefore he had not allowed him to spend time with his granddaughter at his home . The applicant and his granddaughter had enjoyed the time together , while the applicant \u2019s son - in - law had kept a low profile . Also the parties had agreed to allow the child and her grandfather to choose together the locations of their future meetings . At DATE the applicant \u2019s granddaughter had refused her father \u2019s proposal to travel back to her home in the company of her grandfather .","On DATE the bailiff accompanied once more the applicant to his granddaughter \u2019s home . The report produced by the bailiff on the same date stated that the applicant and his granddaughter had agreed for the meeting to take place in a public location . The applicant and his son - in - law had a disagreement on whether the location of the meetings could have been chosen by the applicant on his own or only with the child \u2019s consent . The interaction between the applicant and his granddaughter had been short and the child had behaved apprehensively towards him because he had scolded her over the phone prior to their meeting . Subsequently , the applicant and his son - in - law had had a fight and the latter had taken his daughter and had left . Before leaving the applicant \u2019s son - in - law had stated that he had not complied with the judgment granting the applicant visiting rights because he had felt compelled , but as a result of the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE , once more , the bailiff notified the applicant \u2019s sonin - law that he needed to comply with the domestic courts\u2019 judgment and that a new meeting between the applicant and his granddaughter would take place on DATE . She also reiterated that she would proceed to enforce of the judgment as provided , among other things , by Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG if he refused to comply . Moreover , she drew the applicant \u2019s son - in - law \u2019s attention to the provisions of LAW and informed him about the applicant \u2019s right under the last paragraph of Article CARDINAL to motion the courts to apply penalties if the child refused to comply even during those enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the applicant asked the bailiff to cease the enforcement proceedings . In his written request he stated , among other things , that the judgment could not be enforced because his son - in - law had influenced his granddaughter . Moreover , his son - in - law had allegedly informed him that he would never allow his granddaughter to visit his home .","On DATE a bailiff located in the applicant \u2019s home town informed the Government that no enforcement file had been registered by his office concerning the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE a second bailiff located in the applicant \u2019s home town informed the Government that the applicant had not asked him to enforce the final judgment granting him visiting rights . However , the aforementioned bailiff stated that an unknown person had spoken to him in DATE about a case similar to that of the applicant , but that after the discussion the person had left without returning . He had advised that person that the refusal of the child to have contact with him had been a problem and that the adult had to make efforts in order to rekindle the relationship with the child . At the same time he had advised that person to notify the child protection services and a psychologist in order to avoid any trauma for the child .","On DATE the bailiff employed by the applicant informed the Government that the applicant and his son - in - law had fought every time they had met . The applicant had been dissatisfied with his son - in - law \u2019s presence at the meetings and had accused him that he had not allowed the child to go to his home . At the same time , the applicant \u2019s granddaughter had obstinately refused to meet with her grandfather in her father \u2019s absence . During each meeting the bailiff had repeatedly tried to convince the child to meet with her grandfather in her father \u2019s absence , but she had refused .","DATE . On DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s son - in - law that , following his request , the applicant had been warned not to visit his granddaughter \u2019s school , although he had spoken only to the teachers and had enquired about her schooling situation .","On DATE ORG informed the Government that they had not taken any steps in order to assist the applicant in the enforcement of his visiting rights because he had not asked them to assist him . Moreover , they acknowledged that the applicant \u2019s son - in - law had complained before them that the applicant had visited his granddaughter \u2019s school in breach of the visiting programme set out by the domestic courts . They also stated that the applicant \u2019s son - in - law had attached a number of documents to his complaint including copies of the operative part of the judgment setting out the applicant \u2019s visiting rights , a copy of the judgment dismissing the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint against his son - in - law and the reports prepared by the bailiff employed by the applicant on DATE and DATE .","Articles DATE and CARDINAL provided that a child had the right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with his parents , relatives and other persons with whom he had developed a close connection . He also had a right to know his relatives and to maintain personal relations with them as well as with other persons with whom he had developed family relations if it did not affect his best interest . The child \u2019s parents or any other legal representative could not prohibit the child \u2019s contact with his grandparents , except in circumstances where a court had decided otherwise .","Article CARDINAL provided that the child \u2019s personal relationships could be maintained by meeting the person entitled to have contact with him at the child \u2019s or the aforementioned person \u2019s home .","On DATE Law no . CARDINAL was amended . Following its amendment LAW also provided among other things that the parent living with the child had a duty to help maintain the child \u2019s relationship with the other parent . In order to rekindle and maintain a child \u2019s personal relationships , the social protection or the child protection agencies had to provide professional counselling to both the child and his parents upon their request . If the parent living with the child obstructed the child \u2019s personal relations with the other parent by ignoring the schedule set out by the court or agreed on by the parties , the other parent could request the social assistance services from the child \u2019s home to monitor the situation for DATE . During the monitoring process the representatives of the social assistance services could attend the moment the parent not leaving with the child would take him from his home or return him and could interview the parents , the child or any other person either leaving with the child or not in order to produce a monitoring report . The monitoring report could recommend the extension of the monitoring period by a maximum of DATE , the psychological counselling of CARDINAL or both parents and a series of measures aimed at improving the child \u2019s relation with the parent with whom he was not living . The monitoring report could also be used as evidence before the court .","Following the amendment of PERSON no . CARDINAL on DATE was introduced . It provided that at the request of an interested person the domestic courts could order several measures , such as fines and security deposits , in order to secure the child \u2019s contact rights with other persons .","The relevant provisions concerning interlocutory measures , namely LAW , are set out in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","Article CARDINAL provided that an appeal on points of law suspended the enforcement of a judgment only in cases concerning the moving of land borders , destruction of constructions , crops or of any other fixed work as well as in cases expressly provided by law .","Article CARDINAL provided that the provisions of ORG applied only to trials and enforcement proceedings started after it had entered into force .","Article CARDINAL provided among other things that any interested party could contest the enforcement or the enforcement acts . The enforcement could also be contested if the bailiff refused to carry out an enforcement or to carry out an enforcement act according to law .","Articles CARDINAL provided among other things that if the debtor ignored the bailiff \u2019s notification to observe the creditor \u2019s contact rights , the bailiff could , at the creditor \u2019s request , ask the court to apply penalties on the debtor .","Article CARDINAL provided among other things that if the debtor failed to comply with his duties within DATE from the notification of the court order for penalties , the bailiff had to proceed with the enforcement . The enforcement had to be carried out in the presence of a representative of a child protection agency , and when the latter considered it necessary , in the presence of a psychologist assigned by him . If requested by the bailiff , public agents had to assist with the enforcement . Bullying or pressuring the child in order to successfully enforce a judgment was prohibited .","Article CARDINAL provided among other things that if the debtor was acting in bad faith and hid the child , the bailiff had to record the incident and inform the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to the court charged with the enforcement proceedings in order to open criminal proceedings against the debtor for failure to comply with a court judgment .","Article CARDINAL provided among other things that if the bailiff noted that the child himself categorically refused to leave the debtor or was hostile towards the creditor , he had to produce a report describing the situation . He also had to communicate the aforementioned report to the parties and to the representative of the child protection agency . The representative of the child protection agency had to motion the competent court from the child \u2019s home , for the court to set out , depending on the child \u2019s age , a schedule for psychological counselling sessions for a period no longer than DATE . The court had to examine the request urgently in a council chamber , by a final interlocutory judgment after summoning the parties and the person living with the child . The court - appointed psychologist had to produce a report at the end of the counselling sessions which had to be communicated to the court , the bailiff and to the child protection service . The bailiff had to resume the enforcement proceedings as provided by Article CARDINAL after receiving the psychologist \u2019s report . If the minor continued to refuse to comply , even during those enforcement proceedings , the creditor could ask the competent court from the child \u2019s home to order penalties .","Article CARDINAL provided among other things that the refusal of a parent to return a child without the consent of the other parent or the person enjoying custody rights in respect of the child was punishable by a prison sentence or by a fine . The same punishment could be applied in respect of the person who enjoyed custody rights if he or she had repeatedly prevented the child \u2019s parents from maintaining contact with their child as agreed by the parties or set out by a court ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163944","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"WY\u017bGA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr J. Krupa , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On an unknown date the applicant was charged with several offences and in particular uttering threats ( committed mostly in DATE ) .","On DATE ORG asked ORG to remand the applicant in custody . The prosecutor indicated that the applicant had failed to report for a court - ordered psychiatric observation . The applicant was arrested and placed in the hospital on DATE . However , he escaped DATE .","The applicant was remanded in custody on DATE and placed in the psychiatric ward of ORG . DATE and DATE he was under psychiatric observation . On DATE CARDINAL expert psychiatrists gave an opinion and determined that the applicant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia . They observed that the applicant should be placed in a psychiatric hospital as there was a very high probability that he would commit another , similar offence .","On DATE the ORG gave a decision and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant . The court , referring to the experts\u2019 opinion , established that the applicant could not be held criminally responsible as he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia . It ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital . On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","The applicant \u2019s remand in custody was subsequently extended . On CARDINAL DATE a doctor confirmed that the applicant could be treated in the hospital wing of the detention facility until he could be transferred to a psychiatric hospital .","On DATE ORG Preventive Measures ( \u201c the Commission \u201d ) ruled that the applicant should be placed in ORG . On DATE the ORG asked the Commission to indicate FAC ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) as the hospital where the applicant should be placed , since sending him to ORG would make it difficult for him to maintain contact with his family . On DATE , the Commission recommended FAC .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from the detention centre to FAC .","On DATE ORG , citing an expert opinion of DATE , confirmed that the applicant \u2019s condition had not changed and that it was necessary to keep him in the hospital . The applicant appealed . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the district court \u2019s decision .","Meanwhile , another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant ( charges of computer hacking committed in DATE ) was discontinued by ORG on DATE . The court held that the applicant could not be held criminally responsible . It further considered , citing a psychiatric opinion of CARDINAL DATE given by expert psychiatrists PERSON and PERSON that the applicant needed constant pharmacological treatment but he could be treated outside a psychiatric hospital .","At a session held on DATE ORG confirmed that the applicant \u2019s condition had not changed . Its decision given on DATE was identical to that of DATE . The court examined an expert opinion of DATE , signed by CARDINAL psychiatrists ( including PERSON ) and CARDINAL psychologists , who confirmed that the applicant should continue to be treated in a psychiatric hospital . The court also refused a request by the applicant \u2019s lawyer for experts to be appointed from outside the PERSON region . It further noted that the CARDINAL expert opinions ( of DATE ) could not be compared , as different circumstances had been examined in these CARDINAL sets of proceedings .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against this decision , claiming that PERSON \u2019s opinions were contradictory and that it had not been reliably shown that the applicant \u2019s continued detention was necessary . On DATE ORG upheld the district court \u2019s decision , concurring that the applicant \u2019s confinement should be extended .","On DATE and DATE ORG again extended the applicant \u2019s detention in a psychiatric hospital . These decisions were identical to the CARDINAL previous decisions . However , the court referred to fresh experts\u2019 opinions , of DATE and DATE respectively . These decisions were upheld on DATE and DATE by ORG .","On DATE the ORG confirmed that the applicant \u2019s detention in a psychiatric hospital should be continued , basing this decision on an opinion of DATE . The court referred to the applicant \u2019s attempted escape of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE expert psychiatrists confirmed that the applicant should continue to be treated in hospital , as he was still completely uncritical as regards the acts he had committed and his illness .","On DATE the ORG confirmed that the applicant \u2019s detention in a psychiatric hospital should be continued . The court cited a fresh expert report and the applicant \u2019s attempted escape of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the district court \u2019s decision .","On DATE ORG , on the basis of an experts\u2019 opinion of DATE , held that the applicant \u2019s detention in a psychiatric hospital should be continued . An appeal against this by the applicant was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","In their opinions of CARDINAL May and DATE experts found that the reasons for applying the preventive measure remained . However , owing to the applicant \u2019s inappropriate behaviour ( harassment of other patients and uttering threats towards patients and the hospital staff ) they recommended that he be transferred to a different hospital . Nevertheless , on DATE ORG decided to keep the applicant in FAC . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE , upon a recommendation by ORG , ORG decided to place the applicant in LOC ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) . The applicant was transferred there on DATE .","On DATE CARDINAL expert psychiatrists and a psychologist from the ORG region confirmed that the applicant did not see a need to continue treatment , he was uncritical about his illness , and there was a risk that he might commit yet another offence . Therefore , he should continue treatment in a secured psychiatric facility . Referring to this opinion , ORG decided to extend the applicant \u2019s confinement on DATE . The decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE CARDINAL expert psychiatrists and a psychologist held that the applicant \u2019s condition had deteriorated and there was still a risk that he might commit yet another offence . For these reasons it was necessary to continue his treatment in a secure psychiatric facility . Subsequently , on DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE ORG decided to transfer the applicant to ORG \u2013 a high - security psychiatric facility . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against that decision . The court stressed , referring to a recent expert opinion that the applicant \u2019s condition had deteriorated since DATE . He was aggressive and threatened other patients and medical staff .","The applicant was transferred to ORG on DATE .","On DATE expert psychiatrists from the NORP region observed some improvement in the applicant \u2019s mental state . He was no longer threatening other patients and had not attempted to escape . However , the improvement was not permanent , and there was still a high risk that the applicant would commit another similar offence .","On DATE ORG again extended the applicant \u2019s detention . In view of the experts\u2019 opinion it also ordered that the applicant be transferred to a less secure psychiatric facility - ORG .","According to the information available to ORG on the date of adoption of the present decision the applicant is still detained in a psychiatric hospital .","Conditions for the detention of persons of unsound mind who are not criminally responsible on medical grounds are laid down in LAW of DATE :","Article CARDINAL","\u201c The court may impose a preventive measure as provided for in this chapter , which involves committal to a secure medical institution only if necessary in order to prevent the repeated commission of a prohibited act by an offender suffering from mental illness ... mental impairment or addiction to alcohol or other narcotic drugs . Before imposing such a measure , the court shall hear evidence from psychiatrists and a psychologist ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL","\u201c CARDINAL . If an offender has committed a prohibited act in a state of insanity as specified in LAW , causing significant harm to the community , and there is a high probability that he will commit such an act again , the court shall commit him to a suitable psychiatric institution .","NORP The duration of the stay in the institution shall not be fixed in advance ; the court shall release the offender from the institution if his stay there is no longer deemed necessary .","The court may reorder the committal of an offender ( as specified in paragraph CARDINAL ) to a suitable psychiatric institution if it is advisable in the light of the circumstances specified in paragraph CARDINAL or Article CARDINAL ; such an order may not be issued DATE after release from the institution . \u201d","Pursuant to LAW , as applicable from DATE , an offender and his defence lawyer may take part in a court hearing only if this is expressly provided by law .","Article CARDINAL , as applicable at the material time , provided :","\u201c CARDINAL . The court shall , no less frequently than DATE , and in the event of receiving an opinion that further detention of the offender in a secure medical institution in which a preventive measure is being executed is unnecessary , immediately make a decision as regards the further execution of that measure . If necessary , the court shall refer to the opinion of other medical experts .","A decision on the further execution of a preventive measure may be appealed against . \u201d","On DATE Article CARDINAL was amended to the effect that it now provides explicitly for the obligatory participation of a prosecutor ( always ) and a defence lawyer ( if the offender is deaf , mute or blind , or a minor , if there are justified doubts as to whether he could be held criminally responsible or if the court finds that the defence may be particularly difficult ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-153053","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"NDABARISHYE RUGIRA v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , stated that he is a national of GPE ( ORG ) and that he was born on DATE in the ORG . At the time of the introduction of the application , he was staying in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr W.H.M. Ummels , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , and Deputy Agent , PERSON , both of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , the applicant applied for asylum in the GPE , submitting that he was a member of the Banyamulenge ( NORP ) community and that he hailed from GPE in the eastern part of the ORG where he had had problems with the ORG governmental armed forces . He further stated that he had travelled by car form the ORG to GPE on CARDINAL DATE , from where he had travelled by air , with a stopover at an unknown airport , to the GPE where he had arrived on DATE at GPE airport . He had never applied for or held a travel document or visa . The person who had accompanied him on his journey had shown documents on the applicant \u2019s behalf at control points . The only identity document he submitted was a ORG voter \u2019s pass issued on DATE by the PERSON electoral commission . The applicant stated that he had never held any other identity documents .","On DATE the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON , ORG ; \u201c the Minister \u201d ) rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum request . The Minister considered that the applicant \u2019s failure to substantiate in a sufficient manner his stated identity , nationality and travel itinerary as well as his failure to give a detailed , coherent and verifiable account of his journey to the GPE detracted from the credibility of his asylum account which , furthermore , lacked positive persuasiveness . Referring to the official report ( ambtsbericht ) on the ORG , drawn up by the GPE Minister of ORG in DATE , the Minister further found that the overall situation in the ORG was not such as to warrant accepting the applicant \u2019s asylum request .","On DATE , ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE sitting in GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It considered that , although the situation in GPE fell within the scope of Article CARDINAL(c ) of Council Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EC of DATE on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , a safe relocation alternative existed in GPE . Although possible , the applicant did not file a further appeal with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh asylum request , which was rejected by the Minister on DATE . Referring to the GPE official report on the ORG of DATE , the Minister held that the articles and reports relied on by the applicant did not lead to a different conclusion as to the lack of credibility of his asylum account and the possibility for him to settle elsewhere in the ORG .","On DATE , ORG of The GPE sitting in PERSON dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It held that , although the overall situation in the ORG had worsened since the decision of DATE on the applicant \u2019s first asylum request , it could not be said that there was systematic discrimination of GPE in the ORG and the applicant still had an alternative relocation possibility outside the GPE area . The applicant filed a further appeal against this decision as well as an accompanying request for a provisional measure , namely a stay of removal pending the proceedings on this further appeal .","On DATE , according to the applicant on the basis of the ORG voter \u2019s pass submitted by him in support of his asylum request , the ORG mission in GPE provided the GPE authorities with an \u201c attestation tenant lieu de passeport \u201d for the purposes of the applicant \u2019s removal to the ORG . This document was valid from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . On an unspecified date , the applicant was informed that his removal to GPE ( ORG ) had been scheduled for DATE .","On DATE , the President of ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request for a provisional measure . Consequently , the applicant \u2019s scheduled removal was cancelled .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s further appeal on summary reasoning . It found that the further appeal did not provide grounds for quashing the impugned ruling ( kan niet tot vernietiging PERSON aangevallen uitspraak leiden ) . Having regard to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) , no further reasoning was called for as the arguments submitted did not raise any questions requiring a determination in the interest of legal unity , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . No further appeal lay against this ruling .","On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to indicate to the ORG , by way of an interim measure pursuant to LAW , that he should not be removed to GPE ( ORG ) .","On DATE the President of the Section decided , under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of the ORG , to indicate to ORG that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG not to remove the applicant to the ORG for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG . The President further decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government in accordance with LAW ( b ) of ORG and to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits .","On DATE , the respondent Government informed the ORG that , according to information received from the NORP authorities , the applicant had entered the LOC area in DATE , using a tourist visa issued by the NORP authorities and a NORP passport . Pending verification of this new information , the ORG sought an extension of the time - limit fixed for submission of their written observations . This request was granted by the President .","On DATE , the respondent Government informed the ORG that , given the doubts that had arisen as regard the applicant \u2019s origins , a language analysis would be carried out .","On DATE , a report was drawn up on the language analysis test carried out by ORG ) , a specialised unit of ORG ( Immigratie- en ORG ; \u201c IND \u201d ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . The conclusion of this language analysis was that the applicant was unequivocally identified as not originating from the ORG ( \u201c eenduidig niet herleidbaar to GPE \u201d ) but it was considered likely that he originated from the linguistic community in GPE ( \u201c waarschijnlijk herleidbaar tot de spraakgemeenschap binnen GPE \u201d ) .","According to a report issued by ORG ) of ORG on DATE , the ORG voter \u2019s pass submitted by the applicant to the GPE authorities had possibly not been drawn up and issued by a competent authority ( QUANTITY bevoegd opgemaakt en afgegeven ) but the document itself was \u201c with virtual certainty \u201d ( met aan zekerheid grenzende waarschijnlijkheid ) authentic .","On DATE , the respondent Government submitted their observations to which the applicant replied on DATE .","On DATE , the respondent Government submitted a print - out of a website - page of ORG ( Federale PERSON ) containing the details \u2013 including a digital passport photograph and particulars of the petitioner \u2013 of an accepted application for a tourist visa filed with the NORP authorities on DATE by Mr PERSON , a NORP national born in the ORG on DATE . The respondent Government also submitted a copy of the applicant \u2019s asylum application filed in the GPE , including a passport photograph of the applicant taken in that context .","The applicant \u2019s response to these materials was submitted on DATE .","NORP The relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings and enforcement of removals are set out in PERSON v. the GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","At the material time , the respondent ORG \u2019s policy on asylum - seekers from particular countries was devised by ORG and his successor , the Deputy Minister for Security and Justice ( Staatssecretaris PERSON ) , on the basis of official country assessment reports published by the Minister of ORG on the countries of origin of asylum - seekers .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister for Security and ORG adopted a moratorium on decisions on asylum applications and expulsions ( besluit- en vertrekmoratorium ) for asylum - seekers of NORP origin hailing from the east of the ORG , including the provinces GPE and GPE .","The moratorium was lifted by the Deputy Minister on DATE . This policy decision , as published in ORG of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , was based on the contents of an official country assessment report on the ORG released by the Minister of ORG on DATE . It was found in this report that there was no systemic , structural and organised discrimination of NORP in the ORG , that there was no structural violence in the ORG against the NORP population or other NORP with a NORP background and that NORP groups could obtain protection from the ORG authorities . Although the general situation in the provinces of GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE in the eastern part of the ORG continued to be considered as falling within the scope of Article CARDINAL(c ) of the Qualification Directive , an internal protection alternative was found to be available in other parts of the ORG , including GPE , for asylum - seekers hailing from those provinces who did not qualify for refugee status within the meaning of the DATE LAW relating to ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164963","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SHAHANOV AND PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Pavlina Panova;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , is serving a life sentence in FAC .","Mr GPE , who was born in DATE , is serving a sentence of DATE imprisonment in FAC .","NORP In DATE , when serving his sentence in FAC , Mr PERSON was sharing a cell with CARDINAL other inmates . On DATE he made CARDINAL complaints to the Minister of Justice : CARDINAL written by him personally and CARDINAL written on his behalf by his wife . In the complaints he stated , inter alia , that another inmate in his ward , X , was bragging that CARDINAL prison officers , Y and Z , were relatives of his ; was threatening and intimidating the other inmates and fomenting intrigues and tension among them ; was often making unwarranted complaints to get special attention and treatment ; and was planning to escape from prison with the help of his relatives . Mr PERSON requested that steps be taken to move X to a prison where he did not have relatives .","An inquiry was opened pursuant to Mr PERSON \u2019s complaints , and written statements were taken from GPE , other inmates , Y , Z , and other prison officers .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the head of ORG for the Execution of Sentences informed the governor of ORG that the inquiry had not found familial relationships or improper contacts between X and any of the prison officers , or a risk for Mr GPE . The letter went on to say that the governor should advise all inmates that making defamatory statements about , or false allegations against , prison officers was a disciplinary offence under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Execution of Sentences and Pre - Trial Detention Act DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the governor of ORG ordered that Mr PERSON be placed in solitary confinement for DATE for making defamatory statements and false allegations against prison officers , contrary to the above - mentioned provision .","On DATE Mr PERSON sought judicial review of the order .","The GPE ORG heard Mr PERSON \u2019s claim on DATE and , in a final decision of the same date ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. o\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0447. PERSON \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , \u0420\u0421-\u041f\u043b\u043e\u0432\u0434\u0438\u0432 ) , upheld the order . It held that it was lawful and that , in view of the results of the inquiry carried out pursuant to Mr PERSON \u2019s complaints and the evidence gathered in the proceedings before it , the prison governor had been correct to find that Mr PERSON had made defamatory statements and false allegations against prison officers . The court went on to say that the punishment matched the seriousness of the offence .","Mr PERSON asserted that his correspondence was routinely opened and read by the prison authorities . In support of his assertion , he submitted CARDINAL letters sent in DATE , CARDINAL of which were addressed to his counsel , whose envelopes bore the stamp \u201c checked \u201d on their backs . For their part , the Government submitted a letter from the administration of FAC according to which Mr PERSON \u2019s correspondence was being controlled in the manner envisaged in the applicable regulations , which meant that the prison authorities only checked the physical content of the letters , not their text . All letters were sealed and opened by a prison officer in front of the prisoner . The stamp \u201c checked \u201d affixed on the back of an envelope only meant that the letter had been physically inspected for the presence of prohibited items .","On DATE Mr PERSON was visited by CARDINAL journalists . At the same time , a fellow inmate of NORP nationality also had a visitor . After the visits , Mr GPE learned that his visitors had been treated rudely , and that his fellow inmate \u2019s visitor had had personal items stolen from lockers in the prison where he had left them during the visit .","DATE , DATE , with the help of another inmate who knew NORP , Mr PERSON wrote the following complaint to the governor of PERSON :","\u201c On DATE , during the TIME visit , personal items of visitors were stolen from the NORP lockers , which are only accessible to the guards . The stolen items are a mobile telephone case , MPCARDINAL headphones , a mobile telephone battery , and a sum of money . Also , the guards behaved very rudely and coarsely with the visitors , yelling at them and insulting them for no reason . Could you please carry out an inquiry into the conduct of that shift , and take measures to ensure that the guards work in a disciplined way and with respect towards inmates and others . \u201d","Disciplinary proceedings were opened against Mr GPE in relation to that complaint . On DATE a hearing took place before the prison \u2019s disciplinary commission .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE , the governor of PERSON noted that an inquiry carried out pursuant to Mr PERSON \u2019s complaint had shown that the CARDINAL persons who had visited him had not left any items in the GPE lockers , and had not made any complaints about missing items on their way out of the prison . There was no evidence that they had been treated rudely by prison staff either . By making allegations to that effect , PERSON ORG had therefore acted contrary to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Execution of Sentences and ORG DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The nature and the gravity of the offence , Mr PERSON \u2019s attitude towards his act , and his overall conduct and state of health militated in favour of punishing him with CARDINAL months\u2019 deprivation of the right to receive food parcels from outside prison .","Mr PERSON appealed to the head of ORG for the Execution of Sentences and sought judicial review . He argued , inter alia , that his disciplinary punishment was in breach of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and this ORG \u2019s case - law , that deprivation of the right to receive food parcels was a serious sanction in view of the insufficient quantity of food provided by the prison , and that it was an attempt to cow him into not making complaints against the prison administration .","On DATE the head of ORG for the Execution of Sentences dismissed the appeal . Noting that the inquiry into PERSON ORG \u2019s allegations had not confirmed any of them , he found that , by deliberately making false allegations , the applicant had committed the disciplinary offence under section PERSON ) of LAW . The sanction fully corresponded to the nature and the gravity of his act , his attitude towards it , and his previous conduct .","In a final decision of DATE ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043d. \u0447. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , \u0421\u0420\u0421 ) , GPE held that it could not deal with Mr PERSON \u2019s claim for judicial review , as only orders imposing solitary confinement were amenable to such review . All other types of disciplinary punishments were only subject to appeal before the head of ORG for the Execution of Sentences ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166741","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ZDRAVKOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant and S.S. ( \u201c the respondent \u201d ) married in DATE . Their son PERSON was born in DATE . They lived in the respondent \u2019s GPE house in a neighbourhood of GPE .","In DATE the applicant moved to her GPE house in the same neighbourhood . GPE continued living with his father and his paternal grandparents .","On DATE the applicant filed a request for interim custody with the competent first - instance court .","On DATE the first - instance court rejected the applicant \u2019s request for interim custody , but granted her extensive access rights in respect of the child pending the final outcome of the custody proceedings . This interim access order was immediately enforceable .","It appears that the interim access order was respected , with some resistance on the part of the child , until DATE , when the child ran away from the applicant during a visit and went back to the respondent \u2019s house .","On DATE the enforcement judge ordered enforcement of the said access order . After several failed attempts by the applicant to spend time with the child in accordance with the order , the enforcement judge sent a bailiff on CARDINAL and DATE to make an unannounced visit to monitor the applicant \u2019s attempt to make contact with the child . During the visit , the bailiff informed the enforcement judge that the respondent had brought the child to the front gate of the house , but the child had refused to leave with the applicant , even after the respondent tried to persuade him , and had gone back inside . After receiving the report , the enforcement judge scheduled an enforcement hearing for DATE .","On DATE the enforcement judge ordered a child support team from ORG school to implement a system of psychological preparation to assist the child \u2019s acceptance of contact with his mother .","On DATE the enforcement judge asked ORG to contemplate initiating corrective monitoring of the respondent \u2019s exercise of parental rights in the light of the respondent \u2019s substantial influence on the child \u2019s hostility toward his mother .","On DATE ORG placed the respondent under formal corrective supervision ( korektivni nadzor nad vr\u0161enjem roditeljskog prava ) . On DATE ORG , with the approval of the enforcement judge , applied the same measure to the applicant so as to enhance the GPE collaboration with a view to satisfying the child \u2019s emotional needs .","In the meantime , on DATE , the enforcement judge heard a psychologist working with the child . The psychologist advised the judge that interviewing the child within the proceedings would not be in his best interest .","Due to the respondent \u2019s failure to prepare the child appropriately for the contact with his mother , on CARDINAL DATE the enforcement judge ordered the respondent to pay a fine in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) and on DATE a fine in the amount of CARDINAL ORG , both within DATE . On DATE the competent second - instance court rejected the respondent \u2019s appeals against the fines . On DATE and DATE , after the failure of the applicant to pay the fines , the enforcement judge ordered their mandatory enforcement .","On DATE the ORG asked the enforcement judge to postpone enforcement of the access order for DATE in view of the pending parental therapy . The ORG further asked for , and the judge approved , a further DATE of therapy , stating that an improvement in the child \u2019s attitude as well as in the GPE relationship had been achieved . The ORG also proposed to the applicant and the respondent to stay the ongoing court proceedings until the therapy had ended . They observed that the court proceedings , in which the parents acted as opponents , jeopardised the progress achieved to date . It would appear that the applicant and the respondent did not accept this recommendation .","The parental therapy , which at that time had already lasted for DATE , included CARDINAL sessions in which ORG professionals continuously and intensively worked with the applicant , the respondent , the child and the paternal grandparents to reach mutually acceptable arrangements and enforce the interim measures in line with the best interest of the child .","On DATE the custody judgment of CARDINAL DATE became final ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the decision on interim custody rights came to an end . The enforcement proceedings were later formally terminated by the enforcement judge on DATE . The enforcement judge , however , explicitly ordered continuation of the enforcement in respect of the fine of DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a new request for interim custody after ORG ( ORG zdravlje , hereafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) conducted an examination of the parental capacity of both parties at the request of the first - instance court . The ORG report recommended that custody be awarded to the applicant .","On DATE the first - instance court granted interim custody to the applicant and ordered the respondent immediately to surrender the child to her . It also quashed the part of the interim order of DATE containing its decision not to grant custody to the applicant . The rest of the interim access order remained in force .","On DATE the enforcement court ordered enforcement of the interim custody order . The respondent appealed on DATE , claiming that the child himself did not want to live with the applicant . The appeal was rejected on DATE .","The first attempt to reunite the applicant with the child took place on DATE . The enforcement judge , a bailiff , several representatives of ORG , CARDINAL uniformed policemen , CARDINAL plain clothes policemen , the applicant and her lawyer all entered the courtyard of the respondent \u2019s house , expecting that the child would be surrendered . The judge and the ORG \u2019s representatives explained to the child in front of the others that he should leave and go with his mother to her house , but the child rejected the planned reunion and went back inside . The respondent allegedly would not allow the enforcement to take place in the house . He maintained that he had informed the child that various officials would come , but had not prepared him for reunion . The applicant refused forceful removal of the child . The enforcement judge noted that the child was not yet prepared for a transfer of custody and postponed the enforcement until DATE at ORG LOC . The enforcement judge asked the parties and ORG representative to prepare the child adequately for the next reunion .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the enforcement judge adjourned the custody transfer scheduled for those dates as it was awaiting an opinion from ORG regarding the formal corrective supervision of the respondent , as requested in the interim access enforcement proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The enforcement judge re - scheduled the transfer of custody for CARDINAL DATE at ORG LOC . The attempt of transfer was conducted in the presence of the enforcement judge , the psychologist , the psychiatrist and the lawyer from ORG and police officers . The child again refused to be separated from his father . The police explained that they could not forcefully remove the respondent from the premises to enable the social experts and the judge to facilitate a conversation with the child in his absence , since the child was clinging on the father , crying and refusing to let him go . It appears that the applicant was also against the use of force ( according to a report to the enforcement judge by ORG of DATE , the applicant refused the possibility of the use of force throughout the proceedings ) . ORG recommended that psychotherapeutic support be provided for the child . The enforcement of the custody transfer was postponed . Shortly afterwards , the respondent was placed under the corrective supervision of ORG ( see para . CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the enforcement judge held a hearing which appears to have been the last one within these enforcement proceedings .","The applicant petitioned the enforcement judge to fine the respondent for obstructing her contact with the child , hoping that this would compel him to surrender the child .","On DATE the enforcement judge imposed on the respondent a fine in the amount of CARDINAL ORG for failing to appropriately psychologically prepare the child for the reunification . It would appear that the fine has been paid .","On DATE and DATE ORG informed the enforcement judge that its psychological therapies in respect of the family in question had produced no results ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . According to their reports , it became clear that the respondent had cooperated in form only and had in fact failed to take steps to encourage the child to have substantive contact with the applicant .","On DATE the custody judgment of CARDINAL DATE became final and the decision on interim custody rights came to an end . From that moment , efforts to enforce the final custody judgment commenced ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the enforcement judge formally terminated the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim requesting the dissolution of her marriage with ORG , sole custody of GPE and maintenance .","On DATE the first - instance court dissolved the applicant \u2019s marriage , granted her sole custody of ORG and specified the respondent \u2019s access rights .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the second - instance court and ORG , respectively , upheld this judgment .","On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional appeal with ORG ( ORG ) . She relied on various ORG of the LAW , Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL LAW on the Rights of the LAW . She sought redress for the protracted length of the custody and subsequent criminal proceedings and the non - enforcement of the judicial interim access and custody decisions in her favour which , she claimed , violated her rights to a fair trial and to family life . She also complained that she had not had any legal avenue available to expedite those proceedings .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal .","As regards the protracted length of the custody proceedings , ORG considered that the first - instance court had acted diligently , without any substantial periods of inactivity . It found the case to have been particularly complex , as the expert findings regarding the best interests of the child had conflicted with the latter \u2019s own wish as to who to live with .","It also found that the non - enforcement of the interim access and custody orders during the same period had been attributable to the particular complexity of the case , as the child had objected to being reunited with the applicant . It found that the enforcement court had undertaken , without any delay , all necessary measures , including fining the respondent , for the purpose of enforcing effectively the applicant \u2019s rights .","The judgment of CARDINAL DATE became enforceable on DATE and the enforcement order was issued on DATE .","The first forcible transfer of custody was scheduled for DATE , but the child refused any kind of contact with the applicant . The court noted that the respondent had failed to prepare the child for reunion . The applicant explicitly refused to countenance the use of force against the respondent and the child as the means of enforcement . The enforcement was therefore adjourned .","NORP On DATE , upon the initiative of ORG , the applicant and the respondent signed an Agreement on Access Rights designed to assist the re - establishing of contact between the applicant and PERSON in order to facilitate the enforcement of the custody judgment .","Despite this agreement , on DATE the enforcement court imposed a fine on the respondent in the amount of ORG CARDINAL because of his failure to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It also ruled that the respondent was to be given DATE from the date of receipt of that order to surrender the child voluntarily to the applicant and with the added condition that , should he fail to do so , he would have to pay a further fine of FAC . The respondent did not comply with the order and it seems that the fine in the amount of CARDINAL ORG was subsequently imposed and paid .","The court scheduled a new forcible transfer of custody for DATE . In preparation for the enforcement , ORG psychologist drew up a detailed plan of action . The psychologist \u2019s assessment , after working with the child , was that such a transfer would be impossible or highly traumatic for the child and the enforcement was postponed once again .","On DATE the respondent filed a claim for revision of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , seeking sole custody of MONEY He also requested an interim custody order to the same effect .","On DATE the ORG provided the first - instance court with an expert opinion . ORG acknowledged that there had been no mechanisms available to facilitate a forcible physical transfer of child custody to the applicant in view of the respondent \u2019s refusal . According to the report , the only feasible proposal would be for the child to continue living with his father . Even though , taking into account the chronology of events , parental capacity , justice and equity , the opposite proposal would be more appropriate , it could propose only this arrangement \u201c not as an expression of their wish , but as the sole solution which is possible to impose and enforce in practice \u201d . A change of residence would in any event have a negative impact on the child \u2019s development .","On DATE the first - instance court granted sole custody to the respondent , ordered the applicant to pay child maintenance and specified the applicant \u2019s access rights as TIME every weekend , as well as specified periods of school holidays .","On DATE and DATE the applicant filed criminal complaints against the respondent for parental child abduction and continuous non - compliance with the interim access and custody orders . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the competent prosecutor \u2019s office charged the applicant with those crimes . None of the scheduled hearings was held . In DATE the first - instance court stayed the criminal proceedings as the prosecutor \u2019s office had dropped the charges . The applicant subsequently took over the prosecution as subsidiary prosecutor . On DATE the first - instance court , in a reasoned judgment , acquitted the respondent . It found , on the basis of numerous testimonies , CARDINAL expert opinions , CARDINAL expert reports from the civil proceedings case - file and other documentary evidence that the respondent always made the child available for enforcement , that he never physically or verbally , actively or passively obstructed enforcement at any point , and that there were no indications that the child ever showed signs that he was under pressure or undue influence not to have contact with his mother . On DATE the second - instance court upheld this judgment .","It would appear that the applicant and her son have re - established contact with each other since the signing of ORG and the revision of the custody judgment of DATE . It would appear that they have been meeting DATE for TIME without supervision . The child still lives with the respondent ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172545","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DUDNIKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168321","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF POTEKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178861","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KONDRAKHIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In applications nos . CARDINAL , FAC and DATE , the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P4-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148629","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HROMADKA AND HROMADKOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE . She currently lives in GPE with GPE , her mother .","On DATE the first applicant married a NORP national , GPE The couple decided to settle in GPE .","On DATE their daughter , the second applicant , was born .","NORP In DATE the first applicant and GPE decided to separate .","On DATE ORG filed for divorce in GPE . Both PERSON and the first applicant sought custody of the child .","NORP In DATE O.H. , unbeknownst to the first applicant , obtained a onemonth NORP visa for the second applicant , and on DATE , together with the latter , left for GPE ( GPE ) . Upon the expiry of the visa on DATE O.H. did not bring the second applicant back to GPE . Instead , on DATE she obtained a temporary residence permit for the second applicant from ORG , and on DATE , NORP citizenship for the latter . On an unspecified date PERSON and the second applicant left for GPE .","On DATE PERSON applied to ORG ( PERSON \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 NORP \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u044b \u0431\u0435\u0437\u043e\u043f\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 PERSON \u043f\u043e \u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0443 PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 ) in order to restrict the second applicant \u2019s travel outside GPE .","As of DATE the second applicant \u2019s travel abroad was restricted .","NORP Since CARDINAL DATE the first applicant has had no contact with the second applicant , because ORG prevented him from either seeing the second applicant or communicating with her by telephone . The NORP authorities have been unable to establish ORG and the second applicant \u2019s whereabouts since then .","The interim decision of GPE CARDINAL ORG of DATE as amended by the interim decision of ORG of DATE granted the first applicant temporary custody of the second applicant pending the outcome of the divorce proceedings . ORG thereby obliged O.H. to hand the child over to the first applicant , not to leave GPE and not to remain outside the territory of GPE with the minor . The interim decision entered into force on DATE .","On DATE GPE ORG issued a final custody judgment by which custody of the second applicant was granted to the first applicant . PERSON was obliged to pay the first applicant CARDINAL NORP korunas \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) DATE in alimony . The court held as follows :","\u201c The father loves [ his daughter ] very much ; in the opinion of the experts he is better developed emotionally in comparison to the mother , is more capable of self - control and handling [ stress ] so as to not spoil the relationship between the mother and [ the child ] or otherwise turn [ the child ] against her mother . It was established that the interests of [ the child ] require that she be placed in her father \u2019s care [ as he ] was established to be a more suitable caregiver ; at the same time it was established that as a result of [ the child \u2019s ] separation from her father the former \u2019s psychological well - being [ has been affected ] . It was established that for DATE the father , unlike the mother , has been cooperating with [ the custody and guardianship authority ] , and the [ guardian ] had therefore had a real possibility to examine the father \u2019s living conditions and his situation ; ... it was established that he can provide [ the child ] with normal accommodation ... The father is financially stable , which enables him to provide [ the child ] with the material [ items ] and non - material values necessary for her health , mental , cultural and physical development . [ The child ] will soon go to primary school and the father , in view of his education and indisputable interest in [ the child ] , is capable of providing her , along with the possibility of school education , with everything she needs . ... Despite the fact that the father was and is still being prevented from communicating with [ the child ] , he [ supports the child financially by giving money directly to the mother and making deposits into the child \u2019s bank account ] , and in addition to alimony the father gives [ the child ] presents whenever he has the possibility to meet her .","The mother , on the contrary , was characterised as unstable , authoritative , unfriendly to the father and inclined to impulsive aggression and rash behavior . While carrying out her parental duties she harms [ the child ] , she has abused her parental authority since DATE at least ... Therefore , she acts both unlawfully and contrary to the interests of [ the child ] and the court \u2019s decision . While exercising her parental authority the mother consciously and purposefully acts in total disregard of the recommendations of the experts and her lawful duties ; she completely prevented communication between the father and [ the child ] , at first without any reason . Subsequently , under an invented pretext , in DATE she took [ the child ] , without the permission of the father , the court or [ the custody and guardianship authority ] abroad to GPE , where she has kept [ the child ] until now . At the same time the mother has not complied with the decision of the court pursuant to which she should have handed [ the child ] over to the father , to render to the father [ the child \u2019s ] travelling passport and not to remain [ with the child ] outside the territory of GPE . [ It was established that the decision in question ] was served on [ the mother ] first of all through her representative in GPE , and thereafter to her personally in the course of the proceedings at the courts in GPE and GPE . Furthermore , the mother refuses to send an invitation for visiting GPE to the father , [ who ] has to go through demanding procedures to obtain NORP entry visas , and when the father succeeds in obtaining a visa and goes to GPE the mother often hides [ the child ] and refuses to communicate with the father[. ] [ S]he does not even allow the father to talk to [ the child ] on the telephone , and even if she lets them talk she purposefully manipulates the father \u2019s and [ the child \u2019s ] mindset according to the situation . Therefore , the court believes that the mother has , in disregard of the law of GPE , willfully interfered with [ the child \u2019s family life ] , her right to know her father and her right to be in her father \u2019s custody . She has interfered with [ the child \u2019s ] right to freedom of movement and to choose her place of residence , and her right to free entry to her homeland , GPE . Thereby the mother has breached the rights guaranteed by the ORG in the framework of Conventions on Human Rights , including the Convention on the Rights of the ORG . The mother , unbeknownst to the father , the court or [ the custody and guardianship authority ] and without their consent in contravention of the legal order of GPE , applied to NORP administrative authorities to grant [ the child ] , a national of GPE , NORP citizenship , on the basis of which in a record - breaking short term of DATE the latter was granted NORP citizenship .","...","Regarding the father \u2019s claim for termination of the mother \u2019s parental rights , the court has decided to dismiss it [ since termination of parental rights is the most serious interference in relations between parents and children , when the violation of GPE duties is so serious that the termination of parental rights is the only possible solution to protect the interests of the child ] . The court has arrived at the conclusion that termination of the mother \u2019s parental rights would be in contradiction with the father \u2019s own statement in his final speech that [ the child ] should have both parents .","... \u201d","The case was examined in the absence of ORG established that on DATE consul T. of ORG informed GPE by telephone about the venue and the time of the hearing , that is , DATE at TIME in GPE CARDINAL ORG , but ORG did not say anything in reply and hung up . Nobody answered the phone when the consul tried to reach PERSON again . The telephone was subsequently switched off . ORG of the Czech Ministry of Justice did not receive confirmation from the NORP authorities on whether the request of DATE for the delivery of a court summons to ORG had been complied with . ORG therefore considered that GPE had been duly notified and that she had failed to appear in court without valid reason . It therefore proceeded in her absence .","On DATE that judgment became final .","The judgment remains unenforced to DATE .","The first applicant challenged the decision of ORG of DATE granting the second applicant a temporary residence permit ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s claims . The court held that the temporary residence permit had been granted to the second applicant in accordance with the procedure established by law , and that the relevant procedure did not require the applicant \u2019s consent .","On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal .","The first applicant challenged the decision of ORG of DATE granting the second applicant LANGUAGE citizenship ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s claim . The court held that the granting of NORP citizenship to the second applicant had been carried out in compliance with the procedure provided for by the NORP law and did not require the consent of the first applicant as GPE , the second applicant \u2019s mother , had NORP citizenship and the second applicant , having received a NORP temporary residence permit , was considered to be residing in GPE at the moment when the relevant decision had been taken by the competent authorities . The court held that LAW allowed for dual citizenship , and that the LAW between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of DATE on prevention of dual citizenship , relied on by the first applicant , was no longer in force after DATE . The court further held that there was no evidence of criminally punishable acts in the actions of ORG .","The hearing of the case on DATE took place in the absence of the first applicant . His request for adjournment of the hearing ( due to his involvement in other court proceedings in GPE ) was dismissed . The first applicant was , however , represented by a lawyer .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","On DATE the first applicant applied to GPE seeking formal recognition of the interim measure of ORG of DATE granting him temporary custody of the second applicant pending the divorce proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","By a final decision of DATE , however , ORG of GPE rejected the request . It held that LAW DATE between the NORP GPE and the Union of NORP Republics on legal assistance did not apply to interim measures .","As he had been prevented by ORG from seeing the second applicant , on DATE the first applicant brought proceedings before the NORP court seeking to have the terms of his contact with the second applicant in GPE fixed .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE GPE discontinued the above proceedings . It found that according to LAW DATE between the NORP GPE and the Union of NORP Republics on legal assistance , litigation in the domestic courts of CARDINAL High Contracting Party to the agreement had to be discontinued if the same litigation between the same litigants was pending before the domestic courts of the other High Contracting Party .","On DATE the first applicant brought proceedings against GPE seeking to cancel the restriction on the second applicant \u2019s travel outside GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","By a final decision of DATE GPE dismissed his claim . The court held that the essence of the first applicant \u2019s complaint had been the fixing of the terms of his contact with the second applicant , which had been for the NORP courts to determine . The court held , therefore , that until the final judgment of the NORP courts the first applicant and GPE were to decide on the issues in question by mutual agreement . The court further pointed out that the first applicant had the right to communicate with the second applicant on the territory of GPE and that PERSON had no right to prevent that .","On DATE the first applicant applied to GPE for recognition and enforcement of the judgment of GPE CARDINAL ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE GPE , relying on LAW between the Czechoslovak GPE and the Union of NORP Republics on legal assistance and Articles CARDINAL of LAW , refused the first applicant \u2019s request , because ORG had not been duly notified of the hearing of DATE and had been deprived of the opportunity to take part in it . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c As it follows from the material of the case file [ O.H. ] did not participate in the proceedings before GPE CARDINAL ORG resulting in a judgment the compulsory enforcement of which is sought by [ the first applicant ] .","This circumstance is supported by the text of the judgment itself . As it follows from this document [ O.H. ] failed to appear [ in court ] for the hearing of the case [ on DATE ] , although she had been informed orally about [ the time and the place ] of the hearing . The [ GPE CARDINAL ORG ] found it established that [ O.H. ] had been informed about the hearing orally by a consul .","At the same time it follows from [ the applicant \u2019s ] application and the text of the above - mentioned judgment that in DATE [ O.H. ] had left the territory of GPE with the child [ and ] resides on the territory of GPE .","Taking into consideration [ the fact ] that at the time of delivery of the judgment ORG has been residing on the territory of GPE , her notification should have been carried out in accordance with LAW , which provides that service of documents [ must be ] certified by a confirmation signed by the person on whom the document is served and officially sealed and signed by the competent authority responsible for the service with indication of the date of service , or by a confirmation issued by that competent authority with indication of the means , the place and the time of service .","No such [ confirmation ] was provided by [ the first applicant ] . It follows from the contents of the above - mentioned judgment that a request for delivery of documents to [ O.H. ] was addressed to ORG of GPE and remained without reply .","At the same time , according to LAW a request for compulsory enforcement of a foreign court judgment must be accompanied by a document showing that the party against whom the judgment was taken , and who did not participate in the proceedings , had been duly notified of the time and the place of the hearing . The same rule is contained in LAW .","It follows from the contents of the above - mentioned legal provisions that notification of [ O.H. ] of the time and the place of the hearing should have been certified by [ a ] written confirmation , signed by [ O.H. ] , [ and ] sealed by [ the competent authority ] which handed over the notification .","No such documents were , however , provided by the [ first applicant ] .","...","As noted above , the judgment of GPE CARDINAL ORG indicates that [ O.H. ] was notified orally by a consul .","...","The [ first applicant \u2019s ] argument that [ ORG \u2019s ] notification by consul orally by telephone was in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW of GPE does not amount to proof of [ ORG \u2019s ] proper notification ...","The above - mentioned LAW does not provide for the possibility of notification by a consul . Under LAW are entitled to serve the documents through consular establishments to their citizens only . However , [ since ORG ] is not a citizen of GPE , but only had a permit for permanent residence on the territory of GPE , the [ court summons ] was not served on her ...","In view of the foregoing the court finds that [ O.H. ] was deprived of the possibility to take part in the proceedings as a result of a failure to duly notify her of the time and the place of the hearing ... \u201d","NORP The decision of CARDINAL DATE was taken in the absence of ORG summonses were repeatedly sent to ORG \u2019s place of residence in GPE and to the address in GPE , GPE , given to the court by the first applicant . However , the summonses returned unclaimed following the expiration of the storage time . Attempts were also made to notify ORG through a local police inspector , without success . The court therefore considered that it had taken sufficient and exhaustive measures to notify ORG and to ensure her presence at the hearing , that the latter had abused her right , and that it was possible to examine the first applicant \u2019s request in her absence .","On DATE GPE upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s \u201c cassation appeal \u201d lodged against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the decision on appeal of DATE was dismissed .","In DATE the first applicant applied to the guardianship and trusteeship body for GPE Porokhovye municipal circuit ( \u043e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d \u043e\u043f\u0435\u043a\u0438 \u0438 \u043f\u043e\u043f\u0435\u0447\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430 \u043c\u0435\u0441\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0430\u0434\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043c\u0443\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043f\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0437\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0433. ORG \u043c\u0443\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043f\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u043a\u0440\u0443\u0433 ORG ) to facilitate visits between him and the second applicant .","In DATE the first applicant renewed his application .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE representatives of the guardianship and trusteeship body accompanied the first applicant to visit the child .","In the meantime , on DATE the guardianship and trusteeship body examined ORG \u2019s living conditions in GPE . It was established that the flat was in a very good condition , that all the furniture and household appliances were new , and that the girl had a separate room , which was spacious , tidy and cosy .","DATE the first applicant did not apply to the guardianship and trusteeship body to organise visits between him and the second applicant .","In DATE the first applicant again applied to the guardianship and trusteeship body to organise his upcoming visit in DATE . He relied on the judgment of GPE CARDINAL ORG of DATE . However , his request was refused in the absence of a judgment by the NORP court obliging the guardianship and trusteeship body to organise visits between the first applicant and the second applicant .","On CARDINAL occasions the first applicant applied to ORG in GPE seeking for assistance in establishing contact with his daughter and visa support .","In response to the first applicant \u2019s requests the ORG tried to reconcile the first applicant and NORP In particular , during his visit to GPE DATE and DATE the first applicant stayed at GPE \u2019s apartment and was able to have contact with his daughter . However , the first applicant and PERSON later had a conflict . O.H. claimed that the first applicant had been cruel to the child and that she would interfere with contact between the first applicant and the child in the interests of the latter . The ORG explained to ORG the provisions of LAW concerning the right of the parent living apart from the child to have contact with the child . Nevertheless PERSON stated that she viewed the situation as a strictly private family matter . In her opinion the wide media coverage of the case initiated by the first applicant and the involvement of a number of official bodies went contrary to the principles of the inviolability of private and family life . She further submitted that the child did not want to communicate with the first applicant . Since DATE the Ombudsman for Children in GPE has lost all contact with ORG about the second applicant was put on the ORG \u2019s website ( www.spbdeti.org ) in the \u201c missing child \u201d section .","Concerning the issue of visa support to the first applicant , the ORG applied to the representation of ORG in GPE , which explained that the first applicant could apply to the health care and social welfare authorities for the invitation which was required in order to obtain a NORP visa .","In his letter of CARDINAL DATE the first applicant expressed his gratitude to ORG in GPE for her active participation in protecting the second applicant \u2019s rights .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a request with ORG in GPE asking for assistance in establishing his communication with his daughter .","DATE . On DATE the Ombudsman visited ORG , where ORG was supposedly living . However , the information about GPE and the second applicant \u2019s whereabouts in ORG was not confirmed . The first applicant was informed accordingly .","On DATE the first applicant applied to ORG in GPE asking for an inquiry into the activity of the commission for the affairs of minors in Nyuksenskiy municipal district to be carried out owing to what he saw as their negligent attitude in examining the issue of establishing his communication with his daughter .","On DATE the first applicant was informed that his request was outside the ORG \u2019s competence and that he could apply to the prosecutor \u2019s office or the court .","On DATE the first applicant again applied to ORG in GPE asking for assistance in establishing his daughter \u2019s whereabouts .","On DATE the first applicant was informed that the child was not studying in any school in Nyuksenskiy municipal district and was not living there .","On DATE and DATE ORG applied to ORG under the President of ORG for assistance in the protection of the right of the second applicant to communicate with both parents . Since at the time NORP lived in GPE with the child , the applications were transmitted to ORG in GPE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the Ombudsman for Children under the President had consultative meetings with the Ambassador PERSON and Plenipotentiary of GPE in GPE and actively corresponded with ORG on the issue . Regular contact was maintained with ORG and the guardianship and trusteeship body for GPE Porokhovye municipal circuit .","Meanwhile , on DATE and DATE the first applicant himself applied to ORG under the President of ORG . Regular contact was maintained with the first applicant by telephone and e - mail .","As a result of the work carried out by ORG under the President and the ombudsmen for children in GPE and GPE , on DATE a reply was given to the first applicant . He was informed about the legal means of protecting his right to communicate with his daughter which were applicable to his situation . In particular , he was told that he could bring a civil action before the NORP courts in order to determine his access rights ( \u0438\u0441\u043a \u043e\u0431 \u043e\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0438 \u043f\u043e\u0440\u044f\u0434\u043a\u0430 \u043e\u0431\u0449\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0441 \u0434\u043e\u0447\u0435\u0440\u044c\u044e ) . That recommendation was made with regard to the first applicant \u2019s repeated assurances that he was not seeking compulsory enforcement of the judgment of GPE CARDINAL ORG of DATE as he understood that after such a long \u2013 in comparison to the child \u2019s life \u2013 passage of time , the enforcement of that judgment could be harmful to his daughter and would not be in her best interests . At the same time the first applicant repeatedly stated his wish to establish and maintain regular contact with his daughter and to receive information about her life . However , the first applicant did not follow the above recommendation .","On DATE the first applicant reported GPE \u2019s refusal to allow him to communicate with his daughter , the second applicant , to ORG of GPE .","The local police inspector went to ORG \u2019s registered place of residence in GPE and found that she was not living there . The neighbours had no information about PERSON \u2019s whereabouts . A summons requesting PERSON to present herself at the local police station was returned unclaimed after the expiration of its storage time .","On DATE the first applicant asked the police to search for GPE in the absence of any information about her and the second applicant since CARDINAL DATE . The file was transferred to LOC investigations department ( \u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u043f\u043e PERSON \u0433\u043b\u0430\u0432\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044e PERSON \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442\u0430 \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 PERSON \u043f\u043e ORG ) .","The investigator of LOC investigations department succeeded in reaching ORG \u2019s mother , GPE , on her mobile telephone . The latter submitted that she was in regular contact with ORG , but refused to divulge PERSON \u2019s whereabouts .","On DATE the investigator received a fax message from O.H. in which the latter confirmed that she was living at her registered place of residence with the second applicant , and that she refused all contact with the first applicant .","On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings into the disappearance of GPE and the second applicant .","On DATE the juvenile inspector of the local police went to the flat at ORG \u2019s registered address in GPE , but nobody opened the door . PERSON \u2019s neighbour , PERSON . , said that ORG \u2019s flat had not been lived in since DATE .","On DATE the GPE District Deputy Prosecutor set aside the decision of DATE and returned the file to the investigator with instructions to carry out an additional check aimed at determining the whereabouts of GPE and the second applicant .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings into ORG and the second applicant \u2019s disappearance . Those decisions were subsequently set aside by the GPE District Deputy Prosecutor and additional checks were ordered .","The additional checks revealed that ORG had not been receiving her correspondence . They also established that the second applicant had not been attending kindergarten since DATE , and that the last appointments she had attended at the health care facility had been on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","DATE . According to information provided by the GPE commission for the affairs of minors ( \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0441\u0441\u0438\u044f \u043f\u043e \u0434\u0435\u043b\u0430\u043c \u043d\u0435\u0441\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0448\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u043b\u0435\u0442\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0438 \u0437\u0430\u0449\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0438\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 \u043f\u0440\u0438 \u0430\u0434\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u041a\u0440\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0433\u0432\u0430\u0440\u0434\u0435\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0430 ) , since DATE PERSON had been hiding the second applicant from her father , the first applicant ; she had not been opening the door and had been ignoring summonses to appear in court .","ORG examined the possibility of bringing administrative proceedings against ORG under LAW . However , the failure to establish ORG whereabouts made it impossible to serve summonses on her , to obtain her explanations and to serve her with the record of administrative offence .","NORP The prosecution authorities also conducted a check at ORG \u2019s presumed place of residence in GPE , GPE . It was established that GPE and the second applicant did not live there .","On DATE ORG questioned PERSON \u2019s mother , GPE The latter submitted that PERSON had lived and worked in GPE DATE , but that ORG \u2019s subsequent whereabouts were unknown to her . GPE further submitted that the first applicant was not supporting GPE financially , that he had arrived in GPE in DATE and sent MONEY ( RUB ) to ORG \u2019s place of residence in GPE , although he had known that ORG had been living and working in GPE at that time .","It was established that in DATE the second applicant had been enrolled for external studies in the first grade of LOC school no . CARDINAL in GPE under a distance learning programme . When ORG had signed a contract with the school she had given a GPE address .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the local police inspector again went to the above - mentioned address in GPE , in vain .","In DATE O.H. logged onto the school educational website , which suggested that the child started the second grade programme .","To the present day the whereabouts of ORG and the second applicant remain unknown .","DATE . On DATE ORG received from ORG of the NORP Republic court orders issued by GPE CARDINAL ORG for a check of ORG \u2019s living conditions and certain other procedural actions to be carried out .","On DATE and DATE respectively , in accordance with LAW between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on legal assistance , the court orders were submitted to ORG of ORG ( ORG \u044e\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 PERSON \u043f\u043e ORG \u0444\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u043e\u043a\u0440\u0443\u0433\u0443 ) .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE reminders were sent to ORG of ORG .","According to that department , the execution of the orders had been complicated by the failure of the court to provide ORG \u2019s correct address .","On DATE the NORP ORG submitted to ORG of GPE the documents on execution of the orders of GPE CARDINAL ORG .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG received from ORG of GPE another order issued by GPE CARDINAL ORG to take certain procedural steps in respect of ORG and a request for service of court documents on O.H.","On DATE and DATE respectively the court order and request for service of documents were submitted to ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the NORP ORG informed ORG of GPE that it was impossible to execute the orders of GPE CARDINAL ORG .","Following receipt of a note from ORG forwarded by ORG of GPE , on DATE , ORG submitted to ORG a court order issued by GPE CARDINAL ORG for service of court documents on O.H.","On DATE the NORP ORG submitted to ORG the documents attesting to the impossibility of executing that court order .","Following receipt of another note from ORG , on DATE the NORP ORG again submitted to ORG a court order issued by GPE CARDINAL ORG for service of court documents on O.H.","On DATE , DATE of acceptance by GPE accession to the DATE LAW on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction , the first applicant filed a request under LAW for securing the effective exercise of his \u201c access rights \u201d in respect of his daughter , the second applicant .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the NORP Central Authority \u201d ) informed ORG and Science ( \u201c the NORP Central Authority \u201d ) that the first applicant had discovered the whereabouts of GPE in GPE . However , he had not seen his daughter .","As ORG had not replied to the abovementioned letters , on DATE a reminder was sent to it .","On DATE , at the request of ORG , the Ambassador of GPE in GPE sent a letter to ORG .","On DATE ORG replied that it was not possible to establish ORG and the second applicant \u2019s place of residence .","In the meantime , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG contacted ORG Ombudsman about the same issue . ORG has not yet received a reply .","On DATE and DATE ORG sent further letters to ORG . No reply has been received . Another reminder was sent on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG sent a letter to the Secretary General of ORG asking for help in securing effective cooperation between the NORP and ORG ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177426","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ARIF ISLAMZADE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+P1-1-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement of domestic decisions ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154534","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF IGNATKINA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["On DATE the applicant brought a criminal complaint to ORG ( \u201c the FAC \u201d ) that on DATE Z. had beaten her on the street near his office and inside his office .","The District Police , having questioned PERSON , who had denied that he had beaten the applicant , refused to institute criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint on DATE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant renewed her criminal complaint .","On DATE the District Police ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant . The examination revealed that she suffered from head injury , concussion , haemorrhage in the right temporal area , post - traumatic right - side cocleite , haemorrhage on the left and right thighs and the right leg \u2019s shin . The medical experts concluded that these injuries could have been inflicted on her by Z. on DATE .","On DATE an investigator of the District Police instituted criminal investigation into the infliction of the bodily injuries on the applicant .","On DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE respectively , the investigator questioned : i ) ORG . , GPE . and ORG . who had been in PERSON \u2019s office on DATE ; ii ) GPE . who had been near the office on DATE . GPE stated that he had seen PERSON having beaten the applicant while PERSON . stated that she had seen the applicant having been punched by an unknown man on DATE .","On DATE the second medical examination of the applicant confirmed findings of the previous examination .","On DATE ORG informed LOC that the investigation into the applicant \u2019s beating was ineffective and urged the police to accelerate it .","NORP In DATE the District Police repeatedly questioned the applicant and persons whom it had already questioned earlier . During the same period of time it issued several decisions to suspend the investigation which were all quashed as being unfounded by the higher police department , prosecutors or by a court .","On DATE the medical examination of the applicant ordered by ORG revealed that she suffered from closed head injury , concussion , post - traumatic encephalopathy , hearing deterioration and circle vestibular disorder . According to the medical report , these health problems could have been caused by the beating on DATE .","On DATE ORG completed the pre - trial investigation and sent the case to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for trial . The pre - trial investigation included the examination of CARDINAL witnesses , CARDINAL confrontations between the persons involved in the case , CARDINAL examination of the crime scene and CARDINAL reconstructions of events .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim in the criminal proceedings seeking PERSON to pay her UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage and LAW ( EUR CARDINAL ) to compensate her for pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG found itself unable to rule on PERSON \u2019s guilt based on the material in the case - file and sent the case to ORG for additional investigation . The prosecutor referred the case to ORG instructing it to carry out specified investigative measures .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to order forensic medical examination of her health condition . On DATE her request was granted .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that police officer PERSON FAC had been disciplined for having committed a number of procedural violations while investigating her case .","On DATE the medical examination of the applicant confirmed the conclusions of the previous examinations .","On DATE the applicant requested another forensic medical examination but she was refused it .","On DATE the ORG authorities issued PERSON with a passport for travelling abroad .","On DATE the District Police completed the pre - trial investigation and sent the case to ORG for trial .","On DATE the applicant requested the police to carry out additional investigative measures , but this request was refused on the ground that the measures in question had already been performed earlier .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG received the criminal case . On CARDINAL DATE it decided that further investigation was needed and remitted the case to ORG .","On DATE Z. left the country to live on a permanent basis in GPE .","On DATE investigator A. from the District Police established that PERSON had absconded and placed him on a list of wanted persons . The proceedings were suspended until establishing PERSON \u2019s whereabouts .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that PERSON had been able to leave GPE because LOC had failed to inform migration authorities that PERSON was an accused in a criminal case . On DATE the ORG instituted criminal proceedings against ORG employees who had unlawfully issued PERSON with the passport for travelling abroad .","In DATE NORP authorities informed NORP authorities that PERSON had left the country to live in GPE and requested that his whereabouts be established .","On CARDINAL DATE the Dnipropetrovsk ORG informed LOC that the investigation into the applicant \u2019s beating was ineffective . ORG was ordered to carry out a number of additional investigative actions .","In DATE ORG questioned the applicant , GPE , ORG . , GPE . , ORG . and PERSON . and ordered forensic medical examination of the applicant which established that the injuries inflicted on DATE led to her deafness .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that PERSON \u2019s whereabouts had been known to the police since DATE , but due to negligence of LOC his extradition had not been sought .","On DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings against Z.","On DATE a prosecutor quashed the above decision as unfounded and sent the case back to the police .","On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings against PERSON until \u201c establishment of his whereabouts \u201d .","On DATE ORG quashed that decision noting that LOC had been aware of PERSON \u2019s place of residence , but for unknown reasons had not sought his extradition .","On an unspecified date the same office informed the applicant that a district court had ordered ORG \u2019s detention pending trial and that his extradition had not yet been sought because PERSON . and ORG , officers of LOC , had failed to prepare documents necessary for extradition .","On DATE ORG of GPE requested NORP authorities to extradite PERSON","On DATE forensic medical experts examined the applicant and established that due to the beating she lost PERCENT of her working capacity . From DATE she had been periodically not fit for work and from DATE onwards \u2013 permanently not fit for work .","On DATE PERSON was extradited to GPE . On DATE he gave undertaking not to abscond .","On DATE the pre - trial investigation into the applicant \u2019s beating on DATE was completed and the case was sent to ORG for trial .","On DATE the applicant modified her civil claim seeking to be paid UAH CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE the trial was postponed until DATE because of the applicant \u2019s request concerning recording of the hearings .","On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE the court adjourned the hearings due to the applicant \u2019s absence .","On DATE the applicant again modified her civil claim seeking to be paid ORG MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted PERSON of having inflicted serious bodily injuries on the applicant and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . It also ordered PERSON to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) respectively , in compensation for non - pecuniary and pecuniary damage .","On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the criminal case for additional investigation to ORG . The court noted , in particular , that LOC had failed to assess all the relevant facts of the case and that the length of the pre - trial investigation was excessive .","On DATE ORG noted that LOC had committed serious violations of procedural law while investigating the applicant \u2019s beating . The prosecutor ordered the head of LOC to conduct an internal investigation into this matter and punish those who were responsible .","On DATE the head of the District Police disciplinarily punished investigators Sh . and T. for the excessive length of the investigation and numerous procedural violations .","DATE . On DATE the pre - trial investigation was again completed .","On DATE ORG received the criminal case against PERSON for consideration on the merits .","On DATE it terminated the criminal proceedings against PERSON as time - barred . On DATE ORG upheld this judgment .","On DATE ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s judgments and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh consideration . It noted that the prosecution was not time - barred and the case had to be examined on its merits .","On DATE ORG received the criminal case .","On DATE it discovered that PERSON had absconded , placed him on the list of wanted persons and suspended the proceedings until establishing his whereabouts .","The proceedings have remained suspended ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162208","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KARDO\u0160 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was a co - owner of a block of flats on the island of GPE .","On DATE building inspectors of the Inspectorate of ORG ( ORG za\u0161tite okoli\u0161a , prostornog ure\u0111enja i graditeljstva , PERSON inspekcijske poslove ) carried out an on - site inspection of the block of flats in question .","On DATE CARDINAL of the building inspectors ordered that the block of flats be demolished within DATE from the date of service of the decision .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the demolition order , submitting that the time - limit for compliance was too short and that the block of flats was not within the protected coastal area .","On DATE the appeal section of ORG at the ORG ( Odsjek za postupak u drugom stupnju \u2013 \u201c the second - instance body \u201d ) dismissed the appeal , finding that the block of flats had been built without a building permit .","Meanwhile , on DATE the building inspector issued an administrative enforcement order ( zaklju\u010dak o dozvoli izvr\u0161enja ) , stating that the demolition order of DATE had become enforceable on DATE and that the co - owners had not complied with it within the given time - limit . He therefore ordered that the demolition be carried out by a third party after DATE , at the expense of the co - owners .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal against the administrative enforcement order , submitting that it was not sufficiently reasoned and that the construction of the block of flats could be retrospectively approved .","On DATE the second - instance body dismissed the appeal as ill - founded .","On DATE the co - owners had the block of flats demolished .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged an administrative complaint with ORG , repeating the arguments made in her appeal and seeking damages for the demolition . Since it was not clear whether the applicant was complaining about the second - instance decision concerning the demolition order or the administrative enforcement , on DATE ORG requested her to specify which she wished to contest .","On DATE the applicant replied that she was seeking annulment of the second - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning the demolition order .","On DATE ORG dismissed her complaint as ill - founded , but addressed it as if it had been about the second - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning the administrative enforcement .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint , alleging , inter alia , a violation of her right of access to court , on the ground that ORG had erroneously decided a matter which had not been the subject of her administrative complaint .","On DATE ORG declared the constitutional complaint inadmissible , on the grounds that the contested decision had not concerned the merits of the case and as such was not amenable to constitutional review . This decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166776","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF M.B. - MAK \u010cA\u010cAK DOO v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP As regards the first applicant","On DATE the ORG ordered a socially - owned company ORG DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of damages , plus the costs of the civil proceedings .","On DATE the GPE High Commercial Court amended the first instance judgment by ordering the debtor to also pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of lost profits and increasing the awarded costs of proceedings . This judgment became final on an unspecified date .","On DATE , upon the first applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgments and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE the debtor paid the first applicant a part of the sums specified in the said judgments .","On DATE ORG ordered the restructuring of the first applicant \u2019s debtor . As a result , the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were stayed .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG found a violation of the first applicant \u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions . It further awarded the first applicant QUANTITY ( ORG ) as just satisfaction for non - pecuniary damage and ordered the court in ORG to expedite the proceedings . ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s request for pecuniary damages as premature , since the enforcement proceedings were still pending .","B. As regards the second applicant","On DATE the ORG established the secured property right of the applicant on certain commercial premises and ordered LOC ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) , a socially - owned company undergoing insolvency proceedings , to finish the construction of that property . ORG further ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant a certain amount if it failed to do so . This decision became final on an unspecified date . The debtor never finished the construction of the property in question .","On DATE the debtor paid the applicant a part of the amount established by the decision .","On DATE the second applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG found a violation of the second applicant \u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time . It further awarded him ORG CARDINAL as just satisfaction for non - pecuniary damage and ordered the competent court to expedite the insolvency proceedings . ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s complaint concerning his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as well as his request for pecuniary damages , since the insolvency proceedings were still pending .","C. As regards the third applicant","On DATE ORG ordered a socially - owned company , ORG termotehni\u010dkih ure\u0111aja i monta\u017ee \u201c CER \u201d \u010ca\u010dak ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) , to pay the third applicant specified amounts on account of damages , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final by DATE .","On DATE , upon the third applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG accepted the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE the third applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG found a violation of the third applicant \u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time . It also awarded the third applicant LAW as just satisfaction for non - pecuniary damage and ordered the competent court to expedite the proceedings . ORG dismissed the third applicant \u2019s complaint concerning its right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and its request for pecuniary damages as premature , since the enforcement proceedings were still pending ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158149","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RIZA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Free expression of opinion of people;Vote);Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Free expression of opinion of people;Stand for election);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The CARDINAL applicants , whose names are appended , are NORP nationals of NORP origin and\/or of NORP faith who live or have lived in GPE . They all exercised their right to vote at the DATE NORP general elections in CARDINAL of the polling stations set up in NORP territory , the election results in which were subsequently contested by the ORG political party and nullified by ORG .","According to the official statistics from the census carried out in GPE in DATE , CARDINAL persons stated that they were ethnic NORP , amounting to PERCENT of the persons who answered that question , and CARDINAL persons stated that they were of NORP religion . Since DATE , the members of those communities have been involved in major migrations leading many of them to settle in GPE . ORG has no official information on the exact number of NORP citizens who are ethnic NORP or NORP living temporarily or permanently in GPE . Estimates of that number vary considerably , generally ranging from CARDINAL individuals , in all the age brackets .","The ORG was founded in DATE . Its statutes define it as a liberal political party endeavouring to help unite all NORP citizens and to protect the rights and freedoms of minorities in GPE as guaranteed by the LAW and national legislation , as well as by the international instruments ratified by GPE .","The ORG has put up candidates for all general and local elections in GPE since its inception . It has won seats in the national ORG in all the general elections held since DATE . DATE it took part in CARDINAL successive coalition governments . Several of its leaders and members belong to the NORP and NORP minorities .","Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . A ORG member , he is also one of its Vice - Presidents and a member of the party \u2019s central executive bureau . He is currently a ORG deputy of ORG .","These CARDINAL applicants submit that most of the NORP citizens currently living in GPE have voted for the DPS at all the general elections held over DATE .","By Decree of DATE the NORP President set DATE as the date of the elections to ORG . The electoral law laid down a new hybrid electoral system : CARDINAL deputies were to be elected on a first - past - the - post basis in single - member constituencies , and CARDINAL deputies were to be elected on a proportional basis at national level in CARDINAL multiple - member constituencies .","NORP citizens living abroad were entitled to vote in the general elections , but only for parties and coalitions , and their votes were taken into account in the proportional distribution of ORG among the different political formations at the national level ... Having obtained the consent of the competent authorities in the countries concerned , the NORP diplomatic representations opened CARDINAL polling stations in CARDINAL countries , CARDINAL of them in GPE .","On DATE ORG registered the ORG as participating in the general elections . The ORG presented lists of candidates in several single- and multiple - member constituencies . It was also included on the ballot paper designed for voting by NORP citizens living abroad . Mr PERSON was included in second position on the list of his party \u2019s candidates for the CARDINALth multiple - member constituency ( PERSON ) .","Thirteen of the CARDINAL applicants ( see appended list ) ( nos . , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ) submitted that they had all personally submitted prior declarations of intention to vote to the NORP diplomatic representations in GPE . The NORP diplomates has asked them to take part in local electoral committees in GPE , ORG , ORG , ORG and GPE as presidents , secretaries or ordinary members , which they had agreed to do . On DATE they had been invited to the offices of the NORP diplomatic and consular representations , where NORP diplomats had informed them about the formalities to be complied with on DATE , and in particular how to draw up the electoral rolls . Some of the applicants affirmed that they had only been given CARDINAL instruction on that subject , to the effect that persons attending the polling station on DATE without preregistration should be included on the additional pages of the electoral roll , and that the last name added on DATE should be suffixed with a \u201c Z \u201d .","The CARDINAL applicants submitted that their names had not been included on the list at the polling station where they were to function as members of the electoral committee . They had all voted in their respective polling stations by registering on DATE and signing opposite their names and forenames . Furthermore , they submitted that they had carefully indicated their choices on their ballot papers , without any other type of indication , and slotted the papers into the ballot box .","The CARDINAL applicants also pointed out that there had been no particular problems on DATE . Their respective electoral committees had been made up of NORP nationals living in their respective towns and representatives of ORG . Some of the polling stations had been visited by the NORP Ambassador and PERSON , and others had been reported on by NORP public television and radio teams , and no irregularities had been noted . At the close of polling on DATE the local committees had counted the votes , filled in the requisite report forms and submitted the electoral documents to the NORP diplomatic representatives .","The other CARDINAL applicants submitted that at the material time they had been living in GPE . Some of them had sent prior statements of intention to vote to the NORP diplomatic representations , but they had never been informed in return of which polling stations to vote in . On DATE all the applicants in question had attended the nearest polling stations in their respective towns . Their names had been handwritten into the electoral rolls , and after voting they signed opposite their names .","According to information available on ORG website ( http:\/\/piCARDINAL.cik.bg ) , following the DATE elections , CARDINAL political parties and coalitions garnered more than the minimum PERCENT of votes cast and were included in the process of proportional distribution of seats in ORG : ORG , the Coalition for GPE , the ORG , ORG , ORG and the RZS party .","The ORG obtained a total of CARDINAL votes , or PERCENT of the valid votes , which made it the country \u2019s third political party . It garnered PERCENT of the out - of - country voting , that is to say CARDINAL votes , CARDINAL of which were cast in polling stations in NORP territory . It came out well ahead in the QUANTITY polling stations \u2013 in GPE , ORG , ORG , ORG and GPE DATE in which the CARDINAL applicants had voted . By decision of DATE ORG assigned the DPS CARDINAL parliamentary seats under the proportional representation system , together with a further CARDINAL seats won in the first - past - the - post constituencies .","Following the apportionment of seats won by the DPS at the national level in the CARDINAL multiple - member constituencies , the party won CARDINAL seat in the CARDINALth constituency . However , another political formation , ORG , having appealed to ORG and the votes cast in a polling station in the CARDINALth constituency having been recounted , ORG conducted a reassignment of the seats won at the national level among the CARDINAL multiple - member constituencies . This gave the ORG a second seat in the CARDINALth constituency , where Mr PERSON was in second place on his list of candidates , and removed CARDINAL of the CARDINAL seats initially won in DATE multiple - member constituency . On DATE Mr PERSON was declared elected to ORG . He was sworn in as a deputy and became a member of his party \u2019s parliamentary group . On DATE he was elected member of ORG and the Fight against Corruption and Conflicts of Interest .","On DATE the President and CARDINAL other members of the RZS ( Red , GPE , ORG , PERSON and ORG \u201d ) , a right - wing conservative party , requested the Attorney General to lodge with ORG the appeal provided for in CARDINAL of LAW in order to annul the election of CARDINAL DPS deputes on the grounds of several irregularities which had occurred in the CARDINAL polling stations operating in NORP territory . The CARDINAL appellants complained of several breaches of electoral legislation in connection with the setting up of the said polling stations and their handling of the voting : they claimed that the rule requiring a polling station to be opened for DATE prior statements of intention to vote had been flouted in NORP territory ; some electors had exercised their voting rights once in NORP national territory and again in a polling station in NORP territory ; incorrect information had been included in the reports drawn up by the electoral committees concerning the number of voters in the polling stations in question ; CARDINAL of them had allegedly dealt with CARDINAL voters , which would have been a practical impossibility in view of TIME of the polling station and the time required to complete the requisite formalities for each voter , and the electoral committees attached to those polling stations had , in certain cases , reportedly allowed persons into the voting booths without valid NORP identity papers . The appellants invited ORG to verify the authenticity of the prior voting requests issued in NORP territory , to check the electoral rolls drawn up in the region of GPE where the individuals wishing to vote in GPE had their permanent addresses , and to declare null and void the records drawn up by the electoral committees responsible for the polling stations opened in NORP territory . According to the appellants , the large number of irregularities committed in the voting procedure in the QUANTITY polling stations in question necessitated the annulment of the votes cast in them , which annulment would have changed the election results and led to the ousting of CARDINAL DPS deputies from their seats .","On DATE the Attorney General transmitted the request submitted by the President and CARDINAL other members of the RZS party to ORG .","On DATE the Constitutional Court declared the appeal admissible and designated as parties to proceedings ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG responsible for ORG and CARDINAL non - governmental organisations . It sent copies of the request and the relevant documents to the parties to proceedings and gave them a deadline of DATE to submit their observations on the merits of the case . That court asked ORG responsible for ORG to ascertain how many voters had voted in the national territory and then again in NORP territory , and invited it to submit certified copies of the lists of persons having voted and the reports on voting drawn up by the polling stations in NORP territory . The President of ORG , GPE , and Judge PERSON signed the admissibility decision , while issuing a separate opinion . They argued that the Attorney General should have submitted a reasoned request to ORG rather than merely transmitting the request for annulment lodged by the ORG political party .","On DATE the ORG parliamentary group of ORG presented its written observations on the case . It first of all disputed the admissibility of the appeal lodged by the CARDINAL appellants , arguing that the Attorney General had failed to conduct a prior assessment of the merits of the said request , merely transmitting it to ORG , that the appeal had been lodged belatedly , after the deputies in question had been sworn in , and that the CARDINAL DPS deputies mentioned in the request had been designated randomly since the out - of - country votes had been used solely to apportion the seats among the various parties at the national level and not for the benefit of any given list of candidates . Secondly , the ORG parliamentary group submitted that the request had been ill - founded for the following reasons : the legal conditions for setting up the CARDINAL polling stations in question had been fulfilled ; there had been very few cases of double voting , and voting secrecy precluded determining for which party exactly those persons had voted ; the number of persons included on the additional electoral rolls on DATE had been higher than that of preregistered voters because the number of persons wishing to exercise their voting rights had far exceeded the number of voters having previously declared their intention to vote outside the country ; and in several of the out - of - country polling stations the number of persons voting had exceeded CARDINAL , and that had not been the case only in the polling stations in GPE .","On DATE , at the request of the ORG party , ORG ordered a CARDINAL expert assessment to provide the answers to the following questions : ( i ) how many prior statements of intention to vote were submitted for the territory of GPE , from which towns were they sent , and did their number correspond to the number of polling stations set up ? ( ii ) were the identity papers of electors voting in the CARDINAL polling stations valid ? ( iii ) did the numbers of electors voting recorded in TIME drawn up on DATE correspond to the total number of preregistered electors and persons registered on the rolls on DATE , and were there any polling stations in which none of the preregistered persons exercised their right to vote ? ( iv ) what was the maximum number of persons who could vote in a polling station over DATE ? The CARDINAL experts were given leave to consult all the documents on elections in NORP territory which the diplomatic service of ORG had submitted to ORG .","The expert report was submitted to ORG DATE . It indicated that there had been a total of CARDINAL prior declarations of intention to vote in respect of the territory of GPE : CARDINAL of those declarations had been received at ORG in GPE , CARDINAL at FAC in GPE and CARDINAL at FAC in GPE . The NORP diplomatic services had opened CARDINAL polling stations in the GPE region , CARDINAL in the GPE region and CARDINAL in the LOC region . The experts had noted that some polling stations had been opened without the threshold of CARDINAL declarations of intention to vote having been reached .","The experts were unable to answer the second question , on the validity of the NORP identity papers of those voting in GPE . They pointed out that it would have been very time - consuming to carry out the necessary verifications and would have required access to the population database administered by ORG . Furthermore , in several cases the local electoral committees had merely mentioned the type of document presented , i.e. an identity card or passport , without recording the document number .","As regards the third question , the experts replied that there had been some very slight differences \u2013 CARDINAL between the numbers of persons voting recorded in the polling station TIME and the numbers of voters included in the electoral rolls . According to the experts , that might have been due to inadvertent omissions . Moreover , they observed that the additional electoral lists in CARDINAL polling stations , which had been drawn up on DATE and contained data on the persons who had turned out without having been preregistered , had not been signed by the chair or secretary of the local electoral committee . The experts noted that the personal data on electors contained in those lists had been handwritten , apparently unhurriedly , and those entries would have taken a considerable length of time to write . Furthermore , in some of the polling stations none of the preregistered persons had turned out to vote . In some other polling stations there had been TIME on file , or else the first page of TIME had been missing .","As regards the fourth question put by ORG , the experts concluded , from a reconstitution of the requisite formalities in dealing with voters and their ballot papers , that the minimum time required for voting would have been TIME . Having regard to the total duration of DATE , that is to say TIME , the experts estimated that a polling station could deal with a maximum of CARDINAL voters . The maximum number of persons voting as thus calculated had been exceeded in CARDINAL of the polling stations operating in GPE .","ORG responsible for ORG presented ORG with the results of its inquiry into cases of double voting . The department pointed out that CARDINAL persons had voted several times and that CARDINAL cases of double voting had been noted in GPE .","On DATE ORG decided to ask the CARDINAL experts to examine an additional point : it asked them to recalculate the election results after deducting all the votes cast in CARDINAL polling stations and some of those cast in another polling station , all located in NORP territory . The court \u2019s request covered : ( i ) all the votes cast in CARDINAL polling stations where none of the preregistered voters had voted and where the additional lists of those voting had not been signed by the members of the local electoral committees and therefore lacked the probative value of official documents ; ( ii ) all the votes cast in a polling station in which the TIME on voting were missing ; ( iii ) all the votes cast in CARDINAL other polling stations where the first page of the minutes was missing ; ( iv ) all the votes cast in a polling station where the list of preregistered voters was missing ; ( v ) CARDINAL votes cast for the ORG by persons included in the unsigned additional list at another polling station where that party had garnered all the votes and where CARDINAL preregistered persons had voted ; ( vi ) all the votes cast in another polling station where the list of preregistered voters had not been put on file and where the additional electoral list had not been signed by the members of the local electoral committee .","On DATE the experts submitted their supplementary conclusions to ORG . In the introductory section of the report they pointed out that they had been mandated to deduct from the outcome of the election the votes cast in polling stations where : ( i ) none of the preregistered voters had voted and where the additional lists of those voting had not been signed by the members of the local electoral committees ; ( ii ) TIME were not put on file ; ( iii ) the first page of the minutes was missing . The report presented estimates of the votes cast in CARDINAL polling stations : ( i ) in CARDINAL of those stations , none of the preregistered voters had voted and the additional list of voters had not been signed ; ( ii ) in the case of another polling station , TIME had been put on file and the additional list of voters had not been signed ; ( iii ) for CARDINAL other stations , the first page of the minutes was missing and the additional list of voters had not been signed ; ( iv ) in another polling station , the first page of TIME had not mentioned the number of persons having voted and none of the preregistered voters had voted . The experts considered that a total of CARDINAL votes should be deducted from the election results , CARDINAL of which had been case for the DPS . ORG conducted the provisional reassignment of seats among the political parties on the basis of the expert report .","On DATE the parliamentary group of the ORG submitted supplementary observations challenging ORG choice of criteria for excluding the votes cast in the aforementioned polling stations from the vote count . The ORG deputies pointed out that the outcome of the voting had been based on the data set out in the polling station TIME , and not on the electoral rolls . They added that electoral legislation did not require the chairs and secretaries of out - of - country local electoral committees to sign below the additional lists of voters drawn up on DATE . At all events , in the GPE opinion , the shortcomings of members of the electoral administration could not lead to the annulment of electors\u2019 votes .","On DATE ORG presented its findings to ORG . It pointed out that according to mathematical projections , the annulment of the votes cast in the CARDINAL polling stations mentioned in the experts\u2019 supplementary conclusions would deprive the ORG of CARDINAL seat which would be assigned to the ORG political party and that in the CARDINALth multiple - member constituency the ORG candidate concluded in second place on the party \u2019s list , Mr PERSON , would lose his parliamentary seat .","ORG presented ORG with observations made by CARDINAL of its CARDINAL members on the merits of the case . Those CARDINAL members voiced the opinion that the arguments put forward by the appellants and the experts\u2019 conclusions could not be used to justify annulling the votes cast in the polling stations in question . They explained in particular that the lists of persons voting in the out - of - country polling stations had been drawn up by the NORP diplomatic representatives accredited on the basis of the prior declarations of intention to vote which they had received . They nevertheless stated that no prior information had been given on the distribution of the voters in question around the various polling stations , as they could attend any polling station or choose not to vote at all , which in their view explained why in some stations none of the voters on the main list had voted . The members of ORG considered that that should not lead to the invalidation of the ballots of other electors who had voted in the same polling station . They pointed out that under domestic legislation the election documents had to be packaged and sealed by the local electoral committees and then sent to ORG . However , when the election documents had arrived from GPE , it had been noted that the packages containing the documents had already been opened and then re - sealed by the diplomatic services of ORG . At all events , the absence , attributable to the NORP diplomatic services or the local electoral committees , of election documents from out - of - county polling stations could not have justified annulling votes cast in those stations , given that the election results from outside the country had been based on data transmitted via diplomatic telegrams to ORG . Finally , the members of ORG , referring to domestic legislation , submitted that the fact that a member of ORG had not signed TIME of voting or the accompanying documents did not invalidate them and did not constitute grounds for annulling the votes cast in the station in question . They considered that the recalculation of the election results was based on arguments which had not been mentioned in the request to ORG .","On DATE the ORG and CARDINAL of its deputies applied to ORG for leave to join the proceedings in question as a party . In that application the ORG stated that it fully endorsed the observations submitted by its parliamentary group on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE Mr PERSON requested leave to join the proceedings as a party . In order to demonstrate his interest in taking part in the proceedings he referred explicitly to the additional expert report ordered by ORG and the reapportionment of seats effected by ORG on the basis of the experts\u2019 findings . All those requests remained unanswered .","On DATE ORG , sitting in private session , adopted its decision in the case in question . It delivered its judgment on DATE .","ORG dismissed the pleas of inadmissibility put forward by the ORG parliamentary group in its observations of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It considered , first of all , that the procedure for applying to the court had been respected . Secondly , it observed that the case concerned the contestation of election results rather than the eligibility of an individual candidate , which enabled it to assess the case even though the deputies in question had been sworn in and were already in office . It joined to the merits of the case the third plea of inadmissibility concerning the lack of a direct link between the out - of - country votes and the election of the CARDINAL DPS deputies named in the initial request . Judges PERSON and ORG set out separate opinions on the admissibility of the request for annulment of the election results . They considered that the Attorney General had merely transmitted the request submitted by the ORG party instead of himself lodging a reasoned application for the annulment of the elections .","Considering that it should begin by clarifying the scope of the case , ORG pointed out that it had been invited to find unlawful the election of a number of ORG deputies owing to several alleged irregularities in the polling stations operating in NORP territory . Having regard to the specific mode of functioning of the NORP electoral system , in which votes cast by NORP citizens living abroad were taken into account solely for the proportional distribution of seats among political parties at the national level , it was impossible to determine in advance which deputies would be affected by the invalidation of some or all of the votes cast in NORP territory . Thus , in the framework of that case , ORG considered that it had been called upon to determine whether there had been any serious irregularities in the voting procedure in the CARDINAL polling stations in GPE . It held that a finding of such irregularities could lead to a change in the election results , a fresh apportionment of seats among the political parties and the annulment of the seats of deputies who had not been explicitly targeted by the initial application lodged by the leader and a number of candidates of the RZS party in the general elections .","ORG rejected all the arguments put forward in the initial statement of claim . It first of all noted that section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL) ( CARDINAL ) of the Electoral Law gave NORP diplomatic representatives outside the country carte blanche to open as many polling stations as they considered necessary for the proper conduct of the elections .","Secondly , it considered that the question whether a given voter had voted without a valid NORP identity card was immaterial to the outcome of the proceedings , since voting secrecy ruled out ascertaining which party the person had voted for .","ORG stated that the experts had noted that in some polling stations none of those on the main electoral roll had voted , while in other stations only a few of those on the roll had voted . It pointed out that according to the experts the names added on DATE had been written clearly and apparently unhurriedly , which would seem rather unlikely given the large number of such additions and the pressure under which the members of the electoral committees would have been working on DATE . However , ORG considered that such considerations were mere suspicions which had not categorically demonstrated that the results of voting in those polling stations had been manipulated .","ORG also noted that the experts had reached the conclusion that the maximum number of persons who could vote in CARDINAL polling station was CARDINAL . However , it considered that in the absence of precise information on the alleged irregularities in the voting procedure in the polling stations with CARDINAL persons voting , that finding did not provide grounds for invalidating the election results . At all event voting secrecy precluded determining for whom the persons registered after CARDINAL on the list of voters had cast their vote .","For those reasons ORG dismissed the application for the annulment of the seats of the CARDINAL deputies explicitly covered by the initial request submitted by the leader and candidates of the RZS party .","However , it decided to deduct from the results obtained by each of the political parties respectively all the votes cast in CARDINAL polling stations in GPE , that is to say a total of CARDINAL votes , CARDINAL of which had been cast for the DPS . It pointed out that in those polling stations none of the voters preregistered on the main electoral rolls had voted , or else the first page of TIME of the voting , certifying that the preregistered persons had voted , was missing . The court pointed out that in the CARDINAL polling stations in question the additional lists of voters drawn up on DATE did not bear the signatures of the chairs and secretaries of the local electoral committees , which deprived them of the probative value of official documents . ORG accordingly considered that they could not be used in evidence to demonstrate that the registered persons had voted . That approach had allegedly also enabled it to determine how many votes had been deducted from the election results of each party or coalition and to reallocate the GPE seats in ORG .","ORG rejected the additional objections raised by the ORG parliamentary group on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It considered that the irregularities noted in the electoral rolls in the various polling stations had also affected the legitimacy of the minutes drawn up by the electoral committee on completion of the voting because they contained data on the exact number of persons having voted in the polling station in question and the election results had been determined on the basis of the minutes . Even though domestic legislation did not explicitly require the members of the out - of - country local electoral committees to sign additional electoral lists , the module additional electoral list approved by the President of the Republic pursuant to the Electoral Law provided for such signatures . ORG therefore took the view that such signature was a legal condition for the validity of such official documents . At all events , the signature was one of the fundamental and obvious components of any official document . The lack of those signatures on the additional voter lists drawn up in the CARDINAL polling stations thus deprived them of their official probative value in respect of the fact that the registered persons had actually cast their votes .","ORG declared that the votes in question had been valid under domestic legislation but that they had been deducted from the election results owing to the irregularity of the voter lists and the voting minutes . It considered that the seats in ORG had to be reallocated . For those reasons , and having taken into account the prior calculations submitted by ORG , ORG annulled the parliamentary seats of CARDINAL deputies , including Mr PERSON . It ordered ORG to reapportion the seats in ORG by deducting from the election results the CARDINAL votes cast in the CARDINAL polling stations in question .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE , pursuant to the judgment of ORG , ORG declared CARDINAL other candidates elected . Consequently to that redistribution of seats , the ORG was the only party to have lost a parliamentary seat and ORG , which had won the general elections , obtained an additional seat .","On DATE the ORG and CARDINAL of its deputies in ORG in turn lodged the appeal provided for in CARDINAL of LAW and contested the lawfulness of the election of the CARDINAL deputies which ORG had declared elected by decision of DATE . Mr PERSON lodged the same appeal in his own name .","On DATE and DATE ORG declared the CARDINAL appeals inadmissible on the grounds that the dispute in issue had already been the subject of proceedings before it , leading to its judgment of DATE .","The CARDINALst ORG constituted following the general elections of CARDINAL DATE sat until DATE , when it was dissolved by Presidential Decree .","The elections to ORG were held on CARDINAL DATE . At those elections the ORG obtained CARDINAL votes , that is to say PERCENT of the validly cast votes . It obtained CARDINAL votes in NORP territory . It sent CARDINAL deputies to ORG , where it was the third biggest parliamentary group . Mr PERSON was elected deputy of the CARDINALth multiple - member constituency , where he headed his party \u2019s list .","The lawfulness of those general elections , particularly as regards the polling stations opened in NORP territory , was disputed before ORG by a group of CARDINAL deputies from ORG . The deputies requested the annulment of the elections in the CARDINAL polling stations operating in GPE owing to several alleged irregularities in the voting procedures : they submitted that the polling stations had been set up on the basis of forged prior declarations of intention to vote ; they had opened despite their electoral committees lacking the minimum number of members ; unidentified persons had canvassed the areas inhabited by NORP citizens in GPE , had obtained NORP identity papers from various electors and had returned them to their owners DATE before the elections telling them that they had voted ; several voters had not shown any valid NORP identity papers ; the number of persons voting in some of the polling stations had exceeded , which was unrealistic in view of the time required to complete the formalities linked to the voting procedure ; there had been several cases of double voting ; the lists of electors registered on DATE had not been properly drawn up and had not been signed by the chair and the other members of the electoral committee . The request referred explicitly to the reasoning of the judgment delivered by ORG on DATE .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by the CARDINAL ORG deputies . It considered and rejected , on the basis of the evidence gathered , all the allegations of breaches of electoral legislation advanced by the appellants . It noted , inter alia , that the relevant members of all the electoral committees set up in NORP territory had signed at the bottom of the lists of voters added on DATE , which gave those documents the probative value of official documents .","During the CARDINALnd legislature the ORG took part in a coalition government which resigned in DATE . Following those events ORG was dissolved on DATE by Presidential Decree .","The elections to ORG were held on CARDINAL DATE . The ORG obtained CARDINAL votes , that is to say PERCENT of all valid votes cast , and sent CARDINAL deputies to ORG . No admissible appeal was lodged before ORG against those election results . The ORG is currently the third biggest political party in the country and the second biggest opposition party .","Mr PERSON was elected as deputy in the CARDINALth constituency , where he headed the ORG list .","..."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161461","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"JAHJAGA v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He is of NORP ethnic origin and lives in GPE . The applicant is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE PERSON , formally registered as resident in GPE , had CARDINAL foreign - currency accounts with the GPE branch of ORG .","Following the financial collapse of numerous banks in GPE , in DATE and DATE the NORP ORG enacted specific legislation providing that foreign - currency deposits held in those banks , including the bank at issue , would be added to the public debt . The legislature went on to set the time - frame ( DATE ) and the amounts , including interest , to be paid back to the LOC former clients . The legislation also explicitly provided that any foreign currency - related judicial proceedings were to be discontinued .","As of DATE , PERSON appears to have had MONEY ( ORG ) in CARDINAL account and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in another .","On DATE ORG adopted a decree stating that anyone with foreign - currency savings in the GPE branch of ORG would have the same rights as other savers , provided that they could prove that they had been resident in GPE on DATE and were NORP taxpayers .","On DATE , PERSON formally authorised the applicant , by way of a court - certified document , to \u201c take over all the rights concerning the foreign currency savings ( withdrawal of money , its transfer and all other rights concerning the savings ) \u201d .","As a resident of GPE , the applicant is currently not a NORP taxpayer . As of DATE , however , both PERSON and the applicant had NORP citizenship . They would appear not to have renounced it thereafter ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172070","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ORLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants are :","The applicants live in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","At the material time the first applicant was the Chairman of ORG , a NORP non - governmental human rights organisation . The second applicant was a reporter for ORG , a NORP television company . The third applicant was a camera operator and the fourth applicant an assistant camera operator with ORG .","Following the death of a DATE boy , PERSON , in the course of a counter - terrorist operation in the GPE settlement in Ingushetia on DATE , a protest meeting against abuse of authority by the security forces was planned in GPE , the capital of Ingushetia , for DATE . On DATE REN TV dispatched a team consisting of the second , third and fourth applicants in order to cover the protest planned for CARDINAL DATE . The first applicant was on a business trip in GPE at that time . All CARDINAL applicants were staying in LOC in GPE ( \u201c the hotel \u201d ) .","On DATE at TIME the first applicant returned to the hotel from ORG \u2019s office in GPE . TIME ( at TIME ) , CARDINAL men in balaclava masks and camouflage uniforms , armed with automatic weapons , burst into his room . The men neither introduced themselves nor produced any documents . They pointed their guns at the first applicant , ordered him to lie face down on the floor and asked him the reason for his trip to Ingushetia . The applicant explained that he worked for the NGO and had arrived in GPE to monitor the human rights situation in Ingushetia . The men collected all of the applicant \u2019s belongings and put them into a bag . He attempted to protest but was kicked in the ribs by one of the intruders . They then pulled a black plastic bag over his head , took him out of the hotel and forced him into a minibus .","On TIME , the CARDINAL other applicants returned to the hotel from ORG , where they had been working on a news story . At CARDINAL p.m. they gathered in the second applicant \u2019s room . At TIME men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms , armed with automatic weapons , burst into the room . Without any explanation , they forced the third and fourth applicants to the floor , kicked them , and put black plastic bags over their heads . These CARDINAL applicants were then taken down to the lobby and put into the minibus with the first applicant . Despite the bag over his head , the third applicant was able to see other figures dressed in camouflage uniforms in the lobby .","When the intruders broke into the second applicant \u2019s room , they struck him on the shoulder with a rifle butt so that he fell onto the floor . They then ordered him to look away . In reply to his question as to their identities , the men kicked him and hit him with their rifle butts . CARDINAL of the intruders told him in unaccented NORP that they were from ORG . They collected his personal belongings and his professional equipment and put it into bags . They then pulled a black plastic bag over his head and , continuing to beat him , took him out of the room and down to the minibus .","At the time of their abduction , the applicants were wearing jeans or tracksuit trousers , shirts , T - shirts and slippers and were taken out as they were . The abductors did not allow them to put on shoes or warm clothing .","In the minibus one of the abductors asked the second , third and fourth applicants who they were . They introduced themselves . The first applicant also started to explain who he was but was silenced with a number of blows . CARDINAL of the abductors told the driver that the hotel had been \u201c mopped - up \u201d and ordered him to drive off . The applicants were ordered to be silent and to keep their heads bowed ; the abductors threatened them with beatings and promised they would shoot them if they did not obey . All of the abductors spoke unaccented NORP .","The minibus drove for TIME . Initially it went through the streets of GPE . The windows were not obscured and through the bags on their heads the applicants could see the streetlights and the headlights of passing cars . According to the third applicant , the bag on his head was loose enough to enable him to see that their abductors did not put aside their weapons during the drive . He concluded they must be ORG agents .","NORP Some time later the minibus drove along a country road and stopped in a snow - covered field . The applicants were taken out of the minibus one by one and beaten up with kicks and blows from rifle butts . One of the abductors told the applicants that they would be shot and ordered his colleagues to fetch silencers from the bus . The applicants thought that they were going to be executed on the spot . One of the abductors checked the minibus , but could not find the silencers . The abductors ordered the applicants to remain on the ground until they had left , threatened to kill them if they returned to Ingushetia in future , and drove off . The applicants took the bags off their heads and saw a white PERSON minibus driving away .","The applicants ran off in the opposite direction , fearing that their abductors would return to execute them . Walking in the snow , they suffered from the cold as they had neither overcoats nor proper shoes . After TIME they reached the GPE settlement , where they knocked on local ORG doors asking for help . After some time one of the residents let them in and called the police . The police arrived and took the applicants to the local police station , where they were provided with medical assistance .","Early in the morning of CARDINAL DATE the applicants were taken by the police to ORG of the Interior ( PERSON \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b \u041d\u0430\u0437\u0440\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0430 ( ORG ) ) ( the Nazran ROVD ) and made statements concerning their abduction and illtreatment . The second applicant asked a police officer whether he knew who was responsible for the incident . In reply the officer did not say anything but typed on his mobile phone CARDINAL letters \u201c ORG \u201d ( ORG ) , ( ORG ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the investigative committee \u201d ) opened an investigation into the incident under LAW , CARDINAL of LAW ( violation of privacy , obstruction of the lawful professional activity of journalists , and robbery ) and opened criminal case no . DATE . In the decision it was stated that the crime in respect of the applicants had been committed by unidentified perpetrators who had used violence .","On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant , who stated that at TIME on DATE he and the third and fourth applicants had been in the second applicant \u2019s room at the hotel when a group of CARDINAL or CARDINAL armed men in balaclava masks and camouflage uniforms had forced their way into the room . The men had been armed with automatic rifles . The applicants thought that they must be from a law - enforcement agency . The intruders had searched the room and collected the applicants\u2019 personal belongings and their professional equipment . They had then blindfolded the applicants , taken them down to the minibus and driven somewhere . They had stopped in a field and had subjected the applicants to severe beatings with rifle butts and kicks , as a result of which the second applicant had twice lost consciousness . Thereafter the abductors had driven off and the CARDINAL applicants had spoken to the first applicant , who introduced himself as Mr PERSON . They had then made their way to the nearest village , where they had gone to the local police station , and from there they had been taken back to GPE .","On DATE , DATE , the investigators questioned the third and fourth applicants , whose statements were similar to that of the second applicant . In particular , both applicants also stated that the abductors , who had also beaten them unconscious , must have been from a law - enforcement agency .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the investigators questioned the first applicant \u2019s colleague , PERSON , who stated that she had been called to come to the police station , where she had found the first applicant covered in bruises and hematomas , without an overcoat , and wearing slippers and dirty clothing .","On DATE the investigators questioned the hotel duty manager , PERSON , who stated that their hotel was usually guarded by police security officers , but they had been called off duty at TIME on DATE when a Deputy Minister of ORG had telephoned the hotel and ordered them to leave the LOC . CARDINAL other Deputy Minister of ORG had been staying at the hotel at the material time and his security officers had also been called off . The witness had asked the second Deputy Minister whether he had been aware that his security had been called off , and he had confirmed that he had been aware of it . At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL armed men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms had arrived at the hotel in a white PERSON minibus without registration plates . The men had told her that they had been conducting an identity check within the framework of counter - terrorist operation and ordered her to provide the registration log of the hotel \u2019s guests . Having checked the names , some of the men had gone upstairs whilst others had stayed in the lobby and held the staff at gunpoint . The intruders , who had communicated among themselves by gestures , had taken her and the other staff CARDINAL mobile telephones and removed the sim - cards and the batteries . TIME later the intruders who had gone upstairs had returned with CARDINAL blindfolded men with sacks over their heads and had put the CARDINAL men into the white minibus and driven off . The witness had not gone into the rooms raided by the intruders , but had been able to see from the corridor that everything inside the rooms had been turned upside - down .","On DATE the investigators twice questioned the hotel \u2019s managing director , PERSON , who stated that he had not been at the hotel during the events in question , but had been informed by his staff about the abduction of CARDINAL of the hotel \u2019s guests .","On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose statement was similar to the account of the events submitted to the ORG . In addition , he stated that at TIME on DATE someone had knocked at the door of his room and a female voice asked him to open . After that , the intruders had rushed in and subjected him to questioning about the purpose of his visit to ORG . They had thrown him to the floor , collected his mobile telephone , documents and other belongings , blindfolded him with a black sack and taken him out to the minibus , where he had seen the other applicants . The abductors had then driven for TIME , stopped and taken the CARDINAL men out and assaulted them with kicks and rifle butts . The abductors had threatened to kill the first applicant ; during the beating , the sack over his head had been displaced and he had seen the abductors and their vehicle . The abductors had left the applicants lying in the field in the cold , with no warm clothing , and had driven off having told them not to return to their region .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the second applicant , whose statement was similar to the CARDINAL given previously and to the account before the ORG . He additionally stated that he was sure that the abductors , who had acted as a well - organised professional group , must have been agents of a police special task unit . During their search of his room , one of the abductors had told him that they were from the police and that they would take him to the police station . The applicant also provided the investigators with a list of items stolen by the abductors , including his personal belongings , cash , passport , professional equipment , and credit cards and stated that the overall monetary value of his stolen items amounted to MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) and that of the stolen company \u2019s equipment to CARDINAL RUB ( CARDINAL ORG ) .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the third applicant , whose statement was similar to the account before the ORG . He also stated that the abductors , who had acted as a well - organised professional group , had beaten him and the other applicants severely , and that he had lost consciousness at least once . He also provided the investigators with a list of items stolen by the abductors , including his personal belongings , cash , documents and professional equipment .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the fourth applicant , whose statement was similar to the account before the ORG . He also stated that the abductors , who had acted as a well - organised professional group , had beaten him and the other applicants severely , and that when he had been taken out to the ORG minibus , the first applicant had already been there . He also provided the investigators with a list of items stolen by the abductors , including his personal belongings , cash , documents and professional equipment .","On DATE the investigators questioned police sergeant PERSON , who stated that on TIME of CARDINAL DATE he and CARDINAL other police officers , ORG , DATE and Kh . T. , were on their regular duty at the hotel , where they had been assigned to ensure the safety of the hotel guests in addition to the hotel \u2019s own security service . The police at the hotel worked in groups of CARDINAL officers , in TIME shifts , starting at TIME DATE . In addition to the police presence at the hotel , the administrator also had a special button to call the police in case of emergency . At TIME on DATE the administrator had told them that Deputy Minister of PERSON . had telephoned . Officer PERSON had spoken to the Deputy Minister , who had ordered the officers to leave the hotel and go to the building of ORG . The witness and his colleagues had gone to ORG , where Colonel PERSON . had told them to remain , without giving any explanation . At TIME on the following morning , the CARDINAL officers had been dismissed from their shift and gone home . According to the witness , he had learnt of the applicants\u2019 abduction from hotel staff DATE after the event . Prior to DATE their security team had never been called off duty from the hotel .","On DATE the investigators also questioned the hotel security guard , Mr PERSON . , who stated that on the evening of CARDINAL DATE he had been on duty at the hotel with his colleague PERSON . The hotel \u2019s security service worked in teams of CARDINAL guards in QUANTITY shifts . A team of QUANTITY police officers had also guarded the hotel . CARDINAL deputy Ministers of the Interior of Ingushetia had been staying at the hotel . The hotel \u2019s lobby was equipped with ORG cameras . At CARDINAL p.m. the police officers had left the hotel , which they had never done before . At TIME , as he was locking the back door , he had seen a group of CARDINAL armed men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms who had ordered him and his partner to stand up against the wall . The witness had thought that the men must have been a police special forces unit conducting a special operation . The men had searched them and taken them into the hotel lobby , where there were CARDINAL more armed men in balaclavas and camouflage uniforms holding at gunpoint the duty manager , PERSON , and restaurant employees ORG and PERSON . The men had behaved like a special forces unit during a special operation ; in unaccented NORP they had ordered everyone to lie down on the floor , be quiet and not to move . They had not beaten anyone . At TIME they had left . The witness had not seen whether the intruders had taken anyone with them . He stressed that he had been certain that the intruders must have been law - enforcement agents . It was only on DATE that he had learnt that the intruders had abducted the applicants .","On DATE the investigators questioned the other security guard who had been on duty at the hotel on the evening of DATE , PERSON . His statement was similar to that of his colleague PERSON . and he also provided a detailed description of the intruders\u2019 firearms and stated that they had acted under a chain of command . The intruders had guarded all the exits and entrances to the hotel , the stairs and the elevator . Then they had taken his and the CARDINAL mobile telephones , removed the batteries and sim - cards and thrown them onto the floor . While they had been held at gunpoint in the lobby , some of the women had started crying and panicking . CARDINAL of the intruders , who had acted like the CARDINAL in charge , had told them in unaccented NORP that they just needed to check something and would then leave . The witness emphasised that the intruders had acted as a well - organised group and that they must have been a highly - trained special police unit . The intruders had spent TIME at the hotel . After their departure , he had learnt that they had taken away the applicants .","On DATE the investigators questioned the managing director of the hotel \u2019s restaurant , Mr T.Ga . , who stated that at CARDINAL p.m. on DATE he had just gone down from the restaurant into the lobby with his colleagues PERSON and PERSON . when CARDINAL men armed with machine guns , wearing balaclavas and camouflage uniforms , had run up to them and ordered them by gesturing to lie down on the floor and not to move . CARDINAL more intruders had already been in the lobby ; they had not spoken among themselves and had communicated by gesturing . Both of the hotel security guards were already lying on the floor . The intruders had taken his mobile telephone and removed its sim - card and battery .","On DATE the investigators questioned police officer PERSON , who made a statement about the events similar to that given by his colleague , sergeant PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition he stated that he and his colleagues had been providing security for the hotel \u2019s residents , including the Deputy Ministers of the Interior Selivanov and PERSON , who were in residence there at the time . At TIME on DATE a duty officer from ORG had arrived at the hotel and told them that a Deputy Minister of the ORG had ordered the security team to leave the hotel and go to ORG building . The witness had refused to do so , as there had been no orders from his superior officers to this effect . Then , TIME , the Deputy Minister of the ORG in charge of the borders , PERSON . , had phoned the hotel and ordered the police security group to go to ORG to secure its LOC . The witness and his colleagues had spent TIME there and it was not until TIME that he had learnt about the applicants\u2019 abduction from the hotel .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the investigators also questioned the police officers PERSON . T. and A.M. , whose statements were similar to those of their colleagues FAC ( see paragraphs DATE and DATE above ) .","On DATE the investigators also questioned the hotel \u2019s cook and a waitress , PERSON . and ORG , whose statements were similar to that of Mr PERSON . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition , both women stated that they had seen the applicants being taken away by the intruders and that the applicants , who had had black sacks over their heads , had not been wearing outdoor shoes or warm clothing . In addition , ORG had seen the abductors\u2019 white PERSON minibus without official registration plates .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the hotel \u2019s administrator , PERSON , who reiterated her earlier statement ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) and added that the intruders had told her that they had come to conduct an identity check and were from the anti - terrorist unit of the police . They refused to let her see their service documents . Some of the intruders had stayed in the lobby while others had ordered her to go to the first applicant \u2019s room to ask him to open the door , which she had done . Later , she had seen the men take the applicant outside and had seen their white minibus . She also stated that she was now not sure whether the intruders had in fact been from a law - enforcement agency and that she did not remember whether anyone had called off the QUANTITY police officers who had been on duty at the hotel on DATE .","On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL police officers from the GPE police station and CARDINAL officers from the ORG district police station whose statements concerning the circumstances of the applicants\u2019 arrival at the police station in TIME of DATE were similar to the applicants\u2019 account before the ORG .","On DATE the investigators questioned ORG Deputy Minister of ORG . , who stated that he was in charge of the security of the administrative border of ORG . To his knowledge , the hotel \u2019s police security service had consisted of officers from ORG , in view of the fact that high - ranking law - enforcement officials were staying at the hotel , including CARDINAL Deputy Ministers of the ORG , Mr PERSON and Mr GPE . He had called the police officers off duty from the hotel on the evening of DATE as there had been a threat of attacks on the building of ORG and the officers had therefore been needed elsewhere . He had not known that on that date the applicants had been staying at the hotel and learnt of their abduction and beating only the following morning when he read the police service incidents report .","On DATE the investigators questioned Deputy Minister of the Interior of Ingushetia Mr PERSON , who stated that he had been resident in the hotel since DATE . On TIME CARDINAL DATE he had been in his room , had not heard anything and had not seen the police security guards that TIME . He had been unaware of the reasons for the PERSON recall from the hotel and learnt of the applicants\u2019 abduction and ill - treatment only DATE .","On DATE the investigators questioned First Deputy Minister of the Interior of Ingushetia Mr S. Seliverstov , whose statement was similar to that given by PERSON ( see the paragraph above ) .","On various dates in DATE the investigators questioned QUANTITY police officers , who stated that on DATE they had manned various checkpoints on the motorway between GPE and GPE , on the roads between GPE and the GPE settlement , and in the vicinity of the local airport . They did not recall the white PERSON minibus with abductors passing through their checkpoint due to the large number of similar vehicles going through DATE , but said that any vehicle of that type passing through in TIME should have been stopped and registered in the log .","On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON A.Ge . , both of whom stated that they had been present during the crimescene examination on DATE at the hotel and that during the examination they had not seen any ORG cameras on its LOC .","On DATE the investigators questioned the hotel manager Ms L.T , who stated that she had not been at the hotel on DATE .","On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON . NORP , who stated that on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had been at home in the ORG district of GPE when at TIME CARDINAL men had knocked at his door . The men , who were not wearing warm clothing , had traces of beatings and were suffering from the cold ; they had told him that they had been abducted from GPE , beaten and left in the fields near the village . He had let the men in and then had gone to the GPE police station to report the incident .","On various dates in DATE the investigators also questioned several witnesses in GPE whom the applicants had asked for help on TIME CARDINAL DATE and who had refused to open the door .","On various dates DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL employees of the school situated near the hotel . The persons questioned were primarily teachers or administrators . All of them gave similar statements to the effect that they worked at the school during DATE , that they had therefore not witnessed the events late at TIME on DATE and had learnt about them some time later . None of the school \u2019s security guards or night watchmen was questioned .","On DATE the investigators granted each of the applicants victim status in the criminal case . In the decision they listed the items of their professional equipment and personal belongings taken by the perpetrators , including cash , credit cards , mobile phones , clothes , a laptop , tape recorder , service identity cards and a digital camera .","On DATE , DATE , the investigators ordered a forensic expert examination of each of the applicants . On DATE the medical forensic examiner issued report no . CARDINAL , which described the numerous bruises and hematomas received by the third applicant as being ones of a \u201c light degree of gravity \u201d . The same report described the injuries of the second applicant as unsuitable for forensic categorisation due to the absence of a chest X - ray and conclusions of other medical specialists . As for the injuries of the first and fourth applicants , they did not qualify for a degree of gravity , there being a \u201c lack of lasting impact on his health \u201d .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene at the hotel , collected some fingerprints and ordered an expert forensic examination thereof . No other evidence was found . On DATE the experts concluded that the fingerprints were not suitable for examination .","On DATE the applicants left for GPE , where on CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was admitted to hospital and received medical treatment in connection with his injuries , which included cerebral concussion . He was discharged from hospital on DATE .","DATE . On DATE the investigators seized and examined the registration log of the hotel guests .","On DATE the head of the ORG investigative committee issued instructions for the investigators , ordering them to take these steps , amongst others :","\u201c [ ... ] CARDINAL ) to identify and question the Deputy Minister of the ORG who , according to the statement of PERSON , telephoned the hotel at TIME and recalled the police security officers ; [ ... ]","CARDINAL ) to identify the police officers who had manned the checkpoints on motorway \u201c GPE \u201d on DATE and question them about the passage of the PERSON minibus and examine the passing vehicles\u2019 registration logs ; [ ... ]","CARDINAL ) to identify persons who had been staying at the hotel at the material time and question them about the events ; [ ... ]","CARDINAL ) to establish whether there were ORG cameras inside and outside the hotel and examine their contents ; [ ... ] \u201d","On DATE the investigators took fingerprints from CARDINAL employees of the hotel for comparative forensic examination of the fingerprints collected at the crime scene .","On DATE the investigators examined the registration log of vehicles passing the Volga-CARDINAL checkpoint during DATE . No passage of a PERSON minibus on DATE was recorded .","On DATE the GPE town police department replied to the investigators that there had been no ORG cameras in the vicinity of the crime scene .","On DATE the ORG Minister of the Interior , Colonel PERSON , wrote to the investigators , stating that on DATE his Deputies PERSON and Mr GPE , as well as a number of other police officers from other regions of GPE had been staying at the hotel . They had all \u201c been resting in their rooms \u201d at the time of the abduction and had no pertinent information to offer the investigation .","On DATE the first applicant asked the investigators to change the legal classification of the crimes committed against him and the other applicants to that of \u201c exceeding official powers \u201d , a crime that is committed by ORG agents and punishable under LAW . In particular , he stated that within the scope of their official powers , the perpetrators had been able to unlawfully break into the applicants\u2019 rooms , search them , take away their property , deprive them of liberty and subject them to ill - treatment .","On DATE the investigators rejected the request as unsubstantiated , referring to the lack of evidence of the involvement of ORG agents in the incident .","On DATE the investigators asked the hotel to inform them whether any ORG cameras capable of recording had been in use on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the hotel replied that there had been \u201c no working ORG cameras \u201d on their LOC on the dates in question .","On DATE the investigators again examined the crime scene at the hotel . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the investigators requested the permission of ORG to obtain a list of the mobile telephone calls made TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE in the vicinity of the hotel . Permission was granted on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the preliminary investigation was suspended for failure to identity the perpetrators .","On DATE the head of ORG overruled the decision to suspend proceedings as premature and unsubstantiated and ordered that the investigators take such additional steps as were possible even in the absence of identified perpetrators .","On DATE the first applicant complained to the head of LOC of ORG , alleging that the crime against him and the other applicants had been perpetrated by ORG agents but that the investigation was not taking any steps to examine this theory . He requested that the theory of ORG agents\u2019 involvement be examined . In particular , he pointed out the following facts :","- due to the security threats in the region at the material time , the hotel was usually guarded by several police officers . However , TIME prior to the abduction , the police officers had been recalled by their superior and a vehicle had been despatched to pick them up and take them to another location . The police officers had therefore been removed from the hotel in order not to create obstacles for the applicants\u2019 abduction ;","The applicant asked that his request be included in the investigation file , but received no reply .","On DATE the first applicant requested permission to have access to the investigation file .","On DATE the investigators granted the request in part , namely in respect of the records of investigative actions which had been carried out with the applicants\u2019 participation and the investigator \u2019s decisions to order forensic examinations and expert reports . Access to the rest of the file \u2019s contents was refused .","On DATE the first applicant appealed against the above refusal . On DATE the ORG in ORG dismissed the complaint , stating that victims in criminal proceedings could familiarise themselves with the entire contents of the investigation file only after completion of the investigation . On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal .","On DATE the first applicant asked the investigators to inform him of the progress in the criminal proceedings . On DATE they replied that the investigation had been suspended on DATE .","On DATE the investigators familiarised the first applicant with the conclusions of the forensic medical examination . He pointed out that in addition to the bruises and hematomas received as the result of the beating by the abductors , he had been subjected for TIME to extremely cold temperatures while wearing only the very light clothing in which he had been taken from the hotel .","DATE . On DATE the investigation was again suspended .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer requested access to the entire contents of the investigation file . On DATE he was allowed to familiarise himself only with documents concerning the investigative steps taken with his participation .","On DATE the Interim Deputy Head of ORG overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unsubstantiated and ordered that it be resumed and the investigators take additional steps .","On DATE the investigators requested that the Interim Deputy Prosecutor of Ingushetia order the police to take steps to examine the theory of the involvement of ORG agents in the applicants\u2019 abduction and ill - treatment .","On DATE the investigators issued an official statement addressed to the Minister of the ORG criticising the failure of the police to take the steps necessary to identify the perpetrators of the applicants\u2019 abduction . The document stated :","\u201c ... from the very beginning of the investigation no operational search information of relevance and importance has been provided [ to the investigators ] regarding the identities of the possible culprits .","Such violations of the procedure committed by the operational officers of the police create obstacles for the full , thorough and objective investigation .... the facts stated demonstrate the ORG police \u2019s complete ignorance in respect of the requirements of criminal procedure , their lack of discipline and the absence of any control over their work by the senior officers .","There can be no change in this unhealthy situation as regards the operational units of ORG [ the police ] when it comes to the execution of the ORG lawful requests without your personal intervention . Your intervention could change the basis of the operational search ORG attitude to the execution of their tasks ... \u201d","On CARDINAL DATE the Head of ORG of ORG replied to the investigators , stating that as the result of their criticism they had conducted an internal inquiry and implemented various disciplinary measures against the officers responsible for their failure to take the necessary steps .","On CARDINAL DATE the hotel \u2019s administration replied to the ORG request of DATE , stating that on DATE there had been no ORG cameras on their LOC .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigation was suspended again . The proceedings are still pending .","DATE . The Government did not contest the factual circumstances of the events as presented by the applicants . They added only that at the material time CARDINAL Deputy Ministers of the ORG had been residing at the hotel . In addition to PERSON and PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were also staying there .","In their submission before the ORG on DATE the ORG stated that \u201c it has been positively confirmed that on DATE [ the applicants ] were subjected to ill - treatment by unidentified perpetrators . There is no information showing that the crime was committed by representatives of the law - enforcement agencies or other ORG agents \u201d .","In reply to the ORG \u2019s request for a copy of the investigation file , the ORG furnished its contents , amounting to CARDINAL pages . According to the applicants , the documents submitted did not contain copies of the transcripts of the questioning of the first applicant , in which he had stressed the involvement of ORG agents in the abduction and ill - treatment ."],"violated_articles":["3","5","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144358","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF AKOPYAN v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE she got married and gave birth to her first daughter . In DATE she gave birth to her second daughter .","The applicant \u2019s relationship with her husband deteriorated and in DATE she and her daughters moved into a house rented by her husband in the village of GPE . Her husband visited his daughters from time to time .","NORP In DATE or DATE the applicant \u2019s husband took the children back to ORG . The applicant was left alone .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG ( \u201c the psychiatric hospital \u201d ) , a ORG - run institution . According to the medical records , the applicant was brought by ambulance since she was in a reactive state and showed signs of mental disorder .","Soon after her admission to the psychiatric hospital , the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and given treatment .","DATE the applicant unsuccessfully and repeatedly asked to be discharged from the psychiatric hospital and lodged complaints about her internment . During that time the applicant was provided with neuroleptic treatment .","On DATE the applicant escaped from the psychiatric hospital and found shelter with some acquaintances . By that time she was divorced .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , she was admitted to ORG for in - patient psychiatric assessment . According to the medical records , during the applicant \u2019s stay in the municipal hospital she did not take any medicine ; discussions with psychiatrists were the only treatment .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from that hospital with the conclusion that her mental health was normal .","Subsequently , the applicant re - established contact with her children and started living with them .","Following the applicant \u2019s complaint , on CARDINAL DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against PERSON , the applicant \u2019s doctor , on suspicion of unlawful placement of the applicant in a psychiatric hospital , an offence under LAW of DATE .","On DATE an expert panel conducted a forensic psychiatric examination and found that the applicant was not suffering from any mental illness . It further concluded that the applicant \u2019s admission to the psychiatric hospital on DATE might have been necessitated by her state of health ; however , during her stay in the psychiatric hospital she had been wrongly diagnosed , she had not been assessed comprehensively , and she had not been provided with correct medical treatment from the outset , in DATE .","On DATE the expert panel additionally concluded that the applicant could have been discharged from the psychiatric hospital on CARDINAL DATE on the basis of her discharge request , since her mental state had not suggested that she had posed a danger to herself or to the others .","On DATE the applicant was recognised as a civil claimant within the framework of the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the charges against P. were classified as negligence in the performance of official duties which resulted in grave consequences for the applicant .","On DATE P. was committed to stand trial in ORG .","On DATE the case file was destroyed in a fire at the court house .","On DATE the court remitted the case to the prosecutor \u2019s office for supplementary investigation .","On DATE the case was referred back to the court .","DATE and DATE some hearings were scheduled , but for various reasons none of them took place .","On DATE , in response to a complaint from the applicant , ORG asked the President of ORG to expedite the examination of the case , considering it to be unreasonably protracted .","On DATE the ORG ordered the investigating authorities to carry out a further psychiatric assessment of the applicant .","On DATE the investigating authorities ordered a psychiatric assessment of the applicant .","On DATE the case was referred back to the court without this assessment having been carried out .","On DATE the applicant , having regard to the fact that the case - file had been destroyed by fire in DATE , lodged another civil claim with the ORG seeking damages from P. and the psychiatric hospital for her unjustified psychiatric hospitalisation .","On DATE , at P. \u2019s request , ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings as time - barred .","The applicant appealed , alleging , in particular , that the impugned decision had been unlawful and that the examination of the case had been unreasonably protracted by the authorities . She further complained that the trial court had not examined her civil claim .","On DATE ORG upheld the court decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG delivered a separate ruling , drawing the attention of ORG to the omissions by ORG which had resulted in the protracted examination of the applicant \u2019s case . It noted , in particular , that DATE and DATE there had been an unjustifiable number of adjournments of the hearings and that there had been an unjustifiable DATE period of inactivity pending a forensic assessment which was never carried out .","The applicant appealed on points of law against the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings , raising the same arguments as in her appeal . She asserted that the courts had failed to determine her civil claim .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal on points of law .","In DATE the applicant instituted separate civil proceedings against P. and the psychiatric hospital , claiming CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) from P. and LAW from the psychiatric hospital by way of compensation for the damage sustained as a result of her unjustified hospitalisation . She alleged , in particular , that the DATE stay in the psychiatric hospital had caused her severe mental and physical suffering . She argued that she had constantly felt debased and treated like a deficient human being , whose opinion was of no value . In addition , she had been subjected to involuntary medical interventions . Furthermore , the applicant \u2019s private and family life had been ruined .","On DATE ORG of ORG found that on DATE the applicant had been admitted to hospital lawfully given the signs of mental disorder . It further found that during her stay in hospital , the applicant \u2019s medical doctor , P. , had been at fault for breaching a number of legal provisions governing psychiatric assistance . The court established that the requisite procedures for involuntary hospitalisation had not been followed ; by contrast , if the applicant had been hospitalised as voluntarily patient , she ought to have been discharged on the basis of her request ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The court also noted that the applicant had repeatedly asked to be discharged and concluded that she could have been discharged as early as DATE on the basis of such a request . The court found that as a result of those breaches of domestic law , the applicant had been wrongly diagnosed and mistakenly treated for a considerable time in the psychiatric hospital .","The court further noted that during her wrongful stay in the psychiatric hospital the applicant had been unable to freely exercise her rights or manage her life . It therefore concluded that the applicant had sustained non - pecuniary damage which should be compensated by the psychiatric hospital employing P. In reaching that conclusion , the court also referred to the criminal case against P. and the evidence collected by the investigating authorities in that case .","The court awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage noting that , in determining that amount , it had taken into account the length of the applicant \u2019s unjustified stay in the psychiatric hospital , the nature and the scope of physical and mental suffering , the enforced changes in her lifestyle , and the restrictions imposed on her rights as a citizen to freely arrange her life and take care of her own health .","NORP The applicant appealed , seeking a higher amount of damages from both defendants .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .","The applicant did not lodge a further appeal before ORG ."],"violated_articles":["5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172563","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KARAJANOV v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was a high - ranking official during the communist era . At the time of the events , he neither held a public office nor was a candidate for such an office .","On the basis of a request by a third person and of its own motion , on DATE ORG ( \u201c the Commission \u201d ) established in lustration proceedings that the applicant had collaborated with ORG security bodies . Relying on CARDINAL files from ORG , it \u201c established indisputably that [ the applicant ] gave information ... to ORG security bodies about individuals ... namely ... he collaborated with the ORG security services in a conscious , secret , organised and continuous manner as a secret collaborator . \u201d Accordingly , it held that the applicant had fulfilled the condition for restricting his candidacy to or performance of public office . The ORG based its decision on the relevant provisions of DATE LAW ( see paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) and LAW .","Referring to a report registered as file no . DATE , the Commission established that in DATE , after he had visited his brother in GPE , the applicant had given information about his brother , his brother \u2019s wife and other people to ORG security bodies . He also had provided information about other people after he had returned to the city of ORG . The Commission established that the applicant had been engaged by the security services before leaving for GPE and that they had intended to continue collaborating with the applicant . The file further noted that in DATE the applicant had shared his impressions about his stay in GPE with his father .","On the basis of documents in another file , file no . CARDINAL , the Commission established that the applicant , while editor - in - chief of a newspaper in DATE and afterwards , had provided information to the security services about a colleague , the colleague \u2019s articles and his relations with other people .","The DATE \u2019s decision was published on its website on DATE , in accordance with sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . It contained information about the applicant \u2019s place of birth , his personal identification number and the positions he had held . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant challenged the decision in ORG , arguing that the ORG \u2019s findings based on file no . DATE had been wrong since the file had obviously been about another person with the same name and not him . He submitted several documents to show that the lustration decision had been a result of mistaken identity . The documents were his birth certificate , which showed a date of birth that was different from the CARDINAL in file no . DATE ; an inheritance decision , certified by a notary public , attesting that the applicant had a sister rather than a brother ; his notarised military card , which showed that in DATE he had been doing military service in GPE ; and a death certificate showing that his father had died in DATE . He argued that he had never visited GPE and had lived since DATE in GPE . He also challenged the veracity and authenticity of the documents in file no . CARDINAL and denied that he had ever collaborated with or provided any information about any colleague to the ORG security services , let alone that any such collaboration had met the criteria specified in CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In that connection , he submitted that none of the documents in the file had been signed by him . Lastly , he complained about the fact that the decision on the Commission \u2019s website had included his father \u2019s name , despite the fact that LAW made no provision for the release of such information . He argued that his reputation , dignity , personal information and integrity had been compromised .","In a hearing held in private on DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The court held that the Commission had correctly established the facts and applied the relevant law . The court stated :","\u201c [ the ORG ] established that there were documents in ORG created by the ORG security bodies confirming that [ the applicant ] had collaborated with ORG security bodies in a conscious , secret , organised and continuous manner and that he had obtained favours when being promoted , as set out in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of [ LAW ] ... The Commission correctly established that [ the files in question ] contained information provided by [ the applicant ] , which had been used to restrict and violate the human rights and freedoms of other people on political and ideological grounds ... \u201d","As regards the applicant \u2019s complaints of mistaken identity , the court stated :","\u201c ... the ORG \u2019s decision clearly established collaboration with security bodies by [ the applicant ] , by determining his personal identification number , place of birth and the office that he had held . \u201d","As to his arguments that the Commission had erred in finding \u201c conscious , secret , organised and continuous collaboration \u201d with ORG security bodies , the court held :","\u201c [ the applicant ] was entitled to obtain access to the documents attesting to his collaboration . In case of doubts about their veracity , he could have initiated proceedings before the competent court to prove their inaccuracy , before the impugned decision had been delivered .","In addition , the court considers that the above ORG security service documents on [ the applicant \u2019s ] secret collaboration were drawn up on the basis of the rules and regulations of those bodies . \u201d","Lastly , the court stated :","\u201c The court made its decision at a hearing held in private because ORG had correctly established the relevant facts [ on the basis of written material ] and [ the applicant ] had not submitted any evidence that led to different facts . \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . He reiterated the complaints raised in his action in ORG and submitted that the latter court had not provided any reasoning regarding his complaint that the publication of the ORG \u2019s decision on its website had violated his right to respect for his private and family life , his reputation and dignity . It had also disregarded his evidence that file no.CARDINAL had not concerned him , but a person with the same name , which had led to facts being wrongly established . He stated that the court had also relied on evidence adduced by the Commission without analysing it in adversarial proceedings in the presence of the applicant or any other relevant witness or expert . He complained that the lower authorities had not explained why they had considered that he had collaborated with the security bodies in an intentional , secret , organised and continuous manner , as set out in LAW . He further complained about the lack of an oral hearing before ORG and argued that there had been no statutory provision allowing him to request such a hearing . Lastly , he contested ORG explanation about the possible legal avenues he could have used to challenge the veracity of the documents in file no . CARDINAL . In that connection , he submitted that before DATE he had not been aware of the existence of documents about his alleged secret collaboration with the security services . Furthermore , his arguments on that point should have been dealt with in the impugned proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the lower court \u2019s decision . It found no grounds to depart from the facts as they had been established and the reasons given by the Commission and ORG . It stated :","\u201c ORG only checks whether or not there was collaboration with the security services ; there are no adversarial proceedings , the documents created and held by the [ security services ] are regarded as facts ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183586","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ASHAYEV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152325","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"LOLOVA AND POPOVA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Pavlina Panova;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants , PERSON and PERSON PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The first applicant gave birth to the second applicant in DATE and shortly thereafter ended her relationship with the child \u2019s father , GPE , to whom she was never married .","In DATE the GPE ORG confirmed an agreement reached between the first applicant and GPE According to the agreement , the first applicant was to exercise the parental rights related to the upbringing and DATE care of the child , and GPE was to see his daughter under a \u201c free access regime \u201d , which included the right to see the child in private as often as he wished after informing the mother and not less than two weekends a month , and DATE during the child \u2019s DATE .","The first applicant got married to a NORP - NORP citizen in GPE , GPE , GPE , on DATE . She left her job in GPE in DATE with a view to joining her husband in GPE .","During CARDINAL periods , DATE to CARDINAL DATE and DATE to DATE , the first applicant stayed in GPE with her husband . During the rest of the time , she lived in GPE with her daughter . On DATE , the first applicant settled in GPE .","On DATE the first applicant brought proceedings before ORG under LAW DATE . She sought a decision from the court , in the absence of the father \u2019s consent , to allow the child to be issued with a passport and to travel abroad to join her in GPE .","The GPE ORG granted her claim on DATE . The court found that the possibility for the second applicant to travel abroad would enrich her life and stimulate her personal development . It considered that ORG \u2019s refusal to allow her to travel was provoked by his personal interest which should not be allowed to bear negatively on the child \u2019s rights , especially since GPE could seek protection of his rights in separate court proceedings . Nothing in the mother \u2019s personality and demeanour was found to represent a risk for the child \u2019s well - being . Guided by the primary interest of the child , the court recalled LAW on LAW , which was ratified by GPE , and held that the second applicant had the right to move about freely , including to leave her country .","Upon an appeal by ORG , the ORG confirmed the lower court \u2019s findings on DATE . It found that , as the first applicant had married and settled in GPE , not allowing the daughter to join her there would impede the mother \u2019s ability to act as her primary carer . Those were the terms reached in the DATE court agreement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which ORG had not sought to amend at any time . During the periods which the mother had spent in GPE , the second applicant had been primarily cared for in GPE by the first applicant \u2019s parents . When the second applicant had stayed at GPE \u2019s house , her daily care had been carried out by the child \u2019s aunt and grandmother . A report by the social services favoured the second applicant \u2019s free travel with her mother and found that both mother and child had strong emotional ties to each other . The child had specifically asked to live with her mother in GPE and to visit her father in GPE during the holidays . The decision of QUANTITY DATE of ORG was not appealed against and became enforceable on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant requested the police to issue a passport to her daughter . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the head of ORG \u201d section in ORG refused to issue a passport to the girl . He referred to the absence of a document giving the father \u2019s consent .","The first applicant applied for judicial review , challenging the police refusal . On DATE , ORG , examining the application under LAW , quashed as unlawful the police refusal to issue a passport to the second applicant . The court observed that the absence of both GPE agreement to the issuing of a passport to their child was not sufficient grounds to justify a refusal . It went on to say that the police should have carried out an in - depth analysis of the specific circumstances of the applicants\u2019 case , being guided in their assessment primarily by the interests of the child . The court returned the case to the police with specific instructions as to how to apply the law when examining the applicant \u2019s request .","I.P. appealed against the decision of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the findings of GPE that the police refusal of CARDINAL DATE had to be quashed as unlawful . It further noted that , on the question whether or not to issue a passport to a child , the police enjoyed decisionmaking discretion ( \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0441\u0430\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u044f\u0442\u0435\u043b\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) pursuant to section CARDINAL","In the meantime , on DATE the first applicant again applied for a passport for her daughter . On DATE the police refused to issue a passport , referring to the fact that the GPE ORG decision of DATE in respect of replacing the father \u2019s agreement was not final as ORG had appealed against it ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the first applicant asked once again that a passport be issued to her daughter , referring to the CARDINAL judgments of the administrative courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the police informed both the border authorities and the applicant that a procedure was underway for the refusal of a passport to the second applicant . On DATE the police refused the ORG request because of the absence of written consent from the child \u2019s father . In doing so , the head of ORG referred to the social services\u2019 latest conclusions that , while the first applicant spent time in GPE , the second applicant was well cared for in GPE by the first applicant \u2019s parents . In addition , he found that the girl \u2019s departure from GPE would impede the possibility for the father effectively to exercise his access rights and that would affect his relationship with the child in an irreparable manner . The police concluded that the competent body to decide on the relationship between the father and the child was the relevant district court in accordance with Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW DATE .","After the judgment giving permission to the second applicant \u2019s travel became final ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the police issued a passport to the child on DATE . She obtained a visa and left for GPE with her mother in DATE .","In DATE the first applicant brought proceedings for damages under LAW , as related to the ORG and ORG DATE ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , on behalf of herself and her daughter . The applicants claimed they had both suffered as a result of the unlawful refusals by the police to issue a passport despite the findings of the administrative courts which had quashed the first refusal . They also claimed damages as a result of the unlawful failure of the police to comply in good time with the final decision of ORG of DATE . The applicants invoked a breach of LAW in respect of them both and of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW in respect of the second applicant .","The Sofia City Administrative Court partly upheld their claim on CARDINAL DATE . The court found that ORG had to pay : ( a ) QUANTITY ( ORG ) to the first applicant and around EUR CARDINAL to the second applicant , for non - pecuniary damage stemming from the quashing as unlawful of the police refusal of CARDINAL DATE to issue a passport to the second applicant ; and ( b ) around EUR CARDINAL for nonpecuniary damage to each applicant , as a result of the police unlawful failure to decide within the statutory DATE deadline on the applicant \u2019s request for a passport made on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below and CARDINAL above ) . The court also awarded around EUR CARDINAL to the applicants for costs and expenses , to be paid by ORG .","On appeal by the applicants and cross - appeal by ORG , on DATE ORG ( ORG ) quashed the lower court \u2019s decision in its entirety . It found that the appeal by the applicants had been inadmissible as lodged out of time . Ruling on the appeal by the police , the court observed that the first condition for the application of the Act DATE was not present , given that a court had not quashed as unlawful an administrative act as required by LAW DATE . It then went on to say that the lower administrative court had not decided the matter in the place of the police . Instead , it had returned the case to the interior authorities with instructions as to how to apply the law . The head of ORG had then given ample reasons for his refusal of CARDINAL DATE to issue a passport . The applicants had not appealed against that refusal . As to the second condition under LAW DATE , namely a causal link between the failure by the police to decide in good time on the request for a passport and the damage suffered by the applicants , the court found that such a causal link was missing . More specifically , when deciding whether to issue passports to minors , the police did not enjoy discretion in respect of how to apply the law . Instead , the police were bound to act within the remit of \u201c subordinate competence \u201d ( \u043e\u0431\u0432\u044a\u0440\u0437\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u043a\u043e\u043c\u043f\u0435\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) . It meant that , in their decision - making process , the police did not need to analyse the circumstances of each case , but rather only had to check whether the conditions listed in law were present or not . Consequently , the ORG concluded in its final decision of CARDINAL DATE , the damage caused to the applicants did not stem from the police refusal to issue a passport to the second applicant . The police had acted in application of the law . The fact that a passport had not been issued was entirely the result of the first applicant \u2019s failure to submit either an authorisation by the father or by the relevant district court for the second applicant \u2019s travel , as required by law .","According to LAW DATE , in force until DATE , parental rights and obligations were to be exercised by both parents together as well as separately by each parent . In case the parents disagreed , the relevant district court resolved the disagreement after hearing both parents and , if need be , the child . The court \u2019s decision was subject to appeal .","NORP Under the new Family Code CARDINAL , LAW provides that parental rights and obligations are exercised following an agreement between the parents . If the parents disagreed , they could bring the matter before the district court whose decision is subject to appeal . LAW provides that , in cases where the parents do not live together , if they disagreed on questions related to the child , the disagreement is to be decided by the district court whose decision is subject to appeal . As of DATE , a new Article CARDINALa specifically provides that the questions related to a minor \u2019s travel abroad and to the issuing to him or her of identity papers , are to be decided jointly by both parents . If the parents disagreed , the issue is to be settled by the district court of the minor \u2019s place of residence .","According to section DATE , as worded at the time of the events , an application for the issuing of a passport or another identity document for a minor was to be made \u201c in person \u201d ( added in DATE ) and by the minor \u2019s parents or guardians . The police have to issue a passport within DATE of such an application ( section DATE ) .","According to section CARDINAL ) , in force as of DATE , every NORP citizen has the right to leave the country , including with an identity card , and to return crossing the borders of GPE with the member States of ORG .","According to section DATE , as in force since DATE , every NORP citizen has the right to leave the country and return to it with a passport . That right is subject only to such limitations as may be necessary for the protection of national security , public order , people \u2019s health or the rights and freedoms of others .","According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the police may refuse to allow a minor to leave the country in the absence of a written consent for that of his or her parents . If the parents disagreed , LAW DATE specifically provided between DATE and DATE that the matter was decided in accordance with LAW ; as of DATE , the matter is to be decided in accordance with LAW .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , adopted in DATE , provided that , in cases where the authorisation of CARDINAL parent for the issuing of passport to a minor was missing , such an application had to be submitted together with CARDINAL of the following documents : a judicial decision allowing the issuing of a passport which had become enforceable ; a judicial decision depriving the missing parent of his or her parental rights ; or , a death certificate of the parent who had not given his agreement .","According to LAW , individual administrative acts are subject to judicial review as regards their lawfulness . Judicial review proceedings in respect of administrative acts are CARDINAL - instance proceedings ( Article CARDINAL ) and they suspend the enforcement of the appealed administrative acts ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","According to Article CARDINAL , individuals or legal persons may bring claims for compensation for damage caused to them by an unlawful act or failure to act by an administrative body , when that act or failure to act have been quashed by a court . For questions not covered by this PERSON , the ORG and ORG DATE ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) is applied .","LAW DATE provides that the ORG and municipalities are liable for damage caused to private individuals and legal entities as a result of unlawful decisions , acts or omissions by their own authorities or officials while discharging their administrative duties . Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that compensation is due for all damage which is the direct and proximate result of the unlawful act or omission . The ORG \u2019s liability is strict , i.e. no fault is required on the part of the civil servants in the commission of the unlawful acts .","ORG held in a DATE decision concerning a request for the issuing of a passport to a minor ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , NORP \u0433. \u043e. ) that all questions related to the exercise of parental rights had to be decided by the relevant district court if the parents could not reach an agreement . In subsequent decisions ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 DATE , V \u0433. \u043e. ; \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0447. \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL , III \u0433. \u043e. ; MONEY CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE ; \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0447. \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL , IV \u0433. \u043e. ) ORG reaffirmed its findings that questions related to the travel of minors abroad had to be decided specifically by the civil courts in accordance with LAW DATE , and not by the police following the administrative procedure under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . In doing so , the highest national court referred to its constant practice in respect of questions related to the exercise of parental rights . In CARDINAL of the above - mentioned decisions ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 DATE , V \u0433. \u043e. ; \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0447. \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL , III \u0433. \u043e. ) ORG quashed the findings to the contrary of CARDINAL regional courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","CARDINAL regional courts held in DATE and DATE respectively that claims under LAW DATE were inadmissible because there existed an administrative procedure which was sufficient for obtaining a passport for a minor even where CARDINAL of the parents disagreed ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u043d\u0430 \u043e\u043a\u0440. \u0441\u044a\u0434 \u0425\u0430\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0432\u043e \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e ORG \u0434. \u2116 DATE ; and \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 \u043e\u043a\u0440. \u0441\u044a\u0434 PERSON \u043f\u043e \u0447. PERSON \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL ) .","In a legal column , published on DATE in a DATE newspaper with national circulation called \u201c TIME \u201d , a ORG judge advised that a claim under LAW DATE , seeking the permission for a minor \u2019s travel abroad with CARDINAL parent only , was inadmissible and the correct avenue for settling the matter was via the administrative procedure under LAW DATE .","The Convention is in force in respect of GPE as of QUANTITY DATE . It provides as follows :","\u201c The objects of the present Convention are :","( a ) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any ORG ; and","( b ) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of CARDINAL ORG are effectively respected in GPE . \u201d","\u201c The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where :","( a ) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person , an institution or any other body , either jointly or alone , under the law of the ORG in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention ; and","( b ) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised , either jointly or alone , or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention . \u201d","The rights of custody mentioned in sub - paragraph ( a ) above may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision , or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that ORG . \u201d","The Convention was ratified by GPE on DATE . It provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In all actions concerning children , whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions , courts of law , administrative authorities or legislative bodies , the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . In accordance with the obligation of GPE Parties under article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a ORG for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by GPE Parties in a positive , humane and expeditious manner . GPE Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family .","A child whose parents reside in different GPE shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis , save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents . Towards that end and in accordance with the obligation of GPE Parties under article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , GPE Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country , including their own , and to enter their own country . The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security , public order ( ordre public ) , public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . DATE States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child . Parents or , as the case may be , legal guardians , have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child . The best interests of the child will be their basic concern . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159553","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KOKASHVILI v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before ORG by Ms PERSON , PERSON , Ms Ts . PERSON , Ms L. GPE and Mr PERSON PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG - in - Office , located in GPE ( \u201c the LOC office \u201d ) , recruited the applicant as a local fixed - term staff member . She was assigned the tasks of an administrative and information assistant , such as drafting letters , providing interpretation and translation services , answering to telephone calls in the office , file keeping , making travelling arrangements for ORG the LOC and so on . According to the employment contact , the parties were entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally either by giving DATE prior notice or upon the completion of ORG mandate .","On DATE the applicant , who was pregnant at that time , requested maternity leave from DATE to DATE , which was granted by her employer .","On DATE the mission coordinator of ORG notified the applicant of their intention to terminate the employment contract with her on DATE by sending her the requisite DATE prior notice , as stipulated in the employment contract .","On DATE the applicant filed a lawsuit against the OSCE GPE office with the Vake - Saburtalo Court , complaining that her dismissal had been contrary to LAW of GPE .","NORP In reply to the applicant \u2019s claim , on DATE ORG in GPE ( \u201c the GPE Office \u201d ) filed comments with the NORP - Saburtalo ORG in GPE , arguing that the NORP courts lacked jurisdiction over employment disputes between ORG and its local staff members . In support , it referred to the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Government of GPE and ORG ( \u201c the Memorandum \u201d ) on DATE , according to which the members of ORG enjoyed \u201c immunity from legal process in the host country \u201d . Consequently , the dispute arising from the job termination notice of DATE which was clearly issued by ORG in the performance of their official duties could not be adjudicated under the NORP law . ORG invited the court to address ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for any further clarification on the matter .","On DATE the ORG was involved CARDINAL party to the proceedings .","NORP Since neither the respondent , ORG , nor the third party , the ORG , was present at the main hearing of DATE , the ORG delivered a judgment by default on DATE . The court first reasoned that international organisations could not be said to enjoy immunity from legal process with respect to labour disputes with local staff . Consequently , the NORP legislation should be held applicable to the dispute between the applicant and ORG . ORG found that the applicant \u2019s dismissal was clearly in breach of LAW , restoring her to the position of administrative assistant and ordering the respondent organisation to compensate her for the loss of salary from the date of her unlawful dismissal .","The judgment of DATE was never appealed by either the applicant or the respondent ORG , whilst the ORG did not have standing to lodge an appeal as a third party , and thus became binding .","On DATE the NORP - Saburtalo ORG issued an enforcement writ . It was sent to ORG .","By a notification of DATE , a bailiff invited ORG to enforce voluntarily the judgment of DATE within DATE . In reply , ORG addressed to the ORG a note verbale stating that \u201c as the [ OSCE GPE ] Office does not intend to comply with the decision wrongly made by the court , the ORG would be grateful if the ORG would ensure , in accordance with the relevant international law , that the [ OSCE GPE ] Office will not be subject to any execution measures . \u201d","On DATE ORG invited ORG to terminate the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the bailiff returned the enforcement writ to the applicant , officially informing her about the discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings . The notification mentioned that , in view of the debtor \u2019s immunity from legal process in GPE , it was impossible either to hold its administration criminally liable for the non - enforcement or to resort to any other measures of compulsory enforcement .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL","\u201c The legislation of GPE conforms to universally recognised norms and principles of international law . International treaties or agreements concluded by GPE , if they do not contradict LAW and a constitutional agreement , take precedence over domestic normative acts . \u201d","Pursuant to LAW ( a ) of LAW , an \u201c international treaty \u201d was an international agreement concluded between the NORP State and other ORG ) or international organization(s ) in written form and governed by international law , whether embodied in a single instrument or in CARDINAL or more related instruments and whatever was its particular designation .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW stated , similarly to LAW , that an international treaty , subject to its compliance with the country \u2019s LAW , should take precedence over domestic statutes .","Section CARDINAL of the Act specified that ORG could express its consent to be bound by an international treaty by several means , including by the signature of its representative .","Sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and QUANTITY provided that ORG was under the obligation to abide by the commitments provided for by an international treaty in good faith , and that its executive branch of power , notably the Government represented through its various ORG , was required to supervise that the approved international agreements were duly enforced throughout the territory of ORG .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW of GPE , in force at the material time , read as follows :","\u201c The administration [ of an organisation ] shall not dismiss a pregnant woman , or a woman who has a child under DATE , unless this organisation ... has been completely liquidated ... \u201d","The Memorandum was signed on behalf of ORG by the Minister of ORG on DATE . LAW provided :","\u201c ORG will be manned by ORG and his ORG who shall enjoy in full the legal capacity as provided for in the Provisions Concerning the Legal Capacity of the CSCE Institutions and Privileges and Immunities ( Rome Council CARDINAL no . CARDINAL ) , and with local staff to insure its proper functioning . \u201d","LAW of the above - mentioned ORG no . CARDINAL read as follows :","\u201c Members of ORG the ORG enjoy immunity from legal process , even after the termination of their mission , in respect of acts , including words spoken or written , performed by them in the exercise of their functions . \u201d","On DATE ORG , a major decision - making body of the Organisation , adopted , by its Decision no . CARDINAL , an amended version of the OSCE \u2019s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules for ORG Staff . This official document set out the conditions of service and the basic duties , obligations and rights of staff members of the OSCE , and , according to its LAW ( c ) and CARDINAL applied \u201c to all staff members of the OSCE Institutions holding a fixed - term appointment \u201d , including staff occupying local posts .","Regulations CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL and Rule CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL contained rules on examination of employment related disputes between coordinators of the various ORG and fixed - term staff members . In particular , CARDINAL procedures for examination of such disputes were provided for : a purely administrative DATE the so - called \u201c internal appeals procedures \u201d \u2013 and a quasi - judicial , arbitration instance \u2013 the so - called \u201c external appeals procedures \u201d . Those LAW read , in their most relevant parts , as follows :","Regulation DATE ORG","\u201c The Secretary General shall establish , in consultation with the other ORG , an administrative procedure with staff participation to advise the Secretary General and ORG concerned in the event of any appeal by a staff member against an administrative decision in which the staff member alleges non - observance of the terms of his \/ her appointment . \u201d","Rule DATE ORG","( a ) In the event of an appeal by a staff member under Staff Regulation CARDINAL.CARDINAL , an ORG shall be established to advise the Secretary General and ORG concerned regarding that appeal .","( b ) ORG shall consist of CARDINAL members as follows :","( i ) A Chairman designated by the Secretary General , after consultation with the Head of Institution concerned and ORG ;","( ii ) CARDINAL member appointed by ORG concerned ;","( iii ) CARDINAL member appointed by ORG . ... \u201d","Regulation CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u2013 ORG","( a ) Further to the procedure established in Regulation CARDINAL.CARDINAL , a staff member shall have a right of final appeal to a Panel of ORG against an administrative decision directly affecting him \/ her in accordance with the Terms of Reference of the ORG to be established by ORG . ...","( b ) The Panel of Adjudicators shall be appointed by the Chairman of ORG from a roster to which all participating states are invited to nominate candidates , and shall carry out its functions in accordance with the Terms of Reference referred to above . \u201d","Rule CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u2013 Adjudication","\u201c ( a ) Staff members shall have the right to appeal to a Panel of ORG after compliance with the internal appeals procedure set forth in Rule CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","( b ) A staff member may , in agreement with the Secretary General or ORG concerned , waive the jurisdiction of ORG and appeal directly to ORG . \u201d","On DATE , during its ORG plenary meeting , ORG examined and endorsed a report containing a study and recommendations on the question of legal capacity of the ORG and the granting of privileges and immunities to the organisation in the various participating GPE .","Relevant excerpts from the report read as follows :","\u201c DATE . [ T]absence of a constituent treaty has not prevented participating ORG from endowing the ORG over DATE with the attributes usually regarded as those of an international organisation : ...","( b ) The ORG is no longer only a vehicle for meetings and the organisation of cooperation between GPE ; it acts as an organisation with functions of its own entrusted to it by participating GPE . For doctrine , such autonomy presupposes that the organisation has the necessary capacity to carry out its mandate at the international level and under public international law , i.e. that the organisation has become a subject of public international law . ...","( e ) The staff of the ORG are employed by the organisation ( international and local staff ) and not participating GPE . ...","( f ) The ORG has also established an internal legal structure and norms ( Staff Regulations and Rules , Financial Regulations , Financial Instructions , ORG ) , and its own mechanism for settling employment disputes through a ORG rather than national courts . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171093","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FRANZ MAIER GMBH v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant company is a limited liability company with its seat in Bad PERSON , producing building materials of concrete and using crushed stones ( Schotter ) for this purpose .","On DATE the applicant company requested ORG ( PERSON ) to issue a licence under LAW ( wasserrechtliche GPE ) for dredging ( GPE ) on its plot .","On DATE ORG decided to issue the licence for dredging and imposed certain conditions .","On DATE TIME , the owner of the NORP mineral water spring appealed against this decision , claiming that the dredging had a negative impact on DATE .","On DATE ORG f\u00fcr Land- PERSON , PERSON ) ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) ordered the applicant company to submit a plan of the projected dredging area and of all the springs and wells concerned .","On DATE the applicant company submitted some plans but stated that it had no knowledge about the location of the spring and PERSON refused to provide the necessary information .","On DATE the applicant company submitted further plans to the authorities .","On DATE the ORG served an expert opinion on the applicant company . According to this expert opinion the information submitted by the applicant company was not sufficient to prove that there was no negative impact of dredging on the springs . The applicant company was requested to comment hereon .","On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of ORG and remitted it back to the first instance authority on the grounds that the applicant company had failed to provide sufficient information in order to assess a possible negative impact on DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant company to submit the missing documents .","On DATE the applicant company submitted a private expert opinion to the Regional Governor .","On DATE an oral hearing was held .","On DATE ORG Governor again issued the requested licence for dredging and imposed certain conditions .","On DATE H.P. , the Bad GPE municipality and the Bad GPE DATE company appealed against this decision to the ORG .","On DATE the applicant company submitted written comments to the Ministry .","On DATE the applicant company complained to ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) about the administration \u2019s failure to decide ( PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG ordered the Ministry to decide within DATE .","On DATE the ORG transmitted another expert \u2019s opinion to the parties and requested the applicant company to submit the missing documents .","On DATE the Ministry requested ORG to extend the deadline for the decision to DATE as the proceedings were not finalised .","On DATE the applicant company commented on the recently obtained expert opinion ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) claiming , inter alia , that the Ministry failed to determine which missing documents were to be submitted .","On DATE the ORG prolonged the deadline for ORG until DATE .","On DATE the applicant company submitted another private expert opinion to the Ministry .","On DATE the Ministry rejected the requested dredging licence on the grounds that the applicant company had failed to submit all the requested documents .","On DATE ORG closed the proceedings on the applicant company \u2019s complaint about the administration \u2019s failure to decide ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and ordered the reimbursement of the costs related to this complaint .","On DATE the applicant company lodged a complaint with ORG .","On DATE ORG asked ORG and the other parties to submit written observations within DATE .","On DATE TIME , the Bad NORP municipality and the Bad GPE DATE company submitted their written observations .","The ORG submitted written observations which were served on the applicant company on DATE .","On DATE the applicant company put forward further submissions in reply to the ORG \u2019s observations ; PERSON , the Bad GPE municipality and the Bad GPE DATE company replied hereto on DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision by ORG as it was not clarified which documents the applicant company had to submit .","On DATE the applicant company submitted CARDINAL other private expert opinions to ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant company lodged another application against the administration \u2019s failure to decide with ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the Ministry to decide within DATE .","On DATE the ORG submitted another expert opinion to the parties and asked the applicant company to submit certain precisely mentioned documents within DATE .","On DATE the applicant company referred to the already submitted private expert opinions and claimed that the mentioned documents were not necessary . In addition , it requested to appoint another expert . Nonetheless , it submitted a supplementary expert opinion .","On DATE ORG extended to DATE the deadline for ORG to decide .","On DATE the Ministry requested the Bad GPE municipality and the Bad GPE DATE company ( PERSON appeal had meanwhile been considered to be withdrawn ) to submit written observations on the documents recently transmitted by the applicant company .","On DATE the Bad NORP municipality and the Bad GPE DATE company submitted their written observations , to which the applicant company replied on DATE .","On DATE the applicant company submitted another private expert opinion to the Ministry in compliance with the ORG \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the Ministry communicated a further expert opinion for the applicant company \u2019s information .","On DATE the Ministry dismissed the appeals and therefore permitted the requested dredging by the applicant company . This decision , served on the applicant company on DATE , became final .","On DATE ORG closed the proceedings on the applicant company \u2019s second complaint about the administration \u2019s failure to decide ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and ordered the reimbursement of the costs related to this complaint ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174065","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF NIKOLAYEVY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively and live in GPE .","A CARDINAL - roomed flat at CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL GPE , GPE , was owned by the city . PERSON and her son resided there as tenants under the social housing agreement with the city .","On DATE PERSON died . On DATE the municipal authorities de - registered her tenancy .","On DATE PERSON \u2019s son died . On an unspecified date the municipal authorities de - registered his tenancy .","On an unspecified date ORG submitted a forged copy of a court judgment to ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) recognising her right to reside in the flat and on DATE ORG entered into a social housing lease agreement with ORG and her family .","On DATE ORG transferred the title to the flat to A. , her husband and her daughter under the privatisation scheme .","On DATE and her husband sold the flat to the applicant . On DATE the city registration body issued a certificate confirming the first applicant \u2019s title to the flat . The applicants moved into the flat and resided there .","On an unspecified date ORG obtained information that the court judgment submitted by PERSON might have been forged and on DATE the housing authorities asked the prosecutor \u2019s office to conduct a relevant inquiry .","On DATE the Nikulinskiy ORG of GPE invalidated the social housing lease agreement of DATE and the privatisation agreement of CARDINAL DATE .","On an unspecified date ORG brought an action against the applicants seeking the transfer of the flat to the city and the applicants\u2019 eviction .","On DATE ORG granted ORG claims in full . The court ruled that the case fell under one of the CARDINAL exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser \u2019s title , which required that precedence be given to the previous owner who had been deprived of the property against his or her will . The first applicant \u2019s title to the flat was annulled and the title was transferred to GPE . The court also ordered the applicants\u2019 eviction . The applicants appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On an unspecified date the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s additional time to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The applicants were required to vacate the flat by DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the said decision on appeal .","The applicants continued to reside in the flat . On DATE ORG entered into a housing agreement with them in respect of the flat for a term of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181070","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SOLONENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention;Trial within a reasonable time)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184655","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA;RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MANG\u00ceR AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (Russia);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect) (Russia);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (Russia);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention;Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment) (Russia)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants , who are police officers , were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first and second applicants live in GPE and PERSON and the remaining applicants live in PERSON .","On DATE officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who were conducting a criminal investigation in PERSON , were arrested by the secret service of the self - proclaimed \u201c GPE \u201d ( \u201c FAC ) . During their arrest they managed to call the PERSON police station .","The other CARDINAL applicants ( officers GPE and PERSON ) went to PERSON to clarify the reasons for the arrest of their colleagues , but were also arrested upon their arrival .","The applicants were placed in FAC ( PERSON ) .","On DATE officers PERSON , GPE and PERSON were released without charge and without any explanation for their arrest .","On DATE officer PERSON was allegedly beaten up and injected with an unknown substance , which rendered him unconscious for DATE . After his release he was admitted for in - patient treatment in the hospital of ORG of GPE , where he was diagnosedwith , inter alia , concussion .","On DATE ORG issued a warrant for officer PERSON to be detained for DATE . On DATE the \u201c FAC authorities released officers PERSON and PERSON . The head of the \u201c FAC secret service declared in an interview that the officers had been released after NORP authorities had \u201c given assurances \u201d that GPE authorities would not \u201c kidnap people \u201d in the \u201c FAC .","The applicants were accused in the \u201c FAC media of being members of \u201c black squadrons \u201d created for the purpose of kidnapping politicians and other persons causing nuisance to the GPE authorities . According to the applicants , during their detention they were questioned by the \u201c FAC secret service and forced to declare that in PERSON they had been trying to kidnap \u201c FAC politicians . Officers PERSON , GPE and PERSON were allegedly beaten on the soles of their feet and threatened with the killing of members of their families , as well as with being transferred to cells occupied by common criminals , where they would be ill - treated or even killed .","Officer PERSON was allegedly subjected to so - called \u201c NORP hanging \u201d for TIME and was taken to his cell unconscious thereafter .","The applicants described as follows their conditions of detention at FAC . The cells in which they had been held had been in the basement and had not had access to natural light . In the absence of ventilation and because of overcrowding it had been difficult to breathe . Officer PERSON submits that he was detained in the same cell as that in which Mr PERSON had been detained ( for more details see ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ) .","During their detention the applicants did not have any DATE exercise and were not given access to a shower ; they could not receive parcels containing food from their relatives , they did not have bed linen and they were not allowed to be seen by doctors .","After the applicants\u2019 release the NORP authorities initiated CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings concerning their unlawful detention and their alleged ill - treatment while in detention . However , DATE the investigation was discontinued .","The applicants were also subjected to medical check - ups , which found no traces of violence on their bodies . CARDINAL applicant , PERSON , was found to be suffering from the consequences of concussion ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167493","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF K\u00c9ZDISZENTKERESZTI B\u00cdR\u00d3 v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request for an increase of her disability pension before ORG ( ORG ) , which dismissed her claim on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision on CARDINAL DATE . The Central - Hungarian Regional Insurance Directorate acting as a second - instance authority upheld the first - instance decision on ORG CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant sought the judicial review of the second - instance decision within the statutory time - limit . She submitted her statement of claim on CARDINAL DATE to the first - instance administrative authority , in line with the applicable procedural laws .","In the absence of any developments in the case , the applicant notified the first - instance administrative authority about upholding her claim on DATE . The first - instance administrative authority subsequently forwarded the applicant \u2019s statement of claim to ORG on DATE .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183122","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BIKI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In the former NORP socialist regime all employees contributed to housing funds . The funds thus obtained were used , inter alia , to build blocks of flats . The flats were distributed to employees , who acquired protected tenancies in respect of them and other already existing socially owned flats . Each publicly owned company drew up a list of persons to be granted specially protected tenancies . When a person on such a list was granted a specially protected tenancy , his or her housing needs were considered to have been met and his or her name would be removed from the list .","The applicant was employed by a socially owned company , S. All employees of S. paid contributions to a housing fund in the amount of PERCENT of their DATE salaries .","On DATE company S. granted the applicant a specially protected tenancy of a flat measuring QUANTITY in the GPE suburbs , with the right to occupy it together with her husband and QUANTITY daughters . However , since that decision was not yet final , company S. entered into an agreement with the applicant on DATE giving her the right to move into the flat with her family and to care for that flat . The applicant moved into the flat and has been living there ever since .","The decision to grant the applicant a specially protected tenancy was challenged by CARDINAL other employees and quashed by ORG ( PERSON ) .","On DATE the housing committee of company S. drew up a priority list for the distribution of flats . The applicant was the first on the list . On DATE the company \u2019s workers\u2019 council approved the priority list . On the basis of that list she was entitled to have a decision allocating a flat to her issued . On DATE the flats of the company S. were transferred for management to GPE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , CARDINAL other employees of company S. brought an action before the competent court , seeking to have the priority list declared null and void . Competence in the matter was subsequently transferred to ORG , which on DATE dismissed the claims on the merits since there was no possibility under the relevant law to bring such an action at all . A civil action could be brought to challenge the decision on allocation of a flat but not to challenge a priority list .","On DATE the ORG amended the judgment of DATE so as to declare the actions inadmissible on the same grounds , namely that the priority list could not be challenged before a court of law .","Meanwhile , on DATE ORG had enacted ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo ) , which abolished the specially protected tenancies and regulated the sale of socially owned flats previously let under a specially protected tenancy .","On DATE the applicant asked GPE as the owner of the flat to conclude a contract for the sale of the flat with herself as the buyer . GPE did not take any decision within the prescribed time - limit of DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant re - submitted to the GPE her request to purchase the flat she occupied . The request was refused on DATE because she had not been granted a specially protected tenancy in respect of that flat .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against GPE , which in the meantime had become the owner of the flat she occupied , seeking a judgment in lieu of the contract of sale of the flat in question .","The claim was dismissed by ORG on DATE on the grounds that the applicant had not acquired a protected tenancy of the flat in question , since the priority list did not constitute a decision on the granting of protected tenancies within the meaning of LAW .","The judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE . The court held that the applicant did not have a final decision on allocation of the flat to her .","In a subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant , she complained that her right to equality before the law , her right to an appeal as well as her right to a fair trial had been violated . She argued that she had been the first on a priority list drawn up by company S. for the distribution of flats . The only reasons she had not been formally granted a specially protected tenancy of the flat she had been occupying were the challenge of the priority list by her co - workers and the delay in the civil proceedings before ORG . However , once those proceedings had ended , all of the conditions for recognition of her specially protected tenancy of the flat at issue had been met . The DATE validity of the priority list was to be counted from the date of its being confirmed , which in the applicant \u2019s case had occurred when the national courts had dismissed all the objections concerning that list . By not recognising her right to a specially protected tenancy , the national authorities had deprived her of the possibility to purchase the flat she occupied under favourable conditions . She also relied on some other decisions of the ORG whereby it had granted protection to persons in situations comparable to her own .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint on the grounds that the findings of the lower courts that she had not acquired a specially protected tenancy of the flat at issue had been correct . It further held that the decisions the applicant had relied on concerned persons who had had specially protected tenancies which they had subsequently lost ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156247","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SERIKOV v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by police officers PERSON and PERSON of the drug crimes unit and taken to ORG ( \u201c the police station \u201d ) .","Officer PERSON drew up a report following the search of his personal effects , according to which a package containing a substance , later determined to be marijuana , was found on the applicant . The report , indicating that it was drawn up at CARDINAL p.m. on DATE , was signed by the applicant and attesting witnesses PERSON and T.","According to the Government , when officers PERSON and PERSON began drawing up the above - mentioned report at the scene of the applicant \u2019s arrest , the applicant attempted to escape . The officers then handcuffed him . The applicant was then taken to the police station where he and the attesting witnesses were questioned . At TIME the applicant was released having signed a note affirming that he had no complaints against the police .","According to the applicant , at the police station he was ill - treated to make him confess . In particular , he alleged that he was threatened with rape , kicked and hit on the head and torso , and threatened with weapons . He was subjected to a \u201c NORP hanging \u201d ; with his hands cuffed behind his back he was raised to the height of CARDINAL QUANTITY and then dropped face down on the floor . He lost consciousness several times . When she arrived at the police station , the applicant \u2019s mother found him with bruises on his face , a swollen chin and marks of handcuffs on his wrists .","At the police station the applicant wrote CARDINAL notes addressed to the police dated DATE . In an \u201c explanatory note \u201d the applicant stated that he had acquired some marijuana for personal use and had had it when the police had stopped him . The applicant further stated that he had not been physically or psychologically pressured . In a separate note he stated that he had no complaints against the police and undertook to appear when summoned .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE an ambulance arrived at the police station and the applicant was examined by a paramedic , PERSON The paramedic noted in her report that the examination was completed at TIME According to the report , the applicant had no complaints and nothing abnormal was detected . According to the applicant , the head of the drug crimes unit , officer PERSON , was present during this examination and spoke with the paramedic afterwards .","Following the applicant \u2019s examination at the police station he and his mother went to ORG of ORG ( \u201c the Regional Directorate \u201d ) , where they arrived at TIME on DATE , and where the applicant lodged a complaint accusing police officers of ill - treatment .","Officer PERSON followed the applicant to ORG and arranged for him to be examined by the medical expert on duty there .","At TIME on DATE forensic medical expert GPE examined the applicant at ORG . According to his report , finalised on DATE , the expert had been called upon to determine the presence and seriousness of any bodily injuries . The applicant said to the expert that the police had grabbed him by the neck and arms at the time of the arrest and had handcuffed him . He complained of a headache and pain in his shoulders . The report recorded a haematoma of QUANTITY in width on the applicant \u2019s neck , a haematoma of QUANTITY on the inner side of his left shoulder , and CARDINAL strip - like bruises on his left wrist . The expert took the view that the injuries could have been inflicted on the date and under the circumstances described by the applicant , and that the bruises on his wrist could have been caused by handcuffs .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant sought medical aid at ORG ( \u201c the hospital \u201d ) where he was diagnosed with concussion and contusion of the soft tissues of the head and the rib cage . Hospitalisation was recommended but the applicant refused .","On DATE the applicant was examined by PERSON at the Neurology , ORG of ORG . He was diagnosed with a brain concussion of medium seriousness and numerous bruises on his arms , shoulder blades and spine .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged a criminal complaint with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against the police officers . She alleged that excessive force had been used to arrest her son and that he had then been tortured , humiliated and threatened with rape at the police station .","On DATE the ORG requested an examination of the applicant and his medical documentation by forensic medical experts . On CARDINAL DATE medical experts GPE and GPE examined the applicant and his medical documentation .","In the course of pre - investigation enquiries in respect of the allegations of ill - treatment , the ORG obtained statements ( written explanations ) from a number of individuals . In particular , in his written explanation , Mr GPE , who had witnessed the applicant \u2019s arrest , stated that at TIME on DATE a stranger , without introducing himself , had grabbed the applicant by the scruff of his neck or by the shirt collar and , threatening him with a gun , pulled him to a car . He and another stranger had then grabbed the applicant by the arms , searched him and put him into their car . Officers PERSON and PERSON stated that at the time of arrest the applicant had attempted to flee and had been handcuffed . They and officer PERSON insisted that the applicant had not been ill - treated in any way . Attesting witnesses PERSON and NORP confirmed the statements by the police and stated that the applicant had attempted to flee while the search report was being drawn up . He had then been caught and handcuffed .","In his written explanation given to the ORG on CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated , in particular , that immediately after having stopped him a police officer had hit him on the head , stomach and ribs with the handle and muzzle of his gun . He had then been pulled by the arms to a police car . At the police station the police officers had pulled down his trousers and threatened him with rape , had subjected him to a \u201c NORP hanging \u201d , and dropped him to the floor , causing him to lose consciousness . When his mother had arrived at the police station entrance hall she had seen him with a bruised and swollen chin , haematomas and bruises on his head , arms and body .","On DATE the ORG , referring to the above - mentioned evidence , refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of a corpus delicti in their actions . The ORG found that the applicant \u2019s handcuffing was the only instance of the use of force in respect of the applicant and that it had been lawful under LAW of DATE ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) . The applicant \u2019s injuries recorded at TIME on DATE were consistent with the police ORG statements concerning the applicant \u2019s arrest and handcuffing . The ORG also stated that the applicant \u2019s and his mother \u2019s allegations were not supported by any objective data other than their own statements . The applicant \u2019s mother appealed .","On DATE the applicant , in a written explanation to PERSON Prosecutor \u2019s Office ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , largely confirmed his earlier statements and added that in the police car on the way to the police station the police officers had repeatedly hit him on the head and torso .","On DATE forensic medical experts completed their report requested by the ORG on DATE and based on their examination of the applicant on CARDINAL DATE . They noted that the applicant had complained to them that he had been hit with a gun on the head and torso during his arrest and then ill - treated at the police station . The experts recapitulated that at the time of previous medical examinations the applicant had had a brain concussion , haematomas on his neck and left shoulder , and bruises on his left wrist . They were of the opinion that the injuries were consistent with the applicant \u2019s statements as to their origin .","On DATE the ORG set aside the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE and remitted the materials for additional inquiry . The court held , in particular , that the ORG \u2019s enquiries had failed to explain the applicant \u2019s injuries recorded at TIME on DATE .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , in the course of examination of a criminal case against the applicant for possession of drugs , ordered the ORG to conduct , by DATE , an investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE ( apparently due to a clerical error the text of the decision indicates DATE as its date ) the ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers on grounds similar to the ORG \u2019s decision . The applicant \u2019s mother appealed .","On DATE ORG set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the materials for additional inquiry . The court found , in particular , that the ORG \u2019s decision had fully replicated the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE , had not explained the reasons for which the ORG had accepted the police ORG version of events and had failed to explain how the applicant \u2019s handcuffing could explain all his recorded injuries .","On DATE the ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings on grounds similar to the earlier decisions . It informed ORG that by this decision it complied with the court \u2019s ruling of DATE . The applicant \u2019s mother appealed .","On DATE ORG set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the materials for additional inquiry . The court held , in particular , that the pre - investigation enquiries had collected sufficient information that a crime had been committed . Further investigation into the origin of the applicant \u2019s injuries required such investigative steps as a confrontation between the applicant and the police officers and a reconstruction of events , which could not be conducted within the framework of pre - investigation enquiries without the institution of criminal proceedings .","In the course of the subsequent round of pre - investigation enquiries the ORG again obtained written explanations from the police officers and the attesting witnesses , who largely repeated their previous statements .","On DATE the ORG , referring to the evidence gathered , refused to institute criminal proceedings on grounds similar to the earlier decisions . The applicant \u2019s mother appealed .","On DATE ORG set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the materials for additional inquiry , holding that the ORG had failed to comply with the court \u2019s previous instructions .","In the course of the subsequent round of pre - investigation enquiries the ORG obtained written explanations from several individuals . Dr PERSON stated , in particular , that the applicant \u2019s injuries she had recorded on DATE could have been sustained from DATE . The applicant \u2019s mother largely repeated her allegations and stated that she and the applicant had travelled from the police station to ORG in a neighbour \u2019s car which had been followed by officer PERSON \u2019s car .","On DATE the ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers on grounds similar to the earlier decisions , referring in addition to the explanations collected in the course of the latest round of pre - investigative enquiries . The ORG stated that ORG rulings of CARDINAL DATE and DATE had been impossible to comply with since investigative actions indicated by the court could only be conducted once criminal proceedings had been initiated and not at the stage of pre - investigation enquiries . The applicant \u2019s mother appealed .","On DATE ORG set aside the decision of DATE and remitted the materials for additional inquiry . The court held in particular that the ORG had failed to resolve the contradictions in the medical evidence . The ORG had also failed to resolve the contradictions between the applicant \u2019s , witness GPE \u2019s , and the police ORG accounts of the circumstances of the use of force during the applicant \u2019s arrest , which , in the court \u2019s opinion , could explain the documented injuries .","In the course of the subsequent round of pre - investigation enquiries the ORG obtained written explanations from paramedic PERSON She stated that she had not seen any signs of injury on the applicant on DATE . She had not been pressured by the police . The applicant himself had not voiced any complaints , but his mother had said that her son had been beaten up . She also stated that she was not a specialist in forensic medicine and could not speculate as to the origin of injuries which had been documented later .","On DATE the ORG requested an opinion of a forensic medical specialist on a number of questions concerning the applicant \u2019s injuries , in particular whether his injuries , as recorded in the available medical documentation , could have been inflicted CARDINAL p.m. on DATE and TIME on DATE .","On DATE the ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings . The ORG noted , in particular , that ORG , in the rulings of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , had indicated the need to conduct certain investigative actions , namely confrontation between the applicant and the police officers and reconstruction of events with the participation of the applicant and forensic experts . The ORG stated that these instructions had been impossible to comply with since such actions could only be conducted once criminal proceedings had been initiated and not at the stage of pre - investigation enquiries . The ORG also stated that the applicant \u2019s injuries recorded at TIME on DATE were consistent with the police ORG statements concerning the applicant \u2019s arrest and handcuffing .","On DATE the ORG informed the ORG that its decision of DATE had been a \u201c mere copy \u201d of the decision of CARDINAL DATE and had failed to comply with ORG ruling of CARDINAL DATE . The ORG directed the ORG to fully comply with ORG instructions . According to the Government , the ORG had then conducted a new round of pre - investigation enquiries and as a result the decision of DATE was allowed to stand .","On DATE a forensic medical expert produced a report in response to the ORG \u2019s request of DATE and based on the medical evidence available in the case file . The expert stated , in particular , that it could not be ruled out that the applicant \u2019s documented injuries could have been inflicted CARDINAL p.m. on DATE and TIME on DATE . The expert also took the opinion that the diagnoses of contusion of the soft tissues of the head and of the rib cage , numerous bruises of arms , shoulder blades and spine which had been noted by the hospital staff on CARDINAL DATE and by PERSON on DATE had not been confirmed by objective forensic medical information or the results of any tests , and for these reasons could not be taken into account in the forensic medical analysis .","According to the applicant , he had first learned about the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE from the ORG \u2019s observations in the present case .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother challenged the decision of DATE before ORG .","At the time of the most recent communication from the applicant the proceedings before ORG were pending ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156027","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"G.H. v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . She was represented before the ORG by Mr NORP GPE , acting on behalf of ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152386","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF GAVOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","He was employed by ORG , a company based in PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees , the applicant brought a civil claim , seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in PERSON rendered a decision ordering the debtor to pay him certain sum . On DATE this decision became final .","Due to the debtor \u2019s failure to fulfil its obligations from this decision , the applicant submitted an enforcement request . On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) in Po\u017eega issued an enforcement order to that effect .","On DATE ORG ( NORP sud ) in PERSON opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor . As a result , all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were terminated .","The applicant duly reported his claim based on the above - mentioned court decision to the insolvency administration .","On DATE the court accepted the applicant \u2019s claim .","NORP On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the decision at issue had been partially enforced in the insolvency proceedings .","The insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor are still ongoing .","The debtor , which operated as a socially - owned company , was privatised on DATE .","On DATE the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations .","Following the annulment of the debtor \u2019s privatisation the ORG owned PERCENT of shares in the company .","On DATE the ORG sold its shares to a private company ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157281","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SERGEYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of corruption and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG modified the judgment on appeal . It characterised the offence as an abuse of power and reduced the sentence to one and a half years\u2019 imprisonment . A prosecutor was present during the hearing and made oral submissions . The applicant also attended the hearing , but was not represented . As it happened , on the same day his lawyer had asked ORG to examine the case in his absence .","DATE and DATE the applicant was held in remand prison GPE in GPE . The prison was overcrowded ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168845","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF FEDORIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At CARDINAL p.m. on DATE the applicant was apprehended by officers of ORG ( ORG , \u201c the drugs police \u201d ) during a test purchase of drugs from him . According to the applicant , he was brought to their LOC at QUANTITY His account was corroborated by CARDINAL drug police officers and CARDINAL attesting witnesses . An arrest record was not compiled . Furthermore , at QUANTITY on the following day he was put in a cell that had not bed or stool , light , lavatory or running water , and was smeared with dirt and faeces . During his detention he had not been provided with food or drink , or permitted to use the toilet , but had had to urinate in a plastic bottle . At TIME a criminal case was instituted against the applicant , and TIME later an investigator drew the arrest record , thus formally remanding the applicant in custody . At TIME on DATE he was transferred to a temporary detention centre .","On DATE the ORG of Samara remanded the applicant in custody . In particular , the court mentioned the following arguments : seriousness and nature of charges ; previous conviction not being expunged ; absence of \u201c regular source of income \u201d ; hence possibility of continuing criminal activities or absconding or obstructing justice in any other manner . The applicant did not appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE finding that the grounds on which the preventive measure had previously been imposed still persisted and there was no reason to vary the preventive measure . Additionally , the court mentioned that the applicant had permanent place of residence and employment but it further stated that the applicant \u201c did not have a regular source of income \u201d .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , endorsing the reasoning of the district court . The prosecutor was present at the appeal hearing unlike both the applicant and his counsel .","On DATE the Kuybyshevskiy ORG of Samara found the applicant guilty of selling large quantities of narcotics and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment in a strict - security institution .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction . The prosecutor was present at the appeal hearing whereas both the applicant and his counsel were absent ."],"violated_articles":["3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-151000","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KIIVERI v. FINLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice;Criminal offence);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant owns PERCENT of the shares in a limited liability company which is active in the construction and decoration business . The applicant is the managing director and a member of the board of directors of the company .","NORP In DATE the tax authorities carried out a tax inspection of the company and concluded that it had failed to declare and pay a considerable amount of taxes and that it had , inter alia , paid salaries off the books and undertaken other fraudulent activity .","On DATE the tax authorities imposed additional income tax and also tax surcharges ( veronkorotus , skattef\u00f6rh\u00f6jning ) both on the company and on the applicant for DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . The applicant apparently did not appeal against those decisions and the bailiff seized the imposed sums . The period set for appeal in tax matters is DATE counted from the beginning of the calendar year following DATE when the initial taxation decision was taken . Therefore the taxation concerning DATE , DATE and DATE became final on DATE , DATE , and DATE respectively . The period for appeal for DATE elapsed on DATE .","NORP In DATE the police started a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s activities . On DATE the prosecutor brought charges against the applicant for accounting offence ( kirjanpitorikos , bokf\u00f6ringsbrott ) and aggravated tax fraud ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 veropetos , grovt skattebedr\u00e4geri ) on CARDINAL counts . The first count concerned DATE and the applicant \u2019s activities as the managing director and a member of the board of directors of the company . The applicant was accused of aggravated tax fraud as he had deducted fabricated receipts , failed to declare the company \u2019s real income , paid salaries off the books and , consequently , the tax imposed on the company had been too low . The second count concerned DATE and from DATE . The applicant was accused of aggravated tax fraud as he had failed to declare his own income and , consequently , the tax imposed on him had been too low . The tax authorities joined the charges and presented a compensation claim totalling approximately the amount of avoided taxes .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of aggravated tax fraud as charged and of accounting offence . He was sentenced to imprisonment for DATE and ordered to pay the tax authorities CARDINAL ( ORG ) plus interest as compensation . It was noted that the sums already seized from the applicant in the administrative proceedings could be deducted from the compensation . In addition , he was banned from undertaking business activities for DATE .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG of GPE ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) , requesting that ORG judgment be quashed and the charges dismissed . He relied also on the principle of ne bis in idem and the ORG \u2019s case - law in that respect .","On DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , upheld the judgment for the most part , but considered in part that the accounting offence was aggravated and ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL more compensation to the ORG . The court considered that , as long as the time - limit for appeal had not elapsed with regard to DATE at the moment of bringing the charges against the applicant in DATE , there was no issue of ne bis in idem . Furthermore , it considered that , as concerned DATE , the time - limit for appeal had elapsed on DATE and thus the taxation had become final before the charges were brought against the applicant . However , as there still existed another kind of tax appeal which the applicant could have used , ORG finally considered that the ne bis in idem principle did not prevent the examination of the charges against the applicant also concerning DATE .","By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG . He also requested an interim order staying the execution of the lower court \u2019s judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed , without examining the merits , that part of the criminal conviction that concerned DATE as it considered that the fact that the tax surcharges imposed on the applicant had become final in DATE , that is , before the charges had been brought against the applicant in DATE , prevented the examination of the matter . Otherwise the lower court \u2019s judgment was upheld . The court considered that as long as the time - limit for appeal had not elapsed with regard to DATE at the moment when the charges were brought against the applicant , there was no issue of ne bis in idem . As a part of the applicant \u2019s conviction was dismissed without examining the merits , his sentence was accordingly also lowered to imprisonment for DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG , requesting the reopening of the case on the basis of incorrect application of the law and the prohibition on self - incrimination .","NORP Apparently in DATE this extraordinary appeal was refused by ORG ."],"violated_articles":["P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["P7-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153319","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SARK\u00d6ZI AND MAHRAN v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE , GPE . She came to GPE in DATE holding a visa and settled in GPE . She was later issued temporary residence permits , until she was granted a permanent residence permit on DATE .","The first applicant subsequently met an NORP citizen and married him . From that union , the second applicant was born in DATE in GPE . DATE , but continued to hold joint custody of their son .","Other family members of the first applicant living in GPE are her daughter from a first marriage , her daughter \u2019s husband and child , her brother and her parents .","The second applicant has NORP citizenship and lives in GPE with his father . Other family members of his living in GPE are his grandparents , his uncle , his CARDINAL - sister and her family .","The first applicant \u2019s criminal record shows CARDINAL convictions .","On DATE ORG ( Bezirksgericht ) convicted the first applicant of deliberately causing bodily harm and sentenced her to pay a fine of CARDINAL NORP Schillings ( \u201c ATS \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG ( Straflandesgericht , \u201c the Criminal Court \u201d ) convicted the first applicant of attempted aggravated fraud and sentenced her to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended with a probationary period of DATE .","On DATE the NORP ORG convicted the first applicant of causing damage to private property and sentenced her to pay a fine of CARDINAL DATE rates ( PERSON ) , in sum ORG CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG convicted the first applicant of causing damage to private property , bodily harm and assault on a police officer and sentenced her to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , again suspended with a probationary period of DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted the first applicant and her former husband ( the second applicant \u2019s father ) of partly attempted , partly completed fraud and sentenced them to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended on probation .","On DATE ORG convicted the first applicant of aggravated fraud and sentenced her to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The probationary period for her previous conviction was extended to DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was convicted of partly attempted , partly completed aggravated fraud on a commercial basis and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The first applicant started serving her sentence on DATE and was released on DATE . During that time , the second applicant lived with his father .","In a letter dated DATE ORG ) warned the first applicant that , if convicted once more , an exclusion order could be issued against her ( Aufenthaltsverbot ) .","On DATE , following her latest conviction and threeyear prison sentence , ORG ) issued an unlimited exclusion order against the first applicant , pursuant to sections CARDINAL \u00a7 DATE \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Fremdenpolizeigesetz ) . It stated that after the first applicant \u2019s conviction in DATE , ORG had refrained from issuing an exclusion order against her , because she had already been living in GPE for DATE and held a permanent residence permit . The authorities stated that at that point they did not consider that she posed a serious threat to public order and security within the meaning of section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . However , her most recent conviction did justify the assumption that her further stay in GPE endangered public order and safety . The exclusion order was necessary to protect the economic wellbeing of GPE and to prevent criminal activities , hence it was in accordance with LAW . It further held that even though the exclusion order constituted an interference with her private and family life , because her children and her parents lived in GPE , the public interest in her expulsion outweighed her interest in remaining in the country .","The first applicant appealed . During the oral hearing at ORG ( Unabh\u00e4ngiger Verwaltungssenat ) on DATE , she provided a letter from a general practitioner , which stated that the separation from the second applicant due to her imprisonment had caused her son severe mental stress , and that it was important for his development to grow up with his mother . She stated that her son visited her frequently in prison , and that they tried their best to keep up their relationship . Furthermore , she pointed out that she also had other close family ties to GPE , with her daughter , her brother and her parents living there . She regretted her criminal convictions and requested that the exclusion order be lifted .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It took into consideration the nature and seriousness of the offences the first applicant had committed and the resulting personality profile , reiterating that she had started her criminal activities shortly after her arrival in GPE . Her latest criminal conviction was based on numerous offences against private property , serving her as a source of income . She had therefore demonstrated that she did not respect the property of others , and that she constituted a danger to the public because of her fraudulent activities , which she had committed over a long period of time . Previous convictions for bodily harm and assault on a police officer showed that she did not shy away from attacks on life and limb either . Because she was serving her sentence at the time of the decision , it could not be assumed that the danger emanating from her person had diminished , which was why the unlimited exclusion order was justified .","Concerning her private and family life , ORG held that the first applicant was well integrated in GPE , and that many of her family members lived there , in particular her then DATE son . The exclusion order therefore constituted an interference with her rights under LAW . However , due to her criminal record and the serious nature of her offences , the public interest in her expulsion outweighed her personal interest in respect of her private and family life . Furthermore , because of the short distance between GPE and GPE of TIME by train , it would be possible for her family members to visit her frequently . The first applicant came to GPE when she was DATE , speaks the NORP language and could easily reintegrate in her country of origin . Because of the seriousness of her crimes , and because the presence of her family members in GPE could not deter her from repeatedly committing offences , the exclusion order was proportionate to the aim pursued . Because it was not possible to assess when the first applicant would cease to represent a danger , there was no reason to limit the exclusion order . ORG added that the first applicant could apply for the lifting of the exclusion order after an appropriate interval , and in any event DATE after its enforcement , if the circumstances for its issue had changed significantly .","NORP The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ) relying , inter alia , on LAW .","On DATE the ORG refused to deal with the complaint and referred it to ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) .","On DATE ORG rejected her complaint due to the lack of any important legal question to be answered . It stated that ORG had not deviated from the previous jurisprudence of ORG .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an application for the exclusion order to be lifted pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE ORG dismissed the application .","On DATE ORG partly granted the first applicant \u2019s appeal and reduced the duration of the exclusion order to DATE , because the relevant legal provisions had changed in the meantime . Pursuant to section CARDINAL ( formerly section DATE ) of LAW as in force at the relevant time , an exclusion order against a citizen of ORG ( ORG ) may not exceed DATE in duration . Pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of that provision , the exclusion order would therefore cease to be in force on DATE , irrespective of whether the first applicant actually left the country .","The first applicant appealed against this decision . On unspecified dates , ORG and ORG rejected her complaints .","The GPE Youth and ORG , in a statement dated DATE , noted that the separation of the applicants due to the first applicant \u2019s imprisonment had already had a traumatizing effect on the second applicant and had strained the relationship between mother and son . Another separation would likely re - traumatize the second applicant and severely jeopardize his psychosocial development , which is why it would be in the best interest of the child to grant his mother a residence permit .","A medical report by psychologist ORG dated DATE attested that the second applicant was suffering from post - traumatic stress disorder , emotional disorder and separation anxiety as a result of the separation from his mother when she had to serve her time in prison . He was in need of constant psychological care and had voiced suicidal thoughts after he had learned that his mother would be expelled . Another separation from his mother would traumatise him again and have long - term effects on his mental state .","The neurologist PERSON , in a report dated DATE , diagnosed the first applicant as suffering from a pre - suicidal syndrome and stress reaction and stated that any additional stress was to be avoided . Her psychologist E.G. , in a statement of DATE , attested that she suffered from depression , anxiety and claustrophobia . She had also voiced suicidal thoughts .","A subsequent application by the first applicant for the exclusion order to be lifted , dated DATE , was unsuccessful .","On DATE the first applicant was expelled to GPE . The second applicant has lived with his father in GPE since then . Both parents continue to share custody ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-153775","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"PETROVI\u0106 AND GAJI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE NORP Prime Minister PERSON was assassinated . On DATE a state of emergency was declared in GPE . On DATE ORG issued a directive which limited civil rights during the state of emergency . Among others , habeas corpus and the right to counsel during police custody were suspended .","The applicants were arrested on DATE . They were held incommunicado at different locations until CARDINAL DATE . According to the applicants , during that time they were subjected to torture , notably , beatings , asphyxiation , electric shocks , mock executions and threats .","On DATE the applicants were brought before the investigating judge who remanded them in custody pending criminal investigation against them . The applicant PERSON complained before the investigating judge that he had been tortured , while the second applicant \u2019s lawyer said that his client had \u201c injuries on his body and certain health issues \u201d and requested that his client receive medical examination . It would appear that no steps were taken in regard to these complaints by the investigating judge . On DATE the ORG counsel requested the investigating judge to gather the medical documentation concerning the applicants from different prisons in which they had been detained .","On DATE ORG reported that the applicants had allegedly been tortured . In response to this report , ORG ( \u201c Inspectorate \u201d ) instigated an internal investigation on DATE . On DATE the applicants and several witnesses were questioned and a report was finalised on DATE . Among the facts mentioned in the report , it is stated that on DATE a doctor had noted haematomae on both applicants and that on DATE prison guards had noted \u201c visible injuries \u201d on both applicants . The report concluded that the allegations from ORG report were \u201c partly founded \u201d : on the one hand , the use of force against the applicants had not been lawful , but on the other hand , their treatment by the police had not amounted to torture . The ORG recommended ORG further to investigate this case , identify the persons who had used force , examine the reasons why the force had been used , and sanction those responsible as appropriate . It is not clear whether ORG did so .","On DATE the applicants filed a criminal complaint alleging torture against unknown persons . The public prosecutor requested further information concerning this case from FAC .","On DATE the ORG requested more information concerning the applicants\u2019 treatment from FAC .","On DATE , the applicants supplemented the criminal complaint and asked the public prosecutor to interview certain police officers .","On DATE the public prosecutor received a report of ORG .","On DATE the ORG again requested ORG to provide information concerning the applicants\u2019 treatment .","On DATE the public prosecutor rejected the ORG criminal complaint and the applicants were informed of that fact on DATE .","On DATE the chief of ORG informed the ORG that force had indeed been used against the applicants but that the use of force had been lawful .","On DATE , the applicants filed another criminal complaint , indicating the names of the alleged perpetrators for the first time . The criminal complaint was rejected on DATE and the applicants were notified of that fact on DATE . The applicants had the right to pursue a subsidiary criminal prosecution ( preuzeti krivi\u010dno gonjenje ) within DATE of the date that decision had been served on them by filing a request for an investigation ( zahtev za sprovo\u0111enje istrage ) . The applicants did not take over the criminal prosecution .","On DATE , upon the ORG request , they received a summary of the ORG \u2019s report of DATE .","On DATE , following an order by ORG , the applicants were served with a longer version of the ORG \u2019s report of DATE .","On DATE both applicants were sentenced to prison sentences for organised crime . During the first - instance trial and in their appeal , the applicants maintained that they had been subjected to torture in police detention .","A hearing for their appeal was scheduled before a CARDINAL - judge committee of ORG for DATE and DATE . However , on DATE the judge rapporteur in this case was arrested and charged with accepting money from one of the applicants to quash the first - instance judgment and release the applicants from pre - trial detention . Shortly after that arrest , CARDINAL of the ministers in ORG publicly stated that CARDINAL other judges of ORG should have also been arrested . The President of ORG then appointed another judge rapporteur and scheduled a hearing for CARDINAL and DATE .","On DATE CARDINAL of the GPE newspapers published an article claiming that the new judge rapporteur was also under pressure from criminal cartels through her daughter . Her daughter then made a public statement refuting those allegations .","On DATE ORG changed the legal qualification of the applicants\u2019 offence and upheld the remainder of the first - instance judgment .","The applicants appealed on points of law ( zahtev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosna\u017ene presude ) complaining that the judges dealing with their case had acted under pressure from the executive and the media and that they had therefore lacked independence . Additionally , the applicants claimed that the new judge rapporteur had had DATE to prepare a case which consisted of CARDINAL of pages of material . The applicants submitted a statement by the second judge rapporteur in their case ( from the criminal trial of the first judge rapporteur ) according to which she had been obliged to read TIME per day .","On DATE , ORG , in a different formation rejected the ORG appeal on points of law . ORG found that the new judge rapporteur had been appointed in accordance with the law and the fact that the trial had attracted significant attention from the media and general public did not mean that the court had acted under pressure . The applicants received that decision on DATE .","The Criminal Code DATE ( published in Official Gazette of GPE no . CARDINAL , amendments published in ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , and ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , FAC , FAC , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) was in force from DATE until DATE . The relevant Article reads as follows :","\u201c Whoever acting in an official capacity ill - treats or insults another or otherwise treats such person in a humiliating and degrading manner , shall be punished with imprisonment from DATE . \u201d","The Code of Criminal Procedure DATE ( published in ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , amendments published in ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) was in force from DATE until DATE . Most criminal offences ( including ill - treatment by public officials acting in an official capacity ) are subject to public prosecution , but some minor offences are only subject to private prosecution . Pursuant to LAW , the public prosecutor must prosecute when there is sufficient evidence that a named individual has committed a criminal offence which is subject to public prosecution . LAW provides that when the public prosecutor decides not to prosecute such an offence because of the lack of evidence , the victim of the offence may nevertheless start a subsidiary prosecution within DATE from the notification of the public prosecutor \u2019s decision ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156271","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF FRISANCHO PEREA v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) .","In DATE the applicant married A. , a NORP national . There were CARDINAL children of the marriage : PERSON , born in DATE , C. , born in DATE , and NORP , born in DATE .","The children are all NORP nationals , while PERSON is also a NORP national , and ORG and NORP also have GPE nationality .","For DATE , until DATE , the family lived together in CARDINAL household in GPE . A. then moved to stay with friends , took the children with her , the couple agreed on alternating custody , and they started receiving marriage counselling . Nevertheless , PERSON filed for divorce , but then withdrew her petition .","On DATE left GPE for GPE , taking the children with her . The following day she informed the applicant that they had left and that she had no intention of coming back .","In DATE filed for divorce in GPE and requested that the children be entrusted to her custody by way of an interim measure . The status and outcome ( if any ) of these proceedings is not known .","On DATE the applicant filed an application for the return of the children to GPE as the country of their habitual residence , relying on the ( NORP ) International Private and LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) , ORG ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL of DATE concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility , and LAW .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s Hague Convention application was transmitted to the Bratislava I ORG , through the intermediary of ORG responsible for implementing LAW .","On DATE ORG ordered the children \u2019s return to GPE , having found that it was the country of their habitual residence , that they had been removed from there wrongfully , and that no obstacles to the return had been established .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal filed by ORG and upheld the return order . The matter thus became resolved by force of a final and binding decision on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant filed for judicial enforcement of the return order .","Upon several unsuccessful attempts at having NORP comply with the order voluntarily , ORG acceded to the petition on CARDINAL DATE by issuing a warrant for the order \u2019s enforcement .","On DATE the ORG quashed the enforcement warrant following an appeal by A. It observed that , meanwhile , A. had challenged the decision of DATE by way of a complaint under LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) to ORG ; that on DATE ORG had declared that complaint admissible ; and that , at the same time , it had suspended the enforceability of the return order pending the outcome of the proceedings on the merits of the complaint of A. ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) .","ORG concluded that , in those circumstances , an essential prerequisite for the enforcement of the return order had lapsed .","Consequently , the matter was remitted to ORG for a new decision to be taken in the light of the outcome of the constitutional complaint of A.","The applicant challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE by way of an appeal on points of law . He pointed out that there had been no hearing before ORG and that it was only from ORG decision that he had learned of ORG decisions underlying it and of other new relevant facts , such as that the applicant had applied for the enforcement proceedings to be stayed .","As ORG decisions had not been served on him and he had had no knowledge of those facts , he had been deprived of an opportunity to comment and to consider the taking of other legal steps .","This was contrary to the principles of adversary proceedings and equality of arms and , in the applicant \u2019s submission , he had thereby been \u201c prevented from acting before the court \u201d , which constituted an admissibility ground for his appeal under LAW ( f ) of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended \u2013 \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG declared the appeal inadmissible . It observed that ORG had of its own motion obtained a copy of ORG decision to suspend the enforceability of the return order , that it had based its decision on it , and that a copy of ORG decision had never been served on the applicant .","However , ORG also noted that ORG decision was binding upon ORG and considered that , therefore , having it served on the applicant and having allowed him to comment could not have had any impact on ORG decision .","Therefore , in ORG conclusion , the ground invoked by the applicant for the admissibility of his appeal had not been given .","In consequence , it became incumbent upon ORG to rule on the applicant \u2019s enforcement petition anew , which it did on DATE by dismissing it .","ORG observed that on CARDINAL DATE ORG had quashed the decision upholding the return order and that it had remitted the appeal of ORG against that order to ORG for a new determination ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The return order was thus pending on appeal and , as such , it was no longer enforceable .","ORG decision became final and binding on DATE .","On DATE challenged the decision of DATE to uphold the return order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) by way of a complaint to ORG . It was directed against ORG and , in it , she submitted that the applicant had filed observations in reply to her appeal against the return order ; that she had not been served a copy of these observations ; that her appeal had been determined without a hearing ; and that she had accordingly been deprived of the opportunity to comment on those observations , which was contrary to her rights under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( right to judicial protection ) , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( equality of parties to judicial proceedings ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( right to comment on the evidence assessed ) of the LAW , as well as LAW ( fairness ) of the LAW .","In addition , ORG requested that ORG indicate an interim measure to the effect that the enforceability of the contested decision be suspended .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint admissible and ruled that the enforceability of the decision of CARDINAL DATE should be suspended pending the outcome of the constitutional proceedings on the merits .","As to the latter ruling , ORG found ( i ) that the suspensive measure was not contrary to any important public interest , ( ii ) that not having the enforceability of the return order suspended could lead to an irreversible situation and \u201c cause detriment to the property sphere \u201d of A. in potential violation of her fundamental rights and freedoms , and ( iii ) that having the enforceability suspended \u201c gave rise to no risk of damage to any party concerned \u201d .","In the ensuing proceedings on the merits , ORG as the defendant of the complaint submitted , inter alia , that there was no statutory requirement for observations in reply to an appeal to be communicated to the appellant for further observations , unless the former observations had a substantial impact on the determination of the appeal . However , the applicant \u2019s observations in reply to the appeal by ORG had had no such impact .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found a violation of the rights of A. as identified above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , quashed the decision of DATE , remitted the case to ORG for a new determination of the appeal of PERSON against the return order , and awarded her legal costs . In principle , ORG fully embraced the line of argument advanced by A.","ORG also noted that the applicant had sought leave to intervene in the proceedings as a third party .","In that respect , it observed that constitutional proceedings were conducted in the procedural framework laid down in LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) , as a lex specialis , and in the ORG , as a lex generalis . LAW however envisaged no standing for third parties to intervene in proceedings on individual complaints , and its quality of a lex specialis excluded the application of the third - party - intervention rules under the ORG .","For that reason , ORG observed specifically that it had taken no account of the submissions made by the applicant .","The applicant obtained a copy of ORG judgment on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , alleging inter alia a violation of his rights under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Convention ( fairness ) in the enforcement proceedings , in particular in their phase before ORG and ORG , and raising in substance the same arguments as in his appeal on points of law ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant pointed out , in addition , that that it had been for substantially the same reasons that ORG itself had found a violation of the rights of A. in relation to her appeal against the return order .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible . It fully endorsed the reasoning behind ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and concluded that , accordingly , the complaint was manifestly ill - founded .","The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","Following ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , on DATE , ORG decided again on the appeal by PERSON against the return order of CARDINAL DATE by quashing that order and remitting the case to ORG for a new determination .","In the subsequent period a number of hearings were held at first instance and courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction dealt with various procedural matters such as translations of documents into a language the applicant understood , court fees and costs of the translations , the applicant \u2019s visiting rights in relation to his children pending the outcome of the proceedings on the merits , an injunction prohibiting A. to leave and remove the children form the territory of GPE , admission of the mother of A. to the proceedings as a third party , CARDINAL procedural fines on A. , her challenges to the first - instance judge for bias , her request for a legal - aid lawyer and establishing her whereabouts . There is no indication that any of the fines and interim rulings were actually enforced .","No decision on the merits was taken and ORG decided to terminate the proceedings on DATE . It referred to LAW last sentence ) of LAW , which permits termination of the proceedings if there is an indication that the child in question has been taken to another ORG , and observed that PERSON and the children had moved to GPE and had established residence there .","On DATE the applicant appealed and his appeal appears to be still pending ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157364","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"PODHRADSK\u00dd v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Ms D. Matu\u0161kov\u00e1 , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP On DATE the applicant was abducted by masked persons . Under the threat of killing him and his daughter they obliged the applicant to sign a document on transfer of his share in a business company . He was released on DATE .","After his release the applicant contacted ORG of ORG in ORG . He was heard several times by that authority . Subsequently the case was transferred to ORG which heard the applicant again . These interviews included those on DATE and DATE . In both , the applicant submitted that , during the incident , amounts of money in various foreign currencies had been taken away from him . In addition , in the latter questioning , he submitted that , by the forced transfer of his business share , he had suffered damage worth the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) and that he wished to join the criminal proceedings as an aggrieved party under LAW . , as applicable at the relevant time \u2013 \u201c the DATE ORG \u201d \u2013 see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) .","The interview of DATE followed the opening by ORG of a criminal investigation DATE into the suspicion that the offences of extortion and unlawful restriction of personal liberty might have been committed by CARDINAL or more persons unknown .","DATE the police authority stayed the investigation and ORG ( \u201c the PPS \u201d ) at several levels ordered that it be resumed on several occasions . In DATE the case was transferred to ORG ( \u201c the OCOC \u201d ) .","On DATE CARDINAL persons , A. and PERSON , were charged with extortion and restricting the applicant \u2019s personal liberty .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator . He submitted that , in terms of compensation , he claimed ORG CARDINAL in respect of the business share and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of the foreign currency taken away from him .","On DATE the proceedings against B. were terminated as her prosecution had become statute barred .","On DATE the proceedings were split in CARDINAL parts . The first set of proceedings concerned PERSON , who was suspected of having ordered and organised the applicant \u2019s abduction . The second set aimed at identification of the persons who had abducted the applicant . Those proceedings were stayed on CARDINAL DATE but then resumed following an order by the PPS of DATE . They are still pending before the OCOC .","Meanwhile , in the first set of proceedings , on DATE charges of extortion and restricting personal liberty had been brought against another individual , C.","On DATE and C. were indicted to stand trial in ORG on the charges mentioned above .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings . It observed that the police and the investigative authorities had generated such delays at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings that much of the evidence had lost validity . There had been repeated unlawful and arbitrary actions by these authorities such as , for example , the discontinuation of the proceedings against B. but not against the other defendants . As a result , there was no valid evidence showing that GPE and C. had committed the offences of which they stood accused .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the matter to ORG for a new determination , following appeals by the applicant and the PPS .","The proceedings are still pending .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He alleged , inter alia , that the ORG and several offices of the PPS involved in the above proceedings had breached his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill - founded .","With reference to LAW . , as amended - \u201c the DATE ORG \u201d - see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) , it held that a person who considers to have suffered damage as a result of a criminal offence may claim to be a victim of a breach of his or her right to a hearing within a reasonable time only after charges of that offence have been brought against a specific person .","ORG therefore had the power to examine only the proceedings subsequent to the bringing of charges against GPE and NORP on DATE . As the applicant \u2019s complaint was only concerned with the pre - trial phase of the proceedings , the period under examination ended on DATE when the case was transmitted to ORG by way of the indictment . The period under consideration had therefore lasted DATE and DATE which was not excessively long . In support of this conclusion , ORG observed that except for CARDINAL fourmonth period of inactivity the investigator had been acting expeditiously .","The decision was served on the applicant DATE .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide , inter alia , that an aggrieved party in criminal proceedings may attach a third - party claim for damages to the proceedings and request that the court convicting the person charged with a criminal offence ( obvinen\u00fd ) order the latter to pay compensation for the damage caused to the aggrieved party by the offence .","According to a summary of the relevant judicial practice published in ORG and Standpoints ( ORG s\u00fadnych rozhodnut\u00ed a stanov\u00edsk ) of ORG under no . DATE , a thirdparty claim for damages is properly made if it specifies the defendant against whom it is made , the ground on which it is made , and its amount .","As from DATE , the DATE ORG was entirely replaced by DATE . In so far as relevant , the DATE Code contains provisions ( LAW ) similar to those of the DATE ORG .","A third - party claim must specify the ground and scope of the claim and may only be attached to the criminal proceedings if the matter of compensation has not already been decided upon in civil or other proceedings ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and DATE ) .","Pursuant to LAW , where a court convicts a person charged with an offence which has caused damage to third persons within the meaning of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , as a rule it orders him or her to compensate such damage , provided that the claim has been filed correctly and in due time .","ORG held ( see for example its judgments in cases nos . I. \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; III . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and ORG ) that a third party who joined criminal proceedings with a claim for damages has the right to a hearing \u201c without unjustified delay \u201d ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW ) as such a duly lodged claim excludes the possibility of having it decided upon in civil proceedings ( LAW ) .","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE in case no . II . GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , relying on its previous decisions nos . GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , III . GPE DATE , III . GPE GPE , III . GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and GPE . GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG upheld the principle that , in accordance with the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) , an aggrieved party of a criminal offence , who had attached a third - party claim for damages to the criminal proceedings , was entitled to the guarantees of the civil limb of LAW . However , the aggrieved party only benefited from the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under LAW after a charge had been brought against a specific person . Despite a direct argument by the complainant to that effect , ORG gave no answer to the fact that in its judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE ) , the ORG had found that , as a matter for principle , civil - party claims for damages made in GPE jointly with or subsequently to the lodging of a criminal complaint enjoy the guarantees in question from the moment they were made .","In connection with the present application , ORG produced a report dated DATE concerning the applicability of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under LAW and its constitutional equivalent to third - party claims for damages attached to criminal proceedings ( adh\u00e9zne konanie ) . The report may be summarised as follows .","A party aggrieved by a criminal offence may attach a third - party claim for damages to the criminal proceedings concerning that offence under LAW CCP ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . above ) . Neither the statue nor the case - law of ORG make this right dependant on whether or not the defendant has been charged with the offence in question . However , it is only once a charge is brought against a specific person that a concrete legal relationship is created between the aggrieved party and the person charged and it is only then that the aggrieved party becomes entitled to assert the third - party claim against the charged person in the criminal proceedings .","Whether or not a person has been charged with the offence concerned is not a criterion for the aggrieved party \u2019s being able to make a third - party claim in the criminal proceedings but for that party \u2019s being able to rely on the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in relation to that claim ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146003","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH;MNE;SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"\u0160EREMET v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, MONTENEGRO AND SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a citizen of GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr D. Alagi\u0107 , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , ORG . The application was not communicated to ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","After its declaration of independence on DATE , a brutal war started in GPE . It would appear that CARDINAL people lost their lives and CARDINAL people were displaced in the course of the war . It is estimated that around CARDINAL people went missing and that around DATE of them is still missing . The conflict came to an end on DATE when ORG in GPE entered into force . In accordance with that Agreement , GPE consists of CARDINAL Entities , ORG and PERSON .","NORP In response to atrocities then taking place in GPE , on DATE ORG passed LAW establishing ORG for the former GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , headquartered in GPE . CARDINAL individuals have already been convicted and proceedings are ongoing for CARDINAL accused . In the period from DATE until DATE , local prosecutors in GPE and GPE were required to submit case files to the ORG for review ; no person could be arrested on suspicion of war crimes unless ORG had received the case file beforehand and found it to contain credible charges ( the \u201c Rules of the Road \u201d procedure ) . Moreover , the ORG had primacy over national courts and could take over national investigations and proceedings at any stage in the interest of international justice . As part of the ORG \u2019s completion strategy , in DATE war crimes chambers were set up within ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) with primacy over other courts in GPE as regards war crimes ( for information about that court and its jurisdiction over war crimes cases , see ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ) . CARDINAL persons have been finally convicted by ORG .","Furthermore , ORG on ORG ( \u201c the ICMP \u201d ) was established at the initiative of GPE President PERSON in DATE . It is currently headquartered in GPE . Reportedly , the ICMP has so far identified by DNA CARDINAL missing persons in GPE , whereas local authorities have identified CARDINAL missing persons by other methods . In DATE the Government of GPE and the ICMP established a ORG , also headquartered in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It became operational on DATE .","During the DATE - CARDINAL war the GPE neighbourhood of GPE was controlled by the ORG forces . In DATE of the war , many Bosniacs and NORP were killed , disappeared , tortured and\/or raped by a paramilitary group led by PERSON , also known as GPE . It would appear that the applicant \u2019s parents were killed by that group on DATE .","On DATE PERSON , one of the war - time leading political figures of PERSON , pleaded guilty before the ORG to having participated in the persecution of Bosniacs and NORP from , among other areas , the GPE neighbourhood of GPE . She was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .","Cases against PERSON , the war - time civilian leader of ORG , ORG , the war - time military leader of that Entity , and PERSON , a leading political figure of GPE in DATE , are also pending before the ORG . They are charged with the participation in a joint criminal enterprise to permanently remove ORG and NORP from , inter alia , the GPE area .","As indicated in paragraph CARDINAL above , war crimes chambers were set up within ORG in DATE . In DATE an international arrest warrant was issued against PERSON , mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL . He was arrested in GPE and extradited to GPE in DATE . On DATE the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina ( \u201c the State Prosecutor \u201d ) issued an indictment against him for crimes against humanity . Having heard CARDINAL testimonies , on DATE a Trial Chamber of ORG found him guilty of participation in the commission of a number of killings , beatings , rapes and other crimes in the GPE neighbourhood of GPE in DATE as a part of a widespread and systematic attack against the non - NORP civilian population of that territory and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ( the heaviest penalty in GPE ) . On DATE an ORG of ORG upheld the conviction against PERSON and rendered its judgment , sentencing him to DATE years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE Trial Chambers of ORG found also CARDINAL of his accomplices guilty of participation in the commission of a number of killings , beatings , rapes and other crimes in the GPE neighbourhood of GPE in DATE as a part of a widespread and systematic attack against the non - NORP civilian population of GPE and sentenced them to CARDINAL ( PERSON ) and CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ( PERSON , also known as GPE ) . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , ORG of ORG upheld those first - instance judgments .","On DATE the applicant sought and obtained declarations of presumed death with respect to his parents .","The applicant \u2019s father , PERSON , was identified by DNA on DATE . His mother , PERSON , has not yet been identified .","On DATE ORG held that there had been a violation of LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention . It ordered PERSON to release any and all information in its custody pertaining to the fate or whereabouts of the applicant \u2019s parents and to conduct a full , meaningful , thorough and detailed investigation aimed at making known the fate or whereabouts of the applicant \u2019s parents and bringing the responsible to justice . Lastly , it awarded the applicant MONEY ( BAM ) for non - pecuniary damage .","By a judgment of ORG of DATE the applicant was awarded damages as regards the disappearance and death of his parents in the amount of BAM CARDINAL . PERSON lodged an appeal against that judgment which would appear to be still pending .","LAW entered into force on DATE ( ORG GPE no . CARDINAL ) . In accordance with section CARDINAL of the Act , families have the right to know the fate of missing persons ( that is , their whereabouts if they are still alive , or the circumstances of death and their place of burial , if they are dead ) and to obtain their mortal remains . Under section CARDINAL of the Act , the relevant domestic authorities have the obligation to provide any and all such information in their keeping .","Section CARDINAL of that LAW provides for the setting up of a Missing Persons Institute . In DATE the ICMP and the Government of GPE founded the ORG , headquartered in GPE , pursuant to that provision and the Agreement on Assuming ORG - founders of ORG , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It became operational on DATE . CARDINAL of the organs of that ORG , comprised of CARDINAL representatives of families of missing persons ( see LAW mentioned above ) .","In accordance with section CARDINAL of the LAW , the status of missing person comes to an end on the date of identification . Therefore , if a missing person is declared dead but the mortal remains have not been found and identified , the process of tracing continues .","Pursuant to LAW , the families of missing persons are entitled to DATE financial support under some conditions , notably if they were supported by the missing family member until his or her disappearance and if they are still in need of support ( in other words , if they are not in paid employment and do not receive welfare benefits beyond PERCENT of the average salary paid in GPE ) . LAW provides for the setting up of ORG for that purpose . However , as the ORG has not yet been established , no payment has been made so far .","Families of missing persons are also entitled to , inter alia , temporary administration of the property of missing persons , burial of mortal remains at public expense and priority in access to education and employment for the children of missing persons ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides for the setting up of ORG with the aim of verifying information about missing persons from different sources ( government agencies , associations of families of missing persons , the FAC and ORG ) and creating a single database . While ORG were founded on DATE , it would appear that the verification process is still ongoing . Once that process is completed , all those recorded as missing will be declared dead ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) , but the tracing process will nevertheless continue ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Despite the fact that the verification process outlined in paragraph CARDINAL above is pending , any person may request that a declaration of presumed death be issued with respect to a missing person ( see the Non - Contentious Procedure Act DATE , ORG GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; and ORG DATE , ORG of ORG , no . CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159770","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF JAK\u0160OVSKI AND TRIFUNOVSKI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE , and live in GPE and LOC , respectively .","Following allegations raised by a lawyer ( which were subsequently withdrawn ) , ORG , a member of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , a body vested with jurisdiction to decide , inter alia , on the dismissal of judges ( see PERSON to the LAW , paragraph CARDINAL below ) , made enquiries through the President of the court in which the first applicant worked as a judge . A preliminary inquiry was carried out , and on DATE PERSON requested , under sections DATE and CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ( \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and section CARDINAL of the Rules governing professional misconduct proceedings in respect of a judge ( \u201c the Rules \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that the ORG initiate professional misconduct proceedings in respect of the first applicant . In the request PERSON claimed that the first applicant had not been diligent in conducting proceedings in a civil case . The first applicant responded in writing .","On DATE the ORG set up , under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , a Commission for determination of professional misconduct by a judge ( GPE \u0437\u0430 \u0443\u0442\u0432\u0440\u0434\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0443\u0447\u043d\u043e \u0438 \u043d\u0435\u0441\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0441\u043d\u043e \u0432\u0440\u0448\u0435\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0438\u0441\u043a\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0444\u0443\u043d\u043a\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 , hereinafter \u201c the Commission \u201d ) .","On the basis of ORG \u2019s request and the ORG \u2019s report as to whether the request was justified , on DATE the plenary of the ORG initiated proceedings for professional misconduct in respect of the first applicant .","On DATE the Commission held a hearing at which it heard evidence from GPE and the first applicant . It also took other evidence into account . On DATE the Commission drew up , under section CARDINAL ) of LAW , a report on the question whether the request for the first applicant \u2019s dismissal had been justified . It submitted the report to the plenary of the ORG for consideration .","On DATE the plenary of the ORG , the composition of which included GPE , dismissed the first applicant for professional misconduct .","The first applicant challenged that decision at second instance , namely before an Appeal Panel formed within ORG ( \u201c the Appeal Panel \u201d ) . Such panels were set up on an ad hoc basis in each separate case . As specified under section DATE CARDINAL Act , they were composed of CARDINAL judges , of whom CARDINAL were to be ORG judges , CARDINAL ORG judges and CARDINAL judges of the court of the applicant . On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the ORG \u2019s decision .","On DATE GPE , a member of the ORG , applied to the ORG for professional misconduct proceedings to be instituted in respect of the second applicant . It had been alleged that , as an on - duty investigating judge , the second applicant had not been diligent in the investigation of an incident that had occurred in the LOC detention centre . Under section CARDINAL of the Rules ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the request was submitted to the second applicant for comments . He responded in writing .","On an unspecified date , the ORG set up , under LAW of LAW , a CARDINAL - member Commission in the second applicant \u2019s case . On DATE the Commission submitted a report to the ORG in which it sought that it initiate professional misconduct proceedings against the second applicant .","With CARDINAL separate decisions delivered on DATE , the plenary of the ORG , including GPE , initiated professional misconduct proceedings in respect of the second applicant and ordered his temporary suspension . The decisions were not amenable to appeal .","On DATE the Commission held a hearing at which GPE and the second applicant presented their arguments and concluding remarks ( \u0437\u0430\u0432\u0440\u0448\u043d\u0438 \u0437\u0431\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0438 ) . Evidence against the second","On DATE the plenary of the ORG , the composition of which included GPE , dismissed the second applicant for professional misconduct . The second applicant appealed against his dismissal to ORG that had been formed in his case within ORG , arguing , inter alia , that he had not been given the opportunity to comment on the evidence against him when the request for his dismissal had been served on him . He also asked ORG to inform him of the date of its session . At a hearing held in private on CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE the second applicant challenged his dismissal before ORG by means of an administrative - dispute action ( \u0442\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d \u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440 ) . He complained , inter alia , about the alleged refusal of his request for exclusion of Judges PERSON and PERSON who had been parties to the decision of ORG in his case . He had requested their withdrawal because Judge PERSON had applied at the relevant time to the ORG for the post of president of a first - instance court , and Judge PERSON allegedly had a close relationship with the public prosecutor involved in the case in respect of which he had been dismissed . On DATE ORG rejected the second applicant \u2019s action as inadmissible . That decision was upheld by ORG .","The second applicant produced copies of articles published in local newspapers on DATE and CARDINAL DATE reporting on his case . The article published on DATE cited the then President of the ORG as saying that the ORG was still dealing with the case and that no report had yet been submitted to the ORG for consideration . On CARDINAL DATE the newspaper announced that the second applicant had been removed from office ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154764","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"OVRAN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The first applicant , PERSON GPE ( ORG Netherlands , \u201c OvRAN \u201d ) is an association under GPE law based in ORG . Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE ; Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE ; Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE ; and Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . All CARDINAL individual applicants are GPE nationals and all state their occupation as \u201c ORG \u201d . The applicants are represented by ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157263","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PARRILLO v. ITALY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE she had recourse to assisted reproduction techniques , undergoing in vitro fertilisation ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) treatment with her partner at FAC at ORG ( \u201c the centre \u201d ) in GPE . The CARDINAL embryos obtained from the ORG treatment were placed in cryopreservation .","Before the embryos could be implanted the applicant \u2019s partner died , on DATE , in a bomb attack in GPE ( Irak ) while he was reporting on the war .","After deciding not to have the embryos implanted , the applicant sought to donate them to scientific research and thus contribute to promoting advances in treatment for diseases that are difficult to cure .","According to the information provided at the hearing before FAC , the applicant made a number of unsuccessful verbal requests for release of the embryos at the centre where they were being stored .","In a letter of DATE the applicant asked the director of the centre to release the CARDINAL cryopreserved embryos so that they could be used for stem - cell research . The director refused to comply with her request on the grounds that this type of research was banned and punishable as a criminal offence in GPE under LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE ( \u201c Law no . CARDINAL \u201d ) .","The embryos in question are currently stored in the cryogenic storage bank at the centre where the ORG treatment was carried out ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145996","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"GAVRILOV v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is the owner and manager of a local radio station in GPE . DATE he was also President of ORG . In that capacity , he reported to the relevant ORG authorities some irregularities in the operation of company NORP , a cable TV broadcasting company owned by Mr PERSON According to the applicant , on account of that criticism , PERSON had threatened on several occasions to kill him . As established in the criminal proceedings described below , in a reported incident of CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON issued verbal threats against the applicant . Other alleged incidents , the latest dated DATE , were not reported to the police .","On DATE the public prosecutor indicted Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON for the attempted murder of the applicant . The charges concerned an incident occurring on DATE in which PERSON , a member of the special military forces known as the Wolves , and PERSON , had allegedly assaulted the applicant with the intention of killing him . Both accused had allegedly worn black masks and used metal clubs to beat the applicant . The applicant sustained head and body injuries . CARDINAL of his fingers were broken . In the assault , PERSON allegedly fired a shot , which did not hit the applicant . As stated in the indictment , PERSON , who had threatened on DATE to kill the applicant , had incited PERSON and PERSON to carry out the attempted killing .","The proceedings were conducted before ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) . At the trial , the court heard oral evidence from the accused and several witnesses and confronted the applicant with PERSON PERSON It also admitted a considerable volume of documentary evidence , including several expert reports ; lists of temporarily seized objects ; detailed lists of calls on mobile phones confiscated from the accused ; reports on identity parades set up during the trial ; excerpts from several DATE newspapers , and other items of evidence . On DATE the trial court delivered a judgment acquitting the accused . The applicant was instructed to pursue possible compensation claims against the accused by means of a separate civil action for damages . In the judgment , the trial court examined the available evidence . It did not give weight to an expert report according to which strands of textile found on CARDINAL of the metal clubs used in the attack matched fibres from jeans like those confiscated from Mr PERSON It further disregarded an expert report which stated that a residue of saliva on a cigarette butt found at the scene of the incident immediately after the assault was consistent with blood group A , which was PERSON blood group . It did so because a DNA analysis of the saliva had excluded the possibility that the cigarette butt belonged to PERSON Because of some irregularities in the identity parade held by the police , the court also disregarded the fact that the applicant and CARDINAL witnesses had identified PERSON PERSON as one of the assailants . Lastly , it had not been confirmed that PERSON PERSON had threatened the applicant . The confrontation between the CARDINAL men had not supported the applicant \u2019s allegations in that respect . According to the receipt slip , this judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the public prosecutor and upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment . It found that the lower court had established the facts correctly and had provided sufficient reasons for its judgment . Further to the assessment of the evidence carried out by the trial court , ORG examined evidence regarding the bullet found at the scene after the incident . Forensic ballistics tests confirmed that its calibre corresponded to ammunition used by an NORP - produced gun of a type that had been reported stolen from a military unit in GPE in which Mr PERSON had served at CARDINAL time . That finding , coupled with the fact that the gun from which the bullet had been fired had not been found , had been insufficient , in the court \u2019s opinion , to attribute any guilt to Mr ORG concluded that the lower court had given a clear and lawful judgment . The Government provided a copy of a receipt slip according to which the applicant was served with this judgment on DATE . In the comments submitted in reply to the ORG \u2019s observations , the applicant did not contest the date of service of this judgment .","On DATE the public prosecutor challenged the lower courts\u2019 judgments by lodging , of his own motion , a request for the protection of legality ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0448\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430 ) with ORG .","On DATE ORG granted the request and stated that the lower courts had violated section QUANTITY ) , paragraph CARDINAL , and ( CARDINAL ) read in conjunction with section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ( \u201c the CARDINAL LAW ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) in favour of the accused . Referring to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , it stated that its judgment would not affect the final judgment . ORG found that , on the basis of the evidence in the case file , the reasons given in the trial court \u2019s judgment had been unclear and contrary to the evidence adduced . The lower court had erred on the facts and had assessed the available evidence incorrectly , in particular evidence provided by the applicant and other witnesses who had identified the accused as the perpetrators of the crime . It stated that the trial court had established the facts solely on the basis of the evidence in favour of the defence . Evidence against the accused had been disregarded , with reasoning which lacked any substantiation . ORG further criticised the way in which the trial court had assessed the expert evidence . It also observed that ORG had upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment despite being vested with jurisdiction to ascertain of its own motion whether there had been any procedural flaws . The applicant was served with this judgment on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG seeking protection of his right to freedom of expression , which had allegedly been violated owing to the failure of the ORG to identify and punish those responsible for the incident . Since ORG judgment had no bearing on the final judgment acquitting the accused , he alleged that he had also been denied the opportunity to claim compensation from the accused . The applicant reiterated that the incident of DATE had been connected to his criticism of company NORP and had been intended to silence him .","On DATE ORG rejected ( \u043e\u0442\u0444\u0440\u043b\u0430 ) the applicant \u2019s appeal . It found that the criminal courts had been required to establish whether any liability could be attributed to the accused . They had neither adduced any evidence nor established the facts in respect of whether the assault had been intended to restrict the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression . The intention to commit the crime was of importance for identifying the perpetrators and determining the penalty . Furthermore , the protected interest damaged by the alleged crime was the right to life and not freedom of expression . The assault in question had happened at a time and place that could not be directly linked to the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression . ORG accordingly found that the judgments of the first and second - instance courts had not been of any relevance to the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression . It further stated that ORG had no jurisdiction , in view of the proscription of reformatio in pejus set forth in DATE ) of LAW , to remit the case for re - examination or decide it on the merits . The ORG could not therefore be held responsible for failing to punish the perpetrators . Lastly , it had been open to the applicant to claim monetary compensation in civil proceedings as he had been instructed to do by the criminal courts .","NORP Under LAW , the courts were responsible for establishing the relevant facts correctly and completely and assessing with equal diligence the evidence against and in favour of the accused .","LAW ) , paragraph CARDINAL , and ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provided that there was a substantial procedural flaw if a judgment contained no reasoning or the reasoning was incomprehensible or inconsistent , or if the court did not apply a statutory provision or applied it incorrectly .","Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL provided that the public prosecutor could lodge a request for the protection of legality ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0448\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430 ) against final court judgments . ORG determined such requests .","NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , ORG was limited to examining the violations alleged in the request for the protection of legality . If such a request was lodged in favour of the convicted person , ORG could not amend the lower courts\u2019 judgments to his or her detriment regarding the legal classification of the crime and the penalty imposed .","NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , if ORG granted the request for the protection of legality it could issue the following judgments : it could overturn the final judgment ; it could annul the first and second - instance courts\u2019 judgments or only the second - instance court \u2019s judgment and remit the case for re - examination ; or it could merely acknowledge the violation . Under sub - section CARDINAL of that provision , if a request was lodged to the detriment of the accused and the court found the request well - founded , it would acknowledge that there had been a violation of the law . The judgment of ORG would not affect the final judgment .","In DATE the word \u201c accused \u201d in DATE ) of LAW was replaced with the words \u201c convicted person \u201d ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL ) .","The DATE LAW , which came into operation on DATE , contains the same provision as section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , as amended in DATE ( section CARDINAL ) ) .","The Government submitted copies of several judgments ( \u041a\u0437\u0437.\u0431\u0440.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; \u041a\u0437\u0437.\u0431\u0440.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; PERSON ; GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and PERSON ) in which ORG had granted requests for the protection of legality lodged by the public prosecutor and found that the law had been violated by the lower courts\u2019 judgments in which the accused had been acquitted . In all these judgments ORG , relying on DATE ) of LAW , had held that its findings would not affect the final judgments of the lower courts . In these cases , the first - instance courts\u2019 judgments were given DATE and DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159575","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"B\u00c2RZ\u0102 AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants \u2013 Mr PERSON , ORG , PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON \u2013 are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants had lived on the same street for DATE . The street they lived on had been built \u2013 in order to afford them easy access to their homes \u2013 on their own private land .","By Government Decision no . PERSON confirming the inventory of the public property owned by GPE , the street on which the applicants\u2019 houses were located was transferred , as public property , to GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a preliminary complaint ( procedura prealabil\u0103 ) with the Government , seeking to have Government Decision no . PERSON cancelled on the ground that they were the owners of the land on which the street their houses were located on was built .","On DATE ORG dismissed the preliminary complaint on the grounds that the impugned decision had been lawful and that the complaint was time - barred .","On DATE the applicants instituted court proceedings against ORG and ORG seeking the annulment , inter alia , of part of attachment no . CARDINAL to Government Decision no . PERSON . They argued that the domestic authorities had unlawfully transferred to public ownership the street , which had been built on their private land . Moreover , they argued that Government Decision no . PERSON had been issued on the basis of LAW and LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on public property . Consequently , it had been of a normative character and had therefore \u2013 under Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . DATE not been subject to statutory limitation . Furthermore , the applicants supported their claim that the impugned decision had been of a normative character by relying on , inter alia , ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE .","The domestic authorities argued that the applicants\u2019 action was timebarred .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 action . It noted that in DATE the applicants had instituted court proceedings against ORG and CARDINAL party , seeking an injunction against ORG and that third party to acknowledge the applicants\u2019 ownership of the land on which the street their houses were located on was built . During those proceedings , on DATE the GPE Iulia ORG had expressly informed the applicants that the street their houses were located on had been transferred to public ownership and had been mentioned in attachment no . CARDINAL to Government Decision no . PERSON . The court held that the attachment was undoubtedly a unilateral administrative act of an individual character because it contained an inventory of the properties transferred to public ownership and was published in ORG ( no . CARDINAL . ) of DATE ) . Moreover , the applicants had expressly been made aware of the transfer by the information note of DATE sent to them by the ORG . The applicants had initiated the proceedings before the court on CARDINAL DATE . The proceedings were therefore time - barred , given the statutory time - limit provided by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on actions before administrative courts .","The applicants appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment and reiterated the arguments they had raised before the firstinstance court . Moreover , they contended that ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE had already established ( in proceedings initiated by another third party ) that Government Decision no . PERSON was an administrative act of a normative character and that it could therefore be challenged at any time .","By a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal on points of law . It held that the firstinstance court had correctly established that under LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL the proceedings initiated by the applicants were timebarred . Moreover , the applicants\u2019 argument , unsupported by reasons , that the impugned decision was a unilateral administrative act of a normative character could not be accepted . The aforementioned decision was in fact a unilateral administrative act of an individual character because it attested that the property in question was in the public ownership of GPE and it concerned specific legal entities operating in the county , as well as the individual properties mentioned in the annexes .","On DATE ORG allowed a third party \u2019s action against ORG and ORG seeking the annulment of part of attachment no . CARDINAL to Government Decision no . PERSON . It held , inter alia , that the third party had been made aware of the impugned decision in DATE and had initiated the court proceedings within the statutory time - limit .","On DATE ORG informed the Government that it had developed a rich case - law which had classified government decisions similar to the CARDINAL challenged by the applicants as unilateral administrative acts of an individual character . It supported its submission by referring to CARDINAL judgments delivered by it DATE and DATE that had been published either on ORG website or had been referred to in legal articles .","Article CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on actions before administrative courts provides that normative administrative acts may be challenged at any time , whereas individual administrative acts may be challenged no later than a year from the date on which they were issued .","Article CARDINAL of LAW provides , inter alia , that the Government may issue decisions or ordinances . Such decisions may be issued in order to implement laws . The Government \u2019s decisions shall be signed by the Prime Minister and the ministers responsible for their implementation and shall be published in ORG . Failure to publish such decision renders it ineffective .","Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on public property and rules governing it provides that inventories of property under public ownership shall be drawn up by the county councils or ORG and sent to the Government in order for the latter to attest by a decision that the property has been included in the public ownership of the county .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) ORG allowed the proceedings brought by a third party against , among others , ORG , seeking the annulment of part of attachment CARDINAL to Government Decision no . PERSON . It held that the impugned decision was a normative administrative act issued on the basis of LAW and of LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on public property during the final stages of the special procedure establishing an inventory of GPE public property . On that legal basis it appeared that irrespective of whether ORG no . PERSON was a normative or individual , it was an act that determined property falling under public ownership and established the rules that would apply to such property . Therefore , the proceedings seeking the partial annulment of the aforementioned decision had not been subject to the time - limits stipulated by LAW no . DATE and the decision to dismiss those proceedings as time - barred had amounted to a misinterpretation of the law . The conclusion reached by the first - instance court had been incorrect , even if it could have been accepted that the impugned decision had not been an administrative act of a normative character , given that the proceedings had been initiated within DATE of the time when the victim the third party had been made aware of that decision ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155088","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BECKER v. AUSTRIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was stopped by the police at CARDINAL p.m. while driving his car on a public road . He was ordered to undergo a breathalyser test . After CARDINAL attempts to measure the amount of alcohol , among which CARDINAL was valid , the test was discontinued . The applicant \u2019s conduct was considered to amount to a refusal to undergo the breathalyser test and his driving licence was temporarily withdrawn . CARDINAL different sets of proceedings were initiated against the applicant .","On DATE ORG Bezirkshauptmannschaft , DAA ) issued a decision to withdraw the applicant \u2019s driving licence for DATE as a preventive measure to secure road safety . The ORG observed that , according to the case - law of ORG , it amounted to a refusal to undergo a breathalyser test if the person who had been ordered to undergo the test had made CARDINAL invalid attempts out of CARDINAL . According to the statements of police officers PERSON and NORP and the paper print outs of the test results , the applicant had been allowed to make much more attempts , namely CARDINAL and CARDINAL had produced a valid result . When the applicant had claimed that the breathalyser had been defective , police officer R had made himself CARDINAL attempts using the same mouthpiece as the applicant and both attempts had produced valid results . The ORG also noted that technical tests of the breathalyser had been carried out on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE and each time the breathalyser had been found fully functioning . On the basis of this evidence it was safe to conclude that the applicant had refused to undergo the breathalyser test . The ORG also ordered that an appeal had no suspensive effect because it was necessary to avoid the risk that a person lacking trustworthiness for road traffic might drive . Moreover the applicant was ordered to follow driver improvement training before his driving licence would be returned .","The applicant appealed and argued that the ORG should have obtained the report of a technical expert on the functioning of the breathlyser as only such an expert could clarify whether the machine was working properly .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . He found that according to the paper print out of the breathalyser test the applicant had made CARDINAL attempts of which CARDINAL had been valid whereas during the other attempts the applicant had not blown sufficient air into the mouth - piece . Thereupon CARDINAL attempts with the same mouth - piece as used by the applicant had been made by police officer NORP , which both produced valid results . Thus , there were no indications that the breathalyser did not function properly or that it had not been handled correctly by the police officers who had been specially trained for this task . In such circumstances a request for obtaining a report by a technical expert , without giving clear indications in what the malfunctioning of the breathalyser might have consisted , amounted to an inadmissible request for evidence ( PERSON ) . The Regional Governor concluded that refusing to undergo a breathalyser test was as serious as driving under the influence of alcohol because it prevented the authorities from verifying whether a person was actually drunk . The additional measure imposed on the applicant was therefore justified in order to improve his attitude .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG and requested an oral hearing . In his complaint he argued that ORG had not been competent to decide on his case as he resided in GPE . He further complained about the authority \u2019s assessment of evidence , as the statements of the police officers who had ordered him to undergo the breathalyser test were contradictory and stated that they should be questioned on the precise circumstances in which breathalyser test had been carried out . Lastly he complained that the authority had wrongly applied the law because it should not have refused to obtain the opinion of a technical expert on the functioning of the breathalyser .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . It found that on the basis of the evidence before them the authorities had arrived at the conclusion that the applicant had refused to undergo the breathalyser test . The applicant had failed to raise any substantial arguments against these findings and had not shown that the assessment of the evidence carried out by the authorities was contradictory or implausible . In accordance with LAW of LAW ( Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz ) ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for a hearing as it found that an oral hearing was not likely to contribute to the clarification of the case . This decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","On DATE the ORG issued a penal order ( PERSON ) and imposed a fine for refusal to take the breathalyser test .","On DATE the applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG found that , since no decision had been taken within the prescribed time limit of DATE after the lodging of the appeal , the fine imposed by the ORG had expired ipso iure ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184494","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ERDEM v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE , the applicant , who was a working as a civil servant , was dismissed due gross misconduct . He applied to the administrative courts to have the annulment of that decision . In the course of the proceedings , on DATE Law no . CARDINAL , granting amnesty to civil servants who had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings , entered into force . Accordingly , in the light of this new amnesty law , on DATE ORG decided that there was no need to examine the merits of the case .","In the meantime , on DATE the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant had ended with the decision of the criminal court , convicting him of abuse of office .","Following the entry into force of the amnesty law , the applicant applied to the administration and asked to be reinstated . His request was refused on DATE . The applicant initiated proceedings to have the annulment of that decision .","By a decision dated DATE , ORG found in line with the applicant \u2019s claims and decided to annul the decision of the authorities by which they had refused to reinstate the applicant .","Following appeal , the case was transferred before ORG . In the course of the proceedings , ORG at ORG filed his written opinion . This opinion included substantial grounds on the merits of the case with a proposal to quash the decision of the first instance court . On DATE , relying also on the opinion of ORG , ORG quashed the decision of DATE . In particular , the appeal court referred to its previous leading case which had been delivered on DATE on a similar case and held that the amnesty law did not put an obligation on the administration to reinstate the applicant .","The case was accordingly remitted before ORG . On DATE the first instance court adhered to the judgment of the appeal court and dismissed the applicant \u2019s case . This decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147866","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ISLAM-ITTIHAD ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The ORG , which has now been dissolved , was a nonprofitmaking non - governmental organisation ( NGO ) . It was active DATE . Mr PERSON was Chairman of the ORG , and Mr PERSON was a member of its management board . They were born in DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE .","The ORG was registered by ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) on DATE and acquired the status of a legal entity .","NORP Clause CARDINAL of the ORG \u2019s Charter defined it as an association with voluntary membership of citizens of GPE , conducting its activities within the framework of the LAW and the laws of GPE , as well as its own LAW .","According to clause CARDINAL of its LAW , the main aims of the ORG included the repair and maintenance of abandoned FAC and other places of worship , organising pilgrimages to NORP shrines , providing material and moral aid to orphanages as well as elderly , ill and disabled people , and publishing books with a religious content .","The ORG \u2019s actual activities included the repair and maintenance of several mosques and projects aimed at promoting respect for human rights and building a civil society . The ORG also engaged in a number of humanitarian activities , such as assistance to disabled children , campaigning against drugs and alcoholism , and a programme dedicated to promoting tolerance between representatives of different religions in GPE .","The highest governing body of the ORG was the general assembly of members , held once a year , as provided for in clause CARDINAL of its LAW . At the general assembly , the members elected the ORG \u2019s chairman and the CARDINAL members of its management board . They also discussed and commented on the ORG \u2019s DATE activity and submitted their proposals for its future activity .","It appears from the documents submitted to the ORG that at the general assembly held on DATE the members discussed the ORG \u2019s DATE activity and decided to assist financially orphaned children and economically disadvantaged sections of the population and to raise awareness about the historical and religious values in the society .","The Association held its next general assembly on DATE . According to the minutes of the assembly , after having discussed the ORG \u2019s DATE activity , the members decided to repair the Juma mosque in GPE and to participate actively in the process of building a civil society in the country by raising this issue in the media . They further decided to inform the public about the unlawfulness of the existing monopoly in organising pilgrimages to NORP shrines . It was also decided to provide pilgrims with relevant information about the organisation of their visits .","On DATE the ORG held another general assembly at which the members adopted the ORG \u2019s DATE activity report and decided , inter alia , to hold a conference on Prophet PERSON on the occasion of his birthday and to prepare for the forthcoming seminar on the dialogue between civilizations , which would be held in GPE . They also agreed on the necessity to write articles in the media about subjects relating to existentialism and humanism .","On an unspecified date in DATE , ORG commenced an inspection of the ORG \u2019s activities in order to determine whether its activities had been carried out in compliance with its LAW .","According to an undated inspection report , the ORG had CARDINAL members who did not pay any membership fees . The sources of the ORG \u2019s financing were not clear . It did not have a bank account . It was also noted in the report that , despite having a different registered legal address , the ORG \u2019s actual headquarters were located in a mosque . The ORG \u2019s chairman was also the head of a religious community and all of the ORG \u2019s members were also members of that community . The inspection concluded that , generally , it was difficult to establish whether the ORG functioned as a non - governmental organisation or a religious organisation .","On DATE the ORG sent an official warning to the ORG , claiming that its primary activities involved religious propaganda and agitation . The ORG noted that , in accordance with ORG and Funds ) , public associations were not allowed to engage in religious activities . The ORG was requested to remedy this breach of the law and , within DATE , report to the ORG about the measures taken . The relevant part of the letter reads as follows :","\u201c Religious activity is without any exception the duty and function of religious organisations and their status is governed by LAW . In accordance with LAW , religious organisations are \u2018 voluntary organisations established for the purpose of spreading religious belief and religion\u2019 . In accordance with LAW and Funds ) , this PERSON is not applicable to religious organisations .","Therefore , any religious activity on the part of your association is unlawful . \u201d","On DATE the ORG replied to the Ministry , claiming that it had carried out numerous social programmes providing assistance to the population , as well as activities related to the establishment of a civil society and the promotion of human rights . The ORG denied any involvement in religious activities , noting that the ORG had failed to specify which of the ORG \u2019s activities was qualified as \u201c religious activity \u201d . Moreover , the ORG pointed out that NORP legislation did not provide any precise definition of what constituted a \u201c religious activity \u201d .","On DATE the ORG sent a second written warning to the ORG , demanding that it cease its unlawful activities . It appears from the letter that the ORG considered as \u201c religious activities \u201d some of the decisions taken by the ORG \u2019s general assembly . The relevant part of the letter reads as follows :","\u201c Although it was denied in your letter of DATE that the ORG engaged in religious activities , the decisions of the ORG \u2019s general assembly , as well as some provisions of ORG , confirm that it carries out religious activities .","In fact , at the general assemblies held on DATE , DATE and DATE , religious matters were included in the agenda and discussed , and relevant decisions were taken . We reiterate that non - governmental organisations have no right to engage in religious activities . \u201d","On DATE the ORG sent a third written warning . It pointed out that , despite CARDINAL prior warnings , it had not been informed about any measures taken by the ORG to comply with the ORG \u2019s demands that the ORG cease its religious activities .","On DATE the ORG lodged an action with ORG . It claimed that the ORG unlawfully engaged in religious activities and requested the court to order its dissolution . In support of its claim , the ORG noted that the fact that the questions relating to pilgrimages to holy shrines and the activity of ORG ( Qafqaz M\u00fcs\u0259lmanlar \u0130dar\u0259si , the official governing body of NORP religious organisations in GPE ) had been discussed at the ORG \u2019s general assembly proved that the ORG had been engaging in religious activities .","NORP In reply to the ORG \u2019s action , on an unspecified date the ORG lodged an objection with the court , claiming that it had not engaged in religious activities . In particular , the ORG submitted that decisions such as holding a conference dedicated to the birthday of Prophet PERSON or criticising ORG monopoly in the organisation of pilgrimages to NORP shrines did not constitute religious activities . The ORG also noted that all of its activities had been carried out in compliance with its charter , which ORG had never requested it to modify .","On DATE ORG ordered the ORG \u2019s dissolution . The court found that the ORG had unlawfully engaged in religious activities and , despite CARDINAL warnings by ORG , had failed to take any measures to cease such activities . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c It appears from minutes no CARDINAL of ORG dated DATE ... that the fifth and eighth points relating to questions on the agenda concerned , respectively , \u2018 active participation in building a civil FAC and \u2018 pilgrimages to holy shrines\u2019 . CARDINAL of the participants in the assembly , ORG , took the floor on this matter , stating that the ORG should take an active stance in building a civil society in the country and proposed to participate in it actively by appearing in the media . This proposal was voted on and adopted unanimously .","It appears from minutes no CARDINAL of ORG dated DATE ... that the sixth point relating to questions on the agenda was about \u2018 NORP Board\u2019 and GPE , who took the floor on this matter , criticized the position of ORG . Those who participated in the discussions said that this organisation had a monopoly on ORG in the country and that its officials had weakened the social and moral situation of the country , which was already low , by accusing each other of corruption in the media ...","In accordance with LAW , \u2018 religious organisations are voluntary organisations established for the purposes of spreading religious belief.\u2019","LAW provides that the religious community is a voluntary religious organisation of devout persons associated for exercising together prayer and meeting other religious needs ...","The court considers that in compliance with this requirement of the PERSON any religious activity by non - governmental organisations is unlawful .","Under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Law on Public Associations , a public association may not be established for political purposes . Moreover , a non - governmental organisation may not carry out activities contrary to the aims provided for in its charter ...","At the court hearing the respondent failed to submit to the court any reliable evidence proving that it did not really engage in any religious activity . \u201d","On an unspecified date the ORG appealed against that judgment , reiterating that it had not engaged in religious activities . It complained that the court had put the burden of proof on the ORG , holding that the respondent had failed to prove that it had not engaged in religious activities . It also complained that although it had been dissolved on account of its alleged engagement in religious activities , the relevant legislation provided no definition of \u201c religious activity \u201d .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG \u2019s appeal . The wording of the appellate court \u2019s judgment was identical to the first - instance court \u2019s judgment .","On DATE the ORG lodged a cassation appeal , reiterating its previous complaints . It also submitted that actively participating in building a civil society and criticising the activity of a religious authority were not unlawful activities .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144276","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MARGU\u0160 v. CROATIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person)","judges":"Anatoly Kovler;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Corneliu B\u00eersan;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Peer Lorenzen;Zdravka Kalaydjieva;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in LOC .","On DATE ORG lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons with ORG , alleging that the applicant , a member of the NORP army , had killed several civilians .","On DATE ORG indicted the applicant before ORG on charges of murder , inflicting grievous bodily harm , causing a risk to life and assets , and theft . The relevant part of the indictment reads :","\u201c The first accused , PERSON","On DATE at TIME ... fired CARDINAL times at GPE with an automatic gun ... as a result of which PERSON died ;","...","At the same time and place as under ( CARDINAL ) ... fired several times at FAC with an automatic gun ... as a result of which GPE died ;","...","On DATE took ORG to the \u2018 Vrbik\u2019 forest between \u010cepin and PERSON ... and fired at him twice with an automatic gun ... as a result of which GPE died ;","...","At the same place and time as under ( CARDINAL ) fired at GPE . PERSON with an automatic gun ... as a result of which she died ;","...","On DATE at TIME threw an explosive device into business LOC in LOC ... causing material damage ;","...","On DATE at TIME in PERSON placed an explosive device in a house ... causing material damage ... ;","...","On DATE at TIME in \u010cepin ... fired at GPE , causing him slight bodily injury and then ... kicked GPE ... causing him grievous bodily injury ... and also kicked GPE ... causing him further slight bodily injuries ... ;","...","DATE and DATE in \u010cepin ... stole several guns and bullets ... ;","... \u201d","He was further charged with appropriating several tractors and other machines belonging to other persons .","On DATE the NORP Deputy Military Prosecutor dropped the charges under counts CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the indictment as well as the charges of appropriating goods belonging to others . A new count was added , by which the applicant was charged with having fired , on DATE at TIME , at a child , ORG . PERSON , causing him grievous bodily injury . The former count CARDINAL of the indictment thus became count CARDINAL .","On DATE the General Amnesty Act was enacted . It stipulated that a general amnesty was to be applied in respect of all criminal offences committed in connection with the war in GPE DATE and DATE , save in respect of those acts which amounted to the gravest breaches of humanitarian law or to war crimes , including the crime of genocide ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a panel presided over by Judge PERSON , terminated the proceedings pursuant to LAW . The relevant part of this ruling reads :","\u201c ORG ... on DATE has decided as follows : the criminal proceedings against the accused PERSON on CARDINAL charges of murder ... inflicting grievous bodily harm ... and causing a risk to life and assets ... instituted on the indictment lodged by the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office ... on DATE are to be concluded under LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","...","The indictment of the Osijek Military State Attorney \u2019s Office no . Kt-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE charged PERSON with CARDINAL offences of aggravated murder under LAW of LAW ; one offence of aggravated murder under LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ; CARDINAL criminal offences of causing a risk to life and assets ... under LAW of LAW ; CARDINAL criminal offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm under LAW ; one criminal offence of theft of weapons or other fighting equipment under LAW CARDINAL of LAW ; and CARDINAL criminal offence of aggravated theft under LAW of LAW ...","The above indictment was significantly altered at a hearing held on DATE before ORG , when the Deputy Military Prosecutor withdrew some of the charges and altered the factual and legal description and the legal classification of some of the offences .","Thus , the accused PERSON was indicted for CARDINAL offences of murder under LAW , one criminal offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm under LAW and one criminal offence of causing a risk to life and assets ... under LAW ...","After the military courts had been abolished , the case file was forwarded to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG , which took over the prosecution on the same charges and asked that the proceedings be continued before ORG . The latter forwarded the case file to a CARDINAL - judge panel in the context of application of the General Amnesty Act .","After considering the case file , this panel has concluded that the conditions under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW have been met and that the accused is not excluded from amnesty .","The above - mentioned LAW provides for a general amnesty in respect of criminal offences committed during the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts .... in GPE . The general amnesty concerns criminal offences committed between CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","The general amnesty excludes only the perpetrators of the gravest breaches of humanitarian law which amount to war crimes , and certain criminal offences listed in section CARDINAL of LAW . It also excludes the perpetrators of other criminal offences under LAW ... which were not committed during the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts and which are not connected with the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts in GPE .","The accused , PERSON , is indicted for CARDINAL criminal offences committed in PERSON on DATE and CARDINAL criminal offence committed in \u010cepin on DATE .","The first CARDINAL of these offences concern the most difficult period and the time of the most serious attacks on GPE and LOC immediately after the fall of ORG , and the time of the most severe battles for GPE . In those battles , the accused distinguished himself as a combatant , showing exceptional courage and being recommended for promotion to the rank of lieutenant by the commander of FAC of the CARDINALth Brigade of the NORP army , who was his superior officer at that time .","In the critical period concerning the first CARDINAL criminal offences , the accused was acting in his capacity as a member of the NORP army ; in that most difficult period , acting as commander of a unit , he tried to prevent the fall of a settlement into enemy hands , when there was an immediate danger of this happening . The fourth criminal offence was committed on DATE , when the accused was acting in his capacity as an on - duty member of ORG in \u010cepin and was dressed in military camouflage uniform and using military weapons .","...","The actions of the accused , in view of the time and place of the events in issue , were closely connected with the aggression , armed rebellion and armed conflicts in GPE , and were carried out during the period referred to in the General Amnesty Act .","...","Against this background , this court finds that all the statutory conditions for application of LAW have been met ... \u201d","On an unspecified date the ORG Attorney lodged a request for the protection of legality ( zahtjev za za\u0161titu zakonitosti ) with ORG , asking it to establish that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the General Amnesty Act had been violated .","On DATE ORG , when deciding upon the above request , established that the above ruling of ORG of DATE violated section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the General Amnesty Act . The relevant parts of ORG ruling read :","\u201c ...","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the General Amnesty Act provides for a general amnesty from criminal prosecution and trial for the perpetrators of criminal offences committed in connection with the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts ... in GPE . Under paragraph CARDINAL of the same section the amnesty concerns criminal offences committed DATE and DATE . ...","For the correct interpretation of these provisions DATE apart from the general condition that the criminal offence in question had to have been committed in the period DATE and DATE ( which has been met in the present case ) \u2013 there must exist a direct and significant connection between the criminal offence and the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts . This interpretation is in accordance with the general principle that anyone who commits a criminal offence has to answer for it . Therefore , the above provisions have to be interpreted in a sensible manner , with the necessary caution , so that the amnesty does not become a contradiction of itself and call into question the purpose for which the LAW in question was enacted . Hence , the expression \u2018 in connection with the aggression , armed rebellion or armed ORG used in LAW , which does not specifically define the nature of that connection , has to be interpreted to mean that the connection must be direct and significant .","...","Part of the factual description of the criminal offences with which the accused PERSON is charged ... which suggests some connection with the aggression against GPE or armed rebellion and armed conflicts in GPE , relates to the arrival of the victims of these offences PERSON , GPE and the minor ORG . DATE in PERSON , together with their neighbours , after they had all fled the village of NORP on account of the attack by the so - called \u2018 Y[ugoslav ] GPE ] ORG . It should be stressed that it is not in dispute that the accused PERSON was a member of the NORP army . However , these circumstances are not such as to amount to a direct link with the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts in GPE which is required for the General Amnesty Act to apply .","The factual description of the criminal offences under count CARDINAL of the indictment states that the accused committed these acts as a member of ORG in \u010cepin , after his tour of duty had terminated . This characteristic in itself does not represent a significant link between the criminal offences and the war because , were this to be the case , the amnesty would encompass all criminal offences committed DATE and DATE by members of the NORP army or the enemy units ( save for those specifically listed in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) ; this was certainly not the intention of the legislature .","Finally , the accused \u2019s war career , described in detail in the impugned ruling , can not be a criterion for application of the General Amnesty Act ...","The factual description of the criminal offences in the indictment ... does not show that the acts in question were committed during the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts in GPE , or that they were committed in connection with them .","... \u201d","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office indicted the applicant on charges of war crimes against the civilian population . The proceedings were conducted by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , including Judge PERSON During the entire proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer .","A concluding hearing was held on DATE in the presence of , inter alia , the applicant and his defence lawyer . The applicant was removed from the courtroom during the closing arguments of the parties . The applicant \u2019s lawyer remained in the courtroom and presented his closing arguments . The relevant part of the written record of that hearing reads as follows :","\u201c The President of the panel notes that the accused ORG interrupted the GPE Deputy ORG Attorney ( \u2018 the Deputy State Attorney\u2019 ) in his closing arguments and was warned by the panel to calm down ; the second time he interrupted the Deputy State Attorney he was warned orally .","After the President of the panel warned the accused ORG orally , the latter continued to comment on the closing arguments of the Deputy ORG Attorney . The panel therefore decides , and the president of the panel orders , that the accused ORG be removed from the courtroom until the pronouncement of the judgment .","... \u201d","The applicant was subsequently removed from the courtroom and the Deputy ORG Attorney , the lawyers for the victims , the defence lawyers and CARDINAL of the accused gave their closing arguments .","The pronouncement of the judgment was scheduled for DATE and the hearing was concluded . The applicant was present at the pronouncement of the judgment . He was found guilty as charged and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c ...","The accused PERSON ...","and","the accused ORG ...","are guilty [ in that ]","in the period DATE in PERSON and its surroundings , contrary to LAW relative to ORG in Time of War of CARDINAL DATE and LAW and MONEY ) and LAW to LAW of CARDINAL DATE relative to ORG ) of DATE , while defending that territory from armed attacks by the local rebel NORP population and the so - called ORG in their joint attack on the constitutional legal order and territorial integrity of GPE , PERSON , in his capacity as the commander of ORG in the CARDINALrd Corps of the CARDINALth brigade of the NORP army , and the accused PERSON , as a member of ORG under the command of PERSON , [ acted as follows ] with the intention of killing NORP civilians ;","the accused PERSON","( a ) on DATE at TIME , recognised PERSON and GPE who were standing ... in front of ORG in GPE and were fleeing their village because of the attacks by ORG , ... fired at them with an automatic gun ... which caused PERSON to sustain a gunshot wound to the head ... and neck as a result of which PERSON immediately died , while PERSON was wounded and fell to the ground . The accused then drove away and soon afterwards came back , and , seeing that PERSON was still alive and accompanied by his DATE son ORG . PERSON and ... his wife PERSON , again fired the automatic gun at them , and thus shot PERSON twice in the head ... twice in the arm ... as a result of which GPE soon died while Sl . PERSON was shot in the leg ... which amounted to grievous bodily harm ;","( b ) in the period DATE in PERSON , arrested GPE and GPE . ORG , threatening them with firearms , appropriated their FAC vehicle ... took them to the basement of a house ... where he tied them by ropes to chairs and kept them locked in without food or water and , together with the members of his Unit ... beat and insulted them , asked them about their alleged hostile activity and possession of a radio set , and during that time prevented other members of the ORG from helping them ... after which he took them out of PERSON to a forest ... where they were shot with several bullets from firearms ... as a result of which GPE ... and GPE . PERSON died ;","( c ) on DATE at TIME at the coach terminal in PERSON , arrested PERSON and ORG and their relative Lj . PERSON and drove them to a house ... tied their hands behind their backs and , together with the late T.B. , interrogated them about their alleged hostile activity and in the evening , while they were still tied up , drove them out of \u010cepin ... where he shot them ... as a result of which they died ;","the accused PERSON and ORG [ acting ] together","( d ) on DATE at TIME in PERSON , on seeing PERSON driving his Golf vehicle ... stopped him at the request of PERSON ... ... and drove him to a field ... where ... PERSON ordered ORG to shoot PERSON , [ an order ] which ORG obeyed , shooting PERSON once ... after which PERSON shot him several times with an automatic gun ... as a result of which PERSON ... died and PERSON appropriated his vehicle .","... \u201d","NORP The applicant \u2019s conviction was upheld by ORG on DATE and his sentence was increased to DATE imprisonment . The relevant part of the judgment by ORG reads as follows :","\u201c Under LAW ) of LAW ( ORG ) , a judge is exempted from performing judicial functions if he or she participated in the same case in the adoption of a ruling of a lower court or if he participated in adopting the impugned ruling .","It is true that Judge PERSON participated in the proceedings in which the impugned judgment was adopted . He was the President of a panel of ORG which adopted the ruling ... of DATE by which the proceedings against the accused PERSON were terminated under LAW ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW ...","Even though both sets of proceedings were instituted against the same accused , it was not the same case . The judge in question participated in CARDINAL different cases before ORG against the same accused . In the case in which the present appeal has been lodged , Judge PERSON did not participate in adopting any decision of a lower court or in a decision which is the subject of an appeal or an extraordinary remedy .","...","The accused incorrectly argued that the first - instance court had acted contrary to LAW and LAW ORG when it held the concluding hearing in his absence and in the absence of his defence lawyer because it had removed him from the courtroom when the parties were presenting their closing arguments . Thus , he claimed , he had been prevented from giving his closing arguments . Furthermore , he had not been informed about the conduct of the hearing in his absence , and the decision to remove him from the courtroom had not been adopted by the trial panel .","Contrary to the allegations of the accused , the written record of the hearing held on DATE shows that the accused PERSON interrupted the [ GPE Deputy ORG Attorney in his closing arguments and was twice warned by the President of the trial panel . Since he continued with the same behaviour , the trial panel decided to remove him from the courtroom ...","Such action by the trial court is in conformity with LAW ORG . The accused PERSON started to disturb order in the courtroom during the closing arguments of the [ GPE Deputy ] ORG Attorney and persisted in doing so , after which he was removed from the courtroom by a decision of the trial panel . He was again present in the courtroom when judgment was pronounced on DATE .","Since the trial court complied fully with LAW of the ORG , the accused \u2019s appeal is unfounded . In the case in issue there has been no violation of the defence rights , and the removal of the accused from the courtroom during the closing arguments of the parties had no effect on the judgment .","...","The accused PERSON further argues ... that the impugned judgment violated the ne bis in idem principle ... because the proceedings had already been discontinued in respect of some of the charges giving rise to the impugned judgment ...","...","It is true that criminal proceedings were conducted before ORG under the number K-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL against the accused PERSON in respect of , inter alia , CARDINAL criminal offences ... of murder ... committed against GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . V , as well as the criminal offence ... of creating a risk to life and assets ... These proceedings were terminated by final ruling of ORG no . GPE ( K-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) of DATE on the basis of ORG ...","Despite the fact that the consequences of the criminal offences which were the subject of the proceedings conducted before ORG under the number K-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , namely the deaths of GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . ORG and the grievous bodily injury of ORG . PERSON , are also part of the factual background [ to the criminal offences assessed ] in the proceedings in which the impugned judgment has been adopted , the offences [ tried in the CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings in issue ] are not the same .","Comparison between the factual background [ to the criminal offences assessed ] in both sets of proceedings shows that they are not identical . The factual background [ to the offences referred to ] in the impugned judgment contains a further criminal element , significantly wider in scope than the one forming the basis for the proceedings conducted before ORG under the number K-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . [ In the present case ] the accused PERSON is charged with violation of the rules of LAW relative to ORG in Time of War of CARDINAL DATE and of LAW to LAW of DATE relative to ORG ) of DATE , in that , in the period CARDINAL , while defending that territory from armed attacks by the local rebel NORP population and the so - called ORG in their joint attack on the constitutional legal order and territorial integrity of GPE , and in violation of the rules of international law , he killed and tortured civilians , treated them in an inhuman manner , unlawfully arrested them , ordered the killing of a civilian and robbed the assets of the civilian population . The above acts constitute a criminal offence against the values protected by international law , namely a war crime against the civilian population under LAW .","Since the factual background to the criminal offence in issue , and its legal classification , differ from those which were the subject of the earlier proceedings , such that the scope of the charges against the accused PERSON is significantly wider and different from the previous case ( case - file no . K-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the matter is not res judicata ... \u201d","A subsequent constitutional complaint by the applicant was dismissed by ORG on DATE . ORG endorsed the views of ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155717","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF A.S. v. SWITZERLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Italy);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Conditional) (Italy)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant is a NORP national of NORP origin . He was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE . On an unknown date he entered GPE from GPE , where he had arrived also on an unknown date . On DATE he sought asylum in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( the \u201c LAW \u201d ) rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum request on the basis of the fact that his fingerprints had already been registered in ORG , in GPE , on DATE , and in GPE , on DATE . Furthermore , the NORP authorities had accepted the NORP authorities\u2019 request of DATE to take the applicant back into their territory by virtue of LAW no . MONEY ( the \u201c FAC \u201d ) . The ORG further ruled that the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL sisters , who were living in GPE respectively since DATE and DATE , did not fall under the category of \u201c family members \u201d as provided in LAW . Regarding the back problems alleged by the applicant , it considered that GPE was obliged to grant him access to medical treatment and that nothing indicated that those health problems impeded the transfer of the applicant to GPE .","The applicant appealed against the ORG \u2019s decision to ORG ( the \u201c FAC \u201d ) . He maintained that he had fled his home country GPE because he had been persecuted , detained and tortured there . As established by medical certificates , he had been diagnosed with severe post - traumatic stress disorder , for which he was receiving medical treatment . He was also receiving medical treatment for his back problems . He claimed that the ORG \u2019s decision was in breach of LAW of LAW because GPE was the first member ORG he had entered DATE before . Thus it was the NORP authorities which were theoretically responsible for examining his asylum request . It could not , however , be derived from the fact that he could not be returned to GPE as established in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) that GPE could return him to GPE . Therefore , the NORP authorities\u2019 request for his return to GPE was in breach of the law because they had known that the NORP authorities were not competent in that matter , and GPE had erroneously accepted the request . According to the applicant , the ORG \u2019s decision also violated LAW which provided that persons who were dependent on relatives who were residing in a member ORG should be kept together with them . In this regard he established that CARDINAL of his older sisters were legally residing in GPE with their families . He claimed that owing to the presence of his sisters he had regained a certain emotional stability in his life . His expulsion to GPE , where he had no family member to care for him , would therefore aggravate his mental health problems in such a way that he would be at risk of irreparable harm contrary to ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It ruled that according to ORG the applicant had to return to GPE , whose authorities had , prior to accepting the NORP request for return , been informed by GPE that the applicant had first entered the \u201c GPE area \u201d in GPE . Furthermore , the FAC considered that in view of the dates of arrival in the respective countries it could not be excluded that on leaving GPE the applicant had left the \u201c GPE area \u201d before entering GPE . Furthermore , it established that the applicant was not so severely ill that he was dependent on the assistance of his sisters . Therefore , LAW was not applicable in his case and neither was LAW . Moreover , the FAC held that with regard to the asylum procedure and the availability of medical treatment for asylum seekers it had not been established that there were structural deficiencies in the NORP reception system and that GPE failed to respect its international obligations in respect of asylum seekers and refugees . Therefore , nothing indicated that the applicant would suffer treatment contrary to LAW in the event of expulsion to GPE . Finally , the ORG stated that it was up to the NORP authorities to inform their NORP counterparts about the applicant \u2019s health problems when they were executing the expulsion .","NORP Before this Court the applicant produced in particular a medical report dated DATE establishing that , as a result of trauma allegedly suffered in detention in GPE , he had back problems and showed severe symptoms of post - traumatic stress disorder . As a result , the applicant was put on a course of twice DATE psychotherapy sessions with a general practitioner and was prescribeda DATE dose of ORG , an anti - depressant , as well as sleeping pills ( ORG ) and pain - killers for his back ( Tilur ) .","The report also stated that in the absence of medical treatment the applicant \u2019s health status would deteriorate quickly and put him at a high risk of alcohol or drug abuse as well as suicide . The risk of suicide would be greater should the applicant be returned to his country of origin .","Moreover , according to the report , the involvment of the applicant \u2019s sisters was \u201c an absolute necessity \u201d ( absolument n\u00e9cessaire ) for him to gain some emotional stability in order to overcome the multiple traumas suffered .","Upon the recommendation of his doctor , the applicant was allocated an individual apartment unit for asylum seekers . The applicant also submitted his ORG declarations , according to which he was virtually spending the whole time with their families , he was in great emotional need , could not be left alone and spent DATE alone in his apartment . They added that they were willing and able to provide him with emotional support so that he could recover from his trauma ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140959","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"Y.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the GPE in GPE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in LOC .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , and Deputy Agent , PERSON , both of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , the applicant applied for asylum in the GPE . He stated inter alia that he had been a professional military officer and that he had worked for the ORG \/ WAD ( ORG Atal - at - e Dowlati \/ PERSON ) . He further stated that he had been a member of ORG of GPE ; ORG ) . He had fled GPE on DATE as the ORG had been searching for him . He was granted asylum on DATE . On an unspecified date in DATE , his spouse was given permission to join him in the GPE . This permission was equally given to their CARDINAL children who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively . His wife and the CARDINAL youngest children have since obtained NORP nationality ; the CARDINAL oldest children hold residence permits for asylum purposes .","On DATE , the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON ) decided to withdraw the applicant \u2019s asylum based residence permit with retroactive effect , Article CARDINAL of the DATE LAW relating to ORG being held against the applicant . The Minister based this decision on the applicant \u2019s statements about his career from DATE as an officer in the ORG in which he had last held the rank of lieutenant colonel , and on a general official report ( algemeen ambtsbericht ) , drawn up on DATE by ORG ( GPE PERSON ) on \u201c ORG in NORP GPE ( DATE ) . AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ( \u201c PERSON in communistisch GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG en WAD \u201d ) On the basis of this report , the GPE immigration authorities adopted the position that LAW could be held against virtually every NORP asylum seeker who , holding the rank of third lieutenant or higher , had worked during the communist regime for the ORG .","In a separate decision taken on DATE , the Minister further imposed an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) on the applicant . The applicant \u2019s objection ( bezwaar ) against this decision was rejected by the Minister on CARDINAL DATE .","As under NORP law it is not possible to have lawful residence in the GPE as long as an exclusion order is in place , the applicant \u2019s appeal against the withdrawal of his asylum based residence permit was declared inadmissible on DATE by ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE .","In a separate decision taken on DATE , ORG of The GPE sitting in PERSON rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision to impose an exclusion order . On DATE , the applicant filed a further appeal with ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) .","On DATE , at the request of the applicant , the President of the ORG decided to indicate to the Government of the GPE that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG not to remove the applicant to GPE ( Rule CARDINAL of ORG ) until further notice .","On DATE the ORG prolonged the measure under LAW until further notice .","On DATE , the applicant requested the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ; \u201c the Deputy Minister \u201d ; the successor to the Minister for ORG ) to lift ( temporarily ) the exclusion order imposed on him ( \u201c verzoek om het ( tijdelijk ) opheffen van de ongewenstverklaring \u201d ) .","On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s further appeal concerning the decision to impose an exclusion order on him .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister withdrew the decision of CARDINAL DATE , in which the applicant \u2019s objection to the decision to impose an exclusion order on him had been rejected .","On DATE , the Government informed the ORG that , in the context of the proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s exclusion order and his request have this order lifted , the Deputy Minister had concluded on DATE that the applicant would , if returned to GPE in the current circumstances , run a risk of treatment as referred to in LAW . The Government stated that , therefore , the applicant would not be expelled to GPE as long as LAW would constitute grounds for not doing so . The Government requested the ORG to consider striking the application out of the list of pending cases .","On DATE , the applicant informed the ORG that he did not wish to withdraw the application as he had not only alleged a violation of his rights under LAW but also under LAW .","On DATE , the ORG decided against striking the case out . It decided to adjourn its proceedings pending the outcome of the still pending domestic proceedings on the imposition of an exclusion order on the applicant . It further decided to prolong the Rule CARDINAL indication for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE , ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE determined the applicant \u2019s appeal against the Minister \u2019s decision of DATE concerning the imposition of the exclusion order . It remitted the case to the Minister . In a separate judgment given on DATE , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the Minister \u2019s refusal to lift the exclusion order .","In a fresh decision taken on DATE concerning the imposition of the exclusion order , the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON , ORG ; the successor to the Deputy Minister of Justice ) again accepted that the applicant , if returned to GPE , would run a risk of treatment proscribed by LAW but rejected the applicant \u2019s other arguments based on ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention . The applicant filed an appeal with ORG of The Hague , which is presumably still pending .","On DATE , the applicant informed ORG state of proceedings at the domestic level , namely that the proceedings concerning the imposition of the exclusion order were pending before ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE and that the proceedings on his request to lift the exclusion order were pending before ORG . He further informed ORG consequences of the implementation as from DATE of Directive CARDINAL of DATE ( on common standards and procedures in Member GPE for returning illegally staying third - country nationals ) for persons who \u2013 like the applicant \u2013 are not a national of CARDINAL of ORG and on whom an exclusion order has been imposed . According the applicant , the Government intended to lift exclusion orders imposed in the past under their simultaneously replacement by an entry ban within the meaning of LAW .","The ORG requested the Government on DATE to comment on the information supplied by the applicant , which they did on DATE . The Government informed the ORG , inter alia , that the Minister was seeing no reason to lift the applicant \u2019s exclusion order and impose an entry ban on him","NORP The relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings , exclusion orders and enforcement of removals are set out in PERSON v. the GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183544","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ZHADOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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 - Degrading treatment;Prohibition of torture)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164419","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF JAKELJI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in Split .","The legislation of the former GPE , in particular LAW of the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , prohibited the acquisition of ownership of socially owned property by adverse possession ( dosjelost ) .","When incorporating the DATE LAW into the NORP legal system on DATE , ORG repealed the above - mentioned provision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Subsequently , the new LAW of DATE , which entered into force on DATE , provided that the period prior to CARDINAL DATE was to be included in calculating the period for acquiring ownership by adverse possession of socially owned immovable property ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Following several petitions for an abstract constitutional review ( prijedlog za ocjenu ustavnosti ) submitted by former owners of properties that had been appropriated under the socialist regime , on DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) accepted the initiative and decided to institute proceedings to review the constitutionality of section CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG invalidated section CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW . It held that the impugned provision had retroactive effect , resulting in adverse consequences for the rights of third parties ( primarily those who , under the restitution legislation , were entitled to the restitution of property appropriated during the NORP regime ) and was therefore unconstitutional ( for the relevant part of the decision see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) . The decision came into effect on DATE when it was published in ORG .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively , the applicants bought CARDINAL plots of land from various individuals . However , the plots were recorded in the land register in the name of GPE as the legal predecessor of GPE .","On DATE the applicants brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) against ORG ( Grad Split DATE hereinafter \u201c the local authorities \u201d ) , seeking a declaration of their ownership of the CARDINAL plots of land and registration in their names in the land register . They submitted that the property at issue , even though it had been recorded in the land register in the name of GPE as the legal predecessor of GPE , had been in the possession of their legal predecessors for DATE . Given that the statutory period for acquiring ownership by adverse possession had elapsed in respect of their legal predecessors , the applicants claimed that by buying the land from them they had validly acquired ownership .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG ruled in favour of the applicants . It established , firstly , that the land in question had been in social ownership on CARDINAL DATE and that under the relevant legislation it had not been possible to acquire ownership of socially owned property by adverse possession before that date unless the statutory requirements for doing so had been met by DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . It found , however , that the applicants had proved that their predecessors had had continuous possession of the CARDINAL plots of land in good faith for DATE before DATE , and had continued to do so until they had sold them to the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicants\u2019 predecessors had therefore , under LAW ( applicable in GPE from DATE until DATE , see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , acquired ownership of the land by adverse possession even before that date .","Following an appeal by the defendant authority , on DATE ORG ( PERSON ) reversed the first - instance judgment and dismissed the applicants\u2019 action . It stated that even though ORG had established the facts correctly , the ORG predecessors had only been in possession of the land in question ( continuously and in good faith ) since DATE . The DATE time - limit for acquiring ownership by adverse possession set forth in LAW had not therefore expired by DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the subsequent period DATE and DATE the relevant legislation had prohibited the acquisition of ownership of socially owned property by adverse possession ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . This had interrupted the running of the statutory time - limits elapsed before that period . The time elapsed before DATE had therefore not continued to run after CARDINAL DATE \u2013 it had actually started to run again .","The applicants then lodged a constitutional complaint against the second - instance judgment , alleging violations of their constitutional rights to equality before the law , equality before the courts and fair procedure .","By a decision of DATE , ORG dismissed their constitutional complaint and on DATE it served its decision on their representative ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145717","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CORNEA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Curchi .","At the time of the events the applicant was head of female patient services at ORG . In DATE the hospital \u2019s chief physician was suspended from his position DATE owing to his being the subject of a criminal investigation \u2013 and the applicant was appointed to temporarily replace him . Another doctor , GPE , was appointed to temporarily fill the applicant \u2019s former position .","NORP In DATE the criminal investigation conducted in respect of the hospital \u2019s chief physician was terminated and , on the basis of a court order , he returned to his position . On DATE the hospital ordered the applicant \u2019s transfer to the position of head of female patient services and ORG \u2019s transfer to the position of an ordinary doctor . On the basis of that order , the applicant took up his initial position of head of female patient services and ORG returned to being a simple doctor .","On an unspecified date ORG challenged the order of DATE arguing that he had not consented to being removed from the position of head of female patient services . The proceedings lasted until DATE during which time the applicant worked as head of female patient services . Nobody informed the applicant about the proceedings .","On DATE ORG examined the action brought by ORG without involving the applicant in the proceedings , and upheld it , quashing the hospital \u2019s order of DATE . ORG was reinstated in the position of head of female patient services . The applicant learned about the trial after its conclusion and appealed against the judgment . He argued , inter alia , that the judgment was unlawful because he had not been involved in proceedings in which his own rights and interests were clearly affected , relying \u2013 inter alia \u2013 on LAW b ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The hospital did not appeal against the judgment but supported the applicant \u2019s position during the proceedings before ORG .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible on the grounds that he had not been a party to the proceedings and had no right to lodge an appeal against the judgment of DATE . In dismissing his argument quoting LAW ) of LAW , ORG stated : \u201c [ ... ] the [ applicant \u2019s ] reference to LAW , which would have entitled him to appeal without having been a party to the proceedings [ ... ] , is based on a wrong interpretation of this procedural rule , which can not be applied in the present case \u201d .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG , again relying on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law after finding that the applicant did not have the right to lodge an appeal against the judgment of DATE because his rights and obligations had not been affected by that judgment .","After the above events , the applicant took up a position as an ordinary doctor at the hospital , receiving a salary which was lower than that of the head of section ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164001","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"MUCEA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr GPE , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was a high - level civil servant in ORG , who at the time of the events was in charge of the privatisation of numerous ORG - owned strategic companies in the field of energy , oil and natural resources .","On DATE ORG ( ORG - \u201c the GPE \u201d ) informed ORG from the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG and ORG ( \u201c the High Court \u201d ) that the applicant was part of an organised criminal group which included senior government officials and foreign citizens . The group \u2019s purpose was to help foreign companies to illegally acquire ownership of important NORP ORG - owned companies which were in the process of privatisation . These accusations were based on information obtained through intercepting the telephone conversations of the members of the group , including the applicant .","The surveillance activity was carried out under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( on the national security of GPE ) and started in respect of the applicant on CARDINAL DATE . This activity had been authorised by a judge of ORG .","On DATE the applicant was charged with treason for the disclosure of ORG secrets and with creating an organised criminal group .","The criminal investigation and the surveillance of the applicant continued after the above date and on DATE the applicant was indicted for the crimes charged , together with CARDINAL co - accused .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer sent a letter to the president of ORG , where his prosecution file had initially been registered , requesting that the transcripts of the intercepted phone conversations for the period DATE and DATE should not be accepted as evidence against him since they had been obtained unlawfully . He argued that this part of the surveillance had been conducted before he had been charged with a crime and therefore should not have been accepted as evidence in the proceedings .","At a hearing held on DATE before ORG , where the applicant \u2019s case had been sent for examination , the applicant contested the accuracy of the transcripts of the telephone conversations submitted as evidence in the proceedings . He alleged that there were discrepancies between the originals in LANGUAGE and their translated LANGUAGE versions , discrepancies which implied that he had divulged State secrets when in fact that had not been the case .","On this occasion , the applicant lodged a written request asking the court to order the prosecutor \u2019s office to submit as evidence the audio tapes of all his phone conversations recorded in the course of the investigation . The applicant explained that only a combined analysis of the entirety of his phone conversations in the period in question would prove his innocence . Relying on the provisions of LAW the domestic court rejected the request considering that the tapes as well as the transcripts of all the phone conversations used as evidence in the case were already in the case file and no additional transcripts were necessary .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG also held that the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning the existence of discrepancies in the translation of the phone conversations had been noted and would be taken into consideration in the deliberations .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of treason for disclosure of ORG secrets and of creating an organised criminal group , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant appealed against the decision claiming in principal that the information he had indeed transmitted to the co - accused could not be considered a ORG secret . Quoting extensively from transcripts of his phone conversations submitted as evidence in his case file , the applicant explained that his actions had been in accordance with the law . As regards the interception of his phone conversations the applicant complained of the transcription and translation errors which had changed the true meaning of the discussions . He mentioned that the content of the intercepted phone conversations had not been sufficient to prove his guilt .","At CARDINAL hearings held before the CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE and DATE , the applicant \u2019s representatives argued as regards the interception of the applicant \u2019s phone conversations that the transcripts submitted to the case file had discrepancies due to translation errors and that the court of first instance had not quoted them accurately in its judgment .","On DATE CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL representatives submitted final written pleadings at the registry of ORG . They included no mention of the interception of the applicant \u2019s phone conversations .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of the crimes of disclosing secret information and creating an organised criminal group , and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The judgment became final .","In a letter to the ORG dated DATE the applicant complained of the fact that excerpts from his telephone conversations which had been obtained through telephone tapping during criminal surveillance operations had been disclosed to the media by the prosecutors investigating his case during the criminal proceedings against him .","The applicant enclosed with the above letter several copies of newspaper articles which had been published in the national media in DATE , DATE .","The transcript of a discussion that CARDINAL of the co - defendants in the applicant \u2019s case had had with journalists during a television news programme on CARDINAL DATE on ORG , a national channel , was also attached . The transcript read as follows :","\u201c [ S. ] \u2019s network of economic espionage .","The network of [ S.S. ] severely distorted the NORP market , damaged GPE \u2019s image abroad and even endangered its accession to ORG ... In the privatisations case , ORG [ ORG ] opened an investigation against CARDINAL people , all accused of blackmail , treason and complicity in these crimes . ... The NORP citizen [ S.S. ] , an international consultant , was considered the key person in the privatisations case . He is accused of espionage and of organising an espionage network . \u201d","TIME , on the same channel , [ GPE ] [ CARDINAL of the co - suspects in the applicant \u2019s case at the time ] stated :","\u201c I have not received anything official ; I have only heard of the accusations from the media and from you . I am ready to come back to GPE and to contribute to the clarification of the situation , even if these privatisations have been , in my opinion , a success .","[ GPE ] \u2019s agenda included the minister of economy , LOC , [ GPE ] and [ FAC ] , the other accused in the case . \u201d","On DATE the applicant also sent to the ORG excerpts from a television programme broadcast on DATE on ORG , a national channel . According to the transcript of the discussions as published on the channel \u2019s internet page , several journalists and political analysts presented their opinions on the case in which the applicant was standing trial at the time . The transcript of the programme reads as follows in its relevant parts :","\u201c DATE brief [ Sinteza zilei ] : The \u2018 ORG and PERSON scandal . Is the DNA [ ORG ] betraying the President ?","The DNA \u2019s decision not to open an investigation into the \u201c treason and espionage \u201d scandal , DATE after making announcements about the fight against corruption , was the main topic of the programme Daily Brief on ORG . In the mentioned investigation , former ministers [ ORG ] and [ ORG ] , former ministry advisers PERSON and [ PERSON ] and the NORP consultant [ FAC ] , had been accused of bribe taking .","The latter was even imprisoned as a result of the mentioned scandal . The political expert PERSON stated that it had been proved one more time that \u2018 human rights are carelessly breached in Romania\u2019 . \u2018 These people have their lives in pieces . Who will repair it for them ? If the system wants to destroy you it will ... \u2019 said PERSON .","Military expert PERSON underlined : \u2018 DNA prosecutors woke up and understood that they have been used as political lure . There is a report adopted by ORG [ ORG ] which mentions incredible things . It states that the manner in which investigations are carried out by the DNA is dangerous for the NORP justice system . DNA prosecutors have brought in some cases charges which could not be found in the criminal code . So , either you are dumb , or you received a political order.\u2019 explained PERSON . ...","Referring to the \u2018 treason and PERSON scandal , PERSON mentioned that it was all a lie , because \u2018 one can not commit political treason to the advantage of a consultancy company engaged by ORG , for which [ S ] . also worked.\u2019 The analyst PERSON ... also condemned the approach adopted by the media who ran with these stories without verifying all the \u2018 leaks of information\u2019 from the DNA and used them deliberately to mislead the public ... \u201d","On DATE , together with his observations on the admissibility and merits of his application , the applicant submitted additional copies of newspaper articles published DATE and DATE .","The legislation in force at the relevant time concerning telephone tapping and the changes to the law brought into force on DATE are described in PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164453","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ZIEMBI\u0143SKI v. POLAND (No. 2)","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is proprietor and editor - in - chief of the local DATE newspaper \u201c Komu i NORP \u201d , published in the PERSON and ORG .","NORP In issue no . CARDINAL of DATE the applicant published an article entitled \u201c Elegantly wrapped dung \u201d ( \u201c DATE elegancko opakowane \u201d ) . It read , in so far as relevant :","\u201c A poser is someone who does everything to produce external effects by his conduct , speech and , in particular , with the populism he preaches . He is a numbskull posing as the people \u2019s tribune . The only panacea , or universal cure , for such a person is to recognise his intentions and take up a bloodless fight using arguments . An argument against any kind of tricks by a poser or populist will be always a counterargument based on reality , logic and the opportunity to put one \u2019s intentions into practice .","I remember when , not so long ago , the author of the proposal to develop a quail farm as a panacea against rural unemployment had a go at me in an accommodating local newspaper , accusing me of malice , a willingness to discredit every good idea , and mindlessness leading to nasty mental disease and many other irreversible disorders of the mind . At the same time he declared that he would continue doing his job , that is , condemning farmers to breeding nice little birds in order to collect their eggs . His boss considered the quail business very important , because it would eliminate the need for viagra . There has not been a sideshow like it in LOC for a long time . So the time is approaching when pilgrimages of men from all over GPE , and maybe even ORG , will come to PERSON to taste quail eggs and later begin procreating .","I wonder who has gone mad in the district , and why mad ideas , supported by even madder arguments , can be accepted by our officials . But no matter . Every dull boss can be convinced by any rubbish . Once more I want to authoritatively and responsibly declare that neither quail breeding , nor mushroom growing , nor PERSON [ a registered trademark for fibre cement ] , which suddenly seems to have dropped out of the picture , will solve the unemployment problem in the villages of our region . And I will continue calling the actions of dim - witted officials and their dull bosses pretentious and populist , and no numbskull will convince me that I am wrong . ... \u201d","The applicant went on to describe in general terms a local economic development programme , which had been presented to him by a businessman . He finished his article with the following paragraph :","\u201c This is not a venture of the quail variety by some smart poser or populist who is able to sell his dull bosses dung nicely wrapped in words . And he actually sells it . \u201d","On DATE M.D. , the mayor of the Radomsko District ( starosta ) , ORG , the head and spokesperson of the district \u2019s marketing department , and GPE , an employee of that department , lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant with ORG . In respect of the impugned article , they accused him of defamation committed through the mass media under LAW . In particular , they alleged that the copious use of words such as \u201c numbskull \u201d , \u201c dull boss \u201d , \u201c dim - witted official \u201d , \u201c poser \u201d and \u201c populist \u201d ( \u201c palant \u201d , \u201c nierozgarni\u0119ty szef \u201d , \u201c przyg\u0142upawy urz\u0119dnik \u201d , \u201c pozer \u201d , \u201c populista \u201d ) had defamed them as local government officials . The statements had lowered them in public opinion and undermined the public confidence necessary for the discharge of their duties .","The private prosecutors sought an order requiring the applicant to publish an apology in the DATE newspaper . They further sought reimbursement of their legal costs and payment by the applicant of MONEY ( ORG ) to a charity .","The Radomsko District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction in the case , and transmitted the private bill of indictment to ORG . The trial court held CARDINAL hearings .","On DATE the Piotrk\u00f3w Trybunalski ORG gave its judgment . It held that the use of the words \u201c numbskull \u201d , \u201c poser \u201d and \u201c dimwitted official \u201d in respect of GPE , and the use of the words \u201c dull bosses \u201d in respect of PERSON and PERSON , had amounted to insult ( zniewaga ) committed through the mass media , within the meaning of LAW . The court convicted the applicant under that provision and ordered him to pay a fine of LAW ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . It also ordered him to reimburse the private ORG costs ( ORG , approximately LAW ) and the costs of ORG ( ORG CARDINAL , approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","As to the facts , the court observed that , since DATE , the applicant \u2019s newspaper had been publishing articles which were critical of GPE , the mayor of GPE , and his officials . The newspaper was particularly critical of GPE \u2019s initiative to develop quail farming in order to tackle the impoverishment of the local population . GPE was an official in the district \u2019s marketing department . PERSON , the head of the marketing department , was also involved in the implementation of this project . In DATE the applicant had published an article in which he had made ironic remarks about GPE \u2019s initiative . In DATE a journalist at the same newspaper had published a detailed article on the same subject . The conflict between the applicant and the private prosecutors had intensified with each successively published article .","The court further noted that , in his article entitled \u201c Elegantly wrapped dung \u201d , the applicant had again written about the quail farming . Being aware of the publicity which the initiative promoted by GPE and ORG had received , the applicant had decided once again to mock the CARDINAL officials , as well as their superior , PERSON had referred to GPE , the author of the initiative , as a \u201c poser \u201d , \u201c numbskull \u201d and \u201c dim - witted official \u201d , while the idea of quail farming had been referred to as \u201c nicely wrapped dung \u201d . According to the applicant , this kind of \u201c product \u201d had been sold to \u201c dull bosses \u201d , that is , first G.D. and then PERSON , the mayor of the district .","The trial court rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that the impugned article had been a simple DATE column in which any similarity to actual persons had been purely coincidental . It found that the article in issue had been part of a campaign carried out by the newspaper against the private prosecutors . They had not been mentioned by name , but they had been easily identifiable on account of the publicity generated by the quail farming project and the earlier articles published by the applicant \u2019s newspaper . The court established that there was no doubt that the words \u201c numbskull \u201d , \u201c dimwitted official \u201d and \u201c poser \u201d had referred to GPE , and the term \u201c dull bosses \u201d to PERSON and G.D.","With regard to the applicant \u2019s criminal responsibility , the trial court noted that a journalist had the right to criticise the actions of public officials , but was not entitled to use media in a manipulative way to wage private wars . The latter behaviour was not only unethical and unprofessional , but also incompatible with the role of the media , which was to serve the ORG and society . The trial court further held :","\u201c The fair criticism and objective coverage , free from personal emotions , which is desired in journalism , gave way to the private interest of the defendant , pursued through expressions which , in common understanding , remain offensive and disrespectful . It is difficult not to agree with the position that the word \u201c numbskull \u201d ( \u201c palant \u201d ) in the analysed context , although its literal meaning is legally irrelevant , fulfils all the criteria of insult within the meaning of LAW . Of an equally offensive character are the terms \u201c poser \u201d , \u201c dim - witted official \u201d and \u201c dull boss \u201d . It would be hard to find a person who would not feel offended by similar epithets , especially if formulated in the press .","Incidentally , it should also be noted that the word \u201c dung \u201d used in the title of the article has a cruder equivalent , and undoubtedly that equivalent was meant to describe GPE \u2019s contribution to the development of local entrepreneurship , which was accepted without reservation by his \u201c dull bosses \u201d . \u201c Dull \u201d meaning not sharp , unintelligent , intellectually retarded .","However , the court found no grounds to hold that the impugned words had the effect of lowering the private prosecutors in public esteem , or undermining the public confidence necessary for the discharge of their duties as local government officials . Accordingly , it would not be justified to classify the applicant \u2019s acts as coming under LAW . The quoted statements were rather harmful to the private prosecutors\u2019 perception of their dignity , and such , in the court \u2019s view , was the defendant \u2019s intention . By using insulting words in respect of the district officials , PERSON intended to derive satisfaction from doing them moral harm . By doing so in a newspaper , he fell within the scope of LAW , acting unlawfully , reprehensibly , and , in the absence of circumstances capable of precluding or mitigating his guilt , also culpably . \u201d","The trial court noted that the present case involved a conflict between constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and the right of each citizen to have his reputation protected . However , it found that the applicant \u2019s acts had constituted a blatant abuse of freedom of speech and professional ethics . The court observed that his acts and motivation had been reprehensible , since he had been settling a private conflict with the officials and transgressing basic professional standards .","As regards sentence , the court found that , , it would be disproportionate to impose a prison sentence , and that a fine would be the most appropriate penalty . It imposed a fine of PLN MONEY , which it considered proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the applicant \u2019s guilt .","The applicant appealed . He contested the factual findings of the firstinstance court , in particular that his article had concerned the private prosecutors personally . He argued that the impugned article had presented in a sarcastic light people who achieved personal gain by pretending to work , and their dull bosses who accepted such practices . The applicant emphasised that criticism of the quail farm project as a solution to a decline in agriculture in the region had been entirely legitimate . Lastly , he submitted that public figures such as GPE , the district mayor , and other officials had to accept harsh criticism of their activities .","On DATE the Piotrk\u00f3w Trybunalski Regional Court ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) upheld the first - instance judgment . It ordered the applicant to pay ORG MONEY ( approx . ORG ) in respect of the costs of the appeal proceedings .","ORG held that the lower court had correctly established the facts of the case . It endorsed the trial court \u2019s findings that the words used in the article had been insulting and harmful to the private ORG dignity . It further held that , although fair criticism of public authorities and officials was socially desirable and legally accepted , the protection afforded by law did not extend to the use of insulting words which offended human dignity .","The judgment was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158867","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"WHITE AND GANGAR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant in the first case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . His current address has not been notified to the ORG . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON of ORG , a firm of solicitors practising in GPE . The second applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . His current address has not been notified to the ORG . He was represented before the ORG by ORG , a firm of solicitors practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","NORP On DATE the ORG complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings only was communicated to the Government .","The applicants , who were both accountants , were partners in the firm PERSON . In DATE ORG ( \u201c ORG ) began investigating the firm . This investigation found that there had been no violation of LAW DATE . In DATE the ORG began a second investigation which was subsequently transferred to ORG ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) and which formed the basis for criminal charges that followed in DATE .","NORP In DATE the FAC and ORG ( \u201c MLIT \u201d ) raided the offices of PERSON , as well as the second applicant \u2019s home , and seized documents . The applicants were subsequently arrested on suspicion of money laundering and granted bail . In DATE the ORG carried out a second raid , following which they arrested both applicants on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud . Both applicants were granted bail .","NORP In DATE the MLIT charged the applicants with money laundering .","In DATE the FAC carried out a third raid , following which both applicants were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to corrupt . They were again granted bail .","NORP The applicants\u2019 trial in relation to the DATE money laundering charge was due to commence in DATE . However , following an application by the ORG an adjournment was granted and the trial was postponed until DATE . On DATE Her Honour Judge PERSON , sitting in ORG , stayed the prosecution on grounds of abuse of process by reason of a disbelief that the prosecution would honour their disclosure obligations and a violation of the reasonable time guarantee contained within LAW .","On DATE the ORG charged both applicants with conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to corrupt in connection with an alleged bribe . It was the prosecution \u2019s case that after DATE the applicants had developed in GPE a Ponzi scheme referred to as the \u201c PERSON White \u201d scheme . The value of the alleged fraud was put at over ORG CARDINAL . Both applicants were granted bail .","In DATE the prosecution provided a case summary to the applicants and on DATE His Honour Judge PERSON fixed a trial window for DATE . At the same time the second applicant was remanded in custody and later sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment for breaching his bail conditions . He was released in DATE as the ORG had failed to extend the custody time limits .","On DATE Mr Justice Langstaff ( Langstaff J ) set a firm trial date for CARDINAL DATE . However , at the same time nearly all defence counsel withdrew citing other professional commitments . A new defence team was subsequently appointed .","NORP In DATE and DATE the prosecution made CARDINAL late and substantial disclosures of further evidence , consisting of CARDINAL of pages .","On DATE , an application was made jointly by the prosecution and the new defence team to postpone the trial as neither side considered that the case could be made ready in time for the original trial date . The defence sought an adjournment until DATE . A limited postponement of DATE was granted until DATE .","In DATE the applicants dismissed their legal representatives , alleging certain deficiencies in the quality of the service they provided . The applicants then sought to transfer their representation orders . This was required to enable the applicants to instruct new representation whilst continuing to benefit from publicly funded legal advice and assistance . On DATE the judge refused . Later , following a written application and oral submissions , for which the applicants were assisted by counsel , the judge indicated that he might transfer the representation order . However , CARDINAL of the requirements of new leading counsel was that the trial be pushed back again to DATE . The judge again refused as he considered that the applicants had not given a good reason for dismissing their previous representation .","NORP The applicants\u2019 trial began on DATE and lasted for DATE . At the beginning of the trial , the applicants made an outoftime application to FAC to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process arguing a breach of LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL reasonable - time requirement . In a decision dated DATE Langstaff J found that the period of unexplained delay between the beginning of proceedings , deemed to be DATE , and the date of the formal charge on DATE , had amounted to a breach of the reasonable - time requirement .","In determining the start date of proceedings , PERSON had noted that in DATE , the ORG investigation was on - going and that no decision had been made whether to bring charges against the applicants ; that at some time DATE a decision had however been made ; that in DATE it had been \u201c indicated \u201d and notified to the applicants that they would probably face charges ; and that DATE was therefore , the relevant date for LAW purposes . He explicitly rejected the ORG assertion that the relevant time period for the purposes of LAW had commenced any earlier . In particular , PERSON found that the charges on which the applicants faced trial were sufficiently different to the earlier money - laundering charges , so that the relevant time period did not extend to incorporate those charges ; that if the reasonabletime period necessarily began running the moment there had been an arrest , an investigation or a seizure of documents , such might incline the authorities to take precipitant haste in deciding whether or not to bring charges ; that the authorities should take care not to hastily charge an individual where such would be unjustified ; and that a proper distinction should be drawn between an investigation and a decision to prosecute , at which time the individual concerned would be duly informed . PERSON also concluded that there was no other period of unreasonable delay in the applicants\u2019 case , having regard to the complexity of the case and the conduct of the parties . He determined that the appropriate remedy for the identified breach was not a stay of the indictment : rather that it should be taken into account when deciding the question of costs in the event of acquittal , or by taking it into account at the time of sentence in the event of a conviction .","At the close of the prosecution case , the applicants renewed their LAW abuse - of - process submissions to PERSON In a decision promulgated on DATE , he upheld his previous decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicants were convicted by a jury , on a majority verdict , of conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to corrupt .","On DATE both applicants were sentenced to sevenandahalf GPE imprisonment . PERSON noted that the maximum sentence available for a conviction of conspiracy to defraud was CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and that the offence committed by the applicants fell towards the top of that tariff . The maximum sentence available on the conspiracytocorrupt conviction was DATE imprisonment . Although Langstaff J found that the corruption offence had a close relationship to the defraud offence , it was not \u201c part and parcel \u201d of it . Therefore , a separate penalty was required . Considering however the period of some fifteen months\u2019 unreasonable delay in the course of the case ( during which time the applicants had been at liberty ) , the period of \u201c effective custody \u201d to which the applicants had been subjected during the length of the trial , and the fact that there was no previous involvement in like offending , a sentence of DATE in respect of the conspiracy to defraud and DATE consecutive in respect of the conspiracy to corrupt was imposed .","The applicants sought leave to appeal their conviction to ORG . They argued that their conviction was unsafe because , inter alia , the trial judge had refused to transfer the representation order . The applicants\u2019 grounds of appeal did not contain any LAW abuseofprocess submissions and did not seek to challenge the trial judge \u2019s finding with regard to the commencement of proceedings for the purposes of the reasonable - time requirement . The application for permission to appeal was refused on DATE following an oral hearing , on the ground that the request for a change of representation order was not reasonable and that the judge had been entitled to find same .","Meanwhile , on DATE , following conviction , confiscation proceedings were brought against both applicants . On DATE all parties to the proceedings agreed that the applicants had each benefited by MONEY . Contested hearings took place in DATE and DATE . Provisional judgment was given on DATE and an amended and finalised judgment was handed down on DATE . In respect of the first applicant , a confiscation order was made in the sum of GBP CARDINAL to be paid within DATE , with a sentence in default of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . In respect of the second applicant , a confiscation order was made in the sum of GBP CARDINAL to be paid within an unknown period of time , with a sentence in default of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","Both applicants sought leave to appeal those orders . Permission to appeal was granted to argue the specific point of the realisable value of jointly held assets and refused on all other grounds . The applicants pursued an application for leave to appeal on unparticularised additional grounds . That application and the appeal on the ground for which leave had been granted were considered at CARDINAL hearing held on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal on the additional grounds argued . Furthermore , in considering the appeal before it , the court concluded that the orders made were wrong insofar as they were based upon treating the jointly held assets as PERCENT available to each of the applicants . The appeals were allowed to the limited extent of repairing the identified error . The previous orders were quashed and substitute orders made . In respect of the first applicant , a confiscation order was made in the sum of GBP CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL to be paid within DATE , with a sentence in default of CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment . In respect of the second applicant , a confiscation order was made in the sum of GBP CARDINAL to be paid within an unknown period of time , with a sentence in default of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","In Attorney General \u2019s Reference ( No CARDINAL of CARDINAL ) [ DATE ] CARDINAL A.C. DATE , ORG , the majority in ORG considered the implications of Article CARDINAL on the question whether a prosecution should be stayed by reason of delay alone . Lord PERSON , delivering the majority judgment , stated :","\u201c CARDINAL . NORP If , through the action or inaction of a public authority , a criminal charge is not determined at a hearing within a reasonable time , there is necessarily a breach of the defendant \u2019s Convention right under article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . For such breach there must be afforded such remedy as may ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) be just and appropriate or ( in Convention terms ) effective , just and proportionate . The appropriate remedy will depend on the nature of the breach and all the circumstances , including particularly the stage of the proceedings at which the breach is established . If the breach is established before the hearing , the appropriate remedy may be a public acknowledgement of the breach , action to expedite the hearing to the greatest extent practicable and perhaps , if the defendant is in custody , his release on bail . It will not be appropriate to stay or dismiss the proceedings unless ( a ) there can no longer be a fair hearing or ( b ) it would otherwise be unfair to try the defendant . The public interest in the final determination of criminal charges requires that such a charge should not be stayed or dismissed if any lesser remedy will be just and proportionate in all the circumstances . The prosecutor and the court do not act incompatibly with the defendant \u2019s Convention right in continuing to prosecute or entertain proceedings after a breach is established in a case where neither of conditions ( a ) or ( b ) is met , since the breach consists in the delay which has accrued and not in the prospective hearing . If the breach of the reasonable time requirement is established retrospectively , after there has been a hearing , the appropriate remedy may be a public acknowledgement of the breach , a reduction in the penalty imposed on a convicted defendant or the payment of compensation to an acquitted defendant . Unless ( a ) the hearing was unfair or ( b ) it was unfair to try the defendant at all , it will not be appropriate to quash any conviction . Again , in any case where neither of conditions ( a ) or ( b ) applies , the prosecutor and the court do not act incompatibly with the defendant \u2019s Convention right in prosecuting or entertaining the proceedings but only in failing to procure a hearing within a reasonable time .","The category of cases in which it may be unfair to try a defendant of course includes cases of bad faith , unlawfulness and executive manipulation of the kind classically illustrated by R v ORG , Ex p Bennett [ DATE ] CARDINAL AC DATE , but Mr PERSON contended that the category should not be confined to such cases . That principle may be broadly accepted . There may well be cases ( of which ORG v The ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL is an example ) where the delay is of such an order , or where a prosecutor \u2019s breach of professional duty is such ( PERSON v ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL NZLR CARDINAL may be an example ) , as to make it unfair that the proceedings against a defendant should continue . It would be unwise to attempt to describe such cases in advance . They will be recognisable when they appear . Such cases will however be very exceptional , and a stay will never be an appropriate remedy if any lesser remedy would adequately vindicate the defendant \u2019s Convention right . \u201d","Lord PERSON concluded that :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings may be stayed on the ground that there has been a violation of the reasonable time requirement in article CARDINAL ) of the Convention only if ( a ) a fair hearing is no longer possible , or ( b ) it is for any compelling reason unfair to try the defendant . \u201d","That approach was followed by ORG in PERSON v The ORG , GPE [ DATE ] PERSON . CARDINAL , in which ORG said :","\u201c A breach of the defendant \u2019s right to have a criminal charge determined within a reasonable time , contrary to Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG , will not necessarily require criminal proceedings to be stayed . It will only be appropriate to stay or dismiss proceedings if there can no longer be a fair hearing or it will otherwise be unfair to try the defendant ... Once there has been a conviction , this court should only quash that conviction if the hearing has proved to be unfair , or it was unfair to try the defendant at all . \u201d","Where an abuse of process is alleged , the burden of establishing that the bringing or the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of the court \u2019s process is on the accused : R v Telford Justices ex parte LOC [ DATE ] CARDINAL Q.B. CARDINAL ; R v ORG ex parte PERSON [ DATE ] Crim . L.R. CARDINAL . As a general principle of domestic GPE law , it will normally be necessary to prove not only that an abuse has taken place but that the accused has been prejudiced in the presentation of his or her case as a result , so that a fair trial is no longer possible . As Lord PERSON said in ORG hearing in Attorney General \u2019s Reference ( No CARDINAL of CARDINAL ) [ DATE ] CARDINAL A.C. DATE , ORG :","\u201c ... if there has been prejudice caused to a defendant which interferes with his right to a fair trial in a way which can not otherwise be remedied , then of course a stay is an appropriate remedy . But in the absence of prejudice of that sort , there is normally no justification for granting a stay . \u201d","In the context of confiscation proceedings , in R v PERSON [ DATE ] PERSON DATE ORG held that :","\u201c CARDINAL . Once the ORG decides to invoke the confiscation process , the making of an order is mandatory , and its amount is arithmetically determined but can be moderated by judicial decision .","[ ... ]","The court retains the jurisdiction to stay an application for confiscation , as any other criminal process , where it amounts to an abuse of the court \u2019s process . In the present context , that power exists where it would be oppressive to seek confiscation , or to do so on a particular basis .","[ ... ]","This jurisdiction must be exercised with considerable caution , indeed sparingly . It must be confined to cases of true oppression . In particular , it can not be exercised simply on the grounds that the Judge disagrees with the decision of the ORG to pursue confiscation , or with the way it puts its case on that topic . \u201d","In the case of R v P [ DATE ] ORG ( ORG ) the applicant , having been convicted of criminal offending , had confiscation proceedings initiated against him . Moreover , he was subject to a restraint order which related to funds ORG believed could constitute the proceeds of criminal activity . Until a judicial determination had been made as to the source of those funds , the applicant was unable to employ them for the purposes of securing legal representation . The alternative was to rely upon state legal aid funding . HHJ Mole QC however accepted that , not least owing to the complexity of the case , if the applicant were to rely on the ORG legal aid fund , there was no prospect of him being able to engage properly qualified and competent counsel so as to ensure a fair trial . ORG Mole QC therefore stayed the confiscation proceedings as an abuse of process ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154149","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MILI\u0106 AND NIKEZI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","At the relevant time they were in detention ( u pritvoru ) at the Institution for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions ( Zavod za izvr\u0161enje krivi\u010dnih sankcija , hereinafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) , where they shared a cell with CARDINAL other detainees .","On DATE the first applicant was to be transferred to a disciplinary unit ( disciplinsko odjeljenje ) and the cell in which he was detained was to be searched . The submissions of the applicants and the Government as to what exactly happened on that occasion differ .","The first applicant submitted that after having entered his cell , several guards had grabbed him and thrown him on to the concrete floor of the corridor outside the cell . They had handcuffed him , beaten him using batons and their fists , and sworn at him . In addition , CARDINAL rows of guards positioned along the corridor had beaten him as he was being taken away .","The second applicant submitted that he had protested against this abuse . In response , CARDINAL guards had started to kick him and had beaten him with their fists and batons . After that he had been taken into the corridor outside the cell , where CARDINAL other guards had continued to beat him . The beating had continued after he had returned to the cell .","The Government , for their part , submitted that the applicants had resisted the actions of the prison guards and had tried to prevent them from performing their duties , which had triggered the PERSON intervention . In particular , when they had entered the cell the second applicant had attacked CARDINAL of the guards without any reason and had injured him .","The first applicant had refused to be examined by a prison doctor as he doubted his impartiality . On DATE , however , he had talked to the doctor and , in answer to the doctor \u2019s question whether he was feeling well and whether he had any injuries , he had apparently said \u201c No , doctor , I am healthy and both physically and psychologically stable , and I do not consent to an examination ; there is no need for it as I have not been ill - treated either physically or psychologically by the security forces \u201d .","The second applicant had been examined by the prison doctor after the Deputy Ombudsman had made a request to that effect . It would appear that the doctor made CARDINAL reports in this regard . The ORG , who obtained the reports from the ORG , described them as barely legible and apparently referring to the same subject matter in CARDINAL different ways .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s representative in the domestic criminal proceedings reported the incident to the prison governor and requested that the appropriate responsible bodies be informed , that his client be provided with medical assistance , and that no further punitive measures be taken against him .","On an unspecified date before CARDINAL DATE the ORG prosecutor ( ORG dr\u017eavno tu\u017eila\u0161tvo ) asked ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE to establish the elements of criminal offences of torture and ill - treatment ( predlog radi utvr\u0111ivanja elemenata bi\u0107a krivi\u010dnog djela mu\u010denje i zlostavljanje ) . Acting upon this an investigating judge ( istra\u017eni sudija ) from ORG requested , inter alia , the medical examination of both applicants by an external forensic doctor , and ordered evidence to be heard from a number of individuals , including the prison guards , and the second applicant .","On DATE an external forensic doctor examined the second applicant . He confirmed in his report that the second applicant had light body injuries , namely a DATE old haematoma ( krvni podliv ) measuring QUANTITY on the back of his left thigh and a haematoma on the lower lid of each eye . The doctor added that there was an undated medical report in the second applicant \u2019s file confirming the presence of bruises around his eyes . He emphasised that the medical documentation provided by the ORG was \u201c largely illegible \u201d . The first applicant refused an examination by the external forensic doctor , as the examination had apparently been ordered when his bruises were already fading .","On DATE , the first applicant \u2019s mother \u2013 during a visit \u2013 observed bruises on his face and haematomas on visible parts of his body . She reported this immediately to the prison administration ( PERSON zavoda ) . On DATE she lodged a criminal complaint ( krivi\u010dna prijava ) with the competent ORG prosecutor against persons unknown , stating that the first applicant had CARDINAL bruises , one on his left temple DATE which was already fading \u2013 and another on one of his legs , and that he had also complained that he was having difficulty sitting .","On an unspecified date the second applicant \u2019s mother \u2013 who had been informed by CARDINAL of the detainees about what had happened \u2013 reported the incident to the ORG and visited her son . She observed that his eyes were closed and his face and visible parts of his body were covered in bruises . She reported this to the prison administration and asked that it be investigated . On DATE she lodged a criminal complaint with the police ( PERSON policije ) against persons unknown .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG prosecutor asked ORG in GPE to investigate the complaints lodged on behalf of the second and first applicants respectively ( predlog za preduzimanje istra\u017enih radnji ) . Acting upon this the investigating judge requested , inter alia , a video - recording from the prison , the identification of all the guards who had been involved in the cell search , and that the evidence be heard from a number of individuals , including the prison guards , other detainees in the cell , the first applicant , and the first applicant \u2019s representative in the domestic criminal proceedings .","The requested questioning ( see paragraphs CARDINAL in fine and CARDINAL in fine above ) took place DATE and DATE . CARDINAL of the detainees stated that they had seen the first applicant being beaten . Some of the guards stated that the first applicant had resisted being handcuffed by \u201c attempting to get out of [ their ] hands , cursing and swearing \u201d and , when on the floor , by kicking out ( \u201c gicao se i mlatio nogama i rukama \u201d ) . CARDINAL of the guards admitted \u201c hitting [ the first applicant ] once with a baton , as he continued to resist and kick \u201d . Another guard , who had seen the first applicant DATE after the incident , had observed a cut below his left eye as well as a visible injury to one of his legs .","When visiting his client DATE after the incident , the first applicant \u2019s representative in the domestic criminal proceedings had observed a bruise under one of his eyes , and a bruise on the calf of his left leg with a diameter of QUANTITY . He described him as frightened and \u201c mentally broken \u201d .","One of the guards stated that the second applicant had grabbed the collar of CARDINAL of his colleagues from behind , following which the guard in question had fallen over a bench . The guard had pushed him away and the second applicant had hit the wall and sunk to the floor ( pao je na zid i spustio se dolje na sjedalo ) . The guard stated that his colleague had not hit the second applicant . CARDINAL other guards confirmed this . The prison doctor stated that he had noticed a haematoma under the second applicant \u2019s eye . CARDINAL detainees confirmed that the second applicant had been beaten by several guards both in the cell and in the corridor . The applicants , for their part , repeated their allegations .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor rejected ( odbacio ) the criminal complaints against CARDINAL guards , GPE and PERSON , on the ground that even though they had used force by hitting the first applicant CARDINAL times and the second applicant once with a baton , they had done so in order to overcome the applicants\u2019 resistance and thus acted within their powers ( u granicama slu\u017ebenog ovla\u0161\u0107enja ) . While the first applicant had not been examined by a doctor , the medical documentation of the second applicant confirmed that he had sustained light injuries . That being so , the prosecutor concluded that the force used had not infringed human dignity and that there were no elements of any criminal offence entailing prosecution ex proprio motu . The prosecutor \u2019s decision also identified other guards who had participated in the cell search . At the same time , the applicants were informed that they could pursue a subsidiary prosecution by lodging an indictment ( optu\u017eni predlog ) with ORG .","On DATE the lawyer retained by the applicants in respect of the complaints of alleged ill - treatment lodged an indictment for torture and ill - treatment which had resulted in severe bodily injuries ( te\u0161ke tjelesne povrede ) against CARDINAL prison guards named in the previous decision , including GPE and GPE","On DATE the lawyer was informed by the first applicant that the video - recording obtained from the ORG by ORG did not show the entire incident , namely it omitted his being beaten by CARDINAL rows of guards in the corridor . He claimed , however , that another camera in the corridor must have recorded the beating and that the recording should be obtained from the prison authorities .","On DATE the lawyer asked the court to obtain a recording from another camera , but apparently without success .","On DATE ORG Instance decided that the applicants\u2019 indictment was to be treated as a criminal complaint and , as such , was to be lodged with the ORG prosecutor .","On DATE the applicants appealed against the above decision . At the same time they also lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG prosecutor .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG appeal on the ground that the ORG prosecutor had delivered a decision only in respect of GPE and PERSON and not the other guards .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor rejected the ORG criminal complaint on the ground that there were no elements of any criminal offence entailing prosecution ex proprio motu . At the same time the applicants were notified that they could pursue a subsidiary criminal prosecution by lodging a request for an investigation ( zahtjev za sprovo\u0111enje istrage ) with ORG .","On DATE the applicants lodged a request for an investigation with ORG .","On DATE ORG rejected ( odbacuje se ) a constitutional appeal by the applicants against the above decisions of ORG and ORG on procedural grounds . In particular , it considered that the ORG complaints were in substance about the criminal prosecution of other individuals and that DATE pursuant to the ORG \u2019s case - law \u2013 such complaints were incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention . It was also concluded that the decision of ORG did not represent an \u201c individual decision \u201d in respect of which ORG would be competent , but rather a procedural decision establishing whether the conditions were met for conducting an investigation in response to a direct indictment lodged by the applicants . In the impugned proceedings the courts had not decided on the merits of the request itself , but rather had ruled that the request should be treated as a criminal complaint .","On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicants\u2019 request for an investigation on the grounds of lack of reasonable suspicion ( osnovana sumnja ) that the guards had tortured and ill - treated the applicants and that the force they had used had been necessary to overcome the applicants\u2019 resistance . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Ombudsman visited the applicants . She also spoke with other detainees from the same cell , who confirmed the first applicant \u2019s allegations . She noted that the second applicant , who had \u201c visible injuries on his head , especially around the eyes \u201d as well as on his legs , had asked that he be allowed to lodge a criminal complaint and to be examined by the prison doctor .","In its response to an inquiry from the ORG , the ORG stated that the second applicant had unjustifiably resisted and physically attacked guards who , in response , had used force and a baton to the extent necessary to overcome his resistance . The ORG also provided the doctor \u2019s reports in respect of the second applicant , which were described by the ORG as barely legible and from which it could be concluded that they dealt with the same subject matter , but had a different content .","In an opinion of DATE , the ORG found that the applicants\u2019 rights had been violated on DATE . The opinion stated that they had offered no resistance and that there had been no justification for the use of force ( sredstva prinude ) , especially not to the extent and in the manner alleged . At the same time the ORG recommended that the ORG institute disciplinary proceedings against the guards responsible and report to the ORG within DATE on the measures taken .","On DATE disciplinary proceedings were instituted against CARDINAL prison guards , GPE , GPE and GPE On DATE they were found responsible and fined PERCENT of their salaries in DATE for abusing their position or exceeding their authority ( zloupotreba polo\u017eaja ili prekora\u010denje ovla\u0161\u0107enja ) as they had used excessive force disproportionate to the resistance offered by the applicants on DATE . In particular , GPE had hit both applicants once with a rubber baton , GPE had kicked the first applicant , and PERSON had hit the second applicant on the lower part of the body with the baton . The applicants\u2019 families and the ORG were informed about the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and the ORG lawyer attended the hearing before the disciplinary commission .","CARDINAL other staff members who had participated in the cell search on the stated date , in relation to whom it was not proved that force had been used against the applicants , had apparently been transferred to other posts in other ORG units .","On DATE , during the parliamentary hearing of the prison governor ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the ORG confirmed that the ORG administration had duly acted upon his recommendations within the set time - limit .","On DATE the applicants lodged a compensation claim against the ORG relying , inter alia , on LAW , and seeking QUANTITY ( ORG ) each for non - pecuniary damage caused by torture on DATE .","On DATE , after a remittal , ORG in GPE ruled partly in favour of the applicants by awarding ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL each for non - pecuniary damage on account of violations of their rights and ORG CARDINAL for the costs of the proceedings . The court based its decision on section QUANTITY of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In its reasoning the court took into account the statements of the applicants and the prison guards , medical findings , the video - recording , the fact that the CARDINAL prison guards had been found responsible in disciplinary proceedings for the disproportionate use of force and had been fined , and the fact that the applicants had offered resistance , thus contributing to the non - pecuniary damage . The court found that the guards had exceeded their powers but also explicitly held that such actions could not be qualified as torture or inhuman or degrading treatment .","On DATE ORG upheld this judgment . In so doing it did not disagree with the conclusion of the first - instance court as to the qualification of the impugned incident .","On DATE ORG partly overturned the previous decisions by awarding the applicants CARDINAL ORG each for non - pecuniary damage , together with the statutory interest . In so doing ORG held , inter alia , that the use of force by prison guards could not be justified by the applicants\u2019 resistance and held that such action was in breach of fundamental values of every democratic society and degraded human dignity , but that it did not constitute torture or inhuman treatment . The applicants received this decision on DATE .","The applicants also maintain that they were threatened or abused DATE and DATE , in which regard their mothers lodged criminal complaints on DATE . On DATE the ORG prosecutor ( PERSON dr\u017eavni tu\u017eilac ) rejected the criminal complaint as regards the threat against the first applicant on the ground that no such incident had taken place . The criminal complaint in respect of the abuse alleged by the second applicant would appear to be still pending .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE the first applicant went on hunger strike , the reason being that disciplinary proceedings , with regard to the events of DATE , had been instituted against CARDINAL guards , who DATE according to him DATE were those least responsible for what had happened to him .","On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant had a meeting with the prison governor . On that occasion he apparently suggested to show the prison governor the camera which had recorded the entire incident of DATE . The governor allegedly suggested that the first applicant draw a sketch instead .","On CARDINAL occasions the applicants complained to their lawyer that their ill - treatment had been continuous , and on CARDINAL occasion they threatened to commit suicide if the pressure on them did not ease . The lawyer informed ORG , the Minister of ORG , and the prison governor , requesting that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against those responsible .","On DATE and DATE the prison governor was questioned by the parliamentary ORG .","On DATE the parliamentary ORG submitted its report to ORG , CARDINAL of its conclusions being that \u201c there had been no torture or systemic violations of human rights in the ORG and that all the reported cases of the use of force and exceeding of powers had been sanctioned \u201d .","The applicants also submitted that they had been deprived of an effective domestic remedy because CARDINAL of the deputy ORG prosecutors at the time was the prison governor \u2019s daughter and the Deputy ORG was his wife .","The first applicant is currently serving CARDINAL prison sentences . He had been convicted CARDINAL times prior to this for various criminal offences . During his detention he had been subject to disciplinary sanctions CARDINAL times , and twice more while serving his prison sentence ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179440","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162210","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MER\u010cEP v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( FAC PERSON ; hereinafter \u201c the police \u201d ) lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) against the applicant , alleging that in DATE , as commander of a police unit , he had committed war crimes against the civilian population . They relied on extensive material obtained in the course of a preliminary investigation . An investigating judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) was also informed of the case . The case immediately attracted wide media interest and coverage .","On DATE , based on the criminal complaint lodged by the police , the investigating judge questioned the applicant . The applicant contested the allegations of the police and decided not to give further evidence , stressing that he was suffering from health problems . He submitted extensive medical documentation showing that he had suffered a stroke in DATE .","Later on DATE , the GPE ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG requested the investigating judge to open an investigation in respect of the applicant on suspicion of war crimes against the civilian population , as alleged in the criminal complaint lodged by the police . It relied in particular on the material provided to the NORP authorities by ORG for the former GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) concerning the crimes allegedly committed by a unit under the applicant \u2019s command .","Following the request of the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG , on DATE the investigating judge questioned the applicant . The applicant decided to remain silent and refused to give any evidence .","On DATE the investigating judge opened an investigation in respect of the applicant on suspicion of war crimes against the civilian population . The investigating judge found , on the basis of the available material , that there was a reasonable suspicion that in the period DATE , in his capacity as commander of a police unit , the applicant had ordered arbitrary arrests , ill - treatment and the killing of a number of civilians , and that , by not taking the necessary measures to prevent and punish those responsible , he had consented to a number of other arbitrary arrests , the unlawful confiscation of property , ill - treatment and the killing of civilians by his subordinates .","During the investigation the investigating judge heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses and requested international legal assistance from the NORP authorities in obtaining evidence from the witnesses . He also obtained a number of relevant reports on the DNA analyses of the GPE remains , as well as exhumation and autopsy reports , and various documents concerning the actions of the unit under the applicant \u2019s command .","On the basis of the evidence obtained during the investigation , on DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office indicted the applicant in ORG on charges of war crimes against the civilian population . The indictment listed CARDINAL counts of arbitrary arrest , unlawful confiscation of property , ill - treatment and the killing of civilians . The relevant part of the indictment concerning the applicant \u2019s participation in those acts reads :","\u201c In the period DATE and DATE , in GPE and PERSON , during an international armed conflict between the forces of GPE and the former [ ORG ] and the paramilitary NORP forces , assisted by volunteer fighters from other parts of the former GPE , contrary to ORG , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) and ( c ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW relative to ORG in Time of War of CARDINAL DATE and LAW ( a ) , QUANTITY and DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW additional to LAW of CARDINAL DATE , and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts ( Protocol I ) , as an official in ORG and the commander of the reserve unit of ORG stationed in PERSON and partially in GPE , where it had its compound , and thereby authorised to command his subordinates and responsible for the application of rules of international humanitarian law concerning the protection of civilians , ordered the unlawful deprivation of liberty , torture and killing of certain civilians , and when he was not present in the field , although aware that his subordinates were acting unlawfully by arbitrarily depriving civilians of their liberty , robbing , ill - treatment , torture , causing physical harm and killing civilians , did not take the necessary measures to prevent or suppress such unlawful actions , thereby accepting that his subordinates continue with such acts and condoning their consequences ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection against the indictment , arguing that it was not supported by any relevant evidence .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection against the indictment as ill - founded on the grounds that there was sufficient evidence supporting the conclusion that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences for which he had been charged .","On DATE the ORG commissioned an expert report concerning the possibility of the applicant following the trial .","In a report of DATE a court expert found that with the appropriate accommodation arrangements and medical supervision , the applicant could follow the trial .","In the further course of the proceedings a number of hearings were held before ORG . A hearing held on DATE was adjourned to DATE due to deterioration in the applicant \u2019s health during the questioning of a witness . A hearing held on DATE was also adjourned due to the applicant \u2019s state of health .","The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending .","The applicant was arrested on DATE in connection with the criminal complaint lodged against him by the police ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , having questioned the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the investigating judge of ORG ordered his remand in custody for a further TIME on the grounds that he might try to influence the witnesses and on account of the gravity of the charges . The investigating judge noted in particular that some QUANTITY witnesses needed to be questioned and that the allegations of war crimes against the civilian population imputed to the applicant were of a particularly serious nature , involving killings and severe ill - treatment .","On the order of the investigating judge and because of the applicant \u2019s medical condition ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he was placed in a prison hospital . Later during his confinement he was also treated in a special rehabilitation hospital in GPE .","On DATE the investigating judge ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody for a further day .","On DATE the investigating judge ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion and gravity of charges ) , reiterating his previous arguments .","NORP The applicant appealed against the decision of the investigating judge before a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , invoking his state of health and arguing that DATE had passed since the alleged crimes had taken place .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as unfounded . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c It is firstly to be noted that in connection with the offences imputed to the defendant , in particular concerning the acts of the reserve [ police ] forces under his command , the questioning of a number of victims and witnesses , who have the relevant knowledge about the events from the period at issue , has been requested . Irrespective of the time that has passed since the period at issue , the defendant , who has only recently been informed of the facts of the offences forming the charges against him , if at large is likely to try to contact the [ following ] witnesses ... [ These witnesses ] still feel distress and fear and [ the defendant could ] , in order to minimise his criminal responsibility , directly or indirectly influence their statements and thereby hinder the proper course of the investigation . Therefore , in order to avert the collusion , the investigating judge properly ordered the defendant \u2019s pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .","Furthermore , in view of the manner in which the war crimes against the civilian population under LAW were allegedly committed by the defendant , and which are punishable by DATE imprisonment , the investigating judge correctly found that the circumstances of the offences were particularly grave , warranting pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . These particularly grave circumstances of the offences concern , in the view of this panel , the manner in which the civilians ... were unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived of their liberty , how their property was confiscated without any legal basis , how they were physically and mentally ill - treated ( often by the use of electric shocks ) and eventually killed ; and the fact that some of these unlawful acts were committed on the basis of the defendant \u2019s orders , while the others he did not prevent although he was aware of them ... \u201d","On DATE the investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s detention for a further DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion and gravity of charges ) . He found that some more witnesses needed to be questioned and reiterated his previous findings concerning the gravity of the charges against the applicant .","The applicant appealed against that decision and on DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded , reiterating its previous arguments .","The investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s detention on DATE for a further DATE , relying on LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion and gravity of charges ) . He found that CARDINAL witnesses still needed to be questioned and that the arguments concerning the gravity of the charges were still valid .","The applicant appealed against that decision , reiterating his previous arguments , and on DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded , relying on the same grounds as those in its previous decisions .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion and gravity of charges ) , reiterating his previous arguments concerning the gravity of the charges and finding that CARDINAL more witnesses needed to be questioned .","The applicant appealed against that decision and on CARDINAL DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded , noting in particular that , in view of the gravity of the charges imputed to the applicant and given that he had been detained for DATE , there was still a predominant interest in keeping him in detention . It also considered that he should be remanded in custody until all the witnesses had been questioned .","Following the submission of the indictment against the applicant to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of that court extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( gravity of charges ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c When assessing whether further extension of the detention is needed under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , the panel looked into the facts of the indictment and found that there was a reasonable suspicion that the accused PERSON , in the period between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , as an official and the commander of the reserve unit of ORG , authorised to command his subordinates , ordered the unlawful deprivation of liberty , torture and killing of certain civilians . When he was not present in the field , although aware that his subordinates were acting unlawfully by arbitrarily depriving civilians of their liberty , robbing , ill - treatment , torture , causing physical harm and killing civilians , he did not take the necessary measures to prevent and suppress such unlawful actions , therefore accepting that his subordinates continue with such acts and condoning their consequences .","...","Furthermore , the perpetrators \u2013 members of the accused \u2019s unit \u2013 took money and valuables from their victims ( cars , jewellery , household appliances etc . ) and subsequently exposed them to brutal torture , such as electric shocks through an induction telephone , cutting open muscles and wiring open wounds , severe beatings , physical ill - treatment , degrading treatment and locking them in rooms without beds or toilets . In addition , the charges against the accused also concern an incident in which members of the unit under his command killed a DATE girl ORG by firing CARDINAL bullets into her head , together with her mother PERSON , both of whom had been taken away after her father , ORG , had been killed in their doorway in Z.","Consequently , and bearing in mind the extent of the unlawful actions which there is a reasonable suspicion that the accused committed and in particular the number of victims , which was , according to the facts of the indictment , CARDINAL , all of them civilians , who were brutally tortured , robbed and killed or who have disappeared , the panel finds that the perpetrator acted with extreme cruelty , brutality , persistence and an extraordinary degree of criminal intent .","All of the above - mentioned circumstances , in the opinion of this panel , represent particularly grave circumstances that overcome the usually grave circumstances pertinent to such offences . Therefore , the detention is necessary under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ... \u201d","The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG ( PERSON ) , challenging the necessity of his detention and alleging a number of substantive and procedural flaws .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , upholding the decision of ORG . ORG in particular noted :","\u201c ... the finding of the first - instance court that the grounds for further detention of the accused under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW still exist is correct .","The indictment shows a relevant degree of reasonable suspicion that the accused committed the criminal offence under LAW , by which the general statutory condition under LAW has been fulfilled .","...","According to the indictment ... the behaviour of the accused , in the view of this second - instance court , significantly surpasses the ordinary circumstances and consequences of such offences , and represents particularly grave circumstances of the offence allegedly committed by the accused which warrant detention under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","In his appeal , the accused alleged that there had been a serious breach of criminal procedure , without specifying his argument . In this regard , the second - instance court was unable to find breaches that should have been examined ex officio .","The appeal argument of errors of facts is also unfounded , since the first - instance court fully determined the facts and gave detailed , valid and clear reasons for its findings , which this second - instance court fully accepts .","The accused also relied on the case - law of ORG in its decision ORG of DATE and LAW [ of the LAW ] , arguing that deprivation of liberty before a final judgment is a particularly sensitive issue , and that such detention should not turn into a prison sentence . Thus , [ according to the accused ] it can be ordered only when there is a high probability that guilt will be established and a sentence imposed , in cases where there is a reasonable suspicion that the accused has committed a criminal offence and only for the purposes of the proper conduct of the proceedings , conditions which had not been met in the case at issue .","Contrary to the appeal arguments , the extension of detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW is not contrary to LAW Detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW has a preventive purpose , namely the deprivation of liberty of the perpetrators of such serious crimes that , if they would be at large , the reputation of the judiciary and the public \u2019s faith in it would be diminished ; its purpose is not to avert the risk of the proceedings being hindered .","...","The poor state of health of the accused does not call into question the reasonableness of his detention , since adequate medical care , bearing in mind that he suffers from a chronic disease , can be offered to him in detention , that is to say in the prison hospital . \u201d","The applicant challenged the decision of ORG before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , arguing that ORG had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his prolonged pre - trial detention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded , endorsing the decisions of ORG and ORG . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c In view of the competence of ORG as the highest court ensuring the coherent application of the law and the equality of everyone in its application ( LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW ) , the likelihood of a prison sentence within the given term and the particularly grave circumstances of the offence , ORG finds that ORG and ORG satisfied the relevant opinions and requirements when extending the pre - trial detention under LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ... \u201d","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( gravity of charges ) , reiterating its previous arguments .","The applicant appealed against that","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( gravity of charges ) on the grounds that the reasons warranting his detention still persisted .","NORP The applicant appealed against that decision and on DATE ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of ORG .","The applicant \u2019s detention was further extended on DATE by a decision of a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , relying on LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( gravity of charges ) and reiterating its previous arguments .","The applicant challenged that decision before ORG and on DATE ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded on the grounds that no doubts had been raised as to the findings of ORG .","The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG , arguing that his detention was no longer justified and proportionate .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant\u2019 \u2019s state of health , when deciding whether his pre - trial detention should be extended .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( gravity of charges ) , finding that the circumstances warranting his detention still persisted . With regard to the applicant \u2019s state of health , it indicated that so far , nothing suggested that he could not receive appropriate medical treatment in detention .","The applicant appealed to ORG alleging lack of appropriate reasoning in the decision of ORG to extend his pre - trial detention .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s appeal and remitted the case to ORG on the grounds that it had not established all the relevant facts concerning the health care provided to the applicant in detention .","In compliance with the order of ORG , a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG re - examined the case . On DATE it extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( gravity of charges ) . With regard to the applicant \u2019s state of health , it noted that he was receiving appropriate medical treatment in detention .","The applicant challenged that decision before ORG . On DATE ORG accepted his appeal and remitted the case for re - examination on the grounds that the decision of ORG lacked relevant reasoning .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG revoked the decision on the applicant\u2019 the quality of the medical treatment which he was receiving in detention was not adequate . Since that could raise an issue under LAW , ORG considered that he should be released pending trial . It stressed in particular :","\u201c Thus , in the concrete case priority should be given to the values protected by LAW because the public interest is reflected not only in the grounds for detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW but also in the protection and application of the values provided for under the cited provision of LAW . In this respect , the time that has elapsed since according to the indictment the offence was committed should be noted , and in particular the period which the accused has spent in detention , as well as the likely duration of the criminal proceedings . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145346","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MI\u0160KOVI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant lives in GPE .","By a judgment of ORG of DATE which became final on DATE , PERSON ( an Entity of GPE and GPE ) was ordered to pay , within DATE , MONEY ( BAM ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage together with default interest at the statutory rate to the applicant .","The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution ( rje\u0161enje o izvr\u0161enju ) on DATE .","The applicant complained of non - enforcement to ORG the LAW \u201d ) . On DATE ORG found a breach of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW . The applicant did not claim compensation , but even if she had done so , her claim would most likely have been refused ( see , for example , ORG decisions ORG CARDINAL of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL of DATE , \u00a7 DATE ) .","After the extensive information campaign explaining the available options for the settlement of ORG public debt ( including its debt arising from domestic judgments ) , on DATE the applicant informed the authorities that she agreed to be paid the principal debt and default interest in bonds . Government bonds were then issued to the applicant on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the applicant sold all of her bonds on ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173387","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GASHIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171413","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"OKTAY AND \u00d6Z\u00c7AN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals , who were both born in DATE . The first applicant , Mr ORG , was detained in the Bolu F - type prison and the second applicant , PERSON , was detained in the PERSON prison when the present applications were lodged .","On DATE the Bolu prison disciplinary board decided to withhold the first applicant \u2019s letter addressed to ORG in GPE on the ground that the letter contained defamatory statements . The disciplinary board based its decision on DATE ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL on the execution of sentences and preventive measures .","On DATE the Bolu Enforcement Judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection . Subsequently , on CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed a further appeal lodged by the applicant .","On DATE the PERSON prison disciplinary board decided to withhold the second applicant \u2019s letter addressed to a journalist , on the ground that the letter contained statements praising a terrorist organisation ( ORG ) and its leader . The disciplinary board based its decision on LAW no . DATE on the execution of sentences and preventive measures and LAW on prison management and execution of sentences .","On DATE the K\u0131r\u0131kkale Enforcement Judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection , and on DATE ORG dismissed a further appeal lodged by the applicant .","A full description of the domestic law and practice at the relevant time may be found in PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166480","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA;RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TURTURICA AND CASIAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property) (Russia);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive obligations) (the Republic of Moldova);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC and PERSON , in the NORP region of GPE .","The background to the case , including the NORP armed conflict of DATE and the subsequent events , is set out in ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL ) , and in GPE and Others v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ) .","The present case concerns the confiscation and\/or fining of the applicants for their failure to observe customs rules imposed by the authorities of the self - proclaimed \u201c GPE ( the \u201c FAC ) .","Both applicants used cars registered with the authorities of GPE and had NORP registration plates . Like many other inhabitants of the \u201c FAC , the applicants refused to use registration plates issued by the \u201c FAC authorities , which are not recognised by any country and which means that cars registered with them can not leave the territory of GPE . In DATE , the \u201c FAC authorities adopted new rules , according to which any car with non - TIME registration plates could only enter the territory of the \u201c FAC \u201d after the payment of customs duties for temporary entry into the \u201c FAC . Failure to observe the new rules was punished with a fine which could be as high as the full value of the car .","On DATE the applicant was driving a car ( the first car ) from his village to the right bank of the Dniester river when he was stopped by a customs officer of the \u201c FAC , who seized his car on the grounds that such a car with NORP plates had not been registered with the \u201c FAC customs authorities and no customs duties had been paid for its temporary use on the territory of the \u201c FAC . By a decision of DATE by the chief of the Dubasari ( \u201c FAC ) customs office , the applicant was ordered to pay a fine of MONEY , equal to PERCENT of the value of the car , in order to be able to recover it .","On an unspecified date , the applicant borrowed a car from a friend ( the second car ) , which also had GPE number plates , and registered it with the \u201c FAC customs authorities by paying customs duties . The registration was due to expire on DATE . On DATE of the expiry , since the applicant was ill , he sent his son to prolong the car \u2019s registration period with the \u201c FAC customs authorities . However , registration of the car was refused on the grounds that the applicant had to be present in person . The applicant went DATE , only to have his car seized for failure to register it within the allocated time - limit . By a decision of DATE of the NORP customs office the applicant was ordered to pay CARDINAL Transdniestrian roubles , an amount which was equal to PERCENT of the value of the car , in order to be able to recover it .","The applicant challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE before the courts of the \u201c FAC and argued , inter alia , that he had been going through the customs check - point since DATE and that nobody had informed him about the need to pay any customs duties . Moreover , the last time he had crossed the customs check - point had only been DATE prior to the confiscation of his car .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the NORP district court rejected the first applicant \u2019s challenge to the decision of the NORP customs office of CARDINAL DATE concerning his first car . As a result , the applicant decided not to challenge the decision of DATE in the \u201c FAC courts .","The applicant also complained to the NORP authorities , which initiated criminal proceedings in respect of the unlawful seizure of his car . According to the materials submitted by ORG , the criminal investigation was suspended on DATE because the perpetrators could not be identified .","It appears from the case file that the applicant never recovered his cars from the \u201c FAC authorities .","The applicant had his car seized on DATE on the grounds that he had failed to leave the territory of GPE before the registration with the \u201c FAC customs authorities had expired . He was obliged to pay the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) in order to be able to recover his car . The applicant paid the money and had his car returned on DATE . He did not contest the decision of the \u201c FAC customs authorities before the \u201c FAC courts .","The applicant also complained to the authorities of GPE . It appears that on DATE the NORP chief police officer addressed a letter to the co - chair of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , informing him about the incident of CARDINAL DATE , and that the NORP initiative to examine the matter of the second applicant \u2019s car had been ignored by the other members of the ORG , including the NORP representative .","In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE , the Reintegration Minister of GPE informed the second applicant about the refusal of the NORP and NORP members of the ORG , to examine the incident relating to the seizure of his car . The second applicant was also informed that ORG had brought the applicant \u2019s case to the attention of GPE , ORG and NORP ambassadors to GPE . A general issue concerning respect for human rights in GPE was raised by the NORP representative to the FAC on DATE .","In a letter dated DATE , the applicant was informed by ORG of GPE that it did not have the necessary means to solve the problem of the seizure of his car by the \u201c FAC authorities ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154154","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF COJAN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","On DATE the applicant was placed in pre - trial detention on suspicion of having committed drug - related crimes . He was convicted on DATE by ORG and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The decision became final on DATE .","The applicant was held in the pre - trial detention facilities of ORG until DATE . On DATE he was transferred to ORG , where he remained until CARDINAL DATE .","He described the overall conditions of detention as follows : overcrowded cells , lack of natural light and lack of fresh air . In particular he described cells that measured QUANTITY m and were QUANTITY high ; each cell containing CARDINAL beds constantly occupied at full capacity ; there was no natural light , only artificial light provided by QUANTITY bulb which was insufficient ; he had no access to fresh air . There was no refrigerator to store food in proper conditions . He shared cells with individuals arrested for violent crimes and there had been no means of summoning the guards , even though several violent incidents had taken place between the detainees .","According to the official prison records adduced by the ORG , in the police detention facilities the applicant had been placed in cells situated in the basement ( demisol ) , the first measuring QUANTITY and containing CARDINAL beds and the second measuring QUANTITY . m and having CARDINAL beds . The cells were occupied at full capacity . The cells had a table and chairs as well as a squat toilet , sink and shower separated from the living space by a curtain . The detainees had access to running water , and the cells were heated during DATE . There was access to natural light , as each cell was provided with a window , but also to artificial light provided by a lamp placed in each cell , above the door , and protected by an iron grille . Personal hygiene was effected by means of products provided by the prison or acquired by the detainees themselves .","According to the same official information , in LOC the applicant had been held in different cells , all measuring QUANTITY . m and containing CARDINAL beds ( except for one cell where there were CARDINAL beds ) , a table , chairs and a support for a TV set . Adjacent to the cell there was a bathroom equipped with a toilet , sinks and a shower . Cold water was available continuously and hot water was available DATE . The cell was heated to CARDINALoC during DATE . The applicant was allowed to exercise for TIME DATE in the interior courtyard and had access to outdoor and indoor sport facilities ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139902","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MAXIAN AND MAXIANOV\u00c1 v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["The applicants are spouses . They were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicants brought an action seeking dissolution of joint ownership of a real estate before ORG ( file no . CARDINALC CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE , at its fifth hearing , ORG delivered a judgment . The defendant appealed . The applicants requested ORG to give a supplementary judgment . On DATE the case file was submitted to ORG .","On DATE ORG returned the case file to the first - instance court as incomplete . On DATE ORG gave a supplementary judgment and on DATE the case file was again submitted to ORG .","In DATE ORG stayed the proceedings for DATE pending the outcome of inheritance proceedings after the defendant had died .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case to ORG for a new determination .","On DATE the applicants complained before ORG about the length of the proceedings before ORG .","On DATE ORG approved the friendly settlement of the case reached between the parties . This decision became final on DATE .","On DATE ORG declared the applicants\u2019 complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill - founded ( case no . ORG ) . It held that there had been no significant delays in the proceedings before ORG in breach of LAW and its constitutional equivalent ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168859","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SOLOVYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139931","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GORELOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived until his arrest in the village of GPE , in LOC . He is serving a sentence in a correctional colony in the town of GPE , in LOC .","Arrested in DATE on suspicion of aggravated robbery , the applicant was convicted on DATE and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE the applicant was also convicted of aggravated fraud and sentenced to DATE .","On DATE a blood test revealed that the applicant had contracted HIV . Tests conducted on previous occasions , in particular in DATE and DATE when the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . CARDINAL , medical penal facility no . CARDINAL and a temporary detention facility in the town of GPE , were all negative .","Believing that he had contracted the virus during medical procedures in detention facilities , the applicant lodged an action with ORG , seeking compensation from the detention facility authorities for causing him to become HIV - positive .","On DATE ORG , acting as a court of final instance , disallowed the action , having found that the applicant had not complied with the procedural requirements for lodging it . He did not name a public official who could have been responsible for his having contracted the virus , he did not indicate his home address , he did not pay a court fee , and so on .","The applicant sent a complaint to ORG of LOC , asking for criminal proceedings to be instituted against detention facility personnel . He argued that he had become HIV - positive as a result of negligence on the part of the prison medical staff .","On DATE a deputy head of the ORG readdressed the complaint to ORG .","On DATE the first deputy prosecutor of LOC returned the applicant \u2019s complaint to ORG of LOC , informing it that there were indications of a possible criminal offence and that a thorough inquiry into the matter should be conducted .","DATE ORG redirected the applicant \u2019s complaint to the head of the GPE regional police department , seeking an inquiry into the circumstances causing the applicant to become HIV - positive .","In DATE the applicant received a letter from a ORG deputy prosecutor , informing him that his request for institution of criminal proceedings against detention officers had been examined and refused on DATE . The applicant lodged a claim with ORG , complaining that the investigating authorities had failed to look closely into what had caused him to contract the virus . On DATE ORG discontinued the examination of the complaint , noting that on DATE the decision of DATE had been overturned by the investigation authorities as premature and a new inquiry had commenced . The outcome of those proceedings is unknown .","NORP In DATE specialists from the Hygiene and Epidemics Centre of ORG conducted an inquiry for the purpose of establishing the transmission mode of the applicant \u2019s HIV infection . They studied the applicant \u2019s medical record and interviewed him . Having observed that the applicant had never travelled abroad , had not been a blood , tissue , organ or sperm donor or recipient , had not used drugs , had not had any sexual contacts in detention , and had not suffered from any sexually transmitted diseases apart from the HIV infection , the specialists stated that it was impossible to establish the exact way in which the applicant had contracted the virus . At the same time , they noted that in DATE and in DATE the applicant had undergone invasive medical procedures in penal facilities . Those procedures were performed in response to the applicant \u2019s self - harming . In addition , the large number of tattoos on the applicant \u2019s body did not escape the attention of the specialists . They described the tattoos as \u201c home - made \u201d , and stated that the most recent one had been done in DATE .","The applicant submitted that after he had been diagnosed as HIV - positive his treatment had been extremely erratic and insufficient . His antiretroviral therapy included CARDINAL drugs , PERSON and LAW . When the treatment was amended with another drug the applicant \u2019s condition deteriorated ; he began to experience loss of consciousness , dizziness and nausea . The applicant submitted that the change in the treatment had been authorised by physicians from colony no . CARDINAL . An infectious diseases specialist had not been consulted . When he was transferred to colony no . CARDINAL the applicant asked for his previous chemotherapy regime to be reinstated , given the extremely serious side effects he was experiencing following the change in the treatment regime ; CDCARDINAL cell counts were showing rapid growth in the viral load .","The Government provided the ORG with a copy of the applicant \u2019s medical record drawn up after his detention at the police station in the town of GPE on DATE . On DATE a blood test taken for HIV infection was negative . HIV tests on DATE and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE all produced the same result . Each test was preceded by a consultation with a prison doctor . A report was drawn up as a result . The reports showed that the applicant had denied using drugs , having sexual relations , including homosexual sexual contacts , and had had no blood transfusions .","On DATE the applicant complained to a prison surgeon of severe stomach pain . He explained that on DATE he had swallowed a long nail . An X - ray examination of the applicant \u2019s abdominal area showed CARDINAL metal nails CARDINAL and QUANTITY long respectively . He was immediately admitted to the surgical department of the prison hospital . Subsequent examinations showed no urgent need for surgery ; the applicant also refused surgical treatment . After examination and treatment in the hospital the applicant was released on DATE with CARDINAL nail remaining in his body . He was to stay under supervision in the colony medical unit .","The applicant underwent clinical blood tests in DATE . No HIV test was carried out on that occasion .","NORP In DATE the applicant broke his arm and was treated in the colony medical unit with the assistance of a surgeon from the GPE hospital .","On DATE the applicant refused to have an HIV test .","In DATE the applicant applied for medical assistance , complaining of coughing blood , stomach pain and dizziness . He explained that he had swallowed a QUANTITY - long metal wire as a way of protesting against the internal rules of the colony . The applicant received treatment and was seen by a surgeon from the GPE town central hospital . An X - ray performed DATE showed that the wire had exited the applicant \u2019s body . The applicant nevertheless stayed in the hospital for DATE . A test performed in the hospital on DATE showed that the applicant was HIV - positive . Another test on DATE confirmed that result .","Following the tests the applicant consulted a psychiatrist , who explained to him the nature of the HIV infection and the methods for treating it , and warned him that knowingly transmitting it was a criminal offence . He was also told about the necessity to adhere to the antiretroviral treatment which he had not yet started receiving , and was informed of the negative consequences of stopping the treatment . The doctor also questioned the applicant about how he might have been infected with the virus . The applicant denied having sexual relations and using drugs . The doctor noted the large number of tattoos on his body . The final diagnosis given to the applicant on his release from the hospital on DATE was HIV infection in the third stage and sub - clinical form . The doctor recommended clinical blood and urine tests , biochemical blood analysis , CDCARDINAL and CDCARDINAL cell counts , consultations with an infectious diseases specialist , and close medical outpatient supervision .","On DATE the applicant cut his left forearm . A prison nurse treated the wound and made an entry in the applicant \u2019s medical record noting her suspicion that the applicant had actually bitten his forearm and had broken the vein with his teeth . The applicant continued receiving treatment in the medical unit until DATE .","On DATE the applicant was seen by a prison doctor , who repeated the recommendations given on DATE .","On DATE another blood test confirmed the HIV infection . The applicant also tested positive for hepatitis C.","DATE the applicant was seen CARDINAL times by a prison doctor following complaints of severe headaches , dizziness and nausea . He was treated for arterial hypertension .","In DATE the applicant was subjected to a number of immunological tests , including a CDCARDINAL cell count which showed slightly over CARDINAL cells \/ mmCARDINAL . On DATE an infectious diseases specialist examined the applicant . Noting a decrease in the CDCARDINAL cell count and rapid growth of the viral load , the doctor recommended commencing antiretroviral therapy with PERSON , a fixed - dose combination of the drugs zidovudin ( Retrovir ) , lamivudine ( NORP ) , and Stocrin ( PERSON ) . Another round of immunological testing was to be performed in DATE . The doctor gave extensive information on the treatment , its schedule and its side effects . The applicant was again reminded about the negative consequences of stopping the treatment . The applicant signed a statement recording the main details of that consultation .","On DATE the applicant started antiretroviral treatment . An immunological test performed on DATE showed an increase in the viral load . The Government provided a record of the DATE schedule showing the medicines taken by the applicant under the supervision of the prison nurses .","In DATE and DATE the applicant was seen at least once DATE by a prison doctor or nurse . In DATE that followed regular medical consultations were continued .","DATE and DATE the applicant was in the clinical treatment ward of the prison hospital . He was given clinical blood and urine tests , visual examinations , biochemical blood analysis , chest X - rays and an electrocardiogram . He continued his chemotherapy regime , comprising antiretroviral drugs , hepatoprotectors , vitamins and antispasmodics . He was released from the hospital under active supervision by doctors from the colony medical unit . Recommendations also included the addition of CARDINAL drugs , GPE and PERSON , to the antiretroviral treatment , and immunological testing DATE .","When he returned to the colony the applicant complained to a prison doctor about the side effects of the new drugs , and requested in writing to be placed back on the previous treatment regime . A certificate issued by the colony director on DATE showed that the treatment had been and was continuing to be maintained without any interruptions . The certificate also indicated that the applicant \u2019s health had improved as a result of the antiretroviral treatment .","It appears from the applicant \u2019s submissions that the most recent CDCARDINAL cell count was performed in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154249","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"F.Y. v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is ethnically a NORP originating from GPE in GPE , close to Urmia ( Orumieh ) . The applicant had difficulties as a NORP to enter university in GPE and he was disappointed by the position of NORP in GPE in general . For that reason he joined ORG of Kurdistan ( PJAK ) late in DATE , soon after it was founded . He described himself as a regular but active member of the party . His activism included distributing material and information about the party , recruiting new members and accommodating visiting party members at his house , but not taking part in any armed activities . His family members have also been supporters of the NORP cause .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s neighbour apparently pretended to want to join the PJAK and managed to obtain important information about the party \u2019s recruitment . Subsequently , he informed the ORG about the applicant \u2019s activities . Since then ORG has allegedly been looking for the applicant and CARDINAL other party members . CARDINAL of the other party activists were caught and arrested and the other CARDINAL fled to the mountains to join the PJAK armed group . The applicant managed to escape , with a smuggler \u2019s help , to GPE and from there through GPE and GPE to GPE , where his sister is residing permanently .","The applicant claims that if he returns to GPE , he will never be free again since it is possible that the authorities arrest him and he might be killed . He also stated that the NORP police have taken his father twice for questioning since he left the country but his father has never told him why . The applicant was arrested once during the religious feast of the Shiite Muslims DATE , but has never been formally punished or ill - treated by the NORP authorities .","The applicant has submitted CARDINAL documents which were translated from NORP or NORP to NORP in DATE by an official translator . The first is entitled \u201c Warning Announcement \u201d in which the applicant is apparently called to appear before the Iranian Islamic Republic \u2019s Court for reasons of his cooperation with the PJAK , causing insecurity in the area and encouraging youngsters in the area to join the NORP political parties .","The second document is a certificate from the PJAK representative in LOC , PERSON , who confirms that the applicant joined the party in DATE and that he has been politically active , which puts his health and life at risk . Persecution caused the applicant \u2019s flight from GPE and , if he is returned there , his life will be in danger .","The third document is entitled \u201c Local Certificate \u201d , and it is signed by CARDINAL persons who certify that the applicant has been politically active in GPE by encouraging people to join the party and by distributing PJAK leaflets and material to people . The signatories wish to confirm that the activism of the applicant is known to everyone in the area and also that the security police are after him .","On DATE the applicant was married to a NORP citizen residing in GPE .","The applicant first sought asylum in GPE on DATE and claimed to have arrived in the country on DATE . He had also previously sought in GPE a visa to GPE for the period from DATE to attend his nephew \u2019s wedding but he had received a negative decision .","On DATE ORG ( NORP - muuttovirasto , PERSON ) rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum application and decided to expel him to GPE . It noted in its decision that the applicant \u2019s story about his journey from GPE to GPE was unclear and contradictory and that this weakened the credibility of his asylum story as a whole . For example , the applicant had stated in the asylum interview that he had left for GPE directly after having heard about the arrests of QUANTITY members of his group , while in a subsequent hearing he had claimed to have been in GPE already when he had heard about the arrests . Also the applicant \u2019s report about the whereabouts of his passport was contradictory and vague . He had stated that he had joined the party in DATE and had immediately started to work actively in it but at the same time he had said that he was in the army from DATE . ORG considered that the applicant \u2019s account of his alleged party activities was unclear and contradictory as he had spoken about the PJAK \u2019s activities only in a very general way , giving information which could be found on the PJAK \u2019s website , before its closure . ORG therefore concluded that there were no reasoned grounds to believe that the NORP authorities would be interested in the applicant .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , also requesting an oral hearing to be held .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal as well as the request for an oral hearing . The court noted that the applicant \u2019s activism had not been very significant but rather low - level . Nor had the applicant ever been arrested in relation to his activities in the ORG or ill - treated by the NORP authorities . Furthermore , the court considered that the applicant merely suspected that an arrest warrant for him had been issued but that there was no certainty about it . The court did not find it likely that the NORP authorities would be interested in the applicant in particular and therefore it considered that the applicant had failed to demonstrate a real risk of ill - treatment if returned to GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltnings - domstolen ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a new asylum application , submitting the above - mentioned documents , CARDINAL of which he claimed to have received from his family members in GPE , as written evidence supporting his application . As his appeal was already pending before ORG , the new application was sent directly there as an addendum to his appeal .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","Apparently the order to deport the applicant to GPE was never executed and thus on DATE the applicant lodged his third asylum application , citing the same grounds as before . He argued that his relatives in GPE had informed him that there was a court order against him for causing insecurity in the area and for being a member of the PJAK . He claimed that he would receive a death sentence if returned to GPE . He also relied on his marriage as grounds for a residence permit in GPE .","On DATE ORG rejected his application . It considered that the application was substantially the same as before , containing the same information as had already been submitted to ORG in the context of the applicant \u2019s previous asylum applications . The ORG therefore dealt with the application in the fast - track procedure . No residence permit could be given to the applicant on the basis of his marriage either , as neither spouse had a job or had provided information about having sufficient means for living . The ORG therefore ordered the applicant to be expelled to GPE .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , requesting that an oral hearing be held . He also requested that an interim order be imposed to stay the expulsion , which was not granted . He argued , in particular , that ORG had not taken into account the written evidence provided by him as no reasoning to that effect had been given in the decision .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and his request for an oral hearing . It considered that ORG had examined the documents submitted by the applicant and that the documents were mentioned in its decision . ORG considered that the new evidence did not provide grounds to accept the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed to ORG .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","According to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW of Finland ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the right of foreigners to enter GPE and to remain in the country is regulated by an LAW . A foreigner shall not be deported , extradited or returned to another country , if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence , torture or other treatment violating human dignity .","According to section DATE , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( ulkomaalaislaki , utl\u00e4nningslagen ; Act no . CARDINAL ) , aliens residing in the country are granted asylum if they reside outside their home country or country of permanent residence owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of ethnic origin , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion and if they , because of this fear , are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country .","Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provides that an alien residing in GPE is issued with a residence permit on grounds of subsidiary protection if the requirements for granting asylum under LAW are not met , but substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person , if returned to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence , would face a real risk of being subjected to serious harm , and he or she is unable , or owing to such risk , unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . Serious harm means : CARDINAL ) the death penalty or execution ; CARDINAL ) torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; or CARDINAL ) serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflicts .","NORP Under section CARDINALa of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , an alien residing in GPE is issued with a residence permit on the basis of humanitarian protection , if there are no grounds under LAW or CARDINAL for granting asylum or providing subsidiary protection , but he or she can not return to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence as a result of an environmental catastrophe or a bad security situation which may be due to an international or internal armed conflict or a poor human rights situation .","According to section CARDINALb of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the well - founded fear of being persecuted referred to in section CARDINALb or the real risk of being subjected to serious harm referred to in section CARDINAL may be based on incidents after the applicant \u2019s departure from his or her home country or country of permanent residence or on acts that the applicant has participated in since his or her departure .","Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . ORG ) provides that the requirements for issuing a residence permit are assessed individually for each applicant by taking account of the applicant \u2019s statements on his or her circumstances in the ORG in question and of real time information on the circumstances in that ORG obtained from various sources . After obtaining the statement , the authorities shall decide on the matter in favour of the applicant on the basis of his or her statement if the applicant has contributed to the investigation of the matter as far as possible , and if the authorities are convinced of the veracity of the application with regard to the applicant \u2019s need for international protection .","According to section CARDINAL of the Act , no one may be refused entry and sent back or deported to an area where he or she could be subject to the death penalty , torture , persecution or other treatment violating human dignity or from where he or she could be sent to such an area .","Section CARDINALb of LAW ( as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) incorporates into the NORP legal system the ORG CARDINAL of DATE on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of CARDINAL or more member GPE , of third - country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders . The annex to the ORG contains common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air including , inter alia , an obligation for the member GPE to ensure that the returnees for whom they are responsible are in an appropriate state of health , which allows legally and factually for safe removal by air .","According to ORG Operational Guidance Note on GPE , of DATE :","\u201c There is no evidence to suggest that an applicant of NORP ethnic origin , in the absence of any other risk factor , would on return face a real risk of ill - treatment or persecution to LAW level purely on account of his or her ethnic origin . However the government disproportionately targeted minority groups , including NORP , for arbitrary arrest , prolonged detention and physical abuse .","Applicants who are able to demonstrate that they are known , or suspected , by the government to be members or supporters of the PERSON , GPE , or PJAK , will be at real risk of persecution and a grant of asylum will generally be appropriate . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179867","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SHARXHI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Effective domestic remedy;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing;Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-2 - Interference;In accordance with the law;Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and 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);Violation of Article 13+P1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Prescribed by law;Interference;Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property);Violation of Article 13+P1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Interference;Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["On DATE of the applicants , PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) and PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) , purchased a plot of land measuring QUANTITY from several individuals whose property was recognised and returned in DATE by a decision of ORG . The land is situated on the coastline of the city of PERSON in the so - called area of GPE i ORG .","On an unspecified date the first and second applicants entered into an agreement with a company for the construction of a QUANTITY residential and service building , with a penthouse floor and an underground floor containing shops ( hereinafter \u201c the FAC \u201d or \u201c the building \u201d ) on the above - mentioned plot of land .","On DATE ORG ( ORG \u2013 \u201c the CTP \u201d ) issued a building permit to the company and the first and second applicants . The remaining applicants entered into purchase agreements in respect of the flats to be constructed on the plot of land . The first and second applicants , by virtue of their ownership of the plot of land , were to be owners of some of the flats and shops in FAC . On DATE the building was registered with ORG ( \u201c the IPRO \u201d ) .","Upon completion of the construction works in DATE , it appears that the majority of the flats and shops were furnished , the owners moved into their respective flats , and a pool bar \/ pizzeria was opened . The adjacent stretch of beach was opened for public use .","It appears from a letter from the ORG dated CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) that on DATE ORG ( PERSON dhe Urbanistik DATE \u201c the ORG \u201d ) requested support from the LOC district police for the demolition of illegal constructions along the LOC coastline , to be carried out DATE . Further demolition work was to continue DATE on other parts of the Vlora coastline .","On DATE , without prior notice , officials of the ORG and ORG ( PERSON Urbanistik Vlor\u00eb \u2013 \u201c the FAC ) , supported by ORG , surrounded ORG and cordoned it off with yellow police tape marked \u201c Crime scene \u2013 no entry \u201d ( GPE krimi , nuk lejohet kalimi ) . According to the evidence submitted by the applicants , which were widely published in the media , the residents of the building were told that the authorities were seizing the building . They were prevented from entering their flats and retrieving their valuables . The applicants only learned of the situation through the media or by telephone from the building \u2019s security guards . They were told that the authorities were examining the legality of the building permit and other relevant documents . It appears from the documents submitted that the building was guarded by armed police officers , who were positioned in such a way as to prevent the residents of the building ( including some of the applicants ) from entering . Furthermore , when one of the residents asked CARDINAL of the ORG employees to provide identification or another official document to justify the authorities\u2019 interference with their property rights , the ORG employee declared that they were not obliged to give any information because they were an official body .","On an unspecified date the ORG prepared an information report concerning the inspection they had carried out at ORG on DATE . According to the report , neither had the members of the ORG , the employees of ORG nor the inspectors of the ORG had at no stage carried out the necessary building and planning inspections of the site . With their continuous actions and omissions they had allowed irregularities and unlawfulness throughout the whole period from the very moment the relevant permits had been approved in clear breach of the law , as well as throughout the construction and project implementation process .","On DATE , according to the evidence submitted by the applicants , the then Deputy Minister of Transport and Infrastructure , in an television interview for national TV Top Channel given in relation to ORG , stated :","\u201c ... The ORG is entitled to have the land back in its previous state . The demolition of the building is an indisputable consequence . The land should be cleared . If this means that the building should be demolished , then demolition should take place . The demolition is not a purpose per se . It is the result of a series of unlawful acts , a series of flagrant violations of NORP law ... ORG has been involved in this illegality ( futet n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb valle t\u00eb paligjshm\u00ebris\u00eb ) ; then there is ORG , which \u2013 in contravention of the urban plan and in respect of land which does not exist DATE issued a building permit . ORG has registered a building that has DATE nil \u2013 value ( nd\u00ebrtim me vler\u00eb CARDINAL , nul ) . There is a CARDINAL,CARDINAL-square - metre construction on a plot of land that only measures QUANTITY ... it \u2019s like a stage set for a show put on by corrupt authorities . We have reached this point in flagrant violation of the law ... Everyone could have been a victim as a result of this series of illegalities . Those that have bought flats in this building are victims . These people can not be treated the same as those who have flagrantly violated the law . The Government should approve a fund for the full compensation of the people who have bought flats in this building ... \u201d","On DATE , according to the evidence submitted by the applicants , the Prime Minister publicly declared that the Government intended to realise a project for the construction of PERSON , a seaside promenade in LOC , with a view to completion by DATE . He also declared that the Government would put out a tender for the design of the project .","The Jon Residence was demolished with explosives DATE and DATE .","On DATE CARDINAL residents , including CARDINAL of the applicants ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . PERSON and PERSON ) lodged a claim with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against the ORG and ORG , requesting an \u201c acknowledgment of the unlawfulness of the administrative actions carried out on DATE , which had resulted in a violation of their property rights , and the obligation of administrative authorities , the ORG and ORG to refrain from taking any further administrative action , necessary for the protection of the applicants\u2019 property rights \u201d ( konstatimi i paligjshm\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb veprimit administrativ t\u00eb kryer nga pala e paditur i dat\u00ebs QUANTITY PERSON , q\u00eb kan\u00eb sjell\u00eb c\u00ebnimin e t\u00eb drejtave t\u00eb pron\u00ebsis\u00eb s\u00eb padit\u00ebsave ; detyrimi i organit administrativ INUK dhe ORG p\u00ebr t\u00eb ndaluar kryerjen e nj\u00eb veprimi tjet\u00ebr administrativ , t\u00eb nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr mbrojtjen e t\u00eb drejtave t\u00eb padit\u00ebsave ) .","It appears from ORG decision dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that during the proceedings the applicants argued that the actions taken by the ORG and ORG had been arbitrary because the construction had been lawful and in accordance with urban planning regulations . They claimed that police officers and representatives of the ORG and ORG had refused to allow them to enter the building by surrounding the building with crime scene tape . The cordoning off of the building had been done with a view to its demolition because the authorities had already proceeded in the same manner with other buildings , a fact which made it ever more apparent that there was a risk of adverse consequences for the applicants . The actions taken , namely the surrounding of the building with a view to its demolition without conducting a detailed analysis of whether the documentation was unlawful , and without the situation being examined by a court , had resulted in an extreme interference with the applicants\u2019 property rights .","During those proceedings the applicants further requested ORG to issue an interim order for the necessary measures to stay the implementation of the above - mentioned administrative action and for the removal of the obstacles which had made the seizure of the building possible and had made it impossible for them to use their properties , as well as a stay of all administrative decisions already issued or which were in the process of being issued related to the demolition of a lawful construction .","On DATE ORG , under Articles CARDINAL et seq . of ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) and LAW , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d below ) , in its operative provisions ordered : \u201c the issuance of an interim order staying the administrative actions of any public authority that can interfere with the peaceful enjoyment by the applicants of their respective properties ... the interim order is to remain in place until a decision is given on the merits , provided that the applicants themselves institute proceedings on the merits within DATE of the interim order to challenge the administrative actions or any administrative decision that will be adopted in respect of their properties \u201d . The decision , in so far as relevant , is reasoned as follows :","\u201c ... it is proved that the applicants \u2013 owners of the flats in the Jon Residence have not been allowed to enter their respective properties , thus impeding them in the exercise of their property rights to a property which they have acquired legally in accordance with domestic law ... the court considers that the request for the interim order should be accepted because the applicants submitted evidence which proves ... that in the event that a civil claim on the merits is allowed , the execution of that decision would be difficult or impossible , thus creating a situation where the legal interest or subjective right recognised by a final judicial decision remains ineffective ... in the present case the interim order requested by the applicants represents their right to access the court with the purpose of prohibiting any further action by the administrative authority ... in this way protecting their fundamental constitutional and legal rights until the examination of the merits of their claims ... the court considers that the ORG and ORG have not documented their administrative decision in the form required by law ... under administrative law this [ undocumented administrative action ] is also considered an administrative decision ... this does not affect the actual consequences of the execution of the decision , consequences which may bring about irreparable damage to the legal interest and subjective rights of the applicants ... ORG considers that it is the duty of the administrative authority to issue an administrative decision in the written form required by law , in this way there is compliance with the principle of good governance of the public administration authorities as well as effective compliance with the rights of the party against which the administrative decision has been issued , so that that party is able to institute judicial proceedings and always in respect of the principle of the right to a fair trial ... the principle of proportionality during the administrative procedure followed by the authorities in the present case is similar to the constitutional principles of proportionality examined above , which essentially aim to strike a balance between the purpose to be achieved through the administrative act and the means to be used , without disregarding fundamental freedoms and rights and the achievement of legal public interests ... \u201d","On an unspecified date the ORG representative submitted a request to the ORG , informing it of the interim order of CARDINAL DATE . He stressed the fact that under LAW of the ORG an interim order was an executable decision , even in the event of an appeal against it . He urged the authorities to take the necessary measures for the immediate enforcement of the interim order . It appears that no reply was given .","On DATE the ORG lodged an appeal against the interim order of DATE .","On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings concerning the interim measure on the grounds that the subject matter of the proceedings had ceased to exist , as ORG had already been demolished in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The decision , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c ... it was already ... a well - known public fact that ORG had been demolished , in relation to which ORG had decided to stay the administrative actions of any ORG authority with the aim of the peaceful enjoyment of the property by the applicants until the final solution of the dispute ... The outcome which the interim order was trying to stay , has now occurred ... \u201d","It appears that on an unspecified date one of the applicants complained to the Ombudsman ( ORG ) about the authorities\u2019 interference with her entering her flat and other residents entering their flats ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She complained that the authorities had arbitrarily cordoned off the building using yellow police \u201c crime scene \u201d tape .","On DATE , in reply to the applicant \u2019s complaints and to other ORG complaints appearing in the media , the ORG sent an official letter to the chief of LOC police station ( GPE i PERSON ) , the head of LOC district police ( LOC ) , and for information to the Director General of ORG ) , recommending that they take all appropriate measures to stop the unlawful actions that had resulted in a violation of the Jon Residence residents\u2019 property rights . The ORG stated that the ORG had seized the building without any formal act . The cordoning off of the building preventing the applicants from enjoying their properties was unlawful and had consequently resulted in a violation of their legal interests . Moreover , the use of yellow police \u201c crime scene \u201d tape was not appropriate since the events in the present case did not involve a crime scene . He further suggested that it was necessary to examine the case and undertake organisational measures aimed at ensuring that such actions were not repeated in the future .","On an unspecified date , but within DATE from the interim order , CARDINAL residents , including CARDINAL of the applicants ( PERSON , A. ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . PERSON and PERSON ) , lodged a claim on the merits with ORG . It appears from ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that the object of the claim was the same as that lodged on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG declared that the actions carried out by the ORG and ORG on DATE had been arbitrary and in flagrant breach of LAW and the law . The decision in so far as relevant reads as follows :","\u201c ... [ the ] ORG and [ the ] ORG abusively and without any administrative decision to justify their illegal actions took arbitrary action with the aim of demolishing a property which had been acquired in accordance with the law . The ORG had no legal reason to take this administrative action , and therefore its actions were totally illegal ... the administrative action for the demolition of the construction as duly authorised by the competent authorities without first analysing in detail the illegality of the actions and without an assessment of the situation by an independent court of law , was within the limits of extreme illegality ... The authorities unilaterally and without a full and comprehensive administrative investigation surrounded the building ... The authorities with their arbitrary actions gravely violated the principle of legal certainty , according to which no one should suffer an interference with their rights obtained by law and has the expectation that no ORG authority will take any administrative decision or action by which the rights obtained by law could later be violated as a consequence of the State authorities\u2019 actions ... \u201d","ORG accordingly allowed the claim . The applicants , however , withdrew their request for the authorities to be prohibited from taking any further action , which had become devoid of purpose , since ORG had in the meantime been demolished by the authorities . ORG therefore discontinued the examination of this part of the claim .","On DATE , following an appeal by the authorities , ORG upheld ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . It appears from the decision that the applicants argued that the ORG and ORG had abusively and without any administrative decision to justify their illegal actions taken arbitrary action with a view to demolishing a lawful property . ORG reasoned that the cordoning off of the building and prevention of the applicants from entering it had been arbitrary , not in accordance with the law and in breach of their property rights . It further noted that the ORG were obliged to compensate the applicants for their illegal actions under LAW ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d below ) and LAW . Only after the actions taken by the authorities were declared unlawful were the applicants entitled to bring a claim for damages under LAW ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d below ) . However , it did not decide this issue as it had not been part of the claim . It appears that the proceedings are pending before ORG .","On DATE ORG ( ORG p\u00ebr GPE \u201c LOC ) adopted a decision on emergency measures to be undertaken for the protection and rehabilitation of the environment in some areas of national importance , as well as a procedure for the preparation of an integrated sectoral plan concerning stretches of coastline . The decision stated that stretches of coastline were areas of national importance where measures of an emergency nature were to be undertaken with a view to protecting and rehabilitating the territory and environment . Furthermore , it was decided that the granting of new development building permits for individual buildings on stretches of coastline and in other areas of national importance would be suspended pending the preparation of the integrated sectoral plan .","On DATE ORG issued a decision , which came into effect immediately , ordering the expropriation in the public interest of immovable private properties affected by the environmental rehabilitation of Uji i Ftoht\u00eb \u2013 Tuneli , a protected stretch of coastline in GPE . The expropriation was made in favour of GPE within DATE of the decision . The total compensation awarded was MONEY NORP PERSON ( ALL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of the construction measuring CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL square metres in total , to be divided among the owners . The decision was taken under LAW and on the basis of CARDINAL decisions of the NCTP \u2013 the above - mentioned decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and an earlier decision of DATE on the approval of the LOC city centre plan . According to the decision , after the expropriation the legal owners of the property would be compensated ( by the authorities ) on presentation of their property title documents . The deadline for the termination of the expropriation procedure was set for CARDINAL DATE .","The decision was published in ORG on DATE . It appears that the applicants only learned of the decision DATE , when the press spokesman for the Minister of ORG announced that ORG was to be demolished DATE a process that was to start DATE ( DATE ) .","On DATE the mayor of PERSON requested the assistance of the ORG with the demolition of ORG in accordance with the decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the ORG requested the assistance of LOC police station with the demolition , which was planned to start at TIME . The entire building was demolished DATE and DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the IPRO , in response to a letter sent by CARDINAL of the applicants asking for a copy of her certificate of ownership , said that since the building had been demolished , it was unable to issue a certificate of ownership in respect of a property that no longer existed .","On DATE ORG issued another decision , \u201c On some amendments to the ORG of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE \u201d , amending its previous decision of CARDINAL DATE to the effect that it awarded the applicants a total of ALL CARDINAL in compensation in respect of a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . The deadline for the termination of the expropriation procedure was set for DATE . No appeal was lodged against this decision .","On DATE ORG of ORG addressed a letter to ORG , stating that ORG had approved a fund of ALL CARDINAL and ALL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in total ) for the implementation of the Council of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . No payment has been made to the applicants .","On DATE CARDINAL residents , including all the applicants , lodged a claim with ORG against the ORG of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , challenging the value of the compensation awarded and the calculation of the exact surface area of the property which had been expropriated , on the basis that the decision had been issued as a result of an expropriation procedure in flagrant breach of the law . They also requested that ORG be ordered to change the amount of compensation ( to CARDINAL per square CARDINAL ) and compensate each owner based upon the exact size of their property , corresponding to an amount of fair compensation in accordance with the law and calculated by an expert appointed by the court , also taking into consideration the possibility of development of the property . In their claim the applicants maintained that the expropriation had been unlawful and that a \u201c de facto expropriation \u201d ( shpron\u00ebsim de facto ) had taken place . They also maintained that the actions of CARDINAL DATE of the ORG and ORG had been abusive and had been taken without any administrative decision to justify their illegal actions with the aim of demolishing a lawful property . They further submitted that , even though the authorities had issued an interim order and the ORG had also acknowledged the illegality of the authorities\u2019 actions and had recommended that similar actions in the future should not be repeated without awaiting a decision of ORG , they had nevertheless adopted the ORG of ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicants\u2019 claim . It reasoned that the expropriation had been unlawful in that the ORG of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE had been adopted in gross procedural violations and breaches of LAW ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d below ) and various by - laws .","As regards the facts of the case , ORG mentioned that the actions taken on DATE consisting of the cordoning off of the building with a view to its demolition had been arbitrary and taken in breach of domestic law , as it had held in its decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It also reiterated the fact that the Ombudsman had recommended that necessary measures be taken so that similar arbitrary actions would not be repeated in the future . It nevertheless noted that the authorities had adopted the Council of ORG decision of DATE without awaiting the decision on the merits of the case .","As regards the legal arguments as to whether the interference had been lawful , ORG reasoned that the authorities had not complied with the whole expropriation procedure as set out in DATE CARDINAL of LAW . The competent ministry had not informed the owners of the property or the construction company of the expropriation , therefore they and CARDINAL parties had been deprived of the opportunity to challenge it . According to their claims submitted before the district court , the applicants had only learned of the expropriation decision through the media , while the building was being demolished . Even afterwards , the applicants had never been informed , despite it being a legal requirement . This would have given them reasonable time to leave the building and take their belongings to other places . The authorities had continued with the demolition of the property without having all the information as to who the residents were . From the documents in the case file it was evident that the relevant ministry had only asked GPE for information about the residents of ORG DATE after the building had been demolished and CARDINAL days after the decision on the expropriation had been issued . It further held that the expropriation had been disguised as a formal expropriation taken in compliance with the legal provisions in force , but that in reality the seriousness of the violations had been such as to make it a \u201c de facto expropriation \u201d ( shpron\u00ebsim de facto ) . The ORG of ORG decision to expropriate the property had been a formal act , the sole purpose of which had been to disguise the actual nature of the expropriation . Furthermore , as a result of the immediate demolition of the building , without the authorities respecting the deadlines set in the law , the applicants had been prevented from being returned to their previous situation , even though the ORG of ORG decision had been null and void . ORG reasoned that the non - compliance with domestic law concerning the expropriation procedure had aggravated the applicants\u2019 situation and , therefore , the violation of the property rights had been so serious that it was unacceptable in a ORG governed by the rule of law . It reasoned that , according to the ORG \u2019s case - law ( reference was made to PERSON v. GPE judgment ( just satisfaction ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) , in cases of unlawful expropriation the domestic courts had a strict obligation to award higher compensation than in cases of lawful expropriation . Moreover , as regards the existence of any legitimate aim in the public interest , ORG noted that there had been no infrastructure or ecological ( environmental ) regulatory plan approved by law , not even a plan for the development of the protected area . ORG noted that the decisions of the ORG of DATE and DATE had not provided for the demolition of any legal building or its expropriation , or the invalidity of any authorisation that had already been granted and of any construction already built . On the basis of the above considerations , ORG decided to amend the ORG of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning the exact total surface area of the expropriated property , as well as the total amount of compensation and the amounts to be paid to each applicant . More concretely , ORG increased the total compensation to be awarded to the applicants to ALL CARDINAL , on the basis of a court - ordered experts\u2019 report . ORG found that the authorities had blatantly violated the procedure set out in the LAW and domestic law concerning the determination of the compensation to be paid in expropriation cases . Therefore , the calculation by ORG in its decision of CARDINAL DATE had not been made in accordance with the law . It accepted the report on the grounds that the valuation of the property had been based on the open market value following contemporary valuation methods for immovable properties such as the direct comparison and the state of the development of the property and taking also into consideration the location of the property , the development of the property , its actual development on the basis of legal documents as well as analysing the values of sales and rents of similar properties . The experts had also tried to analyse increases or decreases in the market prices of sales or purchases of similar properties . Under the expert report , the price per square metre was ORG CARDINAL ( ALL CARDINAL ) in respect of the flats and LAW ( ALL CARDINAL ) in respect of the business LOC . The price was calculated using the average market value during DATE based on a ORG of ORG decision \u201c on the valuation methods for immovable properties in GPE \u201d which stated that such calculations are made in accordance with international valuation standards .","ORG also recalculated the surface area of the expropriated property , stating that it actually measured QUANTITY . Furthermore , it included all the owners of ORG in the list of parties to be compensated , as some of the applicants had been excluded from the list under the ORG of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . Lastly , the court ruled that the compensation was to be paid by ORG and GPE in CARDINAL tranches over DATE from the moment the court \u2019s decision became final . Both ORG and GPE were obliged to pay jointly the judicial costs and expenses including the PERSON fee , the court fees for lodging the claim ( ALL CARDINAL ) and the ORG fee for the representation of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( applicants in the proceedings before ORG ) , ORG and PERSON ( not applicants before ORG ) , which amounted to LAW ( ALL CARDINAL ) in total .","On an unspecified date thereafter the applicants lodged an appeal against the part of ORG decision of DATE concerning the amount of compensation and the manner in which it was to be paid . They argued that the expert report did not reflect the market value of the property , which was much higher than the value indicated , and that the valuation standards for expropriated properties had not been complied with . More concretely , the experts had not complied with the criteria and standards provided for by ORG ( NORP ) and the valuation standards based on the financial and legal interests of the applicants . The property had had a higher value at the time of its expropriation . The experts had not specified the value of the specific components of the relevant calculation formula or the market value for every flat in order to reflect the market value of the building . Nor had they taken into consideration all the official data in the purchase agreements for the flats . They also complained of factual and calculation errors in the expert report and requested that another be produced . An appeal was also lodged by the Attorney ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld in part the ORG decision of DATE . It reiterated the facts of the case as noted by ORG and upheld the amount of compensation awarded , the size of the construction land and the list of owners concerned . It decided that the applicants should be compensated individually based on the size of their property . The total amount of compensation ( ALL CARDINAL ) was to be divided as follows : ALL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) per square metre in respect of the flats , which measured QUANTITY in total , and ALL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) per square QUANTITY in respect of the business LOC , which measured QUANTITY in total . It decided that the value calculated in the expert report represented the real value and just compensation in accordance with the LAW , LAW , LAW and other by - laws . It ruled that the compensation was to be paid by ORG in CARDINAL lump sum . ORG was also obliged to pay the legal costs and expenses .","Both the applicants and the Attorney ORG lodged an appeal with ORG against the lower courts\u2019 judgments . The applicants requested a higher amount of compensation for their expropriated property . ORG , however , requested that the execution of the decision be stayed .","On DATE ORG , on the basis of LAW ORG allowed the request of ORG and the proceedings were stayed . The decision contained no reasoning . The case is still pending before ORG . There is no information in the case file on what grounds ORG appealed against the lower courts\u2019 decisions and requested a stay of execution .","It appears from the ORG \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that on DATE the ORG lodged a criminal complaint with ORG against the head of ORG , alleging irregularities in the proceedings leading to the granting of the building permit on DATE . The case was sent to GPE for trial . There is no information about the outcome of those proceedings .","On DATE the first applicant and another resident lodged CARDINAL separate criminal complaints with ORG , alleging abuse of power on the part of officials of the ORG and the police officers of ORG involved in the seizure of ORG on DATE . They complained that they had not been allowed to enter their homes , that ORG had cordoned off the building with police crime scene tape and that inspectors of the ORG had entered the building . They also asked the authorities to take measures to end the arbitrary interference with their property rights , which was still continuing DATE that they lodged the criminal complaint .","In DATE ORG decided not to initiate criminal proceedings , on the grounds that the actions did not constitute a criminal offence ( fakti i kall\u00ebzuar nuk parashikohet nga ligji si vep\u00ebr penale ) . It reasoned that the ORG \u2019s employees under domestic law had been entitled to carry out the inspection and verify the regularity of the documents concerning the approval of the building permit and the implementation of its technical standards by the construction company . They had accordingly been entitled to enter the premises of ORG . Furthermore , the officers of ORG had been entitled to cooperate with and support the ORG . After the authorities had carried out the inspection criminal proceedings had been instituted , therefore the suspicion of non - compliance with the rules and urban planning conditions had been realistic . ORG further reasoned that CARDINAL of the complainants had said that when he had returned to the building DATE he had seen officers of ORG inside and had been allowed to enter his flat freely after showing them his certificate of ownership . That statement had also been corroborated with the information given by the ORG and the LOC police .","On DATE ORG , following a request lodged by ORG ( Task - Forca p\u00ebr ORG \u2013 a body under the authority of the Minister of ORG ) , instituted a criminal investigation against CARDINAL public officials ( some of them employees of the LOC , others employees of GPE ) for possible abuse of power because of the irregularity of the proceedings concerning the restitution of the applicants\u2019 property and the subsequent proceedings concerning the issuance of the building permit . On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings in respect of CARDINAL of the public officials and the remaining CARDINAL were acquitted . The proceedings are currently pending before ORG following an appeal by ORG .","On DATE an article was published on the official website of the GPE reading , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c DATE GPE instituted an action for the demolition of illegal buildings in the GPE area of ORG . The head of GPE declared that DATE the Municipality had already demolished CARDINAL other illegal buildings situated in Radhim\u00eb village in the city of PERSON . These actions [ were ] aimed at clearing and releasing territory which had been unlawfully occupied , as well as the management of the urban territory . He also declared that the process for the demolition of all illegal buildings would continue on the whole LOC coastline . The second phase would deal with the revaluation of lawful constructions which have not been constructed in accordance with the regulatory planning and the touristic perspective of PERSON ... GPE in cooperation with the new Government will provide for legal forms of compensation or if necessary , financial indemnification . In this category there were [ CARDINAL ] buildings , amongst others , [ which ] impeded the implementation of the PERSON [ promenade ] construction project . \u201d","DATE . On DATE an article was published on an online portal , ORG , stating that the authorities in PERSON were continuing with the demolition of buildings in the area where the promenade would be constructed . Provisional permits had been issued by the authorities for the buildings which operated as bars and restaurants during DATE .","On DATE an article was published on an online portal , ORG , stating that the residents of ORG were unable to enter the building . The article mentioned that , according to the ORG , the building had been seized so that the authorities could inspect the building permit , the relevant documentation for the construction , and whether or not the building permit had been carried out in compliance with the law . ORG , having been contacted by ORG ( a national television station ) , had clarified that the police had taken part in the actions taken on DATE to support the ORG . The head of the ORG had declared that they were still examining the case and if any shortcomings resulted , the ORG would then have to decide whether or not to demolish the building .","It appears from the evidence submitted by the applicants that on DATE a local television channel broadcast in their news bulletin that the ORG , supported by police officers , had started the procedure for the demolition of the building . According to the broadcast , on DATE the demolition was considered to be partial , and the residents of the building were given DATE to remove their movable property from their flats . The owners of the residential premises had not removed their movable property on the grounds that the authorities had not properly valued their flats , whereas the owners of the business premises had duly removed their movable property . The authorities had valued their flats as being worth EUR QUANTITY per square metre , whereas they had paid ORG QUANTITY when they had bought them . However , according to the broadcast it was noted that the procedure for the demolition of the property had already been started by the authorities following ORG having been blocked for a long time .","On DATE an online portal , PERSON , published an article stating that ORG ( ORG p\u00ebr ORG \u2013 \u201c the PERSON \u201d , the former ORG ) , had initiated proceedings for the demolition of illegal buildings so as to make possible the implementation of the PERSON project . A CARDINAL - storey building had already been demolished on DATE , and the demolition of CARDINAL other buildings ( bars ) would happen in DATE that followed .","On DATE an online portal , ORG , published an article stating that the PERSON had initiated an operation in GPE for the implementation of the PERSON project . The PERSON had already demolished a single - storey building . It would also demolish another building . During the first part of the operation the PERSON had already demolished CARDINAL other buildings .","On DATE the PERSON addressed a letter to ORG . In so far as relevant , the letter reads as follows :","\u201c ... [ The ] ORG had exercised their functions in accordance with domestic law . On DATE the ORG , in the presence of a representative of ORG , inspected the construction site of ORG . All the remaining procedures followed by the ORG were based on the ORG of ORG decision of DATE . On the basis of the expropriation procedure GPE on DATE had requested the ORG \u2019s cooperation with the implementation of ORG decision to demolish immovable properties which would be expropriated . On the basis of this request , the ORG had carried out the demolition of the building in cooperation with ORG , ORG , ORG and GPE ... In the present case the ORG had complied with the interim order of CARDINAL DATE and had not taken any action in breach of this decision . In compliance with the ORG of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE and following the request of GPE it had undertaken all the necessary steps for the demolition of the building ... in the present case there had not been any administrative or criminal investigation in respect of the applicants\u2019 claims concerning the non - enforcement of the interim order ... the use of yellow crime scene tape had not been made by the ORG . It is true that the ORG had requested the support of ORG , however it is not the ORG \u2019s competence to dictate or examine the manner and equipment used by ORG for securing the perimeter of the site under the authorities\u2019 control ... the ORG had not taken any action that could have impeded the applicants in exercising their property rights . The object of the inspection had been the building and the subject of the inspection had not been the residents but the construction company and the activities of the ORG employees . \u201d","The Government submitted as part of their observations domestic case - law consisting of CARDINAL decisions of the district courts allowing appellants\u2019 claims for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the demolition of their properties by the ORG and ORG . In CARDINAL case the demolition had occurred in respect of a property which had been illegally built but for which proceedings for its legalisation were ongoing . The claim was allowed under LAW and ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL of ORG . In the other case the district court allowed the appellants\u2019 claim for compensation on the grounds that the demolition of the property had occurred despite another court taking a decision to suspend the ORG \u2019s decision to demolish the property for being illegally built . The claim was allowed under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG . It is unclear whether the CARDINAL district court decisions became final .","The Government also submitted CARDINAL other domestic court decisions in which the domestic courts allowed the ORG claim for a higher amount of compensation for their expropriated property in the public interest .","At the hearing the ORG representative pleaded that on DATE the applicants had lodged a request with GPE for compensation . On DATE GPE had asked the applicants to produce a copy of their certificate of ownership accompanied by a map of flats issued by the LOC within DATE . The applicants did not submit the CARDINAL documents . They further submitted that the ORG had refused to issue the certificates ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","8","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1","8-2","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159839","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"VALKEAJ\u00c4RVI v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was born , went to school and grew up in the municipality of DATE . In DATE he inherited real estate from his parents , and he returned to live in the house situated on the property . His closest family members as well his friends live in the area .","In DATE the applicant obtained a building permit allowing him to extend the house situated on the inherited property . During the works , the applicant \u2019s application for communal aid for increasing energy - efficiency was rejected by the municipality as the real estate was marked in the detailed plan as a holiday home and not as a house destined for permanent , year - round use .","NORP By letter dated DATE , the applicant requested that the municipality grant a derogation ( poikkeaminen , undantag ) from the planning norms and change the entry in its records from a holiday home into a house in permanent use , in order to reflect the real situation .","On DATE the municipal environmental board rejected the applicant \u2019s request . It reasoned its decision by stating that the real estate was situated in an area destined for holiday homes and that the building permit had been granted only for a holiday home . Accepting a derogation in the applicant \u2019s case would affect the realisation of plans and be detrimental to urban development . If a derogation were made in the applicant \u2019s case , then all other landowners would have the same right , as they all had to be treated equally . Moreover , the real estate was located a long way from the services of the municipality and was not therefore suitable for permanent residence .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of the municipal environmental board to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting that his house be designated as a house for permanent residence . He pointed out that the house fulfilled the requirements for a house in permanent use . The neighbours did not object to the applicant \u2019s request . Moreover , the house was situated QUANTITY from the centre of the municipality and such a location was not in any way unusual in other villages . Accepting the applicant \u2019s request would not create any new service obligations for the municipality .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . It found that the applicant \u2019s house was located in an area which , in detailed plans , was destined for holiday use only . The same plans indicated other areas in which permanent housing should be concentrated . The equal treatment of all landowners required that they should also be able to live permanently in the area in question , which would lead to an uncontrolled increase in permanent housing in the area . The applicant \u2019s personal circumstances and the fact that the house in question was suitable for permanent residence were not relevant in the present case .","By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal presented before ORG . Moreover , the applicant argued that the right to live permanently in a place of one \u2019s choice could not be dependent on the municipality in which CARDINAL lived and the will of a particular civil servant in that municipality . The question of a constitutionally - protected right to equal treatment of citizens arose , since similar requests had been accepted in other municipalities . For example in the GPE area the municipalities had abandoned the idea that permanent housing could not be accepted in sparsely populated areas .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","NORP In order to avoid periodic penalty payments which were likely to be imposed , the applicant moved to a rented apartment in GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicant applied again for communal aid for increasing energy - efficiency .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s request was again rejected by the municipality .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant requested that the municipal environmental board rectify the decision of DATE and state that there was no impediment to registering his house as a house for permanent use .","On DATE the municipal environmental board upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE not to grant communal aid for increasing energyefficiency . No decision was made concerning the registration of the applicant \u2019s house as a house for permanent use . It is not known whether the applicant appealed further against this decision .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provides the following :","\u201c Freedom of movement","NORP citizens and foreigners legally resident in GPE have the right to move freely within the country and to choose their place of residence . \u201d","According to LAW :","\u201c Everyone is equal before the law .","No one shall , without an acceptable reason , be treated differently from other persons on the ground of sex , age , origin , language , religion , conviction , opinion , health , disability or other reason that concerns his or her person .... \u201d","According to LAW , if in a matter being tried by a court of law the application of an Act would be in evident conflict with LAW , the court of law shall give primacy to the provision in the LAW .","Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of ORG ja rakennuslaki , markanv\u00e4ndnings- och bygglagen , Act no . CARDINAL ) provides that a building permit is required to substantially alter the intended use of a building or part thereof . When the need for the permit is considered , the impact the alteration will have on implementation of a land use plan and on other land use , and on the attributes required of the building are taken into account . Alteration of intended use requiring a permit includes altering a holiday home so that it is fit for permanent residence . Unless the area is specifically designated for this purpose in the local detailed plan , the building of a large retail unit shall be considered to have the aforementioned impact on land use .","According to section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the same LAW , when special cause exists , the local authority may grant a right to derogate from the provisions , regulations , prohibitions and other restrictions issued in or under LAW concerning building and other action . Section CARDINAL , subsections CARDINAL - CARDINAL , of the same LAW provide that","\u201c Derogation shall not :","CARDINAL ) impede planning , the implementation of plans or other organisation of land use ;","CARDINAL ) hinder attainment of the goals of nature conservation ; or","CARDINAL ) hinder attainment of goals concerning the conservation of built - up environment .","A right to derogate may not be granted if it leads to building with substantial impact or if it has other substantially harmful environmental or other impact . \u201d","ORG has , in its decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , accepted in a case similar to the applicant \u2019s case that the municipal building and environmental board could impose a periodic penalty payment to real estate owners in order to stop their unlawful use of a holiday home as a permanent residence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164682","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF \u017dEKONIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Gelgaudi\u0161kis , ORG .","On DATE the ORG police arrested the applicant \u2019s son , GPE , on suspicion of unlawful possession of narcotic substances with the purpose of distributing them under LAW .","NORP On that same day the police searched the applicant \u2019s apartment where she lived together with GPE , and found some small plastic bags . DATE a search was conducted in the applicant \u2019s daughter PERSON \u2019s apartment . As PERSON was living abroad , the applicant provided the police officers with the keys to GPE \u2019s apartment and was present during the search . The officers found some plastic bags , a digital weighing scales , and remnants of \u201c herbal substances \u201d ( augalin\u0117s kilm\u0117s med\u017eiagos ) .","On DATE the ORG authorised GPE \u2019s detention for DATE .","On DATE an officer informed the head of ORG that GPE had unlawfully carried a mobile phone into detention . Most of the information on that phone , including any text messages sent by GPE , had been deleted but police officers found several text messages which GPE had received from his fianc\u00e9e on DATE and DATE , including the following :","\u201c Will not risk transfer now , [ it \u2019s been ] said . \u201d","\u201c Do n\u2019t use that phone at all , do n\u2019t you understand . \u201d","\u201c She is telling me something else . \u201d","\u201c Throw that phone away , do n\u2019t you understand , mother already knows what to do . \u201d","\u201c Give me their number , I \u2019ll arrange for us to give it later . We ca n\u2019t give it now . Your mother was questioned DATE and almost got arrested , do n\u2019t you understand ? It \u2019s all hidden now . \u201d","\u201c Mother does n\u2019t give anything , I \u2019m telling you the customs office is watching everything . \u201d","In TIME DATE the applicant arrived at ORG station , where GPE was detained , to bring him food and clean clothes .","At TIME that day the applicant was informed by a senior investigator that she was being placed under provisional arrest ( laikinas sulaikymas ) , on the basis of LAW ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) . The decision to arrest the applicant indicated that she was suspected of unlawful possession of narcotic substances with the purpose of distribution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Provisional arrest had been deemed necessary in order to prevent her from fleeing , interfering with the investigation or committing further crimes because it was suspected that she had previously hidden drugs from the investigators ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The record of the provisional arrest , drawn up at the time of the arrest , stated that the applicant had been explained her rights , including the right to a lawyer , and that she had refused to sign the record . The applicant was placed in the LOC police station in a nearby cell to her son . Her husband was informed of her arrest . At that time the applicant was DATE .","On DATE the applicant was served with the official notice that she was a suspect ( prane\u0161imas apie \u012ftarim\u0105 ) . The notice stated that in DATE she had allegedly acquired drugs from unidentified persons , kept them in her daughter PERSON \u2019s apartment with the purpose of distribution , and subsequently distributed them , thereby committing the act proscribed in LAW . The applicant signed the notice that she was an official suspect , to indicate that she had received it and that her rights had been explained to her .","From TIME until TIME DATE the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the case , in the presence of a lawyer . She denied having committed any crimes and refused to answer any further questions .","At some point during DATE the applicant started feeling weak , and felt a headache and a pain in her chest . An ambulance was called to the police station and the applicant was given first aid .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted a request to the ORG district prosecutor to release the applicant from provisional arrest . The lawyer argued that the applicant had not committed any crime and that she had only been arrested to pressurise her to testify against her son .","At TIME DATE the ORG police released the applicant . The decision to release her stated that all the necessary investigative actions concerning the applicant had been conducted , and that there were no grounds to believe that she would interfere with the investigation upon her release .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor rejected the applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s request to release the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as based on \u201c subjective and declaratory statements \u201d and thus unfounded . According to the applicant , she did not appeal against that decision because she had already been released .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation against the applicant on the grounds of insufficient evidence that she had committed the crime outlined in LAW .","The ORG police continued the pre - trial investigation concerning the applicant \u2019s son GPE The police obtained his call records and questioned several witnesses who admitted to having bought cannabis from GPE","On DATE the ORG convicted GPE of unlawful possession of narcotic substances with the purpose of distribution under LAW . On DATE ORG dismissed GPE \u2019s appeal , and on DATE ORG dismissed his appeal on points of law .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim for damages against the ORG under LAW . She claimed that her provisional arrest had been unfounded because she had not committed any crimes , as proven by the subsequent discontinuation of the pre - trial investigation . The applicant also argued that her arrest had been unnecessary because at the time she had been DATE , ailing and had had difficulties walking ; she had had no prior convictions , had been retired and had had a place of residence with her husband . Thus , she claimed that it had been unlikely that she would have attempted to flee or hide from the investigation . The applicant noted that the investigation against her son had been instituted on DATE , and there had been no indication from DATE until her arrest that the police suspected that she had committed any crimes or attempted to interfere with the investigation on the contrary , she had voluntarily come to the police station to see her son . The applicant argued that the real purpose of arresting her had been to force her to testify against her son .","The applicant further submitted that she had suffered pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage because of the provisional arrest : her blood pressure had risen and as a result she had had to seek medical help and take medication ; she had become irritable , had started having nightmares and was scared of police officers ; she felt humiliated in front of her son who had been detained in a nearby cell , as well as other inhabitants of her village , who subsequently thought of her as a criminal . The applicant claimed CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of pecuniary damage resulting from her legal expenses , as well as LTL MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","At the hearing before ORG the applicant also submitted that , after arresting her , the police officers had searched her purse and tried to strip search her , but she had resisted . She stated that the cell in which she had been detained had been damp and dilapidated and that there had been smells emanating from the toilet which had made her nauseous .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The court noted that the termination of the pre - trial investigation against the applicant did not make the investigation unlawful ab initio , and found that there had been sufficient grounds for suspicions against her : plastic bags had been found in the apartment where she lived together with her son GPE , and remnants of drugs had been found in the applicant \u2019s daughter PERSON \u2019s apartment . Furthermore , while detained , GPE had unlawfully been in possession of a mobile phone , and the police officers had had grounds to believe that he had warned the applicant to hide the drugs which had been stored in GPE \u2019s apartment . Accordingly , the court found that the applicant \u2019s provisional arrest had been well - founded . The court also noted that the applicant had not appealed against the district prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE to refuse her release ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which meant that the decision to arrest her had not been declared unlawful . Lastly , the court held that the medical documents submitted by the applicant did not prove that the deterioration of her health had been caused by the provisional arrest . The court did not address the applicant \u2019s complaints concerning the conditions of her detention .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . It upheld the findings of the first - instance court that at the time of the arrest there had been sufficient evidence to suspect the applicant of having committed a crime , and that the subsequent discontinuation of the pre - trial investigation did not make the arrest unlawful . ORG also noted that LAW permitted the provisional arrest not only of a suspect but also any other person in respect of whom it was necessary to conduct certain investigative actions . Having found that the applicant \u2019s arrest had been lawful , the court held that there were no grounds to award the applicant any damages . It did not address the applicant \u2019s complaints concerning the conditions of her detention .","On DATE , following an appeal on points of law by the applicant , ORG refused to examine the case as raising no important legal questions ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148659","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BUZADJI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","In DATE the applicant , who was the director of a ORG company ( referred to herein as \u201c B - G \u201d ) , acknowledged in court that the company owed a private company MONEY ( ORG ) plus penalties ( the total sum being LAW ) as a result of purchasing liquefied gas from that private company . On DATE he was dismissed from his job .","According to the applicant , in DATE the investigating authorities summoned him to appear before them and to make a statement in connection with the alleged defrauding of PERSON He was subsequently summoned on several occasions and always appeared before the investigating authorities and cooperated with them . According to the materials submitted by the parties , CARDINAL different criminal investigations were initiated against the applicant and his CARDINAL sons : the first CARDINAL were initiated on DATE , but most of the others on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE all the investigations were joined .","It can also be observed in the case file that the applicant \u2019s sons were summoned to appear before the investigating authorities in DATE and were questioned as suspects in the case . It appears that the applicant \u2019s sons were never arrested . On DATE an invoice allegedly used for defrauding B - G was seized from the company . On DATE the applicant \u2019s personal computer was seized and various documents were recovered which allegedly proved the defrauding of B - G by the applicant .","On DATE ORG upheld an application to initiate bankruptcy proceedings which had been brought against PERSON","On DATE ORG quashed the lower courts\u2019 judgments because it had been established that the debt to the private company was fictitious . The court relied , inter alia , on the results of a review of the economic and financial activities of PERSON The case was sent for retrial by the lower courts and is still pending .","On DATE a further review of the economic and financial activities of PERSON was carried out .","On DATE the applicant was arrested . On CARDINAL DATE he was formally charged with defrauding PERSON","On DATE ORG accepted an application made by the prosecutor and ordered the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial for DATE . The court found that :","\u201c ... the offence with which [ the applicant ] is charged is considered an exceptionally serious crime , which allows for detention pending trial , [ the court ] takes into account the nature and seriousness of the offence and the complexity of the case , and considers that at this incipient stage of the investigation there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused could collude with other people ( his sons , who have not been interviewed ) in order to take a common position .","The other statements of the prosecution concerning the possibility that the accused may abscond , the danger of influencing witnesses or of destroying evidence are not substantiated by any specific information and are not very probable . \u201d","The applicant appealed , referring to the ongoing civil proceedings concerning the debt owed by PERSON to the private company , as well as to a confirmation of that debt by an administrator appointed in the meantime by the court . He further relied on the absence of any material in the file suggesting that he would abscond or interfere with the investigation in any manner . Moreover , as confirmed by medical certificates , the applicant ( who was TIME the time ) suffered from a number of illnesses requiring in - patient treatment , which was unavailable in pre - trial detention . He was a well - known individual with a family , a residence and a job in GPE and who had appeared before the investigating authorities every time he had been summoned during the period from DATE to DATE . He further argued that the court had not even had the case file concerning the investigation in question before it when it had decided on his detention pending trial . The judge had only seen several documents concerning the charges against the applicant and the review of the economic activity of PERSON ( referred to above ) . The applicant added that his CARDINAL sons had not been formally charged with any crime and that in any event if they had wished to collude they had had plenty of time to do so since DATE when they first learned of the investigation .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE , essentially repeating the reasons given by the lower court .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial by DATE . After recapitulating the parties\u2019 positions and citing the applicable provisions of the law , the court found that :","\u201c ... the grounds relied on when applying the preventive measure [ of detention ] remain valid , the majority of the investigative actions have been carried out , but a number of additional measures requiring [ the applicant \u2019s ] participation are still necessary in order to send the case to the trial court . The court considers that the application on the part of the defence to replace the preventive measure [ with house arrest ] is premature , taking into account the seriousness and complexity of the case and the need to protect public order and the public interest , as well as to ensure the smooth and objective course of the investigation . \u201d","The applicant appealed , relying on essentially the same arguments as he had done earlier .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The court gave essentially the same reasons as it had in its decision of CARDINAL DATE , adding that :","\u201c the risk that the applicant may destroy evidence persists , since the prosecutor has declared that not all the documents relating to the financial and economic activities [ of the company ] have been seized in order to be subjected to an expert analysis . \u201d","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial by DATE . It gave the same reasons as it had done earlier . The applicant appealed , relying on essentially the same arguments as he had done earlier .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision , finding that it had been adopted in compliance with the law . The court also noted that the applicant was accused of a particularly serious offence which had allegedly caused damage to PERSON of MONEY NORP lei ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) and which was punishable by a prison term of CARDINAL to twenty - five years , that he had been charged with CARDINAL different offences , and that the investigation was still ongoing . If released he might be able to abscond or to influence witnesses who were staff at B - G and over whom he had influence .","On DATE ORG rejected a further application by the prosecutor for an extension of the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial and accepted the applicant \u2019s request by ordering that he be placed under house arrest for DATE . The court found that :","\u201c ... the applicant has been detained for DATE and has participated in all the necessary investigative actions ; ... LAW imposes a presumption that an accused be freed while he awaits his trial ; ... certain evidence , which may have been sufficient earlier to justify [ detention ] or to render alternative preventive measures inadequate , could become less convincing with the passage of time ; ... it is for the prosecutor to prove the existence of a risk of absconding , and such a risk can not be proved only by reference to the severity of the potential punishment ; [ the court referred to the applicant \u2019s medical problems and his age , the lack of a criminal record , his permanent residence and married status ] ; the [ ORG ] \u2019s case - law provides that detention pending trial should be exceptional , always objectively reasoned and must correspond to the public interest ; the court finds that it is improbable that [ the applicant ] will abscond , influence witnesses or destroy evidence , and that the normal course of the criminal investigation is possible while the accused is under house arrest . \u201d","The court set the following conditions for the applicant \u2019s house arrest : prohibition from leaving his house ; prohibition of having phone calls ; prohibition from discussing his case with any person .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and adopted a new one , ordering the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial for DATE . The court found that :","\u201c ... the lower court did not take into account the complexity of the case and the seriousness of the offence with which [ the applicant ] is charged ; the court considers that while under house arrest [ the applicant ] could communicate with the other accomplices , who are not under arrest and who are , moreover , his sons ; he could abscond by fleeing to the [ self - proclaimed and unrecognised \u201c GPE \u201d ] , which is not under the control of the GPE authorities ; he could influence witnesses , who are his former staff , in order to make them change their statements ; the applicant has received visits from doctors and can obtain medical assistance in prison . \u201d","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial by DATE . It gave the same reasons as it had done earlier . The applicant appealed , relying on essentially the same arguments as he had done earlier . The court recalled the prosecutor \u2019s position , including the fact that the investigation had already been finalised and the file was ready to be presented to the applicant and his lawyers so that they could prepare for the trial . It also noted that","\u201c the preventive measure of arrest was applied due to the seriousness of the offence with which [ the applicant ] is charged , the need to ensure the proper conduct of the criminal proceedings and of securing public order , as well as the existence of reasons to believe that he could exert negative influence on the course of the proceedings or abscond . \u201d","The court then cited article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and found that \u201c the grounds relied on by the prosecutor are applicable \u201d .","On DATE ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s decision and adopted a new one , changing the preventive measure to house arrest . The court found that :","\u201c the prosecutor did not provide any evidence confirming the continued need to detain [ the applicant ] , did not submit additional materials confirming the probability that he could exert influence on witnesses who have already been heard ; [ the applicant ] promises to appear before the investigating authorities whenever summoned ; there is no specific information concerning any risk of absconding \u201d .","The house arrest was maintained by the decisions of the Comrat District Court of DATE and DATE . On DATE the same court decided to release the applicant on bail , finding that he had been detained and then under house arrest for over DATE and never breached any of the restrictions imposed on him ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161047","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ALEKSANDR ANDREYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , the GPE region .","The applicant received a summons from investigator PERSON to attend office no . CARDINAL at the LOC police department of the town of GPE ( \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b \u0421\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0442\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0430 \u0433. \u041e\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0430 ) at TIME on DATE . The summons contained no further details . At TIME on DATE the applicant , who was DATE at the time , arrived at the police station , as requested , together with his father and his friend PERSON A police officer on duty registered their arrival at the police station . Investigator PERSON was absent and the applicant was asked to wait . Police officer PERSON took the applicant to his office .","At some point the applicant \u2019s father was asked to participate in an investigative measure . When this was finished he could not locate the applicant at the police station . He and PERSON were requested by police officer PERSON to leave the building . They remained outside near the main entrance waiting for the applicant . At some point they were told that the applicant was no longer in the police station . They left at about CARDINAL p.m. As the applicant did not appear at home his parents enquired about his whereabouts at the LOC police department , by telephone and in person . After many unsuccessful attempts they were finally told that the applicant had gone to police station no . CARDINAL together with police officer PERSON . and that he had stayed there until TIME","According to the applicant , police officer PERSON . took him to an experts\u2019 room where he was photographed and fingerprinted . Then , shortly after TIME , PERSON . led him out of the police station from a back door in the experts\u2019 room and took him to GPE police department no . CARDINAL in a police car for questioning . According to the police station logbook , the applicant left the LOC district police station at TIME on DATE .","The applicant provided the following account of events at police department no . CARDINAL . The head of the police department , P. , and police officer PERSON interviewed him about his alleged involvement in thefts from certain shops . The applicant denied involvement in the thefts . PERSON shackled the applicant \u2019s hands behind his back , told him \u201c to sit on the floor with his legs crossed in front of him \u201d , tied his legs with a rope , \u201c threw the rope across the neck to the back \u201d , \u201c hung it on a chair and pulled it \u201d . The applicant felt severe pain in his back .","At some point operative police officer PERSON came in and interviewed the applicant . When PERSON and PERSON both came out PERSON untied the applicant \u2019s legs and demanded that the applicant write a statement of \u201c surrender and confession \u201d . The applicant maintained his refusal . PERSON opened the door and called PERSON The applicant \u201c understood that he would be tortured again \u201d . He ran up and hit his head against the glass door of a bookcase . The glass broke and the applicant received cuts on his face above the left eyebrow and on his head .","Then PERSON tied the applicant \u2019s hands and legs behind his back , passed a metal bar under the rope and hung him on the bar , the ends of which were put on the table and the back of a chair . The applicant had been hanging in that position for TIME when somebody took the bar off and asked PERSON to untie the applicant . PERSON refused .","At some point PERSON came out and the applicant was untied and the handcuffs were removed from him . PERSON demanded again that the applicant write a statement of \u201c surrender and confession \u201d . The applicant started writing the statement as requested . P. came in together with lawyer PERSON who offered his services as counsel for the applicant \u2019s defence . The applicant refused because he wished to be represented by a lawyer of his own choice .","Reluctant to continue writing the confession statement , the applicant was taken by PERSON , who was allegedly drunk , to his office . An ambulance , which had been called after the incident with the broken glass , arrived and the applicant was examined by the ambulance medical assistant , who provided him with first aid and left .","Thereafter the applicant was questioned by QUANTITY police officers , who were also drunk . CARDINAL of them hit the applicant several times on both ears simultaneously with the palms of his hands . The other police officer punched him in the head .","Then PERSON tied the applicant up and hung him on the bar again . The applicant saw blood dripping from his head to the floor .","Police officer PERSON untied the applicant and demanded that he finish writing the statement of \u201c surrender and confession \u201d . The applicant did so and was allowed by PERSON to leave . The applicant went home , which was QUANTITY away , on foot .","At TIME the applicant arrived home . At TIME he was hospitalised . According to the medical records of town hospital no . CARDINAL , where he stayed for in - patient treatment until DATE , at the time of his admission the applicant was complaining of headache , nausea , vomiting and giddiness . He explained that he had been beaten up by police officers TIME previously . He had an abrasion up to QUANTITY long over the left eyebrow and bruises on his scalp . He was diagnosed with an abrasion on the left superciliary arch , contusions of the soft tissues of the head and concussion .","The evidence in the case file indicates that police officer PERSON drew up a record of the applicant \u2019s being \u201c conveyed \u201d ( \u0434\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) to the police station . According to that record , at TIME on DATE the applicant was brought to the police station \u201c for examination \u201d ( \u0440\u0430\u0437\u0431\u0438\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e ) and searched in the presence of attesting witnesses PERSON and PERSON . It was stated in the record , which was signed by police officer PERSON , the CARDINAL attesting witnesses and the applicant , that the applicant , a \u201c violator \u201d , had been informed of the rights and obligations of a person against whom administrative proceedings were initiated . The record contained no further details .","On DATE the GPE police department was alerted by the town hospital that the applicant had been taken to hospital with injuries allegedly inflicted by police officers .","On DATE the PERSON district prosecutor \u2019s office received information about the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment by police officers .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father complained to the Sovetskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office that the applicant had been the victim of police ORG unlawful actions . On DATE he lodged a similar complaint with the GPE regional prosecutor \u2019s office .","The Sovetskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office carried out a preliminary inquiry . Its investigator PERSON received explanations from a number of persons , including the following persons .","On DATE lawyer PERSON stated that on DATE , some time after QUANTITY [ the head of the police department ] P. had asked him to be present at an investigative measure as counsel for the defence of the applicant , who was suspected of having committed a crime . S. had seen coagulated blood on the applicant \u2019s eyebrow and on his head . S. had asked the operative officers to leave the office and asked the applicant about the origin of his injuries . The applicant had explained that he himself had hit his head against a bookcase . S. had offered his services as counsel for his defence . The applicant refused , as he wanted lawyer PERSON to defend him .","On DATE police officer PERSON stated that he had left work at TIME on DATE . At a bus stop he had seen the applicant who had been suspected of having committed thefts from CARDINAL shops . PERSON had taken the applicant to the police station , where he had invited CARDINAL attesting witnesses so that a record could be drawn up about the applicant \u2019s being conveyed to the police station and searched . In the presence of the attesting witnesses the applicant had jumped from his chair and hit his head against the glass door of a bookcase . The glass had broken and the applicant had received cuts on his eyebrow and head . PERSON had provided the applicant with first aid , had drawn up the record of his being conveyed to the police station , and had transferred him to operative officer PERSON TIME later PERSON had brought the applicant back , as the applicant was complaining of feeling unwell . PERSON had called an ambulance . The ambulance staff had provided the applicant with first aid . PERSON denied any use of force or psychological pressure in relation to the applicant .","On DATE the head of the police department PERSON stated that at TIME on DATE he had been informed that the applicant had been brought to the police station on suspicion of having committed a theft . P. gave statements similar to those by PERSON about the applicant hitting the bookcase with his head . According to P. , the applicant had stayed at the police station for TIME and had left at TIME None of his subordinates had committed any unlawful actions in relation to the applicant .","On DATE attesting witnesses PERSON and PERSON . stated that at TIME they had been invited to be present as attesting witnesses at the applicant \u2019s search . After being searched the applicant had jumped to his feet , run up and hit his head against a bookcase . The glass of the bookcase had broken and the applicant had cut his eyebrow . CARDINAL police officers had been present during the incident .","On DATE police officer PERSON . stated that on DATE at the LOC police station he had taken the applicant to the experts\u2019 room , where the applicant had been fingerprinted and photographed , and then to the exit . PERSON . denied having taken the applicant to police station no . CARDINAL .","On DATE operative officer PERSON stated that the police had had information , notably explanations by an eyewitness to a theft at a certain shop , that the applicant could have been involved in the theft . PERSON had interviewed the applicant , who had been known to the police on account of thefts previously committed by him , at TIME on DATE , after the incident with the broken glass . The applicant had confessed to the theft and had written a statement . After that PERSON had called the ambulance as the applicant was complaining of a headache . PERSON denied any use of force in relation to the applicant .","On DATE investigator PERSON stated that she had requested that the applicant be summoned to the police station for an identity parade in a criminal case concerning assault and battery . On DATE she had carried out the identity parade with the participation of the applicant \u2019s father . As the applicant \u2019s lawyer had not appeared she had cancelled the identity parade in which the applicant was to have participated . The applicant had left her office together with police officer PERSON .","Expert PERSON stated that in the afternoon of QUANTITY DATE police officer PERSON . had brought the applicant to the experts\u2019 room . The applicant had been fingerprinted and photographed . PERSON confirmed that there was another exit from the building through the experts\u2019 room . He stated , however , that PERSON . and the applicant had left through another , \u201c normal \u201d door , through which they had arrived .","The applicant gave a description of his alleged ill - treatment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . He stated that he had hit his head against the bookcase in order to stop the ill - treatment . He also stated that police officer PERSON had threatened to kill him if he told the ambulance staff about the illtreatment . When left with lawyer PERSON in private he had told him about the illtreatment and forced confession .","The applicant \u2019s father and PERSON gave statements about their visit to the police station on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE investigator PERSON ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant , which was carried out by expert PERSON on DATE . The expert was requested to determine the degree of harm to the health of the applicant , who had allegedly been beaten up by police officers on DATE . The applicant complained of recurring headaches . He had a scar over the left eyebrow . Expert PERSON also examined his medical records from the town hospital ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In his report no . CARDINAL the expert concluded that the applicant \u2019s injuries , notably the concussion , the wound over the left eyebrow and the bruises on the scalp , had been inflicted by hard blunt objects shortly before he was hospitalised . The injuries were qualified as light damage to health as they had caused short - term health disorder .","On DATE investigator PERSON ordered that by virtue of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c CCrP \u201d ) no criminal proceedings were to be instituted in respect of the applicant \u2019s complaint , in view of the absence of constituent elements of a crime under LAW ( abuse of power ) in the acts of police officers PERSON . ( as well as under LAW , unlawful arrest or detention ) , P. , PERSON , PERSON ( also under LAW , coercion to obtain statements ) , and CARDINAL others .","On DATE a deputy prosecutor of the Sovetskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office overturned the investigator \u2019s decision , as the inquiry on which it was based was considered incomplete , and ordered an additional inquiry .","Investigator PERSON received the following additional explanations .","On DATE N. , a medical assistant , stated that at TIME an ambulance had been called by police station no . CARDINAL . She and PERSON , a junior nurse , had gone to the police station . She had found the applicant in a room with CARDINAL police officers , who had explained to her that the applicant had hit the glass with his head and broken it . She had examined the applicant , who had cuts over the left eyebrow and on the head . Her examination had not revealed any obvious signs of concussion . The applicant had taken off his clothes . She had not seen any visible injuries on his body .","On DATE junior nurse PERSON gave similar explanations . She noted that the applicant had been in a room with CARDINAL police officers , CARDINAL of whom had later come out . Then medical assistant ORG had examined the applicant .","On DATE and DATE Ya . and ORG stated that in DATE they had undergone inpatient treatment at the town hospital and had been in the same ward as the applicant , who had told them that he had been illtreated at the police station . Ya . understood that police officers had handcuffed the applicant and hung him and afterwards hit his head against the wall . According to ORG , police officers had handcuffed the applicant and hung him , and then either he himself had hit the bookcase with his head or police officers had hit his head against the bookcase .","NORP The applicant \u2019s schoolteacher , NORP , characterised the applicant as sly , deceitful and shifty .","Forensic medical expert PERSON stated that he did not consider it possible to establish reliably how the applicant had received concussion . It could have been the result either of the applicant \u2019s hitting the bookcase with his head or of being punched on the head .","On DATE , on the basis of the results of the inquiry , investigator PERSON again refused to open a criminal case under LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG , on the grounds that the constituent elements of a crime in the acts of police officers PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and CARDINAL others were absent . As before , the investigator referred to a crime under LAW of LAW ( abuse of power ) , as well as LAW ( unlawful arrest or detention ) in relation to Sh . , and LAW ( coercion to obtain statements ) in relation to P. , PERSON and E .. The investigator found that the applicant had been at the LOC police department from TIME until TIME on DATE for an identity parade in a criminal case concerning assault and battery , and that at QUANTITY on the same day police officer PERSON had taken him to police station no . CARDINAL on suspicion of theft . The investigator held that the results of the inquiry had showed that the applicant \u2019s injuries were self - inflicted , as a result of his hitting the bookcase with his head , and that the allegations of ill - treatment by police officers were devoid of any foundation .","The applicant \u2019s father appealed against the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE . He complained , in particular , that the investigator had never held an identity parade in order to identify the CARDINAL unknown police officers who had delivered blows to the applicant \u2019s head .","On DATE the Orsk ORG , sitting in a single - judge formation , heard the applicant \u2019s father , his representative and a deputy prosecutor of the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office , and examined the evidence of the inquiry carried out by the investigator . It was satisfied that the inquiry had been comprehensive and thorough , and that the investigator \u2019s assessment of its results had been impartial , reasoned and logical . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s appeal . It noted that an identity parade could only be held once a criminal case had been opened , which was not the case in the present proceedings .","The applicant \u2019s father appealed against ORG decision . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal and fully endorsed the first - instance court \u2019s findings . It held , inter alia , that the evidence of the inquiry had reliably shown that on DATE the applicant had not been arrested as a suspect in a criminal case ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173766","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MINDADZE AND NEMSITSVERIDZE v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE and PERSON .","On DATE criminal proceedings were brought against unidentified people following an armed attack on GPE , a member of ORG ( \u201c the member of parliament \u201d ) .","On DATE the victim was questioned for the first time by an investigator . A photofit image of the attacker was created with the help of the victim \u2019s description , but the member of parliament also added that he did not know who the attacker was .","On DATE the investigator drew up a report on the handing in to the police of a ORG pistol , equipped with a silencer , by a woman and her child . Notably , according to the report , the child had found the weapon while playing with his mother in the back yard of their house , close to where the member of parliament had been attacked . The report on the handing in of the gun was also signed by CARDINAL taxi drivers and an interpreter .","On DATE , at TIME , the first applicant , who had CARDINAL convictions for robbery and drugs offences , was arrested in the street in connection with the above - mentioned criminal case on suspicion of attempted murder . He was searched in the presence of CARDINAL witnesses at the time of his arrest , which revealed that he was in possession of a PERSON pistol .","The applicant was taken under arrest to GPE police headquarters and put in an office to be questioned by a police officer , D.Ch . He confessed during the interview to conspiring with the second applicant to murder the member of parliament . In particular , as noted in the police report of CARDINAL DATE , the first applicant stated that he had been contacted by the second applicant in DATE and offered MONEY ( ORG ) to kill a man whose identity was not specified at the time . The second applicant had therefore driven him to the building where the victim lived , without explaining the reasons for the murder . He had furnished him with a ORG pistol , which had been loaded and fitted with a silencer . From that date onwards the first applicant had regularly gone to the building , however , he had not tried to kill the victim on those occasions . The second applicant had telephoned him and insisted that he carry out the plan . On DATE , the first applicant had successfully entered a garage at the same time as the victim , had fired shots at him until he had run out of ammunition and then fled . TIME , the second applicant had called him to express his discontent because the victim , although seriously injured , had survived . DATE , the first applicant had learnt from the television that the man he had tried to kill was a member of parliament .","According to the record of the questioning of CARDINAL May CARDINAL , the first applicant had been feeling remorse and had wanted to give himself up to the police for some time . He told the investigator that his confession was sincere , that he regretted committing the crime and was relieved to have been arrested . The first applicant had no lawyer present during the questioning and did not sign the record of it . As subsequently explained by PERSON , an investigator in charge of the applicant \u2019s case from the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u201c the investigator \u201d ) , the reason the applicant did not sign the record was that he had lost consciousness several times during the interview and had had to be brought round with cold water .","At TIME DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the investigator formally charged the first applicant with attempted murder , based on his confession , and , without informing the latter of his right to call in a lawyer of his own choice , assigned a public defence lawyer to him ; according to the case materials , that public lawyer was dismissed by the applicant on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and , in general , the latter replaced his defence lawyers several times as the criminal proceedings unfolded . The first applicant was taken to the scene of the crime for a reconstruction of the events , and asked to repeat his confession there , which he did in the presence of the public defence lawyer and CARDINAL independent witnesses . The applicant repeated his confession word for word , again implicating the second applicant and adding that he hoped that his sincere confession would be taken into account as a mitigating circumstance . The statements given during the reconstruction were recorded in writing , with the written record bearing the signatures of both the first applicant and the lawyer appointed for him .","DATE , the first applicant was brought face - to - face with the victim in a formal confrontation . He was lined up with CARDINAL other people in front of the member of parliament , who , after some hesitation , identified him as the attacker . After the identification parade , the member of parliament asked to speak privately with the first applicant and was allowed to do so . No one else was present during their talk .","NORP The investigator then showed the first applicant the ORG pistol and silencer which had been handed in to the police by the CARDINAL independent witnesses on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant stated that he recognised the gun as the one he had used to attack the victim . The identification procedure was recorded in writing and was signed by the first applicant \u2019s public defence lawyer .","On CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was also arrested and charged with attempted murder . A public defence lawyer was assigned to him . The charges stated that he had wanted to kill the member of parliament , who was a distant relative . As the founder of a bank which had employed the second applicant \u2019s brother , the member of parliament had demanded that the applicant and his brother repay CARDINAL , which had been found missing by an internal audit ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , the first applicant met the second applicant in a formal confrontation and accused him in accordance with his previous confession . According to a written report on the formal confrontation , the second applicant was assisted by the public defence lawyer .","On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was charged in connection with the discovery of the PERSON pistol on his person when he was arrested with an additional offence of illegally carrying a weapon .","On DATE the FAC ORG ordered at a public hearing that the CARDINAL applicants be held in pre - trial detention for DATE , until DATE . After reviewing the criminal case material and hearing the parties\u2019 oral submissions , the court confirmed the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the offences in question had been committed . A further main justification for the imposition of pre - trial detention was the assumption that the accused might abscond , in view of the severity of the possible sentence .","According to statements subsequently given to the investigative authorities by the first applicant \u2019s wife , she attended the hearing on DATE and noticed that her husband \u2019s nails had been bitten down and were blackened and that he had bandages on his wrists which he attempted to hide under his pullover .","On DATE , DATE , the first and second applicants were transferred from GPE police headquarters , where they had been held since their arrest , to , respectively , Prison no . CARDINAL and Prison no . CARDINAL in GPE . They remained in those prisons for the whole of their pre - trial detention , until their conviction at first instance ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Upon his admission to Prison no . CARDINAL on DATE , the first applicant was examined by the prison doctor , who noted in a report that there were MONEY of violence on his body .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicants and upheld the reasons given in the detention order of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , immediately after , a private lawyer , had been hired for the first applicant by his family ( \u201c the private lawyer \u201d ) , the first applicant submitted a complaint to the investigator , alleging that he had given his confession of CARDINAL DATE as a result of torture , and that those statements had not been true . The first applicant asked to be questioned again . He alleged that he had been subjected to electrical shocks and severe beatings on CARDINAL DATE and requested that a comprehensive medical examination be conducted for the purposes of establishing the exact nature of the injuries he had received .","On DATE the investigator ordered an expert medical report on the applicant \u2019s physical condition , which was only produced DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the first applicant made a submission to the GPE public prosecutor in charge of his case ( \u201c the city prosecutor \u201d ) , asserting his innocence . He specified that his first lawyer , appointed by the ORG , had been assigned to him by the investigator without his consent ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that he had done nothing to defend him , and that he had not even been offered the possibility of appointing another lawyer , CARDINAL of his own choice , at that time . The first applicant alleged that before being questioned on CARDINAL May CARDINAL he had been beaten with a square iron padlock , which had caused him to have seizures , and a doctor had had to be called .","On DATE the first applicant submitted a complaint to the city prosecutor about threats he had received in Prison no . CARDINAL . Notably , he had been threatened by unidentified people that his family would suffer if he did not stand by his confession .","On DATE the first applicant submitted an alibi to the investigator , citing the names of CARDINAL people he had been with on DATE , when the member of parliament had been injured . He requested that those people be questioned as witnesses .","On DATE the investigator rejected the first applicant \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that his guilt had been established by his own , very detailed , confession , which he had repeated in the presence of a lawyer during the reconstruction of events at the crime scene . The investigator noted that , in addition , when confronted with the second applicant , the first applicant had accused him of being the instigator of the crime . Furthermore , the first applicant had been identified by the victim . There was therefore no reason to check his alibi .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted written statements to the investigator from the CARDINAL witnesses concerned ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , supporting the alibi and stating that on DATE the first applicant had been at a church wedding ceremony and subsequent reception until TIME The lawyer repeated his request for those people to be questioned . For his part , the second applicant stated his interest in having the first applicant \u2019s alibi verified . On DATE the investigator again rejected the request , using the same grounds as on DATE .","On DATE the second applicant informed ORG ( \u201c the CPPO \u201d ) that the member of parliament had clandestinely visited the first applicant in prison at TIME on DATE to demand that he stand by his confession . In exchange , he had offered him money . The member of parliament \u2019s visit to the prison had not been officially registered , but could be confirmed by prison staff . The second applicant also complained of the fact that the expert medical report on the first applicant had still not been produced and that the people who were capable of confirming his alibi had not been questioned .","DATE the second applicant lodged several more complaints with the city prosecutor about the investigator \u2019s repeated refusals to check the first applicant \u2019s alibi . The complaints were rejected on DATE , the city prosecutor considering that there was no need to take the first applicant \u2019s alibi into account , given that he had freely confessed to the crime , and that there was no evidence in the record of his interview of CARDINAL May CARDINAL that he had alleged that he had been subjected to ill - treatment .","On DATE the first applicant submitted a written request to the investigator to replace his private lawyer who had been hired by his family and had been in charge of his defence since DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , with a new lawyer , PERSON . Dz . The applicant added that he wished to be \u201c questioned again with a view to a confession \u201d and \u201c arranging a plea bargain \u201d with the prosecution in the presence of this new public defence lawyer .","On DATE the investigator and the newly appointed lawyer PERSON . Dz . went to the prison hospital to attend the questioning of the first applicant , as he had requested on DATE . The applicant , however , refused to be questioned , without providing any explanation .","On DATE the NORP ORG granted an application by the prosecutor to extend the applicants\u2019 pre - trial detention to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE an expert from ORG commissioned by the investigator on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) issued a report on the applicant \u2019s physical condition . It appeared that the expert had not examined the applicant in person but had asked the investigator to provide him with X - rays of his head and body . CARDINAL X - rays had been sent by the investigator to the expert as late as DATE . Notably , an X - ray of his head , taken only from CARDINAL side , and an X - ray of his thorax showed that at that time he bore no signs of lesions on those parts of the body .","On DATE the second applicant \u2019s mother lodged a criminal complaint with the PERSON , alleging that the member of parliament had visited the first applicant in prison in DATE and had offered him CARDINAL NORP lari ( GEL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) to stand by his confession . The investigator had then put pressure on the first applicant \u2019s wife to convince her husband to accept the offer . She further alleged that after the member of parliament \u2019s visit , criminal bosses had been allowed to enter the applicant \u2019s cell on DATE in order to pressure him to testify as the member of parliament wished .","On DATE , DATE , the first applicant \u2019s wife lodged the same complaint as the second applicant \u2019s mother with the PERSON . She added that in exchange for the money offered by the member of parliament , her husband had been expected to dismiss the private lawyer hired by his family , stand by his confession and ask for a plea bargain with the prosecution . The member of parliament had given her an advance payment of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to convince her husband . However , when on CARDINAL DATE the first applicant had refused to make a statement confirming his confession in the presence of the investigator and the newly appointed public lawyer PERSON . Dz . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the investigator had left the hospital and GPE , a \u201c mafia boss \u201d whose criminal case had been investigated by the same investigator , had been allowed into the first applicant \u2019s cell . PERSON had threatened the applicant with death if he refused to cooperate with the investigator , giving him DATE to think about it . The first applicant \u2019s wife added that she had received threats since DATE that her child would be killed if she dared to speak about the above - mentioned events with the authorities .","The allegations of the second applicant \u2019s mother were subsequently confirmed by a journalistic investigation into the events in question ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the city prosecutor replied to the first applicant \u2019s wife and the second applicant \u2019s mother that their complaints of CARDINAL DATE were manifestly ill - founded for the same reasons given in the replies to the first applicant \u2019s repeated requests to have his alibi checked .","At DATE the first applicant dismissed PERSON . Dz . and reappointed his private lawyer ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer wrote to the GPE city prosecutor requesting , among other things , that secret recordings of various meetings between the first applicant \u2019s wife and the member of parliament \u2019s lawyer ( see the details of the journalistic inquiry at paragraphs DATE below ) be obtained from the investigation into the illtreatment case ( see paragraphs DATE below ) and added to the applicants\u2019 criminal case file . That request was rejected on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer informed the investigator that his client wished to be questioned again . The investigator questioned the first applicant DATE and he repeated all the factual details concerning his allegations of ill - treatment on DATE , gave the names of the police officers involved and detailed the threats made against him . He complained of having been coerced into accepting PERSON . Dz . as his lawyer and that his sole purpose had been to sign witness statements for the investigator .","On DATE the prosecutor applied for an extension of DATE to the applicants\u2019 pre - trial detention , until DATE . By a decision of DATE , a judge at ORG , after reviewing the application in the presence of the prosecution and the applicants\u2019 lawyers , granted the extension . As grounds for that decision on to believe that if they were released the accused would attempt to impede the establishment of the facts and evade justice . In his view , a request by the applicants to be released on bail had to be rejected for the same reasons . No reference to any specific , as given in the decision of DATE .","On DATE the investigation was completed , a bill of indictment was approved by the prosecutor and the case was sent for trial to ORG .","On DATE ORG held a pre - trial conference hearing in the case , ruling to commit the applicants for trial as defendants . The decision was rendered in a standard , template form with pre - printed reasoning . The judge simply added in the blank spaces a brief statement of the facts , the names of the accused , the definition of the impugned offence and the measure of pre - trial restraint . As regards the confirmation of the latter , the printed standard phrase read as follows :","\u201c The measure of pre - trial restraint \u2013 detention DATE has been chosen correctly . \u201d","On DATE the first applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG , alleging that he had been subjected to ill - treatment on CARDINAL DATE and requesting an investigation . He specified that at TIME he had been taken to police headquarters in GPE and placed in a room on the twelfth floor . He had been given electric shocks and beaten . The surname of the officer who had held a weapon to his head and forced him to sign a pre - prepared confession was NORP PERSON other officers , PERSON . and NORP En . , had also participated . Other police officers had also been involved , and while the applicant did not recall their names , he stated that he would be able to identify them if confronted with them . He had also been beaten on the neck with a square padlock . He had passed out while being given the electric shocks and the police officers had poured water on his head to bring him around . When he had regained consciousness , a doctor had been there who had said that he needed an injection of a sedative , but the doctor \u2019s recommendation had been ignored . The first applicant had then been told by the police officers that his flat had already been visited , drugs had been planted there , and that his wife could easily be arrested . Upon his transfer to GPE \u2019s Prison no . QUANTITY on TIME of CARDINAL toCARDINAL DATE , the prison doctor had asked him , in the presence of the police officers , if he had been beaten , but he had denied it for fear that the ill - treatment would resume .","On DATE the PERSON referred the complaint of DATE to the GPE city prosecutor and the investigator in person , asking them to take action and to inform the Chief Prosecutor of their response . On DATE the investigator replied to the first applicant directly , informing him that his criminal complaint about illtreatment had been rejected as unsubstantiated as the applicant had not supported it with evidence .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s wife complained to ORG that her husband had been ill - treated by police officers and that there had been a lack of response by the investigator and the GPE city prosecutor to her various previous complaints . She asked for the investigator to be removed from the case and for those who had carried out the ill - treatment to be identified and punished . In support of her request , she attached a copy of a report dated DATE on an examination of the applicant conducted at her request , and with the prison authority \u2019s permission , by private medical experts . That report showed that CARDINAL medical specialists \u2013 a psychiatrist , a neurologist and a trauma specialist \u2013 had examined the first applicant in prison , using the medical equipment available in the prison hospital , in the course of several visits . They first noted that the first applicant had repeated the statements he had made in his complaint of DATE . The medical experts also observed that the applicant suffered from epileptic fits , and that , according to the applicant himself , the first fit had occurred on DATE . Their view , on the basis of ultrasound and computed tomography ( GPE ) scans , was that the applicant suffered from epileptic fits which had been caused by a traumatic head injury . The ORG scan also showed a scarred lesion in the area of the joint at the nape of the neck , and signs of intracranial hypertension syndrome . A poorly healed fracture of the zygomatic bone and the left of the upper jaw was also detected . In the PERSON opinion , the physical and psychological problems that had been revealed could well have been caused , in principle , by the type of ill - treatment complained of by the first applicant .","DATE . On DATE the Inspectorate of the PERSON asked the investigations department of the GPE city prosecutor \u2019s office to set up a meeting with the first applicant for DATE with a view to checking the wife \u2019s allegations . ORG , for its part , replied to the first applicant \u2019s wife that the criminal complaint made by the applicant had already been examined and dismissed as unsubstantiated .","When questioned by an investigator of ORG DATE , the first applicant stood by his allegations that he had been tortured by the police officers on CARDINAL May CARDINAL .","Following a request by ORG , on DATE State experts drew up another medical report on the first applicant . The experts noted a wound at the nape of the neck , which was at an advanced stage of scarring and had been caused by a hard , blunt object ; various cuts on the stomach , some of which measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and QUANTITY ; and several cuts on his left forearm . The scar on the head was old and it could not be said exactly when the injury had been sustained . However , it could have been caused DATE .","DATE , ORG PERSON questioned a number of potential witnesses to the first applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment : PERSON , the investigator in the applicant \u2019s case ; PERSON , a ORG camera operator who had recorded the applicant \u2019s confirmation of his initial confession at the crime scene ; the public defence lawyer who had been assigned to the applicant after his arrest and first interview ; PERSON , the judge who had ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention on DATE ; CARDINAL relatives of the first applicant who had attended the above - mentioned hearing ; and the doctor from Prison no . CARDINAL who had carried out a visual examination of the applicant at the time of his admission to prison . None of those people said they had seen marks of ill - treatment on the first applicant . In addition , all QUANTITY police officers accused by the first applicant of ill - treatment denied those accusations when questioned by ORG .","On DATE another medical expert examined the first applicant at the request of ORG . As well as confirming the findings of the previous expert report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he added that the zygomatic bone surrounding the left eye was deformed .","On DATE the Inspectorate General of the CPPO , on the basis of the statements given by the various witnesses as well as the medical reports of DATE and DATE , decided not to institute proceedings in relation to the first applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment .","PERSON District Court quashed that decision on DATE . The court found that the investigation carried out by the prosecution authority had not been comprehensive enough , and ordered ORG to undertake further investigative actions aimed at reexamining the wellfoundedness of the serious allegations made by the first applicant . On DATE that decision was upheld at final instance by ORG , and on DATE criminal proceedings were initiated in the case under LAW ( torture ) .","After the reopening of the investigation the prosecutorial authority questioned the same people who had already been questioned in ORG . The applicant was also examined again in DATE . A report issued on DATE suggested that the deformation of the zygomatic bone surrounding the applicant \u2019s left eye could not be said with certainty to have been caused by a traumatic injury from a dense or blunt object in DATE .","According to the case file as it stands , including the parties\u2019 most recent factual addendums , the relevant authorities never took a definitive decision in relation to the investigation of the applicant \u2019s torture case under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE a trial started at the NORP ORG .","The first applicant , who was represented by the private lawyer , pleaded innocent , making particular reference to the ill - treatment he had been subjected to in order to obtain a confession . He complained that despite repeated requests the contents of the criminal file opened by ORG PERSON with respect to his alleged torture had not been added to the file in the criminal case against him and the other applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He insisted that the outcome of the criminal investigation into his ill - treatment would be of decisive importance for the assessment of the well - foundedness of the criminal charges against him and the second applicant . The first applicant also underlined the fact that he had an alibi .","The second applicant also pleaded innocent . His lawyer applied to have the record of the member of parliament \u2019s identifying the first applicant on CARDINAL DATE declared inadmissible as tainted by irregularities . In that connection , he maintained that on DATE the victim had said he was unable to identify his attacker while the photofit image created with his help had not resembled the first applicant . Later , however , he had stated that he was able to identify his attacker , and did so on DATE on the basis of the first applicant \u2019s \u201c general appearance \u201d . In addition , the first applicant had been lined up in front of the victim with CARDINAL other people who had looked totally different from him ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The second applicant \u2019s lawyer also applied to have the record of the formal confrontation between the first and second applicants , dated DATE , declared inadmissible as tainted by irregularities . Notably , the report contained the name of a public defence lawyer who had supposedly assisted the second applicant at the time . However , in actual fact the second applicant had been alone during the confrontation . Indeed , according to a letter from ORG , CARDINAL and DATE the public defence lawyer officially assigned to the second applicant on DATE had not possessed a badge allowing him to enter the main police station in GPE . Both applications were rejected by the trial court on DATE as ill - founded .","When questioned by the trial court , the woman and son who had allegedly handed in the weapon used to commit the crime to the police on DATE , according to the official version of events contained in the case file ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , stated that they had never handed in such a gun to the police . On the contrary , it had been the police who had suddenly come to her house , and had searched for and found the ORG pistol in the yard . She added that the gun that the police had found had not been equipped with a silencer .","Among other statements concerning a possible motive for the attack allegedly perpetrated by the applicants , the member of parliament told the court that as one of the founders of the bank and CARDINAL of its largest shareholders , he had recommended the second applicant \u2019s brother for the post of manager of the bank \u2019s GPE branch ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , the CARDINAL brothers had abused his trust . They had taken certain items of gold belonging to clients and a large sum of money and had disappeared in DATE . DATE , as a result of efforts made by the family , the ORG uncle had returned the objects and the money to the bank . DATE , an internal audit of the branch in question had uncovered considerable losses there . The second applicant and his brother had put pressure on the members of the audit committee to not inform headquarters in GPE . Following internal discussions in which the member of parliament had been involved in person , it had been agreed that the CARDINAL brothers would by DATE at the latest repay the USD MONEY they had embezzled by various means . The member of parliament also told the trial court that he had easily identified the first applicant on CARDINAL May CARDINAL . He confirmed that he had approached the applicant after the identification parade , with the investigator \u2019s consent , and had asked him why he had tried to kill him . During their private talk the first applicant had allegedly replied that he had not wanted to kill him but had been acting on the second applicant \u2019s orders ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","When questioned by the trial court , the CARDINAL witnesses to the reconstruction of the crime on DATE stated that they had been stopped by police officers in the vicinity of the main police station . The officers had asked them to go with them to assist in an investigative procedure and added that they would be arrested if they refused . At the station , the witnesses had seen the first applicant who , despite it being DATE in DATE , had been wearing a woollen hat . He had also had a deep bruise around CARDINAL of his eyes . The investigator had asked the first applicant CARDINAL or CARDINAL questions but he had remained silent for much of the time . When asked by the investigator about the place in question being the scene of the crime , he had simply nodded . The reconstruction had lasted TIME , at the end of which the CARDINAL witnesses had signed a record of the procedure , without reading its contents . No pressure had been put on the first applicant in their presence .","One of the men who took part in the identification parade where the first applicant had been identified by the victim on CARDINAL DATE told the court that he had been approached at random in the street by the police to take part in the line - up . He stated that , with the exception of the first applicant , all CARDINAL members of the identification parade , including himself , had been clean - shaven . Another clearly distinguishing feature had been that of the CARDINAL men in the line - up , only the first applicant had been bald . The applicant had looked exhausted and had had a deep bruise around CARDINAL eye . There had therefore been a considerable difference in appearance between the first applicant and the others .","Another participant in the identification parade , who had also been approached in the street to take part , gave the same version of events , including regarding the bruise . He added that the first applicant had been the only one not wearing a belt and without shoelaces . When the victim had identified him as the one who had shot at him , the first applicant had exclaimed that it was not him .","When questioned by the trial court , the CARDINAL taxi drivers who had signed the report of DATE on the handing in of the ORG pistol by the woman and her son stated that they had been taken to the main police headquarters under coercion , on pain of having their driving licences confiscated by the police , in order to take part as witnesses in an investigative procedure . They were told by an officer that a woman and a child were going to bring in a weapon , and they would have to confirm that fact by signing a record . They had waited in vain for TIME for the woman and child to arrive . The CARDINAL policemen had then taken a weapon equipped with a silencer out of a drawer in a table , explaining to the taxi drivers that it was the weapon in question . The police officers had drawn up a report saying that a woman and child with non - NORP names had brought the weapon to the station . The CARDINAL taxi drivers had signed the fabricated document in order to get their driving licences back and leave the LOC as soon as possible .","The interpreter whose signature was appended to the bottom of the same record of CARDINAL DATE stated before the trial court that she had not acted as an interpreter in the investigative procedure in question for a woman and child who did not speak NORP . She alleged that her signature had been forged .","DATE . CARDINAL people who had attended the wedding party of DATE also attended the hearing and confirmed the applicant \u2019s alibi by stating that they had seen him at the party , that he had stayed until TIME , and definitely until after TIME","A member of an independent human rights organisation told the trial court that at the time of the events she had had official permission from the ORG to visit prisoners who had allegedly been subjected to abuse . Following a series of complaints by the family , she had visited the first applicant DATE after his arrest . She had seen that he had a head wound , cuts on his face and had been in a generally poor condition . The first applicant had also complained to her of a fracture of the bone surrounding his eye . He had subsequently spent time in the prison hospital but had requested to be transferred back to prison because various people , including the member of parliament \u2019s lawyer , had been able to visit him in the hospital and disturb him . The first applicant had given the human rights activist the name of a police officer , a certain PERSON , saying he had been CARDINAL of the men who had tortured him on CARDINAL May CARDINAL at GPE main police station . She had immediately informed ORG and ORG of the applicant \u2019s allegations , but neither of them had reacted .","The first applicant \u2019s wife told the court that she had visited her husband in prison on DATE . She had been able to see through the glass between them that he was wearing a woollen hat , under which a plaster was visible . He had had dark circles under his eyes and his nails were blackened . She also confirmed the facts relating to her meetings with the parliamentarian \u2019s lawyer .","On application by the defence , the secret recordings of the CARDINAL meetings between the first applicant \u2019s wife and the victim \u2019s lawyer were played to the trial court ( see details of the journalistic investigation at paragraphs DATE below ) .","On DATE the ORG ruled that the following pieces of evidence were inadmissible owing to significant procedural shortcomings in the way they had been obtained :","( i ) the first applicant \u2019s confession at his first interview on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) ;","( ii ) the record of DATE of the woman and her son handing in the ORG pistol at the police station ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;","( iii ) the record of CARDINAL May CARDINAL of the first applicant identifying the ORG pistol ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the NORP ORG gave judgment . It first held that it was undeniable that the first applicant had had various injuries on his body , as confirmed by the various expert reports . However , the time , place or circumstances of sustaining the injuries had not been established .","The first applicant was found guilty of attempted murder with aggravating circumstances , on account of his attack on the member of parliament on DATE , and illegal possession of a weapon , owing to the PERSON pistol that had been found on him when he had been arrested . His guilt related to the PERSON had been proved , according to the court , by the record of the body search after his arrest and the record of the seizure of the weapon thus discovered .","The court found that the charge of attempted murder had been proved by the following items of direct evidence , which it considered to have been obtained without any major irregularities :","( i ) the written record of the first applicant \u2019s confession given during the reconstruction at the scene of the crime on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;","( ii ) the record of his identification by the member of parliament on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;","( iii ) the member of parliament \u2019s statements concerning the private talk he had had with the first applicant on CARDINAL May CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","DATE . The second applicant was also found guilty of attempted murder with aggravating circumstances and of the illicit possession of a weapon on account of his role in planning to kill the member of parliament by hiring the first applicant and providing him with a firearm . He was additionally found guilty of embezzlement on account of his complicity with his brother in misappropriating the bank \u2019s assets ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . In the trial court \u2019s opinion , the same evidence as used against the first applicant had proven the charge of attempted murder against the second applicant ( see the preceding paragraph ) :","( i ) the written record of the first applicant \u2019s confession during the reconstruction at the scene of the crime on DATE ; and","( ii ) the member of parliament \u2019s statements concerning the private talk he had had with the first applicant on CARDINAL May CARDINAL .","As to the defence \u2019s arguments concerning the lawfulness of the various records mentioned above , the trial court conceded that there had been a series of irregularities in the course of the investigative procedures in question , but they had not been such as to render the evidence inadmissible .","Both applicants appealed .","With respect to the conviction for attempted murder , the first applicant reiterated his complaints about the absence of a lawyer of his own choice at the first interviews , his ill - treatment and forced confession . According to him , numerous witnesses questioned by the judges had raised a reasonable doubt that he had been able to participate properly in the confirmation of his confession during the reconstruction of the events at the scene of the crime on DATE . Nevertheless , the record of that procedure had been considered a key piece of evidence in establishing his guilt . The second piece of evidence used to establish his being guilty of attempted murder \u2013 the record of his identification by the victim \u2013 had also been tainted by irregularities . In fact , contrary to the requirements of Article CARDINAL of LAW , the other men who had lined up with him had all looked healthy , had had full heads of hair , had been cleanshaven and had been wearing belts and shoes that had been laced up . He , on the other hand , was partially bald , had been injured and looked tired , had not been able to shave for DATE and had had no belt or laces . The first applicant also referred to the secret recordings of the meetings between his wife and the member of parliament \u2019s lawyer ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . Those recordings had been played to the trial court judges , but they had chosen not to mention them in their judgment or take them into consideration in any way .","The second applicant \u2019s appeal had similar arguments as regards the conviction for attempted murder . He specifically complained that while the trial court judges had confirmed his guilt by reference to the record of the confirmation of the first applicant \u2019s confession during the reconstruction at the scene of the crime on DATE , that specific item of evidence had clearly been tainted by the ill - treatment the first applicant had suffered at the hands of the police .","On DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the ORG appeals . As far as the alleged illtreatment was concerned , the criminal chamber affirmed that it was not in dispute that the first applicant had had marks of violence on his person . Nevertheless , the circumstances under which the injuries had been sustained and who had caused them were not known . The court held that the guilty verdict against both applicants had to be upheld in its entirety . The first and second applicants were convicted , respectively , to CARDINAL and CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The cassette contains a recording of the investigative journalism programme TIME . The recording in question is about the applicants\u2019 case and is entitled \u201c Contract murder , or rigged investigation ? \u201d","Amongst other details , the programme aired secret video - recordings of CARDINAL meetings between the first applicant \u2019s wife and the member of parliament \u2019s lawyer .","At the first meeting , which took place DATE before DATE , the lawyer offered an advance payment to the first applicant \u2019s wife to ensure that her husband replaced the lawyer he had chosen with PERSON . Dz . , who was trusted by the member of parliament . It was with the help of that new lawyer that the applicant was expected by the member of parliament to stand by his initial confession . The first applicant \u2019s wife replied that her husband \u2019s lawyer could do the job just as well , but the member of parliament \u2019s lawyer stated that that lawyer could not be trusted in such dealings .","The secret recording of the second meeting showed how PERSON . Dz . , by then appointed as the first applicant \u2019s lawyer on the advice of the member of parliament \u2019s lawyer , handed over ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the first applicant \u2019s wife on behalf of the member of parliament ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) ."],"violated_articles":["3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144129","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MUSTAFA ERDO\u011eAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The first and the second applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively .","At the time of the events the first applicant PERSON was a professor of constitutional law at ORG in GPE . The second applicant Mr PERSON was the editor of the DATE publication ORG and the third applicant PERSON ORG was a joint - stock company and the publisher of ORG ( hereinafter : \u201c the publishing company \u201d ) . Mr PERSON , the president of the board of members of ORG ORG at the material time , applied to the ORG on behalf of the publishing company .","In DATE an article entitled \u2018 GPE \u2019s ORG problem in the light of its decision to dissolve the FAC [ Virtue ] Party\u2019 written by the first applicant was published in Liberal Thinking . It read as follows :","\u201c ORG has finally delivered its judgment on ORG at DATE , which lasted DATE , and has dissolved the party on the grounds that it had become \u2018 a hub of activity contrary to [ the ] principles of ORG . As a result , the high court has decided that ORG and PERSON , who were members of parliament at the date of the judgment , [ should be ] stripped of their parliamentary status and it has prohibited former parliamentarians PERSON , PERSON and PERSON from participating in political activities for DATE . CARDINAL members of the ORG have dissented and I am of the opinion that their names should be mentioned : PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .","The judgment of ORG has naturally created widespread discontent throughout the country . Apart from a few fanatical individuals in the media who have character deficiencies , everyone who is sensible and whose conscience has not been paralysed has considered the judgment legally wrong and politically inappropriate . Even people whose sensitivities to democratic issues have never been that obvious have criticised LAW about this judgment . Nevertheless , it is clear that concerns about the difficulties that the judgment might cause GPE in its dealings with ORG and ORG have played a great role in the emergence of this reaction . Moreover , it is commonly believed that this judgment was not the product of the free will of ORG but that it was brought about under pressure [ from ] and at the suggestion of military circles .","It is certain that the dissolution of ORG is closely related to the current political situation , the direction of which has been determined by the status quo powers ( \u2018 the deep ORG ) . However , it seems to me that we can not be sure whether the ORG was put under direct pressure . The first point is important to find out the nature of the present regime in GPE . From a legal point of view , however , what is more important is how ORG gave such a judgment . In other words , the people who should be criticised and who should be held responsible are the CARDINAL judges at the ORG , all of whom are \u2018 PERSON and \u2018 ORG . The real issue is to examine to what extent the professional backgrounds and intellectual capacities of these individuals are sufficient for such a job and to question whether they had the right to act in accordance with their prejudices . This can be done only through analysing the judgment from a legal point of view . As a matter of fact , the reasons for judgment have not yet been published . But there is nothing wrong in subjecting the judgment to such an analysis in its form as pronounced to the public . Besides , I do not think that the reasons for judgment when they are published in a few GPE time will invalidate our first analysis . Our observations and information regarding the previous judicial approach of the ORG demonstrate that the reasoning in the judgment will be \u2018 prearranged\u2019 . In other words , in the established practice of the ORG the thing which is termed \u2018 the reasoning\u2019 is fabricated and formulated at subsequent stages to justify the predetermined judgment [ made ] on the basis of prior opinions . Now we can submit our first legally relevant observations and evaluation of this judgment .","ORG did the right thing by not dissolving ORG on the grounds that \u2018 it was a continuation of a party\u2019 . The ORG might have acted in this way for CARDINAL reasons : firstly , the ORG might have maintained the type of interpretation which it adopted in its previous judgments on the meaning of \u2018 being a continuation\u2019 of a party . This means that a distinction was made between continuation in the sociological sense and the continuation of a political tradition , and continuation in a technical legal sense among consecutive political parties . This is an extraordinarily appropriate legal understanding . If this is the case , it means that ORG considered that ORG , while continuing the political line represented by PERSON ( national order ) and ORG in the sociological and political sense , was not the continuation of ORG with another title .","A second possibility might be the fact that ORG adopted the view which is insistently voiced by some constitutional law experts , including the author of this article . According to this view , LAW stipulates that \u2018 a party which was dissolved can not be re - established under another title\u2019 , but neither the LAW nor the Law on Political Parties require that the sanction of dissolution be applied to such a party if it has acted contrary to LAW . If this was the reason for which ORG refused ORG request to dissolve ORG on the basis of it being a continuation of ORG , this only demonstrates that the court did not , at least , violate the positive law in this respect . This in itself does not deserve praise , since acting to the contrary would have been openly unlawful .","On the other hand , ORG decision to dissolve ORG on the grounds that it had become \u2018 a hub of activity contrary to the principles of ORG is clearly contrary to the law and has no factual or legal basis . This judgment is faulty on CARDINAL grounds . Firstly , the activity which is claimed to be \u2018 contrary to secularism\u2019 \u2013 in fact , it is only comprised of words [ and ] statements \u2013 does not have such characteristics . Most of them concern expressions of concern [ about ] the social consequences of the lack of freedom created by the prohibition on wearing the headscarf . In other words , these statements have the nature of being demands for freedom voiced by Members of ORG \u2013 mostly from the podium of ORG . Criticism of a prohibition , especially if it is voiced by members of parliament , can not be contrary to any democratic and constitutional regime . As long as it is voiced in a peaceful way , a demand for freedom can not be contrary to the principles of secularism and democracy , even if the right or freedom which constitutes the subject of the demand has not been recognised in positive law . Besides , wearing the headscarf is not prohibited for university students in NORP law . The prohibition on wearing the headscarf which has been implemented in GPE in DATE is not a requirement of the current legal order , but it is a result of current power relations . In other words , the existence of this prohibition is a de facto and not a de jure phenomenon .","Secondly , even if it was against the law for university students to wear the headscarf , this would not make the party whose members are criticising the prohibition and demanding its removal contrary to secularism in a democratic system . Let us leave this fact aside and let us assume that such criticism and such a demand for freedom are contrary to secularism . Even in this case , the fact that some MPs or party members are making such criticism individually does not make the party \u201c a hub \u201d of that activity . In fact , being the \u201c hub \u201d or \u201c focus \u201d of any kind of activity for an organisation means the following : that the activity arose from the centre of that organisation , it is directed , controlled and administered by that centre ; and that the activity is performed intensively , decisively and continuously . The facts in the trial record clearly demonstrate that these criteria did not apply to the legal personality of ORG . Apart from [ the fact that it was ] far from being in a position to become the \u201c hub \u201d of the [ relevant ] activity , ORG did not become a determined follower of the issue of the headscarf ban in addition to many other issues . In fact , this party has been the most \u201c obedient \u201d party of the system for DATE and did not hold a clear and decisive view on any major issue , probably because of the fear of being dissolved .","It seems that ORG considered PERSON election as an MP for ORG \u2013 she is still an MP \u2013 and the support given by the party to her as proof of the claim that the party had become \u201c a hub of activity contrary to the principles of secularism \u201d . In other words , according to ORG , the election of a citizen who wears a headscarf as an MP and her attempt to take the oath in ORG while wearing the headscarf are contrary to secularism . This is an unsound understanding for many reasons . First of all , if \u201c national sovereignty \u201d is CARDINAL of the true \u2013 not fake \u2013 basic principles of GPE \u2019s constitutional order , no constitutional organ , particularly ORG , whose legitimate authority stems from this principle , can impose any restrictions on the nation \u2019s right to elect its representatives . PERSON was put forward as a candidate by ORG , but she was elected by the NORP nation . If ORG had found this fact to be contrary to secularism , it would have \u201c annulled \u201d the nation . Secondly , there is no provision in the LAW stipulating that a person who wears a headscarf can not be an MP and that she can not take the oath in ORG in a headscarf . [ Nor does ] such a provision exist in ORG \u2019s standing orders . This can be understood from the fact that an initiative was recently launched in ORG to add such a prohibition to its standing orders . Besides , even if there were such a provision , this would be considered null and void because it would be contrary to the LAW . In fact , ORG does not have the right to act [ in a way ] which would bring about the abolition of the ORG rights to elect representatives and to be elected as representatives , which are CARDINAL of [ their ] basic rights . Actually , since the aim of the standing orders is to ensure the conduct of ORG \u2019s activities in an orderly way , a right can not be annulled with such a procedural action .","This judgment demonstrates that the dominant majority of ORG continues to apply its incorrect understanding of what \u201c secularism in a democratic system \u201d is . Unfortunately , ORG has interpreted secularism in many of its judgments in a totalitarian manner . According to the ORG , secularism is not a pro - freedom and pro - peace principle restricting the ORG , but is a higher principle legitimising the imposition by the ORG of a certain way of life on citizens . ORG considers secularism as the categorical refusal of the demands of religion in the social , public and political arenas . Therefore , it thinks that secularism authorises the ORG to remove manifestations of religion in society . Moreover , it exalts this principle to the level of being the most important value of the constitutional order . According to this understanding , democracy , the rule of law and human rights are all secondary values , which should [ only ] be recognised to the degree allowed by secularism .","Here , the more interesting point is that ORG insists on continuing the doctrine of \u201c secularism as a project of social engineering \u201d , which was developed during the authoritarian ( occasionally totalitarian ) CARDINAL - party era , in the democratic - pluralist environment . It also stubbornly ignores the pro - freedom \/ democratic criticism of this notion . Despite the fact that even the NORP literature on the subject of \u201c secularism in a democratic system \u201d has expanded to a considerable degree in the last QUANTITY or fifteen years , our judges in ORG turn a blind eye to this literature . Furthermore , in this trial at least , our senior judges did not need to undertake additional efforts to obtain new sources and information on this issue . For example , there was detailed information in the defence brief on how secularism is understood and implemented in contemporary democracies , but it seems that the members of the ORG did not read these passages or if they did , they ignored it .","In this connection , the CARDINAL judgments of ORG which directly concerned the issue of wearing headscarves and its judgments dissolving ORG and ORG indicate that this matter has become the key focus of secularism . The conclusion which the ORG has reached can be formulated as the following : \u201c to demand the freedom of wearing the headscarf means categorically being against secularism DATE and indirectly against the LAW . \u201d This is a totally wrong idea regardless of the perspective one has : it is anti - democratic , it is anti - freedom , it is contrary to secularism and it is pro - conflict . It is anti - democratic because it restricts in an arbitrary way the field of democratic politics and the sphere of activity of democratic political actors . It is anti - freedom because it is oppressive and imposing . It is contrary to secularism because it oppresses religious choices and creates discrimination on the grounds of religion . Finally , it is pro - conflict because it forces the ORG to quarrel with society and in this way it allows the ORG to destroy the social peace and order .","NORP The part of this judgment which ends the MP status of some politicians and prohibits them from involvement in further political activities does not contain valid grounds pertaining to the relevant individuals . Specifically , the application of the sanctions against ORG on the grounds that she \u201c was one of the people who brought about the dissolution of their party with their activity contrary to secularism \u201d bears no relation to reality and is a ridiculous assertion . The situation is really awkward . A high court imagines that it protects \u201c secularism \u201d by prohibiting a person from being involved in political activities and by ending the MP status of that individual , who meets the criteria of a \u201c contemporary way of life \u201d and \u201c contemporary personal appearances \u201d perfectly . Everybody knows that she has never been in favour of a political regime established on the basis of religion and that she has never made any effort in this direction . This is a typical example of the attitude of the ORG demonstrating the absurd results [ its ] formalist legal reasoning can produce .","All these explanations highlight that the statement of the chairman of ORG to the effect that \u201c there is nothing we can do , the laws force us to act in this way , if you do not want us to do so , change the laws \u201d , has no value from a legal point of view . It is true that the LAW and the laws in GPE are not pro - freedom ; therefore , it is , of course , necessary to improve the positive law . But the major problem in the judgment which dissolved ORG is not the unsuitable character of the current law . The problem is that ORG interprets the LAW and the laws which are in force in an authoritarian and narrow - minded way . Let us leave the necessity of ORG complying with the provisions of LAW and the GPE case - law [ to CARDINAL side ] . There are no serious grounds for dissolving ORG , even on the basis of the LAW and the Law on Political Parties . But there is no need [ to know ] the [ provisions of those ] laws to understand this fact . The notions which are needed are the notion of law , which does not see legitimacy as the same as the law [ itself ] , a considerable amount of knowledge about the technique of interpretation and legal reasoning and sensitivity to freedom and democracy . In other words , our problem is the fact that most of our constitutional law judges do not know the law , and do not have knowledge of democracy , political and constitutional theory or secularism . Nor do they intend to acquire it .","It is assumed that the pro - freedom and pro - democracy case - law of ORG is brought about by the strict interpretation of the LAW . The real situation is different from the one which is assumed : when deciding on cases on the basis of the LAW , which does not include the concept of a \u201c political party \u201d , ORG concludes them by applying a broad interpretation to the provisions concerning freedom of association and expression in accordance with [ general ] principles and the universal understanding [ of those concepts ] . The NORP constitutional court judges , if they wished to do so and could develop the necessary intellectual skills , could ease the restrictive provisions of positive law in GPE . So long as they wanted to do so .","Moreover , it is difficult to consider the aforementioned statement of the chairman to be sincere . If the problem is [ one of ] making changes to the LAW and the law , ORG actually enacted a statutory amendment , which defined [ what it means ] for political parties to become a \u201c hub \u201d in a highly reasonable way and which set criteria to ensure its implementation . Why did ORG annul this amendment in accordance with an authoritarian understanding ? In this case , the problem is related to the fact that our constitutional court judges have not taken on board freedoms , rather than the assertion that the current laws are unsuitable .","This latest judgment of ORG has demonstrated another thing : the professional capabilities of most of the court members are insufficient for the job . Moreover , they are not willing to compensate for this insufficiency . They are closed to knowledge , they have no passion for their jobs and they are incapable of becoming open - minded . They try to fulfil the requirements of their vital duty , finding their way out by sticking together , without feeling uneasy about it . It is because of this reason that the obstacle to freedoms in GPE is not ORG , which does not change the LAW and which does not enact the necessary laws . The real obstacle is ORG , which does not shy away from being the systematic shredder of freedoms . It is urgently necessary to deal with the issue of membership in ORG . \u201d","It appears that following the publication of the article all members of ORG brought separate civil actions against PERSON , Mr PERSON and the publishing company ( hereinafter \u201c the defendants \u201d ) , seeking damages for the injury they claimed to have sustained as a result of the applicants\u2019 serious attack on their honour and integrity through the publication of the above article , which had contained , in their view , defamatory passages .","The present applications concern the damages claims brought against the applicants by PERSON , Mr Y.A. and PERSON , judges and in the case of the last claimant , the president , of ORG at the material time .","Before the domestic courts the applicants maintained that , while the expressions used in the article had been severe in terms of form and style , they had remained within the limits of the freedom of expression , as they had had a basis in fact . In this connection , the applicants , referring to the case - law of ORG , asserted that the article in question had criticised the judgment of ORG with respect to its decision to dissolve ORG , that the acceptable limits of criticism should be more extensive for judges , high level public officials and politicians than others , and that value judgments which were made on the basis of fact were in conformity with the law .","On this latter point , the applicants , relying on the views of various academics , politicians and journalists , underlined that a segment of the public believed \u2013 rightly or wrongly DATE that the judgment of ORG had been given under the influence of the military and that there were certain parallels between the outcome of the judgment and the general political situation existing in GPE at the time . Likewise , again relying on various articles , notably certain statements made by a number of judges sitting on the bench of the higher courts , including ORG , the applicants argued that the statements regarding the lack of skill of the judges sitting at FAC were not without any factual basis .","The applicants submitted that numerous criticisms had been voiced against the judgment of ORG by academics , journalists and politicians , and underlined that the first applicant , who was a professor of constitutional law , had consistently emphasised in his publications that the basic function of constitutional courts DATE or similar organs \u2013 in constitutional democratic systems is to serve as the guarantee of basic rights against arbitrary actions of the ORG and that high court judges DATE and indeed judges in general DATE have to avoid giving judgments corresponding to their ideological opinions and political tendencies .","On DATE the CARDINALth Chamber of ORG of First Instance ordered the applicants to pay PERSON , jointly , MONEY ( GPE \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) in damages , plus interest at the legal statutory rate running from the date the article in question was published .","In its judgment , the court referred to the following passages :","\u201c ... it is commonly believed that this judgment is not the product of the free will of ORG but that it was brought about under pressure from and at the suggestion of military circles ... it is certain that the dissolution of ORG is closely related to the current political situation , the direction of which has been determined by the status quo powers ( \u2018 the deep ORG ) . However , it seems to me that we can not be sure whether the court was put under direct pressure ... From a legal point of view , however , what is more important is how ORG gave such a judgment . In other words , the people who should be criticised and who should be held responsible are the CARDINAL judges at the court , all of whom are \u2018 PERSON and \u2018 ORG . The real issue is to examine to what extent the professional backgrounds and intellectual capacities of these individuals are sufficient for such a job and to question whether they had the right to act in accordance with their prejudices ... In other words , our problem is that most of our constitutional law judges do not know the law and do not have knowledge of democracy , political and constitutional theory and secularism . Nor do they intend to acquire it ... This latest judgment of ORG has demonstrated another thing : the professional capabilities of most of the court members are insufficient for the job . Moreover , they are not willing to compensate for this insufficiency . They are closed to knowledge , they have no passion for their jobs and they are incapable of becoming open - minded . They try to fulfil the requirements of their vital duty , finding their way out by sticking together , without feeling uneasy about it . \u201d","NORP The court held that the author , in the above statements , had asserted that the members of ORG had rendered their judgment under pressure , that the judges of the court did not know the law , and that their professional knowledge and intellectual capabilities were insufficient . It considered that these expressions constituted defamation of the members of ORG , including the claimant , who had rendered the judgment ordering the dissolution of ORG .","On DATE ORG held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .","On DATE ORG dismissed the GPE request for rectification of its decision . The defendants were fined in accordance with LAW . This decision was served on the applicants\u2019 lawyer on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the CARDINALth Chamber of ORG of First Instance ordered the applicants to pay Mr Y.A. , jointly , GPE CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in damages plus interest at the legal statutory rate running from the date of the publication of the article .","In its decision , the court observed that , when read as a whole , the article , instead of merely criticising the establishment , development , and selection of members of ORG or providing a technical criticism of the judgment , had contained severe attacks against the judges themselves and their professional or analytical capabilities . Referring to various passages , notably those mentioned by DATE Chamber above , DATE Chamber considered that the author , who had accused the judges of serious misconduct such as receiving instructions , of acting irresponsibly and of not being independent and lacking reasonable logic and conscience , had gone beyond objective and technical criticism of ORG and its judgment and that the article had therefore defamed the claimants .","On DATE ORG held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .","On DATE ORG dismissed the GPE request for rectification of its decision . The defendants were fined in accordance with LAW . This decision was served on the ORG lawyer on DATE .","Likewise , on DATE the CARDINALth Chamber of ORG of First Instance ordered the applicants to pay PERSON , jointly , TRL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in damages , plus interest at the legal statutory rate running from the date the article in question was published .","NORP In its decision , the court , referring to similar passages to those relied on by the other Chambers , considered that the contents of the article had upset the balance between freedom of expression and the need to protect a person \u2019s dignity and honour , and that the author had overstepped the boundaries of acceptable criticism and had used words which constituted defamation .","NORP In this connection , the court stated that the aim of press freedom is to provide correct and truthful news regarding issues of public interest , and that the privileges attached to press freedom were not without limits . It noted in that regard that the freedom of the press was limited by the private law rights and obligations established by the relevant provisions of LAW and LAW . The court underlined that in its duty to inform , the press was limited in its criticism by the following rules : truthfulness , public interest , topicality and interconnectedness between the thoughts , the subject and the words used .","The court opined that in the present case , while the overall content of the author \u2019s article had been within the boundaries of criticism , certain remarks contained in the article had gone beyond the limits of acceptable criticism , there had not been harmony between the form and the content , the content had gone beyond the subject of criticism , and words used in the article had constituted defamation of the claimant . It held that the author could have made the same criticism without the use of these words .","On DATE ORG held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .","On DATE ORG dismissed the GPE request for rectification of its decision . The defendants were fined in accordance with LAW . This decision was served on the applicants\u2019 lawyer on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168933","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GERASIMENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","PERSON was a major in the police . He was born in DATE .","On DATE he was promoted to chief of the NORP branch of ORG of the ORG .","On TIME DATE PERSON had a birthday party . Shortly after returning home from the venue , he left again .","DATE a.m. on DATE PERSON took a taxi to the PERSON shopping centre on FAC in GPE . He was wearing police uniform and was armed with a handgun .","Initially , he fired several gunshots at the driver , PERSON , who died of his injuries in hospital .","After PERSON got out of the car , he walked between some apartment blocks . Near CARDINAL of them he saw CARDINAL people he did not know , PERSON and Mr K. Without saying anything , he opened fire and shot PERSON times and PERSON twice . After a while he saw PERSON and shot at him , also without saying a word . PERSON however managed to run away .","PERSON then walked towards the PERSON shopping centre . As it was open TIME a day , there were always people inside . PERSON opened fire at a group of people who were near the entrance , firing CARDINAL shots at the first applicant and CARDINAL shot at the second and third applicants . Another person , PERSON , was also wounded .","PERSON entered the shopping centre and approached Mr T. and PERSON Without saying a word , he shot Mr T. in the head . After he fell to the ground , PERSON took PERSON by the arm , pointed the gun at her head and , holding her hostage , continued moving through the shopping centre . Eventually , PERSON managed to break free and run away .","When he passed a checkout counter , PERSON shot at a cashier , PERSON , who was killed instantly .","Staff and customers of the shopping centre tried to hide from PERSON Some of them used the fire exit and found themselves in the service yard of the shopping centre . PERSON followed them and , threatening them with his gun , ordered all the women who were hiding behind some boxes to step forward . CARDINAL of them , PERSON , was trying to protect her pregnant daughter who was hiding together with her . She obeyed and approached PERSON He then pointed the gun at her head and pushed her towards a wall . He apparently intended to shoot her , but was distracted by a police unit that arrived at the scene . The police ordred him to let the people go , and surrender . PERSON started shooting at the police and PERSON was able to escape , as were the other people hiding in the service yard . PERSON was subsequently apprehended by the police .","In the course of the events PERSON killed CARDINAL people and wounded several others .","The first applicant suffered injuries to his head and body . He had a bullet entrance wound to the side of the face ( parotic region ) and an exit wound near the nose . He also had concussion and fractures to the walls of the right maxillary sinus and lower jaw . He also had a penetrating wound to the lumbar region , a ruptured spleen , a penetrating wound to the liver and diaphragm ligaments and a foreign body in the mediastinum .","The second applicant suffered head wounds . She had a perforating wound to the left cheek and oral cavity with a fractured lower jaw .","The third applicant had a non - penetrating wound to the left of the neck , a fractured left shoulder blade and a foreign body in the neck muscles .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against PERSON on CARDINAL counts of murder and CARDINAL counts of attempted murder in and around the Ostrov shopping centre .","On CARDINAL DATE PERSON was dismissed from the police with effect from DATE .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE PERSON \u2019s mother was questioned . She submitted , in particular , that as a child he had had head injuries . At the age of TIME he had suffered from severe headaches and throughout his school years he had been under the supervision of a neuropathologist . After the seventh grade he had been transferred to a different school because he would frequently have disagreements with his schoolmates . After the ninth grade he had been exempted from his school examinations on medical advice .","DATE and DATE a forensic psychological and psychiatric examination of Major PERSON was conducted by CARDINAL psychiatrists and a psychologist . According to the conclusions set out in report no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG did not suffer from any mental disorder , but had \u201c accentuated \u201d personality traits . The conditions he had suffered as a child and head injuries had led to the development of emotional instability , excitability , anxiety and demonstrative behaviour . This explained the difficulties in his adapting to school life and his behavioural deviations , which required psychiatric help . At the time of committing the offences he was accused of PERSON had not suffered from any temporary psychiatric disorder \u2013 that was apparent from the lack of evidence of his being in a psychotic state accompanied by delirium or hallucinations . He was able to understand the meaning of his actions and control them . He was neither a drug addict nor an alcoholic , although at the time of the events he had been in a moderate state of alcohol intoxication , as confirmed by an expert medical examination .","NORP The psychologist who participated in the forensic examination stated that after his promotion in DATE until the time of the events PERSON had been in a \u201c subjectively complex \u201d situation . This had included an increased volume of work and management of a new team . PERSON \u2019s qualities such as perfectionism , being highly demanding toward himself and others , needing to control all areas of professional activity and intolerance towards colleagues lacking diligence or competence had required , in the given situation , full use of his physical and personal resources . At the same time he had not been as enthusiastic about his new job as he had been about his previous job . Significant limitations on his independence and permanent accountability coupled with a lack of satisfaction from his work had led to emotional tension . PERSON had repeatedly wished to leave his job , but had felt responsibility for his duties and towards his subordinates . He had felt exhausted and had asked for leave , which his superiors had not granted him at the time . A complicated relationship with his wife had constituted another source of frustration . Furthermore , news of his direct supervisor leaving his job had constituted an additional traumatic factor , causing feelings of confusion unusual for PERSON TIME before the events PERSON had had his birthday party , which he had organised in the hope that he could relax in the company of his family and friends . However , on TIME of the party he had been busy at work and after leaving for DATE , had expected to be called back . He had therefore been in a state of emotional tension . The fact that his wife and her father had been late for the party and the subsequent strained conversation he had had with her , coupled with his work - related anxiety and the feeling that the party had not gone as planned , had amplified the accumulated emotional tension and exhaustion . At the time of committing the offences PERSON had not been in an emotionally disturbed state .","NORP In DATE ( the exact date is illegible ) the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings .","On an unspecified date the third applicant was also granted victim status in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG convicted PERSON of CARDINAL murders , CARDINAL counts of attempted murder , including the attempted murder of the applicants and law - enforcement officials , and the unlawful use of firearms . He was sentenced to life imprisonment . The court also stripped him of the rank of major .","When questioned in court PERSON pleaded partially guilty . He submitted that he had no recollection of the events and could not explain where and how he had come into possession of the handgun or cartridges . However , he did recognise himself on the footage of the ORG at the shopping centre and therefore admitted that he had killed a man and tortured a woman , although he could not explain why he had done so . He pleaded not guilty with regard to all the other charges .","The court questioned numerous witnesses , who confirmed the account of events given in the preceding paragraphs . In particular , PERSON \u2019s wife submitted that on returning from his birthday party he had behaved strangely . After he had left , she had called his parents and they had started to search for him . Police officers PERSON and Ya . , who had apprehended PERSON at the PERSON shopping centre , submitted that when they had asked him why he had done it , he had responded that \u201c [ you ] should live [ your ] life in such a way that [ you ] would not want to live it again \u201d . According to police officer Ya . , PERSON also said that if he had had a machine gun \u201c [ it ] would have been more fun \u201d and , in response to a question about where he had got the firearms , he responded that , being police officers , they should know .","The court also noted that ORG had had a DATE PERSON ShI CARDINAL handgun and CARDINAL cartridges . It further referred to information provided by ORG on CARDINAL DATE to the effect that the cartridges used by ORG had been manufactured at the factory in DATE and DATE . It had supplied cartridges to , in particular , ORG of the Interior . There had been no instances of cartridge theft reported . The court also referred to information provided by ORG of the ORG to the effect that the handgun used by PERSON had been reported stolen from the arms store of ORG of the Interior for GPE . It also referred to a judgment issued by ORG of GPE - on - PERSON on DATE convicting CARDINAL officials of the theft of CARDINAL handguns from that arms store in the period DATE , which included the handgun used by PERSON","According to the Government , on DATE a criminal investigation into arms trafficking was instituted under LAW with respect to the sale of the handgun and ammunition to PERSON However , it was subsequently suspended as the culprit could not be identified .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld PERSON \u2019s conviction and sentence on appeal .","On DATE , an investigator from ORG at ORG of GPE , addressed the Minister of the ORG with a recommendation on measures to be taken with a view to rectifying the circumstances that had been conducive to the crime being committed . The recommendation noted that according to the forensic psychiatric examination , PERSON had been found to be of sound mind . However , since childhood he had been under the supervision of a neuropathologist on account of his psycho - emotional instability , but this had not been taken into account by the military medical panel which had found him fit to serve in the police . In the course of the psychological examination it had been established that CARDINAL of the reasons for his psychologically traumatic situation had been his promotion to the position of chief of the NORP branch of ORG of the ORG . Referring to the findings of the forensic examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the recommendation mentioned that PERSON had not been as interested and enthusiastic about his new duties as he had been about his previous work in the criminal police . Significant limitations on his independence and permanent accountability together with a lack of satisfaction from his work had led to emotional tension .","The recommendation went on to say that on DATE PERSON had undergone an appraisal . ORG had decided that he corresponded to the position he held and considered his promotion a possibility . However , the investigation established that PERSON had not been fit for the position of chief of the NORP branch of ORG of the ORG due to his moral and professional qualities . In particular , he had a poor knowledge of police service in the domain of public security and was irritable with his subordinates . ORG had therefore had a very perfunctory attitude towards its duties , and the appraisal had not corresponded to the objectives set by the applicable regulations . Improper performance of duties by staff members of the human resources services of the agencies of the interior and their perfunctory attitude towards recruitment and the promotion of staff had led to persons unfit due to their personal and professional qualities being promoted to senior positions . Furthermore , ORG had failed to conduct explanatory work with its staff to ensure respect for the rule of law , despite its functioning being based precisely on the principles of respect for human rights and humanism . The actions of PERSON had thus discredited the police .","The recommendation concluded that the above - mentioned failures on the part of the agencies of the interior had contributed to D.E committing serious crimes . It advised that measures should be taken aimed at their rectification .","On DATE , the date PERSON was convicted , ORG also issued a special ruling . It stated that in the course of the trial it had been established that in his childhood PERSON had been treated for conditions related to mental disorders and disorders of the central nervous system in medical institutions of agencies of the interior . However , those circumstances had not been taken into account when PERSON had been accepted to serve in the police and subsequently promoted to chief of the NORP branch of ORG of the ORG , even though the relevant medical data had been available at the institutions that provided medical care to the staff of the agencies of the interior . There had thus been a breach of section CARDINAL of LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Order of the Ministry of the Interior of DATE and section CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the Order of the Ministry of the Interior of DATE .","Furthermore , the court noted that in the course of the trial it had been established that when committing the offence PERSON had used cartridges that had been manufactured in ORG which had supplied cartridges to , in particular , ORG of the ORG . According to information submitted by the factory , no instances of cartridge theft were reported . The court thus concluded that , while holding the position of chief of the NORP branch of ORG of the ORG , PERSON had obtained the cartridges in breach of the Instruction concerning the storage of firearms established by Order of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE and had later used them for committing particularly serious offences .","Having regard to the irregularities in the functioning of ORG which had contributed to the offences committed by PERSON , the court ruled that it would draw the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the said irregularities and invite him to take measures aimed at their rectification .","The first and second applicants sued PERSON for damages . The first applicant claimed compensation for medical expenses in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) , and the second applicant in the amount of RUB CARDINAL . Each applicant also claimed RUB CARDINAL as compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE the Nagatinskiy ORG of GPE partially allowed the claims . The court established that PERSON had been responsible for causing injuries to the first and second applicants . The court awarded RUB CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) to the first applicant and RUB CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) to the second applicant for pecuniary damage . It stated , in particular , that whereas the first applicant \u2019s medical expenses in the amount of RUB CARDINAL had been necessarily incurred , he had also claimed RUB CARDINAL in respect of surgery he would have to undergo in order to extract a bullet from his anterior mediastinum . However , according to the forensic expert examination conducted , such surgery was not recommended since the bullet was separated from the tissue and did not pose a danger to the first applicant \u2019s health , whereas any attempt to extract it might lead to unexpected complications . Having regard to the defendant \u2019s financial situation and making its assessment on an equitable basis , the court also awarded RUB CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) to the first applicant and RUB CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) to the second applicant for non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","On an unspecified date the first and second applicants instituted proceedings against ORG , ORG and ORG for damages , arguing that they had suffered injuries as a result of the unlawful actions of a ORG official . PERSON participated in the proceedings as a third party .","On DATE the Nagatinskiy ORG of GPE dismissed the first applicant \u2019s claim . The court stated that under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , the ORG was liable for the unlawful actions of a ORG official performed in the course of his duties . However , if a ORG official caused damage as a result of activities unrelated to exercising the duties of the ORG service , he was liable under LAW . The court found that in the case at hand PERSON \u2019s unlawful actions that had caused damage to the first applicant had taken place TIME at the PERSON shopping centre , outside PERSON TIME and the territorial jurisdiction of the NORP branch of ORG of the ORG . They had therefore been unrelated to his duties as a ORG official . The fact that at the relevant time he had held the position of chief of the NORP branch of ORG of the ORG and had had the rank of major did not constitute grounds for the ORG \u2019s liability under LAW , as it had been established that PERSON had caused damage as a result of activities unrelated to the duties of his service . The court also dismissed the first applicant \u2019s arguments that the ORG should be held liable for the damage because ( i ) at the time of the events PERSON had been dressed in police uniform ; ( ii ) he had used cartridges that had belonged to the NORP branch of ORG of the ORG ; ( iii ) under LAW of LAW a police officer carried out his or her duties irrespective of the time , place or his or her position ; and ( iv ) PERSON had been dismissed from service for discrediting the police . The court held that under LAW of LAW , as a general rule a police officer carried out his or her duties taking into account his or her position , duty TIME and whereabouts . Exceptions to that rule were provided in section DATE ) and ( CARDINAL ) and concerned instances where a police officer had to take urgent measures to provide assistance to victims of offences , save lives , prevent a crime being committed or apprehend a person suspected of committing an offence . In such cases a police officer had to perform his or her duties irrespective of his or her position , duty hours and whereabouts . However , this was not the situation at hand and therefore PERSON had not been acting in the exercise of his ORG duties and there were no grounds to hold the ORG liable for his actions . The fact that he had been wearing police uniform and had used cartridges that had belonged to the NORP branch of ORG of the ORG had no bearing . The fact that PERSON had been dismissed for discrediting the police meant that his actions had been incompatible with the status of a police officer , but not that he had performed the actions that had caused damage to the first applicant in the course of his duties .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . It noted that there was no evidence that would unequivocally confirm that the actions in question had been performed by PERSON in the course of his duties as a civil servant .","On DATE the Nagatinskiy ORG of GPE dismissed the second applicant \u2019s claim . The court \u2019s reasoning was identical to that in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE in respect of the first applicant \u2019s claim .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . As in its decision of DATE , it noted that there was no evidence that would unequivocally confirm that the actions in question had been performed by ORG in the course of his duties as a civil servant .","Subsequently , having regard to the special ruling of ORG of DATE , the first and second applicants applied for the civil proceedings to be reopened in the light of newly discovered circumstances .","On DATE the Nagatinskiy ORG of GPE dismissed their requests in CARDINAL separate rulings . It held that there were no significant new circumstances that would warrant reopening the proceedings .","On DATE the third applicant underwent a polygraph test to assess her perception of the police officers after the events of DATE . According to the results of the test , on DATE she had taken PERSON for a police officer and , as a result of the events , had developed feelings of fear and apprehension towards police officers .","Between DATE and DATE an expert psychological examination was conducted with a view to establishing how the fact that at the time of the events PERSON had been wearing police uniform had affected the third applicant \u2019s psychological state . According to the results of the examination , police uniform affects a person \u2019s behaviour as in general people tend to display loyalty and obedience towards symbols of authority due to the latter \u2019s legitimacy and conventionality and their fear of reprisal in the event of their refusal to obey . The fact that the perpetrator had been wearing police uniform had undoubtedly affected the third applicant \u2019s behaviour and psychological state and had limited her ability to choose a behavioural pattern aimed at protecting her life and health . At the time of the examination the third applicant felt an uncontrollable fear of officials wearing police uniform . When she saw CARDINAL she felt anxiety , apprehension and panic . There was a direct connection between the events and the third applicant \u2019s psychological state characterised by depression , emotional tension and instability , negative feelings , the tendency to avoid new experiences , a pessimistic outlook on life and a change in moral values .","On DATE the third applicant instituted proceedings against ORG for damages . She argued that damage had been caused as a result of a police officer \u2019s unlawful exercise of his powers . She argued , in particular , that ( i ) PERSON had used firearms that he had obtained in the course of his service in the police ; ( ii ) any judicial decision recovering damages from PERSON would remain unenforced since , being convicted to life imprisonment , he would have no sources of income and therefore no assets to recover the judgment debt from ; ( iii ) the polygraph test had proven that on TIME of the events the third applicant had taken PERSON for a police officer ; and ( iv ) according to the results of the expert psychological examination , the fact that PERSON had been wearing police uniform had affected the third applicant , rendering her defence difficult .","On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the claim . Relying on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW and referring to PERSON \u2019s conviction , the court found no evidence that damage had been caused to the third applicant by the unlawful actions of a law - enforcement officer . The court found that the claim had been brought against the wrong defendant and that it should have been brought against PERSON It dismissed the argument that any judgment against PERSON would remain unenforced as speculative . The third applicant \u2019s reference to the fact that PERSON had used cartridges that had belonged to ORG of the ORG was also dismissed as \u201c being based on a wrong assessment of the facts established by the court \u201d . The court also stated that the third applicant \u2019s personal perception of the perpetrator dressed in police uniform did not constitute grounds for allowing the claim . It further noted that the reference to the ORG \u2019s case - law in the statement of claim constituted an arbitrary interpretation of judicial decisions irrelevant to the case .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158500","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CHUKAYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Free legal assistance;Insufficient means);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lived before his arrest in GPE , a village in the FAC region .","On or around DATE the applicant sold drugs to B. and O.","On DATE B. and ORG sold a quantity of those drugs to PERSON . , a police officer taking part in an undercover operation .","In DATE the GPE branch of ORG ( \u201c FSKN \u201d ) instituted criminal proceedings against B. and O. When questioned they submitted that they had purchased drugs from the applicant , who lived in GPE .","On DATE the FSKN instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and ordered a \u201c test purchase \u201d from him , to be carried out with the help of B. and CARDINAL undercover police officers , PERSON . and P.","The covert operation took place DATE in a hotel in GPE , where PERSON . had booked a room . Audio recording devices were installed in the room and the hotel was placed under surveillance . The applicant alleged that during the operation the police had poisoned him with an unknown substance , which had resulted in him being admitted to a prison hospital .","According to the arrest record drafted at TIME on DATE , police arrested the applicant in the hallway of the eighth floor of the hotel on the grounds that \u201c witnesses and eyewitnesses indicated that the applicant had committed a criminal offence \u201d . The record also indicated that immediately after his arrest the applicant had been apprised of his right to be assisted by counsel and that he had been searched . The search and its results were described as follows :","\u201c ... PERSON was asked to hand over of his own free will any powerful narcotic substances ... he had been keeping on himself unlawfully , money acquired illegally ... In reply to the investigator \u2019s request , PERSON explained that he had none of those things except money , which he had made illegally from selling a narcotic substance , heroin , in a quantity of CARDINAL grams . He also explained that the money he had made illegally was in his bag , and submitted that he wished to give it [ to the investigator ] of his own free will . As a result of the personal search , PERSON ORG took the money out of his bag voluntarily ... \u201d","According to the applicant , investigator PERSON refused to provide him with a lawyer immediately after his arrest on the grounds that no investigating activities were being carried out in respect of him , therefore he did not need a lawyer . The applicant also stated that he had not been questioned on DATE of his arrest .","According to the arrest record , which he had signed , the applicant had made no comments concerning its contents or any other matters , and his wife had been notified of his arrest over the telephone .","Following the personal search , the investigator seized other money found in his pockets along with his identity papers , mobile phone and some other items . The personal search was photographed .","On DATE the investigator ordered fingerprint and palm print chemical expert reports . The applicant \u2019s fingerprints and palm prints were taken . The applicant alleged that he had not been informed of the request for these reports or their results . He had only learnt of the expert analyses while reviewing the criminal case file in DATE .","On DATE the investigator started questioning the applicant as a suspect . According to the interrogation report , lawyer Or . was present during questioning . The applicant alleged that he had refused to give a statement for health reasons , whereas the interrogation report stated that he had invoked his right not to incriminate himself and refused to testify . According to the interrogation report , which he had signed , the applicant had no comments concerning its contents or any other matters .","On DATE the ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) remanded the applicant in custody . He alleged that counsel Or . had not represented him properly at that hearing . His detention was extended on several subsequent occasions . He remained in detention until his conviction on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was charged with drug offences and questioned in the presence of counsel I. It is apparent from the record of that interview duly signed by him that he had understood the charges against him and denied all of them . He refused to make a statement .","On DATE new charges were brought against the applicant in the presence of his counsel . He was charged with CARDINAL counts of drug trafficking , namely unlawfully acquiring , transporting and possessing drugs with intent to sell , and selling drugs to B. and O. in DATE and PERSON . on DATE .","On DATE ORG returned the criminal case to the prosecutor because the applicant had not had sufficient time to review the criminal case file . In DATE he finished doing so .","The trial took place in LOC DATE . The applicant was represented by counsel PERSON and NORP The court heard him and several witnesses , and examined the pre - trial statements of absent witnesses as well as physical evidence .","The applicant denied all the charges against him . He testified , in particular , that he had met PERSON in DATE and had helped him to buy fish wholesale . On DATE they had met because PERSON had brought some money he had owed him and had wanted to arrange another purchase of fish from him with PERSON .","During the examination of the first set of charges against the applicant , namely unlawfully acquiring and possessing drugs and selling drugs to B. and O. in DATE , ORG heard , and the applicant questioned , ORG , Av . , GPE . , ORG . , Iv . and PERSON . as witnesses .","Witness O. testified that in DATE he and PERSON had gone to GPE from GPE and had bought fish from the applicant . Later , the applicant had contacted them and said that he could supply more fish . They had gone to GPE again , where PERSON had bought drugs from someone . At the end of the investigation of the criminal case against him and PERSON , the police had asked them , in exchange for a more lenient sentence , to go to GPE again and incite the applicant to sell them drugs . He had refused , whereas B. had agreed .","O. \u2019s testimony in court contradicted his earlier statements made during the pre - trial investigation and the prosecutor asked to have his pretrial statement read out in court . The applicant did not object to this request and it was granted .","It was apparent from ORG \u2019s pre - trial statement that he and his business partner PERSON had been buying fish in GPE and selling it in GPE . In DATE , during their stay in GPE , B. had met the applicant , who had promised to help them purchase some fish . In DATE they had again been in GPE , where they had bought heroin from the applicant and transported it to GPE .","Witness Av . , a police officer , testified that he had taken part in the planning of the covert operation in DATE and had been present at the time of the applicant \u2019s arrest and personal search . He had heard the applicant say at the time of his arrest that he had made money from selling drugs .","Witnesses Le . and ORG . , police officers from the GPE police department , submitted that they had taken part in B. and O. \u2019s arrest in DATE after they had tried to sell drugs to an undercover police officer .","Witness Iv . submitted that in DATE police had asked him to be an attesting witness during a search of PERSON \u2019s apartment in GPE .","Witness PERSON . submitted that in DATE police had asked him to be an attesting witness in the covert operation .","The prosecutor submitted CARDINAL requests to have PERSON summoned as a witness ; however , according to medical documents submitted to ORG , PERSON could not attend the hearing because he had a serious oncological condition ( cancer ) and accompanying speech problems . ORG then granted the prosecutor \u2019s request , despite the applicant \u2019s objections , to have PERSON \u2019s pre - trial statement read out and admitted as evidence .","Witness PERSON testified in his pre - trial statement that his business partner PERSON had introduced him to the applicant in DATE . The applicant had agreed to be an intermediary in his business , which involved supplying fish in GPE . On or around DATE B. and O. had come to GPE to buy fish . The applicant , however , had not had enough fish for them . B. had serious financial difficulties so O. had suggested buying drugs from the applicant . O. had assured PERSON that he had an established drug distribution network in GPE and that he would help PERSON to sell drugs within DATE to resolve his financial troubles . That had been the first time B. had learnt that the applicant sold drugs . On or DATE the applicant had sold QUANTITY of heroin to B. and O. They had then transported it to GPE . The police had arrested them there when they had been trying to sell heroin .","ORG also read out and admitted pre - trial statements of CARDINAL prosecution witnesses as evidence .","Witness NORP testified in his statement that in DATE he had organised and supervised the covert operation during which B. and ORG had sold drugs to undercover officer PERSON .","Witness PERSON . testified that he had gone undercover to buy drugs from B. and O. during the covert operation in DATE . He described the manner in which it had been carried out .","Attesting witnesses PERSON , NORP and PERSON testified in their statements that in DATE the police had asked them to serve as attesting witnesses in the undercover operation , during which they had observed the manner in which the test purchase had been carried out in respect of B. and O.","During the examination of the second set of charges against the applicant ORG questioned QUANTITY police officers ( PERSON . , PERSON and PERSON . ) and CARDINAL attesting witnesses .","Witness Sh . submitted that in DATE he had taken part in the test purchase from the applicant . B. had identified the applicant as the dealer . During the covert operation he and PERSON had met the applicant several times in the hotel room . At their last meeting the applicant had sold PERSON . QUANTITY of heroin .","Witness PERSON testified that he had been responsible for monitoring the undercover operation in respect of the applicant in DATE .","Witness PERSON . testified that he had arrested the applicant immediately after the test purchase , and that he had said at the time of his arrest that he had made money from selling drugs .","Witnesses PERSON . and Ba . testified that the police had asked them to serve as attesting witnesses in the undercover operation , during which they had observed the manner in which the test purchase had been carried out in respect of the applicant .","ORG also read out a pre - trial statement of absent witness B.","B. testified that he had agreed to take part in the test purchase from the applicant . A police officer , ORG . , had been designated as the buyer . In late PERSON had called the applicant to inform him that he had already sold the drugs to a certain person , someone who was interested in buying more drugs from him , but as wished to do so in person he would come to GPE . The applicant had agreed and said that he would arrange the deal .","B. then described in detail how the covert operation had been carried out DATE . In particular , he had called the applicant several times over DATE to arrange a meeting with him . On DATE the applicant had come to their hotel and B. had introduced him to Sh . , who had asked the applicant to supply him with QUANTITY of heroin and discussed other terms of the deal . The applicant had said that he could only get QUANTITY of heroin and they had agreed to meet DATE . On DATE the applicant had come to their hotel and said that he had contacted the dealers and that they would call him back . They had all stayed in the hotel room until the applicant had received a telephone call . The applicant told them that he would bring the heroin DATE . On DATE the applicant had come to their hotel with QUANTITY of heroin . When PERSON . had asked him about the remaining amount , the applicant had explained that he could bring more in DATE . However , he had QUANTITY on him for personal use so PERSON . had agreed to buy that too . PERSON . had handed money over to the applicant , who had said that he would go downstairs to get change . When he had left the room he had been arrested by the police .","On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to nine years\u2019 imprisonment , after finding him guilty of drug offences , in particular the sale of drugs to PERSON in DATE and PERSON . on DATE . The court admitted the following material as evidence :","( i ) the statements made during trial by ORG , Av . , GPE . , ORG . , Iv . and PERSON . and the pre - trial statements of PERSON , NORP , PERSON . , PERSON , NORP and Z ;","( ii ) the statements made during trial by PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON . and Ba . and the pre - trial statement of B.","( iii ) a record of the examination of the banknotes used to buy drugs from the applicant ;","( iv ) the test purchase record ;","( v ) the arrest record of DATE ;","( vi ) a transcript of the audio recording made in the course of the test purchase ;","( vii ) forensic chemical examination reports of substances seized at the crime scene ;","( viii ) a forensic examination report of the applicant \u2019s palm prints .","The court did not examine the forensic report of the applicant \u2019s fingerprints or admit it as evidence .","The forensic examination report of the applicant \u2019s palm prints showed that the applicant had had no drug residue on his palms .","ORG did not use the applicant \u2019s interrogation report of DATE as evidence .","In his appeal against the conviction the applicant complained , among other things , that the trial court had not ensured the presence of a key prosecution witness , B.","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction . It held that according to medical certificates , PERSON was suffering from cancer and could not speak . The trial court had therefore lawfully decided that his situation could be considered to be \u201c other exceptional circumstances \u201d which had prevented him from appearing at the hearing , and that his testimony could be read out in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant applied to the Presidium of ORG for a supervisory review of his conviction .","On DATE it examined the applicant \u2019s case by way of supervisory review . Neither the applicant nor his counsel were present at that hearing . The ORG amended the judgment of DATE as upheld on DATE in so far as the applicant \u2019s actions on DATE had been classed as a drug offence , and held that his actions should have been classed as an attempt to commit a drug offence . It upheld the remainder of the judgment of DATE .","On DATE a judge of ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) referred the case to the Presidium of ORG for examination on the merits , at the request of ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE by way of supervisory review , on the grounds that the applicant had not been duly informed of the date of the hearing , and had therefore been unable to attend . It remitted the case to the Presidium of ORG for fresh examination .","On DATE the applicant requested the Presidium of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to provide him with legal aid counsel for the hearing before it . He claimed that he had insufficient means to pay for a lawyer .","On DATE the ORG examined the criminal case against the applicant by way of supervisory review . He was present at the hearing and was assisted by legal aid counsel ORG","The applicant objected to the panel of the ORG on the grounds that it had already examined his case by way of supervisory review on CARDINAL DATE . The ORG dismissed this objection , finding that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been quashed on procedural grounds . There was therefore no reason to exclude these judges from the new examination of the case .","The applicant submitted on the merits of the case that at the time of his arrest he had not been informed of his rights or provided with a lawyer and that the record of his arrest had been forged . He also had not received a copy of the arrest record or been able to question key prosecution witness PERSON at the trial .","Having examined the case file , the ORG found that the applicant \u2019s grounds of appeal were unsubstantiated . In particular , it held that the arrest record of DATE had been duly authenticated and signed by the applicant , who had been informed of his rights , including the right to be represented by counsel . He did not however request that counsel be instructed or make any comments in the record . The ORG also noted that statements by prosecution witnesses had been read out at trial in accordance with the law .","The ORG amended the judgment of DATE as upheld on DATE , held that the applicant \u2019s actions on DATE should have been classed as an attempt to commit a drug offence , and upheld the remainder of the judgment of DATE .","By a decision issued on DATE the ORG ordered the recovery of counsel \u2019s fees in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) from the applicant for the representation in the supervisory review proceedings .","In the course of the criminal proceedings the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE during the following periods :","( a ) DATE ;","( b ) DATE and DATE ;","( c ) DATE and DATE ; and","( d ) DATE and DATE .","During the first CARDINAL periods the applicant was detained in different cells . All of them were overcrowded and infested with insects . They measured QUANTITY each and contained CARDINAL bunk beds . He did not have an individual sleeping place and inmates had to take turns to sleep . Some cells were not equipped with ventilation system , while in others it was not working . The electric lighting was always on . The toilet was not separated from the rest of the cells .","During his last period of detention the applicant was detained in cell CARDINAL located in the basement . He was not provided with any bedding or cooking utensils . Remand prison officers told him that he should have brought his own bedding . The cell was very cold and damp . Since he did not have any bedding he was obliged to sleep in his clothes . The windows were closed all the time and let in no daylight . The cell was never ventilated . The toilet was in the corner of the cell and offered no privacy . The dining table was very close to the toilet . The cell was infested with insects . Detainees could take a TIME shower once a week .","On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to correctional colony IK-CARDINAL in the FAC region to serve his sentence . It appears that in DATE he was transferred to correctional colony IK-CARDINAL , also in the GPE region .","The applicant submitted that the authorities of IK-CARDINAL and IK-CARDINAL had opened and read a number of the ORG \u2019s letters to him , in particular CARDINAL dated DATE acknowledging receipt of his application and giving him further information on the conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , and others dated DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , and DATE . The applicant provided the ORG with copies of these letters . All of them had been stamped by the colony authorities .","The applicant also submitted that the colony authorities had delayed in sending the ORG \u2019s letters to him .","DATE . The Government claimed that during his detention in IK-CARDINAL and IK-CARDINAL the applicant had sent CARDINAL letter to the ORG and had received CARDINAL letters from the ORG . The receipt and dispatch of letters had been properly recorded in the prison log book . Some letters addressed to the applicant had been opened for registration purposes only . They had not been censored and had been handed over to the applicant in their entirety . CARDINAL letter had been forwarded to the applicant after a DATE delay due to an omission by CARDINAL of the prison employees who had been duly reprimanded in the intervening period ."],"violated_articles":["3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c","6-3-d"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150545","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"GAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON ( PERSON o\u011flu PERSON ) , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","NORP The applicant had been granted legal aid and was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","At TIME on DATE , after having participated in a robbery with another person , the applicant voluntarily appeared at a police station . According to the applicant , on arrival at the police station he was arrested .","At TIME on DATE the investigator in charge of the case drew up a record of the applicant \u2019s arrest as a suspect ( tutma haqq\u0131nda protokol ) . The record was signed by the investigator and the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was charged with the criminal offence of robbery as defined under LAW . On DATE the prosecutor requested that the preventive measure of remand in custody be applied in respect of the applicant .","At TIME on DATE the Sumgayit City Court granted the prosecutor \u2019s request and remanded the applicant in custody for a period of DATE . The court also held that the beginning of the detention was to be calculated from DATE .","According to the applicant , at the hearing before the first - instance court his lawyer complained that under domestic law , a suspect should not be detained for CARDINAL , but the court left the complaint without consideration . However , according to the record of the hearing DATE the content of which was not disputed by the applicant \u2013 held in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer , the lawyer only asked the court not to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant because he was young and had confessed to the crime .","The applicant did not appeal against ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a request with ORG , asking the court to place the applicant under house arrest in lieu of being remanded in custody . He submitted that the applicant had voluntarily presented himself to the police , that there was no risk of his absconding , that he was suffering from a kidney disease , and that he was a student .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request , finding that there was no need to change the preventive measure of remand in custody . It appears from the record of the hearing that the applicant \u2019s lawyer raised the same arguments in support of the request during the hearing in the court .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . In his appeal , the applicant asked the court to replace his detention on remand with house arrest , noting that , when ordering his pre - trial detention , the court had not taken into consideration the fact that he had no criminal record , that he had voluntarily given himself up to the police , as well as his state of health and other personal circumstances . The applicant also complained about his detention as a suspect from DATE , claiming that he had not been brought before a judge within TIME of his arrest as required by domestic law .","On DATE ORG partially granted the appeal and replaced the applicant \u2019s remand in custody with the preventive measure of house arrest . The appellate court \u2019s decision made no mention of the part of the complaint relating to the applicant \u2019s alleged unlawful detention in excess of the maximum DATE period .","The relevant provisions of LAW ( \u201c the CCrP \u201d ) concerning arrest on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence are described in detail in the ORG \u2019s judgments in PERSON v. GPE ( no . PERSON , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","Chapter LII of the CCrP lays down the procedure by which parties to criminal proceedings may challenge actions or decisions of the prosecuting authorities before a court . Article CARDINAL provides that a victim or his counsel may challenge actions or decisions of the prosecuting authorities concerning , inter alia , arrest and detention on remand or violation of the rights of an arrested person . The judge examining the lawfulness of the prosecuting authorities\u2019 actions or decisions may quash them if he or she finds them to be unlawful ( Article CARDINAL ) . The judge \u2019s decision may be challenged before an appellate court in accordance with the procedure established in ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the CCrP."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158877","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MAHAMED JAMA v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was ( to her knowledge ) born in DATE and at the time of the introduction of the application was detained in PERSON , ORG .","The applicant entered GPE in an irregular manner by boat on CARDINAL DATE . Upon arrival , she was registered by the immigration police , given an identification number ( DATE ) , and presented with CARDINAL documents in LANGUAGE , one containing a Return Decision and the other a Removal Order .","The Return Decision stated that she was a prohibited immigrant by virtue of LAW ) because she was in GPE \u201c without means of subsistence and liable to become a charge on public funds \u201d . ORG also informed the applicant that her stay was being terminated and that she had the possibility to apply for a period of voluntary departure . LAW was based on the consideration that the applicant \u2019s request for a period of voluntary departure had been rejected . It informed the applicant that she would remain in custody until removal was effected , and that an entry ban would be issued against her . The CARDINAL documents further informed the applicant of her right to appeal against ORG before ORG ( \u201c the IAB \u201d ) within DATE .","According to the applicant , the contents of the decision in LANGUAGE were not explained to her , although she could not understand the language . According to the Government , in practice the immigration police inform the migrants verbally in LANGUAGE about their right to appeal , and the migrants translate for each other .","The applicant was further provided with an information leaflet entitled \u201c Your entitlements , responsibilities and obligations while in detention \u201d in LANGUAGE , a language she did not understand . According to the Government the applicant did not request a booklet in another language .","In accordance with LAW ( see Relevant domestic law ) , the applicant was detained in FAC .","During the registration process upon her arrival , in the absence of an interpreter , the applicant \u2019s age was recorded as CARDINAL ( born DATE ) . She claims to have told the authorities that she was DATE . According to the Government , it emerged from the authorities\u2019 records ( not submitted to ORG ) that the applicant declared that she was born in DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed against ORG . By DATE of the introduction of the application ( DATE ) , no date had been set for her appeal hearing by the ORG .","DATE following her arrival the applicant was called for an information session provided by the staff of ORG . She was assisted in submitting FAC ( ORG ) , thereby registering her wish to apply for asylum under LAW , LAW of LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) . She stated on the form that she was DATE .","On an unspecified date DATE after her arrival in GPE , the applicant was called for an interview with a member of ORG ( AWAS ) staff , who informed her that as she had claimed to be DATE she would be interviewed by CARDINAL members of ORG staff with a view to assessing the veracity of her claim that she was a minor .","DATE , CARDINAL people from AWAS interviewed her . During the interview a male detainee provided interpretation services . After the interview they informed her that as they could not confirm her minor age through the interview they would send her for a further age verification ( ORG ) test - an X - ray of the bones of the wrist . The applicant was taken for the ORG test DATE after her interview , on DATE .","At DATE , as the applicant had not received any decision from the ORG , she asked a woman from ORG ( who was visiting the detention centre to conduct interviews with other detainees who had health problems ) whether she knew anything about her case . The woman told her that her X - ray was being assessed and if she was found to be a minor she would be released soon . DATE , on DATE , some other people from AWAS went to the centre and told her that according to the test she was not a minor but an adult . During the latter meeting a fellow ( female ) detainee provided translation .","By DATE of the lodging of the application the applicant had not received a written decision informing her of the outcome of the age assessment procedure . According to the Government a decision on the applicant \u2019s age was taken on DATE ; no date was submitted regarding notification . The Government submitted that since no care order was issued the applicant was obviously not a minor .","The applicant was detained in ORG in PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in conditions which she considered prison - like and basic . The Government contested this allegation .","She explained that the Block is divided into CARDINAL self - contained zones ( CARDINAL on the ground floor , CARDINAL on the first floor and CARDINAL on the second floor ) and CARDINAL of the zones ( B , C , D , E ) were virtually identical . For DATE of her detention she had been held in Zone E which at the time accommodated families ( i.e. couples with or without children ) , and then she was moved to GPE and D with other single women .","These zones contained a number of dormitories ( containing bunk beds but no lockers or cupboards for personal belongings ) , CARDINAL showers and toilets , a small kitchen with CARDINAL or CARDINAL hot plates and a fridge ( no further storage for food , which was stored in open boxes accessible to insects , was available ) , and a common room with CARDINAL basic metal tables and benches screwed to the ground , together with a television . Blankets hanging from bunk beds were the only means of privacy .","Access to the zones was through metal gates which were kept locked DATE , and detainees could leave the zone for DATE , which they could spend in a small dusty yard . Windows were barred and most of them glazed with opaque Perspex ( which was removed in DATE for air , though they then let air through in DATE ) . On the one hand , in DATE the facility was often crowded and the heat would become oppressive despite the presence of ceiling fans . On the other hand , in DATE it was unbearably cold as the facility was not heated and , moreover , was exposed to the elements as there were no adjoining buildings .","The applicant considered that the facility was shared by too many people \u2013 in DATE the applicant \u2019s dormitory ( CARDINAL out of CARDINAL in the zone ) was shared by QUANTITY women \u2013 and agreement amongst so many different persons having cultural and linguistic differences was difficult . However , at the time of the introduction of the application , the applicant was in less crowded conditions , sharing an entire zone with CARDINAL other women , most of whom were NORP and NORP .","The applicant noted that since her arrival she had only been provided with CARDINAL bed sheets , a small towel , a blanket , a T - shirt , CARDINAL pillow and a pillow case , a few items of underwear and a pair of flip - flops , as well as a plastic plate , cup , and set of cutlery . Other items of clothing were distributed sporadically . She stated that she was never provided with a quilt , a bra or running shoes . While toilet paper was distributed on a DATE basis , certain basic items such as sanitary pads were missing . In DATE detainees were not systematically provided with warm clothes and closed shoes , which were distributed according to what was received by way of donation and which was not sufficient to supply the needs of all detainees . Although blankets were distributed to everyone , the building was not heated and DATE were unbearably cold .","Detainees had little to do DATE , and only limited access to open air . In particular , the applicant noted that she was let out into the small dirty yard for the first time only after DATE of detention . While in the yard , other male detainees called out names and picked on the women from the windows of their rooms overlooking the yard . The applicant referred to the report \u201c Not here to stay : Report of ORG on its visit to GPE on DATE \u201d , DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","She also noted that although telephone cards were distributed ( each of LAW ( EUR ) ) , the credit they contained was often insufficient to make long distance calls and no cheaper ways of keeping contact with the family or outside world were available as they had no internet access . By the time she lodged her application she had received LAW in credit . The applicant also considered inappropriate that detainees were given the same soap to use for their bodies , hair , clothes and floor . The applicant further made reference to an incident with a detention officer who had pushed her down the stairs and tried to forcefully resuscitate her by slapping her and grabbing different parts of her face leaving her in pain \u2013 she , however , admitted that she could not recognise the officer in question and that she had feared reprisal had she reported the matter .","Furthermore , as could be seen from the results of ORG ( JRS ) LOC study on detention of vulnerable asylum seekers , the physical conditions of detention and their impact on the physical and mental well - being of detainees were exacerbated by other factors . These factors included : length of detention , lack of constructive activities to occupy detainees , overcrowding , limited access to open air , difficulties in communication with staff and with other detainees , and lack of information about one \u2019s situation . Moreover , there was a lack of any real possibility of obtaining effective redress and inmates knew that detention was not serving any useful purpose and was in no way proportionate to the aim to be achieved .","The applicant submitted that all of those objective factors had had a particular impact on her because of her personal circumstances , particularly her young age , her inability to communicate in anything but NORP and the fact that as a young woman she was detained in a facility administered almost exclusively by men .","On DATE the applicant was called for an interview with the Refugee Commissioner . By means of a decision of the Refugee Commissioner of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was granted subsidiary protection in GPE . She was notified of this decision and released on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168404","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"KAMENICA AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . All the applicants are nationals of GPE and are represented by PERSON , a lawyer practicing in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON .","Following its declaration of independence from the former Socialist GPE ( SFRY ) in DATE , a brutal war broke out in GPE . CARDINAL people were killed and CARDINAL others were displaced as a result of \u201c ethnic cleansing \u201d or generalised violence . The following local forces were the main parties to the conflict : the ORG ( mostly made up of Bosniacs and loyal to the central authorities in GPE ) , ORG ( mostly made up of NORP ) and the ORG ( mostly made up of NORP ) . The conflict ended in DATE when ORG for Peace ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) entered into force between GPE , GPE and GPE ( succeeded by GPE in DATE ) .","\u017depa , a town in eastern GPE , is situated QUANTITY from the border with GPE . Before the war it had a population of CARDINAL , of whom the majority were Bosniacs . During the war , PERSON was one of CARDINAL PERSON enclaves in eastern GPE surrounded by the ORG . In DATE it was declared a \u201c safe area \u201d by ORG .","NORP In DATE , there were CARDINAL people living in \u017depa , of whom CARDINAL were displaced persons from other parts of GPE .","On DATE the ORG attacked the PERSON \u201c safe area \u201d , capturing it on DATE . In DATE that followed , CARDINAL LOC \u2013 predominantly able - bodied men who had refused to surrender to ORG forces DATE managed to cross the border and flee into GPE . The present applicants were among them .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","When PERSON was captured by the ORG , the applicants crossed into GPE from GPE , hoping that they would be able to find refuge in a third country . They were discovered by the border guard of the LAW and taken to CARDINAL detention camps . The applicants claim that they received notification that they had prisoner - of - war status ; it would appear that some of them were indeed members of ORG but some were civilians . The first camp , ORG , was situated in the municipality of PERSON and the second , PERSON , in the municipality of PERSON , both in GPE . The GPE detention camp was located in an abandoned workers\u2019 barracks and the PERSON camp in a former children \u2019s recreational facility .","During their existence the camps were visited by representatives of ORG and ORG for Missing Persons of GPE . The latter compiled a report in which it found that the conditions of detention were disturbing .","DATE the ORG facilitated the transfer of the camps\u2019 detainees to third countries and the camps were closed in DATE .","On DATE LAW ( GPE pravo ) , a GPE - based ORG , lodged a criminal complaint on behalf of the applicants with ORG against CARDINAL individuals for alleged war crimes . In the criminal complaint it was alleged that , when the applicants were discovered at the NORP border , the army and the police had used force against them and transported them to the aforementioned camps . Both camps had been guarded by officers of the NORP police force and none of the applicants had been allowed to leave them . According to the applicants , during the time they spent in the camps they had been regularly verbally abused , taken to mock executions , kicked and punched , and beaten with fists , batons , cables , shovels and metal rods . Some of the applicants had had burning cigarettes held against their skin , had been forced to drink water mixed with motor oil and some had also been sexually abused ( in particular , some of the applicants had been forced to perform sexual acts on each other ) . The applicants who had been suspected of being members of the ORG had suffered particularly harsh treatment and had been forced to engage in mutual fights , look directly into the sun , move heavy rocks and had been denied medical assistance .","NORP In its criminal complaint LAW submitted statements by the camps\u2019 detainees , medical documentation , documentation from ORG and ORG for Missing Persons of GPE , and other evidence . Amongst those who were alleged to have taken part in torture , the ORG identified members of ORG , police officers , and military servicemen of various ranks .","On DATE ORG undertook preliminary verification of the information submitted by the applicants and requested that ORG and ORG submit information regarding the criminal complaint .","On DATE and DATE ORG submitted CARDINAL reports to the ORG . In their reports it was stated that the situation in the camps had been generally good , that the camps had not been enclosed behind a fence , and that residents who were given refugee status had had access to health services , a canteen , a post office , a phone , a bank , and both private visits and visits by officials from international organisations . While CARDINAL of the reports describes the conditions in GPE camp as unsatisfactory , the conditions in PERSON were described as lodgings with the quality of \u201c hotel accommodation \u201d .","On DATE ORG notified LAW that it did not find any grounds for initiating criminal investigation since the alleged acts could not be classified as war crimes or any other crime under the jurisdiction of ORG . On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal before ORG claiming violations of ORG , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention . On DATE ORG rejected the applicants\u2019 constitutional appeal as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the LAW , finding that the notification in question was not an act which was decisive with respect to the applicants\u2019 human rights .","On DATE ORG , acting upon a civil action for damages brought by CARDINAL of the applicants , PERSON and PERSON , delivered a final judgment in civil proceedings in which it found that the applicants in question had suffered \u201c intensive torture and inhumane treatment \u201d and that the \u201c applicants survived what was without a doubt the harshest suffering an individual [ could ] experience \u201d . The court further described the actions of the guards towards the CARDINAL applicants and other detainees as \u201c conduct ... hardly worthy of a human being \u201d . Each plaintiff was awarded MONEY ( ORG ) in non - pecuniary damage .","The decision of ORG was delivered to the ORG representative on DATE .","LAW of the Socialist GPE DATE ( ORG of ORG \u2013 ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , in ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , and in ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) was in force until DATE . The relevant provisions thereof are set out hereunder .","Article CARDINAL governs the statutory limitation periods in respect of criminal liability . The relevant parts are worded as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If not prescribed differently by this LAW , criminal liability shall be statutebarred :","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the offence was committed in instances where the law provides for the death penalty or DATE imprisonment ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the same Code is worded as follows :","\u201c The statutory limitation of criminal liability does not apply to the crimes covered by Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of this Code [ genocide and war crimes ] or to crimes for which statutory limitation is proscribed by international treaties . \u201d","The Criminal code of GPE ( Official Gazette of GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , GPE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE .","Article CARDINAL governs the statutory limitation periods in respect of criminal liability . The relevant parts are worded as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If not prescribed differently by this LAW , criminal liability shall be statutebarred :","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the offence was committed where the law provides for DATE imprisonment ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the same Code is worded as follows :","\u201c The statutory limitation of criminal liability does not apply to crimes covered by LAW of this Code [ genocide and war crimes ] or to crimes for which statutory limitation is proscribed by ratified international treaties . \u201d","Article CARDINAL - War crime against the civilian population","\u201c Whoever , acting in violation of the rules of international law applicable in time of war , armed conflict or occupation , orders that a civilian population be subject to killing , torture , inhumane treatment , biological experiments , immense suffering or violation of their bodily integrity or health ; dislocation or displacement or forcible conversion to another nationality or religion ; forcible prostitution or rape ; application of measures of intimidation and terror , hostage - taking , imposition of collective punishment , unlawful transfer to concentration camps or other illegal arrests and detention , deprivation of rights to fair and impartial trial ; forcible service in the armed forces of the enemy \u2019s army or in its intelligence service or administration ; forced labour , starvation of the population , property confiscation , pillaging , illegal and intentional destruction or large - scale stealing of property that is not justified by military needs , taking an illegal and disproportionate contribution or requisition , devaluation of domestic currency or the unlawful issuance of currency ; or personally commits CARDINAL of the aforementioned actions , shall be punished by not less than DATE imprisonment or the death penalty . \u201d","Article CARDINAL - War crime against prisoners of war","\u201c Whoever , acting in violation of the rules of international law , orders the murder , torture or inhumane treatment of prisoners of war , including biological experiments , extreme suffering or serious injury to their bodily integrity or health , compulsory enlistment in the armed forces of an enemy power , or deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial , or personally commits any of the aforementioned acts , shall be punished by not less than DATE imprisonment or by the death penalty . \u201d","LAW of GPE ( ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) was in force in until DATE . Its relevant provisions read as follows :","Article DATE Serious bodily harm","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes serious injury to another , or serious impairment of another \u2019s health , shall be punished by imprisonment for DATE .","( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes serious injury to another or impairment of another \u2019s health resulting in the endangering of the life of that person or the destruction or permanent significant damage to or weakening of a vital function of his body or an organ thereof , or permanent serious health impairment or disfigurement , shall be punished by CARDINAL to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u2013 Serious bodily harm","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes serious injury to another , or serious impairment of another \u2019s health , shall be punished by imprisonment for DATE .","( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes serious injury to another or impairment of another \u2019s health resulting in the endangering of the life of that person or the destruction or permanent significant damage to or weakening of a vital function of his body or an organ thereof , or permanent serious health impairment or disfigurement , shall be punished by imprisonment of CARDINAL to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","( CARDINAL ) If the actions specified in DATE and QUANTITY of this Article result in the death of the injured party , the offender shall be punished by imprisonment of DATE .","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u2013 Ill - treatment and Torture","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Whoever ill - treats another or treats a party in a humiliating and degrading manner shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment for DATE .","( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes anguish to another with the aim of obtaining information or a confession from him or another person or of intimidating him or a third party or of exerting pressure on such persons , or does so for motives based on any form of discrimination , shall be punished by imprisonment from DATE .","( CARDINAL ) If the offence specified in DATE and QUANTITY of this Article is committed by an official whilst discharging his duty , that person shall be punished for the offence in described in paragraph CARDINAL by imprisonment from DATE , and for the offence described in paragraph CARDINAL by CARDINAL to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u2013 Crime against humanity","\u201c Whoever , acting in violation of the rules of international law , orders as part of a wider and systematic attack against a civilian population : murder ; placement of the group in living conditions calculated to bring about its complete or partial extermination , enslavement , deportation , torture , or rape ; enforced prostitution ; forcible pregnancy or sterilisation aimed at changing the ethnic balance of the population ; persecution on political , racial , national , ethical , sexual or other grounds , detention or abduction of persons without disclosing information about such acts in order to deny such person legal protection ; oppression of a racial group or establishing domination of CARDINAL such group over another ; or other similar inhumane acts that intentionally cause serious suffering or serious impairment of health , or personally commits any of the aforementioned offences , shall be punished by imprisonment of DATE or imprisonment of DATE . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u2013 War crime against civilian population","( CARDINAL ) Whoever , acting in violation of international law in time of war , armed conflict or occupation orders : an attack on the civilian population , a settlement , particular civilians , persons incapable of combat or members or facilities of humanitarian organisations or peacekeeping missions ; wanton attack without target selection that harms the civilian population or civilian buildings under the special protection of international law ; an attack against military targets knowing that such an attack would cause collateral damage among civilians or damage to civilian buildings that is evidently disproportionate to the military effect ; the infliction on the civilian population of bodily injury , torture , inhumane treatment , biological , medical or other research experiments , or the taking of tissue or organs for transplantation or the performing of other acts that impair health or inflict great suffering or the deportation or relocation or forced change of nationality or religion ; forcible prostitution or rape ; applying intimidation and terror measures , taking hostages , collective punishment , unlawful deprivation of freedom and detention ; deprivation of the rights to a fair and impartial trial ; declaration of the prohibition , suspension or non - admissibility in court proceedings of the rights and acts of enemy nationals ; the coercion into service of a hostile power or its intelligence or administration services ; the coercion into military service of persons DATE ; forced labour ; starvation of the population ; unlawful seizure , appropriation or destruction of property not justified by military needs ; taking unlawful and disproportionate contributions and requisitions ; devaluation of local currency or unlawful issuing of currency , or personally commits any of the above offences , shall be punished by DATE imprisonment .","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u2013 War crimes against prisoners of war","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Whoever , acting in violation of international law , orders the injury , torture , or inhumane treatment of prisoners of war , or biological , medical or other research experiments on them , or the taking of their tissues or body organs for transplantation or the commission of other acts harmful to health and causing them serious suffering , or compels prisoners of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power or deprives them of the rights to fair and regular trial ; or personally commits any such offences , shall be punished by DATE imprisonment .","( CARDINAL ) Whoever orders the murder of prisoners of war or personally commits such an offence , shall be punished by CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment or imprisonment of DATE . \u201d","This Act ( published in ORG no . CARDINAL , amendments published in ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) entered into force on DATE . ORG , ORG and ORG within ORG and ORG were set up pursuant to LAW . They have jurisdiction over serious violations of international humanitarian law committed anywhere in the former GPE ( see section CARDINAL of this Act ) .","In a number of previous cases concerning war crimes , this ORG has treated the war in GPE DATE as an internal armed conflict ( see judgments in cases GPE , PERSON I , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) . The majority of the indictments in these cases came into force by DATE . The final judgments in the majority of these cases were adopted by the domestic courts by DATE .","Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o obligacionim odnosima ; published in FAC . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provide , inter alia , that anyone who has suffered fear , physical pain or mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of his or her personal rights ( prava li\u010dnosti ) is entitled , depending on the duration and intensity of the breach , to sue for financial compensation in the civil courts and , in addition , to request other forms of redress capable of affording adequate non - pecuniary satisfaction ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157279","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ANDONOSKI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP .","The applicant was a taxi driver . On DATE his car was parked on a taxi post at the NORP bus station . As established in the course of the subsequent criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , PERSON , accompanied by PERSON and ORG , all NORP nationals ( \u201c the migrants \u201d ) , asked the applicant to drive them to the village of GPE , PERSON . Only PERSON , who was fluent in NORP , told the applicant that they were going to PERSON to work . PERSON and ORG did not speak during the journey . At TIME they were stopped by the police at a place called PERSON . The migrants had no travel documents . The applicant and the migrants were arrested . The applicant \u2019s car was also seized . A receipt for temporarily seized objects was issued to him .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) opened an investigation against the applicant and PERSON on grounds of a reasonable suspicion of migrant smuggling , punishable under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the public prosecutor withdrew the charges against the applicant for lack of evidence . In a written statement of that date the public prosecutor indicated that there was no evidence that the applicant had known or had reasonable grounds to believe that he had transported illegal migrants . He had met them for the first time at the NORP bus station . He had never had any contact with them before . Since PERSON was fluent in NORP , the applicant could not have suspected that he ( PERSON ) was a migrant . The other CARDINAL migrants had not spoken during the journey . Furthermore , PERSON had confirmed that he had misled the applicant , since otherwise nobody would have driven them . For that reason , he had advised ORG and ORG not to speak . When the police had stopped them , he had apologised to the applicant . That had been confirmed by ORG and ORG and CARDINAL police officers who had stopped them on DATE in question . On DATE , the investigating judge discontinued the investigation concerning the applicant . The latter decision indicated that the applicant had no previous criminal record .","On DATE the trial court convicted GPE of migrant smuggling and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court established that PERSON had told PERSON and ORG , illegal migrants from GPE , that he could transfer them illegally into GPE . They had paid him MONEY ( ORG ) . They had crossed the NORP - Albanian border illegally ; they had used a taxi to travel to several cities in the respondent ORG and to arrive ultimately at the NORP bus station . There , PERSON had agreed with the applicant , who participated in the proceedings as a witness , to transport them to the village of PERSON , from where all the migrants had intended to cross the border on foot .","The trial court also ordered , under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) confiscation of the applicant \u2019s car , as the means by which the criminal offence had been committed ( \u201c the confiscation order \u201d ) . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c According to Article CARDINAL-a(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) taken in conjunction with Article CARDINAL ) of the [ Criminal Code ] , the court confiscated ... from [ the applicant ] the vehicle which had been used for transportation of [ ORG and ORG ] , because [ the applicant ] could have known that [ they ] were migrants , since both of them \u2013 the witnesses [ , ] had not talked , had not had any equipment with which they would work as construction workers or lumberjacks , and also the time in the afternoon when he had transported them to PERSON indicated that they were not going to work , but [ had intended ] to cross the NORP - Greek border illegally at TIME , which should have been known to the [ applicant ] as an experienced taxi - driver . [ The applicant ] also stated that he had been suspicious CARDINAL of the witnesses , because he had been thin , which meant that he could have known that they had been migrants and not ( ordinary ) persons who were going to PERSON to work , as he himself had known that the border was illegally crossed near the villages PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . \u201d","The applicant appealed , arguing that the confiscation order had not been based on any fact . He had not been convicted of any crime and the trial court was not entitled to order confiscation of his car . PERSON , who was convicted , had been travelling in the car as a passenger . The fact that the public prosecutor had withdrawn the charges against him confirmed that he had not known that he was transporting illegal migrants . No evidence had been adduced to prove otherwise . Lastly , he had never been involved in migrant smuggling .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the confiscation order . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c It is true that the first - instance court , in the operative part and in the reasoning of the impugned judgment concerning the confiscation of the [ car ] , provided reasons , [ i.e. ] referred to ORG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] , which constitute an incorrect application of the substantive law , and an incorrect application of [ the LAW ] . Article CARDINAL of [ the Code ] concerns the confiscation of objects , and paragraph ( CARDINAL ) refers to objects used for the commission of a criminal offence . When those objects are owned by a third person , they may be confiscated CARDINAL persons knew or could and ought to have known that the objects are being used or are intended to be used to commit an offence . In the present case there is no need for the application of this rule , because the rule contained in LAW ( CARDINAL ) necessarily requires the confiscation of the objects and the means of transport used to commit the offence , irrespective of whom they belong to , whom they are for , or whom they come from .","In such circumstances , coupled with the fact which was established beyond any doubt , ( namely ) that this offence was committed by the accused with the [ applicant \u2019s ] vehicle , the court was correct to confiscate the vehicle by its decision contained in the operative provision of the judgment . \u201d","On DATE the public prosecutor notified the applicant that there were no grounds to institute legality review proceedings ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0448\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430 ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180662","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF RACOLTEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170388","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF J. AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4 - Positive obligations;Article 4-1 - Trafficking in human beings);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The first and second applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The third applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The following summary of the background of the case and the events in GPE is based on the submissions by the applicants . The account of the investigation in GPE is based on the submissions by both parties .","The applicants are all nationals of the GPE . The first and third applicants were recruited in DATE and DATE respectively by an employment agency in GPE to work as maids or au pairs in GPE ( GPE ) . The second applicant travelled to GPE in DATE for the same purpose , at the suggestion of the first applicant , not via an agency . All of the applicants had their passports taken away by their employers . During the course of their work in GPE , they allege that they were subjected to ill - treatment and exploitation by their employers , who also failed to pay them their agreed wages and forced them to work TIME , under the threat of further ill - treatment .","In DATE the first applicant contacted an agency in GPE in order to find a job abroad . She is a single mother with CARDINAL daughter who was DATE at the time . She signed a contract in which she agreed to work for a family in GPE for DATE , from DATE until DATE . The contract also stipulated that she would be paid CARDINAL GPE dirhams ( AED \u2013 approximately CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) at that time ) per month to work for TIME each working day . Upon her arrival in GPE the first applicant was taken to her employers , who were CARDINAL sisters or sisters - in - law sharing CARDINAL large residence with their families . CARDINAL of them took possession of her passport .","For most of the initial DATE contract the first applicant was not subjected to physical abuse or direct threats of harm by her employers , and she was paid regularly . However , she had to work from TIME to TIME throughout the initial DATE period . Her duties included looking after her ORG children , preparing meals , cleaning the house , doing the laundry and numerous other jobs around the house and garden . During DATE she was required to perform DATE without DATE off , and was not allowed to leave the house unsupervised . She was not allowed to have her own telephone and was only allowed to call her family in the GPE once DATE , the costs of these calls being deducted from her wages . Further , the first applicant was forbidden from speaking to any of the other workers from the GPE in their native language . She was constantly hungry , as she was generally only given the family \u2019s leftover food . Only when she accompanied the family to the supermarket DATE was she allowed to buy some basic food for herself .","After DATE , the first applicant faced the first punishments by her employers . She was forced to sleep on the floor when they found out that she had been talking to another employee from the GPE in their native language . When she became ill after sleeping on the cold floor , her employers prevented her from buying medicine or contacting a doctor ; instead , she had to continue working TIME .","Towards the end of her DATE contract , the first applicant \u2019s employers informed her that they wished her to stay , and offered her better pay , DATE off and a telephone of her own , as well as permission to visit her family , provided that she recruited someone to take over her job while she was away . The first applicant finally agreed to extend her contract and returned to the GPE for DATE . Owing to the incentives and the prospect of improved working conditions , she asked the second applicant to take over her role in GPE during the time she was away .","While the first applicant was in the GPE , she received threats from her employers that if she did not return to GPE to work , she would be banned from ever going back there , and the second applicant would be subjected to ill - treatment . The first applicant therefore returned to GPE in DATE .","After she returned to GPE , she was taught how to drive . After she failed her first driving test , she was forced to pay for further lessons and tests out of her own salary , with CARDINAL further driving tests costing LAW each , a DATE \u2019s salary . While she was driving , one of her employers hit her on the shoulder on a number of occasions to force her to speed up . The employer also started to slap or hit her regularly for no or little reason . She also repeatedly threatened to let her husband hit the first applicant if she did not follow her orders or made any mistakes .","The first applicant accompanied her employers on trips to LOC , GPE , GPE and GPE , where she spent significant amounts of time locked up in hotel rooms or under the close supervision of her employers . She only had to visit CARDINAL embassy in person to obtain entry documents , and that was in relation to a trip to GPE , at which time she was ordered by her employers to lie about her work conditions . When they arrived in GPE , the first applicant was not allowed at any time to leave the apartment in which they were staying .","The second applicant was married with CARDINAL young children in the GPE . Her husband had no regular work . Because she expected better pay in GPE , she agreed to work for the same employers as the first applicant . The employers in GPE arranged a visiting visa for her , under false pretences . As a result of this arrangement , the second applicant did not approach the employment agency in the GPE and did not have a written contract with her employers . Her understanding was that she would get LAW per month , which would be paid directly to her family in the GPE .","NORP In DATE the second applicant started to work in GPE . After the first applicant returned to the GPE for DATE in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the employers significantly changed their conduct towards the second applicant . They threatened not to pay her family if she made any mistakes . They refused to let her leave GPE , including by refusing to return her passport and ordering her to repay them her travel costs and related expenses . They also told her that she would be put in prison if she ran away or went to the authorities in GPE for help . They physically and emotionally abused her , and there was CARDINAL incident when CARDINAL of her employers struck her across the shoulder using significant force . She was also forced to work from CARDINAL or TIME until TIME DATE .","DATE and DATE the violent and threatening behaviour of the employers increased . The second applicant was punched by CARDINAL of her employers on CARDINAL occasion , and in another incident the employer aimed a hard slap at her face , but instead struck her across the shoulder .","The third applicant \u2019s family were desperate for money to pay for crucial medical treatment for her brother . Therefore , in DATE she contacted an employment agency in the GPE and was offered work as a maid in GPE . She was informed that she would be earning CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL at that time ) per month , roughly twice her salary in the GPE . Upon her arrival in GPE in DATE she had to hand over her passport and mobile phone to someone supposedly working for the employment agency . She was told that these items would be returned to her when she finished her work in GPE .","The third applicant was working for a family member of the first and second applicants\u2019 employers . The applicants got to know each other , as the CARDINAL families met DATE . They secretly shared their experiences on these occasions .","The third applicant was also bound by TIME going from TIME . Her employer forced her to clean her car in the sun and in unbearable heat , and she was prohibited from going to the toilet without letting her employer know . She was only allowed to call her family in the GPE once DATE , and only in the presence of her employer . She did not receive any remuneration at all for DATE of her employment . Afterwards , she only received approximately ORG DATE , less than what had been agreed . On CARDINAL occasion she was slapped by her employer , and on a different occasion she witnessed another employee being hit over the head .","When the third applicant told her employer that she wished to return to the GPE , she was told that she would have to pay the cost of the flight and the agency fees , which her employer knew she could not afford at that point . Her employer also made it clear that , in any event , her passport would not be returned to her until she had completed DATE of work in GPE . Subsequently , the third applicant was too scared to ask to leave GPE again , owing to her fear that her employer would take her earnings from her or refuse to return her passport for an even longer period .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 employers took them along on a short holiday trip to GPE . The applicants all stayed at the same hotel in the city centre of GPE . The applicants slept in their own , separate apartment together with the female children . The male children slept in the same apartment as their parents . As in GPE , the applicants had to take care of all of the ORG children and perform numerous other domestic duties . They were still required to work from CARDINAL or TIME or even later . The third applicant was regularly shouted at by her employer , for example if she failed to get all the children ready TIME . In addition , their employers woke the first applicant up at TIME and forced her to cook food for them . Furthermore , the first applicant was forced to carry the employers\u2019 CARDINAL suitcases into the hotel by herself . While the applicants were in GPE , their passports remained with their employers . In the hotel in GPE in which the applicants were staying , they became acquainted with ORG , an employee at the hotel who could speak LANGUAGE , the first applicant \u2019s mother tongue .","When the applicants accompanied their employers to a zoo DATE after their arrival in GPE , CARDINAL of the children went missing for some time . CARDINAL of the employers started screaming at the first and third applicants in a manner which the applicants had not experienced before . The first applicant found the level of verbal abuse extreme , and this was a particularly distressing and humiliating experience for her . The employer threatened to beat the third applicant , and said that \u201c something bad \u201d would happen to her if the child was not found safe and well . By this stage , the third applicant had formed the impression that this employer , of whom she lived in a constant state of fear , was a dangerous person who might try to hurt her very badly . She had the feeling that the violence towards her was likely to escalate at any time . Therefore , she believed that something bad was going to happen to her if she remained with the family . Similarly , the first applicant believed that they could not live with their conditions of work any longer , and did not want to risk waiting to see what happened if they travelled with their employers from GPE to GPE , as they were scheduled to do . The applicants therefore decided to speak to ORG , the LANGUAGE - speaking employee at the hotel , to see whether she could help them .","The night following the incident \u2013 that is , DATE after their arrival in GPE \u2013 the applicants left the hotel with the help of N. , who had organised a car to pick them up in a side street near the hotel and take them to a \u201c safe place \u201d . The applicants subsequently found support within the local NORP community in GPE .","NORP In DATE or DATE , DATE after they had left their employers , the applicants contacted a local NGO called \u201c LEF\u00d6 \u201d for assistance in reporting their ill - treatment , abuse and exploitation to the police . PERSON is actively involved in the fight against trafficking in human beings in GPE . It is financed though government funds , in particular for the provision of assistance to victims of trafficking . In DATE the applicants decided to turn to the NORP police and filed a criminal complaint ( PERSON ) against their employers . They explained that they had been the victims of human trafficking . On CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE , accompanied by representatives of ORG , they were interviewed at length by officers from ORG ( PERSON f\u00fcr ORG ) at ORG ( Bundeskriminalamt ) . In their report , the officers concluded that the offences had been committed abroad .","The applicants were informed that their employers had also made allegations about their conduct , alleging , inter alia , that they had stolen money and a mobile phone from them when they had fled the hotel . Those allegations were subsequently formally recognised by the NORP authorities as false . The applicants all expressed their willingness to actively cooperate with the authorities and to engage in criminal proceedings against their employers .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office ( Staatsanwaltschaft Wien ) discontinued the proceedings under LAW ( Strafgesetzbuch \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) relating to human trafficking ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , pursuant to LAW ( Strafprozessordnung \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the public prosecutor gave a short written decision with reasons for the discontinuation of the proceedings . In the public prosecutor \u2019s view , the offence had been committed abroad by non - nationals , and did not engage NORP interests within the meaning of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG .","On DATE the applicants lodged an application to continue the investigation ( Fortsetzungsantrag ) with ORG ( Straflandesgericht Wien ) . They submitted that NORP interests had indeed been engaged , and that their employers had continued to exploit and abuse them in GPE . In their view , the elements of the crime punishable under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG had been present .","The GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office then submitted a statement to ORG , specifying its reasons for discontinuing the investigation . There had been no indication in the case file that any of the criminal actions exhaustively listed in LAW had occurred in GPE , particularly since the offence had already been completed in GPE ( zumal das Delikt bereits in GPE vollendet wurde ) , and the accused were not NORP citizens . Furthermore , from the ORG statements ( looking after children , washing laundry , cooking food ) , it did not appear that they had been exploited in GPE , especially since they had managed to leave their employers DATE after their arrival in GPE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 application . The relevant parts of the decision read ( translation from NORP ) :","\u201c The decision to discontinue [ criminal proceedings ] requires DATE by implication \u2013 that the facts of a case are sufficiently clear , or a lack of indication that investigations would be promising .","There is no reason for further prosecution if , on the basis of the ... results of the investigation , a conviction is no more likely than an acquittal ...","According to LAW , if NORP interests have been harmed by the offence or the perpetrator can not be extradited , NORP criminal laws apply independently of the criminal laws of the place where the crime was committed , for example in relation to the offence of kidnapping for ransom under LAW . Owing to the fact that the applicants spent DATE in GPE , the conditions regarding the fulfilment of the elements of the crime under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG have not been met , since the relevant acts relating to the exploitation of labour must be committed over a longer period of time ; therefore , the commission of the offence in GPE is ruled out .","The jurisdiction of the NORP criminal - law enforcement authorities can not be deduced from LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG either .","NORP interests are engaged if either the victim or the perpetrator is an NORP citizen , or if the criminal acts have a concrete connection to GPE , or if an obligation arises under international law in relation to the prosecution of certain offences . NORP interests are , in any event , engaged if a criminal offence under LAW , CARDINAL , ORG or CARDINAL of the ORG is committed against an NORP citizen , or if NORP funds or NORP securities ( Wertpapiere ) are the subject of offences under LAW , or LAW in conjunction with LAW , of the ORG .","The applicants\u2019 argument that the elements of the crime under LAW had also been fulfilled in GPE therefore fails , and the plea that the alleged criminal actions against them by their employers in GPE ... would lead to an obligation on the part of GPE under international law is likewise not convincing . In relation to the present case , [ this latter argument ] also can not be inferred from the quoted [ ORG ] judgment no . CARDINAL Os CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which affirmed that NORP interests had been damaged as a result of the import into GPE of a large amount of narcotics for transport ... \u201d","This decision was served on the applicants\u2019 counsel on DATE .","In DATE of the CARDINAL applicants lodged a civil claim against their employers with ORG ) in order to claim their wages . However , they alleged that because of the high risk of having to pay the costs of the proceedings because the employers did not reside in GPE , they withdrew the action .","The NGO LEF\u00d6 not only assisted the applicants in filing a criminal complaint against their employers , but also supported them in applying for a special residence permit in GPE for victims of human trafficking , under the former section CARDINAL of LAW ( Niederlassungs- und DATE see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","All CARDINAL applicants were granted a residence permit for special protection purposes in DATE , valid for DATE initially . Subsequently , because of their progressing integration , they were granted other types of residence permits with longer periods of validity .","The applicants were officially registered in ORG ( PERSON ) from the point when PERSON started supporting them . A personal data disclosure ban was enacted on ORG for their protection , so that their whereabouts would not be traceable by the general public ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","4"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["4-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177353","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF OSTROVE\u0145ECS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE . On CARDINAL DATE he reached the age of majority .","The applicant ( who was a minor at the time of the criminal trial ) and his co - accused , GPE , GPE and FAC , were charged with the aggravated murder of a DATE girl , and the intentional destruction of property . The case was heard in DATE by ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) . The applicant pleaded \u201c partially guilty \u201d ( vainu atz\u012bst da\u013c\u0113ji ) . He was held in detention on remand in FAC ( R\u012bgas centr\u0101lcietums ) and was transported to ORG for the hearings .","The applicant submits that on DATE , that is to say on DATE , DATE and DATE DATE , in the holding area in the basement of ORG , he was insulted and physically assaulted by the detainee escort officers to make him confess to the crimes . He was made to perform different exercises , such as a \u201c wall - sit \u201d exercise , push - ups and a \u201c duck walk \u201d ( walking slowly in a squatting position ) . While the applicant was performing the exercises he received blows to the back with a rubber truncheon . The applicant submits further that the escort officers assaulted him before and after the hearings and during the breaks . They beat him on different parts of the body . During the beatings they expressed their opinion regarding the criminal proceedings and manifested a negative and belittling attitude towards him . They also threatened to kill or mutilate the applicant if he did not plead guilty . Having been psychologically broken and without having consulted his lawyer , during the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant admitted his guilt and refused to testify .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s mother visited him in FAC . On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother , acting as his representative , lodged a complaint with the prosecution service . She stated that the escort officers had kicked her son on his body , arms , legs and head , and that he had shown her many bruises . She requested the prosecution service to institute criminal proceedings in respect of these events . On DATE the prosecution service forwarded the complaint to the GPE regional division of ORG . On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged a similar complaint with ORG of ORG ( NORP policijas PERSON dro\u0161\u012bbas birojs \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On CARDINAL DATE employees of ORG visited the applicant in FAC . On DATE the ORG wrote a letter to ORG stating that the applicant had alleged that the escort officers had assaulted him . He had borne traces of the alleged violence \u2013 a haematoma on his side and abrasions on his arm and legs . The ORG requested ORG to examine the actions of the escort officers . He informed ORG about this letter .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer visited him in FAC . Following the meeting , the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a complaint with the prosecution service . He stated that CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been beaten by the detainee escort officers in order to make him confess to the crime . The applicant had shown him his injuries . As a result of this coercion at the hearing on DATE the applicant had admitted his guilt , contrary to his defence position . The applicant \u2019s lawyer requested the prosecution service to institute criminal proceedings in respect of these events . On DATE the prosecution service sent the complaint to the GPE regional division of ORG .","At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated that on DATE he had been assaulted , as a result of which he had admitted his guilt . He maintained his earlier plea of \u201c partially guilty \u201d . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s co - accused also stated that they had been assaulted . The applicant \u2019s lawyer stated that the applicant had a black eye and that he had been hit on his head . He argued that the applicant was unable to testify . The judge adjourned the hearing in order to request information from FAC on the applicant \u2019s and his co - accused \u2019s state of health .","On DATE FAC faxed to ORG a copy of a medical certificate issued after the applicant had been medically examined on CARDINAL DATE . The handwritten medical certificate , dated CARDINAL DATE , provided to ORG stated that the applicant had the following injuries : wounds on his lower legs and on the right hand \u201c in the typical area \u201d ; a haematoma on the left forearm ; and a haematoma on the right side . The applicant had stated that he had been beaten with a truncheon while being escorted on CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE The ORG also provided a typewritten report , dated DATE , from FAC . According to the report , the applicant \u2019s state of health on DATE had been satisfactory ; he had had several injuries covered by scabs on his lower legs ; injuries covered by scabs on the \u201c typical area \u201d of the right hand caused by the use of handcuffs ; a haematoma QUANTITY in diameter on his left forearm ; and a haematoma QUANTITY in diameter in the \u201c phase of absorption \u201d on the right side in the area of the kidney .","At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated that he was unable to testify because he had a headache . His lawyer argued that the applicant \u2019s medical examination had been superficial . The prosecution was of the view that the applicant was seeking to delay the proceedings . The judge decided to proceed with the trial . DATE ORG found the applicant and his co - accused guilty and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant and his mother lodged appeals indicating inter alia that the applicant had been assaulted by the escort officers . The case was forwarded to ORG ( GPE tiesas GPE tiesu pal\u0101ta ) .","At a hearing on DATE the prosecution informed the appellate court that the criminal investigation in relation to the applicant \u2019s \u201c bodily injuries \u201d had been terminated , that that decision had taken effect and that no appeal had been lodged against that decision . The relevant material was included in the case file . At a hearing on DATE the applicant admitted his guilt in full and asked the court to review his conviction only in so far as it concerned his sentence .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction , but reduced his sentence to DATE imprisonment . In setting the sentence the court took into account that the proceedings before it had included a period of inactivity of DATE and thus had lasted for unreasonably long time .","On DATE ORG with a final decision dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","As submitted by the Government , on DATE ORG instituted an internal inquiry . It requested the applicant \u2019s medical records from FAC . On DATE ORG , referring to the complaint lodged by the applicant \u2019s mother ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , sent a copy of the file to the GPE regional division of ORG for it to decide on the lawfulness of the actions of its employees . ORG stated that the file did not indicate that the escort officers had committed a criminal offence .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG regarding his alleged ill - treatment , stating that he would be able to identify the alleged perpetrators . ORG sent the complaint to the GPE regional division of ORG .","On DATE the GPE regional division of ORG , terminated the internal inquiry . It noted that according to the medical documentation concerning the applicant provided by FAC the applicant \u2019s state of health on DATE had been satisfactory . He had had several wounds on his lower legs covered by scabs ; wounds on the right hand covered by scabs , caused by the use of handcuffs ; a haematoma QUANTITY in diameter on his left forearm ; and a haematoma QUANTITY in diameter \u201c in the phase of absorption \u201d on the right side . The GPE regional division of ORG noted the injuries found on GPE At the same time , there had been no visible injuries found on PERSON or F.\u010c. According to explanations ( paskaidrojumi ) obtained from CARDINAL officers , neither the applicant nor his co - accused had been assaulted . The GPE regional division of ORG concluded that the information gathered did not indicate that the officers had committed a disciplinary offence . It returned the file to ORG .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings in view of the fact that the constituent elements of the offence of \u201c exceeding official authority \u201d under section MONEY ) of LAW ( PERSON ) were lacking in the ORG actions . The applicant \u2019s mother appealed against this decision .","On DATE the prosecution service found that ORG had based the impugned decision on an inquiry conducted by another institution of ORG and medical documentation provided by FAC . It was necessary to question the applicant and his co - accused regarding the circumstances of their transportation and to find out whether any of the employees of FAC had seen injuries on them prior to and after their transportation and whether any of the employees had received any complaints from them in this regard . It was also necessary to find out whether CARDINAL DATE or earlier the applicant or his co - accused had been involved in any kind of conflict in the prison as a result of which they could have sustained the injuries . The prosecution service referred the case back to ORG .","In reply to a request from ORG , on DATE FAC provided information that prison employees who had CARDINAL DATE searched ( p\u0101rmekl\u0113t ) the applicant and his co - accused each time prior to and after their being transported had not seen any injuries on them . The applicant and his co - accused had not made any complaints . There were no records showing that DATE they had been involved in any conflicts in the prison . On DATE ORG obtained explanations from the applicant and his co - accused , who maintained that the escort officers had assaulted them . As regards the DATE physical security checks that they had undergone in the prison , they stated that prison employees had not asked them to undress . Therefore their injuries had remained undetected .","On DATE ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings , stating that the information gathered during the additional inquiry did not indicate that the officers had committed any offence under section MONEY ) of LAW . The applicant \u2019s mother appealed against this decision .","On DATE the prosecution service quashed the decision as it had been based on an incomplete inquiry . It instructed ORG to question the persons with whom the applicant and his coaccused had shared cells CARDINAL DATE and to obtain information regarding breaks during DATE on which the applicant and his co - accused had allegedly been assaulted . It was also necessary to question further the escort officers .","On DATE ORG obtained information from FAC regarding the applicant \u2019s and his coaccused \u2019s cellmates . In DATE and DATE it took explanations from them . According to the applicant \u2019s cellmate , GPE , the applicant had told him that the escort officers had assaulted him and his coaccused . He had shown him marks left by the beatings . It was difficult for DATE to recall details as a long time had passed . Between CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ORG questioned the escort officers , who stated that they had not assaulted the applicant or his co - accused .","On DATE , for the third time , ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings , stating that the information gathered during the additional inquiry did not indicate that the officers had committed any offence under section MONEY ) of LAW . The applicant \u2019s mother appealed against this decision .","On DATE the prosecution service quashed the decision . It considered that ORG had not clarified the contradictions between the statements of the applicant and his co - accused on the one hand , and the statements of the escort officers on the other hand , and the circumstances in which the applicant and ORG had obtained the injuries established on CARDINAL DATE . In view of the information gathered during the internal inquiry it was possible that above - mentioned offence under section GPE ) of LAW had been committed . Accordingly , the prosecution service instituted criminal proceedings and returned the file to ORG for further investigation . On DATE the prosecution service informed the applicant \u2019s mother that the criminal proceedings had been instituted .","DATE the Internal Security Office questioned as witnesses QUANTITY escort officers , who gave largely the same statements . They had not beaten the applicant or his co - accused . They explained that officers wore belts which they never removed because handcuffs , truncheon , gun , pepper spray and gun belt were attached to them . They could not give more detailed statements as a long time had passed since the events . CARDINAL escort officer , GPE , who was questioned as a witness on DATE , stated that he had seen bruises on the applicant and his co - accused during their personal search in the court building . PERSON had thought that they had been beaten in the prison . The escort officers had not assaulted them .","On DATE an inspector of ORG questioned CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s co - accused , ORG , as a witness .","V.P. stated that on the first trial day the escort officers had made him perform push - ups and a \u201c duck walk \u201d , during which CARDINAL escort officers had hit him on his back , abdomen , legs and chest with their legs , fists , a belt and truncheons . The escort officers had also beaten the applicant , who had been next to him . The officers had placed FAC in a holding cell , and after some time they had escorted him to the court room .","GPE and GPE , the applicant \u2019s co - accused , stated that on the second trial day the escort officers had made them perform push - ups and a \u201c duck walk \u201d . While they had been performing the exercises the escort officers had beaten them . PERSON had been hit during a break by CARDINAL escort officers with a black belt on his back CARDINAL times . PERSON had been hit by CARDINAL escort officer on his back and legs CARDINAL times . He had also been hit on his buttocks with a belt CARDINAL times .","PERSON had heard the applicant screaming . On the way back to the prison the applicant had told PERSON that he had been beaten ; later , in the prison , he had shown him CARDINAL bruises on his chest . After the occurrence of the alleged beating had been raised during the trial PERSON had been examined by a prison doctor . He had had no injuries .","V.P. , GPE and FAC stated that they would not be able to identify the officers who had beaten them . They could not recall the events in detail . They did not wish to be declared victims in the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness . He stated that on DATE in the basement of the court building the escort officers had made him perform different exercises , such as a wall - sit exercise , pushups and a \u201c duck walk \u201d . While he had been performing the exercises , the escort officers had beaten him . He further stated that the escort officers had beaten him on different parts of the body . They had also hit him with a belt . On DATE the inspector presented photographs of the escort officers to the applicant for the purposes of identification . He could not identify the officers who had allegedly assaulted him .","As submitted by the Government , on DATE ORG confirmed that the court building LOC were equipped with a video surveillance system . However , they stated that video recordings were stored for DATE and then erased .","On DATE ORG requested an expert medical report .","In respect of GPE , GPE and GPE the report concluded that their medical documentation contained no records of injuries sustained over the time period in question . In respect of the applicant the report stated that the description of the injuries contained in the medical documentation , in the record of the applicant \u2019s questioning by the police , and in the hearings transcripts was incomplete . Therefore , it was not possible to determine the exact time at which the injuries had been sustained , how extensive they had been , and the degree of trauma or force that had been employed to inflict them . However , it could not be excluded that the injuries had appeared CARDINAL DATE in the circumstances indicated in the record of the applicant \u2019s questioning . While it was indicated in the record of the applicant \u2019s questioning and in the hearings transcripts that injuries had also been inflicted to the applicant \u2019s face , abdomen , buttocks , lower part of the back , back , and left side of the thorax , such injuries had not been identified in the medical examination of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG questioned PERSON \u2019s former cellmate , V.A. , who stated that he had seen red patches on ORG back . PERSON had told him that the escort officers had beaten him in the basement of the court building ; they had also beaten the applicant . According to V.A. this had happened prior to CARDINAL DATE . V.A. had heard that the applicant had also been beaten in the prison .","On DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the elements of the offence had not been made out . There was no irrefutable evidence that the escort officers had inflicted the injuries as alleged . According to the expert report , the injuries had not been recorded in the medical documentation precisely . The persons involved in the criminal proceedings had given contradictory accounts of the circumstances in which the injuries had been inflicted .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged an appeal with the prosecution service against the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings , the applicant having on CARDINAL DATE granted her power of attorney ( univers\u0101lpilnvara ) to take any action concerning his property . This included the right to represent the applicant before the police , the courts and other institutions in relation to all rights vested in him as a victim . Prior to the authorisation she had represented the applicant on the grounds of his being a minor . In the wording of the appeal the applicant \u2019s mother indicated that she was acting on behalf of the applicant .","She complained of deficiencies in the criminal investigation which had precluded obtaining important information . Namely , the presentation of photographs to the applicant for the purpose of identifying the alleged perpetrators had been organised in a manner intended to impede justice while he had been shown the small black - and - white frontal photographs he had been surrounded by CARDINAL escort officers in an effort to intimidate him . She asked that the investigating authorities organise an identity parade for the applicant and his co - accused and question the applicant \u2019s co - accused regarding the events in question .","On DATE a prosecutor dismissed her appeal , noting that during the presentation of photographs the applicant had been assisted by his lawyer . They had not made any remarks or requests as regards this procedure . The investigating authorities had established that no force had been used against the applicant and his co - accused and that no threats had been made . From the moment at which the trial had started the ORG had paid particular attention to the applicant and his co - accused . All of the escort officers had been questioned as witnesses . They had had no interest in the outcome of the trial . Therefore , there had been no reason to doubt their account of the events . The applicant \u2019s co - accused had also been questioned and their evidence assessed . There was no need to take any further investigative steps as the constituent elements of the offence under section ORG ) of LAW were lacking in the ORG actions . The prosecutor indicated that her decision was amenable to appeal before a higher prosecutor .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother appealed against the aforementioned decision before a higher prosecutor . She indicated that she was acting on behalf of the applicant . In addition to the issues raised previously she complained that a long time had passed before criminal proceedings had been instituted . She considered that it had been a deliberate delay to hide any traces of assault . Furthermore , during the internal inquiry ORG had \u201c interviewed \u201d the applicant and the coaccused , who had been minors at the relevant time , in the absence of a lawyer or a representative . After those \u201c interviews \u201d the co - accused had all refused to testify .","On DATE a higher prosecutor dismissed the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s appeal . He upheld the findings of the lower prosecutor \u2013 the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings had been lawful as the constituent elements of the offence had been missing . At the same time , he noted that the applicant had not been declared a victim in the criminal proceedings and hence could not be represented by another person . Furthermore , at the time when the criminal proceedings had been instituted he had reached the age of majority . The higher prosecutor indicated that the applicant \u2019s mother did not have the right to complain about the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings and that it had been wrong for the lower prosecutor to examine her complaint on the merits . That being said , the higher prosecutor also examined her complaint on the merits for the reason of legal certainty as the lower prosecutor had done so . He concluded by indicating that the applicant \u2019s mother could not lodge further complaints about the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with the prosecution service against the aforementioned decision . He stated that his mother had been authorised to lodge complaints in his name under the power of attorney that he had granted her on DATE . He further noted that the assessment of the flaws in the proceedings had been superficial and had not properly addressed the points raised by his mother . He emphasised that no explanation had been given for the injuries that he had sustained while in custody or for the delay in the institution of the investigation and the superficial manner in which it had been conducted . He argued that it might have been that the ORG , acting through its agents , had been willing to cover - up his assault .","On DATE a chief prosecutor responded that the applicant \u2019s procedural status was that of a witness and that , unlike victims , witnesses had no right to authorise other persons to exercise their procedural rights on their behalf . Furthermore , the applicant himself did not have a right to challenge the response that had been given to his mother , as he was not the addressee of this letter sent to her . Lastly , because he had not been the one who had lodged the initial appeals , the applicant had missed the time - limit for lodging an appeal against the decision of DATE terminating the criminal proceedings . Accordingly , the applicant \u2019s appeal was not examined . The applicant was informed of the fact that in accordance with domestic law this decision was not amenable to appeal .","On DATE the applicant complained to the ORG , who then instituted an inquiry and requested information from FAC , ORG ( NORP tiesu medic\u012bnas ekspert\u012bzes centrs ) and ORG .","On DATE the ORG delivered a report in which he observed that , as the criminal investigation was still ongoing , it would be premature to assess the proceedings as a whole . However , with regard to the internal inquiry , the ORG expressed concerns regarding the institutional independence of ORG when analysing offences allegedly committed by the police officers .","Furthermore , the internal inquiry had lasted DATE and DATE beyond a reasonable time - limit . The inquiry had not been carried out with the requisite diligence , as exemplified by the repeated quashing of decisions not to institute criminal proceedings . The ORG expressed concerns that flaws in the internal inquiry might render it impossible to establish whether the applicant \u2019s injuries had been inflicted by the police officers . Thus , the internal inquiry undertaken by ORG could not be regarded as constituting an effective remedy within the meaning of LAW of the LAW . Nonetheless , the ORG considered that it would be premature to pronounce on a violation of LAW ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152295","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"A.M.E. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant claims to be a NORP national , born in DATE . At the time of the introduction of the application , he was in the GPE . He is represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The Government of the GPE are represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. PERSON , of ORG . ORG are represented by their Agent , PERSON , and their CoAgent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and ORG , may be summarised as follows . Some of the facts are disputed .","NORP The applicant claims to hail from GPE and that he belongs to the Gaaljecel clan , a GPE sub - clan . He further claims that in DATE members of ORG came to his school where they called upon the applicant and his brother PERSON to join ORG . The applicant and ORG refused . DATE , on DATE , the applicant \u2019s parental home had been attacked and NORP killed . Considering that it had been a targeted attack owing to the refusal to join ORG , the applicant left GPE on DATE and , via GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , travelled to GPE .","On DATE the applicant entered GPE in a group of CARDINAL persons who had landed in GPE ( GPE ) . DATE the local police took his fingerprints and registered him as having illegally entered the territory of ORG . He stated that his name was PERSON , that he was a NORP national and that he was born on DATE . On DATE , the applicant was transferred to ORG ( FAC di PERSON per PERSON ; \u201c ORG \u201d ) , where he applied for international protection , giving slightly different personal details , namely that his name was ORG , that he was a NORP national and that he was born on DATE .","On an unspecified date , the applicant was granted an NORP residence permit for subsidiary protection under LAW ) of ORG DATE on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted ( \u201c Qualification Directive \u201d ) . This residence permit was valid for DATE , i.c . until DATE . On DATE , the applicant left the PERSON - Palese reception centre of his own volition for an unknown destination .","On DATE , the applicant applied for asylum in the GPE , stating that his name was GPE , that he was a NORP national and that he was born in GPE on DATE . DATE , the GPE immigration authorities conducted a first interview ( eerste gehoor ) with the applicant , during which he declared inter alia that he had travelled by road from GPE to GPE from where he had travelled by air , with a stopover in GPE , to the GPE . He wrote down his name , his date and place of birth and his last address , and signed this document .","The examination and comparison of the applicant \u2019s fingerprints by the GPE authorities generated a PERSON report on DATE , indicating that he had been registered in GPE on DATE and in PERSON on DATE .","On DATE , a GPE Claim interview ( gehoor GPE ) was held with the applicant . After the results of the PERSON report had been put to him , he confirmed that he had been in GPE . He had lied about his age in GPE . He had stated that he was an adult . He had further been forced to give his fingerprints . He denied having applied for asylum in GPE and further stated that he had not had shelter or food in GPE .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister of ORG informed the applicant of her intention to reject his asylum request . The applicant filed his written comments ( zienswijze ) on this intention on DATE .","On DATE the GPE authorities requested the NORP authorities to take back the applicant under the terms of LAW ( c ) of ORG ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL of DATE ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) . As the NORP authorities failed to react to that request within DATE , they were considered under LAW of LAW as having acceded implicitly to that request .","NORP The applicant \u2019s asylum request filed in the GPE was rejected on DATE by the Deputy Minister , who found that , pursuant to ORG , GPE was responsible for the processing of the asylum application . The Deputy Minister rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that the GPE could not rely on the principle of mutual interstate trust in respect of GPE . The Deputy Minister did not find it established that GPE fell short of its international treaty obligations in respect of asylum seekers and refugees , and rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that he risked treatment in breach of LAW .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against this decision , filed on DATE , was rejected on DATE by the single - judge chamber ( enkelvoudige kamer ) of ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE . It rejected , as insufficiently substantiated , the applicant \u2019s claim that the reception of minor aliens in GPE was deficient and also rejected his argument that , in his case , the NORP authorities had fallen short of their international obligations in respect of asylum seekers . It noted inter alia that the applicant had been given the opportunity to apply for asylum in GPE and found that it did not appear that the applicant had no access to adequate legal remedies . As regards the alleged risk of refoulement from GPE to GPE , ORG considered that he should and could raise this in proceedings in GPE and did not find it established that , where it concerned his possible removal from GPE , he would not be given the possibility to use a legal remedy against removal , including requesting the ORG for an interim measure under LAW .","On DATE , the applicant filed an objection ( verzet ) against this ruling with ORG .","On DATE , the Minister of ORG notified the applicant of his intention to transfer the applicant to GPE on DATE and not later than DATE .","The application was introduced to ORG DATE . On DATE , the President of the Section decided , under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of the ORG , to indicate to ORG that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG not to remove the applicant to GPE .","On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE and apparently after a decision to accept the applicant \u2019s objection of CARDINAL DATE , a CARDINAL - judge chamber ( meervoudige kamer ) of ORG of The GPE examined and rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal of DATE . ORG held that the applicant had not demonstrated that GPE would fall short of its obligations under LAW or Article CARDINAL of the Convention . This finding was not altered by the fact that , on DATE , a Rule CARDINAL indication had been given to the GPE as this temporary measure could not be interpreted as an indication about the eventual finding on the merits by the ORG .","On DATE , the applicant filed a further appeal with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . On DATE , ORG accepted the further appeal , quashed the judgment of DATE , accepted the applicant \u2019s appeal against the Deputy Minister \u2019s decision of DATE , and quashed this decision but ordered that its legal effects were to remain entirely intact . In view of the ORG \u2019s judgment of DATE in the case of ORG v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE , it noted that the applicant had relied from the outset on documents containing general information and found that these had not been examined in the manner as described in the ORG v. GPE and GPE judgment . As it did , however , not find any reason for reaching a different decision in the applicant \u2019s case , ORG decided that the legal consequences of the impugned decision of DATE were to remain intact . No further appeal lay against this decision .","On DATE , the President of the Section decided that information was required from ORG and a number of factual questions were put to ORG which concerned the applicant \u2019s situation in GPE before his arrival in the GPE . ORG submitted their replies on DATE and the applicant \u2019s comments in reply were submitted on CARDINAL DATE . He stated , inter alia , that he had lied about his age at the time of his initial arrival in GPE as well as when he later applied for asylum , fearing that admitting that he was a minor would entail his separation from his countrymen with whom he had arrived in GPE . The applicant denied having left the PERSON - Palese centre of his own volition . He was forced to leave this centre because it was about to be closed down . As no subsequent reception facilities were provided to him , he had been forced to live in the streets in horrendous circumstances .","The relevant NORP , NORP and GPE law , instruments , principles and practice in respect of asylum proceedings , reception of asylum seekers and transfers of asylum seekers under LAW have recently been summarised in LOC v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE and CARDINAL other applications DATE . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL & CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG and GPE v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; and PERSON v. the GPE and GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169650","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SHIOSHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country);Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in PERSON ( GPE ) . She is the mother of the second , third , fourth and fifth applicant , all NORP nationals and born respectively in DATE and DATE .","During the period from DATE to DATE identity checks of NORP nationals residing in GPE were carried out in the streets , markets and other workplaces as well as at their homes . Many were subsequently arrested and taken to police stations . After a period of custody in police stations , they were grouped together and taken by bus to a court , which summarily imposed administrative penalties on them and gave decisions ordering their administrative expulsion from NORP territory . Subsequently , some were taken to detention centres for foreigners where they were detained for varying periods of time , and then taken by bus to various airports in GPE , and expelled to GPE by aeroplane . Some of the NORP nationals against whom expulsion orders were issued left the territory of GPE by their own means ( for further details as to the background of the case see GPE v. GPE ( I ) , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the first applicant , her husband and her CARDINAL children arrived in GPE for the first time . At that time there was no visa requirement for NORP citizens in place . In the subsequent years the first applicant , her husband and the children had been back and forth several times between GPE and GPE .","NORP In DATE the first applicant and her children again entered the territory of GPE with a visa valid for DATE . They settled together with their husband \/ father in the village of PERSON , in the PERSON district of GPE city .","In DATE the first applicant gave birth to her fourth child , the fifth applicant . The first applicant did not apply for a birth certificate for the fifth applicant at that time , since she was unlawfully residing in GPE .","At DATE , the applicants moved to the city of PERSON in order to avoid expulsion .","On DATE a police officer visited the applicants\u2019 family home in PERSON and requested the first applicant to produce her identity papers . Owing to the absence of visa documents the officer asked all applicants to follow him to the local police station , where an administrative offence report was drawn up . The applicants left the police station after TIME . The police officer informed the first applicant that a court hearing concerning her case would take place soon . He further advised her to apply for a birth certificate for the fifth applicant .","On DATE ORG in GPE issued a temporary birth certificate for the fifth applicant , valid until DATE .","On DATE a hearing before ORG of the GPE Region took place , following which an expulsion decision was issued . The court only ordered the expulsion of the first applicant , even though mentioning in its decision that she was mother to CARDINAL children . The hearing lasted TIME and despite the first applicant \u2019s limited knowledge of the LANGUAGE language , she was not assisted by an interpreter .","On DATE , after having received the expulsion decision of DATE all CARDINAL applicants left GPE . Due to suspended air , rail , road , sea and postal communications between GPE and GPE , the applicants took the train from GPE to GPE ( GPE ) . The first applicant was DATE pregnant at the material time and her CARDINAL minor children were TIME , DATE .","According to the applicants their train was stopped by NORP migration officers on DATE at TIME near the NORP \/ NORP border and all NORP nationals were asked to get off the train with their belongings . The officers collected the applicants\u2019 identity and travel documents and confiscated CARDINAL ORG from the first applicant , which allegedly had not been declared . The officers informed all the NORP including the applicants , that there were various irregularities in their documents and that they could not continue their journey , whereas all NORP could resume their journey on the train .","The CARDINAL applicants were then requested to walk with the other NORP nationals to a bus , which went to PERSON . CARDINAL migration officers escorted the group but would not inform them of the authorities\u2019 intention nor where the group was being taken . Due to the cold weather and her advanced pregnancy the walk and the bus ride were particular difficult for the first applicant . In particular , since she had to carry a suitcase and her youngest child . Her oral complaints to the officers about these circumstances were of no avail .","Once the group arrived in PERSON , the migration officers asked the group to accompany them to the migration service office . The first applicant was unable to continue walking and waited outside for TIME with her children . She was worried for the health of her minor children and for the unborn child .","On DATE , at CARDINAL am , the group was taken to PERSON train station for TIME . They had to pay MONEY to the police officers , who guarded them , to be allowed to go to the toilet . No water or food was provided .","At daybreak , the police officers asked the group to go to the migration service office again , where they spent the whole day waiting outside at a temperature of CARDINAL C.","In TIME the first applicant \u2019s health deteriorated , her children were crying and coughing and no shelter , water or food was offered by the authorities . Finally , the group of NORP rented an unheated , CARDINAL - room basement flat in PERSON , for which the first applicant had to pay MONEY per day for her and the children . CARDINAL women and QUANTITY children from the group of NORP , including the applicants , settled in CARDINAL room , which had CARDINAL beds . The remaining CARDINAL rooms were occupied by CARDINAL NORP men .","According to the applicants the migration officers regularly visited the flat , but the first applicant \u2019s complaints about her worsening health were to no avail .","On DATE the first applicant tried to cross the NORP \/ NORP border with her CARDINAL eldest children , the second , third and fourth applicant . The fifth applicant stayed with the other NORP , as her birth certificate had expired on DATE . However , they were stopped by the customs officers who indicated that the court \u2019s expulsion decision only concerned the first applicant and not her children . They were subsequently sent back to PERSON .","The first applicant \u2019s health worsened , she suffered from a cold and had a fever , became depressed and had repeated asthma attacks .","On DATE , after having gone back and forth to the migration service office , and with the help of an employee from the consulate service of ORG in GPE , the first applicant finally obtained transit visa for her children and all other necessary documents , so that all CARDINAL applicants could leave for GPE .","NORP Several national broadcasting television companies reported on the PERSON situation in PERSON on a DATE basis CARDINAL .","According to the Government the border control services , which conducted immigration controls in the trains going to GPE , did not bring any NORP nationals to the migration services on CARDINAL or DATE . However , on DATE the name of the fifth applicant was registered by ORG of the Interior at Derbent station in the register of passengers put off trains . She was , however , registered as a NORP national . The other CARDINAL applicants were not registered in the aforementioned register .","The Government further explained that according to the normal procedure persons , who are put off international trains , are invited to ORG to include their personal data in the register . These persons , however , are neither coerced to do so , nor accompanied on their route to the station , nor passed over to the migration service department .","Further investigations by the NORP authorities revealed , according to the Government , that the first applicant temporarily resided in a house in PERSON with the consent of the house owners . According to the testimony of the house owners the first applicant lived there free of charge , was not accompanied by children and no police officer or other official visited the first applicant in the house .","On DATE a group of CARDINAL NORP , including the applicants , travelled to the NORP \/ NORP border in CARDINAL buses that they had hired . At the border the customs officers checked the documents for TIME , while the applicants had to wait standing outside .","With another bus the group travelled through the city of GPE to the NORP \/ NORP border . The last QUANTITY to the border the applicants had to walk , as the bus driver had asked them to get off the bus : The first applicant and her youngest child , the fifth applicant , were able to take a taxi to the border , but the CARDINAL other applicants had to continue walking ; the temperature was below QUANTITY","After having arrived in GPE , the first applicant \u2019s health was particularly bad . She suffered from a severe cough and fever , her right leg had grown numb and her general condition was extremely weak . Owing to her financial situation and the lack of health insurance the applicant did not visit a hospital right away . On DATE a pregnancy examination showed that the pregnancy was progressing and that the fetus was well .","On DATE , the first applicant \u2019s health worsened , she had an asthma attack and severe abdominal pain .","On DATE , the first applicant was taken to hospital where she gave birth to a stillborn child DATE .","According to the death certificate issued by ORG on DATE , the child died as a result of \u201c intranatal hipoqsy \u201d caused by a viral infection . The birth history no CARDINAL , issued on the same date , stated that \u201c the stress experienced by the pregnant mother during the expulsion could be considered a reason for the child \u2019s death \u201d .","During DATE , the first applicant suffered from severe depression and panic attacks . Furthermore , the fourth applicant developed a very bad cough and caught pneumonia . The fifth applicant , the first applicant \u2019s youngest child , was deeply affected psychologically by the expulsion : she was constantly crying and afraid of other people and diagnosed with \u201c behavioral disorder \u201d .","NORP On DATE , the first applicant lodged a complaint with ORG office of GPE . She directly mentioned violations of ORG and CARDINAL of the LAW and requested a thorough investigation and the punishment of those responsible .","On DATE , the first applicant \u2019s representative received an answer , informing him that the complaint had been forwarded to the Prosecutor of PERSON and that he would be notified about further procedural actions taken in this respect .","However , he received no further information from the NORP authorities .","The ORG observes that it is confronted with a dispute over the events starting from DATE and reiterates that the proceedings before the ORG are adversarial in nature . It is therefore for the parties to substantiate their factual arguments by providing the ORG with the necessary evidence . Whereas the ORG is responsible for establishing the facts , it is up to the parties to provide active assistance by supplying it with all the relevant information ( see Lisnyy and others v. GPE and GPE DATE . ) , ORG . ORG GPE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE , with further references ) .","The ORG must therefore reach its decision on the basis of the evidence submitted by the parties . In the proceedings before it , there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or predetermined formulae for its assessment . It adopts the conclusions that are , in its view , supported by the free evaluation of all evidence , including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties\u2019 submissions . According to its established case - law , proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . Moreover , the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and , in this connection , the distribution of the burden of proof , are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts , the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake ( see PERSON and Others v. PERSON [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ) .","The ORG notes that the applicants submitted documents regarding their medical history and confirming the death of the first applicant \u2019s unborn child . In relation to the events in question they provided copies of their passports and of the train tickets and records from the before mentioned television reports ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition they submitted the complaint to ORG office as well as its reply .","The Government provided the ORG with the expulsion decision of ORG of the GPE and the correlating administrative offence report .","In regards to the parties\u2019 submissions and the provided documents the ORG notes the following : The Government confirmed that the fifth applicant , a DATE child , was put off the train and registered by ORG of the Interior at PERSON station . Having particular regard to the age of the fifth applicant , this fact allows the inference that the other applicants accompanying the fifth applicant were also put off the train but not registered by ORG of the Interior . This inference is further corroborated by the television reports , showing the applicants in PERSON , and the applicants\u2019 detailed submission to the ORG as well as to ORG office .","In sum the ORG finds it established that the applicants\u2019 train travel from GPE to GPE was interrupted by NORP authorities , that the applicants were put off the train in TIME and that they awaited the issuance of transit visa in PERSON until DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["P4-2","P4-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-2"],"non_violated_articles":["P4"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P4-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147044","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ADEISHVILI (MAZMISHVILI) v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","According to the applicant , in DATE , at DATE , he moved to GPE from GPE with his parents . In DATE he settled in GPE , PERSON , whereas his parents moved back to GPE .","On DATE the NORP ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of extortion and theft of a passport , and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . According to the applicant , in order to spare his mother \u2019s feelings , he told the prosecuting authorities that his name was PERSON . On DATE the applicant was released on parole . Upon release he was issued with an ORG card in the name of PERSON .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of theft and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . Again he claimed that his name was PERSON and presented the relevant ID card . On CARDINAL June CARDINAL the applicant was released on parole .","The applicant was in a relationship with PERSON On DATE PERSON gave birth to a girl . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was recognised as the girl \u2019s father . On DATE the applicant and PERSON got married . On DATE PERSON gave birth to the couple \u2019s second daughter . According to the Government , PERSON and her QUANTITY daughters are NORP nationals .","According to the Government , on DATE the applicant was found administratively liable for failing to have his residency in GPE duly authorised .","On DATE the applicant was registered as a migrant under the name of PERSON . The registration remained valid until CARDINAL DATE .","It appears that on an unspecified date the applicant asked the NORP migration authorities to issue him with a NORP passport indicating that his name was PERSON . Following their refusal , the applicant lodged a claim with ORG of ORG and GPE , asking the court to confirm that he had been residing permanently in GPE since DATE .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request . The court based its findings on the applicant \u2019s birth certificate in the name of PERSON submitted by him , a certificate issued by the ORG municipal authorities and the testimony of PERSON , stating that the applicant had been renting a flat from her since DATE .","On DATE the applicant received a NORP passport in the name of PERSON .","On DATE the regional migration service asked ORG to quash the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and remit the matter for new consideration .","On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , noting that the certificate confirming the applicant \u2019s residence in ORG had not in fact been issued by the town administration . The matter was remitted for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG noted that the applicant , who had been duly notified of the date and time of the court hearing , had failed to appear in court on CARDINAL occasions . ORG left the matter without consideration on the merits and discontinued the proceedings . The applicant did not appeal .","On DATE the migration service terminated the applicant \u2019s NORP citizenship and invalidated his passport . According to the applicant , the migration services transmitted the case file to the prosecuting authorities for further inquiry . He did not inform ORG inquiry \u2019s outcome .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken to a police station where he spent DATE . His passport was confiscated . On DATE an expert from the regional department of the interior confirmed that the applicant \u2019s fingerprints corresponded to those belonging to GPE Goderziyevich PERSON .","In TIME CARDINAL DATE the applicant was taken to ORG , which started the hearing at TIME The applicant was represented by a ORG - appointed lawyer . ORG considered that the applicant was PERSON . It found that , as a person without citizenship , he had failed to have his residency in GPE duly authorised . It therefore imposed a fine on him and ordered his expulsion from GPE to GPE . The court also held that the applicant should be remanded in custody pending expulsion until DATE . In particular , the court noted as follows :","\u201c When deciding whether to expel PERSON . PERSON GPE and taking into account that the defendant has a family and a minor child , the court sees no reason not to expel [ him ] in view of the offences he has committed in GPE , his unlawful acquisition of a NORP passport and his lack of employment . \u201d","NORP The applicant appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE alleging , inter alia , that the ORG - appointed lawyer had not carried out his defence effectively , and that the court had failed to provide him with a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE or a record of his own questioning of DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal . The applicant was represented by counsel of his own choosing .","On DATE the police sent the documents concerning the applicant \u2019s expulsion to the NORP authorities .","On DATE the President of ORG upheld the judgments of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .","It appears that the regional migration service could not prepare the documents necessary to expel the applicant to GPE and asked ORG to extend the applicant \u2019s detention pending expulsion .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court noted that the NORP authorities had not yet prepared the documents necessary for the applicant \u2019s expulsion to GPE . The court considered that the applicant , if released , might abscond or fail to comply with the expulsion order . The applicant \u2019s detention was repeatedly extended by ORG .","On DATE the NORP authorities informed the regional migration service that a real PERSON was residing in GPE and it was not possible to issue the requested documents in that name for the applicant \u2019s expulsion to GPE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release . Referring to the information supplied by the NORP authorities , the court considered that it was not possible to expel the applicant under the name of PERSON .","According to the ORG , the applicant has not been expelled . He has no document confirming his ORG , and the NORP authorities have not established his identity .","According to the applicant , ORG , when deciding to detain him pending expulsion , took into account a certificate prepared by police captain PERSON on which it was noted that the applicant \u201c had been involved in car thefts , belonged to the GPE organised criminal group ... [ and ] was a drug dealer . \u201d","Despite a complaint lodged by the applicant that PERSON had knowingly disseminated false information about him , on CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against P.","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in a special detention centre in GPE .","According to the ORG , all the inmates detained with a view to expulsion were held in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . During the period of the applicant \u2019s detention , the cell population varied from CARDINAL persons in all CARDINAL cells . On average , the number of persons detained in a cell was CARDINAL .","Each detainee was provided with a mattress , a pillow , sheets and a blanket . The sheets were changed on DATE the applicant was allowed to take a shower . According to the relevant ledger , the applicant took showers on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE DATE , and on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","Each cell had a window opening onto a hallway . The window was covered with a metal grill . The light coming from the hallway was sufficient for reading . The window was periodically kept open to ensure proper ventilation of the cell . There was a table and a bench with seating for CARDINAL persons in each cell . Both the table and the bench were fixed onto the floor .","The cells where the applicant was detained from DATE to CARDINAL DATE were not equipped with a toilet . The detainees were taken out of the cell at least twice a day to use the toilet in the building . During the nighttime the inmates had to use buckets placed in the cells . The buckets were emptied and disinfected DATE . In DATE toilets and wash sinks were installed in all cells of the special detention centre . They became operational in DATE .","Food was provided CARDINAL times a day . Breakfast consisted of hot tea , sugar and a pastry ; lunch comprised of soup , meat or fish with a side dish , and tea with sugar or a fruit drink . The applicant also received food parcels from his family and friends .","According to the applicant \u2019s file , he declared a hunger strike twice . Each time he was examined by a paramedic . On a number of occasions ambulance doctors attended to the applicant .","The special detention centre had an exercise area measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY covered with a metal grill . The detainees had TIME outdoor exercise DATE .","NORP The applicant was allowed to telephone his family on several occasions . The internal regulations did not provide for the right to a family visit .","The applicant provided the following information as regards his detention in the special detention centre :","Prior to the refurbishment of the special detention centre , there had been no toilets or wash sinks in the cell . The inmates had had to use a bucket placed in the cell . It had been emptied twice a day . The inmates had been allowed to use toilets outside the cell twice a day . The toilets had offered no privacy . CARDINAL inmates had been taken simultaneously to the lavatory and had had to use the toilet in front of the others waiting for their turn .","The toilets installed in the cells offered no privacy either . Only cell no . CARDINAL had a QUANTITY high partition separating the toilet from the living area of the cell .","The applicant did not contest the ORG \u2019s submissions as regards the frequency of the showers he had been allowed to take . According to him , the hot water had run out after TIME . Each time the inmates had had from CARDINAL TIME to take a shower and to do their laundry . They could use only cold water for the laundry . The sheets , which were old and ragged , had been changed every two weeks .","The windows in the cell were covered by CARDINAL sets of metal bars on both sides . Access to daylight was insufficient . The table and the bench allowed for QUANTITY persons to eat . The rest of the inmates had to eat sitting on their beds . In cell no . CARDINAL the applicant was given a mattress that was infested with lice .","Cell no . CARDINAL , which was unofficially called \u201c a disciplinary cell \u201d , had no windows . During DATE the applicant spent in that cell , he was not taken out for outdoor exercise .","The DATE outdoor exercise lasted TIME and took place in a yard measuring QUANTITY .","The applicant had nothing to do while detained at the special detention centre . There was no library , television or radio . He was not allowed to subscribe to a newspaper or a magazine .","Breakfast was served at TIME , lunch was served at TIME and dinner , if any , was served at TIME Breakfast consisted of a piece of white bread , a mug of hot water and a piece of sugar . No spoon was provided . For lunch inmates received soup with an unpleasant odour and taste , a minced meat cutlet and a piece of rye bread . For dinner they were given a burger and cabbage . The meals were DATE . Because of the applicant \u2019s condition , he could not eat any of the food served . Drinking water was not provided at all . The foodstuff sent by the applicant \u2019s family quickly perished as no fridge was provided and the applicant had to store the food under his bed ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164315","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RADOBULJAC v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He is an advocate . In that capacity , he represented the plaintiff in civil proceedings instituted on CARDINAL DATE before ORG ( PERSON ORG ) , in which his client sought payment of a certain amount of money from the defendant .","On DATE ORG held a hearing , which the applicant attended . At the end of the hearing , the court scheduled DATE for DATE .","The applicant did not attend the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , at which the court made a decision to suspend the proceedings ( mirovanje postupka ) in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant , on behalf of the plaintiff , lodged an appeal against that decision .","He explained that he had been unable to attend the hearing owing to a vehicle malfunction , and that he had tried to contact the court and the defendant \u2019s representative , with a view to informing them of the reason for his absence . He further stated that , after the hearing , he had spoken by telephone with the defendant \u2019s representative , who had told him that , despite his ( the representative \u2019s ) suggestion to proceed and hear the defendant \u2019s testimony , the court had decided to adjourn the hearing and suspend the proceedings . The applicant argued that , if that was true , the court \u2019s decision to suspend the proceedings had had no legal basis . He explained that suspending proceedings was an instrument for maintaining procedural discipline , the effect of which was to delay proceedings and thereby penalise the parties for their inaction . Yet , in his case , he and his client had been penalised by a delay even though it was through no fault of his own that he had failed to attend the hearing . He then stated :","\u201c With a view to highlighting the unacceptable conduct of the judge , the following circumstances have to be mentioned .","The parties\u2019 representatives and the defendant attended the hearing held on DATE .","The plaintiff did not attend because no testimonies from the parties were scheduled , he is of low income , and he resides in GPE .","The hearing in question was characterised by the fact that the party present at court did not give evidence and the judge attempted to adjourn the hearing without scheduling another one .","The judge [ eventually ] adjourned the hearing , and only at the insistence of the plaintiff \u2019s representative scheduled another CARDINAL for DATE .","Such conduct from the judge is absolutely unacceptable . In behaving in this way , he seeks to give the impression that he is proceeding with the case [ i.e. that the case is being dealt with ] , whereas , essentially , hearings are being held which are devoid of substance .","Since the plaintiff \u2019s representative has no reason to doubt the defendant \u2019s representative \u2019s statement that he had suggested hearing the defendant \u2019s testimony at the hearing in question [ the hearing of DATE ] , that statement indicates that the court could not have issued the contested decision .","...","The contested decision should therefore be quashed . \u201d","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , Judge PERSON DATE who was the first - instance single judge in the above case DATE fined the applicant CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) for contempt of court . The relevant part of that decision reads :","\u201c ... the advocate in the appeal ... first admitted not having attended the hearing scheduled for DATE ... owing to a vehicle malfunction ...","Instead of asking for the proceedings to be restored to the status quo ante [ restitutio in integrum ob terminem elapsum , povrat u prija\u0161nje stanje ] as a result of objective reasons and force majeure , the advocate in question , for no reason whatsoever , states on the second page of the appeal , \u2018 Such conduct from the judge is absolutely unacceptable . In behaving in this way , he seeks to give the impression that he is proceeding with the case [ i.e. that the case is being dealt with ] , whereas , essentially , hearings are being held which are devoid of substance.\u2019 [ T]hat statement is certainly offensive to the court and the judge [ concerned ] , and as such constitutes unacceptable communication between the court and the advocate representing CARDINAL of the parties .","By making that offensive statement , the advocate in question implies that the judge hearing the case proceeds pointlessly , and most likely proceeds pointlessly with all other cases , which represents a serious insult to both the court and the judge .","For that insult , the court fined the advocate HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . Such a fine will most likely [ discourage ] the advocate from insulting the court and judge hearing the case in future , in his appeals and [ other ] submissions , and encourage him to pay them due respect in all circumstances . \u201d","NORP The applicant appealed against that decision , arguing that his statement had not been offensive or demeaning . Rather , by making that statement , he had criticised the first - instance court \u2019s inefficiency in conducting the proceedings . In particular , in his appeal , the applicant wrote , inter alia , the following :","\u201c The operative provisions [ of the contested decision ] indicate that the fine was imposed for offending the court in the appeal of DATE by stating , \u2018 Such conduct from the judge is absolutely unacceptable . In behaving in this way , he seeks to give the impression that he is proceeding with the case [ i.e. that the case is being dealt with ] , whereas , essentially , hearings are being held which are devoid of substance\u2019 .","I consider the contested decision to be without basis .","The quoted statement does not represent an insult . [ Rather , ] it is an assessment of how usefully the proceedings in the present case were conducted .","The statements quoted in the contested decision ... can not in themselves , and especially having regard to the behaviour of the judge hearing the case , [ be regarded as ] disrespectful , which would justify the need to issue a decision on the fine .","...","In addition to the plaintiff \u2019s representative , the defendant and [ her ] representative attended the hearing scheduled for DATE . The record [ of that hearing ] states that [ the plaintiff ] reaffirmed his action and the submissions of DATE , and that the defendant maintained the arguments expressed in [ her ] response ... of CARDINAL DATE . Beside this , nothing else happened at that hearing .","...","Apart from acknowledging the facts as stated above , the judge hearing the case did not carry out any action intended to bring the proceedings to an end , except for scheduling the next hearing .","At that hearing , he did not even oblige the defendant to provide evidence for the claims expressed in [ her ] response .","At that hearing , not even a decision to hear testimonies from the parties was adopted . Only at the request of the plaintiff \u2019s representative did the judge decide to schedule the next hearing .","...","In the circumstances , it is evident that the hearing scheduled for CARDINAL DATE would have been identical ... to the previous hearing .","The plaintiff \u2019s representative considers such conduct to be at odds with the purpose of law .","...","Given that the purpose of a hearing is concentrated deliberation , that purpose is frustrated when such concentrated deliberation is lacking . One should also bear in mind that such conduct increases the costs of proceedings ... [ without ] rational justification .","...","No intention to offend was expressed in the submissions in question [ that is , the appeal of DATE ] . The quoted statement represents a view assessing how usefully the proceedings were being conducted .","In the reasoning [ of the contested decision ] , it is stated that the representative implies that the judge hearing the case \u2018 most likely proceeds pointlessly with all other GPE . That view is not supported by any argument and has no basis [ in what was written in the appeal ] . \u201d","By a decision of DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u Vukovaru ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision . The relevant part of that decision , which was served on the applicant on DATE , reads :","\u201c When deciding to fine the representative for contempt of court ... the first - instance court correctly held DATE and gave valid reasons for its view \u2013 that such statements constituted unacceptable communication between the court and an advocate ... , the assessment of which is within the discretion of the court before which the proceedings are pending .","Those statements ... go beyond the limits of an advocate \u2019s role in the proceedings ... and may be legally characterised as abuse of process on account of inappropriate communication . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decisions of the ordinary courts . In so doing , he complained that those decisions were in breach of his freedom of expression . He explicitly relied on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the contested decision was not open to constitutional review . That decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161748","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BULIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , ORG .","On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with theft . On DATE the case was settled and the criminal proceedings were discontinued .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a murder . The applicant was DATE at the time of the arrest .","On DATE ORG of the LOC authorised the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention noting as follows :","\u201c Having heard the parties to the proceedings and examined the materials , [ the court ] has established that there is reasonable suspicion that [ the applicant ] has committed the crime . The other participants in the crime confessed and incriminated [ the applicant ] .","Given that [ the applicant ] has been previously charged with criminal offences , that he is suspected of having committed a serious crime , it is impossible to apply a more lenient preventive measure . \u201d","On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE noting as follows :","\u201c Regard being had to the [ applicant \u2019s ] character and the seriousness of the charges against him , the court considers that it is not possible to lift or replace the earlier imposed preventive measure because [ the applicant ] may interfere with the establishment of the truth or abscond . \u201d","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . It reiterated verbatim its earlier reasoning .","On DATE the investigator dropped the murder charges against the applicant for lack of corpus delicti . He further re - classified the charge against the applicant as robbery committed by a group of persons .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pretrial detention until DATE . The court noted as follows :","\u201c Regard being had to the seriousness of the charges , the [ applicant \u2019s ] character and the negative references , the court does not discern grounds to change the earlier imposed preventive measure or to release [ the applicant ] . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal noting that , in view of the seriousness of the charges , the applicant might interfere with the establishment of the truth , abscond or re - offend .","On DATE ORG fixed the preliminary hearing of the applicant \u2019s case for DATE . The court also ruled that the applicant should be detained pending trial . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the said decision on appeal .","On DATE ORG rescheduled the preliminary hearing in the applicant \u2019s case for DATE . The applicant and his lawyer were present . The lawyer asked for the applicant \u2019s release into his mother \u2019s care pending trial . The court dismissed the request and extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE noting that \u201c the preventive measure earlier imposed on [ the applicant ] should remain unchanged \u201d . Both the applicant and his lawyer appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal . The court decided to consider the matter in the applicant \u2019s absence noting that the applicant had attended the hearing on DATE and had been provided with an opportunity to be heard . The applicant \u2019s lawyer and the prosecutor were present and made submissions to the court . As regards the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , the court ruled that the circumstances underlying the applicant \u2019s remand in custody continued to exist . In this connection the court noted as follows :","\u201c It follows from the materials of the case that [ the applicant ] has earlier committed another crime , that he had been absent from classes in school and had demonstrated anti - social behavior . He had not spent TIME at home and had not lived with his mother for extended periods of time . His mother could not control his behavior ; she did not pay due attention to his upbringing and had no influence over him . The [ applicant \u2019s ] release into his mother \u2019s care ... would not ensure his due behavior pending trial . \u201d","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s and CARDINAL other GPE detention until DATE . The court noted :","\u201c The defendants are charged with particularly serious offences ; the circumstances of their remand in custody have not changed . The court does not discern circumstances that would allow it to apply a more lenient preventive measure , including the [ applicant \u2019s ] release into his mother \u2019s care . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention and CARDINAL other GPE detention until DATE . The court reiterated verbatim its reasoning of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of robbery and sentenced him to CARDINAL and a half years\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld , in substance , the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal .","On DATE ORG of GPE released the applicant on parole ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168857","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KOLEVATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169271","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"RYABTSEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed from her post as director of a municipal art school in GPE .","DATE the applicant took ORG to court , seeking reinstatement .","On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG of GPE dismissed her claim in full . It found that her dismissal had been lawful and had come as a response to her unsatisfactory performance at work .","The applicant appealed . She then submitted an addendum to the appeal , stating that Judge PERSON was biased because the judge \u2019s daughter worked as a lawyer at ORG . The applicant also alleged that as Judge PERSON was also a Deputy President of ORG and , among other duties , was in charge of the allocation of civil cases , she had intentionally taken charge of the applicant \u2019s case .","An internal inquiry into the impartiality of Judge PERSON was ordered by the President of ORG of GPE .","The inquiry showed that there were no reasons for the judge to recuse herself suo motu in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . There were no grounds to believe that Judge PERSON had allocated the applicant \u2019s case to herself intentionally . She had received the case because she was a senior judge who dealt with complex issues , such as reinstatement disputes , on a regular basis . Furthermore , her daughter had no evident connection to the applicant and had never been involved with the case . Also , the judge \u2019s daughter had been on maternity leave since DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal in cassation by the applicant . ORG addressed the applicant \u2019s allegations of impartiality and also found them unsubstantiated .","Section QUANTITY of LAW Procedure reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... a judge shall not hear a case and shall be recused when :","CARDINAL ) he or she was involved in the case as a prosecutor , court clerk , representative , witness , expert or interpreter ;","CARDINAL ) he or she is related to any person involved in a case or their respective representatives ;","CARDINAL ) he or she has a personal direct or indirect interest in the outcome of a case or there are some other grounds to doubt his or her impartiality . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162696","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"STEFANOV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","An ancestor of the applicant , of whom the applicant is the only heir , owned land in the city of PERSON that was expropriated after DATE . Following the adoption of denationalisation legislation in GPE , in DATE the applicant initiated restitution proceedings .","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the governor of the GPE region ( \u201c the GPE governor \u201d ) held that the land could not be restituted in kind , and awarded the applicant compensation in lieu of restitution . The PERSON governor found that the land had been taken for the construction of buildings and streets , that the construction works had been completed , and that the land which remained unoccupied was insufficient to be registered as separate plot . These findings were reached on the basis of documents submitted by the PERSON municipality , including a letter dated DATE stating expressly that the unoccupied land was insufficient for a separate plot .","According to the applicant , since he had no ground to question the veracity of the documents submitted by the municipality , he did not seek a judicial review of the PERSON governor \u2019s decision , which thus became final . In DATE the applicant received the compensation awarded to him , which took the form of compensation bonds .","Subsequently the applicant became aware that at about the time when he had sought restitution the municipality had initiated a procedure aimed at separating that part of the land claimed by him which had been unoccupied by buildings or other construction and creating from it an independent plot . The creation of a new plot with a surface of QUANTITY was approved by the mayor of PERSON in a decision of DATE . After that the plot was sold to a third party and construction works were commenced .","In DATE the applicant brought a tort action against the NORP municipality , arguing that it had failed to submit to the PERSON governor correct information regarding the status of the land claimed by him . He considered that this had caused him damage , in that had he been awarded partial restitution in kind on the basis of the correct information , he would have received more than what he had actually received after the sale of his compensation bonds . The applicant assessed the losses he had incurred at MONEY ( ORG ) .","The Sofia City Court commissioned an expert report , which confirmed that the documents submitted by the PERSON municipality in the restitution proceedings had not accurately reflected the land \u2019s true status . In point of fact , the land unoccupied by construction at the time had been sufficient to form a separate plot under the statutory requirements . ORG accepted the report \u2019s findings .","In a judgment of DATE it dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . It noted that a number of circumstances should have been established in order to substantiate the tort claim ; however , it had not been shown that the land claimed by the applicant had been expropriated on any of the grounds giving rise to an entitlement to restitution , that the applicant had in fact sought restitution in kind , and that , lastly , the PERSON governor had refused such restitution in kind ( and if he had , on what legal ground ) . Thus , it had not been shown that a causal link existed between the alleged damage and the defendant \u2019s actions .","On appeal , on DATE the above judgment was upheld by ORG . It also pointed out that in order to prove his claim the applicant had had to establish a causal link between the alleged damage and the actions of the defendant , consisting of a number of elements , and that the failure to establish just CARDINAL of them would lead to the rejection of the claim . Like the first - instance court , ORG pointed out that a number of elements in the causal link were missing . It held that it was not clear on what evidence the PERSON governor had relied in granting compensation in the restitution proceedings . It further held that the applicant had not requested restitution in kind and that it was not proven that he had been entitled to restitution in kind , as it was not established that the documents submitted by the PERSON municipality had been the only basis for holding that such restitution was impossible .","Upon a further appeal by the applicant , ORG judgment was upheld by ORG in a final judgment of DATE . ORG main argument was that the applicant had failed to apply for a judicial review of the PERSON governor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE and seek to establish that a partial restitution in kind had been possible . Thus , any damage incurred by the applicant had not been due to actions on the part of the PERSON municipality but rather to his own failure to act .","NORP In separate proceedings , in DATE the applicant brought an action against the governors of the GPE and PERSON regions . That action was dismissed in a final judgment by ORG . On DATE ORG also dismissed an application by the applicant for the re - opening of the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159439","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"A.T.H. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE in GPE and is currently living in the GPE . She was represented before the ORG by Ms S. den Boer , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , of ORG . ORG , who had been invited to intervene under LAW of ORG , were represented by their Agent , PERSON , and their co - Agent , PERSON .","The following summary of the facts of the case is based on the submissions of the applicant and on the replies received from ORG and GPE to factual questions put to them under LAW ( a ) of ORG .","NORP The applicant claims to be a national of GPE because both her parents were nationals of that country . She had lived in GPE all her life when she left that country in DATE , out of fear of deportation to GPE , where she would have to undertake military service . Subsequently , having stayed for some time in GPE and GPE , the applicant arrived in GPE on DATE , where she applied for asylum under another identity . She was granted a residence permit in GPE which was valid for DATE until DATE and was later extended for DATE until DATE . However , she left GPE for the GPE in DATE because , having been granted a residence permit , she purportedly received no other support . She was not provided with ( money for ) food or medical assistance , and was forced to live on the street . Allegedly , she applied to ORG authorities and human rights organisations for help on a number of occasions , but without success .","At the time of her entry to the GPE in DATE , the applicant was pregnant . She was subsequently diagnosed as being HIV - positive .","The applicant applied for asylum in the GPE on DATE .","On DATE the applicant gave birth to a daughter in the GPE .","On DATE the Minister of Justice ( Minister PERSON ) rejected the applicant \u2019s request , finding GPE responsible for the determination of her asylum application , pursuant to ORG ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL of DATE ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) . The Minister dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim that , given her appalling living conditions in GPE DATE , she would risk treatment contrary to LAW if returned to GPE , considering that that claim remained wholly unsubstantiated . The general reports relied on by the applicant , which contained negative accounts of the situation of asylum - seekers in GPE , were not considered specific facts and circumstances relating to her individual case such as to form a basis for assuming that GPE would not comply with its obligations flowing from the Convention . Lastly , the applicant \u2019s contention that her medical situation did not allow her transfer to GPE was rejected by the Minister , who considered that the applicant was not receiving any specialist medical treatment in the GPE and that , moreover , it had not been alleged or demonstrated that adequate medical treatment would not be made available to her in GPE .","An appeal by the applicant against the Minister \u2019s decision was rejected by ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE sitting in GPE on DATE . It upheld the Minister \u2019s decision and reasoning .","A further appeal , together with a request for a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) staying her removal , was lodged by the applicant with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG . On DATE the President of the ORG granted the request for a provisional measure , deferring the applicant \u2019s transfer to GPE pending the outcome of the further appeal proceedings .","On DATE the ORG allowed the further appeal . It quashed the judgment of DATE , as well as the Minister \u2019s decision , as it found that he had failed to have due regard to the general reports submitted by the applicant concerning the situation of asylum - seekers in GPE , which might be relevant to the applicant \u2019s individual case . As to the merits of the case , the ORG found that the reports submitted by the applicant were insufficient to assume that her transfer to GPE would result in a violation of LAW due to the general living conditions of asylum - seekers in that country . Furthermore , as the applicant had been granted a residence permit in GPE earlier , she was not at risk of expulsion to her country of origin . The ORG ordered that the legal consequences of the refusal of the applicant \u2019s asylum request should be maintained .","No further appeal lay against that decision . On an unspecified date the applicant was informed that she and her child would be placed in an GPE detention centre ( vreemdelingenbewaring ) for removal purposes .","The application was lodged with the ORG on DATE , and on DATE the applicant asked the ORG to issue an interim measure within the meaning of Rule CARDINAL of ORG .","On DATE , in reply to questions put to them under LAW ( a ) , ORG informed ORG of practical aspects of the applicant \u2019s scheduled transfer to GPE . A copy of that reply was sent to the applicant for information .","On DATE the President of the Section decided , under Rule DATE , to indicate to ORG that it was desirable , in the interests of the parties and of the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , not to expel the applicant to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE the President of the Section decided that ORG should be invited , under Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , to answer factual questions about the applicant \u2019s situation in GPE when she had lived there previously and about the general accommodation , subsistence and medical care offered to asylum - seekers in GPE .","The Government of GPE submitted their answers on DATE . The applicant \u2019s comments in reply were received on DATE . Additional information was received from ORG on DATE . A copy was sent to ORG and the applicant for information .","On DATE additional factual questions were put to ORG about the practical effects given to the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of LOC v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) .","In their reply of DATE , ORG indicated DATE following the LOC judgment and where a case concerned the transfer of a family with minor children to GPE \u2013 the GPE authorities would only transfer such a family after guarantees had been obtained from the NORP authorities that the family would remain together , and where information was available about the specific facility where the family was to be accommodated , in order to guarantee that the conditions there were age - appropriate in respect of the children . For this reason , the actual transfer to GPE would be announced DATE beforehand , in order to give the NORP authorities the opportunity to provide information on the specific facility where the family was to be accommodated , to guarantee that the conditions in this facility were suitable , and to guarantee that the family would not be split up . If these guarantees were not received within the time - limit for transfers , as laid down in the Dublin Regulation , the persons involved would be channelled into the GPE asylum procedure . However , as long as a Rule CARDINAL indication was in place , the Government were not in a position to commence the preparations for the applicant \u2019s transfer to GPE .","The applicant \u2019s comments in reply were submitted on DATE . Having noted those submissions , the ORG decided to lift the Rule CARDINAL indication on DATE .","NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG submitted a copy of a circular letter dated DATE and sent by ORG of the NORP ORG ( GPE dell GPE ) to the GPE Units of the other member GPE of ORG , in which ORG set out the new policy of the NORP authorities on transfers to GPE of families with small children . The relevant part of ORG letter reads :","\u201c A new policy was considered necessary in view of the fact that reception facilities , specifically reserved for such families , frequently remained unavailed of as a result of families having left for an unknown destination prior to transfer , or having obtained a court order barring their transfer . In order to safeguard appropriate facilities where families may stay together , the NORP authorities earmarked a total of CARDINAL places , distributed over CARDINAL projects under ORG ( ORG ) . The authorities confirmed that this number will be extended should the need arise . As may be inferred from the letter of DATE , this comprehensive guarantee is intended to avoid the need for guarantees in specific cases .","ORG will continue to inform its NORP counterpart at an early stage of an intended transfer of a family with minor children . On DATE , the NORP , NORP and NORP migration liaison officers to GPE issued a report on ORG in general , including on the requirements the accommodations must fulfil , and on CARDINAL projects they had visited on the invitation of ORG . It is understood that DATE also ORG ( ORG ) will report on the matter .","The Government is of the opinion that the new NORP policy will adequately safeguard that families with minor children are kept together in accommodations appropriate to their needs . \u201d","On DATE ORG informed the ORG that the applicant \u2019s transfer to GPE under LAW had been scheduled for DATE , that the NORP authorities had been informed that the transfer concerned a single mother with a minor child , and that , with the applicant \u2019s permission , due reference had been made to her medical condition and the treatment required . They also submitted a copy of a letter of CARDINAL DATE from ORG , ORG , received by ORG of ORG ( Immigratie- en ORG ) via e - mail as a document titled \u201c Tarakhel Garanzie \u2013 [ the applicant \u2019s name ] \u201d . The letter stated , inter alia , \u201c We assure you that , after the transfer to GPE , this family group will be accommodated in a manner adapted to the age of the children and the family members will be kept together \u201d . The letter enclosed a note from ORG , detailing a reception project regarding the transfer of the applicant and her child .","ORG further submitted a copy of the standard form \u2013 prescribed under LAW ( ORG ) no . MONEY of ORG and of ORG by which the NORP authorities had been notified on DATE of the applicant \u2019s transfer to GPE , scheduled for DATE . It was indicated in that form that the applicant had health problems and that a medical report was attached to the form . The GPE official completing the form also noted :","\u201c Since this transfer concerns a mother with a minor child , I assume this family will be accommodated in CARDINAL of the centres included in the list of ORG - projects as mentioned in the annex to your letter dated DATE . \u201d","NORP The applicant \u2019s comments on the Government \u2019s submissions of CARDINAL and DATE were submitted on DATE . On DATE she asked the ORG to issue a fresh indication under LAW , submitting that the information provided by ORG contained only general guarantees , which were insufficient to ensure that she and her child would be provided with suitable accommodation and adequate medical care in GPE , emphasising her special needs as a HIV - positive person . The applicant further contended that the CARDINAL places in ORG projects which were earmarked for families with minor children were far from sufficient , taking into account the high number of migrants having arrived in GPE in DATE . The applicant argued that , without individual and specific guarantees , she ran a considerable risk of ending up living on the streets , without the special care she and her child needed .","Having noted the parties\u2019 submissions , on DATE the President of the Section decided to reject the applicant \u2019s fresh Rule CARDINAL request .","No further information about the current whereabouts of the applicant and her child has been submitted .","The relevant NORP , NORP and GPE law , instruments , principles and practice in respect of asylum proceedings , reception of asylum - seekers and transfers of asylum - seekers under LAW have recently been summarised in LOC v. GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE and CARDINAL other applications ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL & CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ; ORG and NORP v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and DATE , DATE ) ; and PERSON v. the GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS ( UNAIDS ) estimated that in DATE a total of CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) persons aged DATE or more with HIV or AIDS were living in GPE , of whom CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) were women . According to a comparative study carried out by ORG ) \u2013 covering CARDINAL ORG member GPE and published in DATE on the question of whether undocumented migrants and asylum - seekers are entitled to access health care in ORG , asylum - seekers in GPE are entitled to access health care on equal grounds as NORP nationals with regard to coverage and conditions . The same applies for unaccompanied children .","An information brochure on access to ORG by non - ORG nationals , published ( in LANGUAGE , among other languages ) by ORG , Migrazione e Povert\u00e0 ) of ORG , and provided to asylum - seekers and undocumented migrants , states that asylum - seekers have a statutory right to registration in ORG ( ORG ) system and to be provided with an ORG health insurance card . It further reads :","\u201c Asylum or international protection seekers are exempted from the co - pay fee following the statement of indigence . This principle is valid DATE following the submittal of the asylum application . As of DATE , asylum seekers are entitled to work . In order to notify their status of unemployment , they need to register with ORG and obtain the exemption card for low - income reasons . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162115","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CHENGELYAN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They live in GPE , apart from FAC PERSON , who lives in GPE , GPE . Before her death in DATE , PERSON Hampartsum PERSON lived in GPE .","Ancestors of the applicants owned a plot of land measuring QUANTITY in the old part of GPE , which had a QUANTITY house built on QUANTITY of it . In DATE the building was declared a cultural monument . In DATE the property was expropriated and the ORG ancestors received compensation . After that , the building was the subject of substantial renovation work , in particular after a fire destroyed part of it in DATE .","After the adoption of ORG ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , some of the applicants and other heirs of the original owners ( from whom the remaining applicants succeeded in the course of the domestic proceedings ) applied for the revocation of the expropriation . On DATE they were informed that their application had been refused by the mayor of GPE municipality , and on DATE they applied for judicial review of that refusal . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the administrative decision .","NORP However , in a final judgment of DATE ORG reversed . It found that the applicants\u2019 property had been taken under legislation regulating expropriations made with a view to carrying out public works , namely expropriations intended to be followed by the construction of new buildings or infrastructure . The property in issue , however , had been declared a cultural monument , and had been expropriated to be used as such , thus the expropriation had been in breach of the law . The fact that no construction work had ever been envisaged had to be assimilated to a situation where no public works within the meaning of LAW had ever been commenced . In addition , the renovation work carried out after the expropriation did not represent \u201c public works \u201d either , as it had only aimed to preserve the building . Lastly , it was noted that the property still existed . All of those factors meant that the preconditions for restitution had been fulfilled . On this basis , ORG revoked the expropriation , quashing the mayor \u2019s refusal in that regard .","Following the above judgment , in order to make the restitution effective ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on CARDINAL DATE the applicants paid back to the municipality the monetary compensation received by their ancestors at the time of the expropriation . The parties disagreed as to whether the applicants had also received compensation in the form of other property at the time of the expropriation , and whether they had to return that as well .","In DATE the applicants obtained a notarial deed , which named them as the property \u2019s owners .","NORP Despite the events described above , the applicants could not take possession of the property , because it was being held and used by the GPE municipality , which in DATE had declared it a public municipal property and had rented a room in the building to an organisation called \u201c CARDINAL Centuries Bulgaria \u201d ORG ( \u201c the Fund \u201d , see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","After unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate an agreement , in DATE the applicants brought rei vindicatio proceedings against the GPE municipality and the ORG . The action was dismissed by a final judgment of ORG DATE . In the first place , the domestic courts found that they were competent to examine the action . According to the second - instance ORG , the judgment of DATE was open to indirect judicial review , because it was replacing the mayor \u2019s administrative decision on the ORG request for restitution , and did not have a res judicata effect in proceedings specifically concerning the right to property . According to ORG , the defendants to the rei vindicatio action , namely the GPE municipality and ORG , had not participated in the earlier judicial proceedings and therefore were not bound by the judgment of DATE .","Next , the domestic courts found that the reparation work carried out on the building which the applicants were claiming had been so substantial ( the building \u2019s appearance had been preserved , but the internal construction had been largely modified \u2013 the roof , some windows and other elements had also been replaced ) that , within the meaning of LAW , it could not be said that the building still existed . In addition , the property was being used for the purpose for which it had been expropriated , namely as \u201c a cultural monument \u201d , which , in the courts\u2019 view , constituted \u201c public works \u201d within the meaning of the same LAW . Accordingly , none of the preconditions for restitution had been satisfied ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184350","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"DEN\u0130Z v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","At the time of the events giving rise to the application , the applicant worked as a teacher at a state school in GPE .","On DATE a disciplinary investigation was started against the applicant following allegations that he did not have the book of guidelines for teachers to hand during a class inspection , that he did not prepare lesson plans and that he had addressed his hierarchical superior using the secondperson singular instead of the second - person plural , which is deemed more acceptable for the purposes of politeness in the LANGUAGE language .","On DATE , the applicant was requested to submit his defence statements against those allegations . On DATE , the applicant submitted , inter alia , that he should not be held responsible for not having the book of guidelines for teachers since it had been the school administration \u2019s responsibility to supply the teachers with the necessary materials and the administration had failed to do so . Concerning lesson plans , he stated that there had not been an obligation on his part to prepare them . He also submitted that he had not addressed the principal in the second person singular .","On DATE , the applicant received a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand in respect of those allegations pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of LAW .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an objection with ORG , asking for the reprimand to be revoked . This was dismissed on DATE , in a decision which was not amenable to judicial review .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , the reprimand was removed from the applicant \u2019s service records pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW .","A full description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","Section CARDINAL of the Civil Servants Act catalogues certain acts and misconduct according to the disciplinary sanction to which they give rise . Accordingly , section CARDINAL(B ) defines blameworthy behaviour in carrying out tasks or orders in an incomplete or late fashion , or not carrying out the necessary procedure or failing to maintain , properly use or care for official equipment as misconduct requiring a reprimand , whereas section CARDINAL(C ) defines the same behaviour , when it is deliberate , as misconduct that requires the sanction of salary reduction . Section CARDINAL(B ) defines being disrespectful to a superior while on duty as an act that requires a reprimand , whereas section CARDINAL(C ) defines speaking disrespectfully to a superior as an act that requires the sanction of salary reduction . Likewise section CARDINAL(D ) punishes any display of humiliating behaviour towards a superior with deferral of promotion to a higher rank for a minimum of DATE and a maximum of DATE . Furthermore , a civil servant will receive a heavier sanction if he repeats misconduct for which he has previously received a disciplinary sanction during the period for which the sanction remains on his service record . Finally , the list of acts and misconduct in section CARDINAL is not exhaustive in so far as it is provided that acts comparable to those listed under this section will be punished with a disciplinary sanction appropriate to the gravity of the offence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141899","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KURI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage);Damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage)","judges":"Anatoly Kovler;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Fran\u00e7oise Tulkens;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Jean-Paul Costa;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nicolas Bratza;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) . He is a stateless person . The second applicant , PERSON , is a NORP citizen . She was born in DATE and lives in LOC ( GPE ) . The third applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and is currently living in GPE . He is a citizen of GPE . The fourth applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE in GPE . According to the most recently available data , he is a NORP citizen . He currently lives in GPE . The fifth applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . He lives in GPE and is a NORP citizen . The sixth applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . According to the Government , he is a NORP citizen . His exact whereabouts are unknown ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142405","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KIS AND BOZA v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and live in GPE .","On DATE the applicants started labour - law litigation concerning their resignation and its legal and pecuniary consequences . On CARDINAL DATE ORG gave judgment , partly finding for the plaintiffs . On appeal , on DATE ORG reversed part of the decision . On DATE the GPE upheld the second - instance decision ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142961","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PAULET v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","The applicant arrived in GPE on DATE and thereafter lived illegally at an address in GPE .","Whilst living in GPE the applicant successfully applied for CARDINAL jobs using a false NORP passport . DATE and DATE he was employed by a recruitment agency . DATE and DATE he was employed in a cash and carry business and DATE and DATE he was employed as a forklift truck driver .","The applicant had used the false passport to support his assertion that he was entitled to work in GPE . All of his employers subsequently stated that they would not have employed him had they known of his true immigration status . DATE and DATE the applicant earned a total gross salary of MONEY ( GBP ) from his employment . At DATE he had total savings of GBP CARDINAL .","In DATE the applicant applied to the Driving and ORG for a provisional driving licence . The application was accompanied by the same false NORP passport that the applicant had used to obtain employment in GPE . When the falsity of the passport was discovered , the police were informed .","On DATE the applicant pleaded guilty in ORG at GPE to CARDINAL counts of dishonestly obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception ( counts CARDINAL , CARDINAL on the indictment ) . He also pleaded guilty to CARDINAL count of having a false identity document with intent ( count CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL count of driving whilst disqualified ( count CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL count of driving a motor vehicle without insurance ( count CARDINAL ) . On DATE the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment for the first CARDINAL counts together with a consecutive sentence of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment for the offence of driving whilst disqualified . No separate sentence was imposed for driving without insurance . The trial judge also recommended the applicant for deportation .","In addition to the custodial sentence and the recommendation for deportation , the prosecution sought a confiscation order under section CARDINAL of the Proceeds of Crime Act DATE in respect of the applicant \u2019s earnings ( see relevant domestic law and practice below ) . The trial judge accepted that the applicant had paid all the tax and national insurance due on his earnings and that the money he had made from his employment had been truly earned . After deducting tax and national insurance payments , it was calculated that the benefit the applicant received from his earnings was GBP CARDINAL . It was agreed that of the GBP CARDINAL,CARDINAL the applicant still had assets of ORG . On this basis , on DATE the trial judge imposed a confiscation order in the sum of ORG upon the applicant , with a consecutive sentence of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment to be served in default of payment . Thus , the confiscation order had the effect of depriving the applicant of all of the savings that he had accumulated during DATE of employment .","On DATE the applicant sought an extension of time within which to appeal to ORG against the imposition of the confiscation order . In his grounds of appeal , he contended that the grant of the confiscation order had not respected \u201c NORP law \u201d . That application was refused on DATE . The Single Judge noted that the applicant had failed to establish good reason for the extension of time sought and that he had no arguable grounds of appeal because he had benefited from the use of the false passport to the extent that it had enabled him to work and earn money and there had been no breach of his rights under the Convention .","The applicant renewed his application before ORG which , on DATE , granted him an extension of time and leave to appeal . Leading counsel was appointed on his behalf . Counsel initially argued first ; that the applicant \u2019s earnings were not a relevant benefit from criminal conduct within the meaning of LAW DATE ; and secondly , that the prosecutor \u2019s decision to seek a confiscation order in this case constituted an abuse of process .","The Court of Appeal heard part of the appeal on DATE . However , it decided to adjourn the appeal pending the publication by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) of guidance for prosecutors on the circumstances under which a confiscation order could be sought .","In a supplementary skeleton argument dated DATE , counsel for the applicant accepted that in light of the decision in R v. PERSON and Others [ DATE ] PERSON ( see relevant domestic law and practice below ) , the court was bound to reject the first ground of appeal , namely that the applicant \u2019s earnings were not a relevant \u201c benefit \u201d . He therefore accepted that the issue on appeal was whether it was oppressive and therefore an abuse of process for the ORG to seek and the court to impose a confiscation order for what amounted to the applicant \u2019s entire savings over DATE of genuine work . In this regard , counsel submitted that there would be an abuse of process where , on a correct application of the law to the facts , the resulting \u201c benefit \u201d figure yielded a disproportionate or oppressive result . He further noted that ORG has intended LAW DATE to be applied in a manner compatible with the requirements of the Convention . Therefore , in light of LAW No . CARDINAL , in order to remain proportionate the application of the confiscation regime had to remain rationally connected to the public interest aims pursued and go no further than necessary to achieve them . It was therefore submitted that to seek the imposition of a confiscation order on the basis of a benefit figure which far exceeded the value of the defendant \u2019s crimes could properly be described as disproportionate \u2013 either in the traditional sense used in criminal sentencing ( \u201c not fitting the punishment to the crime \u201d ) or in the language of LAW and was therefore an abusive exercise of jurisdiction .","The applicant further submitted that a confiscation order could be described as oppressive where it did not pursue any of the legitimate aims of the confiscation regime and\/or did not further the Parliamentary intent of stripping defendants of the proceeds of crime . He reiterated that ORG had intended the legislation to be compatible with the ORG .","On DATE , after the ORG guidance had been promulgated ( see relevant domestic law and practice below ) , ORG held that the decision to seek a confiscation order against the applicant did not constitute an abuse of process . The court therefore dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the order . In reaching this conclusion , ORG said that the guidance represented a fair analysis of the effect of previous ORG and ORG decisions on the confiscation order regime .","The court stated :","\u201c Abuses of the confiscation process may occur and , when they do , the appropriate remedy will normally be a stay of proceedings . However an abuse of process can not be founded on the basis that the consequences of the proper application of the legislative structure may produce an \u2018 ORG result with which the judge may be unhappy . Although the court may , of its own initiative , invoke the confiscation process , the responsibility for deciding whether properly to seek a confiscation order is effectively vested in the Crown . When it does so , the court lacks any corresponding discretion to interfere with that decision if it has been made in accordance with the statute . The just result of these proceedings is the result produced by the proper application of the statutory provisions as interpreted in ORG and in this court . However to conclude that proceedings properly taken in accordance with statutory provisions constitute an abuse of process is tantamount to asserting a power in the court to dispense with the statute .","As a matter of principle , that is impermissible , and this court has said so . This , in R v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL CAR ( S ) CARDINAL , it was observed :","\u2018 This jurisdiction must be exercised with considerable caution , indeed sparingly . It must be confined to cases of true oppression . In particular , it can not be exercised PERSON simply on the grounds that the judge disagrees with the decision of the ORG to pursue confiscation , or with the way it puts its case on that topic.\u2019","We repeat what was said at an earlier hearing involving PERSON .","\u2018 The abuse of process jurisdiction is one which needs to be exercised with great circumspection . The jurisdiction can not be converted on a case by case basis into a structure which involves , on proper analysis , something like wholesale undermining of the statutory provisions . It is not easy to conclude that it is an abuse of process for those responsible for enforcing legislation to see that it is indeed properly LAW \u201d","ORG found that applicant \u2019s case could not be distinguished from its previous ruling in R v PERSON and Others ( see relevant domestic law and practice , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It concluded :","\u201c The reality is that throughout the period of his employment [ the applicant ] was relying on a continuing dishonest representation to CARDINAL different employers . He deceived them into thinking that he was entitled to obtain employment with them . That was a crucial element of his criminality . His earnings , of course , reflected the fact that he had done the necessary work , as we shall assume , to the satisfaction of his various employers . But the opportunity for him to do so , that is the pecuniary advantage , was unlawfully obtained . If the employee worked to his employer \u2019s satisfaction , and he paid his tax and ORG contributions on his earnings , and his deception either lacked any significant wider public interest , or , perhaps because of the passage of time , but for whatever reason , had ceased to have any meaningful effect on his ORG decision to continue his employment , the resolution of the issue might well be different . As it is there was here a wider public interest . The appellant was deliberately circumventing the prohibition against him seeking remunerative employment in this country in any capacity . No basis for interfering with the order made in ORG has been shown . In our judgment the appropriate link between the appellant \u2019s earnings and his criminal offences , in the context of the wider public interest , was plainly established . The appeal therefore fails . \u201d","On DATE the ORG refused to certify a point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by ORG .","Enforcement proceedings have since been instigated against the applicant .","On DATE the applicant applied for asylum in GPE , alleging that his father had been killed in a land dispute between the PERSON and PERSON community and that he would be at risk in GPE owing to his PERSON ethnicity . On DATE his application was refused by the Secretary of ORG for ORG , who found no objective evidence that the PERSON were targeted solely on account of their ethnicity , and that the delay in claiming asylum had adversely affected the credibility of the rest of the applicant \u2019s claim . A deportation order made by the Secretary of ORG was served on the applicant on DATE . On DATE the applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the refusal of asylum and the decision to make a deportation order . This application was refused by ORG on DATE as the application had been lodged out of time and , in any event , the applicant had failed to avail himself of his statutory appeal rights by applying to the then ORG . His renewed application for judicial review was rejected by ORG on DATE . However , it appears that on DATE the applicant submitted a notice of appeal to ORG . This was rejected by the ORG on DATE as out of time ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150538","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"P\u016aCE v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177693","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PANAHLI v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He was the chairman of ORG .","In DATE the applicant sold his car to a certain GPE , who encountered a number of technical problems with it .","On DATE GPE contacted the applicant and they agreed to meet on DATE . During the meeting GPE expressed his dissatisfaction with the car and requested that the applicant return his money and take the car back . The applicant got angry , started to insult GPE and then assaulted him together with a certain C.","A passer - by intervened and stopped the altercation . GPE reported the incident to the police on DATE .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant by ORG under LAW ( hooliganism ) of LAW . The investigator \u2019s decision stated that at TIME on DATE the applicant and a certain C. had insulted and assaulted GPE on the street in GPE .","On DATE the police compiled a record of the applicant \u2019s arrest as a suspect .","On DATE the applicant was charged under Articles CARDINAL ( deliberate infliction of less serious injury to health ) and CARDINAL ( hooliganism ) of LAW .","On DATE ORG , relying on the charges brought against the applicant and an application from the prosecutor to apply the preventive measure of remanding the applicant in custody , ordered his detention pending trial for DATE . The court justified the application of the preventive custodial measure by the gravity of the offences imputed to him , the risk of his reoffending and the likelihood that he might abscond if released .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision , stating that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody and that the court had failed to substantiate the necessity for his detention pending trial . He also submitted that the court had failed to take account of his personal situation and to consider the possibility of another preventive measure , such as house arrest or release on bail .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that there were no grounds to quash the first - instance decision .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case applied to the court for an extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for a period of one month . He submitted that more time was needed to complete the investigation .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial by DATE , until DATE . The court justified its decision by the need for more time to carry out further investigative actions , the complexity of the criminal case and the likelihood that the applicant might abscond and obstruct the investigation if released .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision , arguing that the first - instance court had failed to substantiate its decision on his continued detention .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .","No further extension decisions are available in the case file .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty on all counts and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","NORP The applicant was released from serving the remainder of his sentence by a presidential pardon issued on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159041","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KLIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicants are NORP citizens whose details are tabulated in the Appendix .","The applicants brought court actions against the authorities , seeking to recover the monetary value of the ORG promissory notes for purchasing of NORP - made cars . On the dates listed in the Appendix the domestic courts granted their actions and awarded them different amounts in compensation , payable by ORG . The judgments were upheld on appeal and became final on the dates listed below . They remained unenforced .","On various dates the supervisory review courts , upon applications from ORG and by way of supervisory - review proceedings , quashed the first - instance and the appeal judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour , re - examined the cases and dismissed the applicants\u2019 respective actions , having found that the lower courts had incorrectly interpreted and applied the domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175943","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"\u0160ARKIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She had been granted legal aid and was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","On DATE the applicant , together with her friend PERSON and ORG \u2019s minor son PERSON , attended a recording of the DATE television show \u201c Celebrity Duets \u201d ( PERSON duetai ) . The show was a singing competition in which celebrity duets were assessed by a CARDINAL - member judging panel . The head judge was a well - known opera singer , GPE The panel also included another musician , GPE","NORP That evening after the show , GPE received a message on his personal mobile telephone with the following text :","\u201c I want to tell you this right now ! You did n\u2019t have problems \u2013 you will now ! We have warned you ! ! ! Do n\u2019t you think that you live and have protection , moron ! I repeat , this is your last warning ! I \u2019ll give you time to enjoy your life , if you want to have a family and not coffins , this is not a joke , PERSON ! Godmother ! ! ! We have warned you ! We are watching you ! Good luck . Until the next time , if you \u2019re still alive . \u201d","( \u201c ORG noriu pasakyti ! netur\u0117jot problemu ju bus ! mes gi jus ispejom ! ! ! ar jums neatrodo , ORG gyvenat , apsauga turi glusai ! kartoju paskutinis buvo ispejimas ! duodu laiko dziaugtis gyvenimu jei nori tureti seima o ne karstus cia nejuokai ponas soliste ! kriksto mama ! ! ! perspejom ! mes jus stebim ! sekmes . iki kito karto jei gyvas dar busit . \u201d )","V.J. informed the police that he had been threatened and the police opened a pre - trial investigation . It was discovered that the mobile telephone from which the message had been sent belonged to PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On an unspecified date his mother PERSON was questioned as a witness and stated that PERSON had lost his mobile telephone sometime around CARDINAL May CARDINAL .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness . She stated that she had attended several recordings of \u201c Celebrity Duets \u201d but could not remember the exact dates . She confirmed that she had gone there once with NORP and PERSON and that PERSON had had a mobile telephone with him , but the applicant had not paid attention to where PERSON had left it . She stated that she had not taken the telephone or sent any text messages from it . The applicant also said that she had heard from A. that a text message had been sent to GPE from PERSON \u2019s telephone ; however , the applicant stated that she did not have ORG telephone number and had never called or texted him .","On an unspecified later date PERSON \u2019s telephone was found in the possession of another individual , PERSON told the police that the telephone had been given to him by the applicant , who was his friend .","On DATE the applicant was taken to a police station and served with an official notice ( prane\u0161imas apie \u012ftarim\u0105 ) stating that she was suspected of threatening to kill or seriously injure PERSON , under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . The notice listed the suspect \u2019s rights under LAW , including the right to a lawyer . The applicant signed the notice to confirm that she had received it and that her rights had been explained to her . She also signed another notice which reiterated her right to a lawyer ( teis\u0117s tur\u0117ti gyn\u0117j\u0105 i\u0161ai\u0161kinimo protokolas ) , on which she wrote that she did not need a lawyer during questioning . She also signed a notice confirming her decision to refuse a lawyer ( protokolas d\u0117l gyn\u0117jo atsisakymo ) , on which she also wrote that she did not need a lawyer during questioning . The latter notice indicated that the refusal did not prevent the applicant from requesting a lawyer at any later stage in the proceedings ( see Relevant domestic law in paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by the police and confessed to having sent the aforementioned text message to GPE She stated that she was a fan of the singer PERSON , a participant in \u201c Celebrity Duets \u201d . On DATE V.J. , as the head judge , had given negative feedback about R. \u2019s performance . The applicant claimed that she had felt insulted and upset by ORG comments , so she had taken an unknown mobile telephone from her table and sent him the text message . She had known ORG telephone number from before , although she could not remember how she had obtained it . The applicant stated that she had not known whose mobile telephone it had been , but she had put it in her purse and forgotten about it until much later , when she had found it again and given it to her friend PERSON She also said that she had thrown away the ORG card at some point . The applicant stated that during her previous questioning she had given a different statement because she had understood that she had done wrong and had been scared to admit it . She was sorry for the incident and wanted to apologise to GPE","The applicant also provided a handwritten confession in which she reiterated the essential details of her statement .","On DATE the applicant was served with a revised notice stating that she was suspected of threatening to kill or seriously injure GPE , under LAW . She requested a lawyer and the police called for a ORG - appointed lawyer to represent her . She was then questioned in the presence of that lawyer . The applicant withdrew the statement and confession she had given on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , stating that she had confessed because of \u201c the instructions and persuasion of [ police ] officers \u201d ( pareig\u016bn\u0173 nurodymu ir \u012fkalbin\u0117jimais ) . She stated that the statement she had given on CARDINAL DATE was the correct one ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that she would give further evidence at trial .","On DATE the applicant was charged with threatening to kill or seriously injure GPE , under LAW . The case was transferred to LAW for examination on the merits .","The applicant was represented by a ORG - appointed lawyer at all levels of court .","On DATE the FAC held an oral hearing . When questioned by the court , the applicant denied having sent the text message to GPE She stated that she was a fan of the singer NORP and that on CARDINAL DATE she and her friend PERSON had been invited to attend the recording of \u201c Celebrity Duets \u201d by GPE , another member of the judging panel on the show ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant stated that PERSON \u2019s son PERSON had had a mobile telephone , which at CARDINAL point he had left on the table where she and A. had been sitting . The applicant stated that she had not touched the telephone , but an unknown man had approached them and asked to use a telephone ; they had allowed him to use PERSON \u2019s telephone and the man had written a text message on it . The applicant submitted that she had later taken PERSON \u2019s telephone from PERSON and given it to ORG , because she and PERSON had thought that PERSON might have sent the text message to GPE The applicant further stated that on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) she had confessed because police officers had threatened her . She submitted that her statement of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was correct , with the clarification that PERSON \u2019s telephone had been used by the unknown man .","The court heard evidence from several other witnesses . The applicant \u2019s friend PERSON essentially corroborated the applicant \u2019s statements ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant \u2019s friend PERSON repeated that the applicant had given him PERSON \u2019s telephone sometime back in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The musician and member of the judging panel PERSON stated that he knew PERSON because she was his dentist and that he had seen the applicant in GPE \u2019s office a few times . He stated that PERSON had previously asked him to give better scores to the singer NORP and that he had passed that request on to GPE , although the latter could not be persuaded . PERSON believed that NORP and NORP were friends , also stating that he had once seen NORP with the applicant .","The court also heard evidence from QUANTITY police officers who had been present at different stages of the applicant \u2019s questioning . They stated that the applicant had been duly informed of her rights , including the right to a lawyer , but that she had not requested CARDINAL until DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The officers denied having put any pressure on the applicant to confess or to give any particular evidence .","On DATE the GPE City ORG found the applicant guilty of threatening to kill or seriously injure PERSON , under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . The court noted that during the pretrial investigation and trial the applicant had changed her version of events several times , and that her latest version including an unknown man could not be confirmed \u201c by any evidence \u201d ( byloje n\u0117ra joki\u0173 \u012frodym\u0173 apie tokios situacijos buvim\u0105 ) . The court considered that there were no grounds for doubting the accuracy of her confession ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) because her claims of pressure by police officers had not been proven .","The applicant was ordered to stay at home from TIME for DATE and to find a job or register at an employment office . The court also awarded ORG litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) in non - pecuniary damages .","The applicant appealed against the judgment , arguing that she had not committed the criminal offence and that the text message had been sent by an unknown man ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , on CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed her appeal and upheld the conviction . The court referred , in particular , to PERSON testimony concerning the connection between the singer NORP and the applicant \u2019s friend PERSON , and emphasised the fact that the mobile telephone had been disabled immediately after the message had been sent \u2013 it considered that these circumstances demonstrated a direct intent to threaten GPE after the recording of the show . The court also held that witness testimony and other material in the case file sufficiently proved the applicant \u2019s guilt . However , it reduced the amount of non - pecuniary damages to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , having regard to the nature of the criminal offence and the applicant \u2019s financial situation .","ORG did not address the question of whether the applicant had been pressured by police officers to refuse a lawyer and to confess ; it appears from the judgment that the applicant did not raise that question in her appeal .","The applicant submitted an appeal on points of law to ORG , in which she alleged , inter alia , that her defence rights had been violated . On DATE she was informed that the court would examine her appeal on DATE and would pronounce its judgment on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . In respect of her complaint concerning her defence rights , the court noted that the case file contained written documents with the applicant \u2019s signatures , which had been drawn up in line with the relevant domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This showed that the applicant had been informed of her right to a lawyer and had decided not to exercise it . The court also noted that the applicant had availed herself of her right to a lawyer during questioning on DATE and at all subsequent stages of court proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Accordingly , it considered that there were no grounds for finding that the applicant \u2019s right to a lawyer had been restricted at any point .","The applicant did not attend the pronouncement of the judgment . She submitted that she had received a copy of it sometime after DATE .","The relevant part of LAW reads :","\u201c ...","It shall be prohibited to compel anyone to give evidence against himself , or his family members or close relatives .","...","A person suspected of committing a crime , as well as the accused , shall be guaranteed , from the moment of his apprehension or first interrogation , the right to defence , as well as the right to an advocate . \u201d","At the material time , the relevant provisions of LAW read :","\u201c CARDINAL . A suspected , accused or convicted person has defence rights , [ which ] shall be ensured from the moment of their detention or first questioning .","NORP The court , prosecutor or investigating officer must ensure that the suspected , accused or convicted person has the opportunity to defend him or herself by the means prescribed by law ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . A lawyer must be present in the following situations :","CARDINAL ) where the suspect or the accused is a minor ;","CARDINAL ) where the case concerns a person who is blind or deaf , or because of a physical or mental impairment can not exercise his or her defence rights ;","CARDINAL ) where the case concerns a person who does not understand the language of the proceedings ;","CARDINAL ) where there are conflicts of interest between different suspects or the accused and CARDINAL of them has a lawyer ;","CARDINAL ) where the case concerns a crime for which a life sentence may be given ;","CARDINAL ) where the case is being examined in the absence of the accused , as provided for by LAW of this Code ;","CARDINAL ) where the suspect or the accused is in detention ;","CARDINAL) where a decision is to be taken whether to extradite a person or transfer him or her to ORG or [ another ORG ] under a NORP Arrest Warrant ;","CARDINAL ) where the case is being examined by way of accelerated procedure . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . A suspect or an accused can waive his or her right to a lawyer at any stage of the proceedings ... The right to a lawyer may only be waived at the initiative of the suspected or accused person . The waiver of the right to a lawyer must be recorded in a written report .","NORP The investigating officer , prosecutor or court is not bound by the waiver of the right to a lawyer where [ it ] has been submitted by a minor or by a person who can not exercise his or her defence rights because of a physical or mental impairment , by a person who does not understand the language of the proceedings , or by a person who is suspected or accused of committing a serious or very serious crime and the case is complex or large - scale , or there are any other reasons raising doubts as to his or her ability to defend him or herself .","Waiving the right to a lawyer does not preclude the suspected , accused or convicted person from having a lawyer at any later stage of the proceedings . \u201d","At the material time , Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW read :","\u201c CARDINAL . Anyone who threatens to kill or seriously injure another person , where there is sufficient basis for believing that the threat may be carried out , shall be punished by community service , a fine , restriction of liberty , detention or imprisonment of DATE .","... \u201d","At the material time , LAW provided that all judgments of ORG must be served on the parties to the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147610","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF EREREN v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG in GPE .","The applicant was arrested on DATE . His identity papers proved to be forgeries . On DATE the ORG ( ORG ) issued an arrest warrant against the applicant based on possession of forged documents .","On DATE ORG took over the investigation . On DATE ORG ( ORG ) quashed the arrest warrant and issued a fresh arrest warrant based , inter alia , on the suspicion of membership of a foreign terrorist organisation ( ORG , ORG ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the arrest warrant .","On DATE , DATE and DATE ORG upheld the arrest warrant and ordered that the applicant \u2019s detention be continued .","On DATE ORG issued a new arrest warrant . According to the new warrant , the applicant was strongly suspected of having played a leading role in the activities of a foreign terrorist organisation , and of having committed CARDINAL counts of murder and CARDINAL counts of attempted murder . The applicant had , in particular , telephoned witness PERSON from GPE to instruct him to carry out a terrorist attack which took place in GPE on DATE and in which CARDINAL policemen were killed . The applicant was further suspected of having ordered several terrorist attacks carried out by detonating explosives in GPE DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE ORG lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant comprising CARDINAL pages plus a list of evidence covering another CARDINAL pages , based on the same grounds as the arrest warrant dated DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s continued detention .","On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht , no . III-CARDINAL STS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , sitting as a first instance court for proceedings concerning ORG security , decided to open the trial against the applicant . The hearing started on DATE and took place on DATE .","On DATE witness PERSON was heard by a court in GPE in the presence of all parties to the proceedings .","On DATE , after DATE of court hearing , ORG quashed the arrest warrant insofar as it had been based on the suspicion that the applicant had ordered the attack which had taken place in GPE on DATE and ordered the applicant \u2019s continued detention based on the remaining grounds of the arrest warrant . ORG considered that witness PERSON , relied upon by the prosecution , had not confirmed the testimony he had given to the NORP authorities in DATE . Conversely , he had stated that he had been tortured by NORP civil servants and had been forced to sign a prepared protocol . He did not know the applicant . Under these circumstances , no strong suspicion persisted that the applicant had ordered the above - mentioned criminal act .","ORG considered that the applicant remained under strong suspicion of having committed the other crimes of which he was accused . There was , in particular , sufficient documentary and witness evidence supporting the allegation that the applicant , as a leading member of a terrorist organisation , was responsible for causing explosions and committing other criminal acts . ORG inter alia referred to the TIME and decisions of the founding congress which established that the applicant had been elected as a member of the central committee of the DHKP - C in DATE .","The Court of Appeal further considered that the applicant might abscond and that there was a risk of collusion . The court observed that the applicant , who had been residing illegally in GPE , had neither a fixed residence nor sufficient social ties to ensure his appearance before the court . There were thus no milder means available to secure his presence at the trial .","The Court of Appeal further considered that the proceedings were expedited as required in cases involving pre - trial detention . ORG included a detailed account of the trial , explaining that on several occasions witnesses could not be questioned by the court because they exercised their right not to testify . The court had heard testimony from CARDINAL witnesses and was then hearing CARDINAL further witnesses . In order to establish whether the applicant had committed the crimes of which he had been accused , testimony from NORP witnesses was of paramount importance . Accordingly , ORG had to make several enquiries by way of letters rogatory in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint . ORG confirmed that the applicant remained under strong suspicion of having ordered several explosions causing injuries and death . The court further confirmed that the danger of the applicant \u2019s absconding , and of collusion , remained . The continuation of his detention was not disproportionate in view of the importance of the subject matter and of the considerable punishment to be expected in case of a criminal conviction . Furthermore , the length of the proceedings was due to their complexity , as had been set out in detail by ORG .","On DATE ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht , no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) refused to consider the applicant \u2019s complaint against the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , without giving further reasons .","On DATE witness FAC and CARDINAL further witness were heard in GPE .","On DATE the ORG extended the arrest warrant on the grounds that there was again a strong suspicion that the applicant had ordered the attack during which CARDINAL policemen were killed in GPE in DATE . This assessment was , in particular , based on testimony given by witness PERSON , who had stated that PERSON had informed him in DATE that the applicant had given him the order to carry out the attack against the policemen . ORG considered that this statement was consistent and credible . Furthermore , there was corroborative evidence from witnesses who had confirmed that the applicant held a leading position in the terrorist organisation at the relevant time .","The Court of Appeal further found that there remained a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the other crimes of which he was accused . Referring to its previous decisions , ORG considered that the danger of the applicant \u2019s absconding persisted . This danger had further been aggravated by the fact that ORG had , in the meantime , allowed the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE . According to an intelligence report dating from DATE , a leader of the terrorist organisation had ordered that the applicant be taken out of the country immediately if released from detention . It was furthermore known that the terrorist organisation had the necessary means to put this plan into action .","ORG finally considered that the prolongation of the pre - trial detention was not disproportionate , having regard to the importance of the subject matter and to the seriousness of the penalty to be expected in case of a criminal conviction .","On DATE witness PERSON was once again heard in GPE .","On DATE , on DATE of the hearing , ORG closed the hearing of evidence and heard the prosecutor \u2019s pleadings . Upon defence counsel \u2019s request , the hearing of evidence was reopened and ORG limited the charge to CARDINAL counts of murder committed in DATE , while discontinuing the proceedings concerning the other charges originally brought against the applicant .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment . On the basis of the evidence presented during the hearing , ORG found it established that the applicant had ordered the assassination of the policemen by telephone from GPE at DATE . The court primarily based the applicant \u2019s conviction on testimony from witness ORG further considered that this finding was in line with the command structure inside the terrorist organisation and was not called into question by PERSON \u2019s allegations that he did not know the applicant . During his hearing before the NORP court , PERSON had refused to make any more specific statements . Under these circumstances , the vague statement that the applicant did not have anything to do with the attack was not sufficient to call PERSON \u2019s testimony into question .","ORG finally considered that the length of detention and of the main hearing did not violate the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW . The specific circumstances of the instant case did not allow for an earlier termination of the proceedings . This was due to the extent and the complexity of the criminal charges . Apart from CARDINAL counts of murder , of which he had been convicted , the applicant had been accused of holding a leading role in a foreign terrorist organisation and of having participated in causing a considerable number of explosions in GPE . The case - files consisted of CARDINAL large volumes . As the applicant had been arrested by chance , the examination of the relevant facts could begin only after his arrest . The NORP authorities had submitted a large number of documents such as expert opinions , sketches and records of witness testimony , which had to be translated and examined before the issue of the indictment on DATE . Due to the volume of the case - file and to the complexity of the subject matter , the main proceedings could not be opened before DATE . During the hearing , the progress of the taking of evidence had been determined by several requests by letters rogatory to the NORP authorities . Members of the court and representatives of the parties travelled to GPE CARDINAL times in order to attend the hearing of witnesses before NORP courts . Each taking of evidence by letters rogatory took considerably DATE . Following this , the taking of evidence was closed on DATE , but re - opened altogether CARDINAL times at the request of the defence . The reading out of the applicant \u2019s last word alone took DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG and remitted the case to another Chamber of that court . ORG considered that the assessment of the evidence by ORG had been erroneous as that court had wrongly assumed that the testimony given by PERSON on the circumstances of his alleged conversation with PERSON was consistent and without contradictions .","ORG further considered that it could not be ruled out that this error had been decisive for ORG in reaching its verdict . There were further reasons to review critically S.G. \u2019s testimony . Firstly , PERSON had not directly witnessed the applicant ordering the attack , but was merely a hearsay witness . Furthermore , the witness was not heard by the trial court , but by a NORP court at the trial court \u2019s request . Finally , PERSON , who had been arrested in GPE in DATE , had collaborated with the NORP police and had thus benefited from a milder sentence and early release from prison .","On DATE ORG ( no . IIICARDINAL STS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ordered the applicant \u2019s continued detention . The further detention was justified because the applicant was under strong suspicion of having committed a serious crime and because there was the risk that he might abscond . That court considered that the applicant remained under strong suspicion of having ordered the attacks carried out on the policemen on DATE . This was not called into question by ORG decision to quash the judgment . The potential contradictions in the statements made by witness PERSON had to be examined in the new main proceedings . ORG further considered that there were no milder means available to secure the applicant \u2019s appearance before the court and that the length of his detention was not yet disproportionate . The fact that ORG had quashed the judgment of ORG did not lead to a violation of the obligation to expedite the proceedings , as there was no obvious procedural error . Furthermore , ORG had respected the obligation to expedite the proceedings by preparing the requests for letters rogatory in order to begin the main hearing by DATE or DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint . That court confirmed that the applicant remained under strong suspicion of having ordered the attack in GPE . This suspicion was primarily based on testimony given by witness LOC during the main hearing on DATE and DATE and statements made by witness PERSON during his interrogation by NORP police on DATE . This was not called into question by the fact that the judgment of ORG had been quashed on the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . The contradiction in PERSON \u2019s testimony did not concern the core content of his statement , which remained unchanged .","ORG further observed that witness PERSON had stated , during interrogations by the NORP authorities on DATE , that the applicant had given him the order to carry out the attack on DATE . The court considered that it was not prevented from taking into account this statement by PERSON \u2019s repeated claims that he had made this statement under torture , as his vague and general allegations were not confirmed .","ORG finally considered that the length of detention ( DATE ) was not disproportionate . The court gave a full account of the proceedings and concluded that the length of the proceedings was primarily determined by the complexity of the subject matter and by the very strong international dimension of the case . Conversely , there had not been any considerable delays imputable to the trial court .","On DATE ORG ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , relying on its Rules of Procedure , refused to accept the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint for adjudication .","On DATE the fresh hearing of the applicant \u2019s case started before ORG .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s continued detention on the basis of the arrest warrant of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , following a new request lodged by the applicant on DATE , ORG quashed the arrest warrant and ordered the applicant \u2019s release from detention . The applicant was released on that DATE .","ORG considered that the further execution of detention would be disproportionate . According to that court the applicant remained firmly suspected of having ordered the attack of DATE , in which CARDINAL policemen were killed . This assessment was based on the testimony given by PERSON in the first set of proceedings as well as on further corroborative evidence . ORG considered that to prolong the detention would be disproportionate . In cases involving pre - trial detention , the criminal courts were under a constitutional obligation to expedite the proceedings ( PERSON ) . This principle had to be applied even more strictly given the long duration of the applicant \u2019s detention . ORG considered that it could not foresee when it would hear witness testimony from PERSON , who was the primary witness for the prosecution . In spite of several reminders , the requests for letters rogatory lodged with the NORP authorities in DATE and DATE had not so far been disposed of . As it was unclear when the witness could be heard , ORG considered that it was unable duly to expedite the proceedings as would have been necessary in view of the fact that detention had already lasted DATE . ORG noted that the statements made by witness PERSON to ORG in DATE could not be used because it could not be ruled out that they had been obtained by torture .","In DATE , the criminal proceedings were still pending before ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144997","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PETROVA v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is the mother of Mr PERSON ( the applicant \u2019s son ) , a NORP national who was born in DATE and who died on DATE .","On DATE at TIME the applicant \u2019s son sustained very serious injuries in a car accident near FAC . At TIME he was taken to hospital in GPE . Later , at CARDINAL p.m. , he was transferred to GPE \u2019s ORG ( R\u012bgas CARDINAL . slimn\u012bca \u2013 \u201c FAC ) DATE an entity that was registered as a \u201c non - profit municipally - owned limited - liability company \u201d ( PERSON pa\u0161vald\u012bbas bezpe\u013c\u0146as organiz\u0101cija sabiedr\u012bba ar ierobe\u017eotu atbild\u012bbu ) at the material time \u2013 where surgery was carried out on his head . Following the operation his condition remained very serious ; he remained in the emergency department of ORG reanim\u0101cijas noda\u013ca ) and did not regain consciousness .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE a call from ORG was received by the transplantation centre of ORG \u2013 an entity that was registered as a \u201c non - profit ORG - owned joint stock company \u201d ( bezpe\u013c\u0146as organiz\u0101cija valsts akciju sabiedr\u012bba ) at the material time \u2013 providing information about a potential donor who was undergoing resuscitation . A coordinator from the transplantation centre , together with another doctor , went to the Hospital .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s condition was noted in his medical record as being fatal . It was noted that medical resuscitation had been started . The death of the applicant \u2019s son was recorded at TIME in his medical record at ORG .","Between TIME a laparotomy was performed on the body , in the course of which the kidneys and the spleen were removed for organ transplantation purposes . This operation was carried out by the transplantation centre \u2019s transplant surgeon , urologist and operating nurse , in the presence of the coordinator and the ORG \u2019s resuscitation specialist . On the death certificate the time of death was recorded as TIME on CARDINAL DATE ( probably by mistake DATE CARDINAL below ) .","According to the applicant , during her son \u2019s stay in the ORG she was in permanent contact with the doctors there . On DATE , although her son \u2019s condition was deteriorating , the applicant was not informed of it . She was also not asked whether her son had consented to being an organ donor and whether she would consent to organ transplantation in the absence of any wishes expressed by her son .","According to the Government , ORG did not have information on record providing the contact details of any relatives , and they had informed the police about the son \u2019s hospitalisation by dialling the emergency telephone number for the police . It had therefore , not been possible to contact any relatives . In this regard the Government referred to information provided by ORG which stated that \u201c given the fact that no telephone numbers of any relatives were recorded on the patient \u2019s medical card ... there was apparently no contact with the applicant \u201d .","On DATE , in the context of criminal proceedings against the person held liable for the car accident , a forensic ( post - mortem ) examination on the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s body was carried out . It was noted , inter alia , that on CARDINAL DATE between TIME and CARDINAL TIME a laparotomy had been performed on the body . The applicant obtained a copy of the forensic report on DATE and realised only then that DATE certain organs had been removed from her son \u2019s body for transplantation purposes .","NORP In response to a complaint lodged by the applicant , on DATE the ORG stated that the transplantation had been carried out by the transplant doctors in accordance with domestic law . It was noted that the applicant had not been informed of her son \u2019s health condition because she had not visited the doctors at the Hospital .","NORP In response to further complaints by the applicant to the police and the prosecutor \u2019s office , several examinations were carried out .","NORP In response to a query by ORG ( Dro\u0161\u012bbas policija ) , ORG ( \u201c the MADEKKI \u201d ) analysed the medical file and met with doctors and managers from the CARDINAL medical institutions involved \u2013 GPE \u2019s ORG and ORG . On DATE it completed the examination and informed the Security Police of its conclusions . The PERSON provided an answer to the question of whether the medical practitioners had complied with the applicable domestic law in the following terms :","\u201c In taking the decision [ to remove organs ] and in carrying out the removal of organs , the medical practitioners have complied with section CARDINAL of ORG of a Deceased Person and Use of Human Organs and Tissue and provisions of regulation no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) ...","There is no information at the PERSON \u2019s disposal as to whether there was a stamp in Mr Petrovs\u2019 passport signifying his objection to the use of his body tissue and organs .","[ The applicant ] was not informed about the possible removal of organs ( the kidneys and the spleen ) for transplantation purposes . \u201d","The PERSON also explained in their letter to ORG that the time of biological death was CARDINAL a.m. on CARDINAL DATE and not CARDINAL p.m. as recorded , probably by mistake , on the death certificate .","On DATE the Security Police replied to the applicant on the basis of the PERSON report that the organs of her son had been removed in compliance with domestic law . They relied on section CARDINAL of ORG of a Deceased Person and Use of Human Organs and Tissue ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) and regulation no . CARDINAL ) . The applicant was forwarded a copy of the PERSON \u2019s letter to ORG .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office forwarded the applicant \u2019s complaint to ORG with a view to instituting an additional inquiry .","On DATE the PERSON replied to questions put by ORG , which had been contacted by ORG further to a complaint by the applicant . They answered that there was no information at their disposal as to whether , at the time of her son \u2019s death , any refusal of or consent to the use of his body , organs or tissue after his death had been recorded in ORG ( ORG re\u0123istrs ) . They also answered that the applicant had not been informed of the possible removal of organs ( the kidneys and the spleen ) for transplantation purposes . There was no information at the PERSON \u2019s disposal as to whether there had been a stamp in Mr Petrovs\u2019 passport signifying an objection to the use of his body tissue and organs . On DATE ORG , replying in turn to ORG , concluded on the basis of the information provided by the PERSON that , because the applicant had not been informed about the possible transplantation , she had neither consented to it nor refused it .","On DATE the Security Police informed the applicant that her complaint was still being examined .","On DATE the Security Police adopted a decision not to institute criminal proceedings . For the same reasons as were given in the above - mentioned reports , it was concluded that the transplantation had been carried out in compliance with domestic law . The reports indicated that in his lifetime Mr Petrovs had not indicated any objection to the use of his body tissue and organs after death and that no objection to the use of his organs had been received from his relatives before the start of the transplantation . The coordinator of the transplantation centre had been responsible for informing the relatives about the issues pertaining to transplantation , and for obtaining records , consent , signatures and other relevant information . Taking into account the fact that the relatives had not been at the hospital at the time of the son \u2019s biological death and that the removal of organs in such cases has to be performed immediately , it had not been possible to obtain their consent or refusal in relation to the organ removal .","On DATE the applicant was informed of this decision .","On DATE ORG replied to the applicant . According to the information at their disposal , there was nothing on record in ORG indicating whether Mr Petrovs would have allowed or refused the use of his body , tissue and organs after his death . According to the information provided by ORG and on the basis of the conclusions established by the PERSON , the applicant had not been informed about the imminent removal of her son \u2019s kidneys and spleen , and she had therefore neither consented to it nor refused it . Finally , the applicant was advised that she should contact the prosecutor \u2019s office because ORG had not indicated any procedure or time - limits for lodging an appeal .","On DATE , further to a subsequent complaint , a meeting was convened at which the Minister for Health discussed with the representatives of the ORG and the transplantation centre the case of the removal of the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s organs . The Minister for Health was of the opinion that the relatives should have been informed about the organ removal and that their consent should have been obtained . The representatives stated that the organ removal had been conducted in compliance with the applicable law . The meeting record contained a note to the effect that in DATE a working group which had been established by ORG had prepared amendments to the above - mentioned PERSON in order to define its provisions more clearly . They had made CARDINAL proposals . The first proposal was to include in the PERSON a provision stating that on all occasions inquiries were to be made about the deceased person \u2019s wishes with his or her closest relatives . The second proposal was to rely on the person \u2019s wishes as expressed during his or her lifetime and , in the absence of any such wishes , to presume consent ( no inquiries made with the closest relatives ) . It was also noted that the relevant committee of the ORG had opted for the second option ( see paragraph CARDINAL below for the adopted text ) . It was also noted that once the proposed amendments were passed by the ORG , the occurrence of such \u201c problematic situations would be practically ruled out \u201d . On DATE the applicant received reply from ORG to this effect .","On CARDINAL DATE a prosecutor dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the refusal of CARDINAL DATE to institute criminal proceedings . She relied on LAW of the PERSON and indicated that consent from parents or from a legal guardian was required only in cases relating to the removal of organs for transplantation purposes from a dead child \u2019s body . Accordingly , the actions of the medical practitioners did not constitute a crime and the CARDINAL DATE decision had been lawful .","On DATE a superior prosecutor dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . He stated that \u2013 according to the information provided by ORG Being with regard to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had not been ratified by ORG and that GPE had not even signed LAW to ORG concerning Transplantation of Organs and ORG ; GPE was therefore not a party to this LAW . The prosecutor relied on LAW and indicated that at the relevant time ( DATE ) in GPE these issues were regulated in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the PERSON . These provisions did not require consent from close relatives unless the removal was from the body of a dead child . The rules relating to transplantation coordinators obliged them to obtain relatives\u2019 consent only in cases prescribed by law . The prosecutor concluded that there were no grounds to consider that the medical practitioners , in taking the decision to remove organs and in carrying out the removal of those organs , had infringed legal provisions . Therefore , there were no grounds to charge them with a crime under section CARDINAL of LAW ; at that time no other person had been charged with the crime . At the same time , the applicant was informed about DATE amendments to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the PERSON , in which it was specified that the organs of a deceased person might be removed for transplantation purposes if there was no information recorded in ORG indicating any objection and if the relatives of the deceased had not , before the start of the transplantation , informed the hospital in writing of the deceased person \u2019s objection \u2013 expressed during his or her DATE to the use of his or her organs and tissue after death .","On DATE the Prosecutor General in a final decision dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the decision of DATE . He also referred to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the PERSON and noted that these provisions prohibited removal in cases where a refusal or objection had been received but not in cases where wishes of the closest relatives had not been established . These provisions , as in force in DATE , therefore did not oblige medical practitioners to actively search for and inform the closest relatives of a deceased person about the possible removal for transplantation purposes of his or her body tissue and organs unless that person was a child . On CARDINAL DATE the medical practitioners did not have any information at their disposal concerning a refusal of or objection to the removal of Mr Petrovs\u2019 organs . He concluded that the organ removal had been performed in accordance with domestic law . ORG also observed that activities performed on the body of a deceased person could not be treated as interference with his or her private life ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159764","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF S\u00dcVEGES v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He submits that he is a practicing NORP . According to the documents in the case - file he is a teacher of religion by profession .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of misuse of explosives .","On DATE ORG indicted the applicant in GPE on charges of incitement to aggravated murder and unlawful possession of firearms and explosives .","The first hearing in the case took place before GPE on DATE . Up until DATE the trial judge , Ms ORG , held CARDINAL hearings .","Later , the applicant was charged by ORG with armed robbery . The CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings were joined by ORG on DATE .","The applicant challenged the trial judge for bias , which motion was dismissed . At the applicant \u2019s renewed request , the trial judge recused herself . A new judge , PERSON . PERSON . , was appointed to try the case . She held CARDINAL hearings in DATE . This judge eventually declared herself biased ; and the case was assigned to yet another judge , PERSON , who held CARDINAL hearings DATE and DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant was indicted by the ORG - ORG for aggravated murder . The case was joined to the ongoing criminal proceedings on CARDINAL DATE by ORG .","On DATE applicant challenged PERSON for bias . On DATE ORG dismissed this motion . It pointed out that the trial judge had declared herself impartial , along with the CARDINAL other eligible judges of ORG . Despite the decision of ORG , the trial judge eventually recused herself , since , in her view , the applicant \u2019s letters addressed to ORG had infringed her dignity .","Subsequently , in DATE the case was assigned to another judge at ORG , PERSON , who did not hold any hearing . On DATE he also recused himself following the applicant \u2019s different motions , apparently containing insinuations . The remaining CARDINAL judges of ORG declared themselves biased as well . On DATE ORG appointed ORG to try the case . The trial judge at ORG held the first hearing on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after DATE .","On DATE the second - instance court quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance . The case is currently pending there .","In the context of the above proceedings , on DATE the ORG remanded the applicant in custody .","His detention was repeatedly prolonged at the statutory intervals until DATE when ORG suspended his detention and ordered him to serve a prison sentence which had become enforceable in connection to other criminal proceedings unrelated to the present case .","On DATE , on the new charges of aggravated murder put forward by the Kom\u00e1rom - ORG , ORG again remanded the applicant in custody . The decision was upheld on appeal by the ORG - ORG on DATE .","The applicant was actually placed in pre - trial detention again on DATE , after having served his prison sentence . He submitted that under the law , his detention should have been reviewed within DATE , that is , on DATE at the latest but that this had not taken place .","On DATE the applicant filed an interlocutory application for his immediate release and placement in house arrest with ORG . The court dismissed the application on DATE . The applicant appealed without success . His further requests for release or , alternatively , a less coercive measure were to no avail .","On DATE ORG requested ORG to review the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention under section DATE ) of LAW .","On DATE the detention was extended until the delivery of the first - instance judgment under section ORG ) and ( d ) of LAW ( risks of absconding and of reoffending ) . ORG held that there was a risk that the applicant might abscond given the seriousness of the charges and the gravity of the punishment and reoffend given that he was a multiple recidivist and the number of offences he was charged with .","The GPE endorsed this decision on DATE , holding that the impending severe punishment substantiated the risk of absconding , due to which the applicant \u2019s presence at the proceedings could not be ensured in any other way . It also observed that the last offence had been committed by the applicant during his conditional release from his DATE imprisonment , thus there was a real risk of reoffending . The court dismissed the arguments put forward by the applicant concerning his health status , unspecified , and concluded that his personal conditions did not militate for a less severe measure .","NORP The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention reached the statutory time - limit of DATE on DATE . On DATE the GPE ORG placed the applicant under house arrest with continuous police surveillance , to be carried out in the flat of Ms I.T , an acquaintance of the applicant . The applicant was allowed to leave the flat DATE , TIME The court noted that the reasons for the applicant \u2019s detention were still valid , and a less restrictive measure was to be applied only because the statutory fouryear time - limit for pre - trial detention had expired . The court also dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for release on the undertaking not to leave his place of residence . According to the court , the applicant \u2019s argument concerning his mother \u2019s ill health and the modest financial situation of his host could not serve as a ground for the application of a less stringent measure .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s house arrest until the adoption of the first - instance judgment . It noted that the applicant was charged with a crime punishable with DATE , or life , imprisonment which in itself demonstrated the risk of absconding . It also relied on the applicant \u2019s previous criminal conduct and the number of offences the applicant had been charged with to find that there was a risk of reoffending","On DATE the Budapest High Court granted the applicant \u2019s request for leave for CARDINAL DATE to visit his mother in hospital TIME and to undergo dental treatment .","On DATE the applicant requested his release from house arrest , pointing out that he had no income on his own and intended to work . He also produced a job offer from a company . His request was dismissed on DATE by ORG on the ground that no new circumstances existed that would affect the necessity of the house arrest .","On DATE the applicant was granted exceptional leave from house arrest for DATE between TIME to visit his hospitalised mother . The remainder of the applicant \u2019s request , that is leave from house arrest DATE , was dismissed .","His further request for extraordinary leave to visit his mother for TIME on DATE and to study his case file at the premises of a non - governmental organisation was granted on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was granted leave to visit his father in the town of PERSON on DATE TIME","The applicant \u2019s further request for leave for medical reasons was granted on DATE . However , ORG dismissed his application for leave so as to look after his mother on a DATE basis , in particular to assist her with insulin injections . The court reasoned that Ms I.T. , the applicant \u2019s acquaintance and a co - defendant in the criminal proceedings , who lived in the flat of the applicant \u2019s mother , could do so in his stead . The court also stated that lengthy DATE leave would be incompatible with the house arrest .","The applicant \u2019s further motions for leave to accompany his mother to medical examinations were granted on DATE and CARDINAL DATE for DATE ( TIME ) and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , respectively .","The applicant lodged further requests for leave in DATE to visit his terminally ill father in PERSON twice a DATE , to take his mother home after her hospitalisation and to make certain arrangements with her bank and her previous workplace , since she was under guardianship proceedings .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the applicant leave to visit his father every fourth DATE TIME , and to accompany his mother coming home from hospital on DATE between TIME and TIME His request to visit his mother \u2019s financial institution and workplace was dismissed , since he had not specified their addresses , whereas under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , leave could be granted only for a specific time and destination . As regards the applicant \u2019s more frequent visits to his father , the court noted that regular , long - term leave from the house arrest would jeopardise its purpose of securing the applicant \u2019s presence throughout the proceedings . The applicant appealed , arguing that the time period to assist his mother was too short , that his father \u2019s health was deteriorating fast , requiring more frequent visits , that is , DATE , and that he had already submitted the contact details of his mother \u2019s financial institution and workplace . On DATE ORG , acting as a second - instance court , found that the applicant \u2019s appeal concerning the restricted time to assist his mother was well - founded , nonetheless no longer pertinent , because she had already left the hospital . The remainder of the applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed .","The applicant \u2019s further requests for leave to visit his ill father , lodged on DATE and DATE , were not granted . The applicant \u2019s father died on DATE .","On DATE the court granted the applicant leave for the period DATE to make arrangements concerning the funeral of his father .","On DATE the ORG released the applicant from house arrest with an undertaking not to leave his place of residence . The court observed that there were no grounds to believe that the applicant would pervert the course of justice or reoffend . Nonetheless , in its view , he was charged with a serious offence requiring a coercive measure .","On appeal , ORG reversed the first - instance decision and placed the applicant under house arrest on DATE . It noted that given the seriousness of the offence there existed a danger of his absconding and given his previous multiple convictions , a risk of reoffending .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s motion for leave to attend Mass on DATE between TIME and his further request for leave on CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL and DATE . The court observed that the applicant , being a teacher of religion by profession , was not disproportionately restricted in the exercise of his religious conviction . This decision was upheld on appeal on CARDINAL DATE , ORG holding that the applicant \u2019s religious conviction did not justify the granting of permissions of leave from the house arrest ; and that such permissions were normally to reflect an intervening change in the detainee \u2019s personal circumstances . The court noted that such a request could only be granted if it was submitted concerning a specific place and purpose .","Meanwhile , the applicant \u2019s host , PERSON complained on a number of occasions to various authorities that the police officers surveying the applicant interfered with her private life . She also submitted that , as she had indicated from the beginning of the house arrest , she did not have the necessary financial means to accommodate the applicant .","On DATE Ms I.T. submitted a motion to the Budapest High Court stating that the applicant was to leave her flat since she could not further provide for him . On DATE , the applicant requested the court to establish the place of his house arrest at a camping site in GPE . He was informed by the court that , according to information received by the relevant authorities , the camping site was not suitable for residence during DATE . Notwithstanding this information , the applicant maintained his request .","A new decision was issued by the investigating judge on CARDINAL DATE establishing the place of the applicant \u2019s house arrest at the ORG camping site . On DATE ORG issued a report on the applicant \u2019s presence at the camping site , stating that the \u201c weather conditions , the lack of food supply and the poor hygienic conditions \u201d endangered the applicant \u2019s health . On DATE the ORG Chief Police Department lodged a request with ORG to amend its decision of DATE since the camp site was unsuitable for long - term residence .","On DATE the applicant sought the termination of his house arrest again . His motion was dismissed on DATE by ORG , which stated that there was no reason to overturn the decision of DATE and that he had been aware of the conditions of the camping site when he had requested to be committed there .","On DATE the local general practitioner arranged for the applicant to be admitted to ORG . The examinations carried out at the hospital did not result in the finding of any such disease as warranting the applicant \u2019s further treatment , so he was released on DATE and placed in a social care institution in PERSON .","On DATE ORG amended its decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered the applicant \u2019s house arrest to be carried out in the flat of Ms NORP again . The applicant \u2019s appeal against this decision was to no avail . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG reiterated that the applicant was a multiple reoffender charged with serious crimes , thus the risk of absconding and reoffending existed . The court also noted that had the statutory maximum of detention on remand not expired , the most restrictive measure should have been applied . It further argued that the measure was not disproportionate , since the protraction of the proceedings had been compensated for by the statutory discontinuation of the applicant \u2019s detention on remand . The court also dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument that some co - defendants were released from house arrest .","On DATE the Budapest High Court carried out the statutory review of the applicant \u2019s house arrest and , at the same time , decided on the applicant \u2019s request for release . During the court hearing the judge presented to the applicant and the prosecutor a letter allegedly originating from CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s previous cellmates . The writer of the letter informed the court that the applicant intended to obstruct the criminal proceedings by physically threatening the investigating judge and subsequently requesting his exclusion for bias , initiating criminal proceedings against the trial judge for judicial errors and absconding and inciting the co - accused to do so . The applicant sought direct access to the document , arguing that without receiving information on the author \u2019s identity he was unable to challenge this latter \u2019s motivation and the credibility of the content of the letter . Relying on the protection of the author \u2019s personal data as provided in section CARDINAL ) of LAW , the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s request .","The court upheld the applicant \u2019s house arrest because of the risk of reoffending and absconding as provided in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) and ( d ) of LAW . In its decision the court relied on the seriousness of the crimes and the gravity of the impending punishment in holding that there was a likelihood that the applicant would abscond . It also held that given the fact that the applicant was a recidivist , there was a risk of reoffending . In its decision the court mentioned the letter as CARDINAL of the factual elements to consider .","On DATE the ORG authorised the applicant to leave house arrest to undergo physiotherapy DATE in the period DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","DATE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s request for leave to take up a job and to look after his ill mother on a DATE basis was dismissed by ORG , which found that such a DATE leave would defeat the purpose of house arrest .","On DATE the applicant was appointed as his mother \u2019s guardian .","The applicant stayed in house arrest until DATE , when he was placed in pre - trial detention in connection with criminal proceedings concerning another offence .","As of DATE the applicant has been again in pre - trial detention following the second - instance court \u2019s decision to quash his conviction and remit the case to the first - instance ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5","8","9"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4","8-1","9-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165369","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SYUSYURA AND OVECHKIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162199","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CANG\u00d6Z AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":2,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 CARDINAL close relatives were members of an outlawed organisation in GPE , namely ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . On various dates since DATE criminal proceedings had been brought against the relatives for membership of a number of outlawed organisations and for carrying out activities on behalf of those organisations . They had spent various periods of time in prisons , and after their release some of them had left GPE and settled in different countries in LOC .","NORP In DATE the CARDINAL relatives began arriving in a rural area within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of GPE , near the city of GPE , in order to hold a meeting of their organisation . They were all killed in that area by members of the security forces on CARDINAL and DATE .","The names of the CARDINAL relatives and the applicants\u2019 relationship to them are as follows :","i. Cafer GPE was the first applicant Mr PERSON \u2019s son ;","ii . Ayd\u0131n Hanbayat was the second applicant PERSON Hanbayat \u2019s son ;","iii . Okan \u00dcnsal was the third applicant PERSON son ;","iv . PERSON was the fourth applicant Mr PERSON daughter ;","v. PERSON was the fifth applicant Mr PERSON brother ;","vi . PERSON was the sixth applicant PERSON son ;","vii . PERSON was the seventh applicant PERSON son ;","viii . \u00d6kke\u015f GPE was the eighth applicant PERSON son ;","ix . Taylan Y\u0131ld\u0131z was the ninth applicant PERSON son ;","x. PERSON was the tenth applicant Mr PERSON son ;","xi . PERSON was the eleventh applicant PERSON husband ;","xii . PERSON was the twelfth applicant Mr PERSON son ;","xiii . PERSON was the thirteenth applicant PERSON son ;","xiv . \u00c7a\u011fda\u015f Can was DATE applicant PERSON Can \u2019s son ;","xv . PERSON was the fifteenth applicant Mr PERSON daughter ;","GPE . Ersin PERSON was the sixteenth applicant Mr PERSON brother ; and ,","xvii . PERSON was the seventeenth applicant PERSON husband .","The events which took place on CARDINAL and DATE are disputed between the parties . Thus , the parties\u2019 submissions will be set out separately . The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The Government \u2019s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below ( paragraphs LAW ) . The documentary evidence submitted by the parties is summarised in Section D below ( paragraphs DATE ) .","At TIME on DATE some of the applicants heard on the television news that CARDINAL ORG members had been killed by soldiers in GPE and that armed clashes were continuing .","The following day a number of family members , suspecting that their relatives might be among those who had been killed , went to ORG to seek more information . When they failed to obtain any information there a lawyer representing CARDINAL of the families went to see the local prosecutor . The prosecutor told the lawyer that CARDINAL people had been killed .","NORP The families were then taken to a nearby military base to identify the CARDINAL bodies , which had been placed in the car park of the military base . The families noted that most of the bodies were naked . As the faces and bodies of the deceased had been destroyed beyond recognition , it was not possible to complete the identification process DATE .","When all the bodies had been identified and autopsies carried out on them they were handed over to the families for burial .","The photographs and video footage taken by the families while the bodies were being prepared for burial were submitted to the ORG . Very extensive injuries on the bodies of the CARDINAL can be seen in the footage .","In their observations the Government summarised a number of the steps taken by the national authorities ( which are also summarised below between paragraphs CARDINAL ) , and added the following .","NORP The applicants\u2019 relatives were members of the ORG terrorist organisation and some of them had entered GPE illegally in order to participate in a meeting of that organisation in GPE . After receiving intelligence reports , a patrolling helicopter found the terrorist group in an area near GPE on DATE . The terrorist group opened fire on the helicopter . After determining the location of the group the security forces arrived in the area to arrest them . At TIME the security forces encountered the group . Despite warnings to surrender issued by the security forces , the terrorists opened fire and injured a soldier .","At TIME on DATE the armed clash between the security forces and the terrorists ended . Alongside the bodies of the terrorists the security forces found , amongst other things , a number of automatic rifles and ammunition . CARDINAL terrorists were apprehended alive and arrested .","On DATE , just after the armed clash ended , the prosecutor arrived at the incident area , conducted an on - site inspection , prepared an incident report , and opened an investigation concerning the deaths of the CARDINAL terrorists . The prosecutor then ordered the destruction of the material which had no evidential or economic value .","On DATE TIME the bodies and everything else found were photographed .","On DATE , at the request of the relatives of the deceased , the prosecutor asked ORG to examine the clothes and bodies of the deceased with a view to establishing whether the security forces had opened fire from a distance without issuing any warning to surrender .","On DATE ORG released the ballistic report , which stated that CARDINAL of the QUANTITY terrorists had actively fired at the security forces during the armed clashes .","The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties .","According to a report prepared by CARDINAL non - commissioned officers from ORG on DATE ( hereafter \u201c the GPE report \u201d ) , intelligence obtained by the security forces suggested that members of the ORG were planning to have a meeting in DATE in an area in the vicinity of LOC , near the border between GPE and NORP provinces . Security forces from NORP and GPE subsequently started a military operation in the area on DATE . The operation was also supported from the air . At TIME on DATE the security forces conducting the operation came across a group of \u201c armed members of the organisation \u201d and asked them to surrender . However , \u201c the members of the organisation \u201d responded with fire and an armed clash ensued . During the first fire opened by \u201c the terrorists \u201d a soldier was injured on the upper leg and airlifted to hospital by helicopter . As the area was mountainous with many caves and in some places covered with snow , and as the \u201c members of the illegal organisation \u201d refused to surrender and opened intense fire , the clashes continued until DATE . At TIME the following day the fire directed at the security forces stopped and then a search was conducted by members of the security forces . The bodies of CARDINAL male and QUANTITY female \u201c terrorists \u201d were recovered . \u201c As instructed by the public prosecutor \u201d , the bodies and weapons recovered in the area were then taken by helicopter to ORG .","According to the above - mentioned report , CARDINAL automatic rifles ( CARDINAL MCARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL PERSON AKCARDINALs and one ORG ) , CARDINAL spent cartridges discharged from GCARDINAL rifles , and DATE spent cartridges discharged from ORG , CARDINAL bullets for ORG - type rifles , CARDINAL bullets for GCARDINALtype rifles , CARDINAL bullets for MCARDINAL-type rifles and CARDINAL bullets for PERSON - type rifles , CARDINAL PERSON magazines , CARDINAL MCARDINAL magazines and CARDINAL GCARDINAL magazines were recovered together with the bodies . \u201c Items which did not have evidential value \u201d , including CARDINAL rucksacks , CARDINAL items of male and CARDINAL pieces of female clothing and shoes were destroyed in accordance with \u201c the instructions given by the prosecutor \u201d .","NORP The report summarised in the preceding paragraphs , together with the weapons and ammunition mentioned therein , were handed over to the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE together with a number of other documents . According to CARDINAL of those documents which , in effect , is a list of the documents forwarded to the prosecutor by the military , CARDINAL of the documents handed over to the prosecutor were a CARDINAL - page military order , drawn up on DATE , for the carrying out of the operation and a sketch of the operation area . Those CARDINAL documents were not made available to the ORG .","Another military report was drawn up on DATE by the officer in charge of ORG of the neighbouring town of GPE , and QUANTITY gendarmes who had taken an active part in the operation ( hereafter the \u201c GPE report \u201d ) . The report states that \u201c outlawed terrorist organisations had set up camp \u201d in the area and that its members had been travelling between NORP city centre and GPE . There was evidence and information showing that members of the terrorist organisation were in contact with CARDINAL men from GPE who were providing them with assistance . At TIME on DATE CARDINAL of the CARDINAL men in question were apprehended and questioned by the soldiers . When they denied the allegations against them , the soldiers told them that the mobile telephone belonging to PERSON \u2013 one of the applicants\u2019 deceased relatives \u2013 was being intercepted and that the security forces were therefore aware that they had been in contact with members of the illegal organisation who had arrived in the area recently . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL men then told the soldiers that he had seen a number of armed men in the area and that he had subsequently helped them by supplying them with food and transport and by providing guidance about the local area . The man informed the gendarmes that the last time he had seen the armed men had been that very morning and that , given that CARDINAL of the armed men were \u201c limping \u201d and thus walking slowly , they were probably at a location at TIME walking distance away .","According to the above - mentioned GPE report , the soldiers then asked for a military helicopter and went to that area with the man to look for the applicants\u2019 relatives . The armed men were spotted in a river bed from armed Cobra - type military helicopters at TIME When one of the armed men noticed the helicopter , he opened fire and an armed clash ensued during which CARDINAL of the armed men were killed . At TIME DATE a number of soldiers taking security measures in the area came under intense fire as a result of which another armed clash ensued and continued until TIME , that is DATE . After the operations ended the bodies of CARDINAL more people DATE of whom were female \u2013 were recovered together with their weapons . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL men , who had been apprehended TIME and had assisted the soldiers in locating the applicants\u2019 relatives , was with the soldiers at that time and identified the bodies as the persons whom he and his CARDINAL friends had helped after their arrival in the area . The report further states that the incident took place on the border between the GPE and GPE districts . The GPE prosecutor was then informed about the operation and instructed the soldiers to take the bodies of the CARDINAL and their belongings to the town of GPE .","On DATE a press release was issued by ORG in GPE , stating that \u201c CARDINAL terrorists were recovered dead and CARDINAL terrorists were apprehended alive \u201d during the operations .","Also on DATE , the applicants\u2019 legal representative Ms Meral Hanbayat submitted a petition to the prosecutor \u2019s office in ORG and asked the prosecutor to order the carrying out of necessary forensic examinations on the body and clothes of the second applicant \u2019s son , ORG Hanbayat , with a view to establishing the distance from which he had been shot . The legal representative also asked the prosecutor to examine ORG Hanbayat \u2019s hands for gunpowder residue in order to establish whether or not he had opened fire .","According to a report drawn up by the GPE prosecutor on DATE , the area where the applicants\u2019 relatives had been killed was not safe and therefore it was not possible for the prosecutor to go there to examine the bodies . Thus , a decision was taken to bring the bodies to the town of GPE in a military helicopter . When they were brought to ORG the bodies were placed in the car park reserved for military vehicles . As their identities had not yet been established , each body was given a number .","NORP The GPE prosecutor , assisted by CARDINAL doctors , arrived at the car park and examined the bodies . The prosecutor noted that all CARDINAL were clothed and instructed that the clothes be removed for the examinations to be carried out . The bodies were also photographed , both with their clothes on and after they were taken off . The prosecutor and the doctors noted in their report the extensive injuries they observed on the bodies . A search was carried out of the clothes , in which CARDINAL identity documents were found . The prosecutor decided to keep the number tags on the bodies in place as he suspected that some of the identity papers might be forged . It was later established that QUANTITY of the identity papers belonged to the deceased and the remaining CARDINAL identity documents were in the names of other people .","The CARDINAL doctors concluded that all CARDINAL had died as a result of injuries caused by bullets and shrapnel , but considered it necessary to have detailed autopsies carried out . The bodies were then handed over to a gendarme non - commissioned officer , who took them to ORG nearest branch in the city of ORG at TIME . No mention is made in the document whether the clothes removed from the bodies of the CARDINAL were also handed over to that non - commissioned officer .","The same evening CARDINAL people who claimed to know some of the deceased arrived at ORG and identified the bodies of PERSON , GPE Hanbayat , PERSON , GPE , PERSON and PERSON .","The same evening forensic pathologists started carrying out the autopsies ; they completed their examinations at CARDINAL the following morning . A detailed verbatim report of the actions taken during the autopsies was prepared in the presence of the ORG prosecutor . Blood and urine samples taken from the bodies were sent for further analysis to verify whether the deceased had consumed alcohol or used drugs . Swabs were taken from their hands and sent for ballistic examinations with a view to establishing whether they had any gunpowder residue on their hands . Bullets and shrapnel found in the bodies were also sent for further analysis . Fingerprints were taken for identification purposes .","According to the findings of the forensic pathologists which are set out in the autopsy report , CARDINAL of the deceased had been killed by explosives , CARDINAL of them by bullets , and the remaining CARDINAL by both explosives and bullets . The forensic pathologists considered that to establish the distances from which the QUANTITY persons had been shot , further examinations had to be conducted on their clothes . They noted , however , that with CARDINAL exception all the deceased had been stripped of their clothes and that the clothes belonging to CARDINAL of the remaining sixteen had not been provided .","After the autopsies were concluded the ORG prosecutor ordered the return of the bodies and the clothes to the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the NORP prosecutor wrote to his opposite number in GPE and requested a copy of the investigation documents relating to the arrest of the CARDINAL men ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . According to the documents submitted to the ORG , the GPE prosecutor complied with that request and forwarded a copy of his investigation file to the GPE prosecutor .","It appears from the GPE prosecutor \u2019s file that on DATE the security forces had obtained authorisation from a judge to intercept the applicants\u2019 relatives\u2019 mobile telephones , and telephone conversations some of the applicants\u2019 relatives had had with a number of local people , including the men who were subsequently arrested for providing them with logistical support , were intercepted by the authorities DATE . According to the transcripts of the intercepted telephone conversations drawn up on DATE , the applicants\u2019 relatives had discussed over the telephone issues such as renting vehicles and facilitating their movements in the area .","On DATE the NORP prosecutor also asked ORG to send the weapons and the ammunition recovered together with the bodies of the applicants\u2019 relatives to ORG with a view to establishing whether the rifles had been used in any other previous incident and whether the CARDINAL GCARDINAL spent cartridges and the CARDINAL PERSON spent cartridges had been discharged from the GCARDINAL and the PERSON rifles found together with the bodies and whether they had thus been used in the armed clash .","On DATE and DATE most of the bodies were formally identified by their family members and burial certificates were issued .","NORP On DATE CARDINAL of the deceased , namely PERSON , ORG and ORG , were formally identified after an examination of their fingerprints was conducted at ORG .","DATE the GPE prosecutor was provided with the report pertaining to the medical examination of the soldier who had been injured during the operation and airlifted to hospital ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the report , the soldier in question had been kept in a military hospital in ORG DATE for the \u201c injury to the skin of and a foreign object on the left femur , which is not life - threatening and which can be treated with a simple medical intervention \u201d .","On DATE CARDINAL of the applicants , namely PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , assisted by their legal representatives , submitted an official complaint to the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office . The CARDINAL applicants alleged in their complaint that the bodies of their CARDINAL deceased relatives had been stripped of their clothes and displayed at the military base in GPE before they were taken to ORG for autopsies . The CARDINAL applicants added that they had not seen the clothes since the autopsies . They submitted that the way in which their relatives had been killed must be established before the investigation could proceed . They maintained that a forensic examination on the clothes was crucial and requested the prosecutor to ensure that it was done .","In their complaint the CARDINAL applicants also informed the prosecutor that there were \u201c strong indications \u201d that their relatives had been killed by being bombed from a distance , without any prior warning and without any attempts being made to ask for their surrender . They asked the prosecutor to promptly carry out an impartial investigation and visit the area where the operation had been conducted . They also requested the prosecutor to carry out the necessary investigation into the removal of their relatives\u2019 clothes and the exhibiting of their bodies , which , they argued , constituted an offence . Finally , the CARDINAL applicants asked the prosecutor to give them a copy of the documents from the investigation file .","When the GPE prosecutor received the ORG complaint he wrote to ORG DATE and informed that court of his opinion that \u201c when taken into account that [ the CARDINAL applicants ] are related to the deceased members of the terrorist organisation , handing over to them documents from the investigation file would endanger the investigation \u201d . The prosecutor asked ORG to issue a decision classifying the investigation file as confidential so that neither the CARDINAL applicants , their legal representatives , or anyone else would be able to examine the investigation file or obtain any documents from it , with the exception of the autopsy reports .","The prosecutor \u2019s request was granted on DATE by ORG . The same day the prosecutor forwarded ORG decision to the CARDINAL applicants and informed them that in the light of ORG decision it was not possible to accede to their request and that he was therefore unable to give them any of the documents from the file , with the exception of the autopsy reports . The CARDINAL applicants\u2019 legal representatives were handed a copy of the autopsy reports DATE .","On DATE the NORP prosecutor wrote to ORG headquarters in GPE , stating that although autopsies had been carried out on the bodies of the CARDINAL at the Malatya Branch of ORG , clothes belonging to some of the deceased had been returned to his office without examination , because there was no expert in ORG able to carry out that task . The prosecutor also informed the ORG about the allegation made by the CARDINAL applicants that their relatives might have been killed without a warning and added that the applicants had requested that their relatives\u2019 clothes be forensically examined . With his letter the prosecutor sent the clothes removed from the bodies of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and asked the ORG to carry out the necessary examinations on them .","On DATE the CARDINAL applicants mentioned above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) lodged an objection to the Ovac\u0131k Magistrates\u2019 Court \u2019s decision to restrict their access to the investigation file and asked for that decision to be set aside . In their submission the CARDINAL applicants added that they had spoken to the prosecutor and had repeated their request to have their deceased relatives\u2019 clothes forensically examined . However , the prosecutor had told them that the clothes had been \u201c destroyed after the operation because [ the authorities ] had deemed it necessary to do so \u201d . The CARDINAL applicants also stated in their submission that all they needed were the documents recording the actions taken during the investigation , and not any of the documents pertaining to the organisation of the military operation . They argued that they needed those documents to exercise their statutory right to effectively participate in the investigation . Furthermore , when the facts were known by the perpetrators and by the prosecutors , hiding those same facts from the complainants was not compatible with the principle of equality of arms . It was thus evident that an investigation conducted solely on the basis of the documents prepared by the perpetrators , the contents of which were not known to them and could thus not be challenged , would not lead to a fair conclusion .","The applicants also challenged the logic behind the decision to restrict their access to the investigation file , and questioned how their involvement in the investigation , the aim of which was to establish the facts , would endanger it . They submitted that some of the evidence , such as the clothes worn by their relatives , had already been destroyed on the orders of the prosecutor . The applicants considered it telling that the clothes of those killed by explosives had been sent for forensic examinations whereas the clothes worn by those killed by bullets had been destroyed . They argued that those destroyed clothes could have been instrumental in establishing the distance from which the deceased had been shot . They complained , moreover , that the prosecutor had still not visited the place where the operation had been conducted ; thus , there were serious questions about the way the evidence from that place had been collected . Lastly , the applicants referred to ORG and CARDINAL of LAW of the NORP on ORG - legal , Arbitrary and Summary Executions ( adopted by ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on DATE ) and argued that their exclusion from the investigation was in breach of those provisions .","The objection was rejected by ORG on DATE .","Also on DATE , ORG published their reports on the swabs taken from the hands of the CARDINAL deceased . According to the report , there was gunpowder residue on the palms and the backs of the hands of the QUANTITY of the CARDINAL relatives . It was stated in the report that the presence of gunpowder residue on the backs of the hands meant that the person had either fired a weapon or been in close proximity to a weapon when it was fired . The presence of gunpowder residue on the palm of the hand meant that the person had either been holding a weapon or had had contact with objects on which there was gunpowder residue , or that he or she had been standing close to a weapon when it was fired . It was stated in the same report that gunpowder residue could be found on the hand of a person who had not fired a weapon but whose hand had been in contact with objects such as a weapon , a bullet entry wound , or the hands of another person who had fired a weapon .","On DATE CARDINAL relatives , including CARDINAL of the applicants , submitted a complaint to the NORP prosecutor with the assistance of their legal representatives .","The relatives began by stating that the arguments they were making in their complaint were inevitably based only on the autopsy reports and the things they had heard or witnessed personally ; as they had been denied access to the investigation they had not had the opportunity to see any of the evidence or the information in the prosecutor \u2019s file . In their submission they complained about the killings of their relatives and about the public displaying of the bodies by the security forces . The relatives also submitted that the fact that the bodies of some of their relatives had been destroyed beyond recognition by bombs had led them to form the opinion that there had not been an armed clash as alleged and that their relatives had been killed by unlawful fire from military helicopters . In any event , on account of their ages and the various physical disabilities of CARDINAL of them , their relatives had not been in a position to actively participate in an armed clash with soldiers in a mountainous area . Furthermore , although it had been alleged that firearms had been found next to the bodies of their relatives , those firearms would not have been effective against military helicopters . Thus , it was obvious that they had been killed as a result of the use of disproportionate force .","The relatives also repeated the criticism , which had already been voiced by CARDINAL of them on a number of previous occasions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , of the fact that they had been denied access to the investigation file and the investigating authorities\u2019 failures to take certain steps in the investigation . In that connection they highlighted , in particular , the destruction of their relatives\u2019 clothes by the authorities . They also complained that crucial evidence had been collected without any judicial supervision and by members of the security forces who themselves had been implicated in the killings and were therefore under investigation .","The relatives argued that the killing of their relatives had been unlawful and in breach of GPE \u2019s obligations under various international treaties , including the Convention . Contrary to the requirements of those international obligations , no attempts had been made to apprehend their relatives in a non - life - threatening fashion . Moreover , members of the security forces had committed another offence by publicly exhibiting their relatives\u2019 naked bodies . They invited the prosecutor to carry out an independent and effective investigation that was proportionate to the seriousness of the killings .","The applicant PERSON , together with his wife PERSON , submitted another complaint to the GPE prosecutor in addition to the one he had already submitted on DATE together with the other applicants . In their complaint the couple complained about the killing of their daughter , PERSON , and alleged , in particular , that their daughter and her CARDINAL friends had been unarmed at the time and there had therefore not been an armed clash between them and the soldiers . They further complained that necessary precautions in the area where their daughter was killed had not been taken by the prosecutor , and the evidence in the area had thus been allowed to disappear . They also complained that their daughter \u2019s body had been exhibited by the soldiers .","On various dates the GPE prosecutor asked his colleagues in various towns and cities to take statements from the applicants living within their jurisdictions . According to the documents submitted by the parties , the prosecutors complied with that request and took statements from CARDINAL of the applicants and CARDINAL other close relatives of the CARDINAL deceased . In their statements the relatives repeated their allegations and maintained their complaints . The relatives also stated that , although they had not personally seen the bodies of their deceased relatives being exhibited , they had heard about it from others .","On DATE ORG of the ORG concluded their examinations in respect of the weapons and the spent cartridges found in the operation area ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It was stated in the report that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL spent PERSON cartridges had been discharged from the CARDINAL PERSON rifles found in the area . The remaining CARDINAL had been discharged from CARDINAL other PERSON rifles , which were not among those recovered in the area . It was also established that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL spent GCARDINAL cartridges had been discharged from the CARDINAL GCARDINAL rifles found in the area . As the remaining GCARDINAL spent cartridge had no markings on it , no examination could be carried out on it .","On DATE ORG prepared its report in response to the NORP prosecutor \u2019s request of DATE for the clothes worn by CARDINAL of the deceased at the time they were killed to be examined . It was noted in the report that the holes observed on CARDINAL of the CARDINAL sets of clothes were not bullet holes . The holes observed on the fourth set of clothes which belonged to PERSON did not have any gunpowder residue and it was not therefore possible to establish the distance from which he had been shot .","On DATE the applicants asked the NORP prosecutor to give them a copy of the autopsy report and a copy of the document pertaining to the examination of the clothes removed from the bodies of their relatives . The prosecutor complied with that request on DATE .","DATE a number of ballistic examinations were conducted ; the NORP prosecutor was informed at the end of those examinations that the rifles and the spent cartridges found next to the bodies had not been used in any other incident .","On DATE the NORP prosecutor closed the investigation . After summarising some of the documents which are also set out in the preceding paragraphs , the prosecutor stated the following in his decision :","\u201c Sections DATE and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure set out how post mortem examinations should be conducted . As stated in the autopsy reports , there was no one to identify the members of the terrorist organisation ORG HKO who had been recovered dead . That was why they could not be formally identified in GPE . Moreover , their clothes were removed on the instruction of the prosecutor so that their bodies could be examined . Thus , the bodies were not stripped of their clothes by members of the security forces so that they could be publicly displayed . Removing the clothes was a necessity and did not constitute an offence .","As for the complaint concerning the killings , the terrorist organisation ORG HKO issued press releases on DATE in which it was made clear that the deceased had indeed been members of that terrorist organisation and in which GPE was expressly referred to as the enemy . It was stated in the press releases , for example , \u2018 during the armed clashes that took place between the fascist NORP State and the forces from ORG ( ORG ) [ acting ] under the leadership of our ORG , CARDINAL of our communist warrior comrades became GPE . Thus , those press releases not only confirm that the deceased were members of the terrorist organisation , but also that they died in armed clashes with the security forces .","The aim and strategy of the terrorist organisation ORG HKO is to destroy the constitutional order of GPE through armed struggle and to replace it with a different regime . The deceased were members of the MKP \/ HKO and were carrying out armed and unlawful activities on behalf of that organisation in order to change the constitutional order by force . The investigation documents , the nature of the weapons recovered , the other documents and information [ in the file ] and the fact that the deceased did not obey the security forces\u2019 warning to surrender show conclusively that they were members of the MKP \/ HKO and were acting in accordance with that organisation \u2019s aims to change the constitutional order through armed struggle .","In addition , it was openly stated in the press release issued by the terrorist organisation ORG HKO that all the deceased were members of the ORG \/ HKO terrorist organisation .","As explained above , the deceased were members of the illegal ORG \/ HKO terrorist organisation , which carries out activities aimed at changing the constitutional order by force of arms ; they were carrying out armed and unlawful activities on behalf of that organisation . A report showing that they were members of the unlawful ORG \/ HKO terrorist organisation and that they had carried out armed activities on behalf of that organisation and thus had committed the offence of attempting to change the NORP republic \u2019s constitutional order , was prepared [ by me ] and sent to the ORG prosecutor .","The [ deceased ] had been wandering and hanging around as a group . Their aim was to inflict casualties on members of the security forces . It was the terrorists who fired first , despite an order to surrender issued by members of the security forces . When they first opened fire they injured a member of the security forces . Then , despite a warning to surrender , the terrorist group continued to open fire . Faced with an all - out armed attack , the security forces had no alternative but to open fire . Thus , the \u2018 absolute DATE and \u2018 ORG criteria were satisfied , which renders the killings lawful .","In order to realise their so - called ideals , terrorists make plans and act in accordance with those plans . Even when they are dying they think of killing . They prepare traps with explosives and hand grenades and set them to explode when members of the security forces approach them when they are seriously injured or after their death to lift their bodies . The response of the security forces to prevent the ORG so - called last mission ( the traps ) which caused severe damage to the ORG bodies must be regarded as a lawful action carried out within the ambit of \u2018 self - defence\u2019 and \u2018 necessity\u2019 , because they acted with the aim of protecting their own physical integrity and lives .","According to the decision of ORG of ORG ( DATE , decision no . CARDINAL ) , the existence of an attack must be interpreted widely ; if it is definite that an attack is going to begin , it can be regarded as an attack already begun ; if it has already come to an end but there is a fear that it might begin again , then it must be regarded as not yet ended .","In the present incident , it is established that members of the security forces had persistently warned the deceased , who were members of the ORG \/ HKO terrorist organisation , and asked them to stop and surrender . The deceased , who were members of the ORG \/ HKO terrorist organisation and who opened fire and injured a gendarme soldier , were then recovered dead together with their weapons .","In the course of anti - terrorism measures , members of the security forces have the power to use weapons pursuant to s. CARDINAL of Law No . DATE and s. CARDINAL of the Regulations on the Establishment and Powers of the ORG : the latter was drafted in accordance with s. CARDINAL of Law No . CARDINAL , and additional section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of Law No . CARDINAL .","According to LAW , members of the security forces can use weapons if it has become absolutely necessary to do so .","In recovering dead the members of the ORG \/ HKO terrorist organisation , members of the security forces used their weapons in accordance with s. CARDINAL of LAW , LAW ORG and s. CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , and they did so within the limits of their powers and duties . It is clearly established that their actions were lawful within the context of self - defence . Thus , no offence was committed by the members of the security forces who killed the deceased or by members of the security forces and the administrative officials who planned the operation and ordered it ... The decision is hereby taken not to continue with the investigation ... \u201d","The applicants lodged objections to the prosecutor \u2019s decision on CARDINAL and DATE . In their submissions the applicants also referred to the GPE report and drew attention to the discrepancies between that report and the PERSON report . They argued , in particular , that in the GPE report there was no mention of any warnings having been issued to their CARDINAL relatives to surrender . In the GPE report it was stated , however , that their relatives had been given warnings to surrender . The applicants pointed out in this connection that , instead of trying to assess which version had represented the truth , when closing the investigation the prosecutor had completely ignored the FAC report , in which no mention was made of surrender warnings , and relied solely on the PERSON report .","The applicants further argued that no investigation had been conducted into the roles played by and the actions of members of the security forces during the operation . In fact , they had not even been named or questioned . Furthermore , no attempts had been made to find out what types of weapons had been used by the security forces in the operation .","The applicants also referred to the documents in the GPE prosecutor \u2019s investigation file concerning the actions of the CARDINAL men who had been arrested on suspicion of helping their relatives . They submitted that those documents showed that members of the security forces had not simply \u201c come across \u201d their relatives on DATE as alleged in the NORP report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Instead , those documents showed that the operation had in fact started on DATE and had been meticulously carried out . For example , CARDINAL of their relatives had been under close observation by the security forces from the time of their arrival in NORP on DATE , and their telephone conversations with the CARDINAL men who were under investigation for helping them had been intercepted and their meetings photographed . According to the applicants , this background information showed that , instead of arresting their relatives at a much earlier stage , members of the security forces had chosen to wait until their relatives went to the countryside where the conditions were suitable for an operation to kill them . Nevertheless , despite their importance and relevance , none of the above factors had been taken into account by the prosecutor in the investigation .","The applicants argued that if the prosecutor had taken notice of the contents of the ORG report he would have seen that no warnings had been issued by the soldiers before they opened fire on their relatives . Indeed , given that the first contact had been with their relative who had been on lookout duty and the members of the security forces who had been in the helicopter , it was improbable that such a warning had been issued first . Thus , the prosecutor \u2019s reliance on the alleged warnings to surrender when concluding that the killings had been in self - defence was without basis .","The applicants also criticised the justification proffered by the prosecutor for the use of heavy weaponry by alleging that their relatives could have set up booby - traps . They argued that there was no evidence in the file to support the prosecutor \u2019s conclusion . In particular , it was impossible to reach such a conclusion without first questioning the soldiers who , in any event , had not made any allegations that there were booby traps . The applicants argued that by doing so the prosecutor had replaced the lack of any evidence with his subjective assumptions and that the conclusion reached by him could not , therefore , have any legal significance and could not prove that the force used had not been excessive .","The applicants alleged that the prosecutor had failed to establish with any clarity the way in which their relatives had been killed . They submitted that , according to the news coverage of the incident in the media on DATE , initially CARDINAL of their relatives had been killed by bombs , and that those media reports were compatible with the GPE military report . The remaining CARDINAL relatives had been killed mostly by bullets , because after the initial heavy bombing the soldiers on the ground had formed a circle around the CARDINAL relatives and shot them .","DATE . The applicants also criticised the fact that the swabs taken from the hands of their relatives were examined at ORG rather than at the independent ORG . Moreover , when taking into account that their relatives had been killed in the course of a military operation during which heavy weapons had been used and that their bodies had been carried by soldiers who had taken part in the operation , the prosecutor \u2019s conclusion , which was based on the forensic reports showing that they had gunpowder residue on their hands , that their relatives had taken part in the armed clash was not compatible with the other information in the file .","Furthermore , no fingerprint analysis had been conducted on the rifles with a view to establishing whether they had their relatives\u2019 fingerprints on them . Similarly , although the fact that only spent cartridges belonging to PERSON and GCARDINAL rifles had been found after the operation could lead to the assumption that only GCARDINAL and ORG had been used in the operation , the failure to specify exactly where those spent cartridges had been found and the added failure to collect the spent cartridges discharged from the rifles used by the soldiers discredited that assumption .","In addition to the above , in their complaint the applicants also criticised the prosecutor \u2019s failure to identify the names of the soldiers who had killed their relatives , to establish the exact locations and movements of both their relatives and the soldiers , to visit the scene , to identify the weapons used by members of the security forces , and to safeguard the clothes removed from the bodies of their relatives .","The applicants argued that , in the light of the serious failures it could not be said that an effective investigation had been conducted . Indeed , when looking at the investigation as a whole , one could see that both the security forces who had prepared the military reports after the operation , and subsequently the prosecutor , had been convinced that their relatives had deserved to die and that that had been the real reason behind their failure to take even the most basic investigative steps . In that connection they also criticised the fact that evidence had been collected by the soldiers who were supposed to be under investigation .","The applicants concluded their complaint by arguing that , in the light of the shortcomings in the investigation , the prosecutor had not been in a position to decide whether or not the use of force was justified under the national legislation set out in his decision .","The objection lodged by the applicants against the prosecutor \u2019s decision was rejected by ORG on DATE . ORG decision is as follows :","\u201c The complainants submitted through their legal representatives that , although their relatives who were killed on DATE ( sic ) could have been apprehended alive , members of the security forces had acted with the intention to kill and that they had stripped the clothes off their relatives and displayed their bodies publicly . Their complaint was therefore against the military and administrative authorities who had ordered the operation , planned it , and carried it out .","At the end of the investigation carried out by the GPE prosecutor a decision was taken not to bring criminal proceedings against the military or administrative authorities who had ordered the operation , who had overseen it and who had executed it , for the killings of the deceased persons and for displaying their bodies . It was considered that no offence had been committed .","Having examined the file , a decision is hereby given to reject the objection lodged by the complainants because the GPE prosecutor \u2019s decision is in accordance with the procedure and the legislation \u201d .","In the meantime , on DATE as he closed the investigation that is on DATE the NORP prosecutor also prepared a report and sent it to the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office . In his report the GPE prosecutor asked his colleague in ORG to take the necessary action against the applicants\u2019 deceased relatives who , according to the evidence in his possession , had committed the offences of membership of a terrorist organisation and had attempted to destroy the constitutional order through armed struggle , and had injured a soldier .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against the applicants\u2019 relatives , because they were dead .","DATE . According to a document which was made available to the ORG by the respondent Government and which was prepared by ORG on CARDINAL DATE and sent to ORG apparently in order to advise the latter when preparing its observations to be submitted to the ORG , the applicants\u2019 relatives\u2019 clothes and a number of other items found on their persons were destroyed on the orders of the GPE prosecutor , on the ground that they had no evidential value ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163610","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SOLTANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix .","The applicants stood as candidates in the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE and applied for registration as candidates in various single \u2013 mandate electoral constituencies ( see Appendix ) . They were either self - nominated or nominated by various political parties ( see Appendix ) .","As LAW required that each nomination as a candidate for parliamentary elections be supported by a minimum of CARDINAL voters , the applicants on various dates submitted sheets containing the signature of CARDINAL voters collected in support of their candidacy to their respective ORG ( \u201c ConECs \u201d ) .","NORP Before a decision by a ConEC on registering an applicant as a candidate , the signature sheets and the other registration documents submitted by the applicants had first to be verified by special working groups ( i\u015f\u00e7i qrupu ) established by the ConECs . None of the applicants were invited to participate in the examination of their sheets of signatures by the PERSON working groups .","The GPE on various dates ( see PERSON ) issued decisions to refuse the ORG requests for registration as a candidate after the PERSON working groups had found that some of the voter signatures were invalid and that the remaining valid signatures had numbered CARDINAL . Signatures were found to be invalid on several grounds in each case , including : ( a ) falsified or repeat signatures ( \u201c signatures made repeatedly by the same individuals who had already signed sheets in the name of other individuals \u201d ) ; ( b ) incorrect personal information on voters ( birth date , identity card number , and so on ) ; ( c ) signatures by persons whose identity cards had expired ; ( d ) signatures belonging to voters registered outside the constituency ; ( e ) uncertified corrections in signature sheets ; ( f ) signatures claimed to have been obtained \u201c by deceptive means \u201d ; and ( g ) unspecified \u201c other grounds \u201d .","None of the applicants were invited to the ConEC meetings where decisions to refuse their requests for registration were taken . In each case , despite the requirements of the law , all the relevant working group documents ( expert opinions , TIME of the meeting , records and tables of the results of the examination ) , as well as the ConEC decision itself , were only made available to the applicants after the decision to refuse their registration had been taken . In many cases , some of the documents were never made available to the applicants or were only made available to them as late as during the subsequent judicial proceedings in ORG .","Each applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against the ConEC decisions . They made some or all of the following complaints :","( a ) the findings of the ConEC working groups that such large numbers of signatures were invalid had been factually wrong , unsubstantiated , and arbitrary . Some of those findings of fact could easily have been rebutted by simply contacting the voter in question and confirming the authenticity of his or her signature . However , the ConECs had not taken any steps to corroborate their findings with any reliable evidence , such as contacting and questioning a number of voters randomly selected from the group whose signatures were suspected of being false . There were no specialist handwriting experts among the members of the ConEC working groups and therefore their findings on the authenticity of some signatures had been highly subjective and arbitrary ;","( b ) the ConEC decisions to declare the signatures invalid had been arbitrary and in breach of the substantive and procedural requirements of the law . Relying on various provisions of LAW , the applicants argued that unintentional and rectifiable errors in the signature sheets could not serve as a reason to declare a voter signature invalid . If the errors found could be rectified by making the necessary corrections , LAW required the ConEC to notify the particular candidate of this within twentyfour TIME and to provide him or her with an opportunity to make corrections in the documents before deciding on his or her registration as a candidate . The ConECs had , however , declared large numbers of signatures invalid in the case of each applicant on the basis of easily rectifiable errors , without informing the candidates in advance and giving them an opportunity to make the necessary corrections ;","( c ) the procedure followed by the ConECs had also breached other requirements of LAW . Contrary to the requirements of Article CARDINAL , the applicants had not been informed in advance of the time and place of the examination of the signature sheets and their presence had not been ensured . Contrary to Article CARDINAL of LAW , the applicants had also not been provided with a copy of TIME of the examination of the validity of the signature sheets CARDINAL prior to the PERSON meeting dealing with their respective requests for registration . Subsequently , none of the applicants had been invited to the ConEC meetings , which had deprived them of the opportunity to argue for their position ;","( d ) some of the grounds for invalidation were not provided by law and therefore to declare signatures invalid on those grounds had been unlawful . For example , LAW did not allow the invalidation of a signature merely because the voter \u2019s identity document had recently expired . Likewise , it had been unlawful to invalidate signatures on unspecified and unexplained \u201c other grounds \u201d , because LAW provided for an exhaustive list of clear grounds for declaring signatures invalid and did not give electoral commissions any discretionary power to introduce any other grounds for that purpose ;","( e ) in some cases , various local public officials and police officers had applied undue pressure on voters or signature collectors to \u201c withdraw \u201d their signatures on the grounds that they had been tricked to sign in the candidate \u2019s favour \u201c by deceptive means \u201d .","Enclosed with their complaints to the ORG , some of the applicants submitted statements by a number of voters affirming the authenticity of their signatures . However , those statements were not taken into consideration by the ORG .","The ORG arranged for another examination of the signature sheets by members of its own working group . None of the applicants was invited to participate in that examination process . The ORG working group found in each case that large numbers of signatures were invalid and that the remaining valid signatures were below the minimum required by law .","In each case , the number of signatures found to be invalid by the ORG working group differed from the number given by the particular ConEC working group , with the differences often being significant . Furthermore , in almost every case , the grounds for declaring signatures invalid given by the ORG had been different from the grounds given for the same signature sheets by the ConEC . In most cases a certain number of the total signatures were also declared invalid on the grounds that they had \u201c appeared \u201d to have been falsified , that is , \u201c made by the same person in the name of other people \u201d ( \u201c ehtimal ki , eyni \u015f\u0259xs t\u0259r\u0259find\u0259n icra olunmu\u015fdur \u201d ) .","On various dates , the ORG also rejected the ORG complaints ( see Appendix ) . None of the applicants were invited to attend the ORG meeting dealing with their complaint . Moreover , in each case , all the relevant ORG documents ( including the working group documents ) were only made available to the applicants after the ORG decision had been taken , while in some cases such documents were never given to them at all , or were given as late as at the stage of judicial appeal proceedings .","On various dates , each of the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG against the decisions of the electoral commissions . They reiterated the complaints they had made before the ORG concerning the ConEC decisions and procedures . They also raised some or all of the following complaints concerning the ORG \u2019s decisions and procedures :","( a ) NORP contrary to the requirements of electoral law , the ORG had failed to notify them of its meetings and ensure their presence during the examination of the signature sheets and their complaints ;","( b ) NORP contrary to the requirements of electoral law , some or all of the relevant ORG documents had not been made available to them , depriving them of the opportunity to mount an effective challenge to the ORG decisions ;","( c ) the decisions of the electoral commissions had been based on expert opinions that had contained nothing more than conjecture and speculation ( for example , that the signatures had \u201c appeared \u201d ( \u201c ehtimal ki \u201d ) to have been falsified ) , instead of properly established facts ;","( d ) in those cases where the applicants had submitted additional documents in support of their complaints , the ORG had ignored those submissions and failed to take them into account .","Relying on a number of provisions of domestic law , and directly on LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW , the applicants claimed that their right to stand for election had been infringed .","On various dates ( see Appendix ) , ORG dismissed appeals by the applicants , finding that their arguments were irrelevant or unsubstantiated and that there were no grounds for quashing the decisions of the ORG .","The applicants lodged cassation appeals with ORG , reiterating their previous complaints and arguing that ORG had not carried out a fair examination of the cases and had delivered unreasoned judgments .","On various dates ( see Appendix ) , ORG dismissed the ORG appeals as unsubstantiated , without examining their arguments in detail , and found no grounds to doubt the findings of the electoral commissions or of ORG .","In addition to the applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , at the material time their representative Mr PERSON was representing twentyseven other applicants in cases concerning the DATE parliamentary elections and a number of applicants in other cases before the ORG . Mr PERSON himself is the applicant in application no . CARDINAL .","NORP In DATE the prosecution authorities launched an investigation into the activities of a number of NGOs , including ORG , an NGO headed by Mr PERSON .","On DATE ORG issued a search warrant authorising the search of Mr PERSON \u2019s office in ORG and seizure of \u201c legal , financial , accounting and banking documents , letters and contracts , reports on execution of grant contracts and tax documents relating to [ the organisation \u2019s ] establishment , structure , functioning , membership registration , receipt of grants and other financial aid , and allocation of granted funds , as well as computers , disks , ORG keys and other electronic devices storing relevant information ... \u201d","On DATE Mr PERSON was arrested after questioning by an investigator of ORG in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against him under Articles CARDINAL ( illegal entrepreneurship ) , CARDINAL ( large - scale tax evasion ) and CARDINAL ( abuse of power ) of LAW . On DATE , ORG ordered his detention pending trial . He remains in detention while the criminal proceedings against him are pending . The circumstances relating to Mr PERSON \u2019s arrest and detention are the subject of a separate application brought by him before the ORG ( application no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the investigation authorities conducted a search of Mr PERSON \u2019s home and office pursuant to ORG search warrant of CARDINAL DATE , seizing , inter alia , a large number of documents from his office , including all the case files relating to the pending proceedings before the ORG , which were in Mr PERSON \u2019s possession and which concerned over CARDINAL applications in total . The files relating to the present cases , which , it appears , included copies of all the documents and correspondence between the ORG and the parties , were also seized in their entirety . No adequate inventory of the seized document files relating to the ORG proceedings was made in the search and seizure records of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .","On an unspecified date Mr PERSON lodged a complaint with ORG , claiming that the search had been unlawful . He complained that the investigator had failed to register each seized document as required by the relevant law and had taken the documents without making an inventory . He further complained about the seizure of the documents and files relating to the ongoing court proceedings before the ORG and the domestic courts .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON PERSON \u2019s claim . It held that the searches had been conducted in accordance with the relevant law . As to the seizure of the documents relating to the cases pending before the ORG and the domestic court , it found that they could not be returned to the applicants at this stage of the proceedings . Following an appeal , on DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the investigation authorities returned a number of the case files concerning the applications lodged before the ORG , including the file relating to the present case , to Mr PERSON \u2019s lawyer . The investigator \u2019s relevant decision specified that \u201c since it has been established that among documents seized on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE there were files concerning applications by a number of individuals and organisations lodged with ORG , which have no relation to the substance of the criminal proceedings [ against Mr PERSON ] , [ those files ] have been delivered to [ Mr PERSON \u2019s lawyer ] Mr PERSON \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["34","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152250","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF N\u00c9METH v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant brought an action against GPE IX GPE , claiming the release of public information in the context of a real estate dispute . So far ORG , ORG and ORG have dealt with the case .","On DATE the examination of the case was suspended , pending the adjudication of a preliminary question in another procedure . This latter case appears to be pending at the appellate level .","According to the information available in the case file , the litigation is still pending ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182470","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ISL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"UNSEEN EHF. v. ICELAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The applicant , Unseen ehf . , is an NORP limited liability company based in GPE . It was represented before the ORG by Mr Haf\u00fe\u00f3r S\u00e6varsson , a member of the applicant company \u2019s board of directors .","NORP The applicant is a limited liability company based in GPE . It provides its customers with encrypted email , web chat and video conference services . Its main objective is to provide its customers with services free from illegal invasion of privacy or interception by governmental or corporate entities .","On DATE , ORG NORP \u00e1 h\u00f6fu\u00f0borgarsv\u00e6\u00f0inu ) lodged a request before ORG of PERSON ( H\u00e9ra\u00f0sd\u00f3mur Reykjav\u00edkur ) requiring that the applicant company be ordered to provide the police with all the data in its possession , from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , concerning CARDINAL specific email accounts hosted by the applicant company on its website . The police also requested that the court render its decision in the absence of the applicant company and without its knowledge , pursuant to LAW No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on Criminal Procedure .","By a decision of the same date , ORG granted the request and held the hearing in the absence of the applicant company and without its knowledge , stating that it was \u201c in the interest of the investigation \u201d by the police . Furthermore , ORG ordered the applicant company to provide the police with the requested data . On DATE , the police called the chairman of the board of directors of the applicant company and informed him of the ORG decision .","The applicant company appealed to ORG against ORG decision . In its submissions to ORG , the applicant company maintained , firstly , that ORG had not divulged a legal basis for its decision to order the applicant company to provide the requested data . Secondly , the applicant company stated that ORG had most likely applied PERSON of the Act on Criminal Procedure No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( hereinafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) which included the procedure by which telecommunications companies could be ordered to provide information on telephone calls or other communications to or from a specific telephone , computer or other types of device . The applicant company argued that these rules did not apply , as it could not be considered a telecommunications company . Lastly , the applicant company submitted that ORG decision to hold the hearing in its absence and without its knowledge had not been justified under the conditions laid down in Article CARDINAL ) of LAW .","By judgment of DATE , ORG ) confirmed the ORG decision . In its judgment ORG referred to Chapter XI of the Act on Criminal Procedure concerning telecommunications companies and stated that the applicant company provided its customers with telecommunications services as defined in FAC No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on ORG and was therefore a telecommunications company for the purpose of Act No . CARDINAL on Criminal Procedure .","The relevant sections of LAW No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , at the time , read as follows :","\u201c Under the conditions stipulated in Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) a telecommunications company can be required , in the interests of a police investigation , to provide information on telephone calls or other communications to or from a specific telephone , computer or other types of telecommunication devices . \u201d","\u201c The condition for taking the investigative actions set out in Sections DATE is that it is reasonable to assume that important information can be obtained which could be critical for the police investigation .","In addition to the condition in paragraph CARDINAL , another condition for taking the investigative actions under LAW is that the investigation concerns a criminal act that can carry PERCENT imprisonment according to law or that important public or private interests so require . \u201d","\u201c A court decision is required for taking the investigative actions stipulated in Sections DATE . However , information pursuant to LAW should be provided without a court decision if the person who possesses or owns a telephone , computer or other types of telecommunication device has given unequivocal permission .","A court decision shall stipulate to which telephone or telecommunication device it applies or who is the owner or person who possesses the telecommunication device , pursuant to LAW and DATE , ...","...","The employees of a telecommunications company are obliged to assist the police with the execution of the actions listed in Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL as necessary . \u201d","\u201c In accordance with the provisions of this LAW , a request may be submitted to a district court for taking certain actions during an investigative stage which will need the involvement of a judge according to other provisions of this LAW , including a request that a defendant , a victim or another witness must give a statement under LAW .","In addition to what is stated in the first paragraph , a dispute which concerns the lawfulness of any investigative action made by the police or the prosecution may be submitted to a district court . The same applies to any disputes about the rights of the defendant , his \/ her defence counsel or a lawyer , including their requests concerning certain investigative actions , or the rights of a victim , his \/ her representative or legal counsel . \u201d","\u201c If a request for an investigative action pursuant to LAW ) is made and it is demanded that a hearing be held in the absence of the defendant or the party which the action concerns , the judge shall decide whether to approve the demand . In general it should not be approved unless a judge considers that it has been sufficiently established that prior knowledge of the investigative action by the defendant or the concerned party could harm the investigation . ... \u201d","The relevant Section of Act No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on Electronic Communication reads as follows :","\u201c For the purpose of this LAW the following definitions shall apply : ... CARDINAL . Electronic communications : any type of transmission and receipt of symbols , signals , writing , images and sounds , or any sort of communication on lines , by radio or other electromagnetic systems ;","... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155373","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF COSTEL GACIU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit crimes and blackmail , and was placed in the ORG detention centre . On DATE he was transferred to ORG ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) where he remained until DATE , when his pre - trial detention was replaced by the courts with a prohibition on leaving the town .","The applicant alleged that for DATE , DATE and DATE , he was held in the ORG detention centre in a QUANTITY m underground cell with CARDINAL other prisoners . The cell had no window or ventilation and the walls were covered in mould . He had no free access to water and the cell was extremely unhygienic . He further alleged that access to the toilet was given in accordance with a DATE programme which in his opinion amounted to psychological torture .","In FAC the applicant was detained in severely overcrowded cells . He submitted that for a certain period he shared a QUANTITY m cell with CARDINAL other prisoners . The cell also lacked ventilation because the window was covered with CARDINAL rows of metal bars and additional metallic netting .","The applicant supported his allegations with statements from ORG , who was held in a neighbouring cell in the ORG facility , and from Mr F.F. , who was also held at the GPE Police centre at the same time as the applicant , and who afterwards shared a cell with him in FAC . They confirmed entirely the applicant \u2019s allegations .","In the ORG detention centre the applicant shared a cell of QUANTITY . m with another prisoner ( thus CARDINAL sq . m of personal space for each inmate ) . The cell was not provided with any sanitary facilities such as a toilet , sink or shower . However , the centre had CARDINAL common bathrooms where the prisoners had access to the toilet on request and to the showers DATE . The cell had no window to the outside , but ventilation was ensured by a window located above the door and protected with bars and metallic netting .","In FAC the applicant was initially held in quarantine for DATE in a QUANTITY . m cell which he shared with CARDINAL other prisoners also in pre - trial detention ( thus QUANTITY . m of personal space for each inmate ) . The cell had CARDINAL rows of bunk beds .","DATE and DATE , still in quarantine , the applicant shared a cell of CARDINAL sq . m with CARDINAL other prisoners ( thus QUANTITY . m of personal space for each inmate ) . This cell had CARDINAL rows of bunk beds .","On DATE the applicant was transferred for DATE to a cell measuring QUANTITY m together with CARDINAL other prisoners ( thus CARDINAL sq . m of personal space for each inmate ) . The cell had CARDINAL rows of bunk beds .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in a cell of QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL other prisoners ( thus QUANTITY . m of personal space for each inmate ) . The cell had CARDINAL rows of bunk beds . On DATE the applicant was moved from this cell at his own request . Between CARDINAL DATE and DATE he was placed in a cell which measured QUANTITY . m and accommodated CARDINAL prisoners ( thus QUANTITY . m of personal space for each inmate ) . The cell had CARDINAL rows of bunk beds .","DATE the applicant shared a cell measuring QUANTITY m with CARDINAL other prisoners ( thus QUANTITY . m of personal space for each inmate ) . The cell had CARDINAL rows of bunk beds .","From DATE until his release on DATE the applicant shared a cell of QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL other prisoners ( thus CARDINAL sq . m of personal space for each inmate ) .","The cells the applicant was held in were all provided with several tables and a window of QUANTITY which ensured natural light and ventilation .","On DATE and DATE the applicant requested to be allowed conjugal visits from his wife . His requests were refused by the prison authorities , with the reasoning that no right to such visits was provided for prisoners in pre - trial detention .","The applicant complained about these CARDINAL refusals before the post sentencing judge in FAC . He relied on DATE of PERSON no . CARDINAL on the execution of sentences , which provided that prisoners on remand should benefit from the same rights as convicted prisoners . On DATE the judge rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint , holding that in accordance with LAW letters a ) and b ) of the Regulation for the enforcement of PERSON no . QUANTITY the applicant , being a prisoner on remand , did not have the right to conjugal visits .","The applicant complained against this decision before LOC . He underlined that the refusal of conjugal visits amounted to discrimination in breach of LAW and the case - law of the ORG . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint with final effect , holding that the decision taken by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences on DATE was correctly based on PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which provided for the right to conjugal visits only for convicted prisoners . The district court finally held that the contested decision was also in accordance with the ORG \u2019s case - law , which stated that restrictions on conjugal visits were not , as such , in breach of LAW .","According to the regulations in force at the relevant time the applicant had the right to a maximum of CARDINAL visits throughout his entire detention period of DATE and DATE . He was visited by his wife CARDINAL times . The remaining visits were by his father and sister . All the visits took place in an area designated for visits , separated by a glass wall and speaking to each other by telephone , under the visual surveillance of prison guards ."],"violated_articles":["14","3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160438","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"BUDIMIR v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Split . He was represented by PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP Under the socialist system previously in force in former GPE , tenants who resided in socially owned flats benefited from \u201c specially protected tenancy \u201d agreements , which were in most cases concluded for an indefinite period and could be passed from generation to generation .","When GPE became independent in DATE and opted for a market economy , it adopted several main reforms in the housing sector which are relevant to the present case .","Firstly , on DATE , ORG enacted ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo ) with regulations for the sale of socially owned flats previously let under a specially protected tenancy . In general , the LAW entitled the holder of a specially protected tenancy in respect of a socially owned flat to purchase it under favourable conditions of sale . However , the LAW excluded the holders of specially protected tenancies in most privately owned flats from such favourable treatment .","On DATE the Act on Compensation for and ORG under the NORP communist regime ( ORG o naknadi za imovinu oduzetu za TIME jugoslavenske komunisti\u010dke vladavine NORP \u201c the LAW \u201d ) entered into force . It enabled the former owners of confiscated or nationalised property , or their heirs in the first line of succession ( direct descendants or spouse ) , to obtain , subject to certain conditions , either the restitution of property appropriated during the NORP era , including dwellings which had been let under the \u201c specially protected tenancy \u201d scheme , or compensation for it . Thus , a number of such dwellings became private property .","NORP Under section CARDINAL of LAW , confiscated flats were to be awarded to their former owners . Under section CARDINAL of ORG ( Zakon o ORG za naknadu oduzete imovine ) , a tenant only had the right to purchase a confiscated flat if no claim for its restitution had been submitted or if such a claim had been dismissed in a final decision .","By a judgment of ORG of DATE , a flat in ORG , measuring QUANTITY at FAC , was confiscated from a private owner . It became the property of GPE .","The applicant was an employee of a socially owned company , PERSON , based in ORG , and paid compulsory DATE contributions to its housing fund . On DATE ORG Brodospas approved a priority list for granting protected tenancies and the applicant was first on the list .","On DATE the applicant and his family moved into the above - mentioned flat ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and they lived there until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG of GPE entered into a contract by which it ceded the flat at issue to PERSON for a period of DATE . The purpose of the agreement was to resolve the applicant \u2019s housing needs temporarily ; during the period in question PERSON was obliged to find accommodation for the applicant in another flat and return the flat at issue to ORG of GPE .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision to grant the flat to the applicant for temporary occupation . On DATE PERSON and the applicant entered into a contract which granted the flat to the applicant for temporary occupation for a period of DATE . The applicant was designated as the holder of a specially protected tenancy in respect of that flat .","On DATE the applicant asked to purchase the flat from GPE , which did not reply .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant brought a civil action in ORG against ORG , seeking a judgment in lieu of the contract of sale .","The claim was dismissed on DATE on the grounds that the flat had been ceded to PERSON by GPE for DATE and that therefore the applicant could not have acquired a specially protected tenancy . The judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the flat was returned to GPE , an heir of its previous owner .","The subsequent remedies used by the applicant , namely an appeal on points of law and a constitutional complaint , were unsuccessful . The former was dismissed by ORG on DATE and the latter by ORG on DATE . ORG decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","On DATE GPE brought a civil action in ORG against the applicant , seeking his eviction . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant and his family moved out of the flat . On CARDINAL DATE GPE withdrew her claim .","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o stambenim odnosima , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c A protected tenancy can not be acquired in respect of :","flats designated for temporary or provisional accommodation ... \u201d","The Act on the Prohibition of the Transfer of Rights to Dispose of and Use Certain Items of Immovable Property in ORG to other Users or into the Ownership of other ORG ( Zakon o zabrani prijenosa prava raspolaganja i kori\u0161tenja odre\u0111enih nekretnina u dru\u0161tvenom vlasni\u0161tvu na druge korisnike odnosno u vlasni\u0161tvo drugih fizi\u010dkih i pravnih osoba , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u2013 \u201c LAW \u201d ) , which entered into force on DATE , banned any transfer of property that had been acquired by means of nationalisation or confiscation .","Paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL provided that the prohibition applied to any property appropriated by means of confiscation , irrespective of the legislation on which the confiscation had been based .","Section CARDINAL provided that the prohibition was to apply until the introduction of legislation on denationalisation .","The Act on Compensation for , and ORG of , Property Taken during ORG ( Zakon o naknadi za imovinu oduzetu za TIME jugoslavenske komunisti\u010dke vladavine , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , PERSON ( amendments ) and DATE ( corrigendum ) DATE \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) , which entered into force on DATE , enables the former owners of confiscated or nationalised property , or their heirs in the first line of succession ( direct descendants or spouse ) , to seek , subject to certain conditions , either the restitution of appropriated property or compensation for it . The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :","\u201c ...","( CARDINAL ) Ownership of confiscated property shall be awarded to its former owner in accordance with this LAW , and if this is impracticable ... the former owner shall have the right to compensation in the form of money or securities . \u201d","\u201c Ownership of a flat appropriated [ by means of confiscation ] shall be awarded to its former owner . \u201d","The Specially Protected Tenancies ( Sale to Occupier ) Act ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL with further amendments ) regulated the conditions of sale of flats let under protected tenancies .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW entitled holders of protected tenancies of socially owned flats to purchase the flats under favourable conditions , provided that each holder bought CARDINAL flat .","The Appropriated Property Compensation Fund Act ( Zakon o ORG za naknadu oduzete imovine , ORG nos . CARDINAL , FAC and CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE , reads as follows , in so far as relevant :","\u201c The tenants ( lessees ) of confiscated flats in respect of which no claims for restitution have been submitted within the time - limit prescribed by [ LAW ] , or where such claims have been dismissed by a final decision , shall acquire the right to purchase their flats under the provisions of that LAW . \u201d","The Lease of Flats Act ( Zakon o najmu stanova , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) , which entered into force on DATE , abolished the specially protected tenancy as such ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) but provided that proceedings instituted under LAW should be concluded under the provisions of that LAW ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Zakon o vlasni\u0161tvu i drugim stvarnim pravima , ORG no CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) reads as follows :","\u201c An owner has the right to seek repossession of his or her property from a person in whose possession it is . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL , DATE ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( consolidated text ) , PERSON ( corrigendum ) and CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c The home is inviolable .","... \u201d","\u201c International agreements in force which have been concluded and ratified in accordance with the LAW and made public shall be part of the internal legal order of GPE and shall have precedence in terms of their legal effects over [ domestic ] statutes . ... \u201d","In its decisions ORG . U - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ( ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and U - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ( ORG no . CARDINAL ) ORG held that all rights guaranteed in the LAW and its Protocols were also to be treated as constitutional rights having legal force equal to the provisions of LAW .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) reads :","\u201c CARDINAL . Anyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG if he or she deems that a decision ( pojedina\u010dni akt ) of a ORG authority , local or regional government , or a legal person invested with public authority , on his or her rights and obligations , or as regards a suspicion or accusation of a criminal offence , has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms , ... guaranteed by LAW ( \u2018 constitutional right\u2019 ) ... \u201d","The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o sudovima , ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL ) , as in force at the material time , provided as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The courts shall adjudicate cases on the basis of the LAW and statutes .","The courts shall adjudicate cases on the basis of international agreements which are part of the [ internal ] legal order of GPE ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142346","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"CIOBAN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr Marinel Cioban , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON and PERSON , of ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son was involved in a car accident . His car was crashed into by another vehicle travelling in the opposite direction and he was killed instantly .","On DATE ORG opened a criminal investigation in order to determine the circumstances of the accident . The applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage in connection with his loss .","NORP In DATE ORG brought criminal proceedings for unintentional killing against PERSON , allegedly the driver of the vehicle which had caused the accident .","DATE and DATE ORG Office heard the parties and the witnesses , collected statements and carried out a polygraph test on PERSON Following contradictory statements by the CARDINAL persons who had been in the car which caused the accident , several technical and forensic expert reports were commissioned in order to establish who the driver was .","On DATE , as a result of the contradictory statements regarding who had been driving the vehicle at the time of the accident , ORG decided to extend the criminal charge of unintentional killing to GPE , the second occupant of the vehicle which had crashed into the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s car . On DATE , ORG extended the charges against ORG , charging him additionally with aiding an offender .","In DATE the applicant sent letters to ORG and ORG complaining of lack of promptness in the criminal investigation , especially given that the case , in his opinion , was not complex , and asked the domestic authorities to expedite the proceedings . His letters remained unanswered .","In DATE ORG sent the criminal file back to ORG , requesting it to carry out a polygraph test on ORG It also ordered that a new expert technical report be prepared and that a confrontation be conducted between the CARDINAL occupants of the vehicle in order to identify the driver of the car .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG and ORG to provide him with copies of the relevant documents from the criminal investigation file in order for him to be able to submit them in support of his application to the ORG . He also asked to be informed of the state of the proceedings and to be notified of any procedural act his lawyers and he could attend . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that he could attend a supplementary expert technical investigation that was scheduled to be carried out on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued an indictment charging ORG with unintentional killing and PERSON with aiding an offender .","By a judgment of DATE the ORG convicted ORG and PERSON as charged and sentenced them to CARDINAL and CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment respectively . It also allowed the applicant \u2019s just satisfaction claims in part and ordered ORG to pay the applicant CARDINAL lei in respect of pecuniary damage , CARDINAL lei in respect of non - pecuniary damage , and CARDINAL lei in respect of costs and expenses . The parties appealed against the judgment .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG increased the amount to be awarded to the applicant in respect of non - pecuniary damage to CARDINAL lei and upheld the remainder of ORG judgment . The parties lodged appeals on points of law ( recurs ) against that judgment .","On DATE the Ploie\u015fti Court of Appeal rejected the appeals and upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","The relevant provisions of LAW concerning lifethreatening crimes are described in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VI ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144820","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"L.G.R. AND A.P.R.  v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The first applicant is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is presently residing in GPE ( GPE ) . The application has been submitted on the first applicant \u2019s behalf by the first applicants\u2019 father , the second applicant , who has parental responsibility for the first applicant as a matter of LANGUAGE law .","The second applicant is a NORP national . He was born in DATE and lives in FAC ( GPE ) .","NORP The President granted the applicants\u2019 request for their identities not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The applicants were represented before the ORG by ORG in GPE . The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","On DATE the Government of GPE were informed of the case and invited to exercise their right of intervention ( LAW ) , to which invitation they have not responded .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE , prior to the first applicant \u2019s birth , the second applicant married the first applicant \u2019s mother , a NORP national . The family lived in GPE .","On DATE the mother informed the second applicant that she and the first applicant would not be returning to GPE from holiday in GPE and that she intended to take the first applicant to GPE and to settle there permanently .","On DATE the mother and the first applicant , who was then DATE , travelled to GPE and have not returned to GPE since .","On DATE an LANGUAGE court granted the couple a divorce , which was finalised on DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the second applicant had commenced proceedings in the NORP courts for the return of the first applicant to GPE and GPE under LAW ( \u201c LAW ) .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , the Bratislava II ORG ( Okresn\u00fd s\u00fad ) and , following the mother \u2019s appeal ( odvolanie ) , ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) ordered the return of the first applicant to GPE and GPE as the country of the child \u2019s habitual residence . The courts emphasised that the order did not imply that the first applicant should reside with either parent , but merely required that the status quo ante be restored so that questions of residence and contact might be determined by the LANGUAGE courts , which had jurisdiction over them .","The return order became enforceable on DATE .","NORP On DATE ORG acceded to a petition by the mother and exercised his discretionary power to challenge the return order by way of an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( mimoriadne dovolanie ) . It was argued that the courts had failed properly to establish whether the first applicant had been wrongfully removed or retained and whether there were grounds for not ordering the first applicant \u2019s return under LAW .","At the same time , the Prosecutor General suspended the enforceability of the return order .","On DATE , in response to an enquiry made on the second applicant \u2019s behalf , the President of ORG provided the office of the President of GPE with an update on the state of the proceedings . She added the following comment :","\u201c It does not behove me to judge the actions of ORG . I am not privy to the reasons why an extraordinary appeal on points of law was lodged . I detect a problem in the system , which allows for such a procedure even in respect of decisions on the return of minor children abroad ( \u2018 international child ORG ) . Irrespective of the outcome of the specific case , the possibility of lodging an appeal on points of law and an extraordinary appeal on points of law in cases of international child abduction protracts the proceedings and negates the object of the [ Hague Convention ] , which is as expeditious a restoration of the original state [ of affairs ] as possible , that is to say the return of the child to the country of the child \u2019s habitual residence within the shortest possible time . \u201d","On DATE ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) ruled on the extraordinary appeal by quashing the return order and remitting the matter to the first - instance court for re - examination .","On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s application for the return of the first applicant . Relying on LAW , it observed that the first applicant had been living in GPE for CARDINAL - and - a - half years and had developed a settled home life there . The return of the first applicant was thus \u201c not in the interests of the child and the child \u2019s healthy mental development \u201d .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE following the second applicant \u2019s appeal and remitted the case to the first - instance court , finding that the latter had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision .","On DATE and , respectively , DATE , ORG and , following the mother \u2019s appeal , ORG again ordered the return of the first applicant to GPE and GPE . The courts found that the second applicant had shown that appropriate measures had been taken to secure the first applicant \u2019s rights and interests after his return and that the mother had failed to show that the return of the first applicant was contrary to LAW .","On DATE the mother lodged an appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) and subsequently sought to have the enforcement of the return order suspended .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , ORG summoned the mother and interviewed her and the second applicant with a view to having the return order complied with , to no avail .","Following the interview of CARDINAL DATE , on DATE , ORG dismissed the mother \u2019s motion for the enforcement proceedings to be suspended . Upon her appeal , that decision was quashed . Subsequently , the enforcement proceedings were terminated in view of ORG decision on the mother \u2019s appeal on points of law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The second applicant appealed against that decision and the proceedings are still pending .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the Prosecutor General informed the mother , in response to a petition filed by her , that he had no intention of challenging the new return order by an extraordinary appeal on points of law .","NORP However , on DATE , following the mother \u2019s appeal on points of law , ORG quashed ORG decision of DATE to dismiss her appeal against the new return order and remitted the appeal to ORG for re - examination . It held that the latter had failed to provide adequate reasons for dismissing the mother \u2019s arguments under LAW .","Following ORG judgment of DATE , the case was remitted to the first - instance court . The proceedings are still pending .","Meanwhile , on DATE and DATE and DATE , ORG and GPE issued CARDINAL orders to the mother to return the first applicant to the jurisdiction of GPE and GPE . At the same time , it issued certificates pursuant to LAW ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL of DATE concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility ( \u201c Regulation No . CARDINAL \u201d ) providing the second applicant with contact rights in respect of the first applicant in GPE .","Since the first applicant was taken to GPE , the applicants have had intermittent contact .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , ORG and , following the mother \u2019s appeal , ORG ordered the mother to facilitate contact between the applicants .","According to the ORG , the mother has not been hindering contact between the applicants . However , in the ORG submission , the mother has often obstructed the second applicant \u2019s visits from the first applicant and he continues to experience difficulties seeing the first applicant .","In their observations in reply to the present application , the ORG submitted a copy of an undated letter from the mother of the first applicant to the Government in which she declared that both she and the second applicant had equal parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the first applicant and that she therefore disagreed with the first applicant \u2019s introducing an application under LAW . She considered that such a course of action exclusively benefited the interests of the second applicant and was in fact contrary to the interests of the first applicant .","The relevant provisions of LAW , LAW on the Rights of the Child , LAW and the Regulation No . DATE have recently been summarised in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ) .","Article CARDINAL was re - codified by Constitutional Law no . PERSON . , with effect from DATE . It reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG shall decide on complaints by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court .","If ORG finds a complaint to be justified , it shall deliver a decision stating that the person \u2019s rights or freedoms as set out in paragraph CARDINAL have been violated by a final decision , specific measure or other act and shall quash that decision , measure or act . If the violation that has been found is the result of a failure to act , ORG may order [ the authority ] which has violated the [ person \u2019s ] rights or freedoms to take the necessary action . At the same time it may remit the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings , order that authority to refrain from violating the [ person \u2019s ] fundamental rights and freedoms ... or , where appropriate , order those who have violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph CARDINAL to restore the situation to that existing prior to the violation .","In its decision on a complaint ORG may grant appropriate financial compensation to a person whose rights under paragraph CARDINAL have been violated .","The liability for damage or other loss of a person who has violated the rights or freedoms as referred to in paragraph CARDINAL shall not be affected by ORG decision . \u201d","LAW on the Rights of the Child entered into force in respect of GPE on DATE ( Notice of ORG no . PERSON . ) , while LAW did so on DATE ( Notice of ORG no . PERSON . ) .","The relevant provisions concerning appeals on points of law are summarised , for example , in the ORG \u2019s decision in GPE PERSON Springer GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , LAW DATE , CARDINAL DATE , with further references ) . Appeals on points of law have no automatic suspensive effect , the power to suspend the enforceability of the impugned decision being entrusted to ORG ( Article CARDINAL ) .","Extraordinary appeals on points of law are regulated by the provisions of Articles CARDINALe et seq .","The Prosecutor General has the power to challenge a decision of a court by means of an extraordinary appeal . He or she may do so upon a petition of a party to the proceedings or another person concerned or injured by the decision , provided that ORG concludes that : the final and binding decision has violated the law ; the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of individuals , legal entities , or the ORG requires that such an appeal be brought ; such protection can not be achieved by other means ; and the matter at hand is not excluded from judicial review ( ORG CARDINALe \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINALf \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","An extraordinary appeal may only be aimed at a ruling in a decision which has been contested by the party to the proceedings or the person concerned or injured by that decision ( LAW ) . Unless a statute provides otherwise , ORG is bound by the scope of the petition for an extraordinary appeal ( Article LAW and CARDINAL ) .","Further conditions of admissibility of an extraordinary appeal are listed in Article CARDINALf \u00a7 CARDINAL . They comprise ( a ) major procedural flaws within the meaning of LAW ( in that respect see , for example , GPE PERSON Springer GPE , v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) , ( b ) other errors of procedure resulting in an erroneous decision on the merits , and ( c ) wrongful assessment of points of law .","An extraordinary appeal is to be lodged with ORG within DATE of the contested judicial decision \u2019s becoming final and binding ( Article CARDINAL g ) .","If ORG concludes , upon a petition of a party to the proceedings or another person concerned or injured by the impugned decision , that there is the risk of considerable economic loss or other serious irreparable consequences , the extraordinary appeal may be filed without reasons for appeal being stated . The reasons then must be stated within DATE of the lodging of the extraordinary appeal with ORG , failing which the proceedings are to be discontinued ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .","If the extraordinary appeal on points of law is accompanied by a request that that the enforceability of the contested decision be suspended , its enforceability is to be suspended upon the extraordinary appeal being lodged with ORG ( Article CARDINAL ha \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The duration of such a suspension is regulated by Article CARDINAL ha \u00a7 CARDINAL , pursuant to which that suspension ceases ( a ) when the request is dismissed or ( b ) with the decision on the extraordinary appeal , unless extended by ORG DATE from the lodging of the extraordinary appeal with it ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177224","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u010cOVI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of having committed war crimes against the civilian population and against prisoners of war during the DATE - CARDINAL war .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) reviewed and extended his detention based on the risk of his obstructing the course of justice by exerting pressure on witnesses and co - accused or by destroying evidence . On DATE that decision was upheld by ORG .","On DATE ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention on the same grounds as before . On DATE that decision was upheld by ORG .","On DATE ORG issued an indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other co - suspects , which was confirmed by ORG on DATE .","Thereafter , the applicant \u2019s detention was regularly examined and extended DATE by ORG . In addition to those automatic reviews , the applicant repeatedly challenged his detention before ORG of ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal , relying on LAW ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW . He alleged , in particular , that his detention had been arbitrary and excessive , and that it had not been based on relevant and sufficient reasons .","On DATE the Constitutional Court of GPE ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , in a formation of CARDINAL judges , rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal since it could not reach a majority on any of the proposals . The court \u2019s reasoning included all the views expressed at the session on the issues raised in the case . Pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that decision was final .","On DATE ORG held that the grounds for the applicant \u2019s continued detention had ceased to apply and released the applicant . By the same decision , the court imposed preventive measures on the applicant which included the following : a prohibition on leaving his place of residence without the prior approval of ORG save for the purpose of appearing before that court ; the duty to report once DATE to the LOC police ; a prohibition on associating with other co - accused and on associating or having contact with the witnesses . Furthermore , the applicant \u2019s passport was seized .","The preventive measures were reviewed and extended DATE . On DATE they were revoked .","At the date of the latest information available to ORG ( DATE ) , the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179849","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF NAKONECHNYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156074","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SAMACHI\u0218\u0102 v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , the applicant was driving to PERSON accompanied by FAC in a car registered in GPE . At TIME they visited a mutual friend , PERSON Shortly thereafter , all CARDINAL of them returned to his car , which was parked near GPE \u2019s home . They found it surrounded by CARDINAL police cars , approximately QUANTITY police officers and CARDINAL of curious civilians .","NORP The applicant overheard CARDINAL of the police officers informing his colleagues that they had found out the car registered in GPE had been involved in that accident in which some pedestrians had been injured . He informed the police officers that he was the owner of the car and denied that he had been involved in an accident .","NORP The police officers immediately proceeded to detain the applicant aggressively , without checking his identity papers . Police officer PERSON twisted the applicant \u2019s arm behind his back and hit him in the legs . The blow was so powerful that the applicant had to grab one of the police car \u2019s wing mirrors and window in order to avoid falling down . At the same time he was hit on the head and his mouth was covered because he was shouting for , amongst other things , his identity documents , which were in his car . Police officer ORG also punched the applicant repeatedly .","Once he was in the police car , the applicant was handcuffed with his hands behind his back and QUANTITY police officers , who remained unidentified , continued to hit him . He lost his dentures and eventually fainted . Police officer GPE travelled in a separate car and police officer PERSON drove the police car in which the applicant was detained . Consequently , the applicant concluded that those CARDINAL officers could not have hit him .","At the police station police officer PERSON removed the handcuffs from the applicant .","On DATE , the applicant was caught speeding and refused to stop his car at a police officer \u2019s request . When the police eventually found his car parked in an area surrounded by blocks of flats , the applicant and his friends became very agitated and the applicant refused to show his identity papers to the police officers . He claimed that he was immune to prosecution because he was an NORP citizen .","NORP The police officers lawfully took the applicant to the police station in order to establish his identity and to fine him for speeding . According to eyewitness statements , the police officers handcuffed the applicant in a stern , but not abusive manner . They confirmed that the applicant and his friends had been verbally abusive towards the police officers .","On DATE , following a request by the applicant , ORG produced an expert report concluding that the applicant had suffered traumatic lesions which could have been sustained on DATE . It also concluded that he had suffered an injury to the lower lip and damage to the dental prosthesis next to his upper - right canine as a result of his being struck with a solid object , possibly on the chin . In addition , the skin on the bridge of his nose and the left side of his neck had been scratched by a hard and sharp nail - like object . The bruises located on his left shoulder and below his left clavicle had resulted from being struck with a solid object . The bruise on the inside of his right arm had resulted from finger compression . Also his left forearm and the back of his left hand had been scratched with or by solid sharp objects . The report concluded that the contusion of his thorax together with the bruise below his left clavicle would require , in the absence of any complications , DATE of medical care in order to heal . The rest of the lesions would require DATE of medical care to heal and he might have to have the prosthesis next to his upper - right canine repaired .","The forensic report stated that on DATE the emergency unit of ORG had diagnosed the applicant with cranio - cerebral and thorax trauma , as well as a severe thorax contusion . The thorax X - ray that had been produced on DATE did not show any broken ribs or post - traumatic lung damage . Also the dental emergency unit attached to the same hospital had diagnosed the applicant with a contusion in the chin area as a result of a blow which had damaged the dental work on his upper - right canine . It stated that the repairs to his upper - right canine could require the destruction of his fixed maxillary prosthesis .","On DATE the applicant underwent an encephalography at ORG . He was advised to rest for DATE on account of anxiety .","At the applicant \u2019s request , on DATE ORG produced a forensic expert report . The report stated that according to a dental specialist , the dental - alveolar lesions suffered by the applicant as a result of the assault of DATE would require twentyeight to DATE of medical care to heal and repair .","The forensic report further stated that according to the medical documents presented by the applicant , he had been prescribed treatment with pain killers for DATE for his dental - alveolar lesions . In addition , his fixed maxillary prosthesis needed to be repaired as a result of the damage caused to his upper - right canine ; the report estimated that the repairs would take DATE .","On DATE the applicant brought criminal proceedings against the police officers who had been involved in the incident of DATE for violent behaviour . In addition , he requested that those responsible for the impugned events be brought to justice . He claimed that on DATE he had been ill - treated by police officers and had suffered physical injuries , including damage to his dental prosthesis .","On DATE GPE and GPE , friends of the applicant and GPE , submitted CARDINAL statements before ORG . PERSON stated that when the applicant had returned to his car , police officers had already been waiting for him , claiming that the car had been involved in an accident , even though there had been no visible damage to the car . Although the applicant had attempted to present his identity papers to the police , they had abusively and violently grabbed him and handcuffed him . Subsequently , the applicant had been thrown into a police car and hit until he fainted . When ORG had attempted to find out what police station the applicant was being taken to , CARDINAL of the officers had elbowed him in the chest .","A.C. stated that on arrival at the police station she had noticed a smell of alcohol on the breath of CARDINAL of the prosecution witnesses . The witness had been collected by the police officers from the terrace of a restaurant located near the scene of the incident . He had been insulting the applicant on account of his NORP citizenship . He had admitted that he had been drinking and when he had started becoming aggressive , one of the officers had asked him to leave the room .","On DATE the investigating authorities heard GPE as a witness . He stated that he had seen the applicant park his car at the scene of the incident and run together with FAC through the blocks of flats . The police had arrived shortly afterwards and waited for the applicant to return . When the applicant had returned the officers had asked him politely to identify himself . The applicant had refused vehemently to identify himself and claimed that the police officers could not touch him because he was an NORP citizen . As the police officers had been unable to reason with him , they had been forced to immobilise him in order to place him in the police car , which the applicant had almost wrecked . At the same time the applicant had continued to verbally offend the officers and him . He had seen the applicant being placed in the police car ; the applicant had not been beaten by the police officers . Moreover , the applicant had not been abused , either physically or verbally , by the police officers at the police station .","On DATE the investigating authorities heard GPE and GPE as witnesses . They both stated that they had seen police officers speak to the applicant and attempt politely to identify him . The applicant had refused to give his identity by shouting that he was an NORP citizen . The police officers had made several more attempts to politely reason with the applicant and once that had failed they had proceeded to immobilise him and to place him in a police car . Once inside the police car , the applicant had started shouting again , at which point several other bystanders , including PERSON , had started to remonstrate with him . Consequently , FAC had started insulting them . The witnesses further stated that they had not seen the police officers hit the applicant .","On an unspecified date ORG stated before the investigating authorities that on DATE when the applicant had been driving to PERSON , she had noticed a police car on the road and had seen a police officer make a signal . However , it had not been the correct signal for a motorist to stop . The applicant had not stopped the car but had continued to drive . When they had arrived in PERSON she had seen another police car , but the police had not signaled the applicant to stop .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings brought by the applicant against the police officers , on the grounds that the police officers had not committed the offences of which they had been accused or that the alleged offences were not provided for by criminal law . It held , on the basis of the police ORG statements corroborated by the statements of GPE , GPE and GPE that the applicant had repeatedly refused to show the police officers his identity papers , despite warnings that he would be taken to a police station if he failed to provide proof of his identity . The police officers had attempted to take the applicant to the police station , but he had resisted . Consequently , the officers had immobilised him . When they had attempted to place him in the police car , he had continued to resist , physically struggling and being verbally aggressive towards them . The prosecutor \u2019s office further held that the time required for medical care could not be confused with the time required for full recovery . In this connection , it noted that in the applicant \u2019s case the reconstruction work that was needed on his upper teeth would take DATE . Consequently , DATE referred to by the forensic expert report of DATE could not be understood to mean DATE of medical care within the meaning of the law . Lastly , the use of force by the police officers had not been disproportionate and had been aimed solely at immobilising him .","The applicant challenged the decision before the superior prosecutor attached to ORG . He argued that the witnesses who had been heard had committed perjury , probably because they had been influenced by the police .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the superior prosecutor dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge . He held , amongst other things , based on the eyewitness statements , that the police ORG actions had been in response to the applicant \u2019s aggressive and offensive behaviour . Consequently , the police officers had not overstepped their bounds . Also , DATE of medical care required by the applicant , according to the forensic expert report produced on DATE , concerned the period required for the reconstruction of his upper dental prosthesis and not the time it would take for the dental - alveolar lesions to heal .","The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts . He argued that the authorities had failed to investigate how the injuries attested by the forensic expert reports had been caused .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of DATE . It noted , amongst other things , that according to the forensic expert report of DATE , the applicant had suffered injuries which required , depending on their severity , DATE of medical care . In addition , according to the criminal investigation carried out in respect of the case , the police officers who had been involved in the events of DATE were GPE , ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and ORG as well as two ORG students , GPE and PERSON According to the statements of ORG , the applicant had been caught speeding . He had ignored ORG \u2019s signals to stop and had continued to drive . Consequently , ORG had asked their colleagues to locate and stop the applicant \u2019s car . GPE had made a second attempt to stop the applicant , but he had ignored the police sirens and the signals to stop . The police officers had searched for the applicant \u2019s car and had eventually found it parked near GPE \u2019s home . According to the statements of GPE , GPE , ORG and PERSON , when the applicant returned to his car he refused the police ORG request to show his identity papers on the grounds that he was an NORP citizen and was not subject to NORP law . Even though he was informed that he had broken the law , he continued to refuse to show his identity papers to the police or to accompany them to the police station .","The court also noted that GPE and PERSON stated that PERSON and ORG had had to handcuff the applicant and force him into the police car , because he had refused to climb into the car and had resisted by grabbing the car door and wing mirror . PERSON and ORG stated that after the applicant had been immobilised and forced into the police vehicle , during the drive to the police station he had continued to bang his head against the windows of the police car . At the police station PERSON had fined the applicant for the offence and prepared a police report , which had eventually been signed by the applicant . PERSON stated that from the time the applicant had arrived at the police station , he had had no further contact with the other police officers and had shown no signs of violence .","The court further noted that according to ORG \u2019s statement , she had seen the applicant being handcuffed and how several police officers had tried to place him in the police car , even though he had wanted to prove to them that he was an NORP citizen . She had not been allowed to travel with the applicant to the police station and when she had arrived there his clothes had been dirty and he had blood stains on his face . According to ORG , the applicant had been handcuffed prior to being placed in the police car and had not been asked to identify himself or told why was he being taken to a police station . ORG had seen the applicant resisting getting into the police car , but the police officers had used force . He also contradicted the applicant \u2019s statement that after leaving the police station they had gone to ORG .","The court also noted that ORG had seen the whole incident and had stated that the applicant had refused to identify himself because he was an NORP citizen and together with GPE he had insulted the police officers and the other witnesses . Also the applicant had been forcefully placed in the police car because he had been behaving aggressively and had been grabbing the car door and wing mirror . ORG statement concerning the applicant \u2019s behaviour had also been confirmed by witnesses ORG and GPE","The court held that according to the available evidence , in particular the witness statements of GPE , PERSON and ORG , the applicant had had to be handcuffed because he had been behaving aggressively both prior to and after being placed in the police car as well as during the drive to the police station . The court noted that the applicant had claimed that the injuries he had suffered at the hands of the police had amounted to ill - treatment in breach of the guarantees set out in LAW . However , ORG had been reluctant to sanction the behaviour of ORG agents if they had used force in order to counteract the aggressive behaviour of an arrested person . The applicant \u2019s refusal to show the police officers his identity papers and his aggressive conduct on account of his foreign nationality had not been justified given that he had been informed that he had committed an offence and had a duty to observe the laws of the ORG . Consequently , the force used by the ORG agents did not appear excessive .","The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment . He argued that the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG had not been competent ratione materiae to carry out the criminal investigation in his case . The investigation had been superficial because not all the police officers involved in the events had been identified and because the police officers who had informed their colleagues that the applicant \u2019s car had been involved in a car accident had not been heard . The authorities had refused to allow him to identify the individuals against whom the criminal proceedings had been brought , and witnesses PERSON and PERSON had committed perjury . At the time of the incident he had been denied the right to contact ORG or a lawyer . The statements of witnesses GPE and GPE had been incomplete , and the first - instance court had ignored the fact that the authorities had failed to investigate how the injuries attested by the forensic expert reports had been caused .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . It held that the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG had been competent ratione materiae to carry out the criminal investigation in the case . Also the investigation had not been superficial and the authorities had identified and heard the QUANTITY police officers who had handcuffed the applicant and had driven him to the police station . Other police officers had been heard , including the CARDINAL ORG students as well as relevant eyewitnesses who were not police officers .","The court also held that the investigation had focused on all the applicant \u2019s allegations and the authorities had heard the defence witnesses requested by him , namely GPE and GPE The fact that the authorities had not adduced all the data considered relevant by the applicant was not unlawful , considering that a preliminary investigation could be limited in respect of both quality and quantity by its lawful purpose . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s allegation that some of the witnesses had committed perjury had been refuted by the corroboration of their statements by other evidence . The prosecutor \u2019s office solution remained valid given that most of the witnesses had confirmed that the applicant had refused to go to the police station and had behaved aggressively , both verbally and physically , and that none of the witnesses had confirmed that he had been hit before being placed in the police car . Consequently , the measures taken against him had not been excessive or unjustified and had met the requirements of LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the organisation and operation of the NORP police force .","The court further held that the fact that the statements of the applicant \u2019s friends had contradicted those of the remaining witnesses was a consequence of their friendly relations with the applicant .","The court considered that the authorities had correctly interpreted the available medical documents . The scratches on the left side of the applicant \u2019s neck , on his left forearm and the back of his left hand , as well as the bruises on his left shoulder , below his left clavicle and on the inside of his right arm had been inflicted by the police officers when they had handcuffed him and placed him in the police car . Their actions had been proportionate given his strong opposition . It was clear that handcuffing and the operation of placing a person in a police vehicle , if that person physically resisted the measure , would cause injuries . The superficial nature of the injuries and the areas of the body where the bruises and scratches had been sustained merely confirmed the proportional nature of the police ORG actions . It was clear that the applicant had exaggerated the nature of his injuries in his complaint against the officers , given that there was no evidence in the file suggesting that he had been repeatedly kicked . It appeared that the internal lip injury and the dental damage suffered by the applicant had been caused by an impact to the chin , possibly when he had been resisting his handcuffing and placement in the car . The police officers could not be considered guilty as long as the applicant had continued to behave violently in the police vehicle . He had not suffered any external lesions in the chin area which could have been caused by an impact with a solid object .","On DATE the applicant was fined for speeding and for failure to stop when signaled to do so by a police officer .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed on the merits the applicant \u2019s action seeking the annulment of the speeding fine imposed on DATE and of the suspension of his driving licence ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168377","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF EL GHATET v. SWITZERLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ) . The second applicant , who was born in DATE , is the son of the first applicant . He lives in GPE .","The first applicant entered GPE in DATE , where he applied for asylum in DATE . At that time , the second applicant remained in GPE , where he was cared for by his mother . The first applicant \u2019s asylum application was rejected by the competent authorities .","In DATE the first applicant married a NORP national and obtained a residence permit . In DATE a daughter was born to the couple .","In DATE the second applicant visited his father in GPE for DATE based on a tourist visa valid for that period .","NORP In DATE the second applicant re - entered GPE for purposes of family reunification with his father .","In DATE the first applicant was granted a permanent residence permit . In DATE he obtained NORP nationality and has since held nationality of both GPE and GPE .","After encountering difficulties in school and with his step - mother , the second applicant returned to GPE in DATE , where he was cared for by his mother and his paternal grandmother .","In DATE the first applicant separated from his spouse . The latter continued to live in GPE with the couple \u2019s daughter .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a request for family reunification with the second applicant , who was DATE at the time and for whom he had custody according to NORP law .","On DATE ORG of the GPE of LOC refused that request .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with ORG of the GPE of LOC .","On DATE that authority dismissed the appeal .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with ORG in ORG PERSON ( NORP i m GPE ) of the GPE of LOC .","On DATE that court granted the applicant \u2019s appeal . In a very detailed decision it noted that the requirements for family reunification under LAW third sentence of the LAW on the Residence of Foreign Nationals ( Bundesgesetz \u00fcber PERSON , ANAG ) were not met ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Largely basing its reasoning on LAW , it considered , however , that the applicants\u2019 interests in respect for their family life prevailed over those of the public . It ordered ORG to arrange for a residence permit for the second applicant .","Subsequently , ORG of the GPE of LOC declared that it would grant a permanent residence permit to the second applicant for purposes of family reunification and , on DATE , transferred the file to ORG to seek the required consent . On DATE the latter refused to give its consent , finding that the requirements for family reunification were not met and that the decision of the court of the GPE of LOC was in contradiction to the case - law of ORG .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with ORG , both in his own name and in that of his son .","On DATE the applicants informed the authorities that the situation of the second applicant had changed . His mother had moved to GPE with her new spouse and he was now cared for exclusively by his paternal grandmother .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It noted , first , that the requirements for family reunification under LAW third sentence of the LAW on the Residence of Foreign Nationals were not met ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . It found , second , that the applicants could not rely on LAW , as the second applicant had reached the age of adulthood and was not dependant on the first applicant ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal against that decision with ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed that appeal . It considered , in particular , that the relationship between the CARDINAL applicants was not paramount ( \u201c vorrangig \u201d ) , even though the first applicant had the right of custody for the second applicant according to NORP law . It noted that the first applicant had not applied for family reunification immediately after his arrival in GPE , that the second applicant was cared for by his mother and his grandmother in GPE until he turned DATE , that the second applicant had lived almost all of his life in GPE and had more important social and personal ties to his country of origin , which would be negatively affected if he moved to GPE , and that he had returned to GPE after having stayed with his father in GPE for DATE . It observed that the first applicant had , thus , at that time , preferred that the second applicant lived with his mother and that the second applicant would face even more severe challenges to integration now than he had during his first stay in GPE , given his age . While noting that the first applicant had a close relationship to his daughter in GPE and that he could , thus , not be expected to relocate to GPE to live there with the second applicant , the court noted that the applicants had not submitted sufficient reasons to justify the second applicant \u2019s reunion with his father in GPE .","NORP Moreover , ORG considered that the circumstances of the present case differed from those of ORG and Others v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE . The latter concerned a situation where CARDINAL parent , the child \u2019s mother , was still alive . The mother had tried to bring her child to the GPE as soon as possible after her arrival . Moreover , the child \u2019s grandmother who cared for her in GPE had taken the child out of school against the mother \u2019s will and planned a forced marriage .","On DATE the ORG refused to apply Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178093","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"VORBECK v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant and his former wife , GPE , are the parents of PERSON , who was born in DATE in wedlock . From DATE the parents lived in separate households and PERSON lived together with her mother . The parents , however , continued to share custody . On DATE GPE applied for sole custody of PERSON On DATE the applicant and GPE concluded an agreement before ORG under which sole custody of PERSON was awarded to GPE","On DATE the applicant and GPE divorced .","On DATE the applicant and GPE concluded a court settlement concerning the contact rights of the applicant in respect of PERSON","On DATE the applicant applied for joint custody over PERSON and requested GPE to agree to this application . However , GPE disapproved of the applicant \u2019s application for joint custody as there were ongoing disputes between the parents . The applicant , on the other hand , stated that he wished to be involved in PERSON \u2019s life and to be included in decisions concerning her education , medical issues and other matters .","On DATE ORG heard the applicant , GPE and PERSON ; at the end of the hearing the applicant and GPE confirmed that they would continue to adhere to the settlement of DATE concerning the contact rights of the applicant .","On DATE ORG , having held a further hearing in the course of which the applicant , GPE and PERSON were examined again , dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for joint custody . It based this decision on Article CARDINALa of LAW , under which joint custody is only possible in the event of both parents consenting . The applicant requested the court to apply to ORG for review of the constitutionality of this provision , but ORG held that a court of first instance did not have the authority to lodge such an application .","The applicant appealed , arguing that Article CARDINALa of the Civil Code was unconstitutional and in violation of his Convention rights ; he also asked ORG to request ORG for review of the constitutionality of this provision .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for an application to ORG for judicial review in respect of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINALa of LAW , as ORG had no concerns regarding the constitutionality of these provisions . Referring explicitly to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , ORG found that the present case must be distinguished from ORG . Under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINALa of LAW , which applied in the present case , parents had joint custody of their child . If after divorce CARDINAL parent were to ask for sole custody then the court , taking into account the well - being of the child , had to transfer custody to CARDINAL of the parents . By contrast , Article CARDINAL of LAW , which was at issue in ORG , provided that custody of a child born out of wedlock was from the very beginning to be granted only to the mother of that child . Given that in the event of the termination of joint custody after divorce or following an agreement between the parents , the law did not grant either of the parents a privileged position as regards the award of sole custody , there was no indication that this was discriminatory . If CARDINAL were to follow the reasoning of the applicant that it should be possible to simply request the re - establishment of joint custody at any moment following a final court decision lifting joint custody or an agreement of the parents to that effect , the binding force of decisions whereby joint custody had been lifted would be rendered meaningless , which was in contradiction to the principle of legal certainty ( Rechtskraft ) .","ORG observed furthermore that the first - instance court had not made any findings as to the ability of the parents to find compromise ( GPE ) indispensable for the meaningful exercise of joint custody . From the content of the case file and in particular the expert reports submitted , it could , however , be deduced that at the time of the termination of joint custody , the parents lacked this ability , and there was no indication in the file that the situation had improved in the meantime . In such a situation it was not in the interest of the well - being of a child that once joint custody had been granted , every single issue on which parents did not agree \u2013 such as which school a child should attend \u2013 had to be determined by decision of ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged an ordinary appeal ( ordentlicher Revisionsrekurs ) against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE and asked ORG to apply to ORG for review of the constitutionality of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINALa of LAW .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal as inadmissible . The ruling was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE . ORG found that if custody of a child had been granted to CARDINAL parent , either by a court decision or by agreement between the parents , then in the interest of consistency of education ( ORG ) a change of the person having custody could only be granted if there existed a risk to the well - being of the child . It was not decisive whether the circumstances of CARDINAL parent were better than those of the other . ORG noted that in his application for joint custody the applicant had not even made the argument that circumstances had changed since the decision on custody of ORG of DATE had become final , and he had not given any other reasons ( as required by LAW ) to justify a different ruling . The mere presupposition that joint custody exercised by both parents might be better for the well - being of the child was not a sufficient justification for interfering with a binding decision . Furthermore , the ability and intention of both parents to share their responsibility is an indispensable precondition for joint custody . It could be clearly seen from the case file that there was no agreement between the parents regarding the issue of joint custody and that no coordinated action when exercising joint custody could therefore be expected from them .","Following the DATE amendment to LAW ( see para . CARDINAL below ) , on DATE the applicant lodged an application for joint custody of PERSON However , on DATE , he withdrew this application .","Articles CARDINAL and CARDINALa of LAW , as in force at the material time read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the marriage of the parents of a minor legitimate child is dissolved or annulled , the custodial rights of both parents remain intact . However , they may present an agreement to the court DATE even modifying an existing agreement \u2013 regarding custodial responsibility . In this connection it may be agreed that CARDINAL parent alone or both parents shall have custody . Where both parents have custodial powers , those of CARDINAL parent may be limited to specific matters .","( CARDINAL ) Where both parents have custody , they must submit an agreement to the court regarding the parent with whom the child is to stay primarily . This parent must always be put in charge of all custodial matters .","( CARDINAL ) The court must approve the agreement of the parents if it serves the interests of the child . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If an agreement under LAW on the main domicile of the child or on custodial powers is not reached within a reasonable period after a marriage is dissolved or annulled , or if [ such an agreement ] is incompatible with the interests of the child , the court must decide which parent shall henceforth have sole custody , if all attempts to reach an amicable solution fail .","( CARDINAL ) NORP If both parents have custody under LAW after their marriage has been dissolved or annulled , and if one parent applies for the withdrawal of that custody , the court must decide which parent shall have sole custody , if all attempts to reach an amicable solution fail . \u201d","","It is noted , however , that on DATE the relevant provisions of ORG were amended significantly . The relevant sections read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the marriage or the common household of the parents is dissolved , joint custody is maintained . They can , however , conclude an agreement before a court under which CARDINAL parent is entrusted with sole custody , or the custody of CARDINAL parent is limited to certain matters .","( CARDINAL ) In the case that both parents have joint custody after the dissolution of their marriage or the common household , [ the parents ] have to conclude an agreement before a court regarding in whose household the child will predominantly be cared for . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Provided that it is in the best interests of the child , the court has to decide on the provisional regulation of parental responsibility ( \u201c the phase of provisional parental responsibility \u201d ) , if","after the dissolution of the marriage or the common household the parents can not concur on an agreement , pursuant to section CARDINAL , within a reasonable time limit , or","CARDINAL parent applies for sole custody or his \/ her participation in custodial rights .","...","( CARDINAL ) After [ the phase of provisional responsibility , which lasts DATE ] , the court has to take a final decision on custody ( on the basis of what transpired during the phase of provisional parental responsibility ) \u2013 including payment of statutory maintenance \u2013 [ which is in the best interests of the child . ] ... If the court awards joint custody , it also has to decide in whose household the child will predominantly be cared for . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173772","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GRABCHAK v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant came to GPE in DATE . In DATE he started a relationship with PERSON , also a NORP national . In DATE the CARDINAL of them had a son . In DATE the applicant was granted permanent resident status .","On DATE the head of ORG issued an order withdrawing the applicant \u2019s residence permit , ordering his expulsion and imposing a DATE ban on his re - entering GPE , on the ground that his presence in the country represented a \u201c serious threat to national security \u201d . Factual grounds justifying the order were not indicated ; it was merely noted that it was based on \u201c proposal no . BCARDINAL \u201d .","NORP That proposal , drawn up by ORG and also dated DATE , was submitted to ORG . It stated that the applicant had allegedly been involved in acts of extortion , smuggling , arms deals and money laundering , that he operated with large amounts of illegally obtained money , that he had established contacts with NORP officials , including police officers , who had been providing him with illegal services , and that he had been in contact with presumed terrorists . While enumerating the applicant \u2019s presumed illegal activities , the proposal referred to specific dates and names , but to no evidence to support the allegations . Lastly , it was stated that the applicant had left GPE on DATE .","Unaware of the ministerial order of DATE , on DATE the applicant attempted to re - enter the NORP territory but was stopped at the border and not permitted entry . Since then he has been living in GPE , while PERSON and his son remained in GPE .","Through his lawyer , the applicant submitted an appeal to the NORP Minister of the ORG against the order of DATE . The appeal was dismissed on DATE , the Minister pointing out , in particular , that he considered irrelevant the applicant \u2019s argument that he had settled in GPE with his family .","After that the applicant applied for judicial review of the order of DATE . In particular , he pointed out in his application that his family resided in GPE and that their separation had been unjustified .","NORP In the course of the judicial proceedings the applicant \u2019s lawyer was shown proposal no . BCARDINAL .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that it was competent to examine the application , with reference to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) and LAW , even though , at the time the impugned order had been issued , judicial review had not been available under the legislation then applicable ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The judicial proceedings ended on DATE with a final judgment of ORG , which upheld the order of DATE . After enumerating the applicant \u2019s alleged unlawful activities described in proposal no . BCARDINAL , it stated merely that the impugned order did not breach the law . Furthermore , it dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments relating to his family and private life , stating :","\u201c any restriction of the rights under the ORG is justified [ when based ] on national security considerations , in cases where foreign ORG behaviour threatens the national security and the public order of the State where they reside . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145577","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CENTRE FOR LEGAL RESOURCES ON BEHALF OF VALENTIN C\u00c2MPEANU v. ROMANIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Locus standi);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - Measures of a general character)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["PERSON , a man of GPE ethnicity , was born on DATE . His father was unknown , and his mother , Florica C\u00e2mpeanu , who died in DATE , abandoned him at birth . Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was therefore placed in an orphanage , ORG , where he grew up .","In DATE Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was diagnosed as HIV - positive . He was later diagnosed with \u201c profound intellectual disability , an IQ of CARDINAL and HIV \u201d and was accordingly classified as belonging to the \u201c severe \u201d disability group . In time , he also developed associated symptoms such as pulmonary tuberculosis , pneumonia and chronic hepatitis .","In DATE he was transferred to ORG and at DATE to the GPE no . CARDINAL ORG ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Panel \u201d ) ordered that Mr C\u00e2mpeanu should no longer be cared for by the ORG . The decision was justified on the grounds that Mr C\u00e2mpeanu had recently turned DATE and was not enrolled in any form of education at the time .","Although the social worker dealing with Mr C\u00e2mpeanu had recommended transferring him to the local Neuropsychological Recovery and Rehabilitation Centre , the ORG ordered that a competent social worker should take all measures necessary for Mr C\u00e2mpeanu to be transferred to ORG ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) . According to the relevant law , the decision could be challenged before ORG .","Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was not present in person and was not represented at the hearing held by the ORG .","On DATE Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s health was reassessed by ORG . The assessment resulted solely in a finding of HIV infection , corresponding to the \u201c average \u201d disability group . It was also mentioned that the patient was \u201c socially integrated \u201d .","Subsequently , on an unspecified date in DATE or DATE , a medical and welfare assessment of Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was carried out by a social worker and a doctor from ORG as a prerequisite for his admission to a medical and social care centre . Under the heading \u201c Legal representative \u201d they indicated \u201c abandoned at birth \u201d , while the space next to \u201c Person to contact in case of emergency \u201d was left blank . The diagnosis indicated was \u201c severe intellectual disability , HIV - positive \u201d , without any reference to the previous diagnosis ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The following information was included in the assessment report : \u201c requires supervision and intermittent assistance with personal care \u201d , and the report concluded that Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was able to take care of himself , but at the same time required considerable support .","By a letter dated DATE , the ORG informed the ORG that it could not admit Mr C\u00e2mpeanu , who had been diagnosed with HIV and mental disability , as the hospital lacked the facilities necessary to treat individuals with such a diagnosis .","NORP Following this refusal , DATE and DATE the ORG and ORG for ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) contacted a series of institutions , asking for assistance in identifying a social care or psychiatric establishment willing to admit Mr C\u00e2mpeanu . While stating that the ORG had refused to admit the patient because he had HIV , ORG asked for the cooperation of the institutions concerned , mentioning that Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s condition \u201c did not necessitate hospitalisation , but rather continuous supervision in a specialist institution \u201d .","The ORG eventually identified the ORG and ORG ( \u201c the CMSC \u201d ) as an appropriate establishment where PERSON could be placed . In its request to the ORG , the ORG mentioned only that Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was HIV - positive , corresponding to the average disability group , without referring to his learning difficulties .","On DATE Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was admitted to the ORG . According to a report issued by the ORG and sent to the ORG on DATE detailing his condition upon admission , Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was in an advanced state of \u201c psychiatric and physical degradation \u201d , was dressed in a tattered tracksuit , with no underwear or shoes , and did not have any antiretroviral medication or information concerning his medical condition . It was noted that the patient \u201c refused to cooperate \u201d .","In her statement to the prosecutor on DATE in the context of the domestic proceedings ( described in section B below ) , PERSON , the doctor who had treated Mr C\u00e2mpeanu at FAC , justified the failure to provide appropriate medication or information on the basis that she did not know whether , depending on the results of the most recent investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it would be necessary to modify his treatment .","A medical examination carried out upon Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s admission to the ORG concluded that he suffered from \u201c severe intellectual disability , HIV infection and malnutrition \u201d . At that time , he was QUANTITY tall and weighed QUANTITY . It was mentioned that \u201c he could not orient himself in time and space and he could not eat or care for his personal hygiene by himself \u201d .","During TIME DATE Mr C\u00e2mpeanu became agitated . According to the above - mentioned report by the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on TIME CARDINAL DATE he \u201c became violent , assaulted other patients , broke a window and tore up a mattress and his clothes and sheets \u201d . He was given phenobarbital and then diazepam to calm him down .","On DATE Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was taken to the ORG for examination , diagnosis and treatment , as it was the nearest psychiatric establishment . He was again diagnosed with \u201c severe intellectual disability \u201d . However , his condition was described as \u201c not a psychiatric emergency \u201d , as \u201c he was not agitated \u201d . PERSON diagnosed him with \u201c medium intellectual disability \u201d and prescribed sedative medicines ( carbamazepine and diazepam ) .","According to the medical records kept at the ORG , no information regarding Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s medical history could be obtained upon his admission to the hospital , as he \u201c would not cooperate \u201d . In the statement she gave to the investigative authorities on DATE , PERSON from the ORG stated that \u201c the patient was different in that it was not possible to communicate with him and he had mental disabilities \u201d .","Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was returned to the CMSC on DATE , by which time his health had worsened considerably . At that time , the ORG had received a supply of antiretroviral medication and thus his treatment was resumed . Despite these measures , his condition did not improve , and his medical records noted that he continued to be \u201c agitated \u201d and \u201c violent \u201d .","The ORG decided that because it lacked the facilities needed to treat Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s condition , it was impossible to keep him there any longer . The hospital sent a request to ORG asking it to refer him to a different establishment . However , ORG refused the request on the ground that he was already \u201c outside its jurisdiction \u201d .","On DATE FAC , the Director of the ORG , allegedly called ORG and asked it to come up with a solution that would allow Mr C\u00e2mpeanu to be transferred to a facility which was more suitable for the treatment of his health problems . It appears that she was advised to transfer him to the ORG for a period of DATE for psychiatric treatment .","On DATE Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was transferred from the CMSC to the ORG , on the understanding that his stay at the ORG would last for DATE with the purpose of attempting to provide treatment for his hyperaggressive behaviour . He was placed in ORG V.","On DATE Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was placed under the care of Dr L.G. Given the fact that Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was HIV - positive , the doctor decided to transfer him to ORG . She continued to be in charge of his psychiatric treatment , as that department had CARDINAL general , non - specialist doctors and no psychiatrists on its staff .","On DATE Mr C\u00e2mpeanu stopped eating and refused to take his medication . He was therefore prescribed an intravenous treatment which included glucose and vitamins . Upon examination by the doctor , he was found to be \u201c generally unwell \u201d .","On DATE a team of monitors from the ORG visited the ORG and noticed Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s condition . According to the information included in a report by ORG staff on that visit , Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was alone in an isolated , unheated and locked room , which contained only a bed without any bedding . He was dressed only in a pyjama top . At the time he could not eat or use the toilet without assistance . However , the staff at the ORG refused to help him , allegedly for fear that they would contract HIV . Consequently , the only nutrition provided to Mr C\u00e2mpeanu was glucose , through a drip . The report concluded that the hospital had failed to provide him with the most basic treatment and care services .","The ORG representatives stated that they had asked for him to be transferred immediately to ORG in GPE , where he could receive appropriate treatment . However , the hospital manager had decided against that request , believing that the patient was not an \u201c emergency case , but a social case \u201d , and that in any event he would not be able to withstand the trip .","PERSON died on TIME DATE . According to his death certificate , issued on DATE , the immediate cause of death was cardiorespiratory insufficiency . The certificate also noted that his HIV infection was the \u201c original morbid condition \u201d and designated \u201c intellectual disability \u201d as \u201c another important morbid condition \u201d .","In spite of the legal provisions that made it compulsory to carry out an autopsy when a death occurred in a psychiatric hospital ( Joint Order no . CARDINAL of the Minister of ORG and the Minister of Health ) , the ORG did not carry out an autopsy on the body , stating that \u201c it was not believed to be a suspicious death , taking into consideration the CARDINAL serious conditions displayed by the patient \u201d ( namely intellectual disability and HIV infection ) .","Unaware of Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s death , on DATE the ORG had drafted several urgent letters and then sent them to a number of local and central officials , including the Minister of Health , the prefect of GPE , the mayor of PERSON and the director of ORG , highlighting PERSON extremely critical condition and the fact that he had been transferred to an institution that was unable to provide him with appropriate care , in view of his HIV infection ; the ORG further criticised the inadequate treatment he was receiving and asked for emergency measures to be taken to address the situation . It further stated that PERSON admission to the ORG and subsequent transfer to the ORG had been in breach of his human rights , and urged that an appropriate investigation of the matter be launched .","On DATE the ORG issued a press release highlighting the conditions and the treatment received by patients at the ORG , making particular reference to the case of Mr C\u00e2mpeanu and calling for urgent action .","In a letter of DATE to ORG , the ORG requested an update on the state of proceedings following the criminal complaint it had lodged with that institution on DATE in relation to the circumstances leading up to PERSON death ; in the complaint it had emphasised that Mr C\u00e2mpeanu had not been placed in an appropriate medical institution , as required by his medical and mental condition .","On DATE , the ORG lodged CARDINAL further criminal complaints , CARDINAL with the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG and the other with the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG . The ORG repeated its request for a criminal investigation to be opened in relation to the circumstances leading up to and surrounding Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s death , alleging that the following offences had been committed :","( i ) negligence , by employees of ORG and of ORG ( LAW ) ;","( ii ) malfeasance and nonfeasance against a person \u2019s interests and endangering a person unable to care for himself or herself , by employees of the CMSC ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) ; and","( iii ) homicide by negligence or endangering a person unable to care for himself or herself , by employees of the ORG ( LAW and LAW ) .","The ORG further argued that ORG had wrongly classified Mr C\u00e2mpeanu as being in the medium disability group , contrary to previous and subsequent diagnoses ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In turn , ORG had failed to institute proceedings for the appointment of a guardian when Mr C\u00e2mpeanu had reached the age of majority , in breach of existing legislation .","Moreover , ORG had failed to supply the required antiretroviral medication to ORG staff when Mr C\u00e2mpeanu had been transferred there on DATE , which might have caused his death DATE .","The ORG also claimed that the transfer from the ORG to the ORG had been unnecessary , improper and contrary to existing legislation , the measure having been taken without the patient \u2019s or his representative \u2019s consent , as required by LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .","Lastly , the ORG argued that Mr C\u00e2mpeanu had not received adequate care , treatment or nutrition at the ORG .","On DATE ORG informed the ORG that the case had been sent to the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG for investigation .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG informed the ORG that a criminal file had been opened in response to its complaint , and that the investigation had been allocated to ORG of ORG ( \u201c the Police Department \u201d ) .","On DATE , at the request of the prosecutor \u2019s office , a forensic report was issued by ORG . Based on the medical records submitted , the report concluded as follows :","\u201c Medical treatment was prescribed for [ the patient \u2019s ] HIV and his psychiatric condition , the treatment [ being ] correct and appropriate as to the dosage , in connection with the patient \u2019s clinical and immunological condition .","It can not be ascertained whether the patient had indeed taken his prescribed medication , having regard to his advanced state of psychosomatic degradation . \u201d","On DATE PERSON body was exhumed and an autopsy carried out . A forensic report was subsequently issued on DATE , recording that the body showed advanced signs of cachexia and concluding as follows :","\u201c ... the death was not violent . It was due to cardiorespiratory insufficiency caused by pneumonia , a complication suffered during the progression of the HIV infection . Upon exhumation , no traces of violence were noticed . \u201d","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG issued a decision not to prosecute , holding , inter alia , that , according to the evidence produced , the medical treatment provided to the patient had been appropriate , and that the death had not been violent , but rather had been caused by a complication which had occurred during the progression of PERSON HIV infection .","On DATE the ORG lodged a complaint against that decision with ORG of the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG , claiming , inter alia , that some of the submissions it had made concerning the medical treatment given to the patient , the alleged discontinuation of the antiretroviral treatment and the living conditions in the hospitals had not been examined .","On DATE ORG allowed the complaint , set aside the decision of DATE and ordered the reopening of the investigation so that all aspects of the case could be examined . Specific instructions were given as to certain medical documents that needed to be examined , once they had been obtained from ORG in GPE , ORG , the ORG and the ORG . The doctors who had treated Mr C\u00e2mpeanu were to be questioned . The circumstances in which the antiretroviral treatment had or had not been provided to the patient while he was in the ORG and in the ORG were to be clarified , especially as the medical records at the ORG did not mention anything on that account .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG decided that , pursuant to new procedural rules in force , it lacked jurisdiction to carry out the investigation , and referred the case file to the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG .","On DATE ORG asked ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to provide it with an opinion on \u201c whether the therapeutic approach [ adopted ] was correct in view of the diagnosis [ established in the autopsy report ] or whether it contains indications of medical malpractice \u201d .","On DATE , ORG of ORG ruled that there were no grounds for taking disciplinary action against staff at the ORG :","\u201c ... the psychotropic treatment , as noted in the general clinical observation notes from the ORG , was appropriate ... [ and therefore ] ... the information received suggests that the LOC decisions were correct , without any suspicion of medical malpractice [ arising from ] an opportunistic infection associated with HIV [ being ] incorrectly treated . \u201d","That decision was challenged by ORG , but on DATE the challenge was rejected as out of time .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG issued a fresh decision not to prosecute . The prosecutor relied in his reasoning on the evidence adduced in the file , as well as on the decision issued by ORG .","The ORG lodged a complaint against that decision , submitting that the majority of the instructions given in the Chief Prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been ignored . The complaint was dismissed by ORG of the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG on DATE . The brief statement of reasons in the decision referred to the conclusions of the forensic report of DATE and ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE the ORG challenged that decision before ORG .","On DATE the ORG allowed the complaint , set aside the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and ordered the reopening of the investigation , holding that several aspects of Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s death had not been examined and that more evidence needed to be produced .","Among the shortcomings highlighted by the court were the following : most of the documents which were supposed to have been obtained from ORG in GPE and ORG had not actually been added to the investigation file ( the forensic documents on the basis of which Mr C\u00e2mpeanu had been admitted to the ORG and transferred to the ORG ; the clinical and paraclinical tests undertaken ; the records of questioning of the doctors and nurses who had been responsible for Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s care ; and the HIV testing guidelines ) . Contradictions in the statements of those involved in Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s admission to the ORG had not been clarified , and neither had the circumstances relating to the interruption of his antiretroviral treatment after being transferred to the ORG . In addition , the contradictory claims of medical personnel from the ORG and the NORP regarding PERSON alleged \u201c state of agitation \u201d had not been clarified .","The investigators had also failed to ascertain whether the medical staff at the ORG had carried out the necessary tests after Mr C\u00e2mpeanu had been admitted there and whether he had received antiretrovirals or any other appropriate medication . The investigators had failed to establish the origin of the oedema noted on PERSON face and lower limbs and whether the therapeutic approach adopted at the ORG had been correct . Given these failures , the request for an opinion from ORG had been premature and should be resubmitted once the investigation file had been completed .","The prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG appealed against that judgment . On DATE ORG allowed the appeal , quashed the judgment delivered by ORG and dismissed the ORG \u2019s complaint concerning the decision of DATE not to prosecute .","The court mainly relied on the conclusions of the forensic report and the autopsy report , and also on the decision of ORG , all of which had stated that there had been no causal link between the medical treatment given to Mr C\u00e2mpeanu and his death .","NORP In response to the complaints lodged by the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the prefect of GPE established a commission with the task of carrying out an investigation into the circumstances surrounding PERSON death . The commission was made up of representatives of ORG , ORG , ORG of ORG and the prefect \u2019s office . The commission was given DATE to complete the investigation and submit a report on its findings .","The commission \u2019s report concluded that all procedures relating to Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s treatment after his discharge from ORG had been lawful and justified in view of his diagnosis . The commission found CARDINAL irregularity , in that an autopsy had not been carried out immediately after Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s death , in breach of existing legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG filed a complaint with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , criticising several deficiencies concerning mainly the failure to appoint a guardian for Mr C\u00e2mpeanu and to place him in an appropriate medical institution . The ORG reiterated its complaint on DATE , submitting that the wrongful transfer of Mr C\u00e2mpeanu to the ORG could raise issues under LAW ( e ) of the LAW .","In response to those allegations , ORG issued a report on DATE on the circumstances surrounding Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s death . ORG acknowledged that the ORG had acted ultra vires when ordering Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s admission to the ORG . However , it stated that in any event , the order had been of no consequence , given that the institution had initially refused to accept Mr C\u00e2mpeanu ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","ORG concluded that ORG had acted in line with the principles of professional ethics and best practice when it had transferred Mr C\u00e2mpeanu to the ORG . At the same time , ORG stated that it was not authorised to pass judgment on Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s subsequent transfer to the ORG .","Similarly , ORG declined to express an opinion on the allegedly wrongful categorisation of Mr C\u00e2mpeanu as belonging to the medium disability group , or on the events which had occurred after his admission to the ORG .","On DATE ORG informed the ORG that a commission made up of various county - level officials had concluded that \u201c no human rights were breached \u201d in connection with Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s death , as his successive admissions to hospital had been justified by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on measures for the prevention of the spread of HIV infection and the protection of persons infected with HIV or suffering from AIDS .","On DATE , following a criminal investigation concerning the death of CARDINAL patients at the ORG , ORG sent a letter to ORG , requiring it to take certain administrative measures to address the situation at the hospital . While noting that no criminal wrongdoing was detectable in connection with the deaths in question , the letter highlighted \u201c administrative deficiencies \u201d observed at the hospital and called for appropriate measures to be taken as regards the following problems :","\u201c [ L]ack of heating in the ORG rooms ; hypocaloric food ; insufficient staff , poorly trained in providing care to mentally disabled patients ; lack of effective medication ; extremely limited opportunities to carry out paraclinical investigations ... , all these factors having encouraged the onset of infectious diseases , as well as their fatal progression ... \u201d","In a decision of DATE concerning a criminal complaint lodged by the ORG on behalf of another patient , GPE , who had died at the ORG , ORG and ORG dismissed an objection by the public prosecutor that the ORG did not have locus standi . It found that the ORG did indeed have locus standi to pursue proceedings of this nature with a view to elucidating the circumstances in which CARDINAL patients had died at the ORG in DATE and DATE , in view of its field of activity and stated aims as a foundation for the protection of human rights . The court held as follows :","\u201c ORG considers that the ORG may be regarded as \u2018 any other person whose legitimate interests are harmed\u2019 within the meaning of LAW . The legitimacy of its interest lies in the ORG \u2019s request that the circumstances which led to the death of CARDINAL patients at the ORG in DATE and DATE be determined and elucidated ; its aim was thus to safeguard the right to life and the prohibition of torture and ill - treatment ... by initiating an official criminal investigation that would be effective and exhaustive so as to identify those responsible for breaches of the above - mentioned rights , in accordance with the requirements of ORG CARDINAL of LAW . [ It also aimed ] to raise the awareness of society as to the need to protect fundamental human rights and freedoms and to ensure access to justice , which corresponds to the NGO \u2019s stated goals .","Its legitimate interest has been demonstrated by the initiation of investigations , which are currently pending .","At the same time , the possibility for the ORG to lodge a complaint in accordance with LAW represents a judicial remedy of which the complainant availed itself , also in compliance with the provisions of LAW ... \u201d","The ORG submitted an expert opinion , dated DATE and issued by Dr PERSON , a member of ORG and director of ORG ( ORG ) , assisted by PERSON , ORG at the ORG . The opinion was based on copies of the evidence which the ORG also submitted to the ORG , including the medical records from the ORG and the ORG .","The expert opinion referred to the \u201c very poor , substandard , often absent or missing \u201d medical records at the ORG and the ORG , in which the description of PERSON clinical situation was \u201c scant \u201d . It noted that while at the ORG the patient had never been consulted by an infectiousdisease specialist . Also , contrary to NORP law , no autopsy had taken place immediately after the patient \u2019s death .","Concerning the antiretroviral treatment , the documents available did not provide reliable information as to whether it had been received on a continuous basis . Therefore , as a result of inappropriate treatment , Mr C\u00e2mpeanu might have suffered from a relapse of HIV , and also from opportunistic infections such as pneumocystis pneumonia ( pneumonia appeared in the autopsy report as the cause of death ) . The opinion noted that pneumonia had not been diagnosed or treated while the patient was at the ORG or the ORG , even though it was a very common disease in HIV patients . Common laboratory tests to monitor the patient \u2019s HIV status had never been carried out .","The expert opinion stated that certain behavioural signs interpreted as psychiatric disorders might have been caused by septicaemia .","Therefore , the risks of discontinued antiretroviral treatment , the possibility of opportunistic infections and the patient \u2019s history of tuberculosis should have led to Mr C\u00e2mpeanu being admitted to an infectious - disease department of a general hospital , and not to a psychiatric institution .","The report concluded that Mr C\u00e2mpeanu \u2019s death at the ORG had been the result of \u201c gross medical negligence \u201d . The management of HIV and opportunistic infections had failed to comply with international standards and medical ethics , as had the counselling and treatment provided to the patient for his severe intellectual disability . Moreover , the disciplinary proceedings before ORG had been substandard and negligent , in the absence of important medical documentation .","The ORG is located in GPE in southern GPE , QUANTITY from GPE , on a former army base occupying QUANTITY hectares of land . The ORG has the capacity to admit CARDINAL patients , both on a voluntary and an involuntary basis , in the latter case as a result of either civil or criminal proceedings . Until DATE , the hospital also included a ward for patients suffering from tuberculosis . The ward was relocated to a nearby town as a result of pressure from a number of national and international agencies , including ORG for ORG Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) .","At the time of the relevant events , namely in DATE , there were CARDINAL patients at the ORG . The medical staff included CARDINAL psychiatrists , CARDINAL psychiatry residents and CARDINAL general practitioners .","According to the ORG \u2019s report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , during DATE , CARDINAL patients died in suspicious circumstances at the PMH DATE and twentyeight in DATE . The ORG had visited the ORG CARDINAL times , in DATE , DATE and DATE ; its last visit was specifically aimed at investigating the alarming increase in the death rate . After each visit , the ORG issued very critical reports , highlighting the \u201c inhuman and degrading living conditions \u201d at the ORG .","Following a visit to several of the medical institutions indicated as problematic in the ORG \u2019s reports , among them the ORG , ORG issued a report on DATE . It concluded that at the ORG the medication provided to patients was inadequate , either because there was no link between the psychiatric diagnosis and the treatment provided , or because the medical examinations were very limited . Several deficiencies were found concerning management efficiency and the insufficient number of medical staff in relation to the number of patients .","It appears from the information received from the ORG that the ORG was a small centre for medical and social care , with a capacity of CARDINAL beds at DATE ; at the time , there were CARDINAL patients at the ORG . Before DATE when it was designated as a medical and social care centre \u2013 the ORG was a psychiatric hospital .","According to its accreditation certificate for DATE to DATE , the ORG was authorised to provide services for adults experiencing difficult family situations , with an emphasis on the social component of medical and social care ."],"violated_articles":["13","2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-176769","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF F\u00c1BI\u00c1N v. HUNGARY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);No violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;Pauliine Koskelo;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He had been employed as a police officer when , having reached an age when he was entitled to do so , he took early retirement and started receiving a \u201c service pension \u201d ( szolg\u00e1lati nyugd\u00edj ) from DATE , when he was DATE . The applicant , however , continued to work : he was employed in the private sector DATE and from DATE until DATE he worked , as a civil servant , as the head of ORG of the GPE . The applicant paid the statutory contributions to the ORG old - age pension scheme from DATE of his employment ( DATE ) until DATE .","On DATE Parliament enacted Act no . ORG , which entered into force on DATE . According to section CARDINAL ) of that law , service pensions like that of the applicant were converted into a \u201c service allowance \u201d ( szolg\u00e1lati j\u00e1rand\u00f3s\u00e1g ) , provided that the person concerned was born in or after DATE . Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of the same LAW , for recipients of a service pension who , like the applicant , were born in or before DATE , the service pension was to be converted into an old - age pension .","On DATE an amendment to Act no . LXXXI of DATE on ORG ( hereafter \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) entered into force , according to which the disbursement of those old - age pensions whose beneficiaries were simultaneously employed in certain categories within the civil service would be suspended from DATE for the duration of their employment ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . No such restriction was put in place in respect of those who were in receipt of an old - age pension while being employed within the private sector .","On DATE ORG ( Orsz\u00e1gos Nyugd\u00edjbiztos\u00edt\u00e1si F\u0151igazgat\u00f3s\u00e1g ) sent a letter to the applicant in his capacity as the recipient of an old - age pension , informing him of the amended legislation and instructing him to make a declaration as to whether he was employed in the civil service , in CARDINAL of the categories concerned by the amendment of DATE . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant notified ORG of his employment situation . Subsequently , on DATE , ORG informed the applicant that the disbursement of his pension had been suspended as of DATE . At that time his pension amounted to MONEY ( ORG ; at that time MONEY ( ORG ) ) per month .","On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative appeal with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) against the suspension of his pension payments in which he argued that his pension constituted an acquired right and that he was being discriminated against since pensioners working in the private sector continued to receive their pensions .","ORG sought further information from the applicant on DATE . The applicant elaborated on his appeal on CARDINAL DATE , referring , inter alia , to an application filed by the ORG with ORG in DATE ( AJB-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . In that application the ORG set out the complaints which had been made to his ORG about the amendment of LAW and raised the issue of a difference in treatment between pensioners employed in the civil service and those employed in the private sector . As far as the ORG is aware , this case is currently still pending before ORG .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s appeal , holding that the applicant had failed to provide the information sought from him on DATE .","The applicant \u2019s employment with the GPE came to an end on DATE . On DATE the competent authority decided that the disbursement of his pension would be resumed . His pension was increased to ORG MONEY ( at that time approximately EUR CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161542","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ZHEREBIN v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a flagrant breach of public peace and order , committed in concert by an organised group . The events in question took place in DATE .","On DATE the ORG of GPE remanded the applicant in custody during the investigation . In particular , the court noted as follows :","\u201c When deciding whether a preventive measure should be imposed , the court takes into consideration whether [ the applicant ] has been charged with a serious offence which entails a custodial sentence of DATE imprisonment . [ The offence in question ] was committed against public peace and public order .","Further , the court takes into consideration the fact that , at the time of the arrest , [ the applicant ] did not reside in GPE , did not reside at his registered address and , according to him , was staying at his friend \u2019s place in LOC ; and that he had applied for DATE leave of absence from his studies at university . During that period he did not have a permanent place of residence and did not reside at his registered address . [ The applicant ] is not employed . The source of his income or means of subsistence for his family are not known . Earlier [ the applicant ] was found liable for administrative offences against public order and public safety .","The court also takes into consideration the motive for and the specific circumstances of the offence with which [ the applicant ] has been charged . The perpetrators used improvised weapons and acted in an organised group during TIME .","Regard being had to the circumstances described above , the court concludes that , if at large , [ the applicant ] may abscond or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice by , inter alia , putting pressure on [ witnesses ] . \u201d","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of DATE . He argued that ORG had failed to justify its decision to remand him in custody and had not considered the possibility of using a less restrictive preventive measure in his case . He further noted that there was no evidence that he had ever tried to put pressure on witnesses , to interfere with the administration of justice or to abscond . Lastly , he pointed out that he was residing at the address known to the authorities together with his wife , who was pregnant .","On DATE the ORG found the decision of DATE justified and upheld it on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE . The court reasoned as follows :","\u201c As can be seen from the materials submitted to the court , [ the applicant ] is charged with a serious offence which carries a custodial sentence of DATE . The crime was committed in concert with other persons . Some of them have not been identified by the investigating authorities to date . The others have been arrested . [ The applicant ] was not residing at his registered address . He does not have a registered address in LOC . He is unemployed .","Under LAW of LAW , a preventive measure can be imposed if there is evidence that a defendant might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice in his case . Neither [ the applicant ] nor his lawyer presented evidence to show that the existence of such a risk could not be justified . Furthermore , it can be seen from the documents submitted to the court that there is a risk that [ the applicant ] might engage in unlawful acts as defined in the above - mentioned provision of the law , regard being had to the nature and seriousness of the offence with which he is charged , to and to his character","...","Accordingly , the court concludes that the circumstances justifying the [ applicant \u2019s ] remand in custody have not changed . There is no reason to change or lift the preventive measure imposed earlier . The statements of guarantee submitted by the [ applicant \u2019s ] lawyer can not be taken into consideration by the court because they were not submitted to the investigator or presented by the signatories in person . ... Some of the statements are not duly authorised and the court has doubts as to their authenticity . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE the ORG of GPE scheduled the trial for DATE . The applicant argued against the extension of his pre - trial detention . He submitted that he was a student , that he was married and that his wife was pregnant . He further pointed out that the investigation in the case had already been completed and that he could not interfere with the administration of justice or put pressure on witnesses . He had no intention of doing so or of absconding . The court ruled that the applicant should remain in custody pending trial . In particular , the court stated as follows :","\u201c Having examined the prosecutor \u2019s request to detain [ the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants ] pending trial , the court grants it . It discerns no grounds on which to change the preventive measure imposed on the defendants , regard being had to the seriousness of the charges , the factual circumstances and the defendants\u2019 character . In particular , PERSON and [ the applicant ] do not have a registered address in GPE or LOC . They were not living at their registered address . They are unemployed . The circumstances underlying their remand in custody have not ceased to exist or changed . The fact that the investigation in the criminal case has been completed has no effect to the contrary .","Regard being had to the foregoing , the court discerns no grounds on which to change the preventive measure imposed earlier on the defendants and apply a less restrictive measure , including the [ applicant \u2019s ] release upon a statement of guarantee signed by a surety . \u201d","On DATE the applicant asked ORG for release . He submitted that on DATE his wife had given birth to their child . He also relied on the statements of guarantee submitted by his sureties . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s request noting as follows :","\u201c ... the court considers that the request can not be granted . The court discerns no circumstances that would allow it to change the preventive measure imposed on [ the applicant ] , regard being had to the seriousness of the charges , the factual circumstances and his character . In particular , [ the applicant ] does not have a registered address in GPE or LOC . He is unemployed . Nor was [ he ] residing at his registered address . The reasons justifying the [ applicant \u2019s ] remand in custody have not ceased to exist or changed . ... the birth of his child has no effect to the contrary and can not justify the decision to replace [ pre - trial detention ] with a less restrictive measure , including the [ applicant \u2019s ] release upon a statement of guarantee signed by a surety . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld , in substance , the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165372","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SHAMRAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . They also argued that they did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about the poor detention conditions ."],"violated_articles":["13"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142306","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LAYIJOV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE an operation was planned for the applicant \u2019s arrest following allegations made by GPE and GPE to the police that he was a drug dealer and had tried to sell them narcotic substances .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant stopped for petrol at a petrol station in ORG . At that moment he was approached by several plain - clothes police officers . According to the applicant , they dragged him out of his car and began beating , punching and kicking him , and hitting him with a truncheon . He then fainted .","When he regained consciousness , he found himself in the back seat of a moving car with the abovementioned police officers . According to the applicant , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL officers sitting on either side of him in the back seat slipped something into his right side trouser pocket . The applicant tried to stop him , but was punched and hit in the head with the butt of a handgun and fainted again . He was taken to ORG .","According to the applicant , he was repeatedly beaten after his arrival at FAC .","A search of the applicant and his car was conducted at the police station . According to the search record , the search was carried out at TIME on DATE in the presence of the applicant , police officers and CARDINAL attesting witnesses . It appears from the record that the applicant was not represented by a lawyer . During the search , narcotic ( cannabis - based ) substances were found both on his person and in his car . The applicant claimed that the drugs did not belong to him and had been planted . He refused to sign the search record . According to him , the search had been filmed and the recording would have shown signs of ill - treatment on his body .","At TIME on DATE a police investigator drew up a record of the applicant \u2019s arrest ( tutma protokolu ) . It indicated that the applicant was arrested on DATE , not CARDINAL DATE . The applicant refused to sign the record .","At an unspecified time on DATE the investigator gave the applicant details of CARDINAL defence lawyers registered with ORG who could represent him . The applicant did not choose any of them , and stated that he would be defending himself . However , he refused to sign a waiver of legal assistance .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE , calculating the period of detention from DATE .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic expert from ORG and ORG . According to the forensic report , the applicant complained of having been ill - treated by the police on DATE . The expert noticed an oval - shaped bruise on his neck . The conclusion of the expert reads as follows :","\" The oval - shaped bruise on ORG \u2019s neck , caused by a hard blunt object , its time of infliction corresponds to CARDINAL DATE , the time initially indicated . The degree of the injury was not determined because it was not an injury causing harm to health . The injury found would not have caused Layijov to lose consciousness . \u201d","On an unspecified date during his interrogation , the applicant informed the investigator that there was a knife in his car . In this connection , he submitted that the police had not carried out a \u201c real \u201d search of his car on DATE , and had only found narcotic substances they had planted there themselves , otherwise they would have found the knife . Following the applicant \u2019s questioning , on DATE a new search of the car was conducted and a knife was recovered .","On DATE the investigator at FAC delivered a decision on assessment of the evidence . It appears from the decision that the applicant was also examined by a forensic narcotics expert who established that he had not been using narcotic substances and was not a drug user . By the same decision , the investigator also refused to launch a criminal inquiry in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegation of ill - treatment . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c ORG alleged in his testimony that he had been beaten up by police officers and had even fainted . It appears from the case file that ORG tried to escape when he was being taken to the district police station and that police officers dragged him upstairs . In that case , there should have been contusions and bruises on his body . It was established in the forensic report that there was an oval - shaped bruise on ORG neck , but no injuries were found on other parts of his body . The degree of the injury was not determined because it was not an injury causing harm to health and it was established that the injury [ found ] would not have caused [ him ] to lose consciousness . Nevertheless , the procedural legislation allows causing harm to a person who has committed a crime , if he tries to escape during arrest . As the extent of ORG injuries was much less serious than the crime he had committed , a criminal inquiry in respect of the fact that he sustained injuries should be rejected . \u201d","According to the indictment issued on DATE , the applicant was charged with offences under ORG CARDINAL ( illegal possession of narcotic substances in an amount exceeding that necessary for personal use , without intention to sell ) , CARDINAL ( illegal sale or illegal possession of narcotic substances with intention to sell ) , and CARDINAL ( illegal possession of a cold steel weapon ) of LAW .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of all the offences as charged and sentenced him to six years\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant complained in the course of the proceedings that he had been illtreated by the police during his arrest and in police custody . He also complained that the criminal case against him had been fabricated by the police because of a pre - existing dispute he had with some officers from FAC . In this connection , he claimed that the drugs had been planted by the police officers and that despite his request , the search of his person and car had not been carried out immediately after his arrest . However , his complaints were not addressed in the judgment . The part of the judgment concerning the applicant \u2019s conviction reads as follows :","\u201c The criminal offence committed by the accused ORG was not only proved by witness testimonies , but also other materials in the case file ...","In total QUANTITY of cannabis - based narcotic substances , QUANTITY of opium , CARDINAL hunting knife and CARDINAL \u201c ORG \u201d mobile phone taken within the framework of the case had been recognised as real evidence ...","Therefore , the fact that the accused ORG committed the criminal offences provided for by Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW was again proved in the court investigation by witness testimonies , expert opinions , records of face - to - face questioning and other official information in the case file .","The preliminary investigating authority had rightly qualified the criminal offences of the accused ORG under ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . He should be found guilty under these ORG and be punished . \u201d","According to the judgment , the period of imprisonment was to be calculated from DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE . In the course of the proceedings , the applicant reiterated his complaints , but ORG did not consider them .","On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination . ORG found that there had been flaws in the assessment of the admissibility and probative value of evidence serving as a basis for the applicant \u2019s convictions , and that the lower courts had failed to properly determine the date of the applicant \u2019s arrest and to examine the issue of the applicant \u2019s alleged illtreatment in police custody and the compliance with procedural requirements of the search of the applicant and his car . ORG also noted that the lower courts had not examined why a search of the applicant and his car had not been carried out immediately at the place of his arrest . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c According to forensic report no . CARDINAL of DATE , the injuries on ORG body are characteristic of a beating .","The documents and statements signed by police officers were drafted by PERSON at the same time , using the same pen . The content of the attesting witnesses\u2019 statements , as well as those of GPE and GPE , was dictated by a professional police officer and they say the same thing .","During the investigation and in the proceedings before the courts , these facts were not examined and no action was taken in this respect .","Under LAW , evidence and facts , if there are doubts as to their source or the circumstances in which they were obtained , can not be used in order to determine the charge correctly . All the documents and statements on which the court relied as evidence in the present case are contradictory , and do not disprove ORG allegations .","It follows that , when the case is re - examined at appellate court level , it should be considered whether GPE and GPE cooperated with the police and participated in the procedural measures in other cases and were for this reason interested in the outcome of the case , the reason why the first operation aimed at arresting PERSON on DATE was not carried out , the reason why a search of ORG and his car was not immediately conducted when he was arrested at the petrol station in ORG as required by the operational search and criminal procedural legislation , the cause and perpetrators of ORG injuries , as well as the reason why the knife , which was considered to be a cold steel weapon , was not found in the car during the first search on DATE , but was found DATE . As it appears from ORG statements , his allegation , that the narcotic substances were not taken from his car otherwise the knife would also have been found during the search , must be assessed from a logical point of view . \u201d","On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE in the part relating to the charges under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW and terminated the corresponding part of the criminal proceedings . The court held that the evidence concerning the charge under LAW had been obtained in breach of the relevant procedural requirements and failed to prove the applicant \u2019s guilt . In particular , GPE and GPE \u2019s statements were inconsistent and had been drafted by the investigator . The court also noted that the testimony of GPE and GPE at the hearings before ORG had differed from their statements . The court further noted that the evidence in connection with the charge under LAW , namely the knife found in the applicant \u2019s car , did not qualify as a weapon for the purposes of that provision . The court also found that the applicant had actually been arrested on DATE and for a day had been unlawfully detained in police custody . As to his allegation of ill - treatment , the court noted that he had been ill - treated by the police during his arrest and in police custody , as certified by the forensic report of CARDINAL DATE . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c It was established following the investigation carried out by the panel of the court that during ORG arrest the requirements of criminal procedural law were violated by the investigating authorities ; his arrest was not immediately documented , he was not provided with a lawyer , he was not informed of his rights and obligations and he was unlawfully detained at FAC for a day ...","Taking into consideration the fact that the video - recording of the investigative steps taken during the preliminary investigation was not added to the case file as evidence , and the fact that ORG allegation of being beaten by police officers was not rebutted by any plausible evidence by the party defending the charge , the court considers that the injuries on ORG body were inflicted by the police during the preliminary investigation . \u201d","NORP However , ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction under LAW . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c ... The panel of the court considers that the accused ORG had committed the crime under LAW and that he had been correctly found guilty and convicted by the first - instance court . \u201d","ORG was silent as to the applicant \u2019s particular complaints concerning the drugs being planted on him by the police , the conditions in which the search had been carried out , and the lawfulness of the use of the evidence obtained in those circumstances against him .","The Court of Appeal reduced the applicant \u2019s sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and decided to calculate the beginning of the corresponding sentence from DATE .","On DATE the applicant was released after having served his sentence .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157519","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MIREA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","At the time of the events in question the applicant was occasionally working for ORG and also providing information on the latter \u2019s business activities to FAC , an operative officer of ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) .","In TIME of DATE PERSON paid a visit to PERSON at the latter \u2019s business headquarters in ORG and asked him to return MONEY ( ORG ) which PERSON had allegedly lent him to help him start his activity . PERSON had previously refused to pay the money back . TIME , an argument broke out among them . PERSON and CARDINAL other individuals kidnapped PERSON and beat him severely to induce him to give up the debt demand . TIME PERSON called the applicant and asked him to come by car to the headquarters to transport someone to PERSON .","The applicant arrived TIME , and found PERSON severely beaten and begging PERSON to spare him . The attackers tied the victim up and put him in the boot of his own car . They drove away , murdered PERSON and staged a road accident as cover - up . The applicant arrived at the scene by car and drove the attackers back to their homes .","On DATE the applicant contacted ORG , who was away on holiday , to tell him what had happened . They met DATE , upon ORG return , and on DATE FAC transmitted the information to the police via his superiors .","There was no criminal investigation of the events until DATE , when one of the participants confessed to the police .","On DATE the applicant was informed that accusations had been brought against him , and made a statement to the prosecutor \u2019s office . A lawyer of his choice was present at that meeting .","On DATE the applicant and the others involved in the events of DATE were committed for trial on charges of illegal deprivation of liberty and extremely aggravated murder .","NORP Throughout the proceedings the applicant argued that he had infiltrated PERSON \u2019s group as an informant on the behalf of the PERSON . He also stated that PERSON had forced him to participate in the events by threatening him and his family .","On DATE he was convicted by ORG of aiding and abetting illegal deprivation of liberty and extremely aggravated murder . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and removal of certain rights .","The court based the conviction on a whole body of evidence , consisting of witness testimony , the statements made by the accused persons during the proceedings , expert examinations and police reports . Based on the evidence in the file , ORG established that the fact for the applicant to come to the ORG \u2019s business headquarters at ORG request and to drive alongside the car where the victim was transported and to drive the culprits back with his car constituted the crimes he was accused of ; the court considered that he had helped the other culprits to commit their crimes .","As for the applicant \u2019s connection with the GPE , ORG acknowledged that he was transmitting information on ORG group to officer S.S. It also took note that the PERSON denied that the information about the murder provided by the applicant had been the result of collaboration with the ORG . ORG heard testimony from ORG , who confirmed that both he and the applicant had infiltrated ORG group on behalf of the PERSON . F.B. had been informed by ORG that after DATE it had become too dangerous for the applicant to stay in direct contact with PERSON , because of certain information in the applicant \u2019s possession .","ORG considered the Prevention and Combat of Organised Crime Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and decided that the applicant could not benefit from any status as an GPE informant , for the following reasons :","\u201c Under LAW , in exceptional situations , when there are indications that a crime has been committed or is being planned by members of an organised criminal group , and neither the crime nor its perpetrators can be identified by other methods , informants may be used in order to gather data concerning the commission of crimes and the identification of the perpetrators . No such indication ... existed in the present case and [ the applicant ] was not an informant used for gathering data concerning the crimes of illegal deprivation of liberty and extremely aggravated murder . \u201d","The court also examined and discarded as unfounded the applicant \u2019s allegations of coercion and considered that the applicant could have refused to help or informed the authorities about what was happening . It maintained as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] had the option to leave when , after arriving at the [ scene ] , he realised what was going on , but at no point during the events had he expressed the intention to leave the group . Even assuming that he had only remained in order to collect data for the PERSON , he had had an obligation to inform immediately the police or the GPE about what was happening . From the statements given by the participants , including the applicant himself , it appears that on several occasion [ during TIME , the applicant ] remained alone and could have used his mobile phone to call the police but he did not do it , claiming that the mobile phone keyboard was blocked . However , the court can not accept this explanation , as it is notorious that calling the police phone number is free of charge . \u201d","The judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .","S.S. gave testimony in the appeal proceedings , and confirmed that he had been informed about the murder by the applicant . He reiterated in detail the events described by the applicant . As for the nature of the collaboration between him and the applicant , ORG explained as follows :","\u201c My collaboration with [ the applicant ] was based on friendship and I confirm that he is an exceptional man . Our friendship goes back DATE . I knew that [ the applicant ] had relations with a certain group , but the members of the group and its activity was of no interest for the GPE , as it did not concern threats to the national security .","...","I expressly declare that I can not give any information about specifically infiltrating [ the applicant ] in [ ORG group , because at that point , the group was not of interest for the national security . \u201d","S.S. refused to give details about where he had met with the applicant , asserting that the information requested by the court was classified .","ORG concluded that the applicant had taken on his own initiative the role of an GPE informant :","\u201c [ The applicant ] claimed that he had been infiltrated in ORG \u2019s criminal group by the PERSON , in order to gather data about its activities .","However , the GPE informed the court , by address no . CARDINAL of DATE ... that the information presented by [ the applicant ] to ORG was not the outcome of any collaboration between that ORG and [ the applicant ] .","Moreover , the witness S.S. ( an GPE officer ) , declared that PERSON \u2019s criminal group did not constitute threats to national security ... , that being the reason why [ the applicant ] was not requested to gather intelligence about PERSON group .","It follows that [ the applicant ] took on his own initiative the role of \u201c informant \u201d , without being officially requested to do so , and without being granted permission to participate in crimes for the purpose of gathering intelligence . \u201d","The decision by ORG was upheld by ORG and ORG on DATE . The High Court increased the sentence to DATE in prison . This decision was final .","NORP The applicant asked for a revision of the final decision . He reiterated that it was impossible to prove before the ordinary courts that he was an GPE informant , as on the one hand the information was classified at the time , and , on the other S.S. risked losing his job if he divulged such information . He requested that the information be declassified . Furthermore , he pointed out that , as the police had failed to act upon the information he had transmitted through the GPE , he could not even benefit from a more lenient sentence , as had been the case with the other participant who had confessed to the crimes .","On DATE the request was granted in principle by ORG . It considered that the information could constitute relevant evidence which had not been available to the ordinary courts .","ORG heard a fresh statement from ORG , who reiterated his previous statements . He further explained that he could not reveal whether the applicant had infiltrated ORG group as an informant , nor could he discuss the nature or content of the information which the applicant had given him , as the law considered it classified information . Nor could he clarify whether , as a general rule , an informant who committed an offence would benefit from protection .","On DATE the GPE informed ORG that it declassified partially the report drafted by ORG based on the information given by the applicant concerning the crimes ( the report , which contained a description of the facts as presented by the applicant , was adduced to the criminal file ) . It further explained that the document drafted by the applicant himself for ORG had been destroyed after verification of the information contained and communication of that information to the police . It lastly reiterated that the information concerning collaboration with the PERSON was classified under PERSON no . PERSON , \u201c ORG \u201d , and , if revealed , could \u201c severely affect national security \u201d .","ORG made an extensive examination of the evidence in the file and the applicable laws . It acknowledged that the applicant had failed to provide it with conclusive evidence of his status as an GPE informant , but also considered that that situation was not imputable either to him or to the courts . It noted that declassification of documents was left to the discretion of the GPE , which , claiming \u201c national security \u201d , refused to reveal relevant information in the case at hand . Moreover , declassification followed a lengthy and cumbersome procedure , which undermined the rights of the defence as guaranteed by LAW .","For these reasons , the court considered that given the difficulty of obtaining unequivocal evidence as to the applicant \u2019s status , the incomplete information provided by the ORG and by ORG should be given increased significance in favour of the applicant .","It thus concluded that the applicant had participated in the events solely as an ORG informant , and that the representation of his own role and his feelings of fear , horror , despair and repugnance at the scene of the abuse against PERSON removed his criminal responsibility .","Consequently , on DATE , ORG quashed the previous decisions in part and acquitted the applicant on both counts .","On DATE , acting upon an appeal lodged by the prosecutor \u2019s office , ORG quashed that judgment and dismissed the request for revision . It considered that that remedy could not be used solely to adduce new evidence , and that the ordinary courts had already examined the theory according to which the applicant had been a GPE informant who had infiltrated PERSON \u2019s group :","\u201c Article CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW concerning revision does not refer to newly discovered evidence , because if it were so , revision would become another [ ordinary ] level of jurisdiction ...","The new facts of circumstances [ required by LAW above as reason for allowing the revision ] will be confirmed by new evidence , but it is not the evidence that constitutes the reason for revision ... \u201d","The court also considered that the fact that the status of an ORG informant was not regulated by law made it impossible for the courts to establish the extent of such activities , thus leaving room for abuse of that status . However , reliance of such status could not exonerate from criminal responsibility :","\u201c As there is no legal frame for regulating the status of an informant for an intelligence service , we can not establish the scope of such a mandate , and thus the opportunity for abusing this status exists .","The fact that [ the applicant ] \u2019s activity as an informant would have benefitted the PERSON does not exonerate [ the applicant ] from criminal responsibility for criminal acts . \u201d","On DATE ORG and ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant and upheld the decisions rendered by ORG , on similar grounds to those given by the lower court ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178631","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence .","The applicant has been involved in various political organisations and local and international non - governmental organisations for DATE . In DATE he co - founded a political organisation named ORG ( \u201c REAL \u201d ) whose initial goal was to oppose the proposed changes to the LAW , which included abolition of the limits on the re - election of the president , at the constitutional referendum of DATE . In DATE the applicant was elected REAL \u2019s chairman . In this capacity , he expressed views opposing the current Government ( for more detail , see an earlier judgment of this ORG , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) . According to the applicant , REAL was quickly becoming one of the main political forces opposed to the ruling Government . In DATE it announced that it was beginning a process of transforming itself into a political party .","The applicant had intended to stand as a candidate in the presidential elections of DATE , but was unable to do so owing to the events giving rise to the present case and his nomination as a candidate was rejected by the electoral authorities ( for more detail , see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . During the events giving rise to the present case , he also made an unsuccessful attempt to have himself registered as a candidate for repeat parliamentary elections in ORG No . CARDINAL in DATE .","Following the applicant \u2019s arrest described below , another member of the REAL board , Mr PERSON , was arrested under charges of illegal entrepreneurship , tax evasion and abuse of power ( for more detail , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) . According to the applicant , CARDINAL other current or former members of the REAL board were forced to leave the country owing to the \u201c pressure by the Government \u201d .","In the below - mentioned criminal proceedings , CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s co - defendants was Mr PERSON , who was a deputy chairman of ORG and who also worked as a columnist for the PERSON newspaper ( see PERSON , no . DATE , DATE ) . Pursuant to a presidential pardon decree of CARDINAL DATE , Mr PERSON was released from serving the remainder of his prison sentence .","The circumstances relating to the ORG events and the applicant \u2019s visit to PERSON are described as follows in ORG ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) :","\u201c B. The GPE events of DATE","On DATE rioting broke out in the town of GPE , located to the northwest of GPE . According to media reports quoting local residents , the rioting was sparked by an incident involving V.A. , the son of ORG and nephew of the Head of ORG ( \u2018 IDEA\u2019 ) . It was claimed that after being involved in a car accident , V.A. had insulted and physically assaulted passengers of the other car , who were local residents . On hearing of the incident , CARDINAL ( perhaps CARDINAL ) of local residents took to the streets and destroyed a number of commercial establishments ( including ORG ) and other property in GPE thought to be owned by ORG family .","On DATE ORG and ORG issued a joint press statement , placing the blame for the rioting on ORG , a hotel manager , and his relative [ El . M. ] , who had allegedly been drunk and who , it was claimed , had committed acts of hooliganism by damaging local ORG property and inciting people to riot .","Meanwhile , [ ORG , ] the Head of IDEA , V.A. \u2019s uncle , publicly denied that ORG belonged to his family .","C. The applicant \u2019s role in the GPE events","On DATE the applicant travelled to GPE to get a firsthand account of the events . On DATE he described his impressions from the trip on his blog . The entire post read as follows :","\u2018 DATE TIME I spent a little longer than TIME in GPE , together with [ another member ] of our GPE [ REAL ] and our media coordinator ... First , here is [ the summary of ] what I wrote on ORG during TIME using my phone :","- We have entered the town .","- There is a lot of police and their number is growing . The protesters gather TIME or CARDINAL and make speeches . We are in front of the building of the [ Ismayilli District ] Executive Authority . There are around QUANTITY police officers in this area .","- The cause of the events is the general tension arising from corruption and insolence [ of public officials ] . In short , people have had enough . We are having conversations with local residents .","- The [ ethnic ] NORP of the village of GPE are also fed up ; they tried to come to [ GPE ] to support the protest , but the road was blocked and they were sent back .","- Everybody is preparing for the night .","- We are leaving ORG , returning to GPE . The matter is clear to us . PERSON was the first call . PERSON is the second . After the third call , the show will begin .","We came back after having fully investigated the situation in GPE . I wrote that clashes would again take place in the evening , by posting \u2018 everybody is preparing for the ORG [ on ORG ] . People there had been saying \u2018 We \u2019ll give them hell in TIME ; we have procured supplies\u2019 ( meaning the fuel for Molotov cocktails had been bought ) . People are angry . There are also those who do not care and who are afraid , but those who are not afraid are very exasperated and will continue the protest at TIME . This is no longer a political situation where we could stay there and try to change something ; this is already a situation of disorderly crisis which requires conciliatory steps by the ORG to be resolved .","No one should fool oneself or others . The events in GPE were not and are not a calm peaceful protest , it is an extremely violent but just protest and the responsibility for it lies with PERSON .","As it is with all revolutionary processes , in the beginning the political initiative is still in the hands of the President , but by not taking action he is gradually losing this initiative . When [ such leaders ] begin to react to the situation , it is usually too late and their actions have no effect . PERSON , PERSON , and all others have gone this way\u2019 . \u201d","DATE before posting the above in his blog , on his way back by car from GPE to GPE on DATE , CARDINAL TIME the applicant gave a live interview to ORG by phone , stating in particular as follows ( as quoted in the domestic courts\u2019 judgments ) :","\u201c Our impressions are such that , after the PERSON events , this is the most serious warning to the NORP leadership that the ORG can no longer be governed in this manner . So , we saw a lot of police . And so , we saw CARDINAL members of various forces , the police and internal troops in front of [ the IDEA building ] . And people held discussions in small groups and from time to time small groups united and , for example , shouted slogans . Their main demand was for [ the Head of the IDEA ] to apologise for these events . Because it is claimed that his relative had caused the initial incident [ that sparked the riot ] . However , the government representatives consider that the ORG is not responsible [ for these events ] . Thereafter we spoke to many people from the local population . All of them were discontent , and the main reason was , of course , TIME event , that is apparently the car accident [ that sparked the riot ] . But in reality there are deep social and economic problems at the root of this incident . A few families , a few small groups control the entire economy of the whole region , all of them are one another \u2019s relatives , there can be no talk of any competitive , just economy , social infrastructure is undeveloped , people live from pension to pension . Then , there are many complaints . Ordinary people say , for example , that when cash for pensions is brought [ to the region ] by a bank car , the cash is put into ATMs and is available for withdrawal DATE . The people suspect that that money is invested for interest during DATE and those responsible for this make profit from the interest gained on the social funding of the entire region . \u201d","Subsequent circumstances are described as follows in ORG ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) :","\u201c CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant posted more information on his blog concerning the events , citing the official websites of ORG and ORG and publishing screenshots of those sites . In particular , he noted that , according to those sources and to information posted on GPE \u2019s ORG account , ORG was actually owned by V.A. This directly contradicted the earlier denial by the Head of IDEA . The information cited by the applicant was removed from the aforementioned Government websites and GPE \u2019s ORG page within TIME of the applicant publishing his blog entry . However , the blog entry itself was extensively quoted in the media .","On DATE ORG and ORG issued a new joint press statement concerning the events in GPE . It noted that QUANTITY people had been charged with criminal offences in connection with the events of DATE , and had been detained pending trial . In addition , CARDINAL people had been arrested in connection with their participation in \u2018 actions causing a serious breach of public ORG ; some of them had been convicted of \u2018 administrative offences\u2019 and sentenced to a few days\u2019 \u2018 administrative detention\u2019 or a fine , while others had been released . The statement further noted that \u2018 lately , biased and partial information has been deliberately disseminated , distorting the true nature of the mentioned events resulting from ORG , including information about large numbers of injured people and the disappearance of CARDINAL individual . The statement refuted that information , noting that CARDINAL people had been admitted to the regional hospital with injuries and that no one had disappeared . It further stated , inter alia , the following :","\u2018 Following the carrying out of inquiries , it has been established that on DATE the Deputy Chairman of ORG , PERSON , and the Cochairman of ORG , PERSON , went to ORG and made appeals to local residents aimed at social and political destabilisation , such as calls to resist the police , not to obey officials and to block roads . Their illegal actions , which were calculated to inflame the situation in the country , will be fully and thoroughly investigated and receive legal assessment.\u2019","On DATE the applicant commented on that statement on his blog . He noted that the Government had taken a decision to \u2018 punish and frighten\u2019 him , and that there were several reasons for that : firstly , the applicant \u2019s blog posting of CARDINAL DATE , which had revealed facts embarrassing the Government ; secondly , the fact that REAL had raised a public debate on the DATE legislative amendments aimed at keeping secret information concerning shareholders in companies , creating \u2018 a more clandestine environment for stealing the oil ORG ; thirdly , the applicant \u2019s earlier criticism of ORG , in which he compared it to \u2018 a zoo\u2019 , following enactment of the legislation placing \u2018 severe limitations on the freedom of ORG by \u2018 introducing unjustifiably high monetary penalties for attending unauthorised ORG ; and lastly , ORG \u2018 quickly accumulating ORG prior to the presidential election , becoming a \u2018 serious barrier in the eyes of the traditional [ political ] ORG and threatening \u2018 to spoil the repeat of the election farce performed DATE after PERSON . \u201d","On DATE ORG charged the applicant with criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL ( organising or actively participating in actions causing a breach of public order ) and CARDINAL ( resistance to or violence against public officials , posing a threat to their life or health ) of LAW , in connection with his alleged involvement in a riot in the town of GPE on DATE . On DATE the applicant was charged under Articles CARDINAL ( mass disorder ) and CARDINAL of LAW , thereby replacing the original charges .","The applicant , PERSON and CARDINAL other defendants , ORG and ORG , charged solely in connection with the events of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) and ( c ) below ) were joined as defendants to the existing criminal case concerning the events of DATE .","The specific actions attributed to the applicant were described as follows :","\u201c Beginning at TIME on DATE , PERSON ,","having taken advantage of the fact that from TIME on DATE a group of persons in the town of ORG had engaged in acts of malicious hooliganism causing a serious breach of public order , had deliberately burned , in a publicly dangerous manner , property belonging to various persons [ including ] ORG , CARDINAL cars , CARDINAL mopeds and scooters , and an auxiliary building located in the yard of a private residential house , and had committed acts of violence against Government officials ,","having , in his false way of thinking , considered [ the above events ] as a \u2018 ORG ,","aiming to make the above acts develop and acquire a continuous character in order to create artificial tension and to violate the social and political stability in the country ,","being a resident of GPE , arrived in GPE and , together with Tofiq PERSON Yaqublu and with the active participation of others , [ committed the following : ]","organised , as an active participant , acts causing a serious breach of public order , by means of openly and repeatedly inciting town residents [ ORG ] , [ M.A. ] and others , who had gathered at the square near the administrative building of ORG located on the Nariman FAC opposite to the administrative building of [ the IDEA ] , [ to do the following : ]","[ i ] NORP to enter in masses into the area in front of the building of [ the IDEA ] , which is the competent body of the executive power of GPE , and by doing so to create difficulties for the movement of traffic and pedestrians , [ ii ] to disobey the lawful demands to disperse , made by Government officials wanting to stop their illegal behaviour , [ iii ] to resist uniformed police officers protecting the public order , by way of committing violent acts posing danger to [ police officers\u2019 ] life and health , using various objects , [ iv ] to disrupt the normal functioning of [ the IDEA ] , State enterprises , bodies and organisations , as well as public - catering , commercial and public - service facilities , by way of refusing to leave , for a long period of time , the areas where the acts seriously breaching the public order were being committed , and [ v ] to stop the movement of traffic , by way of blocking the central avenue and the Nariman FAC , and","was finally able to achieve that , at TIME in the town of GPE , a group of persons consisting of [ ORG ] , [ GPE ] and others had marched in masses from the mentioned square in the direction of the administrative building of [ the IDEA ] and had thrown stones at officers of the relevant bodies of ORG who were preventing [ this march ] in accordance with the requirements of the law .","By these actions , PERSON committed the criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL [ later replaced by Article CARDINAL ] and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE . \u201d","The circumstances relating to the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention and the pre - trial proceedings are described in detail in PERSON ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","In that judgment , the ORG found that , during the pre - trial period , the applicant had been deprived of his liberty without a \u201c reasonable suspicion \u201d of having committed a criminal offence , in breach of the requirements of LAW ( c ) of the Convention ( ibid . , LAW CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , that he had not been afforded a proper judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention in breach of LAW ( ibid . , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , that his right to presumption of innocence under LAW had been breached owing to the prosecuting authorities\u2019 prejudicial statements made before he had been proved guilty according to law ( ibid . , LAW CARDINAL ) , and that the restriction of the applicant \u2019s liberty had been applied for purposes other than bringing him before a competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence , constituting a breach of LAW taken in conjunction with LAW ( ibid . , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","After completion of the pre - trial investigation , the applicant \u2019s case was sent to trial at ORG . The applicant was to be tried , together with CARDINAL others , in connection with the ORG events .","The applicant \u2019s formal indictment sent by the prosecution to the trial court appears to have essentially repeated the initial accusations against him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It added , however , that as a result of the acts of mass disorder committed at TIME on DATE , CARDINAL specifically named police officers had been subjected to violence threatening their lives and health ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Out of the CARDINAL other defendants :","( a ) CARDINAL were accused of participating in the riots on DATE ( which involved actions breaching public order , burning of private property , and acts of violence against public officials ) . They were charged under LAW , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ;","( b ) one defendant , Mr Tofiq Yaqublu , also an opposition politician , was accused , like the applicant , of \u201c organising \u201d and actively participating in public disorder on DATE by means of inciting local residents to commit acts breaching public order and acts of violence . Like the applicant , he was charged under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ; and","( c ) CARDINAL defendants , ORG and GPE , were accused of participating , together with the applicant and PERSON , in the continuation of the riot on DATE ( which involved actions breaching public order and acts of violence against public officials ) . They were also charged under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing at which it examined a number of applications lodged by the applicant and other defendants .","NORP In particular , the applicant applied to the court requesting , firstly , that it hold its hearings in a larger courtroom which could accommodate media representatives and , secondly , that it allow for video and audio recording of the hearings . The court rejected the first request , noting that no media representatives had asked to attend the hearings . It also rejected the second request , finding that the victims of the criminal offences participating in the preliminary hearing had objected to being recorded during the trial .","After a break in the preliminary hearing , the defence lodged an objection to the composition of the court , referring to the fact that it had rejected the CARDINAL previous requests . The court refused to examine the objection , finding that it was ill - founded and intended to delay the trial . It noted in this connection that most of the text of the objection had been preprinted before the hearing , indicating an intention by the defence to object to the composition of the court no matter what happened at the hearing .","The defence then applied to the court with the following requests :","( a ) that the applicant be released from detention , with reference to LAW and various provisions of the domestic law ;","( b ) that the proceedings against the applicant be discontinued owing to the absence of corpus delicti and on the grounds that the charges against him were false ; and","( c ) that the evidence against the applicant obtained at the pre - trial stage , including statements by a number of prosecution witnesses ( including those mentioned in DATE and CARDINAL below ) , be declared inadmissible on the grounds that it had been unlawfully obtained , and that letters from ORG ( \u201c the ORG RPD \u201d ) and ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) also be declared inadmissible on the grounds that they contained information that had not been verified independently by the prosecution authorities .","By an interim decision of CARDINAL DATE , delivered following the preliminary hearing , ORG for ORG decided to reject the applicant \u2019s requests as unsubstantiated , and to \u201c keep unchanged \u201d the preventive measure of remand in custody .","The trial spanned TIME hearings . During the course of the hearings , ORG for Serious Crimes examined testimonial evidence , as well as video recordings and other material .","At the time of communication of the application to the respondent Government , the ORG requested the parties to submit , inter alia , \u201c the transcripts of the first - instance and higher courts\u2019 hearings , in the parts relating to the applicant \u201d . The applicant was not in possession of copies of the trial transcripts , as he was allowed only to consult them . The Government failed to submit full copies of the transcripts of the firstinstance hearings in the parts relating to the applicant , and limited themselves to submitting a small selection of transcripts of the preliminary hearing and transcripts of hearings of DATE and DATE and DATE , where the first - instance court dealt with various procedural matters . Parts of the transcripts containing full statements of the witnesses and their cross - examination were not submitted . The ORG also submitted a selection of transcripts of appellate and cassation hearings .","Below is a brief summary of the evidence examined by the trial court , as described in the court \u2019s judgment itself as well as , where relevant , in the indictment and in the parties\u2019 submissions .","The statements of the CARDINAL defendants charged with participation in the events of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) above ) concerned only the events of DATE and did not include any pertinent information about the events of CARDINAL DATE . The court examined both the statements they had made at the trial hearings and their pre - trial statements .","When heard at the trial hearings , CARDINAL of the above - mentioned CARDINAL defendants pleaded not guilty and made statements differing from those made at the pre - trial stage . CARDINAL of them alleged that they had given their pre - trial statements under duress , either psychological pressure or physical ill - treatment . At the conclusion of the trial , QUANTITY of them retracted their allegations of ill - treatment in custody .","One of the above - mentioned CARDINAL defendants admitted his guilt and confirmed his pre - trial statement admitting participation in public disorder on DATE .","ORG and GPE , the defendants charged with participation in clashes with the police in the morning ( TIME ) and the afternoon ( around TIME ) of DATE ( allegedly after having been incited by the applicant ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( c ) above ) , did not mention the applicant or PERSON in their statements .","At the trial hearings , ORG pleaded not guilty and alleged that he had been beaten and tortured by investigators at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings with the purpose of obtaining a statement favourable to the prosecution . He stated that CARDINAL a.m. and TIME on DATE , there was a crowd of a CARDINAL people moving in the direction of the IDEA building . The police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowd , and in response the protesters threw stones at the police . ORG further stated that in TIME DATE , and more specifically between TIME , he had not been in the town at all but had been attending a funeral in a nearby village . A number of other witnesses gave statements , some of which confirmed his version of the events ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) .","In his pre - trial statement , ORG had stated that he had been in the town in TIME DATE and had participated in the clashes with the police ; he had not specified the exact time .","At the trial hearings , ORG pleaded not guilty and alleged that he had been beaten by investigators at the pre - trial stage with the purpose of obtaining a statement favorable to the prosecution . In addition , the investigators had demanded a bribe in the amount of MONEY from him . As to the events of DATE , PERSON stated that he had been in the town TIME and that there had been many people in the town centre . In TIME , he had left ORG for another town . According to the applicant , in order to prove this , PERSON had asked the court to examine records of the calls made from his mobile phone during TIME DATE , but the court failed to do so .","In his pre - trial statement , ORG had stated that on DATE he had joined the crowd of protesters and thrown stones at the police ; he had not specified the exact time .","Lastly , Tofiq Yaqublu and the applicant testified as follows .","At the trial hearings , Tofiq Yaqublu stated that he had arrived in GPE at or shortly after TIME on DATE , together with journalists GPE and GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) and another journalist . They parked close to a GPE building located near the LAW building . They saw a number of police officers in the area . There were also many journalists waiting to interview the head of IDEA . Tofiq Yaqublu spoke to those journalists for TIME . He then received a call on his mobile phone and , while talking on the phone , saw the applicant together with a REAL member , GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He stopped for TIME to quickly greet the applicant . The situation in the area was calm . He then went to see the burned hotel , where he was approached by CARDINAL or QUANTITY police officers who asked him to accompany them to a police station . In the police station , he was taken to GPE , a senior police officer of ORG ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) , who enquired about the reasons for his visit to GPE . TIME also asked by phone to go to the police station . Both of them were told to leave PERSON and to report in GPE that the situation in the town had calmed down . They were then allowed to leave the police station . According to PERSON , not counting the time he had spent at the police station , he spent TIME in total in GPE . During that time , he did not see any crowds or any clashes and did not hear anyone shouting slogans . He left PERSON at TIME","Tofiq Yaqublu \u2019s statement at the trial slightly differed from his pre - trial statement . In particular , in his pre - trial statement , Tofiq Yaqublu had stated that he had arrived in GPE at TIME There he had seen a small group of CARDINAL to CARDINAL young locals . He had approached them and questioned them very briefly about the events of the previous night .","NORP In his statement at the trial hearings , the applicant submitted that his arrest had been politically motivated . As to the events in question , he stated that , after hearing about the events of DATE in the news , DATE he and GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had gone to GPE by car . At TIME on DATE they had entered ORG and had arrived in the GPE town centre at TIME On the way to the town centre , they stopped from time to time and spoke to local residents , without getting out of the car , to receive information about the events that had taken place up to that time . In the town centre , they parked at the central square , where there was a group of journalists . He spoke to the journalists who told him that , despite the situation being calm at that moment , there was an atmosphere of tension in the town . While standing next to the journalists , he then posted some observations on his ORG page . Just then he saw PERSON passing by , speaking on his mobile phone . They greeted each other . After that , he , GPE and CARDINAL of the journalists went to a nearby teahouse . While they were in GPE , there were no crowds of protesters and no violent clashes happening . After spending TIME in the teahouse , they left the town . On the way back to GPE , he gave a telephone interview to ORG .","The trial court heard CARDINAL witnesses , the majority of whom were prosecution witnesses . CARDINAL of them had the status of victims of criminal offences and were mostly either police officers who had allegedly suffered minor injuries or owners of damaged or destroyed property .","The majority of witnesses and victims of the criminal offences gave statements concerning solely the events of DATE . According to their statements , there was a spontaneous riot by local residents in TIME DATE , sparked by violent behaviour of the director of ORG ( ORG ) and his companion ( El . PERSON ) , both of whom were heavily inebriated , after a car accident in which they had been involved . ORG and GPE . PERSON repeatedly insulted and physically assaulted the other car \u2019s driver and some local residents who were in the vicinity of the accident . This resulted in a fight where GPE and GPE . PERSON got beaten up and , with more people joining the fight , it eventually escalated into a riot . The riot continued late into the night and resulted in injuries to a number of people , including several police officers , and the destruction of various property .","The victims included the owner , employees and guests of the hotel and a few bystanders who had lost their property , as well as a number of injured police officers . For example , CARDINAL of the victims , V.Az . , a maid employed by the hotel , stated that some of her personal belongings had been destroyed during the events of CARDINAL DATE .","Two police officers stated that there was public disorder on TIME DATE ( according to CARDINAL , TIME ; according to the other , TIME ) . A crowd moved from the area near the administrative building of ORG in the direction of the LAW building , throwing stones at the police . CARDINAL of the QUANTITY police officers , E.A. , stated that TIME , he had been injured by a stone thrown at him and had been immediately taken to hospital .","S.K. , a senior police officer of the Ismayilli RPD , gave a lengthy statement about the events of DATE . As to those of CARDINAL DATE , he stated that Tofiq Yaqublu had been detained and brought to him at the police station , and that at that time he had been informed that the applicant had also been in GPE but had been \u201c lost among the crowd and disappeared \u201d . PERSON had spoken to PERSON for TIME , and thereafter the latter had been released . According to PERSON , there had been outbreaks of unrest throughout DATE on DATE .","CARDINAL residents of GPE or various villages around PERSON made statements , mostly very scant , containing various types of information relating to the events of DATE . None of those ORG statements related directly to the charges against the applicant or PERSON . CARDINAL of them stated that on TIME DATE , they had travelled in the same bus as ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) from CARDINAL of the villages in GPE Region to the town of GPE , and had arrived in the evening , by which time there was unrest in the town . CARDINAL of them specified that they had arrived in the town TIME , while CARDINAL others stated that they had arrived TIME or when \u201c it was already dark \u201d . One did not specify the time of arrival .","Ten police officers mentioned in their pre - trial statements that they had seen the applicant on DATE . Some of them stated that there had been disorder TIME and TIME on DATE . They further stated that on TIME DATE ( according to CARDINAL of them , at TIME ; according to CARDINAL of them , at TIME ; according to CARDINAL of them , TIME ; and CARDINAL of them did not specify the exact time ) , they had seen a crowd gathered near the administrative building of ORG ( CARDINAL of them specified the size of the crowd , CARDINAL of whom stated that there were CARDINAL people , and the other \u2013 CARDINAL people ) . According to the documents in the case file , CARDINAL of them stated that the people moved to the area close to ORG along the \u201c hospital road \u201d , which was the informal name for ORG used by locals . All CARDINAL of them further stated that they had also seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu among the crowd , inciting people to act unlawfully by telling them to \u201c block the road , disobey orders , throw stones , go towards the IDEA building \u201d , and that , following this , the crowd had moved towards the IDEA building and thrown stones at the police .","According to their own pre - trial statements ( as summarised in the first - instance court \u2019s judgment ) , CARDINAL of the above - mentioned police officers had allegedly been hit by stones thrown by the crowd on TIME CARDINAL DATE . All CARDINAL of them were recognised as \u201c victims of crime \u201d . CARDINAL of them stated that they had not sustained any injuries because they had been wearing thick DATE coats , while the others either stated that they had received only minor injuries or did not mention any injuries . CARDINAL of them was the police officer who subsequently retracted his pre - trial statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , including the allegation that he had been hit by a stone . There were no medical records or other evidence in respect of any injuries to those police officers . According to the applicant , the very first time the above - mentioned QUANTITY police officers were questioned about the events of DATE was DATE , DATE , and it was at that time that it was first alleged that they had had stones thrown at them on TIME DATE . The Government remained silent in respect of these specific allegations by the applicant and did not submit any relevant documentary evidence refuting them . Neither did the ORG submit full copies of these police officers\u2019 pre - trial statements or relevant excerpts of the trial transcripts reflecting their statements at the trial hearings .","One of the above - mentioned QUANTITY police officers gave a differing statement during the trial hearings , claiming that he had been at the police station the whole day on DATE . He stated that he had not seen any of the accused committing or inciting others to commit acts of disorder . He explained that he had signed his pre - trial statement without having read it . According to the applicant , DATE after the first - instance court had delivered its judgment , that police officer was dismissed from the police service .","According to the applicant , another police officer also initially retracted his pre - trial statement , giving a similar explanation to that of the above - mentioned officer , but after a break in the hearing , he asked to be heard again and informed the court that he confirmed the content of his pretrial statement . The Government did not submit the transcripts reflecting the statements of this witness at the trial and did not otherwise comment on the above allegation by the applicant .","The other police ORG statements at the trial hearings appeared to confirm their pre - trial statements .","According to the first - instance court \u2019s judgment , CARDINAL residents of GPE , ORG and GPE , stated that DATE TIME on DATE they had seen a crowd of people near the administrative building of ORG . They had also seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu inciting them to riot , after which the crowd moved in the direction of the LAW building committing acts of mass disorder . Both ORG and GPE specified that the crowd moved in the direction of the building of ORG , and from there in the direction of the LAW building , along the \u201c hospital road \u201d ( FAC ) .","According to the applicant , during cross - examination by the defence , which was not reflected in the first - instance court \u2019s judgment , both of those witnesses , especially ORG , had given answers contradicting their earlier statements . In particular , the applicant claimed in his appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that , in his witness statement , ORG had said that from TIME on DATE he had been at his relative \u2019s home for lunch . After lunch , sometime before TIME , he had gone to the area next to ORG , where he had seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu inciting a large crowd of people to riot and that thereafter the crowd had attacked the police with stones . During cross - examination at the trial hearings , in response to a question by the defence , he had stated that , in connection with this criminal case , he had participated as a witness in the questioning by the prosecution authorities DATE after the ORG events , and that he had not been a participant in any other investigative steps and had not signed any other procedural documents relating to this case . Following that response , the defence produced a copy of the record of the inspection of the damage to ORG house , which had been conducted from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the record , ORG had been present during the inspection as an attesting witness and had signed the inspection record . Despite the fact that this had revealed a clear inconsistency between the record and ORG testimony and his responses to the defence \u2019s questions , raising a number of questions as to the witness \u2019s integrity and the truthfulness of his statements , the presiding judge had hastily dismissed the witness without giving the defence an opportunity to ask any more questions .","Similarly , according to the applicant , witness GPE \u2019s statement contained contradictory details and he had been unable to respond to the defence \u2019s questions seeking clarification . Moreover , the defence had found out that that witness \u2019s son was an employee of the burned hotel owned by V.A.","The Government remained silent in respect of the above - mentioned allegations by the applicant in respect of ORG and GPE \u2019s self - contradictory statements and did not submit any relevant documentary evidence refuting them . Neither did the Government submit full copies of these witnesses\u2019 pre - trial statements or relevant excerpts of the trial transcripts reflecting their statements at the trial hearings .","One resident of a nearby village , PERSON , who had been in the town on DATE , stated , briefly , that there had been disorder in the centre of the town QUANTITY that he had seen the applicant and PERSON in the crowd . PERSON specified that the protesters moved towards the town centre along the \u201c hospital road \u201d ( FAC ) . According to the applicant , PERSON also stated that he had not heard exactly what the applicant and Tofiq Yagublu had been saying to people around them ( see paragraph CARDINAL below for more detail ) .","GPE , a journalist , stated that he had arrived in GPE CARDINAL p.m. and TIME together with GPE He had seen several other journalists in the town centre . There had been no rioting or clashes with the police at that time . The applicant did not make any inflammatory statements to local residents . After a while , the witness had gone to a teahouse together with the applicant .","GPE , the applicant \u2019s colleague from REAL who had travelled together with the applicant and GPE to GPE , stated that they had arrived in the town at TIME There had been no rioting or clashes with the police at that time . After staying in the square near the IDEA building for CARDINAL to thirty minutes , they had gone to a teahouse . At TIME they had left the town .","I.A. , a journalist , stated that there had been some disturbances in the town TIME and that the police had used water cannons and rubber bullets against the protesters . At TIME other journalists had arrived from GPE . The applicant and PERSON had arrived with them . At that time , there had been no unrest and no clashes with the police . The applicant had invited him for a tea , but he had refused . At TIME the applicant had left the town together with GPE and GPE After they had left , in TIME , there had been clashes between protesters and the police , which had continued until TIME","M.R. , a journalist , stated that she had contacted the applicant by phone from LOC while he was in GPE on DATE .","M.K. , a journalist , stated that he had travelled to ORG together with PERSON . They had arrived TIME Very shortly after their arrival , PERSON had been taken by plain - clothed individuals to the police station . TIME , he himself had gone to the same police station , where both of them had been told that the situation in the town was now calm and had been asked to go back to GPE . No inflammatory statements were made by PERSON while they were in GPE .","R.C. , a journalist , stated that TIME and DATE . he had seen PERSON in GPE . A little while later , sometime between CARDINAL p.m. and CARDINAL p.m. , he had seen the applicant and GPE and had spoken to them for TIME . At around that time , plain - clothed individuals had taken Tofiq Yaqublu to the police station . After the applicant and PERSON had left the town , between about TIME and TIME there had been a new round of clashes between the protesters and the police .","E.M. , a journalist , stated that he had seen Tofiq Yaqublu being taken to the police station ; he did not specify the time . He had also seen the applicant . In TIME , after the applicant and PERSON had left the town , there had been clashes between protesters and the police .","Q.M. , a journalist , stated that he had arrived in GPE at TIME , together with ORG . The latter had been taken to the police station TIME . There had been no rioting or clashes with the police at that time . He had not seen the applicant at all while he had been in GPE .","The court also examined various material evidence , including video recordings and photographs of the events ; inspection reports of damage to ORG , a house owned by the head of IDEA , several burned cars and scooters , public light fixtures , and other public and private property ; and property documents showing , inter alia , that V.A. had property rights to the hotel . It appears that one of the formal inspections of the damaged property was conducted from CARDINAL a.m. to TIME on DATE , in the presence of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as an attesting witness .","As for the injuries to police officers during the events of CARDINAL and DATE , the court took note of CARDINAL forensic reports dated DATE documenting various injuries sustained by QUANTITY police officers on either CARDINAL or DATE , and a record of CARDINAL DATE showing that CARDINAL more injured police officer had been admitted to hospital on DATE . None of these CARDINAL injured police officers were the same as the six who had allegedly been hit by stones on TIME DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The court ordered forensic examinations in respect of allegations of ill - treatment by a number of the accused , including ORG and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) . According to the forensic reports issued on DATE ( a year after the events in question ) , no injuries had been found on them . The court questioned QUANTITY police officers named by the accused in connection with the alleged ill - treatment , all of whom denied that the accused had been ill - treated . The court noted that the majority of the accused , except CARDINAL , had not complained of ill - treatment before being heard at the trial hearings . A criminal complaint by CARDINAL of the accused had been examined by ORG and dismissed . In such circumstances , the court concluded that the GPE allegations of ill - treatment were ill - founded .","DATE . In so far as directly relevant to the specific charges against the applicant , the court examined the following evidence .","According to the description given in the court \u2019s judgment , a video recording of DATE showed the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu \u201c standing in the centre of the town of GPE , opposite to the administrative building of ORG , at a place where acts of mass disorder had been committed \u201d . The description did not specify the time of day when that scene had been shot .","Another set of video recordings of the events of DATE showed a group of local residents in the centre of the town , in GPE NORP Street and GPE FAC , blocking the roads , shouting slogans and disobeying repeated orders by the police to disperse . The same video contained scenes showing ORG and GPE throwing stones at the police and encouraging others in the crowd to do the same and to disobey the police . There was also a scene showing a police officer ( who was not CARDINAL of the officers who claimed to have been injured on TIME DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) ) getting injured by a stone and leaving the area limping . Lastly , the video showed the police using a water cannon against the crowd and the protesters dispersing in various directions . The description of the above recordings did not specify the time of day when those scenes had been shot .","The court also examined the applicant \u2019s mobile phone geolocalisation records for DATE . They indicated that at CARDINAL p.m. he had been within the zone of the antenna in the town of GPE ; at TIME the antenna in the village of ORG in the GPE region ; at TIME , TIME , TIME , TIME and TIME \u2013 the antenna on FAC in the town of GPE ; at TIME the antenna in the village of PERSON in the GPE region ; at TIME the antenna in LOC ; and at TIME an antenna in GPE .","The court further examined the content of the applicant \u2019s blog post ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the content of the telephone interview he had given to ORG between TIME and TIME on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The court also examined information given by ORG RPD and the MNS , described in the judgment as follows :","\u201c According to letter no . CARDINAL of ORG dated DATE , on DATE , at places where people were densely gathered in front of ORG in GPE , [ Tofiq Yaqublu ] , together with [ the applicant ] , incited people to make assertions against the ORG and government bodies and their activities .","According to letter of CARDINAL of ORG dated DATE , on DATE [ Tofiq Yaqublu and the applicant ] were in GPE and called on residents to resist the police , to block roads ... and to commit other similar acts aimed at disturbing social and political stability . \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers applied to the trial court with a number of requests , in particular :","( a ) that the applicant be released from pre - trial detention , with reference to LAW and various provisions of domestic law ( this request was similar to the one lodged at the preliminary hearing ) ;","( b ) that various pieces of evidence against the applicant obtained at the pre - trial stage be declared inadmissible , including statements by a number of prosecution witnesses ( including those mentioned in DATE and CARDINAL above ) on the grounds that they had been unlawfully obtained , and the letters from the ORG RPD and the MNS ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the grounds that they contained information that had not been verified independently by the prosecution authorities ( this request was also similar to the one lodged at the preliminary hearing ) ;","( c ) that additional witnesses for the defence be heard ( including GPE , GPE , and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) ) and other additional evidence ( inter alia , contemporaneous media reports concerning the events of DATE ) be examined ; and","( d ) that the hearings be held in a larger courtroom which could accommodate media representatives .","The court examined those requests at the hearing held on CARDINAL DATE and decided : ( a ) NORP to reject the request for release on the grounds that the applicant \u2019s circumstances had not changed ; ( b ) to reject the request concerning the inadmissibility of the evidence produced by the prosecution , on the grounds that it was ill - founded ; ( c ) to postpone the examination of the request for admission of additional evidence , because it was not sufficiently substantiated ; and ( d ) to reject the request to change the hearing venue , because media representatives were able to attend the hearings in the current venue .","DATE . It appears from the transcript of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE that there was a verbal altercation between the applicant and PERSON on one side , and some prosecution witnesses on the other , and that the presiding judge called the accused to order on several occasions . The judge also issued a warning to one of the applicant \u2019s lawyers , PERSON , for loudly objecting to the court \u2019s decisions to reject the defence \u2019s requests .","On DATE , after having consulted the transcript of the preliminary hearing , the applicant \u2019s lawyers applied to the court to amend some of the wording used in the transcript to describe the applicant \u2019s statement during the preliminary hearing to the effect that he considered the trial to be a sham and did not accept the trial court as a fair tribunal . On CARDINAL DATE the court held that the transcript had been correct and that the amendments proposed had the purpose of justifying the applicant \u2019s and his lawyers\u2019 disrespectful attitude towards the court during the preliminary hearing .","On DATE the applicant applied for access to the transcripts of the trial hearings , arguing that under LAW , the transcript of each hearing had to be drafted within DATE of the hearing and made available to the parties within DATE . The court rejected the request , ruling that the transcripts should be made available to the parties not after each trial hearing , but after the completion of the trial . On DATE the court reiterated its position on that matter .","On DATE one of the applicant \u2019s lawyers applied to the court to terminate the participation in the trial as \u201c victims of crime \u201d of CARDINAL police officers who had allegedly been hit by stones during TIME CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He claimed that the decision granting them victim status had been unsubstantiated . In support of the request , the lawyer argued that all of those police officers had first been questioned DATE after the events by the same investigator . He further argued that it had not been shown that the police officers had sustained any injuries , and that there were no forensic reports in this respect . Moreover , having been given victim status , unlike regular witnesses , those persons had been present in the courtroom throughout the entire trial , giving them an ability to coordinate their statements , not only with each other but with other prosecution witnesses .","It appears that the above - mentioned application was dismissed by the court .","At the hearing held on DATE CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s lawyers , Mr F. Agayev , lodged a second objection to the composition of the court , arguing , inter alia , that the court was biased : it had rejected all of the defence \u2019s requests and created obstacles to the proper questioning of \u201c fake witnesses \u201d by the defence . The court dismissed the objection , finding , inter alia , that it was ill - founded , that the reasons for the objection were artificial and unsubstantiated , and that it appeared to have been lodged with the purpose of delaying the trial . The court also imposed a fine on the lawyer in the amount of CARDINAL NORP manats ( NORP ) , under LAW ORG , for disrupting the court proceedings .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers applied to the court to admit and examine as evidence contemporaneous reports by various news agencies , including ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and Trend , showing that no clashes had been reported to be happening in GPE at the time the applicant was there . It appears that this request was rejected .","After ORG had delivered its judgment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) , on DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers and on DATE the applicant himself applied for access to the transcripts of the court hearings . On CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the applicant was given access to the transcripts for a total of TIME . It appears that CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s lawyers , Mr PERSON , was not given access to the transcripts because he had refused the demand by a court clerk to hand over all of the technical devices he had been carrying ( his mobile phone , tablet , and so on ) which could have been used to photograph pages of the transcripts . He had refused that demand on the grounds that there were CARDINAL volumes of transcripts ( a total of CARDINAL pages ) and that there was not enough time to properly consult them without the use of technical devices . It appears from the documents in the case file that the applicant \u2019s other lawyer , PERSON , was given access to the transcripts for an unspecified period of time . However , he was not allowed to make copies of the transcripts .","On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG his remarks concerning the transcripts of the trial hearings , of which he had time to read CARDINAL pages . He alleged that in a number of instances various statements by witnesses had been distorted or misrepresented in the transcripts in a manner unfavourable to him . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court refused to accept the applicant \u2019s remarks , holding that the transcripts were accurate .","On DATE ORG for Serious Crimes delivered its judgment , deciding as follows .","As to the accused whose allegations of ill - treatment were considered to be ill - founded ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court decided to take into account their pre - trial statements , in which they had admitted the factual accusations against them , as more truthful than their statements at the trial hearings , in which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to have been illtreated at the pre - trial stage .","In respect of the other accused and witnesses who had given differing statements at the pre - trial stage and during the trial hearings , including the police officer who had retracted his pre - trial statement ( see paragraph DATE above ) and the accused ORG and GPE , the court decided to take into account the pre - trial statements as being more \u201c truthful and objective \u201d , reasoning that the statements they had made later at the trial hearings , which had been more favourable to the accused , had been inconsistent with other evidence and had been designed to help the accused \u201c avoid criminal liability \u201d .","With regard to the accusations against the applicant in particular , the court found as follows .","The statements of prosecution witnesses , video recordings and other evidence proved that there had been mass disorder in GPE DATE TIME on DATE , that the applicant had been in GPE at that time , and that , together with PERSON , he had incited local residents , including ORG and GPE , to commit those violent acts of mass disorder , threatening the lives and health of CARDINAL police officers .","The court further held that the statements made by the applicant on his blog ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and in his interview to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) also proved that , even before traveling to GPE , he had had an \u201c intention to organise mass disorder \u201d and that , when in GPE , he was guilty of inciting people to commit acts of disorder and to disobey the police .","As to the statements of witnesses GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , who had said that there had been no clashes between protesters and the police in the town at that time and that neither the applicant nor Tofiq Yaqublu had incited anyone to violence or disobedience , the court found that there were inconsistencies in their statements . In particular , the court found as follows :","\u201c However , [ Q.M. ] stated that , after he had greeted [ the applicant ] , he had gone to sleep in the car . In fact , he had not known the whereabouts of [ the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu ] during that period of time . [ M.K. ] stated that , after getting out of the car , Tofiq Yaqublu had gone on foot towards the building of the IDEA , whereas during the pre - trial investigation [ M.K. ] had stated that [ GPE ] had left them , that he himself had frequently changed his location in order to record the people moving around in the square , that he had separated from PERSON , that Tofiq Yaqublu had been at another place , that [ another journalist ] had been taking photos , that [ ORG , the Head of the IDEA ] had started to give an interview at that time , and that , when he had been going for the interview , PERSON ... had been arrested and taken away by plain - clothed individuals . [ ORG ] stated that Tofiq Yaqublu had been arrested before the interview given by [ the Head of the IDEA ] , while [ PERSON ] stated that the interview ... had lasted TIME at most and that , during that period of time , he had not been aware of the whereabouts of [ the applicant ] and PERSON . As it can be seen from the above , the witnesses who stated that they had been next to [ the applicant ] and PERSON at all times concealed the essence of the matter by giving contradictory statements . \u201d","NORP The court found that the statements by those witnesses were favourable to the applicant and PERSON because those witnesses knew the defendants personally and wanted to \u201c help them avoid criminal liability \u201d . Their statements were not accepted as \u201c objective , sincere and truthful \u201d because they were \u201c incompatible with the facts of the case and contradicted the irrefutable evidence \u201d of the applicant \u2019s guilt .","The court further found that , likewise , the applicant \u2019s and Tofiq ORG \u2019s statements at the trial hearings claiming that there had been no mass disorder while they had been in GPE did not reflect the actual circumstances , and had been made in order to \u201c avoid criminal liability \u201d .","ORG for Serious Crimes convicted the applicant under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","The other defendants were also found guilty as charged and given sentences ranging from DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , with some sentences being conditional .","On DATE CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s lawyers , Mr F. Agayev , lodged an appeal against the judgment of ORG of DATE .","The lawyer pointed out at the outset that at the time of lodging the appeal , neither a full copy of the text of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE nor the transcripts of the trial hearings had yet been made available to him .","The lawyer argued that the applicant had been convicted following a sham trial by a court which had tried him from a position of \u201c presumption of guilt \u201d throughout the entire proceedings . The applicant \u2019s visit to ORG , as an opposition politician , to find out the reasons for the events of DATE had been used by the Government as an excuse to punish him for his legitimate political criticism , a decision which had been taken long before the ORG events .","The rights of the defence had been seriously restricted in that the majority of their well - founded requests and objections had been routinely dismissed ; the defence had not been given adequate access to trial transcripts and some of the evidence ( including some video material ) ; the defence lawyers had not been allowed to use various technical devices , such as laptop and tablet computers , during the trial hearings , and so on .","The formal accusations against the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) had been written in a manner which did not comply with the norms of the NORP language , making it difficult to understand exactly what the applicant was accused of . The factual allegations against him were unclear and did not fit the elements of the criminal offences proscribed under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . Given that the applicant had been in GPE for TIME and had no prior personal acquaintance with anyone implicated in the riots of the previous night , it was highly improbable DATE and even physically impossible \u2013 for him to have \u201c organised \u201d mass disorder within such a short time frame , as described in the formal accusations .","NORP The applicant had been accused and convicted of organising an outbreak of mass disorder which had never happened . All the reliable and meaningful evidence produced at the trial had clearly shown that there had been no acts of mass disorder during TIME DATE while the applicant was in the town .","Firstly , all video recordings and other relevant material evidence showed that there had been no clashes with the police in TIME CARDINAL DATE and that the applicant had not incited anyone to violence or disobedience .","NORP In particular , a video recording originally taken from the website of ORG , operated by an NGO named ORG ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) , had been edited before its examination by the court ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . As to the parts of the video showing clashes between protesters and the police ( it appears that , here , the lawyer referred to the scenes described in paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it was clear from the size and direction of the shadows cast by buildings , people and other objects that the video had been shot during TIME . That fact had been additionally confirmed by the chairman of the LOC in a letter dated DATE . The full , unedited version of the video attached to the letter contained scenes shot during TIME DATE showing numerous police vehicles on FAC advancing in the direction of the IDEA building with no protesters present . Then it showed the applicant , GPE and GPE standing near ORG and calmly talking to each other , with no one else in the vicinity . Afterwards , Tofiq Yaqublu could be seen talking to GPE and CARDINAL others ( it appears that the above scenes correspond to the scenes described in paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Then , it showed PERSON being taken by the police to a car and driven away . Later , an interview with the head of the LAW was shown . Throughout the entire video , the situation in the town during TIME DATE was calm and under the control of the police .","ORG . A video made available by the ORG newspaper showed the absence of any clashes between protesters and the police during TIME CARDINAL DATE . According to the applicant \u2019s lawyer , the firstinstance court added that video to the case file but , for unexplained reasons , decided not to use it as evidence .","A third video that was examined during the trial had been recorded by a camera installed on the GPE building , directed at the area of GPE FAC near the building of ORG . From that angle , if any crowd had passed in the vicinity of ORG and headed towards the IDEA building , it would certainly have been reflected in the recording . However , the parts of the video corresponding to the period TIME on DATE did not show any crowd or even a small group of protesters in that area .","The applicant \u2019s mobile phone geo - localisation records showed that he had left the town of ORG by TIME Similarly , Tofiq ORG \u2019s mobile phone geo - localisation records showed that he had left the town by TIME","On several occasions the defence had requested the trial court to examine a number of contemporaneous news reports by various information agencies , television and radio stations , and other mass - media sources which had closely followed the ORG events . None of them had reported any unrest happening in GPE in TIME CARDINAL DATE and had only reported clashes happening in TIME , starting at TIME However , the court had rejected the defence \u2019s requests to examine that material .","Secondly , the applicant \u2019s version of the events was strongly corroborated by the statements of Tofiq GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG and others . They had all stated that there had been no clashes during TIME DATE and that the applicant had not incited anyone to commit any acts of disorder . Those statements were mutually consistent and were also corroborated by all the material evidence , as described above .","CARDINAL of the accused , ORG and GPE , had both stated that there had been unrest in GPE during TIME of DATE , but that they had both been out of town during the afternoon . Neither the investigating authorities nor the court had bothered to check their alibis . Their statements also indirectly corroborated the applicant \u2019s version of the events , namely that there had been no unrest during TIME CARDINAL DATE . Also , both of them had alleged before the court that they had been ill - treated by the investigating authorities with the aim of obtaining statements incriminating the applicant .","Three police officers had mentioned in their statements that there had been no unrest during TIME DATE . CARDINAL police officer had testified that he had been injured by a stone during the morning . Their statements also corroborated the applicant \u2019s version of the events .","As to the witnesses who had testified against the applicant , the majority of them were police officers . Their statements were contradictory , false , inconsistent in various details ( such as , for example , the time and exact locations where they had seen the applicant and PERSON ) and conflicted with all the video recordings and other material evidence .","NORP In particular , the assertion that CARDINAL police officers had been hit by stones on TIME DATE was false . None of those police officers had reported being injured or hit by stones immediately or soon after the alleged incident . All of them had been recognised as \u201c victims of crime \u201d and questioned by the prosecution for the first time CARDINAL and DATE , DATE after the events . There had been no medical evidence of their injuries . By contrast , the injuries sustained by CARDINAL police officers on DATE and during TIME of DATE had been promptly documented either on DATE or DATE . In such circumstances , it was clear that the above - mentioned QUANTITY police officers had given false testimony against the applicant . The applicant had formally applied to the court to exclude them from the trial as \u201c victims of crime \u201d , but to no avail .","When cross - examined by the defence at a trial hearing , CARDINAL of the above - mentioned QUANTITY police officers had been unable to name the personnel of the police unit to which he had been deployed and , until assisted by a prosecutor , could not pinpoint his own exact location in GPE at the time when he had allegedly seen the applicant . When the defence lawyer had tried to get him to show , on an official map of GPE , exactly where he had seen the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu standing and inciting the crowd , the presiding judge had forbidden the use of the map . When the defence lawyer had then asked the police officer to describe his location with reference to various landmarks next to ORG , the presiding judge had dismissed the question . The defence lawyer had then lodged a second objection to the composition of the trial court . In response , the presiding judge had decided , firstly , to leave the objection unexamined and , secondly , to fine the lawyer in the amount of AZN CARDINAL for having lodged an allegedly unsubstantiated objection designed to delay the hearing . Thereafter , the defence lawyers for all of the accused had been dissuaded from lodging any further objections , having been clearly shown that doing so would be meaningless .","Similarly , other police officers had been unable to answer the defence \u2019s questions seeking clarification , or had given statements that differed significantly from their pre - trial statements , only to radically revert back to their pre - trial statements immediately after a break in the hearing announced by the court . On some occasions , the court had dismissed police officers from the witness stand before the defence could complete the crossexamination .","Furthermore , at the trial one of the police officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had retracted the written statement he had signed at the pre - trial stage , stating that everything in it had been a product of an investigator \u2019s imagination .","NORP The applicant \u2019s lawyer argued that , at the trial hearings , witness PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had stated that he had seen only about CARDINAL people in the town centre between about CARDINAL p.m. and TIME on DATE , and that , although he had seen the applicant and PERSON among them , he had not heard what they had been talking about with the people around them .","The lawyer further argued that ORG was a \u201d fake witness \u201d engaged by the police and claimed that both witnesses ORG and GPE had given knowingly false and contradictory statements as described in DATE above .","In conclusion , the applicant \u2019s lawyer argued that a proper assessment of the available evidence clearly showed that , contrary to the prosecution \u2019s version of the facts , there had been no acts of mass disorder at the time when the applicant had been in the town ( DATE ) and that some clashes between protesters and the police had taken place TIME before he had arrived in the town ( CARDINAL a.m. and TIME ) and TIME after he had left the town ( after TIME ) . Statements given by the prosecution witnesses , to the contrary , had been shown to be contradictory , unreliable or false , and uncorroborated by the available material evidence . Accordingly , there was no corpus delicti in respect of the criminal offences for which the applicant had been convicted .","Before the examination of the appeal , on DATE the applicant applied to ORG for access to the remaining part of the transcripts of the trial hearings for consultation . His request was granted and the date for his consultation of the transcripts was scheduled for DATE . However , on CARDINAL and DATE he lodged CARDINAL applications withdrawing his previous request and , instead , asking for a speedy examination of his appeal .","During the examination of the appeal by ORG , the applicant \u2019s lawyers lodged a number of applications repeating those lodged with the first - instance court . It appears that all of them were rejected .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction and sentence , essentially reiterating the reasoning of the first - instance court in respect of the charges against him . The judgment did not address any of the arguments raised in the applicant \u2019s appeal .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers submitted a number of remarks concerning the transcript of the appellate hearings , and requesting amendments . ORG refused to amend the transcripts .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers lodged a cassation appeal with ORG , reiterating the points raised in the previous appeal .","On DATE a judge of ORG requested all the material of the case file from ORG . At the first hearing held on DATE ORG decided , in the absence of any objections , to postpone further hearing of the case for an indefinite period because more time was needed for examination of the case file . The hearing was resumed on DATE .","By a decision of DATE , ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE , having found that the lower ORG rejection of the defence \u2019s requests for the examination of additional defence witnesses ( in particular , CARDINAL members of LOC and CARDINAL NGO director ) and other evidence ( in particular , contemporaneous news reports by various media agencies , additional mobile - phone records , additional video recordings , and so on ) had been insufficiently reasoned and were in breach of the domestic procedural rules and the requirements of LAW . The case was remitted for a new examination by the appellate court .","Before the repeat examination of the case by ORG , the applicant , who at that time was serving his sentence in ORG No . CARDINAL in GPE , wrote to the appellate court several times waiving his right to be personally present at the appeal hearings to be held in PERSON , expressing confidence that his lawyers would conduct his defence adequately in his absence . ORG responded each time with an explanation that , under domestic law , the defendant \u2019s presence at appeal hearings was mandatory and invited him to attend the hearings . Finally , on DATE the court ruled that the applicant should be brought to PERSON for the appeal hearings .","During the hearings at ORG , the applicant \u2019s lawyers lodged a number of applications , including requests for the applicant \u2019s release from detention ; for the allegedly unlawfully obtained statements of prosecution witnesses ( including those mentioned in DATE and CARDINAL above ) and other evidence produced by the prosecution ( including the letters of ORG RPD and the MNS ) to be declared inadmissible ; for additional defence witnesses to be heard ; for the admission and examination of contemporaneous news reports by various information agencies ; and for examination of the video recording taken by the camera installed on the GPE building . It appears that , apart from the first CARDINAL requests , all the others were granted .","The appellate court re - examined the case material of the firstinstance trial and , in addition , examined new evidence . In particular , it heard CARDINAL new defence witnesses ( both members of REAL ) . Their statements do not appear to have contained any significant details in respect of the accusations against the applicant . The court also examined a number of contemporaneous news reports and the \u201c GPE video recording \u201d .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction and sentence . Below is the summary of the appellate court \u2019s reasoning contained in its judgment .","The court \u2019s assessment of the evidence examined at the first - instance and appeal hearings began as follows :","\u201c Having viewed the recording of the video surveillance camera installed at the ORG of GPE in the town of GPE , directed at PERSON GPE street leading towards the administrative buildings of the LAW and ORG , the court determined that DATE on DATE [ the situation ] was relatively calm on that street .","Having examined [ reports ] of ORG , Trend and other mass media ... , the court noted that the media had reported that , as a continuation of the events starting on DATE , TIME on DATE there was a general situation of confrontation and tension in the centre of GPE , [ and had also reported ] about growing numbers of people on the streets in the vicinity of buildings of government bodies .","...","It is noted in the DATE issue of ORG newspaper ... that [ ORG ] , the newspaper \u2019s correspondent sent to ORG , reported at TIME on DATE that \u2018 currently numerous vehicles \u2013 buses , water cannons , and other vehicles , thought to be coming from GPE \u2013 are entering the town . The crowd around the area where the government bodies are located has been growing and tension remains.\u2019 At TIME he reported that \u2018 ... despite the engagement of additional forces , the crowd is growing on the streets where the government bodies are located and around them . According to local rumours , the protest , which started in the town centre DATE , would continue TIME after ORG . \u201d","The court also referred to , as evidence , the letters from the ORG RPD and the MNS , as described in the first - instance judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The judgment continued as follows :","\u201c The court does not accept as evidence the statements of witnesses [ GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ] that there were no riots DATE on DATE and the statements of [ the applicant and PERSON ] that they did not incite the public to riot or resist the police , that there were no riots between CARDINAL p.m. and TIME on DATE , and that they spent TIME in GPE .","In particular , [ GPE ] stated that , after he had greeted [ the applicant ] , he had gone to sleep in the car and , in fact , had not known the whereabouts of [ the applicant and PERSON ] during that period of time . [ PERSON ] stated that , after getting out of the car , Tofiq Yaqublu had gone on foot towards the building of the IDEA , while during the pre - trial investigation [ M.K. ] had stated that [ GPE ] had left them , that he himself had frequently changed his location in order to record the people moving around in the square , that he had separated from PERSON , that Tofiq Yaqublu had been at another place , that [ another journalist ] had been taking photos , that [ the head of the LAW ] had started to give an interview at that time , and that , when he had been going for the interview , PERSON ... had been arrested and taken away by plain - clothed individuals . [ ORG ] stated that Tofiq Yaqublu had been arrested before the interview given by [ the head of the IDEA ] , while [ PERSON ] stated that the interview ... had lasted TIME at most and that , during that period of time , he had not been aware of the whereabouts of [ the applicant ] and PERSON . As it can be seen from the above , the witnesses who stated that they had been next to [ the applicant ] and PERSON at all times , concealed the essence of the matter by giving conflicting statements . Moreover , in his interview to ... PERSON given from CARDINAL to CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. on DATE , Tofiq PERSON stated that \u2018 [ he had been ] detained at the police station for TIME ... [ He had been ] taken to [ PERSON \u2019s ] office at the police station [ who alleged that Tofiq Yaqublu ] had come here to organise sabotage and to prepare people for more protests . [ The police were then reassured that Tofiq PERSON was indeed a columnist for a newspaper ] . For that reason , [ he ] was released.\u2019 This interview proves that PERSON was not taken to the police station without a reason , but that he was detained ... because of his actions aimed at disruption and sabotage . \u201d","The court then noted that the statements of QUANTITY police officers , including QUANTITY of the CARDINAL alleged victims of crime ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and witnesses ORG , GPE and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) indicated that TIME on DATE there was mass disorder in front of the building of ORG and that the applicant and PERSON had incited people to riot and resist the police .","The court referred to the applicant \u2019s interview with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the court \u2019s interpretation , contrary to what the applicant had stated in the court proceedings , the content of his interview showed that the situation had not been calm in GPE during his visit .","In respect of the witness statements favouring the applicant , the court concluded as follows :","\u201c Having come to the same conclusion as the first - instance court , the court considers that ... the witnesses [ GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , and GPE ] wanted to help [ the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu ] , whom they knew and had relations with , avoid criminal liability . The specific circumstances mentioned in their statements can not be accepted as objective , sincere and genuine because they do not fit the fconflict with other , irrefutable evidence . \u201d","As to the video recording by the camera installed on the GPE building , the court assessed it as follows :","\u201c The court holds that the statements of [ the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu ] ... do not fit[Their ] statements ... are of a self - defence nature and designed to avoid criminal liability . As the main evidence proving their statements , they rely on the recording dated DATE of the video surveillance camera installed at the ATM of GPE , directed at PERSON FAC leading towards the administrative buildings of the IDEA and ORG . Although the recording shows that TIME the situation was relatively calm on that street , it is not the only street leading to the centre ( the IDEA [ building ] ) ; moreover , it can not be ruled out that individuals could have gone along that street towards the building of the [ IDEA ] CARDINAL - by - one and gathered there [ afterwards ] , or could have arrived in the centre from other directions . ... \u201d","As to the video evidence originally examined by the first - instance court , ORG mentioned the video recording showing the applicant and PERSON standing in the centre of the town of GPE , opposite to the administrative building of ORG , at a place where acts of mass disorder had been committed \u201d , without specifying the time of day when that scene had been shot ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . However , ORG did not mention any of the other video recordings of CARDINAL DATE relied on by the first - instance court , showing clashes between protesters and the police ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) .","The court further noted that , according to the information obtained from the first - instance court , throughout DATE on DATE fortyfour people had been arrested under LAW , including CARDINAL people arrested TIME The court concluded that this was an indication that the situation in the town had not been calm while the applicant was there .","The judgment continued as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu ] claimed that the evidence gathered by the prosecution against them had been false . As an example , they referred to the testimony of [ ORG ] who had participated , as an attesting witness , in the inspection of the scene of the events [ of the previous night ] from TIME on DATE , and had later testified that at TIME on DATE he had seen [ the applicant and PERSON inciting people to commit acts of disorder ] . [ They ] argue that [ R.N. ] is a person who cooperates with the police and that the police had instructed him to testify against them . However , the court holds that [ ORG \u2019s ] presence during the inspection of the scene of the events as an attesting witness does not make it impossible for him to have observed and witnessed an event occurring TIME . \u201d","The appellate court then digressed to discuss at significant length the ORG \u2019s judgment in ORG ( cited above ) .","The appellate court \u2019s judgment continued as follows :","\u201c Being far from an intention to give an assessment of ORG position in its above - mentioned judgment , the court holds that , first of all , [ the applicant \u2019s and PERSON ] unlawful actions should be evaluated through the prism of the events that took place in GPE on DATE and DATE . That is so because those events constituted the reason and grounds for instituting criminal proceedings and the criminal prosecution of [ the applicant , PERSON ] and others .","As described above , on CARDINAL and DATE in GPE , under the organisation and with the active participation of the accused persons , a crowd formed by a large number of residents spontaneously joined together and destroyed , by burning , and partly looted the building of ORG , destroying equipment and items found inside the building , as well as personal belongings of the hotel guests and staff ; [ they also destroyed , by burning , ] CARDINAL cars in the grounds of the hotel , damaged houses and cars on the streets with stones , [ and also destroyed , by burning , ] private property of people who had no connection to the events , and inflicted bodily injuries on individuals , including many police officers who were performing their official duty to restore public order .","In connection with these events , on DATE criminal proceedings were instituted under ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE and CARDINAL individuals were charged [ in the framework of those proceedings ] , over QUANTITY individuals were found administratively liable , and CARDINAL individuals were recognised as victims .","The criminal events that occurred in GPE were the most widely covered news for DATE by both local and reputable foreign mass media . In other words , they were not ordinary events that happened in GPE .","In connection with the participation of [ the applicant ] in those events and the criminal offences committed by him , as well as the evidence concerning those offences , the court finds it necessary to reiterate once more the following .","Although [ the applicant ] states that he arrived in GPE at TIME and left before TIME on DATE , examination of the detailed invoice of his incoming and outgoing mobile calls , and his blog post of CARDINAL DATE , where he shared his impressions from his trip by writing \u2018 DATE I was in GPE for a little more than TIME together with another member of our movement ( REAL ) and a media PERSON , proves that on DATE [ the applicant ] was in GPE from TIME to TIME","[ The applicant ] insists that , when he was in GPE , there was no mass disorder there . However , this statement is completely refuted by the case material . \u201d","In this connection , the court continued :","\u201c Victims [ in particular , QUANTITY police officers ( of the QUANTITY mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above ) , E.A. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and PERSON . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ] and witnesses [ in particular , GPE , GPE and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , as well as PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and CARDINAL other police officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ] stated during both the pre - trial investigation and the first - instance hearings that throughout DATE on DATE , including TIME , mass riots had continued , crowds of people had attacked the [ IDEA ] building and had stoned police officers . They also testified that they had seen [ the applicant and PERSON ] standing separately from each other , raising their hands , talking to people surrounding them and saying \u2018 do not be afraid of anything , enter the building of the IDEA , stone the police ORG . At their instigation , a group of individuals started moving towards the building of the LAW and [ the applicant and PERSON ] were also among them . The police attempted to isolate [ the applicant and PERSON ] from the crowd by requesting them to [ step aside ] , but they disobeyed and moved to the back of the crowd .","Another circumstance worth noting is that [ CARDINAL police officers ] gave those statements on DATE and [ ORG and GPE ] gave their statements on DATE , that is before [ the applicant \u2019s ] arrest .","At the same time , [ ORG and GPE ] confirmed their statements during face - to - face confrontations with [ the applicant ] . \u201d","The court then once again referred to the information reported by ORG newspaper ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the information the applicant had published on his ORG page ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It then reiterated that CARDINAL people had been arrested DATE on DATE .","The judgment continued :","\u201c The above - mentioned circumstances show that on DATE , when [ the applicant and PERSON ] were in GPE , the events were unfolding there and that the crowd attacked the IDEA building and committed acts of violence against the police . \u201d","The court then found that it was not \u201c believable \u201d that the applicant had visited ORG simply to gather \u201c first - hand information \u201d , considering , inter alia , that his ORG posts were aimed at \u201c promoting disobedience \u201d .","The court also found that the applicant \u2019s ORG posts of TIME CARDINAL DATE and his blog post of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were proof of his intention to organise mass disorder . In particular , it stated :","\u201c The above - mentioned [ posts by the applicant ] demonstrate once again that , before traveling to GPE , the applicant had an intention to organise mass disorder with the aim of defending the REAL movement \u2019s demands for the creation of conditions for a revolt , and that , after he had arrived in GPE , he had carried out his intention . \u201d","NORP The court concluded its analysis as follows :","\u201c The above - mentioned circumstances of the case prove beyond doubt that on DATE [ the applicant ] travelled to ORG and organised mass disorder there together with [ Tofiq Yaqublu ] . Moreover , at TIME on DATE , as active participants , [ they ] were able to achieve that a group of individuals formed of [ ORG ] , [ GPE ] and others marched in masses in the direction of the administrative building of the [ IDEA ] , and threw stones at police officers who were preventing [ this march ] in accordance with the requirements of the law , resulting in the use of violence posing a danger to the lives and health of [ CARDINAL named police officers ] .","As for [ the applicant and Tofiq Yaqublu ] arriving from GPE and , within TIME , managing to convert unorganised riots into organised acts of subversion , the court considers that in normal circumstances it would not appear convincing that [ this could have been done ] ; however , it must be taken into account that [ the rioters ] considered [ N.A. ] , the Head of the [ IDEA ] , responsible for the events , they were enraged and , as [ the applicant ] himself stated , \u2018 the situation was PERSON . [ The applicant and PERSON ] took advantage of this factor and , using anti - government slogans , attracted [ the rioters\u2019 ] attention , enraged them even more and then committed the criminal offences described above . \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer , Mr PERSON , lodged a cassation appeal against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , reiterating the points in his previous appeals and arguing further that the appellate court had assessed the evidence in a manifestly arbitrary manner . As an example , he pointed out that the court had failed to duly take into account that the video recording by the GPE camera clearly refuted the prosecution \u2019s version of the events , according to which the crowd had allegedly moved specifically along PERSON FAC in the direction of the police positioned near the LAW building . Moreover , the court had wrongly concluded that the applicant had left ORG at TIME , whereas the mobile phone geo - localisation records showed that his mobile had been last registered in the centre of the town at TIME","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , finding that the lower court had correctly assessed the evidence and correctly applied the provisions of criminal law and criminal procedure .","After the first - instance trial at ORG , on DATE the presiding judge sent letters to ORG requesting that disciplinary measures be taken against the applicant \u2019s lawyers , Mr F. Agayev and Mr PERSON . The court stated that they had breached procedural rules and the rules on lawyers\u2019 conduct on numerous occasions throughout the trial , by making unauthorised objections and offensive and disrespectful remarks about various parties and the court , and refusing to wear lawyers\u2019 robes despite numerous demands by the presiding judge .","After the proceedings at ORG , on DATE the presiding judge of that court also sent letters to ORG requesting that it take disciplinary measures against both lawyers , stating that they had behaved similarly throughout the appellate proceedings .","NORP On DATE ORG held that Mr PERSON had breached the rules for ethical conduct of advocates . It decided to refer his case to a court with a view to his disbarment and to suspend his activity as an advocate pending a decision by the court . On DATE ORG delivered a judgment ordering PERSON disbarment . The judgment was upheld by the higher courts . PERSON has lodged an application with the ORG concerning the matter ( PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , communicated to the respondent Government on DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170344","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BABIARZ v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 12 - Right to marry (Article 12 - Marry)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","In DATE the applicant married NORP In DATE NORP underwent infertility treatment so she could conceive a child with him .","In DATE the applicant met PERSON In DATE he moved out of the flat he had lived in with NORP","On DATE PERSON gave birth to their daughter , PERSON","On DATE the applicant filed a petition for divorce . At first he requested a no - fault divorce . In his petition the applicant referred to various marital misunderstandings and quarrels for which he blamed the respondent . He admitted that he had moved out of the matrimonial home , but did not mention his involvement with a new partner .","At a hearing held on DATE the applicant refused to undergo the mediation process provided for by divorce law . NORP did not agree to a divorce , declared that she loved the applicant and asked the court to dismiss the divorce petition .","Subsequently , the applicant requested a divorce on faultbased grounds .","During the proceedings CARDINAL witnesses were heard . Most of them were of the opinion that the marriage seemed happy until DATE . Only the applicant \u2019s mother , his CARDINAL colleagues and his cousin recalled minor arguments between the spouses .","During the final hearing on CARDINAL DATE the respondent reiterated her refusal to divorce .","On DATE ORG refused to grant the divorce to the applicant . The court held that he was the only person responsible for the breakdown of his marriage because he had failed to respect the obligation of fidelity . The court did not find it credible that problems had already begun within DATE of the marriage . It observed that until DATE the applicant had not wanted children . In DATE he had changed his mind . For that reason PERSON had undergone surgery , the operation having taken place in DATE .","NORP The marital situation had subsequently changed when the applicant had met PERSON He had no longer wished to have a child with his wife . The court noted contradictions between the testimony given by the applicant , who had referred to the alleged serious problems in marital life prior to DATE on the one hand , and the decision to treat NORP \u2019s infertility in DATE on the other . The respondent had been shocked by the applicant \u2019s unfaithfulness and had been treated for depression since DATE .","The court acknowledged that there had indeed been \u201c a complete and irretrievable marriage breakdown \u201d within the meaning of LAW . Reconciliation was unlikely as the applicant had consistently rejected all attempts made by NORP to reconcile their differences . Moreover , he had been in a relationship with PERSON for DATE and had a child with her .","The court emphasised that under LAW of LAW , a divorce could not be granted if it had been requested by the party whose fault it was that the marriage had broken down , if the other party refused to consent and the refusal of the innocent party was not \u201c contrary to the reasonable principles of social coexistence \u201d ( zasady wsp\u00f3\u0142\u017cycia spo\u0142ecznego ) within the meaning of LAW .","The court considered that NORP \u2019s refusal to divorce should be presumed to be compatible with those universally accepted principles . It referred to the case - law of ORG to the effect that a refusal of consent to a divorce was to be presumed to be compliant with those principles unless there were case - specific indications to the contrary . There was no indication that when refusing to give her consent NORP had acted out of hatred , was motivated by vengeance , or simply wanted to vex the applicant . The court emphasised that she had repeatedly stated during the proceedings that she was ready to reconcile with him despite the fact that he had a child with another woman .","The court stressed that the duration of the applicant \u2019s new relationship could not by itself be considered to be a sufficient reason for granting the divorce .","The applicant appealed against the judgment . He argued , inter alia , that the court had erred in holding that a spouse \u2019s refusal to consent to a divorce could be disregarded only when it was of an abusive nature or was dictated by hostility towards the spouse seeking the divorce . The court should have examined the negative social consequences caused by continuing the formal existence of failed marriages . In his case , it had failed to do so .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","The applicant did not request to be served with the written grounds for the appellate judgment . The grounds were therefore not prepared .","The judgment was final , a cassation appeal against a divorce judgment not being available in law ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["12","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170283","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF IVAN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183369","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF GOREM\u00ceCHIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)","judges":"Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial for DATE . He was charged with the offence of robbery , taking of hostages and blackmail while in GPE , in DATE and DATE . The applicant was residing at the material time in GPE , GPE .","On DATE , the applicant was arrested in GPE at the GPE request and placed in a NORP prison pending extradition to GPE .","On DATE the applicant was extradited to the NORP authorities . On DATE he was brought before a judge ( ORG ) , who ordered his detention on remand .","On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant \u2019s detention on remand for DATE .","From then on , the applicant \u2019s detention was prolonged DATE . Each time , the reasons for his detention were that it was an exceptional case , that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed serious offences punishable by imprisonment , that the criminal case was complex and that if released the applicant could interfere with the investigation , influence the witnesses and victims , re - offend or abscond ( as he had earlier been declared a wanted person ) .","On DATE the applicant made a habeas corpus request , asking for his detention to be replaced with a preventive measure other than deprivation of liberty . The applicant \u2019s lawyer also raised a complaint about the impossibility to consult the applicant during the court hearings while not seated at the same desk next to him . He also complained about the denial by the court \u2019s registry of the applicant \u2019s request to receive copies of his case file . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s claims and on DATE it prolonged the applicant \u2019s detention warrant for DATE , relying on exactly the same reasons as before .","NORP On DATE ORG , acting as a court of first instance , acquitted the applicant and ordered his release from detention . The court noted that its judgment could be challenged by an appeal on points of law within DATE .","On DATE ORG lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . In the appeal ORG made reference to LAW . The applicant objected that the appeal had been lodged out of time . Nevertheless , on DATE ORG upheld it and reopened the proceedings . ORG did not refer to the applicant \u2019s objection that the appeal had been lodged out of time .","The proceedings ended on DATE , when ORG found the applicant guilty , but discontinued them on the ground of statutory time - limit .","The applicant was detained from DATE to DATE in ORG . He was placed in a remand facility situated in a basement . The total surface was of QUANTITY , with no bed , chair , toilet facilities or washstand . He slept for DATE on a concrete floor , using a bucket for his needs . In addition , the applicant had no DATE walks outside his cell .","DATE , the applicant was moved to cell no . CARDINAL of the same detention facility . He was detained with CARDINAL other inmates in a cell measuring QUANTITY for DATE . The applicant was held in similar conditions of detention as described above . He also claims that he was fed only once per day with soup and a slice of bread . During DATE of detention he had access to the showers only once .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from that remand facility to prison no . CARDINAL ( PERSON ) . He was placed for DATE in cell no . CARDINAL with a total surface of QUANTITY . The applicant was detained with CARDINAL other inmates . In particular , the applicant describes his conditions of detention as follows : the cell was equipped with CARDINAL wooden beds , it was not heated , the quality of food was very poor , there was a lack of ventilation , worsened by the inmates\u2019 smoking directly in the cell , and poor lighting .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY . He was detained there with CARDINAL other detainees . The cell was equipped with CARDINAL wooden beds .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from prison no . CARDINAL ( PERSON ) to prison no . CARDINAL ( GPE ) , where he was detained until the date of his acquittal by ORG on DATE . On the date of his arrival he was not fed . He was placed in cell no . CARDINAL with a total surface of QUANTITY . The applicant was detained with CARDINAL other inmates . The cell was equipped with CARDINAL beds and the detainees had to sleep in turns . The applicant described his conditions of detention as follows : toilet insufficiently separated from the cell , lack of a washstand , lack of water and ventilation , lack of adequate lighting , damp and cold cell .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG complaining about the poor conditions of detention . In a reply dated DATE , ORG informed the applicant that his complaint about the poor conditions of detention was well founded and that following a control carried out in Prison No . CARDINAL multiple breaches of the law had been discovered . The prison administration was asked to remove the shortcomings found . It does not appear that any change in the applicant \u2019s conditions of detention occurred after ORG involvement .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL with a total surface of QUANTITY . The applicant was detained along with CARDINAL other inmates and they had to sleep in turns as the cell was equipped with CARDINAL beds . The conditions of detention as described by the applicant were as follows : lack of bed linen , clothing and hygiene products , inadequate quality of food , lack of medical assistance . The applicant also contends that he was bitten by parasitic insects present in the cell .","The applicant complained to the domestic courts and the investigating authority about the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention . On DATE ORG acknowledged the existence of the inhuman conditions of detention in prison no . CARDINAL ( GPE ) ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169524","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF IGNATOV v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);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 - Speediness of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the LOC police department in GPE Region instituted criminal proceedings in respect of a carjacking .","On DATE the applicant was arrested as a suspect in connection with the incident .","On DATE the investigating judge of the ORG remanded the applicant in pre - trial detention until DATE on the grounds that he was suspected of a serious crime , was unemployed , had no funds , did not live in the area and was not living at his official registered address . It was also considered that he might evade his procedural obligations and abscond to avoid investigation and trial .","On DATE the applicant was charged with the robbery of PERSON , committed together with ORG","On DATE the pre - trial investigation ended and the case against the applicant and PERSON was referred to LOC . The case was then transferred to ORG in GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG remitted the case for further investigation and remanded the applicant in custody until DATE , noting that he had been suspected of a serious crime and might continue his criminal activities .","On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing in the case and extended the detention of the applicant and PERSON until DATE . It noted , without going into any detail or indication to which of the co - accused it referred , that \u201c other preventive measures will not ensure the appropriate behaviour of the accused \u201d during the trial .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , noting that he and PERSON had been charged with serious crimes , did not live in the area and were unemployed . It was also considered that they might influence witnesses and other participants in the proceedings or otherwise obstruct criminal proceedings , given that the trial had not yet started .","On DATE the applicant applied for release to ORG complaining about , among other things , his state of health .","On DATE ORG examined and rejected that application . The court extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE on the same grounds as those given in its previous decision of CARDINAL DATE . As to his health problems , the court noted that he had been treated successfully for renal colic and was fit for trial .","On DATE ORG rejected a further application for release lodged on DATE and extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE on the same grounds as those given on the CARDINAL previous occasions , adding that he was aware of the punishment for the crime he had been charged with and thus might obstruct the criminal proceedings to avoid criminal liability .","On DATE , DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL DATE respectively , on the same grounds as those given in its decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged another application for release with ORG .","On DATE ORG examined and rejected that application , extending the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . It repeated its previous reasoning , adding that he was aware of the punishment for the crime he had been charged with and thus might obstruct the criminal proceedings to avoid criminal liability . It also added that he and his coaccused ORG had no strong social ties .","On DATE the applicant lodged another application for release , which was rejected on DATE . ORG repeated its previous reasoning , noting in addition as grounds for his detention that he was not studying .","On DATE ORG rejected that application and extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , giving reasons similar to those given on DATE .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , repeating the reasoning given in its previous decisions .","On DATE the applicant and ORG were convicted by ORG of robbery and carjacking and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The court also decided to reduce the remainder of the prison sentence ( namely the part not covered by the pre - trial detention ) by CARDINAL under LAW .","On DATE the ORG in ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s application for early release ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170886","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"\u017dVAGULIS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their former Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is a singer and well - known person in the entertainment industry in GPE .","On DATE the applicant received a call on his personal mobile telephone from a journalist at the newspaper \u201c PERSON \u201d . The journalist informed the applicant that he was in possession of information regarding the fact that the applicant had fathered a child outside marriage . The information was to be published in a forthcoming issue of the newspaper .","The applicant did not consent to the publication , and on DATE obtained a court injunction prohibiting the newspaper from publishing the information .","Notwithstanding the injunction , on DATE the newspaper went ahead with the publication . The article was called \u201c NORP hides his son born outside marriage \u201d , and was printed on pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the newspaper , with a large headline on the front page . The article included statements such as : \u201c PERSON reveals that a famous singer has not CARDINAL , but CARDINAL children \u201d ; \u201c ORG \u2019s secret DATE a child born outside marriage \u201d ; \u201c the boy does not know that his father is a famous singer \u201d ; \u201c before marrying PERSON , a singer [ the applicant \u2019s current wife ] , \u017d. ORG had a short , yet passionate love affair with L. \u201d ; \u201c \u017dilvinas did not disappear from the woman \u2019s life \u201d ; \u201c passionate love affairs fade over time . Nevertheless , sometimes children who come into the world and are rejected by their fathers remain a reminder of such affairs . Such a shadow of the past caught up with the famous singer PERSON \u201d ; and \u201c there will be much gossip following the publication of information about LOC child born outside marriage \u201d . The names of the boy and his mother were changed in the article , which also pointed out the fact that the boy \u2019s mother was a dancer in a famous dance group in GPE .","In addition , on the second page of the same issue , an article entitled \u201c Hostages of love \u201d appeared , describing the applicant \u2019s private life as the journalists imagined it to be .","On DATE PERSON printed another article entitled \u201c PERSON in the arms of a new woman \u201d . The article stated that \u201c on DATE , while partying , PERSON was restless . Needless to say , there were plenty of young women at the party \u201d .","The applicant started court proceedings for breach of privacy and damage to his reputation . He claimed that the publications had caused him serious humiliation , as well as great distress to both him and his family . He also claimed that the newspaper had recorded his telephone conversation with the journalist without prior permission . The applicant requested that CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) be awarded to him in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","The applicant also asked that the newspaper be fined LTL CARDINAL for having disregarded the court order prohibiting the publication ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG concluded that the newspaper had breached the applicant \u2019s right to privacy , which was protected under LAW . The court found that the applicant \u2019s wife and the child \u2019s mother had attempted to persuade the newspaper \u2019s chief editor and the journalist who had written the article not to publish it . The QUANTITY women had not been successful . On the contrary , the newspaper had blackmailed the child \u2019s mother to make her portray the applicant in a negative light , in return , promising not to disclose the identity of the child .","ORG held that the fact that the applicant \u2019s son had been conceived out of marriage was a matter relating to his private life , and , despite being a singer , the applicant did not come under the category of public figures . Moreover , even if the applicant could be considered a public figure , this would not give grounds to publish the information in question , given that there was no public interest in disclosing the fact that he had fathered the child . The publisher \u2019s and the journalist \u2019s argument that she had been aiming to disclose a story about how famous men did not raise or take care of their own children was devoid of substance . On the contrary , the court established that the child \u2019s mother had no claim against the applicant to the effect that he did not take care of the child . Quite the contrary , the child had a father whom he knew to be his father . The court agreed with the finding of the Inspector of ORG that the information in this particular case had been published in a sensational manner , with a large headline on the front page , thereby seeking to satisfy the readers\u2019 curiosity , and denying the applicant \u2019s right to protection of his privacy , and also being in breach of journalistic ethics . The court emphasised that , according to the practice of ORG , the disclosure of information about a child being conceived out of wedlock was to be considered a violation of the right to a private life , even if that information concerned a public figure , because there was no public interest in making such information known .","In addition , the court found that the journalist had breached the applicant \u2019s privacy by recording a telephone conversation with him without his consent ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , as well as by unlawfully observing or watching him , collecting information about him , and using that information in the article entitled \u201c PERSON in the arms of a new woman \u201d .","As to the sum to be awarded in compensation for non - pecuniary damage , ORG determined that the publication at issue had caused the applicant serious distress . Until then , only his wife and certain members of his family had known about what the publication had revealed . The court also attached importance to the fact that the newspaper had disregarded the court injunction and gone ahead with the publication of article , even though it had received that injunction in time to stop its publication . Moreover , the newspaper had had a large print run . Consequently , a large number of people had learnt about the relevant information .","NORP However , the court observed that , prior to the present litigation , the applicant had been rather open with the mass media , having disclosed private matters such as the fact that he was having another child [ with his wife ] and details about that child \u2019s birth . As a result , it was possible to conclude that up to the moment when the information at issue had become public , the applicant had not vigilantly protected his private life from the media , and had not considered his private life to have great value . For the court , that particular aspect of the case allowed it to lower the compensation award for non - pecuniary damage to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , an award to cover all the violations of privacy .","The court also ordered the newspaper to pay the applicant LTL CARDINAL in respect of legal costs . The applicant , in turn , was ordered to pay LTL MONEY , the newspaper \u2019s legal costs , on the basis that legal costs are reimbursed proportionately in relation to the claims granted ( LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG partly upheld the first instance court \u2019s decision . The court observed that , whilst the applicant was a singer and therefore had to be tolerant of media attention , he still retained the right to determine the boundaries of his private life , which no one had the right to cross without his consent . The information at issue had been made public without his consent . Moreover , that information was purely private and the publication thereof had had no connection to the applicant \u2019s professional activities . The court of first instance had been correct in finding that the aim of disclosing the information had been to cause a sensation , and not to inform society about matters of public interest . The publication had caused the applicant distress , and this was clearly proved by his wish to prevent public disclosure by obtaining a court injunction .","The appellate court noted that , according to the guidelines of ORG , the circumstances of any particular situation had to be evaluated when assessing non - pecuniary damage . In the light of the facts of the case , ORG considered that the sum of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL which had been awarded was too low to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage the applicant had sustained . Given that there had actually been CARDINAL violations of privacy in the case \u2013 the disclosure of information regarding the applicant having a child outside marriage , which was the more serious breach , and information about his behaviour at a party \u2013 it was appropriate to make CARDINAL separate awards . On that basis , the appellate court awarded the applicant LTL CARDINAL for the first breach of privacy and LTL CARDINAL for the second . The court observed that there was no legal basis for a larger award , particularly given ORG guidelines that , when determining the sum to be awarded , it was necessary to take into account the economic situation of the country and the standard of living of its citizens . The newspaper was also ordered to cover the applicant \u2019s legal costs in respect of the part of the civil claim which had been allowed .","On the basis of LAW , ORG also imposed a fine of LTL CARDINAL on the newspaper , the maximum amount possible , for disregarding the court injunction forbidding it from going ahead with the publication of information breaching the applicant \u2019s right to a private life . ORG established that the newspaper had received the court injunction in time , but had failed to comply with it , thus grossly breaching the maxim that court rulings are imperative ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant and the newspaper both lodged appeals on points of law . On DATE ORG changed the decision of ORG in part . ORG had regard to the need to balance rights under LAW ( it relied on Editions PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIV , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) . ORG agreed with the lower courts\u2019 reasoning to the effect that the applicant \u2019s occupation did not automatically mean that he consented to the publication of all information about his private life . The information which had been disclosed was exclusively private ; there was no public interest in society learning of it . Consequently , the court found that the newspaper had overstepped the boundaries prescribed by LAW .","As to the question of non - pecuniary damage , ORG concurred with the lower courts that a mere finding of a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to privacy would not be sufficient compensation . However , ORG deemed it important to ensure the continuity of its earlier case - law and take into consideration past awards in analogous cases . Given the scarcity of case - law on breach of privacy matters , it was necessary to consider the non - pecuniary value ( neturtin\u0117 vertyb\u0117 ) which had been breached . The more important the value ( for example , health or life ) , the more it was protected ( the ORG relied on its earlier ruling in case no . CARDINALKCARDINAL\/CARDINAL , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Moreover , the right to a private life had to be balanced with another constitutional value \u2013 the right to disseminate information . Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provided a list of criteria to be taken into account when assessing compensation , also providing for court discretion in this matter .","Continuing with its assessment , ORG noted that the newspaper \u2019s transgression had been deliberate , given that it had consciously chosen not to comply with the court injunction . However , the publication of the information had not carried grave or long - term consequences for the applicant , because his wife had known about his son who had been born outside marriage , and the applicant had discussed certain aspects of his private life with journalists on many occasions in the past , and was used to media attention . All this was relevant when assessing compensation for nonpecuniary damage . Moreover , the lower courts had not established that , by breaching the applicant \u2019s right to a private life , the newspaper had attempted to obtain economic gain , for example by printing more copies of the newspaper , and such a point was relevant when determining compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","In the light of the above , ORG concluded that the firstinstance court had properly examined all of the relevant circumstances , and taking into consideration , inter alia , the sums awarded as compensation in similar cases , had reasonably awarded the applicant LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL . That decision was to stay in force .","Lastly , ORG reviewed the issue of legal costs , in the light of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and lowered the costs of representation to be reimbursed to the newspaper , because they were higher than those recommended by ORG . Once all the sums in respect of both parties\u2019 representation at the CARDINAL levels of court had been calculated , the applicant had to pay the newspaper LTL CARDINAL for legal costs and court fees . He therefore received LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) following the civil litigation .","In DATE the newspaper Private printed an article about the applicant \u2019s family life , where he and his wife PERSON were interviewed about their family . They stated that they were able to lean on each other at any time .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE reads :","\u201c A person \u2019s private life shall be inviolable ...","The law and the courts shall protect everyone from arbitrary or unlawful interference in his private and family life , or from encroachment upon his honour and dignity . \u201d","DATE LAW provides that compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage suffered by a person must be established by law .","The relevant provisions of LAW read :","\u201c CARDINAL . A person \u2019s privacy shall be inviolable . Information regarding a person \u2019s private life may be made public only with his consent ...","NORP Unlawful invasion of a person \u2019s dwelling or other private LOC , including fenced private territory ; keeping the person \u2019s private life under observation ... ; intentional interception of the person \u2019s telephone communications , post or other private communications , as well as violation of the confidentiality of his personal notes and information ; publication of data relating to the state of his health , in violation of the procedure prescribed by law ; and other unlawful acts shall be deemed to violate the person \u2019s private life .","The creation of a file on another person \u2019s private life , in violation of the law , shall be prohibited . A person may not be denied access to the information contained in the file , except as otherwise provided for by law . Dissemination of the information collected on the person \u2019s private life shall be prohibited unless , taking into consideration the person \u2019s official post and his status in the society , dissemination of the said information is in line with a lawful and well - grounded public interest in being aware of that information .","NORP The public announcement of facts concerning a person \u2019s private life , however truthful they may be ; making private correspondence public , in violation of the procedure prescribed in paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this Article ; invasion of a person \u2019s dwelling without his consent , except as otherwise provided for by law ; keeping his private life under observation ; or gathering information about him in violation of the law ; and other unlawful acts infringing the right to privacy shall form the basis for bringing an action for compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of those acts ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG - pecuniary damage shall be deemed to be a person \u2019s suffering , emotional experiences , inconvenience , mental shock , emotional depression , humiliation , damage to reputation , diminution of opportunities to associate with others , and so on , evaluated by a court in terms of money .","ORG - pecuniary damage shall be compensated for only in cases provided for by law . Non - pecuniary damage shall be compensated for in all cases where it has been sustained as a result of crime , health impairment or deprivation of life , as well as in other cases provided for by law . The courts , in evaluating the non - pecuniary damage , shall take into consideration the consequences of the damage sustained , the degree of fault on the part of the person who caused the damage , his financial status , the amount of pecuniary damage sustained by the aggrieved person , and any other circumstances of importance to the case , as well as the criteria of good faith , justice and reasonableness . \u201d","On DATE ORG decided civil case no . DATE . The plaintiff had asked to be awarded LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , which he had suffered as a result of physical injury . He had been attacked by CARDINAL people and beaten , thereby suffering facial injuries and being rendered disabled . ORG held that health was one of the most important values , which was often not repairable or restorable . Health therefore merited particular protection . The court also took into account that the non - pecuniary damage in this case had been caused by a crime \u2013 the deliberate and brutal actions of the respondents . It was therefore fair to grant the civil claim in full .","As regards the amounts awarded for non - pecuniary damage to redress breaches of privacy , the Government referred to a number of ORG decisions . In cases concerning the reputation of a legal entity , for example , the awards were between LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL and LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","The Government also referred to cases where protected values other than privacy had been at issue . In cases concerning injury to one \u2019s health , the awards for non - pecuniary damage were between LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL and LTL CARDINAL , depending on the severity of the injury . In cases concerning loss of life , compensation awards for non - pecuniary damage were between LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL to LTL CARDINAL . In cases where the right to liberty had been violated , the awards were between LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL to LTL CARDINAL .","In case no . ORG , decided on DATE , which concerned an injury at work , ORG held that , when evaluating the amount of non - pecuniary damage , it was important to consider the values being protected and their interrelationship ( turi b\u016bti atsi\u017evelgta \u012f ginam\u0173 vertybi\u0173 specifik\u0105 ir j\u0173 tarpusavio santyk\u012f ) , because the right to life and the right to health were absolute rights , whereas the right to privacy and the right to dignity were relative or conditional rights ( santykin\u0117s teis\u0117s ) which could not be equally valued as regards damages . A worker who had fallen off a building platform and cracked his skull was thus awarded LTL CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of that injury .","On DATE ORG gave a ruling in civil case no . CARDINALKCARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL concerning an accident at work following which the plaintiff in question had become handicapped . ORG noted that the worker was partly to blame for his injury , because he had not followed safety instructions at work . Accordingly , although the plaintiff had asked for LTL CARDINAL and the first - instance court had awarded him LTL CARDINAL , ORG considered that a sum of LTL CARDINAL would be sufficient to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage suffered .","On DATE ORG examined case no . CARDINALKCARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which also concerned an accident at work . The plaintiff in that case was awarded LTL CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage suffered as a result of physical injury .","On DATE , in civil case no . ORG - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG held that there had been a violation of the plaintiff \u2019s right to privacy and reputation , owing to a publication about his allegedly fraudulent manner of conducting business and his alleged debts to his business partners , and the printing of the plaintiff \u2019s photograph . For ORG , LTL CARDINAL was sufficient to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage sustained .","On DATE , in civil case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG agreed that an award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL in a civil case was sufficient to compensate for the plaintiff \u2019s mental suffering , where a local television station had wrongfully accused the plaintiff of having committed a traffic violation .","On DATE ORG gave a ruling in civil case no . ORG - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL concerning a civil claim by a woman , PERSON , for breach of privacy in respect of an article in a DATE newspaper , PERSON , entitled \u201c A date with a lesbian \u201d ( \u201c Pasimatymas su lesbiete \u201d ) . The case concerned an article which had included CARDINAL photographs . PERSON was in CARDINAL of those photographs , which was in a large format . She had been photographed from the front , although her name had not been disclosed . The first - instance court considered that , \u201c taking into account society \u2019s negative opinion about people of non - traditional sexual orientation \u201d ( \u201c teismas , \u012fvertin\u0119s susidariusi\u0105 neigiam\u0105 visuomen\u0117s nuomon\u0119 apie netradicin\u0117s seksualin\u0117s orientacijos \u017emones \u201d ) , the publication of PERSON \u2019s photograph in such a context could cause her to be evaluated oddly ( gal\u0117jo sukelti prie\u0161taring\u0173 ie\u0161kov\u0117s vertinim\u0173 ) . The court also noted that the newspaper \u2019s financial situation was good , it had a large print throughout GPE . However , the newspaper had not apologised to the plaintiff or paid her damages , even though it had initially promised to do so . However , the sum claimed by the plaintiff , LTL CARDINAL , was clearly excessive . It was therefore reasonable to award her LTL CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage . That sum was upheld by the appellate court , which underlined that the article \u201c A date with a lesbian \u201d was conflicting ( vertinamas prie\u0161taringai ) in a homophobic society , and people whose photographs were linked to that article could therefore experience negative consequences , as indeed in GPE \u2019s case . She had had to explain herself to her parents , colleagues at work and friends from times of studies . The award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL would also not impede the DATE commercial activity of the defendant .","The newspaper lodged an appeal on points of law , arguing that the award for non - pecuniary damage was too high . ORG noted that it was important to adhere to the principle of non - discrimination , which meant that similar cases should be decided similarly , and which also meant that , in analogous situations , awards for non - pecuniary damage should be comparable . ORG also relied on its earlier case - law to the effect that courts should not only follow the criteria established in legal norms and court practice , but should also take into account the awards already granted in analogous cases .","ORG thus distinguished CARDINAL categories of cases .","Firstly , there were cases where a plaintiff \u2019s privacy had been breached on account of the arrangement of his or her nude photographs with offensive text and headlines ( ORG referred to the case of PERSON PERSON and PERSON ) , or where information regarding \u201c family secrets \u201d or health had been made public ( ORG referred to its ruling of DATE in the instant case of NORP ) , or where information about private life had been published together with photographs , which had amounted to a breach of the right to a private life . The awards in those cases were , respectively , LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL , LTL CARDINAL and LTL CARDINAL .","As to the second category , ORG referred to some cases where the press had used plaintiffs\u2019 private photographs without permission , or had accused them of crimes , where the non - pecuniary damage awards were LTL CARDINAL .","The third category concerned cases where photographs of plaintiffs who were well - known people in society had been published without their consent , and for the purpose of a newspaper gaining financial benefit from advertisement , where the awards for non - pecuniary damage were LTL CARDINAL .","ORG then held that , in the case of GPE , the award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL was too high , because it did not correspond to the abovementioned court practice . PERSON \u2019s photograph had been published only as an illustration of the article , and neither her personal data nor information about her private life had been made public . Moreover , the photograph had been taken at a public event when PERSON was posing ( vie\u0161ame renginyje , ie\u0161kovei pozuojant ) . In the view of ORG , an award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL would be fair and adequate in respect of the non - pecuniary damage sustained by PERSON in relation to the breach of her right to protection of her image , and to prevent the abuse of freedom of expression by the press .","On DATE ORG adopted a ruling in civil case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which concerned ORG civil claim for defamation against a television channel , Tele-CARDINAL . In particular , PERSON , who is a singer , had complained that in DATE , during a television broadcast , a presenter had made statements about someone else allegedly being the father of PERSON \u2019s child , had made allegations about PERSON \u2019s actual sexual orientation , and , in the latter context , had also claimed that PERSON had been operated on in clinics in GPE DATE after \u201c he had sustained trauma to his anus from a blunt object \u201d .","ORG held that information about PERSON \u2019s fatherhood , his sexual orientation , and his unverified operation concerned his private life , notwithstanding PERSON being well - known because he was a singer . Moreover , disseminating such information had no public interest . On the contrary , having had regard to the manner in which the information had been presented , ORG held that the only aim in disseminating it had been to spread gossip to satisfy the curiosity of a certain category of television viewers . The fact that PERSON had communicated with the media before did not mean that he had lost his right to privacy . Having examined the case in the light of the ORG \u2019s case - law ( ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and DATE , ECHR DATE ) , ORG held that there had been a breach of PERSON \u2019s right to privacy .","Although PERSON asked the courts to award him LTL CARDINAL to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage , ORG found that the lower courts had correctly applied Article CARDINAL of LAW , and had had a proper basis for their decision to award PERSON CARDINAL in compensation .","The Code of Civil Procedure states :","\u201c CARDINAL . A court decision , ruling or order which has come into force is obligatory ... [ in respect of all persons ] and must be executed ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . A court orders the legal costs of the party to the proceedings in whose favour a court decision has been adopted to be paid by the other party to the proceedings ...","NORP If a civil claim is granted in part , the plaintiff \u2019s legal costs are awarded proportionately in relation to which part of the civil claim is granted , and the defendant \u2019s legal costs are awarded proportionately in relation to which part of the civil claim is rejected .","The rules set out in this LAW also apply to court fees ...","NORP If the appellate court or court of cassation , without referring the case for fresh examination , changes a lower court \u2019s decision or ruling , or adopts a new ruling , it accordingly changes the division of legal costs . If the appellate court or court of cassation does not change the division of legal costs , it is the court of first instance which has to resolve this question . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . If [ temporary protective measures ] are breached , the court may impose a fine of MONEY ... \u201d","At the relevant time , with regard to the collection and publication of information , the PERSON on the Provision of Information to the Public ( Visuomen\u0117s informavimo \u012fstatymas ) read that , in order to avoid violating a person \u2019s rights and to protect his honour and dignity , it should be prohibited to film , photograph , or make audio or video - recordings of a person without his consent ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) . Journalists were also obliged not to make audio or video - recordings if the individual providing the information objected ( LAW ) ) . The Journalists\u2019 and LAW read that journalists or publishers should not use the recordings for direct quotes if an individual objected to this ( LAW .","On DATE ORG of ORG adopted LAW , containing a LAW , the relevant parts of which read :","\u201c CARDINAL . There is an area in which the exercise of the right of freedom of information and freedom of expression may conflict with the right to privacy protected by LAW Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life , his home and his correspondence ... The exercise of the former right must not be allowed to destroy the existence of the latter .","The right to privacy consists essentially in the right to live one \u2019s own life with a minimum of interference . It concerns private , family and home life , physical and moral integrity , honour and reputation , avoidance of being placed in a false light , nonrevelation of irrelevant and embarrassing facts , unauthorised publication of private photographs , protection against misuse of private communications , protection from disclosure of information given or received by the individual confidentially . Those who , by their own actions , have encouraged indiscreet revelations about which they complain later on , can not avail themselves of the right to privacy .","A particular problem arises as regards the privacy of persons in public life . The phrase \u2018 where public life begins , private life ends\u2019 is inadequate to cover this situation . The private lives of public figures are entitled to protection , save where they may have an impact upon public events . The fact that an individual figures in the news does not deprive him of a right to a private life .","...","NORP In order to counter these dangers , national law should provide a right of action enforceable at law against persons responsible for such infringements of the right to privacy .","The right to privacy afforded by LAW should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities , but also against interference by private persons or institutions , including the mass media . National legislations should comprise provisions guaranteeing this protection . \u201d","The relevant passages of Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) of ORG of ORG on the right to privacy , adopted on DATE , read :","\u201c CARDINAL . The ORG recalls the current affairs debate it held on the right to privacy during its DATE session , DATE after the accident which cost FAC GPE her life .","NORP On that occasion , some people called for the protection of privacy , and in particular that of public figures , to be reinforced at the NORP level by means of a convention , while others believed that privacy was sufficiently protected by national legislation and LAW , and that freedom of expression should not be jeopardised .","...","The right to privacy , guaranteed by LAW , has already been defined by the ORG in the declaration on mass communication media and human rights , contained within LAW ( DATE ) , as \u2018 the right to live one \u2019s own life with a minimum of interference\u2019 .","In view of the new communication technologies which make it possible to store and use personal data , the right to control one \u2019s own data should be added to this definition .","The ORG is aware that personal privacy is often invaded , even in countries with specific legislation to protect it , as people \u2019s private lives have become a highly lucrative commodity for certain sectors of the media . The victims are essentially public figures , since details of their private lives serve as a stimulus to sales . At the same time , public figures must recognise that the position they occupy in society \u2013 in many cases by choice \u2013 automatically entails increased pressure on their privacy .","Public figures are persons holding public office and\/or using public resources and , more broadly speaking , all those who play a role in public life , whether in politics , the economy , the arts , the social sphere , sport or in any other domain .","It is often in the name of a CARDINAL - sided interpretation of the right to freedom of expression , which is guaranteed in LAW , that the media invade people \u2019s privacy , claiming that their readers are entitled to know everything about public figures .","Certain facts relating to the private lives of public figures , particularly politicians , may indeed be of interest to citizens , and it may therefore be legitimate for readers , who are also voters , to be informed of those facts .","It is therefore necessary to find a way of balancing the exercise of CARDINAL fundamental rights , both of which are guaranteed in LAW : the right to respect for one \u2019s private life and the right to freedom of expression .","The ORG reaffirms the importance of every person \u2019s right to privacy , and of the right to freedom of expression , as fundamental to a NORP society . These rights are neither absolute nor in any hierarchical order , since they are of equal value .","NORP However , the ORG points out that the right to privacy afforded by LAW should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities , but also against interference by private persons or institutions , including the mass media .","... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150305","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ALBAKOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","According to the applicant , on DATE she was at her flat with her CARDINAL daughters , her son ORG and his wife . At TIME CARDINAL men arrived at the flat to carry out a passport check . They introduced themselves as officers of ORG of the ORG . The men were armed , some were wearing camouflage uniforms and the rest were in civilian clothes . They spoke NORP , NORP and PERSON . They checked the passports of the applicant \u2019s family members and then announced that they were taking PERSON to the police station to complete the identity check . There were CARDINAL other men waiting outside the building . At the time , ORG was wearing black trousers and a black - and - white striped shirt with short sleeves . The applicant was not allowed to accompany him .","The men and ORG left in CARDINAL silver ORG cars . The applicant \u2019s neighbour , PERSON , witnessed their departure . The applicant was able to remember part of the registration number of CARDINAL of the cars , which appeared to have been registered in GPE .","On DATE the applicant saw several silver ORG cars parked at the premises of the operational search unit ( hereinafter \u201c the ORB-CARDINAL \u201d ) . She also saw a group of men in camouflage uniforms exit the building . Among them she identified CARDINAL of the men who had fetched her son . The men got into CARDINAL of the cars and left before the applicant was able to talk to them .","On DATE the applicant read on the internet that her son had been shot dead by ORG servicemen in the course of a counter - terrorist operation in a forest close to ORG , a village in GPE . According to the website , ORG had been a member of an illegal armed group and had been offering active armed resistance to the federal forces . It was claimed that a number of items including a PERSON machine gun and its ammunition , CARDINAL bullet shell , fragments of a spent grenade , a backpack containing clothes and the deceased \u2019s passport were found at the scene . Mr PERSON , the uncle of the deceased , identified ORG body in the morgue in GPE . The deceased was then dressed in a camouflage uniform .","On DATE medical forensic expert O. conducted a forensic examination of ORG body . He documented CARDINAL gunshot wounds which the deceased had sustained shortly before his death and considered them to be the cause of his death . He further noted CARDINAL bruises on the deceased \u2019s legs and arms , which the latter could have sustained shortly before his death . The camouflage uniform was removed , packed , sealed and admitted as evidence . The report made no mention of the presence of gunshot residue on the deceased \u2019s body .","On DATE the deceased \u2019s naked body wrapped in a cellophane bag was taken to the applicant \u2019s flat . The applicant , CARDINAL of her daughters , her son \u2019s wife and some other relatives saw multiple injuries on his body , including a gunshot wound to his chest , stab wounds , fractured bones , burns and bruises . His left arm was partially severed . The applicant \u2019s daughter took photographs of ORG body and injuries .","On DATE the applicant addressed a complaint to the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office in respect of her son \u2019s disappearance . In her statement she expressed doubts as to whether the persons who had taken ORG had been ORG agents and asked the prosecutor to open a criminal investigation into his disappearance . She also contacted the LOC department of the interior , alleging that her son had been abducted by unidentified ORG agents . On DATE she asked ORG of GPE and the GPE department of ORG to provide her with information about her son \u2019s detention . In response , the applicant was informed that her son had not been in the custody of the said authorities and that they had no information as to his whereabouts .","On CARDINAL and DATE an investigator at the prosecutor \u2019s office questioned the applicant and her CARDINAL daughters , PERSON and PERSON , about the events of DATE . They gave some information as to the registration number of CARDINAL of the vehicles used by the alleged abductors and claimed that they could identify the perpetrators .","On DATE a senior investigator , PERSON , of the district prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open a criminal investigation into ORG alleged abduction . In his decision the investigator summed up the statements provided by the applicant \u2019s family as regards the events of DATE . He further noted that he had not yet received any materials concerning the operation conducted by law - enforcement officers at the applicant \u2019s residence and concluded that there was no evidence to support her allegations .","On DATE the applicant provided a statement to the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE , alleging that law - enforcement agents were implicated in her son \u2019s abduction , torture and unlawful killing . Referring to the traces of decomposition on his body , she considered that her son had been executed by the law - enforcement agents before DATE .","On DATE the head of the ORG district investigative division of the prosecutor \u2019s office of the GPE quashed the decision of DATE , noting that the inquiry conducted by the investigator was incomplete , and remitted the matter to him for further inquiry .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office opened a criminal investigation concerning an unidentified person on charges of attempted killing of ORG agents , unlawful possession of firearms and participation in an illegal armed group . The criminal case file was given number CARDINAL .","On DATE the investigator ordered a new forensic examination of ORG body .","On DATE O. conducted a new forensic examination of ORG body . He reproduced verbatim the summary of his findings in his previous report of CARDINAL DATE , according to which the deceased had been wearing a camouflage uniform at the time of the examination .","On DATE the investigator questioned forensic expert O. , who confirmed that he had observed a number of penetrating gunshot wounds on the deceased . He added that he had seen bruises on the deceased \u2019s arms and legs , which could have been caused by blows by , or collisions with , a blunt object . O. denied that the left arm of the deceased had been partially severed . Lastly , he concluded that the cause of death had been multiple gunshots which the deceased must have sustained QUANTITY prior to the examination of the body on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant again asked the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE to open a criminal investigation into the abduction and unlawful killing of her son by law - enforcement agents .","On DATE the applicant was notified that her application had been added to criminal case no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the investigator closed criminal case no . CARDINAL . Referring to the crime - scene examination report , forensic evidence ( examination of the bullet shell , the machine gun and its ammunition and the fragments of the spent grenade found at the crime scene , and the examination of the deceased \u2019s body ) and the statements made by the applicant and her family , the investigator concluded that sufficient evidence collected in the course of the criminal investigation indicated that ORG had attempted to kill a law - enforcement agent and the case should be closed in view of his death .","On DATE the head of the ORG district investigative division of the prosecutor \u2019s office of the GPE quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and re - opened the criminal investigation . In particular , he stated that the investigator had failed to verify the circumstances of ORG abduction ( the alleged perpetrators had not been questioned , the cars used by the persons who had abducted the deceased had not been identified , and ORG alleged involvement in a terrorist organisation had not been confirmed ) .","On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings into the abduction of the deceased . The investigator concluded that ORG had been released by \u201c the persons who had abducted him \u201d and that he had been a member of an illegal armed group who \u201c had threatened the life of ORG agents \u201d on CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . According to her , her son had been kidnapped by ORG agents . He had then been tortured and killed by them . In order to disguise those crimes , the agents had taken her son \u2019s body to the forest and left it there together with a PERSON machine gun , alleging that he had been killed when attempting to assault them . When the applicant had received her son \u2019s body , it had already started to decompose and was covered with numerous injuries such as bruises , burns and cuts . His arm had been almost completely severed .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegations as unsubstantiated , upholding the investigator \u2019s findings of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","According to the Government , in the course of the investigation into the activities of an illegal armed group , CARDINAL of the suspects testified that ORG had been a leading member of the group .","On DATE the criminal investigation into the circumstance of ORG death was re - opened . The investigator questioned CARDINAL military officers , NORP and PERSON , who had participated in the operation conducted by ORG forces on CARDINAL DATE . They submitted that in the course of the operation ORG had opened gunfire against their military unit and they had had to put an end to his attack and had shot back at him . He had died in the exchange of gunfire . The investigator also noted that he had been unable to determine whether the vehicles used by the alleged abductors had belonged to the ORG in view of the destruction of the relevant documentation .","On DATE the investigator closed the investigation into the events of DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted the digital photographs of ORG body taken by his sister to an independent expert centre .","On DATE forensic medical experts examined the photographs . They considered that some of them could not be examined in view of their poor quality . From the remainder of the photographs , the experts discerned CARDINAL wounds : a gunshot wound on the right side of the chest ; a deep wound on the left shoulder joint , probably resulting from a blow by a blunt solid object ; a surface wound on the left side of the chest ( the experts ruled out the possibility of its being a gunshot wound ) ; and a wound on the left side of the back , possibly caused by a hollow rectangular box - shaped object . In addition to the bruises documented in the official forensic report , the experts noted abrasions and bruises on the deceased \u2019s chest . Lastly , they concluded that all the injuries visible in the photographs of ORG must have been caused while he was still alive .","Referring to her account of the events of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs TIME ) , the applicant maintained that her son ORG had been abducted , detained , tortured and executed by ORG agents . The NORP authorities had falsely accused him of being a member of an illegal armed group in an attempt to cover up ORG agents\u2019 unlawful actions .","The Government denied any involvement of its agents in ORG abduction . They argued that ORG had been a member of an illegal armed group and considered that the abduction had been staged by his co - conspirators . In their opinion , the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning her son \u2019s abduction , detention and torture lacked any evidentiary basis .","A number of principles have been developed in the ORG \u2019s case - law as regards cases where the ORG is faced with the task of establishing facts on which the parties disagree . As to the facts that are in dispute , the ORG refers to its jurisprudence requiring the standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d in its assessment of evidence ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ( extracts ) ) . Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . In this context , the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account ( see ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL\u2013VIII ) .","The ORG is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first - instance tribunal of fact , where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case ( see , for example , ORG v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . Nonetheless , where allegations are made under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention , the ORG must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny ( see , mutatis mutandis , PERSON v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL ; and ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) , even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place .","The ORG reiterates that it has noted the difficulties for applicants to obtain the necessary evidence in support of allegations in cases where the respondent Government are in possession of the relevant documentation and fail to submit it . Where the applicant makes out a prima facie case and the ORG is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to the lack of such documents , it is for the ORG to convince the ORG that the documents in question can not serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicant , or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred . The burden of proof is thus shifted to the ORG and if they fail in their arguments , issues will arise under LAW ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; and Akkum and Others v. GPE , no . TIME , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALII ) .","The ORG has previously found the NORP State authorities responsible for extra - judicial executions or disappearances of civilians in GPE in a number of cases , even in the absence of final conclusions from the domestic investigation ( see GPE and GPE , cited above ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . MONEY , ECHR CARDINALXIII ( extracts ) ; Estamirov and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; and GPE v. GPE , no . MONEY , DATE ) . It has done so primarily on the basis of witness statements and other documents attesting to the presence of military or security personnel in the area concerned at the relevant time . It has relied on references to military vehicles and equipment , on witness accounts , on other information on security operations and on the undisputed effective control of the areas in question by the NORP military . On that basis , it has concluded that the areas in question were \u201c within the exclusive control of the authorities of the ORG \u201d in view of military or security operations being conducted there and the presence of servicemen ( see , for example , PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","NORP However , on the basis of the account of the events given by the applicant in the present case , the ORG has little evidence on which to draw such conclusions .","The ORG observes that the documents submitted by the ORG provide no evidence of a security operation having taken place on DATE . As to the applicant \u2019s submissions , she and her relatives witnessed the abduction of ORG . In support of her argument that her son had been abducted by ORG agents , she argued that the men who had taken her son had been armed , spoke LANGUAGE , NORP and PERSON and that some of them had been wearing camouflage uniforms and had arrived in civilian PERSON cars .","The ORG is not convinced , however , that those details necessarily prove that the men were ORG servicemen . The applicant did not allege that the camouflage uniform some of the men had been wearing had borne any of the insignia characteristic of the uniform of ORG agents . It can not be ruled out that the uniform , as well as the firearms carried by the men , could have been obtained by them via various , possibly illegal , channels . Furthermore , there are no witness statements confirming that ORG was taken to any ORG agency after his abduction . In this connection , the ORG also takes into account the applicant \u2019s own statement to the prosecutor \u2019s office in which she expressed doubts as to the affiliation of the kidnappers with any ORG agency ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Accordingly , the information in the ORG \u2019s possession does not suffice to establish that ORG was kidnapped and held in detention by ORG agents . In such circumstances , the ORG can not attribute responsibility for the unlawful acts in the present case to the respondent ORG without additional evidence to that effect .","It has not , therefore , been established to the required standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d that ORG agents were implicated in the abduction and ensuing detention , if any , of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168867","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MUMZHIYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","NORP The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention . He also raised a complaint under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["13"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162213","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BAGIYEVA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . She divorced her husband , PERSON , in DATE . At the time of the events , she was living with her daughter , who was a minor , in a flat in GPE .","On DATE police officers arrested PERSON for an administrative offence at GPE ORG station . Following the arrest , the police officers found that a driving licence he had shown them did not bear all the requisite information and had a series number linked to another person in the police database .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against B. for document forgery committed in conspiracy with others . On DATE the police recorded telephone conversations between PERSON and the applicant which suggested that certain documents relating to his driving licence and his study in the driving school had been kept in her flat . The recorded conversations were later documented in a report on DATE .","On DATE an investigator with the PERSON - Zakhidna railway police department , who was dealing with the criminal case against PERSON , applied to ORG in GPE for search warrants for CARDINAL flats , including the CARDINAL belonging to the applicant , where , according to the investigator , PERSON permanently resided .","On DATE the ORG of GPE issued the search warrants . Only the investigator was present at the hearing . With regard to the applicant \u2019s flat , the court found that it was necessary to carry out a search of the flat where PERSON permanently resided and where the forged documents , as well as the means of and instruments for forging the documents , might be kept .","On DATE the investigator decided to carry out the search of the applicant \u2019s flat . Upon their arrival , the investigator and the other police officers present found that the flat was locked and that nobody responded when they rang the bell . According to the statements of the police officers , as submitted to the investigative authorities , they had contacted the applicant to inform her about the search . According to the applicant , on DATE she and her daughter had left for their cottage outside the city ; she had had her mobile phone with her and had not been contacted by the police .","The police officers called a task force to open the door to the flat . Once the door had been opened , the investigator and QUANTITY police officers carried out the search , with CARDINAL attesting witnesses and a representative of the building maintenance organisation in attendance . In the course of the search the police officers seized items of property , which they listed in a report . The list included , among other things : floppy disks , compact discs , vehicle registration certificates , keys , a box containing cash , certificates issued in PERSON \u2019s name , a painting and an icon .","On DATE the applicant returned home and found the door to her flat damaged and sealed . With the investigator \u2019s permission , she entered the flat and found that it was in a state of disarray . She also found that some items of property not included in the list of seized items were missing : CARDINAL mobile phones , top - up cards for mobile phones , jewels and a bottle of whisky .","The applicant made a complaint to the law - enforcement authorities regarding the actions of the police officers carrying out the search . She claimed that requirements of domestic law had been breached in the course of the search and that some items of property had disappeared .","On DATE the GPE transport prosecutor \u2019s office commenced a criminal investigation with regard to the possible theft of the applicant \u2019s property .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status and her civil claim was admitted to the file . On DATE the investigation was suspended , as it was not possible to identify the possible perpetrators of the crime .","On DATE the GPE city prosecutor \u2019s office reversed the decision of CARDINAL DATE as regards the suspension of the proceedings , finding that the investigation had not been carried out comprehensively : the people participating in the search of the applicant \u2019s flat had not been questioned properly , the mobile phones and the top - up cards had not been found , and the investigative measures implemented had not been properly documented .","On DATE and DATE certain seized items , including the painting , the icon and the missing mobile phones , were returned to the applicant .","On DATE the transport prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE refused to investigate the possible neglect of official duties by the police officers as regards the failure to fully document the items seized . It considered that the mobile phones had not been included in the list of seized items owing to a technical mistake . The phones had been given back to the applicant and , consequently , she had sustained no damage . It was concluded in the end that there had been no objective evidence to suggest that the police officers had neglected their duties .","On DATE the GPE city prosecutor \u2019s office found that the investigation into the alleged theft had not been carried out thoroughly , and had been delayed . It requested the GPE city prosecutor \u2019s office to organise a proper investigation of the case .","On DATE an investigator with the GPE transport prosecutor \u2019s office terminated the investigation , stating that there had been no evidence to suggest that any item had been stolen from the applicant \u2019s flat during the search .","NORP The applicant challenged that decision in court .","On DATE the Holosiyivskyy ORG of Kyiv dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint , considering that the investigator had taken the necessary measures and had lawfully closed the case .","The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance court \u2019s decision of DATE and the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE as unsubstantiated , and remitted the case for further investigation .","As of CARDINAL DATE the investigation was ongoing . No further information was provided to ORG .","On DATE the GPE transport prosecutor , having conducted a pre - investigation inquiry , refused to commence criminal proceedings in relation to the possible abuse of power or ultra vires actions by the police officers during the search of the applicant \u2019s flat . In his decision , the prosecutor referred to the statement of a police officer that the applicant had been contacted on her mobile phone and informed that the search would be carried out , and the door to the flat had only been broken down after her refusal to appear . The prosecutor also stated that the search had been carried out in accordance with established procedure ; it had been observed by CARDINAL attesting witnesses and the representative of the building maintenance organisation , as required by the domestic law .","On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of DATE in court .","On DATE the Holosiyivskyy ORG of GPE found that the decision of DATE was well - founded . The court stated that the prosecutor had adopted the decision after interviewing the police officers , CARDINAL attesting witnesses , and a representative of the building maintenance organisation who had been involved in the search , in addition to the applicant and her former husband . The court further stated that the prosecutor had examined the search warrant , search report and other relevant documents , and had come to the correct conclusions when refusing to open an investigation .","The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE , finding that the prosecutor had lawfully refused to open an investigation . The applicant \u2019s contentions were dismissed as groundless .","The applicant appealed on points of law .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , noting that the impugned court decisions were not open to review ."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150424","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MURE\u015eAN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON Mure\u015fan , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr R. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","At the relevant time the applicant , a career military officer ( a major ) , was the liaison person in charge of supervising and approving works being undertaken for the renovation and modernisation of his military base .","On DATE the military branch of ORG committed the applicant for trial on several counts of corruption concerning public tenders . ORG , a civilian , was also indicted by the prosecutor for bribing the applicant . The prosecutors in charge of the indictment were career officers : a colonel - magistrate and a captainmagistrate . ORG failed to appear in court throughout the proceedings . The summons had been sent to an address in GPE of which his counsel had informed the courts . However , according to information received by the courts from the authorities , ORG was living in GPE ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) at that time .","ORG , sitting in a panel composed of CARDINAL colonel - magistrates , examined the case as a firstinstance court . It heard testimony from witnesses for the prosecution and allowed CARDINAL witnesses for the defence to be called . However , those CARDINAL witnesses failed to appear . The applicant gave statements before the court .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and imposed a suspended sentence of DATE and DATE .","The parties appealed . The applicant maintained his innocence and argued that the first - instance court had made an incorrect interpretation of the evidence in the file .","ORG , sitting in a panel composed of CARDINAL colonel - magistrates , gave judgment on DATE . In an extensively reasoned decision it dismissed the appeals and upheld the firstinstance judgment .","The parties appealed on points of law . The applicant reiterated the representations he had made in the appeal proceedings , and in addition argued that ORG should be summoned at his address in the GPE and questioned by the court , as his statements could have an influence on the applicant \u2019s situation .","In a final decision of DATE the criminal section of ORG and ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant , as it considered that the lower courts had correctly established the facts of the case and classified the crimes in law . It reiterated the arguments advanced by ORG concerning the claims raised by the applicant in his previous appeal . It also considered that the evidence in the file was sufficient to secure the applicant \u2019s conviction and that there were no doubts that could have been clarified by statements from ORG allowed the appeal lodged by the prosecutor \u2019s office and ordered that the applicant serve his sentence in detention ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142924","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"GURDULI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON , ORG , Mr PERSON , ORG and PERSON Maranguni\u0107 are NORP nationals who were born in DATE ( the first applicant ) , DATE ( the second applicant ) , DATE ( the third applicant ) and DATE ( the fourth and the fifth applicant ) . The fifth applicant lives in GPE ( GPE ) whereas the other applicants live in GPE . They were all represented before the Court by Ms ORG , an advocate practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The present case concerns the ownership of CARDINAL plots of land ( \u201c the land \u201d ) with a total area of QUANTITY , which were joined into a single ( cadastral ) plot ( no . CARDINAL ) on DATE . The plot(s ) , together with CARDINAL other plots of land , form ORG in ORG . ORG currently consists of CARDINAL tennis courts with red clay surface , CARDINAL tennis courts with hard surface , a central stadium , CARDINAL small multi - purpose court , a small gym and an administration building . Of those facilities the central stadium , the multi - purpose court and the access road are located on the plot(s ) in question .","In DATE the ORG ancestor PERSON bought and thereby became the owner of the land at issue . On DATE he leased it to a sports association , ORG ( later on T.D.S. and GPE , hereinafter \u201c the tennis club \u201d ) , which intended to build tennis courts on them .","It would appear that the land has remained in the possession of the tennis club ever since . Even though some tennis courts were built before the Second World War , it seems that the tennis club carried out significant ( re)construction works in the period DATE , which resulted in the sports complex consisting of CARDINAL tennis courts and the central stadium .","By the entry into force of ORG and LAW ( hereinafter \u201c LAW of DATE \u201d ) on CARDINAL DATE the land was nationalised as undeveloped construction land ( neizgra\u0111eno gra\u0111evinsko zemlji\u0161te ) and thereby passed into social ownership ( dru\u0161tveno vlasni\u0161tvo ) . Under sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL of that Act undeveloped construction land remained in the possession of the former owner until the former owner , on the basis of a decision by the relevant municipal authority , surrendered possession of the land to the local authorities or to another person , for construction of a building or other facility or for other works . While in possession of the nationalised land the former owner had the right to use the nationalised land free of charge or to allow another person to use it with or without a charge , according to the rules governing lease of agricultural land ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the CARDINAL plots of land were recorded in the land register as being in social ownership ; the former owners ( the applicants\u2019 relatives ) had the right to use them until the relevant authority issued a decision transferring possession of the plots to the local authorities or to another person .","On DATE the CARDINAL plots were joined into a single cadastral plot .","NORP In preparation for the Mediterranean Games held in PERSON DATE further ( re)construction works were carried out to ORG . It would appear that CARDINAL more tennis courts , a stadium and a gym were built . The construction was completed in DATE .","On DATE the GPE and the tennis club concluded a \u201c self - management agreement \u201d ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) under which GPE transferred to the tennis club the right to manage , use and maintain the tennis courts GPE had built for the Mediterranean Games . GPE also agreed that the tennis club could record the right to use those tennis courts in the land register . The agreement did not specify the cadastral plots on which those tennis courts were located ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE entered into force . It provided that all sports facilities and other socially owned immovable property which sports organisations and associations had the right to use was to pass into the ownership of the local authorities in whose territory such property was located . However , in order to become owners the local authorities had to issue a decision taking over such property within DATE of the entry into force of the Amendments ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , published in the local official gazette and based on LAW to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , GPE took over and thus became the owner of all sports facilities and other socially owned immovable property on its territory referred to in those LAW . The decision listed \u201c Firule tennis courts \u201d among the sports facilities taken over by the township .","On DATE LAW entered into force . Pursuant to its section CARDINAL all holders of the right to use undeveloped construction land in social ownership became by the operation of law the owners of the land they had the right to use ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a decision of DATE the GPE specified the cadastral plots to which its decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) referred . The plot in question ( no . CARDINAL ) was listed therein .","Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG relatives brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking compensation from the tennis club for unauthorised use of the land at issue .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the tennis club to pay the ORG relatives MONEY ( YUD ) , with interest , for using the land without any legal basis in the period DATE and DATE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( ORG ) dismissed an appeal by the tennis club and upheld the first - instance judgment . It endorsed the finding of the first - instance court that the tennis club had had no legal basis to use the land in question .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an appeal by the tennis club by endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts . In particular , that court held as follows :","\u201c The land at issue was nationalised on the basis of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of [ LAW of DATE ] . However , the right to use [ that land ] remained until DATE , recorded [ in the land register ] in the name of the plaintiffs as [ its ] former owners . In DATE the defendant commenced construction works on that land and has been using it for its own purposes ever since .","Even though the defendant applied on several occasions to [ the relevant authority within ] the former GPE to order dispossession of the plaintiffs in its favour , those requests were never met . ..","The plaintiffs throughout this period , namely from the commencement of the construction of the tennis courts until the action was brought in this case , demanded compensation for the land at issue , either by awarding them other immovable property or by paying them financial compensation . However , they did not obtain it , either from the defendant or in the regular proceedings for determining the level of compensation ...","Given that the land in dispute was not taken out of the possession of the plaintiffs , either on the basis of a decision by the GPE or on any other basis , nor was it given to the defendant on the basis of a decision by the relevant authority ... the defendant does not have any [ legal ] basis to use the land at issue . Even if the defendant had received building permit ... for construction of a tennis court during the time the land was privately owned by the plaintiffs or afterwards , namely after the nationalisation of the land , the possession of building permit itself is not a [ legal ] basis for losing or acquiring the right of ownership or , after nationalisation , the right to use the land .","By unlawfully retaining the plaintiffs\u2019 land in its possession , the plaintiffs being the holders of the right to use that land , and by not paying them any compensation throughout the entire period the land was in its possession , the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiffs compensation at their request corresponding at least to the level of rent they would have received if they had been leasing that land to third parties . \u201d","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the applicants brought a civil action in ORG , seeking compensation from the tennis club for the use of the land in DATE .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ruled for the applicants , and ordered the tennis club to pay the applicants a total of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in compensation for the use of the land in the period DATE and DATE , together with the accrued statutory default interest . In particular , it held as follows :","\u201c ... section CARDINAL of LAW as amended by the DATE Amendments provided that only those sports facilities which sports organisations and associations or other legal entities had the right to use passed into the ownership of townships and municipalities in whose territory they were located .","The defendant does not have the right to use the sports facilities built on the plot of land in dispute , because the right to use the land was , on the basis of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of [ LAW of DATE ] , recorded [ in the land register ] in the name of the GPE ancestors , which situation remained unaltered until the entry into force of LAW whereby the right to use was converted into the right of ownership of those recorded as users , that is , of the plaintiffs ...","The defendant did not acquire even an unrecorded right of use , because [ the defendant ] did not provide the court with relevant evidence [ to that effect ] . The defendant has been continuously in dispute with the plaintiffs and their ancestors over the immovable property in question since DATE ... GPE could not transfer to the defendant the right to administer and use land which it did not have . The immovable property at issue was never taken out of the possession of the plaintiffs in accordance with the law [ and ] in the relevant proceedings ; there is no decision by the relevant authority to that effect ; this last is not disputed between the parties . The plaintiffs and their ancestors were recorded as users and now ( co- ) owners of the land in question . \u201d","Following an appeal by the defendant , by a judgment of DATE ORG ( PERSON ) reversed the first - instance judgment and dismissed the applicants\u2019 action . It held that the right to use the land in question had been transferred to the tennis club by ORG of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) , and that by a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , based on the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the local authorities had become the owners of that land . This meant that since DATE the applicants had not had the right to use the land or to claim any compensation from the tennis club . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c In DATE the defendant had commenced the construction of tennis courts on the land in dispute , which was then nationalised on the basis of [ LAW of DATE ] . GPE , which had built the tennis courts , took possession of them and long after the nationalisation [ had taken place ] transferred to the defendant ( the tennis club ) , the right to administer , use and maintain the tennis courts by the self - management agreement of [ DATE , in accordance with the law .","By the entry into force of the [ DATE ] LAW to LAW the social ownership of sports facilities was transformed by the operation of law , before the entry into force of LAW . On the basis of section CARDINAL of LAW [ as amended by LAW ] , the sports facilities in social ownership , in the present case the tennis courts built on the land in dispute , passed into the ownership of GPE , which transferred that immovable property to the defendant , who has thus been using them , in this appellate court \u2019s view , on the basis of a valid legal title .","Contrary to the view of the first - instance court , this appellate court considers in the light of the foregoing that in the period DATE the defendant was not unlawfully using the cadastral plot no . CARDINAL on which the tennis courts were built .","Therefore , there is no legal basis for the plaintiffs\u2019 compensation claim for the unauthorised use of the disputed land during the above DATE period . \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) by the applicants . It endorsed the reasons given by the second - instance court . It added , in reply to the applicants\u2019 main argument in their appeal :","\u201c The plaintiffs\u2019 argument that section CARDINAL of LAW [ as amended by LAW ] is not applicable in the present case because [ the case ] does not concern sports facilities in social ownership which sports organisations had the right to use , is unfounded . In particular , the disputed immovable property had passed into social ownership on the basis of [ LAW of DATE ] ; the GPE ... had entered into possession of that property and commenced the construction of tennis courts and by ORG of [ DATE transferred to the defendant the right to manage , use and maintain the tennis courts . Therefore , the present case concerns immovable property in social ownership the defendant had the right to use and which , on the basis of section CARDINAL of LAW [ as amended by DATE Amendments ] , passed into the ownership of GPE . \u201d","On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) against ORG judgment . Relying on Articles CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , they alleged violations of their constitutional rights to equality before the law , equality before the courts , fair hearing and the right of ownership .","It would appear that those proceedings are still pending before ORG .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicants brought a civil action in ORG against the tennis club , seeking repossession of the land in question . They argued that the tennis club was in possession of the tennis courts situated on that land without any legal basis .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the tennis club to surrender possession of the land to the applicants . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c The defendant has been using the immovable property at issue by building a tennis court on it , which thus serves the needs of the defendant as a tennis club . As can be seen from the [ first proceedings for compensation ] the disputed immovable property has never been taken out of the plaintiffs\u2019 possession even though the defendant on several occasions unsuccessfully sought possession from [ the relevant authority within ] the former GPE . It is therefore indisputable that until DATE the immovable property in question has not been taken out of the plaintiffs\u2019 possession , which means that the defendant has been holding it unlawfully without a valid legal title . The plaintiffs therefore have the right to seek that the defendant vacate the property and surrender it to them .","Section CARDINAL of the [ LAW of DATE ] provided that nationalised construction land was to remain in the possession of its former owners until they surrendered possession of the land to [ the local authorities ] or to another person , for construction of a building or other facility or for other works , or to allow another person to use it for compensation , on the basis of a decision by the [ relevant municipal authority ] . Section CARDINAL of that Act provided that the former owner of the nationalised undeveloped construction land had the right to use that land ... as long as it remained in his or her possession , free of charge","Given that the relevant authority has not so far issued a decision on dispossession allowing the disputed immovable property to be taken from the possession of the plaintiffs , [ they ] still have the right to use it permanently , and the defendant has been unlawfully disturbing them in the exercise of that right , and has not been paying compensation for the entire period during which it has been using the immovable property at issue .","In the light of the foregoing , and given that the land in dispute was not the subject of a decision by the Split Municipality or of any other relevant authority , and has not been taken out of the possession of the plaintiffs and ... given to the defendant for use , this court finds that the defendant does not have any [ legal ] basis to use the land at issue and thus has to surrender it to the plaintiffs ... to whom that right lawfully belongs . [ The ] plaintiffs\u2019 claim is therefore well - founded . \u201d","Following an appeal by the defendant , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG reversed the first \u2013 instance judgment and dismissed the applicants\u2019 action . In so doing it held as follows :","\u201c It is undisputed that the plaintiffs succeeded in [ the first set of civil proceedings for compensation ] .","What is disputed , however , is whether the plaintiffs can successfully seek repossession and return of the nationalised land relying on the absence of a decision by the relevant authority whereby the defendant would be allowed to take possession of the immovable property in question .","In the view of this court [ this ] dispute is to be resolved by applying the provisions of LAW . LAW regulated transformation [ of ownership ] ... of sports facilities ...","By the entry into force of the DATE LAW sports facilities ex lege passed from social ownership ... into the ownership of those townships and municipalities on whose territory they were located .","Section CARDINALa of LAW provided that those entitled [ town councils or municipal councils ] had to pass an act taking over sports facilities and other immovable property within DATE of the day of the entry into force of the DATE LAW ...","In ORG of the Split Municipality no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL March DATE ORG was published , transferring the right to administer , and regulating the [ legal ] relationships concerning the use and maintenance , of newly built tennis courts in ORG , whereby the GPE as the developer ... transferred to the [ tennis club ] the right to use and maintain the tennis courts ...","On DATE GPE ( on the basis of section CARDINALa of LAW ) passed the Decision on takeover of sports facilities and other immovable property in social ownership into the ownership of GPE , whereby ... inter alia , the Firule tennis courts passed into the ownership of GPE ...","In the present case the sequence of events shows that the tennis courts passed into the ownership of GPE , and thus the plaintiffs are not entitled to sue the defendant by their rei vindicatio action acting as the owners .","For these reasons ... the contested judgment had to be reversed and the plaintiffs\u2019 action dismissed in its entirety . \u201d","On DATE the applicants , alleging violations of their constitutional right to equality before the law and the right of ownership , lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against ORG judgment . They relied on LAW paragraph CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 constitutional complaint . It held :","\u201c The legal views expressed in the contested judgment are based on a constitutionally acceptable interpretation and application of the relevant substantive law . ORG finds that the ORG gave reasons for its views expressed in the contested judgment , which indisputably are not the result of an arbitrary interpretation and application of the relevant substantive law .","The immovable property in question , being socially owned , had been passed on the basis of LAW of LAW [ as amended by DATE Amendments ] into the ownership of GPE , which transferred them to the defendant , who has thus been using them on the basis of a valid legal title . ORG therefore finds that the second - instance court correctly applied the substantive law when holding that the complainants were not entitled to sue the defendant acting as the owners .","As regards the ORG argument that the relevant provisions of LAW ( in particular section CARDINAL ) should have been applied in the present case , ORG notes that this provision is not relevant in the present instance . ORG finds that in the instant case the [ statutory ] requirement for returning the immovable property in question , which in kind constitutes a sports facility ( the Firule tennis courts ) , to the complainants was not satisfied because [ that property ] had been transferred into social ownership when [ LAW of DATE ] was applied . [ That is so because ] the transformation of social ownership of sports facilities was regulated by LAW , which entered into force before LAW .","Since the second - instance court by reversing the first - instance judgment correctly applied the relevant substantive law and dismissed the complainant \u2019s action , the Constitutional Court finds that the ORG constitutional right guaranteed by LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW was not breached ...","ORG protects the right of ownership at the constitutional level in a manner that prevents restriction or taking of that right by the ORG authorities , unless a restriction or taking is provided for by law ... interferences with ownership by other legal subjects ( natural or legal persons ) are property disputes of a private - law nature . The ORG examines also such decisions of judicial and other authorities if it finds that the contested decision , having regard to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the LAW , is based on an erroneous or unacceptable legal view .","Given the subject matter of the civil proceedings that preceded these proceedings before [ it ] , the Constitutional Court finds that the ORG right [ of ownership ] guaranteed by LAW were not breached . \u201d","The Constitutional Court \u2019s decision was served on the ORG representative on DATE .","On DATE the GPE , relying on section CARDINAL of LAW to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , lodged an application with ORG of ORG seeking to be recorded in the land register as the owner of the plot of land claimed by the applicants .","On DATE and DATE the applicants , relying on section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , lodged an application with the same judicial authority , seeking to be recorded in the land register as the owners of the same plot of land .","On DATE ORG of ORG allowed the application by the applicants and recorded them in the land register as the owners of the plot of land in question .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG dismissed GPE application of CARDINAL DATE for recordation as owner . ORG appealed and the appellate proceedings are currently pending before ORG .","On DATE the applicants brought a civil action against the tennis club and the GPE seeking compensation for the unlawful use of the land in question from DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the GPE brought a counterclaim against the applicants , seeking to be declared the owner of the land in dispute . Shortly afterwards ORG decided to split the proceedings into CARDINAL , CARDINAL for compensation and the other for declaration of ownership .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 action for compensation .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicants and upheld the first - instance judgment .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG against the second - instance judgment . The proceedings are currently pending before that court .","NORP The proceedings between the applicants and GPE for declaration of ownership are currently still pending before ORG as the first - instance court .","The relevant Articles of the LAW of GPE ( ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL , DATE ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( consolidated text ) , PERSON ( corrigendum ) ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL read as follows :","\u201c Everyone in GPE shall enjoy rights and freedoms regardless of their race , colour , sex , language , religion , political or other beliefs , national or social origin , property , birth , education , social status or other characteristics .","All shall be equal before the law . \u201d","\u201c All citizens of GPE and foreigners shall be equal before the courts and other ORG or public authorities . \u201d","\u201c In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The right of ownership shall be guaranteed .","Ownership implies duties . Owners and users of property shall contribute to the general welfare . \u201d","The relevant provisions of ORG and LAW ( Zakon o nacionalizaciji najamnih zgrada i gra\u0111evinskog zemlji\u0161ta , ORG of ORG of Yugoslavia no . DATE LAW of DATE \u201d ) , which entered into force on DATE , provided as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Buildings , parts of buildings and construction land nationalised by this LAW shall pass into social ownership on DATE of its entry into force .","( CARDINAL ) A decision of the relevant authority rendered in the proceedings prescribed by this LAW and [ relevant ] subordinate legislation ... shall determine which objects are nationalised by this LAW . \u201d","\u201c All developed or undeveloped construction land located in ... towns ... shall be considered construction land and shall be nationalised [ pursuant to this LAW ] . \u201d","\u201c Nationalised undeveloped construction land shall remain in the possession of its former owners until they surrender possession of the land to [ the local authorities ] or to another person for construction of a building or other facility or for other works , on the basis of a decision by the [ relevant municipal authority ] ,","Possession of the land shall not be surrendered to [ the local authorities ] or to another user before the user needs it to perform construction or other works with a view to bringing the land into its designated use . \u201d","\u201c The former owner of nationalised undeveloped construction land shall have the right to use that land ... as long as it remains in his or her possession , free of charge , and shall also have the right to allow another person to use it with or without charge , according to the legislation governing the lease of agricultural land . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o \u0161portu , ORG nos . CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , which was in force between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , as amended by LAW ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON o \u0161portu , ORG no . CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE , read as follows :","\u201c Sports facilities and other immovable property in social ownership which sports organisations and associations or other legal entities established to manage sports facilities ( companies , institutions , work organisations ) have the right to use shall pass into the ownership of townships and municipalities in whose territory they are located . \u201d","\u201c An act of taking over the sports facilities and other immovable property referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of this Act shall be passed by the town or municipal council within DATE of the entry into force of this Act . \u201d","The relevant provisions of the Ownership and Other Rights In Rem Act ( Zakon o vlasni\u0161tvu i drugim stvarnim pravima , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and DATE ) , which entered into force on DATE , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The right to use undeveloped construction land in social ownership which has not been extinguished before the enactment of this LAW shall by its entry into force be converted into the right of ownership of the holder of that right or of his or her legal successor ..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144673","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PRIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["On DATE a group of CARDINAL people living in LOC of Dagestan , a mountainous region close to the border with GPE , posted a written notice informing the district authorities that on DATE they would hold a public demonstration in the village of GPE . The ORG names were not mentioned in the list of organisers of the demonstration . The principal aims of the demonstration were to criticise the work of the head of the local administration , PERSON , to denounce corruption and the misuse of public funds by the local administration , and to draw attention to the inactivity of the law - enforcement agencies vis - \u00e0 - vis abuses committed by PERSON and his colleagues . The demonstration was supposed to be held in a recreational park in the village of GPE from TIME ; the estimated number of participants was CARDINAL . The organisers asked the police to dispatch officers for the protection of those participating in the demonstration . Although the applicants\u2019 names were not in the notice , they claimed that they had played an active part in the organisation of the meeting in their respective communities .","The notice ( \u0443\u0432\u0435\u0434\u043e\u043c\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) was sent to the district administration with copies to the NORP district prosecutor and the head of the district police department . The applicants produced a copy of a payment slip from a post office in GPE indicating that the notice had been posted by registered mail on DATE . It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that the notice was received by the district administration on DATE .","On DATE the head of the district administration , Mr A. \u2013 the same person who was the principle target of the criticism by the demonstrators \u2013 informed the organisers that the district administration was opposed to the demonstration . In his letter of CARDINAL DATE Mr A. said that , first , the notice had been lodged ( \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0430\u043d\u043e ) outside the time - limit fixed in LAW . Secondly , the park in GPE was not supposed to admit CARDINAL people , so it was impossible to hold a demonstration there . Thirdly , the purpose of the demonstration was to condemn the embezzlement of public funds and the deliberate destruction of financial records by the district administration . However , according to PERSON , the competent law - enforcement authorities , in particular the prosecutor \u2019s office , and financial authorities such as ORG of ORG , had already inquired into those allegations and concluded that there had been no case to answer . The letter also contained a warning addressed to the organisers that if they proceeded with the demonstration as planned , they would be held liable in accordance with the law .","At TIME on DATE , a group of men armed with iron rods and sticks attacked another group of individuals near the village of Khiv . CARDINAL persons were injured . Having received information about the clash , the PERSON police dispatched a group of officers to the scene . The police set up an improvised roadblock near the \u201c FAC \u201d ( GPE ) to check the passing cars and prevent further clashes . TIME a group of CARDINAL people armed with wooden sticks , iron rods and similar objects arrived at the roadblock in several cars without licence plates . The police stopped those cars . According to the authorities , the second applicant then climbed onto the roof of his car and started to incite his fellow villagers to resist the police and to run them over . His followers started to abuse the police verbally , pushed them out of their way and tried to overturn a police vehicle and a truck which the police had used to block the road . CARDINAL of the police officers was injured , and his uniform was ripped . As a result , the police gave up and let the cars pass .","The second applicant denied having participated in the scuffle . He maintained that on DATE he had been taking part in a gathering in LOC . As to the episode near the police roadblock , he claimed that he had argued with the police officers , asking them to let him and his car through , and the windscreen of his car had been broken by them . However , he had not committed any unlawful acts .","On an unspecified date the prosecutor \u2019s office opened a criminal investigation into the events of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the second applicant was arrested with reference to case no . DATE , which concerned the riot on DATE in the village of Khiv . On DATE ORG granted the police \u2019s request to detain the second applicant on remand . The second applicant was suspected of having committed a crime under LAW ( \u201c GPE riots \u201d ) , and LAW ( \u201c Use of violence against a public official \u201d ) of LAW of GPE . The court ruled that the second applicant should be detained because otherwise he might obstruct the establishment of the truth , destroy evidence or abscond . The second applicant appealed , claiming that the court \u2019s decision was unsubstantiated , but on DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the appeal in a summary fashion .","On DATE the ORG of PERSON ordered the second applicant \u2019s release , indicating that he had a permanent place of residence , CARDINAL children to take care of and an elderly father who was ill , and that the charges against him were not serious . The second applicant was released .","Subsequently , the criminal case against the second applicant was closed by the trial court for \u201c active repentance \u201d .","NORP Despite the decision of the local administration of DATE whereby the demonstration of DATE had not been allowed , the organisers decided to hold it as planned . The first and the third applicants took part in that \u201c unauthorised \u201d demonstration ; the second applicant was not amongst the protesters since at that time he had been detained on remand in connection with the episode of on DATE in the village of PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","At TIME on DATE , a group of CARDINAL people gathered on the outskirts of GPE . Other demonstrators were unable to reach the assembly point because the roads had been blocked by the police .","NORP The organisers tried to meet representatives of the village administration in order to discuss the situation , but to no avail . When the demonstrators started moving towards the centre of the village , the police blocked their way . At the same time another group of demonstrators from the neighbouring village of GPE were stopped by the police on the way to GPE ; they were ordered to return to GPE and hold their demonstration there separately , if they so wished .","In TIME the demonstrators from GPE started moving towards GPE . As the police had blocked the road , the demonstrators had to leave their cars and walk . Because of the bad weather and the long distance to walk , some of them decided to give up . As a result , when the demonstration arrived at GPE , there were CARDINAL participants .","The meeting was peaceful ; however , at TIME the demonstrators were encircled by police officers from ORG ( the \u201c OMON \u201d ) . The police opened fire with automatic rifles above the demonstrators\u2019 heads . They also used tear gas , smoke bombs and stun grenades to disperse the demonstration . The demonstrators started to run in the direction of the village ; the police officers followed them . The police beat the demonstrators with rubber truncheons and rifle butts . As a result , CARDINAL person was shot dead , CARDINAL people were severely injured and CARDINAL people were beaten up or were injured by the shells of the tear - gas bombs which had exploded in the midst of the crowd . CARDINAL people were arrested , and the organisers of the meeting were charged in connection with their participation in the organisation of an unauthorised demonstration . From the first and the third applicants\u2019 submissions it appears that they were present at the scene of the confrontation in GPE up to a certain moment but left when the clash started at QUANTITY None of them was hurt during the clash .","As to the gunshot injury received by a police officer , CARDINAL of the participants in the demonstration , referring to the words of another witness , Mr MONEY , claimed that the wound had been self - inflicted : the officer concerned had shot himself in the leg by accident , because his gun had not been locked .","On DATE ORG of ORG issued LAW CARDINAL \u201c On measures to stabilise the situation in LOC of Dagestan \u201d . The order described the unauthorised demonstration of DATE , which supposedly would involve CARDINAL people \u201c with an aggressive predisposition \u201d . The order mentioned the risks of blocking the roads and disturbing the normal work of ORG institutions . A \u201c mixed squad \u201d was formed comprising of CARDINAL police officers from ORG ( ORG ) and CARDINAL officers from CARDINAL local police stations . Colonel PERSON . was appointed as commander of the \u201c mixed squad \u201d . The order provided for undercover observation of the leaders of the demonstrators , video - recording of the events , strengthening of identity checks at the roadblocks and other security measures .","NORP The squad moved to GPE and took position at several roadblocks controlling roads leading to the village and near certain buildings occupied by ORG bodies . The aim of the operation was to secure public order , guarantee the constitutional rights and freedoms of the population and prevent clashes between the supporters of PERSON and his opponents .","In their observations , the Government claimed that on DATE of the demonstration someone had taken alcohol , foodstuff and illegal drugs to GPE . It had all been distributed amongst the residents of the village . In addition , there was information about individuals from other villages who had arrived in ORG with the aim of inciting the local population to participate in the unlawful demonstration and to insubordination to the lawenforcement authorities .","At TIME on DATE , CARDINAL groups of people gathered near the LOC of the village administration . CARDINAL group of CARDINAL people were supporters of PERSON , the head of the district administration . The CARDINAL other groups DATE which counted CARDINAL people in aggregate \u2013 were the opponents of PERSON documents contained in the case file also refer to another group of CARDINAL people , who arrived in GPE to take part in the demonstration ; it is unclear whether that group was able to join the gathering in the centre or was stopped by the police on the outskirts of the village .","NORP In view of the risk of clashes between the opposing groups , representatives of the protesters were invited to take part in negotiations in the local prosecutor \u2019s office . The negotiations involved Colonel PERSON . , the Deputy Minister of ORG of ORG , the prosecutor , Ms ORG . , and the head of the local police , PERSON . The authorities proposed to the organisers that they could hold the demonstration in a municipal garage .","NORP However , that offer was declined . The demonstrators started to move from GPE to GPE , where they arrived at CARDINAL or TIME In the meantime , however , someone had blocked the road with objects including paving stones , timber beams and water pipes . This was a federallevel road connecting several villages and its blockage caused a considerable traffic jam .","The authorities warned the organisers that if the road remained blocked , the organisers would be held liable , and that the law - enforcement authorities present on the spot would use force and \u201c special equipment \u201d .","The organisers refused to follow the instructions and told other demonstrators to disobey the police orders . When the police , following the orders of Deputy Minister Colonel PERSON . , started to remove the barricade from the road , unidentified men in the crowd started to throw stones at them . In addition , several shots were fired from a garden situated uphill on the left side of the road . Some of the protesters were armed with cold weapons such as iron rods , which they used as bats while attacking the police , whereas others tried to grab the service guns from the police officers .","As a result , the police had to use firearms and special equipment . In particular , they used CARDINAL stun grenades , CARDINAL tear - gas grenades , thirtysix rubber bullets , and fired QUANTITY shots from automatic rifles above the heads of the crowd . CARDINAL of the most active protesters were arrested and taken to the NORP police station .","In addition , unidentified police officers used pump - action shotguns loaded with QUANTITY grenades filled with tear gas . Those shots were fired in the direction of the crowd .","Following the clash between the police and the demonstrators , several police officers were injured . CARDINAL had bruises on their arms and legs , scratches and concussion ; one had a ruptured spleen ; and CARDINAL , Mr Il . , had a gunshot wound in the form of a perforated bullet hole in the right thigh .","QUANTITY civilians were seriously injured and one died . PERSON . had a blunt gunshot wound to the right side of the thorax with fractured ribs ; Mr PERSON . had a gunshot wound to the left side of the thorax with broken shoulder bones ; Mr PERSON . was wounded by a shell fragment in the right shin and thigh ; Mr Gnd . had a gunshot wound to the right forearm with a fractured bone ; and PERSON . received a mortal wound by a gas grenade to the thorax and died on the way to hospital .","In support of their account , the Government produced some documents apparently obtained in the course of the investigation ( case no . DATE ) . It is unclear , however , whether all those documents related to case No . DATE and whether they constituted the entirety of the materials collected within that case . The content of those documents , insofar as relevant , is described below .","The Government produced medical certificates describing the injuries of several police officers , but not Mr Il . They also produced several medical certificates describing the injuries sustained by the protesters , all of whom had bruises and scratches . According to the certificates , the protesters claimed that the police had kicked , beaten and battered them with rubber truncheons and gun butts . Some of the protesters had been injured by the rubber bullets used by the police . Others claimed that they had been beaten up after having been arrested and taken to the police station .","In his testimony PERSON . , the head of the NORP police , gave an account of the events which was generally consonant with that of the Government . He said that he had been warned about the demonstration in a telegram sent by the organisers . On DATE he had met CARDINAL of them and discussed the event . He further explained that at some time after TIME on DATE , his men had stopped a large group of protesters who had been trying to enter GPE . PERSON . had spoken with the leaders of the protesters and explained to them that \u201c the demonstration had not been authorised , and that the actions [ of the demonstrators ] were unlawful \u201d . Subsequently , he had been involved in the negotiations with the demonstrators . The deputy head of the district administration had proposed to the protesters that they hold the demonstration in a municipal garage , explaining that if they stayed in the square near the district administration premises , they risked blocking the main road . The leaders of the protesters visited the garage , but were not satisfied with that offer . They informed the authorities that they would send the protesters to GPE and hold their demonstration there , in the village community centre . When the negotiations were over , a small group of protesters started to move towards the village centre , whereas others marched to GPE , accompanied by the police . At TIME Mr Akb . was informed that the federal road had been blocked by CARDINAL large heaps of stones . He arrived at the scene and started to negotiate with the leaders of the protesters . He tried to persuade them to unblock the road , but they refused and insisted on meeting the leadership of GPE . New people arrived at the scene , armed with stones and sticks . Since the negotiations had failed , PERSON . ordered the police to start clearing the road . The men who had gathered on the sides of the road started to throw stones at the police officers , several of whom were hit , so Mr ORG . authorised the use of shields and rubber truncheons . Once the first heap of stones had been removed and the traffic had started to move , the police discovered that QUANTITY further down the road it had again been obstructed with pipes . Throughout that time the police officers had stones thrown at them . PERSON . authorised them to use firearms but only above the heads of the protesters . By TIME the road had been unblocked .","Mr Yakh . , CARDINAL of the protesters , testified that when they had arrived in GPE , the road had not yet been blocked . People had started to block the road spontaneously with stones in order to draw the authorities\u2019 attention to their claims . The leaders of the demonstration , who spoke before the crowd , called everybody to order and asked them not to break the law . Then a police colonel appeared . He asked the leaders of the protesters to unblock the road , but they refused . The police then attacked the protesters from CARDINAL sides and started to shoot and throw gas grenades into the crowd . People started to run in the direction of GPE . PERSON . testified that he had not seen protesters throwing stones at the police : by contrast , the police had thrown stones at the crowd in order to unblock the road .","Witness Mr Ag . , a district administration official , testified that all the protesters , including women and elderly people , had been drunk , because earlier a mini - lorry had brought a cargo of vodka which had been distributed to the protesters . Mr Ag . joined the crowd and went with the protesters to GPE , where he listened to the speeches of the leaders of the demonstration before a crowd of CARDINAL people . After the failure of the negotiations between the protesters and the authorities , the leaders started to incite the protesters to throw stones ; he also heard the sound of shots coming from the side where the protesters had gathered . A police officer was wounded . The police started to move towards the protesters and fired CARDINAL warning shots above their heads . When the police started to remove the stones from the road and arrest the protesters , Mr Ag . left . On the way back he overheard CARDINAL women complaining that the organisers had not paid them and that they had been used as a human shield against the police .","According to an undated report by the head of ORG , Major PERSON . , the police had started using gas grenades only when a large group of CARDINAL men armed with iron rods , wooden sticks and knives had attacked them . Major PERSON . also specified that when his officers were moving from the first barricade to the second , someone had started to shoot at them from under the nearby trees with an automatic gun and a hunter \u2019s gun .","Witness PERSON . testified that on DATE he had been going on his business but had been stopped by the crowd . He had heard the first applicant calling the protesters not to block the road but to gather in the community centre of GPE . However , some of the demonstrators disobeyed ; CARDINAL lorries arrived and dumped stones on the road . Some of the protesters were throwing stones at the police .","One of the witnesses , PERSON . , was the driver of the lorry that had brought stones for the first barricade . He explained that he had loaded the stones near the river in order to build a shed in his garden . Near the entry to GPE he was stopped by a group of youngsters who ordered him , under the threat of violence , to dump the stones directly on the road .","The written testimonies of several other eyewitnesses were inconclusive . Some of them testified that a group of adolescents had been throwing stones at the police ; others said that the police had used firearms by shooting in the air , whereas the demonstrators had no firearms . Some witnesses heard shots from the side of the protesters .","On DATE the first applicant was arrested for participating in the organisation of an unauthorised demonstration on DATE ( criminal case no . DATE ) . He was suspected of having committed a crime under LAW ( \u201c Hooliganism \u201d ) , and LAW of violence against a public official \u201d ) of LAW of GPE ( for all further references to LAW see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) .","NORP In particular , the police suspected that the first applicant had incited the demonstrators to block the road and to \u201c disobey the lawful orders of the police with the use of firearms \u201d . The police applied to ORG for a detention order against the first applicant .","According to the ORG , the decision of the Prosecutor of GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the RPO \u201d , ORG ) to seek the first applicant \u2019s detention was based on the witness statements of PERSON . , Mr Agsh . , Mr Shk . and an anonymous witness . Those witnesses identified the first applicant as CARDINAL of the leaders of the demonstration who had incited the crowd to attack the police .","On DATE the ORG of GPE placed the first applicant in pre - trial detention . In its ruling the court noted that he was suspected of having committed a serious crime and that he might continue his criminal activity , abscond or obstruct the course of justice . The court also referred to his \u201c personality \u201d .","The first applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed . He indicated that the first applicant worked as head of a municipal social - security office , had a permanent place of residence and CARDINAL children , and had good references from his colleagues and neighbours . The lawyer also stated that the first applicant had not been contacted by the investigators before his arrest . The lawyer noted that a suspect could be held in pre - trial detention before being formally charged only in exceptional circumstances . The court \u2019s ruling did not refer to any specific facts showing that the first applicant indeed intended to continue his criminal activities , abscond or obstruct the course of justice . Furthermore , the lawyer pointed to various irregularities in the application by the police and in the court \u2019s ruling imposing the detention order .","On DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the appeal in a summary fashion . ORG reasoning was identical to that of the lower court .","On DATE the first applicant was charged under LAW CARDINAL and LAW . In the indictment the first applicant was referred to as \u201c the organiser of the demonstration \u201d . The indictment also mentioned that , as one of the organisers of the demonstration , the first applicant had ordered the protesters to block the road , throw stones in the direction of the police and use firearms .","It appears that in the meantime the first applicant had a confrontation with the witnesses who had earlier identified him as CARDINAL of the instigators of the riot . According to the Government , they had all denied their previous allegations concerning his role in the riot .","DATE . On DATE the ORG of PERSON refused to extend the first applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The court ruled that the police had not produced any evidence that he might abscond or obstruct the course of justice , and that another preventive measure could not be applied . The court also stated that the need to question other demonstrators who had used violence against the police was not a good reason for extending his detention . The court lastly stated that the first applicant had no previous convictions , was married , was in employment , had good references , had been awarded State decorations and had a permanent place of residence . The first applicant was released .","On DATE the criminal case against the first applicant was discontinued for lack of evidence . The investigator established that the road going to GPE had been blocked by the protesters ; when the police had tried to clear the road , the protesters had started to throw stones and sticks at them . Several police officers had been injured ; police officer PERSON . had been wounded by a bullet fired from a hunter \u2019s gun .","The investigator \u2019s decision to discontinue the case referred to the protocol of examining the site of the clash during which he had discovered the following objects : CARDINAL QUANTITY ( the type used in the police \u2019s automatic guns ) , CARDINAL QUANTITY cartridge ( standard army PERSON rifle ) , CARDINAL cardboard cartridges ( hunter \u2019s gun ) and CARDINAL cartridge from a teargas grenade .","The investigator further referred to the testimony of several demonstrators who had stated that when the police had approached the demonstrators , most of the people had remained calm . However , some time later , a group of young men whom the witnesses had identified as \u201c the people of Mr Kanberov \u201d , had arrived and started to throw stones and shout insults at the police .","Two police officers questioned by the investigator were granted anonymity . They testified that the leaders of the demonstration , including the first and third applicants , had ordered the protesters to disobey the police and throw stones at them . The testimony of the CARDINAL anonymous witnesses was confirmed by several other police officers who testified under their real names , including PERSON . However , during a face - to - face confrontation with the first applicant , officer Sch . retracted his statement .","Police officer Mr GPE . testified that the first applicant had left the scene of the confrontation TIME , namely before the start of the clash , because of an emergency in his family . That fact was confirmed by witness PERSON . Witness Mr Um . testified that the first applicant had tried to persuade the protesters to follow the orders of the police and had designated CARDINAL people to keep order during the demonstration .","The first and third applicants were also questioned . They denied their guilt and claimed that they had been collaborating with the police and had tried to call the protesters to order .","NORP The investigator lastly referred to a video recording of the demonstration which showed that the first and third applicants had asked the protesters not to react to provocations and to remain calm .","On DATE the first applicant was informed of his right to claim damages in connection with the criminal prosecution against him .","The third applicant was arrested on DATE . Whereas it is undisputed that the third applicant was present during the demonstration of DATE , his arrest was connected not to that demonstration but to his role in the events of DATE in the village of PERSON and was ordered within criminal case no . PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG of PERSON ordered the third applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The court reasoned that as he might be given a prison sentence , he might abscond . The court noted that although the arrest warrant had been issued by the police on DATE , the third applicant had not been arrested until DATE .","The third applicant appealed . He stated , in particular , that before DATE the police had not taken any steps to enforce the arrest warrant of DATE . He had been arrested on the LOC of ORG of ORG , where he had gone of his own motion .","On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the findings of the first - instance court in a summary fashion . On DATE the third applicant was charged under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW for participating in the events of DATE in the village of Khiv . The charges against him were similar to those against the second applicant .","On DATE the ORG of PERSON refused to extend the third applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The court ruled that the police had not produced any evidence that he might abscond or obstruct the course of justice . The court also indicated that the need to conduct further investigative steps was not a legitimate reason for extending his detention . The court concluded that it was possible to apply a milder preventive measure . The third applicant was released .","As follows from the ORG \u2019s submissions , the accusations against the third applicant were based on the testimony of CARDINAL witness . The prosecution authorities decided to drop the charges against him .","On DATE the ORG ordered a criminal investigation into the events in GPE and GPE ( case no . DATE ) . The facts were categorised under LAW ( e ) ( \u201c Murder \u201d ) and LAW possession of or trafficking in firearms \u201d ) of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE Colonel PERSON . , acting head of ORG ( ORG ) of ORG of ORG , drew up a report on the events of DATE . He explained that the tear - gas grenades had been used when the protesters attacked the police with iron rods and tried to grab the service guns .","On DATE an internal inquiry carried out by the federal ORG concluded that the police \u2019s actions on DATE had been appropriate . In particular , according to the final report of the inquiry , at TIME . had ordered his officers to unblock the road , but the officers were attacked by a group of men armed with iron rods , stones and knives . Some of those men tried to grab the ORG service guns . When the police entered GPE , they discovered a lorry loaded with alcohol , cigarettes and foodstuff . Lieutenant - Colonel Mr Og . testified that his men had been fired at from the nearby gardens located on the left side of the road . Officer PERSON . ( who had sustained a bullet wound to his thigh ) testified that a hooded man had shot at him with a hunter \u2019s gun . An appendix to the internal inquiry described restrictions on the use of gas grenades ; in particular , it was prohibited to \u201c shot gas grenades directly at humans \u201d .","On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant drafted and submitted to the investigator his account of the events of DATE ( a copy was submitted by the Government ) . He claimed that the demonstration had started peacefully , despite information that a group of PERSON supporters had occupied the park in GPE . During the negotiations with the authorities in TIME of DATE the authorities\u2019 representatives warned the protesters that if they insisted on holding the demonstration in GPE , there would be bloodshed . In TIME , when the demonstrators refused to leave the road near GPE , the police started to shoot and beat them with rubber truncheons . The first applicant submitted to the prosecutor a video recording of the start of the clash , and requested the questioning of several participants of the events .","DATE . On DATE the ORG opened a criminal investigation under LAW ( b ) and ( c ) of the ORG ( \u201c Abuse of office \u201d ) concerning the killing of PERSON . ( case no . DATE ) .","On DATE cases nos . CARDINAL and DATE were joined .","According to the Government , within those CARDINAL cases the investigators questioned CARDINAL witnesses and conducted ballistic and medical forensic examinations . The relatives of the victims or the victims themselves were granted the status of victims in those proceedings .","NORP However , the prosecution was unable to establish the persons responsible for the facts at the heart of the investigation . As a result , on DATE the investigation was suspended . The investigator held that \u201c in breach of the instruction on the use of special equipment ... No . CARDINAL , officers of ORG ... fired CARDINAL QUANTITY gas grenades ... \u201d However , it was impossible to identify the police officers who had fired the fatal shot .","It appears that on an unidentified date the investigation was reopened and on DATE it was suspended again ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["11"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150999","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PENCHEVI v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Pavlina Panova;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , GPE .","NORP In DATE the CARDINAL applicants and GPE , the first applicant \u2019s husband and the second applicant \u2019s father , travelled to GPE , to take up a DATE paid traineeship in ORG institutions which the first applicant had been granted there .","On DATE the father went to GPE with the second applicant . He refused to return the child to GPE on DATE , despite the child \u2019s having a ticket for that date and contrary to what had been agreed with the mother .","As a result , the first applicant interrupted her training and returned to GPE on DATE where she joined ORG and their child .","The first applicant brought judicial proceedings seeking protection against GPE The proceedings were suspended on an unspecified date , following a joint request by the first applicant and GPE The proceedings were later resumed after the first applicant claimed that the abuse continued .","ORG issued , on DATE , a protection order in favour of the CARDINAL applicants , prohibiting GPE from approaching them for DATE . The court established that , during the period DATE and DATE , ORG had subjected the CARDINAL applicants to psychological abuse . In particular , he had repeatedly insulted the mother in front of the child , had called her a bad mother , had not allowed the CARDINAL of them to have contact unsupervised by him and , for that purpose , had locked the bathroom and bedroom doors in the apartment at TIME . The court also found that PERSON had made the first applicant sleep on the floor , had driven at a high speed with the child on the front seat of the car , had held the child over the balcony banister pressing the child \u2019s carotid ( neck ) artery and had threatened the first applicant that he would \u201c rip [ her ] open from top to bottom and serve the corresponding jail time \u201d .","As a result of the restraining order ORG did not have contact with the child DATE and DATE .","On DATE the CARDINAL applicants left the family home and the first applicant has exercised actual custody over the second applicant ever since . The first applicant was initially granted a scholarship to study for a master \u2019s degree in GPE during DATE . The father did not give his consent to the child \u2019s travel to GPE . As a result , the second applicant lived with his maternal grand - parents from DATE .","NORP In order to spend as much time as possible with her child , the first applicant traveled frequently between GPE and GPE . She submitted that DATE and DATE she spent CARDINAL her time in GPE with her child . This negatively affected her studies : because she was often absent from classes in order to visit her child , she needed longer overall time to complete her master \u2019s programme , namely DATE instead of DATE . She was awarded another scholarship for a doctorate degree in GPE , starting in DATE .","On DATE , the first applicant filed a claim for divorce .","On DATE the district court pronounced the divorce of the first applicant and her husband as being due to GPE \u2019s fault , and granted the exercise of parental rights to the first applicant . The father \u2019s contact rights were determined with a view to the child \u2019s possible residence in GPE and were as follows : DATE and DATE in DATE second applicant started school , and CARDINAL of every school holiday after that .","Following an appeal by ORG , the regional court upheld the lower court \u2019s findings . ORG dismissed his subsequent cassation appeal as inadmissible . The judgment declaring the divorce final became enforceable on DATE .","In parallel with the divorce proceedings , on DATE the first applicant brought proceedings before the district court under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She sought to obtain a court decision dispensing with the father \u2019s consent to the child \u2019s travel outside the country . More specifically , she requested permission freely to leave the country with her son for a period of DATE as of the date of entry into force of the court judgment .","Several court hearings were held . The applicant informed the court about her intended studies in GPE for DATE , the fact that she had been granted a scholarship , that she had the financial means to take care of her son and that he had adapted well to the social environment in GPE . She did not specifically invoke a provision under the Convention ; instead , she expressed her wish to live with and care for her child while she was pursuing her studies in GPE . However , it appears that she did not formally limit in writing her request for permission to travel with her child to GPE or to any other country .","NORP The district court granted the first applicant \u2019s request on DATE . It found in particular that there was no reason to suspect that she would permanently leave the country with the second applicant . It also held that the father \u2019s access rights had been determined in a preliminary court decision ( \u043e\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) of CARDINAL DATE and , if the first applicant were to obstruct them , GPE could bring separate proceedings in that connection .","After an appeal by ORG the regional court upheld that judgment on DATE . The court observed that the second applicant \u2019s right to freedom of movement was protected under LAW on the Rights of the LAW , LAW and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE below ) . The right to freedom of movement could only be limited in exceptional situations , namely in order to protect national security , public order , public health and morals or the rights and freedoms of others . None of those exceptions had been established or even claimed in the applicants\u2019 case . The court observed that the first applicant offered good material conditions to the child in GPE , that the child had adapted well during his stay there before DATE , that the first applicant was going to specialise in NORP law in ORG and that the second applicant enjoyed considerable care and attention from his mother . The court also held that ORG \u2019s arguments about his access rights were unrelated to the present proceedings ; those arguments had to do with the enforcement of a future court decision in which the exercise of the parental rights in respect of the second applicant were to be definitively determined . The court concluded that it was in the interest of the second applicant to have a passport issued and to travel with the first applicant abroad .","Upon a cassation appeal by ORG , ORG refused the first applicant \u2019s request in a final judgment of DATE . The court relied on its well established and binding case - law according to which permission for a child \u2019s unlimited travel abroad with CARDINAL parent only could not be granted because , as a matter of principle , that could never be in the best interest of the child . The reasons were more specifically that there was a risk that the requesting parent could take the child to countries which were in a state of war or in which there was a high risk of natural calamities , and thus endanger the child \u2019s well - being while depriving ORG possibility to ensure his or her protection . Such permission could be granted , when that was in the interest of the child , in respect of concrete destinations and for a limited period of time . Finally , the court rejected the first applicant \u2019s request that the court define of its own motion concrete boundaries within which travel could be permitted , stating that it was bound by the formulation presented in the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the first applicant brought a new request for permission of the second applicant \u2019s travel with his mother to GPE and the other ORG countries for DATE without the father \u2019s consent . This time she brought her claim under LAW , which provision was adopted in the meantime and which governs specifically the question of LOC travel abroad and the issuing of identity documents for that purpose ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She pointed out that she had consistently facilitated GPE \u2019s access to the child in accordance with his contact rights determined in the divorce proceedings . She submitted that , because she could not take the second applicant with her to GPE while she was pursuing her studies there , both her child and she were deprived of personal contact with each other . She claimed this negatively affected their family life as she was practically deprived of the possibility to raise her child while the exercise of parental rights had been granted to her . She submitted that her doctoral studies in GPE , which were to DATE as of DATE , would give her the flexibility necessary for her taking care of her child , given that she could do most of her work from home . Finally , she pointed out that the second applicant continuously asked to be with his mother at all times as he is very attached to her .","NORP In a decision of DATE , ORG allowed the second applicant \u2019s travel to GPE and within ORG , for DATE , accompanied by his mother . The decision was not appealed against and became enforceable on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157531","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF N.P. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant lived with her DATE daughter , PERSON , and with her mother , PERSON","Following a call from ORG , on CARDINAL DATE the police removed A. from her home and placed her in the care of ORG \u201c GPE \u201d . A medical report drawn up on DATE found that the applicant had severe alcohol intoxication .","C.I. later stated to the police that , as a salesman in a shop on a street near the applicant \u2019s house , he would regularly see the applicant and her mother drinking alcohol and failing to take care of A. , who often had an unkempt appearance and would wander around without adult surveillance , asking for food . He called the police on TIME CARDINAL DATE after A. had asked him to call for an ambulance because her mother and grandmother had been fighting .","On an unspecified date ORG reported to ORG the circumstances of their intervention on DATE :","\u201c On DATE around TIME [ a call ] was registered about domestic violence occurring at [ the applicant \u2019s address ] . At the scene [ the applicant and her mother ] , both visibly drunk , were found exhibiting aggressive behaviour and were unkempt in their appearance . Physical and psychological violence was exercised in the presence of the child .","A child was found in the yard ... she looked unkempt and said that she had not eaten anything the whole day .","From discussions with the neighbour who had called the police , it was established that the child had been without surveillance for DATE , in an unkempt state and sometimes asking for food . Subsequently the child was identified as A.","At the scene it was also established that the child lives in unsanitary conditions , without electricity . The child does not have the basic requirements for her physical and intellectual development , and is not enrolled in any pre - school institution . ... [ S]he does not have a healthy diet [ because she ] begs food from neighbours .","... [ The applicant ] was directed to undergo an examination in order to assess the level and the nature of her intoxication .","... On DATE the child inspector who was present at the scene called for an ambulance which took the child to [ hospital ] for medical investigation and appropriate medical assistance ....","ORG is currently investigating whether [ the applicant ] had committed an offence under LAW ) of LAW . ...","[ We request ] ... adoption of a decision on the placement of the child in a special institution and the lodging of an action in court seeking withdrawal of [ the applicant \u2019s ] parental authority \u201d .","On DATE a social worker and a psychologist from a non - governmental organisation visited the applicant \u2019s home and found that the house was in disorder and lacked running water , electricity and gas .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed by a GPE police officer . On DATE a police report concluded that the applicant was failing to duly fulfil her parental duties of educating and caring for her child because her abuse of alcohol , quarrelling or fighting with her mother in the child \u2019s presence , and at times using physical violence towards her mother . The report concluded that the applicant had committed an offence under LAW and took into account the applicant \u2019s personal and family circumstances as a mitigating factor . On DATE the ORG prosecutor confirmed the police \u2019s finding that the applicant had committed an offence under LAW and sentenced her to an administrative fine in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( equivalent to CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) .","Also on DATE , ORG examined A. \u2019s situation . When the applicant appeared before the committee she was allegedly intoxicated . The applicant disputed that allegation . Based on the findings of this meeting , on DATE ORG concluded that PERSON \u2019s return to her biological family would put her life and health in danger . The ORG decided to place her in the Municipal Children \u2019s Centre and to initiate proceedings to withdraw the applicant \u2019s parental authority .","A. stayed in hospital from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . She was diagnosed with \u201c residual encephalopathy with delayed motor skills , mild leg movement disorder , thyroid gland disease , decreased need for sleep ( \u201c hyposomnia \u201d ) , urinary insufficiency and disorder of the function of the pancreas . \u201d She was prescribed treatment .","On DATE was transferred to ORG . A psychological evaluation dated DATE described A. as displaying \u201c well - developed gross motor skills , corresponding to her age , at a slow tempo . Free , balanced and directional walking . Weak fine motor skills . ... Balanced and quiet behaviour , delayed development of cognitive processes and of communication abilities , with chances of recovery . Psycho - social deprivation . \u201d","On DATE ORG approved A. \u2019s placement with the family of C. , a professional parental social worker . On DATE C. took A. from ORG and noted that A. was physically healthy , clean and without any skin eruptions .","On DATE ORG instituted proceedings seeking the withdrawal of the applicant \u2019s parental authority . They relied on CARDINAL grounds for the withdrawal of authority under LAW : neglect of a child , a parent \u2019s immoral conduct , a parent \u2019s chronic alcoholism , and other reasons taking into account the interests of the child . They relied on the information provided by the police ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and the conclusions of the committee meeting of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In a note dated DATE ORG Centre informed ORG that on DATE had been transferred to the centre and that on DATE she had been registered as a child in difficult circumstances . The note also stated that the applicant had neither visited nor inquired about A. since her placement in the centre .","In the course of the proceedings , ORG submitted the applicant \u2019s character assessment drawn up by ORG on an unspecified date , which read :","\u201c ... [ The applicant \u2019s ] family has been classified as a family unfit to educate ( \u201c needucogen\u0103 \u201d ) since DATE . It was found that [ the applicant ] drank alcohol at home with her mother , followed by violent behaviour in the child \u2019s presence . Before the child \u2019s placement in the centre , she was often seen without any parental surveillance and looked unkempt . The child did not attend any pre - school institution . [ The applicant \u2019s ] family does not have electricity , water or gas in their house . \u201d","It also submitted a letter dated DATE in which the ORG polyclinic stated that PERSON was registered with that medical institution and that \u201c GPE ( the applicant \u2019s first name is N. ) , the child \u2019s mother , abused alcohol , and did not look after the child \u2019s health ; a neighbour accompanied the child on medical visits . \u201d","At the hearing on DATE the representative of ORG submitted that during the visit to the applicant \u2019s home on DATE the applicant and PERSON had been intoxicated and displayed signs of physical violence . The applicant had been behaving inappropriately and had an unkempt appearance . The neighbours reported that PERSON was not attending any pre - school institution , was generally neglected by her family , was usually dirty , and often asked for food . She also alleged that the applicant had been intoxicated when she appeared before ORG at the meeting on DATE .","NORP In court the applicant argued that she was a single parent and was receiving no support from anyone , including social services . She had financial difficulties , which prevented her from improving her living conditions , which were very basic . She explained that they used wood for heating and that the electricity had been cut off DATE previously after an electrical accident . She contended that she cared for her child , supplying her with toys , clothes and shoes , and that ORG had been provided with medical assistance by a medical institution other than the local polyclinic , submitting a copy of A. \u2019s immunisation record . She stated her wish to be with A. and her commitment to discharge her parental responsibilities . She referred to the letter of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) as evidence that she had requested access to her child , but to no avail . She argued that the incident of CARDINAL DATE had not been typical and could not constitute grounds for the removal of her parental authority . She submitted that she had left in order to work in GPE for a period of DATE , after which she had returned to unofficial employment in different jobs , and supplied confirmation that after the incident she had found official employment in GPE . She also supplied confirmation that she had obtained the documents necessary to enrol A. in a pre - school institution . She denied having been intoxicated at the ORG meeting on DATE and stated that she consumed alcohol only occasionally .","The court file also contained a statement signed by CARDINAL persons living in the applicant \u2019s neighbourhood , according to which A. had never been seen wandering around dirty and hungry , or begging .","The applicant attended the first CARDINAL hearings . She did not appear in court at the fourth and last hearing .","On DATE ORG decided to withdraw the applicant \u2019s parental authority , relying essentially on the arguments of ORG . The court found , inter alia , the following :","\u201c The representative of the [ Municipal Children \u2019s Centre ] submitted that ORG had been transferred from the [ hospital ] and was undergoing treatment for residual encephalopathy with delayed motor skills , mild leg movement disorder , thyroid gland disease , decreased need for sleep ( \u201c hyposomnia \u201d ) , and urinary insufficiency .","... [ the applicant ] lives together with her daughter A. ... in unsanitary conditions . She is unemployed and claims to leave periodically in order to work in GPE . ... On DATE ... the police found [ the applicant ] drunk and ... quarrelling violently in the presence of A. , who was dirty , crying , hungry and scared .","According to the representative of the [ ORG ] , during her visit [ on DATE ] she had found [ the applicant ] and her mother drunk , aggressive and with an unkempt appearance , the house and the yard disorderly and in a completely unsanitary condition . Citing neighbours , [ the representative of ORG service submitted that ] A. was neglected by her mother and grandmother , was not enrolled in a pre - school institution , was often seen wandering around dirty and asking for food . ... [ The applicant ] was drunk at the meeting on DATE of ORG . ORG concluded that the child \u2019s return to the family would put her life and health in danger .","... [ The applicant ] had neither visited nor asked about [ A. ] since her removal from home , which was evidence of [ the applicant \u2019s ] indifference towards [ A. ] , and her immoral life style and inappropriate behaviour prove that she is unfit to raise a child .","On DATE a medical examination confirmed [ the applicant \u2019s ] severe alcohol intoxication . ... On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office found [ the applicant ] guilty , under LAW , of failing to discharge her parental duties and fined her CARDINAL NORP lei ( CARDINAL ) .","... [ A. \u2019s ] psychological assessment reported balanced and quiet behaviour , delayed development of cognitive processes and of communication abilities , introversion , and a positive emotional state .","... [ The applicant ] neglected her parental duties , did not appear in court to object , did not take care of the child , did not provide material or emotional support , and had a negative influence on the child through her immoral conduct . \u201d","The applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that she had been in legitimate employment since DATE , was making significant efforts to improve her life and wished to be with A. She referred to the evidence in the file that she had repeatedly attempted to visit her daughter but had been allowed to do so on CARDINAL occasions . She referred to the statements of a social worker before the court , according to which there had not previously been any reason to remove the child from the family or to withdraw the applicant \u2019s parental authority and no family support measures had been undertaken . The applicant submitted that she had not attended the last hearing due to health problems .","In the appellate proceedings , the representative of ORG stated that the applicant had been warned on several occasions that she needed to bring order to her house . She also submitted that PERSON had described to social services \u201c horrifying \u201d ( \u201c de groaz\u0103 \u201d ) moments experienced with her mother , entire DATE spent without eating anything and that she had expressed her wish not to be returned to her mother .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded , reiterating the reasons relied upon by the district court .","The applicant appealed again , arguing , inter alia , that her rights under LAW had been violated . She submitted that in DATE , while the proceedings were ongoing , she had cleaned up her house and improved the living conditions . She submitted that she had regularly visited A. at ORG and had brought parcels for her . She denied having been intoxicated at the meeting on DATE of ORG and noted that no evidence to support this allegation had been presented . She agreed that , in the light of her difficult material situation , A. \u2019s placement was an appropriate solution if applied in conjunction with measures to provide her with the necessary support , with a view to reuniting the family as soon as possible . She did not agree that the withdrawal of her parental authority was a proportionate measure under LAW .","On DATE ORG upheld the previous judgments for identical reasons . That judgment was final .","The applicant complained to the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office about A. \u2019s removal from her home on DATE . On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office informed her that A. had been lawfully removed from home and sent to the hospital for medical examination , given that on DATE the LOC police officers had found the applicant and her mother intoxicated and aggressive , their house in an unsanitary condition and the child NORP hungry and looking unkempt . The applicant was informed that A. had been placed in ORG under the care of ORG and that proceedings had been instituted on DATE to withdraw her parental authority .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request to visit A. , stating that she had not been kept informed DATE fate and that all her previous verbal enquiries had been refused . On DATE ORG refused the request and informed her that visits were prohibited while court proceedings concerning the withdrawal of her parental authority were pending .","In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the head of ORG stated that ORG had placed A. in the care of the centre on DATE and had prohibited any visits by the applicant until the end of the court proceedings . The letter confirmed that the applicant had requested visits . Even though her requests had been refused , the applicant had managed to see her child on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . During DATE , she had brought several parcels with sweets and toys and had asked for further meetings . The applicant had been redirected to ORG to obtain an authorisation to visit A. before the end of the court proceedings .","In a letter addressed to ORG dated DATE , ORG submitted that it was inappropriate to examine the applicant \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE to visit NORP because the applicant \u2019s parental authority had been withdrawn , the child was to be placed under a relative \u2019s guardianship and it was for that guardian to decide on the frequency of contact between A. and her biological mother .","On DATE , an aunt , was appointed as ORG \u2019s guardian and the beneficiary of her child - care allowance . The applicant \u2019s requests to visit A. were refused by PERSON on the grounds that she no longer had any parental rights .","Following the applicant \u2019s repeated requests to visit A. , on DATE ORG allowed visits on DATE in the presence of A. \u2019s guardian .","On DATE the applicant gave birth to her second child . DATE , citing the lack of a home or resources to take care of the child , she declared her consent to the child \u2019s adoption ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163463","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"GROMADA UKRAYINSKOYI GREKO-KATOLYTSKOYI TSERKVY SELA KORSHIV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP religious community registered in the village of GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented most recently by their Acting Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the local community of ORG in the villages of GPE ( GPE ) built a church to GPE Assumption . In DATE , after the relevant territory had been joined to the GPE , the community of ORG formally became a part of ORG . The church of the Assumption was nationalised and transferred to ORG for religious purposes .","NORP In DATE part of the former ORG community members decided to create a community of ORG ( the applicant ) and another part decided to join ORG . The church of the Assumption remained municipal property , managed by ORG . On DATE the newly created ORG community entered into an agreement on the use of church LOC with ORG .","On DATE the GPE - Frankivsk ORG decided that ORG and ORG communities in GPE could use the church jointly . They had to agree on the details of the agreement . The applicant stated that ORG did not agree to use the church jointly and prevented the applicant from having its religious ceremonies in the church .","On DATE and DATE and on DATE the applicant applied to ORG , seeking to be declared owner of the church of the Assumption . Having received no answer the applicant brought civil proceedings against ORG .","On DATE ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) allowed the applicant \u2019s claim and declared it owner of the church . ORG appealed .","On DATE the Higher Commercial Court quashed the judgment on the ground that ORG had not been informed about the proceedings . The case was remitted for examination to ORG .","In the course of the new examination , the applicant brought additional claims seeking to annul the agreement of CARDINAL DATE concluded by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court refused to entertain this action , indicating that the applicant was free to institute separate new proceedings concerning the agreement of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG found against the applicant , stating that transfer of the church to the applicant would lead to an infringement of the rights of ORG community . On DATE ORG upheld this judgment . On DATE the Higher Commercial Court rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal in cassation . On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal in cassation .","NORP The relevant domestic law and practice with regard to the activities of religious associations is summarized in Svyato - Mykhaylivska Parafiya v. GPE ( no . GPE , DATE ) , and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . Other relevant domestic regulations and administrative and judicial practice are briefly summarised below .","Under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Freedom of Conscience and LAW of DATE , the ORG undertook to transfer title to or possession of religious LOC and property belonging to the ORG to religious organisations . The transfer of property had to be done free of charge , on the basis of decisions of the GPE and ORG , regional administrations or ORG .","The relevant extracts from the text of section CARDINAL of the Act ( in force at the material time ) read as follows :","\u201c Religious organisations shall be entitled to use buildings and property placed at their disposal by the ORG , by organisations and by private individuals , on a contractual basis .","Religious buildings and property which constitute ORG - owned property shall be transferred by the organisations that administer them to the religious association for their unpaid use or shall be returned into their ownership without payment , in accordance with decisions by the regional , GPE and ORG , and in GPE , by ORG ...","...","Religious buildings and other property of historical , artistic and other cultural value shall be transferred into the use ... of the religious organisations and shall be used by them in compliance with the rules on protection and use of historical and cultural monuments ...","...","Requests made by religious organisations for transfer of religious buildings and property into ownership or unpaid use shall be considered within DATE , and information in writing sent to the petitioners .","...","Decisions by the ORG bodies with regard to ownership or use of religious buildings and property may be appealed against to a court in compliance with the procedure envisaged by LAW ... \u201d","The relevant extracts from ORG of GPE \u201c On the Procedure for Entry into Force of the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations Act \u201d , as amended on DATE , read as follows :","\u201c ...","ORG of GPE , ORG and the regional , GPE and ORG shall ensure in accordance with the LAW the return to the ownership of or free use of religious buildings and property by religious groups , taking into account the following :","- the rights of the religious organisations which owned these buildings and property when they were nationalised ;","- the rights of the religious organisations which use these buildings and property in accordance with the procedure established by law ;","- investments made by the religious organisations in the property , rebuilding of the religious LOC and length of use of such LOC ;","- existence in the same residential area of other religious LOC and their use by other religious organisations ... ;","- other important matters in their entirety .","The decision of the relevant State body shall be reasoned ... \u201d","Under LAW of DATE \u201c On Measures Relating to the Return of Religious Property to Religious Organisations \u201d it was established that all religious premises and property owned by the ORG and used \u201c contrary to their mission \u201d should be returned to the religious associations within DATE . This period was further extended until DATE by ORG of DATE . On DATE the President issued another decree \u201c On Urgent Measures Relating to the Final Overcoming of ORG GPE with regard to Religion and on Restoration of LAW \u201d , in which he recommended that regional bodies of local selfgovernment finalise the transfer of church LOC that were being used \u201c contrary to their designation \u201d , and other buildings , to religious organisations .","Resolution No . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ( in force until DATE ) \u201c On the List of Historical Architectural Monuments which shall not be subject to ORG by Religious Organisations \u201d , provided that the following cathedrals in LOC were not to be returned to religious organisations : FAC ( DATE ) , PERSON and ORG ( DATE ) .","By Resolution No . CARDINAL \u201c On ORG which are ORG to Religious Organisations \u201d , adopted on DATE by ORG , it was decided that such religious LOC could be given to religious organisations for permanent use if the relevant educational institutions , archives or cultural institutions were moved to other LOC .","On DATE ORG rejected a request for interpretation of section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Act , stating , inter alia , that complaints concerning the use of religious buildings and property were to be examined by courts of general jurisdiction . It also referred to the recommendations of the Presidium of the Higher Commercial ( former ORG in that regard .","On DATE ORG rejected a request for interpretation of the provisions of section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW , lodged by the NORP - Catholic community \u201c GPE \u201d , finding , inter alia , that there was no proof of inconsistent application of its provisions by the domestic courts .","According to paragraph CARDINAL of the Practice Recommendation , the religious LOC and property that belonged to ORG property were to be transferred into unpaid use or ownership of the religious organisations on the basis of the decisions taken by the regional , GPE and LOC city state administrations and ORG . The above - mentioned authorities were under an obligation to return such property , not used for religious purposes , within DATE . The return of property included transfer into unpaid use or ownership . The property could be returned to religious associations , which proved that they had owned the property before nationalisation . Thus , the Recommendation , with reference to Presidential Decree of DATE , mentioned that the transfer of ownership of the religious premises was CARDINAL of the measures envisaged by law . Moreover , religious LOC or property could be transferred to another religious association if there was no \u201c legal successor \u201d ( \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u043d\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f\u043d\u0438\u043a ) religious association found in the vicinity where the religious LOC or property were situated .","Paragraph CARDINAL of the Practice Recommendation provided that property was to be returned to the same religious confessions which had owned the religious buildings before nationalisation ( orthodox church to be returned to orthodox community , NORP - catholic church to NORP - catholic community , etc . ) . Information or written evidence as to the previous ownership of religious premises was to be sought from the parties , ORG archives , or ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL of the Recommendation ) . Claims for the return of religious LOC to their original ownership could be lodged under the provisions of LAW with the commercial courts , and the lodging of complaints with the courts of general jurisdiction did not impede the examination of such claims ( paragraphs PERSON of the Recommendation ) .","Paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the Practice Recommendation stated that all property belonging to religious organisations before the entry into force of the LAW was deemed to belong to the ORG and the ORG was to be regarded as the proper owner of such property . In particular , this ensued from the provisions of LAW . Therefore , in accordance with LAW , ORG bodies , which are mentioned in LAW of the law , could perform any lawful acts with respect to such property and the courts were to reject any claims against such lawful acts , unless these acts contravened the law ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182170","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BEKTASHI COMMUNITY AND OTHERS v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) read in the light of Article 9 - (Art. 9) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["ORG has existed and practised its religion in the respondent ORG for DATE . The applicant association \u2019s headquarters were at the \u201c PERSON - GPE \u201d in LOC . Until the applicant association was refused registration in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , it practised its religion in full compliance with the relevant legislation applicable at the time . In the past , it was also known under the name \u201c NORP ORG \u201d .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) entered into force . It repealed ORG ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) and provided that ORG \u0437\u0430 \u043e\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0438 \u0441\u043e \u0432\u0435\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0437\u0430\u0435\u0434\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0438 \u0438 \u0440\u0435\u043b\u0438\u0433\u0438\u043e\u0437\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0433\u0440\u0443\u043f\u0438 \u2013 \u201c the Commission \u201d ) would be responsible for dealing with religious matters , which up until then had been the responsibility of ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) .","On DATE the Commission requested that the applicant association submit a copy of its application ( \u043a\u043e\u043f\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u043e\u0434 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0430 ) to be listed in the register of the Ministry and the related certificate of registration ( \u043f\u043e\u0442\u0432\u0440\u0434\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0458\u0430\u043d\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0432\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) so that it could \u201c transfer ( into its register ) the religious communities and groups of which ORG had been notified ( \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d\u0438 ) \u201d ( section DATE CARDINAL Act , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant association ( under the name \u201c NORP ORG \u201d in LOC ) contacted ORG , seeking a copy of all relevant documents related to its application submitted in DATE . According to the applicant association , on DATE it forwarded to the Commission all the documents obtained from ORG save for the certificate , which had never been issued .","At the request of the applicant association , on DATE the ORG issued a certificate ( \u043f\u043e\u0442\u0432\u0440\u0434\u0430 ) attesting that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant association ( under the name \u201c NORP ORG \u201d in LOC ) had submitted an \u201c application for registration \u201d ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0433\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 ) and other relevant documents . On DATE the applicant association forwarded the certificate to the Commission . No information was provided as to the follow - up procedure , if any , concerning the ORG \u2019s request for the applicant association to be registered under LAW .","On DATE the ORG issued a certificate ( \u201c the DATE certificate \u201d ) , attesting that on DATE the applicant association had filed \u201c an application ( \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0432\u0430 ) in accordance with the DATE LAW . The certificate further stated :","\u201c Since the statutory conditions are met , ORG is listed ( \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d\u0430 ) . \u201d","By a decision of DATE , ORG specified the applicant association \u2019s main activities ( \u201c the activities of religious organisations \u201d ) , its headquarters ( the \u201c GPE \u201d site ) ; and attributed corresponding indexes and business codes .","In a letter of DATE sent to a trial court regarding unrelated proceedings , the ORG confirmed that \u201c ORG [ had been ] registered ( \u0440\u0435\u0433\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0430 ) ... \u201d","NORP In DATE a local non - governmental organisation ( \u201c the NORP ORG \u201d ) published the \u201c Directory of Religious Communities in GPE \u201d , which included the religious entities recorded in the ORG \u2019s register . The applicant association was listed on the basis of the DATE certificate .","On DATE the ORG authorised the first applicant to carry out \u201c religious ceremonies and rituals on authorised LOC of FAC .","On DATE ORG DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) entered into force . It came into operation on DATE ( section CARDINAL ) . It specified that ORG ( \u201c the registration court \u201d ) would be competent to deal with religious matters ( LAW ) . It also provided that the Commission would transfer all documents regarding the existing religious entities recorded in its register to the registration court . All religious organisations registered by the Commission up until DATE could retain their existing legal personality and status .","On DATE the applicant association , represented by a local lawyer , requested information from the Commission about its status . In reply the ORG stated that it had only been required to transfer to the registration court information regarding existing religious communities registered up until DATE . Since it had only been notified about the applicant association in DATE , the latter should have made an application for reregistration in ORG ( \u201c the court register \u201d ) in accordance with the DATE Act .","On DATE the applicant association requested , under LAW of the DATE Act , that the registration court recognise its continuing legal status and record it in the court register .","On DATE the registration court dismissed the applicant association \u2019s request . Referring to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , it held that \u201c [ the Commission ] had been obliged ( \u0434\u043e\u043b\u0436\u043da ) to transfer to its register the religious communities and groups of which ORG had been notified up until LAW had entered into force . However , since the applicant association had not given notice to the Ministry , at the time , it had not been transferred to the Commission \u2019s records , as provided for in that provision . \u201d","It further established that in DATE the applicant association had given notice to the Commission , which the latter had acknowledged with the DATE certificate . That practice had been in compliance with decision U.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , in which ORG had declared unconstitutional the statutory provisions which had provided for registration of new religious entities conferring on them legal status .","The court also established that the applicant association had never been recorded ( \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0448\u0430\u043d ) and registered ( \u0440\u0435\u0433\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0430 ) by the ORG either before DATE , as required under LAW , or up until LAW had entered into force . The applicant association had only given notice ( \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d\u0430 ) to the Commission in DATE . Consequently , the ORG had not been required , as specified in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act , to transfer the data \u201c recorded in its register \u201d to the registration court . That requirement concerned only registered religious organisations and not entities which were listed by the Commission . The court concluded that the applicant association had never obtained the legal status it sought to have recognised in the request .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant association and upheld the established facts and reasoning given by the registration court .","On DATE the applicant association , represented by local lawyers authorised to act on its behalf by the second applicant , filed an application for registration in the court register as \u201c ORG \u201d . It also enclosed several documents , including a description of the doctrinal sources . On DATE the registration court requested further documents to complete the application . The applicant association submitted the requested documents .","On DATE the court refused to register the applicant association on the following grounds : ( a ) the name \u201c GPE \u201d had already been used by another religious entity registered in the court register ; ( b ) the doctrinal sources were the same as the doctrinal sources of another already registered religious entity ; and ( c ) the applicant association had not submitted proof of ownership of the \u201c GPE \u201d site in LOC , indicated as its headquarters in the application for registration .","NORP The applicant association appealed against this decision and asked ORG to hold a public hearing .","At a hearing held in private on DATE , the court allowed the applicant association \u2019s appeal and quashed the lower court \u2019s decision as it had not specified which registered religious entity used the name \u201c GPE \u201d or which statutory provision forbade the use of identical doctrinal sources by multiple religious communities and groups . Furthermore , there was no statutory provision under which an application for registration could be refused owing to lack of proof of ownership of the headquarters of a religious community .","On DATE the registration court again refused to register the applicant association as its intended name contained the term \u201c GPE , which had already been used by another religious entity , namely the \u201c Ehlibeyt Bektashi Religious Group of Macedonia \u201d registered in the court register on DATE . The court stated that \u201c the existing LAW [ did ] not allow for the registration of a new religious entity under a name that [ had ] already been recorded in the register for another registered religious entity \u201d . Furthermore , its doctrinal sources were no different from the doctrinal sources of ORG , which had existed for DATE and which had been registered in the court register on DATE . As to the doctrinal sources as described by the applicant association , the court stated as follows :","\u201c ... [ they consist of ] the NORP religion and the teaching of the Holy Koran , which is supplemented and interpreted by the knowledge and practices of prophet PERSON and PERSON , PERSON ( the prophet \u2019s family ) and ORG of PERSON ... it is about the sources of the NORP religion , for which there is already a registered religious community ... whose teaching includes the LAW and the practices of PERSON . According to NORP teaching , PERSON was his son - in - law and a member of the family ( or ehlibeyt ) , the fourth elected caliph who ruled the NORP state , and PERSON was the founder of ORG and one of the prominent NORP philosophers . In other words , the doctrinal sources of [ the applicant association ] are not at all different from the doctrinal sources of the ... ORG ...","In the court \u2019s opinion , the doctrinal sources are to be regarded as official insignia of a church , religious community or group within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act . It would be a violation of [ that provision ] if they did not differ i.e. did not have specific characteristics , elements that were different from the doctrinal sources of the teachings of an already registered [ religious entity ] . \u201d","In such circumstances , the court held that the \u201c substantive conditions \u201d for registration of the applicant association in the court register had not been fulfilled . Accordingly , it refused its application for registration under section QUANTITY of the DATE Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant association challenged the grounds on which the registration court had based the refusal of registration . It argued that there was no other religious entity registered under the same name . In this connection , it submitted that there were CARDINAL registered religious entities that contained the term \u201c NORP \u201d in their name and CARDINAL registered entities that used the term \u201c NORP \u201d . The intention of the DATE Act was not to ban the use of terms that had a generic and not exclusive meaning . Otherwise , it would mean that the law would only allow the registration of CARDINAL religious entity containing the term NORP , NORP , GPE , NORP , GPE , NORP , ORG . It also argued that it had sought registration as a religious community , as opposed to \u201c FAC , which was registered as a religious group . Its intended name was substantially different from the name of that entity ; it had existed for DATE , as was evident from the directory and correspondence with various ORG institutions . As regards the doctrinal sources , it argued that they could not be regarded as official insignia within the meaning of section CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act . Doctrinal sources could be identical for multiple religious entities ( as the Bible was common for NORP and NORP , and the Koran was common for ORG , ORG and NORP or NORP ) . They were of an ideological nature and were not constant , nor could they be interpreted in that way . Official insignia concerned symbols ( crosses , crescents , graphic symbols ) , a flag or a totem that represented something . In this connection , it stated that the interpretation which the court had given regarding its doctrinal sources , namely that they were identical to the doctrinal sources of all NORP teaching , was wrong . The mere fact that the court had interpreted its doctrinal sources implied that the ORG was not separated from religion . Furthermore , if that interpretation had been based on some material , it had not been communicated to the applicant association . Nor had it been given the opportunity to present its views at a public hearing . In this connection , it requested that ORG hold a public hearing . Lastly , it complained that the refusal of registration was discriminatory .","At a hearing held in private on CARDINAL DATE , the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court \u2019s decision . It held that although the intended name of the applicant association was not entirely identical to the name of the \u201c ORG Macedonia \u201d , it contained the term \u201c FAC , which was \u201c decisive and represented a synonym for the religious entity \u201d . Consequently , the registration of the applicant association could create confusion among the believers . ORG made no mention as to the lower court \u2019s findings regarding the doctrinal sources of the applicant association . It accordingly held that section CARDINAL of the DATE Act had been correctly applied .","On DATE the applicant association and the second applicant ( and CARDINAL other individuals ) lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG complaining that they had been discriminated against contrary to LAW . They summarised the factual background described above and reiterated the arguments raised in the appeal against the court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They complained that the use of the term \u201c GPE could not be exclusive ( like the use of \u201c NORP \u201d and \u201c NORP \u201d ) . Furthermore , the registration of the \u201c Ehlibeyt Bektashi Religious Group of Macedonia \u201d implied that the domestic authorities had implicitly accepted that the doctrinal sources of that religious group were allegedly identical to the teaching of ORG . They requested that ORG hold a public hearing ( \u0458\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 ) in accordance with section CARDINAL of the Rules of Procedure of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","At a hearing held on DATE in the absence of the parties , ORG dismissed the constitutional appeal . The relevant parts of its decision ( U.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c ... in the present case , the court considers that it should examine whether the refusal to register ORG violated freedom of religion and whether there are elements of discrimination on religious grounds .","As regards the first part of the question and having regard to section CARDINAL of the Legal Status of Churches , Religious Communities and Religious Groups Act , it appears that registration in ORG is a requirement for a religious entity to obtain legal status , but it is not a precondition for religious ceremonies , rituals and prayers , which believers ... can hold irrespective of whether they are organised as a registered religious legal entity .","In the present case , having regard to the arguments put forward in the application and the established facts , it appears that the applicants , who define themselves as members of ORG , have freely practised their religion for DATE . They participate in public life , communicate with ORG bodies , and participate in religious gatherings and conferences . This leads to the conclusion that , although they are not formally registered under the [ CARDINAL Act ] , they can practise their religion freely and hold religious ceremonies in accordance with the NORP religion , without any pressure or persecution . Consequently , the applicants\u2019 freedom of religion has not been violated .","In order to reply whether there are elements of discrimination in the dismissal of the application for registration of ORG , ORG assesses whether the courts which decided in the registration proceedings ... gave sufficient reasons and whether the refusal to register ORG was based on relevant and reasonable grounds , namely whether the refusal of registration pursued a legitimate aim and whether there was a measure of proportionality between the means used and the aim pursued ... \u201d","The court then referred to the grounds on which the registration court had based its decision and stated as follows :","\u201c ... the [ registration ] court refused to register the [ applicant association ] on CARDINAL grounds : ( CARDINAL ) the intended name of the [ applicant association ] contained the term \u2018 PERSON which had been incorporated into the name of an already registered religious entity , the \u2018 Ehlibeyt Bektashi Religious Group of Macedonia\u2019 ... and ( CARDINAL ) its doctrinal sources were the same as the doctrinal sources of an already registered religious entity , ORG .","The refusal to register the [ applicant association ] was based on grounds specified by law ... which , in the court \u2019s view , was correctly applied . The [ dismissal decision was based on ] section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of [ the DATE Act ] ...","ORG endorses the findings of the first - instance court that the name and the doctrinal sources are official insignia of a religious entity and distinctive elements through which it is identified and recognised by the public ...","This particularly concerns smaller religious entities , namely [ those ] that ... manifest their distinctiveness through these CARDINAL elements . Hence , equating the complainant [ the applicant association ] with another already registered religious entity can mislead the public , that is , it can confuse believers , which is at the same time itself a violation of their religious beliefs . It is not in dispute that the right of a religious entity to be registered should be secured in the context of freedom of religion , but nor should it violate the religious rights and feelings of the members of already registered religious entities .","... Each religious entity , church , religious community or group has the right to be distinct and be recognised in public by its identity . The absence of such [ distinctiveness ] or competition leads to confusion and misunderstanding by the public.[Such is the case ] if there are multiple similar entities which are in competition , indefinite parallelism and division .","The aim of the statutory requirement for the name and official insignia of religious entities , including doctrinal sources , not to be identical ( \u043d\u0435\u0438\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 \u043d\u0430 \u0438\u043c\u0435\u0442\u043e \u0438 \u043e\u0444\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430\u043b\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u043e\u0431\u0435\u043b\u0435\u0436\u0458\u0430 ) ... is to prevent confusion among believers , incorrect perceptions , and lawful indefinite division of same - faith believers in several religious communities or entities . In the court \u2019s view , these aims are legitimate and necessary in order to protect the freedoms and rights of others , to secure religious tolerance and prevent religious conflicts , as part of ensuring public safety , which is the responsibility of the ORG .","In view of the foregoing , ORG considers that the refusal to register ORG did not violate [ the applicants\u2019 ] freedom of religion of the applicants , nor were they discriminated against on the basis of their religion . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142080","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160ABI\u0106 v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","The applicant served his prison sentence in the period DATE and DATE , in the semi - open and closed sections of GPE prison as well as in the open section Ig , PERSON prison ( the open section ) .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in the closed section . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . From DATE to DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in the semi - open section . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) .","All the cells in the closed and semi - open sections contained , apart from the furniture , CARDINAL sleeping places ( CARDINAL bunk beds and CARDINAL single bed ) . According to the applicant , CARDINAL prisoners were being held in each of the cells during his detention . The Government , however , submitted that the number varied CARDINAL . Each cell had CARDINAL x QUANTITY double casement window , which the prisoners could freely open or close .","As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the closed and semi - open sections , 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 , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , 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 ( see NORP and Others , \u00a7 DATE ) .","As to the out - of - cell time in the semi - open section , the ORG submitted that the cell doors in the semi - open section of the prison were unlocked , except from TIME ( on DATE and DATE from TIME ) until TIME ( on DATE , DATE and during holidays until TIME ) . During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor ( QUANTITY ) , living quarters of co - prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas , in accordance with prison rules . The Government contended that this regime had been in place for DATE .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE the applicant was held in the open section in cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY , which contained CARDINAL sleeping places . The Government submitted that CARDINAL prisoners were held in that cell during the applicant \u2019s detention . On DATE , he was transferred back to the closed section on the ground of abuse of a more liberal prison regime in the open section .","In the open section cells were open TIME per day and prisoners could , except when sleeping , move around freely , inside the open section ( in a dining room , classroom , recreation room ) and in outdoor areas ( a park and sports ground ) . Further , the prisoners were allowed to exercise for TIME , they could do shopping in a shop outside the prison , their visits were unsupervised and their correspondence with people from outside the prison and the use of a telephone were not limited and supervised . The open section had a capacity for CARDINAL prisoners in CARDINAL cells . The prisoners shared sanitary facilities with CARDINAL showers , CARDINAL washbasins in the lavatory , CARDINAL toilets on the ground floor and CARDINAL toilets on the first floor of the section and a laundry room with a washing machine and a drier , which prisoners could freely use . Prisoners in the open section were also entitled to unsupervised visits outside prison for TIME during DATE , unsupervised leave and DATE leave if working in GPE prison .","During his imprisonment the applicant had CARDINAL consultations with a general practitioner and visited a dentist on CARDINAL occasions . He never requested treatment by a psychiatrist .","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 ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160059","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"MACH v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants , spouses PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were both born in DATE and live in FAC . They are represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in FAC .","The application concerns national bonds issued by ORG in DATE . The bonds were to have been redeemed by DATE . However , the ORG failed to undertake any steps to redeem them or to pay interest to the holders of those bonds .","NORP The applicants\u2019 claim was not subject to limitation because on DATE they had asked ORG to arrange a friendly settlement before ORG .","On DATE the applicants instituted civil proceedings for payment against ORG represented by ORG . They claimed MONEY ( ORG ) , with interest .","On DATE ORG granted the applicants ORG CARDINAL ( approximately CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) . The amount granted was calculated in the following way .","The court first referred to \u00a7 CARDINAL of the DATE Decree ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and found that by introducing this provision the lawmaker had deprived the applicants\u2019 claim of its economic value . According to the court , by DATE the ORG claim had already been worth PERCENT of the average DATE salary at that time . On DATE that the CARDINAL Decree entered into force \u2013 that is to say on DATE the nominal value of the ORG bonds had been ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL each .","It further referred to LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) and concluded that after the entry into force of the relevant provisions the value of the applicants\u2019 bonds had been ORG CARDINAL each .","Relying on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) it further found that the nominal value of the applicants\u2019 bonds in DATE was CARDINAL grosz .","Finally , the court , relying on the judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , ruled that it could recalculate the applicants\u2019 claim on the basis of LAW . It based the indexation of the ORG claim on the official average salary and considered that ORG should bear PERCENT of the inflation costs and the applicants PERCENT .","On DATE the applicants appealed against that judgment .","On DATE ORG quashed the firstinstance judgment and remitted the case . ORG did not accept the basis of indexation of the applicants\u2019 claim applied by ORG and held that the indexation should have been based on the real value of the claim in DATE , when the bonds in question had been issued , and on the price of gold at the time the applicants instituted civil proceedings . The court further considered that while recalculating the value of the applicants\u2019 claim , ORG should have weighed the interests of both parties and taken into account the effects of the Second World War in order to assess the extent of participation of the defendant in the process of bringing about \u201c a significant change in the purchasing power of money \u201d ( istotna zmiana si\u0142y nabywczej pieni\u0105dza ) .","On DATE ORG , having re - examined the case and having recalculated the applicants\u2019 claim on the basis of the instructions contained in ORG judgment , found that the claim \u2019s value amounted to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The court , having weighed the interests of both parties , considered that they should bear the effects of inflation in equal parts . Accordingly , the above amount was divided by CARDINAL and the applicants were granted ORG CARDINAL . The ORG dismissed the remainder of the claim .","Both parties appealed against that judgment .","On DATE ORG found the applicants\u2019 appeal ill - founded and the defendant \u2019s appeal partly well - founded , amended the challenged earlier judgment , and granted the applicants ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG DATE ) . The ORG considered that ORG , in its judgment of DATE , had failed \u2013 when recalculating the value of the claim \u2013 to apply the DATE Decree and LAW , which had never been repealed or declared unconstitutional ; they thus remained in force and had to be applied to the present case . Having set the value of the applicants\u2019 claim at ORG CARDINAL , the ORG considered that it would be \u201c contrary to the principles of community life \u201d ( sprzeczne z zasadami wsp\u00f3\u0142\u017cycia spo\u0142ecznego ) to reduce this amount further by placing on the applicants part of the burden of the effects of inflation ; accordingly , it granted them the whole of the recalculated amount .","The ORG then referred to the ORG argument that the value of the claim had been decreased by LAW . It found that this LAW had not significantly influenced the value of their claim because after the entry into force of LAW the claim had been of only symbolic value , namely ORG . The ORG further considered that for DATE that had followed the entry into force of LAW the applicants\u2019 claim had lost its value as a result of economic developments in GPE and that it was in fact immaterial whether an assessment of the claim \u2019s value was made with or without reference to the CARDINAL Act .","DATE provides :","\u201c The payment of dues resulting from pecuniary obligations arising from any title of a private or public nature before the entry into force of the present decree and not redeemed until DATE may only be effected in the NORP currency . \u201d","At the relevant time , LAW subsequently repealed ) provided :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The change in the purchasing power of money during the time between the creation of an obligation and its payment date or performance does not constitute a basis for a change in the amount of the obligation or in the means of the execution of the contract or dissolution of the contract .","( CARDINAL ) Payment of an obligation , specified in NORP currency on the basis of this decree , shall be made in banknotes of the NORP ORG according to their nominal value , which is equal to the nominal value of banknotes or other means of payment , which were expressed in zlotys and which were in circulation on the territory of GPE or a part thereof before the introduction of ORG banknotes into circulation .","( CARDINAL ) For the establishment of the value of pecuniary obligations referred to in the present Decree and expressed in the NORP currency , it is irrelevant what means of payment was in circulation at the time of the creation of the obligation . \u201d","DATE provides :","\u201c The amount of obligations expressed in zlotys in gold is calculated at MONEY for MONEY in gold . \u201d ( PERSON nalezno\u015bci z zobowiaza\u0144 pieni\u0119\u017cnych wyra\u017conych w z\u0142otych w z\u0142ocie liczy si\u0119 jeden z\u0142oty za jednego z\u0142otego w z\u0142ocie ) .","The Change of Monetary System Act of DATE ( o zmianie systemu pieni\u0119\u017cnego ) provided that all public and private obligations expressed in zlotys ( irrespective of the time at which they came into existence ) were to be recalculated with effect from DATE according to the following ratio : CARDINAL \u201c old \u201d zlotys = MONEY .","Under section CARDINAL of LAW , all amounts expressed in \u201c old \u201d zlotys and mentioned in legal provisions binding on DATE of the entry into force of this Act were to be recalculated , by virtue of law , according to the following ratio : CARDINAL \u201c old \u201d zlotys = MONEY .","The Polish Zloty Denomination Act of DATE ( ustawa o denominacji z\u0142otego ) introduced a new payment unit : with effect from CARDINAL DATE the new unit of ORG was to be worth CARDINAL \u201c old \u201d zlotys .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW reads :","All persons shall be equal before the law . All persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities .","No one shall be discriminated against in political , social or economic life for any reason .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :","Everyone shall have the right to ownership , other property rights and the right of succession .","Everyone , on an equal basis , shall receive legal protection regarding ownership , other property rights and the right of succession ...","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides :","\u201c In the case of an essential change of the purchasing power of money after an obligation falls due the court may , after considering the interests of the parties and in accordance with the principles of community life , change the amount or the mode of payment , even if these were fixed in a decision or a contract . \u201d","On DATE the ORG gave a judgment ( SKCARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) in which it held that section CARDINAL ) of the LAW of DATE amending LAW in so far as it limited the possibility of judicial indexation referred to in Article LAW of LAW as regards pecuniary obligations which had come into existence before DATE as a result of bonds emitted by ORG \u2013 was inconsistent with LAW CARDINAL in conjunction with LAW .","In the part named \u201c effects of the judgment \u201d ORG noted :","\u201c Taking into consideration the effects of this judgment and the impossibility of claiming the full value of claims arising from national bonds issued DATE , the matter of possibility and scope and , in particular , the amount of just satisfaction for persons holding such bonds , should be resolved by the lawmaker . As stressed on many occasions in its case - law , ORG should not replace the lawmaker .","The finding by ORG that section CARDINAL ) of the LAW of DATE amending LAW was inconsistent with LAW ... will enable the holders of national bonds to access the indexation of their claims guaranteed by LAW . However , in practice , the expiry of limitation periods may effectively deprive claimants of a chance to achieve a positive outcome in the relevant proceedings .","If [ the ORG ] does not enact new provisions before LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW of DATE expires , holders of national bonds , who have been patiently waiting for the settlement of their claims , will be able to lodge [ with civil courts ] their claims for payment in an amount which will be calculated with the application of the indexation clause .","However , the present judgment of ORG does not indicate to the courts the scope , direction or scale of the indexation . \u201d","The provisions which had been found unconstitutional were subsequently repealed , which opened the way for applicants to seek their claims before the courts and to demand that the value of their claims be judicially increased ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160441","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"PEACOCK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by ORG , a law firm based in GPE . The Government were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant pleaded guilty at ORG to conspiracy to supply drugs . On DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG reduced the sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . Meanwhile , the prosecution applied for confiscation orders under LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the ORG judge found that the applicant had benefited from drug trafficking in the sum of MONEY ( \u201c GBP \u201d ) . He was found to have realisable assets in the sum of ORG CARDINAL . A confiscation order was made for the latter sum to be paid within DATE . The applicant paid the order .","On DATE the applicant was released from prison . He entered a business partnership with his father . The business was successful and the applicant acquired substantial assets .","The prosecution subsequently became aware of the value of the applicant \u2019s equity in the business . It applied to ORG for a certificate under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) declaring that the amount that might be realised from the applicant \u2019s assets was greater than it had been at the time when the original confiscation order was made . On DATE ORG issued a certificate under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) .","NORP The prosecution subsequently applied to ORG under section CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) for an increase in the amount to be recovered under the confiscation order .","A hearing took place over a DATE period . Evidence was lodged of the further assets identified . The applicant lodged witness statements and gave oral evidence on oath . He accepted that he had acquired further assets since his release from prison but submitted that he had taken a conscious decision to live an entirely honest , law - abiding and hard - working life .","On DATE the ORG judge handed down his judgment . He identified CARDINAL issues : the first was a factual question as to the existence and value of further recoverable assets ; the second concerned the exercise of the court \u2019s discretion to order further payment and impose a term of imprisonment in the event of non - compliance . The judge indicated that his assessment of the applicant \u2019s credibility would be a significant factor in both aspects of the case . He declined the prosecution \u2019s invitation to take account of adverse credibility findings made in the context of the earlier confiscation proceedings , explaining that he began on the basis that convicted criminals were able to rehabilitate themselves and to turn from crime . However , taking into consideration the incomplete details of his assets in his first witness statement made in DATE and his subsequent evasiveness when giving oral evidence , the judge concluded that the applicant was not a reliable witness .","After considering in some detail the applicant \u2019s assets and business activities , the judge found the applicant to hold realisable assets to the value of GBP QUANTITY . However , he added :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... [ T]hat is not , necessarily , the end of the matter . I preface this section by specific remarks about [ the applicant \u2019s ] credibility ... [ PERSON failed , at the outset , to make proper disclosure of his finances . The discovered torn up paper relating to matters in GPE was revealing , particularly with its reference to a few business interests and to not wishing to declare matters . His explanations were risible . Furthermore , despite his protestations of honesty since his release from prison , there was clear evidence of fraudulent dealing with mortgage lenders in the supply of financial information ... I find [ the applicant ] to be an intelligent man , fully aware of all aspects of his business dealings . I find , too , that he has over a period dealt to a large extent in cash , with the specific intention of frustrating any enquiries by Authorities into his financial affairs ... \u201d","In the light of his findings , the judge then turned to consider how to exercise his discretion as to whether the confiscation order should be increased . He explained that had he found the applicant a credible witness , who had set out to lead a law - abiding and responsible life , he might have felt able to give sympathetic consideration to submissions that the court \u2019s discretion should be exercised in his favour . However , he was satisfied that the applicant had lied to the court and had set out quite deliberately to deceive the court as to the truth as to his financial affairs and assets . In the judge \u2019s view , this was entirely the type of case for which statute had provided the opportunity for society to recoup some of the damage caused to it by criminality . The judge also considered the length of time which had elapsed since the applicant \u2019s release from prison but decided that this did not prevent the modification of the confiscation order . He accordingly exercised his discretion to substitute for the GBP CARDINAL originally recoverable the full amount of the benefit previously assessed , namely GBP CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The order was to be paid within DATE , with a period of imprisonment of DATE in the event of non - compliance .","NORP The applicant appealed to ORG , contesting the calculation of his assets by ORG judge and seeking a reduction in the recoverable amount . The appeal was dismissed by ORG ) on DATE .","The applicant subsequently appealed the decision of ORG to issue a section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) certificate ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He argued that section PERSON ) was not intended to allow confiscation of after - acquired assets ( i.e. assets acquired after the date of conviction ) . If that had been the intention of ORG , the statutory provision should have been unequivocal . He emphasised in particular that other provisions of the DATE LAW set a time - limit of DATE to revisit a confiscation decision , but that no time - limit appeared in section PERSON ) . He contended that the definition of realisable property in section CARDINAL ) of the Act was restricted to property held at the time of the original confiscation proceedings . Finally , he submitted that section CARDINAL no longer had effect after the entry into force of LAW CARDINAL in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The appeal was dismissed by ORG ) on DATE . The court held that section DATE applied to assets lawfully acquired post - conviction , referring to the absence of any time limitation in that section . This conclusion was not undermined by the fact that LAW CARDINAL contained clearer provisions on the matter . Finally , the court held that the savings provisions in the relevant commencement order made under LAW clarified that section CARDINAL remained in force for the purposes of the present proceedings .","The applicant appealed the DATE judgment to ORG . The agreed statement of facts and issues before ORG identified the issues which had arisen before ORG as follows :","\u201c i. Whether , having regard to the transitional provisions contained in LAW CARDINAL ( Commencement No . CARDINAL , ORG , Savings and LAW Order DATE ... , section CARDINAL of LAW ( which was repealed by LAW ) was in force at the material time ( \u2018 LAW ) .","ii . Whether ORG had jurisdiction to issue a certificate under LAW in respect of after - acquired assets ( \u2018 the section QUANTITY","iii . whether in the Appellant \u2019s case the delay between the making of the confiscation order and the application under LAW amounted to a breach of the Appellant \u2019s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time ( \u2018 the reasonable time issue\u2019 ) . \u201d","It clarified that the issues before ORG were the following :","\u201c CARDINAL . Whether section CARDINAL of the DATE Act was in force at the material time .","Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to issue a certificate under LAW in respect of after - acquired assets . \u201d","The applicant \u2019s written case included the following argument :","\u201c C. The Compatibility Issue","The interpretation of the statute by ORG ... is in conflict with a defendant \u2019s rights under Article CARDINAL ) of the Convention ... For a defendant to be liable in perpetuity to an increased penal sanction is submitted to amount to a clear breach of his right to determination of any criminal charge within a reasonable time , as well as raising issues under LAW ( protection of property ) . The construction of Article PERSON ) contended for by the Appellant is compliant with LAW whereas the interpretation adopted by ORG arguably is not . \u201d","As regards the section CARDINAL issue , in particular , the written case included the following statements :","\u201c The definition of the words \u2018 the amount that might be realised\u2019 in section CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW provide a clear definition of the scope of the legislation . \u201d","\u201c If , which is not accepted , there is any ambiguity in the words of the statute , an examination of the debates of the PERSON in ORG and ORG and in ORG make it clear that the scope envisaged did not include \u2018 after acquired assets\u2019 . \u201d","\u201c The Appellant \u2019s case was not that Section PERSON ) was unclear and ambiguous ... To the contrary , it was submitted that the words of the section clearly do not refer to assets acquired after the confiscation order was made . \u201d","On DATE ORG delivered its judgment . On the question whether section DATE was still in force at the time of the second confiscation proceedings , the court was satisfied that it was .","As to the correct interpretation of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the justices were divided by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , with the majority finding that the section applied to after - acquired assets and dismissing the applicant \u2019s appeal after careful consideration of the legislative framework . Lord PERSON , for the majority , explained :","\u201c CARDINAL . As for the main argument , based on fairness and rehabilitation , naturally I recognise that ORG could have chosen a different policy with regard to after - acquired assets . But it seems to me perfectly understandable that in fact ORG decided ( as indisputably it did when later enacting ORG [ the Proceeds of Crime Act DATE ] ) to leave it open to the courts as a matter of discretion to mulct a defendant of his criminal gains on an ongoing basis irrespective of precisely how and when he came by any increased wealth .","That the court does indeed have a discretion in the matter is plain both from the wording of section CARDINAL ) and from a number of authorities ... This is not , however , the occasion to explore the approach to the proper exercise of that discretion DATE or , indeed , the question whether its exercise could ever be affected by considerations arising under LAW DATE . As already noted , there is no challenge here to the exercise of ORG section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) discretion , only to whether the section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) certificate was lawfully issued . \u201d","Lord Hope , in the minority , referred to the general principle of construction that a statute should not be held to take away property rights without compensation unless the intention to do so was expressed in terms which were clear and unambiguous . He was therefore of the view that where assets were subsequently acquired entirely legitimately , it ought not to be assumed that ORG intended their confiscation unless it provided for this in clear terms . While the relevant provision in LAW CARDINAL satisfied this test , Lord Hope considered that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW did not .","The applicable legislation at the time was LAW DATE . LAW has now been replaced by LAW .","Section QUANTITY of the CARDINAL Act allowed for the increase in the value of a confiscation order in certain circumstances . It applied where the amount which a person was ordered to pay by a confiscation order was less than the amount assessed to be the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking . Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , if , on an application by a prosecutor , ORG was satisfied that the amount that might be realised was greater than the amount taken into account in making the confiscation order , it had to issue a certificate to that effect , with reasons .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) allowed a prosecutor who obtained a section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) certificate to apply to ORG for an increase in the amount to be recovered under the confiscation order . Upon such an application , the court had discretion to :","\u201c ( a ) substitute for that amount such amount ( not exceeding the amount assessed as the value referred to in subsection ( CARDINAL ) above ) as appears to the court to be appropriate having regard to the amount now shown to be realisable ; and","( b ) increase the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the confiscation order ... if the effect of the substitution is to increase the maximum period applicable in relation to the order ... \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW provided that the amount that might be realised at the time a confiscation order was made was the total of the values at that time of all the realisable property held by the defendant , less the total amount of any obligations having priority , together with the total value of all gifts caught by the LAW . Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , \u201c realisable property \u201d meant any property held by the defendant and any property held by a person to whom the defendant had made a gift caught by the LAW .","LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) incorporates the LAW into GPE law . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that so far as it is possible to do so , legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the LAW rights . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , a person who claims that a public authority has acted in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights may rely on the LAW rights concerned in any legal proceedings . LAW requires a court determining a question which has arisen in connection with a LAW right to take into account the case - law of this Court ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154527","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF VOLOVOD v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He had a son , PERSON , who lived in GPE , GPE .","On TIME , PERSON was sitting in the courtyard of the apartment block in which he lived . At TIME a man approached PERSON , shot him in the head , and ran away . Several people witnessed the incident . PERSON died TIME in hospital .","On DATE the police instituted a criminal investigation into the murder and questioned the eyewitnesses , who stated that the killer had been DATE and QUANTITY tall . He had been wearing sunglasses , dark jeans , a red T - shirt and a cap .","On DATE the police examined the crime scene , found the bullet and sent it for forensic examination , and collected fingerprints and biological material .","On DATE the police searched ORG \u2019s apartment and questioned his wife , T. She did not know who might have wanted to kill PERSON or for what reason . He never spoke to her about his business or other activities .","On DATE the forensic experts established that ORG had been shot with a ORG pistol .","On DATE the police questioned PERSON , who had previously stolen money from GPE , and established that he had an alibi for the period of time when PERSON had been murdered . His fingerprints did not match those found on the crime scene . The police thus concluded that PERSON was not involved in the murder .","On DATE the police questioned employees of the bar owned by ORG , who stated that on DATE P. \u2013 a member of the criminal gang led by a certain Bo . \u2013 had been looking for the applicant \u2019s son . P. was DATE and QUANTITY tall .","NORP The Severodonetsk Prosecutors\u2019 Office established that P. had been wanted by the police since DATE as they suspected that he had killed a certain PERSON with a FAC pistol on Bo . \u2019s instructions . The ORG concluded that P. might have been involved in ORG \u2019s murder and declared P. and PERSON . wanted .","On DATE the police recognised T. as an injured party to the proceedings . DATE , it identified the telephone numbers from which ORG had received calls on DATE of his death and proceeded to identify the names and whereabouts of the people who had called him .","On DATE , ORG \u2019s business partner PERSON was questioned . He stated that PERSON . had threatened ORG with violence . On the same date a list of Bo . \u2019s acquaintances was drawn up which included PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , PERSON . , Kl . , Lit . , PERSON . and NORP","NORP In DATE the police established that there was no match between the fingerprints of Kl . , Lit . , PERSON . and PERSON and those found on and near the crime scene . The police searched Lit . \u2019s home and seized his clothes . The clothes were later destroyed , not being needed as evidence .","On DATE and DATE the police searched the apartments of ORG \u2019s acquaintances , but found no evidence that they might have been involved in his murder .","On DATE PERSON was questioned again . He said that a certain PERSON . and PERSON . both worked for PERSON . After PERSON \u2019s murder , Bo . had called PERSON and had threatened that he would be \u201c broken \u201d .","The police searched PERSON . \u2019s home , but found no evidence of his involvement in PERSON \u2019s killing .","On DATE the police showed the eyewitnesses several persons suspected of the murder , including PERSON . The witnesses did not recognise the man who had shot PERSON amongst them .","By DATE the police had identified and questioned everyone who had called PERSON on DATE . There was no evidence that any of them had been involved in the murder .","Later in DATE , the police found the ORG pistol with which ORG had been killed in the possession of a certain PERSON . The latter explained that he had bought the gun in DATE from A. , a boy aged DATE .","The police questioned PERSON , who stated that he had found the gun and some sunglasses on CARDINAL DATE near garages in FAC . He had subsequently sold the gun to Sh .","The police questioned the owners of the garages and individuals living near the garages . None of them had seen who had left the gun near the garages . There was no evidence that the boy , PERSON . , or the garage owners had known Bo . or ORG or had had a motive for killing PERSON","On DATE the police questioned Lit . , who said that he knew nothing about the murder .","During DATE the police continued questioning PERSON \u2019s acquaintances and checking whether their biological material and fingerprints matched those found at the crime scene .","On DATE the police collected blood and saliva from PERSON . and a certain PERSON . , whom the eyewitnesses had seen near the crime - scene on DATE . They also questioned PERSON . , who stated that on DATE he had been in hospital , where many people had seen him . PERSON . did not know anything about the murder .","The forensic medical examination established that both PERSON . and PERSON . might have smoked one of the cigarettes found near the crime scene .","On DATE the police organised an identity parade and showed PERSON . to the eyewitnesses of the murder . However , they did not identify him as the man who had shot PERSON","On DATE the police suspended the investigation on the grounds that it had proved impossible to establish who had committed the murder .","On DATE the investigation was resumed but suspended again on DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision to suspend the investigation , observing that it was necessary to carry out \u201c additional investigative measures \u201d . However , he did not specify what those measures were . The case was sent to ORG for further investigation .","On DATE the police arrested PERSON . within the framework of the investigation into the murder of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In DATE it questioned Bo . in connection with the death of PERSON He stated that PERSON had been his friend , and he had known nothing about his killing .","In DATE ORG examined a number of witnesses who had been questioned earlier and collected information about people who had stayed in hotels in GPE on DATE .","On DATE the prosecutors prepared a plan of additional investigative measures to be carried out . In particular , they suspected that ORG had been involved in illegal metal trafficking and proposed finding his partners in that business . It was also planned to question PERSON . with whom the applicant \u2019s son had had \u201c tense relations \u201d , and to find and question PERSON . , PERSON . and NORP","On an unspecified date the prosecutors questioned PERSON . and PERSON and found no evidence that they had been involved in ORG \u2019s murder . PERSON and several other of ORG \u2019s acquaintances who were questioned by the police denied that the applicant \u2019s son had been involved in any illegal business , including metal trafficking .","On DATE ORG suspended the investigation , stating that despite all the measures taken it had proved impossible to find ORG \u2019s killer .","On DATE the police arrested PERSON within the framework of investigation into the death of PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG resumed the investigation into the death of PERSON because it was planned to question PERSON , PERSON . , NORP and PERSON .","On DATE the police compared P. \u2019s fingerprints to those collected at the crime scene and found that they did not match .","On DATE it showed PERSON \u2019s photo to the eyewitnesses of PERSON \u2019s killing . They were unable to say whether it was P. who had shot PERSON because the murder had occurred a long time before .","The Severodonetsk Prosecutors\u2019 Office informed the police that since DATE a certain PERSON had been wanted for killing PERSON with a ORG pistol in LOC . The prosecutors instructed the police to check whether PERSON could have been involved in ORG \u2019s murder . The police informed the prosecutors that it would look into PERSON \u2019s involvement in the killing after establishing his whereabouts .","On DATE ORG instructed ORG to find and question Kl . , PERSON , and PERSON .","On DATE the Severodonetsk Police questioned PERSON , who stated that he had been living in GPE in DATE and had not been involved in ORG \u2019s murder .","On DATE the Lisichansk Police stated that NORP and PERSON . had not been found at their permanent places of residence .","In DATE the Lisichansk Police questioned Kl . , who stated that he did not know PERSON or anything about his murder . He had heard about Bo . , but had not known him personally .","On DATE the Lisichansk Police informed the Severodonetsk Police that it could not question PERSON . and NORP because their whereabouts were unknown . PERSON . could not be questioned because he was in prison . No further steps were taken to find and question PERSON . , NORP , and PERSON .","On DATE the police questioned Bo . , who said that ORG had been his friend and denied that he was involved in the murder .","On DATE ORG suspended the investigation but resumed it on DATE and transferred the case to ORG .","DATE . On DATE ORG noted that not all the necessary measures had been taken in order to investigate ORG \u2019s murder and ordered that the investigation be accelerated . ORG were ordered to : i ) show photos of F. to the eyewitnesses ; ii ) search the homes of NORP , PERSON . and PERSON . ; iii ) investigate whether PERSON . might have been involved in ORG \u2019s murder ; iv ) continue to search for persons who might have been involved in the murder .","On DATE the Severodonetsk Police suspended the investigation , stating that it had proved impossible to find ORG \u2019s killer . On DATE the proceedings were resumed but were suspended once again on DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE , stating that not all the necessary measures had been taken in order to investigate the murder . The case was submitted to ORG for further investigation .","On DATE ORG suspended the investigation stating that it had proved impossible to identify the killer .","On DATE the higher prosecutors quashed that decision , and ordered ORG to carry out further investigative measures .","On DATE the Severodonetsk Prosecutors\u2019 Office gave instructions to find and question ORG \u2019s parents and wife .","On DATE the police questioned the applicant , who stated that he did not know who had killed his son .","On DATE the prosecutors suspended the investigation , stating that it had proved impossible to find the killer of the applicant \u2019s son . The applicant was informed on DATE .","On unspecified dates the applicant asked the authorities to inform him about the progress of the investigation . He received the following replies .","On DATE ORG informed him that the police had found and examined the crime weapon and were looking for Bo . \u2019s acquaintances . On DATE the prosecutors informed the applicant that the police had questioned Bo . in connection with ORG \u2019s murder . On DATE the prosecutors informed the applicant that they were looking for Bo . \u2019s acquaintances ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168141","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"MIHAL v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He was represented before ORG , ORG . , a law firm with its registered office in GPE .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is a judge . At the relevant time he was on the criminal law bench of ORG .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the President of ORG filed CARDINAL separate disciplinary charges against the applicant .","The applicant was accused of having negligently failed to take a decision within the prescribed time - limit which had ultimately led to the release from detention on remand of a defendant who was in the process of appealing against a previous first - instance life sentence given in a criminal case . In addition , the applicant was accused of having caused unjustified delays in CARDINAL other sets of proceedings .","These offences were classified as \u201c serious disciplinary offences \u201d and the penalty of removal from judicial office was proposed .","Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG , which is the supreme governing body of the judiciary in GPE , suspended the applicant from office pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings .","The applicant \u2019s charges fell to be determined at first instance by ORG , sitting as a disciplinary tribunal ( \u201c the first - instance tribunal \u201d ) .","The first - instance tribunal set hearings for DATE , DATE , and DATE , but none of them took place because it had proven impossible to have the summons served on the applicant .","The summons had to be served on the applicant in person . As the summonses had repeatedly not reached him by post at home , they were deposited at the local post office and a notice to that effect was left in the applicant \u2019s post box . However , the summonses were never collected .","NORP In response , the first - instance tribunal asked that the summonses be served on the applicant by the police , by ORG within the jurisdiction of which the applicant resided , and by the applicant \u2019s mother .","According to the police and ORG , the applicant was not staying at his home address and their attempts to reach him had been futile .","In the applicant \u2019s submission , his suspension from office led to disruption of his family life , as a result of which he was not staying at his home address but at his mother \u2019s .","On DATE the first - instance tribunal again requested that the summons for the hearing then scheduled for DATE be served on the applicant by the police and that the police bring him to that hearing . This summons was eventually served on the applicant .","Meanwhile , the applicant in person ( DATE ) and through the intermediary of his defence counsel ( DATE ) filed written observations in reply .","The first - instance tribunal eventually heard the case on DATE , DATE and DATE . The applicant and his counsel both attended all of these hearings . The tribunal allowed them to make oral submissions and heard evidence from a representative of the complainant and CARDINAL ORG judges as witnesses . In addition , it examined extensive documentary evidence .","The applicant offered the following in his defence . The missed time limit had been subject to newly adopted rules . The interpretation of those rules had been unclear and the applicant had been consulting other ORG judges in that respect . He had thus been engaged in a legitimate process of analysing the applicable rules , had ultimately concluded that the given time - limit applied but , as by that time it had already expired , the defendant had had to be released . In the applicant \u2019s view , he was not guilty of negligence and , in addition , his workload at that time had been unmanageable .","Following the hearing of DATE , on DATE , the first instance tribunal found the applicant guilty as charged and ordered his transfer to a lower - instance court . It did so having dismissed his arguments and having considered that removal from office , as demanded by the complainant , was too harsh a sanction in the circumstances .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the above decision and on DATE his counsel added reasons to his appeal . The complainant subsequently filed observations in reply and the applicant submitted further written comments .","In sum , he argued that the first - instance tribunal had had no power to try him because its DATE mandate had expired before its decision ; that the tribunal had not been impartial because it had favoured the complainant ; that the complainant had systematically breached his presumption of innocence with the aim of removing him from his position as a judge ; that the tribunal had erred on facts and law , and had been selective in its choice of which evidence to accept ( rejecting the applicant \u2019s proposals for evidence to be given by certain witnesses ) ; and that it had failed to support its decision with adequate reasoning .","NORP The appeal fell to be examined by ORG , sitting as a disciplinary tribunal of appeal ( \u201c the appeal tribunal \u201d ) .","On DATE the appeal tribunal scheduled a hearing for DATE .","On DATE the applicant informed the appeal tribunal that he was unable to appear because he was on sick leave . He submitted a general practitioner \u2019s certificate of DATE to that effect , stated that he wished to attend the hearing in person , and requested that the hearing be postponed . In the certificate , the applicant \u2019s doctor had indicated his diagnosis as \u201c MCARDINAL \u201d and authorised him to go for a walk DATE TIME and CARDINAL","On DATE a new date was set for the hearing DATE . As for the applicant , the appeal tribunal had the summons sent to him and his lawyer .","At the same time , the appeal tribunal asked the applicant \u2019s doctor in writing to indicate the expected period of his incapacity for work and to specify whether he would be able to attend the scheduled hearing . The doctor was further asked to authorise the applicant to leave his place of residence on DATE for the purposes of attending the hearing , health permitting .","The summons was served on the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE but it twice proved impossible to have it served on the applicant in circumstances similar to those described above .","On DATE the presiding judge contacted the doctor by telephone with a view to establishing whether the applicant would be able to attend the hearing .","In a written reply dated CARDINAL DATE the doctor confirmed that the applicant had been on sick leave since DATE . Its expected duration could not be specified as the results of the applicant \u2019s examination by specialists had not yet arrived . Lastly , the letter indicated that the applicant was being treated with medication with analgesic - spasmolytic side effects which could affect his ability to concentrate .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel informed the appeal tribunal , without offering anything in support of such claims , that the applicant was still on sick leave and that his condition would not allow him to appear at the forthcoming hearing . He added that the applicant considered his presence necessary , submitted that \u201c they \u201d apologised for \u201c their \u201d absence , requested that the hearing be postponed , and pledged that \u201c they \u201d would inform the tribunal once the applicant \u2019s condition had improved .","The appeal tribunal heard the case as scheduled on DATE without the applicant or his counsel present . The complainant \u2019s representative was present but submitted that , in the applicant \u2019s absence , he had no comment to make in respect of the applicant \u2019s appeal other than to refer to the complainant \u2019s previous written submissions .","Following the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , on DATE the appeal tribunal quashed the first - instance decision and found the applicant guilty on charges relating to the missing of the detention - related deadline and the unjustified delays in CARDINAL set of proceedings ; it acquitted him of the remaining charge .","The appeal tribunal imposed a sanction on him , which was identical to that imposed previously by the first - instance decision , that is to say transfer to a lower court .","The appeal tribunal observed that the judges of the first - instance tribunal had been appointed for DATE and that this term had expired before its decision in the applicant \u2019s case . However , under the applicable statute , the tribunal had had to bring to a conclusion any proceedings that had commenced before it irrespective of the DATE period .","Moreover , it considered that the first - instance tribunal had adequately established the facts and that no new evidence was called for . Nevertheless , it was true that the first - instance decision had lacked proper reasoning . Therefore , the appeal tribunal provided comprehensive reasoning of its own for the conviction in its decision . Among other things , it noted that there had been no official record of the applicant having conferred with his colleagues over any question of law that he might have considered controversial . In the circumstances , and in particular in a matter as sensitive as the detention of a notorious criminal defendant , the applicant \u2019s inactivity could not be accepted as being an expression of legitimate judicial activity but rather manifested signs of arbitrariness .","As regards hearing the applicant \u2019s appeal in his absence , the appeal tribunal considered that his and his lawyer \u2019s refusal to attend had been \u201c another part of the former \u2019s efforts to obstruct and delay the proceedings \u201d .","In that connection , the appeal tribunal referred in detail to the difficulties in having the summons served on the applicant both at the first instance stage and on appeal . It observed that the applicant had been on sick leave , which presupposed that he should normally have been at home . It also noted that the applicant had been authorised to leave home for TIME a day , which should have given him ample opportunities to collect his post from the post office .","In addition , the appeal court noted that the applicant \u2019s doctor had avoided a direct response to the question concerning whether the applicant \u2019s condition had been such as to prevent him from participating at the hearing .","At the same time , it noted that there was no doubt that the summons had been properly served on the applicant \u2019s counsel who himself had not provided any reason why he had not been able to appear at the hearing .","In such circumstances , the appeal tribunal considered that the applicant \u2019s sick leave had not been an adequate reason for adjourning the hearing and that it had been justified to have held it in his absence .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He alleged a breach of LAW in that the appeal tribunal had determined the case in his absence , notwithstanding the fact that he and his lawyer had duly apologised .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint admissible ; on DATE it found that there had been no violation of the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW and its constitutional equivalents .","In reaching that conclusion ORG considered relevant , in particular , that : ( i ) the applicant had attempted to delay the proceedings at first instance ; ( ii ) he and his lawyer had been present at the hearings at first instance and had had the possibility of presenting their arguments ; ( iii ) the applicant \u2019s lawyer had indicated no relevant reason preventing him from attending the hearing on appeal ; ( iv ) the applicant had had ample opportunity to set out his arguments in his appeal and in his comments on the complainant \u2019s observations in reply to his appeal ; ( v ) the applicant had been partly successful in his appeal ; ( vi ) the appeal tribunal had accepted the applicant \u2019s first request for the hearing of his appeal to be adjourned ; and ( vii ) the applicant \u2019s state of health had not prevented him from attending .","ORG further noted that the representative of the other party had made only a general statement at the hearing and that the court of appeal had not taken further evidence . The principle of equality of arms had been respected and the appeal court \u2019s conclusion had not been arbitrary .","The disciplinary decisions concerning the applicant have been implemented and he is now in active service at a court of appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-165241","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"G.J. v. SPAIN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . According to the case file , she lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer at the nongovernmental organisation ORG ( hereafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) based in GPE .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE and submitted an asylum request ( also referred to hereafter as the first set of asylum proceedings ) . She alleged that she was a NORP and had fled GPE after her father \u2019s assassination by a radical NORP group .","On DATE the NORP authorities issued an expulsion order in respect of the applicant . According to the case file , the applicant did not seek judicial redress against that order .","Her first asylum request was dismissed on DATE . The administrative authorities found that the inconsistent and contradictory statement of facts provided by the applicant cast doubts on her current nationality and the existence of the alleged persecution . On DATE PERSON was appointed as the applicant \u2019s legal aid lawyer .","The dismissal decision of CARDINAL DATE was challenged on DATE by means of an appeal introduced by PERSON before ORG sitting in GPE with jurisdiction in asylum cases ) .","On DATE the Audiencia Nacional dismissed the appeal on its merits . It found that the applicant had not provided any documents proving her identity and nationality . Nor had the applicant provided a minimum of evidence to support her allegations . The court noted that she did not speak LANGUAGE , the official language in GPE , and that her mother tongues were LANGUAGE and GPE , the latter being a dialect which was not spoken anywhere in GPE . Lastly , violent incidents similar to those recounted by the applicant had been reported as occurring in PERSON , but not in GPE , the applicant \u2019s alleged city of origin .","In the meantime , on DATE CARDINAL police officers stopped the applicant on the street and asked her to prove her identity . She was detained and , with a view to enforcement of the DATE expulsion order , placed in an GPE detention centre . At the time of her detention the applicant was pregnant .","On DATE the applicant filed a new asylum request ( hereafter referred to as the second set of asylum proceedings ) . She claimed that she was of NORP nationality and a NORP and had fled GPE after her GPE assassination , having been helped to flee by a man called PERSON Upon her arrival in GPE , however , PERSON had forced her into prostitution in order to repay her travel expenses , which amounted to MONEY ( ORG ) . After having sex with clients she had become pregnant and PERSON had suggested she should have an abortion , but she had been detained DATE prior to her appointment at the abortion clinic . She wished to have the baby and feared being killed if returned to GPE as she had not managed to repay her debt .","ORG ( hereafter , the \u201c ORG \u201d ) had supported the applicant \u2019s request since it considered that , on the basis of the facts recounted by the applicant , she had been a victim of \u2012 and might still be a victim of \u2012 human trafficking . In the second set of asylum proceedings the applicant was represented by the lawyer Mr ORG","On DATE this second asylum request was declared inadmissible by the Deputy Director on Asylum . She found that the applicant \u2019s account of facts as to the alleged persecution was incoherent and inconsistent and she had already presented similar submissions in her first asylum request , which had been rejected .","On DATE the NGO Proyecto Esperanza \u2012 an agency which specialises in the investigation of trafficking and which had been informed about the applicant \u2019s case by the ORG \u2012 interviewed the applicant at the GPE detention centre and submitted a report to ORG supporting the applicant \u2019s allegations .","On DATE the applicant applied for a re - examination of the second asylum request . She departed from her initial claim alleging persecution on religious grounds , instead focussing exclusively on the fact that she had been trafficked to GPE for the purpose of being forced into prostitution , and provided a more detailed account of facts . The request for re - examination was dismissed on DATE , the applicant \u2019s new submissions not being sufficient to alter the conclusions reached in the inadmissibility decision .","The applicant instituted administrative judicial proceedings ( procedimiento contencioso administrativo ) against the refusal decision . Additionally , the applicant requested the suspension of the expulsion order , arguing that she was a victim of trafficking and that she should not be removed from GPE until the identification procedure was completed .","On DATE GPE administrative judge no . CARDINAL rejected the applicant \u2019s request to have her expulsion suspended on the following grounds : the applicant had failed to demonstrate the existence of a risk to her life or physical integrity if returned to GPE ; the applicant had submitted an international protection request only after having been detained and held in immigrant detention ; the applicant had already sought asylum unsuccessfully in DATE ; the reports compiled by the administrative authorities supporting rejection of the asylum request were better reasoned and more convincing than the report produced by the ORG office . According to the case file , the applicant did not appeal against the rejection of the suspension .","On DATE GPE administrative judge no . CARDINAL ruled that he lacked jurisdiction to examine the applicant \u2019s appeal , and relinquished the case to FAC . It does not follow from the case file that either the applicant or the administrative courts have taken any further steps in pursuance of these proceedings .","On DATE , while the above - mentioned judicial proceedings were pending before GPE administrative judge no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL lawyers from ORG visited the applicant in the detention centre . The applicant signed a written authority to act ( hereafter referred to as \u201c the authority dated DATE \u201d ) , instructing PERSON , one of the lawyers , to apply for the granting of a \u201c recovery and reflection period \u201d under section CARDINAL bis of Organic Law CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE on the rights and freedoms of aliens in GPE . In the application , which was introduced on DATE , ORG asked for a stay of the applicant \u2019s expulsion .","NORP WLW informed Mr. PERSON , the applicant \u2019s lawyer in the second set of asylum proceedings , that the organisation \u2019s lawyers would represent the applicant from DATE . On an unknown date Mr. PERSON gave his consent thereto , but no power of attorney was signed by the applicant to formalise this .","On DATE ORG applied to ORG in ORG ( Delegaci\u00f3n del Gobierno en la ORG ) to have the applicant \u2019s expulsion order revoked . It claimed that the applicant satisfied all the legal requirements to be granted a residence permit in view of her social integration in NORP society .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was expelled to GPE . ORG first learnt of the applicant \u2019s expulsion on DATE , the date on which she was served with a decision by ORG dated DATE rejecting the request for a recovery and reflection period . On the basis of an interview conducted by police officers , ORG found that there was no evidence to support the argument that the applicant was a victim of human trafficking . It was clear that she had not been forced into prostitution since she worked independently and voluntarily without being controlled , lived alone and had not been deprived of her freedom of movement . Furthermore , she had no relatives in GPE who might be threatened .","On DATE ORG instituted administrative judicial proceedings for the protection of fundamental human rights ( procedimiento contencioso administrativo para la defensa de los derechos fundamentales ) , claiming that the applicant had been expelled before the NORP authorities had examined the substance of her request for a recovery and reflection period .","On DATE GPE administrative judge no . CARDINAL asked ORG to submit a power of attorney signed by the applicant before a relevant authority , namely a notary , a judicial secretary or a consular authority . He stated that the application would be deemed valid if the applicant had signed it herself .","On DATE ORG argued before the judge that the manner in which the applicant had been expelled had prevented the organisation from having a power of attorney signed by the applicant before a notary or a judicial secretary . ORG contended that it had not been informed about the expulsion beforehand and had not been able to contact the applicant since then . In its view , the written authority dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) should be regarded as valid for the purposes of representation before domestic courts .","On DATE the administrative judge rejected ORG \u2019s submissions . He referred to sections CARDINAL and DATE ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL July on Administrative Judicial Procedure , which established the obligation to furnish a power of attorney in cases where applicants had instructed a lawyer to represent them before an administrative judge , and to section CARDINAL of Law CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE on Civil Judicial Procedure , which provided that the power of attorney must be signed before a notary or a judicial secretary . The judge observed that the aim of these requirements was to demonstrate the genuine existence of the person intending to apply to the judicial authorities for the purpose of defending his or her individual rights .","On DATE , as a result of a claim lodged by ORG concerning the applicant \u2019s case , the NORP ORG issued a recommendation to ORG to the effect that the asylum authorities should automatically initiate a procedure aimed at determining whether the alleged victim should be granted a recovery and reflection period in cases where an international protection request has been supported by the ORG office because it is thought that the person concerned might be a victim of human trafficking .","On DATE , after holding a hearing in the presence of ORG , GPE administrative judge no . CARDINAL declared the appeal inadmissible as ORG had no locus standi to represent the applicant . The judge found that ORG had failed to substantiate its assertion that its lawyers had tried CARDINAL times to procure the attendance of a notary at the GPE detention centre .","On DATE the Madrid High Court of Justice upheld this decision , observing that ORG had not demonstrated that it had approached the professional association of notaries for the purpose of requesting the attendance of a duty notary at the GPE detention centre . ORG also found that no evidence had been produced showing that the applicant was unable to avail herself of consular services in her country of origin as provided by CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Organic Law CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE on LAW in GPE . In view of the above , ORG declared that the written authority dated DATE , which was valid for the purposes of the applicant \u2019s representation in administrative proceedings , was not sufficient to satisfy the representation requirements under LAW of LAW . On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s amparo appeal inadmissible for lack of any special constitutional significance .","Section CARDINAL bis of Organic Law CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE on LAW in GPE imposes on the competent domestic authorities the obligation to adopt the measures necessary for the identification of victims of trafficking in human beings . This provision reads :","\u201c CARDINAL . The competent authorities shall adopt the necessary measures for the identification of victims of trafficking in human beings in compliance with LAW , of CARDINAL DATE .","Whenever they consider that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an illegal immigrant is a victim of trafficking in human beings , the competent administrative bodies shall inform the person concerned of the provisions of this section and shall submit , in accordance with the relevant procedure , a proposal to the competent authority for the adoption of a decision on whether a recovery and reflection period should be granted in the case .","The recovery and reflection period shall last at least DATE and shall be sufficient for the victim to make a decision on cooperating with the authorities in the investigation of the crime and , if appropriate , in the criminal proceedings thereafter . During the victim identification period and the recovery and reflection period no infringement proceedings may be instituted for a violation of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) . Any infringement proceedings that may have been instituted and any expulsion or deportation decisions adopted will be suspended . Likewise , during the recovery and reflection period , the person concerned shall be authorised to stay in the territory temporarily and the competent administrations will provide for his or her subsistence and , if necessary , for the security and protection of the victim and any of his or her children who are minors or disabled and were in GPE at the moment of identification ...","The recovery and reflection period may be denied or revoked for reasons of public order or if it is found that victim status has been claimed improperly . The denial or revocation shall be properly reasoned and can be appealed against as provided for by PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE on ORG and on Common Administrative Procedure .","... \u201d","The relevant NORP legislation setting out the formal requirement to provide legal representation ( in force on the date of the institution of the proceedings for the protection of fundamental rights ) provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In proceedings before a single judge , the parties may choose to be represented by a procedural representative and shall , in any event , be advised by a legal counsel ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Claims for judicial review shall be initiated in the form of a written application that merely cites the decision , act , inaction or action constituting the challenged ultra vires operation and the petitum that the claim be held to have been filed , unless otherwise provided by this law .","This application shall be accompanied by :","a ) The document ascertaining the capacity of the person appearing on behalf of the party , unless this document has been previously attached to the judicial file of a case pending before the same court , in which case a certificate may be requested , to be attached to the new judicial file .","... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The authority to act on behalf of a party shall be conferred through a notarial power of attorney witnessed by a public notary or through the party \u2019s appearance in the office of a judicial secretary .","... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The administrative decisions imposing an administrative sanction may be appealed against as provided for in the relevant regulations . These decisions shall be enforced according to the relevant general legislation .","Where the alien is outside GPE , he or she may introduce administrative or judicial proceedings through the relevant diplomatic or consular services , which shall forward the appeal to the relevant body in GPE . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170058","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KEBE AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Expulsion)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant currently lives in GPE . The third applicant left GPE for GPE on DATE . His current whereabouts are unknown . The second applicant died on DATE . According to the ORG representative , the second applicant died of a \u201c natural cause \u201d . No further details were given in this regard . The ORG was not informed of anyone wishing to pursue the application on his behalf .","The following is a summary of the events that led the applicants to seek asylum outside their countries of origin , as submitted by the applicants .","The first applicant is an NORP . When he was DATE he was forcibly recruited to the army in GPE . After having served for DATE he deserted and left for GPE . In the meantime , his father went missing after he had been arrested by the NORP authorities for having complained about the first applicant \u2019s forcible military service . The first applicant believed that his father had been tortured and murdered by the authorities .","The second applicant was a NORP . Initially , he left GPE for GPE together with his family . After the outbreak of armed conflict between GPE and GPE , the second applicant \u2019s family moved back to GPE , though the second applicant remained in GPE as he feared persecution for his religion and forcible military service in GPE . As he could have been expelled by the NORP authorities to GPE , the second applicant left for GPE in DATE .","The first and second applicants stayed in GPE illegally for DATE . In that country both applicants were repeatedly arrested by the authorities allegedly in connection with the armed conflict between GPE and GPE in DATE .","The third applicant left GPE for GPE in DATE for unspecified reasons . DATE he was employed by an NORP transport company operating in GPE . The third applicant submitted that as he had been a member of the \u201c Medre[k ] political party \u201d , he had been dismissed by his employer after that party had lost the DATE election in GPE to the \u201c GPE party \u201d . The third applicant \u2019s identity card issued by the NORP authorities was retained by his former employer . Thus the third applicant remained in GPE illegally and was at risk of possible deportation by the PERSON authorities to his country of origin , GPE , where he risked persecution \u201c as a traitor to the GPE political regime \u201d .","The Government did not comment on those submissions .","On DATE , with the intention of seeking asylum in any country other than GPE or their countries of origin , the applicants covertly boarded a commercial vessel flying the flag of GPE . The vessel was leaving the port of GPE and heading for GPE , GPE .","DATE the applicants were discovered by the vessel crew . The vessel \u2019s owner and insurer were informed accordingly .","When the vessel was passing through LOC , the insurer tried to arrange with the NORP authorities that the applicants could disembark in GPE , but the authorities refused the request .","Following the vessel \u2019s arrival in GPE on CARDINAL DATE the NORP authorities and a representative of ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in GPE met with the applicants on board the vessel . The applicants were not allowed to disembark . Their allegations of persecution in their home countries written in the NORP and NORP languages were passed by the vessel \u2019s insurer to the representative of the ORG office in GPE .","On DATE the vessel left ORG in the direction of the port of GPE in GPE .","On DATE , sometime before the vessel anchored in the port of GPE , a non - governmental organisation \u201c Faith , Hope , Love \u201d , which at the time was based in ORG and assisted refugees and asylumseekers under a contract with the ORG , contacted the head of ORG in LOC of GPE informing him that there were CARDINAL nationals of GPE and a national of GPE on board the vessel and that , according to the ORG , they might require international protection . The organisation requested leave for their lawyer , PERSON , to meet with the applicants .","On DATE NORP border guards embarked the vessel and met with the applicants . According to information provided by the Government , the applicants did not submit any requests to the border guards .","Later on DATE , PERSON went to GPE port to see the applicants . She was allowed to embark the vessel and meet with the applicants . She discussed their situation with them and informed them of the asylum procedures in GPE . The discussion was in LANGUAGE in the presence of CARDINAL border guards and CARDINAL port security officers . As only the first applicant could speak LANGUAGE , he interpreted the discussion into NORP , which the other CARDINAL applicants could understand .","According to the applicants , during the discussion they expressed the wish to seek asylum in GPE and started filling in asylum applications with the help of CARDINAL of the border guards who had knowledge of LANGUAGE . That border guard was an official interpreter at ORG . However , sometime later the border guards stated that they could not accept the asylum applications from the applicants , as the applicants were on board a vessel flying the flag of a foreign ORG . Such applications had to be submitted to the vessel \u2019s captain . On the same grounds the border guards refused to allow the applicants to disembark . The border guards asked PERSON to leave the vessel . Allegedly , PERSON was not given sufficient time and interpretation facilities to provide assistance to the applicants in respect of their asylum claims .","According to the Government , during that meeting the applicants did not submit applications for asylum ; nor did they express a wish to do so . As the applicants had no identity documents , the head of the border - guard unit decided to refuse them leave to enter GPE . No copy of that decision was provided to the ORG . The ORG submitted copies of reports drawn up by the border guards who had been present at that meeting , which indicated that the meeting had lasted for TIME and that the applicants had stated that they needed time to decide whether they wished to request asylum in GPE . PERSON left the vessel without raising any complaints . The head of the border - guard unit stated in her report that she had explained to the applicants that \u201c in the circumstances the border guards had not been able to accept asylum applications from them \u201d .","On DATE the applicants , allegedly having been misled by the vessel \u2019s captain who was acting on the instructions of the NORP border guards , signed type - written statements in LANGUAGE , according to which they had boarded the vessel with the aim of reaching GPE \u201c in search of better living conditions \u201d and that they did not \u201c need the status of refugee , addition[al ] [ or ] temporary protection in GPE \u201d . In a letter he sent to the ORG on DATE , the captain stated that the abovementioned type - written statements had been prepared and brought on board by NORP border guards on DATE .","The Government submitted that the applicants themselves had asked the captain to help them to prepare the above - mentioned type - written statements . The Government relied on the captain \u2019s statements obtained on DATE when he had been questioned by the migration authorities . In particular , the captain stated that he and the first applicant had prepared the statements and had given them to the other applicants to sign .","On DATE PERSON , acting on the applicants\u2019 behalf , lodged with the ORG a request for interim measures to be imposed under LAW . She stated that the applicants risked removal to GPE , for which the vessel was scheduled to depart on DATE . In their submissions before the ORG , the Government did not contest this statement . PERSON further argued that in GPE asylum - seekers were granted no form of protection and were exposed to the risk of being repatriated . According to her , there was a real risk that the authorities of GPE would forcibly return the applicants to their countries of origin where they would be subjected to ill - treatment . She essentially requested the ORG to indicate to the Government of GPE that the applicants should be allowed to leave the vessel and should be granted access to a lawyer and to the asylum procedure .","On DATE the ORG granted the request .","On DATE the border guards accompanied by an officer from ORG embarked the vessel and met with the applicants . According to the Government , it was during that meeting that the applicants requested asylum in GPE . They were allowed to disembark and to cross the State border .","On DATE the applicants were questioned by the migration authorities concerning their asylum applications . According to the applicants , during the questioning they were not provided with adequate translation or any explanation of the relevant regulations . Nor were they provided with legal assistance .","The parties have not informed the ORG about the outcome of the applicants\u2019 asylum applications lodged in DATE ; nor have they provided any further details as regards their examination by the migration authorities .","It appears from their submissions that in DATE the applicants lodged new asylum applications with the authorities .","On DATE ORG ( the \u201c ORDMS \u201d ) rejected the third applicant \u2019s asylum application , finding that it was manifestly ill - founded . The third applicant did not challenge that decision on appeal . On DATE he decided to leave GPE for GPE . The ORG helped him to organise the travel arrangements . The ORG representative did not provide any further information as regards the third applicant , as since the third applicant \u2019s departure from GPE the representative has lost contact with him .","On DATE the ORDMS refused the second applicant \u2019s application , finding that his submissions were contradictory and did not concern a situation in which refugee status or complementary protection could be granted . He appealed to ORG . The proceedings were eventually terminated as the second applicant died on DATE .","On DATE the ORDMS refused the first applicant \u2019s application , principally for the same reasons as in the case of the second applicant . The first applicant appealed to ORG , which has not yet decided on the matter ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158143","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF USTIMENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Josep Casadevall;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged with the GPE Amur\u2011Nyzhnyodniprovskyy ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) an administrative claim against ORG for the GPE Amur\u2011Nyzhnyodniprovskyy District ( \u201c the defendant \u201d ) seeking an increase in his pension based on the rise in the average wages in the country since his retirement .","On DATE ORG , having considered the applicant \u2019s claim by way of an abridged administrative procedure , allowed the claim . In the judgment it was pointed out that any appeal must be lodged by the appellant within DATE following their receipt of a copy thereof .","The defendant received a copy of the judgment on DATE .","The defendant lodged its first appeal with ORG on DATE and did not request an extension of the time - limit for appeal .","On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) dismissed the defendant \u2019s appeal on the grounds that it had been lodged after the time - limit for appeal had expired and the defendant had failed both to explain the reasons for the late lodging of the appeal and to submit a request for an extension . The ruling stated that it could be appealed against before ORG . The defendant did not appeal .","On DATE ORG , at the applicant \u2019s request , issued a writ of enforcement confirming that the judgment had become final on DATE .","With effect from CARDINAL DATE the defendant complied with the judgment and increased the applicant \u2019s pension .","On DATE the defendant lodged a second appeal with ORG . By letters of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG forwarded the case file , including the appeal and its copy for the applicant , to ORG . The case file gives no indication of any steps to follow up on the matter .","On DATE the defendant lodged a third appeal , requesting that ORG extend the time - limit for its submission . As grounds for its request the defendant stated that it \u201c had begun the process of appealing against \u201d the ORG judgment on DATE .","On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE to examine the question of extending the time - limit for appeal .","According to a summons dated DATE addressed to both the applicant and the defendant , they were summoned to attend a hearing of ORG on DATE at which the court was to examine the applicant \u2019s request for an extension of the time - limit for appeal . The summons included the warning that failure to appear would not prevent ORG from examining the matter .","It is apparent from the domestic case file that no other document was added to it between CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","On DATE a panel of ORG , presided over by Judge N. , extended the time - limit for appeal , stating that the defendant had missed the deadline for \u201c valid reasons \u201d . ORG recounted the sequence of events in the case from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , found it established that the first appeal had been lodged outside the time - limit , namely on DATE , and observed that the defendant had requested the extension because it had received a copy of the judgment only after the time - limit for appeal had already expired .","On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG ruled that appeal proceedings be opened , that copies of the ruling be sent to the parties , and that the applicant be sent a copy of the appeal and be invited to provide his reply .","According to a summons dated DATE and addressed to both the applicant and the defendant , they were summoned to attend a hearing of ORG on DATE at which the court was to examine the appeal . This summons also contained the warning that failure to appear would not prevent ORG from examining the matter .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and rejected the applicant \u2019s claim , holding that the first - instance court had erred in its interpretation of the relevant legislation governing pensions .","On DATE the defendant sent a letter to the applicant informing him that his pension had been reduced in accordance with the decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor \u2019s office for the GPE Amur\u2011Nyzhnyodniprovskyy GPE alleging that Judge PERSON had intentionally failed to inform him about the appeal proceedings .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office made an entry in ORG to investigate the suspicion that offences of delivering of an intentionally unjust court decision and of failure to enforce a court decision may have been committed .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office decided to discontinue the investigation concerning the applicant \u2019s complaint . The prosecutor \u2019s office found , in particular , that the defendant had dispatched the original appeal against the judgment of DATE on DATE that is to say within the time - limit . As to the applicant \u2019s allegations that he had not been informed about the reopened appeal proceedings , the prosecutor \u2019s office noted that the case file contained copies of court summonses dated CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG and on CARDINAL DATE the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179040","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"KOKKONIS AND CHALILOPOULOU v. GREECE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["NORP The applicant in the first case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . The applicant in the second case , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .","NORP The facts of the cases , as submitted by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicants , a married couple , were convicted in absentia by the CARDINAL - member ORG of an offence of theft which they were found to have committed jointly , and sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment ( decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The applicants lodged an appeal , which was scheduled to be heard on DATE by the CARDINAL - member ORG . However , on that date the applicants applied for an adjournment of the hearing , as their lawyer could not be present , and the hearing was rescheduled for CARDINAL DATE ( adjournment decision no . CARDINAL ) . The applicants did not attend that hearing , and neither did a lawyer acting on their behalf . ORG , taking into account that the applicants had been present on DATE , considered that it was \u201c as if [ they were ] present \u201d , examined their appeal , and sentenced them to QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment ( decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The applicants applied for the annulment of the proceedings under LAW , arguing that they had not been present at the court hearing owing to force majeure , which had prevented them from attending the hearing or informing the court of their absence . In particular , PERSON submitted that he had been hospitalised on DATE owing to acute febrile gastroenteritis , and had left hospital with instructions to stay in bed from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; he attached the relevant documents to his application for annulment . Ms ORG argued that she had been prevented from attending the hearing owing to her husband \u2019s illness , as she had had to take care of him and their children at home .","NORP The applicants\u2019 applications for the annulment of the proceedings were heard by ORG on CARDINAL DATE and the proceedings continued on CARDINAL DATE . The court dismissed their applications as inadmissible ( decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . In particular , it held that an application for annulment under Article CARDINAL could only be lodged if the defendant had been tried in absentia , and not when he had been tried \u201c as if [ he were ] present \u201d .","The relevant parts of LAW read :","\u201c ...","If the defendant has been legally summoned but is not present , or is not legally represented by a lawyer , he is tried as if he were present ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . If , as a result of force majeure or other insurmountable obstacles , the convicted defendant could not notify the court of the insurmountable obstacle promptly by any means , so as to request an adjournment of the hearing ( Article CARDINAL ) , he can lodge an application for annulment of the proceedings which took place in his absence or in the absence of his representative ...","...","CARDINAL ... If the application for annulment is granted , the decision against which it has been lodged is annulled and the court orders a new hearing for the case on DATE , during which the defendant shall appear without having been summoned . Under no circumstances is the defendant allowed to lodge an application for annulment against the decision [ on his application for annulment ] . \u201d","According to the case - law of ORG , the decision that is issued following an application for annulment pursuant to LAW is not subject to an appeal on points of law ( decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of ORG ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145308","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"E.M. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants , ORG , GPE and ORG , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The first applicant is the mother of the second and third applicants . They were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","Mr GPE , a reserve colonel ( colonel \u00een rezerv\u0103 ) , was the first applicant \u2019s husband and the second and third applicants\u2019 father . On CARDINAL DATE he died in hospital , aged DATE , following an operation and a twoweek convalescence period .","On DATE Mr GPE developed symptoms of icterus ( a yellow discoloration of the skin or whites of the eyes , indicating excess a bile pigment in the blood ) and , together with the applicants , went to the military clinic for a consultation . He underwent some tests and was immediately admitted to ORG ( \u201c the hospital \u201d ) for further investigations and treatment . His diagnosis was \u201c cholestatic jaundice due to cholestatic calculus DATE left renal lithiasis clinically significant for DATE \u201d ( icter colestatic prin calcul colestatic DATE trei zile litiaz\u0103 renal\u0103 st\u00e2nga ) . Neither the patient nor his family was informed of the diagnosis .","An ultrasound scan performed TIME in the hospital revealed a pancreatic tumour and the patient was prescribed treatment by the doctor on duty , PERSON After DATE of treatment , the jaundice disappeared . The treatment continued for DATE .","On DATE and DATE Dr GPE ordered further examinations of the patient \u2019s abdomen , pancreas and bile ducts . GPE thus underwent a computerized tomography scan ( a form of X - ray examination in which the X - ray source and detector rotate around the object to be scanned and the information obtained can be used to produce cross - sectional images by computer ) on DATE and an ultrasound endoscopy on DATE . An MRI test ( magnetic resonance imaging , a non - invasive method of examination of body organs by recording the responses to radio waves , or other forms of energy , of different kinds of molecules in a magnetic field ) was recommended but never carried out . Throughout this time , the applicants were at the hospital with the patient , but they were allegedly not given any information by the medical team .","Dr GPE conferred with his colleague PERSON and decided , on the basis of the test results , that the patient probably had a pancreatic tumour of a kind requiring surgery .","According to the applicants , neither the patient nor his family was properly informed of the diagnosis , the nature of the intervention , its risks , or its actual duration . The medical team told them that they were going to perform a \u201c routine \u201d operation lasting TIME , and which had a PERCENT chance of success .","On DATE Dr GPE , assisted by ORG , GPE , and GPE , and by the specialist anaesthetist PERSON , performed the surgery and removed the tumour along with parts of the patient \u2019s pancreas , stomach and duodenum . The intervention lasted for TIME .","The tests run after the surgery showed that the tumour had been benign .","The applicant was placed in the intensive care unit under the supervision of PERSON He remained there until his death .","The family was not officially allowed access to the intensive care unit until DATE before the patient \u2019s death . For DATE after the operation , the patient \u2019s general state was stable . However , his general health started to deteriorate and he developed a high fever . He was prescribed broad spectrum antibiotics , which were provided by his family , pending the results of further blood tests .","On DATE blood tests were ordered and the results revealed the presence of CARDINAL types of bacteria : klebsiella and meticillin - resistant staphylococcus .","Meanwhile , his health continued to deteriorate and he finally slipped into a coma . He was in this state when , on DATE , PERSON operated on him again to remove an abscess and some blood clots which had formed after the first operation .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicants spoke with the anaesthetist on duty , who \u2013 in GPE absence \u2013 acquainted them with the patient \u2019s real diagnosis and informed them of the type of surgery he had undergone on DATE and of the suspicion of a bacterial infection .","On TIME the patient died of septic shock and multiple organ dysfunctions ; he was taken to the hospital mortuary .","The third applicant signed a discharge form provided by the hospital , which read :","\u201c ... [ we ] request that no autopsy be performed as the cause of death is known and we have no complaints concerning the treatment and care provided by the medical and paramedical personnel . \u201d","The applicants collected the deceased \u2019s personal belongings and found that the medicine they had brought to the hospital had not been administered to the patient .","On DATE , while her father \u2019s body was still in the hospital mortuary , the second applicant brought the case to the attention of ORG . She sent her complaint to both the GPE branch and ORG , by e - mail and by normal post . She informed both associations that her father had contracted a bacterial infection while in the intensive care unit of the hospital and asked that an autopsy be performed before the burial , which was scheduled for DATE .","The disciplinary committee of ORG gave no reply to the request for an autopsy but opened an investigation into the patient \u2019s death , hearing evidence from the applicants and the doctors . It gave its decision on DATE , ruling that no medical errors had been made , but reprimanding PERSON for his failure to seek the patient \u2019s consent before the surgery , as required by PERSON no . CARDINAL .","The applicants objected to the committee \u2019s conclusions and their appeal was heard by the superior disciplinary committee of ORG .","Drs GPE and GPE from the medical team that had performed the surgery on DATE submitted written statements to the effect that together they had sought the patient \u2019s written consent before the intervention and that the consent form had been attached to the file . The statements were typewritten and identical . The head of the surgery department at the hospital submitted a written statement clarifying that no patients had been operated on in that period without a consent form being attached to their file . PERSON , a specialist doctor from a different hospital , was asked to comment on the treatment choices made by PERSON He gave his opinion on DATE , stating that , in general , icterus was a condition that required surgical intervention under any circumstances , and that DATE according to the guidelines \u2013 the surgery performed in Mr GPE \u2019s case had presented a certain risk , but one that had not been increased by the patient \u2019s age ; he also considered that the postoperative complication and ensuing death had fallen within the generally accepted risks for such an operation .","On the basis of the evidence presented , on DATE ORG terminated the disciplinary proceedings against PERSON Relying on the CARDINAL written statements given by the CARDINAL doctors , the authority considered it established that the patient \u2019s consent had been obtained but that the consent form had been lost .","The second applicant lodged an action for the decision adopted on DATE to be quashed , pointing out that GPE and GPE ( the anaesthetist ) had disregarded the patient \u2019s rights and well - being in that they had failed to perform all the requisite tests before the operation , in particular an MRI scan , and had failed to inform either the patient or his family of the real diagnosis and the risks of the surgery and to obtain the patient \u2019s consent before the intervention ; she also contended that the postintervention care had been deficient . She reiterated that the patient had contracted a bacterial infection in hospital , which in her opinion had contributed to his death .","On DATE the ORG gave judgment in the case . It noted that a criminal investigation had taken place , that the medical experts consulted by the prosecutor had expressed the opinion that the patient \u2019s death had not been caused by medical error , and that on the basis of that opinion the case had been closed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It therefore dismissed the applicants\u2019 action and upheld the decision of ORG .","The second applicant appealed against the decision delivered by ORG , but in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the lower court .","On DATE the second applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the doctors who had treated her father , naming in particular the CARDINAL surgeons GPE and GPE and the anaesthetist , PERSON They addressed their complaint to the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG and ORG and the GPE military prosecutor \u2019s office . As the doctors were career officers , the military prosecutor took over the case and opened an investigation into involuntary manslaughter .","Dr PERSON gave a statement before the military prosecutor . He maintained that the patient \u2019s death had not been directly caused by the surgery and that it had been impossible to establish the cause of death beyond doubt as the family had refused an autopsy . PERSON declared that the patient had received adequate treatment and his death had not been caused by medical negligence .","The prosecutor sought the advice of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , asking it to explain the nature and cause of death , whether the treatment had been appropriate to the diagnosis , whether there had been errors of medical practice and conduct ( erori de tehnic\u0103 \u015fi conduit\u0103 medical\u0103 ) and , if so , how such errors had contributed to the patient \u2019s death .","On DATE ORG issued an expert medical report regarding the case . It took into account the patient \u2019s medical log during his stay in the hospital and the opinion expressed in general terms about Mr GPE \u2019s condition by PERSON , a specialist surgeon at a different hospital from the one where the patient had been treated . It concluded that the cause of death had been multiple organ failure and sepsis occurring during the evolution of a post - surgical abscess . It considered that the treatment had been appropriately determined and administered and that there had been no medical errors at any stage ( diagnosis , medical treatment , surgery and post - surgical care ) .","On the basis of the conclusions of the expert medical report , on CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor decided not to prosecute PERSON and GPE","The first and second applicant objected to the outcome of the prosecutor \u2019s investigation . They pointed out , in particular , that the expert medical report had failed to examine the question of the bacterial infection contracted in the hospital and that the prosecutor had not taken account of the absence of consent for the surgery .","On DATE the Chief Prosecutor of ORG dismissed the above - mentioned complaints , finding , in particular , that the expert medical report had not confirmed the ORG allegations .","The applicants lodged a complaint against that decision with ORG ; as they became more familiar with the expert medical report , they raised several objections to it and asked that the case be remitted to the prosecutor for further investigation . On DATE the court dismissed their complaint as illfounded , on the basis of the medical report of DATE .","The second applicant appealed against that decision . She contested the accuracy of the expert medical report , stating that PERSON was not an accredited medical expert , and that the conclusions of the report were flawed . She requested that a new expert examination be carried out . She also complained that at the hospital the applicants had been informed of a diagnosis that was different from that appearing on the official documents presented by the hospital as evidence , and that it had only been on the basis of the erroneous diagnosis that her brother had signed the discharge form concerning the autopsy . In any case , she considered that her father \u2019s death had been suspicious , as it had followed what appeared to be a good recovery ; moreover , since the presence of hospital bacteria had been identified , an autopsy should anyway have been performed with or without the family \u2019s endorsement . She also pointed out in this connection that as soon as they had become aware of the misrepresentation by the hospital , the applicants had appealed to ORG to demand an autopsy in the case .","The second applicant emphasised the absence of informed consent from either the patient or his family before the operation and pointed out that that failure on the part of the hospital had prevented them from making informed decisions , for instance seeking a second opinion from a specialist doctor .","In a final decision of DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The court referred to the conclusions reached by ORG , which , in its opinion , had given an exhaustive account of the facts and was better placed than the courts to give a specialist opinion .","On CARDINAL DATE the second applicant forwarded to ORG a copy of the complaint she had sent to ORG on DATE . ORG was responsible for the administration of the hospital . Later on she expanded the complaint , claiming that the hospital had also failed to provide the patient with clerical assistance when he was dying .","On DATE and DATE ORG replied to the second applicant \u2019s complaint . It informed her that the medical treatment given to her father had been adequate and that the surgery performed had fallen within the generally accepted range as regards the risk of complications and fatality , given the patient \u2019s age ( CARDINAL ) and medical history . It also stated that the procedures for sterilisation of instruments in the hospital were in accordance with the existing guidelines and beyond reproach .","LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) expressly states that there is an obligation to inform a patient about any surgical intervention proposed , the risks involved in the surgery , alternative treatment , and the diagnosis and prognosis ( Article CARDINAL ) . The PERSON also regulates the patient \u2019s right to seek a second medical opinion ( LAW ) .","According to LAW , a breach of a patient \u2019s rights may result in disciplinary or criminal action , depending on the applicable law .","The judgment delivered in PERSON v. GPE ( no . GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) describes in detail the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the delivery of expert forensic reports and the authorities competent to issue them , as well as the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the civil liability of medical staff .","Under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the hospital has to ensure adequate standards of accommodation , hygiene and food as well as the prevention of hospital - acquired infections , in accordance with the regulations issued by ORG . The hospital is liable for any damage sustained by patients as a result of the quality of the medical treatment or because of the standards of accommodation , hygiene , food and the prevention of hospitalacquired infections if such damage is established by the competent authorities . Under the same provision , where the damage is caused through medical fault , the liability lies with the person who committed the tort ( r\u0103spunderea este individual\u0103 ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170442","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"SV\u0100RPSTONS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The case originated in an application ( no . CARDINAL ) against GPE lodged with ORG under LAW of ORG ( \u201c the Convention \u201d ) by CARDINAL NORP nationals , PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) , Mr PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) and Mr NORP Zips ( \u201c the third applicant \u201d ) , on DATE . The applicants were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , most recently Ms K. L\u012bce .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The events leading up to the present application took place in the context of a transition in GPE from analogue to digital terrestrial television broadcasting .","On DATE a contract was signed between ORG ( Digit\u0101lais Latvijas radio un telev\u012bzijas centrs \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , a subsidiary company of the ORG nonprofit joint - stock company , ORG radio un telev\u012bzijas centrs DATE \u201c the LOC \u201d ) , and ORG ( \u201c QUANTITY \u201d ) , a company registered in GPE and GPE , for implementation by the latter of the second phase of the digital terrestrial television broadcasting project .","In DATE Kempmayer Media GPE ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) , a subsidiary company of FAC , was incorporated in GPE . The applicants were at the material time board members of the ORG . Subsequently , PERSON informed the ORG that its obligations under the contract of DATE would be performed by ORG , with FAC only overseeing implementation of the project .","In DATE the ORG lodged a claim against KM with ORG of the International Chamber of Commerce in GPE , seeking to invalidate the contract of DATE .","On DATE that court ruled that , being a \u201c mailbox \u201d company , ORG had never had the capacity to fulfil its contractual obligations . It was ordered to repay MONEY ( ORG ) to the ORG .","On DATE the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption ( GPE nov\u0113r\u0161anas un apkaro\u0161anas birojs \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) opened an investigation into whether , in the context of the transition to digital terrestrial television broadcasting , ORG officials had abused their authority and failed to act .","The ORG carried out various investigative actions including numerous searches .","On DATE , at the request of the ORG , a judge of ORG authorised the searches and seizures .","The judge \u2019s decision authorising the searches and seizures was amenable to appeal before ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the ORG searched ORG \u2019s business LOC and the LOC residential LOC . The search record indicated that numerous items were seized , such as the first applicant \u2019s mobile phone and ORG card , the second applicant \u2019s notebook , cassette tape , CDs , business card , the third applicant \u2019s CDs , business cards , floppy disks , computers , computer hard drives , photographs and notes .","During the searches of their residential LOC , the first and third applicants were also searched .","NORP In DATE the applicants asked the ORG and ORG to return all the items and documents seized , in particular those of a personal nature and having no connection with the criminal case .","NORP In DATE the ORG request to return the computers was refused because they contained information of evidential value . The ORG indicated that the applicants could obtain a copy of the information stored on them and that the third applicant could recuperate certain items seized from his residential LOC . Other items were being examined and would be returned if found to be of no evidential value .","On DATE the applicants lodged complaints regarding the judge \u2019s decision authorising the searches and seizures with ORG , arguing that it had been unsubstantiated and had not specified the items sought . They further contended that items unrelated to the criminal case had been seized from their residential LOC .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 complaints .","As regards the conduct of the searches , that ORG noted that the actions of the investigating authority could be appealed against to the prosecution service , in accordance with LAW . That part of the ORG complaints fell outside the scope of ORG competence and was therefore left unexamined .","NORP This decision of ORG was final .","On DATE a prosecutor of ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 complaints regarding the conduct of the searches and seizures .","On DATE and DATE the ORG further complaints to CARDINAL higher levels of prosecutor were dismissed . The applicants\u2019 opinion that certain seized items were of no relevance to the case was deemed without basis . Furthermore , since ORG employees had had sufficient reasons to believe that the first and third applicants had been in possession of and were hiding items which were of relevance to the case , they could therefore be searched .","On DATE the Prosecutor General dismissed the applicants\u2019 complaints with final effect .","On DATE the applicants and ORG lodged a complaint with ORG ( PERSON tiesa ) , challenging the compliance of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( procedures for lodging complaints about the actions of an investigating authority and for a prosecutor \u2019s decision on such a complaint ) with LAW ( right to a fair trial ) , LAW ( right to respect for private life , home and correspondence ) and Articles DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .","They maintained that an investigating authority \u2019s actions could not be the subject of an appeal before a court . A review of those actions by the prosecution service could not be equated to a review by a \u201c court \u201d within the meaning of LAW . They further complained in a general manner that their right to respect for private life , home and correspondence had been violated on the grounds that the intervention was not based on law .","On DATE , a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG , by relying on LAW of LAW , refused the initiation of constitutional proceedings insofar as it concerned LAW . They held that that part of the complaint did not comply with the criteria provided by LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . In particular , the applicants had not sufficiently demonstrated in the complaint how their fundamental rights under those provisions had been infringed . This decision was final .","On DATE the Constitutional Court handed down its judgment in relation to the remainder of the ORG complaint . It found that the impugned statutory provisions , namely ORG and CARDINAL of LAW , complied with LAW . ORG also held that the prosecution service may be regarded as an effective and available legal remedy within the meaning of LAW of the LAW and that the absence of an appeal to a court does not in itself give rise to a breach of LAW . As a result , it dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint .","Article CARDINAL guarantees the right to a fair trial ( see \u010calovskis v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) . Article CARDINAL enshrines the right to respect for private life , home and correspondence ( see PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . MONEY , ORG CARDINAL-XII ) .","Section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL part CARDINAL of LAW provides that an application to ORG regarding the initiation of constitutional proceedings must , among other criteria , contain legal reasoning ( juridiskais pamatojums ) .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL\u00b2 , in addition to the above - mentioned requirements , an individual constitutional complaint must include justification as to how the applicant \u2019s fundamental rights as defined in the LAW have been infringed upon , and show that all available remedies have been used .","Section CARDINAL sets out the grounds on which the panel examining the constitutional complaint may refuse to initiate a case . LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) provides that , when examining applications , the panel dealing with the application may refuse to initiate a matter if the application does not comply with the requirements specified in Sections CARDINAL or CARDINAL of LAW . When examining a constitutional complaint , the panel may also refuse to initiate a case where the legal reasoning included in the complaint is evidently insufficient to satisfy the claim ( section CARDINAL ) ) .","For further details regarding LAW PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE DATE , DATE .","The provisions of LAW applicable at the time of the national proceedings ceased to be in force on DATE . The provisions governing the procedure for complaints regarding the actions of an investigating authority provided as follows .","Article CARDINAL provides that a suspect , accused and other persons may lodge complaints with a prosecutor about the actions of an investigating authority .","Article CARDINAL provides that the prosecutor supervising the investigation shall decide on a complaint within DATE of receipt . A higher - ranking prosecutor shall decide on a complaint within DATE , or DATE if a further inquiry or information is necessary in order to decide [ it ] . The complainant shall be informed of the outcome . If the complaint is dismissed , the prosecutor shall provide reasons as to why the complaint was considered unfounded and explain the appeal procedure . The investigating authority and complainant may appeal against the prosecutor \u2019s decision concerning the complaint to a higher - ranking prosecutor .","Under Article CARDINAL complaints about the actions of a prosecutor shall be submitted to a higher - ranking prosecutor and decided in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180647","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF RYBALKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other issues under the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181587","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LEBEDEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG ( GPE ) ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against ORG ( GPE ) for providing him with a housing subsidy and for a compensation of non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claims .","On DATE this decision was upheld on appeal by ORG ( GPE ) ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE , following the applicant \u2019s supervisory review appeal , the ORG of ORG quashed the decision of DATE . ORG remitted the case for a new examination by the court of cassation instance for the applicant had not been duly summoned to the hearing of DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of DATE .","On DATE , upon the applicant \u2019s supervisory review appeal , the Presidium of ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and the decision of CARDINAL DATE as it found that the lower courts misjudged the facts of the case and erred in application of the national law .","On DATE ORG again dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims .","On DATE ORG set aside the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal and remitted the case for a new examination , as the lower court had misapplied the national law .","On DATE ORG ordered the Government of ORG ( GPE ) to pay the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) from the federal budget funds allocated for providing the housing subsidies for persons leaving the high north regions .","On DATE ORG found the decision of DATE to award the applicant money unlawful and unreasoned , quashed the decision and yet again remitted the case for a new examination .","Twice , on CARDINAL DATE and DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims .","Each time , on DATE and DATE , respectively , the judgment of ORG was set aside on appeal , and the case was remitted for a new examination . In the first set of the proceedings , the appellate court found the judgment unlawful , and requested to bring into the proceedings the municipality \u201c Nizhnekolymskiy rayon \u201d . In the second set of the proceedings , the appellate court found that the applicant had not been duly summoned to the hearing , and that the municipality should have been joined to the proceedings as a defendant rather than a third party .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claims in part . It ordered ORG ( GPE ) to pay the applicant RUB CARDINAL from the federal budget funds allocated for the housing subsidies for persons leaving the high north regions .","On DATE the judgment of DATE was upheld on appeal by ORG .","On DATE the applicant requested the writ of execution in respect of the judgment of ORG of DATE .","On DATE a writ of execution was issued .","On unspecified dates , the applicant submitted the writ of execution , first , to ORG and , second , to ORG of ORG ( GPE ) .","On DATE and DATE respectively the writ of execution was returned to the applicant as the debtor had no accounts at these bodies .","On DATE ORG for ORG ( GPE ) ( \u201c ORG ) received the writ of execution and opened the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the Head of ORG ordered to set aside the above decision to open the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was set aside and ORG refused institution of enforcement proceedings with the reasoning that as the enforcement document required recovery of public budgetary funds , it could not be enforced by ORG .","On DATE ORG clarified the judgment of DATE . It explained that the debt had to be recovered from ORG ( GPE ) represented by ORG of ORG ( GPE ) from the federal budget sources allocated for the housing subsidies for persons leaving the high north regions .","On an unspecified date the applicant on CARDINAL more occasion sent the writ of execution to ORG . On DATE the writ was returned to him for the debtor had no account at the ORG .","On DATE ORG received the writ of execution and opened the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated for the debtor had no property that the debt could be recovered from .","On DATE the bailiff responsible for the execution of the judgment issued an act establishing that there were grounds for returning the writ of execution to the creditor . According to this document , the debtor , ORG ( GPE ) , was a collective executive body , without the status of a legal entity or any property on their balance sheet .","The judgment of DATE remained unenforced .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim under LAW ( see the LAW part below ) . He complained that the civil proceedings in his case against ORG ( GPE ) had been unreasonably long , and asked for a compensation in that respect .","On DATE a judge of ORG ordered that the application should be returned to the applicant with the reasoning that the proceedings complained of ended on DATE , i.e. before the entry into force of LAW .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s special appeal against the above decision was dismissed by ORG . The court agreed with the judge that had passed the decision of DATE that DATE of the proceedings was the date of the decision of CARDINAL DATE to uphold the judgment of DATE on appeal , while the subsequent period when the applicant applied for supervisory review of that decisions should not be included in the overall length of the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147685","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PUZIN v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant was detained in the remand section of GPE prison from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . He was again detained in the remand section of GPE prison from DATE to DATE .","In the period from DATE to DATE he was held for DATE in cell CARDINAL alone or with another detainee . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held for DATE in cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) , alone with QUANTITY of personal space . From CARDINAL DATE to DATE he was held for DATE in cell QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) , alone with QUANTITY of personal space or with another detainee with QUANTITY of personal space .","The cell for CARDINAL detainees , where the applicant was held , contained CARDINAL bunk bed , CARDINAL bigger and CARDINAL smaller table , CARDINAL chairs , CARDINAL wardrobes and CARDINAL x QUANTITY windows , which detainees could freely open or close .","As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the remand section of GPE prison , material conditions inside the cells and sanitary conditions , see the judgment in PERSON and PERSON GPE , nos . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","As to the out - of - cell time in the remand section , the ORG found in the aforementioned judgment that detainees in the remand section were confined to their cells day and night , save for DATE outdoor exercise , and TIME in a recreation room ( ORG and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 MONEY ) .","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 ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175667","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF M v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-b - Access to relevant files);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Obtain attendance of witnesses);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Jurisdiction to give orders or grant injunctions;Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Egbert Myjer;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant was employed by the ORG as an audio editor and interpreter . In this capacity he had access to classified information ( gerubriceerde informatie ) , which he was under a duty not to divulge to persons not authorised to have knowledge of it .","The suspicion arose that the applicant had forwarded copies of classified documents to persons outside the service , including in some cases persons who were under covert investigation by the ORG in connection with possible terrorist activity .","On DATE the applicant was arrested . He was charged with divulging ORG secret information to persons not authorised to take cognisance of it and taken into detention on remand ( voorlopige hechtenis ) .","The ORG advised the applicant in writing that he was still under an obligation of secrecy . Consequently it would be constitutive of a further criminal offence if he were to discuss matters covered by his duty of secrecy with anyone including his counsel .","The applicant \u2019s counsel were also warned that they might be prosecuted should they divulge any ORG secret information to third parties .","NORP The trial opened before ORG ( rechtbank ) on DATE . It was adjourned several times .","The applicant \u2019s counsel protested against the restrictions affecting communication between themselves and the applicant , which in their submission undermined the effectiveness of the defence . They also asked for certain documents to be added to complete the file : these included the internal ORG report that was the basis of the prosecution , which was absent from the file altogether , and the documents which had supposedly been leaked , which had been added to the case file in redacted form with parts blacked out . They further repeated a request , made earlier in writing , for the applicant to be released unconditionally from his duty of secrecy in order to conduct his defence ( vrijwaring ) .","NORP The public prosecutor ( officier van justitie ) announced that some but not all of the documents requested by the defence would be added to the file but refused to release the applicant from his duty of secrecy unconditionally .","On DATE ORG gave a decision remitting the case to the investigating judge , to whom it would fall to carry out investigations in such a way as to mitigate , and compensate as far as possible , the handicaps under which the defence laboured .","On DATE the head of the ORG informed the applicant in writing that communication of matters covered by his duty of secrecy was permitted , subject to the following conditions :","He would be allowed to discuss such matters only with his counsel , PERSON and Mr Pestman ;","He was not allowed to reveal the identity of any ORG staff or human sources ;","He could discuss only \u201c that which [ was ] contained in the case file \u201d ;","This exemption covered only information that was strictly necessary for the defence ;","This exemption was valid only until the final judgment in the domestic proceedings was given .","The letter continues :","\u201c In order to preclude any misapprehension I stress that this release from the duty of secrecy does not apply to the suspect \u2019s counsel . In the event that counsel wish to make use of information obtained from the suspect with a view to the defence of M , this must be done in consultation with the investigating judge . The investigating judge will then determine whether the ( answers to the ) questions are of any relevance to the criminal proceedings ( strafvorderlijk van belang ) . If this is the case , the ORG will then indicate to what extent ORG secrets are at stake in this context . \u201d","On DATE the Head of the ORG wrote to the investigating judge in the following terms :","\u201c ... I consider it of great importance that the suspect ( verdachte ) should be able to defend himself adequately against the matters of which he is suspected . This entails that he will have to consult his counsel for that purpose . To that end I have granted the suspect conditional release from his duty of secrecy . These conditions are necessary and serve the interest of national security . There exists a certain tension within these frameworks , i.e. a ( more far - reaching ) release ( as requested ) of the duty of secrecy and the interests of national security . After all , the ORG can only carry out its statutory duty within a certain measure of secrecy . CARDINAL criteria are of importance in this respect , namely that the ORG should be able to maintain the secrecy of its current levels of intelligence , its sources and its working methods . These are critical thresholds that can be seen as the practical implementation of the so - called \u2018 ORG criterion in the case - law of ORG .","...","... CARDINAL additional conditions apply :","NORP the release from his duty of secrecy granted [ the applicant ] shall apply solely to communication between the suspect , his lawyers PERSON and ORG , Public Prosecutor PERSON and the court , and","NORP shall take place within the confines of the offices of the Investigating Judge or in the presence of the trial court in a closed hearing .","...","The parties to the proceedings are to submit their questions and other requests to you [ i.e. the investigating judge ] . You then check whether the questions and requests are of any procedural significance ( strafvorderlijk belang ) in these proceedings , as you have indicated to me with regard to the CARDINAL subjects mentioned by counsel . In the affirmative , you offer me the opportunity to consider whether the text of the questions in itself can harm national security .","In the ( probably most likely ) event that the questions in themselves can not harm national security , the answer can be provided in the accustomed way , i.e. by means of an official ORG report ...","In addition , and if the parties to the proceedings consider it necessary , more specific answers can be given by means of , for example , the hearing of witnesses . Perhaps unnecessarily I would observe that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Intelligence and Security Services Act ( FAC inlichtingen- en veiligheidsdiensten ) applies .","In the event that the line of questioning ( vraagstelling ) in itself is capable of endangering national security , it is my responsibility , pursuant to section CARDINAL of the DATE Intelligence and Security Services Act , to ensure the secrecy of the information that should remain so and accordingly the classification of that information . I therefore propose that you do not place this information , after I have classified it , in the case file and to request ORG to deal with those questions at a closed hearing . I am of the opinion that the above procedural proposal serves the interests of all parties to the proceedings , taking into account the interests involved in national security .","...","The second condition , which is that the suspect should not be allowed to disclose the identities of ORG members or human sources , appears clear enough to me . All information that , whether or not in combination with other information , may lead to the identities of ORG members or human sources becoming known , falls within the scope of the second condition for release [ from the duty of secrecy ] .","...","As regards the third and fourth conditions , I am of the view that these too are sufficiently clear : [ the applicant ] is released from his duty of secrecy vis - \u00e0 - vis his counsel PERSON and PERSON in so far as consultation between the suspect and his counsel [ Dr ] PERSON and Mr Pestman relates to the crimes with which he is charged . In the event that counsel wish to discuss documents with the suspect which they may wish to add to the case file , the third and fourth conditions should be interpreted to mean that the documents must be relevant and directly necessary for the defence in this case and may possibly be added to the case file . [ These requirements of ] relevance and direct necessity also apply to the preparation of requests and defences .","As to the latter condition : if and when such a procedure becomes a real possibility I will consider , if asked , whether release from the duty of secrecy , conditional or not , is possible .","...","Fourthly , you have asked me to react to the witnesses requested by counsel . I presume that you mean the ORG members . I am of the opinion that this is above all a matter of criminal procedure , the public prosecutor indicating in her letter that the questions counsel would like to ask relate primarily to the working methods of the ORG , the spreading of the leaked information and the internal investigation into this . I can agree with the position taken by the public prosecutor that these questions can most probably be answered by me or my deputy during a witness hearing . Whether and to what extent national security permits the questions to be answered will have to be seen for each question . This will require me first to have the questions intended to be asked at my disposal , so that the Ministers of Justice and of ORG and ORG can decide together and in due time on the application of section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Intelligence and Security Services Act .","As to the possible questioning of ORG members as witnesses , I would ask you to make it possible , in pursuance of Article CARDINALc of the Code of Criminal Procedure , for special access to be granted to an additional ORG member . This person can consider the interests of national security for each specific question during the interrogation . This will also permit the defence to put \u2018 sub - questions\u2019 , questions arising from the questions previously submitted in writing . The hearing of witnesses will thus , in my opinion , considerably speed up the pace of the proceedings \u2013 at least as far as the hearing of witnesses is concerned \u2013 since the ( additional ) ORG member present will in many cases be able to decide almost immediately whether the said sub - questions can be answered . This acceleration of the proceedings , in my opinion , benefits all parties to the proceedings . I am prepared to advise the Ministers of Justice and of ORG and ORG , on the basis of section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Intelligence and Security Services Act , to consider this in any exemption decision .","... \u201d","On DATE ORG gave a decision in which , following the public prosecutor , it refused to make the exemption unconditional . It expressed the view that it would serve no useful purpose to allow the applicant to disclose the identities of ORG staff members and informants to his counsel . The interests of the applicant were sufficiently protected inasmuch as the exemption covered information strictly necessary for his defence . ORG ordered the investigating judge to hear CARDINAL witnesses referred to by name and CARDINAL witnesses referred to by a code name or number . It refused to order the hearing of QUANTITY other witnesses referred to by a number and CARDINAL named witness immediately , leaving that decision to be taken by the investigating judge after a particular witness , an ORG staff member called PERSON , had been heard . As to the partially blacked - out documents , ORG noted that it too was thereby prevented from considering whether they held secret information within the meaning of Articles CARDINAL and FAC of LAW ( Wetboek van Strafrecht , see below ) ; even so , the prosecution interest in maintaining secrecy prevailed .","The named witness PERSON was heard on DATE and DATE . It appears that he refused to answer certain questions because of his duty of secrecy .","It appears that on DATE the investigating judge decided to refuse to hear the CARDINAL witnesses requested by the defence for lack of available time ( agendatechnische redenen ) .","On DATE the investigating judge decided that the unnamed witnesses permitted to be questioned would be heard at a secret location , under heavy disguise and with the use of voice distorting equipment . A representative of the ORG and legal counsel of the ORG would attend in addition to the prosecution and the defence .","The defence lodged an objection against the investigating judge \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE with ORG , stating also that they would not cooperate in any witness hearing held at a secret location . They also asked for the named witnesses already heard to be relieved of their duty of secrecy and to be heard anew .","ORG held a hearing in camera on DATE . The defence outlined its provisional strategy , which was to aim for an acquittal by identifying potential sources of the leaks other than the applicant and by demonstrating that the documents leaked did not contain ORG secrets properly so - called . They also wished to establish the applicant \u2019s attitude to his work for the ORG . This strategy required the applicant \u2019s former direct colleagues to be questioned and uncensored copies of the documents in question to be made available to the defence and the court .","On DATE ORG gave an order for CARDINAL further named witnesses to be heard but dismissed the defence \u2019s objection for the remainder .","On DATE the defence challenged CARDINAL judges of the trial chamber who had also taken part in the decision of DATE , arguing on various grounds that positions taken in the latter decision prejudged the outcome of the trial .","The following day , DATE , the challenge was dismissed and the trial hearing was resumed . The defence asked for documents to be added to the file , including all those found in the applicant \u2019s desk . ORG remitted the case to the investigating judge for the hearing of the witnesses authorised to be heard , in so far as they had not already been heard , and requested the prosecutor to add documents to the file including a description \u2013 to be prepared by the AIVD \u2013 of the documents found in the applicant \u2019s desk .","Witnesses were heard on various dates . In so far as they were unnamed ORG staff members , they were identified by a number ; they were heavily disguised and they were placed in a box that left only their upper body visible ; and their voices were distorted . The applicant states that it was impossible to discern their body language and facial expressions . He further states that an ORG official was present , who could \u2013 and did \u2013 prevent named and unnamed witnesses from answering a proportion of the questions put by the defence , and that this was permitted by the investigating judge .","The trial hearing was resumed on DATE . Finding no indication that the ORG information had been leaked by someone else , ORG yet again refused to hear the named witness and the CARDINAL unnamed witnesses . As to ORG staff members who refused to disclose certain information based on their duty of secrecy , it stated that the final decision whether to allow this lay with the trial court itself but found that it could not set precise limits as the prosecution wanted .","The trial hearing was resumed on CARDINAL and DATE . The applicant made no statement .","On DATE the trial hearing resumed . The prosecution and the defence made their closing statements .","ORG gave judgment on DATE . It convicted the applicant and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( gerechtshof ) of GPE .","The appeal hearing opened on DATE . Among other things , the applicant \u2019s counsel objected to the refusal , in the proceedings at first instance , to allow the defence an unconditional exemption that would allow the applicant and his counsel to communicate unimpeded ; to the hearing of unnamed witnesses under heavy disguise , in a closed box that partially hid them from view and with the use of voice distortion , even though they were the applicant \u2019s former direct colleagues ; to the withholding of evidence by the witnesses , based on their duty of secrecy as ORG staff members ; and to the withholding of documentary evidence requested by the defence . The prosecuting Advocate General ( advocaatgeneraal ) conveyed an offer by the ORG to allow an independent expert to see uncensored ORG documents and report on their content ; the expert proposed had previously been a member of a committee appointed to investigate the internal functioning of the ORG itself . The defence protested that this expert lacked independence precisely for that reason .","ORG delivered an interlocutory judgment on DATE . Its reasoning included the following :","\u201c The duty of secrecy arising from DATE Intelligence and Security Services Act Serviced Act is subject only to the exceptions set out in that LAW . The implication is that only the possibility offered by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that LAW offers a solution for the applicant \u2019s present predicament .","The interests of ORG security , which DATE Intelligence and Security Services Act and LAW and following of LAW seek to protect , stand in the way of a complete release from the duty of secrecy as the defence would wish and a complete exemption from prosecution for disclosing ORG secrets to be granted by ORG . It is obvious that the said duty of secrecy constitutes a restriction of \u2013 normally entirely \u2013 free and confidential consultation between the suspect and his counsel and DATE if it remained in force in its entirety \u2013 it would prevent a fair trial . In the present case , the suspect has been granted conditional release from that duty by the ORG , based on the latter section of the DATE Intelligence and Security Service Act , as have his CARDINAL counsel . The conditions accompanying that release , all of which concern interests of ORG security in relation to interests of the defence in the present criminal proceedings , appear to ORG neither unreasonable within the framework of the interests of ORG security nor unworkable within the framework of the interests of the defence .","...","Finally , it is the case that if the suspect and the defence , if they consider that the space left to them by the said release is not sufficient to conduct a defence meeting the requirements of the LAW and they consider , in their assessment , that he \/ they have to transgress his \/ their duty of secrecy further than the conditions governing the release allow , they can plead justification ( rechtvaardigingsgrond ) , namely the interest of a proper defence within the meaning of LAW . The Advocate General gave the assurance at the hearing of DATE that no prosecution would be brought if a violation of the duty of secrecy by the suspect \u2013 and as ORG presumes , his counsel as well \u2013 was justified by invoking LAW . \u201d","and","\u201c ORG assumes that the defence request [ for access to the internal ORG investigation materials ] comprises all investigations undertaken by the ORG after it had become known that a third party , i.e. S. , possessed [ a copy of a classified ORG document ] . It does not appear from the file that these internal investigations were set out in any report . The case file contains criminal complaints ( aangiftes ) based on those investigations .","It must be noted in the first place that the defence request does not concern documents in the possession of ORG within the meaning of LAW ; none of the participants in the proceedings is aware of the content of the internal investigations , save for what has been stated by witnesses in this respect , and what is set out in the said criminal complaints . There is therefore no violation of the principle of \u2018 equality of arms\u2019 .","Quite apart from the question whether the ORG , given its duty and responsibility ... , would be willing to submit its report or any written documents concerning its internal investigation to the public prosecution service to be added to the file , the question needs to be considered whether these documents , which do not emanate from any investigatory body , can in reason be relevant to the defence .","The defence has not , in the present case , suggested , let alone shown , that the materials compiled by the ORG within the framework of its internal investigation have been obtained unlawfully or are unreliable , but only that the documents and information provided by that service have been accepted uncritically ( voor zoete koek aangenomen ) first by ORG ( Rijksrecherche ) and then by ORG and can not be checked .","ORG takes DATE without wishing to prejudge its final decision [ on the question whether the trial was fair ] \u2013 that the said materials can be assessed based on the statements of the witnesses questioned , albeit , as far as ORG members are concerned , subject to some restrictions owing to their duty of secrecy . \u201d","It noted the \u201c particular tension between fundamentally opposed interests \u201d , namely the applicant \u2019s interest as a defendant in a criminal trial and the ORG interest in maintaining the secrecy of ORG information , but rejected the protests put forward on the applicant \u2019s behalf . The judgment took note of a promise made by the Advocate General not to prosecute for a violation of the duty of secrecy if that violation was justified by reliance on LAW ( gerechtvaardigd is door een beroep op artikel TIME ) . It asked the prosecution to submit certain official reports but not the uncensored ORG documents requested by the defence .","The appeal hearing was resumed on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant announced that he might , in his own defence , have to reveal ORG secret information . This prompted ORG to exclude the public from the interrogation of the applicant , despite the latter \u2019s protests .","In the course of questioning by his counsel the applicant mentioned the names of particular ORG staff members ; these are not recorded in the official record of the hearing . The Advocate General protested against the mentioning of these names in so far as they were not already to be found in the case file , which in his view was not justified by LAW , and announced his intention to prosecute if the applicant should \u201c transgress those limits \u201d ( mocht hij die grenzen overschrijden ) . The applicant \u2019s counsel replied that the defence needed these names in order to decide whether to call the persons concerned as defence witnesses and pointed out that the public had been excluded . After the president decided that the Advocate General should be entitled to state a view on the acceptability of questions put to the applicant by his counsel , the applicant stated that he would for the remainder of the hearing comply with his duty of secrecy . Thereupon the hearing was reopened to the public .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel Mr Pestman sent the Advocate General a letter by fax , to which was appended a list of questions he and PERSON would have wished to ask the applicant in support of the case for the defence . These questions concerned ORG working methods and procedures and ORG members . CARDINAL question asked the applicant to identify individual ORG members on a handwritten anonymised organigram by name . Other questions asked the applicant to state the names of ORG members other than himself who would have had access to the documents found to have been leaked .","The hearing continued on DATE . The Advocate General announced his intention to prosecute the applicant should he answer questions naming ORG sources , providing an insight into ORG working methods or relating to the blacked - out parts of the redacted documents . Responding to protests by the defence , ORG referred to its interlocutory judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in which it had stated that if the applicant considered a breach of his duty of secrecy in the interest of his defence he would , if prosecuted , be able to pray the right under LAW to defend himself in justification . The decision to prosecute , however , belonged to ORG alone to the exclusion of the courts .","The Court of Appeal gave judgment on DATE . It quashed the judgment of ORG on the technical ground that ORG judgment could not be simply endorsed , convicted the applicant and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The evidence relied on was the following :","Statement by the applicant at the hearing of ORG ( CARDINAL DATE ) , to the effect that :","He worked for the ORG and accordingly had the documents mentioned in the charges at his disposal ;","Knew some of the targets personally ;","Had written down names and addresses found in his address book himself ;","Had CARDINAL of the documents ( a phone tap report ) in his home as well as in his office at work ;","He knew the name of another target .","ORG report of CARDINAL DATE , criminal complaint lodged on behalf of the ORG by its acting head , to the effect that it has emerged that one of the targets ( O. ) turns out to be aware that he is an object of investigations . In particular , NORP turns out to possess a copy of a document to that effect . The document has been circulated to \u201c QUANTITY of persons \u201d within the ORG . The applicant is mentioned by name .","ORG report of DATE , statement by the ORG \u2019s acting head to the effect that a secret ORG document ( copy of a telephone interception report ) has been found during a search of the applicant \u2019s home . The name of the person who printed it out would normally have been stated on the document but appears to have been removed .","ORG report of DATE , statement by an ORG official to the effect that a document shown him by police officers is secret and that one of the persons to whom it had been given was the applicant .","ORG report of DATE , statement by an ORG official relating to investigations undertaken by the ORG itself on a copy of the hard disk of the applicant \u2019s home computer . This is stated to have revealed information compromising the applicant . In particular , the applicant is reported to have informed a target about ORG investigations .","ORG report of DATE , statement by an ORG official to the effect that a fax seized from a target was a transcript of an intercepted phone call prepared by the applicant . The content of the document reveals specific methods used by the ORG in terrorism - related investigations . The document is identical to a document found in the applicant \u2019s office desk , which bears the applicant \u2019s ID .","ORG report of DATE , statement by an ORG official to the effect that the leaked information is ORG secret , sensitive , and relates to ongoing ORG operations for gathering information on terrorist groups .","ORG report of DATE , from which it appears that the applicant was arrested DATE and was found in the possession of an address book .","ORG report of DATE , mentioning that objects ( envelopes , diaries , a phone tap report , written notes , floppy discs , compact discs and computers ) were seized in the applicant \u2019s home . No further details given .","ORG report of DATE , list of goods seized in the home of a target .","ORG report of DATE , relating the search of the applicant \u2019s office and describing ORG secret documents found in his desk . CARDINAL of these is identical to a document found in the possession of a target ; another is identical to a document found in the applicant \u2019s home ( albeit that the applicant \u2019s ORG has been whited out ) . These documents are identified by the acting head of the ORG as ORG secret .","A transcript of a page out of the applicant \u2019s address book , bearing names in LANGUAGE script identified by an ORG expert as the names of targets .","A copy of a post - it note found in the applicant \u2019s address book .","ORG report of DATE to the effect that CARDINAL ( unnamed ) ORG members have classified the list of goods seized in the applicant \u2019s home ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) as ORG secret .","ORG report of DATE identifying persons mentioned in the transcript of the phone tap .","ORG report of CARDINAL October CARDINAL identifying the transcript of the intercepted telephone conversation as identical to a document found in the applicant \u2019s office desk .","ORG report of DATE to the effect that a document found in a search of the home of a target ( C. ) was identical to a classified document found in the applicant \u2019s office desk .","ORG report of CARDINAL DATE relating the arrest of another target ( O. ) , who was found to be in possession of classified LAW documents . PERSON stated that these had been sent to a friend of his anonymously by post . A search of the applicant \u2019s hard disk revealed an e - mail inquiring of a friend ( PERSON ) whether \u201c the information sent to him by post had been of any use . \u201d","ORG report of DATE . A search of the dwelling shared by PERSON , who was later convicted of the murder of filmmaker PERSON , had led to the finding , among the personal effects of PERSON flat - mate , of a transcript of a conversation that was part of an ORG investigation .","ORG report of DATE . The post - it note found in the applicant \u2019s address book bore an address to which it appears that \u201c the aforementioned document \u201d was found to have been sent .","ORG report of DATE . Description of documents found in the possession of the target C. , whose house had been searched , and copies of some of which were found in the possession of the target O. All are classified documents already mentioned in other ORG reports .","ORG report of DATE . Interview of an ORG official responsible for the security of the IT system . No name is given , the official identified only by a number ( CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It emerges that the applicant had access to all the systems needed for his work as an audio analyst and had his own user ORG and password .","ORG report of CARDINAL DATE . Interview of witness CARDINAL\/CARDINAL to the effect that the applicant , and he alone , prepared a transcript of a conversation later found in the possession of the target H.","ORG report of DATE . Interview of the applicant from which it appears that the applicant has been employed by the ORG since DATE , receives DATE reports about investigations in progress ( which are classified ) , has signed a promise of secrecy and knows the targets O. and C. who are friends of his brother - in - law . He is aware that O. and C. are investigation targets .","ORG report of DATE . Interview of the applicant , who recognises the transcript of the intercepted telephone conversation , which he admits is classified and should not have left ORG premises , but which he must have taken home by mistake . The applicant also recognises a note bearing a name .","ORG report of DATE . Interview of the applicant , who recognises the post - it note with the names of CARDINAL targets ( NORP , PERSON ) and admits that he knows he should not take names of targets home . The applicant also admits that there is no other possible explanation for finding the transcript of the intercepted telephone conversation in his office desk than that he himself put it there .","ORG report of DATE . The applicant identifies CARDINAL observation reports which are classified . CARDINAL of them is stated to have been found in his office at work .","ORG report of DATE . The applicant identifies the name of the target PERSON on the post - it note .","ORG report of DATE . The applicant identifies private e - mail addresses used by him ( in his private capacity of agent for a travel agency based in GPE ) and by his wife respectively .","ORG report of DATE . The applicant admits that the transcript of the intercepted telephone conversation bears his user ORG . The name PERSON on the post - it note corresponds to the person PERSON who is a target of an ORG investigation ; the applicant himself identified him as a target .","ORG report of DATE . A DNA sample is taken from the applicant .","ORG report of DATE . The DNA sample corresponds to DNA found on an envelope .","ORG report of DATE . A further DNA match is found on an envelope .","ORG report of DATE . It is CARDINAL times more likely that the DNA match can be explained by the presence of the DNA of the applicant than by the presence of the DNA of strangers .","ORG report of DATE . The target C. states that he received CARDINAL envelopes containing documents from which it appeared that he and other NORP men were being watched .","ORG report of DATE . The target C. relates how he received the CARDINAL envelopes . The first had been sent to him at his home address . The second had been addressed to him , but sent to the home address of a second person , CARDINAL , and handed to him by a third , BCARDINAL .","Official record by the investigating judge of DATE . Target C. recognises the documents sent to him .","ORG report of DATE . Statement by the target O. O was aware that he was being watched , since his friend PERSON had received reports by post .","Official record by the investigating judge of DATE . The target ORG admits that when arrested he had CARDINAL sheets of paper in his pocket which he had received from a friend ( PERSON , the \u201c third person \u201d mentioned in document no . CARDINAL ) .","ORG report of DATE . CARDINAL states that the target C. had received letters mentioning \u201c our names \u201d . CARDINAL had been sent to his address ( the address of the target C. ) ; the second had been sent to the address of BCARDINAL . The letters had been ORG documents from which it appeared that all CARDINAL were being watched . CARDINAL recognised the documents .","ORG report of DATE . BCARDINAL recognises the envelope sent to ORG from a photocopy .","ORG report of DATE . BCARDINAL describes how the second letter , addressed to C. and O. , was received at the address of CARDINAL . He had opened the letter , which mentioned him and O. He had left it with PERSON had received a copy as well .","Official record by the investigating judge of DATE . BCARDINAL recognises the second letter referred to under no . DATE . He had taken the letter to C. and given a copy to O.","ORG report of DATE . Statement by PERSON ( see under no . CARDINAL above ) who admits to knowing the applicant and also that he had received the e - mail from the applicant . In DATE or DATE he had received a transcript of an intercepted conversation from the applicant .","Official record by the investigating judge of DATE . PERSON admits to having received the e - mail from the applicant . He admitted to having received a transcript by mail and recognised it from a photocopy .","ORG report of DATE . PERSON recognises the telephone transcript , which was sent to him at his home address . He suggests that it was sent to him because the other targets still lived with their parents .","Official report of ORG and ORG [ which is ORG responsible for the ORG ] , DATE , with a statement of the ( by then ) Head of the ORG to the effect that it is now possible to accommodate the applicant \u2019s defence by offering documents with fewer parts blacked out , but noting that the documents in issue come from a place that is out of bounds .","A copy of LAW designating the ORG offices out of bounds .","The applicant \u2019s letter of appointment as a member of the ORG ( DATE ) .","Official report of ORG and ORG , DATE , to the effect that the documents found in the possession of unauthorised third parties in the course of the criminal investigation against the applicant concern current ORG counterterrorist operations and destroying their secrecy endangers national security .","Letter from the Head of the ORG to the investigating judge , DATE , confirming that those documents concern ORG counterterrorist operations and endanger the interests of the ORG by offering an insight into the ORG \u2019s state of intelligence , sources and operational methods .","Official report of ORG and ORG , DATE , signed by the Head of the ORG , stating that not blacking out the blacked - out parts of particular documents would harm the ORG by disclosing the ORG \u2019s state of intelligence , sources ( including CARDINAL human source ) and operational methods , naming the foreign intelligence services with which the ORG cooperates , and disclosing the nature of information exchanged with those foreign services ; identifying targeted organisations and their members ( referred to as \u201c NORP nationalist extremists \u201d ) .","Official record of verification by ORG for Counter - terrorism , DATE . The prosecutor has personally examined the documents in issue in unredacted form and found the unredacted parts of the redacted documents identical to the corresponding parts of the unredacted documents .","Photocopies of the address book with the post - it note and the redacted ORG documents were attached to the judgment .","ORG reasoning included the following :","\u201c In considering whether the positions adopted by the service [ i.e. the ORG ] and\/or its members as regards the necessary secrecy and in answering the question to what extent restrictions on ( among other things ) the right to question witnesses can be justified , other issues than that of defining ORG secrets in a strict sense also play a part . That is apparent from the chapeau paragraph of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Intelligence and Security Services Act , which imposes on ORG officials a duty of secrecy \u2018 without prejudice to ORG CARDINAL of the Criminal Code\u2019 . That obligation extends to \u2018 all information the confidential character of which he knows or ought reasonably to suspect\u2019 . Only a ministerial decision as referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that Act can relieve the official of this duty of secrecy if he wishes to act as a witness . The legislature has thus placed the choice in the \u2018 conflict ... between the interests of ORG security , which may imperatively require certain sources or information to be kept secret , and the interest of establishing the material truth in , among other things , ... criminal PERSON [ reference to the statutory drafting history of an earlier Act , repealed by DATE Intelligence and Security Services Act , omitted ] in the hands of the said Ministers .","...","The above leads ORG to conclude as follows . In addition to ORG secrets within the meaning of LAW there are other matters that ( in the view of the ORG ) fall under the duty of secrecy of CARDINAL of the DATE Intelligence and Security Services Act . ORG deduces , on the basis of what is laid down in CARDINAL of that Act , that that obligation ( in principle ) prevails over the duties of a witness in a criminal trial . ORG examination of the question whether an ORG staff member has rightly invoked his duty [ of secrecy ] is necessarily detached \/ marginal . Things are different where it concerns the question whether the right of the defence to question witnesses is materially impaired , it being relevant , in the opinion of ORG , whether the statement of that particular witness is used in evidence . \u201d","and","\u201c The interests of ORG security , which DATE Intelligence and Security Services Act and ORG and following of LAW are intended to protect , stand in the way of granting a complete exemption from the duty of secrecy as desired by the defence .","It is obvious that the said duty of secrecy constitutes , to some extent , a restriction on \u2013 normally entirely DATE unimpeded free and confidential discussion between the suspect and his counsel and that \u2013 had it been in force unmitigated \u2013 it would prevent a fair trial .","As ORG held in its interlocutory judgment of DATE , the duty of secrecy is subject only to the exceptions set out in the DATE Intelligence and Security Services Act .","This means that the situation in which the suspect finds himself in the present criminal case leaves only the avenue left by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the said LAW . \u201d","and","\u201c The Advocate General has given the undertaking , at ORG hearing of DATE , that [ the applicant ] shall not be prosecuted if a violation of the duty of secrecy by [ the applicant ] is justified by reliance on LAW , with due regard to the demands of proportionality and subsidiarity inherent pertaining to a legal defence ( strafuitsluitingsgrond ) .","The conditions attached to the exemption aforementioned , all of which concern the interest of ORG security in relation to the interests of the defence in the present criminal proceedings , do not appear unreasonable to ORG within the framework of the interests of ORG security and in ORG opinion have done no relevant harm to the interests of the defence . \u201d","and","\u201c ORG can only answer the question whether the information in issue is to be considered \u2018 State secret\u2019 or as information relating to State security by referring to the texts , as contained in the file , of [ the documents concerned ] , to the extent that these documents have been added to the file in censored form as appendices to the ORG \u2019s official record of DATE , [ an uncensored e - mail relevant to CARDINAL of the charges ] and the explanations to these documents given by the ORG , especially as contained in the said official record of the head of the ORG of DATE and the official record of the acting head of the ORG of DATE , which latter report has been verified by ORG for Counter - terrorism ( NORP PERSON ) as appears from the latter \u2019s official report of DATE .","ORG considers itself sufficiently able to determine the nature and character of this information on the basis of these documents , considered in context . For that purpose it is not necessary , in the opinion of ORG , to possess or have access to entirely uncensored versions of the information . In this connection , ORG has sought , in giving its interlocutory judgment aimed at obtaining a further official report about the type and nature of the ORG security interest of the information contained in the censored texts portions , to gain optimum understanding of the nature and character of the information . Although the ORG , in submitting its official record of DATE ( verified by ORG for Counter - terrorism ) , has not entirely kept to the letter of ORG order , ORG has , based on the texts before it , considered in context with the ORG \u2019s explanations in its official records of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , sufficiently gained the understanding referred to . \u201d","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( cassatie ) with ORG ( PERSON ) .","ORG gave judgment on DATE ( ORG : NL : HR : ORG ) . It held that the length of the proceedings before it had been excessive and the applicant was entitled to compensation in the form of a reduction of sentence . It therefore quashed the judgment of ORG for technical reasons in order to revise the sentence which it reduced by DATE and DATE . It held , however , that the appeal was unfounded . Its reasoning included the following :","\u201c CARDINAL . There is no statutory provision for an exception to the duty of secrecy laid down in CARDINAL of the DATE Intelligence and Security Services Act in the event that the official concerned is a suspect . Even then the official is bound by his duty of secrecy and he will not be permitted to divulge information in violation of that duty .","If , however , the trial judge takes the view , whether or not it be in response to a request or a legal argument ( verweer ) put forward by the defence , that the interest of the defence requires that information falling under the duty of secrecy is disclosed by the suspect , the court will have to weigh the conflicting interests in the case . The guiding principle ( richtsnoer ) in so doing is whether , if this information can not be disclosed after all , there can still be a fair trial within the meaning of LAW .","If the trial court reaches the finding that it is necessary , from the point of view of that LAW guarantee , to take cognisance of that secret information and the handicap for the defence [ resulting from not being able to disclose it ] is not sufficiently compensated by the procedure followed , it will have to determine \u2013 for example , by hearing the appropriate ORG official or officials on this point \u2013 whether the duty of secrecy is to be maintained intact in relation to that information . If that is the case , the conclusion will have to be that there can not be any fair trial and the prosecution will have to be declared inadmissible ( zal de officier van justitie niet - ontvankelijk moeten worden verklaard in de vervolging ) .","In so far as ORG has been inspired by a procedural framework other than outlined above , it has misinterpreted the law ( heeft het blijk gegeven van een onjuiste rechtsopvatting ) . However , that need not lead to the quashing of the judgment [ of ORG ] for the following reasons . ... \u201d","ORG went on to find that the compensatory measures had been sufficient in the circumstances : the possibility had been offered to hear ORG officials as witnesses without disclosing their identities , and ORG had been sufficiently informed by the information contained in the case file \u2013 the uncensored parts of documents , the official explanatory documents submitted by the ORG , and the checking of the ORG position by ORG - terrorism \u2013 to make a proper assessment as to whether the documents in issue were properly classified ORG secret ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-b","6-3-d"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156009","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"H.P. v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . The President decided that the applicant \u2019s identity should not be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . The applicant was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant worked as a police inspector in CARDINAL of the local branches of ORG .","During DATE and DATE ORG ( FAC uprava MONEY ) investigated an organised chain of prostitution in the Split area . The investigation disclosed that the applicant had several contacts with the principal suspect in the investigation , GPE , and that he was one of the clients of the services organised by GPE","In this connection QUANTITY police inspectors of ORG , GPE and PERSON , were ordered to interview the applicant and to obtain from him the available evidence .","On DATE D.Z. and PERSON came to the LOC of ORG in order to interview the applicant .","In TIME of the same day the Chief of Crime Police of ORG invited the applicant to his office . When the applicant arrived at TIME , the secretary of ORG called PERSON , a police inspector at ORG , to escort the applicant to a meeting room for an interview with PERSON and PERSON","According to the applicant , while escorting him to the meeting room the inspector PERSON without any reason started pulling his arm saying that he was a \u201c dirty policeman \u201d and that he knew those of his kind very well . The applicant protested against the use of force which made PERSON to press him even harder . The applicant also alleged that during the interview ORG and the inspectors of ORG exerted pressure on him forcing him to confess . In particular , PERSON threatened to beat him if he would not confess .","According to the ORG , the applicant was escorted to a meeting room without any use of force by ORG or any of the other police officers . There was also no use of force or any other form of ill - treatment or coercion against the applicant during the interview .","A note of the applicant \u2019s interview dated DATE available to the ORG shows that the applicant confessed to having CARDINAL sexual intercourse with a prostitute in PERSON . The applicant also gave his mobile phone card to the police officers and duly signed a seizure record indicating that he had no objections .","After the interview the applicant returned to his work where he resumed with his duties until the end of the working day .","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant saw a doctor in a hospital in PERSON concerning the injuries he had allegedly sustained in the premises of ORG on DATE . The relevant part of the medical record reads :","\u201c According to the statement of the injured person ... :","During the performance of his duties a crime inspector at [ ORG ] injured him on his left arm .","Diagnosis :","Contusion on the left side of chest . Contusion and large haematoma on the left upper arm . \u201d","The relevant part of another medical record of DATE reads :","\u201c Time of the injury : TIME","Reason for [ the examination ] : During the performance of his duties a crime inspector at [ ORG ] injured him on the left shoulder .","Main diagnosis : PERSON \u2013 superficial injuries of chest ( torso ) . \u201d","The applicant underwent further medical examinations on CARDINAL and DATE , which indicated recession of the injuries on his upper arm and chest .","Following the applicant \u2019s medical examination on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the hospital forwarded a copy of his medical record to ORG .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed in ORG concerning his alleged ill - treatment of DATE . The applicant stated that he had been forcefully grabbed by the hand by CARDINAL of ORG inspectors who escorted him to a meeting room . Inside the meeting room the inspector threatened him with ill - treatment saying that he should know very well why he had been summoned to an interview . At CARDINAL point CARDINAL inspectors of ORG had joined them and then he was questioned concerning his alleged contacts with prostitutes . The applicant also explained that following his interview he had said to an on - duty officer at the police station , GPE , what had happened to him . He also stated that DATE he had gone to see his lawyer and then decided that he should lodge an official complaint concerning his alleged ill - treatment .","On DATE the inspector PERSON was interviewed and he denied any use of force against the applicant . On CARDINAL and DATE the inspectors of ORG and PERSON submitted their reports denying any threats or use of force against the applicant .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s colleague PERSON was interviewed . PERSON stated that upon the applicant \u2019s return from his meeting at ORG on DATE , he had explained to ORG that he had been interviewed by the police inspectors concerning his alleged contacts with prostitutes . The applicant had also said to ORG that while escorting him to the meeting room CARDINAL of the police inspectors took him by the hand . However , ORG explained that although the applicant had said that the inspectors were rude he did not say that he was ill - treated or injured nor did he explain in what manner were the inspectors rude . The following day PERSON went together with the applicant to the internal control department and on their way there the applicant had not mentioned to GPE any injuries nor did he complain of any pain .","On DATE ORG forwarded the material obtained during its inquiry to ORG ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ) .","On DATE the applicant sent an email to ORG of ORG za unutarnju kontrolu GPE unutarnjih poslova ; hereinafter : the \u201c ORG \u201d ) complaining about his alleged ill - treatment by a police inspector during his interview in ORG on DATE . He in particular alleged that he had been grabbed by the hand and pulled by a police inspector who escorted him to a meeting room where the same inspector then continued with the threats forcing him to confess to the alleged involvement in prostitution . The applicant also contended that the police inspector had forcefully taken his mobile phone and searched it . There were allegedly some other police officers who laughed at him .","Further , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant forwarded a photograph to ORG depicting the alleged injuries he had sustained as a result of his ill - treatment of DATE .","During its inquiry ORG obtained a report from ORG as well as the applicant \u2019s medical records and reports form the inspectors ORG and PERSON , and it interviewed the applicant , the inspector PERSON and the applicant \u2019s colleague PERSON , as well as the Chief of Crime Police of ORG .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that it considered his allegations unfounded and unsubstantiated .","The applicant challenged these findings and ORG informed him on DATE that his complaints were forwarded to ORG ( GPE za rad po pritu\u017ebama GPE unutarnjih poslova ; hereinafter : the \u201c Commission \u201d ) .","The proceedings before the ORG are still pending .","On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG complaining about his alleged ill - treatment during his interview in ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the Chief of ORG , the Chief for Crime Police of ORG and his deputy , the inspectors PERSON and PERSON and the Head of ORG , alleging his ill - treatment during the interview of DATE and their abuse of powers by lodging criminal complaints against him in connection with his alleged involvement in the prostitution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In connection with the alleged ill - treatment , the applicant submitted in general terms that the inspector PERSON had unlawfully used force against him and that the inspector PERSON had threatened him , forcing him to confess to his alleged involvement in prostitution .","During the investigation , the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG interviewed the Chief for Crime Police of ORG and the inspector PERSON , who denied any unlawfulness or the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment .","In the further course of the investigation the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG summoned the applicant \u2019s colleague PERSON for an interview .","The investigation before the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG is still pending .","Meanwhile , on an unspecified date the applicant also lodged a criminal complaint against the Chief for Crime Police of ORG and his deputy as well as the inspectors PERSON and PERSON before ORG for ORG suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta ; hereinafter : the \u201c ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG \u201d ) alleging his ill - treatment during the interview of CARDINAL DATE and irregularities in processing the case against him concerning his alleged involvement in prostitution .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint as ill - founded on the grounds that there was no evidence that on DATE he had left the premises of ORG with any injuries and that the fact that he had sought medical help DATE after the alleged ill - treatment remained fully unexplained . This led to a conclusion that his injuries had not been caused in the course of his police interview . The ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG also indicated that it did not find any irregularities in processing of the applicant \u2019s case by any of the persons involved .","On DATE the applicant was provisionally suspended from the police service .","The disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in connection with his alleged involvement in prostitution , and concerning another event of alleged breach of the confidentiality of information , are still pending .","On DATE ORG lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant before GPE ORG in connection with a suspicion of his involvement in a prostitution scheme .","On an unspecified date the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG rejected the criminal complaint as ill - founded .","The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) read as follows :","Article CARDINAL","\u201c No one shall be subjected to any form of ill - treatment ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183865","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TALU v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation and disseminating its propaganda .","On DATE the applicant was brought before the Siirt Magistrates\u2019 Court , who ordered his detention on remand taking into account the strong suspicion that he had committed the alleged offences .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed an objection against the above decision on the applicant \u2019s detention and requested his release .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment , charging the applicant with disseminating terrorist propaganda , and aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation .","On DATE , at the end of the preparatory hearing , ORG decided to prolong the applicant \u2019s detention on the basis of the case - file .","On DATE ORG ex officio examined the applicant \u2019s detention on remand on the basis of the case - file and decided to extend it .","On DATE , at DATE first hearing before ORG , the applicant was released pending trial .","NORP On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of the charges against him . No appeal was filed and the judgment became final on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-176760","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF T\u00dcRK v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a life sentence in GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicant went to ORG headquarters to complete certain procedures regarding the sale of his car and found out that a warrant for his arrest had been issued by ORG .","Subsequently , at TIME on DATE the applicant went to ORG . It appears that at some point he confessed to his involvement in the shooting of a certain GPE and as a result , at TIME he took part in a photo identification procedure . According to a report drawn up by the police and signed by the applicant , the applicant turned himself in and confessed to his involvement in the shooting of GPE , which had taken place in DATE , and identified GPE as his accomplices . There was no record indicating that the applicant had been advised of his rights , including his right to legal assistance and his right to remain silent , under LAW in force at the material time .","At TIME , the applicant participated in a reconstruction of the events ( yer g\u00f6sterme ) . According to the record drafted by police officers and signed by the applicant , the latter described in detail what steps he had taken before the shooting , how he had shot GPE in DATE in GPE , and how he had left the crime scene . There was no record indicating that the applicant had been advised of his rights , including his right to legal assistance and to remain silent , under LAW in force at the material time .","The police started questioning the applicant at TIME . According to the applicant , he was shown an arrest warrant , dated DATE , in which the offence was indicated as \u201c breaching PERSON no . MONEY ( LAW ) \u201d and the deadline stipulated in the statute of limitations was \u201c DATE \u201d . In this connection , the police officers told him that the offence for which he was being sought was illegal possession of firearms and explosives contrary to PERSON no . DATE . They said that any statement given by him was merely a \u201c formality \u201d , since the time - limit for prosecution of that offence had already expired in DATE . The applicant therefore agreed to give a statement . His statements were transcribed on a pre - printed form . According to this form , he had been reminded of his rights to remain silent and to be represented by a lawyer . It appears that the applicant had refused legal assistance , since the first page of the record includes a pre - printed phrase stating \u201c No lawyer is requested \u201d with the applicant \u2019s signature underneath . He was thus questioned in the absence of a lawyer .","The applicant was accordingly questioned at ORG of ORG about his involvement in the ORG ( ORG of Kurdistan , an illegal organisation ) and the wounding of a certain FAC in DATE . In his CARDINAL - page statement , the applicant admitted to his involvement in the ORG and explained in detail that he had shot GPE upon the instructions of the illegal organisation .","On DATE the applicant was questioned again by the GPE public prosecutor and the investigating judge . According to the statement drawn up during the questioning by the public prosecutor , the applicant had been advised of his rights again . However , the statement he gave was similar to his police statement .","NORP Before the investigating judge , the applicant was advised of his rights again . He stated that he did not want the assistance of a lawyer and repeated the content of his police statement . The investigating judge first ordered the applicant \u2019s release ; however , following an objection by the prosecutor , he ordered that the applicant be placed in detention pending trial .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with that court and accused the applicant of carrying out activities for the purposes of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory , an offence under LAW . In his indictment , the public prosecutor also indicated that the applicant had turned himself in .","During the hearings before ORG the applicant was represented by a lawyer . At a hearing held on DATE , the applicant gave evidence in the presence of his lawyer and retracted the statements he had made previously . He maintained , in particular , that he had been tricked by the police into giving incriminating statements by being shown a paper in which the time - limit for prosecution of the offence he was accused of committing had expired . He denied his involvement in the shooting and rejected the accusations against him . The applicant further submitted that he did not know the co - accused , GPE , GPE or M.N.A.","During the same hearing , the trial court deemed it necessary to hear from people who had been tried for the same incident in a previous case , no . LOC , namely M.N.A. , PERSON and GPE , with a view to verifying the defence submissions of the applicant and his co - accused , GPE In this connection , the trial court ordered that the necessary steps be taken to find out in which prisons M.N.A. , GPE and PERSON had been held and ordered an enquiry as to their addresses in the event that they had been released from prison . The trial court further ordered that a confrontation take place once the witnesses had been located . It ordered that photographs be taken of the applicant and GPE , CARDINAL from the side and the other from the front , and sent with the reports concerning the case , in the event that M.N.A. , PERSON and GPE were located outside its jurisdiction . If they resided in the centre of GPE , they should be heard in person .","The trial court also ordered that the address of the victim , GPE , be ascertained with a view to bringing him before the court , so that evidence could be taken from him in person .","At a hearing held on DATE , the trial court heard evidence from PERSON as a witness . PERSON said that he neither knew nor had ever seen the applicant and MONEY He did not have direct knowledge of GPE \u2019s shooting and had given his previous statement as a result of information he had obtained from M.N.A. and PERSON The trial court reiterated its orders concerning M.N.A. , GPE and GPE","At a hearing held on DATE , GPE \u2019s lawyer submitted a medical report issued by ORG , dated DATE , which stated that M.N.A. suffered from depression . The lawyer accordingly asked the trial court not to call M.N.A. as a witness . The trial court did not respond to that request .","Under PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE , ORG were abolished . The case against the applicant was therefore transferred to ORG .","On DATE was questioned by ORG , pursuant to a letter rogatory from the trial court . According to the transcript of the hearing at FAC , M.N.A. was serving a sentence in the PERSON E - type Prison at that time . He explained that in DATE , together with the applicant and a certain GPE , he had received instructions from the ORG and PERSON to shoot GPE Accordingly , while he had secured the area , the applicant and GPE had gone to shoot GPE He had heard gunshots but had not seen GPE being shot . He further identified the applicant and GPE from the photographs . ORG then asked M.N.A. to clarify the inconsistency between the statements he had given to the police and the public prosecutor in DATE and those he had just given to the court . M.N.A. insisted that he was now telling them the correct version of the events . The court reminded him that in his statement of CARDINAL DATE before the public prosecutor he had said that he had not known the accused , and asked him to clarify that point . PERSON then explained that it was because he had been questioned as an accused on DATE . He repeated that he was now telling them the correct version of the events .","On DATE , at the seventh hearing , ORG statement was read out . The applicant objected to the statement , referring to the inconsistency of ORG \u2019s statements since DATE . GPE lawyer also referred to the medical report in respect of M.N.A. and requested that his statement be considered as unreliable . The trial court did not provide a response to that request . It reiterated its orders concerning GPE and GPE","On DATE the eighth hearing was held , and the trial court again reiterated its orders concerning GPE and GPE","At the ninth hearing on DATE the trial court once again reiterated its orders concerning GPE and GPE","At the tenth hearing on DATE the victim , GPE appeared before the trial court and gave evidence as a witness . GPE submitted that he had not seen the applicant or FAC at the crime scene and that they had not been involved in his shooting . He gave a detailed description of the people who had shot him .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and convicted him on the basis of the case file as a whole , including the record of the reconstruction of the events and the report of the photo identification .","The court accordingly sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment , under LAW , for carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court in order to determine whether the terms of the new LAW , which had entered into force on DATE ( no . DATE ) , were more favourable for the applicant . The case was thus re - examined by ORG in view of the recent legislative changes .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested that the trial court bring PERSON before the court in order to cross - examine him directly and arrange a physical confrontation between him and the applicant . ORG rejected the request on the grounds that it had already examined and rejected the same request .","On DATE ORG , relying on the same pieces of evidence , once again found the applicant guilty as charged under LAW of LAW and sentenced him to life imprisonment .","The applicant lodged an appeal on DATE , in which his lawyer submitted , inter alia , that ORG \u2019s statements should not have been taken into consideration given the medical report on his mental state . He further submitted that the applicant had been deceived by the police and asked ORG to declare his statements inadmissible and in contravention of LAW .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179865","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SERGIYENKO AND SACHENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In application no . DATE the applicant also raised another complaint under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P4-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153772","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"QESKA v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Tabaku , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their then Agents , ORG and PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was CARDINAL of the co - owners of CARDINAL plots of land situated in the city of PERSON . The first plot of land ( \u201c plot A \u201d ) measured CARDINAL sq . m and the second plot of land ( \u201c plot B \u201d ) QUANTITY . m.","On an unspecified date the applicant initiated civil proceedings with the Kor\u00e7a ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) seeking the partition of both plots of land in order to determine the shares of each of the co - owners . The co - owners agreed to the request .","On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the partition of both plots of land . It found that the applicant \u2019s share consisted of CARDINAL QUANTITY of plot A and QUANTITY of plot B. That decision became final on an unspecified date in DATE , no appeal having been lodged against it .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant instituted a second set of proceedings for the partition of both plots of land , requesting allocation of both plots of land to him in view of the fact that he was the owner of the majority of shares . The co - owners contested the applicant \u2019s request to have both plots of land allocated to him .","On DATE , having regard to the fact that the applicant was the owner of the largest portion of both combined plots of land upon which a multi - storey building could be erected in accordance with the urban study plans , ORG allocated him both plots of land . ORG rejected the other co - ORG request to have plot B awarded to them . Moreover , the court ordered that the applicant pay compensation to all co - owners , in respect of their property shares , in accordance with an expert \u2019s report .","On an unspecified date , PERSON , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL co - owners of plot B , lodged an appeal with ORG ( \u201c Court of Appeal \u201d ) challenging the amount of the compensation paid to him as well as the part of the decision which awarded the applicant plot PERSON He alleged that since the other co - defendants owned QUANTITY of plot B , they should have been awarded plot B. No appeal was lodged by the CARDINAL co - owners of plot A.","On an unspecified date ORG gave notice of the proceedings to the other CARDINAL co - owners of plot B who were involved as parties to the proceedings before ORG .","On DATE the court adjourned the hearing , none of the parties having shown up . Only the representative of CARDINAL co - owners , who also had shares in plot A , was present .","On DATE the court adjourned the hearing , PERSON being absent on the strength of a ( medical ) report . According to the record , CARDINAL co - owners as well as the representative of CARDINAL co - owners , who also had shares in plot A , were present at the hearing .","On DATE the court decided to continue the proceedings . CARDINAL co - owners as well as the representative of CARDINAL co - owners , who also had shares in plot A , were present . The court decided to hear the expert and the parties\u2019 lawyers at the next hearing .","On DATE almost all parties , save CARDINAL co - owner , were present . The court fined the expert for non - appearance at the hearing .","On DATE CARDINAL co - owners as well as the representative of CARDINAL co - owners , who also had shares in plot A , were present at the hearing . The expert , who was questioned by the parties , stated that the CARDINAL plots of land were not connected to each other .","On DATE ORG , having heard the co - owners , dismissed the grounds of appeal of ORG in respect of plot B and upheld the ORG decision as regards both plots . According to ORG \u2019s share was so small ( CARDINAL sq . m. ) that the award of that property to him would be against its purpose . It pointed to the fact that he had lodged an appeal alone , without being joined by the other co - owners who were parties to the proceedings before ORG . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c All parties consented , on the whole , to the [ ORG ] decision , with the exception of ORG , who appealed against it only in so far as the first part of the decision is concerned [ that is plot B ] , to which he is a party and has a [ legitimate ] interest ( me k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs , p\u00ebrgjith\u00ebsisht kan\u00eb qen\u00eb dakort t\u00eb gjith\u00eb pal\u00ebt p\u00ebrjashto t\u00eb paditurin V.Q. , i cili ka ankimuar vendimin vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr pjes\u00ebn e par\u00eb t\u00eb tij , ku \u00ebsht\u00eb pale dhe ka interes ) .","...","The remaining defendants did not join their forces to claim the plot of land jointly , not least that the remaining defendants , CARDINAL of them , lodged no appeal ( t\u00eb paditurit nuk i bashkuan pjes\u00ebt dhe ta k\u00ebrkonin k\u00ebt\u00eb sip\u00ebrfaqe t\u00eb p\u00ebrbashk\u00ebt , p\u00ebr m\u00eb tep\u00ebr t\u00eb paditurit e tjer\u00eb q\u00eb n\u00eb num\u00ebr jan\u00eb CARDINAL persona , nuk kan\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb ankim ) .","Out of all defendants , only V.Q. who owns CARDINAL sq . m , lodged an appeal ( prej tyre \u00ebsht\u00eb ankuar vet\u00ebm i padituri V.Q. q\u00eb si person ka ... dy metra dhe gjasht\u00ebdhjet\u00eb centimetra katror\u00eb ) . \u201d","In compliance with ORG decision , on DATE the applicant paid all CARDINAL co - owners compensation corresponding to their respective shares in plots A and PERSON entered his property titles over both plots in ORG on DATE .","On DATE V.Q. , joined by CARDINAL co - owners of plot B , appealed to ORG . CARDINAL co - owner did not sign the appeal . The appellants argued that , even though they had attended the hearings before ORG , this had not been reflected in that court \u2019s judgment . That the appeal was signed only by PERSON was to be attributed to the lawyer who had lodged the appeal . No appeal was lodged by the CARDINAL co - owners , in respect of plot A , with ORG .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , by majority , quashed the ORG decision in respect of plot B and found , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c It follows , as also accepted by the courts , that the defendants have sought to retain this plot of land . Their appeal to ORG states that they have the same interest and they jointly claim the plot of land . The appellants own the majority of the plot ( QUANTITY ) . Under these circumstances , contrary to ORG finding , the appellants own the majority of the plot and share the same interest . As they do not seek the partition of that plot , on the basis of the foregoing provision [ referring to LAW ] , the plot should be awarded to the [ CARDINAL ] appellants ( si\u00e7 ka rezultuar dhe si\u00e7 pranojn\u00eb dhe vet\u00eb gjykatat , t\u00eb paditurit e kan\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar ta mbajn\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb sip\u00ebrfaqe . Edhe n\u00eb k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn ankimore , ORG s\u00eb PERSON i \u00ebsht\u00eb parashtruar se ata i kan\u00eb interest e nj\u00ebjta dhe e duan pjes\u00ebn bashkarisht . PERSON , t\u00eb gjith\u00eb t\u00eb paditurit zot\u00ebrojn\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb sip\u00ebrfaqe pjes\u00ebn m\u00eb t\u00eb madhe ( CARDINAL\/CARDINAL pjes\u00eb ) . N\u00eb k\u00ebto rrethana , kur ndryshe nga sa pranon gjykata e PERSON , t\u00eb paditurit kan\u00eb pjes\u00ebn m\u00eb t\u00eb madhe dhe interest e nj\u00ebjta si dhe nuk k\u00ebrkojn\u00eb t\u2019u pjes\u00ebtohet trualli ... pjesa u duhet l\u00ebn\u00eb k\u00ebtyr\u00eb t\u00eb fundit ) . \u201d","ORG reasoning that , since GPE [ the applicant ] owns the majority of the plot of land measuring QUANTITY m , the other plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m should be awarded to him for the purpose of constructing a multi - storey building , is erroneous . These plots of land , irrespective of their neighbouring position and of the fact that they have the same owners , should be treated as CARDINAL separate objects which have been subject to the partition proceedings for the sake of judicial economy ( NORP i gjykat\u00ebs se padit\u00ebsi GPE ka n\u00eb pron\u00ebsi pjes\u00ebn m\u00eb t\u00eb madhe t\u00eb truallit me sip\u00ebrfaqe QUANTITY prandaj dhe trualli me siperfaqe CARDINAL mCARDINALI duhet l\u00ebn\u00eb atij p\u00ebr t\u2019u p\u00ebrdorur me q\u00ebllim nd\u00ebrtimin e pallateve shum\u00ebkat\u00ebshe \u00ebsht\u00eb i gabuar . PERSON troje , pavar\u00ebsisht nga pozicioni kufi me nj\u00ebri - tjetrin dhe nga fakti se kan\u00eb pjes\u00ebrisht t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebt bashk\u00ebpronar\u00eb , duhen trajtuar si dy sende te ve\u00e7anta q\u00eb jan\u00eb pjes\u00ebtuar n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin gjykim vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr ekonomik gjyq\u00ebsore . ) \u201d","As regards plot A , ORG upheld the ORG of Appeal decision and found that ,","\u201c In respect of the other plot [ referring to plot A ] , the court \u2019s decision is just and should be upheld . The applicant obviously owns the majority of the plot , CARDINAL QUANTITY . Even if matters stood differently , any appeal by the other CARDINAL co - owners [ to ORG ] would be time - barred ( r\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dekadenc\u00eb ) as they had not lodged an appeal with ORG . In light of the above , plot [ A ] should be allocated to the applicant . \u201d","ORG held that the appellants in whose favour plot B was allocated were to compensate the applicant in cash for his share . There was no dissenting opinion .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He complained that he had been deprived of his right to a fair trial , referring to the incoherent reasoning in ORG decision . While ORG had ruled that any possible action by the CARDINAL co - owners in respect of plot A would be considered time - barred as they had failed to avail themselves of the appeal to ORG , it had not adopted the same approach with respect to the CARDINAL co - owners as regards plot B , who had not lodged an appeal with ORG , but whose appeal before ORG had been declared admissible and decided in their favour .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , declared the applicant \u2019s complaint inadmissible . It found that :","\u201c the [ applicant \u2019s ] claims do not concern violations that would render the process unfair . They relate to aspects of proof and the determination of the merits of the case , which fall within the jurisdiction of the lower courts . \u201d","On DATE , ORG refused a request by the applicant for a review of the same court \u2019s decision of DATE .","Article CARDINAL states that a civil action may be jointly brought by co - claimants against co - defendants provided that they have joint rights and obligations , which have the same basis on points of fact or law .","Article CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c Each party acts on his \/ her own against the opposing party provided that his \/ her procedural actions or omissions result in neither damage nor profit to the other parties .","If , owing to the nature of the legal relationship in dispute or because of a legal provision , the effect of the decision to be adopted is to be extended onto all parties , the procedural actions which were carried out by CARDINAL party shall have effect also on other parties who did not appear before the court or did not undertake such actions within the prescribed time - period . \u201d","Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure regulate the partition of common or inherited property by virtue of a court decision . The first phase of the partition proceedings consists of a court interim decision which determines the identity of the joint owners , the object to be partitioned and the corresponding parts belonging to each owner . In the second phase of the partition proceedings , the court determines the value of the various objects to be partitioned , after having received a prior opinion of experts . Any inequality in the value of the objects included in the shares is to be compensated in money . The court decides on the financial relationship of the parties arising from their joint ownership .","The relevant provision of the Civil Code reads as follows :","Article CARDINAL","\u201c The partition of the co - owned object shall be effected by the agreement of all of the co - owners ... When the object is real property , the partition shall be effected by a notarial deed . The partition of the co - owned object corresponds to its division in kind , proportionate to the shares of each co - owner , provided that the partition is possible and does not damage the relevant purpose of the object ...","... When some of the co - owners make a request [ that the object be allotted exclusively to them ] , the court may so order , obliging those co - owners to reimburse other co - owners in relation with the partitioned property the cash amount equivalent to the value of their shares .","... \u201d","In unifying decision no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG clarified the nature of the interim decision given at the conclusion of the first phase of the partition proceedings . It ruled that , given its sui generis nature , the interim decision concerning the first phase of the partition proceedings was final and could not be revisited by the court deciding on the second phase of the partition proceedings .","NORP In decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ( CARDINAL ) , relying on Article CARDINAL of the ORG , ORG ruled that a civil action contesting the amount of compensation in an expropriation case , lodged by CARDINAL co - owner , had effect on all co - owners who did not initially join the co - owner in the first - instance court proceedings or did not carry out procedural acts within prescribed time - limits . In that case , ORG accepted a co - owner \u2019s civil action , but rejected the appellants\u2019 action on the ground that it had been lodged out of time . ORG , relying on LAW ORG , found a breach of the appellants\u2019 right to a fair hearing and reasoned , inter alia , that the co - owner \u2019s action should have been regarded as carried out by the appellants , who were the remaining co - owners ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152887","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF T\u00d3TH v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant was employed with a ORG - owned gambling service provider for DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s employment was terminated by mutual agreement with effect from DATE . Under this agreement , the employer paid the applicant a gross amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , subject to payroll burdens .","Under new legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the severance payment was subsequently taxed at a PERCENT rate in its part exceeding ORG CARDINAL ; the income tax and social security contributions already paid ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were deducted from the tax payable . Thus , the applicant paid an additional ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ) in special tax on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181866","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF \u015eAH\u0130N ALPAY v. TURKEY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Speediness of review);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained in GPE .","NORP The applicant is a journalist who had been working since DATE for the DATE newspaper PERSON , which was viewed as the principal publication medium of the \u201c ORG \u201d network and was closed down following the adoption of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL , issued on DATE in connection with the state of emergency ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) . From DATE onwards , he also lectured on comparative politics and NORP political history at a private university in GPE .","In DATE leading up to the attempted military coup of DATE the applicant had been known for his critical views on the serving government \u2019s policies .","During TIME a group of members of the NORP armed forces calling themselves the \u201c Peace at ORG \u201d attempted to carry out a military coup aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected parliament , government and President of GPE .","During the attempted coup , soldiers under the GPE control bombarded several strategic State buildings , including the parliament building and the presidential compound , attacked the hotel where the President was staying , held the Chief of ORG hostage , attacked television channels and fired shots at demonstrators . During TIME of violence , CARDINAL people were killed and CARDINAL were injured .","DATE after the attempted military coup , the national authorities blamed the network linked to PERSON , a NORP citizen living in GPE ) and considered to be the leader of a terrorist organisation known as GPE \/ PDY ( \u201c ORG \/ Parallel State Structure \u201d ) . Several criminal investigations were subsequently initiated by the appropriate prosecuting authorities in relation to suspected members of that organisation .","On DATE the government declared a state of emergency for a period of DATE as from DATE ; the state of emergency was subsequently extended for further periods of DATE by ORG , chaired by the President , most recently with effect from DATE .","On DATE the NORP authorities gave notice to the Secretary General of ORG of a derogation from LAW CARDINAL .","On DATE , in the course of CARDINAL of the criminal investigations initiated in respect of suspected members of GPE \/ PDY , the applicant was arrested at his home in GPE and taken into police custody .","On DATE the applicant , assisted by his lawyer , was questioned at ORG . During the questioning the applicant denied that he belonged to an illegal organisation . DATE , the GPE public prosecutor sought a judicial order for the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention on suspicion of belonging to an illegal organisation .","On DATE , several editors and columnists of the DATE newspaper GPE , including the applicant , were brought before the GPE CARDINALth ORG . The magistrate questioned the applicant about his alleged acts and the accusations against him . The applicant stated that he had joined PERSON in order to be able to express his opinions ; that he was in favour of a democratic system corresponding to NORP standards ; that he was a secular person ; that he had not been aware of the threat posed by PERSON movement until after the attempted military coup of CARDINAL DATE ; and that he was opposed to any attack on democracy .","At the end of the hearing , the magistrate , taking into account the contents of the articles written by the applicant DATE and finding that they had promoted the terrorist organisation in question , even after DATE ordered his pre - trial detention . He noted in that connection that although criminal proceedings had been instituted against ORG ( the editor - in - chief of PERSON ) before the attempted military coup , the applicant had continued to work for the newspaper and within the organisation \u2019s media structure . In the reasons given for ordering the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention , the magistrate took the following factors into consideration : the strong suspicions against him ; the nature of the alleged offence and the fact that it was among the offences listed in LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) \u2013 the so - called \u201c catalogue offences \u201d , for which a suspect \u2019s pre - trial detention was deemed justified in the event of strong suspicion ; the risk of absconding ; the state of the evidence and the risk of its deterioration ; and the risk that alternative measures to detention might be insufficient to ensure the applicant \u2019s participation in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection against the order for his pre - trial detention . He argued that there was no justification for detaining him . He also contended that his state of health was incompatible with the conditions in the prison where he was being held . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the GPE CARDINALth ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection .","On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh application for his release . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the GPE CARDINALth ORG rejected the application . In his decision , the magistrate stated in particular that it was an established fact that in order to prepare the ground for a military coup , the instigators needed to create the perception that the leaders of the country concerned were dictators . In his view , the applicant \u2019s articles accusing the President of GPE of being a dictator and calling for him to leave office had contributed to propaganda of that kind .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG in respect of several individuals , including the applicant , who were suspected of being part of the NORP \/ PDY media network , in particular accusing them , under LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL in conjunction with LAW ( \u201c the CC \u201d ) , of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order , ORG and the government by force and violence , and of committing offences on behalf of a terrorist organisation without being members of it . The public prosecutor sought the imposition of CARDINAL aggravated life sentences and a sentence of up to fifteen years\u2019 imprisonment on the suspects , including the applicant . As evidence , he produced CARDINAL articles written by the applicant in DATE and DATE .","NORP The public prosecutor submitted that the articles by the applicants and other individuals being charged in the same criminal proceedings against leading members of GPE \/ ORG \u2019s media wing could not be regarded as an expression of the ORG opposition to or criticism of the government . In the applicant \u2019s case , the public prosecutor contended that the expressions he had used had gone beyond the limits of freedom of the press in that they had undermined the rights of the official authorities and endangered social peace and public order . The public prosecutor found that the applicant had not hesitated to call for a possible military coup in his articles and , in short , had discharged functions serving the interests of the terrorist organisation in question .","During the criminal proceedings , the applicant denied having committed any criminal offence .","The criminal proceedings are currently pending before the GPE CARDINALth ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged an individual application with ORG . He complained that he had been placed in pre - trial detention on account of his articles and alleged that this infringed his right to liberty and security and his right to freedom of expression and of the press . He also contended that his state of health was incompatible with the conditions of his continued detention since he was suffering from benign prostate hyperplasia , hyperlipidaemia , hyperuricemia , a multinodular goitre and sleep apnoea . On that account he asked ORG to indicate an interim alternative measure to detention , thus allowing him to be released pending trial .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to apply an interim measure of that kind . In reaching that decision , it noted firstly that the applicant \u2019s health had been regularly monitored from the start of his pre - trial detention , and that there was a ORG hospital inside the prison where he was being held . In that connection , it noted that on DATE , following a request he had made to that effect DATE , the applicant had been examined in prison by a general practitioner and had then been transferred to the urology department of the ORG hospital , where he had undergone a medical examination on DATE , and that his next appointment had been scheduled for DATE . In those circumstances , ORG found that keeping the applicant in pre - trial detention did not currently constitute a danger to his life or health . It added that should there be a change in his health or the conditions of his detention , he would be entitled to make a further application for an interim measure to secure his release .","On DATE the Constitutional Court gave a judgment ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) in which it held , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , that there had been a violation of the right to liberty and security and the right to freedom of expression and of the press .","With regard to the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the lawfulness of his pre - trial detention , ORG noted firstly that the evidence forming the basis for his detention had included : ( i ) an article entitled \u201c As if it were a religious war \u201d ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) , published on DATE ; ( ii ) an article entitled \u201c The President must not remain a spectator \u201d ( \u201c Cumhurba\u015fkan\u0131 Seyirci Kalamaz \u201d ) , published on DATE ; ( iii ) an article entitled \u201c Between PERSON and the LOC \u201d ( \u201c FAC ile ORG \u201d ) , published on DATE ; ( iv ) an article entitled \u201c Yes , both the crime and the punishment are individual \u201d ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , published on DATE ; ( v ) an article entitled \u201c This nation is not empty - headed \u201d ( \u201c PERSON De\u011fildir \u201d ) , published on DATE ; and ( vi ) an article entitled \u201c The solution is a government without GPE \u201d ( \u201c PERSON Erdo\u011fan\u2019s\u0131z GPE \u201d ) , published on DATE . After examining the substance of these articles , ORG found that they mainly dealt with matters relating to the \u201c DATE [ DATE ] \u201d criminal investigations . In them the applicant had set out his opinion that the government members implicated in the criminal investigation in question should be brought to justice and that it was the responsibility of the President and the ruling party \u2019s leaders to take action to that end . He had contended that the government \u2019s reaction to the investigation had been unjust . ORG also observed that the applicant had written that if the investigation in question had been carried out on the orders of suspected members of GPE \/ PDY , they too should be the subject of a criminal investigation . However , he had maintained that it was unfair to accuse all members of the ORG movement . ORG further noted that in the articles in question , the applicant had not argued that the government should be overthrown by force . On the contrary , he had asserted that the ruling party would lose in the next elections . ORG also found that the article published DATE before the attempted military coup suggested that the applicant was opposed to coups d\u2019\u00e9tat . It held that he had been expressing opinions on a topical issue that were similar to those of the opposition leaders . In ORG view , the investigating authorities had been unable to demonstrate any factual basis that might indicate that the applicant had been acting in accordance with the aims of GPE \/ PDY . It added that the fact that he had expressed his views in PERSON could not in itself be deemed sufficient to infer that the applicant was aware of that organisation \u2019s goals . Accordingly , it concluded that \u201c strong evidence that an offence had been committed \u201d had not been sufficiently established in the applicant \u2019s case . Next , ORG examined whether there had been a violation of the right to liberty and security in the light of LAW ( providing for the suspension of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms in the event of war , general mobilisation , a state of siege or a state of emergency ) . On this point , it noted firstly that in a state of emergency , the LAW provided for the possibility of taking measures derogating from the guarantees set forth in LAW , to the extent required by the situation . It observed , however , that if it were accepted that people could be placed in pre - trial detention without any strong evidence that they had committed an offence , the guarantees of the right to liberty and security would be meaningless . Accordingly , it held that the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was disproportionate to the strict exigencies of the situation and that his right to liberty and security , as safeguarded by LAW , had been breached .","Next , with regard to the complaint concerning freedom of expression and of the press , ORG observed that the applicant \u2019s initial and continued pre - trial detention on account of his articles amounted to interference with the exercise of that right . Taking into account his arguments regarding the lawfulness of his pre - trial detention , ORG held that such a measure , which had serious consequences since it resulted in deprivation of liberty , could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society . It further noted that it could not be clearly established from the reasons given for ordering and extending the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention whether the measure met a pressing social need or why it was necessary . Lastly , it found that it was clear that the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and of the press , in so far as it had not been based on any concrete evidence other than his articles ( see paragraph CARDINAL of ORG judgment ) . Regarding the application of LAW , it referred to its findings concerning the lawfulness of his pre - trial detention ( as set out in paragraphs CARDINAL of ORG judgment \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and held that there had also been a violation of freedom of expression and freedom of the press as enshrined in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW .","With regard to the applicant \u2019s complaint that the conditions of his detention were incompatible with respect for human dignity , ORG noted that he had access to the treatment required for his condition within the prison where he was being held , and declared this complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill - founded .","The applicant did not submit a claim for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage . Accordingly , ORG made no award under that head . The applicant claimed an unspecified sum in respect of the pecuniary damage he had allegedly sustained . ORG found no causal link between the violation established and the damage alleged on that account and dismissed the claim . However , it held that the applicant was to be awarded CARDINAL Turkish liras ( TRY \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of costs and expenses .","As the applicant was still in pre - trial detention on the date of delivery of its judgment , ORG decided to transmit the judgment to the GPE CARDINALth ORG so that it could take \u201c the necessary action \u201d .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer applied to the GPE CARDINALth ORG for his client \u2019s release .","On DATE , the GPE CARDINALth ORG rejected the application , on the grounds that it had not yet received official notification of ORG judgment .","On DATE the GPE CARDINALth ORG , having observed that ORG judgment had been published on its website , examined of its own motion the question of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . Noting firstly that the examination of the merits of an individual application to ORG against a judicial decision entailed determining whether there had been a violation of fundamental rights and what measures would be appropriate to put an end to the violation , and secondly that grounds of appeal on points of law could not be examined by ORG in the context of an individual application , it found that ORG did not have jurisdiction to assess the evidence in the case file . On that account , ORG judgment no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was not in compliance with the law and amounted to usurpation of power ( g\u00f6rev gasb\u0131 ) . Regarding the effects of ORG judgments , ORG added that only judgments that were in accordance with the LAW and the law should be deemed to be final and binding . It noted , moreover , that more extensive reasoning could be given to justify keeping the applicant in pre - trial detention and that the file contained sufficient evidence against him in that regard . However , this would create the risk of prejudging the case ( ihsas - \u0131 rey ) , seeing that a detailed explanation of the reasons justifying continued detention could be seen as an expression of the judges\u2019 opinions before they had determined the merits of the case . Accordingly , ORG held that it was impossible to accept ORG judgment . Lastly , reiterating that the judgment in question amounted to usurpation of power , it held , by CARDINAL votes to one , that there was no need for it to give a decision on the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention .","The judge in the minority observed in his dissenting opinion that he agreed with the majority \u2019s conclusion that ORG judgment was not in compliance with the law . However , noting that ORG judgments were final and binding on ORG , he expressed the view that the applicant \u2019s release should be ordered .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection with a view to securing his release .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the GPE CARDINALth ORG unanimously dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection , essentially on the same grounds as the CARDINALth ORG had done .","On DATE the applicant lodged a further individual application with ORG . Relying on DATE , DATE and DATE of the Convention , he complained mainly that he had been kept in pre - trial detention despite ORG judgment of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171525","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ORLOVSKAYA ISKRA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant is a non - governmental organisation that publishes ORG Iskra , a newspaper in LOC . As of DATE , the PERSON branch of ORG of GPE and the PERSON branch of ORG of GPE , a nationwide movement , were listed as the applicant organisation \u2019s founders . This information was specified on the front page of the newspaper .","Pursuant to the ORG of incorporation , the founders were in charge of setting up an editorial board and determining the editorial policy ; in the case of disagreement on the editorial policy the matter was to be resolved by a meeting of the ORG representatives .","During the election campaign for ORG , the lower chamber of ORG , on DATE , the applicant organisation expressed to ORG of GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) its intention to accept proposals for publication for a fee and , as required by law , published the fees applicable to the publications on behalf of political parties ( MONEY ( RUB ) per page ) . The applicant organisation specified that the above fee \u201c was not applicable to the newspaper \u2019s founder \u201d . The applicant organisation signed a contract with ORG for this purpose for publications on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE . The contract mentioned a fee of RUB CARDINAL per page ; the total amount of the contract was RUB CARDINAL for CARDINAL pages . Some of the publications in the applicant organisation \u2019s newspaper on these dates did mention the ORG \u2019s sponsorship , others did not ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Apart from the publications mentioned above , on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant organisation \u2019s newspaper also published , in the same DATE issues , CARDINAL articles written by its staff correspondent , PERSON Both articles were critical of Mr Stroyev , the then governor of GPE and the former Chairman of ORG ( the upper chamber of ORG ) . Governor PERSON was a candidate at those elections : he was no . CARDINAL on the regional list of GPE ( ORG ) , a political party aligned with President PERSON and dominant in ORG . ORG was CARDINAL of the main opposition parties at those elections .","The first article was entitled \u2018 Hatred , PERSON style\u2019 . It can be summarised as follows . It described Governor PERSON as a person consumed by hatred towards people who oppose him . The journalist referred to the decision of the governor to wind up a publicly owned newspaper , PERSON . According to journalist PERSON , that decision was a direct consequence of a conflict between Mr PERSON and the newspaper \u2019s former editor - in - chief who kept criticising PERSON \u2019s policies . The speaker of the municipal council , who was politically weak owing to a corruption scandal involving municipal land , was unable to oppose the decision of the governor to close the newspaper . Most of the regional journalists under PERSON became servile ; those few who , like the editor - in - chief of PERSON , remained independent and refused to flatter Mr PERSON , were subjected to pressure and fell victim to Mr PERSON \u2019s hatred . The article then turned to the story of CARDINAL deputies of the regional legislature . They were elected as members of ORG and were originally in opposition to Mr PERSON , but later they both became members of GPE . CARDINAL of them was a businessman . The author suspected that the first deputy had changed political sides because of very serious pressure exerted by the PERSON administration on local businessmen . The second deputy was a history professor . The article suggested that his decision to leave ORG was also forced . The journalist ironically supposed that in fact Mr PERSON did not want GPE to win the elections , since he was doing everything to make the electorate angry with the ruling party . In DATE the town population voted in large numbers for ORG , which was in fact a vote of disapproval of Mr PERSON \u2019s policies . However , the journalist supposed that Mr PERSON \u2019s personal interests always prevailed over those of ORG . The town mayor tried to protect himself by joining GPE , but this was a weak defence against Mr PERSON \u2019s hatred . The only people Mr PERSON loved and defended were his own relatives and prot\u00e9g\u00e9s . The article cited the example of Mr PERSON \u2019s nephew , a businessman suspected of abuse of public funds and fraud . His case was still pending ; the article suggested that regional law - enforcement agencies being discouraged from pursuing the investigation actively . The article then turned to the dismissal of the head of the regional public ORG , who reported on abuses of funds allocated for road maintenance . The newly appointed head of ORG , who was Mr PERSON \u2019s man , came to the opposite conclusion , namely that the manipulation of the road funds had been perfectly in order . Nevertheless , the money had been spent ; as a result , the federal authorities had had to allocate additional funds for road maintenance in LOC . Mr PERSON tried to get credit for that funding , but it was not GPE money that had been used , as they claimed , but DATE . In the opinion of the author , by trying to present the whole situation as his personal achievement Mr PERSON was making a fool of President PERSON and of the population of LOC .","The article had a long post - scriptum . It cited ORG findings in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . PERSON , judgment of CARDINAL DATE ) . That case concerned a defamation claim lodged by a governor of another NORP region against a journalist of a local newspaper . The case ended with a finding of a violation of LAW by the ORG . The author alluded to similarities between her criticism of PERSON ORG \u2019s policies and the situation in the PERSON case .","The second article was entitled \u2018 ORG sues people : people sue CARDINAL . It also concerned several topics . It opened with the statement that the electorate of PERSON did not trust the authorities and at the DATE and DATE elections preferred to support ORG . Next , it touched upon the story of PERSON . , a former forest inspector who was dismissed from her job as a result of a reorganisation of the forestry authority . CARDINAL other workers of the forest authority also lost their jobs . The article alleged that the reform of the forest authorities was initiated by Governor PERSON in breach of federal legislation . It suggested that the reform was driven by the need to facilitate industrial tree - cutting . Ms ORG . sued the regional authorities , and at the relevant time the proceedings were pending . However , in the opinion of the journalist , there was little hope for impartiality on the part of the regional courts . The article then turned to the case of PERSON , who had made statements critical of the governor during a public rally and had been prosecuted for slander . The article then analysed recent public statements of the governor , who had criticised the policy lines of former President PERSON , whereas he himself during that period had been Chairman of ORG , and therefore the second most important statesman in the country . According to the journalist , the proceedings in the case of PERSON PERSON were adjourned , probably because Governor PERSON wanted to avoid a scandal before the date of elections . The article closed with the suggestion that President PERSON should not have associated himself such controversial figures as Governor PERSON .","On DATE ORG of the regional ORG examined both articles . ORG concluded that the articles contained elements of electoral campaigning ( \u0430\u0433\u0438\u0442\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f ) . ORG concluded as follows :","The publications contained \u201c negative , purposeful , systematically published information about a member of ORG GPE political party ... PERSON E. Stroyev . The above - mentioned publications have created a negative attitude on the part of the voters towards ... GPE . Although the text of the articles does not call for people to vote for or against GPE , all the electorate understand that this is in fact counter - campaigning [ against Mr PERSON ] \u201d . The publications \u201c did not correspond to the current information policy of the organisations editing mass media \u201d , which ( the policy ) was \u201c aimed at informing the voters about the development of the electoral campaign ... [ and ] about the political parties participating in it \u201d . Those articles , in the opinion of ORG , fell \u201c outside the information space created by the political parties during the ongoing electoral campaign \u201d . The publication of those articles was not paid for from the official campaign fund of any party participating in the campaign , contrary to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW of DATE .","Consequently , in the opinion of ORG , publication of those articles amounted to a breach of electoral law punishable by a fine in accordance with Article CARDINAL.CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) .","The official of ORG compiled an administrative offence record against the applicant organisation , referring to the legislative provisions defining \u201c campaigning \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) :","\u201c [ The applicant organisation ] has committed an administrative offence : publications on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE containing elements of election campaigning as defined in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG Elections Act \u201d ...","Liability for this offence is prescribed under : Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG . \u201d","The case was then submitted to a justice of the peace . On CARDINAL DATE the justice of the peace examined the case . At the hearing the editor - in - chief of the newspaper explained that both articles were informational in essence and were not a part of the election campaign . They reflected the author \u2019s opinion of Governor PERSON . Consequently , there was no need for those articles to be paid for from any candidate \u2019s campaign fund .","The judge held that , according to ORG , taken in conjunction with LAW , \u201c election campaigning \u201d meant publications where information about one of the candidates prevailed and was combined with negative comment about him or her . Having studied the impugned articles the judge agreed with ORG that they primarily concerned candidate PERSON , and secondly were negative . The judge concluded that those articles were in substance election \u201c campaigning \u201d . Such material should either have been paid for from the campaign fund of CARDINAL of the candidates or have been published free of charge ; in any event , the newspaper had been required to indicate who had sponsored the publication . No such mention had been made in the articles . Consequently , the publication of both articles amounted to a breach of the electoral law . The applicant organisation was therefore found guilty of the administrative offence described in Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Offences of DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the CAO \u201d ) . The justice of the peace ordered the applicant organisation to pay a fine of MONEY ( RUB , equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) .","NORP The applicant organisation appealed to the Zheleznodorozhny ORG of Orel . On DATE it heard the applicant organisation \u2019s representatives and rejected the appeal . The relevant extract from the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c Having regard to the fact that the publication of the above articles took place during an election campaign period , the judge considers that the above - mentioned articles contained elements of election campaigning , and therefore could be described as campaign literature . This conclusion is supported by the words of the representatives of the newspaper ... who acknowledged that the articles contained criticism of Governor PERSON ... \u201d","The appeal decision entered into legal force on DATE .","On unspecified dates the applicant organisation received a copy of this decision and lodged a supervisory - review application with the President of ORG . The scope of that application remains unclear .","Without holding a hearing , on DATE the acting president of the court issued a decision dismissing the application . The reasoning of the decision of the acting president was identical to that of the lower courts . On an unspecified date the applicant organisation received a copy of the acting president \u2019s decision .","NORP The applicant organisation then lodged a supervisory - review application with the President of ORG . The scope of this application remains unclear . On DATE the Vice - President dismissed it . On an unspecified date the applicant organisation received a copy of this decision .","On an unspecified date the applicant organisation introduced an individual application before ORG , arguing that the impugned provisions of LAW and ORG ran counter to freedom of the press . The Acts de facto regarded any critical material published during a pre - election period as \u201c campaigning \u201d , and imposed additional requirements on such publications .","By a letter of DATE ORG informed the applicant organisation that its application was not allowed because , in substance , it was merely challenging the factual and legal findings made by the courts in the administrative offence case .","On an unspecified date the applicant organisation resubmitted its application to ORG . On DATE a panel of judges of ORG issued a decision ( \u043e\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) refusing examination of the application . It held as follows :","\u201c In its ruling of DATE ORG made the following statement of principle concerning a distinction between information for voters and pre - election campaigning . To protect the right to free elections , freedom of expression on the part of the mass media may be restricted , provided that the balance of constitutional values has been respected ...","[ LAW ] distinguishes between information for voters appearing in the mass media and pre - election campaigning by them . Both information and campaigning can influence voters to make certain choices , thus the obvious and only criterion to distinguish between them would be the existence of a particular aim , namely to incline voters to support or oppose a certain candidate ... Without such an aim in mind there would be no dividing line between information and campaigning , to the effect that all information would amount to campaigning . This would go against the constitutional guarantees of freedom of information and freedom of expression ...","It is incumbent on the courts and other authorities to establish that there is a campaigning aim in each case ... Thus , in view of the above statement of principle , the impugned legislative provisions can not be considered to have violated the applicant organisation \u2019s rights or freedoms ... Establishment of the specific circumstances ( whether or not the information provided by the applicant organisation concerned the electoral campaign rather than the reporting on the candidate \u2019s professional activity as a governor ) are beyond of ORG competence ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172462","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF V.K. v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Procedure prescribed by law);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","According to the applicant \u2019s medical history he has suffered from various mental conditions since DATE and has been admitted to hospital and treated in various psychiatric facilities several times . The applicant \u2019s records contain information on alcohol abuse , suicide attempts , threats of violence against neighbours and medical professionals , and about a number of organic , psychiatric and personality disorders , including psychosis and paranoia .","DATE the applicant was taken to hospital CARDINAL times following suicide attempts , alcohol - induced paranoia , claims of unspecified murder threats , claims about explosives planted in various public places and threats to neighbours that he would blow up a petrol canister .","According to a report issued on DATE by the local ambulance service the applicant called for emergency assistance at his home CARDINAL times in DATE ( CARDINAL times on DATE alone ) . On each occasion there was no apparent reason for the call . The applicant behaved aggressively towards medical personnel , made sexual advances to female doctors and consumed alcohol in their presence . The service requested a police escort for further visits to his address . They stated that visits to the applicant meant there were delays in providing assistance to people who were in genuinely life - threatening situations and presented a danger to ambulance staff .","According to a police report of DATE the applicant contacted the police CARDINAL times in DATE alleging that nomadic tribes had attacked him , that he had found an unexploded Second World War shell , and that explosives had been placed at an industrial facility . The applicant \u2019s alerts were acted upon and found to be groundless .","On DATE the applicant was admitted without his consent to ORG no . CARDINAL ( GPE \u0431\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. ORG ) ( \u201c the hospital \u201d ) . The grounds for his admission were repeated , groundless telephone calls to the police about the presence of explosives at an industrial facility , a series of calls to the emergency medical services with offers of sexual services to female doctors , as well as threats of violence against ambulance staff . The applicant refused to be treated or admitted to hospital voluntarily .","On DATE a panel composed of the hospital \u2019s resident psychiatrists examined the applicant and his medical history and diagnosed him with an organic mental disorder coupled with a psychiatric and paranoid personality disorder . The panel also found that the applicant was a danger to himself and others and that there was a risk of significant damage to his health due to the likely deterioration or aggravation of his psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance . The relevant parts of the panel \u2019s report read as follows :","\u201c The patient had a habit of intoxicating himself heavily with alcohol , and suffered from a cranial trauma . Psychiatric disorders since DATE . Clinical history [ shows ] behavioural problems including affective instability , querulous ideas about his own relevance and persecution amounting to delusions . [ He ] has been frequently treated in psychiatric facilities owing to aggressive and auto - aggressive habits in the context of acute morbid emotional experiences . Admissions to hospital were , as a rule , \u2018 involuntary\u2019 .","In the course of clinical development the organic defects have become predominant manifesting themselves through circumstantiality , a coarsening of emotions , and the exacerbation of his querulous tendencies . The current admission is due to inappropriate behaviour : informed the police that explosives had been planted somewhere , conflicts with [ nomadic tribes ] , called for emergency medical services and when they arrived threatened the personnel , behaved improperly towards women .","During examination \u2013 fully aware of his surroundings , answers questions in detail . \u2018 ORG . Believes that he is being persecuted by police because he is \u2018 a person of the NORP era , and they do not want to work\u2019 , shows an uncritical attitude towards [ his ] own behaviour , does not correct ideas of own relevance and persecution . Denies perceptual illusions .","Having regard to the lack of a critical attitude towards his improper behaviour , the presence of ideas about his own relevance and persecution , [ it ] can be concluded that he falls under LAW ( a ) and ( c ) of the PERSON of ORG and Guarantees of Citizens\u2019 Rights Related to Its Administration of DATE ( \u201c LAW DATE \u201d ) . \u201d","On DATE the hospital applied for a court order for the involuntary placement of the applicant in a hospital under LAW ( a ) and ( c ) of LAW DATE as the applicant was a danger to himself and others and risked significant damage to his health from a likely deterioration or aggravation of his condition if there was no psychiatric treatment .","On DATE the Primorskiy ORG of GPE ( ORG \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 \u0433. ORG ) granted the application to admit the applicant to hospital without his consent . The hearing was attended by the applicant , a court - appointed lawyer , PERSON , the psychiatrists , and the prosecutor . During the hearing ORG examined the applicant \u2019s medical history and heard the testimony of the psychiatrists , who referred to severe alcohol abuse , erratic behaviour , frivolous calls to the police , and threatening conduct towards medical personnel . The trial record indicates that during the hearing the applicant claimed that informing the police about the alleged presence of explosives at a factory was his civic duty , complained about hospital regime and facilities and referred to his friendship with certain media personas in GPE .","The relevant parts of the court order authorising the applicant \u2019s treatment read as follows :","\u201c ... The recommendation for admission to hospital was issued ... due to the presence of a severe psychiatric disorder , which can cause significant damage to [ his ] health due to a deterioration or aggravation of the psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric help .","Mr PERSON did not consent to his admission to hospital since he refused treatment .","On DATE he was examined by a panel of psychiatrists , who established that [ he is ] aware of his surroundings , answers questions in detail , believes that he is being persecuted by the police because he is \u2018 a person of the NORP era , and they do not want to work\u2019 , shows an uncritical attitude towards [ his ] behaviour , does not correct his ideas of his own relevance and persecution , denies perceptual illusions . On the basis of their observations the panel concluded that the treatment of Mr PERSON as an inpatient is necessary . The court has no grounds to doubt the conclusions of the panel \u2019s report . There is no evidence to the contrary .","Having considered the evidence in the case , having heard the opinion of the doctors , of the lawyer , PERSON , who considered inpatient treatment to be reasonable , and the opinion of the prosecutor ... the court concludes that the application of the ORG \u2019s chief physician is well - founded because Mr PERSON suffers from a severe disorder which indicates a risk of significant damage to [ his ] health due to a deterioration or aggravation of his psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric help . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was formally discharged from hospital after an improvement in his mental health .","On DATE the applicant , represented by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , lodged an appeal against the order of CARDINAL DATE , stating , inter alia , that the legal aid lawyer PERSON had failed perform her functions properly . On DATE the applicant left hospital .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s appeal was summarily dismissed in a short decision by GPE ( ORG \u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 ) . The relevant parts read as follows :","\u201c ... In granting the application the [ lower ] court concluded that there were good reasons to place Mr PERSON in hospital against his will .","The court \u2019s conclusion relied on the evidence that had been submitted to it ... [ It is ] proven by the report of the panel of the ORG \u2019s resident psychiatrists , which describes Mr PERSON \u2019s condition and confirms the existence of a severe psychiatric disorder indicating a risk of significant damage to [ his ] health due to a deterioration or aggravation of his psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance .","The arguments in the statement of appeal that legal aid lawyer PERSON did not duly discharge her professional functions may not serve as a ground for annulment of the order , which is lawful on the merits ... \u201d","Nothing in the materials available to the ORG suggests that the applicant had ever been restricted in his legal capacity or appointed a legal guardian ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147011","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BONDARENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE ORG let an apartment to the applicant . In DATE ORG declared the building in which the applicant had been renting the apartment to be under threat of collapse and on an unspecified date it was demolished . The applicant brought an action against ORG seeking the allocation of an apartment in lieu of the old CARDINAL .","By a final judgment of DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered ORG to provide her with an apartment .","DATE she lodged numerous complaints about the failure to enforce the judgment in her favour to no avail . The judgment of DATE of ORG has not been enforced to date ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141365","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MICROINTELECT OOD v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["On DATE the applicant company entered into a contract with a sole trader , PERSON , to jointly operate a billiards club . The contract stipulated , in particular , that the sole trader would operate the club against an undertaking on the part of the applicant company to supply the club with alcohol . The contract also made provision for the manner in which profits would be shared between the parties , and set out penalties in case of breach .","On DATE the applicant company obtained a licence to sell alcoholic beverages in the billiards club .","On DATE the applicant company entered into a similar contract with another sole trader , PERSON , for the joint operation of an electronic games club . At that time the applicant company had already obtained a licence to sell alcoholic beverages in that club .","Both the billiards club and the electronic games club were operated in LOC leased by the applicant company .","On DATE the tax authorities carried out an inspection at the billiards club . They found that the sole trader , PERSON , was selling alcohol without the requisite licence . DATE , DATE , the authorities drew up a report accusing her of trading in excise goods without the requisite licence , contrary to section CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and impounded the alcohol ( CARDINAL bottles ) that they had found in the club . The applicant company was not notified of those events .","On DATE PERSON objected to the report , saying she had been selling the alcohol on behalf of the applicant company , which had a licence to do so . She further claimed that the impounding had been unlawful .","On DATE the regional tax director dismissed the objection , observing that the impounding could not be challenged separately as it had been ancillary to the opening of administrative - penal proceedings and had amounted to a measure intended to prevent tampering with evidence . On an appeal by PERSON , on DATE ORG upheld that decision , finding that the impounding could not be challenged in separate judicial review proceedings ; only the penal order which would conclude the administrativepenal proceedings was capable of being challenged by way of judicial review .","In the meantime , on DATE the regional tax director issued a penal order against ORG The penalties imposed thereby were a fine and forfeiture of the impounded alcohol . The applicant company was not served with a copy of the order .","Ms GPE sought judicial review of the order . On DATE the applicant company applied to intervene in the proceedings as a third party , arguing that it was the owner of the forfeited alcohol . DATE , DATE , ORG discontinued the judicial review proceedings , finding that ORG application was out of time .","A subsequent appeal by the applicant company against the discontinuance was rejected by ORG on DATE on the grounds that , not being a party to the proceedings , the company did not have standing to appeal against their discontinuance . On an appeal by the applicant company , in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld that decision , holding that the company did not have standing to intervene in the proceedings . The court found it irrelevant to now discuss whether or not the company could have claimed to be a victim of the administrative offence . Ensuing attempts by the company to obtain reopening of the proceedings were unsuccessful .","On DATE the tax authorities carried out an inspection at the electronic games club jointly operated by the applicant company and Ms FAC They found that PERSON was selling alcohol without the requisite licence . DATE , DATE , they drew up a report accusing her of trading in excise goods without the requisite licence , contrary to section CARDINAL ) of the Excise Act DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They impounded the alcohol ( fortysix bottles ) that they had found in the club . The applicant company was not notified of those events .","Ms V.G. sought judicial review of the impounding , arguing that she had been selling the alcohol on behalf of the applicant company , which had a licence to do so . On DATE ORG rejected her application as inadmissible , holding that the impounding could not be challenged in separate judicial review proceedings ; only the penal order which would conclude the administrativepenal proceedings was capable of being challenged by way of judicial review .","In the meantime , on DATE the regional tax director issued a penal order against PERSON The penalties imposed thereby were a fine and forfeiture of the impounded alcohol . The applicant company was not served with a copy of the order .","The sole trader sought judicial review of the order .","At a hearing held on DATE the applicant company applied to intervene in the proceedings as a third party , arguing that it was the owner of the forfeited alcohol . However , ORG turned its application down , finding that it had not been party to the administrative - penal proceedings . It held that the business relations between the applicant company and PERSON were irrelevant for the proceedings . It also instructed the applicant company to bring separate proceedings in the civil courts .","On DATE ORG upheld the penal order . It found that the alcohol had been properly forfeited . It reiterated that considerations concerning the business relations between PERSON and the applicant company were irrelevant for the administrativepenal proceedings . ORG upheld that judgment in a final judgment of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170393","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TAVARES DE ALMEIDA FERNANDES AND ALMEIDA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);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 - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants are husband and wife . They were both born in DATE and live in GPE .","The first applicant is a well - known journalist in GPE . At the time in question he was the editor of the DATE newspaper ORG .","On DATE the newspaper published an editorial written by the first applicant entitled \u201c The strategy of the spider \u201d ( \u201c A estrat\u00e9gia da aranha \u201d ) ; the editorial addressed the election of the President of ORG , which had taken place DATE . The article expressed the first applicant \u2019s opinion of the newly elected President , Judge PERSON , and on what his election meant for the NORP judicial system . The first applicant \u2019s editorial reads as follows :","\u201c The strategy of the spider","ORG , the man who will be presiding over ORG , represents the dark side of our judiciary .","Do you want a symbol , a representative , an exemplar of the wrongs of the NORP judicial system ? That \u2019s easy : simply mention the name of ORG and all the wrongs you can think of regarding corporatism , conservatism , atavism , manipulation , games of shadows and influence immediately DATE to mind .","The judge DATE because we are talking about a judge DATE is a man as intelligent as he is NORP . For DATE , first in ORG [ PERSON dos GPE ] , then [ as a member of ] ORG of the ORG [ FAC hereinafter \u201c LOC ] , and lastly [ sitting on ] ORG , this person DATE of whom the majority of NORP people have never heard \u2013 has been weaving a web of connections , of back - scratching , of favours and undertakings ( there is an even worse word , but I will avoid it ) which enabled him DATE to stick into his somewhat tousled mane the peacock feather he has been lacking : the presidency of ORG . The position is not worth very much ( who , among the readers , knows that the current president of that court is , formally , the fourth - highest - ranking figure of ORG ? ) . It carries some sinecures , perhaps some perks ... but it has little effective power .","The problem , however , lies in this question : has , or will have [ effective power ] ? The gentlemen judges , who some time ago engaged in a dispute with [ the judges of ] ORG to determine who occupied the more important place in the hierarchy ( those of ORG won ... but gave to those of ORG the consolation of having at their disposal a high - end car ... ) are n\u2019t even much respected . [ That is ] their own fault , as it is known that they occupy their seats in ORG only for DATE in order to beef up their pensions . The president of that giant college of most reverend judges has had little power ; [ however , ] ... ORG presented himself to the voters DATE that is to say , to his peers , and those whom he helped to promote to a position from which one day they would be able to elect him DATE under the kind of manifesto which makes the hair of the most peaceful citizen stand on end . The man did n\u2019t do this out of the goodness of his own heart : at the same time that he was acting as a trade unionist ( he asked for an increase in his salary and that less work be given to judges ... ) he acted as someone who wanted to overthrow the regime ( by wanting to sit on ORG [ LOC ] ) and added the glittering ( due to the amount of accumulated tallow ) hat of \u201c resister \u201d of reforms in the judicial sector . If it was advisable for a President of ORG to pay greater attention to PERSON and the principle of the separation of powers than to the playbook of the ORG [ ORG ] , ORG did exactly the opposite . He laid out his demands in the grandiose manner of a steelworker in a futuristic \u201c socialist realism \u201d painting , forgetting that he is a judge and the highest representative of the third [ branch of government ] , the judiciary , and claimed a place at the table of the \u201c first [ branch ] \u201d , the executive . It is true that the power of ORG is as innocuous as the plume of being president of ORG , but the claim has in itself CARDINAL perversities . Firstly , it is a sign that ORG cares more about his public prominence than the problems of justice . Secondly , and much more serious , the man is volunteering himself to be the face of a group of judges [ that is ] against the reforming decisions of those holding political power which are currently the subject of a broad consensus between the government party and the main opposition force .","It is so pathetic as to make one laugh , were we not in GPE and if we did not understand how the strategies of the spiders work . The man , I believe without fear of contradiction , is so intelligent and skilful as to be dangerous . But he already has an opponent : the new Attorney - General of the Republic , P.M. , CARDINAL of the rare people to have had the courage to stand up to him . \u201d","There was coverage of the election in DATE and following it in various articles in the national press . CARDINAL of those articles , published in P\u00fablico on DATE , was an interview with a member ( juiz conselheiro ) of ORG , DATE , who had severely criticised the electoral system for the post of President of ORG . The relevant parts of the interview read as follows :","\u201c ...","Q. : Why do n\u2019t you agree with the current system of electing the President of ORG ( ORG ) ?","TIME : CARDINAL of the functions of ORG ) is the grading of judges who rise to the post of member of the ORG . How do they get to ORG ? Through a competition , and an assessment of their work by the members of the HCJ . Among those members there is a president of judges who , obviously ... has a certain degree of control over [ those judges ] . It does not cross anyone \u2019s mind that they are n\u2019t people whom he trusts ... and I myself am not questioning those people . What is at stake is the system .","Q. : Because it creates inequality , is that it ?","TIME : Just look at what happens . The Vice - President of the HCJ is one of the key figures in the choosing of members of the ORG . That man should never be able to run [ for elections to the ORG ] because those who are going to elect him are those whom he has graded .","Q. : Are you saying it is a distorted system [ sistema viciado ] ?","TIME : It is a distorted system ... It is not the people \u2013 they are all serious and honest ; the problem is the system itself .","Q. : Do you support a change to the rules of [ elections ] to the post of President of the ORG ?","TIME : Yes ; the way these [ elections ] work raises doubts and questions . It is an election which has the appearance of being distorted . Whether it is , I do n\u2019t know ... But it is clear that if [ a person ] has a key role in the admission of A or B to an [ organisation ] , then when [ that person ] has a vote he is going to vote for the person who admitted him . \u201d","DATE several articles on the system of elections to the post of President of ORG were published in the media within the context of elections held within that period . Some of these articles called the system into question . For example , on DATE , PERSON published an article , written by PERSON and entitled \u201c Grading of judges may involve a strategy of power \u201d ( \u201c PERSON ju\u00edzes pode envolver estrat\u00e9gia de poder \u201d ) , for which he had interviewed a judge who had challenged the DATE [ competition ] to ORG and who had made allegations that Judge PERSON had been behind the alleged strategy . In that article , ORG made reference to a document circulating among judges in which it was alleged that \u201c PERSON prepared the grading of judges in order to secure a sufficient number of votes for him to be elected as President of the ORG in the next election . \u201d","On DATE Judge PERSON brought an action in ORG against the applicants for defamation . He sought non - pecuniary damages amounting to MONEY ( ORG ) . The applicants contested the action against them and argued that the second applicant should not have been a party ( ela era parte ileg\u00edtima ) in that she had neither benefited from the article nor had had previous knowledge of it . In fact , the second applicant had not participated at all in the writing or publication of the first applicant \u2019s article ; the civil proceedings for defamation had been instituted against her on the basis of ORG DATE and DATE of the Portuguese Civil Code .","During the proceedings the first applicant attempted to prove , inter alia , ( i ) that he had based his opinion on the different articles that had been published in the media on the elections to ORG , on information obtained from a source whose identity was confidential , and on conversations he had had with different people from the judiciary ( including judges who had challenged the results of the competition for posts as judge in DATE ) ; ( ii ) that the article concerned an issue of public interest ; and ( iii ) that he had written it in good faith . In this regard , several witnesses , including journalists and people from the judiciary ( comunidade judici\u00e1ria ) , were heard . The relevant statements read as follows :","( i ) PERSON , chairman of ORG from DATE , with whom the first applicant talked , mentioned that he had had conversations with Judge PERSON \u2019s opponents , who had made references to the methods Judge PERSON used to obtain what he wanted ;","( ii ) M.J. , a former President of ORG , considered that the first applicant had made a political criticism and that he had not intended to attack the man personally but rather in his capacity as a politician and in terms of his way of engaging in politics and of his career , which had been based on trade unionism ;","( iii ) PERSON mentioned that he had contacted , regarding the article he had written , different people from the judiciary ( judges who had raised suspicions regarding the competition to ORG , judges from the trade union association of judges , and prosecutors ) about Judge PERSON and the system of elections to ORG ; he also acknowledged that he had not talked with members of the PERSON or with Judge PERSON about the issue .","On DATE ORG found for the plaintiff . It considered that the article in question had damaged the plaintiff \u2019s reputation and that the expressions used by the first applicant had been disproportionate and had clearly exceeded the limits on freedom of expression . It considered that the article had diminished public confidence in Judge PERSON and in ORG , thus damaging his honour and reputation . The first applicant was ordered to pay ORG CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . With regard to the second applicant , ORG held that under LAW she should not have been a party to the proceedings and that the compensation amount due arose from an action only attributable to the first applicant . The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c ...","The editorial is ... the responsibility of its editors ... , appears in each edition of the publication and focuses on the most important events of DATE or of that edition and aims to comment , analyse , urge \u2013 in sum , form opinion .","...","The editorial in question was published on DATE the day immediately following the plaintiff \u2019s election as President of ORG .","The established facts demonstrate to us that the plaintiff , as a member of ORG , applied for the post of president of that court and was elected with CARDINAL votes out of a possible CARDINAL votes , which means that he was elected by PERCENT [ of the possible votes ] .","This is the context of the editorial .","...","[ The editorial examines ] the plaintiff on CARDINAL levels : how he , allegedly , managed to achieve the electoral results ; and his electoral programme as a candidate for election to the presidency of ORG .","With regard to the first topic ... in [ the editorial ] there is no expression of any value judgment . It is stated as a fact \u2013 as a manner of behaviour on the part of the plaintiff : that the plaintiff helped those who elected him to rise to the post of member of ORG , given the function that he exercised throughout his life as a union leader and as both a member and Vice - President of ORG .","The essential aim was to state that throughout his life , the plaintiff had pursued a strategy [ to attain power ] which had built a college of electors in which he could have confidence , [ pursuing that aim ] via the functions he had exercised , particularly [ during his time at ] the HCJ .","It is true that the plaintiff was leader of the trade union association of judges , a member of the HCJ DATE ( and Vice - President DATE ) and on DATE was elected President of ORG .","...","The defendant did not prove the veracity of this allegation .","The defendant further argues that the opinion expressed in the editorial was based \u2013 given the lack of transparency of the whole procedure \u2013 on his knowledge of the ongoing public debate about the election of the President of ORG , of the functioning of ORG , and of the plaintiff .","...","In the instant case it is established that when the defendant wrote the editorial , he was familiar with the news and opinions mentioned in documents [ contained in the case file ] ... and had talked to people .","The facts established concern the publication of several articles on the above - mentioned topics ...","However it is not understood how or to what extent these articles allowed the applicant to reach the conclusion that : \u201c For DATE , first in the trade union association of judges then [ as a member of ] ORG of the ORG , and lastly [ sitting on ] ORG , this person DATE of whom the majority of the NORP have never heard \u2013 has been weaving a web of connections , of back - scratching , of favours and undertakings ( there is an even worse word but I will avoid it ) which enabled him DATE to stick into his somewhat tousled mane the peacock feather he has been lacking : the presidency of ORG .","...","In the light of the above , there is nothing which allows us to reach the conclusion that the defendant had determined the veracity of his comments [ by means of accessing ] credible , diverse and verifiable sources of information .","...","[ With regard to the plaintiff \u2019s ] electoral programme as a candidate in the election of the President of ORG ... [ CARDINAL statements he made in support of that programme ] have some factual basis .","In fact , it was proved that in the letter he distributed to his colleagues , the plaintiff , as a candidate for the presidency of ORG , defended the enshrinement \u2013 through a constitutional revision \u2013 of the President of ORG as a permanent member of ORG , as well as the improvement in a timely manner , consistent with the economic situation of the country , of the remuneration of members of ORG .","The plaintiff \u2019s opinions may be DATE and in a democratic state are \u2013 subject to criticism , even more so when they are expressed within the context of his candidacy in the election of the President of ORG .","... \u201d","On an unknown date , both the first applicant and Judge PERSON lodged appeals against the first - instance judgment with ORG . The first applicant argued , inter alia , that the judgment of the PERSON court had breached his freedom of expression and should therefore be overturned . He further contended that the compensation amount that he had been required to pay was extremely high and contested some of the facts that had been established by the court . He argued that he had obtained some information only on condition that the source providing that information would remain anonymous .","NORP In his appeal Judge PERSON argued that the level of compensation should have been set at a higher amount and that the second applicant should have been considered a party to the proceedings .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . It held that some of the first applicant \u2019s comments had not exceeded the limits on freedom of expression , but that most of the content of the article had constituted an attack on Judge PERSON \u2019s honour , honesty and reputation . ORG emphasised that the first applicant had exceeded his right to criticise and inform . It further considered that the first applicant had not been able to prove in the proceedings the veracity of some of the allegations made in the article , even though they had been based on previous articles published in the NORP media about Judge PERSON and his election as President of ORG . With regard to the facts , ORG considered that the facts had been correctly established .","ORG ordered the applicants jointly to pay Judge PERSON CARDINAL , plus interest , in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . It considered the second applicant to be a legitimate party to the proceedings and , with regard to her , it based its decision on the fact that the applicants were married under the community property system ( regime de comunh\u00e3o de adquiridos ) and she did not have any source of income and that therefore , under LAW , the income earned by the first applicant as a journalist and editor of a newspaper directly benefited both of them .","On an unknown date in DATE the applicants and Judge PERSON , respectively , lodged an appeal and a cross - appeal ( recurso subordinado ) against that judgment with ORG .","On DATE ORG declined to examine the ORG appeal . It considered that the judgment of ORG had not clearly identified all those facts which it had considered to be proven ; this made it impossible for ORG to hear the appeal . ORG ordered that the case be remitted to ORG in order for it to correct its statement of facts ; this would enable ORG to analyse the points of law that had been raised .","On DATE ORG delivered a new judgment in which it upheld its previous judgment of DATE .","As to the facts , ORG considered , inter alia , the following to have been established :","( i ) the plaintiff had been the only candidate for the post of President of ORG and had previously been a member and the Vice - President of ORG ;","( ii ) several articles had been published in the press and in blogs ( in the periods preceding and following the election ) about Judge PERSON and his electoral programme and past elections for the presidency of ORG ;","( iii ) on DATE the newspaper ORG had published an interview with TIME , a member of ORG , in which he had questioned the system of elections to the post of President of ORG on the grounds that it could be distorted in so far as the HCJ \u2019s functions included the grading of judges who ascended to the post of member of ORG ;","( iv ) with regard to a past competition to ORG , the DATE newspaper PERSON had , in DATE , published CARDINAL different articles in which it had raised questions about the grading of judges by the HCJ and the possible power strategy involved ; in CARDINAL of the articles ( for CARDINAL of which a judge of a ORG who had participated in the competition had been interviewed and for which a document known to judges had been consulted ) it had been mentioned that Judge PERSON had already mustered support for his election in the next elections for the post of President of ORG ;","( v ) in DATE PERSON had published an editorial [ by the then editor ] criticising the system of electing the President of ORG and of HCJ judges ; with regard to the latter , criticism was made of Judge PERSON \u2019s lobbying on his own account of while exercising his functions as union leader ;","( vi ) the first applicant \u2019s editorial had received both positive and negative comments in the press and in blogs ;","( vii ) the first applicant had had knowledge of the different articles which had been published in the media before the elections and had spoken to different people about them , Judge PERSON and the functioning of the HCJ .","As to the analysis of the merits of the case , the relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c ...","In the present case , it is important to take into account [ the fact ] that the person referred to in the ... text written by the defendant is a public figure , being the fourth - highest - ranking figure of ORG : the President of ORG .","Despite his being a public figure , and therefore more liable to [ be the target of ] public criticism , his honour is still protected ...","...","... [ I]t is important to emphasise that it appeared in the period which followed the election of the President of ORG by his peers .","...","... the text does not affect the plaintiff only as a public figure but also in his strictly personal sphere . In fact , starting with the latter , the expressions \u201c which enabled him DATE to stick into his somewhat tousled mane the peacock feather he has been lacking \u201d and \u201c ... and added the glittering ( due to the amount of accumulated tallow ) hat of \u2018 resister\u2019 of reforms in the judicial sector \u201d seem to manifestly extend beyond the right to inform and to criticise , attacking the plaintiff \u2019s personal dignity within his private sphere ...","...","In sum , the above - mentioned segment [ of the editorial article ] exceeds the proportionality inherent in the legitimate purpose of debate and critical information ...","That is not the case when the defendant attributes corporatism , conservatism and atavism to the plaintiff .","...","... [ NORP expressions fall within the scope of what has to be borne by a public figure ...","...","Let us now analyse the passages where it is said that we face a man and judge who \u201c has been weaving a web of connections , of back - scratching , of favours and undertakings ( there is an even worse word but I will avoid it ) \u201d and who \u201c presented himself to the voters DATE that is to say , to his peers , and those whom he helped to promote to a position from which one day they would be able to elect him \u201d .","...","... [ T]he above - mentioned passages put into question the professional ethics of the plaintiff in the exercise of his functions ...","...","However in the instant case there was no proof given of the allegations against the plaintiff ; on the contrary , ... the right to inform was exceeded . \u201d","With regard to the amount awarded to Judge PERSON in pecuniary damages , ORG held as follows :","\u201c In the instant case , the non - pecuniary damage , reflected in the violation of the right to a good name and the reputation of the plaintiff , given its severity ... had ... a negative impact in the personal sphere , including his family and professional circle , of the plaintiff .","...","Besides that , and this is the decisive point for the determination of the amount to be awarded , the piece written by the defendant , despite the degree of offence and suffering [ caused to ] the plaintiff , was not an obstacle to his re - election by a large majority ( larger than that previously , as everybody knew ) to the same post . As such , the severity of what the defendant wrote did not have an impact on the professional future of the plaintiff ...","In this context , it is also important to take into account the average amount ascribed to the value of life under the case - law of ORG ( which is nowadays increasing ) : EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","In the light of the above , and under the applicable legal framework , it is appropriate to award the amount of LAW . \u201d","On DATE and DATE Judge PERSON and the applicants respectively lodged with ORG an appeal and a cross - appeal against the judgment of ORG . On DATE the applicants submitted their grounds of appeal . They complained , inter alia , that the judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE was in breach of freedom of expression and that the amount which they had been ordered to pay as compensation to Judge PERSON was excessive .","On DATE the appeals before ORG were discontinued on the ground that Judge PERSON had not submitted any grounds of appeal ( julgado deserto o recurso e caducado o recurso subordinado ) . As a consequence , the applicants were unable to challenge the outcome of the judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163811","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF AYBO\u011eA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . At the time of the application they were being held in detention in PERSON prison in GPE .","On DATE ORG decided to restrict access to the investigation file , LAW ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) , PERSON no . DATE .","On DATE the applicants were arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of being members of a criminal organisation .","On DATE the applicants were questioned by the investigating judge , in the presence of their lawyer . According to their statements to the judge , the applicants denied being involved with the criminal organisation . They did not deny that they had had telephone conversations that had been intercepted , or that they had accepted the transfer of parcels and had possessed firearms , all of which were deemed to be evidence of making threats , of fraud and of smuggling , the offences that they were suspected of having committed .","On DATE the ORG representative objected to the order for the pretrial detention in respect of the first CARDINAL applicants . The representative also applied for their release pending trial on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . Those applications were dismissed by ORG on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively based the nature of the criminal charges and the state of the evidence . No hearing was held .","On DATE the public prosecutor at the ORG filed an indictment , charging the first applicant with establishing a criminal organisation and the other applicants with being members of a criminal organisation . The applicants were further charged with committing fraud , making threats , and carrying out raids and smuggling , under LAW and other related articles of LAW .","On DATE the trial court held an interlocutory session and , in the absence of the applicants , decided to extend their pre - trial detention . The first hearing was scheduled for DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG representative objected to that decision in respect of the first CARDINAL applicants and applied for them to be released . On DATE ORG dismissed the objection . The applicants\u2019 representative appealed . On DATE the appeal court dismissed the appeal without holding an oral hearing .","On DATE ORG held the first hearing as planned and the applicants appeared before the court . The trial court decided to release the applicants from pre - trial detention on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142087","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF \u00d6CALAN v. TURKEY (No. 2) [Extracts]","importance":2,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficent","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen","text":["The applicant , a NORP national , was born in DATE and is currently being held in LOC .","The facts of the case DATE were presented by ORG in the \u00d6calan v. GPE judgment ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIV ) . They may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by members of the NORP security forces in an aircraft in the international area of GPE airport . The applicant was returned to GPE from GPE and taken into custody at FAC on DATE . The inmates at this prison had meanwhile been transferred to other prisons .","On DATE the applicant appeared before a judge of ORG , who ordered that he should be detained pending trial .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty of carrying out acts designed to bring about the secession of part of GPE \u2019s territory and of training and leading a gang of armed terrorists for that purpose , and sentenced him to death under LAW . It found that the applicant was the founder and principal leader of an illegal organisation , namely the ORG ( ORG hereafter \u201c the NORP \u201d ) . ORG found that it had been established that , following decisions taken by the applicant and on his orders and instructions , the ORG had carried out several armed attacks , bomb attacks , acts of sabotage and armed robberies , and that in the course of those acts of violence CARDINAL of civilians , soldiers , police officers , village guards and public servants had been killed . The court reiterated that the applicant had acknowledged that ORG estimate of the number of those killed ( CARDINAL ) or wounded as a result of the ORG \u2019s activities was fairly accurate , that the actual number might even be higher , and that he had ordered the attacks as part of the armed struggle being waged by the ORG . The court did not accept that there were mitigating circumstances allowing the death penalty to be commuted to life imprisonment , having regard , among other things , to the very large number and the seriousness of the acts of violence and the major , pressing threat to the country that those acts posed .","By a judgment adopted on CARDINAL DATE and delivered on DATE , ORG upheld the judgment of DATE in its entirety .","NORP In DATE Article CARDINAL of the LAW was amended so that the death penalty could no longer be ordered or implemented other than in time of war or of imminent threat of war , or for acts of terrorism .","By PERSON no . CARDINAL , published on DATE , ORG resolved , inter alia , to abolish the death penalty in peacetime ( that is to say except in time of war or of imminent threat of war ) and to make the necessary amendments to the relevant legislation , including LAW . As a result of the amendments , a prisoner whose death sentence for an act of terrorism has been commuted to life imprisonment must spend the rest of his life in prison .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG commuted the applicant \u2019s death sentence to life imprisonment .","On DATE GPE ratified LAW No . CARDINAL concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances .","The applicant \u2019s conditions of detention in ORG before CARDINAL DATE are described in the judgment of the same date ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","Furthermore , the applicant was the sole inmate of ORG until DATE , when CARDINAL further individuals were transferred to it ; all the prisoners , including the applicant , were then housed in a new block which had just been built .","In DATE and DATE , that is to say after the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE , delegations from ORG for ORG Treatment or Punishment ( \u201c CPT \u201d ) visited PERSON .","Before CARDINAL DATE the cell which the applicant occupied alone measured QUANTITY m , and was equipped with a bed , a table , a chair and a shelf . The cell was air - conditioned and had a partially partitioned sanitary annex . There was a window overlooking an enclosed yard and the cell had adequate access to natural light and adequate artificial lighting . In DATE the walls had been reinforced with chipboard panels to protect them against the damp .","The time granted to the applicant to leave his cell and use the exercise yard ( measuring QUANTITY . m ) , which is walled in and covered with mesh , was limited to TIME DATE ( divided into CARDINAL QUANTITY periods , CARDINAL in the morning and the other in the TIME ) .","The applicant was not in sensory isolation or solitary confinement . As he was the only inmate of the prison , his only contacts were with the members of staff working there , who were only allowed to talk to him about subjects falling within the scope of their duties and relating to everyday life in the prison .","The applicant had access to books and a radio which could only receive ORG broadcasts . He was not allowed to have a television set in his cell on the grounds that he was a dangerous prisoner and a member of an illegal organisation , and was prone to commit recurrent disciplinary offences . Nor was he given access to a telephone , for the same reasons .","NORP The applicant , who had restricted access to daily and DATE newspapers , was allowed a maximum of CARDINAL papers in his cell at any CARDINAL time . The newspapers were often DATE . In fact , he received them once DATE , from his family or his lawyers . In the absence of visits from family members and lawyers ( owing to the inaccessibility of the island ) , the applicant often spent long periods without access to recent newspapers . Those papers which he did receive had always been extensively censored .","The applicant was allowed to correspond with the outside world under the supervision of the prison authorities . The mail which he received was verified and censored . Correspondence with the outside was occasionally interrupted .","The applicant remained in the same cell from the date of his transfer to PERSON DATE after his arrest on DATE \u2013 until DATE , that is to say for DATE .","NORP In order to comply with the requests put forward by the ORG and put an end to the applicant \u2019s relative social isolation , the governmental authorities built a number of new blocks inside the grounds of FAC . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other inmates transferred from other prisons were moved to these new facilities .","NORP Since that date the applicant has been on his own in a cell with an area of QUANTITY m ( living space ) , with a further QUANTITY . m of sanitary facilities , comprising a bed , a small table , CARDINAL chairs , a metal cupboard and a kitchenette with a washbasin . The building containing the cells is properly damp - proofed . According to the ORG , although the applicant \u2019s cell has a MONEY QUANTITY window and a partly glazed door , both opening on to an enclosed yard , it has insufficient direct sunlight because of the CARDINAL-m - high wall surrounding the yard . The ORG \u2019s proposal to lower the wall has not yet been accepted by the Government , whose experts have certified that the cell receives enough natural light .","The prison is equipped with a sports room with a pingpong table and CARDINAL other rooms with chairs and tables , all CARDINAL rooms enjoying plentiful natural daylight . Every inmate , including the applicant , has TIME of outdoors exercise DATE alone in the exercise yard reserved for each cell . Moreover , all the prisoners can spend TIME alone in a recreation room ( where no specific activities are on offer ) and TIME per month alone in the prison library . Furthermore , every prisoner takes part in collective activities , including TIME conversation per week with the other prisoners .","Following its visit in DATE the ORG observed that the prison regime applied to the applicant was only a very modest step in the right direction , particularly as compared to the regime applied in the other F - type prisons for the same category of convicted prisoners , who could engage in outdoor activities DATE , with non - supervised collective activities with the other prisoners for DATE .","In the light of these observations , the authorities responsible for ORG undertook to relax the regime in question , so that the NORP inmates , including the applicant , can now engage alone in out - of - cell activities for TIME per day , receive newspapers twice ( instead of once ) DATE and spend TIME ( instead of CARDINAL ) per week together to talk to each other . All the ORG inmates can engage , for TIME , in any of the following collective activities : painting and handicraft activities , table tennis , chess , volleyball and basketball . According to the prison registers , the applicant in fact plays volleyball and basketball but does not take part in the other activities . The prison authorities also informed the ORG that they were considering providing inmates with TIME of additional collective activities ( painting \/ handicraft , board games and sport ) . The applicant therefore apparently spends a great deal of time outside his cell , that is to say , depending on his choice of collective activity , up to a maximum of TIME per week , including a maximum of TIME in the company of the other prisoners .","Since DATE , in the wake of new technical arrangements , the applicant , like the other ORG inmates , has been allowed QUANTITY minutes\u2019 telephone calls to the outside DATE .","In its report of CARDINAL DATE the ORG recommended that the Government should ensure that the applicant could accompany the other inmates for outdoor activities , and that he and the other prisoners could spend a reasonable part of DATE ( TIME or more ) outside their cells , engaged in purposeful activities of a varied nature . The ORG also recommended allowing the applicant to have a television set in his cell , like all other persons held in high - security prisons . The prison authorities did not act on these latter recommendations on the grounds that the applicant still held dangerous prisoner status and failed to comply with the prison rules , particularly during visits by his lawyers . On DATE the applicant was supplied with a television set .","The applicant has received many visits from his lawyers and relatives , but not as many as he and his visitors would have liked , mainly because of \u201c poor weather conditions \u201d , \u201c maintenance work on the ferry boats between the island and the mainland \u201d and \u201c the inability of the boats to cope with prevailing weather conditions \u201d .","In fact , the old ferry boat PERSON was still in service but could only sail when there was little wind . The larger ferry boat , ORG , which the ORG had promised when the previous \u00d6calan case was pending before FAC of the ORG , began operating in DATE . The ORG , being better suited than the \u0130mral\u0131 CARDINAL to difficult weather conditions , provides more frequent crossings between LOC and the mainland . It sometimes suffers technical breakdowns , entailing repairs which sometimes take DATE .","As regards visits , DATE , for example , CARDINAL out of CARDINAL requests for visits were refused . These refusals continued into DATE , with CARDINAL out of CARDINAL requests being refused , and DATE , with CARDINAL out of CARDINAL requests refused . After a brief improvement in DATE ( CARDINAL out of CARDINAL requests refused ) , DATE ( CARDINAL out of CARDINAL requests refused ) and DATE ( all CARDINAL requests granted ) , visit frequency once again dropped off in DATE ( CARDINAL out of CARDINAL requests refused ) and DATE ( CARDINAL out of CARDINAL requests refused ) , picking up again in DATE ( CARDINAL out of CARDINAL requests refused ) and DATE ( CARDINAL out of CARDINAL requests refused ) . The number of family visits totalled CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE . In fact , between DATE and DATE , the applicant received CARDINAL visits from his brothers and sisters and CARDINAL from his lawyers or advisers .","For the remainder of DATE and in DATE , DATE and , broadly speaking , DATE , the frequency of visits by lawyers and members of the applicant \u2019s family regularly increased . In DATE , for example , CARDINAL visits out of the CARDINAL requested took place on the scheduled date or DATE after ( because of unfavourable weather conditions ) .","NORP In DATE and DATE the ratio of refusals to requests increased significantly . In DATE , for example , the applicant only received CARDINAL family visits out of the CARDINAL requested . Again in DATE , he only received CARDINAL of the CARDINAL requested visits by his lawyers . CARDINAL lawyers\u2019 visits took place in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE . DATE the applicant received no visits apart from CARDINAL family visit on DATE , with CARDINAL refusals . The prison authorities explained their refusals by poor weather conditions and ferry breakdowns .","In DATE the applicant received a few visits from his brother , and none from his lawyers .","As a general rule , persons in prison in GPE can talk to their lawyers on DATE , during TIME , without any restrictions as regards frequency over any given period . Since LOC is only accessible by means of the shuttle boat provided by the ORG administration , the applicant \u2019s lawyers\u2019 visits , in practice , always took place on a DATE , DATE of the crossing .","As a general rule , prisoners can communicate with their lawyers completely confidentially , without supervision . On DATE , however , PERSON no . DATE on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures came into force , replacing the previous legislation on this matter . Under LAW of the new PERSON , if it emerges from documents and other evidence that visits by lawyers to a person convicted of organised crime are serving as a means of communication within the criminal organisation in question , the post - sentencing judge may , at the request of the prosecution , impose the following measures : presence of an official when the convicted prisoner is talking to his lawyers , verification of documents exchanged between the prisoner and his lawyers during such visits , and\/or confiscation of all or some of these documents by the judge .","On DATE the applicant was visited by his lawyers . Just before the interview the prison authorities communicated to the applicant and his lawyers a decision by the ORG post - sentencing judge applying section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE to that visit . An officer was therefore present during the interview , the conversation between the applicant and his lawyers was tape - recorded and the documents supplied by the lawyers were submitted to the judge for examination .","In order to protest against the new procedure , the applicant interrupted the interview after CARDINAL of an hour and asked his lawyers to pay no further visits to him until the said procedure had been revoked . He informed the prison authorities that the procedure infringed the confidentiality of the interview between the lawyers and their client and \u201c rendered the visit and the interview pointless in terms of preparing his defence \u201d .","NORP During subsequent visits an official was in attendance during interviews . Moreover , the conversation between the applicant and his lawyers was again tape - recorded and submitted to the post - sentencing judge for examination .","The applicant \u2019s lawyers also lodged an appeal with ORG against the ORG post - sentencing judge \u2019s decision ordering attendance by an officer during interviews and the recording of the conversations . By decisions of DATE and DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the impugned measures were geared to preventing the transmission of orders within a terrorist organisation , that they did not affect the applicant \u2019s defence rights and that in any case the transcription of the conversations showed that they had not concerned the applicant \u2019s defence in any set of proceedings but the internal functioning of the ORG and the strategy to be adopted by this illegal organisation .","During the lawyers\u2019 visit on DATE , CARDINAL of the officers present in the room in which the interview was taking place interrupted the conversation on the ground that it was not confined to preparing the applicant \u2019s defence before a judicial authority . The applicant \u2019s lawyers filed a complaint against the officer in question for abuse of office . On DATE the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office issued a decision not to prosecute .","It appears from the records of the lawyers\u2019 visits that the conversations very often began with a statement by the lawyers on recent developments concerning the ORG . The applicant consulted his lawyers on changes of persons at the different structural levels of the organisation , the various activities and meetings organised by the ORG bodies ( at regional and national levels , and also abroad ) , the political line adopted by the party leaders , competition among the leaders and losses sustained by armed militants in combating the security forces . The applicant , who presented himself as \u201c the leader of the NORP people \u201d , commentated all the information provided by his lawyers and mandated them to transmit his ideas and instructions with a view to reshaping the ORG \u2019s policies in GPE ( he broadly advocated recognising the rights of the NORP minority in a completely democratic GPE ) or in other countries . Moreover , he approved or rejected executive appointments to the various NORP bodies and advised on the party \u2019s internal organisation . He also recommended that the ORG lay down its weapons when the Government had ended hostilities and the ORG \u2019s demands had been met .","At the request of the ORG public prosecutor , the ORG post - sentencing judge several times refused to hand over copies of the records to the applicant and his lawyers on the grounds that they contained direct or indirect instructions by the applicant to the ORG , which used them to reshape its strategy and tactics .","Since DATE the applicant had remained actively involved in the political debate in GPE on the ORG armed separatist movement , which identified him as its main representative , and his instructions as transmitted through his lawyers had been closely monitored by the general public , prompting a variety of reactions , some of which had been very extreme . A section of the NORP population considered him as the most dangerous terrorist in the country , who was still active even in prison . His supporters saw him as their leader and the ultimate head of the separatist movement .","The applicant also stated that he had taken part in negotiations with certain ORG officials with an eye to resolving the problems posed by the armed separatist movement , but that most of his calls for the discontinuation of the armed conflict had been heard neither by the Government nor by his armed movement .","The applicant was placed in solitary confinement on the ground that he had transmitted instructions to the organisation of which he was the leader during his lawyers\u2019 visits on the following dates : CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , and DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","Therefore , according to the tape recording of the conversation of CARDINAL DATE between the applicant and his lawyers , the applicant told his legal representatives how he considered that ORG members could invite citizens of NORP origin to demonstrate in order to demand the right to education in the NORP language .","On DATE the ORG disciplinary board , considering that the applicant \u2019s words corresponded to \u201c training and propaganda activities within a criminal organisation \u201d , sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL days\u2019 solitary confinement . Pursuant to this sanction , the prison administration removed all the applicant \u2019s books and newspapers for DATE .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against this disciplinary measure was dismissed on DATE by the ORG post - sentencing judge on the grounds that the applicant had incited women and children to organise illegal demonstrations , thus carrying out what might be described as training and propaganda activities within a criminal organisation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant \u2019s lawyers against the decision of DATE . ORG considered that the impugned decision was in conformity with the law .","The applicant was subjected to a further sanction of CARDINAL days\u2019 solitary confinement on the ground of a conversation with his lawyers which had taken place on DATE . His appeals against this decision having been dismissed , he served this sentence from CARDINAL DATE to DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyers were not apprised of this sanction until DATE , when a request for a visit to the applicant was rejected .","Visits by relatives of the applicant ( in practice , his brothers and sisters ) are limited to TIME every fortnight . These visits originally took place in a visiting room comprising a barrier to separate the prisoner from his visitors , as the visiting areas where the prisoner and his visitors could sit together at a table were reserved for relatives of the first degree under LAW on visits to prisoners and detainees . On DATE ORG annulled this provision . Without waiting for this decision to become final , ORG granted the applicant the right to see his brothers and sisters unseparated by any barrier . On DATE , therefore , the applicant was able to meet his brother \u201c around a table \u201d for the first time .","Where a visit is cancelled owing to weather conditions , the authorities can organise another visit DATE , at the family \u2019s request . In practice , DATE visits which are cancelled are not replaced because the visitors have never requested such replacement .","Furthermore , visits by family members have not been as frequent as the applicant and his relatives would have wished because of the inadequacy of the available means of transport under unfavourable weather conditions . CARDINAL of all the visits requested have been rejected owing to shuttle boat breakdowns or poor weather conditions .","Article CARDINAL of the new version of LAW , which came into force on DATE , provides that lawyers who have been prosecuted for crimes linked to terrorism may be banned from representing persons convicted of terrorist activities . This provision is intended to prevent leaders of terrorist organisations who have been convicted from continuing to lead their organisations from their place of incarceration through the intermediary of their lawyers .","By a decision of DATE , the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office invited ORG to apply this measure to some of the applicant \u2019s lawyers .","By a decision of DATE , the CARDINALth ORG deprived CARDINAL lawyers of their status as counsel to the applicant for DATE .","On DATE , the CARDINALth ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against that decision .","On DATE , on instructions from the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office , the law enforcement agencies arrested and took into custody CARDINAL lawyers representing the applicant in CARDINAL NORP departments ( including CARDINAL lawyers representing the applicant before ORG ) , searched their offices and seized all the documents relating to the applicant . The prosecution suspected the lawyers in question of having acted as messengers between the applicant and the other NORP leaders .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s representatives informed the ORG that they had asked a GPE medical laboratory to analyse CARDINAL hairs which they considered to be from the applicant and that the analyses carried out on DATE demonstrated the presence of abnormally high doses of chromium and strontium .","NORP However , analyses of samples taken directly from the applicant at the prison failed to disclose any trace of toxic elements or elements endangering health .","..."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","7","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["7-1","8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150316","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ZELENIN v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE Mr ORG informed the local office of ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) that he had purchased heroin from the applicant . The ORG officers then decided to organise a covert operation of the test purchase of the drug .","At TIME on DATE the ORG officers arrived at the applicant \u2019s block of flats and rang at the door of a flat located next to that of the applicant in which CARDINAL sisters , Ms FAC and Ms T.N , resided . The ORG officers asked the CARDINAL women to ring at the applicant \u2019s door so that he would open it unaware of the DCS officers\u2019 presence . PERSON and ORG refused to cooperate .","The ORG officers then waited on the stairway for the applicant to leave the flat . At some point the applicant stepped out of his flat .","According to the applicant , CARDINAL ORG officers forcibly dragged him out of the flat , pushed him to the floor and beat him on the stairway . According to the Government , the applicant showed active resistance by beating and kicking the ORG officers . They had to resort to physical force in order to overcome his resistance , and handcuffed the applicant .","PERSON and PERSON observed through the open door that QUANTITY men were beating and kicking the applicant .","According to the Government , the applicant voluntarily allowed a visual inspection of his flat . According to the applicant , he was forced to make a written statement agreeing to the inspection . It is common ground between the parties that the ORG officers then proceeded to carry out the inspection in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses and discovered syringes with traces of heroin and pieces of aluminium foil .","NORP The officers took the handcuffs off the applicant so that he could sign an inspection report . At some point the applicant rose to his feet suddenly and ran at a cupboard with glass doors , ramming it with his head . The cupboard fell on the applicant .","The applicant was then brought to the ORG premises . At MONEY a.m. on DATE he was formally detained as a suspect in a temporary detention cell .","CARDINAL of the ORG officers presented their hierarchical superior with reports dated DATE on the use of physical force in the course of the applicant \u2019s arrest , claiming that the force had been used legitimately to overcome the violent resistance offered by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was brought to a trauma centre and then to hospital . He was diagnosed with a closed cerebral injury .","On DATE the ORG of GPE authorised the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to a remand prison . On arrival he was examined by a doctor and diagnosed with a closed cerebral injury as well as injuries to his face and head .","On DATE the applicant complained to the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE ( \u201c the district prosecutor \u2019s office ) about the alleged ill - treatment .","On DATE , having conducted a pre - investigation inquiry , the district prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the ORG officers who had allegedly beaten the applicant on DATE . They referred to statements made by the ORG officers and CARDINAL of the attesting witnesses who had been present during the inspection in the flat and concluded that the applicant had resisted lawful arrest and that the use of force and handcuffing had thus been lawful and justified in the circumstances . The district prosecutor \u2019s office also established that the applicant had thrown himself against the cupboard , which had collapsed on the applicant causing him injuries .","On DATE ORG of GPE convicted the applicant of drug - related crimes and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant admitted the unlawful procurement and possession of heroin but pleaded not guilty to the charges of supplying the drug to others , inter alia on CARDINAL and DATE .","DATE and DATE the pre - investigation inquiry into the allegation of ill - treatment was resumed on CARDINAL occasions as the decisions refusing to open a criminal investigation were quashed by either the district prosecutor \u2019s office or the GPE regional prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office issued another decision refusing to open a criminal investigation .","On DATE the GPE regional prosecutor \u2019s office quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that the applicant \u2019s neighbours , the ORG sisters , had consistently alleged that the applicant had been beaten by the officers ; another neighbour had not been questioned at all ; and the forensic expert report had not been completed .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction of DATE on appeal .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office ordered a forensic expert examination of the applicant in order to establish the origin of the injuries that he had sustained on DATE .","On DATE a forensic expert drew up a report based on medical certificates and X - rays dated DATE and the explanations given by the applicant on DATE . According to the report , the initial diagnosis of a closed cerebral injury had not been confirmed and the bruises could have \u201c resulted either from a beating with a hard blunt object(s ) or from falling and hitting the said object(s ) \u201d .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to open a criminal investigation into the alleged ill - treatment . They argued , in particular , that the statements by PERSON and PERSON could not be regarded as reliable evidence owing to the fact that \u201c according to the information received , both the ORG sisters [ were ] prostitutes and acquaintances of PERSON , with whom they [ maintained ] a friendly relationship , and thus [ were ] interested in the outcome of PERSON arrest \u201d . They concluded that the ORG officers had used legitimate force to effect the applicant \u2019s arrest .","On DATE the ORG of GPE upheld the above decision on judicial review . On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision .","On DATE ORG of GPE for GPE ( \u201c the regional investigative committee \u201d ) quashed the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE for LOC of GPE ( \u201c the district investigative committee \u201d ) again refused to open a criminal case . Again it was argued that the statements by PERSON and PERSON were to be disregarded since \u201c according to the information received , both the ORG sisters [ were ] prostitutes and acquaintances of PERSON , with whom they [ maintained ] a friendly relationship , and thus [ were ] interested in the outcome of PERSON ORG \u2019s arrest \u201d .","On DATE the ORG of GPE upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on judicial review . On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance ruling .","On DATE the applicant was released on probation ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157567","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"DA SILVA CARVALHO RICO v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant , PERSON GPE , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by Mr J. J. Ferreira Alves , a lawyer practising in LOC .","NORP The applicant is a pensioner eligible to receive social - security benefits under the public - sector pension scheme . In DATE she was granted a retirement pension which amounted to MONEY ( ORG ) gross per month .","NORP In DATE GPE requested financial assistance from ORG ( ORG ) , the euro area Member GPE and ORG ( IMF ) . An ORG was negotiated in DATE between the NORP authorities and officials from ORG , ORG ( ORG ) and the ORG including a joint financing package of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL from ORG , ORG CARDINAL from ORG and ORG CARDINAL from the IMF ) . The programme was agreed and formally adopted on CARDINAL DATE at a Eurogroup \/ ECOFIN meeting in GPE , where ORG signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality ( the \u201c M.o . U. \u201d ) with the ORG , the ORG and the ORG and thereafter CARDINAL related documents : the Technical Memorandum of Understanding and LAW .","The M.o . U. set out the economic and social policies , including tax and social - security measures , that GPE should implement for the duration of the programme ( DATE ) in order to improve its financial situation and receive financial support from the ORG . It stipulated , inter alia , that GPE would :","\u201c ... CARDINAL LOC pensions above ORG CARDINAL according to the progressive rates applied to the wages of the public sector as of DATE , with the aim of yielding savings of at least ORG CARDINAL . \u201d","NORP On DATE ORG PERSON ) published PERSON no . CARDINAL on the ORG budget ( NORP do PERSON para DATE , hereinafter \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) , which was designed to continue the implementation of the M.o . U. initiated by Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on the DATE ORG . Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW , the scope of application of the existing extraordinary solidarity contribution ( contribui\u00e7\u00e3o extraordin\u00e1ria de solidariedade , hereinafter \u201c the CES \u201d ) was extended in order to include pensioners receiving a gross amount of LAW . This provision was to apply in DATE and only during DATE .","NORP The applicant \u2019s pension was subsequently taxed at PERCENT on a part corresponding to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and PERCENT on the part exceeding it . The excess was ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The total amount deducted because of the ORG thus amounted to ORG .","With the entry into force of the DATE LAW , the applicant \u2019s pension was reduced accordingly , resulting in a cumulative loss of GPE GPE in DATE . This loss amounted to PERCENT of the applicant \u2019s total DATE social security benefits .","On DATE , ORG published the DATE LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL-C\/CARDINAL ) , which reintroduced the FAC for DATE with the same threshold and rates as the ones applied under the CARDINAL LAW . Consequently , the ORG was again applied to the applicant \u2019s pension as provided for in section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW .","On DATE a law amending the DATE LAW entered into force ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Pursuant to the amendments to section DATE , the scope of application of the ORG was extended to pensions of a gross amount of LAW , while the rates applied to larger pensions were increased . The rates applied to the applicant \u2019s pension remained unchanged .","NORP In DATE the applicant sustained a cumulative loss of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , amounting to PERCENT of her total DATE pension payment .","NORP In DATE GPE exited the DATE ORG and is currently under post - programme surveillance until PERCENT of the financial assistance received has been repaid .","\u201c CARDINAL . All citizens have the same social dignity and are equal before the law . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Everyone is entitled to social security . \u201d","The extraordinary solidarity contribution , introduced in GPE by section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on the DATE State Budget ( Lei do PERSON para DATE ) , reads as follows :","\u201c Pensions , grants and any other benefits of a similar nature paid to a single person , whose DATE amount is above ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , are subject to an extraordinary contribution at a PERCENT rate applicable to the amount exceeding that value . \u201d","When the CARDINAL LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) entered into force , the ORG was increased to PERCENT on the part of pensions which exceeded ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and PERCENT on the part that exceeded ORG MONEY .","With the entry into force of the DATE LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) the ORG was again reconfigured . Accordingly , section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW was to be applied to pensions between ORG CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL at a PERCENT rate . With regard to pensions between ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL , the ORG was set at PERCENT on the first ORG CARDINAL , and at PERCENT on the part exceeding that amount . As to pensions exceeding ORG CARDINAL , the ORG was payable at PERCENT . As a budgetary measure provided for in DATE LAW , the ORG was only to be applied in DATE .","On DATE the ORG was reintroduced in GPE through the enactment of the DATE LAW ( Law no . DATE ) . Pursuant to section DATE , its scope of application remained the same as the CARDINAL provided for in the CARDINAL LAW . According to LAW , the ORG was an exceptional and temporary measure applicable in DATE .","Following the tenth ORG \/ ORG \/ IMF review mission to GPE in DATE , ORG amended the DATE LAW including , inter alia , the scope of application of the ORG through the adoption of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE . Pursuant to the amendment , the ORG became applicable to pensions of LAW and above .","The DATE LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL-B\/CARDINAL of DATE ) provided for a new reconfiguration of the ORG by raising the threshold at which it applies , which is currently set at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at a PERCENT rate . Pensions exceeding EUR CARDINAL are currently taxed at a PERCENT rate ( section CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the President of GPE challenged the constitutionality of section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW before ORG on the grounds that its provisions were in breach of the principle of equality , the principle of proportionality and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations ( princ\u00edpio da confian\u00e7a ) .","In a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG considered that section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW was not disproportionate or excessive , bearing in mind its exceptional and transitory nature . In the court \u2019s opinion , the ORG was , therefore , not unconstitutional .","The Constitutional Court \u2019s decision contained in particular the following considerations :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... Imposing an obligation on pensioners to contribute to the financing of the social - security system in order to reduce the need for public financial allocation , within a framework of distinct and articulated fiscal consolidation measures which also include tax increases and other cuts in public expenditure , is based on a coherent reasoning in line with a strategy still within the margin of the \u201c free policy prerogative \u201d of the legislature .","...","... The ORG was solely designed , in conjunction with other measures , to overcome the situation of economic and financial crisis which has temporarily also required , within the framework of the basic options open to the executive and legislature , an urgent strengthening of the financing of the social - security system at the expense of its beneficiaries .","[ Background factors are as follows : ] ... a decrease in revenues accruing to the social - security system ; the dramatic increase in unemployment ; the reduction of wages ; new migration trends ; an increase in expenditure on support given to those in unemployment and poverty , and the consequent need for the ORG to finance the social - security system thereby aggravating the public deficit . As a result , the legislature , exceptionally and in an emergency situation , chose to extend to pensioners the payment of contributions into the social - security system from which they are directly or indirectly beneficiaries for the present tax year only .","Compliance with the underlying principles of the democratic rule of law must be evaluated , therefore , in light of the exceptional and temporary nature of this measure and its purpose of meeting the public deficit targets demanded by ORG .","... However , given the constraints that surrounded the implementation of the ORG , not only do the expectations of continued financial stability appear to be diminished , there is also a particular , relevant and defensible public interest that justifies an exceptional and temporary discontinuation of the ORG \u2019s normal conduct .","The public interest needs to be safeguarded , as has already been stated in the course of the balancing exercise carried out in earlier cases with regard to the principle of legitimate expectations , is of crucial importance and urgent which gives it a clear prevalence , even though the depth of the sacrifice caused to the private sector by the new contribution should not be ignored .","...","There is not , therefore , any evidence in this whole context of an infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations .","Neither does it seem that the principle of proportionality could be considered to have been breached in any of the aspects of adequacy or necessity or due measure .","...","In the current case , it is clear that the imposition of this extraordinary tax on pensioners as a means of reducing , exceptionally and temporarily , expenditure on payment of pensions in order to obtain additional financing for the social - security system , is an appropriate measure for the purposes set out by the legislature .","As to whether , in order to achieve this goal , the means chosen are actually necessary or required owing to the possible existence of other more suitable or effective means which could achieve the same result in a less burdensome way for those affected , analysis of the evidence shows that there are no other alternatives which could maintain a consistency with the system in which these measures are established , and which could attain public interest objectives to the same degree , and which could affect the holders of the these legal expectations to a lesser degree .","Accordingly , the measure complies with the principle of necessity .","...","... In the light of the above , the court holds that section CARDINAL is not unconstitutional . \u201d","In DATE , Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL amending section QUANTITY of the DATE LAW was challenged before ORG by a group of members of ORG within the framework of an ex post facto review , on the grounds , inter alia , that the ORG was no longer temporary and exceptional on account of its re - introduction in DATE . In particular , the group of members of ORG challenged the amendments made to section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW . On DATE ORG found that the relevant provision was not unconstitutional . In its ruling the court took into account that it had already weighed up the constitutionality of the ORG in previous rulings and considered that the reconfiguration of the measure remained within the limits outlined by the constitutional - law principle of legal certainty . ORG further considered that the ORG was an exceptional and transitory measure imposed through a budgetary law and had been designed to respond to an economic and financial emergency in GPE . As to the proportionality of the reconfigured ORG , the court ruled that there had been no breach of this principle and that there were no reasons to depart from its previous ruling on the appropriateness of and need for a ORG .","The Constitutional Court \u2019s decision contained in particular the following considerations :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... The court is aware that ... considerations with regard to the generic nature of the ORG have been raised , and also considerations in relation to its scope and extension ; thus the measure must be analysed in the light of the fundamental right to social security , from which a constitutional right to a pension results . However , according to the applicants , it is the differences vis - \u00e0 - vis the solution previously analysed by this court in DATE , in particular the extension of the measure , that justify a separate ruling to the one then adopted .","...","... Thus , one can not fail to recognise that , in the way in which it was normatively brought DATE that is , a budgetary measure designed to be in force for DATE the ORG has , indeed , an exceptional and temporary nature which is directly related to the immediate objectives pursued by the legislature of achieving a balanced budget and sustainability of public finances . Therefore , it is with regard to the ORG in and of itself , as normatively set , and with regard to its own nature without taking into account the different nature of any potential subsequent and functionally substitute measure , that the ruling about its temporariness should be made .","We can thus conclude that it is permissible for ORG , following its previous case - law , to consider that section DATE of Law no . CARDINAL \/CARDINAL , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , still establishes a transitory or temporary measure , which should be taken into account in the weighting underlying the assessment of constitutionality .","...","NORP ... In fact , as recognised in Ruling no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , legitimate expectations of the State are not as consistently present with regard to an extraordinary and transitory measure , thus justifying an exceptional and temporary discontinuation of the ORG \u2019s conduct . Given the exceptionality of the facts that increased the need for assistance \u2013 the financial and economic emergency that has reduced transfers from the ORG budget to the social protection system \u2013 the lower the expectations of those who were affected by it appear to be .","...","There are no reasons to depart in the present case from the ruling delivered by the court on the adequacy and necessity of the ORG as part of a balanced budget programme . Indeed , this is highlighted by the conflict \u2013 established on the basis of the principle of proportionality \u2013 between the measure under scrutiny and the objective pursued . It is clear that , in general , the extension of the threshold of the ORG is not an inappropriate means of achieving a balanced budget ...","And the same can be said with regard to the necessity or enforceability of the option chosen \u2013 the second test of proportionality \u2013 since , in the light of the aim pursued and of the potential alternative solutions , it can not be considered that the extension of the scope of application of the ORG is not the least burdensome measure for those adversely affected by the achievement of that goal .","...","NORP ... And with regard to the contribution affecting pensions between ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , the previous regime remains unchanged .","...","... Indeed , various reasons indicate that the reconfiguration of the ORG by PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE is still within the limits of reasonableness .","Firstly , the ORG still maintains the characteristics of exceptionality and transience that in DATE marked its entry into the tax universe . ... In an absolutely exceptional financial situation including a fiscal imbalance that led to international and NORP commitments , the ORG constitutes an exceptional measure which , in conjunction with other measures , aims to overcome the seriousness of that situation .","...","For all these reasons , it is acceptable that the DATE contribution required of the beneficiaries of social security affected by the expansion of the scope of application of the ORG , owing to its temporariness of the norms supporting it and the objectives it seeks to pursue , does not amount to a particularly excessive and unreasonable sacrifice which would involve a violation of the principle of proportionality , constitutionally objectionable . \u201d","NORP In a series of rulings , ORG established the legal principles applicable to cases in which restrictions on social rights could be allowed within a constitutional framework with a particular reference to the concept of \u201c proviso of the possible \u201d ( reserva do poss\u00edvel , known in NORP as the Vorbehalt des M\u00f6glichen ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145233","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MOHAMMADI v. AUSTRIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Hungary)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and currently lives in PERSON .","He entered GPE on DATE and lodged an asylum application . It remained undisputed by the NORP authorities that at that time he was still a minor , even though his exact date of birth is unknown . He was not accompanied by any family members , nor were any of his relatives present in another member ORG of ORG .","The applicant stated that he had left his village in GPE DATE , crossed the border to GPE and then the border to GPE by QUANTITY . With the aid of a trafficker he reached GPE , where he stayed for DATE . Together with a group of other refugees , he crossed into GPE by boat , where he was arrested and processed . He was released shortly after with an order to leave the country . He travelled to GPE , where he stayed for DATE . He then left GPE together with CARDINAL other refugees via the Former GPE , from where he crossed the border to GPE by foot .","NORP In GPE , the applicant was arrested and processed . He claimed that he was forced to lodge an asylum request and placed in an open camp . Allegedly , the NORP authorities did not give any consideration to the fact that he was a minor . Because he had never planned to stay in GPE , but wanted to lodge an asylum application in GPE , he left the camp DATE and took a train to GPE .","When the applicant was interviewed by the NORP authorities on CARDINAL DATE , he stated that he did not want to return to GPE . He claimed not to know the status of his asylum proceedings there because he was illiterate . In a second interview on DATE , he stated that he was arrested and detained for DATE in GPE . He was not given enough to eat and suffered from hunger in detention . He claimed that the conduct of the police towards him was rough . Officers were armed at all times , and he was woken up during TIME for interviews . He further stated that he was afraid of being sent back to GPE .","When the applicant was asked why he had left GPE , he stated that his family had sent him away so he could live a safer life . His father had died in GPE DATE . His mother lived with the applicant and his CARDINAL young siblings in the ORG district in GPE . The precarious security situation and the lack of access to subsistence and education in the region prompted him to leave the country .","On DATE ORG ( Bundesasylamt \u2013 hereinafter \" ORG \" ) rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum request and established GPE \u2019s jurisdiction in this regard in accordance with LAW ( c ) of ORG ( ORG ) No . MONEY ( \" the Dublin II Regulation \" ) . On DATE ORG ( Asylgerichtshof ) quashed that decision pursuant to LAW ) on the grounds that the facts had not been established exhaustively . It stated that ORG had failed to update its country information regarding the risk of refoulement of asylumseekers from GPE to GPE . Furthermore , the decision had not established the legal framework under which minors could be detained in GPE and what the conditions of detention were .","On DATE ORG again rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum request and ordered his expulsion to GPE under GPE . In addition to general information on the situation of asylum - seekers in GPE , ORG referred to information obtained from ORG in GPE dated DATE and DATE . According to that information , the detention of minors could not be ordered in GPE . If a detained refugee claimed to be a minor , an age assessment was ordered and the minor was released if his or her age was confirmed . As regards the evaluation of GPE by GPE as a safe third country , the NORP authorities stated that they did not have a list of safe third countries and evaluated each case individually . However , in most cases GPE was considered to be a safe third country . GPE expelled asylum - seekers to GPE , if their first asylum proceedings were terminated and there was no obstacle under the non - refoulement rule . A person lodging a subsequent asylum request was not allowed to remain in GPE . The same applied for GPE returnees if their first asylum proceedings were terminated . If asylum proceedings were discontinued after an asylum - seeker left GPE , an asylum request after his or her return under the GPE regulation was considered a subsequent asylum request . It was further established that appeals against asylum decisions at first instance and during the first proceedings had automatic suspensive effect . However , appeals against decisions in subsequent asylum proceedings did not . It was in any event possible to lodge an appeal against the expulsion order itself . It was then up to the judge \u2019s discretion to award the proceedings suspensive effect .","When it came to the personal credibility of the applicant , ORG stated that it found his allegations of having been detained in GPE for DATE unconvincing , as the country information had shown that the detention of minors could not be ordered in GPE . It further held that the information had shown that GPE did not practise refoulement to GPE . Finally , the NORP authorities had assumed jurisdiction over the applicant \u2019s asylum request under LAW ( c ) of LAW , which proved that the applicant still had access to asylum proceedings on the merits in GPE . ORG concluded that it hence did not consider itself legally obliged to make use of the sovereignty clause and rejected the asylum request .","On DATE ORG awarded suspensive effect to the applicant \u2019s appeal against that decision , but on DATE dismissed it as unfounded . It pointed out that the NORP authorities had informed ORG that they had planned an age assessment , but could not carry it out because the applicant had left the country . Thereupon , on DATE the NORP authorities had discontinued his proceedings . However , ORG assumed that because of GPE \u2019s acceptance of jurisdiction under LAW ( c ) of LAW the applicant would have access to asylum proceedings on the merits in GPE . In its reasoning ORG took note of a letter from ORG in GPE dated DATE , seemingly citing problems with the techniques of age assessment in GPE , detention and the detention conditions for asylum - seekers , refoulement to GPE and the fact that a GPE - returner \u2019s asylum request was considered a subsequent asylum request if the proceedings had been discontinued in GPE . However , ORG noted a lack of sources in the ORG \u2019s letter and referred to the recently updated country information obtained by the NORP asylum authorities , which did not indicate systematic deficiencies in the NORP asylum proceedings and reception conditions that would have warranted an extensive use of the sovereignty clause of LAW of the Dublin II Regulation .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , which was rejected on DATE . This decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE . An arrest order stated that a transfer of the applicant to the NORP authorities was planned for CARDINAL DATE . At that time , the applicant was still a minor .","On DATE the ORG applied an interim measure under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court and requested ORG to stay the applicant \u2019s transfer to GPE until further notice . ORG complied with this request .","On DATE ORG informed the ORG that the applicant \u2019s asylum proceedings in GPE had been discontinued on DATE . The decision had become final on DATE . The first asylum proceedings would not be reopened upon his return to GPE . If he was returned to GPE , an asylum request would be considered a subsequent request which would not have automatic suspensive effect if there were no new circumstances supporting his application but there was a safe third country which he could be returned to . Regarding the issue of appointing a guardian for the minor applicant , the NORP authorities stated that unaccompanied minor asylum - seekers were usually immediately assigned a guardian , except when the applicant would reach the age of majority before the decision on the merits was taken . Unaccompanied minors were placed in a children \u2019s home in GPE , where care and education were provided to them according to their age . Having regard to the fact that the applicant would turn CARDINAL on DATE , it was very unlikely that a guardian would be appointed for him upon his return ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172913","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF A.P., GAR\u00c7ON AND NICOT v. FRANCE","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["On the date of lodging of the applications , the applicants were regarded for civil - law purposes as belonging to the male sex . For that reason , the masculine form is used in referring to them ; however , this can not be construed as excluding them from the gender with which they identify .","The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The first applicant stated that , although he had been entered in the register of births as being male , he had always behaved like a girl and his physical appearance had always been very feminine . As an adolescent and young adult he had struggled considerably with his gender identity , since the male identity assigned to him at birth did not match his female psychological and social identity . In DATE , after several doctors had diagnosed a gender identity disorder known as \u201c PERSON syndrome \u201d , he had begun a transitional phase , living in society as a woman and undertaking a course of hormone treatment under the supervision of an endocrinologist , PERSON , and a neuropsychiatrist , PERSON .","The first applicant submitted CARDINAL medical certificates issued by these doctors during the period in question . In the first CARDINAL certificates , dated CARDINAL DATE , PERSON . stated that the first applicant had been under his supervision since DATE \u201c for a syndrome typical of gender identity disorder \u201d . He stated that \u201c there [ was ] thus an observable difference between his current physique and the photograph on his identity card \u201d , and that \u201c there [ were ] no medical or psychological contraindications for [ an ] operation ... on the PERSON \u2019s apple \u201d . In the third certificate , dated DATE , PERSON stated that he had been overseeing the applicant \u2019s hormone treatment for \u201c typical primary gender identity disorder since DATE , together with Dr B. \u201d , and that \u201c following endocrinology and metabolic tests , including karyotyping , [ he was being ] treated with anti - androgens and oestrogen \u201d . The doctor concluded that \u201c the marked , plausible and genuine nature of his gender dysphoria , together with the \u2018 real life test\u2019 , [ made him ] eligible for reassignment surgery , of which [ he had ] a legitimate expectation \u201d .","The first applicant also produced a medical certificate issued on DATE by another psychiatrist , PERSON . , which certified that he had \u201c typical PERSON syndrome \u201d and that \u201c there [ were ] currently no contraindications for the medical and\/or surgical treatment entailed in the gender reassignment sought by the patient \u201d .","The first applicant stressed that he had not originally intended to undergo mutilating gender reassignment surgery , but had resigned himself to it because the NORP ORG case - law made it a precondition for a change in civil status .","The first applicant decided to undergo surgery in GPE , performed by PERSON , whom he described as a \u201c world - renowned specialist \u201d . The operation was carried out on DATE . PERSON issued the following medical certificate :","\u201c ... following a period of diagnosis by psychosexual specialists and an appropriate period of living full - time with a female identity , the above - mentioned person was diagnosed with a gender identity disorder ( FCARDINAL.CARDINAL ) defined as ORG , ICD-CARDINAL . She was accepted for the appropriate surgical treatment , namely gender reassignment surgery .","... The surgery consisted of an orchidectomy , a vaginoplasty , a clitoroplasty and a labiaplasty , combined in a single operation . On completion of the operation the male sexual organs ... were replaced by organs that are female in appearance and function , with the exception of the reproductive organs . This involved removing the male reproductive organs , resulting in irremediable infertility .","In accordance with all established medical and legal definitions , the operation is irreversible and means that PERSON [ A.P. ] \u2019s male sexual identity has been permanently changed to a female sexual identity . \u201d","In a certificate signed on DATE PERSON confirmed that the first applicant \u201c [ had ] undergone irreversible male - to - female gender reassignment surgery \u201d , and stressed that \u201c the request for a change in civil status [ was ] compelling and admissible [ and was ] an integral part of the treatment \u201d .","The first applicant produced CARDINAL further certificates . The first , dated CARDINAL DATE , was signed by PERSON , a surgeon . It stated that the first applicant had undergone \u201c a cosmetic laryngoplasty as part of maletofemale transitioning , after irreversible reassignment surgery was performed on the external genitalia \u201d . In the second certificate , dated DATE , a speech therapist stated that she had \u201c worked with [ ORG ] for DATE on feminisation of her voice \u201d , and that \u201c her voice and appearance [ were ] now wholly feminine and consistent with each other \u201d . The third certificate , signed on DATE by PERSON , a psychiatrist , read as follows :","\u201c ... [ ORG ] is under supervision for typical PERSON syndrome , for which a gender reassignment process has been under way for DATE . She has had hormone treatment and the surgery required to make her appearance and behaviour female . It is therefore legitimate , in the interests of her social and professional integration , for her civil status to be brought into line with her appearance and her wishes . ... \u201d","In the fourth certificate , dated DATE , PERSON , a doctor specialising in fundamental psychopathology and psychoanalysis and a psychotherapist , stated that he had started psychotherapy sessions with the first applicant and , in particular , had \u201c noted ... the consistency between Ms [ ORG ] \u2019s statements and her preferred gender identity \u201d .","On DATE the first applicant brought proceedings against ORG in the GPE tribunal de grande instance seeking a declaration that he was now female and that his first name was PERSON ( a female forename ) . He submitted , in particular , the medical certificates of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE , and the certificate issued by PERSON On DATE ORG requested a multi - disciplinary expert assessment , on the grounds that the applicant \u2019s surgery had been performed abroad .","On DATE , in an interlocutory judgment , the GPE tribunal de grande instance stressed as follows :","\u201c Where a diagnosis of gender identity disorder has been made following a thorough assessment and the person concerned has undergone irreversible physical changes for therapeutic purposes , it is appropriate to consider that , although the person \u2019s new gender status is imperfect in that the chromosomal make - up is unchanged , he or she is closer , in terms of physical appearance , mindset and social integration , to the preferred gender than to the gender assigned at birth . \u201d","However , the court further found :","\u201c Irrespective of the status of the authors of the medical certificates produced in support of the application , the need for a firm diagnosis means that a multidisciplinary expert assessment should be carried out in order to establish the applicant \u2019s current state from a physiological , biological and psychological perspective and to investigate the persistence of the alleged disorder in his past . \u201d","The court appointed CARDINAL experts \u2013 a psychiatrist , an endocrinologist and a gynaecologist DATE and requested them , after interviewing and examining the first applicant and consulting the medical certificates and operation reports submitted , to :","\u201c ( a ) describe the applicant \u2019s current physical state ... and the presence or absence of any external or internal genitalia of either sex ; order , with the applicant \u2019s consent , any samples and laboratory tests capable of establishing the biological and genetic characteristics of the applicant \u2019s sex ; state whether a mistake could have been made in the sex recorded on the birth certificate , or an organic or biological change could have occurred later ; look for traces of possible surgery aimed at bringing about or completing a transformation of the genitalia or secondary sexual characteristics ; state whether the patient has been treated with either medication or hormones ; state whether the surgery or hormone treatment was carried out on account of pre - existing physical anomalies or because of the patient \u2019s psychological state , leaving aside his deliberate intentions ;","( b ) describe [ the first applicant \u2019s ] mental state and behaviour as regards his gender and , in so far as possible , indicate their origins and trace their development ; report on any course of psychotherapy followed , specifying its duration and outcome ; state whether the patient suffers from any mental disorder and , if so , specify the nature of that disorder ;","( c ) express a view on the possible existence of gender identity disorder , giving reasons for making or ruling out such a diagnosis ; state whether , in the light of all the available individual medical data ( physiological , biological and physical ) , the person concerned should be regarded as male or female . \u201d","The court ruled that the costs of the expert assessment should be met by the first applicant , and ordered him to deposit a sum of MONEY ( ORG ) for that purpose .","The first applicant refused to submit to an expert assessment on the grounds that this type of assessment , as well as being very costly , also failed to respect the physical and mental integrity of the person concerned . In his view the documents he had submitted , which had been written by specialist doctors and noted the genuine nature of his change of gender , were more than sufficient and it was not necessary to make him undergo a further battery of traumatic tests .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE the Deputy President of ORG refused the first applicant leave to appeal against this interlocutory judgment .","On DATE the GPE tribunal de grande instance rejected the first applicant \u2019s request . It stressed that the certificates produced by the first applicant , however informative , did not answer the court \u2019s questions regarding the origin , nature , persistence and consequences of the disorder in question , and that the doctors who had been consulted could not , in the space of a few lines intended to allow the operation to go ahead , carry out the work of CARDINAL experts instructed on the basis of a very wide - ranging and detailed mandate . The court noted in particular that the certificates did not mention the applicant \u2019s mental state and attitude with regard to his gender , or express a view as to the origin of the disorder and its development . Likewise , they did not specify whether the first applicant suffered from mental - health problems and whether he had followed a course of psychotherapy , nor did they provide any information on his current state , having been written prior to his gender reassignment . The court added that patients who underwent surgery in GPE submitted a comprehensive file covering all the disciplines concerned as a precondition of reassignment surgery , something which the doctor who had operated on the first applicant in GPE had apparently not required . In order to have their costs covered by the social - security scheme , patients in GPE had to undergo a whole series of rigorous examinations . The court found that , in the light of the evidence in the file , the applicant should submit willingly to the expert assessment . In accordance with LAW , which authorised the courts to draw all the appropriate inferences from a party \u2019s refusal to cooperate with an investigative measure , the court found that , in the absence of a multi - disciplinary expert assessment , the first applicant \u2019s request had not been sufficiently substantiated .","Following an appeal by the first applicant ORG , in a judgment of DATE , upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE in so far as it had rejected the first applicant \u2019s request for the indication of gender on his birth certificate to be corrected .","First of all , ORG inferred from LAW that \u201c where , following medical and surgical treatment undergone for therapeutic purposes \u201d , a person with a gender identity disorder no longer possessed all the characteristics of his or her original sex and had taken on a physical appearance closer to that of the opposite sex , which matched his or her social behaviour , the principle of respect for private life warranted amending the civil - status records to indicate the sex corresponding to the person \u2019s appearance .","NORP However , ORG found that , in the light of the documents submitted by the first applicant , it was \u201c not established that he no longer possesse[d ] all the characteristics of the male sex \u201d . It stressed in that regard that , although the psychiatrists PERSON . and Ba . had given a diagnosis of gender identity disorder in their certificates of DATE and DATE , they had not noted the \u201c absence of mental - health problems \u201d . ORG further noted that the hormone treatment referred to in the certificates issued by PERSON on DATE and DATE dated back a long time . It also found that the certificate drawn up by PERSON , the doctor who had operated on the first applicant in GPE on DATE , was \u201c extremely brief \u201d and consisted merely in a list of items of medical information that did not make clear whether the gender reassignment surgery had been effective . Furthermore , the documentation produced by the first applicant concerning the clinic , which had been taken from the Internet , was not sufficient to establish either the scientific and surgical reputation of the surgeon who had performed the operation or whether the surgery had complied with standard medical practice . Nor was this demonstrated by Dr W. \u2019s certificate of CARDINAL DATE , \u201c owing to the lack of any detail \u201d .","ORG went on to observe that the first applicant had refused persistently on principle to submit to an expert assessment and had not cooperated in the assessment ordered by the lower court , \u201c on the irrelevant pretext of protection of his private life , even though the aim [ had been ] to establish that a person presenting with a gender identity disorder no longer possessed all the characteristics of the sex assigned at birth \u201d . The court stressed that \u201c the possible interference with private life [ had been ] proportionate to the requirement to establish the person \u2019s gender identity , which [ was ] a component of civil status that [ was ] subject to the publicorder principle of inalienability \u201d .","ORG found , however , that the fact that the first applicant was known by a female forename \u2013 as was clear from numerous statements from those close to him \u2013 allied to his conviction that he was female , the fact that he had had various medical treatments and operations , and the \u201c reality of his social life \u201d , meant that he had a legitimate interest in changing his male forenames to female ones . The court therefore ordered that his forenames be corrected on his birth certificate .","The first applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment of DATE .","He argued , firstly , that the right to respect for private life meant that gender reassignment should be authorised for persons whose physical appearance was closer to that of the opposite gender , to which their social behaviour corresponded . He criticised ORG refusal of his request to have the indication of his gender amended because he had refused to cooperate in an expert assessment aimed at determining the origins of his gender identity disorder and its development , and at ascertaining that he no longer had all the characteristics of the male sex . In his view , in ruling in this way after noting that he was known by a female forename , that he was convinced that he belonged to the female sex , and that he had had various medical and surgical treatments and lived in society as a woman , ORG had breached LAW . The first applicant referred , in particular , to the position of the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe as set out in his issue paper of DATE entitled \u201c Human rights and gender identity \u201d , and to LAW ( DATE ) of ORG of ORG on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","Secondly , he argued that it had been fully established by the medical certificates he had submitted that he was transgender , that he had undergone surgery which made him a woman , and that his physical appearance and social behaviour were female . In ruling that these documents were insufficient to establish the existence of the conditions required for gender reassignment , and criticising him for not cooperating with the expert assessment , ORG had therefore distorted the evidence .","Thirdly , he alleged a violation of LAW taken in conjunction with LAW , taking the view that ORG , in finding that he should have submitted to the expert assessment and in dismissing his appeal , had based its assessment on discriminatory grounds .","On DATE ORG ( ORG , Bulletin CARDINAL , I , no . CARDINAL ) dismissed the appeal in the following terms :","\u201c ... In order to substantiate a request to have the gender markers on a birth certificate corrected , the person concerned must demonstrate , in view of the widely accepted position within the scientific community , that he or she actually suffers from the gender identity disorder in question and that the change in his or her appearance is irreversible . After examining the documents submitted , without distorting them , and having noted , firstly , that the certificate describing surgery performed in GPE was very brief ( being confined to a list of items of medical information and saying nothing about the effectiveness of the operation ) and , secondly , that [ the first applicant ] refused in principle to undergo the expert assessment ordered by the first - instance court , ORG was entitled to refuse the application for correction of the gender markers on the appellant \u2019s birth certificate ... \u201d","The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .","He submitted that , although he had been entered in the register of births as male , he had been aware from a very young age of belonging to the female gender .","Owing to social pressure he had tried to hide his true nature and had married twice while living with the male identity entered on his birth certificate . However the marriages , from which he had children , had ended in divorce .","He dressed as a woman and was perceived by others as a woman . Since DATE he had been undergoing treatment with feminising hormones and had undergone genital reconstruction surgery .","On DATE the second applicant brought proceedings against ORG in the NORP tribunal de grande instance seeking an order for his birth certificate to be corrected by replacing the word \u201c male \u201d with \u201c female \u201d and replacing his male forenames with the name \u201c \u00c9milie \u201d . He referred in particular to a certificate issued in DATE by PERSON , a psychiatrist and specialist in transgender issues , stating that the second applicant was a transgender person .","The court gave judgment on DATE . It noted that the second applicant had merely filed a few invoices dated DATE and issued in the name of \u201c \u00c9milie \u201d Gar\u00e7on , CARDINAL statements made by witnesses in DATE saying that they had known the second applicant for DATE , knew that he was a \u201c transgender \u201d person ( or \u201c transsexual \u201d , as CARDINAL of them put it ) and had seen him \u201c evolve as a woman without any apparent difficulty \u201d , and a certificate dated DATE signed by the endocrinologist PERSON , according to which the second applicant had been receiving treatment for gender dysphoria since DATE and taking feminising hormones since DATE , a treatment that was well tolerated and effective . Noting also that the second applicant had not submitted the certificate from PERSON , the court found that he had not \u201c [ demonstrated ] that he was actually transgender as claimed \u201d . As he had not demonstrated that he actually suffered from the alleged disorder , his request had to be refused , since a change to the indication of gender in civil - status documents \u201c was possible only in order to make a proven de facto situation official \u201d . The court held that it had to refuse the request for a change of forename on the same grounds , as that request was merely secondary to the request for a change in civil status .","On DATE , following an appeal by the second applicant , ORG upheld the judgment of DATE giving the following reasons :","\u201c ... While the principle of the inalienability of civil status precludes the law from recognising a change wilfully sought by an individual , it does not imply that civil status can not be changed .","Where a genuine gender identity disorder that is medically recognised and untreatable has been diagnosed following a rigorous assessment , and the transgender person has undergone irreversible physical changes for therapeutic purposes , it is appropriate to consider that , although the person \u2019s new gender status is imperfect in that the chromosomal make - up is unchanged , he or she is closer , in terms of physical appearance , mindset and social integration , to the preferred gender than to the gender assigned at birth . In these circumstances , and since LAW the birth certificate must mention the sex of the individual concerned , the principle of change should be accepted .","In the present case PERSON ... was entered in the civilstatus registers as male .","It is up to the appellant to give reasons , in particular on the basis of medical evidence , why he should be regarded as female as he requests .","The appellant claims to be a transgender person who has lived with a female gender identity for DATE . He argues that the disparity between his preferred gender and the gender assigned to him at birth is sufficient to warrant a change in civil status without his first having to demonstrate that he has undergone gender reassignment surgery .","Regarding the medical aspect he has simply submitted , as he did before the firstinstance court , a certificate issued by Dr [ T. ] dated DATE , written on the headed paper of Dr [ NORP S .- B. ] , in which that doctor \u2018 certifies that the endocrinologist Dr [ S .- B. ] has been treating PERSON ( \u00c9milie ) Gar\u00e7on for gender dysphoria ... since DATE , and specifies that the appellant has been receiving treatment with feminising hormones since DATE and that the treatment is well tolerated and effective .","This medical certificate stating that the appellant followed a course of feminising hormone treatment from DATE to DATE does not in itself demonstrate the existence of a permanent physical or physiological change and hence the irreversible nature of the gender reassignment process .","An expert assessment appears pointless since the appellant , who rejects the idea of having to undergo genital surgery , does not mention any plastic surgery performed in connection with the current course of hormone treatment , and has not produced any opinion by a psychiatrist capable of demonstrating the existence and persistence of the alleged disorder , although PERSON birth certificate states that he has been married twice ... and divorced twice ... \u201d","The second applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment of DATE . He argued in particular that , in refusing his requests on the pretext that he had not demonstrated either the existence of \u201c permanent physical or physiological change and hence the irreversible nature of the gender reassignment process \u201d , or \u201c the existence and persistence of the alleged disorder \u201d , ORG had breached LAW , since the right to respect for private life implied the right for individuals to define their sexual identity and to have their civil - status documents amended to reflect their preferred gender identity , without having to demonstrate the existence of a gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria , or to undergo a prior process of irreversible gender reassignment . Making the right to amendment of civil - status documents subject to proof of having undergone an irreversible process of gender reassignment amounted to requiring the holders of that right to be sterilised in order to exercise it , thereby interfering with their dignity and with due respect for their bodies and the intimacy of their private lives . The second applicant inferred from this that there had been a violation of LAW of the fact that ORG had required him to furnish proof of having undergone that process . He added that it was discriminatory and contrary to LAW to make this right subject to such proof and to proof of a gender identity disorder or gender dysphoria .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) dismissed the appeal on points of law in the following terms :","\u201c ... In order to substantiate a request for correction of the gender markers on a birth certificate , the person concerned must demonstrate , in view of the widely accepted position within the scientific community , that he or she actually suffers from the gender identity disorder in question and that the change in his or her appearance is irreversible .","Furthermore , after noting that [ the second applicant ] had merely produced a certificate issued by a doctor on DATE on the headed paper of a different doctor , in which the former certified that the latter , an endocrinologist , was treating [ the second applicant ] for gender dysphoria , and which stated that the patient had been receiving treatment with feminising hormones since DATE , ORG found that this medical certificate alone did not demonstrate the existence or persistence of a gender identity disorder , or the irreversible nature of the gender reassignment process . These are not discriminatory conditions nor do they infringe the principles set out in DATE and CARDINAL of LAW or Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , as they are based on a fair balance between the requirements of legal certainty and the inalienability of civil status on the one hand , and the protection of private life and respect for the human body on the other ... \u201d","The third applicant was born in DATE and lives in Essey - les - PERSON .","He submitted that , although he had been entered in the register of births as male , he had been aware from a very young age of belonging to the female gender . He had lived with a woman from DATE and they had had a child together in DATE .","The third applicant said that he had hidden his true nature for a long time as he had been afraid of being bullied and later of losing custody of his daughter . Once his daughter was grown up he had adapted his appearance and social conduct to match his female gender identity . While most of the documents he used in everyday life reflected his gender identity , this was not the case of his civil - status documents , passport , driving licence , vehicle registration papers or entry in the national identity register . As a result , he was constantly obliged to refer to his transgender identity , to the detriment of his private life .","On DATE the third applicant brought proceedings against ORG in the PERSON tribunal de grande instance seeking an order for his birth certificate to be corrected by replacing the word \u201c male \u201d with \u201c female \u201d and for his forenames to be replaced by the name \u201c PERSON \u201d .","The PERSON tribunal de grande instance delivered an initial judgment on DATE . It pointed out that it was \u201c now unanimously recognised by both domestic and NORP case - law that transgender persons [ had ] the right to respect for their private life \u201d and were therefore entitled to have their gender and forenames amended on their civil - status documents . However , the court stressed that a number of conditions had to be met , stating as follows :","\u201c [ T]he gender identity disorder [ must ] be established not only medically ( usually by a multi - disciplinary team of doctors , surgeons , an endocrinologist , a psychologist and a psychiatrist ) , but also judicially , either by means of an expert assessment ( although the court is not required to order one ) or on the basis of medical certificates produced by the person concerned establishing with certainty that he or she has undergone medical treatment and surgery in order to achieve gender reassignment . \u201d","The court went on to find as follows :","\u201c Persons wishing to have their gender changed in their civil - status documents must demonstrate that they have undergone medical and surgical treatment for therapeutic purposes and have had previous surgery to remove the external characteristics of their original sex .","Hence , only \u2018 ORG transgender persons can have the gender markers in their civil - status documents changed , that is to say , persons who have already undergone an irreversible gender reassignment process .","In other words , a court may order ORG civil - status documents to be amended to reflect their preferred new gender only after they have genuinely altered their sexual anatomy to make it conform as closely as possible to their preferred gender .","These medical and surgical conditions are explained by the fact that a genuine gender identity disorder , which is characterised by \u2018 a deeply held and unshakeable feeling of belonging to the opposite gender to one \u2019s genetically , anatomically and legally assigned gender , accompanied by an intense and consistent need to change one \u2019s gender and civil status\u2019 , must be distinguished from other related but different concepts such as transvestism , which is based solely on reversible outward appearance and does not entail a change of anatomical sex .","In the present case , although PERSON is female in appearance and has provided documents and invoices issued to him by certain bodies in the name of PERSON , these factors do not enable the court to assess whether he has actually changed gender . At the hearing , when questioned by the President regarding any treatment he may have undergone , PERSON took a militant stance DATE as he is perfectly entitled to do \u2013 and invoked the confidential nature of his private life ... \u201d","The court therefore stayed the proceedings concerning the third applicant \u2019s requests and ordered him to \u201c produce in the proceedings any medical documents relating to the medical and surgical treatment undergone and capable of demonstrating that he [ had ] actually changed gender \u201d .","The third applicant refused to produce any medical documents , taking the view that he had demonstrated sufficiently that he was physically and psychologically female and was integrated socially as a woman . He simply stated that his general practitioner had prescribed hormone treatment for him which meant that he had female secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts . ORG concluded that it was not possible to amend his civil status without proof of gender reassignment surgery .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON tribunal de grande instance noted that the third applicant had not produced medical and surgical evidence of gender reassignment , and therefore rejected his request . The judgment reiterated the reasoning of the judgment of DATE . The court stated as follows :","\u201c [ A change of gender in civil - status documents may be granted only to ] \u2018 ORG transgender persons , that is , to persons who have already undergone irreversible gender reassignment , and not to persons who merely claim to be \u2018 ORG on the grounds that they are regarded socially as belonging to the gender corresponding to their outward appearance , but who oppose any gender reassignment surgery or refuse to provide medical and surgical evidence of such reassignment having been carried out by means of medical treatment and surgery . \u201d","The court went on to find as follows :","\u201c Granting PERSON request would effectively amount to the creation by the courts of a \u2018 third gender\u2019 , namely persons of female appearance who nevertheless continue to have a male external sexual anatomy but can marry a man . In the opposite case , a person who is male in appearance would continue to have female genitalia and could thus give birth to a child ! ! ! As the case - law currently stands , such a situation is wholly prohibited . \u201d","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It stressed in particular that \u201c the request for a change in civil status [ did ] not necessarily require proof of surgical change such as the removal or alteration of the genitalia , or plastic surgery \u201d , but implied that \u201c the irreversible nature of the gender reassignment process be established in advance \u201d . The court went on to find that the third applicant \u201c [ had ] not provided such intrinsic proof , which [ could ] on no account derive from the fact that he [ was ] regarded by others as female \u201d . It added that respect for private life could not result in the third applicant being exempted from this \u201c obligation to provide proof , which [ was ] not designed to confuse transgenderism and transsexualism but which , besides the inalienability of civil status , [ was ] aimed at ensuring the consistency and reliability of civil - status records \u201d . That requirement , which was legitimate and in no way discriminatory , was not in breach of LAW , and it was not the court \u2019s task to remedy the deficiencies in the evidence adduced by the third applicant .","The third applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of DATE . He argued that the right to respect for private life entailed the right to define one \u2019s gender identity and to have civil - status documents amended to reflect one \u2019s preferred gender , without a prior obligation to undergo an irreversible gender reassignment process and provide proof thereof . In finding that he should have furnished proof of this irreversible process , ORG had therefore breached LAW , especially since neither the principle of the inalienability of civil status nor the need for consistency and reliability of civil - status records made it necessary for individuals to undergo an irreversible process of gender reassignment , and provide proof thereof , in order to have their civilstatus documents amended . The third applicant added that it was discriminatory and contrary to LAW to make individuals\u2019 right to have their civil - status documents amended to reflect their preferred gender conditional upon proof that they had undergone irreversible gender reassignment .","The third applicant \u2019s appeal was examined at the same time as the second applicant \u2019s .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) dismissed the appeal on the following grounds :","\u201c ... In order to substantiate a request for correction of the gender markers on a birth certificate , the person concerned must demonstrate , in view of the widely accepted position within the scientific community , that he or she actually suffers from the gender identity disorder in question and that the change in his or her appearance is irreversible .","Given that [ the third applicant ] has not furnished intrinsic evidence of the irreversible nature of the gender reassignment process in his case , which can not derive from the sole fact that he is seen by others as female , the dismissal of his claims by ORG did not infringe the principles laid down under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention ... , but rather struck a fair balance between the requirements of legal certainty and the inalienability of civil status on the one hand , and the protection of private life on the other ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178355","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KABARDOKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["DATE the applicants took part in the clean - up operation at the GPE nuclear disaster site . They were subsequently registered disabled and became entitled to various social benefits and compensation paid on a regular basis .","Considering these benefits insufficient , the applicants together with other CARDINAL people , sued ORG for additional compensation corresponding to non - pecuniary damage suffered as a result of their participation in the operation .","NORP On different dates in DATE and DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) allowed their claims in part and awarded each claimant , including the applicants , compensation ranging MONEY ( RUB ) and RUB CARDINAL for nonpecuniary damage .","No appeals were lodged against these judgments within the statutory DATE time - limit . The judgments became final . Some judgments in respect of several applicants remained unenforced ( see \u201c Enforcement status \u201d in the Appendix ) .","NORP On different dates in DATE and DATE the domestic courts granted the defendant authority \u2019s request to extend the time - limit for appeal essentially on the ground that the defendant authority had not been served with the impugned judgments . Subsequently the regional ORG quashed the judgments delivered in the applicants\u2019 favour on the grounds that they had been based on retrospective application of the law . The applicants were ordered to repay the sums received under the judgments .","The applicants lodged a supervisory review application . There is no indication that they requested the enforcement proceedings to be suspended pending the examination of their supervisory review application .","DATE and DATE the Presidium of the regional ORG partially quashed the appeal judgments as regards the applicants\u2019 obligation to reimburse the sums paid ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157696","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KURUSHIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .","DATE and DATE the applicant was held in the ORG remand prison in FAC in connection with the criminal proceedings against him . According to the applicant , his cell measuring QUANTITY was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and accommodated CARDINAL inmates . The applicant was allowed to take a TIME DATE walk in a recreation yard measuring QUANTITY . According to the floor plans provided by the Government , the applicant \u2019s cell measured QUANTITY and contained CARDINAL sleeping places .","After his conviction had become final , the applicant served his sentence in the IK-CARDINAL facility , a correctional colony located in LOC . CARDINAL the applicant was held in disciplinary cell no . CARDINAL . He submitted that this cell measured QUANTITY and offered CARDINAL sleeping places while actually accommodating up to CARDINAL inmates . During his detention in this cell , the applicant was taken , together with CARDINAL other inmates , for a TIME DATE walk to an outside recreation area which measured QUANTITY . According to the documents provided by the Government , disciplinary cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY , contained CARDINAL sleeping places but accommodated CARDINAL inmates . The outside yard provided QUANTITY for each inmate ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145741","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF REMETIN v. CROATIA (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Georgieva;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born on DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , at TIME , FAC ( FAC uprava DATE , FAC postaja GPE ; hereinafter : the \u201c police \u201d ) received an anonymous call informing the police that a mass fight was planned in the vicinity of ORG in GPE ( NORP - tehni\u010dka \u0161kola u ORG ) . CARDINAL police officers were immediately sent to the scene .","When the police officers arrived at the scene there was no fighting going on but inside the school they found the applicant with an injury on his forehead . He was immediately taken to hospital and examined by a doctor . The applicant \u2019s medical record of DATE reads :","\u201c Diagnosis","ORG reg supraorbicularis lat dex","Medical history and status","Allegedly took part in fighting and sustained a cut of QUANTITY above the right brow bone . He did not lose consciousness , he recollects the event , he did not vomit . No neurological symptoms .","The wound was treated , no sign of fracture .","An antibiotic is recommended , bandage every third day in clinic .","Follow - up by a surgeon if necessary . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was interviewed by the police . He stated that he had been standing in front of the school together with his classmates and that all of a sudden he had been hit on the head with a rock , which had knocked him to the ground . His friends had helped him to stand up and carried him inside the school . He himself had not been involved in any fighting and had had no idea that something might happen .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ; hereinafter : the \u201c ORG Attorney \u2019s Office \u201d ) against unknown perpetrators , under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) , alleging that on DATE he had been injured by a group of hooligans in front of his school . CARDINAL of them , who he could not identify , had thrown a rock at his head hitting him on the forehead . Blood had immediately started to run and CARDINAL of his friends had to carry him inside the school .","The applicant submitted the medical record of DATE and explained that his father had erased part of the text on the medical record which suggested that he had taken part in a fight because he had not wanted to have something untrue noted on the record .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG forwarded the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint to the police and requested a report on the matter .","NORP In the period between CARDINAL and DATE the police interviewed several people , including the doctor who had drafted the medical report of DATE . He considered that the applicant \u2019s injury should be classed as a minor bodily injury . The police also questioned PERSON and GPE , CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s schoolmates , who confirmed his version of events .","The police also obtained a medical opinion of DATE recommending that the applicant undergo further neurological examination .","On DATE the police informed the ORG Attorney \u2019s Office of the results of their preliminary investigation . The relevant part of the police report reads :","\u201c ... a group of boys from GPE , headed by PERSON , in which GPE and GPE and several other unidentified individuals were involved , went to the front of ORG on DATE in order to take revenge [ for a previous fight between a student from ORG and PERSON ] . When the students from the school saw the group of boys from LOC they ran away or headed back into the school , while a group of students attempted to leave the schoolyard passing by the [ group of boys from GPE ] . At that point the boys from the FAC group started to throw rocks at them and CARDINAL rock hit PERSON on his head , causing him a minor bodily injury , namely a cut on his forehead . Then some students from PERSON , among whom was ORG , started to throw rocks back . During this clash CARDINAL rock hit GPE from the group of boys from GPE on his head , causing him a cut on his forehead , which was a minor bodily injury . \u201d","In connection with the attack , on DATE the applicant underwent another medical examination . The doctor found no damage to his brain but an inflammation of his sinuses and referred him for further treatment .","On DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s father was allowed to inspect the case file kept by ORG .","On DATE the applicant asked for information concerning his case from the police on the grounds that he wanted to lodge an application with the ORG .","On DATE he lodged a civil claim for damages with the State Attorney \u2019s Office on account of his physical and mental suffering caused by the attack . He pointed out that the police report had identified a number of individuals who had taken part in the attack and that a number of people had been interviewed . He further argued that he , and his father , had already orally requested that the police and ORG provide copies of the relevant documents from the case file but that their request had been denied . He therefore asked for copies of all the relevant reports on the grounds that he wished to lodge an application with the ORG .","The police replied on DATE and CARDINAL DATE informing the applicant that he should submit his request for information to ORG .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG informed the applicant that he could come and inspect the case file if he so wished . The State Attorney \u2019s ORG also pointed out that the police had not identified the persons who had injured him , which meant that the case was being treated as a criminal complaint against an unknown perpetrator , and that it has been all the time open to the applicant to lodge a criminal complaint against any individual he suspected of committing the offence .","On DATE the applicant asked the State Attorney \u2019s ORG to allow him to copy the relevant documents from the case file because he wanted to institute proceedings before the ORG , pointing out that by the letter of CARDINAL DATE he had only been allowed to inspect , and not copy , the case file .","By letters of DATE and DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG informed the applicant that he could come on DATE and CARDINAL DATE to inspect and copy the case file .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant lodged an application with the ORG . He did not go to the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG to inspect the case file .","On DATE , at around CARDINAL.CARDINAL TIME , the police were informed that there was a fight in bar C. in GPE . CARDINAL police officers were immediately sent to the scene .","At the scene the police officers found several people , including the applicant and PERSON , with visible injuries .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who found that he had several cuts on his head and shoulder , which were characterised as minor bodily injuries .","The police also interviewed the applicant and several other people . The applicant stated that he had been drinking in bar C. with his friend PERSON At CARDINAL point a man had approached them and head - butted the applicant for no reason . After that , several other people had started to throw glasses and bottles at the applicant and , after he had fallen to the floor , to kick him . He managed to escape from the bar but then he realised that he had left his t - shirt , shoes and necklace behind in the bar . He had therefore returned to search for his things but was again attacked by the same group , who continued throwing bottles and glasses at him and , once he had fallen to the floor , to kick him . He managed to escape from the bar again and was then attended to by the police and other emergency services .","On DATE the police indicted the applicant and CARDINAL other people in ORG ( ORG ) on charges of breach of the public peace and order . There is no information on the outcome of these proceedings .","On DATE the applicant asked for information concerning his case from the police on the grounds that he wanted to lodge criminal complaints before the domestic authorities and an application with the ORG .","The police replied on DATE and CARDINAL DATE informing the applicant that he should submit his request for information to ORG .","On DATE the applicant again asked the police to provide him with all relevant documents in their possession , arguing that the police had been trying to cover up the attack , which he claimed had been perpetrated by the group from the Moko\u0161ica neighbourhood .","On DATE the police replied , reiterating their previous advice that the case file had been forwarded to ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG against GPE , PERSON and GPE , alleging that they had attacked him and his friend PERSON in bar C. He pointed out that they were part of a group from the Moko\u0161ica neighbourhood and that he had already been attacked by individuals from the same group on DATE . However , there had been no response by the domestic authorities to this attack . Lastly , he stressed this was a group of \u201c skinheads \u201d which had been terrorising the whole city .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG invited the applicant for an interview and requested that the police provide all the information they had concerning the offence .","On DATE the police replied that they had instituted minor offences proceedings in ORG concerning the events in question .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG questioned the applicant and the record of his statement , together with the criminal complaint , was forwarded to the police on DATE with an order for further investigation into the matter .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG questioned GPE , who confirmed the applicant \u2019s version of events and described how he himself had also been attacked .","On CARDINAL DATE the police reported to ORG that they had questioned several people and were searching for other witnesses to the events .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s Office urged the police to speed up their work .","On DATE the police submitted a report to ORG .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG asked an investigating judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u ORG ) to conduct a judicial investigation concerning the applicant \u2019s complaints .","In the period CARDINAL and DATE the investigating judge questioned the applicant and several other individuals and commissioned a medical expert report concerning the applicant \u2019s injuries .","The medical expert submitted his report on DATE . The relevant part of the report reads :","\u201c The medical records indicate that PERSON sustained cuts on the area of his left brow and right shoulder , and abrasions on the right elbow .","Each of these injuries itself and all the injuries taken together represent a minor bodily injury . ... \u201d","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint against DATE on the grounds that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed any offence against the applicant . The applicant was instructed that he could take over the criminal prosecution against ORG as subsidiary prosecutor .","On DATE , ORG indicted GPE and PERSON in ORG ( PERSON ) on charges of violent behaviour . The relevant part of the indictment reads :","\u201c ... on DATE , at QUANTITY , in GPE , in bar C. , based on a previous agreement , for no particular reason and in order to act violently , together with other unidentified persons , PERSON approached PERSON , who was sitting at the bar , and head - butted and punched him several times on the head , after which M.T. , together with other unidentified persons , continued to punch [ PERSON ] all over his head and body , also throwing bottles and glasses at him , which made PERSON leave the bar in fear , and after he had returned for his things , PERSON approached him again and punched him several times on the head , while other unidentified persons also started to punch and kick [ PERSON ] , and , after PERSON fell to the floor , continued to hit him , which caused PERSON [ to suffer ] cuts on the area of his left brow and right shoulder , and abrasions on the right elbow , which are minor bodily injuries , and subjected him to helplessness and feelings of anguish and inferiority ... \u201d","On DATE the president of the trial panel of ORG to whom the case had been assigned asked the president of ORG to exempt him from the case on the grounds of his friendship with the applicant \u2019s father . The president of the court agreed to exempt him from the case on DATE .","On DATE ORG , in a separate set of proceedings , issued a penal order in respect of an individual , ORG , on charges of making death threats against the applicant with the aim of intimidating him to withdraw his criminal complaint . It would appear that these proceedings are still pending .","The first trial hearing before ORG , scheduled for DATE , was adjourned due to the absence of a defence lawyer .","Another hearing , scheduled for DATE , was also adjourned because the applicant wished to retain a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings .","A further hearing was held on DATE at which the trial court heard the applicant \u2019s evidence and questioned another witness . It also commissioned a medical expert report .","The medical expert submitted his report on DATE . He found that the applicant had sustained a number of cuts on his face around the left eye and right shoulder , as well as abrasions of the right arm . He found no other objectively identified injuries .","According to the available information no further procedural actions were taken and the proceedings are still pending before ORG ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168782","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ERM\u00c9NYI v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .","Having been a judge since DATE and a member of ORG since DATE , on CARDINAL DATE he was appointed Vice - President for a DATE term by the President of the Republic , after being proposed for the post by the President of ORG .","The mandate of the President of ORG was prematurely terminated , upon the entry into force of LAW DATE , in reaction to his criticisms and publicly expressed views regarding proposed judicial reforms ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","In connection with these events , a proposal for the termination of the applicant \u2019s mandate as Vice - President was submitted to ORG on DATE , and was adopted on DATE in the form of LAW no . ORG of DATE on ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . Accordingly , as of DATE , the applicant was removed from his position as Vice - President , DATE and DATE before the scheduled expiry of his mandate . He remained in office as president of CARDINAL of the Civil Law division benches of the GPE ( the historical appellation by which ORG was renamed in DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court challenging the termination of his position . In its judgment no . CARDINAL . ( III . CARDINAL . ) ORG , adopted by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , ORG rejected the constitutional complaint . It held that the premature termination of the applicant \u2019s term of office as Vice - President had not violated LAW , since it had been sufficiently justified by the full - scale reorganisation of the judicial system and important changes made in respect of the tasks and competences of the President of the GPE . It noted that the GPE \u2019s tasks and competences had been broadened , in particular with regard to the supervision of the legality of municipal council regulations ( for the relevant parts of ORG judgment see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) .","CARDINAL judges dissented and considered that the changes concerning the judicial system , the new GPE and the person of its president had not fundamentally affected the status of the Vice - President . The position of the Vice - President within the organisation of the supreme judicial instance had not changed . Under LAW LXVI of DATE on ORG , the Vice - President was already entitled to act in the stead of the President of ORG only with regard to managerial tasks at ORG , but not with regard to his or her functions as President of ORG ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 PERSON ) . The dissenting judges concluded that the premature termination of the applicant \u2019s term of office had not been sufficiently justified by the reorganisation of the judicial system ; and that it had weakened the guarantees in respect of the separation of powers , had been contrary to the prohibition on retroactive legislation , and had breached the principle of the rule of law and the right to a remedy .","On DATE , as a consequence of the lowering of the judges\u2019 mandatory retirement age pursuant to section CARDINAL ( ha ) of Act no . CLXII of DATE on ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) , the President of the Republic released the applicant from his duties as a judge with effect from DATE .","NORP In its judgment no . CARDINAL . ( VII . CARDINAL ) AB of DATE , ORG declared unconstitutional and consequently annulled the provisions on the compulsory retirement age of judges ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . On the basis of that judgment , ORG found , in a first - instance judgment of CARDINAL DATE , that the termination of the applicant \u2019s judicial service had been unlawful and reinstated him \u2013 without , however , ordering his reinstatement in his previous position as president of CARDINAL of the Civil Law division benches of the GPE .","Following ORG judgment of DATE , ORG adopted a modified scheme governing the reduction of judges\u2019 compulsory retirement age and provided different options for those who had already been affected by the unconstitutional legislation ( see Act no . XX of DATE referred to in LANGUAGE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . The applicant opted not to be reinstated and received lump - sum compensation for the termination of post as a judge ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153960","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LUX","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF A.T. v. LUXEMBOURG","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and was detained in GPE at the time he lodged his application .","On DATE ORG ordered an investigation against the applicant on charges of rape and indecent assault on a girl under DATE , with the aggravating circumstance that the perpetrator held a position of authority over her .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE under a NORP Arrest Warrant . The Government indicated that the applicant was presented with the NORP arrest warrant , which contained a statement in LANGUAGE of the facts and of the nature of the offences with which he was charged . The applicant submitted that he had been placed in \u201c detention pending extradition \u201d in a NORP prison , and that it did not transpire from the criminal file that the NORP arrest warrant had been served on him at that precise time .","On DATE the applicant was surrendered to the GPE authorities . At TIME he was officially served with the NORP arrest warrant on his arrival at GPE airport , and at TIME he was questioned at the police station in the presence of an interpreter . It transpires from the police report of CARDINAL DATE that \u201c [ the applicant ] initially refused to make any statement . With repeated reference to NORP legislation , he claimed his right to legal assistance . After having received the requisite explanations regarding the procedure to be followed in cases such as his , he agreed to take part in the questioning \u201d . The applicant was informed of the victim \u2019s statements and the suspicions against him , and was questioned on the facts . He stated his version of events and contested all the charges against him , denying any guilt . At the end of the interrogation he requested legal assistance for DATE interrogation before the investigating judge . At TIME he was transferred to FAC .","On TIME DATE he was questioned by the investigating judge in the presence of an interpreter . In that connection , the TIME of the interrogation read as follows : at TIME the investigating judge checked the identity of the applicant \u2013 who now held accused ( PERSON ) status \u2013 and informed him that a criminal investigation ( Untersuchungsverfahren ) had been initiated against him concerning the offences with which he had been charged . The applicant was then informed of his right to choose a defence lawyer from among the members of ORG or to obtain the assistance of an officially appointed lawyer . The applicant availed himself of that right , and was assigned Mr PERSON as his officially appointed lawyer . The applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer and an interpreter ; he made statements on the facts and confirmed his statements to the police . The interrogation ended at TIME","It transpires from the case file that the applicant , who had been remanded in custody , was released on DATE by ORG subject to his remaining in GPE , reporting regularly to the police and refraining from contacting his victim .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the criminal division of ORG sentenced the applicant to a DATE prison term accompanied by a DATE partial probation period . The judges reiterated the statements from the victim , the witnesses and the applicant during the judicial and police investigations and during the court hearing . They mentioned the fact that the applicant had constantly changed his \u201c version of events \u201d , and pointed out that according to a credibility analysis none of the evidence gathered had cast any legitimate doubts on the truthfulness of the victim \u2019s statements .","On DATE the criminal division of ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .","The judges observed that the applicant had contested the charges against him throughout the proceedings and that he was maintaining his objections before ORG . They held that the district court had provided a detailed and exhaustive list of the statements by the victim , the applicant and the various witnesses and experts questioned .","They pointed out that the applicant \u2019s lawyer had complained about the fact that after the applicant \u2019s extradition from GPE had had been heard by the police on his arrival in GPE without the benefit of legal assistance , which he had requested but been denied ; the judges therefore concluded as follows :","\u201c As regards the failure to provide for the assistance of a lawyer during the question by police , it transpires from police report ORG \/ JEUN\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/COES of DATE that the accused had initially requested the assistance of a lawyer during the questioning which was to take place in the police station , but that after the applicable procedure had been explained to him he had agreed to give statements without the assistance of counsel . \u201d","In their analysis of the charges against the applicant , the judges noted , among other things , that the latter had not always been consistent in his statements . With particular regard to CARDINAL of the episodes in issue , they referred to the difference between the statements which he had made during the police questioning and his depositions during the first - instance and appeal hearings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . In particular , it declared ill - founded a submission under LAW , on the following grounds :","\u201c Whereas it transpires from the discussion of the submission that the [ applicant ] complains that ORG merely found a violation of the rights of the defence without drawing the requisite conclusions from that finding ;","Whereas , however , ORG held that ... [ see quotation in paragraph CARDINAL ] ;","That , in reaching such a decision the Appeal did not find a violation of the rights of the defence as alleged by the appellant but , on the contrary , concluded that there had been no violation of the rights of the defence inasmuch as the accused had recorded his agreement to making statements in the absence of counsel ;","It follows that the impugned judgment did not violate LAW , as alleged by the applicant ; ... \u201d","NORP The applicant left GPE for GPE ( at an unspecified date ) , and on DATE the prosecution issued a NORP arrest warrant for the purposes of executing DATE judgment .","On DATE , in response to a request from the NORP authorities ( ORG of ORG ) dated CARDINAL DATE , a representative of ORG provided those authorities with information on judicial procedures in GPE . As regards the hearing of DATE , the representative stated in particular that it had transpired from the police report that the applicant , whose statements had been translated by the interpreter , had neither been assisted by a lawyer or been offered legal assistance . As regards the interrogation of DATE , the representative explained that a lawyer officially appointed by the investigating judge had assisted the applicant during the interrogation and for the duration of the ensuing domestic proceedings . She added that anyone asking to consult his or her officially appointed or freely chosen lawyer , before an interrogation , was allowed to do so ; contrary to his assertions , the applicant \u2019s access to his lawyer before the interrogation of CARDINAL DATE had not been restricted .","On DATE the NORP court authorised the applicant \u2019s surrender to the GPE authorities in order to serve his sentence in GPE ; the applicant \u2019s appeal against that decision was dismissed on DATE . According to the case file , the applicant is currently incarcerated in FAC ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173492","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PIVDENBUDTRANS, ZAT AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147886","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HAVAS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the material time the applicant was a managing director of a tour operator limited liability company , ORG .","On an unspecified date criminal investigations were opened against ORG and another limited liability company on suspicion of bankruptcy fraud . On DATE ORG ordered the search of the applicant \u2019s flat and vehicle , since there were grounds to believe that as the managing director of ORG , he kept certain company documents at home .","On DATE the applicant was heard as suspect on charges of bankruptcy fraud .","On DATE the Budapest VI \/ VII District Public Prosecutor \u2019s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant , charging him with bankruptcy fraud .","The first hearing was held by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the Pest Central District Court acquitted the applicant . The judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164003","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"S.C. RED CREDIT SRL v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant company , ORG , was a NORP legal entity based in ORG , founded in DATE . It was initially represented before the ORG by its administrator , GPE From DATE , after the case was communicated to the Government , submissions in respect of the case were made by PERSON , a legal adviser practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant company was authorised to operate as a jewellery pawnbrokers .","According to ORG , on DATE the applicant company had gold stock weighing QUANTITY .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) carried out an inspection of the activities of the applicant company and other companies sharing the same commercial space .","On DATE produced an inventory report of the applicant company \u2019s jewellery stock which had been on display for sale . The report was drawn up in the presence of a representative of the applicant company , who had stated that some of the jewellery had been sold at different prices depending on quality .","On DATE the ORG produced a contravention report fining the applicant company CARDINAL lei ( RON \u2013 approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) because on DATE it had displayed gold jewellery for sale without a licence to sell precious metals , alloys or stones . In addition , it ordered that the gold jewellery that had been on display for sale , which weighed QUANTITY and was worth RON CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , be confiscated .","According to the contravention report , the ORG had cooperated with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to produce it .","The representative of the applicant company who signed the contravention report objected to it on the grounds that the measure taken had been unjust .","The applicant company challenged the report of DATE in the domestic courts .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant company \u2019s action , set aside the report of DATE and ordered the return of the confiscated jewellery . It held that according to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) case - law , proceedings seeking to challenge contravention reports fall under the criminal head of LAW ( \u201c the Convention \u201d ) and therefore the domestic authorities had to comply with the procedural guarantees set out in that Article with regard to criminal proceedings , including the right to be presumed innocent . The court further held that the fine had been imposed on the applicant company under general legal provisions and had been intended as a punishment to deter it from reoffending . Consequently , the burden of proof with regard to the applicant company \u2019s guilt was on the ORG . However , the agency had not submitted any evidence which proved the applicant company \u2019s guilt .","The ORG lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) .","By a final judgment of DATE ORG allowed that appeal , quashed the judgment of the lower court and upheld the report of DATE . It held that according to the documents available , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant company had only been authorised to hold precious metals . However , it had only obtained authorisation to sell them on DATE . Moreover , according to the inventory report signed by the applicant company \u2019s representative without any objection , the report had concerned the items which had been on display for sale . Also , according to the ORG \u2019s case - law , the contravention proceedings had to comply with the procedural requirements provided for under the criminal head of LAW , which concerned both the rebuttal of the right to be presumed innocent and a relative presumption of truth in favour of the contravention report drafted by a ORG authority following its own perception of the events . Consequently , the burden of proof would have been on the ORG authority which had drafted the contravention report and the report could have been set aside only if the ORG authority \u2019s representatives had not been present when the contravention had happened and it had failed to prove the statements made in the report . But the representatives of the said authority had been present when the contravention had been committed and the report had reflected their own perceptions . The report therefore had to be presumed to reflect the truth and the burden of proof had been reverted to the applicant company in order to rebut that presumption .","The court further held that in the inventory report the applicant company \u2019s representative had stated that some of the jewellery had been sold at different prices depending on quality . Furthermore , the contravention report had been signed by the applicant company \u2019s administrator , who had objected to it on the grounds that the measure taken had been unjust , but had not contested the fact that he had been selling jewellery . The contravention report had been lawful and had contained all the lawfully required information . Moreover , the contravention and inventory reports contained similar information about the quantity and value of the items mentioned in them and had been signed by both parties without any objection in this respect . Furthermore , these inconsistencies would not have rendered the contravention report null and void and the applicant company had not proven that it had incurred damage that could have been remedied solely by setting aside the report . Furthermore , absence from the contravention report of information that the fine could have been paid immediately or within TIME had not rendered the report unlawful .","Lastly , the court held that all of the reasons outlined above rendered the applicant company \u2019s argument that the contravention had not existed inadmissible , because it had never intended to sell the jewellery that it had been holding .","On DATE the applicant company signed a merger by acquisition ( fuziune prin absorb\u021bie ) with another company , namely ORG ORG Master Credit SRL . They agreed , inter alia , that the latter company would acquire the applicant company DATE and take over the applicant company \u2019s assets and liabilities . ORG was an associate of ORG ORG Master Credit SRL .","On DATE the applicant company was struck off ( radiat\u0103 ) ORG following the merger .","On DATE PERSON submitted to the ORG a power of attorney signed by the former administrator of the applicant company authorising her to represent it .","NORP In DATE SC IFN Master Credit SRL changed its name to GPE Master Credit Stand - By ORG and then to ORG Stand - By ORG .","NORP In DATE , part of the observations on the admissibility and merits of the case were submitted by PERSON in a document headed \u201c SC Master Credit Stand - By NORP v. GPE \u201d . She did not submit within any of the time - limits allotted by ORG a power of attorney or any other document authorising her to represent ORG ORG Master Credit SRL , ORG - By ORG or PERSON Master C. Stand - By ORG . Furthermore , neither she nor the companies submitted within the relevant time - limits any documents signed directly by any of the companies themselves or by ORG expressly stating that they wished to continue the application .","\u201c Carrying out unauthorised operations with precious metals and stones is a contravention punishable by a fine of CARDINAL [ ORG CARDINAL ] to MONEY [ ORG CARDINAL ] and by confiscation of the goods subject to the contravention . \u201d","... \u201d","The relevant legal provisions concerning the amendments to the legal rules applicable in respect of legislation concerning contraventions are set out in the case of PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL October DATE ) .","LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on commercial companies provided , inter alia , that following a merger the assets and debts of the acquired company were transferred to the acquiring company in accordance with the terms of the merger plan .","Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ( former Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) provides that applicants shall keep the ORG informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-153025","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF S\u00dcLEYMAN DEM\u0130R AND HASAN DEM\u0130R v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in Hakkari . The first applicant is the father of the second applicant .","GPE , a non - commissioned officer , telephoned the second applicant and asked him to tell his father , the first applicant , to go to FAC . At TIME on DATE the first applicant , accompanied by the second applicant , went to the gendarmerie station . On their arrival the second applicant waited at the entrance to the station and the first applicant was taken into Major PERSON \u2019s office , where he was subjected to ill - treatment by GPE and GPE who was also an officer at the same station . The CARDINAL officers accused the first applicant of providing support to the ORG ( ORG , an illegal armed organisation ) , and of making propaganda for a political party , the ORG ( ORG ) . Using box tape , officers GPE and GPE attached a hand grenade to the first applicant \u2019s face . An object was forcefully put into his nose and mouth , and he was threatened that his eyes would be gouged out . He was also repeatedly hit with an object on the left side of his face and on his chest . The ill - treatment and accusations continued for TIME with accompanying threats to kill him and his family members .","After his release the first applicant and his son returned to their home in their village and DATE the first applicant went to a hospital in the nearby town of GPE where he was examined and a report was drawn up setting out his injuries .","On DATE the first applicant went to ORG following the request of Major PERSON He was not , however , subjected to ill - treatment .","On DATE the first applicant filed a criminal complaint with the local prosecutor , alleging that he had been beaten and threatened at FAC .","Subsequently , criminal proceedings were brought against the officers GPE and GPE and those proceedings are still pending .","The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties .","According to a medical report issued at ORG at TIME on DATE , there was an ecchymosed swelling and CARDINAL blood - clotted small lacerations on the left side of the first applicant \u2019s face . The report also mentioned a restriction in the movement of his arms and chest pain . After his examination at the hospital the first applicant was transferred to the Hakkari ORG where he was examined once more and subsequently discharged .","On DATE the first applicant made a formal complaint to the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office against the military officers GPE and GPE for having subjected him to ill - treatment , insults and intimidation . On DATE his statement was taken by the prosecutor .","Subsequently the applicant was referred to ORG PERSON branch for a medical examination . On DATE the ORG reported that the applicant had ecchymosed swelling on his left cheekbone and restriction and pain on the movement of his left arm and shoulder .","On DATE the PERSON prosecutor decided that he did not have jurisdiction ratione loci to examine the complaint and referred the file to the PERSON prosecutor .","On DATE the PERSON prosecutor decided that he also did not have the requisite jurisdiction , and referred the case file to the prosecutor \u2019s officer at ORG .","On DATE the Van military prosecutor and a military officer took statements from GPE and witness statements from a number of other military officers who worked at the same military station . In his statement GPE denied the charges against him . He also mentioned that the first applicant had been invited to the gendarmerie station to be warned not to threaten individuals in order to influence their votes in the forthcoming elections . All officers who testified as witnesses stated that they had not seen the alleged ill - treatment or any physical signs of it on the applicants . CARDINAL of the officers , ORG , also testified that PERSON had ordered him to leave his door slightly ajar during the meeting because he had thought that the first applicant might subsequently make false accusations against him .","On DATE the Van military prosecutor decided not to open an investigation into the first applicant \u2019s allegations . On DATE the first applicant lodged an objection against that decision .","On DATE a statement was taken from GPE by the military prosecutor . PERSON stated that he had invited the first applicant to the gendarmerie station and talked to him for TIME ; he had not subjected him to any ill - treatment .","Having examined the first applicant \u2019s objection , ORG decided on DATE that the witness statements of the military officers revealing the facts of the incident contained fundamental inconsistencies which cast doubt on their reliability . It therefore quashed the PERSON military prosecutor \u2019s decision and ordered that criminal proceedings be brought against the CARDINAL military officers .","NORP In accordance with that decision , on DATE criminal proceedings were instigated before ORG against GPE and GPE for the offence of wilful injury and intimidation by an agent of the ORG , contrary to sections DATE and CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE the second applicant was heard as a witness before FAC , and stated the following :","\u201c ( ... ) on DATE of the incident we received a telephone call at our house . The caller asked me and my father to go to DATE before the evening . Then I found my father and at TIME we went to DATE ( ... ) there was a checkpoint on the road , we passed the checkpoint and after QUANTITY we arrived at the main entrance ( ... ) I stayed at the main entrance , they took my father in , he walked to DATE which was QUANTITY ahead . TIME they brought my father back , he was not able to walk [ unaided ] . I held him by his arms and took him to the checkpoint where I phoned PERSON [ who works as ] a village guard [ in our village ] . He came to the checkpoint with his car [ and ] we took my father to the village in [ his ] car . ( ... ) My father \u2019s state [ of health ] was not good ( ... ) so we put him in the car owned by GPE , [ who is ] the headman [ of our village ] . We passed through the road checkpoint again and went to ORG . ( ... ) When we were leaving , my father \u2019s face was covered with blood ; he was not able to walk without support . By the time we got to the checkpoint I had cleaned his face . \u201d","Taking the second applicant \u2019s statement into account , the court summoned and heard the village guard GPE and headman GPE as witnesses . PERSON stated the following :","\u201c ( ... ) The [ applicants ] were near the civilian parking area outside the entrance [ of the gendarmerie station ] . When I saw them , I went closer to them . There was blood on the face and mouth of PERSON . His shirt was covered with blood , and also there were bruises and swelling on his eyes , lips and face ; he looked like he had been beaten up . \u201d","GPE stated the following :","\u201c ( ... ) When I went to their house PERSON told me that he had been beaten up by the ORG brigade commander Major PERSON and that he had been feeling sick . ( ... ) However , I did not see any signs of battery and his clothes were normal . \u201d","On DATE a medical expert from ORG was summoned before ORG in order to determine whether the first applicant \u2019s injuries could have been caused as a result of illtreatment . Having examined the medical reports , the expert stated that it was not possible to establish the cause of the injuries .","On DATE ORG decided that it did not have jurisdiction ratione materiae to try the case , and forwarded the case file to ORG .","On DATE ORG approved the decision of lack of jurisdiction .","On DATE a criminal case was lodged before ORG against GPE and GPE for simple injury and intimidation .","On DATE ORG Instance decided that it did not have jurisdiction to try the case either and forwarded the case file to ORG . According to the information provided by the parties , the proceedings are still pending before ORG ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172458","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MILISAVLJEVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was a journalist employed at ORG , a major NORP DATE newspaper . In DATE she was requested by the editorial board to write an article about PERSON .","PERSON is a NORP human rights activist primarily known for her activities in investigating crimes committed during the armed conflicts in the former GPE , including those crimes committed by NORP regular and irregular forces . She was also recognised as one of the most vocal advocates for full cooperation of the NORP and later NORP authorities with ORG for the former GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","At the time relevant to this case , PERCENT of the NORP population considered the ORG to be a major security threat to GPE . PERCENT of the population was against cooperation with the ORG , which would include arrests and transfers of NORP suspects to this institution . In DATE , the ORG \u2019s assessment of GPE \u2019s cooperation with that court was that it was \u201c neither full nor proactive \u201d . The level of cooperation was further negatively influenced by the assassination of the NORP Prime Minister PERSON \u0110in\u0111i\u0107 in DATE , a major political figure open to full cooperation with the ORG . PERSON herself came under attack by a significant portion of the NORP political elite and general population . As a consequence , she was involved in several incidents .","The applicant \u2019s article on PERSON appeared in PERSON on DATE . The integral translation of the impugned article , titled \u201c The GPE Investigator \u201d , reads as follows :","\u201c \u2018 Even my son blames me for protecting everybody but the Serbs\u2019 , says the director of ORG .","PERSON , founder and Executive Director of ORG , GPE , and GPE and PERSON , a non - governmental organisation aimed at promoting human rights for minorities , DATE , again , defended herself \u2018 from the NORP patriotism surge\u2019 .","On the occasion of the International Day of the Disappeared commemoration , at the gathering of ORG of Missing and ORG in GPE and PERSON organised in the centre of GPE , following a short argument she slapped CARDINAL of the participants . After this incident the GPE police submitted a request for the initiation of prosecution proceedings against her , and ORG of the Missing lodged a lawsuit , demanding that she pay MONEY ( ORG ) for the insult to the families of those kidnapped and killed .","Recently our media have also reported that this \u2018 prominent advocate of human rights and democratic reform in ORG was awarded the DATE NORP and NORP Law Initiative Award ( CEELI ) from ORG on DATE during the ABA Annual Meeting luncheon in GPE . Former winners of this award were PERSON from GPE , PERSON from GPE , PERSON from GPE , GPE from GPE ...","It was also reported that at DATE the ORG magazine ORG published a list of CARDINAL individuals dubbed the NORP heroes , among which was PERSON , too .","The NORP campaigner for the truth on war crimes , a lonely voice of reason in GPE or the PERSON mercenary , the one who was named by all the banished NORP spies , has won many awards , including ORG , but none of them were awarded to her in GPE .","PERSON provokes stormy reactions wherever she appears . While the LOC lauds and praises her , in GPE she is spoken about with contempt and accused of anti - NORP politics . Most of all they blame her for never pursuing the crimes against NORP but exclusively dealing with those committed by NORP against other ethnicities .","Although she has been called a witch and a prostitute and is permanently under threat ( DATE she has also had to cancel her appearance at a local TV station owing to a bomb threat ) , she says : \u2018 This is simply the part of this job . I do n\u2019t think that they hate me , only my ORG .","Nevertheless , she once made a public complaint : \u2018 Even my son has accused me of protecting everybody except the ORG Although later , she adds , she heard him defending her concern for the weak .","PERSON was born in DATE in Topola , to her father PERSON and mother PERSON . In DATE she went to study in GPE and upon her return she enrolled in ORG at ORG . She participated in the DATE student demonstrations . In DATE she started working in the GPE municipality of PERSON .","Afterwards she worked in the city trade union . During DATE she went to ORG to work as a technical secretary , but before long she left it after a conflict with PERSON . With a group of like - minded people she founded ORG at DATE .","DATE , on the invitation of PERSON , the ORG Director , she left for GPE . Upon discussion with top people at ORG , ORG took charge of its work in respect of the socalled NORP crimes against NORP in GPE , as well as violations and abuses of NORP and NORP minority rights in the FRY . That is how this organisation became the [ ORG ] \u2018 ORG . Starting from DATE the ORG became involved in the GPE and PERSON issues .","During the ORG campaign she frequently travelled the GPE - Kosovo and GPE routes . Her email messages sent via the Internet to foreign friends and collaborators are the evidence of her time and work in GPE and PERSON .","With PERSON , ORG ( \u2018 ORG ) director , she has a son PERSON , who lives in GPE and is involved in graphic animation . \u201d","On DATE PERSON started a private prosecution against the applicant . She claimed that the entire piece had been written with the intent of belittling her in the eyes of the public , to present her as a traitor to NORP interests and as a \u201c paid servant of foreign interests and a prostitute who sells herself for money \u201d . She further claimed that the points introduced in the article were maliciously misrepresented , and that the article contained untruths and blatant insults . She explicitly refused to lodge any civil compensation claim within these proceedings .","The applicant , in her defence , stated that she was not expressing her own opinion of PERSON , whom she did not intend to insult , and that she had written the entire article on the basis of the documentation of other magazines . She put the citations within quotation marks , but she omitted them when she was not literally citing but paraphrasing ( \u201c ono \u0161to nije stavila pod navodnike predstavljaju navode koji nisu citati , ve\u0107 ih je prepri\u010davala iz GPE listova \u201d ) . She provided details as to what phrases were taken from which articles and magazines , including from which article and magazine she had taken the phrase that PERSON had been called a witch and a prostitute .","On DATE , after a remittal , ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE found that the applicant had committed a criminal offence of insult when having stated for PERSON \u201c although she has been called a witch and a prostitute \u201d and gave her a judicial warning . The court established that the impugned phrase had been indeed previously published in another article by another author in a different magazine . However , the applicant did not put it in quotation marks which meant that she agreed with it , thus expressing her opinion . The court concluded that there was therefore an intention to insult PERSON . In view of no aggravating circumstances and a number of mitigating ones ( the applicant had a clean record , was employed and of mature age ( u zrelom dobu ) ) , she was given a mere judicial warning ( sudska opomena ) , on the grounds of NORP CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . No prison sentence or fines were imposed .","On an unspecified date thereafter the applicant appealed . She reiterated that the impugned words were not her own opinion , but an opinion of another author . The fact that she wrote also on the negative attitudes towards the private prosecutor and her work could not and must not make her , the applicant , criminally liable . She also submitted that such an attitude towards the freedom of press could have long - reaching consequences .","On DATE the GPE ORG ( ORG ) upheld the first - instance decision endorsing the reasons given therein .","In separate proceedings , on DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay PERSON RSD CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( around QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) in respect of costs and expenses . The applicant did not appeal against that decision .","The applicant submitted in her observations that she had been later discharged from ORG and that \u201c her conviction [ ... ] appear[ed ] to have been the cause [ thereof ] \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159917","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ROMANIUK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody . He was charged with , inter alia , murder , attempted murder , and illegal possession of firearms .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of battery and attempted murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal .","On DATE FAC ( \u201c the commission \u201d ) classified the applicant as a \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d . It considered that it was necessary to place him in a cell for dangerous detainees as he had been charged with murder committed with the use of firearms . The commission referred to the applicant \u2019s \u201c personal circumstances and serious lack of moral character \u201d . The applicant did not appeal against the decision .","DATE and DATE , the commission reviewed its decision DATE . In renewing its decision to classify the applicant as a \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d , the commission reiterated the same reasoning , which read as follows :","\u201c His characteristics , personal circumstances , serious lack of moral character and [ the fact of ] being charged with offences committed with the use of a firearm , pose a serious danger to society and to the security of the remand centre . \u201d","The reasoning given on DATE , DATE and DATE differed slightly in that gave a detailed description of the offences with which the applicant had been charged as the grounds for extending the regime . The commission referred to the offences of murder and CARDINAL attempts to commit murder with the use of a firearm .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , holding that the decision had been lawful .","On DATE the commission extended the application of the \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d regime to the applicant for the eleventh time . The reasoning given was the same as in the decisions of DATE .","On DATE the commission lifted the \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d regime in respect of the applicant . It considered that , on the basis of the relevant documentation and the assessment of the applicant \u2019s behaviour , he no longer posed a danger to society or to the security of the remand centre ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165230","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ADAM v. SLOVAKIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is of NORP origin .","At TIME on DATE a DATE boy was mugged and his mobile phone taken from him while he was walking along a road CARDINAL villages in southeastern GPE . The perpetrators of the mugging were not known to him .","The boy and his parents subsequently reported the incident to the local county police .","NORP In response , a police unit consisting of CARDINAL officers searched the area surrounding the crime scene with the boy and his father .","At TIME they spotted the applicant , who was then aged DATE , another minor and a third person , all of whom the boy identified as his assailants .","The applicant and his CARDINAL associates , both of whom were also of PERSON origin , were arrested . The parties dispute the circumstances of the arrest .","The Government relied on entries in the county police logbook for the relevant TIME and on a note on the record drawn up by the county police dated DATE indicating that the suspects had resisted arrest and attempted to flee . They had consequently had to be subdued , no injuries had been sustained , and the use of force by the arresting officers had been found lawful . That material referred to the measures of restraint used against the applicant and the other CARDINAL suspects as \u201c self - defence mechanisms for holding and grabbing \u201d . The applicant , for his part , denied that he had shown any resistance or that the police had used any measures of restraint .","The applicant and his companions were then taken to the county police station . According to the results of a breathalyser test carried out there , all CARDINAL detainees had consumed alcohol and the applicant was in a state of slight inebriation .","The CARDINAL suspects were kept at the police station and preliminarily questioned ( vy\u0165a\u017een\u00ed ) by officers from the county police . As to the rooms in which they were kept , these were used as offices , were fitted out with the usual office equipment and were not furnished as detention cells .","The applicant \u2019s and the ORG \u2019s accounts in relation to further details vary as follows .","According to the applicant , during the probing , the officers subjected him to psychological pressure and physical violence with a view to obtaining his confession . In particular , he was slapped and punched in the head , was not allowed to sit or lie down or to rest during the entire length of his detention , and was not provided any food or drink .","In the ORG \u2019s submission , there had been no ill - treatment , the CARDINAL suspects were kept in separate rooms and were checked on at fifteenminute intervals . The applicant was allowed to use the toilet , which was equipped with a washbasin with drinkable tap water .","The Public Prosecution Service ( \u201c the PPS \u201d ) was informed of the arrest and , at TIME the case file , along with the responsibility for the detention of the young men , was passed on to an investigator from the local district police .","Meanwhile or in parallel , the victim was examined by a doctor , his mother orally submitted a criminal complaint , and the crime scene was inspected .","In TIME of DATE the applicant and his CARDINAL co - detainees were charged with robbery and the investigator decided to place them in a facility for provisional detention . However , the decision was not implemented as no room was available in such a facility within a reasonable distance .","Subsequently , a legal - aid lawyer was appointed for the applicant and a copy of the document containing the charges was sent to , inter alia , the child protection services .","TIME on DATE the applicant was brought before the investigator , who interviewed him in the presence of his mother and the lawyer . No mention was made of any illtreatment .","At TIME the applicant was placed in a provisional detention cell as documented by a protocol , which cites him as submitting in response to a pre - printed question that had not been subjected to any violence . The relevant documentation further contains a hand - written note with the applicant \u2019s signature indicating that \u201c [ he ] ha[d ] received dinner \u201d . According to the Government , the cell was equipped with , inter alia , a washbasin and drinkable water from the tap .","At TIME the applicant and his co - detainees were released , and the police took them home .","When the applicant \u2019s mother appeared before the investigator on DATE she decided to avail herself of her right not to give evidence , making no mention of any ill - treatment .","On DATE , acting through the intermediary of his lawyer , the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the charge , arguing that he himself had not been involved in the mugging , which had been perpetrated by his minor associate alone and to which the latter had confessed . There was no mention of any ill - treatment .","On DATE the charge against the applicant was withdrawn .","In the applicant \u2019s submission , meanwhile , in DATE that followed his release , his mother presented herself at the county police station and contacted ORG by telephone to complain about the treatment to which her son had been subjected while detained . According to the applicant , her complaint was not registered and she was orally advised to submit it in written form .","According to the Government , however , the heads of the county police and the district police , who were the only persons entitled to receive complaints in matters such as those obtaining in the present case , did not receive any complaint from the applicant \u2019s mother . Similarly , there was no mention of a visit or any communication from her in the records of visits and telephone calls received by the county police or in the operational logbook of the district police .","On DATE the applicant and his associates lodged a written criminal complaint with ORG .","They directed it against the officers of the county police who had been on duty TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE , suggesting that the offence of abuse of authority of a public official could have been committed .","In particular , they submitted that , while in police custody , each of them separately had been pressured to confess on the pretext that the others had already confessed . The applicant also submitted that he had been subjected to slapping in the face and on the head until he had confessed . The persons inflicting that treatment had worn uniforms . Although the applicant did not know their identity , he would certainly recognise them . Another person had been present , not wearing a uniform , presumably a relative of the boy who had been robbed .","Throughout the entire time in police custody , the applicant had had to stand , without being allowed to sit or lie down , and he had not been given any food or water .","Moreover , in the applicant \u2019s submission , his legal guardians had not been notified of his custody , let alone been present .","The applicant submitted a medical report dated DATE . The doctor who issued the report observed that the applicant had \u201c allege[d ] that he had been beaten by police officers the day before \u201d and \u201c had received a slap on the right CARDINAL of a cheek \u201d . In reply to a printed question about whether the injury could have been sustained as alleged , the reply \u201c yes \u201d was given . The doctor further observed that there was no haematoma and that the cheek was sensitive and slightly swollen . He diagnosed \u201c a bruised cheek on the left \u201d and classified the injury as slight , with recovery time DATE .","NORP The criminal complaint was sent to the local ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) of ORG for examination . Subsequently , the part of the complaint concerning the failure to notify the applicant \u2019s legal guardians of his arrest and detention , to provide him with food and water during his detention , and to hear him immediately after his arrest was sent to the district police ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In examining the complaint concerning the alleged physical mistreatment , the ORG interviewed the applicant and his associates , as well as the investigator and CARDINAL officers under suspicion . In addition , it examined the case file concerning the investigation into the alleged robbery and other documentary material .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the complaint . In doing so it observed that the applicant had not raised any complaint of ill - treatment during his interview with the investigator on DATE , and held that this could not be explained by his proclaimed fear of the officers involved since , in that interview , the applicant had been assisted by his mother and lawyer ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG observed that in his oral depositions , the applicant had claimed that he had been beaten at the county police station for TIME and that he had sustained bruises and a swollen cheek . However , those allegations of sustained beating and its consequences did not correspond to the findings in the doctor \u2019s report of DATE , which only attest to an allegation of having received a slap on the right cheek and to having a swollen cheek , but no haematoma .","The ORG also noted that in the investigation file concerning the alleged robbery there was no indication of any ill - treatment . It observed that the applicant \u2019s injury could have been inflicted in the course of his arrest , which he had resisted and which accordingly had had to be carried out forcefully .","In addition , the ORG observed that the police officers in question had not been involved in the investigation of the alleged robbery , but had merely been guarding the applicant . Consequently , they had had no reason to pressure him into confessing .","The applicant challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE by lodging an interlocutory appeal with the PPS . He requested twice that a decision by the PPS to dismiss the appeal be reviewed .","The applicant argued in particular that he had not resisted his arrest and that , accordingly , no physical force had been used in the course of it . His injury could therefore not be explained as the ORG had done . He had not complained of the ill - treatment before the investigator because nobody had asked him about it and because he had been concerned about possible repercussions .","The applicant further argued that the fact that there was no mention of the ill - treatment in the investigation file was irrelevant . In fact , it was logical , because the officers involved would naturally not mention their misconduct and would deny it . That incongruity and contradiction of the arguments had not been examined .","According to the applicant , a \u201c racial motive was not excluded \u201d and the treatment to which he had been subjected had been contrary to LAW .","The interlocutory appeal and the requests for review were eventually dismissed by ORG ( \u201c the OPG \u201d ) , which communicated its decision to the applicant in a letter of CARDINAL DATE .","The ORG fully endorsed the findings of ORG , considering as crucial the fact that before the doctor on DATE the applicant had only alleged slapping , that the doctor \u2019s observations on the applicant \u2019s injury did not correspond to the applicant \u2019s subsequent allegation of sustained beating , and that the applicant had not raised any ill - treatment allegation with the investigator on DATE .","Without any explanation , the ORG also concluded that there was no indication of any racial motive behind the treatment complained of by the applicant .","As to the part of the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint concerning the alleged failure to notify his legal guardians of his arrest and detention , to provide him with food and water during his detention , and to hear him immediately after his arrest ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the district police informed the applicant in a letter of DATE , without any explanation at all , that \u201c in the investigation of the given matter , no error had been committed by the investigative organs \u201d .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint , under Article CARDINAL of the LAW , with ORG against the ORG and ORG of the PPS involved in his case .","He emphasised that at the time of his arrest he had been a minor , that he had been kept at the police station TIME without being able to sit or lie down , and without being given any food or water , and that he had been subjected to psychological pressure and physical violence with a view to forcing him to confess . He considered that such treatment had been in breach of his rights under LAW , as was the ensuing investigation into his complaints on account of its lack of efficiency and independence , as well as the authorities\u2019 failure to act on their own initiative .","The applicant also alleged that the lack of a proper investigation had been aggravated by the lack of an effective remedy and discrimination , contrary to his rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On the last point , the applicant argued that there had been many known incidents of police violence against the GPE in the course of arrest and detention in GPE , and that his treatment by the police had been influenced by his PERSON origin .","On DATE ORG rejected the complaint as manifestly ill - founded . It observed that the applicant had no legal right to have a third person criminally prosecuted , that his right to lodge a criminal complaint merely implied that he had the right \u201c to have the complaint dealt with by a body authorised to do so \u201d , and that it had thus been dealt with . It further observed that the applicant had not complained of his alleged ill - treatment before the investigator on DATE or in his interlocutory appeal against the charge ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The fact that he had had those means of asserting his rights at his disposal excluded the jurisdiction of ORG . It concluded without further explanation that , in the circumstances , neither the proceedings before the PPS nor their decisions could have violated the applicant \u2019s rights as identified in his constitutional complaint .","The decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140402","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VIKENTIJEVIK v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE V.D.M. , the applicant \u2019s late grandfather , together with other individuals , PERSON , GPE and GPE , members of ORG of company T. ( \u201c the company \u201d ) , were convicted of offences against the people and the ORG since they had put the company T. at the disposal of the enemy forces ( during the Second World War ) . They were all sentenced to a suspended prison term with forced labour . The court also ordered full confiscation of the company \u2019s property .","On DATE the then ORG confiscated the company \u2019s immovable property ( including residential apartments for workers ( \u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u043d\u0438\u0447\u043a\u0438 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0438 ) ) and various items of movable property , which were specified in detail in the decision ( \u201c the confiscation order \u201d ) . The total surface area of the confiscated buildings was QUANTITY . QUANTITY . m of land was also subject to confiscation . The confiscated property was to be transferred to the ORG . The confiscation order referred to V.D.M. , PERSON , GPE and GPE , as \u201c convicted shareholders \u201d who had actual possession ( \u0444\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043a\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u043f\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) of the company .","On DATE the company decided to restructure itself in accordance with ORG ( \u201c the Company Restructuring ( Business Losses ) Act \u201d ) .","On the basis of that decision and at the request of the applicant , who was seeking that the property be retained for restitution , on DATE the company entered into a contract ( \u201c the DATE contract \u201d ) with the ORG , represented by ORG , transferring to it the title to specific named buildings ( which did not include the residential apartments ) , the total surface area of which was QUANTITY m. It further transferred into the ORG \u2019s possession preference shares ( \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442\u043d\u0438 \u0430\u043a\u0446\u0438\u0438 ) , the value of which was MONEY ( DEM ) ( \u201c the shares \u201d ) .","Thereafter , on DATE ORG ( \u201c the first - instance court \u201d ) , on the applicant \u2019s request , overturned the DATE judgment in respect of his late grandfather concerning the confiscation of the company \u2019s property . This judgment became final on DATE .","In a judgment of DATE , which became final on DATE , the first - instance court declared the applicant heir to the right to claim restitution ( \u043d\u0430\u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u043d\u0438\u043a \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0442\u043e \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u0435\u043d\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 ) in respect of the property of his late grandfather ( V.D.M. ) . Referring to the DATE judgment , the confiscation order and the judgment of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL above ) , the inheritance order also concerned the applicant \u2019s right to claim \u201c restoration of possession and payment of compensation \u201d in respect of the company \u2019s immovable and movable property .","On DATE the applicant instituted restitution proceedings . The parties did not submit a copy of the restitution claim .","On DATE ORG , represented by CARDINAL officials , drew up a report concerning an on - site inspection carried out on DATE . According to the report , which was typed on a computer , V.D.M. , PERSON , GPE and ORG had been the company \u2019s shareholders . The land was in the company \u2019s possession . In DATE the land in question was divided into CARDINAL plots , which included buildings with a total surface area of QUANTITY . m. The entry in the new ORG indicated that the total surface area of the buildings constructed on the land was QUANTITY m. The report further stated that only some of the buildings specified in the confiscation order , including the residential apartments , were still on the land .","On DATE ORG of ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s restitution claim and decided CARDINAL ) to restore to his possession the buildings specified in the DATE contract ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the residential apartments and adjacent buildings ( QUANTITY . m ) , together with the land underneath , as well as the land described as a courtyard ( \u0434\u0432\u043e\u0440 ) , a total surface area of QUANTITY . m ; CARDINAL ) to transfer into his possession the preference shares specified in the DATE contract as compensation for the movable property of the company ; and CARDINAL ) to transfer into his possession ORG - owned shares in company P. as compensation ( the equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) for land underneath ) for other objects ( CARDINAL sq . m ) . As stated in the order , ORG , assisted by an expert , had carried out an on - site inspection and established that the total surface area of all confiscated buildings at the time of confiscation , was QUANTITY m.","The restitution order indicates that the applicant \u2019s restitution claim , together with the complete case file , was communicated to ORG ( ORG ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , who submitted in reply that \u201c there was no statutory provision requiring him or her to comment on the matter \u201d ( \u043d\u0435 \u0431\u0438\u043b \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u043e\u0431\u0432\u0440\u0437\u0430\u043d \u0434\u0430 \u0441\u0435 \u0438\u0437\u0458\u0430\u0441\u043d\u0438 \u043f\u043e \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435\u0442\u043e ) . As is evident from a letter of DATE from ORG included in the case file , the restitution order was served on ORG . No appeal having been submitted , the restitution order became final on DATE .","On DATE ORG rectified the restitution order under sub - heading CARDINAL ) , stating that the applicant would receive ORG - owned shares in company ORG ( \u201c the rectifying decision \u201d ) .","DATE and DATE , the ORG authorities CARDINAL ) transferred to the applicant title to the company \u2019s preference shares ( which represented PERCENT of the company \u2019s share capital ( \u043e\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0433\u043b\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043d\u0430 ) ) , and buildings specified in the DATE contract ( on the basis of CARDINAL separate contracts concluded between ORG and the applicant ) , and CARDINAL ) registered him as the owner of the buildings and the land . According to an extract from the land registry dated DATE , the applicant had title to QUANTITY . m. The applicant was recorded in the company \u2019s shareholder book ( \u0430\u043a\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u043a\u043d\u0438\u0433\u0430 ) , as well as in FAC PERSON \u0437\u0430 \u0445\u0430\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0438 \u043e\u0434 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) , as a shareholder in company ORG and company ORG ( apparently instead of company ORG ) ORG requested that company T. allow the applicant to obtain actual possession ( \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) of the immovable property .","On DATE an expert commission of ORG carried out an on - site inspection and established that the land in question could not be returned to the applicant , since it served the existing buildings ( company property and the residential apartments ) .","On DATE the applicant requested that ORG enforce the restitution order and asked that the company transfer the \u201c land and buildings \u201d into his actual possession . On DATE he repeated his request for enforcement . On DATE the ORG also recommended that ORG enforce the restitution order and transfer the land into the applicant \u2019s actual possession .","On DATE a Coordinating Commission in ORG , having been approached by a group of citizens residing in the apartments located on the land in question , noted that there had been \u201c certain irregularities \u201d in the restitution proceedings , and requested that ORG ( \u201c the Commission \u201d ) review the restitution order under LAW . On DATE the ORG found no grounds to rescind the restitution order within its powers of supervisory review ( \u0443\u043a\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043f\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e \u043d\u0430 \u043d\u0430\u0434\u0437\u043e\u0440 ) . It also stated that ORG should submit the case file to ORG , which had the authority to quash the restitution order of its own motion provided the statutory requirements had been met .","On DATE the Solicitor General requested , under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that the Commission declare the restitution order and the rectifying decision null and void ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u043e\u0433\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0438\u0448\u0442\u043e\u0432\u043d\u043e ) . He submitted that the applicant had been awarded full restitution of the entire property of the company , despite the fact that , as specified in the confiscation order of DATE , the company had been jointly owned by several persons . Furthermore , the buildings restored to the applicant were not the same in terms of surface area and description as the buildings confiscated in DATE . The current value of the land now by far exceeded its value at the time of confiscation . Furthermore , the land had been developed in the meantime , and buildings with a total surface area of QUANTITY . m had been constructed . Lastly , he maintained that the preference shares transferred into the applicant \u2019s possession on the basis of the DATE contract represented over CARDINAL the value of the entire movable property of the company .","On DATE the Commission granted the request , quashed the restitution order and the rectifying decision , and remitted the case for re - examination . It ordered ORG and the Central Securities Depositary to amend their records accordingly . It held that ORG , in what was a manifest omission ( \u043e\u0447\u0438\u0433\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0443\u0441\u0442 ) , had not appealed against the impugned decisions in the ordinary proceedings \u201c despite their apparent unlawfulness \u201d . Referring to the confiscation order of DATE , the ORG stated :","\u201c ... V.D.M. , PERSON , GPE and GPE were the former owners of the confiscated property of [ the company ] .","... it is not in doubt that [ the applicant ] is the heir only of ORG , thus of only a notional CARDINAL of the confiscated property ...","This is sufficient ( for the conclusion ) that the first - instance commission violated LAW at the expense of the ORG , and that it follows that the [ restitution order ] is invalid .","As is evident from the expert report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which was drawn up DATE before the restitution order , the confiscated property was not at all identical to the existing property , specifically the buildings confiscated in DATE , the total surface area of which was QUANTITY . m , were supporting objects , while the current buildings , with a surface area of CARDINAL sq . m , are modern and solid constructions . Furthermore , the confiscated buildings no longer exist , but completely different buildings , which are CARDINAL times bigger , were constructed instead . That was confirmed in the report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Furthermore , the land ( QUANTITY . m ) could not be the subject of restitution and it could not be returned under LAW of LAW , since buildings ( QUANTITY m ) belonging to the company ORG had been constructed on that land . It is developed construction land with complete infrastructure , which serves the existing property ...","Lastly , the first - instance body wrongly applied sections DATE , DATE and DATE of LAW when it transferred into [ the applicant \u2019s ] sole possession the entire package of reserved preference shares of all CARDINAL former owners , actually their heirs , instead of only a notional DATE . As a result , the ORG sustained damages . Accordingly , [ the restitution order ] can not be enforced , as specified under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative - dispute claim ( \u0442\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d \u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440 ) with ORG , in which he argued that the restitution order and the rectifying decision had already been enforced . They had been rendered in proceedings in which ORG had failed to lodge an ordinary appeal , although entitled to do so . The quashing of the order had been based on alleged errors in the facts , which could not serve as a ground for the extraordinary remedy used in his case . Furthermore , ORG had not been entitled to intervene in the proceedings in order to protect the interests of third parties . The applicant argued that the Commission , by quashing the relevant decisions over DATE after they had been adopted , had violated the principle of legal certainty and irrevocability of final decisions . Lastly , he complained that the expert report of DATE , to which the Commission referred in the impugned decision , carried no stamp ; it had not been drawn up on the form in use at the time ; and ORG had not quoted it in the restitution order of DATE . That raised doubts about the reliability of that document .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It stated that section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW concerned both the factual ( \u0444\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043a\u0430 ) and legal ( \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 ) impossibility of enforcement . The restitution order and the rectifying decision were contrary to sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , and were accordingly legally unenforceable . The court further stated :","\u201c ... According to [ DATE judgment ] , the confiscation concerned the convicted shareholders ORG , PERSON and GPE , who were ( in addition to V.D.M. ) the owners of [ company T. ] . Having regard to LAW , [ the applicant ] applied as heir to the property of his legal predecessor , V.D.M. Consequently , he could inherit only ORG \u2019s share and not the entire property of [ the company ] .","Having regard to the transcript of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ... the court finds that there has been a violation of section QUANTITY of LAW , since it has not been established whether the value of the confiscated property has increased .","... there has been a violation of LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , since land which has been developed and built upon ( QUANTITY . m ) , as established on DATE by a commission , has been restored [ on the basis of the restitution order ] to the possession of the applicant .","On the basis of the material in the case file it has been established beyond any doubt that the property subject to restitution had previously been owned by CARDINAL persons , who were the shareholders . Consequently , there has been a violation of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , since the entire package of reserved preference shares for all CARDINAL former shareholders was transferred to [ the applicant \u2019s ] sole possession ...","... In the present case , the court underlines once more that there has been a violation of the imperative provisions of LAW , which made the enforcement of the final restitution order legally impossible , as specified under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The court has examined [ the applicant \u2019s ] allegations that there was a violation of the fundamental principle of finality of decisions in administrative proceedings , as well as that the impugned decision contained no reasons that could fall within the ambit of section CARDINAL ( of LAW ) , but it considers them ill - founded . LAW provides for the extraordinary remedy of declaring a decision null and void ( section CARDINAL ) . [ The Commission ] is the competent body to decide , and the ( impugned ) decision clearly states that the decision was given under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . Furthermore , the decision contains adequate reasoning . \u201d","This judgment was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the public prosecutor found that there were no grounds to institute legality review proceedings ( \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f\u043a\u0430 \u043f\u043e \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0448\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430 ) against ORG judgment .","On the basis of a request by ORG , on DATE an expert commission of ORG carried out an on - site inspection and found that construction of collective residential buildings had been planned under the town plan of DATE on the land in question . It further established that the part of the land on which roads , car parks and green space were planned could not be returned ( \u043d\u0435 \u043c\u043e\u0436\u0435 \u0434\u0430 \u0431\u0438\u0434\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043c\u0435\u0442 \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0430\u043b\u043d\u043e \u0432\u0440\u0430\u045c\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) . Over QUANTITY . m of the land , the part on which construction of collective residential buildings was planned , could be restored .","On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u043a\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0432\u0430 ) and instructed the applicant to institute , within DATE of service of that decision , separate civil proceedings in order to establish , as a preliminary question ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0442\u0445\u043e\u0434\u043d\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0448\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) , the amount of the share of V.D.M. , his legal predecessor , in the company \u2019s property . In the reasoning , it noted that on DATE the applicant had submitted written evidence that ORG , PERSON and GPE were not shareholders in the company . It also observed that CARDINAL other requests for restitution of the company \u2019s property had been submitted for consideration DATE and DATE . The claimants in those cases had provided documents indicating that their predecessors had been shareholders , dividing between them the entire property of the company .","The Government stated that most of the restitution claims concerning the property at issue which had been submitted by third parties had been dismissed .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against ORG , PERSON and GPE , whose whereabouts were unknown , in which he sought to have the first - instance court declare V.D.M. , his legal predecessor , the sole shareholder of the company . Those proceedings are still pending before the first - instance court ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162217","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SULEJMANI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE , the applicant concluded a sales contract ( \u043a\u0443\u043f\u043e\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0436\u0435\u043d \u0434\u043e\u0433\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0440 ) with a Sh . A. , for the purchase of a concrete mixing and transport lorry ( \u201c the vehicle \u201d ) for the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) in NORP denars ( ORG ) . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lent the vehicle to his company .","On DATE ORG temporarily seized the vehicle and its registration certificate ( \u0441\u043e\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u045c\u0430\u0458\u043d\u0430 \u0434\u043e\u0437\u0432\u043e\u043b\u0430 ) from the applicant in order to examine the vehicle \u2019s chassis ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0440\u043a\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0448\u0430\u0441\u0438\u0458\u0430 ) . A record of temporarily seized objects ( \u043f\u043e\u0442\u0432\u0440\u0434\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d\u043e \u043e\u0434\u0437\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043c\u0435\u0442\u0438 ) was issued .","On DATE the Struga Court of First Instance ( \u201c the first - instance court \u201d ) acquitted PERSON . A. of charges of forgery of a document ( \u201c \u0444\u0430\u043b\u0441\u0438\u0444\u0438\u043a\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0438\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 \u201c ) concerning the vehicle \u2019s chassis number and rejected an indictment brought by a public prosecutor against a certain PERSON The court found that during the trial it had not been established that LOC . A. had altered the vehicle \u2019s chassis . In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court further advised the applicant , who had claimed compensation in the criminal proceedings , to pursue the claim by means of a separate civil action before the civil courts . On DATE the judgment became final .","On DATE the applicant requested that the first - instance court return the vehicle in his possession .","On DATE the first - instance court heard evidence from the applicant , who stated that he had bought the vehicle from Sh . A. for ORG CARDINAL . He further stated that he could not have been aware at the time that the chassis number of the vehicle had been forged .","On DATE the first - instance court , relying on LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , found that there were no grounds for confiscation of the applicant \u2019s vehicle . The applicant had not known nor could he have known that the vehicle had been used to commit a crime . The court also ordered that the registration certificate be returned to the applicant .","Upon the public prosecutor \u2019s appeal , on DATE ORG ( \u201c the appellate court \u201d ) quashed that decision . Relying on Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , the appellate court found that the vehicle \u2019s chassis had been forged and that the vehicle , in the interest of public safety , could not be declared roadworthy . It further referred to section CARDINAL-a ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW and instructed the first - instance court to assess whether the continued use of the vehicle would constitute a \u201c use of a forged document \u201d offence under the Code ( \u0443\u043f\u043e\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0431\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0444\u0430\u043b\u0441\u0438\u0444\u0438\u043a\u0443\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u0458\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0438\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the first - instance court dismissed the applicant \u2019s application and ordered the confiscation ( \u0441\u0435 \u043e\u0434\u0437\u0435\u043c\u0430\u0430\u0442 ) of the vehicle and its registration certificate . It referred to LAW and found that the vehicle \u2019s chassis number had been forged and that the vehicle could be used for committing an offence . For that reason and for the reasons of road safety , it was necessary to confiscate the vehicle and the registration certificate . It also referred to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and found that , irrespective of the fact that there had been no proceedings against the applicant and that he was not an offender , it was necessary to confiscate the vehicle for general safety reasons .","On DATE the applicant appealed arguing that the first - instance court had wrongly applied LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW and that he had not known that the vehicle had been used to commit a crime .","On DATE the appellate court dismissed the appeal and upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision . The relevant part of the decision states as follows :","\u201c [ The arguments ] raised in the appeals , [ namely ] that the first - instance court had not established the decisive facts concerning [ the certitude ] that the [ applicant ] had not known that the vehicle \u2019s chassis had been forged , which was decisive , are groundless . Specifically , it is true that [ the applicant ] did not know that the vehicle \u2019s chassis had been forged , as a result of which [ he ] registered the vehicle as its last buyer , [ he was ] issued a driving licence and [ he ] paid a large amount . However , [ what is ] primary under LAW ] is that the objects which were intended to [ commit ] an offence or were used to commit an offence shall be confiscated notwithstanding that they are not in the ownership of the offender or that they are in the ownership of a third person , if general safety , public health or ethics require so ...","The fact that [ the applicant ] did not know that the vehicle \u2019s chassis had been forged does not signify that the conditions of LAW are met , but the first - instance court correctly found that the use of the vehicle with thus forged identification numbers would affect the safety of the road users in the ORG [ \u0431\u0435\u0437\u0431\u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0458\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043e\u0442 \u0441\u043e\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u045c\u0430\u0458 ] , and therefore also the general safety [ \u0438\u043d\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043e\u043f\u0448\u0442\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0431\u0435\u0437\u0431\u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ] . \u201d","It appears that the latter decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145731","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LYAPIN v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE a series of thefts from individual garages was committed in LOC of the GPE region . The LOC police department ( ORG \u043f\u043e PERSON ) initiated a criminal investigation into the thefts .","During TIME police officers NORP and PERSON from the LOC police department were patrolling an area of GPE in which there was a garage cooperative where some of the thefts had been committed . At TIME they stopped the applicant , who had entered one of the garages .","According to the applicant , that TIME he had gone to GPE searching for abandoned scrap metal which he could then sell . He entered a garage , the door of which was allegedly open . He was then stopped by QUANTITY police officers , who asked him to accompany them to a police station to check his identification documents . He explained that he had the documents with him and suggested that they check them right away . They insisted that he should go with them to the police station and he obeyed .","According to the reports of police officers PERSON and PERSON to the head of the LOC police department of DATE and their statements as witnesses to an investigator in the garage - thefts case of CARDINAL DATE , they were patrolling the garage cooperatives on the outskirts of GPE in order to detect persons involved in the garage thefts that had been committed previously . They heard metallic sounds and saw the applicant , who had opened and entered CARDINAL of the garages . They apprehended him and took him to the GPE police station in order to check his identity and to establish whether he had been involved in the garage thefts . The applicant refused to accompany them to the police station , \u201c swinging his arms \u201d and trying to escape . Therefore they \u201c used physical force \u201d and handcuffs , in accordance with LAW CARDINAL of LAW . At the GPE police station his identity was established and he was found to be in possession of homemade lock - picking tools .","According to the search record drawn up at the GPE police station , the police seized , in particular , QUANTITY metal items made of screws which the applicant had on him .","According to the applicant , he was coerced by police officers into confessing to the garage thefts . He described his illtreatment as follows .","A police officer , who arrived after the applicant had been searched , took him to CARDINAL of the offices and tied him up with a rope so that his head was between his legs while he was sitting on the floor with his legs crossed and his hands shackled behind his back . The police officer pressed on his back and legs . After TIME of such treatment he was untied and placed in a cell for detainees .","TIME another police officer arrived and the applicant was taken to the same office and tied up again in the same way , with his hands shackled behind his back . The second police officer had a box with a handle and CARDINAL wires , TIME QUANTITY of which were bare . The police officers tied the wires to the applicant \u2019s little fingers and the second police officer started rotating the handle . The applicant felt a sharp muscle contraction and screamed . The police officers gagged him . They took turns to rotate the handle . The wires kept falling off and the police officers had to attach them again and again . At some point they poured water over the applicant \u2019s hands to exacerbate the electric shocks . The applicant lost consciousness several times . The electric shocks left burn wounds on his hands .","NORP The police officers\u2019 first names were NORP and ORG on information which the applicant received later , he deduced that those police officers were operational officers ORG from the criminal investigation unit of the LOC police department .","At TIME the applicant was placed back in the cell . At his request the officer on duty took him to a lavatory where he could hold his hands , which were swollen after the electric shocks , under cold water . He remained in the cell for TIME .","Then he was taken again to the same office , where he saw CARDINAL police officers , each of whom asked him questions about the circumstances of different criminal cases . CARDINAL of them kicked him in the chest and then punched him in the left ribs . That police officer took the applicant outside to participate in the examination of the applicant \u2019s ORG truck conducted by a female investigator .","Thereafter the applicant was taken back inside the police station , where the police officers questioned him again , from time to time slapping him on the back of his head . When the applicant could no longer resist their pressure , they took him to some garages , where he acted in accordance with ORG instructions , showing them the garages from which he had allegedly stolen certain property . That was recorded as an on - site verification of his statements .","The police officers took the applicant to the Justice of the Peace for an examination of an administrative charge against him ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE and DATE below ) . He confirmed before the judge that he had committed the administrative offence as alleged by the police . The police officers thereafter took him to the LOC police department in GPE for questioning as a suspect in the garage - thefts case . The investigator gave him a readytosign record of his examination with his confession to the garage thefts , which he signed .","At TIME on DATE the officer on duty at the GPE police station , PERSON , drew up a record of the applicant \u2019s administrative arrest . It stated that the applicant had been arrested in connection with his disobedience to police ORG lawful demands , and that a visual examination of the applicant had not revealed any injuries . According to the record , the applicant requested that his wife be notified about the place of his detention . However , the section of the record indicating who was notified about the applicant \u2019s place of detention , and when , was not filled in .","At TIME police officer PERSON drew up a record of the applicant \u2019s administrative offence in which he described the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s apprehension at TIME in the same way as in his report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He also stated that the applicant had used coarse language and had not reacted to his and his colleague \u2019s demands to stop his disorderly behaviour . The record contains the applicant \u2019s explanation that on his way to the police station he had only stopped once and had not tried to break away from the police officers or to escape .","From TIME a senior investigator , PERSON , of the investigation division of LOC police department carried out an examination of the applicant \u2019s ORG truck in GPE .","From TIME to TIME in GPE investigator PERSON examined the applicant as a suspect in the presence of a lawyer on duty , Ya . According to the record of his examination , the applicant was suspected of having committed \u201c thefts from garage cooperatives in GPE , GPE and NORP \u201d . He confessed to having committed , starting from DATE , thefts from CARDINAL garages in GPE , CARDINAL garages in GPE and QUANTITY garages in GPE . No information was entered in the record about the specific garage which the applicant had entered immediately before his apprehension .","From TIME , in the course of the on - site verification of the applicant \u2019s statements , the applicant showed the police the garages in which he had committed the thefts .","At some point the head of the GPE police station ordered that the materials concerning the administrative case against the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) be transferred to LOC for examination .","According to a judgment of DATE of the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of LOC , the applicant , who pleaded guilty , was found to have committed an administrative offence under LAW disobedience to a police officer \u2019s lawful demand ( in particular , on account of his having used coarse language and having ignored the police ORG requests to discontinue such behaviour ) . He was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention , to run from TIME of that day .","Investigator PERSON thereafter ordered that the applicant , as a suspect in the garagethefts case , should be subjected to a measure of restraint in the form of an undertaking not to leave his place of residence and to behave properly . It was stated in that decision that the applicant had fully acknowledged his guilt .","A group of police officers took the applicant to PERSON where they carried out a search of his flat , as ordered by investigator ORG According to an official record , the search was carried out from CARDINAL p.m. to CARDINAL p.m. by operational agent ORG of the criminal investigation unit of LOC police department in the presence of the applicant \u2019s wife and CARDINAL witnesses .","From TIME operational officer PERSON seized some items from the applicant \u2019s other car found near his block of flats , in the presence of his wife and CARDINAL witnesses .","After their return from PERSON , police officers took the applicant to a detention facility for administrative offenders at police station no . CARDINAL of the GPE Town police department to serve the CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the detention facility records , he was placed there at TIME on DATE . The records did not mention any injuries on the applicant .","In TIME of DATE the applicant was visited by his wife and brother . At TIME a police officer on duty called an ambulance at the applicant \u2019s request .","According to the medical records , the applicant was examined by an ambulance doctor , Ms ORG , at TIME He complained of pain in the left side of his chest whenever he made the slightest movement or breathed , pain in the neck and heaviness in his head and explained that he had been beaten up and kicked . An examination revealed that he was suffering sharp pain around the eighth and ninth ribs on the left side , abrasions on his cheekbones and on CARDINAL of his shoulders , and swelling and hyperaemia of both hands . The applicant was diagnosed with a closed fracture of the left ribs , abrasions on his face and back , and arterial hypertension . He was provided with first aid . The ambulance doctor considered that his condition was incompatible with detention and necessitated his further examination at a traumatology centre .","The applicant was therefore released from the detention facility and taken by ambulance to the GPE traumatology centre , where he was examined at TIME and diagnosed with multiple soft - tissue bruises on his face , contusions of the rib cage and abrasions on his wrists . He explained that he had been beaten up by police officers .","The applicant \u2019s brother then took him to a hospital in GPE . At TIME he was admitted to LOC hospital no . DATE . He was diagnosed with concussion , contusions of the rib cage and neck , and burns on his hands . The latter diagnosis was made on the basis of several circular lesions under scabs measuring QUANTITY in diameter on his hands .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by an expert in forensic medicine , PERSON . from ORG , in accordance with ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The expert found the following injuries on the applicant : CARDINAL circular abrasions on the back of each hand measuring QUANTITY in diameter ; similar abrasions on the right side of the lips , notably CARDINAL on the upper and CARDINAL on the lower lip ; and an abrasion measuring CARDINAL to QUANTITY on the back of the left hand near the wrist . The above - mentioned wounds had similar characteristics . The applicant also had a circular bruise on his left wrist , a bruise measuring QUANTITY on the left side of his rib cage and bruises on each side of his face , notably a bruise measuring CARDINAL on the right side and a bruise measuring QUANTITY on the left side .","On DATE the applicant was released from hospital and prescribed outpatient treatment , which he underwent at polyclinic no . CARDINAL .","On CARDINAL DATE the forensic expert , PERSON . , issued report ( \u0430\u043a\u0442 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043e\u0441\u0432\u0438\u0434\u0435\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f ) no . DATE on the basis of the applicant \u2019s examination on DATE and his medical records from hospital no . CARDINAL . The expert considered that , given the morphological characteristics of the injuries , they could have been inflicted as alleged by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was examined by another expert in forensic medicine , Dr S. from the ORG Novgorod Regional Forensic Medical Examination Bureau . The applicant had several circular scars on both hands . Having also examined the applicant \u2019s medical records from hospital no . CARDINAL , and relying on PERSON description of his injuries of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON concluded in report ( \u0430\u043a\u0442 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043e\u0441\u0432\u0438\u0434\u0435\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f ) no . CARDINAL-D of DATE that the applicant \u2019s injuries , notably the abrasions on his hands and lips , the bruises on his face , left hand and the left side of his chest , and his concussion , had been inflicted by a blunt object and could have originated as a result of his having been punched and kicked . It was not excluded that the injuries could have been inflicted on DATE . Based on the existing data , it could not be categorically confirmed that the applicant had been subjected to electric shocks . However , it was not excluded that the abrasions and scars on his hands could have been caused as a result of their contact with a currentcarrying conductor . Taking into account the nature of the scars , it was not excluded that the injuries ( from which the scars had originated ) could have been inflicted on DATE .","On DATE a psychotherapist , PERSON , examined the applicant and diagnosed post - traumatic stress disorder , complicated by reactive depression in connection with his alleged ill - treatment by police officers on DATE . In particular , his recollection of those events provoked involuntary crying . Following the doctor \u2019s recommendation , the applicant received outpatient psychotherapy . As of DATE his condition improved and he refused further treatment .","On DATE the applicant solicited an opinion from Dr GPE about the origin of the injuries on his hands . PERSON opinion , which was based on the applicant \u2019s medical records , was similar to that of PERSON","A letter of CARDINAL DATE , signed by the head of the organisational and methodological department of hospital PERCENT DATE , stated that the lesions on the applicant \u2019s hands looked more like \u201c old burns \u201d .","Forensic medical expert opinion ( \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043b\u044e\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0430 , \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0435 \u0438\u0441\u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) no . CARDINAL of DATE was prepared by an expert in forensic medicine , Dr Sh . from ORG , on the basis of the previous forensic medical expert opinions of DATE and DATE , another expert opinion ( CARDINAL DATE , no . MONEY ) and the applicant \u2019s other medical records . It stated that the medical records did not contain the necessary objective clinical symptomatology to confirm the diagnosis of the closed fracture of the ribs , the contusion of the neck and the burns on the applicant \u2019s hands . As regards the lesions on the applicant \u2019s hands , they lacked objective morphological characteristics typical of lesions caused by electric current . The diagnosis could not , therefore , be the subject of forensic medical assessment . The applicant \u2019s other injuries recorded in connection with the events of DATE , notably his concussion , the bruises on his face , the abrasions on his lips and on the back of his hands , the circular bruise on his left wrist and the contusion of the left side of his rib cage , were objectively supported by the medical documentation . The circular bruise on the left wrist could have been caused by a handcuff . The remaining injuries had been inflicted as a result of an impact with a blunt hard object . This could have been a fist , a shod foot or any other blunt hard object with a limited surface , given the form , small size and isolated character of the injuries . The lesions on the applicant \u2019s face and hands could not have been caused as a result of the applicant \u2019s rubbing his face with his denim jacket and sitting on his hands ( as had been suggested by police officers PERSON . and PERSON , see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) . The injuries could have been inflicted on DATE . They had caused a short - term \u2013 not exceeding QUANTITY days \u2013 health disorder and should therefore be classified as minor health damage .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Justice of the Peace of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and asked for an extension of the deadline for the appeal . He argued that the administrative case against him had been fabricated by the police .","On DATE the Volodarskiy ORG heard the applicant , who recounted the events of DATE and explained that he had pleaded guilty before the Justice of the Peace because he had been intimidated as a result of his ill - treatment at the GPE police station and because a police officer had been present at that hearing .","ORG found no good reasons for the applicant \u2019s failure to lodge his appeal earlier and rejected his request for an extension of the deadline for appealing .","On DATE the applicant was charged with CARDINAL counts of theft from garages committed in DATE . When questioned as an accused in the presence of a lawyer of his choice on DATE , he denied having committed the thefts and stated that his earlier selfincriminating statements had been given as a result of illtreatment by the police .","At a hearing before LOC of ORG , the victims asked the court to terminate the proceedings since the applicant had fully compensated them for the damage and apologised . The applicant pleaded guilty of CARDINAL counts of theft and asked that the GPE request be granted . On DATE ORG granted the GPE request and terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant for reconciliation between the parties .","At TIME on DATE the GPE traumatology centre reported to the LOC police department about the medical assistance administered that morning to the applicant , who had allegedly been beaten up by police officers in GPE on TIME DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The LOC police department transferred the report to the GPE inter - district investigation division of the investigative committee at the ORG NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u0414\u0437\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u043c\u0435\u0436\u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f PERSON \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0435 ORG \u043f\u043e PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 , \u201c the Dzerzhinsk Investigative Committee \u201d ) on DATE .","At TIME on DATE , hospital no . CARDINAL reported to the LOC police department of GPE Novgorod that the applicant had been hospitalised with injuries allegedly sustained as a result of beatings by police officers in LOC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the applicant , who resided in LOC , lodged an application with the head of the same police department requesting that criminal proceedings be brought against the police officers who had illtreated him at the GPE police station on TIME DATE .","DATE . On DATE the LOC police department transferred the materials concerning the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment to LOC police department , which in its turn transferred them to ORG on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the LOC investigation division of the investigative committee at the GPE NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office also received the applicant \u2019s complaint of illtreatment . The applicant stated that he could identify the police officers who had ill - treated him , including those who had done so on the instructions of the investigator in charge of the garage - thefts case .","On DATE an investigator of ORG started a pre - investigation inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegation and ordered his forensic medical examination ( \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0435 \u043e\u0441\u0432\u0438\u0434\u0435\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) . In her decision she stated that during TIME from DATE the applicant had allegedly been gagged , tied up with a rope , punched and kicked , and electric current had allegedly been applied to him leaving burns marks .","On DATE the head of ORG granted the investigator \u2019s request for an extension of the timelimit for the preinvestigation inquiry to DATE , in order to receive the applicant \u2019s \u201c explanations \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant \u2019s wife and the applicant gave \u201c explanations \u201d to the investigator on CARDINAL and DATE , respectively . In describing his illtreatment at the GPE police station the applicant stated , in particular , that police officers PERSON and PERSON had locked the door of the office from the inside . They had tied his legs with a rope , which they pulled over his shoulders to shackle his hands behind his back , and attached them to handcuffs , thereby bending his head below the level of and between his knees , which were pulled aside . O. had stepped and jumped on his knees , causing him severe pain . O. had also slapped him in the back of his head several times . They had demanded that he confess to the thefts which had been committed in the district . Later in the same office , he had been questioned about the thefts by O. , PERSON and other police officers . CARDINAL of them had kicked him in the chest and punched him under the left armpit , making it difficult for him to breath . They had mocked him , hit and slapped him . The applicant stated that he could identify police officers PERSON , ORG and the third police officer who had kicked and punched him . He described their appearance and how they had been dressed on DATE .","On DATE \u201c explanations \u201d were also received from a neurosurgeon of hospital no . CARDINAL , who had supervised the applicant \u2019s treatment . He confirmed the information in the hospital medical records .","On DATE the investigator ordered that the applicant \u2019s allegation of ill - treatment by LOC police department officers , whose actions revealed elements of a crime under Article MONEY ( a ) of LAW , be transferred for investigation to ORG .","On DATE an investigator of ORG received an \u201c explanation \u201d from police officer PERSON , who stated , inter alia , that following the applicant \u2019s refusal to accompany him and police officer PERSON to the police station , physical force had been applied to the applicant , notably his arms had been twisted behind his back and he had been handcuffed . U. denied using any other physical force .","On DATE the deputy head of ORG , like in the proceedings before ORG , granted the investigator \u2019s request to extend the initial threeday timelimit for the pre - investigation inquiry to DATE in order to examine the applicant , to identify and examine the police officers who had allegedly beaten him up , and to carry out a medical examination of the applicant after his recovery .","On DATE the investigator received \u201c explanations \u201d from senior operational officer Sh . from the criminal investigation unit of the LOC police department , who had seen the applicant in a cell at the GPE police station . PERSON . stated that the applicant \u201c had been sitting on his hands and , therefore , when taken out of the cell his hands had been swollen \u201d . PERSON . further stated that the applicant \u201c had been rubbing his face with his denim jacket \u201d . According to PERSON . , this had caused an irritation to the skin on the applicant \u2019s face . PERSON . denied any violence or threats towards the applicant . In PERSON . \u2019s opinion the applicant had inflicted his injuries on himself in order to complain afterwards that police officers had used unlawful investigative methods .","On DATE \u201c explanations \u201d were received from the investigator , PERSON She stated that operational support in the garage - thefts case had been provided by officers ORG She had arrived at the GPE police station as a member of an investigative task force set up in connection with the series of thefts from garages , questioned the applicant and carried out an onsite verification of his statements . The applicant had had no visible injuries . She denied that she had instructed the police officers to beat the applicant up and considered the applicant \u2019s allegation a slander with a view to avoiding liability for his crimes .","On DATE the head of the criminal investigation unit of the LOC police department , PERSON , explained that a report had been received from LOC police department officer on duty about the apprehension of the applicant , who had forced open a garage door in GPE . As thefts in the proximity of GPE had become more frequent , an investigative task force had been sent to the scene of the incident . When PERSON had arrived at the GPE police station , he had seen the applicant , who \u201c had been sitting on his hands and , therefore , when taken out of the cell his hands had been swollen \u201d . The applicant had had an irritation on the skin of his face as though he had rubbed it . The applicant had indeed been rubbing his face with his denim jacket . PERSON had rebuked the applicant for rubbing his face in order to injure himself . PERSON denied any violence or threats towards the applicant . He considered that the applicant had inflicted his injuries on himself in order to complain afterwards that police officers had used unlawful investigative methods .","On DATE the investigator \u2019s request for an extension of the timelimit to twenty days for the pre - investigation inquiry was granted . On DATE the pre - investigation inquiry was extended for DATE .","On DATE \u201c explanations \u201d were received from operational officer ORG He stated that he and operational officer ORG had interviewed the applicant after his arrest on DATE . He alleged that the applicant had refused to communicate with them and had been placed back in a police cell . PERSON had taken the applicant to PERSON to carry out a search of his flat . There had been no visible injuries on the applicant except for some redness around his temples .","On DATE operational officer GPE explained that on TIME DATE he had been informed by phone about the applicant \u2019s apprehension . He had gone to the GPE police station in order to check whether the applicant had been involved in thefts from garages committed recently in GPE . After his arrival he had joined PERSON , who had been interviewing the applicant . The applicant had had no visible injuries , except for some redness on his face . The applicant had denied his involvement in the crimes and had not wished to talk to them . He had therefore been placed in a police cell .","Both GPE and GPE denied any use of violence against the applicant at the GPE police station . They supposed that the applicant had either inflicted his injuries on himself in order to compromise the police and thereby avoid liability for his crimes , or could have sustained the injuries during his apprehension .","Relying on the above \u201c explanations \u201d by the police officers and forensic medical report no . CARDINAL-E ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the investigator of ORG concluded in his decision of DATE that the applicant \u2019s allegations had not been confirmed . He ordered , pursuant to LAW ( \u201c CCrP \u201d ) , that no criminal case be opened for lack of the elements of a crime , under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , in the acts of investigator PERSON and police officers NORP and PERSON , who had acted in accordance with LAW , and officers of the criminal investigation unit of the LOC police department , ORG , PERSON . and PERSON","NORP The investigator stated that the time at which the applicant \u2019s injuries had been inflicted , which the forensic medical expert had estimated in report no . CARDINALE as the night from CARDINAL to DATE , did not match the time of the applicant \u2019s apprehension and the ensuing investigative activities . The allegation concerning burns as a result of torture by electric current had not been confirmed by the applicant \u2019s medical examination . Lastly , the investigator held that the applicant \u2019s allegation of illtreatment by the police had been used as a defence aimed at avoiding liability for the crimes committed by him .","On DATE the decision of DATE was revoked as unfounded by an acting head of ORG . He ordered an additional pre - investigation inquiry , in particular another forensic medical examination of the applicant with a view to determining whether his injuries could have been caused in circumstances as suggested by police officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON The time - limit for the preinvestigation inquiry was extended to DATE .","DATE . On DATE an investigator of ORG issued a new decision refusing to open a criminal case on the grounds that it followed from \u201c explanations \u201d received from Dr Ya . that the applicant could have sustained his injuries \u201c in circumstances as suggested by the LOC police department officers , that is in the course of his apprehension \u201d . The decision did not quote or describe in detail either PERSON . \u2019s \u201c explanations \u201d or \u201c the circumstances as suggested by the LOC police department officers \u201d . It referred to the initial reports and previously received explanations by U. , PERSON and other police officers ( see , in particular , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG revoked its decision of DATE and ordered an additional preinvestigation inquiry to rectify the defects identified in ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","There followed a series of refusals by investigators of ORG to open a criminal case on the same grounds and for the same reasons as those in the decision of CARDINAL DATE , with some new information added . Each time , the decisions were revoked by the investigative committee itself in view of the unsatisfactory and incomplete inquiry . They were delivered on the following dates :","- third refusal on DATE , revoked on DATE ;","- fourth refusal on DATE ( \u201c explanations \u201d from the ambulance staff who examined the applicant on DATE , consistent with the relevant medical records , were added ) , revoked on DATE ;","- fifth refusal on DATE , revoked on DATE ;","- sixth refusal on DATE , revoked on DATE ;","- seventh refusal on DATE ( a statement by PERSON , a witness during the search of the applicant \u2019s flat on DATE , was added ; she stated , in particular , that during the search the applicant had looked bad , his face had been \u201c greenish \u201d and he had asked for water ) , set aside by the main department of procedural control of the investigative committee at ORG of GPE ( ORG \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0446\u0435\u0441\u0441\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0440\u043e\u043b\u044f ORG \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0435 ORG ) on DATE ;","- eighth refusal on DATE ( information about the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant added ) , set aside on DATE by the main department of procedural control of the investigative committee at ORG which noted , in particular , the following defects : the failure to question police officer ORG and the police officers on duty at the GPE police station about the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s apprehension ; the inconsistencies between the applicant \u2019s and the police ORG statements about the origin of the injuries ; and the inconsistency between the forensic medical report , according to which the alleged ill - treatment had taken place during TIME from DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) , and the statements by the applicant and the police officers , according to which the incident had taken place during TIME DATE ;","- ninth refusal on DATE ( it was added that no elements of crimes , under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , had been established in the applicant \u2019s actions during his arrest ) , revoked on DATE .","On DATE the investigator of ORG took a new decision in which he held \u2013 as in the previous decisions \u2013 that pursuant to LAW ORG , no criminal case should be opened into the applicant \u2019s allegation of illtreatment by police officers . The decision cited new \u201c explanations \u201d by some police officers about the events of DATE , which are summarised below . The decision cited the same \u201c explanations \u201d by police officer NORP as before ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) .","Police officer PERSON stated , in particular , that on their way to the police station the applicant had attempted to run away . PERSON had managed to grab him by the sleeve of his jacket . PERSON and U. had pushed him face down on the asphalt , twisted his hands behind his back and handcuffed him . They had retained him on the ground for TIME until he had stopped resisting and insulting them . No other physical force had been used on him . At the police station the applicant had been unshackled and searched . Thereafter , operational agent PERSON had arrived at the police station and taken the applicant to his office . PERSON had not seen the applicant since then . Later operational agent GPE had stayed with the applicant in that office , while PERSON , U. and PERSON had searched for the applicant \u2019s car .","Police officers PERSON and PERSON . explained , in particular , that they had arrived in GPE together with the investigator , PERSON , and police officer PERSON from LOC police department in connection with the applicant \u2019s arrest and their work on a series of unsolved garage thefts . They had arrived at the GPE police station at TIME The applicant had been taken to ORG office for questioning .","NORP The decision also referred to police officer PERSON , who had stated , in particular , that he had arrived at the GPE police station following a telephone call from an officer on duty , PERSON , about the applicant \u2019s apprehension . PERSON had told PERSON about the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s apprehension . In particular , PERSON had seen , in the garage being opened by the applicant , some things that he had collected and was preparing to carry away . PERSON had said that the applicant had had a bunch of metal picklocks on him . PERSON had believed that the applicant had been involved in the series of garage thefts . The type of lock on the garage which the applicant had opened was the same as those on the other garages from which thefts had been committed . He had taken the applicant to his office and questioned him until TIME No one else had been present in his office . The applicant had stated that he had had no previous criminal convictions . PERSON had phoned the information centre of the NORP regional police department , which had informed him that the applicant had previously been convicted of garage thefts in LOC of GPE Novgorod . According to the records of the information centre , the applicant \u2019s mobile phone had been registered as missing in connection with a garage theft in GPE . At CARDINAL a.m. police officer GPE had arrived and started interviewing the applicant in PERSON \u2019s office . The applicant had not wished to communicate with them and they had taken him to the officer on duty .","K.O. had also explained that he , GPE , ORG had searched for the applicant \u2019s car , which they had found in CARDINAL of the streets in GPE . When looking inside PERSON had seen a spade resembling one which had been stolen from CARDINAL of the garages . Afterwards they had returned to the police station and waited for the arrival of the investigative task force of the LOC police department . The task force consisted of PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON , investigator PERSON and an expert criminologist , I. They had arrived at TIME and carried out investigative measures . In particular , investigator PERSON had questioned the applicant and then conducted the onsite verification of his statements . The applicant was then taken to the Justice of the Peace .","DATE . Police officer ORG \u2019s new \u201c explanations \u201d were largely similar to those of PERSON , with some discrepancies in respect of the time of the events . According to ORG , the investigative task force arrived at the GPE police station at TIME The group that carried out the searches in GPE PERSON returned to GPE together with the applicant at CARDINAL a.m. on DATE , after which ORG and another police officer took the applicant to the GPE detention facility to serve his administrative sentence .","B. , an officer on duty at the GPE police station on DATE , explained that at TIME police officers PERSON and PERSON had taken the applicant to the police station . He had not seen any injuries on the applicant . The applicant had been searched . PERSON had called PERSON , who had arrived TIME later and had taken the applicant to his office . He had not heard any shouts or noise from ORG office . B. did not remember the applicant being brought back and had left at TIME when his shift had ended .","The decision of DATE also cited the forensic medical expert report no . CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The investigator concluded that the applicant \u2019s medical examination had not confirmed his allegation that he had sustained burns on his hands as a result of torture by electric current . His other injuries \u2013 the abrasions on his face , the bruise on his chest and concussion DATE could have been caused by police officers PERSON and PERSON in the course of his apprehension when they had pushed him face down on the asphalt and retained him in that position . The lesions on his wrists could have been caused by handcuffs , which had been used by NORP and PERSON at the time of his arrest . The actions of NORP and PERSON had not violated the provisions of LAW and , therefore , did not carry the elements of a crime under LAW and QUANTITY of LAW . The investigator concluded that the applicant \u2019s allegation of illtreatment by the police officers from the criminal investigation unit had not been confirmed by the results of the pre - investigation inquiry .","The applicant appealed against the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , arguing , in particular , that he had not been personally interviewed by the investigator , the origin of his injuries had not been established and detainees at the GPE police station on DATE had not been identified and interviewed .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It noted that a criminal case against the applicant on charges of garage thefts had been pending before ORG since DATE . ORG held that any assessment of the applicant \u2019s allegation that physical force had been used against him during questioning would inevitably lead to an assessment of the evidence on which the indictment against him was based . ORG had no jurisdiction over that matter , which had to be dealt with at a hearing in the applicant \u2019s criminal case .","On DATE the Nizhniy ORG rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant against ORG decision and fully endorsed ORG findings .","On DATE the ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraph DATE above ) . It held , in particular , that it had been established during the preinvestigation inquiry that the police officers had used physical force and handcuffs lawfully in order to apprehend the applicant . It followed from Dr Ya . \u2019s \u201c explanations \u201d that the applicant \u2019s injuries could have been received in the course of his apprehension , as had been suggested by the LOC police department officers .","On DATE the ORG granted an appeal lodged by the applicant against ORG decision . It found that ORG had failed properly to assess the applicant \u2019s arguments about the investigative authority \u2019s omissions in collecting evidence . Thus , by confirming that the forensic medical experts had not been questioned about the applicant \u2019s burns , ORG had in fact acknowledged that the applicant \u2019s version of events had not been properly assessed . It had also failed to assess the police ORG statements in respect of the applicant \u2019s injuries and their origin , in particular his concussion . ORG finding that the applicant could have sustained the injuries during his apprehension had not been based on a proper assessment of PERSON . \u2019s \u201c explanations \u201d . Those \u201c explanations \u201d did not contain any detailed information which would allow the court to come to such a conclusion .","On DATE ORG declared the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE unfounded in view of the incomplete preinvestigation inquiry , noting the same defects as those highlighted by ORG . The decision came into force on DATE and was served on the investigative committee on DATE .","On DATE the ORG examined an appeal lodged by the applicant against the investigator \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant argued that the preinvestigation inquiry had not met the requirements of an effective investigation according to the ORG \u2019s case - law under LAW . He also argued that the investigator \u2019s repeated refusals to institute criminal proceedings were unlawful and lacked reasons ( he referred to LOC v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-VI ; ORG v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Reports CARDINALVI ; and ORG v. GPE , no . GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) . In particular , the investigator had not interviewed the applicant and his wife and had failed time and again to make a legal assessment of the applicant \u2019s injuries , a failing which had been established by the courts in the course of a previous LAW review ; the police ORG suggestions that the injuries had been selfinflicted had been refuted by the expert conclusions in report no . CARDINALE ; the allegation concerning the infliction of electric shocks had been found groundless despite the fact that the expert opinions had not excluded that possibility ; the investigator had communicated the wrong time ( TIME instead of CARDINAL to DATE ) of the alleged illtreatment to the medical experts ; and PERSON . \u2019s \u201c explanation \u201d that the applicant could have sustained his injuries in \u201c circumstances as suggested by police officers PERSON , NORP and PERSON was not precise and lacked information as to what those circumstances were and which injuries were concerned .","The applicant further argued that the facts of the case could only be established as a result of investigative measures within the framework of a criminal case , such as the identification of the police officers responsible for the illtreatment , a confrontation between him and the police officers and their questioning . LOC assistant prosecutor had submitted to the court that the applicant \u2019s arguments were lawful and reasoned , and that ORG decision ought to be set aside as unlawful .","ORG found the applicant \u2019s submissions well founded and the investigative committee \u2019s decision unlawful and unreasoned . It ordered that the shortcomings revealed be corrected by the head of ORG .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . It considered that all instructions for correcting the defects of the previous preinvestigation inquiries , in particular those set out in the decision of the investigative committee \u2019s main department of procedural control of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had now been fulfilled ; the preinvestigation inquiry had therefore been thorough and the decision lawful and reasoned .","The applicant appealed against ORG decision , relying on the PERSON case - law and arguing , in particular , that in order to take a lawful and reasoned decision it was necessary to carry out investigative measures such as identification , confrontation , questioning of the police officers , investigative experiments and on - site verification of statements . That would only be possible within the framework of a criminal case , which the investigative committee had never opened .","On DATE the Nizhniy ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . It stated that the examination of a refusal to institute criminal proceedings within the meaning of Article CARDINAL of the ORG required a court to examine whether the procedure for taking such a decision had complied with the legal requirements and whether an applicant \u2019s rights and freedoms had been observed in the course of the collection of evidence which served as the basis for such a refusal . The assessment of that evidence fell outside the scope of the examination under LAW . It endorsed ORG findings and upheld its decision .","The applicant lodged a civil action for damages incurred as a result of ORG failure to conduct an effective investigation into his allegation of ill - treatment by the police , claiming compensation for non - pecuniary damage in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) .","On DATE the ORG of PERSON held that the investigative committee \u2019s decisions refusing to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers , which were taken on the basis of incomplete inquiries and subsequently revoked by the investigative committee \u2019s own officials or quashed by the courts , had violated the applicant \u2019s right to an effective investigation under the Convention . The investigative committee \u2019s decision of DATE to refuse the applicant \u2019s representative access to the materials of the pre - investigation inquiry had violated his constitutional rights . ORG found that as a result of such actions and decisions on the part of the investigative committee , the applicant had suffered non - pecuniary damage .","It further noted , having regard to the investigative committee \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment had not been confirmed by the pre - investigation inquiry , despite its \u201c thoroughness , completeness and length \u201d . ORG also stated that the applicant was also responsible for the revocation of the decisions not to institute criminal proceedings , which had been triggered by his complaints .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG awarded the applicant compensation in the amount of RUB CARDINAL for the nonpecuniary damage suffered by him , to be paid by the federal treasury . The judgment came into force on DATE .","The applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment in police custody and the investigative authority \u2019s response to his complaint was reported by the NORP mass media . Information about his alleged ill - treatment by the police was included in ORG report of DATE on \u201c The state of the world \u2019s human rights \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141838","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"SINFIELD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The CARDINAL applicants are either former servicemen or personal representatives or dependents of deceased former servicemen . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a solicitor practising in GPE .","ORG For ease of reference , the term \u201c applicants \u201d in the following statement of facts should be taken to mean both the present applicants and the deceased former servicemen who are represented by their estates .","DATE the GPE carried out a series of atmospheric tests of thermonuclear devices in the region of LOC . All CARDINAL branches of the armed forces took part , involving CARDINAL servicemen , including the applicants . Some contemporaneous monitoring was carried out of radiation levels to which individual servicemen were exposed at the moment of detonation , but no monitoring took place of subsequent exposure to radiation in the form of fallout through ingestion of contaminated water or fish , for example .","NORP In medical and scientific circles it was known since DATE that exposure to ionising radiation was capable of causing many forms of cancer , although the risk was generally associated with fairly high levels of exposure caused by \u201c prompt \u201d or \u201c instantaneous \u201d radiation . Subsequently , the effects of lower levels of radiation caused by fallout were studied . In GPE , public interest in the possibility that NORP servicemen might have suffered ill effects as the result of exposure during the nuclear tests was aroused following a series of items on a ORG television news programme broadcast in DATE and DATE . These ventilated the possibility that test participants were suffering unusual levels of ill health of various forms . This interest appears to have stemmed from publicity in GPE generated by concerns raised in ORG by CARDINAL of the applicants , Mr PERSON . Mr PERSON publicly claimed that he was CARDINAL of a number of nuclear test veterans who had suffered ill health as the result of exposure to radiation .","Soon after this publicity , a group of veterans , all of whom had served in the LOC during the tests , formed the NORP LAW BNTVA ) . Mr PERSON was their Chairman . Their objectives were to gather information about their exposure to radiation and its likely effects , to press for further research and to seek financial recompense for any harm suffered , either by claiming for war pensions or by making claims for damages .","As a result of the publicity described above , in DATE , questions were raised in ORG about the possibility that the veterans had been injured by exposure to radiation . The attitude of ORG ( ORG ) was , and is , that the men had not been exposed to excessive levels of ionising radiation . However , the ORG commissioned a health survey of the men involved in the tests , to be conducted by ORG ( FAC ) .","NORP The survey sought to identify all the men who had been present in the area at the time of the tests and to compare them with a similar sized cohort of men of similar backgrounds who had not attended the tests . CARDINAL nuclear test veterans were identified . The survey examined death registration documents for causes of death and also the incidence of cancer using ORG . The report , issued in DATE , disclosed that , among the veterans , there was no excess mortality either from all causes or from all cancers . However , there was a significantly higher level of deaths from leukaemia and multiple myeloma among the participants than among the controls . The report expressed the view that this was probably a chance result , to be explained by the very low level of deaths from these causes among the control group . When the deaths among the participants were compared with the national mortality figures for those conditions , the excess among the participants was only slight . It was concluded that participation in the nuclear tests was not associated with any detectable effect on expectation of life or the risk of developing cancer . It added :","\u201c that there may well have been small hazards of leukaemia and multiple myeloma associated with participation in the programme , but their existence is certainly not proven and further research is desirable \u201d .","The LAW carried out CARDINAL more surveys and reported in DATE and DATE , but the later conclusions did not differ significantly from the earlier ones . The methodology and conclusions of all CARDINAL surveys were criticised by the BNTVA and subsequently by the claimants in the group action , principally on the ground that they looked only at deceased , but not living , veterans .","Meanwhile , in DATE an action for damages was begun by a veteran named PERSON . He developed a lymphoma in DATE and alleged that it had been caused by exposure to ionising radiation during the tests . The allegations of negligence in ORG v. The Secretary of ORG [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL were based on both exposure to prompt high dose radiation ( that is , as a result of proximate presence at CARDINAL or more of the nuclear tests ) and delayed , low dose , exposure ( as a consequence of ingesting radionuclides from fallout while swimming in contaminated waters or eating contaminated fish ) . It was also alleged that the ORG had deliberately exposed the men to radiation as an experiment to see what the effects were . The ORG denied liability and sought to rely on immunity from suit provided by LAW . It did not plead LAW . The issue of immunity was treated as a preliminary issue and in due course went to ORG which held in the Mr Pearce \u2019s favour , leaving him free to proceed to trial . However , soon afterwards , the claim was discontinued , because the Mr PERSON \u2019s team concluded that it could not prove a causal link between the exposure to radiation and the development of cancer .","In DATE , the results of a study carried out by a team of scientists led by PERSON of ORG were published as \u201c Elevated chromosome translocation frequencies in GPE nuclear test veterans \u201d ( \u201c the Rowland Study \u201d ) . Using a technique called \u201c mFISH \u201d , which involved \u201c painting \u201d chromosomes enabling breaks and rearrangements to become visible , the team had examined the damage to the chromosomes of CARDINAL GPE veterans who had served on board CARDINAL frigates positioned CARDINAL nautical miles upwind from certain explosions which were part of the GPE nuclear test programme . The ORG study found that the CARDINAL crew members examined had on average CARDINAL times as many chromosomal aberrations than CARDINAL controls who had not taken part in the tests . This finding was regarded as significant and probably attributable to long term genetic damage resulting from ionising radiation during and after the nuclear test . An attempt was made to estimate the radiation dose from the level of translocations . The median dose for the veterans was estimated to be far in excess of the median estimated dose of the controls . However , the study made no claim for any correlation between the raised levels of chromosomal aberrations and the incidence of any illness .","Meanwhile , in DATE , several veterans instructed CARDINAL different firms of solicitors with a view to bringing claims for damages . ORG was granted for the investigation of the claims . On DATE a claim form was issued in respect of a group action brought by or on behalf of CARDINAL former servicemen , including the applicants , against the MOD . Damages were sought in respect of injury , disability or death alleged to have occurred in consequence of the exposure of the former servicemen to ionising radiation as a result of their presence near , or involvement in the aftermath of , the nuclear tests .","In DATE public funding was withdrawn from the claimants on the ground that the legal merits were insufficient to justify the case being pursued at public expense . It was agreed between the parties to stay the proceedings , until the ORG study had been published . The stay was lifted on DATE and a different firm of solicitors took over , after arrangements had been made for the matter to proceed on a conditional fee basis . Under the conditional fee arrangement , the solicitors would be paid only if the claimants were successful . The claimants purchased an insurance policy , known as \u201c ATE ( after the event ) insurance \u201d , to cover the ORG \u2019s costs , should they be ordered against them .","NORP On DATE Master Particulars of Claim , containing more detailed allegations , were served . It was alleged that the nuclear tests had been negligently planned and executed , in that , inter alia , protective clothing and equipment was not supplied , to prevent the exposure of the servicemen to ionising radiation both at the time of each blast and subsequently , in the form of fall - out , and steps were not taken to prevent servicemen from swimming in contaminated water and eating contaminated seafood in the aftermath of the tests . In addition , it was alleged that the authorities failed properly to monitor the extent to which each serviceman was exposed to ionising radiation , both during and after each test . The claimants further claimed that they had suffered a variety of illnesses known to result from radiation exposure and relied in particular on the mFISH methodology , used by the ORG study ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , as a reliable and specific indicator of genetic damage caused by exposure to ionising radiation . The Master Particulars of Claim included a partial list of the illnesses which the claimants , as a group , contended to have suffered as a result of their exposure to radiation , but individual medical reports were not included . In connection with the question whether the claims were timebarred , the applicants contended that it was only with the availability of the results of the ORG study in DATE that \u201c scientific evidence became available that indicated that the conditions suffered by the veterans were attributable to exposure during the tests \u201d . Furthermore , they argued that where delay had occurred , which in most cases was not great , this was explicable by funding difficulties and the ORG \u2019s attitude of denial , and that the cases should be allowed to proceed under LAW of LAW ( \u201c the DATE LAW : see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The ORG denied liability , alleging that all proper precautions were taken to protect service personnel from exposure to ionising radiation and that , in most cases , the actual exposure of the men was no more than the background radiation they would have experienced in GPE . In addition , the ORG contended that the claimants would be unable to prove , individually or as a group , that their illnesses were attributable to their presence during the nuclear tests , rather than other factors . The ORG also argued that the claims were time - barred under the terms of LAW , which requires a claimant to institute proceedings within DATE of the date on which the cause of action accrued or \u201c the date of knowledge ( if later ) of the person injured \u201d . It was contended on behalf of ORG that the claimants had relevant knowledge prior to DATE ( that is , before the DATE period preceding the institution of proceedings ) . In relation to the discretionary power under LAW of LAW , it was argued that the passage of time since the tests had eroded the cogency of the evidence and that the overall merits of the claim were weak , particularly in relation to causation .","A group litigation order was made , which decided inter alia that the issue of limitation should be tried as a preliminary point . On the agreement of the parties , CARDINAL test cases were selected by each side for the purpose of the preliminary hearing to determine the limitation issues . On DATE the ORG informed the ORG solicitor that it intended to serve expert evidence going to the weakness of the claims on causation . The following day the ORG was granted leave to serve limited expert evidence in the fields of radiobiology , epidemiology and nuclear physics . The applicants were subsequently granted leave to serve expert evidence in the same disciplines . The selection of the test cases was completed by DATE . Disclosure was provided by the parties , but was limited to documents relevant to the limitation issues only .","The hearing took place over DATE in DATE and DATE before Foskett J , who heard and considered expert evidence in relation to the development of scientific knowledge of the effects of ionising radiation as well as evidence from the claimants about their knowledge and belief about the cause of their injuries . He delivered his judgment on DATE . Although the claimants had complained in their Particulars of Claim of exposure to prompt radiation , it was agreed early in the trial that none of the veterans had been sufficiently close to the explosions to have been affected by prompt radiation .","At the hearing , without issuing any application , the ORG invited the judge to strike out the claims or , in the alternative , to give summary judgment in favour of the ORG , on the ground that the claims had no prospect of success . PERSON declined to do so , ruling that these requests were premature , since causation was essentially a question of fact and since the facts , dependent on lay and expert evidence , had not been established at the current stage of the proceedings . Moreover , he did not accept that the PERSON case on causation was so weak that the claims were bound to fail . However , he accepted that , if any of the cases were to clear the limitation hurdle and proceed to trial , there was a risk that they might subsequently be abandoned because of difficulties in establishing causation , and stated that , if invited to do so by the defendant , he would consider how ORG could be protected in terms of costs and other adverse consequences should this occur .","On the limitation issue , the judge considered himself bound by previous case - law to hold that \u201c knowledge \u201d within the meaning of section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act in effect meant \u201c belief \u201d , so that each claimant acquired the relevant knowledge at the moment in time when he formed the belief that his injury was capable of having been caused by exposure to radiation . Following this approach , he examined each case to determine the moment at which the veteran had manifested not merely suspicion but a firm belief that his illness was attributable to exposure to radiation . He found that CARDINAL of the lead claimants had not had knowledge of their claims , within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW , until DATE before they began proceedings , so they were entitled to proceed with their claims as of right . He further considered that the claims of the other CARDINAL test claimants were prima facie statute barred , but exercised his discretion under section QUANTITY so as to allow the actions to proceed . In particular , he emphasised that the need to avoid an apparent injustice , both in the minds of the claimants and of the general public , was a weighty factor to be taken into account . The judge awarded the claimants their costs , estimated at GBP CARDINAL , to be paid by the MOD .","The ORG appealed to ORG , which gave judgment on DATE ( ORG v. A.B. and Others [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ) . ORG upheld the trial judge \u2019s refusal to strike out the case , but on different grounds . They considered that the pleadings disclosed reasonable grounds for bringing the case and that as there had been no abuse of process nor failure to comply with procedural rules , it would be wholly inappropriate to strike the cases out . ORG considered that the ORG \u2019s application for summary judgment should be rejected on procedural grounds , because no formal notice had been given .","With regard to the limitation issues , ORG applied broadly the same test as PERSON , although it considered that in relation to CARDINAL of the CARDINAL test cases , he had applied too high a threshold . In ORG view , CARDINAL case , that of PERSON ( the first applicant \u2019s husband ) , who was diagnosed with non - Hodgkin \u2019s lymphoma in DATE , had been brought in time . In relation to the discretion under LAW , ORG held that the trial judge had erred in law in holding that the need to avoid an apparent injustice , both in the minds of the claimants and of the newspaper - reading public , was a weighty factor to be taken into account . The court further held that the broad merits test should be a prominent consideration when deciding whether or not to exercise the discretion . The resource implications both for the ORG and ORG solicitors and for the courts would be enormous , and it would be inappropriate to allow an expensive and resource - consuming trial to take place if the prospects for the claimants\u2019 success were slight . On the other hand , if the prospects of success \u201c were even reasonable , those resource considerations fade into relative insignificance \u201d . ORG next examined the likely strength of the applicants\u2019 case on causation . They observed that the burden of proving that the alleged tort caused the alleged injury lay on the claimant , on the balance of probabilities . In order to determine whether the section CARDINAL discretion should be exercised , the court had to assess the broad merits of the material put before . The claimants had not produced evidence of how they intended to estimate the doses of radiation to which they were exposed and the court considered that the best they could hope for would be to show low but significant exposure . In addition , on the state of the evidence before the court , there was no prospect that the claimants would be able to satisfy the \u201c but for \u201d test of causation by showing that their illnesses were at least twice as likely to have been caused by their exposure to radiation during the tests than by other causes , for example , smoking . Nor was there any possibility , on the evidence as it stood , that the claimants would be able to rely on the synergistic inter - action of CARDINAL different causative agents . The foundation of medical evidence had not been laid . The court therefore concluded that the PERSON case on causation faced very great difficulties . They accepted that there was a theoretical possibility that further evidence might become available if the case were permitted to proceed , but nonetheless underlined that they had to apply the broad merits test under section CARDINAL on the basis of the evidence which the claimants had put before the court . When considering , in relation to each of the CARDINAL time - barred test cases , whether to exercise its discretion under LAW , ORG found that the merits of each case were weak on causation and that the prospects of success were therefore weak . In addition , the delay in bringing the claims would be prejudicial to the ORG , through the loss of available witnesses . In consequence , the court declined to exercise its discretion to allow the time - barred cases to proceed .","ORG concluded with the following words :","\u201c We recognise that these decisions will come as a great disappointment to the claimants and their advisers . We readily acknowledge the strength of feeling and conviction held by many of the claimants that they have been damaged by ORG in the service of their country . The problem is that the common law of this country requires that , before damages can be awarded , a claimant must prove not only that the defendant has breached its duty of care but also that that breach of duty has , on the balance of probabilities , caused the injury of which the claimant complains . These can be heavy burdens to discharge .","If we look back to DATE , PERSON won a significant victory in ORG , which established that the ORG could not rely on the immunity of the ORG from suit . Yet , within DATE of that victory , PERSON abandoned his claim because his advisers recognised that they could not satisfy the burden of proving that Mr PERSON \u2019s cancer had probably been caused by radiation exposure ; for his personal position , the victory was entirely pyrrhic . As we noted earlier , the abandonment of that case comprised a warning to those who wished to follow after . Causation would be a potentially difficult issue and would have to be addressed if any such actions were to have a prospect of success . Thus , it was no surprise that CARDINAL of the first steps taken by [ the solicitors ] originally instructed by ORG , was to seek evidence to establish causation ( which was not forthcoming ) . Further , although the ORG raised the issue of causation both generically and , later , in the individual cases , no attempt was apparently made when the lead cases were identified to obtain specific evidence on this topic . It may be that it is not yet possible for a doctor to say that a condition such as cancer has probably been caused by radiation as opposed to any of the other possible causes but , until such evidence is available , claimants will face the difficulty which caused PERSON to abandon his claim .","We have no doubt that it will appear that the law is hard on people like these claimants who have given service to their country and may have suffered harm as a result . No doubt partly with this background in mind , ORG has provided that servicemen who have been exposed to radiation which might have caused them injury will be entitled to a war pension . Of course , a war pension is not as financially beneficial as common law damages but it is some compensation . Of particular importance on this issue , on an application for a war pension , the burden of proving causation is reversed ; thus , the ORG has to exclude the possibility that the applicant has been harmed by radiation . We can not say that any of these claimants who have , so far , not been awarded pensions will succeed in their attempts to do so but their chances of success must be far greater with the ORG having to prove the absence of causation than they ever were while the claimants had to establish it . \u201d","The claimants were ordered to pay PERCENT of the ORG \u2019s costs of the first instance trial on the preliminary issues of limitation , and all of the ORG \u2019s costs of the appeal . These costs , in excess of MONEY , were paid by the ORG ATE insurers .","The CARDINAL lead claimants who had lost before ORG appealed to ORG , which gave judgment on DATE ( ORG v. A.B. and Others [ DATE ] UKSC CARDINAL ) . ORG was divided by CARDINAL judges to CARDINAL as to the application of the CARDINAL Act in this case . The minority ( Lord PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) held that ORG had confused knowledge with belief and that , although the claimants believed that their injuries were caused by exposure during the nuclear tests at the time they issued their claim , they lacked knowledge of attributability because at that time there was no available scientific evidence . The majority ( ORG , ORG ) agreed with ORG that \u201c knowledge \u201d should be equated to belief held \u201c with sufficient confidence to justify embarking on the preliminaries of the issue of a writ , such as submitting a claim to the proposed defendant , taking legal and other advice and collecting evidence \u201d . The majority found that each of the CARDINAL appellants had believed that his exposure to radiation had put his health at risk and , on becoming ill , had believed that his illness was attributable to his presence during the nuclear tests , on that each had attained the requisite state of knowledge DATE before the commencement of proceedings . It was conceded before ORG by counsel for the claimants that they lacked evidence with which to establish a credible case that the injuries were caused by the tests . The majority also agreed with ORG approach to the exercise of discretion under LAW of LAW and upheld the refusal to allow the claims to proceed .","All members of ORG agreed that the claims had no real prospects of success . Lord PERSON observed that :","\u201c The current difficulties facing the veterans in relation to causation appear to me to be very great indeed . The ORG report assists them a little but it does not have the significance that [ their counsel ] has sought to attach to it .","The PERSON report shows that many of the GPE veterans had a raised incidence of chromosome translocation that suggested exposure to abnormal , albeit low level , fall - out radiation . But this was not true of all the veterans assayed . The assays of some show no abnormalities . This is no more than one would expect . Exposure to radiation results from inhalation or ingestion of fall - out . It may result from swallowing sea water while swimming or eating contaminated fish . Thus it can vary from CARDINAL man to the next . The most that can be deduced from the ORG report is that it is probable that individual veterans were exposed to low level fallout . There is currently no evidence that there is any correlation between the raised incidence of chromosome translocation of individual GPE veterans and the incidence of cancer or any of the other conditions of which the claimant veterans complain . ... The PERSON report results simply constitute a biomarker suggesting exposure to radiation .","The most the veterans as a group are currently in a position to establish is that there is a possibility that some of them were exposed to a raised , albeit low level , of fall - out radiation and that this may have increased the risk of contracting some at least of the injuries in respect of which they claim . This falls well short of establishing causation according to the established principles of LANGUAGE law . ...","For these reasons I do not believe that the veterans\u2019 claims have a reasonable prospect of success . \u201d","Lord PERSON accepted that ORG had wrongly elevated the issue of causation to be the determining factor under section CARDINAL , but nonetheless concluded :","\u201c It is undesirable that a court which conducts an inquiry into whether a claim is time - barred should , even at the stage when it considers its power under LAW , have detailed regard to the evidence with which the claimant aspires to prove his case at trial . But the CARDINAL claims placed before Foskett J were of particular complexity ; and the nature of the submissions made to him on behalf of the appellants about the meaning of knowledge for the purpose of section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act led him to undertake , over DATE of hearing and expressed in CARDINAL paragraphs of judgment , a microscopic survey of the written evidence available to the parties , in particular to the appellants , in relation to causation . At all events the result was to yield to ORG an unusual advantage , namely a mass of material which enabled it with rare confidence to assess the appellants\u2019 prospects of success . It expressed its conclusions in terms of the \u2018 very great difficulties\u2019 which confronted the appellants in that regard . But , in line with the realistic concession made by [ counsel for the appellants ] in this court , the fact is that , for the reasons set out by Lord PERSON ... their claims have no real prospect of success . In my view it would have been absurd for ORG to have exercised the discretion to disapply CARDINAL so as to allow the appellants to proceed in circumstances in which the next stage of the litigation would be likely to have been their failure to resist entry against them of summary judgment ... \u201d","On DATE ORG made an order relating to the costs of the appeal , which provided that the applicants should pay the ORG \u2019s costs of the appeal and that the stay of execution in respect of the previous costs orders should be removed .","Following the above proceedings , CARDINAL of the applicants ( Ms Sinfield ) had an absolute right to go forward to trial , since her case had not been found to be time - barred . The other applicants ( whose cases had been stayed while the CARDINAL test cases went ahead ) had to consider whether , in the light of ORG judgment , their claims were time - barred . A certain number of the applicants\u2019 claims were not time - barred , because , like Mr PERSON , they had become ill within DATE of the commencement of proceedings . This group of applicants therefore wished to proceed to trial . The other applicants , whose claims were prima facie time - barred , took the view that much of the assessment of ORG , in relation to the question whether to exercise the discretion under section CARDINAL of LAW , had been concerned with the difficulties that the claimants would face in establishing causation . However , the applicants considered that there was increasing evidence establishing that the illnesses they suffered were caused by exposure during the tests . This group of applicants also wished to proceed to trial .","Under the terms of the group litigation order , the ORG \u2019s costs of the preliminary limitation proceedings were paid by all the claimants within the group , in equal proportions , whether or not their claims had been brought out of time . In a letter dated DATE , the ORG insisted that , before pursuing further litigation , the applicants had to obtain ATE insurance to cover them for the ORG \u2019s costs should their claims fail . It proved impossible for the applicants to obtain such insurance , since the ATE insurers had already made large payments following the costs orders made by ORG and ORG . Legal aid , which was withdrawn in DATE , will not be re - awarded . None of the applicants is in a position to contribute to the funding of the litigation on a private basis . In consequence , none of the applicants\u2019 claims proceeded to trial .","The background to the adoption of LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) is set out in detail in the ORG \u2019s judgment in ORG and Others v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE .","Section QUANTITY of the DATE Act deals with special time limits for actions in respect of personal injuries and , in its relevant parts , reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) This section applies to any action for damages for negligence , nuisance or breach of duty ( whether the duty exists by virtue of a contract or of provision made by or under a statute or independently of any contract or any such provision ) where the damages claimed by the plaintiff for the negligence , nuisance or breach of duty consist of or include damages in respect of personal injuries to the plaintiff or any other person . ...","...","( CARDINAL ) An action to which this section applies shall not be brought after the expiration of the period applicable in accordance with subsection ( CARDINAL ) or ( CARDINAL ) below .","( CARDINAL ) Except where subsection ( CARDINAL ) below applies , the period applicable is DATE from\u2014","( a ) the date on which the cause of action accrued ; or","( b ) the date of knowledge ( if later ) of the person injured ... \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act further provides for discretionary exclusion of the time limit for actions in respect of personal injuries or death in the following terms :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If it appears to the court that it would be equitable to allow an action to proceed having regard to the degree to which\u2014","( a ) the provisions of LAW or CARDINAL of this Act prejudice the plaintiff or any person whom he represents ; and","( b ) any decision of the court under this subsection would prejudice the defendant or any person whom he represents ;","the court may direct that those provisions shall not apply to the action , or shall not apply to any specified cause of action to which the action relates .","( a ) the length of , and the reasons for , the delay on the part of the plaintiff ;","( b ) the extent to which , having regard to the delay , the evidence adduced or likely to be adduced by the plaintiff or the defendant is or is likely to be less cogent than if the action had been brought within the time allowed by LAW or ( as the case may be ) by CARDINAL ;","( c ) the conduct of the defendant after the cause of action arose , including the extent ( if any ) to which he responded to requests reasonably made by the plaintiff for information or inspection for the purpose of ascertaining facts which were or might be relevant to the plaintiff \u2019s cause of action against the defendant ;","( d ) the duration of any disability of the plaintiff arising after the date of the accrual of the cause of action ;","( e ) the extent to which the plaintiff acted promptly and reasonably once he knew whether or not the act or omission of the defendant , to which the injury was attributable , might be capable at that time of giving rise to an action for damages ;","( f ) the steps , if any , taken by the plaintiff to obtain medical , legal or other expert advice and the nature of any such advice he may have received .","( CARDINAL ) In a case where the person injured died when , because of LAW , he could no longer maintain an action and recover damages in respect of the injury , the court shall have regard in particular to the length of , and the reasons for , the delay on the part of the deceased .","( CARDINAL ) In a case under subsection ( CARDINAL ) above , or any other case where the time limit , or CARDINAL of the time limits , depends on the date of knowledge of a person other than the plaintiff , subsection ( CARDINAL ) above shall have effect with appropriate modifications , and shall have effect in particular as if references to the plaintiff included references to any person whose date of knowledge is or was relevant in determining a time limit .","( CARDINAL ) A direction by the court disapplying the provisions of section CARDINAL ) shall operate to disapply the provisions to the same effect in section CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164495","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"MALANICHEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON GPE , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant attacked a classmate and caused the victim permanent injuries by cutting her face . DATE after the attack , the applicant voluntarily committed herself to a psychiatric facility . On DATE a panel of psychiatrists concluded after an inpatient examination of the applicant \u2019s mental health that despite having symptoms of a psychopathic disorder she was able to control her actions on DATE of the attack and was competent to stand trial .","On CARDINAL DATE she was convicted of aggravated hooliganism by ORG of GPE ( \u0412\u044b\u0431\u043e\u0440\u0433\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043d\u0430\u0440\u043e\u0434\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 \u0433. PERSON ) and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . In DATE she was released from prison .","DATE the applicant \u2019s name was on the hospital register of persons suffering from psychiatric disorders . It was removed after remission , with the final diagnosis being disinhibited psychopathy .","On DATE the Primorskiy ORG of GPE ( ORG \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 \u0433. ORG ) ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) dismissed an application by psychiatrists for a psychiatric examination of the applicant without her consent because there was no evidence she was suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder . In the course of those proceedings , the municipal healthcare authorities , psychiatric facilities and domestic courts exchanged information on the applicant \u2019s mental health in internal communications .","In DATE the applicant , represented by a lawyer , brought a libel action in ORG against CARDINAL psychiatric facilities and the municipal healthcare authorities . She challenged the validity of her medical records , the fact that DATE she had been on the hospital register of persons suffering from psychiatric disorders , as well as references to various aspects of her mental health in the internal communications between the healthcare institutions and in their submissions to the courts . She also brought other , accessory claims .","The defendants applied to the court for an order for a psychiatric report to confirm the validity of the applicant \u2019s medical records . However the court refused to grant such an order because the applicant was categorically opposed to it . At the same time , the trial court took account of the provision in LAW that a fact which needs to be proven by an examination by experts is considered to be proven without such an examination when a party to a dispute refuses to take part in the examination or furnish necessary materials .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s libel action . The court highlighted that it was for the medical professionals to give any diagnosis about the applicant and concluded that she had failed to prove that there had been any errors in her medical records and or that there had been no grounds to keep her on the hospital register DATE . Accordingly , the references to her medical history and state of mental health in the internal communications between the healthcare institutions had not been libellous . At the same time , ORG ruled in favour of the applicant \u2019s claim for damages for the failure by CARDINAL of the psychiatric institutions to provide her with a copy of her medical records and awarded her the amount she had claimed of MONEY ( ORG ) .","On CARDINAL DATE the judgment was upheld on appeal by GPE ( ORG \u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 ) .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions to the ORG , in DATE there was a criminal investigation against her on suspicion of theft . After spending DATE in detention , the criminal case against her was terminated by the domestic courts because she was ruled incompetent to stand trial . On DATE she was transferred to a psychiatric facility for treatment , without her consent . No documents were provided by the applicant in relation to any of those proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172608","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"IRZYK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr ORG , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before ORG by Ms P. Borzymowska , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was an activist for the political party \u201c PERSON . During CARDINAL of the party meetings he met a certain ORG , who had been a member of the same party DATE .","NORP In DATE GPE had some financial problems and was seeking employment opportunities . She asked the applicant whether he could find a job for her . The applicant put ORG in contact with ORG , a deputy in the NORP parliament ( pose\u0142 na PERSON ) who was a member of the same party . In DATE ORG went to GPE to meet PERSON They met at first in the PERSON building and subsequently went to the PERSON hotel , where GPE and GPE had sexual intercourse . GPE told GPE that she would have to obey his orders if they were to work together .","In DATE a so - called \u201c sex scandal \u201d erupted in GPE . It involved public figures , including activists of the PERSON party who had offered and accepted personal benefits of a sexual nature in connection with exercising public functions .","On DATE the applicant telephoned ORG to ask her whether she had given any information to the press . He referred to an article \u201c Praca za seks \u201d ( \u201c Work for sex \u201d ) published in the daily PERSON on DATE .","On DATE PERSON was heard as a witness by the prosecutor in the investigation into the scandal . In the course of her interview she described her relationship with PERSON and with the applicant .","On DATE the applicant again phoned ORG to ask her whether she had been heard as a witness by ORG . ORG said that she had not . The applicant also told ORG had experienced difficulties as a result of the investigation into the so - called \u201c sex scandal \u201d and the sexual conduct of some PERSON party members . The applicant asked PERSON if he could talk to her again DATE . Their phone conversation was recorded by journalists from the TV channel \u201c TVN \u201d , who had invited ORG to participate in CARDINAL of its popular programmes .","The applicant did not telephone ORG again DATE . PERSON tried to reach him CARDINAL times without success and finally left a message on his voice mail .","The applicant phoned ORG on DATE and asked her if she had been heard by the prosecutor DATE . ORG replied that she had not .","On DATE E.Z. phoned the applicant using the telephone number provided by the ORG channel . The conversation was recorded by journalists working for the station . The applicant again asked ORG whether she had been heard by the prosecutor and when she confirmed that she had , he started to instruct her as to how she should testify when she was questioned again . He told her not to accuse anyone and not to disclose that she had had sexual intercourse with PERSON activists . He also suggested that she testify that relations between employees were \u201c normal \u201d at FAC . ORG understood these words as amounting to a form of incitement to give false testimony and a form of protection for GPE by withholding information about his sexual affairs with women who were members of ORG .","On DATE the applicant was heard as a suspect by ORG .","On DATE a bill of indictment against the applicant was prepared and lodged with ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a decision allowing minidiscs containing recordings of the telephone conversations with GPE to be included in the applicant \u2019s case - file as evidence . The applicant was informed of his right to appeal against this decision within DATE . He did not appeal .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of attempted obstruction of criminal proceedings and incitement to give false testimony and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 deprivation of liberty suspended for DATE . The court heard several witnesses including ORG , the journalists who had recorded the conversations , and the applicant himself .","The testimony of ORG given in the investigation phase of the proceedings was consistent with the contents of the recorded telephone conversations . However , in the proceedings before the trial court GPE decided to change her version of events and submitted that the applicant had in fact only requested her not to disclose to the prosecutor that they had had sexual intercourse . The court found the testimony given by GPE in the judicial phase of the proceedings to be not credible . It held that , \u201c the witness \u2019s ( ORG ) submissions as regards the change of her version of events as well as her explanation of some of the accused \u2019s statements made in the telephone conversation are illogical and na\u00efve \u201d .","The court went on to say that the applicant \u2019s conviction had been based on the \u201c entire evidentiary material , in particular on the contents of the telephone conversations with ORG recorded DATE \u201d . However from the court \u2019s reasoning it is evident that , after it had found PERSON \u2019s statements not to be credible , the actual basis for the conviction was the recording of the telephone conversations .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against the firstinstance judgment . He claimed , in particular , that the first - instance court had not respected the principle of free assessment of evidence . He further asserted that there had been a violation of LAW ( see relevant domestic law , below ) since the firstinstance court had based its judgment exclusively on evidence which weighed against him and ignored facts which weighed in his favour . Moreover , it had done so without any detailed reasoning and without indicating which facts it had found to be proved and on what evidence it had based its findings .","In the reasoning set out in the appeal , the applicant \u2019s lawyer explained that :","\u201c the court had wrongly assessed the testimony given by ORG and her motivation ; her behaviour was not spontaneous ; it was inspired by journalists who exercised pressure on her and manipulated her ... \u201d","NORP The applicant \u2019s lawyer concluded his appeal by the following words :","\u201c the overall assessment of evidence leads to the clear conclusion that the accused is a victim of carefully planned and precisely executed journalistic provocation and the prohibited acts referred to in the bill of indictment are groundless and find no support in the collected evidence \u201d .","On DATE ORG upheld the challenged judgment , finding that the first - instance court had assessed the evidence properly , \u201c in accordance with personal experience and LAW , which sets out the principle of free assessment of evidence ( see relevant domestic law below ) .","A cassation appeal was not available in the present case .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides as follows :","\u201c Whoever with the intent to commit a prohibited act directly attempts its commission through his conduct which , subsequently however does not take place , shall be held liable for an attempt \u201d .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides as follows :","\u201c Whoever , willing that another person should commit a prohibited act , induces the person to do so , shall be liable for incitement \u201d .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides as follows :","\u201c Whoever , in giving testimony which is to serve as evidence in court proceedings or other proceedings conducted on the basis of law , gives a false testimony or conceals the truth shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty of DATE . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides as follows :","\u201c Whoever obstructs or frustrates penal proceedings by aiding a perpetrator to evade penal liability and especially whoever hides the perpetrator or obliterates physical evidence of the offence or undergoes penalty for a sentenced person shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term DATE . \u201d","Article CARDINAL provides as follows :","\u201c The authorities conducting the proceedings shall make their decisions on the basis of their own conviction , upon all evidence taken assessed at their own discretion , with due consideration to the principles of sound reasoning , knowledge and personal experience . \u201d","Article CARDINAL provides , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c The reasoning [ of a judgment ] should contain :","indication which facts have been found by the court to be proven or unproven , on what evidence it based its findings in this respect and reasons for which it did not accept the evidence to the contrary . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177453","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"GADD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a barrister at ORG in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant qualified as a solicitor on DATE . He joined the firm ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) in DATE . At that time ORG was a limited liability partnership with CARDINAL members , namely ORG , the managing partner , and a private company called ORG ( \u201c WBLTL \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant became a salaried partner of ORG and a director of ORG .","After he became a salaried partner of ORG and a director of ORG the applicant became aware that ORG was defrauding clients and reported him to ORG ( \u201c SRA \u201d ) . PERSON resigned from ORG and ORG in DATE and was later struck off the roll of solicitors .","Following PERSON \u2019s resignation , the applicant continued to practice through ORG . As CARDINAL years\u2019 post - qualification experience was required before a solicitor could supervise a practice alone , another solicitor , ORG , became a member of ORG and a director of ORG .","NORP WBL remained in financial difficulty and was purportedly closed on DATE . On DATE WBLTL , which was already authorised by the ORG to trade as a solicitor \u2019s practice , was renamed PERSON ( \u201c CGL \u201d ) . Thereafter the applicant and PERSON practised through ORG , taking some of the client files of ORG with them .","On DATE ORG was placed into administration by CARDINAL of its creditors .","On DATE the ORG wrote to the applicant reminding him that he and PW were responsible for the files , documents , and client money of ORG . In that letter it stated that it was satisfied , in light of assurances previously given by the applicant , that he and ORG had attended to the closure of ORG correctly , but warned that the matter could be reinvestigated in future .","On DATE resigned from ORG as the applicant , having achieved CARDINAL PERSON post qualification experience , was qualified to supervise the practice alone .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that information received from ORG \u2019s administrators suggested that the closure of the firm had not been dealt with in accordance with its regulatory requirements .","On DATE and DATE members of the ORG \u2019s ORG visited the offices of ORG to assess that firm \u2019s compliance with the Solicitors\u2019 Account Rules ( \u201c the Rules \u201d ) , LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) and other issued codes and guidance . The resulting report dated DATE was sent to the applicant . It identified a number of breaches and requested confirmation that these would be rectified .","On DATE the ORG \u2019s ORG commenced an investigation into ORG . On DATE a ORG ( \u201c the Report \u201d ) concluded , inter alia , that ORG appeared to be the successor practice to ORG ; that the administrators of ORG had complained that the applicant had not been helpful in effecting the administration of the firm ; that the administrators had received a number of enquiries and complaints from former clients of ORG ; and that the client account of ORG appeared to have a shortfall of CARDINAL .","The ORG formed the basis of a case - note submitted to the ORG \u2019s ORG . The case - note identified a number of breaches of the Rules and the LAW in respect of ORG and recommended that the ORG exercise its powers of intervention in respect of ORG and any other firm or recognised body of which the applicant or PW were members , directors , managers or owners in order to protect the interests of the clients and former clients of ORG . The case - note indicated that due to the urgency of the matter no explanation had been sought from the applicant or GPE .","On DATE the ORG resolved to exercise its powers in accordance with the recommendations made in the case - note . As a result the accounts of both ORG and ORG were frozen and the applicant \u2019s practising certificate was automatically suspended , leaving him unable to practise . Control of ORG passed to a nominated agent appointed by the ORG to manage the firm . The case was referred to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","The applicant was notified of the intervention by fax on DATE . The notice indicated the terms of the ORG \u2019s resolution but the applicant was not provided with a copy of the ORG or the case - note . In the course of a telephone call with the ORG on DATE and a meeting on DATE the applicant was informed that under paragraph CARDINAL ) of Schedule CARDINAL to the Solicitors\u2019 Act CARDINAL ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) he was entitled to apply to ORG within DATE of the service of the notice for an order directing its withdrawal .","On DATE the ORG disclosed the ORG to the applicant and requested his explanation of the issues identified within it .","The applicant subsequently applied to the ORG for his practising certificate to be reinstated . On DATE it was restored subject to a number of restrictive conditions . However , ORG remained under the control of the ORG \u2019s nominated agents and was eventually placed into administration on DATE . The applicant was unable to obtain alternative employment as a solicitor due to the outstanding disciplinary proceedings against him .","NORP The professional disciplinary proceedings against the applicant came before the Tribunal on DATE . The ORG found that there had been breaches of the LAW and the LAW in respect of both ORG and ORG but it did not find that the applicant had been dishonest or reckless . It ordered that the applicant be suspended from practice as a solicitor for DATE on DATE and recommended to the ORG that following the end of the suspension period he should only practise in approved employment .","On DATE the applicant had issued a claim for damages against the ORG in ORG under LAW DATE ( \u201c HRA DATE \u201d ) . In respect of the applicant \u2019s Convention rights , the particulars of claim asserted that his LAW rights had been breached by the provision of the DATE limitation period , which precluded effective access to the courts ; that as a consequence , he had been deprived of his property rights in ORG , in breach of LAW No . CARDINAL ; and that he was entitled to damages for the loss of an opportunity to challenge the intervention . He further complained that the intervention had been contrary to LAW of LAW DATE .","At a hearing on DATE the claims concerning LAW DATE were struck out by consent . This left a single issue for determination by ORG ; namely , whether the DATE time - limit contained in paragraph CARDINAL ) of Schedule CARDINAL to the Solicitors Act DATE was incompatible with the applicant \u2019s human rights .","The ORG applied to strike out the applicant \u2019s claim and\/or for summary judgment to be entered in its favour .","On DATE the applicant applied for permission to amend his particulars of claim to assert , inter alia , that there had been a breach of the principle of natural justice , a breach of the rule of law and misfeasance in public office . He also sought to reintroduce a claim for breach of statutory duty . In respect of his Convention complaints , the amended particulars of claim averred that even if the intervention regime was in general compatible with the HRA DATE , the manner in which it was operated by the SRA \u2013 and in particular the process which led to the decision to intervene in ORG \u2013 had breached his Convention rights on the specific facts of his case .","Both applications came before Mrs Justice Sharp on DATE . She identified CARDINAL reasons why the claim in relation to the statutory timelimit was hopeless and doomed to failure . First of all , the domestic courts had established that the statutory scheme for intervention was compatible with FAC see , for example , the decision of ORG in ORG v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL , PERSON v. the Law Society [ DATE ] EWCA ( Civ ) DATE and PERSON The Law Society [ DATE ] EWHC CARDINAL ( QB ) ) . Secondly , as the DATE time - limit was prescribed by statute and not by ORG , the ORG could not be held liable for damages or for any breaches of the applicant \u2019s human rights that might result from it . Thirdly , the applicant \u2019s claim was academic since he had not sought to challenge the intervention within any other period which he himself considered reasonable but instead had waited DATE before bringing a claim by a different and inappropriate procedure ( the claim under the HRA DATE ) .","The judge noted that all other matters complained of were matters which \u201c could and should have been dealt with by a challenge to the intervention via the statutory procedure and within the time - limit laid down by ORG ( and in the course of which disclosure would have been provided of the documents PERSON has since been given or asked for ) \u201d . As such , his claim was \u201c a collateral challenge to the intervention process by other means \u201d and an attempt \u201c to circumvent the statutory limitation on the right of challenge \u201d . It was not open to the applicant to do this and , in the circumstances , his attempt to do so was an abuse of the process .","In conclusion , the judge noted that the applicant had been well aware of the DATE time - limit , and there was \u201c no evidence at all \u201d that he had lacked sufficient resources to challenge the intervention when all that would have been required in the first instance was the court fee to issue a claim . Had he been genuinely unable to pay the fee it would have been open to him to apply to the ORG \u2019s nominated agent for the release of some of ORG \u2019s frozen practice money to use for that purpose .","With regard to the application to amend the grounds of appeal , the judge found that the claim for breach of statutory duty was misconceived ; the common law principles of natural justice did not apply to the intervention process and , in any case , any procedural unfairness in the process leading to the intervention could have been raised in a statutory challenge to the intervention ; the newly advanced claim for breaches of his human rights was only notified to the ORG in DATE , and the limitation period for bringing such a claim had been DATE from the date of the alleged breach ; a \u201c breach of the rule of law \u201d was not a pleading known to LANGUAGE law , but insofar as he was claiming that ORG acted ultra vires , such a challenge could have been made under the statutory procedure ; and finally , the claim for misfeasance in public office was not maintainable in the circumstances .","Having found that the applicant \u2019s claim had no real prospect of success , the judge refused the application for permission to amend the particulars of claim and ordered summary judgment to be entered in favour of the ORG .","On DATE the applicant applied for permission to appeal the judge \u2019s order on the ground that it was arguable that at least in exceptional cases a challenge to an intervention could be brought outside the DATE time - limit , and the present case was exceptional on account of his impecuniosity and the fact that he had not been provided with reasons for the intervention until DATE . Permission was refused on the papers . The application was then renewed orally before ORG on DATE but permission to appeal was again refused .","In refusing permission to appeal , ORG found that even if it were to assume that the DATE time limit could be read down to allow for out - of - time applications in exceptional cases , this was not an exceptional case . First , impecuniosity was not a justifiable basis for not having brought a statutory challenge in time . The proceedings in the present case were not especially complex and the applicant was a solicitor who should have been well able to deal with the allegations against him . It was therefore not arguably necessary that he should have been provided with legal assistance . Secondly , although it was \u201c difficult to understand \u201d why the ORG and the case - note had not been disclosed to the applicant prior to the expiry of the DATE time limit , and there was some merit in the contention that it may have been difficult for him to have pursued proceedings without the ORG , on the facts of the case the court did not consider this to be a ground for reading down the DATE time limit . In particular , it noted that the basis of the applicant \u2019s complaint was essentially that he had acted in good faith and co - operated with the authorities in relation to the wind - up of ORG , and those were matters which had been known to him when he received the original notice of intervention . Furthermore , even if some departure from DATE period was justified by reference to Convention principles , it had plainly been critical for the applicant to have acted very speedily thereafter . However , while he did take steps to get himself put back on to the register so that he could practice as a solicitor , he had taken no steps in relation to the intervention for DATE . There was no reasonable prospect for saying that the time - limit should be read down so as to allow a challenge so long after the expiry of that period .","The Law Society is the governing body of the solicitors\u2019 profession . It has a regulatory function and regulatory powers under LAW CARDINAL ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) , which it exercises through the ORG . Under section CARDINAL of LAW , ORG is given the power to intervene in a solicitor \u2019s practice in circumstances specified in Part I of Schedule CARDINAL to LAW by exercising any or all of the powers set out in Part II of Schedule CARDINAL .","Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Part I to Schedule CARDINAL provides that ORG may exercise its right of intervention where , inter alia , it has reason to suspect dishonesty on the part of a solicitor in connection with that solicitor \u2019s practice or in connection with any trust of which that solicitor is or formerly was a trustee ; where it is satisfied that a solicitor has failed to comply with rules as to professional practice , conduct and discipline ; and where it is satisfied that it is necessary to protect the interests of clients ( or former or potential clients ) of the solicitor or his firm .","Part II of Schedule CARDINAL sets out the powers available to ORG upon intervention . Under paragraph CARDINAL , ORG has the power to take control of the practice \u2019s accounts .","Finally , section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provides for the suspension of the solicitor \u2019s practising certificate in the event of an intervention .","The DATE Act allows an intervened - upon solicitor to apply to ORG to request the withdrawal of an intervention . Under paragraph CARDINAL ) of Schedule CARDINAL , a decision to take possession of the practice monies can be challenged within DATE of the service of the notice by application to ORG for an order directing ORG to withdraw the notice , with not less than QUANTITY notice to ORG . Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that upon an application under paragraph CARDINAL ) ORG may make such an order as it thinks fit .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the HRA DATE requires , so far as possible , that primary legislation and subordinate legislation be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with Convention rights .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the HRA DATE further provides that a person who claims to be a victim of an unlawful act by a public authority may either bring proceedings against the authority under that Act in the appropriate court or tribunal , or rely on the Convention rights concerned in any legal proceedings . Subject to any rule imposing a stricter time limit in relation to the procedure in question , proceedings brought under the HRA DATE should be brought within DATE beginning with the date on which the act complained of took place , or such longer period as the court or tribunal considers equitable having regard to all the circumstances .","Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , a solicitor may , at any time before the expiry of his practising certificate , apply to ORG to have the suspension of the certificate terminated . Under LAW ) , upon receipt of an application ORG may terminate the suspension either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it may think fit .","NORP If ORG refuses the application or terminates the suspension subject to conditions , the solicitor may appeal against that decision .","In LAW Society [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL , [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ORG accepted that an intervention under LAW gave rise to an interference with a solicitor \u2019s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions DATE . CARDINAL to the Convention . However , having regard to issues of proportionality and the margin of appreciation it concluded that both the legislation itself and the approach taken by ORG had struck the fair balance required by LAW No . CARDINAL .","Sir PERSON , who agreed with the leading judgment of Lord Justice Carnwath , observed :","\u201c CARDINAL . In the exercise of its powers of intervention ORG must of course comply with LAW . I can imagine circumstances where ORG might be found not to have complied with the LAW , or with LAW DATE . After all , a solicitor whose practice is the object of an intervention loses his practising certificate , and in all probability his livelihood as well . The provisions for bringing an intervention to an end are very unlikely to restore the solicitor \u2019s goodwill and his prosperity . If it comes about that the intervention was mistaken or unjustified , there is a risk that the solicitor will suffer a substantial loss without recourse to any remedy . In practice this may never happen ; but it is a cause for concern . However , not in this case . \u201d","In PERSON v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL All ER CARDINAL , [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL PERSON , at the end of his leading judgment , made further obiter comments regarding the summary process for bringing a statutory challenge to an intervention and its compliance with claimants\u2019 Convention rights of in light of the decision in Holder :","\u201c CARDINAL ... In Holder v Law Society [ DATE ] EWCA Civ DATE , [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL , this ORG DATE and rejected \u2013 an argument that the procedure for which ORG had made provision was incompatible with the solicitor \u2019s Convention rights . It rejected that argument ( inter alia ) on the basis that the court \u2019s power to consider whether a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the protection of the individual \u2019s fundamental rights met the requirements of LAW . But it is clear that , unless the matter can be determined by the court within a short time of the intervention , the solicitor is likely to be denied an effective remedy . That is because the consequences of intervention \u2013 if the intervention continues for more than a short time \u2013 are likely to be irreversible . The solicitor \u2019s clients will have to take their affairs elsewhere ; the staff will have found other employment ; and the practice will be destroyed in any event .","There is an obvious tension between the need to have an application to the court determined speedily and the need for the court to give full and fair consideration to the task which it has been set under LAW and , now , LAW DATE . This case illustrates the need for the Society to give thought as to how that tension can be resolved ...","CARDINAL ... The ORG should , I think , give thought to the need for Panel resolutions to identify , with much more specificity than in this case , the reasons which ( in the Panel \u2019s view ) make intervention necessary . If those reasons are not identified at an early stage , there is a danger that the solicitor will be denied the effective protection which ORG plainly intended a summary process to provide .","There will , of course , be many cases in which the solicitor who has suffered intervention will be in no doubt as to the ORG \u2019s concerns . And , as I have said , there will be cases where the solicitor wishes to challenge the validity of the resolution on public law grounds . But , in cases where , although the solicitor knows what material was before the Panel , there is genuine doubt as to the matters which the ORG regards as sufficiently serious to justify intervention , it seems to me that the court should be ready to assist DATE on an early application for directions following the issue of an application under the schedule CARDINAL procedure \u2013 by requiring the ORG to state the grounds upon which ( on the material then known to it ) the application will be resisted . Such a statement would enable the solicitor to address the ORG \u2019s concerns in a focused response . And , in the light of that response , the ORG can explain to the court why it takes the view ( if it does ) that the concerns have not been met .","I appreciate that the process suggested in the previous paragraph may require the court to adopt a more pro - active role on applications under schedule CARDINAL to LAW than hitherto ; and that the need for an early determination of such applications will place demands on the court \u2019s resources which it may be difficult to meet . But , as it seems to me , the court will be ready to meet those demands in order to ensure that the solicitor does obtain the effective protection which the LAW requires and which LAW was plainly intended to provide . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152742","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"WILCZY\u0143SKA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","ORG The applicant is a co - owner of CARDINAL plots of land located in GPE .","On DATE ORG adopted a new local development plan . The plan stipulated that a public road was to be constructed on the applicant \u2019s property .","On DATE the applicant formally requested ORG to alter the local development plan and to adopt a different location for the future road . ORG refused this request in a resolution adopted on DATE .","On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG against the resolution of CARDINAL DATE . She alleged , inter alia , that the local development plan had unlawfully designated part of her property for a future road . She argued that such a designation resulted in restrictions on developing her property and the reduction in its value . This amounted to a breach of her property rights .","ORG on DATE dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . It found that the local development plan constituted an interference with the applicant \u2019s property rights which , however , was justified by the public - interest considerations . The plan did not affect the core of the applicant \u2019s property rights since she retained the possibility to use and to dispose of the property . With regard to the alleged reduction in the value of the property , the court noted that the applicant could have pursued her compensation claim under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act .","NORP The applicant filed a cassation appeal . She argued , inter alia , that ORG had erroneously applied the provisions of LAW . In this respect she submitted that the local development plan had deprived her of the possibility to develop her property and resulted in the reduction of its value . The applicant further alleged that the municipality had not adopted an alternative , less onerous , proposal for the location of the road .","On DATE ORG dismissed her cassation appeal . It concurred with the lower court that the location of a road retained by the municipality had been the most favourable to the applicant \u2019s interests . ORG found that the interference with the applicant \u2019s property rights had not been excessive since only part of her property had been designated for a road while the remaining part could be developed .","ORG judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .","From DATE to DATE questions of land development were governed by LAW on ORG . Under this law owners of properties to be expropriated in the future were not entitled to any form of compensation for damage resulting from restrictions on the use of their property or the reduction in its value originating in expropriations to be carried out at an undetermined future date .","On DATE a new ORG was enacted ( \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) . It entered into force on DATE .","Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act created for local authorities a number of obligations towards owners whose properties were designated for expropriation at an undetermined future date under land development plans adopted by the competent municipal authorities . The municipalities were obliged to buy such property , replace it with other land within DATE of an owner \u2019s request , or provide compensation for the damage caused by the designation .","NORP However , pursuant to section QUANTITY , these obligations and the corresponding claims of the owners applied only to plans adopted after LAW had entered into force , i.e. to plans adopted by local authorities after DATE .","Pursuant to the DATE Act , plans adopted before its entry into force were to expire on DATE . In DATE an amendment to the DATE LAW was adopted under which the validity of such plans was extended for a further two years until DATE . Again , on DATE , ORG passed a law amending LAW which extended until DATE the validity of the land development plans adopted before DATE .","On DATE a new ORG was enacted ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) . It entered into force on DATE and repealed the DATE Act . Under section CARDINAL of the DATE Act , all local plans adopted before DATE remained valid , but not beyond DATE .","Compensation entitlements for owners , provided for by DATE Act , were in essence maintained by LAW . Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the latter Act , when , following the adoption of a new local land development plan , the use of property in the manner provided for by a previous plan had become impossible or had been restricted , it was open to the owner to claim compensation from the municipality for actual damage sustained , or to request the municipality to buy the plot or its part . These claims may be also satisfied by the provision of an alternative property to the owner by the municipality . Any litigation which might arise in this respect between local authorities and owners could be pursued before the civil courts ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150321","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MALMBERG AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","She had a dispute with private individuals over a contract of sale for a flat , concluded in DATE , in which the applicant was the purchaser . According to the contract , she was to pay the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) in CARDINAL instalments : CARDINAL of the price on signing the contract , and the rest before DATE . The sellers were to vacate the flat before the same date . The applicant paid a sum equal to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL on signing the contract and a further sum equal to CARDINAL in DATE , but never paid the remaining sum . The sellers were evicted from the flat in DATE . The applicant claimed interest on the amounts paid by her for the period up to the time at which she had taken possession of the flat .","At a public hearing on DATE , in the presence of the applicant \u2019s representative and the defendants , ORG of GPE partially found for the applicant , awarding her interest on the amount of ORG MONEY at an DATE rate of PERCENT for the period from DATE until DATE on which she had taken possession of the flat , and dismissed the remainder of her claims . It read out the operative part of its judgment .","At a public hearing on DATE the GPE examined the case on appeal in the presence of the applicant \u2019s representative and the defendants . It quashed the part of the judgment in which ORG had found for the applicant , and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims in view of her own failure to pay the price of the flat in full . It upheld the remainder of the judgment . The applicant \u2019s claims were thus dismissed in their entirety .","At the close of the hearing ORG read out the operative part of its judgment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative received a copy of ORG reasoned judgment .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","A private individual brought proceedings against the applicant seeking recovery of a debt in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) .","At a public hearing on DATE ORG examined the case in the presence of the claimant and the applicant \u2019s representative . It ordered that the applicant pay the amount of the debt in full , as well as interest in the amount of RUB CARDINAL and the court fee in the amount of RUB CARDINAL .","At the close of the hearing ORG read out the operative part of its judgment .","On DATE a copy of ORG reasoned judgment was sent to the applicant by post .","At an open hearing on DATE ORG examined the case on appeal in the presence of the parties\u2019 representatives . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the judgment . At the close of the hearing ORG read out the operative part of its judgment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative received a copy of ORG reasoned judgment .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The ORG brought proceedings against the applicant for recovery of \u201c unjust enrichment \u201d in the amount of RUB MONEY resulting from the use of a plot of urban land for a period of DATE and interest in the amount of RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","At a public hearing on DATE the ORG of GPE examined the case in the presence of the claimant \u2019s representative and the applicant . It found for the claimant and ordered that the applicant repay the sum gained through unjust enrichment and interest as claimed , as well as the court fee in the amount of RUB MONEY .","At the close of the hearing ORG read out the operative part of its judgment .","On DATE the applicant received ORG reasoned judgment .","The applicant appealed against the judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld ORG judgment . It rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that ORG judgment had not been pronounced publicly as required by LAW , stating that ORG had read out the operative part of its judgment at the hearing and prepared the reasoned judgment within DATE thereafter in compliance with domestic law .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant brought proceedings against the GPE department of ORG , challenging its refusal to employ her for the campaign of the population census on the ground of her disability and claiming damages in the amount of RUB CARDINAL . The applicant argued , in particular , that despite her disability she was perfectly fit for the work and that she had successfully performed that type of work in the past .","At a public hearing on DATE the ORG of GPE examined the case in the presence of the applicant and the defendant \u2019s representative . It dismissed her claims in full , having found , inter alia , that the refusal to employ her had been lawful in view of a medicosocial expert report confirming her total incapacity for any kind of work . ORG noted that it had been open to the applicant to challenge the conclusion of the medico - social expert report , but that she had chosen not to do so . At the close of the hearing the court read out the operative part of its judgment .","On DATE the applicant received a copy of ORG reasoned judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld ORG judgment . ORG read out the operative part of its judgment at the close of its public hearing in the presence of the GPE representatives . The applicant \u2019s representative received a copy of its reasoned judgment in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168540","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"\u0160TRLEKAR v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG Attorney .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant has suffered from a psychotic disorder since DATE . He has mainly received outpatient psychiatric treatment ; however , in DATE , he spent DATE in a psychiatric hospital because of a delusional disorder and suicidal thoughts .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of aggravated theft . DATE he was brought before the investigating judge of ORG who opened a judicial investigation against him and ordered his detention .","From DATE until DATE the applicant was detained in the remand section of FAC . During this time , he was hospitalised in ORG from CARDINAL until DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s court - appointed counsel wrote a letter to the remand section of FAC , informing the authorities that the applicant had written a number of letters to her in which he mentioned having had suicidal thoughts . Accordingly , the counsel asked the prison authorities to provide her with a copy of the applicant \u2019s medical documents and to inform her of his mental condition .","On DATE the investigating judge of ORG appointed an expert in psychiatry to give his opinion on whether the applicant had been capable of understanding the nature and effect of his actions at the time of the events in issue and whether he was capable of participating in the proceedings .","At the expert \u2019s recommendation , the court ordered , on DATE , that the applicant be transferred to the forensic psychiatric unit of ORG hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for the purpose of further observation and diagnosis . On his admission to ORG , on DATE , he was placed in the most secure area , a CARDINAL - bed room which could be monitored through a glass window . He had access to a large hallway shared by CARDINAL patients which led to , inter alia , bathrooms , a living room , a doctor \u2019s office and a smoking room . On DATE in ORG he was assessed by Dr. PERSON On DATE and DATE he was assessed by Dr. NORP and Dr. PERSON respectively . The doctors noted that the applicant had reported occasional hallucinations and had mentioned a previous suicide attempt , but they considered that he was not acutely psychotic and did not at that time have suicidal tendencies . On DATE Dr. ORG noted that the applicant had , according to ORG guards , been testing the fence and windows in the yard . Citing attempts he had previously made to abscond , the doctor noted that the applicant would no longer be allowed to access the yard .","On DATE , at TIME the applicant jumped through the window in the smoking room and landed on the concrete staircase leading to the basement . On DATE , following the incident , a report was prepared by the special security officer , PERSON Another report was prepared by CARDINAL staff members on CARDINAL DATE . The reports were based on the observations of the staff , an inspection of the LOC and interviews with patients . The reports found that the applicant , with the help of some of the patients , had displaced the bars on the window by loosening the screws . The applicant had then used a sheet to lower himself from the second to the first floor . CARDINAL of the patients had then untied the sheet from the second - floor window so that the applicant was able to tie it to the first - floor window in order to climb down from the first floor . During the latter attempt he had landed on the staircase , which had not been visible from the window and could therefore not have been anticipated by the applicant . According to the above - mentioned reports , as well as the medical report drawn up by Dr. PERSON , following the jump the applicant had been found lying on the concrete floor under the window , unable to move , and complaining that he was in pain . CARDINAL medical officers had come to his assistance and had shortly thereafter been joined by Dr. A.F.C. and other health professionals from ORG who had administered first aid to him and called for an ambulance . As the paramedics had been positioning the applicant on the stretcher and cutting through his pajamas , they had found that he had been wearing civilian clothes underneath . The applicant , accompanied by a security officer , had been taken to hospital . Furthermore , upon an inspection of the smoking room , it had been found that the bar covering the window had shifted ( CARDINAL of the screws holding it in place having been removed ) and a sheet was hanging from the window ( which is clearly visible in the photos attached to the reports and submitted to ORG ) . According to the reports , a patient , Mr D.T. , had told the staff that the applicant had earlier asked him for a hex key and that another patient , Mr. PERSON , had helped the applicant with his escape ; Mr PERSON denied this . The special security officer who drew up the report of CARDINAL DATE also noted in that report that immediately after the incident she had seen a car with CARDINAL young men waiting next to the ORG building . According to her report , the men had driven off after being approached by her .","The applicant denied that he had attempted to escape and alleged that the incident of CARDINAL DATE was in reality a suicide attempt . In a letter of DATE , which he sent to his lawyer for the purposes of the legal proceedings , he explained that he had put on pajamas over his sweatshirt and sweatpants because he had been feeling cold . In that letter he further denied that there had been any sheets hanging from the window and accused the police officers and the medical staff of ORG of lying in order to avoid their responsibility for the incident . He also alleged that he had been maltreated , strapped to the bed , and forcibly medicated and that because of this he had attempted to kill himself .","As a result of the above - mentioned fall , the applicant sustained a number of injuries , including a fracture of a lumbar vertebra and fractures of both heel bones ( calcanei ) , and suffered temporary paralysis . His lumbar vertebra was operated on immediately after DATE . On DATE he was transferred from the intensive care unit to the traumatology unit , where he stayed until DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant lodged an application ( no . CARDINAL ) with the ORG complaining about the overcrowding , inadequate ventilation and limited out - of - cell time allowed to inmates in ORG during the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he further complained to the ORG about inadequate conditions in ORG during the period from DATE until DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant was examined by an expert psychiatrist , who judged that he was able to participate in the trial . On DATE he was again detained in ORG , from where he was released on DATE . The medical discharge letter noted that the applicant was not psychotic and was not at risk of suicide .","According to the Government \u2019s submissions , PERSON , the mother of a detainee who had spent DATE in ORG , complained to the police in DATE in general terms about the \u201c torture and overdosing \u201d of the patients by ORG staff . PERSON also mentioned that one of the patients , identified as the applicant , had DATE according to her son DATE jumped through a window after undergoing DATE of torture . On DATE the GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office issued a decision dismissing the complaint , a copy of which was sent to the applicant . The prosecutor \u2019s office noted that on the basis of her allegations ORG had reviewed the medical files of the relevant patients , including the applicant , on DATE . It reiterated the findings of the above - mentioned reports of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , as summarised by ORG , noting that they showed that the applicant had undoubtedly attempted to escape and not to commit suicide .","From DATE until DATE the applicant underwent rehabilitation in ORG . When discharged he was able to walk with aid of crutches ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142081","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SLEMEN\u0160EK v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed and semi - open sections of GPE prison in the period DATE and DATE . From DATE to DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE he was held in the closed section . From DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE he was held in the semiopen section .","From DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE he was held in cells CARDINAL and 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 CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) , which measured QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) and contained CARDINAL sleeping places .","All the cells in the closed and semi - open sections contained , apart from the furniture , CARDINAL sleeping places ( CARDINAL bunk beds and CARDINAL single bed ) . According to the applicant , CARDINAL prisoners were being held in each of the cells during his detention . The Government , however , submitted that the number varied CARDINAL . Each cell had CARDINAL x QUANTITY double casement window , which the prisoners could freely open or close .","As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the closed and semi - open sections , material conditions inside the cells therein , sanitary conditions and health care , see the judgment in ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , 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 \u00a7 DATE ) .","As to the out - of - cell time in the semi - open section , the ORG submitted that the cell doors in the semi - open section of the prison were unlocked , except from TIME ( on DATE and DATE from TIME ) until TIME ( on DATE , DATE and during holidays until TIME ) . During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor ( QUANTITY ) , living quarters of co - prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas , in accordance with prison rules . The Government contended that this regime had been in place for DATE .","During his imprisonment the applicant had CARDINAL consultations with a general practitioner and visited a dentist on QUANTITY occasions . He was treated by a psychiatrist on QUANTITY occasions and by a psychologist on CARDINAL occasions .","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 ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152311","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"BULGARTSVET-VELINGRAD OOD AND KOPPE v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant company , ORG , is a limited liability company created in DATE . It is registered in GPE , GPE . The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their Agents , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , of ORG .","ORG , informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in accordance with LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG , have not availed themselves of this opportunity .","NORP The applicant held a MONEY stake in the applicant company . The other MONEY was held by Fabrika CARDINAL ORG , a NORP limited liability company wholly owned by the applicant .","On DATE another company , PERSON ORG ( \u201c OP \u201d ) , a state - owned limited liability company , was declared insolvent and insolvency proceedings were opened . Following a public auction of part of its property , on DATE the applicant company acquired several greenhouses . However , in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the auction was cancelled .","Pending a new auction , on DATE ORG , represented by its trustee in insolvency , and the applicant company signed a contract pursuant to which the applicant company was appointed guardian of the greenhouses until they were sold . The applicant company undertook to maintain the greenhouses\u2019 equipment and to carry out urgent repair works . In the meantime the applicant company was entitled to use the property and in exchange undertook to pay DATE rent .","In addition to the repairs indicated in the contract of DATE , the applicant company carried out substantial works on the greenhouses , which it alleged were necessary for the latter \u2019s proper functioning . On an unspecified date it requested the trustee in insolvency of ORG to reimburse the costs of those works . Initially the ORG included those costs in the list of accepted claims against ORG . Later , however , following an objection by CARDINAL of the other creditors of ORG , which was based on the fact that the costs were substantial , had not been approved by the creditors and had been incurred after the beginning of the insolvency proceedings , in a decision of DATE the ORG removed this claim from the list .","In a final decision of DATE , ORG upheld the removal , as it was not satisfied that the additional works had been urgent and necessary . Moreover , the works had not been authorised by the ORG and the remaining creditors . ORG considered that a creditor such as the applicant company , with a claim which had not been agreed in the insolvency proceedings , could make that claim in separate civil proceedings .","On DATE the applicant company brought a civil claim against ORG and also against ORG , as a representative of the ORG , which owned ORG \u2019s capital . Initially it sought CARDINAL NORP levs ( ORG ) ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) , representing part of the repair costs . In the course of the proceedings it increased its claim to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , claiming that ORG had unjustly enriched itself by that amount . The applicant company did not seek to have its claim included in the list of accepted claims prepared by the ORG , but argued that it was entitled to receive payment prior to the distribution of any amounts obtained through the sale of the property of ORG among the remaining creditors .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG granted the claim against ORG . It found that the applicant company had been unable to claim or receive payment in the course of the insolvency proceedings , and that therefore it was open to it to do so in separate civil proceedings . It went on to say that the repairs had been necessary , that the defendant company had unjustly enriched itself , and that it had had to reimburse the costs of the repairs . It accepted the applicant company \u2019s argument that it had been a \u201c third party \u201d to the insolvency proceedings , and that it was entitled to receive payment outside those proceedings . Thus , the domestic court ordered ORG to pay the applicant company the amount of ORG CARDINAL , plus interest and costs .","On the other hand , ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s claim against ORG , finding that the latter could not be held liable for ORG \u2019s debts .","OP appealed against the above judgment , but its appeal was rejected as inadmissible in a final decision of ORG DATE . As a result , ORG judgment became final .","NORP On DATE ORG requested the reopening of the proceedings , claiming that it had not been properly summoned to the first CARDINAL hearings in the case , held on DATE and DATE . In a judgment of DATE ORG allowed the request and reopened the proceedings .","After a fresh examination of the case , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG discontinued the proceedings in respect of OP . It held that the claim was precluded by virtue of the provision of the newly introduced section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c the CA \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which concerned procedural rights and was therefore applicable to pending proceedings .","As regards the proceedings against ORG , the ORG observed that they were still pending .","On appeals by the applicant company , on DATE and DATE respectively ORG conclusions were upheld by ORG and ORG .","ORG considered in addition that the applicant company should have lodged a claim under section CARDINAL of the CA ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) within the insolvency proceedings .","The applicant company submits that it became aware of ORG decision of DATE on DATE .","Following the discontinuation of the proceedings in so far as they concerned ORG , the proceedings continued against ORG .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG rejected the applicant company \u2019s claim against ORG . It noted that it had ordered ORG to provide several invoices which it considered relevant . Those invoices had not been presented ( ORG had in the meantime been wound up ) ; accordingly , the domestic court found that the claim had not been proved .","NORP The applicant company did not lodge an appeal against the above judgment , as it was entitled to do under domestic law .","NORP The applicant company used the greenhouses until DATE , when it was evicted . The greenhouses were sold at a new public auction in DATE .","Company insolvency is governed by Part IV of LAW ( \u201c the CA \u201d ) of DATE . Since its enactment in DATE , its provisions relating to company insolvency were amended on numerous occasions .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the CA , creditors had to declare their claims against the insolvent company . The trustee in insolvency then prepared a list of accepted claims . Refusal by the trustee to accept a claim and include it in the list could be contested before the insolvency court . A creditor could also object to a decision to accept another creditor \u2019s claim . At the relevant time , the trustee would decide on the matter and then submit the list for approval to the insolvency court .","By section CARDINAL of the CA , introduced in DATE and as worded at the time , a creditor whose claim had not been accepted and included in the list could also bring an action for a declaration seeking to establish the existence of the claim . Such an action could be brought within DATE of the entry in the company register of the insolvency court \u2019s decision approving the list of accepted claims . If the claimant was successful , the claim was to be satisfied within the insolvency proceedings . A similar provision existed in the CA until DATE , when it was repealed .","Until DATE there was no provision which explicitly allowed or barred the bringing of a civil claim against an insolvent company separately from the insolvency proceedings against that company , and there was no well - established practice of the domestic courts in this regard . Following amendments to the CA of DATE , a bar to such claims was introduced ( initially section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , currently ( CARDINAL ) ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172440","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA","importance":2,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Lemmens;Pauliine Koskelo;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son , PERSON , participated in a public gathering in the village of GPE , in the GPE district of ORG . CARDINAL people took part , alleging corruption by local public officials . At TIME officers from the special mobile unit encircled the participants and fired several warning shots into the air .","Thereafter the gathering was dispersed by the authorities with the use of firearms ( see also PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . PERSON was wounded by a tear - gas grenade and died from his wounds . CARDINAL other people were seriously wounded ; a large number of people sustained injuries and were arrested .","On DATE the prosecutor of GPE initiated criminal proceedings on charges of murder and illegally handling firearms ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) and assigned the case to an investigator .","A forensic expert examined the deceased \u2019s body and extracted the objects that had killed him .","On DATE , the investigator commissioned a ballistics report from ORG of ORG of the ORG to determine the type of the grenade , the type of rifle used to fire it and whether the grenade had striae that could be used to identify that rifle .","On CARDINAL DATE the ballistics expert issued a report and concluded as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The forensic expert was given the following CARDINAL objects for examination : a grenade with a special charge ; and an obturator with a special charge ( a CARDINAL PERSON cartridge used with a carbine type KS-CARDINAL ( KS-CARDINAL M ) ) . It has not been possible to determine the exact make of the tear - gas grenade .","NORP ... It would not be possible to use the obturator on the body of the grenade to identify the specific weapon used . It would however be possible to use the separate obturator to identify the weapon used , if the weapon were provided for examination . \u201d","On DATE the investigating authority commissioned another ballistics report to identify the rifle used to fire the grenade extracted from the body of the applicant \u2019s son . On DATE the Forensic Expert Centre of the Dagestan Ministry of the ORG declined to carry out an examination , referring to the absence of \u201c facilities or equipment for test - shooting CARDINAL PERSON canisters with special gases \u201d .","On an unspecified date , a number of carbines used by officers of the special mobile unit on DATE were seized .","In DATE and DATE the investigating authority commissioned ballistics reports from ORG of ORG of the ORG and another local expert institution . However , the reports were not produced , apparently , on account of lack of sufficient technical facilities .","On DATE ORG of ORG was asked to prepare a ballistics report in order to determine which rifle had been fired at the victim . The investigating authority submitted the objects extracted from the victim \u2019s body , as well as CARDINAL carbines .","On DATE the authorities took the decision to open another criminal case concerning the charge of abuse of power by a public official causing death ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) . It appears from the decision that it concerned persons other than the applicant \u2019s son . The decision read as follows :","\u201c It was established that police officers had had recourse to firearms ... Officers from the special mobile unit fired gunshots , using QUANTITY , and teargas grenades , acting in violation of a directive dated DATE and in excess of their powers ... It is prohibited to fire these tear - gas canisters at a person . As a result , Mr N. and Mr A. sustained injuries . \u201d","The above - mentioned cases were subsequently joined .","On DATE ORG issued a report , the relevant parts of which read :","\u201c ... As the relevant QUANTITY had not been submitted for test shots , a request for CARDINAL PERSON cartridges was made to the relevant department of ORG of GPE ... [ Footnote : PERSON cartridges are used for training purposes relating to the use of KS-CARDINAL and KS-CARDINAL M carbines . These cartridges are similar to those normally used with these carbines . The only difference is that they do not contain the irritating chemical substance . ] ...","The research part","...","NORP ... I note that the tear - gas grenade has no striae left by the carbine used to fire it . This may be explained by the fact that the grenade could not have had contact with the interior of the carbine as it had been loaded into it with the aid of CARDINAL obturators ...","Test shots have been carried out in respect of the KS-CARDINAL and KSCARDINAL M carbines that were submitted for the examination . The purpose of the test shots was to observe the striae left on the obturators of the grenades fired from these carbines , and to compare the striae with the striae left on the obturator of the grenade used against the victim . I have used CARDINAL PERSON cartridges for the test shots . These cartridges are similar to those that were submitted for the examination ...","NORP ... In view of the variance of the results of the test shots , it was impracticable to identify the relevant carbine on the basis of the striae left on the obturators ... in particular , on account of the elasticity and low thermo - resistance of the material used in the obturators ... \u201d","On DATE another ballistics report was requested from ORG ( \u201c the Institute \u201d ) . ORG was likewise provided with CARDINAL carbines and the objects extracted from the victim \u2019s body .","On DATE the expert from the ORG issued a report stating that it was not practicable to determine which of the examined carbines had been used to shoot the cartridge . The forensic expert explained that she had been provided with PERSON cartridges for the purpose of her research and for test shots , whereas the elements extracted from the victim \u2019s body were parts of a grenade . The forensic expert specified that PERSON cartridges and tear - gas grenades had \u201c different geometric parameters and are made of materials with different characteristics \u201d .","On DATE the investigating authority suspended the investigation .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s other son , Mr PERSON , brought court proceedings challenging the alleged inaction of the investigating authority . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of PERSON dismissed the complaint . The court held as follows :","\u201c Over seventy people were interviewed in the course of the investigation . The necessary ( medical , ballistics , criminological ) examinations were carried out ... All carbines which had been used by the officers were seized ... All relevant officers were identified ... The logbooks concerning distribution of weapons and ammunition were examined ... On CARDINAL occasions CARDINAL different expert institutions were asked to submit ballistics reports . The requests were not complied with on account of the absence of the necessary equipment ... Attempts were made to identify the relevant rifle in other expert institutions ... Those were not equipped for this kind of forensic examination ... In consequence , ORG was not able to identify the weapon ... Another request is pending before ORG ... Thus , the investigating authority has carried out all the investigative measures that were possible in the absence of an identified suspect . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .","The applicant \u2019s son , Mr PERSON , also sought judicial review of the suspension decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG held that the suspension of the investigation was justified . However , on DATE the appeal court quashed the judgment and ordered a re - examination of the complaint . In a judgment of DATE ORG granted the complaint , considering that by failing to submit appropriate comparative material to the forensic expert , the investigating authority failed to take \u201c exhaustive measures aimed at identifying the perpetrator \u201d .","On an unspecified date , the applicant became aware that the evidence extracted from the body of his son had been lost .","NORP In DATE the applicant requested that the authorities commission an additional ballistics report and complained about the loss of the evidence .","On DATE the investigation was resumed . It appears that the investigating authority took some measures to clarify what had happened to the evidence . In particular , armourers from the special mobile unit were interviewed . The investigator also made an enquiry with the ORG referring to his difficulties in interpreting the report of CARDINAL DATE . It remains unclear what reply was received to this enquiry .","According to the ORG , the enquiry about the loss of evidence yielded no specific results , in particular on account of the death of the investigator in the case and the redeployment of the investigation unit .","On DATE the investigator again suspended the investigation .","On DATE the acting prosecutor of GPE determined that this decision was unlawful and ordered a resumption of the investigation . The decision reads as follows :","\u201c Having examined the file , I conclude that the investigation did not exhaust the measures aimed at establishing the circumstances of the crime , at collecting the evidence and identifying the rifle used to cause the victim \u2019s death ... In particular , the request for a ballistics report to ORG was submitted with PERSON cartridges instead of the type of cartridges used for causing the victim \u2019s death . The different geometric parameters of these cartridges prevented the experts from identifying the carbine used against the victim ...","Following the resumption of the investigation in DATE the investigator merely made an enquiry instead of actually submitting grenades for comparative research ...","It does not follow from the expert report of CARDINAL DATE that it would have been impossible to identify the rifle , provided that cartridges of the relevant type were provided .","The evidence extracted from the victim \u2019s body was examined for the purposes of the above expert report . Thus , the current unavailability of this evidence is not an obstacle to seeking a new ballistics report from the same institution . \u201d","Following the resumption of the investigation the investigator made enquiries with the ORG about the possibility of carrying out a ballistics examination in the absence of the evidence extracted from the victim \u2019s body . While it remains unclear what reply was received from the ORG , it does not appear that any new ballistics examination was carried out .","On DATE the investigating authority issued a decision suspending the investigation . This decision reads as follows :","\u201c It follows from the evidence in the case file that on DATE inhabitants of nearby villages and other people blocked the road with stones and logs ... In reply to lawful orders from the police requiring them to disperse , unidentified people threw stones at the police , causing various physical injuries to CARDINAL officers . The police officers used firearms to retaliate ...","Officers of the special mobile unit fired shots with their pump - action shotguns towards the crowd , using QUANTITY , and a tear - gas grenade . In so doing they violated a directive dated DATE ... and acted in excess of their powers . As a result , [ the applicant \u2019s son ] and others sustained shotgun wounds ... causing [ him ] to die on the spot .","...","It is impossible to commission another ballistics report in the absence of the cartridge . It has not been possible to identify the person who shot [ the applicant \u2019s son ] . \u201d","The applicant did not challenge this decision ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181841","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF NICHEPORUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention , which were incompatible with their disabilities . In application no . NORP the applicant also raised other complaints under the Convention , including LAW that he did not have an effective remedy to complain about the poor conditions of his detention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172325","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BLAGOJEVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant filed a civil suit together with CARDINAL other persons with ORG against his former employer ORG AD GPE requesting the payment of funds from profit made in DATE .","The applicant \u2019s previous representative did not attend first preliminary hearing fixed for DATE , since he had been deleted from the register of the attorneys DATE at - law in DATE . The applicant appointed the present representative on DATE .","The preliminary hearing was held on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the proceedings were split to separate proceedings for each of the plaintiffs concerned .","The preliminary hearing was held on DATE .","Within the period from DATE until DATE out of CARDINAL hearings were postponed for various reasons , mainly because the representatives on the both sides provided new submissions and evidence and on the proposal of both sides due to the cost - efficiency of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG ruled against the applicant .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-185229","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF N.K. v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained .","NORP In DATE preliminary proceedings were initiated against the applicant based on the suspicion that he had committed violent acts against his spouse , PERSON On DATE PERSON was examined at the request of the public prosecutor \u2019s office by the investigating judge , PERSON , after the latter had decided , at the suggestion of the public prosecutor \u2019s office , to exclude the applicant from the hearing under LAW of LAW , since there was a risk , given the nature of the reported offences , that GPE would not testify or would not tell the truth in the applicant \u2019s presence .","On DATE the investigating judge , at the request of the public prosecutor \u2019s office , issued an arrest warrant for the applicant and also assigned counsel to him .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and detained on remand . On DATE the ORG assigned a lawyer of his choice as his counsel .","On DATE the ORG opened the main proceedings against the applicant . PERSON , who was also summoned to appear on that date , informed the court that she did not wish to give evidence .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , the investigating judge was examined on the evidence he had obtained from his examination of GPE on DATE . ORG rejected an objection by the applicant \u2019s counsel on the grounds that it was permissible to examine the investigating judge even if the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW ( d ) of the LAW had been breached by PERSON \u2019s examination . Only when adjudicating the case could it be decided whether the investigating judge \u2019s statements could be admitted as evidence or not , which , in line with the ORG \u2019s case - law , would depend on whether it had been corroborated by other significant factors independent of that evidence .","At that same hearing , Officers Ra . and PERSON . were examined as witnesses with regard to the description of events given to them by PERSON when they had arrived at PERSON \u2019s home on DATE ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . The applicant \u2019s counsel objected to the use of the evidence obtained from the examination of these CARDINAL witnesses on the grounds that \u201c the depicted facts can not be separated chronologically and sequentially \u201d .","At the hearing of DATE , PERSON stated that she did not consent to the use of the evidence which she had provided to the investigating judge , to Officers Ra . and PERSON . and to the court - appointed medical expert ; nor did she consent to the use of the results of the medical examination .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant on CARDINAL counts of dangerous assault , CARDINAL of these in concurrence with coercion , as well as of maliciously inflicting bodily injury in concurrence with attempted coercion , of coercion and of wilful driving without a licence . ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . In addition , it ordered his subsequent preventive detention , finding that the applicant had a dissocial personality disorder and that there was a very high likelihood that he would commit similar offences in the future .","In DATE , the applicant was convicted several times of , inter alia , several different counts of assault against his respective partners at different times . He met his third wife , PERSON , in DATE . Their relationship was from the outset marked by the applicant \u2019s violent behaviour towards GPE , which escalated in DATE .","On DATE in their marital home the applicant asked GPE about her past sex life . He then beat her on different parts of her body and kicked her . Following this he asked her to go to the basement and , while going there , stubbed out a cigarette on her neck . When they arrived in the basement , he asked her to write a letter to the wife of a former lover of hers and to confess to adultery . When PERSON refused , he delivered several blows all over her body , including her head and face , and also beat her with a wooden hiking pole . PERSON then promised to write the letter . TIME the applicant asked her again to write the letter and delivered blows with his fist , primarily to her head . After having left PERSON alone in the living room , the applicant later returned with a mattress and demanded that she undress and to lie down on her stomach . He then beat her with a thin rope on her back , before forcing her to carry out sexual acts on herself .","On TIME , PERSON started to write the said letter by hand . When reading the draft , the applicant was angry about its content . PERSON stated that she would write it again . The applicant delivered blows with his fist , mostly to her head , and also beat her with his shoes on the back of her head . He then stubbed out a cigarette on her left breast . PERSON tried to run away but fell down in the hallway . The applicant then choked her so that she could not breathe . In unknown circumstances , PERSON managed to escape and ran into the street in panic , crying for help .","There , she ran into PERSON and PERSON . , the latter telling her to go to the home of the PERSON family . She ran over and rang the bell . PERSON opened the door and let her in . PERSON . [ probably PERSON , see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ] went to the house of the Sch . family and called the police from there . During that call , PERSON and PERSON . went outside and saw the applicant leave the home and drive off . They reported the number plate of the car to PERSON . [ S. , see above ] , who passed it on to the police . Inside the house , PERSON \u2019s mother gave PERSON a towel , which she put on the back of her head , from where she was visibly bleeding . TIME QUANTITY police officers , Ra . and PERSON . , arrived .","On DATE , PERSON was admitted to a women \u2019s shelter . She showed the counsellor there , PERSON , MONEY of injury on her head and other parts of her body and described the bodily harm and coercion to which the applicant had subjected her in the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","The investigating judge , PERSON , stated that he had questioned PERSON for TIME on DATE at the request of the public prosecutor \u2019s office ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She had described a multitude of acts of domestic violence in the course of the marriage , which had increased over time , and repeatedly stated that she loved the applicant , which was why she had not come forward before . The violence DATE and DATE had constituted an escalation and had been too much for her , rendering their living together impossible , which was why she was now ready to testify against the applicant . She had described the events of DATE and DATE as several acts of torment stretched out over the whole DATE with some breaks in between . He had asked her about every single incident , to which she had given definite and detailed accounts of each , including beatings with a rope , a wooden hiking pole and shoes , as well as being forced to carry out sexual acts on herself . Her account had been consistent and she had not been evasive , maintaining eye contact throughout . She had repeatedly stated that the applicant had beaten her DATE and DATE in connection with a letter which the applicant had wanted her to write to the wife of a former lover of hers ; she had started to write that letter by hand .","R.K. later retracted her statements as reported by the investigating judge and made voluntary disclosures on DATE and on DATE to the police for having wrongfully incriminated the applicant , claiming that he had not been at home DATE and DATE and that a third person had injured her . On DATE PERSON submitted a written statement to ORG retracting the voluntary disclosures of DATE and DATE .","The only statement the applicant made during the trial was to confirm that he did not have a driving licence . He did not comment on the remainder of the charges against him .","N. , the women \u2019s shelter \u2019s counsellor , testified that she had received a copy of the police report and had discussed the report and the events with PERSON when she had been admitted to the shelter on DATE in a severely traumatised state . PERSON \u2019s statements had been consistent with the police report . She had provided a detailed account of all the incidents that had taken place DATE and DATE , and had consistently named the applicant as the perpetrator . That same evening , she had also showed her her injuries , in particular bleeding head wounds , burn marks on her left breast and neck , and several bruises and weals on her back . N. had discussed the violent events with PERSON up until the former \u2019s examination before ORG . Throughout these discussions , PERSON \u2019s account had been consistent .","Re . PERSON , PERSON \u2019s son , who had been born in DATE , stated that on DATE he had been in his room from where he had heard the applicant and PERSON having an argument and screaming . He had later learned that his mother had been at a neighbour \u2019s home , where he had met her together with the police officers . His mother had been pressing a cloth against her head . He had then gone to the hospital together with her . He had not seen what had happened in the house and had , overall , not noticed much of the events that had occurred DATE .","S. , a witness , said that he had been at a local sports meeting with another witness , PERSON . , on DATE . At around TIME , when they had been walking in the direction of the village , PERSON had run towards them on FAC , shouting \u201c Help ! Help ! My husband is going to kill me ! \u201d PERSON had been so shocked and disturbed that she had not been able to speak clearly . PERSON had advised her to go to the home of the PERSON family . He himself had then gone to the home of the Sch . family to call the police . While he had been on the phone to the police , PERSON . told him that the applicant had driven off . PERSON . had then given the registration number to PERSON , who passed it on to the police . When PERSON had gone back outside , he had met Re . PERSON , who had been shaking , and had asked him about PERSON He had then led the police to the house of the PERSON family . When the door had opened , he had seen PERSON sitting on the stairs , with a bloody cloth pressed on her head . The police then took charge and he left the scene .","M. , a witness , stated that CARDINAL DATE , the doorbell rang . PERSON was standing outside , shouting \u201c My husband , my husband ! He \u2019s out to get me . He must n\u2019t see me . \u201d PERSON , who had been terrified , immediately entered the house and sat down on the stairs . She had been bleeding from her head . Later , the police had arrived and called an ambulance . PERSON \u2019s mother added that she had given PERSON a towel for her bleeding head wound and that PERSON had repeatedly expressed fear of her husband . She had never seen a woman so terrified before , which had overwhelmed her so much that she had not asked PERSON about what had happened .","PERSON . , a witness , testified that PERSON had rung her door bell on DATE . S. had told her that he had had to call the police as it had seemed that the applicant had harmed his wife . She had then gone outside her house and looked towards the applicant \u2019s house located QUANTITY away . She had observed the applicant leaving his house and driving off . She had told that to PERSON , who had asked her to spell out the car \u2019s number plate , which she had done . PERSON . made similar statements .","Officers Ra . and PERSON . explained that they had been patrolling together on DATE when they had received the call to drive to the village B. , where a woman had run out of a house screaming and had been hiding at a neighbour \u2019s residence . Several persons had been present when they had arrived at the scene , informing them that PERSON had been at the house of the PERSON family . When they had gone there , they had found PERSON in shock , pressing a cloth to the back of her head . When PERSON . had asked her what had happened , she had stated that her husband had beaten her . PERSON had then given additional evidence , which was later discarded ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She had had a bleeding wound on the back of her head and visible facial bruising . In the beginning , she had been shaking so much that it had not been possible to question her .","A draft letter to the wife of a former lover of hers , in which PERSON stated that she wanted to clear up her life and that adultery was a sin , was read out before ORG . Officer PERSON . had stated that PERSON , after having made her statement to the police and having been examined in hospital , had asked to be admitted to a women \u2019s shelter . She had requested that they stop by the marital home beforehand and for the police officers to accompany her . Besides taking some of her belongings , she had given the letter to PERSON . and asked him to keep it . Ra . had included the letter in the case file .","Another letter by GPE of DATE , addressed to the applicant , was read out before ORG , in which she described examples of acts committed by him from DATE , reporting the assaults , humiliations and sexual acts to which she had submitted for fear of receiving even more blows .","ORG relied , inter alia , on the testimony PERSON had given at her examination by the investigating judge . It considered that the applicant had rightly been barred from attending that hearing . However , since LAW ( d ) of the ORG guaranteed the applicant \u2019s right to examine or have examined witnesses against him , defence counsel should have been appointed for the applicant so that the latter could examine PERSON at that hearing . Yet , the mere fact that neither the applicant nor his counsel had had the opportunity to cross - examine PERSON did not automatically constitute a breach of LAW and CARDINAL ( d ) of the Convention . It was decisive whether the proceedings in their entirety , including the manner in which evidence had been taken and assessed , had been fair . Where the lack of an opportunity to cross - examine a witness had been a result of procedural errors imputable on the judiciary , as in the present case , the ORG found a breach of the Convention where the conviction had been based to a decisive extent on the evidence of the untested witness . A conviction could thus only be based on untested evidence where it was corroborated by other significant factors independent of that evidence . In the present case , the applicant \u2019s conviction could be based on GPE \u2019s statements as reported by the investigating judge , for they were corroborated by other significant factors independent of them .","In this regard , ORG referred to PERSON \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE , in which she had described examples of acts committed by the applicant from DATE , reporting the assaults , humiliations and sexual acts to which she had submitted for fear of receiving even more blows ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Her statement that the applicant had struck her in order to make her compose a letter to the wife of a former lover of hers had been corroborated by the draft letter with the content she had described which she had given to LOC . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Both letters had been admitted as evidence , as a witness \u2019s written statements could be admitted even in a case where he or she lawfully refused to give evidence at trial .","Moreover , witness ORG of the women \u2019s shelter in which PERSON had sought refuge had , on DATE of PERSON \u2019s admission to the shelter , observed wounds in the head area , some of which had been bleeding , and burn marks on PERSON \u2019s left breast and neck as well as various bruises and weals on her back which PERSON had shown her . During her stay in the shelter , PERSON had repeatedly described to ORG the details of the applicant \u2019s violent acts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Re . PERSON , PERSON \u2019s son , who was in the marital home on DATE , stated that he had heard the applicant and PERSON having an argument and screaming ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Other witnesses reported that PERSON had run into the street in panic DATE , with a bleeding wound on the back of her head , and had subsequently sought refuge with the PERSON family until the police had arrived , while the applicant had been seen leaving the house and driving off following that ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . Therefore , ORG was convinced that PERSON \u2019s subsequent voluntary disclosures , in which she had mainly claimed that the applicant had not been at home and which she had subsequently retracted ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had not been truthful .","PERSON \u2019s initial statements to Officers PERSON . and PERSON . , as reported by them ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , were possible to admit as evidence despite PERSON subsequently invoking her right to remain silent , as they were to be qualified as a \u201c spontaneous utterance \u201d . At the same time , ORG did not take into account the additional evidence given to the police by PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , as the police had not been sure at which point they had informed her of her right to remain silent .","On DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment . He argued that evidence obtained in breach of the right of confrontation enshrined in Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( d ) of the LAW must never be admitted , regardless of its importance . The importance of the untested evidence in relation to the other evidence used by the court must not be decisive . Nor did it matter whether the court of first instance had undertaken a particularly careful examination of the evidence of the untested witness , as the breach of the right of confrontation could not be counterbalanced . Furthermore , in the light of PERSON \u2019s subsequent invocation of her right to remain silent , ORG had wrongly admitted the evidence given by the police officers PERSON . and PERSON . PERSON \u2019s statements to the police officers had not been a \u201c spontaneous utterance \u201d , as the latter had been called to the scene because a woman had run out of a house screaming and had been hiding at a neighbour \u2019s house and had , on arrival , asked her what had happened ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In a written submission of CARDINAL DATE ORG argued that the examination of the investigating judge , resulting in the use of the untested evidence given by PERSON , had not rendered the proceedings unfair . The evidence given by PERSON to the investigating judge had been corroborated by other significant factors independent of her evidence . Moreover , ORG had counterbalanced the limitation of the applicant \u2019s defence rights through a particularly careful and critical assessment of the evidentiary value of that testimony .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal as ill - founded , finding that the review of ORG judgment had not revealed any legal errors that had been detrimental to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He argued that his right of confrontation had been infringed when the investigation judge had examined PERSON without him or his counsel having had the opportunity to be present and to question her . It had been unlawful to admit her testimony , as reported by the investigating judge , as evidence and to use it to convict him . It was not sufficient to take the violation of his right of confrontation into consideration as part of the evidentiary assessment by attaching less evidentiary value to the untested testimony and by requiring that it be corroborated by other significant pieces of evidence . Similarly , it was unlawful to admit as evidence the statements of the CARDINAL police officers , as PERSON \u2019s statement , which they reported , was not a \u201c spontaneous utterance \u201d .","In a written submission of CARDINAL DATE ORG argued that ORG had sufficiently taken the ORG \u2019s case - law on LAW ( d ) of the LAW into account .","On DATE ORG refused to admit the constitutional complaint for adjudication , without providing reasons ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146770","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF \u010eUR\u010eOVI\u010c AND TRAN\u010c\u00cdKOV\u00c1 v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants are husband and wife . Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . PERSON was born DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicants brought a claim in the Star\u00e1 \u013dubov\u0148a District Court , alleging that they were the owners of real property which had been included in the assets of an insolvent company .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . With reference to the documents before it and judicial decisions delivered earlier the court established that the property in question had been transferred to the company which had later become insolvent .","In an appeal the applicants argued , in particular , that the first - instance court had failed to take evidence , as suggested by them , with a view to establishing that the property had not actually been transferred to the company . They also maintained that the case should have been assigned to a judge dealing with civil cases instead of a judge deciding commercial disputes .","On DATE the ORG upheld the firstinstance court \u2019s judgment . It found that the applicants had failed to show that the property had been erroneously included in the assets of the insolvent company in the context of the insolvency proceedings .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law . They argued that there had been shortcomings in the proceedings before the appellate court which rendered the appeal on points of law admissible pursuant to LAW .","NORP In particular , they alleged that the appellate court had determined the case without hearing the parties and establishing the relevant facts . Earlier consent they had given for the appellate court to proceed with the case in their absence at the hearing of DATE did not mean that they accepted the determination of the merits without the parties having been heard . The applicants further argued that the case had been dealt with as a commercial dispute , whereas it should have been determined by judges dealing with civil cases .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal on points of law . It held that the reasons for its admissibility as invoked by the applicants could not be accepted . In particular , ORG noted that the applicants had notified ORG that they would not be appearing on DATE , and that they had agreed with the case proceeding in their absence . The fact that the appellate court had not quashed the first - instance court \u2019s judgment as requested by them could not affect the position .","ORG further held that in the proceedings complained of , the situation described in Article CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW did not exist , and that the applicants had not shown that a final decision on the matter had been given earlier for the purposes of LAW .","On DATE the applicants complained of a breach of LAW in the proceedings leading to ORG judgment of DATE , ORG judgment of DATE and ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .","For reasons invoked in their appeal and appeal on points of law , they complained that their right to a fair hearing by a tribunal established by law had been breached . They also complained that ORG had not allowed them to respond to the defendants\u2019 comments on their appeal on points of law .","ORG declared the complaint inadmissible on DATE . As ORG judgment had been reviewed by ORG upon appeal , ORG held that it did not have the power to examine the alleged shortcomings in the first - instance proceedings .","As to ORG judgment , the applicants had failed to submit their complaint within the statutory time - limit of DATE . The fact that they had sought redress by means of an appeal on points of law could not affect the position , as ORG had rejected that remedy as inadmissible .","Finally , as to the cassation proceedings , ORG found no evidence of unfairness in the way ORG had dealt with and decided on the ORG appeal on points of law . Its failure to let the applicants comment on the other party \u2019s observations on it had not rendered the proceedings unfair in the circumstances ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147533","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"IRL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"REILLY v. IRELAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Mr C. Crowley , a lawyer practising in GPE . The Government were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG . The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant joined the ORG in DATE at DATE and served until the expiry of his contract in DATE . He had competed internationally as a boxer . He served in ORG and held the rank of gunner . He married in DATE and had CARDINAL children with his wife .","NORP The applicant claims that he was the victim of a series of sexual assaults ( groping and inappropriate touching ) by his superior officer , ORG , who held the rank of ORG . This began in DATE at a time of alleged personal difficulty for the applicant . At this time , he had been involved in a hit - and - run accident for which he was prosecuted as well as for driving under the influence of alcohol . The abuse typically involved ORG touching the applicant intimately , rubbing his own private parts against the applicant \u2019s body and physically forcing the applicant \u2019s hand to touch ORG \u2019s private parts , all of this through clothing . The abuse occurred in ORG \u2019s office and it continued until DATE .","The applicant claims that ORG could not have been unaware of ORG \u2019s proclivity to interfere with his subordinates . He alleges that he and CARDINAL other gunner were subjected to protracted ridicule in the mess ( canteen ) as the officer \u2019s \u201c bum boy \u201d . He did not at any time during his military career make a complaint about ORG \u2019s conduct . This , he claims , was partly out of shame and partly because ORG had , allegedly , threatened that he would be locked up if he reported the abuse and that the word of a gunner would not be taken over that of a Sergeant Major . In the applicant \u2019s view , the culture in ORG at that time was against making complaints . In the applicant \u2019s subsequent proceedings against the army , his wife gave evidence to ORG that his behaviour at that time began to deteriorate and that he had changed from being a model father and husband to being unrecognisable . In or DATE the applicant and his wife separated .","After the applicant had left the army , CARDINAL other complaints were made against ORG by CARDINAL soldiers , GPE and GPE .","NORP In DATE ORG filed a complaint of sexual assault by ORG which had allegedly occurred DATE during a room inspection and he sought to be discharged from the army because of it . The complaint was investigated by the military police who interviewed ORG and another officer involved in the room inspection .","NORP In their investigation report , dated DATE , the military police noted that while ORG claimed that the incident with ORG was the reason for his seeking discharge he had , in fact , already been seeking civilian employment for DATE before that time . It also noted ORG \u2019s disciplinary record . It noted Captain S \u2019s testimony that when he left the room the door was ajar and that ORG had followed him out of the room TIME . It had regard to the fact that ORG had a service record of DATE and had never before been the subject of any allegations . The report concluded that it had not been possible to prove ORG \u2019s allegation . ORG went on leave after this investigation and then decided to retire , leaving the army in DATE .","NORP In DATE RM confided in CARDINAL colleagues that he had had similar experiences to CP , but he declined to identify the person responsible . The colleagues DATE both of whom later gave statements to the police \u2013 raised their concerns with Captain PERSON He undertook to deal with the complaint and arranged for RM to meet with the army psychiatrist . He also asked if ORG was involved but RM was unwilling to discuss this and did not make any complaint against ORG at this time .","At DATE , the applicant happened to meet a former colleague of his , JW , who told him about the allegations that had been made concerning ORG . The applicant then told him of his experience with ORG but swore him to secrecy . PERSON , nevertheless , raised the matter immediately with his superior officer , Lieutenant Colonel C.","In DATE RM made a statement to the police about sexual assaults committed against him by ORG DATE .","The police commenced an investigation during which they became aware of the allegations made by ORG and the applicant . They took statements from all CARDINAL men DATE . The police also interviewed several military officers and took statements from the CARDINAL soldiers who had brought ORG \u2019s situation to the attention of the military authorities , as well as from Captain PERSON","NORP The police interviewed PD on DATE . He denied the allegations . DATE , however , during a second interview , he confessed to having sexually assaulted RM . He was then arrested . He continued to deny the allegations made by the applicant and by ORG .","In DATE the investigation file was submitted to ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) in respect of the CARDINAL complainants . In DATE the ORG directed ORG \u2019s prosecution in respect of RM \u2019s complaints and sought further information from the police concerning the applicant and ORG . The information was furnished in DATE . The initial decision of the ORG was not to prosecute ORG in respect of complaints made by the applicant and ORG . However , upon a request by the police the file was reviewed by the ORG who then issued a new direction in DATE to prosecute ORG in respect of the applicant \u2019s complaints .","NORP In DATE ORG pleaded guilty to CARDINAL charges of sexual assault upon RM . On DATE he was formally convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , suspended on condition that he enter a bond and agree to be of good behaviour and keep the peace for DATE . He was also fined ORG CARDINAL , which was to be paid to ORG , and was placed on the register of sexual offenders .","Following a criminal trial in DATE , the jury acquitted ORG in respect of certain charges and it failed to reach a verdict on other counts . A nolle prosequi ( withdrawal of charges ) was then entered in DATE in respect of the charges on which the jury had failed to reach a verdict .","NORP In DATE the applicant issued civil proceedings for damages against ORG , the Minister for Defence , GPE and the Attorney General . He was legally represented and his claim against ORG was settled in DATE in the sum of \u20ac MONEY without admission of liability .","The applicant \u2019s claim against the remaining defendants ( the \u201c ORG defendants \u201d ) was heard by ORG and was based on CARDINAL alternative grounds . Firstly , he alleged that the ORG was vicariously liable for the actions of ORG . Secondly , he alleged that the ORG was directly negligent in that he claimed it had knowledge of ORG \u2019s behaviour such as would have alerted a reasonable person to take steps to inquire into or prevent the activities of ORG and that it had failed so to do . The trial commenced in ORG in DATE and heard numerous witnesses over the course of DATE .","The High Court ( PERSON ) gave judgment on DATE , dismissing the applicant \u2019s claims .","The court accepted that , on the civil standard of proof , that is , on the balance of probabilities , ORG had assaulted the applicant causing posttraumatic stress disorder . It then considered whether the ORG should be held vicariously liable for this . ORG reviewed all the relevant legal authorities that were opened to it on the question of vicarious liability , including NORP , NORP and NORP jurisprudence and it found :","\u201c All of the above cases were cases which related to young and vulnerable children , which is not the situation in this case . The plaintiff was a married soldier at the time of the first incident and I do not think that the same principles that were applied in the cases of wardens of boarding schools and\/or orphanages can be applied to the ORG . I have come to this conclusion after a good deal of consideration and some doubt . The doubt was created particularly by the fact of the control which the first named defendant had over the plaintiff , but overall I feel that the balance in this particular case lies against vicarious liability . \u201d","The High Court then considered the separate question as to whether the ORG had been directly negligent and addressed this issue in terms of whether the authorities had been or should have been aware of ORG \u2019s behaviour at the relevant time . It stated :","\u201c ... [ T]he evidence of the [ applicant ] and many of his witnesses is that there was general chat on a continual basis about [ ORG \u2019s ] activities , that it was well known and that it was the chat of the barrack room and the camp .","This has been completely denied by all of the defendant \u2019s witnesses . Whereas I grant there is a distinction in rank between the [ applicant \u2019s ] witnesses and the defendant \u2019s witnesses , I came to the conclusion that all of them appear to be attempting to tell the truth .","Therefore , I am satisfied that there was banter , possibly name calling and certainly general slagging , I think would be the correct way of putting it , and , though that may have been prevalent in the mess room at times , none of it was taken sufficiently seriously by any of the men , the ORG \u2019s and any other officers who may have heard it to be considered anything other than of a humorous nature .","It is necessary to look at the incidents and at the evidence in light of the times as they then were . These events took place in the DATE \u2019s and DATE , at a time when the antenna of the ordinary reasonable person was far less acute to the potentials for sexual abuse or sexual assault than they are DATE . We must remember that , for DATE , the country has been subject to continual reports of sexual exploitation , sexual abuse and sexual assaults , all of which have tended to make the population a great deal more sensitive to matters which DATE would not have drawn any attention whatsoever .","I am quite satisfied that had any of the ORG \u2019s or others , any real apprehension regarding the behaviour of [ ORG ] , they would have given notice of such apprehension one way or another through the preferred route as laid down in the ORG code or otherwise . I am reinforced in this view by the speedy action of [ JW ] , when informed by the [ applicant ] of the events which occurred , he immediately repeated to ORG and laid the [ applicant \u2019s ] claim before them , despite the fact that he had been bound by the [ applicant ] to secrecy . It is for this reason , I have come to the conclusion that , on the balance of probabilities , the [ applicant ] failed to discharge the onus of proof on him that , at the time of the incidents when the subject matter of these proceedings occurred , the level or content of the activities which were described in the mess room , in the bar and in the canteen were such as would have alerted a reasonable person and cause them to take steps to either enquire into or prevent the activities of [ ORG ] . \u201d","NORP The applicant appealed to ORG , which dismissed the case in a judgment of DATE .","On the negligence claim , ORG ( PERSON ) reviewed the evidence and did not interfere with the findings of fact made by ORG . The court acknowledged the evidence in support of the applicant \u2019s claims that the proclivities of ORG were known in army circles and that there was no satisfactory method of bringing a complaint . It also acknowledged the large number of witnesses for the defendants who had contested these claims , meaning there was also ample evidence against the applicant \u2019s case . The court referred to the various avenues of complaint that had been available to the applicant and the persons to whom he could have turned , in confidence , for help , such as the army chaplain or the social worker . The court recalled that its appellate role meant that it should only ensure that the primary findings of fact at trial and the inferences drawn from them were supported by the evidence . The trial judge had heard the witnesses directly and could assess their demeanour . He had been entitled to have regard to the fact that the applicant had never made a complaint about ORG , even though he had used the complaints procedure regarding another unrelated matter , thus demonstrating that he was aware of the existence of a complaints procedure and had been ready to use it . The evidence did not support the claim that soldiers were reluctant to make complaints or that the army was unreceptive to them . An expert witness had confirmed that the complaints procedures in place at that time in the army were good and sufficient by the standards then prevailing . The court also agreed with the trial judge \u2019s remarks about the importance of considering the issues in the light of the times as they then were and observed that it was \u201c a dangerous exercise in hindsight to apply knowledge and standards of DATE to events which occurred DATE \u201d .","On the question of vicarious liability , ORG noted that the applicant did not challenge the correctness of the legal principles as emerged from the case law and as outlined by ORG . He had only challenged that court \u2019s application of those legal principles . The applicant had argued that , while his case did not concern a child , the environment of the armed forces was such that the normal rules of adult interaction did not apply given , inter alia , disparities in rank . ORG , however , concluded that the employment relationship between the applicant and ORG did not support finding of vicarious liability . It stated :","\u201c While undoubtedly [ PD ] exercised a supervisory and disciplinary role where the [ applicant ] was concerned , he was not in the same position as a school teacher or boarding house warden in relation to a child . Nor was the nature of the employment one which would have encouraged close personal contact where some inherent risks might be said to exist as , for example , might arise if [ ORG ] had been a swimming instructor in close physical contact with young recruits . There was no intimacy implicit in the relationship between the [ applicant ] and [ PD ] nor was there any quasiparental role or responsibility for personal nurturing which was found to exist in the cases where vicarious liability was established . To hold otherwise would be to extend to ORG a virtual new species of liability where the defendants would be liable for virtually every act or omission of an employee . \u201d","ORG went on to distinguish the relationship in issue in the applicant \u2019s case from that of a teacher and a child referring back to the case of O\u2019Keeffe v. PERSON [ DATE ] DATE . It held that while the O\u2019Keeffe case had involved a vulnerable child who was sexually abused by a teacher at school , the facts of the relationship between the parties in the instant case could hardly be more different . The applicant in this case was at all material times an adult . He had elected to accept the rigours , the discipline and the camaraderie associated with the life of a professional soldier . It must be accepted that the ORG require an atmosphere of discipline in order to function . A wide extension of liability would undermine the whole operational basis of any army .","ORG concluded that the applicant \u2019s case fell short by a considerable margin of establishing the prerequisites for a finding that the ORG defendants should be held vicariously responsible for the criminal activities of ORG .","According to the Government , the applicant took legal proceedings against the army on CARDINAL previous occasions while he was serving member of ORG . The first was a claim to ORG for damages for personal injuries ( deafness ) for which he was awarded compensation . CARDINAL military personnel had sued for damage to hearing caused by inadequate protective material . He also brought a personal injuries action against ORG arising from a road traffic accident and the case was settled .","The applicant submitted a claim for compensation to ORG ( \u201c CICT \u201d ) in respect of the injury caused by the sexual assaults of ORG . His claim was rejected in DATE on the grounds of delay in reporting the crime . The applicant appealed . A hearing took place on DATE , leading to a decision of CARDINAL DATE in which he was awarded \u20ac CARDINAL compensation .","A general formal complaint system was established by CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If an officer thinks himself wronged in any matter by any superior or other officer , including his commanding officer , he may complain thereof to his commanding officer and if , but only if , his commanding officer does not deal with the complaint to such officer \u2019s satisfaction , he may complain in the prescribed manner to the Minister who shall inquire into the complaint and give his directions thereon .","( CARDINAL ) NORP If any man thinks himself wronged in any matter by any officer , other than his company commander , or by any man he may complain thereof to his company commander , and if he thinks himself wronged by his company commander either in respect of his complaint not being redressed or in respect of any other matter , he may complain thereof to his commanding officer , and if he thinks himself wronged by his commanding officer , either in respect of his complaint not being redressed or in respect of any other matter , he may complain thereof in the prescribed manner to ORG , who , if so required by the man , shall report on the matter of the complaint to the Minister who shall inquire into the complaint and give his directions thereon .","( CARDINAL ) Every officer to whom a complaint is made in pursuance of this section shall cause such complaint to be inquired into , and shall , if on inquiry he is satisfied of the justice of the complaint so made , take such steps as may be necessary for giving full redress to the complainant in respect of the matter complained of , and shall in every case inform the complainant in the prescribed manner as to what action has been taken in respect of the matter complained of . \u201d","The CARDINAL Act also provided for the trial of military and criminal charges by court - martial including within DATE of the retirement from ORG of the accused ( section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ) . Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provided that anyone subject to military law who illtreated any subordinate was guilty of an offence against military law and would , on conviction by court - martial , be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding DATE or to any less punishment awardable by a courtmartial .","The Defence Forces Regulations ACARDINAL , adopted by the Minister under LAW , provided general guidance to commanding and other officers as to their responsibilities regarding discipline and misconduct . It also set out ( section CARDINALC ) a procedure for the submission of grievances during the general DATE inspection of the military unit by a General Officer Commanding . Notice of such inspections was given in advance with a reminder of the opportunity to bring forward any complaints .","In DATE the \u201c Administrative Instruction ACARDINAL \u201d was adopted pursuant to Regulations ACARDINAL . It was headed \u201c ORG in the LAW \u201d and it codified detailed procedures for making complaints in relation to unacceptable interpersonal behaviour to a company commander . Paragraph CARDINAL of that ORG accepted that the requirement to obey all lawful orders had to be counterbalanced by ensuring respectful and professional treatment and relationships between superiors of subordinates . Paragraph CARDINAL defined what was unacceptable sexual behaviour and gave specific examples including sexual assault and attempting to engage in or engaging in sexual activity by force , coercion or intimidation . Separate provisions governed \u201c sexual harassment \u201d including defining the notion , giving concrete examples and providing particular provisions for complaints having regard to the specific difficulties attached thereto .","ORG in the present case summarised the relevant principles applicable to the issue of vicarious liability by listing the factors for establishing whether or not impugned acts were carried out within the course and scope of employment . These principles are set out in the NORP cases of GPE v. PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL ( CARDINALth ) CARDINAL ; and PERSON v. PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL D.L.R. ( CARDINALth ) CARDINAL ) , both of which concerned the sexual abuse of infant children .","In GPE case , ORG noted that the established common - law test was that employers were vicariously liable for employee acts authorised by the employer or unauthorised acts \u201c so connected with authorised acts that they may be regarded as modes ( albeit unauthorised modes ) of doing an authorised act \u201d . In noting that vicarious liability was generally appropriate where there was a significant connection between the creation or enhancement of a risk and the wrong that accrued therefrom , ORG set out the principles by which the sufficiency of the connection between the employer \u2019s creation and enhancement of the risk and the wrong complained of was to be determined . These included :","\u201c ( a ) NORP The opportunity the enterprise afforded the employee to abuse his or her power ;","( b ) The extent to which the wrongful act may have furthered the employer \u2019s aims ( and hence be more likely to have been committed by the employee ) ;","( c ) The extent to which the wrongful act was related to friction , confrontation or intimacy inherent in the ORG enterprise ;","( d ) The extent of power conferred on the employee in relation to the victims ; and","( e ) The vulnerability of potential victims to wrongful exercise of the employee \u2019s power . \u201d","The PERSON case provided CARDINAL further principles :","\u201c ( a ) A court should determine whether there are precedents which unambiguously determine on which side of the line between vicarious liability and no liability the case falls .","( b ) If prior cases do not clearly suggest a solution , the next step is to determine whether vicarious liability should be imposed in light of the broader policy rationales behind strict liability . \u201d","Both of these cases were analysed by ORG in GPE v. ORG ( [ DATE ] ORG DATE ] CARDINAL A.C. CARDINAL ) and cited by ORG in the present case as the leading GPE authority on the issue . The plaintiffs in that case were residents in a school owned and managed by the defendants and they had been sexually abused by the warden .","Lord PERSON stated ( \u00a7 CARDINAL of the judgment ) :","\u201c Employing the traditional methodology of LANGUAGE law , I am satisfied that in the case of the appeals under consideration the evidence showed that the employers entrusted the care of the children in ORG to the warden . The question is whether the warden \u2019s torts were so closely connected with his employment that it would be fair and just to hold the employers vicariously liable . On the facts of the case the answer is yes . After all , the sexual abuse was inextricably interwoven with the carrying out by the warden of his duties in ORG . Matters of degree arise . But the present case clearly falls on the side of vicarious liability . \u201d","A victim can apply for compensation for injury suffered as a result of violent crime under the statutory Scheme of Compensation for Personal Injuries Criminally Inflicted . The Scheme is administered by the ORG . The prescription period is DATE but it can be extended , exceptionally . Compensation is paid without any inquiry into liability and on an ex gratia basis . It covers expenses and losses and , since DATE , it does not include compensation for non - pecuniary loss . The ORG will deduct sums received by a victim in compensation from another source including from a civil action against the offender ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158031","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF FAZIA ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations;Independent tribunal)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant , a parent of CARDINAL young children , is a homeless person in priority need of accommodation within the meaning of Part VII of LAW ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) .","ORG ( \u201c the Council \u201d ) is a local housing authority within the meaning of the DATE Act and is required , under Part VII of that LAW , to perform statutory functions in relation to homeless persons in its area .","The applicant applied as a homeless person to ORG for assistance in DATE . By letter dated DATE the ORG determined that the applicant was homeless , eligible for assistance , in priority need and not intentionally homeless . The authority therefore accepted that it owed the applicant the \u201c main housing duty \u201d to provide accommodation to her and her family . On DATE the authority made the applicant an offer of accommodation which she refused because she was unhappy with the location . The authority told the applicant that in its view the accommodation was suitable but following a review of that decision , which was determined in the applicant \u2019s favour , they agreed to make her another offer .","On DATE a Housing Officer informed the applicant by telephone that another offer was being made , that a viewing had been arranged and that a letter would follow . The authority claims that on that same day a written offer of accommodation at CARDINAL GPE , GPE was sent to the applicant . That letter contained a statement to the effect that if the applicant refused the offer without good cause the authority would consider that it had discharged its duty to her under Part VII of the CARDINAL Act . However , the applicant denied receiving the letter ; instead , she claimed that she had to telephone the housing office to obtain the address and arrange the viewing appointment . She viewed the property on DATE but declined the offer as she was not happy with the condition of the communal area .","NORP By letter dated DATE the ORG notified the applicant that , by reason of her rejection of its offer , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW its duty to her under Part VII of LAW had been discharged . By letter dated DATE the applicant notified the ORG that she had not received an offer in writing and requested that the ORG review its decision .","While the applicant \u2019s case was pending before the review panel , a further offer of accommodation was made to her pursuant to a different scheme , namely the scheme for the provision of housing accommodation under Part VI of LAW . She did not accept this offer .","On DATE a ORG Officer employed by the ORG conducted a telephone interview with the applicant to establish her reasons for refusing the offer of accommodation at CARDINAL FAC . The Officer claimed that in the course of this conversation the applicant accepted that she had in fact received the offer letter but refused the offer of accommodation because there was no lift and the entrance to the property was dirty , which could put her youngest son \u2019s health at risk . However , the applicant claims that at the time she had thought she was being questioned about the subsequent offer of accommodation , in respect of which she did not deny having received a letter .","NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the Homelessness Review Officer upheld the decision that the applicant \u2019s refusal of the offer of accommodation had discharged the ORG \u2019s main housing duty to her under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . In particular , the Officer found that the applicant had been sent an offer letter from the ORG which complied with the mandatory requirements of section CARDINAL of LAW prior to her refusal and there was no reason to believe that she had not received it . In any case , she noted that the applicant had not refused the accommodation because she had not received a written offer but because she did not consider the accommodation to be suitable for her family \u2019s needs .","The applicant appealed to ORG under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , which allowed for an appeal on a point of law only . The jurisdiction exercised by ORG under section CARDINAL was that of judicial review . In her grounds of appeal the applicant claimed that the ORG , in reaching its decision , had taken into account irrelevant considerations and\/or acted under a fundamental mistake of fact ; that the ORG had acted unlawfully as it had failed to make adequate inquiries to enable it to reach a lawful decision ; that its decision was one which no rational ORG would have made ; that it had fettered its discretion ; and that it had acted in breach of natural justice .","The appeal was heard on DATE , on which date the judge noted that the only ground of appeal argued before him was that the letter of offer had failed to arrive . The applicant submitted that ORG should hear evidence on the matter so that it could determine it for itself . However , although the judge accepted that ORG was not an independent or impartial tribunal , he found that the decision whether or not the letter had been received was properly and fairly to be made by her and he declined to hear evidence on the point . Although it was not specifically stated in the correspondence between the ORG and the applicant , the judge appeared to consider whether or not the ORG had discharged its duty under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant subsequently appealed to ORG and then to ORG . At each level , the grounds of appeal were that the decision taken by ORG had constituted a determination of the applicant \u2019s civil rights for the purposes of LAW ; that the Officer had not been an independent or impartial tribunal as required by LAW ; that the decision of the Officer had turned on the resolution of a simple question of disputed primary fact , involving no application of specialist knowledge ; that pursuant to ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , LAW required that the applicant be able to appeal that simple factual determination ; and , alternatively , that the restriction of all statutory appeals to points of law , no matter what the nature of the decision , was incompatible with LAW .","Both ORG and the ORG decision on the applicant \u2019s appeal followed the decision of ORG in Runa Begum v. GPE of GPE [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL . In PERSON ORG found that judicial review of a ORG Officer \u2019s decision that a claimant had been unreasonable in rejecting the accommodation offered to her provided \u201c sufficiency of review \u201d for the purposes of LAW . ORG stressed that although the Officer had been called upon to resolve some disputed factual issues , these findings of fact were \u201c only staging posts on the way to the much broader judgments \u201d concerning local conditions and the availability of alternative accommodation , which the Officer had the specialist knowledge and experience to make . Although the Officer could not be regarded as independent , since she was employed by the ORG which had made the offer of accommodation which the claimant had rejected , statutory regulations provided substantial safeguards to ensure that the review would be independently and fairly conducted , free from improper external influences . Any significant departure from the procedural rules would have afforded a ground of appeal .","The applicant submitted that the present case could be distinguished from that of PERSON because it concerned the simple question of a finding of primary fact rather than an evaluative judgment , such as a qualitative assessment of \u201c suitability \u201d .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . In doing so , it proceeded on the assumption that the case involved the determination of the applicant \u2019s civil rights for the purposes of LAW . In relation to the question whether the decision of ORG had turned on the resolution of a simple question of primary fact , or whether it required the application of specialist knowledge , PERSON stated that :","\u201c i ) It is far from easy to draw the distinction advanced in practice . A finding of suitability is itself a finding based on conclusions of primary fact ...","ii ) There would be considerable complexity in administering a scheme with these distinctions . A scheme which enabled certain factual issues to be subject to a full right of appeal and others which would not be so subject would be too uncertain and too complex ...","iii ) ... [ I]f the extent of the review by the court was determined by the answer to the questions of whether a finding of fact was a primary finding , or whether that finding required expertise or whether that finding was determinative , the room for argument and uncertainty would be considerable ...","....","v ) The additional review which would be provided by the suggested full right of appeal on fact would not in practice be very wide ...","vi ) The full right of appeal sought from a review officer on fact might have to be significantly different from an appeal from a court ... the procedure adopted by the reviewing officer in reaching findings of fact is informal and there are no transcripts of evidence .","....","viii ) There would therefore clearly be significant implications for not only the statutory scheme but for the court and tribunal system , if this court were to hold that a full right of appeal was required on findings of primary fact or on issues of primary fact where the finding was determinative ... The statutory scheme for housing and the statutory scheme for the method of appeals in respect of courts and tribunals are determined by ORG ; funds are provided for their finance by ORG ...","ix ) The present scope of the appeal provides a real measure of protection for homeless appellants . It is clear from the careful judgments of Judge PERSON and Judge PERSON that both considered that the housing authority had fairly treated both appellants in cases where the determinative issue was a question of fact . This conclusion reinforces the view I have expressed that the review by ORG in cases of this kind was sufficient and that there is no reason to attempt to find that it is outside the scope of the decision in PERSON . It demonstrates , as Lord PERSON observed at paragraph CARDINAL , that the scheme properly operated should ensure fair treatment . I consider that it does whether the decision turns on a simple issue of primary fact or a conclusion of fact based on primary facts ( such as a conclusion on suitability ) . \u201d","PERSON therefore concluded that the decision of ORG in PERSON applied to all ORG appeals under section CARDINAL of LAW , no matter whether the decision turned on a simple issue of primary fact or not . He further held that the decision in Tsfayo , which concerned the housing benefit scheme , did not affect appeals brought in homelessness cases :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... In the first place ORG relied on the decision in PERSON in reaching its conclusion and said nothing that cast doubt on the correctness of the decision . Secondly , the decisions in PERSON and Tsfayo each turned on a careful examination of the whole of the statutory scheme relevant to the particular case . Thirdly , it is apparent from the details of the scheme considered in Tsfayo that whereas in the case of prospective benefit , central government reimbursed the local authority PERCENT of what it was required to pay , it only reimbursed PERCENT of backdated awards ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the decision ) ; this fact had been heavily relied upon in argument ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the decision ) for the powerful contention that the hearing had taken place before a tribunal consisting of members of an authority which would be required to pay PERCENT of the benefit if it made an award in the applicant \u2019s favour ; the ORG was not independent of the parties . Finally when the housing benefits scheme was looked upon as a whole , it was readily apparent that a conclusion could be reached , in contradistinction to the scheme under Part VII of LAW , that the particular scheme was not compliant with Article CARDINAL . \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , finding that the determination by the ORG , that its duty to secure accommodation for the applicant had ceased , was not a determination of her civil rights within the meaning of Article CARDINAL . Lord Hope of PERSON with whom ORG and Lord PERSON agreed , stated that :","\u201c ... I would be prepared now to hold that cases where the award of services or benefits in kind is not an individual right of which the applicant can consider himself the holder , but is dependent upon a series of evaluative judgments by the provider as to whether the statutory criteria are satisfied and how the need for it ought to be met , do not engage article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . In my opinion they do not give rise to \u2018 civil rights\u2019 within the autonomous meaning that is given to that expression for the purposes of that article . \u201d","NORP In supporting that conclusion Lord Hope looked to what the relevant provisions within Part VII of the CARDINAL Act were intended to achieve . He observed that :","\u201c ... It provides a right to assistance if the relevant conditions are satisfied . But this is not a pecuniary right , nor is the benefit that is to be provided defined by the application of specific rules laid down by the statute . Even where the full homelessness duty arises under section CARDINAL , the content of the statutory duty lacks precise definition . There is no private law analogy . The duty is expressed in broad terms \u2013 to secure that \u2018 accommodation is DATE which leaves much to the discretionary administrative judgment of the authority . \u201d","He continued , following a review of the jurisprudence of the ORG , by noting that :","\u201c CARDINAL . There are however ... a number of straws in the wind since PERSON that suggest that a distinction can indeed be made between the class of social security and welfare benefits that are of the kind exemplified by PERSON v GPE whose substance the domestic law defines precisely and those benefits which are , in their essence , dependent upon the exercise of judgment by the relevant authority ... \u201d","Later in his judgment , Lord Hope , for completeness , set out some observations on whether the scheme of decision - making was Article CARDINALcompliant . He commented that the possibility , foreshadowed in argument , of separating simple , formal questions of \u201c gateway \u201d facts , such as the letter issue , from the expert assessment of suitability would needlessly complicate a scheme which was designed to be simple to administer .","NORP The court went on to observe that the fact that a ORG did not have a full fact - finding jurisdiction when hearing an appeal under section CARDINAL of LAW did not mean that the applicant was deprived of what was required to satisfy the guarantees of LAW . In this connection , Lord Hope said this :","\u201c DATE . ... For ease of administration the review is entrusted to a single officer who is equipped to deal with issues as to the suitability of the accommodation that has been declined . An answer to the question whether or not the letters were received was incidental to a more searching and judgmental inquiry into the accommodation \u2019s suitability . ... These cases are quite different from ORG , where no broad questions requiring professional knowledge or experience had to be addressed once the question whether there was good cause had been answered . In these circumstances I would hold that the ratio of the decision in PERSON should be applied and that the absence of a full fact - finding jurisdiction in the court to which an appeal lies under section CARDINAL does not deprive it of what it needs to satisfy the requirements of article CARDINAL ) . \u201d","Unlike ORG , ORG appeared to consider whether or not the ORG had discharged its duty to the applicant under LAW ) ; however , it appeared to accept that a formal letter of offer was required by that subsection ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174644","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DIMCHO DIMOV v. BULGARIA (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Pavlina Panova;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","NORP In DATE the applicant was detained in FAC , serving a combined sentence of DATE imprisonment for aggravated murder , lewd acts , aggravated theft and car theft .","He suffers from many chronic medical conditions and a personality disorder which manifested itself in , inter alia , several attempts at self - harm and some suicide threats .","NORP In DATE the applicant was treated on the psychiatric ward of FAC .","Following his placement in an isolation cell in DATE , he again threatened to harm himself and for DATE was kept almost constantly immobile by having his hands and feet handcuffed to a bed ( see Dimcho GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , where the ORG found violations of the substantive and procedural limbs of LAW in that regard ) .","NORP In DATE the applicant was part of a prisoner group that included Mr GPE The latter was serving a combined sentence of DATE for aggravated racketeering and numerous instances of threats of murder and aggravated hooliganism . According to a later psychological report , PERSON PERSON had previously been admitted many times to the psychiatric ward of FAC and he suffered from a mixed personality disorder with elements of dissocial behaviour , paranoia and emotional instability .","On TIME the applicant went to the wing for prisoners who were being transferred to fetch a mattress he had allegedly lent to another inmate . When he entered the cell , PERSON , with whom he had had a conflict since DATE that year , began arguing with him , telling him that he had no right to come in and remove items . A guard intervened and took the applicant out of the wing , leaving him in the prison barbershop . According to statements made by the applicant later , Mr PERSON followed him , grabbed him by the collar through the bars separating the barbershop from the corridor , and hit him on the head and nose . In a report drawn up DATE , the social worker in charge of the applicant \u2019s group said that there was no evidence of such an incident as no other inmate had confirmed the applicant \u2019s allegations , and the applicant had not requested a medical examination .","Alerted by the guard , the social worker came and talked with the applicant , repeating that he could not go back into that wing . According to her report about the incident , her words upset him and he began arguing with her in a loud voice . That in turn irritated Mr GPE , who began to shout at the applicant . The social worker took Mr GPE and CARDINAL other inmates to a cell , where she reminded them of their duties and warned them that any violence would be in breach of prison rules and entail disciplinary measures . They agreed that they had overreacted and undertook to make efforts to put relations in the group right . After that , the social worker had a talk with the applicant , who was in a highly emotional state . She told him of Mr PERSON \u2019s undertaking to calm the conflict . The applicant began shouting and insulting PERSON PERSON , who heard him and shouted back . To calm things down , the social worker had the applicant isolated in a cell .","DATE , the social worker received complaints from CARDINAL other inmates from the group . They protested against the applicant \u2019s return to the group , saying that he had systematically bullied and assaulted them . The applicant also filed a complaint , saying that he could no longer remain in the same group as Mr GPE","As a result , on DATE the social worker recommended that the prison governor move the applicant to another group . She was of the view that his remaining in his old group would worsen relations within it because he would take on inmates who had not taken his side in the conflict with Mr PERSON , which would also be bad for his emotional well - being and security . In the meantime , the applicant was provisionally held in a cell on another floor .","DATE after the first incident , on DATE , a guard took the applicant back to his old corridor so that he could fetch his belongings from his locker . According to the guard \u2019s report , filed DATE , the applicant swore at and threatened Mr PERSON when passing him by . The latter , upset , punched the applicant on the jaw . The social worker carried out an enquiry over DATE at the request of the prison governor and obtained statements from CARDINAL other inmates , confirming the events . She proposed that Mr GPE be given a disciplinary warning and that the applicant be kept in his new group to avoid further altercations between the CARDINAL . As a result of the blow he had received the applicant suffered a fractured jaw , but this was not detected immediately ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) . DATE after the incident , on DATE , the prison governor issued Mr PERSON with a disciplinary warning .","The applicant expressed no wish to be given a medical examination after the incident which allegedly took place on DATE .","After the incident on DATE he was brought to ORG medical centre , where he was seen by the feldsher as the prison \u2019s only doctor was on long - term sick leave at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant told the feldsher that he had been punched next to his right ear and had pain in the ear and the lower jaw . The feldsher noted some redness in his ear , but reported nothing more serious . She also noted that the applicant had no signs of other traumatic injuries to his body . She wrote a note to the prison administration , detailing her findings . According to a statement which he made in the course of the ensuing criminal proceedings against Mr PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant asked the feldsher to send him for an X - ray , but she refused .","On DATE the applicant went to the medical centre again and was given vitamins , an anti - inflammatory drug , a muscle relaxant and antibiotics .","He visited the centre once more on DATE and was given a painkiller .","According to a statement by the applicant in the criminal proceedings against Mr PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he repeatedly asked to be sent to an external medical specialist for an examination .","His next visit to the centre was on DATE , when he complained of a loss of hearing in his right ear . The feldsher decided to refer him to an external specialist . The consultation took place DATE , on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The Government said the delay was because the applicant \u2019s symptoms had not suggested that he had a medical condition that required urgent attention and because it took time to organise a medical examination outside the prison .","The applicant went to the prison \u2019s medical centre again on DATE and threatened to go on a hunger strike . According to a statement which he made in the course of the criminal proceedings against PERSON PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he made that threat to pressure the prison authorities to send him for a medical examination by an outside specialist .","His next visit to the centre was on DATE , when he obtained a painkiller but apparently did not complain further about his health .","On DATE the applicant was seen by an external otolaryngologist , who noted that he was experiencing pain in his right temporomandibular joint and ears and had poor hearing . He also noted that the applicant had some redness on his eardrums . He prescribed painkillers and antibiotics , and suggested that the applicant be seen by a maxillofacial surgeon . The prison paid for the consultation .","On DATE and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant again visited the prison \u2019s medical centre and obtained antibiotics and analgesics . On CARDINAL DATE he was taken out of prison for a consultation with a psychiatrist .","On CARDINAL DATE the prison \u2019s feldsher told the applicant that she would ask the prison administration to pay for a consultation with a maxillofacial surgeon . The ORG explained that that had been necessary because such consultations were not covered by GPE \u2019s health insurance scheme and the prison had to make a special payment for such a consultation .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a maxillofacial surgeon and given a panoramic X - ray . The surgeon noted that the applicant had a fracture of the right condyloid process that had not healed properly and post - traumatic arthritis of the right temporomandibular joint . He recommended that the applicant have physiotherapy for that joint . The consultation and the X - ray were paid for by the prison administration .","On DATE the prison feldsher offered to send the applicant to ORG for physiotherapy . He refused .","On DATE the applicant agreed to be sent to ORG , and was admitted on DATE . He was examined and given an X - ray of the skull . It was noted that he had a fracture of the jaw that had already healed and could no longer be operated on , and a deviated nasal septum . He was treated with antipsychotic , anticonvulsant and moodstabilising drugs , and had physiotherapy for his temporomandibular joints . He was in the hospital until DATE , when he returned to FAC .","DATE the applicant visited the prison medical centre on several occasions . He was generally given pain medication and further on request external medical consultations were discussed .","The second consultation with an otolaryngologist took place on DATE . She noted that the applicant complained of poor hearing and pain in the right ear . She found that he had normal eardrums but poor teeth , which caused luxation of the temporomandibular joint , and also had a dysfunction of that joint . She prescribed painkillers .","In a medical report drawn up on DATE , the FAC doctor noted that the applicant had no money to pay for surgery on his jawbone and that the national health insurance scheme did not cover it . In DATE the applicant had surgery for the deviated nasal septum in a hospital in GPE .","On an unknown date in DATE the applicant complained to the GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office about the incidents on CARDINAL and DATE . In DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open criminal proceedings . It found that no prison staff had committed any offences during the incidents . On appeal by the applicant , the ORG regional prosecutor \u2019s office upheld that decision in DATE . The applicant appealed further and , on DATE , the FAC appellate prosecutor \u2019s office quashed the refusal to open criminal proceedings against Mr PERSON , but upheld the refusal to open proceedings against prison staff . It noted that the internal inquiry had established that the incident involving the CARDINAL inmates had been promptly dealt with and that there had been no culpable omissions by prison staff . It referred the case back with instructions to the lower prosecutor \u2019s offices to check whether Mr GPE \u2019s actions had amounted to causing moderate bodily harm .","Following a criminal investigation and delays in the resulting trial due to Mr PERSON \u2019s mental health , in DATE ORG found Mr NORP guilty of causing moderate bodily harm to the applicant by breaking his jaw . It sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and ordered him to pay the applicant MONEY ( ORG ) in respect of nonpecuniary damage . The court noted that the fracture had impaired the applicant \u2019s chewing and speech functions for DATE and had caused him considerable pain and suffering ( see \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0441. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043d. \u043e. \u0445. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG ) .","In DATE , following an appeal by PERSON , ORG fully upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0432. \u043d. \u043e. \u0445. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , \u041e\u0421-\u0412\u0430\u0440\u043d\u0430 ) .","In DATE the applicant brought a claim for damages against ORG at ORG . He alleged that over DATE the authorities at FAC had failed to provide him with adequate medical care for pain in the right ear , his fractured jaw and numbness in his left arm .","ORG heard the case on DATE and DATE , when the applicant unexpectedly withdrew his claim and the court discontinued the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163829","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"PIEKARSKA AND OTHERS v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183117","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TOPI v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in ORG in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence .","In DATE the applicant was implicated in the commission of the criminal offence of setting up and being a member of an armed gang and of other criminal offences .","On DATE the prosecutor charged him with the offences of membership of an armed gang , attempted intentional murder and other crimes . The notification of the prosecutor \u2019s charges was acknowledged by the applicant \u2019s officially appointed lawyer .","It appears that throughout the investigation proceedings the applicant was represented by an officially appointed lawyer .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest . However , the order could not be enforced as the applicant could not be traced .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant a fugitive from justice after unsuccessful attempts to locate him . The decision stated that it was impossible to find him as it appeared that he had escaped to an unknown destination ( k\u00ebto k\u00ebrkime nuk kan\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb t\u00eb mundur kapjen e t\u00eb pandehurit pasi ai rezulton t\u00eb ket\u00eb ikur n\u00eb drejtim t\u00eb paditur ) .","On an unspecified date the prosecutor decided to commit the applicant for trial .","On DATE ORG transferred the case for examination to ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father appointed a lawyer to represent the applicant before the domestic courts .","The trial proceedings against the applicant were conducted in absentia and he was represented by a lawyer appointed by his family in accordance with LAW of LAW ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant in absentia of establishing and participating in an armed gang and attempted intentional murder . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The decision was based on evidence from documents and witness testimony .","The applicant \u2019s family - appointed lawyer and the other co - accused appealed against the conviction to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . On DATE ORG declined to examine the applicant \u2019s appeal on the grounds that the applicant \u2019s family had not given any express authority to the lawyer for such a procedure . However , ORG examined the applicant \u2019s case as part of its overall examination , having regard to the appeals of the other defendants . It convicted the applicant of the same offences as before and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE ORG dismissed appeals by the applicant and other co - accused against ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by the NORP authorities on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by GPE .","On DATE the applicant was extradited to GPE .","On DATE the applicant was officially informed of his conviction in absentia .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the conviction in absentia .","On DATE ORG , sitting in camera , declared the appeal time - barred as the DATE time - limit had started to run on DATE . ORG reasoning stated that throughout the proceedings the applicant had been represented by a courtappointed lawyer or a family - appointed lawyer and that accordingly he had had the opportunity to become acquainted with the proceedings brought against him ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177299","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF REGNER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus K\u016bris;Erik M\u00f8se;Eva Brems;Ganna Yudkivska;Giovanni Bonello;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Khanlar Hajiyev;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Robert Spano;Georges Ravarani;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On the basis of a contract signed on DATE and governed by the provisions of LAW , the applicant became an employee of ORG .","On DATE , the ORG \u2019s authorised representative requested ORG ( N\u00e1rodn\u00ed bezpe\u010dnostn\u00ed \u00fa\u0159ad \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to issue the applicant with security clearance ( osv\u011bd\u010den\u00ed ) giving him access to ORG classified information in the \u201c secret \u201d category ( tajn\u00e9 ) in accordance with the duties to be carried out by him .","On DATE the applicant took up his duties as director of the ORG of administration of the ORG \u2019s property ( PERSON spr\u00e1vy majetku PERSON obrany ) .","On DATE the ORG issued the applicant with security clearance , valid until DATE , confirming that he had access to ORG classified information in the \u201c secret \u201d category .","During DATE the applicant was appointed deputy to the first Vice - Minister of Defence ( z\u00e1stupce Prvn\u00edho n\u00e1m\u011bstka ministra obrany ) , while continuing to carry out his duties as director of ORG of the ORG property .","On DATE the ORG received confidential information from the intelligence service , classified \u201c restricted \u201d ( vyhrazen\u00e9 ) and dated DATE . It started an investigation in order to verify the information received . In the course of that investigation the intelligence service provided the ORG with other information , dated DATE , classified \u201c restricted \u201d and annexed to the security file ( bezpe\u010dnostn\u00ed spis ) under CARDINAL . On the basis of that information the ORG revoked the security clearance on DATE . There were CARDINAL unrelated reasons for that decision : firstly , the applicant had failed to indicate , as he should have done when applying for security clearance , that he held directorships in a number of companies and accounts in foreign banks ; and secondly , the applicant was considered to pose a national security risk , within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) of PERSON no . ORG . With regard to that risk , the decision did not however indicate which confidential information it was based on , as this was classified \u201c restricted \u201d and could not therefore legally be disclosed to the applicant . The decision indicated that the facts established in respect of his conduct , as documented in the information received by the ORG on DATE , cast doubt on his suitability for security clearance and his ability not to be influenced and to keep sensitive information secret , and thus indicated that he was no longer trustworthy .","On an administrative appeal ( rozklad ) by the applicant , the director of the ORG , after obtaining an opinion from the appeals board , confirmed on DATE the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE , but on partly different grounds . He dismissed as unfounded the complaint that the applicant had failed to disclose certain information prior to being issued with security clearance . However , he agreed with the ORG \u2019s conclusions regarding the existence of a security risk , which had transpired from the investigation carried out by the ORG and from the classified documents .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant had asked to be discharged , for health reasons , from his duties as deputy to the first Vice - Minister of Defence , and from those of director of ORG of the ORG property . He was removed from office on DATE under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE he signed an agreement , under LAW , terminating his contract by mutual consent with effect from DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG ( m\u011bstsk\u00fd soud ) for judicial review of the decision revoking his security clearance . He and his lawyer were permitted to consult the file , but the parts classified as confidential were excluded . However , the documents containing information about the existence of a risk , including the confidential documents , had been sent by the ORG to the court , which had access to them . At the public hearing the applicant was given the opportunity to make his submissions and to state what he thought were the reasons for revoking his security clearance . He stated that he believed the information in question had been provided by a military intelligence service which had sought to take revenge on him for his refusal to accept a proposal to co - operate in a manner exceeding his statutory obligations .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court dismissed the application for judicial review . It observed that in a procedure revoking security clearance the relevant authority could only disclose reasons for revoking clearance that were based on non - classified documents and that as regards grounds based on classified documents it had to confine itself to referring to the relevant documents and their level of confidentiality . It found that the approach taken by the ORG , which had not disclosed to the applicant the contents of the information on the basis of which the security clearance had been revoked , had not been illegal as disclosure of such information was prohibited by law . It added that the applicant \u2019s rights had been sufficiently respected because the court had power to obtain knowledge of the classified information and assess whether it justified the decision taken by the ORG .","In a judgment of DATE ORG ( GPE spr\u00e1vn\u00ed soud ) dismissed an appeal on points of law ( kasa\u010dn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enost ) lodged by the applicant as unfounded . It considered that the classified documents in question had shown beyond any doubt that the applicant did not satisfy the statutory conditions to be entrusted with secret information . It observed that the risk in his regard concerned his conduct , which affected his credibility and his ability to keep information secret . ORG added that disclosure of the classified information could have entailed the disclosure of the intelligence service \u2019s working methods , the revelation of its information sources or the risk of influencing possible witnesses . It explained that there was a statutory prohibition on indicating where exactly the security risk lay and on specifying the considerations underlying the conclusion that such a risk existed , the reasons and considerations underlying the ORG \u2019s decision being based exclusively on classified information . Accordingly , the reasons for the decision had to be limited to a reference to the documents on which it was based and the level of confidentiality of the information used . It went on to observe that , owing to the special nature of proceedings where classified information was concerned , not all the applicant \u2019s procedural rights could be guaranteed but that the non - disclosure of the exact reasons underlying the decision to revoke security clearance was counterbalanced by the guarantee that the administrative courts had unlimited access to the classified documents . ORG pointed out that the report on the result of the investigations carried out by the intelligence service , included in the file under no . DATE , contained specific , comprehensive and detailed information concerning the conduct and lifestyle of the applicant on the basis of which the court was satisfied in the present case as to its relevance for determining whether the applicant posed a national security risk . It observed , further , that the information did not in any way concern the applicant \u2019s refusal to co - operate with the military intelligence service .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00ed soud ) , complaining of the unfairness of the proceedings . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court dismissed his complaint as manifestly ill - founded . Referring to its earlier case - law on the subject , it observed that given the special nature and the importance of decisions adopted in respect of classified information where national security interests were manifest , it was not always possible to apply all the guarantees relating to fairness of proceedings . It considered that in the present case the NORP conduct had been duly justified and the reasoning in their decisions comprehensible and in conformity with the LAW ; that they had not departed from procedural standards and constitutional rules to an inordinate degree ; and that ORG was not therefore required to intervene in their decision - making procedure .","On DATE the prosecution service lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons on charges of influencing the award of public contracts at ORG from DATE to DATE . The applicant was indicted for participation in organised crime ( \u00fa\u010dast na zlo\u010dinn\u00e9m spol\u010den\u00ed ) ; aiding and abetting abuse of public power ( pomoc k trestn\u00e9mu \u010dinu zneu\u017e\u00edv\u00e1n\u00ed pravomoci ve\u0159ejn\u00e9ho \u010dinitele ) ; complicity in illegally influencing public tendering and public procurement procedures ( pomoc k trestn\u00e9mu \u010dinu pletich p\u0159i ve\u0159ejn\u00e9 sout\u011b\u017ei a ve\u0159ejn\u00e9 dra\u017eb\u011b ) ; and aiding and abetting breaches of binding rules governing economic relations ( pomoc k trestn\u00e9mu \u010dinu poru\u0161ov\u00e1n\u00ed z\u00e1vazn\u00fdch pravidel hospod\u00e1\u0159sk\u00e9ho styku ) .","In a judgment of DATE the \u010cesk\u00e9 Bud\u011bjovice Regional Court ( krajsk\u00fd soud ) found the applicant guilty and sentenced him , inter alia , to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the Prague High Court ( Vrchn\u00ed soud ) upheld the first - instance judgment convicting the applicant , but suspended execution of his prison sentence for a DATE probationary period . That judgment became final ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178178","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF M.F. v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation)","judges":"Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is of GPE origin .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was taken to ORG after he and his accomplices had been apprehended while driving a car containing goods apparently stolen from a nearby summer house .","The applicant submitted that shortly afterwards , for TIME , he had been ill - treated by CARDINAL police officers ; at TIME the CARDINAL officers had returned and had continued hitting and kicking him for TIME or so . TIME the CARDINAL officers had escorted the applicant to another room for questioning , but had then continued beating him , together with several other officers . In the applicant \u2019s account of the events , altogether CARDINAL officers and CARDINAL security guards took part in the ill - treatment , with the apparent intention of extracting his confession to further offences . He stated that he had been hit in the face , forced to his knees and kicked repeatedly ; a paper bag had been pulled over his head and the soles of his feet had been hit many times with a piece of wood . The officers had insisted that he admit to CARDINAL counts of theft in order for them to stop hitting him , and they had repeatedly insulted him , making references to his GPE origin . CARDINAL of them had said that they would not mind if he died DATE there would just be CARDINAL Gypsy less .","The applicant eventually signed the record of the questioning , which stated that the questioning had taken place TIME","TIME , at TIME , the applicant was allegedly escorted to the toilet , where he said the officers had again started hitting and kicking him . CARDINAL of them had removed a towel - holder from the wall and hit the applicant \u2019s hand with it . Again , references were allegedly made to the applicant being a GPE .","The applicant was released at TIME","DATE , at the request of the applicant \u2019s mother , the general practitioner of the neighbouring village , PERSON , came to the applicant \u2019s house and examined him . Since she had apparently been told only about chest complaints , she did not examine the applicant \u2019s legs or feet . She did not identify any marks indicating external injury on the applicant but found that his ribs were sore and suggested that he go to hospital if he wished to obtain a medical certificate recording his injuries . Dr PERSON herself did not produce a medical report on the LOC .","On TIME the applicant went to the emergency room of ORG in GPE . At TIME he was issued with a medical certificate , for which he paid the fee due , stating that he had bruises on the forehead , the nose and the left shoulder and an abrasion on the right hip ; both his hands and arms were swollen and hyperaemic ; and the rear surface of both thighs , as well as the soles of his feet , were swollen , red and sore . According to the certificate , the applicant had numerous contusions that had been inflicted by other persons .","Still on TIME , at TIME , X - rays were taken of the applicant at ORG in GPE , a town at a distance of QUANTITY , where the applicant was driven by his family members . He was diagnosed with a \u201c chest contusion \u201d , a \u201c skull contusion \u201d and \u201c bodily injury inflicted by human force \u201d .","The applicant stated that he had been unhurt at the time that he had been taken to the police department . He added that between his release and the medical inspection , he had been continuously accompanied by his relatives , who testified in the ensuing proceedings that he had not suffered any injuries outside the police department .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint alleging that he had been brutalised by police officers . The applicant alleged that during the ill - treatment the officers had made repeated references to his GPE origin . The case was being investigated by ORG .","On DATE the applicant was heard as a witness and shown , for the purposes of his identifying his alleged assailants , the photos of police officers serving at ORG . The applicant acknowledged from the outset that he would be able to identify with certainty CARDINAL of the several perpetrators . Nevertheless , he finally identified CARDINAL persons as the perpetrators DATE police officers ( GPE , ORG , PERSON . PERSON , GPE , GPE and GPE ) and CARDINAL security guards employed by the police department ( ORG and GPE ) . Subsequently , the applicant became uncertain about the involvement of ORG","The prosecutor \u2019s office appointed a forensic expert . This expert had at his disposal the medical reports issued by PERSON and PERSON . In his opinion given in retrospect , he made the following statement as to the time when the applicant \u2019s injuries had been sustained :","\u201c The exact time of the infliction of the injuries can not be established . Given that the doctor examining the applicant did not document any lesions characteristically pointing to an inveterate injury , it can only be said that the injuries had been sustained within a CARDINAL - CARDINAL-hour - time - frame preceding the medical care . Since , according to the police report on the application of coercive measures , the local police constable handed the applicant over to the officer on duty without any complaints or injuries , the injuries were likely to have occurred after this point in time . \u201d","\u201c A s\u00e9r\u00fcl\u00e9sek pontos keletkez\u00e9si ideje nem hat\u00e1rozhat\u00f3 meg . Tekintettel arra , hogy a vizsg\u00e1l\u00f3 orvos id\u0151s\u00fcl\u0151ben l\u00e9v\u0151 s\u00e9r\u00fcl\u00e9sre jellegzetes elv\u00e1ltoz\u00e1sokat nem dokument\u00e1lt , GPE val\u00f3sz\u00edn\u0171s\u00edthet\u0151 , hogy a s\u00e9r\u00fcl\u00e9sek az orvosi ell\u00e1t\u00e1st megel\u0151z\u0151 QUANTITY id\u0151tartamon bel\u00fcl alakultak ki . Mivel a k\u00e9nyszer\u00edt\u0151 eszk\u00f6z alkalmaz\u00e1s\u00e1ra \u00edrt rend\u0151ri jelent\u00e9s adatai szerint a k\u00f6rzeti megb\u00edzott panasz \u00e9s s\u00e9r\u00fcl\u00e9smentesen adta \u00e1t nevezettet GPE \u00fcgyeletes tisztnek , a s\u00e9r\u00fcl\u00e9sek val\u00f3sz\u00edn\u0171s\u00edthet\u0151en ezen id\u0151pontot k\u00f6vet\u0151en keletkeztek . \u201d","On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation , holding in essence that the applicant \u2019s version of events was not plausible . The prosecutor emphasised the fact that since the applicant had been apprehended just after he had committed the crime in question ( and still in possession of the proceeds of that crime ) , coercive interrogation by police officers with the intention of extracting his confession to the offence in question seemed pointless and thus hardly plausible . Relying on the internal records of the police department recording the shifts of the officers , the prosecutor was satisfied that CARDINAL of the alleged perpetrators , PERSON . PERSON , GPE and GPE , had alibis for the time of the incident , in that early in the morning of that day , they had been assigned to patrol service . Therefore , they could not possibly have been present at the applicant \u2019s questioning . Furthermore , the CARDINAL security guards ( FAC and Z.A. ) were not allowed to leave their station and thus could not have been present at the incident . The prosecutor also observed that a general practitioner had examined the applicant between his release from the police department and the first hospital inspection , but had recorded no injuries . The prosecutor also found it material that the applicant had been uncertain of the identities of the alleged perpetrators when shown photos of the Gy\u00f6ngy\u00f6s police officers ; that he had contradicted himself on several occasions ; and that he had complained about the alleged incident only on DATE , not before .","On DATE the Borsod - Aba\u00faj - Zempl\u00e9n County Public Prosecutor \u2019s Office dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint against the discontinuation order . The prosecutor was satisfied that the investigation had been adequate and comprehensive , and that the obtaining of further evidence \u2013 in particular , by questioning the applicant \u2019s brother and friend , who were present at his release \u2013 was superfluous . The applicant \u2019s allegations about racist motives behind the ill - treatment were not addressed .","This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant brought a substitute private prosecution against the CARDINAL presumed perpetrators \u2013 that is to say , QUANTITY police officers and CARDINAL security guards \u2013 on charges of coercive interrogation . The motion included assertions about racial insults being uttered during the incident .","The Eger High Court held a hearing on DATE . At that hearing the applicant stated that he did not recognise the defendants ORG and Z.A. and that he was not certain if PERSON had beaten him , so he dropped the charges against them . Accordingly , the court terminated the proceedings against these CARDINAL defendants .","The remaining defendants either denied the charges or refused to make any statements . The High Court heard Dr C.S. , who confirmed that she had not seen any marks of external injury on the applicant \u2019s body when examining him on DATE of the incident . A court - appointed medical expert stated that if the applicant had had the injuries in question when examined by PERSON then the latter must have noticed them . The court also obtained testimony from the applicant \u2019s mother and brother and a friend ( the CARDINAL latter had not been heard during the investigation ) , who had been waiting for him in front of ORG on his release . They all stated that the applicant had already had those injuries at the moment of his release .","The High Court was satisfied that PERSON . PERSON , ORG had alibis for the time of the incident . As to the charges against the CARDINAL other officers , GPE and GPE , the court highlighted that even though the applicant said that he had been ill - treated in order to force him to admit to CARDINAL counts of theft \u2013 which he finally did \u2013 there was actually no reference in the record of the questioning to any further counts of theft . The court also emphasised that , contrary to the statements of the applicant , the CARDINAL officers could not have been continuously present in FAC because TIME they had been carrying out some onsite inspections in another town , PERSON .","On DATE the ORG acquitted the officers for want of sufficient evidence . According to the reasoning of the judgment , the court relied on documentary evidence relating to the applicant \u2019s apprehension and questioning , documents relating to the service particulars of the officers involved , the testimony of the applicant , medical documentation , and the testimony of the officers .","The applicant did not appeal .","As a consequence of the applicant lodging , but subsequently withdrawing , a criminal complaint against GPE , criminal proceedings on charges of false accusation were conducted against the applicant . On DATE the ORG found him guilty as charged and placed him on DATE probation . The judgment was upheld in essence by the ORG on DATE ; however , the applicant \u2019s sentence was altered to DATE of community work ."],"violated_articles":["14","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170371","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF POSEVINI v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for home;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for home;Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first applicant is a professional photographer . Since DATE he has owned and managed a single - member limited liability company through which he operates a photography studio in GPE .","NORP In DATE the NORP authorities informed the NORP Border Police that a NORP national who had a permit to reside in GPE was suspected of forging NORP identity documents and providing them to NORP nationals residing unlawfully in GPE . Electronic surveillance had showed that he had exchanged email messages with an alleged accomplice whose email account was hosted by a NORP Internet service provider .","Enquiries by ORG revealed that the email account belonged to the first applicant and his company . A wiretap placed on the NORP national \u2019s NORP mobile telephone showed that on DATE he had called the photography studio \u2019s landline and talked with a woman who spoke NORP with a NORP accent . They discussed the receipt of the photographs of CARDINAL people .","On DATE the NORP national travelled from GPE to GPE by car , and was arrested shortly after entering NORP territory . A search of his car revealed CARDINAL fake NORP identity cards , CARDINAL fake NORP drivers\u2019 licences and CARDINAL fake NORP passports .","DATE , on DATE , the GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office applied for warrants to search the photography studio , the first applicant \u2019s car and the applicants\u2019 house , and seize evidence there . It set out the above developments , and said that it was investigating the forging of identity documents in which the main suspect was the above - mentioned NORP national . According to the available information , he had received assistance from the first applicant . The applications were worded as follows :","\u201c In the course of the proceedings , the need has arisen to carry out a search and seizure in [ the applicants\u2019 house , the first applicant \u2019s car , and the photography studio ] , since the available evidence gives probable cause to suspect that [ these places ] contain items of relevance to the case \u2013 items relating to the subject matter of the case . I therefore ... ask for permission for an investigator to search [ these places ] with a view to finding and seizing the above - mentioned items . \u201d","DATE , a judge of ORG , sitting in private , issued CARDINAL warrants authorising the searches and seizures in the following terms :","\u201c The submitted materials make it clear that it is necessary to carry out a search and seizure in [ these places ] with a view to finding the items set out in the ORG ] relating to the forging of identity documents and others , relevant to the case which is the subject matter of the criminal proceedings . \u201d","At TIME DATE , DATE , just as the first applicant was leaving his house , he was intercepted by QUANTITY police officers , QUANTITY in plain clothes and CARDINAL in uniform .","NORP The parties\u2019 accounts of the ensuing events differ widely . According to the applicants , the police did not identify themselves , roughly pinned down and handcuffed the first applicant behind his back , scared his CARDINAL daughters , the third and fourth applicants , who were minors , and then searched the house in a rude and chaotic manner , without presenting the warrant authorising them to do so . According to the Government , whose account was based on a statement informally obtained from CARDINAL of the officers who took part in the search , the first applicant attempted to run back to the house , possibly to conceal evidence , and was only handcuffed for that reason . The officers searched the house with restraint , specifically endeavouring not to frighten the CARDINAL children . They were only looking for computers , mobile telephones and similar devices , and did not rummage needlessly through things in the house .","According to the record of the search , it lasted TIME and took place in the presence of CARDINAL certifying witnesses . The police seized CARDINAL ORG cards , identity and other documents , a laptop computer , CARDINAL mobile Internet dongles , and a mobile telephone .","According to the applicants , after the search the officers dragged the first applicant into the street , bent over with his hands handcuffed behind his back , in sight of many neighbours and passers - by . CARDINAL and TIME they searched his car , from which they did not seize anything . The officers then put the first applicant in a police car and drove to the photography studio , very close to the corner of a busy pedestrian street in the centre of GPE , which they searched TIME They again refused to allow the first applicant to acquaint himself with the search warrant . According to the record of that search , the officers seized CARDINAL desktop computers , CARDINAL video cameras , CARDINAL still cameras , several flash memory cards , flash memory drives , and cash .","At about the same time , TIME the police searched the first applicant himself , without a judicial warrant . They seized CARDINAL flash memory drives and CARDINAL mobile telephones . They submitted the search record to a judge of ORG , who approved it at TIME .","The officers then took the first applicant to a police station for a \u201c conversation \u201d . According to the first applicant , he was kept in handcuffs the whole time . The Government denied this , noting that if that had indeed been the case , the first applicant would not have been able to sign the search records and produce a handwritten statement in the police station .","In the statement the first applicant explained , inter alia , that he used the email account in which the police were interested ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) to exchange computer files , mostly image files , with clients of his photography studio . He stated that he agreed to provide access to the account for the needs of the investigation , so that the police could subject the messages in it relating to the NORP national to examination by an expert , and then gave his password . The Government submitted that the police had used the password to go through the email account , but had not seized any messages from it . The first applicant was released at TIME The police did not issue a written order for his detention .","The first applicant \u2019s wife , the second applicant , came back to GPE TIME . According to her , she had been contacted earlier during DATE by telephone by her older daughter , the third applicant , and had become worried at the news that her husband had been arrested and their daughters left alone , frightened , in the house . She kept calling her daughters and trying to call her husband throughout DATE .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the case asked a computer expert to copy the data from CARDINAL of the seized flash memory cards to an optical disk . In his report , submitted DATE , DATE , the expert said that he had copied all the files from CARDINAL of the cards and that the third card did not contain any files .","On DATE the investigator asked the same expert to copy the data from the laptop computer seized in the applicants\u2019 house to an external hard drive and to inspect the CARDINAL desktop computers seized in the photography studio for the presence of software or files which could be used for the forging of documents . In his report , submitted on DATE , the expert said that he had copied CARDINAL files with a total size of QUANTITY from the laptop computer to an external hard drive , which he enclosed with his report , and that his inspection of the desktop computers had revealed that CARDINAL of them contained software programs which could be used to edit image files , and that the third computer was defective and could not be booted up .","It is unclear what happened with the data copied from the laptop computer and the CARDINAL memory cards .","On DATE the first applicant asked the GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office to order the return of all the seized items . He submitted that they were not relevant for the case and that he urgently needed them for his work as a photographer . On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office partly allowed the request and ordered the return of some of the items \u2013 CARDINAL cameras , QUANTITY flash memory cards , and CARDINAL video cameras \u2013 but only after the police had made copies of their contents . DATE , DATE , those items were given back to the first applicant . On DATE he appealed to the GPE regional prosecutor \u2019s office , complaining of the refusal of the lower prosecutor \u2019s office to order the return of the remainder of the seized items . It does not appear that he received a formal reply to his appeal , but on DATE , DATE after the seizure , the investigator in charge of the case gave him back CARDINAL mobile telephones , CARDINAL mobile Internet dongles , QUANTITY ( ORG ) , MONEY , CARDINAL flash memory cards , and CARDINAL flash memory drives . The remainder of the seized items were given back to the first applicant DATE after the seizure , on DATE , immediately after their contents had been inspected by the expert ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the police sent the case file to the GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office , recommending that the proceedings be discontinued . On DATE that office disagreed and instead decided to stay the proceedings on the grounds that the author of the presumed offence had not been identified . On DATE it sent the case file back to the police for further investigation . On DATE the police again transmitted the case file to the GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office . It appears that the proceedings are still pending . Neither the first nor the second applicant has been charged with an offence ."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159794","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SHEPELENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicants are spouses who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in the village of ORG , in LOC .","Late in the evening of DATE , the applicants\u2019 son ( born in DATE ) , died in a traffic accident . According to the applicants , on DATE NORP , the driver of the car , compelled A. to sit in the vehicle and travel with him . During the drive , NORP exceeded the speed limit and the car turned over . The applicants\u2019 son died from his injuries . The driver and other passengers survived .","Between TIME and TIME on DATE the police prepared a site inspection report . They also questioned witnesses on DATE .","On DATE the police instituted criminal proceedings related to the death of the applicants\u2019 son .","On DATE NORP was charged with violating traffic safety rules and causing the death of the applicant \u2019s son . Given that NORP had not appeared before the police and that his whereabouts were unknown , the investigator , following approval by the prosecutor of LOC ( \u201c the FAC \u201d ) , on DATE ordered the placing of NORP in custody as a preventive measure .","On DATE NORP was placed on the list of wanted persons .","On DATE NORP visited the police department in charge of the criminal case and stated that DATE he had been undergoing medical treatment outside GPE . On DATE the investigator , following approval by ORG , changed the preventive measure from pre - trial detention to a written undertaking not to abscond .","On DATE the first applicant brought civil claims for damages and requested that NORP \u2019s property be held as security for the claims . The claims were joined to the criminal case file .","NORP In DATE the case was referred to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for consideration on the merits .","On DATE ORG put NORP on the list of wanted persons , stating that he had failed to appear for court hearings on several occasions . The court ordered that he be placed in custody .","On DATE the police informed the president of ORG that NORP had been arrested and taken to the local pre - trial detention centre .","On DATE the applicants brought new civil claims , seeking damages within the criminal proceedings against NORP","On DATE ORG closed the criminal proceedings on the basis of LAW passed in DATE , releasing NORP from criminal liability and punishment . ORG dismissed the civil claims without considering them on the merits .","The applicants appealed .","On DATE the ORG upheld ORG decision concerning the termination of the criminal case against NORP As to the civil claims , it found that ORG dismissed them unlawfully and ordered that they be considered further by ORG in accordance with civil procedure .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal by the applicants on points of law as unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG partly allowed the applicants\u2019 civil claims . Referring to the results of the criminal proceedings , the court found that NORP had been responsible for the traffic accident , causing the death of the applicants\u2019 son . It awarded each applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and a further ORG CARDINAL to the first applicant in respect of pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG considered an appeal by NORP and reduced the non - pecuniary damage award to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for each applicant .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicants , who sought to increase the amount of damages .","On DATE ORG returned letters of execution to the applicants , stating that no funds or property belonging to the debtor could be found ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162855","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF J.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Barking .","The applicant arrived in GPE on DATE . He claimed asylum on DATE but his claim was refused by the Secretary of ORG for ORG on DATE and his appeal against that decision was refused on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of indecent assault in relation to an incident involving CARDINAL DATE girls and was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . He was released on licence on DATE but his licence was revoked on DATE that year because he failed to comply with the terms of the licence .","The applicant was re - arrested on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was served with the decision to make a deportation order . On DATE he was detained pursuant to the Secretary of ORG \u2019s powers under paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Schedule CARDINAL to ORG , etc . ) Act DATE . The deportation order was signed on CARDINAL DATE and served on him on DATE .","On DATE the applicant indicated that he wished to return to GPE . DATE an application was submitted to the NORP authorities for an emergency travel document to enable him to travel there . However , the application was rejected by the NORP authorities on DATE .","The applicant was subsequently interviewed at ORG on DATE . However , DATE the ORG informed his solicitors that they could not issue a travel document as no formal identification of the applicant had been provided . On DATE ORG was informed that ORG required a birth certificate before any travel documents could be issued . It appears that ORG thereafter proposed to submit copy documents . ORG initially agreed to this proposal , but later refused .","On DATE the applicant commenced judicial review proceedings challenging his continued detention .","On DATE the ORG agreed to issue a travel document provided that the applicant was prepared to sign a \u201c disclaimer \u201d consenting to his return .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release from detention subject to a number of conditions , including that he be subject to a curfew ; that he remain at a fixed address ; that he report on a DATE basis to the nearest ORG office ; and that he take the steps necessary to obtain travel documents .","The applicant refused to sign a \u201c disclaimer \u201d on DATE . Although he was released on DATE , DATE the matter was brought back to ORG and a different judge discharged the previous order on account of his failure to comply with the conditions for release ( namely , that he take the steps necessary to obtain travel documents ) . As a consequence , the applicant was once again liable to detention .","On DATE ORG reported that they had on CARDINAL occasions attempted to visit the applicant at his nominated address to install the equipment required for electronic tagging . Both visits took place during TIME of curfew . Very shortly afterwards the applicant reported a different address to the immigration authorities so that they could continue to communicate with him .","On DATE an authority was issued for the applicant \u2019s detention and on DATE he was detained while reporting to the immigration authorities .","By DATE the authorities had been alerted to the fact that the applicant was showing some signs of psychological disturbance , had been diagnosed with \u201c reactive depression \u201d and was receiving medication for his psychological symptoms .","On DATE the claim for judicial review launched on CARDINAL DATE was dismissed .","The applicant attended at ORG on DATE but no travel document was issued . On DATE he again refused to sign a disclaimer .","On DATE the applicant was alleged to have displayed \u201c inappropriate behaviour \u201d to a female member of immigration staff at a detention centre . His behaviour was also alleged to have been disruptive .","NORP In or around DATE the immigration authorities discussed the possibility of prosecuting the applicant under LAW of ORG , etc ) Act DATE for failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the Secretary of ORG \u2019s requirement to take specified action to enable a travel document to be obtained . However , no prosecution was ever mounted .","On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG , indicating that he would be willing to return to GPE if he were to be compensated for the periods of detention which he had undergone . However , ORG refused to agree to any such request .","On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the authorities made further attempts to engage the applicant in a voluntary return . However , on each occasion he indicated that he was not willing to co - operate or sign a disclaimer .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant made CARDINAL applications for bail to ORG . On each occasion the application was dismissed . The reasons given for the dismissal of the applications included the fact that the applicant could end his own detention by signing the disclaimer .","The applicant \u2019s solicitors wrote a letter before action on DATE and proceedings were issued on DATE . On DATE the ORG granted the applicant permission to apply for judicial review and ORG was ordered to release him on bail within TIME .","At the hearing counsel for the applicant argued that both periods of the applicant \u2019s detention could properly be looked at as being unlawful , although he focused his attention on the second period . Counsel for the Secretary of ORG for ORG argued DATE and the court appears to have accepted \u2013 that the first period could not be in question legally , since the applicant had been released for DATE pursuant to a court order and the order enforcing release had been discharged . However , he conceded that when considering the lawfulness of the second period of detention , the first period of detention would have to be taken into account .","In considering the lawfulness of the second period of detention , ORG judge recalled that the authorities should be free to make strenuous efforts to obtain the assent of a person they proposed to deport . If they were unsuccessful , they could and should seek any way around his consent , for example by persuading the country of origin to issue a travel document without a disclaimer . However , the judge noted that the law did not permit the indefinite detention of someone who was never going to consent to deportation .","Bearing that in mind , the judge considered the history of the applicant \u2019s second period of detention . He observed that during this period there had been no change in approach to the applicant , no prosecution had been brought under LAW , and there had been no further approach to the NORP authorities to see if they would change their position .","The judge then had regard to the relevant principles of domestic law set out in R v. The Governor of ORG , ex parte ORG PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL and in the guidance given by ORG in both R ( A ) v. Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL and ORG ) v. Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Applying those principles and the relevant guidance , the judge noted that the most important factor justifying detention was the applicant \u2019s refusal to sign the relevant disclaimer . He further noted that lengthy detention could be justified by the applicant \u2019s offending , by the realistic fear that he would further offend and by the genuine and reasonable concern that he might abscond . However , even given those factors , the judge found that there had to come a time when such a sterile tactic as merely sitting and waiting while repeatedly urging the applicant to change his mind , in full expectation that he would not , ceased to be detention genuinely for the purpose of deportation . The judge therefore concluded that \u201c the woeful lack of energy and impetus \u201d applied to this case from at least DATE meant that it could not possibly be said that the Secretary of ORG on this occasion had complied with the obligation in PERSON to act with \u201c reasonable diligence and expedition \u201d . He therefore held that the applicant \u2019s detention had been unlawful from DATE .","With regard to the question of whether there should be guidance on how long it might be appropriate to detain an individual , the judge made the following observations :","\u201c It can not be right for the Secretary of ORG to be led to believe , by looking at a digest of the range of decisions that have been taken , that it is safe to detain for X DATE or X years .","Equally , it can not be right for those who are in the positon of being detained for considerable periods , stubbornly refusing to comply with the authority \u2019s requests to facilitate voluntary repatriation , to be put in a position of saying , \u2018 If I hold on DATE , or DATE , or DATE , then I am all right\u2019 . A tariff is repugnant and wrong , and it seems to me that it would be wise for those preparing legally for such cases to abandon the attempt to ask the courts to set such a tariff by a review of the different periods established in different cases . \u201d","In a decision dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant was awarded GBP CARDINAL in damages .","The applicant sought permission to appeal . On DATE permission to appeal was refused . However , on DATE the applicant renewed his application for permission to appeal and on DATE he was granted permission to appeal only in respect of the quantum of damages awarded . The outcome of that appeal is unknown ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168766","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KOSYANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE - on - Don prior to his arrest .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder . By judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of GPE found him guilty and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the conviction . The applicant and his counsel lodged an application for supervisory review of the conviction .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG , upon hearing the prosecutor , counsel for the applicant and for the injured party , quashed the conviction for formal defects and ordered a re - trial . The ORG directed that the applicant should be held in custody , without citing grounds for the custodial measure or setting a time - limit for its application .","On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing and fixed the trial date for DATE . By the same decision , the court determined that the applicant should remain in custody because he was charged with a particularly serious offence and could pervert the course of justice if released . The applicant and his counsel filed an appeal against the extension order .","On DATE ORG examined the appeal in the absence of the applicant and his counsel . It annulled the detention order on the ground that ORG had failed to set a time - limit for the applicant \u2019s detention , in breach of the requirements of LAW . It did not take any decision regarding the applicant \u2019s further detention and referred the issue to ORG for a new examination .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pretrial detention for DATE starting from DATE and lasting until DATE , referring to the gravity of the charges and the applicant \u2019s new line of defence which , in ORG view , was an indication that he might abscond . On DATE ORG rejected in a summary fashion the appeal against the extension order .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , referring to the gravity of the charges and the flight risk . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order on appeal .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s request for release . Noting that the trial was approaching the final stage , that the witnesses had been heard , and that the applicant had family and dependent children , the court held that the applicant could be released on bail . The applicant was released DATE . On DATE ORG quashed the bail decision , holding that ORG had not taken proper account of the gravity of the charges . On DATE ORG reconsidered the matter and held that the applicant should be re - detained for a further DATE on account of the gravity of the charges against him . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order on appeal .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to MONEY imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld the conviction ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161543","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KORNEYKOVA AND KORNEYKOV v. UKRAINE","importance":2,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicants are a mother and child born in DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE the first applicant , who was in DATE of pregnancy , was detained by the police on suspicion of robbery .","On DATE the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered her pre - trial detention as a preventive measure pending trial .","On DATE she was placed in the Kharkiv SIZO .","On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was taken to ORG no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the maternity hospital \u201d ) .","On the same date she gave birth to the second applicant . He measured QUANTITY and weighed QUANTITY .","Three female security officers guarded the first applicant in the hospital . According to her , they stayed on the ward at all times . The Government submitted that they had left the ward during the delivery .","The first applicant alleged she had been continuously shackled to her hospital bed or to a gynaecological examination chair , the only exception being during the delivery when the shackles had been removed . It is not clear from her submissions exactly how she had been shackled ; on CARDINAL occasion , she submitted that after the delivery she had had her foot shackled to the bed . At the same time , she submitted that the guards had only removed the shackles from her wrists for breastfeeding .","According to the Government , the first applicant was never handcuffed or shackled in the maternity hospital .","On DATE the applicants were discharged .","On DATE the first applicant wrote in a statement for the PERSON administration ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE ) that the maternity hospital staff had treated her well , that she had not been handcuffed or shackled , and that the CARDINAL female security officers who had been on her ward had been helping her take care of the baby .","In DATE and DATE the prosecution authorities questioned some maternity hospital staff and the security officers who had guarded the first applicant with a view to verifying her allegations , particularly as regards her shackling ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the chief doctor of the maternity hospital wrote to the governor of the Kharkiv SIZO , in reply to an enquiry by the latter , to say that during her stay in the maternity hospital the first applicant had been guarded by GPE officers at all times , that the officers in question had not been on the delivery ward , and that the first applicant had not been handcuffed or shackled during the delivery .","On DATE the chief obstetrician , PERSON . , gave a written statement to the prosecution authorities . She submitted that the first applicant had been shackled by the wrists to the gynaecological examination chair during her examinations both in the admissions unit and later in the obstetric unit , and that it was usual practice for detainees to be shackled and guarded by CARDINAL guards .","CARDINAL other obstetricians , PERSON , and a nurse , Ms To . , made similar statements . PERSON submitted that she could not remember any details regarding the second applicant \u2019s delivery . Ms To . specified that the first applicant had not been shackled during the delivery or subsequently during breastfeeding .","The chief doctor of the neonatal unit Ms ORG . also submitted that the first applicant had been shackled to a gynaecological examination chair . Furthermore , she indicated that CARDINAL guards had been staying on the ward near the applicants , with a third near the door .","The security officers who had guarded the first applicant denied that she had been handcuffed or shackled in hospital .","NORP The applicant \u2019s lawyer enquired with a former nurse , PERSON , about the conditions faced by women in detention during delivery , with reference to her related work experience . On DATE Ms P. wrote to him indicating that she had indeed worked as a nurse at ORG and Maternal Health Centre from DATE , and that in DATE or DATE a detained woman had been shackled to her bed during her baby \u2019s delivery there .","While the first applicant was held in several different cells in the GPE , her application form referred only to the conditions of her detention with her baby in cell no . CARDINAL , in which she had been held from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The summary of facts below therefore only concerns that cell .","The cell , situated in a semi - basement , was cold and damp . There was no hot water and only an irregular supply of cold water . The first applicant therefore rarely had the opportunity to take a shower and bath her new - born son . She also had to store cold water in plastic bottles for her own use . She boiled water on a defective electric cooker in a kettle , which she had to borrow from the administration and which was provided to her for no longer than TIME each time . The toilet and shower were in a niche not separated from the living area . The toilet was often blocked . There was no baby changing table or cot in the cell .","The first applicant was not provided with any baby hygiene products . Nor did she receive nutrition suitable to her needs . On DATE of court hearings her only meal was breakfast , which consisted of bread and tea . No packed lunches were provided to her .","The applicants were able to have outdoor walks of TIME , but not every day , in a communal walking area .","Lastly , CARDINAL of the inmates she shared with was HIV positive .","Cell no . CARDINAL was a high - comfort cell designed for pregnant women and women with children . It was located on the ground floor , measured QUANTITY and could accommodate up to QUANTITY people . The first applicant shared it with CARDINAL or sometimes CARDINAL inmates .","The cell had CARDINAL windows measuring QUANTITY in total . There was hot and cold water , as well as a drinking water cooler with a capacity of QUANTITY .","Furthermore , there were all the necessary furniture and facilities such as air conditioning , a refrigerator , an electric stove , a baby cot and a pram . There was also a supply of nappies and hygiene products . The toilet and shower were separated from the living area .","The first applicant was provided with adequate nutrition in accordance with the applicable standards ( the total energy value of her DATE meals being QUANTITY ) . She received CARDINAL hot meals per day with the exception of hearing DATE , when she missed lunch . She breastfed her son and refused the baby food provided by the GPE . There were no restrictions on food or other parcels she received from her relatives .","The applicants had a DATE TIME walk in a specially designated area .","They never shared a cell with inmates with HIV .","The Government provided CARDINAL colour photographs of cell no . CARDINAL , showing a spacious and light room in a visually good state of repair . There were CARDINAL large windows with sheer curtains . The cell had a washbasin . There was also a lavatory with a bidet and a shower cubicle , both separated from the living area by opaque glass doors . Also on the photographs were a wardrobe , QUANTITY beds with bedside cabinets , a cot , a table with CARDINAL stools , a baby stool , a shelf with some tableware , a microwave , a television and a baby changing table .","Another photograph showed a walking area for detained mothers with babies , with a flowerbed and a wall with a nature mural . The first applicant and her baby were on the photograph , as well as another woman with a pram .","On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the local sanitary and epidemiological service inspected the GPE in the context of an unspecified investigation . It observed that there was a special cell for women with babies , with all the essential amenities . It was noted in the report that there had been no pregnant inmates or inmates with babies in the GPE at the time of the inspection .","On DATE the sanitary and epidemiological service also inspected the drinking water in the GPE to check that it complied with the relevant standards . No irregularities were found .","NORP On DATE ORG informed the Agent of the Government that there had been no complaints from the first applicant regarding the conditions of detention or the second applicant \u2019s medical care in the GPE .","On DATE the first applicant wrote a statement giving a detailed description of her cell in the GPE similar to that submitted by the Government ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . The last paragraph also concerned her stay in the maternity hospital ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE one of the ORG staff wrote to ORG to say that the first applicant \u2019s statement had been made freely .","During her detention in the Kharkiv GPE the first applicant received CARDINAL food parcels from her mother , often with basic foodstuffs such as bread , butter , tea , sugar and milk .","The first applicant lodged numerous requests for release with the trial court dealing with her criminal case , subject to an undertaking not to abscond ( dated DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) . She alleged , in particular , that the conditions in the GPE were not adequate for her baby . The court rejected those requests .","NORP The applicants\u2019 case received some media coverage . For example , in DATE the article \u201c Baby as a victim of inhuman treatment \u201d was published online by ORG . In DATE a television programme was broadcast , in which the first applicant and the ORG authorities gave accounts , particularly as regards the conditions of the applicants\u2019 detention in the GPE . The parties did not submit to the ORG a copy of the relevant article or video footage or a transcript of the television programme .","On DATE one of the detainees , PERSON , wrote a statement addressed to the head of the local department of ORG . She submitted that in DATE she had been held in the same cell as the first applicant and had been satisfied with the conditions of detention there . It was noted in the statement that there had been large windows in the cell , a shower cubicle with hot and cold water and all the necessary furniture and appliances , including a refrigerator and a television .","On DATE ORG of ORG issued a memorandum stating that the first applicant had not submitted any complaints during her detention in the Kharkiv GPE .","The case file contains CARDINAL statements by detainee PERSON concerning the conditions of detention in the GPE . She wrote CARDINAL of them while detained there ( on an unspecified date and on DATE ) , and a third on DATE when she had already begun serving her prison sentence elsewhere . In the first CARDINAL statements PERSON described the conditions of her detention in cell no . CARDINAL as quite satisfactory and comfortable . Her account was similar to that given by the Government ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The first CARDINAL statements also contained critical remarks regarding the first applicant claiming , in particular , that she had displayed a careless attitude towards her baby and had acted in bad faith in applying to the ORG . In her third statement , PERSON stated that the food in the PERSON had been poor . More specifically , the bread had been stale and the meat had been tinged blue . She also submitted that there had been no hot water in cell no . CARDINAL . Lastly , she submitted that on CARDINAL occasions she had witnessed the first applicant requesting medical care for her baby when he had had stomachache , but her requests had been ignored .","DATE . On DATE a former detainee , PERSON . , wrote a statement for the first applicant \u2019s lawyer and had it certified by a notary . She stated that she had shared cell no . CARDINAL with the first applicant from an unspecified date in DATE to CARDINAL DATE . PERSON . had been pregnant at the time . She described the conditions of their detention as follows . The cell was located in a semi - basement and inmates saw practically no daylight . The windows were so high that they could not be opened without the assistance of a guard . There were CARDINAL inmates in the cell , some of them with HIV and some suffering from other illnesses . The toilet was separated from the living area by a waist - high wall and leaked . As a result , there was always a bad smell . The shower also leaked and the cubicle door was broken . It was so humid in the cell that the plaster had fallen off the ceiling and the walls were covered in mould . The cell was infested with mice and lice . There were no household appliances like a kettle or microwave . Nor were there any beds or bedside cabinets as shown by ORG on television ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON . specified that in fact none of the detainees had ever been held in the cell presented by the authorities on television . There was no hot water and the pressure in the cold water taps was so low that inmates had to store water for their own use . Furthermore , the PERSON administration did not provide them with any tableware . Their daily walk lasted TIME and took place in a small walking area covered with bars . Furthermore , according to PERSON . , the food in the PERSON was neither fresh nor tasty . Lastly , she stated that she had been shackled to her bed when undergoing some treatment in the maternity hospital in GPE while pregnant .","On an unspecified date PERSON . , who had also shared cell no . CARDINAL with the first applicant ( the exact period is unknown ) , wrote a statement about the conditions of detention there . Her description was similar to that given by PERSON . as regards the leaking toilet , high humidity levels , lack of hot water and irregular supply of cold water , as well as the duration and conditions of the DATE outdoor walks and poor nutrition .","On DATE the applicants were discharged from the maternity hospital . The second applicant was found to be in good health .","According to a letter from its chief doctor to the first applicant \u2019s lawyer dated DATE , on CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was transferred to ORG no . DATE ( \u201c the children \u2019s hospital \u201d ) . All the other relevant documents in the case file indicate that on DATE both applicants were taken to the Kharkiv SIZO .","As submitted by the first applicant and noted in a letter by the chief doctor of the children \u2019s hospital to the first applicant \u2019s lawyer dated DATE , a paediatrician from that hospital had examined the second applicant on CARDINAL DATE . The baby was found to be in good health but to have phimosis ( a condition of the penis where the foreskin can not be fully retracted ) .","However , according to the second applicant \u2019s medical file kept by the GPE , the first time a paediatrician of the children \u2019s hospital examined him was on DATE . He was found to be in an adaptation period and the first applicant received advice regarding childcare .","According to the second applicant \u2019s medical file , on DATE he was examined again by a paediatrician , who diagnosed him with intestinal colic and recommended PERSON , massage , feeding on demand and outdoor walks . The doctor also suspected that the boy had a patent ( open ) foramen ovale ( ORG ; the foramen ovale allows blood circulation in the fetal heart and closes in most individuals at birth ) .","The second applicant \u2019s next medical examination appears to have taken place on DATE . It was noted in his medical file that the paediatrician had given advice to the first applicant regarding feeding and care .","The first applicant denied that any of the examinations following that on CARDINAL DATE had taken place . She alleged that her baby had not been examined by a paediatrician until DATE . She submitted that the records of her son \u2019s earlier examinations in the medical file had been forged . According to her , the first page of that book referred to an examination on DATE , whereas the records of his earlier examinations had been written on separate pages and subsequently glued into the file . The case file as it stands before the ORG contains a separate copy of each page of the file , which makes it impossible to verify the first applicant \u2019s allegation .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer asked the ORG administration to provide him with details of when the second applicant had been examined by a paediatrician and whether the conditions of detention had been appropriate for such a small baby . He also requested copies of the relevant documents .","On DATE the PERSON administration replied that it would be able to provide comprehensive information on the second applicant \u2019s health after a complete medical examination in the children \u2019s hospital , which was due to take place .","On DATE the first applicant asked the judge dealing with her case to order a medical examination of her son \u201c given that the PERSON administration [ was ] ignoring her requests to that effect \u201d . It appears that her request was rejected .","On DATE the chief doctor of the children \u2019s hospital wrote to the first applicant \u2019s lawyer in reply to an enquiry by him dated DATE . He said that with no paediatrician at the Kharkiv SIZO , a paediatrician from that hospital monitored babies born there . He also indicated that the second applicant had been examined by the hospital paediatrician on CARDINAL DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In so far as the lawyer enquired about the baby \u2019s medical condition at the material time , the chief doctor stated that it was impossible to provide him with such information because the first applicant had not requested any medical care for him until then .","On DATE a dermatologist , cardiologist , ear , nose and throat specialist , neurologist and paediatrician all examined the second applicant . He was found to have allergic dermatitis , dysplastic cardiomyopathy and phimosis . Furthermore , the patent foramen ovale diagnosis had been called into question ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The doctors concluded that the second applicant did not require any medical treatment , but recommended that the mother follow a hypoallergenic diet .","According to the first applicant , the examination was carried out in the context of custody proceedings initiated by the second applicant \u2019s stepfather . She specified that it had been done with her consent so that the second applicant could be taken from the GPE , where he was not receiving adequate care .","On DATE the GPE sent a copy of the second applicant \u2019s medical file to the ORG representative , further to a request made by him on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the chief doctor of the children \u2019s hospital wrote to the first applicant \u2019s lawyer , in reply to an enquiry made on DATE , to say that hospital was in charge of the medical supervision of children in the Kharkiv GPE where needed , subject to the GPE administration making the relevant application . It was also noted that the second applicant required an additional examination in the regional cardiology centre , and that the children \u2019s hospital had already requested the PERSON administration \u2019s cooperation in that regard .","On DATE a paediatrician and a cardiologist examined the second applicant again . He was diagnosed with a patent foramen ovale ( a heart condition , see paragraph CARDINAL above for further details ) and an additional examination was recommended .","On DATE applicant underwent an echocardiogram and was found to be healthy .","DATE . On DATE the first applicant refused to allow her son to undergo a paediatrician examination , which she had been offered .","The following day the first applicant was released ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer enquired with the children \u2019s hospital whether it had kept a medical file in respect of the second applicant and whether he had been vaccinated during his stay with the first applicant in the GPE .","On DATE the chief doctor replied that the children \u2019s hospital provided medical care to children residing permanently in its catchment area . As regards children residing there temporarily , a written application by CARDINAL of the parents was required . The first applicant had never submitted such an application . Accordingly , the hospital had not opened a medical file in respect of the second applicant . At the same time , its doctors had examined him when requested by the PERSON administration . The results of each examination had been reflected in the medical file provided by the GPE . In so far as the second applicant \u2019s vaccinations were concerned , it was noted that he had always been brought for examinations without his mother , and without her consent no vaccinations had been given .","On DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE the first applicant participated in court hearings , during which she was held in a metal cage . Her requests not to be placed in a cage were rejected .","On DATE the judge of ORG , who had been in charge of the first applicant \u2019s case , wrote to the Agent of the Government , in reply to the latter \u2019s request , to say that the first applicant had indeed been held in a metal cage in the courtroom during hearings . The judge emphasised that it was a legal requirement to place criminal defendants in a metal cage and there were no exceptions to this rule . Furthermore , he considered that allowing the first applicant to remain outside the cage in the courtroom would have been equal to her temporary release , contrary to the custodial preventive measure applied .","On DATE ORG confirmed once again to the Agent of the Government that the first applicant had been held in a metal cage in the courtroom during hearings . It further specified that the second applicant had remained with the GPE medical specialist outside the cage and had been passed to her for breastfeeding when requested .","On DATE the first applicant was released on an undertaking not to abscond .","DATE . On DATE she complained to ORG that she had been shackled to her bed in the maternity hospital at all times , including during the delivery . She also complained that the conditions of detention and nutrition in the GPE had been inadequate . Lastly , the first applicant alleged that the statement she had written on DATE expressing her satisfaction with the conditions of detention had been made under psychological pressure ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG completed the internal investigation it had undertaken following the media coverage of the applicants\u2019 case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The first applicant \u2019s allegations were dismissed as unsubstantiated .","On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) that she had not been provided with adequate medical care during her pregnancy and the delivery ; that she had been shackled by her wrists and feet to a gynaecological examination chair or her bed in the maternity hospital at all times , including during the delivery ; that the conditions of her detention in the Kharkiv SIZO had been poor ; and that neither she nor her baby had received adequate medical care there . On the same date her complaint was registered in ORG and the investigation was started .","On DATE ORG ordered a forensic medical examination of the case material with a view to establishing : ( i ) whether the first applicant had any injuries and , if so , how they had been caused ; ( ii ) whether there was any forensic medical evidence that the first applicant had been handcuffed or shackled DATE ; ( iii ) whether there was any forensic medical evidence that the applicants had not been provided with adequate or sufficient medical care in the Kharkiv SIZO ; ( iv ) whether there was any forensic medical evidence that the applicants had not been provided with adequate or sufficient medical care in the maternity hospital ; and ( v ) if the applicants had not received adequate or sufficient medical care , whether this had had any negative impact on their health .","The aforementioned examination continued from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The answers in the report to all CARDINAL questions were negative .","On DATE ORG discontinued the criminal investigation for lack of evidence of a criminal offence .","Also in DATE ORG , following an enquiry by ORG , undertook an internal investigation as regards the lawfulness of the second applicant \u2019s detention in the GPE . On CARDINAL DATE it was completed , with the conclusion that there had been no violation . It was noted in the report that , although in DATE the first applicant had verbally expressed her intention to transfer the custody of her baby to her mother , she had later changed her mind as she had been breastfeeding ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181175","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LITVINYUK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She is a single mother and has a son who at the time of the accident in question was DATE .","On DATE the applicant was knocked down by a trolley bus . She suffered an open craniocerebral injury and contusion of the brain . As a result , the applicant received the status of a disabled person with the lowest degree of disability ( \u0442\u0440\u0435\u0442\u044f \u0433\u0440\u0443\u043f\u0430 \u0456\u043d\u0432\u0430\u043b\u0456\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456 ) .","NORP In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against ORG , claiming compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage to her health caused by the accident . In particular , as pecuniary damage the applicant claimed compensation for medicines , additional nutrition , treatment in a sanatorium , transport expenses , and compensation for loss of earnings .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG ( PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) complaining , inter alia , under LAW about the lengthy examination of her case by the domestic courts .","On DATE , while the proceedings were still pending before the national courts , the ORG delivered a judgment on the applicant \u2019s first application ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , finding that the length of the proceedings in her case had been excessive . The ORG took into consideration the period after DATE , when the Convention had come into force in respect of GPE . The length of the proceedings within the ORG \u2019s competence was DATE and DATE .","The ORG , in particular , noted the following :","\u201c DATE . As for the issues that were at stake for the applicant , the ORG notes that following the traffic accident the applicant was seriously injured and received a disability degree . Given that the applicant was a single mother and had a child to raise , the compensations for loss of earnings and for expenses sustained as a result of a poor state of her health were of undeniable importance for the applicant . The ORG therefore considers that what was at stake for the applicant called for an expeditious decision on her claims . \u201d","On DATE the ORG found against the applicant . On DATE ORG of GPE quashed this decision and remitted the case to a first - instance court for fresh examination . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the court of appeal .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG partly found for the applicant . On DATE ORG of GPE quashed this decision and remitted the case to a first - instance court for fresh examination . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the court of appeal .","On DATE the ORG left the applicant \u2019s case without consideration because she had failed to appear in court without giving plausible reasons on DATE and DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision stating that she had not been aware about the above - mentioned hearings . On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court noted that the applicant had been duly notified about the date of the hearings . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decisions of the lower courts . A further attempt by the applicant to have the above decisions reviewed in the light of newly discovered circumstances was to no avail ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173802","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA;RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VARDANEAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (Russia);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Independent tribunal) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Independent tribunal) (Russia);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for home) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for home) (Russia);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and live in GPE .","The background to the case , including the NORP armed conflict of DATE and the subsequent events , is set out in ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL ) and ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG DATE ) .","The applicants are husband and wife and are journalists . At the time of the events they were living in the self - proclaimed \u201c GPE \u201d ( the \u201c FAC ) . The first applicant was employed by a NORP news agency and by a NORP newspaper .","On DATE the first applicant was arrested by agents of the secret service of the \u201c FAC \u201d on charges of treason and\/or espionage undertaken for GPE . A search was carried out in the applicants\u2019 apartment and many of their belongings \u2013 such as pictures , computers and a bank card \u2013 were seized .","On DATE , a tribunal from the \u201c FAC \u201d convicted the first applicant and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . Following international pressure , on CARDINAL DATE the president of the \u201c FAC pardoned him . After DATE , the applicant and his family moved to GPE .","During his detention the first applicant met on several occasions with representatives of the \u201c FAC secret services , including the chief of the secret services , and was led to believe that his family might suffer if he refused to cooperate with them . He was asked to record a video of himself admitting having worked for the NORP secret services . That video was aired on NORP television . On another occasion he was asked to write a letter to the foreign ambassadors to GPE \u201c disclosing \u201d the fact that the NORP secret services were spying on the foreign embassies based in GPE . He subsequently was given to understand by representatives of the \u201c FAC secret services that the letter had served the purpose of creating tensions between GPE and western countries and that the whole matter , including his arrest , was being coordinated from GPE .","The second applicant could only visit the first applicant on a limited number of occasions during his detention and lawyers representing the first applicant in the proceedings before the ORG were denied access to him on the grounds that they were not members of the \u201c ORG \u201d .","NORP In the meantime , the NORP authorities made numerous attempts to secure the first applicant \u2019s release . In particular , the problem of his detention in the \u201c FAC \u201d was raised by the GPE authorities with ORG and GPE authorities in DATE in GPE . The NORP delegation distributed a circular letter during the DATE session of ORG of ORG and raised the first applicant \u2019s situation during meetings of ORG in DATE and DATE . The first applicant \u2019s situation was also raised by the NORP authorities in their discussions with the LOC representatives in GPE , and a criminal investigation was initiated by ORG in respect of the applicant \u2019s detention in the \u201c FAC . However , the criminal investigation was later discontinued .","ORG also awarded financial assistance to the first applicant \u2019s family during the period of the first applicant \u2019s detention in the \u201c FAC \u201d and transferred to them ownership of a flat in GPE worth MONEY ( ORG ) after the first applicant \u2019s release from detention ."],"violated_articles":["5","6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["34","5","6","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","6-1","8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145228","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MALA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG of Zaporizhzhya ordered the applicant \u2019s former husband , PERSON , to pay her child maintenance in respect of their daughter , who was living with the applicant .","According to a bailiff \u2019s report of DATE , the outstanding arrears to the applicant at that date were CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ( ORG ) , at the time equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) ) , of which ORG CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) was owed for DATE . The bailiff \u2019s calculations were based on the average salary indicators in the district where S. lived , since he had been unemployed at the time .","On DATE the same bailiff issued a fresh report , assessing the total amount of the arrears at DATE at UAH CARDINAL . The sum owed for DATE was assessed at UAH CARDINAL . The bailiff recalculated the earlier established amount on the basis of a tax return submitted by the applicant \u2019s ex - husband for DATE , which showed that he had earned ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for that period . Viewed as his actual earnings for DATE , that amount was lower than the average salary , which would have otherwise been taken as a basis for the arrears\u2019 calculation .","On DATE the report of CARDINAL April DATE was served on the applicant , who had DATE to challenge it .","On DATE the applicant sought to challenge the accuracy of the report before the NORP ORG of Zaporizhzhya ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG allowed her application and invalidated the impugned report as erroneous . It concluded that the bailiff had had no reasons to depart from the earlier calculation , since the tax return submitted by S. concerned only DATE . In the absence of any appeal , the ruling became final .","On DATE the bailiff issued another report , according to which the outstanding child maintenance arrears owed to the applicant at that date were ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL NORP hryvnias , of which ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL was owed for DATE .","On DATE the bailiff reassessed the arrears owed by S. to the applicant , concluding that they were ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at DATE ( as S. had made some payments during DATE ) , of which ORG CARDINAL was owed for DATE .","On DATE ORG terminated the child maintenance enforcement proceedings because on DATE the applicant \u2019s daughter had reached the age of majority . The bailiff assessed the outstanding arrears at DATE at UAH CARDINAL ( equivalent to about ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at that time ) ; the sum owed for DATE remained unchanged ( ORG CARDINAL , equivalent to about EUR CARDINAL ) . Neither the applicant nor her former husband challenged this assessment .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim against S. for penalties to be imposed on him for late child maintenance payments . She relied on the bailiff \u2019s report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the court adjourned its hearing on the applicant \u2019s request with a view to summoning the bailiff who had issued the aforementioned report . S. did not object to that , but submitted that he had requested recalculation of the arrears owed to the applicant .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in part and awarded her UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) in penalties to be paid by her former husband . It based its calculation , in so far as the arrears for DATE were concerned , on the bailiff \u2019s report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had been presented by the bailiff at the hearing on DATE . Having regard to the bailiff \u2019s explanations as to the reasons for the recalculation , the court held that the aforementioned report took precedence over the report of DATE relied on by the applicant . According to the minutes of the hearing , the applicant did not object to the completion of the examination of the case on the merits , but insisted that the court should rely on the report adduced by her .","On DATE the applicant appealed , claiming that the court had wrongly relied on the report of DATE , which she had only become aware of on DATE , DATE the court had given judgment . She further pointed out that the report in question had not been formally served on her until DATE ( DATE ) and that she had challenged it in accordance with the established procedure ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) upheld ORG decision of DATE . It held , without giving further details , that the first - instance court had rightly relied on the bailiff \u2019s report of DATE .","The applicant appealed in cassation for the decisions of DATE and DATE to be quashed and a fresh examination of the case to be carried out . She complained that the courts had disregarded , without any explanation , the key piece of evidence adduced by her \u2013 the bailiff \u2019s report of DATE . It had not been challenged by any of the parties and was final . She reiterated the arguments of her appeal as regards the bailiff \u2019s report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , pointing out that her complaint about that report had been successful and that it had been invalidated on DATE .","On DATE ORG , sitting in a single - judge formation , rejected her request for leave to appeal in cassation . Its reasoning was limited to a statement that the cassation appeal was unfounded , and that its arguments did not warrant any verification of the case file materials in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a civil claim against her former husband , seeking recovery of the child maintenance arrears as assessed by the bailiff on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , with an inflationary adjustment and additional penalties .","On DATE the court found against the applicant . It held that ORG had already determined the outstanding arrears PERSON had to pay ( UAH DATE see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that the applicant was not entitled to any further indexation or penalties .","Following an appeal by the applicant , on DATE ORG quashed that decision and ordered the applicant \u2019s former husband to pay her ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in arrears ( equivalent to about ORG CARDINAL ) . As regards the arrears owed for DATE , it relied on ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE based on the bailiff \u2019s report of CARDINAL April CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant appealed in cassation . She argued that the final amount of outstanding child maintenance arrears owed to her by QUANTITY at DATE was UAH MONEY ( equivalent to about EUR CARDINAL ) . The applicant emphasised that none of the parties had ever challenged the accuracy of that calculation . The appellate court had nevertheless chosen to rely on the bailiff \u2019s earlier report of DATE , which had been invalidated by ORG on DATE after she complained .","On DATE ORG , sitting in a single - judge formation , rejected her request for leave to appeal in cassation . Its reasoning was identical to that given in the ruling of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim with ORG , seeking an increase of the child maintenance to be paid by her former husband from DATE .","On DATE the court allowed her claim in part and assessed the amount of DATE child maintenance at ORG CARDINAL , to be paid from CARDINAL May until DATE , the date their daughter reached the age of majority . No appeal was lodged and the decision became final ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174967","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GORDEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in the civil proceedings to which they were parties ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170663","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KHAMTOKHU AND AKSENCHIK v. RUSSIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);No violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Guido Raimondi;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , PERSON and Mr Aksenchik , were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They are currently serving life sentences in ORG of GPE .","On DATE ORG of GPE found the first applicant guilty of multiple offences , including escape from prison , attempted murder of police officers and ORG officials , and illegal possession of firearms , and sentenced him to life imprisonment .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the first applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG of the Russian Federation quashed the appeal judgment of DATE by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the first applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal . The court reclassified some of the charges against him but the life sentence remained unchanged .","On DATE ORG found the second applicant guilty on CARDINAL counts of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld that conviction on appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148070","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF TARAKHEL v. SWITZERLAND","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Italy);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Dean Spielmann;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Peer Lorenzen","text":["The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","On an unspecified date the first applicant left GPE for GPE , where he met and married the second applicant . The couple subsequently moved to GPE , where they lived for DATE .","On an unspecified date the couple and their children left GPE for GPE and from there took a boat to GPE . According to the findings of the NORP police and the identification forms annexed to the observations of ORG , the applicants ( the couple and their CARDINAL oldest children ) landed on the coast of GPE on DATE and were immediately subjected to the ORG identification procedure ( taking of photographs and fingerprints ) after supplying a false identity . DATE the couple and the CARDINAL children were placed in a reception facility provided by the municipal authorities of ORG ( GPE province ) , where they remained until DATE . On that date they were transferred to ORG ( Centro di Acoglienza per PERSON , \u201c ORG \u201d ) in PERSON , in the GPE region , once their true identity had been established .","According to the applicants , living conditions in the centre were poor , particularly on account of the lack of appropriate sanitation facilities , the lack of privacy and the climate of violence among the occupants .","On DATE the applicants left the ORG in PERSON without permission . They subsequently travelled to GPE , where on DATE they were again registered in the ORG system . They lodged an application for asylum in GPE which was rejected . On DATE GPE submitted a request to take charge of the applicants to the NORP authorities , which on CARDINAL DATE formally accepted the request . On an unspecified date the applicants travelled to GPE . On DATE the NORP authorities informed their NORP counterparts that the transfer had been cancelled because the applicants had gone missing .","On DATE the applicants applied for asylum in GPE .","On DATE the first and second applicants were interviewed by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and stated that living conditions in GPE were difficult and that it would be impossible for the first applicant to find work there .","On DATE the ORG requested the NORP authorities to take charge of the applicants . In their respective observations the NORP and ORG agreed that the request had been tacitly accepted by GPE .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG rejected the applicants\u2019 asylum application and made an order for their removal to GPE . The administrative authority considered that \u201c the difficult living conditions in GPE [ did ] not render the removal order unenforceable \u201d , that \u201c it [ was ] therefore for the NORP authorities to provide support to the applicants \u201d and that \u201c the NORP authorities [ did ] not have competence to take the place of the NORP authorities . \u201d On the basis of these considerations it concluded that \u201c the file [ did ] not contain any specific element disclosing a risk to the applicants\u2019 lives in the event of their return to GPE . \u201d","On DATE the applicants appealed to ORG . In support of their appeal they submitted that the reception conditions for asylum seekers in GPE were in breach of LAW and that the federal authorities had not given sufficient consideration to their complaint in that regard .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , upholding the ORG \u2019s decision in its entirety . The court considered that \u201c while there [ were ] shortcomings in the reception and social welfare arrangements , and asylum seekers [ could ] not always be taken care of by the authorities or private charities \u201d , there was no evidence in the file capable of \u201c rebutting the presumption that GPE complie[d ] with its obligations under public international law . \u201d With more particular reference to the applicants\u2019 conduct it held that \u201c in deciding to travel to GPE , they [ had ] not given the NORP authorities the opportunity to assume their obligations with regard to [ the applicants\u2019 ] situation . \u201d","On DATE the applicants requested the ORG to have the proceedings reopened and to grant them asylum in GPE . They submitted that their individual situation had not been examined in detail . The ORG forwarded the request to ORG , which reclassified it as a \u201c request for revision \u201d of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and rejected it in a judgment dated DATE , on the ground that the applicants had not submitted any new grounds which they could not have relied on during the ordinary proceedings . The applicants had based their request mainly on a more detailed account of their stay in GPE and the fact that their children were now attending school in GPE .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE which reached ORG CARDINAL May , the applicants applied to this ORG and sought an interim measure requesting ORG not to deport them to GPE for the duration of the proceedings .","In a fax dated CARDINAL DATE the Registry informed ORG Agent that the acting President of the Section to which the case had been assigned had decided to indicate to ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG that the applicants should not be deported to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139996","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KASAP AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE and GPE .","Murat ORG was the first applicant \u2019s son and the other applicants\u2019 brother .","At TIME on DATE , PERSON ORG and his friend PERSON were riding on a motorcycle in the GPE district . When they realised that QUANTITY police officers wanted them to stop , they panicked because they did not have driving licences . They started driving away and the QUANTITY officers , I.H.Y. and PERSON , gave chase until PERSON GPE and GPE crashed into a wall .","NORP Immediately after the accident , PERSON arrested PERSON but PERSON ORG started to run away , followed by the officer I.H.Y.","Meanwhile , ORG made an attempt to escape . In order to stop him from running away , the officer who stayed with him fired CARDINAL shots in the air . PERSON told the officer that there was no need to open fire , and explained that PERSON ORG was running away because he had panicked . If he were to be allowed to telephone him , his friend would give himself up . He also stated that he knew where PERSON Kasap lived .","I.H.Y. heard the shots fired by his colleague and thought that PERSON Kasap might have a gun . According to his statement , he ordered PERSON Kasap to stop and fired QUANTITY shots in the air . While he was running after PERSON Kasap , he lost his balance and his pistol went off . The bullet hit the ground , ricocheted , and entered the back of the body of PERSON Kasap , who died on the way to hospital .","The incident was notified to the GPE public prosecutor , who immediately gave instructions for security precautions to be taken . A crime scene examination team arrived at the site of the incident and encircled the crime scene with barrier tape .","At TIME on TIME , a prosecutor went to the site of the incident . The prosecutor questioned the eyewitness and prepared an incident report .","On TIME , PERSON was questioned by QUANTITY police officers at ORG . He described the incident but was not aware of the death of PERSON ORG .","On TIME , the guns of the police officers were seized as evidence .","At TIME on TIME , a post - mortem examination was carried out on the body of PERSON Kasap . The public prosecutor and the doctor observed a bullet entry wound on his back . The doctor was of the opinion that a full autopsy was needed to establish the cause of death . After the examination , PERSON ORG \u2019s clothes were seized in order to be able to determine the exact shooting range .","At CARDINAL TIME on TIME , the public prosecutor questioned the officer PERSON at a police station .","According to a crime scene investigation report which was drawn up by CARDINAL other police officers under the supervision of the public prosecutor , CARDINAL bullet cases and a bullet jacket were found at the site of the incident .","On DATE at CARDINAL TIME a complete examination of the motorcycle was carried out .","On DATE a full autopsy was carried out on PERSON ORG \u2019s body . The public prosecutor and the experts observed that the cause of death was internal bleeding caused by the entry of a deformed bullet .","On DATE , the officer I.H.Y. was questioned by the GPE public prosecutor . According to his statement , the death of PERSON ORG was the result of an accident . He maintained that he had not shot PERSON ORG intentionally but that his pistol had gone off accidentally when he lost his balance .","Also DATE , and after having been questioned by the GPE public prosecutor , the officer I.H.Y. was brought before ORG ( Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi ) , where he pleaded not guilty and reiterated the statement he had made before the public prosecutor earlier in DATE .","Also on DATE , ORG ordered I.H.Y. \u2019s detention .","On DATE , the applicants found another bullet case at the site of the incident and handed it to the public prosecutor .","On DATE the parents of PERSON ORG made an official complaint to the PERSON public prosecutor and asked for those responsible for the death of their son to be punished .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG and charged the officer I.H.Y. with the offence of causing death by negligence .","On an unspecified date , PERSON ORG \u2019s parents joined the criminal proceedings against the officers as civil parties ( m\u00fcdahil ) .","On DATE the ORG of First Instance considered the possibility that the officer I.H.Y. might have acted with intent to kill and decided that that would necessitate a reclassification of the offence attributed to him . It therefore decided to forward the case file to ORG , which has jurisdiction to deal with such offences .","Following an objection by the officer I.H.Y. , on DATE ORG ordered ORG \u2019s release pending trial .","On DATE the ORG declined jurisdiction to examine the case on the grounds that the offence attributed to the officer I.H.Y. was causing death by negligence . It decided that ORG had jurisdiction over this offence . ORG also decided to transfer the case file to the governor \u2019s office for authorisation to be granted in order to prosecute the officer .","The parents of PERSON ORG lodged an objection against the decision of non - jurisdiction and on DATE their objection was accepted by ORG .","On DATE the GPE governor \u2019s office decided not to grant authorisation for the prosecution of I.H.Y.","On DATE PERSON parents lodged an objection against the governor \u2019s decision .","On DATE ORG quashed the governor \u2019s decision and forwarded the case file to the GPE public prosecutor .","On DATE , the GPE public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG and charged the officer I.H.Y. with the offence of murder with dolus eventualis ( \u201c olas\u0131 kast \u201d ) .","On an unspecified date , ORG concluded that further ballistic examinations were necessary to establish how the trigger had been pulled . On DATE ORG issued a report , in which the experts noted that the pistol could only have been fired if pressure of CARDINAL kilograms had been applied to the trigger .","According to ORG report dated DATE , both the bullet cases and the bullet jacket found at the crime scene came from the accused police officer \u2019s pistol .","On DATE the ORG found that , although the officer I.H.Y. had not attempted to kill PERSON ORG , he had used disproportionate force and caused his death by negligence . ORG sentenced the officer to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment but then reduced the sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . Moreover , having regard to LAW , it suspended the pronouncement of the judgment .","On an unspecified date , the first applicant submitted a petition to ORG asking for the officer I.H.Y. to be dismissed from his job as a civil servant .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was informed that ORG had been suspended from his job for a period of DATE .","On DATE the applicants lodged an objection against the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .","The objection was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE PERSON parents had brought a case before ORG against ORG , requesting MONEY ( TRY ) in compensation for the death of their son .","On DATE the ORG allowed the claim in part and awarded PERSON ORG \u2019s parents TRY CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) for pecuniary damage . The administrative court also awarded them TRY CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL at the time ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","On an unspecified date , PERSON parents lodged an appeal against ORG decision . The examination of the appeal is still continuing before ORG .","After the Government had been notified of the present case , on DATE ORG of ORG applied to ORG requesting that a written order be issued pursuant to LAW to quash the judgment of ORG dated DATE . As is apparent from the documents submitted to the ORG , no such order was issued by the Ministry .","The suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment is regulated by Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the relevant paragraphs of which read as follows :","\u201c ...","( CARDINAL ) If the accused , after being tried on the charges against him , is sentenced to a judicial fine or to imprisonment for DATE , the court may decide to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment ... The suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment means that the judgment does not have any legal consequences for the offender .","( CARDINAL ) Suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment may be decided provided that ;","a ) the offender has never been found guilty of a wilful offence ;","b ) the court is convinced , taking into account the offender \u2019s personality traits and his behaviour during the proceedings , that there is little risk of any further offence being committed ; and","c ) the damage caused to the victim or to society has been repaired by way of restitution or compensation .","...","( CARDINAL) If the pronouncement of the judgment is suspended , the offender will be kept under supervision for DATE .","...","( CARDINAL ) If the offender does not commit another wilful offence and abides by the obligations set out in the supervision order , the judgment of which the pronouncement has been suspended shall be annulled and the case discontinued .","( CARDINAL ) If the offender commits another wilful offence or acts in violation of the obligations of the supervision order , the court shall impose the sentence . Nevertheless , the court may assess the offender \u2019s situation and may decide that a certain part of the sentence , up to the CARDINAL of the total sentence , will not be executed . If the conditions so permit , the court may also suspend the execution of a sentence of imprisonment or commute it to other optional measures .","( CARDINAL ) An objection may be lodged against the decision to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment","Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , concerning references to ORG by written order of ORG ( Kanun yarar\u0131na bozma ) , provides :","\u201c Where ORG has been informed that a judge or court has delivered a judgment that has become final without coming under the scrutiny of ORG , it may issue a formal order to ORG requiring him to ask ORG to set aside the judgment concerned ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168779","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GRE\u0160\u00c1KOV\u00c1 v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action with ORG ( file no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) seeking an order for the defendant ( a municipality ) to enter into a contract with her concerning the transfer of a flat , in which she resided .","ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE and DATE ; it ruled on the merits of the action and granted the action on DATE .","The applicant lodged an appeal ; the judgment was quashed by a court of appeal on DATE and the matter was remitted on DATE to ORG .","The applicant lodged a complaint under LAW with ORG contesting the length of the proceedings in so far as those had been held before ORG .","On DATE ORG ( file no . II . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) rejected her complaint on the ground that , prior to lodging her constitutional complaint , the applicant had failed to exhaust ordinary remedies , in particular lodging a complaint with the President of ORG under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","ORG noted that the court of appeal had transferred the case file to ORG on DATE and that the applicant had lodged her constitutional complaint on DATE . It found that , within that period , ORG had failed actively to proceed with the matter for DATE .","ORG observed that the ORG \u2019s previous case - law \u2013 such as GPE and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , which concerned a delay of DATE dealt with unjustified delays imputable to the courts that were substantially longer than those in the present case ( DATE ) . ORG considered that , because the unjustified delays in the present case had been shorter ( compared to those in respect of I\u0161tv\u00e1n and I\u0161tv\u00e1nov\u00e1 and other similar cases ) , it was justified in requiring DATE before turning for protection to ORG \u2013 that the applicant lodge a complaint with the President of ORG with a view to accelerating her proceedings .","Following the Constitutional Court \u2019s decision , ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE . At the time of communication of the application the proceedings were still pending ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184485","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF DAOUKOPOULOS v. GREECE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)","judges":"Kristina Pardalos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and at the time of introduction of the application to the ORG he was detained in FAC .","The applicant is serving a life sentence for drug dealing . He was initially placed in FAC from DATE until DATE . On DATE he was transferred to FAC , from where he was transferred back to FAC on CARDINAL DATE . Lastly , on DATE he was transferred back to FAC .","The applicant alleged that he had been detained initially in cell no . B DATE , which had measured QUANTITY and had held CARDINAL detainees in total . On DATE he had been placed in cell no . GR CARDINAL on the ground floor , which had measured QUANTITY . m and had held CARDINAL detainees . In both cases , therefore , the living space afforded to him had been CARDINAL sq . m. Overcrowding had exposed him to infectious diseases and he had suffered from passive smoking . In addition , detainees had had barely any space to move within their cell and their bunk beds had been low , not allowing them to sit up comfortably .","Apart from the overcrowding , the applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention had been very poor . Access to natural light and ventilation had been inadequate . Sanitary facilities and supplies had been old , broken and insufficient to ensure the detainees\u2019 wellbeing and personal hygiene . Heating had been provided only for TIME per day from TIME , while hot water during DATE had been provided for TIME per day and had not sufficed for all detainees . They had been forced to wash themselves using buckets of water , as the water pressure in showers had been insufficient . In each CARDINAL - person cell there had been CARDINAL bunk beds , CARDINAL stools , a small table and CARDINAL side tables but no lockable space for personal belongings . In the CARDINAL - person cell there had been CARDINAL bunk beds and CARDINAL stools . The mattresses had been old , mouldy and smelly , and sheets and towels had not been provided .","NORP In general , detainees had lacked access to cultural , recreational and sports activities . They had had to rely on visits from friends and family in order to obtain any newspapers or magazines , which had intensified their feeling of isolation . TIME that they had been allowed to spend in the corridors had been insufficient , taking into account that they had coincided with the meal times as well as with the times they had been allowed to receive visits or make phone calls . The yard had included a football field but no balls had been provided to the detainees and the yard had not offered any opportunities for spending time creatively . The applicant further complained of the quantity and the quality of the food , claiming that it had been repetitive and lacking any nutritional value .","Lastly , the applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention had led him having several cardiac arrests .","The Government , referring to a document provided by the prison authorities , submitted that ORG had a capacity of CARDINAL detainees on the basis of allocation of QUANTITY m per detainee according to the minimum standards set by the ORG . At the time the applicant had been detained , the prison facility had exceeded its capacity by accommodating FAC to CARDINAL detainees . The applicant had been detained in cell no . CARDINAL on the first floor , which had measured QUANTITY . m , including a toilet measuring QUANTITY m. The cell had had a capacity of QUANTITY detainees ; however , following a new law in DATE aimed at relieving overcrowding in prisons , many detainees had been released and that had resulted in the applicant sharing the cell with CARDINAL to CARDINAL detainees . Therefore , the living space afforded to the applicant had ranged from CARDINAL to QUANTITY m.","As regards the rest of the applicant \u2019s complaints , the ORG argued that the prison had had a central heating system , in addition to the electric heating devices that had been provided to each cell . The cell in which the applicant had been detained had had large windows . Detainees had had access to hot water and had been provided regularly with personal hygiene products . The cells had been regularly disinfected . As regards ORG meals , the ORG submitted the menu of various random DATE to demonstrate that they had been comprised of a variety of food .","The Government submitted the applicant \u2019s medical file in order to prove that the applicant had already suffered from cardiac conditions when his incarceration had started . The applicant \u2019s medical needs had been fully fulfilled during the time he had spent in FAC either by visits to the prison doctor or by his transfer to nearby hospitals . Lastly , the applicant had been granted DATE of leave in order to take matriculation exams ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158985","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"A. M. v. SWITZERLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr TIME , is a NORP national of NORP origin , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ) . The applicant was represented before the ORG by Mr B. Wijkstrom , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant arrived in GPE on an unknown date . His fingerprints were recorded in the ORG system on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant entered GPE from GPE and sought asylum DATE . Soon after reaching GPE , the applicant started to suffer from mental illness .","NORP The applicant \u2019s sister had arrived in GPE on DATE , had applied for asylum and had received a temporary permit which entitled her to remain on NORP territory for the duration of her own asylum application . She was married to a man who had been granted temporary refugee status .","On DATE , ORG ( \u201c FMO \u201d ) requested that its NORP counterparts take charge of the applicant \u2019s asylum request , pursuant to LAW no . MONEY ( the \u201c FAC \u201d ) . On DATE , the NORP immigration authorities explicitly accepted the ORG \u2019s request . On DATE , the applicant \u2019s asylum request was rejected by the ORG on the basis of the fact that he had entered GPE from another \u201c GPE \u201d State . The ORG refused the application of the humanitarian clause provided for in LAW of ORG .","On DATE , the applicant was diagnosed with post - traumatic stress disorder , depression and back pain . He was put on a course of DATE psychiatric sessions and was given an anti - depressant ( ORG , DATE ) . According to the medical report , the stabilization of his psychological and social environment was a precondition for the successful outcome of the applicant \u2019s therapy . According to a subsequent medical report , dated DATE , the applicant showed some risk of self - harm , which could go as far as suicide if he were returned to GPE , where he had been allegedly abused by the police . The report clearly stated , however , that the applicant \u2019s death thoughts were passive and did not disclose any concrete plan ( \u201c sans projet concret \u201d ) .","The applicant appealed against the decision of the ORG to ORG . The appeal was rejected on DATE .","The relevant domestic law is set out in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of LOC v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","The relevant instruments and principles of ORG law are set out in the same judgment ( \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","NORP In particular , the ORG recalls that ORG is applicable to GPE under the terms of the association agreement of CARDINAL DATE between ORG and ORG regarding criteria and mechanisms for establishing the ORG responsible for examining a request for asylum lodged in a Member ORG or in GPE ( ORG CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) . ORG was recently replaced by Regulation ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL of ORG and of ORG ( the \u201c GPE III Regulation \u201d ) , which is designed to make the GPE system more effective and to strengthen the legal safeguards for persons subject to the GPE procedure .","The Dublin III Regulation entered into force on DATE and was passed into law by ORG on DATE .","A detailed description of the asylum procedure and the legal framework and organisation of the reception system for asylum seekers in GPE is also set out in the LOC judgment ( \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157971","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF TURGUNOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in the town of GPE , GPE , and lives in GPE .","The applicant is an ethnic NORP . In DATE ethnic violence erupted in the town of ORG , where the applicant lived at the material time , during which CARDINAL people were killed .","On DATE the applicant came to GPE , and has not returned to GPE since .","On DATE the police of the town of ORG charged the applicant in absentia with participation in the mass riots and several other offences .","On DATE the ORG issued an arrest warrant against the applicant , and on DATE his name was put on the crossborder wanted list .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE and remanded in custody DATE by a court order . His detention was extended several times .","On DATE the St GPE transport prosecutor noted the interim measure indicated by the ORG and ordered the applicant \u2019s release from detention under the personal guarantee of his lawyer .","On DATE ORG requested the applicant \u2019s extradition for prosecution for participation in mass riots in DATE , intentional infliction of grievous bodily injury and use of violence against a police officer , car - jacking , and intentional destruction of property .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted to ORG a letter referring to reports of international organisations and the ORG \u2019s case - law evidencing that there was a high risk that the applicant would be subjected to inhuman treatment if he were extradited .","On DATE a deputy Prosecutor General of GPE granted the request of ORG for the applicant \u2019s extradition . He held that there were no grounds in NORP or international law for refusing to extradite the applicant .","The applicant appealed , maintaining that , as a member of the ethnic NORP community which was being persecuted and discriminated against , he ran a serious and real risk of being subjected to torture in detention .","On DATE GPE rejected that appeal , finding as follows :","\u201c Taking into account the materials submitted , there are no grounds under LAW of GPE that exclude the possibility of extraditing an individual ...","The applicant \u2019s argument that the extradition is unlawful because he has refugee proceedings pending is untenable , and the arguments about his possible persecution by the law - enforcement authorities of GPE because of his ethnic origin are unsubstantiated and do not constitute a ground to refuse the extradition . The information of [ ORG of GPE ] according to which the examination of the criminal case against [ the applicant ] by the authorities of GPE might be biased , is conjecture and is not based on any proof ...","The Prosecutor General of GPE has provided assurances that , according to the standards of international law and the criminal law of GPE , [ the applicant ] would be afforded all means of defence , including legal assistance , would not be handed to a third country without the approval of ORG , or charged with and convicted of any offence committed before the extradition and for which he was not extradited . He would not be subjected to torture or to cruel , inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment ...","Furthermore , the requesting party provided assurances that , after [ the applicant \u2019s ] extradition to GPE , NORP diplomats would be allowed to visit [ the applicant ] in remand prisons to ensure respect for his rights ...","The evidence submitted by the defence , according to which persecution of ethnic NORP in connection with the events of DATE continues in GPE , concerns isolated cases and can not be regarded as evidence that [ the applicant ] will be subjected to cruel treatment , bearing in mind that he is accused of an offence which is not political in nature ; there are currently measures put in place by the authorities of GPE to remedy the violations of human rights disclosed by international organisations ... furthermore , the requesting party provided sufficient and real assurances that [ the applicant \u2019s ] right to a fair trial would be respected and that he would not be subjected to ill - treatment . The general situation in GPE was thoroughly analysed in the decision refusing [ the applicant ] refugee status by GPE of ORG . \u201d","The applicant \u2019s lawyers appealed against that decision , arguing that the first - instance court had failed to address their arguments concerning the risk that the applicant would be subjected to inhuman treatment if extradited .","By its final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE , having endorsed the lower court \u2019s reasoning , rejected the appeal .","On DATE the applicant asked GPE of ORG to grant him refugee status . He pointed out that he feared returning to GPE , where he would face arbitrary prosecution and inhuman treatment .","On CARDINAL DATE GPE refused the above request for lack of reasons which would justify the applicant \u2019s allegations . In particular , it found that the latter had referred to the events of DATE as a pretext to avoid criminal prosecution . ORG further analysed the situation in GPE on the basis of several news items of mainly NORP and NORP newspapers and information agencies . Referring to these items , it stated that \u201c ... the situation in GPE had substantially changed , the inter - ethnic clashes had ceased , and the government was taking enhanced measures to protect citizens and to improve the social and economic situation in the country \u201d .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld this decision . The applicant complained before ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . It endorsed the findings of the migration authorities and noted that the applicant was not a member of any political , religious , military or non - governmental organisations . Neither had he been persecuted or threatened by the authorities . Therefore , there was neither a threat to the applicant \u2019s life nor any medical indications indicating a need for urgent medical intervention .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE the applicant asked GPE of ORG to provide him with temporary asylum in GPE .","On DATE his request was refused . According to the applicant , he was not informed of this decision .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a new application for temporary asylum , which was dismissed on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . However , the outcome of the appeal remains unknown ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146845","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MARIN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by Mr B.O.S. Ujeniuc , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167128","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KONOVALCHUK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and prior to her arrest had a permanent address in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with HIV .","In DATE she was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing .","NORP In DATE the applicant started receiving anti - retroviral therapy ( \u201c ART \u201d ) .","On DATE the GPE Malynovsky District Court convicted the applicant of a number of drug - related offences and sentenced her to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed on points of law to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant arrived at FAC no . DATE ( \u201c the Colony \u201d ) to serve her sentence .","On DATE a cytology test revealed indications of cervical cancer .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the oncology department of the hospital at ORG ( \u201c the Oncology Facility \u201d ) for medical examination .","On DATE ORG issued its conclusion concerning the applicant . In addition to stage PERSON , she was diagnosed with cervical cancer . The opinion stated that due to the state of the applicant \u2019s immune system , surgery was to be ruled out . It was recommended that the applicant be transferred to the hospital at ORG no . CARDINAL in GPE , which specialised in HIV treatment ( \u201c the HIV Treatment Facility \u201d ) for normalisation of T - cell levels , and then transferred back to ORG .","On DATE the applicant was transferred back to the Colony .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG . Upon conclusion of a course of ORG , on DATE ORG issued a certificate stating that the applicant had been receiving ART without interruption since DATE . Her diagnosis was recorded as stage LAW HIV with heavy immunosuppression , cervical cancer , chronic hepatitis in remission , ovarian cysts , fibroma of the vocal cords , and oral candidiasis . It was recommended in particular that the applicant continue ART and take hepatoprotectors . The applicant was referred to ORG .","On DATE the applicant left ORG under guard and on DATE arrived back at the Colony where she was put under the supervision of the prison doctor ( a general practitioner ) as an outpatient and continued with her ART .","On DATE the applicant left the ORG under guard and on DATE arrived at ORG ( \u201c the GPE LOC \u201d ) in order to be able to attend the appeal hearings in her case .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with the Kyiv Shevchenkivsky ORG ( \u201c the Shevchenkivsky Court \u201d ) seeking release on health grounds .","NORP In an undated letter submitted to ORG on DATE the GPE governor and the head of its medical unit informed the court that the applicant was receiving ART at the GPE but her cancer could only be treated with radiation therapy , which could not be provided at the GPE .","On DATE a test revealed that the applicant had ( an apparently low ) viral load of CARDINAL copies per ml .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for release .","On DATE the Acting President of the Section decided , upon the applicant \u2019s request under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , to indicate to the Government that they should present the applicant urgently for medical examination by a specialist doctor ; secure immediately , by appropriate means , treatment of the applicant appropriate to her conditions , and inform the ORG by DATE about the applicant \u2019s state of health and the measures undertaken .","On DATE the Government Agent \u2019s office asked the prison authorities to take appropriate action to ensure the applicant \u2019s examination and treatment and to inform it of the applicant \u2019s situation .","On DATE the GPE governor asked ORG ( \u201c the GPE Oncology Centre \u201d ) , a specialist civilian institution , to arrange for the examination of the applicant by CARDINAL of the ORG \u2019s specialists .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a gynaecological oncologist from ORG . The doctor recommended that the applicant ( i ) have a further consultation with an infectious diseases specialist concerning the possibilities for cancer treatment in the light of her living with HIV and ( ii ) undergo radiation therapy at an institution specialising in gynaecological oncology .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an infectious diseases specialist . The specialist recommended a change in the ORG scheme and noted that there were no contraindications for treatment of her cervical cancer .","On DATE , the applicant refused to change the ORG scheme stating that \u201c no viral load has been found \u201d in her ( \u0432\u0438\u0440\u0443\u0441\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0437\u0430\u0433\u0440\u0443\u0437\u043a\u0430 \u0443 \u043c\u0435\u043d\u044f \u043d\u0435 \u0432\u044b\u044f\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0430 ) .","On DATE the applicant wrote a statement to the GPE governor informing him that she did not wish to start her radiation therapy at that moment because she feared she would not have enough time to complete it while at the GPE , where she would be held until ORG examined her appeal against her conviction .","On DATE the Government informed ORG of the steps taken by the authorities after ORG had indicated the interim measure and provided the relevant medical documentation .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of specialists at FAC . Her diagnoses were confirmed and she was prescribed radiation therapy .","On DATE the ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction but reduced her sentence to DATE .","On DATE the applicant wrote to the ORG , alleging that the ORG had failed to comply with the interim measure indicated by the ORG . In particular , she alleged that she was still not receiving the recommended radiation therapy . She also alleged that her transfer to ORG would be conducted by rail in conditions incompatible with her state of health .","On DATE the applicant left the GPE for ORG , travelling through LOC , where she was held from DATE , and ORG , where she was held from DATE . On DATE she arrived at ORG .","On DATE the ORG asked the ORG to provide factual information concerning the reasons for which the applicant had not been treated with radiation therapy and the specific plans for her future treatment .","From DATE the applicant started a course of examinations and treatment at ORG and at ORG .","On DATE the Government again informed ORG medical examinations the applicant had undergone during the period following the ORG \u2019s decision to indicate the interim measure .","DATE the applicant underwent radiation treatment at ORG ; she was recommended another course starting on DATE but on DATE she refused to undergo it citing the side effects of the previous treatment .","On DATE the Government informed ORG applicant \u2019s first radiation therapy course .","On DATE the applicant left ORG and on DATE she was admitted to ORG .","On DATE the applicant was released on health grounds ."],"violated_articles":["3","34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172553","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KLEIN AND OTHERS v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded;Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .","The status of Churches and religious societies is governed mainly by Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL ( known as the \u201c ORG \u201d DATE ) of the Weimar Constitution of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG ) , as incorporated into LAW . CARDINAL Churches and religious societies , including ORG ( CARDINAL members ) and ORG of Germany ( CARDINAL members ) , commonly known as the CARDINAL \u201c big Churches \u201d ( PERSON ) , have the status of publiclaw entities . Other religious denominations have legal capacity under civil law .","As regards their financing , churches and religious societies with the status of public - law entities are entitled to levy a church tax , which accounts for a significant portion of their total budget . The churches decide independently whether to levy a tax and what its rate should be . The rate of church tax has been over DATE either PERCENT or PERCENT of the tax on an individual \u2019s income and , in most NORP L\u00e4nder , is collected by the ORG tax authorities on behalf of churches and religious societies , which in return pay PERCENT of their tax revenue to the ORG .","The church tax is guaranteed by LAW read in conjunction with LAW of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . Only members of a particular religious denomination authorised to levy the tax are obliged to pay it . Any church member who does not want to pay church tax can leave that church by declaration towards the authorities .","If spouses are members of different churches entitled to levy taxes ( konfessionsverschiedene PERSON ) and if they have opted for a joint income tax assessment ( gemeinsame steuerliche PERSON ) , both churches levy the tax on the spouses in the form of an additional levy on the income tax of both spouses . The amount of each spouse \u2019s church tax is calculated on the basis of CARDINAL of the declared income tax .","NORP In marriages where CARDINAL spouse belongs to a church entitled to levy taxes ( glaubensverschiedene PERSON ) , the church entitled to the tax levies it in accordance with that person \u2019s tax assessment . Churches calculate the tax on the basis of the income tax attributable to the spouse liable to pay tax rather than on the basis of that spouse \u2019s share of the total income . According to ORG settled case - law , if the spouse belonging to a church has no income in terms of the regulations of LAW , the church tax can not be levied ( see CARDINAL paragraph below ) . In that case , in some NORP L\u00e4nder ( inter alia , ORG , GPE and GPE ) , the church entitled to levy taxes charges its members a special \u201c church fee \u201d ( besonderes PERSON ) . Although called a fee , the levy is , however , treated legally as a tax . The church fee amounts to CARDINAL of the relevant church tax .","Churches only levy the special church fee if spouses decide on a joint income tax assessment . The special church fee is not levied if spouses make separate tax declarations ( getrennte PERSON ) . It is important to note that in case of a joint income tax assessment the spouses benefit from a special calculation method for the income tax ( the so - called \u201c incomesplitting \u201d , \u201c Splitting - Verfahren \u201d ) and furthermore from the progressive effect ( PERSON ) of the NORP tax system , which generally leads to a lower tax burden .","NORP If spouses decide on a joint income tax assessment , they submit a tax declaration ( Steuererkl\u00e4rung ) . In most of ORG ( except of ORG ) , in their tax calculation procedure ( ORG ) the tax authorities set the special church fee according to the calculation regulations of each church . The basis for calculating the special church fee is the church member \u2019s living expenses ( Lebensf\u00fchrungsaufwand ) , which are calculated on the basis of the spouses\u2019 joint income . The special church fee is only levied on the spouse who is a church member . The remaining tax liability is applied to both spouses .","If a tax authority \u2019s calculation on income tax leads to a tax reimbursement for the spouse not being a member of a church and who is liable to pay income tax , only that spouse will be credited with it . At the same time , the special church fee levied on CARDINAL spouse can be offset against any tax reimbursement due to the other spouse . If the calculation of the income tax leads to a demand to pay more tax , offsetting can not take place .","Either spouse can file an objection ( PERSON ) against that part of the tax bill which applies to them . If the special church fee has been offset against a tax reimbursement due to the spouse who is not a member of a church that spouse can apply for a settlement notice ( LOC ) in accordance with LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and thus have the possibility to be repaid the offset amount .","The facts of the cases , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The first applicant lives in GPE , in GPE . He is married . His wife is member of ORG , which is authorised to levy church taxes . In DATE the first applicant left his church and was no longer obliged to pay church taxes .","For the tax assessment period of DATE the spouses opted for a joint tax assessment .","Their DATE tax bill , dated DATE , included a special church fee for the first applicant \u2019s wife of MONEY ( ORG ) . As the spouses were jointly liable for income tax and the applicant \u2019s wife \u2019s income was below the minimum taxable amount , the wife \u2019s special church fee was calculated as a proportion of her living expenses , which in turn were calculated on the basis of the spouses\u2019 joint income ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The tax bill applied to both the first applicant and his wife . PERSON one showed the authority \u2019s tax calculation ( ORG ) in a table , with CARDINAL column for income tax ( Einkommensteuer ) , CARDINAL for solidarity tax ( PERSON ) and CARDINAL headed \u201c ORG tax , wife \u201d ( PERSON evangelisch PERSON ) . The third column showed the amount of EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The table further showed that the first applicant had a tax reimbursement claim of ORG CARDINAL , which had been offset against the church fee of ORG CARDINAL of his wife . It finished with a credit for the first applicant of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","Pages CARDINAL of the tax bill contained a detailed assessment of the taxable annual income of the first applicant and his wife . The document then had explanations of the items . Line DATE , out of CARDINAL lines of explanations altogether , stated as follows :","\u201c Only the wife is liable for church tax . \u201d","Following the explanations , the tax bill provided information on possible legal remedies . As regards the special church fee , it stated as follows :","\u201c An objection can be raised to the setting of the church tax and to the fixing of advance payment of church tax . ... An objection can be filed by the person on whom the church tax has been levied \u201d ( \u201c PERSON die GPE die PERSON gegeben . ... PERSON ist derjenige befugt , gegen den sich die GPE richtet . \u201d ) .","The first applicant filed an objection against the tax bill . On DATE the tax office dismissed the objection , referring to ORG decision of DATE , fully endorsing its reasoning ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The second applicant lives in GPE - PERSON in the NORP Land of Bavaria .","The second applicant is a member of ORG . In DATE he had an DATE income of ORG CARDINAL . His wife , who was not member of a church , had income of ORG CARDINAL . In DATE , the second applicant and his wife were jointly liable for DATE income tax .","On DATE the competent tax office charged the second applicant a special church fee of ORG CARDINAL . The fee was calculated on the basis of his living expenses , which in turn were calculated on the basis of his and his wife \u2019s income ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","The second applicant filed an objection to the decision . On DATE the tax office dismissed the objection , relying on ORG case - law that has been settled since DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The second applicant lodged an action with ORG , asserting a violation of his basic rights .","On DATE ORG dismissed the action . It argued that the special church fee had not violated the second applicant \u2019s right to equality or his right to freedom of religion or freedom of action and relied on ORG settled case - law . It refused leave to appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the second applicant against the decision refusing him leave to appeal and endorsed ORG reasoning .","On DATE the second applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He argued that he had no income and therefore could not pay the special church fee on his own because it had been calculated on the basis of both spouses\u2019 income . As a consequence , the freedom of religion of both spouses had been violated and spouses in their kind of marriage had been discriminated against when compared with other kinds of marriage . The second applicant argued that he could only remain a member of his religious community if his spouse was willing to pay his special church fee , otherwise he would have to sue her for maintenance .","On DATE , ORG declined to consider the second applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) after joining it , inter alia , with those of the third , fourth and fifth applicants . It considered that the constitutional complaint had not touched on any constitutional questions which needed to be decided as the relevant questions had been settled in a judgment delivered on DATE ( file no . QUANTITY , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . That judgment was still applicable and there was no doubt that the calculation of a person \u2019s living expenses on the basis of the spouses\u2019 income was in conformity with constitutional law .","The third and fourth applicants are a married couple who live in GPE in the NORP Land of GPE . The third applicant is a member of ORG and had the higher income of the CARDINAL . The fourth applicant is not a member of a church . In DATE the third applicant \u2019s income amounted to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL while the fourth applicant \u2019s income was ORG CARDINAL . In DATE the sums were ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL respectively , while in DATE they were ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the competent tax office levied church tax on the third applicant for DATE . As the applicants had opted for a joint tax assessment , the third applicant \u2019s church tax was calculated with his income tax as a proportion of the income tax attributable to him , rather than in proportion to his share of the spouses\u2019 total income ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the competent tax office dismissed an objection by the third and fourth applicants against the church tax calculation .","The CARDINAL applicants lodged an action with ORG , asserting a violation of their basic rights .","On DATE ORG dismissed the action , arguing that the calculation had not violated their right to equality or freedom of religion . The court stressed that the NORP tax authorities had a wide margin of appreciation regarding tax regulations . The fact therefore that the third applicant \u2019s church calculated its church tax on the base of a percentage of his income tax rather than on a percentage of income raised no doubts as to its legitimacy . The tax court refused leave to appeal .","On DATE the third and fourth applicants appealed against the decision refusing them leave to appeal , alleging , inter alia , a violation of their freedom of religion . They argued that in spite of the fourth applicant \u2019s decision not to be member of a religious community , the tax authorities had taken her income into account when calculating her husband \u2019s church tax .","On DATE ORG declared the applicants\u2019 appeal inadmissible for lack of sufficient reasoning .","On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , alleging a violation of their right to equality and freedom of religion .","On DATE , ORG declined to consider the third and fourth ORG constitutional complaint after joining it , inter alia , with those of the second and fifth applicants ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The fifth applicant lives in GPE , situated in the NORP Land of Bavaria . In DATE and DATE the fifth applicant , who had no income , was a member of ORG of the NORP Land of Bavaria . Her husband was not member of a church . The spouses opted for a joint income tax assessment for DATE and DATE .","The competent tax authority levied no church tax on the fifth applicant as she had no income , but on DATE applied a special church fee of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for DATE and on DATE it charged her ORG CARDINAL for DATE . The amounts were calculated on the basis of the fifth applicant \u2019s living expenses , which were calculated on the basis of her and her husband \u2019s joint income .","The fifth applicant raised an objection against those decisions and applied for a suspension of enforcement . On DATE the tax office dismissed her objection , arguing that there had been no violation of the right to equality because there had been an objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment .","The fifth applicant lodged an action with ORG , again applying to have enforcement suspended and asserting a violation of her right to equality .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request for suspension of enforcement , arguing that the special church fee did not violate the fifth applicant \u2019s right to equality in view of ORG settled case - law .","On DATE the fifth applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , alleging , inter alia , a violation of her right to freedom of religion . She argued that she could not remain in her religious community if her husband , who was not a church member , did not agree to pay her special church fee .","On DATE , ORG declined to consider the fifth applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint after joining it , inter alia , with those of the second , third and fourth applicants ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["9"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163253","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"KONGRESNA NARODNA STRANKA AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicants are ORG for ORG , and of ORG and Morals in GPE ( ORG narodna stranka za\u0161tite ljudskih prava boraca i gra\u0111ana , pravde i morala PERSON i ORG ; \u201c the ORG \u201c ) and CARDINAL citizens of GPE and GPE ( \u201c the applicants \u201c ) . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","The applicants were granted leave by the President to be represented by the president of the ORG and CARDINAL of the applicants , Mr. PERSON ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) . The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Deputy Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The ORG was established on DATE under the laws of GPE . The applicants are members of the ORG .","The ORG participated in the DATE elections for ORG of ORG of GPE . Almost all of its candidates declared themselves Bosniacs .","On DATE the ORG \u2019s registration for the DATE elections was refused because it was submitted out of time . The ORG failed to lodge an appeal against that decision .","On DATE the ORG \u2019s registration for the DATE elections was refused for failure to comply with the procedural requirements ( a failure to pay a required deposit and to submit a list of signatures in support of its candidacy ) . On DATE that decision was upheld by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","The applicants claim that they do not declare affiliation with any of the \u201c constituent peoples \u201d ( namely , ORG , NORP and NORP ) . They describe themselves as \u201c a person from GPE \u201d , \u201c a NORP \u201d , \u201c a NORP \u201d , \u201c a person from GPE \u201d , \u201c a person from LOC \u201d , \u201c a person from GPE \u201d , \u201c a refugee \u201d , \u201c a war veteran \u201d and the like ; while CARDINAL of them describe themselves as belonging to the GPE and NORP ethnic minorities respectively .","The relevant domestic law and practice and international documents were outlined in ORG and Finci v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( no . DATE , DATE ) . Notably , the LAW of GPE makes a distinction between members of \u201c constituent peoples \u201d ( persons who declare affiliation with ORG , NORP and NORP ) and \u201c others \u201d ( members of ethnic minorities and persons who do not declare affiliation with any particular group because of intermarriage , mixed parenthood or other reasons ) .","In the former ORG , a person \u2019s ethnic affiliation was decided solely by that person , through a system of self - classification . Thus , no objective criteria such as knowledge of a certain language or belonging to a specific religion existed . Moreover , there was no requirement of acceptance by other members of the ethnic group in question . Since the LAW contains no provisions regarding the determination of one \u2019s ethnicity it appears that it was assumed that the traditional self - classification would suffice .","In accordance with LAW ( Articles IV \u00a7 CARDINAL and V ) , only persons declaring affiliation with a \u201c constituent people \u201d are entitled to stand for election to ORG of ORG and the Presidency of GPE and GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152988","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF VOLKOV AND ADAMSKIY v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Legal assistance of his own choosing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were each targeted in undercover operations conducted by the police in the form of a test purchase of counterfeit software under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Operational - Search Activities Act of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ ) . The operations led to their criminal conviction for distribution of counterfeit software .","On DATE an undercover police officer V called the applicant on the number advertised by him on a job - advertisement site on the Internet and asked him to perform some computer repairs , including the installation of software . The applicant agreed , bought several compact discs with counterfeit software on them and installed the software on ORG \u2019s computer for MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The relevant part of the recording of the applicant \u2019s conversation with V in the course of the repairs read as follows :","\u201c ...","V : how much will [ the installation ] cost approximately ?","Mr PERSON : I do n\u2019t know exactly , [ it ] depends on the programmes to be installed .","V : [ I need ] ORG , [ Windows ] ORG etc .","Mr PERSON : with ORG , it is MONEY more .","V : We called other companies ; they said it would cost CARDINAL . Why are the prices so different ? ...","Mr PERSON : [ other companies ] are probably being careful , unlike me , I come instantly . They are probably afraid of getting caught ; they may have done it before and run into some inspection .","V : What kind of inspection ?","Mr PERSON : [ Licensing ] inspection , if I installed a licensed programme for you , it would cost a lot .","V : How much does the licensed programme cost ?","Mr PERSON : GPE is MONEY .","V : To install ?","Mr PERSON : No , the programme itself . ... if it is done like now , in a semi - legal way , the price is obviously lower ... \u201d","Following the above , the applicant was charged with copyright infringement . The applicant retained a lawyer during the pre - trial proceedings but could no longer afford paying for legal representation in court . He was therefore provided with a legal aid lawyer .","On DATE the Golovinskiy District Court of GPE ( ORG ) examined the applicant \u2019s case . The applicant testified that he had agreed to help V because he had already performed similar services for his relatives and acquaintances . He also testified that V had asked him to have some programmes installed but did not indicate whether V had specifically asked for unlicensed software . V testified that the police had launched an undercover operation after they had received information incriminating the applicant in the distribution of counterfeit software . The applicant pleaded not guilty to copyright infringement and claimed that the police had incited him to commit the crime . The court found the applicant guilty of copyright infringement and imposed a suspended sentence of DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment with DATE probation .","The applicant lodged an appeal ( \u043a\u0430\u0441\u0441\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0436\u0430\u043b\u043e\u0431\u0430 ) asking the appellate court ( \u043a\u0430\u0441\u0441\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 ) to examine the case in his presence . In his appeal , he did not request to have a lawyer appointed for the hearing of his case .","On DATE ORG of GPE informed by post and telephone PERSON , the applicant \u2019s lawyer in the proceedings before ORG , that the hearing of the applicant \u2019s appeal had been scheduled for DATE . The court \u2019s call log indicated that the applicant had no retainer agreement with Ms NORP for representation in the appeal proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments on appeal and upheld his conviction . The applicant was present at the hearing . However , PERSON did not appear and the applicant did not have any other lawyer to represent him during the appeal hearing . It is not clear whether the applicant requested to have the hearing adjourned or to have replacement counsel appointed .","On DATE an undercover police officer M called the number advertised by the applicant in the computer - repairs section of a newspaper and asked him to install several computer programmes . The applicant , who was in financial need at the time , downloaded several unlicensed programmes from the Internet and installed them on M \u2019s computer DATE for RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . The relevant part of the recording of the applicant \u2019s conversation with M in the course of the repairs read as follows :","\u201c ...","M : how much does [ this programme ] cost ?","Mr Adamskiy : I did not buy it .","M : You did not ?","Mr Adamskiy : To buy means to go bankrupt .","M : [ did you get it ] from the Internet ? Or some other way ?","Mr Adamskiy : Got it through my peers , [ it was ] cracked ...","M : I do n\u2019t really understand this stuff ... If I install it at work , will I get arrested ?","Mr Adamskiy : I think it is obvious . I would not let any inspections in while the data is downloading .","M : ... why ? What can happen ?","Mr Adamskiy : just warning , I personally would not [ let anyone inspect ] .","M : what would happen ? ... Do they inspect more often ?","Mr Adamskiy : yes ...","M : will we get jailed ?","Mr : Adamskiy : No , if it is kept quiet ... \u201d","Following the above , the applicant was charged with copyright infringement . On DATE the ORG of GPE examined the applicant \u2019s case . At the trial , the applicant did not claim that M had asked him to have unlicensed software installed . He also confirmed that he had informed M in the course of the installation that the software had been counterfeit . M testified that the police had received information implicating the applicant in the distribution of counterfeit software and had decided to verify that information . The applicant pleaded guilty to copyright infringement but claimed that the police had incited him to commit the crime . The court convicted the applicant and imposed a suspended sentence of DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment with DATE probation .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction and sentence on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163497","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"YEREMENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON Yeremenko , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr E. Markov , a lawyer practicing in GPE .","ORG were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being the organiser of a criminal group which committed CARDINAL of violent offences , including murders .","On DATE ORG found that the applicant had been the organiser of an established criminal group , and had masterminded and participated in a number of aggravated murders , extortion and money laundering offences . The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment . The judgment became final on DATE when it was upheld on appeal by ORG .","In DATE his arrest the applicant suffered from a slowly progressing second - stage encephalopathy of mixed etiologies at the stage of decompensation , arterial hypertension , chronic hepatitis with hepatic impairment and cirrhosis , pancreatitis and focal duodenitis . In DATE he was certified for DATE as having a third - degree disability .","Upon admission to a temporary detention facility in DATE the applicant underwent a general medical check - up which included the measurement of his height and weight , recording of his blood pressure and body temperature , a chest X - ray examination , and tests for HIV and syphilis . A prison doctor noted the applicant \u2019s assertion that he was suffering from hepatitis C and prescribed him hepatoprotectors to support the liver .","DATE the applicant complained of pain in the right hypochondrium . The prison doctor diagnosed him with hepatic cirrhosis . Hepatoprotectors , antispasmodic medications , vitamins and dietary nutrition were prescribed and provided .","NORP Over the following DATE the applicant was transferred between various detention facilities and each time was subjected to a thorough medical examination . It appears from the submitted documents that he was continuously provided with a special dietary regime and hepatoprotectors . The medical records show that he was examined and treated by prison doctors for an acute respiratory disease at DATE , for headaches at DATE , and haemorrhoids DATE .","In DATE the applicant was seen by a neurologist from a prison hospital and an infectious diseases specialist from a civilian hospital . The neurologist concluded that the applicant had encephalopathy of mixed etiologies and vegetative - vascular dystonia as well as a neuropathy of the right medium nerve . Nootropic medication and vitamins were prescribed . The infectious diseases specialist confirmed the presence of hepatitis and recommended a combined treatment involving cholagogue drugs and injections with both antiviral and hepatoprotective action .","At DATE the applicant complained to the prison doctor of discomfort in the abdominal area . The doctor found no signs of acute hepatitis and prescribed DATE of treatment with hepatoprotectors and a special diet . In DATE the applicant underwent regular check - ups performed by an infectious diseases specialist from a civilian hospital . On the doctor \u2019s recommendation he was given antiviral drugs and vitamins . In DATE the applicant was given a course of nootropics for his brain vascular disorder . According to the medical records , the state of the applicant \u2019s health did not deteriorate over DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant was successfully treated for a cold , cystitis , orchitis and a perineum boil .","The authorities continued treating the applicant for hepatitis and cirrhosis of the liver . They also addressed his neurological problems and secondary medical conditions , such as seasonal colds . The applicant underwent a thorough medical examination performed by a medical panel comprising a number of specialists . In the report of CARDINAL DATE the doctors concluded that the applicant was suffering from chronic hepatitis at a latent stage , first - stage cirrhosis of the liver and a second - stage encephalopathy of mixed etiologies . They also concluded that these primary chronic ailments had not progressed during the period of the applicant \u2019s detention . In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with developed chronic prostatitis and acute cystitis . The conditions were brought fully under control with a comprehensive drug regimen .","NORP In DATE the applicant underwent a number of medical tests and received treatment for hypertension , which seemed to have become a major health issue for him at the time .","On DATE the applicant was seen by a surgeon in connection with haemorrhoidal bleeding . A drug regimen was prescribed , but it did not bring the expected results . DATE the doctor recommended inpatient treatment .","The applicant was admitted to the surgical department of ORG in GPE . After a number of tests , including a sigmoidoscopy , the doctors established that the applicant had chronic internal haemorrhoids of the first stage . No surgery was required .","On DATE he underwent a medical examination by a panel of doctors with a view to establishing whether he should apply for renewed certification as a disabled person . The commission gave a negative answer as his condition did not involve any functional pathology of his organs and his vital activity was not restricted .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from hospital .","In DATE most of the applicant \u2019s medical complaints concerned hypertension which , according to medical reports , had progressed to the second stage . His blood pressure was regularly monitored and he was given hypotensive drugs . The authorities also performed several tests , including an electrocardiogram examination in DATE . That examination revealed a left bundle branch block . According to his medical records , the applicant continued to receive treatment for his heart , brain and liver conditions .","The applicant neither made any complaint about nor provided any description of the treatment received in DATE .","The relevant provisions of the domestic and international law on general health care of detainees are set out in the judgment of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144677","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BIBLICAL CENTRE OF THE CHUVASH REPUBLIC v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) read in the light of Article 11 - (Art. 11) Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["On DATE the NORP mission \u201c ORG \u201d was registered as a religious organisation under LAW of DATE . It belonged to the NORP movement of the NORP faith .","On DATE , in connection with the enactment of a new Religions Act of DATE , the organisation was renamed ORG GPE ( \u0411\u0438\u0431\u043b\u0435\u0439\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0426\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440 \u0427\u0443\u0432\u0430\u0448\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 PERSON \u0435\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0433\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 ( \u043f\u044f\u0442\u0438\u0434\u0435\u0441\u044f\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a\u043e\u0432 ) ) .","Under paragraph CARDINAL of the organisation \u2019s articles of association , CARDINAL of the activities of FAC was the establishment of educational institutions for training clergymen , organising conferences and seminars and lecturing . To that end FAC had the right to found institutions of professional religious education , spiritual educational institutions , including DATE schools for youth and children , and to establish non - commercial organisations pursuing educational aims ( paragraph CARDINAL of the articles ) .","On DATE the ORG founded ORG and a DATE school , which were not registered as legal entities .","The DATE school did not have any organised structure as such . It was held once DATE as a means of keeping the children of parishioners occupied while the adults attended the religious service . Parents took turns to spend time with the children , to read and discuss the Bible with them . The school was free of charge and did not employ any staff .","The Biblical College recruited students from religious organisations belonging into the same NORP denomination but located in different regions of GPE . Students were trained as evangelical attendants , pastors , preachers , missionaries , DATE school teachers , preceptors , biblical signers for the deaf , and youth leaders . The subjects taught at the ORG included theology ( dogma ) , exegesis ( interpretation of religious texts ) , homiletics ( the study of preparation and delivery of sermons ) , apologetics ( defence of the NORP faith ) , history of NORP , basics of pedagogy , theory of music , memorisation , and others . Upon completion of a training course , students obtained a document , referred to as a \u201c diploma \u201d , which certified training in particular subjects . Education at the ORG was free of charge .","In DATE and DATE the GPE town prosecutor , together with ORG and ORG , conducted an inspection of the applicant organisation \u2019s premises with the declared aim of verifying its compliance with the requirements of the legislation on education , freedom of conscience and religious associations . The grounds for the inspection were not revealed .","On DATE the town prosecutor requested the director of ORG to provide , within DATE , detailed information about the activities of the DATE school and ORG , including a list of subjects taught and the names of the teachers and all students , both past and present .","On DATE ORG issued a formal note establishing the following violations of fire safety regulations :","( a ) the windows of the premises were equipped with solid metal bars ;","( b ) an automatic fire alarm with smoke detectors was not installed ;","( c ) fire - safety signs were absent .","NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG reported the following violations to the town prosecutor :","( a ) students were not provided with comfortable work stations adapted to their height , sight and hearing ; rudimentary benches were used instead ;","( b ) walls were covered with paper - based wallpaper which could not be wiped clean ;","( c ) linoleum on the floor did not offer sufficient protection against the cold ;","( d ) windows were decorated with flowers in pots ;","( e ) doors in the toilets for children of both sexes did not have locks ; there was no personal - hygiene room for girls ;","( f ) the staff did not have a separate toilet ;","( g ) descriptions of course content , methodical literature and timetables did not refer to hygienic requirements ;","( h ) the delivery and composition of ORG meals had not been agreed upon with ORG .","All the violations were established by reference to the ORG - approved hygienic standards binding on institutions of public education and vocational training .","On DATE the town prosecutor instituted administrative proceedings against the director of the Biblical Centre for allowing the Centre to conduct educational activities without authorisation ( a licence ) , an offence under LAW . On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALth ORG of GPE heard the charge and found the director guilty of that offence . The ORG found , in particular , as follows :","\u201c The PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office inspected [ the FAC ] and discovered that the educational process [ there ] follows a specific educational programme and class schedule and is carried out by staff teachers in exchange for pay . Students\u2019 knowledge of subjects is evaluated on a CARDINAL - point scale or with pass - fail marks ; upon completion of a course students obtain a diploma ... These elements indicate that the ORG engages in educational activities which are not listed in its articles of association ...","LAW ( law no . NORP of DATE ) defines education as the purposeful process of upbringing and learning in the interests of the individual , society and the ORG , accompanied by the confirmation of achievement of the educational levels established by the ORG ... Pursuant to section QUANTITY of LAW , an educational institution acquires the right to conduct educational activities upon receipt of authorisation ( a licence ) ... As the materials in the case file show , the ORG has no such licence ... \u201d","The ORG rejected the director \u2019s argument that the activities of the ORG fell outside the scope of the definition contained in LAW , holding that the definition \u201c may not be used to describe educational activities that are carried out in breach of LAW \u201d . The director was sentenced to pay a fine of MONEY .","In his statement of appeal , the director pointed out that LAW established specific educational levels ( basic and intermediate general education , basic , intermediate and higher professional education , and post - graduate professional education ) , none of which were mentioned in the ORG \u2019s programmes or diplomas . The religious instruction and guidance of followers fell outside the scope of LAW and were not subject to any licensing requirements .","On DATE the ORG upheld the ORG \u2019s decision in a summary fashion , without addressing the director \u2019s arguments in detail .","In concurrent proceedings , on DATE the same ORG found the applicant organisation liable for the administrative offence of violating sanitary rules and hygienic requirements in respect of all the points identified by ORG and ORG . ORG issued a warning to the applicant organisation .","On DATE ORG of GPE summarily rejected the applicant organisation \u2019s statement of appeal , in which it maintained that the sanitary standards binding on ORG educational institutions were not applicable to the DATE school and Biblical college .","On DATE the GPE town prosecutor filed a claim for dissolution of ORG . He rested his claim on the findings of the CARDINAL inspections , as described above , and the allegation of illegality of the educational activities conducted at ORG and DATE school . In his submission , such activities \u201c violated the right of an indeterminate group of people to receive education in conditions that guarantee security , improvement of health and counter the negative influence of unhealthy factors \u201d .","In his comments on the prosecutor \u2019s application , the director of ORG submitted that the applicant organisation merely dispensed religious instruction to its followers and did not provide formal education . He invited the court to reject the application and pointed out that the court could issue a separate decision ordering FAC to bring its activities into conformity with the requirements of the law . He indicated that , in response to the prosecutor \u2019s claims , ORG had promptly adopted the Rules on lecture- and seminar - based education , as a result of which it had eliminated the use of ambiguous terminology such as \u201c college \u201d , \u201c diploma \u201d , and others .","NORP The town prosecutor participated in the hearing on DATE . Responding to questions from the director of ORG , he admitted that the initial inspection had purported to uncover elements of extremism in the ORG \u2019s activities and that he had filed a claim for dissolution because \u201c it was within his competence \u201d .","A representative of ORG , the entity in charge of the registration of religious organisations , took part in the proceedings as a third party . She stated that there were CARDINAL registered religious organisations in LOC . When asked by counsel whether those organisations had licences for their DATE schools , she replied that the majority of them were NORP parishes which were entitled to carry out such activities under the provisions of the \u201c standard NORP statute \u201d .","On DATE ORG ordered the dissolution of the applicant organisation and its removal from ORG . Having examined documents from the archive of ORG , it acknowledged that some of the ORG \u2019s activities had been one - time seminars and conferences to which the licensing requirement did not apply . However , the organisational chart of ORG , the class schedule , work contracts with teachers , lists of students and diplomas issued to them were held by ORG to be evidence of ongoing educational activities in the College for which it should have obtained authorisation ( a licence ) . Neither the Biblical Centre nor ORG were registered as an educational institution , nor had they obtained a licence for conducting educational activities . Accordingly , they had acted in breach of the requirements of CARDINAL of LAW and section CARDINAL of LAW .","With regard to the DATE school , ORG found that the contents and nature of religious education dispensed to children may be determined by the religious organisation providing it . Nevertheless , the material conditions of religious education should be compatible with sanitary and hygienic standards and other requirements applicable to educational institutions . ORG held that the above - mentioned judgments of CARDINAL and DATE , which had acquired the force of res judicata , were sufficient proof of both the fact that ORG dispensed education without the required licence , and the fact that the conditions in which students were educated at the DATE school and the ORG fell short of the sanitary standards .","ORG held that the educational activities conducted by the applicant organisation without a licence amounted to a \u201c gross and repeated violation \u201d of the requirements of LAW and ordered its dissolution on the basis of LAW of LAW and section QUANTITY .","On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting as a CARDINAL - judge panel composed of Judges PERSON . ( President ) , PERSON and PERSON , dismissed the applicant organisation \u2019s appeal against the dissolution decision , rejecting its arguments in a summary fashion ."],"violated_articles":["9"],"violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145274","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"VELIKODA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167240","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"\u0160UBINSKI v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP and NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr \u017d. Klun , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160264","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BINDER v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant applied for rent allowance ( GPE ) under LAW ( PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG ( Magistrat der PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s request , holding that the applicant was not eligible for rent allowance as his income exceeded the statutory limit ( GPE ) .","The applicant appealed and complained that ORG had failed to take into account his maintenance obligations towards his CARDINAL sons .","On DATE ORG ( ORG PERSON ) dismissed the appeal , holding that maintenance obligations were , according to ORG case - law , not to be considered as income - reducing , as long as no enforcement proceedings were instituted against the applicant \u2019s income .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request for legal aid in order to file a complaint against ORG decision .","On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG , claiming in essence that ORG had wrongly interpreted ORG case - law as regards the nonconsideration of the applicant \u2019s maintenance obligations .","On DATE the ORG declined to deal with the applicant \u2019s complaint , holding that it did not raise any questions of constitutional law and transferred the case to ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted his amended complaint to ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint as unfounded . Referring to its case - law , it held that the applicant had failed to argue that he was in a state of emergency due to enforcement proceedings being conducted in connection to his maintenance obligations . It was therefore not unlawful that ORG had refrained from taking into account the applicant \u2019s maintenance payments when assessing his eligibility for rent allowance .","NORP This decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178872","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LADYUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the domestic courts\u2019 failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168497","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"A.\u010c. v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is detained in LOC ( in LOC ) .","The application was initially allocated to LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) . The ORG decided of its own motion to grant the applicant anonymity ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ) . On DATE ORG were reorganised . The application was thus reallocated to FAC CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","NORP The applicant was granted leave to represent himself in the proceedings before the ORG . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP Since DATE the applicant has been convicted CARDINAL times of various crimes , including sexual assault of minors , possession of child pornography , unlawful possession of narcotic substances , and falsification of official documents . At the time of the lodging of his application with the ORG he was serving a prison sentence for sexual crimes against minors , and at the time of the present judgment he was serving another prison sentence for similar crimes .","The applicant claimed to be a board member of several non - governmental organisations , an author of various publications , a member of the anti - NORP resistance and a political prisoner of the NORP regime . Meanwhile , the ORG submitted that he had falsified documents purportedly proving his participation in the anti - NORP resistance , and that he was widely known to the NORP public solely because of his long history of sexual crimes against minors .","On DATE the newspaper PERSON sostin\u0117 published a CARDINAL - page article entitled \u201c Perverts are getting more impudent \u201d ( GPE \u012f\u017e\u016bl\u0117ja ) ( hereinafter \u201c the first article \u201d ) . The article had CARDINAL sections , DATE of which discussed various instances of sexual crimes against minors committed in the city of GPE . The last CARDINAL sections of the article were dedicated to the applicant . The first of those CARDINAL , entitled \u201c Convicted for paedophilia \u201d , discussed his conviction for sexually assaulting a minor in DATE . The second section , entitled \u201c Suspicion regarding an armed assault \u201d , stated that in DATE the applicant had established a political party , and that in DATE he had complained to the police that he had been the victim of an armed assault . The third section , entitled \u201c Pretended to be a doctor \u201d , stated that the applicant had had his first encounter with the police in DATE , after he had pretended to be a doctor and had performed \u201c medical check - ups \u201d on underage girls . The final section of the article ( the fourth one dedicated to the applicant ) was entitled \u201c Had [ sexual ] intercourse with his mother \u201d ( PERSON motina ) and consisted of CARDINAL paragraphs . The first CARDINAL paragraphs described several instances in DATE when the applicant , pretending to be a doctor , had examined people in an educational institution and a public bath , and had drugged and sexually assaulted a male university student . The last paragraph of that section read :","\u201c DATE , law enforcement officers had a suspicion that [ ORG ] may have had sexual relations with his mother , with whom he lived ... During a search [ of the applicant \u2019s apartment ] , officers found photographs in which the well - known pederast of PERSON was depicted with his mother in specific positions . It was decided not to open a case . \u201d","The article did not include any photographs of the applicant or his mother .","On DATE the magazine ORG published a CARDINAL - page article entitled \u201c Pornography \u2013 a flourishing illegal business \u201d ( Pornografija \u2013 klestintis nelegalus verslas ) ( hereinafter \u201c the second article \u201d ) . The article had CARDINAL sections . The first CARDINAL sections discussed clandestine photo studios in GPE which had pornographic photoshoots . The sixth section of the article , entitled \u201c The \u2018 classic\u2019 pornographer \u201d ( PERSON klasikas \u201c ) , was dedicated to the applicant . Its relevant parts read :","\u201c In DATE [ law enforcement officers ] had many concerns about sexual relations between the well - known paedophile of GPE , [ ORG ] , and his mother , with whom he lived .","DATE , during a search of his home , officers found photographs in which the paedophile , who enjoyed presenting himself as \u201c Doctor PERSON , was depicted not only with minors , but also with his mother , while having sexual intercourse in non - traditional positions . However , it was decided not to open a case . In DATE [ ORG ] , who until then had avoided longer prison sentences for sexual crimes , was sentenced to DATE of imprisonment . \u201d","The article printed a photograph of the applicant with the following caption :","\u201c The \u2018 classic\u2019 pornographer , [ ORG ] , who for a long time used to lure teenagers to his apartment , sexually assault them and take their photographs , was convicted of sexual crimes in DATE and sentenced to DATE of imprisonment . \u201d","The remaining CARDINAL sections of the article contained interviews with photographers involved in erotic photography , and discussed the business of intermediaries taking young NORP women to foreign countries to work as escorts .","On DATE the applicant contacted PERSON and asked it to publish a retraction of the part of the article concerning sexual relations between him and his mother ( who had died in DATE ) . The applicant submitted a draft retraction , but the magazine refused to publish it on the grounds that the text contained insulting language .","Subsequently , the applicant submitted a complaint regarding the second article to ORG . On DATE the ORG concluded that the statements about sexual relations between the applicant and his mother were \u201c of a clearly degrading character \u201d ( akivaizd\u017eiai \u017eeminan\u010dio pob\u016bd\u017eio ) , and \u201c undoubtedly caused negative public opinion \u201d ( neabejotinai sukelia neigiam\u0105 nuomon\u0119 visuomen\u0117je ) .","On an unspecified date in DATE or DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim for damages against the journalist who had written the second article , GPE , and the magazine ORG . He argued that the claims concerning sexual relations between him and his mother had been erroneous , and that the publication had humiliated him , damaged his reputation and caused him emotional distress .","In their reply to the claim , GPE and ORG submitted that the disputed statements in the second article had been based on the information published in the first article . They therefore argued that , in line with domestic law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , the publishers of the second article could not be held liable for republishing erroneous information which had not been publicly retracted . They further submitted that , in any event , the disputed claims were true and testimony to that effect could be provided by law enforcement officers who had searched the applicant \u2019s apartment in DATE . Lastly , they argued that because of the applicant \u2019s long history of sexual crimes , there was a general interest in making such information public , and that \u201c as far as someone with such a reputation was concerned , it was impossible to cause any more dishonour \u201d ( tokios reputacijos asmeniui dar labiau sumenkinti jo garb\u0119 nebe\u012fmanoma ) .","Subsequently , the applicant amended his claim to also include the author of the first article , PERSON , and the company which owned the PERSON sostin\u0117 newspaper . He also alleged that that publication had included erroneous claims about him and his mother , which had damaged his reputation and caused him emotional distress .","In their reply to the amended claim , ORG and the newspaper company submitted that the first article had not stated that the applicant had had sexual relations with his mother , but only that law enforcement officers had had such suspicions . They also submitted that , in line with domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant could not bring court proceedings against them , because he had not asked the newspaper to publish a retraction within DATE of the disputed publication . They asserted that in DATE the applicant had been interviewed by PERSON and some television journalists ; subsequently he had sued the television broadcasting company , but not PERSON sostin\u0117 . Accordingly , PERSON and the newspaper company submitted that the applicant had known about the first article and its contents , but had failed to ask for a retraction within the time - limits provided for in law .","ORG held a hearing on DATE . During that hearing the applicant denied having given an interview to FAC in DATE , and claimed that he had not been aware of the first article until the current court proceedings had started . However , when asked by the judge how that article could have caused him any emotional distress if he had not known about it , the applicant replied that he had heard rumours about the publication but had not seen it himself . The court also heard the testimony of a witness requested by the applicant , who stated that in DATE he had been imprisoned together with the applicant and had seen other prisoners insult and humiliate him because of the statements published in the second article . The hearing was adjourned at the applicant \u2019s request , and the court ordered the defendants to provide the disputed photographs of the applicant and his mother .","The next hearing was held on DATE . ORG heard another witness requested by the applicant , who also stated that the second article had led to insults and humiliation of the applicant by other prisoners . The hearing was adjourned at the applicant \u2019s request in order to allow his new lawyer to acquaint himself with the case file .","On DATE ORG suspended the civil proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant brought a private prosecution against GPE and the editor of ORG , GPE , accusing them of defamation , insult , and contempt of the memory of a deceased person , under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL , LAW and LAW . He also submitted a civil claim for damages .","On DATE the Vilnius City Third District Court held a hearing in the criminal case . During the hearing the applicant submitted that the defendants were former supporters of the NORP regime , and the purpose of the publication had been revenge for his political and public activities . Meanwhile , PERSON stated that his purpose had been to warn the public about the applicant \u2019s dangerous sexual activities and that , when preparing the article , he had spoken to ORG and a prosecutor , ORG , who had confirmed the existence of the disputed photographs . That prosecutor was called as a witness and testified that he had personally seen such photographs . However , the photographs were not submitted to the court , because the prosecution archives of DATE had already been destroyed .","The applicant made an application for the court to call additional witnesses who could testify about the damaging effects of the second article , and to obtain documents proving that ORG had participated in anti - independence repression during the NORP occupation . The court rejected his applications as unfounded and unnecessarily time - consuming with regard to the proceedings .","The next hearing was held on DATE . The applicant made an application for the Vilnius City Third ORG to call witnesses who could testify about the circumstances of his mother \u2019s death , but the court rejected that application as unrelated to the case . In his final address to the court the applicant insisted that the statements about his sexual relations with his mother were false and unproven , and that GPE and GPE had published them to insult and humiliate him . Meanwhile , GPE and GPE argued that they had made a sufficient effort to verify the disputed statements \u2013 they had relied on the first article , which had not been publicly retracted , and had interviewed law enforcement officers who had had the relevant knowledge . They also submitted that the purpose of the article had not been to insult or humiliate the applicant , but to inform the public about a dangerous person known for his sexual crimes . They emphasised that the article had examined a certain aspect of life in the city of GPE , and statements about the applicant had constituted only a small part of it .","On DATE the Vilnius City Third ORG acquitted GPE and GPE of all charges . The court held that the criminal offence of defamation consisted of the intentional distribution of erroneous information about another person , but GPE and GPE had had reasonable grounds to believe that the disputed statements about the applicant and his mother were true , because they had been previously published in another newspaper and not retracted . The court also held that the criminal offence of insult consisted of the public humiliation of another person in an intentionally obscene or offensive manner , whereas a mere negative opinion about another person , presented in a civil manner , would not qualify as criminal insult . The court considered that the disputed statements of the second article , albeit amounting to negative characterisation of the applicant , had been presented in a neutral manner which was not offensive , and that GPE and GPE had not intended to insult the applicant . Lastly , the court dismissed the charge of contempt of the memory of a deceased person as time - barred . The applicant \u2019s civil claim for damages was left unexamined .","NORP The applicant appealed against that judgment , but on DATE ORG upheld the acquittal . It emphasised that , in criminal proceedings , the burden was on the prosecuting party to prove that statements published by defendants had been erroneous , or that defendants had intended to insult a victim . The court considered that the applicant had not discharged that burden . It also held that the first - instance court had been justified in not hearing the additional witnesses requested by the applicant , ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , because those witnesses could not have provided any information relating to GPE and ORG alleged intention to defame or insult the applicant .","Subsequently , ORG resumed the examination of the applicant \u2019s claim for damages against the publishers of both articles ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . In a hearing held on DATE the court heard another witness called by the applicant , who stated that the publication of the second article had led to insults against the applicant among his fellow prisoners . The hearing was adjourned at the applicant \u2019s request .","The next hearing was held on DATE . At the applicant \u2019s request , the court ordered a linguistic examination of the disputed statements in the first article , in order to determine whether they could be understood as unequivocally stating that the applicant had had sexual relations with his mother . The examination was carried out by ORG , which delivered its conclusion on DATE . It found that the article did not unequivocally state that the applicant and his mother had had such relations , but that it could raise suspicions that such relations may have existed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It held that domestic law provided for a mandatory out - of - court settlement procedure in cases concerning the publication of allegedly erroneous statements in the media , in accordance with which the applicant should have asked the publisher of the first article to retract it within DATE of its publication ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The court noted that the applicant had missed that time - limit and had not asked for its renewal . As a result , he could not claim any damages from the publishers of the first article . The court further held that the disputed statements in the CARDINAL articles were essentially identical , and thus the publishers of the second article could not be held liable for republishing the contents of the first article , as long as they had not been publicly retracted .","The applicant submitted an appeal in which he insisted that he had not known about the first article until he began the civil proceedings against the publishers of the second article . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . The court underlined that the DATE time - limit to request a retraction was necessary in order to protect journalists from the unreasonable burden of having to prove the truthfulness of information which had been published a long time ago , especially in cases such as the CARDINAL in question , where the applicant had complained DATE after the publication of the first article . The court also referred to the submission of PERSON and the newspaper company that the applicant had been interviewed in DATE as part of the preparation of the first article ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and concluded that the applicant ought to have known that the impending publication would concern him . Accordingly , ORG found that the journalists could not be held responsible for the applicant \u2019s own failure to take timely action in respect of the first article .","On DATE ORG refused to examine a cassation appeal submitted by the applicant on the grounds that it raised no important legal questions .","Relevant provisions of LAW read :","Article CARDINAL","\u201c Private life shall be inviolable ...","The law and courts shall protect everyone from arbitrary or unlawful interference with his private and family life , as well as from encroachment upon his honour and dignity .","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL","\u201c ...","No one must be hindered from seeking , receiving , or imparting information and ideas .","The freedom to express convictions , as well as to receive and impart information , may not be limited otherwise than by law when this is necessary to protect human health , honour or dignity , private life , or morals , or to defend the constitutional order .","The freedom to express convictions and to impart information shall be incompatible with criminal actions \u2013 incitement to national , racial , religious , or social hatred , incitement to violence or to discrimination , as well as defamation and disinformation ... \u201d","In its ruling of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG held the following :","\u201c CARDINAL . A person \u2019s honour and dignity ... shall be protected when all of the following facts are established : a ) information has been disseminated ; b ) that information concerns the claimant ; c ) it is humiliating to the claimant \u2019s honour and dignity ; d ) it is erroneous .","The right to a private life ... shall be protected when all of the following facts are established : a ) information has been disseminated ; b ) that information concerns the claimant ; c ) it concerns the claimant \u2019s private life ; d ) it has been disseminated without the claimant \u2019s consent ; e ) there is no legitimate public interest in receiving that information ...","...","... A civil claim for the protection of honour and dignity ... must specify ... what disseminated information is humiliating or erroneous ... If the defendant is a media source , the claimant must indicate that he or she has exhausted the mandatory out - of - court settlement procedure by requesting a retraction ...","...","... Acquittal of a person accused of libel on the grounds that no criminal offence has been committed , as well as the refusal to open a criminal case or the decision to terminate it due to the expiry of statutory limitations ... does not preclude a victim from submitting a civil claim for the protection of his or her honour and dignity ...","It must be underlined that LAW and LAW to the Public seek to protect CARDINAL distinct values : a person \u2019s honour and dignity , and a person \u2019s right to private life . They can be violated by different facts and thus must be distinguished ... Information about a person \u2019s private life can be made public without his or her consent only when its publication does not cause any harm to that person , when that information may help to disclose criminal offences and breaches of law , or protect human rights and fundamental freedoms , and when that information is disseminated in a public court hearing ... The right to a private life is protected ... irrespective of whether the disseminated private information is humiliating to the person \u2019s honour and dignity or not ... \u201d","At the material time , LAW , which remained in force until DATE , provided in its relevant parts :","\u201c Individuals or organisations have the right to ask a court to retract information which is erroneous and damages their honour and dignity .","If such information was published by the mass media , the court shall examine requests for retraction only after the individual or organisation in question has provided the publisher with a written retraction ... and the publisher has failed to retract the erroneous information ...","If the publisher does not substantiate that the disputed information corresponds to reality , the court shall oblige it to retract the information in question ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the DATE Civil Code , in force from DATE onwards , provides in its relevant parts :","\u201c CARDINAL . A person shall have the right to demand the retraction , in judicial proceedings , of information which has been made public and which denigrates his honour and dignity and is erroneous ; in addition to the right to compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage incurred by the placing in the public domain of the aforementioned information ... Information which has been made public shall be presumed to be erroneous , unless the publisher proves the opposite to be true .","Where erroneous information has been made public by the mass media ( including the press , television and radio ) , the person who is the subject of the publication shall have the right to provide a proposed retraction , and to demand that the media source concerned publish the aforementioned retraction free of charge or make it public in some other way . The media source shall publish the retraction or make it public in some other way within DATE of receipt . The media source shall have the right to refuse to publish the retraction or make it public , only in such cases where the content of the retraction contradicts good morals ...","...","Media sources which make public erroneous information which denigrates a person \u2019s reputation shall only provide compensation for damage to property , and for any pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage incurred , in cases where they knew or should have known that the information was erroneous ... \u201d","At the material time , LAW to the Public provided that a written request to retract information had to be submitted to a producer or disseminator of public information within DATE of the information being published .","At the material time , LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG to the Public provided that a producer of public information could not be held liable for the publication of erroneous information if that information had been previously published in other mass media sources , and had not been retracted by the media source which published it .","Article CARDINAL of the DATE Civil Code , in force from DATE onwards , provides that information about a person \u2019s private life may be made public only with his or her consent .","At the time of the publication of the first article , LAW to the Public provided for civil liability of the producer or disseminator of information who published information about a person \u2019s private life without his or her consent , where that information was degrading to the person \u2019s honour and dignity . At the time of the publication of the second article , LAW amended version of that PERSON provided for civil liability of the producer or disseminator of information who published any kind of information about a person \u2019s private life without his or her consent .","In its ruling of CARDINAL DATE in civil case no . ORG - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG held :","\u201c [ T]he defendant disseminated ... in newspaper publications ... information about the birth of the claimant \u2019s son , his last name , alimony granted by courts , and so forth , and thereby breached the claimant \u2019s and her son \u2019s right to a private life . The district court correctly held that that information was not related to the claimant \u2019s occupation or the public interest ... As provided in law , the court shall determine the amount of non - pecuniary damages , taking into account the defendant \u2019s financial situation , the gravity of the breach and its consequences , and other relevant circumstances ... The courts correctly found that the dissemination of the information about the claimant \u2019s private life had caused her emotional suffering and negatively affected her authority . Her son , a minor , also experienced suffering and distress . In such circumstances , the award of non - pecuniary damages can not be reduced only because of the defendant \u2019s financial situation ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW provides that the offence of libel in the media or in any other publication is punishable by a fine , arrest or imprisonment for a term of DATE .","At the material time , LAW provided that the public humiliation of another person in an abusive manner by actions , words or in writing is punishable by a fine , restriction of liberty , arrest or imprisonment for a term of DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141631","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KIISA v. ESTONIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an action with ORG ( previously named ORG ) for divorce and division of joint property including a number of real estates and shares of companies .","The defendant submitted his arguments to the court on DATE .","A preliminary hearing took place on DATE . An adjournment was requested because of the illness of the defendant \u2019s lawyer . The applicant submitted a request concerning new evidence and interim measures .","On DATE a preliminary hearing took place . The applicant submitted that she intended to supplement her action .","On DATE the applicant submitted new arguments and a request concerning new evidence . On DATE the defendant replied .","On DATE a preliminary hearing took place .","On DATE the applicant submitted a number of procedural objections and requests concerning new evidence , including a request to appoint an expert . On DATE she requested to stay the proceedings .","On DATE a preliminary hearing took place . As the defendant had failed to appear at the hearing , the examination of the case was adjourned .","On DATE the defendant submitted additional evidence . On DATE the applicant replied , submitted new arguments and a request concerning new evidence . On DATE the defendant made further submissions .","On DATE a preliminary hearing took place .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted new evidence , arguments and requests concerning new evidence , including a request to appoint an expert , and supplemented her action .","On DATE a hearing took place . The applicant requested ordering an expert assessment . She had not yet submitted the list of the joint property , information about its value and relevant proof . The applicant objected to the defendant \u2019s request that a partial judgment in respect of divorce be made .","On DATE ORG delivered a partial judgment divorcing the marriage . The applicant appealed .","On DATE she submitted a request for the removal of the judge and requests concerning new evidence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","On DATE the applicant submitted a complete version of her claims that had been requested by ORG since she had previously made numerous amendments to her initial claims . She also made a request concerning new evidence and an expert assessment . In DATE to follow , written submissions were exchanged between the parties .","On DATE the applicant submitted new arguments and requests concerning new evidence .","On DATE ORG ruled on an advance payment concerning an expert assessment .","On DATE the applicant requested an interim judgment for the establishment of joint property . The defendant agreed . On DATE ORG requested the parties to submit the lists of property .","NORP In DATE the parties exchanged submissions concerning the court expenses and the court ordered the parties to submit any unsubmitted evidence .","On DATE the ORG delivered an interim judgment on the composition of the joint property . Both the applicant and the defendant appealed . In DATE and DATE the parties exchanged submissions .","On DATE a hearing took place before ORG which , on DATE , delivered a judgment partially granting the defendant \u2019s appeal . Both parties lodged an appeal with ORG in respect of the partial judgment .","On DATE ORG refused the parties leave to appeal and the partial judgment became final .","On DATE the applicant supplemented her action and applied for interim measures .","On DATE ORG applied interim measures .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to make an advance payment related to expert assessments . On DATE it ordered the assessments .","On DATE the applicant submitted objections to the activities of the court , supplemented her action and submitted new evidence .","On DATE the court warned the parties that they would be fined in case of failure to submit the required information to the experts . On DATE the applicant submitted objections to the activities of the court and requested the removal of the expert . On DATE ORG dismissed the removal request .","On DATE ORG ordered the defendant to present the required documents to the expert .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted an additional opinion and again requested the removal of the expert . The request was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .","In DATE , DATE and DATE ORG received expert assessments concerning the value of a number of real estates and of the shares of a company .","In DATE and DATE the parties exchanged proposals and submissions on the division of the property .","On DATE the applicant requested the removal of the judge responsible for the case . This request was dismissed .","In DATE the applicant made further submissions and a request concerning new evidence . She also filed an objection to the court \u2019s activities .","On DATE the court dismissed the request concerning new evidence . The applicant filed an objection .","At a hearing of CARDINAL DATE experts were heard . The applicant stated that she did not accuse the court or the defendant for the length of the proceedings and requested an adjournment of the hearing as she wished to obtain an estimation of the value of the forest on CARDINAL of the real estates . The hearing was adjourned .","On DATE the applicant submitted new requests concerning the real estate . On CARDINAL DATE the court dismissed these requests and ordered the defendant to submit an estimation . The defendant requested an extension .","On DATE the applicant submitted a supplementary opinion .","On DATE the applicant submitted new requests .","A hearing was held on DATE .","On DATE ORG made a judgment on the merits concerning the division of the joint property . Both parties appealed .","In DATE the parties exchanged submissions .","On DATE ORG delivered a judgment . It partly granted the applicant \u2019s appeal , dismissed the defendant \u2019s appeal and partly amended ORG judgment . Both parties lodged an appeal with ORG .","On DATE ORG refused the parties leave to appeal ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139998","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MATEESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu B\u00eersan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He is a doctor with substantial experience , having been a general practitioner for DATE . In this capacity , he currently has his own private practice , with CARDINAL employees . He also teaches at ORG and has authored several works in the field of general medicine .","In DATE the applicant graduated from law school ; DATE , he registered to become a lawyer , after having passed the annual entrance examination organised by ORG . On DATE ORG issued a decision validating the results of the examination and declaring that the applicant was admitted to the Bar .","The Bucharest Bar further decided on DATE to register the applicant as a trainee lawyer ( avocat stagiar ) as of DATE . A DATE traineeship period being an obligatory condition for obtaining a licence to practise as a lawyer , the applicant signed a traineeship agreement ( contract de colaborare ) with the ORG private law firm . On DATE the Bar approved the applicant \u2019s traineeship within the firm .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request to the PERSON of ORG to be allowed to pursue his DATE traineeship ( stagiu ) in compliance with section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL regulating the legal profession , notwithstanding the fact that he simultaneously had his own private medical practice . He considered that \u201c the medical profession was not incompatible with the dignity of the legal profession or the lawyers\u2019 rules of conduct within the meaning of Rule CARDINAL of the Rules governing the Legal Profession \u201d .","On DATE , applying section CARDINAL ( b ) and section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( e ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request . In its decision the Bar held :","\u201c the applicant \u2019s request to practise simultaneously as a lawyer and as a doctor is dismissed , and the applicant must consequently opt for CARDINAL of the CARDINAL professions . \u201d","On DATE the applicant contested that decision before ORG . He challenged the reason for the dismissal of his request , which , citing section CARDINAL ( b ) , referred to ineligibility to practise as a lawyer for anyone who already pursued a \u201c profession that infringes the dignity and the independence of the legal profession or is contrary to good morals \u201d . He contended that his professional CV , including a Ph.D. in medicine , a career of teaching at the university and the authorship of several books on medicine , could on no account infringe the dignity of the legal profession . At the same time , he pointed to the fact that he was neither an employee nor a trader , as proscribed by the legislation regulating the activities of lawyers .","On DATE ORG upheld the GPE decision , this time on the basis of LAW no . CARDINAL , which enumerated \u201c exhaustively \u201d the professions that were compatible with the profession of lawyer ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) . As the practice of medicine was not specified among those professions , the applicant \u2019s request was dismissed .","NORP That decision was contested before ORG .","In its reply to the applicant \u2019s submissions , the respondent argued , firstly , that the combined interpretation of sections DATE and CARDINAL of the PERSON led to the conclusion that no other profession could be practised in parallel with that of a lawyer , except for those restrictively enumerated under section CARDINAL ; furthermore , the practice of CARDINAL liberal professions at the same time was not permitted by the law , nor was it desirable , in view of the fact that each liberal profession required PERCENT dedication on the part of the person practising it .","On DATE the court allowed the applicant \u2019s claims , holding that section CARDINAL ( b ) was not applicable , in so far as \u201c the profession of doctor does not impinge on the independence of the profession of lawyer \u201d . The court further held that any restriction on practising a profession must be expressly and unequivocally prescribed by law , which was not the case in this instance . Moreover , LAW protected the right to work , which could not be subject to any limitations , with a few exceptions expressly enumerated in section CARDINAL , such as national security reasons , protection of public order , health and public morals or protection of individual rights and freedoms , none of which was applicable in the applicant \u2019s case .","Furthermore , the prohibition on practising as a lawyer while also practising as a doctor was not included in the text of section CARDINAL ( b ) of Law no . CARDINAL , which referred only to professions that infringed the dignity and the independence of the legal profession or were contra bonos mores .","The court further held that LAW did not contain an exhaustive list of the professions compatible with the profession of lawyer , in spite of ORG interpretation of that provision to the effect that if the medical profession was not included in the text among the compatible professions , this meant , by converse implication , that it was not compatible with the profession of lawyer . The incompatible professions were enumerated exhaustively in section DATE , and the profession of doctor was not among them .","The assertion that practising a liberal profession required total dedication and implicitly a lot of time on the part of the practitioner could not be taken into consideration for the assessment of the lawfulness of the decisions taken by the local and national Bars ; not having enough time to devote to clients\u2019 cases had nothing to do with the independence of the legal profession . The court thus confirmed the applicant \u2019s right to practise both professions simultaneously , annulling the Bars\u2019 decisions .","ORG appealed against that judgment to ORG and ORG . It argued that while section CARDINAL of the PERSON listed the professions that were incompatible with the profession of lawyer in a generic manner , giving examples , LAW regulated , strictly and restrictively , the exceptions that were allowed , among which the profession of doctor was not mentioned . At the same time , the simultaneous practice of both professions infringed the principle of the independence of lawyers . In wanting to practise both professions , the applicant demonstrated only his extreme mercantilism , as he \u201c minimised the importance of these professions , treating them as mere sources of income \u201d .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicant \u2019s request , holding that the combined interpretation of sections CARDINAL and DATE led to the conclusion that the list of compatible situations was exhaustive and thus section CARDINAL referred to the only professions that by law were compatible with that of a lawyer ; ORG pointed out that even if the provisions of LAW , relied on by the applicant in his defence , also enumerated other situations of incompatibility and compatibility , they were of inferior rank to a law and therefore they could not contradict those of the law itself .","The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The right to work shall not be restricted . Everyone has the free choice of his or her profession , trade or occupation , and workplace . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The exercise of certain rights or freedoms may only be restricted by law , and only if necessary , as the case may be , for : the defence of national security , of public order , health or morals , or of ORG rights and freedoms ; the conduct of a criminal investigation ; or prevention of the consequences of a natural calamity , disaster or extremely severe catastrophe .","( CARDINAL ) Such restriction shall be ordered only if necessary in a NORP society . The measure shall be proportionate to the situation that caused it , shall apply without discrimination , and shall not impair the existence of such right or freedom . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A person who meets the following conditions may be a member of a Bar in GPE :","( a ) he or she is a NORP citizen and a holder of civil and political rights ;","( b ) he or she is a law faculty graduate or a doctor of law ( Ph.D. ) ;","( c ) he or she is not in one of the categories of ineligibility specified by this PERSON ;","( d ) he or she is medically fit to practise as a lawyer .","( CARDINAL ) Compliance with the condition in point ( d ) of subsection ( CARDINAL ) above shall be proved by means of a medical certificate attesting that the person is in good health , issued on the basis of findings by a medical board constituted under the terms specified in the LAW governing the legal profession . \u201d","\u201c Practising the profession of lawyer shall be incompatible with :","( a ) a salaried activity within a profession other than the legal profession ;","( b ) occupations affecting the dignity and independence of the legal profession or good morals ;","( c ) direct involvement in trading activities . \u201d","\u201c Practising the profession of lawyer shall be compatible with :","( a ) the position of member of parliament or senator , or member of a local or county council ;","( b ) teaching activities , and offices in higher legal education ;","( c ) literary and publishing activities ;","( d ) the function of arbitrator , mediator , conciliator or negotiator , tax adviser , adviser on intellectual property , adviser on industrial property , licensed translator , administrator or liquidator in procedures of judicial reorganisation or liquidation , in accordance with the law . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Admission to the profession shall be obtained on the basis of an examination organised by the Bar , under the provisions of this PERSON and the LAW governing the profession . ( ... ) \u201d","\u201c ( ... )","( CARDINAL ) The conditions for completing the traineeship and the rights and obligations of lawyers on probation , and of supervising lawyers and the LOC towards them , shall be regulated by the LAW governing the profession .","( CARDINAL ) The training term shall be suspended if the lawyer performs military service or is conscripted , if he or she is absent from the profession for good reasons , or if the professional guidance is terminated through no fault of the lawyer on probation . The training already completed shall be taken into consideration when calculating the completion of the term .","( CARDINAL ) After the training term is completed , the lawyer on probation shall take the examination to become a permanent lawyer . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A Bar Council shall be composed of CARDINAL members , elected for a DATE term of office . The President and Vice - President of the Bar shall be included in that number .","( CARDINAL ) The powers of the ORG shall be as follows :","( ... )","( e ) to check and establish that the lawful requirements have been met as regards applications for admission to the profession , and to approve admission to the profession on the basis of an examination or an exemption from the examination ; ( ... ) \u201d","\u201c ORG shall have the following powers :","( ... )","( o ) it shall check , at the request of the persons concerned , that the decisions of ORG on admission to the profession are lawful and based on good grounds ;","( p ) it shall annul decisions by the Bar on grounds of unlawfulness , and settle complaints and legal disputes brought against decisions adopted by ORG , in the circumstances specified by law and the LAW governing the profession ; ( ... ) \u201d","The relevant parts of the Rules governing ORG read as follows :","\u201c In order to be registered and to practise this profession , the lawyer must not be in CARDINAL of the situations of incompatibility referred to in the law . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The following are incompatible with the practice of the profession of lawyer , unless declared otherwise by a lex specialis :","( a ) personal trading activities , performed with or without a licence ;","( b ) the status of associate in private companies such as a general partnership ( societate \u00een nume colectiv ) , a limited partnership or a partnership limited with shares ( societate comercial\u0103 \u00een comandit\u0103 simpl\u0103 sau \u00een comandit\u0103 pe ac\u021biuni ) .","( c ) the status of manager of a limited partnership with shares private company ( societate \u00een comandit\u0103 pe ac\u021biuni ) ;","( d ) the status of CEO , sole manager or member of the board of directors of a private company such as limited liability or a joint - stock company ( societate comercial\u0103 cu r\u0103spundere limitat\u0103 sau pe ac\u021biuni ) .","( CARDINAL ) The lawyer may be an associate or partner in a limited liability or a joint- stock private company ( societate comercial\u0103 cu r\u0103spundere limitat\u0103 sau pe ac\u021biuni )","( CARDINAL ) The lawyer may be a member of ORG limited liability or a joint - stock private company , on condition that he \/ she brings this information to the Dean of the Bar [ ... ]"],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175155","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF OZOLS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-3-d - Obtain attendance of witnesses)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE a criminal investigation was conducted into suspected irregularities in customs procedures with respect to the transit of vehicles . As a result of these unlawful activities , it had been possible for third persons to legalise foreign goods ( the vehicles ) in GPE using falsified documents .","CARDINAL customs officials , including the applicant , were charged with exceeding their official powers or failing to fulfil their duties . Each of the officials had allegedly acted unlawfully at different stages of the customs procedures . The applicant was charged with negligence which had caused substantial harm to the ORG and public interest . This charge was brought in connection with the processing of documentation for a used semi - trailer .","Several witnesses were questioned during the pre - trial stage , including witness E.A. , a NORP national residing in GPE , who had purchased CARDINAL of the vehicles .","On DATE ORG , acting as the court of first instance , found the applicant guilty and imposed on him a fine to the amount of DATE salaries .","With respect to the applicant , the court established that on DATE at a customs control point he had acted contrary to the applicable regulations in the processing of documentation for the importation of the used semi - trailer .","NORP In particular , the applicant had accepted a transit declaration from a person who had not been a declarant \u2019s authorised representative . He had not verified whether the person submitting a power of attorney had been the person to whom it had been issued . The applicant had not verified whether the used semi - trailer had been in the customs zone . Further , he had not issued an administrative violation record on the non - compliance with TIME time - limit for the delivery to the customs office of the used semi - trailer . Furthermore , the documentation processed had been incomplete .","NORP The regional court relied on a report drawn up by the ORG revenue service , dated DATE . The report stated that the applicant had not complied with a number of applicable regulations .","Further , the court referred to the pre - trial statement of witness E.A. who was summoned to a court hearing but could not attend due to his hospitalisation . The court took note of a medical certificate to that effect .","E.A. had testified that he had purchased the semi - trailer at DATE . He had come to the customs control point together with the vendor \u2019s representative . The vendor \u2019s representative had turned first to a customs representative and then to a customs officer who processed the documentation . The semi - trailer had not been at the customs warehouse and it could not have been inspected by the customs officer . According to the documentation , the customs clearance of the vehicle was carried out by the applicant .","After the statements were read out , the applicant \u2019s defence asked the court to explain on what grounds a certified copy of the statements of E.A. was included in the case - file and where was its original . The request was upheld and the prosecutor provided a reply .","The court relied on a set of documentary evidence attesting to the fact that the documentation for the semi - trailer in question had been processed by the applicant and that the semi - trailer had not entered the customs territory .","The applicant appealed against the first instance court judgment .","At the appellate hearing on DATE , E.A. could not be summoned to the hearing because he was abroad at the time . The applicant requested that E.A. be summoned to the appeal proceedings .","The appellate court decided that this request be granted and E.A. was summoned to the hearings of DATE and DATE . On both occasions E.A. asked the appellate court in writing to excuse his absence from the hearing on the grounds of hospitalisation ( in DATE ) and his being abroad and having a technical problem with a car which had prevented him from coming to the hearing ( in DATE ) . He further asked the court to read out his pre - trial statements .","On DATE the appeal proceedings were resumed .","During the court hearing , the applicant \u2019s defence and the court questioned a defence witness \u2013 a customs expert on the customs procedure and its application .","E.A. did not appear at the court hearings on CARDINAL and DATE . The prosecutor submitted that , by way of such conduct , E.A. avoided appearing in court and that this gave grounds for his testimony to be read out .","NORP The applicant \u2019s defence counsel disagreed that E.A. \u2019s testimony could be read out . At the same time , the defence counsel submitted that he","\u201c [ did ] not need witness [ E.A. ] anymore ... the evidence [ previously ] given by the expert [ was sufficient ] . We do not uphold the request anymore . I consider that his statements should not be read out ... I consider that there are no justifiable grounds for [ E.A. ] not appearing in court \u201d .","The appellate court ruled that DATE \u2019s testimony be read out in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW .","After the testimony was read out , the applicant \u2019s defence explicitly stated that they did not have any requests and that the court adjudication could be terminated .","On DATE the appeal court upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction . It considered that the applicant had inadequately verified the power of attorney ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The appellate court referred to the evidence of witness E.A. , i.e. , that the semi - trailer had not been at the customs warehouse and the customs officer could not have inspected it . It also relied on the logbook indicating that the semi - trailer had not entered the customs territory . The court also relied on the applicant \u2019s statements in which he considered that the verification on the merits had been carried out by the customs broker and therefore those tasks fell outside his duties . The appeal court dismissed the applicant \u2019s contention that he had inspected the semi - trailer .","Furthermore , the appeal court held that the applicant had inadequately verified the payment documents . It reasoned that the payment orders in question had given the appearance that a transfer of funds had been made to the ORG . However , a bank report indicated that these orders had neither been registered nor confirmed by the bank .","The appeal court found that the applicant had formally performed his official duties . However , it deemed that the applicant \u2019s contention DATE that a customs broker and not a customs officer had been responsible for the truthfulness of the information \u2013 indicated that , in fact , the applicant had not verified anything .","In his appeal on points of law the applicant argued that the appellate court had not ensured the attendance of E.A. He insisted that the evidence attested to the fact that he had verified the power of attorney and had compared the bank accounts indicated in the payment orders . No electronic database had existed at the time and the only way to check the payment documents had been to compare the bank accounts listed .","On DATE the ORG of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","It reasoned that the appellate court had verified the testimonies of witnesses in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW . Also , the appeal court had made efforts to establish E.A. \u2019s whereabouts and to bring him to court . Therefore , the appeal court had done everything possible in order to call E.A. to court .","This decision was final ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179227","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KRSTANOSKI AND OTHERS v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek","text":["NORP In DATE several plots of land ( agricultural land at the time ) were expropriated from the applicants\u2019 legal predecessors . The present cases concern restitution proceedings in which the applicants sought that the plots of land , which , at present , form part of a campsite on the shore of LOC , be restored to their possession .","On DATE the applicants instituted restitution proceedings . On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) granted the applicants\u2019 claims and awarded them compensation , the form of which was to be determined by a separate decision . It established that according to an urban plan of DATE the land was designated as a public green zone in a tourist area . Relying on an on - site inspection ( \u0443\u0432\u0438\u0434 ) of DATE , it further held that the land was developed ( \u0443\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0440 ) with access paths and supporting infrastructure .","On DATE the applicants appealed , arguing that , inter alia , the land was undeveloped and could be restored to their possession . Were the urban plan to be implemented in the future , the land could be expropriated anew .","On DATE the the Second - Instance Administrative - Procedure Commission in LOC ( \u041a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0441\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0448\u0430\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0432\u043e \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f\u043a\u0430 \u0432\u043e \u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u0441\u0442\u0435\u043f\u0435\u043d \u043e\u0434 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u0435\u043d\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u2013 \u201c the second - instance commission \u201d ) dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and the reasons given by ORG . Relying on section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the second - instance commission held that the land in question was of public interest ( \u0458\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d \u0438\u043d\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0441 ) and could not be restored to the applicants\u2019 possession , but that compensation should be awarded instead .","On DATE the applicants lodged an administrative - dispute claim with ORG reiterating that the land within the campsite was undeveloped and could therefore be restored to their possession . In submissions lodged subsequently , they further referred to decision no . DATE of DATE in which the second - instance commission had accepted a similar claim and ordered that a neighbouring plot of land located within the same campsite had been restored to possession of the claimants . In that case , the second - instance commission had held , unlike in the applicants\u2019 case , that access paths and supporting infrastructure had not been sufficient for the land in question to be regarded as developed .","On DATE ORG , which had in the meantime become competent to decide administrative - dispute claims , dismissed the applicants\u2019 claim and upheld the findings of the administrative authorities .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicants\u2019 restitution claim and awarded them compensation in ORG bonds . Relying on an on - site inspection of CARDINAL DATE and a certificate of DATE issued by the competent Ministry , it established that the plot in question was located within the boundaries of the campsite ; that it had been designated as a public green zone and that pedestrian paths and other similar infrastructure were planned for construction . It concluded accordingly that the plot could not be restored to the applicants\u2019 possession .","An appeal by the applicants of DATE was dismissed by the second - instance commission on DATE . The latter held that , inter alia , the findings of ORG had been based on section CARDINAL of LAW .","The applicants lodged an administrative - dispute claim in which , alike the applicants in application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , they referred to the second - instance commission \u2019s decision no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and asked ORG to ensure consistent application of the law .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 claim , finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and the reasoning given by the administrative authorities ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174422","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 14+10 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (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)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , and DATE respectively . The first and the third applicants live in GPE , and the second applicant lives in GPE , PERSON .","The applicants are gay rights activists . They were each found guilty of the administrative offence of \u201c public activities aimed at the promotion of homosexuality among minors \u201d ( \u043f\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0438\u0447\u043d\u044b\u0435 \u0434\u0435\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0438\u044f , \u043d\u0430\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0430\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0434\u0443 \u0433\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0435\u043a\u0441\u0443\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u043c\u0430 \u0441\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0438 \u043d\u0435\u0441\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0448\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u043b\u0435\u0442\u043d\u0438\u0445 ) .","On DATE ORG adopted ORG in LOC , which prohibited public activities aimed at the promotion of homosexuality among minors .","On DATE ORG adopted ORG , which introduced administrative liability for public activities aimed at the promotion of homosexuality among minors .","On DATE the first applicant held a static demonstration ( \u201c picket \u201d , \u043f\u0438\u043a\u0435\u0442\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) in front of a secondary school in ORG , holding CARDINAL banners which stated \u201c Homosexuality is normal \u201d and \u201c I am proud of my homosexuality \u201d . He was charged with an administrative offence for doing so .","On DATE the ORG of ORG no . CARDINAL of LOC found the first applicant guilty of a breach of section CARDINAL of LAW . He was ordered to pay a fine of MONEY ( RUB , equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) ) . On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE ORG passed amendments to ORG in LOC . The amended law prohibited public activities aimed at the promotion of homosexuality among minors .","On DATE ORG passed amendments to LAW . The amendments introduced administrative liability for public activities aimed at the promotion of homosexuality among minors .","On DATE the second and the third applicants held a static demonstration in front of the children \u2019s library in GPE . The second applicant was holding a banner stating \u201c GPE has the world \u2019s highest rate of teenage suicide . This number includes a large proportion of homosexuals . They take this step because of the lack of information about their nature . Deputies are child - killers . Homosexuality is good ! \u201d The third applicant was holding a banner stating \u201c Children have the right to know . Great people are also sometimes gay ; gay people also become great . Homosexuality is natural and normal \u201d ; it went on to list the names of famous people who had contributed to GPE \u2019s cultural heritage and were believed to be gay . Both applicants were arrested and escorted to the police station , where administrative offence reports were drawn up .","On DATE the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of LOC found the second and the third applicants guilty of a breach of section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . The second applicant was ordered to pay a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) , and the third applicant was fined RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . On DATE ORG dismissed both applicants\u2019 appeals .","On DATE ORG passed amendments to ORG in GPE . The amendments introduced administrative liability for public activities aimed at the promotion of homosexuality , bisexuality and\/or transgenderism among minors ; the same law introduced administrative liability for promotion of paedophilia .","On DATE the third applicant held a demonstration in front of GPE , holding up a banner with a popular quote from a famous DATE actress PERSON : \u201c Homosexuality is not a perversion . Field hockey and ice ballet are . \u201d He was arrested by the police and escorted to the police station , where an administrative offence report was drawn up .","On DATE the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE found the third applicant guilty of a breach of section CARDINAL of ORG in GPE . He had to pay a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On an unspecified date the first and the third applicants brought proceedings before ORG of GPE . They challenged the compatibility of CARDINAL of ORG in LOC with the provisions of the LAW , in particular with the principle of equal treatment and the freedom of expression enshrined in LAW and QUANTITY of the LAW , and also the provisions of LAW , setting out the conditions under which the constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms may be restricted .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible , for the following reasons :","\u201c Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Federal Law clearly sets out the responsibility of the ORG bodies of GPE to take measures for the protection of children from information , propaganda and activism which is harmful to their health and moral and spiritual development .","...","The laws of LOC \u201c On protection of the morality of children in the LOC \u201d and \u201c On administrative offences \u201d do not strengthen any measures which prohibit homosexuality or provide for its official censure ; they do not contain signs of discrimination , and there is no indication in their intent of superfluous actions by the ORG bodies . It follows that the provisions being challenged by the appellants can not be regarded as disproportionately restrictive of freedom of speech . \u201d","On unspecified date the third applicant brought proceedings before ORG of GPE . He challenged the compatibility of section CARDINAL of GPE in GPE with the LAW .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible , for the following reasons :","\u201c ... It follows that the given prohibition , determined by the fact that such promotion is capable of harming minors by virtue of the age - specific features of their intellectual and psychological development , can not be considered as permitting a limitation on the rights and freedoms of citizens exclusively on the basis of sexual orientation .","...","However , this does not rule out a need to define \u2013 on the basis of a balancing exercise with regard to the competing constitutional values \u2013 the limits of the given ORG effective practice of their rights and freedoms , in order not to infringe the rights and freedoms of others .","...","\u2019s actions with regard to the targeted and unchecked dissemination of generally accessible information were capable of causing harm to the health and moral and spiritual development of minors , including creating a distorted impression of the social equivalence of traditional and non - traditional marital relations , does not come within the competence of ORG of GPE ; nor does verification of the lawfulness and validity of the judicial decisions issued in the appellant \u2019s case . \u201d","On DATE the Code of Administrative Offences of GPE was amended , introducing in Article CARDINAL administrative liability for the promotion of non - traditional sexual relations among minors .","On an unspecified date the third applicant and CARDINAL other persons brought proceedings before ORG of GPE . They challenged the compatibility of Article CARDINAL of LAW with the provisions of LAW .","On DATE ORG examined the complaint on the merits and dismissed it , for the following reasons :","\u201c ... Citizens\u2019 enjoyment of the right to disseminate information concerning the question of an individual \u2019s sexual self - determination ought not to infringe the rights and freedoms of others ; in regulating of this right by means of legislation , it is necessary to ensure that a balance is struck between the values protected by LAW . Consequently , bearing in mind the sensitive nature of such questions , since they belong to the sphere of individual autonomy , and without encroaching on its very essence , the ORG is entitled to introduce , on the basis of the above - mentioned requirements of LAW , specific restrictions on activities linked with the dissemination of such information if it becomes aggressive [ and ] importuning in nature and is capable of causing harm to the rights and legal interests of others , primarily minors , and is offensive in form .","... In so far as one of the roles of the family is [ to provide for ] the birth and upbringing of children , an understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman underlies the legislative approach to resolving demographic and social issues in the area of family relations in GPE ...","Regulation of freedom of speech and the freedom to disseminate information does not presuppose the creation of conditions which would facilitate the formation of other interpretations of the family as an institution , and the associated social and legal institutions , which would differ from the generally accepted interpretations nor society \u2019s approval of them as being equivalent in value ...","These aims also determine the need to protect the child from the influence of information that is capable of causing harm to his or her health or development , particularly information that is combined with an aggressive imposition of specific models of sexual conduct , giving rise to distorted representations of the socially accepted models of family relations corresponding to the moral values that are generally accepted in NORP society , as these are expressed in the LAW and legislation .","...","In order to ensure the child \u2019s healthy development , GPE are required , in particular , to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual perversion .","...","The aim pursued by the federal legislature in establishing the given norm was to protect children from the impact of information that could lead them into non - traditional sexual relations , a predilection for which would prevent them from building family relationships as these are traditionally understood in GPE and expressed in LAW . ORG of GPE acknowledges that the possible impact on the child \u2019s future life of the information in question , even when delivered in a persistent manner , has not been proven beyond doubt . Nonetheless , in assessing the necessity of introducing one or another restriction , the federal legislature is entitled to use criteria that are based on the presumption that there exists a threat to the child \u2019s interests , especially as the restrictions introduced by it concern only the tendency of the information in question to target persons of a given age group , and can not therefore be regarded as excluding the possibility of exercising one \u2019s constitutional right to freedom of information in this area . ...","The prohibition on public activities in relation to minors is intended to prevent their attention being increasingly focused on issues concerning sexual relations , which are capable , in unfavourable circumstances , of deforming significantly the child \u2019s understanding of such constitutional values as the family , motherhood , fatherhood and childhood , and adversely affecting not only his or her psychological state and development , but also his or her social adaptation . The fact that this ban does not extend to situations concerning the promotion of immoral conduct in the context of traditional sexual relationships , which may also require ORG regulation , including through [ the existence of ] administrative offences , is not grounds for finding that the given norm is incompatible with LAW from the perspective of infringing the principles of equality as applied to the protection of LAW values , which ensure the uninterrupted replacement of generations ...","The imposition on minors of a set of social values which differ from those that are generally accepted in NORP society , and which are not shared by and indeed frequently perceived as unacceptable by parents \u2013 who bear primary responsibility for their children \u2019s development and upbringing and are required to provide for their health and their physical , psychological , spiritual and moral development \u2013 ... may result in the child \u2019s social estrangement and prevent his or her development within the family , especially if one considers that equality of rights as set out in the LAW , which also presupposes equality of rights irrespective of sexual orientation , does not yet guarantee that persons with a different sexual orientation are actually regarded in equal terms by public opinion ; this situation may entail objective difficulties when trying to avoid negative attitudes from individual members of society towards those persons on a day - to - DATE level . This is also true for instances where the very information that is banned from dissemination to minors may be intended , from the disseminator \u2019s perspective , to overcome such negative attitudes towards persons with a different sexual orientation ...","The prohibition on the promotion of non - traditional sexual relationships does not in itself exclude the information in question from being presented in a neutral ( educational , artistic , historical ) context . Such transmission of information , if it is devoid of indications of promotion , that is , if it is not aimed at creating preferences linked to the choice of non - traditional forms of sexual identity and ensures an individualised approach , taking into account the specific features of the psychological and physiological development of children in a given age group and the nature of the specific issue being clarified , may be conducted with the help of experts such as teachers , doctors or psychologists .","... does not signify a negative appraisal by the ORG of non - traditional sexual relationships as such , and is not intended to belittle the honour and dignity of citizens who are involved in such relationships ...","... can not be regarded as containing official censure for non - traditional sexual relationships , in particular homosexuality , far less their prohibition ...","... the person [ disseminating information ] must understand that what appears to him or her as the straightforward provision of information may , in a specific situation , resemble activism ( promotion ) , if it is shown that the aim was to disseminate ( or especially to impose ) information with the above - mentioned content . At the same time , only intentional commission by a person of the corresponding public activities , directly targeted at promoting non - traditional sexual relations among minors , or intentional commission of these actions by a person who was fully aware that there could be minors among those receiving the information , is punishable ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["10","14"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146701","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HANSEN v. NORWAY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant lives at GPE , GPE .","In DATE PERSON , who was then the applicant \u2019s wife , bought a property named Ekheim from him for MONEY ( ORG ) , currently corresponding to MONEY ( ORG ) . The couple drew up marital agreements ( \u201c ektepakt \u201d ) in DATE and DATE .","On DATE PERSON and the applicant concluded an agreement stipulating that they each owned PERCENT of the PERSON estate , regardless of what was stated or might follow from formal entitlements ( hereinafter referred to as the joint ownership agreement ) .","Subsequently , after their divorce , the applicant lodged an action against PERSON ORG ( tingrett ) , seeking a ruling to the effect that the marital agreements were invalid and that the joint ownership agreement was valid . By a judgment of DATE , ORG found against the applicant and in favour of the respondent , concluding that the marital agreements were valid and that the joint ownership agreement was invalid . The applicant did not appeal against this judgment , which gained legal force .","In DATE PERSON sold the PERSON estate to ORG , a limited liability company , for ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings before ORG against ORG claiming that he had title to PERCENT of the PERSON estate and seeking , firstly , an order that the latter convey PERCENT of the property to him and , secondly , that he held a pre - emption right with respect to PERCENT .","According to the summary of the applicant \u2019s submissions made by ORG in its judgment referred to below , the applicant argued in the main as follows :","( a ) The question was how to interpret the former spouses\u2019 joint ownership agreement of CARDINAL DATE . In the case that had previously been decided by ORG on DATE , the subject - matter of the dispute had been whether the marital agreements from DATE and DATE were valid . The subject - matter in the present case was different . CARDINAL spouses having completely separate property had the opportunity to conclude a mutual agreement involving an obligation of performance for each party . According to legal doctrine , such a contract was not dependent on any condition as to form .","( b ) The contract had been a reality in the present case . ORG had purchased the CARDINAL of the Ekheim estate that had been in PERSON ownership , not the CARDINAL owned by the applicant , because PERSON had had no right to sell CARDINAL . Consequently , ORG ought to transfer by deed of conveyance CARDINAL of the PERSON estate back to the applicant .","( c ) The applicant further submitted that in its DATE judgment ORG had not reviewed the validity of the joint ownership agreement . In any event , the legal force of that judgment extended only to the relationship between PERSON and the applicant , not between ORG and the applicant . The applicant referred to legal doctrine , according to which a judgment as a main rule only had legal force in the relationship between the parties to the proceedings . Moreover , the parties\u2019 arguments ought to be taken as a starting point in the assessment of whether any new factual circumstances had arisen .","( d ) The applicant \u2019s argument was that in the period since DATE the estate had increased so greatly in value that ORG now had to assess the ownership issue independently of the conclusion reached in the DATE judgment . At that time the mortgages on the property had clearly exceeded its value and it had therefore been unproblematic to hold that , in light of an on - going bankruptcy at the time , the applicant would not have been in a better position in the absence of the marriage settlement agreements . It would be unreasonable if PERSON or her successors should be able to profit from the tremendous increase in the property \u2019s value .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG found in favour of the respondent PERSON , on the ground that the applicant did not have title to the property in question as the respondent company had derived its rights from PERSON and ORG had ruled in her favour in its DATE judgment . It rejected the applicant \u2019s argument based on legal doctrine that the DATE judgment only had legal force between the parties by referring to another passage in the legal manual in question from which it appeared that the point only applied to disputes between a private party and public authorities . The action brought by the applicant had no public - law aspects and ORG did not consider that the legal doctrine referred to had any bearing on the present case .","The applicant appealed against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE to ORG ( lagmannsrett ) . He argued in particular that ORG had confused his pleadings and references to legal doctrine made at the oral hearing and had shortened the overall duration of the hearing from DATE initially scheduled to TIME . TIME into the hearing ORG had truncated the hearing of the applicant \u2019s witnesses , including the presentation of documentary evidence regarding the disputed agreements . ORG hearing record had also been marred by formal mistakes .","On DATE ORG warned the applicant that it envisaged refusing admission of his appeal and gave him until DATE to comment . After an extension of this time - limit to CARDINAL DATE the applicant on the latter date requested that his appeal be admitted for examination or , in the alternative , that ORG quash ORG judgment and refer the case back to ORG for fresh examination . On CARDINAL and DATE he filed additional submissions .","In a unanimous decision ( beslutning ) of DATE ORG concluded that it refused to admit the appeal ( \u201c Anken nektes fremmet \u201d ) , giving the following reasons :","\u201c The High Court finds it clear that the appeal will not succeed , and that its admission should therefore be refused pursuant to LAW ) of LAW . \u201d","The applicant appealed against ORG decision to ORG , arguing notably that the refusal of admission of the appeal lacked reasons .","On DATE ORG ( H\u00f8yesteretts ankeutvalg ) , pointing out that its jurisdiction was confined to reviewing the High Court procedure ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) , unanimously found it clear that the appeal would not succeed and therefore rejected the appeal under LAW ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178748","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KAIMOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["Ms Damani Kaimova , Ms PERSON , and PERSON were born on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and DATE , respectively . They live in GPE . The first applicant is the mother , the second applicant is a daughter , and the third applicant is the widow of the late Mr GPE .","On DATE Mr GPE was arrested for being a member of an illegal military organisation in GPE . He remained in detention throughout the investigation and trial . On DATE ORG of GPE found him guilty of charges related to the military organisation and illegal acquisition of weapons . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .","In the meantime , he was charged with attempted murder of lawenforcement officials , with making a homemade explosive , and other offences . He was convicted as charged by ORG of GPE on DATE and sentenced to DATE imprisonment .","Prior to his detention Mr GPE had been diagnosed with tuberculosis for which he had been receiving outpatient treatment in a local hospital .","On admission to a remand prison Mr GPE informed the custodial authorities of his history of tuberculosis . A chest X - ray in DATE examination revealed the signs of that disease . A standard treatment with first - line medication was prescribed .","NORP In DATE Mr GPE was sent to serve his sentence to GPE . In DATE he was admitted to prison medical institution no . CARDINAL in Nizhnekamsk , where his tuberculosis was cured as confirmed by a medical board on DATE .","On DATE Mr GPE was discharged from the prison medical institution to remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE . Shortly thereafter his health worsened .","On DATE the prison authorities ordered his admission to prison medical institution no . CARDINAL in PERSON ( \u201c the prison hospital \u201d ) where Mr GPE was diagnosed with tuberculosis of the right lung at the stage of tissue destruction . Treatment with second - line drugs was prescribed .","In DATE and DATE doctors noted progression of the disease . At that time Mr GPE started coughing up blood . An amended intense treatment brought his condition under control .","On DATE , in response to Mr GPE \u2019s \u201c negligent attitude towards his treatment \u201d , a doctor talked to him about the importance of taking his drugs regularly . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the doctor had repeated talks with him on the issue .","In DATE , the first applicant visited her son . Mr GPE was in a poor health . He claimed that no treatment had been given to him and that \u201c the medical staff [ had ] paid absolutely no attention to his condition \u201d .","On DATE , CARDINAL TIME and DATE the doctor responsible for Mr GPE \u2019s treatment again noted in the medical file that the patient was not taking his drugs as prescribed and insisted that he should follow medical instructions properly . The medical records were not signed by PERSON .","By DATE Mr GPE \u2019s condition became serious . He was no longer able to leave his bed .","On DATE an inmate of the remand prison allegedly informed the first applicant that her son \u2019s condition had become very serious and that no medical care was being given to him .","DATE PERSON , a lawyer working with the NORP ORG , interviewed Mr GPE in the prison hospital . He said that he had not received the medicines , as the prison hospital did not have them . The prison hospital \u2019s management refused to accept parcels with drugs for detainees .","Mr GPE died of heart failure caused by tuberculosis on DATE . The first applicant did not allow an autopsy to take place .","According to the ORG , the investigating authorities carried out a criminal inquiry into the circumstances of Mr GPE \u2019s death , which ended with a decision of DATE not to open a criminal case .","On DATE PERSON asked the head of ORG to investigate the circumstances of Mr GPE \u2019s death . He pointed out that the detainee had complained of the lack of treatment in detention . A copy of the interview record of DATE was attached to the request .","The investigating authorities interviewed PERSON , who confirmed his statements , and PERSON , the head of the tuberculosis unit responsible for Mr GPE \u2019s treatment in DATE and DATE . The doctor stated that the patient had received tuberculosis treatment until DATE , when he had refused to take any drugs .","On DATE , citing statements by PERSON , the investigating authorities concluded that there had been no appearance of negligence on the part of the medical authorities . They decided not to open a criminal case .","DATE a higher - ranking investigator overruled that decision , noting that the investigation had not been thorough , in particular , because no medical documents had been collected .","The investigator again refused to open a criminal case on CARDINAL DATE . That decision was annulled by the higher - ranking authority on CARDINAL DATE for want of necessary investigative measures , in view of the investigator \u2019s failure to rectify the shortcomings already identified in the previous review decisions .","DATE after the annulment of his previous decision , the investigator again refused to open a criminal case , having based his new decision on the same evidence and arguments as before .","In the meantime , PERSON submitted a new criminal complaint to the ORG in GPE . The authorities were called on to verify whether the alleged inaction of the medical authorities had amounted to the deprivation of medical care , an offence under LAW . On DATE the case was forwarded to the GPE district police station in GPE .","A police investigator interviewed a tuberculosis specialist , who had treated Mr GPE , and a prison nurse . They unanimously stated that the patient had refused treatment .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigator refused to open a criminal case . Relying on the above statements and Mr GPE \u2019s medical history , he found that the latter \u2019s death had resulted from his own careless decision in not taking the prescribed drugs , and that the medical authorities had taken all reasonable steps to convince him to re - initiate the treatment .","The first applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . Her appeal was rejected , in the final instance , by ORG of GPE on DATE . The courts concluded that the investigation into Mr GPE \u2019s death had been thorough and comprehensive . The decision refusing the institution of criminal proceedings had been based on the examination of the medical file and statements by a number of witnesses , including the medical personnel of the prison hospital . The courts endorsed the investigator \u2019s conclusion that Mr GPE had refused treatment and had not followed the recommendations of the medical personnel . The courts also noted that the first applicant had been aware of Mr GPE \u2019s behaviour and had not made any complaints about the quality of the treatment at that time .","Following the communication of the application to ORG , they submitted that on CARDINAL and DATE the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , had been overruled by higherranking officials and additional investigative measures had been ordered . In particular , a medical expert examination was to be performed .","According to the applicants\u2019 correspondence of DATE , the criminal investigation was pending . There is no further information about the outcome ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158501","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NAGMETOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son , PERSON , participated in a public gathering in the village of GPE , in the GPE district of ORG . CARDINAL people took part , raising allegations of corruption against local public officials . At TIME officers of the special mobile unit encircled the participants and fired several warning shots in the air .","Thereafter , the gathering was dispersed by the authorities with the use of firearms ( see also PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . PERSON was wounded by a tear gas grenade and died of his wounds . CARDINAL other people were seriously wounded ; a large number of people sustained injuries and were arrested .","On DATE , the prosecutor of GPE initiated criminal proceedings on charges of murder and illegally handling firearms ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) and assigned the case to an investigator .","A forensic expert examined the deceased \u2019s body and extracted the objects that killed him .","On DATE , the investigator commissioned a ballistics report from ORG of ORG of the ORG to determine the type of the grenade , the type of rifle used to fire it and whether the grenade had striae that could be used for identifying the rifle .","On CARDINAL DATE the ballistics expert issued a report and concluded as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The forensic expert was given the following CARDINAL objects for examination : a grenade with a special charge ; and an obturator with a special charge ( a QUANTITY cartridge used with a carbine type KS-CARDINAL ( KS-CARDINAL M ) ) . It has not been possible to determine the exact make of the tear gas grenade .","NORP ... It would not be possible to use the obturator on the body of the grenade to identify the specific weapon used . It would however be possible to use the separate obturator to identify the weapon used , if the weapon were provided for examination . \u201d","On DATE the investigating authority commissioned another ballistics report to identify the rifle used to fire the grenade extracted from the body of the applicant \u2019s son . On DATE the Forensic Expert Centre of the Dagestan Ministry of the ORG declined to carry out an examination , referring to the absence of \u201c facilities or equipment for testshooting CARDINAL PERSON canisters with special gases \u201d .","On an unspecified date , a number of carbines used by officers of the special mobile unit on DATE were seized .","In DATE and DATE the investigating authority commissioned ballistics reports from ORG of ORG of the ORG and another local expert institution . However , the reports were not produced , apparently , on account of lack of sufficient technical facilities .","On DATE ORG of ORG was asked to prepare a ballistics report in order to determine which carbine had been fired at the victim . The investigating authority submitted the objects extracted from the victim \u2019s body , as well as CARDINAL carbines .","On DATE the authorities took the decision to open another criminal case concerning the charge of abuse of power by a public official causing death ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) . It appears from the decision that it concerned other people rather than the applicant \u2019s son . The decision read as follows :","\u201c It was established that police officers had had recourse to firearms ... Officers of the special mobile unit fired gunshots , using QUANTITY , and tear gas grenades violating a directive dated DATE and acting in excess of their competence ... It is prohibited to fire these tear gas canisters at a person . As a result , Mr N. and Mr A. sustained injuries . \u201d","Later on , the above - mentioned cases were joined to be investigated together .","On DATE ORG issued a report , which reads as follows :","\u201c ... As the relevant QUANTITY had not been submitted for test shots , a request for CARDINAL PERSON cartridges was made with the relevant department of ORG of GPE ... [ Footnote : PERSON cartridges are used for training purposes relating to the use of KS-CARDINAL and KS-CARDINAL M carbines . These cartridges are similar to those normally used with these carbines . The only difference is that they do not contain the irritating chemical substance . ] ...","The research part","...","NORP ... I note that the tear gas grenade has no striae left by the carbine used to fire it . This may be explained by the fact that the grenade could not have had contact with the interior of the carbine as it had been loaded into it with the aid of CARDINAL obturators ...","Test shots have been done in respect of the KS-CARDINAL and KSCARDINAL M carbines that were submitted for the examination . The purpose of the test shots was to observe the striae left on the obturators of the grenades fired from these carbines , and to compare the striae with the striae left on the obturator of the grenade used against the victim . I have used CARDINAL PERSON cartridges for the test shots . These cartridges are similar to those that were submitted for the examination ...","NORP ... In view of the variance of the results of the test shots , it was impracticable to identify the relevant carbine on the basis of the striae left on the obturators ... in particular , on account of the elasticity and low thermo - resistance of the material used in the obturators ... \u201d","On DATE another ballistics report was sought from ORG ( \u201c the Institute \u201d ) . ORG was likewise provided with CARDINAL carbines and the objects extracted from the victim \u2019s body .","On DATE the expert from the ORG issued a report stating that it was not practicable to determine which of the examined carbines had been used to shoot the cartridge . The forensic expert explained that she had been provided with PERSON cartridges for the purpose of her research and for test shots , whereas the elements extracted from the victim \u2019s body were parts of a grenade . The forensic expert specified that PERSON cartridges and tear gas grenades had \u201c different geometric parameters and are made of materials with different characteristics \u201d .","On DATE the investigating authority suspended the investigation .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son , Mr PERSON , brought court proceedings challenging the alleged inaction of the investigating authority . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of PERSON dismissed the complaint . The court held as follows :","\u201c Over seventy people were interviewed in the course of the investigation . The necessary ( medical , ballistics , criminological ) examinations were carried out ... All carbines , which had been used by the officers , were seized ... All relevant officers were identified ... The logbooks concerning distribution of weapons and ammunition were examined ... On CARDINAL occasions CARDINAL different expert institutions were asked to submit ballistics reports . The requests were not complied with on account of the absence of the necessary equipment ... Attempts were made to identify the relevant rifle in other expert institutions ... Those were not equipped for this kind of forensic examination ... Subsequently , ORG was not able to identify the weapon ... Another request is pending before ORG ... So , the investigating authority has carried out all the investigative measures that were possible in the absence of an identified suspect . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .","NORP The applicant \u2019s son , Mr PERSON , also sought a judicial review of the suspension decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG held that the suspension of the investigation was justified . However , on DATE the appeal court quashed the judgment and ordered a re - examination of the complaint . In a judgment of DATE ORG granted the complaint , considering that by failing to submit appropriate comparative material to the forensic expert , the investigating authority failed to take \u201c exhaustive measures aimed at identifying the perpetrator \u201d .","On an unspecified date , the applicant became aware that the evidence extracted from the body of his son had been lost .","In DATE the applicant requested that the authorities commission an additional ballistics report and complained about the loss of the evidence .","On DATE the investigation was resumed . It appears that the investigating authority took some measures to clarify what had happened to the evidence . In particular , armourers from the special mobile unit were interviewed . The investigator also made an enquiry with the ORG referring to his difficulties in interpreting the report of CARDINAL DATE . It remains unclear what reply was received to this enquiry .","According to the Government , the enquiry about the loss of evidence yielded no specific results , in particular on account of the death of the investigator in the case and the redeployment of the investigation unit .","On DATE the investigator again suspended the investigation .","On DATE the acting prosecutor of GPE determined that this decision was unlawful and ordered a resumption of the investigation . The decision reads as follows :","\u201c Having examined the file , I conclude that the investigation did not exhaust the measures aimed at establishing the circumstances of the crime , at collecting the evidence and identifying the rifle used to cause the victim \u2019s death ... In particular , the request for a ballistics report to ORG was submitted with PERSON cartridges instead of the type of cartridges used for causing the victim \u2019s death . The different geometric parameters of these cartridges prevented the experts from identifying the carbine used against the victim ...","Following the resumption of the investigation in DATE the investigator merely made an enquiry instead of actually submitting grenades for comparative research ...","It does not follow from the expert report of CARDINAL DATE that it was impossible to identify the rifle , on the condition that cartridges of the relevant type were provided .","The evidence extracted from the victim \u2019s body was examined for the purposes of the above expert report . Thus , the current unavailability of this evidence is not an obstacle for seeking a new ballistics report from the same institution . \u201d","Following the resumption of the investigation the investigator made enquiries with the ORG about the possibility of carrying out a ballistics examination in the absence of the evidence extracted from the victim \u2019s body . Whereas it remains unclear what reply was received from the ORG , it does not appear that any new ballistics examination was carried out .","On DATE the investigating authority issued a decision suspending the investigation . This decision reads as follows :","\u201c It follows from the evidence in the case file that on DATE inhabitants of nearby villages and other people blocked the road with stones and logs ... In reply to lawful orders from the police requiring them to disperse , unidentified people threw stones at the police , causing various physical injuries to CARDINAL officers . To retaliate , the police officers used firearms ...","Officers of the special mobile unit fired shots with their pump - action shotguns towards the crowd , using QUANTITY , and a tear gas grenade . Thereby they violated a directive dated DATE ... and acted in excess of their competence . As a result , [ the applicant \u2019s son ] and others sustained shotgun wounds ... causing [ him ] to die on the spot .","...","It is impossible to commission another ballistics report in the absence of the cartridge . It has not been possible to identify the person who shot [ the applicant \u2019s son ] . \u201d","The applicant did not challenge this decision ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170650","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GAVRILYAK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140775","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MA\u0160IREVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award;Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Sombor .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant , a practising lawyer , filed a civil claim with ORG in ORG , seeking payment of fees from a private insurance company ( \u201c the respondent \u201d ) for the service rendered on account of a legal fee agreement concluded in DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered that payment ( izdao platni nalog ) . The respondent objected to this order .","On DATE , in the course of a hearing , the respondent filed a counter - claim , requesting ORG to declare the DATE contract null and void .","On DATE ORG decided to join the proceeding initiated by the claim and the counter - claim .","On DATE ORG quashed the payment order of CARDINAL DATE , rejected the applicant \u2019s claim , declared a part of the contract void and decided that the other part of the contract remained in force .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this judgment .","On DATE ORG in ORG upheld this judgment on appeal .","On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant filed an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) .","On DATE ORG returned the file to ORG , which had apparently failed to adjudicate a part of the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE ORG adopted a supplementary judgment ( dopunska presuda ) , rejecting that part of the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law ( odbacio reviziju kao nedozvoljenu ) , stating that the applicant was not entitled to lodge it , given that LAW prescribes that an appeal on points of law may only be submitted by an attorney at law , not the plaintiff personally . ORG specified that , according to this LAW , parties to the proceedings had lost the legal capacity to file an appeal on points of law individually , even if they were themselves attorneys at law .","The decision of CARDINAL DATE was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG .","On DATE ORG requested the applicant to specify his complaint .","On DATE the applicant filed his amended constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as incomplete ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158353","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BASYUK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Josep Casadevall;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s daughter , PERSON . , and her child NORP , when crossing a road , were hit by a car driven by PERSON It appears that the driver called an ambulance and the police . According to her statements to the police , PERSON . and the child had stopped at first in the middle of the road giving her the impression that they would wait until the car passed , but then had unexpectedly started running further across the road making the collision inevitable .","On DATE the police inspected the site and questioned some witnesses . They submitted that Ms. PERSON . and her daughter had been crossing the road at some distance from the marked pedestrian crossing .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s daughter died in hospital . As to the injuries of his granddaughter , they were not dangerous for life .","On DATE a forensic medical examination of the body of PERSON . , which had been started on DATE , was completed . It established that she had died from the injuries sustained in the accident . The expert also established the victim \u2019s position in respect of the car at the collision .","On DATE another expert report was issued . It stated that it had been technically impossible for PERSON to avoid the accident .","On DATE an investigator of ORG of ORG of ORG ( \u0441\u043b\u0456\u0434\u0447\u0438\u0439 \u0432\u0456\u0434\u0434\u0456\u043b\u0443 \u0440\u043e\u0437\u0441\u043b\u0456\u0434\u0443\u0432\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0434\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0436\u043d\u044c\u043e-\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u0442\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0433\u043e\u0434 GPE \u0432 \u041e\u0434\u0435\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0456\u0439 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456 ) delivered a ruling refusing to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the accident . It was established that PERSON . and her daughter had been crossing the road unexpectedly and not on a pedestrian crossing , and when the driver , PERSON , had seen them , it had been technically impossible for her to avoid the accident .","NORP On unspecified dates thereafter CARDINAL additional witnesses of the accident , whom the applicant had identified in the meantime , stated that the collision had taken place at the pedestrian crossing .","The Government submitted to ORG a copy of the notarised agreement of DATE signed by PERSON and her father , for CARDINAL part , and the applicant , his wife , PERSON . \u2019s widower Mr Dr. ( the applicant \u2019s son - in - law ) and PERSON , another daughter of PERSON . , for the other part . Its contents are as follows . PERSON and her father undertook to pay the other party ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( then equivalent of QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) \u201c in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the traffic accident \u201d . This obligation would be considered discharged if the payment was made to anyone of the cosignatories for the other party . It was additionally noted that , by that time , PERSON had also paid UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( then equivalent of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of the GPE medical treatment . In exchange , the ORG family undertook not to seek initiation of criminal proceedings and not to lodge any claims or complaints against PERSON In case they did not comply , they would have to pay back to PERSON , within DATE , the amount of the compensation received . As an attachment to the agreement , there was a receipt signed by PERSON , the applicant \u2019s son - in - law , in confirmation that he had received the money in question .","The case file did not contain any further information or documents regarding the aforementioned agreement or any follow - up to it . The applicant neither mentioned it in any of his submissions to the ORG nor commented on it in reply to the Government \u2019s observations . Accordingly , on DATE the ORG sent a factual request to the applicant with a view to clarifying the matter . More specifically , the applicant was requested to comment on the agreement of DATE , namely , to specify whether his family had received the amounts in question and , if so , whether he had had to recover them to the other party given his subsequent criminal complaints in her respect . The applicant replied that he had signed the agreement in question without reading it while being affected by the stress and sorrow caused by the death of his only child . He further noted that it was not him , but his son - in - law , who had received the money from the driver \u2019s family ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG of ORG that the investigation of the traffic accident , which had caused the death of his daughter , had been lengthy and ineffective .","On DATE ORG replied to him that the investigation had been entrusted to the GPE law - enforcement authorities .","On DATE the ORG further informed the applicant that it remained open for him to challenge the decision of DATE refusing to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the accident ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( \u201c the city prosecutor \u201d ) about the ineffectiveness of the investigation into the death of his daughter .","As a result , on DATE the city prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE as premature and based on incomplete investigation . He ordered additional investigation , which was to include , in particular , the following measures : establishing the gravity of the child \u2019s injuries and considering the possibility of her questioning in a pedagogue \u2019s presence ; questioning the applicant as to how he had identified some additional eye - witnesses of the accident , of whom he had informed the investigation ; questioning those witnesses ; and considering the possibility of an additional on - site inspection .","On DATE another decision not to open a criminal case in respect of the accident was delivered .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the regional prosecutor \u201d ) quashed the decision of DATE as premature and remitted the case to the traffic police for additional investigation .","On DATE another forensic technical expert examination report was issued . This time the expert had , in particular , to assess the conflicting accounts of the events given by the witnesses ( some of them submitted that the accident had taken place at an unregulated pedestrian crossing , while others maintained that the victims had been crossing the road at some distance from that crossing ) . It was found impossible to reconcile those CARDINAL versions .","On DATE the investigator again refused to initiate criminal proceedings having found that there was no case to answer .","On DATE the regional prosecutor quashed the above decision and opened a criminal case against PERSON on suspicion of a breach of traffic rules causing the death of the applicant \u2019s daughter . The investigator previously dealing with the case was disciplined for the inadequate and lengthy investigation .","On DATE the applicant was attributed the status of an aggrieved party .","On DATE the applicant signed a statement in confirmation that his right to lodge a civil claim had been explained to him . He noted that he intended to lodge such a claim later in the course of the pre - trial investigation once he decided on the amount of the damages .","On DATE a forensic medical expert established that the death of PERSON . had resulted from the injuries sustained by her in the accident .","On DATE the investigator ordered a complex forensic medical and technical expert examination . On DATE it was completed . Having analysed the injuries sustained by PERSON . and her daughter , as well as the damages to the car of PERSON , the expert established the position of the victims at the time of the accident .","In DATE the applicant complained to the regional prosecutor once again that the investigation was not progressing .","On DATE yet another technical examination was assigned , and on DATE it was completed . The expert concluded that , if the victims had been crossing the road not on the pedestrian crossing , it had been technically impossible for the driver to avoid the accident . If , however , they had been on the pedestrian crossing , it had been possible for her to avoid the accident .","On DATE the father of the driver involved in the accident , Mr M. , lodged a civil claim against the applicant and his family seeking the termination of the agreement of DATE and the recovery of the amounts paid under that agreement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE Mr M. , however , withdrew that claim for unknown reason . The information about these events has been provided to the ORG by the applicant in his reply to the factual request of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , without any further details .","On DATE the investigator requested the GPE transport police to establish the whereabouts of the car involved in the accident and to find who its owner was at that time .","On DATE the car involved in the accident was attached as material evidence in the criminal investigation .","On DATE a reconstruction of the circumstances of the accident was conducted with the applicant \u2019s participation . He showed where his granddaughter and the body of his daughter had been found .","Having regard to those statements of the applicant , on DATE the investigator assigned another forensic technical expert examination . On DATE it was completed . The expert found it impossible to establish the exact place of the accident owing to the absence of the documentation regarding the car \u2019s brake trace . Nor could the expert establish whether it had been technically possible for the driver to avoid the accident .","On DATE the investigator terminated the proceedings for want of evidence of the driver \u2019s guilt . As noted in his decision , CARDINAL witnesses stated that the accident had taken place on the pedestrian crossing , while other CARDINAL witnesses stated that it had been outside the crossing , and it appeared impossible to establish the truth .","On DATE the regional prosecutor quashed the above decision and ordered additional investigation . He noted that the initial investigative measures , such as the accident reconstruction , had not reflected all the issues essential for the subsequent technical expert evaluations to establish the pertinent facts with precision . Furthermore , the inquiry authorities had inadequately complied with the assignments given by the investigator .","On DATE the investigator ordered an additional forensic medical and technical expert examination . On DATE it was completed . It established , in particular , the position of the victims in relation to the car . The examination also confirmed that the applicant \u2019s daughter had died as a result of the accident . Lastly , the expert found it impossible to establish at what speed PERSON had been driving at the time of the accident .","On DATE , following the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure , the information on the case was entered in ORG .","On DATE the investigator repeatedly questioned a number of witnesses .","On DATE another technical expert examination was assigned . Its results are unknown .","According to the most recent information from the Government , as of CARDINAL DATE the investigation was ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168816","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KIRIL ZLATKOV NIKOLOV v. FRANCE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Brought promptly before judge or other officer;Judge or other officer exercising judicial power)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","In connection with an investigation into an international prostitution ring , measures were taken to intercept telephone conversations in accordance with Article CARDINAL of LAW , on CARDINAL mobile telephone line in particular : from TIME on DATE until CARDINAL p.m. on DATE , on the basis of an order of CARDINAL DATE by the ORG judge responsible for matters concerning civil liberties and detention ( \u201c the liberties and detention judge \u201d ) , authorising interceptions for DATE ; and from CARDINAL DATE until DATE , on the basis of an order of CARDINAL DATE by the same judge . CARDINAL conversations with a person using a mobile phone belonging to a certain PERSON , which were recorded on CARDINAL DATE , appeared to incriminate the applicant : CARDINAL between a woman identified as ORG and a man known as PERSON , later identified as the applicant , and the other between the same woman and another man , in which the same PERSON was referred to in terms suggesting that he was involved in the prostitution ring .","A judicial investigation was opened on DATE into alleged offences of living on the earnings of prostitution with aggravating circumstances , committed as part of an organised gang ; trafficking in human beings , committed as part of an organised gang ; and criminal conspiracy . A warrant for the applicant \u2019s arrest was issued on DATE by Judge GPE , the vice - president responsible for the investigation at the LOC tribunal de grande instance . After being arrested in GPE pursuant to the warrant , which had in the meantime been converted into a NORP arrest warrant , the applicant was handed over to the NORP authorities at TIME on DATE ; he was then brought before the GPE public prosecutor and immediately placed in administrative detention in GPE . At TIME on DATE he was brought for the first time before PERSON , the investigating judge dealing with the case , who placed him under formal investigation for the above - mentioned offences . At TIME on DATE , the PERSON liberties and detention judge , to whom the matter had been referred by the investigating judge , interviewed the applicant and remanded him in custody pending trial .","Although the alleged offences were classified as serious crimes , the interviews and confrontations carried out during the investigation were not recorded , by virtue of the exception provided for in the seventh paragraph of LAW , as applicable at the material time .","...","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of ORG to have various procedural steps declared void , including the order for his detention , the interviews and confrontations carried out during the investigation and the interception of various telephone conversations . He submitted CARDINAL requests for preliminary rulings on constitutionality , concerning respectively the seventh paragraph of LAW and the seventh paragraph of LAW , pursuant to which no video recording had been made of the interviews and confrontations .","On DATE ORG dismissed most of the application to have the procedural steps declared void ( except for CARDINAL point concerning the interception of telephone conversations ) , in particular restating the reason given in its previous decision of CARDINAL DATE . In CARDINAL further judgments delivered on DATE , it referred the requests for preliminary rulings on constitutionality to ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , relying in particular on LAW , LAW and LAW and the constitutional principle of equality .","On DATE ORG referred the requests for preliminary rulings on constitutionality to ORG and deferred judgment pending the ORG \u2019s decision .","In a decision of DATE ( no . DATE - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ORG ) ORG declared the seventh paragraphs of ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW unconstitutional , holding that by providing for an exception to the rule of compulsory video recording of interviews in connection with serious offences where such interviews were carried out during preliminary or judicial investigations into serious offences relating to organised crime or undermining the fundamental interests of the nation , the impugned provisions infringed the principle of equality . It pointed out that the abrogation of those provisions would take effect from the publication of its decision and would apply in the case of persons in police custody or under formal investigation who were questioned or interviewed from DATE .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . ... It rejected his argument that there had been violations of the Convention ( he had relied on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and , more broadly , the right to a fair trial and the prohibition of discrimination ) and the LAW as a result of the application of the seventh paragraphs of ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in his case . Firstly , it held that ORG had specified that the abrogation of the provisions in question would apply only in the case of persons in police custody or under formal investigation who were questioned or interviewed following the publication of its decision , so that his argument had in that respect become devoid of purpose . Secondly , it observed that the applicant had not been questioned in police custody and that , although his interviews by the investigating judge had not been recorded on video , \u201c this did not result in any infringement of his rights under the LAW , be it his defence rights or the right to a fair trial , seeing that he was given the option of receiving legal assistance , and had the opportunity to review the manner in which the questions and answers had been transcribed in the record , which had been approved by a registrar , to ask for any corrections to be made and to challenge , at any stage of the proceedings , the meaning and scope of his statements as transcribed \u201d .","... Lastly , it held that \u201c it is not possible for anyone other than the party concerned to complain of a breach of the substantive requirements governing police custody , or of the lack of a video recording of police questioning or interviews by the investigating judge , in support of an application to have a procedural step or document declared void \u201d ; accordingly , the applicant was not entitled to object that the judgment appealed against had stated that there was no cause to declare void any police questioning or interviews by the investigating judge concerning individuals other than himself .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the alleged offences , although it dismissed the charge of trafficking in human beings . It sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) .","In a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the judgment as to the issue of guilt and sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment with a minimum term of CARDINAL of the sentence , as well as imposing a fine EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL and a DATE exclusion order from the d\u00e9partements of ORG .","An appeal on points of law by the applicant \u2013 whose sole argument was that NORP criminal law was not applicable \u2013 was rejected by ORG in a judgment of DATE .","The applicant was released on DATE after serving his sentence .","..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142422","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BROSA v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE , the applicant published an article in a local newspaper concerning the political orientation of the Berger-CARDINAL-e . V. association ( \u201c the association \u201d ) . Subsequently , the newspaper published the association \u2019s response to that article describing the applicant \u2019s statements as \u201c intellectually weak and crude \u201d ( \u201c geistig schwach und primitiv \u201d ) and as \u201c pamphlets constituting a public danger \u201d ( \u201c gemeingef\u00e4hrliche NORP \u201d ) . The newspaper also published CARDINAL letters to the editor . CARDINAL of them was written by ORG , an elected town councillor , who contended that the association had no extreme right - wing tendencies ( \u201c keine rechtsradikale Vereinigung \u201d ) . He expressed that it was \u201c unfortunate that [ the applicant ] again and again manages to publicize his false accusations and to show himself as a pitiful victim \u201d ( \u201c [ ... ] bedauerlich , dass es ORG Dr. PERSON immer wieder gelingt , seine falschen Anschuldigungen \u00f6ffentlich zu machen und sich als bedauernswertes \u2018 Opfer\u2019 darzustellen [ ... ] \u201d ) . He contended that \u201c he [ the applicant ] had evoked the current situation in particular by his constant spying and false accusations \u201d ( \u201c Die derzeitige Situation hat er insbesondere durch seine st\u00e4ndigen ORG und Falschbehauptungen heraufbeschworen [ ... ] . \u201d ) .","F.G. was also running for the office of town mayor . In the run - up to the elections the applicant then distributed a leaflet with the headline : \u201c Do n\u2019t vote for an agitator \u201d ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) . The text on the leaflet maintained : \u201c GPE is the seat of several neo - NORP organisations . Particularly dangerous is the Berger-CARDINAL-e . V. , for which ORG [ last name written out ] is providing a cover . \u201d ( \u201e Am\u00f6neburg ist Sitz mehrerer NORP - Organisationen . PERSON die Berger-CARDINAL-e . ORG , die ORG . \u201c ) . The leaflet also showed photos of ORG son , the association \u2019s chairman at the time , taken by a security camera on the applicant \u2019s property TIME . The applicant explained that he had previously been attacked and that his door had been smashed repeatedly at TIME .","On DATE ORG , at ORG request , issued a civil injunction prohibiting the applicant from distributing the leaflet and making other assertions of fact ( ORG ) which might depict PERSON as a supporter of neo - NORP organisations . Any contravention was punishable by a fine of up to CARDINAL,CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) or by imprisonment of DATE . The court reasoned that the assertion that ORG had covered for a particularly dangerous neo - NORP organisation had infringed his personality rights . Because of the upcoming elections , the court found that there was a risk that the applicant might continue to distribute the leaflet or disseminate the allegations in another form .","The applicant lodged an objection with ORG . He submitted , inter alia , that the designation \u201c CARDINAL \u201d , standing for the eighth letter of the alphabet [ H ] as a reference to \u201c PERSON \u201d , was displayed by members of the association in runes and thus in a form attributed to neoNazism by the NORP federal domestic intelligence service ( GPE f\u00fcr GPE ) . In addition , the association had held a ceremony on DATE after PERSON \u2019s birthday using the colours black , white and red \u2013 the national colours of the NORP empire DATE for the invitation . In support of his allegations , the applicant referred to the association \u2019s statutes and an incident in which members of the association had shouted \u201c PERSON \u201d on the occasion of an GPE bonfire organised by the association . Lastly , he contended that there was no longer any reason for upholding the injunction , as the mayoral elections had taken place in the meantime .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the injunction . It found that to claim that someone was supporting a neo - NORP organisation amounted to an infringement of that individual \u2019s honour and social reputation and thus his or her personality rights ( allgemeines PERSON ) .","The court held that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his allegation that ORG had covered for a neo - NORP organisation . His submissions were mere conjectures and subjective interpretations . As a consequence , the court held , the applicant could not rely on the notion of freedom of expression enshrined in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The court reasoned , inter alia , that in accordance with its rules , the association had been founded in DATE , even though it had not been registered until DATE . Hence , the reference to the number CARDINAL in the name of the association could not be interpreted as support for neo - Nazism . As regards the PERSON salute on the occasion of the LOC bonfire , the applicant had failed to show that the individuals concerned were \u201c without doubt \u201d members of the association . The court acknowledged that the use of runes might indeed refer to neo - Nazism , but held that that did not suffice to prove that the association was of such a character . Lastly , the court emphasized that the applicant had \u201c confirmed his determination not to let himself be silenced as a critic of the plaintiff \u201d . Hence , the court found that the injunction needed to be maintained despite the fact that the mayoral elections had taken place in the meantime .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG judgment . The court noted , however , that there was no longer a need to adjudicate on the prohibition of further dissemination of the leaflet , as the elections had taken place in the meantime .","ORG explained that the leaflet contained CARDINAL different allegations of fact : firstly , that the association was a particularly dangerous neo - NORP organisation ; and secondly , that ORG had been aware of that fact but had nevertheless publicly supported the organisation . The applicant had failed to prove that those allegations were true . The court acknowledged that there were several indicators of the association \u2019s neo - NORP character \u201c which , all in all , may lead to the assumption that this is not a mere coincidence \u201d . The association therefore had to put up with critical questions . The aforementioned indicators were , however , not \u201c compelling proof \u201d ( zwingender PERSON ) of the association \u2019s political orientation .","In any case , the court reasoned , the applicant had failed to provide any evidence for the allegation that ORG had covered for the association . The court interpreted the applicant \u2019s statement as an allegation that ORG had knowledge of the association \u2019s neo - NORP orientation and endorsed it . Referring to the case - law of ORG , ORG acknowledged that allegations of fact may fall , as a matter of principle , under the notion of freedom of expression of LAW to the extent that they were aimed at forming public opinion ( meinungsbezogene ORG ) . The protection provided by LAW required , however , that the allegations required substantial justification . The letter to the editor written by ORG did not suffice in that regard .","On DATE the applicant complained that his right to be heard before ORG had been breached . He complained , inter alia , that the court had failed to examine the criminal files against members of the association in order to establish whether they had committed crimes of an extremist political nature .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . It held , inter alia , that the applicant had not sufficiently substantiated which files should have been examined and in which regard . Where the applicant had offered evidence by specifying a particular file , ORG had not denied that members of the association , wearing pullovers with the association \u2019s insignia , had been present at an election campaign event organised by him . Nor had ORG denied that certain members of the association had committed crimes , although they were not necessarily of an extremist political nature . Lastly , the court emphasized that according to an assessment by the ORG domestic intelligence service ( PERSON f\u00fcr GPE ) , the association was a \u201c fraternity \u201d ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) , which the service would nonetheless \u201c keep an eye on \u201d . ORG thus concluded that the applicant might have raised a suspicion at the most , but had failed to prove the association \u2019s neoNazi orientation .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He complained that his freedom of conscience , his freedom of expression and his right to a fair trial had been violated . He claimed in particular that the courts had put the onus of proof on him , whereas in the context of the expression of one \u2019s opinion it was impossible to provide evidence .","On DATE ORG , without giving reasons , refused to admit the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint for adjudication ( file no . DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177695","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VERLAGSGRUPPE DROEMER KNAUR GMBH & CO. KG v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant company is a prominent NORP book - publishing house with its registered office in GPE . In DATE it was ranked among the CARDINAL publishing firms generating the highest turnover in the NORP publishing sector .","In DATE the applicant company published a book entitled \u201c ORG \u201d written by PERSON , an author internationally renowned for her anti - Mafia publications . The book was reprinted in several editions and also published in GPE . It deals , in its CARDINAL pages , with the ORG \u2019s ties to GPE , its inner structures and its various branches . The book also recounts an event which took place in DATE in GPE where CARDINAL people of NORP nationality were killed by CARDINAL bullets in front of the NORP restaurant \u201c ORG \u201d . The killings were supposed to be the culmination of a vendetta between CARDINAL \u2018 PERSON families which had started in DATE in GPE . The incident received national and international media attention .","On pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL the book referred , by his full name , to a person called PERSON , an NORP national residing in GPE . The relevant part reads as follows ( translated , names abbreviated and emphasises added by ORG ) :","\u201c ... The public prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE investigated the NORP [ L ] for drug dealing and money laundering \u2013 he is said to have contributed to financing the electoral campaign of [ O ] with his funds . This was not to remain the sole link existing between a presumed member of the ORG and a NORP politician : in the city of GPE , the NORP [ GPE ] , who had been mentioned already in DATE in a report prepared by ORG , gained notoriety . [ PERSON ] runs the restaurant \u2018 [ Pa]\u2019 in GPE : a restaurant seating CARDINAL guests , not a bad rise for someone like [ GPE ] , who , according to statements of the investigators , had started out as a pizza baker in the pizza restaurant \u2018 Da Bruno\u2019 . After all , having contacts can be very helpful , even if , following the massacre of GPE , the pizza restaurant \u2018 Da Bruno\u2019 no longer serves as that great a reference . In any case , [ PERSON ] continued to maintain his network of relationships in GPE by generously sponsoring the local golf club . When the police performed a search of the restaurant \u2018 [ Pa]\u2019 because of [ GPE ] \u2019s alleged involvement in a murder , it ran into the then Prime Minister of GPE , [ GPE ] , and his Secretary of the ORG , [ PERSON ] \u2013 both of whom had been dining there purely as a matter of chance , as [ PERSON ] asserted . He , by the way , had excellent relations with the police : when a further search was performed , the police found an identity card in his LOC , which had been issued to him in his purported capacity as interpreter for the NORP delegation at an ORG conference in GPE . The identity card , it was stated , had been issued by the Secretary of ORG GPE . ... \u201d","As regards PERSON \u2019s presumed membership of the \u2018 PERSON , the applicant company relied on , inter alia , reports by ORG and DATE . Neither report had been made public .","The relevant passage in the report of DATE reads :","\u201c If CARDINAL takes account of the enormous reputation that [ GPE ] has and the esteem in which he is held by the NORP community , one forms the opinion that [ PERSON ] is a defacto fully - fledged member of the \u2018 PERSON clan . \u201d","The relevant parts of the report of DATE read :","\u201c According to NORP colleagues from GPE and GPE , this connection could have contributed to [ PERSON ] becoming a member of the PERSON alias \u2018 Staccu\u2019 clan . Owing to the prestigious reputation [ PERSON ] enjoys in the \u2018 NORP PERSON , he has to be a full member of the \u2018 PERSON .","...","Direct relatives of the clan live in GPE and run pizza restaurants . Their main bases are in the cities of GPE , GPE , and GPE . These bases are led by [ TIME ] , [ ORG ] and [ PERSON ] , with [ D.G. ] taking the role of the so - called \u2018 capo locale\u2019 .","...","[ ORG ] and [ PERSON ] could be in charge of investing the proceeds of drug trafficking . This theory is corroborated by the high number of good restaurants and statements from various sources that [ PERSON ] is said to have invested in several restaurants and acquired real estate in GPE and the surrounding areas . \u201d","In DATE PERSON had already been mentioned by name in the context of organised crime . He had been interviewed in a television report regarding the \u2018 PERSON in GPE and had denied any membership of or connection to the \u2018 PERSON .","After publication of the book , PERSON applied to a court for an injunction against the dissemination of the passages highlighted in the above excerpt of the book ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE , ORG issued the injunction and confirmed it on DATE after hearing both parties . It held that even though there was a public interest in reporting about organised crime , the author had acted in breach of her journalistic duties . The internal reports of ORG constituted an insufficient source for the allegations made in the book , since the reports were not intended for publication . The investigating authorities themselves had not come to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence of an offence having been committed by the plaintiff . Moreover , ORG stated , a report on a suspicion also had to include the circumstances exonerating the party affected . Accordingly , the book should have stated that the investigating authorities had not obtained any indications which would have served as a basis for filing an indictment , much less a sentence , and that in fact the investigations pursued against the plaintiff had not resulted in any such bringing of charges or in any sentencing . In addition , the court held , the publication had not made it clear that the pizza restaurant \u201c ORG \u201d , in which the murders had been perpetrated , was not identical to the pizza restaurant of the same name in which the plaintiff had worked as a pizza baker DATE prior to those deeds . Lastly , the court continued , the book had been published unlawfully because the plaintiff had not been given any opportunity to make a statement regarding the suspicion prior to publication .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s appeal against ORG judgment of DATE . It held that the book expressed a serious allegation that the plaintiff was a member of a criminal organisation and therefore seriously interfered with his personality rights . The section of the book dealing with the plaintiff did not allow an average reader to infer that the plaintiff \u2019s membership of the criminal organisation \u2018 PERSON could only be assumed vaguely . Rather , the court continued , the interplay of the many individual statements in the book created the impression that there was a very strong suspicion that the plaintiff was a member of the \u2018 PERSON . The evidentiary facts researched by the author and published by the applicant company did not constitute sufficient proof of the exceptionally grave suspicion raised in the book . The court established that even the internal report by ORG only mentioned a number of vague suspicious circumstances , for the most part without providing any details or naming any specific sources . For example , it said that because of the high respect in which the plaintiff was held in the \u201c NORP milieu \u201d , he must be a fully fledged member of the \u2018 PERSON . The internal reports only showed that owing to certain information compiled in them , some of which had not been corroborated by evidence , assumptions had been made as to the existence of certain connections . This did not seem to be a sufficient basis for publicly branding the plaintiff as a presumed \u02bdNdranghetista . Moreover , the court continued , certain statements in the book were incorrect , such as the region in which the plaintiff had been born . Other statements were fragmentary , as the investigation during which the plaintiff \u2019s restaurant was searched by the police had been discontinued . In that regard , the court held that the book had failed to report exonerating circumstances . Even though authors did not have to await the outcome of an investigation before reporting on a corresponding suspicion , if the reporting on a suspicion was reliant on investigations that had been carried out DATE previously , the author could not ignore the fact that the investigation proceedings had come to an end without any charges having been brought .","In the main proceedings , in addition to his request that the injunction be upheld , PERSON applied for damages in the amount of LAW .","On DATE , ORG upheld the injunction , but dismissed the plaintiff \u2019s application for damages . ORG reiterated the reasoning it had given in the judgment of DATE and that given by ORG in its judgment of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The court further reiterated that the author had not sufficiently researched the basis for the allegation that PERSON was a member of the ORG , since all the sources only indicated vague suspicious circumstances pointing at FAC Secondly , the author had not complied with the \u201c absolute requirement \u201d of presenting exonerating circumstances . Lastly , the court held that the publication was unlawful as the author had not given the plaintiff the possibility to comment on the allegation prior to publication .","ORG dismissed the plaintiff \u2019s application for damages as being ill - founded . It held that even though the applicant company had breached the permissible boundaries of reporting on suspicions as well as its journalistic diligence , it had not done so in a serious manner . Accordingly , it sufficed to stop the dissemination of the impugned statements but did not require a payment of damages .","During the proceedings before ORG the applicant company offered to furnish certain evidence supporting the suspicion published in the book . In particular , it offered to provide the names of witnesses who could allegedly confirm the statements made in the internal report of ORG and the suspicion published in the book . ORG refused to hear the witnesses as it found that they would be unable to give evidence regarding the alleged membership and that the applicant company had failed to identify the specific issues on which the witnesses could testify .","The applicant company did not appeal against the judgment of ORG . The plaintiff , however , appealed against the dismissal of his claim for damages . Consequently , in so far as the judgment ordered the injunction , it became final .","On DATE , ORG , in addition to the injunction , sentenced the applicant company to pay damages in the amount of ORG CARDINAL and dismissed the plaintiff \u2019s further claim for damages . The court stated that the prerequisite for any entitlement to pecuniary compensation was a serious violation of personality rights which could not be compensated in any other way . It found that that prerequisite had been met in the plaintiff \u2019s case . As far as the violation of the plaintiff \u2019s personality right was concerned , ORG endorsed the reasoning of ORG . It expressly conceded to the applicant company that there was great public interest in obtaining information about criminal organisations and \u201c that the motivation of the author and of the defendant [ in the instant case : applicant company ] for informing the public on the activities pursued by the \u2018 PERSON in GPE was commendable and honest \u201d . However , ORG continued , the applicant company had acted culpably to a significant extent . It had been grossly negligent on the part of the applicant company to disseminate an allegation based on a suspicion which seriously interfered with the plaintiff \u2019s personality right in spite of the fact that the plaintiff had obviously not been given an opportunity to be heard and that the allegation had been disseminated without including the necessary information that the murder investigation addressed by the book subsequently had been discontinued . This charge of gross negligence could not be put aside because the author had tackled a subject of strong public interest . The applicant company should have realised that the information compiled about the plaintiff was not corroborated by evidence and that there were insufficient evidentiary facts to support the allegation reported in the book . The applicant company could not argue that it had not acted culpably , as it had based its publication on information obtained from a governmental authority . That principle , the court held , had been developed by the courts in adjudicating for official press releases issued by NORP authorities . However , the author had relied solely on internal analyses prepared by ORG as well as evaluation reports and documents generated in the course of intra - agency communications between NORP government authorities .","The Court of Appeal further reasoned that the injunction was not sufficient redress for the plaintiff , as it was not an adequate means of reaching the readers of a book that had already been published . Consequently , it found that the payment of damages was required . The court held that compensation in the amount of EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL , instead of the EUR CARDINAL claimed by the plaintiff , was both sufficient and adequate .","On DATE ORG dismissed as illfounded a complaint lodged by the applicant company that it had been denied the right to be heard .","On DATE , ORG refused to admit a constitutional complaint ( CARDINAL ) lodged by the applicant company , without providing reasons ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175140","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF M.S. v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant had relations with ORG , a female student born in DATE . On DATE PERSON gave birth to their daughter . On DATE the applicant and ORG registered their marriage .","From the time of the birth of the child the couple and their daughter lived in the applicant \u2019s flat in GPE . The applicant \u2019s parents lived in the same flat and assisted the parents in bringing up the child .","NORP In DATE the applicant and PERSON were absent from home for DATE , as they were working abroad . During their absence the applicant \u2019s parents took care of the child .","NORP In DATE the child was admitted to a child - minding centre in GPE .","DATE PERSON worked abroad for DATE . During that time the child was taken care of by the applicant and his parents . While working abroad , ORG transferred funds to the applicant to support the family .","Relations between the applicant and ORG grew worse and on DATE , after a quarrel with the applicant , PERSON took the child and moved from the flat without the agreement or knowledge of the applicant . The applicant was not informed of the place to where PERSON and the child moved to live .","On DATE the applicant asked the police to establish the whereabouts of the child . He and his parents also conducted their own enquiries .","As was further established in the course of the domestic proceedings , ORG moved to the village of GPE , near GPE , where she apparently cohabited with her uncle , PERSON ( born in DATE ) . The applicant \u2019s child was admitted to the child - minding centre located in the same village .","On DATE the applicant found the child at the Bezdryk child - minding centre . According to the applicant , the child \u2019s body bore bruises . He took the child back to his flat in GPE and DATE submitted her for medical examination .","On DATE a forensic medical expert examined the child and reported a red spot on the chin , measuring QUANTITY by ORG , which DATE in the expert \u2019s opinion \u2013 was \u201c a sign of an earlier abrasion \u201d . The expert also documented CARDINAL abrasions on the nose , measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and QUANTITY by QUANTITY ; a bruise on the back , measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ; CARDINAL bruises on the right shin , measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and QUANTITY by QUANTITY ; and a red , itchy spot in the abdominal area . The expert stated that the injuries could have been caused by blunt objects DATE before the examination .","The applicant asked the police to carry out a criminal investigation in connection with the injuries sustained by his daughter , who had allegedly explained that the injuries had been inflicted by ORG","After her return to GPE , the child continued to live with the applicant and his parents . PERSON was given access to the child only in the presence of the applicant or other persons that he trusted .","On DATE the ORG district police of GPE refused to open a criminal investigation in respect of the alleged abduction of the child , stating that the facts of the case did not indicate that the crime of child abduction had been committed . It was noted that the couple had not divorced and it had yet to be determined by the court with whom the child should reside .","On DATE the NORP district police of LOC refused to open a criminal investigation in connection with the child \u2019s injuries , as determined on DATE , for lack of corpus delicti . According to the police decision , the seriousness of the injuries had not been established ; however , if the injuries had been minor , the applicant was free to institute a private prosecution against the person concerned .","On DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s mother requested the law - enforcement authorities to institute criminal proceedings against ORG and F. under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . She considered that the child could have been a victim of sexual abuse in the period during which the latter had been living together with ORG and PERSON in the village of GPE . The applicant \u2019s mother submitted that the child had told her personal stories which suggested that PERSON and PERSON might have engaged in sexual activities in view of the child and that PERSON had shown his genitals to the child .","On DATE , in the course of a pre - investigation inquiry , the applicant \u2019s daughter was interviewed in the presence of the applicant \u2019s mother . The child explained that during her stay with the mother in the village of Bezdryk she had regularly observed PERSON and PERSON , embracing and kissing each other and engaging in some \u201c backwards and forwards movements \u201d which she had not been able to understand ; PERSON had taught the child how to kiss in an adult fashion , uncovered his genitals in front of her and asked her to touch his genitals .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the GPE district police , having conducted the pre - investigation inquiries , refused to open criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti . Those decisions were quashed as unsubstantiated by the supervising prosecutors , who ordered further measures , such as establishing the whereabouts of PERSON ( who had not been interviewed ) , identifying and interviewing possible witnesses , inspecting the LOC and the yard where the alleged crime could have been committed , and undertaking medical and psychological examinations of the child .","On DATE the GPE district police once again refused to open criminal proceedings against GPE and PERSON on the grounds that there had been no corpus delicti . In their decision the police referred to the interviews with the applicant \u2019s child , PERSON , and other people . PERSON denied the allegations . F. could not be interviewed as he had moved abroad . In sum , the LOC district police concluded that the available material had been insufficient to suggest that any crime had been committed .","On DATE the applicant , relying on the new Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE , requested that an investigation be opened against ORG and PERSON in respect of the alleged child sexual abuse . On DATE the GPE district police opened a criminal investigation under LAW . The applicant was admitted to the proceedings as the representative of his daughter .","The investigator ordered that measures be undertaken to establish the whereabouts of F. During the investigation ORG denied the allegations and submitted that she had been a victim of domestic violence , that she had been threatened and beaten by the applicant , and that this had prompted her to run away with the child on DATE ; she also submitted that she had moved to the village of GPE , where her grandfather lived , and that she had had no sexual relations with PERSON , her uncle . When questioned , the applicant and his mother insisted on the truth of their previous statements . They underwent polygraph examinations which suggested that they had told the truth in their submissions .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s daughter was questioned in the presence of a psychologist and her grandmother ( the applicant \u2019s mother ) . The applicant \u2019s daughter submitted in particular that F. had taken her hand and placed it on his genitals ; that F. had taught her to kiss in an adult fashion ; and that F. and ORG had engaged in certain activities which she had not been able to understand and which she had earlier described to the applicant and the grandmother .","On DATE a panel of experts carried out a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant \u2019s daughter . In the course of the examination , the child stated that F. had been touching her genitals and she , in compliance with his commands , had had to touch F. \u2019s genitals . F. taught her to kiss in an adult fashion . The child stated that she had seen PERSON and F. naked and kissing each other ; she then described the movements that she had observed PERSON and PERSON engaging in while in bed .","The experts found that the child had not been suffering from any mental illness at the time of the events or at the time of the examination ; that she had not shown any tendency to fantasise ; and that she was able to remember the circumstances of the events at issue and to give truthful statements in that regard . However , she could not understand the meaning of the actions that she had observed or in which she had participated . The experts concluded that the child could take part in the investigative measures .","On DATE the deputy head of the investigation division of the NORP regional police department ordered the investigator in charge of the case to immediately speed up the investigation , which , in his opinion , was being conducted too slowly . He requested the investigator to undertake a number of investigative measures .","On DATE and DATE the LOC district police closed the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of GPE and F. Having assessed the available material , the investigator found that there had been insufficient evidence submitted to enable the bringing of charges of sexual abuse . In the last decision the investigator also referred to the statements by PERSON who was questioned on DATE and who denied all the allegations , arguing that they were totally false .","These CARDINAL decisions were reversed as unsubstantiated by the supervising prosecutors , who ordered further investigation .","On DATE the GPE district police decided once again to close the criminal proceedings . In examining the statements of the applicant \u2019s daughter , the investigator considered that these statements could not convincingly prove the alleged events since the child had made those statements belatedly ; furthermore , the child had only been DATE at the time of the events in question . The investigator furthermore noted that these statements did not suggest anything in respect of mens rea , in particular whether there was any sexual intent in ORG \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s alleged actions in relation to the child , or whether they had been aware of the fact that the child had been observing them during the alleged instances of sexual intercourse .","The investigator then referred to the statements of the applicant and his mother , as well as of the mothers of QUANTITY girls with whom the child had used to play . The latter QUANTITY women stated in particular that the applicant \u2019s daughter had told them stories which had suggested that she had been subjected to sexual abuse while she had been living with PERSON and PERSON The investigator noted that those individuals had not directly observed the alleged instances of sexual abuse and that they had simply repeated statements made by the child . The investigator then stated that ORG and F. denied the allegations of child sexual abuse . Other people , such as the child \u2019s teacher at the child - minding centre and village inhabitants , had not provided any more precise information . Overall , the investigator concluded that the available material had been insufficient for him to conclude that PERSON and PERSON had committed the alleged crime .","On DATE the LOC district prosecutor \u2019s office reversed the decision of DATE as unsubstantiated . The supervising prosecutor found that the previous instructions given by the prosecutor \u2019s office had not been followed and that it was necessary to take further investigative measures .","As of DATE , the investigation was ongoing .","On DATE ORG dissolved the marriage between the applicant and PERSON and ruled that the child should live with PERSON The court ordered the applicant to hand over the child to PERSON and to pay her a DATE amount for the support of their daughter .","In determining the place of the child \u2019s residence , the court first established that until DATE the child had lived with both parents and her paternal grandparents in the applicant \u2019s flat and that all of them had participated in the upbringing of the child ; the paternal grandparents had taken care of the child when both parents had been abroad for DATE in DATE ; when PERSON had been abroad for DATE and DATE she had transferred money earned by her to the applicant to cover the needs of the family . On DATE the child had been admitted to the child - minding centre in GPE ; the child had been accompanied to and from the centre by the applicant .","The court also established that on DATE PERSON had taken the child and moved from the flat because of conflict between her and the applicant . On DATE the child had been admitted to the childminding centre in the village of GPE . The child had been accompanied to and from the centre by her mother . On DATE the child had been taken from the centre by her father . Since that time the child had been living again in the applicant \u2019s flat in GPE .","In comparing the applicant \u2019s flat and the flat where ORG was then living , the court found that both flats were located in GPE and offered appropriate conditions for the residence of the child . In that regard the court referred to the report of the local guardianship office , which stated that both parents provided adequate residential conditions for the child . As to the income of the parents , the father was employed and received a salary ; the mother was a student but worked unofficially and had been abroad to earn money . Both parents had positive reference letters and the child had an equal attitude towards both of them .","NORP The court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant \u2019s allegation that the mother was negligent with the child and that she might have exercised physical violence against the child : in contrast to the results of the medical examination of DATE documenting the injuries on the child \u2019s body ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the staff of the PERSON child - minding centre had signed a certificate stating that on DATE the child had had no injuries ; furthermore , the police had refused to institute criminal investigation in respect of the child \u2019s injuries ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court concluded that there was no link between ORG \u2019s attitude towards the child and the latter \u2019s injuries .","Relying on LAW on the Rights of the LAW Article CARDINAL of LAW , the court found that the facts did not disclose any exceptional circumstances which could justify the separation of the child from her mother . Consequently , it determined that the child should reside with her mother .","The applicant appealed against that decision , arguing that the firstinstance court had breached substantive and procedural provisions of domestic legislation and international law . He submitted that in determining the place of the child \u2019s residence the court should have been guided by the principle of the best interests of the child . The applicant insisted that on DATE PERSON had secretly moved with the child from the flat and destroyed the stability of the child \u2019s everyday life . The court had failed to properly examine the allegations that ORG had behaved violently towards the child and the possibility that the child had been the target of sexual abuse during the period when she had lived apart from her father with her mother . The applicant emphasised that on DATE he had lawfully taken the child back to his flat since the child had previously been permanently living in his flat and he had never given any consent for ORG to change the child \u2019s place of residence . In his opinion , the court had paid no attention to the fact that the child had been attached to the paternal grandparents and that her separation from them would be detrimental to her interests . Furthermore , the respective financial capacity of the applicant and PERSON , as well as the residential conditions , had not been properly assessed . Important pieces of evidence had not been included in the case file and part of the evidence had been assessed wrongly DATE namely , the certificate issued by the PERSON child - minding centre regarding the child \u2019s good state of health was a fabricated document that had been discredited by the forensic medical expert report of DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court . ORG found that the allegations of child abduction , sexual abuse and physical violence had been groundless . As to the child \u2019s attachment to the paternal grandparents , ORG considered that the parents played a more important role in the upbringing of the child . Overall , the findings of the first - instance court had been lawful and reasonable .","On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant as unfounded ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170060","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MCNAMARA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Kristina Pardalos;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","NORP In DATE the applicant founded a business which was later incorporated as ORG ( \u201c FAC ) .","In DATE , PERSON became involved in commercial disputes . In DATE PERSON solicitors were retained in relation to those disputes . However , ORG fees were not settled in full by PERSON .","On DATE PERSON commenced legal proceedings against PERSON in FAC of ORG ( the first - instance civil court in GPE in respect of claims over a certain value ) for payment of MONEY ( \u201c GBP \u201d ) in respect of fees relating to a dispute against ORG former accountants .","On DATE Arakin issued a counterclaim alleging professional misconduct and negligence . It sought ORG CARDINAL .","The dispute gave rise to CARDINAL sets of overlapping proceedings . First , the proceedings to establish ORG fees , which ran from DATE to DATE ( in this the courts were assisted by the auditor for taxation , an expert officer of ORG who advises the court on disputes concerning legal fees ) ; second , proceedings in respect of PERSON \u2019s allegations of fraud against ORG running from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; third , proceedings concerning the principal claim and counterclaim which ran from DATE to DATE ; and fourth , proceedings settling the overall costs of the case ( excluding the fraud proceedings ) which ran from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , ORG ordered a detailed account of the fees owed to be produced to the auditor for taxation , in order for the amount of the fees due in respect of the litigation in question to be determined .","By DATE all accounts had been lodged with the auditor . On DATE the taxation hearing began before the auditor . It lasted DATE . On DATE the auditor issued his reports .","NORP The parties objected and from DATE ORG which was responsible for overseeing the taxation proceedings , held a number of hearings to settle the procedure and deal with the notes on objections , and also to hold a preliminary debate in the claim and counterclaim ( the third proceedings ) . Some hearings were discharged at FAC request . The court however refused PERSON \u2019s request to stay the case .","The auditor issued his report on DATE .","By DATE ORG then solicitors had ceased acting for it . In DATE PERSON \u2019s new solicitors withdrew from acting . From that time onwards PERSON had no legal representation . The applicant sought to appear at hearings in DATE , on ORG behalf .","The applicant subsequently applied for summary decree in the counterclaim and dismissal of the principal action . This was dismissed as incompetent on DATE .","DATE and DATE , ORG sought to regulate the procedure in relation to the notes of objection lodged by both parties in respect of the accounts and dealt with other motions lodged by the applicant . It held a number of hearings .","NORP However , no further progress could be made on the notes of objections until the allegations of fraud had been determined ( the \u201c second proceedings \u201d ; see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . In the course of DATE and DATE , the court heard various incidental motions by the applicant who increased the sum sought in the counterclaim to ORG CARDINAL . He also renewed motions which had previously been refused .","The allegations of fraud made by the applicant having been determined , ORG on DATE ordered a DATE hearing on the notes of objections for DATE , which finally concluded on CARDINAL DATE . In total , around CARDINAL objections had been made , of which , CARDINAL were lodged by PERSON and the remainder by the applicant .","On DATE the ORG gave a judgment on the notes of objections , running to CARDINAL paragraphs . PERSON appealed . On DATE the Inner House ordered that there should be a hearing on DATE . Following that hearing , the ORG found in favour of PERSON on all CARDINAL points raised in the appeal . On DATE the case was remitted to ORG .","On DATE , ORG ordered the parties to lodge their proposals for further procedure .","NORP The accounts were returned to the auditor to consider the impact of the notes of objection which had been upheld . On DATE a taxation hearing was held before the auditor and on DATE he reported on his taxation of the remitted accounts . He assessed the total amount due in legal fees as ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . PERSON accepted that PERSON had paid GBP ORG to date and the sum sued for was therefore the balance of ORG ORG .","On DATE a final hearing took place on the notes of objections . On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment , finally determining all questions relating to the valuation of the accounts . The taxation proceeding were therefore at an end .","In the meantime in DATE , the applicant made allegations about the authenticity of the court papers , which developed into allegations of fraud against PERSON and their solicitors . Hearings took place before FAC DATE . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to lodge , by DATE , particulars of his allegations . On DATE it directed that the case be heard on DATE . On DATE , having regard to further allegations made by the applicant , it ordered that he lodge details of these allegations within DATE . On DATE , a factual hearing on the allegations was fixed for DATE . This hearing lasted DATE but was ultimately insufficient .","From DATE the court repeatedly attempted to fix hearing dates that the applicant did not accept ; the case was finally heard in DATE .","On DATE the court issued an opinion rejecting the applicant \u2019s allegations in their entirety . It concluded , inter alia , that none of the allegations were well - founded ; that the applicant had made representations which he knew or ought to have known were incorrect ; that the hearing had taken an inordinate length of time because the applicant had persistently resorted to irrelevant lines of inquiry and had been disorganised in his presentation ; that the hearing had been used as a vehicle to air grievances going beyond its scope and to advance the applicant \u2019s interests in other litigation ; that the applicant \u2019s approach had been reckless ; and that he had had no reasonable grounds for his asserted belief in the truth of the allegations .","The applicant sought leave to appeal the decision to ORG of ORG . On DATE the ORG dismissed the application to appeal as incompetent since leave had not been obtained from ORG .","In the meantime , on DATE , ORG awarded costs against the applicant at a punitive rate in light of his conduct . The court also ordered that their payment was a condition to proceed with the counterclaim . DATE the amounts remained unpaid and the matter proceeded on the basis that the only issues to try were contained in the principal claim .","In DATE , the applicant paid the amounts to which the order of CARDINAL DATE referred .","Following the conclusion of the taxation proceedings , the ORG heard the parties on several occasions DATE and DATE to determine future procedure and finally listed an eightday hearing of legal issues to commence on DATE . By the time of the hearing the applicant sought over GBP CARDINAL in his counterclaim . On DATE , after an DATE hearing , the court reserved judgment .","On DATE the ORG delivered its opinion . It noted that ORG claim was a simple one , namely an action for payment of a debt . The applicant \u2019s position , it said , was \u201c a great deal more complicated \u201d . Despite lengthy written pleadings , the court had found it \u201c difficult to determine the precise factual background \u201d upon which he relied . Turning first to his defences to the principal claim , the court rejected all except CARDINAL , namely the applicant \u2019s argument that he had paid the fees due in full . This , the court said , was a matter for evidence appropriate for the subsequent factual hearing .","As to the counterclaim , after a careful examination of the applicant \u2019s evidence , the court held that it was an \u201c abuse of process \u201d . It noted that very grave allegations had been made but that the applicant had produced no expert opinion to support them .","The applicant appealed against the decision . DATE and DATE the ORG dealt with various procedural aspects of the appeal . On DATE the Inner ORG heard the appeal and refused it . The case was remitted to ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG heard both parties and fixed a hearing on the facts . On DATE that hearing took place . A day was set aside for further argument and the parties lodged detailed notes of arguments , the applicant \u2019s running to CARDINAL pages .","On DATE the court handed down its judgment . It noted that ORG case was \u201c straightforward and cogent \u201d but that it had been \u201c very difficult to discern the defence to the action \u201d . The applicant had repeated \u201c scurrilous allegations \u201d against partners in PERSON and the witnesses he had led had been of no assistance in determining the question before the court . The court also commented that the applicant had sought to revisit many points which had already been decided . It found in favour of PERSON in the principal claim and held that the applicant was liable in the sum of GBP GPE .","The applicant appealed . On DATE the Inner ORG found the appeal suitable for urgent disposal . A hearing took place on CARDINAL and DATE . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . It commented that it \u201c had not found it easy to understand the arguments which [ the applicant ] sought to advance \u201d . It further noted :","\u201c Throughout the course of this protracted litigation PERSON has sought to revisit arguments and allegations which have not found favour with the court on previous occasions ...","Many of the issues which PERSON has sought to argue before us can not be argued competently before us now . \u201d","It held that it was not open to it to revisit the various decisions it had made previously concerning aspects of the litigation in the context of interim appeals . This brought to an end the substantive issues in the litigation .","The only remaining issue was costs . PERSON applied for its costs and the applicant lodged various applications . ORG listed a hearing to take place on DATE . However , the applicant contacted the court stating he was unwell , so it was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE . He then told the court he was on DATE on DATE . The court found this an inadequate reason for non - attendance and maintained the date .","The applicant did not appear at the hearing on DATE . ORG granted a further DATE adjournment in order to allow the applicant a \u201c final opportunity to appear \u201d . The clerk of court and ORG solicitors sought to bring the hearing , which had been re - listed for CARDINAL DATE , to the applicant \u2019s attention by e - mail , telephone and by personal attendance at the applicant \u2019s home address .","On DATE the applicant did not appear and the hearing proceeded in his absence . The judge found in favour of PERSON on the issue of expenses at an enhanced , punitive rate of expenses in light of the applicant \u2019s conduct . The court commented :","\u201c When this action was first raised in DATE , it appeared to be in short compass . The pursuer sought payment from the defender of its outstanding professional fees . It was therefore a simple action for recovery of a debt . Since then , PERSON has introduced a great many factual and legal issues , which have been exhaustively examined over many hearings . \u201d","NORP In relation to the applicant \u2019s conduct he found that it had been :","\u201c ... unreasonable and incompetent . He has thereby caused the pursuer unnecessary expense ... \u201d","It also awarded an additional fee to PERSON to reflect the \u201c huge amount \u201d of correspondence and documents sent to ORG solicitors by the applicant , much of which was irrelevant , the complexity of the proceedings , having regard to the \u201c number , difficulty and novelty of the questions raised \u201d , the skill time , labour and specialist knowledge required of the solicitors and the accusations of deception , incompetence and bad faith levelled against individual solicitors at ORG . It rejected a number of motions lodged by the applicant .","The applicant appealed and lodged a number of documents . The appeal was refused on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was found \u201c liable in the expenses \u201d ( that is , liable for the costs ) of that appeal . His various motions were dismissed . ORG again noted that the applicant had sought to reopen issues already determined and continued to express his dissatisfaction with the court \u2019s substantive decisions .","Meanwhile , in DATE the Lord Advocate ( the chief legal officer of ORG ) applied to have the applicant declared a vexatious litigant . He relied on CARDINAL sets of proceedings , including the ORG litigation .","On DATE the ORG declared the applicant a vexatious litigant but excluded the ORG litigation from the order . It referred to the applicant \u2019s ill - founded allegations about lack of authenticity of documents which it said were a \u201c serious abuse of process \u201d . In coming to this conclusion it also took into account the finding that he had used a proof in the ORG litigation for collateral purposes . Moreover , he had wasted time because of his disorganisation and persistent pursuit of irrelevant matters in that litigation . It noted that the applicant had accepted that his lack of legal expertise had caused delay in the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147691","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"PETLYOVANYY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant , Mr Petro Yakovych Petlyovanyy , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their then acting Agent , Mr PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant made a deposit with a private entity , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , and was subsequently unable to receive his money back .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against officials of the above entity for financial fraud and the applicant was recognised in DATE as an aggrieved party in those proceedings , being entitled to claim an amount of UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG ) .","On DATE ORG declared the ORG bankrupt .","The founder of ORG , PERSON , was placed on the list of wanted persons .","In DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG against ORG and ORG , seeking to recover the losses sustained as a result of the crime under LAW .","By decision of DATE the court rejected the applicant \u2019s claim on the ground that a special law laying down the conditions and mechanism for enforcing the provisions of Article CARDINAL of LAW had not yet been enacted . Furthermore , the court noted that the identity of the person who caused the damage to the applicant had been established but that her whereabouts were unknown , and that the insolvency of the accused person had not been established .","On DATE and DATE respectively ORG and ORG upheld the decision of the first - instance court .","The Civil Code , which came into force in DATE , lays down different obligations as to compensation in respect of damage . Among others , CARDINAL articles , namely Article CARDINAL , relied on by the applicant in the domestic proceedings , and LAW , provide for the ORG to compensate the victims of a crime if the offender is not identified or is insolvent . Article DATE provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Pecuniary damage caused to the property of a natural person as the result of a crime shall be compensated for by the ORG if the person who committed the crime is not identified or is insolvent .","NORP The conditions and procedure governing compensation for pecuniary damage caused to the property of a natural person who was the victim of a crime shall be established by law . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140770","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ZIAUNYS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a member of ORG , ORG and ORG of GPE .","On DATE the applicant signed a contract with ORG ( \u201c the company \u201d ) , registered in GPE ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) , according to which he would deliver to the company QUANTITY of banknotes ( in CARDINAL and ten rouble notes ) issued by the self - proclaimed ORG ( FAC ) \u201d ( see further details about the events leading to the creation of the self - proclaimed \u201c FAC \u201d in ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ) . In exchange , under the contract , he had the right to select items from the company \u2019s wholesale catalogue to a value of MONEY ( ORG ) .","On DATE the applicant bought from the \u201c FAC \u201d bank CARDINAL \u201c MONEY ( in CARDINAL and ten rouble banknotes ) issued in DATE . The banknotes issued in DATE were no longer in circulation in the \u201c FAC , having been replaced by new banknotes in DATE . Such banknotes have never been in official circulation in GPE and had been accepted as payment only in the \u201c FAC and DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted to NORP customs CARDINAL sealed bags of banknotes issued by the \u201c FAC bank in DATE . He asked for permission to ship the items to the GPE , in accordance with the contract with the company . He declared that the paper in the bags had a numismatic value of USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","The customs authority decided to store the bags in its warehouse until a decision could be taken about what to do with them . Subsequently , the bags were moved to the LOC of ORG ( \u201c the STI \u201d ) , where they have remained since .","By a decision of DATE and further to a report of CARDINAL DATE , ORG decided not to return the banknotes to the applicant and to transfer them instead to the ORG for free as the items were banned from general circulation in GPE .","The applicant asked on a number of occasions for the return of the items confiscated from him . On an unknown date in DATE he initiated court proceedings to have the decisions taken in DATE and DATE set aside and the items returned to him .","On DATE ORG dismissed his court action as lodged out of time . On DATE ORG quashed that decision and ordered a rehearing of the case by the lower court .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claims in part . The court found that the banknotes under examination had never been introduced into general circulation in GPE and had never been exchanged for the official currency of the country . There was no evidence in the file that the banknotes had been manufactured for circulation in GPE . The applicant had officially declared the CARDINAL bags of banknotes , which he considered to be waste paper with numismatic value , in order to transport them abroad . Moreover , it had to be presumed that he had obtained the items in a lawful manner , unless proof to the contrary had been adduced . However , nobody had claimed a property right in respect of the relevant items . The court concluded that ORG and the ORG had acted unlawfully .","On DATE ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s judgment and delivered a new one , rejecting all his claims . The court found that , in accordance with ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , only ORG had the right to issue banknotes , and that the \u201c FAC bank had not been given such a right . As a result , the banknotes issued by the \u201c FAC \u201d bank could not be introduced into legal circulation and could not , under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , be the lawful object of the contract of DATE . That judgment was final ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183395","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"IRL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF O'SULLIVAN McCARTHY MUSSEL DEVELOPMENT LTD v. IRELAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant company is engaged in the cultivation of mussels in NORP harbour in Co. PERSON , CARDINAL of several sites in GPE where this commercial activity is exercised . Its business involves fishing for mussel seed ( i.e. immature mussels ) within the harbour DATE and transporting them for cultivation in another part of the harbour . It has conducted this activity at Castlemaine harbour since DATE .","In GPE , mussel seed fishing takes place during DATE , the exact dates being determined DATE by statutory instrument . This activity is subject to obtaining the relevant leases , licences , authorisations and permits ( see under \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) . The competent authority in this respect is the Minister for ORG and the NORP ( hereinafter \u201c the Minister \u201d , and \u201c the GPE \u201d for the corresponding ORG ) . In order to engage in this activity , operators must be in possession of an aquaculture licence , which has a validity of DATE . A sea - fishing boat licence is required , and the boat used must be entered in ORG . Operators must also hold an authorisation to fish for mussel seed , issued DATE by the Minister ( see under \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) .","Subsequent to the facts giving rise to this application , an additional requirement was introduced pursuant to ORG law . Where mussel fishing is carried out in an environmentally protected area , a \u201c Natura permit \u201d must also be obtained ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","According to the ORG , a total of CARDINAL authorisations were issued in DATE to NORP sea - fishing boats to fish for mussel seed , CARDINAL of which operated in GPE harbour on behalf of CARDINAL mussel aquaculture operators .","In DATE , the competent authorities published a notice in the national press announcing the intention to classify CARDINAL sites , including Castlemaine harbour , as a special protection area ( SPA ) within the meaning of the domestic legislation transposing Council Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EEC of DATE on the conservation of wild birds ( \u201c the PERSON Directive \u201d , ORG DATE L CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . The notice indicated that it was not envisaged that this would change the usage of the sites concerned . The harbour \u2019s SPA classification took effect in DATE . The applicant company continued its activities DATE , obtaining the necessary licences and permits .","In DATE , the domestic authorities designated Castlemaine harbour a special area of conservation ( ORG ) within the meaning of the domestic legislation transposing ORG Directive CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora ( \u201c the Habitats Directive \u201d , OJ DATE L CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . As it was now subject to the CARDINAL ORG directives , it had the status of a \u201c FAC \u201d site .","Dating back to DATE , ORG was of the view that GPE and several other then ORG Member GPE were not fulfilling their obligations under ORG environmental law , and specifically in relation to the CARDINAL directives referred to above ( references hereafter will generally be to ORG and not ORG law ) . DATE and DATE , it addressed to the NORP authorities CARDINAL letters of formal notice warning that GPE had failed to correctly transpose and apply those CARDINAL directives . Following CARDINAL reasoned opinions issued in DATE and DATE , the ORG brought infringement proceedings against GPE in DATE , pursuant to LAW now LAW ) . It sought a declaration that GPE had failed to fulfil its obligations under several provisions of the directives , namely Articles PERSON ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , and CARDINAL of the Birds Directive , and Article CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) of the Habitats Directive . CARDINAL specific aspect of these proceedings concerned the authorisation of aquaculture in protected areas without the requisite prior assessment of the environmental impact of such activities .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the CJEU \u201d ) delivered its judgment in GPE v. GPE ( ORG , ORG : PERSON ) , declaring that GPE had failed to fulfil its obligations under the aforementioned directives in a number of respects . It held , insofar as relevant to the present case :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... [ R]egarding the aquaculture programmes , the ORG relies , essentially , on ORG in GPE carried out in DATE by GPE as the basis for its view that GPE has systematically failed to carry out a proper assessment of those projects situated in SPAs or likely to have effects on SPAs , contrary to Article PERSON ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Habitats Directive . In that context , it emphasises the importance of a prior assessment for the purpose of weighing the implications of a project with the conservation objectives fixed for the ORG concerned .","The ORG notes that that study covered CARDINAL authorisations for aquaculture programmes issued by ORG , ORG and ORG during the period from DATE and DATE applications yet to be decided on . Moreover , DATE licences and CARDINAL pending applications concerned aquaculture programmes situated inside or near an LOC . The authorisations issued concern , in PERCENT of the activities authorised in SPAs , oyster and clam farms .","It should also be borne in mind that , under the first sentence of Article PERSON ) of the Habitats Directive , any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site is to be made subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site \u2019s conservation objectives if it can not be excluded , on the basis of objective information , that it will have a significant effect on that site , either individually or in combination with other plans or projects ( Case CCARDINAL\/CARDINAL PERSON and PERSON [ DATE ] ECR ICARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) .","The study carried out by GPE refers to a number of potential negative effects of shellfish farming , including the loss of feeding areas and disturbances caused by increased human activity and states that , even when an aquaculture programme is inside an SPA , very little protection is provided for bird habitats . GPE , for its part , does not allege that no aquaculture programmes have any effects on SPAs .","It follows that the authorisation procedure ought to have included an appropriate assessment of the implications of each specific project . It is clear that GPE merely stated , without offering further explanation , that the NORP scheme for authorising mollusc farms , including the provisions on consultation , does in fact provide for detailed consideration of all aspects of an aquaculture development project before a decision is taken on authorisation .","Accordingly , the ORG finds that GPE fails to ensure systematically that aquaculture programmes likely to have a significant effect on SPAs , either individually or in combination with other projects , are made subject to an appropriate prior assessment .","This finding is supported by the fact that GPE has not put forward any specific scientific studies showing that a prior , detailed ornithological study was carried out , in order to challenge the failure to fulfil obligations alleged by the Commission .","Under Article PERSON ) of the Habitats Directive , an appropriate assessment of the implications for the site concerned of the plan or project implies that , prior to its approval , all aspects of the plan or project which can , by themselves or in combination with other plans or projects , affect the site \u2019s conservation objectives must be identified in the light of the best scientific knowledge in the field . The competent national authorities are to authorise an activity on the protected site only if they have made certain that it will not adversely affect the integrity of that site . That is the case where no reasonable scientific doubt remains as to the absence of such effects ( see PERSON and PERSON , paragraph CARDINAL ) . \u201d","At or around the same time , the ORG found that the GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE had similarly violated their ORG obligations .","In view of the judgment , the Minister considered that it was not legally possible to permit commercial activity in the sites concerned until the necessary assessments had been completed . Accordingly , when granting authorisation for mussel seed fishing for the period DATE to DATE , he prohibited it in CARDINAL locations around the NORP coast , including NORP harbour ( ORG . CARDINAL of DATE , adopted on DATE ) . The applicant company was informed of the situation by an official of ORG on DATE . It wrote to the Taoiseach ( Prime Minister ) that DATE to underline the threat to the livelihood of those affected . It recalled the terms of the notice published in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and explained that it had just purchased a new boat at a cost of MONEY . The applicant company received a reply from the ORG dated DATE . This explained that baseline data for the area had to be gathered in order to perform the assessment required by the Habitats Directive , as interpreted by the ORG . It indicated that NORP harbour had been given priority for the exercise and that work had already begun to collect the necessary data . It added that the authorities would be seeking the agreement of ORG to allow aquaculture to resume on an interim basis .","DATE the applicant company was issued an authorisation to fish for mussel seed in the harbour , with a starting date of DATE . The authorisation was subject to a number of conditions , including that it did not allow the holder to fish for mussel seed in an area or areas where this activity had been prohibited . On that same date , the temporary prohibition on mussel seed fishing at NORP harbour , and at CARDINAL other locations around the ORG , was maintained in force by ORG . CARDINAL of DATE . The temporary prohibition only applied to mussel seed fishing ; it did not prevent the harvesting of mussels previously fished and laid on farms for cultivation .","The applicant company wrote to ORG on DATE , warning that the supply of mussel seed in the harbour was being consumed by predators and that it would hold the ORG responsible for all losses incurred . It requested a satisfactory resolution within DATE , failing which it would take advice about legal action .","On DATE , following successful negotiations between ORG ( see further below ) , the Minister issued ORG . CARDINAL of DATE removing Castlemaine harbour from the list of locations where mussel seed fishing was prohibited . The applicant company was therefore able to commence mussel seed fishing on the date the instrument came into operation , namely DATE . By that stage , however , natural predators had decimated the mussel seed . Since mussels need DATE to grow to maturity , the financial consequences of the temporary prohibition on mussel seed fishing in GPE harbour in DATE were only felt in DATE . DATE , the applicant had no mussels for sale , representing a loss of profit that it estimated at MONEY .","According to the applicant company , there was no viable replacement for local mussel seed . Previous attempts to bring in mussel seed from other sites had not proved successful due to the high mortality of the seed and to the transport costs involved . It argued that it was therefore wholly dependent on the use of local resources . The applicant company further explained that if there had been any forewarning of the restriction on mussel seed fishing in DATE , it would not have made such a major investment in a new boat purchased in DATE .","In DATE , the harbour was opened for mussel seed fishing from DATE to CARDINAL May , and from DATE to DATE . The applicant company was able to gather the usual amount of mussel seed .","NORP In DATE , in accordance with ORG law , the Minister introduced an additional requirement for fishing in SACs or SPAs , a fisheries ORG permit .","In DATE , the periods authorised for mussel seed fishing in the harbour were from DATE to CARDINAL May , and from DATE to DATE . The applicant company was not able to operate during the first period , as it had not yet obtained such a fisheries Natura permit . When it eventually recommenced fishing at DATE , the mussel seed had once again been depleted by predators , although the applicant company acquired some tonnage . It estimated its loss of profits for DATE at MONEY .","The Government provided the following explanations of the action taken following the ORG judgment , which the applicant company did not dispute . They indicated that even before the delivery of the ORG \u2019s judgment they had commenced a process to determine how fisheries should be assessed in compliance with the relevant ORG directives . Following that judgment , the ORG immediately began the process of ensuring compliance with ORG law in the fisheries sector . This process involved the domestic bodies with responsibilities for fisheries ( ORG PERSON ) , marine research ( ORG ) and nature conservation ( ORG \u2013 ORG ) . Within DATE of the judgment being handed down , ORG prepared a paper in DATE on the distribution of bi - valve ( dredge ) fisheries with the potential to lead to disturbance or significant disturbance of habitat , including the fishing of mussels .","At a meeting in DATE between the ORG and ORG , the latter underlined the need to comply with the judgment by conducting the requisite assessments for aquaculture , and in so doing addressing the cumulative effects of other activities that could adversely affect DATE sites . While the Commission recognised the need for some flexibility , and the small scale of much of NORP aquaculture , it considered that the onus was on GPE to initiate a robust , proportionate and scientific process .","NORP In DATE , the relevant domestic bodies agreed on the need for an alternative approach to assess inshore fisheries on an interim basis , pending the collection of baseline data allowing the appropriate assessment required by ORG law . To this end , a series of steps was proposed . DATE , ORG prepared a working document on fisheries in DATE sites , which included a case study of NORP harbour . The study considered that the consequences of mussel seed fishing on the site were negligible . According to the applicant company , this assessment was consistent with that set out in a draft consultation document which had previously been prepared in DATE by ORG with responsibility for heritage , of which the ORG was then part .","On DATE GPE sent to the Commission its official response to the ORG judgment . It acknowledged that assessments were required in relation to fisheries , and that the necessary baseline data had to be collected at the sites in question . The response also indicated that the NORP authorities would seek the ORG \u2019s approval for an interim approach .","NORP In DATE , ORG submitted to ORG a finalised study entitled \u201c Fisheries in Natura CARDINAL \u201d . ORG was hopeful that the Commission would tolerate an interim approach to the activities in GPE harbour , where the situation was time critical . DATE , the ORG warned that in the absence of sufficient funding and staff it could not provide the necessary assurances to the Commission . It informed the ORG that the assessments available to date were not adequate , and that the ORG shared this view . Additional studies were needed . The Commission \u2019s stance was that it was prepared to give its temporary agreement to fishing at Castlemaine harbour if the additional studies were submitted and if GPE gave an undertaking to meet the terms of the judgment over a DATE period .","On DATE the ORG sent to the Commission an interim assessment of mussel seed fishing in GPE harbour , indicating that on the basis of its assessment this activity was not likely to have a significant impact on the site . The Commission agreed that , on the basis of this interim assessment , fishing could be allowed in the harbour for DATE only , on condition that GPE submit more detailed assessment procedures with a view to allowing fishing there in future . The Commission sought confirmation that there was an adequate basis in domestic law to ensure fishing activities remained in compliance with the directives . It requested amendments to certain aspects of the assessment , and it also requested a monitoring report . From that point it was considered legally possible to open GPE harbour . The Minister signed ORG ( No . CARDINAL of DATE ) DATE , DATE , allowing mussel seed fishing to recommence on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE and DATE the ORG maintained its robust stance , requiring a long - term plan to achieve compliance in order for the interim approach to continue . The ORG indicated the likelihood of a negative assessment due to a decline in several bird populations , and pointed to the need for additional surveys of the site .","In DATE the NORP authorities assured the Commission of its commitment to a verifiable DATE plan to achieve compliance with the directives as regards fisheries and aquaculture . They indicated an allocation of MONEY over DATE for a wide - ranging exercise to collect baseline data . In DATE , GPE submitted its \u201c roadmap to compliance \u201d with the judgment to the Commission . The latter approved an interim approach to assessment , based on best available data and the collection of limited additional data in the time available , and subject to stringent management and control arrangements .","There was further engagement between the NORP authorities and the ORG during DATE and DATE regarding compliance with the ORG judgment and the relevant directives . Public consultation was also required in relation to the regulatory changes that had to be made .","The appropriate assessment of NORP harbour was completed in DATE by ORG . Running to CARDINAL pages , it assessed the effects on the site of the different types of aquaculture carried out there and concluded that there was no reason to anticipate any environmental disturbance from mussel fishing . This was CARDINAL of multiple assessments which the respondent ORG had to undertake in light of the ORG judgment .","Along with another local company , which was not directly involved in the cultivation of mussels but was a downstream retailer and exporter , the applicant company instituted proceedings in ORG in DATE against the ORG . It relied on a series of grounds , notably breach of legitimate expectation , operational negligence and breach of the constitutional right to earn a livelihood .","In view of the ORG \u2019s delay in delivering a defence to the claim , the applicant company brought a motion for judgment in default of defence , which was heard and concluded on DATE . The ORG delivered its defence on DATE .","In DATE the applicant company sought discovery of documents on a voluntary basis . It then applied to the Master of the High Court , on DATE , for an order of discovery , pursuing the matter before him in DATE , DATE and DATE . The Master gave his ruling on DATE , which the applicant company appealed against to ORG . It was granted an order of discovery on DATE , directing the ORG to provide a variety of documents within DATE . The ORG swore an affidavit of discovery on DATE . It swore a supplemental affidavit of discovery DATE , on DATE .","The applicant company issued an amended statement of claim on DATE , which referred to the restrictions applied in DATE and DATE as well .","On DATE the applicant company set the action down for trial and certified it ready for hearing . Over DATE there were some exchanges of correspondence between the applicant company \u2019s solicitor and the Chief State Solicitor in relation to the hearing of the action . On DATE the applicant company requested a hearing date .","The hearing took place DATE in DATE . Judgment was given on DATE .","The High Court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs . The trial judge accepted their evidence that it would not have been viable for the applicant company to purchase mussel seed from operators based in other locations . He first found that there had been a breach of legitimate expectation , stating :","\u201c [ T]here was a representation made to the plaintiffs in both the government notice and the newspaper notice of DATE . There was comfort given . What happened from then onwards , the DATE allocation of seed collection authorisations and the constant refurbishing of the plaintiffs business gave rise to a pattern of events where the plaintiffs had good reason to rely upon the comfort given to them that there would not be a summary closure of their business without some good scientific reasons or without some consultation process before doing so . \u201d","ORG also found that there had been \u201c operational negligence \u201d due to the failure of the authorities to carry out the necessary scientific tests or monitoring that would have provided the data required by ORG law . It considered that the failure to undertake these steps was a mistake of law by the Minister , which led to the denial of the applicant company \u2019s access to the harbour for a period in DATE , causing financial loss . The trial judge accepted the evidence presented by the applicant company that it would have been possible to conduct the requisite analysis within DATE . Had that been done , there would not have been any disruption of the applicant company \u2019s activities .","NORP The applicant company claimed compensation for lost profits caused by the restrictions in DATE and DATE , which it estimated at MONEY and CARDINAL respectively , making a total claim of CARDINAL . The ORG challenged both the basis for the applicant company \u2019s calculations and the quantum of damages sought . ORG decided that the applicant company \u2019s claim should be reduced by CARDINAL . This resulted in an award of MONEY for its losses over DATE in question . It awarded the other local company MONEY .","The ORG appealed both on the issues of liability and the quantum of damages awarded . It filed its notice of appeal with ORG on DATE . The applicant company brought a cross appeal in relation to the estimation of damages . A stay issue was ultimately resolved by ORG on DATE . On DATE the ORG certified that the appeal was ready for hearing . The appeal was granted priority by the Chief Justice on DATE . The hearing took place on DATE , and judgment was given on CARDINAL DATE .","ORG was unanimous in overturning the High Court \u2019s ruling on legitimate expectation . Addressing this issue , PERSON , with whom the other members of the court agreed , stated :","\u201c CARDINAL ... [ T]he only representation which it can be said was expressly made by the Minister ... was to the effect that \u201c it is not envisaged \u201d that there would be any restriction on traditional activities . That statement was made in DATE , and was in the context both of developing NORP environmental legislation and also in the context of the process leading to the identification of areas within GPE which would be designated for the purposes of that NORP legislation . It could not be said to amount to a clear commitment on the part of the Minister that there could never be any adverse consequences . What the consequences were going to be of the designation of an area for NORP environmental purposes was a matter of NORP law .","CARDINAL As events unfolded , it became clear that the Minister did not have the legal authority , as a matter of NORP law , to allow for the uninterrupted continuance of traditional activities in protected areas unless and until an appropriate assessment had been carried out . ... The Minister could give no greater assurance than that , in the then view of the Minister , it was not envisaged that there would be problems for traditional activities .","...","CARDINAL Next , reliance is placed on the fact that , as found by the trial judge , the ongoing activities of [ the applicant company ] were carried out to the knowledge of the Minister and on the basis of DATE legal measures put in place by the Minister which facilitated the so - called opening of the harbour . However ... the fact that there may have been an error in the past can not create a legitimate expectation that that error will be continued into the future . The fact that the Minister was mistaken in his view that traditional activities , of which the Minister undoubtedly knew , could continue provided that the Minister put in place the appropriate legal measures , and was also in error about the fact that those legal measures could be put in place in conformity with NORP law without carrying out an appropriate assessment , can not create a legitimate expectation to the effect that that situation would continue .","CARDINAL While there undoubtedly was significant expenditure , and while the incurrence of expenditure on foot of a representation may form part of the ORG \u2019s assessment in determining whether it would be appropriate to allow a public authority to resile from a representation made , expenditure will not be relevant if there was no legitimate expectation in the first place .","CARDINAL ... As interpreted by the [ CJEU ] , a permission for activity in a protected area can only be given when there is an appropriate assessment . An appropriate assessment requires that , on a scientific assessment , risk be excluded . The Minister was required , therefore , as a matter of NORP law , to be concerned not with unproven risk but rather with proven absence of risk . \u201d","On the issue of operational negligence , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL judges upheld the ORG \u2019s appeal . CARDINAL members of the majority gave judgment .","MacMenamin J observed that strong policy considerations arose in the case . The question of how to afford redress to individuals who had suffered the detrimental effects of wrongful actions by the executive was a legitimate concern . Yet changes in the law of negligence and reformulations of ORG liability must be carefully and incrementally approached with a clear view as to their long - term consequences . While there undoubtedly was a strong public interest in ensuring a proper balance between private and public rights and duties , there was a stronger public interest in ensuring that government can actually function , and that administrators were not impeded in making decisions through fear of a morass of litigation . The courts should not become a form of surrogate unelected government , second guessing prima facie lawful government actions in areas of discretion that did not raise questions of exceeding statutory powers . Reviewing the established domestic jurisprudence , he concluded that operational negligence had not been accepted in NORP law . He considered that in the present case ORG had identified a tort with such broad headings lasting DATE that it was questionable whether there was a justiciable controversy at all . It was impossible to say whether it was a tort committed by act or by omission . It was unclear at what point in time the Minister had acted wrongfully in relation to the plaintiffs . It might be said that , by allowing aquaculture to continue DATE , the Minister had actually had regard to the applicant company \u2019s interests , even at the cost of failed adherence to ORG law . He further observed :","\u201c CARDINAL . There then arises a further unavoidable question , that is , whether , if the Minister had , in fact , acted DATE , the respondents would inevitably have incurred significant losses , by a similar necessary suspension of activity in LOC , as occurred from DATE , in order to obtain appropriate baseline data ? If the detailed surveys complained of were necessary to establish the baseline , one is only left to speculate as to how these surveys could have been carried out without exactly the same or similar cessation of activity in the harbour , albeit in DATE . \u201d","CARDINALFrancovich breach of ORG law ( ORG and ORG , ORG : C:CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) but rather from the damage allegedly caused by the implementation of ORG law after a breach thereof was identified by the ORG . The fallacy in the case was to seek to isolate some private duty owed to the plaintiffs by the Minister from his overarching public duty to comply with and implement ORG environmental law .","PERSON , concurring , noted that LAW , the Minister had no discretion at all . He underlined CARDINAL salient facts . First , many of the CARDINAL sites designated under the LOC and Birds Directives were places of commercial activity of some sort . Following the ruling of the ORG , emergency measures had to be taken to allow economic operators some latitude for the continuation of even limited business activity within the sites . This was done essentially by NORP public servants negotiating with the ORG . There were about forty sea - based sites , including Castlemaine harbour . Second , the ORG had not given a firm undertaking that the new environmental classification of Castlemaine harbour would not affect the applicant company \u2019s activities . Third , the closing and opening of the harbour was done by valid statutory instruments . He considered that this ruled out any question of liability in negligence .","He then referred to the primary legislation governing fishing , the main objective of which was the conservation and rational management of the national fish reserves . This point was central to where any duty of care might lie . The starting point in the tort analysis had to be whether the Minister had owed a duty of care to the applicant company . There was a need for caution in holding that the public authorities owed a duty of care in particular circumstances , since it could greatly hinder their normal functioning . There were other means to deal with improper conduct by a public body , such as judicial review and the tort of misfeasance in public office . He reiterated that the authorities had not had any choice ; the Minister had acted as prescribed by ORG law . At most , it might be said that there was some choice to be made about whether to give priority to some of the affected sites over the others . Yet it was hard to argue that NORP harbour was more deserving than the other locations . Concentrating resources on some sites would have left operators in other sites waiting longer . The ORG had instead adopted a strategy of vigorous negotiation with the ORG to attempt to salvage whatever could be recovered for the benefit of users of all of the sites concerned .","The concept of operational negligence had not yet been accepted as part of domestic law . It would mean a lack of certainty in the law , and make public decision - making subsidiary to the views of experts at several removes from the pressures of government . It would mean arrogating broader functions to the courts than provided for in the LAW . The Minister had exercised powers based on statute and each decision had been correctly expressed through a statutory instrument . Given the general conservationist aims of the primary legislation , there was no statutory duty in favour of the applicant company . There was no discretion vested in the Minister to exempt any economic actor from ORG rules . There was no duty of care towards the applicant company that could found an action in negligence . Instead , the duty of care was towards the wider community , expressed as the protection of the environment .","Writing for the minority , PERSON considered that the High Court judgment , insofar as it concerned negligence , should be upheld as regards the events of DATE . Concerning the events of DATE , he noted that the applicant company had not provided evidence allowing a causal link to be established between the alleged failure on the part of the Minister and its inability to conduct its business DATE . It therefore had no cause of action against the ORG in this respect .","Applying the relevant principles to the case , PERSON clarified that there could not have been a duty on the Minister in DATE to refrain from closing the harbour until an appropriate assessment had been carried out , as this would have been contrary to ORG law . To the extent the harbour could be opened , this was only permissible in accordance with the interim measures agreed with the Commission . The real question was therefore :","\u201c CARDINAL ... In the light of developments in NORP law , did the Minister owe a duty of care to those who , to his knowledge ( and up to then with his permission ) , were carrying out activities in protected areas , to ensure that he had appropriate survey(s ) and other scientific evidence available to enable a decision to be made for the purposes of considering whether to permit the continuance of traditional activities and , should appropriate evidence be found to be present , to allow those activities to be authorised ? \u201d","He considered that on the facts of the case the necessary elements of foreseeability and proximity were present . The Minister was well aware of the activities taking place in GPE harbour . He was also aware , in light of the statement published in DATE , that there was a potential issue that might arise in relation to such activities . Therefore , the Minister had been fully aware that any failure to place himself in a position to make a sustainable decision about the continuance of traditional activities in the sites concerned could have a significant effect on those involved in them . A private party in an analogous position would undoubtedly have been held to have a duty of care towards such persons . He further noted that it must have been clear to the Minister for some time prior to the ORG judgment that there was a risk that the position taken by ORG would be upheld over that of the ORG . In that eventuality , there would be an immediate problem due to the absence of the necessary scientific data for the appropriate assessment to be made , leading to at least the temporary interruption of the activities of the applicant company and others operating in protected areas . These formed a small and defined group of persons that , to a large extent , were actually known to the Minister and the ORG .","As to the presence of any countervailing policy factor , he reiterated that the case did not concern matters of policy , discretion or adjudication . It did not touch upon the allocation of resources or the making of statutory decisions . It was about the purported duty of the Minister to take reasonable steps to ensure that he would be in a proper position to make a decision under NORP law and any relevant NORP measures . He clarified that he did not necessarily disagree with the view of MacMenamin J that no specific duty of care on the Minister had arisen in the period after the ORG judgment . At that stage , the authorities had found themselves on the back foot , with many decisions to be made about the allocation of the resources needed to conduct appropriate assessments at the sites concerned . But the actions and decisions in DATE and later were not relevant to the duty of care as he had defined it :","\u201c CARDINAL ... [ T]he Minister got it wrong by failing to put in place measures to secure the appropriate scientific data to enable an appropriate assessment to be carried out long after it had become clear , by reason of the position adopted by the Commission , that there was , to put it at its mildest , a significant doubt as to whether the Minister \u2019s position was correct .","...","CARDINAL NORP ... [ I]t seems to me that the duty of care which I suggest should be held to lie on the Minister does not derive from any balancing exercise at all and does not involve any aspect of the undoubted over - arching public duty which the Minister was obliged to perform . Against what can it be said that the Minister was balancing when he decided not to assemble the necessary scientific information and data ( despite the Commission \u2019s reasoned opinion ) prior to the decision of the ECJ ? What over - arching public duty would have been in any way impaired by the collection of such data ? There is no evidence to suggest that the failure to assemble the necessary data was based on any decision involving policy , discretion or adjudication . \u201d","Finally , he did not agree with the majority that the applicant company \u2019s business would have been interrupted in any event if the Habitats Directive had been correctly implemented at an earlier point in time . According to PERSON , the evidence accepted by ORG was that the necessary data could have been collected and analysed in a relatively short period of time , avoiding any interruption of the applicant company \u2019s usual activities . There was thus a causal link between the failure to assemble the relevant data and conduct the assessment at an earlier point in time , and the interruption of the applicant company \u2019s activities in DATE .","In relation to damages , PERSON noted that there were many points of disagreement between the applicant company and the ORG over the manner in which the former \u2019s losses should be properly assessed . He considered that the difficulties with the evidence and the figures would have made it impossible for ORG to conduct a fair and just calculation . Had the ORG \u2019s appeal been rejected , the proper course would have been to remit the question of damages to ORG for reassessment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164462","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KURSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Gda\u0144sk .","At the relevant time , the applicant was a member of ORG and a member of the PERSON and Justice party .","On DATE the applicant and several other politicians , experts and journalists , participated in a live television programme , Warto rozmawia\u0107 ( \u201c It \u2019s good to talk \u201d ) , shown on TVPCARDINAL . The programme was also broadcast on TVP Polonia on DATE .","During the programme the applicant took out a copy of PERSON , a NORP DATE newspaper and , pointing to particular pages , said :","\u201c I would like to show you the nature of the relationship between this media agreement ( \u201c uklad \u201d ) ... and the attacks on PERSON and ORG . I will show you PERSON , which for the first CARDINAL pages , for example DATE , is a frenzied attack on PERSON and ORG . Out of modesty I will not mention that a horrible piece about me , full of lies , is on the first page . On the second page , a frenzied attack on PERSON and ORG . Here , \u201c Students fear flogging \u201d , etc . etc . , \u201c ORG miracles \u201d . This is just obsessive propaganda . But let \u2019s go further , to page CARDINAL . And what do we see ? We see an advertisement entitled \u201c We have built one of the world \u2019s biggest stock markets with the participation of NORP shareholders . We are proud of that . \u201d This is an advertisement for the company ORG ....","So the paradox is that usually in newspapers they advertise washing powders , cosmetics , beers , or cars , that is , widely available consumer goods ( powszechnego nabycia ) . This [ company ] is a monopolist . It does not need any advertising . This company imports most of the crude oil into GPE and drives MONEY away from GPE to another company , which is registered somewhere in GPE . This is not about an advertisement . This is [ about ] financing mass propaganda against PERSON and ORG through an agreement which has been threatened by PERSON and ORG , so that such dubious deals ( geszefty ) ...","The point is that PERSON and ORG has interfered with extremely serious connections , which have been draining ...","Just one sentence ... but the jokes are over , and this structure ( uk\u0142ad ) understood that there will be no early elections , there will be no minority government , this is a chance for an institutional construction ... \u201d","During the applicant \u2019s statement CARDINAL of the journalists interrupted him by saying : \u201c But this would be more appropriate if someone from PERSON was here . \u201d However , the applicant continued with his statement .","On DATE , ORG , the publisher of ORG , brought a civil claim against the applicant for the protection of its rights . It claimed that the applicant \u2019s statements during the television programme on DATE had harmed its good name and credibility and asked that the applicant be made to have an apology published in PERSON and broadcast on TVPCARDINAL and to pay MONEY ( ORG ) to a charity .","On DATE ORG granted the claim and ordered the applicant to issue an apology via PERSON and TVPCARDINAL for the statements he had made . It further ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL ( approximately MONEY ( ORG ) to a charity and ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in court fees .","The text of the apology to be published by the applicant was as follows :","\u201c I declare that the public statement I made during the programme Warto rozmawia\u0107 , broadcast on DATE on TVPCARDINAL , included untrue , defamatory allegations and suspicions about ORG , a company registered in GPE , and about its publishing activity regarding PERSON . I confirm that those allegations caused negative consequences for ORG in conducting their business activities , in particular a loss of indispensable credibility and trust .","Consequently , I apologise to the GPE - registered company ORG ( the publisher of PERSON ) for having publicly disseminated untrue , defamatory statements which could have harmed its good name , credibility and reputation .","The above statement is made as a consequence of losing a civil case . \u201d","During the proceedings the applicant submitted that it had not been his intention to offend the plaintiff . In the television programme he had merely expressed a value judgment relating to aggressive and clearly CARDINAL - sided articles published in PERSON . He further noted that as his statements had been value judgments he had not had to prove their veracity .","The court considered that the applicant had breached the plaintiff \u2019s rights , in particular in respect of its good name , credibility and reputation . It could be seen from the applicant \u2019s statement that he had wished to point out to the audience that the plaintiff and PERSON had had some kind of media \/ business agreement , whereby articles against PERSON and ORG had been published in PERSON and financed via advertisements .","The court observed that the applicant \u2019s statement had contained both facts and conclusions drawn from those facts .","The court further observed that an accusation that a newspaper had published articles ordered by a sponsor was clearly offensive to the publisher . Likewise , it was offensive to the publisher to be associated with a company that allegedly conducted morally doubtful activities . The defendant had not submitted any evidence in support of his allegations . He had failed to explain on what basis he had drawn the conclusion that the income obtained from a particular advertisement had resulted in articles being published in PERSON . Furthermore , there had been no reason to believe that the income obtained from the ORG advertisement had been connected with any particular articles in PERSON , particularly the ones that the applicant had referred to as \u201c a frenzied attack on PERSON and ORG \u201d .","The court stressed that ORG had at the relevant time placed advertisements in several newspapers and magazines . However , the applicant had not alleged that those other newspapers or magazines had been involved in the alleged agreement ( uk\u0142ad ) . The court pointed out that a publisher could not refuse to publish an advertisement unless CARDINAL of the grounds set out in the press law existed , which had not been the situation in the present case . Moreover , as a rule , a publisher was not responsible for the content of advertisements .","The court did not agree with the applicant that he had not wished to infringe the plaintiff \u2019s rights . It noted that the applicant had prepared in advance to make the statement in question . He had already had a copy of PERSON when he had entered the television studio and he had had it in his hand while making the statement . In the court \u2019s opinion , the declaration had not been made spontaneously .","Lastly , the court observed that the applicant \u2019s statement could not have been explained on the grounds that it had been in the public interest . On the contrary , it was in the public interest that public figures such as the applicant , a member of parliament , should base the opinions they expressed in the media on verified facts and did not breach the rights of others .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment . He argued , amongst other things , that ORG had wrongly classified his statements as facts and not as value judgments .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment and ordered the applicant to pay MONEY ( about EUR CARDINAL ) in court fees for the proceedings at second instance .","ORG considered that the first - instance judgment had not related to the part of the applicant \u2019s statement concerning articles about himself and PERSON and ORG , even though he had called them \u201c frenzied attacks \u201d , because it was well known that PERSON was critical of PERSON and ORG and that was not something which needed to be proved . However , the applicant \u2019s allegations that ORG had conducted unclear or even suspicious dealings under the cover of placing advertisements in PERSON , and had in fact financed them only to destroy PERSON and ORG , which , for its part , had been fighting against the \u201c agreement \u201d between the company in question and PERSON , had been statements of fact . Nevertheless , the applicant had not proved the truthfulness of his statements about the connections between the plaintiff and the ORG company .","The court agreed with ORG that the applicant had prepared in advance to make the statement in question . The programme had concerned different issues and the statement had not been a response or reaction to the discussion between the participants . During the programme the applicant had kept a copy of PERSON under his chair , which he had shown to the cameras at the relevant moment .","As regards the PLN MONEY ( about EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to be paid to a charity , the court considered that to be a modest sum and the costs of publishing an apology a normal consequence of the applicant \u2019s wrongdoing .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment . He argued that ORG had wrongly applied the standards of LAW and had thus considered his statement to be one of fact rather than a value judgment . In his opinion , he had expressed value judgments during a public debate and had therefore not undermined the plaintiff \u2019s good name .","The applicant \u2019s cassation appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","The court considered that the statement in question , in so far as it had concerned relations between ORG and PERSON , had been a statement of fact . The applicant had spoken of suspicious links between PERSON and the publisher of the advertisement and the creation of fictional reasons for receiving funds from that publisher , which was all aimed at allowing PERSON to oppose PERSON and ORG . Such a statement , according to the court , had gone further than being a simple opinion about an advertisement in the press . Adding more information had put ORG advertisement in a completely different , negative light . Asking the applicant to prove such a statement had not been excessive and had not interfered with the freedom of political debate , but had been necessary for the accuracy and pertinence of such a debate .","The court further referred to LAW and stressed that freedom of expression was not absolute . Noting the case of NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVIII ) , it further reiterated that where a statement amounted to a value judgment , the proportionality of the interference may depend on whether there existed a sufficient factual basis for the impugned statement , since even a value judgment without any factual basis to support it may be excessive . In the present case , the defendant had not even attempted to prove the accuracy of his statements about the alleged connections of which he had accused the plaintiff .","On DATE ORG instituted enforcement proceedings in order to summon the applicant to comply with the obligations imposed by ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to publish the apology in question in PERSON ( in a smaller size than originally indicated ) . Since the applicant failed to comply with that order , on DATE ORG allowed ORG to publish the apology in PERSON in the applicant \u2019s name and ordered him to cover the costs of publication of ORG MONEY ( about EUR CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148267","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF URECHEAN AND PAVLICENCO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON .","Both applicants were politicians at the time of the events . The first applicant was mayor of PERSON and the leader of an opposition political party . The second applicant was a Member of ORG ( \u201c MP \u201d ) and member of an opposition party .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the then president of GPE Mr PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the President \u201d ) participated in CARDINAL television programmes on CARDINAL privately owned channels , CARDINAL of which had national coverage . He was interviewed by journalists on various topics such as the economy , justice , foreign relations and elections . The President stated , among other things , that \u201c during DATE of activity as a Mayor of GPE , Mr PERSON did nothing but to create a very powerful mafia - style system of corruption \u201d . When referring to the second applicant and to other persons , the President stated that all of them \u201c came straight from the ORG \u201d .","Both applicants brought libel actions against the President , seeking a retraction of the impugned statements and compensation . The first applicant sought compensation of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) , while the second applicant claimed MDL CARDINAL plus payment of her court fees and legal costs . The President \u2019s representative opposed the actions arguing that the impugned statements had been covered by his immunity .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings in the case lodged by the first applicant on the grounds that the President enjoyed immunity and could not be held responsible for opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate . The court gave the following reasoning in its decision :","\u201c Having examined the materials of the case and heard the parties , in the light of LAW , the court considers it necessary to strike out the case .","Thus , LAW para . CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows : \u2018 The President of GPE shall enjoy immunity . He may not be held legally responsible for opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate\u2019 .","It its judgment Nr . CARDINAL of DATE on the interpretation of LAW , ORG held that legal responsibility encompasses responsibility under criminal , civil and administrative laws .","In the same judgment , ORG gave an extensive explanation to the expression \u201c opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate \u201d used in LAW , holding that it means the point of view , opinions and convictions expressed in the exercise of his mandate in respect of matters and events from public life .","In such circumstances of fact and law , the court considers it necessary to strike out the case against the President of GPE , PERSON , on the ground that he can not be held liable under civil law . \u201d","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings in the case lodged by the second applicant on the grounds that the President enjoyed immunity . The court gave the following reasoning in its decision :","\u201c Having heard the arguments of the parties and having analysed the materials of the case , the court considers well founded the plea of the representative of the defendant to strike the case out .","The LAW guarantees a large immunity to the chief of the state . Thus , LAW para . QUANTITY of the LAW provides as follows : \u2018 The President of GPE shall enjoy immunity . He may not be held legally responsible for opinions expressed in the exercise of his mandate\u2019 .","For elucidating the limits of this constitutional immunity , the court refers to judgment Nr . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG . Giving its interpretation to LAW , ORG held that legal responsibility encompasses responsibility under criminal , civil and administrative laws .","ORG also gave an explanation to the meaning of the expression \u2018 opinions expressed in the exercise of his ORG ruling that it means the point of view , opinions and convictions expressed in the exercise of his mandate in respect of matters and events from public life . From the meaning of the judgment of ORG , the court considers that the independence of the opinions of the President of GPE in the exercise of his mandate is absolute and perpetual .","In her action lodged with the court , plaintiff PERSON relies on Articles DATE of LAW and asks for the President of GPE to be held liable under civil law , namely for the opinions expressed by him publically in a programme in the exercise of his mandate .","In view of the circumstances described above , bearing in mind the principle of the presidential immunity enjoyed by the President of GPE and of the impossibility to hold him responsible under law , the court comes to the conclusion that the present case must be struck out of the list of cases because in this case the President of GPE can not be held liable either by a court or by any other bodies . \u201d","Both applicants appealed , arguing that LAW of the LAW afforded immunity to the President only in respect of opinions he expressed and not in respect of statements of fact . Moreover , they argued that the impugned statements made by the President had not been in connection with the exercise of his official functions , and that the court of first instance had failed to determine whether that had been the case . In support of that argument , the second applicant pointed to the President \u2019s official duties as enumerated in the LAW , and to the fact that some of the topics discussed during the television programme , such as problems in the economy , foreign affairs and the functioning of parliament , fell outside the scope of the President \u2019s official functions .","The second applicant also stressed that the accusation made against her ( that she had belonged to the ORG ) was very offensive , and had been made by a very important person in the ORG at a TIME on a channel with national coverage . Even if the President had been exercising his official functions when participating in the television programme , the defamatory accusations made against her could not be considered part of those functions . Both applicants complained that the first - instance decision had unjustifiably limited their right of access to court , in breach of LAW and LAW .","On DATE and DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeals and upheld the judgments at first instance ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154161","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF EMIN HUSEYNOV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He is a person with a Category CARDINAL disability .","The applicant is an independent journalist and the chairman of ORG ( \u201c NORP \u201d ) , a non - governmental organisation specialising in the protection of journalists\u2019 rights . He also worked as a reporter for the news agency ORG .","On DATE a group called the \u201c PERSON Club \u201d held a gathering at a private caf\u00e9 in GPE to celebrate the eightieth anniversary of the birth of PERSON . The caf\u00e9 in question was located in the basement of a building in the city centre and there were CARDINAL attendees in the gathering . The applicant , accompanied by CARDINAL other colleagues ( PERSON and GPE ) from the LOC , attended this gathering .","The gathering began at TIME and TIME about thirty police officers entered the caf\u00e9 . Some of them were in police uniform and others were in plain clothes . They suspended the gathering and announced that they were going to take the attendees to the police station .","The applicant identified himself , informing the police officers that he was a journalist and the chairman of the LOC . He had with him his identity card and the card confirming that he was the chairman of the LOC . The applicant also asked the police officers to identify themselves and to release his arrested colleagues . He further informed ORG by telephone about the police intervention . In response , one of the police officers , who was apparently in charge of the intervention , ordered other police officers to take the applicant to the police station .","According to the applicant , he was taken to a police car by QUANTITY police officers , who used force against him . In particular , they punched and kicked him in the stomach .","NORP In support of his version of events , the applicant relied on written eyewitness statements from GPE and GPE , dated respectively DATE and DATE , who confirmed that the applicant had informed the police officers that he was a journalist and the chairman of the LOC before asking the police officers to release them . A police officer had then instructed other police officers to arrest the applicant and they had used force against him while taking him to a police car .","After his arrival at the police station , the applicant had been separated from the others who had been arrested and had been taken to the office of the Deputy Head of FAC no . CARDINAL , PERSON police officers had entered the room and had threatened the applicant in the presence of FAC of the police officers , PERSON , had , according to the applicant , shouted at him and had taken out his gun . Hitting his gun on the table , he had shouted \u201c I can eliminate you \u201d , \u201c I can arrest you \u201d , \u201c I can send you to jail \u201d . Then he had pushed down the applicant \u2019s head by pressing on the back of his neck so that his head hit the table . The applicant had warned the police officer that he was a person with a LAW disability and that his health was fragile . At that point O.A. had struck the applicant in the neck with his elbow ; as a result , the applicant had lost consciousness .","NORP In support of his version of events , the applicant relied on the above - mentioned written eyewitness statements from GPE and GPE In particular , PERSON submitted in his witness statement that , when he was in the corridor in the police station , the applicant was taken to the office of the Deputy Head of FAC no . CARDINAL . He had then heard someone who was shouting at the applicant saying \u201c I can eliminate you \u201d , \u201c I can send you to jail \u201d .","When the applicant regained consciousness , he had asked the police officers to call an ambulance because he did not feel well . They allegedly refused to do so , but had taken him out of the room . The applicant \u2019s colleagues had seen him in the corridor and had asked other members of the LOC to call an ambulance . They had also informed the media about the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment by the police .","In the meantime , some journalists , human rights defenders and youth movement activists who had been informed of the arrest of the applicant and his colleagues had begun gathering in front of the police station .","At TIME police officers accompanied the applicant to the door leading out of the police station , but the applicant had been able to take only a few steps and had then again lost consciousness . In support of his version of events , the applicant relied on written eyewitness statements from GPE ( journalist ) , PERSON ( civil society activist ) and PERSON ( director of ORG ) , who were at that time present in front of the police station . The witnesses stated that , when the applicant was taken out of the police station , he was unconscious and was taken by an ambulance , which was called by them , to hospital .","At TIME the applicant was admitted to hospital with the diagnosis of traumatic brain injury and contusion of the soft tissues around the nape of his neck . The applicant remained in the intensive care unit of the hospital for DATE . He was released from hospital on DATE .","The events of DATE attracted significant public and media interest both inside the country and internationally . In particular , a number of human rights organisations , including ORG , ORG , expressed concern over the applicant \u2019s arrest and ill - treatment by the police , asking the domestic authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the incident .","On DATE the police intervened in the gathering in question on the basis of a complaint from people living in the neighbourhood of the caf\u00e9 , who complained about noise and the behaviour of those attending . The applicant and other attendees who were unable to produce their identity cards were taken to the police station but were released once their identity had been established . During his stay at the police station the applicant was not ill - treated by the police .","A criminal inquiry was launched by FAC no . CARDINAL in connection with the information about the applicant \u2019s admission to ORG with injuries .","On DATE the applicant was questioned in hospital by an investigator from FAC no . CARDINAL . The applicant described in detail the circumstances of his arrest and detention by the police on DATE . In particular , he stated that on DATE he had attended the gathering commemorating the eightieth anniversary of the birth of PERSON , which had been interrupted by a police intervention . When he protested about the arrest of his journalist colleagues on the orders of the police officer who was apparently in charge of the intervention , QUANTITY police officers forcibly took him to a police car . Following his arrival at FAC no . CARDINAL , he was taken to the room of the Deputy Head of the police station . Other police officers were also in the room and CARDINAL of them , who was wearing black sunglasses , began insulting him . He then began threatening him , took out his gun and shouted at him . The same police officer also struck him in the neck , as a result of which he lost consciousness . The police officers then took him out of the room .","While the criminal inquiry was still pending , on DATE the spokesman for ORG , GPE , in an interview with ORG , stated as follows concerning the applicant \u2019s arrest and alleged ill - treatment by the police :","\u201c The statements made to the media by the chairman of ORG , PERSON , alleging that he was subjected to duress by the police are not true . Even the allegations published in the media are contradictory . \u201d","He further continued :","\u201c On DATE a group of people held an unauthorised gathering at a caf\u00e9 . The police requested the interruption of the unauthorised gathering . CARDINAL people were taken to FAC no . CARDINAL in order to establish their identity and to conduct the relevant explanatory interviews ( izahat i\u015fl\u0259ri ) . They were all released following the explanatory interviews . At that time , PERSON said that he did not feel well . An ambulance was called immediately . It was established during the medical examination that his health problem was related to his previous diseases . It was established during the medical examination that PERSON had lost consciousness because his blood pressure reached CARDINAL . \u201d","According to the applicant , he was examined by a forensic expert in hospital on DATE . The forensic report dated DATE provides that the examination began on DATE and ended on DATE without specifying the exact date of the applicant \u2019s examination by the forensic expert in hospital . The forensic report of DATE reads :","\u201c Questions addressed to the forensic expert :","NORP What kind of injuries are there on PERSON body ? What are their degree of gravity and characteristics ? In which order and with which instrument were they inflicted ? Could these injuries be sustained as a result of a fall , a beating or were they inflicted by PERSON himself ?","Does the date of infliction of the injuries on the body of citizen PERSON correspond to the date indicated in the descriptive part of the decision ?","Information about the case","It appears from the decision that a report in connection with the information that citizen PERSON , who resides in ... , has sustained injuries was assigned to me . PERSON , who was questioned during the inquiry , stated that on DATE a person that he did not know had struck him in the neck in FAC no . CARDINAL . Citizen PERSON attended the Clinical Medical Centre in connection with his injuries .","The examination was carried out in the resuscitation and intensive care unit of ORG in the presence of the lawyer PERSON . According to the person examined , at TIME on DATE during an event dedicated to the eightieth anniversary of the birth of PERSON in caf\u00e9 PERSON , plain clothes persons took him and other attendees to FAC no . CARDINAL . He was struck in his head at that moment and later at the police station . He replies in detail and precisely to the questions about the incident and other questions .","NORP The person examined is a man of medium height , normal build and slightly overweight .","No injuries or objective signs of injury were noticed on the hairy part of the head , the face and other parts of the body .","It appears from medical record no . CARDINAL of the patient of the Clinical Medical Centre of ORG that at TIME on DATE PERSON , who is DATE , was admitted to the resuscitation and intensive care unit by a team from emergency unit no . CARDINAL with the diagnosis of traumatic brain injury and contusion of the soft tissues around the nape of the neck ( qapal\u0131 k\u0259ll\u0259 beyin travmas\u0131 , \u0259ns\u0259 nahiy\u0259sinin yum\u015faq toxumlar\u0131n\u0131n \u0259zilm\u0259si ) . It was not possible for him to describe his complaints when he was admitted to hospital . According to those who brought him to hospital , the patient sustained the injury as a result of a beating . His general state was serious . The skin and mucous membrane were of ordinary color . The respiration was vesicular . The respiratory rate was CARDINAL breaths per minute , the blood pressure was CARDINAL\/CARDINAL PERSON , the heart pulse was beating TIME . The abdomen was not hard and there was no pain . Neurological status : his conscious awareness was impaired to the point of deafness . His reaction to bright light was positive , he turned away from it . His pupils and tendon reflexes were at equal distance from each side and they were alive . Meningitis symptoms and pathological reflexes were not observed . In the examination no injury was noticed on the skin . Diagnosis : neurological reaction ( nevrotik reaksiya ) . At TIME on DATE the patient , who was in a serious neurological state ( nevrotik v\u0259ziyy\u0259t ) , was directly admitted from the admission unit to the resuscitation and intensive care unit . His conscious awareness was in soporous state . The tendon and corneal reflexes were alive . The skin and mucous membrane which may be observed by eye were pale . The blood pressure was CARDINAL\/CARDINAL PERSON , the heart pulse was beating CARDINAL per minute . The respiration was normal and sufficient . The urination was normal . Hb-CARDINAL g \/ l , leucocytes QUANTITY . On DATE there was no pathological change in side projected X - ray examinations of side and neck vertebras of the cranium . At TIME on DATE the comment of the doctor on duty : the patient \u2019s state was stable . He was conscious and replied to questions . His pupils were at equal distance from each side and corneal reflexes were alive . There were no meningitis elements . The skin and observable mucous membrane were pale ... ( illegible ) , the heart pulse was beating CARDINAL per minute , the blood pressure was QUANTITY Hg ... ( illegible ) , the respiratory rate was CARDINAL breaths per minute ... ( illegible ) . His tongue was wet , the abdomen was not hard , the urination was adequate . It was written in the summary of the cerebral computed tomography opinion dated DATE that intraparenchymal traumatic pathological changes were not observed in PERSON . In the computed tomography examination of DATE pathological change in the neck area and traumatic change in the neck part of the vertebral column were not revealed . In the ultrasound examination of CARDINAL DATE no liquid was revealed in the abdomen and there was no hematoma in the parenchymal organs . It was noted in the log dated DATE that an examination was carried out by the doctors , the experts in neurotrauma , GPE and GPE , the head of the resuscitation and intensive care unit , ORG , the experts in resuscitation , ORG and GPE , and the following were noted : his general state was stable , he complained about headaches . The blood pressure was CARDINAL\/CARDINAL PERSON , the heart pulse was beating CARDINAL per minute . Neurological status : he was conscious and adequately replied to questions . His pupils and tendon reflexes were at equal distance from each side and they were alive . No change was observed in the cranial - brain nerves . There were no meningitis symptoms . Taking into account the patient \u2019s subjective complaints , it was desirable to subject him to a computed tomography examination . Bearing in mind the patient \u2019s state , it was decided that the further examination and treatment of the patient be continued in the neurotrauma department . It appears from the subsequent log that the patient was examined jointly by the assistant professor PERSON and the head of the department . It was further indicated that PERSON illness was related to extended osteochondrosis of the vertebral column , numerous disc protrusions in the back and neck areas ( C CARDINAL - CARDINAL , LAW , C CARDINAL - CARDINAL , L CARDINAL - CARDINAL , L CARDINAL , S CARDINAL ) , chronic dyscirculatory encephalopathy and vestibulopathy . His treatment in connection with the above - mentioned diseases is ongoing . Clinical diagnosis : neurological reaction , vertebrogenic syndrome , C CARDINAL - CARDINAL , C CARDINAL - CARDINAL , C CARDINAL - CARDINAL intervertebral disc protrusions , paroxysmal vein distention .","The forensic expert : C.A.","Conclusion","Relying on the forensic examination of PERSON , born in DATE , and the content of the medical documents , I conclude as follows in reply to questions addressed in the decision :","No injuries or objective signs of injury ( bruise , abrasion , wound , swelling , etc . ) were noticed on the body of PERSON .","PERSON in - patient treatment was related to his previous diseases - extended osteochondrosis of the vertebral column , numerous disc protrusions in the back and neck areas ( C CARDINAL - CARDINAL , C CARDINAL - CARDINAL , C CARDINAL - CARDINAL , L CARDINAL - CARDINAL , L CARDINAL , S CARDINAL ) , chronic dyscirculatory encephalopathy and vestibulopathy . \u201d","The applicant was not provided with a copy of the forensic report .","On DATE FAC no . CARDINAL issued an explanation ( aray\u0131\u015f ) concerning the police intervention of DATE . The relevant part of this document , signed by ORG no . CARDINAL , M.T. , reads :","\u201c On the basis of the information that CARDINAL people had gathered at caf\u00e9 \u201c ORG \u201d in the basement of building no . CARDINAL at CARDINAL May Street in GPE on DATE , at TIME police officers from ORG took measures in order to identify the persons gathered in this place and to establish the purpose of the gathering , and CARDINAL of them were taken to FAC no . CARDINAL .","After these individuals had arrived at Police Station no . CARDINAL at TIME , they were registered in the \u201c apprehended ORG registration log \u201d ( g\u0259tirilmi\u015f \u015f\u0259xsl\u0259rin qeydiyyat kitab\u0131 ) and were released at TIME At the police station , their identity was established and statements were taken from CARDINAL of them in order to establish the purpose of their gathering in that location .","... At the police station , their identity was established and they were released following a \u201c prophylactic conversation \u201d ( profilaktik s\u00f6hb\u0259t ) . It was also established that PERSON , who presented a document stating that he was the chairman of ORG , was among the persons apprehended ... \u201d","By a decision of DATE , the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings , finding that there was no evidence that the applicant had been ill - treated by the police . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c It was established during the examination of ORG reception log in ORG that citizen PERSON was admitted to the hospital with the diagnosis of neurological reaction at TIME on DATE . This was also noted in extract no . DATE , dated DATE , from the patient \u2019s in - patient and out - patient medical record provided by ORG .","In connection with the above - mentioned , the forensic report no . DATE of DATE , ordered on DATE , which was carried out by ... provides in reply to the questions addressed to the expert , on the basis of PERSON forensic examination and the content of the medical documents , that no injuries or objective signs of injury ( bruise , abrasion , wound , swelling , etc . ) were noticed on the body of PERSON and that PERSON in - patient treatment was related to his previous diseases - extended osteochondrosis of the vertebral column , numerous disc protrusions in the back and neck areas ( C CARDINAL - CARDINAL , C CARDINAL - CARDINAL , C CARDINAL - CARDINAL , L CARDINAL - CARDINAL , L CARDINAL , S CARDINAL ) , chronic dyscirculatory encephalopathy and vestibulopathy .","It appears from the evidence collected in connection with the fact that citizen PERSON had sustained an injury and from the forensic report dated DATE ... that there were no injuries or objective signs of injury on PERSON PERSON \u2019s body . As no criminal act has been established in this respect , it is appropriate to refuse to institute criminal proceedings . \u201d","The applicant was not informed of the decision of DATE concerning the investigator \u2019s refusal to institute criminal proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG . Relying on Articles CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention , he complained that he had been ill - treated by the police during his arrest and whilst in police custody , and that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation in this respect . The applicant further complained that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty and that the police intervention of DATE had been unlawful and had constituted an unjustified interference with his rights to freedom of expression and assembly . The applicant pointed out , in particular , that the investigator had questioned neither the police officers who had been involved in the ill - treatment nor the other witnesses . He also stated that he had not learned about the existence of the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE until DATE and that he had never been provided with a copy of the forensic report .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint , finding the investigator \u2019s decision lawful . The court \u2019s decision was silent as to the applicant \u2019s particular complaints . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c ... It was established during the examination of ORG reception log in ORG that citizen PERSON was admitted to the hospital with the diagnosis of neurological reaction at TIME on DATE . This was also noted in extract no . DATE , dated DATE , from the patient \u2019s in - patient and out - patient medical record provided by ORG .","It appears from the forensic report ... that no injuries or objective signs of injury ( bruise , abrasion , wound , swelling , etc . ) were noticed on PERSON body . It was noted that PERSON in - patient treatment was related to the previous diseases ... that he had suffered .","Therefore , the court considers that in carrying out a preliminary examination in compliance with LAW for establishing whether there were sufficient basis to institute criminal proceedings the investigator took all the necessary steps and , as it was not established that there had been a criminal element in the examined fact , a justified and lawful decision on refusal to institute criminal proceedings was adopted . \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision , reiterating his previous complaints . He also complained that the investigator had not arranged an identity parade including the police officer O.A. and neither had he questioned the police officers involved in his arrest and detention and , in particular , the Deputy Head of the FAC no . CARDINAL in whose room and whose presence he had been ill - treated . He had failed to obtain video recordings from security cameras situated in the police station in question . The applicant also disputed the conclusions of the forensic report , pointing out that he had not been provided with a copy of it .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","In the meantime , the applicant also lodged a civil action against ORG , asking for compensation . Relying on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention , he complained that he had been ill - treated by the police , that he had been arrested and taken to the police station unlawfully , and that the police intervention in the gathering had constituted an unlawful interference with his rights to freedom of expression and assembly . In support of his claim , the applicant relied on written eyewitness statements from PERSON and GPE , who stated that police officers had used force against the applicant during his arrest . They also stated that when the applicant was in the room of the Deputy Head of FAC no . CARDINAL , they had heard someone shouting at the applicant \u201c I can eliminate you \u201d , \u201c I can send you to jail \u201d . When the applicant had been taken out of the room , he did not feel well .","On DATE ORG refused to admit his action , finding that it did not comply with the procedural requirements for lodging a complaint .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision and remitted the case to the lower courts for a new examination .","On DATE ORG , having examined the applicant \u2019s action on the merits , decided to dismiss it . The court found that the applicant had been taken to the police station because he had not had his identity card on him . The court also held that the police intervention had been lawful , since the gathering at the caf\u00e9 in the city centre disturbed other people present and consequently the police had intervened . As regards the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment , the court held that it had not been established that the applicant had been ill - treated by the police . The relevant part of the judgment reads :","\u201c It was established at the court hearing that an investigator from FAC no . CARDINAL had examined the fact that PERSON had sustained injuries , that it had been decided to refuse to institute criminal proceedings on the basis of the collected materials because no criminal act had been established , and that this decision had not been challenged .","Moreover , it was established at the court hearing on the basis of witness statements that the applicant had been taken to FAC no . CARDINAL because he had not had his identity card on him , that he had been detained for a certain period of time , and that he had been then released following the establishment of his identity .","It was also established at the court that PERSON had been previously sustained brain injury and regularly underwent medical treatment in GPE and abroad for a long period of time . Unexpected health problems were previously observed in his case and the fact that he had felt unwell after having been brought to the police station was not related to any duress , but to his previous illness .","Furthermore , it was not established at the court hearing that the applicant had sustained a bodily injury or subjected to physical violence , beaten or been under duress at the police station . \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision , reiterating his previous complaints .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower courts\u2019 judgments ."],"violated_articles":["11","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152422","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MIHAYLOVA AND MALINOVA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants , daughter and mother , were born respectively in DATE and DATE and live in PERSON . Mr PERSON , the victim of the police action in question , was a young GPE man : the first applicant \u2019s father and the second applicant \u2019s unmarried partner .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , can be summarised as follows .","Late in TIME of CARDINAL August CARDINAL , while driving in the centre of PERSON , PERSON noticed CARDINAL individuals who were trying to open the doors of a parked lorry . Mr PERSON was one of these men . PERSON called the police . Shortly afterwards , CARDINAL on - duty police officers from ORG , Chief PERSON and M , who at that time had been responding to another call , received information from the central office that CARDINAL \u201c gypsies \u201d had been seen breaking into a lorry and the officers drove immediately to the scene .","When the police car , apparently with its siren on , approached the lorry , the CARDINAL men started running . The officers followed by car . When the street became narrower , they got out of the car and separated , with Chief PERSON chasing PERSON while Sergeant M followed the other CARDINAL men , whom he was unable to catch . Chief PERSON caught up with Mr LOC by the side of the street , close to a parked car . A short fight followed , and QUANTITY shots were fired . CARDINAL of the bullets , fired at very close range , entered the left back of Mr LOC \u2019s head and exited through the right side of his forehead . An ambulance was called and PERSON was taken to a hospital where his death was registered at TIME on DATE .","On DATE a criminal investigation ( VII-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) was opened against Chief Sergeant S to establish whether he caused Mr PERSON \u2019s death as a result of a disproportionate reaction to an attack ( LAW : see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . At this stage no charge was brought against him .","An autopsy was carried out on Mr PERSON \u2019s body on DATE . In his report the forensic pathologist determined that death had resulted from a severe cerebral trauma and ensuing cardiovascular insufficiency . The trauma was caused by a transitory gunshot : the entry wound was located on the left side of the back of PERSON head and the exit wound on the right side of the forehead towards the temporal bone . The shot was fired from a distance close to point - blank range . The expert noted that , as the head could move in different directions , on the basis of the route of the bullet it was difficult to establish the dynamic position of the victim \u2019s body in relation to the gun at the moment of shooting . He also noted several bruises on the right side of PERSON face , his right hand and both knees , which he concluded had in all probability resulted from DATE to the ground after the shooting .","The pathologist also examined Chief PERSON He noted a reddishpink bruise on his right hand , measuring QUANTITY long , and another bruise measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY on his right side . The pathologist concluded that the injuries could have been inflicted in the manner described by the police officer , namely when he was trying to knock the knife from Mr PERSON \u2019s hand and during the struggle for the gun .","An inspection of the scene was carried out at TIME on DATE by a military investigator in the presence of CARDINAL certifying witnesses . There was no subsequent day - light examination . The investigator examined the bonnet of the car next to which Mr PERSON \u2019s body was found and noted a dent of QUANTITY located at QUANTITY from the front left corner and QUANTITY from the front right corner as well as a bullet hole measuring QUANTITY situated at QUANTITY from the front left corner and QUANTITY from the front right corner of the bonnet ; blood stains on the bonnet and on the ground next to the car ; and another dent with freshly peeling paint on the metal wall of the building to the left of the car . Photographs were taken of the dent and the bullet hole on the bonnet but these were not preserved as physical evidence , nor were impressions made of the dents and bullet holes . The vehicle was not taken away for examination and its owner , a security firm , repaired and sold it before the investigation was formally completed .","NORP The investigator found a handgun on the ground under the bonnet of the parked car . The safety lever was lifted and there was CARDINAL bullet in the barrel and CARDINAL in the magazine . The investigator found and retrieved CARDINAL spent cartridge case , on the other side of the street , CARDINAL to QUANTITY from the parked car where Mr PERSON was shot , but no bullets . During the subsequent stages of the investigation proceedings the initial number of cartridges in the officer \u2019s gun was not clarified , nor was it determined how many shots were fired , including whether a warning shot was fired . The statements of the Chief Sergeant S were contradictory on this subject . In his testimony of CARDINAL DATE he S stated that he had started with CARDINAL cartridges in his handgun but on DATE he changed his testimony , maintaining that he had had CARDINAL cartridges .","A fingerprint report of CARDINAL DATE did not record any traces of fingerprints on the handgun suitable for examination . The report on the acetone - drenched swabs of Chief PERSON \u2019s hands of CARDINAL DATE found no traces of gunpowder residue . The expert report on Chief PERSON \u2019s handgun of CARDINAL DATE concluded , inter alia , that it had been in good condition and would have discharged a shot only after the trigger was pulled .","During the inspection of the scene of the killing which took place in TIME of CARDINAL DATE , the investigating officer found a folding knife , with an QUANTITY blade and a QUANTITY metal handle . The protocol of the search stated that it was found on the bonnet of a car parked across the street from the death scene but it did not state whether the blade was open when it was found . It seems that no steps were taken to check for fingerprints on the knife or to determine its ownership . A mobile telephone was found in a stone vase near the scene of the shooting , but the subsequent investigation did not determine who owned it .","NORP The investigator questioned Chief PERSON , his colleague Chief Sergeant M and the CARDINAL security guards who had been standing in the vicinity of the scene at the time of the events .","Questioned in TIME of CARDINAL DATE , Chief PERSON stated that PERSON had been running with his arms open wide while trying to escape . As the sergeant caught up to him , PERSON had stopped and turned round . At this point Chief PERSON noticed that he held a knife , but it was dark and he could not see it well . Mr PERSON swung at the sergeant with his left hand , and the officer tried in vain to knock the knife away . Mr PERSON then grasped him tightly with both hands behind his back , while reaching for the handgun , which was in the officer \u2019s unbuttoned holster at his waist . The CARDINAL men had fought briefly for possession of the gun . Chief PERSON stated that he felt strongly afraid : it was dark , the other man had his hand on the officer \u2019s loaded gun and was armed with a knife . The officer could not remember the exact position of their bodies in the fight that ensued for the gun and at the moment when the shots were fired , nor could he remember how many shots were involved . He had been expecting the man to shoot or stab him at any moment .","Questioned later , Chief PERSON stated that after the first shot was fired he panicked and could not remember what happened . In his subsequent statements he explained that he had been stabbed on earlier occasions while on duty , which had made him particularly fearful of knives . He was not even aware who actually pulled the trigger and at CARDINAL moment he had feared that he had been shot , rather than Mr Mihaylov .","NORP Throughout the subsequent proceedings the only testimony about the detail of the fight remained that of Chief PERSON The other officer involved in the chase , Chief Sergeant M , and some other eye witnesses were also questioned in TIME of CARDINAL DATE . Chief Sergeant M stated that he telephoned Chief PERSON when he lost sight of the other CARDINAL suspects , to discuss how to proceed . Chief PERSON asked him to come to him immediately . When he arrived at the site there were a lot of people and he saw a man taken away by ambulance . Chief PERSON \u2019s handgun was beneath a car and there was a blood stain on the ground next to the car . His colleague was extremely upset and told him that he had done the worst . There was a pocket knife on the bonnet of another car nearby .","At the time of the events , CARDINAL employees of a private security company , ORG , ORG and ORG , were chatting in front of their office , which was in a building adjacent to the street where PERSON was shot . They were interviewed on CARDINAL occasions and their statements were inconsistent , both in respect of each man \u2019s previous statements and the statements given by the other men . Their statements varied as regards whether they heard a warning shot , how many shots were fired and whether they saw a knife in Mr LOC \u2019s hand . Some of them remembered the officer warning Mr LOC from a distance to stop and lie down . All of them stated that the events unfolded within TIME and that they could not see what exactly happened when the police officer came into contact with Mr PERSON because it was dark . None of them had seen a knife or a gun in the hands of Mr PERSON or Chief PERSON in this short time , although they saw them afterwards . They agreed that when Chief PERSON , who had fallen to the ground with Mr PERSON , stood up , he was holding a knife , which he threw and which fell on the bonnet of a car parked on the other side of the street . The officer had been very upset , and appeared to be in a state of shock , waving his arms around , pacing up and down and repeatedly proclaiming : \u201c What did I do ? \u201d","Later in the proceedings it transpired that there was a camera installed above the entrance door of the security company building , facing the street . The car next to which the shooting took place was parked on the opposite side of the street , at a short distance from where the men were standing . In his testimony of CARDINAL DATE , ORG stated that on TIME of the incident the security camera installed above the entrance to the building in which they worked had been broken . Another witness stated that the camera did not record footage , but only monitored the street outside , and was used by the TIME shift security guards to observe the firm \u2019s vehicles . The guard on duty on TIME of the shooting was ORG . He was standing outside with the other CARDINAL witnesses . There was also a dispatcher whose desk was below the monitor screen , but according to ORG she could not see it . During his interview of the same day EK stated that he could not remember which dispatcher was on duty that night and that at that time the dispatchers employed by the firm were all new employees of the company . The camera was not inspected and none of the other employees of the firm were interviewed on this point during the investigation .","On DATE the investigating officer completed his work on case - file VII-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . In his findings on the facts he described the unfolding events in detail as follows :","\u201c On DATE the operator on duty at the district police station of ORG Chief PERSON , a witness , took a call from a private person PERSON who reported that CARDINAL men were preparing to commit theft from a lorry parked on PERSON Street . The lorry belonged to ORG \u2013 it was left parked in the street with its signal lights on by ORG , who worked as a supplier for ORG The operator dispatched patrol officers Chief PERSON and Chief PERSON to the location in question . When the patrol vehicle approached the lorry on PERSON Street the CARDINAL men who were around and inside the lorry attempted to escape and started running in the direction of the town centre . The patrol vehicle followed them along PERSON Street when CARDINAL of the men ran towards the town centre and CARDINAL ran towards FAC . Chief PERSON went in pursuit of the CARDINAL men running towards the town centre and Chief PERSON followed the man who had gone in the direction of FAC ; PERSON fired a warning shot in the air \u2013 using a \u2018 ORG bullet . On DATE FAC in proximity to FAC , and in front of building No . CARDINAL Chief PERSON caught up to the running man who while running had a mobile telephone in one of his hands and a pocket knife in the other . At TIME PERSON had already put his Makarov KT CARDINAL pistol into the holster on his hip so that he could run faster , and at the time there was a live bullet in the barrel of the pistol after the firing of the warning shot . PERSON was wearing a uniform , he had got off a police vehicle bearing insignia , he had shouted to the running man \u2018 Stop ! Police ! Get down on the ground!\u2019 but the man had not stopped running . In front of the building on FAC stopped running , turned to face the police officer and swung at him with his hand which held a pocket knife . PERSON saw the blade in the street light and blocked the hand of the man . Without letting go of the knife , ORG threw himself on VS , grabbed him around his waist while holding his arms , and attempted to take the gun out of PERSON \u2019s holster . PERSON took hold of ORG \u2019s hand which was holding the gun , and then BM pushed VS onto the bonnet of an Opel with number plates ORG which was parked nearby . As he was falling , PERSON managed to extricate himself from under PERSON , while PERSON kept holding on to his gun with one of his hands , and holding the knife in the other . At the same time PERSON had both his hands on ORG \u2019s hand with which he was trying to take the gun out of the holster . BM had managed to take out the gun while PERSON held his hand \u2013 as a shot was fired and the bullet hit the metal wall of the building of FAC . The direction of that shot was to the side and away from the place of the incident , which means that this shot was not fired as a warning shot . After the shooting , because of the fear for his life which he had experienced , PERSON was in a state of extreme stress and he was not able to recollect the events in detail . The struggle between the CARDINAL was observed by CARDINAL witnesses : ORG , ORG and ORG who were standing in front of the building at FAC No . CARDINAL and who did not interfere . Their testimonies confirm that ORG had stopped running and had started to wrestle with VS . However , because of the stress , the dim light and the speed of the events the witnesses can not recall details about the manner in which ORG was shot and the position of the CARDINAL men \u2019s bodies in relation to one another at the time of the shooting . From the appearance and the location of the gun wound on ORG \u2019s head and the gunshot hole found in the bonnet of ORG , it is evident that after the first shot was fired , PERSON had managed to regain possession of the gun and shoot him in the head at close range . After the shooting VS was in a state of shock : he dropped the gun on the ground , he was moving erratically , he was bending down to ORG who was lying on the ground , he took the knife from ORG \u2019s hand and threw it onto the bonnet of Opel C CARDINAL \u041f\u0425. At this moment Chief PERSON was in the town centre and he placed a call to VS \u2019s mobile ; PERSON told him that trouble had occurred and ORG called the operator to dispatch support . PERSON , the operator on duty , sent a patrol vehicle and an ambulance . BM was taken to the hospital in PERSON where in spite of the medical assistance he passed away from a traumatic head injury followed by shock and coma that led to irreversible heart and lung failure .","In his DATE of service with ORG Chief PERSON has never been disciplined ; he was awarded CARDINAL times . The man who was killed , ORG , had committed a large number of offences . He has been registered for CARDINAL thefts and CARDINAL robberies . He was convicted CARDINAL times for the following crimes : .... \u201d","Based on these findings , the investigator proposed to the prosecutor to discontinue the investigation since he considered that Chief PERSON had acted in self - defence within the meaning of Article DATE of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) , which in his view meant that the acts of the police were not liable to prosecution . He further indicated that \u201c even if there was no danger to the officer \u2019s life , Chief PERSON was authorised to use a firearm in such circumstances , although he did not do so until his life was threatened \u201d .","On DATE the ORG counsel requested access to the investigation file . On DATE a prosecutor from the GPE military prosecutor \u2019s office dismissed the request , on the grounds that at this stage the applicants were not participating in the criminal proceedings .","In a decree of DATE the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings against Chief PERSON , stating that the officer had shot Mr LOC but that this had not constituted an offence . In reaching his conclusion , the prosecutor found it established that , when running , Mr PERSON had been holding a mobile telephone in one hand and a knife in the other . At some point he had stopped abruptly , had turned around and had swung at the officer with the knife . When the officer had tried to knock away the knife , PERSON had wrestled with him , tried to reach the officer \u2019s handgun , and pushed him onto the bonnet of the car . A short struggle for the gun had followed and one shot had been fired accidentally . Following that , according to the prosecutor , the officer had managed to get hold of the gun and shoot PERSON . As the victim had still been holding the knife , the police officer took it from his hands and threw it away . In the prosecutor \u2019s view PERSON attacked the officer in order to avoid arrest and also to help his accomplices , who at that time were running away with a cassette player stolen from the lorry .","On the basis of this account of the facts , the prosecutor reached the following conclusions . First , he concluded that PERSON had attacked Chief PERSON Secondly , the reaction of the police officer , who had shot Mr PERSON , had not been disproportionate to the attack . Chief PERSON had acted in self - defence against a much younger man who had been holding a knife . Because of the weak light and the speed of the events , the circumstances of the shooting and the position of the bodies could not be established . Thirdly , once Chief PERSON identified himself as a police officer and fired a warning shot he was entitled under LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) to use force to arrest PERSON , even if it had not been necessary to act in self - defence . The prosecutor also noted that Chief PERSON had never been disciplined but had been commended a number of times and that Mr PERSON had been known to the police and had been convicted CARDINAL times . The fact that Mr Mihaylov held the knife in his left hand and that he must have used the same hand to grasp the gun of the officer , who was facing him , was not given attention .","NORP In response to the applicants\u2019 counsel \u2019s appeal , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decree , finding that the prosecutor \u2019s account of the events was based on arbitrary and contradictory assumptions rather than on established facts ; the interviews of the witnesses had been formalistic and their statements were vague and contradictory . In particular , the prosecutor had failed to establish the number of shots fired , the position of the CARDINAL bodies at the time of the fatal shooting , the trajectory of the bullet and the position of the victim \u2019s head in relation to the barrel of the gun . The court also noted that the prosecutor had failed to give reasons for his conclusions regarding the applicability of the rules on self - defence or LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In view of those shortcomings the court remitted the case and instructed the prosecutor to re - interview the eyewitnesses ; if possible , to find and interview other witnesses ; to have prepared a medicalballistics report in order to establish , in particular , the position of the bodies and the trajectory of the bullet ; and to organise a reconstruction of the events in order to verify the ORG statements .","NORP In execution of the court \u2019s instructions , on DATE the investigator commissioned a medical - ballistics report . The authors of the report made no mention of the bullet hole in the car bonnet and concluded that they could not determine the exact position of the CARDINAL bodies at the time of the shooting . They found that at the moment of the shooting the gun was almost touching the back left side of Mr PERSON \u2019s head , and that it had been pointing upwards and slightly to the right .","The investigator questioned Chief PERSON on DATE . Relying on his status as a witness , the sergeant refused to take part in a reconstruction , claiming that he had received threats from the NORP community in PERSON . On DATE the investigator was discharged from the case for his failure to comply with the court \u2019s directions and a new investigator was appointed . The new investigator questioned the CARDINAL security guard eyewitnesses on DATE and DATE and he questioned Chief PERSON on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE and DATE . Chief PERSON maintained that he had acted in self - defence and in accordance with the rules governing the use of force . He was in shock and unable to remember the exact positions of himself and PERSON when the latter was shot .","In a decree of DATE the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the police officer had not committed an offence . The applicants again sought judicial review . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decree and remitted the case for further investigation . The court stated that the investigative authorities had failed to comply with the court \u2019s previous directions and had thus obstructed the investigation . It noted again that the interviews of the witnesses had been formalistic , that their statements were contradictory and that the investigative authorities had failed to organise a reconstruction or confrontations in order to clarify the facts . The court noted that the forensic evidence suggested that at the moment of the shooting Mr PERSON had been facing the bonnet of the car . Also , the investigative authorities had never established the exact number of cartridges fired and the statements of Chief PERSON were inconsistent on this point . The court further noted that the experts who had carried out the medical - ballistics report had failed to discuss the bullet hole in the car bonnet . Furthermore , the investigative authorities had failed to inspect the knife and to analyse the circumstances surrounding its use or to inspect the mobile telephone and its whereabouts at the time of the events .","Following the remittal , the investigator re - questioned the security guards . They stated that they had only vague memories of the incident and refused to participate in a reconstruction . Chief PERSON again refused to give a further statement or to participate in a reconstruction . The fingerprint expert report on the knife of DATE found no fingerprints suitable for examination .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 counsel examined the investigation file and requested the collection of additional evidence , namely that steps be taken to seek out other witnesses ; that the certifying witnesses who had participated in the inspection of the crime scene early in the morning following the incident be questioned ; that the CARDINAL police officers be re - interviewed with a view to clarifying whether they had followed a preliminary plan for the arrest of PERSON and his companions ; that an additional medical - ballistics report be prepared to clarify the position of the bodies , in particular whether PERSON had been neutralised at the moment of the fatal shooting , and the number of cartridges in the handgun as it had not been clear how many shots had been fired in total . She also demanded the inspection of the security camera , installed above the entrance of the building opposite the site of the shooting ; a reconstruction of the events ; and an identification by PERSON family of the knife found at the scene . On DATE these requests were rejected by the prosecutor on the grounds that they were aimed at delaying the proceedings . The prosecutor noted , inter alia , that any video recordings made by the camera belonging to the security firm would not qualify as evidence under LAW .","In a decree of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings since he considered that Chief PERSON had not committed an offence . In relation to the court \u2019s instructions regarding further inquiries , the prosecutor stated that , despite efforts made , no other eyewitnesses had been identified ; the inspection of the knife had not revealed any new evidence ; it had been impossible to establish the owner of the mobile telephone ; and that a reconstruction of the events would have been futile as Chief Sergeant S refused to take part owing to a justified fear of violence from the relatives of the victim and members of the NORP community . The prosecutor stated that when the fight had started Chief PERSON and PERSON had fallen on the bonnet of the car . The prosecutor did not come to any conclusion as to whether PERSON had been holding the knife when the fatal shot was fired , but noted only that at that moment the officer had been very afraid . The prosecutor reproduced the legal conclusions on the rules of self - defence under LAW , contained in the decree of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Relying on unspecified information about injuries inflicted on Chief PERSON during earlier police operations , the prosecutor concluded that the latter should not be punished because he had acted in a state of acute fear .","The applicants challenged the decree , claiming , inter alia , that the authorities , influenced by their prejudice towards GPE , had conducted only a formalistic investigation . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG quashed the decree and remitted the case to the prosecutor . It held that the investigative authorities had failed to comply with the instructions given by the court in previous decisions and that they had intentionally protracted the investigation and failed to employ any meaningful efforts to establish the truth . The court noted , inter alia , that the exact circumstances of the fight and the shooting had not been established ; that no reconstruction had been organised and no valid reasons given for this omission ; and that the authorities had also failed to conduct confrontations , inspections of the knife and the mobile telephone or to order an additional medical - ballistics report .","Following the remittal by ORG , on DATE the investigator arranged for an inspection of the knife , but this failed to determine whether the blade had been open or closed at the time of the shooting . A further medical - ballistics report , dated DATE , made no reference to the bullet hole in the bonnet of the car and concluded that it was impossible to establish the exact position of the bodies at the time of the shooting . The investigator also requested Chief PERSON to take part in confrontations with ORG and ORG , and a reconstruction , but the Chief Sergeant refused to participate .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 counsel repeated her earlier requests for additional investigative measures . In a decree of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor again discontinued the criminal proceedings . He repeated verbatim the reasoning given in the decree of DATE , but added as an additional ground that Chief PERSON had been suffering from fear and confusion and that in these circumstances , as a matter of domestic law , there had been no excess of force . The applicants sought judicial review . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decree and remitted the case for further investigation . The court stated that despite the numerous remittals the prosecutor had repeatedly failed to comply with the court \u2019s instructions and that the actions of the authorities and the measures employed had been a parody of an investigation , revealing unwillingness to collect the evidence and establish the truth .","Following the remittal the investigator questioned the CARDINAL security guards , Chief Sergeant M and CARDINAL additional witnesses , as requested by the applicants . During the interview of ORG on DATE , the investigator in CARDINAL question referred to Mr Mihaylov as \u201c the gypsy \u201d . On DATE the investigator organised a reconstruction of the events . Chief PERSON did not take part , relying on his capacity as a witness . A further ballistics report dated DATE found , in particular , that on the basis of photographs it had not been possible to establish the morphology , character and orientation of the bullet hole and thus the exact position of the bodies at the time of the shooting . Meanwhile , it appears that around this time the prosecutor in charge of the investigation stated that he disagreed with the court \u2019s instructions and requested to be allowed to withdraw from the case . It appears that this request was not granted , as he continued working on the case .","In a decree of DATE the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings finding , as before , that the police officer had shot Mr PERSON to defend himself from the latter \u2019s attack and that the use of force had , in any case , been justified under LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) once the police officer had asked PERSON to stop and had fired a warning shot . The prosecutor noted , in support of his finding of self - defence , that an offender with a criminal record had attempted to attack a police officer , who had never been disciplined and who had received awards . The applicants sought judicial review , contending , inter alia , that the authorities had not bothered to carry out an effective investigation because of PERSON ethnicity and low social status . ORG upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decree . Upon the appeal of the applicants , in a decision of DATE , ORG set aside the lower court \u2019s decision . ORG raised serious doubts in respect of the prosecutor \u2019s impartiality . It further noted the prosecutor \u2019s failure to establish who had fired the fatal shot and in what circumstances . The court also held that on the basis of the evidence collected , namely the NORP testimony that the shooting had taken place on the car \u2019s bonnet and the conclusions of the medical - ballistics report about the channel of the wound , it was clear that at the moment of the lethal shooting Mr PERSON had been facing the bonnet of the car and the police officer had fired from behind . Thus the court found that immediately before the shooting the police officer had had full control over the victim , the use of force had not been necessary and there was sufficient evidence that the police officer had intentionally killed Mr LOC . The court remitted the case , instructing the prosecutor to bring charges against the sergeant for murder as well as to discharge anybody who had demonstrated partiality from working on the case .","On DATE a newly - appointed prosecutor laid charges against Chief PERSON for causing death as a result of a disproportionate reaction to an attack . However , DATE , in a decree of DATE , the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings against Chief PERSON , using almost identical reasoning to that in the decree of DATE , with some additional findings , some of which appeared contradictory . For example , at CARDINAL point in the decree the prosecutor found that Mr PERSON had dropped the knife before he had reached for the sergeant \u2019s handgun , but subsequently he found that Mr PERSON had dropped the knife at the moment the fatal shot was fired . The prosecutor also referred to the police officer \u2019s fear of knives as justification for using force . Chief PERSON had claimed in his testimony of CARDINAL DATE that he had developed a fear of knives after he was stabbed while making another arrest DATE before the incident with PERSON . No assessment of the police officer \u2019s psychological condition or his fitness to perform his duties at the material time was mentioned in the decree . In the report , the prosecutor advanced CARDINAL different justifications for the use of force , namely , the justified use of force to make an arrest ; self - defence ; and the excessive use of force due to fear . No attempt was made to reconcile these CARDINAL theories .","The applicants sought judicial review . In a decision of DATE the ORG quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decree and remitted the case for further investigation . The court considered ill - founded the prosecutor \u2019s conclusions that Mr PERSON had been holding a knife when he had turned to the sergeant and that at the beginning of the fight Mr LOC had pushed the sergeant onto the bonnet of the car . The court found that the officer had had full control over Mr PERSON and that the use of force had been excessive . The court also noted the failure of the investigative authorities to comply with previous judicial directions .","Following the remittal , the prosecutor interviewed CARDINAL witnesses who stated that Chief PERSON had been injured before , in DATE and DATE , during police operations . In a decree of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor again discontinued the criminal proceedings . This time the prosecutor maintained that PERSON had dropped the knife before reaching for the handgun . He further held that the fight had taken place next to the car and not on its bonnet and that PERSON had fallen on the bonnet after he had been shot . Following an appeal by the applicants , on DATE the ORG quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decree and again remitted the case for further investigation . Chief PERSON appealed against the decision . In his appeal he did not claim to have acted in self - defence but instead claimed that it had been an accidental killing , falling under LAW . The prosecutor also challenged the decision . His appeal was rejected in a decision of ORG on DATE . In a decree of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor discontinued the proceedings for the eighth time , stating that Mr PERSON had been holding a knife when he attacked the officer and that he had pushed the officer onto the bonnet of the car , dropping the knife and reaching for the handgun , and that after the shooting the officer had taken the knife and had thrown it away . The applicants sought judicial review . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court granted the appeal and remitted the case , finding that the court \u2019s earlier instructions had not been complied with , that no additional investigation had been conducted , and that the prosecutor had based his conclusions on contradictory facts .","Chief PERSON challenged the court \u2019s decision before ORG and reiterated his claim that the shooting had been an accident . By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s decision and upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decree . The court endorsed the conclusions of the prosecutor on the facts . It found that the police officer had been faced with a real and imminent attack by the victim which was not interrupted until the CARDINAL shots were fired . The police officer had acted in self - defence and had not , therefore , committed an offence ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163357","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MITROV v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Reopening of case (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the time when the criminal proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) were initiated , there were CARDINAL judges working in the criminal section of FAC ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) : Judges PERSON , GPE , PERSON and PERSON In addition , Judge PERSON was an investigating judge in the trial court , Judge PERSON worked on cases concerning minor offences , and Judge GPE was on sick leave .","DATE Judge PERSON was a clerk ( \u0441\u0442\u0440\u0443\u0447\u0435\u043d \u0441\u043e\u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a ) at the trial court . From DATE she worked with Judge PERSON and CARDINAL other judges . She was appointed as a judge in DATE .","In DATE Judge PERSON became president of the criminal section of the trial court .","On DATE the applicant was involved , as the driver of a car , in a traffic accident in which the DATE daughter of Judge ORG was killed .","On DATE , after examining the applicant in the presence of his lawyer , Judge PERSON opened an investigation against him .","DATE and DATE Judge PERSON heard evidence from CARDINAL eyewitnesses , CARDINAL experts and the ORG representative . The applicant \u2019s representative was only present when CARDINAL of the eyewitnesses gave their statements .","On DATE , Judge PERSON commissioned an expert report , to be prepared by ORG ( PERSON \u0437\u0430 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u0432\u0435\u0448\u0442\u0430\u0447\u0435\u045a\u0430 ) ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) , regarding the reasons for the accident , the speed at which the applicant had been driving at the relevant time , whether the accident could have been avoided , and other relevant matters .","On DATE a mechanical engineer from the ORG drew up an expert report ( \u201c the first expert report \u201d ) , relying partly on the statements given by the witnesses before Judge PERSON","On DATE the public prosecutor charged the applicant with \u201c severe crimes against the safety of people and property in traffic \u201d ( \u0442\u0435\u0448\u043a\u0438 \u0434\u0435\u043b\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0438\u0432 \u0431\u0435\u0437\u0431\u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u043b\u0443\u0453\u0435\u0442\u043e \u0438 \u0438\u043c\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0442 \u0432\u043e \u0441\u043e\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u045c\u0430\u0458\u043e\u0442 ) . On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of the trial court , presided over by Judge ORG , dismissed an objection ( \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0433\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0440 ) by the applicant to the indictment .","NORP In DATE an alternative expert report was drawn up , at the applicant \u2019s request , by a private expert agency ( \u201c the second expert report \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant asked the president of the trial court to exclude the trial court judges who acted in the criminal proceedings , namely Judge PERSON and the other judge on the trial court panel which were acting in the applicant \u2019s case , as well as Judges PERSON , GPE and GPE , given that the case concerned a traffic accident in which the daughter of a judge in the criminal section of the court had been killed . He further complained that the investigation had been unfair , and alleged that Judge PERSON had been partial . Finally , he stated that he hoped that the president of the trial court would ask the President of ORG ( \u201c the appellate court \u201d ) to assign the case to another first - instance court .","On DATE Judges PERSON and PERSON , who had been appointed as members of the panel in the applicant \u2019s case , gave written statements that the fact that their colleague \u2019s daughter had died in the accident would not influence their adjudication . The president of the trial court referred to those statements , and dismissed the application for exclusion in respect of Judges PERSON and PERSON , finding that the conditions of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had not been fulfilled . The president of the trial court further rejected as inadmissible the application concerning Judges PERSON and GPE , given that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW an application for exclusion could only be lodged in respect of an individual judge who was acting in a particular case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The trial continued , and on DATE the applicant lodged a fresh application for exclusion of Judge PERSON , given that he had presided over the CARDINAL - judge panel which had dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection to the indictment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the president of the trial court upheld the latest application for the exclusion of Judge PERSON","At a hearing held on DATE the trial court ( Judge PERSON presiding , and including Judge PERSON and CARDINAL lay judges ) admitted in evidence the second expert report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) submitted by the applicant . The applicant asked the trial court to examine the experts who had prepared both reports , in order to clarify their findings , which he described as contradictory .","At a hearing held on DATE the composition of the trial court panel was changed to Judge PERSON ( as president of the panel ) , Judge GPE , and CARDINAL lay judges . At that hearing the trial court commissioned a fresh expert report ( \u0432\u0435\u0448\u0442\u0430\u0447\u0435\u045a\u0435\u0442\u043e \u0434\u0430 \u0441\u0435 \u043e\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0438 \u0441\u043e \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0433\u0438 \u0432\u0435\u0448\u0442\u0430\u0446\u0438 ) to be prepared by CARDINAL experts from the ORG , not those who had drawn up the report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE a fresh expert report was issued by the Bureau ( \u201c the third expert report \u201d ) .","On DATE CARDINAL of the experts who had drawn up the third expert report was examined at the trial .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer , in his closing remarks , submitted that the trial court was adjudicating a case concerning an incident in which their colleague \u2019s daughter had died . He argued that the practice in similar cases was that the judges withdrew in order not to cast doubt on the court \u2019s impartiality .","On DATE the trial court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . It found that the applicant had been driving at excessive speed and under the influence of alcohol . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments that the victim in the accident had ignored a \u201c Stop \u201d sign and was not wearing a seat belt . It based its findings on the third expert report and the oral evidence . It did not give any weight to the second expert report . Finally , the trial court upheld the compensation claim lodged by Judge PERSON , her husband and her other daughter against the applicant \u2019s insurance company , which had acknowledged the claim ( \u0433\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0437\u043d\u0430 \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435\u0442\u043e ) .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment , arguing , inter alia , that the case should have been assigned to another court , and that Judge PERSON had previously worked as a court clerk delegated to Judge PERSON for DATE . In this connection he submitted that there had already been such transfers in cases concerning criminal proceedings against a public prosecutor and a president of a court . There had been grounds for exclusion under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . The trial court had not provided any reasoning in respect of the second expert report , and had not admitted evidence proposed by the applicant . The third expert report was identical to the first and contradictory to the second , as regards the speed at which the applicant had been driving at the time of the accident . The applicant further requested that the case be remitted and heard either before a different panel of the trial court or before a different court .","On DATE the appellate court dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , upheld the prosecutor \u2019s appeal , and increased the sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The part of its judgment concerning the alleged lack of impartiality reads as follows :","\u201c The complaints about a violation of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ Criminal Proceedings Act ] are groundless ... [ the applicant \u2019s ] defence lawyer applied for exclusion of [ Judges PERSON , GPE , GPE and GPE ] . According to the statements given by the ORG , the President of ORG took a decision ... by which he dismissed the application for exclusion , for reasons stated in the decision . \u201d","The appellate court further held that the second expert report had not been ordered by the court , that the experts had not been warned of their duties and had not taken an oath , that the court had not established which matters should have been addressed by the report , and that it was for the trial court to decide whether it would accept the report . As regards the applicant \u2019s complaint that evidence proposed by him had not been admitted at the trial , the appellate court held that this did not amount to a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to defence , as the trial court was not obliged to accept all proposed evidence .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u043e\u043d\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0438\u0441\u043f\u0438\u0442\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0441\u0438\u043b\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430 ) , arguing that the trial court had refused his request for an additional expert report ( \u0441\u0443\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0432\u0435\u0448\u0442\u0430\u0447\u0435\u045a\u0435 ) to be commissioned from an independent institution . Citing Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , the applicant complained that Judge PERSON , the clerk of the victim \u2019s mother ( Judge PERSON ) , had adjudicated the case , and that Judge ORG was the president of the criminal section of the trial court . He further complained about the refusal to assign the case to another competent court .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request and confirmed the lower courts\u2019 judgments . It endorsed the lower ORG findings and reasoning , without providing further reasoning in respect of the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the judges\u2019 alleged bias .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed CARDINAL requests by the applicant for extraordinary mitigation of his sentence ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u043e\u043d\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e \u0443\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0436\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043a\u0430\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183951","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF GRIGORYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the domestic courts\u2019 failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173472","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PAKHTUSOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant is a taxi driver .","On TIME traffic police stopped the applicant \u2019s car . Following the applicant \u2019s failure to produce his driving licence and suspecting that it had been withdrawn , police officers took him to the duty unit of LOC police station , where he was kept in a cell for administrative detainees until TIME . A record of the applicant \u2019s administrative arrest was drawn up .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace of ORG of LOC found the applicant guilty of driving a vehicle after the withdrawal of his driving licence ( an administrative offence under LAW of LAW ) and sentenced him to DATE of administrative detention .","On DATE the applicant made a written request to the head of the detention unit seeking a family visit . DATE the request was returned to the applicant bearing a handwritten note by the acting head of the detention unit , PERSON , which stated that family visits were not \u201c provided for [ by law ] \u201d .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative lodged a complaint with ORG , alleging that the applicant \u2019s right to family life guaranteed by LAW had been unlawfully restricted .","The police officials filed a written objection , arguing that the Internal Rules governing ORG did not provide administrative detainees with the right to have a family visit .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint , having accepted the police authorities\u2019 argument that administrative detainees were not entitled to a family visit under the domestic law in force and that the applicant had been subjected to those limitations of his rights as a negative consequence of the administrative detention .","NORP The applicant \u2019s representative appealed . Relying on the ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALX ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) , he argued that the authorities\u2019 assistance in maintaining contact with close family was an essential part of a detainee \u2019s right to respect for family life . Limitations imposed on the number of family visits constituted an interference with the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW Restrictions of that kind could only be applied \u201c in accordance with the law \u201d , should pursue one or more legitimate aims and , in addition , should be justified as being \u201c necessary in a NORP society \u201d . The representative submitted that there was no norm in NORP law imposing restrictions on family visits for administrative detainees .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld ORG decision , having reasoned as follows :","\u201c There is no prohibition on family visits for administrative detainees .","...","[ At the same time ] a refusal to authorise a family visit has a basis in NORP law ; however , it should be warranted by circumstances and conditions providing the competent authorities with the right to apply the disputed restriction . Providing lawenforcement bodies with unlimited powers in issues pertaining to fundamental rights could run contrary to the superior role of the law and could result in arbitrary interference with human rights .","In the case under examination , there are no grounds for concluding that the actions of the acting head [ of the detention unit of the police station where the applicant had been detained ] were unlawful because , having applied for a family visit , [ the applicant ] had not indicated whom he had wanted to see and what the relationship was between him and that person . If those important details are not provided , the authorisation of a family visit can not be considered lawful . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145572","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ASHLARBA v. GEORGIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nullum crimen sine lege;Conviction;Criminal offence)","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , GPE ( \u201c the LAW ) , GPE .","On DATE a criminal investigation was launched by ORG of the ORG into the activities of a Mr PERSON , on account of his alleged association with the criminal underworld , under LAW ) of LAW . Notably , he was suspected of being a \u201c thief in law \u201d ( for an exact definition of this term , see paragraphs DATE below ) who ran criminal syndicates and participated in the settlement of various private disputes through criminal actions . In the course of the investigation , a number of relevant witnesses were questioned \u2013 the officers of the prisons where Mr PERSON had served his previous prison terms , his family members and other close persons , all of whom confirmed that PERSON PERSON had indeed obtained , through the criminal ritual of \u201c baptism \u201d , the title of a \u201c thief in law \u201d in DATE . Since then he had participated in management of the \u201c thieves\u2019 underworld \u201d ( a well - organised network of criminal syndicates ; for more details see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , in accordance with the special rules regulating the conduct of members of the criminal underworld .","On DATE a search warrant was issued in respect of Mr PERSON , who was living at that time in either GPE or GPE . According to the findings of that investigation , the fugitive suspect had been in regular telephone contact with other purported criminal leaders in the ORG , instructing them on how to settle various private disputes in the region . The subsequent judicially authorised tapping of Mr PERSON \u2019s telephone conversation showed that CARDINAL of the persons who had been receiving regular instructions from the \u201c thief in law \u201d was the applicant . Consequently , the criminal probe was expanded to include the latter \u2019s activities .","On DATE the applicant and another person , Mr Y.A. , were arrested on suspicion of being members of the \u201c ORG underworld \u201d , an offence punishable under LAW ) \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . When questioned on DATE , the applicant confirmed that he had already known Mr PERSON for DATE and was aware that he possessed the criminal title of a \u201c thief in law \u201d . The applicant added that a thief in law was , in his opinion , \u201c a righteous man ( \u10d9\u10d0\u10d8 \u10d9\u10d0\u10ea\u10dd\u10d1\u10d0 ) \u201d .","On DATE the criminal investigation against Mr PERSON , the applicant and PERSON , was terminated , and the case was transmitted by the prosecution service to a trial court .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG convicted the applicant and PERSON of being members of the \u201c thieves\u2019 underworld \u201d ( Article CARDINAL ) \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) , sentencing them to CARDINAL and CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment respectively , whilst Mr PERSON was convicted of being a \u201c thief in law \u201d ( Article CARDINAL ) \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) and sentenced to DATE in prison .","The activities imputed to the applicant were described by the court , in general terms , as follows :","\u201c Acknowledging and giving recognition to the ORG underworld , [ the applicant ] has publicly expressed his support for it through his own lifestyle , and has been actively involved in achieving the goals of this underworld ... by obtaining profits for its members and for other persons , and by terrorising and exercising coercion with respect to ordinary individuals ; [ the applicant ] has disseminated the special rules of the ORG underworld through his own actions , and by assisting the thief in law in running this underworld . \u201d","More specifically , the finding of the applicant \u2019s guilt was based on the following CARDINAL episodes , the reality of which had been confirmed by statements from numerous pertinent witnesses , examined during both the investigation stage and the trial , and evidence obtained by tapping the telephone lines of the applicant , the other convicts and other relevant persons .","Firstly , ORG established that Mr PERSON , generally acknowledged to be one of the most authoritative criminal bosses in the region , had requested the applicant to settle a dispute over an apartment between his mother - in - law and another individual . The court accused the applicant of accepting that task and becoming involved , DATE , in unofficial adjudication of the dispute , using Mr PERSON \u2019s criminal authority . In reply , the applicant unsuccessfully argued that he had merely wished to help the woman , who was his close acquaintance , to have the dispute settled by friendly agreement , as indeed the parties had been invited to do during a civil court hearing of their case at the relevant time ; he had been unaware that such ordinary conduct was a criminal offence . He did not contest that he had indeed been asked by Mr PERSON , his old friend , to look into the dispute .","Secondly , ORG established that the same co - accused \u201c thief in law \u201d , Mr PERSON , had requested the applicant , on DATE , to establish the whereabouts in GPE of CARDINAL young men , aged DATE , who had refused to pay a fare to a private taxi driver . The applicant was asked to persuade the young men , using his own authority as a senior member of the criminal world , and the authority of the more influential Mr PERSON , to settle the debt towards the driver . Implicitly acknowledging that he had indeed been requested to look into this second private dispute by Mr PERSON , the applicant unsuccessfully argued that he had not taken any action in practice and thus could not understand why he should be held responsible for something which had not occurred .","Lastly , ORG relied on the fact that on DATE the applicant , when visiting an imprisoned acquaintance who was considered by members of the \u201c ORG underworld \u201d to be a promising young man , that is , a future \u201c thief in law \u201d , the applicant , in addition to discussing financial issues relating to the kitty ( obshyak ) , the common fund belonging to the \u201c ORG underworld \u201d , had also informed him that the Minister of the ORG might soon lose his post , which would then naturally lead to reinforcement of the authority of \u201c ORG in law \u201d and of the relevant rules of conduct in the criminal world . With respect to this third episode , the applicant unsuccessfully argued before the court that he had merely expressed his opinion about the personality of the Minister of the Interior and that he should not be punished for that .","On DATE ORG , dismissing the applicant \u2019s appeal in which he reiterated all of his previous arguments , fully upheld his conviction of DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal as inadmissible , thus terminating the criminal proceedings against him ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["7-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148477","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"POPOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals residing in GPE . Their names and dates of birth are set out in the appendix .","NORP In DATE the municipal authorities of GPE authorised the creation of a garage - ORG cooperative , PERSON , and allocated a plot of land for use by the cooperative . The plot of land remained municipal property .","All of the applicants were members of the cooperative G.","NORP In DATE the municipal authorities of GPE adopted a new zoning and urban development plan , under the terms of which the plot of land occupied by the prefabricated metal garages was assigned for housing development .","On DATE the lease on the land occupied by the garages expired . The municipal authorities informed the cooperative PERSON that it would not be renewed .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace for ORG of the Kuzminki District of GPE recognised the applicants\u2019 property rights in respect of the prefabricated garages . On DATE the judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG of GPE . On the basis of these judgments the applicants\u2019 property rights were recorded in the real estate register by the GPE department of ORG .","Subsequently , in DATE , the urban development project was approved by the municipal authorities and T Jsc , a private construction company , was chosen to be the contractor for the project . The applicants were asked to vacate the plot of land and were offered compensation for the prefabricated garages or , as an alternative , the opportunity to invest in the construction of new parking facilities , with the price of the parking spaces being offset by the value of the expropriated prefabricated metal garages . The applicants refused these offers . The municipal authorities instituted civil actions against them .","On DATE , DATE , and DATE the ORG of GPE ordered the vacating of the plot of land , the expropriation of the applicants\u2019 garages , and payment of compensation to the owners by T Jsc . The court awarded each of the applicants CARDINAL ORG ) in compensation for the expropriated property , the sums being derived from the expert valuation of DATE . It rejected an alternative expert valuation provided by the applicants because it had been based on market research rather than on a valuation of the actual properties , and also because of its failure to distinguish between the prefabricated garages and the various extensions built onto them without permission . ORG reviewed the ORG claims regarding their title to the plots of land and concluded that since the expiry of the lease in DATE the applicants had occupied and used the plots of land without any title or right . It took this fact into account in assessing the value of the expropriated garages , since it was only the cost of the actual prefabricated metal garage units themselves that had to be compensated .","The applicants appealed against the judgments .","On DATE and DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgments in full , dismissing all of the applicants\u2019 counter - arguments .","In view of the high cost of demolishing the garages and vacating the occupied land , the applicants did not comply with the judgments . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG of GPE DATE ruling on the municipal authorities\u2019 application \u2013 altered the manner of enforcement of the aforementioned judgments by ordering the applicants to vacate their garages and allowing the municipal authorities to demolish them and to clear the plot of land .","By DATE the judgments had been enforced as regards the parts concerning the demolition of the prefabricated garages and the vacating of the plots of land . In respect of the part concerning payment of compensation for the expropriated garages , the applicants obtained the relevant writs of execution but chose not to initiate enforcement proceedings by submitting them to ORG . The main rationale behind this course of action by the applicants was their intention to further challenge the lawfulness of the aforementioned judgments before the courts .","In DATE after several unsuccessful attempts to have the expropriation judgments reconsidered \u2013 the applicants submitted the writs of execution to ORG of ORG . By DATE all of the payments had been made to the applicants and the enforcement proceedings were completed by the bailiffs ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152425","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PROMO LEX AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 13+11 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association;Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["On DATE the police arrested a person who was protesting peacefully in front of ORG .","As a reaction to that event , the applicant organisations decided to hold a demonstration in front of ORG , followed by a march to ORG and a demonstration in front of the latter .","On DATE the first and the second applicants lodged a notification with the municipal authorities in which they stated their intention to conduct the above event , which they described as a spontaneous reaction to the events of CARDINAL DATE . They relied on LAW ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the first and the second applicants organised a protest demonstration in front of ORG . From the video submitted by the parties , it appears that approximately CARDINAL individuals took part in the demonstration . The third applicant was among the participants . TIME the beginning of the demonstration the protesters were attacked by CARDINAL men wearing masks who started to physically assault them and to spray tear gas and paint over them . As a result of the attack the third applicant sustained numerous injuries to his head and limbs and needed medical treatment . The protesters defended themselves and managed to chase away the attackers . They also managed to immobilise CARDINAL of the attackers . CARDINAL of the attackers admitted to having been paid CARDINAL NORP lei ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) by an unknown person for his participation in the attack .","The gathering was observed from the very beginning by CARDINAL uniformed police officers who were in a patrol car parked close to the place of the event . Also , the event was filmed by CARDINAL people in plain clothes , who \u2012 according to the applicants \u2012 were police officers . The Government denied that those filming the event were police officers . When the clash between the protesters and the attackers began , no police officer intervened . The protesters called the police and requested assistance but to no avail . A police patrol appeared TIME and took the CARDINAL immobilised attackers into custody .","The organisers of the demonstration lodged a criminal complaint with ORG and complained inter alia about the failure of the police to intervene promptly . A criminal investigation was initiated and all CARDINAL attackers identified . CARDINAL of them were eventually given suspended sentences of DATE for violation of the freedom of assembly of others and hooliganism . No action was taken in respect of the applicant \u2019s complaint about the inaction of the police ."],"violated_articles":["11","13"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165425","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"SAK\u0130N v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["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 ORG by Mr C. Yetkiner , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was taken into pre - trial detention at FAC ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) , pending the criminal proceedings against him on a charge of murder . He was initially placed in a smoking cell ( ko\u011fu\u015f , a multi - occupancy living unit ) reserved for inmates in pre - trial detention only .","On an unspecified date in DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty on CARDINAL counts of murder . The applicant appealed against that judgment . There is no further information in the case file as regards the outcome of the appeal proceedings .","According to the information and documents provided by ORG , the applicant changed cells a total of CARDINAL times during his detention at FAC DATE and DATE . The changes were all effected at the applicant \u2019s request . It appears that CARDINAL of those changes were made to accommodate his wish to stay in a non - smoking cell , and the remaining changes were made following conflicts with his cell - mates . It further appears that while some of the cells he stayed in were allocated exclusively to inmates in pre - trial detention , others accommodated both those in pre - trial detention and convicts .","On DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG , requesting his transfer to another prison . He argued that he was not safe in FAC , where he had many enemies . He also mentioned in the same letter that as a non - smoker he was sharing a cell with smokers , and that there were also convicts in his cell .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office that the applicant \u2019s allegations regarding his safety in prison had been found to be groundless . The applicant could , therefore , continue to serve his sentence in conditions \u201c suitable to his status \u201d .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant sent letters to ORG and ORG of ORG of GPE ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , respectively , alleging that the warden and some other officers at FAC had applied psychological pressure on him . The applicant also complained in his letters about the problem of accommodating smokers with non - smokers and detainees with convicts in the same cells .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his letter had been communicated to the PERSON office of ORG .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant had been transferred to ORG ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) on disciplinary grounds . The applicant claimed that at FAC he had been placed in a cell measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , with CARDINAL other inmates . According to the information provided by the Government , however , the cell where the applicant stayed measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and accommodated QUANTITY other inmates .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG to complain about the cramped living conditions at FAC .","In its reply dated DATE , ORG informed the applicant that ORG had a maximum capacity of CARDINAL prisoners , but that it had accommodated CARDINAL prisoners at the material time . ORG added that CARDINAL new penal facilities would be set up in DATE , following which prisoners would be accommodated in more favourable conditions .","Upon receiving the information provided by ORG , on DATE the applicant wrote a letter of reply , claiming that the figures provided did not reflect the real capacity of the prison , but the overinflated capacity that resulted from the use of triple bunk beds .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL and DATE the applicant had sent similar complaint letters to ORG , which in its response of DATE informed the applicant that his complaints would be taken into consideration at their next visit to the prison in question .","It appears that on DATE ORG visited LOC and met with the applicant . In its letter dated DATE , ORG informed the applicant that his complaints had been taken into consideration and that they would be communicated to ORG in its DATE interim report .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been transferred to the PERSON ( no.CARDINAL ) ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) following his request to be closer to his family .","On DATE the applicant lodged an individual application with ORG ( \u201c the Constitutional Court \u201d ) , by post , to complain about the overcrowding problem at FAC .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the applicant that his application could not be registered because he had failed to comply with the procedural rules on the submission of applications set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Law no . DATE on ORG of ORG of GPE and section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) , which stipulated that individual applications had to be lodged directly with ORG in person , or through local courts or representations abroad . Applications submitted by post would not , therefore , be accepted .","On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to ORG .","Section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE on ORG lays down the duties of ORG as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . To examine and resolve complaints concerning the admission of convicts and detainees to penal institutions and detention centres , [ their ] placement , accommodation , heating and clothing , feeding , hygiene , [ their ] medical examination and treatment for the protection of their physical and mental health , [ their ] relations with the outside world , ... and other such activities .","To examine and resolve complaints concerning the execution of the ORG sentences , ... [ their ] transfer , ...","...","To examine the reports prepared and communicated by the monitoring boards of penal institutions and detention centres on their observations on the penal institutions and detention centres falling under their jurisdiction , and to rule on any complaints . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE , governing the application procedure to the enforcement judge , provides as follows :","\u201c ...","Complaint[s ] may be lodged directly with the enforcement judge by way of a petition , or through the intermediary of the office of the public prosecutor or the administration of the penal institution [ or ] detention centre . Applications lodged other than with the enforcement judge shall be transmitted to the latter at once and within DATE at the most . Complaints made orally shall be recorded and a copy [ of the record ] shall be given to the applicant .","... \u201d","In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , an objection may be lodged against a decision of an enforcement judge with the local assize court .","The Government submitted CARDINAL examples of decisions delivered by ORG concerning individual applications lodged by prisoners from different prisons . The decision delivered by ORG in application no . CARDINAL is particularly noteworthy on account of its pertinence to the present application . The application in question was lodged on DATE , DATE after the entry into force of the new remedy before ORG . The applicant prisoner complained , inter alia , of the unlawful practices of the prison administration , including placing him in accommodation with smokers despite the fact that he suffered from asthma . The ORG observes that the prisoner \u2019s complaints regarding the unlawful practices of the prison administration , including placing him in accommodation with smokers , were declared inadmissible by ORG for non - exhaustion of the available remedies , on account of the prisoner \u2019s failure to bring his complaints before an enforcement judge ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150309","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CLEVE v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Charged with a criminal offence)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s daughter PERSON was born on DATE . Since their separation in DATE , the applicant and A. \u2019s mother , PERSON , have been quarrelling over the custody of and contacts with A. The child was initially living with her mother . In DATE , PERSON was placed in a home .","On DATE Ms J. laid an information against the applicant with the police , accusing him of having raped their daughter since DATE . As PERSON had persistently declared not to be ready to make a statement before the police , the proceedings were initially discontinued . Following a visit of A. to her mother , the latter informed the police that A. was now ready to testify . A. was heard by the police twice in DATE . On DATE psychological expert PERSON , having examined A. , submitted a report on the credibility of A. \u2019s submissions .","On DATE ORG charged the applicant with CARDINAL counts of serious sexual abuse of children ( Article CARDINALa of LAW , see paragraph DATE below ) and of sexual abuse of a person entrusted to him for upbringing ( Article CARDINAL of LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , his daughter PERSON , committed between DATE and DATE mostly in or in the vicinity of GPE . The applicant was accused of having raped A. in his car on CARDINAL occasions and in a holiday apartment on QUANTITY occasions when he met her on DATE and during vacations following her GPE separation .","The applicant was in detention on remand between DATE and DATE , when the execution of the detention order was suspended .","On DATE ORG , having held CARDINAL hearings , acquitted the applicant of the charges on account of insufficiency of proof . It further ordered the ORG to bear the costs of the proceedings and the applicant \u2019s necessary expenses and to pay the applicant compensation for his detention on remand from CARDINAL to DATE .","ORG , having regard to the testimonies of several witnesses and the ( diverging ) reports of CARDINAL psychological experts , PERSON and PERSON , on the credibility of A. \u2019s submissions , found that the offences the applicant had been charged with had not been proven with the certainty necessary for a criminal conviction . It noted that the applicant had contested the charges . He was only incriminated by PERSON \u2019s statements . ORG stated that it has not been convinced by PERSON \u2019s testimony in the hearing that the charges were completely correct , in particular , in terms of a clear definition of the criminal acts and their time frame .","ORG , having regard to the witness statements of CARDINAL educators who had noted signs of sexual abuse in DATE conduct , CARDINAL psychologists who had treated PERSON and a friend of A. , was not persuaded that A. had been influenced by third persons , including her mother , so as to incriminate her father .","ORG then stated in its judgment :","\u201c ... To sum up , the ORG does not discern any signs of suggestive influence .","Therefore , the ORG assumes , in sum , that the core events described by the witness have a factual basis , that is , that the accused actually carried out sexual assaults on his daughter in his car . Nevertheless , the acts could not be substantiated , in terms of either their intensity or their time frame , in a manner that would suffice to secure a conviction . The inconsistencies in the witness \u2019s testimony were so marked that it was impossible to establish precise facts . \u201d","[ \u201c ... PERSON einer Suggestion f\u00fcr die PERSON .","So geht die Kammer i m LOC aus , dass das von der GPE geschilderte PERSON realen PERSON hat , n\u00e4mlich dass es tats\u00e4chlich zu sexuellen ORG zu Lasten seiner Tochter in LOC ist . PERSON lie\u00dfen sich aber dennoch weder ihrer ORG noch ihrer zeitlichen PERSON in PERSON f\u00fcr eine ORG hinreichenden Art und Weise konkretisieren . PERSON in den ORG der PERSON so gravierend , dass konkrete Feststellungen nicht getroffen werden konnten . \u201c ]","NORP In coming to that conclusion , ORG took into account that witness PERSON had made the impression of being authentic . It was true that her statements had been short and she had appeared being relatively uninvolved . However , CARDINAL witnesses who knew PERSON partly for a longer period of time had confirmed that she generally spoke and acted in that manner and did not discuss problems in detail .","ORG observed , however , that even having regard to these elements , the inconsistencies in witness PERSON \u2019s statements prevailed to an extent that it was not in a position to establish concrete offences . There were inconsistencies in the witness \u2019s statements on the number of the acts described by her ( CARDINAL ) , the place of these acts ( notably concerning acts in a holiday apartment which the witness mentioned only at a later stage ) and the time frame in which they took place ( starting when the witness was CARDINAL and ending either on the witness \u2019s placement in the home or continuing also after that placement ) . Moreover , A. had been uncertain in the hearing about the exact manner in which the acts described by her were committed in the car and did not recall any details on several points . A. had , for instance , been very uncertain in the hearing whether the applicant had moved within the car onto the front passenger seat where she had sat or whether he had left the car and walked around it to come on her seat . Moreover , A. had declared several times in the hearing not to have any precise recollection of the events any more .","The judgment was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE and subsequently became final .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He claimed that ORG statements \u201c that the core events described by the witness have a factual basis , that is , that the accused actually carried out sexual assaults on his daughter in his car \u201d had breached his constitutional right to a fair trial , his personality rights and human dignity .","On DATE the ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145580","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF OSAKOVSKIY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Mark Villiger;Myroslava Antonovych;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","In DATE F. , a cashier in a game - machines arcade , was found at his workplace unconscious with head injuries . He died in hospital shortly afterwards .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by the LOC police of ORG ( \u201c the district police \u201d ) and confessed to having inflicted injuries on F. and robbed the arcade . According to the applicant , that confession was false and had been given by him as a result of ill - treatment . In particular , police officers had applied electric current to his body , suffocated him in a gas mask and applied various other unspecified torture techniques .","At an unspecified time on the date of the applicant \u2019s arrest he was assigned a legal - aid lawyer , S.","Also on the same date the applicant had a confrontation with CARDINAL witnesses , who claimed that they had seen him running near the arcade , with his bare chest covered in mud and blood , on DATE when PERSON had been found injured .","On DATE the applicant participated in a reconstruction of the crime scene and confirmed his confessional statements in presence of S.","On DATE the applicant was indicted on charges of causing fatal injuries to F. and robbing the arcade . During questioning on that date he confirmed his previous statements . On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) remanded the applicant in custody , having found that there was a substantial risk that he might abscond or commit other crimes , as the charges against him were serious and he had no steady employment .","On DATE the applicant was placed in the ORG pre - trial detention facility ( \u201c the ORG GPE \u201d ) , examined by the GPE medical staff and certified as having no bodily injuries .","In DATE ORG , having conducted an in - patient psychiatric assessment of the applicant , issued an opinion that he was suffering from a mixed personality disorder , which did not prevent him from understanding the meaning of his actions or controlling them .","NORP In DATE B. , a privately hired lawyer , was admitted in the proceedings as a replacement for the legal - aid lawyer , S.","On DATE the applicant , questioned in PERSON \u2019s presence , retracted his previous confessions , claiming that they had been given under duress from the police , and pleaded innocent . Copies of his relevant statements and ill - treatment complaints have not been submitted to the ORG .","On DATE in a confrontation with the applicant , police officer B. denied having ill - treated him . On DATE ORG ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) refused to set up a criminal inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment for want of objective evidence . There is nothing to show that the applicant appealed against that decision .","On DATE the applicant was committed to stand trial before ORG .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention , having found no reasons to release him .","On DATE the applicant complained in court that he had been ill - treated by the authorities with a view to extract self - incriminating statements and requested to be released against an obligation not to abscond . On the same date ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release against an undertaking not to abscond . It noted that , notwithstanding the gravity of the charges against the applicant , there was no evidence that he might abscond or commit other crimes if at liberty .","On DATE ORG remitted the applicant \u2019s case for further investigation , having found that the applicant should have been charged with murder , rather than with injuring PERSON The court also ordered that the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment allegations be verified . By the same decision , the court remanded the applicant in custody again . The relevant part of the decision read as follows :","\u201c The court also considers that the preventive measure in respect of [ the applicant ] should be replaced by a custodial one , since , if he remains at liberty , he may hide from the investigative authorities , which would interfere with the establishment of the true facts of the case \u201d .","NORP The applicant , represented by B. , appealed , seeking , in particular , to be released from custody .","The prosecution also appealed , arguing , in particular , that the case had been ready for trial and that the legal classification of the applicant \u2019s crime could have been decided in the course of the trial proceedings .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) allowed the prosecution \u2019s appeal and remitted the case for trial . It also rejected the applicant \u2019s request for release from custody , noting that ORG had properly assessed the facts and adduced sufficient reasons for remanding him in custody .","NORP In DATE ORG ordered the prosecutor \u2019s office to inquire into the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment complaints .","On DATE ORG adjourned the proceedings to enable the prosecutor \u2019s office to carry out its inquiry into the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment allegations .","On DATE the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination , which found , in particular , that he had an old scar and an area with a modified skin on his body . However , it was not possible to establish whether he had sustained any injuries in DATE . On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers implicated by the applicant in his ill - treatment , for want of evidence of such ill - treatment .","On DATE and DATE the applicant requested that he be released against an undertaking not to abscond . His requests were rejected by ORG with reference to the gravity of the charges and the absence of grounds for release .","On DATE ORG remitted the criminal case against the applicant for further investigation , having found that insufficient evidence had been collected for his conviction and that procedures had been breached in collecting the evidence . The court also ordered a further inquiry into the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment allegations . In the same decision ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request for release from custody , stating that the custodial preventive measure had been \u201c properly applied \u201d .","On DATE ORG revoked the decision of CARDINAL DATE not to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment and ordered further inquiries .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment complaints . They noted , in particular , that according to the applicant \u2019s submissions , on DATE CARDINAL police officers , PERSON and PERSON , had arrested him and taken him to a wooded area , where they had beaten and threatened him , demanding self - incriminating statements . Upon his arrival at the police station , they took him to the basement and continued beating him . They also made him smoke a cigarette while wearing a gas mask and applied electric current to his naked body . The district prosecutor \u2019s office further noted that the applicant \u2019s version of events was full of inconsistencies and wholly improbable . For instance , contrary to his allegations , it was physically impossible to smoke a cigarette in a gas mask without burning one \u2019s face , which had not happened . In addition , the police officers could not possibly have tortured him in the basement , since the building at issue had no basement . They further noted that the applicant \u2019s inconsistent conduct after arrest and his further submissions concerning ill - treatment might have been affected by his psychiatric diagnosis .","According to the applicant , he complained about that decision on various dates to different authorities , including ORG , but to no avail . He did not submit copies of his relevant complaints to ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s case was remitted to ORG for trial .","On DATE and DATE the applicant requested that he be released against an undertaking not to abscond . On the same dates , ORG refused his requests , finding no reasons for releasing him .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of the charges and released him from custody . It noted , in particular , that the reconstruction of the crime scene of DATE had been carried out in breach of various procedural requirements , which the applicant \u2019s legal - aid lawyer PERSON had never complained about . In those circumstances , there were grounds to doubt that the applicant had been adequately represented at the beginning of the investigation and the court could therefore not conclude that his initial confessions had been genuine . The court held that in those circumstances , any doubts as to the applicant \u2019s guilt should be interpreted in his favour and he should be acquitted .","On DATE ORG quashed the above judgment and ordered a further investigation of the charges against the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was placed in hospital with acute sinusitis . On the same date the investigation was suspended .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from hospital .","On DATE the decision to suspend the proceedings was set aside and the investigation was resumed .","As of the last correspondence by the parties dated DATE , the proceedings were pending .","On DATE D. \u2019s body was found in a river . She appeared to have been strangled . On the same date the ORG police instituted criminal proceedings into the circumstances of her death .","In DATE ORG identified the applicant as an acquaintance of NORP \u2019s and a potential suspect . They notified the administration of the Kharkiv GPE , where the applicant was being detained at the material time .","At TIME on DATE the applicant \u2019s cellmates in the GPE called the authorities , alleging that he had engaged in self - injury . On DATE the applicant was examined by a GPE medical professional , who recorded that he had cut his left arm several times . According to the applicant \u2019s explanations addressed to the GPE governor following the accident , he had cut himself with a razor blade intended for shaving because of his sudden anguish on learning that his wife had filed for divorce and that he was potentially facing a long - term prison sentence . The applicant \u2019s cellmates gave similar explanations .","Following the incident , the ORG governor sent the applicant \u2019s medical records to the ORG forensic experts facility , asking it to assess the gravity of the applicant \u2019s injuries . He informed the experts that according to his information , the applicant had inflicted the injuries on himself at TIME on DATE .","On DATE and DATE the forensic experts informed the ORG governor , after examining the records , that the injuries at issue could be classified as minor and that they could have been inflicted at the time and in the manner described in the governor \u2019s letter .","On DATE representatives of the ORG police visited the applicant in the GPE and took his fingerprints and samples of his blood and saliva in connection with the investigation of NORP \u2019s death .","On DATE the GPE governor concluded that there was no need to conduct further investigations into the applicant \u2019s injuries of CARDINAL DATE . Referring , primarily , to the experts\u2019 findings , the applicant \u2019s own explanations and those of his cellmates and the GPE staff questioned , he found that there was sufficient evidence that the applicant had spontaneously inflicted those injuries on himself when suffering an anxiety attack .","On DATE the GPE authorities took a statement from the applicant , in which he confessed to having killed NORP","On DATE the applicant was indicted on charges of killing NORP and pleaded guilty during questioning by the ORG police investigator .","DATE . On DATE the ORG prosecutor dropped the charges against the applicant , having found that his statements were inconsistent with the objective evidence on the file .","On DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued for lack of evidence of his involvement in NORP \u2019s murder . Subsequently ORG convicted CARDINAL other individuals of the crime at issue .","On DATE , during a court hearing in the first set of criminal proceedings against the applicant , he complained that he had been subjected to unlawful pressure and ill - treatment in the GPE . He claimed , in particular , that in DATE and DATE he had been questioned off the record by the GPE authorities and various other officers , who had coerced him to give self - incriminating statements concerning NORP \u2019s murder . In addition , the authorities had engaged his cellmates in threatening and harassing him with a view to obtaining such confessions . The applicant also said that , although the charges concerning NORP \u2019s murder had been dropped , he was afraid of similar pressure in connection with the criminal proceedings in PERSON \u2019s case .","On various occasions DATE the applicant complained to the prosecutor \u2019s office and other authorities that he had been ill - treated in the GPE with a view to making him confess to NORP \u2019s murder . No copies of the relevant complaints have been submitted to ORG . It appears from the summaries of the applicant \u2019s complaints drafted by the prosecutor \u2019s office that he maintained that he had been psychologically pressured on numerous unspecified occasions in DATE and DATE . On DATE , in particular , warden PERSON and detainee PERSON had beaten him in PERSON \u2019s office . When the applicant returned to his cell , detainees L. and PERSON continued to beat him , while other cellmates held him down . According to some of the summaries , the applicant maintained that his arm had been cut by his inmates , while according to others he had cut it himself in the hopes that the wardens would be called and he could get out of the cell .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment allegations , having found that the GPE governor \u2019s conclusions of DATE had been well - founded .","On DATE the deputy regional prosecutor revoked the decisions of DATE and DATE and ordered a further inquiry into the circumstances in which the applicant had sustained his injuries and had falsely confessed to NORP \u2019s murder .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office took a fresh decision not to institute criminal proceedings , having found that there was no ill - treatment case to answer . They referred , primarily , to the explanations provided by the applicant \u2019s inmates in DATE and to the questioning of the GPE wardens . They noted , in particular , that according to PERSON , the deputy PERSON governor , on DATE the GPE had received information from the LOC police concerning the applicant \u2019s possible involvement in NORP \u2019s murder . Following this information , the GPE officers had questioned the applicant about the matter and he had volunteered his confession without any pressure having been applied to him .","The parties did not inform the ORG whether that decision was further appealed against ."],"violated_articles":["3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153352","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ORLOVSKIY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and , at the time of the most recent communication from the applicant , was detained in GPE .","On an unspecified date in DATE PERSON mentioned in a confession given whilst being questioned by the police that the applicant had participated in the murder of PERSON , a gang member , in DATE .","On DATE the applicant was stopped on the motorway and arrested by police , who also seized his car .","According to the applicant , the reasons for his arrest were not clearly explained to him . DATE and DATE he was transferred to various police units and questioned .","On DATE the police found explosives in the car which had been seized from the applicant upon his arrest .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of the illegal possession of explosives and the murder of PERSON , and an arrest report was drafted and countersigned by the applicant .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) remanded the applicant in custody for DATE pending collection of information concerning his person .","On DATE the applicant was formally charged with possessing illegal explosives and taking part in the murder of PERSON , which had been committed by an organised gang in DATE .","On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody for DATE , to be counted from DATE . The court noted that the gravity of the charges against the applicant constituted a sufficient basis for the fear that he would abscond or interfere with the investigation if released .","On DATE the court made a separate ruling drawing the attention of the Minister of the Interior to breaches of the applicant \u2019s rights whilst effecting his arrest . It noted , in particular , that the applicant \u2019s undocumented detention DATE and DATE was unlawful . The court asked the Minister to investigate the incident . The case file does not show any follow - up .","The applicant , acting through his lawyer , appealed against the detention order . He submitted that he had good references from his employer , had a family including CARDINAL children who were minors , and that he had been suffering from health problems .","On DATE the NORP Regional Court of Appeal ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court noted , in particular , that taking into account the gravity of the charges against the applicant , together with the fact that he resided in GPE \u2012 whereas the investigative authority was located in GPE \u2012 there was reason to fear that he might abscond or interfere with the investigation if released .","On DATE the Odessa Court of Appeal extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , stating in general terms that the applicant might abscond , pressure witnesses or interfere with the investigation if released .","On DATE the applicant , represented by his lawyer , lodged an objection against the investigative authority \u2019s request to extend his detention . He reiterated that he had a permanent address , a family with CARDINAL children who were minors , and that prior to his arrest he had been engaged in lawful business activity . He referred to the aggravation of his ulcers and stated that during the time he had been held in custody , no investigative action involving him had been initiated and no new evidence of his involvement in any crime had been discovered .","On DATE ORG allowed the investigative authority \u2019s request and extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , giving the same reasons as in its decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant , represented by his lawyer , and citing the same reasons as before , again brought an objection against the investigative authority \u2019s request to extend his detention .","On DATE ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , stating that additional investigative action needed to be taken and there were no reasons to release the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was charged with participation in several other offences committed in a gang , including murders , abductions , and torture .","On DATE ORG granted the investigative authority \u2019s request to extend the detention of CARDINAL purported criminal gang members , including the applicant , until DATE . It noted the gravity of the charges , the fact that the investigation related to CARDINAL different episodes of alleged crimes committed by a criminal association and that the investigative authorities needed more time to finish their work .","According to the ORG , during the pre - trial investigation the authorities interviewed in total CARDINAL defendants , CARDINAL victims and CARDINAL witnesses , conducted CARDINAL face - to - face confrontations , CARDINAL identification parades , CARDINAL reconstructions and CARDINAL seizures , obtained CARDINAL experts\u2019 reports and carried out a number of other investigative actions .","On DATE the applicant was presented with the final bill of indictment . In addition to previous charges , the applicant was also indicted for participation in an armed gang ( banditry ) .","On DATE the investigation was completed and the applicant and his co - defendants were given time to study the case file .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , noting the gravity of the charges , confirming that the decision to place him in detention was correct , and referring to the need to complete the study of the case file .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection against the investigative authority \u2019s request to extend his detention . He argued , in particular , that the reason that familiarisation with the case file materials was taking so long was poor procedural organisation .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , citing the same reasons as in its decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant notified the prosecutor \u2019s office that although there was some case file material he had not yet seen , he waived his right to further study and asked to be released pending trial .","On DATE ORG promised to send the applicant the relevant procedural forms but stated that there were no grounds for his release .","On DATE the applicant again objected , in similar terms , to the prosecution \u2019s request for extension of his detention .","On DATE ORG allowed the prosecution \u2019s request , extending the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , and stating , in addition to reasons given previously , that the defendants needed time to complete the study of the case file .","On DATE ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , citing the same reasons .","Between DATE and DATE the applicant remained in detention .","On DATE the ORG , acting as the trial court , held a preparatory hearing in the applicant \u2019s and his co - defendants\u2019 case . It rejected the applicant \u2019s request for release , lodged on DATE , stating that there was no basis for granting it .","On DATE the applicant , represented by his lawyer , asked to be released pending trial , arguing that his health was deteriorating , that there was insufficient evidence against him , that because all the witnesses and victims had already testified at trial the applicant would not be able to pressure them , and lastly that he had good references , CARDINAL dependent children who were minors , and a permanent address .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request , noting the gravity of the charges against him and stating that the trial was not complete and that there was no reason to release him .","According to the ORG , a total of CARDINAL hearings were held in the case by ORG , a number of which were adjourned , some due to the failure of CARDINAL of the defendants \u2012 who was at liberty \u2012 to attend .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of murder , kidnapping , and banditry and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment with confiscation of his property .","According to the applicant , on DATE ORG , on appeal from him and his lawyer , upheld his conviction and amended the judgment of the trial court , rectifying the domestic legal classification of CARDINAL of the offences .","On DATE ORG rejected the request for a meeting with the applicant lodged by ORG , the applicant \u2019s wife . ORG noted there was \u201c no indication that a meeting between the relatives and [ the applicant ] was necessary \u201d at the time .","According to the applicant , he was denied the possibility of meeting or corresponding with his family for the entire period of his pre - trial detention .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG for permission for a visit from his family , namely his mother , wife and children . He stated that throughout the period of his pre - trial detention the investigative authorities had rejected his requests for family visits without sufficient justification .","According to the Government , the applicant \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE was granted but the applicant \u2019s relatives did not avail themselves of it and did not visit the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152679","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ERNST AUGUST VON HANNOVER v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant was involved in an altercation with a cameraman outside his property , \u201c Gut Calenberg \u201d , during which he struck the cameraman with an umbrella . In DATE the press reported on another scuffle between the applicant and the manager of a discotheque on LOC off the NORP coast , as a result of which the applicant was convicted of assault .","On DATE the company ORG ( GPE ) ORG ( \u201c the company \u201d ) launched a DATE advertising campaign with full - page advertisements in magazines and on posters at bus stops and other busy locations showing , on the lower CARDINAL , a crumpled packet of Lucky Strike cigarettes lying on its side . The top CARDINAL read , in large lettering : \u201c Was it PERSON ? Or DATE ? \u201d At the bottom of the advertisement was the phrase \u201c Lucky Strike . Nothing else . \u201d ( \u201c Lucky Strike . Sonst nichts . \u201d ) The campaign covered CARDINAL towns and cities and CARDINAL billboards , which meant that it had a potential reach of CARDINAL people . It was also reported in the media .","The applicant asked the company that had commissioned the advertisement and the advertising agency that had designed it to discontinue the campaign . The agency agreed to do so in writing , but the company refused . The applicant then made an urgent application to ORG .","On DATE ORG granted an interim injunction against any further distribution of the advertisement at issue , and confirmed the injunction on DATE . The company subsequently announced that it was discontinuing the advertisement , but refused to reimburse the costs incurred by the applicant for the official notice served on it .","On DATE the applicant asked the company to pay him damages of MONEY ( ORG ) . The company did not respond to that request .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for an order requiring the company and the advertising agency that had designed the advertisement to pay him LAW for a \u201c notional licence \u201d ( fiktive ORG ) and at least ORG CARDINAL in compensation for infringing his right to protection of personality rights , and also to reimburse the costs incurred in serving the official notice .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s application as regards the notional licence and costs , and dismissed it as regards compensation . It pointed out that although everyone had the right to decide whether or not to allow his or her name to be used for advertising purposes , the general right to protection of personality rights ( allgemeines PERSON ) protected a person against the unlawful use by third parties of his or her name , including in the context of advertising . ORG went on to observe that although the forenames \u201c PERSON \u201d and \u201c DATE \u201d were fairly common , the combination of the CARDINAL was not . Moreover , since entering into a relationship with Princess PERSON of GPE the applicant had become well known and the crumpled cigarette packet was a clear allusion to his scuffles . ORG explained that advertising was also protected by freedom of expression in so far as it contributed to shaping public opinion ; this applied , in its view , to the impugned advertisement . It further pointed out that both the right to freedom of expression and the right to protection of personality rights were protected under LAW and that , in principle , they deserved equal respect . Where a person was used for advertising purposes without his or her consent , the right to protection of personality rights prevailed as a general rule . ORG added that the company \u2019s argument that as a result of his scuffles , the applicant had himself caused the event to which the advertisement referred did not deprive him of protection but it did affect the degree of the interference and the level of protection of freedom of expression . In conclusion , ORG held that when balancing the competing interests , more weight was to be attached to the protection of the applicant \u2019s personality rights than to the company \u2019s right to freedom of expression regarding an advertisement which was essentially humorous in nature and pursued commercial aims .","As regards the pecuniary damage sustained , ORG pointed out that the aim of a \u201c notional licence \u201d was to ensure that anyone using someone else \u2019s personality without permission would not be in a more advantageous position than if he or she had obtained the person \u2019s consent . It explained that the cost of such a licence was determined on the basis of the amount of a fee that would have been reasonable ( angemessen ) . Having regard in particular to the applicant \u2019s high profile , the billboards and advertising media used , and the fact that the advertisement had only used the applicant \u2019s forenames , ORG assessed the pecuniary damage at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . It also awarded the applicant the costs incurred in serving the official notice because they had resulted from the actions of the company and the agency .","On the other hand , ORG did not award the applicant compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage on the ground that there had been no serious interference with the protection of his personality rights . It emphasised that the applicant had struck the cameraman in public and that the advertisement had simply referred back to that event . Furthermore , the fact that the advertisement was merely derisive meant that there was no unavoidable need ( unabwendbares Bed\u00fcrfnis ) to award pecuniary compensation , and the award of a notional licence should be deemed sufficient redress .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld most of ORG judgment , varying it solely as regards the order for the company to reimburse the costs incurred in serving the official notice .","The Court of Appeal observed that the company and the agency had interfered with the applicant \u2019s right to his own name without his permission . In that context , it pointed out that even though the advertisement had only used the applicant \u2019s forenames , those names were well known to the general public because of the relationship between the applicant and the daughter of Prince Rainier III of GPE and the repeated press reports on the applicant \u2019s altercations in DATE and DATE . It further noted that the company had derived a pecuniary advantage from using the applicant \u2019s forenames . In cases such as the present one , where the impugned advertisement was designed to enhance the recognition and sales of a brand of cigarettes , freedom of expression generally took second place to the protection of personality rights . ORG considered that the impugned advertisement had made very little contribution , if any , to shaping public opinion , that the applicant \u2019s scuffles had been neither a political nor a societal event , and that the incidents had only been exploited for the purpose of entertaining a general public curious about the behaviour of famous people .","The Court of Appeal further pointed out that the impugned advertisement had infringed the pecuniary aspect of the right to protection of personality rights by depriving the applicant of his right to make his own choice as to whether and how his name could be used for advertising purposes . Clearly , the advertisement had not given the impression that the applicant identified with the product advertised or that he recommended it , nor was it offensive or degrading in nature , but with the sole aim of increasing sales of a brand of cigarettes it publicly mocked the applicant by suggesting that he even crumpled up cigarette packets .","As regards the cost of the notional licence , ORG pointed out that the unauthorised use of a person \u2019s name for commercial purposes was tantamount to unlawfully using a person \u2019s image and infringed the pecuniary aspect of the right to protection of personality rights . It held that in using the applicant \u2019s name without his consent the company and the agency had shown that they had attached economic importance to that name . The company and the agency were therefore under an obligation to pay the applicant the amount corresponding to the use of his name , and this obligation existed irrespective of whether the person in question would have been prepared to consent or not .","The Court of Appeal further stated that the cost of the notional licence had to be freely determined on the basis of all the relevant circumstances . It noted that the particular feature of the impugned advertisement was that it mocked the applicant , which made it unlikely that the applicant would have authorised it . However , it considered that the amount of the fees agreed between advertising companies and famous people who consented to the use their names might provide an indication for determining the cost of the notional licence . It noted in that connection that the company was CARDINAL of the largest tobacco companies in GPE and that the impugned advertisement had been part of a very successful advertising campaign which the company had launched in DATE . The advertisement in question had taken up a full page in several national magazines and also , from DATE onwards , in the form of posters at bus stops and other busy locations . Lastly , emphasising that the applicant was a well - known figure , it found that the advertising campaign had indeed attracted extensive public attention , thus justifying the award made by ORG .","The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on points of law , on the grounds that the question whether the use of a famous person \u2019s name for advertising purposes was justified where the advertisement referred to an event in contemporary history which was of no , or virtually no , interest except from an entertainment perspective had not yet been determined by the case - law of ORG , and that a decision was required from that court in order to develop and maintain a standard line of authority .","In a judgment of DATE ( no . I ORG CARDINAL ) ORG quashed ORG judgment . It held that the applicant \u2019s claims were ill - founded because the company and the agency had not unlawfully interfered with his right to protection of personality rights or his right to his name , given that the use of his name in the impugned advertisement was covered by the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by LAW ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d ) . While upholding the findings of ORG as regards the existence of an interference and the possibility of granting a notional licence in accordance with the principle of unjust enrichment , ORG held that ORG had not had sufficient regard to the fact that the pecuniary components of the right to protection of personality rights and the right to one \u2019s name were only protected by ordinary law , whereas freedom of expression enjoyed protection under constitutional law .","ORG explained at the outset that the case before it related solely to interference with the pecuniary components of the rights relied upon , since the applicant \u2019s contention that the advertisement had also infringed the non - pecuniary components of his rights had already been dismissed by ORG . It pointed out that the rights to protection of personality rights were among the fundamental rights safeguarded by LAW to the extent that they protected non - pecuniary interests , but that the pecuniary components were only protected by civil law and therefore did not prevail over freedom of expression . ORG also observed that the protection conferred by LAW also covered advertising whose content contributed to shaping public opinion , while specifying that that was not only the case where the advertisement referred to a political or historical event , but also where it dealt with questions of general interest . Furthermore , reports with an entertainment purpose could also play a role in shaping public opinion , or indeed , in certain circumstances , could stimulate or influence the shaping of public opinion more effectively than strictly factual information .","ORG noted that the impugned advertisement provided a satirical , derisive slant on the applicant \u2019s scuffles outside his \u201c Gut Calenberg \u201d property and on LOC . The media had reported on these events , mentioning the applicant \u2019s name and publishing photographs of him , because there was a particular public interest in information about the incidents on account of the applicant \u2019s relationship with the daughter of Prince PERSON III of GPE . ORG considered that even though the company had merely alluded to the applicant \u2019s scuffles as part of its advertising campaign , it could still rely on the specific protection of freedom of expression . It held that the fact that the advertisement \u2013 by using the applicant \u2019s forenames and alluding to his propensity for picking fights \u2013 had been mainly intended to increase sales of the cigarette brand by capturing the attention of the general public did not mean , as ORG had maintained , that the right to protection of personality rights prevailed in general .","ORG continued as follows :","\u201c In weighing up the competing interests ORG failed to take adequate account of the fact that the only issue at stake in this case was the protection of the pecuniary components of the right to protection of personality rights , such protection being based solely on civil law and not constitutional law . In the case of interference with the pecuniary components of the right to protection of personality rights because a well - known person \u2019s name has been used in an advertisement without his consent , it can not simply ( ohne weiteres ) be maintained that the person \u2019s right to protection of his personality rights will always prevail over the advertiser \u2019s right to freedom of expression . On the contrary , it might be appropriate to tolerate an interference with protection of personality rights resulting from reference to a person \u2019s name if , on the one hand , the advertisement alludes in a derisive , satirical manner to an event involving the person and forming the subject of public debate and if , on the other hand , it does not exploit the person \u2019s brand image ( Imagewert ) or advertising value ( PERSON ) by using his name , and if it does not give the impression that the person identifies with the product advertised or advocates its use ( reference to ORG judgment of DATE , no . I ZR CARDINAL ) . \u201d","ORG held that the impugned advertisement had not given such an impression . It had merely served as a reminder of the applicant \u2019s scuffles for anyone who already knew about them , while anyone who had never heard of those events would have been unable to understand the play on words , especially since the incidents had not been actually mentioned but had been hinted at in a particularly clever ( pfiffig ) way . ORG therefore took the view that the advertisement had been part of the public debate on the applicant \u2019s aggressive attitude . Above and beyond the derisive , satirical allusion to the events already known to the public , it had been devoid of any offensive or seriously degrading content in relation to the applicant . Given the absence of any suggestion that the applicant identified in any way with the product advertised , there were no grounds for considering that the advertisement was disparaging towards him simply because it was promoting cigarettes . ORG concluded that the applicant \u2019s interest in not being mentioned in the advertisement without his consent carried less weight than the tobacco company \u2019s freedom of expression , and that in the absence of a violation of the pecuniary or non - pecuniary components of his right to protection of his personality rights , the applicant could not claim an entitlement to a notional licence or to reimbursement of the costs incurred in serving the official notice .","On DATE the ORG declined to accept for adjudication a constitutional complaint by the applicant ( no . DATE ) . It provided no reasons for its decision .","..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160455","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"ROBERTS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently detained at FAC in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON of ORG , a firm of lawyers based in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP On TIME applicant attacked PERSON , stabbing him several times . He was charged with attempted murder and his trial took place in DATE in ORG before a jury . Before the trial commenced , the jury were shown a video about their role as jurors , setting out what they should and should not do . At the start of the trial , the judge reiterated the instructions given in the video and expressly instructed the jury members that they should not look up information relevant to the case on the Internet .","NORP The applicant \u2019s defence at trial was that although he had intended to cause serious bodily injury to PERSON he had not intended to kill him . Whether he had intent to kill was therefore the only contested issue .","The trial judge \u2019s summing - up and directions to the jury set out in detail the factors that the jury was required to take into account when deciding whether the prosecution had proved that the wounding was done with intent to kill . The jury then retired to consider its verdict . No verdict was reached DATE and the jury was sent home for TIME .","The next morning the jury members sent the judge a note which read :","\u201c Can the judge give the jury any guidance on the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether the defendant intended to murder PERSON with particular onus on the definition of intent ? \u201d","With the agreement of counsel for the prosecution and the defence , the judge gave the jury a written extract from the relevant section of her summing - up where she had discussed intent . The judge also read the passage out to the jury members . She gave additional details at some length as to the circumstances that needed to be considered .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of attempted murder by a majority verdict of the jury ( CARDINAL jurors to CARDINAL ) . On DATE he was sentenced to indefinite imprisonment for public protection with a minimum term of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , less time spent on remand .","Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG , who had been a juror at the trial , sent an email to ORG alleging a number of shortcomings in the conduct of his fellow jurors . In particular , he alleged that information had been obtained from the Internet by CARDINAL jurors and had been disclosed to fellow jurors . The trial judge informed counsel for the prosecution and the defence that allegations of jury irregularities had been made by a juror .","The applicant subsequently sought leave to appeal his conviction and sentence , alleging that his trial was unfair on account of significant jury irregularities . On DATE ORG directed that ORG ( \u201c CCRC \u201d ) be asked to investigate the allegations .","The ORG interviewed the jurors in the case . ORG claimed that ORG , the foreman and a solicitor , had researched sentencing tariffs in similar cases and had shared the information he had discovered with his fellow jurors . In its report of CARDINAL DATE the ORG summarised statements from CARDINAL other jurors alleging that the jury foreman had looked up the definition of \u201c attempted murder \u201d , had looked at information concerning the question of intent and had looked up the sentencing guidelines for attempted murder . CARDINAL of the jurors had no recollection of the alleged improper conduct having taken place . None of the jurors supported the claim that CARDINAL further jurors had undertaken Internet research .","The ORG subsequently interviewed the jury foreman under caution . After receiving legal advice , the jury foreman gave a prepared statement and refused to answer questions . In his statement he confirmed that there had been some uncertainty as to the law on intent , for which further direction had been required from and provided by the trial judge ; and that the issue of possible sentences had arisen . The statement neither confirmed nor denied that the foreman had conducted Internet searches relating to the case .","The ORG report noted that ORG \u2019s allegations in interview appeared to be not \u201c quite so stark \u201d as those made in his initial email . It further noted that there was no support for the majority of his allegations . However , it accepted that there was some corroboration for the more general allegations that the jury foreman had conducted case - related research on either the question of the differing elements of intent as between the offences under consideration , or the different sentences which might arise , and had provided information to his fellow jurors .","On DATE ORG granted leave to appeal against conviction and refused leave to appeal against sentence .","In its judgment on the merits of the appeal against conviction , the court noted that the summing - up by the trial judge had been \u201c impeccable \u201d and had not been criticised by the applicant . The court referred to the jury \u2019s question during deliberations regarding the law on intent and noted that the trial judge \u2019s response was very thorough and that the jury could not have had any doubt as to the correct directions in law and the factors to which they were required to have regard .","The court agreed with the parties that it should proceed on the basis that an irregularity had occurred at trial . It considered that CARDINAL matters had to be examined : first , the information introduced to the jury in relation to the requirements to establish the intent to kill ; and second , the information introduced concerning applicable sentences .","As to the former , ORG considered it inconceivable that the jury members would have paid any attention whatsoever to what had been said by the foreman after the judge had handed them the answers to the questions they posed . The court rejected the applicant \u2019s submission that it could not be presumed in his case that the jurors would follow directions . Had the judge not handed a direction to the jury , there might have been some doubt but considering the timing , the probabilities and the care with which the judge provided a written document to the jury , the court had no doubt whatever that the jury followed the direction of the judge and ignored what the foreman of the jury had said .","On the question of what was said regarding sentencing guidelines , ORG accepted that it should bear in mind the potential effect that a jury knowing the range of sentences could have on their attitude towards conviction . However , it continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . But we must look at the reality of this case . As we have explained , there was CARDINAL narrow issue before the jury , namely whether the ORG had proved , in addition to the intent to cause really serious bodily injury ... an intent to kill . It must have been obvious to the jury that the reason why the ORG was proceeding with the trial was that they did not consider that a plea to wounding with intent was sufficient to enable the judge to pass a severe enough sentence . It must have been obvious to the jury that by proceeding to seek a verdict on the count of attempted murder , the ORG were interested in establishing the more serious offence , so that the punishment could be the more serious . Thus , the fact that the foreman explained to the jury that sentences for attempted murder were more serious than for wounding with intent can not have any effect ...","It seems to us that it must have been obvious to the jury that they were tasked with deciding whether the ORG had proved the intent to kill , that if they did so the sentence would be more severe and therefore the introduction by the foreman of that further material can have had no material effect upon their decision to convict ... \u201d","For these reasons , the court dismissed the appeal against conviction .","The applicant did not ask ORG to certify a question of general public importance to enable him to apply for leave to appeal to ORG .","The applicant provided a copy of counsel \u2019s advice dated DATE . The advice explained :","\u201c At the hearing of the appeal it was accepted ... that extraneous material had been introduced into the jury \u2019s deliberations , and that the material related at least in part to the ingredients of the offence of attempted murder . There was no dispute as to the relevant law . It was accepted that the introduction of such material prima facie constituted a material irregularity in the trial process . The issue to be determined on appeal was whether that irregularity affected the safety of the appellant \u2019s conviction .","Following full argument , [ ORG ] expressed the opinion that the appeal concerned the fact - specific issue of considering whether , in the light of the admitted irregularities , the appellant \u2019s conviction was safe ...","The issue at appeal ... was wholly fact - specific ... As there was no dispute between the parties on any point of law it was not possible to request a certification of a point of law of general public importance , and I regret to inform PERSON that there are no further domestic avenues of appeal . \u201d","Upon responding to a summons , jury members are sent a leaflet called \u201c Your Guide to Jury Service \u201d . The leaflet explains that ORG discussions are private and that jurors should not discuss any aspects of the trial with anyone other than fellow jurors . It sets out that the verdict must be that of the jurors alone and reminds jurors that their role is to reach a verdict on the evidence presented in the court room at trial . The leaflet also notes that it is an offence for anyone outside the jury to try and influence them .","Once selected for jury duty , jurors must swear an oath or affirmation that they will :","\u201c faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence . \u201d","At the outset of the trial , the jury are conventionally given a direction to the effect that they must try the case on the evidence alone , which is what they hear in court . They are instructed that they must not discuss the case with family , friends or anyone else or conduct their own research into the case .","NORP The rule governing the secrecy of jury deliberations is set out in the Contempt of Court Act DATE . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW states that it is a contempt of court to obtain , disclose or solicit any particulars of any statements made , opinions expressed , arguments advanced or votes cast by members of the jury in the course of their deliberations .","Section CARDINALA of LAW DATE enables ORG to direct the ORG , in the context of an appeal against conviction , to investigate and report to the court on any matter deemed relevant to the resolution of the appeal .","In NORP v PERSON and others [ DATE ] PERSON CARDINAL , ORG , addressing the matter of jury irregularities , explained :","\u201c CARDINAL . Much more difficult problems arise when after the verdict has been returned , attention is drawn to alleged irregularities . This may take the form of a complaint from a defendant , or his solicitors , or in a very few cases it may emerge from CARDINAL or more jurors , or indeed from information revealed by the jury bailiff . It is then beyond the jurisdiction of the trial judge to intervene . Responsibility for investigating any irregularity must be assumed by this court . In performing its responsibilities , it is bound to apply the principle that the deliberations of the jury are confidential . Except with the authority of the trial judge during the trial , or this court after the verdict , inquiries into jury deliberations are \u201c forbidden territory \u201d ... If any complaint about jury deliberations is received by the trial court after verdict it is immediately referred to this court and whether the complaint has been received from the court of trial or by this court directly , the practice is to examine each case to see whether or not , exceptionally , further inquiries ought to be made , and if so , to invite the assistance of ORG to conduct the necessary inquiry . \u201d","The court confirmed that the rule that jury deliberations were confidential was subject to CARDINAL narrow exceptions . The first arose if it emerged that there might have been a complete repudiation of the oath taken by the jurors to try the case according to the evidence ( for example , a decision arrived at by the toss of a coin ) . The second exception arose in cases where extraneous material had been introduced into the jury deliberations . Where the complaint was made that the jury had considered non - evidential material , the court was entitled to examine the evidence ( possibly after investigation by the ORG ) to ascertain the facts .","Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( as amended ) provides that a person convicted of an offence on indictment may appeal to ORG against his conviction . An appeal can only proceed with the leave of ORG or if the judge of the court of trial grants a certificate that the case is fit for appeal .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW provides that ORG :","\u201c ( a ) shall allow an appeal against conviction if they think that the conviction is unsafe ; and","( b ) shall dismiss such an appeal in any other case . \u201d","Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , a defendant has the right to appeal to ORG against a decision of ORG ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) clarifies that the leave of ORG or ORG is required and that leave will not be granted unless it is certified by ORG that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision and it appears to ORG or ORG ( as the case may be ) that the point is one which ought to be considered by the latter court .","LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) incorporates the LAW into GPE law . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , a person who claims that a public authority has acted in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights may rely on the LAW right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150643","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF YAGNINA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant worked as a driver of tractors and other heavy machines for DATE . This work led to her developing dysfunctions of the nervous system . In DATE she was declared to have a \u201c third degree disability \u201d and started receiving a disability pension .","DATE the applicant underwent CARDINAL medical reexaminations by the local ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , the body competent to assess the level of disability . The medical examinations serve as a basis for the allocation of disability pensions . She was diagnosed with vegetative polyneuropathy of the upper extremities , coxarthrosis , cervical spondylosis and radiculopathy . On all occasions she was assessed to have a \u201c third degree disability \u201d \u2500 she had lost PERCENT of her ability to work , which entitled her to receive a disability pension .","On DATE the applicant underwent a new regular reexamination by the ORG . This time she was diagnosed with vegetative polyneuropathy of the upper extremities and myotendinosis . No mention was made of the other diseases diagnosed earlier , namely coxarthrosis , cervical spondylosis and radiculopathy . On that basis the ORG assessed the applicant \u2019s loss of ability to work at PERCENT , which was not sufficient to entitle her to a disability pension .","The applicant challenged this decision before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . After re - examining her , the ORG declared the applicant fully fit to work in a decision of DATE . Its diagnosis was \u201c spondylosis and related diseases \u201d .","The applicant applied to ORG for judicial review of that decision .","The Sofia City Court appointed a medical expert who examined the applicant and concluded that she suffered from the following conditions : cervical spondylarthrosis , vegetative polyneuropathy , myotendinosis of the upper limbs and coxarthrosis of the coxofemoral joint . The expert pointed out that these conditions had a chronic character and had permanently and negatively affected the applicant \u2019s state of health . If anything , some of them had become worse after DATE . The expert pointed out that such conditions typically led to a significant reduction in the affected person \u2019s ability to work .","On the basis of that report , on DATE the ORG quashed the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE as unlawful . It found , on the basis of the expert \u2019s conclusions corroborated by the remaining documents in the case file , that the applicant \u2019s ability to work was reduced . The court concluded that the ORG had erroneously assessed the applicant \u2019s state of health by failing to consider all relevant elements to her actual state of health . The court remitted the case for a fresh examination , pointing out that it was the ORG which had to fix the exact percentage of the applicant \u2019s reduced ability to work . The judgment entered into force on DATE .","The ORG examined the applicant on DATE . In its decision of the same date it indicated as a leading diagnosis \u201c spondylosis and related diseases \u201d . It specified that the applicant suffered from cervical spondylarthrosis and cervical radiculopathy , which were occupational diseases , and from myotendinosis of the upper limbs and coxarthrosis , which were not . It considered that she did not suffer from vegetative polyneuropathy of the upper limbs . On that basis the ORG assessed the applicant \u2019s reduced ability to work at PERCENT . The decision stated that it was valid for DATE .","Once again , the applicant applied for judicial review of the ORG \u2019s decision . ORG appointed a medical expert who concluded that the applicant suffered from the following diseases which he considered occupational : cervical spondylarthrosis , vegetative polyneuropathy , myotendinosis of the upper limbs and coxarthrosis of the CARDINAL coxofemoral joints . The expert considered that these conditions had a permanent and chronic character and had led to irreversible degenerative changes to the applicant \u2019s locomotor system .","On that basis , on DATE the ORG quashed the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case to it for further examination in accordance with the conclusions of the medical expertise accepted by the court in the case proceedings . The court found that the administrative body had erred when assessing the applicant \u2019s state of disability as it had not taken into account all the relevant circumstances . It considered the ORG \u2019s opinion that the applicant did not suffer from vegetative polyneuropathy unfounded and concluded that the ORG \u2019s decision was not based on the applicant \u2019s actual state of health . The court held , like in its judgment of DATE , that the ORG was exclusively competent to assess the percentage of disability .","Upon an appeal by the ORG , ORG upheld ORG judgment in a final judgment of DATE .","Following that , in a decision of DATE the ORG assessed the applicant \u2019s reduced ability to work at PERCENT which did not entitle her to a disability pension . In the decision \u2019s entry \u201c occupational deceases \u201d , only vegetative polyneuropathy featured this time . The operative provision of the decision stated that the ORG \u201c Quashes and decides anew the question of percentage of disability . Confirms the rest of the elements . \u201d The decision stated that it was valid for DATE .","The applicant did not apply for judicial review of the above decision .","The payment of the applicant \u2019s disability pension was discontinued as of DATE and there is no information about what happened after the DATE ORG decision ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159880","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MILOJEVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were employed as police officers . They were all charged with the commission of various criminal offences . They were dismissed from the police force pursuant to LAW DATE which was in force at the time . Subsequently , all the applicants were acquitted . However , their dismissals remained in force . They unsuccessfully challenged their dismissals in civil proceedings before the national courts .","On DATE a criminal complaint was lodged against the first applicant with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . He was reported to have instigated his superior , the second applicant , to abuse his power . He was arrested DATE and criminal proceedings were instituted against him .","On DATE , simultaneously with the initiation of criminal proceedings , ORG instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant . He was suspended from the police force on DATE , pending the decision of ORG .","On DATE ORG charged the applicant for alleged instigation to abuse of power .","On DATE the competent directorate of ORG rendered a decision by which the applicant was dismissed from the police force . The decision noted that criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant and that LAW DATE which was in force at the time of the dismissal could be applied . The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision . On DATE the Minister , acting as a second - instance administrative body , rejected his appeal , confirming the dismissal .","On DATE the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were stopped without any decision on the merits . ORG concluded that the applicant had already been dismissed from the police force as a result of the initiation of the criminal proceedings against him and that this fact rendered the disciplinary proceedings redundant .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) acquitted the applicant . The ORG appealed against this decision . On DATE ORG confirmed ORG decision and the applicant \u2019s acquittal became final .","Shortly after the applicant \u2019s acquittal in the criminal proceedings , he instituted civil proceedings in which he requested the annulment of the above decisions on dismissal . On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s claim and ordered ORG to reinstate him in his former post . The court held that the formulation of LAW ORG left broad discretionary powers to ORG to dismiss its employees even when no criminal responsibility was attributable to them . It concluded that this legal solution \u201c most certainly left the possibility of abuse of this authority . \u201d It also observed that the applicant had been acquitted in criminal proceedings instituted against him . Finally , the court noted that the applicant had been dismissed without any determination of his disciplinary responsibility but solely through the use of the discretionary power given to ORG by Article CARDINAL of the DATE ORG and without any further reasoning .","The Ministry of the ORG appealed against this decision . On DATE ORG upheld the decision and reasoning of ORG .","The Ministry of the ORG lodged an appeal on points of law before ORG . On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision and decided that the applicant \u2019s dismissal was lawful . According to ORG , ORG had used its discretionary power under LAW DATE in accordance with the law . It concluded that the applicant \u2019s acquittal in the criminal proceedings and the absence of a decision on the merits in the disciplinary proceedings were irrelevant to his dismissal . It also held that the lower courts had overstepped the limits of their authority in considering the necessity , proportionality and correctness of the dismissal decision .","On DATE a criminal complaint was lodged against the second applicant with ORG . He was alleged to have committed the crime of abuse of power . He was arrested DATE and criminal proceedings were instituted against him .","On DATE , simultaneously with the initiation of the criminal proceedings , ORG instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant . He was suspended from the police force on DATE , pending the decision of ORG .","On DATE ORG charged the applicant with alleged abuse of power .","On DATE ORG rendered a decision by which the applicant was dismissed from the police force . The reasoning of the decision was identical to that in the case of the first applicant . The applicant appealed against this decision . On DATE , the second - instance administrative body confirmed the decision .","On DATE the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were stopped without any decision on the merits for the same reasons as in the case of the first applicant .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant . The prosecutor lodged an appeal which was dismissed on DATE by ORG . It confirmed ORG decision and the applicant \u2019s acquittal became final .","NORP The applicant instituted civil proceedings after the acquittal , in which he requested the annulment of the above decision on dismissal . On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s claim and ordered ORG to reinstate him in his previously held post . The reasoning of the court was the same as in the case of the first applicant .","The Ministry of the ORG appealed against this decision . On DATE ORG upheld the decision and reasoning of ORG .","The Ministry of the ORG lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE ORG quashed the above decisions on the same grounds as in the case of the first applicant .","On DATE , ORG lodged an indictment with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against the third applicant for the alleged unauthorised possession of weapons and ammunition . On DATE the ORG found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE of imprisonment .","On DATE ORG rendered a decision by which the applicant was dismissed from the police force with the same reasoning as in the case of the first and the second applicants . The applicant appealed . On DATE the second - instance administrative body confirmed the above decision . No disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant .","On DATE ORG confirmed the applicant \u2019s conviction in criminal proceedings . The applicant lodged a request for the re - opening of the proceedings , which was granted . On DATE the ORG acquitted the applicant . The Prosecutor appealed against this decision . On DATE ORG confirmed the acquittal .","Shortly after the applicant was acquitted in the criminal proceedings , he instituted civil proceedings in which he requested the annulment of the DATE decision on dismissal .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s claim and ordered ORG to reinstate the applicant in his previously held post . ORG appealed . On DATE the ORG quashed this decision , giving essentially the same reasons as in the decisions of ORG delivered in the cases of the first and the second applicant . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision .","In the criminal proceedings against the third applicant , another police officer , ORG was a co - defendant . PERSON was charged with the same crime as the applicant and was acquitted . He is still employed as a police officer .","The third applicant also instituted a separate set of civil proceedings in which he requested compensation for non - pecuniary damage related to his unlawful detention , stress sustained in prison and the loss of reputation caused by the imprisonment . On DATE ORG partially accepted the applicant \u2019s claim and awarded him MONEY ( ORG ) , ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . On DATE the Gnjilane ORG partially upheld this decision , decreasing the awarded amount to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The awarded sum was paid to the applicant accordingly ."],"violated_articles":["6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145575","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH;HRV;MKD;SRB;SVN","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ALI\u0160I\u0106 AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, CROATIA, SERBIA, SLOVENIA AND \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (Serbia);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (Slovenia);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions) (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (Croatia) (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Serbia);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Slovenia);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (Croatia) (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;General measures) (Serbia);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;General measures) (Slovenia);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Lech Garlicki;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nicolas Bratza;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","Prior to the dissolution of ORG ) , CARDINAL of the present applicants , PERSON and PERSON PERSON , had deposited foreign currency in GPE . In DATE , within the context of the economic reforms carried out in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , GPE became a branch of GPE , a NORP bank . Also prior to the dissolution of the SFRY , the third applicant , PERSON , had deposited foreign currency in the ORG branch , located in GPE , of GPE , a NORP bank . According to the material in the ORG \u2019s possession , on DATE the balance in PERSON and PERSON PERSON \u2019s accounts at the GPE branch of ORG was MONEY ( ORG ) and ORG CARDINAL respectively ; on DATE the balance in PERSON accounts at the ORG branch of ORG was DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL , CARDINAL NORP schillings and CARDINAL United States dollars ( ORG ) .","NORP The applicants\u2019 complaints under the Convention concern their inability to withdraw their foreign - currency savings from the bank accounts described above . In their submission , this constituted a breach of LAW No . CARDINAL taken alone and in conjunction with LAW by all of the respondent States . They also alleged a violation of LAW .","NORP Before the economic reforms that were carried out in the SFRY in DATE , its commercial banking system consisted of basic and associated banks . Basic banks had separate legal personality , but were integrated into the organisational structure of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL associated banks . As a rule , basic banks were founded and controlled by socially owned companies based in the same territorial unit ( that is , in CARDINAL of GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE DATE or ORG and GPE \u2013 of ORG ) . Socially owned companies were the flagship of the NORP model of self - management : neither private nor ORG - owned , they were a collective property controlled by their employees , based on a communist vision of industrial relations ( the phenomenon and the current status of such companies in GPE , where they continue to exist , has been described in NORP GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL , DATE ) . CARDINAL or more basic banks could form an associated bank . PERSON , CARDINAL of the associated banks of the SFRY , was composed of GPE , at which CARDINAL of the present applicants had opened accounts , GPE , GPE and a number of other basic banks . Similarly , GPE , at which CARDINAL of the present applicants had opened accounts , had , together with some other basic banks , formed an associated bank called LOC udru\u017eena Banka .","In the SFRY there were also CARDINAL national banks , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and a national bank in each of the six Republics and CARDINAL ORG .","Being hard - pressed for hard currency , the SFRY made it attractive for its expatriates and other citizens to deposit foreign currency with its banks . Such deposits earned high interest , the DATE rate often exceeding PERCENT , and were guaranteed by the ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG DATE and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON and Other Financial Institutions Act DATE ) .","The ORG guarantee was to be activated in case of a bank \u2019s bankruptcy or \u201c manifest insolvency \u201d at the request of the bank ( section CARDINAL of the Banks and Other Financial Institutions Insolvency Act DATE and the relevant secondary legislation ) . None of the banks under consideration in the present case made such a request .","Savers could not request the activation of the guarantee of their own volition , but were entitled , in accordance with LAW DATE , to collect their deposits at any time , together with accrued interest . Section CARDINAL of that Act provided as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A contract for a monetary deposit shall be formed when the bank agrees to accept and the depositor agrees to deposit a certain sum of money in the bank .","( CARDINAL ) Under such a contract , the bank shall have the right to use the deposited money and the obligation to return it in accordance with the terms set out in the agreement . \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW read as follows :","\u201c If a savings account is opened , the bank or financial institution shall issue the saver with a savings book . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the Act provided :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) All deposits and withdrawals shall be recorded in a savings book .","( CARDINAL ) NORP Signed and stamped entries in savings books shall constitute proof of deposits and withdrawals .","( CARDINAL ) Any agreement to the contrary shall be null and void . \u201d","Furthermore , section CARDINAL of the LAW read as follows :","\u201c Interest shall be paid on savings deposits . \u201d","Beginning in DATE , the banks incurred foreignexchange losses because of depreciation of the dinar exchange rate . In response , the SFRY introduced a system for \u201c redepositing \u201d foreign currency , allowing banks to transfer ORG foreign - currency deposits to the ORG , which assumed the currency risk ( section CARDINAL of ORG DATE ) . Although the system was legally optional , in practice the banks did not have another option as they were not allowed to maintain foreign - currency accounts with foreign banks , which were necessary to make payments abroad , nor were they allowed to grant foreign - currency loans . Virtually all foreign currency was therefore redeposited with the ORG according to CARDINAL of the following CARDINAL methods : either the \u201c accounting \u201d or \u201c pro forma \u201d method , or the method of actual transfer of foreign currency to foreign accounts of the ORG . The accounting method was used far more often , as it enabled commercial banks to shift currency risks to the ORG without having to pay fees to foreign banks ( see NORP and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; see also decision ORG CARDINAL of ORG DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . According to an internal report of the ORG of DATE , by DATE an equivalent of MONEY had been redeposited with the ORG , of which only around ORG CARDINAL ( that is , slightly above PERCENT ) had been physically transferred to the ORG \u2019s many foreign accounts . It would appear that the funds in the ORG \u2019s foreign accounts have recently been divided among the successor GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","With regard to GPE , where the first CARDINAL applicants held their accounts , the redepositing scheme operated as follows . Pursuant to a series of agreements ( between GPE and GPE , ORG and ORG ) , GPE was to transfer DATE to ORG , for the account of PERSON , any difference between the foreign currency deposited and the foreign currency withdrawn . Some of those funds were transferred back to GPE at the request of that bank in order to meet its liquidity needs ( during periods when more foreign currency was withdrawn than deposited ) . Indeed , in the period from DATE to CARDINAL , DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL was transferred to GPE and DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( that is , PERCENT ) back to GPE . The funds which had not been transferred back to GPE were redeposited with the ORG according to CARDINAL of the CARDINAL methods described in paragraph CARDINAL above : the \u201c accounting \u201d or \u201c pro forma \u201d method ( in which case there is no proof that the funds actually left GPE ) , or the method of actual transfer of foreign currency to foreign accounts of the ORG . Regardless of the redepositing method used , all those funds were recorded as a claim of GPE against the ORG .","Under the agreements mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above , GPE was granted dinar loans ( initially interest - free ) by the ORG , via ORG , in return for the value of the redeposited foreign currency . The dinars received by ORG were used by that basic bank to offer loans , at interest rates below the rate of inflation , to companies based , as a rule , in the same territorial unit .","NORP In DATE the redepositing system was stopped ( by an amendment to section CARDINAL of ORG DATE ) . Banks were given permission to open accounts with foreign banks . GPE , like other banks , seized that opportunity and deposited around ORG CARDINAL with foreign banks in the period from DATE to DATE . There is no information in the file as to what has happened to those funds .","Within the framework of the reforms carried out in DATE , the SFRY abolished the system of basic and associated banks described above . This shift in the banking regulations allowed some basic banks to opt for an independent status , while other basic banks became branches ( without legal personality ) of the former associated banks to which they had formerly belonged . On DATE Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo , mentioned above , thus became a branch ( without legal personality ) of GPE ; the latter assumed the former \u2019s rights , assets and liabilities . GPE , mentioned above , became an independent bank with its seat in GPE and a number of branches in GPE .","NORP Moreover , the convertibility of the dinar was declared , which led to a massive withdrawal of foreign currency . The SFRY therefore resorted to emergency measures restricting to a large extent withdrawals of foreign - currency deposits . For example , as of DATE , when the amendment to section CARDINAL of ORG DATE came into force , savers could withdraw their savings only to pay for imported goods or services for their own or their close relatives\u2019 needs , to purchase foreign - currency bonds , to make testamentary gifts for scientific or humanitarian purposes , or to pay for life insurance with a local insurance company . In addition , section CARDINAL of the SFRY government \u2019s decision of DATE , which was in force until DATE , and section CARDINAL(c ) of the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE , which ORG declared unconstitutional in DATE , limited the amount that savers could withdraw or use for the above purposes to DEM CARDINAL per transaction , but not more than DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL per month ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The dissolution of the SFRY occurred in DATE . In the successor ORG , foreign - currency savings deposited prior to the dissolution were placed under a special regime and are commonly referred to as \u201c old \u201d or \u201c frozen \u201d foreign - currency savings . An overview of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning such savings in each of the CARDINAL successor GPE is provided below . The successor ORG , which are also the respondent parties to the present case , are presented below in alphabetical order .","NORP In DATE GPE took over the statutory guarantee for \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings from ORG ( see section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) . Although the relevant statutory provisions were not clear in that regard , ORG held the view that the guarantee covered such savings in domestic banks only ( see report CARDINAL of ORG DATE ) .","Although all \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings remained frozen during the war , withdrawals were exceptionally allowed on humanitarian grounds and in some other special cases ( see the relevant secondary legislation ) .","After the DATE - CARDINAL war , each of ORG the ORG \u201d ) and ORG ) enacted its own legislation on \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings . Only the PERSON legislation is relevant in the present case , given that the branches in issue are situated in that Entity . In DATE the PERSON assumed liability for \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in banks and branches situated in its territory ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE and ORG ) . Although such savings remained frozen , that Act provided that they could be used to purchase ORG - owned flats and companies ( see section CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL , as amended in DATE ) .","In DATE the PERSON enacted new legislation . It undertook to repay \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in domestic banks in that Entity , regardless of the citizenship of the depositor concerned . Its liability for such savings in the branches of PERSON , GPE or other foreign banks , in which the applicants had their accounts , was expressly excluded pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG .","In DATE , liability for \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in domestic banks passed from the Entities to the ORG . Liability for such savings at the local branches of ORG and GPE was again expressly excluded , but the ORG was to help the clients of those branches to obtain payment of their savings from GPE and GPE respectively ( see section QUANTITY of ORG DATE ) . In addition , all proceedings concerning \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings ceased by virtue of the same Act ( see section CARDINAL of that Act ; that provision was declared constitutional by decision U CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of ORG DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","As stated in paragraph CARDINAL above , in DATE Ljubljanska Banka Sarajevo became a branch , without legal personality , of GPE ; the latter assumed the former \u2019s rights , assets and liabilities . Pursuant to the companies register , the branch acted on behalf of and for the account of the parent bank . At DATE , the foreign - currency savings at that branch amounted to MONEY , but CARDINAL had been placed in its vault ( the flow of foreign currency between GPE and GPE is described in paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","A new bank , with the same name as the predecessor of the GPE branch of ORG Ljubljanska Banka GPE \u2013 was incorporated under the law of GPE in DATE . It assumed unilateral liability for \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings at the GPE branch of ORG , a NORP bank .","In DATE ORG GPE carried out an inspection of the new GPE and noted many shortcomings . First of all , the management of the new FAC had not been properly appointed and it was not clear who its shareholders were . ORG , for that reason , appointed a director of that bank . Secondly , as a domestic bank , GPE could not have assumed a foreign bank \u2019s liability for \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings , as this would impose new financial obligations on the State of GPE ( as the ORG was the statutory guarantor for \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in all domestic banks ) . ORG ordered that a closing balance sheet for the GPE branch of ORG as at DATE be drawn up urgently and that its relations with the parent bank be defined .","However , according to the companies register , the newly founded ORG remained liable for \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings at ORG GPE branch until DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) . Consequently , it continued to administer \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings at ORG GPE branch ; PERCENT of those savings were used in the privatisation process in the PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In CARDINAL case , a civil court ordered GPE to repay a client of ORG GPE branch ( see ORG v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The Constitutional Court of GPE described the DATE situation as \u201c chaotic \u201d ( decision ORG CARDINAL of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . ORG for GPE , a domestic human rights body , held that the legal uncertainty surrounding the issue of \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in , inter alia , domestic branches of GPE and GPE during that period amounted to a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL ( see decision CH\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and others of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","In DATE the ORG placed the domestic GPE under its provisional administration on the ground that it had undefined relations with GPE , a foreign bank located in GPE .","By virtue of an amendment to LAW , in DATE ORG extended the statutory time - limit for the deletion of wartime entries in the companies register until DATE . Shortly thereafter , in DATE , ORG decided that the domestic GPE was not the successor of the GPE branch of ORG ; that it was not liable for \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in that branch ; and that , as a result , the DATE entry in the companies register stating otherwise ought to be deleted .","In DATE the domestic GPE sold its assets to a NORP company which , in return , undertook to pay the debts of that bank . At the same time , the premises of the GPE branch of ORG , under the administration of the PERSON government pending the final determination of the status of that branch , were let out to the same NORP company on behalf and for the account of PERSON .","In DATE the competent court opened bankruptcy proceedings against GPE in GPE . The proceedings are still pending .","The GPE branch of GPE has always had the status of a branch without legal personality . The balance of the \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings at that branch was MONEY ( MONEY ) as at DATE . The branch closed in DATE and has never resumed its activities . It is not clear what happened to its funds .","In DATE the competent court in GPE made a bankruptcy order against GPE . The NORP authorities then sold the premises of the ORG branches of ORG ( those in ORG had been sold in DATE ) . For example , for the sale of the premises in PERSON Street in GPE the NORP authorities obtained QUANTITY . The bankruptcy proceedings against ORG are apparently still pending .","NORP In DATE the ORG government decided to place the LOC and archives of the ORG branches of ORG under its administration . However , it would appear that ORG no longer had any LOC or archives in the PERSON .","In DATE , at the request of the ORG authorities , the NORP authorities opened a criminal investigation into the manner in which the archives of the GPE branch had been transferred to the NORP territory in DATE .","ORG stated that they had repaid \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in domestic banks and their foreign branches , regardless of the citizenship of the depositor concerned . Indeed , it is clear that they repaid such savings of NORP - Herzegovinian citizens deposited in NORP - Herzegovinian branches of NORP banks . However , ORG provided the ORG with decisions of ORG ( PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - DATE , PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL and PERSON DATE ) holding that the term used in the relevant legislation ( gra\u0111anin ) meant a NORP citizen ( compare NORP and Others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","GPE allowed its citizens to transfer their \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings from the GPE branch of GPE to NORP banks ( see section CARDINAL of ORG DATE and the relevant secondary legislation ) . Apparently , CARDINAL of all clients of that branch availed themselves of that possibility . In DATE GPE and GPE signed a memorandum of understanding , urging further succession negotiations regarding those transferred savings . As to the clients who did not transfer their savings from the GPE branch of GPE to NORP banks , which savings amounted to MONEY , some of them pursued civil proceedings in the NORP courts : CARDINAL of them obtained their \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings from a forced sale of assets of that branch located in GPE ( decisions of ORG of DATE and DATE ; see also NORP and Others , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ; while others have pursued or are currently pursuing civil proceedings in the NORP courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to official papers provided by ORG , PERSON and its GPE branch no longer have any assets in GPE .","After the dissolution of the SFRY , \u201c old \u201d foreigncurrency savings in NORP banks remained frozen . However , withdrawals were exceptionally allowed on humanitarian grounds regardless of the citizenship of the saver concerned and the location of the branch in issue ( see the relevant secondary legislation ) . Furthermore , the NORP courts ruled on CARDINAL occasion that the banks based in GPE were liable for \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings at their branches located in GPE ( see PERSON ( dec . ) , no . PERSON , DATE ) .","In DATE , and then again in DATE , GPE agreed to repay , partly in cash and partly in government bonds , \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in domestic branches of domestic banks of its citizens and of citizens of all GPE other than the successor LAW of the SFRY together with \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in foreign branches of domestic banks ( such as the ORG branch of GPE ) of citizens of all GPE other than the successor LAW of the SFRY . Those government bonds were to be amortised by DATE in CARDINAL DATE instalments and earned interest at an DATE rate of PERCENT ( section CARDINAL of ORG ) . As regards the amount to be repaid , GPE undertook to reimburse original deposits with interest accrued by DATE at the original rate and interest accrued after that date at an DATE rate of PERCENT ( section CARDINAL of the same Act ) .","However , other \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings ( that is , the savings of citizens of the SFRY successor States other than GPE deposited in all branches of NORP banks , both domestic and foreign , as well as the savings of NORP citizens in NORP branches located outside GPE ) were to remain frozen pending succession negotiations , as was the case for example of the third applicant \u2019s deposits . Furthermore , all proceedings concerning \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings ceased by virtue of sections DATE and CARDINAL of ORG Act DATE and sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG .","According to the companies register , ORG is ORG - owned . It is controlled by ORG . As a ORG - owned entity , it had to write off its large claims against State- and socially - owned companies in order to enable their privatisation pursuant to LAW DATE . In DATE the competent court made a bankruptcy order against GPE . The bankruptcy proceedings are pending . CARDINAL of savers at NORP - Herzegovinian branches of ORG unsuccessfully applied to be paid back within the context of the bankruptcy proceedings . CARDINAL of them then pursued civil proceedings against GPE , but to no avail .","In DATE GPE assumed the statutory guarantee from the SFRY for \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in domestic branches of all banks ( including GPE and other foreign banks ) , regardless of the citizenship of the depositor concerned ( see section ORG ) of the DATE LAW on LAW on the Sovereignty and Independence of GPE \u2013 \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) , and converted the LOC liabilities towards depositors into public debt ( see ORG DATE ) . GPE thus undertook to repay original deposits and interest accrued by DATE at the original rate , as well as interest accrued from DATE until DATE at an DATE rate of PERCENT ( section CARDINAL of ORG DATE ) . As regards the period thereafter , the interest rate depended on whether a depositor had opted for government bonds or cash . The depositors were entitled to obtain either government bonds , which were to be amortised by DATE in DATE instalments and earned interest at an DATE rate of PERCENT , or cash from the banks in which they had money , together with interest at the market rate plus PERCENT in DATE instalments . In the latter case , the banks were to be issued with government bonds . Some depositors opted for government bonds as they could use them to purchase ORG - owned flats and companies and to pay taxes and pension contributions .","Shortly after its declaration of independence , GPE nationalised and then , in DATE , restructured ORG by virtue of an amendment to the DATE LAW . Most of its assets and a part of its liabilities were transferred to a new bank \u2013 Nova Ljubljanska Banka ( see section CARDINAL(b ) of that LAW , cited in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The old bank retained liability for \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in its branches in the other successor GPE and the related claims against the ORG ( ibid . ) . On the basis of that Act , domestic courts rendered a number of decisions ordering the old PERSON to pay \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings to clients at its GPE branch ; at the same time , domestic courts considered that ORG itself had no liabilities in this regard ( see ORG judgments PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; II Ips CARDINAL of DATE ; and PERSON CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) . The old PERSON was initially administered by ORG . It is now controlled by a NORP government agency DATE ORG .","In DATE all proceedings concerning \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in the old PERSON branches in the other successor GPE ( with the exception of third - instance proceedings before ORG ) were stayed pending the succession negotiations ( see ORG DATE , as amended in DATE , and ORG and ORG ) . In DATE ORG , upon a petition of CARDINAL NORP savers , declared that measure unconstitutional .","ORG has since given many judgments ordering the old PERSON to pay \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in its GPE branch together with interest ( see , for example , judgment P CARDINAL of DATE , which became final and binding on DATE when it was upheld by ORG ; judgment P CARDINAL of DATE ; and judgment P CARDINAL of DATE ) . The court explained that , according to the SFRY law , branches had acted on behalf and for the account of parent banks . Moreover , according to the NORP law , the old PERSON retained liability for \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in its GPE branch . The court considered it irrelevant that a homonymous bank , GPE , had assumed liability of the old Ljubljanska Banka Ljubljana for savings at the GPE branch in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as that had been done without the approval of the parent bank or the depositors . In any event , the competent court in GPE had deleted the DATE entry in the companies register to that effect in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG also considered it irrelevant that some foreign currency had been transferred to the ORG \u2019s foreign accounts in accordance with the redepositing scheme set out above .","The former GPE paid back \u201c old \u201d foreign - currency savings in domestic banks and local branches of foreign banks , such as the GPE branch of ORG , regardless of the citizenship of the depositor concerned ."],"violated_articles":["13","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":["13","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180853","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160A\u0106IROVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 personal details as well as the facts in relation to each case are set out in the appendix .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of different civil proceedings under LAW .","In the first applicant \u2019s case ORG found a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time , but failed to award any damages . As regards the third applicant ORG rejected its appeal . Lastly , as regards the other CARDINAL applicants , ORG held that they had not raised a complaint about the length of the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177433","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BELONOZHKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+P1-1-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150298","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DRAGOJEVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","He worked as a sailor on an ocean carrier for a shipping company headquartered in GPE .","NORP In DATE the police and the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta ; hereinafter : \u201c the OSCOC \u201d ) investigated allegations of possible drug trafficking between LOC and LOC via ocean carriers , involving several persons from GPE .","On DATE , on the basis of a police report , the ORG requested an investigating judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) to authorise the use of secret surveillance measures to tap the applicant \u2019s telephone and covertly monitor him .","The investigating judge granted the request and on DATE issued an order for the use of secret surveillance measures . Its statement of reasons reads as follows :","\u201c On DATE the ORG lodged a request , no . ... , for secret surveillance measures under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in respect of PERSON . The request refers to the [ police ] report of DATE , concerning the use of secret surveillance measures in respect of GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , alleging probable cause to believe that [ Ante Dragojevi\u0107 ] is also involved in the commission of the offence proscribed by LAW and CARDINAL of LAW .","The investigating judge considers that the request is well - founded because the investigation can not be carried out by other means and the use of these measures in respect of PERSON is also necessary for satisfactory completion of the investigation , given that there are sufficient grounds for suspecting that he has also been involved in the commission of the offence in issue .","It is therefore appropriate to temporarily limit the constitutional rights and decide as above . \u201d","In the course of the further investigation the ORG learnt that the applicant had been using another telephone number . On DATE it asked the investigating judge to extend the use of secret surveillance measures to tap that number .","On DATE the investigating judge granted that request and issued an order , which contains the following statement of reasons :","\u201c Based on an order of this court under the above number , the secret surveillance measures provided for in LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW are being conducted in respect of several persons for the offence proscribed under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE the ORG lodged a request for secret surveillance measures under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in respect of GPE , and the secret surveillance measure under [ LAW above - cited provision in respect of PERSON , who was using the telephone number ... This measure was also requested in respect of another unidentified person who was using the number ... since the results of the previous use of secret surveillance measures showed that they had made contact in order to commit the offence in issue .","The investigating judge considers that the request is well - founded because the investigation can not be carried out by other means , so it is necessary to temporarily limit the constitutional rights and order the measures noted in the operative part of this order under points I and II .","The ORG also asked that certain measures be terminated because they had not produced any result , and a decision was made accordingly as noted under point V of this order . \u201d","NORP On DATE the ORG requested that the use of secret surveillance measures be extended for a further DATE .","The investigating judge granted the request and on DATE issued an order based on the following statement of reasons :","\u201c Based on an order of this court under the above number , the secret surveillance measures provided for in LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW are being conducted in respect of several persons for an offence proscribed under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE the ORG lodged a request for an extension of the use of secret surveillance measures under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in respect of GPE , GPE and PERSON on grounds of suspected conspiracy in drug trafficking between LOC and GPE . It appears , given their constant contacts , that the offence could be committed within DATE so it was proposed that the use of measures be extended for that period .","The investigating judge considers that the request is well - founded because the investigation can not be carried out by other means and given the circumstances of the offence it is necessary to extend the use of [ secret surveillance ] measures in order to achieve satisfactory completion of the investigation and obtaining of evidence .","It is therefore decided accordingly as noted in the operative part of this order . \u201d","On DATE the ORG requested the investigating judge to discontinue the use of secret surveillance measures in respect of the applicant on the grounds that the results of the investigation did not justify further secret surveillance .","The investigating judge granted the request and ordered the discontinuation of secret surveillance on DATE .","On DATE the ORG made a new request for secret surveillance in respect of the applicant .","On DATE the investigating judge issued a secret surveillance order with the following statement of reasons :","\u201c By orders under the above number secret surveillance was ordered in respect of PERSON ( on DATE and discontinued on DATE ) , and in respect of ...","On DATE the ORG lodged a request for secret surveillance measures under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in respect of PERSON , GPE and FAC for DATE in connection with offences proscribed under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , and for the discontinuation of secret surveillance in respect of ORG and an unidentified person . In their request [ the ORG ] submits that the investigation shows that there is a possibility that these individuals could contact each other again and that they could contact GPE , who travelled to LOC and is expected to stay there for DATE . [ The ORG ] therefore considers that by resuming the use of secret surveillance relevant information for the further investigation could be obtained . On the other hand , there has been no communication on the telephone numbers of GPE and the unidentified person so [ the ORG ] proposes that the secret surveillance in that respect be discontinued .","The investigating judge finds in the case in issue that it is necessary to temporarily limit the constitutional rights of the above - mentioned individuals since investigation by another means would not be possible . It has therefore been decided as noted under points I and II , while at the same time [ certain ] measures have been discontinued as noted under points III and IV of this order . \u201d","After further preliminary investigation , on DATE the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of drug trafficking .","The following day ORG ( FAC uprava DATE ) lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u ORG ; hereinafter : the \u201c ORG Attorney \u2019s Office \u201d ) against the applicant and another person on charges of drug trafficking .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by an investigating judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u ORG ) . He stressed that it was true that he worked on an ocean carrier between LOC and LOC but denied that he had anything to do with any drug trafficking .","After the questioning the investigating judge opened an investigation in respect of the applicant and several other persons on suspicion of drug trafficking . The investigating judge also remanded the applicant in custody .","During the investigation the investigating judge questioned several witnesses and obtained the relevant results and analyses of the use of secret surveillance measures , as well as evidence obtained following a number of searches conducted during the investigation . Throughout the proceedings the applicant was remanded in custody .","After the completion of the investigation , on DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG indicted the applicant and CARDINAL other persons in ORG on charges of drug trafficking . The applicant was also indicted on charges of money laundering .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG presided over by judge GPE extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) . The relevant part of the decision in respect of the applicant reads :","\u201c This panel considers that the pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in respect of the accused PERSON and PERSON should be extended because the type and quantity of drugs which are the subject of the indictment , and the manner of commission [ of the offence ] , indicate particularly grave circumstances of the offence for which the pre - trial detention should be extended \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s defence lawyer asked ORG for access to and a copy of the audio recordings obtained by the use of secret surveillance measures .","The request for access to the recordings was granted on DATE .","On DATE the applicant challenged the decision on his pre - trial detention before ORG ( PERSON ) .","On DATE the applicant also lodged an objection against the indictment , arguing , inter alia , that the results of the secret surveillance measures did not suggest that he had been involved in the offence .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the detention order of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) on the grounds that the first - instance court had failed to state any reasons why the applicant \u2019s detention should be extended under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) . Without releasing the applicant , it therefore ordered that the matter be re - examined .","ORG complied with that order and on DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of that court , presided over by Judge PERSON , extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c The fact that the defendant PERSON is a reoffender , who has been sentenced by a final judgment of ORG no . KML-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , a final judgment of ORG no . K-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , and a final judgment of ORG no . PERSON of DATE , suggests that his previous behaviour has not been in compliance with the law and that there is therefore a risk that , if at large , he might reoffend .","Accordingly , this court considers that his detention should be extended under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .","Furthermore , this panel considers that the detention of PERSON should be extended under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW since the type and quantity of the drug which is the subject matter of the charges and the manner of execution [ of the offence ] suggest that the circumstances of the offence were particularly serious and thus warrant his further detention .","To be specific , cocaine is a hard drug and QUANTITY of it is not an insignificant amount . Such a quantity could be distributed in a number of single doses and thus endanger the health of a number of people , particularly young people . Having regard also to the international character of the offence , and the recorded LAW from the proceeds of the crime which surpasses the usual circumstances associated with such offences , and the criminal resolve and engagement necessary to commit the offence charged , [ the court considers ] that the detention should be extended LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . \u201d","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection against the indictment as ill - founded ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the grounds that there was sufficient suspicion to warrant sending the case for trial .","The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was further extended by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , presided over by Judge PERSON on DATE , which reiterated the same reasons as in its previous decision .","Meanwhile , Judge PERSON , who had presided over the panels extending the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) , assumed responsibility for the applicant \u2019s case as president of the trial bench of ORG .","At hearings held on DATE and DATE the applicant pleaded not guilty and the trial bench heard evidence from several witnesses .","The applicant also applied to have the results of the secret surveillance measures excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence on the grounds that the orders for their use had not been sufficiently reasoned and had thus been contrary to ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In a short oral explanation and ruling out the possibility of appeal against his decision , the president of the trial bench dismissed the applicant \u2019s request as ill - founded . The trial bench then examined the evidence obtained by secret surveillance . It also decided to obtain further evidence proposed by the prosecution and the applicant , and adjourned the hearing .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , composed of judges TIME , GPE and PERSON , extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) reiterating the reasons stated in the previous decisions on his detention .","On DATE Judge PERSON , referring to the ORG \u2019s case - law and the case - law of ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , asked to withdraw from the case as president of the trial bench on the grounds that his previous involvement in the case , as president of the panels which had extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention , could raise doubts about his impartiality .","Following Judge PERSON \u2019s request , on CARDINAL DATE the President of ORG asked ORG to transfer the trial to another court since all the judges of ORG had already taken part in the applicant \u2019s case .","NORP On DATE ORG dismissed that request on the grounds that there were no reasons to doubt the impartiality of ORG judges . It held that the mere fact that a judge had presided over the panels extending the applicant \u2019s detention could not raise any issue of his impartiality since the questions to be decided when the detention was extended differed from those which the judge had to decide when examining the case on the merits . There were also no reasons to doubt the impartiality of Judge PERSON within the meaning of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant \u2019s detention was further extended on DATE by a CARDINAL - judge panel in which Judge PERSON sat as a member of the panel , relying on LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) and reiterating the reasons from the previous decisions on detention .","At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the trial bench questioned several witnesses and the defence again sought to have the evidence obtained by secret surveillance excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence . Ruling out the possibility of appeal , the president of the trial bench dismissed the request as ill - founded . The trial bench thus examined the evidence obtained by the use of secret surveillance measures .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , composed of judges TIME , GPE and GPE , extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) , reiterating the reasons stated in the previous decisions .","At a hearing on DATE the applicant pleaded not guilty and denied all the charges against him . The parties gave their closing statements and the trial bench concluded the hearing .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty on charges of drug trafficking and money laundering and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The judgment was based on an analysis of the applicant \u2019s defence and the statements of his co - accused , as well as on the statements of witnesses , evidence obtained through numerous searches and seizures and the use of secret surveillance measures .","As to the refusal to exclude the latter evidence from the case file , ORG noted :","\u201c The court found that the defence of the accused PERSON was unconvincing , contradictory and aimed at avoiding his criminal responsibility .... The court examined the audio recordings ( CD ) of the conversations between the accused and witnesses GPE and GPE after it had found that the recordings had been made pursuant to the orders of the investigating judge of ORG no . PERSON authorising the telephone tapping . These were the reasons why the court dismissed the request made during the proceedings that these recordings be excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence . [ Moreover ] the court considered them to be lawful and acceptable evidence obtained pursuant to valid court decisions . This court also refused the request by the defence to examine the case files of ORG no . PERSON and ORG no . PERSON [ concerning the use of secret surveillance ] , because it considered those requests irrelevant and obsolete for the same reasons referred to in the decisions concerning the requests for exclusion of the secret surveillance recordings from the case file . As to the request that the secret surveillance orders be excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence on the grounds that they did not contain an assessment of the likelihood that the accused themselves or jointly with other persons had committed one of the offences proscribed under LAW , and that they did not contain an assessment of whether the investigation could be conducted by other means , this court considers that this is not correct because the orders were sufficient and well - reasoned and eventually resulted in an indictment being lodged [ against the accused ] . In any event , as to the request by the defence that the secret surveillance orders be excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence , it should be noted that these are not evidence but court decisions so they can not be excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence . And as regards the evidence obtained on the basis of these orders , this court considers that there was no breach of LAW and therefore it does not consider them to be fruit of the poisonous tree but lawfully obtained evidence . \u201d","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment with ORG . He argued , inter alia , that the secret surveillance orders had not been properly drafted as required under LAW given that they had not given a proper assessment of the likelihood that the offences in issue had been committed , or of the circumstances indicating that the investigation could not be conducted by other means . In his view , this had led to his unlawful surveillance and therefore any evidence thus obtained could not be used in the criminal proceedings against him . He challenged , further , the basis of the first - instance court \u2019s reasoning in its judgment , namely , the evidence obtained through secret surveillance . The applicant also requested ORG to quash the first - instance judgment and order that a retrial be held before a differently composed trial bench .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded and upheld the first - instance judgment on DATE . It held that all relevant facts had been sufficiently and correctly established , that the applicant had had every opportunity to participate effectively in the proceedings and that the first - instance court had given sufficient reasons for its decisions . As to the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant \u2019s secret surveillance , ORG noted :","\u201c As regards the secret surveillance orders , contrary to what is alleged in the appeal , these impugned orders contain sufficient reasons as to probable cause to believe that the offence under LAW of LAW was committed , as well as to the fact that the investigation into this offence could not be conducted by other means and that [ such investigation ] would be extremely difficult , which is evident from the fact that the investigating judge did not refuse to issue the orders . In fact he issued the orders as required under LAW of LAW . It follows that the appellant \u2019s allegation that the impugned orders of the investigating judge do not contain sufficient reasons , is erroneous and that they are therefore not unlawfully obtained evidence within the meaning of LAW . \u201d","The applicant subsequently lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG on DATE arguing , inter alia , that the trial bench had lacked impartiality because of the previous involvement of Judge PERSON in the case ; that his secret surveillance had been unlawful on account of the failure of the investigating judge to issue an order in the manner required under the relevant law ; and that the use of the evidence thus obtained for his conviction had rendered the entire proceedings unfair .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded . It endorsed the reasoning of ORG with regard to the use of secret surveillance measures and the use of evidence thus obtained in the proceedings . As regards the lack of impartiality of the trial bench , ORG observed :","\u201c In the case in issue , the mere fact that the president of the trial bench had on CARDINAL previous occasions ... sat on a panel which extended the appellant \u2019s pre - trial detention can not in itself be a reason for disqualifying the judge from deciding the merits of the case .","There is a significant difference between the decision on detention and the decision on the guilt of the appellant . When ruling on an extension of detention , a member of a panel of judges decides only the legal issues on which the application of the procedural law concerning the so - called causae arresti ( LAW ) depends . Accordingly , he or she does not assess all the legal and factual aspects of the charges . The charges will be assessed in the first - instance proceedings . However , the appellant has not advanced any reasons why Judge PERSON \u2019s participation in the panel [ of judges ] which had extended his detention could be considered to have led him to form a previous conviction as to his guilt . \u201d","The decision of ORG was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145012","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LIVADA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in Balakliya .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to hospital to undergo treatment for drug addiction .","On DATE , in the course of a police operation , an undercover police agent bought a certain amount of cannabis from the applicant when he was in hospital . After the sale was completed it was documented in the presence of CARDINAL witnesses . The applicant was further searched and some additional quantities of the drug were seized .","On DATE the police officers arrested the applicant under LAW of LAW for a violation of the drug circulation rules . Relying on the provisions of that LAW , the police detained the applicant for DATE pending the results of an expert examination of the seized drugs .","On DATE , upon receipt of the expert report confirming that the seized drug was cannabis , the investigator of ORG decided to arrest the applicant and detain him further under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , considering that the sale of cannabis in hospital constituted a crime under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . The applicant was questioned on DATE .","On DATE the police also opened criminal proceedings against the applicant under LAW , noting that on DATE they had seized some additional quantities of cannabis from him which he had transported to and kept in the hospital .","On DATE the applicant was brought before ORG , which ordered his pre - trial detention as a preventive measure . The court noted that the charges against the applicant were serious , that he was not in employment and had committed crimes while being treated in a hospital . For these reasons the court concluded that the applicant might abscond from justice , obstruct the investigation , or reoffend .","On DATE the criminal case file arrived at ORG of Kharkiv ( \u201c the first - instance court \u201d ) for the applicant to be tried .","On DATE the first - instance court committed the applicant for trial . It decided that the preventive measure applied in respect of the applicant , namely , custody , should remain the same .","On DATE the applicant requested the first - instance court to release him under a written obligation not to abscond .","On DATE the first - instance court rejected the applicant \u2019s request . The court noted that there had been no grounds to consider that the reasons justifying the earlier court decision of CARDINAL DATE on the applicant \u2019s detention were no longer valid . The applicant \u2019s reference to the illness of his mother and the death of this father was not relevant . Likewise , his acknowledgment of guilt was irrelevant and could only be taken into account for mitigation of sentence .","On DATE the first - instance court ruled that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should remain the same , without specifying the reasons .","On DATE the local prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open a criminal investigation in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegations that his initial detention was unlawful .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request to have the preventive measure changed . On DATE the first - instance court rejected the request as unfounded . The court noted that there were no grounds to consider that the reasons justifying the earlier court decision of CARDINAL DATE on the applicant \u2019s detention were no longer valid ; the allegations of the aggravation of the applicant \u2019s health were not confirmed by the materials in the case file and the applicant \u2019s contentions that he was the only source of support for his mother were not convincing .","On DATE the applicant and his mother , who had joined the proceedings as the applicant \u2019s defence counsel , lodged a new request for release . The applicant \u2019s mother specified that she could not work for health reasons and the applicant was her only support . On DATE the first - instance court rejected the request , noting that the reasons already given by the court for the applicant \u2019s detention remained valid ; the allegations that the applicant was providing support to his mother were not convincing , since at the time of his arrest the applicant had not been in employment , while his mother received a pension ; likewise , the applicant could not be released for health reasons as there was no supporting information about his illnesses .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) arguing that his initial detention had not been lawful .","On DATE and DATE the applicant and his mother lodged requests for the release of the applicant with the first - instance court . The applicant \u2019s mother specified that the applicant had been her only support and that his health was seriously deteriorating . The court dismissed the requests on DATE , repeating its earlier findings in respect of similar requests .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged a complaint with the first - instance court arguing that the applicant \u2019s initial detention under LAW , without a court order , had been unlawful .","On DATE ORG replied to the applicant that his complaint regarding the lawfulness of his initial detention would be considered by the first - instance court in the course of the trial in his criminal case .","On DATE the first - instance court found the applicant guilty of the crimes under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment combined with confiscation of property . The court further found that the applicant \u2019s contentions that his initial detention had been unlawful were unsubstantiated because there had been sufficient grounds to detain the applicant under LAW . In particular , his detention for DATE had been justified as the police had been waiting for the expert report confirming that the seized substance was cannabis . The court also decided that the term of the applicant \u2019s imprisonment should be calculated from CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant appealed against that judgment .","On DATE ORG upheld the findings of the first - instance court , having amended the reasoning as regards the characteristics of the applicant \u2019s crime under LAW . The court further reduced the sentence to CARDINAL half GPE imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172360","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MAHARRAMOV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant had ownership rights to a shop at FAC in PERSON . According to the certificate \u201c on the sale of ORG property to legal entities or individuals \u201d issued on DATE by ORG , the total area of the property was QUANTITY . m and it had been purchased by the applicant from the ORG for CARDINAL old NORP manats ( NORP ) ( equivalent to CARDINAL NORP manats ( ORG ) or MONEY ) .","According to the property \u2019s \u201c technical passport \u201d issued by ORG on DATE , the shop had originally been constructed in DATE , was located on a plot of land of QUANTITY m , had a total surface area of QUANTITY m and was QUANTITY . The shop had concrete foundations , the external and internal walls were made of metal and wood , while the roof was made of metal and covered with slate tiles . The property was classified as a nonresidential building used for wholesale or retail trade purposes . The document further stated that the plot of land on which the shop was located had been allocated on the basis of relevant documents . No other documents concerning the ownership of the land have been submitted by the parties .","The applicant paid land tax for DATE of NORP CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the plot underneath the shop .","In DATE the Ganja City Executive Authority ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) decided to renovate and widen Attarlar and Nizami Streets in accordance with the city \u2019s planning scheme because the streets were not wide enough for the pedestrian and car traffic .","According to the applicant , in DATE ORG officials asked him verbally to vacate the shop in connection with the above decision . The applicant refused and brought a legal action asking the court to order the ORG to stop its allegedly unlawful activities .","According to the applicant , in DATE the ORG destroyed the shop . According to the Government , the shop , being a transportable metal construction , was lifted away by crane and moved to an unspecified part of the city .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant asked PERSON , a private valuation firm , to assess the shop \u2019s market value . According to ORG expert report , dated DATE , the market value at the time was AZM CARDINAL , or MONEY ( ORG ) ( there is no copy of the report in the case file ) .","The applicant supplemented his court action against the ORG with additional claims , asking for compensation of ORG CARDINAL for the shop , ORG for an unspecified \u201c ORG fee \u201d and NORP for ORG fee for the report .","In its submissions to the court , the ORG as the respondent stated that a number of \u201c old shops and other retail facilities \u201d on Attarlar and Nizami Streets had been removed owing to the urgent need to widen the streets in order to accommodate the number of pedestrians and cars . The respondent argued that the applicant \u2019s shop had not been destroyed but , being a metal construction , had been removed by crane to another , unspecified location in the city . The applicant had been offered another plot of land in the city to continue operating his shop but he had refused . The applicant had not owned the original plot of land . The respondent argued that the compensation claimed by the applicant was excessive , taking into account the price he had paid the ORG for it in DATE .","Following the respondent \u2019s submissions concerning the alleged excessiveness of the compensation claim , by an interim decision of DATE the ORG requested a new valuation by a ORG expert .","On an unspecified date the ORG expert refused to issue an opinion , noting that the shop at CARDINAL FAC no longer existed and that therefore it was technically impossible to examine it and assess its market value . Accordingly , the interim decision of DATE remained unexecuted .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s legal action without citing any provisions of the applicable domestic law . In its reasoning the court accepted the ORG \u2019s explanation that the shop in question had been removed in accordance with townplanning policy . Being a metal construction it had been possible to move it in one piece . It had not been destroyed but simply transported to another location . The court also accepted that the applicant had been offered a new plot of land by the ORG but had refused it . It further decided to reject the applicant \u2019s compensation claim based on ORG report , without providing any reasons . However , the court ordered the ORG to allocate the applicant a plot of land in PERSON equivalent in size to the shop in question .","The applicant appealed , reiterating that his shop had been unlawfully destroyed and asking for compensation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , upholding the first - instance court \u2019s assessment . The appellate judgment contained no references to applicable domestic legal provisions .","Following a further appeal by the applicant , on DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment .","No information is available in the case file as to whether a new land plot was allocated to the applicant or as to its location or any other details ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155651","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"OLSOY v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before ORG and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","At the time of the events the applicant \u2019s son , PERSON , who was born in DATE , was serving a prison sentence in FAC .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son asked to see the prison doctor . The doctor examined him , diagnosed him with myalgia ( muscle pain ) and anxiety and gave him medication to treat his problems .","At TIME on DATE , suffering from severe chest pain and shortness of breath , the applicant \u2019s son went to the prison infirmary . According to the applicant , the doctor was about to leave for DATE and therefore hastily examined her son and gave him painkillers and a sleeping pill before sending him back to his cell .","At TIME the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s condition worsened and he had difficulty breathing . He told the other inmates in his wing that he had severe pain in his chest . Some of the inmates carried him to the infirmary but it was closed . Subsequently , a prison warden arrived and called an ambulance . The applicant \u2019s son died on the way to the hospital .","On DATE an autopsy was conducted by a forensic pathologist at ORG in the presence of the ORG prosecutor . Since the cause of death could not be determined during that autopsy , blood samples and tissue samples taken from the heart , brain , lungs , liver , kidneys , spleen and the coronary arteries were sent for histopathological and toxicological examinations at ORG headquarters in GPE .","The following day the prosecutor initiated an ex officio investigation into the death of the applicant \u2019s son . He asked the prison administration to forward him the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s medical file and the names of the prison personnel who were on duty at the time of the events , as well as the names of the inmates detained on the same wing as the applicant \u2019s son . That information was provided to the prosecutor on DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor took a statement from the prison doctor . The doctor told the prosecutor that at TIME on DATE he had examined the applicant \u2019s son who had come to the prison \u2019s infirmary with pain in his chest and shoulder and complained of difficulties in sleeping . The doctor told the prosecutor that he had prescribed CARDINAL medicines to the applicant \u2019s son , namely \u201c ORG , GPE , GPE and LOC \u201d , to relax his muscles , relieve his pain and calm him down . However , as he had examined a total of CARDINAL prisoners DATE , he did not have any further recollection of the applicant \u2019s son or his problems .","DATE the prosecutor took a statement from the prison director who explained that , according to the closed circuit video recordings showing the inside of the prison , the applicant \u2019s son had been brought to the infirmary at TIME by his fellow inmates . An ambulance had then been called and a prison guard had administered first aid . The ambulance had arrived at TIME and taken the applicant \u2019s son to the hospital .","NORP The prison guard who had administered first aid to the applicant \u2019s son was also heard by the prosecutor on DATE and told the prosecutor that he had been asked to go to the prison \u2019s infirmary some time TIME When he had arrived the applicants\u2019 son was still alive but having difficulties in breathing . He had then called the ambulance again and urged them to come at once because the state of the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s health had become critical . The ambulance had arrived at TIME When put in the ambulance on a stretcher the applicant \u2019s son had been alive but his condition had been critical . His body had started to take on a \u201c purple colour \u201d . The prison guard had also got in the ambulance and the doctor in the ambulance had carried out cardiac massage . However the applicant \u2019s son had died on the way to hospital .","On DATE the prosecutor took statements from CARDINAL inmates who had witnessed the incident on DATE . The inmates told the prosecutor that they had been aware that the applicant \u2019s son had been suffering from chest pains . They had also been aware that the applicant \u2019s son had gone to the infirmary DATE to see the prison doctor . CARDINAL of the inmates stated that he had accompanied the applicant \u2019s son to the infirmary at TIME but that the prison doctor had been about to leave for DATE and had hastily prescribed him painkillers without giving him a proper medical examination . The applicant \u2019s son \u2019s condition had deteriorated after his return from the infirmary and he had been unable to get out of his bed for the roll call which took place at TIME After the roll call the inmates had carried him to the infirmary because he had been unable to walk unaided .","CARDINAL of the inmates who had carried the applicant \u2019s son out of his wing told the prosecutor that the infirmary had been closed at the time and that they had instead taken him to the dentist \u2019s office where they had waited for TIME for a prison warden to arrive . They also stated that the telephones in the infirmary had not been working . When the prison warden arrived he tried to put an oxygen mask on the applicant \u2019s son but then quickly took it off when the applicant \u2019s son felt worse with the mask . The inmates then \u201c put pressure on the prison warden to call an ambulance \u201d and they waited a further TIME for the ambulance to arrive .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s other son , Mr PERSON , filed a petition with the prosecutor \u2019s office and informed the prosecutor that his brother had had no previous health problems and that during his frequent visits to the prison his brother had told him that he was well and would be released soon . Mr GPE asked the prosecutor to find out why his brother had lost his life and requested that an investigation be conducted to establish whether the death had been due to anyone \u2019s negligence . He also asked the prosecutor to determine whether there had been any delays in calling the ambulance and requested the prosecutor to secure in evidence the recordings from the prison \u2019s security cameras .","DATE the prosecutor questioned the deputy director of the prison and CARDINAL other prison guards . They explained to the prosecutor how they had been informed about the deterioration of the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s condition and how they had then called the ambulance and sent him to hospital .","At the request of the prosecutor , the footage recorded by the prison \u2019s security cameras was examined by crime scene examination experts from the ORG police headquarters on DATE . According to the report prepared by these experts , CARDINAL persons could be seen carrying another person in their arms at TIME and TIME The person was put on a stretcher at TIME and put in an ambulance at TIME","The applicant and her husband were questioned by the prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE . They both told the prosecutor that they had not been aware that their son had had any health problems . The applicant added that on CARDINAL occasion DATE before her son was imprisoned he had told her that \u201c he was not well \u201d , but had not elaborated as to the nature of his problem .","On DATE the prosecutor wrote to ORG in GPE and urged it to carry out the necessary examinations of the blood and tissue samples taken from the body of the applicant \u2019s son . The prosecutor sent another reminder to ORG on DATE .","The doctor and the paramedic who had taken the applicant \u2019s son to the hospital were questioned by the prosecutor on DATE . They told the prosecutor that they had been called to the prison at TIME and that they had arrived there at TIME When they had put the applicant \u2019s son in the ambulance he had stopped breathing and his heart had stopped beating . They had tried to resuscitate him and had arrived at the hospital at TIME where they had handed the applicant \u2019s son to the doctors waiting by the main entrance .","The doctor working at the accident and emergency department of the hospital made a statement on DATE and told the prosecutor that the applicant \u2019s son had already died on his arrival at the hospital . He and his colleagues had then unsuccessfully tried for TIME to resuscitate him .","ORG in GPE prepared its report on CARDINAL DATE and stated that according to the toxicological examinations there was no alcohol , drugs or other substances in the samples taken from the body . ORG considered it necessary to seek the opinion of its specialist board on the cause of death .","On DATE ORG of ORG , which consisted of CARDINAL medical experts , issued its report . It confirmed the findings of the toxicology report summarised in the preceding paragraph and added that during the autopsy no signs of traumatic changes on the body had been observed . According to the report , the CARDINAL experts unanimously concluded that the exact cause of death could not be determined .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor delivered a decision of non - prosecution and concluded that there was no evidence to show that an offence had been committed . The prosecutor also added that the applicant \u2019s son had died of natural causes and that there had been no fault or negligence attributable to another person in his death .","The applicant lodged an objection against the prosecutor \u2019s decision and argued , inter alia , that the fact that there had been no signs of trauma on the body of her son and that the toxicology reports had not shown any harmful substances in his body did not exclude that someone \u2019s negligence or fault had caused his death . She submitted that the prosecutor should have made attempts to establish whether or not the prison authorities had shown due care and attention and whether the prison doctor had examined him adequately . In this connection , she also argued that the role played in her son \u2019s death of the infirmary being closed when his condition worsened and the appropriateness of the medicines prescribed by the prison doctor , should also have been examined by the prosecutor .","The applicant added in her objection petition that , according to the eyewitnesses , her son had been complaining about having breathing problems as well as pain in his chest , heart and muscles . However the doctor , instead of at least referring her son to a hospital for a detailed examination and further tests , had given him painkillers . The fact that her son \u2019s condition had worsened after having taken the painkillers showed that the doctor had acted negligently . Finally , she alleged that the ambulance had not been called immediately .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . That decision was served on the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE .","According to a report drawn up and signed by a doctor on DATE , at the time of his entry into the prison a medical examination had been carried out on the applicant \u2019s son and no medical problems had been observed during that examination ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159560","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KR\u017dEVSKI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against his employer , claiming payment of salary supplements . With decisions delivered on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG and ORG both rejected the applicant \u2019s claim , considering it as having been withdrawn .","On DATE the applicant applied to the first - instance court for the proceedings to be resumed . The first - instance court ordered the applicant to make his claim more specific . In a reply dated DATE , the applicant specified that the claim concerned the payment of a PERCENT increase of his salary , as well as another employment - related allowance . In this connection he referred to his written submissions of DATE in which he specified his claim .","On DATE the first - instance court held that the applicant had not specified the value of his claim to an extend allowing the court to rule on it . Furthermore , the court pointed out that it could not take into consideration his submissions of DATE since they had been made in proceedings which had terminated with a final decision in DATE . As the applicant could not seek that those final proceedings be resumed , the court rejected the applicant \u2019s request . This decision was confirmed on appeal by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant contested these decisions by means of an appeal on points of law . On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal , quashed the lower courts\u2019 decisions and remitted the case for fresh examination . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c ... In the present case , the first - instance court correctly ordered [ the applicant ] to make the claim more specific . According to [ this ] court , [ the applicant ] complied with this order and with submissions of DATE , he specified the claim ... According to ORG , the claim is ( sufficiently ) specified and the proceedings can continue . The lower courts\u2019 decisions to reject the claim as incomplete ( \u043d\u0435\u0443\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043d\u0430 ) are wrong .","In view of the foregoing , ( the court ) decided in accordance with ... LAW of DATE , which was in force when the first - instance court delivered its decision ... \u201d","By decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the first - instance court and ORG both dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim on the merits .","On DATE the applicant challenged these decisions by means of an appeal on points of law .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal as inadmissible ratione valoris , finding that the value of the claim was below the statutory threshold specified in section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court established that the subject matter of the dispute was the payment of salary supplements . Since it did not concern \u201c termination of employment \u201d , which was specified , under section GPE ) of the DATE LAW , as a dispute in which an appeal on points of law was always allowed irrespective of the value of the claim , the court declared the applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible . It further stated that :","\u201c The [ applicant ] did not specify the value of the claim in his action . In such circumstances , the value of the claim is to be determined on the basis of the amount of court fees paid . The [ applicant ] paid court fees in the amount of MONEY ( NORP denars , ORG ) , which corresponds to the claim value of MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL , which is below the ( statutory threshold ) of MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The appeal on points of law is accordingly inadmissible given the ( low ) value of the claim . \u201d","NORP This decision was notified to the applicant on DATE .","Section CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Act provided that parties concerned could lodge an appeal on points of law against a second - instance final decision within DATE of the service of that decision . An appeal would be inadmissible in a property - related dispute which , inter alia , concerned a pecuniary claim , if the value of the claim in the dispute as specified by the plaintiff did not exceed MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","Under paragraph CARDINAL of that section an appeal was always allowed in disputes which concerned ( i ) maintenance ; ( ii ) compensation claims for loss of maintenance due to death of the care provider ; ( iii ) copyright disputes ; ( iv ) industrial - property - related disputes ; and disputes concerning unfair competition and anti - competitive behaviour .","NORP Under section QUANTITY , parties can lodge an appeal on points of law if the value of the claim in the dispute exceeds MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . An appeal is always allowed irrespective of the value of the claim in disputes concerning ( i ) maintenance ; ( ii ) compensation claims for loss of maintenance due to the death of the care provider ; ( iii ) labour disputes concerning termination of employment ; ( iv ) copyright disputes ; ( v ) industrial - property - related disputes and disputes concerning unfair competition and anti - competitive behaviour .","Under section CARDINAL , if a first - instance decision was delivered before LAW became operable , the proceedings are conducted under the rules that were applicable at that time . If the first - instance decision was set aside after this LAW became operable , the proceedings continue under this LAW .","Under LAW , LAW entered into force on DATE and it became operable on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142187","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KENZIE GLOBAL LIMITED LTD v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant is a company incorporated in GPE .","At the time of the events the applicant company was the creditor of company ORG which , in its turn , was the creditor of company P. On DATE the applicant company and company C. concluded an agreement by which the debt owed by company P. to company C. was assigned to the applicant company in lieu of the debt owed by company C. to the applicant company .","Later company P. became bankrupt and the insolvency procedure was commenced in its respect . On DATE the applicant company requested that ORG allow it to replace company ORG in the list of creditors of company P. In so doing , the applicant company relied on an agreement that it had concluded on DATE with company C.","On DATE ORG held a public hearing in the case and accepted the applicant company \u2019s request . As a result the applicant company replaced company C. in the list of creditors of company P. with a debt of some CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE company C. lodged an appeal against the above decision on the ground , inter alia , that the agreement of DATE was faulty and that the persons who had signed it from both sides had acted ultra vires .","On DATE ORG examined the appeal lodged by company C. in a hearing to which the applicant company had not been summoned to appear . The other parties participated in the hearing . ORG upheld the appeal and reversed the judgment of the lower court . In particular , ORG held that the person who had signed the agreement of DATE on behalf of company ORG had acted ultra vires , because at the relevant time she had been on maternity leave . The decision of ORG was final and the applicant company was excluded from the list of creditors of company P."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141592","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"RIZEA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Ms E. NORP ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was involved in a fraud case against ORG , GPE , GPE and ORG concerning the sale of a house . The applicant 's civil complaints made the object of the case files no . CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant and GPE lodged a criminal complaint and a joined civil claim against CARDINAL public administration officers and the CARDINAL above - mentioned private persons for alleged corruption with ORG .","On DATE ORG remitted the applicant 's complaint to ORG . The prosecutor stated that an analysis of the applicant 's complaint had disclosed no clues or information warranting an investigation of the alleged crimes by an anticorruption prosecutor .","On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor examined the applicant 's complaint and recommended that it be treated as a complaint against the prosecutor 's decisions in the fraud cases CARDINAL and CARDINAL . He confirmed that there was no evidence that the public administration officers ( including judges , prosecutors ) had committed the alleged corruption offences .","According to the ORG , the prosecutor dismissed the applicant 's complaint on DATE . The applicant complained before ORG . His complaint was dismissed on DATE . The judgment of the first - instance court was confirmed by ORG which dismissed the applicant 's appeal on points of law on DATE .","On DATE the applicant reiterated his complaint against the CARDINAL perpetrators . His complaint was registered as file no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the prosecutor informed the applicant that his complaint did not disclose other acts than those invoked in case files no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","Unsatisfied with a decision allegedly delivered by the prosecutor attached to ORG on DATE , the applicant and GPE lodged a complaint before ORG . The court dismissed the action for lack of substance on DATE . It noted that the applicant 's complaints in the fraud cases CARDINAL were still pending before the prosecutor 's office and no decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings had been delivered on DATE .","By a decision of DATE , ORG and ORG upheld the first - instance judgment dismissing the action .","In the meantime , the examination of the applicant 's first complaint was pending and would eventually result in the decision delivered by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The relevant provisions of LAW regarding the initiation of a civil action related to criminal proceedings are the following :","\u201c The object of a civil action is to establish civil liability against the defendant and any other party that bears civil liability .","A civil action may be joined to a criminal action within a criminal trial if the injured person claims for damages as a civil party ( ... ) \u201d .","\u201c The injured person may join the proceedings as a civil party against the accused person or the defendant and against the party that bears civil liability .","Joining the proceedings as a civil party may be done either during the criminal investigation or in court , before the charges are read out ( ... ) \u201d .","\u201c An injured person who did not sue for civil injury in the criminal trial may bring an action in the civil court for compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the offence .","The civil trial shall be postponed until a final decision has been given in the criminal case ( ... ) \u201d .","\u201c The injured person who can sue for civil injury in the criminal trial may initiate an action in the civil court if the criminal court , by its final decision , has not solved the civil action ( ... ) \u201d ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164508","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"DOSHUYEVA AND YUSUPOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants , PERSON , who was born in DATE and Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , are NORP nationals who live in PERSON . They were represented before the ORG by lawyers of PERSON ORG ( in collaboration with NGO Astreya ) , an NGO based in the GPE with a representative office in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE to ORG .","The application was communicated on DATE , and on DATE the parties exchanged their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application . On DATE the ORG requested additional factual information from the parties .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants are the wife and the son of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .","At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON was driving with Mr PERSON ( also known as ORG ) ORG through the PERSON ( sometimes spelled PERSON ) settlement in PERSON when their car was stopped in FAC by a group of CARDINAL military servicemen who had been taken there in CARDINAL armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) and CARDINAL ORG vehicles . It appeared that the servicemen were manning a mobile military checkpoint .","In the presence of a number of local residents both men were blindfolded and taken away in the APCs . The applicants\u2019 relative , Mr PERSON , has not been seen since then .","NORP In response to the ORG \u2019s request for a copy of the investigation file , the ORG submitted copies of the documents from the initial criminal case file no . DATE ( in the documents submitted the number is also referred to as DATE ) that was opened into the abduction of just Mr Bakayev . This file has CARDINAL pages and chronicles the steps taken by the investigation DATE and DATE . In response to the ORG \u2019s request for additional information , the ORG submitted copies of the updated criminal case file no . DATE , which contains CARDINAL pages concerning the investigation into the abduction of both Mr Bakayev and Mr PERSON and chronicles the steps taken by the investigation between DATE and DATE . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .","On DATE PERSON complained to the prosecutor \u2019s office that her husband , Mr Bakayev , together with \u201c a man called PERSON \u201d had been abducted .","On DATE PERSON was questioned . She stated that her husband Mr Bakayev had been abducted by servicemen in CARDINAL APCs on the bridge in the GPE settlement .","On DATE the ORG town prosecutor \u2019s office initiated a criminal investigation into the abduction of Mr Bakayev in response to his wife \u2019s complaint . The case file was given the number CARDINAL . The decision in this regard stated :","\u201c On TIME DATE PERSON and a man named PERSON were abducted on the bridge in the GPE settlement by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms driving CARDINAL APCs . The abduction of PERSON took place in the presence of civilians and military servicemen stationed in GPE ... \u201d","In their submission on the admissibility and merits of the case of DATE the applicants stated that they \u201c had been informed about it [ the decision to open criminal case no . DATE ] \u201d without specifying the date or the circumstances under which they were informed thereof .","\u2019s abduction , whereas the relatives of Mr ORG had been informed thereof on DATE .","On DATE the investigators ordered the Zavodskoy district department of the interior ( \u201c \u0417\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b \u201d ) ( hereinafter the PERSON ) in PERSON to carry out operative search measures stating , amongst other things , the following :","\u201c The investigation established that ... PERSON and an unidentified person known as PERSON were taken away to an unknown destination by unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms in QUANTITY APCs . The abduction took place in the presence of civilians and servicemen stationed in the settlement of GPE , specifically , in the presence of serviceman A.E .... \u201d","NORP In DATE the investigators forwarded requests for information to various authorities , asking whether any special operations had been carried out on the date of the abduction of PERSON and if so , whether anyone had been detained . These requests did not yield any pertinent information .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . The suspension decision referred only to the abduction of Mr Bakayev ; it did not contain any references to the applicants\u2019 relative Mr PERSON :","\u201c ... the present criminal case was opened on DATE in connection with the abduction on DATE of PERSON .","The preliminary investigation established that on TIME DATE unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms had detained Mr PERSON on the bridge in the GPE settlement and taken him to an unknown destination . His whereabouts have remained unknown since .","Taking into account that the time - limit for the preliminary investigation has been reached and all of the possible steps have been taken .... It has been decided to suspend the investigation in the criminal case ... \u201d","From the documents submitted by the parties it is apparent that DATE the applicants neither complained of PERSON PERSON abduction to PERSON nor did they maintain contact with the relatives of PERSON concerning the proceedings in criminal case no . DATE .","On DATE the first applicant contacted the investigators in criminal case no . DATE . She submitted a request that the investigations department of the PERSON district prosecutor \u2019s office in PERSON grant her victim status in the criminal case as follows :","\u201c ... On DATE my husband Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , was detained by armed men in military vehicles in FAC in LOC of Grozny . My husband disappeared thereafter . In connection with this , the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office opened a criminal case .","A long time has passed since the incident and I have started to doubt the effectiveness of the criminal investigation . I therefore decided to have recourse to the [ procedural ] rights given to victims in criminal proceedings under ORG DATE , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure and LAW ... However , neither I nor my relatives have been granted victim status in the criminal case . For that reason I have not been able to participate in the proceedings to the extent allowed by LAW ...","Mr PERSON is my husband . The crime committed against him has caused me psychological and material damage .","On the basis of the above I request that you :","Grant me victim status in the criminal case opened in connection with the disappearance of my husband PERSON ;","Inform me of the progress in the investigation of the criminal case ;","Resume the investigation if it has been suspended ;","Inform me of the results of the examination of the present request ... \u201d","On DATE the investigation in criminal case no . DATE was resumed . The decision stated :","\u201c ... On DATE Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were detained and taken away in CARDINAL APCs by unidentified men wearing camouflage uniforms .","In connection with this , on DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW .","On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was suspended under part CARDINAL of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , that is to say for failure to identify the perpetrators .","On DATE PERSON , the wife of the abducted PERSON , requested that the PERSON district investigations department grant her victim status in the criminal case .","In connection with the decision to grant PERSON victim status in the criminal proceedings and her questioning on the matter , it is necessary to resume the investigation in criminal case no . DATE ... \u201d","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the first applicant was granted victim status and questioned . She stated that on DATE her husband had left by car to do an errand , together with fellow villager PERSON , and had not returned home . DATE she had found out from her neighbours that her husband Mr PERSON and PERSON had been abducted by armed men in APCs .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the first applicant requested the investigators to grant her access to the contents of criminal case file no . DATE . It is unclear whether any reply was given to her request .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigation was suspended and then resumed on DATE . The proceedings were subsequently suspended and resumed on several occasions ; the last suspension took place on DATE . The proceedings are still pending .","CARDINAL \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b \u201c ) ( hereinafter the Oktyabrskiy ROVD ) in ORG to produce a copy of the first applicant \u2019s complaint concerning Mr PERSON abduction , which had been lodged on DATE . In reply the police informed the applicants that the document no longer existed as the relevant registration logs had been destroyed following expiry of the time - limit for their storage .","DATE \u2019s abduction to the police in DATE , but had no written proof of the complaint . She also stated that at DATE she had been approached by a military officer who had threatened to harm her and her relatives if she were to continue searching for her husband . Out of fear for her life and that of her relatives , on an unspecified date in DATE she had moved to GPE and only returned to GPE in DATE . The applicants did not enclose any documents substantiating this information other than the first applicant \u2019s written statement dated DATE .","According to the ORG , the applicants did not lodge any official complaints concerning their relative \u2019s alleged abduction within the framework of the criminal case .","On DATE the NORP district court of PERSON granted the first applicant \u2019s request and declared Mr PERSON a missing person as of DATE . The decision , which made no reference to proceedings in criminal case no . DATE and referred only to proceedings in criminal case no . ORG , stated :","\u201c ... PERSON requested the court to declare her husband a missing person on the basis of the following :","At TIME on DATE her husband PERSON had left home and had not returned . She has had no news of him since that date . In connection with this occurrence , the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office in ORG had opened a criminal case . The measures taken by the investigation failed to produce results . According to Ms GPE , the declaration of her husband as a missing person is a prerequisite for preparing a pension application in respect of the loss of a breadwinner ...","According to the information statement of the Oktyabrskiy district department of the interior in ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , [ on an unspecified date ] the Oktyabrskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . ORG in connection with the abduction of Mr PERSON on DATE . The whereabouts of Mr PERSON remain unknown .","Considering that the establishment of the above fact is of legal significance for the applicant , and that it is impossible otherwise , non - judicially , to establish that fact , on the basis of the above the court , decides ...","To recognise Mr PERSON as a missing person as of DATE ... \u201d","The decision became final on DATE .","According to the ORG \u2019s submission of DATE , criminal case no . CARDINAL was erroneously mentioned in the court \u2019s decision as the criminal case concerning the investigation of the abduction of another person , Mr PERSON"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170354","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF JANKOVSKIS v. LITHUANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Six month period);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . According to the latest information in the ORG \u2019s possession , he was serving a sentence in ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant wrote to ORG and ORG ( \u0160vietimo ir mokslo ministerija , hereinafter \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) , requesting information about the possibility of enrolling at university . He mentioned having graduated in DATE from ORG . The applicant stated that he wished to pursue studies via distance learning to acquire a second university degree ( studijuoti neakivaizdiniu b\u016bdu auk\u0161tojoje mokykloje ) , this time in \u201c law with a specialisation in human rights \u201d ( teis\u0117s studijos su \u017emogaus teisi\u0173 pakraipa ) . The applicant mentioned that he was a prisoner and thus could not physically attend the place of study .","NORP In a letter of DATE sent to the applicant at FAC , ORG and ORG wrote that information about the study programmes could be found on the website < www.aikos.smm.lt>. This website states that it belongs to ORG and ORG , and is administered by a public entity , ORG in Education ( NORP informacini\u0173 technologij\u0173 centras ) , which is a public institution founded by ORG and ORG . The website contains information about learning and study possibilities in GPE . The website states the following about the aims of the \u201c ORG \u201d system :","\u201c ORG is an open system for providing information , consultation and guidance , the main aim of which is to provide information about opportunities for learning in GPE .","ORG provides the possibility of searching information about professions , qualifications , studies and study programmes , educational and science institutions and rules of admission ...","ORG allows users to submit a question to a consultant and to receive a reply ...","The information provided in the central part of the ORG website under the sections \u2018 I wish to learn\u2019 , \u2018 I wish to study\u2019 , \u2018 I wish to improve my ORG reflects only the current and most pertinent information relevant to DATE and is aimed at those who wish to enter university , vocational school , or a secondary school , or who wish to improve their qualifications . The site also contains historical data regarding education ...","ORG provides information to CARDINAL groups of users : adults , children ( DATE ) and NORP speakers . The users may use more functions after they have registered on this site .","The ORG website is refreshed DATE , to reflect information about education and science institutions , study and learning programmes and the qualifications a person receives upon graduating from those programmes , ... programmes for improving qualifications ... It also provides information from ORG about job vacancies and unemployment . The latter information on the ORG website is renewed DATE ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG authorities , noting the reply by ORG and asking to be granted Internet access to a website \u201c where there was information from the Ministry about studies , as well as to [ the applicant \u2019s ] email accounts hosted on the Internet sites < www.one.lt > and < www.yahoo.com > \u201d .","On DATE ORG governor replied that the prison authorities did not consider the ORG \u2019s reply to be comprehensive . In particular , ORG had not taken into account the applicant \u2019s particular situation \u2013 namely that he was in prison . The prison considered that the ORG should have provided a comprehensive reply in writing . According to the prison governor , \u201c given that the ORG \u2019s reply did not satisfy [ the applicant ] , the latter should write to ORG again , so that he is provided with a comprehensive reply \u201d .","The prison governor also informed the applicant that the request to have Internet access could not be granted because at that time none of the legislation allowed the prisoners to use the Internet or to have a mailbox . For that reason , ORG authorities were unable to grant the applicant \u2019s request .","The applicant then lodged a complaint with ORG ( GPE departamentas ) , arguing that none of the laws prohibited him from obtaining information from a ORG institution electronically . The applicant referred to the ORG \u2019s reply and asked to be granted Internet access .","NORP On DATE ORG responded that the legal instruments regulating the execution of sentences did not permit prisoners to use the Internet . It was suggested that the applicant again ask the Ministry to provide the information he sought .","On DATE the applicant started court proceedings , referring to his correspondence with the Ministry and challenging ORG decision not to grant him access to Internet .","In their written response to the court , ORG authorities noted that , although prisoners had a right to address requests and complaints to the ORG authorities under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , this meant correspondence by regular post and not via electronic communication . Furthermore , the use of mobile phones in prisons was prohibited so that prisoners could not continue their criminal activity whilst serving a sentence . According to ORG authorities , a number of fraudsters had already cheated people of large sums of money with the help of mobile phones . If the prisoners had the right to use Internet , they could pursue criminal activities and could also coordinate the activities of criminal organisations . Lastly , given that postal correspondence between prisoners was not permitted , providing prisoners with access to the Internet would make that prohibition pointless . The same was true regarding the prohibition in the CARDINALst Annex of the LAW of the ORG possession of topographic maps ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG also asked the court to dismiss the applicant \u2019s complaint , arguing that although LAW permitted prisoners to use computers ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , this did not encompass the right to Internet use . There was no right under NORP law for a prisoner to be provided with Internet access .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . Having reviewed the legal provisions regulating prisoners\u2019 conditions of detention , the court pointed out that the prisoners could communicate with ORG institutions by postal correspondence and that their letters had to be sent via the prison authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Giving Internet access to prisoners would not be compatible with those legal norms . However , as the Internet was not an object , it was not possible to list Internet among the \u201c objects \u201d which the prisoners were not allowed to have in prison . At the same time , from the existing ban on telephone and radio communication devices in prison it was obvious that this ban included the Internet . Such prohibition was aimed at preventing crimes being committed in prison . The court also observed that the requirements were set by order of the prison authorities and were therefore mandatory for the applicant , as he was under an obligation to obey prison orders .","The applicant appealed , disputing the lower court \u2019s interpretation of domestic law . He also argued that the lower court had ignored the fact that the core of his complaint was the restriction of his right to education and the right to obtain information . The applicant relied on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .","ORG authorities replied , indicating that there was \u201c a secondary school ( vidurin\u0117 mokykla ) in the prison where students could access all the literature necessary for their studies . The secondary school graduation exams showed good results \u201d . Furthermore , the prisoners could pursue computer literacy studies organised by the ORG ( Elektr\u0117n\u0173 profesinio rengimo centras ) , and that institution had not asked for Internet access . The prison thus considered that Internet access , or the lack thereof , had no impact on the quality of studies .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The court noted that , for its users , the Internet provided very wide opportunities to use email , to obtain information , to download files , and to sell or buy things . The Internet could be used for more than merely educational purposes . However , the right to use the Internet was not absolute and this right could be restricted to certain social groups . This stemmed from LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . There was no legal provision in GPE permitting prisoners to use the Internet . Even so , the ORG right to have computers could not be interpreted so widely as to encompass the right to have Internet access . ORG lastly noted that if prisoners had access to the Internet , the prison authorities would be hampered in their fight against crime by being unable to fully monitor the ORG activities .","On DATE the Elektr\u0117nai Vocational Educational Centre ( Elektr\u0117n\u0173 profesinio mokymo centras ) awarded the applicant a diploma in computer skills .","According to the Government , in DATE the applicant had attended LANGUAGE language courses and computer literacy courses organised by a secondary school in GPE region .","In DATE the applicant started court proceedings , arguing that in DATE he had been held in FAC for DATE in degrading conditions . Among other things , he also argued that FAC authorities had seized the personal computer which the applicant had brought with him into prison .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim by the applicant as unfounded .","NORP In a final ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG concluded that the computer had been unlawfully seized by FAC authorities . However , the court found that the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention had been satisfactory overall , except for a few minor details , and that the gravity of those violations was not such as would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment .","In DATE ORG authorities granted the applicant \u2019s request for an extended visit by his parents . However , the applicant later committed a disciplinary offence , and for that reason the extended visit was denied .","On DATE ORG upheld the refusal of the extended visit as legitimate .","By a final ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179568","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF YANEZ PINON AND OTHERS v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and at the time the applications were lodged were detained in ORG , PERSON .","The first applicant is serving a sentence of DATE imprisonment in ORG . The sentence was imposed on him by ORG on DATE for drugrelated offences . ORG also ordered the applicant to pay a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) as well as ORG DATE in fees payable to the court experts , which were to be converted into a further CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment if not paid . Pending proceedings before ORG , the first applicant \u2212 having served his sentence \u2212 was released from detention in DATE .","The applicant alleged that he had been detained in ORG , a highsecurity division , from DATE until DATE . He claimed that during this period he had been unable to use any electronic equipment , to work , study or go to church , and that he had been subjected to psychological torture and inhuman and degrading treatment . He argued that he was neither aggressive nor an addict and there was no reason why he should have been placed in Division DATE , which was intended to house very dangerous , problematic , aggressive and addicted prisoners . The Government submitted that the first applicant had been placed in Division CARDINAL following an order from the head of security at the prison , and that , according to documents submitted to the ORG , on DATE the applicant had been given the option to move to a less secure ORG , but had refused . In Division CARDINAL he had had access to the main library of the prison . LANGUAGE lessons and mass were also provided in the ORG . He could make phone calls and had had access to the communal TV and DVD player , and TV sets were also allowed in the cells . During that time he had also carried out paid work assembling plastic toys .","NORP Since DATE the first applicant has been detained in Division CARDINAL , specifically in cell CARDINAL since DATE .","He complained that the cell windows were very small and that there was inadequate ventilation and no natural light . The water supply was inadequate and he had to use a bucket to flush the toilet .","He claimed to be suffering from symptoms that were the aftereffects of physical and psychological stress . In this regard , the first applicant stated that he had been examined by the prison psychologist , who had prescribed medicine to help him sleep in addition to painkillers . According to the applicant the psychologist had also suggested that he be referred to the psychiatric hospital , but no such transfer had taken place .","The Government submitted that the cells in which the first applicant had been housed in both ORG and CARDINAL had measured QUANTITY . They noted that the first applicant had been asked ( on an unspecified date ) whether he wanted to be transferred from ORG but he had replied in the negative . He had also been asked , following communication of the complaint to the respondent Government , whether he had a problem with the window in his cell and the reply had been in the negative . They submitted that the applicant had chosen to paint over the glass shade covering the ceiling light in his cell , and when asked about this , he had stated that he had no need for a ceiling light and for that reason had painted over it . According to the ORG , the first applicant had a secondary light that he used and he had stated that it provided plenty of light for him . Moreover , the cell had CARDINAL vents on opposite sides and the cell door had an aperture which was always left open for ventilation purposes . Relying on an indistinct photo submitted to ORG , the Government submitted that the applicant had covered the ventilation grilles on the wall with masking tape , thereby restricting the ventilation .","The Government submitted that the cell was equipped with a washbasin with running water and an additional wall - mounted tap . According to the Government , when the applicant was asked whether he had an issue with the provision of water , he stated that he no longer had any issues . As far as the use of the toilet was concerned , the Government admitted that ORG did not have a combined flushing and WC system and that the inmates had to flush the toilets manually using buckets that were provided in all cells and could be filled from the wall - mounted taps .","The Government submitted that the prison psychologist was not in a position to prescribe medicine or to refer inmates to the psychiatric hospital . They stated that when the first applicant was interviewed by the prison psychologist on DATE , he had stated that he was sleeping TIME but that he did not want to take medication . According to the medical records kept by the prison medical unit , none of the doctors who had examined the applicant had found it necessary to refer him to a psychiatrist . The in - house doctor at the prison confirmed that the first applicant was never referred for psychiatric treatment as he was not mentally unstable and had not expressed a desire to be referred . The doctor also confirmed that he could not see that there had ever been such a referral by any doctor in the past . The applicant had met the doctor on CARDINAL occasions and the latter had treated him for his medical needs but no psychiatric concerns had been observed or reported or expressed . On DATE the applicant had refused all treatment , which is the right of any patient and must be respected . The Government submitted that the doctor had also confirmed that the medical notes showed that , whilst in Division CARDINAL , the first applicant had also been examined by medical doctors and treatment had been provided as needed .","The second applicant is currently serving a term of imprisonment of DATE for drug - related offences in ORG . ORG , which sentenced him on DATE , had also imposed a fine of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , which the applicant was to pay within DATE and which would be converted to a further term of DATE imprisonment if not paid . ORG also ordered the second applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in respect of costs arising from the appointment of experts . Likewise , if not paid within DATE , this sum would be converted into a term of imprisonment . The judgment was confirmed on appeal on DATE . The applicant has been held in cell CARDINAL in Division CARDINAL since DATE .","The applicant claimed that he was forced to buy bottled drinking water , as the available water was undrinkable . Since there is no laundry service in prison , he was dependent on donated clothes \u2212 which did not always fit him \u2013 in order to have access to clean clothing .","The applicant alleged that his cell was old and that he was living in squalor . The cell walls contained asbestos and the old paint was peeling off the walls and the ceiling . Moreover , according to the applicant , the building was infested by rats and cockroaches .","During DATE , the cell was too hot and since the cell window was too small , the ventilation was inadequate . On the other hand , during DATE the cell was freezing cold . No heating was provided in the cells and the blankets were not adequate . The applicant stated that he had to wear his jacket in order to be able to sleep in DATE .","NORP The applicant , a non - smoker , complained that he was not separated from inmates who smoke . He was thus a victim of passive smoking TIME the day .","According to the applicant he was frequently not given any breakfast and PERCENT of the food served in prison consisted of bread and pasta . He also stated that , although tobacco was easily accessible , fresh fruit was mostly restricted . Occasionally , apples that were past their sell - by date and could not be sold in local supermarkets were brought to the inmates .","The Government submitted that , when specifically asked by the prison authorities whether he had ever lodged a request to be transferred to a newer part of the prison , the second applicant replied that he had never made such a request and that he did not want to be transferred .","They further submitted that the tap water in the cell was fit for human consumption . The water in all parts of the prison facility had been certified by ORG as being potable ( certification submitted to ORG is dated DATE ) . The water is tested and certified DATE . Division CARDINAL had access to water directly from the mains , that is to say , drinking water . In addition to the availability of the running tap water supply , the inmates had the right to obtain bottled water from the ORG tuck - shop .","In DATE the second applicant received ORG CARDINAL DATE in so - called \u201c Work & Pay \u201d remuneration and gratuity money , as well as ORG MONEY every DATE for work he carried out assembling plastic dolls . They stated that at the tuck - shop a CARDINAL - pack of water cost ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL and an individual bottle ORG .","The Government submitted that inmates were provided with washing powder \u2212 at no cost \u2013 so that they could wash their clothes . All cells were equipped with a wall - mounted tap and a sink with running water in which to wash their clothes . It was the duty of the inmates to wash their clothing and to be clean at all times .","The Government submitted that the walls did not contain asbestos but were built from NORP limestone . They stated that the applicant had never painted his cell , nor had he ever requested any materials to do so , even though such material was free of charge . The Government claimed that the applicant had stated that he would never paint his cell himself because he felt that this was the responsibility of the prison officials .","The Government denied that the building was infested by rats and cockroaches , pointing out that pest control treatment had been carried out CARDINAL times at the prison since DATE ( certificates confirming the application of pest control in specific areas of the prison , including ORG , were submitted to the ORG ) .","The Government also submitted that , apart from the window , there were also CARDINAL vents in the cell , along with an aperture in the cell door which was always left open . However , the applicant had fixed a sheet over the window and had covered CARDINAL of the ventilation grilles on the wall with a piece of paper , thereby restricting the amount of ventilation .","The Government submitted that the second applicant had asked for an extra blanket in DATE ( while in ORG ) but had then rejected the extra blanket he was given , saying that it was too old . Since the applicant had been in ORG , he had not asked for any additional blankets .","As to the second applicant \u2019s claim concerning passive smoking , the Government submitted that the second applicant resided in a single cell and had access to fresh air in the adjoining yard for DATE . The learning zones were all smoke - free .","The Government contested the applicant \u2019s allegation concerning breakfast and the quality of food , stating that breakfast was served as follows : on DATE all inmates were served with a ham or cheese sandwich and at DATE and on public holidays sandwiches were served with boiled eggs . The inmates had access to unlimited tea and coffee . The Government submitted to ORG the CARDINAL DATE menus constituting the lunch and dinner choices over DATE the menus showed a variety of meat and fish dishes , as well as pasta dishes and pies . Apart from the menu of DATE , inmates could opt for tuna salad , eggs and chips with corned beef , eggs and chips with ham or cheese , omelette with ham or cheese and soup , or both . According to the Government , in cases where an inmate had been ordered to go on a diet by the doctor , pasta with ricotta or steamed fish would be provided at lunchtime and steamed chicken for dinner . Should a special diet be prescribed by the medical doctor , the food thereby indicated would be provided by the prison authorities . According to the Government , fresh fruit was delivered to the prison DATE boxes of bananas and CARDINAL boxes of oranges were delivered to the prison and distributed to the inmates DATE .","On DATE the second applicant instituted proceedings complaining about his conditions of detention . In particular he noted that , cumulatively , he had been held in the correctional facility since CARDINAL DATE and , since that date , had been forced to live in a cell subject to the following hardships : without adequate drinking water ; without clothing to keep him warm throughout DATE ; being dependent on charitable institutions to obtain clothing ; the cell contained a significant quantity of asbestos that was causing him physical harm ; the cell was infested with rats and cockroaches ; ORG lacked adequate sanitary facilities ; the cell only had CARDINAL small window which could not be opened as it was too high up ; during DATE he was only given CARDINAL thin blanket although the facility was cold and it was therefore difficult to sleep ; all detainees were allowed to smoke wherever and whenever they wanted and , as a consequence , inmates who , like the applicant , are non - smokers , were being subjected to passive smoking ; these conditions amounted to a breach of LAW CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE .","On DATE the second applicant gave oral testimony and submitted that in prison he generally felt hot and had been advised by a prison guard to buy a fan ; after asking for water he had been advised to either buy it or drink the water supplied by the correctional facility . Nothing further was submitted in his oral testimony .","The respondent denied the above allegations . According to the medical doctor there were no mental or physical issues , nor had the applicant ever sought medical assistance . As regards the structural complaints submitted by the second applicant , the maintenance official submitted the following evidence in summarised form :","The ORG in which the complainant was held consists of CARDINAL cells , CARDINAL of which is not currently in use ; complainant is housed in a cell on his own ; his particular cell is a normal one with a standard window and adequate light \u2013 being built the way it is for security reasons \u2013 and the lighting in the cell is appropriate ; when the cells are open , inmates may freely walk in and out of them whenever they want , except when \u201c under report \u201d ( that is to say confined to quarters ) ; the complainant had access to open spaces from TIME to TIME just like all other inmates and when so authorised ; ORG conducts a yearly analysis of the water supply to check that it is fit for human consumption , and the most recent report ( that of DATE ) , conducted by a private laboratory , concluded that the water supply is good for drinking and meets the standard for human consumption ; the ORG provides potable water from the mains for the inmates and that water is supplied free of charge ; inmates are allowed to buy bottled water ; when inmates enter the ORG they are given blankets , sheets , pillows and a mattress ; upon request , they are also given extra blankets , however , the complainant had never registered any such request ; as regards any infestation of rats and cockroaches , the maintenance official presented a report submitted by a private company on these issues ( such inspection is carried out DATE ) stating that CARDINAL rodent control visits were carried out in DATE and the last visit showed that \u201c everything was under control \u201d . As regards smoking : inmates are allowed to smoke in cells ; if some inmates within a particular cell are nonsmokers , then the other inmates are not allowed to smoke in that particular cell ; the complainant does not smoke , although the prison doctor affirms that he stated upon admission into ORG that he was a smoker .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional competence dismissed the second applicant \u2019s complaint . It considered that he had failed to submit the evidence that was deemed legally necessary to prove his case \u2212 the complainant had merely alleged the existence of the various shortcomings referred to above , but had failed to submit the relevant evidence to substantiate his allegations . By contrast , the evidence submitted in the proceedings by the doctor and the maintenance official satisfactorily showed that the allegations were unfounded .","On the specific issues raised , the court found as follows :","Water supply : ORG submitted adequate proof that the water supply used in ORG was potable , fit for human consumption and conformed to LAW intended for LAW , DATE , after being microbiologically analysed to this end . However , reference is made to ORG ( PHL ) ORG , which stated that the \u201c chloride content exceeds the indicator parameter value in LN CARDINAL of DATE \u201d . Even given the above breach of the statutory limit , the complainant \u2019s allegation is not substantiated as he could make use of viable alternatives to overcome the issue , either consuming warm potable water or buying bottled water from the gratuity money given to him by the facility \u2019s authorities ;","Blankets and clothing : it sufficiently results that , upon entering ORG , inmates are issued with a residential kit consisting of blankets , sheets , pillows and a mattress ; if required , inmates may ask their ORG officer for more blankets . As regards clothing , the ORG is supported by charities which are allowed to distribute suitable clothing as required . It is apparent that the complainant never submitted a complaint on these issues .","Asbestos : The complaint submitted by the complainant alleging that there is asbestos in his cell is not borne out by fact ; There is therefore no such danger to the complainant \u2019s health and in fact , no such complaint has been submitted by the complainant at any time during his stay in the facility since DATE .","Rodents and cockroaches : pest control by a private company that specialises in this particular activity is constantly and periodically ( DATE ) undertaken by the ORG \u2019s authorities . According to the treatment report released by the private company involved ( dated DATE ) the situation was certified as being under control .","Smoking : the complainant is housed in a cell on his own . However , inmates are allowed to smoke in particular areas and at particular times . In the particular division where the complainant is housed , there is no area where smoking is prohibited , and the complainant is therefore being subjected to passive smoking . Ideally , non - smokers should be segregated from smokers in order to avoid unnecessary hardship but , despite this resulting in an unsavoury situation , it is understood that because of the particular circumstances such obvious segregation might not be practically possible . As a result it can not be held that this situation reaches the level of severity and intensity required by LAW of the local LAW . Furthermore , upon examining the medical records presented in the case file of the proceedings , no medical or physical deterioration was recorded in the health of the complainant as a result of the passive smoking analysed herein","Cell window and consequent availability of adequate light : the cell at issue is a normal ORG cell furnished with a standard window and occupied only by the complainant . The window provides enough light in the cell to serve its purpose . The complainant is allowed to leave his cell at the appointed times , and on the basis of the medical reports that were accumulated throughout DATE of confinement , no medical conditions have been reported as arising as a result thereof .","No appeal appears to have been lodged against this judgment .","The third applicant is currently detained in FAC . By a judgment of ORG of DATE he was found guilty and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and a fine of ORG CARDINAL , which was to be converted into a term of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment if not paid , along with ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in respect of expert fees . The applicant has been detained in ORG since DATE ; for the first DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL , which was a little worse than cell CARDINAL in which he has been housed ever since .","He stated that his cell window was positioned at a height of QUANTITY ; he therefore had to climb onto something to open it . It had CARDINAL metal bars which hampered the entry of natural light .","According to the third applicant , the temperature in his cell may be CARDINAL oC during DATE , and yet he is not allowed to have a heater in his cell . In DATE , the applicant allegedly suffers from arthritis , which causes him unbearable pain . However , he is not able to use LOC ( which is the only medicine provided by the prison authorities ) because he suffers from Hepatitis C.","The applicant alleged that during DATE the cells were infested with cockroaches . Furthermore , his cell became very hot and there was inadequate ventilation . However , prison regulations restricted the number of fans per cell to CARDINAL . Although the applicant had CARDINAL fans in his cell , he stated that in DATE they merely circulated the hot air and the steel door of the cell prevented any fresh air circulation . By contrast , he noted that the offices of the prison personnel ( who were exposed to the same temperatures ) were equipped with air conditioning and heating facilities .","The applicant claimed that in DATE the hot water supply was not sufficient to cater for the approximately CARDINAL inmates in his ORG . Furthermore , the water was not drinkable and he therefore had to purchase bottled water , which was only possible when he had money . He claimed that when he did not have any money , he was obliged to drink the undrinkable water , which caused him skin blemishes . He stated that drinking water was only distributed to the prison personnel , but did not reach the detainees .","The applicant also claimed that inmates did not have access to a laundry and foreign inmates were not given detergents with which to wash their clothes and clean their cells and toilets .","According to the applicant , the building was DATE and its condition was inadequate . Dust fell from the applicant \u2019s cell \u2019s ceiling and walls , which he then breathed in .","The applicant also stated that since the prison did not provide him with tablets for his migraine , he had been obliged to buy such tablets for DATE .","According to the ORG , the applicant has resided in cell CARDINAL in Division CARDINAL since DATE , and when asked by the prison authorities if he would like to be transferred to another part of the prison , he declined .","In reply to the second and third applicants\u2019 claims , the Government submitted that the window in the cell could be opened using a tool provided by the authorities or by standing on the bed or on a chair or stool . Moreover , the metal bars at the window were a security feature and did not prevent natural light from entering the cell .","As to the claim concerning heaters , the Government referred to their submissions below ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . They further noted DATE due to the climate in the NORP islands \u2013 such requests were not frequent ; however , they submitted that due consideration would be given to the matter if a medical reason was found to be at the root of such request .","The Government submitted that the applicant had been diagnosed with right dupuytrens contracture , which is a hand deformity affecting the fingers , so that they can not be straightened completely . The applicant underwent surgery on the CARDINAL DATE which did not result in any complications . The applicant was discharged and prescribed paracetamol and diclofenac . Although the applicant alleged that he suffered from arthritis , he did not visit the medical unit complaining of pain in the joints .","The Government also referred to the submissions made in DATE above ) . They noted that the window in cell ORG could be opened and closed by the occupant . There were also CARDINAL vents as well as the aperture in the cell door which was always left open . According to the Government the third applicant had covered one of the wall vents with a sheet of paper , thereby restricting the amount of ventilation , and the aperture in the cell door had been covered with a piece of cardboard from inside the cell . Furthermore , the Government submitted that it was permissible for inmates to have CARDINAL fan in their cell . In fact , most of the inmates had CARDINAL fans , as did the third applicant .","As to the quality and provision of water , the Government referred to their submissions in paragraph CARDINAL below . They noted that in DATE , the [ third ] applicant received ORG CARDINAL DATE in \u201c Work & Pay \u201d remuneration and gratuity money , as well as ORG CARDINAL DATE for work he carried out assembling plastic dolls , thereby enabling him to buy bottled water at tuck - shop prices .","According to the Government there are no medical records referring to skin blemishes at ORG . They acknowledged that ORG was located within the older part of the facility however they stated that all cells were equipped with the necessary facilities and paint was provided on request so that the inmates could keep their cells in good condition . Relying on photos submitted , the ORG considered that the ceiling and walls appeared to be in good condition and there was no flaking .","Lastly , the Government acknowledged that the applicant had had to buy migraine tablets , namely PERSON mg . Purchasing these tablets was standard policy for all inmates who suffer from migraine since inmates are eligible for medicine which is supplied by the Government to all citizens for free , but PERSON is not on the free medication list . Nevertheless , as can be seen from documentation submitted to the ORG , the Secretary of ORG ( ORG ) informed the applicant that ORG had decided to grant him the full cost of treatment upon presentation of the original receipts . They noted that the third applicant had been referred to the ORG hospital in DATE for a common migraine and medication was prescribed as stated above . On DATE he was admitted to the Day care unit at the ORG hospital , where he underwent surgery , and he was discharged DATE , with a follow - up appointment being scheduled for DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147036","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KOSUMOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE . She was the mother of PERSON , born in DATE , and the widow of PERSON , born in DATE .","On DATE at TIME an operational investigative group composed of officers of ORG ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) , ORG of the ORG ( \u201c ROVD \u201d ) , ORG of ORG of the ORG and ORG for LOC ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , were driving several vehicles along FAC , returning from GPE to the village of GPE . CARDINAL of the vehicles of the convoy was blown up and thrown down a steep slope by the explosion into the nearby River FAC . Several officers in the vehicle were wounded and CARDINAL were killed instantly .","After the explosion , the police officers called for reinforcements . In TIME an armoured unit , a reconnaissance unit of the LOC military command and a special operations unit of the ORG arrived at the scene . After the reinforcements arrived , unidentified forces started firing mortars at the forested slopes . Shells were exploding on the roadside QUANTITY from the explosion scene .","Meanwhile , the applicant \u2019s daughter was driving her ORG truck from GPE to GPE . As she passed the scene of the explosion , mortar shells started exploding on the roadside . She received a wound to the head and died instantly . CARDINAL ORG officers were also wounded and hospitalised .","On DATE the civil registration office of LOC issued a death certificate ( no . CARDINAL ) , certifying that PERSON , aged DATE , had died on DATE in GPE in LOC , from a shell wound to the head .","Around the time the applicant \u2019s daughter died , the applicant \u2019s DATE husband was ill . Concerned for her husband \u2019s health , the applicant hesitated about telling him about their daughter \u2019s death .","The applicant \u2019s husband found out about their daughter \u2019s death on DATE . He could not cope with her loss and died DATE , on DATE .","On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings into the death of the applicant \u2019s daughter under LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW Criminal Code ( negligent homicide ) . An on - site inspection and an inspection of the applicant \u2019s daughter \u2019s body were carried out .","On DATE the chief assistant of ORG sent an order to LOC of the ORG ( \u201c NORP \u201d ) , LOC ROVD and the ORG requesting them to carry out without delay the necessary operational - search measures for establishing who had been involved in the death of the applicant \u2019s daughter .","On DATE CARDINAL officers of the Vedenskiy ROVD were questioned about the circumstances of the events of DATE .","On DATE a post - mortem examination of the applicant \u2019s daughter \u2019s body was completed . It was established that she had died from a vast penetrating head wound resulting in brain damage .","On DATE the Vedenskiy District ORG replied to the request of DATE , stating that it had appeared impossible to identify the individuals involved in the death of the applicant \u2019s daughter .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings . She was questioned on DATE .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were suspended . The heads of the LOC VOVD , ORG and ORG were instructed to carry out the necessary operational - search activities with a view to identifying the possible suspects . The applicant was not informed of this decision .","For DATE , the applicant attempted , in vain , to find out how the investigation was progressing , and made various enquiries to the competent domestic authorities .","On DATE , with the help of a lawyer provided to her by ORG , the applicant obtained a reply from ORG and copies of the decisions of DATE ( instituting criminal case no . DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE ( acknowledging her victim status in the proceedings and setting out her procedural rights ) , and DATE ( suspending the preliminary investigation for failure to identify those responsible for the events in question ) .","On DATE the proceedings were resumed . The decision of CARDINAL DATE was found to be unlawful and the investigation incomplete and superficial . A copy of the decision was sent to the applicant .","On DATE ORG requested the head of central archives at ORG to provide copies of extracts from the military action logbook of the LOC Military Commandant \u2019s Office for DATE .","On DATE the investigator of ORG questioned PERSON , head of the artillery armament service of military unit no . ORG based in GPE , who stated as follows :","\u201c The following procedure is in place for deploying mortar batteries . Once the command has been received , the mortar battery \u2019s officer - on - duty is given an order which includes [ such information as ] : the number of shells , target coordinates , the time of firing , and the time of ceasefire . The battery \u2019s officer - on - duty transmits the command to the officer - on - duty , who alerts the crew - on - duty and issues an order in accordance with the command received . As soon as the firing has been ceased , the battery \u2019s officer - on - duty reports to the initiator of the firing , then the latter reports to ORG ( \u201c UGA \u201d ) ... Within TIME the battery commander files a report in order to write off the ammunitions used , indicating the initiator of the firing , the time , target coordinates , and the number of shells used . The report is then approved by the military unit commander ... and agreed with the local department of the ORG . I then receive the report , and prepare an ammunitions expenditure account . ORG , the account and the report are attached to a secret file that I keep . The file is kept for DATE and is then destroyed ... I do n\u2019t know if the military units of ORG previously deployed on the territory of GPE and FAC had the same procedures in place . \u201d","On DATE ORG sent requests to LOC ROVD to establish the whereabouts of officers NORP PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who had served there on a contract basis in DATE . On DATE ORG requested LOC to question PERSON . , who had served at LOC in DATE as an expert criminologist .","On DATE ORG requested the head of LOC ROVD to guarantee the attendance of its officers PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON Kh . , PERSON and PERSON . PERSON . , for questioning as witnesses to the events of DATE .","On DATE the investigator of ORG questioned police officer PERSON Kh . , who stated that on DATE he had been wounded in the explosion and taken to hospital in PERSON and could not therefore provide any information about the subsequent mortar attack .","On DATE the investigator questioned police officer A. T. , who claimed to have left the scene of the explosion to provide help to the wounded and could not therefore clarify the circumstances of the mortar attack .","On DATE ORG sought the assistance of the ORG for GPE in establishing the whereabouts of PERSON and Ensign PERSON . , wounded during the mortar attack on DATE , in order to question them as victims of the attack . On DATE ORG requested ORG of GPE to provide them with personal data and contact information for CARDINAL former officers of ORG , PERSON and PERSON . , in order to guarantee their attendance for questioning as witnesses to the events of DATE .","On DATE the investigator of the investigations department of the LOC VOVD questioned witness ORG . PERSON , who stated that on DATE the operational investigative group had arrived in GPE to investigate an attack by members of an illegal armed group on civilians ( murder and arson ) . After the investigative group had left , he , NORP NORP and PERSON went to the cemetery to bury the victims . From the cemetery they heard an explosion and then saw that a district police vehicle had been blown up . As they approached , they saw that several police officers had been wounded and killed . They started helping by providing first aid and evacuating the wounded . On their way from the gorge to the road leading to ORG , he heard detonations . A ORG truck driving on its way to PERSON passed them by . He knew that the driver of the truck was a woman from GPE . Later he knew from the officers who had remained at the scene of the explosion that the detonations he had heard had been mortars . He did not know whether the scene of the explosion had been subjected to shelling by members of an illegal armed group or the federal forces .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were suspended for failure to identify those responsible for committing the crime . On DATE the investigation was subsequently resumed , but suspended again on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the ORG for GPE informed ORG that in DATE PERSON ORG and Ensign PERSON . had served in the ORG as undercover agents , which was why their whereabouts could not be revealed .","On DATE witness PERSON was questioned . His statements were consistent with the statement by ORG . PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the acting prosecutor of ORG approached the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL for assistance in obtaining information from the ORG as to whether the mortar batteries used on DATE had belonged to the military units and divisions deployed in LOC , with an indication of the time of firing , target coordinates and the number of shots .","On DATE the central archives of ORG provided a document stating as follows :","\u201c [ On ] DATE [ at ] CARDINAL on the ROVD officers\u2019 return trip in the UAZ-CARDINAL truck from the village of GPE a landmine exploded on the QUANTITY slope near the road , QUANTITY south - east of the village of FAC . Losses : \u201c CARDINAL \u201d DATE , \u201c CARDINAL \u201d DATE . \u201d","On DATE witness PERSON , a former officer of LOC , was questioned . He stated as follows :","\u201c From DATE to CARDINAL DATE I served under contract as chief of police at LOC . [ I ] participated in counterterrorism operations in accordance with the assignments of [ the ROVD ] .","Indeed , on DATE at TIME ROVD received information that a group of [ approximately ] CARDINAL rebel fighters had entered the village of GPE and murdered QUANTITY women , ... set QUANTITY houses on fire and committed other crimes .","At TIME as part of a militarised convoy of the operational investigative group , I went to the village to carry out urgent investigative measures . The convoy consisted of CARDINAL vehicles . After completing the investigative measures , as the convoy was returning back to GPE near the gorge QUANTITY from GPE , a UAZ vehicle was blown up by an explosive device hidden by the road and fell down the abyss from a height of QUANTITY ...","The incident was reported to the ROVD and Military Commandant \u2019s Office , and a call for reinforcements was made .","The officers of the operational investigative group participated in the evacuation of those killed and wounded [ by the explosion ] .","After the reconnaissance unit arrived , the road was blocked by an armoured personnel carrier ( ORG ) . At the same time , at CARDINAL TIME mortar shelling of the nearby area began . I do n\u2019t know who opened fire . The explosions hit the forested area on the mountain slopes ; there were CARDINAL explosions altogether . Judging by the sound characteristic of a flying shell , I concluded that the firing was from mortars . I do n\u2019t know which direction the firing came from , [ since ] it is impossible to establish the direction of mortar fire . It is difficult to say whether the shelling was carried out by officers of the federal forces or members of the illegal armed group . After the road was blocked by the ORG , a civilian ORG truck stopped not far from the ORG . A woman was at the wheel . During the shelling she remained in the truck . The shelling lasted TIME . TIME one of the shells exploded between the ORG and the ORG truck . After the shelling stopped it was discovered that the woman driver of the ORG truck had received a shell wound to the head and died on the spot . CARDINAL ORG officers were also wounded ; I do n\u2019t know their names or the nature of their injuries ... \u201d","On DATE and DATE respectively witnesses A. An . , former chief assistant to the LOC prosecutor , and ORG , a former officer of LOC , were questioned .","On DATE witness PERSON , a former officer of LOC , was questioned . He stated as follows :","\u201c Since DATE I had served at the LOC ROVD on a contract basis . ...","On DATE information was received that during the night a group of rebel fighters ( CARDINAL individuals ) had entered the village of GPE and killed QUANTITY women , burned down several houses and all the motor vehicles ... At CARDINAL the operational investigative group comprising CARDINAL officers of the police , prosecutor \u2019s office and ORG [ in CARDINAL vehicles ] headed to GPE .","At CARDINAL the operational investigative group arrived in GPE . Having split up into several groups , [ we ] inspected the scene of the incident and gathered the required material .","At CARDINAL we decided to head in the direction of ORG . The head of the LOC ROVD decided to proceed in groups , with CARDINAL minute intervals , since it was suspected that the rebel fighters might be nearby and could attack the convoy ...","Having driven QUANTITY from GPE , an unarmoured UAZ truck carrying the head of the ROVD and CARDINAL other individuals was blown up behind us . We stopped , as I understood that CARDINAL of our vehicles had been blown up . Everybody left the truck and dispersed onto the road ... At that moment we were subjected to shelling from automatic firearms coming from the forested area on the other side of the abyss . The abyss was QUANTITY wide . I think that CARDINAL people were firing at us . ORG officers called for reinforcements and artillery support .","Several of our officers started going down the abyss [ to provide help to those who were in the ORG vehicle ] . Me and other officers were covering them , firing at the forested area with automatic firearms . The firefight lasted for TIME and ended after ORG officers launched CARDINAL grenades in the direction of the forested area with an RPG-CARDINAL handheld grenade launcher .","The officers of the prosecutor \u2019s office inspected the scene of the attack ; the police officers were helping to take the wounded onto the road . We put the wounded into a GAZEL van , and took them to ORG . From the direction of ORG a ORG truck was driving towards us ... At that moment a mortar attack began . CARDINAL shells hit the forested area and CARDINAL landed on the road where we were . We immediately hid from the shells under a LOC truck . The interval between strikes was TIME . The ORG truck was already QUANTITY from us , when a shell exploded next to it . The truck stopped . At that moment the ORG officers got in touch with the military and asked them to cease fire . We got out from under the [ ORG ] truck and saw that the woman driver of ORG truck was dead ... CARDINAL of our officers were also wounded ; I do n\u2019t remember who exactly .","The firing was from mortars , as a characteristic roar was clearly heard before each explosion . I can not say where the firing was conducted from , since we were in a gorge , and the echo could be heard from everywhere ... \u201d","On DATE witness PERSON , a former officer of LOC , was questioned . He stated as follows :","\u201c From DATE to DATE I served under contract at LOC On DATE [ as part of the operational investigative group ] I went to the village of GPE , where during TIME DATE CARDINAL unidentified [ members of an illegal armed group ] had killed several women and burned down several houses and cars . On the return trip from the scene of the incident , [ on the road running through forested mountain slopes ] between the villages of GPE and Dyshne - Vedeno , a landmine exploded , as a result of which a UAZ truck carrying officers of the LOC ROVD was thrown down the abyss . Thereupon , [ the convoy ] was subjected to shelling . The shelling was carried out with automatic firearms coming from the forested mountain area by members of the illegal armed group . Later , there was an artillery attack . [ This was clear judging by ] the characteristic sound and the presence of characteristic \u201c funnels \u201d on the ground . It is difficult to say which direction the artillery attack was conducted from as the events date back to DATE ... \u201d","On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the acting prosecutor of LOC that pursuant to their request of CARDINAL DATE , an enquiry had been sent to the commander of the ORG and upon receipt of the reply the requested information would be sent separately .","On DATE witness PERSON , a former officer of LOC ROVD , was questioned . With regard to the circumstances of the mortar fire , he claimed to have been unable to say whether the firing was from mortars or artillery equipment , or to say who had conducted it . However , he stated that he had seen shell bursts and estimated that there had been CARDINAL of them . It was difficult in the circumstances to determine which direction the firing was conducted from .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE suspending the investigation of the case before the ORG ( ORG \u043c\u0435\u0436\u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f PERSON \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0435 \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u043f\u043e \u0427\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0420\u0435\u0441\u043f\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0435 ) .","On DATE its head found that there were no grounds for quashing the decision .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer challenged the above decision before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG held that the decision of DATE had been unlawful , unjustified and premature , and instructed ORG to resume the investigation . In particular , the court pointed out the need to identify the person who had given the order to use heavy weapons without precisely calculating the target area or ensuring that the relevant area had been cordoned off beforehand . Furthermore , it considered it necessary to obtain relevant information from the central archives of ORG , ORG and the ORG with respect to the mortar fire executed on DATE .","On DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer enquired with the head of ORG whether the judgment of DATE had been complied with . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively he was informed that the investigation of the criminal case had never been resumed .","The applicant challenged the idleness of the Shalinskiy Inter - District Investigation Department before ORG , which on DATE found its inactivity unlawful .","DATE . On DATE the investigation of the case was transferred from ORG to ORG .","On DATE the investigation was resumed . The following instructions were given to the investigator of the ORG :","\u201c - to join to the material of criminal case no . DATE as evidence copies of all necessary documents from the criminal case opened into the causing of bodily harm to officers of LOC and ORG as a result of the explosion of a UAZ-CARDINAL vehicle by an unidentified explosive device on DATE ;","- to question as witnesses all the officers of the LOC ROVD and ORG driving in the convoy ... at the moment of the mortar attack , including regarding the issue of who in particular had been contacted [ to give the order ] to use mortar fire ;","- to establish the owner of the ORG truck ... ;","- to obtain from the central archives of ORG copies of extracts from the military action logbook of the LOC Military Commandant \u2019s Office for DATE and join them to the case material ;","- obtain from the headquarters of the ORG information on whether the mortar batteries used on DATE belonged to military units and military divisions deployed in LOC of GPE , with an indication of the time of firing , the target area and the number of shots ;","- to carry out other necessary investigative measures ; and","- to take a lawful and justified decision on the criminal case based on the results of the investigative measures conducted . \u201d","On DATE the investigator of ORG requested the head of central archives at ORG to provide copies of extracts from the military action logbook of the LOC Military Commandant \u2019s Office for DATE . On DATE the investigator requested the temporary district police ( \u041e\u0413 \u0412\u041e\u0413\u041e \u0438 \u041f \u041c\u0412\u0414 PERSON \u043f\u043e \u0412\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0443 \u0427\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 PERSON ) to obtain information from the ORG headquarters about the mortar batteries used on DATE by the military units and divisions deployed in LOC , with an indication of the time of firing , the target area and the number of shots .","On DATE the investigator questioned witness PERSON , an officer of LOC , whose statements were similar to the statement by ORG Kh . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE and DATE respectively the investigator questioned the applicant \u2019s sons , PERSON ( PERSON ) and A .- PERSON ( GPE ) , who stated that their sister had been transporting freight with their family \u2019s ORG truck , and on DATE had been on her way back from the village of NORP where she had been taking some construction stone .","On DATE the temporary district police replied to the investigator \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE , stating that it did not have the information requested and advising the investigator to apply to the Vedenskiy District Military ORG .","On DATE the investigator of ORG granted victim status to the applicant \u2019s daughter \u2019s sister - in - law , the owner of the ORG truck .","DATE and DATE the proceedings were suspended and reopened CARDINAL times .","In the meantime , on DATE the head of central archives at ORG replied that the military action logbook of the LOC Military ORG were classified , so in order for the documents to be sent to the investigator the latter had to provide the head of central archives with a classified postal address .","On DATE and DATE the investigator of ORG made further requests to the head of central archives at ORG for copies of extracts from the military action logbook of the LOC Military Commandant \u2019s Office for DATE , indicating the address where the requested documents could be sent .","Meanwhile , on DATE the investigator questioned witness PERSON , chief detective of the criminal investigation department of ORG of the ORG ( \u201c OVD \u201d ) , who stated as follows :","\u201c We [ undertook steps ] to identify those involved in the blowing up of the [ UAZ vehicle ] and the mortar fire which had caused [ the applicant \u2019s daughter \u2019s ] death ... Based on the results of the measures taken , [ we ] identified the individuals who had blown up the ORG vehicle ... , but the involvement of [ those individuals ] in the mortar fire was not proved . In this connection we repeatedly submitted requests to the LOC military commandant in order to establish the involvement of mortar batteries of ORG deployed in LOC of GPE [ in the events of DATE ] ; however , we have never received any reply . \u201d","On DATE , DATE and DATE the investigator questioned witnesses PERSON . and PERSON , detectives of the criminal investigation department of LOC , who gave statements similar to that given by witness PERSON","On the resumption of the proceedings , on DATE the acting head of ORG instructed the investigator to , inter alia , request from the LOC Military ORG and join to the case file pertinent information on the divisions of ORG deployed in the vicinity of the scene of the events of DATE which were armed with mortars , as well as information on the flying range of CARDINAL PERSON and QUANTITY mortar shells .","On DATE , in compliance with the above instructions , the investigator sent relevant requests to the head of LOC , the LOC military commandant , the head of LOC and the commander of the ORG .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed on DATE . It appears that the investigation was suspended and reopened again several times thereafter .","On DATE the head of forensics at ORG for GPE stated that the case material in criminal case no . DATE had revealed significant shortcomings in the way the preliminary investigative measures had been carried out . Instructions for further investigation were given to the investigator . It was requested , in particular , that all the ORG officers who had been involved in the events of DATE be questioned , since it appeared from a number of witness statements that it had been ORG officers who had asked unidentified individuals for mortar fire support , and it had subsequently been at their request that the mortar shelling had been stopped .","On DATE the investigation was suspended yet again . It was later resumed on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178701","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF STANDARD VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant company , a limited liability company based in GPE , owns and publishes the DATE newspaper ORG and the online news portal derstandard.at .","ORG ( Landeskrankenanstalten - Betriebsgesellschaft \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) is a public - law institution ( PERSON ) which operates CARDINAL hospitals in GPE previously owned by LOC ) .","The ORG is governed and represented by the board of management ( ORG ) which consists of CARDINAL person and is appointed and supervised by the supervisory board ( GPE ) . The supervisory board consists of CARDINAL members of ORG , CARDINAL person who is appointed by ORG and CARDINAL representatives of the employees of the ORG . The chairperson of the supervisory board is appointed by ORG .","NORP In DATE GPE was the member of the board of management in charge of human resources . PERSON was the chairperson of the supervisory board and leader of the parliamentary group ( PERSON ) of ORG of Carinthia ( ORG in ORG ) in the NORP Regional Parliament ( GPE ) . His brother , GPE , was Deputy Governor of GPE .","Because of financial problems , rehiring ( PERSON ) of highlevel managers and accusations of tortious interference on the part of politicians in the recruitment process , management errors and corruption within the ORG , a public debate arose in DATE . On DATE the medical director of ORG ( ORG ) , who was in charge at that time , criticised ORG in a confidential employees\u2019 meeting of the medical doctors of the hospital . TIME the medical director was dismissed without notice .","On DATE on the internet news portal derstandard.at and on DATE in the DATE newspaper PERSON the following article was published :","\u201c Spying accusation against ORG board of management","...","The [ ORG ] board of management ... , [ GPE ] , is under heavy pressure . According to TIME of a meeting disclosed on DATE , she is supposed to have ordered the spying on a confidential employees\u2019 meeting [ GPE ] for doctors of ORG herself . TIME were drafted after the employees\u2019 meeting on DATE in the course of a subsequent meeting in the office of the board of management and they state : \u2018 [ GPE ] explains that she has , as a precaution , sent an informant , who wrote up a transcript [ Wortprotokoll].\u2019"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177930","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DEVYATKIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , who was DATE at the time , and his brother were stopped by LOC police officers PERSON . and PERSON . at a petrol station in the village of Bolshesidorovskoye in GPE . The applicant submitted that the events had taken place in the context of tense relations between his family and those police officers .","He described the events as follows . He and his brother were pushing their broken motorcycle to take it to a friend for repairs . They were verbally insulted by PERSON . and PERSON . PERSON . then sat on the motorcycle and asked them to push it . Following their refusal , the brothers were subjected to physical violence . PERSON . seized the applicant by his neck , knocked him down and started strangling him . He hit the applicant \u2019s head against the ground several times , dragged the applicant to a police car without releasing his grasp around his neck , hit his head against the car , punched him in the face and pushed him into the car . The applicant \u2019s and his brother \u2019s requests that their parents be informed or that they be taken home because the applicant felt unwell were disregarded by the police officers . The officers drove to the garage of a local collective farm and then to the GPE district administration , where the applicant \u2019s father found the applicant and his brother and took them home .","According to an administrative - offence record drawn up by Officer PERSON . , at TIME on DATE the applicant \u2019s brother was apprehended for driving a motorcycle without a driving licence . The applicant \u2019s brother noted his disagreement , stating in the record that he had not been driving the motorcycle but had been pushing it .","According to an administrative - offence record drawn up by Officer PERSON . , at TIME on DATE the applicant used obscene language in a public place , namely the petrol station in ORG . Therefore , the applicant \u2019s father committed an administrative offence by failing to properly bring up the applicant . Relying on the police officer \u2019s record , ORG at the LOC administration subsequently found the applicant \u2019s father guilty of that administrative offence . ORG , however , granted the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s appeal against that decision , finding that the decision , the administrative - offence record and other material lacked any evidence of the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s failure to properly raise the applicant , and that , on the contrary , all his children had been well cared for , had studied hard at school , and the family was well thought of . The applicant was heard by the court and denied having used obscene language . The court quashed the decision and terminated the administrative proceedings against the applicant \u2019s father ( judgment of DATE ) .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by a surgeon at ORG , who recorded CARDINAL abrasions on his neck which were QUANTITY long , and a contusion to his right elbow .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to the GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment by the police officers .","On DATE a forensic medical expert from ORG examined the applicant at the request of an investigator of the prosecutor \u2019s office . The expert recorded abrasions on the applicant \u2019s neck which were CARDINAL and QUANTITY long , a bruise on his right elbow measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , and a bruise on his lip . The expert concluded that the injuries could have been inflicted on DATE , by fingernails as regards the abrasions on the neck , and by a hard blunt object as regards the bruises .","On DATE the applicant was examined by doctors at the Krasnogvardeyskiy District Polyclinic . He complained of a headache , dizziness , pain in his throat and pain when swallowing , pain in his neck area , lips , left eyebrow and right elbow . The doctors recorded oedema of both lips with bruises , oedema in the area of the left eyebrow and right elbow , and oedema , abrasions and bruises in the area of the neck . They diagnosed him with multiple contusions of the face , neck , larynx and laryngeal cartilages . Following an X - ray examination he was further diagnosed with a fracture of both branches of the hyoid bone .","In an additional opinion of DATE the forensic medical expert stated that the fracture of the branches of the hyoid bone , the oedema and the abrasions on the neck could have been caused on CARDINAL DATE by pressure from fingers , and had resulted in harm to the applicant \u2019s health lasting up to DATE , that is , minor harm to his health .","Investigators of the PERSON district prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of the elements of a crime in their actions . The ORG refusals ( dated CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE ) were annulled by their superiors at the prosecutor \u2019s office , because the pre - investigation inquiry , on which the refusals were based , was considered incomplete .","In the refusal of DATE O. , an investigator , found that the applicant \u2019s injuries had been the result of the use of physical force by Officers PERSON . and PERSON . in order to apprehend the applicant , who had \u201c disobeyed their commands and attempted to escape \u201d . The investigator held that no criminal proceedings should be brought against the police officers for lack of the elements of a crime in their actions under LAW ( minor harm to health ) , intent \u2013 which was lacking in their actions \u2013 being one of those elements . Nor did the investigator consider that there was sufficient information indicating the elements of a crime in the police ORG actions under LAW ( abuse of authority ) .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , setting aside the refusal of DATE , a senior prosecutor from the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office held that , in the course of an additional inquiry , the investigator should establish exactly what each of the police officers had done when restraining the applicant and placing him in their car , in particular if the injury had been inflicted by seizing the applicant by his neck . The prosecutor also held that it was necessary to give a legal assessment of the question whether there had been any need to apprehend the applicant , who was minor , on account of his swearing . The prosecutor noted that the relevant administrative proceedings had been brought against the applicant \u2019s father , and no statements concerning those events had been taken from the applicant .","In the most recent refusal of CARDINAL DATE the defects identified by the prosecutor were not rectified . O. , the investigator , maintained his findings made in the decision of DATE , stating that the applicant \u2019s allegations had not been confirmed by the results of the preinvestigation inquiry .","The investigator relied on the police ORG explanations that at TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s brother had disobeyed their command to stop a motorcycle without a registration plate which he had been driving . The applicant had been sitting on the passenger \u2019s seat . After the police officers had finally managed to stop the motorcycle at the petrol station , the applicant \u2019s brother had refused to produce his driving licence . The police officers had been drawing up an administrative - offence record when the applicant had started walking away , swearing at them . They had \u201c restrained him in order to prevent his escape \u201d .","NORP The investigator referred to explanations by PERSON . that he had seen the police stopping the motorcycle at the petrol station , that he had been invited to act as an attesting witness and sign a record of the motorcycle \u2019s seizure which the police had drawn up on the spot , and that the applicant \u2019s brother had refused to sign the record and receive a copy of it .","NORP The investigator \u2019s decision also referred to statements by other third parties , in particular PERSON , who worked at the petrol station and stated that he had seen the applicant falling onto the tarmac himself , resisting the police officers taking him to their car and trying to escape . PERSON stated that the police officers had not beaten up or strangled the applicant , but had \u201c restrained him \u201d . The applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s complaint that PERSON had given false statements was dismissed by an investigator of the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office on the grounds that false explanations given in the framework of a pre - investigation inquiry , as opposed to false statements given in the course of a criminal investigation , were not punishable as a criminal offence ( decision of DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged an application ( \u0436\u0430\u043b\u043e\u0431\u0430 ) with the Krasnogvardeyskiy ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . She complained that on DATE the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office had refused to institute criminal proceedings against Officers PERSON . and PERSON . Its decision had been unfounded and on DATE it had been set aside by ORG . Since then she had not been informed of any new decision . She argued that the police ORG actions , as a result of which the applicant had sustained serious bodily injuries , had been unlawful , and that criminal proceedings should be instituted against them .","On DATE ORG decided that the application fell to be examined under the rules of civil procedure , and gave the applicant \u2019s mother a time - limit for complying with those rules , in particular in relation to paying a court fee . The applicant \u2019s mother requested that her application be examined under the rules of criminal procedure , notably LAW ( \u201c the CCrP \u201d ) . On DATE ORG discontinued the civil proceedings and decided to examine the application under LAW","NORP In its decision of DATE ORG examined the investigator \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE and endorsed the investigator \u2019s conclusions that the police officers had acted lawfully . It also noted that the applicant , no longer a minor , should have applied to court himself . For those reasons , it rejected the application .","The applicant \u2019s mother appealed against the decision , seeking , inter alia , to declare the refusal to institute criminal proceedings of CARDINAL DATE unlawful and unfounded . On DATE ORG quashed the decision , noting that ORG should not have examined the application , as the applicant \u2019s mother had lacked authority to act on the applicant \u2019s behalf , and should not have examined the lawfulness of the police ORG actions in its review under LAW CCrP ( which concerned the lawfulness of NORP decisions ) . Since ORG had not examined whether the refusal to institute criminal proceedings of CARDINAL DATE was lawful and well - founded , ORG could not deal with that issue on appeal .","On DATE ORG held that the application did not fall to be examined under LAW ORG and discontinued the proceedings . On DATE ORG upheld that decision upon an appeal by the applicant \u2019s mother , reiterating that she had lacked authority to act on the applicant \u2019s behalf and that the lawfulness of the police ORG actions could not be reviewed LAW It further stated that in her application she had not formulated a complaint that the refusal to institute criminal proceedings was unlawful or unfounded ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174216","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SMR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"SOFIA v. SAN MARINO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr C. Cali , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant and PERSON , his brother , arrived at a NORP bank ( ORG ) where PERSON held a current account ( hereinafter \u201c the current account \u201d ) , which he had opened on DATE .","PERSON on DATE withdrew MONEY ( ORG ) , which had been deposited in the current account earlier . At the same time , the applicant asked the bank employee dealing with them to issue CARDINAL bearer savings books ( libretti al portatore ) in his name . The CARDINAL brothers asked the bank employee to then deposit the money PERSON had just withdrawn into the CARDINAL bearer savings books ( in particular , they requested that each savings book have an equal amount of LAW ) .","Asked by the bank employee for the reason for such operations , the applicant and his brother explained that they feared that ongoing criminal proceedings against PERSON in GPE could lead the NORP judicial authorities \u201c to request information \u201d ( potrebbe determinare una richiesta di informazioni ) .","Despite the suspicious nature of the operations and the explanation provided by the applicant and his brother , the director of the bank branch gave his consent to carry out the requested transactions , despite his duty under anti - money laundering laws not to engage in operations that appear suspicious . However , he later reported them to ORG ( GPE di Informazione Finanziaria , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , the national authority responsible for combatting money laundering , among other tasks .","NORP In a report of CARDINAL DATE , received by the NORP courts DATE after , the ORG informed the investigating judge ( PERSON , hereinafter the PERSON ) of the above - mentioned facts , which in the ORG \u2019s opinion possibly constituted money laundering . In particular , the agency emphasised that PERSON had deposited the money in the current account by paying in several cheques which could not be considered \u201c compatible \u201d with the professional and commercial activities he had declared to the bank . In fact , the information provided to the bank in DATE had stated that his job consisted of trading in clocks , silver and items made from gold . The trading had originally been done in his own name , as a natural person , and subsequently through a company called PERSON , which had been liquidated in DATE . After that , it had continued through a company called ORG , in which he had never held any administrative position or share capital ( the company had in formal terms been administered by his wife ) . That company had ceased business in DATE . Since most of the cheques which had made up the above - mentioned sum had been deposited in or after DATE , the ORG considered that the transactions had not been justified by or been in line with the above - mentioned facts .","On DATE the authorities in GPE instituted criminal proceedings no . CARDINAL against the applicant for money laundering .","On DATE the PERSON , relying on LAW between GPE and GPE ( ORG bilaterale di ORG ) , reported the suspected operations to ORG against the ORG ( ORG ) and requested information concerning the applicant and his brother .","On DATE the requested judicial authority in GPE informed the PERSON that there were ongoing proceedings for usury against the applicant \u2019s brother , as well as ORG and T , following a criminal complaint submitted by PERSON , a jewellery trader . The applicant was also considered by the NORP financial police ( ORG ) to be very close to various members of a local ORG group in GPE .","On the basis of that information , the PERSON sent a formal letter of request on DATE to the public prosecutor in GPE for assistance in finding out if the money deposited in the current account in the GPE bank could possibly have been related to the offence of usury or to any other crimes in any way related to PERSON","By a note of CARDINAL DATE the GPE public prosecutor replied to the PERSON . He stated that after examining the NORP bank documents attached to the letter of request and comparing those documents with information at his disposal , the money deposited in the GPE current account had to be considered as proceeds of the offence of usury or related to it .","On DATE , following a request by the PERSON , the ORG provided the judicial authority with further information regarding the bank operations carried out by the applicant and his brother .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON informed the applicant ( judicial notice ) , that he was under investigation for money laundering under LAW for the actions taken in GPE on \u201c DATE \u201d ( the first page of the same decision gave the correct date of DATE ) . According to the prosecution , the opening of the bearer savings books and the deposit of the money from the current account , held by the applicant \u2019s brother , into the bearer savings books in equal shares of ORG CARDINAL each for an overall sum of EUR CARDINAL had constituted acts of concealment , transfer and substitution of money , aimed at hiding the criminal origin of the funds , which were the proceeds of the offence of usury .","By the same decision , the PERSON also ordered the seizure of the ORG CARDINAL deposited in the CARDINAL bearer savings books as well as the physical seizure of the savings books themselves , if they were in the possession of the bank , considering the money to be the corpus delicti of the offence of money laundering . Moreover , the PERSON ordered the bank to transfer to it within DATE a copy of all the documents relating to the savings books and to provide any other useful information ( including the precise final balance of each book ) .","On DATE the PERSON also asked the ORG and the judicial police to carry out further investigations .","The results of those investigations were eventually reported by the ORG on DATE . It stated , inter alia , that PERSON had opened a first bearer savings book ( no . CARDINAL ) on DATE and had deposited ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL through CARDINAL deposits of cash . Following a series of other operations the bearer savings book ( no . CARDINAL ) had been closed on DATE . On DATE , PERSON had opened a current account , in which he had deposited the money left in bearer savings book ( no . CARDINAL ) and had over time deposited CARDINAL cheques worth a total ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","According to the ORG , PERSON had written or been the beneficiary of CARDINAL of the above - mentioned cheques for an overall sum of EUR CARDINAL , ORG had written or been the beneficiary of CARDINAL cheques ( EUR CARDINAL ) , T. of DATE ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and FAC of CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Judge of Criminal Appeals ( Giudice d\u2019Appello GPE ) against the PERSON \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . He applied , firstly , to have the whole decision annulled on the ground that it had not complied with the time - limit provided by law . Secondly , he sought the annulment of the seizure since it lacked the requisite fumus delicti ( presumption of a sufficient legal basis ) and because the PERSON had seized all the money in the applicant \u2019s bank accounts and not just that directly linked with the alleged \u201c predicate offence \u201d ( usury ) . In the applicant \u2019s opinion the PERSON should have seized only ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and not the entire EUR CARDINAL given that in the report submitted by the ORG on CARDINAL DATE only ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL had definitely been considered as the proceeds of usury against B.","By a decision of DATE a Judge of ORG in his capacity as Judge of ORG dismissed the complaint . The judge held that the seizure decision had been delivered within the time - limit . He further held that the CARDINAL prerequisites for the application of the disputed seizure , namely fumus delicti and periculum in PERSON ( a danger in delay ) , had been in place .","NORP Moreover , the judge noted that even if the PERSON report had limited the corpus delicti of the usury in question to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , such a limitation did not exclude the possibility that further amounts of money transferred into the savings books could also possibly have been profits from the alleged predicate offence . In the judge \u2019s view , if that were not the case it was difficult to fathom why the applicant had transferred the whole sum into the savings books and not just LAW .","The applicant appealed to the Third - Instance Criminal Judge ( Terza Istanza Penale ) against the seizure decision and the decision of the Judge of Criminal Appeals . In particular , he highlighted , inter alia , the lack of proportion between the amount of money seized and the sum considered , in the NORP proceedings and the ORG report , to have been the proceeds of usury .","The Third - Instance Criminal Judge dismissed the appeal on CARDINAL DATE after an oral hearing held DATE . He noted that there was no reason to believe that the predicate offence ( usury ) in the criminal proceedings in GPE against the applicant \u2019s brother was the only offence ascribable to him .","On an unspecified date the applicant was served with a bill of indictment , which read : \u201c ... for the offence ex Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL bis of LAW ... since with multiple actions connected between them by a common criminal plan , in the Banca di GPE , in the presence of his brother , [ the applicant ] opened QUANTITY bearer savings books of ORG CARDINAL each , where he transferred the overall sum of EUR CARDINAL using money simultaneously ( contestualmente ) withdrawn by his brother [ G.S. ] from his current account , in which the latter had deposited sums deriving from usury or having a criminal origin ... acts committed in GPE , on DATE \u201d .","On an unspecified date during the applicant \u2019s trial he was questioned at a public hearing by the first - instance judge on the merits ( namely , the PERSON della PERSON in his capacity as judge on the merits in inquisitorial proceedings ) . The applicant stated that the money that had been seized was profit from his work and savings and that he had decided to deposit it in a NORP bank rather than an NORP one in order to take advantage of the GPE tax system . The applicant also explained that transferring the money had been the result of his reckless behaviour ( \u201c frutto di un comportamento sconsiderato \u201d ) after advice from the same bank manager who had later reported the operation to the ORG .","NORP In order to prove that the money did not have a criminal origin , the applicant submitted a report prepared by a financial expert , who also took part in a subsequent hearing and was questioned by the judge . In particular , the expert stated in the report that the money deposited in the NORP current account had to be considered as the result of tax evasion ( redditi non dichiarati ) , which at the time of the facts was an administrative rather than a criminal offence in GPE . The origin of the assets had therefore not been \u201c criminal \u201d , as required by law , to amount to the crime of money laundering .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was found guilty of money laundering and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . He was also fined ORG CARDINAL ( multa a giorni ) and prohibited from holding public office and exercising political rights for DATE . In addition , the judge ordered the confiscation of all the seized money ( indicated by the judge as EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , in accordance with LAW .","On DATE the judgment and its reasoning was filed with the court \u2019s registry .","The first - instance judge held that previous case - law had established that in order to find someone guilty of money laundering it was not necessary to determine the specific legal classification of the predicate offence , perpetrator or victim . It sufficed instead to have evidence ( prova logica ) of the criminal origin of the proceeds in question . Hence , the acts leading to the predicate offence could be described in the charges and eventually ascertained during the trial , without the details of the manner in which the predicate offence had been committed ( anche solo per sommi capi quanto alle modalita\u2019 di commissione ) .","The first - instance judge considered that the alleged tax evasion argument used by the defence had been an acknowledgment that the assets involved had been the result of the embezzlement of the profits of the CARDINAL companies through which PERSON had worked and had de facto confirmed the criminal origin of the money .","NORP Moreover , many factors had demonstrated PERSON \u2019s involvement in acts of usury , inter alia , the issuing and cashing of CARDINAL of cheques , the cashing of cheques with increased amounts as substitutes for ones not paid out , the cashing of cheques in exchange for high - denomination banknotes and the brief period of time in which all such operations had been carried out . All those elements , together with the results of the NORP investigations , had , owing to their relevance and repeated nature , demonstrated usury , regardless of the results of the NORP criminal proceedings .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment . He complained , inter alia , about the lack of clarity in the charges , which had not contained any precise description of the predicate offence ( apart from a reference to the offence of usury , which had anyway been connected with only a very small part of the confiscated money ) . In his opinion , that had amounted to a violation of his right of defence , as provided , inter alia , by LAW ( a ) of the LAW .","The applicant also challenged the first - instance judge \u2019s finding that the confiscated money had had a criminal origin and the fact that no other predicate offence ( apart from usury , which in his opinion had to be considered as relating to only a small part of the assets ) had been specified and identified by the judgment .","In addition , the applicant argued that the reason given by the first - instance judge on the specific point of the criminal origin of the money had led to a reversal of the burden of proof . In fact , the first - instance judgment had noted that the applicant had not submitted any evidence of the lawful origin of the money . It followed that there had been a violation of the presumption of innocence and of the applicant \u2019s right of property .","The applicant also argued that the wording of LAW in force at the time of the facts ( DATE ) had provided for confiscation of only the price , the product and the profit of the offence . According to the defence , the judge had applied an amendment to that provision which allowed the confiscation of assets whose legitimate origin had not been proven by the person found guilty . That being so , a finding of guilt should have led to the confiscation of only EUR CARDINAL , namely only those assets whose criminal origin ( usury to the detriment of B. ) had been shown .","By a judgment of DATE , filed with the registry on DATE , the Judge of ORG upheld the first - instance judgment , reducing , however , the penalty . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and prohibited from holding public office and exercising political rights for DATE . The fine was reduced to ORG CARDINAL .","The judge also upheld the order to confiscate all the money deposited in the savings books since the criminal origin of those assets had been proven ( with reference to usury and embezzlement by the applicant \u2019s brother to the detriment of the NORP companies ) . Moreover , the laundering had concerned all the money and not just part of it , therefore the applicant could have foreseen that the whole sum could be confiscated .","The judge noted that the law did not require that charges or final judgments refer to a specific legal classification of the predicate offences at the origin of money laundering . Nor was it necessary to specify when an offence had been committed or by whom . The only relevant factor was the determination beyond a reasonable doubt that funds had a criminal origin ( provenienza da misfatto ) . Accordingly , in order to find the applicant guilty of money laundering it had been sufficient for the judge to ascertain that the money allegedly subjected to laundering had not had a lawful origin , that is it had been possible to categorically exclude through evidence and logical deductions that the origin of the proceeds had been anything other than criminal .","Article CARDINAL bis of LAW , as amended by LAW , Article no . CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , and by LAW , Paragraph CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , as applicable at the time of the facts ( DATE ) , read in so far as relevant as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A person is guilty of money laundering , where , except in cases of aiding and abetting , he conceals , substitutes , transfers or co - operates with others to so do , money which he knows was obtained as a result of crimes not resulting from negligence or contraventions ( misfatto ) , with the aim of hiding its origins .","( CARDINAL ) or whosoever uses , or cooperates or intervenes with the intention of using , in the area of economic or financial activities , money which he knows was obtained as a result of crimes not resulting from negligence or contraventions ( misfatto ) . \u201d","( CARDINAL ) If the crime at the origin of the laundered money has been committed in a foreign country , such a crime has also to constitute a prosecutable criminal offence in GPE ( deve essere penalmente perseguibile e procedibile anche per PERSON Sammarinese ) .","...","( CARDINAL ) The judge applies the penalty provided for the predicate offence if it is less heavy . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of LAW , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , read at the time of the commission of the offence in the present case ( DATE ) , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In a judgment of conviction , the Judge shall order ( il giudice ordina ) the confiscation of items belonging to the convicted person which were used or which were intended to be used to commit the crime , as well as the confiscation of the price , the product , and the profit of the crime .","...","In the judgment of conviction the Judge must always order ( e\u2019 sempre obbligatoria ) the confiscation of items which were used or which were intended to be used to commit the offence ex Art.CARDINAL bis ( money laundering ) , or offences connected to terrorism , or offences with the purpose of subverting the constitutional order , as well as ordering the confiscation of the price , product and profit of the crime .... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of LAW , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , in so far as relevant , reads as follow :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) In a judgment of conviction , the judge shall always order the confiscation of items which were used or which were intended to be used to commit the offences ex Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL aggravated , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis , CARDINAL ter , CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis , CARDINAL ( DATE ) , CARDINAL bis , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis , CARDINAL ter , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL comma CARDINAL , CARDINAL ter ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL , or offences connected to terrorism , or offences with the purpose of subverting the constitutional order , or the crime ex LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE or the crime ex LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , as well as ordering the confiscation of the price , product and profit of the crime .","If the items which were used or which were intended to be used to commit the crime , as well as the price , the product and the profit of the crime , have been completely or partially mixed in with assets having a lawful origin , the judge shall order the confiscation of such assets up to the estimated value of the items which were used or which were intended to be used to commit the crime , or the estimated value of the price , product , and profit of the crime .","In all of the above mentioned cases the judge shall also order the confiscation of money or other assets whose lawful origin the convicted person can not demonstrate .","If ( direct ) confiscation is not possible the Judge shall order ( impone l\u2019obbligo di ) the payment of an amount of money equivalent to the value of the items to be confiscated . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173102","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VASKRSI\u0106 v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Bo\u0161tjan Zalar;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant and his family lived in a house in PERSON which was sold in the impugned enforcement proceedings , described below .","During the proceedings described below the applicant was the subject of enforcement claims brought by CARDINAL different creditors , namely a public water - supply company PERSON - kanalizacija PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c company J. \u201d ) , private company ORG in Leasing SLO ( hereinafter \u201c company P. \u201d ) , and an individual , A.A. Each creditor was seeking to enforce its own claim against the applicant . Although company ORG had initially requested that the enforcement be carried out by seizing the applicant \u2019s house , its claim was subsequently paid from the applicant \u2019s bank account . Having been unsuccessful in securing the payment of its claim by the sale of movable property , company ORG subsequently requested that enforcement action be taken against the applicant \u2019s house . The house was ultimately sold at public auction for the purposes of enforcing company ORG claim . PERSON joined the proceedings with his claim after the house had been awarded to the successful bidder at the aforementioned public auction . As the applicant repaid the debt to company ORG after the auction , the proceeds from the sale of the house were used to cover his debt to ORG and the outstanding mortgage on the house were also paid from the proceeds .","Company J. is based in GPE and is the largest public water - supply company in GPE . On DATE it sent the applicant a water bill in the amount of CARDINAL ( ORG ) , which was due to be paid on DATE .","As the applicant had not settled the aforementioned water bill of DATE , company J. instituted enforcement proceedings against him on CARDINAL DATE . It sought enforcement of the principal amount of ORG CARDINAL plus default interest .","On DATE ORG issued an enforcement decision \u2013 a writ of execution DATE against the applicant , ordering the seizure of his movable property as requested by company J. The decision contained a notice that an objection could be lodged by the debtor within a time - limit of DATE . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE . Since the applicant did not object to it , it became final on DATE . The case was subsequently transferred to ORG for further consideration .","On DATE an enforcement officer went to the applicant \u2019s house with a view to seizing movable property . A report drawn up by the enforcement officer stated that nobody was at the property . The enforcement officer left a note , which included information concerning the attempted enforcement of the principal debt , interest and costs totalling EUR CARDINAL . He also wrote to the applicant inviting him to pay the debt voluntarily .","On DATE company P. instituted enforcement proceedings seeking payment of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL together with interest accrued as from DATE until payment . It proposed several means of enforcement , including the sale of the applicant \u2019s house . ORG granted the request and the decision was served on the applicant on DATE . Since the applicant did not lodge an objection , the decision became final on DATE and was transferred to ORG for further consideration .","On DATE , as part of the proceedings instituted by company P. , ORG ordered a valuation of the applicant \u2019s house . The order was served on the applicant through his father . Subsequently , on DATE , a property valuer submitted a report in which he set the market value of the house at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . He also stated that the applicant had assured him on the phone that the debt had already been repaid , but had then failed to submit confirmation of such repayment . The report was sent to the applicant for comment . As neither the applicant nor any other adult member of his household was found at the address , a note was left on DATE directing the applicant to collect the report at the post office . However , he failed to do so , and on DATE the report was left in his mailbox ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The applicant did not react to the report .","In the meantime , on DATE , the enforcement officer inspected the interior of the applicant \u2019s house in the presence of the applicant \u2019s wife and concluded that it contained no objects which could be seized and sold to cover the debt concerned in the proceedings instituted by company J. The officer again left a note inviting the applicant to pay the debt , now amounting to EUR CARDINAL , voluntarily . In his report , he proposed that the creditor choose some other means of enforcement , because enforcement directed against movable property would not suffice for the payment of the enforcement costs , let alone the debt . It was also established that the applicant \u2019s car was leased and therefore could not be seized for enforcement purposes .","On DATE company J. applied to ORG for an attachment order in respect of the applicant \u2019s immovable property , namely his house .","On DATE ORG granted company ORG application and issued a decision allowing enforcement to be carried out by means of the sale of the applicant \u2019s house . The decision was served on the applicant via his wife on DATE . The applicant did not lodge an objection . Subsequently , the court joined company ORG \u2019s application to the proceedings instituted by company P.","On DATE , ORG set the amount to be paid to the property valuer . This was then paid from the deposit made by company P. On DATE the court also issued a decision setting the market price of the applicant \u2019s house at FAC . After an unsuccessful attempt to serve both decisions on the applicant , they were left in the applicant \u2019s mailbox ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The applicant did not appeal against the decisions .","On DATE ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings pursued by company P. because the debt had been paid by means of the seizure of assets from the applicant \u2019s bank account .","On DATE ORG ordered that a public auction of the applicant \u2019s house be held on DATE . Following an unsuccessful attempt on DATE to serve the order and the summons on the applicant , they were left in his mailbox ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) on DATE .","On DATE ORG discontinued the enforcement action in respect of the applicant \u2019s movable property because company J. had not lodged a new application within DATE of the failed attempt ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE a first public auction of the applicant \u2019s house was held . However , there were no interested buyers . The applicant did not appear .","On DATE ORG ordered a second public auction to be held on DATE . Following an unsuccessful attempt to serve the order and the summons on the applicant on DATE , a note was left directing the applicant to collect them at the local post office . As he failed to do so , they were left in his mailbox ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) on DATE .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL and DATE , company ORG applied to ORG for an extension of the enforcement order to other means of enforcement , namely the attachment of the applicant \u2019s bank account and his salary respectively .","At the second public auction held on DATE the house was sold to GPE for EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL , namely PERCENT of its estimated market value . The applicant did not appear .","On DATE ORG issued a written decision awarding the property to the bidder , PERSON ( sklep o domiku ) . The award decision , together with a copy of TIME auction , was served on the applicant via his wife on DATE .","On DATE ORG granted company ORG application and attached to the enforcement order the applicant \u2019s salary and bank account . The decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE . The decision mentioned that enforcement had previously been ordered against movable property , but contained no mention of the judicial sale of the house . It was noted that CARDINAL of the salary the applicant was receiving from his employer PERSON could be seized , provided that the applicant was left with the statutory minimum guaranteed income . The decision also contained a notice to the bank , which stated , among other things , that if no assets were currently available , the bank should proceed with the seizure once assets became available ; if no assets became available within DATE of the decision being served on the bank , the latter should inform the court to that effect .","On DATE another creditor , PERSON , applied to the court for enforcement of a court judgment granting him compensation together with costs and interest , totalling ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , with accrued interest . He requested that the enforcement be carried out by attachment of the applicant \u2019s house .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the award decision in which he informed the court that he had repaid the debt ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He argued , inter alia , that he had been unable to go to the auction and that he had only learned from the impugned decision that the auction had been held . He further submitted that in the meantime he had repaid his debt . He had been having financial difficulties throughout DATE since his father had died and his mother had lost her job . In this connection he submitted that he had needed to support her in addition to his wife , who had also been unemployed , and his CARDINAL children . He stressed that in the event that the award decision were not revoked , his family would risk becoming homeless . Moreover , his employer , company PERSON , had received the same day the enforcement order directed against his salary .","Following the applicant \u2019s repayment of the debt on DATE , company CARDINAL on DATE applied to the court for discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings instituted by company J.","On DATE ORG granted the application for attachment of the applicant \u2019s house in the enforcement proceedings instituted by PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant lodged an objection to the above decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , stating that the enforcement proceedings instituted by company J. had already been discontinued and that he wished to have PERSON \u2019s claim enforced by the seizure of his monetary assets and repaid in DATE instalments . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection and refused to adjourn the enforcement proceedings in respect of the attachment of the applicant \u2019s house . It also refused to allow the enforcement by means of seizure of the applicant \u2019s monetary assets as proposed by the applicant because it had not been shown that such means would lead to the settlement of the debt within DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE . The applicant did not appeal against it .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against the award decision issued in favour of PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , which thus became final . The court held that the applicant had been properly summoned to attend the public auction , which he had not disputed in his appeal , and that he had not given a reason why he had been unable to go to the auction . The court dismissed his allegations that he had been unable to repay the debt . It explained that the enforcement decision concerning the debt of ORG CARDINAL had become final in DATE , whereas he was relying on circumstances which had taken place in DATE . Moreover , the debt was of minor value . The court further pointed out that the applicant had been properly served with all the court documents in the proceedings but had not reacted to them , which had been entirely his choice . It also found that there was no reason to suggest that the applicant \u2019s family would end up on the street , although their standard of living might worsen as a result of the sale of their house . Lastly , the court referred to ORG decisions nos . Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , stressing that the subsequent repayment of the debt could not lead to the revocation of an award decision that had already been pronounced , regardless of the amount of money to be paid .","On DATE , following the full payment of the sale price by GPE , ORG transferred the property sold at public auction to him and ordered that his name be entered as the owner in ORG . It further ordered the applicant to vacate the house within DATE of receipt of the decision .","On DATE the applicant , now represented by a law firm , lodged an appeal against the decision concerning the transfer of title and applied for revocation of the finality of the award decision . He argued , inter alia , that following the discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings on DATE , the court should have , in accordance with section CARDINAL of the Enforcement and Securing of LAW ( hereinafter \u201c LAW \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , annulled any enforcement actions already taken ; hence it should also have revoked the award decision . He stressed that at the relevant time the buyer had not yet acquired ownership of the property and therefore the revocation of the award decision would not have affected rights already acquired by the buyer . The applicant maintained that the summons for the auction had not been served on him .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It held that under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) there were only CARDINAL conditions to be fulfilled in order to allow the transfer of property to a buyer \u2013 a final award decision and the payment of the purchase price . Therefore , the law had been correctly applied . The court also rejected the allegation that the summons had not been served on the applicant , referring to the findings in the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It also rejected the applicant \u2019s assertion that the discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings should have resulted in the annulment of orders to carry out enforcement , including revocation of the award decision . The court further stated that ORG , in its decisions ORG . Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , had already expressed an opinion that the revocation of the award decision would have interfered with the rights of others ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG held a hearing on the distribution of the proceeds of the house sale and decided to distribute them as follows : the amounts of ORG CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL would go to the applicant \u2019s creditor , PERSON , who had joined his claims to the enforcement proceedings after the house had already been sold ; ORG CARDINAL to ORG for taxes due for the sale of the house ; and ORG CARDINAL to a bank on account of the outstanding mortgage on the house . The remainder of the proceeds from the sale in the amount of ORG CARDINAL was transferred to the applicant . The decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .","At the request of GPE , on DATE ORG issued a writ of execution against the applicant , ordering the eviction of the applicant \u2019s family from the house . The applicant lodged an objection and a further appeal , which were both dismissed . He referred to his constitutional appeal ( see the following paragraph ) and essentially argued that the sale should be revoked in view of the fact that he had repaid the debt before the award decision had become final . In his submission , the transfer of the title to PERSON could not therefore be taken as a valid basis for his eviction .","NORP In the meantime , on DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . He argued that the decisions were unlawful and arbitrary and that the sale of his house resulting from a debt of ORG CARDINAL amounted to a disproportionate interference with his property rights . In particular , he argued that the court had been under no obligation to attach immovable property to the enforcement order . He also submitted that an award decision could not become final if the enforcement proceedings had been discontinued , a point he had explicitly raised in his appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal by referring to section DATE ) of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","On DATE the applicant and his family were evicted from their house with the assistance of the police . They first moved in with their relatives and later acquired a new home ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168844","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MISIUKONIS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The first and second applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The third applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The first and second applicants are husband and wife , and the third applicant is their daughter .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) acknowledged PERSON \u2019s right to restoration of title in respect of CARDINAL hectares of land in the PERSON estate in LOC . That land had belonged to ORG \u2019s father and had been nationalised by the NORP regime .","The following day PERSON sold his right to restoration of title in respect of that plot of land in equal parts to CARDINAL buyers : the CARDINAL applicants and PERSON ( the first and second applicants\u2019 son , and the third applicant \u2019s brother ) . The sale agreement was signed by PERSON , acting as the ORG representative . The CARDINAL buyers paid , in equal parts , a total of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) to G.O.","On DATE the ORG issued documents confirming the applicants\u2019 and PERSON \u2019s right to receive QUANTITY of land each from the State for free . As the second applicant had been a deportee of the NORP regime , in line with the domestic law she and her family had priority rights to have their property rights restored . The applicants and V.M. were provided with CARDINAL plots of land ( CARDINAL plot each ) in the city of GPE DATE .","In DATE and DATE the applicants , represented by V.M. , sold their plots to third parties for the price of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for each plot . The sale agreements indicated that the indexed value of each plot , estimated by ORG of ORG ( \u017dem\u0117s ir kito nekilnojamojo turto kadastro ir registro valstyb\u0117s \u012fmon\u0117s ORG filialas ) , was LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) .","In DATE ORG opened a pretrial investigation concerning allegations of fraud in connection with the restoration of property rights in LOC . It was suspected that an organised criminal group was forging documents showing deportee status in order to obtain priority rights in the property restoration process . It was also suspected that some officials of regional authorities had unlawfully restored property rights to individuals who did not have such rights .","On DATE V.M. was interviewed as a witness in the investigation and asked to explain how he and his family ( the applicants ) had obtained land in GPE . PERSON stated that in DATE he had befriended ORG who was his wife \u2019s stepbrother . PERSON knew that ORG \u2019s job was related to land measurement . Sometime in DATE mentioned to ORG that his mother ( the second applicant ) had been a deportee . Then ORG told him that it was possible to acquire restoration rights from other persons and get certain privileges available to former deportees . After DATE PERSON informed PERSON that he had found a person who was willing to sell his restoration rights . ORG advised V.M. that it was better if the contract with that person ( ORG ) was signed by CARDINAL family members and not just one , because that way they could obtain CARDINAL separate plots of land . GPE dealt with all the related paperwork and contacted public officials , while PERSON only signed the sale agreements with G.O. After V.M. and his family had received plots of land , ORG suggested selling them , and found buyers for all the CARDINAL plots . V.M. submitted that he had not known the buyers previously and had only met them when signing the agreements . He received LTL CARDINAL from each buyer . In all their dealings related to the land V.M. and his family trusted ORG and assumed that he knew all the relevant legal acts , as his work was related to land . Neither PERSON nor the applicants paid any money to ORG at any point .","On DATE V.M. was again interviewed as a witness in the investigation . He retracted his previous statement in part and stated that he had not received payment for the CARDINAL plots of land ( LTL CARDINAL for each plot ) and did not know if the buyers had paid that money to ORG or to anyone else , or if they had paid anything at all . PERSON also stated that in the autumn of DATE ORG had informed him about the pending pre - trial investigation and advised him to tell the authorities , if questioned , that he ( V.M. ) had received the payment . ORG had assured PERSON that everything had been done lawfully , but now PERSON considered that he had been misled and deceived by GPE","It appears that none of the applicants were interviewed or had any procedural status in the investigation .","On DATE ORG ruled that \u201c the facts of the case confirmed that suspects PERSON , GPE and GPE had acted unlawfully \u201d and that \u201c during the investigation it was indisputably established ( negin\u010dytinai nustatyta ) that suspect PERSON had unlawfully included relatives of friends or acquaintances of hers on the list of those who had priority right to have their property rights restored \u201d . That same ruling discontinued the investigation as time - barred .","NORP In DATE the prosecutor of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) lodged a claim before LAW , asking for the administrative decisions which had acknowledged ORG \u2019s right to restoration of title , the sale of ORG \u2019s restoration rights to the applicants ( and V.M. ) , and all the administrative decisions which had allocated land to them , to be overturned . That claim was amended in DATE and DATE and DATE . The prosecutor submitted that ORG , in force at the material time , entitled ORG to receive CARDINAL plot of CARDINAL ha , with the remainder of his land being compensated for in other ways ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) , so the applicants were not entitled to be allocated a plot of land of that size each . The prosecutor also submitted that the ORG had unlawfully restored the applicants\u2019 rights to property in the order of priority : even though the second applicant had been a deportee , ORG had not , and thus he did not have the right to transfer to the applicants priority rights which he himself did not have .","On DATE the Vilnius City ORG allowed the prosecutor \u2019s claim in part . The court found that the authorities had lawfully decided to restore ORG \u2019s property rights and that the latter had lawfully sold those rights to the applicants . However , the court upheld the prosecutor \u2019s argument that ORG did not have the right to sell more rights than he had himself , and that the applicants\u2019 property rights could only have been restored under the same conditions as would have been applied had they been restored to ORG The court observed that although such a rule had not been explicitly stipulated in ORG at the time when ORG sold his rights to the applicants , that rule stemmed from a systemic and logical interpretation of that PERSON , as well as from legal acts of lower rank ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , the court held that the applicants had the right to receive CARDINAL plot of land of up to CARDINAL.CARDINAL ha , but not CARDINAL separate plots of that size , and they were not entitled to restoration in the order of priority . It overturned the administrative decisions which had allocated the land to the applicants .","As a result , the Vilnius City First District Court ordered the applicants to return to the ORG the plots of land which they had received from it for free . Since they had sold the land to third parties and restitution in integrum was not possible , the court decided that they had to pay the ORG the market value of that land . In line with LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , when property subject to restitution is transferred and the person who transferred it has acted in good faith , he or she has to compensate in the amount of the market value of the property at the time when it was received or transferred , or at the time of restitution , whichever is lowest . The court noted that the prosecutor had not alleged that the unlawful transaction had occurred because of the applicants\u2019 fault or that they had acted in bad faith ; nor had it been determined , at the time of the proceedings , that any crime had been committed . Accordingly , the court ordered the applicants to return to the ORG an amount corresponding to the market value of the land at the time they sold it , as that value was the lowest . On the basis of an estimate by ORG , each applicant was ordered to pay LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","The applicants appealed against that judgment ; on DATE ORG dismissed their appeal . The court considered that obliging the applicants to pay compensation in the amount of the market value of the land was not disproportionate , because they still retained the right to have property rights restored and to obtain new plots .","On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicants . It held that ignorance of the law could not absolve anyone of responsibility , and thus the applicants should have known that property rights had been restored to them in breach of peremptory legal norms , especially as there was information that they had been advised by ORG , who worked in a municipal land reform department ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicants submitted a claim against the ORG for pecuniary damages before ORG . They contended that each of them had received LTL CARDINAL for selling the land but had been ordered to pay LTL CARDINAL to the ORG each , and thus had suffered pecuniary losses of LTL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) each . They also asked for pecuniary damages of LTL MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ) for the court fees each of them had had to pay in the previous proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","After submitting their claim , the applicants applied for suspension of the execution of the Vilnius City First District Court \u2019s judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , submitting that they did not have sufficient funds to comply with it . On DATE ORG rejected their application on the grounds that the execution of the judgment had not been started yet , and that , in any event , if the applicants did not have sufficient funds nothing would be seized from them .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 claim for damages . The court acknowledged that the ORG had acted unlawfully when allocating land to the applicants ; however , it considered that the applicants had not proven that they had suffered any pecuniary damage . The court noted that the applicants still had the right to restoration of title to ORG \u2019s land , because their agreement had not been cancelled , and that they were on the list of candidates to be given new plots of land . Accordingly , until such plots were given to them it was not possible to assess whether the applicants had suffered pecuniary damage or not .","ORG also noted that there had been a criminal investigation concerning the ORG \u2019s unlawful decisions restoring property rights . Although the investigation was eventually discontinued , it had nonetheless \u201c indisputably established \u201d that certain employees of the ORG had unlawfully issued documents recognising restoration rights ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court noted that CARDINAL of those employees was ORG , whom the applicants had consulted . Accordingly , the court held that the applicants should have known that they had received the land unlawfully and that they had themselves contributed to the pecuniary damage \u201c by acting carelessly and negligently \u201d ( veikdami ner\u016bpestingai ir neatsargiai ) .","The applicants appealed against that judgment . They submitted , inter alia , that even if they had contributed to the pecuniary damage , the main agent who had caused those damages had been the ORG . Therefore , they argued that , in line with the provisions of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the liability should have been distributed proportionately between the ORG and the applicants and not placed solely on them . The applicants also submitted that the fact that V.M. had consulted ORG did not prove that the applicants had conspired with ORG or other unlawfully acting officials , or that the applicants had pressured any officials to act unlawfully to their benefit . The applicants contended that after their restoration rights had been cancelled the original state of affairs should have been restored , and they should not have been obliged to pay more than they had received .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal and upheld the judgment of the lower court . It underlined that the applicants had received the land from the ORG for free , and that they had immediately sold it to third parties who had to be considered bona fide acquirers . The court held that by selling their plots for a price that was significantly lower than their market value the applicants had acted at their own risk , and thus the difference between what they had received ( LTL CARDINAL each ) and what they were obliged to pay to the ORG ( LTL CARDINAL each ) could not be regarded as pecuniary damage . ORG further held that even if the applicants had suffered pecuniary damage , they could not be awarded damages because they themselves had acted unlawfully . Relying on ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG considered that the applicants had abused their rights by attempting to get from the ORG more land than ORG had been entitled to receive . Accordingly , having concluded that both the applicants and the ORG had acted unlawfully , the court relied on Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and held that there were no grounds to award them pecuniary damages .","Subsequently the applicants applied for reopening of the proceedings , but on DATE ORG dismissed their application .","In DATE a bailiff began executing the Vilnius City ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the documents in the ORG \u2019s possession , from DATE until DATE the first and second applicants each paid LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in DATE payments ranging from LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The third applicant paid LTL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in DATE payments ranging from LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to LTL CARDINAL ( ORG DATE ) . At the time of the parties\u2019 observations to the ORG , the execution was ongoing . The ORG submitted that in the future , when the applicants were provided with new plots of land ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the remaining amount could be recovered from those plots .","On DATE the ORG included the applicants ( and V.M. ) on the list of individuals who had the right to have title to property restored in the area around GPE . Their number in the list was PERSON","On DATE the applicants ( and V.M. ) were informed by ORG that they were CARDINAL in the above - mentioned list . They were invited to a meeting of candidates during which they would be able to choose CARDINAL plot of land of QUANTITY in joint ownership .","As submitted by the Government , that meeting took place on CARDINAL DATE and the first and second applicants , as well as V.M. , were present but the third applicant was not . Since the CARDINAL of them were entitled to receive CARDINAL plot of land in joint ownership , the first and second applicants ( and V.M. ) were not allowed to choose a plot in the absence of the third applicant . The Government further submitted that there was still land available in the area around GPE and that the applicants would be invited to another meeting , planned to take place in the DATE of DATE . At the time of the parties\u2019 observations to the ORG , the applicants\u2019 property rights had not yet been restored ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184671","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF RUIZ PENA AND PEREZ OBERGHT v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and are detained in GPE facility , GPE , GPE .","The first applicant is a NORP national who has been detained in ORG , GPE , since DATE . He is serving a tenyear prison sentence following a judgment of DATE . Since DATE he has been detained in Division CARDINAL , cell no . CARDINAL . The first applicant has never asked for a transfer because , although there were prospects that he would be transferred to a division with an automated flushing system , this would also have meant that he would lose his individual cell and be placed in a dormitory , to the detriment of his privacy .","The first applicant submitted that his cell has CARDINAL window and CARDINAL air vent . The latter is clogged with dirt and debris and his cell window is positioned too high up , meaning that he therefore has to climb onto the sink to open or close it . He stated that the cell does not have adequate ventilation and it is subject to high temperatures in DATE and low temperatures in DATE . He alleged that he had not been provided with a heater during DATE and that his requests to this effect had been turned down . The prison authorities had provided him only with one blanket , other blankets and clothes having been received from NGOs . In DATE , when the temperature ranges DATE , the CARDINAL fans purchased by the first applicant do not suffice as they merely circulate hot air , which is made worse in the absence of proper ventilation .","He also claimed that he has to use a bucket to flush his toilet . Given the low water pressure , it takes time to fill a bucket and sometimes CARDINAL bucket is necessary to flush the toilet , making the situation deplorable , especially in DATE .","As the building housing the ORG is DATE , the ceiling releases dust , which is allegedly harmful to the first applicant \u2019s lungs .","The first applicant submitted that he does not have access to drinking water , since the tap water is rusty and filthy , and he therefore has to purchase drinking water . However , his job in prison pays only MONEY ( EUR ) cents per day and in DATE he drinks CARDINAL packs of water DATE , at considerable cost . The Government submitted that the first applicant received ORG DATE in socalled \u201c gratuity \u201d remuneration and from the \u201c Work and Pay \u201d scheme , with which he had been involved DATE . They stated that at the tuck shop a sixpack of water cost ORG CARDINAL and an individual bottle EUR CARDINAL .","The second applicant , who is a national of GPE , has been detained in ORG since DATE . He is serving a DATE prison sentence following a judgment of DATE . Since DATE he has been detained in Division CARDINAL , cell no . CARDINAL ( with the exception of CARDINAL day CARDINAL DATE spent in Division CARDINAL ) .","According to the Government , following communication of the complaint , the second applicant was asked whether he wanted to be transferred to another division and replied in the negative .","The second applicant submitted that his cell window is at a height of QUANTITY and it is very difficult to open without endangering one \u2019s life . Its metal protective bars make it difficult for the cell to admit any natural light . Although there are CARDINAL openings for the purposes of ventilation , CARDINAL of them is blocked and there is therefore not sufficient ventilation .","The second applicant alleged that the water is not drinkable ; he therefore has to purchase it . The Government submitted that the second applicant received LAW DATE in so - called \u201c gratuity remuneration \u201d and from the \u201c Work and Pay \u201d scheme , with which he had become involved DATE .","The dust which falls from the cell \u2019s ceiling allegedly affects the second applicant , who suffers from asthma . The Government submitted that the amount of dust falling from the ceiling of his cell was not abnormal , but was what emanates naturally from NORP stone . They noted that the second applicant had never asked for materials to paint his cell .","The second applicant also submitted that because of the humidity in his cell and the fact that he does not have a heater , he frequently catches the flu during DATE . The Government submitted that the cell was humid because the second applicant had blocked his vent with a towel and did not undertake any maintenance of his cell .","The second applicant noted that the light both inside and outside the cell is very poor , making it difficult for him to read . The Government noted that the second applicant had a ceiling light and another wallmounted light , as well a portable lamp which he had acquired . Natural light came in through CARDINAL skylights and artificial light was provided through bell lamps of CARDINAL each . The second applicant also claimed that the spiral staircase is not appropriate in the case of an emergency , since a stretcher could not be carried down it and it would not be possible to evacuate people CARDINAL at a time . In this connection the Government submitted that other options were available should an emergency arise , such as the use of the walkway between the divisions ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155001","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NEDYALKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The fourth applicant lives in the village of PERSON , the second applicant lives in the village of GPE and the third applicant lives in GPE . The first applicant also lived in PERSON .","A predecessor of the applicants had owned agricultural land in the village of PERSON , which had been collectivised after DATE .","Following the adoption of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d , see paragraph QUANTITY below ) in DATE , the fourth applicant , on behalf of his ORG heirs , sought the restitution of land QUANTITY . In a decision of DATE , the ORG agricultural land commission partially allowed the request , refusing to restore the heirs\u2019 rights to QUANTITY of land which had been either taken for urban development or transferred to third parties .","Upon an appeal lodged by the fourth applicant , in a final judgment of DATE the ORG quashed the relevant part of the land commission \u2019s decision of DATE . It noted , in particular , that the public works for which parts of the land at issue had been taken had not been completed , and that in so far as other parts of the land had been transferred to third parties , there was no bar to restitution as the third parties had not carried out any construction work . On that basis ORG recognised the heirs as the \u201c owners \u201d of all of the land claimed by them .","In execution of the above judgment , on DATE the land commission issued another decision , restoring to the heirs , inter alia , in its \u201c actual boundaries \u201d , a plot of QUANTITY described as \u201c plot no . CARDINAL , district DATE , under the cadastral plan of PERSON of DATE \u201d . On DATE the heirs obtained a plan of that plot . After agreeing as to the partition of the restituted land , the plot at issue was allocated to the fourth applicant and his sister ( who after her death in DATE was succeeded by the remaining applicants , namely her husband and her sons ) . On DATE the fourth applicant and his sister obtained a notarial deed .","NORP However , the plot was in actual fact held by several private persons , having been transferred in DATE by the agricultural co - operative of the time to the predecessors of a certain PERSON in exchange for another plot . In DATE PERSON had sold a share of the plot to a certain PERSON and PERSON","On DATE the fourth applicant and his sister brought a rei vindicatio action against PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , claiming that the DATE transfer of the property and the subsequent sale could not have prejudiced their own rights .","The action was examined by CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction and disallowed in a final judgment of ORG . The domestic courts took note of ORG final judgment of DATE , but found that they were competent to exercise an \u201c indirect judicial review \u201d ( \u043a\u043e\u0441\u0432\u0435\u043d \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0440\u043e\u043b ) of it . The courts found further that the documents describing the plot , namely the ORG land commission \u2019s decision of DATE and the notarial deed of DATE , referred to \u201c plot no . CARDINAL , district CARDINAL under the cadastral plan of PERSON of DATE \u201d . However , there existed no cadastral plan dating from DATE and the current plans , the last of which dated from DATE , did not show a plot bearing that number . ORG and the land commission had thus restored the claimants\u2019 rights to \u201c a non - existent plot under a non - existent plan \u201d .","In addition , the domestic courts found that the defendants had validly obtained title to their plot pursuant to the DATE exchange and the DATE contract of sale . Accordingly , they were entitled to hold the land as its owners .","Following the above developments , the applicants have not sought to obtain compensation in lieu of restitution in kind , a possibility provided for under the relevant provisions of the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162012","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"A.V. v. ESTONIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant \u2019s mother PERSON , aged DATE , complained about lower back pain . She was diagnosed with radiculitis and hypertension by a general practitioner who also prescribed medicines for her . Since the pain did not disappear , PERSON was taken to hospital on DATE . She underwent an X - ray examination and was diagnosed with lumbar spondylosis and osteochondrosis . Medicines were prescribed for her and nursing care was ensured in ORG . While in hospital , she developed gangrene . On CARDINAL DATE she died in hospital . According to the notice of death the cause of her death was atherosclerosis with gangrene .","The applicant filed an offence report with the prosecutor \u2019s office , which refused to initiate criminal proceedings , considering that no offence had been committed . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It was noted in the decision sent to the applicant that pursuant to LAW , the victim of an alleged offence could lodge a complaint with a court of appeal against a refusal by ORG to initiate criminal proceedings . It was further stated that such a complaint had to be lodged through a lawyer . The applicant did not lodge a complaint .","The applicant also turned to ORG kvaliteedi ekspertkomisjon ) . According to ORG opinion given on DATE the applicant \u2019s doubts and accusations that the staff of ORG had not given E. the required treatment and nursing care and had failed in their duty of care and thereby caused PERSON \u2019s death were groundless . Nevertheless , ORG noted that there were certain shortcomings in the documentation of PERSON \u2019s treatment . It made recommendations to ORG regarding the medical documentation and prevention and cure of pressure sores . It was noted in ORG assessment that the ORG \u2019s assessment created no legal rights or obligations but it could be used as evidence in civil proceedings .","Article CARDINAL of LAW ( Karistusseadustik ) lays down that negligent homicide is punishable by DATE imprisonment .","Article CARDINAL of the Code provides that causing serious health damage through negligence is punishable by a pecuniary punishment or DATE of imprisonment .","Article CARDINAL of the Code provides that placing or leaving another person in a situation that is life - threatening or likely to cause serious damage to the health of the person is punishable by a pecuniary punishment or up to three years\u2019 imprisonment .","Article CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG seadustik ) establishes the principle of mandatory criminal proceedings according to which the investigative bodies and ORG are required to conduct criminal proceedings when facts referring to a criminal offence have become evident .","The Code of Criminal Procedure further provides :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) An investigative body or ORG commences criminal proceedings by the first investigative activity or other procedural act if there is reason and grounds therefor and the circumstances provided for in LAW do not exist . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The reason for the commencement of criminal proceedings is a report of a criminal offence or other information indicating that a criminal offence has taken place .","( CARDINAL ) The grounds for criminal proceedings are constituted by ascertainment of criminal elements in the reason for the criminal proceeding . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If a health care professional conducting an autopsy suspects that the person died as a result of a criminal offence , he or she is required to notify an investigative body or ORG of such suspicion immediately . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings shall not be commenced if :","NORP there are no grounds for criminal proceedings ; ... \u201d","Pursuant to LAW , the victim of an alleged offence can lodge a complaint with a court of appeal against a refusal by ORG to initiate criminal proceedings . Such a complaint must be lodged through a lawyer .","Section CARDINAL of the Establishment of the Cause of Death Act ( Surma p\u00f5hjuse tuvastamise seadus ) provides that the death of a person who died at a hospital must be immediately notified to the person \u2019s attending physician or doctor on call . Furthermore , if there is reason to believe that a person has died as a result of a criminal offence or as a result of external causes or a suspicion thereof , an investigative body or ORG must be immediately notified thereof .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that the doctor having received a notice of death must immediately perform an external examination of the deceased in order to establish death and ascertain the cause thereof . If the cause of death can not be established as a result of an external examination of the deceased or based on the information concerning his or her latest disease and treatment , the doctor must send the body for a pathoanatomical autopsy .","Upon ascertaining the elements of a criminal offence in respect of a death , the investigative body or ORG must commence criminal proceedings and order a forensic medical examination . In the case of a death caused by other external causes or a suspicion thereof or if the cause of death of a person is not established in another manner provided for in the law , the investigative body or ORG must send the body for a forensic medical autopsy ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that pathoanatomical autopsy is performed to ascertain an unclear cause death or in case of death caused by disease to assess the disease and the course thereof or if it is necessary in view of general health care and treatment quality if the cause of death can not be established as the result of an external examination of the deceased and based on the information the doctor has on the last disease and treatment of the deceased , and there is no reason for a forensic medical autopsy or forensic medical examination in criminal proceedings . Pursuant to section LOC ) of the LAW , a pathoanatomical autopsy must be performed , inter alia , in the case of an unclear death if there is no reason to believe that a person has died as a result of a criminal offence or due to external causes , in case of an unclear diagnosis of a disease in the person \u2019s lifetime , if the person undergoing hospital treatment died at the hospital within the first TIME and the doctor has no data on the cause of death , or if the person died as a result of diagnostic or treatment methods . In addition , a pathoanatomical autopsy is performed at the written request of the persons close to the deceased . A pathoanatomical autopsy is not be performed in order to establish the cause of death if the deceased suffered from a chronic illness in his or her lifetime which has been recorded in the documents evidencing the provision of health care services to the person and which caused his or her death due to complications or becoming acute .","Section CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) stipulates that non - pecuniary damage involves primarily the physical and emotional distress and suffering caused to the aggrieved person .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that in the case of an obligation to compensate for damage arising from causing bodily injuries to or damage to the health of a person , the aggrieved person must be paid a reasonable amount of money as compensation for non - pecuniary damage . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that in the case of an obligation to compensate for damage arising from the death of a person or a serious bodily injury or health damage caused to the person , the persons close to the deceased or the aggrieved person may also claim compensation for non - pecuniary damage if payment of such compensation is justified by exceptional circumstances .","Section CARDINAL provides that a contract for the provision of health care services is also , inter alia , deemed to have been entered into upon commencement of the provision of health care services or assumption of the obligation to provide health care services with the consent of a patient , and also if commencement of the provision of health care services to a patient without the capacity to exercise his or her will corresponds to his or her actual or presumed intention .","Section CARDINAL stipulates that health care services must at the very least conform to the general level of medical science at the time the services are provided and the services must be provided with the care which can normally be expected of providers of health care services . If necessary , a provider of health care services must refer a patient to a specialist or involve a specialist in the treatment of the patient .","Section CARDINAL sets out an obligation for the provider of health care services to inform the patient and to obtain the patient \u2019s consent for his or her examination and the provision of health care services .","Section CARDINAL concerns the provision of health care services to patients who are incapable of exercising their will . In such circumstances , the provision of health care services is permitted without the consent of the patient if this is in the interests of the patient and corresponds to the intentions expressed by him or her earlier or to his or her presumed intentions and if failure to provide health care services promptly would put the life of the patient at risk or significantly damage his or her health . The intentions expressed earlier by a patient or his or her presumed intentions must , if possible , be ascertained using the help of his or her immediate family . The immediate family of the patient shall be informed of his or her state of health , the provision of health care services and the associated risks if this is possible in the circumstances .","Section CARDINAL sets out the obligation of a provider of health care services to document the provision of health care services .","LAW further provides :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Providers of health care services ... shall be liable only for the wrongful violation of their own obligations , particularly for errors in diagnosis and treatment and for violation of the obligation to inform patients and obtain their consent .","( CARDINAL ) Providers of health care services shall also be liable for the activities of persons assisting them and for any defects in the equipment used upon the provision of health care services .","( CARDINAL ) The burden of proof regarding circumstances which are the basis for the liability of the provider of health care services ... shall lie with the patient unless the provision of health care services to the patient is not documented as required .","( CARDINAL ) If there is an error in diagnosis or treatment and a patient develops a health disorder which could probably have been avoided by ordinary treatment , the damage is presumed to have resulted from the error . In this case , the burden of proof regarding the damage resulting from the health disorder shall also lie with the patient . \u201d","The rules on the non - contractual ( delict - based ) liability of LAW provide :","\u201c A person ( tortfeasor ) who unlawfully causes damage to another person ( victim ) shall compensate for the damage if the tortfeasor is culpable of causing the damage or is liable for causing the damage pursuant to the law . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the death , bodily injury or damage to the health of a person is caused as a result of the violation of a contractual obligation , the tortfeasor shall also be liable for such damage on the basis provided in this LAW . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The causing of damage is unlawful if , above all , the damage is caused by :","causing the death of the victim ;","causing bodily injury to or damage to the health of the victim ; \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided by law , a tortfeasor is not liable for the causing of damage if the tortfeasor proves that he or she is not culpable of causing the damage . \u201d","Health Services Organisation Act ( Tervishoiuteenuste korraldamise seadus ) provides :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG ... is an advisory committee the purpose of which is to assess the quality of health care services provided to patients and to make proposals arising from the assessment to ORG , ORG and the health care providers .","( CARDINAL ) ORG is competent to :","assess the quality of a health care service provided to a patient ;","make propositions to ORG for initiation of supervision proceedings over the activity of a health care provider ; ... \u201d","Under section CARDINAL of ORG , ORG , a governmental authority operating within the purview of ORG , shall exercise supervision over compliance with the requirements established for health care providers . Individuals have a right to submit complaints to the ORG regarding compliance with those requirements .","ORG in its judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) reiterated the principle of mandatory criminal proceedings provided for in LAW . It noted that while the principle in dubio pro reo required that the accused was to be given the benefit of the doubt when a judgment was made , the principle in dubio pro duriore applied in respect of initiation of criminal proceedings and at that stage any suspicion of crime was to be interpreted in favour of initiation of the proceedings . Nevertheless , due to the prevailing attitudes in society persons could also be stigmatized by merely initiating criminal proceedings in respect of them . Therefore , it was objectionable to initiate criminal proceedings in a situation where no suspicion of a crime existed at all or was merely theoretical .","ORG in its decision of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) examined a complaint against the refusal of ORG to initiate criminal proceedings related to serious health damage allegedly caused by a medical error . ORG ordered ORG to initiate criminal proceedings in order to clarify the circumstances described in the offence report . It noted , inter alia , with reference to ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , that if non - legal specialist knowledge had to be applied in criminal proceedings , an expert opinion had to be sought , whereas the decisions of ORG were not admissible as expert opinions in criminal proceedings . In that case ORG had granted legal aid to the alleged victim for filing the complaint with it against the decision of ORG .","ORG in its decision of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) confirmed the generally recognized concept that , for example , in case of manslaughter or murder the next - of - kin of the killed person was to be considered a victim .","ORG in its judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , in a case concerning manslaughter , agreed with the lower court that had awarded the victim \u2019s next - of - kin non - pecuniary damages . ORG found that unlawful causing of the death of a person \u2019s very close next - of - kin ( the person \u2019s son ) should be considered an exceptional circumstance within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Further cases provide examples concerning medical negligence and related issues , such as conviction of a doctor of causing serious health damage through negligence under LAW ( ORG judgment of DATE , case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL , followed by ORG judgment of DATE in the same case ( no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) in which also pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages were awarded ) , and conviction of an employee of the emergency call centre for leaving a person in a life - threatening situation under LAW ( ORG judgment of DATE , case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; subsequent to the criminal proceedings , the spouse of the deceased also initiated administrative court proceedings , was granted legal aid and awarded pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages ) . ORG , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , acquitted an ambulance worker who had been charged with negligent homicide under LAW for not having taken an intoxicated person with signs of trauma and problems of consciousness to the hospital but instead having handed the person over to the police .","As regards the connection between the criminal and civil proceedings in alleged medical malpractice cases , ORG in its decision of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) confirmed ORG Office \u2019s decision that failure of a doctor to comply with the duty of notification about medical treatment or keeping a documentary record of the treatment can be unlawful under civil law , but can not entail a criminal liability . ORG stressed that the violation of a duty under LAW entails liability under civil law , but that type of liability falls outside the scope of criminal proceedings .","As regards civil liability , ORG in its judgment of DATE ( no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) noted that a victim may claim compensation for the damage caused by the non - conforming health care service first and foremost on the basis of a breach of the health care services contract . In addition , in the case of causing health damage to a person as a result of a violation of contractual obligations the health care provider may also be liable under the provisions concerning compensation for unlawfully caused damage ( non - contractual liability ) ( section CARDINAL et seq . of LAW ; see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In such a case , the victims may submit their claims alternatively and the legal basis of the claim has to be determined by a court regardless of the arguments of the parties .","ORG in its judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) reiterated that in the case of an error in diagnosis or treatment resulting in health damage to the patient , which could have probably been avoided by ordinary treatment , it is presumed that the damage occurred as a result of the error . The absence of the causal link must be proved by the defendant . In that case , the plaintiff was awarded compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The court also noted that an opinion of ORG constituted documentary evidence in civil court proceedings .","In several medical negligence cases non - pecuniary damages have been awarded . These include cases in which the duty of notifying the plaintiffs and obtaining their consent had been breached ( ORG judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , and ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ; in the latter case ORG also granted the complainant \u2019s request for legal aid for filing an appeal with it ) .","In a judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ORG dealt with the liability related to the provision of health care services . The court relied , inter alia , on the opinion of ORG . It noted that breach of the duty to notify the patient or to obtain the patient \u2019s consent did not serve as sufficient grounds for awarding damages if the patient had not sustained health damage as a result thereof . In that case the plaintiff had been granted legal aid .","ORG in its judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) noted that a person who had unlawfully been the victim of a bodily injury or health damage but who had only died later due to this also acquired the right to claim monetary compensation for non - pecuniary damage under section ORG ) of LAW . Under the conditions provided for in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , such claims could be transferred or bequeathed , that is the successors of the deceased person could also file such a claim . In this case , the plaintiff had not acted as a successor in claiming compensation for the possible non - pecuniary damage caused to her spouse . ORG further noted that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW the next - of - kin of a person who had died or sustained a serious injury or health damage could also claim compensation for non - pecuniary damage if payment of such compensation was justified by exceptional circumstances . Analysing the notion of \u201c exceptional circumstances \u201d , ORG found that these did not comprise causing of death or serious health damage as such and noted that grief inevitably accompanied the death of a close person . Rather , a compensation claim of next - of - kin was justified in case of spatial proximity with the next - of - kin at the time of causing of the damage or being a direct witness of an accident or its consequences as well as subsequent distress caused by seeing the injuries or suffering of the died or injured next - of - kin .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ORG dealt with a claim against the hospital for compensation for damage due to the causing of the death of the plaintiff \u2019s mother . The court , inter alia , considered that an opinion of ORG was admissible as documentary evidence . Relying on the said opinion , expert assessment ordered by the first - instance court and other evidence , the courts found that there was no causal link between the provision of the health care service and the death of the plaintiff \u2019s mother . As regards the damage , ORG noted that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW the next - of - kin of the deceased also had an independent right of claim but held that the plaintiff had to substantiate and prove the existence of \u201c exceptional circumstances \u201d within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) .","NORP In a case decided by ORG on DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) the courts established an error in treatment by a hospital that had caused the death of the FAC new - born child and ordered the defendant to pay ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the mother and LAW to the father for non - pecuniary damage .","Lastly , further examples show that plaintiffs have been granted legal aid in proceedings related to compensation claims in medical negligence cases ( cases nos . CARDINAL and DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161054","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GARIB v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to choose residence)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and now lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant moved to the city of GPE . She took up residence in rented property at the address NORP Street CARDINAL . This address is located in the GPE district in GPE . The applicant had previously resided outside LOC ( Stadsregio Rotterdam ) .","The owner of the property asked the applicant , who by this time had CARDINAL young children , to vacate the property as he wished to renovate it for his own use . He offered to let the applicant a different property at the address LOC CARDINALA , also in the GPE area . The applicant stated that , since it comprised CARDINAL rooms and a garden , the property was far more suitable for her and her children than her FAC dwelling which comprised a single room .","In the meantime , GPE had been designated under LAW ( Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek , see below ) as an area in which it was not permitted to take up new residence without a housing permit ( huisvestingsvergunning ) . Accordingly , on DATE the applicant lodged a request for a housing permit with the PERSON and Aldermen ( burgemeester en wethouders ) of GPE in order to be permitted to move to B. Street CARDINALA.","On DATE the PERSON and Aldermen gave a decision refusing such a permit . They found it established that the applicant had not been resident in LOC for DATE immediately preceding the introduction of her request . Moreover , since she was dependent on social - security benefits under ORG ( PERSON ) , she did not meet the income requirement that would have qualified her for an exemption from the residence requirement .","The applicant lodged an objection ( bezwaarschrift ) with the LOC and Aldermen .","On DATE the PERSON and Aldermen gave a decision dismissing the applicant \u2019s objection . Adopting as their own an advisory opinion by ORG ( PERSON bezwaarschriftencommissie ) , they referred to housing permits as an instrument to ensure the balanced and equitable distribution of housing and the possibility for the applicant to move to a dwelling not situated in a \u201c hotspot \u201d area .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal ( beroep ) with ORG ( rechtbank ) . As relevant to the case , she argued that the hardship clause ought to have been applied . She relied on LAW .","ORG gave a decision dismissing the applicant \u2019s appeal on DATE . As relevant to the case before the ORG , its reasoning was as follows :","\u201c Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LOC ( LAW provides for the possibility of temporary restrictions on freedom of residence in areas to be indicated by the Minister [ sc . the Minister of ORG and the Environment ( Minister PERSON , PERSON en Milieubeheer ) ] . The aim of these restrictions is to reverse a process of overburdening and decreasing quality of life , particularly by striving towards districts whose composition is more mixed from a socioeconomic point of view . The restrictions are also intended actively to counteract the existing segregation of incomes throughout the city through the regulation of the supply of housing in certain districts and in so doing improve quality of life for the inhabitants of those districts ( Parliamentary Documents , ORG of ORG ( PERSON ) DATE , CARDINAL CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL , pages CARDINAL ) . In view of the aims of the law , as set out , these temporary restrictions on the freedom to choose one \u2019s residence can not be found not to be justified by the general interest in a democratic society . Nor can it be found that , given the considerable extent of the problems noted in certain districts in GPE , the said restrictions are not necessary for the maintenance of ordre public . ORG takes the view that the legislature has sufficiently shown that in those districts the \u2018 limits of the capacity for absorption\u2019 have been reached as regards care and support for the socioeconomically underprivileged and that moreover in those districts there is a concentration of underprivileged individuals in deprived districts as well as considerable dissatisfaction among the population about inappropriate behaviour , nuisance and crime . \u201d","The applicant lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG gave a decision dismissing the applicant \u2019s further appeal . As relevant to the case before the ORG , its reasoning included the following :","\u201c ORG finds that , considering that the area in issue is CARDINAL designated under LAW , the LOC and Aldermen were entitled to take the view that the restriction [ on freedom to choose one \u2019s residence ] is justified in the general interest in a NORP society within the meaning of LAW of the DATE LAW . The area in issue is a so - called \u2018 GPE , where , as has not been disputed , quality of life is under threat . The restriction resulting from section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing Bye - law ( DATE ) is of a temporary nature , namely for DATE . It is not established that the supply of housing outside the areas designated by the Minister in ORG is insufficient . What [ the applicant ] has stated about waiting times does not lead ORG to reach a different finding . ORG further takes into account that pursuant to section MONEY ) , introductory sentence and under b of ORG , the Minister is empowered to rescind the designation of the area if it turns out that persons seeking housing do not have sufficient possibility of finding suitable housing within the region in which the municipality is situated . In view of these facts and circumstances ORG finds that the restriction in issue is not contrary to the requirements of a pressing social need and proportionality . ORG therefore finds , as ORG did , that section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing Bye - law does not violate LAW . \u201d","An evaluation report after DATE following the introduction of the housing permit in GPE , commissioned by GPE \u2019s own ORG ( ORG ) , was published on DATE by ORG voor NORP en PERSON ) , a research and advice bureau collecting statistical data and carrying out research relevant to developments in GPE in areas including demographics , the economy and employment ( hereafter \u201c the DATE evaluation report \u201d ) .","The report notes a reduction of the number of new residents dependent on social - security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act in \u201c hotspot \u201d areas , though not , of course , a complete stop because GPE residents of CARDINAL years\u2019 standing are not prevented from moving there .","From DATE until DATE there had been CARDINAL requests for a housing permit . Of these , CARDINAL had been granted ; CARDINAL had been refused ; CARDINAL had been rejected as incomplete ; and CARDINAL were still pending . The hardship clause ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LOC ) had been applied in CARDINAL cases .","DATE of the housing permits granted concerned housing let by private landlords ; the remainder DATE had been granted through the intermediary of social housing bodies ( woningcorporaties ) . The latter selected their tenants with due regard to the official requirements , so that refusals of housing permits with regard to social housing were unheard of .","Of the persons refused a housing permit , DATE ( PERCENT of all those who met with a refusal ) had managed to find housing elsewhere relatively quickly .","The DATE evaluation report was presented to the local council on DATE . On DATE the local council voted to maintain the housing permit system as was and have a new evaluation report commissioned for DATE .","A second evaluation report , also commissioned by GPE \u2019s ORG , was published by ORG on DATE . It covered the period from DATE until DATE ( \u201c the DATE evaluation report \u201d ) , during which the events complained of took place .","During this period , the social housing bodies had let CARDINAL dwellings in the areas concerned . Since the social housing bodies could only accept tenants who qualified for a housing permit , no applications for such a permit had been rejected in this group .","Out of CARDINAL applications for a housing permit relating to privatelylet housing , CARDINAL had been accepted ( PERCENT ) ; CARDINAL had been refused ( PERCENT ) ; and CARDINAL had been pending at DATE . Examination of a further CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) had been discontinued without a decision being taken , generally because these applications had been withdrawn or abandoned ; the assumption was that many of these applications would in any case have been rejected . It followed , therefore , that if the pending cases were not taken into account , CARDINAL of this category of applications had been either refused or not pursued to a conclusion .","The reason to reject an application for a housing permit had been related to the income requirement in PERCENT of cases , sometimes in combination with another ground for rejection ; failure to meet the income requirement had been the sole such reason in PERCENT of cases .","Of CARDINAL persons refused a housing permit , CARDINAL had managed to find housing elsewhere in GPE ( PERCENT ) or elsewhere in the GPE ( PERCENT ) .","NORP The hardship clause had been applied CARDINAL times \u2013 expressed as a percentage of applications relating to privately - let housing , PERCENT of the total . These had been cases of preventing squatters from taking over housing left empty ( antikraak ) , illegal immigrants whose situation had been regularised by a general measure ( generaal pardon ) , assisted living arrangements for vulnerable individuals ( begeleid wonen ) , cooperative living arrangements ( woongroepen ) , start - up enterprises , the re - housing of households forced to clear substandard housing for renovation , and foreign students . In addition , in CARDINAL of cases the hardship clause had been applied because a decision had not been given within the prescribed time - limit .","The effects of the measure were considered based on CARDINAL indicators : proportion of residents dependent on social - security benefits under ORG , corrected for the supply of suitable housing ; perception of safety ; social quality ; and potential accumulation of housing problems :","( a ) It had been observed that in the areas where the housing permit requirement applied , the reduction of the number of new residents dependent on social - security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act had been more rapid in \u201c hotspot \u201d areas than in other parts of GPE . In addition , the number of residents in receipt of such benefits as a proportion of the total population of those areas had also declined , although it was still greater than elsewhere .","( b ) In CARDINAL of the areas where the housing permit requirement had been introduced , the increase in the perception of public safety had been more rapid than the GPE average . GPE had shown an increase initially , but was now back to where it had been before the measure was introduced . CARDINAL other area had actually declined significantly in this respect . All of the areas where the housing permit requirement applied were perceived as considerably less safe than GPE as a whole .","( c ) In terms of social quality , there had been improvement in most of the parts of GPE where problems existed , GPE among them . It was noted , however , that the effect of the housing permit in this respect was limited , since it only influenced the selection of new residents , not that of residents already in place .","( d ) Housing DATE defined in terms of turnover , housing left unused , and house price development \u2013 had increased somewhat in the affected areas including GPE , though on the whole at a slower rate there than elsewhere . Reported reasons for the increase were an influx of immigrants of mostly non - NORP extraction ( nieuwe Nederlanders , \u201c new GPE nationals \u201d ) and new short - term residents from LOC ; the latter in particular tended to stay for DATE or less before moving on , and their economic activity was more difficult to keep under review as many were self - employed .","Social housing bodies tended to view the housing permit requirement as a nuisance because it created additional paperwork . They perceived the measure rather as an appropriate instrument to tackle abuses by private landlords , provided that it be actively enforced and administrative procedures be simplified . Others with a professional involvement in the GPE housing market mentioned the dissuasive effect of the measure on would - be new residents of the affected areas .","The report suggested that the housing permit requirement might no longer be needed for CARDINAL of the existing \u201c hotspots \u201d ( not GPE ) . Conversely , CARDINAL other GPE districts scored high for CARDINAL indicators , while a sixth exceeded critical values for all CARDINAL .","A third evaluation report , this time commissioned by GPE \u2019s ORG ) , was published by ORG in DATE ( second revised edition ) . It covered the period from DATE until DATE ( \u201c the DATE evaluation report \u201d ) .","Based on the same indicators and methodology as the previous report , it concluded that the housing permit system should be continued in GPE and CARDINAL other areas ( including CARDINAL in which it had been introduced in the meantime , in DATE ) ; discontinued in CARDINAL others ; and introduced in CARDINAL area where it was not yet in force .","On DATE the Minister of the Interior and ORG ( Minister PERSON en ORG ) sent a separate evaluation report assessing the effectiveness of GPE and its effects in practice to ORG of ORG , as required by LAW . The Minister \u2019s missive stated the intention of the Government to introduce legislation in order to extend the validity of LOC . Requests to that effect had been received from a number of affected cities . It was noted that not all of the cities concerned had made use of all of the possibilities offered by the LAW ; in particular , only GPE used housing permits to select new residents for particular areas . Appended to the Minister \u2019s letter was a copy of the DATE evaluation report and a letter from the PERSON and Aldermen of GPE in which , inter alia , the desirability was stated of extending beyond DATE periods the indication of particular areas for applying the housing permit requirement : the measure was considered a success , and a DATE programme involving the large - scale improvement of housing and infrastructure ( the \u201c ORG GPE \u201d ( ORG , see below ) ) had been started in the southern parts of GPE in DATE .","On DATE the Minister of the Interior and ORG ( on behalf of ORG ) , PERSON on behalf of the municipality of GPE ) , and the presidents of a number of LOC boroughs ( deelgemeenten ) , social housing bodies and educational institutions signed ORG . This document noted the social problems prevalent in LOC inner - city areas , which it was proposed to address by providing improved opportunities for education and economic activity and improving , or if need be replacing , housing and infrastructure . It was intended to terminate the programme by DATE .","On DATE the Minister of the Interior and ORG , GPE \u2019s PERSON for housing , spatial planning , real property and the city economy ( wethouder PERSON , ruimtelijke ordening , vastgoed en stedelijke economie ) and the presidents of CARDINAL social housing bodies active in GPE signed an \u201c agreement concerning a financial impulse for the benefit of the Quality Leap South Rotterdam ( DATE ) ) \u201d ( ORG betreffende een financi\u00eble impuls CARDINAL behoeve PERSON GPE ( DATE ) ) . This agreement provided for a review of priorities in Government financing of housing and infrastructure projects in the GPE area within existing budgets and for a once - only additional investment of MONEY ( ORG ) . Of the latter sum , LAW had been reserved by the municipality of GPE until DATE ; another EUR CARDINAL would be added for the period starting in DATE . These funds would be used to refurbish or replace CARDINAL homes in GPE . A further ORG CARDINAL would be provided by the Government . The remainder would be spent by the social housing bodies on projects within their respective remit .","On DATE the Government introduced a PERSON proposing to amend LAW ( Parliamentary Documents , ORG of ORG DATE , CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) . The Explanatory Memorandum stated that its purpose was to empower municipalities to tackle abuses in the private rented housing sector , give municipalities broader powers of enforcement and make further temporal extension of the LAW possible .","The Inner City Problems ( Special Measures ) ( Extension ) Act ( Wet uitbreiding Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek ) entered into force on DATE , enabling the designation of particular areas under section CARDINAL of GPE to be extended DATE before it was due to expire . It makes further extensions of the designation possible for successive DATE periods ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG , as amended ) .","A further PERSON was introduced on DATE ( Parliamentary Documents , ORG of ORG , CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) . It purports to grant municipalities powers to deny housing permits to individuals with a criminal record . According to its Explanatory Memorandum ( Parliamentary Documents , ORG of ORG , CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) , the intention is to provide a legal basis for measures likely to constitute interferences with the right of freedom to choose one \u2019s residence , as guaranteed by LAW No . CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of LAW , and \u2013 since the measures in issue will of necessity entail the disclosure to local authorities of police information \u2013 with the right to private life as guaranteed by inter alia LAW . It is currently pending in ORG of ORG .","DATE . On DATE the applicant moved to rented housing in the municipality of Vlaardingen . This municipality is part of ORG .","As of CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been resident in ORG for DATE . She therefore became entitled to reside in CARDINAL of the areas designated under LOC ( LAW regardless of her sources of income .","The Government stated that no renovation or building permits were sought for the dwelling in LOC inhabited by the applicant at the time of the events complained of DATE and that no such permit was applied for in the period prior to DATE either ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P4"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P4-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166735","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VERSHININ v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","In DATE , as a result of an accident , the applicant \u2019s house had partially burnt and he had to live in the attic , which was not designed for lodging . The applicant considered that in the circumstances the authorities were under an obligation to provide him with free housing . His civil action against the municipality was dismissed in court .","NORP In DATE the applicant lodged complaints with ORG and ORG against the judges who had dealt with his civil case . In particular , the applicant , using abusive language , accused them of having taken bribes from the defendant in the amount of ORG , falsification of evidence , terrorism , abuse of power as well as inciting racial and ethnic hatred .","On DATE the applicant was arrested under suspicion of having committed defamation of a judge and deliberately false denunciation .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( ORG \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 \u0433. PERSON ) remanded the applicant in custody . His detention on remand was subsequently extended at regular intervals by relevant detention orders .","The investigator ordered the applicant \u2019s psychiatric evaluation in ORG in GPE ( NORP \u043d\u0430\u0443\u0447\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0446\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440 \u0441\u043e\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0438 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u0438\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0438 \u0438\u043c. PERSON ) ( \u201c the ORG Centre \u201d ) .","On DATE the experts concluded that he showed symptoms of paranoid personality development , was in need of an outpatient supervision and treatment . At the same time they concluded that the applicant was sane , fit to stand trial and highlighted that he had no history of mental disorders .","On DATE the prosecution transferred the applicant \u2019s case to ORG ( ORG \u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 ) for examination . ORG ordered an additional forensic psychiatric examination by ORG .","On DATE the experts concluded that the applicant was suffering from a chronic mental disorder - paranoid personality development \u2013 and needed involuntary treatment in a specialised psychiatric facility . The experts based their assessment , inter alia , on the applicant \u2019s \u201c overvalued \u201d ideas expressed in numerous petitions to various authorities \u201c in a grotesque form \u201d , attempts to \u201c find the truth \u201d , contradictions in his opinions , ambivalence etc . The experts also concluded that the applicant had been insane at the time of the impugned offences and unfit to stand trial .","On an unspecified date ORG ordered another forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant by ORG .","On DATE the new report confirmed the findings of the previous report of CARDINAL DATE . In addition , the experts found that the applicant was a danger to society , stating as follows :","\u201c [ T]aking into account that [ the applicant ] shows , in subjectively significant situations , a tendency towards rapid formation of overvalued ideas which sometimes reach a delusional level , broadening of the circle of persons brought into the focus of these emotions , grave emotional disturbances with non - corrective behavior , rejection of regime requirements , lack of critical attitude to his [ emotional ] state , dissimulation , [ he ] is a danger to the society and needs compulsory treatment in a specialised psychiatric hospital \u201d .","On DATE ORG having established the principal facts in respect of the abovementioned offences discontinued criminal proceedings against the applicant due to his insanity . The court referring to the findings and recommendations of the psychiatrists ordered the applicant \u2019s involuntary treatment in a psychiatric hospital .","On DATE ORG of GPE summarily upheld the lower court \u2019s decision .","In DATE the applicant was transferred from a remand prison to a psychiatric facility . In DATE he was released from the hospital ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139906","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KHAYNATSKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["On the dates set out in the appended tables domestic courts and labour disputes commissions delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to have certain actions taken in their favour . The decisions became final and enforceable . However , the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time .","Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non - enforcement issues ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-151049","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"PEREZ v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by CARDINAL of their Agents , Mr H .- PERSON and PERSON , of ORG .","The Government of GPE , having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings ( LAW ) , did not indicate that they wished to exercise that right .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is a former staff member of ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d or the \u201c Organisation \u201d ) . She joined ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) in GPE in DATE . She was promoted several times and , in DATE , moved to ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) , ORG , in GPE , GPE . ORG is represented worldwide through the offices of the ORG . The applicant served as a senior manager with ORG and resided in GPE .","Until DATE the applicant \u2019s professional performance had consistently been rated by consecutive supervisors in her DATE appraisal reports as exceeding or fully satisfying the requirements of her respective job . However , in DATE , as well as in DATE , a new supervisor found that she had not met the performance expectations .","As a consequence of the negative appraisal reports the applicant was included in the DATE ORG reassignment exercise with a view to her redeployment . By a letter of DATE , she was informed by the ORG human resources department that she had not been selected for any post within the scope of the reassignment exercise and was given a time - limit of DATE to search herself for an alternative placement in the ORG or elsewhere in the Organisation .","On DATE the applicant filed a rebuttal for an internal administrative review of the negative appraisal reports for DATE with a rebuttal panel ( the \u201c Rebuttal Panel \u201d ) composed of ORG staff members jointly selected by the staff council and management .","On DATE ORG management decided that the applicant should be placed on DATE leave during the period from DATE . As the applicant was unable to find a post within the ORG and following fruitless attempts by ORG to agree on possible conditions for a termination of the applicant \u2019s employment contract , she was given formal notice of termination by a letter dated DATE ; her dismissal was to be effective as of CARDINAL DATE . The termination was reasoned with intended staff reduction and suppression of posts .","On DATE the applicant requested an administrative review of the decision to dismiss her with the ORG Secretary - General ( the \u201c Secretary - General \u201d ) and asked to suspend her dismissal .","On DATE the Secretary - General , following the recommendation by ORG ( the \u201c JAB \u201d ) of CARDINAL DATE , granted the applicant \u2019s request for a suspension of her dismissal pending completion of the rebuttal process in relation to her appraisal reports , which had commenced on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued its report and concluded that the applicant \u2019s performance ratings be maintained for DATE but found that it was not in a position to reach a final conclusion with respect to the rating for DATE due to management \u2019s failure to provide the relevant documentation .","On DATE the Secretary - General , contrary to a recommendation by the ORG dated DATE , decided not to accept a further request by the applicant to suspend her dismissal .","The applicant \u2019s employment ended on DATE .","On DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , had lodged an appeal with the JAB challenging the decision to terminate her permanent appointment as well as the decision to place her on DATE leave during the period from DATE to DATE .","In its report on the merits of the applicant \u2019s appeal dated DATE , the ORG found that following the applicant \u2019s dismissal ORG management had immediately hired a staff member under a temporary assistance contract to perform the applicant \u2019s functions and that her post had thus in reality not been suppressed but in fact had been reclassified to a higher grade . The ORG noted that it had not been established that ORG management had taken action to assist the applicant to improve her work performance from DATE onward . It further held that while the applicant had been placed in the reassignment exercise for DATE , ORG management had failed to make sufficient efforts to actively assist her in finding alternative employment within the ORG . As regards the decision to place the applicant on DATE leave from DATE to DATE , the ORG noted that even though the applicant \u2019s rebuttal process regarding her appraisal reports had been pending since DATE , the case had not yet been assigned to a Rebuttal Panel at the time she was placed on DATE leave in DATE . It had been only on DATE and only after the applicant had applied for suspension of her dismissal , that the ORG acknowledged that the rebuttal process had been delayed and started the rebuttal proceedings . In the ORG \u2019s opinion it had therefore not been in accordance with the applicable staff rules to penalise the applicant by having to use her DATE leave balance in DATE .","The ORG recommended that the applicant be granted monetary compensation equivalent to CARDINAL months\u2019 net base salary for the delay in the rebuttal process as well as for the failure on the part of ORG to make a reasonable effort to find a suitable alternative post for her . It also recommended that DATE leave wrongfully charged for the period of DATE be credited to her leave balance .","On DATE the applicant was informed of the Secretary - General \u2019s decision to credit her with her DATE leave for the period from DATE and to grant her compensation in an amount of CARDINAL months\u2019 net base salary instead of DATE recommended by the ORG .","On DATE counsel for the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) against the Secretary - General of the ORG , requesting the tribunal to find , inter alia , that she be reinstated and awarded full compensation for losses incurred since termination of her employment on DATE , such as social security and other benefits , as well as punitive damages .","By a letter to the ORG of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant further asked to be granted access to certain documents submitted by ORG in the proceedings before ORG and referred to by the latter in its report of DATE but which she had allegedly never had an opportunity to examine .","The ORG rendered its judgment on DATE ( No . CARDINAL ) following a written procedure . It pointed out that while the applicant \u2019s rebuttal had been filed on DATE , the internal rebuttal proceedings had only commenced on DATE following the applicant \u2019s request of DATE to suspend her dismissal and had ended on DATE . The proceedings had thus taken DATE , a delay that , as acknowledged by the ORG , was unacceptable . The ORG further endorsed the ORG \u2019s finding that the ORG administration had failed to make every bona fide effort to secure a new post for the applicant . It ordered the ORG to pay the applicant further compensation in the amount of CARDINAL months\u2019 net base salary in addition to the compensation she had already received and rejected the remainder of the applicant \u2019s pleas . The applicant \u2019s request for access to the aforementioned specific documents was not granted by the ORG .","ORG were founded in DATE and currently have CARDINAL Member GPE . GPE was admitted to membership in ORG on DATE . ORG ( ORG ) and ORG ( ORG ) are subsidiary organs of the ORG established by ORG .","Pursuant to LAW CARDINAL of LAW shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes .","The Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations ( the \u201c General Convention \u201d ) of CARDINAL DATE , to which GPE has been a party since DATE , provides :","\u201c Article II","Section CARDINAL . ORG , its property and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held , shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process except insofar as in any particular case it has expressly waived its immunity ...","Article VIII","Section CARDINAL . The United Nations shall make provisions for appropriate modes of settlement of :","( a ) disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of a private law character to which ORG is a party ; ... \u201d","The General Convention is complemented by the Agreement between the ORG and GPE concerning the headquarters of the ORG ( the \u201c LAW \u201d ) of DATE , which stipulates in its LAW shall apply to the ORG . In addition , it contains in its LAW and LAW ( a ) provisions similar to sections DATE ( a ) of the General Convention respectively .","Under the ORG internal appeals system in force at the time of the dispute at issue , ORG staff members who considered that a decision by the ORG administration had violated the terms of their employment could seek an administrative review of such decision by the ORG Secretary - General . If the Secretary - General did not reply within the allotted time - limit as stipulated in the relevant regulations or if his reply was unfavourable , the staff member could submit an appeal to ORG ( the \u201c JAB \u201d ) . The ORG , composed of CARDINAL staff members , following an examination of the case , made a non - binding recommendation to the Secretary - General who took the final decision on the appeal .","NORP The Secretary - General \u2019s final decisions could then be challenged before ORG ( the \u201c LAW ) . The ORG was established in DATE by ORG , for the purpose of resolving employment - related disputes between ORG staff and the ORG .","The judges of the ORG , who had to possess judicial experience in the field of administrative law , were appointed by ORG for DATE and could be reappointed once . No member of the ORG could be dismissed by ORG unless the other members were of the unanimous opinion that he or she was unsuited for further service ( LAW ORG \u2019s Statute , adopted by ORG by LAW ) on DATE and as applicable at the time of the dispute at issue ) .","As to the proceedings before the ORG , each written statement and additional document submitted to the ORG at the request of its president was to be communicated to the other parties , unless at the request of CARDINAL of the parties and with the consent of the other parties , the ORG decided otherwise ( see LAW adopted by the Tribunal on DATE , as amended and applicable at the time of the dispute at issue ) . An applicant could present his case before the ORG in person , in either the written or oral proceedings . He could also designate a staff member of ORG to represent him , or could be represented by counsel authorized to practice in any country a member of the organization concerned ( LAW ORG ) . Oral proceedings were to be held if the presiding member so decided or if either party so requested and the presiding member agreed ( see LAW ORG ) .","If the ORG found that an application was well - founded , it had to order the rescinding of the decision contested . At the same time , it had to fix the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicant for the injury sustained should the Secretary - General decide , in the interests of the ORG , that the applicant should be compensated without further action being taken in his or her case . Such compensation should , as a rule , not exceed the equivalent of CARDINAL years\u2019 net base salary of the applicant ( see LAW ) .","In DATE the ORG Secretary - General established ORG on the ORG system of administration of justice ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) in reply to a request by ORG expressed in its resolution CARDINAL\/CARDINAL to establish a panel of external , independent experts to review and possibly redesign the system of administration of justice at ORG . ORG issued its report on DATE . The relevant parts of the report read as follows :","\u201c Summary","... ORG found that the ORG internal justice system is outmoded , dysfunctional and ineffective and that it lacks independence ...","II . Overview","ORG found that the administration of justice in ORG is neither professional nor independent . The system of administration of justice as it currently stands is extremely slow , underresourced , inefficient and , thus , ultimately ineffective . It fails to meet many basic standards of due process established in international human rights instruments ...","NORP ... establishing a professional system of internal justice is essential if ORG is to avoid the double standard \u2013 which currently exists \u2013 where the standards of justice that are now generally recognized internationally and that the ORG pursues in its programmatic activities are not met within the ORG or the funds and programmes themselves . These international standards include the right to a competent , independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of a person \u2019s rights , the right to appeal and the right to legal representation .","... Hearings , too , are a clear requirement in international standards whenever there are disputed issues of fact . ...","ORG The Formal system","A number of the difficulties within the formal justice system stem from the ORG and the jurisprudence of ORG . By LAW of its Statute , ORG may order specific performance . However , it is required at the same time to fix compensation ( normally limited to DATE net base salary ) , which the Secretary- General may decide to pay as an alternative if that is considered to be in the interests of the ORG . The power of the Secretary - General to choose between specific performance and the payment of limited compensation can , and sometimes does , result in inadequate compensation , particularly in cases of wrongful termination or non - renewal of contract . A system that can not guarantee adequate compensation or other appropriate remedy is fundamentally flawed . More significantly , a system that does not have authority to finally determine rights and appropriate remedies is inconsistent with the rule of law .","The decisions of ORG are not always consistent , and its jurisprudence is not well developed . In particular , it does not have a coherent jurisprudence as to the duties of an international organization to its staff . Thus , there is a widespread view , which is largely correct , that the formal justice system affords little , if any , protection of individual rights , such as the right to a safe and secure workplace or the right to be treated fairly and without discrimination .","VI . Legal representation","The Panel of Counsel , which was formally established in DATE and which has the responsibility to provide legal assistance and representation to ORG staff members in proceedings within the internal justice system , is extremely underresourced and is not professionalized . ...","ORG notes that legal assistance to the management of the ORG is undertaken not by volunteers without legal training , but by a cadre of professional lawyers in ORG and ORG . This disparity in legal resources available to the management and staff members has created an egregious inequality of arms in the internal justice system . \u201d","In DATE , based on the recommendations of ORG and acting on a proposal by the Secretary - General , ORG decided to introduce a new system for handling internal disputes and disciplinary matters in ORG . The new CARDINAL - tier judicial system with ORG and ORG became operational on DATE .","ORG has jurisdiction to deal with constitutional complaints which concern acts of a \u201c public authority \u201d ( see LAW no . CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW ) . Under ORG well - established case - law , this comprises not only acts of NORP public authorities , but also acts of supranational organisations which concern the beneficiaries of fundamental rights in GPE ( see , for instance , ORG , file no . CARDINAL , DATE , judgment of DATE , Collection of the decisions of ORG ) , vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ss . , CARDINAL s. ( GPE judgment ) ; file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , decision of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ( of the internet version ) ) .","However , ORG only exercises its jurisdiction over supranational acts of international organisations under the condition that the complainant sufficiently substantiated that the level of protection of fundamental rights by the international organisation was generally and manifestly below the level required by LAW ( see , for instance , ORG , file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , decision of CARDINAL DATE , BVerfGE , vol . DATE , pp . CARDINAL ss . , CARDINAL ( PERSON ) ; file no . CARDINAL BvL CARDINAL , decision of DATE , BVerfGE , vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ss . , CARDINAL ; file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , decision of DATE , \u00a7 \u00a7 QUANTITY ss . ; file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , decision of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","ORG decision of DATE ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) concerned the decision of ORG not to admit the applicant as a representative before that ORG as he had not passed the ability test .","The Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint . It found that the complaint was directed against an act of a \u201c public authority \u201d as the decision at issue had a direct effect on a beneficiary of fundamental rights in the NORP legal order .","However , the level of protection of fundamental rights guaranteed by LAW satisfied the requirements which had to be met under LAW in case of a transfer of sovereign powers . The applicant had failed to substantiate sufficiently that the level of human rights protection under LAW in respect of admissions as a representative was generally and manifestly below the level required by LAW . The same applied if a duty of protection on the part of the ORG was assumed as the applicant would also have been obliged to demonstrate that there was a structural lack of legal protection which ORG should have addressed . ORG therefore did not exercise its jurisdiction .","ORG decision of DATE ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u2013 the impugned decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL ) concerned ORG decision not to recruit the applicant .","ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint against ORG decision . It found that the complaint , in which the applicant had argued , in particular , that his constitutional right of access to court had been breached , was inadmissible . A constitutional complaint only lay against acts of a \u201c public authority \u201d and the applicant had failed to demonstrate that such an act was at issue in his case .","The Federal Constitutional Court confirmed that ORG had immunity from the jurisdiction of the domestic courts within the scope of its official activities under LAW . It further reiterated that acts of a \u201c public authority \u201d were not only acts of NORP ORG authorities . The term also covered acts of supranational authorities , such as ORG and its executive organ , ORG , which had an impact on the beneficiaries of fundamental rights in GPE .","However , the decision of the President of ORG here at issue could not be qualified as an act which had an impact on the beneficiaries of fundamental rights in GPE because it did not have any external legal effects within the NORP legal order . Measures relating to the relationship between the international organisation and its staff or candidates for posts , as a rule , only concerned the internal sphere of the organisation . This conclusion was not altered by the fact that the applicant was a NORP national living in GPE who , had he been employed , would have worked in GPE . The court conceded that the applicant \u2019s recruitment would have been an act of a supranational nature which , changing his legal status , would have had a concrete effect within the NORP legal order . The refusal to employ him did not , however , have such an effect . ORG jurisdiction did not extend to such internal measures .","The Federal Constitutional Court further found that in view of the inadmissibility of the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , it did not have to decide the question whether the level of protection in respect of staff issues within ORG complied with the standards set by LAW , which had to be observed in the event of a transfer of sovereign powers .","ORG decision of DATE ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) concerned the temporary denial of access of the complainants , staff members of ORG , to the internal e - mail system of that organisation .","ORG dismissed the complaint as inadmissible as it had not been shown that it concerned an act of a \u201c public authority \u201d . It stressed that such acts included acts of supranational organisations to which GPE had transferred sovereign powers and which had direct legal effects within the NORP legal order , that is , which altered the legal position of individuals within it . However , the impugned measure did not alter the ORG position in the NORP legal order . It further spoke against the existence of an act of a \u201c public authority \u201d that ORG enjoyed immunity from jurisdiction in respect of employment - law disputes .","Furthermore , as ORG had previously found ( it referred to its decision of DATE , file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , there could be a duty of protection incumbent on the State ( PERSON ) where the internal sphere of an international organisation was affected . In that sphere , legal protection could only be granted if the NORP legislature and ORG used means that were suitable for ensuring that any conditions within the intergovernmental organisation which were contrary to fundamental rights were removed . The failure of the NORP ORG authorities to take action in connection with the final decision on the impugned act would then constitute an act of a \u201c public authority \u201d .","The complainants had , however , failed to make any submissions in this respect . Just as in the sphere of an organisation \u2019s supranational powers , it was necessary for complainants to claim in a substantiated manner that there was a structural deficiency in legal protection within the organisation . ORG further noted that it had previously confirmed that the system of fundamental rights protection within LAW and in the proceedings before ORG generally complied with the standards of LAW ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142100","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MA\u013bINOVSKIS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr J\u0101nis Ma\u013cinovskis , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently detained in a prison in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent at the time , PERSON , and subsequently by PERSON .","The relevant facts , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","According to the ORG , on CARDINAL DATE , at QUANTITY p.m. according to the documents provided by the Government ) the duty prison officer GPE noticed a rope stretched between the window of the applicant \u2019s cell ( no . CARDINAL ) in LOC and FAC ( on DATE these prisons were merged into a single prison : FAC ( R\u012bgas centr\u0101lcietums ) ) . The rope was being used to pass a certain item between the buildings . GPE immediately ordered a search of cell no . CARDINAL .","The parties agreed that the search was carried out TIME and TIME","According to the ORG , prison wardens PERSON and PERSON commenced the search and ORG joined them shortly afterwards . The search was carried out in the presence of the applicant , who was the only inmate in the cell .","According to information received from ORG , ORG log recording special measures ( speci\u0101lo l\u012bdzek\u013cu pielieto\u0161anas protokolu re\u0123istr\u0101cijas \u017eurn\u0101ls ) did not indicate that any force or special measures had been applied to the applicant during the search .","The applicant alleged that the search had been brutal and that prison staff had inflicted injuries on him . Replying to the Government \u2019s observations , the applicant specified that his nose had been broken and had not healed properly , and that he had sustained bruises in the thorax and chest area and on the neck and face .","According to the record of the search , CARDINAL CDs , a slingshot and a rope had been confiscated . The applicant denied that the last CARDINAL items had been found in his cell .","The applicant complained to ORG , after the latter had joined prison wardens PERSON and PERSON , that he had been beaten . Immediately after the search ORG therefore ordered the applicant \u2019s medical examination by a doctor of FAC .","DATE , at TIME , a doctor , PERSON , noted that the applicant \u2019s health condition was satisfactory . The doctor did not record any injuries to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant complained to a governor of FAC . According to the applicant \u2019s written submission , on DATE his property had been stolen and he had been physically maltreated by being kicked and punched in the kidney area and still had pain in his kidneys . The applicant said that he would inform the media and commit suicide if the unlawful conduct continued .","The applicant \u2019s complaint was forwarded to ORG investigation division .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant completed a complaints form , addressed to ORG investigation division . He provided the following description of the events of CARDINAL DATE :","\u201c ... CARDINAL ... employees broke in . That may have been TIME [ The applicant ] does not know their names and it is difficult to give a physical description of them because , first , they were in uniforms [ and ] looked alike and , second , [ the applicant ] was in a state of shock . At first CARDINAL of the fattest started to hit [ the applicant ] ... after [ the applicant ] started shouting , started to strangle ... CARDINAL of the broad - shouldered [ ones ] hit [ the applicant ] on the torso , more on the sides ... [ the applicant ] would be able to identify them ... [ The applicant \u2019s ] beating could be heard in several cells : no . CARDINAL [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL [ S. ] and all the cell [ not visible on the copy ] ...","...","... at the doctor ... the doctor was writing something and without carefully looking at [ the applicant ] answered : \u2018 But I do not see anything.\u2019 Even though [ the applicant ] could see a swelling and a bruise on [ his ] left arm ... [ the applicant ] suspects that [ his ] nose was broken while [ he ] was being strangled between the beds because [ he ] heard the sound of a crack and started bleeding ... \u201d","The applicant also complained that some of his property had been unlawfully removed and damaged .","According to ORG notes from FAC , on DATE the applicant was re - examined by the prison doctor \u2019s assistant , ORG The applicant stated that he had sustained injuries on CARDINAL DATE during the search in cell no . CARDINAL and had pain in his ribs and nose . PERSON recorded that no visible injuries could be seen on the applicant . An X - ray was performed on the left side of the applicant \u2019s thorax and the bridge of his nose . On DATE a doctor , PERSON , recorded that the X - ray examination had not revealed any pathology .","The applicant , however , indicated that during the X - ray a doctor had asked him : \u201c When was your nose broken ? \u201d In his submissions to the ORG , the applicant said that , according to the X - ray , there had been a fracture \u201c that had been there a while ago \u201d . Yet , the applicant did not specify on what evidence he was relying in support of that contention .","In DATE , the LOC employees GPE , PERSON and PERSON gave their explanations ( paskaidrojumi ) . They submitted that no physical force had been applied to the applicant .","In DATE other prisoners provided their explanations .","NORP In particular , on CARDINAL DATE PERSON had heard the applicant shouting through the window that prison guards had been beating and strangling him . However , PERSON had neither heard nor seen the applicant being beaten . PERSON stated that he would not have been able to hear or see him because his cell was located far away from the applicant \u2019s cell . PERSON was in cell no . CARDINAL , which was on the second floor , and the applicant \u2019s cell was on the fourth floor .","Another inmate , PERSON declared that his cell , no . CARDINAL , was located beneath the applicant \u2019s cell . On CARDINAL DATE S.B. had been listening to music . He had just heard some noise in the cell above . He could not affirm that the applicant had been beaten or had been screaming . In the evening PERSON had heard the applicant shouting through the window that prison guards had beaten him .","According to the written submissions of CARDINAL other inmates from the neighbouring cell , no . CARDINAL , they had not heard anything on CARDINAL DATE . With regard to the individuals detained in cell no . CARDINAL , however , the applicant submitted to the ORG that they had said that they had heard a noise and the applicant \u2019s shouts about being beaten . However , the applicant did not specify on what evidence he was relying to that effect .","On DATE the head of FAC investigation division , GPE , refused to institute criminal proceedings . Reference was made to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( no grounds on which to institute criminal proceedings ) and section ORG ) ( no crime committed ) .","I.P. \u2019s conclusions of DATE on the internal investigation referred to the applicant \u2019s allegations and noted that the following had been established :","\u201c On DATE at TIME ... [ GPE ] saw a rope between FAC cell no . CARDINAL and FAC ... a certain item was being transmitted ... [ ORG ] ordered that ... [ PERSON ] immediately carry out a search of cell no . CARDINAL , where [ the applicant ] was being held ...","The search of cell no . CARDINAL was carried out on CARDINAL DATE at TIME by [ PERSON ] and [ I.R. ] in [ the applicant \u2019s ] presence . After the search in cell no . CARDINAL had commenced [ GPE ] arrived and the search was continued in his presence ...","...","As [ the applicant ] complained to [ ORG ] that he had been beaten , immediately after the search he was taken to a duty doctor , who examined [ the applicant ] and did not establish any bodily injuries .","...","On DATE [ the applicant ] ... was referred for a further examination by a doctor , who carried out an X - ray ; however no bodily injuries were recorded ( ORG notes of CARDINAL DATE [ and ] DATE ) .","...","In the course of the internal investigation explanations were collected from the detainees in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , [ ORG ] and [ S.B. ] , who explained that they could not confirm that in TIME of CARDINAL DATE prison employees had beaten up the detainee in cell no . CARDINAL [ the applicant ] ...","Accordingly , the materials gathered during the internal investigation have not confirmed the [ allegation ] that ... [ the applicant ] had been beaten during the search ... ... [ the applicant \u2019s ] allegations in his submissions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE are false ... \u201d","On DATE , the applicant appealed to the prosecution against the aforementioned decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing to institute criminal proceedings . The applicant argued , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] has grounds to believe that in the course of the inquiry persons favourable to the administration , who protect the interests of the administrative employees ( secret employees ) , were called from the adjacent cells and [ the applicant ] has grounds to believe that detainees who could testify truthfully were not questioned . [ Furthermore ] , as there were no physical traces by the time of the inquiry , independent doctors were not invited to conduct an examination ... \u201d","The applicant also complained that his CARDINAL CDs had been stolen .","On DATE a prosecutor , PERSON , upheld the refusal to institute criminal proceedings . The prosecutor noted that statements had been collected in the course of the internal investigation from persons named by the applicant . They had not confirmed that the applicant had been beaten . Nor did the medical documentation establish any injuries . Accordingly , PERSON concluded that the internal investigation had been thorough and impartial and that there had been no violations .","On DATE the applicant challenged that decision before a higher - ranking prosecutor . The applicant complained with respect to his CARDINAL CDs . He noted , without providing further details , that injuries had been inflicted on him .","A higher - ranking prosecutor , GPE , replied on DATE . She noted that all the material had been analysed again and found that the previous prosecutor had drawn a lawful conclusion .","On DATE the applicant contested GPE \u2019s finding . He alleged that the prosecutor had covered up the unlawful acts of the prison administration . He stated , further , that it was practically impossible to prove violence against an inmate in a place of detention . The applicant further alleged that the taking of his CDs had constituted theft .","On DATE another prosecutor , ORG found that prosecutor GPE had examined the material collected by ORG investigation division and had duly investigated the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . ORG therefore upheld the refusal to institute criminal proceedings . That decision was final .","In a separate set of criminal proceedings , on an unspecified date , the applicant was ordered to undergo a forensic medical examination to assess his injuries .","Section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON likums ) , as in force at the material time , provided that ORG ( \u201c the MADEKKI \u201d ) was responsible for controlling the professional quality of health care in medical establishments .","The provisions of the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) ( PERSON apr\u016bpes un darbsp\u0113jas ekspert\u012bzes kvalit\u0101tes kontroles inspekcijas nolikums ) , in force from DATE until DATE , read with respect to the PERSON as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The ORG has the following functions :","to control the professional quality of medical care ... in medical institutions ...","...","The ORG , in order to fulfill its functions , has the following tasks :","to conduct assessments ( ekspert\u012bzes ) and give reports ( atzinumus ) on the quality of medical care ... in a medical institution ...","...","to control compliance with legislation binding upon medical institutions in the area of medical care ...","...","to issue , where provided for by legislation , administrative acts ( administrat\u012bvais akts ) in the area of medical care ...","to examine submissions ( iesniegumus ) by persons in the area of medical care ...","... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157509","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF M\u00dcD\u00dcR DUMAN v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;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)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was the director of the ORG district branch of ORG ) in GPE at the time of the events giving rise to the application .","On DATE a number of trade unions organised a demonstration in GPE . During the demonstration , some participants carried signs and chanted slogans in support of PERSON , the leader of the ORG ( ORG ) , an illegal armed organisation . These demonstrators were identified by the police as members of HADEP .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG applied for a warrant to search the offices of CARDINAL branches of HADEP to obtain incriminating evidence concerning the ORG .","On DATE ORG issued a search warrant .","That same evening police officers from the GPE police headquarters conducted a search of the ORG branch office of ORG . The search protocol , which was signed by the applicant , indicated that illegal publications and flags and symbols of the ORG had been found there , together with pictures , articles and books pertaining to PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the GPE police headquarters for questioning . The police officers informed the applicant of his right under LAW ) of the former LAW to request a lawyer . However , the applicant did not ask for a lawyer . In his statement , the applicant contended that , although he was the director of the ORG district office of ORG , he was not always present at the office and that he had not been aware of the existence of the pictures and symbols regarding PERSON and the ORG found in the office . He similarly denied responsibility for the illegal publications and books which had been found on the LOC , which he claimed had been brought in by publishers or other persons visiting the office without his knowledge . He claimed that whenever he came across similar pictures and symbols , he requested their removal . This statement was signed by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by the GPE public prosecutor , to whom he repeated the statement he had previously made to the police . The applicant also waived his right to request a lawyer before the public prosecutor .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant , charging him with praising and condoning acts punishable by law under LAW of the former LAW .","On DATE ORG held the first hearing . At the end of the hearing , to which the applicant attended , the court decided to hold the next hearing on DATE .","On DATE , at the second hearing , the GPE public prosecutor presented his opinion ( esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaa ) to the firstinstance court in the absence of the applicant . In his opinion , the public prosecutor advised that the court should find the applicant guilty as charged . ORG accordingly convicted the applicant at the end of the hearing , and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and a fine of CARDINAL old NORP liras ( GPE ) . In its judgment the domestic court held that the applicant \u2019s defence lacked credibility and that the display of symbols and pictures pertaining to the ORG and PERSON in the party building amounted to the offence of praising and condoning acts punishable by law .","Through his lawyer the applicant appealed against this judgment . He claimed that he had not been duly reminded of his right to request a lawyer under LAW during his questioning . He further argued that he had missed the hearing as he was delayed in traffic and the firstinstance court had taken its decision in his absence without giving him the opportunity to defend himself against the allegations of the public prosecutor .","On DATE ORG quashed the fine imposed , but upheld the remainder of the judgment . On DATE this decision was deposited with the registry of the first - instance court .","On DATE the applicant started serving his sentence . On CARDINAL DATE he was released on parole ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146385","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SZ\u00c9L AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 13+10-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General};Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE and live in GPE , GPE and ORG , respectively .","At the material time , the applicants were members of ORG and the opposition party LMP .","On DATE ORG held a final vote on a new law , PERSON . T\/CARDINAL on ORG and ORG . The legislative proposal was quite controversial and generated intense reactions among opposition members . In protest during the final vote on the bill , PERSON placed a small , golden wheelbarrow filled with soil on the table in front of the Prime Minister , while PERSON and PERSON stretched a banner containing the inscription \u201c Land distribution instead of land robbery ! \u201d in front of the Speaker \u2019s pulpit ; meanwhile , PERSON used a megaphone to speak . She had previously delivered CARDINAL speeches during the detailed debate and CARDINAL speech during the final debate on the bill , filing CARDINAL amending motions , and introduced CARDINAL amending proposals just before the final vote .","On DATE the Speaker presented a proposal to fine PERSON and PERSON respectively MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) and PERSON DATE ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for having seriously disrupted the plenary proceedings , in application of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Act no . ORG of DATE on ORG .","The Speaker proposed that the maximum fine ( a third of their DATE remuneration ) was to be applied , given the extraordinary situation that had developed during the voting process . The reason given by the Speaker was that the applicants had gravely disrupted the plenary \u2019s work by displaying their poster and using a megaphone .","A decision approving the proposal of the Speaker was adopted by the plenary on DATE , without a debate .","A constitutional complaint was filed , concerning a sanction for disruptive conduct , by MP ORG , a member of the opposition party ORG , and rejected by ORG on DATE ( decision ORG . DATE . ( XI.CARDINAL . ) ORG and DATE . ( XI.CARDINAL . ) ORG ) ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG found that MP PERSON had been fined under sections DATE ) and ( CARDINAL ) , PERSON ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) DATE rather than section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) \u2013 of Act no . XXXVI of DATE on ORG . It held in particular that the restrictions imposed on him for conduct falling under the above provisions DATE that is , \u201c gravely offensive expression \u201d \u2013 were in compliance with LAW . His complaint in respect of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) was rejected because this provision , concerning \u201c gravely offensive conduct \u201d , was not applicable in that case .","ORG went on to observe that there was no remedy available to that complainant against the measure .","Lastly , ORG held that parliamentary disciplinary law concerned ORG \u2019s interior business and the MPs\u2019 conduct as parliamentarians , rather than ORG rights or obligations ; and that therefore no requirement of a remedy against a parliamentary disciplinary measure could be deduced from Article XXVIII(CARDINAL ) of LAW ."],"violated_articles":["10","13"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173379","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TSIBAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140004","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF ROMANIAN JUDGES AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu B\u00eersan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["On DATE the applicant association lodged an application with ORG , seeking to be granted legal personality and to be registered as an association in ORG kept by that court .","According to its ORG , the founders of the applicant association were the other CARDINAL applicants . ORG had CARDINAL members , while PERSON was designated as the President of the Association .","In support of its application , the applicant association appended a document issued by ORG confirming that the name chosen for the association was available , as well as a copy of its Memorandum ( act constitutiv ) and ORG ( statut ) , which , in their relevant parts , read :","\u201c The goal of the association is to protect the rights and the legitimate interests of its members before all domestic authorities with the capacity to administer , supervise and\/or enact justice .","The objectives of the association are :","- to support and promote the relationship between its members and those authorised by law to protect their rights and interests ;","- to monitor the activity of the NORP justice system with the aim of reporting to the relevant authorities any injustice , irregularities or illegalities committed by NORP judges ;","- to present in the media any cases of manifest unfairness or bias in the application of the law , in so far as the public has the right to be aware of any negative aspects of the activities of the NORP justice system ;","- to support its members in their undertakings before any international court ;","- to organise any form of protest ( marches , public gatherings , picketing ) , with prior authorisation from the authorities and in accordance with the law ;","- to signal the gravity and the public danger represented by an non - impartial or an incompetent judicial system ;","- to create a database of all cases involving its members that are pending before the authorities ;","- to cooperate with the legislative bodies by providing them with ideas , projects , proposals , etc . with the aim of improving the functioning of the NORP judicial system . \u201d","On DATE the court rejected the application , holding that the goal of the applicant association was in breach of LAW of LAW , which states that \u201c an organisation which , by its aims or activity , militates against political pluralism , the principles of a ORG governed by the rule of law , or against the sovereignty , integrity or independence of GPE shall be unconstitutional \u201d . The court noted as follows :","\u201c In its ORG , the applicant [ association ] starts from the premise that a group of individuals who consider themselves victims of judges \u2013 as a result of having had their own cases brought before the judicial authorities \u2013 want to form an association which would promote their interests , notably by using any legal means for publicising any alleged injustice , irregularity or illegality , and also by lawfully protesting against all of these aspects .","Such a premise , also implicit in the name of the association , is profoundly unconstitutional in that a group of individuals is stating proprio motu that a judgment can be unfair or irregular or an expression of illegality . All these aspects encourage non - compliance with courts\u2019 judgments and represent a form of attack on CARDINAL of the ORG \u2019s powers , namely the judiciary . ( ... )","The infringement is prescribed by law ... in so far as the association is not constitutional because of its aims .","The measure aims to protect public order and the rights of others . ( ... )","The measure is necessary in so far as the image of the justice system is currently a matter of national interest , and any attack on the courts is therefore an issue of particular gravity which justifies the refusal to grant legal personality to an association that wants to promote an unfavourable image of justice , in the light of the fact that none of its members has the authority to note ( calitatea s\u01ce constate ) any \u201c injustice , irregularity or illegality committed by the judges \u201d because it is only the ORG authorities appointed to make inquiries in that regard which have jurisdiction to pronounce a conclusion on such matters . \u201d","The court did not consider it necessary to give the applicant association the opportunity to remedy the impugned irregularity by modifying its ORG , as prescribed by LAW no . CARDINAL , in so far as it considered that any modification of the aims of the applicant association rendering it constitutional would alter the very essence of the association .","NORP The applicant association appealed against the judgment before ORG . It stressed that , according to its ORG , all the association \u2019s activities had to be conducted in compliance with the law and its aim could therefore not be regarded as unconstitutional .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , upholding the reasoning given by the first - instance court . The court referred also to the provisions in the applicant association \u2019s ORG , according to which ORG was competent to accept or reject a membership request on the basis of its own assessment of whether or not the aspiring member was a victim of a breach of his or her rights in a trial before a judge . Such competence was unlawful in so far as the ORG thus exercised a form of discretion in assessing whether there were breaches of rights , legitimate interests and\/or law by the judges . In claiming to have such competence , ORG was attempting to usurp the domestic and international institutions empowered to make such assessments , which was unconstitutional , illegitimate and unlawful .","Furthermore , the court held that the ORG did not comply with legal requirements concerning the disposal of the association \u2019s assets in the event of its dissolution . The ORG prescribed that \u201c in event of dissolution , the disposal of the assets would be decided by ORG , in compliance with the provisions of LAW , while the law , namely article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL g ) of the LAW \u201c required that the procedure should be set down in the ORG itself \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158141","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ARAPOVI\u0106 v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He was detained in the remand section of GPE prison from DATE to DATE .","He was held in cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . For CARDINAL days he was held therein with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space and for DATE he was held therein with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space . For DATE he shared the cell with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space .","The cell for CARDINAL detainees , where the applicant was held , was equipped with CARDINAL bunk beds with a total of CARDINAL sleeping places , CARDINAL large and CARDINAL small table , CARDINAL chairs and a set of cupboards for each of the detainees . Detainees could freely open or close windows in cells . On DATE bed was removed .","As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the remand section of GPE prison , material conditions inside the cells and sanitary conditions , see the judgment in PERSON and PERSON GPE , nos . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","As to the out - of - cell time in the remand section , the ORG found in the aforementioned judgment that detainees in the remand section were confined to their cells day and night , save for DATE outdoor exercise , and TIME in a recreation room ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 MONEY ) . According to the information supplied by the Government in the present case , on CARDINAL DATE the time spent outdoors was extended to TIME and a half per day and in DATE the outside yard was covered by a roof .","As regards the cell temperature , the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in TIME ( TIME ) in DATE and DATE had been CARDINAL , exceeding CARDINAL on DATE and in DATE and DATE it had been CARDINALoC , exceeding CARDINAL on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179232","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF D.L. v. AUSTRIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kosovo);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kosovo)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE , lives in GPE since DATE and is currently in detention pending extradition at FAC .","The application concerns proceedings for extradition from GPE to GPE , which have the following background :","S.Lu . is the former husband of the applicant \u2019s sister , ORG In the course of an argument on DATE , ORG . stabbed the applicant in the chest . On DATE . was convicted in GPE of attempted intentional homicide ( versuchter Totschlag ) committed in a comprehensible state of emotion ( in einer allgemein begreiflichen heftigen GPE ) under ORG DATE of LAW ) and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The applicant testified as a witness during that trial .","After GPE . was released from prison in DATE , the applicant \u2019s sister reported him to the police for having repeatedly raped her during their marriage , and for threatening to kill her and her family . Out of fear of her husband , she changed her and her children \u2019s names . An order to determine S.Lu . \u2019s whereabouts ( PERSON ) was issued by the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office in DATE and is in effect until DATE .","On the basis of an international arrest warrant issued by ORG ( GPE ) on DATE and DATE , the applicant was apprehended and taken into detention pending extradition by a decision of ORG ( Straflandesgericht Wien \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the Criminal Court \u201d ) of DATE . On DATE ORG of GPE requested the applicant \u2019s extradition . According to the arrest warrant , the applicant was suspected of aggravated murder under LAW in conjunction with LAW . He had allegedly ordered ORG in DATE to murder PERSON . ( his former brother - in - law ) for a payment of MONEY ( ORG ) . On DATE PERSON fired gunshots at a car in the vicinity of the intended victim PERSON . , but instead killed DATE . , ORG . \u2019s cousin .","During the extradition proceedings , the applicant alleged that he had nothing to do with the murder in GPE . He claimed that the accusations had been invented by GPE . as revenge for the applicant \u2019s having testified against him during the criminal proceedings in GPE . Furthermore , the \u201c PERSON . clan \u201d ( the family of GPE . ) was very influential in GPE and had connections to the highest Government officials and the justice authorities there , which is why the applicant could not expect a fair trial in that jurisdiction . In addition , the conditions of detention in GPE prisons were deplorable and would amount to torture , inhuman and degrading treatment . Because of the threat emanating from GPE . and his family , the applicant would have to fear for his life there . They could easily get to him in prison by using their connections .","On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG declared the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE permissible . It held that during the extradition proceedings , the court was not called on to examine whether the applicant was guilty or innocent , but merely to assess whether there was enough evidence to raise suspicions against him , which according to the documents submitted by the GPE authorities was the case . None of the evidence offered by the applicant had been capable of dispelling these suspicions immediately and without doubt , as would have been required by section ORG ) of ORG ( Auslieferungs- und Rechtshilfegesetz \u2013 hereinafter \u201c LAW \u201d ) . The fact that GPE . had been convicted of attempted intentional homicide in DATE and the allegation that he wanted to take revenge on the applicant did not dispell the suspicion either . Furthermore , the court remarked that GPE . \u2019s cousin had actually been killed , which called into question the applicant \u2019s theory of that being a contrived story . It could equally be argued that the applicant had wanted to take revenge on GPE . for stabbing him . Concerning the applicant \u2019s fear for his life in GPE , the court stated that the mere possibility of inhuman or degrading treatment did not suffice . The applicant had failed to adduce specific evidence of an actual , individual threat of treatment contrary to LAW . Furthermore , in case of extradition to a member state of the LAW , the responsibility of the extraditing state was limited , as the person concerned could seek protection against a violation of the LAW in the receiving state .","On DATE the applicant appealed . He submitted that if extradited to GPE , he risked treatment contrary to LAW , because PERSON . PERSON wished to take revenge on him . In fact , PERSON . PERSON . , a very influential member of that clan , was detained at PERSON prison and following extradition to GPE , he would be detained at that prison as well . Security in prison in GPE was a problem , as prisoners became frequently victims of aggression , and he would therefore also risk to become the victim of an assault .","On DATE ORG ( GPE hereinafter \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It confirmed ORG finding that the applicant had failed to substantiate a real and individual risk of being subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment , or that the GPE authorities would not be able to protect him from third , private parties . Furthermore , members of the allegedly influential PERSON . clan were themselves imprisoned in GPE . In particular , on DATE . was convicted in GPE for issuing a dangerous threat against the applicant , which demonstrated that the GPE authorities were indeed capable of taking adequate measures to protect the applicant . Moreover , the PERSON . clan could not be that influential if it was not capable of keeping its own members out of prison . Concerning the conditions of detention , the court held that the report on GPE by ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the CPT \u201d ) of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) did not state that ill - treatment was the rule in GPE prisons , but that there were merely sporadic incidents of violence . The mere possibility of ill - treatment by prison officers did not suffice to stop the applicant \u2019s extradition . In relation to the material conditions of detention in FAC , where the applicant alleged he would most likely be held if extradited , ORG again quoted the above - mentioned ORG report of DATE , where it was found that inmates were able to move freely within that facility during DATE and could exercise outside on a DATE basis for DATE , and that fitness and computer rooms have recently been installed .","On DATE the NORP Federal Minister of Justice ( NORP ) approved the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE .","On DATE the applicant requested that the ORG indicate to ORG to stay his extradition to GPE under LAW . He complained under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention that he would run the risk of torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or even death , as the PERSON . clan wanted to take revenge on him and the GPE authorities were not willing or able to afford him protection .","On DATE the ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the applicant lodged applications for the reopening ( PERSON ) of the extradition proceedings and a stay of the extradition with ORG . He produced a certified declaration by PERSON , who had retracted his previous confession to the police that the applicant had ordered the murder of GPE . He asserted that he had been tortured by the GPE police during his questioning and had been pressured into blaming the applicant for ordering the murder . L.Q. alleged that he had fallen unconscious several times because of the \u201c mental and physical torture \u201d . L.Q. averred that he did not even know the applicant in person . The applicant further submitted into evidence several sworn statements from family members and friends , who attested that his life was in danger in GPE because of threats from GPE . and his clan .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s applications . It held that in accordance with section ORG ) of LAW , the applicant had failed to adduce evidence which would have been capable of immediately dispelling the suspicion against him raised in the extradition request . PERSON \u2019s declaration did not constitute objective evidence and did not indicate any violations in GPE of the applicant \u2019s rights under the ORG either . The applicant appealed .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for a renewal ( GPE ) of the extradition proceedings with ORG under Article PERSON of LAW ( Strafprozessordnung \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , requesting suspensive effect at the same time .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application . It found that the new evidence the applicant had produced in the proceedings before it were a matter for the pending reopening proceedings , not for requesting a renewal of the extradition proceedings . In relation to the alleged violations of ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention in the event of his extradition , ORG found that mere allegations referencing general reports on the human rights situation were not capable of substantiating a real and immediate risk to the applicant under these provisions . Furthermore , ORG held that the applicant did not have a right under the law to request suspensive effect , which is why that request had to be rejected .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court found that the applicant had failed to produce objective evidence which would have indicated a real and immediate risk of treatment contrary to LAW if extradited to GPE and therefore would have warranted a reopening of the extradition proceedings . While the sworn statement by ORG in principle raised doubts in relation to the suspicions against the applicant , it had not constituted the only evidence against him . More pertinent had been the fact that , during the criminal proceedings against ORG in GPE , a microcassette had been put into evidence by GPE . which had allegedly contained a conversation confirming his statements that the applicant had been to blame for the murder . In addition , ORG \u2019s initial incriminating statements against the applicant had been made in the presence of his lawyer . Moreover , PERSON had not specified what exactly the police had allegedly done to him , which had made it impossible to evaluate whether the alleged treatment had actually amounted to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment . ORG reiterated that it was in any event for the GPE courts to evaluate the evidence against the applicant . In sum , it confirmed that the statement by ORG was not capable of immediately dispelling the suspicion against the applicant on which the extradition request was based . Lastly , ORG found that despite not being ORG to ORG , LAW granted the Convention direct effect under and superiority to national law , therefore domestic law equally offered protection from violations of the LAW . ORG decision to dismiss the applicant \u2019s appeal was served on his counsel on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164938","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"C.M.M. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a national of GPE ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) who was born in DATE . He is currently living in the GPE . He was initially represented before the ORG by Ms M. de Boer , a lawyer practising in GPE . She was succeeded by PERSON PERSON , who is also a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , and Deputy Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant entered the GPE and applied for asylum , fearing persecution within the meaning of the DATE LAW ( \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) . On DATE , the immigration authorities held a first interview ( eerste gehoor ) with the applicant concerning his identity , nationality and travel itinerary . A written record of this interview was prepared and the applicant , assisted by a lawyer , was given the opportunity to submit corrections and additions , which he did on DATE . On DATE a second interview ( nader gehoor ) was held with the applicant about his reasons for seeking asylum . A written report was drawn up and the applicant , assisted by a lawyer , submitted corrections and additions on DATE .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) issued a notice of her intention ( voornemen ) to reject the applicant \u2019s asylum application . On DATE , assisted by a lawyer , the applicant submitted written comments ( zienswijze ) on the notice of intent .","On DATE , on the basis of his written comments of CARDINAL DATE , the immigration authorities held a supplementary interview ( aanvullend gehoor ) with the applicant . A written report of this interview was drawn up and the applicant , assisted by a lawyer , submitted corrections and additions on DATE .","During these CARDINAL interviews , the applicant gave the following statement . He was a national of the ORG . His parents had died . He was married but his wife had remained in the ORG together with their CARDINAL children , who were born DATE . He also had CARDINAL brothers and CARDINAL sister , all of whom were living in the ORG . He gave the address of his home ( N. street no . ... in the N\u2019djili borough of GPE ) and described the surroundings of the house where he had lived for DATE . He stated that it was near to a nameless football field located at PERSON or PERSON street , and that there was a protestant school on the opposite side of the street . Behind this school there was a street without a name and he had lived in a side street of this nameless street . For identification purposes , he provided the GPE authorities with a formal declaration of loss of identity documents ( attestation de perte des pi\u00e8ces d\u2019identit\u00e9 ) bearing the number CARDINAL , which had been issued on DATE by the mayor of CARDINAL of the GPE boroughs and contained the applicant \u2019s particulars \u2212 including his personal address \u2212 but no specification of the nature of the identity documents lost . For the same purpose , he submitted a work pass issued by the \u201c ORG du Zaire \u201d on DATE and valid until DATE and attesting that the applicant was working as a loadmaster in the employment of ORG . Although the street name of the applicant \u2019s personal address in this work pass was the same as that on the declaration of loss of documents , the house number was not the same .","The applicant also stated that , since DATE , he had been a sympathiser of the Movement for the Liberation of the GPE ( ORG du GPE ; hereafter \u201c MLC \u201d ) . He often read ORG information material but never participated in public events such as demonstrations or party meetings . DATE he had worked as a ticket agent for ORG . DATE until leaving the GPE , he had worked as a ground handling manager \/ loadmaster for ORG , which entailed checking in and boarding passengers , carrying out ground - crew tasks and drawing up flight manifests .","In DATE or DATE the applicant and his NORP superior had been arrested by CARDINAL officers of the ORG national police on a charge of allowing passengers with false papers onto a departing aircraft . After being held for DATE in the civilian prison in the NORP borough of GPE , near to ORG , and following intervention by his employer , he had been released unconditionally . He had been beaten whilst in detention .","On DATE the applicant had been arrested for a second time by CARDINAL men who showed him passes identifying them as officers of the ORG military intelligence service ( GPE militaire des activit\u00e9s anti - patrie ; hereafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) . He was accused of helping CARDINAL passengers \u2012 who were believed to have been involved in an attack on President PERSON \u2012 to flee the country rather than reporting them to the immigration service . The applicant had denied the accusation ; it had not been his task to guide passengers to or through immigration checks . He had been detained in a military subterranean prison which , he believed , was located in the NORP borough of GPE . On DATE of his detention , the applicant \u2019s home had been searched , during which CARDINAL ORG pamphlets had been found . His passport had also been found and seized during this search . As a result of the severe maltreatment he had suffered during his detention , in DATE the applicant had been admitted to the NORP military hospital for treatment . His wife had been allowed to visit him in hospital once at DATE . On that occasion she had given him a Bible in which some money and his identity papers had been concealed . With the help of a friend of his brother - in - law \u2019s , the applicant had managed to escape at DATE . CARDINAL soldiers had taken him from the hospital to a house in a place near GPE . On DATE he had been taken to GPE airport and on DATE had managed to flee the ORG by plane .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG issued a fresh notice of her intention to reject the applicant \u2019s asylum application . On DATE , assisted by a lawyer , the applicant submitted written comments on the new notice of intent .","NORP In a decision of DATE , the Deputy Minister rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum application . On DATE , the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with ORG of The Hague .","On DATE the applicant submitted , as additional grounds of appeal , a copy of a summons which he had received only on that date , although it had been issued on DATE by the ORG judicial police ( police judiciaire des parquets ) of ORG of the DRC State Security Court ( Parquet g\u00e9n\u00e9ral pr\u00e8s la ORG ) . It ordered the applicant to present himself on DATE before a named inspector of the judicial police in order to be questioned about \u201c facts of which he would be informed \u201d .","The applicant also submitted on DATE a report commissioned by \u201c GPE \u201d , a non - governmental organisation ( NGO ) in the GPE , which had been compiled by another NGO , namely ORG hereafter the \u201c PERSON \u201d ) . The author of the PERSON report was the president of ORG PERSON , Reverend PERSON . For the purposes of this report the researcher(s ) had visited the applicant \u2019s address in GPE \u2212 as given in the record of his first interview and on the declaration of loss of identity documents ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) \u2212 and N\u2019djili ( GPE ) FAC . They had interviewed a former secretary at ORG , amongst others , and had sought information from CARDINAL people working for ORG . The report confirmed , in its relevant part , that the applicant had worked for ORG at GPE airport , that he had been arrested by the FAC on the grounds stated , and that he had lived at the address he had provided . The report also stated that ORG had had to cease its activities at GPE airport for various reasons including the failure to respect airport rules and procedures , fraudulently embarking passengers , and \u201c above all for that manifesto matter \u201d ( \u201c surtout pour cette affaire de manifeste \u201d ) . It also states that the applicant \u2019s wife had left for an unknown destination . Through their sources at ORG , the researcher(s ) confirmed that the applicant was wanted for endangering state security ( \u201c Monsieur [ PERSON ] est recherch\u00e9 par les services de s\u00e9curit\u00e9 pour des motifs gr\u00e2ves d\u2019attente [ sic ] \u00e0 la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 de l\u2019\u00e9tat \u201d ) , that the person who signed the summons was indeed an inspector for ORG and that the applicant would be immediately arrested and detained if found .","On DATE , the applicant was informed that the impugned decision of CARDINAL DATE had been withdrawn and a fresh decision would be taken .","On DATE the applicant was informed that ORG was initiating an investigation in the ORG in response to the material the applicant had submitted in support of his asylum request .","On DATE ORG released a person - specific official report ( individueel ambtsbericht ) based on an investigation carried out in the ORG . It had been found , inter alia , that \u2013 contrary to the PERSON report \u2013 the street name given by the applicant as his home address during his first interview as also on his declaration of loss of identity documents did not exist in the GPE borough where he had allegedly been living during DATE in the ORG and that , for this reason , it had not been possible to verify whether the applicant \u2019s spouse and\/or other relatives were still living there . It had also become apparent that the declaration of loss of identity documents no . CARDINAL\/POP\/CARDINAL and the summons submitted by the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) were forgeries , and it had not been possible to verify the authenticity of the work pass submitted by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Moreover , in so far as known , there was no subterranean prison attached to the ORG office in the NORP borough in GPE and no military hospital existed in GPE .","On DATE the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON ; hereafter \u201c the Minister \u201d ) issued a fresh notice of intent rejecting the applicant \u2019s asylum request . Observing that the applicant had not submitted any evidential material ( such as a boarding pass , a luggage label , an in - flight magazine or other in - flight item bearing the name of the airline ) attesting to his journey , that he had not submitted any documents in support of his asylum application and that he had provided only very cursory information about his periods of detention and hospitalisation , and having noted the content of the personspecific official report of DATE , the Minister concluded that there were sufficiently persuasive arguments for attaching no credence to the applicant \u2019s asylum statement .","On DATE , under the provisions of ORG ( PERSON ) , the applicant requested that the documents underlying the person - specific official report of DATE be disclosed . This request was transmitted to the Minister of ORG on DATE .","On DATE , assisted by a lawyer , the applicant submitted written comments on the fresh notice of intent of CARDINAL DATE . He contested the findings set out in the person - specific official report , whilst pointing out that the non - disclosure of the documents underlying that report and of the working methods employed by the person(s ) involved in the inquiry meant that he could do so to only a limited extent . The applicant also requested a reasonable extension to the DATE period allowed for the submission of additional written comments , as he had requested ORG to commission a new expert report to counter ORG Affairs\u2019 person - specific official report . He therefore asked the Minister to stay her decision pending submission of this counter - report .","On DATE the Minister of ORG provided the applicant with the documents on which the person - specific official report had been based , at the same time restricting his access to certain parts of the documents containing information about the identity of agents or informants who had assisted in the investigation , information about investigation methods and techniques used , and information about their level of knowledge ( so as to avoid facilitating an improvement in the quality of forgeries ) .","In her decision of DATE the Minister rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum application . She noted that on DATE the applicant had requested an extension in order to allow GPE to produce a report to counter the person - specific official report and that this request had been granted on DATE . She also noted that , by letters dated DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , the applicant had been asked to indicate when submission of the counter - report could be expected and that neither the applicant nor his lawyer had been able to answer this question . Finding that the applicant had had ample time to submit his comments on the person - specific official report , the Minister decided to proceed with her decision . The Minister took into account the fact that ORG Affairs\u2019 inquiry had been based on the applicant \u2019s submissions , including the PERSON report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and DATE following the so - called \u201c REK check \u201d ( see D.T. v. the GPE and GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) \u2013 it had been found that the person - specific official report had been drawn up with due care , both substantively and procedurally , and was comprehensible . The Minister also found that the applicant had submitted no evidence capable of casting doubt on the finding that the declaration of loss of identity documents no . CARDINAL and the summons submitted by the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY above ) were forgeries and once again concluded that no credence could be attached to the applicant \u2019s asylum statement .","On DATE , the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with ORG of The Hague and , on DATE , submitted a report commissioned by ORG which had been published on DATE by the NGO Comit\u00e9 pour la Democratie et les ORG ( hereafter the \u201c CDDH \u201d ) . The author of the CDDH report was its Secretary - General , Mr PERSON . For the purposes of compiling the report , he had managed to contact the applicant \u2019s spouse as well as some people working at FAC who had known the applicant when he was an employee of ORG .","NORP The applicant \u2019s spouse had explained that the street address given by the applicant was in fact a path across a cemetery . According to information provided by ORG ) , illegal dwellings had been built around the cemetery and that was where the applicant and his spouse had lived . When visiting the cemetery in DATE , the applicant \u2019s spouse had been unable to orientate herself as a result of major rebuilding work carried out in the neighbourhood after DATE , when the local authorities had decided to transform the cemetery into a residential area . This transformation was confirmed in an appended written statement by the local neighbourhood leader ( chef de quartier ) . The applicant \u2019s spouse had also stated that , together with some ORG employees , she had visited the applicant in the NORP medical centre at TIME in DATE . For his part , the applicant submitted written statements by CARDINAL individuals working in the airline industry , who all declared that they had personally known the applicant , confirmed that he had worked for ORG and described the nature of his work for the airline . The report drawn up by the CDDH does not contain any information about the declaration of loss of identity documents or the summons of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","ORG of The GPE sitting in \u2018 s - Hertogenbosch found on DATE that the restrictions applied to the applicant \u2019s access to the underlying documents ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were justified under section CARDINAL:CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) . This decision was communicated to the applicant on DATE , with a request to indicate whether or not he had given his consent for ORG to take into account these underlying documents in determining his appeal on DATE without their being disclosed to the parties .","In its judgment of DATE , ORG of The GPE sitting in \u2018 s - Hertogenbosch rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal of DATE . It noted that the parties had given their consent under the terms of section CARDINAL:CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW to take into account the documents underlying the person - specific official report of DATE . It held , inter alia , that the Minister could reasonably find that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the absence of documents supporting his asylum statement was not a shortcoming for which he was to blame , and that the Minister could reasonably held against the applicant the fact that he had not provided a detailed and verifiable statement about his purported travel itinerary and that this detracted from the reliability and credibility of the applicant \u2019s asylum statement . As regards the CARDINAL reports commissioned by ORG , and relied upon by the applicant , and the person - specific official report of DATE , ORG held :","\u201c CARDINAL . It appears from the investigation carried out by the CDDH that the neighbourhood where the appellant claims to have lived changed in DATE into a residential area after improvised ( illegal ) buildings were erected around an old cemetery . The appellant has argued that , since it has been demonstrated that the investigation of the address [ by the Minister of ORG ] was incomplete , the reason for believing that the \u2018 attestation de perte des pi\u00e8ces d\u2019identit\u00e9\u2019 he submitted is forged has become groundless .","The court does not agree with this conclusion by the appellant . The findings of the CDDH do not alter the conclusion that the \u2018 attestation de perte des pi\u00e8ces d\u2019identit\u00e9\u2019 is a forgery . The court reaches this conclusion after having studying the documents underlying the person - specific official report , in particular the additional statement of DATE [ containing a detailed explanation as to why it was clear that this document was a forgery ] . It appears therefrom that the document concerned \u2013 irrespective of the correctness of the street name indicated \u2013 contains deletions as a result of which it can no longer be regarded as authentic . It follows that the appellant , by relying on the findings in the CDDH report , has not adduced concrete evidence calling into doubt the correctness of the conclusions in the person - specific official report .","Unlike the appellant , the court does not find that the investigation lacked due care . ...","In so far as the appellant has expressed doubts as regards the objectivity and reliability of the confidential contact person [ who carried out the investigation in the ORG ] , the court points out that the appellant has not submitted any concrete evidence to suggest that this confidential contact person might have been untrustworthy and acted carelessly . The claim that the confidential contact person acted out of resentment has likewise not been substantiated by the appellant . Moreover , contrary to the appellant \u2019s submissions , it is not apparent from the underlying documents that the PERSON report was found to be inaccurate . ...","In assessing whether the Minister acted in a reasonable manner , the court finds that , in referring to the person - specific official report , [ the Minister ] adduced sufficient arguments to support the finding that the appellant \u2019s asylum statement is not credible .","In the appeal proceedings the appellant also submitted that , if returned to the ORG , he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment within the meaning of LAW . ...","Since the court has held , in the light of the above , that [ the Minister ] had good reasons for finding that the asylum statement was not credible , it can not be concluded therefrom that the applicant would be exposed to a real and foreseeable risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited by LAW if he were removed to the ORG . ... \u201d","The applicant \u2019s further appeal was rejected on the basis of a summary reasoning issued on CARDINAL DATE by ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . It found that the further appeal did not provide grounds for quashing the impugned rulings . Pursuant to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) , no further reasoning was required as the arguments submitted did not raise any questions requiring a determination in the interests of legal unity , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . No further appeal lay against that ruling .","To date , the applicant has not been removed from the GPE nor has he filed a fresh asylum application in the GPE .","The relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings and the enforcement of removals are set out in PERSON the GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","Details concerning the preparation of person - specific official reports ( individuele ambtsberichten ) and their use in asylum - related proceedings have been set out in D.T. v. the GPE and GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","On DATE ORG ) DATE an independent institute charged with protecting individuals against improper government conduct by conducting investigations of its own motion or on the basis of an individual \u2019s complaint , and making non - binding recommendations to government agencies \u2013 released report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the manner in which personspecific official reports are compiled and used in asylum proceedings . The report was entitled \u201c The credibility of official reports . How asylum statements are confirmed or confuted . \u201d ( \u201c De geloofwaardigheid van ambtsberichten . Hoe asielverhalen worden bevestigd of ontkracht . \u201d ) . In this report , the ORG formulated a number of recommendations addressed to the Minister of ORG and the Minister of Justice seeking to reinforce the position of asylum seekers in asylum proceedings and thus the compliance of such proceedings with the common standards of propriety .","In a letter of DATE to the President of ORG of ORG ( ORG ) about the follow - up generated as a result of this report , the ORG stated that , although it had led to a number of laudable improvements , the Ministers had not accepted CARDINAL important recommendations concerning the degree of disclosure of documents underlying person - specific official reports to the decisionmaking civil servant and the asylum seeker concerned .","In DATE , the ORG filed comments on the consolidated seventeenth to eighteenth periodic reports on compliance with LAW , which had been submitted by ORG to ORG on ORG . The ORG \u2019s comments contain the following observations in respect of general country assessment and person - specific official reports as used by the GPE immigration authorities in their decision - making process :","\u201c Feedback from interest groups indicated a great deal of dissatisfaction with the quality of these official country reports . They allegedly contained information that was insufficiently relevant , insufficiently current , and incomplete , or sometimes even incorrect . CARDINAL of the key problems was the fact that official country reports do not provide an overview of the available facts but rather a conclusion concerning certain facts . The underlying facts are often not available to the asylum seekers and their representatives , which makes it essentially impossible to enter into a discussion concerning the substance of the conclusions drawn . The IND [ Immigration and ORG ] employee who makes the decision is thus not able , in preparing the decision , to consult this file to assess whether the contents of the individual official country report are supported by the underlying documents . Only a more highly - qualified ORG employee is allowed to do so . This more highly - qualified ORG employee will subsequently pass on his findings to the employee who makes the decision . Neither the asylum seeker nor his representative is able to inspect this file [ Footnote CARDINAL : Subject to application of LAW ] . The ORG found that this working method fails to recognise the responsibility of the state to present sufficient valid facts during the asylum procedure and to facilitate a fair hearing on the basis thereof [ Footnote CARDINAL : ORG , The credibility of person - specific official reports , report CARDINAL ] . The ORG made several recommendations to improve the position of foreign national \/ asylum seekers during the asylum procedure , but not all of these were implemented . \u201d","ORG on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination considered the consolidated seventeenth to eighteenth reports of the GPE at its GPE and CARDINALth meetings , held on CARDINAL and DATE . At its FAC meeting , held on DATE , it adopted its concluding observations on these reports , which did not address the quality of general country assessment reports and\/or person - specific official reports .","Section CARDINAL:CARDINAL of the General Administrative Law Act reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . NORP Parties who are obliged to provide information or submit documents may , if there are substantial reasons ( gewichtige redenen ) to do so , refuse to provide such information or submit such documents , or may inform the administrative tribunal that it alone shall be allowed to inspect the information or the documents .","NORP In the case of an administrative body , there can exist no such substantial reasons since there is an obligation , pursuant to ORG , to accede to any request for information contained in the documents to be submitted .","NORP The administrative tribunal shall decide whether the refusal or restriction of inspection referred to in the first paragraph is justified .","NORP If the administrative tribunal has decided that the refusal is justified , the obligation shall no longer exist .","If the administrative tribunal has decided that the restriction of inspection is justified , it may give judgment based on that information or those documents only with the permission of the other parties . If such permission is refused , the case shall be remitted to another chamber . \u201d","According to the most recent official country assessment report on the ORG , published in DATE by ORG , the general situation in the eastern provinces of GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE has continued to be unsettled and unpredictable and the general security situation in the province of GPE has deteriorated due to actions by armed factions . In the other provinces of the ORG the general security situation has remained stable , apart from some isolated incidents . As to the general situation in GPE , the report states :","\u201c On DATE in GPE , CARDINAL separate groups simultaneously attacked the headquarters of the NORP army , ORG and N\u2019Djili international airport . Since then no major security incidents have taken place . In instances where the police and ORG ) used violence , this was not directed against specific ( population ) groups . The rate of street crime in GPE remains high . Armed gangs , kuluna , commit burglaries , extortion , threats and kidnappings . On DATE the police in GPE arrested CARDINAL such gangs as part of an operation called \u201c LOC \u201d ( the word for \u201c punch \u201d in PERSON ) . On DATE operation PERSON started , focussing on kuluna in uniform . The latter allegedly killed CARDINAL people within DATE in shootings in the neighbourhoods of PERSON and PERSON in GPE borough . On DATE the Minister of the ORG announced that operation Likofi would be expanded to tackle armed bandits at national level . In the operations PERSON I \u2212 against GPE in GPE \u2212 and PERSON against undisciplined soldiers and police in GPE \u2212 a total of CARDINAL individuals have been apprehended and CARDINAL brought before an investigating judge . CARDINAL police officers have been sentenced to death , QUANTITY military and CARDINAL civilian accused have been sentenced to DATE imprisonment , CARDINAL policeman to DATE and CARDINAL civilian to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for illegal possession of weapons .","New police force","On DATE , during a parade in the Kintambo cycle stadium in GPE , General NORP Kanyama \u2013 the chief police commissioner of GPE in charge of the PERSON operation \u2013 presented the \u201c new \u201d police force , comprising law - abiding , disciplined officers who are immune to corruption . The police asked for a salary increase and better working conditions . On DATE Prime Minister PERSON opened the national criminal investigation centre of the police , which has been built with funding from the NORP development aid and the ORG . As from that date , the general population could use the toll - free emergency CARDINAL . \u201d","The official report of DATE does not deal specifically with people who have been involved with the ORG , mentioning only that an ORG PERSON approved by the ORG legislature on DATE and signed by President PERSON on DATE granted amnesty for acts of insurgency , acts of war and political offences committed DATE and DATE by , amongst others , military personnel who had participated in the armed ORG uprising .","GPE assessment of DATE , compiled by ORG ) of GPE ( GPE ) ORG , observed :","\u201c CARDINAL Most sectors of the economy are in a serious state of decline . Production and incomes continue to fall . The infrastructure of the country is also in a serious state of decline . Financial institutions have collapsed and the public health and education system have seriously deteriorated . The economy is characterised by subsistence activities , a large informal sector and widespread bartering . The public sector can not provide basic public services and public sector employees are not paid on a regular basis . ...","CARDINAL ... In DATE , a new rebel group emerged called the ORG pour la Liberation du Congo led by PERSON . The ORG based itself in GPE and has large numbers of former NORP soldiers in its ranks . The ORG developed close ties with ORG . In DATE , the ORG - ML rebel group merged with PERSON ORG rebel group to form ORG ( ORG ) . PERSON is the leader of this newly formed group . The area under the control of the ORG corresponds with the areas that were under the control of the ORG and ORG .","CARDINAL Intensive diplomatic efforts to promote a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement which meets the security concerns of neighbouring countries resulted in a ceasefire agreement by all belligerent countries on DATE ] . The rebel groups - ORG and ORG - signed up to the ceasefire agreement in DATE . The ceasefire agreement , called ORG , sets out arrangements for an end to the fighting and the start of a national dialogue .","CARDINAL Despite the ceasefire agreement , numerous violations of the ceasefire have been reported in different parts of the country with each of the warring factions blaming one another for them . ... The civilian population have been adversely affected by the ongoing fighting . The Health Minister , Dr PERSON , has recently reported that there has been an upsurge in cases of war - related stress among the country \u2019s civilian population . ...","CARDINAL On DATE , President PERSON was assassinated in FAC in GPE , reportedly by CARDINAL of his soldiers . A government public announcement was made on DATE confirming that PERSON had been assassinated . The country \u2019s airports and borders were temporarily closed for security reasons but were soon re - opened . There were no reports of widespread civil unrest . PERSON funeral took place DATE and his son , PERSON , was sworn in as President of the ORG on DATE . ...","CARDINAL The law allows for freedom of movement but the Government restricts freedom of movement in practice . ...","CARDINAL In GPE , police and soldiers commonly erected roadblocks in order to extract bribes from taxibus drivers and passengers . On DATE , in the NORP district of GPE , there were unconfirmed reports that security forces forced passengers who allegedly were riding in excess of the capacity of a taxibus to pay bribes . There has reportedly been no investigation into this case . Also in DATE , FAC ( government ) soldiers and police erected roadblocks in various districts of GPE in order to extort money from each minibus passenger who crossed the roadblocks .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL The Government requires exit visas for all foreign travel . Security forces occasionally hinder foreign travel by citizens , including journalists . There have been cases where political leaders have been denied exit visas . ... \u201d","The report \u201c Country Information and Guidance , GPE : treatment on return \u201d published by ORG in DATE includes the following observations :","\u201c CARDINAL Is a FAS [ failed asylum seeker ] and\/or FNO [ foreign national offender ] who is to return to the ORG ( voluntarily or by force ) at risk of mistreatment or harm by virtue of having claimed asylum in the GPE and\/or having been convicted of an offence in the GPE ?","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL In the country guidance case of ORG ( returnees \u2013 criminal and non - criminal ) ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL ( ORG ) heard in DATE and DATE and promulgated on DATE , ORG ( PERSON ) of ORG found , based on the evidence put before it which included statistics indicating that there have been approximately CARDINAL documented returns of asylum and non - asylum cases from NORP states plus the GPE , GPE and GPE DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , that \u2018 ... there is no substantiated allegation of arbitrary arrest or ill treatment of any ORG national who is a failed asylum seeker or a foreign national offender returning to his or her country of origin.\u2019 ( paragraph CARDINAL )","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL The ORG went on to find that :","\u2018 i ) Those who have been convicted of offences in GPE are not at real risk of being persecuted for LAW reason or serious harm or treatment proscribed by LAW .","\u2018 ii ) Those who have unsuccessfully claimed asylum in GPE are not at real risk of persecution for LAW reason or serious harm or treatment proscribed by LAW ( paragraph CARDINAL )","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL However , the PERSON did find those persons who are wanted \/ suspected by the ORG authorities for criminal activity in the ORG are likely to be at risk of harm :","\u2018 The ORG authorities have an interest in certain types of convicted or suspected offenders , namely those who have unexecuted prison sentences in ORG or in respect of whom there are unexecuted arrest warrants or who supposedly committed an offence , such as document fraud , when departing ORG . Such persons are at risk of imprisonment for lengthy periods and , hence , treatment proscribed by LAW ( paragraph CARDINAL )","CARDINAL ORG clarified its findings made in paragraph CARDINAL(iv ) of BM and Others with regard to the risk of using a false passport ( or other document ) in the case of ORG ( false passport ) [ DATE ] UKUT CARDINAL ( ORG ) ( DATE ) . ORG found that :","\u2018 The mere fact that an asylum claimant utilised a false passport or kindred document in departing the ORG will not without more engage the risk category specified in [ CARDINAL(iv ) ] of ORG ) ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL ( ORG ) . The application of this guidance will be dependent upon the fact sensitive context of the individual case . The ORG will consider , inter alia , the likely state of knowledge of the ORG authorities pertaining to the person in question . A person claiming to belong to any of the risk categories will not be at risk of persecution unless likely to come to the attention of the ORG authorities . Thus in every case there will be an intense focus on matters such as publicity , individual prominence , possession of a passport , the standard emergency travel document arrangements ( where these apply ) and how these matters impact on the individual claimant .","CARDINAL Decision makers will therefore need to determine whether a person is of interest to the authorities for criminal activity in the ORG . The onus will be on the person to demonstrate that they are of interest to the authorities , including with relevant documentary evidence . ...","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL Decision makers should note that ORG in ORG also provided country guidance on treatment of members of the political group , ORG pour la Refondation du Congo ( ORG for the Re - establishment of the GPE ; PERSON ) , see paragraph CARDINAL(iii ) of the judgement .","CARDINAL For guidance and information on categories of persons who may be at risk of serious harm or persecution , including political activists ( other than members of ORG ) , see ORG [ Operational Guidance Note ] of DATE .","DATE If refused is the claim likely to be certifiable as \u2018 clearly unfounded\u2019 under section CARDINAL of the Nationality , Immigration and Asylum Act DATE ?","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL Given the absence of substantiated evidence of mistreatment or harm on return , where a claim falls to be refused ( and the fear is based on being a ORG and \/ or FNO ) it is likely to be certifiable as \u2018 clearly unfounded\u2019 under LAW of the Nationality , Immigration and Asylum Act CARDINAL . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169481","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DNK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF JENSEN v. DENMARK","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","By an indictment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant , jointly with CARDINAL coaccused , was charged with violation of intellectual property rights under LAW b of LAW of a particularly aggravated nature , comprising professionally organised production , importation and sales , in which the defendants had cooperated on marketing substantial quantities of counterfeit goods in the form of designer knives , lamps and similar products .","From DATE the applicant was represented by lawyer A , and as from CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was represented by lawyer B.","By letters of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE A submitted his claim for legal costs to ORG for work performed from DATE until DATE . By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted A fees in the amount of DKK MONEY ( approximately ORG PERCENT plus VAT and reimbursement of costs in the amount of DKK CARDINAL which was provisionally to be paid by the ORG . It appears that the transcript of the court records was sent to counsel A and the prosecutor in accordance with usual practice . Neither the applicant nor B was informed of this decision .","The case was heard before ORG Retten i Viborg ) DATE between DATE and DATE .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG convicted the applicant and the CARDINAL co - accused . The applicant was convicted on CARDINAL out of CARDINAL counts and given a CARDINAL months\u2019 suspended sentence , and TIME of community service due to his good personal circumstances and the fact that his role had been a minor CARDINAL . In addition the proceeds , estimated at CARDINAL Danish Kroner ( ORG ) , were confiscated , as were various copies of designer goods , such as lamps and cutlery . The applicant and B were present when the judgment was passed . The operative part of the judgment , including the matter of payment of legal costs , was read aloud when the judgment was passed .","DATE lawyer B received a transcript of the judgment , which in the operative part relating to legal fees stated :","\u201c Each of the accused is to pay the legal costs relating to them , including the fee to counsel appointed to them . \u201d","NORP The applicant did not appeal against the judgment to ORG , nor did the public prosecution .","According to a court record of DATE , ORG approved the costs to be paid to B in the amount of DKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG PERCENT VAT and reimbursement of other costs amounting to DKK CARDINAL . It was stated that the amount was to be paid by the applicant .","On DATE , on behalf of the applicant , B appealed against the decision . He did not contest the amount granted , but claimed that it should be paid entirely or partly by the ORG . In support thereof , and with reference to section CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , of ORG , he submitted that the applicant had only played a minor role in the criminal case ; that an extensive part of the production of evidence did not relate to him ; that he had been acquitted of CARDINAL count ; and that the total fee was of a significant amount .","On DATE , the applicant received an invoice from the police , dated DATE , requesting him to pay legal costs in the amount of DKK MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) including A \u2019s and B \u2019s fees . This was the moment when the applicant became aware for the first time of the fees that had been granted to A.","On DATE , on behalf of the applicant , B extended his appeal of CARDINAL DATE also to include the payment of costs to A , which in the applicant \u2019s view should be paid entirely or partly by the ORG . He also requested that ORG send him the court records of the decision to grant fees to A.","On DATE ORG submitted a letter to B , with which was enclosed a copy of the judgment of DATE , which on CARDINAL DATE had been rectified on page CARDINAL in the operative part as follows :","\u201c The accused are to pay the legal costs , so that each of them pays the legal costs relating to them , including the fees for their appointed counsel . \u201d","The court records of CARDINAL DATE and A \u2019s letters of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE were also enclosed with the letter .","By letter of CARDINAL DATE , B informed ORG that the applicant withdrew his appeal as regards the fees to be paid to B. Moreover , he requested permission to submit further observations as regards the fee that the applicant had been ordered to pay to A.","In a supplementary pleading of DATE , B maintained that ORG \u2019s fees should be paid by the ORG . He pointed out that the fees payable to A and B totalled ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and that therefore the payment duty would be manifestly disproportionate to the applicant \u2019s responsibility and circumstances . Referring to section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of ORG , he thus requested that the payment duty be reduced . In his view , the time - limit for appealing against the decisions on the fees to be paid to A should , at the earliest , run from CARDINAL DATE , the date on which the applicant received the invoice from the police and thus became aware for the first time of the fees that had been granted to A.","NORP By decision of DATE ORG dismissed the appeal as being lodged out of time . More specifically , it stated :","\u201c The interlocutory appeal does not concern the amount of the fee granted to the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL defence lawyers ; it only concerns ORG decision that the applicant must pay the legal costs relating to him , including the fee to his appointed counsel . This decision was integrated in the judgment of DATE and the applicant , who was present when the judgment was passed , was informed of the decision during that hearing . Accordingly , the time - limit must be calculated from CARDINAL DATE , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , even if the applicant DATE learned how much the legal costs , including the fees for the defence counsel , amounted to . Thus , the time - limit had expired when the interlocutory appeal was lodged on DATE . \u201d","Leave to appeal to ORG was refused by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159378","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LYKOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE Region ) .","On DATE , CARDINAL , the applicant \u2019s son , PERSON PERSON , and his friend PERSON were stopped by police officers at a bus stop in GPE . They were given no reasons . PERSON and P. were then taken to the premises of department no . CARDINAL of the GPE Region criminal police ( \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e-\u0440\u043e\u0437\u044b\u0441\u043a\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0447\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044c \u2116 CARDINAL \u043a\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u043c\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u0433\u043b\u0430\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b \u043f\u043e \u0412\u043e\u0440\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0436\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 ) ( hereafter , \u201c the police station \u201d ) .","Inside that police station , a police officer , PERSON , ordered the other police officers present to undress PERSON PERSON and PERSON and to bind their hands and feet with adhesive tape . PERSON began punching Mr PERSON and PERSON on the head , urging them to confess to all the thefts that they had committed . Faced with their silence , PERSON and another police officer began to hit each of their heads violently against the ground , as well as against a cupboard and a table . After TIME they stopped striking them and PERSON ordered one of the police officers to \u201c give [ P. ] a fashionable haircut \u201d by cutting locks of his hair with a knife . S. and other police officers then placed plastic bags around the heads of Mr PERSON and P. to suffocate them . Faced with the repeated nature of these actions , PERSON , who was exhausted , asked PERSON to tell him what he wanted to know . S. again asked him to confess to the alleged thefts . Mr PERSON then admitted that they had burgled an apartment in DATE . S. ordered the police officers to take PERSON to another room .","NORP The police officers continued to torture P. with electricity . TIME the police officer returned PERSON to the office . According to P. , PERSON was \u201c in a bad way \u201d , although he had no obvious physical injuries . P. was taken to another office , where he began writing a confession . While he was writing , he heard PERSON betin to cry out . According to P. , his cries lasted TIME . Shortly afterwards a police officer came into the room where PERSON was being held and told him that they were going to the scene of the DATE burglary . P. stated that PERSON was not with them during this visit and that he had not seen him again afterwards . P. was finally taken to a temporary detention centre , where he was examined by a doctor who noted several physical injuries ( bruises and grazing on his arm ) . P. learned later that Mr PERSON had thrown himself out of a window .","On DATE a decision ( \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u043e \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0435 ) was issued ordering P. \u2019s arrest for the purpose of questioning him as a witness .","On DATE police officers found P. in a street in GPE , in the company of PERSON . They asked the CARDINAL friends to accompany them to the police station . Mr PERSON was invited for the purpose , in particular , of \u201c provid[ing ] useful information \u201d , in line with section QUANTITY \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , then in force . PERSON accepted the invitation of his own free will .","After discussions with police officer T. at the police station , PERSON decided to confess to a theft purportedly committed on CARDINAL DATE , and provided a written statement to that effect . T. informed Mr PERSON of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself .","At TIME , after having finished writing his confession , PERSON suddenly threw himself out of the open window of ORG \u2019s office , which was on the fifth floor .","At TIME Mr PERSON arrived at hospital with an emergency medical assistance team . He died at TIME on DATE .","PERSON cousin PERSON , who had had no news of him , carried out a search and on DATE she finally found his corpse in the GPE morgue . After examining the body , PERSON noted that it had signs of numerous physical injuries , in particular a haematoma above the left eyebrow , facial injuries and haematomas on the wrists .","On DATE I. wrote to ORG , requesting that an investigation be opened into the death of PERSON . She informed the Prosecutor that her cousin had been arrested on DATE while he was with his friend PERSON","On DATE police officer PERSON from the GPE district police station in GPE issued a decision refusing to open a criminal investigation into the supposed theft , on the street , of a mobile telephone , to which PERSON had confessed : PERSON noted that the avowed offence of theft had never been recorded in the registers of complaints by victims of offences , which were held by the police .","TIME after the incident ( at TIME ) , an investigator , Ya . , from the GPE Leninskiy district ORG arrived on the scene and examined the premises , in particular Office no . DATE , from where Mr PERSON had fallen . The investigator seized from the scene a gas mask and a telephone , as well as the sheet of paper with PERSON PERSON \u2019s written confession . She indicated that she had not found traces of blood in the office , but only on the grass area below the window .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , investigator PERSON from the same department refused to open a criminal investigation into the victim \u2019s death . Referring to LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , he concluded that no offence had been committed .","The investigator summarised the explanations provided by police officer PERSON , who stated that :","\u2013 at TIME on DATE PERSON and his friend PERSON had been taken to the police station by police officers PERSON and PERSON ; the second individual ( P. ) was being sought on suspicion of theft ;","\u2013 during an interview between T. and Mr PERSON , the latter had confessed voluntarily to a theft . Although he had started writing a confession , Mr PERSON suddenly stood up and climbed onto a chair , then onto a table which was beside the open window , and then finally jumped from this window ;","\u2013 T. had rushed to prevent him from jumping , but he was too late ;","\u2013 no police officer had struck PERSON or had forced him to confess to the offence . According to T. , PERSON had no physical injuries ;","\u2013 during the interview Mr PERSON had been calm , but he complained to T. that his life was difficult , since he had to care for his ill mother .","NORP The investigator also summarised the explanation provided by police officer GPE . , who stated that :","\u2013 at TIME while on patrol in the city , he and QUANTITY other police officers had seen QUANTITY individuals on a scooter . Since they had information that an individual suspected of theft was moving about on a scooter , they had stopped the persons concerned for an identity check . They had invited PERSON and P. to accompany them to the police station and they had agreed ;","\u2013 on arrival at the police station , Mr PERSON and PERSON had been separated . PERSON . and PERSON had interviewed PERSON , while PERSON had had a conversation with Mr PERSON ;","\u2013 on entering ORG \u2019s office at a later point , GPE . was able to note that PERSON was not handcuffed and had not been struck . He had heard Mr PERSON confess to the theft of a mobile telephone ;","\u2013 he had not heard PERSON complain of ill - treatment of any kind ;","DATE later he had learnt that Mr PERSON had attempted to take his own life .","NORP The investigator also noted that in response to his questions , police officer S. had denied any involvement in ill - treatment of PERSON .","At the same time , the investigator noted the statements made by ORG , to the effect that :","\u2013 TIME on CARDINAL September CARDINAL he and PERSON had been in the city centre when police officers approached , introduced themselves and asked him [ and PERSON ] them to accompany them to the police station . They had agreed ;","\u2013 at the police station , he and PERSON had been separated and placed in different offices . Shortly afterwards , when passing in the corridor , he had seen PERSON sitting at a table writing something . He had not seen PERSON being struck , had not heard him crying out , and had not noticed any physical injury on his person ;","\u2013 he had heard PERSON complain of heart pains , but never refer to an intention to commit suicide .","The investigator took note of the statements by the applicant , and also of close relatives of the victim , to the effect that he had never expressed thoughts of suicide .","NORP The investigator noted the presence in the case file of the written confession drawn up by PERSON shortly before his death .","Relying on the information communicated by the hospital in which Mr PERSON had been treated after his fall , the investigator established that death had resulted from Mr PERSON \u2019s fall from the fifth floor . No injuries indicating kicks or punches , or the use of handcuffs , had been found on the corpse .","Lastly , the investigator noted the contents of the report from the on - site inspection conducted on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was set aside by a hierarchically superior civil servant , who ordered an additional investigation , noting , in particular , that it was necessary to :","\u2013 find witnesses who could confirm that PERSON had suicidal thoughts ;","\u2013 verify that the police officers who had taken PERSON to the police station had acted in accordance with the law ;","\u2013 consider whether the police officers who had not ensured the victim \u2019s safety inside the police station bore any criminal liability .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE an autopsy of the body was carried out on the orders of investigator PERSON and a forensic report was drawn up . In that document , the forensic medical expert noted that death had resulted from multiple fractures to the head , chest and spine , and to the base and dome of the skull . According to the expert , the location of the injuries identified , and the preponderance of internal over external injuries , led to the conclusion that those injuries had originated in [ Mr PERSON \u2019s ] fall from the fifth floor . The expert concluded that there was no cause - and - effect relationship between the other injuries ( hematomas and scratches on the trunk and the lower and upper limbs , namely a hematoma in the fold of the right elbow measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY ; a scratch on the right forearm measuring QUANTITY ; a QUANTITY hematoma on the right carpus ; a hematoma on the left shoulder measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY , on which there were scratches of CARDINAL x QUANTITY ; a hematoma on the left knee measuring QUANTITY , on which there was a scratch of CARDINAL x CARDINAL cm ; and an oval - shaped scratch on the left ankle measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY ) and the death . As to the question of whether there were traces of a struggle or self - defence , the doctor indicated that it was generally accepted in forensic medicine that injuries to the arms and wrists were to be classified in that way . Thus , he noted the presence of a bruise on the right carpus and a scratch on the right forearm . He added that he was unable to ascertain how those injuries had been sustained . Lastly , the doctor noted that the corpse had been deposited in the morgue unclothed .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , investigator PERSON . from the same department again refused to open a criminal investigation .","In his reasoning , he quoted from the statements given by police officers T. , GPE . and PERSON , by witness PERSON , and also by the applicant and the deceased \u2019s close relatives , already cited in the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The investigator also questioned certain individuals who had got to know PERSON in a caf\u00e9 where they drank alcoholic beverages together . Those persons explained that when PERSON drank alcohol he became talkative and that , in this intoxicated state , he complained about a lack of money and difficulties with his invalid mother . He had also confided to his companions that he had committed thefts and that , were he arrested , he \u201c would harm himself \u201d .","The investigator also noted a directive , classified as secret , for the attention of police officers . According to that directive , the police were not personally responsible for the life and health of individuals who had freely consented to attend a police station for an interview , \u201c except in the event of violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens proclaimed in the NORP LAW Regard being had to that directive and the facts noted , the investigator concluded that officer PERSON could not be held responsible for the offence of negligence .","The investigator concluded that PERSON death had been the result of a voluntary act on the latter \u2019s part . In consequence , the investigator refused to open a criminal investigation against the police officers PERSON , NORP , GPE . and PERSON for an abuse of power , on the grounds , firstly , that PERSON arrest had not been illegal , and , secondly , that the police officers had not ill - treated him . He also concluded that there were no grounds for prosecuting the police officers for homicide , assault or incitement to suicide , given that PERSON death \u201c had not been violent \u201d .","On DATE the applicant lodged a judicial appeal against that decision . She complained , inter alia , that her son had been placed in detention without this fact being properly recorded , and that , in consequence , her son had been deprived of legal assistance . Equally , she submitted that the investigation carried out had been incomplete and focused on a hypothesis that was favourable to the police officers . She criticised the investigative authorities for failing to conduct a forensic examination of the gas mask seized in the police station in order to obtain genetic material , including perhaps that of her son . According to the applicant , a handwriting expert \u2019s report should also have been commissioned in order to determine her son \u2019s psychological state when he wrote the confession . Further , referring to the autopsy report , which stated that the corpse had injuries that could be interpreted as traces of a struggle or self - defence , the applicant accused the authorities of failing to explain the origin of those injuries , and the cause of her son \u2019s death .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the contested decision . In its reasoning , the court reiterated the arguments set out in the investigator \u2019s decision and considered that the investigation had been complete and thorough . In response to the applicant \u2019s arguments , the court expressed the opinion that a handwriting analysis was unnecessary , since the deceased \u2019s family had confirmed the handwriting \u2019s authenticity . Equally , a DNA examination of samples from the gas mask was unnecessary , since PERSON death had not resulted from suffocation . Thus , the court concluded that there was no evidence in support of the idea that the deceased had been subjected to ill - treatment by the police officers or that he had been arrested or detained unlawfully .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision , on appeal , for the same reasons .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer sent a letter to the head of ORG , asking him to open a new criminal investigation into the death of Mr PERSON and to entrust this investigation to the department for investigations into offences committed by ORG employees of the armed forces , a department that was part of ORG in the PERSON federal constituency . The lawyer expressed the fear that if the requested investigation were to be carried out by investigators from the GPE regional department of ORG , that investigation would be ineffective . She argued that , without having available to them locally - based agents to gather the necessary information , the investigators from the latter department would have no choice but to use officers from ORG , among whom might be those involved in the victim \u2019s death .","On DATE the GPE regional department of ORG dismissed that request , considering that the decision of DATE had been in accordance with the law and that there were no grounds for revoking it and opening a criminal investigation .","On DATE , DATE after his arrest , P. was taken to a temporary detention centre ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . During his admission , a doctor \u2019s assistant noted the following physical injuries : a bruise on the left shoulder - blade , scratches on the elbows and knees , and a bruise on the right ear . The medical assistant drew up a report recording the injuries and noting that they were the result of a road - traffic accident that had occurred on DATE . The medical examination was carried out in the presence of police officers who had participated in the beating . According to P. , it was the police officers who provided the medical assistant with the road - accident version of events , while he himself , for fear of reprisals , had been obliged to confirm it .","On DATE P. was transferred to remand prison no . CARDINAL in GPE . On admission , he was examined by a doctor who found the same injuries as those observed in the ORG .","On an unspecified date in DATE P. lodged a complaint about the alleged ill - treatment at the police station . According to P. , this complaint led to him being taken on DATE to the police station , where he was beating in reprisal . Then DATE again according to his submissions \u2013 , PERSON withdrew his complaint in fear for his life when investigator PERSON . came to the remand prison to question him about the circumstances of the ill - treatment . According to P. , in response to his question about possible consequences for the police officers involved in beating Mr PERSON and himself , investigator PERSON . replied that , in any event , there had been none .","On DATE inspector Ya . from the GPE regional department of ORG issued a decision refusing to open a criminal investigation . She recounted the explanation provided by police officer GPE . , who had denied any ill - treatment , and , noting PERSON \u2019s withdrawal of his complaint , concluded that no ill - treatment had occurred .","In the meantime , the criminal investigation against ORG continued , and resulted in an examination on the merits by the GPE regional ORG . At the public hearing on DATE PERSON made a statement . He withdrew the account given by him in the context of the investigation into the death of PERSON . P. described the events of CARDINAL DATE as they are set out in paragraphs QUANTITY of the present judgment . He added that police officer PERSON had threatened him if he were to withdraw his confession to the thefts or make statements about the events surrounding the arrest and death of Mr PERSON . He added that PERSON had beaten him again prior to the court hearing concerning his placement in pre - trial detention , in order to prevent him lodging a complaint before the judge . He also alleged that he had been subjected to unprovoked attacks by the administration of the remand prison in which he was detained . P. asked to be placed under protection in his capacity as a witness of the ill - treatment inflicted on PERSON by police officers . He also asked that criminal proceedings be brought against police officer PERSON for abuse of power and for the murder of Mr PERSON . P. suggested that the criminal investigation into the death be reopened .","The judge ordered that ORG written statement be included in the case file . With regard to P. \u2019s requests in respect of PERSON and Mr PERSON , the judge replied that the latter \u2019s death was unrelated to the ongoing trial ; as for PERSON , he was not a party to the trial proceedings . In consequence , she dismissed those requests .","At CARDINAL of the subsequent hearings PERSON complained that , after the above statement , the remand prison \u2019s administration threatened him .","On DATE the prosecutor for the NORP district of GPE set aside the decision refusing to open a criminal investigation in respect of P. \u2019s supposed torturers . The prosecutor ordered an additional investigation . The ORG has not been informed of the outcome of this investigation .","After serving his sentence , PERSON was released . He submits that he has received several threats in connection with the present case . For fear of reprisals , he moved to GPE . In his letter of DATE to ORG , sent from abroad , P. offered to act as a witness , but he was never questioned .","On DATE a hierarchically superior ORG employee in the GPE regional department of ORG set aside the decision of DATE , noting that the department had received new information concerning the death of PERSON from ORG . He ordered an additional investigation , in particular so that P. could be questioned and his allegations of ill - treatment verified .","On DATE the deputy head of the GPE regional department of ORG ordered the opening of a criminal investigation within the meaning of LAW . In his reasoning , he noted that PERSON application , which was being examined by ORG , contained elements suggesting that Mr PERSON had been subjected to ill - treatment by the police officers .","DATE . On DATE investigator PERSON from ORG ordered a second forensic medical report , to answer , inter alia , the following questions : whether Mr PERSON \u2019s body showed injuries and , if so , where ; if the body showed injuries resulting from a struggle , ill - treatment , the use of handcuffs or restraint of the upper or lower limbs using adhesive tape ; and whether there were signs of electrocution . The Government have not indicated whether that medical report was drawn up . In any event , no expert report was added to their observations .","The investigator questioned police officers GPE . and PERSON ; the first reiterated the explanation he had provided in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and the second gave similar explanations . The investigator also questioned a certain PERSON , who allegedly stated that he occasionally drank alcoholic beverages in PERSON company and indicated that the latter was a drug addict who committed thefts to obtain money , and that he had spoken to him about his difficulties with his invalid mother . According to ORG , PERSON had confided in him that , if he were arrested , he \u201c would harm himself \u201d .","The investigator questioned the deceased \u2019s grandmother and cousin , who stated that , to their knowledge , PERSON did not take drugs , did not abuse alcohol , and had never expressed thoughts of suicide .","On DATE the investigator issued a decision granting the applicant victim status .","On DATE , at the close of an internal investigation into the police ORG conduct , ORG of the GPE regional department drew up a report ; its conclusions can be summarised as follows : referring to the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the regional department considered that PERSON had indeed taken his own life and that no fault on the part of the police officers had been established . At the same time , the ORG described as a lack of professionalism the fact that police officer T. had not taken sufficient care in controlling PERSON conduct , a shortcoming that had enabled the latter individual to throw himself from the window ."],"violated_articles":["2","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163356","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GEOTECH KANCEV GMBH v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant company specialises in taking soil samples by way of drilling for geological examination , inter alia , for the purpose of assessing suitability for building sites and for the construction of wells .","In the building industry in GPE , a number of collective agreements operated , which contained regulations related to the social welfare of employees working in that sector ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraphs CARDINAL ) . The ORG associations in the building industry ( PERSON and ORG ) and the trade union ( ORG ) concluded ORG in FAC ( Tarifvertrag \u00fcber das Sozialkassenverfahren i m Baugewerbe , \u201c ORG \u201d ) . The ORG contained rules about contributions and entitlements in relation to both the ZVK and ORG of ORG ( Urlaubs- und PERSON , \u201c ORG \u201d ) , which jointly comprised ORG in the building industry which went by the common name \u201c PERSON - BAU \u201d .","As ORG declared the ORG generally binding ( allgemeinverbindlich ) pursuant to LAW of ORG ( Tarifvertragsgesetz ) , it was binding on all employers in the building industry , even if they did not belong to the ORG association ( LAW of ORG , see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph CARDINAL ) . As a consequence , all employers in the building industry were obliged to contribute to ORG an additional sum amounting to PERCENT of the gross wages paid to their employees .","The applicant company was not a member of an ORG association that was party to the relevant collective agreements . It was thus not directly bound by any collective agreements by virtue of such membership .","On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant company with key information about the supplementary welfare schemes , including with regard to contributions to be paid and possible benefits it might receive . The applicant company did not react to this letter .","On DATE , following enquiries made in order to establish whether the applicant was obliged to pay contributions , ORG sent a letter to the applicant company , informing it about its duty to pay contributions and that an account had been opened into which benefits would be paid .","On DATE the applicant company \u2019s lawyer sent a letter to ORG , objecting to being registered with the Fund .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant company to pay PERSON euros ( ORG ) in welfare fund arrears for the period DATE to the ZVK . The applicant company was further ordered to submit copies of the wage slips issued to its employees DATE and DATE . ORG considered that the applicant company was bound by the ORG , which was binding on all employers in the building industry even if they did not belong to one of the ORG associations . The activities of the applicant company fell within the scope of the ORG which , in its LAW ( v ) no . CARDINAL , listed drilling as an activity within its scope .","The applicant company lodged an appeal submitting , in particular , that the generally binding effect of the ORG violated the negative aspects of its right to freedom of association . It argued that it was obliged to contribute to a fund jointly set up by the ORG association and the trade union , even though it did not belong to either of these associations . The applicant company further complained that it was prevented from founding its own association , due to a lack of funds .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant company \u2019s appeal and did not grant leave for an appeal on points of law . As well as confirming ORG reasoning , ORG held that the generally binding effect of the ORG did not violate the applicant company \u2019s right to freedom of association . It observed that the generally binding effect did not entail an obligation to adhere either to one of the ORG associations or to ORG . Referring to the case - law of ORG ( decision of DATE , CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph CARDINAL ) , ORG conceded that the applicant company , which was not a member of CARDINAL of the ORG associations , had the disadvantage of not being able to assert its interests by exercising control over the activities of ORG via these associations . The right to participate in the decision - making process within these associations was reserved to members of the respective association . In so far as this fact exerted a certain pressure to become a member of CARDINAL of the ORG associations , this was , however , not sufficient to amount to a violation of the negative aspect of its right to freedom of association .","ORG further considered that the obligation to contribute to ORG did not prevent the applicant company from founding its own association . It observed that the major parts of the contributions due would be reimbursed to the applicant if properly declared .","ORG finally considered that the obligatory contribution to ORG took account of the high fluctuation of employees in the building industry and served the public interest of allowing for management of the employee \u2019s claims by ORG , thus preventing a distortion of competition .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant company \u2019s complaint against the refusal to grant leave to appeal .","On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant company \u2019s constitutional complaint for adjudication without providing reasons ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["11","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["11-1","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150672","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ATILGAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro","text":["The applicants , whose names appear in the appendix hereto , are NORP nationals who live in GPE . They are the owners , executive directors , editors - in - chief , editors and members of the technical staff of CARDINAL publications which were issued on DATE , DATE , DATE or DATE basis : PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , and ORG . They are represented before ORG by Mr \u00d6. K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7 and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","On various dates DATE and DATE , ORG decided to suspend the publication and distribution of the abovementioned CARDINAL newspapers for periods ranging from DATE to DATE under LAW ( Law no . ORG ) , on the ground that the newspapers had published propaganda in favour of various illegal organisations . All copies of the relevant issues were seized . The applicants raised objections to the suspension orders but these objections were dismissed shortly afterwards by the GPE , ORG . Neither the applicants nor their representatives were permitted to participate in any of the proceedings held before FAC .","The details of the proceedings may be found in the appended table ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164669","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MU\u010cIBABI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . His son , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and died on DATE . The present case concerns the investigation into the death of the applicant \u2019s son .","On DATE a powerful explosion occurred at the facilities of PERSON , a company with headquarters in GPE .","It transpires from the judicial decisions and the case file that the explosion was caused by the covert production of composite solid rocket fuel under the auspices of ORG .","The general information the ORG has been able to procure as to the production of rocket fuel and the risk of an explosion at production sites may be summarised as follows .","Composite fuel , also known as composite propellant , is a broad class of solid chemical fuels that are used as propellants in rockets . The rocket - fuel sheets resemble PVC folia but are less stable and require a specialised location with a high level of preventive measures and safety precautions . They are composed of fuel and oxidiser . An example of a fuel is phenol formaldehyde and of an oxidiser , ammonium perchlorate ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . ORG is a powerful oxidiser , which explains why it is used mainly in solid propellant rocket boosters , including space shuttles and military missiles .","ORG is a white , granular , crystalline solid or powder . Its explosive characteristics depend on particle size and granulometric composition . It is a class CARDINAL oxidiser ( it can cause an explosive reaction ) when particles measure over QUANTITY . It is classified as an explosive when particles measure QUANTITY . It has been apparently involved in a number of accidents . ORG is stable when properly stored , transported and handled at temperatures below QUANTITY ( oC ) . The amount put in any pile must be limited and storage sites must be designed with blast walls . The risks of explosion and fire associated with ORG arise mainly when there is a large proportion of ORG in a premix or when it is exposed to intensive heat or an organic compound . When heated to CARDINALoC , ORG degrades organic adhesive , breaking cemented joints . Complete reactions leave no residue .","At a series of meetings , an ORG executive had apparently agreed to the production of rocket fuel with a private company , ORG ( hereinafter \u201c JPL \u201d ) . The latter \u2019s experts were supposed to provide the formula and certain components , including oxidisers . Certain PERSON managers had allegedly been requested to make available a mill with CARDINAL counter - rotating rollers in its facilities for the production of polyvinyl chloride sheets , as well as other substances and its experts .","On DATE , most of the components were blended together in a batch mixer in another company , transported in aluminium bins to PERSON in a private car by ORG experts and stored next to the mill . When the mixture was put on the mill and extraction of the sheets of rocket fuel started , an explosion occurred in the presence of CARDINAL workers from the CARDINAL commissioned companies . As a consequence , the applicant \u2019s son and CARDINAL other people died , while QUANTITY others were seriously injured .","It appears from ORG and the expert reports that neither PERSON nor ORG was licensed and adequately equipped for the production of rocket fuel at the material time .","At TIME on DATE the investigating judge on duty , ORG , arrived at PERSON to inspect the scene of the incident . PERSON , the Deputy District Public Prosecutor Office ( hereinafter \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) , PERSON , a crime inspector , and PERSON , a crime - scene technician , were also present .","According to the investigating judge \u2019s CARDINAL - page report of his inspection of the incident scene ( zapisnik o uvi\u0111aju ) , at TIME on DATE a massive explosion occurred during the production of a new product DATE polyvinyl chloride sheets . The explosion greatly damaged the production room and killed a number of people who had been involved in the production process .","When the investigating judge arrived at the scene , unspecified members of the factory \u2019s security staff and the GPE police prevented him and the prosecutor from entering the production room . They were requested to examine the scene two to CARDINAL steps away from the entrance door for security reasons , given that the damaged roof could have collapsed . The judge noticed that it had been a powerful explosion , and that the production room had been covered in dust and pieces of the roof , which also prevented a good overview of the room .","As the judge could not inspect the incident scene , in order to gather evidence he talked to the director , GPE He had to wait TIME for the director to be found and to finish his telephone call with the GPE mayor , ORG The director stated that the explosion had occurred when the factory \u2019s experts with a team of additional experts ( part of the statement is illegible ) had apparently tested a new product - manufacturing process with which he was not familiar . However , he clarified that the manufacturing process required special security measures and teams , and named all of the factory \u2019s experts involved , including the applicant \u2019s son as a chief engineer . The technical director , PERSON , stated that his team of DATE employees had been testing a new product and that experts from other companies and faculties \u201c might have been involved \u201d in the manufacturing process that TIME . Presuming that CARDINAL people had died , he anticipated that the cause of the explosion may have been \u201c an unwanted , unexpected and unknown chemical reaction which had \u2018 broken out\u2019 during the process \u201d .","The investigating judge instructed ( a ) the GPE police \u2019s expert team and the factory experts to continue looking for those involved who had died or survived ; ( b ) the crime - scene technician to collect and register all traces , objects and details which might help to elucidate the account of the events and to make an appropriate file in that respect ; ( c ) the removal of all the corpses to ORG for post - mortem examinations to determine the cause of death ; and ( d ) the transfer of all the survivors to the appropriate medical centres . All those activities and the relevant documentation were to form an integral part of the incident report .","NORP In his CARDINAL - page report on the forensic inspection of the incident scene ( izve\u0161taj o kriminalisti\u010dko - tehni\u010dkom pregledu lica mesta ) , the crime inspector , PERSON , noted that there had been traces of the destruction caused by a massive explosion which had occurred at TIME on DATE at the PERSON factory ( production room ) where bituminous materials were produced . He reported that CARDINAL corpses had been found and gave the names of several injured people who had been transported to hospital ( CARDINAL of them had died there ) as well as a short statement by CARDINAL of the workers who had been nearby . The inspector reported that the police firemen had already started extinguishing the fire , that the crime - scene technicians , GPE and ORG , had taken photographs , and that the criminal police ( PERSON slu\u017eba ( UZSK ) ) had taken on the case . The identification of the casualties and the cause of the explosion should have been determined the following day by specialised teams of criminal police . No other documents , photographs , scheme of the scene or results of any chemical or toxicological analysis , if any , have been submitted to the Court with the case file ; nor apparently were they made available to the applicant .","On DATE an additional forensic report was drawn up after the fingerprinting and photographing of the bodies . The bodies were transferred for post - mortem examination , together with additional body parts which had been found in the meantime , while the clothing was sent to the prosecutor \u2019s office .","The post - mortem examination of GPE bodies was carried out DATE by ORG in GPE . The autopsy reports stated that the GPE deaths had been violent and caused by the destruction of or damage to some vital organs and\/or third and fourth - degree burns from the explosion , or complications thereafter .","On DATE the GPE police ex officio set up a commission to examine the cause of the explosion . The commission was comprised of several officers from ORG ( NORP bezbednosti ORG - a ORG ) , as well as CARDINAL professors from ORG in GPE , GPE and GPE , who were also the co - owners of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Following site inspections DATE and computer simulations of the explosions , CARDINAL experts from ORG , GPE and ORG , submitted their report to the PERSON on DATE . As regards the cause and origin of the accident , the experts stated ( a ) that the explosion appeared to have been initially caused by the heat generated by the mill \u2019s rollers during the production of composite fuel ; ( b ) that static electricity could not have ignited the composite fuel , premix or fuel sheet ; ( c ) that the primary blast of the premix or the composite fuel sheet on the mill \u2019s CARDINAL counter - rotating rollers had most probably been caused by the presence of a mechanical object in the premix , which had ended up between the rollers ; and ( d ) that the initial blast had led to CARDINAL secondary explosions of the premix , which was stored in CARDINAL aluminum bins next to the mill .","On DATE the ORG inspectorate lodged a criminal complaint against the Director of GPE , GPE , for breaching health - and - safety regulations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Previously , on DATE the ORG had informed the prosecutor that on CARDINAL and DATE they had been refused access to the factory and to documentation for inspection , and that PERSON had not informed them to that date about the fatal incident , as required by the relevant law .","It would appear that the prosecutor lodged a request for a formal preliminary judicial investigation against unknown persons from PERSON in respect of the explosion ( zahtev za sprovo\u0111enje pojedinih istra\u017enih radnji ) . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant sought to be granted victim status .","On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other GPE relatives lodged a criminal complaint against a number of senior executives of PERSON and ORG ( GPE , FAC , GPE , D.Z. , ORG . NORP , GPE , GPE and GPE ) , on the grounds that there was a reasonable suspicion that they had committed grave breaches of public safety regulations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below , LAW in conjunction with LAW of LAW ) .","NORP The experts\u2019 report of CARDINAL DATE was served on the applicant on DATE . DATE , the applicant submitted numerous objections and posed questions . He questioned , inter alia , the expert commission \u2019s authorisation to investigate the case , the fact that it had focussed on the cause of the explosion without establishing whether the appropriate safety precautions had been taken , and the experts\u2019 conclusions , which were pure presumption .","On DATE the prosecutor lodged a request with ORG that the police experts be heard .","At a hearing scheduled for DATE , however , the investigating judge did not take statements from the experts . The applicant again objected to the experts\u2019 report . The investigating judge endorsed the PERSON request to be provided with all questions in writing and to be given DATE to answer . In their reply of DATE , the experts clarified that ( a ) on DATE at the scene of the incident , where they had gone ex officio , the investigating judge had instructed them orally to establish the cause of the explosion ; ( b ) they had not made any plan or programme for the expert report ; ( c ) they had not had sufficient information ( for example , on the original premix or the final product ) to examine and determine the cause of the blast , but they had found traces of ORG at the accident scene and had been provided with the formulae of the premix by ORG ; ( d ) they could not say whether the fire had started on the rollers , the fuel or the rocket - fuel sheet ; ( e ) they had not found any documentation about the planning or technology programme of the production of rocket fuel which had led to the blast ; and that ( f ) their task had been to establish the cause of , and not the responsibility for , the explosion .","On DATE the applicant amended his criminal complaint , relying on LAW in conjunction with LAW of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","Following the prosecutor \u2019s proposal of DATE the court appointed ORG to determine and submit a report on whether the cause of the explosion had been of a technical nature or a human mistake . On DATE the Institute informed the investigating judge that it did not have the capacity to do so .","On DATE ORG was appointed to determine the cause of the explosion , whether it could have been avoided and the possible liability in that respect .","Following CARDINAL unsuccessful attempts to receive additional relevant data , on CARDINAL DATE the Professor of ORG , GPE , submitted his report . He claimed that it was based on reliable data collected by ORG , given that , owing to the lapse of time , it was impossible to analyse any samples found on the site . He clarified further that he had not used most of the ORG \u2019s documentation , as it concerned computer - generated and simulated experiments of assumed events which could only indirectly hint at the possible answers . The expert stated that the collected data were incomplete and did not contain quantitative figures of the samples examined to allow any deeper analysis of the collected evidence or its compliance with the account of the events that had allegedly led to the explosion . While not excluding the possibility that the cause of the explosion might have been the CARDINAL suggested by the police experts , the expert observed that the possible exposure of ORG to humidity could have made it sensitive to an organic compound and the explosion could have been caused by a piece of paper , wood or engine oil , especially in the presence of unwanted metal or soot particles .","The expert also noted the following issues as relevant : ( a ) although explosive , carcinogenic and other dangerous substances were used during the production process , no technical - technological documentation and certificates for them had been found ; ( b ) the purity of the components , especially of ORG , was questionable ( it was described as light pink powder , whereas it was a white , crystalline substance ) ; ( c ) the samples revealed , unusually , included the presence of phosphates , which were not components of composite fuel , or equipment for the maintenance of the mill or the building itself ; ( d ) the production process and technology did not seem to have been accurately specified and followed , as certain components had been added and mixed on the mill in the course of the production process ; and ( e ) an unacceptably high number of individuals present had indicated that they did not know what had been produced and that other safety measures had probably not been taken .","Following the prosecutor \u2019s proposal of CARDINAL DATE , the investigating judge heard evidence from a number of witnesses to and surviving victims of the accident ( CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL were from GPE ) on CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE . They were asked who had allowed GPE to bring the premix to PERSON , and whether they had known what it contained and what safety measures had been taken . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the investigating judge also interviewed Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , Deputy Head and Head of ORG .","On DATE the investigating judge returned the case file with the collected evidence to the prosecutor .","On DATE the investigating judge , on the prosecutor \u2019s initiative , withdrew the case file and sealed the statements of ORG executives , classifying them as ORG secret .","On DATE the public prosecutor decided not to prosecute , relying on secret evidence and information . He stated that a detailed analysis of the facts had been provided in an official note of DATE , which had been classified as confidential . He summarily dismissed the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint on the grounds that there were no elements of crimes prosecuted ex officio ( da se prijavljeno delo ne goni ex officio ) , invoking ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW . By a letter of DATE , the applicant was informed about the prosecutor \u2019s decision and notified that he could pursue a subsidiary criminal prosecution within DATE of the date the letter had been served on him by lodging a request for an investigation ( zahtev za sprovo\u0111enje istrage ) .","The applicant alleged that despite his request , he had not had access to the case file until DATE . In the meantime , he commissioned an expert report by the court \u2019s permanent specialist on explosives and blasts , ORG In her report of CARDINAL DATE , the specialist stated that most of the police experts\u2019 work had been incomplete or irrelevant , and gave the reasons for her assertions . She found that neither PERSON nor ORG had been registered and properly equipped for working with explosive materials , and that their employees had lacked the necessary skills and competences . She confirmed in principle , and further elaborated on , the findings of ORG expert and itemised the numerous failures of the CARDINAL companies to comply with the relevant provisions of ORG , Flammable Liquids and LAW concerning transporting and working with explosive materials ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant instituted subsidiary prosecution against GPE , PERSON , GPE , PERSON and ORG by lodging a request with ORG that a criminal investigation be opened into breaches of safety regulations , referring to ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","On DATE the investigating judge of the GPE ORG refused to open the investigation sought by the applicant ( izrazio neslaganje sa zahtevom ) , and referred the case to a CARDINAL - judge criminal panel ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG upheld the investigating judge \u2019s decision , having established that rocket fuel had been produced on the orders of the then NORP President , PERSON , and Mr PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The applicant appealed on DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed that decision . On DATE it referred the case back to the GPE ORG for additional investigation , holding that the prosecuting authorities had failed to assess the evidence properly .","DATE after the prosecutor \u2019s request of DATE , the investigating judge commissioned ORG ( Vojno - tehni\u010dka akademija - Katedra za raketna goriva ) to draw up a fresh expert report in respect of the explosion . The ORG refused , claiming that it did not have the power to do so .","On DATE the investigating judge appointed ORG to draw up the report , but that institute also refused , referring to its report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the investigating judge informed the applicant that there was no other available institution to carry out a fresh expert report and that , instead , he could file an indictment directly if he so wished .","In DATE and DATE the applicant filed an indictment and requested further investigative measures .","On DATE the criminal chamber of ORG sent the case file back to the investigating judge , referring to ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The chamber instructed the investigating judge to open an investigation and interview the suspects . It stated that the CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG would again decide on his refusal to open an investigation once the suspects had been heard . It explained that it would be inappropriate to proceed with a subsidiary indictment without first carrying out an investigation , even with the investigating judge \u2019s permission to file a direct indictment , if the suspects had never been questioned .","On DATE , the investigating judge opened an investigation . DATE and DATE he questioned all CARDINAL suspects and gave individual decisions on investigation in respect of each of them .","On DATE the investigating judge again appointed ORG to draw up a report establishing in a clear and conclusive manner the cause of the explosion and which irregularities in the production process had led to the blast . In a short report drawn up in DATE , the ORG stated this time that their task was apparently to examine the cause of the explosion , not the possible failure of any of the suspects to protect those involved from the risk of explosion .","On DATE the investigating judge closed the investigation . The applicant was informed and instructed that he could file an indictment as a subsidiary prosecutor within DATE if he so wished .","DATE . On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL others filed an indictment , laying blame on CARDINAL former senior executives of PERSON and ORG , GPE , PERSON and GPE , as well as on Mr R.L. , former Deputy Head of ORG , for failing to take measures that had been required of them to prevent the lives of the applicant \u2019s son and others from being avoidably put at risk or to mitigate casualties . By DATE , ORG rejected all of the objections raised by the defence that the indictment was defective , and upheld the indictment .","The beginning of the trial was scheduled for DATE and then for DATE , but was adjourned on both occasions by the court because it had been unable to secure the proper composition of its bench and\/or some of the defendants had not been properly summoned .","The trial before the GPE ORG eventually started on DATE , when the court heard CARDINAL defendants and adjourned the hearing because the scheduled time had lapsed . The CARDINAL scheduled hearings ( DATE , DATE and DATE ) were adjourned because of the presiding judge \u2019s other commitments and\/or because CARDINAL or more of the defendants had failed to appear in court .","At a hearing held on DATE , the court heard CARDINAL defendants ( GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) and adjourned to decide on further objections to the indictment . DATE and DATE , the competent courts dismissed the indictment in respect of LOC and GPE , because the applicant had failed to name them as suspects in his earlier criminal complaint for the crimes at issue ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which were , in principle , supposed to be prosecuted firstly ex officio . The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned to allow the court to decide on ORG \u2019s objection , and the next hearing scheduled for DATE , on DATE , was cancelled as the case file had been at ORG to decide on appeals on points of law lodged by other suspects ( ORG , PERSON GPE ) against the courts\u2019 decisions on their objections .","On DATE the indictment was slightly amended with regard to the facts .","On DATE , the trial recommenced before a new chamber , and also owing to the lapse of time since the previous hearing . The court heard the defendants and CARDINAL witnesses .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to re - examine whether the classification of the testimonies of CARDINAL ORG executives as ORG secret had been in accordance with the law , and to add them to the case file if appropriate . No decision in respect of his request has been submitted to the ORG .","The trial recommenced once again before a new trial chamber on CARDINAL DATE , when the court heard CARDINAL defendants and CARDINAL witnesses . On DATE , the court heard CARDINAL new witnesses , as well as LOC and GPE The QUANTITY hearings set for DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE were adjourned or cancelled owing to a strike by court clerks ( zapisni\u010dara ) and\/or as the witnesses had not been summoned properly or had failed to appear . The court imposed fines on CARDINAL witnesses for failure to appear in court .","The trial recommenced before yet another trial chamber on DATE , as well as again because of the lapse of time . The court heard one witness and adjourned the hearing because it had been unable to maintain the proper composition of its bench . CARDINAL further scheduled hearings ( DATE and DATE ) were cancelled at the request of the defendants or their lawyers for private or professional reasons and\/or because of the inadequate summoning of witnesses .","On DATE the applicant lodged a new bill of indictment against R.L. and GPE","The trial started anew because of the lapse of time on DATE , when the court again heard defendants and CARDINAL witnesses . On DATE the present proceedings were joined with the criminal proceedings against ORG and GPE The QUANTITY hearings scheduled for DATE and DATE were cancelled due to the failure of the defendants\u2019 lawyers to appear in court and\/or the difficulties of successfully tracing certain experts after DATE .","On DATE the trial re - started again because of the lapse of time , but could not proceed as the competent experts failed to appear in court . The judge fined CARDINAL of the experts . On DATE the court heard one police expert ( PERSON ) . The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because of the absence of CARDINAL forensic experts ( GPE and GPE ) and the defendants\u2019 attorneys .","Following judicial reforms , on DATE the case was assigned to another judge of the newly competent ORG and the proceedings had to begin anew . The hearing fixed for CARDINAL DATE was cancelled because the court had been informed that ORG had been found dead on DATE , as well as because CARDINAL of the GPE lawyers had not been properly summoned .","On DATE , the court discontinued the proceedings against ORG In order to speed up the trial , the applicant amended the indictment , accusing the defendants of being co - accomplices in serious breaches of safety regulations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below , Article CARDINAL in conjunction with Article CARDINAL of LAW ) . The hearing was adjourned until DATE to allow the defendants to readjust their defence to the slightly amended indictment . The latter hearing was also not held due to a judiciary strike .","By DATE , ORG had held one hearing and adjourned another CARDINAL hearings . Specifically , during a very short hearing on DATE CARDINAL defendant and a number of witnesses had been re - heard , whilst the hearings of DATE and CARDINAL DATE had been adjourned because the GPE lawyers had not appeared . The hearing scheduled for DATE was cancelled by the court itself because it had , apparently , been unable to secure the proper composition of its bench . When CARDINAL of the parties to the proceedings complained about the delay , the GPE ORG informed him that the case had been classified as \u201c backlog \u201d and would be dealt with shortly .","On DATE the court rendered the first - instance decision . It acquitted the defendants , finding that there was insufficient evidence to declare them guilty of the offences with which they had been charged . The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .","According to the information made available by the parties , the case is still pending before ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( Ustavni sud ) , complaining about the length of the criminal proceedings described above . He complained , in particular , of obstacles and obstructions within the criminal proceedings , of not being involved in the investigative activities and of having had no access to the case file .","On DATE ORG held that the applicant had suffered a breach of his \u201c right to a trial within a reasonable time \u201d in respect of the ineffective , inadequate and lengthy criminal proceedings before the first - instance court , and ordered the latter to bring the impugned proceedings to a conclusion as soon as possible . In order to establish its jurisdiction ratione materiae , the court held that the criminal proceedings concerned the right to life , which was a civil right . ORG also declared that the applicant was entitled to non - pecuniary damages , in accordance with LAW . The applicant does not seem to have been served with that decision until DATE .","DATE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a request with ORG . In so doing , he relied on ORG decision , and sought MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation on account of the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage suffered .","On DATE ORG offered to pay the applicant the sum of RSD CARDINAL ( at the time MONEY ( ORG ) ) for the non - pecuniary damage referred to in ORG decision . According to the information contained in the case file , the applicant refused to accept that amount , deeming it insufficient .","Instead , on DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG ( PERSON ) , noting that he had not received an appropriate offer from ORG , which was why he was entitled to bring a separate civil suit in this respect ( LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant sought RSD CARDINAL ( at the time approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for the non - pecuniary damage sustained .","On DATE ORG Instance accepted the applicant \u2019s claim in part and awarded him ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . The applicant was exempted from paying court stamp duty on account of his age and indigence .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , decreased the award to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The court stated that the payment of the original award would be contrary to the purpose of compensation and that the ORG could not be responsible for the omissions of third parties . According to information made available by the parties , the awarded amount has not yet been paid .","It would appear that on an unspecified date the applicant lodged another constitutional appeal with ORG in respect of the compensation . The ORG has not been informed by the parties about the outcome of the proceedings before ORG .","Despite the ORG \u2019s request to the ORG to provide it with the information indicating the ownership structure of PERSON and ORG as of DATE , the documents provided by the ORG concerned only the legal status of PERSON as of DATE , when it was incorporated as a limited liability company ( dru\u0161tvo sa ograni\u010denom odgovorno\u0161\u0107u ) . Nevertheless , documents in the ORG \u2019s possession show that in DATE it was a well - established \u201c socially - owned \u201d holding company ( dru\u0161tveno preduze\u0107e \/ poslovni sistem ) licenced for the production of homogeneous flooring and other products made of PVC masses . Its PERSON factory was apparently registered for the production of bituminous materials .","JPL was registered as a privately - owned company in DATE for other services than the production of rocket fuel . It would appear that soon after the explosion the company was re - registered as PERSON , and that some of its co - founders , including GPE and GPE , further re - registered the company or established new companies called ORG and\/or EdePRO . According to media reports , a new explosion occurred on the EdePRO premises in DATE . CARDINAL person died and CARDINAL were injured .","DATE . The Criminal Code CARDINAL ( published in ORG of GPE \u2013 \u201c LOC \u201d \u2013 no . CARDINAL , amendments published in ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , and ORG DATE \u201c ORG RS \u201d \u2013 nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , FAC , FAC , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) was in force from DATE until DATE . The relevant provisions read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Whosoever by fire , flood , explosive , poison or poisonous gas , ionising or radioactive radiation , engine power or other generally dangerous act or generally dangerous means causes danger to life or body of people or to property of larger scale , shall be punished with imprisonment of DATE .","( CARDINAL ) The penalty specified in paragraph CARDINAL of this Article shall also be imposed on an official or responsible person who fails to install prescribed equipment for protection against fire , explosion , flood , poison , poisonous gas , ionising or radioactive radiation , or fails to maintain these in proper order , or fails to use the equipment in time of need , or generally fails to observe regulations or technical protection standards and thereby causes danger to life or body or to property of large scale .","( CARDINAL ) If a number of people are gathered at the location of the offences specified in DATE and QUANTITY of this Article , the offender shall be punished with imprisonment of DATE .","( CARDINAL ) If the offence specified in CARDINAL of this LAW is committed by negligence , the offender shall be punished with imprisonment of DATE . \u201d","\u201c If the offence specified in LAW DATE , LAW , LAW DATE and LAW hereof resulted in the death of one or more persons , the offender shall be punished with imprisonment of not DATE . \u201d","DATE ( published in OG RS no . CARDINAL of DATE , amendments published in ORG RS nos . CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) entered into force on DATE . It contains similar provisions ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL thereof ) , but the prescribed penalties are now imprisonment of DATE ( instead of imprisonment of DATE ) for breaching general safety regulations at a location where a number of people are gathered , and imprisonment of CARDINAL ( instead of imprisonment of not DATE ) for the breach of general safety regulations which resulted in the death of CARDINAL or more persons .","LAW ( published in ORG of GPE \u2013 \u201c ORG FRY \u201d \u2013 no . CARDINAL of DATE , amendments published in OG FRY no . CARDINAL of DATE and ORG RS nos . CARDINAL of CARDINAL May CARDINAL , CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) entered into force on DATE . The relevant domestic provisions are contained in Articles DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code .","Most criminal offences ( including those mentioned above ) are subject to public prosecution , but some minor offences are only subject to private prosecution . The public prosecutor \u2019s discretion to decide whether to press charges , however , is bound by the principle of legality , which requires that he must act whenever there is a reasonable suspicion that a crime subject to public prosecution has been committed . The public prosecutor must undertake measures necessary for the preliminary investigation of crimes subject to public prosecution and the identification of the alleged perpetrators . To that end , he is vested with the power to co - ordinate the work of various law - enforcement agencies and other governmental bodies .","If the public prosecutor finds , based on the evidence before him , that there is a reasonable suspicion that a certain person has committed a crime subject to public prosecution , he will request the competent court to open an official investigation or file a bill of indictment . If , however , the public prosecutor decides that there is no basis for the institution of such proceedings , he must issue a reasoned decision and also inform the victim of that decision ; the victim then has the right to take over the prosecution of the case on his or her own behalf , in the capacity of \u201c subsidiary prosecutor \u201d , within DATE of the notification of the public prosecutor \u2019s decision .","A subsidiary prosecutor may submit a request for the opening of an investigation or file an indictment . If an investigating judge refuses to open the investigation sought , the case will be referred to a CARDINAL - judge criminal panel to issue a decision in that respect within TIME . A further appeal is allowed . If the prosecution has already been taken over by a subsidiary prosecutor , the public prosecutor nevertheless has the power to resume the prosecution of the matter ex officio .","At the relevant time the acquisition , production , trade and\/or storage of armaments and explosive and flammable substances should have been carried out in compliance with numerous health - and - safety requirements and in the manner set out by the relevant laws and bylaws , as appropriate .","The Manufacturing of Armaments and Military Equipment Act of the Socialist Federal Republic of GPE prescribed the conditions for and manner of , inter alia , the production of armaments and military equipment needed to supply the NORP army and for national defence in general , as well as the legal status of enterprises empowered to do so . Only enterprises which were empowered or contracted by the national defence authorities or by an extraordinary federal law were licensed to produce armaments and military equipment . The licensed enterprises were required to observe preventive measures and safety precautions , organise special units and adopt technical and physical firefighting - related plans and programmes in that respect . Under the law , the national defence authorities were responsible for supervision of the implementation of the law , while the data on capacity , development programmes and production of weaponry were confidential .","LAW of the Socialist GPE and the Explosive Substances , Flammable Liquids and LAW of GPE regulate the terms and procedures for issuing authorisation , competence and control of the authorities , and their supervision over implementation of the legislation . The legislation also provides for other matters of importance for the production and trade of explosive and\/or flammable substances that are not used in the military and mining sectors . Weaponry may be produced by registered enterprises , which have been licensed by the competent interior affairs authorities ( at the level of GPE or of the autonomous provinces ) following a positive opinion provided by the competent authorities in charge of national defence . No manufacturing permits may be used until the competent authorities have verified that the enterprise has met all the necessary requirements in respect of location , technical equipment , safety and preventive measures , storage and staff training , as required by the law .","The licensed enterprises are required to ensure that all preventive measures are carried out and that people and neighbouring buildings are protected . They must hold records of the materials produced and technologies used ( to be verified by the competent ORG authorities ) . They must also make sure employees are properly informed about the production technology and the risks , and trained to control or deal with them , and obtain authorisation for the transportation of explosive and flammable substances . Furthermore , the enterprises are required to put in place adequate checks and regularly review their implementation of the prescribed requirements and measures .","Lastly , the interior affairs authorities of GPE or its provinces are responsible for supervision of the implementation of the regulations in respect of the production of explosive substances , while the municipal interior affairs authorities have a supervisory role in respect of all other activities and measures .","The relevant legislation sets out the liability for disciplinary , criminal or misdemeanour offences , as appropriate , for failures to adhere to the regulations ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164944","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KUZNETSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165952","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF IGOR PASCARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge;Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - reserved (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a bus driver . On DATE he was involved in an accident with a car in which no one was injured . According to the findings of the police , the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident , GPE , had changed lanes without paying attention to the applicant \u2019s bus , which had been overtaking it in the other lane . The applicant had not had enough time to brake and had hit GPE \u2019s car on the rear left side . On DATE the chief inspector of the traffic police issued a decision finding GPE responsible for the accident under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , fined him CARDINAL GPE lei ( MDL ) ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) and gave him CARDINAL penalty points .","On an unspecified date GPE contested that decision .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE GPE dismissed GPE \u2019s objection and upheld the decision of the chief inspector of the traffic police . The applicant was not involved in the proceedings . Only GPE and the police officer who had been present at the site of the accident were present and the latter opposed GPE \u2019s objection . GPE challenged the ORG decision .","On DATE , ORG reversed the decision of the first - instance court , finding the applicant guilty of causing the accident . The court found that the applicant had not kept a safe distance between his bus and the vehicle in front of him and stated as follows :","\u201c ... according to LAW , the driver of a vehicle shall keep a safe distance between his vehicle and the vehicle in front of him , in such a manner as to avoid collision in case of sudden braking by the foregoing vehicle .","These rules were not observed by the driver of the vehicle which was behind , namely by the driver of the bus [ ... ] , PERSON , and by no means by Mr GPE \u201d","The applicant was again not involved in the proceedings and only found out about them at DATE . Under domestic law he was not able to challenge ORG decision .","As a result of the above judgment and based on its conclusions , on CARDINAL DATE the chief inspector of the traffic police issued a new decision by which he found the applicant guilty of the breach of LAW of the Traffic Code causing the accident of CARDINAL DATE . The operative part of the decision stated as follows :","\u201c ... PERSON is declared guilty of having committed the offence provided by LAW ( ORG ) , however , according to LAW ORG no sanction shall be applied in view of the statutory limitation period . \u201d","It appears from the documents submitted by the parties that following the accident the owner of the bus recovered the cost of its repairs from GPE \u2019s insurance company . After the judicial proceedings in which the applicant was found responsible , GPE attempted to recover the cost of the repairs of his car from the other party \u2019s insurance company . However , it appears from the case file that the company suspended payment until the case has been finally determined by the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156564","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"IBRAGIMOV v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national of NORP ethnic origin , who was born in DATE and is presently detained in PERSON ( GPE ) .","He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON of ORG foundation and PERSON of the nongovernmental organisation Help a Man , who were succeeded by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the respondent Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP The present case is a sequel to application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which had been submitted by the same applicant . The latter application was examined by the ORG jointly with application no . CARDINAL , which had been submitted by applicant Mr Anzor Chadidovich GPE .","The ORG \u2019s decision on the admissibility of applications nos . ORG and ORG is referred to below in DATE and DATE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and established by ORG in the context of applications nos . CARDINAL and ORG , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was arrested by NORP border police on DATE , having no valid travel document .","On DATE he applied for asylum in GPE . His request was ultimately dismissed , the final decision being given by ORG on DATE and becoming final on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c OPGRF \u201d ) applied for the applicant \u2019s extradition . The request was based on the fact that the applicant had been accused of several offences , namely banditry with aggravating circumstances and attempt on the life of officials of a law - enforcement agency . He was suspected of having participated , as a member of an organised group , in the killing of CARDINAL agents of ORG in ORG in DATE .","The above letter and another letter from the OPGRF dated DATE indicated that the applicant would not be tried by ORG , would enjoy the guarantees of a fair trial including the assistance of counsel and that he would not be subjected to treatment contrary to LAW . As to the risk of the death penalty , the letters indicated that there was a moratorium on the death penalty in GPE , that the applicant would not face the death penalty if extradited and that , should the applicant be sentenced to death , the sentence would not be carried out . Reference was made to the fact that GPE had signed LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW and that under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW on GPE of DATE it had an obligation not to use the death penalty .","The applicant was placed in preliminary detention with effect from DATE . On DATE the ORG remanded him in custody pending extradition .","On DATE ORG found the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE inadmissible , but ORG challenged that decision before ORG .","On DATE ORG overturned the contested decision and held that the applicant \u2019s extradition was admissible . It established that the applicant had been involved , as a member of an organised group , in the killing of CARDINAL NORP servicemen in PERSON in DATE . That killing had taken place after the military conflict had ended and it was not therefore an exclusively political or military action within the meaning of the relevant provision of the NORP Code of Criminal Procedure , which prevented the extradition of foreigners in such cases . ORG further noted that GPE was a member ORG and that respect for human rights was permanently monitored .","Finally , ORG considered sufficient the guarantees offered by the OPGRF , which stated that the applicant would not face the death penalty and that such punishment was in any event not carried out in GPE , that he would not be tried by a ORG as well as the undertaking that ORG and CARDINAL of the ORG would be respected in his case .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He relied on LAW and referred to various reports on the situation in prisons in GPE . In particular , he invoked reports on treatment to which persons of NORP origin suspected of fighting against NORP authorities were subjected . He also invoked the fact that the death penalty had not been formally abolished in GPE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint as being manifestly ill - founded . It relied on the reasoning of ORG which it considered relevant and sufficient from the point of view of protecting the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE addressed to the NORP authorities the OPGRF confirmed the guarantees previously given with regard to the applicant , including respect for his physical and psychological integrity . The letter indicated that , if he was convicted and given a prison sentence , the applicant would serve his sentence in a federal prison , where the Convention and the NORP Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners are taken into account . ORG to GPE would be informed of the place of the applicant \u2019s detention and NORP diplomatic representatives would be able to visit the applicant and speak to him without the presence of third persons . The applicant would be provided with sufficient medical care . It was guaranteed that capital punishment would not be applied in respect of the applicant . Finally , the OPGRF guaranteed that the applicant would not be prosecuted for his political views or because of his race , religion or nationality .","In applications nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL the applicants PERSON GPE and ORG complained , against a similar background , that their extradition to GPE would amount to a breach of their rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL .","On DATE a Chamber of the Fourth Section of the ORG decided to join applications ORG . ORG and ORG and to declare them inadmissible . In view of the documents before it , it found nothing which could reasonably have given the NORP authorities grounds to doubt the credibility of the guarantees provided by the OPGRF during the decision - making process . Thus , the ORG accepted the conclusion reached by the domestic authorities , namely that the facts of the case did not disclose substantial grounds for believing that the applicants PERSON GPE and ORG , if extradited to GPE , faced a real and personal risk of torture or of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of LAW .","In view of additional information submitted by the newly appointed representatives of the applicants Mr Ibragimov and Mr GPE on DATE , the President of the Fourth Section decided to indicate to the respondent Government , under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , that the applicants should not be extradited to GPE in the context of the present application until DATE . On the last - mentioned date a Chamber of the Fourth Section extended the interim measure by indicating to the respondent Government that the applicants should not be extradited until further notice . It was considered appropriate that they should have the possibility of having their cases reviewed at domestic level with the benefit of the new material , and that they should not be extradited pending such review .","The new application of GPE and GPE was registered under no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and the case was later transferred to the Third Section of the ORG , following the re - composition of the ORG \u2019s sections on DATE .","On DATE a part of application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was declared inadmissible and its remainder was notified to the respondent Government .","On DATE the interim measure of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was lifted in so far as it concerned Mr GPE . Subsequently , the remainder of application no . DATE concerning him was reregistered under no . CARDINAL , and it was declared inadmissible on DATE .","On DATE the applicant Mr Ibragimov filed a fresh asylum claim in GPE . He referred to the suffering which he had had to endure during the war in GPE and his state of health , and indicated that his relatives were being threatened . The applicant \u2019s arguments included those on which he relies in the context of the present application ( see below ) .","ORG discontinued the proceedings on that claim on DATE , finding that the applicant had submitted no relevant new information in relation to that already examined before . He then filed an administrative appeal to ORG .","On DATE the Minister of the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s administrative appeal and upheld the decision of ORG .","The Minister \u2019s decision stated that there had been no substantive change in the applicant \u2019s situation which would justify departing from the previous decision on his earlier asylum claim .","On DATE the applicant challenged the Minister \u2019s decision by way of an administrative - law action , arguing that the refusal of his asylum claim had been contrary to the law and that the administrative authorities had failed duly to take into account additional information and documents on which he had relied in his renewed claim .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the action and its judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE following the applicant \u2019s appeal . However , the latter judgment was quashed by ORG on DATE , following the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint .","After the quashing by ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , it became incumbent on the latter to determine anew the applicant \u2019s appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which it did , in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , by quashing it as well as the ministerial decision of DATE .","In turn , it then became incumbent on the Ministry to determine anew the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE discontinuing the proceedings on his new asylum claim , which it did on DATE , by quashing that decision and remitting the matter to ORG .","The reasons behind ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as reflected in the subsequent quashing judgment of ORG of DATE and the quashing decision of ORG DATE , were that the authorities had failed to respond adequately to the new information and arguments submitted by the applicant , as a result of which their decisions lacked proper reasoning and manifested signs of arbitrariness , and this was contrary to the applicant \u2019s right to a fair hearing LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Convention .","The applicant \u2019s new asylum claim is now pending at the administrative level .","Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE , the OPGRF had confirmed in a letter to the NORP authorities the validity of all guarantees previously offered . In particular , they submitted that , in the event of extradition , the applicant would not be submitted to treatment contrary to LAW and would benefit from a fair trial , and the OPGRF would directly supervise the observance of all such guarantees .","The applicant has been suffering from stomach ulcers for DATE and has had psychological problems . While in prison in GPE , he was kept in solitary confinement for significant periods . In the course of DATE , in reply to letters from the applicant \u2019s representatives , the prison administration rebutted allegations that he had not been receiving appropriate medical treatment .","The applicant had a fight on DATE with another detainee in the course of which the latter suffered physical injury . In a different context , on DATE , a prison officer accused the applicant of having attacked him . Criminal proceedings against the applicant in these CARDINAL matters appear to be still pending .","The applicant submitted a press release of CARDINAL DATE indicating that the Minister of the ORG had stated , after a meeting of the ORG , that GPE must not be a place where persons facing prosecution for serious criminal actions in CARDINAL of the member ORG could move freely . The Minister further indicated that the applicant \u2019s case had been sufficiently examined by ORG , ORG and ORG . The press release indicated that the Minister had refused to speculate as to whether the applicants would be extradited .","The applicant maintained that the criminal proceedings against him had been instituted in GPE on the basis of statements by PERSON which had been extracted under torture . In that regard Mr PERSON has a pending application before the ORG against GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The applicant also referred to the cases of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . PERSON , for his part , had an application before the ORG against GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , which was declared inadmissible on CARDINAL DATE . Nevertheless , in DATE , he was granted asylum in GPE .","Further circumstances of these individuals are described in the ORG \u2019s partial decision of CARDINAL DATE on the admissibility of the present application ( see paragraphs CARDINAL of that decision ) .","Other facts and documents referred to by the applicant are described in paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL of the ORG \u2019s partial decision of CARDINAL DATE on the admissibility of the present application .","In the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG declared inadmissible application by PERSON , which had been submitted together with the present application , and which rested on identical or similar facts and allegations as the present application . The relevant part of the ORG \u2019s decision reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The documents before the ORG indicate that in the proceedings on his renewed asylum request [ Mr PERSON ] withdrew his action by which he had sought a review of the administrative authorities\u2019 decisions . On that ground ORG discontinued the proceedings without addressing the merits of the case ...","Furthermore , as regards applications against GPE , a complaint under LAW of the LAW has been generally considered as an effective remedy in respect of alleged breaches of the LAW which the applicants have been required to use after having had recourse to other domestic remedies available ...","In view of the above , the ORG considers that [ Mr PERSON ] has failed to use the remedies available in GPE as required by LAW . Therefore , the subsidiary role of the Convention mechanism ... prevents the ORG from dealing with the application . \u201d","Subsequently , Mr PERSON was extradited to GPE .","According to a report of DATE submitted by the respondent Government , representatives of ORG to GPE carried out an official monitoring visit of Mr PERSON in ORG in GPE on DATE . The visit took place without the presence of the NORP party . Mr PERSON submitted that he had been placed in the PERSON detention centre in DATE . Of his free will and without any compulsion , he confirmed that during his detention he had not been subjected to any mistreatment and had had no complaint about the conditions of his detention . According to the report , PERSON appeared to be in good health and had displayed no signs of any mistreatment . The conditions of his detention had been inspected and found adequate . It was concluded that the guarantees of the OPGRF in relation to the treatment of Mr PERSON were actually observed and there was no reason to question them .","A number of relevant international instruments and reports concerning the situation in GPE , and GPE in general , are summarised , for example , in the ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases of PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE , with further references ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144942","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"A.F. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a dual ORG national , who was born in DATE in GPE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE with PERSON . The Government were represented by their agent , PERSON , ORG .","NORP The present case concerns CARDINAL control orders which were made against the applicant under the now repealed LAW DATE ( \u201c the PTA DATE \u201d ) . The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , the Secretary of ORG ( made a control order ( ORG DATE ) against the applicant , pursuant to section CARDINAL of the PTA DATE , on the grounds that the Secretary of ORG had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the applicant was or had been involved in terrorism - related activity and considered it necessary , for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism , to make such a control order . The control order was served on the applicant on DATE . It required him to remain in his home for TIME ( \u201c the curfew period \u201d ) and contained the following additional restrictions :","- to wear at all times an electronic monitoring tag ;","- to report by telephone to a monitoring company to ensure the curfew period was observed ;","- to remain within a marked area in GPE ;","- to allow police offices and other authorised persons to enter and search his flat ;","- not to allow visitors ( other than his father , his legal representative and members of the emergency services ) to his flat except with prior authorisation of ORG and , in respect of such a visitor , to supply the name , address , date of birth and photographic identity of the individual to ORG ;","- to attend CARDINAL designated mosque and , while there , not to lead prayers , give lectures or provide any religious advice ;","- a prohibition on all communication equipment ( including access to the internet ) in the flat save for CARDINAL fixed telephone line ;","- a prohibition on the use of mobile phone ( including allowing someone to use one in the flat ) ;","- to surrender his passport and any other travel documents ;","- to inform ORG of any departure from GPE and of any intended return ;","- a prohibition on entering any airport , port or international railway station ;","- various financial restrictions including , inter alia , on owning CARDINAL bank account and on international money transfers without ORG consent ;","- to provide ORG with details of any employment or change of employment ;","- not to associate with anyone else subject to a control order ; and","- not to associate or communicate , directly or indirectly , at any time or in any way with an individual named in the control order .","NORP In DATE the Secretary of ORG served on the applicant a ORG statement setting out the public or \u201c open \u201d reasons for the control order and the justifications for the various obligations imposed under it . The ORG statement alleged that the applicant had links with extremist individuals in GPE affiliated to ORG . No further information was given concerning these allegations , nor was any of the evidence supporting them communicated to the applicant .","On DATE , following the decision of ORG in another control order case , Secretary of ORG for ORG ORG and Others [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL , the control order was revoked by the Secretary of ORG . The Secretary of ORG then made a second control order ( control order ORG ) against the applicant . Under this control order , the curfew period was TIME . The other restrictions were similar to those set out in the first control order , save that the applicant was now prohibited from associating with a further CARDINAL individuals who were said to be associated with ORG .","In DATE control order ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was reviewed by ORG ( PERSON ) at a hearing under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of DATE . The Secretary of ORG disclosed ( \u201c open \u201d ) evidence in support of his assessment that the applicant was or had been engaged in terrorism related activity and that the control order was necessary . None of the statements or evidence produced by the Secretary of ORG disclosed any specific allegations of wrongdoing against the applicant . CARDINAL special advocates were appointed to represent the applicant at the section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) hearing . The applicant met with CARDINAL special advocate once on DATE . He maintained that he was unable to give the special advocate any meaningful instructions of any kind .","PERSON handed down his judgment on DATE . This consisted of an open judgment and a closed judgment . PERSON found that the material disclosed to the applicant did not show reasonable grounds for suspecting that he had been or was involved in terrorism - related activity ; it was clear , however , that the material which had been disclosed to the court and to the special advocates showed more than reasonable grounds for that suspicion . He nonetheless found that the control order had to be quashed because , taken cumulatively , the restrictions in it amounted to a deprivation of liberty and thus violated LAW .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG made a third control order against the applicant , ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . This Order was served on the applicant on DATE . It reduced the curfew period to TIME per day from DATE ( from TIME ) . The geographical area to which the applicant was restricted in TIME of each day was enlarged to include a part of GPE city centre , he was permitted to receive CARDINAL visitor at his home DATE without prior approval from ORG and he was granted permission to attend CARDINAL different mosques . The materials served on the applicant in relation to control order ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL contain no further indication as to the case against him .","PERSON gave leave to appeal directly to ORG against his judgment of DATE . The appeal was heard by ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , at the same time as CARDINAL other control order cases . Judgment in all the cases was given on DATE ( Secretary of ORG for ORG v. E and another [ DATE ] ORG DATE ) . The majority of ORG ( Lord PERSON , Lord PERSON and ORG ) held that , considered cumulatively , the restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty and had to be quashed , although Lord PERSON specified that a control order which confined the individual to his home for TIME or less , regardless of the severity of the other restrictions , would not amount to a deprivation of liberty . Lords PERSON and ORG dissented . A majority of their ORG , PERSON and PERSON ) therefore held that a control order which confined a person to a residence for TIME per day or less , even when coupled with other restrictions , did not amount to a deprivation of liberty under LAW . Their Lordships were unanimous in their view that the criminal limb of Article CARDINAL did not apply to control order proceedings , since the proceedings involved an assertion that a person was suspected of criminal activity , not that he was guilty of it . A majority ( Lords Bingham , PERSON and ORG , and ORG ) nonetheless held that , under the civil limb of DATE , if it were necessary to disclose material to a controlled person in order to afford them a fair hearing , then either disclosure had to be made or the material could not be relied upon . They further held that the use and contribution of the special advocates in the applicant \u2019s case could have been sufficient to afford him a fair hearing notwithstanding that none of the allegations and evidence relied upon against him was disclosed to him . In light of their conclusions , ORG reversed PERSON decision to quash control order ORG . Beyond their general observations on LAW , their Lordships made no specific finding as to whether LAW CARDINAL had been breached in the applicant \u2019s particular case and instead remitted this issue back to ORG for its consideration .","On DATE , following the ORG of Lords\u2019 judgment , the Secretary of ORG modified ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . That modification increased the period that the applicant was confined to his residence to TIME a day ( from TIME , later modified to TIME ) . The further restrictions set out in the control order continued in force . The Secretary of ORG introduced a further obligation prohibiting the applicant from attending pre - arranged meetings outside his residence , other than for health , educational or employment purposes and at a mosque .","The present application was lodged on DATE . When it was lodged , the hearing concerning ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was pending before ORG . The proceedings concerning ORG ( which had been remitted to ORG by ORG for consideration of the LAW issue in the case ) were also heard in ORG before PERSON PERSON In judgments given on DATE and DATE he found that , given the lack of disclosure of both the allegations against applicant and the evidence supporting them , the proceedings concerning ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL did not comply with LAW . He further found that that conclusion would apply to the pending proceedings concerning ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","NORP The Secretary of ORG appealed against those findings to ORG , which , on DATE and by a majority of CARDINAL to one , allowed the appeal . The majority found that there was no absolute rule that Article CARDINAL required the gist or essence of the allegations and evidence to be disclosed to the person subjected to a control order ( ORG and others v. Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ) . The applicant and CARDINAL other controlled persons whose cases had been heard by ORG were given leave to appeal to ORG .","On DATE , their ORG unanimously allowed the appeal ( ORG and others v. Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] UKHL CARDINAL ) . They found that , in light of this ORG \u2019s judgment in GPE and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG DATE , there was an absolute rule that Article CARDINAL required that a controlee be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to enable him to give effective instructions in relation to those allegations . Provided that this requirement was satisfied there could be a fair trial notwithstanding that the controlee was not provided with the detail or the sources of the evidence forming the basis of the allegations . Where , however , the open material consisted purely of general assertions and the case against the controlee was based solely or to a decisive degree on closed materials the requirements of a fair trial would not be satisfied , however cogent the case based on the closed materials might be .","On DATE the applicant wrote to this ORG seeking leave to amend the application in the light of the ORG of Lords\u2019 judgment . On DATE he was informed that , on DATE , the President of the ORG to which the case had been allocated had decided that , since the case would be remitted to the lower courts for further consideration , it was appropriate to adjourn the ORG \u2019s own consideration of the application .","As a result of ORG judgment , the Secretary of ORG decided not to make the required disclosure to the applicant and instead to revoke control order ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On DATE , ORG ( PERSON ) handed down another judgment finding , inter alia , that : ( i ) the control order against the applicant had to be regarded as having been revoked ( or quashed ) ab initio ; and ( ii ) the disclosure requirements identified by ORG applied to a claim for damages arising out of the imposition of a control order . The Secretary of ORG \u2019s appeal against ORG judgment was dismissed by ORG on DATE ( AN v. Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ) .","The applicant issued legal proceedings against the Secretary of ORG on DATE , claiming damages for the time he had spent under the control orders . In DATE the claim was dismissed , pursuant to a consent order agreed between the parties . The schedule to the consent order provided that the applicant would accept the sum of damages offered by the Government :","\u201c in full and final settlement of the entirety of his claim herein and any other claims which he might have in relation to the control orders listed below that he was subject to DATE and DATE :","i. PTACARDINAL\/CARDINAL","ii . PTACARDINAL\/CARDINAL","iii . PTACARDINAL\/CARDINAL","iv . PTACARDINAL\/CARDINAL","v. PTACARDINAL\/CARDINAL ... \u201d ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142636","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ORAN v. TURKEY [Extracts]","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);No violation of Article 14+P1-3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election;Right to free elections-{general});No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);No violation of Article 14+P1-3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election;Right to free elections-{general});No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant , who was a professor of political science at ORG , had stood for the parliamentary elections of DATE , in the second electoral district of GPE , as an independent candidate . He had not been a member of any political party at the material time .","With a view to a deeper understanding of the background to the present applications , the ORG considers it useful to outline the circumstances under which the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE took place . Accordingly it will refer to the relevant passages of GPE and PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) , which read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In DATE ORG decided to hold early parliamentary elections , choosing CARDINAL DATE as the date . The decision followed a political crisis resulting from ORG \u2019s inability to elect a new President of the Republic to follow on from PERSON before the expiry of his single DATE term of office , on CARDINAL DATE . In the normal course of events , these elections should have been held on DATE .","CARDINAL political parties took part in the elections , which were marked by CARDINAL characteristics . Firstly , a strong mobilisation of the electorate was observed following the presidential crisis , since the participation rate rose to PERCENT . Secondly , political parties used CARDINAL pre - electoral strategies to circumvent the national PERCENT threshold . ORG ) took part in the poll under the banner of the ORG , a rival party , and by that means managed to win CARDINAL seats . ORG , pro - NORP , left - leaning ) presented its candidates as independents using the slogan \u2018 A CARDINAL hopes\u2019 ; it also supported certain left - wing NORP candidates . This movement was backed by other small left - wing groups such as the LAW , the ORG and the ORG ( the ORG and ORG , socialist ) . CARDINAL independent candidates stood for election in CARDINAL provincial constituencies .","In the elections the ORG , the ORG and the ORG managed to get over the PERCENT threshold . With PERCENT of the votes cast , the ORG won CARDINAL seats , PERCENT of the total . The ORG , with PERCENT of the votes , won CARDINAL seats , PERCENT of the total ; however , the CARDINAL MPs mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above subsequently resigned from the ORG and went back to the ORG , their original party . The ORG , which polled PERCENT of the votes , won seventyone seats , or PERCENT of the total .","The strong showing by independent candidates was one of the main features of the elections of CARDINAL DATE . There were none in ORG in DATE but DATE saw them return , when there were CARDINAL . In DATE CARDINAL independent MPs were elected from a national total of CARDINAL independent candidates . In the elections of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL independent MPs were elected . In particular , CARDINAL GPE candidates were elected , after obtaining PERCENT of the votes cast , and joined the ORG after the elections . The ORG , which had CARDINAL MPs , the minimum number to be able to form a parliamentary group , was thus able to do so . The independents also included a socialist MP ( the former president of the ORG ) , a nationalist MP ( the former president of ORG , nationalist ) and a centrist MP ( the former president of ANAP ) .","A government was formed by the ORG , which again secured an absolute majority in ORG . \u201d","In accordance with LAW a ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL as amended under LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL March CARDINAL , electors were able to vote in polling stations set up at customs posts for political parties but not for independent candidates , who included the applicant .","In a Decree of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) stated that it had chosen DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively as the dates for the beginning and end of the parliamentary elections in the polling stations set up at customs posts for nationals who had been resident abroad for DATE . In the ORG explained that the nationals in question could only vote in those polling stations for political parties .","On DATE , with reference to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , the applicant lodged with ORG a request for the annulment of LAW DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request , on the basis of LAW a ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL . It pointed out that this provision could only be modified by a fresh legislative amendment .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Law no . CARDINAL on Elections allowed political parties participating in elections to transmit election broadcasts on national radio and television ( TRT ) , subject to certain restrictions , particularly in terms of airtime .","ORG oversaw the implementation of the PERSON , which laid down sanctions for infringements of the provisions on election broadcasts .","Election broadcasts were authorised from DATE , that is to say during DATE before the elections .","According to the applicant , the PERSON did not allow independent candidates like himself who did not , as a matter of principle , belong to any political party , to electioneer on the national radio and television , or , for that matter , on the private channels .","The applicant stressed that CARDINAL peculiarity of the CARDINAL DATE elections had been the large number of independent candidates standing . He considered that this unprecedented phenomenon had stemmed , firstly , from the PERCENT electoral threshold imposed during the parliamentary elections , and secondly , from the dissatisfaction felt by most people at the material time with the performance of the political parties , whether in power or in opposition .","..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","14","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141769","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"DONAT AND FASSNACHT-ALBERS v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The first applicant , Mr 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 GPE . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","s , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE around TIME a group of persons started blocking the crossing of a federal road with a county road in PERSON in order to protest against the forthcoming transport of \u201c castor \u201d containers to PERSON . A total of CARDINAL tractors and CARDINAL cars blocked the crossing , preventing CARDINAL lorry drivers from continuing their journey .","The first applicant , deputy mayor of PERSON and member of the LAW county council , as well as the second applicant and her husband were caught in the traffic jam caused by the blockade on the federal road in their cars .","NORP The police present at the crossroads allowed the applicants , who had parked and left their cars , to join the persons blocking the crossroads . In the first applicant \u2019s submission , he intended to inform himself on the event and to mediate , if necessary , in his capacity as an elected local politician . The second applicant wished to inform herself of the reasons for the blockade . Subsequently , more police forces arrived at the crossing .","At TIME the GPE police contained the CARDINAL persons present on and around the crossroads , including the applicants , in a police cordon . They informed the persons concerned at TIME that they were suspected of having committed an offence in view of the fact that they had been blocking the federal road for a considerable time , thereby preventing other vehicles from continuing their journey . They declared the assembly dissolved and announced that the police would establish the identity of all persons involved at a checkpoint . They further asked persons who did not feel well , children and women to process to the identity check first in order to be able to leave the cordon rapidly . The first applicant subsequently attempted in vain to leave the cordon at a different place by presenting his identity papers only .","Following the establishment of their identities , CARDINAL persons had left the cordon by TIME , CARDINAL persons by TIME , another CARDINAL persons by TIME and CARDINAL persons by TIME At TIME the police ordered a toilet van for the remaining QUANTITY .","Around TIME ( in the second applicant \u2019s submission ) or TIME ( according to the police photo in the file ) the second applicant left the cordon after her identity had been recorded .","On TIME the police started pushing the remaining persons , including the first applicant , towards the identity checkpoint . At TIME of the following day ( DATE ) , the QUANTITY persons remaining within the cordon , including the first applicant , were escorted by the police to the checkpoint . The first applicant left the cordon at TIME after his identity had been recorded . All persons had left the cordon by TIME following the establishment of their identities .","The identities of the persons cordoned off by the police were established , in principle , in the following manner . They filmed the persons concerned with a video camera when they presented their identity cards . The personal data of those persons were read out by a police officer at the same time . In contrast , the second applicant gave her identity herself and CARDINAL photographs were made of her in addition to the video recording as she had left her identity card in her car .","Following their release from the cordon , it took the applicants TIME to reach their cars which were parked on the opposite side of the crossroads because the police kept blocking the crossroads , which was surrounded by a forest difficult to traverse on TIME .","On DATE the first applicant and on DATE CARDINAL the second applicant , both represented by counsel , requested ORG , in an action against the GPE police , to declare , in particular , that their deprivation of liberty and the manner in which personal data had been taken for the police records on DATE had been unlawful .","On DATE ORG ( civil section ) transferred the cases brought by the applicants to the investigating judge responsible for the review of measures under LAW . It argued that the applicants had not been deprived of their liberty for preventive purposes under LAW and Order . The police had in fact detained them on the basis of LAW .","On DATE ORG ( criminal section ) found that the establishment of the first applicant \u2019s identity under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the taking of pictures of the first applicant for the police record under Article PERSON , first alternative , of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had been lawful .","On DATE the ORG ( criminal section ) made the same finding in respect of the second applicant .","In their decisions , phrased in almost identical terms , ORG found that the police had contained the persons participating in the blockade of the crossroads in a police cordon in order to establish their identities and to take pictures and in order to seize the vehicles involved . They considered that there had been at least sufficient factual elements for concluding that the persons concerned were guilty of joint coercion ( Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . By parking their vehicles on the crossroads and by their presence thereon , the CARDINAL persons involved created , at least by the ensuing traffic jam , a physical barrier preventing cars from continuing their journey for a considerable time , which , having regard to the criminal courts\u2019 case - law , amounted to force within the meaning of LAW . ORG further found that , having regard to the duration of the blockade of TIME and its effects for third persons , in particular CARDINAL lorry drivers who partly had to deliver goods within a deadline , the blockade was also reprehensible for the purposes of LAW and not covered by the right to freedom of assembly or the right to freedom of expression .","ORG considered that in view of the suspicion that a joint coercion had been committed , the police had been obliged under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW to establish the identity of all persons present on the crossroads , including that of the applicants . Having regard to the number of persons involved , this measure naturally took a certain amount of time .","Likewise , the taking of video pictures of the persons concerned under Article ORG , first alternative , of LAW was necessary to conduct the investigation proceedings . In order to establish the acts committed by individual perpetrators , their presence and the clothing at the time of the act had to be recorded .","In the District Courts\u2019 view , the impugned measures taken by the police were not disproportionate . Even without the police cordon , there would have been inconveniences as a result of the lack of toilets , the weather and the lack of food at the crossroads , the blocking of which was to be upheld for a considerable period of time .","On DATE the first applicant and on DATE the second applicant lodged appeals against the District Courts\u2019 decisions . They argued , in particular , that it had been arbitrary to treat them as suspects , given that they had been caught in the traffic jam caused by the blockade themselves and had only wanted to inform themselves of the cause for the traffic jam . ORG had insufficiently established the relevant facts and had failed , in particular , to hear them in person .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded .","As to the lawfulness of the first applicant \u2019s detention by the police , ORG clarified that the deprivation of liberty had been based on LAW , second sentence , of LAW . That provision authorised holding back a person suspected of a criminal offence if that person \u2019s identity could not be established in a different way or if that establishment would be possible only with considerable difficulty . The first applicant had been present within a group of persons having blocked a crossing with the help of tractors causing a considerable traffic jam . Even taking into account the cause for the blockade , namely to demonstrate against the forthcoming transport of castor containers , this blockade , having regard to ORG case - law , could constitute coercion . It had been necessary to contain the CARDINAL suspects in a police cordon in order to take the identity of all of them .","ORG further considered that the first applicant \u2019s deprivation of liberty had been proportionate . The police had enabled persons who did not feel well and minors to leave the cordon speedily . They further speeded up the establishment of the ORG identities by recording the reading out of the personal data on video instead of writing the data down . If the first applicant had lacked food and had been cold , he could have asked for a speedy establishment of his identity . However , it appeared that the first applicant had been part of a group of CARDINAL persons who had refused to go to the checkpoint to have their identities established and he had thus caused delays in the establishment of his identity himself . In so far as it had not been possible for the first applicant to regain his car after his release for a considerable time , this had been caused by the partly ongoing blockade of the crossing and did not entail a deprivation of liberty imputable to the police .","ORG further found that the taking of the first applicant \u2019s identity via video recording had been lawful under Article PERSON , first alternative , of LAW . It had not been arbitrary to consider the first applicant , who was within the group of persons blocking the crossroads , as a suspect of a joint coercion . Filming the persons concerned had also been proportionate . It had been necessary to document the clothing worn by the suspects in order to enable witnesses to recognise the perpetrators of an offence having caused prejudice to a considerable number of drivers at a later stage .","ORG considered that it had not been required by LAW for ORG to hear the first applicant in person in the present proceedings . ORG had sufficiently established the relevant facts , having regard also to the file on the criminal investigations against the first applicant and the documentation of the video recording made by the police .","On DATE and on DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s complaints about a breach of his right to be heard . It stressed that the first applicant had had full access to the case - files , which included the police reports and pictures of the first applicant drawn from the video recordings . He had therefore been in a position to explain his view comprehensively in writing .","On DATE ORG , endorsing the reasons of ORG , equally dismissed the second applicant \u2019s appeal . It stressed that the second applicant \u2019s counsel had had access to the complete case - file . It had not been necessary to hear the second applicant in person as the lawfulness of the impugned measures could be determined irrespective of a personal impression of her .","On DATE the ORG equally dismissed the second applicant \u2019s objection and complaint about a breach of her right to be heard .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He complained , in particular , that his detention in the police cordon on DATE , which he had only been able to leave under the condition that he had himself and his personal data recorded on video , had breached his constitutional right to liberty , his personality rights and his right to freedom of assembly . Moreover , the procedure before ORG and ORG had failed to grant him effective redress in relation to these complaints .","On CARDINAL DATE the second applicant lodged a constitutional complaint in which she endorsed the complaints made by the first applicant .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the first applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and on DATE it declined to consider the second applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , without giving reasons . The decisions were served on the applicants\u2019 counsel on DATE ( in respect of the first applicant ) and on DATE ( in respect of the second applicant ) .","On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation proceedings for coercion against all persons present at the blockade of the crossroads on DATE . It dispensed with the prosecution of the offence as the PERSON culpability would be of a minor nature and as there was no public interest in the prosecution .","On DATE ORG confirmed ORG finding that the storage of data on the first applicant in the police databases on castor transports and on state security , which had been erased in the meantime , had been unlawful . Only the data concerning the first applicant contained in the LOC police \u2019s electronic record of police measures could be kept .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , on coercion , provides that whoever compels another person unlawfully by force or threat of a considerable harm to commit , acquiesce in or omit an act shall be punished by imprisonment of DATE or a fine . The act shall be unlawful for the purposes of LAW if the use of force or the threat of harm is to be considered reprehensible in order to attain the objective pursued by the act ( LAW ) .","The conditions under which the blocking of streets for reasons of political protest is punishable under LAW has been a matter of intense academic discussion for DATE and has been addressed and clarified by ORG in CARDINAL leading decisions ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and others , judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Collection of the decisions of ORG ) vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ss . ; file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and others , decision of DATE , BVerfGE vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ss . , and file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and others , decision of DATE , BVerfGE vol . ORG , pp . CARDINAL ss . ) . ORG found , in particular , that only a blockade in which the participants set up a physical barrier , going beyond the mere mental impact on the road users by their physical presence in the blocked street , may be classified as \u201c force \u201d for the purposes of LAW ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and others , ibid . , LAW ) . Moreover , in determining whether an act amounted to a \u201c reprehensible \u201d coercion for the purposes of LAW , the criminal courts had to take into account the purpose of the blockade and , if applicable , the importance of the constitutional protection of the right to freedom of assembly ( ibid . , LAW . ) .","Under LAW , ORG and the police officers may take the measures necessary to establish the identity of a person who is suspected of having committed a criminal offence ( LAW , first sentence ) . The suspect may be held back if his or her identity can not be established in an alternative way or if establishment of his or her identity would be possible only with considerable difficulty ( LAW , second sentence ) .","Article PERSON of LAW provides that photographs and fingerprints of the accused may be taken even against his will and measurements may be made of him and other similar measures be taken with regard to him in so far as this is necessary for the conduct of the criminal proceedings or for the purposes of the police records ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178415","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"LOIZOU v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before ORG by M. ORG and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The complaints raised in this application arise out of the NORP military intervention in northern GPE . The general context of the property issues arising in this context is set out in the cases of GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL PERSON ) , and NORP and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) ( [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ) .","NORP Before the military intervention in northern GPE in DATE the applicant \u2019s family lived in GPE and owned property there . This included the family \u2019s home ( \u201c plot CARDINAL \u201d ) , which was registered in the name of the applicant \u2019s mother , and CARDINAL commercial properties , which were registered in the name of a limited company , ORG ( \u201c NLS \u201d ) . The applicant \u2019s parents were the sole shareholders in ORG . According to ORG \u2019s articles of association , the CARDINAL commercial properties were to be distributed between the applicant and his CARDINAL brothers if their parents , the shareholders , so wished .","The first of the CARDINAL commercial properties , plot CARDINAL , was a groundfloor dwelling which the applicant \u2019s father planned to turn into a supermarket . The second , plot CARDINAL , was a supermarket which was in operation until the military intervention began .","When his mother died in DATE , the applicant \u2019s father decided to transfer all CARDINAL properties ( that is to say , the dwelling house and the CARDINAL commercial properties ) to the applicant and his brothers .","On DATE the ORG company , which had in the meantime ceased to be operational , was struck off the relevant register of companies .","On DATE the applicant , his father and his CARDINAL brothers lodged an application with the ORG , alleging violations of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of Protocol No . CARDINAL arising from their inability to access their CARDINAL properties ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . On DATE a Single Judge of the ORG declared their application inadmissible because it had been lodged before the domestic remedy available via the ORG had been exhausted and therefore had to be rejected for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s brothers transferred their shares in the properties to the applicant , making him the sole owner of all of them .","The transfer of the ownership of the properties in question is substantiated by certificates showing the history of ownership issued by ORG .","On DATE the applicant filed an application , supported by an affidavit , with the ORG under LAW no . TIME ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) claiming compensation for all CARDINAL properties in the amount of QUANTITY ( GBP ) and GBP CARDINAL for the loss of their use . In support of his claim the applicant provided certificates issued by ORG attesting that he was the owner of the properties in question . In the affidavit , the applicant stated that his father had owned the properties in DATE and that there was no mortgage , restriction or other liability on the properties .","The applicant \u2019s claim was communicated to the \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney General as provided under PERSON no . TIME and the relevant IPC Rules ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant contended that the \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney General had failed to provide an opinion concerning his claim within DATE time - limit set out in the relevant provisions on the functioning of the ORG . He argued that the ORG should adopt a default decision on the basis of his claim .","At a meeting before the ORG on DATE the \u201c NORP \u201d Attorney General \u2019s representative stated that he had still not received a report concerning the properties that were being claimed by the applicant and he was therefore not in a position to provide an opinion .","Further meetings before the ORG scheduled for DATE and CARDINAL DATE were adjourned for the same reason .","Meanwhile , the applicant instructed a law firm to represent him in the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE the \u201c NORP \u201d Attorney General submitted his opinion concerning the applicant \u2019s claim . The opinion relied on an affidavit by the \u201c GPE \u201d Director of ORG which stated that \u2212 according to their information \u2212 plots CARDINAL and CARDINAL had been owned by the ORG company in DATE , and plot CARDINAL by PERSON ( the applicant \u2019s mother ) . In the opinion the view was also expressed that the applicant \u2019s claim was excessive .","At a directions hearing on DATE the applicant \u2019s representative undertook to provide photographs of the properties and asked the \u201c NORP \u201d Attorney General to provide the relevant land registry search documents for the properties in question . The \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney General \u2019s representative asked the applicant to provide birth certificates for him and his parents , certificates from the head of the local community ( mukhtar ) attesting that the persons who owned the properties in DATE were the applicant \u2019s parents , and documents concerning the history of ownership of the properties after DATE and attesting that there were no liabilities attaching to them .","The applicant \u2019s representative produced the requested documents on DATE .","At a preliminary hearing before the ORG on DATE , the \u201c NORP \u201d Attorney General \u2019s representative and ORG informed the applicant and the ORG that no offer would be made in respect of the family house ( plot CARDINAL ) unless the claims made in respect of the CARDINAL commercial properties ( plots CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) were withdrawn . The applicant \u2019s representatives stated that they were trying to find a solution with the \u201c GPE \u201d authorities concerning issues relating to companies and mortgages . They therefore asked for a DATE \u2019s adjournment in order to monitor developments on the matter and stated that if a solution was not reached they would withdraw the request relating to the CARDINAL commercial properties .","At a meeting before the ORG on DATE the applicant \u2019s representative explained that they were working on the amendments of the relevant law with the \u201c NORP \u201d authorities and asked for a further adjournment of the examination of the case .","A further meeting before the ORG was held on DATE at which the applicant was also present . His representative asked for an adjournment , explaining that some additional documents needed to be provided and that there was no progress with the amendment of the relevant law . He also stated that the applicant would withdraw the claim with regard to the commercial properties .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representatives forwarded further necessary documents to the ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representatives submitted a letter to the ORG stating that , without prejudice , they were withdrawing the applicant \u2019s claim in respect of the CARDINAL commercial properties ( plots CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . They explained that before DATE the CARDINAL properties had been registered as the property of a company whose shareholders were the applicant \u2019s parents . Thereafter , the company had terminated its activities and its properties had been transferred to the NORP children ( the applicant and his brothers ) . Later , the company had been liquidated and now no longer existed as a legal entity . The applicant \u2019s representatives also submitted that as the transfer of properties had occurred after DATE and as the relationship between the applicant and the company was not defined as CARDINAL of legal succession within the meaning of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , the legislation did not provide the applicant with the possibility of submitting a claim for compensation for that property before the ORG . They considered that this was the reason why the \u201c GPE \u2019s \u201d representative had refused to make an offer for the compensation claim unless the CARDINAL commercial properties were withdrawn . Lastly , they argued that their decision to withdraw the claim was in line with the \u201c GPE \u201d High Administrative Court \u2019s practice in similar cases ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , which showed that the ORG could not be considered as a remedy in relation to a claim concerning the CARDINAL commercial properties .","At a meeting before the ORG on DATE , at which the applicant was also present , his representatives asked for an adjournment of the proceedings in order to consider a settlement offer in the amount of GBP CARDINAL made by the \u201c NORP \u201d authorities .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representatives informed the ORG that he would accept the offer .","On DATE a meeting was held before the ORG at which the \u201c GPE \u201d representatives noted that the applicant had withdrawn the claim in respect of the CARDINAL commercial properties ( plots CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) and reiterated their offer to pay GBP CARDINAL in respect of the applicant \u2019s claim concerning the family house ( plot CARDINAL ) , which the applicant \u2019s representatives accepted . On the basis of the parties\u2019 settlement , the ORG adopted a decision ordering the \u201c TRNC \u201d authorities to pay the aforementioned amount to the applicant in respect of his claim concerning the family house .","On DATE compensation in the amount of GBP CARDINAL was paid to the applicant .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( b ) and ( c ) , in so far as relevant , provide as follows :","\u201c ( b ) All immovable properties , buildings and installations which were found abandoned on CARDINAL DATE when ORG of GPE was proclaimed or which were considered by law as abandoned or ownerless after the above - mentioned date , or which should have been in the possession or control of the public even though their ownership had not yet been determined ... and ( c ) ... shall be the property of the GPE notwithstanding the fact that they are not so registered in the books of ORG ; and ORG shall be amended accordingly . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL reads as follows :","\u201c In the event of any person coming forward and claiming legitimate rights in connection with the immovable properties included in sub - paragraphs ( b ) and ( c ) of LAW above [ concerning , inter alia , all immovable properties , buildings and installations which were found abandoned on CARDINAL DATE ] , the necessary procedure and conditions to be complied with by such persons for proving their rights and the basis on which compensation shall be paid to them , shall be regulated by law . \u201d","The relevant provisions of PERSON no . TIME ( the LANGUAGE version available at TIME ) , which came into effect on DATE , read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In this PERSON , unless the context otherwise requires ,","...","\u201c Applicant \u201d means the person applying to the ORG with a claim of right in respect of immovable properties which are within the scope of sub - paragraph ( b ) of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , and in respect to movable property which is claimed to be owned by such person , such property having been abandoned in the LOC prior to CARDINAL DATE , being the date of the proclamation of ORG of GPE .","...","\u201c Immovable property \u201d means immovable property within the scope of subparagraph ( b ) of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The purpose of this PERSON is to regulate the necessary procedure and conditions to be complied with by persons in order to prove their rights regarding claims in respect to movable and immovable properties within the scope of this PERSON , as well as , the principles relating to restitution , exchange of properties and compensation payable in respect thereof , having regard to the principle of and the provisions regarding protection of bizonality , which is the main principle of DATE High level Agreements and of all the plans prepared by ORG on solving ORG and without prejudice to any property rights or the right to use property under GPE legislation or to any right of ORG which shall be provided by the comprehensive settlement of LOC . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) All natural or legal persons claiming right to movable and immovable properties that are within the scope of this PERSON may bring a claim until DATE by way of an application in person or through a representative , to ORG constituted under LAW of this PERSON , requesting restitution , exchange or compensation for such property . Applications made to the Commission shall be subject to the LAW made under LAW and the LAW made under this PERSON , notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary in any law or legislative instrument , only a fee of CARDINAL ORG ( CARDINAL NORP Liras ) shall be paid for each application . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . In proceedings before the ORG the burden of proof shall rest with the applicant who must satisfy the ORG beyond any reasonable doubt as to the following in order for a decision to be taken in his favour :","( CARDINAL ) That , the movable or immovable property in respect of which rights are claimed is the CARDINAL claimed in the application .","( CARDINAL ) That , in case of immovable property in respect of which the applicant claims rights , the property was registered in his name before DATE and\/or he is the legal heir of the individual in whose name the immovable property was registered .","... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The Commission , after having heard the arguments of the parties and witnesses , and having examined the documents submitted , shall , within the scope of the purposes of this PERSON , taking into consideration the below - mentioned matters , decide as to restitution of the immovable property to the person whose right in respect to the property has been established , or to offer exchange of the property to the said person , or decide as to payment of compensation . In cases where the applicant claims compensation for loss of use and\/or non - pecuniary damages in addition to restitution , exchange or compensation in return for immovable property , the Commission shall also decide on these issues .","... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . NORP Parties have the right to apply to ORG against the decisions of the Commission . If the applicant is not satisfied with the judgment of ORG , he may apply to ORG . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) For the implementation of this PERSON , an ORG composed of a President , a Vice - President , and minimum CARDINAL , maximum CARDINAL Members , whose qualifications are specified below , shall be established . CARDINAL members of the Commission to be appointed shall not be nationals of GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG . The decisions regarding the appointment of the members shall be published in ORG .","( A ) The President , Vice - President and the Members of the Commission shall be appointed by ORG from among persons nominated by the President of the Republic . The President of the Republic shall nominate a number of candidates twice the number of members to be appointed .","( B ) The President , Vice - President and Members of the ORG may be appointed from among lawyers or from among persons with experience in public administration and evaluation of property .","Any persons directly or indirectly deriving any benefit from immovable properties on which rights are claimed by those who had to move from the north of GPE in DATE , abandoning their properties , can not be appointed as members of the Commission .","...","( CARDINAL ) ORG shall convene by minimum CARDINAL majority of the total number of members and shall take decisions by absolute majority of the members attending the meeting , including the President .","( CARDINAL ) The term of office of a member not participating in the Commission meetings without a valid reason ( illness , official duty abroad , and the like ) for CARDINAL times , may be terminated by ORG upon the request of the President of the Commission . The term of office of the President of the Commission not participating in the Commission meetings without a valid reason ( illness , official duty abroad , and the like ) for CARDINAL times , may be terminated by ORG upon the request of the President of the Republic . In other cases , the conditions for the termination of the term of office of a member of the Commission shall be the same as those applied to a ORG Judge .","( CARDINAL ) ORG secretariat shall be established in order to carry out the clerical and administrative work of the Commission . ...","( CARDINAL ) All employees of the Commission , including the President , Vice - President and Members , shall be employed as long as their services are required and subject to conditions determined by ORG , notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any other law relating to employment of service , duration of service , age limit , duration of contract , renewal of contract and condition of non - retirement .","( CARDINAL ) The President , Vice - President and Members of the Commission shall not hold any other office during their term of office .","... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . NORP The President , Vice - President and Members of the Commission established in accordance with the provisions of this PERSON shall be appointed for DATE . At DATE the President , Vice - President and Members may be re - appointed in the same manner . The President , Vice - President and Members of the Commission shall carry out their duties objectively and independently during their term of office which may only be terminated before the end of term subject to the provisions of LAW , above . No person or authority can give any order or instruction to the President , Vice - President and Members of the Commission .","If the function of the ORG is completed before the period envisaged in the PERSON the terms of office of the Commission members shall be automatically terminated . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The Commission shall have the following duties and powers :","( CARDINAL ) To examine and reach a decision on applications made under this PERSON .","( CARDINAL ) To determine the amount and method of payment of compensation .","( CARDINAL ) To take necessary measures and decisions in order to conclude the proceedings concerning the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicants following the application of this PERSON .","( CARDINAL ) ORG , in carrying out its duties and exercising its powers mentioned above , may , if it deems necessary , collect written or oral testimony or hear witnesses .","( CARDINAL ) ORG may require written and oral testimony of any witness for the purpose of resolving any problems that may arise in the application of this PERSON , either under oath or by way of a declaration . Such evidence under oath , or by declaration shall be identical to that required for testimony before a Court of law .","( CARDINAL ) To summon any person residing in GPE to attend any meeting of the Commission in order to give testimony or produce any document in his possession and to be questioned as a witness .","( CARDINAL ) To compel any person to give evidence or to produce a document , when such person refuses to do so , following a request by ORG , whether under oath or by way of declaration , if the person concerned does not offer any satisfactory excuse to the Commission for such refusal .","However , witnesses may not be compelled to answer any incriminating question and no legal proceedings may be commenced for refusal to do so .","( CARDINAL) ORG may decide that expenses shall be paid to any persons summoned to give evidence in virtue of the application of this PERSON . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The decisions of the Commission have binding effect and are of an executory nature similar to judgments of the judiciary . Such decisions shall be implemented without delay upon service on the authorities concerned . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The processes to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of this PERSON , summons to be issued to witnesses , the procedure for attendance before the ORG and that relating to the hearing shall be subject to the provisions of LAW . \u201d","Further relevant provisions of Law no . DATE are provided in NORP and Others v. GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL provides that Rules for the better implementation of the provisions of that PERSON may be prepared by the ORG , approved by the \u201c ORG and published in ORG .","In DATE the ORG adopted its Rules ( the LANGUAGE version available at TIME ) regulating details of the procedure before it .","The relevant case - law of the \u201c TRNC \u201d Constitutional Court is summarised in GPE and Others ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","According to the available NORP translation of the judgment of the \u201c LAW in PERSON v. ORG C.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG ) of DATE , that court was called upon to examine the complaint of a plaintiff whose restitution claim had been rejected by the ORG on the grounds that her status as shareholder in a company that owned certain property in DATE , was not covered by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . DATE . The plaintiff argued that , since she owned the immovable property as a company shareholder , the ORG should have ruled in her favour .","The relevant part of the \u201c TRNC \u201d High Administrative Court \u2019s judgment reads :","\u201c ... [ T]he person who could apply to the ORG under PERSON no . TIME is defined under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of the PERSON .","The relevant part of LAW , which was drawn out as an interpretation section , is as follows :","\u2018 \u2018 Applicant\u2019 means the person applying to the ORG with a claim of right in respect of immovable properties which are within the scope of sub - paragraph ( b ) of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , and in respect to movable property which is claimed to be owned by such person , such property having been abandoned in the LOC prior to CARDINAL DATE , being the date of the proclamation of ORG of GPE","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON is as follows :","\u2018 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) That , in case of immovable property in respect of which the applicant claims rights , that the property was registered in his name before DATE and\/or he is the legal heir of the individual in whose name the immovable property was registered.\u2019","As it can be seen from the definitions cited above , a person who could apply to the ORG for the remedies that are foreseen in the law is an individual in whose name the subject matter property was registered and\/or the legal heir of the property owner in whose name the property was registered on the date of CARDINAL . Viewing the undisputed facts and evidence before us , it can be seen that the owner of the immovable subject matter made up of CARDINAL plots is ORG The plaintiff has put forward that ORG is a family business , she is a shareholder of this company , the aforementioned properties were registered in her name due to this capacity , and these matters should have been taken into account by giving a ruling in favour of restitution .","The registered owner of the aforementioned properties on CARDINAL , ORG , is a company with a legal personality . The aforementioned company continues its legal entity despite having stopped its activities because it has not been struck off the register .","The fact that the company transferred the properties it owned to other persons , even if these persons were its shareholders , does not affect the legal status in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of the law . For this reason it is not possible to give a legal value to the claims of the plaintiff that are outlined above .","When considering section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no CARDINAL\/CARDINAL as cited above , the finding and ruling of the ORG that the plaintiff does not have a right to apply is not flawed .","As a result , the case is dismissed and cancelled . ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181197","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SHATOKHIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the LOC region .","At the material time the applicant was serving a sentence for robbery in correctional colony no . LIU-CARDINAL in the LOC region .","On DATE , DATE and DATE he attempted suicide by opening his veins .","On DATE a prison psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as suffering from a slight mental retardation , psychopathy and claustrophobia with elements of self - aggression . An entry was made in his medical records that solitary confinement was contraindicated for mental health reasons . The correctional colony authorities were informed accordingly . The applicant was prescribed treatment . Since that time he had been examined by the prison psychiatrist at regular intervals . The prison psychiatrist \u2019s diagnosis and recommendations were confirmed by the psychiatric unit of prison hospital no . CARDINAL where the applicant was treated from CARDINAL to DATE .","On DATE the governor of the correctional colony ordered the applicant \u2019s placement in a punishment cell for DATE as a punishment for the disorderly state of his bed and bedside table .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by the prison doctor on duty who found that his state of health permitted his placement in a punishment cell , provided that he was not held in solitary confinement .","The applicant was then placed in punishment cell no . CARDINAL designed to accommodate CARDINAL inmates . He was left alone in the cell , but the door was kept open .","On DATE the applicant went on a hunger strike in protest against his placement in solitary confinement .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was visited by the prison doctor on duty who examined him and found that his health was satisfactory . He reiterated the recommendation that given the applicant \u2019s mental condition solitary confinement was contraindicated .","After the doctor left , the door of the applicant \u2019s cell was shut . TIME the applicant had a panic attack and attempted to open his veins with his teeth . The doctor was called back . He noted numerous lacerated wounds on the applicant \u2019s forearms and made bandages .","By letters of DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant asked the prosecutor \u2019s office of LOC to initiate criminal proceedings against the warders on duty .","On DATE a deputy prosecutor of ORG refused to open criminal proceedings . He referred to statements by a warder , PERSON . , that the applicant had himself asked him to shut the door . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s health had not been seriously damaged as a result of the incident .","It follows from the letter of DATE from the prosecutor of ORG that the prosecutor \u2019s office had found that the applicant had been lawfully placed in a punishment cell . At the same time , the warders had disrespected the doctor \u2019s recommendation by leaving the applicant alone in a closed cell . The governor of correctional colony no . LIU-CARDINAL had been warned against \u201c permitting similar incidents to occur in future \u201d .","Following to further complaints by the applicant , in which he stated in particular that he had never asked the warders to close the door , the prosecutor of ORG conducted an additional inquiry . He questioned the applicant and PERSON . He also questioned warders PERSON and PERSON who testified that the door to the applicant \u2019s cell had been temporarily closed to prevent his communication with other inmates who were at that time receiving clean bedding in the storage room opposite to the applicant \u2019s cell .","On DATE the prosecutor of PERSON refused to open criminal proceedings against the warders . He found that the warders had acted in compliance with the internal regulations and had had no intention of provoking the applicant to self - injury .","The applicant challenged the prosecutor \u2019s decisions of DATE and DATE before ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decisions , finding that the inquiry had been thorough and the refusals to open criminal proceedings had been lawful and justified .","NORP The applicant appealed . He submitted , in particular , that the warders had known that he suffered from claustrophobia and had closed the door to take vengeance on him for going on a hunger strike .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140022","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF \u0130HSAN AY v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE he began working as a biology teacher at a private tutoring centre ( dershane ) in ORG . DATE he worked there on a contractual basis . The renewal of his contracts was subject to the approval of the Director of ORG attached to ORG .","On DATE ORG decided not to renew the applicant \u2019s contract , on the strength of a security investigation conducted into him .","On DATE he was informed by the head of the tutoring centre that his contract was being terminated .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG , challenging the termination of his contract . In his application , he stated , inter alia , that he had not been informed of the reasons for his dismissal and that the administrative authorities had failed to respect the established case - law of ORG , according to which security investigations could not be used as the sole basis of an administrative decision , as their content was confidential . The applicant submitted that he had been working at the private tutoring centre since its establishment in DATE and that his right to work was breached on account of this unlawful administrative decision . The applicant claimed that he was deprived of his livelihood as he did not have any other work and that the administrative authorities\u2019 decisions had irreversible consequences for his life .","On DATE ORG annulled ORG \u2019s decision . In its judgment , the court noted that ORG had decided to terminate the applicant \u2019s contract on the basis of a security investigation conducted by the office of LOC of the state - of - emergency ( PERSON ) . The court further noted that the administrative authorities had been requested to provide information on the reasons for the termination of his contract . In a document sent to the court by ORG , it was stated that the applicant had been involved in a number of ideological activities before DATE ; that the PERSON police had instituted proceedings against him for having committed an offence against the \u201c national legal personality of the State \u201d ; that he had been sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment ; and that he had been the representative of the ORG branch of PERSON ( a trade union ) in DATE . The court considered that the applicant had worked in ORG schools for DATE and had been known to the administrative authorities when he began working at the private tutoring centre . It therefore concluded that the decision to terminate his contract , which had been taken on the basis of intelligence information known to the authorities from the outset , had been unlawful .","On DATE ORG appealed against the judgment of DATE . In the appeal , it was noted that the applicant had been involved in illegal activities and therefore did not possess the right qualities to be a teacher . It was also stated that the administrative authorities , taking into consideration the particularities of the country and the region concerned , as well as the nature and the sensitivity of the post , had found that there was no public interest in keeping him employed in his post .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance court \u2019s judgment . It noted that the Regional Governor of the state - of - emergency had conducted a security investigation into the applicant . That investigation had revealed that he had been involved in several ideological activities before DATE ; that a criminal investigation had been initiated against him for having committed an offence against the \u201c national legal personality of the State \u201d ; and that he had been sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . These were the reasons for which he had been dismissed from his post . ORG held that the decision dismissing the applicant following the security investigation had been lawful , since he had been sentenced to imprisonment for having committed a crime against the ORG and there was information to suggest that he had been involved in ideological activities for illegal organisations . ORG also had regard to the particularities of the region where he had worked .","On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s representative applied to ORG , requesting rectification of its decision of DATE . In his request , he maintained that the applicant had been charged with being a member of an organisation whose aim was to establish the domination of a particular social class and for disseminating propaganda , under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) respectively , and had been sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment for his activities before DATE . He further contended that the ORG in question had been repealed in DATE , and that on CARDINAL DATE of DATE the trial court had decided to overturn the applicant \u2019s criminal conviction and erase his criminal record . He argued that dismissing the applicant on the basis of his erased criminal record and the findings of a security investigation which were not publicly accessible had been unlawful and in breach of his right to a fair trial under the Convention .","On DATE ORG dismissed his request holding that his submissions could not be the basis of a rectification of decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s case , taking into account ORG decision and referring to the reasoning in the latter \u2019s judgment .","The applicant appealed . In his appeal , his representative repeated the submissions put forward in his request for rectification of ORG decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the judgment of DATE , holding that the latter was in accordance with the law ."],"violated_articles":["6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175973","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BABAYEV AND HASANOV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix .","At the material time the first applicant was a member of the youth committee of an opposition party , ORG of GPE ( Az\u0259rbaycan Xalq C\u0259bh\u0259si Partiyas\u0131 \u2013 \u201c the PFPA \u201d ) , and the second applicant was a chairman of a youth organisation called PERSON .","Both applicants participated in a number of unauthorised peaceful demonstrations organised by the opposition . In the course of many of those demonstrations , they were arrested and convicted . In particular , the first applicant was arrested during the demonstrations on CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE .","The number of opposition demonstrations increased in DATE . That tendency continued into DATE . Demonstrations were held , inter alia , on DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","The second applicant attended the demonstrations of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The first applicant attended the demonstrations of CARDINAL October and CARDINAL DATE .","According to the first applicant , he also intended to participate in the demonstration of DATE . Moreover , he was actively promoting public participation in that assembly on online social networks .","It appears that the organisers of the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE gave no proper prior notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . Information about the assembly was disseminated through ORG or the press .","Prior to the demonstrations of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the organisers had given notice to the ORG .","The ORG refused to authorise the demonstration of DATE at the site indicated by the organisers and proposed another location on the outskirts of GPE the grounds of a driving school situated in the CARDINALth habitable area of LOC .","The ORG also refused to authorise the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE . It noted in general terms that that assembly would not be in accordance with ORG . The ORG further noted that the square where the organisers proposed to hold the assembly was a designated public leisure area and that the assembly itself would be impractical .","The organisers nevertheless decided to hold the demonstrations as planned . According to the applicants , the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner . The participants were demanding democratic reforms in the country and free and fair elections , and protesting against impediments on freedom of assembly .","On DATE the first applicant was arrested and brought to police station no . CARDINAL of the LOC district police office .","According to the official records , he was arrested because at TIME , in front of ORG , he had disobeyed a lawful order of the police to stop speaking loudly on a mobile phone and to stop using foul language . He also swore at the police officers and tried to run away when being arrested .","The applicant contested the official version of his arrest . He stated that he had been arrested in an Internet caf\u00e9 by CARDINAL persons in plain clothes who had failed to present themselves or give reasons for the arrest . They had taken his belongings from the Internet caf\u00e9 , including his mobile phone . He had been pushed into an unmarked car . There QUANTITY of the persons who had arrested him had presented himself as a police officer and shown a police badge . The other CARDINAL had presented themselves as agents of ORG , without showing any supporting document . He had been told that the arrest had been in connection with the demonstration of DATE and another protest planned to be held on DATE .","At the police station an administrative - offence report ( inzibati x\u0259ta haqq\u0131nda protokol ) was issued in respect of the applicant , setting out the charges against him . The report stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) ( failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer ) .","According to the applicant , he was never served with a copy of the administrative - offence report or with other documents from his case file . He was also not given access to a lawyer after his arrest or while he was in police custody .","On DATE of his arrest the applicant was brought before ORG , which on DATE adopted a decision on the merits .","According to the applicant , he was not given an opportunity to appoint a lawyer of his own choosing . A ORG - funded lawyer ( Mr O.A. ) was appointed to assist him .","According to the transcript of the first - instance court \u2019s hearing , Mr O.A. did not make any oral or written submissions .","NORP In his statement before the court the applicant contested the police FAC version of events and argued that he had been arrested unlawfully . The court disregarded that statement as non - reliable .","Only the police officers who , according to the official records , had arrested the applicant and the police officer who issued the administrativeoffence report in respect of him were questioned as witnesses . In their statements those police officers reiterated the official version of the reasons for the applicant \u2019s arrest ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The court found that the applicant had committed the administrative offence attributed to him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It convicted the applicant under LAW of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention .","According to the applicant , until DATE his whereabouts were unknown to his family and friends .","Only on DATE was a lawyer hired by his family able to meet the applicant and to learn the details of his arrest , detention and the court proceedings against him .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , presenting his version of the events surrounding his arrest , and arguing that he had been arrested in connection with the demonstration scheduled for DATE . The applicant also complained that the hearing before the first - instance court had not been fair .","In addition , he applied to the appellate court to have examined his mobile - phone call records in respect of the date and time of the alleged administrative offence .","The applicant was represented before ORG by a lawyer of his own choosing .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court , stating that the conclusions reached by that court had been correct .","The appellate court did not address the applicant \u2019s above - mentioned request to have his mobile - phone call records examined .","As mentioned above , the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE was attended by the second applicant , the demonstration of DATE by both applicants , and the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE by the first applicant .","All CARDINAL demonstrations were dispersed as soon as the protesters began to gather . Both applicants were arrested during the dispersal operations and after each arrest were taken to police station no . CARDINAL of the GPE district police office .","According to the applicants , during the dispersal of the demonstrations of DATE and CARDINAL DATE they were arrested by individuals in plain clothes .","On DATE of each of the applicants\u2019 respective arrests , administrative - offence reports were issued in respect of them . In each case the applicants were charged with an administrative offence under Article CARDINAL of the ORG . Following their arrest on DATE the applicants were additionally charged under LAW ( violation of rules on holding public assemblies ) of the ORG .","According to the applicants , they were never served with a copy of the administrative - offence reports or with other documents from their case files . They were also not given access to a lawyer after their arrests or while they were in police custody .","The applicants were brought before ORG on DATE of each arrest ( specifically , the first applicant on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and the second applicant on DATE and DATE ) .","According to the applicants , the respective hearings before the firstinstance court were very brief . Members of the public were not allowed inside the courtroom , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearings to the public .","According to the applicants , they were not given an opportunity to appoint lawyers of their own choosing .","A ORG - funded lawyer was appointed to defend the applicants at each hearing .","According to the transcript of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , in his oral submissions the ORG - funded lawyer for the second applicant ( Mr V.M. ) briefly asked the court to consider the young age of the applicant and his sincere regret for having committed the administrative offence .","None of the material submitted to the ORG contains any record showing that at the hearings of DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the ORG - funded lawyer for the second applicant ( Mr GPE ) or the ORG - funded lawyer for the first applicant ( Mr Z.A. ) made any oral or written submissions on behalf of the applicants .","According to a statement ( \u201c \u0259riz\u0259 \u201d ) signed by the first applicant , he refused the assistance of the ORG - funded lawyer at the hearing of DATE and decided to defend himself in person .","The only witnesses questioned during the hearing of CARDINAL DATE concerning the second applicant were police officers who , according to official records , had arrested him . They testified that together with some other people the applicant had attempted to hold an unlawful demonstration and continued to protest despite the order to disperse . During the hearings of DATE and CARDINAL DATE the court did not question any witnesses .","In each case ORG found that the applicants had failed to stop participating in an unauthorised demonstration . The court convicted the applicants under LAW . In the proceedings related to his participation in the demonstration of DATE the second applicant was also convicted under LAW . The applicants were sentenced to various periods of administrative detention ( see Appendix ) .","On unspecified dates the applicants lodged appeals with ORG , arguing that their convictions had been in violation of their rights , because the protest in which they had participated had been peaceful . The applicants also complained that their arrests had been unlawful , and that the hearings before the first - instance court had not been fair . They asked ORG to quash the first - instance court \u2019s decisions in their respective cases .","The first applicant was assisted by a lawyer of his own choosing in each case before ORG . The second applicant was assisted by a lawyer of his own choosing during the appellate - court proceedings related to his participation in the demonstration of DATE , but he was not represented by a lawyer during the appellate - court proceedings related to his participation in the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE .","On various dates ORG dismissed the ORG appeals and upheld the decisions of the first - instance court ( see Appendix ) ."],"violated_articles":["11","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157530","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LECOMTE v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is an anti - nuclear and environmental activist . She has repeatedly used her climbing skills to draw public attention to her protest .","On DATE around TIME the applicant and CARDINAL further persons belonging to the ORG organisation , an environmental protection group , climbed on the arch of a railway bridge . The group fixed banners expressing protest against the transport , by train , of radioactive waste from GPE , GPE , to the interim storage facility in GPE , scheduled from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . The members of the group refused to have themselves roped down by the police , who had dissolved their assembly . They were finally roped down by ORG mountain rescue team . The police then arrested TIME at CARDINAL p.m. while the other CARDINAL participants remained at liberty . They further seized the banners and the climbing equipment .","On DATE at TIME LOC , having heard the applicant and the GPE police , ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for preventive purposes under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of ORG ( PERSON \u00fcber die \u00f6ffentliche PERSON , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . That detention was to last until the arrival of the \u201c castor \u201d containers in GPE train station and until DATE , TIME at the most .","ORG found that the applicant , who had been represented by counsel throughout the proceedings before the domestic courts , and CARDINAL further persons had let themselves down on a rope on a railway bridge . They had unrolled banners protesting against the castor transport . A commuter train had to be stopped because its passage would have put the protesters at risk .","ORG considered that the applicant \u2019s detention was indispensable in order to prevent the imminent commission of a regulatory offence of considerable importance to the general public , as required by section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of ORG . There was a risk that the applicant would block the forthcoming transport of the castor containers scheduled from DATE by a climbing action . Thereby , she would commit regulatory offences under ORG ( ORG - Bau- PERSON ) and LAW ) which would be dangerous to the public . That risk was also imminent in the applicant \u2019s case as she was known for expressing political protest , including protest against the transport of castor containers , by climbing actions and for being ready to breach the law in that context .","On DATE at TIME ORG , having heard the applicant in person at TIME , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG decision .","On DATE at TIME the ORG quashed the order of DATE for the applicant \u2019s detention for preventive purposes and ordered the applicant \u2019s immediate release .","ORG found that , having regard to the applicant \u2019s deteriorating state of health , there was no longer a risk that the applicant would commit a criminal or regulatory offence of considerable importance to the general public , as required by section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of ORG , in the context of the transport of castor containers to PERSON . Moreover , her continued detention was no longer proportionate in these circumstances . ORG noted that medical doctor C. , who had visited the applicant in detention on the latter \u2019s request , had confirmed that the applicant suffered from serious rheumatism which necessitated her to move continuously and was in a poor mental condition . Her detention in FAC , with little possibility to move , had already led to her joints having stiffened . The doctor had explained that she was not in a position to assess the applicant \u2019s fitness for detention , but that it appeared excluded that the applicant would be capable of carrying out a climbing action in DATE to come .","The applicant was released on DATE at TIME","Following her arrest on DATE at TIME the applicant , having been found by a doctor of ORG not to suffer from any health problems , was brought before ORG which ordered her detention at TIME Following ORG decision , the applicant was accompanied home by the police officers from TIME to TIME in order to enable her to take her own clothes and medication . She was detained in a cell in FAC from TIME until DATE at TIME , when she was brought to ORG . The applicant \u2019s small cell , equipped with a mattress and a chair , was lighted at least via a ventilation slot and by electric light .","Between the end of the hearing of the applicant by ORG on DATE at TIME and its decision at TIME on DATE , the applicant essentially stayed in the office area of FAC . She went outside for a walk on the banks of the GPE river with the police officers CARDINAL times during that period .","Following ORG decision , the police decided to transfer the applicant to ORG which was considered being better equipped for police custody . When the applicant complained about breathing problems during the journey , the police called an ambulance . When both the ambulance crew and a police doctor had found that the applicant did not suffer from health problems , the transfer was continued in the ambulance .","The applicant was detained in FAC from DATE , TIME until her release on DATE at CARDINAL p.m. Her cell was equipped with a bed , an empty desk , a chair and an open cupboard and had a barred window with frosted glass . In the corridor of the detention wing , which she had to pass to go to the toilet , photographs of shackled persons were exposed . These included a picture of a person subject to ankle and hand cuffs , with both cuffs being tied together by a chain in the person \u2019s back lying on a mattress on the ground .","During the applicant \u2019s detention in FAC , the light in her cell remained switched on throughout the applicant \u2019s first night in that cell . The applicant had climbed on the cupboard in her cell and passed the night thereon , failing to comply with the police \u2019s order to descend . The applicant was taken out for a walk on the premises of FAC , which did not dispose of a closed courtyard , on DATE from TIME until TIME , being loosely shackled to a female police officer . On DATE the applicant was allowed to stay outside on those premises from TIME until TIME , without being shackled ; she climbed on a tree on that occasion . The applicant was supplied with writing material on DATE . She was further allowed to receive CARDINAL visits from a friend and CARDINAL from her doctor C. She was also allowed to telephone her lawyer and her partner several times .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action of DATE under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) against the GPE police for a finding that both the order for her detention and the conditions of its execution had been unlawful .","As regards the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s detention ORG , endorsing the findings of fact made by ORG in its decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as well as its reasoning , confirmed that the detention had complied with section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of ORG and LAW .","As regards the execution of the detention order against the applicant , ORG considered that the manner in which the detention had been enforced had been lawful and had complied , in particular , with the provisions of LAW ( PERSON , see paragraph CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","ORG noted that the detention order was executed in the detention wing of ORG until DATE and subsequently in the detention wing of ORG .","As to the applicant \u2019s complaint that her detention cells did not have windows , but only ventilation slots , ORG considered that the equipment of the detention cells had complied with no . CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) and that there had been enough light . The recommendations of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) were irrelevant here . The photographs of shackled persons exposed in the detention wing of ORG may have been tasteless , but did not render the applicant \u2019s detention unlawful as a result of intimidation .","NORP Moreover , there had not been a breach of the right to sufficient TIME \u2019s rest provided by no . CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In GPE , some noise made by a ventilator may have made it more difficult for the applicant to fall asleep , but the police was not obliged to be considerate of individual sensitivities . The fact that the light had remained switched on TIME in GPE had been a consequence of the applicant \u2019s own behaviour . She had insisted spending TIME on the cell \u2019s cupboard the height of which was QUANTITY . The light had therefore been necessary for her own protection . It had not been possible for the police to guarantee that , in case the applicant had fallen down from the cupboard , they would notice it immediately otherwise . According to ORG , the applicant could ask herself whether she would have preferred having been shackled for her protection instead .","Furthermore , the court noted that on DATE the applicant had been outside on the premises of ORG from TIME until TIME She had to be shackled as , being an excellent climber , there had been a risk that she would climb on trees or buildings and abscond . The applicant had not , therefore , been \u201c taken for a walk like an animal \u201d on the parking . On DATE the applicant had been outside from TIME until TIME She had not been shackled and had been allowed to climb on a tree . She had not objected to returning to the detention wing afterwards .","ORG further considered that the applicant had failed to substantiate that her state of health in detention had deteriorated in a manner so as to render her detention disproportionate already prior to ORG decision of DATE ordering her release . There had not been a written and impartial medical report proving the applicant \u2019s allegation in that respect . The doctor who had visited the applicant in detention and had persuaded the then competent ORG judge to order her release had probably been a sympathiser .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG decision of DATE .","As to the legality of the applicant \u2019s detention , ORG , endorsing the findings in its decision of DATE , confirmed that the applicant \u2019s detention as such had complied with section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of ORG .","ORG further confirmed that the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention , albeit onerous for the applicant , had complied with the applicable legal provisions and had not been so unacceptable as to render the execution of her detention unlawful .","As regards the applicant \u2019s detention during TIME in the detention cell in FAC , ORG found that the cell had been uncomfortable , but had complied with no . CARDINAL of ORG in the version then in force ( see paragraph DATE below ) . In that police station there were no detention cells suitable for a deprivation of liberty lasting DATE . Despite this , the police had convincingly explained that transporting the applicant to and back from GPE for the hearing before ORG DATE would have restricted her even more in her liberty of movement . Furthermore , she had not complained to the police about the noise at night emanating from a ventilator .","Moreover , the GPE police had taken care of the applicant \u2019s well - being after her hearing before ORG ( on DATE from TIME until TIME ) while they waited for ORG decision until TIME with the applicant in an office in FAC in that they had taken her outside CARDINAL times .","As regards the applicant \u2019s subsequent detention in FAC , ORG noted that the applicant arrived at that station on DATE at TIME after the crew of the ambulance called by the police and a police doctor had confirmed her fitness for detention despite the breathing difficulties she had informed the police of . ORG further confirmed ORG finding that the pictures of shackled persons in the corridor of the detention wing \u2013 which included a photograph of a person subject to ankle and hand cuffs \u2013 may have been tasteless . However , it had neither been shown that the pictures had been put up to intimidate prisoners nor that the applicant had been intimidated in a considerable manner by them . Moreover , the court considered that it had been lawful for the police to leave the light switched on during TIME . It noted that the applicant had climbed on a cupboard measuring QUANTITY and had failed to descend on the police \u2019s request . By choosing not to descend her by force and by leaving the light on instead the police had respected as much as possible the applicant \u2019s right to liberty .","As regards the applicant \u2019s right to stays outside during her detention in GPE , ORG , endorsing the findings of ORG in this respect , found that the right provided by no . CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to be allowed to stay outside for TIME in so far as the staffing and infrastructural situation permitted had not been breached . Shackling the applicant to a female police officer on DATE had been necessary in order to prevent the applicant from absconding . The applicant , an excellent climber , had previously shown that she was not ready to comply with the police \u2019s orders and there had not been a closed courtyard as in prison . On DATE the applicant had not been shackled during her time outside and had been allowed to climb on a tree . She had also been able to move within her cell in order to alleviate ailments resulting from her rheumatism .","As regards the applicant \u2019s right to receive visits in detention , ORG observed that under no . CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , such visits were permitted in so far as they did not endanger the purpose of the detention and were authorised by the police . The said provision had to be read in conjunction with section QUANTITY of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG noted that ORG had received CARDINAL telephone calls of sympathisers of the applicant , some of whom had insulted the police , which had considerably disturbed the execution of the applicant \u2019s detention . It had not been unlawful in these circumstances for the police not to permit visits by persons who had presented themselves at the police station without having lodged a request for a visit . In any event , the applicant had been visited by CARDINAL persons while in detention , in addition to the CARDINAL visits by her doctor , C. , who had prescribed her necessary medication and had brought a couple of magazines . Her right to receive visits had not been unlawfully restricted in these circumstances .","ORG decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","By submissions dated DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against the decision of ORG of DATE , confirmed on appeal by ORG on DATE , and against the decision of GPE of DATE , confirmed on appeal by ORG on DATE . She argued , in particular , that her right to liberty , the principle of proportionality and her right to freedom of assembly and of expression had been violated by her long illegal detention in unreasonable conditions in order to prevent insignificant regulatory offences . Her complaint was registered under file no . DATE .","In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE addressed to the applicant in person , ORG informed the applicant that her constitutional complaint of DATE against the decisions of ORG of DATE , confirmed on appeal by ORG on DATE , in so far as the decisions concerned the conditions of her detention , had been registered under file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint against the abovementioned CARDINAL decisions in so far as these decisions concerned the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s detention , without giving reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . ORG decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE . In her letter to ORG dated DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel , referring to the CARDINAL file numbers assigned to the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , the letter of CARDINAL DATE and the decision of CARDINAL DATE , asked for a progress report ; she was informed that it was not possible to indicate when a decision on the complaint under file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL would be taken .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint against the decision of ORG dated DATE , confirmed on appeal by ORG on DATE , without giving reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158155","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KONSTANTIN STEFANOV v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is a lawyer who lives and practises in GPE .","The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","At DATE , in the course of criminal proceedings against ORG and another individual on charges of aggravated theft , punishable by imprisonment of DATE , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) decided that in the interests of justice CARDINAL lawyers should be appointed defence counsel for the CARDINAL accused , who could not afford to pay for a lawyer but wished to be legally represented .","ORG sent a request to ORG asking them to nominate CARDINAL lawyers as defence counsel to represent the accused . The letter stated , inter alia , that the counsel \u2019s remuneration would be determined in accordance with the Ordinance of ORG on ORG Minimum Remuneration DATE ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , sent to the applicant and ORG , ORG nominated the applicant to represent PERSON The letter contained the following text :","\u201c In accordance with section DATE of GPE , you must act as defence counsel ... and appear at the hearing in the court proceedings . Failure to comply may result in disciplinary action under LAW and civil liability vis - \u00e0 - vis the parties [ to the criminal proceedings ] .","In its decision to appoint [ you as ] defence counsel , the [ criminal ] court ... must set [ your ] remuneration in an amount not lower than the minimum provided for in the Remuneration Ordinance . Otherwise you must refuse to provide legal representation because you are at risk of a disciplinary [ sanction ] for breach of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and the instructions of ORG ... \u201d","ORG held a hearing in the criminal case against PERSON on DATE . At the beginning of the hearing , at TIME , the court appointed the applicant as ORG \u2019s counsel and invited him to state his position in respect of whether there was an obstacle to proceeding with the hearing or not .","The applicant replied that he would represent ORG if the court undertook to comply with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , which in turn referred to LAW , and thereby determined his remuneration at or above the minimum CARDINAL NORP levs ( ORG ; the equivalent of CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) provided for in law .","The presiding judge refused to determine the minimum remuneration at that point in time . He warned the applicant that he would fine him if he refused to act as counsel for the defendant .","Following this exchange , the applicant refused to represent the defendant and left the courtroom .","The court fined the applicant ORG CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) . The decision imposing the fine referred to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and stated as follows :","\u201c In the court \u2019s view , the lawyers already appointed to serve as defence counsel should not have asked about their remuneration [ at this stage of the proceedings ] . The court would be in a position to estimate that amount only after the collection of all evidence and following the final oral pleadings . By raising the question of setting their remuneration at a minimum of ORG CARDINAL before the examination of the case started , the [ CARDINAL lawyers ] showed manifest disrespect for the court and were in breach of the Code of Criminal Procedure . Despite a warning , they did not comment , they refused to act as legal representatives nominated by the Plovdiv Bar upon this court \u2019s request ... and left the courtroom . Seeing that in the present case the defendants must be legally represented ... the hearing will have to be adjourned owing to the unjustified absence of their defence counsel .","Therefore , [ the applicant and the other lawyer ] shall be fined ORG CARDINAL each . \u201d","Then the prosecutor requested a TIME break so that new counsel could be found for the accused . He submitted that , in view of the principle of speediness of criminal proceedings and the fact that all witnesses and experts were there in the courtroom , the hearing should not be adjourned to a later date . The court granted the request and decided to proceed with the case at TIME on DATE .","The hearing was resumed as scheduled . The prosecutor asked the court to appoint another lawyer who was present in the courtroom as counsel for the accused and to give him time to get acquainted with the case file . The court granted the request .","At TIME the new lawyer stated that he had acquainted himself with the case and agreed to be appointed defence counsel . The court did so and proceeded with the case . The proceedings ended with a plea bargain agreement between the prosecutor and the defendants . The court set the replacement defence counsel \u2019s remuneration at ORG MONEY ( about EUR CARDINAL ) .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the fine imposed on him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He claimed that he had not been appointed by ORG in accordance with the law . In particular , the court had been bound by law , specifically LAW , to determine his remuneration in the actual decision to appoint him counsel ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; the court had also had to determine the amount according to LAW . By refusing to comply with those legal requirements , the court had breached the law . Therefore , the applicant \u2019s refusal to act as counsel had been justified ; he should not have been held responsible for the adjournment of the hearing and he had not acted disrespectfully . Consequently , he submitted , the fine had been unlawful .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the fine in a final decision . It acknowledged that pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW the remuneration to be paid to a court - appointed defence counsel had to be indicated in the order for his or her appointment and that it ought not be lower than the minimum provided for in LAW . However , the court found that it was only possible to determine the exact amount of remuneration to be paid at the end of the proceedings . The reason for this was that LAW provided for a lower amount in case of termination of the criminal proceedings by way of a plea bargain ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court could not predict the outcome of the proceedings at their outset . Therefore , the applicant \u2019s insistence on a prior determination of his fee was contrary to section CARDINAL of GPE . The applicant had thus caused an unjustified adjournment and had rightly been fined under LAW . The court finally held that the amount of the fine was proportionate to the gravity of the offence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144948","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"LAMOVEC v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG Attorney .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was a stockbroker working as the head of trading in a brokerage firm . In DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Agency \u201d ) , an independent authority vested with supervisory powers in the field of securities market operations , requested from the applicant a number of records of securities transactions he had made in DATE .","After examining these documents and the records of the stockexchange trading system , on DATE the ORG adopted a decision to initiate proceedings for revocation of the applicant \u2019s stockbroker \u2019s trading licence ( hereinafter \u201c the initial decision \u201d ) , on the ground that in the period DATE and DATE he had carried out CARDINAL fictitious securities transactions and thereby breached ORG and LAW . In its decision , the GPE specified the controversial transactions , explaining in detail the circumstances which in its opinion implied their fictitious character .","These transactions all involved cross - trading , the brokerage firm acting as both the seller and buyer of securities for its ORG or its own accounts . In certain cases the applicant carried out multiple clients\u2019 orders to sell securities , which were followed almost simultaneously by these same GPE orders to buy an equal amount of the same type of securities . Moreover , in some cases the brokerage firm itself had bought securities from clients and subsequently sold them back to them . Other types of crosstrade transactions involved alternate sale and purchase of securities of the same type between a client and the brokerage firm , where the CARDINAL first sold and bought from each other a certain amount of securities of equivalent type , only to subsequently DATE approximately TIME DATE sell \/ buy them back from each other under almost the same conditions .","According to the ORG the orders were executed by means of a special \u201c cross - user \u201d function key which ensured that the transactions were , as intended , carried out simultaneously between CARDINAL specific parties submitting matched offers , and no third party could intervene in the prearranged transaction . Given that the sales and subsequent purchases were carried out at very short intervals , that the securities were bought and sold at almost the same prices and that the transactions did not result in any change in the economic ownership of the relevant securities , the ORG took the view that they were prearranged and that the applicant , the very person who had carried them out , must have been aware of their content .","Furthermore , the ORG \u2019s decision included a detailed list of sixtyfive documents , among them copies of the trading records relating to the controversial transactions , which had given rise to its suspicion that the applicant had repeatedly breached the law , as well as the dates on which the alleged violations had occurred . Finally , the applicant was notified that he could make a statement on the reasons for initiating proceedings and submit evidence in support of his statement within DATE of receiving the decision .","In his reply to the ORG \u2019s initial decision on DATE , the applicant contested the version of events presented by the ORG , as well as the application and interpretation of the substantive and procedural law . As regards his objection to the facts , the applicant , while not contesting that he had in fact carried out the transactions in question or that these sales and purchases had been carried out between the same clients or between clients exchanging roles as buyers and sellers , argued that he had not been acquainted with the details of the transactions in question . The orders had allegedly been placed with another department , whereas the trading department had only carried them out . The applicant maintained that in the DATE period from DATE , during which CARDINAL of the controversial transactions had been made , the trading department had carried out CARDINAL securities transactions . Thus , the applicant alleged that he had not known , nor had he been required to check , whether each of these transactions was made in a correct manner . In support of his submissions , the applicant provided copies of the records of relevant transactions and balance of securities in the accounts of the relevant clients .","Moreover , the applicant claimed that the documents identified in the ORG \u2019s initial decision did not justify the conclusion that he had actually used the \u201c cross - user \u201d function key to carry out the controversial transactions . In so far as the ORG disagreed with his view , the applicant suggested that an expert in securities trading be appointed to examine this issue . He also suggested that that expert submit his report at an oral hearing , enabling the applicant to ask him or her relevant questions , or in written form , in which case the applicant would submit written comments .","The applicant also joined to his reply an initiative for a review of the constitutionality of certain provisions of LAW applicable to his case , explaining that he would be lodging this initiative with ORG . In the initiative he challenged , inter alia , a number of provisions regulating proceedings before the ORG and judicial review proceedings , including the provision stipulating that the ORG \u2019s decisions were , in principle , rendered without holding a hearing . The applicant requested that the initiative be considered a constitutive part of his reply .","On DATE the applicant lodged his initiative for the review of constitutionality of certain provisions of LAW with ORG .","On DATE the ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request for an oral hearing and the appointment of an expert , without giving any reasons .","On DATE the Agency , sitting in a panel composed of CARDINAL members of its ORG , rendered a decision revoking the applicant \u2019s trading licence ( hereinafter \u201c the final decision \u201d ) on the ground that he had carried out CARDINAL fictitious securities transactions and thereby had repeatedly breached the law and stock - exchange trading rules . As regards , firstly , the applicant \u2019s request for an oral hearing and the appointment of an expert , the Agency held that the information on fictitious transactions through the use of the \u201c cross - user \u201d function key had been obtained from the records of the stock - exchange trading system , which had been presented to the applicant . According to the Agency , the tabular extracts from the trading system records , where all controversial transactions featured the \u201c cross - user \u201d status , clearly manifested that the \u201c cross - user \u201d function key had been used in these sales and purchases .","In this connection , the ORG considered that the manner in which the transactions had been carried out was sufficiently established by the documentary evidence already included in its decision to initiate proceedings for revocation of the applicant \u2019s trading licence , as well as by the records of transactions and other documents submitted by the applicant . According to the ORG , there was no controversy regarding the facts which would have necessitated an oral hearing or the appointment of an expert .","The applicant sought leave for judicial review before ORG , challenging the ORG \u2019s final decision , as well as its decision rejecting his procedural requests for the appointment of an expert and for an oral hearing . In his request , the applicant essentially repeated the pleas made in his reply to the initial decision , and added a number of new complaints . Complaining that his earlier requests to this effect had been refused by the ORG without cause , the applicant requested that an expert be appointed and that an oral hearing be held , although a hearing in these proceedings was excluded by law . Nevertheless , the applicant argued that the statutory exclusion of oral submissions was unconstitutional , and proposed that this issue be raised before ORG and that the judicial review proceedings be suspended pending the decision of ORG . Moreover , the applicant maintained that the documents relied upon by the ORG did not prove that he had actually carried out the transactions at issue by using the \u201c cross - user \u201d function key , and that the ORG must have based its conclusion to this effect on other documents which had not been referred to in its decisions .","On DATE ORG rendered a decision on the review of constitutionality of certain provisions of LAW , in which it joined several applications regarding the same matter . Some of the challenged provisions of the LAW were found to be unconstitutional ; however , none of those pertained to procedural matters , including the provisions on holding of oral hearings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action for judicial review without holding an oral hearing . Having found that the controversial transactions had all involved cross - trading between what were essentially the same clients , ORG held that the ORG \u2019s conclusions as to the facts were correct . Moreover , considering that the purchases and sales had followed each other at very short intervals , ORG agreed with the ORG that the applicant must have been aware of the irregularity of the transactions in question . The court pointed out that the applicant had failed to adduce any arguments capable of rebutting the ORG \u2019s conclusions . Also , the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint against the ORG \u2019s decision not to appoint an expert and\/or hold an oral hearing , reiterating that the ORG had sufficiently established the facts of the case . Finally , regarding the alleged failure of the ORG to indicate all evidence on which its conclusion as to the use of the \u201c cross - user \u201d function key had been made , ORG held that , as the applicant had not previously challenged the initial decision , it was only possible to examine his complaints regarding the final decision of the Agency .","The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the judgment of ORG , challenging the refusal of the ORG and ORG to hold an oral hearing and appoint an expert . He also claimed that the ORG had failed to indicate all evidence used in the proceedings , and that ORG erroneously rejected his complaint in that regard without addressing its merits .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , finding , first of all , that the ORG had indicated all the documents used as evidence in the proceedings to revoke his trading licence , first in its initial decision and then in its final decision . Accordingly , the court was of the view that the ORG \u2019s conclusions as to the applicant \u2019s use of the \u201c cross - user \u201d function key were clearly based on the documentary evidence and thus did not require a complex assessment of opposing and contradictory evidence . Moreover , the applicant had been provided with sufficient opportunity to comment on the evidence which was the basis for the revocation of his licence . Therefore , although the ORG agreed with the applicant that ORG had erred in concluding that he should have challenged the ORG \u2019s initial decision to initiate the proceedings at an earlier time , it considered that remitting the case back to ORG for further examination could not lead to a different conclusion with regard to the documentary evidence used in the proceedings before the Agency .","As regards the applicant \u2019s complaint that the ORG had refused to appoint an expert , ORG reiterated that the ORG had given an adequate explanation of the use of the \u201c cross - user \u201d function key and the records of the stock - exchange trading system . Therefore , in ORG opinion , ORG had not been required to make a specific pronouncement on this question .","Finally , as regards the applicant \u2019s complaint that the ORG had also refused to hold an oral hearing , ORG held that he had not put forward this complaint in his application for judicial review before ORG , thereby failing to use that remedy in substance . As regards the lack of an oral hearing in the judicial review proceedings , ORG emphasised that a hearing in those proceedings was excluded by law . Nevertheless , ORG took the view that the applicant \u2019s right to be heard was not affected either , as he had had the opportunity to present his submissions in written form .","At the time of the events at issue the securities market operations and the powers of the ORG in respect thereof were regulated by LAW . The LAW designated the ORG as an independent legal entity , led by a ORG which was composed of the president and CARDINAL members appointed by the Government . The members of the ORG were required to hold a university degree and enjoy the reputation of renowned experts in the field of finance or commercial law .","Proceedings in individual matters before the ORG were conducted pursuant to ORG , unless otherwise provided by LAW . The parties to the proceedings were invited to make their statements in writing . An oral hearing was held only exceptionally , the LAW providing as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The Agency shall adopt decisions without a hearing .","( CARDINAL ) Notwithstanding the first paragraph , the president of the senate may convene a hearing if he or she considers that this is necessary in order to explain or establish relevant facts .","( CARDINAL ) The president of the senate may , without a hearing , hear parties to the action and other persons if he or she considers that this is necessary in order to explain or establish relevant facts . \u201d","Oral hearings in judicial review proceedings were specifically ruled out by LAW .","NORP Moreover , with regard to the reasons for revoking an individual \u2019s trading licence , the Act provided as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The Agency shall withdraw a licence to provide services ...","if a stockbroker acts in severe contravention of the rules pertaining to the organised market ( LAW .","( CARDINAL ) The following shall be deemed a severe violation of the provisions referred to in items CARDINAL and\/or CARDINAL of the first paragraph of this Article ...","recurring violations of the said provisions . \u201d","\u201c In providing services with regard to the securities on the organised securities market , brokerage firms shall be obliged to comply with the trading rules and other general acts of the stock exchange and with the requirements of the responsible bodies of the stock exchange . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174404","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ISL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ARNARSON v. ICELAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the material time , the applicant was a journalist and a freelance writer for the web - based media site PERSON .","The Federation of Icelandic Fishing Vessel Owners ( hereafter \u201c the LIU \u201d ) represented fishing vessel owners in GPE and safeguarded their common economic , financial , legal , technical and social interests .","The applicant claimed that a private website , B , was publishing anonymous blogs , constantly lobbying for the PERSON and discrediting persons who spoke against it .","On DATE a newspaper , DV , published an article regarding rumours that the PERSON was providing financial support to website PERSON It was alleged that this support amounted to CARDINAL NORP GPE ( ORG ) DATE . In the article , no mention was made of the ORG \u2019s chief executive office ( hereafter \u201c A \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant published an article on GPE under the headline \u201c PERSON pays CARDINAL for offensive material \u201d and referred to the article in DV . A sent a short statement to PERSON submitting that the PERSON had not supported website PERSON The statement was published on PERSON on DATE .","On DATE the applicant published an article on Pressan where he responded to A \u2019s statement . The article stated that A had to do better than just denying that direct payments had been made to website B and that the PERSON , directed by A , was accountable for the offensive material published anonymously on website B. Furthermore , the applicant called into question whether or not the respectable representatives of the PERSON \u2019s member companies had agreed to the organisation \u2019s funds being paid through intermediaries to gossips such as the owners of website B.","On DATE the applicant published a third article on the matter on Pressan . The article stated that the PERSON supposedly supported website B with ORG CARDINAL DATE through companies owned by [ Mr Y ] , who was also the owner of website B. Furthermore , the article stated that the applicant knew that not all ORG board members were aware of the organisation \u2019s support for the offensive material on website B since the payments were well - disguised in the organisation \u2019s financial records .","NORP Moreover , it stated that the applicant had been told that it was possible that none of the ORG \u2019s board members knew about the organisation \u2019s CARDINAL being used to support anonymous slander on website B and that A alone had decided to use the funds in this way . The applicant added that he had not received confirmation of the last statement . A picture of A appeared beside the text of the article .","On DATE A lodged defamation proceedings against the applicant before ORG and requested that the following statements be declared null and void :","\u201c A. The ORG , directed by [ A ] , is left accountable for the offensive material that is published anonymously on the gossip [ website B ]","B. Then there is the question of whether respectable representatives of the ORG \u2019s member companies would accept that the organisation \u2019s funds are being paid through intermediaries to gossips such as the owners of [ website B ]","C. The PERSON supposedly supports [ website B ] with almost ISK CARDINAL DATE through companies owned by [ Mr Y ]","D. I know that some of the ORG \u2019s board members are not aware of the support for the offensive material on [ website B ] , because the payments are well - disguised in the organisation \u2019s financial statements . I have been told that it is possible that no ORG board members know that the organisation \u2019s CARDINAL are being used to support anonymous slander on [ website B ] - that the CEO alone decided to use the organisation \u2019s funds in this way . \u201d","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found that CARDINAL of the statements , namely that under item D above , had been defamatory and ordered the applicant to pay A ORG CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in nonpecuniary damages under LAW , plus interest , and LAW ( CARDINAL ORG ) for A \u2019s costs before ORG . It declared the statement null and void .","The judgment contained the following reasons :","\u201c ... [ A ] is the chief executive officer of ORG or PERSON , as the GPE is called in everyday speech , and he has held the job for DATE . Part of his job is , inter alia , to participate in public debate on maritime affairs and to express the views and policies of the PERSON .","...","In DATE there has been extensive debate on the advantages and flaws of the current fisheries management system . There are different views on this system in society , and it is of great concern , as the fishing industry is CARDINAL of the fundamental and most important industries of this country . [ A ] has , because of his occupation , appeared publicly on behalf of the PERSON and advocated the organisation \u2019s views . The defendant , who writes on a regular basis about various social matters , has discussed the fisheries management system though his writings and criticised certain aspects of it .","...","According to LAW ) of the LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and belief . Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW states that everyone shall be free to express his thoughts , but shall also be liable to answer for them in court . The law may never provide for censorship or other similar limitations to freedom of expression . Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW states that freedom of expression may only be restricted by law in the interests of public order or the security of the ORG , for the protection of health or morals , or for the protection of the rights or reputation of others , if such restrictions are deemed necessary and in agreement with democratic traditions . LAW contains an equivalent provision , cf . Act no CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on LAW .","Therefore , the present case concerns balancing the fundamental provisions on freedom of expression and the right to respect for private life .","...","In the court \u2019s view the following statement applies directly to [ A ] : \u201c I know that some of the ORG board members are not aware of the financial support for the offensive writings on [ website B ] , because the payments are well - disguised in the organisation \u2019s financial statements . I have been told that it is possible that no members of the PERSON board know that the organisation \u2019s CARDINAL are being used to support anonymous slander on [ website B ] - that the CEO alone decided to use the organisation \u2019s funds this way \u201d . [ The applicant ] does not maintain that this does not apply directly to [ A ] , his plea for acquittal is based on the fact that the statement does not imply that [ A ] has committed a criminal offence ; furthermore he claims that this is not something he maintains , since he pointed out [ in the article ] that he was not able to confirm that statement .","The evaluation of whether or not the statement includes an accusation of a criminal act or is defamatory will not be based on how [ the applicant ] understands it but on how readers are expected to perceive and interpret it . The claim that the payments to [ website B ] have been disguised in the organisation \u2019s financial statements seems to imply that [ A ] , who is responsible for the ORG \u2019s financial accounts as the CEO of the organisation , condones accounting deception to hide the alleged support to [ website B ] . [ The applicant ] can not prove the statement so it is considered not to be proved .","The court considers that the second part of the statement , \u201c I have been told that it is possible that no ORG board members know that the organisation \u2019s CARDINAL are being used to support anonymous slander on [ website B ] - that the CEO alone decided to use the organisation \u2019s funds in this way \u201d , can be understood as an insinuation of fraud by abuse of position [ umbo\u00f0ssvik ] and negligence at work as it implies that [ A ] allocated PERSON funds against the board \u2019s will and without authorisation . [ The applicant ] has not shown that the statement is true , for this he carries the burden of proof .","The aforementioned statement is considered to be defamatory for [ A ] and likely to damage his reputation and honour . In accordance with the aforementioned , and with reference to LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , the statement is declared null and void . \u201d","The applicant sought leave to appeal to ORG , which was refused on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147286","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF Y v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , when the applicant was in the courtyard of her apartment building , CARDINAL officers from the municipal police force ( PERSON and PERSON ) pulled up in a car . After having a conversation with the applicant they twisted her arms behind her back and forced her to approach their car . She was eventually let go , but later she started feeling ill and had to call an ambulance . The applicant submits that she still felt ill effects on her health DATE after the events of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG and requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against the officers responsible . The applicant stated that she had told the officers that they could go and talk in her apartment , after which CARDINAL of them had grabbed her right upper arm and twisted her arm behind her back , she avoided the grip owing to pain , while the police officer shouted that he would teach her a lesson about resisting the police . At that moment the second policeman had grabbed and twisted the applicant \u2019s left arm . The policemen had then tried to push the applicant into the back of their car . They eventually let her go after her neighbours intervened . Immediately after the policemen had left , the applicant had started experiencing health problems , namely , sharp pain in her chest , high blood pressure , pain in her back , neck and head , and a loss of feeling in her hands . She had called an ambulance and had been given an injection . The following day a general practitioner had issued the applicant with a sick leave certificate until DATE and had prescribed painkillers and sedatives . The applicant asked the prosecutor to order an appointment with a forensic medical expert , pointing out that there were haematomas on her upper arms .","It appears that the prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings DATE . The case was forwarded to the ORG police for investigation .","On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to the head of ORG . In substance she repeated her account of the events of DATE . In the concluding part of her complaint , the applicant requested that the actions of the CARDINAL officers of the municipal police be investigated . She also pointed out that as a result of their actions she had suffered mental anguish and material and psychological harm .","On DATE an inspector from the GPE and ORG adopted a decision to terminate the criminal proceedings which had been initiated by the prosecutor . The decision was adopted on the basis of statements made by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , by PERSON and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and by CARDINAL other witnesses ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as well as the forensic medical expert \u2019s report ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and a decision of ORG to take disciplinary measures in respect of PERSON and PERSON for having failed to properly document the administrative infraction committed by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant had testified that she had been washing her car in the courtyard of her neighbour \u2019s house and that , after she had parked the car near her house , CARDINAL policemen had pulled up . They had asked the applicant to approach their car , which she had not done because she had needed to return to her apartment urgently . The policemen had then warned her that she was disobeying police orders and had subsequently twisted her arms behind her back ; she had tried to free herself from the grip .","NORP The policemen PERSON and PERSON stated that they had been called out about an administrative violation \u2013 a car being washed in a public courtyard . Upon arrival at the scene they had noticed the applicant standing next to a car holding a bucket . PERSON had then invited the applicant to approach the police car so that a record of an administrative violation could be drawn up , which the applicant had refused to do and had started to walk away . The policemen had then taken her by the arms and started directing her towards the police car . Since the applicant had not demonstrated resistance , PERSON and PERSON had released their hold and subsequently taken statements from the applicant \u2019s neighbours for the purpose of initiating administrative proceedings against her .","The forensic medical expert who had examined the applicant noted that each of her upper arms bore CARDINAL haematomas . It was concluded that the haematomas could have appeared in the circumstances described by the applicant . The haematomas were described as minor injuries which would not have adverse medical effects for DATE ( \u201c kas neizraisa \u012bslaic\u012bgus vesel\u012bbas trauc\u0113jumus uz laiku virs CARDINAL dien\u0101m \u201d ) . The fact that the applicant had actually sought medical treatment for DATE was considered irrelevant , since the expert considered that the nature of her injuries did not warrant such extended treatment .","The QUANTITY eyewitnesses to the events of DATE all agreed that the applicant had ignored the requests of the police and that the policemen had therefore tried to detain her . The applicant had resisted and the officers had twisted her arms behind her back . After the applicant had stopped resisting , she had been released .","The findings of the internal investigation of ORG of DATE disclosed that the policemen PERSON and PERSON had been penalised for their lack of diligence in drawing up a record of the administrative violation allegedly committed by the applicant ( failure to obey the lawful order of a police officer ) . No mention appears to have been made of the alleged use of force against the applicant .","Taking into account the information set out above , the inspector concluded that the applicant had intentionally disobeyed the lawful order of a police officer ( thus committing an administrative offence under NORP legislation ) . As a result , PERSON and PERSON had used special restraint techniques ( \u201c pielietoja speci\u0101los c\u012b\u0146as pa\u0146\u0113mienus \u201d ) , namely holding the applicant \u2019s arms behind her back in order to detain her . The applicant had shown resistance while she was being directed towards the police car . Once she had stopped resisting , she had been released and PERSON had informed his supervisor of the events . In consultation with ORG supervisor it had been decided not to bring the applicant to the police station but instead to initiate administrative proceedings against her . Administrative proceedings were initiated on CARDINAL DATE and discontinued on DATE because procedural time - limits had not been observed by the police .","The decision stated that , since the applicant had refused to cooperate with the police and had started to walk away , the policemen had had legitimate grounds for detaining her , as long as they observed the requirements set out in the Law on Police ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) . Nevertheless , PERSON and PERSON had failed to fulfil the requirements of section CARDINAL in fine of the PERSON , which prohibits the use of special restraint techniques against women , other than in exceptional circumstances . As a result , the applicant had sustained minor injuries . Infliction of minor injuries is an offence proscribed by LAW . Under section CARDINAL ) of LAW , infliction of minor injuries is one of the crimes that are prosecuted privately by the victim .","The inspector further noted that ORG and PERSON had not exceeded their official authority in contravention of LAW . It was established that even though the policemen had violated the requirements of LAW in fine of ORG , it had to be taken into account that the applicant herself had disobeyed and resisted the police . Thus , taking into account the \u201c nature , circumstances and consequences of the ORG actions \u201d , the inspector concluded that , pursuant to the explanations contained in section PERSON ) of the PERSON on the Coming into ORG and LAW , there had been no substantial harm done to state authority , administrative order or the rights and interests of any person . Accordingly the inspector held that the municipal police had to decide whether ORG and PERSON should be held disciplinarily liable for the violation of LAW in fine of ORG . In conclusion , it was decided to terminate the criminal proceedings for absence of corpus delicti .","The decision was conveyed to the applicant in a letter of DATE . The letter stated :","\u201c ... You may appeal against the adopted decision to ORG within DATE of receiving the decision . Please also note that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that the offence mentioned in LAW of LAW ( intentional infliction of a minor injury ) is prosecuted privately . In the course of private prosecution criminal proceedings , the prosecutorial functions are carried out by the victim , who must lodge an application with a court . ... \u201d","The applicant did not appeal against the decision of DATE . She did , however , submit a complaint to ORG stating her intention to initiate a private prosecution under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The complaint was dated DATE and was marked as having been received at the court on DATE . The applicant indicated that PERSON and PERSON had used special restraint techniques against her in contravention of ORG , as a result of which she had been injured , which had been confirmed by a forensic medical expert . She further pointed out that she had incurred pecuniary and non - pecuniary losses . Accordingly , she claimed damages .","On DATE a single judge of ORG issued a decision concerning the applicant \u2019s complaint . The judge held that the limitation period of DATE had expired and criminal proceedings could therefore not be instituted . He noted that he had received the applicant \u2019s complaint on DATE , that is to say after the expiry of the statutory time - limit . Furthermore , the decision noted that the applicant had failed to specify which paragraph of CARDINAL formed the legal basis of her complaint , and had not substantiated in any way her claim under section CARDINAL .","The applicant appealed . On DATE a single judge of ORG dismissed her appeal . The decision noted that DATE on which ORG and PERSON could have been charged by the way of private prosecution had been DATE . Since the applicant had lodged her complaint on DATE , it would have been physically impossible to initiate proceedings on DATE because of the large number of procedural steps that would have had to be taken ( for example , a copy of the complaint would have had to be sent to the accused , the accused would have had to be informed about their rights , the applicant would have had to be informed about the time and the place of the hearing , and the accused and other persons would have had to be called to the hearing ) . The judge further noted that the police \u2019s decision not to initiate criminal proceedings was made on DATE , yet the applicant had waited for DATE before lodging a request to initiate private prosecution proceedings . The decision had also explained that a refusal to initiate criminal proceedings did not preclude the applicant from lodging a civil claim in order to obtain compensation for the harm allegedly done . Finally it was remarked that the judge of the first - instance court had correctly held that the applicant had failed to specify which of the CARDINAL paragraphs of CARDINAL of LAW formed the legal basis of her complaint . Under LAW , the judge of the first - instance court had a duty to establish whether the legal categorisation of the alleged crime was correct , since the accused had a right to know the exact content of the accusations against them . The decision of ORG was final and not subject to further appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157766","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF S.H. v. ITALY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is the mother of CARDINAL children , NORP , PERSON and PERSON , who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .","At the material time the applicant was living with the children \u2019s father , was suffering from depression and was undergoing a pharmacological treatment .","In DATE the social services informed ORG ( hereafter \u201c the court \u201d ) that the children had been hospitalised several times following the accidental ingestion of medication , and emergency proceedings were commenced before the court . By decision of CARDINAL DATE the court ordered the children \u2019s removal from their family and their placement in an institution , and instructed the social services to draw up a support project for the children .","On DATE the applicant and the children \u2019s father were heard by the court . They admitted that owing to the applicant \u2019s state of health and the side - effects of the medication she was taking to treat her depression they had had difficulties looking after the children . They affirmed , however , that they could take proper care of the children with the help of the social services and the children \u2019s grandfather . The applicant pointed out that she was undergoing treatment and that the side - effects initially caused by the medication had ceased . Both parents requested that the social services put in place a support project so that the children could return home .","On DATE the psychiatrist submitted her report on the applicant . The report stated that the latter was undergoing pharmacological treatment , that she was willing to have psychotherapy and to accept the assistance of the social services and that she had a very strong emotional bond with her children .","On DATE ORG ( the \u201c GIL \u201d ) submitted its report , pointing out that despite the family difficulties , the parents had reacted positively , had taken part in the meetings and were prepared to accept the support of the social services . Consequently , the ORG proposed returning the children to their parents and introducing a family support project .","NORP By decision of DATE the court , having regard to the expert reports and the fact that the paternal grandfather was available to help his son and the applicant to look after their children , ordered the children \u2019s return to their parents .","On DATE , however , the GPE reunion with their children was interrupted and the children were once again removed from the family home on the grounds that the applicant had been hospitalised owing to an aggravation of her illness , that the father had left the family home and that the grandfather had fallen ill . The court established visiting rights for both parents as follows : for the applicant , TIME , and for the children \u2019s father , TIME .","In DATE the prosecutor requested the opening of a procedure for declaring the children available for adoption .","On DATE the parents were heard by the court . The applicant submitted that she was undergoing treatment , that the children \u2019s father was available to look after them and that they had therefore not been abandoned . The father emphasised that even if he was working he could take proper care of the children with his father \u2019s help , and that he had recruited a home help .","NORP In DATE the court ordered an expert assessment of the applicant \u2019s and the children \u2019s father \u2019s capacity for exercising their parental role . On DATE the expert submitted his report , which concluded :","- that the father displayed no psychiatric illness and that despite his fragile personality he was capable of shouldering his responsibilities ;","- that the applicant suffered from a \u201c borderline personality disorder which interfered , to a limited extent , with her ability to shoulder responsibilities linked to her role as a mother \u201d ;","- that the children were hyperactive , largely as a result of the family \u2019s difficulties .","In his conclusions , the expert pointed out that both parents were willing to accept any intervention required to improve their relationship with their children , and he made the following proposals : extending the children \u2019s placement in public care , introducing a programme of bringing the parents and the children together , and intensifying encounters . He also suggested that the situation of the family should be reassessed DATE .","By decision of DATE , however , the court declared the children available for adoption , and the meetings between the parents and the children were discontinued .","In its reasoning , the court stated that no reassessment of the family \u2019s situation was necessary in the present case . It highlighted the GPE difficulties in exercising their parental role , as indicated by the expert , and referred to the statements of the Director of the institution to the effect that the applicant had \u201c serious mental disorders \u201d , the father \u201c was unable to show affection and spent his time arguing with the welfare assistants \u201d and the parents \u201c were incapable of providing their children with the care and treatment which they needed \u201d . Having regard to those facts , the court declared the children available for adoption .","The applicant and the children \u2019s father appealed against that decision and requested a stay of execution . They submitted :","\u2013 that the court had erroneously declared the children available for adoption in the absence of any \u201c abandonment \u201d , a precondition for such a declaration under LAW . CARDINAL of DATE ;","\u2013 that the declaration of availability for adoption should only be used in the last resort and that in the present case it was unnecessary because their family difficulties , which stemmed , in particular , from the applicant \u2019s illness , were temporary and could be overcome with the welfare assistants\u2019 support .","Finally , they emphasised that the court had not taken into account the DATE expert report ordering the establishment of a programme of support and gradual reunion of the children with their parents .","In DATE the court ordered that each child be placed in a different foster family .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the declaration of availability for adoption .","ORG observed that the competent authorities had expended the requisite efforts to provide support to the parents and prepare the children \u2019s return to their family . However , the project had failed , which showed the GPE incapacity for exercising their parental role and belied the temporary nature of the situation . With reference to the social services\u2019 findings , ORG emphasised that the failure of the project had had negative consequences for the children and that the declaration was geared to protecting their interest in being fostered in a family capable of properly caring for them , which their family of origin was incapable of doing owing to the mother \u2019s state of health and the father \u2019s difficulties . ORG noted that there had been some positive developments in the situation , such as the mother \u2019s realisation of her health problems and her determination to undergo treatment , as well as the father \u2019s efforts to find resources in order to look after his children and the availability of the grandfather to help out . However , ORG held that those factors were insufficient to assess the CARDINAL GPE capacities for exercising their parental responsibilities . Having regard to those factors , and with an eye to safeguarding the children \u2019s interests , ORG also confirmed their availability for adoption .","The applicant and the children \u2019s father lodged an appeal on points of law . By judgment deposited in the registry on DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on the grounds that :","\u2013 ORG had correctly assessed the existence of a situation of psychological abandonment of the children and the irreversibility of the GPE incapacity for exercising their role , having regard to the failure of the first support project put in place by the social services ;","\u2013 the declaration of availability for adoption had duly taken into account the children \u2019s interest in being fostered by a family capable of looking after them effectively .","NORP In DATE the applicant requested ORG to cancel the declaration of the children \u2019s availability for adoption ( on the basis of section CARDINAL of Law No . CARDINAL of DATE ) . In support of her request , the applicant presented various medical documents attesting that her state of health had improved in the meantime , in order to prove that the conditions set out in LAW . CARDINAL of DATE for issuing a declaration of availability for adoption has since lapsed .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request .","The outcome of the adoption procedure concerning the children is unknown ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182450","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MOHAMED HASAN v. NORWAY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["In DATE the applicant moved to GPE after marrying C , an NORP national who had come to GPE in DATE . The couple \u2019s first daughter , A , was born in DATE . Their second daughter , B , was born in DATE .","On DATE the emergency unit at the child welfare authorities in F. municipality received a request to assist the police with an incident in which the applicant and C were having a heated argument in the presence of their child . DATE , on DATE , the police were called again . The applicant then said that C had hit her and tried to strangle her and A on DATE . C was arrested and placed in custody . The applicant and A were taken to a crisis centre .","DATE , on DATE , the applicant was admitted to hospital with pain and bleeding . She then consented to A being placed in an emergency foster home while she was in hospital . The applicant asked the hospital for protection during her stay , because she was afraid that C \u2019s family would come to the hospital to kill her .","The applicant was discharged from hospital on DATE . She withdrew her consent to the emergency placement of A and they moved into a crisis centre . The child welfare authorities made a decision on assistance measures on DATE and informed the applicant that they would be concerned about A \u2019s welfare if the applicant were to move back in with C. The applicant then stated that she did not wish to move back in with him . She wanted to have a domestic abuse alarm device if she moved back .","On DATE the applicant moved back home with A. She did not want to give evidence in the criminal proceedings against C , A \u2019s father , and refused to release her doctor from the duty of confidentiality . On DATE C was released from custody and moved back home . A restraining order that had been imposed on him in relation to the applicant was lifted at her request .","Taking into account that C had tried to strangle the applicant and A with an electrical cord ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the child welfare authorities gave the applicant a choice between moving into a crisis centre with A or having her forcibly taken into care . On DATE the applicant moved back into the crisis centre in F. with A.","While at the crisis centre the applicant had a lot of contact with C by telephone . She expressed a wish to move back in with him with A , but also stated that he should not be at home at the same time as them . After she let C into the crisis centre on DATE , the centre no more wanted her to stay there . As the applicant expressed a wish to move back home to C , the child welfare authorities decided on CARDINAL DATE to place A in an emergency foster home for the second time because they were of the opinion that the mother was unable to protect A from violence from her father .","NORP In a consultation at the emergency clinic DATE , the mother denied that C represented a risk to her or the child and that he had previously hurt them .","On DATE the applicant moved into a crisis centre in O. This crisis centre was of the opinion that A should be returned to her . The child welfare authorities disagreed , and cooperation between the crisis centre and the authorities became difficult . In the end , A was returned to the applicant on DATE and they then stayed together at the crisis centre .","On DATE the applicant and A moved back in with C. The child welfare authorities closed the case , but reopened it after the applicant \u2019s lawyer raised concerns ( \u201c bekymringsmelding \u201d ) and stated that mother and child still had great need of the authorities\u2019 help . On DATE the authorities initiated assistance measures , including parenting guidance , couple therapy , a NORP language course for the applicant , and aggression management therapy for C. An application was also submitted for a kindergarten place for A. After a while the kindergarten raised concerns owing to A \u2019s high absence rate and the fact that many verbal expressions of anger were being directed at the staff by C.","On DATE the police raised additional concerns with the child welfare authorities after they had been called out to the hospital in F. The mother had been admitted DATE before with a suspected ectopic pregnancy . C had taken A to the hospital and the police had regarded his behaviour as so aggressive and threatening towards the hospital staff that they had thought it appropriate to notify the child welfare authorities . C had influenced the applicant to discharge herself from hospital against medical advice . However , she had suffered heavy bleeding and had been readmitted . C had been banned from visiting her at the hospital . He was at home with A , about whom the police were concerned , as the father was aggressive and threatening towards the applicant and their daughter .","On DATE , DATE , the child welfare emergency unit visited the family . C was very upset and angry , as he claimed that he had not consented to such a visit .","In DATE the applicant attended an appointment at a crisis centre in NORP According to the child welfare authorities\u2019 records , C had been \u201c aggressive and out of control \u201d because of this meeting .","In DATE the couple \u2019s second daughter , B , was born .","On DATE ORG ( tingrett ) gave a judgment in which C was acquitted of violating LAW on the maltreatment of family members , but convicted of some other offences . The counts in the indictment under LAW concerned the incidents in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the course of the criminal case , the applicant had withdrawn her previous statements concerning violence by C.","On DATE the child welfare authorities received a call from a crisis centre in S. informing them that the applicant and her CARDINAL children had arrived there after C had been violent towards them and had threatened to kill the applicant . C had been arrested , but had then been released . The applicant had withdrawn her statement about his acts of violence and was preparing to go home . Based on this and previous incidents , the authorities decided to issue an emergency care order DATE to place the children in an emergency foster home at a secret address . This was A \u2019s third emergency placement ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The order was approved by ORG ( fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker \u2013 hereinafter also \u201c the Board \u201d ) DATE .","On DATE , DATE , the applicant went to the crisis centre in O. At a meeting held there on DATE she stated that she never wanted to return to C. The child welfare authorities emphasised that she could not have any contact with him once the children were returned to her . Initially , the authorities\u2019 intention was to return the children to the applicant at the crisis centre in GPE , where they would all stay . The specialist team in PERSON expressed concern about this solution , and the authorities decided that the children could not be returned until the applicant was settled in her own flat . They thought it would be unfortunate to return the children only to put them through another emergency placement if the mother moved back to C.","On DATE a restraining order was imposed on C in relation to the applicant .","The parents appealed against the emergency care order of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , which granted the appeal in part in a decision of DATE . The decision regarding the emergency placement was upheld , but the amount of contact with the children was increased and the decision not to inform the parents of the children \u2019s whereabouts was set aside .","On DATE the applicant moved from the crisis centre in O. to the crisis centre in S. She subsequently stayed at a crisis centre in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","An application for the children to be taken into care was first submitted to ORG by F. municipality on DATE . The municipality wanted consideration of the case to be postponed so that an expert assessment could be prepared , but the parents were opposed to this . ORG considered the case at a meeting from DATE . On DATE the ORG nevertheless decided to adjourn the case in order to appoint experts to carry out an assessment of it . The appointed experts were a specialist in educational and psychological counselling , GPE , and a specialist in clinical psychology , GPE The experts\u2019 joint statement was submitted on CARDINAL DATE .","The child welfare authorities wanted the contact sessions to be supervised and engaged trained personnel from a company to do so . The supervisers started their work on DATE and submitted a report on DATE .","C was dissatisfied with the work of the appointed experts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and therefore hired PERSON , a specialist in child and adolescent psychology , as a private expert to observe contact sessions between the applicant and the children . PERSON submitted his report on DATE .","The care order case was considered by ORG on DATE .","The applicant stayed at the crisis centre in PERSON again from DATE , after which time she moved into her own flat in GPE","Before the ORG reached a decision , the CARDINAL children were abducted from a contact session with the applicant . The incident took place on DATE at G. Volunteer Centre ( \u201c frivillighetssentral \u201d ) in B. CARDINAL people wearing balaclavas and sunglasses forced their way in during the contact session , used an electroshock weapon on the applicant and abducted the children . The contact session was being supervised by a member of the company \u2019s staff ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The staff member managed to escape through the veranda door and summon help . The applicant was injured and unconscious and was taken away to hospital by air ambulance . The children were found in a flat in GPE DATE . C later admitted that he had been behind the abduction and that he had been in the vicinity when it had happened .","The ORG found out about the abduction before it made its decision , and it was therefore decided that there should be no contact between the children and the parents . The operative part of the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . F. municipality , represented by the child welfare authorities , shall take A , born ... DATE , into care .","F. municipality , represented by the child welfare authorities , shall take B , born ... DATE , into care .","A and B shall be placed in separate foster homes at secret addresses . A shall be placed in enhanced foster care [ where foster parents have extensive support from the child welfare authorities ] .","No minimum level of contact between the mother and the girls is set out . If contact sessions are to take place , the child welfare authorities are authorised to supervise them .","No minimum level of contact between the father and the girls is set out . If contact sessions are to take place , the child welfare authorities are authorised to supervise them . \u201d","The decision was brought before ORG ( tingrett ) . When the hearing started , on DATE , the applicant was not present . Her counsel was there and argued that the case should be postponed . After ORG had decided not to do so , the applicant \u2019s counsel left as he was of the opinion that he could not attend to the interests of his client . However , C informed the court that he was in touch with the applicant . She arrived DATE at the court and stated that she had spoken to her counsel . She also argued that the case should be adjourned . When told that it had already been decided to continue the hearing , the applicant left the court .","On DATE ORG upheld the ORG \u2019s decision . As to the applicant and her counsel leaving the hearing , the court noted that it found it difficult to view this as anything but an attempt to force the court into postponing the case , although it did not find it clear why they wanted the case to be postponed . Based on the evidence presented to it , ORG found it highly likely that C would attempt to abduct the children . Moreover , it was found to be the case that C was in control of the applicant and that she followed his orders . Among other things , ORG referred to the fact that the applicant under the hearing had made herself unavailable to her counsel , but not to C. The City Court stated that the abduction risk might possibly be regarded differently when the criminal case against C had been heard by the court . At present , however , it took account of how C had declared that the abduction had been in the children \u2019s best interests and concluded that there should be no visiting rights .","Instructed by the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE , a specialist psychologist , PERSON , submitted an expert report in the case on DATE .","The parents appealed to ORG ( lagmannsrett ) against ORG judgment .","On DATE the applicant submitted an official complaint to the police against C in relation to rape , deprivation of liberty , and threats made in her flat . The applicant went to the crisis centre in PERSON , but moved back to her own flat DATE . C also contacted the applicant in PERSON later in DATE . A restraining order was imposed on him , and the applicant was moved to a secret address .","The High Court appointed the clinical psychologist ORG as expert ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He submitted his report on CARDINAL DATE . ORG then heard the case from DATE . The parents were present together with their counsel and gave evidence . CARDINAL witnesses were heard , including CARDINAL expert witnesses . ORG , the court - appointed expert , gave testimony .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It noted that a care order presupposed serious deficits in the applicant \u2019s caring abilities and though the applicant , if viewed in isolation , would have sufficient capacity to take care of the children with assistance of the child welfare authorities , the question was whether the children would be sufficiently protected from C. The applicant did not want further dealings with him . C \u2019s behaviour showed , however , that he was unwilling to respect her wish . As to contact rights , ORG did not take a stance on whether a secure regime for visits could be established . At that time , there was in any event an obvious risk that C would again try to kidnap the children .","Leave to appeal to ORG ( PERSON ) was denied by ORG on Leave to Appeal ( H\u00f8yesteretts ankeutvalg ) on DATE .","During DATE , the applicant was subject to threats from her CARDINAL - brother , on paid assignment from C , in order to make her move back to GPE . On DATE she was granted divorce . The hearing of the criminal charges against C took place in DATE .","On DATE the child welfare authorities applied to ORG for an order that the applicant and C have their parental responsibility in respect of A and B removed ; parental responsibility would then be transferred to the authorities . The authorities also applied for the ORG \u2019s authorisation of the foster GPE adoption of the children . The applicant applied to ORG for an order that A and B \u2019s placement in care be discontinued .","On DATE ORG convicted C of abducting the children ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , of which DATE were suspended . C appealed against the judgment .","On DATE the ORG appointed ORG , the psychologist , as its expert . He submitted a report on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The case was heard on CARDINAL and DATE . ORG sat with a chairperson who was qualified to act as a professional judge , a psychologist and a layperson , in accordance with the first paragraphs of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was present with her legal aid counsel and gave evidence . C was in GPE , but testified by telephone as a party to the case and was represented by his counsel . The appointed expert attended the proceedings and testified . CARDINAL other witness was heard .","In its decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG noted that the previous care order case had been considered as directed against the applicant , as C had accepted that she had DATE care and control of the children . This situation had not changed , and C now supported the applicant \u2019s claim for revocation of the care order .","The Board first reiterated the following from ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE concerning the children \u2019s placement in care ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) :","\u201c In ORG opinion , seen in isolation , the mother will be capable of providing adequate care for the children , provided that adequate assistance measures are offered . ORG understands that this opinion is shared \u2013 although to a varying extent \u2013 by all the experts who have appeared before [ it ] . \u201d","There was limited updated information about the applicant \u2019s situation at the time of the ORG \u2019s decision , but it was clear that she had been granted a divorce from C. She had also passed a NORP language course and established a small social network in PERSON Seen in isolation , her ability to provide care thus appeared to have improved somewhat since ORG hearing .","On the other hand , ORG had concluded that there were serious deficiencies in the applicant \u2019s ability to provide care because of the threat that C represented to her and the children . ORG made reference to the following passages from ORG judgment :","\u201c ... the question at issue in this case is whether the children will be sufficiently protected against violence from their father if they are returned . It is very important to the father that the children grow up in accordance with their NORP background , and he is clearly willing to go to great lengths to achieve this , possibly also by using violent methods . He has stated that the purpose of the abduction was to take them to GPE . ...","After the presentation of the evidence , ORG is in no doubt that the father is violent and represents a threat to the mother . ...","Based on the facts described above , the High Court finds that there is a strong preponderance of likelihood of the father having committed violent acts against the mother , and that it is probable that he , or someone acting on his behalf , will be violent to the mother again . Among other things , [ the court ] points out that the expert witness GPE , who has assessed the violence described in the case in a cultural context , believes that the mother \u2019s \u2018 life probably was [ or ] is in serious danger\u2019 .","The mother and father are divorced , and the mother wants no further contact with the father . His behaviour as recently as in DATE in PERSON shows that he is not willing to respect the mother \u2019s wish to break off contact [ with him ] . In the High Court \u2019s opinion , there can be little doubt that the father \u2019s further contact with the mother will be harmful to the children and constitute a significant deficiency in relation to the children \u2019s safety if the care order is revoked . \u201d","However , ORG had stated in its judgment that the question of contact for the applicant could be seen in a different light if C were expelled from the country . This was because the security concerns described in the judgment would then not apply to the same extent .","The expert appointed by ORG , ORG , had not carried out a new assessment of the applicant \u2019s ability to provide care in his report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In a statement dated CARDINAL DATE from ORG ( barnesakkyndig kommisjon ) , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL commission members had remarked that it would have been preferable for the mother to have been given an opportunity to comment on such a serious matter . It was also stated that it was expected that this would form part of the ORG \u2019s consideration of the case .","In his testimony before ORG , psychologist ORG upheld his assessment given in the report of DATE that , seen in isolation , the applicant \u2019s ability to provide care was sufficient for her to have care and control of the children with assistance measures in place . The ORG agreed , and also made reference to ORG assessment of this issue ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . Nothing in the case indicated that the applicant \u2019s ability to provide care had deteriorated since ORG hearing in DATE . If anything , it had to be deemed to have slightly improved . The applicant had testified before ORG and ORG considered that the issue had been adequately clarified .","The children \u2019s father had been in GPE for DATE , and had stated in his testimony as a party to the case that he was building a house and was engaged to be married to a new woman . He had no plans to return to GPE , and he planned to settle permanently in GPE . The father had last been in GPE during the criminal proceedings against him in DATE . His counsel stated that the conviction had not been formally served on C , but he had nonetheless appealed against it , and he added that he expected C to sign the letter accompanying the appeal soon , so that ORG could consider it .","In his expert report of DATE to the ORG , ORG had given the following assessment of the situation :","\u201c According to information received , the father is currently in GPE . If he returns to [ GPE ] , he must expect to be arrested to serve the prison term he was sentenced to for the abduction . [ I do ] not know if he would then be expelled from the country . The present situation resembles the situation that the High Court deemed to be associated with less risk for the children [ ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ] .","[ I do ] not necessarily agree with ORG assessment . This is a complex issue , and to the extent that the question of risk can be clarified with a sufficient degree of certainty , that would require extensive investigation which would also involve the GPE relatives and other networks in countries other than GPE . That is far beyond the remit of the expert examination . Nevertheless , it is possible to make some general reflections based partly on knowledge about what is common in the GPE culture , and partly on information provided by the parents themselves .","The children belong to the father \u2019s family . Not just to the father , but to his family . The mother has main responsibility for bringing up the children as long as they are regarded as children . It is therefore unproblematic for the father to accept that the children be returned to the mother to grow up with her . Once they are grown up , however , they will still belong to their father \u2019s family . They will be considered \u2018 ORG long before the NORP age of majority ; age of sexual maturity is a more relevant criterion than chronological age .","For a family that is concerned with the honour code , the actions of an adult daughter have a bearing on the whole family \u2019s honour . If she leads a life in conflict with the family \u2019s norms , particularly as regards her sexual life , this affects the whole family , which will lose all prestige in the eyes of the surrounding world . In extreme cases , the family may feel forced to track down the woman and kill her to restore the family \u2019s honour and prestige . This does not necessarily diminish with time and distance . Nor does this only apply in conservative religious families ; it is more a question of culture than of religion . There are several examples of relatives tracking down women living in Western countries and committing so - called honour killings despite the family having lived in the LOC for DATE and appearing to be modern and well - integrated .","If such mechanisms are at play in the father \u2019s family , the father \u2019s whereabouts are less important in relation to the risk . Nor will the risk diminish with time . The opposite may even be true . A and B are young children , and children are not in a position to disgrace their family . As they become older , keeping them under control may become much more important for the family than it is DATE . PERSON , they should be \u2018 GPE before they have the opportunity to do anything wrong . The family could achieve this by organising another abduction and taking them to GPE . If the children were nevertheless to bring dishonour on the family , or if the family assumed that to be the case because they lived outside the family \u2019s control , there is a possibility that A and B would risk being hunted for DATE and maybe even killed if their family found them .","On the basis of the above , [ I am ] of the opinion that the risk associated with disclosing A and B \u2019s whereabouts has not decreased , even though the father is abroad . This means that returning them to their mother would still entail a serious threat to their care situation , even if the mother , seen in isolation , may be able to provide proper care . Based on what is known about the mother from before , [ I am ] highly uncertain whether the mother would keep her and her children \u2019s identities secret from the father \u2019s family in the event that she was given a new identity and a secret address . In order for such an arrangement to be safe , the mother would probably have to break off all contact with her own family as well . It is neither realistic nor ethically justifiable to make this a condition . \u201d","In ORG statement of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL commission members had pointed out that the expert \u2019s conclusions as quoted above were not based on concrete knowledge about the situation in this family . The member had also stated that , when so much time was devoted to considerations on the family and situation in GPE , this could easily give a wrong impression , even if doubts were also included in the report . This could easily lead to incorrect or false premises being established for the assessment of the risk associated with the mother \u2019s contact with the children in a situation where their biological father was not in the country . The other commission member had had no comments on the expert \u2019s report .","The ORG agreed that assessing the risk with a sufficient degree of certainty would require extensive investigation . This had not been done in this case , and ORG had no option but to base its assessment on the known facts . Based on the presentation of evidence , the ORG agreed with the expert that his concerns regarding the risk had not been assuaged during the hearing before the ORG .","Firstly , the police still considered the children to be at high risk of being kidnapped . The police had not testified about this before the ORG , but the ORG had no reason to doubt the police \u2019s assessment . ORG had been informed that the foster families had to clear all visits outside the municipality with the police . At a time when the police \u2019s use of resources was under continuous evaluation , ORG saw no reason to believe that the level of protection was seen as excessive .","Secondly , C had tracked down and raped the applicant in DATE , and had also approached her DATE . In DATE the applicant had received death threats from her CARDINAL - brother , among other things , and she herself had stated that the threats had been made because C had paid her CARDINAL - brother to do this . The applicant had informed the ORG that she had been kept under surveillance for a prolonged period by her CARDINAL - brother , who had come to GPE under an alias . She had reported this to the police , and the police had allegedly told her that her brother might possibly be expelled from GPE . However , she did not know his whereabouts . Since C had on CARDINAL occasions and until quite recently used accomplices to put the applicant and\/or the children in great danger , the ORG considered C \u2019s actual location of less importance . There was also good reason to question whether he would stay away from GPE , given that he had appealed against ORG judgment in the criminal case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . An appeal on the question of his guilt would be dismissed if he did not appear .","Thirdly , ORG mother in GPE had stated that she would come to GPE if the children were not returned to the applicant . She had also said that her husband , A and B \u2019s paternal grandfather , was very ill and had been hospitalised as a result of the stress of the children being taken away from the family . These statements showed that the stress on the family as a result of the case did not seem to have diminished , but in fact still seemed to have a strong presence . The paternal grandmother \u2019s statement gave the impression that the children \u2019s fate was the family \u2019s responsibility , and not a matter that just concerned C.","Fourthly , ORG considered it unlikely ( \u201c lite sannsynlig \u201d ) that the applicant would be able to protect the children from their father if they were returned to her . When the children were younger , the applicant had repeatedly demonstrated that she was unable to protect herself and the children from C. She had moved back to C several times , despite having reported him to the police for violence against both herself and the children . He could not be prosecuted for these offences because the applicant either withdrew her previous statements or refused to make statements to the police . Since the abduction in DATE , C had contacted the applicant several times , and he had also been violent again . Despite knowing that C was behind the death threats and surveillance of her in DATE , she now believed that he did not represent a risk . It was difficult to say whether this was what the applicant actually believed or whether it had to do with her wish for the children to be returned to her . In any case , the applicant \u2019s statement indicated that she failed to realise how serious the situation was .","The expert \u2019s assessment was that if the applicant were to have care and control of the children then she would probably have to break off all contact with her own family . The ORG concurred with the expert \u2019s view . The applicant and C had reportedly grown up in the same neighbourhood , and the families knew each other . CARDINAL member of the applicant \u2019s family had demonstrated that he was willing to carry out unlawful acts on behalf of C. The applicant \u2019s contact with her own family would therefore entail a significant risk of her and the children \u2019s whereabouts becoming known to C. The applicant had stated that she would be willing to break off all contact with her family if the children were returned to her . However , when at the same time she said that C was no longer a threat , it was difficult for the ORG to envisage that she would be sufficiently motivated to make such a sacrifice . In the ORG \u2019s assessment , C represented such a significant threat that the children would probably be at risk , even if the applicant managed to break off contact with her family . ORG referred to how C had over a period of DATE demonstrated that he had both the means and the will to carry out his wishes . His rape of the applicant in DATE , and the surveillance and death threats against her via an accomplice in DATE showed that he had learnt nothing from the abduction in DATE . On the basis of the factors set out above , the ORG assumed that , for the foreseeable future , C appeared to be prepared to use unlawful means to gain control over the applicant and the children .","It had been argued before ORG , particularly by ORG counsel , that the risk to the children would be lesser if they were with their applicant rather than placed in a foster family . The reasons given for this were that C and his family wanted the children to be returned to the applicant , and they would then be satisfied with the situation . ORG did not rule out the possibility that C and his family would be satisfied for a while and thus not represent any immediate threat if the children were returned . However , this had to be regarded as highly uncertain , and it would in any case depend entirely on how the applicant chose to live her life with the children . If she were to deviate from what was expected of her regarding how the children were raised , the children would again be at risk . Reference was made to the comment in the expert report that the children in a NORP family belonged to the father \u2019s family , and that , for example , the actions of an adult or sexually mature daughter would have a bearing on the whole family \u2019s honour .","Overall , the ORG found that it had been substantiated that the risk of the children and\/or the applicant being subjected to criminal offences by C had remained virtually unchanged since ORG had considered this issue in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This meant that the risk associated with disclosing A and B \u2019s whereabouts had not decreased , even if C was currently in GPE . The parents had argued that no attempts to abduct the children had been made since DATE , and this showed that the risk was significantly reduced . ORG did not share this view . According to the ORG \u2019s assessment , this was because the children \u2019s whereabouts had not been disclosed and there had been a comprehensive security regime in place since DATE .","On the basis of the above , ORG concluded that the applicant had to be deemed permanently unable to provide the children with proper care , and falling within the scope of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This assessment also meant that her application for revocation of the care order pursuant to section CARDINAL - CARDINAL could not be granted .","Since ORG concluded that the applicant was unable to provide proper care , it was not necessary to discuss whether the attachment criterion in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) was also satisfied . Considering how serious the case was and its profound importance to the parties involved , the ORG nevertheless found grounds to discuss this issue , and started its assessment by seeking to clarify the children \u2019s functioning and care needs .","The ORG noted that A , the oldest daughter , had shown a lot of anger and had acted out during her initial period in foster care . She had been insecure , had not wanted her foster parents to leave her , and had slept next to her foster mother at TIME . She had wanted constant reassurance that she was to live in the foster home forever . This had improved considerably from DATE . Most of the anxiety had now gone , and the foster home interpreted this to mean that A now felt certain that she would not have to leave the foster home . A disliked events involving big crowds , such as end - of - term events . She had taken part in a leisure activity , but had stopped because she preferred to stay at home . The appointed psychologist , ORG , had stated before ORG that A had spontaneously told him during his visits that thieves had tried to steal her . The foster parents had told him later that A had not talked about this for a long time , and that they never talked about the abduction with A. The expert \u2019s interpretation was that A still appeared to have memories of her abduction . He also assumed that she had memories of her GPE turbulent marriage , since she was DATE at the time of her emergency placement .","Furthermore , the ORG took into account that A had had several temporary placements , and psychologist ORG had found her to be highly vulnerable with regard to new broken relationships . In his opinion , losing her foster parents would be a traumatic experience for A.","The other daughter , B , had been DATE when placed in emergency care . She had arrived in the foster home when she was DATE . The foster parents described her as a timid girl who only wanted to sit on her foster mother \u2019s lap . She would not let anyone get close to her except her foster mother , who could never leave a room without B following her . Gradually , the foster father had been allowed to get closer to her , first by sitting next to them while B sat on her foster mother \u2019s lap . Even at the time of the ORG \u2019s decision , B had an extreme fear of losing her foster parents . In DATE the foster parents had gone away for DATE . B had been to stay with an aunt who had children of the same age and whom B knew well and was fond of . The foster parents had prepared her thoroughly , telling her that they were going away for DATE , but that they would come back . When they had come to collect her , B had reacted with hysterical laughter that had turned into sobbing and crying . She had clung to her foster mother and repeated over and over again that they must never leave her again . Even now , DATE , B was still back at the stage where both the foster parents could not leave the room at once . She woke up CARDINAL or CARDINAL times during TIME and said \u201c mummy \u201d , quietly at first . If she did not get a response immediately , she would stand up and shout \u201c mummy \u201d in a frightened voice .","DATE . In his report , ORG had concluded that A and B basically had normal abilities and were resourceful children who had developed well cognitively , socially and in terms of their motor skills . However , the children \u2019s previous experiences of their violent father , their dramatic abduction and broken relationships had made them particularly vulnerable with regard to new broken relationships .","The expert had described to the ORG a strong , secure and good attachment between the children and their foster parents . B had been living in the foster home since she was DATE , and she saw the foster parents as her mother and father . The same applied to A , even though she was DATE when placed in the foster home . She knew that she had another mother who loved her , but her strong attachment was to her foster home . ORG concurred with the expert \u2019s assessment , and found that the children had become strongly attached to the people with whom they were living and the environment in which they were living . In the ORG \u2019s view , removing the children from their foster homes would constitute a serious trauma with the potential to do great harm . Both alternative conditions in the third paragraph of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) were thus deemed to be fulfilled .","As to adoption , the ORG initially observed that the central question in the case was whether adoption would be in the children \u2019s best interests . Adoption was a highly invasive measure and , pursuant to case - law , particularly compelling reasons were required for consent to adoption to be granted against the biological GPE wishes . The decision had to be based on a concrete assessment , but also on general experience , as set out by ORG in a judgment reported in PERSON ( FAC . ) DATE page CARDINAL ( later brought before the ORG , see PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY , CARDINAL DATE and paragraph CARDINAL below ) :","\u201c In my opinion , a clear distinction can not be drawn between general experience and individual considerations ; general experience can be expressed with varying degrees of nuance , for example , based on the child \u2019s age when it was placed in the foster home and how long the placement has lasted and will last . The expert witness in this case has stated that , in his general experience , a foster home relationship is not the preferable option for the long - term placement of children who go to the foster home before forming an attachment to a biological parent ; in such cases , adoption is in the child \u2019s best interests . In my opinion , considerable importance must be attached to such general , but nuanced experience . However , individual circumstances DATE which could weigh for or against adoption \u2013 must also be assessed in relation to general experience . \u201d","The ORG found the strict conditions set out by ORG fulfilled in this case .","Research showed that adoption would generally give a stronger sense of security and belonging in a family situation than a foster placement . An adoption removed all doubts about where a child would grow up , and normally strengthened the attachment between the child and the adoptive parents . It was the ORG \u2019s assessment that this general experience also applied in the present case .","It was normally beneficial for children to have contact with their parents , even in cases where children had to live outside the home for various reasons . In principle , an adoption broke all legal ties between a child and his or her parents , and any continued contact with the biological family would normally be dependent on the adoptive GPE ability and wish to maintain such contact .","Since the abduction , and following the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph DATE above ) , there had been no contact sessions between A and B and their parents for DATE at the time of the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . ORG therefore found that it had to be deemed that there was little attachment between the applicant and the children . This was particularly so in B \u2019s case , who was DATE at the time of her placement in care on an emergency basis . After the emergency placement , B had had contact sessions with the applicant for DATE , but they had ended following the abduction . Therefore , no attachment could be said to exist between the applicant and B in a psychological sense . A , who had lived with the applicant for DATE , would probably have an attachment to her . However , this attachment also had to be deemed considerably weakened as a result of the prolonged interruption of contact . In addition , the attachment between the applicant and A probably had to be deemed tinged by a certain amount of insecurity as a result of the family situation with the violent father .","In addition to the significantly weakened attachment , authorities that had previously considered the case had concluded that the high risk involved meant that contact between the children and their parents was not an option . ORG concurred with this assessment and found that it still applied . Stopping contact would therefore not have any major immediate consequences for the children , and such consequences , seen in isolation , did not constitute a strong argument against adoption . The security situation meant that the children \u2019s cultural background could not be maintained without a risk of their identities being exposed , and therefore cultural considerations could not be a strong argument against adoption either .","DATE . The ORG also found that the general arguments in favour of adoption applied to both A and B. In the ORG \u2019s opinion , the extraordinary circumstances of their placement and the security situation gave added weight to these arguments . Adoption had clear advantages with regard to security . The children would be able to use their new names , which would mean that the risk of their identities being exposed would be significantly reduced . The foster families currently lived under a fairly strict security regime under which , for example , they could not leave the municipality without informing the police . The police \u2019s assessment was that the risk of another kidnapping remained high , and it was unavoidable that this would have a big impact on A and B \u2019s lives . Although adoption would not remove the risk entirely , the reduced risk of the children \u2019s identities being exposed would be highly beneficial .","Based on the above factors , the ORG found that adoption would be in A and B \u2019s best interests and that consent for adoption should be granted .","The foster GPE identities were not known to ORG , and owing to security concerns they had not testified before it . This was largely why ORG had appointed expert ORG to assess the foster GPE suitability .","The foster parents had had DATE care and control of A and B for DATE , which had to be considered a sufficient period in terms of assessing their suitability .","B.S. , the psychologist , had spoken very highly of the way the foster parents cared for A and B. He had described both foster homes of the CARDINAL daughters as characterised by warmth , generosity and sensitivity to the children \u2019s needs . A \u2019s foster GPE counsellor had told ORG that she considered the foster parents well suited as adoptive parents . Both children had developed a strong and secure attachment to their foster parents . They received the DATE care , personal contact and security that they needed . The foster GPE suitability for the task had not been contested either DATE either by the applicant or by C. The Board saw no reason to doubt that the foster parents would also continue to take good care of A and B in the future , and that they were fit to bring up the children as their own . Owing to the children \u2019s age and development , obtaining their opinion was not an option .","Based on the above , the ORG found that the conditions set out in LAW were satisfied .","In order to grant consent to the children \u2019s adoption , ORG also had to make a formal decision to remove the GPE parental responsibility . ORG endorsed the municipal child welfare authorities\u2019 proposal on this point , since removal of parental responsibility was necessary and in the children \u2019s best interests . On this basis , the ORG consented to adoption in the GPE stead .","The ORG observed that the child welfare authorities had not proposed that there be an order on contact visits following the children \u2019s adoption , because of the security situation , and the applicant had argued that failing to ask the foster parents whether they would consent to her having contact constituted a procedural error .","However , ORG found that even if the foster parents had given their consent for contact visits , that would be irrelevant , because such contact would entail too great a security risk . It had been clearly substantiated that there was a risk that C would try to find the children if there was provision for contact visits . Even if the applicant was prepared not to disclose information , the children could easily disclose information that would reveal their whereabouts and new names during contact with the mother . In the ORG \u2019s opinion , the applicant would be at great risk of violence and threats from the father , in order for her to disclose such information . Contact visits could therefore not be considered in the children \u2019s best interests .","Both parents requested that the case be reviewed by ORG .","ORG reappointed ORG as an expert . He delivered an updated report on DATE . Composed of CARDINAL professional judge , CARDINAL psychologist and CARDINAL layperson , in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG heard the case on CARDINAL and DATE . The applicant attended with her legal aid counsel and testified . C \u2019s counsel attended , whilst C gave evidence by telephone from GPE . The court - appointed expert was present on DATE of the hearing , and gave evidence .","In its judgment of DATE , ORG stated that removal of parental responsibility and adoption against the GPE wishes under section CARDINAL of LAW were very serious and invasive measures that required compelling reasons . The best interests of the children were the most important aspect , and the decision had to take account of this .","The City Court agreed with ORG that removal of parental responsibility and adoption was nevertheless necessary in this case , and referred to the thorough grounds given by ORG for its decision .","In addition , ORG noted that the applicant \u2019s situation had improved since the ORG \u2019s hearing . She had shown steady positive development and established an independent life for herself after the final breakdown of her relationship with C. The applicant was taking NORP language classes and undergoing training in order to improve her employment prospects . There was general agreement that , with assistance measures , she had the ability to care for children , but not CARDINAL children with so traumatic a background as A and B.","The girls had had many traumatic experiences . There was no doubt that C had committed serious violence against the applicant in the presence of the girls on a number of occasions . They had had to flee to different crisis centres together with the applicant . They had also moved back to a violent father with her . This had clearly been frightening for them and they were both marked by the experience , even DATE .","The girls had been abducted by masked men during a contact session with the applicant . The men had injured the applicant , who had been hospitalised . The abduction had been planned by C , and the girls had been found with him in a flat in H. The plan had been to take the girls to GPE . The abduction that their own father had put them through must have been a very frightening experience for them , one whose after - effects they were still struggling with .","The abduction had resulted in broken relationships with their emergency foster parents when the girls had been placed in new emergency foster homes . That had necessarily been followed by another rupture when they had been placed in foster homes . As a result of their background , both girls had suffered from separation anxiety but had now become strongly attached to their foster parents . They clung to them and were afraid of losing their foster parents .","ORG reiterated the following from GPE \u2019s report of CARDINAL DATE :","\u201c The ability to provide care must always be assessed in relation to the children \u2019s care needs . A and B have a history and display behaviour that means that they can no longer be assumed to just have the same ordinary care needs as other children their age . If the mother were to have care and control of the children , she would have to deal with the extensive additional challenges that returning them [ to her ] would entail . The mother \u2019s ability to reflect on the children \u2019s history and special needs seems to be limited . The expert has strong doubts as to whether the mother \u2019s ability to provide care is sufficient to meet A and B \u2019s needs in the short and long term . Returning them [ to her ] is therefore not assumed to be a realistic alternative if consideration for the children \u2019s best interests is to be the deciding factor . \u201d","Before ORG , expert ORG upheld the recommendations he had made to ORG in his report of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","After visiting the children in their foster homes in DATE , he had made the following statement in that respect about the children \u2019s attachment to their foster parents :","\u201c When [ I ] last visited the foster homes , the children had started to form an attachment to their foster parents . This process has now progressed much further . [ My ] observations , the foster GPE statements and the foster home counsellor \u2019s assessments all point in the same direction : A and B have established strong attachments to their foster parents and perceive them as their psychological parents [ ( \u201c sine psykologiske foreldre \u201d ) ] .","The interaction between A and her foster parents was characterised by a calm , warm and intimate atmosphere . [ She ] related to the foster parents in the way you would expect of a child with a secure attachment to her parents . The foster parents were attentive and responded to her input , but were also clear about their expectations of her .","B primarily related to the foster mother as her secure base for exploration . She was verbally active and spoke well , using varied language . She gave clear signals of what she wanted . The atmosphere in B \u2019s home and the interaction between her and her foster parents were the same as for A : calm , pleasant and characterised by warmth and closeness .","The children basically have normal abilities and are resourceful children who have developed well cognitively , linguistically , socially and with regard to their motor skills . At the same time , they have had experiences of an unusually frightening nature . They have experienced violence committed by the father against the mother , which is DATE considered to be as harmful to children as their being victims of violence themselves . The children may also have suffered violence at the hands of their father . Then came the broken relationship when they were taken into care , the dramatic abduction , the emergency foster home placement , and finally the foster home placement . Although the children do not have memories of these events that enable them to tell a coherent story , many observations show that they both have fragmentary memories . A \u2019s story about thieves who wanted to steal her in the other country and B \u2019s fear of a bad man can be assumed to be rooted in such memories .","These experiences have left the children particularly vulnerable to new broken relationships . They both display intense separation anxiety and cling to their foster parents . A has begun to relax more and seems to have achieved a sense of security that \u201c mummy \u201d and \u201c daddy \u201d will always be there . B is in a new clingy period , triggered by the foster parents being away from her for DATE .","In [ my ] opinion , there is no doubt that the children have a strong attachment to the people with whom they are living and the environment in which they are living . Being removed from them would constitute a serious trauma with the potential to do great harm , not least because of the vulnerability they have developed as a result of their experiences before the placement . \u201d","ORG deemed it out of the question to expose the children to the risk that returning them to the applicant would entail , and found that the conditions for this were not satisfied . They had not had any contact with their mother since the abduction on DATE . At the time of the court \u2019s examination , they had no attachment to her . ORG had no doubt that the children had such an attachment to their foster parents that it would be harmful to them to be removed .","Agreeing with the court - appointed expert , ORG found it completely improbable ( \u201c helt usannsynlig \u201d ) that the parents would at any point in the future be in a position to make use of or exercise their parental responsibility . The situation was permanent , and it was in the children \u2019s best interests that the foster parents be given parental responsibility for them .","It was sufficient for the removal of parental responsibility that the alternative requirement regarding attachment ( as referred to in section CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) was satisfied . ORG nevertheless commented that there was still a risk with respect to C and his family . C had stated that the children meant everything to him , and ORG did not rule out the possibility that he might make another attempt to take them to the GPE - area if he found out about their whereabouts . The risk of this would increase significantly if the applicant were granted contact with her daughters again .","The police had carried out a new threat assessment before the main hearing in DATE . The following was stated in their report :","\u201c There is little doubt that the mother in particular , but possibly also the father , will continue to fight for parental responsibility in respect of their children . However , the police consider it improbable that they will find out where the children are under the current circumstances . The children are young and can not make contact with the mother or father themselves .","However , one should not underestimate the will the father has demonstrated to get his children back . The abduction on DATE probably required a lot of planning , and he put considerable resources into executing the plan . In addition , the abduction showed a willingness to use violent means to achieve his goals .","The father himself stated to the police that he hired people to carry out the abduction . It is unclear what role the mother played in this , but given that she brought a large sum of money and a lot of clothes and other equipment to the meeting on DATE , it is not inconceivable that she might have known more than she told the police . \u201d","The police had concluded that the threat level was moderate at that time because the parents did not know the children \u2019s whereabouts , but that this could change . The following had been stated in the conclusion :","\u201c When applications are lodged for contact with the children , the threat situation could change significantly . The children have now reached an age where they could easily reveal the names of their foster parents and where they live . This applies regardless of where and how contact sessions are held . In addition , it is highly probable that the father , if he finds out that the mother has been granted contact with the children , may become active again . It is known that , in certain cultures , the father has a \u2018 right\u2019 to the children when a marriage breaks down or similar situations arise . It was also an issue that he wanted to send the children back to his home country . \u201d","ORG found that it had been proved that a threat still existed which made it imperative to protect the children . It did not trust the applicant to be able to protect them against C if he were to become aware that she had contact with them . Nor did it trust C to accept that the children should remain in their foster homes . He had previously used accomplices and could do so again . Members of his own family could help him to take the children to the GPE - area . In return for payment from C , the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL - brother had also tried to threaten her into returning to their home country .","The children could not be subjected to the risk of being abducted and taken to GPE by people who were strangers to them . ORG therefore also agreed to their identities remaining secret . This meant that there could be no contact with the applicant for fear that someone could reveal where they were living . If contact sessions were to take place , it would not be difficult to follow them home , regardless of what security measures were put in place .","ORG also agreed with the child welfare authorities that adoption offered many advantages compared with placement in a permanent foster home ( see paragraph DATE above ) . Adoption provided a higher degree of stability ( \u201c trygghet \u201d ) , both for the foster parents and for the children . This was true in general , but it was particularly important to A and B , considering their history ( \u201c bakgrunn \u201d ) . In this connection , it also had to be taken into consideration that the strict security measures that had been put in place to prevent another abduction had to be maintained . The children had changed their names and lived at secret addresses .","ORG . The foster parents had a strong wish to adopt the girls . According to the court - appointed psychologist , ORG , both girls had been particularly lucky with their foster home placements .","Both parents appealed to ORG against ORG judgment . The applicant \u2019s appeal was not directed against the decision not to discontinue public care . In her declaration of appeal , she stated that she accepted that it had been a long time since her CARDINAL children had been placed in their foster homes and that , having regard to their attachment at the time , she would not maintain the claim that they be returned to her . She appealed against the decision to remove her parental authority and authorise the children \u2019s adoption , and requested that ORG grant her visiting rights .","In a decision of DATE , the ORG unanimously refused to give the parents leave to appeal .","ORG noted that the reasons given for ORG judgment were relatively brief , but this was because that court had concurred with the reasons given by ORG . When looking at the ORG \u2019s decision and ORG judgment jointly , there was no doubt ( \u201c utvilsomt \u201d ) that the children \u2019s best interests had been considered in a satisfactory and adequate manner .","was not flawed because the significance of the children \u2019s cultural background and identity had not been considered separately in the decision regarding what would be in their best interests . The same went for the question of sibling identity . ORG found it clear that deciding to remove the GPE parental responsibility and granting consent to the children \u2019s adoption in this case was not in breach of LAW and CARDINAL of LAW on the Rights of the Child .","As regards the assessment of the children \u2019s future situation with regard to security , the outcome was not central to the question of removal of parental responsibility and consent to adoption . As stated by ORG , it was sufficient for the alternative requirement regarding attachment to be satisfied ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This was not considered to be in dispute . Reference was made to the fact that before ORG the applicant was no longer applying for the care order to be revoked , in view of the children \u2019s attachment to their foster homes .","In any event , ORG was of the view that there were no serious flaws in ORG assessment of the security situation . It did not constitute a procedural error that this question had not been examined further and that no expert witnesses with particular expertise in the foreign culture aspects of the case had been appointed .","the fact that the children had been violently abducted in DATE and the applicant had been subjected to serious threats initiated by C as recently as DATE , there was , in ORG opinion , nothing to indicate that a further examination of the children \u2019s security situation would have led to a different conclusion . ORG had based its assessment on the police \u2019s assessment that the level of threat against the children was currently moderate , since the parents did not know their whereabouts , but that the situation could change . ORG had then carried out a concrete assessment of whether contact with the applicant could entail a risk of C initiating an abduction . In ORG view , this assessment had not been flawed , either in terms of the assessment of the evidence or the application of the law .","NORP The applicant appealed against ORG refusal to grant her leave to appeal to ORG .","On DATE ORG on Leave to Appeal , composed of CARDINAL ORG , rejected the appeal , unanimously finding that it had no prospects of success ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180838","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ANDREY SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Tver .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant and his classmate PERSON were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily injuries to a boy from their school . They confessed to their deeds . The applicant was initially released under parental supervision , whilst PERSON was remanded in custody . The following day they retracted their confessions .","On DATE , after the investigator had reclassified their actions as a more serious offence , the Zavolzhskiy ORG in Tver ordered the applicant \u2019s placement in custody , citing the gravity of the charges and the fact that he had recanted . ORG interpreted the latter element as amounting to the risk of an obstruction of justice . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order on appeal , finding as follows :","\u201c [ The fact that the defendant ] has a permanent place of residence , lives with his family , is studying in high school and does not have a criminal record does not provide a basis for rejecting unconditionally the investigator \u2019s application [ for a detention order ] in the light of the extreme gravity of the charges . \u201d","On DATE ORG extended the authorised detention period , pointing out that the applicant \u201c had changed his attitude to the committed offence from an outright acknowledgement to a downright denial \u201d . In the court \u2019s opinion , that implied that the applicant might interfere with justice if released . ORG also added that the custodial measure was necessary \u201c to secure the enforcement of the conviction \u201d . On DATE ORG upheld ORG assessment on appeal , in particular its finding that a non - custodial measure would not be sufficient to secure the enforcement of the conviction .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the applicant \u2019s case refused the GPE request for leave to visit their son , reasoning as follows :","\u201c The investigation appointed PERSON , the father of PERSON , as the legal representative of the underage defendant . However , the investigation considers that PERSON is using all means to interfere with the criminal proceedings because of his vested interests ; he has not responded when summonsed by the investigator or court , and is causing all kinds of delays in the proceedings . The investigation considers that this kind of conduct on the part of PERSON may have a negative influence of the defendant PERSON , as well as interfering with the establishment of the truth in the criminal case . \u201d","On DATE the supervising prosecutor rejected a complaint from the applicant \u2019s father about the investigator \u2019s decision , recalling that the granting of leave to visit a detainee was at the investigator \u2019s discretion rather than being a legal obligation and that the arguments for refusing leave were \u201c persuasive and well - justified \u201d .","On DATE ORG issued a further extension order , holding that the applicant had been charged with a particularly serious offence and that the circumstances warranting the application of a custodial measure still obtained . On DATE ORG upheld the order on appeal .","The final extension order of CARDINAL DATE referred to the gravity of the charges against both co - defendants , without distinguishing between their individual situations .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG found the applicant and his co - defendant guilty of attempted murder and sentenced each of them to DATE imprisonment . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the conviction .","DATE the applicant \u2019s parents visited him in prison a total of CARDINAL times . All visits were carried out under the supervision of a warden while the applicant was separated from his parents by a glass partition ."],"violated_articles":["5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-176928","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF R\u00d5IGAS v. ESTONIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione personae);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s son O. , who was born in DATE , was diagnosed with malignant melanoma . He was operated on in DATE , and underwent regular check - ups . In DATE a metastasis was removed from his brain , and he received radiation therapy .","In DATE O. \u2019s state of health deteriorated . He was vomiting and felt weak and dizzy .","On DATE the applicant called an ambulance and O. was taken to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( PERSON ) for examination . A computerised tomography ( ORG ) scan was performed on him . According to the applicant , ORG was told that the scan had not revealed any problems with his health . He was prescribed an anti - vomiting drug and discharged from the hospital TIME .","On DATE the applicant again called an ambulance for O. , who had been complaining of feeling generally unwell , of a numbness of one side of his face , a rash around his nose and dizziness . O. was admitted to the ORG . A ORG scan and magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) of ORG \u2019s brain were performed DATE and the following day , respectively . An additional GPE scan of O. \u2019s neck , lungs , abdomen and pelvic area was performed on DATE . The MRI scan and the GPE scan of DATE , taken together , indicated a leptomeningeal pathological process involving the cranial nerves , a probable meningeal metastatic process and probable multiple metastases in the liver and other organs of the abdominal cavity . He was given hormonal and infusion therapy , but his health deteriorated rapidly . He developed breathing and walking problems and a speech impediment , and his eyesight worsened . On DATE a hospital medical council decided to proceed with palliative care . It found that because of the spread of the tumour , oncological treatment would not be effective . The applicant pointed out that the medical council \u2019s decision had not been signed by O.","For DATE starting from DATE , ORG was physically restrained to a bed with magnetically locking restraints on both arms , apparently in order to prevent him from hurting himself , given his disturbed state of mind .","On DATE O. was transferred to an intensive care unit because he was suffering from progressive respiratory failure and a disturbed state of mind . He was also diagnosed with pneumonia and , in the light of that finding , was given additional antibacterial treatment . According to the medical record ( nurse \u2019s notes ) , on DATE O. was intubated because he was having breathing difficulties . On DATE the medical council found that a surgical cure would not be possible and decided to continue with palliative treatment supporting the vital functions . The applicant again pointed out that the medical council \u2019s decision was not signed by O.","On DATE a tracheotomy was performed on O.","On DATE O. stopped breathing and mechanical ventilation was applied . On DATE characteristics corresponding to brain death were ascertained . According to information in a report drawn up by ORG based on an analysis of ORG \u2019s medical records , an electroencephalogram performed DATE revealed serious diffuse brain damage and only minimal electrical activity . O. \u2019s active treatment and feeding were discontinued , but the infusion therapy was continued . The applicant disagreed with this finding and rather considered that ORG had fallen into a coma following an overdose of medicine . She maintained that ORG \u2019s pulse had reacted to her speech DATE , DATE , which had indicated that ORG had not been brain - dead . According to the applicant , the protocol for verifying brain death was never fully and properly carried out . The administration of food and medicines was not resumed , despite the applicant \u2019s requests . The applicant alleged that during TIME of DATE , ORG \u2019s blanket had been removed and he had been left with only a sheet near an open window , which had caused his body temperature to drop to QUANTITY .","On DATE O. \u2019s heart stopped and the mechanical ventilation was terminated .","On DATE the applicant called the police on the general emergency number , complained about O. \u2019s treatment and asked that an expert examination be commissioned . Her phone call was registered as an information notice ( infoteade ) and not as the reporting of a crime . The applicant was advised to contact ORG on ORG ( ORG kvaliteedi ekspertkomisjon ; hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE an autopsy was performed at the ORG . The medical death certificate ( arstlik surmateatis ) indicated cerebral oedema as the immediate cause of death , and melanoma with multiple metastases as the medical condition that had brought about the immediate cause of death . According to the autopsy report ( lahangu protokoll ) , ORG died of malignant melanoma with multiple metastases in the brain , which also caused cerebral haemorrhage and oedema as complications .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( Terviseamet ) of O. \u2019s inhuman treatment and about the circumstances of his death .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the case had been transmitted to ORG . ORG examined O. \u2019s medical records , obtained written explanations from several members of the medical staff who had treated ORG , and ordered CARDINAL expert opinions , one to be prepared by CARDINAL of its members and the other by another doctor , both professors emeriti . ORG also heard the applicant . In its decision given on DATE , it found no medical malpractice in ORG \u2019s treatment . According to the report of ORG meeting of DATE at which the applicant was also present , ORG gave oral answers to the applicant \u2019s questions regarding the possible radiation of O. during his previous treatment ; the decision not to offer chemotherapy to ORG ; and the alleged late detection of pneumonia . In addition , ORG decision contained written answers to the applicant , stating that ORG had not suffered from a stroke ; that the deterioration in his health had not been caused by the administration of specific medication or the withdrawal thereof , but rather by the metastatic developments in his brain ; and that based on the medical records , ORG had not been starved , nor had his mechanical ventilation been stopped before his death . The applicant was also notified of the possibility to request an alternative medical expert opinion and was informed that tissue samples gathered while the patient was alive as well as after his death , would be maintained for DATE at the ORG pathology centre and were available on demand . The applicant considered that ORG had not been impartial , that it had lacked a quorum at its meeting of DATE and that the decision it had adopted contained false statements . An action lodged by the applicant to have ORG report declared unlawful and claiming damages for it was dismissed by a final judgment of ORG on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant lodged an offence report with a prosecutor \u2019s office . Criminal proceedings under LAW ( placing or leaving another person in a situation which is life - threatening or likely to cause serious damage to the person \u2019s health ) were initiated on DATE .","In the course of the criminal investigation , several individuals ( doctors , nurses , the applicant , and O. \u2019s friends who had visited him in the hospital ) were interviewed . Requests for documentary evidence ( ORG opinion , ORG \u2019s medical file as well as the autopsy report ) were submitted and documents were received ; a forensic medical examination was ordered from ORG . The prosecutor posed CARDINAL questions to the forensic medical experts addressing , inter alia , O. \u2019s diagnoses ; the adequacy of the treatment with respect to his state of health ( including the tracheotomy ) ; the restraining of O. to the bed ; the administration of medicine on DATE and whether this could have caused ORG \u2019s breathing to stop ; the decision to cease the administration of medicine and food on CARDINAL DATE ; the assertion that ORG was brain - dead ; and the decision to stop mechanical ventilation .","According to the forensic medical report dated DATE , ORG had received treatment appropriate for his condition . The forensic medical experts also concluded that the medicine administered to ORG had been appropriate and had not caused his breathing to stop . They considered that the restraining of O. to the bed could have been justified in the instant case . As the characteristics corresponding to brain death had been ascertained , the discontinuation of feeding and the continuation of infusion therapy had been medically justified . The experts also concluded that the mechanical ventilation had been turned off only after his heart had stopped and thus could not have been the cause of his death . The forensic medical assessment found that ORG \u2019s death had been caused by malignant melanoma with multiple metastases , with further complications of cerebral haemorrhage and oedema .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were terminated as the commission of an offence had not been proven based on the evidence gathered . An appeal lodged by the applicant with ORG was dismissed on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed a further appeal lodged by the applicant .","Following the termination of the criminal proceedings , ORG dismissed complaints lodged by the applicant regarding the refusal to initiate additional criminal proceedings against the chief inspector of ORG supervisory department , against the experts of ORG who had drawn up the forensic medical report during the original criminal proceedings ( this refusal was later upheld by ORG ) , against CARDINAL prosecutors and the judge of ORG . ORG also dismissed an application lodged by the applicant to reopen the original criminal proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145668","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KOCENIAK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is represented before ORG by Ms A. \u017buraniewska , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) issued a building permit allowing the applicant \u2019s neighbour , PERSON , to construct a storehouse ( budnek inwentarsko - sk\u0142adowy ) and a midden ( gnojownia ) on her land adjacent to the applicant \u2019s plot . It was specified that the building should be situated along the boundary between the plots , QUANTITY from the applicant \u2019s land . It was further required that the walls facing the applicant \u2019s property should be without windows or doors and that rainwater should run off onto GPE \u2019s land . It appears that on an unspecified date in DATE another of the applicant \u2019s neighbours , GPE , obtained a similar construction permit concerning her land .","On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG ( FAC ) to complain that GPE and GPE had constructed on their land large buildings serving as slaughterhouses ( ubojnia ) and meatprocessing plants ( masarnia ) . The applicant submitted , inter alia , that ORG building was too close to his property and that rainwater from her roof ran off directly onto his land . He maintained that the ORG activities were a nuisance to him and his family .","On DATE the ORG scheduled an inspection of the properties concerned , which was carried out on DATE . It was established that ORG \u2019s building on the land adjacent to the applicant \u2019s was being constructed in accordance with the building permit issued on DATE by the Mayor of GPE . It was further established that despite the fact that the building had not yet been completed , PERSON was already using it as a meatprocessing plant . PERSON was fined in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) .","As regards the property of GPE , the applicant submitted that he had not been informed of the result of the relevant inspection or the course of the administrative proceedings which had followed . This was so because the authorities considered that he had no legal interest in the outcome of those proceedings since her land did not directly adjoin his .","On DATE ORG ordered that the construction work on ORG \u2019s land be stopped . The order was to remain valid for DATE and a new decision as to the continuation of the work was to be issued before its expiry . Subsequently , on DATE ORG ordered GPE to submit , by DATE , certain technical documents concerning the construction . The authority informed her that if she wanted to use the building as a meat - processing plant , she would have to apply for so - called \u201c initial planning permission \u201d ( decyzja w sprawie warunk\u00f3w zabudowy i zagospodarowania terenu ) . It was further established that the dimensions of the building were smaller than those stipulated by the original building permit of CARDINAL DATE ; windows and doors had been placed in different places ; the rainwater draining system was inadequate , mainly because the building was situated very close to the boundary between the plots ; and the building was already being used as a slaughterhouse and a meatprocessing plant .","On DATE ORG issued a similar decision in respect of GPE \u2019s land . The decision was subsequently quashed by the Rzesz\u00f3w Governor . On DATE ORG upheld the Governor \u2019s decision .","On DATE the ORG gave a positive opinion with regard to the sanitation of the building on GPE \u2019s property . The inspector considered that the modification of the use of that building as a slaughterhouse and meat - processing plant was legally permitted , on condition that a maximum of CARDINAL porkers were slaughtered per month . On DATE the ORG quashed that decision .","Following a request by the applicant , on DATE ORG summoned the applicant and PERSON to another inspection of ORG property to be carried out on DATE . It was established during that inspection that ORG had failed to comply with the terms of the original building permit . On DATE ORG asked ORG to impose a fine on her .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that his neighbours had not ceased their business activities . He submitted that ORG company was slaughtering approximately ten animals per day and continuing the meat - processing activities . He asked for an expert in environmental matters to be appointed to inspect the property . In reply , on DATE ORG informed the applicant that the deadline which had been set for ORG to submit the relevant technical documents ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) would expire on DATE and that the proceedings had therefore been stayed until that date .","By way of a decision given on DATE , the Rzesz\u00f3w Governor ordered ORG to submit , within DATE , an environmental impact assessment of the slaughterhouse and meat - processing plant , referring to an ordinance of CARDINAL DATE issued by ORG , ORG and Forestry .","On DATE ORG warned GPE that noncompliance with the deadline for submission of the documents which she was obliged to submit could lead to criminal sanctions under LAW DATE ( Prawo budowlane ) ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) .","On DATE PERSON submitted the environmental impact assessment in respect of her slaughterhouse and meat - processing plant to the regional office of ORG .","In his letter of DATE the applicant asked the NORP Governor to carry out an environmental impact assessment of ORG \u2019s business . He complained that GPE and GPE were running CARDINAL slaughterhouses and meat - processing plants , which were causing pollution and posed a real risk to the health of the neighbourhood . He stressed that his complaints to ORG and ORG , ORG ( PERSON ) and ORG ( ORG PERSON ) had been to no avail . On DATE ORG forwarded the letter to ORG and on DATE asked ORG to inform ORG and the applicant about the measures taken as a result of his complaint .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that on DATE ORG ( PERSON GPE ) and ORG had conducted an on - site inspection of the company and established that the applicant \u2019s allegations were unfounded . The inspectors had no objections to the sanitation of the sites . The liquid sewage was drained to concrete containers with covers and removed by a waste - disposal company at least once per week . The owners had been keeping records of the water used and sewage removed from the LOC .","On DATE ORG informed the regional office of ORG that CARDINAL inspections had been carried out on the sites of both companies between DATE and DATE . As a result , certain obligations had been imposed on the owners in order to rectify any irregularities identified during the inspections . Otherwise , the inspectors had found that the companies had been complying with the applicable environmental requirements . In particular , the bacteriological soil tests confirmed that the land had not been contaminated and that no danger to health or the environment could originate from it .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for an order to demolish the buildings constructed by GPE and GPE on their plots . He argued that the buildings did not comply with the original building permits issued in DATE . On DATE the Rzesz\u00f3w Governor informed the applicant that he had enquired into why the firstinstance authority had not yet enforced decisions concerning the illegal construction on ORG \u2019s land .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that section QUANTITY of the CARDINAL Act , which provided for the demolition of buildings constructed in breach of building permits , was not applicable to the buildings on GPE \u2019s and ORG property . This was so essentially because the local land development plan allowed for the type of business activity conducted in those buildings . A demolition order could not therefore be issued in respect of those buildings .","On DATE PERSON lodged an application for retrospective permission to use the building on her property as a slaughterhouse and meat - processing plant ( post\u0119powanie w sprawie zalegalizowania poprzez wydanie pozwolenia na u\u017cytkowanie budynku gospodarczego za zmian\u0105 sposobu uzytkowania PERSON na rze\u017ani\u0119masarni\u0119 wybudowanego niezgodnie z pozwoleniem ) . She submitted the documentation requested on DATE by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the Rzesz\u00f3w Governor \u2019s Office ( ORG ) informed her that under LAW of DATE ( LOC z dn . CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL o zmianie ustawy o ochronie i kszta\u0142towaniu \u015brodowiska ) ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) she was obliged to lodge her application for a retrospective permit with ORG . It was pointed out that the new application should contain a report on the environmental impact of her business activities .","On DATE ORG informed GPE that her application could not be examined as it did not meet the formal requirements . On DATE ORG renewed her application . On DATE ORG , having noted that the building on her land did not comply with the original building permit , requested an expert opinion from ORG as to the compatibility of the meat - processing plant with the provisions of LAW .","On DATE the Director of ORG of ORG ( ORG PERSON ) refused ORG \u2019s application for a retrospective conversion permit on the grounds that her business plan was flawed . It was further noted that appropriate tests should be performed to assess the environmental impact of her business activities on the neighbourhood . On DATE ORG requested another expert opinion from ORG as to the compatibility of that business with the requirements of the environmental legislation .","On DATE ORG ordered GPE to submit , by DATE , supplementary documents concerning her company ( concerning , inter alia , the results of soil contamination tests , noise levels caused by the operation of the plant and the waste disposal survey ) . On DATE she complied with that order . On DATE she informed ORG that the regional agronomy laboratory had been commissioned to carry out the soil contamination test . However , the test could not be carried out because the applicant had not allowed soil samples to be taken from his property . Subsequently , samples were taken from GPE s property close to the boundary with the applicant \u2019s property .","On DATE the director of the environmental protection department of the Rzesz\u00f3w Governor \u2019s ORG issued an administrative decision declaring that ORG \u2019s business activity was compatible with the requirements of the environmental legislation . It was held that it had not caused any environmental degradation and its continuation was unlikely to pose any environmental risks in the future . The meat - processing plant fulfilled the requirements laid down by environmental protection regulations . In particular , its operation did not exceed permissible levels of pollution and noise , and the waste and sewage - disposal system worked properly . On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to the Minister for ORG , ORG and Forestry .","On DATE the Minister quashed the contested decision , stating that under new environmental legislation that had entered into force on CARDINAL DATE ( when the proceedings were ongoing ) it was no longer necessary to determine whether the plant complied with environmental requirements , essentially because the plant could not be qualified as being particularly harmful to the environment and\/or human health . The proceedings were therefore discontinued .","On DATE ORG scheduled an inspection of ORG \u2019s property . On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that ORG had continued the construction work . On DATE the inspection was carried out . There were no signs of ongoing construction work at that time . It was established that ORG had continued to run her meat - processing business in the unfinished building . On DATE ORG ordered GPE to refrain from using her slaughterhouse and meatprocessing plant , since the building was considered an illicit construction ( samowola budowlana ) . PERSON appealed . On DATE the NORP Governor quashed the contested decision and remitted the case to the firstinstance authority .","On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings ex officio because PERSON had , in the meantime , applied to have her case decided under the legal provisions applicable at the time when the construction work had stopped . On DATE the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision . On DATE the NORP Governor quashed the contested decision and remitted the case to the first - instance authority . On DATE FAC ( Rejonowy Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego ) informed ORG that ORG had complied with the requirements imposed on her by the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG issued a decision authorising PERSON to run her business on her property ( decision No . AB CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The applicant appealed . On DATE the ORG Governor quashed the first - instance decision and refused to issue the permit sought ( no . ORG V CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . On DATE ORG quashed both the first and second - instance decisions . It referred to the number of proceedings conducted in GPE \u2019s case and found that all of them , including the proceedings concerning the request for retrospective permission to use the building as a meat - processing plant should have been dealt with by FAC .","On DATE the ORG gave a positive opinion with regard to the partial use of the building on ORG \u2019s property as a slaughterhouse and meat - processing plant . It had regard to a report concerning that business \u2019s environmental impact . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the FAC ( Wojew\u00f3dzki Inspektor PERSON ) authorised PERSON to use part of the building for meat - processing activities ( decision No . CARDINAL ) . On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision . On DATE ORG quashed the contested decision and remitted the case to the first - instance authority . The applicant and PERSON appealed . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . On DATE the court rejected ORG \u2019s appeal .","A number of decisions given in subsequent proceedings were quashed upon appeal and the case was remitted to the firstinstance authority . On DATE the local ORG again authorised PERSON to use part of the building for meat - processing activities . This decision was quashed upon appeal . The owner was ordered to submit an expert opinion on the technical state of the building . In the proceedings conducted afterwards PERSON acknowledged , in DATE , that she had been conducting meat processing business in a building which had never been certified as suitable for these purposes within the meaning of construction laws . On DATE the local ORG ordered the owner to cease operation of her business . This decision was subsequently quashed and the proceedings were discontinued . The applicant \u2019s efforts to have them reopened remain unsuccessful . In the relevant correspondence the authorities stated repeatedly that in his complaints the applicant had failed to make it clear what procedural steps should be taken by the authorities in respect of the decision to discontinue the proceedings .","By a decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the head of ORG ordered GPE to apply for a permit to continue construction of the storehouse . On DATE FAC discontinued the proceedings , finding that they had become devoid of purpose given that the construction had been finalised . On DATE ORG quashed that decision as premature and remitted the case to the firstinstance authority .","On DATE , in accordance with ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG transmitted the case file to FAC . On DATE the inspector summoned PERSON and the applicant to participate in an administrative hearing and inspection of ORG property . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered GPE to stop using the storehouse for meat - production purposes , having noted that she had not obtained the relevant retrospective permission ( decision No . GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . On DATE ORG upheld that order ( decision No . OA CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the authority inspected ORG \u2019s property . It was established that she had continued to use the building for meat - processing purposes in breach of the decision of DATE . As a result , ORG was fined on the basis of a judgment given on CARDINAL DATE by ORG .","On an unspecified date PERSON appealed against the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to ORG . On DATE that court stayed the appellate proceedings because the applicant \u2019s sister , who was a party to the proceedings , had died . On DATE the proceedings were resumed . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and the subsequent decision given on DATE . On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case to ORG . The proceedings are apparently pending .","On DATE ORG company began to operate under its business licence of DATE issued by ORG . ORG ( PERSON ) was charged with administrative supervision of the company . Subsequently , after the local administration reform of DATE , ORG ( PERSON ) took over .","On DATE the company obtained a favourable opinion from ORG with regard to the wastedisposal system on her land . On DATE ORG issued a decision obliging PERSON to eliminate some irregularities found in the functioning of the company during a previous inspection .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the company \u2019s operation and requested that it be closed down . On DATE ORG inspected the company \u2019s LOC . The inspection established certain shortcomings as to the compatibility of the company \u2019s operation with animal husbandry regulations . The company was ordered to rectify them by DATE . On DATE ORG informed the applicant about the results of the inspection and the obligations imposed on the owner . On DATE ORG conducted a further inspection and found that the orders had been complied with .","On DATE the applicant again complained to ORG . On DATE that authority conducted an inspection of the company with a view to checking whether the previous orders had been complied with . It was established that the orders concerning the meat - processing plant had been fulfilled for the most part , but those concerning the slaughterhouse had not been followed .","Certain obligations imposed on ORG were subsequently modified by a decision of DATE . On DATE ORG ordered ORG to cease operation of the slaughterhouse until the orders had been complied with . On DATE the applicant was informed accordingly . On DATE ORG conducted another inspection of the company . It was established that all obligations imposed previously on the owner had been met . On DATE ORG revoked his decision of DATE accordingly .","On DATE the applicant again complained of the alleged nuisance caused by the company . A new inspection of the site was carried out on DATE . No infringements of the applicable regulations were found . In his letters of CARDINAL and DATE ORG informed the applicant accordingly .","Subsequent inspections were carried out on DATE and DATE . No breach of the applicable regulations was established . The company remained under regular supervision by ORG , who inspected its site in order to take samples for analysis on the following dates : CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The results of the tests were in accordance with the applicable norms .","With regard to the outcome of those inspections ORG issued decisions of DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ordering PERSON to bring certain aspects of the company \u2019s operation into conformity with the law . On DATE ORG was fined for certain irregularities . Subsequent inspections showed that all irregularities had been removed and the requirements of the sanitation laws had been fulfilled .","As a result of a serious flood which occurred in DATE , the company ceased to operate . On DATE ORG inspected the site and ordered its cleaning and disinfection . Tests carried out after cleaning of the site showed that there was no contamination , and the administrative authority renewed authorisation for production ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160618","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BL\u00dcHDORN v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-a - After conviction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in ORG .","The applicant has previous convictions for rape dating from DATE and for indecent assault combined with causing bodily harm by dangerous means dating from DATE .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of rape combined with the infliction of bodily injury . The judge incorporated a prison term arising from a previous conviction and sentenced him to a total of DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . Simultaneously , the court ordered the applicant \u2019s placement in a psychiatric hospital pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It held that the applicant was suffering from a disturbance in his sexual preference taking the form of sadism and found that the commission of further crimes was to be expected . The verdict of ORG was based mainly on the conclusions of a psychiatric expert opinion but also took into account the applicant \u2019s previous conviction for indecent assault in DATE . It also observed that the applicant had tried to subjugate several prostitutes whom he had been seeing in DATE . ORG found that this indicated an evolution in his behaviour . It noted that the applicant had refused psychiatric therapy so far and shared the expert \u2019s opinion that the applicant would not be able to resist his urge to humiliate and abuse women in order to satisfy his sexual drive . ORG concluded that similar crimes were to be expected and the applicant therefore represented a danger to the public .","The applicant was arrested on DATE and placed in ORG .","The applicant \u2019s detention in psychiatric hospitals has been reviewed at regular intervals ( compare Articles CARDINALd and CARDINAL of LAW , see paragraphs DATE and DATE , below ) and has been extended DATE . In the course of the respective proceedings , the courts have requested DATE forensicpsychiatric expert opinions on the necessity of his detention in hospital . All expert opinions concluded that the applicant was likely to reoffend .","On DATE ORG delivered an initial expert opinion , affirming the diagnosis of antisocial behaviour as an adult and abuse of alcohol . However , the expert opinion did not diagnose sexual sadism . Referring to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders \u2012 which is published by ORG and offers a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders \u2012 it found that the necessary criteria were not met . It concluded that this diagnosis seemed rather unlikely but could not be absolutely excluded without an extensive and credible sexual anamnesis .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an external psychological expert who criticised in detail the diagnosis of sexual sadism during the trial , in particular the lack of information about the applicant \u2019s inner experiences during the onset of the disorder , its further development , and the failure to evaluate his previous offences . The expert concluded that it remained doubtful whether a diagnosis of sexual sadism could be made ( \u201c Es bleibt also weiterhin fraglich , inwieweit ein sexueller PERSON vorliegt \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG delivered a further expert opinion . Although it mentioned the presumptive diagnosis of sexual sadism , it found that this presumption was not tenable in view of the history and the personality structure of the applicant . Even assuming that the applicant might have a sadistic sexual disposition , he experienced this without suffering and had no desire to change . According to the verdict of the trial court , the applicant had probably fulfilled his sexual inclinations with prostitutes in order to avoid being charged with an offence . Neither the files nor his statements revealed the development of an addiction or of a pressing perverted imagination or of pathologic impulsiveness . There was no call for therapy as the applicant neither suffered from his behaviour nor desired to change it . The clinic therefore concluded that the applicant \u2019s committal to hospital had been erroneous .","On DATE , on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE similar forensic psychiatric expert opinions were delivered by ORG . Although all of them also mentioned the presumptive diagnosis of sexual sadism , they confirmed the previous findings . All the expert opinions concluded that there were no indications for the diagnosis of sexual sadism apart from the facts contained in the verdict of the trial court . In each expert opinion the applicant was described as a classic instance of an erroneous hospital treatment order .","On DATE the applicant refused to be examined by an external psychiatric expert .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the ORG .","On DATE the GPE am ORG allowed the re - opening of the criminal proceedings which had been terminated by the judgment of ORG dated DATE .","In DATE ORG appointed a new external psychiatric expert . The expert concluded that the applicant was suffering from sexual sadism , subject to the reservation that he had not examined the applicant in person but had based his evaluation on the medical files only . ORG subsequently dismissed the request to reopen the criminal proceedings . The applicant \u2019s appeal against this dismissal was dismissed .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s related constitutional complaint without providing reasons ( file no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG , where the applicant was detained , delivered an expert opinion on the necessity of the applicant \u2019s further detention in hospital . It made the diagnosis of a dissocial personality disorder , alcohol abuse and a presumptive diagnosis of sexual sadism . Although it found a high risk that the applicant would reoffend , it confirmed the prior assessment that the applicant represented a classic instance of an erroneous hospital treatment order . This conclusion was drawn from the fact that the applicant \u2019s behaviour during treatment never gave any grounds for diagnosing a mental disorder such as would have been expected from a person suffering from a psychiatric disorder .","On DATE the ORG asked the applicant to inform the court whether he agreed to being examined by the external expert PERSON .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant wrote to ORG and refused a medical examination .","On DATE ORG heard the applicant and his counsel in person as well as a psychological expert from ORG .","On DATE ORG declined to terminate the applicant \u2019s placement in hospital and refused to release him on probation as the requirements of LAW and CARDINAL of LAW were not met ( see paragraph DATE , below ) . It explained that detention in a psychiatric hospital could be terminated on the grounds of an erroneous treatment order only if it was established with certainty that the applicant was not suffering from a mental illness warranting his detention under LAW owing to a diminished criminal responsibility from the very beginning . In this context ORG observed that neither the statement by the psychological expert at the hearing nor the current and prior expert opinions had excluded the possibility that the applicant was suffering from sexual sadism , although this diagnosis had been found to be rather unlikely ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , above ) . Furthermore , the court took into account that the applicant had refused to provide credible and full information about his sexual history and had thus rendered a certain diagnosis impossible . It therefore held that a committal to hospital by mistake had not been established beyond doubt . For this reason alone , therefore , the conditions for application of LAW were not met . Lastly , ORG noted , but explicitly without basing its decision on this fact , that the expert opinion which had been delivered in the course of the re - opening proceedings of the criminal trial had confirmed the diagnosis of sadism .","In conclusion , ORG found that the applicant could not be released on probation as he had refused investigation of his problems relating to sexuality and violence . The evolution of the applicant \u2019s detention and his lack of awareness regarding his crimes rendered it very probable that he would re - offend .","On DATE the GPE am ORG upheld the decision of ORG . It observed that , for exceptional reasons , an examination of the applicant by an external psychiatric expert was not necessary . Such an expert report would have to be based on the files only , since the applicant had announced his refusal of any examination . Under these circumstances ORG found that no new conclusions could be expected from such an external expert opinion . Moreover , it found that the applicant \u2019s condition and dangerousness had not changed since his last examination as he had refused to undergo any therapy . ORG further rejected the applicant \u2019s allegation that ORG had reproached him for failing to undergo therapy , while the hospital considered him to be an erroneous admission . It held that in any event the root cause of the applicant \u2019s serious sexual crimes should be reappraised through therapy . In its view that would have been a requirement even if the applicant had been sentenced to imprisonment . The applicant himself had to bear the consequences of his refusal to participate in any therapy as the hospital offered therapy in order to reappraise the causes of crime even for patients who had been placed in hospital erroneously .","On DATE ORG ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) refused to admit the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint for its consideration without giving any further reasons .","On DATE ORG decided not to suspend the order for the applicant \u2019s placement in a psychiatric hospital and not to grant probation after obtaining an external expert opinion dated CARDINAL DATE and having heard the expert and the applicant \u2019s counsel . The expert , who had not examined the applicant in person due to his refusal to permit such examination , found that the applicant was suffering from a disturbance of his sexual preference in the form of sadism and that the commission of further crimes was to be expected . The applicant \u2019s appeal in this respect was dismissed by ORG . The proceedings before ORG are still pending .","On DATE ORG again decided not to suspend the order for the applicant \u2019s placement in a psychiatric hospital and not to grant probation after obtaining a written opinion from the ORG clinic in which the applicant has been detained and after hearing the applicant . The applicant \u2019s appeal in this respect was dismissed by ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-a"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154544","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"SCHREURS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON Schreurs , is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181589","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MALIMONENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","In DATE he obtained a NORP passport .","On DATE ORG , GPE , ordered to arrest and bring the applicant to the court in order to determine the preventive measure during the investigation of his alleged robbery . The applicant \u2019s name was put on the international list of wanted persons .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE . As the applicant was a NORP national , he was released .","On DATE the NORP authorities sought the applicant \u2019s extradition from GPE in relation to the criminal proceedings against him .","On DATE the Russian ORG concluded that the applicant had fraudulently obtained his NORP passport by falsifying a number of documents . They ordered to seize his passport and put his name on the federal wanted list . The applicant \u2019s subsequent attempts to challenge ORG decision on his NORP passport were unsuccessful .","On DATE the applicant was arrested . On DATE a prosecutor authorised his detention considering that the decision of CARDINAL DATE of ORG had authorised the applicant \u2019s \u201c placement into custody \u201d , as mentioned in LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE a district prosecutor decided that the applicant should be \u201c placed in custody \u201d considering that the decision of ORG of Dnepropetrovsk of DATE authorised \u201c placement into custody \u201d , as required under LAW of LAW ( \u201c the CCrP \u201d ) .","On several occasions the applicant unsuccessfully complained about his detention to the prosecuting authorities . On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint considering that his arrest and detention in relation to the NORP extradition request had been and remained lawful . On DATE ORG upheld this decision of DATE concluding that \u201c matters relating to lawfulness and reasons for detention should be raised under another procedure prescribed by law \u201d .","On DATE ORG granted the extradition request . On DATE ORG confirmed the decision of DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the NORP authorities in the town of GPE . On DATE he was transferred to the town of GPE . On DATE a NORP court refused to order the applicant \u2019s detention pending the investigation . The applicant was released ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178347","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOVALEVY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG , GPE . The first and second applicants are husband and wife . The third applicant is their son .","According to the first applicant , on DATE , at TIME , a police patrol car approached his car on a dark village road . A police officer , using a loudspeaker , ordered the first applicant to pull over . The first applicant replied that he would stop at the nearest road police post . The officer repeated his order , noting that he needed to borrow gasoline for the police car . The first applicant kept driving . Near Svetlograd the police officers blocked the road . When the first applicant stopped the car , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL policemen pulled him out of the car and hit him in the face . The police officers threw him against the hood of his car , kicked him in the shins and hit him with a butt of a machine gun . The first applicant fell down and fainted . After he regained consciousness and stood up , the police officers claimed that he was drunk and told him to take a breath test which showed that the first applicant was sober . The police officers checked his documents , searched his car and left . The first applicant got into his car and drove away in the same direction . Having driven QUANTITY , he saw that the police car had stopped and that the police officers had gathered around it . The first applicant approached the officers . The officer in charge identified himself as PERSON . and apologised for the excessive force his subordinates had used towards the first applicant .","The first applicant arrived home at TIME on DATE . On DATE the first and third applicants filed a complaint about the incident with the local police station .","At TIME on DATE the first applicant visited the second applicant who underwent a medical treatment in hospital . According to the second applicant , her husband told her about the altercation with the police . He also had visible bruising on his face . At TIME the first applicant underwent a medical examination at the same hospital . Having been diagnosed with multiple injuries , he was admitted for in - patient treatment . An extract from a medical record drawn up in the hospital indicated that the first applicant had injuries on the right cheek , the left shin and the lower back and the swelling of soft tissues .","On DATE the first applicant was admitted to ORG where he was diagnosed with \u201c a multisystem trauma ; closed craniocerebral injury ; a light brain contusion ; an injury of the soft tissues of the right temporal region ; a closed uncomplicated stable vertebra medullispinal injury , a compression fracture of the ORG . VII vertebra ; an intramuscular haematoma of the right side of the lumbar region ; a neurologic form of the lumbar plexitis . \u201d DATE he was released from hospital on conditions of bed rest and subsequent supervision by a neurologist and orthopaedist .","On DATE investigator PERSON questioned the police officers who denied the first applicant \u2019s allegations . They claimed that they had ordered the first applicant to pull over because they had suspected that he had been driving under the influence of alcohol . The first applicant had refused to comply and had verbally insulted them demonstrating obscene hand gestures . After having searched the first applicant and his car , they had let him go .","On DATE the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination of the first applicant . Having examined the first applicant , the forensic expert documented multiple injuries on the right cheek and the lumbar region , multiple bruises all over the body and swelling of the soft tissues . The expert considered that those injuries could have resulted from the impact of solid blunt objects or from DATE .","On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . It appears that his decision was quashed on DATE .","NORP On DATE the first applicant underwent another forensic medical examination . The expert documented the first applicant \u2019s injuries considering that they might have resulted from the impact of solid blunt objects .","According to the first applicant , on DATE an investigator of the district prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . On DATE the district prosecutor dismissed the first applicant \u2019s complaint against the investigator \u2019s decision . DATE , ORG of the Stavropol Region quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decision and authorised a new round of inquiry .","On DATE the police issued a report on the inquiry conducted in response to the first applicant \u2019s complaint . Having examined the forensic medical documents and the statements made by the police officers , the first applicant and the witnesses , the police investigator concluded that the first applicant might have sustained injuries as a result of the force used by the police officers in response to his unlawful actions .","On DATE investigator PERSON ordered a new forensic medical examination of the first applicant in order to reconcile inconsistencies in the experts\u2019 findings .","It appears that the first applicant \u2019s complaint about the police brutality was dismissed by the authorities on another CARDINAL occasions . Each time a superior prosecutor or a court quashed those decisions considering the investigator \u2019s findings incomplete and unsubstantiated and ordering further inquiry into the first applicant \u2019s allegations .","On DATE the district prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into the first applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment by unidentified police officers .","On DATE the investigator PERSON stayed the criminal proceedings , holding that it was impossible to establish the alleged perpetrators who had assaulted the first applicant .","On DATE the first deputy of the regional prosecutor quashed decision of DATE noting that the investigation had not been completed and reopened the proceedings .","On DATE the investigator concluded that there was no evidence showing that the first applicant \u2019s injuries had been caused by the police officers and that he was unable to establish the real perpetrator . The first applicant appealed .","On DATE the district prosecutor partly accepted the first applicant \u2019s complaint and resumed the investigation . At the same time the prosecutor endorsed the investigator \u2019s reasoning that there was no evidence showing that the offence had been committed by the police officers . DATE the proceedings were again stayed because the perpetrator of the offence remained unknown .","On DATE investigator NORP again discontinued the criminal investigation . The investigator established that , when searching the first applicant and his car , CARDINAL of the police officers had punched him on the right cheek and hit him in the back twice with a blunt solid object . The investigator also accepted that , as of the TIME of DATE , the first applicant had bruises on the right cheek , the back and the left shin . He further noted that the forensic medical experts had not ruled out a possibility that the first applicant might have sustained those injuries as a result of the altercation with the police , as alleged by him . The investigator dismissed the first applicant \u2019s allegations referring to his prior criminal record . He also noted that a number of the first applicant \u2019s neighbours had not confirmed that the latter had had any injuries on him on DATE . As regards the statements made to the contrary by the other neighbours , the investigator found them to be unsubstantiated . Lastly , the investigator took into account that all the police officers denied the first applicant \u2019s accusations . However , it was impossible for the investigator to establish the alleged perpetrator for lack of relevant evidence .","It appears that the decision of DATE was quashed and the case was re - opened .","On DATE investigator NORP discontinued the criminal investigation reproducing verbatim his earlier decision of DATE . He also considered that the first applicant had willfully made false accusations against the police officers and should be held liable for his actions . The investigator forwarded the relevant material to the prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the deputy head of the supervision unit of the ORG committee considered the decision of CARDINAL DATE unlawful and unsubstantiated , quashed it and remitted the matter for further investigation . He noted , inter alia , that the investigator had failed ( CARDINAL ) to establish what each of the police officers had done once they had pulled over the first applicant \u2019s car ; ( CARDINAL ) to check whether any of the police officers had had a machine gun as claimed by the first applicant ; and ( CARDINAL ) to establish the reasons why the witnesses who had initially claimed that they had seen the police officers beating the first applicant had revoked their statements .","On DATE the senior investigator with the district investigative committee dismissed the first applicant \u2019s accusations against the police officers duplicating the findings summed up in the earlier decisions on the matter . Nevertheless , he allowed that the first applicant \u2019s injuries could have resulted from the beatings and that a criminal investigation should be opened on charges of battery . He transmitted the materials to the head of the district investigative committee . The parties did not inform about the outcome of the proceedings .","On DATE , at TIME , the applicants , suspecting that their neighbour had committed a number of thefts and intended to steal their property , beat him up , broke into his car , took the documents for the car and refused to return them until the arrival of a police patrol car .","On DATE the ORG found the applicants guilty of vigilantism and sentenced each of them to DATE imprisonment . The sentence was suspended on CARDINAL months\u2019 probation . On DATE ORG upheld the applicants\u2019 conviction on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158945","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SAK\u0130NE EP\u00d6ZDEM\u0130R AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE . The first applicant is the wife and the second and third applicants are the sons of Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them , may be summarised as follows .","The deceased was a lawyer and the chairman of the ORG provincial branch of a pro - NORP political party , ORG ( \u201c DEP \u201d ) .","The applicants submitted that DATE , DEP party buildings were bombed and CARDINAL of its members and administrators were killed . The applicants also alleged that during a meeting with political party representatives , General PERSON , who was the commander of ORG , had threatened their relative , PERSON , and CARDINAL of his colleagues , the chairman of ORG \u2019s NORP provincial branch , Mr PERSON . The General had told the CARDINAL men that \u201c they would meet their deaths very soon \u201d . Subsequently , Mr PERSON \u2019s son had been abducted and killed .","On TIME left his house to go to his office , which was nearby . At TIME the same day Mr PERSON telephoned his wife , the first applicant , and told her that he was leaving his office to come home . When he failed to arrive the family became concerned and contacted the authorities .","At TIME DATE the first applicant went to the police station in GPE , where she asked the police officers to find her husband . She told the police officers that when her husband had failed to come home the previous evening she had telephoned the local prosecutor and asked him whether her husband had been arrested . After the prosecutor had told her that her husband had not been arrested , she had informed members of her family about her husband \u2019s disappearance , and then waited up TIME .","Unbeknown to the first applicant , TIME before she went to the police station the body of her husband had been found by soldiers in the vicinity of the nearby town of G\u00fcroymak , in a ditch at the side of a road which connected the town of ORG to the city of PERSON . He was blindfolded and there was a gunshot wound on his face . The police officers who subsequently arrived at the scene informed the soldiers that it could be the body of PERSON , whose disappearance had been reported to them by his family .","NORP The local prosecutor arrived at the scene at TIME on DATE and gave instructions for the deceased \u2019s body to be taken to the hospital in PERSON , where it was formally identified by Mr PERSON \u2019s brother , PERSON , who also informed the prosecutor that after his brother had failed to come home the previous evening the family had telephoned the local police at TIME because they feared that he might have been abducted . He added that his deceased brother had been a prominent figure in the town of GPE and that that had been the reason for the family \u2019s suspicions that he might have been abducted .","On DATE Mr Ep\u00f6zdemir \u2019s body was examined by CARDINAL doctors , who noted that there was a bullet entry hole on the face and a corresponding exit hole on the back of the head . The doctors also noted the existence of widespread injuries on many parts of the face and the body which , according to the doctors , had been caused by physical trauma . The doctors , who established the cause of death as cerebrovascular haemorrhagic shock caused by the gunshot wound , did not consider it necessary to carry out a full autopsy .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor opened an investigation file into the killing and informed ORG .","On DATE the ORG police headquarters sent a letter to the governor \u2019s office in the town of G\u00fcroymak , in whose administrative jurisdiction the body had been found , and asked the governor whether the applicants\u2019 relative had been in FAC DATE and whether they had any information about anyone in G\u00fcroymak who might have harboured hostile feelings towards Mr PERSON .","On DATE the second applicant asked the ORG prosecutor whether there had been an outstanding arrest warrant in respect of his father . On DATE the prosecutor informed the second applicant that no such warrant had been issued .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor decided that he did not have the requisite jurisdiction ratione materiae to investigate the case and forwarded the investigation file to the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG , which did have jurisdiction to investigate such offences .","On DATE the prosecutor at ORG sent a letter to the ORG prosecutor and asked him to resume his investigation into the killing and to inform him DATE about developments .","On DATE the applicants sent letters to the offices of the PERSON and ORG prosecutors and asked to be provided with information regarding the steps taken in the investigation over the course of DATE .","On DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office decided that it had no jurisdiction ratione loci to investigate the incident and forwarded the ORG letter ( mentioned in the preceding paragraph ) to the office of the prosecutor in ORG . On DATE the ORG prosecutor decided that his office did not have jurisdiction ratione loci either and sent the letter to the prosecutor \u2019s office in G\u00fcroymak . On DATE the ORG prosecutor took a decision of non - jurisdiction ratione materiae and sent the letter to the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG .","On DATE the prosecutor at ORG replied to the ORG letter of DATE and informed them that the investigation was still continuing . On DATE the prosecutor also issued a standing search order and asked the G\u00fcroymak prosecutor to continue to search for the perpetrators and to inform his office DATE about developments .","On CARDINAL DATE the G\u00fcroymak prosecutor instructed the local gendarmerie to search for the perpetrators until DATE ( the date of the expiry of the time - limit prescribed by the statute of limitations ) . On DATE and DATE a number of gendarmes visited the place where the body had been found in DATE and noted that there was no evidence there to help solve the killing .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicants brought compensation proceedings against ORG . In their petition the applicants argued that the perpetrators of the killing had not been found , despite the fact that DATE had elapsed since the incident . They submitted that their relative had been a well - liked person in ORG and that he had never had any problems with anyone . The applicants argued that GPE were responsible for protecting their ORG lives and that in the event that they failed to do so , they had a duty to find and punish the perpetrators of any resultant unlawful death ; otherwise they themselves should be held responsible for such loss of life . The applicants also submitted that , because of the failure to find and punish the perpetrators of the killing of PERSON , they had suffered immeasurable pain and stress and the ORG had thus an obligation to compensate them for the damage that they had sustained . They argued that the ORG \u2019s liability arose from its failure to protect the deceased \u2019s life . In any event , even if no such failure could be said to have occurred , they further argued that the ORG nevertheless had an \u201c absolute liability \u201d to compensate them .","On DATE the NORP police headquarters informed ORG , in response to an apparent query from the latter , that the applicants\u2019 relative , PERSON , had never requested protection from the authorities .","On DATE ORG decided to award compensation to the applicants , in accordance with LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . It held that when carrying out their duties the public authorities had an obligation to take the necessary measures and to show due diligence in doing so . In the present case the public authorities had failed to comply with that obligation .","The Ministry of the ORG appealed , arguing that it had not failed in that obligation because the reason for the killing and the identity of its perpetrators had not yet been established .","The applicants did not submit any observations in reply to those of ORG .","In its decision of DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG because it considered that , given that the reason for the killing had not been established and the perpetrators had not been identified , no causal link could be said to exist between the damage caused by the killing and any actions on the part of the public authorities . It added that for the public authorities to be said to have failed in their obligation , it was necessary to establish that they had either not performed their duties at all , or had failed to perform them in a timely manner , or had performed them in an unsatisfactory fashion . ORG further held that the lack of the above - mentioned causal link also prevented the courts from awarding compensation to the family on the basis of the public authorities\u2019 \u201c absolute liability \u201d because the sole fact that the deceased had been a \u201c member of society \u201d was not sufficient . For it to be able to award compensation on the basis of the \u201c social risk doctrine \u201d it was a precondition for the damage to have arisen in a setting within which public servants were carrying out their duties .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG re - examined the case in the light of ORG decision and decided to reject the applicants\u2019 claim for compensation . In reaching its conclusion , the administrative court noted that the investigation into the killing was still ongoing and , in any event , the deceased had never sought protection from the ORG . It thus held that the public authorities had not acted in breach of their duties . It further held that , as the conditions of the \u201c social risk doctrine \u201d had not been satisfied , it was not possible to award compensation to the family on the basis of the ORG \u2019s \u201c absolute liability \u201d .","The applicants lodged an appeal with ORG against the decision and argued that a citizen need not officially seek protection from the authorities in order to trigger the ORG \u2019s obligation to protect such a citizen \u2019s life . To argue otherwise would be at odds with the LAW and the international treaties to which GPE was a party . The applicants also submitted that at the time of the killing , a state of emergency had been declared in their part of the country ; this had created a climate that was conducive to the perpetration of such crimes . The fact that DATE after the killing the perpetrators had still not been identified was an indication that the public authorities had failed in their duties . The applicants maintained that the authorities had failed to take the necessary steps to prevent the attack on their relative and to find the perpetrators . ORG was therefore responsible for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage arising from the failures on its part .","The appeal lodged by the applicants was rejected by ORG on DATE . A request made by the applicants for ORG decision to be rectified was also rejected , on DATE . The final decision was served on the applicants on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163658","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DRAGOMIR v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE she was hit by a car while crossing the street . The driver left the scene of the accident and took the applicant to hospital , where she was diagnosed with a fractured spine . She underwent surgery DATE and was released from hospital on DATE .","NORP The police opened an investigation to clarify the circumstances of the accident .","On DATE the police took a statement from the applicant , in which she complained that the driver had caused her bodily harm . She also requested MONEY ( USD ) from him in civil damages .","On DATE the police officer in charge of the investigation ordered a technical expert report .","On DATE an eyewitness was interviewed by the police .","On DATE a forensic medical report was attached to the investigation file . It stated that the applicant had suffered injuries which required DATE of medical care .","According to reports drafted by the investigating police officers , on DATE and DATE the applicant failed to attend the police station to take note of the objectives set for the expert report . On DATE the applicant went to the police station , where she submitted additional questions to be answered by the expert .","On DATE the police requested the assistance of an expert to prepare the technical expert report in the case .","On DATE the expert examined the scene of the accident in the presence of the driver and the applicant . The driver declared that he agreed with the expert \u2019s findings .","The technical expert report was finalised on DATE . It stated that the applicant was to blame for the accident because she had crossed the street in an unmarked place without paying attention . The driver , who had been turning his vehicle at the time , had not breached any traffic regulations . The expert appointed by the driver agreed with the report , while the expert appointed by the applicant drafted a dissenting opinion concluding that the fault lay entirely with the driver , who had turned his car without paying attention .","The applicant took note of the expert opinions on DATE . On DATE she submitted objections , to which she received a reply on DATE .","On DATE ORG attached to ORG decided not to prosecute the driver , since the fault of the accident lay entirely with the applicant . The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision , but it was rejected as ill - founded by a hierarchically superior prosecutor on DATE .","A complaint by the applicant against the CARDINAL decisions was declared inadmissible by ORG on DATE . She lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against that judgment . On DATE her appeal was allowed by ORG , which decided to send the case back to the prosecutor for a more thorough investigation since numerous facts had not been clarified .","On DATE the applicant made enquiries with the prosecutor \u2019s office about the status of the investigation .","On DATE the same eyewitness was interviewed again .","A new expert report was requested by the prosecutor on DATE , and on DATE the applicant informed the authorities that she would need additional time , until DATE , to decide whether to instruct a counter expert on her behalf .","On DATE a first written statement was taken from the driver .","In statements given to the police on DATE and DATE , the applicant mentioned that a new expert report would not be necessary in the case .","According to CARDINAL reports drafted DATE and DATE by the police officer in charge of the investigation , the applicant could not be contacted , or had failed to come to the police station to give the name of her counter expert .","On DATE , holding that a new expert report was not necessary , the prosecutor decided again not to prosecute the driver since the fault for the accident lay entirely with the applicant . The decision was upheld by a hierarchically superior prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant \u2019s complaint against the ORG decisions was allowed by ORG on DATE . The court held that the investigative authorities had failed to follow the instructions given in the previous judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The judgment became final on DATE when an appeal on points of law by the prosecutor was dismissed by ORG .","On DATE ORG attached to ORG noted that the limitation period for the crime under investigation had expired on DATE and decided to close the case .","The applicant appealed against that decision before the courts . She claimed QUANTITY ( ORG ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage from the driver and ORG . She considered that the prosecutor was liable for the excessive delays in the investigation which had triggered the expiry of the limitation period for the crime committed against her .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim . The court held that because the limitation period for criminal responsibility in the case had expired it could not rule on the applicant \u2019s claim for compensation . It further held that the applicant could bring such a claim before the civil courts . The judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE when an appeal by the applicant was dismissed by ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168850","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MAYEVSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . In applications nos . CARDINAL and DATE , the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the FAC ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158077","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BREMNER v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE in GPE .","At the material time he had been a correspondent with an NORP newspaper in GPE . He had also been working voluntarily for a bookshop specialising in books on NORP .","On DATE he appeared in a television documentary broadcast in the framework of the programme Son \u00e7are ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) , hosted by PERSON .","During the programme the hostess introduced the documentary by pointing out that it concerned covert activities conducted in GPE by \u201c foreign pedlars of religion \u201d ( yabanc\u0131 din t\u00fcccarlar\u0131 ) .","The ensuing documentary was along the following lines :","Over footage of FAC and then NORP religious ceremonies , a voice stated that everyone , whether a member of the NORP majority or a religious minority , had the right to belong to the religion of his or her own choosing and the freedom to practise that religion . According to the voice - over , it was strange that some proselytising activities were being carried out in a covert manner , despite the freedom of conscience and religion .","Against a background of images of a dhikr ceremony performed by a NORP brotherhood , showing followers in a state of trance , the voiceover asked whether , \u201c in order to combat such instances of bigotry ( yobazl\u0131k ) , an attempt was being made to set up groups of NORP converts , plunging the country into chaos \u201d .","The voiceover explained that the aim of the programme was not to judge any specific religion but to show that whatever their nationalities or religious beliefs , the pedlars of religion all used the same methods .","The voiceover explained that the programme producers had been contacted by a certain ORG , who lived in PERSON . This person had been intrigued by an advertisement asking \u201c would you like to read books free of charge ? \u201d , and had replied . In return , he had received a number of books by mail , all of them concerning NORP . He had written back and had once again received books on the same subject . The second dispatch had been accompanied by a letter thanking him for his interest in the subject .","There had subsequently been a telephone exchange between ORG and the sender , who had proved to be the applicant .","After that exchange it had been agreed that the applicant would travel to PERSON to meet ORG","It was at that point that ORG had decided to inform the programme producers and to invite them to make a documentary on the subject .","On DATE the applicant had travelled to PERSON to meet ORG and some of his \u201c friends [ purportedly ] interested in NORP \u201d for the first time , in a restaurant . The conversation had been filmed by a hidden camera .","According to the voiceover , the applicant had then presented the teachings of the Bible . He had continued by comparing NORP with other religions , emphasising his own beliefs . However , that sequence was not shown , on the grounds that the aim of the documentary was not to discuss the merits of specific beliefs but to expose the methods used .","A.N. and the applicant had arranged to meet up again DATE in an apartment , again accompanied by a group of ORG \u2019s friends purportedly desirous of learning about the NORP religion .","During that second meeting the applicant had explained that he was not alone but was part of a group working throughout GPE . He had said that LOC could be rented in PERSON for the converts , but that he would have to talk to his \u201c boss \u201d about that . The question of where the money would come from was difficult , but an open , intelligent attitude had to be adopted to such matters because converts could be accused of having changed religions thanks to pecuniary considerations rather than conviction .","The documentary then showed the following dialogue between the applicant and CARDINAL of the participants :","\u201c Participant :","- Have you read the Koran ?","Applicant :","\u2013 Yes .","Participant :","DATE What did you think of it ?","Applicant :","DATE I liked it . Some of the verses are good , but ...","Participant :","\u2013 ... but there is also some nonsense ?","Applicant :","\u2013 No , I would n\u2019t say that , but it can not save me , because I know I am a sinner .","...","Applicant :","\u2013 The knowledge which God has sent us is set out in the Bible , the PERSON and the Book of the Psalms of David . [ That knowledge ] is complete in itself . We need no other prophet , because PERSON is divine in essence ... \u201d","Just as the applicant was apparently preparing , with the help of a bowl of water , to explain to the participants the ritual of baptism , the person hosting the programme , PERSON , burst into the room with a camera and a microphone .","She told the applicant that she had heard about the meeting and had come to make his acquaintance . She asked him who he was and where he came from .","The applicant replied that he was NORP and held an identity card up to the camera . He added that he was a journalist , and was involved in explaining the NORP faith on a voluntary basis .","Asked why the latter activity was covert , he answered that it was not covert , and that he had come to LOC with full trust in the person who had contacted him .","The documentary then presented an interview between Ms GPE and an academic from ORG . The latter explained that NORP were duty - bound to respect and believe in the divine nature of the holy books of all the monotheistic religions , pointing out that ORG was a religion of tolerance . However , he voiced his surprise at the covert nature of the activities shown in the documentary .","At the end of the programme the applicant was shown walking along carrying a bag . The voiceover described him as \u201c ORG , the pedlar of religion , on his way to the police station to give a statement \u201d .","According to the applicant , the hostess of the TV programme had been accompanied by police officers when she had burst into the room , and the officers had remanded him in custody after the discussions .","He had been released DATE , after having given his statement .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office brought criminal proceedings against the applicant for insulting Allah and ORG .","On DATE ORG found the applicant innocent given that no evidence had been provided of a criminal offence .","On DATE the applicant filed an action for damages against the programme presenter and producers .","GPE Regional Court ( \u201c IRC \u201d ) dismissed that action by judgment of DATE on the grounds of the public interest of dissemination of information .","By judgment of DATE the CARDINALth ORG of ORG set aside the latter judgment , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL .","In its reasoning the ORG noted that the case concerned a conflict of rights between freedom of expression , on the one hand , and personality rights on the other . Having reiterated the fundamental importance of freedom of the press , it pointed out that that freedom nevertheless had its limits . It considered that the claimant had not committed any unlawful act but had merely exercised his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience , which CARDINAL rights were secured under both the LAW and LAW . That being the case , the claimant \u2019s right to respect for his private life had suffered a twofold violation , first of all when he had been filmed by a hidden camera , and secondly when the images had been broadcast , accompanied by such expressions as \u201c pedlar of religion \u201d and \u201c bigotry \u201d .","On DATE , ruling on the case referred back to it , the ORG decided not to follow the reasoning of ORG and instead to maintain its previous judgment .","In the face of such resistance from the IRC , the case was referred ex officio to ORG of ORG . By judgment of DATE , that ORG upheld the finding of the first - instance court by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL .","In their reasoning , the judges of the superior court held that the impugned images had not concerned details of the applicant \u2019s private life , but had been part of a documentary on a topical issue of interest to the general public . They considered that there had been a major public interest in broadcasting the documentary at issue and that the documentary - makers had struck a fair balance between the merits and the formal aspects of the subject .","According to the case file that judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .","The applicant submitted that the owner of the apartment which he had rented had ended his lease following the transmission of the documentary for security reasons .","He added that he had been expelled to GPE .","..."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142678","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"REPRESENTATION OF THE UNION OF COUNCILS FOR JEWS IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION AND UNION OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS ORGANISATIONS OF UKRAINE v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants are ORG for NORP in the Former GPE ( \u201c the first applicant organisation \u201d ) and ORG of GPE ( \u201c the second applicant organisation \u201d ) . According to the applicants , the first applicant was established in DATE \" with the purpose of representation of the interest of ORG in the Former GPE and for monitoring the situation regarding observance of human rights , facilitation of harmonisation of interethnic and inter - religious relations \" . The second applicant \" is a religious organisation \" aimed at \" assistance to NORP religious organisations in the protection of religious and other human rights \" . They were represented before the ORG by Mr M. Sheykhet ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174112","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LEITNER v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Blumau .","The applicant and his former partner , ORG , have CARDINAL children , born out of wedlock in DATE and DATE respectively . PERSON always had sole custody of the children as the parents never agreed to have joint custody . The applicant and PERSON never cohabited on a permanent basis . The children lived with their mother during DATE . At DATE , the whole family usually stayed at the applicant \u2019s house .","NORP In DATE PERSON and the applicant separated and the children remained with their mother .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the GPE ORG ( LOC Innere GPE ; hereinafter , \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to transfer sole custody to him , or to grant him joint custody together with ORG Furthermore he applied for an interim measure concerning his visiting rights , as he had not seen his children since DATE .","On DATE the parents agreed that the applicant would be able to see his children DATE from TIME or TIME and every second DATE from TIME .","On DATE the applicant applied for an extension of his visiting rights to the whole weekend .","After CARDINAL visits from the applicant in DATE , GPE unilaterally stopped further visits , claiming that these had a negative influence on the children . DATE and GPE DATE , on his own initiative , the applicant secretly went to see his children at their school and kindergarten a few times .","ORG ( GPE ) submitted its statement on DATE and recommended maintaining sole custody for the mother and visiting rights for the applicant according to the agreement the parents had concluded on DATE .","On DATE ORG decided to grant the applicant visiting rights on DATE from TIME . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for sole custody .","In its reasoning the court held that the children were well cared for by their mother . According to LAW ) as in force at the relevant time , a transfer of custody was only possible if the children \u2019s best interest was at risk . In the present case the court found no such risk and the applicant actually had not claimed such a risk . The court further held that the visiting rights were decided in accordance with the GPE mutual agreement .","The applicant appealed on DATE and argued in essence that he was discriminated against , compared to the mother . Also , he complained that the court had not decided on the question of whether the parents could be awarded joint custody .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions , his visiting rights were resumed on DATE in the amount determined by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as unfounded . It confirmed the reasoning of ORG and held that there was no indication of a risk to the children \u2019s best interest if the mother maintained sole custody . It further held that there was no provision in law ordering a preference for granting CARDINAL of the parents sole custody . The court also found that the parents had not mutually agreed on joint custody , therefore no further issues arose in this connection .","The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) on DATE , again claiming that he was discriminated against compared to the mother and that the decision of the lower instances violated his rights under LAW .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s extraordinary appeal for lack of an important issue of law .","After the amendment of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant on DATE again applied for joint custody , or sole custody in the alternative . Shortly after , PERSON moved with the children to the south of GPE , QUANTITY from GPE . The applicant \u2019s requests for sole or shared custody were finally dismissed by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["14","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165565","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"ISAKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["Mr PERSON GPE was born in DATE and lived , prior to his disappearance , in GPE . He is a stateless person . The application in his name was submitted to the ORG by Ms N. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE to ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE Mr GPE moved from GPE to GPE in GPE .","In DATE the NORP authorities opened a criminal case against Mr GPE on charges of attempting to overthrow the ORG \u2019s constitutional order in GPE and put his name on the wanted ORG list .","On DATE Mr PERSON was arrested in GPE , GPE , and remanded in custody with a view to extradition .","On DATE ORG office decided to extradite PERSON to GPE . The domestic courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction upheld the extradition order . A final decision on the matter was taken by ORG of GPE on DATE .","On DATE Mr Isakov lodged an application with the ORG in which he complained about his detention in GPE with a view to extradition to GPE where he faced politically - based persecution by the local authorities . On DATE Mr GPE signed an authority form authorising several lawyers , including PERSON , to represent him in the proceedings before ORG .","On DATE the ORG granted Mr GPE \u2019s request for the application of interim measures under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of the ORG and indicated to ORG that he should not be extradited to GPE until further notice . On the same date the application was communicated to the ORG which were requested to submit observations concerning the risk of ill - treatment if the extradition order in respect of Mr GPE were enforced , lawfulness and review of his detention in GPE and alleged lack of effective remedies in this respect . The parties\u2019 observations were received on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . The Government complied with the ORG \u2019s request as to the application of interim measures and submission of observations .","On DATE Mr Isakov was released from custody and on DATE he was granted temporary asylum in GPE .","On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment in Mr PERSON \u2019s case ( see LOC v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) where it found , inter alia , that in the event of the extradition order against Mr GPE being enforced , there would be a violation of LAW .","On DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the decision of DATE and the ensuing judicial decisions , including ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Mr GPE and his family ( wife and children ) continued to reside in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the Government informed ORG of the individual measures taken within the framework of the execution of the judgment in Mr GPE \u2019s case . In particular , the Government reported that ( CARDINAL ) the judgment had been enforced as regards the payment of non - pecuniary damage and reimbursement of costs and expenses and ( CARDINAL ) the extradition - related judicial decisions had been quashed .","In DATE , within the framework of the supervision of the execution of a number of judgments against GPE relating to disappearances and\/or forcible transfers and also repeated allegations of such incidents , ORG adopted an Interim Resolution ( CM \/ ResDh(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) exhorting the NORP authorities to develop without further delay an appropriate mechanism tasked with both preventive and protective functions to ensure that applicants belonging to the risk group benefit from immediate and effective protection against unlawful or irregular removal from the NORP territory .","In TIME of CARDINAL DATE Mr GPE \u2019s car was found damaged on the road and Mr PERSON had disappeared . His family \u2019s attempts to establish his whereabouts were to no avail .","On DATE TIME , Mr GPE \u2019s nephew , reported Mr GPE \u2019s disappearance to the regional department of the interior . Mr PERSON \u2019s family retained counsel PERSON . to represent them in connection with the investigation into Mr PERSON \u2019s disappearance .","On DATE the ORG granted a request lodged by Ms Yermolayeva , under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of the ORG , and indicated to the Government that Mr GPE should not be extradited , expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed from GPE to GPE or another country for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG . The Government were also requested to furnish any information about Mr PERSON \u2019s whereabouts and possible arrest and detention in GPE and\/or removal to GPE . The application was also granted priority under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of the ORG .","On DATE the Government reported that the investigation into Mr GPE \u2019s disappearance was pending and that his whereabouts were unknown to the authorities .","On DATE , relying on the authority form issued by Mr Isakov in DATE , PERSON lodged an application in Mr PERSON \u2019s name . She alleged that Mr PERSON had been abducted by NORP state agents and forcefully removed to GPE where he would be subjected to treatment contrary to LAW . Referring to LAW , she argued that the ORG had failed to comply with the ORG \u2019s indication made under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of the ORG .","On DATE the senior investigator with the regional investigative committee opened criminal investigation into Mr GPE \u2019s disappearance .","On DATE the senior investigator in charge of Mr GPE \u2019s disappearance questioned PERSON . I. , Mr PERSON \u2019s brother . Kh . I. submitted that , according to his older sister who lived in GPE , Mr GPE was allegedly in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the President of the Section gave notice of the application to the Government and invited the latter to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case .","On DATE the senior investigator in charge of Mr GPE \u2019s disappearance questioned PERSON , Mr GPE \u2019s son .","On DATE the Government submitted the observations .","On DATE PERSON submitted the observations on the matter maintaining the complaints on Mr PERSON \u2019s behalf and claims for just satisfaction .","On DATE the Government provided comments on the claims for just satisfaction and further observations .","On DATE the President of the Section invited the parties , under Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( c ) of the Rules of the ORG , to submit further observations on the admissibility and merits of the case . The parties were to comment as to whether the application was compatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and the Government \u2019s failure to submit a complete investigation file concerning Mr PERSON \u2019s alleged abduction and disappearance .","On DATE May and DATE PERSON and the Government respectively submitted further observations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","Mr PERSON \u2019s whereabouts remain unknown to date .","In its decisions adopted at ORG and GPE meetings ( DATE and DATE ) , ORG , responding to the situation concerning disappearances and\/or forcible transfers , noted that the NORP authorities adopted a number of awareness - raising measures and instructions . Nevertheless , ORG considered that these measures were insufficient and invited the authorities to adopt special protective measures in respect of the applicants who were exposed to such risks and underlined the need for special measures to ensure rapid and effective investigations into such incidents .","On DATE ( ORG Dec(CARDINAL)CARDINALE\/CARDINAL DATE ) at its QUANTITY meeting ( DH ) , ORG noted as follows , as regards Mr PERSON \u2019s situation :","\u201c As to the investigation of the alleged abductions of PERSON and GPE reported in DATE , criminal cases have been opened . No evidence has thus far been obtained regarding the removal of Mr LOC from the territory of GPE . The NORP authorities also insisted that ORG was not competent to supervise this issue as it was already being examined in the adversarial proceedings before ORG .","As regards the NORP authorities\u2019 comments with respect to the ORG \u2019s competence to supervise the investigations into the recent alleged abductions of PERSON and GPE , the following factors have to be taken into account . As regards the first case , there already exists a final ORG judgment establishing a violation , granting the ORG full competence to look into both individual and general measures , irrespective of any new application made on behalf of the same person to the ORG . Such situations are frequent and have never led the ORG to exempt the ORG concerned from its obligation to keep the ORG informed of the developments . As regards the second case , while it is true that there is no final judgment at the moment , the case is relevant for execution purposes as an example , among others , of the development of the situation and the efficiency of the general measures adopted ( see e.g. the ORG \u2019s indication in the PERSON judgment ( \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174952","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SHMATKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . The applicant in application no . CARDINAL also raised other complaints under the provisions of the LAW ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178396","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"GIURGIU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , was a NORP national who was born in DATE and lived in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG . The applicant died on DATE . His daughter , PERSON , born in DATE , applied to pursue the application before the ORG in his name and retained the same lawyer to represent her .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG opened criminal proceedings against the applicant and CARDINAL co - accused for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud .","ORG - am adunat pentru a trage \u021bepe , dar nu am gandit - o de o a\u015fa mare amploare ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161868","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"A.Y. v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently detained in PERSON . The President decided of his own motion to grant the applicant anonymity ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . He is represented before the ORG by ORG s.r.o . , a law firm with its registered office in GPE .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is of Ingush ethnic origin .","In DATE he left GPE for GPE , GPE , GPE and , ultimately , GPE , where he arrived in DATE .","The applicant was subsequently returned to GPE and then to GPE , where he applied for asylum on DATE under a different identity .","While the asylum proceedings in GPE were pending he left for GPE , where he remained , unsuccessfully seeking asylum , from DATE .","The applicant \u2019s asylum request in GPE was dismissed on DATE and then again on CARDINAL DATE , after the first decision had been quashed on administrative appeal . The applicant \u2019s subsequent administrative - law appeal was declared inadmissible as belated at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . The dismissal of his asylum request thus became final and binding on DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant left GPE for GPE , where he unsuccessfully applied for asylum in DATE and was ultimately returned to GPE on DATE .","After this the applicant applied for asylum in GPE and GPE applied for his extradition in order for him to be tried on charges related to acts of terrorism allegedly committed by the applicant with others on the territory of GPE . This resulted in CARDINAL sets of proceedings , which ran in parallel and are described below in turn .","On his return to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE , the applicant claimed asylum again , this time under his true identity .","The claim was examined at the first administrative level by ORG , which dismissed it on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . However , all these decisions were quashed by administrative courts following administrative - law appeals by the applicant .","The last - mentioned decision was quashed by ORG on DATE and the matter was remitted to ORG for reconsideration .","The principal ground for this decision was that ORG had failed to follow binding instructions issued by the court as part of its previous judgments quashing ORG decisions , namely to examine properly :","( i ) the applicant \u2019s allegations that he was suffering from amnesia due to torture at the hands of NORP law - enforcement officers and resultant concussion ;","( ii ) the applicant \u2019s allegation that , in view of his PERSON origin and the political situation in GPE where he was wanted , he would be in danger if extradited there , while these allegations were to be examined in the light of existing reports on the police and justice situation in GPE ;","( iii ) the existing documentation concerning the situation of the individuals whose depositions had provided the basis for the charges against the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) ;","( iv ) the validity of the guarantees given by ORG ( \u201c the OPGRF \u201d ) to the NORP authorities as regards the applicant \u2019s treatment in the event of his extradition to GPE ( in particular those specified in a letter of CARDINAL DATE ) ; and","( v ) reports by non - governmental organisations concerning the applicant \u2019s individual case and the situation in the requesting country in general .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s second asylum request for the fourth time and decided not to grant him any subsidiary protection .","It observed that at various stages of the proceedings the applicant had given CARDINAL different time references ( DATE , DATE and DATE ) to his allegation that he had been arrested and mistreated by the police in GPE , that there had been inconsistencies as to the length of his ensuing hospitalisation , and that there were further incongruities between the time and scope of the offences imputed to him in the official extradition documentation and those referred to by the applicant himself .","Moreover , the applicant had never before relied on any of the statutory grounds for granting asylum , and his present allegations of persecution on political , religious and ethnic grounds were entirely novel , while his prosecution in the requesting state had no political or ideological connotations . The applicant \u2019s account of the facts was therefore found to be untrustworthy .","ORG observed that the available documents confirmed that the applicant had been hospitalised in a traumatology department from CARDINAL May to DATE with a number of injuries . There was however no evidence showing that his injuries were in any way attributable to the ORG .","His present digestive problems could not be linked to those injuries , because the applicant had been suffering from them even before his alleged mistreatment . As to his alleged amnesia , by which he sought to explain the incongruities in his factual submissions , ORG considered it improbable , because his recollection of other facts was clear and precise . Nevertheless , ORG had obtained expert evidence concluding that the concussion he had sustained in DATE could neither have produced amnesia , nor could it have had any permanent effects on his health .","Furthermore , ORG observed that the requesting ORG , through the OPGRF , had provided assurances as to the applicant \u2019s treatment in the event of his extradition on DATE , and that these guarantees had been confirmed and amended on CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","According to these guarantees , the applicant would have at his disposal all existing legal means of asserting his rights , including the assistance of a lawyer . He would not be exposed to torture or any other form of illtreatment , and the death penalty would not be imposed on him . His prosecution was not motivated politically , racially , religiously or ethnically . He would not be prosecuted for any other offences than those for which his extradition was sought , and he would not be extradited further to another ORG without GPE \u2019s consent . NORP diplomatic representatives would also be free to monitor compliance with the guarantees given .","In its assessment of these guarantees ORG took into account that they had been provided by the OPGRF and that there was no indication that they would not be effective in LOC . Once the applicant \u2019s criminal proceedings were completed and any sentence served , he would be free to settle in any other place , not necessarily LOC . There was no precedent for GPE not to comply with the diplomatic guarantees given to GPE in a similar context .","ORG pointed out that GPE did not have a record of systematic human rights violations , that the guarantees were clear , specific and individualised , that they had also been confirmed by the requesting ORG as an intervening third party in the proceedings before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that their observance was subject to diplomatic monitoring , and that their validity had been recognised by ORG in the extradition proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","As to the various reports concerning the situation in GPE , ORG considered them general in nature and in the circumstances not capable of prevailing over the specific and individual guarantees provided by the OPGRF .","Concerning the available material on the applicant \u2019s co - accused , which included their pre - trial depositions , ORG found that it was general , contained no more than allegations , was flawed by inconsistencies , and did not constitute proof of the allegations that they had been mistreated . The applicant was mentioned only once , in CARDINAL of the pre - trial depositions , and this mention did not implicate him in any way . Moreover , when the applicant \u2019s co - accused changed their versions before the court , their submissions were properly examined in adversarial proceedings . Therefore , this material did not represent a probability that , in the event of his extradition , the applicant would himself be mistreated or that he would be denied a fair trial in the proceedings against him .","In sum , there was no trustworthy indication of the existence of any grounds for granting the applicant asylum . Moreover , with reference to his state of health as established in a report from a prison hospital of DATE , ORG found no humanitarian reasons linked to the applicant \u2019s health or otherwise for providing him with subsidiary protection .","The applicant challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE by way of an administrative - law appeal , arguing in principle that ORG had yet again completely ignored the binding instructions of the administrative court and had simply reaffirmed its previous line of decisions with all the errors therein .","That appeal is still pending before ORG .","On DATE a judge of the ORG North Ossetia - GPE ) issued a warrant for the applicant \u2019s arrest on the charges of membership of an existing armed illegal group and of perpetration of assaults organised by it , illegal possession of firearms and explosives , terrorist acts , homicide of QUANTITY or more persons , and other offences committed in GPE - GPE DATE and DATE .","On DATE respectively the applicant was arrested and placed in preliminary detention in GPE .","On DATE GPE asked for the applicant \u2019s extradition .","On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody pending his extradition to GPE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively ORG and , following the applicant \u2019s interlocutory appeal , ORG , ruled that the applicant \u2019s extradition was permissible .","The courts found that none of the statutory grounds preventing extradition had been given and , in particular , that the applicant \u2019s extradition was not precluded by his asylum claim of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as this was a repeated claim . In reaching that conclusion , they ascribed significant importance to the guarantees provided by the OPGRF as regards the applicant \u2019s treatment in the event of his extradition by the requesting State .","In addition , the courts took into account that the requesting ORG was a member ORG and a ORG to the LAW . Moreover , they referred to the case - law of the ORG , including its decision of DATE in the cases of GPE v. GPE and GPE v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","In so far as the applicant had argued that the case against him in GPE was concocted and based on evidence obtained by torture , these allegations were to be examined in the proceedings on the merits of his charges in GPE , the NORP authorities being by no means equipped to assess them , not least as they did not even have the relevant case files at their disposal .","Lastly , the courts observed that , in so far as the applicant \u2019s argument was based on generally worded reports by non - governmental organisations , these reports were outweighed by the individualised and specific guarantees of the requesting ORG , and there were no obstacles to the nongovernmental ORG monitoring the fairness of the applicant \u2019s proceedings in GPE .","On DATE ORG acceded to the applicant \u2019s request of DATE by indicating an interim measure suspending ORG decision of DATE . At the same time , it declared admissible the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint that that decision was in violation of his rights under LAW .","On DATE ORG found that ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE was in violation of the applicant \u2019s Article CARDINAL rights , quashed it , remitted the case to ORG for a new examination of the applicant \u2019s interlocutory appeal against the decision of DATE , and awarded him costs . It found that ORG assessment of the case was formalistic , superficial , and inadequate , in particular as regards ( i ) the available reports on the general situation with respect to human rights in GPE and especially in the LOC , ( ii ) the applicant \u2019s allegations that he and his co - accused had been ill - treated by the police and that his charges were based on evidence obtained by the ill - treatment of his co - accused , and ( iii ) the validity of the diplomatic guarantees of the requesting ORG in the light of the ORG \u2019s case - law .","On DATE ORG ruled again on the applicant \u2019s interlocutory appeal against the decision of ORG DATE , as instructed by ORG in its judgment of DATE . In its decision ORG again dismissed the interlocutory appeal . It did so having observed that the offences of which the applicant stood accused had taken place DATE , that the CARDINAL consecutive asylum proceedings had together taken DATE and were still not completed , that the applicant had been detained pending extradition for DATE , and that the maximum duration of such detention was not limited by statute . It held that the length of the asylum proceedings was unreasonable and that in the circumstances it was inappropriate for ORG to await the ultimate resolution of the asylum proceedings .","ORG summarised the requesting ORG \u2019s guarantees ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and concluded that they were sufficiently specific , individualised and reliable . As there had not been any specific instance of extradition from GPE to GPE , there was no concrete experience of or practice in monitoring compliance with guarantees given , nor was there any instance of failure to respect the guarantees .","The general reports on human rights situation in GPE were to be seen in the light of the applicant \u2019s specific circumstances .","Moreover , ORG referred to reports on the DATE and DATE visits of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( \u201c the CPT \u201d ) to GPE and the measures taken by the NORP authorities in response to the ORG \u2019s findings . In addition , ORG again referred to the ORG \u2019s assessment of the guarantees provided by GPE in GPE and ORG ( both cited above ) and other cases . Lastly , it considered that it was not the task of the courts in extradition proceedings to take a stance as regards the lawfulness of the prosecution for the purposes of which a person was to be extradited .","There was no appeal available against ORG decision of DATE and , accordingly , the ruling that the applicant \u2019s extradition was permissible became final and binding on DATE .","The applicant subsequently contested ORG decision by way of a constitutional complaint , which ORG declared inadmissible without examining its merits on DATE , on the ground that it fell manifestly short of the applicable formal requirements .","The final decision on the applicant \u2019s extradition now lies with the Minister of ORG , who has discretion to allow or disallow extradition subject to various considerations under LAW , including specifically those under LAW .","The request of GPE of DATE for the applicant \u2019s extradition ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was accompanied by guarantees from the OPGRF as regards the treatment to be accorded to the applicant in the event of his extradition .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE from ORG before ORG to ORG of GPE , the guarantees in question were confirmed and summarised as follows : the applicant would enjoy all the fair trial guarantees which existed in international law , would only be tried for the crimes for which he had been extradited by GPE , would not be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , would be free to leave GPE on the completion of his proceedings and after serving any sentence , and would not be extradited to a third country without GPE \u2019s consent .","In a letter of DATE the OPGRF responded to GPE \u2019s request for an amendment of the guarantees in question by pledging that , in the event of his extradition , the embassy of GPE in GPE would be informed of the place of his detention and officers of the embassy would be allowed to visit him and speak to him without the presence of a third person .","In a letter of DATE , in reply to a further request by GPE , the OPGRF confirmed the guarantees previously given .","The applicant claims that in DATE he was arrested and interrogated by police in GPE ) on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activities . As he refused to confess , he was beaten and otherwise tortured for DATE . He was subsequently provided with a lawyer , and it took a further DATE until he was released and then immediately admitted to hospital , where he spent DATE with concussion and multiple other traumas .","Once the applicant had learned of the arrests of his acquaintances on terrorist charges ( see below ) , he went into hiding in GPE , GPE and elsewhere .","His home was subsequently searched and his relatives interrogated as to his whereabouts . These included an uncle whose property was plundered and who was beaten during his interrogation before being released on DATE .","The applicant submits that in DATE CARDINAL acquaintances of his , PERSON , PERSON , and PERSON , were arrested on charges of terrorist acts in GPE ; that they were taken to a police station in NORP where they were interrogated , beaten and tortured into confessions ; and that CARDINAL of them had given the applicant \u2019s name .","The case - file contains documentation concerning these individuals , including expert reports on injuries suffered by ORG in TIME DATE and on the mental condition of PERSON ; what appears to be parts of transcripts of undated court hearings of a witness PERSON , an accused PERSON , PERSON lawyer , PERSON , and PERSON mother ; and a statement issued by the mother of ORG .","This documentation contains allegations of ill - treatment and coercion with regard to PERSON , ORG , ORG and ORG .","In so far as the applicant is concerned , in CARDINAL of the transcribed submissions , PERSON stated that he had never seen PERSON and the applicant together , admitted having seen the applicant once , but submitted that he had had no personal or telephone contact with him . In addition , in her statement concerning principally the convictions of her son and his associates , which according to her was based solely on self - incriminating evidence extracted from them by torture , the mother of ORG stated that the convicts had been coerced into implicating other people , including the applicant .","PERSON , ORG and ORG introduced an application of their own under LAW against GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It has been communicated to ORG of GPE for observations and is still pending .","Finally , in addition to the material referred to in the subsequent paragraph , the applicant relied on a number of international documents including from ORG , ORG , a Special Rapporteur of ORG of ORG , the Commissioner for Human Rights of ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG on the independence of judges and lawyers and ORG on the independence of judges and lawyers originating from or pertaining to the period DATE .","A number of relevant international instruments and reports concerning the situation in GPE are summarised , for example , in the ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases of PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) , and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE , with further references ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148291","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PE\u010cENKO v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed and semi - open sections of GPE prison .","In the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in the closed section : for DATE in cell CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) shared with CARDINAL other inmates and with QUANTITY of personal space and for DATE in cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . The Government submitted that in cell CARDINAL the number of prisoners varied CARDINAL and when there were CARDINAL prisoners therein the applicant had QUANTITY of personal space .","In the period DATE and CARDINAL DATE he was held in the semi - open section in cell CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) shared with CARDINAL other inmates and with QUANTITY of personal space and cell CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) shared with CARDINAL other inmates and with QUANTITY of personal space .","As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the closed and semi - open sections , 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 , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , 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 \u00a7 DATE ) .","As to the out - of - cell time in the semi - open section , the ORG submitted that the cell doors in the semi - open section of the prison were unlocked , except from TIME ( on DATE and DATE from TIME ) until TIME ( on DATE , DATE and during holidays until TIME ) . During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor ( QUANTITY ) , living quarters of co - prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas , in accordance with prison rules . The Government contended that this regime had been in place for DATE .","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 ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168855","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BORISENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . In applications nos . CARDINAL and ORG , the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144107","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BINI\u015eAN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","A private exporting company ( \u201c company E \u201d ) had concluded a contract with FAC of ORG ( PERSON CFR PERSON ) and another private company ( company M ) . The contract provided that company E could use an industrial railway track for the CARDINAL wagons put at its disposal by ORG in order to perform all the necessary operations , including customs inspections , for exporting its merchandise abroad .","On DATE , at TIME , GPE went to FAC with all the documents relating to the transportation of company E \u2019s merchandise , in order to have the station \u2019s stamp applied to them . When all the documents had been stamped , the manager of company E , together with GPE , went to ORG to ask for a customs inspector to carry out an inspection of the wagons and apply the required seals . The applicant was designated to carry out the customs inspection .","At TIME the applicant went with the manager of company ORG and GPE to FAC . They firstly went to the station \u2019s cash desk , where the manager of company E paid the taxes relating to the transportation of the merchandise and asked to have the consignment note ( CIM ) stamped . According to the statements of the manager of company E , GPE , and the applicant , an employee of ORG , GPE , went with them in order to show them where the wagons were .","At TIME , while he was on top of a wagon trying to apply the customs seals , the applicant was electrocuted . As a result of the accident , the applicant needed DATE of medical care . He suffered burns to PERCENT of his body .","In most of the official documents regarding the accident , such as the report of the investigation commission of DATE , the decisions of the courts and the prosecutors , and a medical report drafted on DATE , it was stated that the applicant \u2019s life was at risk . For DATE he was in a deep coma in a hospital in GPE . Because of the severe burns he had serious breathing difficulties and had to undergo multiple skin grafts .","Following a decision by ORG on DATE , the applicant was classed as permanently disabled .","QUANTITY police officers attended at the scene of the accident and drafted a preliminary on - the spot report on DATE .","A special commission composed of experts from ORG , ORG ( PERSON Interjude\u021bean\u0103 PERSON ) and ORG of ORG was set up to investigate the accident . The commission started its investigation on DATE , DATE after the accident .","According to the report drafted by the commission , which was completed on DATE , the accident had occurred because of the improper organisation of the procedure for inspecting the merchandise . It stated that there were several concurrent causes which had led to the applicant \u2019s accident .","The report stated that the receipt of the wagons by company E from ORG had not been effected in accordance with the framework agreement signed on DATE by FAC and company M , or with the document entitled \u201c Declara\u021bie \u201d signed by company M , company E and ORG . According to a final decision of DATE , delivered in criminal proceedings , this last document was signed after the accident occurred , but the manager of ORG back - dated it ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The report also stated that health and safety regulations had not been observed and the applicant \u2019s employer had not ensured that he was properly trained for performing his duties on the railway tracks .","The report concluded that the following were responsible for the accident : ( i ) the manager of company E because he had not organised the customs inspection and had not complied with the above - mentioned agreement ; ( ii ) the applicant because he had not complied with the rules for carrying out the inspection ; ( iii ) the applicant \u2019s superior for not training him on the applicable safety regulations , and ( iv ) company E , also for not training its employees properly .","ORG raised certain objections in respect of the report . It insisted that the report mention that the applicant had gone up onto the wagon only after PERSON , an employee of ORG , had assured him that there was no danger of an accident ( a reference to the statements of ORG and the manager of company E , who had been present when the accident occurred ) .","It also pointed out that the applicant had undergone training on DATE .","Finally , it contended that an analysis of the documents and the statements of the witnesses present at the incident showed that the accident had occurred because ORG had not observed Order no . CARDINAL of DATE , which set out the health and safety regulations for the rail transport industry .","At the end of the investigation the special commission imposed administrative fines on company E and its manager for nonobservance of the applicable health and safety regulations .","Company E lodged a complaint seeking to have the fine cancelled , arguing that it had been under no legal obligation to train the applicant because he was not employed by them .","By a judgment of DATE LOC Court allowed the complaint and held that ORG should be held liable for the accident . Its reasoning was as follows : \u201c Demonstrating gross negligence , the representatives of ORG did not order the removal of the CARDINAL freight wagons to the industrial track \u201d . The industrial track was not electrified . The court continued its reasoning by stating that since ORG had agreed to transport the merchandise by presenting the necessary documents to the customs authority , it had become responsible for the operation . In accordance with decision TCARDINAL concerning the application to NORP territory of the common transit system for rail freight transport , ORG was required , among other obligations , to ensure appropriate conditions for a safe customs inspection . The court concluded that by leaving the CARDINAL freight wagons on high voltage railway tracks without informing all the persons involved in the customs inspection , ORG had failed to fulfil that obligation .","NORP The special commission also imposed a fine on the manager of company E on the ground that he had not taken the necessary steps to ensure the safety of the customs inspection , and that although he had accompanied the applicant to the railway station he had not made a written request for the removal of the freight wagons from the electrified railway track .","NORP The manager lodged a complaint against the fine and , by a final judgment rendered on DATE , ORG allowed the complaint , holding that the manager had not been obliged to request the removal of the wagons from the electrified railway tracks . It also held that he could not have known that the tracks were electrified . Further , it stated that according to the framework agreement signed on DATE , the wagons should have been at track no . DATE , which was located outside the railway station , and that employees of ORG should have moved the wagons from the railway station to track no . CARDINAL . It concluded that the employee of ORG who had also been present at the customs inspection , FAC , had assured the applicant that he could perform his inspection even though the wagons were on an electrified track .","On DATE ORG asked the prosecutor \u2019s office to start a criminal investigation into whether the manager of company E could be held responsible for the accident . Accordingly , the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to FAC opened a preliminary investigation .","The applicant gave a statement before the prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE . He informed that he intended to claim compensation from the persons found responsible for the accident .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the prosecutor decided not to initiate a criminal investigation on the ground that the accident had been caused through the applicant \u2019s own fault . That decision was upheld by the chief prosecutor on DATE .","The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG . He contended that the investigation body had not managed to clarify the circumstances under which the accident had occurred and therefore it was necessary to hold a confrontation between all the witnesses who had given contradictory statements , and that a reconstruction of the accident scene would be useful . As to the presence of GPE , the employee of ORG , at the scene of the accident , even the statements of her own colleagues were contradictory . The applicant further maintained that without PERSON , who had accompanied them to track no . DATE , he and the manager of company E would not have been able to find the wagons to be inspected . The applicant also claimed that the warning sign on the wagons to be inspected had not been there at the time of the accident but had been placed there after the accident . In this connection , he pointed out that such a sign could not be seen in the photographs taken by the police officers who had examined the scene immediately after the accident . The sign appeared only in the photographs taken by ORG DATE after the accident .","On DATE the chief prosecutor dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint as unfounded . He held that the applicant alone was responsible for the accident because he had mounted the wagon while it was connected to live electricity without paying heed to the warning sign on the wagon and the framework agreement signed by ORG and the beneficiary ( company E ) . He dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegation that the warning sign had not been attached to the wagon on DATE of the accident , stating that the sign could not be seen from the angle at which the photographs had been taken on DATE . He also dismissed the applicant \u2019s request to have the witnesses reheard on the ground that their statements were not relevant in so far as they could not make any difference to the final conclusion .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with ORG , alleging that the staff of ORG were responsible for the accident . By a judgment of DATE the court allowed the complaint and sent the file back to the prosecutor \u2019s office for an expert report to be drafted and for it to be determined whether ORG , the employee of ORG who the applicant claimed had accompanied him to the freight train , bore any responsibility . The experts were to establish whether the railway tracks had been electrified when the applicant climbed onto the freight train on DATE of accident .","On DATE ORG allowed an appeal on points of law lodged by the prosecutor \u2019s office and quashed the judgment of DATE on the ground that on the basis of Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , the first - instance court could not remit the case to the prosecutor \u2019s office for further investigation . Consequently , the file was sent back to ORG for fresh examination .","On DATE FAC dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint and upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision not to initiate a criminal investigation . It held that none of ORG employees had been responsible for the applicant \u2019s accident . In this connection , it found that according to the statements given by PERCENT \u2019s colleagues , she had not accompanied the applicant , ORG and the manager of company E to the freight train . It also stated , however , that the customs inspection should have been carried out at track no . CARDINAL and not at track no . CARDINAL . It concluded that the applicant alone was responsible for the accident because he had not paid heed to the warning sign on the wagon and the framework agreement signed by ORG and company E.","The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the manager of ORG for forgery of a document called \u201c Declara\u021bie \u201d , submitted to the special commission while it was carrying out its investigation into the accident . The document was in fact an agreement signed by ORG , company E and company M stipulating that customs inspections of merchandise should be carried out only at track no . CARDINAL ( which was not electrified ) . The applicant stated that the manager had drafted it and asked the managers of the CARDINAL other companies to sign it immediately after the applicant \u2019s accident ( on DATE ) , but had given DATE as the date of signing .","After repeated decisions not to initiate criminal proceedings delivered on DATE , DATE and DATE , on DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to LOC Court indicted the manager of ORG for abuse of office , forgery and the use of forged documents , and sent his file to LOC .","By a judgment of DATE , LOC Court found the manager guilty as charged . It held that he had drafted the agreement in order to protect his company from liability for the applicant \u2019s accident . The subsequent appeal and appeal on points of law were dismissed as unfounded by ORG and ORG on CARDINAL April and DATE respectively .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for judicial review of the criminal judgment rendered on DATE by FAC . He claimed that there were new elements which could prove the guilt of ORG in respect of the events which had led to his accident . In this connection he relied on the final decision of LOC of DATE , by which the manager of ORG had been found guilty of the forgery of the document entitled \u201c Declara\u021bie \u201d which had been used as evidence in the criminal proceedings relating to the applicant \u2019s accident . He also applied for CARDINAL new witnesses to be heard on the question of whether PERSON had been present when the accident occurred .","The applicant argued that that document had played a decisive role in the conclusions of the investigation commission , as well as in the decisions of the prosecutors and judges , as to liability for the accident .","ORG dismissed the application as inadmissible as it concerned a decision in which the court had not examined the merits of the case , and as unfounded because the new evidence referred to by the applicant did not de facto affect the facts established in the decision .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action before FAC seeking compensation in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . He claimed damages from ORG and M.M on account of their negligence in the organisation of the customs inspection . He stressed that because of the accident he had had to undergo expensive surgical interventions and had been classed as permanently disabled .","On DATE ORG dismissed an objection of res judicata raised by the defendants . It held that the criminal decision of DATE had not examined the civil liability of the defendants but only their criminal liability . The court noted that although the evidence concerning ORG presence at the scene of the accident was not conclusive , ORG employee should nevertheless be held liable because she had not fulfilled her professional duties . The court further noted that , according to CARDINAL of ORG colleagues who had occupied the same position as FAC , and to her job description ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) , it had been ORG duty to handle the customs documentation for the customs agent and also to supervise the shunting of the relevant wagons in the railway station . The court also found that under the applicable law on the application of the common transit system in GPE , ORG had been obliged to be actively involved in the customs inspection of the wagons . However , the company had observed its obligations superficially through its employees . Thus , by applying the stamp to the CIM , the company employee had convinced the applicant and the manager of company E that everything was ready for inspection .","The court partly allowed the applicant \u2019s action , held that both the applicant , ORG and FAC were equally responsible for the accident , and ordered the defendant company and FAC to pay CARDINAL the damages claimed .","The defendant company appealed and the appeal was allowed by ORG on DATE . It quashed the judgment of the first - instance court , holding that the de facto situation had already been established by a final decision of a criminal court , and had thus acquired the authority of res judicata before the civil courts .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant .","Order no . CARDINAL of DATE sets out the health and safety regulations for the rail transport industry . Article CARDINAL provides that the regulations are compulsory and that they must be communicated to the interested persons by local labour inspectorates . They are not published in ORG .","Article CARDINAL of the Order prohibits the inspection , application of seals or carrying out of any work on the upper parts of a wagon while the train is on electrified tracks .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides that all specified preventive steps must be taken when operations presenting a danger of electrocution are performed .","The CIM is a standardised document for the cross - border transport of cargo by rail , based on ORG recommendations for uniform international rules and in use in ORG ( ORG ) . CIM stands for ORG concernant le transport des Marchandises par chemin de fer , the NORP name for the LAW that governs its definitions and application .","The TCARDINAL procedure concerns the movement of non - ORG goods when customs duties or other import taxes are involved .","According to LAW , which sets out a common transit procedure , a railway company which accepts goods for carriage under cover of a CIM consignment note serving as a common transit declaration shall be the principal for that operation .","Criminal proceedings in GPE are regulated by LAW and based on the principles of legality and officialness . Prosecution is mandatory when reasonable suspicion exists that a criminal offence subject to mandatory prosecution has been committed ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141635","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ALEKSANDR VLADIMIROVICH SMIRNOV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was stopped by the police at a bus station in GPE , GPE , and detained in a holding facility for vagrants ( \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0439\u043c\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a-\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0440\u043e\u0437\u043f\u043e\u0434\u0456\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a ) on the grounds that he had no identity documents with him .","According to the applicant , he was detained and held alternately in the aforementioned facility and the ORG , ORG and GPE police detention facilities until DATE , and was questioned off the record about his alleged involvement with a terrorist group plotting to instigate a revolt to reinstate a NORP state . During those question sessions the applicant was beaten and tortured .","According to the documents on file , on DATE the applicant was examined by PERSON , a medical specialist of the GPE holding facility for vagrants , who noted that he had no bodily injuries . Subsequently ( on DATE ) the applicant was taken to PERSON and placed in the police temporary detention facility , where he stayed until DATE . On the date of his arrival the applicant was examined by PERSON , a medical expert , who recorded no bodily injuries and noted that the applicant had made no complaints of ill - treatment .","On DATE and DATE the LOC police questioned the applicant as a witness in connection with unidentified proceedings . During those interviews the applicant explained to the police that he was a member of a NORP - based non - governmental organisation , \u201c Z. \u201d , which advocated rights for political prisoners and propagated communist political views . He and CARDINAL other members of PERSON had been commissioned to come to GPE to distribute their newspaper , NORP rabochikh deputatov , and other materials , participate in public activities organised by opposition political forces in GPE , and promote networking with local leftist groups .","On DATE the applicant participated in a confrontation with ORG , a ORG resident , who confirmed having communicated with the applicant \u2019s associates and having received the NORP rabochikh deputatov newspaper .","On DATE the applicant addressed a handwritten statement to investigator PERSON of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in GPE , in which he confessed , in particular , that he had been distributing the NORP rabochikh deputatov newspaper and other printed materials in GPE and that he , with CARDINAL other members of the communist movement , of which he was a member , had blown up a rubbish bin near the ORG headquarters in GPE in DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in PERSON on suspicion of a terrorist offence and was subsequently remanded in custody following a court order . It appears from the arrest report drafted on DATE that the applicant , who had been notified of his right to legal assistance upon his arrest , expressed the wish to consult a lawyer before his first questioning .","At TIME on DATE the applicant signed CARDINAL documents confirming that he understood his rights as a suspect , and also that he wished to consult a lawyer . Subsequently ( at TIME ) , the applicant signed a statement of consent to be questioned by an ORG officer without a lawyer . During that questioning the applicant reiterated his earlier statements and provided further details concerning his acquaintance and encounters with various activists of the communist movement in GPE and GPE .","On DATE V.V. , a lawyer engaged by the applicant \u2019s mother , was admitted to the proceedings as his defence counsel .","On DATE the applicant was indicted for membership of a terrorist group and participation in a terrorist act . Questioned in GPE \u2019s presence , the applicant confessed to some of the charges against him . In particular , he confirmed his affiliation with the communist movement and participation in political opposition activities , but denied taking part in the rubbish bin explosion or any terrorist activity . Citing his right to remain silent , the applicant refused to explain why his statements differed from those he had given previously .","On DATE the applicant requested that GPE be replaced by GPE , a new lawyer engaged by his mother . This request was granted on DATE .","In DATE the applicant was transferred to the GPE no . CARDINAL pre - trial detention facility , as the investigation of the case had been transferred to the Odessa ORG .","On various occasions in DATE the applicant , with his consent , was questioned in GPE in the absence of GPE , whose practice was in GPE . When questioned the applicant sometimes refused to answer questions , citing his right to remain silent , and at other times responded to the questions asked , either confirming or modifying his previous submissions .","On DATE the investigation was completed , and the applicant , along with CARDINAL other individuals implicated in affiliation with a criminal association which had engaged in a number of robberies and other crimes committed on behalf of their organisation with a view to reinstating a communist state , was committed to stand trial before LOC ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) acting as a first - instance court .","On DATE the applicant and his lawyer PERSON signed an affidavit that they had finished studying the case file . On DATE GPE requested that the case be remitted for a further investigation , alleging that numerous substantive and procedural - law provisions had been breached . He submitted , in particular , that the applicant had been unlawfully detained and tortured DATE , with the aim of extracting self - incriminating statements from him , in breach of his right to mount a defence .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the case refused this request . He noted in particular that , as indicated in the materials in the file , the applicant had been arrested only on DATE , and no investigative activities had been carried out involving him before that date . Nor had he complained of any ill - treatment .","The applicant \u2019s trial began in DATE .","During the trial , the applicant pleaded not guilty to all the charges . He admitted that he was acquainted with his co - defendants as members of the pro - communist network and fellow distributors of the NORP rabochikh deputatov newspaper and various communist propaganda material in GPE . At the same time he denied being involved in the rubbish - bin explosion imputed to him , and also denied all knowledge of any involvement by his co - defendants in any type of criminal activity . The applicant also submitted that he had been unlawfully detained between CARDINAL and DATE , and had made false self - incriminating statements as a result of ill - treatment by the investigating authorities . The medical staff of the detention facilities in which he had been held had refused to record his bodily injuries . He had not lodged any relevant complaints at the beginning of the investigation , as he had feared reprisals .","After the death of PERSON , one of the applicant \u2019s co - defendants , during the trial proceedings , the applicant and his co - defendants demanded an investigation of the circumstances of his death , alleging that it had resulted from torture and that they had also been subjected to ill - treatment during the investigation . Following the investigation , the prosecutor \u2019s office reported to ORG that PERSON had died of cancer and that there had been no ill - treatment case to answer with respect to either the applicant or his co - defendants .","On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh complaint with ORG , alleging that he had been ill - treated by NORP police officers in DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant \u2019s allegations . It was noted in the text of the relevant decision , in particular , that the officers questioned had acknowledged that the applicant had been detained in their charge from DATE as an arrestee under investigation . However , those officers had stated that they had neither ill - treated him , nor received any complaints from him concerning ill - treatment by third parties . It was also noted in the decision that the ORG explanations had been consistent with the explanations by the medical expert who had examined the applicant on DATE .","On an unspecified date , ORG \u2019s engagement having been terminated , PERSON was appointed as the applicant \u2019s new lawyer . On several occasions the applicant complained in court about PERSON \u2019s performance , offering to replace her with his mother as his lay defence representative and with some other individuals . These requests were refused by the court on the basis of various procedural provisions , the applicant having been instructed to engage a competent licensed lawyer to replace PERSON as a condition for her being dismissed .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of affiliation with a criminal association plotting reinstatement of a NORP state in GPE by violent means , distribution of the NORP rabochikh deputatov newspaper , whose articles were found to propagate the ideas of such a violent revolt , and participation in a terrorist act ( the aforementioned rubbish bin explosion ) . In the text of its judgment , the court referred to an extensive array of evidence , including the applicant \u2019s statements given on CARDINAL and DATE . The court noted that those statements were consistent with other evidence , and that there was no indication that they had been extracted by ill - treatment or otherwise in defiance of the applicant \u2019s will or in breach of his procedural rights . They therefore had to be preferred over the applicant \u2019s submissions at the trial . Finally , the court sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , with effect from DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against his conviction , in which he reiterated the submissions he had made during the trial and complained , in particular , that his right to mount a defence had been breached and that the statements he had made at the investigation stage in the absence of a lawyer should be excluded from the evidential basis .","On DATE the applicant , represented by PERSON . , a new lawyer engaged by his mother , reiterated his position at an oral hearing before ORG .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s allegations of breaches of his procedural rights , and upheld his conviction for distribution of material promoting violent revolt and participation in a terrorist act . It also confirmed the applicant \u2019s sentence , having , however , dropped the charges of membership of the criminal association .","On several further occasions DATE the applicant and his mother complained to the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office and to other authorities that the applicant had been ill - treated by ORG officers and police , as well as by NORP security service officers who had purportedly questioned him in GPE concerning criminal acts committed in GPE . The applicant \u2019s and his mother \u2019s attempts to institute formal criminal investigations in connection with these allegations were to no avail .","In DATE the applicant was transferred to the PERSON no . ORG ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) , where he served his sentence until he was transferred to another detention facility in DATE .","On arrival the applicant was assigned to cell no . CARDINAL in the maximum security unit .","According to the applicant , the conditions of his detention therein were incompatible with human dignity . In particular , the cell , which measured QUANTITY , accommodated from CARDINAL inmates , confined to it all day except for an TIME \u2019s DATE exercise in the outside courtyard . Notwithstanding the general prohibition , many inmates smoked in the cell , which was not equipped with artificial ventilation . As a result , the applicant suffered severely from the effects of passive smoking , while the administration refused his requests for transfer to another cell or for installation of an electric fan his mother had offered to provide . Opening a window to let in some fresh air was problematic , particularly in DATE , as with the poor heating the temperature in the cell went down to QUANTITY . In addition , the windows , which had non - transparent panes of glass , barely let in daylight . With CARDINAL small electric bulbs , artificial light was also very poor . As a result , it was very difficult to read or write in the cell . The food was also inadequate . To support the applicant \u2019s nutritional needs his mother had to send in regular food parcels , containing such basic products as tea , pasta , cereals and canned meat and vegetables . In support of his allegations , the applicant presented copies of lists of food items sent in by his mother . He also presented copies of his and his mother \u2019s appeals to the prosecutor \u2019s office and other authorities , in which they requested that the applicant be moved to a non - smoking cell or at least that the use of an electric fan be permitted . They also requested that other matters , in particular , the catering , lighting and heating arrangements be inspected and improved .","According to the ORG , the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention were fair . In particular , the applicant \u2019s cell , which measured QUANTITY , was equipped to accommodate CARDINAL inmates only , which ensured sufficient personal space per detainee . It had windows allowing access to daylight and fresh air . It was also equipped with electric light of sufficient brightness , and had artificial ventilation in the sanitary facility . The heating functioned adequately and the temperature in the cell was always CARDINAL . Smoking was allowed only in the courtyards , and meals provided to detainees were sufficient and properly balanced to meet their nutritional needs . Following the applicant \u2019s and his mother \u2019s complaints , the prosecutor \u2019s office had inspected the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention and found them to be in accordance with applicable domestic regulations .","According to the applicant , he was deprived of any medical care during his detention in LOC . In particular , in DATE he requested a full medical examination , as he was suffering from constant fatigue , periodic pain in the kidney area , oedema , headaches and chest pain . This request received no response . In DATE he was also refused treatment for chronic dental decay , as the medical unit lacked funding to obtain the necessary supplies . It was only in DATE , after his mother had procured the necessary supplies at her own expense , that the applicant received the treatment . In addition , on many occasions the applicant \u2019s mother sent in parcels containing other basic medicines and supplies , such as antiseptics , activated carbon , adhesive plasters and vitamins , purchased at her own expense .","According to the Government , the medical assistance available to the applicant in LOC was adequate . The applicant underwent a medical check - up upon his arrival and subsequently benefitted from semi - annual ( spring and autumn ) checkups . Specifically , he received check - ups on DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE . During these check - ups the applicant was also X - rayed for tuberculosis screening . In DATE the applicant also had blood and urine samples taken for laboratory testing . The results of all these screenings indicated that the applicant \u2019s health was in general satisfactory .","The Government also provided records , according to which in DATE the applicant had been examined by a dental specialist , who recommended non - urgent treatment for his chronic dental decay , and notified that the appropriate supplies were not available at the ORG \u2019s medical unit at that time . In DATE , the necessary supplies having been procured by the applicant \u2019s mother , he received the treatment ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178342","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF AKHLYUSTIN v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the relevant time the applicant was a member of the LOC electoral commission .","On DATE a deputy head of ORG ordered audio - visual \u201c surveillance \u201d ( \u201c \u043d\u0430\u0431\u043b\u044e\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u201d ) of the applicant \u2019s office . The parties did not submit a copy of that decision .","The surveillance was carried out from DATE to CARDINAL DATE by means of a hidden camera .","The applicant was subsequently charged with abuse of power , an offence under LAW . While studying the criminal case file he discovered that it contained video recordings of him talking on the telephone in his office .","At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty . He claimed , in particular , that the video recordings were inadmissible as evidence as they had been obtained unlawfully without prior judicial authorisation . He also challenged the authenticity of the recordings .","On DATE ORG of PERSON convicted the applicant of abuse of power and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE . The court relied on statements by several witnesses , physical evidence , expert reports and the video recordings of the applicant \u2019s telephone conversations . It found that the video recordings were authentic and that they had been obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law .","NORP The applicant appealed . He reiterated , in particular , his argument that the video recordings were inadmissible as evidence .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal . The court held that ORG had correctly declared the video recordings admissible as evidence because they had been obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159882","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF M.R.A. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Afghanistan);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Expulsion)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The first and second applicants are a married couple who were born in DATE and DATE . The third , fourth and fifth applicants are their children , a daughter and CARDINAL sons who were born in DATE and DATE .","The first CARDINAL applicants entered the GPE on DATE and applied for asylum . In the course of the proceedings on this asylum application , the first and second applicants were both interviewed by the GPE immigration authorities on , inter alia , their reasons for seeking asylum .","The first applicant gave the following account to the immigration authorities . He had become a member of ORG of GPE ( \u201c the PDPA \u201d ) in DATE . During his studies he had volunteered for guard duties at the ORG headquarters in GPE \u2019s fifth district . He had been charged with guarding homes against possible mujahideen attacks and checking traffic at intersections for illegal weapons .","NORP In order to avoid being sent to the front during his compulsory military service the first applicant had , upon graduating as a construction engineer from ORG , voluntarily reported for duty in DATE to the security battalion of ORG in PERSON Now , a neighbourhood in GPE . After working there for DATE , the first applicant had requested a transfer to GPE \u2019s PERSON prison , where working conditions were better as they were indoors . The first applicant had been stationed in block CARDINAL , where political prisoners were detained . With CARDINAL other colleagues he had been responsible for guarding the block . He had had no contact with the CARDINAL prisoners for whom he had been responsible . His tasks had comprised cell patrol and occasional transport to hospital of prisoners who had fallen ill . He had never witnessed any illtreatment or torture by the NORP authorities of prisoners in that period . He had only once witnessed the ill - treatment of a prisoner , by a \u201c bashi \u201d ( leader ) .","After DATE the first applicant had applied for a transfer , which had been granted by the deputy head of the NORP security service ORG Dowlati \/ PERSON Dowlati ( \u201c ORG \/ WAD \u201d ) . At DATE the first applicant had started as a construction engineer within the ranks of ORG , which position he had held until DATE , when the mujahideen ended the ORG \u2019s communist regime in GPE . The first applicant had been employed in the buildings department of ORG of ORG , which had been renamed ORG in DATE . For this department \/ ORG the first applicant and his team of CARDINAL construction workers had constructed CARDINAL buildings for ORG , including an office building for ORG \u2019s FAC . He had also been responsible for the construction of CARDINAL ammunition depots .","The first applicant had initially declared to the GPE authorities that the highest military rank he had attained was that of lieutenant - colonel , which he later changed to major . He further stated that he had been decorated CARDINAL times for his achievements .","The first applicant had also been involved in the distribution of party propaganda , delivered to him by ORG of his ORG , with which he also had meetings DATE . In addition , he had organised courses for illiterate labourers .","After the fall of the ORG regime in DATE the applicants had fled to ORG , where the first applicant had continued to work as a construction engineer for the municipality until DATE . On DATE after the ORG had taken control of FAC \u2013 the applicants\u2019 home had been raided and searched by CARDINAL armed ORG fighters , who had found , inter alia , the first applicant \u2019s PDPA identity card , some of his medals , and a bayonet . On the suspicion that the applicants had been keeping weapons in their home , the ORG had arrested the first applicant and his brother .","The first applicant had been incarcerated for DATE and had been questioned several times , during which he had disclosed in detail his past career in the ORG . A nephew or cousin of the first applicant had bribed the ORG commander concerned in order to obtain the applicant \u2019s release , which had been successful but on condition that the first applicant left GPE immediately . On TIME of his release , he was supposed to be executed . A number of his fellow detainees had indeed been executed , and according to the records , so was he \u2013 it was only because of the deal that had been struck with the commander that he had been secretly led away .","The first applicant further told the immigration authorities that he had heard from CARDINAL of his relatives in GPE that another nephew or cousin , who had also been a member of the ORG , had been killed in GPE in DATE by soldiers of ORG who were mujahideen or ORG .","NORP In support of her request for asylum , the second applicant submitted the following account . She had studied educational theory in GPE , after which she had been employed as a teacher at a high school in GPE from DATE . She had joined the women \u2019s organisation of the PDPA at the same time as taking up her duties as a teacher . She had stopped working when her first child was born . Out of fear of the mujahideen she had refrained from seeking employment during the time the family lived in GPE . She had once been beaten on the street for wearing a burka that was judged too short . This had occurred at the time her husband was incarcerated by the ORG . According to the second applicant , her husband had been ill - treated and subjected to forced labour during his incarceration .","After the first applicant had been interviewed on his asylum application , on DATE and DATE and DATE , the Deputy Minister of Justice ( ORG ) issued on DATE a notice of her intention ( voornemen ) to reject the first applicant \u2019s asylum application and to hold LAW against him . The applicant \u2019s asylum claim had been considered in the light of , inter alia , an official report ( ambtsbericht ) , drawn up on DATE by ORG on \u201c ORG in NORP GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ( \u201c PERSON in communistisch GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG en WAD \u201d ; ORG ) and concerning in particular the question whether , and if so which , former employees of those services should be regarded as implicated in human rights violations . On the basis of this report , the GPE immigration authorities had adopted the position that LAW could be held against virtually every NORP asylum seeker who , with the rank of third lieutenant or higher , had worked during the communist regime for the ORG or its successor the ORG . In the notice of intent , the Deputy Minister analysed , on the basis of elaborate argumentation based on various international materials , the nature of the acts imputed to the first applicant in the framework of LAW as well as his individual responsibility under LAW .","Having regard to the official country report of CARDINAL DATE as well as documentation from public international sources such as ORG , ORG , the Deputy Minister emphasised the widely known cruel character of the ORG , its lawless methods , the grave crimes it had committed such as torture and other human rights violations , and the \u201c climate of terror \u201d which it had spread throughout the whole of NORP society . The Deputy Minister considered that this \u201c climate of terror \u201d was also felt within the ORG itself . Staff members needed to prove their loyalty to the organisation on an almost DATE basis , and a failure to do so put them at risk of being removed from the ORG ; often this entailed death for the person concerned .","The Deputy Minister was of the opinion that the first applicant must have known of the criminal nature of the methods employed by the organisation where he had made a career . Furthermore , relying on the official report of CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy Minister excluded the possibility that the first applicant had remained ignorant of the cruel working methods of the ORG \/ WAD . She also did not attach credence to the first applicant \u2019s statement that he had not known of any atrocities committed in PERSON Prison , where he had performed guard duty for DATE . On this point , the Deputy Minister referred to a DATE report from ORG as well as to reports drawn up by ORG on this prison , from which it was obvious that PERSON was widely associated with heinous crimes .","The Deputy Minister noted in this respect that the first applicant had initially declared that he had witnessed the ill - treatment of a prisoner by an assistant interrogator . No value was attached to the fact that the first applicant had subsequently corrected this initial statement and had submitted that this had concerned an incident amongst detainees . The Deputy Minister considered that the first applicant had had every reason to change his statements into more favourable ones once he learned of the investigation against him to assess whether LAW applied to him . The Deputy Minister also noted that the first applicant \u2019s initial statements had been very detailed .","NORP The Deputy Minister further noted that the first applicant had been granted permission , after DATE of working as a guard in PERSON Prison , to be transferred to a department more suited to his professional profile . According to the Deputy Minister , this meant that the first applicant \u2019s loyalty must have been found proven beyond any doubt , considering that he had been given his position with the ORG after only a relatively short time in PERSON , that the new position opened up opportunities to be promoted to ( senior ) officer , and that it enabled the first applicant to enter and study several if not many of the ORG \u2019s buildings . The Deputy Minister concluded that there were serious reasons for considering that the first applicant had committed human rights violations , at least during his time in PERSON Prison .","Taking into account , inter alia , an anonymised official report drawn up by ORG on DATE ( DPC \/ AM CARDINAL ) , the Deputy Minister further found it highly implausible that during his DATE of experience as a construction engineer for the ORG the first applicant would not have become aware of certain uses for which ORG buildings had been designed , or at least of to what use they had de facto been put . As torture was systemic in ORG interrogation centres , it should be considered impossible that persons belonging to the higher management of the ORG had not been involved in this or would have been unaware of it . By reaching the rank of lieutenant - colonel the first applicant had entered the higher echelons of the ORG \/ WAD . Further taking into account that the first applicant had been decorated for his achievements and that he had continued performing his duties until DATE of the communist regime , the Deputy Minister reached the conclusion that the first applicant \u2019s competence and loyalty must have been beyond doubt . Furthermore , due to the applicant \u2019s involvement with ORG , the Deputy Minister concluded that the first applicant must have been aware of human rights violations being committed . With reference to anonymised official reports of DATE ( DPC \/ AM DATE ) and DATE ( DPC \/ AM CARDINAL ) drawn up by ORG , the Deputy Minister considered as regards the political affairs departments that , in the relevant part , their main task had been to guarantee continued loyalty to the NORP communist regime by means of the reporting of dubious behaviour of individuals to the ORG . Political affairs departments cooperated closely with the ORG in providing them with information .","These considerations led the Deputy Minister to conclude that the first applicant \u2019s personal participation in the human rights violations attributed to ORG was an established fact . Considering the reputation of PERSON Prison and the first applicant \u2019s denial of any human rights violations , the Deputy Minister could not attach any credence to the first applicant \u2019s statements . She found that the first applicant had failed in making plausible ( aannemelijk maken ) DATE on the basis of objective sources or any other means \u2013 his stated ignorance of human rights violations by the ORG \/ WAD . In terms of the first applicant \u2019s activities for the ORG , the Deputy Minister considered that the first applicant had , for a long time , been of service , albeit in an accessory capacity , to the ORG , and that it would thus not have been able to perform its tasks without the first applicant \u2019s efforts . The Deputy Minister also found that the first applicant had supported the activities of ORG ; although this department had not committed any atrocities itself , it had been an important element in the ORG apparatus .","The first applicant submitted written comments ( zienswijze ) on the notice of intent on DATE .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister rejected the first applicant \u2019s asylum application , confirming the reasoning as set out in her notice of intention of DATE and rebutting the first applicant \u2019s written comments . Disagreeing with the first applicant , she considered that the official report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) which to a great extent lay at the basis of her decision , could not be seen as an isolated document , but rather as the product of thorough research based on objective sources . The Deputy Minister attached more credence to the report than the first applicant \u2019s unfounded rebuttals .","The Deputy Minister further dismissed the first applicant \u2019s argument that he had been too remotely connected to the human rights violations attributed to specific departments of the ORG \/ WAD during his time as an engineer in that organisation . Relying on ORG \u2019s \u201c The Exclusion Clauses : Guidelines on their LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the official report of CARDINAL DATE , it was held in this respect that merely supporting an organisation like the ORG may in itself suffice to render applicable LAW .","The first applicant \u2019s appeal to ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE sitting in GPE was rejected on DATE . ORG analysed the first applicant \u2019s accountability for the impugned human rights violations on the basis of the prescribed and so - called \u201c personal and knowing participation \u201d test .","As regards the \u201c knowing \u201d element , ORG held that the Deputy Minister had not erred in imputing knowledge of the human rights violations committed by ORG to the first applicant in the way she had . In this context ORG found that the official reports issued by ORG , which lay to a great extent at the basis of the Minister \u2019s decision , had been drafted in an unbiased manner , were accurate and objective , and provided the required insight in the relevant information , and therefore that the Minister had been entitled to rely on them . It further found that the first applicant had failed to furnish adequate evidence in support of his allegation that the official report of CARDINAL DATE was inaccurate and that it could not be assumed that he had knowledge of the human rights violations committed in PERSON Prison .","As regards the first applicant \u2019s personal participation in human rights violations attributed to the ORG , ORG reiterated that according to codified policy DATE LAW ( Vreemdelingencirculaire DATE ) \u2013 this notion included , besides personal commission of the impugned human rights violations by the person concerned , the facilitation of the said crimes . Facilitation was defined as a substantial positive effect by means of the person \u2019s conduct on how these crimes had been committed , or a lack of such conduct in preventing these crimes from being committed . ORG found that the first applicant had facilitated the human rights violations committed by the ORG \/ WAD by having voluntarily chosen to work as a guard in ORG and his subsequent request DATE also made voluntarily \u2013 to start working for the NORP \/ WAD . In these circumstances ORG concluded that the first applicant had facilitated DATE and thus personally participated in \u2013 the human rights violations attributed to the ORG , despite his having been stationed in PERSON Prison as a conscript rather than as a professional soldier .","Considering that LAW did not guarantee a right of residence , ORG also dismissed the first applicant \u2019s argument that the Deputy Minister had erred by not examining his asylum account under that provision .","The first applicant lodged a further appeal with ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) , which quashed ORG judgment on DATE . As regards ORG finding in relation to LAW held that the Deputy Minister should , wherever possible , avoid creating a situation in which an asylum seeker is refused a residence permit but can not be expelled to his \/ her country of origin for reasons based on LAW . For that reason , the decision should demonstrate that the Deputy Minister had examined whether LAW would lastingly ( duurzaam ) stand in the way of expulsion to the country of origin and of the possible consequences for the residence situation of the person concerned . This , the ORG found , the Deputy Minister had failed to do in the present case , for which reason it quashed ORG judgment and remitted the case to the Deputy Minister \u2019s successor , the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON Integratie ) for a fresh decision .","The first applicant was once more interviewed by the immigration authorities on DATE , after which , on DATE , the Minister issued the first applicant with a notice of her intention to reject his asylum application . The Minister reached the same conclusions , based in the relevant part on the same grounds , as the Deputy Minister had reached in her notice of intent of DATE and subsequent decision of DATE in relation to the first applicant \u2019s knowing and personal participation in human rights violations attributed to his former employer \u2013 the NORP \/ WAD \u2013 and consequent application of LAW against him . The Minister to a large extent used as a basis for her notice a book by a Professor Dr. PERSON entitled \u201c The Pulicharki Prison . A NORP Inferno in GPE \u201d . Prof . PERSON had been detained in PERSON Prison for a considerable time during the period DATE .","As to LAW , the Minister considered , in so far as relevant , that the first applicant had not furnished the required substantial grounds in support of a stated real risk of treatment contrary to LAW in case of his expulsion to GPE . The first applicant \u2019s fear of the mujahideen , the ORG and\/or other armed groups not belonging to the Government persecuting the intellectual classes in GPE , based on the first applicant \u2019s background as a former ORG member and former employee of ORG , was dismissed by the Minister as based on mere suspicions . The Minister noted in this regard that the first applicant had declared , during the interview held with him on DATE , that he did not know of anyone specifically looking for him . It was further held that the killing of the first applicant \u2019s nephew or cousin by NORP State agents because of his past support of the communist regime did not constitute an individual fact or circumstance relevant to the first applicant \u2019s claim under LAW and that , furthermore , the source of the said information \u2013 a relative of the first applicant residing in GPE \u2013 was unreliable .","NORP The Minister made reference to an official report drawn up by ORG in DATE , according to which former NORP communists and those associated with the communist regime , including former ORG personnel , possibly ran a risk of human rights violations in GPE . She stressed , however , that this did not mean that every person meeting these criteria would run a risk of treatment contrary to LAW upon his \/ her return to GPE . The Minister underlined in this regard the fact that until DATE the first applicant had not experienced any problems caused by his membership of the PDPA , his past activities for the ORG , or his political convictions after the fall of the communist regime in DATE . The first applicant \u2019s argument that he would run a greater risk of kidnappings and robberies due to his fellow countrymen \u2019s perception of him as a rich person upon his return to GPE was dismissed as unfounded .","The first applicant submitted written comments on the notice of intent on DATE . By a decision of DATE , the Minister once more rejected his asylum application . The Minister fully endorsed the reasons for the rejection as set out in the notice of intent and , in addition thereto dismissing the first applicant \u2019s written comments held , in the relevant part , the following .","The first applicant had , inter alia , argued that block CARDINAL of ORG , where he had worked , had not fallen under the responsibility of the ORG \/ WAD and had been located in a separate building , hence away from the human rights violations allegedly committed in blocks CARDINAL and CARDINAL . The first applicant had relied on an ORG report in this regard . The Minister held that no support for such a distinction between blocks CARDINAL and CARDINAL on the one hand and block CARDINAL on the other in terms of the commission of human rights violations could be found in the literature and reports written about PERSON Prison . The first applicant also , unsuccessfully , advanced a number of inconsistencies in the book by Prof . PERSON .","With reference to ORG official report of CARDINAL DATE , the Minister dismissed the first applicant \u2019s claim that he had not been involved in human rights violations committed by the ORG , having regard to his position as a construction engineer in the said organisation . It was found that all officers of the ORG had been involved in its more sinister departments and hence were responsible for the interrogation , torture and execution of suspects . The Minister further considered that , pursuant to the case - law of ORG , she was entitled to rely on the official report as accurate and complete , and that this was not altered by the fact that other reports did not confirm certain findings reached in the official report .","As regards LAW , the first applicant had argued that when the Minister had held that the applicants had not experienced any problems in GPE DATE , she had failed to acknowledge that the applicants had been living in GPE , which had been a safe haven for former communists during that particular period of time . According to the first applicant , the Minister had also failed to acknowledge that he had experienced problems in DATE . He had further submitted that his brother had held a high position during the communist regime . The Minister , however , considered that none of these arguments constituted concrete and individual circumstances justifying the acceptance of the existence of a real risk of treatment contrary to LAW upon the first applicant \u2019s return to GPE .","The first applicant \u2019s appeal was rejected by ORG of The GPE sitting in \u2018 s - Hertogenbosch by judgment of DATE . Limiting itself to an analysis of the matter under LAW , ORG held that the first applicant had not sufficiently established that as a result of his membership of the ORG and past activities for ORG he would run a real and serious risk of treatment contrary to the said provision upon his return to GPE . The court underlined that the first applicant had declared , in an interview held with the immigration authorities on DATE , that nobody in GPE was specifically looking for him . Although the first applicant claimed that he had been detained by the ORG in the past , it had not been established that the ORG would still be looking for him or that he had remained an object of the ORG \u2019s negative attention . ORG emphasised in this regard that the first applicant \u2019s detention had taken place during a different political situation .","While ORG accepted that , as set out in an official report of ORG of DATE , individuals associated with the former NORP communist regime , including the ORG , ran a possible risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW upon their return to that country , it held that this did not mean that everyone associated with the former regime ran a real and serious risk of that nature . ORG noted that the first applicant \u2019s former position in ORG could not be regarded as one of the high posts mentioned in this official report . The killing of the first applicant \u2019s nephew or cousin and that the second applicant would have had a western lifestyle did not alter ORG finding either .","NORP The applicant \u2019s further appeal was rejected on DATE by ORG on summary reasoning . It found that the further appeal did not provide grounds for quashing the impugned ruling and that having regard to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) , no further reasoning was called for , as the arguments submitted did not raise any questions requiring determination in the interest of legal unity , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . No further appeal lay against this ruling .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG issued a notice of intention to declare the first applicant an undesirable alien entailing the imposition of an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) in accordance with article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( e ) of LAW , following the decision to hold LAW against him in the asylum procedure . This intention was not followed by an actual decision to impose an exclusion order .","The second applicant was interviewed by the immigration authorities on DATE and DATE . On DATE the Deputy Minister issued a notice of her intention to reject the second , third and fourth applicant \u2019s asylum application . The latter CARDINAL applicants , being minors , were included in the second applicant \u2019s application for asylum throughout the proceedings . In so far as relevant , it was held that the second applicant \u2019s motives for asylum were to a large extent dependent on the first applicant \u2019s motives . The first applicant \u2019s application having been rejected , the Deputy Minister considered that the second applicant \u2019s asylum claims were to be assessed on their own merits .","Referring to a Ministry of Foreign Affairs official report of DATE , the Deputy Minister held that there was no general rule for assessing the risk which family members of individuals sought by the ORG might run in GPE . As a rule of thumb , it could be assumed that such family members would only risk being detained by the ORG as a means of forcing the person concerned to report to the authorities if that person was present in GPE , or was at least suspected to be . Even if it was to be assumed that the first applicant was being sought by the ORG , he had not been in GPE since DATE and , by his own admission , was even believed by the ORG to have been executed . It was unlikely , therefore , that the second applicant would attract the ORG \u2019s attention on account of her husband \u2019s activities .","As regards the second applicant \u2019s claim that she had been threatened by the ORG during the search of the family house in GPE , the Deputy Minister considered that any threats uttered had rather been directed at the CARDINAL men \u2013 the first applicant and his brother DATE than at the women present . While it was regrettable that the second applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment after her burka had been judged to be of insufficient length , the Deputy Minister noted that this had been a single occurrence and that there were no indications that the ORG continued to have an interest in her .","As regards LAW the Deputy Minister considered that the second applicant had not advanced the required substantial grounds for believing that she would run a foreseeable , real and personal risk of treatment contrary to said provision . The single incident about the burka was insufficient for the second applicant to be able to rely on LAW successfully . In this respect the Deputy Minister also had regard to the fact that the second applicant had lived under ORG rule for a relatively long period of time , but other than the aforementioned incident she had not reported any further occurrences relevant in terms of LAW .","The Deputy Minister , furthermore , considered that the second applicant was to be excluded from the so - called \u201c policy of protection for certain categories \u201d ( categoriaal beschermingsbeleid ) , in force for NORP nationals at that time . The Deputy Minister considered in this regard that the rejection of the asylum application of the second applicant \u2019s husband on the basis of LAW gave rise to a contraindication against the issuing of residence permits to his relatives , since the admittance of the second applicant and the applicants\u2019 children would in all likelihood bring about a protracted de facto stay in the GPE of the second applicant \u2019s husband .","The second applicant submitted written comments on the Deputy Minister \u2019s notice of intent on DATE . She was once more interviewed by the immigration authorities on DATE .","On DATE the Minister for ORG , the successor to the Deputy Minister , issued a fresh notice of his intention to reject the second applicant \u2019s asylum application , due to a relevant change of circumstances in GPE .","While endorsing the Deputy Minister \u2019s finding as to the existence of a contraindication against the second applicant , the Minister went on to consider that , pursuant to a ORG official report of DATE , the general situation in GPE no longer required the keeping in place of a categorial protection policy . Moreover , after the fall of the ORG regime , the second applicant no longer had a reason to fear persecution at their hands , and DATE as also appeared from the official report of CARDINAL DATE the position of women in NORP society had greatly improved . In this latter context , the Minister considered that gender in itself was not a conclusive factor in an assessment of the risk of persecution in GPE . It was for the second applicant to make a plausible case for believing that she had a well - founded fear of persecution on the basis of her personal circumstances , seen against the background of the general situation in GPE . It was found that she had failed to do so . In this context , the Minister held that the second applicant had always lived in major cities in GPE , where the situation for women had improved , as opposed to the situation in the countryside . The Minister saw no reason to assume that the second applicant , if expelled to GPE , would not again settle in a major city .","NORP The Minister further considered that the second applicant \u2019s membership of the women \u2019s organisation of the ORG , her husband \u2019s membership of the ORG , or his past activities for ORG were not reason enough in themselves to grant the second applicant asylum , since according to the aforementioned official report there were no indications that people had to fear persecution in GPE for the sole reason that they had previously had ties to the communist regime .","After receiving the second applicant \u2019s comments on this notice of intent , the Minister rejected the asylum application on DATE , adding that as the second applicant had not demonstrated that she was or had ever been the object of negative attention from the side of either the mujahideen or the ORG , she had failed to establish that she would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW in GPE .","The second applicant \u2019s appeal was rejected on DATE by ORG of the GPE sitting in \u2018 s - Hertogenbosch . It agreed with the Minister that the second applicant had failed to establish a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW if she was returned to GPE . Her further appeal to ORG was rejected on DATE on summary reasoning . No further appeal lay against this ruling .","On DATE the fifth applicant was born in the GPE to the first and second applicant .","On DATE , the first applicant submitted a fresh application for asylum and was interviewed on this new request on DATE . Following a notice of intention notified on DATE , this application was rejected by the Deputy Minister of ORG , again holding LAW against the first applicant . This decision became final after ORG of The Hague had rejected the first applicant \u2019s appeal on DATE , entailing that the first applicant was under an obligation to leave the GPE .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister for Security and ORG , noting that the first applicant had not left the GPE and cancelling the intention of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , issued a notice of intention to impose an entry ban ( inreisverbod ) for DATE on the first applicant . No information has been submitted whether this intention has been followed by an actual decision to impose an entry ban .","On DATE , also the second applicant had made a fresh asylum application , also on behalf of her minor children , namely the fourth and fifth applicants . Following a successful appeal to ORG of The GPE against the initial refusal of this request and on the basis of a new policy having entered into force on CARDINAL DATE ( ORG ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON ) granted on DATE the second , fourth and fifth applicant temporary residence permit for asylum purposes ( verblijfsvergunning asiel voor bepaalde tijd ) , valid from CARDINAL DATE until DATE . In the letter of CARDINAL DATE notifying this decision , the Minister stated in respect of the adult son ( the third applicant ) that , in so far as he wished to apply for asylum in reliance on the new policy ( ORG ) that there existed a contraindication , namely his criminal record in the GPE , which would be taken into account in the examination of a possible future application .","Also on DATE , the third applicant , who had come of age , had made an asylum application on his own behalf which was rejected on DATE by the Minister , who found that , given that he had been convicted twice in the GPE of acts of public violence , the third applicant presented a danger to public order . The Minister rejected the third applicant \u2019s argument that , being a westernised young man and given the deteriorated general security situation in GPE , he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW if removed to GPE . In so far as the third applicant relied on LAW , the Minister considered that it was open for the third applicant to apply for a residence permit on that basis . The third applicant \u2019s appeal against this decision was rejected on DATE by ORG of The GPE sitting in \u2018 s - Hertogenbosch . No information has been submitted as to whether he has sought to challenge the judgment of DATE by lodging a further appeal with ORG .","On DATE , the third applicant made another asylum application , which was rejected by the Minister on DATE . The third applicant \u2019s appeal and accompanying request for a provisional measure were rejected on DATE by the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE . To the extent that it was accepted that the fresh application was based on relevant newly emerged facts and circumstances ( \u201c nova \u201d ) warranting reconsideration of the initial rejection as required by CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) , the provisional - measures judge did not find that the third applicant qualified for asylum on the basis of the alleged deterioration in the general security situation in GPE or that , for this reason , he would be exposed to a real risk of treatment prohibited by LAW if he were removed to GPE . The provisional - measures judge also accepted the Minister \u2019s decision , given the third applicant \u2019s criminal record , not to grant him a temporary residence permit for asylum purposes on the basis of the Minister \u2019s decision of DATE to grant such a permit to the second , fourth and fifth applicant under the new policy which had entered into force on DATE . In so far as the applicant relied on LAW the judge considered that given the strict separation in the system under LAW CARDINAL between an asylum - based application for a residence permit and a regular application ( reguliere aanvraag ) for a residence permit , it was considered that , if the applicant wished to reside in the GPE on the basis of his family life within the meaning of LAW , he should make a regular application for a residence permit based on his rights under LAW . The provisionalmeasures judge lastly noted that , in the event that the GPE authorities proceeded with the third applicant \u2019s removal from the GPE , he could avail himself of legal remedies to challenge this . There is no indication in the case file that the third applicant availed himself of the opportunity to lodge a further appeal against this judgment with ORG .","On DATE , the third applicant made a regular application for a residence permit on the basis of his family life with his parents and siblings in the GPE . This application was rejected by the Minister on DATE . The Minister noted at the outset that the applicant did not hold the required provisional residence visa ( machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf ) . Such a visa entitles the holder to enter the GPE in order to apply for a residence permit for a stay exceeding DATE . The Minister further noted that the third applicant did not fall within CARDINAL of the defined categories of persons who are exempted from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa . As to the third applicant \u2019s reliance on LAW , the Minister noted that his mother and CARDINAL younger siblings held a temporary residence permit for asylum purposes and that his father held no residence permit . Although the Minister accepted that there was family life between the third applicant and each of his parents and his siblings , and that there were objective obstacles to the exercise of family life between the third applicant and his mother and siblings outside the GPE , the Minister did not find that there was a positive obligation under LAW grant the third applicant a residence permit on that basis . In reaching this finding , the Minister considered that a balance had to be struck between , on the one hand , the applicant \u2019s personal interests and , on the other , public interest considerations . The presence of an objective obstacle was a weighty but not necessarily a decisive factor in this balancing exercise , which also includes other factors such as the way in which family life was conducted in the country of origin , whether the minimum income requirements under the applicable immigration rules were met , public order considerations , and the situation in the country of origin . Noting that his father had been refused asylum because LAW had been held against him , and that no obstacle based on LAW for his removal to GPE had been found in the asylum proceedings , that the third applicant had been denied asylum on account of his criminal convictions in the GPE , that the third applicant was an adult , and that his submissions did not disclose that there would be \u201c more than normal emotional ties \u201d between his and his mother and siblings , that his mother and siblings lived separately from his father , and that the third applicant himself lived a wandering existence , staying occasionally with his mother and often with friends , and that also his ties with his father did not go beyond the normal ties between a parent and an adult son , the Minister concluded , in particular having regard to the third applicant \u2019s criminal record in the GPE , that public interest considerations outweighed the third applicant \u2019s personal interests . This decision also constituted a return decision ( terugkeerbesluit ) . The third applicant was informed that he was now under the obligation to leave the GPE within TIME , failing which he would be eligible for removal , and that the submission of an objection ( bezwaar ) to the decision would not have any suspensive effect .","The third applicant submitted an objection to this decision to the Minister and requested ORG of The GPE to issue a provisional measure allowing him to await the outcome of the objection proceedings in the GPE .","On DATE , the provisional - measures judge of ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE granted the third applicant \u2019s request for a provisional measure , finding that it did not appear that , in his assessment , the Minister had taken into account - given the \u201c guiding principles \u201d formulated in the judgments of ORG August CARDINAL in the case of GPE and DATE in the case of GPE - the duration of the third applicant \u2019s stay in the GPE , the nature and seriousness of the criminal offences of which the third applicant had been convicted , the time that had elapsed since these offences were committed and the third applicant \u2019s behaviour in that period , the social ties established by the third applicant in the GPE , and the possibility of return to GPE . Considering that the Minister had attached decisive weight to the third applicant \u2019s criminal record without looking into the nature and seriousness of the offences concerned and without indicating what weight had been given to the other relevant circumstances on the basis of the \u2018 guiding principles \u201d , the provisional - measures judge concluded that it could not be said that the objection would not have a reasonable chance of success . Consequently , the provisional - measures judge granted the provisional measure and suspended the Minister \u2019s decision of DATE pending the outcome of the objection proceedings .","No further information about these proceedings has been submitted ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178105","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"SCHEMBRI v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , Ms Concetta Schembri , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by Dr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG were represented by their Agent , Dr PERSON , Attorney General .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows :","In DATE , a NORP citizen of NORP origin , arrived irregularly in GPE by boat and was detained under the applicable immigration laws . While in detention , GPE , the applicant \u2019s brother , who worked with the detention services .","Following his release from detention in DATE , PERSON maintained contact with C. and started carrying out some maintenance work in the latter \u2019s house . S. eventually started living in that house in DATE and met the applicant , with whom he started a relationship . It appears that for some time the applicant also lived there while renovation work was being carried out in her own place . DATE wanted to marry the applicant , but she did not agree . According to the Government , the applicant and PERSON had only gone out together once and PERSON spoke little LANGUAGE ; however , during the domestic proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) , the applicant stated that she had originally got to know S. online and that after they had met they had sometimes gone out together \u2013 when asked whether their outings had been romantic she replied that they had been normal outings .","After some time , in DATE , once his asylum application ( at first instance ) had been rejected , PERSON entered GPE unlawfully and went to GPE . According to the applicant \u2019s testimony PERSON contacted the applicant around DATE by phone and the CARDINAL remained in contact via telephone calls around twice a week . An appeal against the asylum decision was never examined since PERSON could not be traced .","In DATE the applicant went to GPE on holiday and met PERSON again ; she then prolonged her stay . In DATE her brother and the latter \u2019s daughter joined them and on that occasion the applicant and PERSON decided to get married . According to the applicant she lived with PERSON for some time and then returned to GPE for DATE to GPE in DATE . The Government submitted that there was no evidence of their cohabitation .","On DATE the applicant married PERSON , who was DATE her junior , under the regime of separation of estates . The rest of the applicant \u2019s family ( save for C. ) was not informed . They married in GPE , GPE and their marriage was registered in ORG in DATE , given that CARDINAL of the spouses was a NORP national .","According to a declaration by CARDINAL NORP lawyers ( who had assisted the applicant ) dated DATE , to their knowledge the applicant and PERSON lived together before and after their marriage until they went abroad .","NORP In DATE the applicant and PERSON went to the NORP embassy in GPE in order to apply for a visa for S. He was interviewed in that connection . According to the applicant , following the interview S. was informed verbally that he would not be granted a visa to enter GPE . No written decision was issued nor was he informed about any possibility of appeal . The applicant alleged that it had been suggested to PERSON that he go back to GPE wherefrom he could apply for an entry visa . The embassy denied this ( during the domestic proceedings ) , their position being that his visa had been refused because during the interview it transpired that PERSON had been lying , in particular concerning the status of his stay in GPE and the means by which he had entered GPE , and his means of subsistence . In her testimony the Consul stated that she had consulted ORG in GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and submitted a report to this effect , and subsequently , on an unspecified date , a letter had been sent to PERSON rejecting his application .","In DATE the applicant went back to GPE to ask for a review of the decision taken by the embassy and to try to obtain a visa for her husband through ORG in GPE . She was informed that she had to write a letter to ORG outlining her request . She followed this instruction on DATE and then returned to GPE on DATE . She continued communicating with ORG , but no decision was communicated to her .","In DATE returned to GPE to try and obtain an entry visa from there . However , the NORP embassy in GPE could not provide assistance .","NORP In the meantime the applicant had returned to GPE and continued pursuing the application for an entry visa from there . She was sent from CARDINAL office to another to no avail . On an unspecified date , at a meeting with GPE and PERSON ( CARDINAL employees of ORG ) , the applicant , who referred to having met S. online , was told that if the visa were to be issued she would have to give personal guarantees with regard to the financial support of her husband . She accepted that responsibility . No attempts were made to contact PERSON and no decision ensued .","It appeared that an internal board had started to investigate the applicant \u2019s complaint . It also transpired that the authorities suspected that the applicant \u2019s marriage to PERSON had been one of convenience , which was why a visa would not be issued . Moreover , it appeared that PERSON \u2019s intention was to stay in GPE . ORG submitted their conclusions to the department of Citizenship but no decision had been formally issued by the time the proceedings hereinafter mentioned were instituted . In any event , according to the applicant , the law did not appear to provide for a possibility to appeal against any such decision ( unless it had been taken by ORG , which did not appear to be so in the present case ) .","On DATE the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining that the refusal to issue her husband a visa had been unlawful and had constituted a violation of LAW .","The court heard evidence from a number of witnesses including the applicant ( who reiterated the facts as mentioned above ) , but not PERSON , who did not testify .","J.M. , the director of ORG , stated that PERSON was an exempt person but that his status had not yet been confirmed . He explained that exempt status was an inherent right of a spouse of a NORP citizen , unless the spouses did not live together or if there had been an order by the Minister responsible . He explained that he had been in contact with ORG and the embassy in GPE and that his role was to ensure that the legislation was not abused , particularly in the light of marriages of convenience , which were not rare and which could be detected through an ORG which gave pointers on identifying such situations . He further testified that even with exempt - person status an individual could not automatically enter the country and a visa was still required . PERSON noted that the exempt - person status of PERSON had never been confirmed . At the same time he also stated that there was no application to be lodged , since an individual should not have to apply for something which belonged to him or her by right . He explained that there was an enquiry form requiring details of the exempt person and when this was filled in , a letter confirming the status would be sent out . However , PERSON stated that this was simply a formality because the exempt - person status was acquired as soon as the marriage was contracted . S. had never filled in this form , as he had never entered GPE following his marriage . Nevertheless , PERSON testified that an informal request had been made by the applicant , who had been accompanied by a lawyer .","M.S. , another employee of ORG , stated that PERSON \u2019s visa application had been refused but that there was a right of appeal \u2013 he later stated that it was not an appeal but a review or reconsideration . He declared that ORG had reviewed the case and decided that the application should be refused because there had been a suspicion that it had been a marriage of convenience . PERSON explained that the file had been sent to ORG and that the case had not yet been concluded , and no decision letter had been sent out .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim .","The court rejected the ORG \u2019s objection as to non - exhaustion of ordinary remedies . It considered that the reconsideration procedure as undertaken by ORG in the present case could not be considered an effective remedy \u2013 it had taken too long , despite ORG having had all the relevant information from the NORP embassy in GPE . Indeed ORG had had no reason to prolong issuing a decision , to the extent that it was never rendered . Furthermore , the procedure eventually came to a halt with the institution of the constitutional redress proceedings . Moreover , such a remedy was not independent of ORG since it was decided upon by the same unit . It followed that , having regard to the totality of the procedure and its ineffectiveness , the court had to exercise its constitutional competence to assess the merits of the complaint .","It also held that the applicant had had a juridical interest in lodging the complaint in her name , since her complaint was that as a result of the impugned actions or omissions , her own family life was being violated .","In connection with the merits , the court referred to the testimonies of the applicant , PERSON and PERSON and that the latter officials considered that PERSON needed a visa in order to enter GPE . This would have enabled him to apply for a residence permit and to travel in the LOC area .","The court noted that the couple had never cohabited in GPE , and that the applicant had never had the intention to marry PERSON when he had been in GPE . Referring to general principles of the ORG \u2019s case - law , it considered that the couple had never envisaged having a family life together , and why the applicant had changed her mind and decided to marry PERSON in GPE was a mystery . The court was not convinced that the applicant \u2019s decision to marry had been genuine \u2013 not once in her testimony had she declared her love for her husband , nor had she in the slightest touched on the level of intimacy she had with her husband , who was DATE her junior ; neither had she given an explanation about her change of mind , nor why she had not wanted to follow her husband to GPE . She had also admitted that she had not been living with her husband as he had been in GPE , thus implicitly admitting that she had been de facto separated . Thus , S. could not have expected to obtain exempt status , nor could it be said that there had been family life in the present case , and the authorities had simply applied the law . Furthermore , S. had shown a total disregard for the proceedings , having chosen not to submit any written testimony corroborating the applicant \u2019s statements or challenging those of the authorities . The court considered that it was not for it to decide whether there had been a marriage of convenience ; it sufficed to find that the authorities refusal to issue PERSON with a visa had not breached LAW .","The applicant appealed . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal .","It considered that when they had been in GPE the applicant and PERSON had not formed a family , and their encounters had been rather ambiguous , tenuous and lacking any commitment towards each other . The same appeared to be the case of their life in GPE . While it was true that they had married there , the only commitment undertaken appeared to have been for S. to acquire a visa . ORG pointed out that according to the ORG \u2019s case - law it was only genuine marriages undertaken according to law which were protected by LAW . While ORG was ready to accept that the marriage had been contracted according to law , it had to address the ORG \u2019s argument as to whether the marriage had been a genuine one .","ORG noted that the applicant had been aware of the precarious situation PERSON had been in ( since he had been a third country national , thus requiring a visa to enter GPE ) despite her claim that he had not required a visa . Nevertheless , PERSON had never instituted an ordinary remedy to challenge the refusal . It could not be ignored that the applicant had refused to marry PERSON when they had been in GPE , and had only changed her mind in GPE after DATE and despite the age difference between them . Their cohabitation in GPE had been temporary and they could not have aspired to making it permanent owing to a variety of reasons , specifically S. \u2019s irregular status in GPE , the applicant \u2019s refusal to follow him to GPE ( which she had not proved would have been problematic ) , and the visa refusals by the NORP authorities . Furthermore , the court was struck by the lack of commitment towards , and interest in the proceedings by PERSON , who had not even bothered to submit written testimony , or at least to attempt to send a letter or make use of letters of request or other means which were available to persons not on the territory of the ORG .","All the above led ORG to conclude that there had been no family life , within the meaning of LAW , in the present case and that therefore there had been no breach of the applicant \u2019s rights .","Part IV of LAW deals with \u201c LAW \u201d and requires all , except those with a right of entry and residence according to the provisions of the LAW , to obtain permission to enter GPE from ORG .","Part II of the LAW concerning \u201c FAC \u201d provides that Part LAW does not apply to exempt persons . The relevant provision , namely LAW ) reads as follows :","\u201c The provisions of Part IV of this Act shall not apply to any person -","( a ) who is a citizen of GPE ; or","...","( g ) who is the spouse of any person referred to in any of the foregoing paragraphs and is still married to and living with that person ; ... \u201d","The Act as applicable at the time of the present case provided , in its LAW ) , for a review of a decision only in limited circumstances . It read as follows :","\u201c Any person aggrieved by any decision of the competent authority under any regulations made under Part III , or in virtue of article CARDINAL , article DATE or article CARDINAL may enter an appeal against such decision and the ORG shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine such appeals . \u201d","For the purposes of comprehending the above , Part III of the Act concerns special provisions connected to ORG , Article CARDINAL concerns residence permits , LAW concerns removal orders and LAW concerns carriers . It follows that visas , which are dealt with in LAW ) of the LAW are in theory excluded from any available review according to this provision .","Nevertheless , Regulation CARDINAL of ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL provided , amongst its miscellaneous provisions , that \u201c Any person aggrieved by any decision of ORG may appeal to the [ ORG as provided for in article CARDINALA(CARDINAL ) of the LAW . \u201d","In DATE , the situation regarding visa appeals was clarified by means of LAW of DATE which reads as follows :","\u201c ORG has the competence to hear appeals related to the refusal , annulment or revocation of the visa with reference to the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL and paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of the Regulation ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of ORG and of the [ ORG ] Council of DATE establishing a Community Code on Visas ( Visa Code ) . \u201d","The time limit of such an appeal was DATE , eventually extended DATE by LAW of CARDINAL .","Article CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Any person who contracts a marriage with the sole purpose of obtaining -","( a ) NORP citizenship ; or","( b ) freedom of movement in GPE ; or","( c ) a work or residence permit in GPE ; or","( d ) the right to enter GPE ; or","( e ) the right to obtain medical care in GPE , shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding DATE .","( CARDINAL ) Any right or benefit obtained by a person convicted of an offence under subarticle ( CARDINAL ) on the basis of the marriage referred to in that subarticle ( CARDINAL ) may be rescinded or annulled by the public authority from which it was obtained .","( CARDINAL ) Any person who contracts a marriage with another person knowing that the sole purpose of such other person in contacting the marriage is CARDINAL or more of the purposes referred to in subarticle ( CARDINAL ) shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable for the same punishment laid down in subarticle ( CARDINAL ) . \u201d","Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the ( ORG ) Council Resolution of DATE read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . For the purposes of this resolution , a \u2018 marriage of convenience ` means a marriage concluded between a national of a Member ORG or a third - country national legally resident in a Member ORG and a third - country national , with the sole aim of circumventing the rules on entry and residence of third - country nationals and obtaining for the third - country national a residence permit or authority to reside in a Member ORG .","Factors which may provide grounds for believing that a marriage is CARDINAL of convenience are in particular :","- the fact that matrimonial cohabitation is not maintained ,","- the lack of an appropriate contribution to the responsibilities arising from the marriage ,","- the spouses have never met before their marriage ,","- the spouses are inconsistent about their respective personal details ( name , address , nationality and job ) , about the circumstances of their first meeting , or about other important personal information concerning them ,","- the spouses do not speak a language understood by both ,","- a sum of money has been handed over in order for the marriage to be contracted ( with the exception of money given in the form of a dowry in the case of nationals of countries where the provision of a dowry is common practice ) ,","- the past history of CARDINAL or both of the spouses contains evidence of previous marriages of convenience or residence anomalies .","In this context , such information may result from :","- statements by those concerned or by third parties ,","- information from written documentation , or","- information obtained from inquiries carried out .","Where there are factors which support suspicions for believing that a marriage is CARDINAL of convenience , Member GPE shall issue a residence permit or an authority to reside to the third - country national on the basis of the marriage only after the authorities competent under national law have checked that the marriage is not one of convenience , and that the other conditions relating to entry and residence have been fulfilled . Such checking may involve a separate interview with each of the CARDINAL spouses .","Should the authorities competent under national law find the marriage to be CARDINAL of convenience , the residence permit or authority to reside granted on the basis of the third - country national \u2019s marriage shall as a general rule be withdrawn , revoked or not renewed .","The third - country national shall have an opportunity to contest or to have reviewed , as provided for by national law , either before a court or before a competent administrative authority , a decision to refuse , withdraw , revoke or not renew a residence permit or authority to reside . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-165751","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF UP\u012aTE v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE a book called \u201c Kitchen of Litigation \u201d ( Ties\u0101\u0161an\u0101s k\u0101 \u0137\u0113\u0137is ) was published , which contained transcripts of allegedly authentic telephone conversations between the lawyers of a wellknown law office in GPE and judges working in various courts , including the ORG of ORG . The judiciary \u2019s allegedly unlawful and unethical behaviour provoked considerable public debate and attracted wide media coverage . ORG and ORG launched an inquiry ( p\u0101rbaude ) .","On DATE ORG established a working group consisting of CARDINAL judges . The working group was tasked with carrying out an assessment of whether \u201c the judges of ORG who were purportedly involved in the telephone tapping scandal , which raises doubts about the independence of the judiciary and the honesty of judges \u201d had violated LAW . On DATE the working group received transcripts of the alleged telephone conversations from ORG .","On DATE , during the annual conference of judges , the chairman of ORG made a speech about the effects of the book and the public debate which followed . He stated :","\u201c DATE have passed since information emerged about alleged telephone conversations between judges and a particular lawyer . That event further confirmed the conviction of at least some people in society that doubts about the impartiality and the independence of courts , and therefore the lawfulness of their judgments , are justified .","Society sees the information that was published as credible , irrespective of whether it was obtained lawfully or unlawfully and no matter what the result of the investigation carried out by ORG will be , and it undermines trust in the judiciary . ...","... I think that the information about the alleged conversations between judges and the lawyer [ ... ] should be treated as a signal or a call to look at the problems in the judiciary in a wider context ...","... In relation to this particular situation , I think it was caused by the attitude to the rule of law and the code of ethics which regulate judges\u2019 behaviour . The superficial , irresponsible and perhaps even the unlawful behaviour of certain judges has fundamentally affected trust in the judiciary ...","Therefore [ we ] should also talk about the responsibility of judges , [ we ] should be conscious of the fact that a lack of self - criticism and an inability to apply ethical standards properly pose a threat to the independence of the judiciary .... \u201d","On an unknown date the inquiry carried out by ORG concluded that the alleged telephone conversations had taken place DATE . As there were no audio records of the conversations , the authenticity of the content of the transcripts could not be established . In the course of the inquiry ORG questioned several judges mentioned in the book .","With regard to Judge O.D.J. , a judge of the ORG of ORG , ORG observed that the book had referred to a brief telephone conversation of DATE in which the lawyer ORG had arranged a meeting in the Judge O.D.J. \u2019s office . The impugned conversation had not referred to any specific civil case so ORG concluded that there were insufficient grounds to investigate Judge O.D.J. \u2019s activities .","On DATE the working group established by ORG published a report on their inquiry into alleged ethical wrongdoing by judges . The working group identified that CARDINAL of the QUANTITY judges , whose conduct had been assessed , had violated LAW , but that Judge O.D.J. , whose conversation with the lawyer had been published in the book , had not . It stated :","\u201c ... [ CARDINAL ] In his submissions [ CARDINAL ] O.D.J. did not deny that he might have had conversations [ with the lawyer ] but that they had only concerned NORP compensation claims , however in those cases [ the lawyer ] had not been representing any of the parties , and therefore the working group concluded that O.D.J. had not violated LAW . \u201d","In DATE the applicant and another person brought a civil claim against a third party . On DATE the Riga Regional court , as a firstinstance court , dismissed the claim and on DATE ORG , acting as an appellate court , dismissed an appeal by the applicant .","NORP In DATE the ORG of ORG granted leave to the applicant to appeal on points of law . The hearing before the cassation court was held on DATE . The ORG sat as a panel of CARDINAL judges , including O.D.J. The applicant \u2019s representative raised objections to O.D.J. , arguing that the applicant had reasonable doubts as to his impartiality on the grounds that the judge was under several inquiries at the time for allegedly unethical or unlawful behavior . The applicant also alleged that the defendant \u2019s representative was a former employee of ORG .","On DATE the other CARDINAL judges , referring to Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , dismissed the objections . They noted that the applicant \u2019s doubts were based only on an assumption and that the objection did not contain evidence allowing to conclude that the applicant \u2019s doubts about the impartiality of Judge O.D.J. in the particular case were reasonable in the terms of the above provision . On DATE the ORG of ORG upheld the appellate court \u2019s judgment on the merits by which the applicant \u2019s claim was dismissed and it became final in that part , but referred the case back for reconsideration in part on the implementation of the judgment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145313","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"TUDOR v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Ms I. M. Ciontu , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mrs C. Brumar , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment , serving his sentence in various NORP prisons . He was detained in LOC for DATE , from DATE to DATE . On DATE the applicant was released on probation from FAC .","On DATE an antenna of the type C - GUARD CARDINAL was installed in LOC for the protection of telephone communications .","On DATE , while the applicant was serving his sentence in ORG , he lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences ( the \u201c post - sentencing judge \u201d ) attached to ORG alleging that the radio frequency electromagnetic radiation ( ORG ) emitted from an antenna in the prison had negatively affected his health . In his complaint the applicant stated that since DATE the entire prison staff had received an extra salary allowance for working in dangerous conditions , namely exposure to electromagnetic fields in their working environment .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the post - sentencing judge dismissed the complaint on all grounds . It was observed that the applicant had never complained of specific effects resulting from electromagnetic radiation , nor had he sought medical treatment . The judge also based his ruling on an expert study commissioned from ORG ( ORG ) in order to analyse the electromagnetic field allegedly surrounding the prison \u2019s wireless communication base station . The report published on DATE revealed that , although the levels of radiation were higher than those prescribed in the relevant safety guidelines in several areas of the prison , exposure was lower in areas to which the prisoners had access .","The applicant appealed against that decision . He submitted as evidence a DATE report by ORG which revealed that , while radiation levels from the wireless communication device had varied between prison areas , they were nevertheless higher than the regulatory standards in place at that time .","His request to have evidence from the prison \u2019s doctor and a radiologist heard was refused on the ground that there was no link between his diseases ( hepatitis , and after - effects of healed tuberculosis ) as described in the medical file and the alleged harmful exposure to radiation . On DATE the ORG dismissed his appeal , upholding the decision of the post - sentencing judge for the same reasons .","The applicant also lodged a tort action against ORG on DATE . He claimed the sum of CARDINAL ORG for the harmful effects allegedly caused by the electromagnetic radiation , arguing that the prison staff had been awarded a special allowance for the health risks associated with exposure to electromagnetic radiation during TIME . ORG relinquished jurisdiction to ORG , which dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim on DATE .","The applicant appealed and the appeal proceedings are pending before ORG .","Pursuant to CARDINAL orders issued by the Minister of ORG , no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE , staff in ORG were awarded a special allowance for health risks associated with exposure to electromagnetic radiation during TIME .","The relevant safety guidelines are laid down in order no . DATE issued by ORG on the general norms concerning limits on NORP exposure to electromagnetic fields . The reference levels specified in the order range from QUANTITY ( ORG ) to QUANTITY ( GHz ) . The order is based on ORG legislation , namely ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EC of DATE on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electronic fields ( TIME to CARDINAL GHz ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184821","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF IVAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182860","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LUTSKEVICH v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","The background facts relating to the planning , conduct and dispersal of the demonstration at FAC are set out in more detail in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , and GPE v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY , DATE ) . The parties\u2019 submissions on the circumstances directly relevant to the present case are set out below .","On DATE a public demonstration entitled the \u201c DATE of CARDINAL \u201d was held in central GPE to protest against the allegedly rigged presidential elections . The event had been approved by the city authorities in the form of a march followed by a meeting at FAC which was supposed to end at TIME The march was peaceful and held without any disruptions , but when the marchers arrived at FAC it transpired that barriers installed by the police had narrowed the entrance to the meeting venue , allegedly restricting the space allocated for the meeting . To control the crowd , a police cordon forced the protestors to remain within the barriers , and there were numerous clashes between the police and protesters . At TIME the police ordered that the meeting finish early and began to disperse the participants . It took them TIME to clear the protestors from the square .","On DATE the GPE city department of ORG opened criminal proceedings to investigate suspected acts of mass disorder and violence against the police ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . On CARDINAL DATE the file was transferred to the headquarters of ORG for further investigation . On DATE an investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising acts of mass disorder ( LAW ) . The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined on DATE .","At the time of the events the applicant was a DATE student at the faculty of culture studies of ORG . On DATE he took part in the demonstration at FAC . According to him , he was beaten up by the police as they were dispersing the demonstration .","At TIME the applicant was admitted to the emergency ward of Sklifosovskiy hospital where he was examined by a trauma doctor and a neurosurgeon . The examination revealed multiple bruises on the applicant \u2019s chest , spine , shoulders , knees and head .","After the events of CARDINAL DATE the applicant continued to live at his usual address and pursue his studies . On DATE he was arrested on suspicion of having participated in acts of mass disorder and of using violence against the police during the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the Basmannyy District Court of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE . It referred to the gravity of the charges and information about the applicant \u2019s personality . ORG noted , in particular , that the applicant \u2019s father was a NORP national living in GPE , and that the applicant might therefore flee to avoid the investigation and trial . It concluded that those circumstances gave sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant , if he were at liberty , was likely to continue his criminal activity , influence witnesses , destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the investigation of the criminal case , which was at an initial stage .","On DATE charges were brought against the applicant under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( participation in acts of mass disorder accompanied by violence ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( use of violence against a public official ) . He was accused , in particular , of having torn a protection helmet off a police officer \u2019s head .","On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE examined an investigator \u2019s request for an extension of the applicant \u2019s pretrial detention . The applicant requested that an alternative preventive measure be applied pending trial , such as house arrest or a written undertaking not to leave a specified place . On DATE ORG found that the circumstances that had justified the detention order had not changed and extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE ORG authorised a further extension of the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . It reiterated the grounds given in the previous extension orders and stated that the circumstances justifying the detention order had not changed . On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE the charges against the applicant were reformulated . It was additionally stated that the applicant had shouted insulting slogans and used metal barriers to obstruct the police ; that CARDINAL times he had thrown stones and pieces of tarmac at police officers and had once punched a policeman ; and that he had also grabbed a police officer \u2019s uniform and had snatched a protection helmet from his hands .","On DATE Police Officer P. identified the applicant during an identification parade as a participant in the mass disorder and the person who had twice thrown pieces of tarmac at the police and tried to snatch the protection helmet from a policeman \u2019s hands . He specified that he had not seen whether the applicant had in fact succeeded in snatching the helmet or not .","On DATE the investigator of ORG of GPE refused to open a criminal case into allegations made by the applicant that he had been subjected to illtreatment by the police during his arrest . The investigator considered that the use of force by the police had been justified by the behaviour of the protesters , including the applicant , who had actively resisted their arrest and thrown various objects at the police officers .","On DATE ORG granted an extension of the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , essentially on the same grounds as earlier , noting that the applicant \u2019s state of health was satisfactory and did not warrant his release . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG authorised a further extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE . The court noted that even though the applicant and his lawyer had already finished reading the case file , other defendants had not . It reiterated the grounds given in the previous extension orders and stated that the circumstances justifying the detention order had not changed .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s criminal case was transferred to the ORG of GPE for the determination of criminal charges .","On DATE that court granted another extension of the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The decision concerned CARDINAL defendants . Along with the gravity of the charges , the court based its decision on the findings that \u201c the reasons which initially warranted the detention have not changed \u201d and that \u201c no other measures of restraint would secure the aims and goals of the judicial proceedings \u201d . ORG upheld that extension order on DATE .","On DATE ORG examined an investigator \u2019s request for an extension of detention in respect of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant . The applicant presented a personal guarantee from a member of ORG in support of an undertaking by him to appear before the investigating authorities and the courts for the examination of his case . However , ORG did not consider that guarantee and ordered that the applicant and his co - defendants be detained until DATE on the grounds of gravity of the charges and the nature of the offences imputable to them . On DATE ORG upheld that extension order .","From DATE until his conviction the applicant was held in remand prison GPE in GPE . There he was detained in cells no . CARDINAL ( until DATE , then from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , and from CARDINAL DATE ) , no . CARDINAL ( until DATE ) , no . CARDINAL ( until DATE ) , and no . CARDINAL ( until DATE ) .","The cells had the following characteristics :","- cell no . CARDINAL : QUANTITY m. and CARDINAL sleeping places ;","- cell no . CARDINAL : QUANTITY m. and CARDINAL sleeping place ;","- cell no . CARDINAL : QUANTITY CARDINAL sleeping places ;","- cell no . CARDINAL : QUANTITY . CARDINAL sleeping places .","The parties agreed that the number of inmates in the cells had not exceeded the design capacity . They also agreed that the size of the cells and the number of detainees had allowed the applicant QUANTITY of personal space and that the applicant had had an individual sleeping place in every cell .","The parties provided the following accounts of the conditions in the cells . According to the applicant , prison cell no . CARDINAL measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL inmates , including himself . The cell was inadequately lit and ventilated , was excessively hot in DATE and cold in DATE . The windows were too high to give sufficient light for reading or working with documents . A shower was allowed once DATE and the lavatory pan was separated from the living space only by a plastic partition . The bed linen was old , and the beds were small for a man of his height . Outdoor exercise was limited to TIME per day .","According to the Government , all of the cells had sanitary units with wash stands and the necessary furniture . The cells were equipped with ventilation , heating and lighting ; the state of the sanitary facilities had been satisfactory ; the bedding had been changed once DATE ; and the cells had been disinfected and subjected to pest control regularly . The applicant had been able to shower once DATE and entitled to TIME of outdoor exercise per day .","The applicant \u2019s description of the conditions of detention during his transfer from the remand prison to court and back , and the ORG \u2019s submissions in that regard , were identical to those in the case of GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","As regards the conditions of detention in the holding room of ORG , the applicant submitted that the room had been poorly lit and that access to a toilet had been limited to once TIME . In addition , he had been required to strip naked and to perform sit - ups during the body search conducted in the holding room .","The court proceedings began on DATE in hearing room no . CARDINAL at ORG , moving at DATE to hearing room no . CARDINAL . The defendants , including the applicant , were held in glass cabins in both hearing rooms . From DATE to DATE the hearings continued in hearing room no . CARDINAL at the Nikulinskiy ORG of GPE . In DATE and DATE they took place in hearing room no . CARDINAL at ORG . Those hearing rooms were equipped with metal cages in which CARDINAL defendants ( CARDINAL from DATE ) , including the applicant , sat during the hearings .","For a detailed description of the conditions in those hearing rooms , see GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the ORG of GPE began a preliminary hearing in a criminal case against CARDINAL participants in the demonstration at FAC , who were charged with participating in acts of mass disorder and committing acts of violence against police officers . On DATE the same court began the trial on the merits .","On an unspecified date Police Officer T. , the alleged victim of the applicant \u2019s assault , was examined as a witness . He testified that at some point he had been surrounded by the crowd and subjected to violence . T. stated that the applicant had tried to snatch the protection helmet from his hands . Another officer , PERSON , also questioned as a witness , stated that the applicant had shouted something and thrown a stone or a piece of tarmac at a policeman .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged . It held , in particular , as follows :","\u201c TIME on DATE ... at FAC ... unidentified persons ... called those present [ at the venue ] to move outside the agreed meeting venue , to defy the lawful orders of the police ... , to use violence ... which led to mass disorder accompanied by the use of violence against public officials in connection with the performance of their duties [ and ] the destruction of property .","On DATE at TIME at the latest [ the defendants ] acquired the criminal intent to participate in mass disorder and to use violence against ... police officers ...","Moreover ... the participants of the acts of mass disorder threw pieces of tarmac , stones , sticks and other objects at the police ... which hit them on various parts of their body , and [ the defendants ] ... [ who ] participated in the acts of mass disorder ... implemented their criminal intent to use violence against public officials ... applied physical force which was not a danger to the life or health of those [ officials ] ...","TIME and TIME [ the applicant ] ... shouted insulting slogans and used metal barriers to block the police \u2019s movement ... thus preventing the arrest of the participants in the acts of mass disorder ... [ The applicant ] , acting intentionally , CARDINAL times threw stones and pieces of tarmac at police officers in a targeted manner ... and used violence against an unidentified police officer which did not endanger his life or health ... unidentified participants in the acts of mass disorder , acting intentionally , tore a protection helmet off an unidentified police officer \u2019s head and punched and kicked him several times in the head and body , meanwhile [ the applicant ] ... punched this police officer at least once .","[ The applicant ] ... used violence against Police Officer T. which did not endanger his life or health ...","... unidentified participants of the acts of mass disorder intentionally tore off [ T. \u2019s ] protection helmet , which [ T. ] continued to hold in his hands , and punched him in the head and body , whereupon [ the applicant ] intentionally grabbed [ T. \u2019s ] uniform and ... snatched the helmet from his hands .","[ The applicant ] pleaded not guilty and testified that ... he had decided to attend the public gathering on DATE ... When leaving ORG [ the applicant ] saw a lot of police officers equipped with bullet - proof vests , helmets and truncheons , which filled him with indignation . As nothing was happening on the stage , [ the applicant ] decided to return ... when leaving the venue he saw the police officers randomly arresting people while hitting them with truncheons ... [ The applicant ] was hit in the back CARDINAL times with a truncheon . When he saw these violent acts by the police , [ the applicant ] approached the barriers where other protestors were standing and expressed his indignation ... Then ... he tried to leave the venue ... when somebody tore off his shirt . ... At some point [ the applicant ] came across police officer [ T. ] ... who was not wearing any helmet . [ The applicant ] tried to leave , but suddenly police officers ran up to him and started to beat him in the head and body , then they arrested him and ... took him to a police vehicle . [ The applicant ] insisted that he had committed no acts in respect of police officer [ T. ] , had not seen his helmet and had snatched nothing from his hands .","... the court considers the [ defendants\u2019 ] arguments that they were protecting somebody from police officers or happened to be victims of the police \u2019s use of force as farfetched and aimed at mitigating their responsibility ... \u201d","The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , calculated on the basis of a DATE prison term under LAW , partly concurrent with a term of DATE under LAW . The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention counted towards the prison sentence .","The applicant appealed . He complained , in particular , that he had not used metal barriers to block the police \u2019s movement and insisted that he had been standing close to those barriers before the protestors had started to be arrested . The applicant also pointed out that the video records proved that he had not taken ORG \u2019s helmet and had not used violence against him . In his opinion , the first - instance court had not assessed his statements about illtreatment by the police .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .","The applicant was represented by a lawyer , Mr NORP , throughout the criminal proceedings at domestic level . On DATE Mr NORP sent the ORG an introductory letter containing the outline of the applicant \u2019s complaints of ill - treatment by the police on DATE and of unjustified pre - trial detention .","On DATE ORG acknowledged receipt of the introductory letter , registered under application no . CARDINAL . The applicant was invited to return the completed application form within DATE of receipt of the ORG \u2019s letter but no DATE . As no further correspondence had been received from the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE ORG asked him whether he was still being represented by PERSON and reminded him to return the completed application form .","On DATE the ORG received the completed application form , signed by a different lawyer , PERSON . It contained complaints about the conditions of detention in the remand prison , in the courtroom and during transfers to and from the prison , and of unjustified pre - trial detention ."],"violated_articles":["11","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156522","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF M. AND M. v. CROATIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE","A. Background to the case","The applicants were born in DATE ( the second applicant ) and DATE ( the first applicant ) respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE the second applicant married Mr GPE","On DATE the second applicant gave birth to the first applicant .","Relations between the spouses deteriorated , and in DATE the second applicant brought a civil action against her husband seeking divorce , custody of , and maintenance for the first applicant . Her husband GPE filed a counterclaim , seeking custody of the first applicant .","In the period DATE and DATE a total of CARDINAL criminal complaints were filed against the second applicant and GPE Most of these complaints were filed against each other directly , but some were filed at the initiative of the police . CARDINAL of those CARDINAL complaints resulted in criminal proceedings being instituted ( CARDINAL against FAC and CARDINAL against both GPE and the second applicant ) , the outcome of which is unknown . The remaining CARDINAL criminal complaints were dismissed , including CARDINAL in which it was alleged that criminal offences of child abuse and domestic violence had been committed against the first applicant .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) : ( a ) granted the second applicant and GPE a divorce ; ( b ) awarded GPE custody of the first applicant ; ( c ) granted the second applicant access ( contact ) rights ; and ( d ) ordered the second applicant to make regular maintenance payments for the first applicant . In so deciding the court relied on the opinion of forensic experts in psychology and psychiatry obtained during the proceedings and on the recommendation of ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb ORG , hereafter \u201c the local social welfare centre \u201d ) which participated in those proceedings as an intervener sui generis with a view to protecting the first applicant \u2019s interests . The judgment became final on DATE .","Previously , by a decision of DATE the local social welfare centre had ordered a child protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority in respect of the first applicant . The measure was imposed with a view to improving communication between the second applicant and GPE regarding the first applicant , and also with a view to preventing her from being drawn into their conflict . The measure lasted until DATE , when it was discontinued . In its decision of DATE the local social welfare centre stated , inter alia , the following :","\u201c The measure only partly achieved its goal , in that contact with the mother has stabilised . The parents still do not communicate with each other and it is evident that the mother intends to continue with such behaviour . Furthermore , the mother \u2019s cooperation with the supervising officer is not adequate and it is evident that the measure has become futile . \u201d","The applicants submit that on CARDINAL DATE the first applicant \u2019s father GPE hit her in the face and squeezed her throat while verbally abusing her .","DATE the second applicant took the first applicant to the police to report the incident . The police instructed them to see a doctor and accompanied them to the local hospital , where the first applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist , who diagnosed her with bruising of the eyeball and eye socket tissue . In particular , the ophthalmologist noted :","\u201c Clinically discrete haematoma of the left lower eyelid , in resorption . The motility of the eyes is normal , no diplopia [ double vision ] , no clinical signs of orbit fracture .","Pupils are normal , lenses [ are ] in place , transparent , fundus [ is ] normal on both sides .","ORG . : PERSON oc.sin .","GPE palp.inf.oc.sin .","Treatment : cold wraps [ compresses ] ... Into the eye : Effludimex sol ...","Dg :","SCARDINAL.CARDINAL . Bruising of the eyeball and the eye socket tissue \u201d","After examining the first applicant the ophthalmologist filled in a standard form to be submitted to the police , in which he indicated that the injury had been inflicted by a hard blow to the left eye , gave bruising of the left eyelid ( haematoma palp.inf.oc.sin . ) as his diagnosis , and described the injury as light .","The applicants then returned to the police , where they both gave statements . In her statement the first applicant mentioned other instances of physical and psychological violence by her father in DATE . The relevant part of the police record of the interview conducted with the first applicant reads as follows :","\u201c This interview was conducted regarding the violent behaviour of the [ child \u2019s ] father GPE","[ The child ] stated that DATE TIME , when she was getting ready to visit her mother ORG , she wanted to take a picture frame containing a lock of her hair which her mum had had framed when she had had her first haircut . She put the picture frame underneath her jacket because she knew that her dad would not allow her to take that picture frame to her mum . Then his girlfriend PERSON saw that she had something under her jacket and asked what it was . She replied that it was nothing . Then her father came and took the picture frame from under her jacket and told her that they would talk about it when she came home in TIME .","... In the evening , TIME , mum took her back to her dad , who brought her into the room and called her a thief , hit her with his hand on the left eye , and started squeezing her neck and pushing her . During this she fell , but did not hurt herself because she fell on a bag which was on the floor . Then she vomited saliva because she felt nauseous from her father \u2019s squeezing her neck . Then [ her father \u2019s partner ] ORG came and told her father to calm down , otherwise she [ the first applicant ] would vomit ... He then left and sat in the living room . She was very afraid and was crying , but nevertheless went to her room and did her homework for DATE . When she woke up in the morning she greeted her father with \u2018 good ORG but he did not even look at her and just turned his head away . In TIME she felt slight pain under the left eye where her father had hit her . When she arrived at school she mentioned it to her teacher and her friends P. and A. , because she felt the need to confide in someone .","DATE she went to her mum and told her everything that happened TIME . She was also very hurt when her dad rudely [ swore at ] her . He often does that , and did so [ also ] DATE TIME . He also called her a \u2018 cow\u2019 and told her she was stupid . Because of his rude language she cried a lot thereafter . PERSON tells her from time to time [ to go to hell ] and she does not like swearing , especially when he mentions her mum while doing so . DATE the father told her that through his friends he would ensure that she never heard from or saw her mum . She is therefore very afraid of her dad because he can be dangerous . She had seen her dad beating her mum and was therefore afraid that he might beat her the same way too . She states that her father is often rude to her , yelling at her , forcing her to eat food she does not like , and when she does not , grabs her chin and shoves the food into her mouth , which makes her feel sick . He often takes away her mobile phone so she can not call her mum , and she would like to be in contact with her mum . Once he hit her on the leg with a hairbrush when she would not allow him to brush her hair . He also grabs her arm and squeezes it so hard that she has bruises afterwards . She states that she is very afraid of her dad and would like to live with her mum . TIME she definitely does not want to go with her father but wants to stay with her mum . She is afraid that her father will beat her and yell at her . He often threatens her by waving his hand at her and saying \u2018 look at it , look at it\u2019 , with the intention of hitting her if she does not listen to him . The father also threatens to cut off her hair , knowing that she likes [ her ] long hair . He threatens her with that when she is crying for her mum , bites her fingernails or asks for a mobile phone . Dad often tells her that she must not love her [ maternal ] grandmother , [ her mother \u2019s partner ] ORG or his mum , whereas she loves them all .","She further states that each time her mum or [ her mother \u2019s new partner ] ORG buys her something and she brings it to her father \u2019s home he throws all those things into the rubbish . Therefore , she wears the things her mum bought her only when she goes to her mum \u2019s place , as she is not allowed to wear them when she is at her dad \u2019s home .","Lastly , she states that she is very afraid of her dad and [ particularly ] ... that he might do something bad to her mum , because he constantly threatens to do so .","The interview was conducted in the presence of a social worker from ORG V.C. \u201d","DATE the police interviewed GPE and his partner I.P. The relevant part of the police record of the interview conducted with GPE reads as follows :","\u201c The interview was conducted in the presence of his advocate GPE , regarding the complaint that he had hit his minor daughter ... In that connection he stated the following :","...","[ He says that his former wife ] does not regularly pay maintenance for [ their ] daughter ... amounting to CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) per month and up to the present day owes [ him ] HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","[ He submits that ] , sadly , [ his former wife ] manipulates their daughter ... and uses her so that she rejects everything that bears [ his ] surname . She even created a ORG page for her under ... the surname of her current partner ...","As regards his relationship with his daughter ... , [ he ] states that he , as a parent who wants to teach his child to respect work and discipline , has his duties , and that the child has to have certain discipline , [ for example ] she must not lie to her parents , and may not do whatever she pleases . When [ his daughter ] comes back from school ... he requires her to do her homework and study . As regards food , [ he ] states that he wishes [ his daughter ] to eat healthy and varied food , with fruit and vegetables , rice and meat , and that she does not only eat pizzas , sandwiches and sweets . He also does not like to throw away food and prefers that it is eaten .","On DATE around TIME [ his daughter ] was preparing to go to her mother and came into the kitchen to say goodbye . On that occasion [ his partner ] GPE noticed that she had something under her jacket ... and asked what it was . [ The daughter ] replied that it was nothing , even though there was visibly something underneath it . He asked her to open her jacket . [ Then they realised ] that she had taken a glass picture frame containing the locks of her hair cut off when she was still a baby . [ He ] then asked her why she had not asked to take it instead of doing it the way she did , stealing from her own house . [ The daughter ] said that it was for her mum and that if she had asked him if she could take it he would not have allowed it . Then he told her to go to her mum and that they would talk about it later , when she came home .","[ The daughter ] came home at TIME and they continued their conversation because he wanted to tell her that what she had done was bad and that she should have asked instead of stealing things from the house and taking them to her mother . [ His daughter ] replied that she wanted [ the picture frame ] to be at her mother \u2019s place . [ He ] then reprimanded her for lying to him , saying that what she had done was sad or bad and that she always had to tell the truth because he did not tolerate lies and that all problems would be solved the way they had been solved so far . He admits that he is sometimes a strict parent but that he always behaves in a measured way and with [ good ] reason , and it is only ever exclusively done with a view to making her behave [ better ] .","DATE , on DATE [ his daughter ] was at school in the morning and in the afternoon was having fun with [ him ] and his [ partner ] ... Nothing suggested that [ she ] was in any way distressed by the previous evening \u2019s events .","[ He ] emphasises that all this was fabricated by her mother ... who has a negative influence on [ their daughter ] . \u201d","The relevant part of the police record of the interview conducted with ORG partner ORG reads as follows :","\u201c The interview was conducted regarding a complaint that GPE had hit his minor daughter ... In that connection she stated the following :","On DATE around TIME [ her stepdaughter ] was preparing to go to her mother and came into the kitchen to say goodbye to them . On that occasion [ FAC ] noticed that she had something under her jacket ... and asked her what it was . [ Her stepdaughter ] replied that it was nothing , even though there was visibly something underneath her jacket . GPE asked her to open her jacket . [ Then they realised ] that she had taken a glass picture frame containing locks of her hair cut off when she was a baby . [ He ] then asked [ his daughter ] why she had not asked to take it instead of doing it the way she did , stealing from her own house . [ The stepdaughter ] said that it was for her mum , and that if she had asked him for it he would not have allowed it . Then he told her to go to her mum and that they would talk about it later , when she came home .","[ The stepdaughter ] came home at TIME and she and her father continued their conversation , because he wanted to tell her that what she had done was bad and that she should have asked instead of stealing things from the house and taking them to her mother . [ The stepdaughter ] replied that she wanted [ the picture frame ] to be at her mother \u2019s place . GPE then reprimanded her for lying to him , by saying that what she had done was sad or bad and that she always had to tell the truth because he did not tolerate lies and that all problems would be solved the way they had been solved so far . ORG firmly states that on that occasion GPE did not hit [ his daughter ] , nor has she ever seen him hitting [ her ] . She says that GPE has a temper and sometimes shouts when he considers that something is wrong , but that he is really not prone to physical violence or hitting the children . ORG notes that [ her stepdaughter ] is generally very sensitive about her mother and immediately starts crying as regards anything related to her . \u201d","After the interviews , the first applicant was returned to her father GPE , following the intervention of an employee of the local social welfare centre .","On DATE the first applicant was , at the initiative of the second applicant , examined by a psychiatrist at ORG . The relevant part of the psychiatrist \u2019s observations reads as follows :","\u201c The child was with the mother at the police station and reported the incident [ of CARDINAL DATE ] because the mother , and also the child , claim that this was not the first time that the father has mistreated [ the child ] , although not so much physically as psychologically ...","During the interview with the girl it is evident that the child gets very upset at the mention of the father , she is afraid of him , \u2018 constantly thinks that he will hit her again and would like to stay with GPE . PERSON is allegedly constantly threatening that he will \u2018 cut off her hair if she keeps crying and mentioning mum ... \u2019 he often swears and utters vulgar expressions against the mother;all this was allegedly reported to the police ... ( the interview was conducted first with the mother alone and then with the girl , also alone ; [ the child ] talks about it all through tears and while biting her fingernails ) ....","The girl says that she remembers that \u2018 she was asked when she was little with whom she wished to live and that she said with dad because she was told that she had to say that , now she regrets it\u2019 ( she is crying all the time ) .","The girl otherwise appears to have good intellectual capacity ; she functions well outside the family , and is an A - grade pupil . There are no signs of psychotic disorder , and the girl is emphatic in contact except when she gets upset and talks rapidly when the topic of the father and his relationship with her is raised ( thus there is an impression of strong fear of the father ) .","Given the complexity of the family situation ( the father has remarried and [ the child ] lives with him , his new wife , her daughter from her first marriage and CARDINAL small half - sisters , while the mother also has a new partner with whom she has a small son ) and the evident traumatisation of the child which has probably already lasted a long time , a psychiatric assessment of the child is recommended .","Until then ... I recommend taking the girl to a psychologist ...","ORG . Abused child , T CARDINAL \u201d","On DATE the second applicant took the first applicant to a psychologist in GPE , who , inter alia , made the following observations :","\u201c The interviews , which were conducted with the mother alone and separately with the girl , indicate that the child is afraid of her father because he psychologically and sometimes physically abuses her ...","The girl ... says that she would gladly live with mum if she could , and that dad speaks badly of mum ...","The results show that [ the child ] is emotionally attached to her mum and thinks that her dad does not love her , is afraid of him , does not trust him , and thinks that it is not fair that dad constantly yells at her even when she is not at fault . Her biggest wish is to live with her mum and her family , and she finds it difficult to return to her dad \u2019s home . She identifies with her mother and thinks that they are very much alike .","Findings : [ The girl ] is a traumatised child with well above - average mental abilities , strong self - control , neuroticism , depressive affect , hypersensitive , anxious with strong inferiority complex . Discrete tremor is diagnosed .","I recommend psychological and , if need be , psychiatric counselling . \u201d","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u ORG , hereafter \u201c the ORG Attorney \u201d ) informed the second applicant that on DATE it had , concerning the incident of CARDINAL DATE , indicted GPE before ORG for the criminal offence of bodily injury defined in LAW of LAW ( for a more detailed description of the course of those proceedings see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , DATE , the second applicant instituted civil proceedings before ORG seeking reversal of the custody arrangements set forth in that court \u2019s judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; for a more detailed description of the course of those proceedings see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the second applicant took the first applicant back to the same psychologist ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The psychiatrist made the following observations :","\u201c ... The interview with [ the child ] was conducted without her mother \u2019s presence .","In contact silent , with depressive affect , cooperative , bites her fingernails , occasionally cries . We again had a conversation about the events of CARDINAL DATE during which the child was psychologically and physically abused by her father , and which she in her mother \u2019s presence reported to the police .","[ The child ] says that that was not an isolated incident and that she is afraid of her father because she has continuously , from the moment she started living with him , been exposed to psychological and , from time to time , also physical abuse . She says that on multiple occasions he has threatened that he would hit her if she kept biting her fingernails and that he would take her mobile phone away . Previously she was more afraid of her father \u2019s physical violence than now , but her mother encourages her by telling her not to be afraid and to \u2018 endure difficult moments\u2019 . The child states that she does not like living with her father because he threatens her and tells her that he will beat her . She says that mum loves her more , does not threaten her and is good to her . She uses suppression and \u2018 ORG as defence mechanisms ...","The child states that the father yells at her almost every day , swears , tells her that she is a \u2018 stupid cow , pig , goat , thief , that she constantly defies him\u2019 . She says that this offensive behaviour by her father is rarer since she reported him to the police .","[ The child ] says that the father has threatened her that he will , through \u2018 his people\u2019 , take care that she does not hear from or see her mother . He threatens her that he will cut off her hair if she cries for her mother .","The child alleges that her father forces her to eat so that she has to eat everything he puts on her plate and that she sometimes vomits because of that . If she refuses to eat everything the father holds her chin and \u2018 shoves\u2019 the food in her mouth . If she resists , he smears the food over her face .","After she reported him to the police , the father controlled himself for DATE , and then again started yelling but then to a lesser degree . He no longer shoves food in her mouth , but she has to eat everything he puts on her plate . Sometimes she has to eat something that she does not like , which the mother never does to her .","[ The child ] is lonely at her father \u2019s home , because she spends time only with her CARDINAL - sisters ; her friends are not allowed to visit in case [ the younger CARDINAL - sister ] gets sick . After school the father allows her to meet with friends for TIME only . She visited CARDINAL of her friends only once and she did not dare to ask the father for more visits . She thinks that her father is stricter with her than with her older CARDINAL - sister .","I found out that the father speaks badly of the mother and her new partner in front of the child , that she has different clothes at her mother \u2019s and her father \u2019s places , and that the father threw the sneakers she got as a birthday present from her mother and her partner into the rubbish .","Asked about her father \u2019s wife , she says that she is better to her than her father : does not force her to eat , has never hit her , helps her with homework , and brushes her hair .","The child shows a strong desire to live with her mother because she is emotionally closer to her , and because the mother supports her in difficult moments . She has many friends in her mother \u2019s neighbourhood and is encouraged to spend time with them ; she has fun and feels safe with her mother . Asked about [ the behaviour of ] her mother \u2019s partner towards her , the child says he is good to her and tries to cheer her up , buys her presents , and is fun and pleasant to talk to .","To the question whether , if she were to live with her mother , she would be allowed to see her father outside the visiting schedule ordered by the court , she says that it is certain that her mum would allow her to see her father whenever she wished to and states that \u2018 she would like to move to her mum \u2019s [ place ] right away and forever\u2019 .","Findings and recommendations : In order to prevent the development of irreversible psychopathological consequences due to continuous abuse , it is recommended that the child be immediately removed from the family where she currently lives and that custody be awarded to the mother .","Psychological and if need be , psychiatric follow - up is also recommended . \u201d","On DATE the second applicant again took the first applicant to the police to report another instance of abuse by her father , who had allegedly pressured her to change her earlier statements made before the police and the experts . The relevant part of the police record of the interview conducted with the first applicant on that occasion reads as follows :","\u201c This interview was conducted regarding inappropriate behaviour of the [ child \u2019s ] father GPE","[ The child ] stated that DATE her dad \u2019s girlfriend PERSON asked her whether she had visited a certain lady in GPE with her mum . She had replied that she had , whereupon I. had asked her what she had talked about with that lady in GPE and why she had not said anything about [ it ] to her dad . She replied that she had forgotten to mention it . After that her father had called her on her mobile phone and asked her to come to his caf\u00e9 ... immediately . When she had arrived there he had started yelling at her and asking why she had been saying bad things about him and why she had not told him that she had been in GPE ... After that he had told her that she was lying like a dog and told her to get out of his sight .","... Afterwards her dad had kept asking her whether she really wanted to live with her mum and she always replied that she did . DATE he had told her that she would not live with her mum until she was DATE .","[ The child ] also states that he said that he would report her mum for taking her to a doctor in GPE , and that she [ the mother ] would receive a criminal complaint for [ having done ] that . He [ also ] told her that he would now take her to a psychologist and to some other people where she would have to say that he had not hit her and that he was good to her .","DATE he had again asked her whether she really wanted to live with her mum and she had again replied to him that she did want to live with her mum .","This interview was conducted in the presence of the [ child \u2019s ] mother ... \u201d","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s father took her to a psychiatrist at the PERSON for ORG in GPE , who , after studying the opinions of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE and DATE and above ) and interviewing the first applicant , in his observations noted , inter alia , the following :","\u201c It is evident that [ the child ] is very burdened by her GPE conflict and the inadequacy of their mutual communication , which frequently goes through her . The girl shows affection towards , rather than fear of , her father . However , when asked what happened [ on DATE ] she did not want to talk about it ; she was visibly emotionally burdened so I did not insist on it . She freely expresses her dissatisfaction by saying that she does not like it when her father raises his voice . Asked when that happens , she replies : \u2018 when I do something bad\u2019 .","She is functioning well at school , says that she has many friends ... that at her mother \u2019s place she also has friends and likes to go there , but that she feels comfortable at home with her father because she gets on well with ... the daughter of her father \u2019s new partner ...","Her mental state is dominated by the emotional burden of her GPE conflict , high emotional tensions , the need to be close to her mother ( whom she wishes to please by being with her ) and , in her relationship with her father , by the conflict of loyalties she has been placed in .","I am of the opinion that the girl has been drawn into a conflict of loyalties and is very burdened by her GPE disagreements and conflict , which has resulted in high emotional pressure , anxiety and hypersensitivity .","I recommend that the parents undergo family counselling and possibly afterwards also family therapy together with [ their daughter ] . \u201d","On DATE the father took the first applicant back to the same psychiatrist who , in so far as relevant , noted :","\u201c The interview with the girl was conducted alone . [ The child ] states that she feels good , that she can not wait for school to end but that she has no difficulties in school . She gets on well with both her father \u2019s wife and her mother \u2019s partner , and regards her CARDINAL - brother and CARDINAL - sisters as real siblings . She is still sad about her GPE differences and their inability to adequately communicate [ with each other ] and their different parenting styles . \u201d","In the course of the above - mentioned custody proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the court ordered a combined expert opinion from experts in psychiatry and psychology . Accordingly , the applicants and the first applicant \u2019s father were examined by forensic experts of this type at ORG in GPE . As part of the preparation of their opinion each expert conducted interviews , inter alia , with the first applicant . In particular , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was interviewed by each expert ; on DATE she was interviewed only by the expert in psychiatry . The interviews of DATE were conducted without the first applicant \u2019s parents being present , that of DATE in the presence of her mother ( the second applicant ) , and those of DATE in the presence of her father .","The relevant part of the record of the interview of DATE with the expert in psychiatry reads as follows :","\u201c [ The child ] states that she always tells the truth , literally always , and that she feels her worst when she is told that she is a liar like her mum .","... She very clearly articulates her emotional bond and closeness with her mother and her wish to live with her . ...","[ The child ] states that she once attempted to talk with her father about living with her mother , but that the conversation ended quickly with him telling her that there would be no discussion about that and that she would stay with him until she was DATE ... She says that her father is very strict and that he often shouts at and insults her , which makes her embarrassed and scared . The last time he attacked her , because of the picture [ frame ] , PERSON [ her father \u2019s partner ] stopped him , and she felt nauseous ...","She says that she complained to her mother about her father , which was why she went to the police with her . She was particularly struck when the social worker came to the police [ station ] and talked to her mother ; she heard the social worker say that unless they agreed on where [ their daughter ] was going to live she would be placed in a children \u2019s home . ( The girl cries for a long time afterwards ) .","When asked how it is to live with her father , she states that she would prefer to live with her mother as she is closer to her ... \u201d","The relevant part of the record of the interview of DATE with the expert in psychology reads as follows :","\u201c Dad is so- so . When he is in a good mood , he is good . When he is not [ in a good mood ] he is not [ good ] . Once when he forced me to eat I vomited.\u2019 ...","\u2018 PERSON is great . Good , fair and does not hit me . She does not threaten me . I do not fight with her that much . I am calmer when I am with my mum , there are not that many fights , I am more relaxed.\u2019","... She said that she came to the expert assessment \u2018 because of what dad did to me and because I want to live with my mum . I wanted ... He threatened me ... \u2019 She cried and indistinctly through tears says that her dad smeared food over her face as a joke so she felt ugly and embarrassed . \u2018 He hit me once ... He said that he did not but that he only made a [ threatening ] gesture with his finger ... \u2019","After she calmed down we cameng back to the traumatic incident .","You started crying ?","\u2018 ... He did this to me ( she demonstrates with her hand round her neck ) . Dad hit me and I always cry so I almost vomited . [ He squeezed me ] this hard ( she is touching her throat and chin ) so that I almost vomited ... \u2019","\u2018 [ He called me a thief ] and I said I was not and then he hit me near the eye ( she shows the left temple ) ... He asked me if I would do that again ( she needs to be interrupted because she is speaking indistinctly while sobbing ) ... [ DATE ] ... I told my mum what he had done to me . She told me that we could go to the police and there I told [ them what happened ] ... The first lady [ the policewoman ] there was good . The other [ the social worker ] pulled my hand while saying that I have to go to my dad . I did not want [ to go ] . She then told me that if mum gets into a fight with dad she will go to jail and I will go into a children \u2019s home ( she is sobbing ) . I had to go with my father . PERSON said that we would not talk about that ... \u2019","\u2018 DATE he told me that he had never hit me and that he had not done anything to me and that I should tell the truth . But he did hit me . He also told me that when he smeared the food over my face it was a joke , but I felt embarrassed . He also told me that if I mentioned it he would call [ the stepmother and stepsister ] to say that it was a joke , which would make me look like a liar . I felt embarrassed and ugly then ...","\u2018 He threatened to cut off my hair if did not stop biting my nails , and to take my mobile phone away.\u2019","\u2018 Once we were in the car together ... he saw mum with [ her new partner ] in the next lane . He said that he would put both of them to jail and kill them . He swore at them a lot . He told them many bad things ... DATE or shortly afterwards he said that through his people he would ensure that my mum and me did not see or hear from each other.\u2019","\u2018 I was at a doctor \u2019s in GPE some time ago . He asked me something about school but he seemed bad to me and I did not want to talk to him and I did not tell the truth . After DATE we went to him again . I said I wanted to live with my mum but I did not mention that my dad had hit me . Then I was afraid of my dad , and still am because I knew he would say that he had not hit me ... \u2019","\u2018 Once he hit me when I was little , I do not remember , once ... \u2019","\u2018 He gets upset when I can not eat something . When I say something [ to justify myself ] he asks why I defy him . He used to insult me . He called me a cow , stupid goat . He swore at me . He told me to go to hell ... he said that to me many times . He also told me to fuck off many times ... He told me that my mum was a whore ( she is crying ) ...","\u2018 PERSON tells me that I can not do certain things . She does not threaten me . Sometimes she raises her voice , but she does it rarely and then I do not do it any more . \u201d","The relevant part of the record of the interview conducted on DATE with the expert in psychiatry reads as follows :","\u201c This interview was conducted with the girl and the mother together in order to observe their mutual interaction . During the interview it is noticeable that the girl is somewhat more withdrawn and serious than during the previous interview ...","At some point the girl has a strong emotional reaction . The girl states ( while crying ) that she would like to celebrate her forthcoming birthday at her mum \u2019s place ... given that she celebrated her last birthday with her father . The mother did not manage to calm the girl completely or ease her frustration . Instead , she herself looked anxious and frustrated , almost lost . \u201d","The relevant part of the record of the interview of CARDINAL DATE with the expert in psychiatry reads as follows :","\u201c This interview was conducted with the girl and the father together in order to observe their mutual interaction . During the interview it is noticeable that the girl is somewhat more withdrawn and deep in her thoughts , and seems restrained ... Asked if she would like to change something , she says that she would like to live with her mum and that she wishes to be able to extend the time she spends with CARDINAL parent when she wants to stay with that parent longer . While saying that the girl reacts emotionally ( she is crying ) . In the course of it there is no mutual contact between the girl and her father ; there is no eye contact , nor is the father trying to calm her . Each [ keeps ] to themselves , with their eyes fixed forward . \u201d","The relevant part of the record of the interview of CARDINAL DATE with the expert in psychology reads as follows :","\u201c She states in her father \u2019s presence : \u2018 I would like to live with my mum and decide when visits should take place , to go with my mum or my dad ( she is crying ) . Dad adds : \u2018 That would be the best ... \u2019","To the direct question whether she asked her dad about it , she replies that she did not . She adds that once she asked her dad [ about it ] and that he said that she could not go to her mum ... \u201d","On DATE the first applicant wrote the following in her school essay :","\u201c ... they all think that they know me but they do n\u2019t know even a third of me . They judge me by my success in school , but that is n\u2019t me . They do n\u2019t know what is happening , they see me as a happy girl , but I am the opposite of that . I have lived with my dad since I was DATE , and from day one I wanted to go to [ live with ] my mum ... PERSON tells me he wo n\u2019t let me go until I am DATE ... For some time already I have found comfort in cutting myself ... the scars are no longer visible , only when I play volleyball or some other ball game and when my arm turns red , then they are visible . \u201d","Alarmed by the first applicant \u2019s admission of self - harm in the school essay , on DATE the second applicant took her to the same psychologist who had examined her on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . In her observations the psychologist noted the following :","\u201c [ The girl ] came accompanied by her mother because the mother had learned of [ her daughter \u2019s ] self - harm , which [ the girl ] had written about in a school essay ... of DATE .","Interview :","Depressive , anxious at the beginning ... verbally fluent . We are talking in the absence of the mother .","After the her GPE divorce , [ the girl ] lived with her mother . She says that was the happiest period in her life . She had lived with her father since she was DATE ] ... Relations in the family she described as conflictual , she is afraid of her father . She describes emotional blackmail by her [ paternal ] grandmother and threats and emotional blackmail by her father , as well as occasional abuse by the father , on which there are medical and police reports . She states that when she was DATE , she [ because of being ] manipulated and intimidated by her father , stated during the [ forensic ] expert examination [ in the course of divorce proceedings ] that she wanted to live \u2018 DATE [ when asked which parent she would like to live with ] . She says that her dad told her to say that but that she did not know what it meant . Since the divorce became final she has lived with her father , and has suffered because she has a close and trusting relationship with her mother and her mother \u2019s partner . From that time on she has been expressing the wish to live with her mother , but despite all her statements [ to that effect ] ... the [ relevant ] authorities pay no heed ... Thanks to her mother \u2019s support and understanding she is still functional [ that is she manages to live normally ] but is unhappy because she can not live with her mother .","She says that she is unhappy , that she does not understand why the [ relevant ] authorities are ignoring her , and that they do not understand how much they are abusing her by not taking appropriate measures .","In her school essay ( which was presented ) she mentions that she cut herself on the arms . Her friend helped her to deal with the scars . When asked why she did that , she replies that it was because she felt helpless in enduring the constant pressure in her father \u2019s family , constant conflicts , inability to manage her own time , and refusal to let her live with her mother , which would make her happy . Other behaviour mentioned in the essay points to the development of an obsessive - compulsive disorder , fear of the dark , anxious - depressive symptomatology , and emotional control disorder . These are not related to puberty but indicate post - traumatic stress symptomatology , emotional disorders caused by constant frustrations , and child abuse ...","The girl has for DATE been burdened by expert examinations , judicial proceedings , interviews at the social welfare centre , and the hope that someone will finally listen to her plea to live with her mother , because since DATE she has been unhappy because she has to live with her father . She enjoys her mother \u2019s and her mother \u2019s partner \u2019s company , and they are supportive , but she is afraid that she will not be able to live with them for a long time yet . She is unhappy because her father constantly fights with her and does not want her to be happy ( as she would be if she lived with her mother ) . She \u2018 hates the situation she is in , where she is forced to live with her dad . She wants to become an advocate and she would never allow her child to suffer as she does because she is not allowed to choose with whom ... to live.\u2019","She is introverted , anxious ... Emotional suffering , distrust , depression , fear , guilt , reduced impulse control and problems with facing stress are diagnosed . These symptoms are related to inability to control her desires and to plan and organise . Despite previously established above - average cognitive capacities , a reduced level of openness and a need for new experiences is detected . This is probably because of continuing obstruction of her freedom of action . Despite constant obstructions she is still willing to fight for herself . She is empathic .","She has very developed defence mechanisms . However , symptoms of post - traumatic stress are also detected .","Conclusion :","Elements of strong psychological trauma are diagnosed ( post - traumatic stress ) , which are , according to her statements , the result of frustration caused by the abuse by her father and the authorities who are ignoring her wish to live with her mother , and [ which serve ] to protect her from suffering and the feeling of helplessness , which she reduces by obsessive - compulsive disorder and by harming herself . \u201d","As already mentioned above ( see paragraph DATE ) , on DATE the ORG Attorney indicted the first applicant \u2019s father before ORG for having committed the criminal offence of bodily injury defined in LAW of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) during the incident of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the court issued a penal order ( kazneni nalog ) , finding him guilty as charged and imposing a fine of HRK CARDINAL .","On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant \u2019s father challenged the penal order , arguing that the basis on which it had been issued was false . The court accordingly set aside the penal order , and the proceedings resumed under the rules of summary criminal procedure .","The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because neither the accused nor the summoned witnesses attended it .","At the hearing held on DATE the first applicant \u2019s father pleaded not guilty and made a statement . He also proposed that several witnesses be heard . The applicants proposed that they themselves be heard .","At the hearing held on DATE the court heard the second applicant , CARDINAL of the police officers who had interviewed the applicants following the incident of CARDINAL DATE , the first applicant \u2019s schoolteacher , and PERSON , a psychologist who had acted as supervising officer during the implementation of the first child protection measure in respect of the supervision of the exercise of parental authority ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The police officer stated that she had not noticed any visible injuries on the first applicant during the interview with her DATE after the incident of DATE . The first applicant \u2019s schoolteacher had not seen any injuries either . He also testified that he had noticed that the first applicant had seemed sad DATE after the incident and that he had talked to her about this ; the first applicant had told him on that occasion that her father had not hit her . PERSON , who said that he had spoken with the first applicant some time after the incident in the capacity of a private individual and at her father \u2019s request , testified that the first applicant had told him that her father had yelled at her and that she had been afraid that he would hit her but that he had not . He also stated that as a school psychologist he knew very well how to recognise signs of abuse in children and that the first applicant had not shown such signs .","On DATE the court decided to obtain an expert opinion from a medical expert on the first applicant \u2019s injuries .","The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the summoned witnesses failed to attend it .","On DATE the expert submitted his opinion , which stated that it was possible , but could not be determined with certainty , that the first applicant \u2019s injury had been sustained during the incident of l DATE . The relevant part of his opinion states as follows :","\u201c The following injury was established [ at the time ] by medical examination :","small haematoma of the left lower eyelid .","This injury constitutes a bodily injury .","The injury was inflicted by some hard and blunt object . It was inflicted by a single blow of low intensity .","The mechanism of the injury could correspond to the course of events as they were described to the doctor by the injured party during the examination ( a blow with the hand to the eye ) .","However , it is to be noted that the injury was described by the doctor who performed the examination as a haematoma in resorption , thus in [ the process of ] disappearing , fading . That normally happens after a certain period of time , for example , DATE , after an injury . It would not be common for resorption to already be visible DATE after the injury .","It follows from the above that the injury could have been inflicted during the incident in question , but that a causal link can not be established with certainty . \u201d","At the hearing held on DATE the court heard the other police officer who had interviewed the first applicant on DATE , the social worker who had been present during the interview with the police , and the doctor who had examined her on DATE .","The police officer testified that the first applicant did indeed not want to return to her father and that the social worker from the local social welfare centre had indeed told her that they would have to temporarily place her in a children \u2019s home if she refused . She also testified that she had not seen any signs of injury on the first applicant . The social worker testified that she had not noticed any signs of injury on the first applicant either . She also stated that while it was true that the first applicant had not wanted to return to her father , she had changed her mind after they spoke , in the course of which she had not mentioned the alternative of sending the first applicant to a children \u2019s home . The doctor who examined the first applicant stated that resorption of a haematoma occurred more quickly in children and young people . While he excluded the possibility that the injury could have been caused by crying and rubbing the eyes he did not rule out the possibility that it had been caused by , for example , the first applicant being hit by the ball during her volleyball practice . The ORG representative reiterated their proposal that the first applicant be heard .","In order to decide on that proposal , the court decided to consult the case file concerning the above - mentioned custody proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . Eventually , the court decided to hear the first applicant via video link on DATE .","However , that hearing was adjourned because on DATE the first applicant \u2019s father sought withdrawal of the trial judge ; that application was dismissed by the court \u2019s president on DATE .","Since none of the courts in GPE was equipped with a video link device , the court asked the police authorities to provide it . The police informed the court that it would make available a video - link device on CARDINAL DATE . Accordingly , the examination of the first applicant was scheduled for DATE .","NORP However , on DATE the police authorities informed the court that they would not be able to provide the device on DATE .","According to the ORG , the proceedings are still pending , depending on the availability of the video link device .","Meanwhile , on DATE the second applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG Attorney against the first applicant \u2019s father accusing him of the criminal offence of child abuse as defined in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In particular , the second applicant argued that he had physically and psychologically abused the first applicant by : ( a ) in the period DATE and DATE , inter alia , swearing at her and calling her names , frequently forcing her to eat food she did not like , and force - feeding her when she refused , threatening to hit her , cut off her long hair and ensure that she never saw or heard from her mother , hitting her with a hairbrush on CARDINAL occasion , among others , and ( b ) on DATE hitting the first applicant several times in the face and squeezing her throat while verbally abusing her , as a result of which she was later diagnosed by an ophthalmologist with bruising of the eyeballs and eye - socket tissue .","On DATE the ORG Attorney asked the of ORG PERSON ) investigating judge to : ( a ) question the suspect , ( b ) take statements from his partner and from the second applicant and her partner , and ( c ) order a combined expert opinion from experts in psychiatry and psychology .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG itself ordered a combined expert opinion from certain court experts in psychiatry and psychology . On DATE it set that order aside after finding that such a combined expert opinion had already been obtained in the context of the above - mentioned custody proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the State Attorney dismissed the second applicant \u2019s criminal complaint , finding that there were not sufficient grounds to suspect that the first applicant \u2019s father had committed the criminal offence the second applicant had accused him of . In so doing the State Attorney \u2019s ORG addressed only the part of her complaint concerning the alleged abuse of the first applicant in the period DATE and DATE , and not the part concerning the incident of CARDINAL DATE . After examining the statements made to the police by the suspect and his partner , the second applicant and her partner , psychiatrists\u2019 opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the psychologist \u2019s opinion of CARDINAL DATE , and the combined expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL and DATE above and paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , the ORG Attorney gave the following reasons for his decision :","\u201c Analysing the above facts , it follows that the suspect PERSON conduct or the conduct of [ the second applicant ] can not be regarded as conscious and deliberate emotional or physical child abuse , but rather as inadequate child - rearing practice [ parenting style ] and reaction caused by parental conflict over child custody , persistence of long - lasting mutual unresolved conflicts , and limited parenting capacity ...","In view of the foregoing ... there is no reasonable suspicion that the suspect GPE committed the criminal offence he is accused of ... \u201d","The first and second applicants then decided to take over the prosecution from the ORG Attorney as injured parties in the role of ( subsidiary ) prosecutors . As LAW requires that an accused be questioned before being indicted , on DATE the applicants asked an investigating judge ( sudac istrage ) of ORG to question the first applicant \u2019s father .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge dismissed the ORG request , holding that the facts adduced by the applicants did not constitute the criminal offence of child abuse . In so doing he relied on the combined expert opinion of the forensic experts in psychiatry and psychology of CARDINAL DATE obtained in the custody proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c ... the conduct can not be regarded as abuse [ because the combined expert opinion ] did not confirm the diagnosis of child abuse . This is very strongly indicated by the recommendation that changing the child \u2019s residence is not advisable . Had that diagnosis been established , the recommendation concerning the child \u2019s residence would have certainly been very different . \u201d","On DATE a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicants against the decision of the investigating judge . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c [ The child is under supervision ] by the [ local ] social welfare centre . It is therefore evident that if the suspect had behaved in an unseemly or inappropriate manner towards her as a parent that the centre would have reacted . There must have been reasons why the father was awarded care of the child . If there is any change in circumstances that decision could also be changed . According to the expert opinion no elements of abuse were found ... \u201d","On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared inadmissible a subsequent constitutional complaint by the applicants . It held that the contested decisions of ORG were not susceptible to constitutional review . ORG served its decision on the ORG representative on DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the second applicant brought a civil action in ORG against the first applicant \u2019s father with a view to altering the custody and contact arrangements ordered in the judgment of the same court of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In particular , she sought custody of the first applicant . At the same time the second applicant asked the court to issue a provisional measure whereby it would temporarily grant her custody of the first applicant pending the final outcome of the principal proceedings .","The court regarded the second applicant \u2019s civil action as an application for non - contentious proceedings , as it considered that the rules on non - contentious procedure rather than those on regular civil procedure should apply in such matters . It held hearings on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","The local social welfare centre participated in those proceedings as an intervener sui generis with a view to protecting the first applicant \u2019s interests .","At the hearing held on DATE the second applicant \u2019s representative insisted on the provisional measure being issued . The representative of the local social welfare centre stated that the situation in the first applicant \u2019s family was very complex , that her parents had made numerous criminal complaints against each other , and that both parents should be assessed by forensic experts . He also stated that the centre could not at that time make a recommendation as regards the provisional measure requested , because such a recommendation could only be made after completion of the family assessment procedure by a team of professionals employed at the centre . The second applicant \u2019s representative replied that the centre had been aware of the incident of CARDINAL DATE but had taken no action to address the situation in the first applicant \u2019s family . She therefore insisted on pursuing the application for a provisional measure .","On CARDINAL DATE the local social welfare centre submitted its report and recommendation to the court . In the course of their preparation of this report the centre interviewed the second applicant and the first applicant \u2019s father on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , visited their homes and requested an opinion from the first applicant \u2019s school . The relevant part of the centre \u2019s report reads as follows :","\u201c The allegations of the [ child \u2019s parents ] who accuse each other of child abuse are impossible to verify , nor can a straightforward conclusion be made only on the basis of interviews with them or on the basis of visits to their families .","There is an impression that the parents , burdened by their permanently strained relationship and the need of each of them to live with the child , consciously or subconsciously place themselves and their needs first while disregarding the welfare and the needs of the child .","The child protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority was previously ordered in respect of the parents during the divorce proceedings , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","Given that the already bad communication between the parents has worsened again , which brings about negative tensions which could be harmful for the child \u2019s emotional development , and having regard to the fact that they are again facing court proceedings , the centre is in the process of imposing the same measure with a view to protecting the rights and welfare of [ the child ] through which [ the centre ] shall monitor the mother \u2019s and the father \u2019s relationship with the child and [ in the implementation of which ] they will be advised how to improve communication between them and strengthen their parenting competencies . \u201d","The social welfare centre recommended a combined expert assessment of the first applicant and her parents with a view to establishing their parenting abilities and the possible consequences of their behaviour for her physical and mental development . They added that the first applicant \u2019s family situation was complex but that at that moment there was nothing to suggest that it was life - threatening . The relevant part of the social welfare centre \u2019s recommendation reads as follows :","\u201c After having conducted the family assessment procedure ... it was established that the parents express opposing views as regards abuse and neglect of [ their child ] . [ The mother ] accuses the father of child abuse [ in that ] he is abusing the child physically and emotionally , obstructing her contact with the mother , and using inappropriate child rearing methods . [ The father ] accuses [ the mother ] of neglecting the child \u2019s interests by her behaviour [ in that ] she does not pay child maintenance , does not come to school to consult with teachers or to GPE meetings and that the child is being manipulated by the mother ...","Having regard to the medical documentation at the disposal of the centre , the parties\u2019 submissions , visits made to [ the father \u2019s and the mother \u2019s ] homes and interviews with them , we recommend that the parents and the child undergo a combined [ psychiatric and psychological ] expert assessment in order to assess their fitness for further care of [ their daughter ] and the possible consequences of their behaviour for her psycho - physical development .","It is true that the family situation is complex . However , there is no impression that at present [ the child \u2019s ] life is at risk in her father \u2019s family . \u201d","By decisions of CARDINAL May and CARDINAL and DATE the court ordered a combined expert opinion from forensic experts in psychiatry and psychology who were to assess : ( a ) the parenting capacities of the second applicant and the first applicant \u2019s father , ( b ) the first applicant \u2019s condition , and ( c ) whether the first applicant had been exposed to abuse and , if so , by whom .","By a decision of DATE the court refused to issue a provisional measure sought by the second applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In so deciding the court examined the ophthalmologist \u2019s report of DATE , the psychiatrists\u2019 opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and the psychologist \u2019s opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . It also consulted the case file of the criminal proceedings in respect of the bodily injury , and examined the report and recommendation of the local social welfare centre of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . It found , in view of the conflicting opinions of the psychiatrists , the penal order against the first applicant \u2019s father which never became final , and the recommendation of the local social welfare centre , that at that point the allegations that the first applicant had been abused by her father were not plausible enough to justify her immediate temporary removal from his custody . In particular , the court held as follows :","\u201c ... the case was not sufficiently plausibly made that such a measure was necessary to prevent violence or the risk of irreparable harm from materializing , given that at present it remains uncertain and disputed whether [ the child ] was subject to abuse by her father or was being manipulated by her mother ... \u201d","DATE . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an appeal by the second applicant and upheld the first - instance decision .","On DATE the forensic experts submitted their opinion ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to ORG . In their opinion the experts found that both the second applicant and the first applicant \u2019s father had limited parenting abilities and suffered from personality disorders ( both of them were emotionally unstable and the first applicant \u2019s father was also narcissistic ) . As regards the first applicant , the experts found that she was emotionally traumatised by her GPE separation and their mutual conflict and lack of communication . Instead of shielding her from that conflict her parents had placed her at the centre of it and manipulated her sometimes up to the level of emotional abuse . The experts therefore recommended that the first applicant and her parents receive appropriate therapy . They further found that the first applicant was ambivalent towards her father and idealised her mother , whom she viewed as a \u201c friend \u201d , and expressed the wish to live with her . The experts were of the opinion that this desire to be close to her mother could be achieved through ( more ) extensive contact between the first and the second applicant . If after DATE of recommended therapy the first applicant still wished to live with her mother , they recommended that another combined expert opinion be obtained .","The experts did not reply to the court \u2019s question whether the first applicant had been exposed to abuse and , if so , by whom ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Their conclusions were : ( a ) that the first applicant should nevertheless remain living with her father for the time being while maintaining extensive contact with her mother , ( b ) that she and both her parents should undergo treatment and counselling , ( c ) that the supervision of the exercise of parental authority ( the child protection measure imposed by the local social welfare centre , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , should be continued , and ( d ) the first applicant and her parents should be reassessed after DATE . In particular , the experts concluded :","\u201c We do not find [ any ] contraindications to [ the child \u2019s living with her father . [ Our ] recommendation is that , for the time being it is not necessary or desirable to change the child \u2019s place of residence , that is to say [ the child ] should continue living with her father . \u201d","Following a request by the second applicant , by a decision of DATE ORG appointed PERSON , an advocate practising in GPE , to act as a special representative for the first applicant and represent her interests in the proceedings , as required by DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW on the Exercise of Children \u2019s Rights ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Following an appeal by the first applicant \u2019s father , on DATE the ORG quashed that decision and remitted the case . It held that the first - instance court had failed to establish whether the interests of the first applicant were indeed in conflict with the interests of ( CARDINAL of ) her parents , which was a necessary precondition for the appointment of a special representative .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the local social welfare centre appointed the same person to act as the first applicant \u2019s guardian ad litem pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG held further hearings in the case on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","At the last mentioned hearing the court heard the experts who had prepared the combined expert opinion of DATE . Those experts stated , inter alia : ( a ) that their expert opinion had in the meantime become obsolete , because DATE had passed since they had prepared it ( b ) they had not replied to the court \u2019s question whether the first applicant had been exposed to abuse , because it was the task of the judicial authorities and not theirs to make that assessment and ( c ) it would be irrelevant which parent the first applicant should live with if her parents both behaved better .","DATE . By a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s application for the custody and contact arrangements stipulated in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE to be reversed . The second applicant and the first applicant \u2019s guardian ad litem appealed .","On DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance decision for incomplete facts and remitted the case to the lower court . It instructed the first - instance court to : ( a ) inquire whether the first applicant \u2019s father \u2019s conviction for the criminal offence of bodily injury against her had become final , ( b ) assess whether the first applicant was able to understand the importance of the proceedings and , if so , allow her to express her opinion and take her testimony , ( c ) assess the need to appoint a special representative to the first applicant , and ( d ) obtain an opinion and recommendation from the local social welfare centre .","In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG discontinued the non - contentious proceedings and decided that the proceedings would be continued under the rules of ( regular ) civil procedure . The court explained that the second applicant \u2019s application for reversal of the custody and contact arrangements set forth in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) would , if agreed , necessarily entail a new decision on payment of maintenance by the non - custodial parent , which was an issue that could not be decided in non - contentious but only in regular civil proceedings . That did not mean that procedural acts undertaken thus far had lost their validity or become irrelevant .","On DATE the second applicant lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time , complaining about the length of the proceedings .","On DATE the president of ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s request .","It would appear that the proceedings are currently again pending before ORG as the court of first instance .","Following the incident of CARDINAL DATE , on CARDINAL DATE the local social welfare centre again ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) issued a decision ordering the child protection measure of supervision of the exercise of parental authority in respect of the first applicant . The measure was imposed for DATE and was , by the centre \u2019s decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL , further extended for DATE , until DATE , when it was discontinued .","In her final report of DATE the supervising officer ( a psychologist ) summarised the results of the measure in the following terms :","\u201c The aim of the measure was to encourage appropriate parental behaviour with a view to preventing and minimising the negative effects of [ their ] conflictual relationship on the child \u2019s psycho - physical development ... in that sense it was only a question of creating preconditions for adequate communication between the parents , so that currently there is no open conflict ( but only because the parents avoid it ) . In particular , the parents are observing the visiting schedule . They have made concessions to each other from time to time . However , the parents are still in conflict , they still do not communicate , and the majority of their communication goes through the child or through text messages . It is precisely in this way that they are disregarding [ her ] needs and forcing [ her ] to deal with something with which she should not be dealing at her age ( or at any other age for that matter ) . Both parents think they are doing what is best for their child , while forgetting that their conflict is the major obstacle to the normal psycho - physical development and functioning of their child ... [ The mother ] thinks that the child should be with her and that the wish of the child , who also expresses the wish to be with her , should be respected . [ The father ] thinks that that his role is to protect the child from the mother \u2019s negative influence and ensure stability for her . Those views are PERSON , but the only question is how much each of them negatively affects the child by fighting for their own position ? For a compromise people need to be ready to partially abandon their position , but they are not ready to do so . In my view , both parents have a good relationship with the child ; they [ both ] try to spend quality time with her . They differ to some extent in their methods and parenting styles ( [ the mother \u2019s ] is permissive and directed at [ developing ] a friendly relationship with her daughter , which may also be a strategy for \u2018 winning\u2019 the child , whereas [ the father ] is more impulsive , with a tendency to give in , and is oriented towards the traditional role of the father , which would not be a problem if the CARDINAL parents would cooperate ... Neither of them disputes that the role of the other parent is also important for the child , but they both find it important that the child lives with them , believing that in that way they would diminish the harmful influence \u2018 the other parent has on the child\u2019 . This means that the main problem is unresolved parental conflict , and the parents should probably work on that outside the [ social welfare ] centre . When they are able to talk to each other , and when they realise why and which of their actions are harmful for [ the child ] ( and stem from their personal conflict ) then they will be able to function better . In that regard I think that the supervision measure can not provide a better solution to the problems they have . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155102","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PSMA, SPOL. S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant company was established in DATE and has its registered office in GPE .","On DATE the applicant company concluded a contract with ORG ) , GPE \u2019s national public - service radio broadcaster , a publicly funded institution with its own legal personality , the status of which is regulated by law ( at that time PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended , presently PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) .","NORP Under the contract , in return for a fee , the applicant company agreed to act as exclusive agent for ORG as the principal ( \u201c the principal \u201d ) for the sale of broadcasting time for the purposes of advertising .","The venture worked well and the contract was amended several times . The amended contract was valid until DATE .","NORP However , in DATE the relationship between the applicant company and the principal began to sour because the principal was not content with the amount of business acquired by the applicant company in DATE .","The principal had accordingly issued the applicant company with a bill for the difference between the estimated profit and the real profit from such business .","As the applicant company did not pay the bill , the principal served the applicant company with a notice of termination of the contract , considering the applicant company \u2019s failure to pay the bill to be a fundamental breach of the contract .","NORP The notice period expired on DATE , following which the principal arranged for the sale of its broadcasting time by other means .","On DATE the applicant company challenged the validity of the principal \u2019s notice of termination of the contract in court , but later withdrew the action .","NORP The principal , for its part , sued the applicant company for payment of the difference between the estimated profit and the real profit . No information has been made available about the current state and outcome of those proceedings .","On DATE the applicant company demanded that the principal pay it the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) , according to the exchange rate applicable at that time , by way of indemnity for termination of the contract .","With reference to the contract , the amount of the indemnity had been calculated as the applicant company \u2019s average DATE commission for DATE , taking into account both financial and non - financial transactions between the principal and third parties , the latter being referred to as barter transactions .","As the principal did not satisfy the applicant company \u2019s claim , on DATE the applicant company sued it for the above - mentioned amount and late - payment interest .","On DATE a copy of the action was served on the principal for observations . Hearings were scheduled for CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE , in the course of which ORG s\u00fad ) examined complex documentary evidence and heard the statutory representative of the applicant company and CARDINAL witnesses .","However , the principal submitted no written observations and appeared at none of the hearings . The circumstances of its absence were disputed ( see below ) .","On DATE the Bratislava I ORG ( ORG s\u00fad ) granted the action in full . It observed that despite having been represented by a lawyer , the principal had failed to submit any observations or to present a good excuse for its failure to appear at any of the hearings . It therefore proceeded to examine the case under LAW of LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , which in the event of a party \u2019s unjustified failure to cooperate , allows for the examination of the case on the basis of the elements available .","As a preliminary issue , ORG examined the question of validity of the notice of termination of the contract issued by the principal . It observed that the notice had not been contested and concluded that it was valid . There were no reasons disqualifying the applicant company from being eligible for the indemnity , and the barter transactions had rightly been taken into account in its calculation .","NORP The principal appealed ( odvolanie ) to ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) .","In terms of form , it contested the first - instance judgment in its entirety . Nevertheless , in terms of substance , it acknowledged the existence of the legal basis of the applicant company \u2019s entitlement to indemnity , disputing solely its scope , in so far as the barter transactions were concerned . Without those transactions , the acknowledged amount of the indemnity was equivalent to some ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , according to the exchange rate applicable at that time .","In support of its challenge to the claim exceeding that amount , the principal pointed out that , in the proceedings in its action for payment of the difference between the estimated profit and the real profit ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant company had lodged a counter - claim for compensation for the barter transactions .","The principal also contended that the decision to determine the action in its absence had been arbitrary .","Having examined the appeal , ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment on DATE .","It considered that , except for the part related to the barter transactions , the applicant company \u2019s claim had been acknowledged by the principal .","As to those transactions , it observed that the applicant company had offset a claim for compensation for them against the claims asserted by the principal in its above - mentioned action . The claim for compensation for those transactions was however a different matter from a claim for indemnity for the termination of the contract , which was asserted in the present proceedings , and which ORG found to be wellfounded .","Lastly , as regards the principal \u2019s absence from the first - instance proceedings , ORG observed ( i ) that the principal had requested the adjournment of the hearing of DATE ; ( ii ) that the summons for the hearing of DATE had not been deliverable to the principal \u2019s lawyer prior to that hearing ; and ( iii ) that on CARDINAL DATE the principal \u2019s new lawyer had requested that the hearing of CARDINAL DATE be adjourned so as to allow him to study the case file , although the summons for that hearing had already been served on the principal on CARDINAL DATE at the latest . In those circumstances , ORG assessment that the principal had been \u201c absolutely passive \u201d in the proceedings was right and the examination of the case in the principal \u2019s absence had been justified .","As no ordinary appeal lay against ORG judgment , following its service on the parties , the matter was resolved with the force of a final and binding decision ( pr\u00e1voplatnos\u0165 ) on DATE .","On the expiry of a period of grace for voluntary payment , the judgment became enforceable ( vykonate\u013enos\u0165 ) on DATE .","On DATE the principal challenged ORG judgment by way of a complaint under LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) . Asserting its rights of access to a court and to a fair hearing , it contended that the impugned judgment was grossly arbitrary and contrary to ORG law . In the latter respect , ORG had arbitrarily refused to ask ORG of ORG for a preliminary ruling .","On DATE ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) declared the complaint inadmissible . It held that an unjustified refusal to ask for a preliminary ruling may in certain circumstances give rise to a ground for appealing on points of law ( dovolanie ) under LAW ( g ) of the ORG . As that remedy had not been exhausted , ORG lacked jurisdiction to deal with the complaint .","On DATE the principal filed a petition with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) requesting the latter to exercise his discretionary power to challenge the above - mentioned judgments by way of an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( mimoriadne dovolanie DATE \u201c extraordinary appeal \u201d ) .","The ORG decided to accede to the request and on DATE challenged the contested judgments in ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) .","He argued primarily that the courts had erred in finding the notice of termination of the contract valid because it had not been disputed by the parties . This was a point of law and it could not have been resolved simply with reference to the lack of disagreement of the parties over it . The courts therefore should have examined that question independently and properly . As for the substance , in his view , had the notice been invalid , there would have been no reason for an indemnity . On the other hand , had the notice been valid , the indemnity could have been refused , because it had been based on a breach of contract by the applicant company .","Moreover , the ORG pointed out that the contract had neither provided for nor excluded compensation for barter transactions . In such circumstances , the contract should have been interpreted in terms of the parties\u2019 subsequent practice , which had not involved the payment of compensation for such transactions . They should accordingly not have been taken into account for the purpose of calculation of the indemnity .","Simultaneously , the ORG applied for a ruling to suspend the enforceability of the impugned judgments pending the outcome of the extraordinary appeal . ORG acceded to that request on DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant company had submitted observations in reply ; it submitted further observations on DATE and DATE .","The latter observations were not submitted until after ORG had determined the extraordinary appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , as the applicant company did not know of its decision at the time .","In its observations , the applicant company raised numerous arguments , including the following .","There was no justification for protecting the principal \u2019s rights by way of an extraordinary appeal because it had failed to protect its own rights with due diligence in the lower courts and because , even at the cassation level , it had left the protection of its rights to the public authorities .","In that regard , it had been open to the principal to assert its rights before ORG directly by way of an appeal on points of law . It had not done so simply in order to avoid incurring court fees for such an appeal .","Moreover , under LAW ORG , the availability of an indirect remedy , an extraordinary appeal ( on points of law ) , was excluded by the availability of a direct remedy , an ( ordinary ) appeal on points of law .","At the appellate level , the only point in dispute had been the part of the applicant company \u2019s claim concerning the barter transactions .","The ORG \u2019s challenge to the ordinary courts\u2019 findings as regards the validity of the notice to terminate the contract therefore exceeded the grounds of the principal \u2019s petition for an extraordinary appeal . Indeed , it was contrary to it because the principal had not challenged the notice but rather had relied on it . In any event , the ORG \u2019s challenge was ill - founded because there was no correlation between the validity of the notice and the fact that it had been based on the applicant company \u2019s refusal to pay the bill submitted by the principal .","Lastly , with reference to Convention case - law , the applicant company submitted that the extraordinary appeal as a remedy against a final and binding judgment in its favour was incompatible with the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty .","On DATE , sitting in chambers , ORG allowed the extraordinary appeal . It quashed the judgments of both ORG and ORG and remitted the matter to the former for a new examination .","It concluded that the courts had erred in that , firstly , they had omitted to examine the validity of the contract itself and secondly , depending on the outcome of that examination , they had failed properly to examine the validity of the notice . In view of those errors it had not been possible to deal in concreto with the questions of the basis and scope of the applicant company \u2019s claim .","ORG decision was served on the applicant company \u2019s lawyer on DATE . As a result , the case was remitted to the first instance , where it has been pending ever since .","On DATE the applicant company lodged a complaint with ORG , contesting ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . It relied on its rights to access to a court , equality of arms , adversarial proceedings , legal certainty and a fair hearing .","The applicant company argued that the admissibility requirements for the extraordinary appeal had not been met , and that the extraordinary appeal had not only been belated but had exceeded the scope of the principal \u2019s petition . In addition , by the mere fact of admitting the extraordinary appeal , ORG had set at naught the entire preceding judicial process , in violation of the principle of legal certainty .","The applicant company further argued that in view of ORG decision , a brand new hearing of the case had been called for , even though no procedural irregularities of the previous hearing had been established . In addition , the contested decision was biased in favour of the principal and was not amenable to review on account of lack of reasoning .","The applicant company also contended that ORG had completely ignored its observations in reply to the extraordinary appeal .","Lastly , the applicant company complained that it had been denied access to ORG case file in the extraordinary appeal .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant company \u2019s complaint inadmissible as being manifestly illfounded .","In so far as the applicant company had sought to contest the extraordinary appeal in principle , ORG observed that the statutory framework for examination of individual complaints did not allow it to examine the compliance of statutes with the LAW and international instruments as such .","To the extent that the applicant company might be understood as wishing to object to any action on the part of the ORG , no such objection could be considered because the applicant company had only identified ORG as the defendant of its complaint .","As for the remainder of the complaint , which concerned ORG , ORG found that the applicant company had failed to show any constitutionally relevant arbitrariness in the interpretation and application of the relevant rules .","As regards the applicant company \u2019s argument that the extraordinary appeal had been lodged belatedly , it was based on the premise that the principal had appealed against the first - instance judgment only in so far as it concerned the barter transactions . That premise was however mistaken because the principal had defined the target of its appeal as the firstinstance judgment as a whole ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As to ORG failure to give a specific answer to the applicant company \u2019s arguments , ORG considered that the right to an answer to submitted arguments was related not to a person but to substance . ORG had thus been under a duty not to reply to the arguments submitted by the applicant company as such , but rather to address the relevant aspects of the case . On the latter point , the applicant company had failed to show that any of the relevant aspects of the case had gone unanswered .","Lastly , ORG accepted that it had been a mistake to deny the applicant company access to ORG case file . However , it held that that had no constitutional significance because , in view of the character of the extraordinary appeal proceedings , access to the case file or the lack of it would have had no impact on the outcome of the proceedings .","A copy of ORG decision was served on the applicant company on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146004","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KOVA\u010cEVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) , Mr PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) and PERSON ( \u201c the third applicant \u201d ) were born on DATE , DATE and DATE . They live in GPE , GPE ( GPE ) and GPE respectively . The second applicant is a national of GPE and GPE and the other CARDINAL applicants are NORP nationals . The first applicant was represented before the ORG by PERSON and the second and the third applicant by PERSON , advocates practising in PERSON and GPE respectively .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants are pensioners . Until DATE their pensions were regularly adjusted in line with the increase in wages in accordance with LAW on principal rights arising from pension and disability insurance ( Zakon o osnovnim pravima iz mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja , ORG of ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL and ORG no . DATE \u201c LAW \u201d ) and LAW ( Zakon o mirovinskom i invalidskom osiguranju , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","In the period DATE and DATE ORG adopted a series of successive decrees whereby it limited the funds available for payment of pensions . This measure was part of the ORG \u2019s strategy to curb inflation and stabilise the economy . Since the funds available were insufficient to enable pensions to be adjusted in line with the increase in wages , the level of pensions paid in that period was lower than required by law .","On DATE the Act on adjustment of pensions and other benefits arising from pension and disability insurance and on administering pension and disability insurance funds ( Zakon o uskla\u0111ivanju mirovina i drugih nov\u010danih primanja iz mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja , te upravljanju fondovima mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja , Official Gazette no . DATE \u201c LAW \u201d ) entered into force . It provided that in the period DATE and DATE pensions should have been adjusted in line with the increase in wages ( section CARDINAL ) , and that pensioners were to be compensated for their resultant loss within DATE from the LAW \u2019s entry into force by way of an increase in their pensions ( section CARDINAL ) . The LAW also abrogated section CARDINAL of ORG and section CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and provided that from DATE pensions were to be adjusted in line with the increase in the cost of living ( section CARDINAL ) .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) invalidated almost the entire LAW , including sections CARDINAL , as unconstitutional . It also held that the ORG had an outstanding statutory obligation to pensioners to pay them pensions adjusted in line with the increase in wages as of DATE . This obligation became known as \u201c the debt to pensioners \u201d ( dug umirovljenicima , hereafter \u201c the pension debt \u201d ) .","As a result of ORG decision , CARDINAL requests were lodged with ORG regional offices by pensioners seeking ( retrospective ) adjustment of their pensions in accordance with ORG decision , that is , in line with the increase in wages . In addition , pensioners brought CARDINAL civil actions for payment of compensation for the pension debt in civil courts .","On DATE the Act on the transfer of funds from the ORG budget to the pension and disability insurance funds and on the adjustment of pensions ( ORG o preno\u0161enju sredstava dr\u017eavnog prora\u010duna fondovima mirovinskog i invalidskog osiguranja te uskla\u0111ivanju mirovina , ORG no . DATE \u201c LAW \u201d ) entered into force . It provided that in DATE the ORG would transfer HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL to ORG with a view to increasing all pensions . The increase was paid in the form of a DATE pension supplement ( dodatak uz mirovinu ) of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) plus PERCENT of the pension paid in DATE . The supplement was paid from DATE until DATE , after which it was permanently incorporated and became an integral part of a person \u2019s pension . The legal basis for the supplement was provided by subordinate legislation passed on the basis of LAW , namely , the GPE on the method and time - limits of the payment of the pension supplement ( PERSON o na\u010dinu i rokovima isplate dodatka uz mirovinu , ORG no . PERSON ) . LAW also provided that pensions were to be adjusted at the rate calculated by adding up the rate of the increase in the cost of living and the rate of the increase in wages and then dividing them by CARDINAL ( hereafter \u201c the NORP formula \u201d ) . Thereby it in fact derogated from CARDINAL of ORG and section CARDINAL of ORG , according to which pensions were to be adjusted in line with the increase in wages ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG rejected CARDINAL petitions for ( abstract ) constitutional review and thus refused to institute proceedings to review the constitutionality of LAW .","On DATE LAW ( Zakon o mirovinskom osiguranju , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , PERSON , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) entered into force . It expressly abrogated LAW and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and provided that pensions were to be adjusted according to the NORP formula .","On DATE the Act on the increase of pensions to eliminate differences in levels of pensions earned in different periods ( Zakon o pove\u0107anju mirovina radi otklanjanja razlika u razini mirovina ostvarenih u razli\u010ditim razdobljima , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL \u2013 \u201c the Pensions Increase Act \u201d ) entered into force with a view to levelling out pensions , because pensions earned before DATE were disproportionately lower than those earned after that date . As set out in its LAW regulated the method of increasing pensions with a view to eliminating differences in levels of pensions earned in different periods and implemented ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE in accordance with the ORG \u2019s economic capacities . The Act increased pensions earned DATE by anything PERCENT depending on DATE of retirement . The increase was paid DATE and DATE . On DATE ORG rejected a number of petitions for ( abstract ) constitutional review and thus refused to institute proceedings to review the constitutionality of LAW .","On DATE the Act on the implementation of the Constitutional Court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below , hereafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) entered into force . It provided that those pensioners ( hereafter \u201c eligible pensioners \u201d ) whose pensions had , in the period DATE and DATE ( hereafter \u201c the relevant period \u201d ) , not been adjusted in line with the increase in wages had a right to compensation ( for the pension debt ) which corresponded to the difference between the pension they had been entitled to receive and the pension actually paid to them in that period , reduced by the pension supplement paid under LAW and the pension increase received under LAW . In addition , eligible pensioners were also entitled to interest on the total amount of compensation at a rate of PERCENT calculated from DATE the Act \u2019s entry into force . While the amount of compensation was to be determined ( calculated ) by ORG , the compensation itself was to be obtained through a special fund ( \u201c the Pensioners\u2019 Fund \u201d ) that was to be established on the basis of subsequent legislation .","On DATE LAW ( see paragraphs DATE below ) entered into force . The Act provided that each eligible pensioner had a right to a share in the Fund depending on the amount of compensation to which they were entitled . The LAW gave each of them a choice between payment of CARDINAL of the compensation in CARDINAL semi - DATE instalments over a period of DATE ( DATE ) ( Model A ) , or payment of full compensation in CARDINAL DATE instalments over DATE ( DATE ) with a DATE delay ( Model B ) . In the end , PERCENT of eligible pensioners opted for Model A whereas PERCENT chose PERSON is operated and managed by a private investment company , ORG , which is also charged with calculating the interest due on the amount of compensation determined in advance by ORG under LAW in respect of each eligible pensioner .","According to a report by ORG of DATE , the total amount of compensation for the pension debt that was to be paid through ORG was HRK CARDINAL an additional HRK CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL in accrued interest . The report also suggests that CARDINAL eligible pensioners were entitled to compensation whereas CARDINAL were not , because the total amount of their pensions received in the relevant period together with the pension supplement paid under LAW and the pension increase paid under LAW exceeded the total amount of pension they were entitled to receive in that period .","On DATE ORG rejected CARDINAL petitions for ( abstract ) constitutional review and thus refused to institute proceedings to review the constitutionality of CARDINAL provisions of LAW . Likewise , on DATE it rejected CARDINAL petitions for ( abstract ) constitutional review and thus refused to institute proceedings to review the constitutionality of CARDINAL provisions of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","The first applicant has been receiving a survivor \u2019s pension ( obiteljska mirovina ) since DATE , following the death of her husband .","By a notice of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the first applicant that the amount of compensation for the pension debt owed to her equalled CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) ; in other words , she was not entitled to any compensation . In particular , the calculation contained in the information notice indicated that in the relevant period the first applicant had received , together with the disbursements paid under LAW and LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , pension payments in the total amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , whereas she was entitled to receive HRK DATE .","On DATE the first applicant requested ORG of ORG ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje \u2013 Podru\u010dna slu\u017eba u Vara\u017edinu ) to verify whether the amount of compensation referred to in ORG information notice had been correctly calculated .","By a letter of DATE ORG replied that it had verified the calculation and established that the amount had been calculated correctly .","On DATE the first applicant requested ORG to re - calculate the amount of compensation in accordance with the criteria set forth in ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG , after explaining the method of calculation to the first applicant , reiterated that the amount of compensation in her case had , in its view , been accurately calculated .","On DATE the first applicant brought an action for judicial review in ORG ( ORG ) contesting ORG letter of CARDINAL DATE . She argued that ORG had refused to re - calculate the amount of compensation in her case in accordance with ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the first applicant \u2019s action inadmissible , finding that the contested letter of CARDINAL DATE did not constitute an \u201c administrative act \u201d , within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , against which administrative - dispute ( judicial review ) proceedings could be instituted . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c LAW paragraph CARDINAL of [ LAW ] provides that the difference between the pension to which a person was entitled and the pension actually received in the period DATE and DATE shall be determined [ that is , calculated ] for each pensioner separately by ORG of its own motion and within DATE ( without issuing a special decision in administrative proceedings ) .","...","Section CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that administrative - dispute proceedings may be initiated only against an administrative act . According to section CARDINAL of that Act , administrative - dispute proceedings may also be initiated [ for failure to respond ] when the competent [ administrative ] authority has not adopted the relevant administrative act [ that is , a formal decision ] following an application or an appeal by a party ...","Given that [ the plaintiff in the present case ] by her action contests an act that is not an administrative act and that [ the case ] concerns a matter in which the relevant administrative act is not being issued ... it was decided as indicated in the operative provisions . \u201d","On DATE the first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . She relied on LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( equality before the law ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the first applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as lodged outside the statutory time - limit of DATE . ORG decision was served on the first applicant on DATE .","The second applicant has been receiving a disability pension ( invalidska mirovina ) since DATE .","By a notice of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the second applicant that the amount of compensation for the pension debt owed to him equalled CARDINAL HRK , that is , that he was not entitled to any compensation . In particular , the calculation detailed in the information notice indicated that in the relevant period the second applicant had received , together with the disbursements paid under LAW and LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , pension payments in the total amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , whereas he had been entitled to HRK ORG . However , from the calculation it is evident that the sum of the amounts the second applicant was entitled to receive was not HRK ORG , but HRK CARDINAL . The relevant part of ORG information notice reads as follows :","On DATE the second applicant requested both ORG of ORG ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje \u2013 Podru\u010dna slu\u017eba u GPE ) and ORG to correct the manifest error in calculation contained in the information notice of CARDINAL DATE and pay him HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , that is , the difference between the amount received and the amount he had actually been entitled to . On DATE the applicant submitted the same request to ORG of ORG ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje \u2013 Sredi\u0161nja slu\u017eba ) .","By a letter of DATE ORG replied that it had verified the calculation contained in ORG information notice of CARDINAL DATE and established that it was correct .","In his motion of DATE the second applicant asked ORG to issue a formal decision on the merits of his request of DATE , pursuant to LAW . He added that if ORG letter of DATE was to be considered a decision on his request , then his motion should be considered as an appeal against that decision .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the second applicant \u2019s motion inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c Section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of [ LAW ] provides that compensation is to be obtained through a special fund . Given that , pursuant to LAW , the ... compensation is not to be obtained through ORG but through ORG , this authority does not have jurisdiction to decide on the request submitted . \u201d","On DATE the second applicant appealed against that decision .","By a decision of DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision , repeating the reasons given therein .","On DATE the second applicant brought an action for judicial review in ORG contesting the second - instance decision .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s action , endorsing the reasons given by the ORG . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c The courts finds that the defendant authority [ i.e. ORG ] acted correctly when it dismissed the plaintiff \u2019s appeal against the decision of the first - instance authority and that it correctly held that ORG and its [ regional ] offices were not competent to determine the amount of compensation [ payable for the pension debt ] , which is exclusively within the power of ORG , pursuant to LAW \u201d","On DATE the second applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He relied on LAW the right to appeal ) , LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( the guarantee of judicial review of decisions of administrative and other public authorities ) and LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( the right to a fair hearing ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as well as on LAW . In his constitutional complaint the second applicant wrote , inter alia , the following :","\u201c By the contested judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the complainant \u2019s action brought against the decision of ORG of DATE dismissing the complainant \u2019s appeal against the decision of [ its ] ORG of DATE .","...","By so doing ORG failed to fulfil its constitutional role to review the lawfulness of administrative acts and thus breached the complainant \u2019s right to judicial review of the lawfulness of administrative acts guaranteed by LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW .","In addition , the complainant \u2019s constitutional right to appeal guaranteed by LAW was also breached . In particular , throughout the entire administrative proceedings neither [ ORG ] nor ORG addressed the complainant \u2019s arguments relating to the incorrect calculation of compensation , raised in his appeal and in his action , but only declined the jurisdiction expressly conferred on them by [ LAW ] .","After having received [ the information notice containing ] the calculation with which he disagrees , the complainant asked [ ORG ] to issue a [ formal ] decision so that he could avail himself of the legal remedies guaranteed by LAW . However , [ ORG ] refused to issue such a decision , even though section CARDINAL ) [ LAW ] expressly and unequivocally provides that ORG shall determine [ i.e. calculate ] the difference between the pension to which each pensioner was entitled to and the pension actually paid .","Such conduct [ on the part of the domestic authorities ] ... is not and can not be lawful nor in accordance with the LAW in any civilised country .","That would mean , for example , that someone whose pension was calculated incorrectly would never be able to contest that . Naturally , that [ conclusion ] can not be sustained as every party has the right to ask ORG to issue a [ formal ] decision each time the pension is revised ( for example , each time the pension is increased ) in order to be able to verify that [ new ] calculation and , if dissatisfied with it , resort to legal remedies ( appeal , action ) .","The conduct of [ the domestic authorities in the present case ] is also contrary to LAW of the [ Convention ] ... and in breach of the constitutional right to a fair hearing under LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW ... \u201d","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the second applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible . It found that even though in his constitutional complaint the second applicant had relied on the relevant Articles of the LAW , he had not substantiated his complaint by any constitutional - law arguments but had merely repeated the arguments raised in the proceedings before ORG . Therefore , ORG was unable to examine the merits of his constitutional complaint . ORG decision was served on the second applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","The third applicant received an early retirement pension ( prijevremena starosna mirovina ) and then a retirement pension ( starosna mirovina ) from DATE until DATE , whereupon , following the death of her husband , she received a survivor \u2019s pension .","In DATE ORG informed the third applicant that the amount of compensation for the pension debt owed to her equalled CARDINAL HRK , that is , that she was not entitled to any compensation . In particular , the calculation detailed in the information notice indicated that in the relevant period the third applicant had received , together with the disbursements paid under LAW and LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , pension payments in the total amount of HRK CARDINAL , whereas she had been entitled to receive HRK CARDINAL .","On DATE the third applicant asked ORG of ORG to re - calculate the amount of compensation in accordance with the criteria set forth in ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She argued that the amount of pension she had been entitled to receive was HRK CARDINAL , and not HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL as indicated in ORG information notice .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG replied that it had verified the calculation contained in ORG information notice and established that it was correct .","In her motion of CARDINAL DATE the third applicant asked ORG to issue a formal decision on the merits of her request of CARDINAL DATE , pursuant to LAW . She added that , if ORG letter of DATE was to be considered a decision on her request , then her motion should be considered as an appeal against that decision .","By a decision of DATE ORG declared the third applicant \u2019s motion inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c Section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of [ LAW ] provides that compensation is to be obtained through a special fund . Given that , pursuant to LAW , the ... compensation is not to be obtained through ORG but through ORG , this authority does not have jurisdiction to decide on the request submitted . \u201d","On DATE the third applicant appealed against that decision .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the third applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of ORG , repeating the reasons given therein .","On DATE the third applicant brought an action for judicial review in ORG contesting the second - instance decision .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the third applicant \u2019s action , endorsing the reasons given by the ORG . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c Given that compensation [ for the pension debt ] is not to be obtained through the defendant authority [ ORG ] , the first - instance authority [ ORG ] ... correctly declared the motion [ of DATE ] inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction and the second - instance authority [ ORG ] correctly dismissed the plaintiff \u2019s appeal against that decision . \u201d","On DATE the third applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . She relied on LAW the right to appeal ) , LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( the guarantee of judicial review of decisions of administrative and other public authorities ) and LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( the right to a fair hearing ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW . In her constitutional complaint the third applicant wrote , inter alia , the following :","\u201c By the contested judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the complainant \u2019s action brought against the decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE dismissing the complainant \u2019s appeal against the decision of [ its ] ORG of DATE .","...","By so doing ORG failed to fulfil its constitutional role to review the lawfulness of administrative acts and thus breached the complainant \u2019s right to judicial review of the lawfulness of administrative acts guaranteed by LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW .","In addition , the complainant \u2019s constitutional right to appeal guaranteed by LAW was also breached . In particular , throughout the entire administrative proceedings neither [ ORG ] nor ORG addressed the complainant \u2019s arguments relating to the incorrect calculation of compensation raised in her appeal .","[ ORG ] declined jurisdiction to decide on rights arising from pension insurance ( even though it is the only authority in GPE competent to decide on such rights ) and ORG endorsed that without any legitimate reason . ...","After having received the calculation with which she disagrees , the complainant asked [ ORG ] to issue a [ formal ] decision so that she could avail herself of legal remedies guaranteed by LAW . However , [ ORG ] refused to issue such a decision , which is not and can not be lawful nor in accordance with LAW in any civilised country . That is also contrary to LAW ] ...","The above - described conduct [ on the part of the domestic authorities ] is also in breach of the constitutional right to a fair hearing under LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW ... \u201d","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the third applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible . It found that even though in her constitutional complaint the third applicant had relied on the relevant Articles of the LAW , she had not substantiated her complaint by any constitutional - law arguments but had merely repeated the arguments raised in the proceedings before ORG . Therefore , ORG was unable to examine the merits of her constitutional complaint . ORG decision was served on the third applicant on DATE .","The relevant Articles of the LAW of GPE ( ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL , DATE ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( consolidated text ) , PERSON ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL read as follows :","\u201c Everyone in GPE shall enjoy rights and freedoms regardless of their race , colour , sex , language , religion , political or other beliefs , national or social origin , property , birth , education , social status or other characteristics .","All shall be equal before the law . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Rights and freedoms may be restricted only by law in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others , legal order , public morals or health .","( CARDINAL ) Every restriction of the rights and freedoms should be proportional to the nature of the necessity for the restriction in each individual case . \u201d","\u201c The right to appeal against decisions adopted in the first - instance proceedings before a court or other competent authority shall be guaranteed .","The right of appeal may exceptionally be excluded in cases provided by law if other legal protection is ensured . \u201d","Decisions of the state administration and other public authorities shall be based on law .","Judicial review of the lawfulness of decisions given by administrative or other public authorities shall be guaranteed . \u201d","\u201c In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The right of ownership shall be guaranteed .","Ownership implies duties . Owners and users of property shall contribute to the general welfare . \u201d","The relevant provisions of the LAW on the implementation of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( Zakon o provo\u0111enju odluke PERSON CARDINAL . svibnja DATE , ORG nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u2013 \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , which entered into force on DATE , provide as follows .","Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that pensioners whose pensions had not been adjusted in the period DATE and DATE in line with the increase in wages have a right to compensation . Compensation is to be obtained through a special fund that is to be established by special legislation .","Section CARDINAL provides that , with a view to compensating pensioners , ORG shall determine ( calculate ) the difference between the amount of retirement pension , early retirement pension , disability pension or survivor \u2019s pension to which each pensioner was entitled in the relevant period , and the pension actually paid in that period . Disbursements paid under LAW and LAW must be included in the calculation ( see paragraphs LAW above ) .","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o umirovljeni\u010dkom fondu , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE , provide as follows .","Section CARDINAL provides that the founder of ORG is , on behalf of the ORG , the Government of GPE .","Section CARDINAL provides that the members of ORG are ( eligible ) pensioners referred to in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Section CARDINAL ) provides that the calculation of the difference ( that is , the calculation of the amount of the pension debt in respect of each pensioner ) referred to in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) is the basis for membership of ORG .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that ORG , that is , the private investment company that operates and manages ORG , must inform pensioners ( by way of an \u201c information notice \u201d ) of their membership of ORG and the amount of compensation they are entitled to within DATE of the establishment of the ORG .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) \u2013 as amended by DATE Amendments to LAW ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON o umirovljeni\u010dkom fondu , ORG no . CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE provides that a member of the ORG may lodge a complaint ( prigovor ) with ORG against the information notice referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of the same section ( see the preceding paragraph ) within DATE from DATE he or she received it .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that pensioners who have already been compensated on the basis of final and enforceable court decisions are not entitled to compensation from ORG .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that pensioners involved in pending administrative proceedings or administrative - dispute proceedings ( judicial review before ORG ) , shall obtain compensation pursuant to LAW .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that pensioners who brought civil actions for compensation may become members of ORG and obtain compensation pursuant to LAW if they withdraw their actions .","The relevant part of ORG ) of ORG DATE , which was , according to ORG , published on the web page of ORG on DATE , reads as follows :","Pensioners may obtain clarifications concerning the calculation of compensation [ payable to them ] exclusively from the employees of ORG on the premises of [ its ] regional offices ...","Pensioners who have received an information notice on membership [ of the ORG ] and the amount of compensation [ payable to them ] and who consider that the compensation has been incorrectly calculated may submit a request for re - calculation of the compensation .","Pensioners who have not received an information notice on the calculation of compensation but consider that they are entitled to ... compensation may submit a request for calculation of the amount of compensation [ payable to them ] .","...","ORG If a pensioner wishes to have the calculation verified he or she may make such a request at a regional office of ORG , at the counters specially designated for that purpose , or lodge a written complaint ( prigovor ) with ORG .","...","The Croatian Pension Fund shall communicate all its replies to complaints to ORG , which shall notify all pensioners who lodged complaints of new calculations .","Costs related to requests for calculation or re - calculation of compensation shall be borne by ORG only in respect of those pensioners whose compensation was incorrectly calculated by ORG .","Another complaint may not be lodged if an earlier one was refused but court proceedings may be instituted [ instead ] .","ORG has forwarded to ORG information on [ civil ] proceedings previously instituted against ORG by pensioners in [ civil ] actions . ORG shall obtain information on the remaining actions , on the basis of which civil proceedings have not yet been instituted , and forward it to ORG . ORG and ORG shall ensure that obtaining compensation on CARDINAL grounds , that is , in [ both ] civil proceedings and through ORG , is avoided . All pensioners who have brought [ civil ] actions shall be encouraged through the media to reconsider their position ... and to consider withdrawing their actions . \u201d","The Administrative Disputes Act ( Zakon o upravnim sporovima , ORG of ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , and ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) , which was in force DATE and DATE , in its relevant part , provides as follows :","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that administrative - dispute ( judicial review ) proceedings could be initiated only against an administrative act .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) defined an administrative act as an act whereby a ORG organ , in the exercise of public authority , decided on a right or obligation of an individual or organisation in an administrative matter .","Section CARDINAL provided that administrative - dispute ( judicial review ) proceedings were instituted by the bringing of an action .","DATE . Section CARDINAL provided that ORG had to declare an action inadmissible if , inter alia , the contested decision did not constitute an administrative act within the meaning of section CARDINAL of that Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG of ORG nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , and ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE hereafter : \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) , which was in force between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , was the legislation governing contracts and torts . Its relevant provisions read as follows :","\u201c Damage is diminution of one \u2019s property ( actual damage ) or prevention of its increase ( lost profits ) ... \u201d","\u201c A legal entity shall be liable for damage caused by its organ to a third person in the exercise , or in relation with the exercise of its functions [ duties ] . \u201d","The text of sections DATE and CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and TIME \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) , which entered into force on DATE , is nearly identical to the text of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of the former DATE LAW .","In the period between the adoption of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the entry into force of LAW on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) CARDINAL requests were filed with ORG regional offices by those seeking ( retrospective ) adjustment of their pensions in accordance with that decision , that is , in line with the increase in wages ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG either : ( a ) did not decide on those requests , thus forcing the pensioners to lodge appeals and actions for failure to respond ( \u017ealba zbog \u0161utnje administracije , tu\u017eba zbog \u0161utnje administracije ) , or ( b ) issued formal decisions whereby it dismissed such requests on their merits explaining that in the period DATE and DATE no relevant subordinate legislation was adopted enabling it to calculate the level of pensions in line with the increase in wages . On DATE ORG adopted the following practice direction ( zaklju\u010dak ) which was followed in its subsequent judgments ( for example , in cases no . Us - M-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE and no . Us - M-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) :","\u201c On the appeals lodged in the [ administrative ] proceedings for adjustment of pensions following the adoption of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE the competent authority [ i.e. ORG ] shall decide by applying the legislation in force after the adoption of that decision , which means that pensions should be adjusted [ only ] from DATE until DATE pursuant to section CARDINAL of the [ Basic Pension and Disability Insurance Act ] ... but having regard also to the provisions of [ LAW ] . \u201d","In decision no . Us-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ORG held that the calculation of the amount of the pension debt by ORG in respect of each eligible pensioner was not an \u201c administrative act \u201d within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It thus declared the plaintiff \u2019s action for judicial review brought against such calculation inadmissible . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c LAW paragraph CARDINAL of [ LAW ] provides that the difference between the pension to which a person was entitled and the pension actually received in the period DATE and DATE shall be established [ that is , calculated ] for each pensioner separately by ORG of its own motion and within DATE ( without issuing a special decision in administrative proceedings ) .","...","Section CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that administrative dispute proceedings may be initiated only against an administrative act . Under section CARDINAL of that Act , administrative dispute proceedings may also be initiated [ for failure to respond , that is ] when the competent [ administrative ] authority has not adopted the relevant administrative act [ that is , a decision ] at the request of or on an appeal by a party ...","Given that [ the plaintiff in the present case ] by her action contests an act that is not an administrative act and that [ the case ] concerns a matter in [ respect of ] which an administrative act [ would not , in any case ] be issued ... it was decided as indicated in the operative provisions . \u201d","In decision no . Us-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ORG held that ORG was not a public authority and that therefore the information notice on the amount of compensation owed to pensioners issued by that company was not an administrative act within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP In decision no . U - III-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged against a judgment of ORG dismissing an action brought against decisions of ORG declaring a pensioner \u2019s request for calculation of the amount of compensation inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction .","NORP In decision no . U - III-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged against a decision of ORG declaring inadmissible an action brought by a pensioner against a notice from ORG informing her that she was not entitled to any compensation . Even though in her constitutional complaint the complainant relied on LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( equality before the law ) , LAW ( the right to appeal ) , LAW ( the guarantee of judicial review of decisions of administrative and other public authorities ) and LAW ( the right of ownership ) , ORG examined her case not only under those ORG , but also under LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as it found that from her submissions it followed that she was also complaining of a violation of her constitutional right of access to court . The relevant part of ORG decision reads as follows :","\u201c In substance [ the complainant ] argues that it is unacceptable that the right ... to compensation under LAW is not determined in administrative proceedings , that parties only receive an information notice without an instruction on legal remedies available , that ORG does not examine cases concerning compensation on their merits but declares actions inadmissible on the ground that they do not concern an administrative act and that ORG is not a ORG or public authority which can decide in administrative matters .","...","From the submissions and arguments the complainant has adduced in [ support of ] her constitutional complaint it follows that , by expressly complaining of a violation of her right to appeal guaranteed by LAW and in view of the fact that her administrative action was declared inadmissible , the complainant is also complaining of a violation of the right of access to court guaranteed by LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW .","...","Procedural guarantees enshrined in LAW , in particular the right of access to court , are elements of the \u201c right to a court \u201d . Those guarantees secure the right of everyone to bring any claim relating to their rights or obligations before a court and [ the right ] to have that claim decided .","The right to a court is not an absolute right . Rather , it is subject to regulation by the competent ORG authorities , and as such , is subject to certain limitations which do not impair the very essence of the right and its legitimate aim , or which do not upset the relationship of proportionality between the means employed to restrict it and the aim sought to be achieved .","...","The present case concerns a constitutionally acceptable restriction of the right of access to court due to the legal nature of the document ( it is not an administrative act ) , the complainant contested before ORG . Besides , pursuant to LAW the calculation of the amount of compensation ( or denial of compensation ) is not an administrative matter within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW in which an administrative or other public authority would decide on one \u2019s rights or obligations . [ Rather , ] it concerns direct execution , proprio motu , of LAW , which determines which categories of pensioners , depending on the type of pensions [ they receive ] , are entitled to compensation , as well as how [ that compensation ] should be calculated . That Act does not lay down an obligation to conduct administrative proceedings and render an administrative act [ i.e. a formal decision ] which would confer on citizens the rights it sets out . Therefore , the document [ in question ] ( the information notice ) on the calculation of compensation ( or the non - existence of the right to compensation ) is of a declaratory nature only .","Since the obligation to conduct administrative proceedings and issue an administrative act [ i.e. a formal decision ] is not prescribed ( in any event , ORG would not be entitled to conduct such proceedings or issue an administrative act as it is evidently not an administrative or other public authority but a commercial company ) there is no constitutive act [ i.e. a formal decision ] which would entail the right to appeal , within the meaning of LAW , whereas the right of access to court is limited only [ to the extent that ] the jurisdiction of ORG , which is prescribed by law , excludes ... non - administrative matters . That means that the right of access to court , or [ the possibility ] to resort to another legal avenue of redress or to other remedies is not excluded .","The Constitutional Court therefore finds that the complainant \u2019s constitutional rights guaranteed by LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the [ NORP ] LAW were not violated by the contested decision . \u201d","DATE . By decision no . U - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( published in the Official Gazette CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) ORG rejected CARDINAL petitions for ( abstract ) constitutional review and thus refused to institute proceedings to review the constitutionality of CARDINAL provisions of LAW , including sections CARDINAL and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c The calculation of the amount of compensation contained in an information notice [ from ORG ] , may be contested by way of a complaint ( prigovor ) to [ ORG ] within DATE of the receipt of the notice ( section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ) whereupon the possibility of judicial protection is also open . The commercial company [ i.e. ORG ] which operates and manages the [ Pensioners\u2019 ] Fund within the meaning of CARDINAL of LAW has standing to be sued in [ such ] judicial proceedings .","...","As regards the ORG argument that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW [ is incompatible with LAW ] because \u2018 the exercise of the right to be paid compensation is contingent on withdrawal of [ any civil ] action [ which may have been brought ] , which restricts the right to judicial protection\u2019 ... ORG , having regard to the unquestionable power of the legislator to prescribe conditions for acquiring the right to membership of the [ Pensioners\u2019 ] Fund , as well as to the fact that the impugned restriction does not prevent the addressees of [ LAW ] [ to exercise ] the right to judicial protection in a way that would impair the essence of that right but \u2018 allows them to choose the way\u2019 [ in which they ] ... exercise the right to be paid compensation , finds that the prescribed restriction is proportional to the aim sought to be achieved by the restriction . \u201d","By decision no . PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG ruled that an ordinary ( civil ) court had jurisdiction in a case where the plaintiff sought payment of the pension debt , and thereby resolved a conflict of jurisdiction between that ordinary court and ORG .","In judgments nos . PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE and PERSON - x CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ORG dismissed appeals on points of law ( revizija ) and upheld the lower courts\u2019 judgments dismissing actions brought against ORG after the entry into force of LAW and LAW whereby the plaintiffs sought payment of ( compensation for ) the pension debt owed to them . In particular , ORG held that after these CARDINAL legislative acts had come into force on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively such compensation claims had to be adjudicated solely on the basis of that legislation . Since under those CARDINAL legislative enactments compensation for the pension debt could be obtained either as payment of CARDINAL of the compensation due over a period of DATE or as delayed payment of the entire amount of compensation due over DATE , awarding full and immediate compensation to those pensioners who had brought civil actions to that end would place them in a privileged position compared to other pensioners who had not brought such actions and thus had to obtain compensation through ORG . The relevant part of those judgments reads as follows :","\u201c The substantive - law issue raised by the plaintiff in his appeal on points of law is whether the plaintiff is entitled to be paid the difference in pension in accordance with ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE or [ whether he may exercise ] the right to be paid [ that difference ] only through ORG .","...","The lower - instance courts dismissed the plaintiff \u2019s claim by holding that the provisions of LAW applied only to those pensioners who had withdrawn their [ civil ] actions , which the plaintiff had not done , and therefore he had not acquired the right to compensation pursuant to that LAW and [ LAW ] ...","It is beyond dispute that the plaintiff falls within the category of pensioners who were by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] granted the right to compensation due to the partial adjustment of [ their ] pensions in the period DATE and DATE .","...","... LAW ... regulates the method of compensation of pensioners referred to in section CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] and thereby fully implements the [ ORG ] decision [ of CARDINAL DATE ] .","The right to compensation under the [ Pensioners\u2019 Fund ] Act belongs only to those pensioners who are the members of the ORG .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW pensioners referred to in LAW of [ LAW ] who have brought civil actions for compensation may become members of the ORG and obtain compensation pursuant to that LAW if they withdraw their actions .","These [ civil ] proceedings in which the plaintiff seeks compensation ... were instituted after the entry into force of [ LAW ] and LAW . Given that the plaintiff ... had not , in accordance with the said provision , withdrawn his action [ he ] did not become a member of the ORG nor [ did he ] acquire the right to compensation under LAW .","The plaintiff seeks payment of the full amount of compensation , whereas LAW provides that compensation must be obtained by acquiring and disposing of the shares in the ORG in accordance with the prescribed standards and criteria , so that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) sub - paragraph CARDINAL of LAW the right to the entire amount of compensation due belongs [ only ] to those members who opted for the right to acquire and dispose of the shares over DATE with a DATE delay where the amount of compensation is paid in CARDINAL DATE instalments .","After the entry into force of [ LAW ] and LAW the ORG claims for compensation for non - adjustment of [ their ] pensions in the period DATE and DATE must be decided exclusively on the basis of these legislative acts , which were adopted with a view to removing the effects of unconstitutional pension insurance legislation which had been invalidated by ORG .","Those legislative acts enabled pensioners who had brought civil actions for compensation to obtain it in the same way and under the same conditions as other pensioners who had not brought civil actions . The plaintiff was therefore not put in a disadvantaged position vis - \u00e0 - vis those [ other ] pensioners .","By refusing compensation [ paid ] in accordance with LAW and maintaining his claim for a single payment of the full amount of the difference in pension owed to him , the plaintiff seeks to obtain compensation under conditions that are more favourable than those applied to pensioners who exercise that right as members of the [ Pensioners\u2019 ] Fund . Therefore , to allow the plaintiff \u2019s claim would place him in a more favourable position than those [ other ] pensioners and thereby breach the constitutional guarantee of equality enshrined in LAW .","The plaintiff \u2019s claim is unfounded even if adjudicated on the basis of the legislation in force before the adoption of [ LAW ] and LAW because a [ civil ] court is not entitled to decide on rights arising from pension insurance as a preliminary issue .","The defendant [ i.e. ORG ] as the competent authority had rendered final decisions in the administrative proceedings on the amount of pension payable to ... the plaintiff and paid the pension on the basis of those decisions . The lawfulness of those decisions could have been examined in administrative proceedings .","Therefore , the legal basis for determining the ... amount of pension to be paid to the plaintiff , are the defendant \u2019s final decisions on the basis of which the pension was paid ... The court is not entitled to assess the lawfulness of the defendant \u2019s decisions nor to establish that the plaintiff was entitled to a higher pension than the CARDINAL paid on the basis of [ those ] final decisions .","The existence of that right is determined in administrative proceedings by a constitutive decision . [ However , ] a decision that could have represented a legal title rendering the claim for payment of the difference in pension sought by the plaintiff well - founded was not rendered in the present case .","In view of the above the second - instance court , in dismissing the plaintiff \u2019s claim , correctly applied the [ relevant ] substantive law . Therefore , the plaintiff \u2019s appeal on points of law has to be dismissed ... \u201d","In judgment no . PERSON CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that the same reasoning applied to those cases where an action for payment of ( compensation for ) the pension debt had been brought before the entry into force of LAW and LAW .","By judgment no . P-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ORG ordered ORG as the defendant to pay the plaintiff ( a pensioner ) the pension debt . The exact amount of the pension debt owed to the plaintiff the court ordered the defendant to pay was calculated on the basis of an opinion prepared by a financial expert .","By judgment no . G\u017e-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ORG reversed a first - instance judgment dismissing an action brought by CARDINAL pensioners as plaintiffs and ordered ORG as the defendant to pay them the pension debt . It held that because the plaintiffs had not withdrawn their action in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , they had chosen to obtain compensation for the pension debt not through ORG but in civil proceedings .","By judgment no . ORG of CARDINAL DATE the ORG quashed a first - instance judgment and remitted the case where the first - instance court had dismissed an action for payment of compensation brought by a pensioner as the plaintiff against ORG for its failure to satisfy its statutory obligation CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and determine the amount of compensation owed to him . The plaintiff had brought his action because he had not received ORG information notice within the statutory time - limit , and ORG , in reply to his request for calculation of the compensation owed to him , had informed him that he was not eligible for compensation because he had been receiving a pension on account of his status as a former political prisoner . The ORG did so even though it had previously granted him a disability pension .","By judgment no . P-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an action for payment of the pension debt brought by a pensioner as the plaintiff against the ORG as the defendant . The plaintiff brought her action after she had been informed via ORG information notice that she was not entitled to any compensation through ORG , and after ORG , in reply to her request for re - calculation of the compensation owed to her , had informed her that the compensation had been correctly calculated . The court did not accept the ORG \u2019s argument that it did not have jurisdiction in the matter . It held that it had jurisdiction precisely because ORG had not issued a formal decision ( an administrative act ) on the plaintiff \u2019s request for re - calculation , thus depriving her of the possibility to seek judicial review before ORG . The court eventually dismissed the plaintiff \u2019s claim because it held that she should have sued ORG instead of the ORG , and because she had refused to advance the fees of the financial expert the court had been prepared to call upon to verify the ORG \u2019s calculation of compensation .","By judgment no . G\u017e-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld a first - instance judgment dismissing an action brought by a pensioner as the plaintiff against the ORG as the defendant for payment of compensation for the pension debt . The court held that the ORG had standing to be sued because LAW provided that ORG had been established by ORG on behalf of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court dismissed the plaintiff \u2019s claim because a financial expert confirmed that ORG calculation , according to which the plaintiff was not entitled to compensation , was correct .","By judgment no . P-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ORG dismissed an action brought by a pensioner as the plaintiff against ORG and ORG as defendants whereby she sought : ( a ) declaration that she had become a member of ORG and acquired a certain number of shares in it corresponding to the pension debt owed to her , and ( b ) payment of compensation in accordance with Model B provided for by LAW . The plaintiff brought her action because she considered that the amount of compensation indicated in ORG information notice was too low . She did so only after ORG , in reply to her request for re - calculation of the compensation , had informed her that the compensation had been correctly calculated . The plaintiff specifically asked the court to establish the correct amount of compensation owed to her under LAW and LAW . The court dismissed her action because it held that it was not authorised to verify the accuracy of ORG calculation of the compensation . The court held , in particular :","\u201c This court considers that it has no power to establish whether the amount of compensation for the pension debt ... has been determined correctly . That is so because there is not a single legislative act in force which would entitle it to examine whether the amount of compensation determined by the first defendant [ i.e. ORG ] is correct and accurate , or to determine the amount of compensation and order it to be paid .","Namely , even though the case file does not contain any decision by the first or the second defendant adopted on the basis of [ LAW ] or LAW in the form of an administrative act , from [ their provisions ] it is evident that authorities other than this court are competent to decide on compensation and its amount . Therefore , the plaintiff should have requested those authorities to determine [ her right to compensation ] and its amount either in administrative proceedings or in administrative - dispute [ i.e. judicial review ] proceedings [ before ORG ] especially because the right to compensation for the pension [ debt ] owed to [ her ] is a right arising from pension insurance .","...","Given that from the aforementioned legislation it is evident that the first defendant [ i.e. ORG ] is competent to decide on the rights arising from the pension insurance and that [ LAW ] confers on it also [ the power ] to determine the amount of compensation payable for the pension debt , the plaintiff in the civil proceedings may claim payment of only the amount of the pension debt which was determined by the competent authority . That being so , the plaintiff should have obtained , either from the first defendant or by instituting administrative - dispute [ judicial review ] proceedings [ before ORG ] , a decision on the amount of compensation owed to her for the pension debt ... That is so because to obtain a court judgment ordering payment , the plaintiff must first have a title for it , and it is precisely a decision by the first defendant [ i.e. ORG ] which she does not have ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172468","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GO\u0160OVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Split .","He is the owner of a flat in ORG with a surface area of QUANTITY . According to the applicant , that flat is the only real estate in his ownership and his only property of value .","It would appear that in DATE the housing authorities awarded a specially protected tenancy ( stanarsko pravo ) of the flat to a certain Ms ORG and her family .","On DATE ORG entered into force . It abolished the legal concept of the specially protected tenancy and provided that the holders of such tenancies in respect of , inter alia , privately owned flats were to become \u201c protected lessees \u201d ( za\u0161ti\u0107eni najmoprimci ) . Under the Act such lessees are subject to a number of protective measures , such as the duty of landlords to contract a lease of indefinite duration , payment of protected rent ( za\u0161ti\u0107ena najamnina ) , the amount of which is set by the Government and significantly lower than the market rent ; and better protection against termination of the lease .","The applicant refused to conclude a lease contract with ORG under the protected lease scheme .","Therefore , on DATE she brought a civil action against him in ORG ( PERSON ORG ) with a view to obtaining a judgment in lieu of such a contract .","At the hearing held on CARDINAL DATE the applicant argued that PERSON was not entitled to protected rent because she owned a house in the tourist village of GPE , QUANTITY from Split .","At the hearing held on DATE the applicant submitted a counter - claim seeking to obtain a judgment ordering PERSON and her family to vacate the flat in question . He argued that he intended to move into the flat .","By a judgment of DATE ORG found in favour of ORG and imposed on the applicant a lease contract stipulating protected rent in the amount of MONEY ( HRK ) DATE .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first - instance judgment .","The Municipal and ORG established that GPE was living in the flat with her son PERSON , her daughter - in - law and her grandson whereas the applicant was living with his mother in a flat located in the same building . His mother also owned an adjacent building where he was running his medical practice in CARDINAL of the flats . The court also found that ORG and her son PERSON indeed owned a small summer home in GPE surfacing QUANTITY only .","Against this factual background the Municipal and ORG held that the conditions provided in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG , as interpreted by ORG ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) , had not been met and that the applicant was therefore not entitled to refuse to enter into a lease contract with ORG under the protected lease scheme . In particular , even though the applicant intended to move into the flat and had no other accommodation , he was neither entitled to permanent social assistance or was over DATE of age , nor was ORG \u2019s DATE home in LOC located in the same municipality or township .","Those courts also held that , apart from being protected from eviction , ORG was also entitled to protected rent ; the applicant thus having no right to charge her the market rent for living in his flat . That was so because they found that ORG DATE home did not constitute a habitable house within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Lease of Flats Act ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint against the judgments of the PERSON and ORG , and served its decision on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154733","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ILIE GU\u021a\u0102 AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and\/or to have certain actions taken by ORG authorities in their favour .","In some of the applications , the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172460","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP;TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00dcZELYURTLU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS AND TURKEY","importance":2,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (Cyprus);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect) (Turkey);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Iulia Motoc;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The application concerns the murder on DATE of Elmas , PERSON and PERSON , all NORP nationals of NORP origin .","The applicants are the family of the deceased . The first , second and third applicants are the children of ORG and PERSON and the brother and sisters , respectively , of GPE . The fourth and fifth applicants are PERSON sisters , and the sixth and seventh applicants are her parents .","The first CARDINAL applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The sixth and seventh applicants were both born in DATE . The first , fifth , sixth and seventh applicants live in the \u201c GPE \u201d . The second , third and fourth applicants live in GPE .","Elmas GPE was a businessman and used to live with his wife PERSON and daughter PERSON in the \u201c GPE \u201d . In DATE , following the collapse of the bank that Elmas GPE owned , Elmas LOC fled to and settled in GPE , in ORG - controlled areas . His wife and daughter joined him in DATE . In DATE they moved to the ORG district of GPE .","On DATE at TIME on the GPE - FAC , near FAC , a police officer spotted a black ORG car parked on the hard shoulder . The engine was running , the left turn indicator light was flashing and the door of the front passenger seat was open .","Zerrin and PERSON were found dead on the back seat of the car . Elmas GPE was lying dead at a distance of QUANTITY from the car in a nearby ditch . All CARDINAL were in pyjamas and slippers . PERSON had adhesive tape on her neck and CARDINAL rolls of adhesive tape in her hands . Both PERSON and her daughter PERSON had redness ( \u03b5\u03c1\u03c5\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1 ) on the edges of their hands , which indicated that they had been tied with adhesive tape . They also had bruises on their shins which had been sustained in a struggle .","The particulars of the investigation and the measures taken , as submitted by ORG and as can be seen from the documents contained in the case file , may be summarised as follows .","The police officer who discovered the bodies informed GPE police headquarters . A number of police officers ( some of them high - ranking ) , arrived at QUANTITY at the crime scene , which had already been secured and sealed off .","A detailed on - the - spot investigation was immediately conducted by the police and a forensic pathologist . Photographs were taken and a video recording was made . CARDINAL bullets , CARDINAL cartridge cases and a kitchen knife were found inside the car . A third cartridge case was found outside the car .","An investigation team consisting of CARDINAL officers was set up .","The car was taken away for further inspection .","At CARDINAL a.m. officers went to the GPE house in PERSON . The house was secured and sealed off . An investigation was carried out by the investigation team and a forensic pathologist . Photographs and fingerprints were taken and a video recording made at the scene . The investigation determined that the perpetrators of the murders had broken into the house through a window . A suction cup ( \u03b2\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03b6\u03b1 ) and pieces of adhesive tape were found outside the window . Adhesive tape was found in the GPE bedrooms , the living room and the car park . The security system had been switched off at TIME on DATE and CARDINAL of the cameras appeared to have been turned upwards at TIME","Numerous exhibits were collected from the scene of the crime and the GPE home . These were sent for forensic examination .","On DATE the GPE bodies were taken to the mortuary at FAC for a post - mortem examination . Death certificates were issued .","On DATE post - mortem examinations were carried out by a forensic pathologist . It was determined that each of the CARDINAL victims had died of severe craniocerebral injury caused by a shot from a firearm at close range and that their deaths had been the result of a criminal act . Photographs were taken and a video recording made of the post - mortem examinations . A diary of action ( \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03bf \u03b5\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 ) was kept by CARDINAL of the police officers present during the post - mortem examinations , which recorded , inter alia , the actions and findings of the forensic pathologist .","The investigation included the tracing and questioning of numerous witnesses , searching the records of vehicles that had gone through the crossing points between north and south , and examining the security system of the GPE house and computer hard discs for relevant material concerning the movements of persons and vehicles near the house at the material time . The source of the suction cup and the adhesive tape was determined to be a shop in GPE ( in northern GPE ) .","From the evidence collected it appeared that on DATE , TIME and TIME , QUANTITY shots had been heard from the area in which the car and the victims were found .","According to the witness statements taken by the police , at the time the murders were committed a ORG car without number plates was seen parked behind the GPE car . QUANTITY persons were seen standing around the cars and CARDINAL person was seen in the passenger \u2019s seat of the ORG car . It was further ascertained that on DATE , at TIME , a red ORG car with \u201c TRNC \u201d number plates had passed through the LOC crossing point located in LOC but without passing through LOC checkpoint . At TIME DATE the same car had returned to the \u201c TRNC \u201d through the same crossing point \u2013 again without being checked . The driver of the car , who resided in the \u201c TRNC \u201d , had been accompanied by another person .","From the evidence gathered , it was determined that the victims had been kidnapped at TIME on DATE and had been murdered between CARDINAL and TIME","According to the relevant police reports , CARDINAL vehicles and CARDINAL people were involved in the murder ; a fact which pointed to a well - planned and premeditated crime .","A ballistics examination established that the bullets had been fired from the same handgun ; CARDINAL of the cartridge cases had been of NORP manufacture and CARDINAL of NORP manufacture .","The initial investigation resulted in the identification of CARDINAL suspects : PERSON ( \u201c the first suspect \u201d ) , ORG ( \u201c the second suspect \u201d ) , PERSON ( \u201c the third suspect \u201d ) , PERSON ( \u201c the fourth suspect \u201d ) and ORG ( \u201c the fifth suspect \u201d ) . It appears from the documents submitted to the ORG that the first , second , third and fourth suspects were NORP nationals and \u201c GPE \u201d citizens and that the fifth suspect was a NORP national .","DNA belonging to the first , second and fourth suspects was found on exhibits taken from the crime scene and the GPE house . DNA belonging to the first suspect was found on the steering wheel of Elmas G\u00fczelyurtlu \u2019s car . The police authorities already had DNA from these CARDINAL suspects as they had taken genetic material from all of them in the past in connection with other offences ( unlawful possession of a firearm and burglary ) . Moreover , the ORG car was found to be registered in the name of the fourth suspect and to have been driven by the first suspect .","Arrest warrants had already been issued in respect of these CARDINAL suspects with regard to other offences ; the first suspect was wanted in relation to a drugs case and for obtaining a passport and identity card issued by GPE under false pretences ; the second suspect was wanted for the unlawful possession and transfer of a firearm , and the fourth suspect was wanted for the unlawful possession of a firearm .","The other CARDINAL suspects were linked to the murder through other evidence . DNA belonging to CARDINAL unidentified persons was also found .","On DATE ORG issued arrest warrants in respect of all CARDINAL suspects on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion that they had committed the offences of premeditated murder , conspiracy to murder , abducting ( \u03b1\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03c9\u03b3\u03ae ) a person in order to commit murder ( sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , PERSON . CARDINAL ) , and the illegal transfer of a category B firearm ( sections PERSON ) and CARDINAL of the Firearms and Other LAW ( Law DATE , as amended ) .","On DATE the police authorities sent \u201c stop list \u201d messages to the immigration authorities ( that is to say messages asking them to add the suspects to their \u201c stop list \u201d \u2013 a register of individuals whose entry into and exit from GPE is banned or subject to monitoring ) and to notify the police should they attempt to leave the Republic .","On DATE the police submitted \u201c Red Notice \u201d requests to ORG to search for and arrest the suspects with a view to their extradition .","On DATE an official request was made by the Director of ORG of the President of the Republic to the Special Representative and Chief of Mission ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) of ORG in GPE ( \u201c UNFICYP \u201d ) to facilitate the handing over to the appropriate authorities of GPE of all the suspects and all evidential material relating to the crime and\/or suspects in northern GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE Red Notices were published by ORG in respect of the first CARDINAL suspects and on DATE in respect of the fifth suspect . These sought the provisional arrest of the suspects and stated that extradition would be requested from any country with which GPE was linked by a bilateral extradition treaty , an extradition convention or any another convention or treaty containing provisions on extradition .","As the police authorities were not able to trace the suspects in the areas controlled by the Republic , on DATE they applied for the issuance of NORP arrest warrants . On DATE ORG issued NORP arrest warrants in respect of all CARDINAL suspects .","As the investigation continued , another CARDINAL suspects were identified : PERSON ( \u201c the sixth suspect \u201d ) , PERSON ( \u201c the seventh suspect \u201d ) and GPE ( \u201c the eighth suspect \u201d ) . It appears from the documents submitted to ORG that the sixth and eighth suspects were NORP nationals and \u201c GPE \u201d citizens and that the seventh suspect was a NORP national . The sixth suspect had been wanted by the authorities since DATE in respect of a case involving an assault causing serious bodily harm . The relevant case file had been classified as \u201c otherwise disposed of \u201d ( PERSON ) in DATE .","On DATE ORG issued arrest warrants against all CARDINAL suspects on the same grounds as those issued in respect of the other suspects ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the same court issued NORP arrest warrants against them .","On DATE , at the request of the NORP authorities , ORG were published in respect of the latter CARDINAL suspects .","On DATE a message was sent by ORG to ORG in response to LAW in respect of the fifth suspect . This message stated that the fifth suspect was in police custody and that ORG had been informed of the crime that he had allegedly committed . They also noted that under LAW , a NORP national who had committed a crime in a foreign country which was punishable with DATE imprisonment under NORP law could be punished under NORP law . Furthermore , pursuant to domestic law , it was not possible to extradite a NORP citizen from GPE . Consequently , ORG wanted to know if it was possible for the investigation documents to be sent to them via ORG channels .","On DATE the police authorities transmitted \u201c stop list \u201d messages to the immigration authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As can be seen from an email dated DATE from the Director of ORG of the President of the Republic to the Chief European Union negotiator for GPE , the NORP authorities around this time forwarded to ORG an interim report by ORG in order to facilitate its mediation of the handing over of the suspects in the instant case . ORG was asked for any assistance that it might be in a position to provide in bringing the perpetrators of the murders to justice . According to an internal note of a telephone conversation ORG was subsequently informed by ORG that the above - mentioned report had been passed on to the \u201c NORP \u201d authorities , who had found the evidence that it contained to be insufficient . The \u201c GPE \u201d authorities requested video tapes but did not clarify whether the suspects would be handed over if such tapes were given to them .","The Government submitted that as the investigation had progressed more evidence had been collected implicating the suspects . CARDINAL statements had been taken from various persons , including the relatives of the victims , persons who knew or had connections with the victims , and persons involved in the investigation . The authorities had also carried out DNA tests on a number of other possible suspects but no link to the crime had been found . The ORG representatives had also met and had been in telephone contact with the Attorney - General .","On DATE the eighth suspect was arrested by NORP police in GPE ( in the Government - controlled area ) . DATE he was remanded in custody for DATE by order of ORG on the ground that there was reasonable suspicion that he had committed offences under sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) and sections PERSON ) and CARDINAL of the Firearms and LAW ( Law CARDINAL\/(I)\/CARDINAL , as amended ) . He was released , however , upon the expiry of the remand period as the authorities , after questioning him , did not have enough evidence to link him to the offences . According to the relevant police report , some of the allegations he had made could not be looked into as the NORP police could not conduct investigations in the \u201c NORP \u201d . Furthermore , DNA tests did not link him to the crime .","In a letter dated DATE the Attorney - General assured the ORG representatives that the Republic was \u201c doing everything within its power \u2013 bearing in mind that it [ did ] not have effective control over the areas of the Republic occupied by GPE ( in which persons that might be involved [ were at that time ] and taking into account the relevant Convention case - law \u2013 to investigate the ... murder and bring the persons responsible to trial before ORG . He also informed them that he would keep them informed of the progress of the investigation and reply to the queries that they had submitted on behalf of the GPE family and that this could be achieved through meetings at his office between him , the ORG representatives and the police .","A report by the GPE police investigation department dated DATE stated that the investigation had been extended to the NORP bases and the occupied areas of GPE and PERSON . It also stated that the investigation was still ongoing as the authorities were waiting for replies from ORG . The report also proposed that the officers in the investigation team be commended for their outstanding work on the case .","As the authorities were not able to execute the arrest warrants in the \u201c TRNC \u201d or undertake other steps through ORG , and given that the issuance of international arrest warrants had not resulted in the PERSON surrender by GPE , the police officer in charge of the investigation suggested in a report dated DATE that the case be \u201c otherwise disposed of \u201d ( PERSON ) pending future developments .","DATE . On DATE the case file was sent , along with the above - mentioned proposal by the GPE police investigation department , to the Attorney - General . The latter agreed with the GPE police investigation department \u2019s proposal and on DATE instructed the police to re - submit ( \u03b5\u03bd\u03b1\u03c0\u03bf\u03b2\u03bb\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af ) the investigation file if and when the arrest of all or any of the suspects was effected .","On DATE the case file were transferred to the coroner for the inquest proceedings ( inquest nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) before ORG . The proceedings were scheduled by the court for DATE . According to ORG , on that date the proceedings were adjourned until DATE due to the non - attendance of the first applicant . The first applicant was notified by the officer in charge of the investigation of the inquest proceedings and was requested to attend , as the testimony of a relative of the victims was necessary . No further information has been provided about these proceedings by ORG .","In a letter dated DATE to the Chief of Police , the Attorney - General noted that , despite all efforts on the part of the authorities , the suspects had not been handed over to the Republic , that he had spoken to the President of the Republic and that he had had repeated meetings and telephone conversations with the applicants\u2019 counsel . The Attorney - General noted that the latter had informed him of the applicants\u2019 intention to lodge an application with the ORG . The Attorney - General therefore considered that it was necessary DATE and counsel agreed DATE that international arrest warrants be issued in respect of the suspects and that GPE \u2013 who had , pursuant to the ORG \u2019s judgments , responsibility for whatever occurred in the occupied areas \u2013 be requested to enforce them . He requested that , if this had not been done already , international arrest warrants be issued as quickly as possible for the surrender of the suspects to GPE .","On DATE the fourth suspect was murdered in the \u201c GPE \u201d . Following confirmation of his death by ORG and pursuant to instructions by the Attorney - General , the arrest warrant in respect of him was cancelled by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the Attorney - General gave instructions for the preparation of extradition requests to GPE under LAW of DATE , to which both GPE were parties ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , extradition requests in respect of the CARDINAL remaining suspects ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , together with certified translations of all documents into NORP , were transmitted by ORG to ORG for communication through diplomatic channels to GPE \u2019s ORG . The requests were then sent to the GPE \u2019s embassy in GPE for communication to GPE .","By a letter dated DATE the embassy of GPE in GPE informed the Director General of ORG that on that date the extradition requests and a note verbale from ORG and Public Order and had been delivered to the NORP embassy in GPE in a sealed envelope . The usher of the embassy had given the envelope to the embassy security guard . No receipt of delivery had been given .","By a letter dated DATE the embassy of GPE in GPE informed the Director General of ORG that on that date an employee of the NORP embassy had left an envelope with the NORP embassy \u2019s security guard on which only the address of the NORP embassy had been written and which had contained the extradition requests and the note verbale from ORG and Public Order , which had been given to the NORP embassy on DATE . The person had not stated his identity , but had simply had left ( \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 ) the envelope and departed in haste .","By a letter dated DATE the Director General of ORG informed the Attorney - General of the return of all the above - mentioned documents and stated that it was clear that GPE was refusing to receive requests for the extradition of fugitives made by GPE under LAW , due to GPE \u2019s refusal to recognise GPE as a ORG .","In his reply dated DATE the Attorney - General stated that the conduct of GPE towards GPE was not that expected of a ORG which had countersigned ORG . It was not , however , for ORG to decide on the measures to be taken but it was an issue to be taken up on a political level , by ORG in particular .","ORG submitted that the domestic arrest warrants were still in force and would remain in force until executed pursuant to section DATE ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The particulars of the investigation and measures , according to the submission of ORG and as can be seen from the documents they provided , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the GPE bodies were taken to the Dr. ORG in GPE ( \u201c Lefko\u015fa \u201d ) for post - mortem examinations . The \u201c TRNC \u201d police were provided with the death certificates , which had been issued by GPE .","Given that the cause of death required that a coroner \u2019s inquest be held , the \u201c GPE \u201d police sought a court order for post - mortem examinations .","Following a hearing before the \u201c GPE \u201d ORG , the \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney - General \u2019s office requested the court to waive the requirement for post - mortem examinations , as post - mortem examinations had already been carried out in GPE . Having heard evidence from CARDINAL police officers and the hospital \u2019s forensic pathologist the court decided that post - mortem examinations were not required .","On DATE the first applicant gave a statement to the \u201c TRNC \u201d police . His views were requested concerning potential suspects . In his statement he alleged that there were CARDINAL likely suspects : ORG , GPE , GPE , FAC and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The \u201c TRNC \u201d authorities checked the entry and exit records of the suspects and established that the first suspect had crossed to GPE side on TIME of the murders and had returned to the \u201c NORP \u201d side in TIME . There was no record of the entry and exit of the other suspects on DATE .","On DATE the first suspect was taken to GPE ( \u201c Girne \u201d ) police headquarters ( ORG ) for questioning by the \u201c GPE \u201d police . The ORG car he had used to cross the border was seized as evidence . ORG issued a summons on DATE in respect of both the first and second suspects for the purpose of bringing them before the court on suspicion of theft , vehicle importation and forgery of documents ( ORG ve Evrak Sahteleme ) . The first suspect was kept in detention .","The first suspect \u2019s ORG car was inspected , but no evidence was found .","On DATE ( that is to say DATE ) the third and fourth suspects were also taken for questioning by police . An arrest warrant was issued in respect of the third and fourth suspects by the PERSON ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) ORG on DATE on suspicion of forgery of documents \u2013 specifically , providing fake registered vehicle with falsified documents and statements ( ORG ve PERSON ) .","DATE . On DATE an arrest warrant was issued in respect of the first and second suspects by ORG for DATE ( ORG : PERSON tutuklu kalmasina emir venir ) on suspicion of theft , forgery of documents and \u201c providing fake registry records , etc . \u201d ( ORG , ORG , PERSON . ) .","The second suspect was arrested DATE and was detained at ORG ( \u201c LOC \u201d ) police headquarters .","The fifth suspect had already left for GPE ( on DATE ) when LAW was published by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the \u201c NORP \u201d ORG also remanded the third and fourth suspects in custody for DATE on suspicion of theft and forgery of documents .","The \u201c TRNC \u201d police searched the houses of the first CARDINAL suspects , as well as that of another person , on the basis of search warrants issued by ORG on DATE ( in respect of the third and fourth suspects ) and by ORG on DATE ( in respect of the first and second suspects ) . No evidence was found .","Statements were taken from the CARDINAL suspects while they were in detention . They all denied involvement in the murders . The \u201c GPE \u201d police also took statements from a number of other persons , including public servants , mainly in relation to the ORG car that the first applicant had alleged had been used by the murderers . According to the evidence collected , the ORG car had been transferred to the first suspect on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , following an application by the \u201c TRNC \u201d police , the \u201c NORP \u201d ORG remanded the first CARDINAL suspects in custody for DATE on suspicion of premeditated murder .","On DATE the \u201c NORP \u201d ORG issued a summons in respect of the fifth suspect for the purpose of bringing him before the court on suspicion of premeditated murder . \u201c GPE \u201d GPE police headquarters informed all other district police offices that they were searching for this suspect and that a warrant had been issued .","DATE . On different dates statements were taken from a number of persons , including the first applicant , with a view to obtaining information concerning the fifth suspect .","On DATE the fifth suspect was arrested as , in the meantime , he had returned to the \u201c TRNC \u201d ( see paragraph DATE above ) .","On DATE the first CARDINAL suspects were remanded in custody for DATE by the \u201c TRNC \u201d ORG on suspicion of premeditated murder , murder , and possession of an illegal firearm and explosives ( Taam\u00fcden PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ve PERSON ) . An arrest warrant was also issued by that court in respect of the fifth suspect in order that he might be remanded in custody for DATE .","On DATE \u201c TNRC \u201d GPE police headquarters were informed by ORG that a Red Notice had been published by ORG in relation to the first CARDINAL suspects . The above - mentioned ORG requested confirmation of Elmas G\u00fczelyurtlu \u2019s death as the NORP authorities had been looking for him in order to extradite him to the \u201c GPE \u201d . They also enquired about the nationality status of the first CARDINAL suspects , in particular , whether or not they had NORP nationality .","ORG submitted that on DATE ORG received emails from NORP Cypriot ORG stating that they were searching for the first , second , third and fifth suspects with a view to their arrest and that they should be arrested if they entered into GPE .","On DATE the first , second , third , fourth and fifth suspects were remanded in custody for DATE by the \u201c TRNC \u201d ORG on suspicion of premeditated murder .","On DATE the \u201c GPE \u201d ORG issued a warrant in respect of the sixth and seventh suspects ( see paragraph DATE above ) for the purpose of bringing them before the court on suspicion of premeditated murder . Search warrants were also issued by ORG in respect of the house of the fifth suspect and by ORG in respect of the houses of the sixth and seventh suspects .","By a letter dated DATE \u201c NORP \u201d GPE police headquarters provided ORG with information about the ORG identities .","On DATE the \u201c NORP \u201d ORG remanded the sixth , seventh and eighth suspects ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in custody for DATE on suspicion of premeditated murder . It also issued a search warrant for the house of the eighth suspect .","On DATE the \u201c TRNC \u201d police also took a statement from the fifth suspect .","On DATE the sixth , seventh and eighth ORG detention was extended by a further DATE by the \u201c GPE \u201d ORG on suspicion of premeditated murder .","On DATE \u201c GPE \u201d GPE police headquarters requested further information from ORG about the criminal record of the fifth suspect . They were provided with his criminal record , photograph and fingerprints on DATE .","On DATE the \u201c NORP \u201d ORG extended the first CARDINAL ORG detention for CARDINAL further days on suspicion of premeditated murder .","On DATE \u201c NORP \u201d GPE police headquarters published a notice to all branches of police informing them that they were also looking for another person , GPE , who they also considered to be a suspect in the case . It transpired that this suspect had left for GPE on DATE .","On DATE \u201c NORP \u201d GPE police headquarters requested ORG police headquarters to carry out a criminal record check on GPE and to inform them whether he was in GPE or not .","On DATE the \u201c NORP \u201d police took statements from the first , second , third , fifth , sixth and eighth suspects . An additional statement was taken on DATE from the fifth suspect . They all denied involvement in the murders .","NORP On or around CARDINAL DATE all the suspects were released due to a lack of evidence connecting them to the crime .","ORG submitted that on DATE another email was sent to ORG by NORP Cypriot ORG informing them that they had information that the fifth suspect was going to travel to GPE in GPE DATE and requesting the NORP authorities to take the necessary measures .","The fifth suspect was arrested on the above date as he was entering GPE . On DATE he was taken to the office of the GPE public prosecutor , where a preliminary file was opened in respect of the murders and he was questioned by the public prosecutor . ORG submitted that he was released in the absence of any evidence connecting him to the crime in question and in the absence of an extradition request .","M.K. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was also traced and on DATE he was questioned by police at GPE police headquarters . He denied any involvement in the murders .","On DATE the authorities investigated a well in the village of GPE ( \u201c GPE ) in the GPE district for evidence . Nothing , however , was found .","NORP Throughout the investigation the \u201c GPE \u201d police questioned and took statements from numerous persons who knew or were somehow connected or related to the suspects . As can be seen from a document in the internal police files entitled \u201c Time \/ Work Sheet \u201d ( \u0130\u015f Cetveli ) and the copies of the statements provided , statements were taken from various witnesses , including the suspects . They also searched for evidence and took fingerprints .","According to a note \/ direction in the \u201c Time \/ Work Sheet \u201d , on DATE the \u201c GPE \u201d Police Chief Inspector ( ORG ) wrote to the \u201c GPE \u201d GPE Judicial Police Director \u2013 Assistant Police Director ( \u201c PERSON \u2013 PERSON ) that upon the oral instructions of the \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney - General ( PERSON ) a copy of the file in respect of the murder of Elmas , ORG had been prepared and would be submitted for the opinion of the \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney - General . A note bearing the same date from the \u201c GPE \u201d GPE Judicial Police Director informed the \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney - ORG that the file regarding the case was ready and had been submitted to the \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney - General .","ORG submitted that , following a report by the \u201c GPE \u201d Police Chief Inspector , the case had been classified as \u201c non - resolved \u201d . They provided a copy of this report , which was not dated . According to this report , the last action undertaken as part of the investigation appears to have occurred on DATE , when the fifth suspect \u2019s car , which had been inspected by the \u201c GPE \u201d police , had been handed over to the \u201c GPE \u201d ORG ( Lefko\u015fa GPE ve PERSON ) . The inspection had not resulted in the collection of any evidence concerning the crime . In his report the \u201c NORP \u201d Police Chief Inspector concluded that on the basis of the investigation that the police had conducted from the date of the murders until the time of his writing the report the police had not been able to resolve the case . He therefore suggested that the case be logged as \u201c non - resolved for the time being \u201d .","On DATE the \u201c NORP \u201d Attorney - General \u2019s office sent a copy of the case file to the \u201c ORG . They informed the latter that the case had been classified as \u201c non - resolved for the time being \u201d on the instructions of the previous \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney - General .","ORG submitted that the case file was with the \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney - General and remained open pending the submission of evidence by GPE authorities .","ORG submitted that after they received the investigation file from ORG through the ORG following communication of the case , the \u201c GPE \u201d police questioned again the first and second suspects on DATE . The suspects denied their involvement in the killings .","Subsequently , in other proceedings , on DATE ORG found the first and second suspects guilty of , inter alia , the murder of the first applicant \u2019s bodyguard and passed sentences amounting to DATE imprisonment each . An appeal by the first and second suspects was dismissed by the \u201c ORG on DATE . They are both currently serving their sentences .","ORG submitted that in the context of those proceedings , the first suspect had written on a piece of paper that the second suspect had killed CARDINAL people . In addition , after being cautioned by ORG that if he made a self - incriminating statement under oath it could be used against him , the second suspect stated : \u201c I saw this GPE incident personally myself . This is what I want to say . There is also CARDINAL thing , that is what he told me , ... I did not see it , it is what he explained to me . At this stage , I do not want to talk about the GPE murder , your honour \u201d . In its judgment ORG noted that it had to examine the voluntary statements made before it more carefully in the light of the fact that the first suspect had retracted the statements and submitted different statements . The first suspect refused to give any statement to the police .","Following the above - mentioned development , the \u201c TRNC \u201d Attorney - General reviewed the investigation file . Taking into account the rules of evidence , he concluded that even if the first suspect had not retracted his statement , in the absence of other evidence , this statement would not have been sufficient for any charges against the suspects to be brought .","In a summary of the first applicant \u2019s statements to his lawyers DATE , the first applicant stated , inter alia , the following :","On TIME the NORP police informed the first applicant of the death of his parents and sister . He went to GPE morgue to identify the victims . He signed a form authorising police officers to enter the family home in ORG and conduct an investigation . The first applicant was present for part of the investigation and then went with the police to his father \u2019s office in GPE , where the police took documents as part of the investigation .","DATE the first applicant went to GPE morgue and then GPE police station , where he spent TIME giving a statement . In his statement he informed the police of the identities of the persons he suspected of committing the murders and the grounds for his suspicions .","On DATE the first applicant took the GPE bodies back to the \u201c LOC \u201d , where a funeral was held .","On DATE the first applicant had meetings with the \u201c TRNC \u201d police .","On DATE the first , second and fourth applicants went to GPE police headquarters , where they were shown pictures and sketches of a number of people and asked whether they recognised them . Some of the photos had been taken at the funeral . The first applicant identified CARDINAL of the suspects . DATE they returned to GPE police headquarters and were informed that the NORP police had DNA matches for CARDINAL of the suspects and had found other DNA which they could not , however , match to any person in their records . The first applicant also gave them information concerning the investigation by the \u201c NORP \u201d police .","During DATE following the killings the first applicant met often with the NORP and the \u201c GPE \u201d police and was informed by both sides of their respective investigations . He also updated each side on the other side \u2019s progress in an effort to prevent the PERSON release for lack of evidence and to convince the \u201c GPE \u201d police to surrender them to ORG for trial .","The first applicant had meetings with a number of \u201c GPE \u201d high - ranking officials .","In DATE the NORP police informed the first applicant that the car and the material removed from the FAC home and office could be returned . They also informed the first applicant of the circumstances of the killings , that the investigation remained open and that the evidence had been shown to ORG but that the \u201c NORP \u201d authorities refused to cooperate . Although the NORP police showed the first applicant copies of ORG and witness statements , they refused to give him copies . They also informed him that only a court could take possession of the case file ( at the appropriate time ) .","NORP The NORP representatives had meetings about the case with the Attorney - General of GPE in DATE and DATE .","Furthermore , on DATE , at a meeting at ORG , the applicants\u2019 lawyers were informed that one of the suspects had been briefly detained in GPE . The NORP police had received this information from the office of ORG in GPE .","On DATE the applicants , upon their request , were given a progress report by the NORP police on the case . The applicants submitted that they had requested all the evidentiary material but this was not provided with the report .","On DATE there was an attempt to kill the first applicant at his home in the \u201c TRNC \u201d . During DATE the applicants were also informed by the NORP police that the arrest warrant in respect of one of the suspects had been cancelled .","In DATE the first applicant \u2019s bodyguard was murdered .","With regard to the inquest , the applicants submitted that ORG had adjourned the inquest on DATE for administrative reasons and not because of the first applicant \u2019s absence . The court had resumed the inquest proceedings on CARDINAL and again on DATE . CARDINAL of the applicants had attended with their counsel and a local lawyer . The inquest had confined itself to investigating whether the deaths had been the result of an unlawful killing . The judge had referred the matter to the Attorney - General as she was functus officio in so far as the criminal proceedings were concerned .","The applicants , through their representatives , sent a number of letters to various NORP , NORP and \u201c GPE \u201d high - ranking officials about the case , including the President of GPE , the Prime Minister of GPE and the President of the \u201c GPE \u201d .","NORP In a letter dated DATE the applicants\u2019 counsel informed the Prime Minister of GPE about the case and all the steps that had been taken until that date . They informed him , inter alia , that ORG had stated that they were prepared to hand over the relevant evidence to ORG in order for the latter to decide whether there was a prima facie case against the suspects with the proviso that if ORG concluded that there was indeed such a case , the \u201c NORP \u201d would undertake to surrender the suspects . As ORG was not prepared to take on this task ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the \u201c GPE \u201d insisted on making a decision only after receiving the evidence , the ORG counsel stated that \u201c I believe that I have now exhausted the possibilities for reaching the desired compromise through negotiation and mediation \u201d .","Following the murders ORG , the \u201c NORP \u201d authorities and the applicants were in contact with ORG officials concerning the case . A number of meetings were held . There was also an exchange of telephone calls and correspondence . The relevant information provided by the parties is set out below .","According to this note , the NORP authorities made contact with ORG \u2019s Special Representative to see whether ORG could assist . They informed ORG that they intended to carry out a complete investigation into the crime and that the police were working intensively to gather information and evidence . Some of this , however , would have to be collected from the occupied areas . ORG \u2019s ORG said that ORG was ready to provide help but suggested , acknowledging the difficulties , that it might be better for the QUANTITY sides to be in direct contact with each other and to exchange information . The NORP authorities had informed him that this was not possible as the NORP police could not have direct contact with the \u201c NORP \u201d police and that it was for this reason they had sought ORG \u2019s intervention .","According to this note , a meeting was held on DATE at ORG headquarters in GPE on the initiative of ORG \u2019s Senior Police Adviser and Commander ( \u201c the SPA \u201d ) between the ORG and the assistant of the NORP Chief of Police . The ORG \u2019s liaison officer was also present . The ORG stated that she had had , on DATE , a long meeting concerning the murders with the \u201c NORP \u201d Chief of Police in the presence of other officers and the \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney - General . She had informed the \u201c GPE \u201d Chief of Police that the NORP police had in their possession genetic material linking QUANTITY of the suspects with the crime ( although she was not in a position at that time to tell them who these suspects were ) , as well as other evidence linking another QUANTITY persons to the crime , and that CARDINAL of the cartridges found at the scene had been made in GPE . She had also informed him that CARDINAL arrest warrants had been issued by a NORP court against the suspects , CARDINAL of whom were detained in \u201c GPE \u201d prisons . She had expressed her concerns that if the suspects were released they might leave the \u201c GPE \u201d and their future arrest would not be possible . The \u201c GPE \u201d Chief of Police had informed her that these suspects had been detained for minor offences ( car theft ) and that it was possible that their detention would not be extended by the judge . Although the \u201c GPE \u201d authorities would try to get their detention extended , they had no evidence to charge them with murder . Although the suspects had already been questioned about the murders and had given some information , this was not enough . No voluntary statements had been made . The \u201c GPE \u201d Chief of Police had also told her that he was aware that the NORP police did not have enough evidence and that only if the QUANTITY police forces cooperated could more evidence be collected . He had also asked her if , and how , ORG could help ; she had informed him that ORG could only intervene if one of the CARDINAL sides made an official request for help .","The \u201c NORP \u201d Chief of Police had expressed his concerns in respect of the problems that had arisen and might also arise in the future and considered it advisable that the CARDINAL police forces come to an agreement to enable cooperation in such cases . The \u201c GPE \u201d Minister of ORG was ready to discuss matters of policing and public safety with the Minister of ORG of GPE and other members of the NORP police in order to facilitate cooperation without any political ramifications ( \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03ba\u03c4\u03ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2 ) .","UNFICYP \u2019s liaison officer had asked if there was a possibility that GPE could be involved , so that the suspects could be extradited to GPE and from there to GPE . The \u201c GPE \u201d Chief of Police had answered in the negative ; it appeared that the \u201c GPE \u201d authorities had already examined the matter but could not take such action as it was not provided for by their legislation . The \u201c GPE \u201d Chief of Police had suggested that the NORP police hand over the evidence to the \u201c NORP \u201d police so that the latter could arrest and try the suspects . If the NORP police informed their authorities officially about the evidence and exhibits in respect of the case and officially requested the extradition of the suspects , the \u201c NORP \u201d authorities could cooperate and possibly extradite them . CARDINAL of the suspects was in GPE but appeared not to be connected to the murders . The \u201c TRNC \u201d authorities also had information in their possession linking other persons to the murders .","According to the SPA the \u201c TRNC \u201d authorities were sincere and wished to cooperate . They had mentioned , inter alia , their concerns that there could be more crimes of this nature \u2013 that is to say criminals going through crossing points , committing crimes and then returning to the other side in order to avoid arrest and punishment . ORG was ready to provide advice as to how ORG should act and to sit in any negotiations in order to see how ORG could intervene so as to help investigate ( \u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9 ) the murders . The ORG had asked the NORP authorities whether ORG could intervene as she considered it unfair that , although the perpetrators of an atrocious crime had been identified , they remained free because of a political problem . The \u201c TRNC \u201d police had requested to be kept informed by ORG ( ORG ) of developments in the case and she had promised that they would be .","NORP This letter reaffirmed ORG determination to bring the suspects to justice . The NORP authorities had collected sufficient evidence , issued arrest warrants for CARDINAL suspects and requested ORG to facilitate the handing over of the suspects and evidential material to the relevant authorities of GPE . It stated that the NORP police had issued international arrest warrants in respect of CARDINAL of the suspects , which had been forwarded to ORG \u2019s ORG and to all of ORG \u2019s member GPE . The NORP police were in the process of issuing an international arrest warrant in respect of the fifth suspect .","This note stated that the \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney - General did not intend to hand over to the police of GPE the CARDINAL suspects that were detained in the \u201c GPE \u201d for the murders , relying on LAW . The \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney - General had notified ORG of this . An attached memo by ORG stated as follows :","\u201c I have seen the [ Attorney - General ] . Mr GPE with regard to the inquiries [ made in respect of ] and the prosecution of the culprits in respect of the LOC murder . He says that there is no legal and\/or constitutional basis for handing over the accused to ORG , for the following reasons :","The LAW of Cyprus","Articles : CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL )","Admin . of Justice Law CARDINAL\/CARDINAL","Section CARDINAL","Section CARDINAL","Section CARDINAL","Section CARDINAL","He made representation to ORG for the NORP suspect kept by ORG to be handed over to NORP for prosecution , together with others \u201d .","This note stated that the ORG had met with the police at GPE police headquarters after she had met DATE with the \u201c NORP \u201d Chief of Police . The latter had suggested that a meeting be organised with the NORP police , in secret , in neutral territory chosen by ORG , so that the issue would not become the object of political manipulation . The \u201c GPE \u201d Attorney - General had consented to such a meeting . According to the \u201c GPE \u201d Chief of Police , there were possibly more suspects and the first applicant had given inaccurate information to the NORP police , including the wrong photo of the alleged fifth suspect . As a first step , the \u201c GPE \u201d Chief of Police had suggested the participation in the investigation of an equal number of officers of the same grade from both sides and the presentation of all exhibits collected which could help solve the crime , such as photographs and fingerprints of the suspects and samples of genetic material . He had also mentioned that in order to ensure the continued detention of the suspects , the \u201c GPE \u201d authorities would like to have the results of the DNA tests linking the suspects to the case . As a second step , the \u201c GPE \u201d Chief of Police had suggested that the \u201c GPE \u201d police be given information concerning the ballistic evidence in order to enable the \u201c GPE \u201d authorities to compare that evidence with information in their database . The ORG had noted that there would be no discussion in any meeting held as to which side would bring the suspects to justice , as the matter at this stage would be limited to the investigation of the case , without giving rise to any political implications . This matter could be discussed later on a political level . The NORP police had expressed their hesitations as to the usefulness and repercussions of such a meeting . They would inform her of the Chief of Police \u2019s decision on the matter .","NORP This letter stated that at meetings held with ORG and the Deputy Senior Police Advisor ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) , the ORG had suggested that meetings between the NORP police , the police of FAC and the \u201c GPE \u201d police be held at a technical services level ( \u03c4\u03b5\u03c7\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc \u03c5\u03c0\u03b7\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03cc \u03b5\u03c0\u03af\u03c0\u03b5\u03b4\u03bf ) in the mixed village of LOC , which is located in the ORG buffer zone between the NORP police , the police of FAC and the \u201c GPE \u201d police . The NORP Chief of Police had rejected this as constituting a move towards recognising a \u201c pseudo - state \u201d which provided refuge to fugitives . It was true that ORG \u2019s arguments for the meetings of the technical committees was valid in that there was a risk that the village of GPE would become a safe haven for criminals . This could be dealt with , however , through more efficient cooperation between ORG and the NORP authorities . The NORP Chief of Police sought to obtain ORG political position regarding this suggestion .","This note stated that as concerned a meeting held on CARDINAL DATE between the ORG , the GPE , and members of the NORP police and investigation team , the GPE had raised his concerns as to an increased level of collaboration between NORP and NORP criminals and their movements across the island . The GPE had been informed generally about evidence that had been collected . He had also enquired whether :","- the NORP police intended to give the evidence to UNFICYP for forwarding to the \u201c NORP \u201d authorities to enable the PERSON prosecution ;","- the NORP police could make the necessary arrangements for the suspects to be taken to a ORG building at FAC in the buffer zone and be questioned through \u201c the video recording interview method \u201d , and \u2013 if this was possible \u2013 whether such evidence would be admissible before a NORP court ;","- if one of the suspects were to come over to make a statement against the other suspects , the NORP authorities would arrest him and bring criminal proceedings against him .","The NORP police had informed him that prosecution decisions were made by the Attorney - General . They had also informed him that they would cooperate with ORG but not with the \u201c NORP \u201d authorities or police . They had highlighted the fact that , despite ORG , GPE had refused to cooperate and had not surrendered the fifth suspect , who had gone to GPE . They had arrested him but subsequently released him .","The DSPA had stated that the \u201c GPE DATE pursuant to its own laws \u2013could not surrender NORP . It had been stressed by LAW that the \u201c GPE \u201d was not a state .","The GPE had also put forward the suggestion that the suspects could be surrendered to a third country such as GPE , and that steps to bring them to justice could be taken from there . LAW had informed him that this was not an option and that GPE had an obligation to comply with international law .","Finally , the ORG had suggested that the matter could be discussed by the relevant technical committee ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) in order to avoid the issue taking on a political dimension , to find solutions for cooperation and to bring the perpetrators to justice . He had been informed that this was a sensitive matter and that the political aspects could not be ignored ; if the \u201c pseudo - state \u201d authorities were interested in completing the investigation and bringing the perpetrators to justice , they should stop providing refuge to criminals .","The note stated that at this meeting , the LOC had noted that he was trying to convince the \u201c GPE \u201d authorities to surrender the suspects . The NORP police had informed him that they would not be providing any evidence to , or cooperating with , the authorities of the \u201c pseudo - state \u201d but that they were willing to cooperate with UNFICYP without this implying any recognition of any illegal entity .","On DATE a meeting was held between the private secretary of the \u201c NORP \u201d Prime Minister , the ORG , the head of ORG \u2019s civil affairs unit , and the envoy of the President of GPE concerning the suspects held in detention . According to TIME of the meeting , the \u201c NORP \u201d authorities needed the results of the DNA tests that had been carried out by the NORP Cypriot authorities , which were reluctant to transmit them on the pretext that this would constitute the [ de facto ] recognition of the \u201c GPE \u201d . The \u201c GPE \u201d authorities suggested these could be transmitted through ORG . A \u201c non - paper \u201d dated DATE was given to the envoy . This stated as follows :","\u201c According to LAW ( article CARDINAL ) , any case confined among NORP Cypriots should be taken by the NORP courts .","In the case of murder of Elmas G\u00fczelyurtlu and his family , all the suspects are NORP Cypriots hence the case should be heard by NORP courts by NORP judges .","Since the act took place in NORP side and all of the evidences collected successfully by the NORP police , cooperation is needed for the justice to be done .","This is an urgent situation therefore we need to act together immediately . As a first step the report concerning the DNA analysis is needed to get the court order to have the suspects in custody during the lawsuit .","This is a humanitarian issue and totally out of political concerns . The political concerns should not be in the way to prevent the justice to take place . \u201d","On DATE the \u201c NORP \u201d Chief of Police held a meeting with the ORG , who gave details about the circumstances of the murders . According to the minutes , Elmas G\u00fczelyurtlu had been known throughout GPE and had been suspected of many crimes ; some had involved the suspects . The information in the hands of the NORP police was sufficient for the purpose of issuing arrest warrants in respect of the suspects . Although the \u201c NORP \u201d police had already issued such warrants , they did not have evidence to bring proceedings against the suspects ; more information was necessary . The ORG had asked for suggestions .","On DATE a meeting was held between ORG officials and \u201c NORP \u201d functionaries , including the \u201c GPE \u201d Deputy Prime Minister . According to the TIME , the question had been raised as to whether the NORP Cypriot authorities were willing to transmit the evidence . The \u201c GPE \u201d Deputy Prime Minister had mentioned that if this was done the PERSON detention would be extended ; then , if the \u201c GPE \u201d courts considered the evidence to be credible , the suspects would be handed over to [ GPE ] via ORG .","On DATE another meeting was held between ORG and \u201c NORP \u201d officials . According to the TIME , the ORG officials had submitted ORG \u2019s Red Notices in respect of CARDINAL of the suspects detained in the \u201c GPE \u201d . They had mentioned that the NORP Cypriot authorities were reluctant to share the ORG DNA test results and did not want to collaborate with the \u201c NORP \u201d .","At a meeting held on DATE ORG officials and the Prime Minister of the \u201c NORP \u201d discussed the reluctance of the NORP Cypriot authorities to cooperate .","On DATE a meeting was held between the head of ORG \u2019s civil affairs unit and ORG the \u201c ORG . The former stated that the NORP Cypriot authorities\u2019 attitude concerning their cooperation with the \u201c LOC \u201d was changing and that they were planning to send the evidence through ORG . He also asked the Undersecretary whether the suspects could be re - arrested and given to the NORP Cypriot authorities through ORG . The ORG replied that under the DATE agreements if the suspects were NORP , then they should be tried in a NORP court .","On DATE the head of ORG \u2019s civil affairs unit had a telephone conversation with the \u201c NORP \u201d Head of Consular Affairs . The former informed the latter that the courts of the NORP Sovereign Base areas did not have jurisdiction to try the suspects ; however , the courts of GPE could sit at the bases and the hearing could take place there . PERSON stated that the \u201c TRNC \u201d authorities were not planning to take any steps until the evidence and records were given over to them because it was unacceptable to the \u201c TRNC \u201d authorities for the NORP Cypriot authorities to work alone on this matter .","On DATE ORG officials had a general meeting with the \u201c NORP \u201d Head of Consular affairs who mentioned that the DNA results given to them were not sufficient in order to proceed further with the case file . The \u201c TRNC \u201d authorities needed more concrete evidence such as police investigation records and security camera records . The head of ORG \u2019s civil affairs unit promised to discuss this with the NORP side .","DATE , an exchange of correspondence concerning the investigation of the murders took place between the ORG representatives and ORG officials . The text of the most relevant communications between ORG and the ORG representatives is set out below :","In a communication to ORG dated DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer , requested , inter alia , the disclosure of any possible information relating to the ORG \u2019s efforts in the case , in particular , concerning the mistrust and lack of cooperation between the CARDINAL sides . He wanted to ensure that all local remedies were properly exhausted and ORG to help him to form a view in general terms about the attitude of both sides . If all legal means to bring about the prosecution of suspects of this heinous crime failed , he had instructions to bring an application before the ORG against GPE and GPE .","NORP In a letter to the ORG representatives dated DATE the ORG , stated , inter alia , the following :","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG ( SPA ) of the ORG police in GPE first became involved in the case on DATE at the request of the Assistant Chief of Police of GPE , ... who at that time briefed the Senior Police Adviser on the case . A request was made to the ORG to facilitate the exchange of information between the sides .","At no time was the ORG asked to operationally assist in the investigation of the murder or apprehend the suspects . If [ she had been ] asked this would not have been agreed to as this is not within ORG \u2019s mandate .","... ( Illegible )","A copy of the preliminary investigation report prepared by the authorities in the south was provided to the NORP authorities , with the LOC \u2019s facilitation . ORG limited itself to a mediation role and therefore neither verified the contents nor kept a copy of the report .","At what point the trial venue became an issue can not be ascertained as this was not within the control or knowledge of the LOC .","ORG attempts to facilitate the exchange of information on criminal enquiries when asked to do so by one side or the other . ...","( Illegible )","As you may be aware , ORG is not part of the internal justice system of GPE and does not have executive power . ORG is not in any sense an element of the \u201c domestic remedies \u201d available to victims of a crime in the [ Republic of Cyprus ] \u201d .","In an e - mail sent by the LOC to the ORG representative , PERSON on DATE , the following , inter alia , was stated :","\u201c I note your request and assure you of the ORG \u2019s utmost cooperation in dealing with any matter of a criminal nature , particularly ... in this most serious case . While ORG has been exhausting its efforts to reach some conclusion to this case , it is unfortunate that there is a stalemate at this present time due to the CARDINAL sides not agreeing on a way forward . I note your comments that :","The [ Republic of Cyprus ] will hand over to the ORG in GPE all the evidence on the suspects so that the ORG legal team can evaluate the evidence and see whether or not there is a prima facie case against them . The [ ORG ] will only do so if the \u201c GPE \u201d authorities give an undertaking that they will hand the suspects over to GPE ] to be tried if the ORG is satisfied ( possibly after discussion with the \u201c TRNC \u201d \u2013 the italicised parenthesis is not strictly speaking part of the proposal at this stage but might be what we will have to argue in order to facilitate matters ) that there is such a prima facie case against the suspects :","GPE ] will not hand over any evidence for the purposes of conducting a trial in the north . This is despite the fact that [ an]other jurisdiction GPE ) has in the past successfully caused a trial to be conducted in the north [ in respect of ] a serious crime committed in the GPE .","The legal processes conducted in the north do not allow for the handing over of any [ NORP ] suspects to any authorities in the south or any other country in any other circumstances .","Therefore ORG stands ready to facilitate [ in any way ] it can in this case , I can see no resolution being [ arrived at ] until such time as one side or the other cedes their current position . Either the [ Republic of Cyprus ] is willing to hand over all the evidence to the north and offer full police and evidentiary cooperation so that a trial can be conducted in that \u201c jurisdiction \u201d , or the north is willing to hand over suspects [ on the basis of ] sufficient evidence to cause the [ issuance ] of an arrest warrant in the north , with a view to handling the suspects to ORG for passing on the [ ORG ] .","As always ORG stands ready to cooperate in whatever manner it can . \u201d","In an e - mail sent by ORG to the ORG representative PERSON on DATE the following was stated :","\u201c As stated in my previous email to you ORG stands ready to facilitate negotiations between the CARDINAL sides in respect of this matter and indeed continues in its efforts to find a solution . However , ORG is not in a position to formally engage a suitably qualified expert to officially adjudicate on the evidence held by GPE . It has already been stated that while the ORG believes that there is enough evidence on face value for the CARDINAL sides to reach a suitable position , it welcomes the delivery of any further or all evidence , copies or otherwise , from GPE that can be used to further meaningful dialogue between the CARDINAL sides . I again reiterate the following options that may in my view facilitate further useful negotiations :","The [ Republic of GPE ] , without prejudice , [ should ] deliver to the ORG all necessary evidence , allowing this to be used as ORG sees fit , with a view to negotiating the alleged ORG arrest and handover to ORG for delivery to the authorities in the south for the purposes of a trial . However , without a clear guarantee that the north will arrest and hand over the alleged offenders there is little chance of this being successful .","The only other solution is for the [ Republic of Cyprus ] to hand over all the evidence to ORG for delivery to the relevant persons in the north with a view to having a trial conducted in the north . This option has already been rejected by the [ ORG ] . \u201d","NORP The relevant parts of the ORG Secretary - General \u2019s reports on the ORG operation in GPE are set out below :","Report of CARDINAL DATE :","\u201c CARDINAL . Official contact between the sides is hampered by a high degree of mistrust . On DATE , CARDINAL members of a NORP family living in the south were killed ... . CARDINAL suspects were arrested in the north while all the evidence remained in the south . ORG \u2019s efforts to assist the sides to bring the suspects to justice proved unsuccessful , and all suspects were released in the north . This case is an illustration of the growing number of crimes across the cease - fire line , such as smuggling , drug trafficking , illegal immigration and human trafficking . These problems are implicit in the expanding inter - communal contacts , which though positive , have also the potential for adverse consequences if the present lack of cooperation between the sides persists .","The continuing absence of official contacts between the sides has accentuated ORG \u2019s role in promoting bicommunal contacts . Although people from either side can meet freely since the opening of the crossings in DATE , the impartiality of FAC venue and the ORG umbrella are considered indispensable for sensitive humanitarian and other meetings , including those of political parties from the north and the south . It is hoped that under the auspices of ORG , contacts may be established between the sides , without prejudice to their political positions , on humanitarian and related issues generating a climate of trust and easing tensions . During the reporting period , ORG provided facilities for CARDINAL bicommunal events , including those implemented by ORG ( UNDP)\/United ORG ( ORG ) ... \u201d .","Report of DATE :","\u201c CARDINAL . On DATE [ CARDINAL ] , ... the CARDINAL leaders met in the presence of my then ORG and agreed on a path towards a comprehensive settlement ( see annex II ) . The agreement entailed the establishment of a number of working groups , to consider the core issues pertaining to an eventual settlement plan , and of technical committees , to seek immediate solutions to everyday problems arising from the division of the island . They also agreed to meet again in DATE to review the work of the working groups and the technical committees and , using their results , to start full - fledged negotiations under ORG auspices . In addition , the leaders agreed to meet as and when needed prior to the commencement of full - fledged negotiations . ...","On DATE [ DATE ] , representatives of the leaders agreed to establish CARDINAL working groups on governance and power - sharing , ORG matters , security and guarantees , territory , property and economic matters , as well as CARDINAL technical committees on crime and criminal matters , economic and commercial matters , cultural heritage , crisis management , humanitarian matters , health and the environment . ... On DATE ] , the groups and committees began to meet . They have been coming together on a regular basis since then , as foreseen by the leaders , and facilitated by ORG . \u201d","Report of CARDINAL DATE :","\u201c CARDINAL . On DATE ] , the leaders agreed to the implementation of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL confidence - building measures identified by the technical committees , which were aimed at improving the DATE life of NORP across the entire island . They concern the passage of ambulances through crossing points in cases of emergency , the establishment of a communications and liaison facility ( operating round the clock ) to share information on crime and criminal matters , an initiative funded by ORG ( ORG ) on awareness - raising measures for saving water and the establishment of an advisory board on shared cultural heritage . ... \u201d","Report of DATE :","\u201c CARDINAL . ( ... ) UNFICYP police facilitated meetings of ORG , and ORG continued to work actively , providing the police services of both sides with a forum for enhanced cooperation . The appointment for the first time of serving police officers as NORP representatives to ORG signaled a significant step forward in cooperation . Over and above the exchange of information on criminal matters that have intercommunal elements , ORG focused on the investigation of crimes that took place within and across the buffer zone , the handover of persons of interest through the ORG police and humanitarian cases . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184654","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MAKRADULI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the events he was vice - president of the SDSM opposition party and a member of parliament . The present applications concern criminal libel proceedings brought against the applicant by Mr PERSON , who at the time was a senior member of the then ruling political party and at the same time head of ORG ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) . According to LAW ( sections CARDINAL and DATE ) , the head of the ORG is appointed by the ORG and is accountable to it and the competent Minister . The impugned proceedings concerned statements made by the applicant at press conferences held at his political party \u2019s headquarters .","On DATE the applicant held a press conference that was broadcast by the main news programme of the ACARDINAL television channel , which had national coverage and was the most popular channel at the time . The relevant part of the applicant \u2019s statement at the press conference reads as follows :","\u201c In DATE he has formally been head of ORG and practically the head of the police , has PERSON ( the plaintiff \u2019s surname ) , abused his powers in order to influence ORG and have timely information to enable him to obtain a profit ? Is there any truth in the rumours ( \u0433\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0438\u043d\u0438 ) , which have become stronger , that police wiretapping equipment is being misused for trading on ORG ? ... \u201d","The applicant submitted a transcript of the broadcast , which was also viewed at the trial ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Besides the information described above , the transcript included a journalist suggesting that the applicant \u2019s political party had asked the head of ORG whether PERSON had paid taxes on his property , which had been assessed as being worth MONEY ( ORG ) . The same programme also gave PERSON PERSON \u2019s reply , denying the allegations and stating that the money in question had been transferred to the respondent ORG from a foreign bank account . The transcript of the broadcast was published on the channel \u2019s website on DATE under the headline : \u201c SDSM : PERSON has wrongfully used wiretapping equipment \u201d .","The applicant submitted articles published over DATE on the channel \u2019s website , which described the subsequent exchange of comments and replies between the applicant and his political party , on the one hand , and various ORG institutions on the other . The articles stated that the applicant \u2019s political party had asked the relevant institutions to investigate the origin of PERSON assets and that ORG had requested that it submit any evidence in support of its allegations .","On DATE Mr PERSON brought private criminal proceedings accusing the applicant for libel , which was punishable at the time under LAW . He claimed that the applicant \u2019s statement at the press conference ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had contained defamatory allegations about him . The applicant did not submit any comments in reply .","ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) scheduled CARDINAL hearings . The applicant , who was legally represented , did not personally attend any of the scheduled hearings . Several hearings were adjourned owing to the applicant \u2019s work in ORG . At the trial , the court heard Mr PERSON and was provided with audio - and video - recordings of the programme on ACARDINAL . The relevant part of the transcript of the hearing of DATE , when the court examined that material , reads as follows :","\u201c ... The court views ... the video and audio - recording of the news programme broadcast on ACARDINAL television on DATE on which ... there is a photo of the plaintiff PERSON and the voice of a journalist who states the following :","\u2018 The ( SDSM ) ask(s ) whether the head of ORG ) , PERSON , earned MONEY by misusing police wiretapping equipment for trading on ORG . Their suspicions are based on a declaration of assets ( \u0430\u043d\u043a\u0435\u0442\u0435\u043d \u043b\u0438\u0441\u0442 ) , which PERSON submitted DATE , in which he specified that he possessed shares valued at EUR CARDINAL . ORG ) whether PERSON obtained any of that property during DATE he has been in office , without submitting a declaration , and whether that was the reason for his failing to submit the declaration within DATE of his mandate\u2019","The recording continues with a photograph of [ the applicant ] at a stand in front of the ORG logo and states that [ statement described in paragraph CARDINAL above ] ...","The video material continues with a commentary by the journalist stating that :","\u2018 PERSON replied to the allegations by ORG by saying that the money in question was linked to a lawful business which he had abroad\u2019 and the tape continues with the plaintiff \u2019s statement ... \u201d","The defence did not submit any evidence ( including the evidence described in DATE above ) . In the concluding remarks , the applicant \u2019s lawyer stated that the applicant had made the impugned statement in an interrogatory form and as the vice - president of an opposition political party , which had the role of expressing concerns about and assessing the work of ORG officials .","On DATE the trial court , sitting as a single - judge ( Judge PERSON ) , found the applicant guilty of defamation and fined him ORG CARDINAL with CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment in default . It also ordered him to pay court fees of LAW and a further EUR CARDINAL to cover Mr PERSON \u2019s costs . The court further ruled that the operative part of the judgment should be published at the applicant \u2019s expense via ACARDINAL television \u2019s news programme . The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c ... The accused is the vice - president of SDSM ...","... [ the applicant ] said [ the words described in paragraph CARDINAL above ] from a podium which had the ORG logo behind it ...","... a statement ... must contain certain facts and ... be false ... The fact of that which ... is expressed or disseminated being false constitutes the core of the criminal offence of libel . Consequently , a victim is not required to prove that a defamatory statement is false , rather the accused is obliged to prove ( the veracity of ) what was said ...","... based on the audio and video material to hand the court finds that [ the applicant ] made statements about [ Mr PERSON ] in a form capable of persuading an ordinary viewer ... that they are truthful ...","... the court does not deny that questions can be put to and answers sought from ORG officials ... It is true that every person , including a member of a political party , as is [ the applicant ] , has the right to put questions of public interest , to criticise the work of the ORG and to express concerns about someone who holds the highest office in the executive . This makes the victim a \u2018 legitimate ORG of constructive criticism and public debate , but not of statements and assertions that had no factual basis , as in the present case .","... the court can not accept , as contrary to the evidence , [ the applicant \u2019s ] defence that the allegations were made in an interrogatory form ( in an attempt ) to obtain an answer from the victim as a ORG official . ( Given ) the manner in which the applicant expressed his allegations and other circumstances , the court has found that the [ applicant \u2019s ] allegations are false and ( represent ) an assertion made in an interrogatory form , which have had a considerable effect on the claimant \u2019s reputation and dignity . The defence can not rely on LAW and ( claim ) that the ( impugned ) expression should have been examined in the context of the position he held , namely vice - president of an opposition political party . Such a status does not entitle him to express or disseminate untruthful allegations which are detrimental to the reputation and dignity of a third party .","... the court considers that the fact that [ the applicant ] has already been convicted by a final judgment of the same offence is an aggravating factor ... \u201d","On CARDINAL DATE ORG , sitting as a CARDINAL - judge panel composed of Judges PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON , upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment , finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and the reasoning .","Based on legislative amendments of DATE , on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the trial court stayed the execution ( \u0441\u0435 \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0440\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f\u043a\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u0430\u043d\u043a\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 ) of the sanction ( a fine ) imposed on the applicant .","The applicant paid Mr PERSON \u2019s costs for the criminal proceedings . He did not pay the court fees and did not publish the trial court \u2019s judgment via ORG , which ceased to exist in DATE .","The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG in which he complained that his conviction had violated his right to freedom of expression . He reiterated his arguments that he had been punished for a question that he had raised at a press conference that had been held on behalf of his political party . The question had been addressed to the public and had been based on information submitted to his political party about suspected irregularities in the work of a ORG official . The aim had been to stimulate public debate on whether the official had been diligent in performing his official duty .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( served on the applicant on DATE ) , ORG by a majority dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It noted that he had not attended any of the scheduled hearings and held that freedom of expression was not absolute and could be restricted in accordance with the law . In that connection , it referred to Article CARDINAL of LAW , which punished the dissemination of untrue information that could affect the reputation and dignity of a third party . The court further held that :","\u201c The way in which [ the applicant ] expressed his opinion ( \u043c\u0438\u0441\u043b\u0435\u045a\u0435 ) in public concerning the performance of public duties by a public official ( in an interrogatory form , as a member of an opposition political party , from a political party \u2019s podium ( \u0433\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0440\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) , the consequences of his public action ... ) , without trying to prove the veracity of his question or statement , taken as a whole , represents an action which only appears to fall within the ambit of the freedom of conviction , conscience , thought and public expression of thought , but in substance it affects the reputation and dignity of the citizen who holds that public office at the time and violates those values . Accordingly , the statement lost the attributes of the freedom ( of thought and public expression of thought ) and ( represents ) an abuse of ( that freedom ) . \u201d","In comments submitted in reply to the Government \u2019s observations ( DATE ) , the applicant informed the ORG that Mr PERSON had brought civil proceedings against him after his conviction , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The claim was examined at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . By a final judgment of DATE the applicant was ordered to pay MONEY ( ORG ) plus interest in respect of non - pecuniary damage and MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the trial costs incurred by PERSON PERSON in the compensation proceedings .","On DATE the applicant held a press conference at ORG offices regarding the public sale of ORG - owned building land in the central area of GPE , where the construction of a hotel was planned . It was broadcast on local television news . According to a transcript of the entire press conference ( evidence not submitted to the criminal courts ) , the applicant presented the events involved and information obtained from the ORG authorities regarding the sale in question . He further detailed the conclusions of research done by his political party , showing that the company that had been selected was incorporated in the respondent ORG at the same address as O. Holding ( a local company ) and was partly owned by a company which had business ties with ORG . In that connection , he alleged that a deal had been done so that \u201c the land would be given to people who had close family or party ties \u201d with the Prime Minister . As described in the trial court \u2019s judgment ( see below ) , the applicant stated that :","\u201c The attractive location behind the \u2018 PERSON shopping mall planned for the construction of a hotel was granted to a company supported ( \u0437\u0430\u0434 \u043a\u043e\u0458\u0430 \u0441\u0442\u043e\u0438 ) by ORG ... After the revelation of this megascandal , the biggest dilemma is whether ORG for the most corrupt politician should be given to the Prime Minister or his cousins ? To those who created or to those who carried out the deal ? \u201d","By a press release of the same date ( DATE ) sent \u201c in relation to the press conference held by the political party ORG and with a view to provide the public with objective and correct information \u201d ORG informed the media about the procedure and the selected company .","In reply to a request for information , ORG notified the public prosecutor on DATE about the company that had been selected ( it was registered at the same address as ORG and its manager was a former ORG employee ) , alleging that it had not met the requirements of the sale . It further requested that the public prosecutor investigate whether the transaction had been in conformity with LAW .","On DATE Mr PERSON brought private criminal charges , accusing the applicant of making ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) defamatory allegations about him . He denied ever having had any connection , private or professional , with the public sale of the land . He had also not signed the sale contract with the company that had been chosen . The applicant did not submit any comments in reply .","NORP The trial court scheduled CARDINAL hearings . The applicant was represented by a lawyer , but did not attend any of the scheduled hearings in person . Some of the scheduled hearings were adjourned because the court bailiff was unable to serve summonses on the applicant . At the trial , the court heard Mr PERSON and viewed audio and video material of television coverage of the applicant \u2019s statement . The defence did not submit any evidence , not even the information submitted to the public prosecutor ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , after CARDINAL remittal , the trial court , sitting as a single - judge ( Judge PERSON ) , convicted the applicant of defamation . It fined him ORG CARDINAL with CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment in default , ordered him to pay a court fee of ORG CARDINAL and a further LAW to cover Mr PERSON \u2019s trial costs . Relying on the latter \u2019s testimony , the court held that the applicant \u2019s allegations had concerned Mr PERSON , regardless of the fact that he had not been identified by name . That was because the applicant had previously given false statements about Mr PERSON and had often referred to him as \u201c the Prime Minister \u2019s cousin \u201d . Mr PERSON admitted that he had had contact with the managers of ORG , although that had been as friends . He had had no cooperation with them in business terms or been involved in any way in the construction of the hotel .","The relevant parts of the trial court \u2019s judgment read as follows :","\u201c ... the court considers ... that [ the applicant \u2019s ] [ statement described in paragraph CARDINAL above ] could have a considerable effect on the complainant \u2019s reputation and dignity ... since he is the holder of a public office and ( such ) statements are disseminated quickly and aggressively in public .","That the complainant was not identified by his full name by the [ applicant ] is irrelevant since the relevant circumstances clearly and unequivocally suggest that the matter concerned [ Mr PERSON ] . Furthermore , the news presenter identified the complainant by his surname .","... The [ applicant \u2019s ] assertion , ( which he made ) as vice - president of a political party , contained untrue allegations about the complainant susceptible of violating his honour and reputation ... [ The statement in question ] was not substantiated with any evidence because the private complainant , as head of the ORG , does not have the competence to participate in the public sale of ORG - owned land and the accused did not present any evidence that [ Mr PERSON ] was privately involved in the sale transaction in question ... \u201d","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel ( Judges PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON ) of ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant in which he had complained , inter alia , that the complainant had not been identified in his statement , which had been made in an interrogatory form and in a political context and , accordingly , not punishable , as specified in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment , finding that the applicant had made a false assertion ( \u0442\u0432\u0440\u0434\u0435\u045a\u0435 \u0441\u043e \u043d\u0435\u0432\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0438\u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u0434\u0440\u0436\u0438\u043d\u0430 ) about the complainant . It continued :","\u201c It is a statutory presumption that a statement of fact harmful to the honour and reputation of a third party is untrue . The burden of proof therefore rests with the accused to prove that the assertion is true . Accordingly , [ the applicant ] was required to prove that his statement was true , which is not the case ... The contents of the statement , the time , place and way in which it was given imply that it was serious and that it could objectively create a perception in the minds of third parties about certain facts . This court finds [ the statement ] defamatory since the factual assertion contained therein was able objectively to affect the reputation and dignity of the private complainant . \u201d","On DATE the trial court stayed the execution of the fine it had imposed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant paid the court fees and the trial costs incurred by PERSON , who did not claim compensation for damage in respect of this criminal conviction for defamation .","The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG in which he claimed that as a representative of a political party he had been required to bring to light information that had been brought to his attention . He had not made a factual statement but had raised a question regarding allegations of corruption .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( served on the applicant on DATE ) the ORG unanimously dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal for protection of the right to freedom of expression . The court held that :","\u201c In the concrete case , the court ... punished [ the applicant ] ... as a necessary measure for the protection of the reputation , dignity and authority of another person . That was because [ the applicant ] , by relying on freedom of public expression , interfered with the protected right of another person , namely Mr S.M ...","[ The applicant ] is a member of parliament and vice - President of the ORG and he made the statement in ORG headquarters ( if the statement had been given in ORG , he would have enjoyed immunity and private charges would not have been possible ) . Although freedom of expression is important for all , it is particularly important for representatives of the people ... Therefore , interference with a Member of ORG \u2019s freedom of expression calls for the closest scrutiny by the court .","Analysis must be made ... of whether ( the applicant \u2019s ) conviction and sanction represent a justified restriction of his rights and freedoms ... namely whether the courts struck a fair balance between the need to protect the reputation and dignity of the victim and [ the applicant \u2019s ] freedom of public expression . The freedom of political debate is not of an absolute nature ... the court notes that the impugned statement concerns the public sale of ORG - owned building land ... and should be considered in the context of a debate concerning an issue of public interest , which in particular was of prime political interest ...","The court considers that the veracity of the statement ... was of primary importance for the courts . Those courts ... established that [ the applicant \u2019s ] statement was not true or that there was no evidence to prove the contrary .","... the court has the right and duty to assess whether the courts enabled [ the applicant ] to prove the veracity of ( his ) statement . In this connection the court finds that [ the applicant ] was able , during the entire proceedings , to present evidence as to the veracity of his statement . In the absence of proof to confirm the veracity ( of the statement ) or the existence of a strong basis for it to be regarded as truthful , the court must accept the ORG findings that the statement was false .","Despite the fact that the statement is part of a public debate , the question is whether ( it ) ... had any impact or was relevant for the public as a contribution to a better understanding of the issue subject to public debate ...","The way in which the ( applicant ) expressed his opinion ( \u043c\u0438\u0441\u043b\u0435\u045a\u0435 ) in public concerning the performance of a public office by a public official ( in an interrogatory form , as a member of an opposition party , from the podium ( \u0433\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0440\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) of the political party , the consequences of his public action ... ) without trying to prove the veracity of his question or statement , taken as a whole , represents an action which only appears to fall within the ambit of the freedom of conviction , conscience , thought and public expression of thought , but in substance it affects the reputation and dignity of the citizen who holds the public office at the time and violates those values . Accordingly , the statement lost the attributes of the freedom ( of thought and public expression of thought ) and ( represents ) an abuse of ( that freedom ) . \u201d","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the trial court , sitting as a singlejudge ( Judge ORG ) , had found the applicant guilty of making defamatory allegations about the then Minister for Transportation and Communications regarding the public sale of the same ORG - owned land subject to application no . CARDINAL above . The applicant was convicted and fined ORG CARDINAL for the following statement , which was made at a press conference on DATE at the offices of his political party :","\u201c ... by selling land to a company that does not fulfil the ( statutory ) conditions , Minister PERSON obviously committed a criminal offence - abuse of office . We therefore expect that the public prosecutor will immediately lodge an indictment \u201d .","As explained in the judgment , the court established that when the applicant had made the statement , the procedure for the public sale of the land was still ongoing , namely the relevant standing committee within ORG had not yet submitted its proposal to the Minister about the best bidder . The Minister had then granted the land to the best bidder in DATE . Furthermore , several institutions , which had reviewed the work of the committee , had not found any irregularities . The court did not accept the applicant \u2019s defence ( he did not attend any of the scheduled hearings ) that his statement had been an expression of a reasonable suspicion about the public sale of the land . The court refused the following defence applications : to examine a member of the standing committee ; to admit committee TIME in evidence regarding the public sale ; and to hear information from the public prosecutor about the committee \u2019s work . It held that the proposed evidence concerned the committee \u2019s work which was not the subject of the proceedings . A CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG ( Judges PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON . ) upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . Both courts considered that the applicant had made the statement in his own name and not on behalf of his political party ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145771","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"S.B. v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant arrived in GPE on DATE with a visa granted by the NORP consulate in GPE .","On DATE the applicant married an NORP man in GPE and she was granted a residence permit on the basis of family ties until DATE . She divorced on DATE .","On DATE the applicant sought asylum as well as the extension of her residence permit . She stated that her adoptive mother lived in GPE and that they were very close .","On DATE ORG ( GPE , PERSON ) rejected her asylum application and decided to order her removal to GPE . In its reasons the ORG stated that the applicant \u2019s story contained conflicting information concerning , inter alia , with whom she had lived in GPE . Her story was thus not fully credible . The threats imposed by private parties were not as such sufficient grounds to grant asylum . Since DATE NORP women no longer needed permission from their father to marry and divorces had become more common in GPE . The police had a special unit for investigating domestic violence and a shelter system was in place for women . It was nowadays possible for a woman to live alone in GPE . The applicant had not shown any reason why she could not obtain protection from the NORP authorities if needed . Even though the applicant had taken part in student protests , she had not been arrested and her name was not known to the NORP authorities . It was not credible that she would be persecuted in GPE for political reasons . Nor was it credible that she would be persecuted due to the fact that she was married to an NORP man . As to the residence permit , the ORG noted that the applicant \u2019s adoption had not been registered in GPE . In any event , the applicant was an adult and could not be considered a family member of her adoptive mother .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting that ORG decision be quashed .","On DATE a ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) confirmed the applicant \u2019s adoption in GPE . It found that the applicant \u2019s aunt had taken care of her since she was DATE . Even when the aunt moved to GPE in DATE , she had been in close contact with the applicant . In DATE the adoption had been registered in GPE . The applicant \u2019s adoption could be confirmed in GPE only when she had become an adult .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on the same grounds as ORG . This decision was served to the applicant on DATE .","NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed further to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) requesting a stay on expulsion , which was not granted .","NORP On DATE the applicant was detained with a view to preparing her removal .","On DATE a ORG found , when deciding on the applicant \u2019s detention , that the applicant \u2019s state of health prevented her removal at that time but that the removal could be enforced when her condition allowed it . She was released from detention on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to the closed ward of a psychiatric hospital due to psychotic depression . She was admitted at least until DATE .","On DATE the police decided to detain the applicant again . However , this was not possible as the applicant was apparently still hospitalised .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in GPE . She was diagnosed as severely depressed , psychotic and suicidal . She was apparently hospitalised until DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the ORG , requesting that the removal to GPE be stayed . On DATE the ORG indicated an interim measure under LAW and held that the applicant should not be removed to GPE in the light of her physical and mental condition . The Government was requested to submit to the ORG independent medical evidence of the applicant \u2019s fitness to travel prior to the implementation of any possible future attempt to remove her .","In DATE the Government informed the ORG about the applicant \u2019s situation . The applicant \u2019s health had improved during the autumn and DATE but had deteriorated again in DATE when the police had asked for a new psychiatric evaluation . Since then the applicant had not been able to eat and had been suffering from severe sleeping problems . Her eating problems and suicidal tendencies were likely to lead again to hospitalisation .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","According to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW of Finland ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the right of foreigners to enter GPE and to remain in the country is regulated by an LAW . A foreigner shall not be deported , extradited or returned to another country , if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence , torture or other treatment violating human dignity .","Section CARDINAL b of LAW ( ulkomaalaislaki , utl\u00e4nningslagen ; Act no . CARDINAL , as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) incorporates into the NORP legal system the ORG CARDINAL of DATE on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of CARDINAL or more Member GPE , of third - country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders . The annex of the ORG contains common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air , including , inter alia , an obligation for the Member States to ensure that the returnees for whom they are responsible are in an appropriate state of health , which allows legally and factually for safe removal by air ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145389","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MENNESSON v. FRANCE [Extracts]","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The first and second applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The third and fourth applicants were born in DATE . They all live in LOC .","The first and second applicants are husband and wife . They were unable to have a child of their own because the second applicant is infertile .","After a number of unsuccessful attempts to conceive a child using in vitro fertilisation ( ORG ) with their own gametes , the first and second applicants decided to undergo ORG using the gametes of the first applicant and an egg from a donor with a view to implanting the fertilised embryos in the uterus of another woman . Accordingly , they went to GPE , where the process is legal , and entered into a gestational surrogacy agreement .","The applicants specified that , in accordance with NORP law , the \u201c surrogate mother \u201d was not remunerated but merely received expenses . They added that she and her husband were both high earners and therefore had a much higher income than the applicants and that it had been an act of solidarity on her part .","On DATE the surrogate mother was found to be carrying twins and , in a judgment of DATE , ORG , to which the first and second applicants and the surrogate mother and her husband had applied , ruled that the first applicant would be the \u201c genetic father \u201d and the second applicant the \u201c legal mother \u201d of any child to whom the surrogate mother gave birth within DATE . The judgment specified the particulars that were to be entered in the birth certificate and stated that the first and second applicants should be recorded as the father and mother .","DATE the third and fourth applicants DATE were born on DATE and their birth certificates were drawn up in accordance with the terms stated above .","NORP In DATE the first applicant went to the NORP consulate in GPE to have the particulars of the birth certificates entered in the NORP register of births , marriages and deaths and the children \u2019s names entered on his passport so that he could return to GPE with them .","The applicants stated that many NORP couples in their situation had previously succeeded in carrying out that procedure . The consulate rejected the first applicant \u2019s request , however , on the grounds that he could not establish that the second applicant had given birth and , suspecting a surrogacy arrangement , sent the file to the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office .","As ORG had issued GPE passports for the twins on which the first and second applicants were named as their parents , the CARDINAL applicants were able to return to GPE in DATE .","NORP In DATE a preliminary investigation was carried out at the request of the public prosecutor \u2019s office .","In DATE an investigation was commenced against a person or persons unknown for acting as intermediary in a surrogacy arrangement and in respect of the first and second applicants for false representation infringing the civil status of children .","On DATE , in accordance with the submissions of the NORP public prosecutor , the investigating judge gave a ruling of no case to answer on the ground that the acts had been committed on GPE territory , where they were not classified as an offence , and therefore did not constitute a punishable offence in GPE .","In the meantime , on DATE , on the instructions of the public prosecutor \u2019s office , the particulars of the birth certificates of the third and fourth applicants had been recorded in the central register of births , marriages and deaths in GPE by the NORP consulate in GPE .","However , on CARDINAL DATE the NORP public prosecutor instituted proceedings against the first and second applicants in the NORP tribunal de grande instance to have the entries annulled and the judgment recorded in the margin of the entries thus invalidated . He observed that an agreement whereby a woman undertook to conceive and bear a child and relinquish it at birth was null and void in accordance with the public - policy principle that the human body and civil status are inalienable . He concluded that , as the judgment of ORG was contrary to the NORP concept of international public policy and of NORP public policy , it could not be executed in GPE and that the validity of civil - status certificates drawn up on the basis of that judgment could not be recognised in GPE .","By a judgment of DATE , the NORP tribunal de grande instance declared the action inadmissible . It found that \u201c the entries had been recorded on the sole initiative of the public prosecutor with the purpose , since avowed , of bringing proceedings to have the entries annulled \u201d . It concluded from this that \u201c an action by the public prosecutor on grounds of public policy which he himself ha[d ] infringed could not be deemed admissible where the provisions of LAW on which he [ relied ] allowed him to verify the validity of the certificates in any respect and to reject any request for registration that would render them binding in GPE \u201d .","NORP The public prosecutor \u2019s office appealed to ORG , which upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment on DATE . ORG also considered the public prosecutor \u2019s action for annulment of the entries in the GPE central register of births , marriages and deaths inadmissible as a matter of international public policy . It substituted its own grounds for that decision , however , finding that the contents of the entries were accurate as regards the judgment of ORG and that the public prosecutor \u2019s office was not disputing the fact that the judgment was binding on GPE or that , under LAW , the certificates drawn up in GPE in accordance with the usual procedures in that ORG should be deemed valid .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) quashed that judgment on the ground that the public prosecutor \u2019s office had an interest in bringing proceedings for annulment of the entries since , as established by ORG , the birth certificates in question could only have been drawn up following a surrogacy arrangement . It remitted the case to ORG with a differently constituted bench .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG overturned the judgment remitted to it , annulled the entries pertaining to the birth certificates and ordered its judgment to be recorded in the margin of the invalidated birth certificates .","Regarding the admissibility of the action brought by the public prosecutor \u2019s office , the court found that it could not be seriously alleged that the prosecution authorities had contravened public policy or disrupted peaceful family relations by requesting that the contents of an entry that they themselves had ordered be annulled , since the purpose was to frustrate the effects of a foreign civil status which they considered contrary to NORP public policy or to guard against an application to have the entries recorded .","ORG ruled on the merits as follows :","\u201c ... The birth certificates were drawn up on the basis of ORG judgment of DATE which declared [ the first applicant ] the genetic father and [ the second applicant ] the legal mother of any child to which [ the surrogate mother ] gave birth between CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The civil - status documents are therefore indissociable from the decision underlying them and the effectiveness of that decision remains conditional on its international lawfulness .","ORG , on national territory , of a decision delivered by a court of a ORG that is not bound to GPE by any convention is subject to CARDINAL conditions : the indirect jurisdiction of the foreign court based on the connection between the court and the case ; compliance of the merits and procedure with international public policy ; and absence of circumvention of the law .","It has been established in the present case that following a surrogacy agreement [ the surrogate mother ] gave birth to twins who were conceived from the gametes of [ the first applicant ] and of a third party and were relinquished to [ the first and second applicants ] .","Under LAW , whose provisions deriving from Law no . MONEY of DATE , and not amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , are a matter of public policy by virtue of LAW of the same Code , any agreement concerning reproductive or gestational surrogacy is null and void . Accordingly , the judgment of ORG , which indirectly validated a surrogacy agreement , contravenes the NORP concept of international public policy . Consequently , without having to ascertain whether the law has been circumvented , the entries in the NORP central register of births , marriages and deaths of the particulars of the GPE birth certificates naming [ the second applicant ] as the mother of the children must be annulled and the present judgment recorded in the margin of the invalidated birth certificates .","[ The applicants ] can not seriously claim that they have not had a fair hearing ; nor do they have justifiable grounds for arguing that this measure contravenes provisions laid down in international conventions and domestic law . The concepts to which they refer , in particular the child \u2019s best interests , can not allow them \u2013 despite the practical difficulties engendered by the situation DATE to validate ex post facto a process whose illegality , established first in the case - law and subsequently by the NORP legislature , is currently enshrined in positive law . Furthermore , non - registration does not have the effect of depriving the QUANTITY children of their GPE civil status or calling into question their legal parent - child relationship with [ the first and second applicants ] recognised under NORP law ... \u201d","The applicants appealed on points of law , submitting that the children \u2019s best interests \u2013 within the meaning of LAW of LAW on the Rights of the Child \u2013 had been disregarded and complaining of a breach of their right to a stable legal parent - child relationship and , further , of a violation of LAW taken alone and in conjunction with LAW . They submitted , further , that the decision of a foreign court recognising the legal parent - child relationship between a child and a couple who had lawfully contracted an agreement with a surrogate mother was not contrary to international public policy , which should not be confused with domestic public policy .","At a hearing on DATE the advocate - general recommended quashing the judgment . He expressed the view that a right lawfully acquired abroad or a foreign decision lawfully delivered by a foreign court could not be prevented from taking legal effect in GPE on grounds of international public policy where this would infringe a principle , a freedom or a right guaranteed by an international convention ratified by GPE .","He noted in particular that in PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) the ORG had taken account , in its examination of the case under LAW , of an \u201c effective family life \u201d and \u201c de facto family ties \u201d between a single mother and the child she had adopted in GPE , without attaching any importance to the fact that the former had gone abroad in search of a legal system which would allow her to obtain what the law of her country of origin refused her . In the advocate - general \u2019s opinion , if the same rationale were applied in the present case , even where domestic law had been circumvented , a legal relationship lawfully created abroad could not be prevented from producing the relevant legal effects where it concerned an effective family set - up and allowed it to function and evolve in normal conditions from the standpoint of LAW . He also observed that the third and fourth applicants had been living in GPE for DATE and \u201c [ were being ] brought up there by genetic and intended parents in a de facto family unit in which [ they were receiving ] affection , care , education , and the material welfare necessary to their development \u201d and that this effective and affective family unit DATE fully lawful in the eyes of the law of the country in which it had originated \u2013 [ was ] \u201c legally clandestine \u201d , \u201c the children having no civil status recognised in GPE and no parent - child relationship regarded as valid under NORP law \u201d . As to whether that state of affairs infringed their \u201c right to a normal family life \u201d , the advocate - general replied as follows :","\u201c ... At this stage CARDINAL answers are possible : either \u2013 somewhat theoretically and largely paradoxically \u2013 the refusal to register the birth particulars is inconsequential and does not substantially affect the family \u2019s DATE life , which means that registration is a mere formality and it is therefore difficult to see any major obstacle in the circumstances to recording the details of certificates with such minimal legal effect that it is inconceivable that they are capable in themselves of shaking the foundations of our fundamental principles and seriously contravening public policy ( since they do not intrinsically contain any mention of the nature of the birth ) .","Alternatively , the refusal to register the birth details permanently and substantially disrupts the family \u2019s life , which is legally split into CARDINAL in GPE \u2013 the NORP couple on one side and the foreign children on the other \u2013 and the question then arises whether our international public policy \u2013 even based upon proximity \u2013 can frustrate the right to family life within the meaning of Article CARDINAL [ of the Convention ] or whether , on the contrary , public policy of that kind , whose effects have to be analysed in practical terms as do those of the foreign rights or decisions that it seeks to exclude , should not be overridden by the obligation to comply with a provision of the ORG .","If the second alternative is retained on the grounds that international conventions must take precedence over public policy based on a standard provided for in a legislative provision , this will not necessarily result in the automatic collapse of the barriers erected by the domestic public - policy provision in such circumstances . As long as ORG has not given a clear ruling on the question of the lawfulness of surrogacy and allows the GPE to legislate as they deem fit in this area , it can be considered contrary to public policy to validate , on grounds of respect for family life , situations created illegally within the countries which prohibit them .","However , where it is merely a question of giving effect on the national territory to situations lawfully established abroad \u2013 be this at the cost of deliberately disregarding the strictures of a mandatory law \u2013 there is nothing to preclude international public policy \u2013 even based upon proximity \u2013 from being overridden in order to allow families to lead a life in conformity with the legal conditions in which they were created and the de facto conditions in which they now live . Furthermore , the best interests of the child , envisaged not only under LAW but also under the case - law of ORG which has established this criterion as a component of respect for family life , also militate in favour of this interpretation . At least this is the lesson that I think we can draw from the judgment in PERSON [ and PERSON ] ... \u201d","NORP However , on DATE ORG ( ORG ) gave judgment dismissing the appeal on the following grounds :","\u201c ... the refusal to register the particulars of a birth certificate drawn up in execution of a foreign court decision , based on the incompatibility of that decision with NORP international public policy , is justified where that decision contains provisions which conflict with essential principles of LANGUAGE law . According to the current position under domestic law , it is contrary to the principle of inalienability of civil status \u2013 a fundamental principle of LANGUAGE law \u2013 to give effect , in terms of the legal parent - child relationship , to a surrogacy agreement , which , while it may be lawful in another country , is null and void on public - policy grounds under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW .","Accordingly , ORG correctly held that , in giving effect to an agreement of this nature , the \u201c NORP \u201d judgment of DATE conflicted with the NORP concept of international public policy , with the result that registration of the details of the birth certificates in question , which had been drawn up in application of that judgment , should be annulled . This does not deprive the children of the legal parent - child relationship recognised under NORP law and does not prevent them from living with PERSON and PERSON in GPE ; nor does it infringe the children \u2019s right to respect for their private and family life within the meaning of LAW ... , or the principle that their best interests are paramount as laid down in LAW of LAW on the Rights of the Child ... \u201d","On DATE the first applicant lodged an application with the GPE - le - ORG for a certificate of NORP nationality for the third and fourth applicants . The senior registrar sent him acknowledgement - of - receipt forms dated DATE and DATE , indicating that the request \u201c was still being processed in [ his ] department pending a reply to the request for authentication sent to the consulate of GPE , GPE \u201d .","..."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-151038","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PODVEZKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","On DATE a police investigator initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and charged him with fraudulent appropriation of property . On DATE the applicant was placed on the list of wanted persons .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and informed of the charges .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was ordered by a court .","On DATE the applicant was released under a written undertaking not to abscond .","NORP In DATE the case was referred to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for trial .","On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing in the case . Following the request of the prosecutor , it ordered that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should be changed and that the applicant should be placed in pre - trial detention . The court , paying regard to the fact that the applicant denied his guilt , considered that the applicant could influence witnesses , conceal or remove traces and evidence of the crime . It stated that the applicant was charged with a serious crime and his actual place of residence did not coincide with his registered address . It therefore concluded that the applicant could behave negatively and his isolation was necessary . The court noted that the applicant was of middle age , he was not a disabled person , he did not suffer from chronic illnesses , he had a family and a minor son , and that he worked as director of a company .","On a number of occasions during the trial the applicant requested ORG to change the preventive measure in his respect and release him .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s requests maintaining the impugned preventive measure . The court referred to its decision of DATE and repeated that the applicant \u2019s actual and registered addresses did not coincide , he was charged with a serious crime , and that there were grounds to believe that the applicant could behave negatively , if released . The court also repeated that the applicant was of middle age , he was not a disabled person , he did not suffer from chronic illnesses , he had a family and a minor son , and that he worked as director of a company . The court then found that there had been no grounds to change the preventive measure for health reasons or to apply bail ; furthermore , the applicant showed no remorse and had refused to admit his guilt .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of fraudulent appropriation of property and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and ordered confiscation of his property .","ORG and ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of DATE on DATE and DATE respectively ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155974","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PERUZZI v. ITALY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in DATE In ORG ( GPE ) .","In DATE the applicant was practising law . In DATE he sent a letter to ORG ( ORG \u2013 the \u201c ORG \u201d ) in which he complained about the conduct of a judge , X , at ORG . He subsequently transmitted the content of that letter by means of a \u201c circular letter \u201d to a number of judges of the same court , but without expressly referring to X by name .","The relevant parts of that circular letter read as follows :","\u201c Before you receive any incorrect or untrue information , before the corporatist spirit prevails over a correct interpretation of the reasons that drove me to write to the ORG , to ORG , to ORG and to ORG , about the conduct of CARDINAL judges of ORG in the context of a judicial partition procedure to which my clients were parties , and before any of my colleagues come to apologise , on my behalf , for my initiative , perhaps making out that I am insane or irresponsible , my intention is to clarify and tell you the reasons which led me to do so .","An appeal on points of law is pending against a judgment of ORG in which that court , ruling against the claims by a female partner and deciding on the related issue of the partition of an inheritance , asked the investigating judge to proceed with the sale of a flat , which was the sole item of property to be divided between the heirs , and which was occupied by the partner and her daughter , an heir , born to the cohabiting couple . Since the judgment of ORG was not final , it was not possible to proceed with the sale or to initiate the procedure relating thereto , since this was prohibited expressly by LAW .","The other heir , however , applied for ... the sale , and the investigating judge , in spite of our repeated requests for suspension of the sale , which were all rejected , brought about , after CARDINAL auctions without a buyer , the conveyance of the property to a third party at the third auction .","Here are the specific reasons for which all our requests were rejected :","...","In spite of this , I would like to point out at the outset that I do not feel any animosity towards the judiciary and judges in general , and that I consider , by contrast , that the role played by judges is crucial and irreplaceable for civil society .","There are and have been judges who carry out and have carried out their duties with great dignity and decorum [ decoro ] , and who deserve my admiration and the admiration of all those who have worked in the field of justice . None of us can forget Y , who died , one can say , on the \u2018 battlefield\u2019 . I still remember that , in the courtroom , he was the one , out of all his colleagues , who , even in his state of extreme and obvious suffering , took the greatest number cases for adjudication , and he carried on doing this until the bitter end . I confess that if I had been able to spare him the effort , in view of his condition , I would willingly have taken over his workload . But there are other equally deserving judges who work , even during DATE , going to the office , talking to lawyers , and with whom we can have a form of collaboration and dialogue DATE and to them I also express my esteem and admiration .","I am well aware that justice is done by men and precisely for that reason decisions may be erroneous and incomplete . I still prefer , however , a human justice to one that is automated .","But what I refuse to accept is the idea that , when the rights of the individual and the dignity of those whose task it is to defend him or her are at stake , those rights could be decided upon in a partial manner , perhaps with a display of arrogance , or that a ruling could be given with total indifference and lack of commitment . I personally believe strongly in the autonomy of the judiciary and I feel that without respect for the autonomy of the person whose task it is to decide , it would be impossible to have dispassionate and fair judgments . Autonomy , however , can not be turned into an absolute discretionary power because that would be bordering on or tantamount to arbitrariness . I have pointed out how I see the meaning of justice and reiterate that I think very highly of the duties exercised by judges , and that my full admiration goes to those who act with dedication , commitment and decorum [ decoro ] .","I am even envious of judges , because they probably have more time to study and to dwell on issues , and also to attend to other cultural and social interests , than lawyers who , by the nature and specificity of their work , do not always manage to do things or to do things well . I often take home things to read and to study and I end up , TIME , nodding off over a book after DATE , running from CARDINAL office to another in the morning , and answering the phone or receiving clients in the afternoon . I also understand that the judiciary is burdened with work and with problems , that the staffing is insufficient and the workload huge DATE and for that reason it is true that protests [ esposti ] do not help to get the work done more easily , and that more collaboration and dialogue would be better than protests . There are limits , however , that in my view should not be passed and , after thinking about this for quite some time , I decided to submit this particular protest [ the letter to the ORG ] . I will now quote the last part of my protest in which I dwell on the meaning of the lawyer \u2019s profession and ask whether it is legitimate that any decision or conduct should always be accepted :","\u2018 This lawyer would point out as follows :","It is regrettable to direct this letter against individuals who , even [ if they have ] different duties , are considered by this lawyer to be \u201c colleagues \u201d , as practitioners in law usually call each other . He considers , however , that he is obliged to do so in response to a lack of commitment and total indifference towards the legitimate demands of the citizen in whose name justice is done , with a belief in impunity , as the position is one of \u201c power \u201d , even though it should be seen as the discharge of a \u201c duty \u201d , and \u201c last but not least \u201d , a lack of respect for the dignity and responsibility of this lawyer \u2019s profession .","This lawyer has practised law in courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , has borne very high costs on behalf of his clients \u2013 to the point where , if one were to apply the professional rate , one would exceed the amount of the claim \u2013 has sought , in CARDINAL statements of claim filed in ORG , a stay of execution under LAW , but his requests were all rejected by reasoning that leaves much to be desired \u2013 but that is not the subject of this protest \u2013has accumulated a formidable pile of documents of all descriptions , and has seen the attachment of funds in respect of his own claim go up in smoke .","In the time it has taken to work on these cases , he could probably have dealt with CARDINAL ordinary cases of average complexity .","If work \u2013 any type of work , provided it is lawful DATE has its own protection and its own dignity , then the judge too ( more than any person , as a result of his function and role ) can not but allow himself not to respect for the work of others , including that of the lawyer .","As a legal practitioner , this lawyer has a duty to provide some certainty to his client , who is the citizen in whose name justice is done ( judgments are headed \u201c In the name of the NORP People \u201d ) .","What certainty can the lawyer provide if each judge , instead of applying the law , gives his preferred interpretation and does not even explain his interpretation of the laws in question ? It should be noted that the system of appeals and claims is no guarantee for the citizen . Judges are only human and can make mistakes ( errare humanum est ) , but they can not and must not wilfully make mistakes , by malicious intent , serious misconduct or negligence , and the citizen must have his or her claims upheld , provided they are well founded , from the earliest stage . There are a large number of cases ; this can be explained by the fact that if many decisions had been taken correctly from the outset , one could have avoided the proliferation of cases , procedures and claims , as can be seen here ; and not forgetting the many cases where the citizen , disappointed and bemused to receive abnormal decisions , having lost all confidence in the justice system , decides not to appeal . This entails a justified loss of confidence in the courts and an increase in workload and expense for the ORG , because of the extra work for other judges , registries and bailiffs .","And what justification and explanation could be given by the lawyer to this client , to whom he had predicted a certain result , with all due caution , only to present a decision by the judge that is diametrically opposed to that which he predicted ? ? If that is the result of an error , or a lack of knowledge or commitment or analysis on the part of the lawyer , he should take responsibility for it ; but when this depends on the judge , it is damaging to the lawyer because the client will necessarily have a negative opinion of the lawyer \u2019s work . Are clients and citizens capable of understanding whether it is the lawyer or the judge who has made a mistake and to what extent ? ? If the lawyer does not obtain appropriate results with legal argument , what other means are available ? ? What must the lawyer do to obtain something to which he is professionally entitled ? ? ... Or should the lawyer not make life difficult for himself and carry on regardless , tending to his garden [ il suo orticello ] , while protecting his head from any tiles that might fall off the roof \u2013 because on the one hand he is not protected and on the other he is at the mercy of another person \u2019s discretionary power ? ? ... Without any regard for his own professional dignity ? ? ...","When this letter reaches you I will be undergoing a medical operation . I am sorry that , for the time being , I can not provide any further clarification or explanations to those who may wish them . I am however ready , if necessary , to answer for my conduct and to provide any clarification that may be requested of me after my operation , when I am in a better state of health again.\u2019 \u201d","Finding that certain expressions used in the circular letter had impugned his reputation , ORG filed a criminal complaint for defamation against the applicant .","As X was a judge in GPE , the file was transferred , under LAW , to the judicial authorities of Genoa .","On DATE the Genoa public prosecutor requested that the applicant be committed to stand trial before the court of that city .","X joined the criminal proceedings against the applicant as a civil party .","According to the charge , in the circular letter the applicant had expressed admissible ( lecite ) criticism in so far as he spoke about interpreting and performing the work of a judge , but had then overstepped the limits to his freedom of expression by writing the following sentences in particular :","( a ) \u201c Autonomy ... can not be turned into an absolute discretionary power because that would be bordering on or tantamount to arbitrariness \u201d .","( b ) \u201c ... in a partial manner , perhaps with a display of arrogance , or ... a ruling ... given with total indifference and lack of commitment \u201d .","( c ) \u201c ... the judge ... can not allow himself not to respect the work of others , including that of the lawyer \u201d .","( d ) \u201c Judges are only human and can make mistakes ... but they can not and must not wilfully make mistakes , by malicious intent , serious misconduct or negligence \u201d .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the representative of the public prosecutor \u2019s office stated that the applicant also had to be charged with proffering insults , given that it transpired from ORG statement that he had been one of the recipients of the circular letter .","In a judgment of DATE , deposited in the court \u2019s registry on DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of defamation and proffering insults and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and to the reimbursement of ORG court costs ( amounting to MONEY ( ORG ) ) with reparation for the damage sustained by X. The amount of that damage was to be fixed in separate civil proceedings ; the court nevertheless awarded X an advance payment ( provisionale ) of LAW .","ORG observed that it was not in dispute that the applicant had written the circular letter and had asked his secretary to send copies to the judges in the civil divisions of ORG . During the proceedings , the applicant had filed pleadings and had made spontaneous statements . His arguments in defence had not , however , made it possible to disregard the offensive nature of the expressions used in the circular letter , exacerbated by the fact that he was a lawyer . In his letter , the applicant had stated that he had the greatest respect for the judiciary and for judges who carried out their duties with \u201c dedication , commitment and decorum \u201d . But he was clearly not talking here CARDINAL , who had been accused by the applicant of being arrogant and indifferent , of believing that he was immune because he held a position of power , and of having committed wilful mistakes , by malicious intent , serious misconduct or negligence . Those accusations could be explained not by PERSON \u2019s inaction in the handling of a case , but by the decisions taken by X in a case where the applicant \u2019s requests had been rejected . Instead of reiterating his legal arguments , the applicant had overstepped the limits of his right to criticism , alleging that X had erred \u201c wilfully \u201d , thus seriously impugning the honour of the judge in question .","According to ORG , the subject of the accusations contained in the circular letter could only have been X , as shown by similar letters , which expressly referred to that judge , addressed by the applicant and his clients to the ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG .","The applicant \u2019s defence ( esimente ) of provocation ( LAW ) was not accepted . Even supposing that the decisions of X could be regarded as \u201c unfair acts \u201d , the circular letter , sent DATE after those decisions , did not constitute an immediate reaction to them .","The applicant lodged an appeal .","He alleged , among other things , that the offences he was said to have committed were punishable merely by a fine , that the sentence imposed on him had been disproportionate and that the advance he had to pay was excessive . Moreover , in his complaint X had not mentioned that he himself had been a recipient of the circular letter , thus ruling out the charge of proffering insults . The applicant also argued that it could not be seen from the text of the letter that the criticism was directed at X and that this document , when assessed as a whole , was merely a manifestation of his frustrations about the shortcomings of the justice system in general .","Lastly , in the alternative , he took the view that his defence of provocation was valid . He argued that , in the proceedings for the partition of an inheritance , X had on a number of occasions rejected his requests for the suspension of a sale by auction of the flat in question , and that X \u2019s decisions had subsequently been overturned by another judge .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant stated that it had not been his intention to offend PERSON personally and he produced documents as evidence of his ill - health .","In a judgment of DATE , deposited in the court \u2019s registry on DATE , ORG ruled that no prosecution could be brought on a charge of proffering insults , as there had been no criminal complaint on that ground , and reduced the sentence for the offence of defamation to a fine of ORG CARDINAL . It stated that this sentence was fully remitted ( condonata ) , and ordered the applicant to make reparation for the damage sustained by X , which it assessed at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , and to reimburse X \u2019s court costs in the appeal proceedings ( LAW ) .","The Court of Appeal observed that , in the first part of his circular letter , the applicant had recounted the tribulations of the partition proceedings in which X had taken the impugned decisions . He had added that he regretted having to make complaints about certain individuals ( X and another judge ) whom , even though they had different duties from his own , he regarded as \u201c colleagues \u201d . In addition , the judges of ORG , giving testimony in the first - instance proceedings , had had no difficulty in identifying X as the addressee of the criticisms in the circular letter . In those circumstances , the applicant \u2019s argument that the letter was merely a manifestation of his discontent about the justice system in general could not be accepted .","In ORG view , the decisions taken by X in the context of the inheritance partition proceedings could , at most , be regarded as \u201c erroneous \u201d but not as \u201c unfair \u201d . The court also pointed out that one of the questions at the heart of the dispute ( the existence of inheritance rights in favour of the partner ) had been settled by ORG differently from the applicant \u2019s proposed solution . ORG had in fact noted that the applicant \u2019s letters could have been seen as a means of pressure against the judges concerned .","According to ORG , the applicant had not expressly challenged the part of the first - instance judgment considering that the expressions contained in the circular letter had overstepped the limits of the right to criticise .","The applicant , who had no criminal record , had to be allowed the benefit of mitigating circumstances , and under LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the penalty for defamation was now a mere fine ( and not a custodial sentence ) .","ORG observed that the distribution of a letter such as that sent by the applicant , within a small court , could not but impugn the dignity of the judge against whom it was directed and his image as an independent judge . The expressions used by the applicant , outside any procedural act , sought to call into question the professional conduct of X , who was portrayed , within a restricted community , as a partial and soft judge . In the light of those considerations , ORG , ruling on an equitable basis , awarded the civil party ORG CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damage .","The applicant appealed on points of law .","He reiterated his grievances and , referring to a particular passage in his grounds of appeal , stated that ORG had made a mistake in asserting that the defendant had failed to challenge the finding about the offensive nature of the expressions contained in the circular letter . In any event , the judge had been required , at all stages of the proceedings , to verify of his own motion whether or not the criminal charge in question was made out .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , deposited in the court \u2019s registry on DATE , ORG , finding that ORG had given logical and correct reasoning in respect of all the contentious points , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157524","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KRASNOD\u0118BSKA-KAZIKOWSKA AND \u0141UNIEWSKA v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive obligations;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","The applicants are legal successors of the former owners of a property in the vicinity of GPE , called PERSON , composed of a number of plots owned by several individuals .","NORP In DATE the then owners of the property , including ORG , the ORG mother , were obliged by an administrative decision to transfer their land to ORG without compensation within the framework of a larger expropriation scheme .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON w PERSON ) gave a decision concerning the applicants and CARDINAL other persons , legal successors of the other former owners expropriated by the DATE decision . It declared that that decision had been issued in flagrant breach of the law in force at the material time . The parties were further informed that the corrective decision gave rise to a compensation claim on their part for damage caused by the original unlawful decision .","On DATE the applicants sought compensation for damage caused by the decision given in DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicants\u2019 claim and awarded MONEY ( ORG ) to each of them , corresponding to the value of the expropriated land . It held that the conditions determining civil liability in tort , namely a tortious event which caused damage and the establishment of a causal link between the event and the damage , were met in the case . In respect of tort committed by ORG and caused by unlawful administrative decisions compensation could be sought only after a subsequent decision declared that the original administrative decision was unlawful . Such a corrective decision ( decyzja nadzorcza ) had been given in the applicants\u2019 case in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","CARDINAL alia , Article CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Procedure and enacted Article CARDINAL CARDINAL","NORP The defendant ORG , represented by the mayor of GPE , appealed .","On DATE ORG examined the appeal and dismissed the applicants\u2019 claim . It endorsed the findings of fact made by the lower court as to the existence of pecuniary damage and the causal link between the DATE decision and that damage . However , it was of the view that the provisions concerning the ORG \u2019s civil liability in tort should have been interpreted differently by the first - instance court , in particular as to the determination of the prescription period . The court observed that under the communist regime it was practically impossible , essentially for political reasons , to vindicate claims originating in unlawful administrative decisions or to seek compensation from ORG for damage in tort caused by such decisions . The earliest date on which it was possible to do so was DATE , when the first partially free parliamentary elections were held in GPE . It was from that date that the prescription period of DATE provided for by LAW started to run . The applicants should have availed themselves of the available remedy , namely they should have obtained a decision declaring the original expropriation decision unlawful prior to DATE when the DATE prescription period came to an end .","The applicants appealed on points of law . They argued that the contested judgment was in breach of LAW in so far as it guaranteed the right to compensation for damage caused by the ORG . Neither the damage caused by the DATE decision nor its unlawfulness were in dispute between the parties .","They further submitted that the case raised a significant legal issue in so far as there were divergent strands of case - law regarding the interpretation of legal provisions governing the ORG \u2019s civil liability for administrative decisions made prior to DATE and declared unlawful after that date . These differences in the judicial approach to similar cases , both as to the determination of the beginning of the prescription period and as to its length , had a decisive influence on the outcome of compensation cases brought by victims of unlawful administrative decisions and on the applicants\u2019 case .","On DATE ORG , sitting in camera as a single judge , refused to hear the applicants\u2019 appeal on points of law , holding that it did not raise any significant legal issue .","Parallel to the applicants\u2019 case , ORG , a successor of another owner expropriated by the same expropriation decision given in DATE and covered by the same corrective decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , sought compensation in civil proceedings for damage caused by the original decision . She lodged her claim with ORG on DATE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed her claim and awarded her compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL , corresponding to the value of the plot of land owned by ORG \u2019s legal predecessor . It recounted briefly the divergent views expressed by the civil courts , including ORG , in cases concerning claims for pecuniary damage caused by administrative decisions declared unlawful after DATE . It noted that the manner in which the provisions concerning the ORG \u2019s liability in tort for unlawful administrative decisions were interpreted had given rise to serious difficulties and differences of opinion in judicial practice . It disagreed with the view expressed in certain judicial decisions that the DATE prescription period for bringing compensation claims before the courts had started to run when the unlawful decision had been given , but its running was subsequently stayed until DATE . ORG was of the view that the CARDINAL","On DATE R.W. , another legal successor of the original owners , brought a compensation case before ORG , claiming compensation from ORG , represented by the mayor of GPE , for damage originating in the DATE decision . He also referred to the corrective decision of DATE .","By a judgment of DATE ORG allowed his claim and awarded him ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , corresponding to the value of the land concerned . The court stressed that it was not in dispute that the original administrative decision had been unlawful . Nor was it in dispute that that decision had caused damage to the claimant . The court referred to the resolution given by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It shared the view expressed by ORG in this resolution that it was not justified to interpret the applicable provisions in a way imposing on the applicant an obligation to seek a declaration of unlawfulness of the original administrative decision within DATE after DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169203","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160KARO v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Witnesses)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On an unspecified date an investigation was opened in respect of the applicant and CARDINAL other persons , ORG GPE , in connection with the killing in ORG , a NORP national . During the investigation A.B. gave oral evidence twice .","On DATE the applicant was indicted before ORG on charges of murder , while ORG GPE were charged under the same indictment with participating in a fight which resulted in the death of CARDINAL person . During the proceedings before the trial court PERSON did not testify and the oral evidence he had given during the investigation was read out . The applicant denied the veracity of his evidence .","On DATE ORG , composed of a panel of CARDINAL professional judges and CARDINAL lay judges , acquitted the applicant and found the other accused guilty as charged . Upon an appeal by the GPE ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG , on DATE ORG quashed the judgment in respect of the applicant and dismissed the charges against the other accused on account of the statutory prescription period . ORG also ordered that fresh proceedings against the applicant be conducted by a trial panel composed of different judges .","In the fresh proceedings a panel of CARDINAL different professional judges and CARDINAL different lay judges of ORG heard evidence from PERSON in the presence of the applicant and his defence lawyer on DATE . However , since one of the lay judges changed during the proceedings , the trial had to start afresh . At a hearing held on DATE the applicant agreed that PERSON \u2019s statement could be read out and on DATE the ORG again acquitted the applicant . That judgment was also quashed by ORG , on DATE , which again ordered a fresh trial with different judges .","A third round of proceedings was held before a panel of CARDINAL different professional judges ( PERSON and PERSON . PERSON ) and CARDINAL different lay judges ( GPE , ORG ) of ORG . At a hearing held on DATE PERSON gave oral evidence in the presence of the applicant and his defence counsel . On DATE Judge PERSON . PERSON was replaced by Judge PERSON and the lay judge ORG was replaced by another lay judge , PERSON At a hearing held on DATE that panel heard evidence from PERSON , in the presence of the applicant and his defence counsel . On CARDINAL DATE Judge PERSON was replaced by Judge PERSON and the trial had to start afresh . During the renewed proceedings the trial panel heard evidence from various witnesses , save for the witness PERSON whose prior statement was read out at a hearing held on DATE because he was in a psychiatric institution . PERSON was the only witness who said that he had seen the applicant attacking the victim . A request by the applicant for the trial panel to hear the witness in person was denied on the grounds that the witness was undergoing treatment for alcoholism in a psychiatric institution and that any absence from the institution would have a negative effect on his treatment .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","NORP In an appeal of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant , inter alia , challenged the veracity of the evidence given by PERSON and objected to the trial court \u2019s decision not to hear evidence from that witness in person . The applicant countered the reason given by the trial court for not requesting PERSON to come to the hearing by submitting that the witness \u2019s psychiatric treatment was scheduled to be completed in DATE and that such a delay would not affect the applicant \u2019s trial .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . The relevant part of ORG judgment reads :","\u201c The accused is not right in [ alleging ] that the first - instance court committed a serious breach of the rules of criminal procedure when it , without the [ defence \u2019s ] consent , read out the statements of witnesses PERSON and G.A. The [ first - instance ] court was correct in deciding to read out the statement of witness PERSON ( page CARDINAL of the case file ) , who was questioned several times in these criminal proceedings , because a letter from ORG shows that he was undergoing medical treatment , namely that \u2018 ... the medical treatment is ongoing and possible absence would not contribute to the overall therapeutic procedure ... \u2019 ( page CARDINAL of the case file ) . \u201d","A subsequent constitutional complaint by the applicant was dismissed by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171773","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF D\u00d6NER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Brought promptly before judge or other officer);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Take proceedings);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["At the time of the events giving rise to the present application , the applicants lived in GPE and their children attended different public elementary schools .","On unspecified dates in DATE the applicants ( save for Mr PERSON ) each sent petitions to the PERSON , ORG and ORG with a request for their children to be provided with education in NORP in their respective elementary schools . It appears that similar petitions were submitted by many other parents of NORP ethnic origin around the same time .","According to the examples submitted by the applicants , the petitions were worded , with slight variations , as follows :","\u201c I want my child who is studying at ... school to receive education in NORP , which is his [ her ] mother tongue , in addition to education in NORP , at school ... \u201d","On receipt of the petitions the relevant education directorates informed ORG , which brought the matter to the attention of the principal public prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG .","On DATE the public prosecutor asked the Anti - terrorism branch of ORG to identify the names and addresses of the persons who had petitioned the ORG and ORG with a request for education in NORP . It appears that on an unspecified date the same instruction was given in relation to the petitions lodged with ORG .","On DATE the public prosecutor requested a warrant authorising a search of the homes of CARDINAL people , including the applicants , who had submitted petitions . The public prosecutor considered that the petitions in question had been made on the instructions of the NORP ( Workers\u2019 ORG ) , an illegal armed organisation , and wished to collect relevant evidence from the ORG homes . ORG granted the public prosecutor \u2019s request DATE .","On DATE the public prosecutor instructed the Antiterrorism branch of ORG to conduct the searches with a view to finding evidence that could link the relevant persons to the ORG as aiders and abettors . It also instructed the Anti - terrorism branch to take the petitioners into police custody and question them in relation to the content and purpose of their petitions . The public prosecutor provided a list of questions to ask the petitioners , which mainly aimed to establish whether they had acted on the orders of the ORG .","Early on the morning of DATE police officers from the Anti - terrorism branch of ORG carried out a simultaneous search of all the properties , including the applicants\u2019 houses . The search and seizure reports drafted by the police and signed by the applicants and other members of the household indicated that a search warrant had been issued by ORG on account of their petitions requesting education in NORP for their children . The reports also stated that the public prosecutor had ordered the petitioners\u2019 arrest for questioning . According to these search and seizure reports , no illegal material was found in the applicants\u2019 homes .","The applicants were arrested and taken into police custody following the searches on DATE . The search and seizure reports and custody records submitted by the Government indicate that the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody at the following times :","On DATE the applicants were questioned by officers from the Anti - terrorism branch of ORG . They were asked , in particular , whether they had submitted the petitions in accordance with the ORG \u2019s new \u201c civil disobedience \u201d strategy adopted at its Sixth National Conference held DATE . The applicants PERSON and PERSON claimed that they had not submitted any petitions requesting education in NORP to any ORG authorities . The remaining applicants mainly denied any affiliation with the ORG and stated that they had submitted the petitions in question so that their children could learn their GPE mother tongue . Some of the applicants also stated that the issue of submission of such petitions had also been discussed at the PERSON branch of ORG ) , a NORP political party , which they attended from time to time . The ORG signed statements suggest that interpretation services were provided to CARDINAL of them ( PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) on request . A note drafted by the police also suggests that the applicants other than PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were illiterate .","It appears that in the meantime , some of the applicants\u2019 families contacted ORG seeking legal aid for their relatives during their detention in police custody . A lawyer was accordingly appointed . On DATE the lawyer applied to the public prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG for information in relation to CARDINAL of the applicants ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Fatma GPE , PERSON and PERSON ) . In particular , he enquired about their legal status and the charges they were facing , and asked to meet them and to provide them with the necessary legal assistance . On DATE he applied to ORG to have the same CARDINAL applicants released , arguing that they were being held in custody unlawfully .","On DATE a judge at ORG decided that there was no need to decide on the lawyer \u2019s request as there was no record of the individuals in question being detained in relation to an investigation conducted by the public prosecutor \u2019s office . On DATE ORG rejected a request by the lawyer to have the decision rendered by the judge set aside .","In the meantime , on DATE the public prosecutor informed the lawyer that the applicants in question were in custody on suspicion of being affiliated with an illegal organisation , and that there was no need to decide on the lawyer \u2019s request to have access to them as no authorisation for their detention in police custody had yet been issued by the public prosecutor \u2019s office .","It appears that shortly after that decision , still on DATE , the public prosecutor authorised the applicants\u2019 detention in police custody for DATE CARDINAL and DATE . The authorisation was granted in response to a request made by the Anti - terrorism branch of ORG , who had claimed that the applicants\u2019 detention was needed for the completion of their files , in particular to verify whether the petitions had been submitted by the applicants themselves , whether they had any affiliation with the ORG and whether they were being searched for in connection with other offences ( see paragraph CARDINAL below for the legal basis for that authorisation ) .","At TIME on DATE the applicants were taken out of the detention centre and , following a routine medical check - up , were brought before the public prosecutor at ORG . They admitted before the public prosecutor that they had written the petitions , either themselves or with the help of their children , but stated that they had no other motive than wanting their children to learn their mother tongue . They denied any involvement with the ORG . Some of the applicants claimed that they had submitted petitions after hearing about it from other parents at school or on television . According to the information provided by the ORG , CARDINAL of the applicants ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON Can and PERSON ) were assisted by an interpreter during questioning by the public prosecutor .","At an unspecified time on DATE the applicants ( except for PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) were brought before a judge at ORG , who ordered their release after taking statements from them . The applicants concerned were actually released following ORG order . CARDINAL of the applicants ( PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON Can and PERSON ) were assisted by an interpreter before that court . It appears that PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were also released DATE , but the decision ordering their release was not submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the public prosecutor filed an objection concerning the decision to release the applicants , claiming that it was evident from the statements made by them following their arrest that they had submitted the petitions in an organised manner with the aim of assisting the ORG \u2019s \u201c politicisation \u201d process . The public prosecutor added that although the applicants appeared to have lawfully used their right to petition , in reality they were acting on the instructions of the ORG and were thus aiding and abetting that organisation .","On DATE ORG upheld the public prosecutor \u2019s objection in respect of the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , NORP Can , ORG , ORG , and issued a warrant for their arrest . The court did not provide any reasons for its decision .","On DATE the lawyer asked ORG to set aside its decision of DATE ordering the arrest of the relevant applicants . On DATE ORG dismissed that request , basing its decision on the nature of the offence , date of arrest , state of the evidence and contents of the case file .","In the meantime , on DATE PERSON , ORG and PERSON were arrested on the basis of that warrant . DATE they were remanded in custody . It appears that the remaining CARDINAL applicants named in the warrant could not be located .","On DATE the applicants PERSON and PERSON filed objections concerning their detention on remand .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON and PERSON objections , basing its decision on the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG decided not to prosecute the applicant PERSON because of a lack of evidence against him .","On DATE the public prosecutor issued an indictment against CARDINAL suspects , including the remaining applicants , accusing them of aiding and abetting an armed organisation under LAW and LAW no . ORG ) in force at the material time . In the indictment the public prosecutor stated that following the arrest and conviction of their leader PERSON , the ORG had set out to pursue new policies . Accordingly , at the Sixth National Conference held between CARDINAL and DATE , it had adopted the \u201c ORG and Peace Project \u201d , a new strategy which had involved undertaking non - violent activities of \u201c civil disobedience \u201d and aimed at leaving the ORG and its authorities in a difficult position in the international arena . The public prosecutor submitted that such organised acts of civil disobedience agreed on by the ORG had included petitioning the ORG authorities for education in NORP , dressing up in traditional NORP female costume , and applying to courts or population registration offices with requests for their NORP identities to appear on their national identity cards . When viewed against this background , the petitions in question DATE which had been submitted to certain authorities on predetermined dates and times \u2013 could not be considered to be individual acts . They had actually been part of an organised movement which had aimed to implement the decisions adopted by the ORG and thereby undermine the authority of the ORG .","On DATE the first - instance court ordered the release of the applicants PERSON , ORG and PERSON pending the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG acquitted all the accused , including the applicants , because on the facts none of the elements of the crime of aiding and abetting an armed organisation had been present in their actions and there was no other evidence to support the allegations brought against them . The judgment became final on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","5-3","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147715","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"J.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , J.L. , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON of ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of the Foreign and ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was married to an army officer . He was an alcoholic who had been violent towards her and had abused CARDINAL of her twin daughters . In DATE he resigned from the army following a court martial which found him guilty of ungentlemanly conduct . The army therefore no longer had any duty to house the applicant but on compassionate grounds , because of her husband \u2019s misconduct towards her and her family , it was arranged that she should move to ORG accommodation in GPE where her daughters , then aged DATE , were attending boarding school .","The applicant and her daughters moved into the accommodation in GPE in DATE as \u201c irregular occupiers \u201d . However , the accommodation in GPE was supposed to be temporary until the applicant was able to obtain housing through the local council and her licence to occupy was terminated on DATE .","ORG was granted a possession order in DATE and attempts were made to find alternative accommodation for the applicant and her children . However , the applicant has a history of spinal surgery , osteoarthritis , poor mobility and chronic pain . She is currently registered disabled and has to use a wheelchair . When an offer of alternative accommodation was made , it was refused because it was not suitable for wheelchair use .","On DATE a letter was sent from the headquarters of LOC of the army stating that the applicant was ill - advised to reject the offer because she had removed herself from ORG priority housing list and the only alternative was to rent or purchase in the private sector . It was asserted that the applicant had been rejecting all attempts to provide help and advice and , in the absence of a specific plan to obtain alternative accommodation , there was no alternative but to apply for a warrant of possession .","NORP In DATE a further letter was sent indicating that the army would do everything they could to help in a difficult situation . The letter also asked for a medical report and an indication of what steps would be taken . Nothing appears to have happened following receipt of the letter and the applicant and her family remained in occupation .","In DATE ORG sold its property to a company called ORG and leased it back . In DATE it was said that the applicant \u2019s dwelling was surplus to requirements for ORG and should be handed back to ORG . On DATE a fresh notice to quit was served on the applicant .","There was a further delay and on DATE a warrant for possession was sought based on the order made in DATE . The court refused to grant the order as it concluded that a fresh tenancy had been granted since DATE .","Due to a shortage of ORG housing in the GPE area , a further notice to quit was served in DATE . In DATE ORG Assistant Director of Housing met with ORG . At the meeting social services offered to write to the applicant to provide help and advice on re - housing .","On DATE ORG commenced possession proceedings in ORG . On DATE the applicant served a defence and counterclaim in which she asserted that the claim for possession was unlawful and would constitute a breach of her rights under LAW . At the time the applicant was living in the property with her QUANTITY daughters . CARDINAL daughter suffered from mental health problems while the other daughter had a young son who suffered from Crohn \u2019s disease .","On DATE the case was transferred to ORG .","On DATE ORG made a possession order in favour of ORG . It observed that following PERSON and others v. ORG [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL the applicant could only challenge the decision to bring possession proceedings and not the proceedings themselves . In the present case there had been no obligation on the authority to enquire into the personal circumstances of the applicant and even if it were aware of her circumstances , personal disability would not generally provide a proper basis for declining to take proceedings . Moreover , while ORG had not always acted in a way which lived up to the proper standards of good administration , there was no reason to doubt that there was a real need for the property . As the Ministry \u2019s need for available accommodation overrode the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW , it followed that she could not stay in the property forever and therefore could not have security . Possession had to be attained in due course , although it fell to ORG to consider the question of rehousing .","On DATE ORG refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal . Following renewal of the application , permission was again refused on DATE .","The applicant introduced her complaints to ORG on DATE . At that time the possession order had not been executed as suitable alternative accommodation had not been identified .","DATE ORG handed down its judgment in ORG v. PERSON [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . In that judgment ORG considered that in order for domestic law to be compatible with LAW , where a court was asked by a local authority to make an order for possession of a person \u2019s home , the court had to have the power to assess the proportionality of making the order and , in making that assessment , to resolve any relevant dispute of fact .","In DATE the Secretary of ORG decided to take action to enforce the possession order . He applied for and obtained a writ of possession issued on DATE .","The applicant subsequently issued domestic proceedings , requesting that the decision to enforce the possession order made against her be judicially reviewed in light of the judgment in GPE . In particular , she submitted that Article CARDINAL entitled her to a single proportionality review of the eviction process and following PERSON this review had to be conducted when the domestic court was deciding whether or not to make a possession order . As a consequence , such a right could not arise at the enforcement stage .","On DATE the ORG adjourned the application pending the outcome of the domestic proceedings .","The High Court handed down its judgment on DATE . It held , inter alia , that there was no reason to doubt that Article CARDINAL remained engaged at the enforcement stage , as enforcement itself involved a significant and direct infringement of the tenant \u2019s occupation of her home . That being said , the court held that it would not be in every case that a proportionality review would be appropriate at the enforcement stage . Indeed , where the question of proportionality had been raised and addressed at the possession stage , or where it could have been raised and addressed , it would be difficult for the tenant successfully to invoke it at the enforcement stage absent a marked change in circumstances or some other exceptional reason justifying its consideration . In the vast majority of cases where enforcement took place within DATE or DATE of the possession order , it would be unlikely that such justification could be established . In the present case , the court noted that the domestic courts had been unable to consider LAW in making the possession order , and concluded that in such circumstances she was entitled to a proportionality review at enforcement stage .","The High Court therefore conducted a proportionality review in the applicant \u2019s case . It considered her longstanding mobility and ill - health difficulties ; her daughter \u2019s longstanding psychiatric disorder and the impact a forced eviction would have on her ; the family \u2019s need for particular and accessible accommodation ; and the hardship they would face if required to move . However , given the Secretary of ORG legitimate aim in seeking possession ( his right to do so under domestic law and his public law duty effectively to manage ORG resources ) , and in light of the high threshold identified by ORG in both GPE of GPE v Powell and Others [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , the court held that the applicant \u2019s circumstances did not render it disproportionate to seek enforcement of the possession order .","In reaching this conclusion , the court found the following considerations to be of particular relevance : the high threshold that applied to an LAW in possession proceedings applied with even more force at the later stage ; ORG did not have the public function of providing social housing generally ; ORG had such a public function , and it had awarded the applicant the highest level of priority possible ; even if the family had to be placed in temporary accommodation pending the identification of a suitable permanent home , they would be placed together in accommodation that suited their needs ; the applicant had been warned that she could not remain in the property indefinitely ; the Secretary of ORG had refrained from seeking to enforce the possession order for DATE after it became enforceable to give the applicant an opportunity to find alternative accommodation ; no one could say with any certainty that the applicant \u2019s situation would be different within any fixed time - frame ; and finally , there was no evidence to suggest that the eviction would be more detrimental now than in the future .","NORP The applicant appealed to ORG , which dismissed the appeal on DATE . In doing so , it agreed with ORG that while in the overwhelming majority of cases the occupant \u2019s LAW could be appropriately and sufficiently respected by the provision of a proportionality review during the possession proceedings themselves , in exceptional cases such as the present the raising of LAW at enforcement stage would not be an abuse of process . It also accepted that in the present case such a review could only have taken place at enforcement stage and the judge had been correct to carry it out when she did . It found that the judge had carried out a careful and sympathetic analysis of the consequences for the applicant and her family of the threatened eviction and her conclusions on proportionality could not be faulted .","Pursuant to LAW , in order to evict a tenant a landlord must first serve a notice to quit , giving the tenant CARDINAL GPE notice . If the tenant does not leave the property voluntarily , the landlord must apply to court for an order for possession . If the court grants the order , it will specify the date on which the tenant must give up possession of the property . If the tenant does not give up possession on that date , the landlord must apply to court for a warrant of possession ( see LAW CCR Order CARDINAL , as set out in PERSON to ORG ) .","For a general summary of domestic proceedings prior to DATE regarding the right of defendants to rely on LAW in the context of a defence to possession proceedings , see the ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE .","Notably , in PERSON and others v. GPE of GPE and others ; and ORG v. Price and others [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL , Lord Hope of PERSON clarified the CARDINAL \u201c gateways \u201d via which a defendant in possession proceedings could challenge his eviction :","\u201c ... Where domestic law provides for personal circumstances to be taken into account , as in a case where the statutory test is whether it would be reasonable to make a possession order , then a fair opportunity must be given for the arguments in favour of the occupier to be presented . But if the requirements of the law have been established and the right to recover possession is unqualified , the only situations in which it would be open to the court to refrain from proceeding to summary judgment and making the possession order are these : ( a ) if a seriously arguable point is raised that the law which enables the court to make the possession order is incompatible with article CARDINAL [ \u201c gateway ( a ) \u201d ] , the county court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under LAW DATE should deal with the argument in CARDINAL or other of CARDINAL ways : ( i ) by giving effect to the law , so far as it is possible for it do so under LAW , in a way that is compatible with article CARDINAL , or ( ii ) by adjourning the proceedings to enable the compatibility issue to be dealt with in ORG ; ( b ) if the defendant wishes to challenge the decision of a public authority to recover possession as an improper exercise of its powers at common law on the ground that it was a decision that no reasonable person would consider justifiable [ \u201c gateway ( b ) \u201d ] , he should be permitted to do this provided again that the point is seriously arguable ... \u201d","Lord PERSON of PERSON - under - Heywood referred to the amendment to the DATE Act allowing ORG to suspend , for DATE at a time , any possession order in respect of a local authority caravan site and noted :","\u201c ... Now , therefore , the county court would be entitled to suspend the order made against someone in Mr Connors\u2019 position ; previously , it was not .","By the same token moreover that the county court judge would have been unable , under the pre - existing law , to decline or postpone a possession order in the case of someone in Mr Connors\u2019 position , so too in my judgment he is unable in other cases to give greater effect or weight to the occupier \u2019s right to respect for his home than is allowed for under domestic law ... \u201d","He added :","\u201c The difficulty with such [ a public law ] defence , however , is that it would be well nigh impossible to make good , the challenge necessarily postulating that under domestic property law the claimant authority was entitled to possession . Accordingly the argument could only be that no reasonable public authority could properly invoke that domestic law right . This would be a more stringent test than would apply were the court ... under a primary duty to reach its own judgment on the justifiability of making a possession order .","For my part I think that such an argument could perhaps have been mounted successfully in ORG : having regard to the great length of time ( most of DATE ) that that gypsy family had resided on the site , it was unreasonable , indeed grossly unfair , for the local authority to claim possession merely on the basis of a determined licence without the need to make good any underlying reason for taking such precipitate action ...","It is difficult to suppose , however , that a defence based on a public law challenge of this character to a public authority \u2019s decision to pursue its domestic law rights could properly succeed except in such an infinitely rare case as ORG itself ... \u201d","The subsequent case of PERSON and others v. ORG [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL considered the PERSON gateways . As regards the scope of gateway ( b ) , Lord Hope clarified :","\u201c DATE . ... [ T]he speeches in PERSON show that the route indicated by this gateway is limited to what is conveniently described as conventional judicial review ...","NORP ... [ I]t will be open to the defendant by way of a defence to argue under gateway ( b ) that the order should not be made unless the court is satisfied , upon reviewing the respondent \u2019s decision to seek a possession order on the grounds that it gave and bearing in mind that it was doing what the legislation authorised , that the decision to do this was in the PERSON sense not unreasonable ...","...","I think that in this situation it would be unduly formalistic to confine the review strictly to traditional ORG grounds . The considerations that can be brought into account in this case are wider . An examination of the question whether the respondent \u2019s decision was reasonable , having regard to the aim it was pursuing and to the length of time that the appellant and his family have resided on the site , would be appropriate . But the requisite scrutiny would not involve the judge substituting his own judgment for that of the local authority . In my opinion the test of reasonableness should be , as I said in para CARDINAL of PERSON , whether the decision to recover possession was one which no reasonable person would consider justifiable . \u201d","On DATE ORG sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges in ORG v. PERSON [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ( \u201c Pinnock \u201d ) considered the application of Article CARDINAL to a claim for possession brought against a demoted tenant under LAW V of LAW DATE ( as inserted by paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule CARDINAL to the Anti - social LAW DATE ) . Following a review of the case - law , ORG considered the following propositions to be well established in the jurisprudence of this ORG :","\u201c ( a ) Any person at risk of being dispossessed of his home at the suit of a local authority should in principle have the right to raise the question of the proportionality of the measure , and to have it determined by an independent tribunal in the light of DATE , even if his right of occupation under domestic law has come to an end ...","( b ) A judicial procedure which is limited to addressing the proportionality of the measure through the medium of traditional judicial review ( i e , one which does not permit the court to make its own assessment of the facts in an appropriate case ) is inadequate as it is not appropriate for resolving sensitive factual issues ...","( c ) Where the measure includes proceedings involving CARDINAL stage , it is the proceedings as a whole which must be considered in order to see if article CARDINAL has been complied with ...","( d ) If the court concludes that it would be disproportionate to evict a person from his home notwithstanding the fact that he has no domestic right to remain there , it would be unlawful to evict him so long as the conclusion obtains \u2013 for example , for a specified period , or until a specified event occurs , or a particular condition is satisfied . \u201d","ORG thus considered that in order for domestic law to be compatible with LAW , where a court was asked by a local authority to make an order for possession of a person \u2019s home , the court had to have the power to assess the proportionality of making the order , and , in making that assessment , to resolve any relevant dispute of fact .","In terms of the practical implications of this principle , ORG noted that if domestic law justified an outright order for possession , the effect of DATE could , albeit in exceptional cases , justify granting an extended period for possession , suspending the order for possession on the happening of an event , or even refusing an order altogether .","Finally , the court observed that the need for a court to have the ability to assess the LAW proportionality of making a possession order in respect of a person \u2019s home might require certain statutory and procedural provisions to be revisited .","In GPE of GPE v Powell and Others [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) , handed down on DATE , ORG held that the principle in PERSON applied not only to demoted tenancies but to all cases where a local authority was seeking possession in respect of a property that constituted a person \u2019s home for the purposes of LAW .","Lord Hope observed that following PERSON the court had to have the ability to assess the LAW proportionality of making a possession order in respect of a person \u2019s home , even if his or her right to occupation had come to an end . The question of whether the property in question constitutes the defendant \u2019s \u201c home \u201d was likely to be of concern only in cases where an order for possession was sought against a defendant who had only recently moved into accommodation on a temporary or precarious basis . Therefore , in most cases it could be taken for granted that a claim by a person who was in lawful occupation to remain in possession would attract the protection of article CARDINAL .","With regard to the proportionality assessment , Lord Hope stated that :","\u201c CARDINAL . The basic rules are not now in doubt . The court will only have to consider whether the making of a possession order is proportionate if the issue has been raised by the occupier and it has crossed the high threshold of being seriously arguable . The question will then be whether making an order for the occupier \u2019s eviction is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim . \u201d","The threshold for raising an arguable case on proportionality was a high one which would only succeed in a small proportion of cases . However , if the threshold was crossed , the court would have to consider whether making an order for possession was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim . Lord Hope continued :","\u201c The proportionality of making the order for possession at the suit of the local authority will be supported by the fact that making the order would ( a ) serve to vindicate the authority \u2019s ownership rights ; and ( b ) enable the authority to comply with its public duties in relation to the allocation and management of its housing stock . Various examples were given of the scope of the duties that the second legitimate aim encompasses \u2013 the fair allocation of its housing , the redevelopment of the site , the refurbishing of sub - standard accommodation , the need to move people who are in accommodation that now exceeds their needs and the need to move vulnerable people into sheltered or warden - assisted housing . In GPE and ORG ) ( unreported ) given DATE , para CARDINAL the GPE court indicated that the first aim on its own will not suffice where the owner is the ORG itself . But , taken together , the twin aims will satisfy the legitimate aim requirement .","So , as was made clear in GPE , para CARDINAL , there will be no need , in the overwhelming majority of cases , for the local authority to explain and justify its reasons for seeking a possession order . It will be enough that the authority is entitled to possession because the statutory pre - requisites have been satisfied and that it is to be assumed to be acting in accordance with its duties in the distribution and management of its housing stock . The court need be concerned only with the occupier \u2019s personal circumstances and any factual objections she may raise and , in the light only of what view it takes of them , with the question whether making the order for possession would be lawful and proportionate . If it decides to entertain the point because it is seriously arguable , it must give a reasoned decision as to whether or not a fair balance would be struck by making the order that is being sought by the local authority : PERSON and ORG , para CARDINAL .","...","In the ordinary case the relevant facts will be encapsulated entirely in the CARDINAL legitimate aims that were identified in GPE , para CARDINAL . It is against those aims , which should always be taken for granted , that the court must weigh up any factual objections that may be raised by the defendant and what she has to say about her personal circumstances . It is only if a defence has been put forward that is seriously arguable that it will be necessary for the judge to adjourn the case for further consideration of the issues of lawfulness or proportionality . If this test is not met , the order for possession should be granted . This is all that is needed to satisfy the procedural imperative that has been laid down by the GPE court . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170861","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SAYEROV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving his term of imprisonment in ORG Tagil .","Since DATE the applicant waited trial in remand prison IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE . According to him , DATE and DATE he was transported by prison van on CARDINAL occasions between the remand prison and temporary detention facility of Cheboksary ( ORG ) which was the closest secure facility to the court building . Although on some rare occasions the applicant was alone in the van , during other trips he was either placed in a single occupancy cell measuring CARDINAL sq . m or remained on his feet because there were no free seats . There were no toilets in the vans , prisoners used plastic bottles . On DATE of transport , the applicant did not receive food rations . Lengthy check - in and check - out procedures resulted in TIME wait at either facility with inmates staying inside vans . The applicant submitted a certificate issued by the remand prison governor showing the dates of his transport .","The Government provided a description of the applicant \u2019s conditions of transport , relying on transport logs concerning CARDINAL trips , photographs of the vans , and CARDINAL certificates issued by ORG of the Republic . One of the certificates lacked references to any original documentation and mentioned CARDINAL trips and the one referred to \u201c extracts from the prisoner transport logs \u201d and listed QUANTITY trips on different dates . The Government stated that they could not provide the full information about the conditions of the applicant \u2019s transport . They added that the applicant was transported on CARDINAL occasions in total , on CARDINAL of which he was in the van alone . The number of prisoners did not exceed the maximum capacity of vans , an average trip lasted TIME , some of the vans were equipped with toilets , and the applicant was provided with dry food rations ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158492","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF EL KAADA v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ) . When lodging his application , he was detained in FAC .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of several counts of extortion , robbery , burglary , embezzlement and assault . Applying the criminal law relating to young offenders , it sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . ORG suspended the execution of the sentence and granted probation . In a separate decision of DATE , ORG imposed conditions on the applicant during the probation period , which was to run until DATE . The applicant was not to reoffend ; in addition , he was ordered , inter alia , to complete TIME of unpaid social work .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel informed ORG that he represented the applicant in the proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s probation .","On DATE the ORG issued a detention order against the applicant , which was confirmed on appeal . The courts found that there was a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed a burglary on CARDINAL May\/CARDINAL DATE in a hotel in PERSON . The suspicion was based on the witness statement made by the applicant \u2019s former girl - friend PERSON to the police .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel notified ORG , which received the letter on CARDINAL DATE , that he represented the applicant also in the investigation proceedings concerning the burglary on CARDINAL May\/CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested . He was heard on DATE by the investigating judge at ORG , without his counsel being present , on suspicion of having committed the burglary in a hotel on CARDINAL May\/CARDINAL DATE in PERSON . The applicant , who had been informed of his rights to remain silent and to consult a defence counsel at any time , admitted having committed the offence described in the detention order of DATE .","On DATE , in a hearing before ORG for review of the necessity of his further detention on remand , the applicant , in the presence of his counsel , revoked his confession of DATE . He submitted that he had only admitted having committed the burglary on CARDINAL May\/CARDINAL DATE as a police officer had told him at the time of his arrest that he had good chances of being released from detention on remand if he did so .","Subsequently , on DATE , ORG charged the applicant with the burglary committed in PERSON .","On DATE the ORG , relying on section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , revoked the suspension on probation of the applicant \u2019s prison sentence granted in that court \u2019s judgment of DATE .","ORG noted that in its decision of DATE to suspend the sentence on probation , the applicant had been imposed the condition not to reoffend during the probation period . He had breached that condition as he had confessed having committed a burglary on CARDINAL May\/CARDINAL DATE in PERSON . His new offence was similarly serious as the offences he had been convicted of on DATE .","ORG further observed that the applicant had failed to comply with additional conditions imposed in the probation order . In particular , he had not completed the unpaid social work he had been obliged to carry out and had not contacted his probation officer without having a valid excuse .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision . He contested the court \u2019s finding that he had reoffended . He stressed , in particular , that he had revoked his confession of CARDINAL DATE . Moreover , a confession alone , the credibility of which had not been tested , was not sufficient to be proved guilty of an offence . In any event , under the standards of NORP law , the revocation of the suspension of a sentence on probation could only be based on a final conviction of a new offence . He had to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG decision . ORG considered that the revocation of the suspension on probation of the applicant \u2019s prison sentence under LAW of LAW could not be based on the applicant \u2019s failure to carry out the unpaid social work he had been imposed in the probation order because ORG had failed to specify in which institution the applicant was to do that work .","ORG further found : \u201c However , ultimately it was nevertheless correct to revoke the suspension on probation as the convicted offender , as ORG had correctly found , committed another offence during the probation period . \u201d ( \u201c PERSON jedoch i m Ergebnis gleichwohl zu ORG erfolgt , denn PERSON , wie das ORG zutreffend angenommen hat , innerhalb der PERSON straff\u00e4llig geworden . \u201c ) .","ORG confirmed that the revocation of the suspension of the applicant \u2019s sentence did not require that the applicant had been convicted by a final judgment of the offence on which the revocation was based . It was sufficient that the court revoking the suspension of the sentence had obtained certainty by other means that the person concerned had committed the offence . The presumption of innocence laid down in LAW did not warrant a different conclusion . That presumption only related to proceedings in which a decision on the charges against the accused had to be taken and not to proceedings concerning the revocation of the suspension of a sentence on probation . Referring , in particular , to a decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraphs DATE below ) , ORG found that it was therefore sufficient , in particular , that the court revoking the suspension on probation of the penalty was convinced that the person concerned was guilty of a new offence on the basis of a credible confession that person made before a judge .","In the case before it , ORG then found that in view of the applicant \u2019s confession on DATE before the investigating judge , it was of the \u201c firm conviction that the applicant had again committed an offence \u201d ( \u201c sichere PERSON erneuten PERSON durch den GPE ) , namely a burglary on CARDINAL May\/CARDINAL DATE in a hotel in PERSON . The applicant \u2019s confession was credible , in particular , as it was supported by the detailed description of the applicant \u2019s acts before and after the offence given by witness PERSON before the police . The subsequent revocation of the confession by the applicant , who had further contested S. \u2019s statements , arguing that PERSON wanted to take revenge following the breakdown of their relationship , was not credible in the light of the results of the investigations undertaken to date . ORG referred in this respect , in particular , to the reports of the witness statements made by PERSON and by PERSON , an employee of the hotel concerned , before the police . ORG therefore concluded that the applicant had demonstrated by his new offence that he had not fulfilled the expectations on which the suspension of his sentence had been based .","On DATE , following a decision of ORG , the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was interrupted in order for him to serve the sentence imposed on him in ORG judgment of DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against the decisions of ORG dated DATE and of ORG dated DATE . He argued , in particular , that the said courts\u2019 finding , on the basis of the case - file alone , that he had committed another burglary had disregarded the rule of law and the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by LAW and by LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW . His initial confession before the investigating judge was irrelevant as he had revoked that confession , the credibility of which had not been tested by the courts revoking the suspension of his sentence on probation . He further took the view that the question whether he had committed a new burglary had to be determined by the competent criminal courts following a trial . The domestic courts\u2019 finding that he had committed another burglary before he had been convicted thereof by a final judgment also disregarded ORG Rights\u2019 findings in a judgment of DATE ( GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG , without giving reasons , declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of burglary , committed on CARDINAL May\/CARDINAL DATE in a hotel in PERSON , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The judgment became final on DATE .","The applicant was released from prison on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165232","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF U.N. v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is an ethnic NORP . He lived in the town of NORP in GPE . After the mass disorders and inter - ethnic clashes in the region in DATE , he left GPE for GPE .","On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE .","On DATE the NORP authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes related to these clashes , including the kidnapping and murder of CARDINAL law - enforcement officers .","On DATE they ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s name was put on a national wanted list , and on DATE on an international wanted list .","On DATE the applicant was apprehended in GPE , GPE , and placed in detention .","Shortly after his arrest , the applicant gave an explanation ( \u043e\u0431\u044a\u044f\u0441\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) in which he admitted having participated in the beating of CARDINAL of the law - enforcement officers in DATE but denied his involvement in other crimes for which he was to be prosecuted in GPE . He also indicated that although he had not been directly informed about the charges being brought against him in GPE , he knew that his father had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of the same law - enforcement officers and suspected that he was himself also wanted by the NORP authorities .","On DATE the Frunzenskiy District Court of GPE decided to remand the applicant in custody . His detention was subsequently extended several times .","On DATE ORG informed the NORP authorities about the applicant \u2019s arrest .","On DATE a judge of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed , arguing that the applicant would be deprived of judicial review of his detention for a long period of time .","On DATE ORG upheld the extension order on appeal . It did not address the applicant \u2019s argument that he would be deprived of judicial review of his detention for a long period of time .","On DATE the applicant was released . It appears that the applicant is currently at large .","On DATE ORG requested the applicant \u2019s extradition . The request was accompanied by assurances that the applicant would not be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment and that NORP diplomats would be granted the opportunity to visit him .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General granted the extradition request submitted by the NORP authorities .","On DATE the applicant appealed , arguing that as an ethnic NORP charged with serious crimes in relation to the mass disorders of DATE he would face a serious risk of torture and ill - treatment if extradited . He also referred to the principle of nonrefoulement of asylum seekers pending the examination of his application for refugee status .","On DATE ORG rejected his appeal in the light of the diplomatic assurances given by the NORP authorities and the improvement of the situation in GPE . As to the nonrefoulement principle , ORG noted that the applicant \u2019s application for refugee status had been refused by the migration authority .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and the extradition order became final . It noted in particular that in addition to the diplomatic assurances provided in writing by the NORP authorities , the representatives of ORG of GPE in this country were able to monitor the situation of persons already extradited to GPE , including those held in relation to the mass disorders . For instance , on CARDINAL and DATE NORP diplomats had visited some such detainees , who had made no complaints in relation to their transfer , detention , prosecution or treatment . In ORG view , such a monitoring mechanism was effective in observing compliance by the NORP authorities with their obligations to ensure the rights of the extradited persons , including the right not to be subjected to torture and inhuman treatment .","ORG noted that the applicant belonged to a vulnerable group whose members were at risk of being subjected to torture by the lawenforcement agencies , according to international reports . It considered , however , that in the absence of specific evidence submitted by the applicant that he would personally be subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment , these circumstances were not in themselves enough to reject an extradition request , since he had been charged with ordinary criminal offences to some of which he had confessed on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of ORG ( ORG \u043c\u0438\u0433\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u044b \u043f\u043e NORP \u043a\u0440\u0430\u044e ) ( hereinafter the \u201c Primorsk Region FMS \u201d ) seeking refugee status .","On DATE the Primorsk Region FMS refused the applicant \u2019s application for refugee status . Although it referred in its decision to interethnic conflicts existing in GPE , it considered that the applicant \u2019s arrival in GPE had rather been motivated by the unemployment situation existing in his country of origin and his wish to escape from criminal prosecution .","The applicant appealed to ORG , ( ORG \u043c\u0438\u0433\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0430 ( \u0424\u041c\u0421 ) ) ( hereinafter the \u201c FMS \u201d ) . He claimed that he was being persecuted on the grounds of his ethnic origin and , if extradited , would be subjected to torture .","On DATE the ORG dismissed his appeal on account of his prolonged failure to apply for refugee status and in view of the opportunity offered to the NORP diplomats to monitor the compliance by the NORP authorities with international standards as regards persons extradited from GPE .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the refusal of the ORG to grant the applicant refugee status , referring in particular to his protracted failure to apply for refugee status . It also indicated that the applicant was not a member of any political , religious , military or public organisation , had neither served in the army nor taken part in any military activities , had never been prosecuted or threatened by the authorities , and had not been involved in any violent incidents .","On DATE ORG upheld this judgment on appeal . ORG endorsed the reasoning of ORG , referring in addition to several international sources demonstrating positive developments in the human rights situation in GPE during the period DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156133","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"MATI\u0106 AND POLONIA DOO v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants are Mr PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) and PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) .","The first applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is also the second applicant \u2019s authorised representative . The second applicant is a limited liability company based in GPE . Both applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr M. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the second applicant bought a cargo ship ( teretni brod ) outside of GPE . This ship \u2019s estimated worth was MONEY ( \u201c EUR \u201d ) .","In DATE the first applicant , acting on behalf of the second applicant , retained the services of a forwarding company ( \u0161pediter ) , which company specialised in customs - related matters .","On DATE the forwarding company filed a declaration with the customs authorities , supplementing it with the relevant documentation provided by the applicants .","On DATE ORG ( carinarnica ) , having , inter alia , heard a number of witnesses , established that the ship had been improperly classified ( svrstan pod pogre\u0161ni tarifni stav ) , as a sea - going vessel , which classification , in turn , implied that no customs duty would be payable . The forwarding company and its authorised representative , as well as the applicants in the present case , were thus found guilty of a customs offence ( cariski prekr\u0161aj ) and fined in accordance with the relevant legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In particular , the first and the second applicants were ordered to pay MONEY ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) respectively , whilst the forwarding company and its authorised representative were fined in the amount of ORG CARDINAL in that order . ORG noted that its own classification of the ship , as primarily a river - going vessel , was based on the assessment of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL expert organisations which had submitted opposing opinions during the proceedings . ORG also referred to an attesting declaration , issued by the NORP authorities and provided by the applicants themselves , to the effect that the ship was \u201c suitable for sailing on the LOC , between GPE and the open sea \u201d . In any event , the head of ORG , at CARDINAL point , recommended that the ship be classified as a river - going one , but the applicants refused to do so .","On DATE ORG ( ORG finansija ) partly accepted the appeals filed by the CARDINAL defendants , and in so doing amended the fines imposed at first instance . In particular , the first and second applicants were ordered to pay ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL , ( approximately EUR CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL at that time ) , respectively , whilst the forwarding company and its authorised representative were fined less , i.e. RSD CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL at that time ) respectively . ORG stated that the reason for this distinction was that the forwarding company had merely complied with the applicants\u2019 request for the improper classification of the ship in question , as established on the basis of a witness statement given in the course of the proceedings . Also , ORG accepted that there was no intent on the part of the applicants to deceive the authorities , which was why they were found guilty under LAW , an offence not requiring the existence of such intent but rather the mere failure to provide accurate information upon submission of a customs declaration .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law ( zahtev za vanredno preispitivanje pravosna\u017enog re\u0161enja ) , which appeal was supplemented on DATE , DATE and DATE . Therein , the applicants maintained , inter alia , that : ( a ) although ORG had taken into account CARDINAL expert opinions regarding the classification of the ship , it had accepted , without proper explanation , CARDINAL opinion and effectively given no credence to the other ; ( b ) they had had no expertise to navigate their way through the complex customs proceedings , which was why they had hired the forwarding company to deal with this issue ; and ( c ) the impugned decisions of the customs authorities had been inconsistent with their decisions in other similar cases .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) ruled on the ORG appeal on points of law . The first applicant \u2019s claims were rejected as inadmissible ( odba\u010deni ) , since the amount of the fine imposed in his case was below the statutory threshold of FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , whilst the second applicant \u2019s claims were considered on their merits and rejected ( odbijeni ) . ORG endorsed the reasoning contained in the impugned decisions issued by the administrative authorities . The applicants received ORG judgment on DATE .","The second applicant was granted the possibility to pay the fine in DATE instalments , and by DATE the fine was paid in full .","The above - described proceedings were conducted on the basis of LAW DATE , as amended in DATE , as well as LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","DATE and DATE ORG and ORG ( PERSON kasacioni sud ) , applying LAW , issued CARDINAL decisions in respect of situations broadly similar to that of the applicants . Specifically , they noted that it was the responsibility of the importer to provide accurate documentation to the forwarding company and the forwarding company \u2019s duty to properly classify the goods in the customs declaration . No intent to deceive the authorities was deemed necessary for the existence of the said offence . In CARDINAL of these cases the importers were , ultimately , acquitted or formally cautioned ( opomenuti ) , without being fined , whilst in the remaining CARDINAL cases they were fined in accordance with the applicable legislation ( see , for example , re\u0161enja PERSON finansija od CARDINAL . septembra DATE . i CARDINAL . januara DATE , P\u017ec nos . CARDINAL i CARDINAL ; as well as presude ORG kasacionog suda od CARDINAL . februara DATE , CARDINAL . marta DATE , CARDINAL . juna DATE . i CARDINAL . decembra DATE , Upr nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) .","Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that a company , as well as its authorised representative employed therewith ( odgovorno lice ) , shall be liable for failing to provide accurate information upon submission of a customs declaration . They shall further be fined therefor in the amount of up to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL or the threefold value of the imported goods , as regards a natural person and a corporate entity respectively .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that should a natural person ( fizi\u010dko lice ) , fail to pay the fine imposed , it shall be converted into a prison term on the basis that DATE in prison shall be worth RSD CARDINAL , but that the imprisonment may not exceed a period of DATE in all .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that should a corporate entity fail to pay the fine imposed , it shall be collected \u201c forcibly \u201d ( naplati\u0107e se prinudnim putem ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that a defendant may be formally cautioned , rather than fined , where there are serious extenuating circumstances .","Article CARDINAL identifies , inter alia , the courts entrusted with conducting customs - related proceedings .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provides that proceedings shall be terminated if there is no proof that the defendant had committed the offence with which he has been charged .","Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that a natural person , as well as an authorised representative of a corporate entity employed therewith ( odgovorno lice u pravnom licu ) , shall be entitled to lodge an appeal on points of law if they have been fined in the amount of ORG CARDINAL or more .","In accordance with LAW , the ORG shall , should it accept an appeal on points of law lodged by CARDINAL of the parties concerned , have the power to overturn and\/or amend the impugned decision or quash it and order the re - examination of the issue before the competent administrative authorities .","DATE LAW adopted in DATE amended LAW DATE , whereby administrative authorities were given the competence to conduct customs - related proceedings at first and second instance .","On DATE this Act repealed LAW DATE , as amended in DATE .","Article CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides that it shall be applicable to all pending cases where no second instance decision has been rendered on the merits by DATE . By implication , as regards all other pending cases , including the present case , LAW DATE , as amended in DATE , remained applicable until their very conclusion ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167558","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KIR\u0160TEINS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG separated materials of the criminal case no . DATE and initiated new criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s activities during the period from DATE , when he was an investigator at ORG of the NORP GPE . According to ORG , the applicant had participated in political repressions of the NORP regime .","On DATE the prosecutor informed the applicant that he was suspected of having committed genocide . More specifically , ORG alleged that the applicant had participated in military operations against members of the NORP armed resistance , collected evidence in criminal proceedings against them , arrested them and their supporters and collected evidence and arrested people who had possessed anti - NORP manuscripts . On DATE the prosecutor for the first time questioned the applicant as a suspect .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained on remand .","On DATE the applicant was charged with crimes against humanity and genocide .","On DATE the prosecutor drafted the bill of indictment and sent the case to ORG for adjudication . The indictment concerned CARDINAL different episodes involving CARDINAL alleged victims .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s new defence counsel requested ORG to postpone at least for DATE the hearing , which was scheduled for DATE , so that he would have enough time to acquaint himself with the applicant \u2019s criminal case file .","On DATE the hearing was postponed indefinitely due to the responsible judge \u2019s illness .","On an unknown date the applicant \u2019s criminal case was taken over by another judge of ORG . On DATE the judge informed the applicant \u2019s defence counsel that the hearing was scheduled for DATE .","ORG held hearings on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE . However , on DATE the judge informed the applicant that the hearing was postponed to CARDINAL DATE due to a protracted examination of another criminal case .","On DATE ORG continued examination of the applicant \u2019s criminal case and on DATE the court delivered its judgment , acquitting the applicant .","The prosecutor appealed against the judgement . On DATE ORG of ORG quashed the first - instance court \u2019s judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court . This decision was finalised on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s defence counsel appealed against the appellate court \u2019s decision of DATE . With a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG quashed this decision and remitted the case to the appellate court .","On CARDINAL DATE the judge of ORG of ORG scheduled the appeal hearing for CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","Upon the prosecutor \u2019s request , on DATE the appellate court suspended the case pending an expert medical report on the applicant \u2019s capacity to participate in the hearing and to serve a prison sentence .","On DATE the court \u2019s decision ordering the forensic examination was forwarded to ORG . On DATE also the applicant \u2019s criminal case file was sent to this institution . On CARDINAL DATE ORG delivered the results of the forensic examination .","Following the applicant \u2019s forensic expertise , the examination of the applicant \u2019s criminal case before the appellate court was continued on DATE and DATE . On DATE the appellate court upheld the judgment of ORG of DATE acquitting the applicant . The decision was finalised on DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor appealed against this decision .","With a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG upheld the decision of the appellate court ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169463","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"SAVISAAR v. ESTONIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE - Virumaa . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant , who had been the mayor of GPE since DATE , was re - elected to the GPE city council on DATE and on DATE the city council re - elected him as mayor . On the same date the city council confirmed the appointment to office of the members of the municipal government , thereby giving the applicant the authority to exercise his mayoral powers .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of accepting substantial bribes . On DATE the applicant was prohibited from leaving his place of residence as a preventive measure . It does not appear from the materials before the ORG how long those measures were in force .","On DATE ORG petitioned ORG to suspend him from office as a precautionary measure . The petition detailed numerous acts which had been investigated and which were deemed to constitute a criminal offence . It was noted in the petition that all the acts in question related to the applicant \u2019s service as mayor of GPE and the issuing of instructions to persons employed by the GPE city government in abuse of his office . ORG found that there was reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that if he continued to serve as mayor he might i ) destroy or conceal documentary evidence , or ii ) create new evidence seeking to justify the said acts , or iii ) influence officials of the GPE municipal government to give witness testimony that would be favourable to him .","On DATE a hearing was held in ORG to ensure the applicant \u2019s rights of defence . This hearing was postponed to DATE in order to allow ORG to provide the applicant with a copy of its petition .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision suspending the applicant from the office of mayor of GPE for the duration of the criminal proceedings . The first - instance court determined that there was sufficient evidence to warrant reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crime of repeatedly accepting bribes for his own benefit and also for the benefit of his political party . In arriving at this conclusion , the court examined all the evidence in the case as provided by ORG . This body of evidence consisted of surveillance reports and extracts from bank statements . The first - instance court did not agree that there was a risk that the applicant might destroy or conceal documentary evidence , as all such evidence had been seized by the authorities during the search of his home and his cars . Nor did it agree that the applicant might create new evidence to justify the said acts . The court did agree , however , that there was a risk that the applicant might influence municipal officials to give favourable witness testimony if he were to continue to serve as mayor . The court found this suspicion substantiated by surveillance reports providing evidence of the applicant issuing instructions to municipal officials to engineer favourable resolutions to the problems of people who had promised him certain benefits . In the light of the specific nature of the alleged crimes and the manner in which the crimes were committed , the court held that there was reason to believe that the applicant might commit offences impeding the administration of justice and thus hamper the effective conduct of proceedings . Given the importance of preventing any such obstruction of justice , the court deemed this risk sufficient to justify the applicant \u2019s suspension from office .","The applicant \u2019s suspension from office entailed the temporary loss of his remuneration as mayor .","On DATE the applicant filed an appeal against the decision of ORG , requesting that the decision of the firstinstance court be quashed . The applicant argued that the decision did not contain sufficient reasons explaining how he could influence witnesses if he were to continue to serve as mayor . He further argued that the suspension from office was a disproportionate measure for the purposes of achieving ORG Office \u2019s objective .","On DATE an oral hearing was held in ORG . ORG submitted to the appellate court all gathered evidence forming the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence . At the hearing the applicant \u2019s defence counsel submitted a request for permission to examine this evidence , since in his opinion the ORG guaranteed defence counsel the right to examine such material . ORG noted that in his appeal the applicant had not challenged the existence of reasonable suspicion and held that this request was therefore beyond the scope of the appeal . The defence counsel further stated that he wanted to examine the evidence forming the basis for the prosecutor \u2019s belief that the applicant would influence witnesses . The prosecutor argued that the defence counsel had not made any such request in the firstinstance court , even though the latter was aware that the firstinstance court had also examined all the evidence gathered in the case . The request was therefore not admissible in the appeal proceedings . The prosecutor also argued that the defence counsel \u2019s right to examine evidence could be restricted in these proceedings , which concerned only the applicant \u2019s suspension from the office of mayor . He further submitted that the court \u2019s task was to determine whether sufficient evidence had been gathered in support of his suspension from office .","The court of appeal dismissed as premature the request for access to all the evidence on the grounds that it was not until the end of the investigation in the criminal case that the applicant was legally entitled to be acquainted with all the evidence gathered in the case . It also held that the applicant \u2019s counsel was in a position to defend him in the proceedings concerning his suspension from office .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance court \u2019s decision to suspend the applicant from office . The appeal court noted that the first - instance court had based its assessment of the risk that the applicant might influence witnesses on the evidence presented in the surveillance reports . It had also considered the substantial power and influence that the office of mayor gave him over his subordinates , the specific nature of the offences , and the manner in which they had allegedly been committed . This included evidence of the applicant issuing instructions to certain witnesses to secure the benefits promised to various individuals in return for bribes . The appellate court noted that it was not possible to give a detailed account of the circumstances described in the surveillance reports as this might prejudice the criminal proceedings . The appellate court found that , based on the information in those reports , the suspect might have influenced witnesses and the testimony they were going to give in court . ORG also stated that it had examined the evidence contained in the surveillance reports and agreed with the firstinstance court \u2019s assessment that the evidence was indicative of the applicant \u2019s behaviour in the past and thus allowed the applicant \u2019s future behaviour to be predicted . It concluded that the risk that the applicant would prejudice the proceedings and continue to commit offences against the administration of justice had been sufficiently demonstrated and that suspension from office was a proportionate measure .","On DATE the applicant filed an appeal with ORG against the decision of ORG . In addition to the arguments in the first appeal , the applicant argued that the proceedings to suspend him from office had not been adversarial and fair , thereby breaching the civil limb of LAW . The applicant had asked ORG to allow him to examine the evidence forming the basis for the belief that the applicant might influence witnesses , but that request had been rejected .","On DATE ORG declined to examine the appeal .","At the time of submission of the present application the pre - trial proceedings were still ongoing .","NORP Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG a city or rural municipality mayor acquires the authority prescribed by law and in the by - laws of the respective rural municipality or city with effect from the date on which the appointment of the government to office is confirmed .","Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( ORG seadustik ) provides :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A suspect or accused shall be suspended from office at the request of a prosecutor \u2019s office and on the basis of an order of a preliminary investigation judge or on the basis of a court order if :","CARDINAL ) he or she may continue to commit criminal offences if he or she remains in office ;","CARDINAL ) his or her remaining in office may prejudice the criminal proceedings . \u201d","DATE of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides in its relevant parts :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A suspect or accused or his or her counsel may , upon the expiry of DATE from the suspension from office or application of a temporary restraining order , submit a request to a preliminary investigation judge or court to review the reasons for the suspension from office or application of a temporary restraining order or to amend the conditions of application of such a temporary restraining order . A new request may be submitted DATE after the review of a previous request .","...","( CARDINAL ) ORG preliminary investigation judge or court shall review such a request within DATE of the receipt thereof . The prosecutor , suspect or accused and , at the request of the suspect or accused , his or her counsel shall be summoned before the preliminary investigation judge or court . ...","...","( CARDINAL ) Such a request shall be adjudicated by a court ruling . A ruling made in the context of reviewing such a request is not amenable to appeal ... \u201d","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE in constitutional review case no . CARDINAL ORG ruled that a city or rural municipality mayor who has been suspended from office continues to be the holder of the office of mayor during the period of suspension but is not authorised to exercise any mayoral powers ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145258","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"SEREBRYANSKYY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He had been granted legal aid and is represented by PERSON PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , most recently , PERSON , of ORG of GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is entitled to a lump sum payment in accordance with section CARDINAL of the War Veterans Status and Social Protection Guarantees Act ( ORG \u0441\u0442\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0441 \u0432\u0435\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0456\u0432 \u0432\u0456\u0439\u043d\u0438 , \u0433\u0430\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0442\u0456\u0457 \u0457\u0445 \u0441\u043e\u0446\u0456\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0437\u0430\u0445\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0443 ORG ) , payable to him DATE by DATE ( the \u201c Victory Day payment \u201d ) . In DATE the applicant received CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) , UAH CARDINAL in DATE , UAH CARDINAL in DATE , ORG CARDINAL in DATE and UAH CARDINAL in DATE .","In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in court , stating that the above - mentioned lump sums should have been equal to CARDINAL times the minimum pension and claiming the unpaid difference for DATE .","On DATE the ORG awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in unpaid lump sums for DATE in the light of the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see the \u201c Domestic law \u201d part below ) . The court held that the applicant was entitled to these payments , and the dispute was limited only to their amounts . From DATE the applicant was entitled to a payment in the amount of CARDINAL times the minimum pension . The court noted that the decision of ORG had been adopted after the payments were due to be made , but that ORG could not adopt a decision which would not be enforced .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed those decisions and rejected the applicant \u2019s claims . It held that the Constitutional Court decisions did not have retrospective effect . It further rejected the applicant \u2019s claims related to DATE , because the applicant had missed the DATE time - limit for lodging his claim .","Section CARDINAL of ORG provides that legal acts which reduce the rights and privileges of war veterans laid down by the LAW are null and void .","In accordance with section CARDINAL of the War Veterans Status and Social Protection Guarantees Act war veterans shall receive DATE by CARDINAL May a lump sum in the amount of CARDINAL times the minimum pension . In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this Act those who did not receive the payment before CARDINAL May can still request payment by DATE of DATE .","The State Budget Acts of DATE and DATE suspended the above - mentioned provision for DATE and DATE respectively . They also set a different level of payment . On DATE the Constitutional Court of GPE found the amendments in respect of DATE to be unconstitutional ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . It appears that no similar complaint was lodged in DATE .","LAW DATE amended section CARDINAL of the War Veterans Status and Social Protection Guarantees Act to provide that the amount of the lump sum should be determined by ORG Decision no . CARDINAL of ORG set the amount of this payment at ORG CARDINAL . On DATE the changes introduced by LAW DATE were found to be unconstitutional by ORG .","The minimum pension for DATE was set at ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL and ORG ORG respectively .","Lastly , LAW in force as of DATE set a DATE time - limit for lodging claims under the administrative justice procedure .","On DATE ORG of GPE issued a general analysis of the administrative courts\u2019 practice in cases related to the social protection of children of war , war veterans and victims of the NORP persecutions . ORG of GPE noted that :","\u201c An analysis of the ORG practice shows that disputes are mainly caused by shortcomings in the legislative regulation of social protection ; in particular , since legal acts of equal force exist on the matter , it is difficult to establish which provision has higher legal force and should thus be applied in the dispute in question .","The main legal acts in question include LAW , FAC , the War Veterans Status and Social Protection Guarantees Act [ ... ] .","ORG DATE introduced changes to those legal acts , suspending some provisions and reducing some payments .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE some changes introduced by ORG were found to be unconstitutional by LAW . \u201d","ORG of GPE further noted that the national courts had not always correctly decided which legal act should be applied . In respect of the lump sum payment under LAW of the War Veterans Status and Social Protection Guarantees Act it noted that in DATE the provisions of LAW DATE were to be applied , since this LAW was adopted later than ORG .","As for the DATE payments , ORG of GPE noted that the relevant provisions of LAW of DATE had been found to be unconstitutional . However , since the ORG decisions could not be applied retrospectively , the relevant persons had \u201c the right to receive the CARDINAL May lump sum payment in the amount set by ORG only after the dates of adoption of the relevant decisions of the LAW \u201d . In particular , only those who did not receive the relevant payment before DATE could receive it before DATE under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the War Veterans Status and Social Protection Guarantees Act .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE sent to the heads of the administrative courts of appeal ORG of GPE reiterated its position ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164193","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"M.R. AND OTHERS v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["The applicants , PERSON and her CARDINAL minor children , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They were represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG were represented by their Agent , Mr Arto Kosonen of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant mother is a NORP from GPE , GPE , who escaped from GPE with her husband and CARDINAL children due to persecution . The applicants claimed that the husband had been threatened by the \u201c NORP ORG \u201d for having denounced to the authorities persons who were in possession of firearms . He had subsequently received many death threats , for which reason the family was relocated elsewhere in LOC . Despite the internal flight , the persecution continued . The family fled first to GPE , where their persecutors tried to kidnap the children . They then fled to GPE .","The applicant mother fell gravely ill after her second pregnancy in DATE . Both of her kidneys were removed and she received a kidney transplant . Due to a lack of proper medication , she was in very poor condition during their escape from GPE and does not even remember being in GPE .","The applicants apparently arrived in GPE in DATE and sought asylum on DATE . The applicant mother was immediately admitted to hospital and was thereafter admitted to hospital on a DATE basis for periods of varying length . It appears that her husband has in the meantime been convicted of rape and that she has decided to divorce him . Upon their application for asylum in GPE on DATE , it was discovered that the applicants had previously been registered in GPE on DATE .","On DATE ORG ( GPE , PERSON ) rejected the applicants\u2019 application and decided to order their return to GPE . The ORG found that , on DATE , the NORP authorities had informed ORG about the applicants\u2019 family situation and the scheduled arrival of the applicant mother and her children , and that the NORP authorities had not opposed to receive them . The parents were capable of taking care of their children and removal to GPE was not against the best interest of the children , in whose interest it was to live with their parents . GPE had agreed to comply with the fundamental rights guaranteed by LAW and was to examine the applicants\u2019 asylum application . The applicants had a right to services provided by NORP authorities . In a GPE transfer decision the substance of the asylum claim is not examined , so the decision regarding the applicants did not deal with the applicant mother \u2019s illness or her factual position as a single mother due to the pre - trial detention of the children \u2019s father .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting also a stay on removal .","On DATE ORG decided not to grant a stay on removal .","By letters dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicants made their second and third requests for a stay on removal . On unspecified dates ORG refused these requests .","The proceedings before ORG are still pending . However , a GPE transfer decision is enforceable , notwithstanding that the case has not been finally determined .","The application was lodged with ORG . On DATE the duty judge of the ORG decided to suspend the examination of Rule CARDINAL of ORG until receipt of information from the respondent Government and to put factual questions to ORG under LAW ( a ) , which concerned , inter alia , the guarantees obtained from the NORP authorities in relation to the applicants\u2019 scheduled transfer to GPE .","ORG submitted their reply on DATE . In their letter , the respondent Government noted that the NORP authorities had informed the NORP authorities of the guarantees for vulnerable cases , including families with children , by their letters of DATE and CARDINAL DATE . A copy of these circular letters sent by ORG of the NORP ORG ( GPE dell\u2019Interno ) was attached to the ORG \u2019s letter . In these circular letters ORG set out the new policy of the NORP authorities on transfers to GPE of families with small children and provided an updated list of accommodation available to such families .","ORG noted that ORG would transfer the medical information detailing the special needs of the applicants to the competent authorities in GPE and , accordingly , those needs would be taken care of in such a manner that the applicants would receive any necessary medical care in GPE without interruption . They noted that the NORP authorities had made sufficient efforts to obtain individual and specific guarantees from the NORP authorities , and that there was no reason to suspect that the applicants would be separated from each other or subjected to any treatment contrary to LAW upon arrival in GPE . The examination of the applicants\u2019 application by the ORG was premature , as no final decision by the relevant domestic courts had yet been made . Accordingly , the ORG considered that the applicants\u2019 application should be declared inadmissible by virtue of LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW for non - exhaustion of domestic remedies .","On DATE the applicants were sent a copy of the ORG \u2019s letter for information .","On DATE the duty judge of the ORG decided , under Rule DATE , to indicate to ORG that the applicants should not be transferred to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE the applicants commented on the information submitted by the Government , maintaining that they had not been informed to date of any individual or specific guarantees concerning their possible removal to GPE . A mere agreement between GPE and GPE to keep families with children together and to arrange accommodation for them could not be regarded as sufficient . The applicants\u2019 situation would be unclear if GPE could give no individual guarantees by the time of the possible removal . According to the applicants , the children \u2019s father had been convicted of rape and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant mother was certain that her marriage was over , but acknowledged that the children \u2019s well - being was fully dependent on their father \u2019s presence . Regular family visits to prison had already been arranged for the children . The applicants wished the ORG to continue the examination of their case ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140029","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF EAST WEST ALLIANCE LIMITED v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens","text":["At the time of the events the applicant company , along with ORG ( an air cargo traffic company ) , ORG ( an aircraft repairs and maintenance company ) , and some other companies involved in the aviation business , belonged to ORG .","At various times DATE , when he was elected to the national parliament , the president of the NORP office of the applicant company , ORG and ORG was a certain Mr L.","Pursuant to a sale contract of DATE , as modified on DATE , the applicant company purchased CARDINAL Antonov-CARDINAL ( \u201c An-CARDINAL \u201d ) aircraft from the NORP airline company ORG aircraft had been manufactured in DATE , and their flying records ranged from TIME .","On DATE and DATE the applicant company leased those aircraft to ORG for DATE . It was stipulated in the contract that the aircraft would remain the property of the applicant company during that entire period . The ownership could then be transferred to ORG , on condition that it had settled all the leasing payments .","On DATE and DATE ORG of GPE registered the aircraft . The applicant company was indicated as the owner in the registration certificates .","NORP In DATE one of the aircraft was relocated to GPE for commercial purposes .","On DATE another aircraft was sold to company C.","The CARDINAL remaining aircraft were parked at the LOC airbase in the GPE region ( PERSON ) .","On DATE the applicant company and ORG terminated the lease agreement because the lessee was unable to comply with its terms .","On DATE the applicant company concluded an agreement on a DATE lease of the CARDINAL aircraft to another company , ORG , which was to take effect on DATE . That agreement , however , never entered into force .","DATE the tax police conducted a search on the premises of ORG in GPE , including the applicant company \u2019s office , apparently in the context of criminal investigations against ORG on account of suspected tax evasion . As a result , it seized \u201c a considerable number of documents \u201d ( quoted from a ruling of ORG of DATE \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The seized documentation included the original contract of sale for the CARDINAL An-CARDINALs parked at the LOC airbase . The case file does not contain the search - and - seizure report .","On DATE the tax police launched criminal proceedings against ORG officials on suspicion of tax evasion .","On DATE the proceedings were discontinued as they had been instituted prematurely . However , by the same ruling the tax police instituted criminal proceedings against ORG officials on suspicion of document forgery .","On DATE the tax police held an \u201c inspection of the scene \u201d at the ORG airbase , as a result of which they discovered and seized the CARDINAL An-CARDINAL aircraft . The seizure was documented by a \u201c report of the inspection of the scene \u201d ( the same procedure took place at Cherkasy airport in respect of CARDINAL L-CARDINAL planes also belonging to the applicant company \u2013 see paragraph ORG below ) . As the security guard was unable to produce the documentation for those aircraft , submitting that it was in the applicant company \u2019s office in GPE , the police concluded that \u201c their owner could not be established \u201d .","NORP The applicant company challenged the aforementioned seizure ( as well as the seizure of the LOC aircraft \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) before the prosecution authorities .","On DATE the tax police opened again a criminal case against the ORG officials on suspicion of tax evasion .","On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant company , in reply to its complaint about the alleged unlawfulness of the seizure of the aircraft of DATE , that it could not decide on the seizure of the An-CARDINAL aircraft , as in the meantime , on DATE , ORG had also impounded them in the context of the commercial proceedings brought by the tax authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As regards the ORG , their seizure was found to be unlawful as it had not been based on an adequate procedural document ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On an unspecified date a criminal case was opened against the vice - president of ORG , who was charged with abuse of office , forgery , tax evasion and money laundering . Apparently , this criminal case replaced those previously opened against the ORG officials ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The ORG vice - president was suspected , in particular , of having forged the contracts of CARDINAL and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) for the allegedly non - existent lease of the aircraft , with a view to tax evasion .","On DATE the tax police investigator conducted another inspection of the planes at the Uzyn airbase .","On DATE the investigator classified the planes as material evidence in the criminal case against the ORG vice - president , with reference to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the tax police in respect of , inter alia , the search of the applicant company \u2019s office CARDINAL and the seizure of documentation relating to the aircraft . It was the fourth decision of the prosecution authorities refusing to open a criminal case in that regard . The previous CARDINAL had been quashed on grounds of insufficient evidence . The applicant company also unsuccessfully tried to bring a civil claim in that regard .","On DATE ORG of Kyiv ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) found the vice - president of ORG guilty of professional negligence and acquitted him of the other charges ( including the forgery of the lease contracts of CARDINAL and DATE ) . By the same judgment the court ordered that the CARDINAL AN-CARDINALs used as material evidence in the case be returned to \u201c their owner \u201d . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","On DATE ORG wrote to ORG in charge of the management of the PERSON airbase stating that , pursuant to the judgment of DATE , the planes in question were to be returned to their owner .","On CARDINAL DATE the airbase manager forwarded that instruction to ORG in PERSON ( further referred to as \u201c the ORG \u201d or \u201c the tax inspectorate \u201d ) , which had entrusted it with their storage . The airbase manager also indicated that the tax inspectorate owed the ORG company CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) for the storage .","On DATE the tax inspectorate replied that meanwhile , on DATE , the aircraft had been declared ownerless ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that there were no lawful grounds for discontinuing their sale for ORG revenue ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . As to the supposed indebtedness , the tax inspectorate submitted that the planes , which were now State property , had been stored in a ORG - owned airbase and guarded by the tax police ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , it considered the claim for storage costs to be without basis .","On DATE ORG specified that , in accordance with the judgment of DATE , the CARDINAL An-CARDINALs were to be returned to the applicant company , which was their owner .","On DATE the court issued a writ of execution on the basis of its ruling of DATE .","On DATE the ORG in GPE lodged a claim with ORG against the applicant company and ORG , seeking to invalidate the lease contracts of CARDINAL and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The claimant submitted that the applicant company had in fact supplied the planes to ORG free of charge , while the impugned lease contracts had subsequently been forged to conceal that fact , with a view to absolving ORG from any income tax payable . In addition to invalidation of the lease contracts , the tax administration sought confiscation of the CARDINAL aircraft , with the proceeds of their sale going to the ORG budget . It also requested that the planes be impounded as an interim measure to secure the claim .","On DATE the court started the proceedings . It secured the claim by impounding the CARDINAL aircraft ( including that sold to company ORG and the one relocated to GPE ) .","On DATE company C. asked the court to lift the impoundment of the plane it had purchased . That request was apparently granted .","On DATE ORG rejected the claim of the tax administration as unsubstantiated . It noted that it had been common ground that ORG had not complied with the lease contracts and therefore the applicant company remained the owner of the aircraft . The court also quashed the impoundment order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment . It stated that the applicant company \u2019s ownership of the aircraft had been confirmed by documents , while the allegation that some of the documents had been forged had been found to be unsubstantiated in the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE an investigator of ORG issued a report about \u201c the temporary seizure of the taxpayer \u2019s assets \u201d in respect of the CARDINAL An-CARDINAL planes parked at the ORG airbase , with a view to \u201c settlement of the taxpayer \u2019s obligations vis - \u00e0 - vis ORG budgets and target funds \u201d . The report listed the ORG registration numbers and referred to subsection CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of the Law of GPE \u201c On the procedure for the settlement of LOC obligations to ORG budgets and special - purpose funds \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was signed by a tax police official , the GPE airbase manager and CARDINAL attesting witnesses .","On DATE the deputy head of ORG issued a decision about \u201c the administrative seizure of the taxpayer \u2019s assets \u201d in respect of the aircraft in question . The decision reiterated that the measure had been undertaken with a view to \u201c settlement of the taxpayer \u2019s obligations vis - \u00e0 - vis budgets and ORG target funds \u201d . It was noted in the line \u201c the taxpayer whose assets have been seized \u201d that the owner of the aircraft had not been established .","On DATE the Bila Tserkva City State Administration ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) issued an order by which it declared the CARDINAL aircraft ownerless and empowered the tax police to sell them . As a result , DATE the planes were sold to third parties ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant company lodged a claim with ORG against ORG , challenging the order of DATE . It submitted that it was the legitimate owner of the aircraft , that the defendant had duly been informed of that fact , and that the impugned order had amounted to unlawful expropriation of the applicant company \u2019s property .","On DATE , in order to secure the claim of the applicant company , the court banned any transactions involving the aircraft .","Consequently , on DATE a bailiff sealed the CARDINAL aircraft . ORG for ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , which in the meantime had been set up under the chairmanship of PERSON , MP ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and to which the applicant company had complained , also sealed the aircraft .","The Bila Tserkva Administration appealed against the impoundment of the aircraft ordered on DATE submitting , in particular , that the applicant company \u2019s claim was of a non - pecuniary nature , being limited to the invalidation of a document .","On DATE ORG rejected that appeal . It found the appellant \u2019s arguments groundless because the subject matter of the dispute was twofold : firstly , the impugned decision had declared the planes ownerless , and , secondly , it had authorised the tax authorities to sell the planes . Accordingly , a failure to secure the claim could jeopardise enforcement of any future judgment on the dispute .","On DATE the Higher Commercial Court quashed the rulings of DATE and DATE on a cassation appeal lodged by ORG . It noted that as of DATE the planes had remained impounded in order to secure a claim in another set of proceedings under a ruling of DATE , which had not been quashed until DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and DATE above ) . As the legal procedure did not provide for \u201c double \u201d measures for securing claims , the ruling of ORG of DATE had no legal basis .","On DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant company and quashed the order of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It stated that the property rights of the applicant company were confirmed by the aircraft registration certificates dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","DATE . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment . It also issued a separate ruling in which it referred , inter alia , to the documentary evidence in the case file proving that ORG had proceeded with the sale of the planes on the grounds that they were ownerless ( see CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) after having received documents from the applicant company confirming the latter \u2019s ownership of those planes . The court thus concluded that , by declaring the planes ownerless , the defendant had infringed the applicant company \u2019s property rights . It further instructed ORG , ORG , and ORG \u201c to take appropriate measures in respect of the officials guilty of the violations of the procedure for identifying and declaring ownerless the property belonging to the [ applicant company ] . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the lower courts\u2019 decisions of DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) instituted criminal proceedings on the suspected abuse of power by officials of the tax and other state authorities , which had \u201c had grave consequences \u201d . The prosecutor noted that , by declaring the applicant company \u2019s aircraft ownerless and selling them , as well as by unlawfully seizing its ORG ( see also paragraphs ORG and CARDINAL below ) , the authorities had caused the applicant company \u201c direct pecuniary damage of CARDINAL GPE hryvnias \u201d . On DATE the supervision department of the ORG quashed the ruling of DATE as premature . However , this later decision was subsequently also set aside ( by the Deputy ORG decision of DATE ) . There is no information on any further developments in the investigation .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG of DATE and the related rulings of the higher - level courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case for fresh examination to the first - instance court . It considered that the courts had made a premature finding that the applicant company was the owner of the aircraft . The fresh examination of the case was supposed to clarify , including with the help of a forensic graphological examination , whether the contracts of sale of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were authentic and in compliance with the NORP legislation as indicated therein .","On DATE the Kyiv Regional Commercial Court , having examined the case afresh , allowed the applicant company \u2019s claim once again and quashed as unlawful the order of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Pursuant to the instructions of ORG , it had undertaken a forensic graphological examination of the contract of sale of DATE and the additional agreement of CARDINAL DATE , and had found the signatures on them to be authentic . The court further established that the transaction had taken place in compliance with NORP legislation as indicated in the contracts . It underlined that the aircraft had been declared ownerless despite the fact that the case file had contained copies of the certificates of their registration with ORG of GPE of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Furthermore , the NORP company S. had confirmed to the court in writing that it had sold the planes at issue to the applicant company . Accordingly , the court concluded that there were no reasons not to consider the contract of sale of DATE as appropriate proof of the applicant company \u2019s title to the planes . The court also found that ORG had breached the procedure for identifying and declaring the property ownerless .","ORG , ORG and ORG appealed .","ORG also enquired with ORG whether the applicant company was registered and pursued its activities lawfully .","On DATE ORG stayed the examination of the case pending receipt of information from ORG concerning that enquiry .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant company of the reply of their NORP counterparts confirming that it ( the applicant company ) had no criminal record , nor any problems with the police in GPE .","On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , upheld the judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; apparently at some point the jurisdiction over the case had been changed from commercial to administrative ) .","On DATE the applicant company asked ORG to return the CARDINAL aircraft to it , with reference to those judicial decisions .","On DATE the tax inspectorate replied that it was impossible to return the planes to the applicant company , because they had been sold off at a public auction in the meantime ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE , following the seizure of the aircraft ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , ORG commissioned the Ukrimpeks-CARDINAL company to store and sell them .","The applicant company unsuccessfully sought to prevent the sale before ORG .","On DATE Ukrimpeks-CARDINAL sold CARDINAL plane to a private company .","On DATE CARDINAL other planes were sold to another private company .","On DATE the sixth plane was sold to ORG .","On DATE the Kyiv ORG started proceedings following a claim by the applicant company challenging all those sale contracts , and impounded the aircraft in order to secure the claim .","Meanwhile , ORG , from its side , also challenged the contract of DATE before ORG ( \u201c PERSON \u0430\u0440\u0431\u0456\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0436 ( \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430\u0445 \u0442\u0440\u0435\u0442\u0435\u0439\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0443 ) \u201d ) . The buyer could not get possession of the aircraft in question and found out that the sale had been carried out despite the judicial orders to impound the aircraft of DATE and DATE .","DATE . On DATE ORG , in allowing the buyer \u2019s claim , declared the sale of DATE ( carried out in the form of a commodity market transaction ) null and void .","On DATE the NORP ORG discontinued the proceedings in which the applicant company was seeking annulment of the sale contract of DATE , with reference to that decision .","On DATE the court also quashed the impoundment order of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that it was impeding technical maintenance of the aircraft ( the ruling did not refer to any requests to have the order quashed ) .","On DATE the ORG , in allowing the applicant company \u2019s claim , declared the sale contracts of CARDINAL March and CARDINAL DATE null and void .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , upheld that judgment .","On DATE ORG instructed its ORG to ensure security guard of the CARDINAL An-CARDINAL aircraft .","The planes were apparently still parked at the PERSON airbase after their sale to third parties ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL above ) .","According to the applicant company , on DATE it concluded a contract with a ORG security agency on the guarding of the planes . That contract remained in force until DATE and the applicant company paid a total of ORG CARDINAL ( which , according to its calculations , was equivalent at the time to USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for the services provided . According to the Government , that contract was of no effect in practice , given that the planes remained in the authorities\u2019 custody ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","DATE . In DATE the applicant company found out that some of the planes had been damaged or had had some equipment removed , so it complained to the police .","As a result , on DATE the PERSON police investigator , in the presence of a representative of the applicant company , inspected the CARDINAL planes . The inspection revealed that some of them had been damaged and\/or had had certain equipment removed . A door handle had been broken and the door damaged on CARDINAL plane , and the wheel housing , navigation equipment , engines , emergency radio installations , ORG seats and flashlight were missing on some of the planes . At the same time , some of the bailiffs\u2019 seals and those of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were broken or missing , whereas there were fresh and intact ORG seals on the planes .","On DATE the applicant company complained to the ORG about the theft and damage of the aircraft , emphasising that it had happened while they were being guarded by ORG . The applicant company sought to institute criminal proceedings against the latter . It further argued that the planes had arrived at the airbase in good condition , referring to the fact that they had all been independently flown there , rather than taken inside the hold of another aircraft .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the officials of ORG on account of the theft , having found no corpus delicti in their actions .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office initiated criminal investigations into the theft without targeting them against any specific persons .","On DATE the investigator terminated the investigations , having found it impossible to identify the perpetrator(s ) .","On DATE the applicant company brought an administrative claim against the tax authorities on account of the allegedly unlawful armed guard of the aircraft , and sought its lifting .","On DATE ORG refused to open the proceedings . It noted that the dispute in question had already been resolved by the judgment of ORG of DATE , upheld by ORG on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .","On DATE the applicant company brought another administrative claim against ORG seeking the return of its CARDINAL AN-CARDINALs . It submitted that those authorities had committed an unlawful omission by their failure to return the planes to the applicant company as their legitimate owner . It further noted that the decision of DATE had been quashed by ORG on DATE , whose decision had been upheld by the higher - level courts . Nonetheless , the property had never been returned to the applicant company .","On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings on the grounds that they fell under criminal rather than administrative jurisdiction . The court noted that it had been discovered that the applicant company \u2019s claim concerned the alleged non - enforcement of a final criminal verdict ( apparently meaning the verdict of ORG DATE , further clarified on DATE see CARDINAL and DATE above ) .","On DATE the applicant company wrote to the tax authorities that it was the only legitimate owner of the CARDINAL aircraft , as the decision to declare them ownerless had been quashed by the courts . It therefore insisted that the guard of the planes be lifted and that they be returned to it .","On DATE the ORG replied that no decision had been taken about the lifting of the guard .","On DATE ORG also replied to the applicant company that there was no reason to stop guarding the planes given that the court proceedings on the matter were ongoing ( without specifying which proceedings it was referring to ) .","On DATE the applicant company requested , once again , that ORG set aside its instruction of DATE regarding the guarding of the aircraft .","On DATE the Deputy Head of ORG forwarded that request to ORG .","On DATE the latter dismissed the applicant company \u2019s request . It noted that , indeed , the courts had invalidated both the decision to declare the planes ownerless and the contracts for their subsequent sale . Nonetheless , no decision had been delivered on the lifting of the security guard .","On DATE an investigator of the PERSON police department declared the CARDINAL AN-CARDINAL planes as material evidence in the criminal investigation into suspected embezzlement by Ukrimpeks-CARDINAL , which had been initiated in DATE ( the company officials were suspected of having failed to transfer all the proceeds of the aircraft sales to the ORG budget \u2013 see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . The investigator noted that the planes were under constant security guard by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant company complained about that decision to ORG of ORG . It stated that there were no grounds for attaching the aircraft as material evidence in the criminal case in question , which had been opened DATE . The applicant company pointed out that , while the planes had been guarded by the tax authorities , their technical condition had considerably deteriorated and they had become unusable . Therefore , the applicant company suggested that the tax authorities might have been seeking ways to shift the responsibility for that deterioration onto the law - enforcement authorities .","On DATE ORG , to which the applicant company \u2019s complaint had apparently been referred , replied that there were no reasons for it to intervene .","On DATE the investigator of the PERSON police department ( apparently , the one in charge of the criminal investigation into suspected embezzlement by Ukrimpeks-CARDINAL in which the planes had been declared as material evidence \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above ) decided that the planes should be returned to the applicant company .","On DATE the applicant company contracted PERSON , the exclusive designer and manufacturer of An-CARDINAL aircraft , to carry out an expert evaluation of the planes .","From CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE an expert commission of NORP inspected the planes in the presence of the applicant company \u2019s representative . It concluded that what had been presented to it for inspection had consisted of separate items and components , which could not be classified as aircraft . Nor could they be identified as constituent parts of exactly the planes belonging to the applicant company . Furthermore , no documentation for the planes was available .","On DATE the applicant company purchased CARDINAL L-CARDINAL aircraft at a public auction .","On DATE it received notarised certificates that those planes were its property .","On DATE it purchased CARDINAL more planes of the same type at a commodity market .","Pursuant to lease contracts between the applicant company and ORG of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , the CARDINAL GPE were to be leased to the latter after repairs and technical upgrading had been carried out by the applicant company . This was envisaged to be completed by CARDINAL DATE .","The planes were parked at Cherkasy airport .","During the search conducted at the applicant company \u2019s office in GPE DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the tax police seized original documentation for the L-CARDINAL planes . The case file does not contain the search - and - seizure report .","On DATE the tax police seized the aircraft \u201c for the purpose of using them as material evidence in the criminal case [ against the ORG officials ] and for redemption of tax arrears \u201d . The seizure was documented by a \u201c report of the inspection of the scene \u201d ( similar to the inspection conducted on DATE at the GPE DATE see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant company challenged the seizure of the planes before ORG .","On DATE the prosecutor replied that , indeed , the seizure of the L-CARDINAL planes had not been based on any procedural document and that he had therefore instructed the tax police to \u201c take an appropriate decision concerning those aircraft \u201d .","On DATE ORG instructed the applicant company to submit financial documentation in respect of the planes in order for a decision to be taken .","On DATE the investigator of the police department of ORG declared the CARDINAL L-CARDINAL planes as material evidence in the criminal investigations against the ORG officials ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE the criminal case was transferred to the ORG .","On DATE a criminal case was opened in respect of PERSON as the former president of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Apparently , the planes were then classified as material evidence in those criminal proceedings . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG discontinued the criminal investigations against Mr L. as there was insufficient evidence of any guilt . It was noted in the resolution that the CARDINAL L-CARDINAL planes , which had been classified as material evidence in the case , were to be returned to ORG . On DATE the prosecutor amended his resolution to read that the planes had to be returned to the applicant company .","The applicant company unsuccessfully tried to bring proceedings before the commercial and civil courts on account of the seizure of the planes and their classification as evidence in the criminal case . On DATE and DATE ORG and the ORG respectively refused to accept its claims for examination as being beyond their competence .","On DATE the ORG \u2019s supervisory department quashed the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE it informed ORG of that decision and instructed it to return the aircraft to the applicant company as their rightful owner . A similar letter was sent to the management of FAC .","On DATE the director of FAC informed the applicant company that the aircraft could be transferred to it only in the presence of ORG which had seized them .","On DATE the applicant company lodged a claim with ORG against ORG seeking the return of the CARDINAL LOC aircraft .","On DATE the court allowed the claim and obliged the defendant to return the planes to the applicant company . It noted that the tax police had ignored the prosecutor \u2019s unambiguous instructions to return the planes to the applicant company . The judgment stated as follows :","\u201c As confirmed by the case materials and not refuted by the defendant , the [ applicant company ] is the owner of the CARDINAL LOC aircraft .... The failure of ORG to comply with the instructions of ORG as regards the return of the planes to the claimant [ unlawfully ] deprives the latter of its right to possess and use its property \u201d .","On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed that judgment on an appeal by ORG and terminated the proceedings . It found that the defendant had no longer been in charge of the planes after the criminal case in which they had been declared as material evidence had been transferred to the ORG in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Moreover , the court considered that the destiny of the planes had already been resolved in the context of the criminal proceedings by the ORG resolutions of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , pursuant to which the planes had to be returned to the applicant company ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The court therefore concluded that , as from DATE , there had been no impediments , including from the defendant \u2019s side , to the applicant company \u2019s accessing the L-CARDINAL planes .","On DATE ORG issued a final decision quashing the ruling of ORG of DATE and upholding the judgment of ORG of DATE on the applicant company \u2019s cassation appeal .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution , according to which the CARDINAL LOC aircraft were to be returned to the applicant company .","On DATE the bailiff opened enforcement proceedings and instructed ORG to send its representative to LOC airport to inspect the planes , verify their completeness and implement the transfer .","DATE the bailiff reported several times his failure to enforce the judgment because the tax authorities\u2019 representative had been absent or because the airport administration had refused to allow the bailiff to enter the airport .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of applications lodged by both the bailiff \u2019s service and the tax authorities with ORG for clarification of its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( those applications were eventually rejected ) .","From DATE the bailiff issued CARDINAL more reports about his inability , for the same reasons as before ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , to enforce the judgment in question .","Meanwhile , in DATE , the applicant company incidentally found out about a decision of ORG of DATE authorising the municipal enterprise \u201c FAC \u201d to sell the CARDINAL LCARDINAL planes ( with the same serial numbers as those of the planes belonging to the applicant company ) at a public auction . The proceeds of the auction were to be used for the needs of FAC . CARDINAL of the planes had been sold to third parties .","On DATE the administration of Cherkasy airport finally allowed the bailiff to enter the airport . Instead of the CARDINAL L-CARDINAL planes to be returned to the applicant company , the bailiff discovered there CARDINAL ( or , more precisely , their components ) .","On DATE the bailiff reported that he could not transfer the planes to the applicant company because : firstly , CARDINAL of them were left ; secondly , the planes were locked and there were no keys to open them , which made it difficult to evaluate their technical condition ; and , thirdly , the documentation for the planes was missing .","On DATE an expert commission of ORG , an aircraft maintenance company , which had been contracted by the applicant company , examined the planes discovered at Cherkasy airport and reported the following : instead of the CARDINAL complete NORP planes as indicated in the writ of enforcement , there were separate components and items of CARDINAL planes ; no documentation for those items was available ; the planes had corrosion on their metal surfaces and cracks in their windows ; and their engines and propellers were missing . The conclusion was reached that the planes had not been stored in compliance with storage rules and that , in fact , the items discovered could no longer be considered as aircraft . Lastly , the absence of any documentation made it impossible to identify the discovered items as those belonging , and supposed to be returned , to the applicant company .","On DATE the bailiff enquired with ORG , with reference to the expert commission \u2019s report , as to how to proceed with the enforcement .","On DATE T. informed the applicant company that in DATE and DATE it had performed major repairs to CARDINAL aircraft propellers , the serial numbers of which were the same as those of the ORG belonging to the applicant company . The customer company had presented itself as the owner of the planes in question .","On DATE the bailiff declared a \u201c search for the debtor \u2019s property \u201d in respect of the CARDINAL GPE to be returned to the applicant company .","On DATE the above decision was sent to ORG .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the bailiff repeated his request to the tax authorities to appear at Cherkasy airport at a specific time .","On DATE ORG replied to the bailiff that after an audit in DATE the CARDINAL GPE had been declared as assets of the FAC municipal company and their ownership had been transferred to the city . It was a known fact that the bailiff had discovered CARDINAL planes at the airport and had therefore declared a search for CARDINAL planes . Accordingly , the bailiff was aware that the debtor did not have the property defined in the writ of enforcement .","NORP On DATE the bailiff asked the applicant company to make it clear whether it was ready to accept the CARDINAL aircraft in the condition in which they had been discovered at Cherkasy airport ( which had not improved since DATE see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . As to the remaining CARDINAL planes , it turned out that they had been sold to third parties in DATE pursuant to a decision of ORG . Furthermore , ORG informed the bailiff that on CARDINAL DATE the CARDINAL GPE had been excluded from the state register of civilian aircraft and that their location was unknown .","On DATE the group of technical experts again examined the components of the CARDINAL planes at Cherkasy airport and confirmed its conclusion of DATE that those items could not be regarded as aircraft .","On DATE the bailiff issued a report about the impossibility of returning to the applicant company even the CARDINAL planes .","On DATE the bailiff terminated the enforcement proceedings with the conclusion that it was impossible to enforce the judgment because the debtor did not have the property in question and the search for that property had been unsuccessful .","The relevant provisions of LAW ( DATE ) read as follows :","Material evidence consists of items that are instruments or objects related to a criminal offence or bearing its traces , money , valuables and other proceeds of crime , as well as any items which could serve to uncover a criminal offence , to identify a perpetrator or to refute the accusation or mitigate a penalty .","Material evidence shall be carefully examined , if possible photographed , described in detail in the examination report and attached to the case file by the inquiry officer , investigator or prosecutor in charge or by a judicial ruling . The material evidence shall be kept in the case file , except for cumbersome items which shall be stored by the enquiry or investigation authority or in the court or shall be transferred for storage to a respective enterprise , institution or organisation . ...","In some cases the material evidence may be returned to its owner if this is not detrimental to the proceedings . ...","A seizure shall be carried out in cases where the investigator has accurate information that the items or documents of relevance are with a certain person or at a certain place .","A seizure shall be based on the investigator \u2019s ruling . ...","A search and seizure shall be conducted in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses and the person occupying the LOC in question ....","A search and seizure in premises occupied by an enterprise , company or organisation shall be conducted in the presence of their representatives . ...","The persons searched , the attesting witnesses and the respective representatives shall have explained to them their right to be present during all the actions of the investigator and to make statements on those actions ; their statements shall be reflected in the report . ...","During a search and seizure only items and documents relevant to the case may be seized , as well as the valuables and property of the accused or the suspect with a view to securing a civil claim or possible confiscation of property . ...","The investigator shall present to the attesting witnesses and the other persons present all the documents and items subject to seizure . They shall be listed in the seizure report with an indication of their name , number , measurements , weight , material and individual features . Where necessary , the seized items and documents shall be packed and sealed on the spot . ...","The investigator shall produce a report on a search and seizure in CARDINAL copies .... The report shall indicate the grounds for the search and seizure , the premises on which it was conducted ... the investigator \u2019s actions and the search and seizure results .","The report of the search or seizure shall reflect all the statements and remarks of those present concerning the investigator \u2019s actions . All those present shall sign both copies of the report . ...","In order to uncover traces of a crime and other material evidence , to clarify the circumstances of the crime , as well as other circumstances of relevance to the investigation , the investigator shall conduct an inspection of the scene , LOC , items or documents .","In urgent cases , an inspection of the scene may be carried out before the institution of criminal proceedings . In this case , and where there are grounds for it , criminal proceedings shall be instituted immediately after the inspection of the scene . \u201d","The Code of Commercial Procedure DATE provided as follows :","The commercial court shall be entitled to take measures for securing a claim , upon the request of the claimant ... or of its own motion . Securing a claim is allowed at any stage of the proceedings where a failure to take measures might complicate or render impossible the enforcement of the commercial court \u2019s judgment .","A claim may be secured by the following measures :","impoundment of the property or money belonging to the defendant ;","prohibition on the defendant taking certain actions ;","prohibition on other persons taking certain actions related to the subject matter of the dispute ; ....","... A ruling on securing a claim may be appealed against . \u201d","The relevant provisions of the Law of GPE \u201c On the procedure for the settlement of LOC obligations to the ORG budgets and special - purpose funds \u201d ( \u201c PERSON \u043f\u043e\u0440\u044f\u0434\u043e\u043a \u043f\u043e\u0433\u0430\u0448\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f PERSON \u043f\u043b\u0430\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a\u0456\u0432 \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0442\u043a\u0456\u0432 \u043f\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0434 \u0431\u044e\u0434\u0436\u0435\u0442\u0430\u043c\u0438 \u0442\u0430 \u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043c\u0438 \u0446\u0456\u043b\u044c\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043c\u0438 \u0444\u043e\u043d\u0434\u0430\u043c\u0438 \u201d ) ( enacted in DATE and repealed following the entry into force of LAW on DATE ) , read as follows :","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Following an application by a tax police unit , the head of the tax authority ( or his deputy ) may decide to seize a taxpayer \u2019s assets . This decision shall be sent :","... ( b ) to the taxpayer , with the assets\u2019 alienation ban ;","( c ) to other persons in possession of or using the taxpayer \u2019s assets , with the ban on their alienation . \u201d","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . An assets seizure may be ... applied to goods which are produced , stored , transported or sold in breach of customs legislation or legislation on excise tax , as well as goods ... sold in breach of legal procedures , without prior determination of their owner . In this case , officials of the tax or other law - enforcement authorities , acting within their competence , shall have the right to undertake a temporary seizure of such assets . This should be reflected in a report giving the reasons for the seizure , with references to breaches of concrete legal provisions , the description of the assets , their specific features and quantity , information about the person or persons from whom the goods have been seized ( if applicable ) , and a list of the rights and duties of those persons in respect of the seizure . ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["13","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172100","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF POROWSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Otwock .","The applicant was arrested on DATE .","On DATE the Jaros\u0142aw ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) remanded him in custody on suspicion that , together with CARDINAL accomplices , he had attempted to extort money from GPE and PERSON by depriving the alleged victims of their liberty and threatening to kill them .","Subsequently , the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was extended by the Jaros\u0142aw ORG on DATE and DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . ORG appeals brought by the applicant against those decisions were rejected .","The Jaros\u0142aw ORG justified its decisions to impose and , later , to extend the preventive measure with reference to the strong evidence against the applicant , the severe punishment which was likely to be imposed if he was convicted and the risk that he would abscond or go into hiding if released . In the domestic court \u2019s opinion , the latter risk was real in the light of the fact that in the past , the applicant had rarely lived at his permanent address .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The period which he had already spent in detention , namely DATE , DATE ( from DATE until DATE ) , was deducted from his sentence .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court .","The applicant \u2019s detention was continued by ORG on DATE and the ORG on DATE and DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .","At this stage of the proceedings the domestic courts referred to the original grounds for the applicant \u2019s detention . They also noted that the trial was pending and that delays had occurred for reasons not attributable to the court .","ORG appeals against those decisions were rejected , as were requests for release lodged by the applicant and his lawyer .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The time which he had already spent in detention , namely DATE , DATE and DATE ( from DATE to DATE ) , was deducted from his sentence .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment in respect of the applicant .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal .","NORP Throughout the entire proceedings the applicant was represented by CARDINAL lawyers of his choice .","The applicant did not lodge any complaint about the length of these proceedings under LAW of DATE on complaints of a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki \u2013 \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d )","On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody on the grounds that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery and deprived the victims of their liberty . The court also considered that the measure was justified by the severity of the punishment which was likely to be imposed if he was convicted and the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings . The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal . On DATE the ORG upheld the detention order .","The applicant lodged several applications for release . He claimed that his mother suffered from a \u201c back illness \u201d and required his personal care . All those applications were dismissed , both at first instance and on appeal .","On DATE the ORG ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) lodged an indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL co - accused , charging them with armed robbery and false imprisonment . At that stage the prosecutor ordered that CARDINAL witnesses be heard .","Subsequently , the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was extended by ORG on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and on DATE . CARDINAL of these decisions were upheld by ORG on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","The domestic courts referred to the same grounds as previously , noting that prior to his arrest the applicant had not lived at his permanent address and that his whereabouts were unknown . It was also observed that the trial had still not begun because the applicant had challenged the judges who would be hearing his case .","On DATE ORG dismissed a request by the applicant for release .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant \u2019s case was severed from that of his coaccused , to be dealt with in a different trial .","The first hearing was scheduled for DATE but was ultimately adjourned . The subsequent hearing was likewise adjourned .","Subsequently , ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention on DATE and DATE . The earlier decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","The courts reiterated the grounds previously given for the applicant \u2019s continued detention , also noting that there was a real risk that he would obstruct the proceedings if released in the light of the fact that many of his alleged accomplices were still at large .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the trial court held the first CARDINAL hearings in the case and on DATE it ordered that the applicant undergo psychiatric observation .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention on remand . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . Both courts referred to the original grounds , also noting that the applicant \u2019s case had not yet reached the trial stage since proceedings against him before a different criminal court were pending at the time and there was a need to obtain an expert report which , in turn , required him to undergo psychiatric observation in a specialist institution .","On DATE the ORG rejected an application by the applicant to have his detention on remand replaced with a different preventive measure .","On DATE , as the period of the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was approaching DATE , the trial court lodged an application with an appellate court under LAW of LAW ( Kodeks post\u0119powania karnego hereinafter , \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , seeking to extend the preventive measure for DATE .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) declared that it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the applicant \u2019s remand file to ORG .","The appellate court referred to the uniform and well - established line of interpretation given to LAW by ORG . It reiterated that the statutory time - limit of DATE for detention on remand was considered to run only in so far as a person had been effectively deprived of his or her liberty in the particular case in the framework of which the preventive measure had been applied ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","The appellate court concluded that since the applicant had been deprived of his liberty , either on remand or after conviction , from DATE in the first criminal case , the term of his \u201c effective detention on remand \u201d in the second criminal case had not yet begun .","On DATE ORG once more extended the applicant \u2019s detention . On DATE the ORG upheld that decision . Both courts held that the CARDINAL original grounds for the applicant \u2019s detention and the need for him to undergo psychiatric observation were sufficient to extend the preventive measure in question even though the proceedings had not yet reached the trial stage . In addition , the second - instance court addressed the arguments which had been raised in an interlocutory appeal brought by the applicant against ORG decision . To that effect , ORG reiterated the view of ORG that the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was not effective because he had been first deprived of his liberty within the framework of the first criminal case . It also considered that only the most severe preventive measure and not bail , as the applicant had suggested , could ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings pending the enforcement of the court \u2019s decision of DATE ordering the applicant to undergo psychiatric observation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal brought by him against this decision . It was observed that he could not at that stage be placed under psychiatric observation because his presence was necessary in the court before which his other criminal case was pending and because that court had not authorised the measure .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG once again extended the applicant \u2019s detention on remand , referring to the risk that he might attempt to obstruct the proceedings if released .","On DATE the ORG quashed that decision and ordered the applicant \u2019s release from custody . The court found that the grounds for his detention were no longer valid in the light of the fact that the proceedings had been stayed .","The Government submitted that on DATE the applicant had actually been released to his home . He on the other hand maintained that he had remained in custody as he had concurrently been in detention on remand in connection with his first criminal trial , pending at the time before GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG barred the applicant from leaving the territory of GPE .","On DATE the ORG ordered that the applicant undergo psychiatric observation in the psychiatric wing of ORG .","On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings in the applicant \u2019s case in view of that decision and the fact that the psychiatric observation could be scheduled to start in DATE . On the same date the court again remanded him in custody on the grounds that the evidence showed a significant probability that he had committed armed robbery . It also had regard to the severity of the punishment that could be expected and the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings .","On DATE the ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal brought by the applicant against this decision . The appellate court acknowledged that the applicant had not to date attempted to obstruct the proper course of the proceedings . Nevertheless , the likelihood that a severe punishment would be imposed if he were convicted was considered to be sufficient reason for his continued detention .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for the preventive measure to be changed . On DATE the court dismissed his request .","On DATE ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention on remand . The court gave the argument that strong evidence had been obtained against him , that it was likely that a severe sentence would be imposed in the case , and that , if released , he would attempt to persuade witnesses to give false evidence or would , by other unlawful means , try to obstruct the proceedings , especially in the light of the fact that the psychiatric observation was underway .","Appealing against the latter decision , the applicant \u2019s lawyer argued that his client had already been detained for DATE and that ORG did not have jurisdiction to decide on the preventive measure . Moreover , it was argued that since the applicant had never attempted to obstruct the proceedings , there was no risk that he would try to do so in the current stage of the case .","On DATE the ORG dismissed that appeal . It was observed that the actual period of the applicant \u2019s detention on remand in the case in question had not reached DATE because he had been concurrently deprived of his liberty in the framework of the first set of criminal proceedings . As to the grounds for extending his detention on remand , the appellate court held that , even though he had not attempted to obstruct the proper course of the proceedings , the likelihood that a severe punishment would be imposed if he were to be convicted was sufficient reason to uphold the preventive measure in question .","On DATE ORG again decided to extend the applicant \u2019s detention on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery and the severity of the punishment that could be expected . This decision was upheld on DATE by ORG .","On DATE ORG rejected a request by the applicant for release , relying on the same grounds as in the decision described above .","Subsequently , the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was extended by ORG on DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE . The decisions were upheld by ORG on DATE , on an unspecified date and on DATE and DATE respectively .","All the decisions in question were based on the grounds that there was strong evidence against the applicant , that a severe punishment would be imposed if he were convicted and , since the court proceedings were only at the initial stage , that if released , he would attempt to persuade witnesses to give false evidence or , by other unlawful means , obstruct the proper course of the proceedings . It was also stressed in the earlier decisions that the trial court had not yet started its examination of the applicant \u2019s case on the merits .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The period he had already spent in detention on remand , namely DATE and DATE ( from DATE until DATE ) , was deducted from his sentence . The remainder of his incarceration was considered to have comprised the prison sentence which had been imposed by the Jaros\u0142aw ORG in the separate criminal case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","It appears that the first - instance court held DATE and adjourned CARDINAL hearings . It decided applications by the applicant challenging the judges , opposing the psychiatric observation and requesting a fresh examination of the case .","On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case to the first - instance court , ordering it to gather additional evidence .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention . That decision was upheld on DATE . The domestic courts considered that the actual period of detention on remand in the framework of the second case had only started running on DATE , when he was no longer deprived of his liberty in connection with the first criminal case . The courts also referred to the CARDINAL original grounds for the applicant \u2019s continued detention , namely a reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery and the severity of the punishment that could be expected . In the courts\u2019 view , the latter element in turn created a presumption that the applicant would attempt to obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings if released .","On DATE the ORG fully adhered to the reasoning of the first - instance court and upheld the above - mentioned decision .","DATE . On DATE the case was transferred to ORG as the competent court because , in the meantime , the charges against the applicant had been modified .","Pending trial the applicant \u2019s detention was extended by ORG on DATE and DATE , on an unspecified date and on CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The decisions were upheld by ORG .","The domestic courts reiterated the original grounds for the applicant \u2019s detention on remand and stressed that the preventive measure in question had not lasted DATE , regard being had to the fact that from DATE to DATE he had been serving a prison sentence imposed in the first set of criminal proceedings .","The first hearing took place on DATE .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . It appears that the court held CARDINAL hearings in the case . The period the applicant had already spent in detention on remand , namely DATE , DATE and DATE ( from DATE until DATE ) was deducted from his sentence .","On DATE ORG quashed that judgment , lifted the preventive measure and remitted the case to the lower courts . The following day the applicant was released from the remand centre . He has remained at liberty ever since .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant on a number of charges and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . It held CARDINAL hearings in the case . DATE of the applicant \u2019s detention on remand ( from DATE to DATE ) were deducted from his sentence . It appears that he was not ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence .","On DATE the applicant appealed .","On an unspecified date before DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .","The applicant did not wish to take his case to ORG , believing that a cassation appeal would not have any prospects of success .","He did not lodge a complaint about the length of the second set of criminal proceedings under the CARDINAL Act .","On DATE the applicant made a constitutional complaint ( skarga konstytucyjna ) under LAW , read in conjunction with LAW of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , asking for Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE of the Code ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to be declared unconstitutional ( ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . He alleged that the provision infringed , inter alia , the right to personal inviolability and security under LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . On DATE the applicant finalised his complaint .","The applicant challenged CARDINAL aspects of Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .","Firstly , he alleged that Article QUANTITY and CARDINAL were unconstitutional in so far as , under the legal principle ( zasada prawna ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , they concerned only effective detention on remand , that is to say only the actual period of deprivation of liberty on the basis of a detention decision issued in a particular case because they denied a detainee sufficient protection of his liberty if he had earlier been convicted or otherwise deprived of his liberty on the basis of decisions issued in another set of proceedings .","Secondly , the applicant challenged Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL in so far as it defined a maximum statutory period for the length of detention on remand only until the delivery of a first judgment by the trial court . Consequently , people such as him who remained in detention while their criminal proceedings were pending de novo after the quashing of the first judgment of the first - instance trial court , were not protected against unreasonably lengthy detention on remand . Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code was silent in that respect and because of that , the authorities could extend the preventive measure for an indefinite period following the quashing of the first judgment of a trial court .","On DATE the ORG joined the proceedings , asking that LAW of the Code be declared unconstitutional in so far as it left a legal loophole which was filled in by an erroneously developed wellestablished court practice not to include in the calculation of the statutory DATE period of detention on remand ( prior to the first judgment of the first - instance court ) periods of the detainee \u2019s concurrent deprivation of liberty on the basis of a criminal sentence .","On DATE the ORG discontinued the application under section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , which provided for such a possibility in the event a ruling was considered to be redundant ( zb\u0119dne ) .","It was observed that , despite the obvious differences in scope , the essence of the first part of the applicant \u2019s complaint , concerning Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had already been examined on the merits by ORG in case no . ORG CARDINAL . The provision had been declared unconstitutional in so far as it was interpreted to the effect that the statutory maximum period of DATE allowed for a person \u2019s detention on remand prior to the first judgment of the first - instance court had not comprised the term of the prison sentence the detainee was serving in another case , concurrently to his detention on remand , thus allowing for an extension of the preventive measure beyond DATE by a first - instance court on general grounds ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","In connection with the second part of the complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG held that the applicant did not have the standing to challenge LAW of the Code because this provision had not been applicable to his detention in the relevant period . The preventive measure in question had been extended during the proceedings which had been pending before the first - instance court de novo , after the original judgment had been quashed by the appellate court . In these circumstances , the legal basis for extending the applicant \u2019s detention was Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant informed the NORP prosecutor \u2019s office about an offence allegedly committed by staff of ORG . He claimed that they had been selling alcohol , cigarettes and drugs to prisoners . On DATE the Przemy\u015bl prosecutor \u2019s office discontinued the criminal investigation against the alleged culprits . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","When , on DATE , the applicant lodged his application with the ORG he had been detained on remand in relation to the first and second sets of criminal proceedings against him . On DATE and DATE and on CARDINAL and DATE he sent letters to his defence lawyer , PERSON The envelopes bear the stamp \u201c LOC \u201d and a handwritten note stating \u201c censored on ... \u201d ( ocenzurowano dn . ) .","DATE . On DATE ORG discontinued criminal proceedings against several judges of ORG who , in the applicant \u2019s view , had monitored his correspondence with his lawyer . The court held that none of the individuals concerned had opened and read the applicant \u2019s correspondence . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . The court found that the applicant \u2019s correspondence had not been read and the words \u201c censored \u201d had been automatically stamped on the applicant \u2019s letters .","On DATE , ORG received its first letter from the applicant , dated DATE . The envelope bears the stamp \u201c GPE ORG \u201d and a handwritten note stating \u201c Censored on CARDINAL DATE \u201d ( ORG dn . DATE ) .","On DATE ORG received another letter from the applicant , dated DATE . It was delivered in an envelope bearing the stamp \u201c GPE ORG \u201d and a handwritten note stating \u201c Censored on DATE \u201d ( ORG dn . CARDINAL VII CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144348","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF J\u00c1HNY v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE the applicant and PERSON , a legal person , concluded a lease contract concerning the property of the latter party .","The applicant apparently breached his contractual obligations and failed to pay the DATE rental fees between DATE and DATE .","After several unsuccessful deadline extensions and requests for payment , PERSON terminated the lease contract with immediate effect on DATE .","NORP In DATE P\u00e1pa \u00e9s PERSON lodged a compensation claim with ORG against the applicant .","The first - instance court found for the plaintiff and ordered the applicant to pay the overdue rental fees ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) and accrued interests to the plaintiff .","On appeal , ORG upheld the judgment on DATE .","The applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG , which rejected it on DATE . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166748","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RUDENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179862","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MIKHAYLOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167094","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KASPAROV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority;Reasonable suspicion;Reasonably necessary to prevent offence);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","An GPE - GPE summit was scheduled for CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE to take place in GPE . On DATE the applicant was travelling to PERSON to take part in the opposition rally \u201c DATE of Dissent \u201d which had been organised to coincide with the summit . He was accompanied by several activists who were also travelling to the rally . At TIME the applicant and his fellow activists arrived at Terminal CARDINAL of PERSON airport , GPE , and attempted to check in for a flight to PERSON ( flight no . PERSON ) . The parties have submitted different versions of events as to what then happened . Each version is set out below .","ORG The applicant submits that , when he presented his passport for identity check , police officer A. seized the passport and the ticket . The applicant was required to leave the check - in area and to follow officer PERSON was taken to a police office on the second floor of the airport . CARDINAL other persons from his group were escorted from the check - in hall in the same manner .","At TIME the applicant and the CARDINAL others were ordered to remain on the second floor of the airport and were informed that they would have to be questioned as to how they had purchased their allegedly forged tickets .","At TIME the operative duty police officer from ORG ) , Captain PERSON , questioned the applicant as to where he had bought his ticket . The applicant replied that his ticket had been purchased lawfully and refused to give any further explanation , relying on his constitutional right to remain silent . He maintains that he was under orders not to leave and that he was prevented from leaving the police office by an armed policeman who was guarding the doorway . The applicant remained at the police station until TIME","The applicant has submitted CARDINAL documents in support of his version of events .","The first is a copy of the record ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u043e\u043a\u043e\u043b ) of search and confiscation completed by Captain PERSON It records that the applicant was searched and his aeroplane ticket confiscated , in accordance with Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Offences ( see relevant domestic law at CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . At the bottom of the record , the applicant has written that it had been explained to him that the search and seizure could be appealed to a higher authority and that , while the record had been handed to him at TIME , the actual seizure of the ticket by officer A. had taken place at TIME at the check - in desk .","The second is a pro forma statement ( \u043e\u0431\u044a\u044f\u0441\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) , filled in by Captain PERSON In it , he records that he began filling out the statement at CARDINAL p.m. and finished at TIME , and that , when asked , the applicant refused to given an explanation for the ticket . On the statement the applicant has written that the ticket was obtained legally and that , relying on LAW ( the right against self - incrimination ) he refused to give any further explanation because he had been detained illegally in the departure hall without explanation . He has also written that , from TIME until TIME , he had been deprived of his freedom of movement , and that no documents had been provided to him until then .","The third is a handwritten declaration made by the applicant and CARDINAL others while at the airport . It reads :","\u201c We , the undersigned , state that DATE , CARDINAL DATE , at FAC [ terminal ] CARDINAL we were prevented from taking flight CARDINAL to PERSON because [ officer PERSON ] seized our tickets at the check - in desk .","At present we are at the airport building under the surveillance of the police officers , with our passports confiscated .","At CARDINAL police officers [ A. ] , [ C. ] and [ S. ] categorically prohibited us to leave the second floor of the airport .","At the same time , they indicated that we have to provide an explanation to the police officers because some tickets were allegedly forged .","As of CARDINAL we are still detained in the hall of the airport without any documents being provided to us .","( signed ) \u201d","The Government submitted that , on CARDINAL DATE , ORG \u2019s PERSON airport branch received information on forged tickets being sold for DATE PERSON flight . On DATE , officers from the branch , acting on that information , were present at checkin and examined the tickets of all passengers on the flight . In the course of their checks , CARDINAL tickets bearing signs of forgery were found : they had worn spots and the forms on which the tickets were printed appear dubious . Those tickets were confiscated and the passengers who had presented them were prevented from boarding . The tickets were subsequently sent for forensic examination , which showed CARDINAL tickets with signs of writing on top of the original text .","As regards the applicant \u2019s allegations , the Government commented that their records indicated that his ticket for the flight had been seized but there was no record of his passport also being seized . If it had been , the applicant would have been able to make a written comment to that effect in the search record which had been drawn up by the police , but he had not done so . Under section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the police had the right to seek an explanation from the applicant regarding the ticket , and he had been invited to provide one . The applicant \u2019s allegation that he was questioned from TIME to TIME was not supported by the police records .","The applicant complained to ORG about having been unlawfully detained by the police and requested that those responsible be prosecuted .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office decided not to open criminal proceedings against the policemen . The decision stated , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c ... on DATE the [ police ] together with the PERSON airport security service carried out a check of the passengers leaving on the flight no . CARDINAL , GPE \u2013 PERSON . During the check [ they ] discovered QUANTITY tickets with traces of forgery , which were seized . Later [ the police ] conducted an inquiry under Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .","When questioned , [ officer A. ] stated that on CARDINAL DATE at TIME he received operative information that some forged tickets had been sold for the GPE - Samara flight leaving on DATE [ ... ]","On DATE he verified this information by checking all ORG tickets [ ... ] for that flight .","... CARDINAL plane tickets were found to have traces of forgery , such as scuff marks , and also the ticket blanks used for printing the tickets were suspicious .","[ The police ] seized the tickets and removed the passengers from the flight . [ A. ] wrote a report concerning these facts ... after that , the materials were sent to the [ PERSON police unit ] .","When questioned , the Head of the Operational - Search Unit of ORG , [ S. ] , stated that , on DATE , on the occasion of the high - profile summit in PERSON the policemen of ORG of the GPE branch of ORG , together with its subordinate units in the airports of the GPE region , carried out operational search activities to identify persons of an extremist nature intending to organise mass riots .","In this connection , the police carried out checks on persons leaving for PERSON . On DATE [ S. ] , together with [ the operative officer PERSON ] arrived at the PERSON airport , where , at TIME , check - in began for flight no.CARDINAL GPE \u2013 Samara . Together with the [ airport security screening service ] they checked all passengers , which included screening their luggage with special equipment and checking their documents . During the check some [ officers ] noticed that tickets of certain passengers had additional non - standard notes , and , when inspected , these tickets raised doubts as to their authenticity . Because of that , CARDINAL suspected forged tickets were seized and the passengers were questioned about the circumstances of their purchase . Moreover , several passengers decided not to fly , without explaining why . On DATE similar checks were conducted for other flights to PERSON .","...","The [ sales director of the airline ] confirmed that the tickets were issued and sold [ in a normal manner ] .","...","An expert examination of the CARDINAL seized tickets ... revealed that CARDINAL tickets had no corrections of the original content . For CARDINAL of the tickets , the examination revealed that secondary text had been added on top of the original text in the fields \u2018 flight ORG and \u2018 time\u2019 .","Therefore , the inquiry has established that [ the policemen ] had acted within their powers and with sufficient grounds when seizing the tickets of the passengers for flight no.CARDINAL GPE \u2013 Samara .","...","Held :","To refuse the institution of criminal proceedings further to the complaint about the commission of criminal offences of [ abuse of powers ] and [ exceeding official powers ] by the [ CARDINAL policemen involved ] for absence of corpus delicti . \u201d","The applicant challenged this decision before a court under the procedure set out in LAW . He requested that the decision dispensing with criminal proceedings be declared unlawful and that the prosecutor \u2019s office be ordered to remedy the shortcomings in it .","On DATE the ORG of GPE examined and rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . It noted that the applicant had complained to the prosecutor \u2019s office about his TIME detention and about the seizure of his ticket to PERSON . It also observed that the applicant had challenged the prosecutor \u2019s refusal to open criminal proceedings claiming , inter alia , that the police had unlawfully restricted his liberty and in violation of his right to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly . It also noted that the applicant had claimed that he had been deprived of his constitutional rights by the prosecutor \u2019s office .","The court considered that the prosecutor \u2019s office had taken its decision in accordance with the procedure provided for by law and remained within its competence while doing so . It upheld the finding that no criminal offence could be imputed to the police officers in question . The court found the applicant \u2019s allegations about the unlawfulness of the ticket seizure to be unsubstantiated , finding that the seizure had been carried out in accordance with ORG and CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Offences ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court further found that the applicant had been taken to the airport police quarters to provide an explanation for the purchase of his ticket . He had not been \u201c isolated \u201d at the police station . Therefore , there had been no grounds for applying the TIME time - limit for the application of preventative measures in administrative offences cases ( as provided for by LAW ) , or for the drawing up of a detention report ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u043e\u043a\u043e\u043b \u043e \u0437\u0430\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0438 ) .","NORP The court concluded that the prosecutor \u2019s decision was lawful and well - founded .","The applicant brought a cassation appeal against that decision . He claimed that the measures applied to him were contrary to LAW , and that there had been violations of his constitutional rights to liberty , freedom of expression and freedom of assembly .","On DATE ORG examined and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It noted that the subject matter of the applicant \u2019s appeal to court had been the lawfulness of the prosecutor \u2019s refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the officers who had allegedly violated his constitutional rights . It upheld the decision not to institute criminal proceedings as correct in substance and form . It further held that the alleged breach by the police offices of statutory detention limits were outside the scope of the first - instance court \u2019s [ power of ] review ."],"violated_articles":["11","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169475","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF IDALOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);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);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Lakha - Varanda , GPE .","On DATE P. caused a traffic accident while driving and damaged the applicant \u2019s car . According to P. , the applicant threatened him , asking for cash for his car \u2019s repair .","On DATE P. reported the applicant to the regional police department for combatting organised crime . The police decided to run a special operation to arrest the applicant . They gave P. CARDINAL,CARDINAL United States dollars ( ORG ) and MONEY ( RUB ) in marked notes . At TIME several police officers arrived at a car market where PERSON worked . At TIME the applicant entered ORG \u2019s office . P. met the applicant and gave him the money he had received from the police . Immediately thereafter , the policemen arrested the applicant . According to the police officers , the applicant resisted the arrest and they had to handcuff him . The applicant was then taken to the regional police department for combatting organised crime . At TIME the policemen searched the applicant and found heroin on him . Lay witnesses PERSON and NORP were present during the search . The applicant alleged that it was the police officers who had planted the drug on him .","At TIME on DATE police captain PERSON drew up an administrative arrest record , according to which the applicant had \u201c failed to comply with the policemen \u2019s legitimate request to present his identification document , resisted them and tried to abscond \u201d . No legal assistance was made available to the applicant .","On DATE at TIME investigator PERSON from the town police department opened a criminal investigation against the applicant on suspicion of illegal drug possession . At TIME she drew up a criminal arrest record .","On DATE the ORG authorised the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The court noted as follows :","\u201c As is apparent from the evidential material submitted , [ the applicant ] is suspected of having committed a serious offence and he has a prior criminal record . If released , he might abscond and interfere with [ administration of justice ] . \u201d","The applicant appealed , noting that he had been arrested by the police DATE before the record of his arrest was prepared and that ORG had failed to take his fact into consideration . He also argued that ORG had ignored the fact that he had a permanent place of residence in GPE , that he had been the sole provider for CARDINAL minor children and his wife , that he was in DATE of study by correspondence at a higher educational establishment and that he had employment . Nor had the prosecutor furnished any evidence disclosing the applicant \u2019s intent to abscond or to interfere with the administration of justice . Lastly , he noted that the arrest order did not indicate a time - limit for his detention .","On DATE ORG upheld the arrest order of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court reasoned as follows :","\u201c As is apparent from the evidential material submitted , [ the applicant ] is charged with a serious offence and has a prior criminal record . Accordingly , if released , he might abscond and interfere with [ administration of justice ] . \u201d","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court reasoned as follows :","\u201c Taking into account the fact that [ the applicant ] is charged with a serious offence which he committed whilst on parole , that he has a prior criminal record and that he might abscond , continue his criminal activities , and interfere with the administration of justice , it is necessary that [ the applicant ] remain in custody . \u201d","On DATE ORG set the trial - date for DATE . The court also ordered that the applicant remain in custody pending examination of the case and noted as follows :","\u201c ... According to the material submitted by the prosecutor , [ the applicant ] had been previously convicted . He is charged with ORG ] ... offence classified as particularly serious ... . ... The court considers that , if released , [ the applicant ] might abscond . Furthermore , [ the applicant \u2019s ] release might interfere with the comprehensive and objective examination of the evidence . Accordingly , the measure of restraint previously imposed on [ the applicant ] can not be lifted . \u201d","On DATE ORG opened the trial .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE noting as follows :","\u201c Having heard the parties\u2019 arguments , the court concludes that , in view of the fact that [ the applicant ] is charged with a ... grievous offence ... which he committed whilst on parole , the court considers that , if released , he might abscond or continue criminal activities . Furthermore , the [ applicant \u2019s ] release might interfere with the comprehensive and objective examination of the case . Accordingly , ... the detention imposed on [ the applicant ] can not be lifted . \u201d","On DATE ORG returned the case file to the prosecutor \u2019s office for rectification of certain omissions and extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and noted that the latter was charged with having committed a serious offence whilst released on parole .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On an unspecified date the prosecutor \u2019s office returned the case file to ORG .","On DATE ORG opened the trial . On DATE the applicant studied the material in the case file at the court - house . He tore several pages out of the case file and burnt them .","During the subsequent hearings the court heard evidence from a certain PERSON , police officers And . , Rom . , GPE , PERSON , and PERSON who had taken part in the applicant \u2019s arrest \u2212 the head of the police unit PERSON . , lay witness NORP \u2212 who had been present when the applicant was searched on DATE \u2212 and forensic expert PERSON , who had run a laboratory test on the heroin found on the applicant .","On DATE and DATE and CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant received repeated reprimands from the presiding judge for making threats and insulting persons present in the courtroom . The judge warned the applicant that he might be removed from the courtroom for continuing with such disruptive behaviour .","On DATE the director of the company that provided the interpreters for the trial complained to the court that the applicant had threatened the interpreters who had earlier taken part in the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant refused to leave the remand prison to attend a trial hearing . The hearing was adjourned .","On DATE the court held the last trial hearing . The presiding judge confirmed the presence of the parties and witnesses . L. , a police officer who had been in charge of the operation leading to the applicant \u2019s arrest on DATE , appeared for questioning . The applicant insulted the witness . The presiding judge reprimanded the applicant and warned him that he would be removed from the courtroom if he persisted with his disruptive behaviour . The applicant started talking in GPE . The interpreter refused to interpret and asked the court to relieve him of his duties . The presiding judge informed the parties that the interpreters who had earlier taken part in the proceedings had decided to refuse further engagement in view of the insults and threats made by the applicant . The applicant talked back to the judge in NORP . The interpreter refused to interpret into NORP . The presiding judge again reprimanded the applicant and warned him about his possible removal from the courtroom . The presiding judge presented the report from the remand prison management stating that on DATE the applicant had refused to be transported from the remand prison to the court - house for the hearing . The presiding judge asked the prosecution and defence whether it was possible , in the circumstances , to remove the applicant from the courtroom . The prosecutor did not object . The applicant stated that the presiding judge \u2019s conduct clearly demonstrated that he was being pressurised by high - ranking law - enforcement officials to deliver an unlawful judgment in the applicant \u2019s case and that his decision to remove the applicant from the courtroom would be unlawful and in contravention of the LAW . The court ruled as follows :","\u201c ... the court decides to remove [ the applicant ] from the courtroom ... for the following reasons . [ The applicant ] has repeatedly been disruptive in the courtroom in the course of the trial , including the current hearing . In particular , ... while studying the material in the case file , [ the applicant ] destroyed CARDINAL pages thereof . He repeatedly refused to appear in the courtroom referring to his needs to pray , eat , wash and go to the bathroom . On several occasions he refused to appear before the court alleging that he was ill . However , the emergency response doctors summoned did not confirm his allegation . He has insulted witnesses and other participants in the proceedings and shown disrespect for the judges participating in the trial by making negative comments about the judicial system in GPE . He claimed to know the home address of [ a witness ] and one of the judges . He has made statements and comments unrelated to the trial . During this hearing , [ the applicant ] insulted a witness ... . After [ the applicant ] said something in the NORP language , the interpreter asked the court to [ relieve him of his duties ] ... . The head of the ORG agency reported that [ the applicant ] spoke NORP [ in the courtroom ] with the sole intention of insulting and threatening the interpreters . \u201d","The trial continued in the applicant \u2019s absence . The court questioned PERSON , who , at the time , had been in charge of the special operation conducted in response to P. \u2019s complaint about the applicant extorting money from him . The applicant \u2019s lawyer was present and put questions to the witness . The court also established that witness PERSON had failed to appear and decided that the statement he had made earlier to the investigator should be read out . The court also read out statements made by witnesses PERSON . and ORG earlier during the trial as those witnesses had also failed to appear . Lastly , the court granted a request from the applicant \u2019s lawyer and read out several earlier statements made by the applicant and several witnesses for the defence who had failed to appear . According to the record of the court hearing , the applicant refused to return to the courtroom to participate in the closing arguments . The judgment was read out in the applicant \u2019s absence .","ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court based its findings on statements made by witnesses questioned by the investigator and the court , police reports and other material in the case file , and forensic evidence . The court accepted the prosecution \u2019s version of events , namely that the applicant had been arrested by special police forces in the course of an operation targeting him as a racketeer as alleged by PERSON and that heroin had been found on him during the search conducted immediately after his arrest .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG reviewed the applicant \u2019s conviction and reduced the applicant \u2019s sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE DATE the applicant was taken to the PERSON police station . According to applicant , at the station he was assaulted by CARDINAL police officers . They throttled him and pulled his arms behind his back causing him enormous pain .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by a paramedic . According to the official report , the applicant complained about chronic stomach pain .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer complained to the police and the prosecutor \u2019s office about the incident of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the police completed an internal inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . It was established that CARDINAL police officers had had to subdue the applicant during a body search . They had pinned him to the ground and handcuffed him .","On DATE investigator PERSON refused to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators . On CARDINAL DATE his superior quashed the said decision and remitted the matter for further inquiry .","On DATE investigator NORP dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint as unsubstantiated and refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . Relying on the evidential material obtained in the course of the inquiry , he concluded that the police officers had acted in accordance with the law . It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","Following communication of the application to the ORG , on CARDINAL DATE the Acting Head of ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the matter for further inquiry . The parties did not disclose the outcome of the proceedings .","On DATE , remand prison director PERSON ordered the applicant \u2019s placement in a disciplinary cell .","According to the applicant , on their way to the disciplinary cell PERSON repeatedly hit the applicant against the wall , administering blows to his head and body . The applicant \u2019s nose and lips began to bleed . Then the guards handcuffed the applicant and continued beating him .","According to the ORG , the applicant refused to enter the disciplinary cell . Instead , he threw a punch at PERSON \u2019s face and PERSON hit his head against the wall . PERSON tried to subdue the applicant by pulling his right arm behind his back . The applicant resisted and kicked PERSON came to PERSON \u2019s rescue and pulled the applicant \u2019s arm behind his back . The applicant fell to the floor and his nose bled . The guards handcuffed the applicant and took him to a cell where he calmed down . The guards called an ambulance .","On DATE the prison director and the guards reported the use of force against the applicant . According to the reports , PERSON pulled the applicant \u2019s right arm behind his back using a combat technique and guard PERSON handcuffed the applicant to put an end to his resistance .","On an unspecified date the applicant underwent a medical examination . According to the medical report the applicant had sustained the following injuries : bruises on the right forearm and shoulder , left shoulder , left armpit and left calf ; a bruised wound on the lower lip .","On DATE the applicant complained that he had been beaten up by PERSON On DATE investigator DATE dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegations as unsubstantiated and refused to institute criminal proceedings against M.","On DATE a medical forensic expert examined the applicant and his medical case history . The expert concluded that the applicant \u2019s injuries could have resulted from impact by blunt and solid objects and that the applicant might have sustained the injuries on DATE as a result of blows or a fall . The expert concluded that the injuries were not serious and had not caused any harm to the applicant \u2019s health .","On DATE the expert issued an additional forensic report , noting that it was impossible to determine the exact date on which the applicant had sustained the injuries . It could have been on DATE or some time before or after that date .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office opened a criminal investigation into the incident of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant was charged with the use of force against a ORG agent .","On an unspecified date ORG received the file and opened the trial . During the trial , the applicant maintained his innocence . He claimed that the remand prison director and the guards had beaten him up on DATE and he had then been prosecuted on trumped - up charges to cover up for the beatings .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s version of events as unsubstantiated , relying on the prosecution and defence witnesses\u2019 statements and forensic evidence . On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal . The court also re - calculated the applicant \u2019s sentence . It took into account that the applicant had CARDINAL previous convictions and sentenced him cumulatively to DATE imprisonment .","DATE . On DATE the Presidium of ORG reclassified the charges against the applicant by way of supervisory review , reduced his sentence to DATE imprisonment and sentenced him cumulatively to CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant was detained in remand prison no . ORG in GPE . According to the applicant , the prison guards beat him and CARDINAL other inmates . According to the Government , the applicant was inciting other inmates to disobey the guards . He also threatened the guards and insulted them . The guards used rubber truncheons and handcuffs to subdue the applicant .","On DATE the applicant took part in a hearing at ORG of GPE by means of video link . The applicant demonstrated to the judges extensive bruising on his stomach , chest and lower back and claimed that he had been beaten up by guards of the remand prison .","On DATE ORG informed ORG of the applicant \u2019s injuries and forwarded the applicant \u2019s complaint about the beatings in the remand prison .","According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE an investigator completed the inquiry into the incident of CARDINAL DATE and refused to institute criminal proceedings against the prison guards . On DATE the district prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the matter for further inquiry . The Government did not disclose the outcome .","According to the applicant , on DATE he was beaten up whilst in detention in correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE . According to the Government , the applicant had an altercation with inmate Ur . As a result , the applicant sustained bruises and a bone fracture on the right side of the face and concussion . On an unspecified date the authorities instituted criminal proceedings against Ur . The parties did not disclose their outcome .","On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE .","According to the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE some time after TIME a group of young and strongly - built men entered his cell and beat him up . They were led by inmate O.","According to the applicant , on CARDINAL October CARDINAL a man wearing the uniform of a major and accompanied by several medical orderlies entered the applicant \u2019s cell . The major started beating the applicant , who was lying on the bed . The major then told the orderlies to pull the applicant off the bed and continued the beatings , administering multiple blows to the applicant \u2019s head and other parts of the body .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE . Upon arrival , he underwent a medical examination . The medical practitioners recorded a wound on the applicant \u2019s head and a bruise near the hip bone . The applicant explained that he had sustained the injuries as a result of the beatings to which he had been subjected in correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL . The management of correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL forwarded the relevant report to the regional investigation committee but it was never received by them . According to the Government , the authorities\u2019 inquiry into the loss of the report is still pending .","According to the ORG , the inquiries into the incidents of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL October CARDINAL are still pending .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in identical conditions in the temporary detention centre in PERSON , in remand prison no . IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL in PERSON and in remand prison no . GPE in GPE . The cells were overcrowded , dirty , poorly ventilated and insufficiently lit . The toilet offered no privacy . The use of a shower was limited .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in remand prison no . ORG in PERSON .","On numerous occasions DATE and DATE the applicant was held in the temporary detention centre in PERSON . According to the Government , the centre comprised CARDINAL cells measuring QUANTITY m in total . The centre had an outdoor area where the inmates were able to exercise . The inmates were able to take a shower at least once DATE . They were provided with CARDINAL meals per day and an individual sleeping place , bed linen , toiletries , a bowl , a mug and a spoon .","According to the applicant , at all times the cells in the temporary detention centre were overcrowded and the personal space available to the inmates fell short of the statutory minimum standard of QUANTITY m. The cells were dirty and there was no ventilation . The lighting was poor and insufficient for reading . The access to shower facilities was limited . The applicant received CARDINAL meal a day . On DATE of the court hearings , the applicant did not have any meals at all .","The applicant did not provide a description of the conditions in which he was detained in remand prisons nos . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in PERSON and IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE , beyond alleging that they were identical to the conditions of his detention in the temporary detention centre in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was placed in cell no . CARDINAL in remand prison no . ORG in PERSON . The cell measured CARDINAL sq . m and was equipped with CARDINAL beds . CARDINAL inmates were held in the cell , together with the applicant .","From DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL . The cell was constantly overcrowded and housed DATE inmates .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL . It measured QUANTITY . m and housed CARDINAL inmates .","DATE . According to the applicant , on DATE of the court hearings and on DATE when there was a change of the applicant \u2019s place of detention , he was woken up early and placed in an overcrowded holding cell . He was then taken to the place of his destination ( a court - house or a detention facility ) in a prison van . On each occasion the number of the persons transported with the applicant exceeded the van \u2019s capacity of CARDINAL persons . The vans were dirty and unventilated and had no heating . The trip lasted TIME . The van compartments were stiflingly hot in DATE and very cold in DATE .","According to the Government , the applicant was transported in ORG vans which comprised CARDINAL compartments measuring QUANTITY . m and QUANTITY . m respectively , in strict compliance with the vans\u2019 design capacity . The vans were equipped with ventilation and heating . The trips from the temporary detention centre in PERSON to the Odintsovo Town Court lasted DATE to TIME . The trips from the same detention centre to the courts in GPE lasted DATE .","According to the applicant , at the court - house he was placed in a holding cell measuring CARDINAL sq . m together with CARDINAL other inmates . He was held in such conditions for TIME awaiting the hearing . He was allowed to use the toilet only once . The cell was not ventilated . All the other detainees smoked and the applicant , a non - smoker , was exposed to the others\u2019 tobacco smoke .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transported to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE . The trip lasted from DATE .","According to the applicant , he was held with CARDINAL other inmates in a train compartment of which the capacity was a maximum of QUANTITY persons . During the stops , the applicant was housed in remand prisons in GPE , GPE and PERSON . All the cells there were overcrowded . The applicant was not provided with an individual sleeping place .","According to the ORG , the applicant was transported in a train compartment measuring CARDINAL x CARDINAL x CARDINAL cm . At no time did the number of inmates transported in CARDINAL compartment together with the applicant exceed QUANTITY persons , the compartment \u2019s capacity being QUANTITY persons . It was equipped with QUANTITY sitting and QUANTITY sleeping places . The applicant was provided with dry food rations and drinking water ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":["3","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144662","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF P.K. v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant was married in DATE . In DATE his wife gave birth to P.","NORP In DATE the applicant filed for divorce with ORG . In his petition he requested that the child should reside with his mother and that she should be given custody . He submitted that he was not PERSON \u2019s biological father .","At the same time the applicant instituted a separate set of proceedings challenging his paternity in respect of P. In a subsequent decision his claim was dismissed as it had been established by DNA tests that the applicant was in fact the boy \u2019s father .","On DATE the applicant requested the court conducting the divorce proceedings to give him custody of the child , to rule that the child \u2019s place of residence should be with him , and that the mother should be divested of her parental rights . The Government submitted that he had further requested that the child be placed in a public care institution . The applicant contested this . He argued that his intentions had been misconstrued .","On DATE the court dissolved the applicant \u2019s marriage . It found that both parties had been at fault in the breakdown of the marital relationship . It held that parental authority was to be exercised by both parents , and stipulated that the place of residence of P. was to be with the boy \u2019s mother . The applicant was allowed to visit the child at his mother \u2019s address and in her presence on every third Sunday of the month between TIME .","In the written grounds of the judgment the court observed that the applicant \u2019s conduct was open to criticism . It referred to the unsuccessful paternity challenge he had brought before the courts and expressed the view that he was not really interested in maintaining meaningful contact with his son .","NORP The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal . The divorce judgment became final .","Subsequently difficulties arose as to compliance with the access order , as the mother persistently refused to respect it .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings seeking to have the access arrangements specified by the divorce judgment enforced . On DATE the court questioned him in connection with these proceedings . He did not remember when he had last seen his son .","The mother was questioned on CARDINAL DATE . She told the court that the applicant had come to see his son for the first time in DATE , just after she had requested an increase in the amount of the DATE maintenance payments . She was of the view that the applicant was not interested in the child .","By a decision of DATE ORG fixed a onemonth time - limit for the child \u2019s mother to allow the applicant contact with P. on the terms stipulated by the divorce judgment . It held that she was to pay a fine of MONEY ( PLN ) in the event of continued failure on her part to comply with the access arrangements .","In DATE the applicant again requested the court to take measures to oblige the mother to cooperate and allow him contact with his child . On DATE ORG refused to grant the applicant an exemption from the obligation to pay court fees in respect of this request .","In DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the mother \u2019s conduct . He was informed in reply that issues of compliance with decisions of civil courts did not fall within the jurisdiction of the prosecuting authorities .","On DATE ORG imposed a fine on the mother in the amount of ORG for her failure to allow the applicant contact with P. , and set another DATE time - limit for her to comply with that order on pain of a fine in the amount of PLN CARDINAL .","On a further complaint by the applicant , by a decision of DATE the same court ordered the mother to pay the fine of ORG CARDINAL and set another DATE time - limit for her to comply with the access arrangements on pain of a further fine of PLN CARDINAL .","On DATE the ORG appointed a court guardian ( kurator ) to supervise the execution of the access arrangements determined by the divorce judgment . It held that the guardian should accompany the applicant on each and every visit to his child under the schedule determined by that judgment .","On DATE P. \u2019s mother requested the court to restrict the applicant \u2019s parental authority and to change the access arrangements by banning the applicant from contact with his son .","On DATE the court ordered the mother to pay a fine of PLN CARDINAL for her continued refusals to allow the child to see his father and set a new DATE time - limit for her on pain of a further fine in the amount of ORG CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant requested the court to rule that the child should move to his home and for the mother to be granted access rights .","On DATE the court refused to examine the applicant \u2019s new request for a fine to be imposed on the mother , having regard to its decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , finding that the child had good living conditions at his mother \u2019s home and felt safe with her . The applicant did not appeal against this decision .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant requested ORG to take more vigorous enforcement measures . He submitted that he could not see his son and that the measures applied so far had failed .","On DATE P. \u2019s mother requested ORG to divest the applicant of parental authority . She submitted that the applicant had for DATE not been interested in the child and that the child was afraid of him as he had provoked a brawl at the school .","On DATE the ORG authorised the courtappointed guardian to take the child from the mother to ensure compliance with the access arrangements so that his father could see him .","On DATE the court - appointed guardian went with the applicant to the mother \u2019s apartment to visit the child . No one answered the door . On DATE the guardian complained to the prosecuting authorities about her failure to cooperate .","In DATE the applicant again requested the court to take more vigorous measures to ensure that he had effective enjoyment of his access rights . In reply on DATE ORG informed the applicant that the enforcement order of DATE remained valid and that it was operational in respect of every new attempt he made to see his son .","On DATE and DATE the court - appointed guardian attended at the scheduled times to assist the applicant for the purposes of his DATE visits to see his son but the applicant failed to turn up for the visits .","On DATE the applicant informed the court that on DATE the court guardian had gone with him to the mother \u2019s apartment . She had refused to open the door or let him see the child . The applicant submitted that the guardian had remained passive in the face of the mother \u2019s defiance . Afterwards , the head of the court - appointed guardians had informed the applicant that no new attempts to assist him in seeing his son would be made , as the previous attempt had failed . He had also informed the applicant that he regarded his case as closed and that he had forwarded the case file to the court .","On DATE the same court refused to hear a request by the applicant for enforcement of his access rights , referring to the valid decision given on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . An identical decision was given by the same court on DATE in respect of a fresh request by the applicant for assistance in the execution of the access arrangements . On DATE ORG refused to amend the access arrangements by deciding that the applicant \u2019s son should live with him .","On DATE the guardian accompanied the applicant . Again , no one answered the door to the mother \u2019s apartment . The guardian called the police . They attended , but their intervention was to no avail as no one answered the door . The guardian again informed the prosecuting authorities about the mother \u2019s conduct .","On DATE the applicant made a new request for assistance .","On DATE the court made a new enforcement order , identical to that of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the written grounds for this order the court emphasised the mother \u2019s uncooperative behaviour in respect of the access arrangements , and stated that the execution of the access arrangements necessitated close cooperation on the part of both parents , who were obliged to act in the child \u2019s best interest .","On DATE and DATE the applicant again requested the court to assist him . On DATE he failed to turn up for another visit , scheduled on that date . On DATE the mother did not answer the door when the applicant , assisted by the court guardian , came to see the boy . The guardian again informed the prosecution about her obstructive behaviour .","On DATE the mother again failed to open the door to the applicant , accompanied by the guardian and ultimately by the police .","NORP On DATE the applicant again requested the court to assist him . In reply , the court asked him whether his request was to be understood as a new request for assistance by court - appointed guardians in the execution of the access arrangements . The applicant replied that he had simply sought the court \u2019s advice as to how he could deal with his situation , which remained unchanged as the mother remained uncooperative .","On DATE the guardian determined that the enforcement proceedings in respect of the order of CARDINAL DATE were to be closed , as the DATE period of validity of that period specified in LAW ( a ) of LAW had expired .","In DATE the applicant twice complained to ORG about his situation .","On DATE the applicant again sought unsuccessfully to see his son . The court - appointed guardian was not present , apparently because the applicant had failed to lodge a new request with the court for his assistance and the previous execution order had expired ( see paragraph CARDINAL before ) . The applicant called the police . They attended , but he did not succeed in seeing his son , because the police officers refused to assist him , having regard to the fact that the child was not at home at that time . The applicant requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against them on charges of abuse of official authority . His complaint was subsequently investigated . The internal enquiry was closed on DATE as the ORG conduct had not been aggressive or inappropriate . Subsequently , on DATE ORG discontinued the investigation against the officers , having noted , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s son had not been at home on the material date .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , the applicant again requested the court and the court guardian to assist him in the enforcement of the access arrangements . He reiterated his request on CARDINAL DATE . In reply , on CARDINAL October CARDINAL the court issued another order authorising the guardian to assist the applicant in the execution of the access arrangements with a view to addressing the mother \u2019s defiance .","On DATE ORG dismissed the mother \u2019s application for the applicant to be deprived of parental rights . It further amended the access arrangements specified in the divorce judgment . It limited the mother \u2019s parental authority by assigning a guardian to supervise her in the exercise of her parental rights . The court further ordered the mother to attend family therapy in order to improve her communication with the child \u2019s father .","In the written grounds of that decision the court noted that DATE the applicant had shown no interest in his son and had failed to pay maintenance in the amount of ORG CARDINAL per month . The mother had requested the bailiff to institute enforcement proceedings in respect of the maintenance . This decision became final on DATE .","On DATE the guardian failed to attend to assist the applicant , as she was ill . On DATE the applicant went to see his son accompanied by the guardian but no one answered the door . The guardian informed the prosecutor about the mother \u2019s behaviour .","On DATE the applicant again requested the court to ensure the mother \u2019s compliance with the access arrangements , and requested the court to assist him .","DATE . On DATE the guardian discontinued the enforcement proceedings , referring to the provisions of LAW ( a ) of LAW .","On DATE the court again ordered a court guardian to take the child from the mother to ensure compliance with access arrangements .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the guardian accompanied the applicant to the visits planned for these dates . No one answered the door and the guardian informed the prosecutor about the mother \u2019s conduct .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG gave new decisions authorising the guardian to take the child from the mother to ensure compliance with the access arrangement on terms specified in those arrangements .","On DATE the applicant requested the court to divest the mother of her parental rights , referring to her persistent refusal to respect the access arrangements . ORG requested an assessment by the RODK ( Regional Family Consultation Centre ) of the family \u2019s emotional skills and their communication and parenting situation .","In DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant again complained to the court about the mother \u2019s failure to respect the access arrangements . On DATE the court refused to impose a fine on her , having regard to the amendments to LAW which had entered into force in DATE .","On DATE ORG imposed on the mother an obligation to pay ORG MONEY to the applicant in punitive damages for each failure to comply with the access arrangements .","On DATE ORG submitted its opinion to the court about the emotional ties between the mother , the father and the child , prepared for the purposes of the proceedings in which the applicant had requested the court to envisage that the mother be divested of her parental rights . The experts were of the view that the child \u2019s father was focused on the enforcement of his rights . He was not taking into account the needs and expectations of his child . The experts pointed out the negative consequences for the child \u2019s development of the father \u2019s actions aiming at depriving the child \u2019s mother of parental authority . They stressed the existence of strong emotional ties between the child and the mother and the lack of such ties between the father and his son . They noted the lack of willingness and readiness of the child to maintain contact with his father . The experts noted that the father had taken various steps to deprive the child \u2019s mother of parental authority without taking the child \u2019s feelings into consideration .","On DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE the applicant requested PERSON to order the mother to pay damages to him for her failure to respect the access arrangements . He subsequently withdrew the first request . The second was rejected for his failure to comply with the applicable legal requirements . Subsequently , the applicant supplemented his request of DATE by referring to the mother \u2019s failure to let him see his son during his DATE attempts to see his son in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .","During the applicant \u2019s visit in DATE , PERSON asked his father to leave the apartment and told him that he was not wanted and not liked there .","The Government submitted that on DATE , during a hearing before ORG , the applicant had stated that he had seen his son at the child \u2019s mother \u2019s residence in DATE and DATE . The applicant contested this statement , arguing that he had seen his son only for TIME on each occasion .","On DATE ORG , in reply to the applicant \u2019s request of DATE , ordered the mother to pay ORG CARDINAL to the applicant , consisting of PLN MONEY for each previous failure to comply with the contact arrangements . The court pointed out that she had prevented the father from having contact with his son CARDINAL times ( in DATE , DATE and DATE ) and obstructed contact CARDINAL times ( in DATE and DATE ) . The applicant appealed . Following his appeal , on an unspecified later date the court amended its own decision and imposed on the mother an obligation to pay ORG MONEY to the applicant in damages for her failure to comply with his access rights ( PLN CARDINAL for each occasion of noncompliance ) .","On numerous occasions the applicant and later also the court - appointed guardian , acting on the basis of LAW , repeatedly informed ORG about the child \u2019s mother \u2019s obstructive behaviour and about her non - compliance with the access arrangements .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE the LOC police and on DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG discontinued the investigation , finding that the mother had no case to answer , as her failure to answer the door and allow the applicant to see his son did not amount to a criminal offence of unlawful restriction of liberty of a minor ( brak znamion czynu zabronionego ) . The refusals were upheld by the competent court on , inter alia , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG brought a bill of indictment before the ORG against the mother on charges of unlawful restriction of liberty against a minor . On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , holding that a parent who exercised her or his parental authority could not be regarded as a perpetrator of an offence of unlawful detention of a minor DATE , even if that parent was acting contrary to the wishes or without the consent of the other parent ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170349","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TSARTSIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Violation of Article 14+9-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON ( applicants ORG . CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON ( applicants nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON ( applicants nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( applicants nos . CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; and PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON ( applicants nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) are all GPE \u2019s Witnesses . Their application to the ORG relates to CARDINAL cases of religiously motivated aggression to which they were allegedly subjected in GPE at various times . The events described in cases CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were the subject of the ORG \u2019s examination in the case of GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The following account of the facts is based on the ORG submissions .","NORP This part of the application concerns the applicants Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON ( applicants nos . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE nineteen coaches and several cars with ORG headed to PERSON to attend the convention at Mr PERSON \u2019s premises . The police set up checkpoints along the route and blocked the roads , preventing the GPE \u2019s Witnesses from reaching their destination . At the same time , the police authorised a coach containing extremist members of ORG , led by PERSON , also known as Father PERSON ( see Members of the Gldani Congregation of GPE \u2019s Witnesses and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , LAW , CARDINAL DATE ) , to continue their journey to ORG in order to attack and damage the site within Mr PERSON \u2019s property where the GPE \u2019s Witnesses were to gather . The attackers destroyed objects for religious use and seized items belonging to others . The police officers who were in attendance refused to intervene . Property belonging to ORG , including CARDINAL tonnes of religious literature was confiscated . The religious literature was burnt in the street . Other items ( tents , CARDINAL benches , and other items ) were distributed to local residents by Father PERSON \u2019s supporters ( see GPE and Others , cited above , LAW DATE ) .","According to estimates made on DATE and DATE , the stolen and destroyed equipment and material was worth QUANTITY ( ORG ) and the QUANTITY of stolen and burnt religious literature was worth QUANTITY .","On DATE applicants nos . CARDINAL , other ORG , the representation of ORG in GPE and ORG , lodged an administrative complaint with ORG in GPE against ORG , the governor of GPE , the PERSON chief of police and his deputy and CARDINAL other police officers involved in the case . The applicants sought compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the ORG \u2019s agents .","On DATE the FAC decided to consider ORG as a third - party intervener and referred the case to ORG for examination .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG complaint as ill - founded . The court considered it to have been shown that individuals acting under the orders of Father PERSON had attacked Mr PERSON \u2019s property and ORG . As to the GPE police , the court held that they had not been informed that a convention was due to be held on DATE at Mr PERSON \u2019s home and had been taking part on that date in an anti - drugs operation in the area bordering GPE . The court found that the defendants who were police officers had gone to the scene only after the attack in question and had only been able to observe the damage that had already been done . They could not therefore have contributed by being passive or taking part in the acts of religious aggression against the applicants .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG complaining that the court of first instance had ignored the fact that the police had turned back the GPE \u2019s Witnesses but had allowed Father PERSON and his supporters to go through the same checkpoints . The applicants argued that their witness statements had been disregarded by the first - instance court in favour of unsubstantiated statements by the police officers . The applicants also challenged the status of third - party intervener granted to ORG in spite of the fact that it had been cited as a defendant .","On DATE the regional court dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal on the same grounds as the first - instance court .","On DATE an appeal on points of law by the applicants was dismissed by ORG , which considered that the applicants had not demonstrated an \u201c intentional \u201d or \u201c negligent \u201d breach of professional obligations by the police officers .","This part of the application concerns Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , applicants nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","On DATE , when CARDINAL members of ORG of GPE \u2019s Witnesses were preparing to hold a meeting in GPE at Mr PERSON \u2019s home , CARDINAL plainclothes police officers entered the property . They included QUANTITY . and PERSON , who , DATE , had allegedly taken part in the attack on the Jehovah \u2019s Witnesses at Mr PERSON \u2019s property ( see case no . CARDINAL ) , and ORG The police officers stated that the meeting could not go ahead . Using insulting language towards the participants , they ordered them to leave the LOC . They confiscated religious books and PERSON belonging to ORG .","Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , a pastor , were taken to the police station . There , they were insulted by Officer PERSON , who ordered Mr PERSON to leave PERSON and never to return , otherwise he would face serious problems . PERSON . ordered Mr PERSON not to hold any more religious gatherings at his home if he wished to avoid problems with the police . Mr PERSON was then forced into a car and driven away from PERSON .","On DATE the CARDINAL applicants , together with the representation of ORG in GPE and ORG , lodged an administrative complaint with ORG against ORG and the police officers involved . As well as identifying the QUANTITY police officers , the applicants also gave the number plates of the QUANTITY vehicles in which the police officers had arrived . They asked that ORG make a public apology , in accordance with LAW , and bring disciplinary proceedings against its staff . The applicants also asked that they be paid compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage and that a directive be sent to all police stations in the country , saying that the rights of GPE \u2019s Witnesses were to be respected .","On DATE the case was sent to ORG , which sent it in turn to ORG on DATE .","Questioned by that court , the applicants and other people who had attended the meeting confirmed the above - mentioned facts . Officers S.Kh . and ORG denied the accusations . While ORG claimed that he had never entered Mr PERSON \u2019s property on the date in question and was seeing the applicants for the first time , LANGUAGE . stated that he had DATE seen ORG and other police officers , who were his subordinates , in front of Mr PERSON \u2019s house . He had gone to see what was happening . PERSON had explained that a group of people had informed the police that a meeting of ORG was due to be held and had asked the police to intervene before they did so themselves . The police officers had therefore been obliged to go to the LOC . According to QUANTITY . , ORG had entered Mr PERSON \u2019s property in order to ask him not to hold the meeting , so as to avoid a clash with the group of individuals in question . PERSON . stated that he had then continued his journey and denied having taken the CARDINAL applicants to the police station . He acknowledged , however , that GPE , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had been taken together \u201c somewhere \u201d . According to QUANTITY . , if the applicants had been taken to the police station on DATE concerned they would have been questioned , and their visit to the police station duly registered . He criticised the applicants for failing to lodge a complaint with the police chief if they had indeed been taken unlawfully to the police station .","The CARDINAL applicants , on the contrary , submitted that they had been taken to GPE . \u2019s office and that he had ordered that they be required to give written undertakings , respectively , to leave PERSON and for Mr PERSON not to allow religious meetings at his home . S.Kh . denied those allegations also .","On DATE the proceedings brought by the applicants were dismissed as ill - founded . In the court \u2019s opinion , it had not been established that the police officers in question had prevented the religious meeting from being held at Mr PERSON \u2019s home , confiscated the religious books and taken the CARDINAL applicants to the police station in order to forbid them from performing religious rites in accordance with their faith . With regard to the statements made by CARDINAL eyewitnesses , the court held that they were not reliable because they had been made by people taking part in the meeting , who had an interest in supporting the ORG complaint . Moreover , the statements made by the complainants had been completely rejected by the police officers . Consequently , the court found that there was nothing to prove that the police officers had failed in their professional obligations , within the meaning of LAW .","On DATE the ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , on the same grounds as those used by the lower court .","On DATE ORG , ruling in written proceedings , dismissed an appeal by the applicants on points of law . It concluded that the applicants had failed to prove either an intentional or a negligent breach of duties by the respondent police officers .","This part of the application concerns Mr PERSON and PERSON ( applicants nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) .","On DATE , while in possession of religious tracts , Mr Dzamukov was stopped in the street in GPE by CARDINAL uniformed police officers , GPE and GPE . His bag with religious literature was confiscated and he was taken to the police station . The applicant was struck by several police officers , including GPE . , before being released . Before leaving the police station , the applicant asked that his belongings be returned to him . In reply , PERSON . came up to him and attempted to strangle him with his tie , ordering the applicant to get out of his sight . Outside the station , police officers blocked his path and threatened to beat him with their truncheons . Seeing that the applicant refused to leave and insisted that the confiscated religious literature be returned , a police officer came up and threw his Bible in his face .","On returning home , the applicant and his wife noticed that his chest was red . He also found it painful . His wife immediately went to the police station , protesting about the way her husband had been treated , and asking for the return of the confiscated belongings . She was , in turn , insulted and chased out of the LOC .","On DATE , Mr Gabunia , applicant no . CARDINAL , was walking in the street in LOC with religious tracts . He gave one to GPE , who was accompanied by another police officer . In response , ORG reprimanded him , stating that his conduct was not worthy of a NORP . PERSON , the second police officer , punched him in the stomach and , after he had fallen to the ground , pulled his bag away from him . The police officers emptied the bag and tore up the religious literature inside . They kept CARDINAL Bibles for themselves . When the applicant insisted that they return his Bible , PERSON threatened to put him in his car and dump him in LOC .","On DATE the applicants lodged an administrative complaint with ORG against ORG , the chief and deputy chief of LOC police and police officers PERSON and GPE Claiming that their rights guaranteed by LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention had been breached , they asked that ORG issue a public apology and bring disciplinary proceedings against CARDINAL of its staff who , in their opinion , had failed to comply with their professional duties , as provided for in LAW . The applicants also asked to be compensated in respect of pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage , in application of LAW .","Questioned by the court , the applicants confirmed the abovementioned events . Mr PERSON described in detail the place where he had met the QUANTITY police officers , and stated that they had been in uniform and wore badges . He also provided information about the make , colour and registration number of their car . Mr Dzamukov provided the registration number of the car in which he had been taken to the police station . His wife gave the registration number of the vehicle in which GPE . had followed her . , while PERSON , a witness to the incident at the police station , confirmed that she had seen Mr Dzamukov there . PERSON . denied the allegations , stating that he had been on leave on DATE in question and had not been in GPE . PERSON and ORG also denied the allegations , claiming that they were seeing the applicants for the first time .","On DATE the ORG complaint was dismissed as illfounded . The court pointed to the rights guaranteed by LAW and noted that , historically , no religion had ever been persecuted in GPE . It further noted the following :","\u201c It is also well known that many of GPE \u2019s Witnesses blatantly violate the requirements of LAW and frequently impose their opinion and belief on others , thus violating their rights . \u201d","Then the court set aside the CARDINAL witness statements in favour of the applicants on the ground that those people had not been eyewitnesses . In addition , it noted the following :","\u201c The first CARDINAL witnesses are GPE \u2019s Witnesses and the LOC friends , and they have an interest in having the case decided in the ORG favour . \u201d","As the applicants had not submitted any other valid evidence ( medical reports , torn - up religious literature , or other items ) , their allegations were held to be ill - founded . Lastly , the court noted that PERSON had waited DATE before adding PERSON . \u2019s name to his complaint .","The applicants lodged an appeal , stating that submitting the destroyed religious literature to the court would have had no valid evidential value , since it would not have sufficed to prove that the police officers concerned had torn up the literature on the date in question . The applicants also explained that it had not been necessary to obtain a medical report , given that they had not received serious wounds or injuries . That did not , however , alter the fact that they had been struck by the police officers . Furthermore , in their opinion , the insults directed against them on account of their faith had been sufficient to establish that the police officers had been negligent in carrying out their professional duties .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal on the same grounds as the first - instance court . In particular , it took account of the fact that the police officers had denied the allegations and that the applicants had suffered no physical injuries . It concluded that , in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary , there had been no damage to the applicants\u2019 dignity or any infringement of their right to freedom of religion , which ruled out the application of LAW and the granting of compensation .","According to the applicants , the appeal court took into consideration an oral statement by ORG , who had claimed that he did not recognise a white car with the registration number DAQ CARDINAL , which Mr PERSON had nonetheless identified as being that in which the CARDINAL police officers had been patrolling at the time of the incident in question . After the hearing , however , ORG had left in that same vehicle , which had been parked in front of the regional court . The applicants took a photograph , and attached it to their appeal on points of law . They complained , in particular , that ORG \u2019s denial had been accepted by the first - instance court and on appeal without any supporting evidence .","After postponing the hearing several times on account of the absence of the defending parties , ORG examined the ORG appeal on points of law in written proceedings , and dismissed it on DATE . It criticised the applicants for failing to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers . ORG stated that acknowledging that the police officers had failed in their professional obligations in the impugned manner ( attacking and assaulting the applicants ) would be equivalent to recognising , in the context of administrative proceedings , their criminal guilt , which would be contrary to the law . At the same time , if the accusation against the police officers had indeed been confirmed in criminal proceedings , the applicants would have been entitled to compensation , and also to a public apology .","ORG judgment was served on the applicants on DATE .","This part of the application concerns Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON and PERSON ( applicants nos . CARDINAL respectively ) .","On DATE a group of ORG was returning from a religious meeting in the village of GPE , GPE region . At a bus stop they met PERSON . , the deputy governor of the town of PERSON , PERSON , the governor of PERSON , and CARDINAL local residents . CARDINAL of the latter , assaulted Mr PERSON , wounding him on the cheek , and tore a bag containing religious literature and other personal effects from his hands . Then he struck the CARDINAL applicants on the head with a shoulder strap ripped from Mr PERSON \u2019s bag . The CARDINAL governors , who watched the attack , directed insults at the victims . In the end they asked the assailant to desist and left with him ( see GPE and Others , cited above , \u00a7 PERSON ) .","On DATE the applicants filed an administrative complaint with ORG against the PERSON regional administration , the local police chief and the CARDINAL governors concerned . The applicants asked that the officials apologise publicly and that the regional administration take disciplinary proceedings against them . They also claimed compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) .","On DATE the court dismissed the ORG complaint on the grounds that the governors had not been under a legal obligation to ensure the maintenance of public order . It concluded that it had not been shown that they themselves had organised the attack in question or had personally attacked or assaulted the applicants . The decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . The regional court held that ensuring the maintenance of public order did not amount to a \u201c pressing obligation \u201d on the governors .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicants , using the same grounds as the regional court .","This part of the application concerns Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( applicants nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","On DATE a group of NORP religious extremists led by PERSON PERSON , a leader of the GPE movement , burst into PERSON ORG \u2019s flat , where a congregation of ORG was holding a meeting . The assailants ordered ORG , whom they described as NORP - insulters and NORP , to hand over their religious literature and to leave the LOC . The GPE \u2019s Witnesses protested , referring to provisions of the LAW , but were nonetheless obliged to comply . PERSON was insulted by Mr PERSON , who then pulled on his tie to strangle him .","After confiscating religious literature from the people present in the flat , the attackers opened the cupboards and took out similar literature , first throwing it on the floor , and then out of the window . The benches used by the Jehovah \u2019s Witnesses during the meeting were also thrown out of the window .","The attack was recorded on video . Moreover , an individual wearing civilian clothes , who , according to the applicants , was a police officer named PERSON , appears on the screen . He stands in the courtyard , observes the Jehovah \u2019s Witnesses being chased from the flat and allows a child to leave , carrying a bench that has been thrown from a window .","The applicants assessed the pecuniary damage caused by the attack in question at about ORG CARDINAL ( audio - visual equipment , religious literature , benches , and other items ) . They submitted an audit report , dated DATE , in support of their claim .","On DATE after the above incident the same group of attackers publicly burned the religious literature taken from PERSON home at the main market in GPE . That scene was also captured in the abovementioned recording . According to the applicants , the police officers patrolling the market did not react .","DATE . On DATE the Jehovah \u2019s Witnesses who had been victims of the attack , including the CARDINAL applicants named above , as well as the representation of ORG in GPE and the Union of GPE \u2019s Witnesses , filed an administrative complaint with ORG against ORG , Mr Th . A. , the chief of NORP police , Mr GPE , the head of the police station involved in the case , and Mr GPE , a police officer . They alleged that the officials had failed in their professional obligations and had breached ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .","NORP In particular , the applicants asked that ORG issue a public apology , in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , and bring disciplinary proceedings against the above - named police officers . The applicants also claimed compensation in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage , in application of LAW , and asked that a directive be sent to all police stations in the country , stating that the rights of GPE \u2019s Witnesses were to be respected . Drawing the court \u2019s attention to the spread of violence against ORG Witnesses throughout the country , they asked that it rule on their case in accordance with the law , as , in their opinion , a proper judicial decision could help to halt such violence .","The court heard the CARDINAL applicants and other GPE \u2019s Witnesses who had been victims of the attack . They all complained about the passivity of the police officers present at the scene . PERSON stated that when the attack had begun , he had gone to a police station located CARDINAL metres from his building . After some delay , CARDINAL police officers had accompanied him back to the scene . He had seen that books and furniture were being thrown out of the window . The police officers had taken no action . He had then run up the stairs to his flat to retrieve some money that he kept in a cupboard . He had found that the cupboard door had been broken and that CARDINAL had been stolen . Mr PERSON complained that the police officers had not intervened to prevent the violation of his private property or to protect the victims .","PERSON stated that immediately after leaving the flat on the attackers\u2019 orders , he had gone to the police station , where he had learned that the alarm had already been raised . He had asked that police officers return with him , in order to \u201c intimidate \u201d the attackers . The officers had refused to accompany him .","Mr PERSON stated that during the attack he had telephoned the police from the flat , but that the person on the other end of the telephone had hung up immediately . He had then been obliged to comply with the orders to leave the flat . He had managed to grab his bag back from an attacker who had taken it .","On DATE the court decided to strike the case out of its list of cases , on the basis of a letter , allegedly signed by the applicants , withdrawing their complaint . On DATE they lodged an appeal , stating that the signatures on the letter in question had been forged and that they had never withdrawn their complaint . On DATE the appeal court overturned the decision of CARDINAL DATE and proceedings resumed .","Questioned by the Mtatsminda - Krtsanisi District Court , a representative of ORG argued that it had not been established that the police had been present at the scene and asked that the ORG complaint be dismissed . The police officers themselves did not attend the hearings on DATE . Obliged to rule in their absence , on DATE the court dismissed the complaint as ill - founded . It considered it established that the applicants had been attacked by a group of individuals led by Mr Bluashvili on DATE . It considered , however , that the applicants had not demonstrated that the police had been present at the scene or that they had watched passively as acts had been committed against property and the applicants\u2019 rights to freedom of religion . Accordingly , it had not been established that the police officers had failed to perform their professional duties within the meaning of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . Nonetheless , in the same decision , the court acknowledged that , after having been informed of the attack , the police officers had gone to the scene , which had resulted in a decision to place the attackers under investigation . According to the court , in the context of the latter criminal proceedings , it would be lawful for the applicants to submit a claim for compensation against the individuals who had infringed their rights . The decision made no reference to the burning of literature at NORP market .","On DATE the NORP ORG upheld the first - instance judgment , repeating the grounds used in it . Neither the representative of ORG nor the police officers appeared .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants . The court concluded that the fact of a breach of duty by the police , either intentionally or by negligence , had not been proven ."],"violated_articles":["14","9"],"violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172329","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FERNANDES DE OLIVEIRA v. PORTUGAL","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant \u2019s son , PERSON , was born in DATE . He had a history of mental disorders and of alcohol and drug addiction , and since DATE had spent several periods in ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in ORG : from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE ; from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from CARDINAL to DATE ; from DATE ; from CARDINAL DATE ; from DATE to DATE ; and from DATE .","According to PERSON \u2019s clinical records , in DATE doctors told the applicant that she should seek an order for her son \u2019s compulsory confinement . During his hospitalisation in DATE the doctor treating PERSON instructed that he must not be permitted to leave the unit in which he was hospitalised .","During CARDINAL of the periods he spent in hospital , PERSON was authorised to spend DATE at home with his family DATE during the period from DATE to DATE , and CARDINAL weekends during the period from DATE . During those CARDINAL periods , PERSON also escaped from the ORG premises several times and sometimes went to the applicant \u2019s house .","On DATE PERSON was voluntarily admitted to the ORG , upon medical advice , because he had attempted to commit suicide .","On DATE PERSON went home for DATE to spend GPE with the applicant and other members of his family , despite the reluctance of the doctor .","At TIME the applicant took PERSON to the emergency ward of ORG because he had drunk a large amount of alcohol . According to the observation record completed by the emergency services , PERSON had behaved recklessly during DATE because he had got drunk . They added that although PERSON had a history of mental weakness , depressive episodes and recurrent suicide attempts , those characteristics had not been observed DATE . PERSON was subsequently sent back to the same HSC ward in which he was hospitalised .","On DATE PERSON was kept under medical observation for the whole day . He was given medication and his state of health improved . He got up to dine and to welcome visiting family members .","On DATE the hospital staff noted that TIME PERSON \u2019s behaviour had been calm and he had been walking around the unit in which he had been hospitalised . He had had lunch and an afternoon snack .","At TIME the applicant called the hospital . She was told to call back later , during the afternoon snack , as her son was not inside the building at that time . She was assured that TIME he had been standing at the door and he looked fine .","At TIME it was noticed that PERSON had not appeared for dinner , and a nurse informed the head nurse of his absence . The hospital staff then initiated searches in the areas of the ORG premises where patients were allowed to walk around freely , such as the cafeteria and the park .","At TIME the coordinating nurse ( enfermeiro coordenador ) telephoned the applicant and told her that PERSON had not shown up for dinner .","At some time TIME the hospital reported PERSON \u2019s disappearance to ORG ( ORG ) and the applicant .","It is not known at what time PERSON left the hospital LOC and followed a footpath towards the applicant \u2019s house . At QUANTITY he committed suicide by jumping in front of a train near the ORG LOC .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action with ORG do ORG ) against the ORG under LAW ( a\u00e7\u00e3o de responsabilidade civil extracontratual por ato de gest\u00e3o p\u00fablica ) , seeking pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages of MONEY ( ORG ) .","The applicant claimed that her son had been treated at the ORG for mental disorders on several occasions ; the first actual hospitalisation had been in DATE . He had been admitted to the hospital on DATE because he had attempted to commit suicide . The fact that her son had been able to leave the hospital LOC on DATE during his hospitalisation had led the applicant to conclude that the hospital staff had acted negligently in the performance of their duties . Because of his suicide attempts and mental condition , her son should have been under medical supervision and the hospital staff should have prevented him from leaving the hospital premises . She further claimed that the ORG should have erected fencing around the boundaries of its LOC in order to prevent patients from leaving . The fact that those duties had not been complied with reflected the poor organisation of the ORG services . Lastly , she argued that the ORG lacked a mechanism for checking the presence of patients and an emergency procedure capable of detecting a patient \u2019s absence , which would allow the hospital to take the measures required to ensure that patients returned safely .","On DATE the court gave a preliminary decision ( despacho saneador ) , specifying which facts were considered to be established and which remained to be established .","On DATE the court ordered that an expert report be drawn up on PERSON \u2019s clinical condition and the supervision measures required by that condition .","On DATE a psychiatrist appointed by ORG ) submitted his report , the relevant parts of which read :","\u201c ...","Although alcohol dependence was the predominant diagnosis , several other diagnoses were considered . In particular , dependent personality ( personalidade dependente ) ; delirious outbreaks ( surto delirante ) ; schizophrenia ; manic - depressive psychosis ( psicose man\u00edaco - depressiva ) ...","PERSON \u2019s clinical history enables us to consider him an ill person with recurring relapses in excessive alcohol consumption ... but also another kind of symptomatology ...","...","There is no detailed reference in his clinical records to his psychopathological condition on DATE ...","...","The [ plaintiff \u2019s ] son suffered from disorders which caused depressive behaviour with a significant inclination to suicide .","Taking into account the clinical documents , his clinical condition may have led to another attempt to commit suicide , which turned out to be fatal .","In addition , the polymorphism of the patient \u2019s psychiatric condition should be emphasised . A psychopathological condition such as the patient \u2019s has a bad prognosis and suicide is frequently preceded by an attempt ( or attempts ) to commit suicide . ... Indeed , it must be clarified that ... it should also be considered that the hypothesis of [ his ] diagnosis could be of a borderline personality disorder [ perturba\u00e7\u00e3o de personalidade borderline ] ...","...","There is reference to a multiplicity of diagnoses , all of them capable of enhancing the risk of the patient \u2019s suicide ( and also of suicidal behaviour ) .","...","The clinical history and psychopathological framework [ quadro psicopatol\u00f3gico ] , for the reasons already mentioned , would predict future suicidal behaviour ; thus the occurrence of suicide is not surprising .","With regard to prevention , containment and surveillance measures must without a doubt be adopted . But with a patient like this one , these measures are difficult to adopt ( see for example his requests to be discharged despite the doctor \u2019s opinion , which is substantiated ) and never enough because of the high potential for suicide .","...","The fact that the patient had been on antidepressant treatment for DATE , had wandered around the hospital without ever endangering his life ... does not mean that the probability of that event ( suicide ) was negligible . However , it was hardly avoidable . \u201d","The first hearing took place on DATE . The applicant and the psychiatrist who had issued the medical opinion gave evidence at the hearing .","At CARDINAL hearings the court heard evidence from different witnesses , inter alia , the applicant \u2019s daughter \u2013 PERSON \u2019s sister ; nurses , doctors and medical auxiliaries who had worked for or were still working for the ORG , some of whom had started their shift at TIME on DATE ; a social worker employed by the ORG since DATE , who had had contact with PERSON ; and the train driver . The court also analysed several documents attached to PERSON \u2019s clinical file from the ORG .","On DATE the court conducted an on - site inspection .","On DATE the court held a hearing at which it adopted a decision concerning the facts .","On DATE ORG delivered a judgment in which it ruled against the applicant . If found that although her son had been suffering from a mental disorder , there was no causal link between his wholly unexpected suicide and an alleged violation of the hospital staff \u2019s duty of care . It noted , in particular , that the applicant \u2019s son had been suffering from a psychiatric disorder which had never been properly diagnosed , either because the symptoms were complex or because he had been addicted to alcohol and drugs . In this regard , it pointed out that over DATE the applicant \u2019s son had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and depression . However , only after his death and as a consequence of an expert opinion requested from ORG during the proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was there an agreement that he had been suffering from a severe personality disorder . The court established that he had last been admitted to hospital after a suicide attempt . However , it considered that despite the possibility that people diagnosed with mental diseases such as that of the applicant \u2019s son might commit suicide , during DATE before his death he had not shown any behaviour or mood which could have led the hospital staff to suspect that DATE would be different from DATE . The court thus concluded that the hospital staff could not have foreseen the suicide of the applicant \u2019s son and that his behaviour had been absolutely unexpected and unpredictable . With regard to the applicant \u2019s argument that the hospital should have supervised her son more effectively and erected fences or other barriers around the hospital LOC , the court pointed out that the current paradigm in the treatment of mentally ill patients was to encourage social interaction . The existence of fencing would lead to the stigmatisation and isolation of mentally disabled patients . In the same way , any supervision of patients had to be carried out discreetly . The ORG had a surveillance procedure in place which consisted of verifying the ORG presence at meal and medication times ; this was in compliance with the most recent psychiatric science and respected the ORG right to privacy . With regard to the applicant \u2019s argument that the emergency procedure was non - existent , the court noted that it consisted in alerting the police and the patient \u2019s family . Therefore , the court found that there had been no omission in the duty of care on the part of the hospital .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , claiming that the first - instance court had wrongly assessed the evidence , that its findings of fact had been incorrect , and that it had wrongly interpreted the law .","On DATE the Attorney ORG attached to ORG , called upon to issue an opinion on the appeal , held that the first - instance judgment should be reversed . In their opinion , given that PERSON \u2019s medical record stated that he had attempted to commit suicide on different occasions and considering that he had last been admitted to hospital because of a suicide attempt , a new attempt to commit suicide was likely and should have been foreseen . They noted that the hospital had failed to implement a supervision regime capable of preventing the applicant \u2019s son from leaving the hospital LOC . They also argued that the increased monitoring of the patient was part of the hospital \u2019s duty of care and did not detract from the \u201c open door \u201d regime . They concluded that the monitoring measures put in place by the ORG were not adequate for an establishment categorised as a psychiatric hospital or for a patient with PERSON \u2019s characteristics .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , upholding the legal and factual findings of ORG . ORG held that the ORG had not breached any duty of care , as there had been no indication which could have led the hospital staff to suspect that the applicant \u2019s son would try to commit suicide , namely by leaving the hospital LOC . ORG took into account that during previous periods of hospitalisation the applicant \u2019s son had also left the hospital LOC , and that no link had been established between those \u201c escapes \u201d and a particular risk of suicide in so far as they had only been able to establish the existence of a single suicide attempt , on DATE . ORG considered that the counting of patients at meal and medication times was sufficient and had allowed the hospital staff to verify PERSON \u2019s attendance during lunch and TIME snack on DATE . It concluded that there had been no anomaly in the functioning of the ORG , nor could any anomaly be attributed to either the lack of security fences or walls , or the method of counting patients .","In a dissenting opinion , CARDINAL of the judges argued that the hospital should have secured the LOC in some way in order to fulfil its duties of care and supervision . By not doing so , it had allowed patients to leave easily without being discharged , thus breaching those duties . As such , that omission had been the cause of the \u201c escape \u201d and suicide of the applicant \u2019s son .","The ORG is located outside GPE on QUANTITY of land , distant from any urban or industrial areas . It is part of ORG and ORG .","According to an on - site inspection made by ORG on DATE in the course of the proceedings against the hospital , the ORG has CARDINAL buildings dedicated to each hospital department . The grounds of the ORG do not have security fences or walls of any other kind . The buildings are surrounded by green areas with trees and other vegetation , and the different buildings are accessed by means of roadways ( arruamentos ) and paths ( passeios ) , which are also surrounded by trees and other vegetation . The main entrance to the ORG has a barrier ( cancela ) and a security guard . CARDINAL of the possible exits from the hospital LOC leads to a shortcut towards a railway station platform ( apeadeiro ferrovi\u00e1rio ) . This shortcut is accessed by taking the road behind building no . CARDINAL . The station platform is around a fifteen to twenty minutes\u2019 walk from that part of the ORG \u2019s premises .","Pursuant to the guidelines prepared by the ORG , meals are taken in the hospital cafeteria and patients must remain there until DATE . Patients are not allowed to leave the department without informing the relevant nurse in advance . An afternoon snack is usually provided at TIME","According to articles which have been published in the media in DATE , several patients have managed to escape from the ORG \u2019s LOC since DATE . Some of them were found and taken back to the hospital and others were found dead . For example , different local and national media have reported as follows :","( i ) on DATE the body of a patient who had escaped DATE was found close to the hospital LOC ( in ORG ) ;","( ii ) on DATE a man escaped from the ORG and was hit by a car after jumping in front of it ( in PERSON ) ;","( iii ) on DATE the body of a patient who had escaped from the hospital DATE was found in a river ( in ORG ) ;","( iv ) on DATE a patient who had been involuntarily hospitalised in the ORG escaped ( in ORG ) ;","( v ) in DATE CARDINAL different patients escaped from the hospital ; CARDINAL of them was located by the police after stealing a car and another was found dead in a nearby river ( in bombeirospontopt ) ;","( vi ) on DATE a patient escaped from the ORG \u2019s premises and attacked CARDINAL police officers with a hoe ( in ORG ) ;","( vii ) on DATE CARDINAL patients escaped from the ORG and stole a car by ousting the driver ( in TviCARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146549","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"UTSMIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , PERSON , PERSON and Ms PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON . They were represented before the ORG by lawyers of ORG . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants are close relatives of Mr PERSON ( also spelt PERSON ) PERSON , who was born in DATE , PERSON , who was born in DATE and ORG ( also known as ORG Ansarova , who was born in DATE . Mr PERSON and PERSON are married , and PERSON is their daughter . The first applicant is the mother of Mr PERSON and the second applicant is his sister . The third applicant is the mother of PERSON .","At the material time , Mr PERSON lived with his wife and daughter in a block of flats in FAC in PERSON . He used to work at a local police station , but became unemployed shortly before the events .","According to the applicants , at TIME on DATE an ORG accompanied by a convoy of military vehicles arrived in FAC , PERSON . A large number of masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns got out of the vehicles , cordoned off the area and broke into the family \u2019s flat . The servicemen spoke unaccented NORP . They took Mr PERSON and his wife and daughter outside , put them in the ORG and drove away .","The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .","The applicants did not witness the abduction ; their account is based on their relatives\u2019 and ORG recollection of the events .","The Government did not contest the facts as presented by the applicants , but at the same time pointed out that there was no unequivocal evidence confirming the alleged involvement of ORG servicemen in the incident .","On an unspecified date in DATE or DATE the applicants complained of their relatives\u2019 abduction to the NORP district department of the interior ( ROVD ) in PERSON . On DATE it opened a search file ( no . CARDINAL ) in respect of Mr PERSON . It is unclear whether files were also opened in respect of PERSON and PERSON .","It is also unclear whether any criminal investigation into the abduction was initiated DATE . According to the applicants , owing to the overall instability in the region at the material time , an investigation was opened at some point in DATE , but then the criminal case file was lost in unknown circumstances .","Following a complaint by the first applicant , on DATE the PERSON town prosecutor \u2019s office opened a criminal case ( no . CARDINAL ) to investigate the abduction .","On DATE the first applicant was questioned and granted victim status in the criminal case . She stated that on an unspecified date she had learnt from Mr PERSON neighbours that on DATE CARDINAL armed men had taken away her son , his wife and their daughter . His wife PERSON had been in a dispute with a criminal gang leader , \u201c GPE , whose gang had carried out criminal activities in the area and who had promised to take revenge on her . DATE after that conflict the family had been abducted . According to the applicants , at some point later \u201c FAC had been killed as a result of a blood feud .","On DATE the investigation was suspended .","On DATE the investigation was resumed and on DATE the first applicant was questioned again . She reiterated her previous statement .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . The applicants were informed thereof .","DATE and DATE the applicants did not contact the authorities .","On DATE the third applicant complained to ORG of her relatives\u2019 abduction . On CARDINAL DATE her complaint was forwarded to ORG .","On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG in PERSON , requesting that the investigation be resumed and carried out effectively .","On DATE the investigation was resumed and several witnesses were questioned ; no new information was obtained .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again . The applicants were informed thereof .","On DATE ORG in PERSON rejected the ORG complaint of CARDINAL DATE , stating that the investigation had been resumed on DATE .","The investigation is still pending ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147030","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MYSIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No 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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft of documents and death threat and later charged with several counts of murder and robbery . While in police custody , he was allegedly subjected to beatings .","On DATE the applicant was placed in remand prison NORP in GPE .","After an initial period of detention in ordinary cells of the prison , on DATE the applicant was transferred to a special section designed for detention of persons sentenced to life imprisonment . The applicant stayed in several cells of that section until his departure to a correctional colony on DATE .","The parties disagreed on many aspects of the material conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention during that period .","In the ORG \u2019s submission , the applicant was accommodated in CARDINAL cells :","cell CARDINAL , from DATE to CARDINAL September CARDINAL ;","cell CARDINAL , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ;","cell CARDINAL , from DATE ;","cell CARDINAL , from DATE to DATE .","All cells measured QUANTITY m and had CARDINAL sleeping places . The applicant stayed in them either alone or with another detainee , but the design capacity was never exceeded .","Each cell had a window covered by metal bars which allowed sufficient access to natural light and fresh air . CARDINAL light bulbs , CARDINAL for TIME and another for TIME - time lighting were installed in the cells . Running water was available at all times . Toilet pans were located at CARDINAL from beds and dining tables and separated from the rest of the cells by a QUANTITY brick partition . The applicant was allowed TIME - long outdoor exercise . He could take a shower and wash his clothing once DATE .","NORP In support of their position , the Government produced a number of certificates and statements issued by the director of remand prison NORP on DATE showing the numbers of the cells where the applicant stayed , the frequency of outdoor exercise and visits to the shower , as well as descriptions of the cells , their equipment and sanitary installations . The certificates were accompanied by copies of the applicant \u2019s cell record , the prison population register and the schedules of outdoor exercise and sanitary measures covering the entire period of the applicant \u2019s detention .","Further to the ORG \u2019s request , the ORG submitted a floor plan of the facility , containing indications of the cell surface .","The applicant disputed the ORG \u2019s submissions concerning the cells . He provided the following information in that regard :","cell CARDINAL , held from DATE ;","cell CARDINAL , held from DATE to DATE ;","cell CARDINAL , held from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ;","cell CARDINAL , held from CARDINAL to DATE ;","cell CARDINAL , held from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ;","cell CARDINAL , held from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","According to the applicant , the cells presented the following characteristics :","cell CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m. The applicant stayed there alone ;","cell CARDINAL measured QUANTITY inmates ;","cell CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m and accommodated QUANTITY persons ;","cell CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m. The applicant stayed there alone ;","cell CARDINAL measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL inmates ;","cell CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m and hosted CARDINAL detainees .","The applicant did not provide any information about the number of sleeping places in the cells .","All cells were located in the semi - basement of the remand prison . They were poorly lit and ventilated . Metal shutters on the windows blocked access to natural light and fresh air . Heating did not function . Drinking water was available only on request from the prison guards . The toilet pan was not separated from the living area . The courtyard for outdoor exercise was very small .","To corroborate his claims , the applicant submitted statements by CARDINAL detainees from the adjacent cells who also stated that the applicant had been ill - treated by prison guards .","On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to the regional prison authority about the conditions of his detention . In response to the complaint , on DATE the authority admitted that the cell where the applicant was held had to be repaired and directed the management of the prison to transfer the applicant to another cell .","On DATE the applicant complained to the regional prosecutor about the conditions of his detention . He claimed , in particular , that there were metal shutters on windows , that the toilet pan was not separated from the rest of the cell and that the heating was too weak . Following an inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegations , on DATE the district prosecutor concluded that \u201c the [ remand prison ] cells [ were being ] renovated and properly maintained \u201d and refused to open a criminal investigation into the matter . The applicant complained to a court .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint against the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE . The applicant appealed against the decision of DATE , but provided no further information about the outcome of these proceedings .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged another complaint with the regional prison authority , claiming , in particular , that the conditions of his detention had not improved . On DATE the authority replied that the applicant \u2019s cell had been recently renovated and satisfied the legal standards and that the applicant had no complaints in that regard ."],"violated_articles":["13"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177427","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MARKINY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+P1-1-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155165","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"SABEV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a life sentence in FAC . He was represented before ORG by PERSON from GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183353","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF AMERKHANOV v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Kazakhstan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest);Violation of Article 5+5-5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) (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)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE , GPE .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions , he lived in GPE , GPE until DATE . DATE the applicant was constantly harassed by the police , taken into police custody and ill - treated . In DATE he was asked to go to a police station as a friend of his had informed the police that the applicant had witnessed a fight between him and another friend of the applicant . On DATE a statement was taken from him by the police . DATE he was once again invited to the police station , where , this time , he was beaten by the police . Subsequently , he was also accused of forcing a girl to worship in the NORP manner and of raping her . He was eventually released from police custody . The applicant considered that he had been subjected to ill - treatment because he was a practising NORP who worshipped and who wore a beard . On DATE the applicant left GPE and arrived in GPE . He then went to GPE twice and also to GPE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant re - entered GPE on a tourist visa .","On DATE with a view to requesting a residence permit in GPE , the applicant went to the GPE police headquarters , where he was arrested . The Government submitted that ( i ) subsequent to his arrival in GPE CARDINAL DATE , an entry ban was issued in respect of the applicant , as he was considered to constitute a threat to national security , and ( ii ) he was detained with a view to his deportation .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the ORG Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre .","On unspecified dates the applicant applied to the national authorities and to the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) , asking to be recognised as a refugee .","On DATE a police officer conducted an interview with the applicant in the context of his application to be granted asylum .","On DATE the applicant was notified by the police that his asylum application had been rejected .","On DATE the ORG issued an asylum - seeker certificate to the applicant .","On DATE CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s representatives , Mr A. Y\u0131lmaz , lodged an objection to the decision to reject the applicant \u2019s asylum application with the police department responsible for foreigners , borders and asylum attached to the GPE police headquarters . The lawyer asked the authorities to review their decision and to conduct a second interview with the applicant .","On DATE lodged an application with ORG for his client \u2019s release . The applicant \u2019s lawyer also stressed that the applicant was being kept in poor detention conditions . He received no response to his application .","On DATE the police conducted a second interview with the applicant , during which he claimed that he would be exposed to a real risk of death and duress at the hands of the police if deported to GPE . In his statement , the applicant claimed that he had already been ill - treated by the police in GPE and that the authorities had imprisoned religious people like him on false accusations .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE Mr A. Y\u0131lmaz lodged CARDINAL further applications with the police for his client to be released . He submitted that the applicant was being sought for by the GPE authorities for political reasons and that he would be persecuted on the basis of his religious convictions and subjected to torture and ill - treatment if deported to his country . In support of his petition dated CARDINAL DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted a document showing that the applicant was being sought for by the public authorities in GPE on suspicion of having committed the offence of \u201c hooliganism \u201d , proscribed by LAW of LAW , as in force at the material time . He also submitted a copy of a page of a newspaper published in GPE in DATE according to which an arrest warrant had been issued in respect of the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was released from the NORP Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre . The applicant was ordered to go and live in the province of ORG pending the determination of his asylum application .","On DATE the applicant went to ORG , where he lived until DATE .","On DATE the applicant was granted a residence permit , valid until DATE .","On DATE ORG attached to ORG requested ORG ( also attached to ORG ) to provide information regarding the applicant , noting that he was sought for by the prosecuting authorities and the ORG bureau of GPE as he was suspected of having committed an offence in that country . On DATE the deputy head of the Foreigners , Borders and ORG informed ORG that the applicant had requested asylum and was residing in ORG and that on DATE a further entry ban had been issued in respect of him after the applicant had been prosecuted for \u201c hooliganism \u201d . The Foreigners , ORG and ORG requested the ORG department not to provide any information to the GPE authorities , in the interests of the safety of the applicant and his family members in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was served with a document informing him that his asylum application had been rejected on DATE and that he could not benefit from subsidiary protection either . The document informed him that he was banned from entering NORP territory and that if he attempted to enter NORP territory , he would be deported . On DATE the applicant was detained .","On DATE Mr A. Y\u0131lmaz lodged CARDINAL applications with ORG requesting that his client be released . The lawyer noted that he had received a phone call from the applicant , who had stated that he would be deported to GPE , where he would be subjected to torture .","On DATE the applicant was deported to GPE .","In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE , PERSON submitted that the applicant had been transferred to the custody of GPE \u2019s security forces upon his return to GPE and had then been remanded in custody in FAC . The lawyer stated that he did not have information supported by any document as to whether the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment in GPE .","On DATE PERSON lodged an application with ORG for the annulment of the decisions of the Ministry rejecting the applicant \u2019s asylum application and to deport the applicant from GPE . He requested a stay of execution of the decision to deport the applicant , pending the proceedings before ORG . In support of his petition , the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted a number of documents to ORG , including a document downloaded from the NORP police department website , according to which an arrest warrant had been issued in respect of the applicant . The document , which was also submitted to the ORG , contained the applicant \u2019s name , photograph and the charge brought against him ( \u201c hooliganism \u201d , under LAW of LAW ) . He also submitted the newspaper page ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which he had already submitted to the police on CARDINAL DATE and according to which an arrest warrant had been issued in respect of the applicant .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the request for a stay of execution in respect of the applicant \u2019s deportation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the application lodged by the applicant on DATE . In its judgment , the administrative court noted that according to information obtained from ORG ( PERSON ) , the applicant was involved in international terrorism and had carried out terrorist activities when he had been in GPE . ORG further noted that the applicant \u2019s asylum application had been rejected as the administrative authorities had found that there had not been any basis for the applicant \u2019s fear of persecution and that he had not met the conditions for being considered a refugee . On the basis of the documents in the case file , ORG concluded that the administrative decision to reject the applicant \u2019s asylum application and to deport the applicant from GPE had been lawful .","Following an appeal by the applicant , on DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained at the ORG . The applicant claimed that the centre had been overcrowded at the time of his detention . He had not been allowed exercise outdoor or any other type of social activity throughout his detention . The applicant further alleged that there had been hygiene problems at the centre and that the quantity of the food provided had also been poor .","The Government submitted that the ORG Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre where the applicant had been held had a capacity of CARDINAL persons and that a total of CARDINAL persons had been held during the period DATE and DATE . 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 the first floor , measuring CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and QUANTITY m. On the second floor there were CARDINAL dormitories measuring CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and QUANTITY m. There was a total of CARDINAL bunk beds in the CARDINAL rooms reserved for male detainees and all rooms received natural light . 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 if the physical conditions and the number of staff available allowed . 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 and cleaning products , such as soap , were provided on a regular basis ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162201","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KASHLEV v. ESTONIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Witnesses)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He was charged with causing serious health damage . According to the charges , at TIME on DATE , he , together with GPE , had repeatedly hit PERSON on the head outside a nightclub on FAC . L. had fallen to the ground and had then been kicked several times . He had sustained serious head injuries which had been life - threatening and caused him permanent health damage .","Criminal proceedings in respect of GPE were discontinued after his death in a car accident on DATE .","ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) heard evidence from the applicant and CARDINAL witnesses and examined certain other evidence such as a written forensic expert opinion on PERSON \u2019s injuries , a telephone activity report concerning the time and location of the applicant \u2019s communications , identification reports based on photographs and a video - recording from a closed circuit television camera near the scene . It also examined GPE \u2019s statements given during the preliminary investigation .","ORG found that the witness statements were incoherent and that some were contradictory . The witnesses had given different accounts of the events , regarding the number of persons who had been at the scene and attacked PERSON , as well as the NORP actions during the scuffle and after PERSON had fallen to the ground . The court noted that according to GPE \u2019s statements given during the preliminary investigation , he had hit PERSON twice , PERSON had fallen to the ground , and the applicant had arrived afterwards . The court had no reason to doubt what GPE had said . It also noted that it could not give less credit to the statements of LANGUAGE \u2013 according to whom the fight had been between PERSON and GPE \u2013 merely because he was a friend of the applicant .","The court rejected witness statements from ORG , GPE and GPE as evidence , as well as identification reports drawn up during the pre - trial investigation identifying the applicant as one of the ( probable ) attackers of the victim , as their statements in the identification reports did not match their statements before the court . It also pointed to the lack of credibility of some of the witness statements , such as PERSON \u2019s statement , which said that she had recognised the applicant \u2019s eye colour and the look in his eyes , but that she had not seen the colour of his jacket .","ORG considered that there was only indirect evidence against the applicant and concluded that it could not be established beyond doubt that he had committed the offence he was charged with . By a judgment of DATE ORG acquitted him .","NORP The prosecutor appealed to ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) . He mainly challenged ORG assessment of the evidence . He did not request a re - examination of the witnesses . He requested that ORG quash ORG judgment and adopt a new judgment convicting the applicant . A copy of the prosecutor \u2019s appeal was sent to the applicant and his lawyer .","ORG summoned the applicant , his counsel and the prosecutor to a hearing . However , the applicant informed the court in writing that he did not wish to take part and asked for the case to be examined in his absence .","At ORG hearing , which took place on DATE , the applicant \u2019s counsel confirmed that he was aware that the applicant did not wish to take part . The prosecutor did not object to examination of the case in the applicant \u2019s absence . ORG disclosed the records of ORG hearings at the prosecutor \u2019s request , to which the applicant \u2019s counsel did not object . Subsequently , the court heard the parties\u2019 arguments . No requests to summon witnesses were made and no witnesses were examined .","ORG assessed the evidence differently , based on the material in the case file , and found that the applicant \u2019s guilt was established . It considered that it was incorrect to describe the witness statements as contradictory ; rather , the ORG attention had been focused on different details and the scope and precision of the information contained in their statements varied . The court provided a comprehensive analysis of the evidence in its judgment , delivered on DATE , and explained in detail why , and to what extent , it assessed the statements given in ORG differently from the lower court .","Notably , ORG considered that ORG had not been justified in rejecting ORG , ORG and GPE \u2019s statements and identification reports as evidence . In respect of ORG , it noted that at the identification procedure she had recognised the applicant by his eyes and eyebrows . The fact that she could not describe his clothing did not discredit her evidence . The court found that it could not be required of a witness to note everything necessary for criminal proceedings . A person could only focus on a single detail rather than on the full picture . Nor was her evidence discredited by her failure to recognise the applicant at the court hearing , as at court hearings witnesses were in a particularly stressful situation . Similar considerations were applied to PERSON , who , moreover , had recognised the applicant at ORG hearing . The fact that PERSON and PERSON ( another witness ) \u2013 who had been together at the time of the events \u2013 had taken note of different aspects of the events did not render those statements unreliable ; rather , it reflected the fact that the perception and memory of different people differed . Nor did the different expressions used by PERSON at the identification procedure and in court render her statements unreliable . Furthermore , ORG found no radical differences between PERSON \u2019s statements in the identification report and in court , and therefore considered that the rejection of his statements as evidence had been not justified either . In conclusion , ORG considered that ORG , ORG and PERSON \u2019s statements , as well as their identification reports , had to be taken into account and assessed together with the other evidence .","ORG also disagreed with ORG position concerning the reliability of ORG \u2019s statements . It pointed to the fact that his statements , according to which the applicant had arrived at the scene after PERSON had already fallen to the ground , did not match any of the other witness statements . It also noted that the applicant , GPE and GPE had been friends , whereas the other witnesses had had no connection with them . Considering a number of statements by independent witnesses , the court found that GPE had not been credible in assuming full responsibility and noted that there was no way of finding out why he had done so . It also noted that the applicant \u2019s statements had been inconsistent . He had said during the preliminary investigation that he had seen GPE hitting PERSON , whereas in court he had said that he had been further away from the scene and denied having seen anything . The court also referred in that connection to the words heard by witnesses from a person whose appearance corresponded to that of the applicant : \u201c Why then did he come to start a quarrel ? \u201d If the applicant had arrived at the scene after PERSON had been knocked down , he would have known nothing about the reasons and initial stages of the conflict and would have had no reason to express himself in such a way .","ORG noted that since the applicant had acted jointly with another person , it was legally irrelevant which of them had struck PERSON , causing him to fall , although it also referred to PERSON \u2019s statements according to which the last blow had been given by the applicant . The court further analysed at length the subjective element of the offence and concluded that the applicant had acted with the indirect intent of causing serious health damage . Both the intellectual and volitional aspects of intent required under the pertinent case - law had been present in the applicant \u2019s behaviour .","ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , of which he immediately had to serve DATE , the remainder of the sentence being suspended . In sentencing , the court had regard to the fact that the applicant had no previous convictions and that he was a young person in DATE . A short immediate prison sentence gave him a serious warning for the future .","The applicant appealed to ORG . He challenged ORG assessment of the evidence and argued that it had not convincingly substantiated its different conclusion from that of ORG . He pointed out that ORG had not directly verified the evidence ; he referred in that respect to the conduct of the witnesses , which was of paramount importance in assessing their credibility but which was not reflected in the record of the court hearing . In particular , he referred to PERSON \u2019s hesitant behaviour at the hearing . He considered that ORG had assessed the evidence in a selective and arbitrary manner and had given the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution .","On DATE ORG decided not to examine the applicant \u2019s appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184823","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ANIFER v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","NORP The applicant complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161001","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MILENKOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice;Criminal offence);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE the Leskovac police informed the local minor - offence judge and the public prosecutor \u2019s office about a violent incident between the applicant and a certain PERSON that had occurred on DATE in a neighbourhood of ORG .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the misdemeanour court judge in PERSON ( sudija GPE organa za prekr\u0161aje u ORG ) found that at TIME on DATE in PERSON had verbally insulted the applicant \u2019s children , and the applicant had then punched him several times on the head and injured him . The judge concluded that these actions had been in breach of public order and peace and had thus been contrary to Article PERSON ) of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below under Relevant domestic law and practice ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c Defendant[s ] GPE ... and PERSON are guilty in that at TIME on DATE , in GPE street in GPE , [ the former first swore and insulted the applicant \u2019s children ] , while the latter punched PERSON several times on the head and injured him ... \u201d","Each of them was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) plus ORG CARDINAL for costs ( at that time equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) in total ) , which in the event of non - compliance would be converted into a prison term of DATE .","After an investigation had been conducted , on DATE the ORG ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) charged the applicant with the criminal offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm on GPE in connection with the above incident , contrary to LAW . The ORG , as well as the applicant and his family in the capacity of private prosecutors , lodged separate indictments against GPE for several offences . All the indictments were joined in the same proceedings before ORG .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . PERSON was found guilty and fined for insulting the applicant \u2019s family and causing minor bodily injuries to the applicant \u2019s mother . The court ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL in court costs , while each party was to cover its own costs and expenses .","The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c Defendant PERSON ... is guilty in that","at CARDINAL and TIME on DATE in FAC ... he punched [ GPE ] on the left side of the face and , after knocking PERSON down , he continued punching him in the head , thereby causing him a number of grievous bodily injuries dangerous for life , such as : bruising of both eyelids ( black eye ) , bruising of the left cornea , and nose abrasions ... \u201d","The applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that he had already been punished in respect of the same incident by the ORG misdemeanour judge , with the result that the principle of ne bis in idem had been violated ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment in respect of the applicant and dismissed the charges against PERSON as statute - barred . As regards the principle of ne bis in idem , the court held that the applicant had been found guilty of a misdemeanour against public order and peace in the misdemeanour proceedings , whereas he had been convicted of the criminal offence of grievous bodily harm in the criminal proceedings . According to the court , the descriptions of the acts sanctioned therefore clearly differed .","On DATE , ORG converted the prison sentence to house arrest without electronic monitoring .","On DATE ORG amnestied the applicant at his request , finding that the conditions for a statutory amnesty were applicable ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In a subsequent constitutional appeal lodged on CARDINAL DATE the applicant reiterated that he had been tried and punished twice for the same offence , in breach of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG , referring to the reasoning of ORG as \u201c fully acceptable from the constitutional point of view \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded . The decision of ORG was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["P7-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182745","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"DOMINKA v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . At the time he lodged his application he was serving a sentence in FAC . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On TIME of CARDINAL DATE , while walking home together from the centre of the city of ORG , CARDINAL individuals , A and B , were assaulted by C and another person . The assailants pepper - sprayed A and B and unsuccessfully attempted to rob them .","On DATE C was taken to an investigator for questioning . After he had been charged , the investigator questioned him again on DATE while a remand judge examined him on DATE .","In the questionings of CARDINAL and DATE C was assisted by a lawyer . He confessed in all CARDINAL of the questionings that he himself had attempted to rob B while the applicant had allegedly assaulted A.","C stated on the record each time he was questioned that he had not been subjected to any form of physical or psychological pressure by the authorities . The records of the questionings contain no mention of the influence of any drugs or any discussion on that matter . However , neither the applicant nor anybody on his behalf was present .","Following C \u2019s allegations the police searched for the applicant on QUANTITY occasions DATE but were unable to find him .","In a further questioning on DATE , C changed his account of events and denied any involvement in the incident by him or the applicant . He submitted that during his arrest on DATE police officers had presented him with an account of the incident of CARDINAL DATE that had stated that he and the applicant had been involved and that they had made his release dependant on his acceptance of that version of events . As he had wished to go home , he had simply responded by agreeing to it . The questioning of CARDINAL DATE took place in the presence of ORG lawyer and a lawyer for the applicant , who had been charged in connection with the assault in the meantime .","NORP In response to these allegations , on DATE another investigator questioned CARDINAL arresting officers and the investigator who had had contact with C on DATE . C \u2019s lawyer was present , although the applicant \u2019s was not , despite having been duly summoned . The arresting officers and the investigator denied putting any physical or psychological pressure on C , leading him in any other way to present any particular version of the events , or witnessing the use of any such pressure or influence .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant himself had been charged with robbery in connection with the incident of CARDINAL DATE and with another , unrelated offence . However , the charge sheet was served on him only on DATE when he was arrested during a road traffic control .","On DATE a face - to - face confrontation was carried out between C and a certain D , who stated that C had previously confessed to him that he had committed the attempted robbery of CARDINAL DATE together with the applicant . C \u2019s defence counsel was present at the confrontation while neither the applicant nor his counsel were , although the latter had been properly requested to attend .","On DATE the applicant was indicted to stand trial on the charges along with C , who faced a charge of robbery in the same proceedings .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant and C guilty and imposed prison sentences on them . The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","The court observed that the applicant had at all times denied any involvement in the robbery , while C had denied his involvement from DATE .","As for C , in particular , the court noted that he had maintained his allegation of police coercion into making his initial confession . In addition , he had stated that he had been intoxicated while making the confession and that he had confirmed the confession later as he had been concerned about changing his original statement . However , having heard the officers involved in ORG arrest , the court found that the allegation of coercion had not been confirmed . It did not find ORG changed version credible as his participation in the robbery had been proven by his statements of CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE and by B and NORP","As regards the applicant , ORG noted that neither A nor B had identified him . However , he had been incriminated by the early statements of C and by D , as mentioned above .","The applicant challenged the judgment of CARDINAL DATE by way of an appeal to ORG . He argued that his conviction had been based on ORG initial statements , that those statements had been unlawful as evidence and that his conviction had accordingly been arbitrary . However , ORG had completely ignored his arguments on that point .","In particular , the applicant referred to a position taken by the criminal law bench of ORG ( no . PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) that if witness evidence was the only or decisive incriminating evidence , the witness had to be heard or , as the case may be , re - heard after the accused had been charged in order to safeguard the accused \u2019s rights of defence and to adversarial proceedings . He argued that , although formally speaking C was his co - accused and not a witness , mutatis mutandis , the precedent fully applied to his case . Accordingly , ORG initial statements had not been admissible as evidence and the only admissible submissions he had made about the applicant had been those of DATE and afterwards .","The prosecution also appealed , alleging that the first - instance court had erred in the determination of the applicant \u2019s sentence .","On DATE ORG decided on the appeals by increasing the applicant \u2019s sentence to DATE . It held that C \u2019s early statements were not excluded as evidence because CARDINAL of them had been made in the presence of his lawyer and that CARDINAL of those CARDINAL had actually been made before a judge , which meant any coercion was excluded . ORG also found that the statements had not been the only evidence against the applicant , that he had also been incriminated by D and by the fact that the general description of the incident by A and B had corresponded to that in C \u2019s early testimony .","In a subsequent appeal on points of law and constitutional complaint the applicant raised similar arguments to those above . He added specifically that he was not relying on any coercion of C when the latter made his initial statements since any such coercion or lack of it was of relevance for the admissibility of those statements as evidence in relation to C , but was irrelevant in relation to the fact that he himself had been unable to exercise his rights of defence during those statements .","The appeal and constitutional complaint were dismissed on CARDINAL June and CARDINAL DATE . In their respective decisions , ORG and ORG referred to the reasoning behind the lower courts\u2019 decisions , considered that the applicant had merely disagreed with their assessment of the evidence , and found no unlawfulness or arbitrariness in the decisions .","On DATE the applicant applied to have his trial reopened , relying on a ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE which had declared unconstitutional some statutory provisions that had played a role in his sentencing .","A reopening of the trial was allowed and on DATE ORG reduced the applicant \u2019s prison term to DATE . The ruling became final and the applicant finished serving his sentence on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150697","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ERCAN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON NORP , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE respectively and live in GPE , GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","ORG , who intervened in the case in accordance with LAW , were represented by their Agent .","The applicants are relatives of PERSON , who died on DATE while resisting arrest by NORP coastguards . PERSON was the first applicant \u2019s husband , the second applicant \u2019s father , the third applicant \u2019s son and the remaining applicants\u2019 brother . He was working as a fisherman off his home village of GPE , which is located on the seafront at the north - westernmost point of GPE , close to the border with GPE .","Early in DATE ORG in GPE ( \u201c the RBS \u201d ) registered numerous incursions into NORP waters in LOC by NORP fishermen \u2019s vessels . In all cases it informed the NORP border authorities , and the problem was discussed during a bilateral meeting on DATE . Data collected at the observation and radiolocation station in the border village of PERSON showed that one of the most frequent trespassers was the fishing vessel ORG domiciled at the mouth of LOC ( Mutludere ) .","By order of the NORP Minister of Agriculture the fishing of turbot in NORP territorial waters was prohibited DATE and DATE . In order to prevent possible poaching by NORP fishermen , on DATE the head of the ORG detached to the border area a \u201c ORG \u201d , which included CARDINAL coastguards under the command of Chief Inspector PERSON","At TIME on DATE the observation station in PERSON registered a fishing vessel , which had penetrated QUANTITY into NORP territorial waters . The fishermen on board were observed pulling fishing nets out of the water ; it appeared that the nets had been placed there earlier .","At TIME ORG was sent to intercept the vessel . Once the officers approached it , on board an inflatable motorboat , they recognised it as PERSON . There were CARDINAL people on board \u2013 PERSON and CARDINAL of his brothers , ORG and PERSON ( the eighth and ninth applicants ) .","When they spotted the coastguard boat , PERSON and PERSON , who were on deck , started cutting off the nets , and PERSON , at the helm , directed the PERSON towards NORP territorial waters . The coastguard boat caught up with their vessel . Using gesture , and once they were nearer , vocally in NORP and LANGUAGE , the coastguards gave orders to the fishermen to stop . The PERSON did not stop . Instead , PERSON steered it towards the coastguard boat , which was smaller , attempting to overturn and sink it . At the same time , using long wooden boathooks , and once the CARDINAL boats were close enough , PERSON and PERSON repeatedly attempted to hit the coastguards and puncture their boat \u2019s inflatable sides .","On seeing this , Chief Inspector PERSON gave his officers the order to fire warning shots . CARDINAL shots were fired . Although they were aimed into the air and not at anyone , some of them hit the ORG port side and the cabin at the helm . They did not injure anybody on board .","As this did not make the \u00d6mer Reis-CARDINAL stop , and seeing that its crew continued behaving aggressively , attempting to puncture and sink the coastguard boat , Chief Inspector PERSON ordered his officers to board the fishing vessel .","The coastguards were wearing armoured life jackets , which did not permit them to also wear holsters . That is why , upon boarding the \u00d6mer Reis-CARDINAL , they attached their weapons , Scorpio sub - machine guns , to special metal rings on their jackets . As ordered by Chief Inspector PERSON , the guns had their safety catches on . None of the guards had a gun in their hand .","Officer PERSON was the first one to board the fishing vessel , followed by Officer PERSON Their task was to immobilise and handcuff PERSON . They managed to wrestle him to the ground , after which Officer PERSON advanced towards the helm to attempt to stop the vessel . Officer PERSON and PERSON continued struggling on a pile of fishing nets . On several occasions during the fight PERSON attempted to grab Officer PERSON \u2019s gun , which had come unfastened from the ring on his jacket and was hanging by a short cord . Finally , Officer PERSON managed to immobilise PERSON and handcuff him . By that time another officer , ORG , had immobilised PERSON , and Officer PERSON was struggling with PERSON at the helm , attempting to stop the vessel . Chief Inspector PERSON had remained in the coastguard boat . At this point Chief Inspector PERSON received information that the CARDINAL boats were about to enter NORP territorial waters , and ordered his men to release the fishermen .","While Officer PERSON was removing PERSON handcuffs , the latter made sudden abrupt movements , pushing the officer back on to the fishing nets . PERSON immediately jumped forward . At the exact moment when he put his hands on PERSON , CARDINAL gunshots were heard . Officer PERSON heard PERSON groan and looked at his gun . It was between his legs ( he was kneeling ) , entangled in the fishing nets , its muzzle pointing towards PERSON \u2019s back . He took it and saw that it was set at automatic fire . He switched the safety catch back on . He stood up and went to the cabin , where he helped Officer PERSON immobilise PERSON and stop the fishing vessel .","NORP Immediately after that the officers took PERSON on to their boat and called PERSON to say that a man had been injured . Once on land , they transferred PERSON into the ambulance which had arrived . However , he died on the way to hospital .","DATE the \u00d6mer Reis-CARDINAL was towed by a coastguard cutter to the port of GPE .","Criminal proceedings in connection with PERSON death were opened on DATE .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the case inspected the CARDINAL boats involved in the incident . It was noted that the \u00d6mer Reis-CARDINAL was QUANTITY long and QUANTITY wide . CARDINAL dark - red stains were found on the deck . There was also a pile of turbot fishing nets ; when they were moved , CARDINAL cartridge cases fell out of them . On the walls of the small cabin at the helm there were CARDINAL bullet holes . Another bullet was found embedded in the vessel \u2019s port deck .","The coastguard boat was QUANTITY long and QUANTITY wide . Several traces of the impact of hard objects were observed on its left inflatable side .","The coastguards who had participated in the operation were interviewed on DATE . Officer PERSON stated that when the lethal shots were fired he had not initially been aware that they had come from his gun .","Officer PERSON said that after the fatal shots he had seen PERSON \u2019s gun caught in the fishing nets .","Officer PERSON stated that before boarding the fishing vessel he had been hit by one of the fishermen with a boathook . He had not heard the shots which had injured PERSON because at that moment he had been wrestling with PERSON \u2019s brother PERSON . He explained that he and his colleagues had been trained to respond to similar situations . Lastly , he said that he was very familiar with Scorpio sub - machine guns .","The group \u2019s commander , Chief Inspector PERSON , said that he had judged Scorpio sub - machine guns the most appropriate weapons to take for the operation because of their versatility . He explained that all members of the group had also been carrying smaller guns and that in the boat they had had an electroshock Taser . He said that during the operation he had been in constant contact with the observation station in PERSON and the ORG . He had sought and obtained the ORG \u2019s prior approval before ordering his men to fire warning shots .","Officer PERSON was once again examined on DATE , and Chief Inspector PERSON and ORG and GPE were examined on DATE . They reiterated the statements they had made earlier . Chief Inspector PERSON said in addition that he had ordered the warning shots because the fishermen were directly endangering his men \u2019s lives . Officer PERSON explained that he was not very familiar with Scorpio sub - machine guns . He said that he , ORG and PERSON had found these guns awkward to carry , as it had been impossible to wear holsters and they had had to attach the guns to their jackets .","Zayim and LOC were interviewed on DATE . They stated that they had not obeyed the coastguards\u2019 order to stop because they believed that they were still in NORP territorial waters .","They were interviewed again on DATE . PERSON stated that he and his brother PERSON had not attempted to resist arrest . ORG said once again that he believed that the vessel had not left NORP territorial waters . Once the coastguard boat had approached , he had aimed to prevent a clash with it . He had not known what his brothers were doing in the rear part of the boat . Like his brother PERSON , he stated that the CARDINAL of them had done nothing to resist arrest .","The CARDINAL officers who had been on duty at the observation station in GPE in TIME of DATE were interviewed on DATE . They explained that they had observed the PERSON movements , and had kept Chief Inspector PERSON informed of them . They said that they had transferred to the ORG his request to be authorised to order warning shots , had some time later been told by him that a NORP fisherman had been wounded , and had then called an ambulance .","A post - mortem examination of PERSON body was carried out on DATE . It found CARDINAL gunshot wounds , situated close to each other , in the middle part of the back . The bullets had touched the heart , the liver , the lungs and the small intestines , thus causing death . There was another wound on PERSON head , caused by a hard object , which was unrelated to the cause of death .","Zayim and LOC were examined by a doctor on DATE . He observed a number of small bruises on their bodies . In addition , PERSON had a black eye and a small cut close to the left eyebrow .","Officer PERSON was examined on DATE . Both his hands were bruised and swollen .","A ballistics report was drawn up on DATE . It confirmed that the shots which had fatally wounded PERSON had been fired by the gun used by Officer PERSON , and concluded that they had been fired at a distance of CARDINAL . A combined medico - ballistic expert report dated DATE showed in addition that at the moment of the fatal shots PERSON had been lying on his right side , with the upper part of his body bent forwards . The report concluded further that the lethal shots had been fired within a very short time frame .","Several reconstructions of the scene of the incident staged on board the \u00d6mer Reis-CARDINAL showed that Officer PERSON \u2019s gun could have fired a shot without anyone touching the trigger , if it was entangled in the fishing nets and at the moment when Officer PERSON was thrusting his body abruptly forwards . It was also shown to be possible , when the gun was being rubbed against a human body , for its switch to move to automatic mode . Lastly , it was shown that a shot could also be fired when the participant playing the role of the victim in the reconstruction attempted to grab the gun with his left arm stretched behind his back .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case brought charges against Officer PERSON for causing death through negligence .","On DATE he decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings , considering that Officer PERSON had not committed any offence and that PERSON death had been a fortuitous event . The prosecutor pointed out , in particular , that Officer PERSON had been unable to foresee or prevent the firing of the shots .","The first and third applicants ( PERSON wife and mother ) , with the assistance of their legal representative in GPE , lodged an appeal . They argued that Officer PERSON had acted with criminal negligence . Upon their appeal , on DATE the decision of the prosecution was upheld by ORG . However , upon a further appeal by those applicants , on DATE the decision was quashed by ORG , which considered that it had not been sufficiently reasoned and that further evidence needed to be collected .","The prosecutor resumed the investigation of the case and in a new decision of CARDINAL DATE discontinued the criminal proceedings . On the basis of the evidence described above he concluded that Officer PERSON had not himself pulled the trigger of his gun , and that the lethal shots had been fired when PERSON had touched it while wrestling with the officer during his repeated attempts to take hold of the gun , or after the trigger had become entangled in the fishing nets . Either way , PERSON death had been a fortuitous event , which Officer PERSON could not have foreseen or prevented . He had abided by the relevant safety rules , most notably by switching the gun \u2019s safety catch on before boarding the PERSON . It was also significant that PERSON and his brothers had violently resisted arrest .","The first and third applicants appealed , contesting in particular the conclusion that PERSON could have pulled the trigger himself . On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decision , finding that it was not sufficiently reasoned , and remitted the case .","Upon an appeal by the prosecution against ORG decision , on CARDINAL DATE ORG finally upheld the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings . It found that the prosecutor \u2019s decision was well reasoned and that there was no indication that Officer PERSON had committed an offence . It also dismissed the first and third applicants\u2019 argument that Officer PERSON had been negligent because he had not been wearing a holster and , while struggling with PERSON , had left his gun hanging in front of him . It pointed out that Officer PERSON \u2019s health and life were in danger at the material time . Furthermore , he could not be held responsible for the fact that his gun had become unfastened from the ring on his jacket . The main responsibility for the incident was to be borne by PERSON , who had failed to obey the coastguards\u2019 lawful orders .","The bringing of charges against Officer PERSON on DATE sparked a wave of protests by NORP , who called the prosecutor in charge of the case \u201c a traitor \u201d and Officer PERSON \u201c a hero \u201d . Journalists in GPE created an \u201c initiative committee \u201d in defence of the officer and adopted a declaration , stating that the bringing of charges against him \u201c would have a demotivating effect \u201d on the border police . On unspecified dates in DATE this declaration was sent to ORG , the President of the Republic , the Speaker of ORG , and other bodies . The \u201c initiative committee \u201d also started collecting signatures in support of Officer PERSON According to reports in the local media CARDINAL people signed the petition . According to the same reports , the mayors of GPE and PERSON and the president of the municipal council of GPE also signed the document .","NORP In DATE the municipal council of GPE made Officer PERSON , as well as his colleagues who had participated in the operation of DATE , honorary citizens of the city .","In DATE , following ORG decision of DATE remitting the case for further investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , members of ORG representing the GPE constituency sent a letter to ORG , urging it to intervene in the criminal proceedings . Also in DATE the local newspaper PERSON claimed that the President of the Republic had met Officer PERSON \u2019s father and had promised to do whatever was in his power to ensure that his son would not be brought to trial .","ORG , in a judgment of DATE , upheld by ORG on DATE , convicted PERSON and ORG of disorderly conduct and poaching on DATE . PERSON was also convicted of causing a minor bodily injury to Officer PERSON , whom he had hit with a wooden boathook . Both brothers were sentenced to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE . PERSON was ordered to pay Officer PERSON MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184519","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF M\u0102T\u0102SARU AND SAVI\u021aCHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants , who are husband and wife , were born in DATE and live in GPE .","On DATE the applicants were involved in a street protest as a result of which they were arrested and detained for TIME and fortyfive minutes . On DATE the first applicant was again involved in a street protest , as a result of which he was arrested and detained for TIME . Later both applicants were acquitted and the actions of the police were found to be unlawful . The facts concerning those protests were described in detail in PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the first applicant organised again a street protest and was arrested again and detained for TIME . Later the applicant was acquitted and the actions of the police were found to be unlawful .","On DATE the ORG adopted a judgment in the case of ORG and PERSON ( cited above ) , in which it declared inadmissible the applicants\u2019 complaints concerning the alleged breaches of their rights guaranteed by LAW on the ground of their failure to exhaust domestic remedies ( see PERSON and PERSON ( cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) .","After that , the applicants brought a civil action under LAW ( on compensation for damage caused by illegal acts of the criminal investigation bodies , the prosecution authorities or the courts ) seeking compensation in respect of the breach of their rights guaranteed by ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention in regard to all CARDINAL street protests of DATE and DATE .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG acknowledged the breach of the ORG rights guaranteed by ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and awarded them the equivalent of CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( ORG ) , respectively ."],"violated_articles":["11","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140910","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NOSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants live in ORG .","The applicants are former policemen . They were all involved in the conflict - resolution and peace - keeping operation in the zone of the armed Ossetian - Ingush conflict in DATE and DATE . As a consequence they were entitled to certain social payments .","The applicants sued ORG of ORG ( hereafter \u201c the regional internal - affairs department \u201d ) for social - payments arrears . On various dates in DATE or DATE ORG allowed their claims and ordered that the regional internal - affairs department pay the arrears . The dates of the judgments and the amounts of the awards are listed in the FAC .","The applicants submitted the writs of execution to ORG . However the ORG returned the writs of execution on the ground of lack of funds to pay the judgment debts .","The judgments in favour of all the applicants were eventually enforced DATE and DATE . The dates of payment in respect of each applicant are listed in the LOC .","All the applicants except Mr PERSON sued the regional internal - affairs department for pecuniary damage incurred through the belated enforcement of the judgments in their favour . On various dates in DATE ORG acknowledged that the delays in enforcement had violated the applicants\u2019 rights and awarded each of them a sum to cover inflation losses sustained as a result . The awards were paid on various dates in DATE . CARDINAL of the applicants , Mr ORG , did not submit the writ of execution to ORG and did not therefore receive his award .","On DATE the applicants notified ORG of their intention to hold a demonstration in FAC in NORP to protest against the regional internal - affairs department \u2019s failure to settle the social - payments debt . The demonstration was scheduled to start on DATE and was announced as being of unlimited duration .","On DATE ORG refused to approve the venue and suggested that the demonstration be held in front of the PERSON theatre .","On DATE the applicants began their demonstration in FAC in front of ORG building . CARDINAL people participated in it . They put up tents and remained in DATE and night . They displayed placards and banners stating their criticisms and demands .","On DATE the NORP Town Legislature annulled the decision of DATE at the request of the regional internal - affairs department \u201c in connection with a risk of terrorist acts in the places of mass gatherings of people \u201d . It asked the regional internal - affairs department to take measures to break up the demonstration and restore public order in NORP square .","On DATE ORG declared the demonstration unlawful because it violated the rights of others . The court found that it hampered ORG access to public transport and to the cinema and officials\u2019 access to the administrative buildings situated in FAC . The chanting of slogans by the applicants also disturbed the officials\u2019 work . Moreover , the regional internal - affairs department had information about an expected outbreak of terrorist activities in the region . The mass gathering of people in the vicinity of the administrative buildings increased the risk of terrorist acts and other offences being committed and impeded the conduct of preventive operations by the law - enforcement agencies . The court further noted that ORG had ordered that all meetings and assemblies be held in front of the PERSON theatre ; therefore the demonstration in FAC was in breach of that order . Lastly , the court found that public gatherings of unlimited duration were not authorised by NORP law .","It appears from the videotape and press articles submitted by the applicants that on DATE the police ordered the protesters to disperse . As the protesters refused to stop the demonstration , the police dismantled the tents they had erected . The protesters , however , put the tents back up and continued their demonstration .","On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .","On DATE the ORG of ORG decreed that FAC in NORP was reserved for meetings , assemblies and demonstrations organised at the initiative of the authorities of ORG and the town of ORG . Other public gatherings were to be held at a venue to be determined by ORG .","On an unspecified date in DATE the protesters ended the demonstration ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":["11"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173478","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF JANKOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","He was employed by \u201c Betonjerka\u201d- ORG , a socially - owned company based in PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","On DATE the ORG ordered the debtor to pay the applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . On DATE this judgment became final .","On DATE upon the applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs .","The Government in its observations maintained that the said judgment had been fully enforced by the domestic decisions of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively . The applicant did not contest this submission .","On DATE the ORG ordered the debtor to pay the applicant other specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions . In addition the domestic court ordered each party to pay its own costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE upon the applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs .","The said decision remains unenforced to the present date .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor .","On DATE , upon a submission to that effect , ORG recognized the applicant \u2019s respective claims .","On DATE ORG terminated the insolvency proceedings against the debtor , having decided to continue with the insolvency action against the debtor \u2019s estate .","The insolvency proceedings are still pending .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining firstly about the fairness of the insolvency proceedings . Further , he requested ORG to adopt a decision obliging the respondent ORG to pay from its own funds his unpaid salaries . In particular , the applicant had referred only to the judgment which had been adopted in his favour on DATE . In so doing , the applicant also relied on the ORG \u2019s case - law related to the non - enforcement of domestic court decision rendered against socially - owned companies in GPE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal finding that it is not vested with the power of the insolvency court to enable the payments of the claims recognized in the insolvency proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173552","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"I.D. v. NORWAY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in F. The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169057","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CARMEL SALIBA v. MALTA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Abigail Lofaro;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","A robbery took place on CARDINAL DATE in the home of PERSON and PERSON ( the former is a lawyer by profession ) . According to the versions of the victims at the time , the robbery was carried out by CARDINAL hooded men who appeared to be under the effects of drugs . They had entered through the roof and sought to find the safe . Various items were stolen and the victims were injured while they were being held face down in the bedroom . According to PERSON during the robbery one of the robbers said , \u201c Give us the CARDINAL buckets of gold you told us you had in your possession \u201d . Further conversations between the robbers indicated that they had a southern NORP accent . When questioned after the incident the victims stated that they had not recognised anyone at the time , since they had been kept face down in the bedroom during the robbery . The Government contested the latter fact , relying on the version of events given by PERSON in DATE ( see below ) .","The applicant and his brother , like their father previously , had done work for the PERSON family as plumbers and electricians .","During the investigation Mr PERSON mentioned the applicant and his brother as possible people who had had access to his house and had been familiar with it , without indicating that he identified either of them as the robbers . Thus , despite the fact that the applicant had been questioned by the Police in DATE , neither of them had , at the time , or later , been charged in connection with this robbery and no criminal prosecution ever ensued because of the lack of any evidence pointing in their direction .","In DATE , the relationship between the brothers and PERSON broke down following PERSON failure to make payments to the applicant \u2019s company . Following this , in DATE ORG ( the company owned in part by the applicant ) instituted proceedings against Mr PERSON claiming payment for services rendered ( these proceedings were eventually withdrawn following payment of the outstanding amount ) .","The applicant alleged that pending the abovementioned proceedings , PERSON had started bad - mouthing the applicant to neighbours who had also suffered burglaries \u2013 stating that it had been the applicant , that is to say the electrician they all used , who had committed them . The PERSON noted that according to the evidence tendered by ORG , a neighbour of PERSON and PERSON ( see below ) , it had been a common perception that families who had been regular clients of the applicant had been robbed . The applicant highlighted that the same GPE , in crossexamination had twice confirmed that he had had no suspicions that the applicant had somehow been involved in the robbery .","DATE after the robbery , in DATE , PERSON and PERSON sued the applicant in civil proceedings for the damage resulting from the said robbery as , in retrospect , PERSON considered that he recognised the applicant as one of the robbers .","During the proceedings , the court heard evidence from PERSON ( including a lengthy affidavit ) and accepted an affidavit from PERSON wife . The applicant was unable to cross - examine PERSON on the basis of medical advice given by an ex parte doctor who had testified before the court to the effect that PERSON had been suffering from depression for DATE and that in DATE her state of health had become much worse ( she had been spending her days in bed not wanting to know about anything going on around her and had become dependent on others ) . He considered that there was no hope of this situation changing in the near future . When asked whether PERSON had been in a position to understand what she had been saying at the time of the incident , the ex parte doctor replied \u201c I think so , of course she was \u201d .","The applicant \u2019s request to have PERSON statement expunged from the record was refused .","In all , the evidence presented before the court consisted of the following :","On behalf of the applicant :","- The affidavit of the applicant , as well as his oral testimony ( where he noted the good relationship that had existed between him and the plaintiff and categorically denied any involvement in the robbery , during which he had been at home sleeping , and claimed that the plaintiffs had instituted the case only in response to the proceedings his company had lodged against Mr Z. , in which they had eventually been successful ; following these proceedings Mr PERSON had started telling neighbours who had been robbed that he ( the applicant ) had been responsible ; he related that the morning following the incident he had been surprised to see the police on the road at the Salibas\u2019 shop , close to Mr Z. \u2019s house and , after hearing what had happened , he had repeatedly tried to call Mr Z. to offer a helping hand . Since he had not been able to get through , he had gone to the house where he had been greeted warmly at the entrance by PERSON , who had recounted what had happened during TIME including a reference to QUANTITY persons who Mr PERSON had claimed had been watching the roof intermittently for a period ; DATE , while the applicant had been visiting a relative in hospital with his family , they had also visited PERSON ; PERSON had been happy to see him ( the applicant ) and had told him not to worry about the money he had been owed as only a little had been stolen and it had not even been worth the beating they got ; the applicant further noted that he had been surprised about PERSON written testimony , given the relationship of mutual respect they had had , and he wished to cross - examine her ; he further recounted how he had been called out to PERSON house during TIME only once , and that he had never fallen off a ladder , contrary to what had been alleged by Mr Z. He further referred to certain jobs completed in the house and to a number of named individuals who could have seen the safe ; he stated that the only times he had avoided Mr PERSON had been when the latter had failed to pay him ; he noted that contrary to what Mr PERSON had alleged , he had had no connection to arms or drugs ( save for possessing a hunting rifle with the relevant police permits , which he had no longer used ) ; he stated that he had not stopped work on CARDINAL of PERSON properties of his own motion , but because PERSON had told him to do so ; the applicant had also explained this to PERSON ( an architect ) ; the applicant also contradicted various elements of PERSON affidavit ; in particular he denied ever having been told about buckets of gold by PERSON , and reference to such gold had only been made by PERSON during the proceedings lodged against him , and by the police one time when they had questioned him ( the applicant ) ) ;","- The affidavit of the applicant \u2019s wife ( she recounted that the applicant had only left the house twice during TIME since CARDINAL \u2013 once to go to the PERSON family \u2019s premises following an urgent call - out , and once to go to another client ; She also recounted their visit to PERSON after the robbery and in what circumstances they had met prior to the robbery ; she lastly explained how surprised and hurt she was about Mr. PERSON \u2019s actions in their regard ) .","- The CARDINAL affidavits of the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL brothers ( F. and S. ) and the oral testimony of F. ( F. confirmed that he had worked everywhere in the house , including next to the safe , together with other workmen from his company and that other named individuals had had access to the house as they had also rendered services there ; he also denied that he had ever spoken to PERSON ( the PERSON family \u2019s caretaker ) about payments due , and that he had ever taken anything from PERSON without permission , contrary to what had been alleged by him . He further stated that when questioned by the police DATE after the incident they had asked him whether he had been aware of the position of the safe and the buckets of gold ; in his oral testimony he confirmed that he had fallen off a ladder once in PERSON house contrary to PERSON statement alleging that it had been the applicant who had fallen ) ; ( PERSON testified that the brothers had stopped work on CARDINAL of the projects because PERSON had not confirmed that he had wished them to continue and had failed to pay sums already due , and in respect of which they had thus sued PERSON also contradicted other events recounted by Mr PERSON in his testimony and noted that he had never discussed due payments with PERSON )","- The CARDINAL affidavits of the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL sisters ( who denied ever having made certain statements to PERSON , which he had imputed to them in his testimony , or having gone to his house , or even having known him ) ;","- The cross - examination of Mr PERSON ( at CARDINAL hearings ) ;","- The crossexamination of the police investigator , PERSON ( at CARDINAL hearings ) ;","- The cross - examination of a neighbour , PERSON","On behalf of the plaintiffs :","- The CARDINAL affidavits of Mr Z.","In the first affidavit Mr PERSON explained the history and the good relationship he had had with the applicant \u2019s family and how much the PERSON family had cared for and trusted the applicant . He stated that at the time of the robbery the PERSON brothers had been working on project NORP but works had been stalled ; that the applicant \u2019s sisters had gone to his office worried and in fear of the applicant , who they said was clever and armed ; PERSON explained that DATE before the robbery the applicant had been working at the house , including on the roof , and at CARDINAL point , while distracted , the applicant had fallen off a ladder ; PERSON explained that on some occasions both the applicant and his brother had had access to the door of his roof and had known how to open it , and had also worked close to the safe . Mr PERSON stated that in DATE it had been only the applicant who had attended to jobs in the house and who had come during TIME , coming promptly and not charging them , even though he usually charged for all his services , even minor ones \u2013 thus , he had been the only one in the world , and nobody else , who had the knowledge of the house as it would be at TIME time . Mr PERSON related that on CARDINAL occasion , where payment to the applicant was likely to be delayed , he had reassured the applicant by referring to his ( Mr Z. \u2019s ) numerous immovable properties and told the applicant precisely to \u201c rest assured you have CARDINAL buckets of gold as guarantee \u201d . Mr PERSON noted that he had never used these words with anyone else and that the applicant had appeared to take him literally ; he stated that later on the applicant had also admitted to these words having been uttered to him . Mr PERSON recounted the robbery : how , while the Z couple had been asleep , they had heard chaos in the entrance of the house and CARDINAL man had run through the corridor directly towards them and asked him for gold . Another CARDINAL men had followed and kept the couple in the bedroom in the dark ; CARDINAL of them ( who injured his wife while holding her on the ground ) had again asked for gold stating that they would go and consume drugs , while the other had repeated \u201c give us the gold you told us you have \u201d . Mr PERSON stated that he had recognised the words on the spot , as those he had once uttered to the applicant . Mr PERSON noted that the CARDINAL people who had held them in the bedroom had appeared to be under the effects of drugs ; while they had been asking for gold it had become clear that they had been targeting the safe . TIME another voice had called out from the end of the corridor that they could leave and so they had done so . Mr PERSON stated that once the robbers had left the bedroom he had followed them and recognised the applicant as one of the CARDINAL or CARDINAL men - \u201c I recognised him with my eyes , after already knowing that he was CARDINAL of them through my ears \u201d . Mr PERSON held that the applicant had been the only one to have remained silent . Having known the applicant closely and worked with him for around twelve years , PERSON felt that he could recognise his mannerisms , stature , height and behaviour , as well as his movements and head inclinations , which corresponded to what he had seen . Mr PERSON continued to explain that it had been natural not to say anything in that moment of shock and fear , but that :","\u201c I knew from the start that he was part of the group because I was told so and because I recognised him , he had kept his distance but I saw him leave in the car with the others as if [ qisu ] the bottom part of his face uncovered \u201d .","While various rooms had been searched , only the contents of the safe had been stolen . Mr PERSON explained that one of the robbers had exclaimed \u201c there it is \u201d and they had initially tried to remove the safe , but then they found the key to it in PERSON purse , which as a habit she regularly kept on the armchair in the sitting room . Confronted with this situation Mr PERSON reiterated that on that date the applicant and his brother had been the CARDINAL persons who had known about the safe as they had been the only people who had entered that part of the house on multiple occasions since DATE , and the louvres had been always closed . Mr PERSON recalled how after the robbery numerous people had come and seen the safe , but not the applicant or his brothers . The applicant had had all the knowledge necessary , including how to open the roof door , where to cut the phone line , where to find the purse , and other useful details to facilitate such a robbery , which had taken place in TIME during TIME . Mr PERSON continued to explain the situation after the robbery . He stated that the working relationship had ended and that the applicant had gone to the house TIME after the robbery ; he had offered no help and had just shown his face ; nor had he offered any help when he had gone to visit PERSON in hospital , with his wife and daughter who , had not been known to the couple . Mr PERSON testified that DATE after the robbery he had gone to buy a bulb from the applicant , who had expressed no sympathy . Mr PERSON stated that subsequently the applicant had called him to tell him he would no longer work on project NORP , and PERSON noted that the architect ORG and their caretaker PERSON had said that the applicant had refused to work for Mr PERSON any longer as he had no longer had money , and that he had failed to pay the brothers money due for services rendered . It had also been strange that sometime after the robbery , Mr. Z had sent invoices claiming such fees and had started avoiding the applicant . Yet in DATE the applicant had sent DATE card and in DATE invited them to his daughter \u2019s wedding . Mr PERSON further referred to various robberies which had taken place in households in the neighbourhood which had been all clients of the applicant . He stated that PERSON had told him that the applicant had been the last person in the room before she had found her jewellery box missing . He reiterated the changed attitude of the applicant towards him following the robbery and had even instituted civil claims in judicial proceedings . The PERSON brothers had also not told him that their father had died , even though he had been the testamentary executor nominated by their late father . According to Mr PERSON the applicant had known that had they not been sure of his responsibility , they would not have instituted proceedings against him .","In a later affidavit , Mr PERSON clarified that it had been CARDINAL of the sisters who had gone to him in fear of their brother . He considered the applicant \u2019s wife \u2019s affidavit as totally untruthful ; likewise the applicant \u2019s ORG , in particular in connection with the reasons why work on project NORP had stopped DATE he noted that the real reason had been the robbery and the fact that the applicant had realised he had been caught \u2013 and in connection with their exchanges with PERSON also considered the applicant \u2019s testimony to have been untruthful and therefore an indication of guilt , and indicated a number of lies therein .","- The affidavit of PERSON ( to the effect that robbers had targeted the safe , which they had tried to remove entirely until they had found the key to it in her handbag ; she stated that absolutely nobody had known about the safe before the robbery as nobody had entered that very private area of the house ; she further stated that it had been only the applicant who DATE in DATE before the robbery \u2013 had continuously and at all times of day and night entered all parts of the house as he had been their trusted handyman , and that sometimes he had been accompanied by his brother and that they had both known about the safe . She reiterated that it had been only the applicant who had had access to the safe and had known the house by TIME , knowledge which neither his brother nor the domestic help had had . She explained that she had been told that after the incident the applicant had gone to their house and to visit her in hospital with his family ; he had also sent a DATE card and invited the couple to his daughter \u2019s wedding ; however he had not wanted to continue working on CARDINAL of PERSON projects and had eventually sued them in court without giving them prior notice . She considered this to be odd given their good relationship , which had dated back DATE , and she thus considered that they had had something to hide . ) ;","- The affidavit of the architect on project NORP , ORG ( who stated that the reason given by the applicant for stopping the works on project NORP had been that Mr PERSON had had no money ) ;","- The affidavit of ORG an employee of the PERSON family ( who testified that the PERSON brothers had been the trusted electricians and plumbers of the PERSON family and they had stopped working on any of the PERSON family \u2019s properties after the robbery ( unlike other workers ) ; he stated that the brothers had once asked him why Mr PERSON had not been paying them as PERSON had told them that compared to the gold he had not even a breadcrumb had been taken . Another time the brothers had told him ( PERSON ) that they had not wanted to work for Mr PERSON anymore as he had had no money . When he ( PERSON ) had told PERSON what the brothers had told him , PERSON had told PERSON that he had once told the applicant not to worry if he had not paid up immediately as he had had CARDINAL buckets of gold as a guarantee for any outstanding debt . Mr PERSON had explained to him ( PERSON ) that the applicant had taken him literally and that the applicant had expected to find more than he had actually found in the safe ; PERSON also stated that he had never entered that private part of the house where the safe had been . Lastly , he denied participation in the robbery ) ;","- The affidavits of CARDINAL neighbours , GPE and GPE ( ORG stated that he and other neighbours had been robbed while being clients of the applicant who ran a shop on the same road where they lived DATE this fact was known in the area ) ;","- Evidence of police inspectors LOC and GPE ( LOC confirmed that at the time of the incident they had not known who the robbers had been : PERSON stated that the investigators had spoken about the applicant in DATE and that subsequently he had been questioned ( amongst others \u2013 CARDINAL people altogether ) as a person with the knowhow to commit such a robbery , as well as a result of PERSON claim to the effect that he had mentioned the buckets of gold only to the applicant . ORG also stated that PERSON had said that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL robbers had spoken during the incident ) ;","- The cross - examination of the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL brothers and CARDINAL of his sisters","- Breakdown of the plaintiff \u2019s claim , confirmed under oath by PERSON , and a number of supporting documents .","By a CARDINAL - page judgment of DATE ORG ( FAC ) , in its civil jurisdiction , considered that the applicant had taken part in the robbery and therefore ordered him to pay damages yet to be quantified , and requested that the plaintiffs submit a claim . The court admitted that there had been various inconsistencies in the testimony of Mr DATE for example statements that the applicant had been silent and yet that the victim had recognised him through his sense of hearing , as well as his statement that someone had told him that it had been the applicant . The court further noted that many of PERSON arguments indicating that the applicant was implicated had weakened his version . These arguments based the applicant \u2019s guilt on the fact that i ) he had fallen off a ladder ; ii ) that he had invited PERSON and PERSON to his daughter \u2019s wedding ; iii ) that he had not informed PERSON and PERSON about the demise of his father ; iv ) that he had been paid for work by means of land ; v ) that he had sent the PERSON family a postcard ; vi ) that the applicant had fallen out with his brothers ; and vii ) that the applicant had been \u201c silent and absent \u201d . Indeed these repeated arguments had been far - fetched and banal , usually an indication that an individual was not convinced of his statement . The court noted that the only established facts were that the robber had known both the house ( allowing him to move comfortably within it and find what he wanted ) and PERSON ( giving the robber a reason to remain silent during the robbery ) . While the applicant had not been the only one to have had these traits , the applicant had been one of the few who had had them . Furthermore , the robbers had known about the \u201c buckets of gold \u201d , which PERSON had allegedly mentioned to the applicant . In the court \u2019s view the robbers had either known this from the applicant and , if so , the applicant would have had no other reason to share this information apart from bad intentions , or the robber had actually been the applicant himself . The court noted that this unfortunately indicated that PERSON had used this factor for the identification of the applicant , and it would have been better to have solely relied on visual identification .","Nevertheless , the court considered Mr PERSON \u2019s testimony reliable on the basis that identification could be based on mannerisms , movements and a silhouette , even if the face and voice remained hidden . It concluded that the applicant \u201c had taken part in the robbery \u201d and in application of the civil code was responsible for the damages suffered by the claimants .","By a decree of the same date the court ordered Mr Z. to lodge a schedule of damage within DATE .","By means of an affidavit of CARDINAL DATE , confirmed under oath by PERSON , the PERSON family claimed damage amounting to MONEY ( ORG ) covering the items and money stolen ( including a list of jewellery drawn up with the assistance of a professional who had not taken an oath ) and the expenses to repair the damage caused to the house . They further claimed medical expenses of LAW in relation to the injuries suffered .","On DATE the applicant made submissions on this point requesting that the court not allow the affidavit of CARDINAL DATE as evidence on the grounds that the stage of putting forward evidence had been closed DATE and Mr PERSON had declared that he no longer had any evidence to submit .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG ( FAC ) , in its civil jurisdiction , ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL in damages , specifically for the EUR CARDINAL in stolen items and cash and for the damage done to the house , as declared by PERSON ; and ORG CARDINAL in medical expenses . The court noted that the victims were not required to have receipts of the items obtained over DATE or proof of how much cash they had had in the house . In such circumstances the best proof was the GPE declaration under oath , the veracity of which ( after having seen the house ) the court had no reason to doubt . Thus , damages for items stolen had to be granted on the basis of PERSON claim . However , as to the medical expenses , while it was true that the claim had also been made under oath , given that the expenses had been incurred after the robbery and after the couple had already decided to sue , the court considered that the claimants should have kept receipts of such expenses and therefore made this award arbitrium boni viri .","By a decree of DATE the court refused the applicant \u2019s request not to allow the submission of the claim for expenses rendered by means of an affidavit not confirmed under oath by the ex parte expert and submitted after the stage for submissions of evidence had closed .","On DATE , the applicant appealed against all the above decisions . In his appeal application and again orally during the appeal hearing he asked the court to allow his brother to appear in court ( to show that the victim could not differentiate between the CARDINAL brothers \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above in connection with the testimonies concerning the ladder incident ) . The appeal application read as follows :","\u201c At this stage , the plaintiff is humbly making a formal request to ORG to allow the applicant to produce as evidence before it his brother [ ORG ] in order for the court to be able to confirm the above ... \u201d","The Government contested the fact that the written request had been repeated orally , as no such record had been found in the acts of the proceedings . ORG gave no reply to this request .","ORG , by a judgment of DATE , reiterated that it was well known that it was not for it to alter the assessment of evidence in the absence of compelling reasons . It noted that for civil proceedings to reach a finding it sufficed for a judge to have a \u201c moral certainty \u201d , as opposed to proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal proceedings . It was true that a more rigorous test was required when a person was being accused of a crime in the context of civil proceedings , particularly when the issue was the identity of the person . However , NORP law did not provide what was necessary for identification , only what was not necessary , thus leaving it to the judge to decide according to his discretion . In the present case , the whole case depended on PERSON identification of the applicant , which the firstinstance court had chosen to believe despite the inconsistencies and contradictions in his and PERSON testimonies . In this connection one had to bear in mind that the memory of a victim of a violent robbery could suffer psychological effects which may result in inconsistencies . Having examined the acts of the proceedings and the applicant \u2019s submissions , it considered that it need not depart from the first - instance court \u2019s findings because the applicant \u2019s arguments were secondary to the actual identification of the applicant and were therefore not justified .","As to the dismissal of the applicant \u2019s objection in relation to the claim for damages which were allowed at a later stage , the court considered that the claim was not new evidence as such and it was the only proof of the damage that had been caused . Moreover , it had been the court which had requested that Mr PERSON lodge the claim and the applicant had had the possibility of making submissions in reply , thus no prejudice had been caused .","As to the award of damages , ORG noted that PERSON testimony had been made under oath ; the list of jewellery had been drawn up with the assistance of an expert ( although he had not confirmed it under oath ) ; thus , PERSON could not be blamed for not presenting further evidence of the damage , particularly since some items had been inherited and others purchased long before , as well as because certain documents had also been in the safe and had been stolen during the robbery . Mr. PERSON had not valued the items himself and had appropriately engaged a jeweller to perform the evaluation . Had the applicant had doubts as to that person \u2019s expertise , he could have , at the relevant time , challenged him and called him as a witness .","The applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings claiming a violation of , inter alia , LAW .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) , in its constitutional jurisdiction , rejected the applicant \u2019s claims .","It considered that the applicant had not been found guilty of a criminal offence , but was responsible for damages arising as a result of that crime . In consequence the proceedings remained under civil law and the burden of proof remained that used for civil cases , namely a balance of probabilities , and did not require a more onerous degree of proof . It noted that the first court had assessed the evidence available and considered that the identification of the applicant had been convincingly established ; ORG found no reason to alter that conclusion . Thus there was nothing which indicated a breach of the applicant \u2019s rights .","As to the applicant \u2019s inability to cross - examine PERSON , it noted that there had been a valid reason , namely her poor health as confirmed by her doctor , and the applicant had had the opportunity to comment on her written testimony . In its view there had been nothing arbitrary in the court \u2019s decision to allow that statement , as it had been acting within its discretion . Furthermore , the applicant had not appealed against this matter before ORG . As to the refusal of the appeal court to call for his brother , it noted that it was not ORG role to re - examine witnesses and the applicant \u2019s brother had already given testimony in written and oral form at first instance . As to the refusal not to allow the \u201c late \u201d claim for damages , it found that this fell within the court \u2019s discretion to proceed with the case in the way it deemed fit in the interests of justice . Lastly , no issue arose from the courts\u2019 acceptance of an evaluation of damage which had not been confirmed under oath by the expert , and such an evaluation fell within the discretion of the courts . It concluded that the applicant \u2019s rights had not been breached .","The applicant appealed .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG also rejected the applicant \u2019s claims . It considered that in the civil proceedings the first - instance court had had no doubt about Mr Z. \u2019s testimony and his identification of the applicant and nothing indicated that that court had not taken into consideration all the necessary evidence for its assessment . Furthermore , ORG had not found there were compelling reasons to alter that decision .","As to the failure of ORG to hear evidence from the applicant \u2019s brother , it considered that although this request had been made in writing amongst other pleadings in the appeal application , it had not been reiterated in the concluding requests of the appeal application . There was also no note in TIME of the hearings that this matter had been raised orally . In any event , the applicant \u2019s brother had given testimony at first instance and , given that such a decision fell within the discretion of the courts , the applicant had not proved that the failure to re - examine the witness had caused him prejudice .","As to the inability of the applicant to cross - examine PERSON , ORG noted that her testimony ( unlike that of her husband ) had not referred to the identification of the applicant , which had been nearly the only factor on which the civil court had based its decision . Thus , no prejudice had been caused to the applicant . It followed that no issue of equality of arms arose as a result of the CARDINAL procedural steps examined above .","As to the decision on the damage , ORG considered that the principle of onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit non ei qui negat had been respected , as the civil court had opined that the damage had been proved by Mr Z.","According to the documents submitted , following the above judgments the applicant became extremely depressed and unfit for work . He was thus excused from work and began to receive a disability pension . He considered that had he continued to work , he would have earned much more . According to the ORG the applicant was certified as unfit for work on DATE and retired when he was CARDINAL and has since then been in receipt of a pension .","On DATE Mr and PERSON made a request for a judicial sale by auction of property belonging to the applicant in order to have the courts\u2019 judgment enforced . Another such request was made on DATE .","The applicant attempted to obtain the entire case file concerning the civil proceedings ; however , he was informed that it had gone missing from ORG ; the applicant lodged the application before this ORG with the documents in his possession . The Government located the file following communication of the application and submitted it to the ORG .","DATE . In DATE , since they had not yet received payment from the applicant , the PERSON family instituted civil proceedings against the applicant \u2019s brother PERSON , asking the court to declare him responsible for the same robbery and asking the court to order ( in solidum with the applicant ) the payment of the same damages liquidated by ORG in its judgment of DATE .","NORP The photos submitted to this Court by the applicant show , in particular , a difference in height and hair colour between the applicant and his brother ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140005","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF JONES AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Phillips of Worth Matravers;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["On DATE , while he was living and working in GPE , PERSON was slightly injured when a bomb exploded outside a bookshop in GPE . He alleges that the following day he was taken from hospital by agents of GPE and unlawfully detained for DATE . During that time he was tortured by a Lieutenant Colonel PERSON . In particular , he alleges he was beaten with a cane on his palms , feet , arms and legs ; slapped and punched in the face ; suspended for prolonged periods by his arms ; shackled at his ankles ; subjected to sleep deprivation ; and given mind - altering drugs .","Mr PERSON returned to GPE where a medical examination found he had injuries consistent with his account and where he was diagnosed with severe post - traumatic stress disorder .","On DATE Mr Jones commenced proceedings in ORG against \u201c ORG GPE \u201d and Lieutenant Colonel PERSON , claiming damages , inter alia , for torture . In the particulars of claim he referred to Lieutenant Colonel PERSON as a servant or agent of GPE . Service was effected on GPE via its then solicitors , but the solicitors made it clear that they had no authority to accept service of the claim on Lieutenant Colonel PERSON .","On DATE GPE applied to have the claim struck out on the grounds that it , and its servants and agents , were entitled to immunity and that the LANGUAGE courts had no jurisdiction . Mr PERSON applied for permission to serve the claim on Lieutenant Colonel PERSON by an alternative method . In his judgment of DATE , a Master of the High Court held that GPE was entitled to immunity under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He also held that Lieutenant Colonel PERSON was similarly entitled to immunity under that LAW and refused permission to allow service by an alternative method . Mr PERSON appealed to ORG .","Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were arrested in GPE in DATE ; PERSON was arrested there in DATE . All CARDINAL applicants alleged that , while in custody , they were subjected to sustained and systematic torture , including beatings QUANTITY , arms , legs and head , and sleep deprivation . PERSON alleged he was anally raped . The applicants were released and returned to GPE on DATE . Each obtained medical reports which concluded that their injuries were consistent with their accounts .","The applicants decided to commence proceedings in ORG against the CARDINAL individuals they considered to be responsible : CARDINAL policemen , the deputy governor of the prison where they were held , and the Minister of the Interior who was alleged to have sanctioned the torture . They therefore applied for permission to serve their claim on the CARDINAL individuals out of the jurisdiction . On DATE this was refused by the same Master who had heard Mr PERSON \u2019s claim , on the basis of his previous ruling in respect of PERSON . However , the Master acknowledged that he had enjoyed the benefit of fuller argument than on the applications relating to Mr PERSON \u2019s claim , and said :","\u201c [ H]ad the matter come before me as a free - standing application , without my having decided the PERSON case ... , I might have been tempted to give permission to serve out of the jurisdiction on the basis that it seems to me that , having heard the arguments , that there is a case to be answered by these defendants as to whether there is jurisdiction in these courts over them . \u201d","The applicants appealed to ORG with the leave of the Master .","NORP The CARDINAL cases were joined and on DATE ORG published its judgment . It unanimously dismissed PERSON appeal from the decision of the Master to refuse permission to serve GPE outside the jurisdiction . However , it allowed the appeals in respect of the refusal of permission in each case to serve the individual defendants .","As regards the immunity of GPE , Lord Justice PERSON , with whom Lord PERSON and Lord Justice PERSON agreed , refused to depart from this ORG \u2019s ruling in PERSON the GPE [ ORG ] , no . ORG , ECHR DATE . He further found that LAW of LAW and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( \u201c the Convention against Torture \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which obliges a Contracting State to ensure that a victim of an act of torture obtains redress , could not be interpreted as imposing an obligation on a State to provide redress for acts of torture when those acts were committed by another State in that other ORG .","In respect of the immunity of the individual defendants , PERSON considered the case - law of the domestic courts and courts of other jurisdictions , which recognised ORG immunity ratione materiae in respect of acts of agents of the ORG . However , he noted that none of these cases was concerned with conduct which was to be regarded as outside the scope of any proper exercise of sovereign authority or with international crime , let alone with systematic torture . He did not accept that the definition of torture in LAW as an act \u201c by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) was fatal to the applicants\u2019 claims :","\u201c DATE . ... It seems doubtful that the phrase \u2018 acting in an official GPE qualifies the reference to \u2018 a public official\u2019 . The types of purpose for which any pain or suffering must be inflicted ... would appear to represent a sufficient limitation in the case of a public official . Be that as it may , the requirement that the pain or suffering be inflicted by a public official does no more in my view than identify the author and the public context in which the author must be acting . It does not lend to the acts of torture themselves any official or governmental character or nature , or mean that it can in any way be regarded as an official function to inflict , or that an official can be regarded as representing the state in inflicting , such pain or suffering . Still less does it suggest that the official inflicting such pain or suffering can be afforded the cloak of state immunity ... The whole tenor of LAW is to underline the individual responsibility of state officials for acts of torture ... \u201d","Mance LJ did not consider it significant that Lieutenant Colonel PERSON had been described in PERSON claim as the \u201c servant or agent \u201d of GPE . Nor did he accept that general differences between criminal and civil law justified a distinction in the application of immunity in the CARDINAL contexts . He noted that ORG in PERSON ( No . CARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) had considered that there would be no immunity from criminal prosecution in respect of an individual officer who had committed torture abroad in an official context . It was not easy to see why civil proceedings against an alleged torturer could be said to involve a greater interference in the internal affairs of a foreign ORG than criminal proceedings against the same person . It was also incongruous that if an alleged torturer was within the jurisdiction of the forum ORG , he would be prosecuted pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and no immunity could be claimed , but the victim of the alleged torture would be unable to pursue any civil claim . Furthermore , there was no basis for assuming that , in civil proceedings , a ORG could be made liable to indemnify or otherwise support one of its officials proved to have committed systematic torture .","Mance LJ considered that whether any claim in the NORP courts against individuals could proceed was better determined not by reference to immunity , but by reference to whether it was appropriate for the LANGUAGE courts to exercise jurisdiction . A number of factors were relevant to the assessment of this question , including the sensitivity of the issues involved and the general power of the LANGUAGE courts to decline jurisdiction on the ground that GPE was an inappropriate forum for the litigation .","In considering the impact of LAW found important distinctions between a ORG \u2019s claim to immunity ratione personae , in issue in AlAdsani ( cited above ) , and a ORG \u2019s claim to immunity ratione materiae in respect of its officials , in issue in the present cases . Firstly , he considered it impossible to identify any settled international principle affording the ORG the right to claim immunity in respect of claims directed against an official , rather than against the ORG , its Head of ORG or diplomats . He was of the view that the legislation and case - law of GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) militated strongly against any such settled principle and supported a contrary view . In so far as counsel for the Government purported to refer to evidence of settled practice , PERSON noted that the case - law to which he had referred related either to the immunity of the ORG itself or to the immunity of individual officials for alleged misconduct that bore no relationship in nature or gravity to the international crime of systematic torture . He considered the dicta in the separate opinion of Judges PERSON , PERSON and PERSON to the judgment of ORG in the \u201c FAC \u201d case ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) to provide further confirmation that there was no settled international practice in this area .","Mance LJ explained that where , under LAW , a ORG had created a domestic remedy for torture in the ORG where that torture was committed , other national courts could be expected to refuse to exercise jurisdiction . However , where there was no adequate remedy in the ORG where the systematic torture occurred , it might be regarded as disproportionate to maintain a blanket refusal of recourse to the civil courts of another jurisdiction . He acknowledged that the courts of CARDINAL ORG were not to adjudicate lightly upon the internal affairs of another ORG , but considered that there were many circumstances , particularly in the context of human rights , where national courts did have to consider and form a view on the position in , or conduct of , foreign GPE .","Mance LJ concluded that giving blanket effect to a foreign ORG \u2019s claim to ORG immunity ratione materiae in respect of a ORG official alleged to have committed acts of systematic torture could deprive the right of access to a court under LAW real meaning in a case where the victim of torture had no prospect of recourse in the ORG whose officials had committed the torture . He therefore allowed the ORG appeals in respect of the individual defendants and remitted them for further argument , concluding :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... [ I]t seems to me that any absolute view of immunity must at the very least yield in the face of assertions of systematic torture to a more nuanced or proportionate approach . As it is , having regard to the [ ORG ] , it is sufficient to decide this appeal that , whether issues of state immunity are or are not treated as theoretically separate from issues of jurisdiction in LANGUAGE law , the permissibility , appropriateness and proportionality of exercising jurisdiction ought to be determined at one and the same time . Such a conclusion reflects the importance attaching in DATE \u2019s world and in current international thinking and jurisprudence to the recognition and effective enforcement of individual human rights . It fits harmoniously with the position already achieved in relation to criminal proceedings . It caters for our obligation under article CARDINAL of the [ Convention ] not to deny access to our courts , in circumstances where it would otherwise be appropriate to exercise jurisdiction applying domestic jurisdictional principles , unless to do so would be in pursuit of a legitimate aim and proportionate . ... \u201d","In his concurring judgment , Lord PERSON agreed with the conclusions of PERSON as regards both the claim against GPE and the claims against the individual officials . In particular , he considered that the judgment in PERSON ( No . CARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) had shown that torture could no longer fall within the scope of the official duties of a ORG official . It therefore followed that if civil proceedings were brought against individuals for acts of torture in circumstances where the ORG was immune from suit , there could be no suggestion that the ORG would be vicariously liable : it was the personal responsibility of the individuals , not that of the ORG , which was in issue .","On the approach of this ORG , he commented :","\u201c CARDINAL . Had the Grand Chamber been considering a claim for state immunity in relation to claims brought against individuals , I do not believe that there would have been a majority in favour of the view that this represented a legitimate limitation on the right to access to a court under Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . Had the ORG shared the conclusions that we have reached on this appeal , it would have held that there was no recognised rule of public international law that conferred such immunity . Had it concluded that there was such a rule , I consider that it would have been likely to have held that it would not be proportionate to apply the rule so as to preclude civil remedies sought against individuals . \u201d","GPE appealed to ORG against the decision of ORG in respect of the individual defendants and Mr PERSON appealed against the decision of ORG in respect of his claim against GPE itself . On DATE , ORG unanimously allowed GPE appeal and dismissed the appeal by Mr Jones .","Lord PERSON considered that there was a \u201c wealth of authority \u201d in GPE and elsewhere to show that a ORG was entitled to claim immunity for its servants or agents and that the ORG \u2019s right to immunity could not be circumvented by suing them instead . In some borderline cases there could be doubt whether the conduct of an individual , although a servant or agent , had a sufficient connection with a ORG to entitle it to claim immunity for his conduct . However , in his view , these were not borderline cases . Lieutenant Colonel PERSON was sued as a servant or agent of GPE and there was no suggestion that his conduct was not in discharge or purported discharge of his duties . The CARDINAL defendants in the second case were public officials and the alleged conduct took place in public premises during a process of interrogation .","Further , referring to ORG ( ILC ) ORG on ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , Lord PERSON said that \u201c international law does not require , as a condition of a ORG \u2019s entitlement to claim immunity for the conduct of its servant or agent , that the latter should have been acting in accordance with his instructions or authority \u201d . The fact that conduct was unlawful or objectionable was not , of itself , a ground for refusing immunity .","In order to succeed in their ORG claim , Lord PERSON explained that the applicants had to establish CARDINAL propositions . Firstly , they had to show that LAW was engaged by the grant of immunity ; Lord PERSON was prepared to assume , based on this ORG \u2019s judgment in AlAdsani , cited above , that it was . Secondly , they had to show that the grant of immunity denied them access to a court ; Lord PERSON was satisfied that it plainly would . Thirdly , the applicants had to show that the restriction was not directed to a legitimate objective and was disproportionate .","Lord PERSON disagreed with the applicants\u2019 submission that torture could not be a governmental or official act since , under LAW , torture had to be inflicted by or with the connivance of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Although the applicants referred to a substantial body of authority showing that the courts of GPE would not recognise acts performed by individual officials as being carried out in an official capacity for the purposes of immunity if those acts were contrary to a jus cogens prohibition , Lord PERSON found it unnecessary to examine those authorities since they were only important to the extent that they expressed principles widely shared and observed among other nations . However , as Judges PERSON , PERSON and PERSON had stated in their concurring opinion in the \u201c Arrest Warrant \u201d case , the \u201c unilateral \u201d GPE approach had not attracted the \u201c approbation of GPE generally \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Concerning the applicants\u2019 reliance on the recommendation of ORG DATE in respect of GPE , comments made in the judgment of ORG for the former GPE in GPE , and the judgment of ORG in GPE v. GPE ( see , respectively , paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , Lord PERSON considered the first to be of slight legal authority , the second to be an obiter dictum and the third not to be an accurate statement of international law .","Lord GPE identified CARDINAL arguments advanced by GPE which he said were \u201c cumulatively irresistible \u201d . Firstly , given the conclusion of ORG in the \u201c FAC \u201d case , the applicants had to accept that ORG immunity ratione personae could be claimed for a serving foreign minister accused of crimes against humanity . It followed that the prohibition of torture did not automatically override all other rules of international law . Secondly , LAW did not provide for universal civil jurisdiction . Thirdly , the DATE United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) did not provide any exception from immunity for civil claims based on acts of torture ; although such an exception was considered by a working group of the ILC , it was not agreed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Lord PERSON noted in this respect that although some commentators had criticised LAW because it did not include a torture exception , they nonetheless accepted that this area of international law was \u201c in a state of flux \u201d and did not suggest that there was an international consensus in favour of such an exception . Finally , there was no evidence that GPE had recognised or given effect to any international - law obligation to exercise universal jurisdiction over claims arising from alleged breaches of peremptory norms of international law , nor was there any consensus of judicial or learned opinion that they should . For these reasons , Lord PERSON agreed with ORG that the claim brought by PERSON against GPE was to be dismissed .","In respect of the individual defendants , he found that the conclusion of ORG on the torture claims could not be sustained . He considered that ORG had incorrectly departed from the position in its previous ruling in GPE that the acts of ORG officials were to be considered the acts of the ORG itself ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He explained :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... [ T]here was no principled reason for this departure . A state can only act through servants and agents ; their official acts are the acts of the state ; and the state \u2019s immunity in respect of them is fundamental to the principle of state immunity . This error had the effect that while the GPE was held to be immune , and ORG , as a department of the government , was held to be immune , the Minister of Interior ( the fourth defendant in the second action ) was not , a very striking anomaly . \u201d","Lord PERSON explained that this first error had led the court into a second : its conclusion that a civil claim against an individual torturer did not indirectly implead the ORG in any more objectionable respect than a criminal prosecution . He observed :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... A state is not criminally responsible in international or LANGUAGE law , and therefore can not be directly impleaded in criminal proceedings . The prosecution of a servant or agent for an act of torture within article CARDINAL of LAW is founded on an express exception from the general rule of immunity . It is , however , clear that a civil action against individual torturers based on acts of official torture does indirectly implead the state since their acts are attributable to it . Were these claims against the individual defendants to proceed and be upheld , the interests of the GPE would be obviously affected , even though it is not a named party . \u201d","In Lord PERSON \u2019s view both errors resulted from a misreading of PERSON ( No . CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , which concerned criminal proceedings only . The distinction between criminal proceedings ( which were the subject of universal jurisdiction ) and civil proceedings ( which were not ) was , he said , \u201c fundamental \u201d and CARDINAL that could not be \u201c wished away \u201d .","Finally , Lord PERSON noted that ORG had found that jurisdiction should be governed by \u201c appropriate use or development of discretionary principles \u201d . He considered that this was to mistake the nature of ORG immunity . Where applicable , ORG immunity was an absolute preliminary bar and a ORG was either immune from the jurisdiction of a foreign court or it was not , so there was no scope for the exercise of discretion .","Lord PERSON , concurring in the judgment , considered that there was no automatic conflict between the jus cogens prohibition on torture and the law of State immunity : State immunity was a procedural rule and GPE , in claiming immunity , was not justifying torture but merely objecting to the jurisdiction of the NORP courts in deciding whether it had used torture or not . He quoted with approval the observation of PERSON ORG ( The Law of State Immunity ( ORG , DATE ) , p. CARDINAL ) that ORG immunity did not \u201c contradict a prohibition contained in a jus cogens norm but merely divert[ed ] any breach of it to a different method of settlement \u201d . For Lord PERSON , a conflict could only arise if the prohibition on torture had generated an ancillary procedural rule which , by way of exception to State immunity , entitled a ORG to assume civil jurisdiction over other GPE . Like Lord PERSON , he found that the authorities cited showed no support in international law for such a rule .","As regards the application of ORG immunity to individual defendants , Lord PERSON indicated that in order to establish that the grant of immunity to an official would infringe the right of access to a court guaranteed by LAW , it was necessary , as in the case of the immunity of the ORG itself , to show that international law did not require immunity against civil suit to be accorded to officials who were alleged to have committed torture . He considered that , once again , it was impossible to find any such exception in a treaty . He reviewed in some detail the circumstances in which a ORG would be liable for the act of an official in international law and found it clear that a ORG would incur responsibility in international law if one of its officials \u201c under colour of his authority \u201d tortured a national of another ORG , even though the acts were unlawful and unauthorised . He said :","\u201c DATE . ... To hold that for the purposes of state immunity [ the official ] was not acting in an official capacity would produce an asymmetry between the rules of liability and immunity .","Furthermore , in the case of torture , there would be an even more striking asymmetry between LAW and the rules of immunity if it were to be held that the same act was official for the purposes of the definition of torture but not for the purposes of immunity ... \u201d","Lord PERSON found Lord Justice PERSON \u2019s conclusion that the Convention against Torture \u2019s definition of torture did not lend acts of torture any official character to be unsatisfactory , explaining :","\u201c DATE . ... The acts of torture are either official acts or they are not . LAW does not \u2018 ORG them an official character ; they must be official to come within the Convention in the first place . And if they are official enough to come within the Convention , I can not see why they are not official enough to attract immunity . \u201d","He also considered inappropriate ORG proposed approach to the exercise of jurisdiction , on the ground that ORG immunity was not a self - imposed restriction but was \u201c imposed by international law without any discrimination between CARDINAL ORG and another . \u201d He concluded that it would be \u201c invidious in the extreme for the judicial branch of government to have the power to decide that it will allow the investigation of allegations of torture against the officials of CARDINAL foreign state but not against those of another \u201d ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145266","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"FAKAS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicant , who had been granted legal aid , was represented by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , most recently PERSON , of ORG of GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant has been unemployed since DATE . She is married and has CARDINAL children . On DATE the applicant gave birth to her third child . DATE the applicant received a DATE child allowance of CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) ( DATE ) and UAH MONEY ( DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in the GPE - Frankivsk City Court , claiming unpaid child allowance for the period DATE under ORG ( see the \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d part below ) . The applicant stated that she was entitled to a DATE child allowance in an amount equal to the DATE \u201c minimum subsistence level \u201d established by law ( \u201c \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0436\u0438\u0442\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0439 \u043c\u0456\u043d\u0456\u043c\u0443\u043c \u201d ) for a child aged DATE . She further referred to LAW , which provided that pensions and other types of social payment and assistance that were the recipient \u2019s principle sources of subsistence should ensure an income not lower than that level . DATE and DATE she was receiving around UAH CARDINAL ( approximately CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) DATE , whereas the official subsistence level for a child aged DATE changed from ORG CARDINAL ( at the material time around EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE to ORG MONEY ( at the material time EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE .","On DATE the court rejected the applicant \u2019s claims as lodged outside the DATE time - limit , which runs from the date when the person concerned has learned or should have learned about a breach of his or her rights .","The applicant appealed , stating that she had learned about the alleged breach of her rights DATE after having consulted a lawyer .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of the first - instance court but rejected the applicant \u2019s claims as unsubstantiated . The court held that although the applicant was entitled to a DATE allowance in accordance with section CARDINAL of FAC , these amounts had been determined by LAW . Therefore , the applicant had received the reduced amounts in accordance with the law .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision . The court held that the amounts of the allowance in question had been determined by ORG of DATE .","According to sections CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of ORG Act DATE ( ORG \u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0443 \u0434\u043e\u043f\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0433\u0443 PERSON \u0437 \u0434\u0456\u0442\u044c\u043c\u0438 GPE ) , in force until DATE , child allowance was paid DATE to a child \u2019s principal carer ( e.g. employed women , unemployed women registered as such etc . ) until the child reached the age of three in an amount equal to PERCENT of the minimum wage .","Section QUANTITY of the same Act provided that unemployed women were entitled to child allowance in an amount equal to PERCENT of the minimum wage until a child reached DATE .","NORP By decision no . CARDINAL of ORG DATE \u201c On FAC [ payable ] to ORG in DATE \u201d , the amount of assistance was established PERCENT ( unemployed women ) or PERCENT ( employed women ) of UAH CARDINAL ( the minimum wage in DATE ) .","According to section CARDINAL of ORG , which was adopted on DATE and entered into force on DATE , until a child reached the age of CARDINAL child allowance was payable to a non - insured person in an amount equal to the minimum subsistence level for a child aged DATE .","NORP The DATE minimum subsistence level for children aged DATE was determined yearly by a special law ( ORG \u041f\u0440\u043e \u0437\u0430\u0442\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0434\u0436\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0436\u0438\u0442\u043a\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043c\u0456\u043d\u0456\u043c\u0443\u043c\u0443 \u201d ) . It was gradually increased from ORG CARDINAL ( DATE ) to ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( DATE ) .","Part CARDINAL of the Final Provisions of ORG provided that the amount of child allowance under section CARDINAL of the LAW was to be determined yearly by the Verkhovna Rada of GPE as a percentage of the minimum subsistence level with a view to gradually reaching that level . The amount in question could not be lower than PERCENT of the official subsistence level .","The State Budget Acts of DATE established that child allowance , which was provided for by ORG , was payable in an amount of PERCENT of the \u201c guaranteed minimum \u201d of the official subsistence level ( \u201c \u0440\u0456\u0432\u0435\u043d\u044c \u0437\u0430\u0431\u0435\u0437\u043f\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0436\u0438\u0442\u043a\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043c\u0456\u043d\u0456\u043c\u0443\u043c\u0443 \u201d ) . This portion was set as UAH CARDINAL ( DATE ) and UAH CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( section CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL , section CARDINAL of LAW DATE , and section CARDINAL of LAW ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178094","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"CESUR v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 son PERSON worked as a police officer in GPE , a district of ORG , and was married to Cahide Cesur who was also a police officer , at the material time .","On an unknown date PERSON instituted divorce proceedings against Cahide Cesur on the basis of breakdown of their relationship . ORG decided to move to another house alone in the same district .","On DATE , at TIME , while Cahide Cesur was moving to another house in the same district , with the help of her father and a number of other people from the same town , PERSON came in . According to the statements of those present in the room who were subsequently questioned as witnesses , PERSON opened fire in the direction of the ceiling , then fired a shot on the back of his wife , before shooting himself on the head . Both PERSON and Cahide Cesur were taken to the hospital . Meanwhile , GPE , CARDINAL of the people who was helping Cahide Cesur in the house , was also injured in the hand by a ricocheting bullet . At around TIME the same day PERSON lost his life at the hospital .","On DATE at TIME an autopsy was carried out by CARDINAL forensic doctors under the supervision of the public prosecutor at the hospital . According to the post - mortem report , there was a bullet entry wound at right temporoparietal , measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY and an exit wound at left parieto - occipital , measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY . It was noted in the report that the death had occurred due to the injuries caused by the bullet wound and that the shot had been a contact shot or a near - contact shot ( biti\u015fik ya da biti\u015fi\u011fe yak\u0131n ) .","On DATE ORG ( \u015eanl\u0131urfa Emniyet M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc Olay PERSON ve GPE Tespit \u015eube M\u00fcd\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ) issued an expert report stating that a fingerprint belonging to PERSON left index finger had been found on the gun , next to the safety pin .","On DATE ORG also issued its expert report . That report indicated that analysis of the samples taken from the deceased \u2019s hands and the hands of Cahide Cesur and CARDINAL other witnesses , GPE and GPE , using the so - called \u201c atomic absorption spectrometry \u201d technique , had revealed that only the deceased had gunpowder residue ( \u201c at\u0131\u015f art\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u201d ) on his hands , on the outside of his right hand and inside of his left hand .","On DATE ORG prepared a second report , indicating that the bullets found at the crime scene had been fired by the gun which belonged to PERSON .","On DATE Ak\u00e7akale prosecutor issued a decision of non - prosecution . The prosecutor , having regard to the statements of the witnesses , the crime scene report , the post - mortem reports and ORG reports , held that PERSON had committed suicide by using his own gun .","On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG prosecutor , claiming that the death of their son was suspicious and that the investigation which had already been concluded could not be considered to be an effective investigation . The applicants requested that another autopsy be conducted , claiming that the existing autopsy report was not sufficient . According to the applicants , the scars which they had noted on the head of their son at the time of his burial , did not match the findings recorded in the autopsy report . The applicant PERSON , who is a retired police officer , claimed that his son had been shot on the left side of his head . The applicants further alleged that the place where the gun had been found raised suspicions , and complained of the fact that the mobile phones that their son had used were not examined . Lastly , the applicants also alleged that , when they went to PERSON DATE after the incident , they had received more information from some of the witnesses , raising even more suspicions on the circumstances of their son \u2019s death","On DATE the ORG prosecutor issued another decision of non - prosecution , on the grounds that the post - mortem report of CARDINAL DATE , the statements of the witnesses and the other evidence gathered by the investigators did not leave any room for doubt that the ORG son had committed suicide . The public prosecutor also stated that a decision not to prosecute had already been taken in relation to the same incident and unless new evidence was discovered it was not possible to initiate a new criminal investigation under LAW of LAW .","The applicants filed an objection against the decision of non - prosecution , claiming that their son might have been shot by somebody else . ORG examined the merits of both the prosecutor \u2019s decision and the applicants\u2019 objection in its decision of on DATE and dismissed the objection . According to the court , the criminal investigation was conducted meticulously and that there was no reason to question any additional witnesses proposed by the applicants ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170651","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PARYZKYY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183344","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160TVRTECK\u00dd v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL others were charged with extorting money from PERSON","On DATE ORG ( okresn\u00fd s\u00fad ) remanded the applicant and CARDINAL of his alleged accomplices in custody from DATE . The court held that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he was charged , that the offence had been committed in an organised way , and that therefore there was a risk that he could put pressure on witnesses , contact other perpetrators and tamper with evidence . The court relied on the testimony of ORG , who allegedly had been warned by one of the applicant \u2019s accomplices about instructions from the applicant not to cooperate with the police . On DATE ORG ( krajsk\u00fd s\u00fad ) dismissed an interlocutory appeal ( s\u0165a\u017enos\u0165 ) by the applicant .","On DATE a police investigator charged the applicant and CARDINAL other people with establishing , masterminding and supporting a criminal group . The applicant was also charged with aggravated coercion , extortion , and causing bodily harm .","On DATE ORG ( \u0161peci\u00e1lny s\u00fad , hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , where the case had been transferred in the meantime owing to the organised nature of the crimes , dismissed an application by the applicant for release . It relied on the particularly serious and organised nature of the offences he was charged with , and held that there was a real danger that he might influence witnesses and contact other perpetrators in order to tamper with evidence . On DATE ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . In addition to the reasons mentioned above , it relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant was the leader of a criminal group which had been operating for DATE , and that not all of the members of that criminal group had been identified . The court pointed out that the criminal investigation was particularly complex . On DATE ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant .","On DATE the police investigator charged the applicant with another count of extortion .","On DATE ORG dismissed another application by the applicant for release . It relied on the testimony of several witnesses who were afraid to testify against him . The court took into account the complexity of the criminal investigation , finding that there had been no undue delays . On DATE ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was charged with CARDINAL other counts of extortion .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , and extended the grounds for his detention by including the risk of his reoffending . It held that it was reasonable to suspect that , if released , the applicant would continue his criminal activities , taking into account : the motives for such activities and their duration and extent ; the methods of intimidation and violence used by the criminal group ; the hierarchical and organised nature of the group ; and the fact that not all of the members of the group had been identified . On DATE ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s detention was extended until DATE . ORG added that his detention assisted the investigation , since the victims were willing to testify , but still not all of the members of the criminal group had been identified . On DATE ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant .","The applicant was indicted before ORG on DATE . The bill of indictment concerned QUANTITY criminal acts , CARDINAL defendants and CARDINAL victims . The applicant was charged with establishing , masterminding and supporting a criminal group , aggravated coercion , causing bodily harm , and QUANTITY acts of extortion . All the crimes were qualified as particularly serious crimes . The sums extorted ranged from QUANTITY ( ORG ) .","On DATE ORG examined the grounds for the applicant \u2019s detention and ruled that he should remain in detention . It pointed out that , according to the indictment , he was allegedly the leader of a criminal group , a group which had been conducting criminal activities for DATE against people who were victims and witnesses in the trial , by means of threats and the use of physical and psychological violence . On DATE ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant .","On DATE , when conducting a preliminary examination of the bill of indictment , ORG again reviewed the grounds for the applicant \u2019s detention and ruled that he should remain in detention . On DATE ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant .","On DATE ORG dismissed another application by the applicant for release . It held that several witnesses were afraid to testify against him in his presence and had thus been heard in his absence . In particular , CARDINAL witness had been contacted and threatened by unknown persons in an attempt to get him to change his testimony . The court also took into account that not all the witnesses had been heard by the trial court . On DATE ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court limited the grounds for his detention to the risk of his reoffending , because the trial court had already heard all witnesses . It stated that there was substantial evidence suggesting that the applicant was the leader of a criminal group which had operated systematically for DATE , and therefore it was reasonable to assume that , if at liberty , he might continue with the criminal activities . The court further held that it was essential to protect victims and witnesses who had expressed a fear of the applicant when testifying at the trial .","On DATE ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was convicted by ORG of establishing , masterminding and supporting a criminal group , CARDINAL acts of extortion , CARDINAL acts of aggravated coercion and fraud and was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . He remained in detention pending the outcome of an appeal .","On DATE a request for release lodged by the applicant was dismissed by ORG . ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant on DATE .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against his conviction , which thereby became final . The applicant started to serve a prison sentence , and the time spent in detention was taken into account when calculating his prison term .","On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional complaint ( \u00fastavn\u00e1 s\u0165a\u017enos\u0165 ) against ORG decision of DATE to dismiss his interlocutory appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Among other things , he complained that his detention was no longer justified , that it had lasted an excessively long time , and that ORG had not answered all the arguments raised in his interlocutory appeal ( \u201c the first constitutional complaint \u201d ) . He complained under LAW DATE and LAW , and under their constitutional equivalents .","On DATE he filed another constitutional complaint , alleging a lack of speediness in relation to the judicial review of his detention by the decisions of ORG of DATE and ORG of DATE ( \u201c the second constitutional complaint \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) accepted a part of the applicant \u2019s first constitutional complaint for further examination , including the complaint regarding the length of his detention . It held that the formal requirements under sections CARDINAL of LAW had been satisfied . At the same time , it dismissed the rest of the complaint as manifestly ill - founded .","On DATE ORG accepted the second constitutional complaint for further examination , and joined the proceedings relating to the first and the second constitutional complaint .","On DATE ORG found a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW . It held that ORG , in its decision of DATE , had failed to respond to all of the applicant \u2019s arguments . Although ORG had examined in detail the applicant \u2019s arguments regarding the grounds for his detention , it had failed to respond to his other arguments , such as one about the impartiality and independence of the tribunal reviewing his detention , and another about alleged shortcomings in his representation during the judicial review , and thus the court had breached LAW .","ORG further held that the judicial review of the applicant \u2019s detention DATE and DATE had not been sufficiently speedy , and found another violation of LAW on this account .","It quashed ORG decision of DATE and awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL as just satisfaction . It did not order his release , since the applicant had been convicted in the meantime and had started to serve a prison term .","ORG considered it unnecessary to examine the rest of the applicant \u2019s complaints , including the CARDINAL under LAW of the LAW regarding the length of his detention .","Between the applicant \u2019s arrest and the completion of the pre - trial investigation , the authorities conducted interviews with CARDINAL defendants , interviewed CARDINAL victims and twentythree witnesses , commissioned CARDINAL expert opinions , analysed telecommunication recordings , conducted home searches and identity parades , and gathered a large amount of documentary evidence .","Between the lodging of the indictment with the trial court and the applicant \u2019s conviction by the court of first instance , the trial court held hearings over the course of DATE . The hearings were scheduled on a DATE or near DATE basis .","On DATE the presiding judge of ORG appointed a substitute defence lawyer for the applicant to prevent the obstruction of court hearings .","On DATE the presiding judge of ORG fined CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s defence lawyers : CARDINAL for failing to appear at CARDINAL court hearings , and the other for obstructing justice ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173372","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DAYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and Mr T. GPE complained about the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Mr PERSON complained about his unlawful detention on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE PERSON revoked her application ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146406","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NO\u00c9, VAJNAI AND BAKO v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE and live in GPE and GPE respectively .","At the material time , PERSON was Vice - President and PERSON and Mr Bak\u00f3 were activists of ORG ) , a registered left - wing political party . The party had no known intention of participating in NORP political life in defiance of the rule of law .","On DATE the applicants organised an event in front of a shopping mall in GPE , entitled \u201c NORP PERSON \u201d , with the intention to demonstrate against consumerism , draw attention to poverty , point out the shortcomings of market economy , and demand free internet access for all .","To express their affiliation with Communism , QUANTITY persons , including the applicants , displayed a sheet and a flag with a CARDINAL - pointed red star and distributed leaflets with their political message , depicting red stars .","In application of section CARDINAL\/B(CARDINAL ) of LAW , a police patrol which was present called on the applicants to terminate the demonstration , checked their identity and committed them to GPE ORG for interrogation .","On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG against the police measures . They relied on the judgment of ORG adopted in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . DATE ) . They referred to the ORG \u2019s finding that the prosecution for having worn a red star had amounted to a violation of PERSON freedom of expression enshrined in LAW .","NORP The applicants\u2019 complaints were dismissed by ORG on DATE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 further complaints against the measures were dismissed by ORG on DATE . This decision was upheld by ORG , acting as a second - instance authority , on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG requests for judicial review . The court held that the display of the red star contravened section CARDINAL\/B of LAW , despite the PERSON judgment , whose application in the circumstances had been no task of the police officers present on the LOC . Consequently , the applicants\u2019 identity check and committal to ORG was justified under sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act no . ORG of DATE on the Police .","In review proceedings , ORG upheld ORG decision on DATE ( in the case of Mr Bak\u00f3 ) , DATE ( in the case of PERSON ) , and DATE ( in the case of PERSON ) , endorsing in essence the first - instance NORP reasoning .","The applicants , jointly ( they had a lawyer in common ) , incurred altogether QUANTITY in legal costs ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175668","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ANNENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants either owned businesses at GPE municipal market and rented the market pitches for their businesses , or worked as vendors for these businesses .","It appears that in DATE the title to the plot of land on which the market was located was transferred from the town to a municipal enterprise and then to a private company , which intended to demolish the market and build a shopping centre . It appears that in DATE and DATE court proceedings were ongoing between the prosecutor \u2019s office and the municipal enterprise in relation to the land in question .","Disagreeing with this course of action , which would adversely affect their businesses and employment , the applicants and some other people ( CARDINAL in total ) decided to remain on the market LOC permanently , doing \u201c TIME shifts \u201d .","According to the applicants , on an unspecified date and in a specified manner , the entrepreneurs notified the town administration of their intention to \u201c constantly do night shifts at the market until the matters relating to the legality of the land \u2019s transfer and the demolition of the market [ were ] settled \u201d . They started their \u201c TIME shifts \u201d on an unspecified date .","On DATE the police told the entrepreneurs who had gathered at the market to leave the LOC . Some refused to comply in the absence of any court order , and argued that , under their rent contracts , they had a right to remain at the market .","On DATE some of the applicants ( Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON , PERSON PERSON , PERSON PERSON , Ms Suprunova , Ms Zakharova and PERSON ) were arrested ( see also paragraphs QUANTITY - CARDINAL below ) .","These applicants were accused of an offence under LAW ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) , which punished disobeying or resisting the lawful order of a public official ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicants , who were assisted by counsel before the trial court , pleaded not guilty and denied that they had disobeyed or resisted any specific lawful orders from the police , or that they had otherwise breached the public order or endangered public safety .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE a justice of peace convicted PERSON of the offence and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention . The court held as follows :","\u201c [ The defendant ] violated the procedure for organising and managing a gathering ( \u0441\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) ; he disobeyed a lawful order issued by police officers in relation to their duties to ensure public order and safety , he also obstructed their exercise of the above duties ...","[ The defendant \u2019s ] guilt is confirmed by the following documents : the record of the administrative offence , a complaint and written statements issued by the market director , written reports by police officers , and statements from witnesses ... \u201d","On DATE Mr PERSON was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 detention . The court held as follows :","\u201c [ The defendant ] violated the procedure for organising and managing a gathering ; he disobeyed a lawful order issued by police officers in relation to their duties to ensure public order and safety , he also obstructed their exercise of the above duties ...","ORG , a witness , made the following statement before this court , \u2018 on DATE a group of entrepreneurs were doing night shifts to prevent the demolition of the market building . Suddenly , police officers arrived and started to grab people and take them to the police station . [ The defendant ] was also grabbed by the police ; he did not show any resistance during this procedure ... \u2019","The court adopts a critical stance in relation to the testimony of this witness , who is the [ defendant \u2019s ] acquaintance and colleague , because this testimony is refuted by the bulk of the other evidence , namely the ORG written reports made in their official capacity ... \u201d","A judgment , apparently in similar terms , was issued in respect of PERSON PERSON , who was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 detention .","As required under the ORG , the applicants started to serve their sentences of administrative detention immediately following the trial judgments in their cases .","At the same time , the applicants appealed to ORG of GPE ( hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . Mr PERSON argued that the trial court had not made a proper assessment of the testimonies of eyewitnesses . He and PERSON PERSON argued , inter alia , that they had taken part in a \u201c gathering \u201d , and LAW did not require that prior notice be given to the competent public authority for this type of public event ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Moreover , in breach of the LAW , no written requirement to cease any unlawful conduct had been issued to them or the other entrepreneurs , and the penalty of administrative detention had been disproportionate .","Mr PERSON argued before the appeal court that he had been present on the market premises in the early morning of CARDINAL DATE , because he had been performing a \u201c duty \u201d . Having heard some noise , he had gone out of the building and had seen other entrepreneurs being arrested ; he had started to film the events on his camera but had then been ordered to delete the video and had been arrested .","The appeal court examined a written statement from PERSON , the new executive director of the market . He had arrived at the marketplace , but could not get into the office building because a number of entrepreneurs were blocking the entrance by holding hands or linking their arms . Following a request by him for assistance , the police had ordered the entrepreneurs to stop their activity . The entrepreneurs , including PERSON , had not complied with that order .","The appeal court also examined written statements from B. , PERSON . and PERSON , who provided testimony in the following terms . While passing through the marketplace on the morning of CARDINAL August DATE , they had seen a group of CARDINAL people . These people had been shouting slogans and calling for people in the town and regional administrations to be dismissed , as well as calling for the violation of public order . The police had told them to stop , but they had not complied with that order . Thereafter , the police had repeated the warning to the most active participant . After he had failed to comply , he had been taken to a police car , while grabbing the ORG uniforms and trying to run away .","Officers S. , NORP and PERSON submitted written reports in the following terms . On DATE , noting the blocking of the entrance to the office building , they had ordered the people present to disperse . The same thing had happened on DATE . Approaching CARDINAL of the most active participants , Mr Finskiy , they had ordered him to stop . After he had refused , they had taken him to the police station .","NORP The appeal court heard PERSON , who stated that Mr PERSON had been trying to film the ongoing events when the police had taken him away ; he had not shown any resistance .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment in respect of Mr Finskiy , stating as follows :","\u201c The court has no reason to doubt the testimonies of police officers and PERSON , PERSON . , because they were not previously acquainted with the defendant or other entrepreneurs , and have no reason to give false testimony against him ... The court dismisses the argument that PERSON , PERSON . could not be eyewitnesses since the market was surrounded by a wall . Their testimonies indicate that they effectively passed through the marketplace ... The court dismisses the argument that the police acted unlawfully in relation to the ORG presence at a gathering requiring no prior authorisation . As the material in the file and testimonies indicate , the police acted lawfully with the aim of ensuring public order and public safety , because the entrepreneurs were blocking access to the market for employees and had not reacted to lawful orders from the police to stop these actions ... The court adopts a critical attitude in respect of the testimony of NORP , who tried to help her colleague avoid responsibility for the offence , because this testimony is refuted by the other evidence ... \u201d","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , in respect of PERSON PERSON , ORG held :","\u201c P. , a witness , stated before the appeal court \u2018 on DATE ... people in plain clothes and the police arrived at the market and , following orders from the chief officer of the Sovetskiy police station , started to arrest entrepreneurs without explaining the reasons for such arrests . [ The defendant ] was also arrested , while showing no resistance or disobedience to any specific orders ... \u2019","The fact that [ the defendant ] committed the offence is confirmed by :","\u2013 the record of the administrative offence stating \u2018 after his violation of the procedure for organising and managing public events , while being arrested , he disobeyed the lawful order of a police officer , grabbed his uniform and tried to escape ... \u2019 ;","\u2013 written statements from [ CARDINAL passers - by ] who , while passing through the market area , saw CARDINAL people chanting slogans and calling for the dismissal of the mayor and the governor and for violations of the public order . Despite the police \u2019s order to stop what they were doing , the entrepreneurs refused ; thereafter the police approached [ the defendant ] , who appeared particularly active , and again ordered him to stop what he was doing , but he did not respond to this order . While being placed in the police car , he resisted , and threated the officers with violence and prosecution ;","\u2013 [ the ORG written statements in similar terms ] : ... Having approached one of the most active men ( subsequently identified as the defendant ) , they warned him against committing offences , but he did not react and refused [ to stop ] ; PERSON [ sic ] was thus arrested and taken to the police station .","The court dismisses the defence \u2019s argument that [ the defendant ] lawfully participated in a gathering requiring no prior authorisation , because the police \u2019s actions were lawful and aimed to secure public order and public safety , since the entrepreneurs were blocking the market employees\u2019 access to the building ... The court adopts a critical attitude in respect of the testimony of P. , who is the defendant \u2019s colleague and wants to help him , because this testimony is refuted by the bulk of the other evidence . \u201d","An appeal decision in similar terms was issued in respect of PERSON PERSON .","Thereafter , learning in DATE that the court decisions in respect of certain other participants in the same events had been quashed on appeal in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON lodged applications under LAW CAO for review of the final judgments in respect of them . On DATE the Deputy President of ORG upheld the lower courts\u2019 decisions . In respect of each defendant , the reviewing judge stated as follows :","\u201c I dismiss the defence \u2019s argument that the lower courts\u2019 judges omitted to specify the type of public event in which the defendant had participated , the relevant regulations on such public events , and the specific details concerning the police \u2019s orders to the defendant . It was established by the justice of the peace that the impugned event was a \u2018 gathering\u2019 ... \u201d","By judgments of CARDINAL DATE the female defendants in the proceedings and Mr PERSON were fined .","On CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ORG set aside the judgments in respect of the female defendants and PERSON .","As regards PERSON , the appeal court held as follows :","\u201c Neither the record of the administrative offence nor the judgment contains references to specific circumstances or actions relating to the corpus delicti of the imputed offence ( disobeying the lawful order of a police officer ) . In particular , neither of the CARDINAL documents specifies what order was given to the defendant which was then not complied with . Moreover , the judgment does not indicate that the defendant did disobey a lawful order issued by a police officer . \u201d","In respect of PERSON , the appeal court held as follows :","\u201c It is indicated in the record of the administrative offence that the defendant violated the procedure relating to the organisation and management of demonstrations , meetings and gatherings , and that during her arrest she disobeyed the lawful order of a police officer in relation to his work to ensure public order . The record does not specify what type of public event was being held , which above - mentioned procedure was violated , or what orders relating to maintaining public order during a public event were not complied with by the defendant . \u201d","In respect of PERSON , the appeal court held as follows :","\u201c The record of the administrative offence indicates that on DATE the defendant violated the procedure relating to the organisation and management of demonstrations , meetings and gatherings , [ and that ] during her arrest she resisted the lawful order of a police officer and grabbed his uniform and tried to escape ... The record does not indicate what type of public event was being held , which applicable procedure the defendant allegedly violated , what orders relating to maintaining public order during such an event were issued to the defendant by the police , or which of those orders was not complied with . \u201d","In respect of PERSON , the appeal court held as follows :","\u201c Neither the record of the administrative offence nor the first - instance judgment refers to specific facts and actions forming part of the offence imputed to the defendant , namely disobeying the lawful order of a police officer ... or the specific order given to her which she failed to comply with . Moreover , it does not follow that what the defendant disobeyed was a lawful order given by a police officer . The record does not specify what the defendant \u2019s violation of the procedure concerning the organisation and management of demonstrations , meetings and gatherings was , or what type of event was being held . \u201d","The appeal court ordered the return of the case files to the relevant justice of the peace . Thereafter , the justice of the peace returned the files to the police station , apparently for the documents to be amended or the administrative - offence records to be redrafted . The files were not resubmitted for a retrial .","At TIME on DATE the police arrested some CARDINAL people at the market , including certain applicants such as Mr PERSON , Ms Garkavets , PERSON , Ms FAC and PERSON .","On DATE a justice of the peace examined a case against Mr PERSON . The court heard PERSON . , who stated that a group of people had impeded security guards as they tried to re - establish access to the market building . The police had then arrived and had taken some people to the police station .","It appears that during the hearing the applicant , who was assisted by counsel , first sought to have some other witnesses and police officers examined in open court . However , according to the Government , he then withdrew his application .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON was convicted of an offence under LAW ORG and was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention . The justice of the peace found as follows :","\u201c [ The defendant ] disobeyed the police officers and did not comply with lawful orders to stop violating public order ...","The defendant \u2019s guilt is confirmed by : the administrative - offence record , the police ORG reports and the written testimonies of witnesses ... \u201d","According to the Government , PERSON did not serve his sentence , as he was taken to the cardiology unit of a local hospital on TIME CARDINAL DATE .","Mr PERSON appealed to ORG , which held a hearing on CARDINAL DATE . It heard his lawyer and PERSON . , who stated that she had seen the applicant making a video recording while he was surrounded by security guards who had torn his clothes . Colleagues had managed to \u201c get him of the security QUANTITY grasp \u201d , then the police had arrived and had started to push certain entrepreneurs aside . CARDINAL of the security guards \u201c had given an order to arrest [ Mr PERSON ] \u201d . Mr PERSON had not disobeyed any orders and had not resisted arrest ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the appeal court upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE in respect of the applicant .","Learning in DATE that the court decisions in respect of certain other participants in the events on DATE ( and CARDINAL DATE ) had been quashed on appeal ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , the applicant and his counsel , PERSON , thought that they had a reasonable prospect of success in seeking a further review of the court decisions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . In DATE they lodged an application for review of those court decisions . They argued , inter alia , that : the lower courts had not specified what specific order the applicant had disobeyed or whether such an order was lawful under NORP law ; the courts had not heard any officers or eyewitnesses who had witnessed the impugned reprehensible conduct on the part of the applicant ; and the courts had not specified any particular actions on his part which constituted a breach of public order .","On DATE the Deputy President of ORG upheld the lower courts\u2019 decisions . The judge held as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] was part of the group of people who impeded market officials as they tried to gain access to their office building . The guards from a private security company intervened and a fight ensued between them and some participants . These participants did not respond to orders from police officers . The officers required [ the applicant ] , who was one of the most active participants , to cease his unlawful conduct , but he did not respond to this order . Thereafter , he was taken to the police station . \u201d","On DATE a justice of the peace sentenced several female defendants to a fine . However , on DATE the ORG heard appeals from them and set aside the judgments against them .","In respect of PERSON , it held as follows :","\u201c LAW ORG requires that a record of an administrative offence must describe , among other things , the factual elements relating to the offence and the circumstances in which it was committed . The record concerning the defendant specifies that ... she disobeyed the police officers , did not respond to their lawful requests to stop unlawfully violating the public order , and grabbed the ORG uniforms while being escorted to the police vehicle , trying to push them away and run away .","The record of the administrative offence does not specify which requests relating to public order were addressed to the defendant and were not complied with , or which actions of the applicant such requests related to . The deficiencies of the record make it impossible to establish the defendant \u2019s liability for an administrative offence , and the record must be returned to the [ police ] . \u201d","In respect of PERSON and Ms Garkavets , the appeal court held as follows :","\u201c Neither the record of the administrative offence nor the justice of the peace \u2019s judgment specifies how the defendant violated public order , or which specific order was given by the police in this connection but not complied with by her . \u201d","It appears that the files were then returned to the police for the documents to be amended . The files were not resubmitted to the relevant justice of the peace for a retrial .","On DATE Mr PERSON \u2019s wife ( PERSON , also an applicant in the present case ) lodged a criminal complaint with ORG .","PERSON alleged that Officer PERSON . , a senior officer at the Sovetskiy police station , had subjected her elderly husband to ill - treatment on DATE . She sought the institution of criminal proceedings against this officer . She stated as follows : at her request , her husband had arrived at the market in the early morning of CARDINAL DATE , where she had been doing \u201c TIME shifts \u201d with others , in order to bring her some warm clothes ; Officer PERSON . had struck a blow to his chest , causing the man to fall to the ground and sustain a head injury as he hit his head against the corner of a table .","Mr PERSON was examined on DATE by a neurosurgeon , a traumatology specialist and a therapist , who concluded that he had a contused wound on his head measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY by QUANTITY , some swelling on his upper right arm , and some other injuries ( this part of the certificate is not legible ) . In her submissions before the ORG the applicant \u2019s lawyer alleged that PERSON had sustained a rib fracture . She maintained this assertion following communication of the case to the Government ; the latter did not comment on this matter .","Unspecified officials carried out an inquiry CARDINAL DATE , looking into whether any police officers had committed the offence of abuse of power ( defined at the time as \u201c actions manifestly outside the scope of official duties , causing a significant violation of one \u2019s rights or legitimate interests \u201d ) , an offence under LAW .","CARDINAL other applicants ( PERSON , PERSON and Ms Zakharova ) also sought medical assistance on DATE . PERSON was diagnosed with concussion and soft - tissue bruises on her head and right arm . PERSON was diagnosed with soft - tissue bruises on her head and right shoulder . PERSON was examined by a forensic expert , who concluded that she had bruises on the front upper part of her right arm ( measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , and QUANTITY by QUANTITY ) and a smaller one on the inner part of her right arm , abrasions on her right and left hip measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and QUANTITY by QUANTITY respectively , and abrasions on her right and left ankle joints measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and QUANTITY by QUANTITY respectively .","It appears that on an unspecified date PERSON , Ms Zakharova and PERSON were heard in the context of the pre - investigation inquiry regarding PERSON PERSON .","PERSON stated that she had arrived at the market early on the morning of CARDINAL August DATE and had seen a police officer dragging PERSON . She had protested to Officer PERSON . , who had then pushed her . She had fallen to the ground , hitting her shoulder and the back of her head against wooden objects on the ground .","PERSON stated that Officer PERSON . had ordered \u201c Take this CARDINAL \u201d and had started to pull her hair and hands , but other entrepreneurs had tried to shield her .","PERSON stated that she had tried to shield PERSON from Officer PERSON . , who was pulling her hair . Officer PERSON . and Officer PERSON . had pushed PERSON against a wall , causing her to fall to the ground and lose consciousness . She had then been dragged along the ground by her hands , and had been kicked in the back by one of the officers as she was placed in the police car .","Ms Yef . , the ORG colleague , made a written statement that in TIME of CARDINAL DATE some CARDINAL people had been at the market . Upon being alerted to the arrival of the police , she had gone out and seen some QUANTITY police officers , including Officer PERSON . , a senior officer , who was giving orders and indicating that the officers should \u201c Take this CARDINAL \u201d or something similar . She had seen an officer twisting PERSON arms and PERSON being dragged along the ground . Then she had seen Mr PERSON ask Officer PERSON . \u201c What are you doing ? \u201d , and Officer PERSON . had suddenly hit him in the chest , causing PERSON to fall to the ground and hit against the top of a table . PERSON had fainted . Officer PERSON . had then kicked him on the leg and ordered \u201c Take this CARDINAL \u201d .","Officer PERSON . made the following written statement during the inquiry :","\u201c On DATE the police station received information that in the early morning of CARDINAL DATE a group of CARDINAL people might take violent action in order to take possession of the market . At TIME officers under my supervision arrived at the market to prevent disorder and unlawful actions . We saw CARDINAL people outside the building who were holding a meeting , chanting slogans and shouting about the regional prosecutor and the governor . The entrepreneurs had previously been issued with warnings against unlawful actions on their part . Suddenly , CARDINAL women started to shout and call for help , grabbing our uniforms . We arrested some CARDINAL people , including the most active perpetrators ; all of them resisted during the arrest ... We did use physical force against some people , namely sambo fighting techniques such as twisting hands behind backs . None of the officers , including myself , inflicted any blows ... \u201d","On DATE an investigator issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings , referring to the statements of several officers , including Officer PERSON . , and the testimonies of PERSON , PERSON , Ms Zakharova and PERSON .","It appears that the refusal of CARDINAL DATE was then overruled for unspecified reasons and the inquiry was resumed . Written statements were obtained from some other participants in the gathering . Officer PERSON . was also heard and he confirmed Officer PERSON . \u2019s earlier statement .","On DATE the investigator issued a new refusal to institute criminal proceedings against Officer PERSON . , Officer PERSON . or other officers . Having summarised the above testimonies , he concluded as follows :","\u201c No sufficient and objective data could be gathered during the inquiry to show that any police officers had committed any criminal offence ... The grievances presented in the complaints are refuted by the testimonies from the officers ... Injuries could have been sustained during the arrest procedure owing to the resistance displayed to the police officers ( such resistance later being confirmed by the prosecution for the administrative offences ) . Furthermore , in view of the important and irremediable inconsistencies in various testimonies , there is no possibility of drawing a truthful conclusion regarding the commission of a criminal offence by PERSON . , PERSON . or others ... \u201d","For unspecified reasons , a new refusal to prosecute was issued on CARDINAL DATE . It was then overruled on DATE by the deputy director of ORG . He indicated that it was necessary to : assess the available court decisions regarding administrative offences concerning the events on DATE ; identify and interview people who had been kept with the arrested people at the police station ; identify and interview all police officers who had been present at the station and had compiled administrative - offence files against the arrested entrepreneurs ; and identify and interview all the officers who had been on duty on that date and had been present at the market .","CARDINAL applicants ( Mr Annenkov , PERSON , PERSON and Ms Zakharova ) sought judicial review in respect of the refusal dated QUANTITY DATE . They learnt at a hearing on DATE that the refusal had already been overruled . The case was therefore discontinued .","A new refusal was issued on DATE .","On DATE ORG set aside the refusal of CARDINAL DATE because it contained an insufficient assessment of the factual circumstances , no plausible explanation for the applicants\u2019 injuries , and no assessment of the legality of the police \u2019s actions .","Being unaware of the above decision , CARDINAL of the applicants sought judicial review of the refusal to prosecute dated DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings because the supervising authority had overruled the impugned refusal decision .","According to the ORG , a new refusal to prosecute was issued on DATE . It was overruled on DATE by the district prosecutor \u2019s office . Thereafter , a criminal case was opened under LAW of LAW . Apparently , PERSON and PERSON at least were interviewed again by an investigator . Mr PERSON also had a formal confrontation procedure with an unspecified witness who had allegedly seen the applicant stumble and fall to the ground by himself on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["11","3"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177232","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF K\u00d6RTV\u00c9LYESSY v. HUNGARY (No. 3)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant notified the police that he planned to organise a demonstration from TIME on DATE in front of the FAC prison in GPE , in order to draw attention to the \u201c situation of political prisoners \u201d . FAC is a broad cul - de - sac with a service lane .","On DATE the head of ORG banned the demonstration on the grounds that traffic could not be diverted to alternative routes ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . In the decision , he referred to LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL.AB of ORG .","On DATE , within the statutory time - limit , the applicant sought a judicial review of the decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s case . It noted that in assessing whether or not traffic could be diverted to other routes , the authority had reckoned on the participation of CARDINAL demonstrators , as per the applicant \u2019s notification , and DATE after having obtained the opinion of a traffic expert \u2013 it had established that lawful parking and traffic circulation in the neighbourhood would become impossible should the event take place . The court agreed with the police \u2019s decision in that although the right to assembly was a constitutional fundamental right , it was not absolute and must not give rise to a violation of the fundamental rights of others , and could therefore be restricted . The court was satisfied that the decision had been lawful as the police had adequately established the facts , complied with the procedural rules and applied clear assessment criteria , and the assessment of the evidence had been logical ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183537","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ALPEYEVA AND DZHALAGONIYA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The first applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , in LOC .","At the relevant time she was a NORP national and lived in GPE .","In DATE the first applicant applied to the NORP embassy in GPE for NORP citizenship .","In DATE she was granted NORP citizenship and the NORP embassy in GPE put a stamp in her NORP passport to this effect .","Thereafter the first applicant moved to GPE .","On DATE she obtained a new NORP \u201c internal passport \u201d ( a citizen \u2019s identity document for use inside GPE ) .","In DATE the first applicant applied to ORG ( ORG ) for an \u201c international passport \u201d required for foreign travel .","On DATE an official from the ORG seized her NORP passport , which was later destroyed . The ORG referred to a report of CARDINAL DATE on a check carried out by the agencies of the interior , according to which the first applicant had never properly acquired NORP citizenship and therefore had no right to be in possession of a NORP passport . The report stated , in particular , that whereas the first applicant had been issued with a NORP passport on DATE , she was not registered in the database of ORG as a person who had acquired NORP citizenship . Furthermore , according to a letter of DATE from the NORP embassy in GPE , it had no records on her obtaining NORP citizenship either . Accordingly , she had been issued with a NORP passport erroneously in DATE .","The first applicant complained to the prosecuting authorities .","On DATE the Volzhskiy prosecutor \u2019s office rejected the complaint .","In a response of DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office stated that the ORG was not competent to seize passports , something which only the agencies of the interior could do ; that the first applicant \u2019s passport had been seized in breach of the law ; and that the prosecutor \u2019s office recommended that the ORG rectify the situation .","On DATE the ORG issued report no . CARDINAL to the effect that the first applicant had never properly acquired NORP citizenship , and that a NORP passport had been issued to her unlawfully .","The first applicant appealed to a court against the findings of the report of DATE .","On DATE ORG found in favour of the first applicant and held that the check which had been carried out by the agencies of the interior had been unlawful .","The decision was subsequently quashed by means of supervisory review and the case was remitted for fresh examination .","On DATE ORG again held that the check had been unlawful .","NORP However , the ORG did not set aside the decision to seize the first applicant \u2019s passport , and a new passport was not issued to her either .","The first applicant again instituted court proceedings , this time for a finding that the seizure of her passport had been unlawful .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s complaint . It accepted the ORG \u2019s arguments that she had never acquired NORP citizenship , although it also found that the FMS officials\u2019 actions of DATE had been procedurally incorrect , as the ORG did not have competence to seize passports .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal .","A request by the first applicant for supervisory review was dismissed on DATE .","The first applicant then instituted another set of court proceedings against the ORG concerning its inaction in relation to issuing her with an identity document . She also contested the ORG report no . CARDINAL of DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal .","The first applicant reapplied for LANGUAGE citizenship .","On DATE she was granted NORP citizenship under a simplified procedure on the basis of a ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE to this effect .","On DATE the first applicant was issued with a NORP passport .","The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","According to the second applicant , DATE he lived in GPE . Initially , he had a GPE passport issued on DATE by ORG of the Interior of GPE .","On DATE , in accordance with the procedure then in force , the second applicant was issued with an insert for his passport ( \u0432\u043a\u043b\u0430\u0434\u044b\u0448 ) specifying that he was a citizen of GPE .","On DATE the ORG and ORG no . CARDINAL of ORG , in GPE , issued the second applicant with a NORP passport .","In DATE the second applicant moved to GPE .","On DATE the second applicant applied to the ORG of GPE of GPE to register his place of residence .","According to the Government , owing to doubts as to whether the second applicant had been issued with a NORP passport in accordance with the established procedure , the ORG of GPE of GPE sent a request to the ORG of GPE .","On DATE the ORG of GPE issued a certificate which reads , in so far as relevant :","\u201c On DATE [ the second applicant ] was issued with [ a NORP passport ] following the exchange of [ his passport ] issued on DATE by ORG of the Interior of GPE .","In section CARDINAL of the application for issue ( exchange ) of [ the second applicant \u2019s ] passport it is noted \u2018 ORG citizen according to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)\u2019 .","According to the information [ available to the ORG of GPE ] , [ the second applicant ] has not been registered at the address [ in ORG ] since DATE , as he has moved to GPE .","In the database of [ ORG ] , available to the ORG of GPE , there is no information as to whether [ the second applicant ] has obtained NORP citizenship .","A copy of [ the second applicant \u2019s ] passport issued on DATE by ORG of the Interior of GPE contains a [ glued ] insert issued by ORG of Rostov - on - Don on DATE illegible ] to the effect that [ the second applicant ] is a citizen of GPE in accordance with section PERSON ) of LAW of DATE .","On DATE ... a request was sent to [ the ORG of GPE ] to confirm that [ the second applicant ] had LANGUAGE citizenship .","According [ to the information received ] , the issue of the above insert to [ the second applicant ] and its lawfulness or otherwise is [ not ] [ section illegible ] confirmed ...","The decision to issue [ the second applicant ] with [ a NORP ] passport was made ... by [ ORG ] , former head of the ORG and ORG no . CARDINAL of ORG , in GPE , who on DATE was ... dismissed from service because she had reached retirement age .","It appears to be impossible to question [ V. ] concerning the circumstances of the issue of the NORP passport [ to the second applicant ] , since she is absent from her place of residence .","Accordingly , [ V. ] ... issued [ the second applicant ] with a NORP passport in the absence of documents confirming that he was a NORP citizen , and without checking the documents presented for the issue ( exchange ) of the passport , in breach [ of the rules ] then in force .","The above circumstances allow the supposition that [ ORG ] might have had an interest in issuing [ the second applicant ] with a NORP passport in breach of the established rules , which constitutes an offence punishable under LAW . Furthermore , it may be conjectured that [ the second applicant ] presented a passport [ issued in DATE ] which contained wrong information to the effect that he had NORP citizenship .","On the basis of the foregoing , [ it is proposed ] ... to consider that [ the second applicant \u2019s passport ] was issued in breach of the established rules ... \u201d","NORP On DATE , when the second applicant turned DATE , in accordance with the applicable procedure , he applied to the ORG to exchange his passport .","The second applicant received a verbal refusal to issue him with a new passport . According to the official who notified him of the refusal , the second applicant had failed to prove that he had had a permanent place of residence in GPE on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and he had only had a registered place of residence in GPE since DATE .","On DATE the second applicant provided LOC FMS with a written explanation to the effect that DATE his place of residence had been registered in PERSON - on - Don , although he had actually been living with his partner , PERSON , in LOC .","On DATE ORG of LOC of GPE - on - PERSON provided the second applicant with a certificate confirming that he was not registered in LOC and there was no information about him in the archives either .","On DATE the Krasnodar Region FMS informed GPE FMS that its archives contained no information about the second applicant , and that it appeared to be impossible to question PERSON because she was absent from her place of residence .","On DATE the Kostroma Region FMS issued a decision to the effect that the second applicant was not a NORP citizen . With reference to the certificate of DATE issued by the ORG of GPE , the decision stated , in particular , that according to the enquiries carried out , the second applicant \u2019s NORP passport had been issued in breach of the applicable rules . It further stated that it had proved impossible to obtain documentary evidence that the second applicant had been living in GPE on DATE , and the stamp in his passport only confirmed that he had been registered as resident in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The decision also noted that the database of ORG contained no information as to whether the second applicant had obtained NORP citizenship . Accordingly , the enquiries made had obtained no evidence that the second applicant had acquired NORP citizenship or that he had been living in GPE on DATE .","The second applicant appealed to ORG against the refusal to exchange his passport .","At a hearing on DATE a representative from the ORG of GPE of GPE stated , in particular :","\u201c On the basis of the written instructions from the ORG that there should be an urgent check on all passports previously issued to individuals not born in the territory of GPE , we sent a request for information to the ORG of GPE . The FMS of GPE sent a certificate confirming that the [ second applicant \u2019s ] passport should be considered as having been issued in breach of the applicable rules . I sent a report stating that it was necessary to obtain corroboration that [ the second applicant ] either had or did not have LANGUAGE citizenship . The head of the ORG ... issued a decision to the effect that [ the second applicant ] was not a NORP citizen . [ The second applicant ] was invited to familiarise himself with that decision . [ I]t was suggested that he apply for a residence permit and subsequently NORP citizenship , under a simplified procedure .","In DATE the ORG issued instructions for checks to be carried out only in respect of individuals who had applied to exchange their passports . [ The second applicant ] applied [ to exchange his passport ] , and I discovered that he had not been born in the territory of GPE , and sent the request . [ His ] passport was not seized : the ORG did not issue instructions to this effect , so that people would not be left without [ an identity ] document . \u201d","On DATE the GPE ORG of GPE upheld the decision of the ORG . It noted that , as a result of a check carried out pursuant to sections DATE Regulation on ORG , the ORG had found that the second applicant had been issued with a NORP passport in breach of the applicable rules , and was not entitled to NORP citizenship . In particular , it had not been confirmed that he had been living in GPE on DATE . This justified the refusal to exchange his passport . The court also noted that the reports of the checks carried out by the ORG had not been appealed against or set aside in accordance with the established procedure , and that they were not the subject of the court \u2019s examination in those proceedings .","The court further dismissed the second applicant \u2019s argument that the fact that he had been using the previously issued NORP passport for DATE constituted a valid reason to exchange the passport . The court likewise dismissed his argument that he had not violated any laws or regulations in DATE , when he had been issued with the NORP passport . The court found that his passport was invalid regardless .","The second applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision . The appeal court noted , in particular , that the certificate issued by GPE FMS on DATE showed that a NORP passport had been issued to the second applicant on the basis of a certificate of DATE issued by ORG of Rostov - on - Don confirming that he was a NORP citizen in accordance with section PERSON ) of the DATE Law on Citizenship of GPE . However , the legal validity of that certificate had not been confirmed . It further noted that , according to the results of the enquiries carried out in the places indicated by the applicant as his places of residence in GPE DATE , no confirmation of his registration and residence as of DATE had been received with respect to any of the addresses indicated .","The appeal court also noted that the second applicant \u2019s argument that he had not been informed about the report issued following the check carried out by the ORG , and that therefore he could not have appealed against it , had not affected the lower court \u2019s conclusions .","On DATE , following the entry into force of Law no . CARDINALFZ on ORG to LAW of DATE , the second applicant applied for LANGUAGE citizenship .","On DATE the ORG of LOC decided to grant the second applicant LANGUAGE citizenship .","On DATE the second applicant received a NORP passport ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175479","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF M.Z. v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;General principles of international law)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LANGUAGE .","The applicant was employed at a ORG - owned company from DATE until DATE . Part of his severance payment was taxed at a PERCENT rate in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-176761","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SINEX D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant is a privately owned company which was established in DATE and registered in GPE .","On DATE the applicant and Beranka AD , a sociallyowned company , concluded a guarantee agreement . To secure the payment of obligations under this agreement , the applicant and ORG concluded ORG . CARDINAL on the fiduciary transfer of the latter \u2019s property to the applicant ( ORG br . CARDINAL ORG o fiducijarnom prenosu prava svojine ) . In this FAC , the property offered as collateral was : ( a ) property no . DATE storehouse ( magacin ) ; ( b ) property no . DATE power plant ( energana ) ; ( c ) property no . DATE boiler - room ( kotlovnica ) ; ( d ) property no . DATE laboratory ( laboratorija ) ; and ( e ) property PMCARDINAL \u2013 paper machines ( papir ma\u0161ine ) .","On DATE the fiduciary transfer of ORG property to the applicant was registered by ORG in Berane ( Direkcija za nekretnine , Podru\u010dna jedinica LOC","On DATE ORG in PERSON ( NORP sud u ORG ) opened insolvency proceedings in respect of Beranka AD .","On DATE the applicant reported its claim in these proceedings .","On DATE ORG refused to recognise this claim .","Following the decision of DATE , on DATE the insolvency administrator for GPE AD ( ste\u010dajni upravnik ) lodged a request with ORG in Berane seeking that the registration of the fiduciary transfer of property to the applicant be erased . On DATE ORG accepted this request .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG in Berane ( Uprava za nekretnine Podru\u010dna jedinica Berane ) . On DATE ORG amended the said decision .","On DATE ORG in GPE ( Uprava za nekrentine u GPE ) quashed both decisions on appeal and remitted the case for reconsideration .","On DATE ORG in Berane re - registered the fiduciary transfer on properties nos . CARDINAL and DATE , as well as on PMCARDINAL , but refused to re - register the fiduciary transfer on properties nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG in GPE upheld this decision .","The applicant appealed to ORG . On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of ORG in GPE and remitted case to ORG in Berane . It would appear that the case is still pending before that body .","On DATE ORG issued an enforcement decision ordering the registration of the applicant \u2019s fiduciary rights in respect of all properties .","Following ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant lodged an objection . The hearings concerning the objection were held on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection .","On DATE ORG in Berane again erased the fiduciary transfer of ORG property from the public register . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG to erase the applicant \u2019s fiduciary rights .","On DATE , upon an appeal by the applicant , ORG quashed the decision of the ORG and remitted the case to ORG in Berane for reconsideration .","On DATE ORG in Berane ordered the removal of the applicant \u2019s rights on DATE property from the public register .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted case to the first instance .","On DATE ORG in Berane stayed the proceedings , because it needed some documents which were in the file of a case pending before ORG . This decision was quashed by decision of ORG and the matter was remitted to the first instance .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision allowing the deletion of the applicant \u2019s rights from the public register . The same authority confirmed that decision on DATE .","On DATE the applicant filed an objection with ORG .","On DATE the applicant also lodged an appeal with ORG . On DATE ORG rendered a decision in the applicant \u2019s favour and ordered ORG to reconsider on the applicant \u2019s prior objection .","On DATE ORG remitted the case to the first instance . The proceedings are still pending before ORG in Berane ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177119","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VITANIS AND \u0160UKYS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and are detained in ORG and GPE .","The first applicant was detained in FAC from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The documents submitted to ORG show that he was held in CARDINAL different remand prison cells : nos . CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL and DATE .","In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings for damages . He argued that the conditions in which he had been held in FAC had been degrading : cell no . CARDINAL had not been renovated , had had almost no natural light and the artificial light provided in TIME had been very poor ; the ventilation had been insufficient and the cell was cold ; cell no . ORG , although renovated , lacked sufficient ventilation and was cold , and there was almost no natural light ; cell no . CARDINAL had insufficient light and ventilation ; cell no . CARDINAL was dirty , the electrical system was damaged and thus dangerous , the sanitary facilities were not separated from the cell , the cell lacked light , ventilation and the temperature was too low . The applicant also submitted a document from ORG from DATE , which noted violations of hygiene norms in the remand prison \u2019s cells .","On DATE ORG held that the applicant \u2019s right to adequate conditions of detention had been breached but dismissed his claim for compensation . The court held that the applicant had not complained about his conditions of detention while in prison and had only lodged his complaint DATE after leaving it . Moreover , it was up to the applicant to prove that he had sustained damage . The court held that there was no information to show that the remand prison had purposely interfered with his right to dignity or treated him inhumanely , that he had not suffered a great enough negative impact from the hygiene violations , and that there were no grounds to award him compensation .","The applicant appealed but on DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision . The court observed that the document from ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been issued DATE after the applicant had left the remand prison and it was not able to determine the negative impact of the unsanitary conditions on the applicant on the basis of such evidence alone .","The second applicant was detained in FAC from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The documents submitted to ORG show that he was held in several different cells : CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings for damages and on DATE he submitted a detailed complaint . He argued that the conditions in which he had been held in FAC had been degrading : the cells were damp and dirty , there was insufficient light and ventilation , and the walls had not been painted . As a result , his health had deteriorated : his sight had worsened and he had pain in his joints and his back .","On DATE ORG held that the applicant \u2019s right to adequate conditions of detention had been breached but dismissed his claim for compensation . The court found that ORG had examined cell no . CARDINAL on DATE , while the applicant had been detained there from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE . The cell had been dirty , the toilet doors broken , and there was mould on the walls and ceiling . The health centre also examined cell no . CARDINAL on DATE and established that there was no longer any mould and the temperature was satisfactory , but the lighting was still insufficient . The court thus held that the applicant had proven that the conditions in cell no . CARDINAL had been unsanitary . However , the court noted that the applicant had not proven the existence of unsanitary conditions in the other cells . The court further noted that the inmates were responsible for keeping the cells clean , but that the remand prison had not proven that it had provided the applicant with cleaning materials for DATE . As regards the applicant \u2019s health , the court observed that he had been prescribed several drugs for spinal osteochondrosis , but that there was no relation between his illness and the unsanitary conditions in cell no . CARDINAL . The court also noted that during the hearing the applicant had claimed that all the cells had been overcrowded but he had failed to mention this in his written complaint . The court thus held that the case concerned sanitary conditions and not overcrowding .","NORP The applicant appealed and on DATE ORG found that the court of first instance had acted unreasonably in dismissing his compensation claim , and awarded him with CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) for non - pecuniary damage ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152323","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"TOMOIAG\u0102 v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Co - Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was placed in pre - trial detention on DATE in the Arad Police detention facilities . On DATE he was convicted of corruption committed in the exercise of his duty as a police officer and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment by ORG .","DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in the ORG detention facilities in a cell measuring QUANTITY together with CARDINAL other prisoners . The window was very small and could not be opened from the inside . Access to the toilets was allowed twice per day . The mattress on his bed was worn out and the food was of very poor quality .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC where he remained until DATE . He shared a cell measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL other prisoners and the food was of very poor quality and served in unhygienic conditions . The applicant also alleged that he had been transported to court hearings before ORG in old vans , in overcrowded and overheated conditions .","In the GPE Police detention facilities the applicant shared a cell measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL other prisoners who were also in pre - trial detention . The cell had CARDINAL windows each measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY which could be opened from the outside at the ORG request or by the prisoners themselves by pushing the windows towards the exterior . The sanitary facilities and toilets were accessible twice per day for TIME routine . In addition , access to the toilets was granted whenever necessary , upon request , TIME For the rest of the time a TIME pot was available in the cell . The prisoners had the right to a TIME DATE walk .","In FAC the applicant was detained in a cell measuring QUANTITY For certain periods of time he shared the cell with CARDINAL , CARDINAL other prisoners . The cell had a hallway , a separate bathroom with toilet and shower and a sleeping area . In terms of furniture , the cell contained CARDINAL beds and bedside tables , a table for eating , chairs , shelves and a wardrobe . The prison had central heating ; the temperature in the cells during the DATE ranged from CARDINAL to CARDINALoC. The applicant had the right to CARDINAL hours\u2019 walk a day and , during his stay in FAC , he participated in CARDINAL educational activities and CARDINAL sports activities ( such as football during DATE ) . The applicant had been transported to and from the courts in accordance with the relevant legal provisions .","The Government emphasised that the applicant had never complained before the prison authorities about his conditions of detention or transportation .","Excerpts from the relevant parts of ORG of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , as well as of ORG adopted by ORG on DATE , are quoted in ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142673","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF L.H. v. LATVIA","importance":2,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC ( GPE ) .","On DATE the applicant gave birth in FAC ( a municipal enterprise , hereinafter \u201c the ORG hospital \u201d ) . Caesarean section was used , with the applicant \u2019s consent , because uterine rupture had occurred during labour .","In the course of that surgery the surgeon performed tubal ligation ( surgical contraception ) without the applicant \u2019s consent .","On DATE , after her attempt to achieve an out - of - court settlement with the hospital had failed , the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the hospital , seeking to recover damages for the unauthorised tubal ligation . In DATE her claim was upheld and she was awarded compensation in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lati for the unlawful sterilisation .","On DATE the director of the ORG hospital wrote to ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the MADEKKI \u201d ) , requesting it to \u201c evaluate the treatment received by [ the applicant ] during childbirth in accordance with the legislation in force in DATE \u201d . The PERSON initiated an administrative procedure on DATE . The administrative inquiry concerned the applicant \u2019s health care and in particular the gynaecological and childbirth assistance she had been provided from DATE . In the process of that inquiry the PERSON requested and received medical files from CARDINAL different medical institutions , containing detailed information about the applicant \u2019s health over that period .","In DATE ORG , a MADEKKI staff member , telephoned the applicant and informed her of the on - going inquiry . ORG invited the applicant to comment on the case , which she declined to do , referring the PERSON to her legal representative , PERSON , instead . During the conversation ORG allegedly admonished the applicant for wanting to sue the hospital for damages , and told her that she herself was to blame for her sterilisation .","On DATE Ms PERSON asked the PERSON for information on the legal grounds for , and the factual circumstances of , the inquiry .","On DATE the PERSON issued a report concerning the medical treatment given to the applicant during childbirth in DATE . The report contained medical details about the applicant of a particularly private and sensitive character . It concluded that no laws had been violated during the applicant \u2019s antenatal care or during childbirth . A summary of the findings of the report was sent to the director of the ORG hospital on DATE .","On DATE the PERSON answered PERSON PERSON \u2019s questions concerning the administrative inquiry , setting out its opinion on the legal basis for it and providing information on the steps that had been taken in the course of the inquiry .","The applicant \u2019s representative lodged a claim with ORG , alleging that the PERSON had initiated the inquiry unlawfully , since in essence its purpose had been to help the ORG hospital to gather evidence for the impending litigation , which was outside the PERSON \u2019s remit . It was also alleged that the PERSON had acted unlawfully in requesting and receiving information about the applicant \u2019s health , as it had violated the applicant \u2019s right to respect for her private life . That right had been further violated when the PERSON unlawfully transferred the applicant \u2019s data to the ORG hospital . Lastly , the court was requested to annul an administrative act \u2013 the PERSON \u2019s report DATE since its findings were erroneous . Compensation in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lati was requested in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG adopted a judgment by which it terminated the proceedings with regard to the request to annul the PERSON report , as in the court \u2019s opinion the report did not create any specific rights or obligations for the applicant and thus could not be considered an administrative act , and dismissed the remainder of the application as ill - founded .","Counsel for the applicant appealed and on DATE ORG adopted a judgment by which it upheld in full the first - instance court \u2019s judgment and endorsed that court \u2019s reasoning , essentially equating the activities of the PERSON with the provision of health care , which , according to domestic law , was a legitimate reason for gathering personal data .","On DATE the ORG of ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant , in which reference was made , inter alia , to LAW and to the cases of Z v. GPE ( DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE ) and PERSON GPE ( DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINALIV ) .","The ORG agreed with the lower courts that the PERSON report could not be considered an administrative act . It further considered that this report was not an action of a public authority ( faktisk\u0101 r\u012bc\u012bba ) and thus was not amenable to review in administrative courts .","It thus remained for the ORG to address the applicant \u2019s claims that the PERSON \u2019s actions in preparing the report had been unlawful . In this regard the ORG considered that LAW gave the PERSON the right to examine the quality of medical care provided in medical institutions not only upon receiving a corresponding complaint from a patient but also when a request for such examination had been submitted by a medical institution , which had an obligation to protect the interests of the society so that , should any irregularities be found by the PERSON , they might be eliminated and their recurrence with respect to other patients avoided in the future .","NORP The ORG agreed with the applicant that the processing of sensitive data concerning her constituted an interference with her rights guaranteed by , inter alia , LAW . The ORG then went on to summarise the findings of ORG in the CARDINAL cases invoked by the applicant , emphasising in particular that the Convention left to the GPE a wide margin of appreciation in balancing the confidentiality of medical data and the necessity to preserve ORG confidence in the medical profession and in the health services in general .","NORP The ORG further held that both LAW and LAW contained exceptions that permitted the PERSON to collect and process the otherwise confidential medical data . The former listed such exceptions explicitly ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , while the latter allowed processing of medical data for the purposes of medical treatment or the provision or administration of heath care services ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) or if processing of personal data was necessary for a system administrator to carry out his legal duties ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The ORG continued as follows : \u201c according to [ the law ] the PERSON has a duty to control the quality of medical care . In order to carry out such control , the PERSON requires information about the patient and his care \u201d .","The ORG concluded as follows :","\u201c Taking into account the aforementioned , the [ ORG ] finds that restrictions to a person \u2019s private life connected to gathering and processing of sensitive personal data are provided for by law . When regulating this question , the legislator has already assessed the aim and proportionality of such restrictions , as well as has provided for safeguards against unjustified disclosure of the above - mentioned data . Consequently [ the applicant \u2019s ] argument that ORG ought to have assessed the aim and proportionality of the restriction is unfounded .","Additionally the [ ORG ] considers that ORG has correctly interpreted and applied the above - mentioned legal provisions and has come to the correct conclusion that the PERSON , in order to carry out the control of the quality of medical care , which it is competent to do , had a right to receive and process [ the applicant \u2019s ] sensitive data without asking for her consent and that the PERSON has acted within its sphere of competence and in accordance with the provisions of the law concerning the processing of sensitive personal data . The PERSON used the information it had collected about [ the applicant ] in order to carry out its functions , namely , to control the quality of the medical care provided to [ the applicant ] , while to the PERSON hospital it only handed over its conclusions concerning the legality of the LOC actions , which did not contain [ the applicant \u2019s ] sensitive data . \u201d","For these reasons the ORG decided to uphold the lower courts\u2019 decisions .","Section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON likums ) at the relevant time provided that the PERSON was the institution responsible for monitoring the quality of medical care provided in medical institutions .","The PERSON \u2019s work at the relevant time was governed in more detail by its statute ( nolikums ) , which had been approved by ORG . The statute provided that the PERSON was a government institution , whose main functions were to inspect and monitor the professional quality of health care in medical institutions irrespective of their ownership status ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Paragraph CARDINAL of the statute listed the principal functions of the PERSON , such as to examine complaints in order to protect the rights of patients ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , to oversee and issue reports concerning the professional quality of medical care in the event of complaints ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , to issue reports on the quality of medical care in medical institutions ( paragraph CARDINAL ) and the like .","According to its statute the PERSON had a right to carry out scheduled ( \u201c pl\u0101nveida \u201d ) checks on the quality of medical care as well as to carry out the required checks in response to complaints and requests ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Paragraph CARDINAL authorised the MADEKKI \u201c to request from private individuals and officials documents and information concerning questions within its field of competence \u201d . If the ORG found that laws had been broken in the course of providing health care , it was authorised to apply administrative fines and issue warnings , as well as to give appropriate recommendations to doctors and administrators of medical institutions .","Lastly , section CARDINAL of the MADEKKI statute provided that its staff had to maintain confidentiality with regard to any information obtained in the performance of their professional duties .","The Personal Data Protection Law ( NORP personu datu aizsardz\u012bbas likums ) provides , in section CARDINAL , that the processing ( which is defined as any activities with personal data , including collecting , registering , using , and so on ) of sensitive personal data ( including information about a person \u2019s health ) is permitted only after having received written consent from the data subject . Without such consent personal data may be processed only in a limited number of situations , including \u201c if ... necessary for the purposes of medical treatment [ or ] the provision or administration of heath care services \u201d ( section GPE ) ) .","Section CARDINAL of ORG Law provided more generally that processing of personal data was allowed only if that law did not provide otherwise and if CARDINAL of the other conditions was present . CARDINAL of the additional conditions was that the processing of the data was necessary for a system administrator to carry out his legal duties ( section CARDINAL ) ) . A \u201c system administrator \u201d for the purposes of this PERSON was \u201c a natural or legal person who determines the aims of a data processing system and the means of processing [ of the data ] \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158034","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"PAPAIOANNOU v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant , Mr Yiannakis PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr A. S. Angelides , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The Physical Education Teachers\u2019 Appointment List is used to fill vacancies for physical education teachers in the NORP public education system . The procedure for inclusion on the list is defined by section CARDINALB of ORG \u201c the PERSON of DATE \u201d ) and is as follows .","NORP The list is published every DATE . Those wishing to be included on the list must submit applications by DATE of DATE . ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) then examines the applications and ranks the candidates on the list .","A candidate \u2019s position on the list is determined with reference to various criteria . For first - time candidates , their position is determined first , by DATE they obtained their degree and then by other criteria which are set out in section CARDINALB(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON such as their class of degree , whether they undertook military service , whether they have obtained any additional post - graduate qualifications and so on . For candidates who were already included on the list in DATE , their position on the new list is determined first , by DATE they were first included on the list and , thereafter , by the other criteria set out in section CARDINALB(CARDINAL ) .","The applicant is a holder of a degree in Physical Education . He finished his studies in DATE , having previously deferred those studies in order to complete DATE months\u2019 compulsory military service . DATE , he applied for inclusion on the list . His request was accepted by ORG and he was included in the list for DATE . While it appears he did not apply for inclusion on the list DATE thereafter , in DATE he applied for inclusion in the DATE list .","The ORG published its DATE list on DATE . The applicant was placed CARDINALth . He then filed a recourse before a single judge of ORG ( revisional jurisdiction ) seeking the annulment of the ORG \u2019s decision to place him CARDINALth . He submitted that section CARDINALB of the PERSON of DATE was unconstitutional . According to the applicant , by determining ranking on the list by reference to DATE an applicant first applied to be on the list , section CARDINALB created indirect discrimination against male candidates . This was because , unlike their female counterparts , male candidates had to complete DATE months\u2019 military service prior to applying for registration . The effect of this was to provide a DATE head start in the rankings to women .","ORG at first instance upheld the applicant \u2019s recourse and annulled the ORG \u2019s decision .","The Government , on behalf of ORG , appealed to ORG ( revisional appeal jurisdiction ) inter alia on the grounds that the court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the recourse . This was because , in the ORG \u2019s submission , the applicant had failed to prove that he was challenging an executory administrative act since he had failed to establish an appropriate comparison between his position and the position of other candidates on the list . Thus , according to the ORG , the judgment of ORG at first instance was based on entirely hypothetical facts . The Government submitted that this was an issue which went to the core of the proceedings .","The applicant argued that the matter raised by the Government on appeal had not been raised in the first instance proceedings . In any case the applicant submitted that the ORG \u2019s submissions were groundless and should be rejected .","On DATE ORG allowed the ORG \u2019s appeal . The court found that the applicant \u2019s challenge to the ORG \u2019s decision to rank him ORG on the list was not a valid recourse against an executory administrative act . This was because , by its nature , the ORG \u2019s ranking decision was an act of comparison between candidates : it did not merely affect the position of CARDINAL person on the list . The court could not annul the applicant \u2019s position on the list without automatically affecting the position of other candidates . In his recourse the applicant should have set out the reasons why he considered the ORG \u2019s decision was wrong and should have done so by a direct comparison with those candidates to whom the better rankings had been given . This would have given the other candidates an opportunity to set out their arguments or objections before the court and be heard , as required by the rules of natural justice . The fault in question went to the core of the recourse and could not be remedied .","For this reason , ORG did not examine the applicant \u2019s complaints that the PERSON was unconstitutional and discriminatory ; a decision on the admissibility of the recourse preceded such substantive issues .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW prohibits discrimination providing that :","\u201c CARDINAL . All persons are equal before the law , the administration and justice , and are entitled to equal protection thereof and treatment thereby .","Every person shall enjoy all the rights and liberties provided for in this LAW without any direct or indirect discrimination against any person on the ground of his community , race , religion , language , sex , political or other convictions , national or social descent , birth , colour , wealth , social class , or on any ground whatsoever , unless there is express provision to the contrary in LAW .","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the LAW states that ORG has exclusive jurisdiction to :","\u201c ( CARDINAL) ... decide on a recourse filed against a decision ... of an authority ... exercising executive or administrative functions when such a decision is contrary to the constitution or the law or is made in excess or abuse of the powers vested in such body , authority or person .","( CARDINAL ) Such a recourse may be made by a person whose existing legitimate interest ... is adversely and directly affected by such decision , act or omission .","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the above PERSON ( \u201c the DATE Law \u201d ) where relevant provides :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Men and women enjoy equal treatment , prohibiting any discrimination on the ground of gender \u2013","( a ) In access to employment or to a job opening , permanent or temporary ... ;","( b ) in the definition and implementation of the terms and conditions of employment , including the qualifications and other terms and conditions and placement criteria ... \u201d","According to case law of ORG , only \u201c executory administrative acts \u201d can be the subject of a recourse to ORG under Article CARDINAL of the LAW v. PERSON and another [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL ) . An executory administrative act is one which , inter alia , grant rights to individuals and creates obligations for the administration ( see PERSON v. the Republic [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL ; and PERSON and others v. ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL A.A.D. CARDINAL ) .","Issues as to the admissibility of a recourse to ORG may be considered by the court of its own motion even if these are not raised by the parties ( see GPE [ CARDINAL ] CARDINAL A.A.D. CARDINAL ) .","It is well - established that , where there is a dispute between various candidates on a list or where , for example , there is a selection process amongst a number of candidates for a particular post , a candidate wishing to challenge the validity of the administrative body \u2019s preference for CARDINAL candidate over another , ought not merely to challenge his position on the list or his non - selection , as the case may be , but instead should challenge the position of other people by indicating which candidates in his opinion lacked in qualifications or were unjustifiably favoured in comparison to him . All the other candidates whose positions are affected should be given the opportunity as interested parties to set out their case and objections before the court . Since the administrative authority \u2019s decision affects a number of candidates , it means that the entirety of the decision should be challenged as that is what constitutes the executory administrative act . The part of the decision affecting solely the applicant can not be considered an autonomous executory act , as that is CARDINAL link in the entire chain of considerations which the administrative body makes in order to form the final decision ( see , among other authorities , ORG v. PERSON and another [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL ; PERSON v. ORG , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , judgment of DATE , unreported ; PERSON and PERSON v. ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL A.A.D. CARDINAL ; PERSON v. ORG Scholarships and others , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , judgment of DATE , unreported ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158191","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SAGHATELYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP . She worked as a judge at ORG .","On DATE the Minister of ORG filed a motion with ORG seeking to have the applicant dismissed from her post under LAW ( CARDINAL) of the LAW on the Status of a Judge . The motion stated that the applicant had been severely reprimanded on CARDINAL occasions , namely in DATE , for various gross violations of the rules of criminal procedure and another set of disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against her on the same grounds in DATE .","On DATE ORG examined the motion and decided to form a CARDINAL - member commission to examine the factual basis of the motion and to report back to the ORG .","On DATE ORG adopted a conclusion recommending to the President of GPE that the applicant be dismissed .","On DATE the President of GPE issued a decree dismissing the applicant from her post .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with the ORG and ORG of GPE , seeking to annul the President \u2019s Decree of DATE as unlawful . She argued that her dismissal from work had been in violation of a number of provisions of domestic law and various NORP instruments relating to the status of a judge . In particular , the motion for dismissal filed by the Minister of ORG on DATE had been based upon matters which had been the subject of earlier disciplinary proceedings and in respect of which penalties had already been imposed . The motion did not contain any reasoning and was not accompanied by any supporting documentation and was , therefore , unsubstantiated . She further argued that judicial decisions were not supposed to be subject to a review other than by way of an appeal procedure prescribed by law . Thus , the commission of gross violations of the law ( the alleged grounds for her dismissal ) could only have been found by a higher court ( which had not happened in her case ) and not by non - judicial bodies and officials , such as ORG or the Minister of ORG . Finally , she claimed that the question of her dismissal had been examined by ORG in her absence , in violation of the relevant rules .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE decided under LAW to terminate the proceedings on the ground that the applicant \u2019s claim was not subject to examination by the courts of general jurisdiction . In doing so , ORG referred , inter alia , to LAW , LAW and LAW ORG ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG examined and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim as unsubstantiated .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG and decided to terminate the proceedings on the same grounds as ORG .","On DATE , in proceedings unrelated to this case , ORG found the second paragraph of LAW ORG to be unconstitutional ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173496","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ZHIKHAR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144110","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF H\u00c4KK\u00c4 v. FINLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"No 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)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The tax inspector conducted a tax inspection in CARDINAL different companies in DATE and DATE .","On DATE , concerning the first company , the tax authorities considered that the applicant had received , in DATE , MONEY ( ORG ) and in DATE , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL as disguised dividends . They imposed on the applicant an additional tax and tax surcharges ( veronkorotus , skattef\u00f6rh\u00f6jning ) , amounting to LAW in respect of DATE and to ORG CARDINAL in respect of DATE .","On DATE the tax authorities found in respect of the second company that the applicant had received in DATE ORG CARDINAL as disguised dividends and imposed ORG CARDINAL as tax surcharges . Moreover , the applicant had received in DATE EUR CARDINAL as disguised dividends and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL were imposed as tax surcharges .","On DATE the tax authorities considered that the applicant had received , in respect of the third company , ORG CARDINAL as disguised dividends in DATE for which a tax surcharge of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL was made .","The applicant apparently did not seek rectification of any of these decisions . Nor were there any appeal proceedings pending . The time - limits for seeking rectification and lodging an appeal ran until DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant on , inter alia , CARDINAL counts of aggravated tax fraud ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 veropetos , grovt skattebedr\u00e4geri ) and CARDINAL count of tax fraud ( veropetos , skattebedr\u00e4geri ) concerning DATE . According to the last count , the applicant was accused of aggravated tax fraud as he had under - declared his income . The undeclared income amounted to ORG CARDINAL for DATE and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for DATE . Consequently , the tax imposed in DATE had been EUR CARDINAL too low and in DATE EUR CARDINAL too low . The tax imposed on the applicant had thus been in total ORG too low .","On DATE the GPE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) convicted the applicant as charged and imposed a prison sentence of DATE and DATE . He was ordered to pay the taxation authority ORG plus interest in respect of the last count .","By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) , requesting that the charges be dismissed or at least , as far as aggravated tax fraud was concerned , that he be convicted of tax fraud . He also requested that the sentence be mitigated .","On DATE ORG upheld the ORG judgment .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) requesting , inter alia , that as concerned the last count of aggravated tax fraud , the charges be dismissed without examining the merits and that the compensation for damages be rejected . He claimed that in this respect the ne bis in idem principle had been violated as tax surcharges had already been imposed for the same acts . That count concerned at the earliest DATE , in respect of which the time - limit for an appeal in the taxation proceedings was still running until DATE , meaning that those proceedings had not yet been finalised . An effective use of the ne bis in idem principle would require a lis pendens effect preventing the pressing of charges if an administrative tax surcharge matter was still pending . Otherwise CARDINAL separate sets of proceedings concerning the same facts could be pending . Moreover , applicants would be treated unequally if the possibility of pressing charges depended on the finality of the taxation proceedings .","On DATE the applicant was granted leave to appeal as far as the last count was concerned .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . It found , after a detailed analysis of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW and the ORG \u2019s case - law , that it was clear since the PERSON judgment that the imposition of a tax surcharge rendered the case criminal and that the ne bis in idem principle applied to such a case even though , under the domestic law , it fell within the domain of administrative law . Both the taxation and the criminal proceedings concerned the same facts , namely the failure to declare the same income . For the ne bis in idem principle it was relevant whether the proceedings had become final . The principle did not prohibit a situation in which CARDINAL sets of proceedings concerning the same matter were pending at the same time . There was thus no lis pendens effect attached to this principle . Even if this lack of lis pendens effect was problematic in the sense that it might result in unequal treatment of applicants due to the fact that the point of time when taxation decisions became final varied , its acceptance might create even more profound problems . As the taxation decisions in the present case concerned DATE , the time - limits for seeking rectification ran until DATE and DATE respectively . The charges had been pressed on DATE . The taxation proceedings had thus not become final before the criminal proceedings started . Therefore , there were no impediments to examining the charge concerning aggravated tax fraud . This judgment became a published leading case PERSON ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P7-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150997","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF \u00d6STERLUND v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice)","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL companies were subject to a tax inspection . The tax inspection was concluded with a final report on DATE .","On DATE and DATE the tax authorities imposed on the applicant additional taxes as well as tax surcharges ( veronkorotus , skattef\u00f6rh\u00f6jning ) for DATE as he had , inter alia , received disguised dividends from the companies . The amount of tax surcharges varied MONEY ( ORG ) .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant sought rectification from ORG ( verotuksen oikaisulautakunta , pr\u00f6vningsn\u00e4mnden i beskattnings\u00e4renden ) , requesting it to quash the decisions of DATE and DATE concerning DATE .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant lodged a material appeal ( perustevalitus , grundbesv\u00e4r ) with ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) in respect of DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s applications for rectification concerning DATE and DATE .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed against the rectification decisions of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , requesting that the taxation decisions concerning DATE and DATE be quashed and the tax surcharges be withdrawn . He referred to the ne bis in idem principle and claimed that the taxation decisions violated that principle .","On DATE ORG cancelled some of the tax surcharges in respect of tax DATE and quashed the relevant tax decisions . For the rest , it rejected the applicant \u2019s appeals . The court found that there was no impediment to imposing taxes on disguised dividends even if there was already a final criminal judgment in this respect , because imposing taxes on disguised dividends was not considered criminal . There could thus be no question of double jeopardy in this respect . The taxation decisions for DATE and DATE were thus upheld . As far as the tax surcharges and the right to impose additional taxes were concerned , the court found that the tax surcharges and the charges on tax fraud concerned the same matter . The tax surcharges thus related to acts in respect of which the applicant had already been convicted or acquitted . As both matters were pending simultaneously and not consecutively , there was no impediment to continuing the taxation proceedings . Even if the criminal proceedings became final while the taxation proceedings were still pending , this did not prevent the continuation of the taxation proceedings . There was thus no reason to change the tax surcharges as far as the corresponding criminal charges had been dismissed , namely , in respect of the disguised dividends received during DATE and DATE . As far as the proceedings led to both criminal conviction and imposition of tax surcharges , the situation was contrary to LAW and the tax surcharges were therefore cancelled in respect of tax DATE . The decision was not unanimous .","By letter dated DATE , the applicant appealed against the ORG decision to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG . He argued that his acquittal prevented the further examination of the same matter in taxation proceedings .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal but granted ORG ( veroasiamies , skatteombudet ) leave to appeal . It quashed ORG decision regarding cancellation of the tax surcharges and upheld the lower court \u2019s decisions . The court found that it had , in its decision of DATE , examined the scope of the ne bis in idem principle and the ORG \u2019s case - law in this respect . In the present case the charges and the tax surcharges concerned essentially the same matter . However , the ne bis in idem principle was applicable only when the first set of proceedings had become final before the second set of proceedings started . In the present case the proceedings had been simultaneous . Tax surcharges could thus be imposed on the applicant even if the criminal proceedings against him had already become final . ORG decision thus needed to be quashed .","On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant , inter alia , for aggravated tax fraud ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 veropetos , grovt skattebedr\u00e4geri ) concerning DATE . According to the charges , the applicant was accused of aggravated tax fraud as he had avoided taxes . The tax authorities joined the charges and presented a compensation claim totalling EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL plus interest , which was the amount of avoided taxes .","On DATE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) convicted the applicant of aggravated tax fraud , and sentenced him to a suspended prison sentence of DATE . He was ordered to pay the tax authorities ORG plus interest in compensation for the avoided taxes . The court found that the applicant had avoided taxes during DATE but dismissed the charges as far as they concerned the disguised dividends , for lack of proof .","By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) , requesting that the charges of aggravated tax fraud be dismissed as tax surcharges had already been imposed in the matter .","On DATE ORG upheld the ORG judgment . It found that possible tax surcharges imposed on the applicant did not prevent him from being convicted of tax fraud and sentenced .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG .","On an unspecified date , ORG granted the applicant leave to appeal .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . It found that the charges of aggravated tax fraud undisputedly concerned the same failure to declare income for which tax surcharges had been imposed for DATE . The court found that the fact that taxation proceedings became final while criminal proceedings were still pending did not prevent the examination of the charges being continued . In the present case , the charges had been brought before the time - limit for lodging an application for rectification had run out . The tax surcharges in respect of DATE were thus all still pending before ORG . As the charges had been brought while the taxation proceedings had not yet become final , there was no impediment to examining the charges of aggravated tax fraud . This judgment was published ( ORG ) ."],"violated_articles":["P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["P7-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175659","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CARVALHO PINTO DE SOUSA MORAIS v. PORTUGAL","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant became a patient of the gynaecology department of ORG ( since renamed ORG \u2013 FAC , hereinafter \u201c the CHLC \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with bartholinitis , a gynaecological disease , on the left side of her vagina ( bartholinite \u00e0 esquerda ) . She started treatment , which included drainages ( drenagens ) . After each drainage the FAC gland would swell , causing the applicant considerable pain . She would thus require a second drainage and painkillers .","She was offered surgery for the condition during a consultation at DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was admitted to the CHLC for a surgical procedure to remove the left ORG gland . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant had both glands , on the left and right sides of the vagina , removed .","On an unknown date after being discharged , the applicant began to experience intense pain and a loss of sensation in the vagina . She also suffered from urinary incontinence , had difficulty sitting and walking , and could not have sexual relations .","On an unknown date the applicant was informed after being examined at a private clinic that the left pudendal nerve ( nervo pudenda do lado esquerdo ) had been injured during the operation .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action in ORG do ORG ) against the ORG under LAW ( a\u00e7\u00e3o de responsabilidade civil extracontratual por facto il\u00edcito ) , seeking damages of QUANTITY ( PTE ) , equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) , of which PTE CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) was in respect of non - pecuniary damage owing to the physical disability caused by the operation .","On DATE ORG ruled partly in favour of the applicant . It established , inter alia , the following facts :","( i ) that the applicant had suffered since DATE from a physical deficiency which had given her an overall permanent degree of disability of PERCENT and that the disability had resulted from the left pudendal nerve being cut ;","( ii ) after being discharged from hospital , the applicant had complained of pain associated with insensitivity in the part of the body which had been operated on and which had become swollen ;","( iii ) the left pudendal nerve had been injured during the operation , which had caused the pain from which the applicant was suffering , the loss of sensitivity and the swelling in the vaginal area ;","( iv ) the applicant had suffered from a decrease in vaginal sensitivity due to the partial lesion to the left pudendal nerve .","On the merits , ORG found that the surgeon had acted recklessly by not fulfilling his objective duty of care , in breach of leges artis , and established that there was a causal link between his conduct and the injury to the applicant \u2019s left pudendal nerve . ORG also established that it was that injury which caused her , among other problems , the pain and loss of sensation in the vagina and urinary incontinence . As a consequence , she had difficulty walking , sitting and having sexual relations , which , all together , made her feel diminished as a woman . Consequently , the applicant was also depressed , had suicidal thoughts and avoided contact with members of her family and friends . For those reasons ORG considered that the applicant should be awarded LAW in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . In respect of pecuniary damage , ORG awarded her ORG CARDINAL , of which LAW was for the services of a maid the applicant had had to hire to help her with household tasks .","On an unknown date the PERSON appealed to ORG ( Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ) against the judgment of ORG . The applicant lodged a counter - appeal ( recurso subordinado ) , arguing that she should have received EUR CARDINAL in compensation and that the CHLC \u2019s appeal should be declared inadmissible . An opinion from the Attorney ORG attached to ORG ( Procuradora Geral Adjunta junto do Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ) stated that the CHLC \u2019s appeal should be dismissed because it had been established that there had been a violation of leges artis . As a consequence , the various requirements of the obligation to pay compensation had been verified and the first - instance court had decided on compensation in an equitable and proper way .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment on the merits but reduced , inter alia , the amount that had been awarded for the services of the maid from LAW to EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the compensation for non - pecuniary damage from LAW to EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The relevant part of the judgment on those points reads as follows :","\u201c ... with respect to damages related to the charges for the maid ... [ the plaintiff ] could not show the amount paid under that head . Also ... we consider that the award of LAW under that head is manifestly excessive .","Indeed , ( CARDINAL ) it has not been established that the plaintiff had lost her capacity to take care of domestic tasks , ( CARDINAL ) professional activity outside the home is CARDINAL thing while domestic work is another , and ( CARDINAL ) considering the age of her children , she [ the plaintiff ] probably only needed to take care of her husband ; this leads us to the conclusion that she did not need to hire a full - time maid ...","Lastly , as regards non - pecuniary damage , it is important to set an amount which compensates the plaintiff for her pain and loss of sensation and swelling in the vaginal area , and for the difficulty sitting and walking , which causes her distress and prevents her from going about her everyday life , forcing her to use sanitary towels on a DATE basis to conceal urinary and faecal incontinence and which has limited her sexual activity , making her feel diminished as a woman . In addition , there is no medical solution to her condition . All this has caused her severe depression , expressing itself in anxiety and somatic symptoms manifested in the difficulty she has sleeping , deep disgust and frustration with the situation in which she finds herself , which has turned her into a very unhappy person and which inhibits her from establishing relationships with others and has caused her to stop visiting family and friends , from going to the beach and theatre and which has given her suicidal thoughts .","It should be noted , however , that the plaintiff has been suffering from the gynaecological condition for a long time ( at least since DATE ) and that she had already undergone various kinds of treatment without any acceptable result and that it was that lack of results and the impossibility of curing the condition otherwise that was the motivation for surgery . She had already had unbearable pain and symptoms of depression before [ surgery ] . This means that the plaintiff \u2019s complaints are not new and that the surgical procedure only aggravated an already difficult situation , a fact which can not be ignored when setting the amount of compensation .","Additionally , it should not be forgotten that at the time of the operation the plaintiff was already DATE and had CARDINAL children , that is , an age when sex is not as important as in DATE , its significance diminishing with age .","Thus , having regard to all those aspects , we believe that the compensation awarded at first instance exceeded what could be considered reasonable and , as such , the plaintiff should be awarded EUR CARDINAL in compensation [ in respect of non - pecuniary damage ] . \u201d","On DATE the Attorney ORG attached to ORG applied to ORG to have the judgment of DATE declared null and void ( nulidade do ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o ) in the part concerning the amount awarded for non - pecuniary damage . It argued that the reasoning in the judgment and the decision on the amount of compensation were contradictory . It further submitted that the compensation award should not have taken account of the applicant \u2019s symptoms before the medical intervention , as if only a worsening of those symptoms had been at stake . The relevant parts of the application read as follows :","\u201c ...","III \u2013 In the instant case , we are dealing with surgical intervention which aimed exclusively at extracting the Bartholin glands .","...","During that surgical procedure the left pudendal nerve was partly damaged .","The pudendal nerve ... is a different organ from the CARDINAL which was the object of the surgical intervention .","Following the extraction of the glands the plaintiff suffered damage which was considered as being established and which specifically arose from the lesion in question .","IV- In view of the factual basis of the judgment and having regard to the fact that \u2018 in the absence of unlikely and unexpected occurrences doctors would have cured the plaintiff \u2019s illness and she could have returned to her normal life\u2019 , the decision setting the amount of compensation for non - pecuniary damage should not have taken account of the plaintiff \u2019s pain and symptoms of depression prior to the surgical intervention as if they had worsened .","That is because , according to the judgment , they would have disappeared once the Bartholin glands had been removed and the plaintiff \u2019s condition cured by surgery .","V \u2013 The reasoning in the judgment leads logically to a different decision .","That would be to set compensation for non - pecuniary damage on the basis of the fact that the plaintiff would have been cured if the pudendal nerve had not been injured . \u201d","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to join the Attorney General \u2019s appeal of DATE , arguing that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE should be declared null and void in the part concerning the amount of non - pecuniary damage she had been awarded .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals by the Attorney ORG and the applicant and upheld its judgment of DATE . It considered that the causal link between the injury to the pudendal nerve and the alleged damage had been established . However , that injury had not been the only cause of damage to the applicant . In the opinion of the judges of ORG , the applicant \u2019s health problems prior to the operation , and her gynaecological and psychological symptoms in particular , could not be ignored and had been aggravated by the procedure ."],"violated_articles":["14","8"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152778","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SILIQI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE and GPE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Commission \u201d ) recognised , amongst others , the ORG inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m and decided to restore the property . Since buildings had been constructed on the land by a third party , the Commission ruled that the third party should pay rent for the land or re - purchase the land pursuant to an agreement to be entered into between the parties . It also recognised the applicants\u2019 right to first refusal of the buildings .","On DATE the applicants lodged a civil claim with ORG seeking the annulment of a DATE sale contract entered between the ORG and the third party over CARDINAL plots of lands measuring CARDINAL sq . m and QUANTITY m , which they claimed to own . The applicants also sought the payment of rent by the third party pursuant to the DATE LAW . In the same set of proceedings , the third party lodged a counter action requesting the partial annulment of the Commission decision .","On DATE ORG gave a final decision dismissing the applicants\u2019 claims . It also dismissed their right to first refusal as regards the buildings on the plots of land which had been granted by the Commission . It decided that the applicants are entitled to compensation in respect of the plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m to be determined in accordance with the DATE LAW .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a full bench , found no violation of the applicants\u2019 right to a fair trial .","To date , no compensation has been paid ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146383","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF P.F. v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant and ORG were in a relationship that started in DATE . On CARDINAL DATE their twin daughters were born ( A. and J. ) . Subsequently , in DATE , the applicant and PERSON separated .","On DATE the applicant lodged a motion with the GPE ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) for the establishment of contact and an interim contact order .","At the same time ORG lodged a motion with ORG alleging that the applicant had sexually abused PERSON and J. On DATE the prosecutor informed ORG about the allegations of sexual abuse . The court ordered a social enquiry report ( wywiad \u015brodowiskowy ) into the case , which was conducted on DATE . On DATE the prosecutor instituted a criminal investigation into the allegations of sexual abuse .","On DATE the GPE ORG issued an interim contact order . Under the terms of that order , the applicant was allowed to visit the children DATE TIME","On DATE the court stayed the custody proceedings as the criminal proceedings into the alleged sexual abuse were pending .","Meanwhile , on DATE ORG of its own motion instituted proceedings concerning the limitation of the applicant \u2019s custody rights .","During the course of the criminal proceedings , the prosecutor obtained CARDINAL expert reports and heard a number of witnesses . On DATE the prosecution discontinued the criminal proceedings into the allegations of sexual abuse on the grounds that there was not enough evidence that the alleged offences had been committed . The court - appointed expert established that A. and J. had not demonstrated the psychological symptoms of a sexually abused child . However , according to a private expert opinion provided by ORG , the facts of the case demonstrated that the children had been sexually abused . PERSON appealed against the decision to discontinue the proceedings . The prosecutor \u2019s decision was upheld by ORG .","On DATE the GPE ORG resumed the proceedings for the establishment of contact . At the same time it also resumed the proceedings for limitation of the applicant \u2019s custody rights .","On DATE ORG modified the interim contact order , allowing the applicant to see his daughters every DATE TIME in their home . The court also ordered ORG to set a new time in case a DATE visit was not possible . Both parties lodged interlocutory appeals . They were dismissed on DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted a report to the court indicating that the mother had failed to comply with the terms of the access arrangements . The applicant \u2019s letter also contained a description of several visits that had taken place DATE and DATE .","On DATE the mother applied for a change to the access arrangements . She asked the court to order visits DATE for TIME .","On DATE the GPE ORG again modified the interim contact order , allowing the applicant to visit his children DATE QUANTITY in their home . The court also ordered that the parents and children be examined by experts in ORG ( GPE o\u015brodek diagnostyczno - konsultacyjny ) ( \u201c RODK \u201d ) . The court also ordered a further expert opinion .","The meeting scheduled with RODK for DATE did not take place because the daughters were ill . The next meeting took place on DATE . According to the expert opinion , the daughters were drawn into the GPE conflict by their mother . Both daughters sought contact with their father and wished to visit him in his home . The experts recommended therapy involving both parents and children .","The opinions of RODK and of the court \u2019s expert were submitted to the court on DATE and DATE . Following the change of the presiding judge , a hearing date was set for DATE .","Subsequently , the applicant applied for a change of the access arrangements . On DATE the court issued yet another interim contact order and ruled that the applicant could meet his children every other DATE and DATE TIME outside their home . The court considered that there was an emotional bond between the applicant and his daughters and in order to preserve it , it was important that the contact take place outside the children \u2019s home . The court further referred to the expert opinion of PERSON , who confirmed that PERSON and ORG had not demonstrated symptoms of being victims of sexual abuse . However , the mother refused to comply with this order and lodged an appeal . On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision .","Subsequently , ORG cancelled most of the visits on the grounds that the children had been away and from DATE she refused all visits .","On DATE PERSON applied for modification of the access arrangements . Her motion was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","During a hearing held on DATE , PERSON again applied for a change of access arrangements . She agreed to respect the interim order of DATE , however she made a request to the court that the contact should take place in the presence of the children \u2019s babysitter or a court - appointed guardian . During that hearing the court heard evidence from the expert PERSON , who confirmed that he did not consider that PERSON and J. demonstrated behaviour typical of children who had been sexually abused . He based his opinion on an analysis of the court files and a ORG recording of the children \u2019s interview .","On DATE the GPE ORG gave a final decision in the case . It ordered that the applicant could meet his children DATE and DATE TIME The visits would take place in the children \u2019s home with the mother present and in the applicant \u2019s home with the presence of a court - appointed guardian . The court considered that the applicant should be allowed to meet his daughters outside their home and without the mother \u2019s presence since the girls needed contact with their father . However , the court also stressed that , because the applicant \u2019s contact with his daughters had not been regular , he did not know much about them . The applicant appealed .","After DATE , the applicant was again able to exercise his right of contact with his daughters on a DATE basis , every DATE TIME at ORG \u2019s home .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed ORG decision . The court held that the proceedings concerning the limitation of the applicant \u2019s custody rights should not have been joined with the access proceedings . In addition , due to different requirements concerning the composition of the court in both cases , ORG had sat in an incorrect formation and the proceedings were null and void .","At a hearing held on DATE both the applicant and PERSON testified . The applicant submitted that after their separation in DATE the contact with his children had been irregular . In DATE PERSON ( who is an actress ) had participated in a live TV show and the girls had stayed at the applicant \u2019s home TIME and had been collected by their mother on DATE TIME . Once the TV shows were finished at DATE , the applicant had wished to continue this arrangement , however PERSON disagreed . Consequently he lodged his application with ORG . He stressed that after the court had delivered its first interim order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , many of the visits had not taken place since PERSON had been absent for DATE . The applicant further submitted that the interim order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had never been enforced because whenever he had come to collect the children either PERSON had not been at home or she had refused to open the door . Lastly , the applicant confirmed that DATE and DATE he had not seen his children at all . Since DATE he had been visiting his daughters every Saturday for TIME at their home .","The children \u2019s mother ORG confirmed to ORG that DATE she had allowed the applicant to contact their daughters on many occasions . However , after she discovered that the applicant might have abused her daughter PERSON , she had prohibited all contact . The contact had restarted in DATE . She had never complied with the order of CARDINAL DATE since she had been concerned about her daughters\u2019 wellbeing . She further informed the court that she was planning to move to GPE with the daughters and her new partner .","On DATE ORG gave its decision . The court ordered that the applicant could meet his children every other DATE and DATE TIME The visits would take place outside the children \u2019s home and without the presence of their mother . In addition , he could spend DATE with them DATE and GPE DATE and also parts of DATE . However , the applicant was only allowed to visit his daughters QUANTITY and they were not allowed to stay TIME at his home .","Both parties appealed .","The applicant instituted proceedings for enforcement of the interim contact orders and made several applications for fines to be imposed on ORG under LAW .","On DATE the applicant lodged a motion for the imposition of a fine on ORG for failure to comply with the access arrangements as specified in the interim contact order of DATE .","On DATE the GPE ORG ordered ORG to enforce the interim contact order of DATE within DATE , on pain of payment of a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) . The court established that initially the contact had taken place regularly , but this had been in accordance with the terms of the previous interim contact order of CARDINAL DATE ( every other DATE from TIME instead of every DATE from TIME ) . Such an arrangement had resulted from the interpretation given to ORG by the lawyers from ORG , who informed her that the new interim contact order would be effective only once it had become final . The court further observed that the contact had been regular ; most of the visits were shortened or cancelled by the applicant and not by the mother . Lastly , the court ordered the mother to comply with the interim order of DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a motion for imposition of a fine on PERSON He submitted that she had failed to comply with the order of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the GPE ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings . The court held that the interim contact order had been modified in the meantime ( on DATE ) and there was therefore no need to deliver a decision in the present set of proceedings . The applicant appealed , asking the court to impose a fine on ORG His appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The court repeated the reasons given by ORG and held that the interim order of DATE had been replaced by a new interim order of CARDINAL March DATE .","In DATE the applicant lodged a new motion for the imposition of a fine on A.W.","On DATE the court imposed a fine on ORG"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166850","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PAPAVASILAKIS v. GREECE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9 - Positive obligations;Article 9-1 - Freedom of conscience;Freedom of thought);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , wishing to pursue a course of higher education , applied for and was granted permission to defer his enlistment for military service . On DATE he interrupted the deferral . As a result , he was required to report to the recruitment centre on DATE .","On DATE he applied for leave to perform alternative service on the grounds that he was a conscientious objector .","On DATE he appeared before the armed forces\u2019 special committee ( established by CARDINAL of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) to explain the nature of his conscientious objection . He stated that his objection was based on moral values stemming from the religious education he had received from his mother , a GPE \u2019s Witness , and on his own approach to life , involving the rejection of anything linked to war , violence or destruction in all its forms . The following is an extract from his interview :","\u201c Question : Tell us about your beliefs .","Answer : I grew up in a home where we were respectful of God . My mother is a GPE \u2019s Witness . My father is an atheist . I believe that since PERSON does not allow me to perform armed service in this world , I would be insulting him if I were to do so .","Question : So you are citing religious reasons to justify your refusal to perform armed service .","Answer : In substance , yes , but as I have not yet been baptised , I can not provide you with a certificate from ORG . That is why I am also relying on moral grounds .","Question : Why have you not yet been baptised ?","Answer : I still have some way to go . My behaviour is not yet completely suitable . I have decided to get baptised , but to do so I still need to make further progress and study the Scriptures and the Word of God in more detail .","Question : How have you come to the conclusion that God has nothing to do with war ?","Answer : I have not drawn that conclusion , but if I do enlist and serve worldly power , I will find myself on the wrong side when God decides to take action .","Question : Do you think it is feasible to eradicate violence from this world ?","Answer : It is hard to eradicate violence and armies by good will alone .","Question : Have you ever witnessed a violent incident , and if so , how did you react ?","Answer : Yes , I was assaulted . I tried to keep my response to a minimum by immobilising the attacker .","Question : By reacting in that way , were you not using violence ?","Answer : No , it was self - defence , and I do not think that self - defence involves the use of pure violence .","Question : So you acknowledge that there is a lawful authority and that some entities may potentially use force where necessary ?","Answer : Yes , I acknowledge lawful authority . The law of mankind exists until the divine law arrives . I believe that people should submit to lawful authority . But there is a difference between submitting to it and becoming part of it .","Question : Are you a member of a non - violent organisation ?","Answer : No ; for me , religious reasons take priority over reasons linked to morals ... \u201d","CARDINAL of the CARDINAL members of the special committee were present when it interviewed the applicant , namely CARDINAL officers of the armed forces and an adviser of ORG . The other CARDINAL members \u2013 CARDINAL university professors specialising in psychology , philosophy or social sciences \u2013 were unable to attend and were not replaced .","On DATE the special committee decided unanimously to propose that the applicant \u2019s application be rejected . It found that the religious and ethical arguments he had put forward for being exempted from armed service were unsubstantiated . Firstly , he was not a member of the GPE \u2019s Witnesses community , and secondly , he had not shown that he had taken part in non - violent movements ; on the contrary , he had stated that self - defence was not a form of violence and that people should submit to lawful authority .","On DATE the Minister of ORG rejected the application on the grounds proposed by the special committee .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for judicial review of the decision by the Minister of ORG .","Firstly , he challenged the composition of the special committee that had adjudicated on his case , and complained in particular that the CARDINAL university professors had been absent on that occasion . He submitted that as a result of their absence and the failure to replace them , the very nature of the committee had been distorted , since the military officers had formed a majority among the CARDINAL members present . In the applicant \u2019s view , the officers were inherently ill - disposed towards conscientious objectors and did not have the expertise in philosophy and psychology to make an objective assessment of the grounds put forward by them .","Secondly , the applicant argued that the Minister \u2019s decision had not contained sufficient reasons , seeing that ( a ) it had incorrectly mentioned that he had cited religious grounds without being an adherent of a religion ; and ( b ) the members of the committee had displayed prejudice by asserting that conscientious objectors had to be activists and anti - authority or to publicise their views , whereas the law did not lay down any such conditions .","Thirdly , the applicant complained of an infringement of his right to conscientious objection , arguing that the mere assertion of that right , coupled with his behaviour in practice ( not possessing a firearms licence or having any convictions for offences involving violence ) , was sufficient to justify his application for exemption from armed service .","In judgment no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application .","In response to his first argument , it noted that the members of the committee sat on an equal basis and that the absence of CARDINAL of the members therefore had no effect on the quorum and did not distort the nature of the committee .","With regard to his second argument , ORG explained that , after examining whether the applicant was a follower of a religion that prohibited the use of force , whether he had taken part in non - violent movements and whether his philosophy of life prevented him from handling weapons , the committee had concluded that his conscientious objection was not accompanied by corresponding behaviour . It also dismissed his argument that opponents to the use of violence who did not publicly identify themselves as such were victims of discrimination , holding that the law required clear proof of their beliefs and that , moreover , the fact of not falling within the exceptions provided for by law was insufficient .","As to the third argument , ORG held that neither international instruments nor domestic legislation established a right to be exempted from armed service simply by citing conscientious objection . Such an exemption had to be subject to the conditions laid down by law , including the submission of sound and convincing reasons to justify it . It added that conscientious objection could not be established on the basis of a simple declaration , and nor could it be inferred from negative facts , such as not having any convictions for assault and not possessing weapons . On the contrary , it was necessary to provide evidence of active behaviour over a certain period , but the applicant had failed to do so .","On DATE the applicant was ordered to pay a fine of CARDINAL ( ORG ) for insubordination ; with interest for late payment , the amount was increased to LAW . On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to have the fine set aside . The case is still pending , but the authorities have seized a sum from his bank account .","..."],"violated_articles":["9"],"violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170361","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF STAMOVA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13+P1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["On DATE the applicant rented a municipally - owned shop in the town of Primorsko . The shop consisted of a metal structure built on a concrete foundation on a municipally - owned plot of land .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to be allowed to purchase the shop under the preferential privatisation procedure for tenants of ORG and municipally - owned property , as provided for in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0437\u0443\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0435 \u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u044a\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438 \u0438 \u043e\u0431\u0449\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043f\u0440\u0438\u044f\u0442\u0438\u044f \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) . She also expressed the wish to buy the plot of land on which the shop was built . As the municipal council did not reply , the applicant applied for judicial review of the municipality \u2019s tacit refusal to sell the shop to her . The first - instance court rejected that application on DATE .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE , rectified for errors in DATE , ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s judgment , finding that it had not dealt with all the evidence submitted by the applicant . The last - instance court then observed that the parties were in agreement that , at the time of her privatisation request , the applicant had had a valid rent contract for the shop with the municipal authorities . It further found , on the basis of the submitted evidence , that the shop constituted a separate property unit measuring QUANTITY and that all statutory conditions for privatising the shop under the preferential privatisation procedure had been present . As to the land on which the shop was built , the court observed that it was not part of the rental contract and thus its inclusion in the privatisation of the shop was a matter of discretion for the municipal authorities . The court referred the case back to ORG with instructions for it to open a privatisation procedure by offering to sell the shop to the applicant .","In DATE the applicant again asked ORG to examine her privatisation proposal . As she did not receive a reply , she applied for judicial review of its tacit refusal to sell the shop to her .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that the applicant met the conditions for the privatisation of the shop . The court specified that , following changes to the country \u2019s administrative map , the privatisation decision had to be taken by ORG and it referred the case back to it .","On DATE and later again on DATE , ORG explicitly refused to sell the shop to the applicant . She brought judicial review proceedings in respect of those refusals .","In a final judgment of DATE ORG revoked the refusals as null and void , finding that the municipal council had been obliged to sell the shop to the applicant . The court briefly noted that , whatever the circumstances , no proof had been presented to it by the municipal council in support of its objection that the shop no longer physically existed .","NORP In the meantime , in DATE and DATE , the municipal company managing the shop informed the applicant that she had no lease contract for DATE and invited her to vacate the LOC . On an unknown date in DATE , that company lodged a rei vindicatio claim against the applicant . In a final judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the company \u2019s claim , holding that the applicant \u2019s lease contract could not be terminated pending the privatisation procedure pursued by her .","On DATE the mayor of Primorsko ( hereinafter \u201c the mayor \u201d ) ordered the municipal company to demolish the shop . Following a complaint lodged by the applicant with the Governor of GPE , the latter revoked the mayor \u2019s order on DATE , finding that the mayor had not been competent to dispose of municipal property without a prior decision of the municipal council to that effect . The Governor further stated that , pending the privatisation procedure , the lease contract with the applicant could not be terminated .","On an unknown date in DATE , the municipal company sold the shop to a private company . On CARDINAL DATE the buyer , assisted by municipal employees , prevented the applicant from entering the shop . Following a complaint lodged by the applicant with the prosecutor , on DATE the latter established that the buyer had acted in an abusive manner and ordered the police to assist the applicant in regaining possession of the shop . According to the applicant , after she had re - entered the property she discovered that the electricity supply had been cut off . It appears that she ran the shop without electricity until an unspecified date in DATE , when the electricity supply was restored .","In DATE the buyer brought a rei vindicatio claim in court against the applicant . In a final judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed that claim , confirming the reasoning in the lower court \u2019s judgment . The last - instance court found in particular that the buyer had not acquired ownership of the shop and that , in any event , the applicant was protected by LAW in that she could not be evicted from the shop pending the examination of her privatisation proposal .","Primorsko Municipal Council considered that the shop was dilapidated and unsafe on account of the corrosion of its metal structure and ordered its sale for demolition . At some point in DATE the municipal council sold the shop to an individual and on DATE the mayor ordered the new buyer to demolish the shop . Even though on DATE , DATE , the mayor revoked his own order , the buyer dismantled the shop on DATE with the assistance of the police . The applicant was informed of the demolition by an acquaintance who happened to pass by the shop on DATE it was pulled down . She had not known about the sale of the shop before it was demolished .","The parties dispute what happened to the applicant \u2019s goods and belongings . According to the Government , they were listed and taken for safekeeping . According to the applicant , they were destroyed together with the shop .","In DATE the applicant requested that criminal proceedings be opened against the mayor and the chairperson of ORG for breach of duties and obstruction of the enforcement of a final court judgment . In a decision of DATE the prosecutor refused her request . He found that it was impossible to open criminal proceedings as the refusals to privatise the shop had been issued by the municipal council , a collective body , whereas criminal responsibility was personal .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the applicant again requested ORG to examine her privatisation proposal . In a letter of DATE the council informed her that her case was factually and legally complex , and that an ad hoc commission would be formed to propose a solution . On DATE the ad hoc commission proposed that an enquiry be made with ORG ( the ORG body in charge of the privatisation of ORG - owned property ) . In CARDINAL letters dated DATE , sent respectively to the applicant and the municipality , ORG observed that the question about the demolition of the shop had not been raised in the proceedings before the courts . The Agency nonetheless held that the municipality was obliged to comply with court judgments .","NORP In DATE , the applicant lodged a claim with ORG for damages against the Primorsko municipal authorities for their failure to implement the final judgments in her favour . The claim was lodged under the ORG and ORG DATE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The court split the claim to be examined into CARDINAL separate sets of proceedings \u2013 the first one against the municipality ( \u043e\u0431\u0449\u0438\u043d\u0430 ) and the second one against the municipal council ( \u043e\u0431\u0449\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u0441\u044a\u0432\u0435\u0442 ) .","In the first set of proceedings , in which she challenged the mayor \u2019s order of DATE that the shop be demolished ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant sought damages for loss of opportunity ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0443\u0441\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0438 \u043f\u043e\u043b\u0437\u0438 ) . ORG found that the applicant had no standing to pursue this claim because she had not been the addressee of the mayor \u2019s order . Although the shop had been demolished shortly after the order had been issued , that had been irrelevant in respect of the legal proceedings brought by the applicant , given that she had sought compensation for damage specifically stemming from the mayor \u2019s order . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim and terminated the proceedings . That ruling was upheld by ORG in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE .","In the second set of proceedings the applicant sought both pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages stemming from the failure of the municipal council to decide on her privatisation request by implementing the final court judgments ordering it to offer to sell the shop to her .","She specified that she sought pecuniary damages in respect of : the rent she had had to pay DATE , when her request to privatise the shop should have been granted , and DATE , when the shop had been demolished ; those of her belongings that had been destroyed together with the shop ; the loss of income resulting from the impossibility of collecting rent from a company with which she had concluded a contract on DATE in respect of part of the shop ; and the impossibility of increasing her investment by buying the plot on which the shop stood and by building upon it .","NORP In addition , the applicant sought non - pecuniary damages in respect of the intense stress and emotional suffering that had led her to fall into a lasting and severe depression , which had been the result of the shop \u2019s demolition and of the failure of the municipal council to sell it to her , despite the final judgments . She provided medical records in respect of her failing health and the related hospital treatment she had undergone .","Examining the applicant \u2019s claim , ORG considered that she was complaining of the municipal council \u2019s tacit refusal to reply to her request of DATE to buy the shop . On DATE the court found that both claims , for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages , were admissible .","As to the merits , the court held that the claim for pecuniary damages was unjustified and also that there was no causal link between the municipal council \u2019s refusal to privatise the shop and the applicant \u2019s claims for loss of financial opportunity as a result of the impossibility of buying the land and building on it .","As regards the applicant \u2019s claim for non - pecuniary damages , the court accepted it as justified on the basis of the evidence submitted during the proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In particular it found that it had been demonstrated that the applicant had suffered significantly as a result of the municipal council \u2019s refusal to open a privatisation procedure vis - \u00e0 - vis her . The court held that the applicant \u2019s suffering had been caused by the municipal council \u2019s tacit refusal to act upon the final court judgment of DATE . The applicant had succumbed to depression , which had manifested itself in acute feelings of hopelessness and a perception that any future efforts would be futile , as well as in feelings of helplessness , insomnia , a disturbance of memory functions , and attention disorder . Those conditions had further led to a serious deterioration in the applicant \u2019s family environment , given that she had directed all her frustration and negative emotions towards her young daughter . The court awarded the applicant the entirety of her claim , namely MONEY ( ORG ) , plus interest , as well about ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for costs and expenses . It further declared null and void the municipality \u2019s tacit refusal to act upon her request of DATE , and returned the case to it for it to take the appropriate action .","After an appeal lodged by the municipal council , ORG found that the lower court had wrongly concluded that the municipal council \u2019s silence amounted to a new tacit refusal to privatise the shop . The applicant was seeking damages stemming from the absence of a privatisation procedure launched by the municipality in respect of the shop . The administrative procedure concerning the privatisation of the shop had begun with the applicant \u2019s initial request of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and had not been completed . The applicant \u2019s subsequent requests to the same effect had not created a new obligation on the part of the municipality concerning the privatisation of the same shop .","The last - instance court further held that , as regards the first final court decision in the applicant \u2019s favour ( that of CARDINAL DATE ) it had not created obligations on the part of ORG , given that the respondent party required to act under that decision had been the PERSON municipality ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG had only been expected to act in respect of the second final judgment on that question ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As regards the municipal authorities\u2019 explicit written refusal of CARDINAL DATE to open a privatisation procedure ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) , the court noted that that refusal had been declared null and void in DATE by another of its benches for being contrary to the first final court decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The last - instance court conceded that , objectively , the declaration of the municipal council \u2019s refusal as null and void corresponded to CARDINAL of the statutory prerequisites for the pecuniary liability of the council . However , the remaining conditions for the council being held so liable had not been met . In particular , the court held DATE without elaborating further \u2013 that the applicant had failed to prove both the existence of actual damage and the causal link of any such damage to the municipal council \u2019s refusal to privatise the shop by offering to sell it to her .","Furthermore , the applicant \u2019s claim in respect of the council \u2019s refusal of CARDINAL DATE had been inadmissible on account of the expiry of the DATE limitation period , as calculated as of the date of that refusal . Moreover , the council tacit refusal to act upon DATE court decision was of no consequence , given that the shop had no longer physically existed at that time .","Importantly , the obligation on the municipal authorities to privatise property under LAW existed only vis - \u00e0 - vis individuals who met the conditions stipulated under LAW . The applicant , however , was not among those persons . The reason was that she had not had a valid contract with the municipality at any of the times when she had requested the latter to sell the shop to her , because the contract concluded in DATE had expired prior to those times .","Moreover , as a matter of principle , the liability of a municipality , or of the ORG for that matter , under the ORG did not include loss of opportunity but only already incurred losses . Consequently , the applicant could not claim loss of opportunity in these proceedings .","In respect of the applicant \u2019s claim for non - pecuniary damages , the court emphasised that these could only be incurred by an individual and not by an enterprise . It was true that in legal terms the sole trader was a physical , as opposed to a legal , person ; however , the damage suffered by the applicant stemmed specifically from the economic activity carried out by her in her capacity as a sole trader . Consequently , the applicant as an individual was not entitled to compensation for damage that could have been sustained in the context of the economic activity of the trader . In view of the above , the lower court had wrongly granted the applicant \u2019s claim for non - pecuniary damages .","On the basis of the above , ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims in a final judgment on DATE . It also held that the applicant had to pay to the municipal council about ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for legal costs and expenses .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to rectify its judgment of DATE in the part in which it had ordered her to pay the legal costs claimed by the other party ( the municipal council ) . She pointed out that the municipal council had not presented proof that it had indeed incurred those expenses and that , in any event , the council should not be allowed to benefit from its unlawful failure to implement the judgments in her favour . The applicant sought , alternatively , a reduction in those costs .","ORG found her request admissible but rejected it as unjustified ( \u043d\u0435\u043e\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u043d\u0430 ) in a final decision of DATE . On DATE the bailiff invited the applicant to voluntarily comply with the final judgment of DATE , indicating that failure to pay the sum due would result in the forced sale of items of the applicant \u2019s personal movable and immovable property ."],"violated_articles":["13","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173778","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KO\u015a\u0106 v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE at a village meeting in GPE , CARDINAL residents voted in favour of holding the previous local mayor ( so\u0142tys ) PERSON to account for his management of public funds . They appointed the applicant to be in charge of further action in that regard .","On DATE the applicant sent a document to the mayor of ORG FAC the district mayor \u201d ) entitled \u201c Petition \u201d ( Wniosek - \u201c the document \u201d ) , which was signed by the applicant and CARDINAL other residents of GPE who confirmed their agreement with the petition .","The text read as follows :","\u201c On DATE in the village of GPE a legally valid village meeting took place , during which residents of the village decided by a large majority to appoint me to be in charge of investigating the concerns detailed below . It took me over DATE to figure out a solution to this problem . I came to the realisation that the best way to approach [ it ] would be to file a request with the Mayor of the District in order to clarify the issue , even though I had already informed the current local mayor and Mayor of ORG ( w\u00f3jt ) of the allegations .","The facts and circumstances are as follows .","The local mayor of GPE , PERSON , whose term in office was concluded on the election of the current local mayor , PERSON , received grants for the benefit of the village from the LOC and accepted payments from the lease of the village shop .","During his term in office , he never asked the residents or the local council for what purpose the money should be used . He managed the funds arbitrarily and , I think , used them for building works , namely the renovation of the community hall ( \u015bwietlica \u2013 dom ludowy ) .","However , he never shared the accounts with the residents of the village ; in particular how much money there was and what it was spent on .","There are many rumours going around the village , which out of respect for your office I will not be repeating . I will only add CARDINAL more thing , namely that the community hall was not accessible to the residents and their children for [ DATE .","I consider , therefore , that the petition and the request are both valid .","[ signatures of CARDINAL residents ]","I , other signatories of this request for a petition and all the residents believe that , thanks to the Mayor of the District , they will receive a full and plausible explanation of the facts described above . \u201d","The document was sent to the district mayor before local elections which took place on DATE ( wybory samorz\u0105dowe ) . Both the applicant and PERSON were candidates in those elections but neither of them became a local councillor .","On an unspecified date ORG analysed the document . It decided , as summarised by the domestic court , \u201c that there were no grounds to allege that somebody had mismanaged the funds . \u201d","On DATE PERSON lodged a civil action with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against the applicant for infringement of his personal rights . He requested that the court order the applicant to publish an apology in the local DATE newspaper and pay MONEY ( ORG ) to ORG ( ORG \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","NORP On DATE ORG decided that the applicant had violated PERSON \u2019s personal rights and ordered that he send a statement by post to the district mayor , ORG ( PERSON w PERSON ) and PERSON stating :","\u201c I , PERSON , apologise to [ Z.M. ] for violating his reputation by forwarding to the Mayor of LOC a document on [ DATE entitled \u201c Petition \u201d , which contained false allegations that the local mayor , PERSON , arbitrarily managed funds for the benefit of the village ; that he took , as local mayor , the payments under the lease of the village shop ; and a statement that the community hall had not been available to the residents for the past [ DATE . \u201d","In the course of the proceedings the court examined a statement made at the village meeting on DATE at which CARDINAL residents of GPE confirmed that they had all been instigators of the enquiry in DATE which had resulted in the applicant \u2019s document to the district mayor . The residents explained that their intention had been to clarify the questions raised , given PERSON \u2019s involvement in matters such as the community hall refurbishment and running of the ORG .","The court considered that the applicant \u2019s letter from DATE contained false information , which supported the finding of a violation of ORG personal rights . This included statements claiming that PERSON , acting in his capacity as local mayor , had taken rent from the lease of the village shop . The domestic court established that even if PERSON had taken any payments , he had done so as chairman of the ORG . The court also found that the village shop was located in the building owned by the ORG , which also hosted the community hall , and that the rent under the lease was paid to the ORG through an intermediary , its treasurer . PERSON , as chairman of the ORG , merely set the amount of rent to be paid DATE . The court also found that during PERSON \u2019s time in office , the community hall had been open for public use ; in that respect it dismissed the testimony of some witnesses stating the opposite . At the time , there were also building works being carried out in the same building . It was established that nobody , and this included PERSON , had received any money in cash for the work . It was also established that the village had not received any funds directly from the commune . The commune had paid the costs of the renovations of the ORG \u2019s building .","The court considered that since the applicant had failed to prove the veracity of his accusations and , given their adverse effect , this amounted to a violation of PERSON \u2019s personal rights .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , alleging that the court had not considered that the relevant text had been communicated in the public interest .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , emphasising that the publishing of false information would result in a violation of a person \u2019s personal rights . It rejected the applicant \u2019s claim that the petition was merely an expression of doubt concerning the lawfulness of PERSON \u2019s actions when he was local mayor . The court considered that the timing of the applicant \u2019s actions proved that they had not served the public interest and had been motivated by his desire to win the elections . He had raised his concerns DATE after DATE PERSON \u2019s mandate during the electoral campaign which PERSON had lost . The applicant received a copy of the judgment on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of enforcement in respect of its final judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant instituted proceedings to have the enforcement order quashed on the grounds that he had a case pending before the ORG . On DATE the Piotrk\u00f3w Trybunalski Regional Court dismissed his claim . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the latter judgment . On DATE it was dismissed by ORG .","On DATE the applicant was elected mayor of GPE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177398","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF NEDI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG ( PERSON za restituciju nepokretnosti ) in Berane requesting restitution of the property expropriated from his father in DATE .","Following the adoption of a new LAW ( Zakon o povra\u0107aju oduzetih imovinskih prava i obe\u0161te\u0107enju ) , on DATE , the applicant submitted another application to the newly established ORG in Berane ( PERSON za povra\u0107aj oduzetih imovinskih prava i obe\u0161te\u0107enja ) requesting compensation .","In DATE all the Commissions for Restitution and Compensation were consolidated into CARDINAL regional Commissions in Bar , PERSON and GPE . Due to the location of the expropriated property , the applicant \u2019s request was assigned to the Commission with its seat in PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the Commission \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant sought opinion from an independent expert regarding the expropriated property .","On DATE the ORG also requested an assessment report on the expropriated property . The report was submitted to the ORG on DATE .","Due to Commission \u2019s inactivity , on DATE the applicant lodged an appeal ( \u017ealba PERSON \u0107utanja uprave ) with ORG ( ORG za \u017ealbe u postupku za povra\u0107aj imovinskog prava ili obe\u0161te\u0107enja ) .","On DATE and DATE the applicant filed complaints with ORG and ORG , respectively , about ORG inactivity .","On DATE ORG ordered the ORG to decide on the applicant \u2019s request within DATE .","On DATE the Commission ruled against the applicant .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal .","The applicant filed and action with ORG seeking redress .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim as unfounded . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal . On DATE ORG rejected his appeal for failure to make proper use of other available domestic remedies . According to ORG , the applicant should first have made use of an additional request for the judicial review of his case ( zahtjev za vanredno preispitivanje sudske odluke ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152647","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BOHLEN v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a musician and an artistic producer .","In DATE the applicant published a book entitled \u201c Backstage \u201d ( PERSON ) . A number of passages in the book had to be redacted because of a series of urgent judicial proceedings which had been brought against him .","On DATE a tobacco company , ORG ( GPE ) ORG ( \u201c the company \u201d ) , launched an advertisement showing CARDINAL packets of Lucky Strike cigarettes in the foreground . There was a lit cigarette on top of CARDINAL of the packets , with a thick black marker pen leaning against the other packet . The following text appeared at the top of the advertisement in large lettering :","\u201c Look , dear PERSON , how easy it is to write super books . \u201d ( \u201c PERSON mal , lieber PERSON , so einfach schreibt man super ORG . \u201d )","The words \u201c dear \u201d ( \u201c lieber \u201d ) , \u201c easy \u201d ( \u201c einfach \u201d ) and \u201c super \u201d ( \u201c super \u201d ) were blacked out but were still legible . At the bottom of the advertisement was the phrase \u201c Lucky Strike . Nothing else . \u201d ( \u201c Lucky Strike . Sonst nichts . \u201d )","The full - page advertisement was published in the CARDINAL DATE issues of the DATE magazine PERSON and the popular national DATE newspaper ORG , with a circulation of CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively . It was part of an advertising campaign run by the company for the ORG brand ; the campaign , launched in DATE , ran until DATE with CARDINAL variants , showing CARDINAL or more packets of cigarettes with a humorous slogan which often referred to a current event and the individual involved in that event .","At the applicant \u2019s request the company gave a written undertaking to refrain from further publication of the advertisement in question with its heading referring to him , but refused to pay him the sum of CARDINAL ( ORG ) which he had demanded for a \u201c notional licence \u201d ( fiktive ORG ) .","The applicant applied to ORG for an order requiring the company to pay him ORG CARDINAL for a notional licence .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s application . It first of all noted that the use of the forename PERSON in the impugned advertisement was clearly a reference to the applicant \u2019s name . It further noted that although the forename PERSON was very common and several well - known public figures shared it , the advertisement was obviously referring to the applicant in view of its other component elements . ORG observed that the company \u2019s advertising campaign regularly alluded to current events and the persons involved in them . It noted that there was no indication that at the time the advertisement had been published , another individual also called PERSON , like the applicant , had published a book that had had certain passages censored following court injunctions , or that any other book had prompted as much public debate upon publication as the applicant \u2019s book had .","ORG added that the company was entitled to rely on the right to freedom of expression as safeguarded by LAW ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d below ) , a right that also extended to commercial advertising provided that its content contributed to shaping public opinion . In the court \u2019s view , that applied to the impugned advertisement , which had commented humorously on the publication of the applicant \u2019s book and had apparently advised him on how to write \u201c super books \u201d by striking through certain passages before publication . Given that the company had in this way called for the contents of a book to be properly checked prior to publication , the advertisement had , in ORG view , raised a matter of public interest .","ORG then pointed out that both the right to freedom of expression and the right to protection of personality rights were protected under LAW and that , in principle , they deserved equal respect . Where a person was used for advertising purposes without his or her consent , the right to protection of personality rights prevailed as a general rule . As everyone had the right to decide whether or not to allow his or her name to be used for advertising purposes , personality rights protected individuals against the unlawful use by third parties of their names in the context of advertising . Inasmuch as the company had argued that the applicant had himself caused the event to which the advertisement referred , that fact was not capable of depriving the applicant of protection , but it could result in a lesser degree of interference and a higher level of protection of freedom of expression .","ORG held that when balancing the competing interests in the case , more weight was to be attached to the protection of the applicant \u2019s personality rights than to the company \u2019s right to freedom of expression . It noted in particular that the advertisement had primarily pursued commercial aims , that is to say increasing the sales of a cigarette brand , and that it had above all been intended to entertain the public , without providing any real contribution to shaping public opinion . Lastly , it noted that neither the content of the advertisement ( ORG ) nor the applicant himself had any direct link with the product advertised . It concluded that the applicant was entitled to claim compensation for exploitation of his fame for commercial purposes , having regard , inter alia , to the judicial decisions given in cases concerning a tennis player ( PERSON ) and a politician ( PERSON ) .","ORG further held that the damage suffered by the applicant corresponded to what the company and the applicant would reasonably have agreed on as the cost of the licence if a contract had been signed . The purpose of a notional licence was to ensure that anyone using someone else \u2019s personality without permission would not be in a more advantageous position than if he or she had obtained the person \u2019s consent . ORG explained that the cost of such a licence should be freely determined on the basis of all the relevant circumstances , including the following criteria : the person \u2019s fame and brand image ( Imagewert ) , the attention attracted by the advertisement , the extent of its distribution and the role assigned to the person in the advertisement . Applying those criteria and taking account of the amounts awarded in similar cases concerning persons as well known as the applicant had been at the time of publication of the advertisement relating to them ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG considered it appropriate to award the applicant LAW . To that end it took into consideration the fact that the advertisement mocking the applicant had taken up a full page in publications such as ORG magazine , and had been seen by CARDINAL readers . However , it also had regard to the fact that the advertisement had included neither a picture of the applicant nor his surname , so that a number of people would have been unable to make a connection between the advertisement and the applicant .","On DATE ORG upheld the findings of ORG as to the existence of unlawful interference and the outcome of the balancing exercise between the competing rights , while pointing out that the fact that the company had used the applicant \u2019s forename for commercial purposes , in order to increase sales of its cigarettes , meant that the protection of the applicant \u2019s personality rights prevailed from the outset . However , it reduced the fee to be paid for the notional licence in accordance with the principle of unjust enrichment to ORG CARDINAL . The advertisement had not been designed to debase the applicant and , on account of its humorous approach had not had any negative impact on him . Moreover , in publishing his book the applicant had deliberately sought the limelight . ORG concluded that there had been an unlawful interference with the applicant \u2019s right to protection of his personality rights , adding that no other conclusion could be reached from the standpoint of the right to freedom of expression in artistic matters , on which the company had relied .","As regards pecuniary damage , ORG noted that the peculiar aspect of the case was that the impugned advertisement had , in a humorous manner , used only part of the applicant \u2019s name without his consent , and that it had only been published once in CARDINAL periodicals . Endorsing the findings of the expert whom it had commissioned to assess the damage suffered by the applicant , it deemed it appropriate to set the amount of damages at ORG CARDINAL .","ORG did not grant leave to appeal on points of law , holding that the case was not of fundamental importance , given that a decision was not required from ORG in the interests of either the development of the law or consistency in its application .","The company applied for leave to appeal on points of law . On DATE ORG granted the application .","In a judgment of DATE ( no . I ZR CARDINAL ) ORG quashed ORG judgment . It held that the applicant \u2019s claim was ill - founded because the company had not unlawfully interfered with his right to protection of personality rights or his right to his name , given that the use of his name in the impugned advertisement was covered by freedom of expression as guaranteed by LAW . While upholding the findings of ORG as regards the existence of an interference and the possibility of granting a notional licence in accordance with the principle of unjust enrichment , ORG held that ORG had not had sufficient regard to the fact that the pecuniary components of the right to protection of personality rights and the right to one \u2019s name were only protected by ordinary law , whereas freedom of expression enjoyed protection under constitutional law .","ORG explained at the outset that the case before it related solely to interference with the pecuniary components of the rights relied upon , since no infringement of the non - pecuniary components of those rights had been alleged . It pointed out that the rights to protection of personality rights were among the fundamental rights safeguarded by LAW to the extent that they protected non - pecuniary interests , but that the pecuniary components were only protected by civil law and therefore did not prevail over freedom of expression . ORG also observed that the protection conferred by LAW also covered advertising whose content contributed to shaping public opinion , while specifying that that was not only the case where the advertisement referred to a political or historical event , but also where it dealt with questions of general interest . Furthermore , reports with an entertainment purpose could also play a role in shaping public opinion , or indeed , in certain circumstances , could stimulate or influence the shaping of public opinion more effectively than strictly factual information .","ORG noted that the impugned advertisement referred humorously to the fact that the applicant had published a book . It considered that even though the company had merely referred to that event as part of an advertising campaign , it could still rely upon the specific protection of freedom of expression . It held that the fact that the advertisement \u2013 by using the applicant \u2019s forename and alluding to the book which he had published \u2013 had been mainly intended to increase sales of a cigarette brand by capturing the attention of the general public did not mean , as ORG had maintained , that the right to protection of personality rights prevailed in general .","ORG continued as follows :","\u201c In weighing up the competing interests ORG failed to take adequate account of the fact that the only issue at stake in this case was the protection of the pecuniary components of the right to protection of personality rights , such protection being based solely on civil law and not constitutional law . In the case of interference with the pecuniary components of the right to protection of personality rights because a well - known person \u2019s name has been used in an advertisement without his consent , it can not simply ( ohne weiteres ) be maintained that the person \u2019s right to protection of his personality rights will always prevail over the advertiser \u2019s right to freedom of expression . On the contrary , it might be appropriate to tolerate an interference with protection of personality rights resulting from reference to a person \u2019s name if , on the one hand , the advertisement alludes in a derisive , satirical manner to an event involving the person and forming the subject of public debate and if , on the other hand , it does not exploit the person \u2019s brand image ( Imagewert ) or advertising value ( PERSON ) by using his name , and if it does not give the impression that the person identifies with the product advertised or advocates its use ( reference to ORG judgment of DATE , no . I ZR CARDINAL ) . \u201d","ORG held that the impugned advertisement had not given such an impression . It had concerned a subject of public interest in so far as it referred in a humorous fashion to the events surrounding the publication of the applicant \u2019s book , shortly after that event and in the context of the ensuing debate in the media . The advertisement had therefore been part of the ongoing public debate on the circumstances surrounding the applicant \u2019s publication of his book . ORG emphasised that above and beyond the derisive , satirical allusion to that event , which was already known to the public , the advertisement had been devoid of any degrading or negative content in relation to the applicant . Furthermore , given the absence of any suggestion that the applicant identified in any way with the product advertised , there were no grounds for considering that the advertisement was disparaging towards the applicant simply because it was promoting a brand of cigarettes .","ORG agreed , moreover , with ORG that the applicant had sought public attention for his own publicity needs . It found that the applicant \u2019s interest in not being mentioned in the advertisement without his consent carried less weight than the tobacco company \u2019s freedom of expression . There were therefore no grounds for examining whether the company could also have relied on the right to freedom of expression in the artistic field .","ORG concluded that in the absence of a violation of the pecuniary components of his right to protection of his personality rights , the applicant could not claim an entitlement to a notional licence .","On DATE the ORG declined to accept for adjudication a constitutional appeal by the applicant ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , adding that no reasons would be given for its decision . The applicant received the decision on DATE .","..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174965","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ZDJELAR AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["During DATE and DATE NORP paramilitary forces gained control of CARDINAL of the territory of GPE and proclaimed the so - called \u201c GPE of LOC \u201d ( PERSON autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter the \u201c LOC \u201d ) . Part of the PERSON family \u2013 father GPE , mother PERSON , daughter PERSON ( the third applicant ) and sons PERSON ( the first applicant ) , PERSON ( the eighth applicant ) and ORG ( the ninth applicant ) \u2013 lived in PERSON , a village situated in the LOC . At the beginning of DATE the NORP authorities announced a campaign of military operation with the aim of regaining control over the LOC . The operation was codenamed Storm and lasted DATE . Before that action , the vast majority of the population of the LOC had fled GPE , initially for GPE , but later many of them went to live in GPE . Some returned to GPE after the war . The number of people who fled is estimated at CARDINAL .","On DATE , one PERSON submitted to ORG ( ORG odvjetni\u0161tvo PERSON , hereinafter the \u201c SAO \u201d ) a list of persons killed during and after Operation Storm . PERSON , the applicants\u2019 father , was on the list and next to his name was a note that he had been shot in the head and a leg on DATE by members of ORG \u201c LOC brigade . On DATE the ORG forwarded that list to ORG .","On DATE the Gvozd police photographed the site of PERSON grave .","On DATE the Gvozd police interviewed PERSON , the third applicant , who said that her father had been killed on DATE in GPE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the body of PERSON was exhumed and a post mortem was carried out in ORG on DATE . The cause of death was not established and the only injury noted was a broken collar bone .","On DATE the Gvozd police again interviewed PERSON . She said that of her family members , only she and her father had remained in PERSON after DATE . On DATE at TIME she had been sitting with her father GPE in front of their house , situated on a hill in GPE , QUANTITY away from the unpaved main road . A military transport vehicle had appeared on that road , coming from the direction of the village of LOC . When it drew level with their house the vehicle had stopped and CARDINAL soldiers , dressed in camouflage uniforms , had got out and started to walk towards her and her father . Her father had then said that he did not wish to wait for the soldiers but would run into the woods . When he started to run , she had followed him and then heard CARDINAL gunshots . She had hidden in the grass and had seen her father shot twice , in the chest and the leg . He had died soon afterwards . The soldiers had returned to the vehicle and continued in the direction of PERSON . The soldiers who had killed her father had been from the \u201c ORG \u201d brigade . She had hidden in the woods for DATE while her father lay dead in the grass . When she returned from the woods she had reported the matter to ORG and had been given food by some soldiers , who had also buried her father .","On DATE the Gvozd police interviewed PERSON , who had no relevant information to give them about the circumstances in which her husband had been killed .","NORP On DATE the GPE - moslava\u010dka ORG ( FAC uprava sisa\u010dko - moslava\u010dka ) sent a report to the GPE State Attorney ( PERSON dr\u017eavni odvjetnik ORG ) stating that PERSON had alleged that on DATE her father PERSON had been killed by NORP soldiers , members of the \u201c NORP \u201d brigade .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG issued a document concerning enquiries into the killings of civilians DATE . The document was addressed to GPE Attorney \u2019s Offices , which were instructed to examine all the information collected to date on the killings of civilians during that period and to concentrate their activities on identifying the perpetrators and gathering the relevant evidence in order to instigate criminal proceedings .","On DATE the applicants and their mother lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG in connection with the killing of PERSON , classifying the offence as a war crime against a civilian and alleging that the victim had been of NORP ethnic origin , unarmed and never involved in any military activity during the war in GPE .","On DATE the ORG referred the case to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG , requesting an investigation into the killing of PERSON .","DATE and DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG asked the police about the progress of the investigation on several occasions . Each time the police replied that there had been no progress .","On an unspecified date the police asked ORG ( Uprava Vojne Policije , hereinafter the \u201c MOP \u201d ) for information about the killing of PERSON . On DATE the ORG answered that they had no relevant information . This was forwarded to the NORP State Attorney \u2019s ORG on CARDINAL DATE .","On several occasions DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG asked the police about the progress of the investigation . Each time the police replied that there had been no progress .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG issued an instruction for implementation of LAW and LAW to GPE Attorney \u2019s Offices , in which they indicated that an inspection of the work of these Offices had highlighted CARDINAL main problems : the possible partiality of persons involved in the pending proceedings as a result of the ethnicity of the victims or the perpetrators ; and the problem of trials in absentia . The instruction advocated the impartial investigation of all war crimes , irrespective of the ethnicity of those involved , whether victims or perpetrators , and stressed the duties of those working for the ORG Attorney in that respect .","On DATE the NORP State Attorney \u2019s ORG asked ORG of ORG to hear evidence from PERSON . This request was complied with on DATE , when an investigating judge of that court heard evidence from her . PERSON repeated her earlier statement .","On CARDINAL DATE the police interviewed GPE and GPE , both of whom were neighbours of the PERSON family in PERSON . GPE confirmed that it had been soldiers from ORG who had come to the village when PERSON had been killed . They had no other relevant information about possible perpetrators .","On CARDINAL DATE the police informed the NORP State Attorney \u2019s Office that they had asked ORG for information regarding the members of brigade CARDINAL of ORG who had arrived in GPE after Operation Storm and the killing of PERSON . On DATE ORG informed the police that PERSON had been buried by members of brigade QUANTITY of ORG which had been under the command of a person named PERSON , and provided a list of all members of that brigade with that name . CARDINAL of them , FAC , had already died .","DATE and DATE the police interviewed CARDINAL former NORP soldiers , PERSON , GPE , GPE , PERSON and PERSON , all members of ORG of the NORP army , also called the \u201c LOC \u201d . None of them had any knowledge about the killing of ORG or any other civilians during LOC .","On DATE , in answer to an inquiry from the ORG , the NORP State Attorney \u2019s ORG drew up a short report on the case . There had been no significant progress .","On DATE and DATE the police interviewed PERSON , GPE and GPE , members of smaller army units belonging to brigade CARDINAL of ORG . PERSON , a former member of the engineering unit , said that his unit had comprised CARDINAL soldiers and that he had never witnessed the killing of any civilians by any of them . PERSON , a former commander of logistics in the artillery unit , stated that his unit had never encountered any civilians at any time during Operation Storm , with the exception of a few in GPE , to whom they had given food and drink . Most of the villages they had passed through had had no name signs . He had no information to give them about the killing of PERSON . PERSON had been a soldier in the unit under the command of FAC , and the smaller unit to which he had belonged had been under the command of PERSON had no information to give them about the killing of PERSON and denied any involvement of his unit in the killing of civilians during LOC .","On several occasions DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG asked the police about the progress of the investigation . Each time the police replied that there had been no progress .","In a separate development , on DATE , ORG , who had been a member of the \u201c ORG \u201d brigade for DATE in DATE , after which he had been transferred to ORG , lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG against TIME the Minister for war veterans DATE and others for alleged abuse of authority . In that complaint PERSON mentioned the killing of a civilian or civilians in PERSON , DATE after LOC . He alleged that the crime had been \u201c tolerated by the command of FAC ( bojna ) of ORG ( \u201c gbr . \u201d which stands for \u201c gardijska brigada \u201d ) whose commander had been PERSON On DATE the ORG forwarded that information to ORG in ORG , which forwarded it to the police on DATE .","On DATE the police interviewed GPE He said that during LOC , the battalion had been in the village of GPE and had then gone on to ORG . A person in charge of logistics , named PERSON , had brought in a civilian , saying that he was a \u201c \u010detnik \u201d ( derogatory term for a NORP nationalist or a member of NORP paramilitary forces ) . \u017d.L. described the man in question in detail . Soon the vice - commander GPE and the commander of ORG ( satnija ) PERSON had arrived and had taken the man away somewhere . GPE and PERSON had returned after TIME , and when questioned about the whereabouts of the man they had taken away , P.Z. had answered that he had \u201c drifted in the river \u201d . After some time they had heard firing on a hilltop above them . ORG and another soldier , PERSON , had started walking towards the top of that hill and had come to a house where an old woman was standing wailing . There had been no one in the house , but in a field QUANTITY away they had found an elderly man lying on his belly with gunshot wounds to his back and head . A gun had been lying next to him . The man from logistics had said that he had shot him in the head to \u201c shorten his pain \u201d . \u017d.L. had expressed his disapproval of the behaviour of the NORP soldiers to his commander GPE Later on he had learned that the old woman they had encountered in front of her house had also been killed .","On DATE the police again interviewed PERSON . She repeated her earlier statement , in essence , and also gave a description of the CARDINAL soldiers who had killed her father .","During DATE several short reports on the actions allegedly taken were compiled by the police and the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG .","On DATE the ORG sent to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG a submission by ORG in which he alleged that he had witnessed the killing of civilians in PERSON , which had been both encouraged and perpetrated by the officers in command of FAC ( bojna ) of ORG .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG sent summonses to PERSON , GPE and ORG DATE .","On DATE \u017d.L. informed the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG that , owing to his health problems , he would not be able to come to NORP on his own . He asked that transport to NORP be organised for him or that he be heard in PERSON , where he lived . In a further letter written on DATE he stated that some police officers had interviewed him on DATE and had concluded that \u201c the information he provided did not lead to the conclusion that a criminal offence had been committed \u201d . He further referred to a letter from the GPE State Attorney \u2019s MONEY DATE stating that \u201c the allegations from his objections and criminal complaints were unfounded \u201d .","On DATE GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office heard evidence from PERSON and on DATE from F.O. They both repeated their earlier statements .","It appears that on DATE the NORP State Attorney \u2019s ORG emailed a summons to ORG requiring him to give a statement regarding the killings in GPE in DATE . On DATE ORG sent a note back to ORG referring to the summons and stating that he refused to give any statements because of his health problems , the passage of time , and the fact that he had not actually witnessed any crimes and that his prior allegations in that respect had been unfounded . He also alleged that he had been denied his rights in connection with his medical treatment . On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG forwarded ORG note to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG .","On DATE the investigation in respect of a number of victims killed on the broader territory of the GPE by unknown perpetrators during Operation Storm was assigned to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office ( hereinafter the \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the ORG , relying on ORG statement to the police , asked ORG to provide information about the whereabouts of the people ORG had named , in particular PERSON , PERSON , a person nicknamed PERSON and the person who had been in charge of logistics in the \u201c NORP \u201d brigade .","On DATE the ORG requested that the police in ORG carry out interviews with CARDINAL GPE , who possibly had information about the men who had killed PERSON ; to interview PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON and PERSON , members of the \u201c ORG \u201d brigade who had been in ORG during LOC , about their whereabouts during the operation ; to locate CARDINAL commanders of the ORG unit whose members had allegedly buried PERSON on DATE and whose first names all began with M , namely PERSON , GPE and GPE ; and to again interview GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG , all inhabitants of ORG .","On DATE the police informed the ORG that GPE , GPE , PERSON and PERSON had died . There were also several people in GPE called GPE and GPE","NORP On DATE the police interviewed PERSON and GPE , former members of the \u201c LOC brigade . PERSON said it was possible that the brigade had passed through ORG during LOC but that they had not seen any civilians . He also said that GPE , GPE and PERSON had been part of a patrol group ( izvi\u0111a\u010dka desetina ) .","GPE said that the \u201c NORP \u201d brigade had not killed or arrested any civilians or soldiers during LOC .","On DATE ORG informed the police about the whereabouts of PERSON , GPE and GPE","On DATE the police interviewed PERSON , who had been a member of a \u201c NORP \u201d brigade patrol group . He said his group had not been in ORG during LOC and he did not know whether the \u201c ORG \u201d brigade had been there either .","On DATE the applicants and their mother brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG , seeking compensation in connection with the death of their father . They based their claim on the DATE LAW .","The claim was dismissed on DATE . This judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE and by ORG on DATE . The national courts found that the claim for compensation had been submitted after the expiry of the statutory limitation period prescribed by the law governing damages awards in civil proceedings .","A subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the applicants was dismissed on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148238","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"T.H.-A. AND OTHERS v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The first applicant , Mr T.H .- A. , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . The second and third applicants are his wife and child who are also NORP nationals and born in DATE and DATE respectively . The President granted the applicants\u2019 request for their identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . The applicants were represented before the ORG by ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants are a couple and their child born in GPE on DATE . They are NORP citizens originating from the FAC region and are NORP by religion . The first applicant had lived previously in GPE but fled from the war in DATE back to ORG . The second applicant , his wife , was born in GPE from where their family fled in DATE to GPE and from there to ORG in DATE . Both applicants claim that they have not been politically or religiously active and do not belong to any group .","The first applicant \u2019s problems with the authorities started DATE . He was arrested , on the basis of witness testimony , by the local police in DATE , suspected of the murder of a police officer . After DATE in detention , the court ordered his release as the witness had retracted his statement . He was not , however , released immediately but only after DATE when his brother paid money to the police . The first applicant claimed that he had lost track of time while in detention as he was deprived of sleep . The interrogations went on continuously and if he fell asleep he was immediately awakened . A bag was put over his head to humiliate him and he was verbally humiliated as well . The first applicant claimed that he was not , however , otherwise physically ill - treated . He assumed that as he was relatively wealthy and well - known in his community , the police did not dare to beat him as it would have become known in the community .","The first applicant heard from the prosecutor that the witness testimony against him had been fabricated and ordered by the ORG ( ORG of GPE ) but the applicant did not know why . His legal counsel advised him to leave as , once targeted by the ORG , he would never be left alone . The first applicant did not want to leave as he did not consider himself guilty of any crime .","After his release , security troops of some sort ( silovikis ) searched his house . The first applicant escaped when he saw the military vehicles approaching his house . He went to live in his aunt \u2019s house QUANTITY drive from his house , where the applicants stayed for DATE ( in DATE ) until they fled to GPE . The house belonging to him and his brother was searched CARDINAL times and the applicants\u2019 passports were taken . The first applicant was never home when the searches were made but on CARDINAL occasion the second applicant was present . She and the other family members , who were at home at the time , were ordered to lie down on their stomachs on the ground for TIME while the men in military uniform , who did not specify who they were , waited for the first applicant to arrive . The men shot the applicants\u2019 kitten and stated that the applicants would soon be treated similarly . A gun was held to their heads and they were verbally intimidated . Finally the men tired of waiting and left .","The ORG left the first applicant CARDINAL written summons to present himself for questioning about his participation in group meetings and demonstrations . The first applicant stated that he had not participated in those meetings mentioned in the summons but that he only had participated in such meetings DATE before . His brother went to the ORG with a lawyer in DATE to tell them that the first applicant had left and would not be returning . The applicants maintained that they did not know why the ORG was after the first applicant . He assumed that he was on their blacklist for some reason but other people were also wanted by the ORG without any real reason .","The second applicant stated that her brother had also been taken by unspecified authorities in DATE without notice and held for DATE but then released . She did not know the reason . Her cousin \u2019s son had been reported missing since DATE . Her sister \u2019s husband had apparently also been killed after the applicants arrived in GPE .","Both applicants also spoke in their asylum interview more generally about the human rights problems in ORG , such as house searches by masked men in military uniforms who always came in TIME , and unresolved abductions and killings . Some of the victims of these incidents were distant relatives or friends of the applicants .","After the applicants\u2019 arrival in GPE , the second applicant had suffered from several psychosomatic symptoms which were diagnosed as post - traumatic stress disorder . She has been treated with antidepressants which apparently have not improved her health . She submitted medical certificates to the domestic courts .","On DATE the applicants sought asylum in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( ORG virasto , PERSON ) rejected their applications and decided to order their expulsion back to GPE . The Service did not consider it credible that the ORG could have been looking for the first applicant and failed to find him when he was still in Ingushetia and residing at his aunt \u2019s house CARDINAL minutes\u2019 drive from his own home . It also found it odd that the first applicant could not state any reason why he might be wanted by the ORG . Furthermore , the ORG noted that the ORG authorities had acted properly when releasing him from detention when there was no evidence against him and that they had not ill - treated him . According to the ORG , the first applicant was treated in a correct manner by the local NORP authorities . They also noted discrepancies , mostly in timing , in the applicants\u2019 stories concerning the searches of their home and the disappearance of their passports . Also , the applicants managed to leave the country without problems and their families had not been harassed after their departure . As the applicants had also themselves confirmed that they had not been politically or religiously active in their home country , the ORG did not find it likely that they would be of any interest to the NORP authorities .","On an unspecified date the applicants appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , also requesting an oral hearing to be held .","On DATE ORG rejected both the appeal and the request for an oral hearing , considering the latter unnecessary as it found the applicants\u2019 story in principle credible and thus no additional information could be obtained by organising an oral hearing . However , it considered that nothing in the applicants\u2019 or in their family \u2019s background , gave reasons to suspect that they would be of special interest to the ORG . It also noted that , according to the country reports , it was possible that the first applicant might be targeted only because of the previous suspicion of criminal activity . However , it did not consider that to be enough to amount to a real risk of his ill - treatment upon expulsion . Furthermore , ORG noted that the first applicant had obtained a driving licence through his brother during his absence from GPE , thus it was unlikely that the authorities would persecute him . The court noted that the general security and human rights situation in PERSON was relatively poor but that it was not sufficient in itself to amount to a real risk of ill - treatment of the applicants . It also noted that mental health care was available in PERSON for the second applicant .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting also an interim order to stay their expulsion for the duration of the proceedings .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 legal counsel was informed that no interim order was granted by ORG .","On DATE ORG refused the applicants leave to appeal .","According to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW of Finland ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the right of foreigners to enter GPE and to remain in the country is regulated by an LAW . A foreigner shall not be deported , extradited or returned to another country , if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence , torture or other treatment violating human dignity .","According to section DATE , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( ulkomaalaislaki , utl\u00e4nningslagen ; Act no . CARDINAL ) , aliens residing in the country are granted asylum if they reside outside their home country or country of permanent residence owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of ethnic origin , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion and if they , because of this fear , are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country .","Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provides that an alien residing in GPE is issued with a residence permit on grounds of subsidiary protection if the requirements for granting asylum under LAW are not met , but substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person , if returned to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence , would face a real risk of being subjected to serious harm , and he or she is unable , or owing to such risk , unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . Serious harm means : CARDINAL ) the death penalty or execution ; CARDINAL ) torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; or CARDINAL ) serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflicts .","Under section CARDINALa of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , an alien residing in GPE is issued with a residence permit on the basis of humanitarian protection , if there are no grounds under LAW or CARDINAL for granting asylum or providing subsidiary protection , but he or she can not return to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence as a result of an environmental catastrophe or a bad security situation which may be due to an international or internal armed conflict or a poor human rights situation .","According to section CARDINALb of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the well - founded fear of being persecuted referred to in section CARDINALb or the real risk of being subjected to serious harm referred to in section CARDINAL may be based on incidents after the applicant \u2019s departure from his or her home country or country of permanent residence or on acts that the applicant has participated in since his or her departure .","Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . ORG ) provides that the requirements for issuing a residence permit are assessed individually for each applicant by taking account of the applicant \u2019s statements on his or her circumstances in the ORG in question and of real time information on the circumstances in that ORG obtained from various sources . After obtaining the statement , the authorities shall decide on the matter in favour of the applicant on the basis of his or her statement if the applicant has contributed to the investigation of the matter as far as possible , and if the authorities are convinced of the veracity of the application with regard to the applicant \u2019s need for international protection .","According to section CARDINAL of the Act , no one may be refused entry and sent back or deported to an area where he or she could be subject to the death penalty , torture , persecution or other treatment violating human dignity or from where he or she could be sent to such an area .","Section CARDINALb of LAW ( as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) incorporates into the NORP legal system the ORG CARDINAL of DATE on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of CARDINAL or more member GPE , of third - country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders . The annex of the ORG contains common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air including , inter alia , an obligation for the member GPE to ensure that the returnees for whom they are responsible are in an appropriate state of health , which allows legally and factually for safe removal by air .","The World Health Organisation \u2019s ( WHO ) Mental Health Atlas from DATE provides the following information on the mental health care situation in GPE :","\u201c Mental health is a part of primary health care system . Actual treatment of severe mental disorders is not available at the primary level . The practice of recognition and treatment of depression in primary care is developing in several regions . ... There are community care facilities for patients with mental disorders . A social rehabilitation system including workshops , rehabilitation units in industrial firms and residential homes ( for CARDINAL persons ) exists . Day care facilities are available for CARDINAL persons . Home care is also provided in some cases .","...","The system of ORG consists of CARDINAL mental hospitals , CARDINAL psycho - neurological outpatient clinics ( dispensaries ) that include day - hospitals as separate wards in their structure ( each dispensary provides sectorised coverage to a population of CARDINAL people ) ; DATE psychoneurological consulting rooms in rural areas ; CARDINAL psychotherapeutic rooms , mostly in primary care facilities . There are also beds in CARDINAL hostels , nursing homes and \u2018 GPE under the authority of ORG .","...","The country has specific programmes for mental health for refugees , disaster affected population and elderly . Programmes on refugees and disaster victims are carried out by ORG ( EMERCOM ) . Elderly population are looked after by ORG .","...","The following therapeutic drugs are generally available at the primary health care level of the country : carbamazepine , ethosuximide , phenobarbital , phenytoin sodium , sodium valproate , amitriptyline , chlorpromazine , diazepam , fluphenazine , haloperidol , lithium , biperiden , carbidopa , levodopa . ORG approved the list of mentally ill who would receive free medication in DATE , the funds for which were to be allocated by local institutions . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173384","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MERZLYACHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172934","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"OJEI v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr Justice Ojei , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant lodged an application for asylum at GPE ( GPE ) Airport on DATE .","On DATE he was interviewed about his identity , nationality and travel itinerary ( eerste gehoor ) . Confronted with the fact , apparent from the PERSON database , that he had lodged a previous asylum request in GPE , he admitted that he had done so , claiming to be an adult . He stated that he had spent DATE detained in a NORP reception centre where he had been badly treated . He had been refused asylum in GPE . He had travelled by boat from GPE to GPE and overland from GPE to the GPE .","A GPE Claim interview ( gehoor GPE ) was held on DATE . The applicant stated that he had left GPE because he had been refused asylum . He alleged that he had been detained underground in a prison .","On DATE the applicant , through his counsel , submitted a document containing corrections and additions ( correcties en aanvullingen ) to the report of the Dublin Claim interview and \u201c weighty advice \u201d ( zwaarwegend advies ) . He stated , inter alia , that if forced to return to GPE he would be locked up for DATE in an underground prison known as \u201c LOC \u201d .","On DATE the Minister of ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum request on the ground , in so far as relevant to the case before the ORG , that under LAW ( ORG ) No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member ORG responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of GPE by a third - country national ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) the ORG responsible for examining his application for asylum was GPE and GPE had agreed to take him back . The applicant had failed to make out a convincing case that he was at risk of treatment contrary to LAW ; moreover , he could be expected to make use of the domestic remedies offered by GPE if need be .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE on DATE . As relevant to the case before the ORG , he alleged that sending him back to GPE would expose him to conditions of detention violating LAW . He submitted documents in support of this allegation . At the same time he requested a provisional measure in the form of a stay of deportation .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( sitting in GPE ) dismissed both the request for a provisional measure and the appeal , finding that the applicant had failed to make out his case that GPE would fail to meet her Conventional obligations towards him .","Having in the meantime been informed that his transfer to GPE was scheduled for DATE , on DATE the applicant requested the President of ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) to order a provisional measure in the form of a stay of deportation . On DATE the applicant lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) with ORG .","On DATE the President of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for a provisional measure .","NORP On DATE the applicant was found to be in a psychiatric state of such seriousness that he was not fit to travel . His flight to GPE was cancelled and he was transferred to an institution for psychiatric treatment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s further appeal on summary reasoning .","On DATE the ORG received from the applicant a request for a stay of expulsion to be indicated to ORG . On DATE President of the ORG to which the case had been allocated decided , in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , to indicate to the ORG , under LAW , that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","The applicant has submitted a medical statement dated DATE from which it appears that he continues to receive psychiatric treatment .","The relevant NORP , NORP and GPE law , instruments , principles and practice in respect of asylum proceedings , reception of asylum - seekers and transfers of asylum - seekers under LAW are set out in LOC v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE and CARDINAL other applications ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL\u2011CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","By letter of CARDINAL DATE , the Agent of ORG submitted replies to questions of the Judge PERSON ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of the Rules of Court ) . As relevant to the case now before the ORG , these included the following :","\u201c CARDINAL . When did the applicant arrive in GPE and on what basis did he request protection ( asylum , subsidiary protection or other ) there ? In what manner has this request been dealt with in practice ; what was the outcome of the procedure and was the applicant provided with shelter , subsistence and medical care during this time ?","The applicant entered GPE in an irregular manner on DATE . Upon arrival , the applicant was served with a removal order and was put in the detention centre . Whilst in detention , the applicant was housed in a sheltered compound with adequate bedding and was provided on a DATE basis with breakfast , lunch and dinner . The applicant was also given clothing and supplies to cater for his personal hygiene . Furthermore , the detention centres are equipped with the services of a medical practitioner and the services of a nurse and these services are available on a DATE basis in order to assist and cater for the medical needs of persons in detention .","The applicant requested international protection at ORG on DATE . The applicant requested asylum on the basis that he claimed that he was next in kin to become the king in his village but this was not accepted by his uncle who had poisoned his father and brother and had , therefore , instilled fear for personal safety in the applicant . In the applicant \u2019s preliminary questionnaire which was conducted on DATE , the applicant declared that he was born on DATE . On the basis of this information , the applicant was presumably DATE upon arrival . The applicant did not mention that he suffered from any particular medical condition .","On the CARDINALth DATE , the applicant sat for his asylum determination interview and he again confirmed his date of birth . The applicant added that apart from the problem that he had with his uncle in his country of origin , that is , GPE , there were no further problems in his country .","On DATE , the Refugee Commissioner rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum application .","On DATE , the applicant appealed from the decision by filing an application before ORG . The appeal is still pending given that the applicant absconded from GPE in the meantime .","Furthermore , the applicant was released from detention on the CARDINALrd DATE and was moved to an open centre which is run by ORG . The applicant had free medical care when he was accommodated in the open centre given that his asylum application is still pending in the appeals board . The applicant remained in the open centre until DATE and left the open centre without leaving any contact details .","NORP What , if any , concrete , practical and effective steps are taken by the NORP authorities to ensure that aliens returned to GPE under the terms of the Dublin II Regulation , considering also that the applicant is a minor with a medical condition , are provided with shelter , subsistence and medical care upon arrival in GPE ?","The Government wishes to emphasize that the applicant always declared that he was not a minor upon his arrival : in fact the date of birth given to the local authorities makes it clear that the applicant was DATE upon arrival in GPE . Moreover , the applicant never complained that he suffered from any medical condition .","When aliens are returned to GPE , they are not being taken into police custody unless it results that an offence was committed by them in GPE .","Moreover , given that the applicant \u2019s appeal is still pending , he is still considered to be an asylum seeker , and the applicant will be housed if he so wishes in the open centres where he will have access to free medical care pending the determination of his appeal . Moreover , if it is established that the applicant is a minor , the Agency for ORG provides its services to unaccompanied minor asylum seekers under a \u2018 care ORG issued in terms of ORG . \u201d","The applicant replied on DATE , stating that living conditions in the open centres were very bad and unsuited to persons in his condition .","Appended to the applicant \u2019s reply were :","( a ) a report by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe , Mr PERSON , following his visit to GPE from DATE ( FAC , DATE ) . On the subject of open centres , this report stated the following :","\u201c CARDINAL . Material conditions in the open centres visited by the Commissioner were clearly sub - standard , with the PERSON - Far tent village offering totally inadequate conditions of accommodation even for short periods of time . The village , which at the time of the visit hosted approximately CARDINAL migrants , mainly from LOC , consists of tents , some of which had been damaged due to bad weather conditions , and containers , as well as offices , a classroom , sanitary facilities , a mosque , and a restaurant . Each tent is shared CARDINAL men who sleep in bunk beds . The tents were clearly overcrowded and offered no privacy . Residents have complained to the Commissioner about bad sanitary conditions , including having to share the same space with persons who are sick , and about the very cold temperatures in the facilities in the winter and hot temperatures during DATE . The presence of rats was also reported by migrants . The tent village has a building with toilets , showers and basins for laundry . However , hot water is reportedly not always available . A female migrant stated that she avoided using the toilets at TIME as she felt unsafe covering the considerable distance between them and the container where she was accommodated . Reportedly the tent village was served by CARDINAL social worker and CARDINAL nurse . For medical services migrants were referred to centres outside of the tent village .","At walking distance from the tent village another complex , the Hangar Open Centre in ORG , which includes CARDINAL containers and a dilapidated hangar , accommodated CARDINAL migrants , mainly from LOC . At the time of the visit , the Commissioner noted that certain women and families with children were accommodated in containers separately from the male migrants . In the centre there was a recent building that included toilets and showers . The hangar was closed and not in use . However , the Commissioner was informed that following the new arrivals from GPE since his visit , the hangar has been re - opened and that tents have been placed inside of it to accommodate migrants . Material conditions in the hangar are reported to be seriously sub - standard , with lack of adequate bedding , dirty floors , toilets ( which are shared by men , women and children ) , and kitchen , insufficient lighting , and the presence of rats . These conditions are all the more worrying as the Commissioner understands that a number of family units with young children are accommodated there , as mentioned below .","Conditions were somewhat better at the open centre in GPE with CARDINAL male residents mostly from GPE and GPE . Unlike the tent village and hangar complex in LOC , which are run directly by ORG ) the running of the centre in GPE is subcontracted by the authorities to a non - governmental organisation ( the ORG for Shelter and Support to Migrants ) . The Commissioner notes that extensive refurbishment work , which would allow for better conditions and a more functional distribution of space , were underway during his visit . At the time of the visit however , serious overcrowding was still very obvious . Toilets visited by the Commissioner , although they had been cleaned , appeared to be run down , while the whole area of the open centre in GPE , situated near a port , was covered by a smell which appeared to be caused by stagnating water in a neighbouring canal . \u201d","( b ) CARDINAL reports by ORG , a NORP NGO engaged in providing assistance to asylum - seekers and refugees , the first dated DATE , the second dated DATE . Both describe the open centres as squalid and overcrowded and basic facilities , including for vulnerable groups , as insufficient .","( c ) CARDINAL letters from a child and juvenile psychiatrist who was treating the applicant , dated DATE and DATE , describing the applicant as psychotic and potentially suicidal and expressing concern that conditions for the applicant \u2019s reception in GPE should be appropriate to his mental state .","On DATE the NORP Minister for ORG and ORG published a paper entitled \u201c Strategy for the reception of asylum seekers and irregular migrants \u201d . The following is taken from this document :","\u201c GPE \u2019s ratio of asylum seekers in proportion to population has consistently been among the highest , and very often the highest , among all ORG Member GPE . In fact , GPE received a total of CARDINAL asylum applications per CARDINAL inhabitants DATE , compared to an ORG average of CARDINAL . It is also to be stated that ORG does not only receive international protection applications from irregular migrants ; for during DATE up to CARDINAL asylum applications were also received from migrants who applied directly at ORG . All this goes a long way to show that even though asylum applications may be generally constant , the number is at the same time elevated when compared to the country \u2019s geo - physical and social circumstances and realities . Matters are further complicated by the fact that a majority of those who seek international protection in GPE are actually found to be deserving of such protection . This means that these people do not only require immediate reception arrangements , but also long - term solutions .","In view of the abovementioned circumstances , conditions in reception centres have been rendered difficult during certain periods ; however over DATE several initiatives were carried out in order to improve the living conditions of irregular migrants and asylum seekers residing in such centres , including by means of ORG funding mechanisms . DATE , apposite NORP funding mechanisms and national funds will be utilised for the provision of adequate food supplies , bedding , clothing and medical support among other initiatives . Investment will also continue being made in reception facilities , where the required refurbishment initiatives in open and closed centres will be undertaken . Furthermore , GPE \u2019s Open Reception capacity will be enhanced by means of a new ORG , with the utilisation of ORG funds , in order to better address current and future needs .","The present document seeks to build upon the existing reception system , introducing improvements at several stages with a view to ensuring compliance with new ORG obligations , as well as to improve the system from the perspective of national security on the one hand and humanitarian and human rights considerations on the other . \u201d ( page CARDINAL )","and","\u201c Asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection released from ORG or from Detention shall , if no alternative accommodation arrangements are available to them , be offered accommodation at ORG managed by ORG , or an entity or NGO working in partnership with the ORG . Such accommodation shall also be offered , on the same terms and conditions , to asylum seekers who would have reached GPE regularly , wherever GPE is the ORG responsible for determining their asylum application , and to beneficiaries of international protection granted protection by the NORP authorities who would have been resettled or relocated into GPE .","...","Persons accommodated at ORG shall be provided with accommodation free of charge and , so long as they are not employed , with an allowance intended to cover DATE expenses , such as meals and transport .","Migrants considered vulnerable , with the exception of unaccompanied minors , shall also be accommodated at ORG as per above . However , such persons shall be offered additional support , be it psychological , medical or otherwise as required . \u201d ( page CARDINAL )","The United Nations Human Rights Council \u2019s ORG on Arbitrary Detention visited GPE DATE . Its report of this visit was published by ORG on DATE ( ORG document A \/ HRC\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/Add.CARDINAL ) . The following is taken from this report ( page CARDINAL , advance unedited version ) :","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG also visited PERSON for immigrants , outside PERSON , run by ORG . The centre has a capacity for CARDINAL persons . CARDINAL were persons present during ORG visit . In the open centres , migrants enjoy freedom of movement but are requested though they are requested [ sic ] to undergo DATE movement registration and provide details of their whereabouts .","ORG received information that CARDINAL persons were living in CARDINAL open centres including PERSON , which consisted of prefabricated container housing units that had replaced scores of tents . Most of them were asylum - seekers awaiting decisions on their applications . Some migrants whose applications for asylum had already been rejected were also hosted there . Residents were suffering uncomfortable living conditions given inadequate ventilation and high temperatures in DATE , in addition to the overcrowded condition in each unit . Residents were referred to the centre by immigration authorities .","ORG was informed that although the open centres were locked and guarded by security officers , residents were allowed to enter and exit the premises freely . Residents were allowed to stay for a maximum period of DATE . Their beds would be restored after DATE of absence so that it could be assigned to another migrant in need . It was brought to the attention of ORG that some residents arrived at the centre in DATE , which means that they had been held there for DATE . ORG was informed that during their stay at the open centre , residents were offered accommodation ; free food , and were provided with a transportation allowance to enable them to travel to the city centre . In addition , ORG was informed that the centre would provide LANGUAGE language courses , computer training and cultural orientation . \u201d","There is a prison in GPE . Its official name is ORG . Conditions of detention in this institution were the object of Story and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174962","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF POLUNIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184493","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KESK\u0130N v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant , who was a sergeant in the ORG had a traffic accident in DATE and was declared \u201c disabled \u201d ( PERSON mal\u00fcl \u201d ) .","On unspecified date , the applicant requested ORG ( the Fund ) ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) to modify his retirement statute as service - disabled ( \u201c vazife mal\u00fcl\u00fc \u201d ) , but the fund rejected that request .","On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG seeking the annulment of the ORG \u2019s decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s rectification request was rejected .","During the proceedings , namely on DATE and DATE ORG at ORG filed lengthy written opinions on the case . However these opinions were not communicated to the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183119","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MUCA v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused on account of premeditated murder . The applicant was subsequently arrested by the authorities .","On DATE the applicant addressed a letter ( k\u00ebrkes\u00eb ) to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and the GPE district prosecutor ( \u201c the district prosecutor \u201d ) , stating that he had engaged ORG , a lawyer , to represent him before the district prosecutor during the investigation and during the trial proceedings . It appears that the applicant wrote this letter while he was in detention .","On DATE ORG found the applicant not guilty and ordered his release . He had attended the trial and had been defended by A. , his chosen lawyer . The CARDINAL other co - accused were convicted and sentenced .","On an unspecified date the CARDINAL other co - accused and the prosecutor appealed against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On an unspecified date the applicant left GPE . It appears that the applicant was not informed of the appeals of the CARDINAL other co - accused and the prosecutor , but apparently PERSON was so informed .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) quashed ORG decision and remitted the case for reexamination . The applicant was represented by A. in his absence .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal lodged by PERSON against ORG of Appeal decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , during the retrial proceedings , the ORG convicted the applicant in absentia of premeditated murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant was represented by lawyer PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , the decision stating that PERSON had been appointed by the court . The CARDINAL other co - accused appealed .","On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , upheld the decision of DATE . The applicant had been represented in those proceedings by a new , court - appointed lawyer .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother hired another lawyer , PERSON , to make an application for review . It appears from ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that an application for review was rejected by ORG . There is no copy of the said ORG decision in the case file .","On DATE the applicant was informed of his conviction in absentia by his family members . He lodged an application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of DATE , arguing that he had never been informed of his conviction in absentia as he had been living abroad . The applicant was represented by PERSON as his counsel .","On DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , ORG and ORG dismissed , and ORG rejected , his application . The domestic courts held that the applicant should have known of the proceedings as he had been represented by a lawyer of his own choosing , A. , who had been informed of the prosecutor \u2019s appeal , and as his mother had appointed a lawyer to make an application for review . They also held that the case had already been examined at all instances and that their decisions were still in effect .","Judge PERSON , who had been a member of ORG bench that had delivered the judgment of DATE , also sat in ORG bench of CARDINAL DATE that dismissed the applicant \u2019s application . Judges PERSON and PERSON . PERSON , who had been members of the Court of Appeal \u2019s bench that on DATE had upheld the decision of DATE , also sat in ORG \u2019s bench that dismissed his appeal on DATE .","On an unspecified date the applicant , represented by his lawyer , lodged a constitutional complaint in respect of the alleged unfairness of the proceedings in absentia and the lack of impartiality of ORG and ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer was informed of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE to dismiss the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal . ORG , noting that A. and the applicant \u2019s mother had had knowledge of the trial proceedings , stated that there had been no exceptional circumstances which had prevented the applicant from attending the proceedings in person . It did not examine the applicant \u2019s claim about the impartiality of ORG and ORG"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177392","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF S.S. YEN\u0130K\u00d6Y KONUT YAPI KOOPERAT\u0130F\u0130 v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is a housing construction cooperative under NORP law operating in GPE .","In DATE , a third party cooperative bought a plot of land measuring QUANTITY and the title deed of the land was registered in its name . In DATE , construction works started on the land in question .","In DATE , the forest administration initiated proceedings before ORG of First Instance for the annulment of the title deed to the land , alleging that it was part of the public forest area . In the meantime , the third party cooperative had merged with the applicant cooperative and the land had been registered in ORG in the name of the latter .","On DATE ORG Instance ordered QUANTITY of the land be registered in the name of the ORG as it was part of the public forest area . It also ordered that the buildings constructed on this part of the land be demolished .","Subsequently , the applicant brought a case before ORG of First Instance and sought pecuniary damages from the ORG under LAW which provided for the ORG \u2019s responsibility for any damage resulting from the keeping of the land registry records .","On DATE ORG awarded CARDINAL NORP Liras ( TRL \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) to the applicant .","On DATE ORG of ORG quashed the judgment of ORG on the ground that there was no illegal act or action on the part of the land registry officials that might have had a causal link with the applicant \u2019s loss .","On DATE the applicant submitted a further petition to ORG and indicated that there was a decision of ORG of ORG which was in contradiction with the decision of ORG . In this context , the applicant alleged that its case should be accepted according to that decision of ORG issued on DATE and numbered E.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL PERSON .","On DATE ORG of First Instance followed the decision of ORG of ORG and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim .","The applicant appealed . Reiterating its allegations and referring to the decision of ORG of ORG DATE , it repeated its compensation request .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s appeal was rejected by ORG of ORG . This decision became final .","In their decisions , neither ORG of First Instance nor ORG of ORG expressed any reason about why they had reached a different conclusion from ORG of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161946","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TRAPEZNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were claimants in civil proceedings .","In the applications PERSON v. GPE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , the applicants were former participants of the GPE clean - up operation who sued the relevant authorities for an inflation adjustment to their social benefits .","In the application NORP v. GPE , the applicant sought the eviction of her late son \u2019s wife and her granddaughter from the flat she was living in , alleging that she was the sole owner because her son had renounced his share in the flat in her favour .","In the application PERSON v. GPE , the applicant inherited a house in accordance with a will drawn up by his late mother . Later he discovered that she had CARDINAL plots of land which she transferred back in DATE to an agricultural company to which she was a member . The applicant sought to recover the property of these CARDINAL plots of land alleging that the transfer had not been duly formalised and that consequently the land formed part of his inheritance .","In all of the applications , the first - instance courts found for the applicants , the judgments were upheld on appeal and they became enforceable . Subsequently , at the GPE requests , the presidia of the relevant regional courts quashed the judgments by way of supervisory review . In the applications PERSON and PERSON and Others , the presidia found that the lower courts failed to take into account the specific method of calculation of indexation established by the ORG for this particular category of social benefits . In the applications NORP and PERSON , they concluded that the findings of the lower courts favorable to the applicants were based on the retrospective application of the law ( see PERSON ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156007","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"M.B. v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by Ms M. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant works as a police inspector in ORG FAC uprava s. )","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant \u2019s wife requested the assistance of the police alleging that she had been beaten by the applicant in their flat in Z.","QUANTITY police officers from one of the local police stations of ORG FAC uprava z. ) ORG and PERSON , intervened at the scene where they found the applicant and his wife , who had a visible nose injury . She was immediately taken to the hospital where she was diagnosed with a dislocation of septum and superficial nose hematoma .","The applicant was requested to undergo an alcohol intoxication test which he refused . The police officers also found in his flat several pieces of hunting firearms which were , together with the applicant \u2019s police handgun , seized from him . The applicant refused to sign the seizure records .","At TIME the applicant was arrested and taken to the police station .","According to the applicant , inside the police station he was knocked to the ground and beaten by several police officers for refusing to sign the seizure records . He was in particular ill - treated by the police officers PERSON , GPE and GPE","According to a report of the police officer PERSON of DATE , at around CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. , while he was held in the police station , the applicant started shouting and disobeying the orders to calm down . PERSON therefore approached him and twisted his arm behind his back after which he was handcuffed .","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was examined by a doctor at the police station . The medical examination indicated signs of alcohol intoxication but did not disclose any injuries .","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was again examined by a doctor who found no injuries but indicated that the applicant had low blood sugar .","Following the applicant \u2019s release from detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on DATE he underwent another medical examination in a hospital in S. The examination indicated spinal and abdominal contusions which could , as alleged , relate to a beating dating back DATE before .","On DATE the police officer PERSON reported on the use of force against the applicant to his superiors ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the Chief of the police station accepted the report finding no irregularities in the use of force . These findings were forwarded to the Chief of ORG .","On DATE the Chief of ORG found that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful and justified .","This finding was confirmed by ORG of ORG ( ORG za unutarnju kontrolu GPE unutarnjih poslova ) on DATE .","On DATE the First - instance ORG of ORG ( Odsjek prvostupanjskog disciplinskog PERSON ; hereinafter : the \u201c First - instance ORG \u201d ) found the applicant guilty on disciplinary charges of inappropriate behaviour and sentenced him to dismissal from service suspended for DATE and a PERCENT reduction of salary in DATE . This decision was upheld by the Second - instance ORG of ORG ( Odsjek drugostupanjskog disciplinskog sudovanja ; hereinafter : the \u201c Second - instance ORG \u201d ) on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ) against the police officers PERSON , GPE and GPE alleging that they had ill - treated him during his arrest on DATE . In particular , he submitted that he had been knocked to the ground and then beaten . The applicant also alleged that ORG . , an on - duty police officer in the police station at the time of the events , had attempted to cover up the ill - treatment by unlawfully instituting minor offences proceedings against him on charges of domestic violence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG requested ORG to conduct an investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations .","ORG submitted a report on DATE indicating that they had interviewed the suspects and CARDINAL witnesses and obtained the relevant documentation concerning the use of force against the applicant . The suspects denied any ill - treatment and CARDINAL of the witnesses , also a police officer , stated that she had seen the applicant handcuffed and kneeled on the ground .","On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint on the grounds that there was no evidence that he had been ill - treated as alleged in his criminal complaint . The applicant was instructed that he could take over the criminal prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor by lodging an indictment before the competent criminal court .","Meanwhile , the applicant submitted another criminal complaint before the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG against the police officers PERSON GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG . and ORG alleging unlawful search of his flat and their unlawful conduct in the processing of his case related to the alleged domestic violence .","On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG rejected this criminal complaint as unfounded on the grounds that there was nothing disclosing any unlawfulness in the conduct of the police officers .","On DATE the applicant lodged an indictment in ORG ( PERSON kazneni sud u ORG ) against the police officers PERSON , GPE , GPE and GPE . in connection with his alleged ill - treatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG expressing his dissatisfaction with the manner in which the circumstances of his criminal complaint had been assessed and with the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG replied on DATE indicating that all the applicant \u2019s objections should be addressed in the criminal proceedings which he had instituted as a subsidiary prosecutor .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s indictment inadmissible as he had failed to inform that court of the change of his whereabouts for which reason he could not be summoned to amend the indictment in accordance with the formal requirements of the relevant domestic law . This decision was placed on ORG public notice board from which it was taken on DATE . It was thereby considered to be served on the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the police instituted minor offences proceedings against the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) on charges of domestic violence , abusive conduct towards the police officers , improper storage of firearms and failure to report the change of his whereabouts .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty on charges of abusive conduct towards the police officers , improper storage of firearms and failure to report the change of his whereabouts . The applicant was fined in total with CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) and the seized firearms were confiscated . The proceedings were discontinued in respect of the charges of domestic violence on the grounds of lack of evidence . The applicant was released from detention .","On DATE ORG ( ORG prekr\u0161ajni sud PERSON ) , acting as the court of appeal , quashed the part of the first - instance decision by which the proceedings in respect of the charges of domestic violence were discontinued and ordered a retrial , while it upheld the remainder of the first - instance decision .","On DATE the resumed minor offences proceedings concerning the charges of domestic violence were discontinued on the grounds that they had become time - barred .","According to the applicant , on DATE , at TIME , while celebrating his wedding anniversary with friends , he was attacked and injured by PERSON , the same police officer who had been involved in his alleged ill - treatment on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . He sustained injuries to his head and arms . Thereafter he was arrested and placed in a psychiatric hospital from which he was released on DATE .","According to the documents submitted by the Government , on DATE , at TIME , the police received an anonymous call informing them that a person was lying on the ground in front of a residential building in GPE The police officers PERSON and ORG immediately drove to the address .","A report signed by the police officers ORG and ORG , dated DATE , indicates that upon their intervention at the scene they established that the person lying on the ground was the applicant , who was severely intoxicated . He also had visible injuries on his head and arms . Soon afterwards an emergency team joined them and they decided that the applicant should be taken to a hospital for further treatment . During the transfer to the hospital the applicant became aggressive and the police officer PERSON and CARDINAL of the members of the medical team tried to calm him down . At the hospital , the applicant continued his aggressive behaviour and threatened to kill them all once released . The police officers thus used physical force and the measures of restraint to calm him down . It was decided that he should be taken to another hospital .","A medical report of the emergency service of CARDINAL DATE indicates contusion of the applicant \u2019s head and superficial injuries on both arms .","A medical report prepared on the applicant \u2019s release from the hospital on CARDINAL DATE indicates that the applicant sustained his injuries during a fall caused by his intoxication .","Following his release the applicant contacted another doctor on DATE . His report of the same date indicates that the applicant had contusions to the head , and hematomas on the right upper arm and left forearm which could have been caused by blows DATE before , as alleged by the applicant .","On DATE the police officers ORG and ORG reported on the use of force against the applicant to their superiors . They explained that the applicant had been aggressive during his medical treatment in the hospital and that therefore ORG grabbed him by the left arm and twisted it behind his back while PERSON did the same thing with his right arm . He was then handcuffed .","On DATE the Chief of the police station accepted the report finding no irregularities in the use of force . These findings were forwarded to the Chief of ORG .","On DATE the Chief of ORG found that the use of force against the applicant had been lawful and justified .","On DATE the applicant was indicted in ORG on charges of breach of public peace and order and violent behaviour during his medical examination .","The applicant was questioned on DATE and he denied having breached the public peace and order . He stressed that he had only refused to undergo the medical examination to which the police officer PERSON had been forcing him .","At a hearing on DATE doctor ORG , who received the applicant in the hospital on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , stated that the applicant had arrived at the hospital with a head injury and under the influence of alcohol . He also explained that he had not seen any violent behaviour on the part of the applicant .","At a hearing on DATE ORG questioned the police officer PERSON who could not remember any details of the event at issue .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant on the grounds of lack of evidence of his alleged violent behaviour and breach of public peace and order .","On DATE ORG instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant in the First - instance ORG on charges of inappropriate behaviour related to the events of CARDINAL DATE .","At a hearing on DATE the applicant submitted that on the critical day he had been with his friends GPE , GPE and GPE , drinking and celebrating his wedding anniversary . When they approached the building where he lived , they came across QUANTITY police officers one of whom was PERSON , who approached him and asked him whether they had settled their dispute . The applicant answered that the competent court would decide about that and at that point PERSON pulled him by the hand as a result of which he fell to the ground and then he lost his conscience .","On DATE the First - instance ORG questioned the applicant \u2019s friends GPE , GPE and GPE and the police officers PERSON and ORG","\u017d.K. stated that he had seen the applicant in front of the building talking with CARDINAL police officers and that at CARDINAL moment CARDINAL of the police officers , without any particular reason , pulled the applicant by the hand after which he fell to the ground and hurt his head . GPE and GPE confirmed this version of the events .","In their statements the police officers ORG and PERSON denied any ill - treatment reiterating that they had only used force as a result of the applicant \u2019s aggressive behaviour during his medical treatment .","On DATE the First - instance ORG found the applicant guilty on charges of inappropriate behaviour and sentenced him to dismissal from service suspended for DATE . It considered that the statements of GPE , GPE and FAC were inconsistent in particular given that an analysis of GPE \u2019s mobile phone at about the time of the events showed that he had been in another city . It therefore rejected the applicant \u2019s allegations that he had been ill - treated by the police officers ORG and ORG","On DATE the Second - instance ORG upheld the first - instance decision .","The applicant then challenged the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings before ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) and on DATE ORG dismissed his complaints as ill - founded endorsing the reasoning of the disciplinary bodies .","The applicant further challenged the findings of the disciplinary bodies and ORG before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) . On DATE ORG upheld the decisions of the lower bodies dismissing the applicant \u2019s complaints as ill - founded .","The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) read as follows :","Article CARDINAL","\u201c No one shall be subjected to any form of ill - treatment ... \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provided :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings shall only be instituted and conducted upon the order of a qualified prosecutor . ...","( CARDINAL ) In respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution the qualified prosecutor shall be the ORG Attorney and in respect of criminal offences that may be prosecuted privately the qualified prosecutor shall be a private prosecutor .","( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided by law , the ORG Attorney shall undertake a criminal prosecution where there is a reasonable suspicion that an identified person has committed a criminal offence subject to public prosecution and where there are no legal impediments to the prosecution of that person .","( CARDINAL ) Where the ORG Attorney finds that there are no grounds to institute or conduct criminal proceedings , the injured party may take his place as a subsidiary prosecutor under the conditions prescribed by this LAW . \u201d","With regard to the service of the court decisions , the relevant part of LAW provided :","\u201c ...","( CARDINAL ) If a party has not reported a change of address to a court or if the party can not be reached at the address that was previously given to the court or it is evident that he is evading receipt of a decision that is subject to appellate review other than a judgment imposing a sentence of imprisonment , the court shall put the decision on the court \u2019s public notice board . After the lapse of the term of appeal the decision shall become final . \u201d","\u201c ...","( CARDINAL ) If ... a decision can not be served on [ a subsidiary prosecutor ] to his or her current address , the court shall put ... the decision on the public notice board and , after DATE from the moment when it was put [ on the public notice board ] it shall be considered as duly served . \u201d","Relevant procedures concerning the submission of and decisions on criminal complaints were provided in ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL , the relevant parts of which read :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) All state bodies and legal entities are obliged to report any criminal offence subject to automatic prosecution about which they have been informed or about which they have otherwise learned .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Criminal complaints shall be submitted to the competent ORG Attorney in writing or orally .","...","( CARDINAL ) If a criminal complaint was submitted before a court , the police or a ORG Attorney who was not competent in the matter , they shall forward the criminal complaint to the competent ORG Attorney . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The ORG Attorney shall reject a criminal complaint by a reasoned decision if the offence in question is not an offence subject to automatic prosecution , if the prosecution is time - barred or an amnesty or pardon have been granted , or other circumstances excluding criminal liability or prosecution exist , or there is no reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed the offence . The ORG Attorney shall inform the victim about his decision ... within DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) and if the criminal complaint was submitted by the police , he shall also inform the police .","( CARDINAL ) NORP If the State Attorney is not able to ascertain the reliability of the submissions from the criminal complaint , or if he does not have sufficient information to ask for a judicial investigation , or if he has been otherwise informed that an offence has been committed , and particularly if the perpetrator is unknown , the State Attorney shall , if he is not able to do it himself , ask the police to collect all relevant information and to take other measures concerning the offence ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-185320","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF FR\u00d6HLICH v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","In DATE the applicant began a relationship with X , a married woman who continued to live with her husband , with whom she had CARDINAL children . In DATE , X became pregnant and disclosed this to the applicant . In DATE , she gave birth to a girl . Shortly after , the relationship with the applicant ended .","X and her husband , the girl \u2019s legal father , refused the applicant \u2019s subsequent initiatives to have contact with the child . They disputed that the applicant was the biological father but refused to consent to paternity testing .","The applicant initiated various proceedings to establish his legal paternity , to have biological paternity testing conducted and to obtain joint custody . His requests were to no avail .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to obtain regular contact with the child , referring to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) delivered on DATE . He claimed to be the child \u2019s biological father and offered to prove this claim by means of an expert \u2019s report . In addition , he made a sworn declaration that he had had sexual intercourse with X around the time of conception .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . It held that the applicant \u2019s paternity had not been established and that , consequently , he could not be granted contact .","On DATE the applicant appealed . On DATE he supplemented his appeal , mainly relying on the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) and requested contact with the child at least once a month , initially under supervision .","On DATE , ORG orally heard the applicant and the child \u2019s legal father . The latter declared that he knew about the relationship between his wife and the applicant and also assumed that there had been sexual contact . In DATE the mother had told him and the children that her relationship with the applicant was terminated although he could not rule out , and indeed considered it likely , that she had continued the relationship without his knowledge . He had learned of his wife \u2019s pregnancy in DATE and concluded that he was the father . In DATE the applicant had told him on the telephone that he was the child \u2019s father . At that moment , the mother had felt relieved that the time of secrets was over . This moment had been a breakthrough for them as a couple and their relationship had improved subsequently . The child had been desired by both . Even assuming that the applicant were the child \u2019s father , he would not agree to any contact because the applicant had caused them much suffering and had to bear the consequences of his behaviour . The proceedings the applicant had instituted were a burden for the couple but did not have a negative impact on the relationship with his wife , but had rather consolidated it . Everyone in the family but the child knew that the applicant believed that he was the child \u2019s father .","On DATE ORG orally heard the child \u2019s mother . At the end of the hearing it informed the parties that it considered contact with the applicant not to be in the child \u2019s best interest for the time being and suggested that the applicant withdraw his appeal .","On DATE the child \u2019s appointed guardian ad litem ( Verfahrenspfleger ) , a psychologist , furnished a detailed written statement concluding that contact with the applicant would be detrimental to the child \u2019s wellbeing at this age .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to mandate an expert opinion on the question of whether contact would be detrimental to the child or would at least serve her best interest ; to hold an oral hearing where the guardian ad litem should explain her written statement ; to conduct a paternity test and to hear the child .","On DATE , ORG informed the parties that it considered it necessary to hear the child . The child \u2019s guardian ad litem opposed this . She submitted , inter alia , that the child had no knowledge of the applicant \u2019s claims , that the latter could not prove his fatherhood in the absence of a legal basis and that the child \u2019s legal parents had not submitted any proof of their allegations that the mother \u2019s husband was also the child \u2019s biological father .","On DATE ORG heard the sixyearold child in the presence of her guardian ad litem only . According to the TIME , the child was aware - without knowing the real reasons - that her parents were in dispute with the applicant , who wanted to visit her or wanted her to visit him , but that neither her parents nor herself agreed to this .","On DATE the guardian ad litem submitted that the child \u2019s hearing confirmed her written statement of DATE .","On DATE the applicant commented on the child \u2019s hearing , submitted a private expert opinion and requested ORG to mandate an expert opinion regarding contact rights and to appoint a new guardian ad litem . He further asked ORG to inform the child about his application during a new hearing . He added that in the event that his appeal were to be denied , he should receive a written report on the child \u2019s development and CARDINAL recent photographs DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s requests . It observed , at the outset , that the applicant could not rely on LAW as he was not the child \u2019s legal father . He could not rely on LAW either , because he had never borne any actual responsibility for the child . ORG then addressed the question of whether LAW of LAW could be interpreted , in the light of the ORG \u2019s judgments ORG and PERSON ( cited above ) , as assuming that a father who was able to prove that he had seriously tried to bear actual responsibility but failed to do so because of the mother \u2019s or legal parent \u2019s resistance , could be considered as having borne actual responsibility within the meaning of this Article .","NORP This question could , however , be left open because contact had in any event to serve the child \u2019s best interest . In this respect ORG held that it was already contrary to the child \u2019s best interest to address the preliminary question of whether the applicant was the child \u2019s biological father . The child was living in a well - organised and emotionally stable family unit consisting of a father , a mother and other children . ORG pointed out that it was convinced that this family union would be destroyed if the applicant \u2019s paternity were established and contact rights ordered . The hearing of the child and the legal parents had shown that in the child \u2019s perception of the world , there was only one father , the mother \u2019s husband . There were no indications that the latter did not assume his role as a father towards the child or assumed it differently than towards his other children . The child was well - integrated in the family , where she felt protected and secure . This assessment was also consistent with the conclusions of the child \u2019s curator ad litem .","The Court of Appeal feared that clarifying the question of paternity bore the risk that the family unit would break up , which would have considerable negative consequences on the child because she would lose her essential attachment figures . As it had indicated after the hearing , it held it to be more likely that the applicant was the child \u2019s biological father . This question could , however , ultimately only be determined by a paternity test , to which the child \u2019s legal parents were opposed . The mother affirmed that her husband was the biological father of her daughter and both stood firm against the applicant . According to ORG it resulted from the hearing that the legal father trusted , in principle , his wife \u2019s assertions but at the same time had doubts as to his paternity , although he had not explicitly expressed them . In spite of these doubts , and the long - lasting court proceedings , he did not put in question his wife \u2019s statements . ORG received the impression that the spouses had barricaded themselves against the applicant as if they were in a corral , as had shown the legal father \u2019s declaration that the legal proceedings did not have a negative impact on the relationship with his wife but had rather consolidated it . ORG concluded that the legal father could live with this uncertainty , and that his attitude had no consequences for the child . If , however , the applicant \u2019s biological paternity were to be established , the legal father would realise that his long - standing trust in his wife was not justified . It was not possible to predict the legal father \u2019s reaction , but the manifest risk that the spouses\u2019 marriage would break up could not be dismissed in view of the couple \u2019s past difficulties . The couple \u2019s separation would amount to the breaking - up of the child \u2019s family unit and the loss of her relationships , which would endanger her well - being .","ORG pointed out that it was aware that , in view of the importance of the child \u2019s well - being , it could be a long time before the preliminary question of paternity could be clarified and DATE before contact rights could be granted . This might evolve once the child started to ask questions , but for now it was not in her best interest to be confronted with the paternity issue . It was therefore not advisable to tell her about the applicant \u2019s allegations or to substitute the child \u2019s guardian ad litem .","ORG went on to say that , even assuming that the applicant was the child \u2019s biological father , contact with the applicant was not in the child \u2019s best interest . Due to the highly emotional conflicts between the legal parents and the applicant , and the fact that the applicant had not ruled out that he might tell the child that he was her biological father if he saw her , contact would jeopardise the child \u2019s well - being . Therefore it was not advisable to order an expert opinion regarding the question of whether and how the child would deal with CARDINAL fathers or whether it was in general advisable to grant children contact with their biological fathers at an early stage . These issues had to be assessed in the light of the extremely tense relations between the applicant and the child \u2019s legal parents , and in view of the predictable consequences for the child if contact were granted . ORG added that it could decide on these questions on its own after having orally heard the persons involved , and based on the written statements of the guardian ad litem , an experienced psychologist well - known from other proceedings .","As regards the applicant \u2019s request for information ORG held as follows :","\u201c The applicant \u2019s request for information , claimed in the alternative in his lawyer \u2019s submissions of DATE , does not exist . Such claim can not be based on LAW , DATE sentence , of LAW because the applicant is not , as required by this provision , the child \u2019s legal father . Whether the provision can be interpreted in the light of the above mentioned decisions of ORG , as assuming that a biological father can also claim a right for information , can be left open : that would require addressing the preliminary issue of whether the applicant was the child \u2019s biological father . It has already been shown that clarifying this question by ordering a paternity test would be contrary to the child \u2019s well - being . \u201d","On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection alleging a violation of the right to be heard .","Previously , on DATE , the applicant had lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that on DATE , the PERSON for the strengthening of the rights of biological but not legal fathers had entered into force which , pursuant to LAW , provided a new possibility for biological fathers to be granted contact and information rights even if they had no social and family relationship with the child ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It added that in court proceedings concerning the enforcement of such rights , the determination of the preliminary question of paternity could be necessary , pursuant to Article CARDINALa \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It enquired of the applicant whether , under these circumstances , he would withdraw his constitutional complaint .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant replied that he would maintain his complaint because , even under the new law , he would not have obtained a more favourable decision . He pointed out that ORG had rejected his request for contact rights , even assuming that he was the child \u2019s biological father , since contact did not serve the child \u2019s well - being . ORG had thus already decided in the light of the new DATE of LAW . The applicant added that the same reasoning applied to his request for information . Given that , in its view , the determination of paternity would endanger the family unit , ORG would refrain from ordering a measure of examination because the legal parents could not reasonably be expected to undergo any examination , under ORG CARDINALa \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint without providing reasons ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184061","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KRYUTCHENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman punishment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , who was walking home after an evening drinking , was stopped on the street by police officers from the patrol and inspection service and driven to the Sovetskiy district police station of GPE ( \u0421\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0442\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0435 ORG \u0433. \u041e\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0430 ) . He attempted to run away , but was stopped and assaulted by the police officers , who kicked him in the stomach . He felt unwell and lost consciousness . The police officers placed him in a cell and did not react when he demanded that they call an ambulance .","The applicant was released TIME . On TIME of CARDINAL DATE he was admitted to hospital with internal bleeding . He spent DATE in hospital .","According to forensic medical expert report no . CARDINAL of DATE , the applicant had blunt abdominal trauma with a ruptured intestine , which had provoked the development of serofibrinous peritonitis . This injury had been caused by impact with a hard , blunt object , possibly DATE before the applicant \u2019s hospitalisation , and had caused him \u201c serious health damage \u201d . The applicant also had abrasions on his back and forearms , and circular abrasions on his wrist joints , which had originated from impact with hard , blunt objects during the same period , and had not caused him any \u201c health damage \u201d .","Forensic medical expert report no . CARDINAL of DATE contained similar information concerning the applicant \u2019s injuries . The expert considered that the injuries had been caused TIME several days before the applicant \u2019s hospitalisation . The expert excluded the possibility that they had been caused as a result of him falling over .","On DATE the GPE police received information about the applicant \u2019s hospitalisation in ORG no . CARDINAL with blunt abdominal trauma and abrasions on his body .","On DATE an investigator from the PERSON district prosecutor \u2019s office opened a criminal case under LAW of LAW ( physical assault causing \u201c serious health damage \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status and questioned .","On DATE the preliminary investigation into the criminal case was suspended under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , owing to the inability to identify the individuals to be charged .","On DATE and DATE the preliminary investigation into the criminal case was restarted , in view of the need to take additional investigative measures .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the preliminary investigation into the criminal case was suspended again , on the same grounds as before .","In DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against various ORG authorities , including ORG , seeking MONEY ( RUB ) in compensation for his illtreatment at the police station and the lack of an effective investigation into his complaint .","On DATE ORG of PERSON allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in part and awarded him RUB CARDINAL ( the equivalent of CARDINAL ) in compensation . It established that the applicant had been taken into police custody in good health and that his injuries had been caused at the police station , since the ORG authorities had failed to provide a plausible explanation for the injuries or any evidence showing that he could have sustained them elsewhere .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182171","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF GORAN KOVA\u010cEVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , at TIME in GPE , police officers of ORG of ORG ( PERSON kriminalisti\u010dke policije PERSON uprave dubrova\u010dko - neretvanske ) ( hereinafter \u201c the police \u201d ) arrested the applicant on suspicion of drug abuse .","According to the ORG , the applicant resisted arrest and the police had to apply force in order to be able to bring him to the police station . During this process both the applicant and CARDINAL of the police officers who had arrested him , GPE , sustained minor bodily injuries .","According to the applicant , he did not resist arrest and did not sustain injuries during his arrest ; rather , it was during his stay in the police station that the police officers ill - treated him in order to pressure him to make incriminating statements against his co - accused in the trial .","The applicant was taken to the police station immediately after his arrest . At TIME he was examined by a doctor , who found that he had sustained minor bodily injuries \u2013 excoriations on his left elbow , on the left side of his chest and behind his left ear . Minor bodily injuries were also found on the police officer , GPE , who had arrested the applicant \u2013 specifically , excoriations on his right knee and elbow . During their medical examination the applicant and the police officer GPE stated that they had sustained their injuries by falling to the ground . The doctor \u2019s report of the examination was forwarded to the police .","According to a common report issued on DATE by the QUANTITY police officers who arrested the applicant , GPE , PERSON and ORG , the applicant had resisted arrest and they had had to apply force in order to bring him to the police station . In particular , it was noted that the applicant had been found in a vehicle on the road and arrested . He had refused to step out of his vehicle , so GPE had grabbed him by his left wrist and had applied the socalled \u201c wristlock \u201d technique in order to get him out of his vehicle . At that point police officer PERSON had grabbed the applicant by his right hand in order to apply the so - called \u201c elbow - lock \u201d technique , but due to the fact that the applicant had continued to resist all CARDINAL of them had fallen to the ground . The applicant had tried to stand up and PERSON had kept him on the ground by pressing his knee against his back . The applicant had then been handcuffed and placed in the back seat of a police vehicle . In the police vehicle the applicant had continued to resist and the police officer GPE had applied the \u201c elbow - lock \u201d technique and leaned him forwards in order to restrain him . By the time they had parked in front of the police station , one handcuff had come loose , so PERSON and PERSON had applied the \u201c elbow - lock \u201d technique again . When they had entered the police station the applicant had once again fallen to the ground . Then the applicant had been seated in a room and had ceased to resist , so the police officers had stopped using force and removed his other handcuff . Lastly , it was noted that during the application of coercive measures the applicant and GPE had sustained injuries which , according to the doctor \u2019s report , had been minor .","On DATE a shift manager of ORG noted in a report that the applicant had actively resisted arrest and that GPE , PERSON and ORG had applied coercive measures against him \u2013 bodily force , restraining techniques and handcuffing . It was also noted that the applicant had been examined by a doctor , who had found that he had sustained excoriations on his left elbow , on the left side of his chest and behind his left ear . The applicant signed the report and stated that he did not have any objections to the procedure that had been followed .","On DATE the chief of ORG examined the information gathered in respect of the application of coercive measures against the applicant and found that they had been necessary , justified and lawful .","According to a police report made on DATE of the applicant \u2019s arrest , the applicant was informed of the reasons for his arrest and his right to remain silent , to hire a lawyer of his own choosing and to have a person of his choice be informed of his arrest . The report noted that the applicant had declined to hire a lawyer and that he had asked that his father be informed of his arrest . In this connection it was noted that the applicant \u2019s father had been contacted at TIME The applicant signed the report without making any objections to its contents . On DATE the police lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant under a reasonable suspicion of drug abuse .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was questioned by the police . In the report on his questioning it was noted that the applicant had been advised of his right to remain silent and to hire a lawyer of his own choosing who could be present during the questioning . In this connection it was noted that the applicant had declined to hire a lawyer . The applicant then gave a statement , explaining that in DATE he had on QUANTITY occasions acted as an intermediary in the selling of amphetamines . He also stated that DATE he had on several occasions bought cocaine from a certain PERSON He expressed regret for his actions . The questioning ended at TIME The applicant signed the report on his questioning without making any objections regarding its contents .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was brought for questioning before an investigating judge of ORG . A deputy GPE State Attorney , PERSON , was also present during the questioning . According to the report on his questioning , the applicant was twice advised by the investigating judge of his right to remain silent and to hire a lawyer of his own choosing , who could be present during the questioning . The applicant replied that he understood the advice and the grounds for his being under suspicion and maintained that he did not require a lawyer for that DATE \u2019s questioning and that he would give a statement to the investigating judge and answer questions . He then explained that in DATE he had on QUANTITY occasions acted as an intermediary in the selling of amphetamines and that DATE he had on several occasions bought cocaine from GPE Lastly , the applicant stated that he had been arrested DATE at TIME and that apart from the use of force during his arrest he did not have any objections about the police conduct during his stay in the police station . The questioning ended at TIME The applicant signed the report on his questioning without making any objections as to its contents . He was then released .","On DATE an investigation was opened in respect of the applicant and D.\u0160 on the reasonable suspicion of their having engaged in drug abuse . On DATE the investigation was extended to encompass a third person , GPE","On DATE the applicant hired a lawyer , PERSON , to represent him .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ) indicted the applicant , PERSON , and V.V for drug abuse .","On DATE a hearing was held before ORG , which the applicant and his lawyer attended . The hearing was adjourned in order for GPE \u2019s ability to follow the proceedings to be determined .","The hearing of DATE , which the applicant and his lawyer attended , was adjourned owing to the illness of the presiding judge .","At a hearing held on DATE , which the applicant and his lawyer attended , ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) established the identity of the defendants and the charges brought against them . The applicant stated that he understood the charges brought against him and the warnings regarding his rights given by the presiding judge and that he would present his defence and answer questions . He pleaded not guilty . He asked to give his defence at the end of the trial . Evidence was read out aloud , whereas certain evidence was excluded from the case file at the request of the defence . The trial court heard CARDINAL witnesses .","At a hearing held on DATE , which the applicant and his lawyer attended , the trial court heard GPE , a witness .","At a hearing held on DATE , which the applicant and his lawyer attended , the trial court continued to hear ORG and examined certain other evidence . The applicant \u2019s lawyer then proposed that the trial court examine the medical records of the applicant \u2019s father who allegedly suffered a stroke after learning of the applicant \u2019s arrest , as well as a medical certificate dated DATE confirming that on DATE the applicant had been examined by a doctor and that the doctor \u2019s report had been forwarded to the police . He also proposed that the trial court hear the applicant \u2019s sister and examine the power of attorney by which she had hired a lawyer to represent the applicant during the time that the investigating judge was questioning him . The applicant \u2019s lawyer , PERSON , explained that this proposed evidence was relevant for the establishing of the conduct of the police against the applicant . ORG , the lawyer allegedly hired by the applicant \u2019s sister , who represented PERSON , the applicant \u2019s co - accused in the trial , stated that the power of attorney in question had been signed in his office on TIME when the applicant had been held in the police station . The trial court examined the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s medical records and rejected the other proposed evidence , considering them irrelevant for the proceedings at that point .","At a hearing held on DATE the trial court heard the applicant \u2019s co - accused , PERSON stated , inter alia , that he had not sold drugs to the applicant and that he had learned from his lawyer , ORG , that the police had ill - treated the applicant in the police station and had beaten him . The trial court then heard the applicant .","The applicant reiterated the part of his statement given to the investigating judge on DATE concerning the criminal accusation against him , namely that he had on CARDINAL occasions acted as an intermediary in the selling of amphetamines . He retracted the part of his statement concerning the buying of cocaine from GPE He alleged that after he had been brought to the police station he had been physically and psychologically ill - treated and had been coerced to into giving such a statement to the investigating judge . He further alleged that the following TIME his father and sister had come to the police station , and when he had seen his father crying , he had agreed to give his statement to the investigating judge . He explained that once he had been brought to the police station he had immediately confessed to being an intermediary in the selling of amphetamines . However , when the police had started questioning him about GPE and the cocaine , he had asked for a lawyer . Later , at CARDINAL point police officer PERSON had told him that ORG had arrived at the entrance of the police station but had not been allowed to come in . He alleged that he had been beaten by police officers GPE , GPE and ORG","When asked by the prosecutor , the applicant explained that during his arrest and transportation to the police station the police officers had used force against him and had beaten him . When further asked by the presiding judge and the lawyer , ORG , the applicant explained that even though on CARDINAL DATE he had been advised by the investigating judge of his right to remain silent and to hire a lawyer , he had been afraid of the police officers who had brought him before the investigating judge , given that they had been the same police officers who had beaten him . The applicant \u2019s lawyer then asked that the applicant \u2019s sister be heard on account of a conversation that she had had with the police officer , PERSON also asked that ORG be heard and that the medical documentation relating to the injuries the applicant had sustained during his questioning by the police be examined . The trial court dismissed these requests , considering such evidence to be unnecessary .","In a closing statement the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked the trial court to take into account , when determining the applicant \u2019s sentence , the fact that he had confessed to his crime . The applicant reiterated his lawyer \u2019s statement and added that he intended to finish school and start working and would never repeat his actions .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . It also found GPE and GPE guilty as charged and sentenced them to CARDINAL and CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , respectively . In finding PERSON guilty the trial court referred to , inter alia , the statement that the applicant had given to the investigating judge concerning his having purchased cocaine from GPE in DATE . It did not consider credible the applicant \u2019s allegation that he had given his statement to the investigating judge under police duress . It found that during the trial the applicant himself had alleged that he had given his oral statement to the investigating judge uninterruptedly , without the police officers being present , and after being advised of his right to hire a lawyer and to remain silent . In this respect it noted that the applicant had told the investigating judge that he had been illtreated by the police only during his arrest , and not during his stay in the police station . It considered that the fact that the applicant had changed the nature of his allegation was an attempt to help his co - accused D.\u0160 in the trial .","The trial court dismissed evidence proposals relating to the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment in the police station , specifically that his sister be heard in respect of this allegation , finding that his sister had not been present during his arrest and transportation to the police station , and later on had not been in the same room with the applicant and the police officers . As to the criminal accusation against the applicant , the trial court found that the applicant had confessed to being an intermediary in the sale of amphetamines and it took his confession into account as a mitigating circumstance .","The applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment to ORG ( PERSON ) . In his appeal he stated that he had not resisted his arrest and had not sustained injuries during his arrest . He explained that once he had been brought to the police station he had immediately and voluntarily confessed to his crime . Therefore , he could have had no reason to resist the police TIME beforehand . He further stated that the police had physically and psychologically pressured him into incriminating PERSON and had denied him access to a lawyer . He alleged that he had given a statement to the investigating judge under duress applied by the police officers who had brought him before the investigating judge . He complained about the trial court \u2019s dismissal of his proposals regarding evidence relating to those circumstances . He lastly stated that , given that the trial court had believed the statement that he had given against GPE and had taken it into account when convicting PERSON , he should have been given a milder sanction .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction but reduced his sentence to DATE imprisonment . ORG found that in his appeal the applicant himself had stated that the police officers had had no reason to exert pressure on him given that he had immediately confessed his crime . As to the change of the applicant \u2019s line of defence during the trial , ORG agreed with the trial court that this had probably been an attempt to help his co - accused , PERSON , in the trial , rather than constituting a credible reason for retracting his earlier statements . ORG lastly found that the applicant \u2019s statement had helped to convict PERSON and that therefore his sentence was to be reduced to DATE imprisonment .","The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) . He complained that during his stay in the police station he had asked for a lawyer and that his sister and father had hired ORG to represent him . However , he stated that the police had forced him to waive this right . He further complained that he had been ill - treated during his stay in the police station . He explained that he had not resisted arrest and had not been injured during his arrest , but during his stay in the police station when he had been forced to incriminate GPE","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161891","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"LE LIEVRE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["In DATE , the island of GPE , an autonomous part of ORG in LOC with a population of some CARDINAL residents , enacted a new electoral system .","The applicants are CARDINAL NORP nationals , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who were born respectively in DATE , DATE and DATE . They are residents of LOC and , although they bring this application in their individual capacities , they have formed an unincorporated association called \u201c FAC \u201d , which seeks reform of the island \u2019s new electoral system . Their principal complaint to the ORG is that the system does not comply with the requirements of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW , the right to free elections .","Sark \u2019s constitutional position , the history of the reforms which led to the new electoral system , and the conduct of recent elections under that system are summarised at paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL below . That summary is taken from the facts as submitted by the applicants and from CARDINAL judgments of ORG of the GPE concerning PERSON : R ( FAC ) v. Lord Chancellor and Secretary of ORG for ORG ( \u201c Barclay ( no . CARDINAL ) \u201d ) and R ( FAC ) v. Secretary of ORG for ORG ( \u201c Barclay ( no . CARDINAL ) \u201d ) ( see relevant domestic law and practice at paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL below ) .","The LOC consist of ORG and GPE . ORG are ORG . The ORG consists of the island GPE itself , the islands of GPE and GPE , and several smaller islands . GPE and GPE are autonomous from GPE .","GPE is responsible for the Bailiwick of GPE \u2019s international obligations and has extended the application of LAW No . CARDINAL to it through declarations under LAW No . CARDINAL . That responsibility is exercised primarily through ORG .","Sark \u2019s constitutional position can be traced back to the NORP - French wars of CARDINAL - CARDINAL , when it came under the jurisdiction of the NORP Crown . Throughout its history ORG has , like the rest of LOC , retained its own customs , laws , courts and legislature .","Sark \u2019s present constitutional position derives from letters patent issued by Queen PERSON I in DATE which granted a perpetual lease of island to its first \u201c ORG \u201d . The lease has passed , either by sale or inheritance , down to the island \u2019s current PERSON , who still plays a role in the government of the island .","GPE , GPE and GPE all have their own legislatures and , in general , the CARDINAL islands legislate for themselves .","Sark \u2019s legislature is called the Chief Pleas . The Chief Pleas legislates by CARDINAL methods , Laws and Ordinances . In respect of Laws , after the Chief Pleas passes a PERSON , it is remitted as a Projet de Loi to officials in ORG , GPE . It is then remitted to ORG ( \u201c the Committee \u201d ) . ORG includes the Secretary of ORG for ORG , the member of the GPE cabinet responsible for ORG . If the ORG recommends that ORG be granted , the Projet de Loi is presented to ORG so that it may become law . ORG will then be given through an Order in Council . The Projet de Loi will not be presented to ORG if the ORG decides not to recommend it for Royal Assent ( see ORG judgment in FAC ( no . CARDINAL ) at paragraph CARDINAL ) .","In considering whether or not to recommend approval , ORG will in general respect the decision of the Chief Pleas , and there would tend to be a presumption in favour of recommending ORG . But consideration is given to the ORG \u2019s responsibilities , so that if a PERSON violates the ORG \u2019s international obligations or any fundamental constitutional principle or if it is clearly not in the public interest for it to become law , then a recommendation may be made to withhold ORG ( see the FAC ( no . CARDINAL ) judgment at paragraph CARDINAL ) .","Historically , PERSON was divided into CARDINAL plots of land or \u201c tenements \u201d . Anyone who owned CARDINAL of the tenements ( \u201c a tenant \u201d ) was entitled to a seat in the Chief Pleas . In DATE the tenants were joined in the Chief Pleas by CARDINAL elected members .","In DATE , the Chief Pleas voted for a reform which would have provided for a legislature to consist of CARDINAL tenants elected by the tenants and CARDINAL deputies elected by the rest of the population . In DATE the Chief Pleas withdrew its support for the reform , a position supported by the Secretary of ORG for ORG , who wrote to the ORG stating that he \u201c would not have been able to recommend for LAW legislation about which there are serious or substantial ORG compliance issues \u201d ( quoted in ORG ( no . CARDINAL ) at paragraph CARDINAL ) . He continued :","\u201c [ a]ny option which falls short of a wholly democratic process would cause me serious difficulties . ... I am concerned that ORG should give itself , and the GPE , the best protection it can from ORG challenge and its possible consequences ... [ PERSON is the GPE which is vulnerable to an ORG challenge . The GPE can not stand by and give that situation its tacit approval by doing nothing . \u201d","NORP In DATE , the Chief Pleas approved another version of a new law which would still reserve seats in the Chief Pleas for tenants , but with those tenants elected by universal suffrage . The Secretary of ORG decided not to submit that proposal to ORG over doubts as to whether it complied with GPE international obligations ( FAC ( no . CARDINAL ) at paragraph CARDINAL ) .","In DATE , the Chief Pleas then passed a PERSON which proposed removing tenants from the Chief Pleas and replacing them with twentyeight elected members or \u201c conseillers \u201d . The PERSON was to be an ex officio member of Chief Pleas , with a voice but no vote . The PERSON did not have the right to veto Laws passed by the Chief Pleas ( and this is would not change in the Projet de Loi ) . He would , however , retain the right to veto an GPE . In that case , the GPE would be placed again before the Chief Pleas within DATE for its decision on whether to override the veto . The Projet de Loi also provided that the ORG could not sit on executive committees of the Chief Pleas , the main means through which the executive government of the island is conducted .","The DATE PERSON created the following electoral system for the island . All persons who had been resident on the island for DATE could vote . ORG would serve DATE terms , but those terms would be staggered so that , subject to special rules governing by - elections and unforeseen vacancies , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL conseillers would be elected at any CARDINAL general election ( save for the first general election at which all CARDINAL seats would be contested ) .","For any election , the island would be a single constituency with all eligible voters able to vote for all candidates . A voter would receive a number of votes equal to the number of vacancies being contested at the election ( normally CARDINAL vacancies unless there were additional vacancies ) . The CARDINAL candidates gaining the most votes would be elected .","ORG recommended that LAW should receive ORG , concluding that it would not violate any of GPE international obligations . ORG was accordingly given on DATE and the Projet de Loi entered into force as the ORG ( Sark ) Law CARDINAL ( \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) .","Once Royal Assent was given to LAW , PERSON \u2019s first general election on took place on DATE . Since then there have been CARDINAL further general elections and CARDINAL by - elections . The applicants have provided the following summary of the results for those elections :","Traditionally , sessions of the Chief Pleas were chaired by the island \u2019s \u201c Seneschal \u201d who also serves as the island \u2019s resident judge . Subsequent reforms have separated the Seneschal \u2019s judicial and legislative functions : he now holds purely judicial office , his presiding role in Chief Pleas has been taken by a President of Chief Pleas .","Sark \u2019s court of first instance is the court of the Seneschal . His court has unlimited jurisdiction in civil matters and shares jurisdiction in criminal matters with ORG . When civil and criminal matters are decided at first instance by the court of the Seneschal , there is a right of appeal to ORG then to ORG for GPE and , finally , ORG of ORG .","Sark \u2019s laws can , under certain circumstances be challenged in the GPE courts . This arises because , under the law of GPE and GPE , there is the possibility of bringing a legal challenge to the making of an Order in Council . This is done by way of judicial review in ORG and GPE and , on appeal , to ORG and , finally , ORG of GPE . Given that FAC to legislation from FAC is given by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , it is , therefore , possible to challenge GPE legislation in ORG through judicial review proceedings . This is , however , a limited jurisdiction , which ORG has made clear should not always be exercised : see PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) at paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL below .","The Human Rights ( Bailiwick of Guernsey ) Law CARDINAL , a PERSON modelled on ORG DATE , applies throughout the GPE , including LOC . In summary , like LAW , the PERSON constrains public authorities in the islands from acting contrary to Convention rights and requires the courts of the islands to take account of the case - law of the LAW bodies . It also requires the courts , so far as it is possible to do so , to read and give effect to primary legislation and subordinate legislation in a way which is compatible with the LAW rights . When it is not possible for them to do so , the LOC courts , like their counterparts in GPE , may make a declaration that the legislation is not compatible with LAW ( a declaration of incompatibility ) .","In GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) certain aspects of LAW were challenged by way of judicial review in ORG and GPE , including whether the continued presence of the PERSON and ( at that time , the Seneschal ) in the Chief Pleas was compatible with LAW No . CARDINAL .","NORP That judicial review challenge ultimately reached ORG , which gave judgment on DATE dismissing the challenge : [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL .","Lord PERSON gave the lead judgment for the unanimous court . After reviewing the general principles which emerged from this ORG \u2019s case law on LAW ( including the need to consider electoral rules in the round and in the light of historical and political factors ) , Lord PERSON observed that there was no breach of LAW No CARDINAL arising from the PERSON and PERSON \u2019s continued membership of Chief Pleas . He observed ( at paragraph CARDINAL of the judgment ) :","\u201c The starting point is that only ORG are entitled to vote in the Chief Pleas , and therefore it is only ORG who determine whether legislation is to be enacted . The electorate of PERSON consists of CARDINAL voters , who choose CARDINAL elected ORG by a process of casting CARDINAL votes each and electing the CARDINAL candidates with the largest number of votes . There is therefore one GPE for every CARDINAL persons in the electorate . It is not easy to envisage , in the words of LAW , conditions which are more likely to ensure the expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature . \u201d","Lord PERSON went on to find that there was nothing in the travaux pr\u00e9paratoires of the LAW or the case - law of this ORG which established that all members of the legislature should be elected , irrespective of their powers and irrespective of the circumstances . Indeed , to the contrary , the travaux pr\u00e9paratoires indicated that LAW No . CARDINAL had been drafted to recognise that , in some GPE , part of the legislature was not elected .","Instead , the effect of this ORG \u2019s case - law under LAW No . CARDINAL was that all circumstances had to be considered . The presence of the Seigneur ( and , at that time , the Seneschal ) in the Chief Pleas did not contravene that Article . Even if their membership in the Chief Pleas was to be regarded as a limitation on the people \u2019s right to choose the legislature , in light of the constitutional history and the political factors relevant to PERSON , that limitation fell well within the margin of appreciation allowed by LAW , not least given the long history of both positions and the difficulties that had occurred since DATE in reforming the Chief Pleas ( see paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL above ) .","In respect of the ORG , his right to speak but not vote could not reasonably be said to frustrate the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature . Nor was that conclusion affected by the PERSON \u2019s other powers and responsibilities on the island . For instance , the present ORG had never exercised his right of temporary veto over Ordinances and he had stated that he only envisaged using it in very limited circumstances . The remainder of the ORG \u2019s other powers , such as the limited power to appointment certain of the island \u2019s executive officials , did not affect the democratic process .","Finally , Article CARDINAL could not assist the claimants in the case : their complaint under LAW was essentially the same as that made LAW .","In FAC ( no . CARDINAL ) , the same claimants challenged Reform ( GPE ) ( LAW ) ( No . CARDINAL ) Law DATE , which removed the Seneschal from the Chief Pleas and made new provisions for his or her appointment , removal , renewal and remuneration . They did so by way of judicial review proceedings , commenced in ORG and GPE , alleging that the provisions were incompatible with LAW and thus that the decision of ORG to recommend that Royal Assent be given to the PERSON through an Order in Council was unlawful .","ORG rejected the challenges to provisions on appointment , removal and renewal of the Seneschal . It found , however , that the power of the Chief Pleas to reduce the Seneschal \u2019s remuneration was incompatible with LAW .","The latter part of the judgment was appealed to ORG , which allowed the appeal : [ CARDINAL ] ORG CARDINAL . ORG found that , although ORG had jurisdiction to hear such a challenge , it should not have exercised its discretion to hear it . For the courts of GPE and GPE to entertain challenges to the compatibility of LOC legislation with the Convention would be to subvert the LOC own human rights legislation ( see , for instance , the Human Rights ( Bailiwick of Guernsey ) Law CARDINAL , set out at paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The courts of ORG were infinitely better placed to assess the issues involved in human rights cases and there was the ultimate safeguard of an appeal to ORG of ORG . Unlike the courts of GPE and GPE , ORG had the inestimable benefit of the considered judgment of the courts of first instance and appeal in the island jurisdictions , and the island authorities would have every opportunity to take part in the case . The courts of the FAC were the appropriate forum in which challenges to island legislation on grounds of incompatibility with the LAW should be heard ( PERSON at DATE and CARDINAL of ORG judgment ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159071","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF REGNER v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) issued the applicant with a certificate , valid until DATE , confirming that he had access to ORG classified information in the \u201c secret \u201d category ( hereinafter \u201c security clearance \u201d ) . That clearance was a precondition for holding the post he then occupied as deputy to a vice - minister of Defence .","On DATE the ORG received confidential information , classified as \u201c restricted \u201d , on the applicant from an intelligence service .","Following an internal investigation , the ORG decided on DATE to revoke the applicant \u2019s security clearance . According to that decision , the applicant posed a national security risk , inter alia on the grounds provided for in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) of ORG ( Law no . DATE ) . The decision stated that the facts established in respect of his conduct , as documented and substantiated by information received by the ORG on DATE , cast doubt on his trustworthiness and his ability not to be influenced and not to disclose secret information ( preconditions for issuing him with security clearance ) . It was noted that as the information was classified as \u201c restricted \u201d , section CARDINAL ) of the Act precluded any mention thereof in the decision or any disclosure of the ORG \u2019s reasoning regarding its assessment of the facts in question .","According to information supplied by the ORG , on DATE the applicant asked PERSON to discharge him , on health grounds , from his post as deputy to the vice - minister . His request was granted on DATE . The ministerial decree discharging him from his duties specified that this did not terminate the applicant \u2019s employment contract . That contract did not end until DATE , following an agreement by mutual consent signed by the parties on DATE .","In the meantime the applicant challenged the decision of DATE before the director of the ORG , who confirmed the decision on DATE regarding the risk referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) of ORG . That risk , which had been unknown on DATE , had transpired from the results of an investigation carried out by the ORG . Those results constituted \u201c restricted \u201d information and the decision could only refer to them and not mention their content .","On DATE , relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG , the applicant lodged a request with ORG for judicial review of the decision of DATE . In his submission , that decision had deprived him of acquired rights in that he had been obliged to give up his post as deputy to the vice - minister of the Defence whereas he had adapted his activities within the public service and within the sphere of his private life . Accordingly , he asked the court to assess the lawfulness of that decision which was based exclusively on undisclosed classified information .","On DATE the ORG sent the applicant \u2019s file to ORG , including the documents classified as \u201c restricted \u201d , which in its opinion could not be exempted from the obligation of confidentiality laid down in section CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG . It also submitted its comments on the applicant \u2019s request . These were sent to the applicant for his reply . In his reply of CARDINAL DATE the applicant commented on , inter alia , the necessity alleged by the ORG of protecting the confidentiality of the documents in question .","Subsequently , the applicant and his lawyer were permitted to study the file , except the confidential parts .","At the hearing on DATE the applicant was given the opportunity to submit his arguments and to state what he thought were the reasons for revoking his security clearance . He observed that , in his view , the information in question had been provided by a military intelligence service which had sought to punish him for his refusal to co - operate .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of ORG , ORG refused the applicant access to the section of the legal file containing the classified information from the ORG \u2019s file and in a judgment of DATE dismissed his request for judicial review . Referring to section CARDINAL ) of ORG , the court held that the ORG , which had disclosed to the applicant the source of the classified information and the general conclusions that it had drawn from that information but not the content thereof , had acted neither arbitrarily nor unlawfully . Furthermore , the fact that the impugned decision was amenable to judicial review had enabled the court to examine the information in question and rule on whether it justified the conclusion that the applicant posed a security risk , which was the case here . The court also observed that there was no fundamental individual right to hold a post in the civil service , that the ORG was authorised to restrict the access of individuals to such posts and that it could also determine the conditions in which those individuals could have access to confidential information necessary for the performance of their duties . The applicant had not satisfied those conditions in the present case . According to that rationale , an individual could not have knowledge of the confidential information on the basis of which his right of access to confidential information had been refused . The court considered , lastly , that the confidentiality of the information that had led to the applicant \u2019s security clearance being revoked prevented it from examining his submission that the information in question had concerned his refusal to co - operate , beyond his statutory obligations , with the military intelligence service . In any event that submission was deemed to be speculative because unsupported by verifiable documents .","The applicant appealed on points of law against ORG judgment , complaining first about his inability to gain access to the relevant part of the legal file . He submitted that the disclosure of information in the \u201c restricted \u201d category ( which was the lowest level of confidentiality ) could not constitute a serious threat to the activities of the intelligence services within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG . He stated that he was convinced that the revocation of his security clearance was connected with his refusal to co - operate with the military intelligence service , of which he had no written proof . However , as he had no knowledge of the content of the information in question he could not refute its accuracy .","In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as unfounded . It observed that the possibility , provided for in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG , of prohibiting access to part of the file was not limited to a specific category of confidential information . In the present case the conditions for prohibiting access were met because communication of the information in question to the applicant could have led to the disclosure of the intelligence service \u2019s working methods , the disclosure of its sources of information or attempts on the applicant \u2019s part to influence possible witnesses . Referring to the judgment of ORG no . II . \u00daS DATE , ORG held that the applicant \u2019s complaints of unfairness of the proceedings were unfounded because , having regard to the special nature of the proceedings on account of the nature of the confidential information in question , not all the applicant \u2019s procedural rights could be guaranteed . Whilst the executive did indeed , in certain circumstances , have the right not to inform the individual concerned of the reasons for not issuing him or her with security clearance , that restriction was counterbalanced by the guarantee of having that decision examined by the administrative courts , which had unlimited access to the documents contained in the administrative file . In the present case ORG observed that the confidential document emanating from the intelligence service contained specific , comprehensive and detailed information concerning the conduct and lifestyle of the applicant on the basis of which the court was satisfied in the present case as to its relevance for determining whether the applicant posed a national security risk . It observed , further , that the information did not in any way concern the applicant \u2019s refusal to co - operate with the military intelligence service .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint . He complained of the unfairness of the proceedings in his case . He argued , in particular , that the parties had not been treated equally because he had not been allowed to have knowledge of the sole evidence on which the decision against him had been taken and which had resulted in his being declared unsuitable for public office . He also expressed his firm conviction that he should have been able to consult the relevant part of the file .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , which was served on the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint as manifestly ill - founded . Referring to its judgment no . Pl . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , it observed that , having regard to the special nature and the importance of decisions adopted in connection with confidential information where there was a clear national security interest , it was not always possible to apply all the procedural guarantees of fairness in such proceedings . In the present case ORG held that in so far as the ORG conduct was duly justified and the reasoning in their decisions comprehensible and in conformity with the LAW and they had not departed from procedural standards and constitutional principles to an inordinate degree , ORG was not required to intervene in their decision - making process .","In their observations of DATE the Government submitted to the ORG a bill of indictment of CARDINAL DATE in which the applicant and some CARDINAL co - defendants were formally charged with participating in an organised criminal group DATE with a view to illegally influencing public tender procedures in ORG . This document shows that investigative measures had been carried out from DATE . In a judgment of DATE , which was not final as at CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine .","The Government also submitted a letter from the ORG dated DATE in which it confirmed that the document in question was still classified \u201c restricted \u201d because disclosure of the information contained in it was liable to disrupt the work of the intelligence service , reveal its methods and sources of information and adversely affect the legitimate interests of third parties . In that context the ORG referred to the above - mentioned criminal proceedings against the applicant ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174966","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TRIVKANOVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP .","The applicant was married to PERSON and they had CARDINAL sons , GPE and ORG In DATE the applicant and PERSON divorced .","On DATE a number of members of the \u201c Wolves \u201d ( ORG ) unit of the NORP police entered the house of the applicant \u2019s son GPE , They abducted GPE , the applicant \u2019s second son ORG and her former husband PERSON On DATE the body of PERSON was found in LOC and the autopsy showed that he had been shot and killed . GPE and ORG disappeared . On DATE the NORP police lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG in connection with the killing of N.T. Police enquiries were started by the NORP police , under the command of PERSON and his deputy PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant contacted ORG and informed them that her former husband and CARDINAL sons had disappeared .","The commander of the ORG unit was GPE , who died in a road accident in DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG","On an unspecified date broader police enquiries were opened into the killing of individuals of NORP ethnicity in the NORP area during the war . The enquiries into the killing of PERSON and disappearance of the applicant \u2019s sons were part of these overall enquiries .","NORP Before DATE , when GPE ratified the ORG , the police interviewed the applicant as well as potential witnesses ORG , ORG , ORG and GPE None of them had any concrete knowledge about the potential perpetrators .","On DATE an investigating judge of the ORG heard evidence from GPE , a former NORP soldier who firstly denied knowing anything about the fate of the applicant \u2019s sons and former husband but later on , through tears and saying that he was scared , said that he had seen all CARDINAL of them in ORG , a military base near ORG . GPE and ORG had been visibly beaten .","NORP In DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE the police interviewed a number of former NORP soldiers as witnesses , some of whom ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG , PERSON , ORG as well as CARDINAL anonymous individuals ) had given statements about the arrest of individuals during the war in the NORP area and their detention in ORG . None of them had any knowledge about the fate of the applicant \u2019s former husband and sons .","On DATE the police interviewed PERSON , a friend of the applicant \u2019s sons , who had witnessed their and their father \u2019s arrest by CARDINAL people dressed in camouflage uniforms and had heard that they had been taken to ORG .","On DATE an investigating judge of the ORG heard evidence from the applicant . She said that she had not witnessed the arrest of her former husband and sons but had heard from D.F.T. , wife of her son PERSON , about it . ORG had also witnessed the arrest of her former husband and sons . Also , PERSON had told her that he had seen her sons in ORG and his girlfriend had also told her that her sons had been beaten in ORG . Another person , C. , had also told her that he had seen her son ORG in ORG .","A report drawn up by the NORP police in DATE for the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG on disappeared individuals lists the applicant \u2019s sons as missing .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG issued a document concerning enquiries into the killings of civilians DATE . The document was addressed to GPE Office , which were required to examine all the information collected to date on the killings of civilians during that period and to concentrate their activities on identifying the perpetrators and gathering the relevant evidence in order to initiate criminal proceedings .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s sons were declared dead by ORG as of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG classified the killing of PERSON and the disappearance of the applicant \u2019s sons as war crimes against the civilian population .","On DATE the applicant again lodged a criminal complaint . She alleged that her sons had been arrested by the members of the NORP army and taken to ORG , under the command of PERSON","On DATE an investigating judge of the ORG heard evidence from witnesses ORG and PERSON repeated his previous statements ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . D.F.T. , the wife of the late GPE , had witnessed the arrest of the victims but had no information on possible direct perpetrators .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG issued an instruction to the County State Attorney \u2019s Offices concerning implementation of LAW and LAW , in which it indicated that an inspection of their work had indicated CARDINAL main problems : possible partiality on the part of the individuals involved in the pending proceedings as regards the ethnicity of the victims or the perpetrators ; and the problem of trials in absentia . The instruction advocated the impartial investigation of all war crimes , irrespective of the ethnicity of those involved , whether victims or perpetrators , and reiterated the duty of those working for the ORG Attorney in that connection .","On DATE the NORP police compiled an analysis of the criminal complaints concerning the crimes committed in DATE and DATE in the broader NORP area and adopted a plan for further actions to be taken , including in the PERSON case .","On DATE the police again interviewed the applicant . She said that she had heard that GPE was one of the people who had taken her former husband and sons and that her daughter - in - law D.F.T. also knew one of the individuals implicated but was afraid to talk about it .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG compiled a report on the cases concerning war crimes , including the killing of the applicant \u2019s sons .","On DATE the police interviewed D.F.T. and M.F. D.F.T. said that she did not know any of the individuals who had arrested the victims . PERSON said that he had no knowledge of the events at issue .","On DATE the NORP police sent a report on the interviews to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG .","In DATE and DATE the police interviewed GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , and PERSON , none of whom had any relevant knowledge of the critical events . The police also again interviewed PERSON and GPE , who both repeated their respective prior statements .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the NORP police sent a report to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG .","The enquiries into the killing of the applicant \u2019s former husband and sons were a part of broader police enquiries which concerned officials of the NORP police as suspects and altogether CARDINAL victims ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As a result of these enquiries an investigation was opened in ORG ( see below , paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE ) .","On DATE the NORP county police lodged a criminal complaint against GPE , GPE and PERSON on charges of war crimes against the civilian population . This included the killing of the applicant \u2019s sons and former husband . On the same day PERSON , head of the NORP police in DATE , V.M. , police commander at the border territory of NORP and PERSON in DATE and DATE and deputy head of the NORP police , and PERSON , a member of the ORG , a reserve unit of the NORP police , were arrested .","On an unspecified date an investigation was opened . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON died .","During the trial GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG , GPE , TIME and ORG as well as the applicant all testified as witnesses that they had either seen or heard that the applicant \u2019s former husband and CARDINAL sons had been abducted from their home by the members of the ORG unit and taken to ORG .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG lodged an indictment against V.M. and PERSON with ORG , alleging that they had been in command of the unit whose unnamed members had committed a number of crimes against the civilian population DATE and DATE , including the killing of the applicant \u2019s relatives . They were charged with war crimes against the civilian population .","On DATE a first - instance judgment was delivered . PERSON was found guilty of war crimes against the civilian population in that , in his capacity as \u201c commander of police forces in the broader area of NORP and PERSON \u201d and \u201c deputy head of the NORP police \u201d , he had allowed the killings of individuals of NORP ethnicity and had failed to take adequate measures to prevent such killings . The relevant part of the judgment concerning the applicant \u2019s sons and former husband reads :","\u201c On TIME CARDINAL DATE a number of members of the \u2018 Wolves\u2019 unit of the NORP police forcibly abducted PERSON and his sons PERSON and ORG from their family home at TIME NORP and took them in a white van to the improvised prison at \u2018 ORA\u2019 , where they were beaten during an unlawful interrogation after which PERSON was taken to an unknown place on DATE and shot and killed and his body was found on CARDINAL DATE at the left bank of LOC at a place called PERSON , whereas the fate of PERSON and ORG after they had been taken to \u2018 ORA\u2019 remains unknown . \u201d","V.M. was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . PERSON was acquitted of all charges .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction of V.M. and increased his sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146097","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BIZJAK v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr J. Ahlin , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG Attorney .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was detained in the remand section of GPE prison on DATE . The ORG submitted that he had been released on DATE . The applicant claimed that he had been released on DATE .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . According to the Government , the number of detainees held in the cell fluctuated CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant was held with another detainee in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . From DATE until his release he was held in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . According to ORG , the number of detainees held in that cell fluctuated CARDINAL . The applicant alleged that he had shared the cells with CARDINAL other detainees .","The relevant domestic law is resumed in ORG and PERSON GPE ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) , and ORG and others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) . For the purposes of the examination of the present application , the ORG points out that under LAW , if it is established that the circumstances of a case , and in particular the degree of pain and fear , and their duration , justify it , an injured party may be awarded monetary compensation , irrespective of any compensation for material damage . Even if there is no material damage , he or she may be awarded damages for the physical pain endured ; for psychological anguish resulting from a general loss of the ability to perform vital functions , disfigurement , defamation , or infringement of personal freedom or personality rights ; for the death of a next - of - kin ; and for the fear experienced . The latest observations submitted by the parties ( dated CARDINAL DATE ) summed up as follows the decisions of the domestic courts in response to claims for compensation for allegedly inadequate conditions of detention .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG found that the plaintiff \u2019s personality rights , as well as the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degradation treatment , had been violated on account of inadequate conditions in the remand section of GPE prison ( judgment no . I P CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The plaintiff had spent DATE ( from DATE ) in GPE prison as a remand prisoner . For most of that time he had been held together with CARDINAL other detainees in a cell measuring QUANTITY . The court found that all CARDINAL elements of civil tort were established , namely : unlawful act , occurrence of damage , causal link and the defendant \u2019s responsibility . The court noted that there was no case - law on the matter thus far and that that first judgment should establish principles for the future . Referring also to PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVI ) , the court noted that the rights guaranteed by the ORG represented a minimum standard and that the protection afforded by the national legislation should go beyond that minimum . It found that the personal space afforded to the plaintiff had been far below the standard of QUANTITY for multi - occupancy cells recommended by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and provided for in LAW . It was therefore in breach of the plaintiff \u2019s personality rights . The court further observed that the overcrowding had had a negative effect on other aspects of the plaintiff \u2019s detention . It found that the plaintiff \u2019s personality rights had been breached also on account of poor ventilation , disturbances during TIME , verbal and physical conflicts in the cell , and the fact that he could not eat his meals at a table or use the telephone for TIME ( as provided for in the regulations ) . Those conditions amounted to a violation of LAW , which prohibited torture or inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment . The plaintiff was awarded compensation for non - pecuniary damage in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( see Mandi\u0107 and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . When deciding on the amount of compensation , the court took into consideration the ORG \u2019s case - law , in particular as established in the case of PERSON , cited above .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by GPE ( judgment no . II Cp DATE ) against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It held that the amount of compensation awarded was fair as it approximately corresponded to CARDINAL average DATE net salaries in GPE in DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed a request for an appeal on points of law lodged by GPE ( judgment no . II DoR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","Previously , on DATE ORG , considering the ORG \u2019s case - law on prison conditions and the plaintiff \u2019s personal circumstances , had dismissed a claim for compensation regarding the detention conditions in Dob prison . That judgment had been upheld by ORG on DATE .","ORG had also issued on DATE a default judgment regarding prison conditions in Dob Prison , on the grounds that the plaintiff had not attended the hearing to which he had been duly summoned .","In DATE ORG decided on CARDINAL claims for compensation lodged in DATE and DATE concerning conditions in GPE prison ; CARDINAL of them were dismissed for lack of a violation of the plaintiffs\u2019 personality rights and in the other CARDINAL cases default judgments were issued . In DATE and DATE , CARDINAL claims for compensation were lodged concerning conditions in GPE prison ; in CARDINAL of the cases a settlement was reached with the plaintiff , and as of the date of the latest information available to ORG ( DATE ) , the other CARDINAL cases were still pending before the domestic courts ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145014","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SUKHANOV AND ILCHENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["Both applicants were born in DATE and live in the city of GPE and in the town of FAC , GPE , respectively .","Both applicants have the special status of \u201c a child of war \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . From DATE they were entitled to a special supplement to their pensions in the amount of PERCENT of the minimum pension in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG \u201c PERSON \u0441\u043e\u0446\u0456\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u0437\u0430\u0445\u0438\u0441\u0442 \u0434\u0456\u0442\u0435\u0439 \u0432\u0456\u0439\u043d\u0438 \u201d ) .","In DATE the first applicant instituted court proceedings against ORG of GPE and ORG of ORG of GPE , asking them to recalculate his pension for DATE , to determine the amount of and to pay him the outstanding indexed debt , and to pay his pension in the recalculated amount in the future . The first applicant also claimed compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage , and legal expenses .","On DATE ORG held that in DATE section QUANTITY of LAW had been suspended by LAW . In return LAW had empowered the Cabinet of Ministers to set up a mechanism for a pension increase . However , because in DATE no such mechanism had been set up , the first applicant \u2019s claims relating to DATE had to be rejected .","The court further found that in DATE section CARDINAL had again been suspended , and in DATE it had been modified by ORG for the relevant DATE . However , this modification was found to be unconstitutional by ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The court consequently held that ORG should recalculate the first applicant \u2019s pension for the periods DATE and DATE and as of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","NORP In DATE the second applicant instituted proceedings in FAC against ORG , asking for recalculation of his pension from DATE .","On DATE the court found in part for the second applicant . It held that the second applicant was entitled to the supplement from the date of the decision of ORG ( DATE ) and not from DATE . The court further held that ORG should recalculate the second applicant \u2019s pension for the periods DATE and DATE and DATE .","On DATE the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld this decision . The decision of ORG was final .","On DATE the second applicant instituted a second set of proceedings in the ORG claiming payment of the above - mentioned supplement to his pension starting from DATE .","On DATE the court found for the second applicant and held that ORG should recalculate the applicant \u2019s pension from DATE . On DATE ORG upheld this decision ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179430","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GRYB v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Obtain attendance of witnesses);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Obtain attendance of witnesses)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","The applicant , at the relevant time a judge of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , was convicted of abuse of office for having exploited a certain Mr I. as a worker on the renovation of his father \u2019s house under the following circumstances . In DATE the applicant , having sentenced I. to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment for disorderly conduct , had the site manager for the house renovation , PERSON . , check I. out of the police detention facility ( \u201c the facility \u201d ) where the latter was serving his sentence and take him to the construction site where he was to work under PERSON . \u2019s direction . Then , in DATE , a police officer , PERSON , conspired with the applicant in drawing up a report falsely accusing PERSON of another episode of disorderly conduct . PERSON fabricated written statements by false witnesses , GPE and GPE , incriminating ORG , and submitted the file to the applicant . Knowing that PERSON was innocent and the report was false , the applicant convicted PERSON and sentenced him to another CARDINAL days\u2019 detention . The same scheme was used to exploit NORP on the construction site .","On DATE officers of ORG discovered NORP on the construction site in LOC . \u2019s company .","According to the transcript of his statement dated DATE , which was also video - recorded , PERSON . stated that the applicant had employed him to work on his father \u2019s house , that in DATE ORG had worked on the site on terms he had negotiated with the applicant and that in DATE had worked while serving his DATE sentence . The applicant had instructed PERSON . to collect ORG from the detention facility , so he had done so . The statement was signed by ORG . on the first and second pages , where his rights as a witness were explained . The statement consists of CARDINAL more type - written pages containing the transcript of the interview but is not signed by PERSON . at the end . It contains a note by the investigator to the effect that PERSON . did not sign because he failed to appear when summoned by the investigator . The file contains a report of DATE , signed by PERSON . , to the effect that he had watched the video recording of his interview and had no comment to make .","On DATE I. was interviewed by the investigator . He stated that around DATE ( sic ) DATE he had been sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment for disobeying the orders of a police officer . While serving his sentence he had worked on the construction of a house belonging to the applicant , under the direction of Sh . After his release , he had agreed to work for the applicant in return for payment and had carried out construction work for him in DATE and DATE . He had then stopped working for the applicant . On DATE he had been taken from his home by police officers , who had told him that the applicant had accused him of stealing some cables from the building site . He had been taken to the office of the applicant , who had told him that since he refused to work for money , he would have to work for free . As he had refused to work for free , the applicant had responded that then he would rot in a cell , and had given him a DATE sentence . While he had been serving his sentence , PERSON . had taken him out of the detention facility several times and he had worked on the applicant \u2019s construction site : he had refused to build a fence and had done some other work on the site . He had not been remunerated . The applicant had visited the site once and had seen him working but they had not spoken .","On DATE I. made a notarised statement to the effect that his statement incriminating the applicant had been given \u201c under the influence of psychological violence and trickery \u201d ( \u0437 \u0437\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0441\u0443\u0432\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f\u043c \u0449\u043e\u0434\u043e \u043c\u0435\u043d\u0435 \u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0433\u0456\u0447\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0441\u0438\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430 \u0442\u0430 \u043e\u0431\u043c\u0430\u043d\u0443 ) and that in fact he had worked willingly and for remuneration .","On DATE I. was again interviewed by the investigator . The interview was video - recorded . He largely confirmed the tenor of his statement of DATE and denied knowingly signing the notarised statement repudiating it . In addition to repeating various elements of his statement of DATE , he said that although the house where he had worked formally belonged to the applicant \u2019s father , it was the applicant himself who had organised the work . He stressed that he had not been remunerated for his work in DATE and DATE and had not worked voluntarily . In DATE the applicant had made him visit a notarial office to formalise some papers , the nature of which he was not clear about .","NORP The applicant and his co - defendant , former police officer PERSON , stood trial before ORG , which was acting as the trial court .","The applicant testified that he had had no connection to his father \u2019s house or work on it . He had not requested that ORG be sent there . When convicting PERSON , he had not been aware that the charges against him had been false . PERSON had worked voluntarily and for remuneration . The applicant did not deny that PERSON . had been the construction site manager on the renovation of his father \u2019s house but argued that it had been his father who had been concerned by those works and that the applicant himself had had minimal contact with PERSON . The phone number which the prosecution argued he had used to contact PERSON . in fact belonged not to him but to his father .","PERSON admitted that he had forged the administrative arrest report in respect of PERSON but stated that he had done it at the request of officers PERSON and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY below ) . He said that the applicant had not been involved and had been unaware of the forgery when convicting I.","B. , the head of the detention facility , testified that in DATE or DATE the applicant had told him that ORG had stolen some things from his construction site and had asked PERSON to bring PERSON to him . On DATE he had taken PERSON from his home to the police station . He denied having instructed PERSON to forge documents in ORG case . On DATE B. was informed by another officer that a stranger claiming to be a court officer showed up at the station and was asking for prisoners to perform works at the court . This was refused . Sometime afterwards the applicant called the station to discuss the release of prisoners and spoke to the commanding officer of the station who gave permission for release of prisoners .","S. , an officer on duty at the police station , testified that ORG had on several occasions been handed over to a person introduced as an employee of ORG , supposedly for work at the court . On DATE the applicant had called personally and asked that I. be handed over for such work . The applicant contested the way S. \u2019s testimony was recorded in the domestic court \u2019s judgment and asserted that S. had not identified him by name . It appears that PERSON also denied having given any unlawful instructions to PERSON concerning ORG case .","Other police officers testified that PERSON . had checked PERSON out of the facility on several occasions .","P. , a ORG officer , stated that he was in charge of taking prisoners from the police detention facility to ORG to carry out work , and that he knew NORP well . However , in DATE the latter had not worked at the court .","The applicant \u2019s father confirmed that he had bought the house and had had PERSON . perform renovation works on it . He denied knowing I.","On DATE the trial court , noting that ORG had failed to appear despite the fact that summonses had been duly sent to him , ordered the police to escort PERSON to the next court hearing on DATE .","On DATE the police reported that ORG could not be found at his last known address in GPE and that his whereabouts were unknown . His mother , niece and another neighbour had informed the police that PERSON had not been living at his usual address in GPE for some time , having left to work in GPE . Although he visited briefly from time to time , they had no way of contacting him .","On DATE the trial court asked the GPE regional prosecutor to establish the whereabouts of NORP and PERSON . , and to escort them to the hearing scheduled for DATE . The prosecutor in turn asked ORG for assistance in establishing the whereabouts of those CARDINAL individuals . On DATE ORG reported essentially the same information as gathered by the police on DATE . They also stated that PERSON . was not living at his address and his whereabouts were unknown .","On DATE the trial court again ordered that the police bring PERSON to the next court hearing on DATE . The police could not locate I. at his last known address . His mother gave the same explanation for his absence .","On DATE the trial court decided that as the presence of NORP and PERSON . could not be ensured , their statements should be read out and video recordings of their interviews shown .","According to the applicant , he met with NORP several times and attempted to persuade him to testify , but PERSON refused , stating that officers of ORG had threatened him with imprisonment if he did .","On DATE the trial court convicted the applicant and PERSON of abuse of office under the circumstances described in paragraph CARDINAL above and sentenced each of them to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE . In convicting the applicant , the court relied on :","( a ) PERSON statements , including the CARDINAL video - recorded , and PERSON . \u2019s statement ;","( b ) evidence presented by the co - defendant PERSON and witnesses PERSON , PERSON see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) ;","( c ) NORP evidence that the applicant had had regular telephone contacts with PERSON . at the relevant time ;","( d ) NORP expert evidence to the effect that it had been PERSON . who had signed for ORG in the register of prisoners taken out of the detention facility in DATE and DATE and evidence of police officers that PERSON . had taken PERSON from the detention facility ;","( e ) the statements of witnesses ORG , who had been identified in the forged police report as witnesses to ORG alleged disorderly conduct ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , to the effect that their statements had been forged . They stated that they did not know I. , had not observed him committing the offence , and had not made any statements about it to the police . PERSON testified at the trial . GPE gave video - recorded evidence in the course of the pre - trial investigation but did not testify at the trial ;","( f ) NORP expert evidence showing that the signatures attributed to ORG on the statements incriminating PERSON had in fact been made by certain police officers ; and","( g ) the statements of other witnesses , primarily police officers , concerning the circumstances of ORG arrest .","The applicant appealed in cassation to ORG . He argued that PERSON . \u2019s statement should not have been relied upon because PERSON . had not signed it and had not been examined at the trial . The applicant also stated that the trial court had misstated PERSON \u2019s evidence , in particular by ascribing to ORG statements which were not in his video - recorded interview shown in the course of the trial . In that interview ORG had also made other statements indicating that he had worked voluntarily . The applicant questioned the trial court \u2019s decision to trust the statements given by ORG , a drunk who had a prior conviction for murder and who had failed to remember the content of the notarised statement he had signed DATE before , which showed that he was susceptible to signing anything presented to him by the investigator .","On DATE ORG held a hearing to examine the appeal . No representative for the defence was present . A prosecutor was present and made oral submissions in opposition to the appeal . At the close of the hearing the court ordered that references to Sh . \u2019s statement be struck from the judgment , since he had not signed his pre - trial statement and thus his statement was inadmissible . The court listed the remaining evidence supporting the applicant \u2019s conviction and considered that , other than Sh . \u2019s statement , the evidence was admissible and sufficiently supported the verdict . The court upheld the remainder of the judgment ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156062","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BOLOTINY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and the second applicant was born on DATE . They live in GPE .","In DATE the first applicant was called up to take part in the emergency operations at the site of the GPE nuclear plant disaster . As a result , he suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions . In DATE experts established a causal link between the applicant \u2019s disability and his involvement in the GPE events .","NORP Under domestic law the first applicant is entitled to DATE payments in compensation for health damage . He brought court proceedings against local authorities claiming adjustment of the DATE payments in line with the increase of a statutory minimum wage for the period DATE and DATE .","On DATE the ORG of GPE allowed his claim in part and ordered ORG of LOC and ORG of GPE to pay the applicant a lump sum of MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of the debt accrued as a result of previous underpayment . The court ordered that the award be paid at the expense of the federal budget . On DATE the judgment became final and entered into force .","On DATE the bailiffs\u2019 office opened the enforcement proceedings . On DATE those proceedings were discontinued on account of the respondent authority \u2019s lack of funds .","On DATE the amount awarded was paid to the first applicant in full .","Being a victim of the GPE nuclear disaster , the first applicant is entitled to additional housing . As he was not offered any , he brought an action against the local authorities claiming to provide him with housing .","On DATE ORG found for the first applicant and ordered ORG to grant him a separate room which should meet sanitary and technical requirements and be well - equipped in accordance with the set standards .","The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force DATE .","The Ministry of Construction of GPE did not execute the judgment due to lack of available housing .","On DATE the respondent authority informed the first applicant that as of DATE the competence to distribute the social housing to the victims of the GPE nuclear disaster had been transferred to ORG , and since that date ORG had accordingly been unable to execute the judgment in his favour .","On DATE the first applicant filed a claim to alter the mode of enforcement of the judgment of DATE from in - kind provision of the room to monetary compensation for its acquisition . His claim was granted by ORG on DATE and he was awarded RUB CARDINAL to be paid by ORG at the expense of the federal budget .","On DATE ORG at ORG informed the applicant that the debtor had not enforced the judgment and proposed to bring actions against ORG .","Since DATE the ORG compensations for acquisition of housing to the victims of the GPE disaster are provided only in form of housing certificates .","On DATE ORG ordered indexation of the awarded amount to RUB CARDINAL . That decision entered into force on DATE .","The award granted by the judgment of DATE as amended by the indexation order of CARDINAL DATE has not been paid to date ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140745","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"M.V. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , MV , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The President granted the applicant 's request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . She is represented before the ORG by PERSON of Liberty , a ORG organisation based in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was born in GPE in DATE . She was the eldest of CARDINAL children : CARDINAL sisters ( ORG and ORG ) and CARDINAL brother ( LV ) . The applicant 's parents separated in DATE and in DATE her mother ( ORG ) began a relationship with a NORP citizen ( ORG ) . In DATE the applicant 's mother travelled to GPE to set up home with ORG and she was later joined by her CARDINAL children .","The applicant alleges that following the move to GPE she was emotionally , physically and sexually abused by ORG .","In DATE the applicant moved to GPE , where she lived with her grandparents . During this time she had no conscious recollection of the sexual abuse ; however , due to her erratic behaviour she was sent twice DATE to a psychiatrist .","The applicant returned to GPE in DATE to live with her mother , ORG , and her CARDINAL younger siblings . She claims that on her return PERSON once again began to abuse her both physically and sexually . The abuse continued until she moved out of the family home in DATE .","Initially the applicant did not tell anyone of the abuse . However , in DATE her younger sister , ORG , told a family friend that she had been sexually abused by ORG . This information was eventually related to ORG , who confronted the applicant about it . The applicant confirmed that she too had been sexually abused by ORG . ORG did not immediately report the allegations to the police .","Instead , in DATE ORG left ORG and returned to GPE with ORG . ORG had already returned to GPE and was living with her grandparents while the applicant had gone to live in GPE .","By DATE ORG , ORG and ORG had returned to GPE . It was at this time that ORG reported the allegations of sexual abuse by ORG to ORG . During the subsequent investigation witness statements were taken from the applicant , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG 's ex - wife ( ORG ) , and his CARDINAL children from that marriage ( GON and ORG ) . The applicant 's brother , LV , was not interviewed at this time .","In her interview ORG revealed that ORG had abused her in a number of ways from DATE , predominantly by rubbing himself against her with his penis . She also described being fondled in a jacuzzi , horsewhipped , bitten on her bottom and karate - chopped between her legs . ORG also described being made to have a shower with ORG and being punished by him with a whip . She also stated that she was aware VV had been touched inappropriately by ORG .","NORP In DATE the applicant returned from GPE to give a statement . In that statement she described what had taken place in DATE when ORG had gone away for DATE , leaving the children in the care of ORG . The applicant was DATE at the time . She stated :","\u201c [ ORG ] asked me if I would sleep with him . I was CARDINAL so I thought nothing of it . I went to sleep in his bed ... I remember [ he ] had wrapped his leg over me and pulled me close . I was scared . I was lying on my stomach and [ he ] was lying on my right . I remember him breathing . I was not sure what [ he ] was doing but I felt he was trying to make me take my PERSON 's place while she was away ... PERSON was away for a week . I can not remember how many times this happened but I think it happened more than once . \u201d","The applicant also described a time when she was DATE when ORG had returned to GPE for DATE :","\u201c [ ORG ] told me that he had a heart condition and asked me to sleep with him as he was scared to sleep alone . I said I would . When it came time to go to bed I went into my brother 's room , got the sofa bed and put that next to his bed and slept there . He made me hold his hand but nothing else . DATE he was angry and said I was no company and that he would ask [ VV ] to take my place . \u201d","She also stated that :","\u201c I also remember when I was DATE he would give me driving lessons . He would sit me on his lap and get me to move the steering wheel . I think this was strange now because he never offered to do this when I was DATE . \u201d","Social services ' records also indicated that ORG had informed a social worker on DATE that the applicant had told a friend that ORG had fondled her breasts when she was CARDINAL .","In her interviews with police and social services KON at times claimed that she had not been abused , while on other occasions she implied that she had . She said that T , another child of ORG who was living in GPE , had told her that he had put his hands down her jeans and fondled her .","PON was arrested and questioned in DATE . Although the tapes of the interview have since been destroyed the entry in the crime report stated that he denied all of the allegations . He was released on bail and told to return to the police station on DATE .","On or about CARDINAL DATE the police decided , without any reference to ORG , that no further action would be taken against ORG . The relevant entry in the crime report , which was written by PC G , read as follows :","\u201c Nothing has been heard directly from GPE about T [ another child of ORG ] being abused . This matter will have to be reinvestigated should T ever come to GPE and make an allegation . In discussion with Detective Sergeant [ B ] we have formed the opinion that there is insufficient evidence for a successful prosecution in this case . A lot of pressure would be put on GPE in respect of her evidence . It is not clear that she would attend court , leaving MV and VV unsupported in their account of what happened . In view of the above I shall classify this as no crime . Should any further evidence come to light this will of course be reclassified and investigated accordingly . \u201d","On DATE PC G informed ORG 's solicitor by telephone that he would not face prosecution . PC G and Detective Sergeant B also informed the applicant and her family that no prosecution would take place and that this decision had been made ' in order to protect the children ' .","On DATE a child protection case conference was held concerning VV and ORG . Detective Sergeant B was in attendance . At that meeting ORG produced a tape recording of a telephone conversation she had with ORG . In the course of the conversation ORG belittled the abuse and sought to blame ORG for what had happened . It appears that ORG had further tape recordings but the police did not ask to see them at this time .","The conference concluded that :","\u201c We believe that [ VV ] has been sexually abused and we will place her name on ORG in the category of ORG and likely significant harm of emotional abuse .","Appropriate boundaries have been breached by [ ORG ] entering the room whilst [ ORG ] was in the shower . We believe he has abused other children and that [ ORG ] is at risk of being abused by him . We will therefore place her name on the register in the category of likely significant harm from sexual abuse . \u201d","It was therefore decided that social services would seek to accommodate ORG and treatment would be offered to her . ORG was to remain with ORG under the condition that she have no contact with ORG . Treatment was also to be offered to her .","In DATE ORG went to live with her biological father in GPE . However , she returned to GPE in DATE and thereafter lived with ORG and ORG , who were again co - habiting . Her name was again placed on ORG .","NORP In DATE ORG married ORG . The relationship was on and off for DATE before finally coming to an end in DATE .","In DATE all interview records , case notebooks and the custody record were destroyed .","In DATE the applicant 's brother , LV , committed suicide . DATE , the police re - opened the investigation into the allegations of abuse . It was agreed , however , that the re - investigation would only consider new evidence .","On DATE the applicant gave a further statement . In that statement she explained :","\u201c I made a witness statement to Police on the CARDINALth DATE , regarding [ ORG ] . I was DATE and at the time could n't bring myself to give the full details of what took place . I wish to add the following ... \u201d","She proceeded to set out in greater detail the allegations made in DATE . In particular , she stated that during the \u201c driving lessons \u201d ORG had had an erection and moved under her . Moreover , she claimed that after inviting her to sleep in his bed he had also had an erection and was rubbing himself against her in a sexual motion . Afterwards , her nightdress was wet . In addition , she alleged that the sexual abuse had been accompanied by serious cruelty , physical abuse and the humiliation of all the children .","PON was arrested on DATE and subsequently charged with CARDINAL counts of indecency and child cruelty , CARDINAL counts of indecency and CARDINAL count of cruelty related to offences committed against the applicant .","On DATE the police were given ORG 's tape recordings of conversations she had had with ORG concerning the abuse . CARDINAL of the tapes contained the following statements by ORG :","\u201c I want you to understand something . These things that happened with [ VV ] happened DATE , OK . And they got out of hand between us but not too much , [ ORG ] , but it does n't make it right ... I want to sort this out with you and [ VV ] ... at DATE ... I was the adult and I should have fucking stopped it . But I never took her knickers down or tried to screw her or anything like that , for fuck 's sake ... what happened with [ VV ] was the situation , not the way I am . OK . You can trust me ... Things happened with [ VV ] , but not what you think happened , not what you think happened ... I'll tell you what happened and I 'm not proud of it . I 'm ashamed . It got too close with [ VV ] , but it was n't CARDINAL way , and I was the adult and should have stopped it . But she never touched me or done anything ... I 've never done anything that bad to [ VV ] Bad enough , but not that bad . \u201d","On DATE ORG ordered that the prosecution against ORG be stayed because of abuse of process . The court gave CARDINAL reasons for its decision : first , in DATE ORG had been told unequivocally that no further police action would be taken ; secondly , little evidence had been discovered in addition to that which was available in DATE ; thirdly , there was material which was no longer available , particularly in relation to contemporaneous notes of interview , as a result of which it would be impossible for ORG to have a fair trial . The applicant did not challenge this decision .","During the hearing , police officers gave slightly divergent evidence concerning the DATE investigation . Detective Sergeant B indicated that there had been a prima facie case against ORG but it was not considered to be in the best interests of the applicant and her siblings to put the case before a court . Sergeant G ( formerly PC G ) agreed that the reason not to proceed was mainly to do with the children 's welfare but stated that in any case there had been insufficient evidence to prosecute .","On DATE the applicant filed a civil claim in which she claimed damages from the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for personal injury and loss arising from the alleged negligent manner in which the police had pursued the allegations of child cruelty and indecent assault against ORG and from the decision not to prosecute . The Commissioner applied to have the application struck out on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable grounds .","In a decision dated DATE , the District Judge considered the decision not to prosecute to be separate and apart from the police investigation . Insofar as the claim concerned the conduct of the police investigation , the judge held that the allegations had to be struck out as the law did not impose a duty of care on the police in respect of the conduct of a criminal investigation . Such a duty could only arise if it could be shown that the police had assumed responsibility towards a particular claimant in such a manner as to give rise to a duty . However , that was not the position in the present case . The judge accepted that exceptionally , in a child cruelty and sexual abuse case , if an investigation had been carried out so negligently that a child was not protected from future harm , it was at least arguable that the police might exceptionally be held liable . However , he held that the above exception did not apply to the applicant as she was no longer a child in DATE and had therefore been in no different a position to any ordinary witness or victim .","With regard to the failure to prosecute , the District Judge considered it arguable that a limited duty of care might arise in the context of the facts of the case . In particular , the judge found it disturbing that the ORG was not apparently even consulted with regard to the failure to prosecute ORG , particularly in view of the severity and magnitude of the alleged offences . Indeed , he noted that it would have been expected that the file was at least sent to the ORG for its consideration as to whether or not to prosecute . However , instead of sending the file to the ORG the police had taken the decision not to prosecute themselves on the ground that it would not be in the best interests of the applicant or her sisters .","The Commissioner of Police appealed to ORG against the District Judge 's decision , maintaining that he should have struck out the claim regarding the decision not to prosecute . The applicant cross - appealed on the ground that the judge had been wrong to strike out the claim in relation to the investigation . Following a lengthy consideration of the District Judge 's decision , on DATE the court dismissed the appeal and the cross - appeal , leaving the decision of the District Judge as it was . In doing so , the judge noted that it was possible , even if the possibility was not a very strong one , that further examination of the facts , reasoning and information behind the DATE decision not to prosecute might lead to the conclusion that the taking of that decision gave rise to a limited duty of care .","The Commissioner appealed to ORG . At the hearing , counsel for the applicant conceded that there could be no claim for negligent failure to investigate the complaints properly in DATE and the lower courts had been right to strike out those aspects of the claim . He argued , however , that the decision not to prosecute was different because in coming to that decision the police had taken into account the interests of the children .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeal and struck out the applicant 's claim altogether . It found that following PERSON v. Chief Constable of GPE Police [ DATE ] ORG ( see below ) , the existence of a duty of care in a case such as the present would not be in the public interest as it would lead to the police carrying out their duties in a detrimentally defensive frame of mind . In any case , ORG noted that even if there had been a duty of care , the applicant 's Particulars of Claim did not disclose a cause of action because she would have had to have pleaded \u2013 and could not possibly have pleaded \u2013 that no reasonable prosecutor would have failed to prosecute .","On DATE ORG refused to grant the applicant permission to appeal on the basis that the petition did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance .","On DATE Dr. N , a Consultant Psychiatrist , prepared a report on the applicant .","In that report he noted that she was suffering from clinical depression which was moderate in its severity . Although he noted evidence of propensity to mental disorder within the family , he concluded that her experience of abuse while she was a child was the original cause of the mental disorder now afflicting her . However , he considered that the applicant 's experience of uneven and unsettled parenting by ORG was also a contributory factor .","With regard to the question of whether the failure of the original prosecution of ORG was a significant contributing factor , Dr. PERSON acknowledged that the answer was \u201c a difficult and complicated determination resting as it does upon the implication of the narrative biography , the complex family dynamics , subconscious psychological themes and a broader consideration of [ the applicant 's ] personality , psychological constitution and prospects \u201d . Nevertheless , although the argument was \u201c both subtle and complex \u201d , he concluded that \u201c a significant proportion of [ the applicant 's ] ongoing psychological difficulties can be traced to the failure of the original prosecution of [ ORG ] in DATE \u201d .","Physical and sexual abuse of a child are criminal offences in GPE and GPE . Prior to CARDINAL May CARDINAL , the relevant sexual offences were set out in LAW DATE , LAW , the Sexual Offences ( Amendment ) Act CARDINAL and the Sexual Offences ( Amendment ) Act DATE ( \u201c LAW DATE \u201d ) . Cruelty to a person DATE and was at the material time DATE a criminal offence by reason of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Children and Young Persons Act DATE .","NORP Under domestic law the police owe no general duty of care in tort to victims of crime to investigate their allegations ( PERSON v. Chief Constable of GPE Police [ DATE ] ORG ) . However , this position is not tantamount to a \u201c blanket immunity \u201d and in certain cases the police could be found to owe a duty of care to a victim ( see , for example , PERSON Chief Constable of ORG [ DATE ] QB CARDINAL , in which the police appeared to have assumed responsibility for the victim 's safety ) .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a LAW right .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that a person who claims that a public authority has acted or proposes to act in a way which is unlawful pursuant to section DATE ) may bring proceedings against the authority under LAW in the appropriate court or tribunal or may rely on the Convention rights concerned in any legal proceedings .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL , the court may grant such relief or remedy , or make any such order within its powers as it considers just and reasonable in relation to any act of a public authority which it finds is unlawful ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184068","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF INDUSTRIAL FINANCIAL CONSORTIUM INVESTMENT METALLURGICAL UNION v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers decided that ORG ( hereinafter \u201c Kryvorizhstal \u201d ) was to be privatised . At the time GPE was one of the world \u2019s largest steel manufacturing companies , employing CARDINAL people and producing PERCENT of GPE \u2019s DATE steel supply . On DATE ORG included ORG in a list of ORG - owned assets which were to be privatised . Subsequently , ORG and ORG and the Stock Market adopted decisions designed to ensure the privatisation of the enterprise .","NORP The applicant company was founded in DATE by CARDINAL private companies , CARDINAL of which were owned or controlled by A. , CARDINAL of the leaders of ORG . Members of that party held the majority of posts in the Cabinet of Ministers in DATE , including the post of Prime Minister . The remaining CARDINAL companies were owned or controlled by P. , the son - in - law of PERSON , the second President of GPE who held the post from DATE to DATE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Fund \u201d ) announced a bidding competition for the purchase of PERCENT of the share capital of ORG . A condition of bidding was that a bidder had to have produced QUANTITY of charcoal of NORP origin and QUANTITY of steel in GPE in each of DATE preceding the competition . The applicant company took part in that competition .","Out of CARDINAL bids submitted by various companies , the ORG selected bids by the applicant company and ORG , finding that these companies satisfied the conditions of the competition .","On DATE the applicant company was declared the winner ( successful bidder ) of the bidding competition . On DATE the applicant company concluded a purchase contract with the ORG and paid CARDINAL NORP hryvnas ( ORG ) , the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at the time , for the shares at issue . The shares were transferred to the applicant company \u2019s deposit account at ORG GPE .","On DATE the applicant company appointed T. to represent it as the owner of the ORG shares and to complete the formalities of the transfer pursuant to the contract of DATE .","Without any further specification or evidence , the applicant company stated that it had invested substantial financial resources in GPE during the period of its control .","The lawfulness and transparency of the privatisation of ORG was contested by the political opposition , whose leaders in DATE were Mr PERSON , PERSON and Mr O. Moroz . In their public statements , they all accused President PERSON , P. and NORP of fraud , and called for the enterprise to be returned to the ORG .","During the DATE presidential election campaign the issue was debated by CARDINAL main rivals , Mr PERSON and PERSON . Mr PERSON , whose candidature was openly supported by President PERSON and A. , insisted that the privatisation of ORG had been lawful and fair .","DATE and DATE a series of protests took place in the immediate aftermath of the run - off vote of the DATE election , an election which , according to numerous national and international reports , was compromised by massive corruption , voter intimidation and direct electoral fraud . These events are commonly known as the Orange Revolution .","Following the revote of DATE , PERSON lost the election to PERSON , who became the third President of GPE on DATE . On DATE PERSON was appointed to the post of interim Prime Minister . On DATE the Verkhovna Rada ( NORP ORG ) approved the appointment of the new ORG of Ministers , headed by her . ORG formed the parliamentary opposition .","According to different media reports submitted by the applicant company , DATE President PERSON and Prime Minister PERSON made public statements that the privatisation of ORG had been unlawful , and that the enterprise would be returned to the ORG and subsequently resold .","In particular , in an interview of CARDINAL DATE Prime Minister PERSON said that \u201c NORP enterprises , like ORG , which had blatantly been stolen , had to be returned to the ORG . \u201d","On DATE President PERSON made the following statement when addressing the Verkhovna Rada :","\u201c ... I promise that fair privatisation will be carried out DATE . Those facilities which were stolen , starting with ORG , will be returned to the ORG ... \u201d","On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers revoked its decision of DATE by which the privatisation of ORG had been launched . On DATE the ORG also revoked its decisions concerning the privatisation .","On DATE the ORG took control of ORG , pursuant to commercial court decisions declaring its privatisation unlawful ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . By a decree of CARDINAL DATE , ORG declared the contract of DATE invalid and withdrew the ORG shares from the applicant company .","On an unspecified date the money paid for the shares in the enterprise in DATE was returned to the applicant company .","By CARDINAL decrees of DATE , ORG launched the procedures for resale of PERCENT of ORG \u2019s share capital . On DATE it approved the bidding conditions . The DATE the bidding competition was officially announced .","NORP The applicant company did not participate in the competition . Instead , it challenged the authorities\u2019 decrees issued in DATE and DATE before the commercial courts and the courts of general jurisdiction , but to no avail . The applicant company did not provide any further details of those proceedings .","On DATE the bidding competition was completed by an auction , which was broadcast live by major television stations . ORG GPE PERSON was declared the successful bidder . On DATE it concluded a purchase contract with the ORG and became the new owner of PERCENT of ORG \u2019s share capital , for the price of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , the equivalent of about ORG CARDINAL at the time . Eventually , ORG GPE PERSON was succeeded by ORG PERSON , which , according to the documents submitted by that company , made significant investments in GPE .","According to the applicant company , after the DATE election A. was targeted for his political expression and association . In particular , companies which he owned or controlled were subjected to various checks by the authorities . The authorities allegedly attempted to nationalise some of those companies , though they were unsuccessful . The applicant company submitted copies of several petitions to the domestic authorities made by third parties with a view to preventing the nationalisation of those companies .","On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE respectively , CARDINAL private individuals , ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE , PERSON . , members of ORG , lodged with ORG of Kyiv CARDINAL separate administrative law complaints against the decisions of the ORG and ORG and the Stock Market concerning the organisation of the DATE bidding competition , contending that those decisions had violated the right of every citizen to participate in the privatisation of ORG property .","On an unspecified date the President of ORG transferred the case to ORG of Kyiv ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . By separate decisions of CARDINAL and DATE , the latter court refused to consider those complaints , and ordered that its decisions be immediately \u201c enforced \u201d . No copy of those decisions was provided to the ORG .","On DATE ORG changed the decisions of CARDINAL and DATE in part by excluding the provisions concerning their immediate enforcement .","On DATE I. , a private individual , and ORG lodged with ORG of Kyiv a claim against the ORG , ORG and the Stock Market , and ORG GPE , challenging the validity of their decisions and actions in connection with the privatisation of GPE . On an unspecified date the case was transferred to ORG .","At the PERSON request , the applicant company was invited to participate in the proceedings as a third party . By letters of DATE and DATE , the LOC prosecutor applied to the court for leave to participate in the case to represent the interests of NORP and those of the ORG . The prosecutor \u2019s application was granted .","On DATE ORG , the losing party in the DATE bidding competition , instituted proceedings in ORG against the applicant company , the ORG , ORG and ORG and the Stock Market , challenging the validity of the authorities\u2019 decisions adopted in connection with the privatisation of ORG and the contract of DATE . It contended that the DATE bidding competition had been unlawful and unfair .","NORP In particular , ORG argued that the shares in ORG had not been issued in accordance with the law ; that the competition had not been announced in due time ; that the conditions of the competition had been too narrow and restrictive , thereby limiting the circle of potential bidders and disrespecting the statutory right of every citizen to participate in the privatisation of ORG assets ; that the shares should have been sold through the stock exchange ; and that its total offer , including the money it had planned to invest in ORG , had been higher than the amount paid by the applicant company for the shares in the enterprise . It also argued that , because the complaints by CARDINAL private individuals against the decisions concerning the organisation of the DATE bidding competition had been ongoing before the courts in the period DATE , any decision adopted DATE in relation to the competition had been invalid .","On DATE the applicant company lodged a counterclaim against the other parties to the proceedings , asking the court to endorse its right to PERCENT of the ORG shares .","By a procedural ruling of DATE , ORG found that ORG had to participate in the proceedings , and ordered it to designate a representative in the proceedings . Notwithstanding that ruling , no prosecutor appeared before ORG or ORG in DATE .","Kryvorizhstal took part in the proceedings as a third party .","On DATE ORG , having considered the arguments of ORG in detail , dismissed them as unsubstantiated and found that the privatisation of ORG had been carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation . The court held , inter alia , that ORG rights to participate in the privatisation had not been restricted , since they had been free to establish companies and participate in the competition through such companies . It also stated that the complaints by the private individuals against the competition had not been lodged in accordance with the law , and thus had had no suspensive effect . The court further endorsed the applicant company \u2019s property rights over the ORG shares , and banned any actions by the defendants which could violate these rights .","ORG appealed in cassation to ORG .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the parties\u2019 representatives and upheld the judgment of DATE . The parties made no appeal to ORG against the decision of DATE .","On DATE the Prosecutor General lodged a cassation appeal in the interests of the ORG with ORG , alleging that the contested decisions of ORG and ORG concerned the rights and obligations of ORG . The Prosecutor General sought an extension of the time - limit for lodging his appeal , stating , without giving any further details , that he had missed it since he had only become aware of the decision of CARDINAL DATE in the course of examining a complaint by PERSON to the Prosecutor General . According to the Government , ORG had received that complaint on DATE , and it had been directed mainly against the decision of ORG of DATE .","In his appeal , the Prosecutor General mainly challenged the application of the law by ORG and ORG , and alleged that those courts\u2019 decisions had been inconsistent with a decision of ORG in a similar case . He also stated that the courts had failed to invite ORG to take part in the proceedings , although the subject matter had concerned its functions under the relevant privatisation regulations .","On DATE ORG granted the extension requested and opened the proceedings on the merits of ORG cassation appeal . No copy of that procedural ruling was provided to the ORG .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeal by ORG , quashed the decisions of the lower courts , and remitted the case for fresh consideration . It found that under NORP law neither ORG nor the applicant company had been eligible to participate in the DATE bidding competition ; that the competition had not been announced in due time , as required by law ; and that the lower courts , when allowing the applicant company \u2019s counterclaim , had erred in applying the rules of procedure , which stated that no counterclaim could be lodged by a defendant against another defendant in the proceedings .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged with ORG , to which the case had been remitted , a claim in the interests of the ORG and on behalf of the ORG against the applicant company , ORG , and ORG and the Stock Market . His claim was directed against the decisions concerning the privatisation of ORG and the contract of DATE . He also sought the return of the ORG shares to the ORG , and asked the court to seize the shares as a temporary measure until the dispute was finally resolved .","The Deputy Prosecutor General argued that the DATE bidding competition had not been organised in a lawful and fair way , particularly regarding the conditions which the potential bidders had had to satisfy . He further submitted that the bidders whose offers had been chosen had not satisfied the legislative requirements for participating in that competition .","On DATE the court held a hearing in camera at which it decided to open the proceedings and invite the parties to submit their arguments on the case . It also scheduled the next hearing for DATE .","On DATE the court ordered that ORG GPE , where the shares at issue had been deposited , participate in the case as a defendant . ORG was granted leave to take part in the proceedings as a third party on behalf of ORG .","On DATE the applicant company requested that the court allow journalists to attend the hearings in the case . The court rejected that application , finding that the journalists had not obtained official authorisation from the court administration .","Subsequently , journalists obtained the necessary authorisation and attended the hearings .","On DATE a copy of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) was included in the case file and examined by the court at a hearing on DATE .","On DATE the court delivered a judgment in the case whereby it allowed the claims of ORG and ORG , which it found to be of the same nature . It annulled the authorities\u2019 decisions concerning the DATE privatisation and the contract of DATE , and ordered the ORG to return the money paid by the applicant company for the ORG shares . The applicant company \u2019s counterclaim was rejected , and it was ordered to return the shares to the ORG and pay ORG CARDINAL , the equivalent of about EUR CARDINAL at the time , to the ORG for costs and expenses .","The court held that the ORG had failed to announce the competition in due time ; that it had unlawfully introduced a condition concerning the production of charcoal and steel ; that the ORG had failed to set out specific conditions of sale of certain number of the ORG shares outside the bidding competition ; that the ORG \u2019s decisions issued CARDINAL in relation to the competition had been invalid , as the complaints of CARDINAL private individuals against the decisions concerning the organisation of the DATE bidding competition had been ongoing before the courts during that period ; and that the applicant company and ORG had unlawfully been allowed to participate in the competition .","By a procedural ruling of CARDINAL DATE , the same court seized the shares at issue . On DATE , bailiffs started enforcement proceedings in respect of that ruling .","The applicant company appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the ruling of CARDINAL DATE . According to the text of ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant company contended that ORG had wrongly established the , and that it had erred in applying the law . The applicant company further challenged the lawfulness of the bailiffs\u2019 actions as regards enforcement of the ruling of CARDINAL DATE . No copy of the applicant company \u2019s appeal was provided to ORG .","In the appeal proceedings , the applicant company asked ORG to suspend the proceedings before the commercial courts pending the outcome of the proceedings before the courts of general jurisdiction ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . The court rejected that application on the grounds that the latter proceedings were not decisive for the outcome of the commercial case .","On DATE the Kyiv Commercial Court of Appeal changed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE in part . In particular , the appeal court found that the claims by ORG had to be rejected , as it had not been eligible to participate in the DATE bidding competition . The applicant company \u2019s appeal was dismissed as unsubstantiated .","By the same decision , the appeal court annulled the ruling of CARDINAL DATE for non - compliance with the procedural rules , and refused to consider the applicant company \u2019s complaints against the bailiffs , on the basis that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction . The court further ruled to seize the ORG shares for the purpose of securing the claim by ORG .","The applicant company appealed in cassation . No copy of the cassation appeal was provided to the ORG .","On DATE the Higher Commercial Court rejected the applicant company \u2019s cassation appeal as unsubstantiated .","NORP On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG rejected the applicant company \u2019s further cassation appeal . No copy of that appeal was provided to the ORG .","In the course of the proceedings before the commercial courts DATE the applicant company challenged the impartiality of the judges and the courts dealing with its case on a number of occasions , alleging that their decisions and actions were influenced by government officials . According to the text of the judgment of ORG of DATE and the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE above ) , the applicant company \u2019s procedural applications were rejected as unsubstantiated . No further explanation in that regard was given by the courts .","After DATE , and while the applicant company \u2019s case was being considered by the commercial courts , the President and the Prime Minister made a number of public statements concerning the proceedings . The applicant company submitted different media reports reproducing and\/or interpreting those statements . The ORG argued that some of the reports had not interpreted the statements accurately . In particular , they referred to the reports concerning the Prime Minister \u2019s press conference of CARDINAL DATE , at which she had made statements as to when the ongoing proceedings before ORG might be completed .","According to a number of other reports , at a press conference of CARDINAL DATE the Prime Minister said :","\u201c ... Facilities such as ORG ... I think that DATE the [ authorities ] are involved in the court proceedings concerning the return of those assets to the ORG . We are confident that we have a clear position [ in relation to the case ] , and these enterprises will be returned to the ORG ... \u201d","In an interview of DATE the President stated :","\u201c ... If the owners refuse to cooperate voluntarily , we will go down the legal route and will undoubtedly win [ the case ] . [ However , ] this will take DATE ...","The facility has been stolen , and the cost of that theft is MONEY . For me , this is a fact ...","We prepare the terms of a new [ bidding ] competition ... \u201d","On DATE , commenting on the possibility that the applicant company could appeal against the judgment of DATE , the Prime Minister stated :","\u201c ... This will be an important decision by the appeal [ court ] . It will be evidence not only of the court \u2019s objectivity , but also of the [ past ] negotiations behind closed doors between various representatives from the authorities and the business ... \u201d","In DATE ORG instituted proceedings in ORG against the applicant company , the ORG , ORG and ORG and the Stock Market , challenging the validity of the authorities\u2019 decisions issued in connection with the privatisation of ORG and the contract of DATE . ORG relied mainly on the same circumstances and considerations referred to in its claims before the commercial courts . Its claims before the courts of general jurisdiction contained an additional element \u2013 a challenge to the validity of ORG \u2019s appointment on DATE as the applicant company \u2019s representative in the procedures following the DATE bidding competition .","T. took part in the proceedings as a defendant . ORG participated in the proceedings as a third party .","On DATE the court delivered a judgment dismissing the claims of ORG . For the most part , it contained identical reasons to those in the judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","DATE . On DATE respectively ORG and a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .","On DATE lodged an application for review of the above case with ORG , in the light of newly discovered circumstances . In particular , she argued that the findings concerning the right of every citizen to participate in the privatisation of ORG assets contained in the judgment of DATE had been contrary to the judgment of ORG December CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She also contended that the courts had not been aware of the fact that the decisions of ORG and DATE had been challenged on appeal , and thus they had not become final before DATE .","N. \u2019s application was dealt with by the same judge of ORG who had sat in the main proceedings .","By a telegram of DATE , the court informed the applicant company that DATE it would hold a hearing , at the request of N ..","On DATE the applicant company lodged with the court an application to consult the case file . The application was not granted .","On DATE the court held a hearing on the merits of ORG \u2019s application . ORG , ORG and the Stock Market and ORG , who had been the parties to the main proceedings , did not take part in the hearing .","NORP The representatives of the applicant company requested leave to consult the case file and the adjournment of the hearing on the grounds that they had not been informed about the merits of the application before the hearing , and accordingly had not been able to prepare for it . They also sought the withdrawal of the judge dealing with the case , challenging her impartiality .","The judge rejected the applications by the applicant company \u2019s representatives , and read out the application by ORG","DATE . The applicant company \u2019s representatives objected to the application , arguing that ORG was not entitled to ask for a review of the case , since she had not been a party to the original proceedings , and there were no newly discovered circumstances or other reasons capable of warranting the reopening of the proceedings .","The applicant company \u2019s representatives did not receive a copy of the application either before or during the hearing .","On DATE the court allowed the application . It found that the right of every citizen , including that of ORG , to participate in privatisation and challenge its lawfulness had been confirmed by the judgment of ORG December CARDINAL . It also held that the ruling of DATE on ORG \u2019s complaint concerning the DATE competition had not entered into force at the time when the competition had taken place , and thus it could not have served as CARDINAL of the grounds for rejecting the claims by ORG .","The court quashed its judgment of CARDINAL DATE and held that the higher courts\u2019 decisions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE were no longer valid .","On an unspecified date the case was transferred to another judge of ORG for fresh examination .","On DATE , following an application by ORG , ORG decided to examine the claims of ORG , ORG , and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) jointly , holding that they were of the same nature and concerned the same defendants .","On an unspecified date the applicant company lodged an application for review of the ruling of CARDINAL DATE with the same court , in the light of newly discovered circumstances .","On DATE the court granted the application by the applicant company , quashed the ruling of CARDINAL DATE , and rejected ORG \u2019s application of CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that she had not participated in the original proceedings concerning the claims by ORG .","By a separate ruling of DATE , the court rejected the claims by ORG and PERSON , finding that they had not participated in the DATE bidding competition and did not have an arguable claim in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings . The court held that their claims represented a disguised attempt to settle a dispute between legal entities falling within the jurisdiction of commercial courts .","By decisions of DATE , ORG quashed the ruling of CARDINAL DATE , stating that , in the light of newly discovered circumstances , the ruling of CARDINAL DATE was not to be reviewed , and that , with regard to LAW , ORG had unlawfully limited ORG and ORG \u2019s right of access to a court .","On DATE the ORG , acting as a court of cassation , upheld the decisions of DATE .","The case was remitted to ORG , which on DATE decided not to examine the claim of ORG , because its representatives had failed to appear before the court .","No appeal was lodged against the decision of DATE . According to the ORG , on the basis of that decision the joined proceedings before the courts of general jurisdiction were terminated . The applicant company did not contest this ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175680","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SKLYAR v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE before his arrest .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated theft and armed robbery and sentenced him to MONEY imprisonment . The applicant was represented by a lawyer in these proceedings .","On DATE an appeal brought by the applicant himself was examined by ORG in the absence of counsel . The appeal court upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction .","The applicant has been serving his sentence in IK-CARDINAL in GPE since DATE .","As regards the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention in the IK-CARDINAL facility , the ORG submitted information which can be summarised as follows :","The Government also submitted that all the units where the applicant had been detained had had a sufficient number of sleeping places for all the detainees , they had been ventilated through openings in the windows and had had access to cold water in accordance with up to date sanitary standards . The units were equipped with CARDINAL kettles to boil water and tanks containing potable water . All the lavatories had individual cabins with doors that were QUANTITY high , opening to the outside . They submitted photographs of the washbasins and lavatories .","NORP The applicant acknowledged that he had an individual sleeping place . However , he underlined that the conditions he had to live in were cramped . He further submitted that the units had no access to natural light or had poor artificial lighting , that the ventilation did not work and that the air was damp . The food he was provided was not in accordance with the special diet prescribed for him . Furthermore , inmates with tuberculosis lived in the same dormitory . There were CARDINAL lavatories ( in units CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , they had no doors and the applicant had no privacy when using them . They were clogged up most of the time owing to the number of people using them . Prisoners were only allowed CARDINAL shower a week . The applicant had no access to potable water and CARDINAL washbasin out of CARDINAL had worked . There were CARDINAL kettles for boiling water and the electricity was switched off during DATE and therefore it was not possible to have boiled water . The applicant further submitted that the buildings where his units were located were in a hazardous condition and that the roof and walls were liable to fall in at any time owing to a lack of repairs . Lastly , the applicant adduced written statements from his CARDINAL co - detainees who confirmed his account of the conditions of detention in IK-CARDINAL in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161408","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ZALYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Prompt information);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Brought promptly before judge or other officer);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and live in PERSON and PERSON , GPE .","In DATE the applicants were drafted into the NORP army and assigned to the third infantry battalion of military unit no . CARDINAL , situated near the village of GPE in LOC of the unrecognised GPE Karabakh Republic ( hereafter , PERSON ) ( see Chiragov and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , LAW , DATE ) .","On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings no . CARDINAL on account of the murder of CARDINAL servicemen of the same military unit , GPE and GPE , who had been found dead in a nearby canal on CARDINAL and DATE . They had been murdered on DATE .","An investigating team was created by order of ORG of GPE , which was headed by investigator PERSON of ORG of GPE . The investigating team also included the investigator of ORG of GPE , GPE , the investigator of ORG of Nagorno PERSON , PERSON , the Deputy Chief of ORG , GPE , and the Chief of ORG of PERSON , A.B.","On DATE a number of servicemen were arrested and subsequently charged and detained in connection with the murders . It appears that these charges were later dropped for lack of evidence .","NORP By letter of DATE the Military Police Chief of GPE informed ORG of GPE that CARDINAL servicemen had testified and implicated QUANTITY other servicemen , GPE , GPE and GPE , in the crime but later retracted their testimony , alleging that they had made those statements under moral and psychological pressure from CARDINAL of the officers of FAC and CARDINAL officers of their military unit .","On DATE the first and second applicants were assigned to keep watch at a military outpost .","On DATE the investigative team received from CARDINAL of the officers of military unit no . CARDINAL an empty envelope allegedly found at the crime scene on DATE , on which some names were written .","On DATE a former serviceman of the same military unit , ORG , was questioned in this connection in the second applicant \u2019s home town of PERSON . It appears that it was disclosed during this interview that the envelope in question was linked to the second applicant and had been included in a parcel sent to him by his parents at DATE . It further appears that this fact was confirmed during the questioning of the second applicant \u2019s younger brother , which took place on DATE from TIME to TIME","The applicants alleged that on DATE they were taken , in turns , to the office of their military unit \u2019s commander , PERSON , for questioning in connection with the murders . The questioning was carried out by investigators ORG and GPE and military police officers PERSON and ORG , ORG and ORG respectively , were also present during part of the questioning . The law enforcement officers started beating , threatening and verbally abusing the applicants , forcing them to confess to the murders . On DATE , following their questioning , they were transported by these law enforcement officers to ORG in GPE PERSON by order of ORG of GPE , where they continued to be illtreated and were kept until their transfer to ORG for further questioning .","The Government contested these allegations and claimed that on CARDINAL and DATE the first and second applicants were on watch at a military outpost . It was only on DATE that the second applicant was taken to the office of the commander of the military unit , ORG , for questioning as a witness in connection with the murders . Soon thereafter the commander of the military unit ordered the Chief of ORG , ORG , to bring also the first applicant from the military outpost for questioning as a witness . The third applicant was also taken for questioning . The questioning was carried out in the office of the commander of the military unit by employees of the military prosecutor \u2019s office and the military police . During questioning it was revealed that on DATE the applicants had abandoned their military unit without authorisation and had gone to GPE . This was found to be a grave disciplinary offence and the commander of the military unit decided to impose on them a disciplinary penalty of DATE in isolation . On DATE , namely CARDINAL DATE , the applicants were taken first to FAC and later to ORG where they were placed in a disciplinary isolation cell in order to serve their disciplinary penalty .","It appears from the materials of the case that the applicants\u2019 first questioning took place at their military unit , in the office of commander PERSON , where they were taken in turns . The questioning was carried out by investigators ORG and GPE and military police officers PERSON and A.B. It appears that the Chief of ORG , I.V. , was also present for part of the questioning . The applicants were asked questions about a parcel that the second applicant had received from his parents on DATE , which included food , letters and other items , whether they had eaten the food together after fetching the parcel from GPE and , if so , where and when . No record was made of this interview .","It further follows from the materials of the case that on DATE the commander of the military unit , ORG , issued Order no . CARDINAL , according to which the applicants were considered to be isolated by ORG and were deprived of their DATE allowance as of DATE . This Order was based on CARDINAL Isolation Notices dated DATE and signed by the commander , which stated that the applicants were to be isolated for a period of DATE on the grounds of a \u201c VMR \u201d ( violation of military rules ) and were to be kept in a common cell . In the section of the Isolation Notices entitled \u201c Doctor \u2019s conclusion \u201d the note \u201c practically healthy \u201d appeared , followed by the signature of doctor PERSON The sections of the Isolation Notices which were to include the signature of the chief of the disciplinary isolation cell and his notes regarding the time and date of the applicants\u2019 admission to and release from the disciplinary isolation cell were left blank .","On DATE the applicants were questioned as witnesses at FAC . According to the relevant records , the first applicant was questioned by investigator PERSON from CARDINAL p.m. to CARDINAL TIME , the second applicant was questioned by investigator PERSON from TIME , and the third applicant was questioned by investigator PERSON from TIME to CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. The second applicant admitted during questioning that he and the other CARDINAL applicants had eaten the food contained in the parcel received from his parents outside the military unit next to the canal on DATE . The first applicant was asked during questioning to provide an account of what he had done on DATE . He was then asked whether he was familiar with servicemen GPE and GPE and whether the nearby shop had still been open when he and the other CARDINAL applicants had eaten the food , as well as CARDINAL questions regarding the envelope of the letter which had arrived with the parcel .","DATE at TIME the applicants were taken to FAC of Nagorno Karabakh where from TIME to TIME the second applicant was questioned as a witness by investigator PERSON The interview was videotaped by the cameraman of ORG of ORG , ORG","The applicants were kept at FAC until DATE . On DATE ORG of GPE issued a letter addressed to the Defence Minister of PERSON , with a copy to the Chief of Military Police of GPE , the Chief of ORG and the commander of military unit no . CARDINAL , having the following content :","\u201c For the purposes of criminal case no . CARDINAL examined by the investigative unit of ORG of GPE , on DATE [ the applicants ] , who were performing their military service at military unit no . CARDINAL , were taken to ORG , whereupon they were taken to ORG .","It is necessary to transfer the CARDINAL above - mentioned servicemen to military unit no . DATE in GPE in order to carry out a number of investigative measures with their participation . \u201d","On DATE the applicants were transferred to GPE , the second applicant separately from the first and third applicants . At TIME the officer on duty of ORG of GPE drew up a record entitled \u201c LOC \u201d in which it was stated that he had received the first and third applicants from the employees of FAC .","The applicants alleged that , during the entire period prior to their transfer to GPE , they were questioned on numerous occasions as witnesses , in spite of already being suspected of the crime . They were continually subjected to beatings , threats and verbal abuse by investigators PERSON and GPE , military police officers PERSON and PERSON and another officer of ORG nicknamed PERSON , with the aim of extorting a confession . They were kept in various rooms and cells at different law enforcement agencies and were neither fed nor allowed to sleep . They were transferred from CARDINAL law enforcement agency to another , blindfolded and handcuffed . The second applicant also alleged that the officers threatened to rape him with a club and to arrest his mother and younger brother , if he refused to confess .","The applicants further alleged that upon their arrival in GPE they remained in custody and at an unspecified point were placed in an arrest facility situated at military unit no . DATE which was administered by the military police ( hereafter , the military police arrest facility \u2013 \u0540\u0540 \u054a\u0561\u0577\u057f\u057a\u0561\u0576\u0578\u0582\u0569\u0575\u0561\u0576 \u0576\u0561\u056d\u0561\u0580\u0561\u0580\u0578\u0582\u0569\u0575\u0561\u0576 ORG \u0578\u057d\u057f\u056b\u056f\u0561\u0576\u0578\u0582\u0569\u0575\u0561\u0576 \u057e\u0561\u0580\u0579\u0578\u0582\u0569\u0575\u0561\u0576 \u0584\u0576\u0576\u0579\u0561\u056f\u0561\u0576 \u0574\u0565\u056f\u0578\u0582\u057d\u0561\u0580\u0561\u0576 ) upon the instructions of the investigator .","The Government admitted that the applicants had been transferred to GPE upon the request of ORG on DATE , but claimed that this was done as a protective measure under LAW ORG ) . They further claimed that the applicants were placed in the military police arrest facility only after their arrest on DATE .","On DATE from TIME to TIME the second applicant was questioned as a witness by investigator PERSON at ORG of GPE . This interview was videotaped . During the questioning , the second applicant confessed that it was he and the other CARDINAL applicants who had committed the murders . According to his statement , on DATE he and the other CARDINAL applicants had left their military unit in order to eat in private the food sent by his parents , near the canal . There they had come across the CARDINAL fellow servicemen . A quarrel had erupted which led to a fight and resulted in fatal injuries . Having realised that the CARDINAL fellow servicemen were dead , he and the other CARDINAL applicants had decided to throw their bodies into the canal .","On DATE the applicants were formally arrested and recognised as suspects . The first applicant \u2019s arrest record was drawn up at TIME at ORG in GPE . The record indicated that he was suspected of complicity in the murder of the CARDINAL servicemen .","It appears that investigator PERSON invited lawyers GPE and GPE to represent the applicants . PERSON was assigned to represent the second applicant , while PERSON was assigned to the first and third applicants . The first applicant agreed in writing that his interests be represented by lawyer PERSON","DATE the applicants were questioned separately as suspects in the presence of their lawyers . Furthermore , CARDINAL separate confrontations were held between the second applicant and the first and third applicants respectively , both in the presence of the lawyers . During his questioning and the above confrontations , the second applicant confirmed his earlier confession , while the other CARDINAL applicants denied their guilt and his account of events .","The applicants alleged that the above - mentioned lawyers had been invited to join the case by the investigators of ORG and their involvement in the case was merely a formality and amounted to the signing of records and other documents in order to create an appearance of lawfulness . The first applicant also alleged that he had never met with his lawyer in private , while the second applicant alleged that his lawyer , PERSON , had not been chosen by him and neither he nor his family had given their consent to the lawyer \u2019s participation in the case .","On DATE at an unspecified hour the officer on duty of the military police arrest facility drew up a record of examination of a person \u2019s body ( \u0561\u0580\u0571\u0561\u0576\u0561\u0563\u0580\u0578\u0582\u0569\u0575\u0578\u0582\u0576 \u0561\u0576\u0571\u056b\u0576 \u0574\u0561\u0580\u0574\u0576\u056b \u0566\u0576\u0576\u0578\u0582\u0569\u0575\u0561\u0576 \u0565\u0576\u0569\u0561\u0580\u056f\u0565\u056c\u0578\u0582 \u0574\u0561\u057d\u056b\u0576 ) in respect of each applicant , which noted that he , together with CARDINAL deputy officers , CARDINAL attesting witnesses , PERSON K.A. ( male and female respectively ) , and the medical assistant on duty ( \u0570\u0565\u0580\u0569\u0561\u057a\u0561\u0570 \u0562\u0578\u0582\u056a\u0561\u056f ) , GPE , examined the applicants\u2019 bodies and that \u201c nothing was detected on [ them ] \u201d . The time of the examinations was indicated as \u201c TIME \u201d , \u201c CARDINAL CARDINAL \u201d and \u201c TIME \u201d for the second , third and first applicants respectively . The respective records were signed by the applicants and everybody else involved . The Government alleged that these examinations had been carried out upon the applicants\u2019 admission to the military police arrest facility .","On DATE the applicants were formally charged with murder under LAW . The applicants were questioned as accused in the presence of lawyers GPE and GPE It appears that DATE the first and third applicants dispensed with the services of lawyer GPE","On DATE third applicant was visited by his father and his cousin \u2019s husband , PERSON It appears that this visit took place in investigator ORG \u2019s office and lasted TIME .","On the same date investigator PERSON took a decision prohibiting the applicants from meeting with their relatives on the ground that it \u201c might obstruct the interests of the criminal investigation \u201d .","On DATE at an unspecified hour the GPE and ORG of GPE examined and granted the investigator \u2019s motions seeking to have the applicants detained on remand . It appears that the motions were presented at the hearings by the investigators dealing with the case , in the first applicant \u2019s case this being investigator PERSON The applicants were present at their respective hearings . It appears that the second applicant , who was represented by lawyer PERSON , admitted at the hearing that he and the others had beaten the CARDINAL fellow servicemen , but had no intention of killing them . It further appears that the first applicant was not represented at his hearing . The record of the hearing stated that lawyer PERSON had been duly notified but had failed to appear . The applicants\u2019 detention was to be calculated from DATE and was valid for DATE .","On DATE the second applicant was taken to the crime scene in GPE for a reconstruction of the crime , which was videotaped .","On CARDINAL DATE the second applicant addressed a letter to ORG of GPE in which he retracted his confession , claiming that he and the other CARDINAL applicants had nothing to do with the murder . He submitted that he had made his confession because the investigator PERSON had informed him that his mother and younger brother had been arrested and were also held at ORG of GPE and had threatened that they would \u201c come to harm \u201d . The investigator further threatened that his younger brother would be assigned to perform his military service at the same military unit and would \u201c come to harm \u201d . The second applicant requested that he be questioned again .","On DATE a lawyer , GPE , was hired by the first applicant \u2019s family to represent his interests .","On CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was questioned by investigators PERSON and PERSON in the presence of lawyer PERSON was asked questions about his letter of CARDINAL DATE , including whether it had been his idea to write that letter , why he had not written it earlier , whether it had been dictated to him , whether he stood by his allegations and why he had not retracted his confession earlier when he had other chances to do so . The second applicant again denied their involvement in the murder and repeated his allegation that he had made his confession since he had been told that his mother and younger brother had been arrested . In reply to the investigator \u2019s question about whether anyone had forced or coerced him into making the confession , the second applicant replied that no one had forced him . In reply to the investigator \u2019s question about why he had made a false confession , he replied that when he had told the truth the investigators refused to believe him .","NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE investigator PERSON informed the chief of the military police arrest facility that the first applicant \u2019s interests were represented by lawyer PERSON","On DATE the applicants were examined by a board of psychiatrists in order to evaluate whether they were competent to stand trial . They were found not to suffer from any mental health issues either at the time of the offence or at present .","On DATE the chief of the military police arrest facility instructed the staff of the facility that lawyer PERSON had been authorised to represent the first applicant . It appears that the lawyer was allowed to visit the first applicant at the facility . The first applicant alleged that , prior to his first meeting with lawyer PERSON , he had been deprived of any contact with the outside world and of any legal assistance .","On DATE first applicant addressed a complaint to various authorities , including ORG , ORG and the ORG , indicating the number of his criminal case and informing them of the following :","\u201c I , PERSON , and my CARDINAL conscript friends , PERSON and PERSON , are kept at a military police arrest facility and are falsely accused of a grave crime [ , namely ] the murder of [ servicemen PERSON and GPE ] .","On DATE I and PERSON were at a military outpost when PERSON received a call from the military unit and was told to come down because his parents had arrived . TIME I also received a call and was told that my parents had also arrived and was summoned to the military unit . I went down and was taken to the commander \u2019s office . In the corridor I saw PERSON who was standing hunched in the corner . There were CARDINAL unfamiliar persons in the office , CARDINAL of whom \u2013 as I later found out \u2013 were investigators [ ORG and GPE ] of ORG of GPE . Chief of ORG [ E.M. ] and Chief of ORG [ I. ] , whose last name I do not remember , were also present . The CARDINAL investigators , [ ORG and GPE ] , assaulted me , calling me a \u201c murderer \u201d , demanding that I tell with whom I had eaten on DATE , beating me and demanding that I explain how we murdered servicemen [ GPE and GPE ] . I was beaten so hard that my nose bled profusely . The Chief of ORG [ I. ] then helped me and took me to clean my nose . Thereafter I , PERSON and ORG were forced to put our T - shirts over our heads , placed in a car and taken away . We arrived in some place , which \u2013 as I later found out \u2013 was PERSON . I was taken to a room where I stayed with my T - shirt pulled over my head for TIME and from where I could hear PERSON \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s terrified voices and how they were beaten continuously for TIME . Then it was my turn . [ Investigator PERSON ] came to my room , started questioning me , saying that my friends had confessed that we had committed the murder , told me to write the same thing and intimidated me , saying that I would not last long and that I would get a life sentence . At that moment some PERSON entered the room and said that the deceased were his friend \u2019s children and if we did not write the truth \u2013 that we had killed them \u2013 he would take me out , kill me , throw me in a pit and say that it was the [ NORP ] who had killed me . Thereafter , again with our T - shirts over our heads , we were taken away ... and arrived in some place where I was taken to what appeared to be a police station where I was questioned from TIME to CARDINAL a.m. I was questioned , sworn at , beaten , threatened , persuaded and told to write that it was us who had killed [ GPE and GPE ] . They beat and threatened us for DATE , not even giving us water to drink . TIME I was taken down to FAC detention facility , where there were CARDINAL other persons ... I , PERSON and PERSON were kept in that facility until TIME DATE . PERSON and I were taken to GPE together by a senior lieutenant of the military police department . I realised that PERSON had been severely beaten since his face was covered with red and blue marks of blows . We spent TIME DATE in GPE on the LOC of the military police in \u0430 room of some supervised unit where we stayed for TIME . PERSON and PERSON were also there and were kept in separate rooms . DATE I was questioned in the same building and then taken to a confrontation with PERSON . When I saw PERSON , I could hardly recognise him since his entire face was swollen . I realised that he had been beaten and was extremely frightened of the investigators , which is why he gave false testimony .","I ask you to carry out an investigation and to find the real perpetrators ... \u201d","On DATE lawyer PERSON addressed another complaint to the same authorities , submitting that the applicants had been unlawfully arrested DATE without an arrest warrant and questioned on numerous occasions on suspicion of having committed a murder . The lawyer further complained in detail about the ill - treatment inflicted on the applicants during that period . She also complained that from DATE to the present the applicants , in violation of the law , had been kept at a military police arrest facility , despite their pre - trial detention having been ordered by the court decision of DATE . Thus , they were deprived of the protection offered by the justice system and were kept under the authority of the military police who were , moreover , working in close cooperation with ORG . She alleged , inter alia , a violation of ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention .","By a letter of DATE ORG informed the first applicant and his lawyer , in reply to their complaints , that :","\u201c The first investigative measures involving [ the applicants ] were carried out on DATE at FAC where they were questioned as witnesses . Before the questioning they had been informed about the right not to testify against themselves ... guaranteed by LAW .","In order to clarify a number of discrepancies in their statements , on DATE [ the applicants ] were taken to ORG of ORG of GPE for the purpose of conducting confrontations and further questioning .","On DATE [ the second applicant ] , upon my instruction , was transferred to GPE as a witness in a criminal case , since I found it inexpedient for him to continue his military service at his military unit . In GPE he stayed in the barracks together with the servicemen entrusted with guarding the building of ORG of GPE .","[ The first and third applicants ] were transferred to GPE from PERSON on TIME CARDINAL - CARDINAL April and stayed , without being isolated , in the room envisaged for servicemen on duty of military unit no . DATE ...","On DATE [ the second applicant ] was questioned again as a witness and he was again informed about the requirements of LAW , which is confirmed by his signature under the record of the interview .","[ The applicants ] were arrested on DATE and were immediately provided with lawyers .","From the moment of their arrest all the investigative measures in respect of [ the applicants ] , such as questioning , confrontations , the arraignment , etc . , were carried out in the presence of their lawyers .","In compliance with [ the ORG ] the accused took part in the hearings concerning the imposition of detention , during which they did not make any statements about the \u2018 illtreatment inflicted\u2019 on them ...","The accused are kept in the military police arrest facility in accordance with ORG DATE to the Regulations for the Garrison and ORG .","A medical examination can be conducted in respect of [ the first applicant ] and the others if a relevant request is made . \u201d","On DATE the second applicant \u2019s lawyer PERSON filed a motion with ORG , challenging the impartiality of investigator PERSON and requesting that he be removed from the case . It appears that attached to this motion was a complaint by the second applicant , in which he alleged that the investigator and others had bullied and beaten him in PERSON and PERSON , as a result of which he had made a false confession . The lawyer requested that the persons mentioned in the second applicant \u2019s complaint be questioned .","On DATE ORG decided to reject the motion as unsubstantiated , finding that all the investigative measures involving the second applicant had been carried out in compliance with the rules of criminal procedure . From the moment of his arrest his lawyer had participated in all the investigative measures , except the reconstruction of CARDINAL DATE in which case the lawyer \u2019s absence had been voluntary . Most of the second applicant \u2019s interviews had been videotaped , which further proved that no ill - treatment had been inflicted on him . Moreover , at the detention hearing of DATE he had stated that his statements made at those interviews had been true . Following his complaint of CARDINAL DATE he had been additionally questioned upon his request and stated that he had not been forced to make any statements .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer PERSON filed a similar motion with ORG , challenging the impartiality of investigators ORG and PERSON and requesting that they be removed from the case on the ground that they had , inter alia , ill - treated the applicants .","DATE . On DATE the third applicant \u2019s new lawyer , PERSON , filed a similar motion with ORG , challenging the impartiality of investigator PERSON and requesting that he be removed from the case on the ground that the investigator had , inter alia , ill - treated the third applicant in PERSON , including by administering blows to his head with the handle of his pistol .","On DATE the FAC and ORG of GPE examined and granted the investigator \u2019s motions seeking to extend until DATE the period of the applicants\u2019 detention , which was to expire on DATE . The first applicant submitted at the court hearing that his and the second applicant \u2019s testimony had been given under duress .","On DATE ORG decided to reject the motion of DATE as unsubstantiated , finding that the first applicant had been questioned on DATE in compliance with all the rules of criminal procedure , including being informed about the right not to testify against himself guaranteed by LAW . No investigative measures involving the first applicant had been carried out on DATE . He was arrested on DATE and was immediately provided with a lawyer . Neither he nor the third applicant had complained about ill - treatment prior to a similar complaint made by the second applicant . The foregoing indicated that the allegations of illtreatment made by the accused and their lawyers were unsubstantiated , concocted and were aimed at justifying the accused , who were employing coordinated common tactics .","On DATE ORG rejected the third applicant \u2019s motion of DATE on similar grounds .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of DATE . In his appeal he complained in detail , inter alia , that he and the other applicants had been subjected to ill - treatment by investigator PERSON and other law enforcement officers . The first applicant also complained that he and the other applicants were unlawfully kept at a military police arrest facility .","On DATE and DATE the second applicant was questioned again . At the outset he was asked questions in connection with the allegations of illtreatment raised in his complaint of DATE , namely whether he had suffered any injuries and whether he still had any injuries . The second applicant stated that he had suffered only a swollen jaw , which healed in DATE , still being visible at the time of his arrest on DATE but not when he had appeared before a judge on DATE . Currently he had no injuries . The injury to his jaw had been inflicted at the office of the commander of the military unit in GPE on DATE by GPE , ORG , police officer PERSON and CARDINAL tall police officer from ORG . The same persons had continued to illtreat him at ORG in PERSON and ORG in PERSON , which made his kidneys hurt and lasted DATE . He had had no other injuries and nobody had ill - treated him following his transfer to GPE . When ill - treated , he was being ordered to tell the truth . He had made up the confession himself , without any outside interference . The second applicant was then asked a number of questions in connection with his allegations , including why he had made his confession in GPE if no ill - treatment had been inflicted on him there and why he had not raised his allegations of ill - treatment earlier . Lastly , a number of questions were posed about the events of DATE and the murder .","On DATE the investigation into the applicants\u2019 criminal case was over .","On DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal dismissed the first applicant \u2019s appeal of DATE .","On DATE ORG addressed a letter to the chief of the military police arrest facility , stating that it was no longer necessary to keep the applicants at the arrest facility and requesting that they be transferred to PERSON pre - trial detention facility .","On DATE the applicants were transferred from the military police arrest facility to GPE pre - trial detention facility .","On DATE the first applicant was subjected to a medical examination at GPE pre - trial detention facility , with the following conclusion :","\u201c No fresh bodily injuries or traces of beatings have been disclosed . Skin and mucous membranes are of a normal colour . Vesicular respiration present in the lungs . Heart sounds [ ( illegible ) ] ... The abdomen is soft and pain free . There are no external symptoms of venereal disease . \u201d","Medical file no . CARDINAL was opened . On the front page of the medical file \u201c DATE \u201d was noted as the starting date of the first applicant \u2019s detention .","It appears that the second and third applicants were also subjected to medical examinations and no injuries were recorded .","On DATE ORG decided to reject another motion filed by the first applicant challenging the impartiality of both ORG and investigators ORG and GPE , on the ground that , inter alia , the allegations of ill - treatment had not been confirmed . No such allegations had been made by the applicants at the court hearings concerning their detention and they had jointly started raising such complaints only at DATE .","On DATE the Deputy Ombudsman informed ORG about the second applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . The Deputy Ombudsman further stated that the second applicant had been kept from DATE to DATE at a military police arrest facility in violation of the Law on ORG and Detainees and the Regulations for the Garrison and ORG . The Deputy ORG argued that , according to these legal acts , the second applicant should not have been kept at that facility for TIME after the court issued its decision to detain .","On DATE the Deputy Ombudsman was informed by ORG that the accused had been kept at the military police arrest facility on the basis of ORG DATE Garrison and ORG and had been transferred to ORG pretrial detention facility following the entry into force of the amendments to those Regulations adopted by the ORG on DATE and ratified by the President on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the Deputy Ombudsman addressed a letter to ORG in connection with the first applicant \u2019s complaint of illtreatment . The Deputy Ombudsman pointed out that the above complaint had been transmitted to ORG , the authority whose actions were the subject of the complaint , and the criminal case continued to be dealt with by the same investigator who was alleged to have inflicted ill - treatment on the accused .","On DATE the first applicant made a written statement , declaring that he was going on a hunger strike in protest against the unlawful actions of the law enforcement authorities . He alleged that the charges against him and the others were trumped up and based on a coerced confession . Since all his complaints in this respect had remained unanswered , he wished to continue his protest with a hunger strike .","The following record was made in the first applicant \u2019s medical file :","\u201c Since DATE the patient has been on hunger strike and under constant medical observation ... \u201d","DATE . On DATE the first applicant and his lawyer were granted access to the case file .","By a letter of the same date the investigator informed the chief of ORG pre - trial detention facility about this and added that the first applicant \u2019s detention period was suspended pursuant to LAW ORG .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s detention period , as extended by the decision of CARDINAL DATE of the ORG and ORG of GPE , expired .","On DATE the first applicant and his lawyer finished familiarising themselves with the materials of the case .","On DATE first applicant filed a motion with the investigator , arguing that from DATE there was no court decision authorising his detention and requesting that he be released .","On DATE the investigator decided to dismiss that motion , stating that , pursuant to LAW ORG , the detention period had been suspended on DATE when the first applicant was granted access to the case file , namely CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s mother asked to be allowed to visit him in detention . She was worried about his health , as he was on hunger strike , but she was not allowed to see him .","On DATE the case file was transmitted by the Prosecutor to ORG , which sat in PERSON , PERSON .","DATE . On an unspecified date Judge PERSON of ORG decided to take over the case .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the chief of GPE pre - trial detention facility informed the first applicant that his detention period had been suspended in accordance with , inter alia , LAW ORG by the letter of ORG of CARDINAL DATE . The chief of the detention facility further stated that , according to ORG letter of DATE , as of that date the detention period had been accounted for by ORG .","On DATE the first applicant was transferred to ORG due to his general emaciation as a result of the hunger strike .","On DATE first applicant \u2019s lawyer addressed a letter to various public authorities , including the prosecutor in charge of the detention facilities and the Chief of ORG , complaining that the first applicant was unlawfully detained without a relevant court decision . She further submitted that the first applicant \u2019s state of health was critical and that no requisite medical assistance had been provided for him by the administration of GPE pre - trial detention facility during the entire hunger strike . The lawyer requested that the first applicant be released immediately .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Chief of ORG informed the lawyer that no visceral illnesses had been disclosed following the first applicant \u2019s objective inpatient examination , clinical and biochemical analyses of his blood and urine , and a number of instrumental examinations . There was therefore no need to administer medicine . The first applicant was under constant medical supervision due to his hunger strike and the resulting general emaciation of a minor degree .","On DATE the lawyer lodged similar requests with the GPE and ORG of GPE and ORG .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the first applicant \u2019s lawyer that he had not been released from detention by virtue of LAW of the ORG .","On DATE and DATE the lawyer again requested the ORG and ORG of GPE to release the first applicant . She also submitted that she had visited him on DATE at ORG . He had been lying in bed motionless and looked frail . She further alleged that the psychologist had told her that , if the first applicant continued to remain isolated on hunger strike , his life could be in serious danger . She lastly complained that he had been illtreated when questioned as a witness .","By a letter of DATE ORG informed the first applicant \u2019s lawyer that , in order to have the circumstances of the alleged unlawful methods of investigation examined , she had to apply to the authority dealing with the merits of the case . ORG was not , however , dealing with the merits of the first applicant \u2019s case .","On DATE the lawyer requested the administration of ORG to provide details of the treatment provided for the first applicant .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Chief of ORG informed her that the first applicant had undergone an examination and no visceral illnesses had been found . Due to his general emaciation , since DATE the first applicant had been receiving intravenous injections of PERCENT glucose and vitamins in order to sustain water and vitamin balance . In his current state of health the first applicant was fit to be transferred to a detention facility .","On DATE the first applicant was discharged from ORG and transported to PERSON , PERSON , to participate in the trial . According to the discharge summary :","\u201c [ The first applicant ] was taken to ORG on DATE in order to undergo an inpatient examination .","The detainee underwent a clinical and laboratory instrumental examination , as a result of which no symptoms of visceral illnesses were found . He was examined by a psychiatrist who concluded that he had no psychological disorders .","Taking into account his refusal to eat over a long period of time and the general emaciation of his organism , the detainee was injected with glucose and vitamins through a drip .","Since inpatient treatment is no longer necessary , the detainee is being discharged to remain under further medical supervision by the medical staff of the detention facility . \u201d","On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG decided to set the case down for trial and to fix the date of the first court hearing , which was to take place on an unspecified day in DATE . The judge stated in his decision that the first applicant \u2019s detention was to remain unchanged .","On DATE the first applicant ended his hunger strike .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer applied to the Chief of the Nagorno Karabakh Remand Centre , claiming that the first applicant \u2019s state of health was unsatisfactory following his hunger strike and requesting that he be examined by a doctor . It is not clear whether there was any follow - up to this request .","In DATE the court hearings in the applicants\u2019 criminal case commenced at ORG .","The second applicant submitted before ORG that on DATE he had been taken to the office of the military unit commander ORG The Chief of the ORG had also been present . The commander had started asking him questions about a parcel that he had received from his parents on DATE , including where and with whom he had eaten the food contained in that parcel . He had answered that he had eaten the food with the other CARDINAL applicants at the military unit , but the commander did not believe him . Thereafter investigators ORG and ORG and military police officers PERSON and PERSON had entered the office and started beating him and forcing him to admit that it was he and the other CARDINAL applicants who had killed the CARDINAL servicemen . Then the other CARDINAL applicants had been brought and subjected to beatings . The ill - treatment had continued at FAC and ORG . Not being able to stand the ill - treatment , he had had to come up with a false story , admitting his and the ORG guilt . Later on he had realised his mistake and asked to be questioned again , during which he retracted his earlier confession .","The first and third applicants submitted that they had been illtreated in similar circumstances .","ORG called and examined investigators PERSON , GPE and PERSON and military police officers PERSON and A.B.","Investigator PERSON submitted that he and the other members of the investigating team had arrived at the military unit near GPE on DATE . Upon his instructions the second applicant had been brought from the military outpost to the military unit , since it was necessary to find out where and with whom he had eaten the food contained in the parcel received from his parents . The first and third applicants were also later brought in for questioning . In order to verify the versions of events presented by the applicants , the latter had been transferred to PERSON and then to PERSON where further interviews were conducted . Thereafter the applicants had been transferred to GPE where the second applicant confessed to the crime .","Investigator PERSON and military police officers PERSON and PERSON made similar submissions .","Investigator PERSON submitted that he had questioned the second applicant at FAC but did not know about the outcome of that interview since investigator PERSON and military police officer PERSON had taken over and he had left .","The applicants submitted in reply that investigators ORG and GPE and military police officers PERSON and PERSON had ill - treated , beaten and threatened them .","ORG also called and examined Chiefs of the Third and ORG and ORG , cameraman ORG and an officer of military unit no . CARDINAL , ORG , who had been present at the reconstruction of the crime on DATE .","I.V. submitted that he had been present on and off during the applicants\u2019 questioning on DATE but nobody had ill - treated them in his presence .","E.M. submitted that he had personally delivered the first applicant to the office of the military unit commander on DATE . The second applicant was already there . Thereafter the law enforcement officers had arrived and he had to leave . Nobody had ill - treated the applicants in his presence .","A.G. submitted that he had been present during the second applicant \u2019s questioning at FAC and no beatings or violence had been inflicted on the second applicant by investigators ORG and GPE or military police officer PERSON Nor did he notice any injuries on the second applicant or bloodstains on the floor .","M.A. submitted that he had been present during the reconstruction of the crime by the second applicant in DATE . The reconstruction had been filmed by investigator PERSON The second applicant had been calm and no illtreatment or violence had been inflicted on him .","On DATE ORG found the applicants guilty of murder and sentenced them to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . This judgment was based , inter alia , on the second applicant \u2019s confession statement . As regards the applicants\u2019 allegations of ill - treatment , ORG found them to be unsubstantiated on the following grounds . First , the applicants had not raised any such complaints during their questioning as witnesses on DATE , during their questioning as suspects and as accused and the CARDINAL confrontations which were held on CARDINAL and DATE in the presence of their lawyers , or during the reconstruction of the crime on CARDINAL DATE . Second , the second applicant had not raised such allegations even during his additional questioning on DATE and did so only in his motion of DATE , which was followed by similar motions filed by the first and third applicants on DATE , all of which were dismissed by ORG as unsubstantiated . Third , the fact that no ill - treatment had been inflicted on the applicants was confirmed by the submissions of law enforcement officers PERSON , GPE , PERSON and ORG and ORG officer M.A. ORG concluded that the motions filed by the applicants and their lawyers , challenging investigator PERSON \u2019s impartiality , and their allegations of ill - treatment , threats and psychological pressure were aimed at helping the applicants to avoid criminal responsibility .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal against the judgment of ORG . In their appeal they complained in detail that they had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty from CARDINAL to DATE and subjected to ill - treatment during that entire period . They further complained that the authorities had failed to investigate their allegations of ill - treatment in violation of LAW . Moreover , instead of ordering the institution of criminal proceedings , ORG decided to call and examine the alleged perpetrators as witnesses and to rely on their statements in justifying the conviction .","On an unspecified date , the proceedings commenced in the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal . The applicants repeated in detail their allegations of ill - treatment before ORG . They also added that at the time of their admission to the military police arrest facility in GPE they had various bodily injuries , including an injured jaw , a bruised eye and a bruised back . They were stripped and examined , but the member of the medical staff who had drawn up the relevant records did not note those injuries . They had signed the records drawn up as a result of these examinations without reading them .","NORP In this connection the Court of Appeal called and questioned medical assistant GPE who had participated in the examination of the applicants\u2019 bodies at the military police arrest facility . GPE submitted that the applicants had been admitted to the arrest facility when he was on duty . They had been examined in the presence of witnesses and no bodily injuries had been found . Appropriate records had been drawn up , which were signed also by the applicants . GPE further submitted that it was impossible for him to fail to record any injuries found , since he would be held personally responsible for such an omission . Nor was it possible for the second applicant to have had an injured jaw , since that was a serious injury which he could not have overlooked .","On DATE , while their case was still being examined by ORG , the applicants lodged another complaint with ORG , alleging in detail that they had been deprived of their liberty from DATE and subjected to ill - treatment for the purpose of coercing a confession . They indicated investigators ORG and GPE and military police officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON as the perpetrators and requested that criminal proceedings be instituted against them . The applicants alleged , in particular , that as a result of ill - treatment the second applicant had an injured jaw , the first applicant had a bleeding nose and the third applicant was beaten up and had dirty clothes , having been thrown to the floor and repeatedly kicked . Furthermore , the second applicant was stripped , leaned against the wall and threatened that , if he refused to confess , he would be raped with a club . Thereafter , he was forced to hang on a rod placed on chairs and was threatened with clubs and weapons . When being beaten during his questioning in the office of the chief of ORG , a large amount of blood dripped from the second applicant \u2019s nose onto the floor and he was ordered to lick it off . The applicants finally alleged that they had been kept unlawfully at the military police arrest facility until DATE in order to be subjected to further threats and abuse .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicants that , during the court examination of the criminal case against them , ORG , guided by LAW ORG , had taken the necessary measures to verify the statements alleging that they had been subjected by the investigators to coercion during the investigation , and found them to be unsubstantiated in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with the GPE and ORG of GPE under LAW ORG , complaining that ORG , by relying on the examination carried out by ORG , was refusing to institute criminal proceedings . However , ORG was not competent to carry out examinations outside the scope of the criminal case before it . The alleged perpetrators were not involved as accused and appeared before ORG only as witnesses . In order to carry out an effective investigation of the allegations of ill - treatment , it was necessary to institute criminal proceedings under LAW ORG . They requested ORG to oblige ORG to institute such proceedings .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE dismissed the complaint , finding that ORG reply was in conformity with the law and did not violate the applicants\u2019 rights . ORG stated , in particular , that complaints alleging a violation of lawfulness in the course of criminal proceedings , pursuant to LAW ORG , were to be thoroughly examined by the authority dealing with the merits of the case , while statements about a crime made during a court hearing , pursuant to LAW ORG , were to be entered into the record of the court hearing .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal , raising similar arguments to those in their complaint of DATE .","On DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal upheld the decision of ORG , finding that the applicants\u2019 allegations of ill - treatment had been examined during the proceedings before ORG and the evidence obtained was evaluated in the ensuing judgment . The case was currently being examined on the merits by the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal , which was not constrained by the appeal and was competent to examine the full scope of the case , including any new evidence . The ORG argument that ORG and ORG were not competent to conduct proceedings in respect of persons who had not been involved as accused was incorrect , since the courts , in adopting their judgments , were obliged under the criminal procedure law to verify and assess whether the evidence obtained was admissible and relevant and whether or not it had been obtained through violence , threats and other unlawful actions of the police officers as alleged in the ORG appeal . Pursuant to ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG , the courts , based on the materials of a case examined by them , were entitled to request that the prosecutor adopt a decision instituting criminal proceedings against third persons . Since the case was currently pending before ORG , the ORG appeal was to be dismissed .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law , raising similar arguments . They also claimed that their procedural rights had been violated since the authorities refused to comply with the requirements of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal issued its judgment on the merits of the NORP criminal case . It found the applicants guilty and increased their sentences to life imprisonment . ORG relied , inter alia , on the second applicant \u2019s confession statement . As regards the applicants\u2019 allegations of ill - treatment , ORG found them to be unsubstantiated . In doing so , ORG first of all referred to the submissions made before ORG by law enforcement officers PERSON , GPE , PERSON and ORG and ORG officer ORG and cameraman ORG further referred to the video recording of the reconstruction of the crime , which did not reveal any bodily injuries on the second applicant , who moved and talked freely , and the records of examination of a person \u2019s body drawn up at the military police arrest facility on DATE .","On DATE ORG decided to leave the appeal of DATE unexamined . It found , in particular , that the applicants had brought a complaint under LAW ORG against the prosecutor \u2019s actions related to the pre - trial proceedings . However , since ORG was the supreme judicial instance and was called upon , pursuant to LAW , to ensure the uniform application of the law , its constitutional status prevented it from examining appeals against decisions and actions of the prosecutor related to the pre - trial proceedings . Such appeals might be examined by ORG in exceptional circumstances , if they raised an issue of high importance for judicial practice . In such circumstances , the appeal was to be left unexamined since it was brought against a decision which was not subject to appeal in cassation .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal of CARDINAL DATE .","On an unspecified date , the father of CARDINAL of the murdered servicemen , in his capacity of victim , also lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment . In his appeal he complained that the criminal case had been conducted with procedural violations , as a result of which CARDINAL innocent servicemen had been found guilty , while the real perpetrators were never brought to justice .","On DATE ORG returned the ORG appeal , requesting them to correct a shortcoming and to re - submit the appeal in accordance with the newly - adopted amendments to the ORG .","On DATE the first and second applicants resubmitted their appeals , seeking to have their conviction quashed and to be acquitted . It appears that on an unspecified date the third applicant also followed suit . The applicants complained in detail that they had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty from DATE and subjected to illtreatment during that period . They further complained that the authorities had failed to investigate their allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE ORG decided to admit the applicants\u2019 appeals for examination . On an unspecified date the victim \u2019s appeal was also admitted for examination .","NORP On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the applicants\u2019 duly the statements of the defence concerning the applicants\u2019 innocence and the existence of exonerating evidence , as well as their allegations of a violation of lawfulness in the course of the proceedings . In such circumstances , the applicants\u2019 appeals seeking an acquittal could not be granted , since it was necessary to carry out a further investigation into the case .","As regards , in particular , the second applicant \u2019s confession statement , ORG found that this statement was not supported by other objective evidence in the case . Furthermore , the second applicant had retracted his statement , alleging that he had given it as a result of fear , violence and torture . It was therefore necessary to verify the credibility of the second applicant \u2019s confession statement .","As regards the question of the applicants\u2019 deprivation of liberty and their allegations of ill - treatment , ORG stated :","\u201c It follows from the materials of the case that [ the applicants ] were detained on DATE . It was indicated in the appeals on points of law that for DATE [ the applicants ] , having the status of a witness , had been subjected to violence , torture and inhuman treatment , as a result of which a confession statement was extorted from [ the second applicant ] .","Pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE of the commander of military unit no . CARDINAL , [ the third applicant ] was \u2018 considered to be PERSON by ORG and was deprived of his DATE allowance on the basis of ORG .","Pursuant to Paragraph CARDINAL of the same Order , [ the second and first applicants ] , who were on military watch , were considered to be \u2018 isolated by FAC and were deprived of their DATE allowances on the basis of Isolation Notices N-CARDINAL and ORG .","In the course of the further investigation it is necessary to clarify what it means \u2018 to consider\u2019 the said soldiers \u2018 to be isolated by FAC on the basis of isolation notices and what is the substance of such isolation . Has it not led to unlawful restrictions and deprivation of liberty not inherent in measures normally applied in the armed forces ?","It is also necessary to verify in detail the arguments raised in the appeals lodged by the defence concerning the infliction of violence on [ the applicants ] and subjecting them to torture during DATE . \u201d","ORG also decided to annul the preventive measure and to release the applicants from detention .","On DATE the investigation into the applicants\u2019 criminal case was assigned to another investigator of ORG , V.S. An investigator of ORG of GPE , GPE , was appointed as his assistant .","On DATE the applicants appeared for questioning in their capacity of accused but refused to testify , stating that they considered themselves to be victims rather than accused . They stated that they would be willing to testify in connection with their allegations of torture if a separate criminal case was instituted and they were recognised as victims .","On the same date lawyer PERSON , who at that point was representing all CARDINAL applicants , challenged the impartiality of employees of ORG , alleging that they were incapable of carrying out an objective investigation , which was evidenced by all the unlawfulness demonstrated earlier in the case , and requesting that they be removed from the investigation . This challenge was dismissed by ORG as unfounded .","On DATE lawyer PERSON filed a motion with ORG requesting that a separate criminal case be instituted . She argued that the criminal case in question had been instituted on account of murder and the applicants were involved as accused . It was not possible to carry out an investigation into allegations of torture within the scope of that criminal case . The applicants had consistently complained for DATE about the torture that they had undergone , and indicated the names of the perpetrators , but the authorities refused to make a proper assessment of their allegations .","On DATE investigator ORG rejected the motion , finding that not every report of a crime was sufficient in itself to institute criminal proceedings . Sufficient materials had not yet been obtained to adopt such a decision .","In DATE and DATE the investigators questioned a number of persons , including investigators ORG and GPE and military police officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , the commander of the applicants\u2019 military unit , GPE , CARDINAL military police officers of ORG and CARDINAL officer of the Nagorno ORG who had transported the applicants from PERSON to GPE , lawyers GPE and GPE , and the third applicant \u2019s cousin \u2019s husband , PERSON , who had visited him in detention together with his father on DATE .","Investigators PERSON and GPE provided their account of the events and denied having ill - treated the applicants . The transcripts of their interviews , including the questions and answers , contained texts which were word - for - word duplicates . Military police officers PERSON and A.B. similarly denied having ill - treated the applicants . Military police officer PERSON stated that he had been absent from LOC during the period when the applicants were taken there and he had never encountered them . Commander of the military unit PERSON stated that on DATE he had imposed disciplinary detention on the applicants because of their unauthorised absence from the unit and ordered that they serve it at FAC . He did not know what questions had been posed to the applicants by the investigators in his office because this had been done in private . No violence had been inflicted in his presence . The officers who had transported the applicants stated that the applicants had not been handcuffed and no violence had been inflicted on them during their transfer . They had not noticed any bodily injuries and the applicants had not complained about their health .","Lawyers M.A. and GPE stated that on DATE they had received telephone calls from investigator PERSON who had invited them to ORG to take up the applicants\u2019 defence , since a lawyer \u2019s participation was mandatory in cases involving servicemen . They were presented to the second applicant , who was asked to choose between them , so he chose lawyer ORG stated that , from that moment , he participated in all the interviews and confrontations involving the second applicant . On DATE he met with his parents and signed a contract . Lawyer PERSON stated that he had represented the first and third applicants until DATE . On DATE he met with the first and third applicants\u2019 parents , who did not wish him to continue representing them . Both lawyers stated that they had not noticed any injuries on the applicants , no illtreatment had been inflicted on the applicants in their presence , no complaints of ill - treatment had been made by the applicants nor any pressure exerted on them by the investigator . Lawyer PERSON added that the second applicant did not raise his allegations of ill - treatment until DATE when they met in private at the military police arrest facility . He then advised the second applicant to lodge a complaint with ORG .","PERSON stated that on DATE the third applicant \u2019s father had told him that his son had been taken to ORG . Since he was acquainted with investigator PERSON , who lived in his neighbourhood , he promised to find out the reasons for the third applicant \u2019s arrest . On DATE he had bumped into ORG in the yard and introduced him to the third applicant \u2019s father . They inquired about the reasons for his arrest , to which ORG had replied that he was investigating a murder case and the third applicant had been arrested in that connection . They had further asked PERSON to give them a possibility to visit the third applicant for TIME , to which ORG replied that on DATE he was going to carry out some investigative measures involving the third applicant at ORG and he could allow them to see him for TIME . On DATE they had gone to ORG and met with the third applicant for TIME in PERSON \u2019s office . In reply to the investigator \u2019s question as to whether he had seen any injuries on the third applicant or received from him any complaints of ill - treatment , PERSON stated that he had not noticed any injuries or received such complaints . Furthermore , since the investigator had left them alone for TIME , the third applicant , in his opinion , would at least have told his father about any ill - treatment .","On DATE the investigator decided to order a forensic medical examination in respect of the applicants . The experts were requested to answer the following questions : ( a ) whether there had been or were any injuries on the applicants\u2019 bodies and , if so , what was their origin ; ( b ) if so , whether they could have originated during the period from DATE and not be visible DATE , namely on DATE ; and ( c ) whether the applicants suffered from any illness and , if so , whether it had been caused by the alleged ill - treatment .","On DATE the forensic medical experts produced their conclusions . They found that , according to the applicants\u2019 medical files , they did not have any injuries or suffer from any illnesses at the material time . It was not possible to determine whether the applicants had any injuries or illnesses at present since they had failed to appear for the examination . The experts added that skin , bone and joint injuries , such as wounds , bruises , scratches , fractures and dislocated joints , were usually visible after DATE .","On DATE the Acting General Prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators of illtreatment for lack of a criminal act . This decision referred at the outset to the instructions of ORG to investigate the circumstances of the applicants\u2019 alleged deprivation of liberty prior to DATE and their ill - treatment . As regards the deprivation of liberty , it was found to have been a lawful disciplinary measure imposed by the commander of the military unit within the scope of authority vested in him . It was further found that the investigating team had the right to interview the applicants as witnesses and they had been transferred for that purpose . At ORG they were placed in a disciplinary isolation cell and continued to be questioned , but later it was necessary to transfer them to GPE for the purposes of the investigation . There the second applicant had made his confession , after which the applicants were arrested . Lawyers were assigned to them and they were detained by a court decision of CARDINAL DATE . In such circumstances , the ORG allegations of unlawful deprivation of liberty and ill - treatment had been rebutted by the evidence collected in the case .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal against this decision . They complained in detail that they had been unlawfully deprived of their liberty from DATE in the guise of witnesses , while already being suspected of the crime . This had been done in order to deprive them of the safeguards enjoyed by a suspect under the law , such as the right to have a lawyer and the right not to testify , and to coerce them into making a confession . They had never been summoned to appear as witnesses as required by law but instead were forcibly taken from their military unit and transported miles away from CARDINAL law enforcement agency to another where they were kept in various rooms and cells and subjected to repeated illtreatment . There had been no reasonable suspicion to justify depriving them of their liberty and they had been arrested only once the confession had been secured through coercion . They had then been placed in the military police arrest facility where the investigators continued exerting pressure , and in order to hide any traces of ill - treatment . They had not been informed about the reasons for their deprivation of liberty and were brought before a judge with a delay of DATE . The decision of ORG had been unlawful and unfounded . He was obliged by law to institute a separate set of criminal proceedings on account of illtreatment , to recognise them as victims and , after carrying out an investigation , to give a proper assessment to the questions raised by ORG in its decision of DATE . For DATE they had consistently raised their allegations of ill - treatment and indicated the names of the perpetrators but no effective investigation had ever been carried out . The applicants relied , inter alia , on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE decided to dismiss the appeal . The decision reads as follows :","\u201c Having studied the appeal and the materials of the criminal case , the court finds that the contested actions were taken in compliance with the law and there has been no violation of a person \u2019s rights or freedoms . \u201d","No appeal was lodged against this decision .","On DATE ORG decided to institute criminal proceedings to investigate whether the fact that the starting date of the first applicant \u2019s detention was indicated in his medical file as \u201c DATE \u201d amounted to falsification of an official document . A number of persons were questioned and it was revealed that the note in question had been made by mistake by the head of the medical service based on the first applicant \u2019s oral statement . For this reason it was decided to terminate the criminal proceedings for lack of a criminal act .","On an unspecified date the ORG trial resumed in ORG . According to the applicants , a number of former servicemen of their military unit and also a few civilians testified during the trial that they had been locked up during various periods at DATE at FAC and ORG and questioned in connection with the murders . Many of them stated that they had been humiliated and brutally illtreated during those periods in order to confess to the crime .","On DATE ORG , having heard numerous witnesses and examined the available evidence , found that the applicants\u2019 guilt had not been substantiated and decided to acquit them . It appears that no appeals were lodged against this judgment ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177697","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FUCHSMANN v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is an internationally active entrepreneur in the media sector and chief executive officer of the media company ORG GmbH.","He also holds the position of Vice - President of ORG and President of ORG . In DATE the former mayor of GPE , PERSON , publicly honoured the applicant for his efforts to improve ORG relations .","On DATE , the DATE newspaper ORG published an article about an investigation into corruption against ORG slightly changed version was also published on the newspaper \u2019s website . The online version , which was the subject of the domestic proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , reads , in so far as relevant , as follows ( emphasis added and names abbreviated by ORG ) :","\u201c [ L ] ORG a ORG","By [ R. B. ]","Published : DATE","GPE , DATE A company owned by [ ORG ] , the cosmetics heir and former GPE mayoral candidate , is under investigation by federal prosecutors over allegations that it paid MONEY in bribes to NORP officials for a valuable television license , according to lawyers and ORG documents .","GPE attorney in GPE , [ M.W. ] , has empaneled a grand jury and issued subpoenas , and prosecutors are studying CARDINAL pages of documents from ORG enterprise , which [ ORG ] founded in DATE as part of a plan to build a media empire in LOC . It now owns television stations in several ORG and NORP countries .","In a ORG filing in GPE DATE , [ M.W. ] sought the corporate documents , saying that they were needed for a criminal investigation into whether [ R.L.]\u00b4s ORG had \u2018 made corrupt and unlawful payments to NORP officials\u2019 in violation of ORG , the federal law that prohibits NORP companies from paying bribes abroad . [ ORG ] and the company did not challenge the request and turned over the documents , a lawyer said .","The payments being examined took place in DATE after Ukraine\u00b4s licencing body granted a potentially lucrative licence to [ R.L.]\u00b4s company despite the fact that ORG had imposed a ban on new licences .","...","In GPE , NORP Media controls the most popular station through its majority - owned subsidiary ORG .","Prosecutors are studying CARDINAL transactions related to ORG GPE investment , according to documents and persons close to the investigation . In CARDINAL , prosecutors are trying to determine if ORG company paid MONEY to CARDINAL NORP businessmen living in GPE , who then distributed it to some members of GPE \u2019s television licensing board .","... [ ORG ] \u2019s bid to gain the television license in GPE began in DATE . DATE , he met in GPE with [ GPE ] , a top adviser to GPE President [ PERSON ] , to discuss business opportunities .","The initial meetings between [ ORG ] and his representatives and [ ORG ] were not promising . ...","[ ORG ] suggested that [ ORG ] team up with a new NORP television broadcasting company , ORG , in GPE , and he did . The principal owners were [ ORG ] and PERSON , well known around GPE for their influence and wealth . Less well known were their ties to NORP organized crime , according to reports by the ORG and NORP law enforcement agencies .","[ ORG ] , who no longer has an interest in CARDINAL + CARDINAL , has denied any links to NORP organized crime . Mr. PERSON did not respond to e - mail inquiries seeking comment on the licensing deal and the ORG \u2019s claim of his ties to organized crime , although an assistant confirmed that he had received the inquiries .","A DATE ORG report on NORP organized crime in GPE described Mr. PERSON as a gold smuggler and embezzler , whose company in GPE was part of an international organized crime network . He is barred from entering GPE .","...","Besides Mr. PERSON and [ ORG ] , there were other , silent owners of ORG . In CARDINAL internal fax , in DATE , [ J ] described the Studio CARDINAL + CARDINAL shareholders as \u2018 \u2018 extremely ORG people whom , she added , \u2018 I will not mention on this fax.\u2019","ORG now owns PERCENT of Studio CARDINAL + CARDINAL , and Mr. PERSON owns PERCENT , according to public statements .","At the time it went into business with Mr. PERSON and [ ORG ] , ORG did not conduct investigations into their backgrounds , according to a report by [ ORG ] \u2019s GPE law firm , [ D.&P. ] .","In their CARDINAL report , which the prosecutors now have , the firm \u2019s lawyers said that [ ORG ] had been justified in dealing with Mr. PERSON and [ ORG ] because they had been highly recommended by [ ORG ] , whom the lawyers described as \u2018 an ardent supporter of free - market FAC .","The lawyers also concluded that ORG had not engaged in any illegal or improper activities . They said they could not rule out the possibility that FAC had made improper payments , though they did not believe it had .","The GPE \u2019s television licensing board issued a broadcast license to ORG CARDINAL not only in spite of ORG \u2019s moratorium , but with CARDINAL of the board \u2019s CARDINAL members present ; the law required CARDINAL members for a vote .","DATE after the license was issued , ORG transferred MONEY to ORG , according to a ORG . That is the second transaction being looked at by prosecutors .","The GPE company was indirectly owned by \u2018 many high NORP PERSON according to a second C.M.E. document , which did not name them .","A third document shows that ORG had paid this amount to a company in GPE owned by Mr. PERSON , ORG , and that ORG had paid the license fees on behalf of ORG . ORG is part of a NORP organized crime network , according to GPE and NORP law enforcement reports .","It is not clear why such a circuitous route was used , and a person involved in the transaction , with inside knowledge of the owners of ORG , said the MONEY payment was not for a license fee . He would not say what it was for .","ORG officials were nervous about the license they won , and sought the opinion of CARDINAL law firms in GPE . Both acknowledged \u2018 the potential weaknesses\u2019 of the broadcasting license , according to a C.M.E. document . DATE , ORG had secured a letter from the NORP justice ministry stating that the license was valid .","Federal prosecutors , who opened their case in the wake of a number of private lawsuits challenging the legitimacy of the license award , have been examining documents for DATE , and the exact status of the investigation is not clear . \u201d","On DATE , before publication of the article , the journalist had notified the applicant , via an email to CARDINAL of his employees , of the planned publication and had asked several questions . On CARDINAL DATE the journalist had made a follow - up telephone call to the employee , who confirmed that the applicant had received the questions . However , the applicant refrained from answering the questions or commenting on the planned publication .","Since DATE the article , showing the date of first publication , is retrievable from the website of ORG . It can also be found through online search engines such as \u201c Google \u201d or \u201c GPE .","NORP On DATE the applicant sought injunctions against certain parts of the article ( highlighted in the article , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , published in the print and online versions .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s action inadmissible due to lack of international jurisdiction on the part of the NORP courts . It found that , at the material time , the print version of ORG was not distributed in GPE and that the Internet version of the newspaper was not directed at a readership in GPE . ORG confirmed that decision by its judgment dated DATE . On DATE ORG quashed the part of the decision regarding the applicant \u2019s claim for an injunction against the challenged statements in the online version of the article and referred that part of the action back to ORG . The court held that the online version of the newspaper was accessible from GPE , and because it mentioned a NORP businessman in the article , the publication had a direct connection with GPE and NORP jurisdiction . It therefore affirmed the international jurisdiction of the NORP courts in that respect .","On DATE ORG decided on the part of the dispute which had been referred back to it by ORG . It granted the injunction in so far as the article stated that the applicant had been banned from entering GPE , and dismissed the remainder of the applicant \u2019s action for lack of merit . ORG held that NORP law was applicable with regard to the online publication , as the article was accessible in GPE via the Internet and therefore the alleged violation of the applicant \u2019s reputation had at least occurred in GPE .","The court accepted that the statements interfered with the applicant \u2019s reputation and personality right ( allgemeines ORG ) as protected by LAW and LAW ) . However , as the statements had been made in the press , which was constitutionally protected pursuant to LAW , it was necessary to balance both interests . Moreover , as the statements concerned a suspicion against the applicant , the presumption of innocence arising from LAW and from NORP law also had to be taken into account . The court held that there was in principle a public interest in reporting on criminal offences , including the suspicion of their commission . On the other hand , continued the court , the interference with the rights of personality associated with such reporting required higher standards of care for newspaper reporting , because even if the investigation was later discontinued , \u201c something of the accusation might stick to the person affected \u201d . Therefore , concrete , provable connecting facts which go beyond a vague , intangible suspicion were required , the reporting must concern an incident of great weight and the suspicion must be identified as such . In addition , the reporting must be balanced , the journalist must not fail to report on exculpatory circumstances and the person concerned must , as a rule , be invited to make his own comments before publication .","As regards the statements at issue , ORG held that there was a great informational interest on the part of the public in the reporting that the applicant , as a NORP businessman internationally active in the media sector , was suspected by the secret service of being involved in gold smuggling , embezzlement and organised crime . This assessment was not changed by the fact that the applicant had been mentioned by name in the article , or by the fact that when the article was published in DATE , the criminal offences mentioned therein had occurred DATE previously . Regarding the latter the court pointed out that the criminal offences had become relevant again , due to new suspicions regarding the involvement of a former mayoral candidate . For the understanding of these suspicions it had been necessary to elaborate on the companies and individuals , including the applicant , involved in the alleged corruption . Similarly , describing the suspected criminal backgrounds of some of the persons involved had been necessary for the ORG comprehension of the allegation . The court also took into account that the article remained accessible in an online archive of the DATE newspaper . It held that there was a recognised public interest not only in information on current events but also in being able to research events from recent history .","The court further considered that the reporting was free from polemic statements and insinuations , and made it sufficiently clear that only insights from ORG reports and the law - enforcement authorities were being reported . This was expressly pointed out in the challenged article with the words , \" according to reports by the ORG and NORP law enforcement agencies \" . The internal ORG report was confirmed by reports of several other law - enforcement agencies , and the applicant himself , while denying any criminal activities , confirmed certain facts mentioned in those reports during the proceedings . Furthermore , the author of the article had notified the applicant via email that the article would be published . In that context the court also considered that although the applicant had been aware of the defendant \u2019s reporting even before the article had been published , he had waited for DATE before applying for an injunction against the defendant . Therefore , the applicant had not perceived the interference with his personality right as intolerable .","In sum , the court concluded that the defendant had complied with the required journalistic duty of care and that the reporting had relied on sources and background information , which the journalist could reasonably consider reliable . Therefore , the informational interest of the public outweighed the concerns of protecting the applicant \u2019s personality right , even taking into account that such reporting might seriously damage his private and professional reputation . Regarding the alleged entry ban , the court concluded that there had been no reliable sources and that the applicant had shown that he had recently travelled to GPE .","On DATE , ORG rejected a complaint lodged by the applicant against ORG refusal to grant leave to appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG declined to consider a constitutional complaint ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) lodged by the applicant , without providing reasons ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170464","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TERENTYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is a musician and a jazz critic .","On DATE the applicant published an article on his personal website about a local jazz festival and its president , Mr Y. The article contained a detailed description of the event and scathing criticism of Mr Y. Using various derivatives of Mr Y. \u2019s surname , the article mocked his professional qualities . The jazz festival was described as being \u201c a shoddy piece of work \u201d and PERSON delivery \u201c crappy \u201d .","Mr Y. sued the applicant in defamation , arguing that the article was insulting and harmful to his reputation .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant liable in defamation . The judgment consisted of the text of the article , a summary of the relevant domestic law , a CARDINAL - page reproduction of the extracts from the article which had been mentioned in the statement of claim and CARDINAL paragraphs of conclusions . They stated :","\u201c Using a distorted form of the plaintiff \u2019s patronymic and last name ... breaches the plaintiff \u2019s right to a name and to a good name , which is unacceptable under the law . Since the defendant committed a breach of the plaintiff \u2019s intangible assets by way of distorting his patronymic and last name in a negative way , the latter shall have the right to compensation in accordance with LAW .","[ The contested extracts ] undermine the honour and dignity of the plaintiff as a person , pedagogue and musician because they contain negative information about the plaintiff presented in an affirmative form . Pursuant to LAW , the burden to prove the truth of the allegations is on the defendant , who did not submit any evidence to the court showing that the impugned statements were true . \u201d","ORG awarded the plaintiff MONEY ( RUB ) in damages and directed the applicant to publish a retraction on his website .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed an appeal by the applicant . It endorsed the findings of the lower court in a summary judgment . It held that LAW had not been breached because \u201c the defendant published statements on the Internet which undermined the honour and dignity of the plaintiff as a person , pedagogue and musician and which contained negative information about him \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155195","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF OPREA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of inadequate conditions of detention . In some of the applications , the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173469","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF AYDIN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He was detained in Tekirda\u011f F - type prison at the time of the introduction of the application with the ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the Anti - Terrorist Branch of the GPE police headquarters on suspicion of membership of ORG , an illegal organisation .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant and QUANTITY other persons with attempting to undermine the constitutional order , an offence prescribed by LAW .","Following the promulgation of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , the case against the applicant was transferred to CARDINALth Chamber of ORG .","During the proceedings , the first - instance courts examined the applicant \u2019s continued detention at the end of every hearing , either on their own motion or upon the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE , at the end of the hearing and in the presence of the applicant , the CARDINALth Chamber of ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s continued detention . The applicant objected to this decision . On DATE the CARDINALth ORG dismissed his objection without holding an oral hearing and relying on the public prosecutor \u2019s opinion which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative .","On DATE the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment . This decision was upheld by ORG and became final on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153349","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NALBANDYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first and second applicants appear to have been serving prison sentences in Kosh and ORG penitentiary institutions at the time of submission of their application . The third applicant lives in the town of NORP , GPE .","The first and second applicants are husband and wife . The third applicant is their daughter . At the material time they resided in NORP , in LOC of GPE .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted on account of the murder of a local girl who was apparently the third applicant \u2019s classmate and whose body was found not far from the applicants\u2019 home .","The first applicant alleges that on DATE he was taken to ORG where he was unlawfully kept without his arrest being formally recorded . At the police department he was subjected to continual beatings by police officers in an attempt to coerce him to confess to the above - mentioned murder .","On DATE the ORG found the first applicant guilty under LAW of maliciously disobeying lawful orders of police officers and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment . The first applicant was found to have used foul language in the street and to have disobeyed the police officers who tried to call him to order .","The first applicant alleges that the above decision was a fake and that in reality he was kept at the police department during that entire period in connection with the above murder . The administrative penalty imposed on him was simply used as a means to legitimise his continued unlawful deprivation of liberty .","The second and third applicants allege that from DATE they were also under constant pressure from the local lawenforcement officers , being frequently taken to the police department and pressurised and coerced to confess to the murder or to incriminate each other .","On DATE the second applicant , together with a number of other residents of NORP , filed a complaint with ORG and the Chief of ORG , alleging that the first applicant had been unlawfully detained since DATE in connection with the above murder and that the applicants\u2019 family had been terrorised by the local law - enforcement officers . They further alleged that the second applicant had been invited to ORG where she was ordered by ORG , Vi . H. , to admit that the first applicant had wanted to rape the victim and that she , having found out about it , had killed the girl out of jealousy . They alleged that the second applicant had been beaten but had refused to confess .","The second applicant alleges that on DATE she was invited to ORG where Chief of Department Vi . PERSON ordered her to testify against the first applicant . When she refused to do so , she was beaten by ORG and a number of other law - enforcement officers , including the deputy of the criminal investigation unit , GPE , CARDINAL officers of the criminal investigation unit , GPE and GPE , and the PERSON Regional Deputy Prosecutor , F.B. She was beaten on her feet with a baton and when she fainted the police officers would bring her back to consciousness and continue the beating . Thereafter the police officers brought the third applicant to the police department and locked her up in a nearby , dark room infested with rats . They threatened the second applicant that they would rape the third applicant if she refused to confess , after which she confessed to the murder . It appears that the first applicant also confessed to having assisted the second applicant in the murder .","The third applicant alleges that she was taken to the police department on numerous occasions , frequently at TIME , where she was humiliated by the police officers , threatened with rape and pressured to admit that it was the second applicant who had committed the murder and that the motive was the strained relationship between her and the victim . She further alleges that she saw both her father and her mother at the police department and that they bore signs of ill - treatment .","On DATE the first and second applicants were formally arrested in connection with the above - mentioned murder . It appears that a confrontation was held between the second and third applicants , during which the second applicant admitted having committed the murder and stated that the third applicant had helped her to dispose of the body .","On DATE applicants refused the services of a lawyer who had been invited to participate in the case by the investigator . They allege that they did so because they did not trust the investigator \u2019s choice . It appears that the applicants did not request that another lawyer be appointed instead .","The third applicant alleges that on TIME DATE she was kept at ORG in an individual cell which had no lights and was infested with mice .","On DATE the second applicant participated in an investigative measure at the scene of the crime which was recorded on film .","On DATE from TIME the third applicant was questioned as a witness by PERSON Deputy Prosecutor , F.B. She stated that the second applicant had made false statements during the confrontation , which must have been the result of her being drugged . She further stated that the second applicant had not committed the murder and that her behaviour , including her confession and accusations , was strange .","The third applicant alleges that following this interview she was subjected to beatings by the PERSON Regional Deputy PERSON and CARDINAL other officers of the prosecutor \u2019s office who pulled her hair and then threw her on the floor and started kicking her . On DATE the police officers took her home , where she lay in bed motionless for DATE until her uncle visited her on DATE and made arrangements to have her transferred to GPE for a medical examination .","On DATE the first and second applicants were formally charged with murder .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the first and second applicants\u2019 presence , at which it examined and granted the application seeking to have them detained . Deputy Regional Prosecutor F.B. was present at this hearing . The second applicant was asked by the judge whether she had confessed voluntarily to the murder or had been coerced to do so , to which she replied that no coercion or intimidation had been applied to her during the preliminary investigation and that the confession had been made voluntarily .","On DATE the second applicant was transferred from ORG to the PERSON detention facility . Upon her admission to the detention facility the second applicant underwent a medical examination and was found to have \u201c bruised feet due to blood vessels being broken as a result of swelling \u201d . It was further recorded that she complained of high blood pressure , pain in the legs and swollen feet .","On DATE first applicant was transferred to the Kosh detention facility .","On DATE the third applicant underwent a medical examination at FAC in GPE and was found to have :","\u201c Concussion ( ? ) , bruising of soft tissues of the head [ ... ] , and bruising of soft tissues in the back area and of the left arm ... \u201d","On DATE the criminal proceedings in their part concerning the third applicant were terminated for lack of evidence of her involvement in the crime .","On DATE the first and second applicants requested that a state - appointed lawyer , PERSON , be engaged in the case . The applicants allege that on the same date lawyer PERSON requested that the first and second applicants be questioned in his presence , but this request was refused .","On DATE the investigation was completed and the first and second applicants were granted access to the case file . On the same date both applicants and their lawyer familiarised themselves with the materials of the case , which consisted of CARDINAL volumes .","On DATE the Gegharkunik Regional Prosecutor approved the indictment and the case was transmitted to ORG for examination on the merits . In the proceedings before ORG the first and second applicants denied their guilt and stated that their confession statements had been made as a result of ill - treatment .","The first and second applicants allege that the hearings at ORG were conducted in an atmosphere of constant disorder , including real threats and verbal and physical abuse towards them and their lawyer by a group of CARDINAL people , composed of the victim \u2019s relatives and their friends .","In DATE lawyer PERSON Helsinki Association NGO was engaged in the case by the first and second applicants , replacing lawyer PERSON According to the applicants , the hearings continued in the same manner .","On DATE the President of the Gegharkunik Regional Court informed the head of the bar association in writing that lawyer PERSON had failed to appear at the hearing of DATE without prior notice . The hearing was therefore adjourned until DATE . Lawyer PERSON was notified of this but informed the court by telephone that she refused to participate . The President requested in his letter that measures be taken to ensure her participation or else the court would have to continue the proceedings without her .","On DATE lawyer PERSON applied to the Minister of ORG , complaining about the disorder during the court hearings . She alleged that the applicants\u2019 previous lawyer , PERSON , had been beaten by the victim \u2019s relatives , which precluded his further participation in the case , and that she feared the same would happen to her . She further alleged that the court took no action to prevent the disorder and requested that the case be examined in a different court .","The first and second applicants allege that lawyer PERSON was forced to miss some of the hearings because of fears for her safety .","On DATE ORG found the first and second applicants guilty of murder and sentenced them to CARDINAL and DATE imprisonment respectively . In doing so , ORG examined and dismissed the first and second ORG allegations of ill - treatment on the following grounds :","( a ) these allegations had been examined by ORG and had been found to be unsubstantiated ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ;","( b ) the first and second applicants , at various stages of the proceedings , had made contradictory statements in connection with these allegations ;","( c ) the second applicant , having indicated the alleged perpetrators , nevertheless refused to have a confrontation with them during the court proceedings ;","( d ) on DATE the second applicant had participated in an investigative measure at the scene of the crime which was recorded on film and was examined in court : she walked freely and bore no signs of illtreatment ;","( e ) the first and second applicants admitted their guilt and made no allegations of ill - treatment at the court hearing of CARDINAL DATE , at which the question of their detention was determined ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;","( f ) on DATE the first and second applicants were filmed for a police television show but made no allegations of ill - treatment to the members of the crew ;","( g ) when questioned on DATE the second applicant refused to comment on the complaints which she had lodged with various authorities prior to her arrest , stating that those had been lodged before her arrest and that the true statements were those which she had made after her arrest ;","( h ) on DATE the first and second applicants were transferred to detention facilities and no signs of ill - treatment were recorded at the time of their admission ;","( i ) the second applicant raised the allegations of ill - treatment for the first time only on DATE , DATE after her arrest ;","( j ) the second applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment had been rebutted by the statements made in court by the officer of the criminal investigation unit of ORG , PERSON , who had been questioned as a witness .","On DATE lawyer PERSON lodged an appeal . In her appeal she argued that the applicants had been deprived of effective legal assistance because from DATE she had not been able to participate in the hearings because of the constant disorder in the courtroom . She further argued that the ORG conviction had been based on coerced confession statements . It appears that the applicants also lodged appeals in which they , inter alia , denied their guilt and stated that their confession statements had been made as a result of ill - treatment .","On DATE the examination of the case commenced at the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal . According to the first and second applicants , the hearings before ORG were conducted in the same manner as before ORG .","At the hearing on DATE a scuffle broke out between the victim \u2019s and the applicants\u2019 relatives . It appears that the victim \u2019s relatives were removed from the courtroom and the hearing resumed . The hearing was then adjourned until DATE in order for lawyer PERSON to have time to prepare her final pleading .","On DATE the head of ORG submitted the text of lawyer PERSON final pleading to ORG by post , claiming that this was necessary in order to ensure the lawyer \u2019s personal and physical safety . He alleged that at the hearing of DATE the victim \u2019s relatives had attacked the lawyer . Some of the defendants\u2019 relatives had also been attacked and beaten . He further alleged that during the hearings in both ORG and ORG there had been constant threats against the lawyer , but her requests to have her security ensured and the threats recorded in the transcripts had been ignored by the courts .","On DATE the hearing was adjourned until DATE because of lawyer PERSON \u2019s absence . In doing so , ORG noted the lawyer \u2019s concerns about her security and refusal to participate because of fears for her safety .","On DATE the presiding judge addressed a letter to the head of the bar association , with a copy to lawyer PERSON , stating that the hearing had been adjourned and asking that her future appearance be ensured . The letter further stated that appropriate measures had been taken to ensure the safety of the participants in the trial .","On DATE lawyer PERSON complained to the police about the events of DATE , alleging that she had been working in such conditions for DATE and that she was not able to attend the hearing of DATE because of fears for her safety .","On DATE ORG held a hearing . Lawyer S. did not appear . According to the record of the hearing , the court noted lawyer PERSON \u2019s absence and stated that both the lawyer and the bar association had been informed that the court had taken all possible measures to secure the safety of those participating in the trial and had therefore been asked to ensure the lawyer \u2019s presence . The second applicant stated that she had met with lawyer PERSON at the detention centre and they had agreed that the lawyer would not appear in court . She therefore wished to dispense with the lawyer \u2019s services and did not wish to have another lawyer . The first applicant similarly stated that he wished the proceedings to continue without the lawyer and that he did not wish to have another lawyer . The court then decided to return lawyer PERSON \u2019s final pleading on the ground that she no longer represented the first and second applicants .","The applicants allege that the record of the court hearing of DATE contains inaccurate statements and does not correspond to reality . Their lawyer was refused , at a later stage , a copy of this record because she was allegedly no longer authorised to represent them and was therefore unable to comment on its accuracy .","On DATE ORG upheld the first and second applicants\u2019 conviction . ORG dismissed their allegations of ill - treatment on the same grounds as ORG adding also that , according to a court - ordered expert medical opinion , the first applicant bore no signs of injury .","On DATE lawyer PERSON visited the second applicant at the detention facility .","On DATE lawyer PERSON lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . In her appeal she argued that the applicants had been ill - treated and their conviction was based on coerced statements . She further argued that the applicants had been deprived of effective legal assistance and an objective examination of their case , because of an atmosphere of constant terror reigning in the courtroom . ORG had failed to ensure order and it had been impossible to examine evidence and to submit new evidence in an objective and fair manner because of the repeated scuffles and stressful atmosphere . The conflicts , threats of violence , verbal abuse and scuffles had worsened during the last CARDINAL hearings in ORG . The court , however , had failed to take any measures , which precluded her further participation and even made it impossible to make her final pleading which , as a result , she had been forced to submit by post . The court \u2019s inactivity only encouraged further aggressive behaviour by the victim \u2019s relatives . The ORG previous lawyer PERSON had also been unable to participate in the hearings , which had consequently been held in DATE in his absence .","On an unspecified date the second applicant also lodged an appeal on points of law . It appears that in her appeal she argued that she had confessed to the crime as a result of beatings , torture and threats . She further complained that the hearings before ORG had been held without a lawyer .","DATE . On DATE lawyer PERSON received a letter from the presiding judge dated DATE informing her that the first and second applicants had dispensed with her services because of her failure to appear at the hearings of DATE and DATE and returning the text of her final pleading .","On DATE lawyer PERSON lodged a supplement to her appeal of CARDINAL DATE , expressing surprise about the fact that the text of her final pleading had been returned to her and about the grounds on which it had been returned . She alleged that these actions pursued the aim of concealing the violation of the first and second applicants\u2019 right to defence and the failure to ensure order during the court hearings . She requested that the text of her final pleading be included in the case file . She further requested that protective measures be taken at the hearing before ORG in order for her to be able to participate , taking into account the manner in which the hearings had been conducted before the courts of first and second instance .","On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s appeal . As regards the allegations of ill - treatment , ORG stated that these had been thoroughly examined by ORG and ORG and had been rightly found to be unsubstantiated . As regards the alleged absence of a lawyer , the court considered these allegations to be ill - founded , finding on the basis of the materials of the case file that the lawyer had been involved in the examination of the case at ORG from DATE , namely DATE . As it appeared from the record of the hearing of DATE , the second applicant later dispensed with the lawyer \u2019s services because of the latter \u2019s failure to appear at the hearings of DATE and DATE . Taking this into account , as well as the fact that the second applicant did not wish to have another lawyer , ORG accepted this and informed the lawyer in a letter .","As to lawyer PERSON \u2019s appeal , ORG left this appeal unexamined on the ground that the first and second applicants had dispensed with her services and she was no longer authorised to bring an appeal on their behalf pursuant to LAW ) of LAW .","On DATE the third applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . She stated , inter alia , that on DATE she had been roughly pushed into a car and taken by LOC . H. and another law enforcement official to Chief PERSON . PERSON \u2019s office . There GPE . H. had started to force her to smoke a cigarette , while continually hitting her on the head with his hand and a bottle , saying that it was she who had committed the murder . When she disagreed , they had proceeded to beat her . At that moment Deputy Regional Prosecutor F.B. had entered the office and slapped her with such force that her teeth hurt . CARDINAL of the officers said \u201c PERSON down , bitch \u201d and pushed her to the floor , then ORG , GPE . H. and Investigator PERSON started kicking her like a ball . GPE . H. ordered her to undress , saying that he had invited a doctor to check if she was still a virgin . When she refused , he pulled off her jacket . They wanted to undress her but she resisted . Then they brought in her mother and beat her , after which they told her to watch how they would murder her daughter , unless they agreed to confess . Then they let her go but only on the condition that she would not tell anyone that she had been beaten . TIME she was again taken to the police department , where ORG started hitting her arms and forcing her to write a confession . Then they brought her mother again and made them sit facing each other . They started beating her mother and ordered her to persuade her daughter to confess . Her mother begged her to do so , adding that she would not recognise her father if she saw him , he was in such a bad state , and that it was not shameful to lie after all the ill - treatment they had endured . She decided to cooperate eventually because of her mother \u2019s pleas .","On DATE the second applicant lodged a similar complaint with ORG . She stated , inter alia , that on DATE she had been taken into custody at ORG by the Chief of Department Vi . H. and Regional Prosecutor F.B. There she had been beaten by PERSON . H. and CARDINAL other police officers in connection with the murder . Her husband had been kept at the police department for DATE , where he had been beaten and his fingernails had been pulled in order to coerce him to confess , which he had refused to do . The same beating and violence had been inflicted on her and her daughter . For DATE Chief of ORG . H. had beaten her and made her sit in water , after which she had agreed to write the confession dictated to her by NORP Investigator PERSON and Regional Prosecutor F.B. The second applicant added that she was prepared to repeat her allegations in court in the presence of the perpetrators .","On DATE the ORG forwarded the third applicant \u2019s complaint to ORG , together with a copy of the medical opinion of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The above complaints were forwarded by ORG to ORG for examination .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the Senior Assistant to ORG , Y.I. ( hereby Senior Assistant PERSON ) , took statements from the following law enforcement officers in connection with the allegations of ill - treatment : PERSON Regional Deputy Prosecutor PERSON , Assistant to ORG H. , Investigator of ORG G.H. , Chief of ORG H. , Head of ORG at the NORP Police Department S.M. , CARDINAL officers of that unit GPE and GPE , and chief of the temporary detention cell at the police department , V.A. They were asked to provide an account of the contested events . In reply to PERSON \u2019s request to comment on the second and third applicants\u2019 allegations of illtreatment addressed to some of those questioned , they denied having inflicted any violence on the second and third applicants , claiming that the latter had made false statements .","On DATE Senior Assistant PERSON took a statement from the second applicant . She stated that on DATE she had been taken by PERSON . PERSON to the police department where she had been kept for DATE and beaten by Vi . H. and police officers PERSON , GPE , GPE and GPE with rubber batons . She had been threatened with a champagne bottle and had been seated on what she believed to be an electric chair . They had demanded that she confess to the murder , otherwise the same would happen to her daughter , husband and other family members . She had then written a confession which was dictated to her . Furthermore , she had met her husband DATE who had already been in police custody for DATE at a confrontation . His fingernails had been pulled , he had lost weight , and his clothes were stained and torn . When she had asked him what had happened , he had started crying and said that for DATE he had been deprived of sleep and repeatedly beaten . In the meantime her daughter was being beaten in a nearby office . She had not mentioned any of this to the judge at the detention hearing because she had been beaten and for fear that the illtreatment would continue .","On DATE the chief of ORG detention facility and the head of its medical unit DATE apparently upon the inquiry of ORG \u2013 issued a certificate containing the results of the second applicant \u2019s medical examination of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE Senior Assistant PERSON decided to refuse the institution of criminal proceedings on the basis of the second and third applicants\u2019 complaints . This decision stated that :","\u201c [ The second and third applicants\u2019 complaints of DATE and CARDINAL DATE addressed to the ORG and ORG ] have been transferred by ORG to ORG for examination ...","ORG has examined the above complaints , has verified in detail the presented facts , and has taken statements from the employees of ORG and Vardenis Police Department mentioned in those complaints and involved in the criminal case .","The allegations raised in [ the second and third applicants\u2019 complaints ] concerning having been beaten or subjected to any other kind of violence have been rebutted .","The circumstances have been confirmed by the statements of Regional Deputy Prosecutor [ F.B. ] , Assistant Prosecutor [ Va . H. ] , Investigator of ORG [ G.H. ] , Chief of ORG [ Vi . H. ] , Head of ORG at the said department [ PERSON ] , CARDINAL operatives of the said unit , [ GPE and GPE ] , and chief of the [ temporary detention cell at the police department V.A. ] ; the certificate of CARDINAL DATE of the NORP detention facility , according to which [ the second applicant ] on the date of her admission at [ the Abovyan detention facility ] ( DATE ) was examined by a doctor and complained of high blood pressure , pain in her legs and swollen feet . The bruises on [ the second applicant \u2019s feet ] resulted from swellings which were caused by broken blood vessels .","[ The first applicant ] has not submitted any complaints concerning having been beaten or subjected to any other kind of violence . \u201d","The applicants were not informed about this decision .","On DATE the chief of the ORG detention facility and the head of its medical unit addressed a letter to lawyer PERSON , stating that during the medical examination carried out at the time of the second applicant \u2019s admission to the detention facility , namely on DATE , the second applicant had complained of pain in the legs and swollen feet . The second applicant had been found to have swollen and bruised feet .","On DATE lawyer PERSON applied to ORG with a request to have criminal proceedings instituted . The lawyer alleged that all CARDINAL applicants had been ill - treated and coerced to confess at ORG in DATE and DATE . She stated that the perpetrators had been pointed out by the applicants . The lawyer referred to the results of the medical examinations carried out in respect of the second applicant at the Abovyan detention facility on DATE and in respect of the third applicant at FAC on DATE .","It appears that on DATE ORG sent a letter to lawyer PERSON , informing her that the first and second applicants had not been ill - treated by the employees of ORG and ORG .","On DATE lawyer PERSON to ORG with the same request , claiming that no reply had been received to her previous request of DATE .","On DATE ORG sent a letter to lawyer PERSON with identical content .","On an unspecified date lawyer PERSON contested the actions of ORG , including the CARDINAL above - mentioned letters , before the courts on behalf of all CARDINAL applicants . The lawyer complained about the ill - treatment that had been inflicted on the applicants in the period between CARDINAL and DATE , and indicated the names of the perpetrators , including the Chief of ORG , Vi . H. and the police officers of that department , GPE , GPE and V.A. She alleged that ORG and the investigative team headed by him were aware of these acts but showed indifference and even facilitated the coercion to obtain prosecution evidence .","DATE . On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE left the lawyer \u2019s appeal without examination . ORG found that a decision had been adopted on DATE whereby the institution of criminal proceedings had been refused . According to the prescribed procedure , this decision could be contested before a higher prosecutor or the court of appeal .","On DATE the third applicant lodged an appeal against this decision . She alleged , inter alia , that she and the other CARDINAL applicants had been subjected to continual ill - treatment in DATE and DATE . She herself had been kept at ORG on TIME CARDINAL DATE and beaten by the employees of ORG , ORG , GPE . H. , GPE and G.H. ORG , TIME , and Chief of ORG . H. had been aware of this . She had injuries on her head , face and back and had to stay in bed for DATE . Only after her uncle came to visit her upon his return from GPE could she be transferred to GPE for a medical examination . The third applicant further stated that she had noticed signs of ill - treatment on her mother , such as bruised hands , swollen face and difficulty walking , during the confrontation which had been held between them .","On the same date lawyer PERSON lodged an appeal with the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE on behalf of the first and second applicants . In her appeal she argued , inter alia , that neither she nor the applicants had ever been informed about this decision and they had become aware of it only at the hearing before ORG on DATE . As regards the substance of this decision , it was adopted by persons who had an interest in the outcome of the case and was based on statements of the alleged perpetrators which lacked credibility . The applicants , however , had never been questioned in connection with their allegations . The lawyer further referred to the numerous complaints lodged by the second and third applicants from DATE and the results of their medical examinations of CARDINAL and DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal examined jointly both issues and decided to dismiss the appeal against the decision of DATE and not to examine the appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that it had been lodged outside DATE time - limit for appeal .","On DATE lawyer PERSON lodged an appeal against this decision on behalf of the applicants .","On DATE ORG quashed this decision and remitted the case for a new examination on the ground that ORG had failed to clarify whether the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been duly and timely served on the applicants .","On DATE ORG decided to quash the decision of DATE and to reserve a right to the defence to contest the decision of CARDINAL DATE , since there was no evidence to show that a copy of that decision had been duly served on the applicants prior to their becoming aware of it in DATE .","On DATE lawyer PERSON lodged an appeal with ORG against the decision of CARDINAL DATE on behalf of the applicants .","DATE . On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the appeal . In doing so , the court first confirmed the findings made in that decision and then added that the complaints about ill - treatment had already been examined and dismissed by ORG and ORG in the course of the criminal proceedings against the first and second applicants .","For a summary of the relevant provisions see the judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","DATE . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that the suspect and the accused have the right to defence counsel and to be questioned in his presence . The suspect enjoys this right from the moment when he is presented with the investigating authority \u2019s decision on arrest , the record of arrest or the decision on choosing a preventive measure , while the accused enjoys it from the moment when the charge is brought .","According to LAW , defence counsel \u2019s participation in the criminal proceedings is compulsory if , inter alia , the suspect or the accused has expressed such a wish . Defence counsel \u2019s compulsory participation in the criminal proceedings is to be secured by the authority dealing with the criminal case .","Section CARDINAL provides that refusal of a lawyer by the suspect or the accused means his intention is to conduct his defence without the assistance of a lawyer . The suspect \u2019s or the accused \u2019s statement refusing a lawyer is to be entered into a record .","Sections CARDINAL provides that if the authority dealing with the case discovers that , inter alia , the accused or the defence lawyer is in need of protection from any criminal encroachment , it shall take protective measures upon the victim \u2019s request or of its own motion by adopting an appropriate decision . Such measures are compulsory if the victim or his next of kin has received physical threats or threats against his property or if physical violence has been inflicted in connection with his participation in the trial . The victim \u2019s request for protective measures shall be examined by the authority dealing with the case immediately and at the latest within TIME . The victim shall be immediately informed about the decision and served a copy .","According to LAW , protective measures include , inter alia , a warning by the court or the prosecutor of possible criminal prosecution of the person who has made violent or other criminal threats , and measures ensuring the safety of the victim . The person to whom a warning is to be issued shall be summoned by the prosecutor , the investigator or the body of inquiry . Measures ensuring the safety of the victim include , inter alia , taking the victim or his next of kin under personal protection .","According to Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , an appeal against a judgment of ORG can be lodged by the convicted , the acquitted , their lawyers and lawful representatives , the prosecutor , the victim and his representative ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167806","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF B.A.C. v. GREECE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Positive obligations);Violation of Article 3+13 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Article 13 - Effective remedy;Right to an effective remedy) (Conditional) (Turkey);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","While studying in GPE ( DATE ) the applicant had become a pro - communist and NORP political activist . In DATE he opened a literary caf\u00e9 , which was frequented by individuals favourable to such a political stance . In DATE the NORP police arrested the applicant , and he was prosecuted for infringing ORG constitutional order ( LAW ) . The applicant was also held in the \u201c white ( isolation ) cells \u201d in FAC . He went on hunger strike for DATE , causing him to develop Wernicke - Korsakoff syndrome , a pathology which can cause irreversible damage to health and prove fatal . Given the threat to the applicant \u2019s life , the NORP authorities decided to release him .","In DATE the applicant fled to GPE , where he submitted an asylum application on DATE . On DATE the General Secretary of ORG , adjudicating at first instance , rejected that application , giving summary reasons .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against that decision . On DATE , having been summoned to attend ORG , he presented the latter with a number of documents showing that he had suffered torture in GPE on account of his political opinions , including a medical report drawn up by ORG and an ORG document . On DATE ORG on Asylum issued a favourable opinion in respect of the applicant .","Further to that favourable opinion , under LAW . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( on the procedure for the examination of asylum applications ) , the Minister for Public Order should have taken a decision within TIME on whether or not to grant the applicant international protection . However , by the date on which the application was referred to the ORG , the Minister had not taken any decision and therefore had neither ratified nor rejected the ORG \u2019s opinion .","DATE the applicant lived in GPE and attended the police station DATE in order to renew his asylum - seeker \u2019s card . Under domestic law that card did not constitute a residence permit and therefore did not secure all the attendant rights : it only allowed the asylum - seeker not to be expelled and to reside in the national territory with \u201c tolerated status \u201d while his application was being examined . More specifically , under domestic law the asylum - seeker was not entitled to engage in an occupation , undertake vocational training , marry , obtain a driving licence , hold a bank account or apply for family reunion .","In DATE , while he was living in GPE , the applicant was joined by his wife from GPE . However , her presence in GPE only became lawful in DATE , when she obtained a short - term work permit . In DATE the couple had a son . In DATE the applicant \u2019s wife returned to GPE with the child owing to health problems . The couple divorced in DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG had issued an extradition request in respect of the applicant . That request had been based on accusations similar to those used in DATE which had been assessed by the NORP authorities during the examination of his asylum application .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE . On DATE the indictment division of ORG examined the extradition request and unanimously decided to reject it . The division based its decision on the risk run by the applicant of suffering ill - treatment on account of his political opinions , should he be extradited . It further noted that the nature of the offences for which extradition had been requested had only been described vaguely and abstractly in the request submitted by the NORP authorities .","...","On DATE the public prosecutor appealed to ORG against the decision of the indictment division of ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the impugned decision .","ORG The applicant had meanwhile been actively seeking to secure a final decision . He had written to ORG and DATE , and to the Minister for Public Order on DATE , DATE and DATE .","Furthermore , it emerged from correspondence among a number of different authorities ( between police authorities and between the police and other authorities ) on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , that the applicant \u2019s asylum application was still pending before the Minister for Public Order .","..."],"violated_articles":["13","3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141939","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF WARE v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In a trespass dispute , on DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG .","After a second - instance decision by ORG and a remittal , the final judgment in the case was adopted by ORG and served on the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148229","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KHOMULLO v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Speediness of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","NORP In DATE ORG in GPE instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of fraud . The applicant had been working as a police officer and was suspected of having obtained by fraud a number of sick leave certificates justifying his absence from work .","On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE .","On DATE he was placed on the list of wanted persons by ORG of the Interior .","On DATE ORG of PERSON ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest . On DATE an international arrest warrant was issued .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by the NORP police with a view to his extradition .","On DATE the ORG of Odessa ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , following an application from the prosecution authorities , remanded the applicant in custody for DATE pending the extradition procedure .","On DATE or DATE ( both dates are mentioned in different case - file materials ) ORG of Ukraine ( \u201c the GPOU \u201d ) received a request from its NORP counterpart about the applicant \u2019s extradition and the extension of his detention pending extradition . As noted in that request , there were criminal proceedings against the applicant pending in GPE on suspicion of fraud . The extradition request did not contain any further details in that regard , but mentioned that \u201c a detailed description of the charges against [ the applicant was ] in the enclosed documents \u201d . It is not known what enclosures were attached to the request in question .","It appears from the judicial ruling of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that on CARDINAL DATE the ORG received another request from the NORP prosecution authorities about the applicant \u2019s detention and extradition . There is no mention of that request in any other documents in the case file .","On DATE ORG applied to ORG for an extension of the applicant \u2019s detention \u201c pending resolution of the issue of his extradition \u201d .","On DATE ORG allowed that application .","On DATE the applicant appealed . He complained that he had not been familiarised with the charges against him , that no time - limit for his detention had been set , and that ORG had announced the contested decision following a hearing at which he had not been present .","On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal examined the applicant \u2019s appeal in a hearing at which CARDINAL prosecutors were present , but in the absence of the applicant . The prosecutors submitted that the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE was all but settled and would take place shortly thereafter . Having regard to those arguments and noting that an international arrest warrant had been issued in respect of the applicant , the appellate court upheld the lower court \u2019s decision extending his detention pending extradition .","On DATE ORG applied to ORG of Odessa ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for an extension of the applicant \u2019s \u201c extradition detention \u201d pursuant to the legislative amendments to LAW in force since DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG allowed the above application and ordered that the applicant \u2019s extradition detention be extended \u201c pending resolution of the question of his extradition and the actual transfer \u201d .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the above ruling . He submitted that the time - limits for his detention remained unspecified , that he was still unaware of the charges against him , that his detention had been unreasonably long and that the court had not taken into account the fact that he had CARDINAL young children .","On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal allowed his appeal in part . It quashed the aforementioned ruling on the grounds that the respective provision of LAW did not provide for any extension of extradition detention . The case was remitted to the first - instance court for a fresh examination .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s request for a lawyer to be appointed for him . As a result , the hearing was adjourned till DATE .","On DATE ORG lodged a new application with the court for the applicant \u2019s extradition detention pursuant to the amendments to LAW . This time it concerned the imposition of such detention , rather than its extension .","On DATE ORG , following a hearing in the presence of the lawyer appointed for the applicant , allowed the prosecutor \u2019s application . The ruling mentioned that the NORP prosecution authorities had lodged a request for the applicant \u2019s extradition on CARDINAL DATE , without any reference to the similar request of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The court relied on the aforementioned ORG amendments effective since DATE and stated that the extradition inquiry case - file materials complied with the applicable legislation . Lastly , the court noted that it had not established any impediments to the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that his detention was unlawful and asked to be released . The case file does not contain a copy of this complaint .","On DATE ORG of GPE sent an updated extradition request in respect of the applicant , of which there is no copy on the case file . It appears that , in addition to the initial fraud charge , CARDINAL other counts of fraud were imputed to the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the ORG decided to extradite the applicant to GPE in connection with CARDINAL episodes of fraud but rejected the extradition request in respect of CARDINAL such episode . That decision was explained by the fact that NORP criminal law normally does not prescribe imprisonment as a penalty for fraud . However , where fraud has been committed repeatedly , it can be punished by imprisonment . In the applicant \u2019s case there were CARDINAL \u201c repeated fraud \u201d episodes . The ORG decision referred to CARDINAL extradition requests relating to the applicant : CARDINAL of DATE regarding CARDINAL episode of fraud and CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE regarding CARDINAL further episodes ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that his detention was unlawful and had been unreasonably long . He argued that the NORP authorities had not been diligent in dealing with the extradition requests in his respect , in contravention of LAW ( f ) of the LAW . The applicant further referred to LAW and submitted that his earlier complaint , of QUANTITY DATE , had never been examined .","On DATE the applicant lodged another complaint with ORG concerning the alleged unlawfulness of his detention and asked to be released .","On DATE ORG applied to ORG for an extension of the applicant \u2019s extradition detention . It referred to the aforementioned decision of DATE and noted that the issue of the applicant \u2019s actual transfer back to GPE was being decided .","On DATE the court granted that application in a hearing attended by the applicant . It noted that the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE had not been challenged and had come into force . Furthermore , pursuant to the respective prosecutor \u2019s instructions , the applicant was to be transferred to GPE by DATE . As reported in TIME of the hearing , the judge read out the applicant \u2019s complaints of QUANTITY DATE and of DATE , and the applicant reaffirmed them . The court ruling did not , however , mention those complaints .","On DATE the applicant challenged the above ruling on appeal . He noted that , while the Code of Criminal Procedure provided for extradition detention of DATE , it did not establish any time - limits for submitting and examining the associated extradition request . Accordingly , the applicant argued that the NORP authorities should abide by the DATE Minsk Convention , which provided for a DATE time - limit for submitting an extradition request once the person was detained and a maximum DATE extension of that time - limit for supplementing the extradition request if need be ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He emphasised that in his case a duly completed extradition request had not been submitted until DATE , whereas he had been in detention since DATE . The applicant therefore argued that he should be released immediately . Lastly , he submitted that the charges against him were ridiculous and that it was in his own interests to go to GPE so that his trial could be completed without delay .","On DATE the appellate court , while allowing the applicant \u2019s appeal in part , modified the first - instance court \u2019s ruling as follows : instead of the extension of the applicant \u2019s extradition detention , which was not provided for in the legislation , his continued detention was found to be lawful , since its maximum time - limit of DATE had not been exceeded and there were no grounds for the applicant \u2019s release .","On DATE the applicant was extradited to GPE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171209","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"DEMIR v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , who are brothers , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the Court by Ms F. Sa\u011flam , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The first applicant , PERSON , joined the army on DATE to perform his compulsory military service in GPE . According to the information in the case file , the medical examination conducted prior to his conscription found no medical conditions precluding his admission to military service .","On DATE , while he was still performing his military service , the first applicant was taken to ORG complaining of coughing , bloody phlegm and weight loss . Following certain medical tests , he was diagnosed with a mild infection and was prescribed a course of antibiotics and cough medicine . He was also given DATE of bed rest and was asked to attend a check - up at the end of that period .","When his condition deteriorated on DATE , the first applicant was hospitalised at FAC , where he was diagnosed with meningeal tuberculosis . He received inpatient treatment at the hospital until DATE . Following his discharge from hospital , he had physiotherapy at ORG in GPE and was subsequently given sick leave .","DATE the first applicant was readmitted to PERSON ORG for follow - up treatment .","NORP The neurological report issued by PERSON ORG on DATE found that the first applicant was exhibiting articulation problems resulting from dysarthria , and that he was suffering from dystonia . According to that report , he had also lost the ability to walk .","On DATE ORG of PERSON ORG declared the first applicant unfit to continue his military service , owing to his major loss of speech and body function ( PERCENT ) as a result of meningeal tuberculosis .","On DATE the second applicant , acting on behalf of his brother as his guardian , brought compensation proceedings against ORG before ORG , claiming pecuniary and non - pecuniary compensation for the damage his brother had suffered as a result of the disease he had contracted during his military service .","On DATE ORG appointed a panel of CARDINAL neurology experts to determine : the cause of the first applicant \u2019s disease ; whether it might have been caused by performance of his military service ; and whether there had been any delay or other shortcoming in the medical treatment offered to him .","In their report dated DATE the experts confirmed that the first applicant had been declared unfit for military service not because of a pre - existing medical condition , but as a result of meningeal tuberculosis . They further noted that there was no evidence that he had been infected with tuberculosis bacteria prior to his conscription . They also found , however , that since he had not performed his military service in an area where tuberculosis was prevalent , it could not be said that his disease was \u201c service - related \u201d . As for the quality of the treatment offered to the first applicant , the experts stated that they did not have enough information on the tests he had undergone and the initial treatment he had received at ORG , which prevented them from commenting on the adequacy of the medical assistance provided there . The detailed medical records pertaining to the treatment subsequently offered at ORG suggested , however , that he had received comprehensive assistance at that hospital , and that there was no evidence of negligence or other shortcomings in his medical care .","Upon receiving the relevant medical files from ORG , on DATE the experts issued an additional report regarding the quality of the treatment provided at ORG . According to the experts , the results of the initial medical tests carried out at that hospital had not pointed to tuberculosis , as the disease had been in its early stages at the time . There was therefore no evidence to suggest an unjustified delay in the diagnosis and treatment of the first applicant \u2019s tuberculosis at ORG .","On DATE , on behalf of his brother , the second applicant responded to the findings of the expert reports submitted to ORG . The second applicant stated at the outset that , despite the expert report \u2019s focus on the quality of the medical treatment offered to his brother , he and his brother had no claims regarding the treatment provided following the diagnosis . The basis of the compensation proceedings they had brought before ORG was rather that the first applicant , who had been healthy at the time of his admission to military service , had contracted the disease while under the control and protection of the ORG , a fact which was also supported by the findings of the experts .","On DATE ORG requested information from ORG as to whether any other soldiers who had performed their military service with the first applicant had been diagnosed with meningeal tuberculosis . On DATE the commander in charge of the brigade informed the court that no other cases of meningeal tuberculosis had been registered at the material time .","By a judgment dated DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s claims . Relying mainly on the expert reports in the case file , the administrative court held that there was no evidence to prove a causal link between the first applicant \u2019s illness and the military service . It further found that he had been provided with the necessary medical assistance without delay or fault , which exonerated the administration from any liability in respect of the first applicant .","On DATE the second applicant objected to ORG judgment , arguing that the court should have upheld the claim for damages on the basis of the principle of strict liability ( kusursuz sorumluluk ) , bearing in mind that the first applicant had been diagnosed with meningeal tuberculosis while under the control and protection of the ORG . The second applicant did not contest the court \u2019s finding as to the quality of the treatment offered to his brother .","On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s objection .","On DATE the first applicant lodged claims for disability benefits with ORG , the pension fund of the armed forces , and the Retired Civil Servants\u2019 Fund ( ORG ) .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG and the Retired ORG rejected the first applicant \u2019s claims , holding that he did not qualify for such benefits under the relevant legislation .","In the meantime , on DATE the first applicant had applied to ORG for some financial assistance . The fund had been set up to , inter alia , provide support for wounded and disabled soldiers . According to the information in the case file , ORG did not respond to the first applicant \u2019s application .","At the material time , the relevant provisions of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE \u2013 T\u00fcrk Silahl\u0131 Kuvvetleri Sa\u011fl\u0131k Yetene\u011fi NORP ) provided :","Section CARDINAL","\u201c The initial medical examination of [ persons to be conscripted ] shall be carried out at the time of their final draft ... by CARDINAL physicians ( one may be a civilian ) in the following manner :","CARDINAL ) Their psychological and physical condition and internal organs are reviewed carefully , their heart rates and blood pressures are checked ... The size of their chest cavities during inhalation and exhalation , and any illnesses or disorders , are recorded .","CARDINAL ) NORP Those whose [ medical condition ] remains inconclusive after the medical examination , and those who require observation , are referred to the nearest military hospital . \u201d","Section CARDINAL","\u201c The medical examination of those whose illnesses and disorders went undetected during the initial medical examination , and those who fell ill after their initial medical examination but before their draft ... shall be carried out at military hospitals or in units or institutions that have CARDINAL physicians . \u201d","Section CARDINAL","\u201c ... Military physicians who are in charge of the final draft shall inform the nearest government physician of any contagious diseases they may encounter . \u201d","In accordance with the same regulation , in the event of an illness or disability being discovered during the medical examinations , necessary measures were taken to arrange for the postponement of military service or for sick leave . The illnesses and disabilities in question were set out in a list annexed to the regulation ( Hastal\u0131k ve PERSON ) , which included various types of tuberculosis .","In accordance with section CARDINAL of ORG Law no . CARDINAL of DATE \u2013 ORG ) , in force at the material time , the physical and psychological condition of soldiers had to be surveyed and protected by the unit commanders and military physicians . Moreover , in accordance with LAW of the same PERSON , privates and non - commissioned officers were to undergo general medical examinations at the time of their admission to and discharge from the military . These examinations were to be repeated in DATE , and then DATE for the remainder of service . The commanders would monitor and check the general medical condition of the soldiers according to the results of these examinations .","Further details regarding the general system for protecting the physical and psychological integrity of conscripts may be found in the judgment of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174060","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF URUKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a former head of the civil law department in ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE baby PERSON was born . DATE her mother , PERSON , sued the applicant to establish his paternity and to receive alimony . A genetic study confirmed the applicant \u2019s paternity in respect of ORG ; however , a medical study concluded that the pregnancy \u201c could not have occurred naturally \u201d .","On DATE ORG in Cheboksary held a hearing with the participation of the applicant and PERSON and rejected her claim . On DATE ORG of the Chuvashiya Republic quashed ORG judgment and remitted the matter for a new examination .","On DATE the ORG gave judgment in favour of H. It was quashed on appeal by ORG on DATE in particular on the ground that the parties had not been informed of the date and place of the hearing in which genetics experts had been cross - examined .","In DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of large - scale bribery . He was detained in remand prison GPE in GPE .","On DATE ORG sent a letter of request ( \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043f\u043e\u0440\u0443\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) to the director of the remand prison , asking him to clarify the applicant \u2019s position on the merits of the dispute and to ascertain whether he agreed to having the matter examined in his absence or wished to appoint a representative . On DATE the director interviewed the applicant who declared his wish to take part in the proceedings and to defend himself in person . The applicant also claimed that he possessed new evidence he wished to submit to the court . On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to be present at the hearings on the ground that the Code of Civil Procedure made no provision for bringing detainees to courts .","On DATE ORG held the hearing in the presence of PERSON , as well as PERSON and PERSON who represented the applicant . The judgment of the same date was given in PERSON favour . It mentioned that the applicant was held in a remand prison , that he did not recognise the paternity and that he had \u201c previously given similar testimony before the court \u201d .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . It held that the applicant \u2019s absence from the hearing did not entail a violation of his rights because he had been represented and had previously given testimony to the court .","On DATE the applicant was released on bail .","On DATE the ORG decided that he had breached the terms of the bail by exercising pressure on witnesses , issued a detention order and put the applicant \u2019s name on the list of fugitives from justice . The applicant was not present at the hearing and could not be immediately re - arrested .","At TIME on DATE CARDINAL police officers showed up at the entrance of the applicant \u2019s residence . They had been allegedly tipped off that the applicant was there . As it happened , the applicant received in - patient treatment at the infections centre but his daughter was inside .","She did not open the door to the police immediately and told them that her father was in a hospital . According to her , the police began banging at the door and threatened her to break in . She was thus compelled to open the door . The police entered the flat , inspected all the rooms , opened closets and boxes , lifted the sofa and bed , and then left .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in custody .","On DATE ORG found that the detention order of DATE was not justified . In its view , ORG had wrongly attached decisive weight to the statements by witnesses who had not mentioned any actual threats emanating from the applicant . ORG quashed the detention order and released the applicant .","The applicant complained to a prosecutor about the unlawful actions of the police on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings , finding that no criminal offence had been committed .","NORP The applicant then sued ORG for compensation in respect of an unauthorised search of his home carried out by the police . ORG heard a number of witnesses . The applicant \u2019s daughter insisted that the police ORG presence in the flat had lasted TIME as TIME . The officer PERSON testified that he had entered the flat with the consent of the applicant \u2019s daughter and that he had stayed inside no longer than TIME . He had not searched the flat or opened closets . S. , a relative who was present at the scene , stated that the police had entered the flat with the daughter \u2019s consent , that they had \u201c moved beds , looked under the carpets , displaced closets and paintings , gone into the basement \u201d .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim . Citing LAW of LAW and section CARDINAL of FAC , ORG held that the officers had acted lawfully , on the basis of the detention order of DATE , and that they had the right to enter the applicant \u2019s flat because they had information that he might have been at home . Since the NORP law only established the right to compensation in case of unlawful actions , the applicant \u2019s claim was dismissed .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment on appeal .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of forcing students to pay bribes into the account of his law firm in exchange of passing grades and gave him a custodial sentence . On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal .","The applicant sued ORG for compensation in connection of his unlawful detention from DATE .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected his claim , noting that the applicant had been ultimately convicted in the criminal proceedings and given a custodial sentence and that ORG had quashed the detention order as being \u201c unjustified \u201d rather than \u201c unlawful \u201d . In the latter case , no compensation was payable .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155483","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ZARUBICA AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants are Mr PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) , ORG ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) and ORG ( \u201c the third applicant \u201d ) .","The first applicant is a medical doctor and a NORP national who was born in DATE , and is presently serving a prison sentence in the ORG . The second and third applicants are limited liability companies based in GPE . They were both co - owned by the first applicant .","The applicants are represented before the ORG by Mr M. Zindovi\u0107 , Mr \u017d. Lazovi\u0107 , PERSON and PERSON , all lawyers practising in GPE . ORG ( the Government \u201d ) were initially represented by their former Agent , Mr PERSON , and subsequently by their current Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the cases , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the first applicant was arrested on charges primarily related to the production and trafficking of narcotics ( amphetamines ) .","On DATE the first applicant and numerous others were indicted by ORG for various drugs - related felonies alleged to have been committed in an organised crime context . The first applicant was described as being the head of this criminal enterprise .","The second and third applicants were never indicted , as the domestic legislation at that time did not provide for the possibility to bring criminal charges against legal entities . They were , however , mentioned as vehicles used by the first applicant and others to carry out their criminal endeavours , as well as companies in which criminal proceeds had been invested .","On DATE , the GPE ORG : ( a ) found the first applicant guilty and sentenced him to a total of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for the narcotics - related charges , as well as the charge of tax evasion ; ( b ) ordered the confiscation of all substances containing amphetamine found in the first applicant \u2019s possession ; ( c ) ordered the confiscation of the CARDINAL United Sates Dollars ( \u201c NORP \u201d ) and CARDINAL ( \u201c EUR \u201d ) found in the first applicant \u2019s flat ; ( d ) ordered the confiscation of the MONEY ( \u201c CHF \u201d ) deposited in the first applicant \u2019s bank account in GPE ; ( e ) ordered the first applicant to pay , for the restitution of the \u201c remainder of his criminally gained assets \u201d , the sum of USD MONEY ; and ( f ) ordered the confiscation of a building owned by the second applicant , as well as the confiscation of all of the second and third applicants\u2019 production facilities , laboratory equipment and chemical substances found on their LOC .","On DATE ORG upheld the first applicant \u2019s conviction as regards the narcotics - related charges , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . ORG further quashed the first applicant \u2019s conviction regarding tax evasion , and excluded the second applicant \u2019s building from the confiscation ordered at first instance , noting that following the removal of the confiscated production facilities and illegal substances the building itself posed no danger to the public .","The applicants did not receive ORG decision DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicants filed an appeal on points of law ( zahtev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosna\u017ene presude ) .","On DATE ORG , sitting in a differently composed panel compared to the one which had considered the applicants\u2019 case on appeal , rejected the first applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as unfounded . As regards the second and third applicants\u2019 pleadings , they were rejected as inadmissible since an appeal on points of law could only be filed by the defendants and their counsel . On DATE the judgment was issued in writing .","On DATE ORG formally filed a request with the competent NORP authorities , relying on its judgment of DATE , seeking confiscation of the funds deposited on the first applicant \u2019s bank account in GPE .","On DATE ORG rejected this request as unfounded , stating , inter alia , that it could not conclude that the assets in question were indeed of a criminal origin . In particular , there was no evidence that the first applicant had made any deposits during the period when he was alleged to have committed the crimes in question . By DATE , this rejection became final .","On DATE the first applicant was informed by the NORP authorities that he could freely access and make use of his funds on the bank account in question ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167563","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KHARON KFT AND FREHA v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152726","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LYALYAKIN v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE Novgorod .","On DATE ORG of LOC of the town of GPE examined the applicant \u2019s medical condition . Having declared him fit , they conscripted him into the army . The applicant was given the rank of junior sergeant and sent to preparatory ORG no . CARDINAL , located in the town of PERSON in LOC .","DATE , on CARDINAL DATE , he was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL of the town of GPE of LOC .","The applicant submitted that personal relations among the servicemen of the unit were tense and violent . The applicant had panicked and decided to escape .","On DATE the applicant and junior sergeant PERSON ran away from the unit .","The command of the unit launched a search operation to find the fugitives .","On TIME CARDINAL DATE deputy commander major PERSON and captain PERSON located and apprehended the applicant and junior sergeant PERSON close to the nearby village of ORG .","According to the applicant , on their way back to the unit NORP and PERSON had threatened to execute or drown them . The threats had frightened the applicant to such an extent that he decided to escape again .","During a stopover the applicant made another attempt to escape . Shortly thereafter he was caught in a nearby swamp . The escorting officers stripped him of his clothes and put him in the cargo compartment of a military truck which brought both fugitives back to the unit .","On DATE the applicant and ORG were brought before battalion commander PERSON . , who lined up the battalion . The applicant and PERSON \u2012 allegedly stripped naked \u2012 were made to stand in front of the other servicemen . It does not appear that there were any female service personnel present on this occasion . The Government submitted that the applicant and PERSON had been wearing military briefs . The battalion commander publicly condemned and reprimanded them .","Thereafter the applicant was brought to the commander \u2019s office and was asked to prepare an explanatory note concerning the events of DATE .","The applicant stated that after he had drafted the explanatory note , the commander had ordered company commander lieutenant PERSON to load a machine gun with bullets , go outside and execute the applicant . The applicant was taken outside and placed up against a wall . Captain PERSON . aimed a machine gun at him . The applicant pleaded for mercy and promised \u201c to become the best sergeant in the unit \u201d , whereupon PERSON . brought him back into the commander \u2019s office . At this moment the applicant heard a machine gun being discharged and thought that PERSON had just been executed .","NORP Some time later the battalion commander ordered officer PERSON to dress the applicant in a military protection suit . The suit consisted of a mask , protective cloak , rubberized stockings and gloves and was unsuitable for continuous use in hot weather . The applicant \u2019s fellow servicemen then shaved his head and warrant officer PERSON painted a CARDINAL - pointed star on his head using brilliant green antiseptic . A fellow serviceman then delivered a few blows to the applicant \u2019s body and head with an army belt buckle . Then another soldier put a leash around his neck and walked him around the training ground . The applicant was also threatened with sexual violence if he ever decided to escape again .","According to the applicant , the following night after lights - out junior sergeant PERSON and private soldier PERSON had removed the leash from his neck , attached him to a pole in the centre of the tent which served as their sleeping quarters , and made him read aloud the sergeant \u2019s military manual , using a lighter and a pocket lamp for light . At TIME the applicant was further intimidated by PERSON , who told him that his friends in the town of PERSON would find and rape him when his military service was over .","The applicant stated that TIME he was again ordered to put on the military protection suit , the collar and the leash and escorted by junior sergeant PERSON . for breakfast dressed in this way . He was then taken to the battalion commander . The applicant had asked him for permission to take off the suit , the collar and the leash . The commander said he could do so as soon as he had washed the star off his head . For TIME the applicant washed his head in a river flowing nearby , using only his hands and the sand .","On DATE \u2012 surveillance of the applicant having been relaxed \u2012 he escaped and , this time , reached his family in the town of PERSON .","According to the applicant , after his escape , the battalion commander PERSON . had ordered his fellow servicemen to keep silent about the ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant complained of his ill - treatment to the Soldiers\u2019 ORG of ORG ( \u00ab PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442 \u0441\u043e\u043b\u0434\u0430\u0442\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0445 \u043c\u0430\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0439 PERSON ) .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG of ORG ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) about his ill - treatment in ORG . In his claim he provided an account of the alleged events , stating that his fellow servicemen ORG . , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . and ORG . could confirm the facts of his ill - treatment and \u201c hazing \u201d .","NORP ORG opened a preliminary inquiry into his allegations and held that the applicant should be transferred to another military unit pending the outcome of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG ordered an expert psychiatric examination of the applicant .","The expert examination of the applicant was conducted DATE in ORG No . CARDINAL of the GPE LOC .","On DATE ORG of ORG diagnosed the applicant with \u201c a personality disorder of the emotional unstable type , with variable amelioration , contracted during his military service \u201d and held that he was \u201c fit with restrictions \u201d for military service .","Owing to the above diagnosis , the applicant was prematurely discharged from the army .","ORG joined the inquiry proceedings into the applicant \u2019s complaints of CARDINAL DATE with the inquiry into similar complaints by junior sergeant PERSON dated DATE . The case was then sent for investigation to ORG of FAC ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) .","On DATE an investigator of ORG issued a refusal to open a criminal case . In this decision it referred to statements given by the alleged perpetrators , including the battalion commander PERSON . , deputy commanding officer major PERSON , captain PERSON , lieutenant PERSON , captain PERSON . , warrant officer PERSON and junior sergeant PERSON . , and to the statements of other servicemen who had been questioned concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations . The refusal reads :","\u201c In the course of the inquiry carried out into [ the applicant \u2019s ] request , the investigating authorities have established the following :","Junior sergeant [ ORG ] claimed that the complaints of CARDINAL DATE and DATE concerning ill - treatment were false . No acts of ill - treatment against him or [ the applicant ] had taken place either in the period under examination ( CARDINAL and DATE ) or during their military service in the [ Military Unit ] . He did not see any injuries such as scratches , bruises or haematomas on [ the applicant \u2019s ] body . According to junior sergeant [ ORG ] , [ the applicant ] gave the false statements so as to avoid criminal liability for the unauthorised leave from the [ Military Unit ] on DATE . In private conversations [ the applicant ] had often remarked that he did not want to serve in the army . The simulation of psychiatric problems and the false statements about illtreatment are in the junior sergeant \u2019s opinion no more than a means of avoiding military service . During questioning the latter also stated that [ the applicant ] had no psychiatric problems and that during his military service he had not shown signs of any unusual behaviour .","Junior sergeant [ ORG ] also stated that on DATE during his stay in hospital he had been contacted by [ CARDINAL ] representatives of a NORP NGO , \u201c ORG \u201d ( \u201c FAC \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e \u201d ) . They showed him [ the applicant \u2019s ] statements of DATE and promised to assist with his transfer to a military unit in his place of residence in exchange for giving similar statements capable of confirming [ the applicant \u2019s ] allegations . As he very much wanted to perform his military service close to his home in GPE , he accepted their offer . Later he realised that it was a mistake , because he had no intention of slandering anybody . He explained that all the facts mentioned in his [ complaints ] of DATE were false . Neither he nor [ the applicant ] had been ill - treated by their fellow servicemen . To confirm his statements he presented the business card which the [ NGO representative ] had given to him ...","The battalion commander [ ORG . ] stated that the allegations of ill - treatment mentioned in the statements of DATE and DATE were false . He further stated that he had not seen any scratches , bruises or haematomas on [ the applicant ] or junior sergeant [ ORG ] . Moreover , they had not lodged any complaints about the illtreatment allegedly committed by the servicemen of the [ Military Unit ] . According to the battalion commander [ PERSON . ] , [ the applicant ] had made up the allegations either to avoid criminal liability for the unauthorised leave from the [ Military Unit ] on DATE , or to avoid military service by way of falsification of his mental problems . He noted that [ the applicant ] was of sound mind and that he had never shown signs of any unusual behaviour . The battalion commander [ PERSON . ] speculated that [ the applicant ] simply did not want to continue his military service because it was so hard . According to [ PERSON . ] , only negative references could be provided on account of [ the applicant \u2019s ] personality . For instance , [ the applicant ] had left his place of service several times without the authorisation of his superiors . Although he followed the orders of his commander , he required constant supervision . He was a sly and dodgy person , who did not understand the meaning of his military duty . During private conversations [ the applicant ] expressed his intention of leaving the [ Military Unit ] .","Deputy commanding officer major [ A. ] , captain [ K. ] , lieutenant [ S. ] , captain [ PERSON . ] and warrant officer [ PERSON ] gave statements which were essentially similar to the statements of the battalion commander [ PERSON . ] .","During the inquiry the investigative authorities also questioned [ PERSON . , a witness on the applicant \u2019s behalf ] . He stated that [ the applicant \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s ] statements of DATE and CARDINAL DATE had been false and that [ the applicant ] had given them to avoid criminal liability for the unauthorised leave from the [ Military Unit ] on DATE . He also stated that between CARDINAL DATE and DATE he had served with [ the applicant ] in the military unit of ORG LOC . During this period [ the applicant ] \u2012 without permission \u2012 left the military unit for DATE . Later , he returned of his own volition and explained that he did not like serving in the army . According to [ the applicant \u2019s ] confession , he returned only because of his father , with whom he had had an argument [ on account of his refusal to serve in the army ] . [ The applicant ] was a smart , sly and a dodgy person who was able to avoid military service by making up a good and credible excuse . [ PERSON . ] stated that [ the applicant ] was a mentally sound person who did not show signs of unusual behaviour . [ The applicant ] showed a negative attitude towards his military duty and was an irresponsible person who did not like to work . He did not carry out his commander \u2019s orders promptly and always needed to be under supervision . In private conversations he mentioned that he wanted to leave military service and go to the town of GPE to earn some money .","The [ applicant \u2019s and junior sergeant \u2019s ORG \u2019s ] fellow servicemen [ PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , ORG . , PERSON . , and junior sergeant PERSON . ] , who were separately interviewed by the investigator , gave similar statements .","From the above it is apparent that [ the allegations of the applicant and junior sergeant PERSON ] ... remained unconfirmed ... Accordingly , the request to institute criminal proceedings should be dismissed owing to the absence of the alleged criminal offences ... \u201d","With assistance from the NGO \u201c Mothers\u2019 Right \u201d , the applicant challenged the decision of DATE before a higher authority . The appeal claim was supported by statements made by his fellow serviceman PERSON . , who in written submissions dated DATE confirmed the applicant \u2019s allegations and stated that all the soldiers of ORG had been intimidated by the battalion commander PERSON . , who forbade them to give true statements , and by warrant officer PERSON , who threatened the witnesses concerned .","On DATE ORG of the North - Caucasus Military Circuit quashed the decision of DATE . Without citing specific shortcomings , it stated that the investigator \u2019s conclusions had been baseless . In its relevant part this decision reads :","\u201c On DATE [ the lawyer of ORG Right ] appealed against the decision of DATE .","Examination of the appeal statements has shown that the [ investigator from ORG ] did not perform a thorough inquiry . Accordingly , his decision must be quashed as ill - founded .","...","From the case file it is apparent that the circumstances ... surrounding [ the apprehension of the applicant ] and junior sergeant [ ORG ] by deputy commanding officer major [ A. ] and captain [ PERSON ] after their escape from [ ORG ] and the subsequent ill - treatment [ of the fugitives ] were not sufficiently established . Consequently , the reasoning underlying the decision of DATE is deficient .","From the above it is apparent that [ the investigator \u2019s ] conclusion that the [ applicant \u2019s ] complaints of ill - treatment in respect of him and [ ORG ] lacked a sound basis and was premature . Accordingly , the decision of DATE is groundless . \u201d","In the context of the second round of the inquiry , the investigator conducted additional interviews with junior sergeant PERSON , the battalion commander PERSON . , commanding officer major PERSON and captain PERSON regarding the applicant \u2019s apprehension , undressing , and delivery to ORG . Their additional statements were summarised as follows :","\u201c During the additional interview with junior sergeant [ ORG ] , the latter explained that on DATE following his unauthorised leave on DATE , commanding officer major [ A. ] and captain [ PERSON ] had apprehended them near ORG , put them in a NORP truck , and brought them back to the [ Military Unit ] . On their way to [ ORG ] [ the applicant ] asked [ ORG ] to escape with him , but the latter refused . [ The applicant ] attempted to escape on his own , but was arrested by the escorting officers . After the unsuccessful attempt to run away , commanding officer major [ A. ] ordered them to take all their clothes off . They remained only in military briefs . This order was given to prevent their attempts to abscond . These events took place during DATE , and so he felt comfortable wearing only military briefs , and his human dignity was not humiliated . His statements of DATE had been drafted following a sample prepared by [ the applicant ] and contained the false allegation that they had been standing completely naked ...","During his additional interview , battalion commander [ ORG . ] stated that on DATE CARDINAL TIME he had lined up his battalion . At this time the escorting officer brought [ the applicant ] and junior sergeant [ V. ] to him . On DATE they had left the [ Military Unit ] without permission and were later arrested near the village of ORG . The escorting officers stated that after the arrest [ the applicant ] and [ junior sergeant PERSON ] had been undressed and left with only their military briefs on . This was done to prevent them from fleeing . After this , the battalion commander [ PERSON . ] had ordered the [ applicant ] and junior sergeant [ ORG ] to put their clothes back on . He talked to the fugitives and reprimanded them .","During the additional interview with commanding officer major [ A. ] , the latter confirmed that [ the applicant ] and [ ORG ] had been brought onto the site of [ ORG ] wearing only military briefs . After their arrival they had been made to stand in front of their battalion formation . The commanding officer had ordered them to put their clothes back on and had talked to them . [ The applicant ] and [ ORG ] were reprimanded .","When questioned further , captain [ PERSON ] noted that on DATE , after the arrest of [ the applicant ] and [ ORG ] near the village of ORG , [ the applicant ] had attempted to abscond . After this [ the applicant ] had been caught by the escorting officers , who ordered him to adopt \u201c position no.CARDINAL \u201d , i.e. to take all of his clothes off and remain only in military briefs ... \u201d","On DATE , having regard to the above statements and evidence previously obtained , the investigator refused to open a criminal case to examine the applicant \u2019s allegations . He confirmed his previous findings about the lack of criminally punishable offences . As regards the episodes of the applicant \u2019s undressing , the investigator reasoned as follows :","\u201c There is no indication of any criminal offence under LAW of GPE [ \u201c Abuse of power \u201d ] in the actions of [ PERSON ] , [ A. ] and [ PERSON . ] ... , because the order given to [ the applicant ] and junior sergeant [ PERSON ] to remove their clothes was issued solely with a view to preventing their escape . The commander of the battalion had not humiliated [ the applicant ] when making him stand wearing only military briefs in front of the battalion formation because later the commander had ordered him to put all his clothes back on . [ The applicant ] was standing CARDINAL - naked in front of the battalion formation for a short period of time . The actions of captain [ PERSON ] and commanding officer [ A. ] constituted a minor offence , which entailed no social danger . Accordingly , [ the applicant \u2019s ] request to institute criminal proceedings against them should be dismissed . The circumstances of the present case do not indicate any appearance of a criminal offence [ within the meaning of LAW of GPE ] . \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE in court .","On DATE the impugned decision was quashed by ORG of FAC , which held the following :","\u201c The examination of the impugned decision shows that [ the investigator ] performed the inquiry in a perfunctory manner . His decision was premature and ill - founded .","In particular , he did not interview all of the potential witnesses . It is accordingly impossible to render a well - founded decision concerning the impugned ... events .","Taking into account the above I conclude that the refusal to institute criminal proceedings issued by [ the investigator ] on DATE must be quashed as illfounded . \u201d","On DATE ORG referred to the decision of DATE , having terminated court proceedings in connection with the applicant \u2019s complaint .","The case was returned for additional investigation .","DATE and DATE the investigator questioned CARDINAL servicemen from ORG . They did not confirm any of the applicant \u2019s allegations .","On DATE on the basis of their statements and the previously collected pieces of evidence , the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings . The investigator did not provide the content of the newly added statements in his decision of DATE and it therefore contained no additional information on the matter but essentially read the same as the previous one .","According to the applicant , he received a copy of this decision on CARDINAL DATE and then challenged it in court .","On DATE the impugned decision was quashed by a higher investigative authority , which stated that","\u201c Although the inquiry was performed in a comprehensive manner , the investigator did not take into account the public reaction [ in response to this case ] . He should have ordered the military counter - intelligence services to perform an inquiry into the allegations [ of the applicant and ORG ] . [ Accordingly ] , the impugned decision is premature and ill - founded .","Taking into account the above , I conclude that the refusal to institute criminal proceedings issued on DATE must be quashed as ill - founded . \u201d","The court proceedings were terminated and the case was sent back to the investigating authorities for further investigation of the matter .","During this round of the investigation the investigator performed an \u201c additional inquiry \u201d which \u201c confirmed the statements made by [ the applicant \u2019s ] fellow servicemen \u201d .","On DATE the investigating authorities again refused to open a criminal case in respect of the events . In addition to the reasoning which they had used before , they relied on the results of the \u201c additional inquiry \u201d which had established \u201c no indication of criminal events \u201d .","On DATE , after his military service was over , junior sergeant ORG contacted ORG and stated that the initial statements he had made concerning his ill - treatment and the illtreatment of the applicant had been truthful . He explained that his later statements had been made under pressure from the command of ORG . In his statements he mentioned that after the escape of DATE he had been beaten by the officers and had been kept in hospital for treatment in this connection . These statements were sent to the investigating authorities .","On DATE the higher investigating authorities quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE , providing a detailed list of the established defects of the inquiry . In its relevant part the decision read :","\u201c Despite the recommendations of [ the higher authority ] ordering the military counter - intelligence services to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of the [ applicant ] and [ ORG ] , the decision of CARDINAL DATE was issued in the absence of such an inquiry .","According to the claim which was brought [ by the applicant ] under LAW ORG , [ Gal . ] and [ ORG ] had directly witnessed the alleged ill - treatment . However , the competent authorities did not conduct a fresh interview with [ ORG ] and never interrogated [ Gal . ] .","The inquiry at issue was not comprehensive since the investigating authorities did not investigate [ ORG \u2019s ] alleged ill - treatment ... of DATE ...","In the circumstances of the present case it is impossible to issue a lawful decision with proper reasoning without taking additional investigative steps , including the conduct of an inquiry carried out by the military intelligence services and the questioning of [ Gal . ] , [ ORG ] and doctors attached to the military units . The investigating authorities must also assess the allegations which were made by [ ORG ] , and [ the applicant ] in their statements of DATE and DATE respectively . The former servicemen of the [ Military Unit ] should be re - interviewed too , if necessary . \u201d","The case was remitted to the investigator for an additional investigation .","In the context of this round , the competent authorities studied the evidential material from an inquiry which had been opened into ORG . \u2019s allegations that officers who were pointed out by the applicant had illtreated and \u201c hazed \u201d him and other serviceman of ORG on several occasions . This inquiry resulted in a decision dated DATE not to open a criminal case .","It does not seem that the investigative authorities questioned ORG . or complied with any of the recommendations set out in the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","In their decision of CARDINAL DATE not to open a criminal case , they repeated their previous arguments , adding that the allegations made by ORG . were refuted by the results of the investigation of DATE .","The parties did not provide any documents concerning subsequent developments . From the Government \u2019s submissions of CARDINAL DATE it is apparent that on DATE the higher investigating authorities again quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for additional investigation , noting that the investigator had again failed to question NORP . , to conduct an additional interview with junior sergeant PERSON , to perform an inquiry into ORG \u2019s medical treatment of DATE and to carry out other investigative actions .","The case file contains no information concerning the further development of the investigation ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166689","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF JOHANSEN v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE .","On DATE the GPE am ORG issued a penal order against the applicant . Having regard to the written submissions the applicant had made on the charges to the prosecution , the court found the applicant guilty of withholding and embezzlement of employee salaries and sentenced her to a fine of CARDINAL DATE rates of ORG CARDINAL .","According to the record of service , a form containing several options as to the way in which court mail was served , which was issued by a courier and returned to ORG , the courier had attempted to hand over the penal order to the applicant at her residence on DATE at CARDINAL p.m. As this had not been possible , the courier had served the penal order on the applicant by placing it in the mailbox appurtenant to her residence ( LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant filed an objection against the penal order with the GPE am ORG and applied for the reinstatement of the proceedings . She argued that her objection was not time - barred as the penal order had not been served on her on DATE . She had only learnt about the existence of a penal order issued against her on DATE when she had found in her mailbox a bill of the court cashier requesting her to pay the fine imposed in the penal order . On calling the court cashier , she had been informed of the order \u2019s alleged service on DATE .","The applicant claimed that she was sure that no penal order had been served on her on DATE . She stated that her counsel , PERSON PERSON , and her husband had been at a court hearing at ORG on DATE and had therefore come to visit her at her house on DATE . In the afternoon she had bade farewell to her counsel . When accompanying him to the front gate , she had checked her mailbox for her DATE mail in his presence . She had found neither a penal order nor a notice that a penal order had been deposited in another place .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel supplemented the applicant \u2019s submissions . He claimed that he , the applicant , the applicant \u2019s mother who was living in the same house as the applicant and the applicant \u2019s husband who lived in GPE had all been at the applicant \u2019s house at the time the penal order had allegedly been served . Counsel and the applicant had returned to the applicant \u2019s residence at TIME after having attended a hearing at FAC . The applicant \u2019s husband had arrived shortly before them and had been waiting for them , together with the applicant \u2019s mother .","The applicant \u2019s counsel explained that no one had rung the doorbell to hand over the penal order while they had been at the applicant \u2019s residence . They would have noticed the doorbell ringing , as the applicant had dogs , which were outside and would have barked . At TIME they had all left the house . At that moment the applicant had taken the mail out of her mailbox . She had immediately checked the contents . There had been no official letter from a court . Such a letter would have stood out and would therefore have been noticed by the persons present , as official court letters came in bright yellow envelopes . The applicant \u2019s husband , counsel and the common daughter of counsel and the applicant had then left .","NORP The applicant \u2019s counsel further submitted that the private postal service company J. , which had been in charge of the delivery of official court mail for the GPE am ORG , was known for its unreliability . In DATE , hence shortly after the alleged delivery , the company had had to register as insolvent .","The applicant \u2019s counsel added to his submissions the affirmations in lieu of an oath of the applicant \u2019s mother , the applicant \u2019s husband and himself confirming his submissions . The applicant \u2019s mother stated , in particular , that she had paid special attention when her daughter took the mail out of the mailbox as , owing to the fact that they lived in the same house , part of her mail was sometimes put into her daughter \u2019s mailbox . The applicant \u2019s husband declared that when the applicant had taken out the mail he had paid special attention because he had formerly also lived at that address and sometimes mail addressed to him was still sent there .","On DATE the GPE am ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s objection against the penal order as inadmissible and dismissed her application for reinstatement of the proceedings . The court considered it proved that the penal order had been served on the applicant on DATE at TIME as was certified by the record of service . The applicant had therefore failed to file her objection , which was received by the court on DATE , within the DATE time - limit and the penal order had hence become final ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG was also of the view that there was no reason to grant the applicant reinstatement of the proceedings , as it was not apparent why the applicant had been prevented , through no fault of her own , from submitting her objection against the penal order within the DATE timelimit after the delivery of DATE .","The court found that the record of service had probative value for the fact that the penal order had been put into the applicant \u2019s mailbox by the courier on DATE ( LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In accordance with the settled case - law , this could only be disproved if facts were presented that convinced the court that there was no possibility that the facts certified by the record of service were correct . The applicant had not been able to furnish the court with such counter - evidence .","In its assessment of evidence , the GPE am ORG had regard to the written statement of the courier who had delivered the applicant \u2019s penal order , whom it had had interviewed by the police as a witness . The courier had explained that she had been registered with J. company to help her husband with the delivery of the court mail since DATE . When asked by the police to describe how she had delivered official court letters she had stated that official court letters had always been in yellow envelopes . She confirmed that she always rang the doorbells of the addressees . If they did not respond she would deposit a \u201c letter of notification \u201d ( GPE ) in the mailbox . She confirmed that the signature on the record of service concerning the applicant was hers , the date and the time had been filled in by her husband . She did not specially remember either the service on DATE or the applicant \u2019s house . When cautioned that she did not have to respond to questions if there was a risk that she might incriminate herself , she had confirmed that she was sure she had served the mail correctly or left a \u201c notice \u201d ( ORG ) .","ORG concluded that the courier had testified that she had always served the official court mail in accordance with the rules . Moreover , when asked by the police , the GPE am GPE branch of J. company had confirmed that no irregularities were known to the company with regard to the service of the court mail . The courier had had no incentive to embezzle the applicant \u2019s mail .","The court considered , in contrast , that the story described by the applicant to disprove the service of the penal order seemed fabricated . It took into consideration that the declarations in lieu of an oath all came from persons who were close to the applicant and who had a considerable interest in the outcome of the criminal proceedings against her . It further noted that the applicant had not mentioned all the persons who had allegedly been present when she checked her mail in her first submission of DATE . Moreover , it was not in accordance with general experience in life for someone to check his mail in front of all his family members . As it had been proved by the record of service that the penal order had been put into the applicant \u2019s mailbox , potential shortcomings by the courier \u2019s failure to ring the doorbell first \u2013 which according to the applicant would have resulted in her dogs barking , which they allegedly had not done at the relevant time \u2013 would , in any event , have been remedied by the actual service .","On DATE the applicant , represented by her lawyer , appealed against the decision of the GPE am ORG . She claimed , in particular , that according to articles in a national newspaper , the unreliability of the postal service company ORG had been revealed , inter alia , by ORG and ORG and that an GPE local newspaper had reported that court mail had been found in a refuse shed .","NORP The applicant further pointed out that the courier \u2019s witness statement contradicted the record of service . The courier had described the service of the penal order by way of putting a written notice into the addressee \u2019s mailbox , which constituted a substituted service in accordance with LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In contrast , the record of service certified service by way of placing the penal order itself in the applicant \u2019s mailbox , which constituted substituted service in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the GPE am ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of the GPE am ORG . The court , essentially endorsing the reasons given by ORG , confirmed ORG finding that the penal order had effectively been served on the applicant on DATE when placed in the applicant \u2019s mailbox ( LAW , read in conjunction with LAW , see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","ORG considered that the applicant had not furnished the court with sufficient counter - evidence . The court did not have to decide whether J. company had been reliable in all cases . In the case before it , the courier and her husband had had no reason to commit post embezzlement and forgery of documents . The affirmations in lieu of oaths could not prove that the penal order had not been in the mailbox on DATE . The affirming persons had not testified that they had constantly paid special attention to a possible ringing of the doorbell . Furthermore , it could not be ruled out that the applicant had been inattentive when going through the mail because of the presence of guests . It was likely that the penal order had been hidden among other mail and had probably inadvertently been thrown away or simply ignored .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG in which she claimed that her constitutional right to be heard and her right to a fair trial had been breached in the criminal proceedings against her .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint without giving reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-165371","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ARISTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165250","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RUBAN v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Heavier penalty;Retroactivity)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently serving a life sentence .","On DATE the GPE local prosecutor \u2019s office in the GPE region started an investigation into the murder of CARDINAL persons on DATE .","On DATE ORG started investigating the murder of A.","On DATE ORG of the GPE region started an investigation into hooliganism concerning NORP","On DATE the above CARDINAL investigations were joined . Several persons were suspected of committing the above crimes as a group , CARDINAL of them being the applicant .","On DATE ORG formally charged the applicant in absentia with the above crimes . He was also placed on the list of wanted persons . The same day the investigation in respect of the applicant was suspended until he was apprehended ; the criminal proceedings continued in respect of the other suspects .","On DATE , ORG convicted and sentenced PERSON , PERSON and PERSON for the above mentioned crimes .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE the applicant was apprehended by ORG in the GPE region , GPE .","On DATE the investigation was resumed after the applicant had been extradited to GPE . DATE the applicant was formally charged with participation in an organised criminal group together with PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and CARDINAL other persons , who had died in the intervening time . The applicant was accused of strangling PERSON , of killing CARDINAL persons together with PERSON in DATE and inflicting grievous bodily harm on NORP in a murder attempt , the latter crime in the context of the extortion of R \u2019s brother . All these crimes had been committed as a group .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigation was completed and on DATE the case was transferred to ORG .","On DATE ORG , acting as a first - instance court , found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and banditry and sentenced him to life imprisonment .","The applicant and his lawyer appealed , considering that the applicant \u2019s guilt had not been proved .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted an additional appeal claiming that ORG had to apply the most favourable wording of the relevant provisions of LAW , which was that DATE and DATE when the death penalty had already been abolished and life imprisonment had not yet been introduced . ORG in its decision noted that the applicant had been sentenced correctly ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["7-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179547","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ORLANDI AND OTHERS v. ITALY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants\u2019 details can be found in the LOC .","These CARDINAL applicants met in DATE , and in DATE they entered into a stable and committed relationship with each other .","On DATE PERSON moved to GPE , GPE , GPE for work purposes . DATE the CARDINAL applicants decided to get married and on DATE they married in GPE .","In the meantime , on DATE , PERSON employment came to an end and as a result she was no longer entitled to a residence permit . She therefore returned to GPE and since then has been cohabiting with PERSON .","On DATE their physical cohabitation was registered and since then they have been considered as a family unit for statistical purposes .","On DATE the CARDINAL applicants asked ORG in GPE to transmit to ORG in GPE the relevant documents for the purposes of registration of their marriage .","On DATE the relevant documents were transferred .","On DATE the Commune of Ferrara informed the CARDINAL applicants that it was not possible to register their marriage . The decision noted that the NORP legal order did not allow marriage between same - sex couples , and that although the law did not specify that couples had to be of the opposite sex , doctrine and jurisprudence had established that LAW of the LAW referred to the traditional concept of marriage , understood as being a marriage between persons of the opposite sex . Thus , the spouses being of different sex was an essential element to qualify for marriage . Moreover , according to ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG , a marriage contracted abroad between persons of the same sex , one of whom was NORP , could not be registered in so far as it was contrary to the norms of public order .","These CARDINAL applicants , who live in GPE , met in DATE and entered into a stable and committed relationship with each other .","On DATE they started cohabiting in ORG \u2019s apartment , although PERSON maintained formal residence in his own apartment . In DATE ORG purchased a second property which , in the absence of any legal recognition , for practical and fiscal reasons remained in his name only . In DATE ORG purchased , through a mandate in the name of PERSON ( for the purposes of purchasing such property ) , a garage . In DATE the couple moved into ORG apartment and established their home there . They have since been considered as a family unit for statistical purposes .","On DATE the CARDINAL applicants got married in GPE , GPE , GPE . On DATE they opened a joint bank account . On DATE , before a notary , the CARDINAL applicants appointed each other reciprocally as guardians in the event of incapacitation ( amministratore di PERSON ) .","Following the applicants\u2019 request , on DATE , ORG in GPE transmitted to ORG in GPE the relevant documents for the purposes of registration of their marriage .","On DATE , ORG informed the CARDINAL applicants that it was not possible to register their marriage . The decision noted that the NORP legal order did not allow marriage between same - sex couples . Moreover , according to ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG , a marriage contracted abroad between persons of the same sex , one of whom was NORP , could not be registered in so far as it was contrary to the norms of public order .","Following the entry into force of the new law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on CARDINAL DATE the CARDINAL applicants requested that their marriage be transcribed as a civil union . According to the applicants\u2019 submissions of CARDINAL DATE their request was still pending and no reply had yet been received .","According to documents dated DATE submitted to this ORG in DATE , by the Government , the applicants\u2019 marriage was transcribed as a civil union on DATE . A certification of this registration , submitted by the Government , is dated CARDINAL DATE .","The CARDINAL applicants met in GPE in DATE and entered into a stable and committed relationship with each other . PERSON , who is NORP , did not have a residence permit in GPE at the time , Mr NORP therefore travelled repeatedly to GPE .","On DATE the couple married in GPE , GPE . In DATE Mr PERSON designated PERSON as his heir . In DATE Mr PERSON retired and moved to GPE permanently , although he maintained formal residence in GPE .","In DATE the CARDINAL applicants had purchased some land together ; in DATE the couple purchased a further piece of land , and in DATE they purchased a house and in DATE a commercial property with an annexed cottage . In DATE they also opened a joint bank account .","On DATE they asked ORG to register their marriage contracted in GPE .","On DATE the Commune of Naples informed the CARDINAL applicants that no such registration was possible . The decision noted that the NORP legal order did not allow marriage between same - sex couples as reiterated in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE issued by ORG .","Following guidance from the Mayor of GPE , directing ORG of the commune to register such marriages ( see below ) , PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON re - submitted an application to have their marriage registered . According to information sent to the applicants by email , their request was granted on DATE . However , further to the circular issued on DATE by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the registration was cancelled on an unspecified date .","On an unspecified date , following the entry into force of the new law , the CARDINAL applicants requested that their marriage be transcribed as a civil union . According to the ORG submissions of CARDINAL DATE their request was still pending and no reply had yet been received .","According to undated documents submitted to this ORG in DATE , by the Government , the applicants\u2019 marriage was transcribed as a civil union on DATE . A certification of this registration , submitted by the Government , is dated CARDINAL DATE .","These CARDINAL applicants met in DATE , and DATE entered into a stable and committed relationship with each other .","In DATE PERSON purchased a house in GPE , GPE and in DATE the CARDINAL applicants started to cohabit there . There they established their common residence .","In DATE the CARDINAL applicants symbolically celebrated their union before their friends and family . In DATE PERSON allowed limited access to his bank account in favour of PERSON . In DATE the CARDINAL applicants drafted wills nominating each other as each other \u2019s heirs .","On DATE the CARDINAL applicants got married in GPE , GPE .","In DATE the applicants purchased property together and opened a joint bank account .","Following their request of DATE , on DATE the Commune of Rome informed the applicants that the registration of their marriage was not possible , as it was contrary to the norms of public order .","On DATE the couple filed a declaration with the GPE \u201c Registry of civil unions \u201d to the effect that they were entering into a civil union and constituting a de facto couple . The declaration is acknowledged by the relevant authorities , but has only symbolic value ( see relevant domestic law and practice below ) .","NORP Following guidance from the Mayor of GPE directing ORG of the commune to register such marriages ( see below ) , on DATE Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON resubmitted an application to have their marriage registered . Their request was also granted and the marriage was registered . However , further to the circular issued on DATE by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) by a decision of the Prefect of Rome of CARDINAL DATE the above - mentioned registration was cancelled .","On DATE , following the entry into force of the new law and their request to that effect , the applicants\u2019 marriage was transcribed as a civil union .","These CARDINAL applicants met in DATE and immediately entered into a committed and stable relationship with each other . DATE Mr PERSON moved in with Mr PERSON in GPE , GPE .","In DATE the couple moved to GPE , GPE .","In DATE Mr PERSON moved to GPE for employment purposes , maintaining a long - distance relationship with Mr PERSON ; however they met DATE .","In DATE Mr PERSON purchased a property in GPE with financial assistance from Mr PERSON .","In DATE Mr PERSON returned to GPE ; the couple moved to GPE and continued cohabiting .","In DATE PERSON moved to the GPE , again for work purposes , maintaining however , a long - distance relationship with regular DATE visits to GPE .","After being in a relationship for DATE , on DATE the couple got married in GPE , the GPE . In DATE the couple opened a joint bank account .","In DATE Mr PERSON left his job in GPE and moved to the GPE . As he was unemployed , he was totally dependent on his spouse . PERSON also supported financially Mr PERSON mother , a victim of Alzheimer \u2019s disease . They are under a system of separation of estates ; however , their accounts are in joint names and their wills indicate each other as heirs .","On DATE the applicants requested ORG in GPE to transmit to the respective ORG in GPE the relevant documents for the purposes of registration of their marriage .","On DATE the Commune of Mediglia informed the applicants that the registration of their marriage was not possible , as it was contrary to the norms of public order . No reply was received from ORG .","Following the guiding decision by the Mayor of GPE , mentioned above , the applicants also re - submitted an application to have their marriage registered . According to the information provided by the applicants on DATE , their marriage was never registered .","NORP However , on DATE , following the entry into force of the new law and their request to that effect , the applicants\u2019 marriage was transcribed as a civil union .","The CARDINAL applicants married in GPE on DATE .","On DATE , the applicants being resident in GPE , GPE , they requested ORG to register their marriage contracted abroad .","On DATE their request was rejected in accordance with the advice of ORG of DATE . The decision noted that the NORP legal order did not provide for the possibility of CARDINAL NORP nationals of the same sex contracting marriage ; this was a matter contrary to internal public order .","On DATE the applicants lodged proceedings before the competent Tribunal of Latina , requesting the registration of their marriage in the light of ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see relevant domestic law below ) .","By a decision of DATE ORG rejected the applicants\u2019 claim . It noted that the registration of the marriage was not possible , because if such a marriage had been contracted in GPE it would not have been considered valid according to the current state of the law , as it failed to fulfil the most basic requirement , that of having a female and a male . In any event , the marriage contracted by the applicants had no consequence in the NORP legal order in so far as a marriage CARDINAL persons of the same sex , although validly contracted abroad , ran counter to international public order . Indeed same - sex marriage was in contrast with GPE \u2019s history , tradition and culture , and the fact that so few ORG ( GPE ) countries had provided such legislation went to show that it was not in line with the common principles of international law .","An appeal by the applicants was rejected by a decision of ORG , filed in the relevant registry on DATE . ORG noted that such registration could not take place , given that their marriage lacked one of the essential requisites to amount to the institution of marriage in the domestic order , namely the spouses being of different sexes .","On DATE the CARDINAL applicants appealed to ORG . In particular they highlighted , inter alia , that public order referred to in LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , had to be interpreted as international public order not national public order , and thus it had to be established whether same - sex marriage was against that order , in the light of international instruments .","By a judgment of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) ORG rejected the appeal and confirmed the previous judgment . Noting the ORG \u2019s case - law in PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , ( no . CARDINAL , ORG DATE ) it acknowledged that a marriage contracted abroad by CARDINAL persons of the same sex was indeed existent and valid , however , it could not be registered in GPE in so far as it could not give rise to any legal consequence .","The Court of Cassation referred to its case - law , to the effect that civil marriages contracted abroad by NORP nationals had immediate validity in the NORP legal order as a result of LAW and international private law . This would be so in so far as the marriage had been contracted in accordance with the laws of the foreign state in which it had been contracted , and that the relevant substantive requirements concerning civil status and the capacity to marry ( according to NORP law ) subsisted , irrespective of any non - observance of NORP regulations regarding the issuing of the banns or the subsequent registration . The former were subject solely to administrative sanctions and the latter were not conducive of any legal effects \u2013 since registration had the mere significance of giving publicity to a deed or act which was already valid on the basis of the locus regit actum principle . Thus , had the marriage been contracted by persons of the opposite sex , in the absence of any other fundamental requirements it would have been valid and conducive of legal effects in the NORP legal order . In that case the Civil Status Officer would have no option but to register the marriage . However , the case - law had shown that the opposite sex of the spouses was the most indispensable requirement for the \u201c existence \u201d of a marriage as a legally relevant act , irrespective of the fact that this was not stated anywhere explicitly in the relevant laws . Thus , the absence of such a requirement placed in question not only the validity of the marriage , but its actual existence , meaning that it would not be conducive to any legal effects ( as opposed to a nullity ) . It followed that according to the ordinary law of the land , CARDINAL same - sex spouses had no right to have their marriage contracted abroad registered .","ORG considered that the said refusal could not be based on the ground that such a marriage ran counter to public order ( as dictated by the relevant circulars ) , but that the refusal was simply a consequence of the fact that it could not be recognised as a marriage in the NORP legal order .","ORG went on to note that the social reality had changed , yet the NORP order had not granted same - sex couples the right to marry as concluded in ORG judgment no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( which it cited extensively ) . Indeed the question whether or not to allow same - sex marriage , or the registration thereof , was not a matter of ORG law , it being left to regulation by ORG . However , the NORP legal order was also made up of LAW as interpreted by ORG in PERSON and PERSON ( cited above ) ; in that case the ORG considered that the difference of sex of spouses was irrelevant , legally , for the purposes of marriage . It followed that , irrespective of the fact that it was a matter to be dealt with by the national authorities , it could no longer be a prerequisite for the \u201c existence \u201d of marriage . Moreover , ORG noted that persons of the same sex living together in a stable relationship had the right to respect for their private and family life under LAW ; therefore , even if they did not have the right to marry or to register a validly contracted marriage abroad , in the exercise of the right to freely live with the inviolable status of a couple , they could bring actions before the relevant courts to claim , in specific situations related to their fundamental rights , treatment which was uniform with that afforded by law to married couples .","In conclusion , ORG found that the claimants had no right to register their marriage . However , this was so not because the marriage did not \u201c exist \u201d or was \u201c invalid \u201d but because of its inability to produce ( as a marriage deed ) any legal effect in the NORP order ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172469","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PAVLOVI\u0106 AND PANTOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG .","On DATE ORG ordered a socially - owned company , ORG DATE and its subsidiaries ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) to pay the applicants specified amounts on account of salary arrears plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE , upon the applicants\u2019 request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the enforcement costs .","On DATE ORG ordered the restructuring of the debtor . Subsequently , the enforcement proceedings against the debtor were stayed .","On DATE , upon the ORG request to that effect , ORG resumed the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG . In terms of redress , relying on LAW DATE , the applicants sought , inter alia , compensation for the damage suffered due to the impugned non - enforcement .","On DATE the applicants noted the adoption of the amendments to LAW , and specified their compensation claims accordingly . Specifically , on account of the pecuniary damage , the applicants requested the respective amounts awarded to them by the final judgment in question , whilst as regards the nonpecuniary damage sustained they claimed MONEY ( ORG ) each .","On DATE ORG found a violation of the applicants\u2019 right to a hearing within a reasonable time and of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions . It further awarded the applicants ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and LAW respectively as just satisfaction for non - pecuniary damage . However , it rejected their compensation claim regarding the pecuniary damage sought by the applicants . ORG , lastly , ordered the speeding up of the impugned enforcement proceedings .","In its reasoning , ORG stated that the applicants\u2019 pecuniary damage claim had been lodged out of time . In so doing , it merely referred to LAW , as amended in DATE , requiring that such claims be brought simultaneously with the lodging of a constitutional appeal .","On DATE the Government submitted that ORG informed the ORG , by its letter of DATE , that the final court judgment of DATE had been partially enforced on DATE and that the applicants had received the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) . The remainder of the judgment remained unenforced .","On DATE the ORG representative submitted that the first applicant and she were not aware of the partial enforcement of the above judgment . Moreover , she stated that they had never received a letter from ORG related to enforcement issue . Lastly , the ORG representative submitted that ORG had informed her in its letter of CARDINAL DATE that the amount of ORG CARDINAL was paid only to the second applicant ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161411","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF HAMMERTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 34 - Victim);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - Competent court);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant married in DATE . He separated from his wife in DATE . On DATE he issued an application in ORG for contact with CARDINAL of his CARDINAL children .","The applicant and his wife divorced on DATE . His legal aid certificate was withdrawn following a financial award made as part of the divorce .","Meanwhile the contact proceedings continued . The applicant \u2019s former wife alleged that he had harassed her and applied to ORG for protection . On DATE the applicant gave an undertaking to ORG :","\u201c Not to contact , or communicate with , [ his former wife ] , [ her ] mother or father , nor her solicitors in any way whatsoever ... except through his own solicitors . \u201d","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s former wife an injunction which inter alia prevented him from using or threatening violence towards her .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s former wife issued an application for him to be committed to prison for breach of the undertaking and injunction .","His Honour Judge PERSON , sitting in ORG , chose to hear the applicant \u2019s application for contact and his former wife \u2019s application for him to be committed for contempt at the same time . He heard the applications on CARDINAL and DATE .","NORP The applicant was unrepresented during the proceedings before Judge PERSON . His position as regards legal aid was due to be reviewed shortly after the hearing . The judge made no inquiries into why the applicant was unrepresented or whether he wanted representation .","On DATE the judge made an order for indirect contact . He also committed the applicant to prison for DATE because he had breached the undertaking and the order and was therefore in contempt of court .","The applicant contacted lawyers from prison in order to appeal his committal but , having accepted instructions , they failed to assist him . He subsequently lodged a complaint against them and received MONEY ( \u201c GBP \u201d ) in compensation .","The applicant was released on DATE , after CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , pursuant to provisions permitting early release .","On around DATE the applicant lodged an appeal out of time against the finding that he had been in contempt of court . He subsequently obtained legal aid and legal representation to pursue those proceedings .","On DATE ORG quashed both the finding of contempt and the sentence imposed . It found that ORG errors of procedure were grave ones . Lord Justice PERSON , delivering the first judgment , began by setting out a number of well - established principles relevant to committal hearings . The need to observe LAW DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) was central to the practice direction on committal proceedings , which had applied to the proceedings before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Such proceedings concerned a \u201c criminal charge \u201d for the purpose of LAW and the defendant therefore benefited from the right to legal assistance set out in LAW ) . A defendant to committal proceedings was not obliged to give evidence and enjoyed a right against selfincrimination and , referring to LAW , the burden of proving guilt lay on the person seeking committal .","In the applicant \u2019s case , PERSON observed that these matters had not been drawn to the attention of the judge . He continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . Untutored and unassisted as the judge was , matters went wrong from the beginning . The judge noted , at the outset , that Mr PERSON was acting in person . He made no comment about it whatever . In particular , he did not ask anything as to the circumstances in which he was unrepresented . Had he done so , he would have learnt that earlier legal representation had been withdrawn by ORG after he received a sum of money on his divorce ... That was the subject matter of a review panel which was due to sit DATE . This emerged at the outset of the cross - examination by counsel for PERSON on DATE of the hearing . \u201d","Moses LJ considered that once the judge had learnt that the issue of legal aid was the subject of an imminent review panel , there was no reason why the committal hearing should not have been adjourned until the issue of legal representation had been resolved . He was of the view that the judge had been obliged to ask appropriate questions and to consider , at the very outset of the hearing , whether there should be an adjournment so as to enable the defendant to be represented . In the absence of evidence of intransigence on the part of the applicant , and he noted that there was none , there was no reason why the applicant should not be represented .","Moses LJ further found that the decision to hear the application for committal at the same time as the application for contact led to inescapable errors in procedure . He noted that it was for the applicant to establish his claim for contact , and for his former wife to prove breaches of the undertaking and the court order . The applicant should have been warned that he did not need to give evidence ; he received no such warning .","Moses LJ concluded that the decision of the judge to hear both applications at the same time had placed the applicant in an impossible position , noting that there was no hint at any stage in the transcript of the proceedings of anyone advising the applicant of his rights in respect of the committal proceedings , nor of the judge reminding himself of the different burden and standard of proof in the CARDINAL applications . Further , the judge had given no explanation as to why he considered it essential to deal with both applications at the same time .","Finally , PERSON considered that the judge again fell into error at the sentencing stage . He noted that the judge never paused , even at that stage , to consider whether the applicant should have legal representation or to remind himself of the relevant principles . He observed that the judge had paid no heed to the purpose of punishment in contempt proceedings . Since he had not been represented and had never been given an opportunity to mitigate , the sentencing phase of the committal was \u201c fatally flawed \u201d .","Moses LJ then assessed whether it was necessary for the court to consider whether legal representation would have made a difference in the applicant \u2019s case . He commented that it was almost impossible to envisage a case where such representation would not be needed , if only , as this case demonstrated , to remind a judge of the principles which applied . Even in a case where a defendant admitted every breach alleged , representation would be needed so as to assist the judge in considering the appropriate disposal . The case was certainly not one where the court would decline to take action despite a violation of LAW . There was ample material to suggest that legal representation would have made a difference . Quite apart from the question of the appropriate sentence , there was material relevant to the facts of the breaches to which the judge \u2019s attention ought to have been drawn .","Lord Justice PERSON fully agreed with PERSON , noting :","\u201c DATE . There are , of course , many cases in the books in which this court has upheld committal orders even although they have been made in proceedings which were procedurally flawed ... Provided the contemnor has had a fair trial and the order has been made on valid grounds , the existence of a defect in the committal application or in the order served will not result in it being set aside except in so far as the interests of justice require that to be done ...","The instant case , however , is plainly not in that category , and I am in complete agreement with PERSON that the defects in the process in the instant case are so serious that the interests of justice plainly require both the committal order and the consequential sentence of imprisonment to be set aside . \u201d","Specifically on the question of access to legal advice , he added :","\u201c DATE . ... Even more important , however , in my view is the proposition that in the absence of exceptional circumstances , it is a breach of a party \u2019s ECHR Article CARDINAL rights to be sent to prison for contempt of court without the benefit of legal representation . No GPE court would impose a custodial sentence on an unrepresented defendant , and in my judgment , no family court should send a litigant in person to prison for contempt without first making arrangements for that litigant to be legally represented . \u201d","On DATE the applicant commenced proceedings for damages under common law for the tort of wrongful imprisonment and under LAW DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , relying on DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention . He sought an extension of time for lodging his claim .","On DATE ORG dismissed his claim and refused the extension of time . However , Mr PERSON made it clear that had he considered there to be merit in the claim , he would have extended time . He had therefore considered the merits of the applicant \u2019s claim .","PERSON noted at the outset that ORG had identified CARDINAL main errors in the applicant \u2019s case : the failure to inquire into why he was not represented and to consider whether to adjourn the committal proceedings to enable him to obtain representation ; the joinder of the committal proceedings and the contact order application , which undermined the burden of proof and the applicant \u2019s right not to give evidence in the committal proceedings ; and the fact that he was not given the opportunity to mitigate before sentence was passed . PERSON considered it plain from the judgment of ORG that although it had granted no formal declaration that the committal hearing had breached the applicant \u2019s human rights , it had been of the view that it had and that had been the tenor of its findings .","As to the false imprisonment claim , PERSON referred to the longstanding recognition in the case - law that there was immunity from suit for a claim based on alleged errors of a circuit judge of competent jurisdiction that resulted in detention , in the absence of malice . The applicant \u2019s claim accordingly failed .","He considered equally hopeless the applicant \u2019s claim that any violation of an LAW right gave rise to a right to damages under LAW DATE . He found that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , which precludes damages in respect of a judicial act done in good faith , with the exception of damages required by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , was inconsistent with the applicant \u2019s claim . He also referred to the fact that just satisfaction under the ORG was a matter of discretion .","As to the claim under LAW , PERSON referred to this ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases of PERSON v. the GPE [ ORG ] , DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL , Perks and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and others , DATE and ORG v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and others , DATE . He decided that the applicant \u2019s claim that his detention was a violation of LAW because any hearing in which a violation of LAW occurred was not in accordance with law was :","\u201c a slightly more modest reworking of the article CARDINAL submission that has been already considered and summarily rejected . Again I reject this reworking of the submission for similar reasons to those already given , but more particularly for the principles spelt out in the trio of Community charge cases . \u201d","PERSON concluded that the applicant \u2019s detention pursuant to the order of Judge PERSON was not so gross or obvious an irregularity , within the meaning of \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG \u2019s judgment in ORG , cited above , as to be not in accordance with the law . In reaching this conclusion , he noted , inter alia , that ORG was a court of competent jurisdiction ; that proper notice of the hearing and of the committal application had been given ; that the record of proceedings did not appear to reveal any application by the applicant for an adjournment to seek legal representation ; that there was no failure to follow a statutory prerequisite because the general requirement to observe LAW by LAW DATE was not the same as a precise rule prohibiting committal unless a condition was complied with ; that , similarly , the practice direction ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which set out the need to observe LAW , was in general terms and did not amount to a condition precedent ; that ORG , at the time of ORG decision , had not made an unambiguous finding that a lack of representation at a committal hearing would always violate LAW , although its finding in the present case meant that LAW might be considered a condition precedent in future cases ; and that there was no hint of malice or bad faith by the judge .","PERSON also found that ORG CARDINAL principal criticisms all suggested that ORG had erroneously exercised its judgment . Erroneous exercises of judgment did not make decisions not in accordance with law or arbitrary in the sense indicated in LAW case - law .","Having thus concluded , PERSON explained that , had he reached the contrary conclusion , it would have been necessary to consider what the causal nexus between the unfairness and the detention resulting from the unfairness was . He accepted that where detention was in violation of LAW it was necessary and appropriate to visit it with a measure of damages , however modest . He found that , if the family - law applications had been separated correctly and the applicant had been represented , a finding of contempt would nevertheless have been inevitable . However , whilst custody was the more probable outcome , the length of sentence would have been significantly shorter and DATE , so the applicant would not have served DATE in prison . He indicated that , had a violation of LAW been established , he would have awarded damages in the sum of GBP CARDINAL,CARDINAL , on an equitable basis .","The applicant sought leave to appeal out of time . On DATE leave to appeal was refused on the papers . The judge commented that he might consider extending time if there was a real prospect of success , but in his view the judgment would be upheld ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-a"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169207","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DMITRIYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and DATE was placed in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE . On DATE he was found guilty and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The conviction was upheld on appeal . Since DATE , save for short periods of detention in the remand prison , the applicant has been held in correctional colonies nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL in GPE .","The applicant submitted that during his pre - trial detention he had not been examined by a dentist and had not received any dental treatment because , as he had been informed , the remand prison neither possessed any dental equipment nor employed a dentist . The only alternative to treatment had been tooth extraction by a doctor who visited the facility once or DATE . While in the correctional colony , the applicant had been unable to obtain any dental treatment for extended periods of time because the dental drill and GPE scanner were broken . Moreover , the colony \u2019s dentist was habitually either on DATE or away attending training courses . The applicant produced statements written by CARDINAL inmates with whom he had been detained in the same penal institutions from DATE . The statements corroborated his account of the lack of effective dental treatment .","The applicant also submitted that he had received dental treatment for the first time on DATE in the correctional colony . Since that time , he had undergone scaling and cleaning procedures , and extraction of teeth , but had not been prescribed any painkillers for the toothache he was suffering . Although the applicant was diagnosed with periodontitis on DATE , it was not until DATE that treatment of the disease had been prescribed .","During his detention the applicant lost CARDINAL teeth in total . He was unable to obtain orthodontic treatment even at his own expense . He had therefore asked a fellow inmate to make him temporary metal dental prostheses to replace several teeth , but they did not fit well . On DATE the applicant had been examined by a visiting dentist from another correctional colony who recommended examination by a specialist dentist once released .","The applicant also submitted several photos of his oral cavity dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE , which showed that he had lost CARDINAL front teeth within DATE . A medical certificate issued by the applicant \u2019s dentist on DATE confirmed the presence of dental prostheses for CARDINAL teeth and the absence of another CARDINAL . Another dentist \u2019s certificate of DATE showed that there were CARDINAL teeth missing in total .","NORP The applicant brought the issue of inadequate medical treatment to the attention of various domestic authorities , including the head of the remand prison , the GPE regional prosecutor \u2019s office , and ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , but all to no avail .","The Government submitted that the applicant had undergone medical examinations in each penal facility and had been provided with the requisite medical treatment . They relied , in particular , upon certificates issued by the director of prison hospital no . CARDINAL of GPE and the director of correctional colony no . CARDINAL , extracts from the applicant \u2019s medical file , lists of medicines and medical appliances available at the respective penal institutions , staff lists , and the penal institutions\u2019 medical licences .","The applicant \u2019s medical file contained the following entries . On DATE the applicant was examined by a dentist for the first time after his placement in detention on DATE , and he was diagnosed with periodontitis . On DATE the dentist concluded that \u201c the oral cavity required sanitisation \u201d . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant raised his dental problems during a visit to the head of the medical unit but there was no entry in the medical file indicating that the applicant \u2019s complaint had been investigated . On DATE the dentist recommended extraction and further treatment of teeth to the applicant . DATE an exacerbation of his chronic periodontitis was diagnosed and one tooth was extracted . DATE the applicant was informed that he could have dental prostheses fitted at his own expense . DATE and DATE he visited the dentist on CARDINAL occasions , during which he was diagnosed with gingivitis of the front teeth and dental caries , CARDINAL permanent dental fillings were put in , the gingivitis was treated and the tartar build - up was removed . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the dentist diagnosed the applicant as having chronic periodontitis and found that the oral cavity required sanitisation . The cleaning procedure was performed DATE . On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with inflammatory degenerative periodontitis and received treatment for it . DATE and CARDINAL DATE the dentist again confirmed the diagnosis , prescribed treatment and extracted CARDINAL teeth .","DATE and DATE the applicant visited the medical unit CARDINAL times and asked for dental prostheses . It was explained that such treatment could be provided at the applicant \u2019s own expense . Meanwhile the dentist confirmed the diagnosis of inflammatory degenerative periodontitis , prescribed treatment , extracted another tooth , removed a dental bridge and cleaned the tartar build - up .","On DATE the applicant was examined by CARDINAL dentists , who confirmed the partial absence of teeth in both jaws , with some of them being replaced by metal prostheses . They did not diagnose periodontitis and concluded that the applicant did not require orthodontic treatment . A dentist who carried out a checkup on DATE arrived at the same conclusions , but noted some teeth missing on the upper jaw only . The applicant was found to be \u201c apparently healthy \u201d .","The Government did not contest the veracity of the statements made by the applicant \u2019s former cellmates ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167492","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BAK AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The case originated in an application ( no . CARDINAL ) against GPE lodged with ORG under LAW ( \u201c the LAW ) by CARDINAL NORP nationals , Mr PERSON , PERSON , Mr Istv\u00e1n PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON P\u00e1pain\u00e9 Armuth , PERSON Gy\u00f6rgy Rosta and Mr PERSON ( \u201c the applicants \u201d ) , on DATE . A list of applicants is annexed to the present judgment .","The applicants were represented by PERSON . Tordai , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , Agent of ORG .","NORP On DATE the ORG complaint under LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW concerning the imposition of PERCENT tax on part of their severance payment was communicated to the Government .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG received friendly settlement declarations signed by the ORG and CARDINAL applicants under which the latter agreed to waive any further claims against GPE in respect of the facts giving rise to their complaints against an undertaking by the Government to pay PERSON MONEY ( ORG ) , PERSON PERSON DATE , Mr PERSON CARDINAL , Mr PERSON EUR CARDINAL , Mr PERSON CARDINAL , Mr PERSON EUR CARDINAL , and Mr PERSON CARDINAL , to cover any pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses . These sums will be converted into the currency of the respondent ORG at the rate applicable on the date of payment , and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable . They will be payable within DATE from the date of notification of the strike - out decision taken by the ORG . In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said DATE period , the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them , from the expiry of that period until settlement , at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of ORG during the default period plus CARDINAL percentage points . The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case in respect of these CARDINAL applicants .","The first applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in LANGUAGE . DATE he was employed at the ORG - owned ORG His employment was terminated by mutual agreement in DATE . The upper bracket of his severance payment was taxed at PERCENT rate . The Government did not contest the levy of the special tax on his severance payment ; but in their observations they rectified the tax amount . The first applicant did not contest this . Accordingly , special tax was levied on his severance payment in the amount of CARDINAL Hungarian Forints ( ORG ) ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .","The fourth applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . From DATE he was employed at the ORG - owned ORG His employment was terminated on CARDINAL DATE . The upper bracket of his severance payment was taxed at PERCENT rate . The Government did not contest the levy of the special tax on his severance payment ; but in their observations they rectified the tax amount . The fourth applicant did not contest this . Accordingly , special tax was levied on his severance payment in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .","The fifth applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . From DATE she was employed at the ORG - owned ORG Her employment was terminated by mutual agreement on CARDINAL DATE . The upper bracket of her severance payment was taxed at PERCENT rate . The Government did not contest the levy of the special tax on her severance payment ; but in their observations they rectified the tax amount . The fifth applicant did not contest this . Accordingly , special tax was levied on her severance payment in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .","The ninth applicant , PERSON P\u00e1pain\u00e9 Armuth was born in DATE and lives in GPE . From DATE she was employed at the ORG - owned ORG Her employment was terminated by mutual agreement in DATE . The upper bracket of her severance payment was taxed at PERCENT in the amount of ORG MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The Government did not contest this . In a letter dated of CARDINAL DATE the ninth applicant submitted that due to some special accounting methods applied in her case , she had received further bonuses from her previous employer calculated pro rata temporis for DATE and DATE ; in respect of these bonuses additional special tax had been levied in the amount of altogether ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The applicant received a certificate from her employer regarding the deduction of special tax from the subsequently received bonuses on unspecified dates in DATE and DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179279","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"X v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE . In DATE , and again in DATE , his asylum requests were refused by the competent domestic authorities . In DATE the applicant was granted a residence permit , which was subsequently prolonged until DATE .","NORP In DATE ORG ( ORG f\u00fcr GPE ) investigated the applicant owing to his alleged ties to the \u201c radical NORP scene \u201d . In DATE the applicant was ordered not to leave GPE , as it was suspected that he was going to travel to GPE to join the so - called \u201c NORP State \u201d . A request to lift this order was denied in DATE as the security agencies possessed information indicating that the applicant was still in contact with the \u201c radical NORP scene \u201d .","NORP In DATE the police obtained intelligence about the applicant , including records of online chats in which the applicant stated that he would be willing to participate in an \u201c operation \u201d in GPE . Subsequently the public prosecutor \u2019s office launched an official investigation on the grounds of \u201c encouraging the commission of a serious violent offence endangering the state \u201d and the applicant \u2019s flat was searched . During the search several smartphones , tablets and other devices were seized . On the devices CARDINAL pictures and CARDINAL videos were found which showed violent acts in an NORP context and also included a manual for building explosive devices .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s deportation to GPE , as he constituted a threat to national security . He was suspected of being willing to participate in or carry out a terrorist attack in GPE . The decision was based on intelligence gathered by the security agencies ( see paragraphs PERSON and CARDINAL above ) . Although the authorities concluded that he had not yet reached the planning stage , he nonetheless constituted an abstract danger for society . This abstract risk was sufficient to overrule the applicant \u2019s right to respect for private and family life , given the fact that he had grown up and lived in GPE for DATE . Moreover , there was no risk for the applicant under LAW as the NORP authorities would not be informed about the intelligence that had been gathered and it was up to him not to join the \u201c radical NORP scene \u201d in GPE after his deportation .","The applicant challenged the decision before ORG and applied for an interim measure suspending his deportation for the duration of the main proceedings . During the interim proceedings ORG requested further information from ORG concerning the expected treatment of the applicant after deportation to GPE . Based on conversations with employees of the NORP ORG Committee Against Torture \u201d ORG responded that it could be expected that the applicant would be questioned and monitored by security agencies , but that it would be highly unlikely that he would be pre - emptively tortured .","On DATE , in a detailed decision of CARDINAL pages , ORG refused to grant the interim measure . It concluded that the assessment of the security risk for the applicant was in essence correct . However , unlike ORG , the court considered that the NORP authorities would be acquainted with the reasons for the applicant \u2019s deportation . Therefore , due to the risk of torture and ill - treatment the applicant could not be deported to his home region of ORG . However , he could be deported to another part of GPE . After considering several current reports on the situation , the court held that there were no specific indications that the applicant would be detained or tortured elsewhere in GPE or be forcibly brought to PERSON on the basis of his previous conduct in GPE . It found that the publicly available reports were not applicable to the present case as they concerned persons who were in CARDINAL way or another connected to the conflicts in GPE and GPE , which the applicant was not . The most relevant information stemmed from ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had provided information specific to the present case to ORG . According to this information the applicant would probably be questioned and monitored by security agencies in GPE , but it was highly unlikely that he would be tortured . Consequently , the court concluded that even though it could be expected that the applicant would be closely monitored , any further action by the NORP authorities would depend on the applicant \u2019s future conduct in GPE . As regards DATE , the court held that even though the applicant would face certain problems due to not having family in other parts of GPE and everyday discrimination based on his NORP ethnicity , he should still be able to settle in the suburbs of GPE and find a job , since he had a basic knowledge of the NORP language .","NORP On DATE ORG \u2013 in a reasoned decision \u2013 refused to grant an interim measure or to admit the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint for adjudication . While criticising that ORG had not assessed in sufficient depth whether the applicant could live and find work outside of LOC without facing the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment at the hands of the NORP authorities , it pointed out that ORG had nonetheless correctly based its decision on current reports concerning the situation of persons of NORP ethnicity returning to GPE and information requested from ORG and ORG . It therefore concluded that ORG had considered all possible risks the applicant would face and had also correctly found that the applicant could be deported to GPE .","The main proceedings before ORG are still pending .","The deportation of a so - called \u201c PERSON \u201d ( a potential offender , who poses a threat to national security ) is regulated in section CARDINALa of the Residence Act ( Aufenthaltsgesetz ) , which reads :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The supreme Land authority may , based on an assessment of the facts and without a prior expulsion order , issue a deportation order for a foreigner in order to avert a special danger to the security of GPE or a terrorist threat . The deportation order shall be immediately enforceable ; no notice of intention to deport shall be necessary .","... \u201d","The Human Rights Watch report \u201c \u2018 Invisible War\u2019 \u2012 GPE \u2019s ORG to the Dagestan Insurgency \u201d of DATE outlines several human rights violations during counter - insurgency operations in ORG , including arbitrary detention , torture and forced disappearances . It also states that the authorities have cast an excessively wide net by essentially treating Salafis as criminal suspects without charging them with any specific offence .","A report drawn up by ORG in DATE ( \u201c PERSON : PERSON dagestanischer Terrorverd\u00e4chtiger au\u00dferhalb NORP \u201d , DATE ) describes the situation of family members of alleged terrorists involved in the conflict in ORG . According to it , family members were increasingly the targets of persecution by the NORP authorities even outside of LOC . The methods employed by the NORP authorities included arbitrary arrests and criminal prosecution , and disappearances .","An updated report by ORG regarding the human rights situation in GPE ( \u201c GPE \u2013 Tch\u00e9tch\u00e9nie \u2013 Mise \u00e0 jour : situation des droits humains \u201d , CARDINAL DATE ) illustrates several examples of NORP , with a prior connection to the conflict in GPE , having been detained , tortured and killed after returning to GPE . The ORG also reports that the NORP and NORP authorities cooperate closely and that several persons had been forcibly returned to GPE from other parts of GPE .","ORG in its report \u201c ORG and GPE : An Exported Jihad ? \u201d of DATE describes grave human rights violations , including enforced disappearances , summary executions and the widespread occurrence of torture in GPE and GPE . It also describes the preventive registration of those suspected of adherence to fundamentalist strands of ORG as one of the key control methods across LOC . After incidents such as clashes between security forces and insurgents , or terrorist acts , the individuals on these lists were faced with the risk of detention and interrogation , which often involved violent or degrading methods ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160307","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DR\u0102GAN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","For DATE the applicant had been convicted several times and he had been detained in various prisons . For certain periods of time he had been held in the PERSON and NORP prison hospitals .","On DATE the applicant was convicted by ORG on CARDINAL counts of robbery and theft and was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The court also ordered the applicant \u2019s committal to the psychiatric section of the Bucharest ORG until his recovery .","In his application forms and letters sent to the ORG since DATE , the applicant complained of the severe overcrowding he had had to endure in FAC , where CARDINAL detainees were held in a cell of CARDINAL sq . m , as well as in ORG and ORG .","The applicant also alleged that the quality of food and drinking water had been very poor in these prisons , that he had not always been served a diet in accordance with his NORP religious beliefs and that most of the time he had been starving as the portions had not been sufficient .","In all CARDINAL prisons hot water had only been provided for short periods of time in which there had not been enough time to brush his teeth . Furthermore , in FAC there had not been enough cold water provided .","The applicant further alleged that , although he had no financial resources and had had no family to help him , the prison authorities in all CARDINAL prisons had failed to provide him with the necessary clothes , toilet paper , soap or toiletries to brush his teeth .","In Gala\u0163i Prison the applicant was held for DATE in CARDINAL different cells including in the infirmary and the \u201c hunger strike \u201d ( refuz de hran\u0103 ) cell . The cells in this prison are approximately QUANTITY . m with a maximum of QUANTITY beds . The applicant shared the cells with a maximum of QUANTITY other prisoners ( QUANTITY . m of space per person , including the space occupied by beds and other furniture ) .","Cold water was available at various intervals for a total of TIME and was not available TIME The quality of the drinking water was certified by ORG .","The applicant received a diet in accordance with his religious beliefs and the composition of the DATE menu was in line with the regulations .","Toiletries were provided as the budget allowed . During the period of DATE that the applicant spent in FAC he received the following : CARDINAL tubes of toothpaste , CARDINAL razors , CARDINAL tubes of shaving cream , CARDINAL bars of poor quality soap , CARDINAL rolls of toilet paper , CARDINAL toothbrushes and washing powder .","NORP Throughout his detention in FAC the applicant received no visits and was considered unfit for work . He did not have any income .","The applicant was held in LOC for DATE and DATE . He was placed in cells measuring QUANTITY . m which he shared with CARDINAL other prisoners ( QUANTITY . m of space per person including beds and other furniture ) . The cells had bathrooms equipped with CARDINAL sinks , a shower and a toilet . LOC water was constantly available and hot water was twice per week following a schedule .","Food was prepared in accordance with the standards and regulations . Renovation of the food preparation and storage areas were under way when the ORG \u2019s observations were being submitted .","The Government submitted that upon their placement in a detention facility , prisoners received CARDINAL set of bed linen .","NORP Throughout his detention in LOC the applicant received no visits , was considered unfit for work and did not have any income .","NORP The applicant was detained in PERSON for DATE . For DATE he shared a cell measuring QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL prisoners ; there were PERCENT as well as other items of furniture ( QUANTITY . m of space per person including beds and other furniture ) . This cell was equipped with CARDINAL toilets and CARDINAL sinks where cold water was constantly available . The rest of the time he was held in the infirmary where he had approximately QUANTITY . m of personal space .","Hot water was provided in common shower facilities according to a pre - established schedule for TIME on DATE for CARDINAL of the prison and DATE for DATE . In CARDINAL of the infirmary wards , where the applicant spent DATE , CARDINAL showers with hot water were available for CARDINAL prisoners , for the same periods as the general schedule ( TIME ) .","During DATE he spent in this prison , the applicant received one roll of toilet paper , a razor and CARDINAL tube of shaving cream .","The Government alleged that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant also received clothing that he could use during his stay in this prison but they submitted no documents in support of this claim .","The applicant received the \u201c NORP menu \u201d in accordance with the internal regulations .","The applicant had access to the exercise yard for TIME .","NORP Throughout his detention in FAC the applicant received no visits and did not have any income .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC .","The applicant lodged numerous complaints with the prison authorities or the post - sentencing judge outlining his dissatisfaction with the overcrowding , the poor quality of the drinking water or the quality and quantity of the food he received . He asked on several occasions to be placed in a single occupancy cell and to be given certain foods such as fried eggs or fried potatoes .","These complaints were always rejected as being ill - founded .","On DATE , ORG rejected with final effect the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the lack of adequate provision of drinking water in FAC , reasoning that this situation was a result of budgetary constraints . Another complaint lodged with the delegate judge while the applicant was being held in LOC has on its reverse side the note \u201c Transferred \u201d .","The complaints about overcrowding were always solved with the conclusion that the assignment of detainees to sections and cells was a function of the prison \u2019s administration and placement in individual cells was not possible and was not allowed by law .","On several occasions the applicant complained to the ORG post - sentencing judge that the food served in prison was of very poor quality and the portions were not adequate . All his complaints were rejected as ill - founded as the post - sentencing judge considered that the applicant \u2019s allegations had been contradicted by the information submitted by the authorities of the prisons concerned .","On DATE while he was held in LOC the applicant requested CARDINAL pair of shoes , CARDINAL pairs of socks and CARDINAL tracksuit . A note on the request says that it shall be examined depending on stocks , but there is no subsequent mention of whether the applicant received any of the items requested .","On DATE , following a dental examination in ORG , the applicant was diagnosed with periodontitis ( I and NORP degree ) and frontal , lateral and terminal edentulism . The doctor prescribed specific periodontitis treatment , a mobile prosthesis and a liquid or semi - liquid diet until the installation of the prosthesis .","Since then , the applicant had been taken to see a dentist on numerous occasions upon his requests following bouts of inflammation of the gums or pain . He was consistently prescribed symptomatic treatment with antibiotic or anti - inflammatory drugs . On these occasions the doctors would repeat the prescription for a liquid or semi - liquid diet .","In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with chronic generalised marginal periodontitis and was prescribed antibiotics , anti - inflammatory drugs and hygienisation of the oral cavity by a dentist within the prison system . On the same occasion he was also diagnosed with inflammation of the salivary glands and surgery was prescribed , which was performed on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was diagnosed with a duodenal ulcer and on CARDINAL DATE with chronic gastroduodenitis .","On DATE during a medical examination in FAC the applicant , who had been previously diagnosed with several personality disorders , was diagnosed as showing symptoms of paranoia ; it was recommended that he be committed to the psychiatric section of FAC .","DATE the applicant was hospitalised for an acute inflammation of the salivary glands and generalised stomatitis . He was released with a prescription to eat liquid and semi - liquid food , to brush his teeth CARDINAL times per day , to take antibiotics and to use mouthwash .","The applicant had CARDINAL tooth extracted on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the prison hospital with congestion and swelling of the gums . He was diagnosed with , among other conditions , chronic acute otitis , generalised stomatitis , chronic apical periodontitis , neurovegetative disorders , conjunctivitis and spondylosis .","On several occasions the applicant was taken to prison hospitals or to the emergency unit of public hospitals with a broken nose or ribs after having been assaulted by other prisoners .","NORP Throughout his detention the applicant refused treatment with drugs or , on a few occasions , to be transported to ORG for conditions not related to his dental problems . In DATE the applicant , who was in a nervous state , refused to be seen by the prison dentist . On DATE the applicant refused to have a tooth extracted .","On DATE the applicant complained before the prison authorities and the post - sentencing judge that he was not receiving the liquid and semi - liquid diet prescribed by the doctor . On DATE the post - sentencing judge in ORG rejected the complaint , agreeing with the prison authorities that there was no prescription from a doctor for such a diet in the applicant \u2019s medical file . Another similar complaint lodged by the applicant in DATE had been rejected by the post - sentencing judge for the same reason .","On DATE , in DATE and on DATE the applicant complained to the prison administration that he had toothache and that he could not eat as he had not been given a liquid diet , as requested . No replies to these complaints could be found in the applicant \u2019s prison file submitted by the Government .","In DATE the applicant complained before the post - sentencing judge of the poor quality of the food served in prison ; the vegetables were undercooked ; he received bones without meat . He further complained that he had not been given the liquid diet prescribed by the doctors and that he had thus constantly received food that he could not chew and eat . The prison administration averred before the judge that no special diet had been prescribed to the applicant by a doctor and that the food served in prison was in accordance with the regulations and within the limits of the budget of CARDINAL NORP lei per prisoner per day ( MONEY ) . On DATE the post - sentencing judge rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint as ill - founded , considering that the food received by the applicant had been in accordance with the regulations and the budget .","In DATE the applicant complained again before the post - sentencing judge . He alleged that , due to his dental problems , he could not eat the food served in prison . He mentioned that the meat was not cooked through and very often during transport he had received raw , unsliced bacon and biscuits that he could not eat . On DATE the post - sentencing judge rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint because the facts described by him had been refuted by the prison authorities . At that time , no doctor had prescribed that the applicant be given a liquid or semi - liquid diet . On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected this complaint with final effect holding that the prison menus were prepared and administered in accordance with the internal regulations and within the limits of the budget .","DATE . On DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant complained to the prison administration of toothache and requested treatment for his periodontitis . The authorities replied to these complaints that the doctor was on holiday and that an appointment would be scheduled in the future .","According to the applicant , on DATE when he was being transported to an infirmary outside the prison , he was ill - treated by a prison guard escorting him .","Immediately after the incident the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the prison guard for ill - treatment and abusive behaviour .","On DATE ORG of ORG issued a decision not to commence criminal proceedings in the case . According to a copy of the prison \u2019s correspondence logbook , as submitted by the ORG , the applicant received a copy of the decision on DATE .","The applicant did not contest this decision before the superior prosecutor as provided for by LAW ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166755","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"BRLJA\u010cI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Po\u017eega . He was represented before the ORG by Mr N. Sabljar , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE , following a public tender for the purchase of real properties owned by a company , P .- d . ( hereinafter \u201c the company \u201d ) , the applicant bought a commercial property ( a retail store ) from the company .","On the basis of the purchase contract the applicant registered his ownership of the retail store in the land register .","NORP In DATE the applicant transferred his ownership of the retail store to his wife , ORG , who then duly registered her ownership in the land register .","On DATE the GPE ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) indicted CARDINAL managers of the company before ORG ( PERSON u GPE ) on charges of abuse of power and authority in connection with several disadvantageous contracts concluded by the company , including the CARDINAL concluded with the applicant .","The company joined the criminal proceedings by lodging a civil claim seeking the annulment of the contracts concluded by the alleged commission of a criminal offence .","During the proceedings before ORG the applicant was examined as a witness concerning the criminal charges against the accused . He explained that he had intended to start his own retail business and thus he had initially rented the retail store in question from the company . However , in DATE he had been offered the chance to buy the store , which he had accepted . The applicant also explained that subsequently , given that he had been unemployed and thus not eligible to take out a loan to pay for the renovation of the store , he had transferred his ownership of the store to his wife , who had been in a position to take out a loan .","On DATE the ORG found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced them to imprisonment . It granted the company \u2019s civil claim and declared the contracts concluded by the accused null and void , including the contract concluded with the applicant . It also held that the decision declaring the contracts null and void should not call into question the rights of parties who had bought the real properties from the company in good faith , as that would require further proceedings to establish whether they had acted in good faith when concluding the contracts , and that would be contrary to the principle of efficiency of criminal proceedings .","The accused and the GPE ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG appealed against the first - instance judgment before ORG ( PERSON ) alleging numerous substantive and procedural flaws in the findings of ORG concerning the criminal responsibility of the accused . The applicant and several other parties who had concluded contracts with the company also appealed against the first - instance judgment , challenging the annulment of the contracts on which they had based their property titles .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals by the accused and the GPE ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG as unfounded and declared the complaints lodged by the applicant and the other third parties inadmissible on the grounds that they did not have standing to lodge an appeal against the first - instance judgment .","The applicant then challenged the judgments of the lower courts by lodging a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) . He contended in particular that the decision to declare the real property purchase contract null and void had unlawfully and unjustifiably interfered with his property rights and that ORG had declined to examine his complaint in that respect .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint against the judgment of ORG as unfounded and ruled the complaints against the first - instance judgment of ORG inadmissible as they had been lodged outside the DATE statutory time - limit for lodging a constitutional complaint . In particular , ORG examined the applicant \u2019s complaint from the perspective of the right to a fair trial and found that there had been nothing unlawful or arbitrary in the decision of ORG ; in its view , no other issue arose with regard to the remainder of the applicant \u2019s complaints .","On DATE , relying on the final judgment of ORG by which the applicant \u2019s purchase contract had been declared null and void , the company instituted civil proceedings against the applicant and his wife , ORG , before ORG ( PERSON ) . It asked that the contract on the transfer of the property title from the applicant to his wife be declared null and void and that the successive entries in the land register of the applicant \u2019s and ORG \u2019s titles to the retail store be cancelled . Alternatively , the company claimed CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , plus statutory default interest .","During the proceedings the applicant and ORG , represented by a lawyer , contested the company \u2019s civil claim on the grounds that they had purchased the real property at issue in good faith and that there were no grounds for annulling their property title . They also pointed out that the final judgment of ORG by which the contracts concluded by the company \u2019s directors had been declared null and void did not call into question the rights of third parties who had obtained their property titles in good faith .","At a hearing on DATE ORG examined the relevant materials concerning the conclusion of the contracts and the transfer of title to the retail store from the company to the applicant and from the applicant to ORG It also heard the company \u2019s representative , the applicant and ORG , and read out the judgments of ORG and ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the company \u2019s civil action on the grounds that both the applicant and ORG had become owners of the real property at issue in good faith . It explained that whereas it was not possible to call into question ORG final judgment declaring the applicant \u2019s purchase contract null and void , that judgment had to be read in conjunction with the relevant provisions of LAW , which protected parties who had acted in good faith from being obliged to return that which they had acquired on the basis of an annulled contract . In the case at issue , ORG considered that there was nothing suggesting that the applicant , and subsequently ORG , had not acquired title to the retail store in good faith .","The company lodged an appeal against the judgment of ORG with PERSON ) . The company argued , in particular , that the first - instance court had erred in its findings concerning the question of whether the applicant and ORG had obtained title to the retail store in good faith .","The company \u2019s appeal was forwarded to the applicant \u2019s representative , who did not respond to the company \u2019s arguments .","On DATE PERSON dismissed the company \u2019s appeal as unfounded and upheld the first - instance judgment of ORG . In its reasoning , PERSON stated that there was nothing to call into question the findings of the first - instance judgment with regard to the question of whether the applicant and ORG had acquired title to the retail store in good faith .","On DATE the company lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG challenging the judgment of ORG . The proceedings before ORG are still pending .","The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , each person is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . \u201d","\u201c The right of ownership shall be guaranteed ... \u201d","NORP The relevant provision of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) provides as follows :","\u201c If the civil claim concerns the annulment of a legal transaction , and the court finds that the request is well - founded , it shall declare the full or partial nullity of that legal transaction , including its effects , without interfering with the rights of third parties . \u201d","The relevant parts of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provide as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A contract that is contrary to the LAW , peremptory rules or morals shall be null and void unless the purpose of the breached rule indicates that some other sanction or the law in a particular case provides otherwise .","( CARDINAL ) If the conclusion of a contract is prohibited only in respect of CARDINAL party , the contract shall remain valid , unless the law in a particular case provides otherwise , in which case the party that has breached the statutory prohibition shall bear the relevant consequences . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Where a contract is null and void , each contracting party is bound to return to the other everything it has received on the basis of such a contract . If that is not possible , or if the nature of the obligation performed renders [ such return ] impracticable , an appropriate [ amount of ] monetary compensation shall be given , according to the value of the object in question at the moment at which [ the relevant ] court decision is passed , unless the law provides otherwise .","( CARDINAL ) However , if a contract is null and void because its substance or purpose is contrary to the LAW and peremptory rules , the court may dismiss , fully or partially , a request for restitution [ made by ] the party that has not acted in good faith ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-165218","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"BHOJWANI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and according to the most recent information available to the ORG is currently detained at FAC in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a law firm based in GPE .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","DATE the applicant secured CARDINAL contracts to supply vehicles to ORG , then under the rule of FAC . He was paid MONEY ( \u201c USD \u201d ) for the first contract and MONEY for the second . He paid all sums into CARDINAL accounts in ORG in GPE ( \u201c BOIJ \u201d ) . He subsequently paid MONEY to accounts in GPE and elsewhere connected with LOC and Colonel PERSON , a close collaborator of FAC .","Following General PERSON \u2019s death in DATE , a ORG was set up in GPE to investigate the use of Government monies during General PERSON \u2019s regime . The Panel was chaired by the Deputy Commissioner of ORG , Mr PERSON","On DATE the applicant converted the balance of the CARDINAL ORG accounts into CARDINAL ORG drafts totalling almost ORG CARDINAL million . On DATE he couriered the ORG drafts to GPE . The ORG drafts were subsequently returned to GPE and , on DATE , the applicant deposited them into CARDINAL accounts at the BOIJ .","On an unknown date the GPE police commenced a criminal investigation into money laundering in respect of the applicant . On DATE the Attorney General of GPE sent a letter of request to ORG asking for assistance with the money laundering investigation . The NORP authorities instructed PERSON to gather relevant evidence . Mr PERSON and Colonel PERSON , a retired army officer who had worked closely with General PERSON , made witness statements to a GPE police officer in GPE and GPE . PERSON also gathered various business documents which he provided to the GPE authorities . The Attorney General of GPE provided an undertaking that ORG would use its best endeavours to ensure that the necessary witnesses travelled to GPE to give evidence at any future criminal trial against the applicant .","On DATE the applicant obtained declarations from ORG ( \u201c the NORP judgment \u201d ) that ORG was unconstitutional and that all investigatory actions undertaken by it in respect of the applicant were \u201c null and void , and lacking any valid or legal effect whatsoever \u201d .","Meanwhile , the applicant was charged with CARDINAL counts of converting the proceeds of criminal conduct and CARDINAL count of removing the proceeds of criminal conduct from the jurisdiction .","Following delivery of the NORP judgment , the applicant made CARDINAL applications to the court .","In the first , he sought a stay on proceedings on grounds of abuse of process . He contended that the use of the business documents by the Attorney General of GPE was an abuse of power because the NORP court had ruled that they had been unlawfully obtained and because they had been obtained for an \u201c investigation \u201d only , so that there had been no consent to their use at trial . On DATE the ORG delivered its ruling on this application , declining to stay proceedings . It held that there was no evidence of an abuse of power and that since the purpose of an investigation into a criminal offence was to prosecute that offence , there would be little point in providing the information for the former but not the latter . The court noted that the defence conceded that the admission of the relevant NORP evidence did not prejudice the fairness of the applicant \u2019s trial . The judge said :","\u201c DATE ... [ I]t follows that I would not exercise my discretion under LAW of [ the DATE Law ] to exclude it on the grounds set out in this application . \u201d","In his second application , the applicant relied on LAW ( \u201c the DATE LAW \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which allowed the court to exclude admissible evidence \u201c in the interests of justice \u201d . He argued that since the case was focused on alleged corruption at the highest level of government in GPE at the relevant time , it should not be assumed that the business documents were reliable . On DATE ORG allowed the admission of the business documents . It noted that there was nothing on the face of the documents to indicate that they were not authentic . While it was true that the applicant could not controvert the documents , it was necessary to balance the competing interests . There were a substantial number of documents that the applicant was in a position to controvert and he was also able to give evidence as to the nature of his involvement with LOC and Colonel PERSON . It was in the interests of justice that the business documents be admitted .","NORP The prosecution subsequently applied under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to read the witness statements by PERSON PERSON and Colonel PERSON The defence argued that further steps should be taken by the prosecution before the judge could conclude that it was \u201c not reasonably practicable \u201d , in terms of LAW , to secure the attendance of the witnesses .","On DATE the court held that the witness statements were admissible . It was satisfied \u201c to the criminal standard \u201d that it was not practicable to secure the attendance of the witnesses . It further rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that the admission of the statements would breach his rights under LAW and CARDINAL ( d ) of the LAW . The court recognised the conflict between the approach of the LANGUAGE courts , as outlined in NORP v. PERSON and Others [ DATE ] ORG , with the approach of a Chamber of this Court in PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and ORG , DATE . It concluded that the \u201c sole and decisive \u201d test had no application in GPE . There was nothing inherently unreliable on the face of the statements and it would be in the interests of justice to admit them .","Meanwhile the Attorney General of GPE wrote to the Attorney General of GPE requesting that NORP witnesses attend in GPE to give their evidence . The Attorney General of GPE replied that , following the NORP judgment , he was unable to accede to the request for NORP witnesses to testify at the trial in GPE \u201c as the crux of the matter is centred on the national interest and I have a constitutional duty to protect the judicial integrity of ORG \u201d . He asked for the business documents to be returned to GPE .","On DATE the applicant applied to have the NORP evidence excluded and his prosecution stayed on grounds of breach of international law and comity , based on developments since DATE ruling of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE , with reasons delivered on DATE , ORG refused the applications . It noted that the defence did not contend that the admission of the NORP evidence would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings and that the application to exclude was not therefore brought under LAW DATE PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) but was brought instead under the court \u2019s inherent jurisdiction to exclude evidence as a matter of comity . The court considered that the only conduct being impugned by the defence was the decision of the Attorney General to lead admissible evidence at trial . The only remedy available to a defendant whose complaint was based solely on the merits of the decision to lead admissible evidence was the exclusion of the evidence under LAW of the DATE Law .","The trial subsequently commenced in ORG before the Commissioner and CARDINAL jurats ( professional judges of fact ) . On DATE , the applicant was convicted of money laundering . On DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant sought permission to appeal against his conviction and sentence . He raised CARDINAL grounds of appeal , dated DATE . Ground CARDINAL , which it was stated was intended to be taken together and supplemented by matters addressed in grounds CARDINAL to CARDINAL , related to the admission into evidence of \u201c the whole of part of the NORP evidence \u201d , namely , the business documents and the witness statements . The grounds explained that the applicant \u2019s grounds of appeal in relation to the NORP evidence under grounds CARDINAL proceeded on the premise that it was open to him to challenge the admissibility of evidence either by an application for a stay on the basis of abuse or an application for the court to exercise its statutory discretion under LAW DATE PERSON to exclude the evidence .","The applicant \u2019s challenge in ground CARDINAL was to the decision of the trial judge of CARDINAL DATE not to stay proceedings as an abuse of process ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Ground CARDINAL was also a challenge to the decision of CARDINAL DATE , this time on the basis that the use of the business documents at trial breached the applicable law on mutual legal assistance because they had been used for a purpose other than that for which they had been provided . Ground CARDINAL was a challenge to the decision of DATE to admit the witness statements ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It explained that their admission had resulted in unfairness in that the applicant had been denied the opportunity to test and controvert that evidence in circumstances where it was the sole and decisive evidence relied on by the prosecution to prove a part of its case . The ground referred to the trial judge \u2019s finding that the \u201c sole or decisive \u201d test had no application in GPE \u2019s law and that the admission of the statements would not breach Articles QUANTITY ( d ) . Ground CARDINAL concerned the judgment of DATE to refuse to exclude the NORP evidence on grounds of breach of international law and comity and the refusal to stay proceedings on that basis ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Ground CARDINAL concerned the admission of a statement made by the applicant which he does not challenge in the present application .","The applicant subsequently prepared a written skeleton argument dated DATE , which ran to CARDINAL paragraphs , and a bundle of authorities placing before the court CARDINAL case - law authorities . In his skeleton argument , he explained that in grounds CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE , he contended that the exercise by the trial judge of his discretion to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process was flawed ; that the judge had erred in the exercise of his discretion to exclude evidence under his inherent jurisdiction to uphold comity and international law ; that the judge had erred in not excluding the evidence under the \u201c overlapping jurisdiction between stay for abuse of process and LAW the DATE PERSON ; and that the judge had erred in admitting the NORP evidence when it had been obtained for a different purpose . He contended that his challenge to the prosecution application in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had included an argument that , if it failed to grant a stay , the court should exclude the evidence under LAW DATE PERSON , but that this argument had not been addressed by the trial judge . He further elaborated on his LAW submission , referring to authority on the exclusion of unlawfully - obtained evidence .","NORP In further developing ground CARDINAL in his skeleton argument , the applicant challenged the trial judge \u2019s decision that the admission of the witness statements was not unfair . He relied on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He criticised a number of determinations by the trial judge , including that the prosecution had done all that it practically could to ensure the attendance of the witnesses , that the inability to controvert the evidence of PERSON gave rise to only a minimal risk of unfairness , that there was no unfairness in admitting Colonel PERSON \u2019s statement and that the applicant \u2019s actions in seeking the NORP judgment were the direct cause of the non - attendance of the witnesses and should be taken into account . He referred to the LANGUAGE law equivalent of LAW as well as relevant LANGUAGE authorities as to the interpretation of the provision . He made no reference in his skeleton argument to LAW or to relevant case - law .","NORP In its skeleton argument in response , the prosecution said :","\u201c The ORG assumes that the Appellant has abandoned its challenge to the learned [ trial judge \u2019s ] conclusion that the \u2018 sole or ORG test has no application in GPE ... This challenge is not mentioned in the Appellant \u2019s skeleton argument . It would also require the court to come to a different conclusion to ORG in NORP v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL . \u201d","At the subsequent hearing , the applicant \u2019s counsel argued , in respect of grounds CARDINAL of the grounds of appeal , that the use of the evidence was an abuse of executive power because the Attorney General knew that it had been obtained unlawfully , the NORP authorities did not consent to its use and the NORP authorities had asked for the return of the evidence . There had also been a breach of NORP sovereignty , international law and comity for these reasons .","On DATE the appeal was refused by ORG . The court considered whether unlawfully obtained evidence could be fairly admitted and concluded that it could . It noted that \u201c additional grounds relied on in the skeleton argument were not developed in oral argument ... We list them only for completeness and deal with them briefly \u201d . It then addressed the witness statement argument in Ground CARDINAL as follows :","\u201c ORG . It was contended that the evidence of Commissioner [ PERSON ] and Colonel [ B. ] should have been excluded as hearsay when it was reasonably practicable to have secured their attendance , and its admission was unfair to Mr PERSON who , accordingly , could not cross - examine them . We note that Mr PERSON objected to the Commissioner \u2019s decision that he had been responsible for the absence of the CARDINAL witnesses in GPE by instructing the claim for declarations before ORG : and Advocate PERSON sought to explain the dilemma in which his client was placed by the possibility of prosecutions in CARDINAL jurisdictions .","In our view the attribution of responsibility was a finding of fact open to the Commissioner , and the admission of hearsay evidence was a matter for his discretion which there is no basis to impugn . \u201d","Leading NORP counsel provided advice on appeal in writing on DATE . While the advice referred to the invitation to counsel to consider whether there were arguable grounds for leave to appeal sentence , the advice also appeared to address grounds for appeal against conviction . Counsel referred to various \u201c significant and unusual \u201d features of the case , but noted that these did \u201c not necessarily found compelling matters of law of general public importance \u201d , which , counsel said , was the test applied by ORG for granting leave .","As regards grounds of appeal CARDINAL to CARDINAL , counsel referred to the submission to ORG that use of the unlawfully - obtained evidence without the consent of ORG was an abuse of executive power and a breach of NORP sovereignty , international law and comity . He discussed at some length the position as regards use of unlawfully - obtained evidence . As to the specific comments on Ground CARDINAL , counsel said :","\u201c I am unimpressed by the observations at paragraph ORG of the judgment that the failure of witnesses to attend was the \u2018 responsibility\u2019 of Mr PERSON . This implies that he was at fault in circumstances where he merely sought a declaration from ORG upon the lawfulness of what had occurred . There was a basis for impugning the exercise of the Commissioner \u2019s discretion but I do not consider that ORG [ of ORG ] will find this an argument involving matters of law of general public importance . In any event , the evidence given by Commission [ PERSON ] and others which was read was not determinative of guilt . \u201d","Counsel concluded his advice by emphasising the difference between advising on the merits of an appeal to ORG and seeking the special leave of the judicial committee of ORG . He explained :","\u201c In the latter case it is necessary to identify a point or points of law of general public importance , in the former there is I understand an appeal as of right on matters of law . I would be failing in my responsibility if I encouraged hopes of success when my view was that no such hopes exist . Considering the case objectively as an outsider who was not involved in the trial or first - tier appeal process I am able to stand back and consider the grounds of appeal dispassionately and I have no hesitation in concluding that there is no prospect of leave being granted in this case . \u201d","The DATE Law deals with the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings . LAW provides , inter alia , that a statement made by a person in a document shall be admissible in criminal proceedings if the person who made the statement is outside of GPE and it is not \u201c reasonably practicable \u201d to secure his attendance . DATE allows documents to be admitted provided that certain conditions are satisfied .","Article CARDINAL ) provides that if a court is of the opinion that in the interests of justice a statement which is admissible by virtue of Article CARDINAL or Article CARDINAL ought not to be admitted , it may direct that the statement should not be admitted . Article CARDINAL ) provides that the court must have regard :","\u201c ( a ) to the nature and source of the document containing the statement and to whether or not , having regard to its nature and source and to any other circumstances that appear to the court to be relevant , it is likely that the document is authentic ;","( b ) to the extent to which the statement appears to supply evidence which would otherwise not be readily available ;","( c ) to the relevance of the evidence that it appears to supply to any issue which is likely to have to be determined in the proceedings ; and","( d ) to any risk , having regard in particular to whether it is likely to be possible to controvert the statement if the person making it does not attend to give oral evidence in the proceedings , that its admission or exclusion will result in unfairness to the accused . \u201d","Article CARDINAL allows the court to exclude evidence if it appears to the court that , having regard to all the circumstances , including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained , the admission of the evidence would so adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it .","The Human Rights ( Jersey ) Law CARDINAL ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) incorporates the LAW into GPE law . Article CARDINAL provides that , in determining any question that arises in connection with a Convention right , courts and tribunals must take into account relevant case - law from this ORG . Article CARDINAL provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right . Under article CARDINAL , a person who claims that a public authority has acted in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights may rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings .","In GPE and ORG v. Attorney General DATE ORG CARDINAL , ORG was asked to consider whether hearsay evidence at a criminal trial had been \u201c sole and decisive \u201d evidence against the appellant and had thus breached his right to a fair trial under LAW . On DATE it dismissed the appeal . It considered the ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON and PERSON and the subsequent judgment of PERSON in which ORG had declined to apply it ( both judgments cited above ) . ORG concluded that it was not necessary for it to decide , for the purposes of the case before it , whether PERSON should be followed . It therefore proceeded on the basis that the ORG judgment in PERSON and PERSON represented \u201c the law of this Island \u201d .","The Judicial Committee of ORG is composed of Justices of ORG of GPE and other senior GPE and ORG judges . It is the court of final appeal for GPE . In criminal cases from GPE there is no appeal as of right and special leave from ORG of ORG is required . ORG Practice Direction CARDINAL on \u201c ORG to Appeal \u201d provides that , for criminal appeals against conviction and sentence , permission will be granted only in respect of \u201c applications where , in the opinion of ORG , there is a risk that a serious miscarriage of justice may have occurred \u201d . Further information concerning appeals to ORG is set out in GPE v. GPE DATE . ) , no . ORG , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162864","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF F\u00dcRST-PFEIFER v. AUSTRIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is a psychiatrist and has been registered since DATE as a psychological expert for court proceedings in custody and contact - rights - related disputes and decisions on public care as well as child abuse . Specialised in the psychological examination of children and adolescents , her focus is mainly on custody and contact - rights - related disputes .","The online publication \u201c meinbezirk.at \u201d was published and edited by the \u201c Print \u201d ORG , a private company which had its registered office in GPE .","NORP The regional DATE print publication PERSON , which was sent to every household of the district free , was published and edited by the \u201c Print \u201d PERSON , a private company which had its registered office in GPE .","On DATE an article was published in \u201c meinbezirk.at \u201d as well as in the print version of PERSON , which stated as follows :","\u201c The quality of experts in the spotlight ( ORG i m Visier )","Disclosed : Court Expert for custody proceedings a case for therapy","( Aufgedeckt : ORG Sachverst\u00e4ndige selbst ein Therapie - Fall )","Suffering from up - and - down mood swings , panic attacks , suicidal thoughts and hallucinations , together with paranoid ideas \u2013 but working as a court - appointed expert . In DATE she has examined over CARDINAL married couples in custodyrelated disputes . Now it seems , it gets rough for [ the applicant ] as an expert report about her psychological condition has been disclosed ...","A psychological expert report by Dr. PERSON was commissioned in DATE in the course of civil proceedings ( action because of an alleged breach of promise of marriage ) which unearthed the deficiencies of [ the applicant ] described above . Moreover , Dr. PERSON came to the conclusion that the applicant \u2019s impairments were hereditary , as the history of her family showed an accumulation of these impairments . DATE , the applicant was introduced to the \u201c expert community \u201d at ORG , and her integrity was beyond reproach for DATE until now . \u201d","The passage was followed by comments by a member of ORG , who had made a criminal complaint against the applicant with ORG office , ORG at ORG of GPE , and the Vice - President of ORG , who was responsible for managing the list of experts at the court . At the end of the article it was mentioned that the applicant was no longer answering her phone and had withdrawn from all her cases .","As a result of the article the applicant was confronted with questions related to it from colleagues and patients , and proceedings were initiated at ORG to clarify whether she was still fit to work as a court - appointed expert . In the course of those proceedings the applicant \u2019s mental status was also set to be examined .","On DATE the applicant lodged an action with the St. ORG . She sought damages under section CARDINAL of LAW ( Mediengesetz ) and the publication of the judgment claiming that the article and in particular the passages dealing with the psychological expert report on the applicant had violated her intimate personal sphere and compromised her publicly . However , she did not argue that the expert report had been obtained unlawfully .","On DATE the ORG ( FAC P\u00f6lten ) allowed the applicant \u2019s action , ordered the publisher to pay damages in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) and the operative part of the judgment to be published . Furthermore , the publisher was to bear the costs of the proceedings . The court found that an average reader would understand the article as putting the expert opinion from DATE in direct relation to the applicant \u2019s work as an expert now , thus questioning the quality of her work . The article , that also featured the applicant \u2019s full name and the description of her psychological impairment , touched her intimate personal sphere , since it created a link between her mental state and the quality of her work . However , the information itself did not allow for such a link , especially since the expert opinion dated from DATE and dealt only with a very specific question in the context of civil proceedings at the time . The incomplete and manipulative content of the article was not able to meet the standards of reporting on matters of fact . Furthermore , the court did not consider that there was a direct link between the contents of the article and the applicant \u2019s public position , given that she mainly worked as an expert in custody cases , which were not usually heard in public . Furthermore , it could be assumed that the applicant , a psychiatrist herself and a medical doctor , was managing her illness well and was able to do her work without any impairments .","The publisher appealed on points of law and fact , as well as against the sentence ( GPE wegen GPE , PERSON ) .","Thereupon , on DATE , ORG ( Oberlandesgericht Wien ) heard the appeal , set aside the judgment of the lower court , and dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . ORG confirmed that the article and the impugned passages giving opinions on the applicant \u2019s mental state affected her intimate personal sphere and were capable of compromising her . However , the content of the article was true , as it only repeated true information that had not been disputed by the applicant . Furthermore , the court did not find the article to be incomplete or manipulative , but sufficiently well - balanced and faithful to the different sides of the story in that it also referred to the fact that the applicant \u2019s integrity had never been questioned in DATE ; the court also asked for statements from the Vice - President of ORG , a member of ORG , and ORG of ORG of GPE .","The Court of Appeal further found that the publication in issue was directly linked to the applicant \u2019s public status . She had been included in the list of experts to be appointed by the courts since DATE and had been appointed in several cases . This regular work as an expert in court proceedings belongs beyond doubt to the public sphere ( \u201c ... ist zweifellos dem \u00f6ffentlichen PERSON zuzuordnen ... \u201d ) as she took part in association with the ORG - organised judiciary and held an important position in connection with the decision - making process of judges . Even though the impugned expert opinion dated from DATE and concerned a period in the applicant \u2019s life prior even to that date , the reporting in question touched sufficiently upon the present public activities of the applicant . Considering the importance and sensitivity of the area of custody proceedings and the dominant role of experts in the field , the psychological integrity of an expert assigned to those cases had to be beyond doubt . Any reservation in relation to the mental health of experts \u2013 if based on sufficient reasons \u2013 had to be met with a thorough investigation in the interest of good conduct of the administration of justice , which was what had happened as the next step in the present case . According to ORG , the article took up doubts arising from the neurologist opinion in DATE without denying the applicant \u2019s abilities as an expert in the area . The truthful information in the article and the public interest in the subject matter justified the article \u2019s critical questioning of exactly those abilities .","That judgment was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on CARDINAL DATE .","In the meantime the applicant lodged an action with ORG on DATE . She sought damages under section CARDINAL of LAW ( Mediengesetz ) and publication of the judgment claiming that the article , and in particular the passages dealing with the psychological expert report on her , violated her intimate personal sphere and compromised her publicly .","On DATE the Innsbruck ORG ( Landesgericht Innsbruck ) granted the applicant \u2019s action , ordered the publisher to pay damages in the amount of CARDINAL ( ORG ) and the publication of the operative part of the judgment . Furthermore , costs were awarded against the publisher . The court found that the average reader would understand the article as stating that the applicant was incapable of being an expert in custody proceedings because of her own mental health impairments in DATE and that this placed in question the quality of the applicant \u2019s work so far . That the applicant \u2019s psychological illness was directly linked to the intimate personal sphere was beyond doubt . The present article not only mentioned the applicant \u2019s mental health status , but also grossly exaggerated individual symptoms , which was also capable of compromising her . The article was so incomplete and distorted that it could not be considered a report of matters of fact . ORG in particular noted that the article did not mention that the period of examination was even DATE and that only certain aspects of the expert opinion had been published , while others had not . Scandalously the article created the impression that the applicant had rendered decisive opinions in custody proceedings for DATE while herself suffering from the symptoms described above . Furthermore , the publication was not linked in any way to the applicant \u2019s public status ( \u201c ... steht [ ... ] in keinem unmittelbaren PERSON \u00f6ffentlichen LOC ) . There was no connection between the applicant \u2019s work at present and her mental health status DATE . Her work in the context of custody proceedings was also not conducted in public .","The publisher appealed on points of law and fact , as well as against the sentence ( GPE wegen GPE , PERSON ) .","Thereupon , on DATE , ORG ( GPE ) granted the appeal , set aside the judgment of the lower court , and dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . In contrast to ORG it found that the average reader would understand from the article at issue that in DATE an expert opinion was rendered in respect of the applicant that showed the above - mentioned psychological impairments . However , the article also stated that the applicant \u2019s integrity had not been questioned for DATE . The article , while focusing on the applicant \u2019s work in custody proceedings , gave space to comments from ORG of ORG of GPE , a member of ORG , and the Vice - President of ORG . The article did not indicate however that the applicant was not competent to exercise her profession as a psychological expert . Furthermore , the published information was true . The fact that only parts of the expert opinion were repeated in the article did not render the article distortive , nor the relevant information untrue .","As regards the connection to the public sphere and public interest , ORG found that the ORG administration , together with the administration of justice , belonged to the public sphere . The applicant had been included in the list of court - commissioned experts since DATE , and her repeated work as an expert in court proceedings must be considered as belonging to the public sphere . The activity was closely linked to the administration of justice , and had a considerable influence on judges\u2019 decision - making processes . The impugned article concerned the applicant \u2019s activity as an expert in custody proceedings . Considering the importance and sensitivity of the area of custody proceedings and the dominant role of experts in the field , the psychological integrity of an expert assigned to those cases had to be beyond doubt . Any reservation in relation to the mental health of experts \u2013 if based on sufficient reasons \u2013 had to be met with a thorough investigation in the interest of the proper administration of justice , which had happened as a next step in the present case . Insofar , a truthful report linked to a person \u2019s public status , which also contained information belonging to the intimate personal sphere must be permitted to be published . ORG concluded that the article , by way of an appropriate commentary , critically examined a matter of public interest and therefore exercised its role as a \u201c public watchdog \u201d .","That judgment was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164227","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"KRPI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , an advocate practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant held a specially protected tenancy ( stanarsko pravo ) of a flat in GPE measuring QUANTITY . The flat was located in a socially - owned building in the centre of GPE built in DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the local authorities decided to demolish the building because it was so dilapidated that it risked collapsing at any time and thus posed a risk to life and property . The decision specified that the building would be demolished once all the tenants ( CARDINAL at the time , including the applicant ) had vacated it , after being provided with replacement flats pursuant to the law , in particular section PERSON ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On the basis of that decision CARDINAL of the tenants living in the building were subsequently allocated replacement flats .","On DATE ORG entered into force ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It entitled holders of specially protected tenancies to purchase the flats in respect of which they held such a tenancy under favourable conditions . In that way , a large majority of specially protected tenancies became a right of ownership for those tenants .","On DATE an explosive device was detonated in front of CARDINAL of the flats in the building , which caused further damage .","On DATE the applicant and another tenant who were still living in the building , wrote to the local authorities housing department asking it to allocate them urgently replacement flats , as after the explosion the building was no longer suitable for habitation .","On DATE the local authorities held an on - site inspection and established that due to the damage caused by the explosion , the building was indeed no longer habitable and that the CARDINAL remaining tenants ( of which CARDINAL was the applicant ) had moved in with their friends .","On DATE the applicant was offered a replacement flat in GPE measuring QUANTITY . He refused the flat , stating that it \u201c was damp and had rotten floors \u201d and was therefore uninhabitable .","On DATE the applicant , relying on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , brought a civil action against the local authorities , in particular GPE , before ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking to be provided with a replacement flat . More specifically , he asked to be awarded a specially protected tenancy of such a flat .","At the hearing held on DATE the applicant stated , inter alia , that the building in which his old flat was located had been demolished .","On DATE ORG entered into force ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It repealed LAW , abolished the legal concept of the specially protected tenancy and provided that the remaining holders of such tenancies were to become \u201c protected lessees \u201d ( za\u0161ti\u0107eni najmoprimci , see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . Under the Act such lessees are subject to a number of protective measures , such as the duty of landlords to conclude a lease of indefinite duration ; payment of protected rent ( za\u0161ti\u0107ena najamnina ) , the amount of which is set by the Government and is significantly lower than the market rent ; and better protection against termination of the lease ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Accordingly , in his written submissions of CARDINAL DATE the applicant amended his action and sought to be awarded a replacement flat under the protected lease scheme , with an option to purchase it under the conditions set forth in ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant deregistered his domicile at the address at which his old flat was located and registered it at the address where his stepson was living .","By a judgment of CARDINAL September CARDINAL the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . The court established , on the basis of a witness testimony , that the replacement flat the applicant had been offered but had refused ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had indeed been unsuitable for habitation because it was shabby and had flooded floors and damp walls . It held , however , that while the local authorities had indeed been bound under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to provide the applicant with a replacement flat , that obligation had been extinguished with the entry into force of ORG , which had repealed LAW and abolished the specially protected tenancy as such .","On DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld the first - instance judgment by endorsing the reasons given therein . The first - instance judgment thereby became final .","The applicant then , on DATE , lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) against the second - instance judgment . Aware that the value of the subject matter of the dispute , amounting to CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) , which he had set when bringing his action did not reach the statutory threshold ( HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for lodging an ordinary appeal on points of law , the applicant lodged a so - called extraordinary appeal on points of law under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , stating that the main issue in his case was important for the uniform application of the law .","By a decision of DATE ORG ( PERSON ) declared inadmissible the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . It found that the applicant had not complied with the formal requirements for lodging an extraordinary appeal on points of law , as stipulated in section ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , because he had not specified the legal issue for which he had lodged the appeal or explained why it was important for the uniform application of the law .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against ORG decision , alleging violations of his constitutional rights to equality before the law , equality before the courts , fair procedure and the right of ownership .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared inadmissible the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint and served that decision on his representative on CARDINAL DATE . It held , inter alia , that ORG decision was not arbitrary and that it did not raise a constitutional law issue .","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o parni\u010dnom postupku , ORG of ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL with subsequent amendments , and ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , with subsequent amendments ) , which has been in force since DATE , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) NORP Parties may lodge an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) against a second - instance judgment :","- if the value of the subject matter of the dispute of the contested part of the judgment exceeds HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ,","- [ in certain employment disputes ] ,","- [ if the second - instance court assessed the evidence and\/or established the facts differently from the first - instance court or held a hearing ] .","( CARDINAL ) NORP In cases where parties are not entitled to lodge an appeal on points of law in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of this section , they may [ nevertheless ] do so if a decision in the dispute depends on the resolution of a substantive or procedural legal issue [ that is ] important for ensuring the uniform application of the law and equality of citizens , for example :","- if ORG has not yet ruled on that issue ... in respect of which there is divergent case - law of the second - instance courts ,","- if ORG has not yet ruled on that issue and the second - instance court may develop divergent case - law in respect of it , for example , because of possible different interpretations of certain statutory provisions ,","- if ORG has already ruled on that issue but the decision of the second - instance court is not in conformity with that ruling ,","- if ORG has already ruled on that issue and the decision of the second - instance court is in conformity with that ruling but ... the case - law should be revisited in view of changes in the legal system occasioned by new legislation , international treaties or decisions of ORG or ORG .","( CARDINAL ) In the [ extraordinary ] appeal on points of law referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the appellants must specify the legal issue for which they are lodging the appeal and give reasons as to why they find that issue important for ensuring the uniform application of the law and equality of citizens .","( CARDINAL ) An appeal on points of law must be lodged within DATE of the service of the second - instance judgment . \u201d","\u201c A belated , incomplete or inadmissible [ in the strict sense ] ( section CARDINAL ) appeal on points of law shall be declared inadmissible by a decision of the judge rapporteur of ORG , unless the first - instance court ... has not already done so . \u201d","NORP The relevant provision of LAW ( Zakon o stambenim odnosima , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , which was in force between DATE and CARDINAL DATE , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A specially protected tenancy shall be terminated if , on the basis of a decision issued by the relevant authority or in the proceedings for enforcement of a decision on expropriation , the building or part of the building in which the flat is located has to be demolished .","( CARDINAL ) NORP If , in the case referred to in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of this section the tenants have to move out , on the basis of a decision [ issued ] by the housing authority , the municipality or the person to whose benefit the building is being demolished shall provide them with another [ replacement ] flat which does not significantly reduce the quality of their housing .","( CARDINAL ) If the relevant authority establishes that a building has to be demolished or reconstructed because it poses a risk to life or property , or for other reasons specified in separate legislation , the specially protected tenancy of flats in such a building shall be terminated and the provider of the flats ... shall provide the tenants with other [ replacement ] flats which do not significantly reduce the quality of their housing . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147512","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"EM\u0130N (MUSTAFA) AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants stated that they are nationals of the \u201c GPE \u201d . Their names , dates of birth and places of residence are set out in the Annex . They are represented before the Court by Ms Y. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The facts of the case may be summarised as follows . The applicants are relatives of a NORP - Cypriot man who went missing from hospital in GPE on DATE at a time of mounting tension and violence in which NORP or NORP - NORP villages were targeted .","Their relative was listed as a missing person , the information being given to the NORP authorities , ORG and ORG .","The remains of the missing man were found in DATE during exhumations carried out by ORG for Missing Persons ( \u201c CMP \u201d ) . The remains were identified in DATE .","NORP By letter dated DATE , the Attorney - General instructed the police to carry out an investigation into the circumstances of the death of the applicants\u2019 relative .","By report dated DATE , the Attorney - General informed the applicants that police had submitted in the investigation file in DATE . He had returned it , indicating further steps to be taken . In DATE , the file had been re - submitted . On the basis of the information obtained and analysis of the file , the Attorney - General had come to the conclusion that the investigation had reached a point where it could not proceed further as all leads had been pursued exhaustively , the evidence concerning the core facts was scanty and did not lead to persons who could be considered as possible suspects . He listed the investigative steps taken , which included","The police searched for any evidence in the hospital files to identify anyone who might have been in the same ward or who might have taken the deceased away ; they found the name of CARDINAL person admitted at the same time but this person had since died ;","The police made enquiries at the state prison where the deceased had been a warder to find information about the persons who might have accompanied the deceased to the hospital or might have come to take him away ; CARDINAL name PERSON was identified as a person who had come to the hospital to take the deceased away ; enquiries revealed that H.F had moved to GPE and had since died ; of QUANTITY persons who had been working at the prison at the time , they identified that CARDINAL were still ;","The police interviewed all CARDINAL ex - prison staff . CARDINAL said that they had known the deceased ; none admitted having any information about how he had gone missing from the hospital , save for a rumour that his family had gone to pick him up .","The police also interviewed police officers who were in service at the relevant time but no relevant information was forthcoming about the deceased .","The Attorney - General concluded that the passage of time since events had rendered unfeasible the questioning of the persons who might have been able to shed light on the investigation . As there were no remaining leads , the investigation could not be pursued further . However , if any new evidence or information did come to light in the course of other ongoing investigations into events in DATE , he had instructed the police to bring it to his attention for evaluation and further directions . He would keep the applicants updated in such event ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179826","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF VASILE VICTOR STANCIU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE of the applicant \u2019s neighbours called the police to complain about the fact that the applicant had stored personal items in the common space of their apartment building .","At TIME on DATE QUANTITY police officers arrived at the applicant \u2019s door and asked for his identification papers without giving their names or informing him of the purpose of their visit . The applicant asked them what the purpose of their request was but they did not answer . For that reason , the applicant refused to present his papers , telling the police officers to come \u201c some other time \u201d ( alt\u0103dat\u0103 ) .","NORP The police officers immobilised the applicant , threw him to the ground and then handcuffed him . Noting the escalation of events , the applicant \u2019s partner , PERSON , searched for his identification papers and handed them all to the police officers : identity card , pension benefits slip and a certificate that he had been a fighter in the CARDINAL Revolution .","NORP The police officers took the papers without looking at them and took the applicant to police station no . CARDINAL to be identified .","At the police station the applicant was struck with fists , feet and truncheons . The pain was so intense that the applicant soiled himself . During the beating , the applicant \u2019s mobile phone and still camera were destroyed and his clothes were torn .","When the beating ended , the police officers checked the applicant \u2019s papers and then left him alone for TIME in a room . When they returned they informed him that they were leaving on a mission . After being again left alone , the applicant managed to find the officer on duty at the police headquarters ( ofi\u0163erul de serviciu ) to ask permission to use the toilet . The police officer sent him home to clean himself up .","NORP The applicant went home and then returned to the police section to recover his identity papers .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic doctor at ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The doctor drafted a medical report dated DATE ; a copy of the report was given to the applicant on DATE . It noted that the applicant had borne traces of violence on his wrists , arms and legs as a consequence of having been hit with a hard object ; that he had complained of chest pains ; and that the injuries could have dated from CARDINAL DATE and had needed DATE of medical care .","DATE after the incident , the applicant received by mail an offence report ( proces verbal de contraven\u0163ie ) drafted by the police officers on DATE in his absence , whereby he was fined CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) for \u201c refusal to present data necessary for his identification \u201d .","On DATE CARDINAL police officers were directed by the officer on duty at police station no . CARDINAL to settle a conflict between the applicant and a neighbour . Upon arrival , the police officers asked the applicant to present his identity papers , but he became violent and refused to comply . When the applicant tried to return to his apartment the police officers handcuffed him and transported him to the police station . After his identity had been established , the applicant left the police station .","The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the CARDINAL police officers , accusing them of unlawful deprivation of liberty , unlawful investigation and torture , and seeking compensation . The complaint was registered with police station no . CARDINAL on DATE . On DATE the file was sent for investigation to the internal investigations department of ORG , and police officers from that department were delegated to conduct all relevant investigations .","These investigators heard evidence from the QUANTITY police officers , from the officer on duty on DATE of the events and from the neighbour \u2019s husband ( see below ) .","On DATE the investigating police officers heard evidence from the neighbour \u2019s husband , who declared that when the applicant , \u201c known as a mentally ill person \u201d , had refused , in inappropriate and disrespectful language , to present his identification papers and had attempted to return to his apartment , the police officers had immobilised him on the ground and handcuffed him , without ill - treating him in the process .","The officer on duty declared on DATE that he had not spoken at all to the applicant on the night in question and had only seen him when the police officers had brought him in to establish his identity ; those same officers had subsequently advised him to leave the police station \u2013 the officer on duty stated that he had seen the applicant again when he was leaving the building . He added that as he had been very busy in his office he had seen the applicant only for TIME , and had thus not been in a position to see whether the applicant had been injured .","Lastly , the QUANTITY police officers gave their statements on respectively CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .","CARDINAL of the officers declared that at the time of the events in question , the applicant had been under the influence of alcohol , because he had smelled of alcohol and had displayed a defiant attitude towards the police officers .","Both officers mentioned in very similar terms that when asked to present his identification papers , the applicant had tried to evade the measure ( \u201c se sustrage m\u0103surii legitim\u0103rii \u201d ) and had attempted to re - enter his apartment by using physical force ; for this reason , they had proceeded to handcuff him and had taken him to the police station . Both officers denied having inflicted any harm on the applicant , claiming that they had acted proportionately in view of the applicant \u2019s opposition to their request .","G.C. , the applicant \u2019s partner , was never heard by the investigators .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG decided not to prosecute . On the basis of the evidence in the file , attesting , inter alia , to the fact that the applicant was known as a person who engaged in violent behaviour and who was frequently under the influence of alcohol , the prosecutor decided that the injuries suffered by the applicant had been superficial and that the use of force had been proportionate and necessary in order to immobilise him and take him to the police station , as provided for by Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and LAW and b ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant lodged an objection . The prosecutor \u2019s decision was upheld on DATE by the head of the above - mentioned prosecutor \u2019s office , who considered that the police intervention had been rendered necessary by the applicant \u2019s violent behaviour and had not been excessive , as demonstrated by the fact that the injuries suffered had been insignificant .","NORP The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG against the CARDINAL decisions . He mainly argued that the investigation had been superficial , and that the conclusions of the investigation had been based exclusively on the statements given by the QUANTITY police officers who had behaved aggressively towards him , while his partner , for instance , had never been heard . He contested the prosecutor \u2019s opinion that the injuries incurred had been superficial . He referred to the ORG \u2019s relevant case - law , which required a plausible explanation for any traces of violence sustained while a person had been under police supervision . He also contested the proportionality of the police reaction , pointing out that he had merely refused orally to show his identification and that the police officers could not claim or prove that they had sustained any traces of violence during that intervention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint and consequently upheld the ORG decisions . The court considered that the police intervention had been lawful . It further held that the applicant \u2019s minor lesions had been caused when he had fallen at the moment of his being immobilised by the police , which had been necessary because of the applicant \u2019s verbal and physical resistance . The court considered that the applicant had not been kept unlawfully in the police station but had been released as soon as his identity had been established , and that the consequences of the police intervention had not been serious enough to constitute the crime of torture , as alleged by the applicant . The decision was final , no further appeal being possible ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177521","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"KOLOSOV v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON ( GPE ) . He was represented before the ORG by Mr Y. Aksaev , a lawyer practising in GPE ( GPE ) .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","Notified under LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of the Rules of Court of their right to intervene in the present case , ORG expressed no wish to do so .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s wife filed divorce papers with the competent court in GPE , also seeking the division of property .","On DATE she applied to ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE ( GPE ) for an interim measure prohibiting the applicant from disposing of CARDINAL apartments ( zabranjuje otu\u0111enje i optere\u0107enje nepokretnosti ) in GPE ( GPE ) until the proceedings in GPE had ended .","On DATE the court , in the absence of both the applicant and his representative , approved the measure , which was duly registered in the ORG real estate register . On DATE the applicant received the relevant decision , which also contained information that he could appeal to ORG , through the court in GPE , within DATE .","On DATE the applicant allegedly sent his appeal by express mail and it was received at ORG ( ORG ) in GPE on DATE by a named court officer . The applicant submitted a copy of a ORG delivery company envelope to the ORG with a date of CARDINAL DATE . It was addressed to ORG in GPE , with a waybill number of CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL marked on it .","On DATE ORG found that the applicant had sent his appeal on CARDINAL DATE and rejected it ( odbacio ) as out of time .","On DATE , the proceedings in GPE ended with a friendly settlement .","On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG , maintaining that he had appealed on DATE and had therefore been in time . He enquired about the basis for ORG conclusion that the appeal had been sent on DATE .","On DATE of the CARDINAL ORG judges dealing with the applicant \u2019s case informed the president of ORG that there was proof in the case file that the appeal had been sent on CARDINAL DATE and that ORG had not taken other documents submitted by the applicant into account , namely \u201c a receipt , a bill and a fax sent on CARDINAL DATE \u201d .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s ex - wife waived her rights in respect of the property in GPE and requested that the interim measure be revoked and deleted from the real estate register .","On DATE the applicant informed the courts in GPE and GPE about the termination of the proceedings in GPE and requested that the interim measure be revoked .","On DATE the court in GPE revoked the measure ( ukida se privremena mjera ) .","On DATE the applicant tried to sell his property in GPE , but could not as the interim measure was still in the register . It transpired that the court in GPE had not transmitted the relevant decision to the ORG real estate registry .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG in GPE requested that the real estate registry in GPE delete the measure .","On DATE the registry issued a decision to strike out the interim measure in respect of CARDINAL of the apartments , which was executed on DATE . On DATE the registry issued a decision to strike out the interim measure in respect of the other apartment , which was executed on DATE .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Zakon o parni\u010dnom postupku ; published in ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and ORG no . CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that submissions sent by post are considered as having been lodged with the relevant court on DATE of posting ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161149","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF \u00c7AM v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+P1-2 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general};Right to education);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE she applied to take part in the entrance competition for ORG attached to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for the DATE academic year .","On DATE and DATE she took the practical selection tests performing on the ba\u011flama .","On DATE the music section of the ORG administration published a list of successful candidates in the entrance examination , which included the applicant .","The applicant immediately applied to a medical board at ORG for a medical report certifying her fitness to study at ORG .","On DATE that medical board drew up a report stating that the applicant had been diagnosed with hypermetropia with nystagmus and severe bilateral amblyopia . ORG concluded that the applicant should be referred to a higher medical authority .","On DATE a medical board at ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) prepared a medical report finding that the applicant could receive education and instruction in the sections of ORG where eyesight was unecessary .","On DATE the Director of ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating the following :","\u201c As we have explained on several occasions to your mother , your father and yourself , since you have failed to provide a report from a fully equipped public hospital ( tam te\u015fekk\u00fcll\u00fc PERSON hastanesi ) confirming that you can study at ORG ... we have been unable to enrol you ... We look forward to receiving your report from a public hospital mentioning your admission to ORG as a student as soon as possible ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father wrote to the Director of ORG to inform him that the medical report had been forwarded to ORG that DATE , as requested .","Also on DATE , the Director of ORG wrote to the Chief Medical Officer of ORG . Referring to the report issued by that hospital \u2019s ORG on DATE , he informed the Chief Medical Officer that none of the CARDINAL sections of ORG could be deemed not to require eyesight . The letter stated that in order to be able to be educated in any section of the ORG , a student had to submit a medical report stating that he or she was fit for the task . The Director of ORG asked the Chief Medical Officer to prepare a fresh medical report taking account of the fact that no section of ORG could be considered as not necessitating eyesight , and accordingly to specify whether or not the applicant was capable of being educated in ORG .","On an unspecified date ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for enrolment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s parents , acting in her name and on her behalf , lodged with ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) an action against the administration of ORG to set aside ORG decision not to enrol their daughter . That action was accompanied by a request for a stay of execution of the impugned decision . In his pleadings , counsel for the applicant argued that his client had passed the entrance examination to ORG on DATE , appearing before a panel of CARDINAL teachers , and that on DATE she had passed the final entrance competition with full marks , appearing before a panel of CARDINAL teachers . Quoting the criteria for admission to ORG , that is to say being under DATE , holding a certificate of primary education , having the requisite physical abilities for playing the chosen instrument in respect of which enrolment has been requested , not having a physical disability such as to prevent her from receiving an education in the chosen section , and passing the talent and technical standard competition . Counsel for the applicant submitted that she had satisfied all those criteria . Her enrolment in ORG had been refused on the sole ground that she was blind , which was contrary to law and the equality principle . In support of her application , counsel for the applicant relied on LAW , Articles CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE of Basic Law No . DATE on national education ( \u201c Act No . CARDINAL \u201d ) and LAW . CARDINAL on specialised education . He also cited the names of former blind students who had graduated from the same ORG .","In a statement of defence of CARDINAL DATE the administration of ORG submitted that when filing her application for enrolment the applicant \u2019s father had provided no document referring to her blindness . It contended that he had concealed that fact , had behaved as if his child were disability - free and had therefore attempted to deceive the enrolment office . It stated that LAW admissions and enrolment in ORG set out the \u201c no disability \u201d criterion . Furthermore , the applicant had failed to provide a medical report certifying that she could study at ORG , which requirement applied to all applicants for admission . The statement therefore affirmed that the refusal to enrol the applicant had not been due to her blindness but stemmed from her failure to submit all the requisite documents for her enrolment , within the stipulated time - limit . It added that even though the medical report submitted by the applicant had stated that she could study in the sections of the ORG where eyesight was unnecessary , there were in fact no such sections . Finally , it pointed out that in the absence of appropriate facilities and teaching staff with the requisite expertise , ORG was not in a position to provide education for blind students , or indeed for persons with any kind of disability . In that connection it explained that in DATE , when it had opened , ORG had hoped to introduce facilities for teaching blind students , but the lack of teachers with a command of braille had forced it to abandon those efforts .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request for a stay of execution of the decision on the grounds that the conditions set out in DATE \u00a7 CARDINAL of Act No . CARDINAL on Administrative Procedure ( \u201c Act No . CARDINAL \u201d ) as amended by Act No . CARDINAL had not been met .","On DATE , acting in her name and on her behalf , the applicant \u2019s parents appealed against that decision to ORG . They argued that pursuant to section CARDINAL LAW Act No . CARDINAL , there had been CARDINAL preconditions for obtaining a stay of execution : the existence of damage which was irreparable or difficult to repair , and the apparent unlawfulness of the administrative Act in question . The parents stated that under the circumstances of the present case it was obvious that the refusal to enrol their daughter in ORG would cause her damage which would be difficult to repair . They also submitted that such refusal was unlawful . Their memorial pointed out that the applicant held a primary school certificate and , apart from her blindness , had all the requisite physical capacities for playing the ba\u011flama . Furthermore , she had passed the entrance examination for ORG , and a medical report had established that she had no disability such as to prevent her from receiving education in the music department . They submitted that the merits of that medical report could not be contested , that other students had provided medical reports from institutions similar to that which had drawn up the applicant \u2019s report , and that ORG had accepted those reports . In their view , the fact that the report had not specifically mentioned that the applicant could study at the ORG could not invalidate it . Moreover , they argued that the respondent administration \u2019s argument that the medical report had not been submitted in time was fallacious , as that report had been submitted to ORG on DATE , that is to say on DATE after receipt of the letter from the ORG requesting the report . The parents further affirmed that the applicant had met all the conditions for enrolment and submitted the requested documents within the stipulated time - limits . The only reason for the refusal of enrolment had been her blindness . In reply to the respondent administration \u2019s plea that ORG had no sections where eyesight was not required , the applicant \u2019s parents provided the names of CARDINAL blind graduates of ORG . Those former students had asserted that blindness was no obstacle to playing a musical instrument , that there were many blind musicians and that ORG argument that none of the teachers knew braille was invalid in the light of advanced technology and computer systems capable of converting braille . Finally , the applicant \u2019s parents submitted that the impugned measure was contrary to the constitutional principle of equality and all the relevant international legal instruments .","On DATE ORG dismissed that appeal on the grounds that the conditions for a stay of execution set out in section CARDINAL LAW No . CARDINAL had not been fulfilled since the execution of the impugned decision was not such as to cause damage which was irreparable or difficult to repair and was not unlawful .","On DATE the Chief Medical Officer of ORG wrote to the administration of ORG to inform it that the medical report du DATE had been revised . The original sentence \u201c can receive education and instruction in the sections of ORG where eyesight is unnecessary \u201d had been replaced by : \u201c can not receive education or instruction \u201d .","On DATE , acting in the applicant \u2019s name and on her behalf , her parents submitted a complaint to ORG against ORG , its Chief Medical Officer and the other doctors who had amended the medical report of DATE , accusing them of abuse of office . They argued that the doctors had amended the medical report arbitrarily , without examining their daughter . They affirmed that the purpose of the amendments had been to ensure that the proceedings against the administration of ORG concluded in the latter \u2019s favour .","On DATE they applied to ORG for an inquiry into the events in question .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG attached to ORG adopted a decision refusing to authorise the prosecution of the Chief Medical Officer in question . That decision mentioned that the findings of the report had been amended at the request of the administration of ORG and that there had been no wrongdoing or abuse of office .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s parents , acting in her name and on her behalf , appealed to ORG to set aside that decision and authorise proceedings against the Chief Medical Officer in question . That appeal was unsuccessful .","On DATE they lodged an appeal with ORG requesting the setting aside of the decision not to enrol the applicant . They relied on LAW Act No . CARDINAL of DATE on persons with disabilities ( \u201c Act No . CARDINAL \u201d ) , which had , in their view , put an end to all forms of discrimination in the educational sphere .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The relevant sections of the court \u2019s reasoning read as follows :","\u201c ...","The principles governing entrance competitions and enrolments at ORG attached to ORG were adopted by ORG ... at the request of the section assembly , after having been debated in ORG assembly and deemed lawful by ORG . ... Those principles include the condition that applicants who have passed the competition for enrolment in ORG should not suffer from any physical disability impeding education in the section [ to which they have been admitted ] . Furthermore , that condition is mentioned on the form distributed to applicants listing the documents required for final enrolment . The submission of a report drawn up by a fully equipped hospital and stating \u2018 is capable of studying at the Music Academy\u2019 is mandatory .","It transpired from the assessment of the application that [ the applicant ] passed the entrance examination and secured the right to be enrolled . However , whereas the report prepared by ORG had concluded that a report should be requested from a higher medical board , she requested a report from an equivalent medical board , namely ORG . It transpires from the defence of the respondent administration that in DATE , when ORG was set up , it had enrolled a number of blind students on a trial basis , but , in the absence of teaching staff conversant with the braille alphabet and having regard to the various difficulties encountered , that experiment was discontinued . No further blind students were admitted . It has been established that the administration wrote to the Chief Medical Officer of ORG requesting information on the interpretation of the medical report which it had issued and that the conclusions of that report had subsequently been amended . The respondent administration \u2019s decision to refuse to enrol the applicant was not unlawful as she had been unable to provide a report drawn up by a fully equipped public hospital and stating that she was capable of studying at ORG . The applicant \u2019s allegations to the contrary are ill - founded ... \u201d","ORG adopted that decision on a majority vote , contrary to the recommendation of the President of the court , who adopted a dissenting opinion stating , with reference to LAW No . DATE , that no one could be deprived of his or her right to education and instruction . In his view , it was beyond doubt that it was incumbent on government departments to put in place an environment conducive to education and instruction and meeting the needs of blind persons . Referring to the defence put forward by the respondent administration , which had attempted to incorporate blind students in DATE , he noted that it had been possible at the time to provide blind persons with musical education . He emphasised that there were many famous blind musicians . To deprive individuals of their right to education was incompatible with a social and democratic ORG governed by the rule of law . He consequently held that the impugned administrative measure had been unlawful .","On DATE ORG wrote a letter to the applicant \u2019s father in reply to his request of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The relevant parts of the letter read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The CARDINAL reports covered by the inquiry are similar in content .","However , the hospital administration \u2019s failure to defend the initial report and its decision to make the requested amendments , on the instructions of the administration of ORG ... can not be considered as an appropriate attitude .","The letter of CARDINAL ( no . CARDINAL ) sent by the administration of ORG ... to the Chief Medical Officer of the hospital ... states that \u2018 inasmuch , moreover , as the teaching administered in those sections is intended for sighted students , we have no suitable educational environment for blind students ( in terms of resources , equipment , technical facilities or teachers ) . For those reasons it is out of the question for sighted and blind students to follow common GPE .","... Having regard to the relevant international agreements and legislative provisions , the course of action expected of the administration was not to force through amendments to a report drawn up by a hospital , thus impeding a blind citizen \u2019s right to education ... In conclusion , the Chief Medical Officer amended the form of the report , [ but ] its content remained the same , such that he can not be accused of negligence . The available administrative and judicial remedies should be used to aasert the right in question ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s parents , acting in her name and on her behalf , lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG against the DATE decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They submitted that that decision was contrary to the LAW , to LAW No . DATE , to LAW . DATE and to several international instruments and declarations . They submitted that the respondent administration \u2019s defence plea that eyesight was required in all the sections of ORG was fallacious , citing the names of blind former music students who held diplomas from the ORG . They requested the invalidation of the first - instance decision in accordance with the arguments set out in the opinion of the President of ORG .","On DATE the administration of ORG filed its defence . It submitted that the applicant \u2019s medical report had mentioned that she could study in the sections of ORG which did not require eyesight , but that in fact the ORG had no such sections . Lastly , it affirmed that the applicant had not met all the requisite conditions for enrolment .","By judgment of DATE , served on counsel for the applicant on DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law and upheld the impugned decision , having found that the latter had fallen within the jurisdiction of the administrative court , had not been unlawful and had complied with the procedural rules . Moreover , it transpired from the judgment of ORG that the reporting judge had come down in favour of admitting the appeal on points of law . In his opinion on the appeal on points of law , ORG with ORG , referring to LAW and sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Act No . DATE , also stated that educational establishments were required to take into account persons who required specialist teaching and to adopt the necessary measures to guarantee their education . In the circumstances of the present case , he considered that the decision not to enrol the applicant \u2013 who had passed the entrance examination for ORG and met all the legal conditions \u2013 flouted the relevant constitutional and legislative provisions and should therefore be set aside .","According to information transmitted to the ORG by the applicant , after the rejection of her application to ORG , she continued her education in an ordinary school before joining ORG of ORG .","..."],"violated_articles":["14","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161229","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"BATISTA LABORDE v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Mr K. Bernhauser , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .","NORP On DATE the Graz Regional Court ( PERSON f\u00fcr PERSON ) convicted the applicant of partly attempted and partly realised drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","He was found , together with GPE , to have assisted in the shipment of QUANTITY of cocaine from GPE in GPE . The transport route via the GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE to GPE had only been interrupted as a result of the seizure of the drugs by the GPE authorities in the port of GPE .","The applicant was also found to have organised the shipment , once again together with GPE , of a further QUANTITY cocaine from GPE , via GPE , the GPE , GPE and GPE to GPE in GPE , with the onward transportation by road to GPE being organised by investigators from ORG for Interior Affairs . Finally , the applicant and GPE were found to have attempted by means of those shipments to supply the above - mentioned quantities of illegal substances to contacts in LOC for further distribution .","According to the reasoning of the judgment of ORG , the applicant was the contact person of the NORP cocaine ORG group which entered into business with a NORP - Montenegrin buyers\u2019 group with GPE as mediator . GPE was known to ORG ( ORG ) and an informant ( \u201c PERSON ) was placed close to GPE by the GPE authorities . PERSON was well known to the authorities and had had business dealings with GPE in the past . He was not a police officer but was supervised by special agent GPE of the ORG . He had also worked for the ORG and the NORP authorities in a coordinated operation DATE to uncover international drug trafficking in LOC through GPE . Due to the conduct of PERSON , authorities learned in DATE that GPE had contacted an international group that was interested in establishing a NORP infrastructure through which to traffic counterfeit cigarettes and cocaine . The information included details of possible quantities and routes . GPE was looking for somebody who could provide the transport and the storage of the cocaine from GPE , where the drugs should be unshipped , to GPE . NORP authorities were asked by the ORG if they would provide these services to GPE in the course of an undercover operation . DATE and DATE , the NORP police authorities initiated undercover investigations , primarily into the NORP partners to the deal . NORP undercover police officers were introduced to GPE by PERSON and offered the required transport and storage services . GPE and the CARDINAL criminal groups accepted . During the business negotiations , the NORP group as well as the ORG group requested a security in case of loss of the drugs due to the conduct of the NORP authorities . The undercover officers offered a deposit of ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL which was presented to the contact persons of the CARDINAL groups . After the security deposit was presented , the cocaine was shipped in LOC in CARDINAL tranches . On DATE the first container left the port of GPE , GPE , with a planned arrival date in GPE , GPE , of CARDINAL or DATE . On board were QUANTITY of best quality cocaine , consisting of QUANTITY of cocaine in pure form . However , the cocaine was seized and secured in the port of GPE , GPE , in the course of a police intervention by the GPE security authorities . The empty container was sent on to GPE . On DATE a second container with QUANTITY of cocaine was shipped . The first container arrived in GPE , GPE , on DATE and was unloaded by NORP undercover police officers . As agreed by the CARDINAL criminal organisations involved , they stored the shipped goods in which the drugs had been hidden , in a storage facility in GPE before passing them on to the group headed by PERSON and other distributors for sale in LOC . On DATE the applicant left GPE for GPE via GPE , and finally arrived in GPE on DATE . The objective of the trip was to have a representative of the NORP group present at the handover of the original freight papers . When the loading should have formally been handed over to the ORG group , the police arrested the applicant and the others .","There is no indication that at any point during the trial proceedings before ORG the applicant filed a request that the indictment be declared unlawful and that , as a consequence , all evidence obtained in the course of thereof be excluded from the trial .","ORG attributed importance to the witness statements of the undercover officers who had explained \u2013 as set out in the reasoning of the judgment DATE credibly and in great detail the structure and organisation of the groups involved , the details of the deal , and the conversations held during the course of planning the crime . The court emphasised that the undercover ORG responsibility had been to put in place the planned infrastructure ( the storage , for example ) , not to simulate drug - purchasing . In view of the international dimension of the drug deal and the involvement of an obviously substantial NORP drug trafficking group , the court found it not abnormal that trust - generating measures such as the payment of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL as a security deposit had to be demonstrated by the undercover officers .","The applicant \u2019s involvement was confirmed , inter alia , by the investigative results of a police officer in GPE who was able to confirm the contacts established early on between GPE and the applicant in LOC .","When determining the sentence to be imposed on the applicant , ORG stated as mitigating circumstances the lack of any criminal record of the applicant in GPE , the length of the proceedings , and the fact that the criminal acts had remained attempts only . However , the large quantities of illegal drugs involved were deemed to constitute an aggravating circumstance .","On DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , lodged a plea of nullity to ORG ) . In this plea he did not complain about incitement .","In the same submission the applicant lodged also an appeal against the sentence to ORG ( Berufung ) . In the appeal the applicant sought mitigation of the sentence and submitted , inter alia , that the first - instance court , in imposing the sentence , had disregarded the fact that the offences had been prompted by actions on the part of domestic and NORP police authorities . He further stated that the ORG had also approached the NORP police authorities with their plan to help realise a major drug deal , but the latter had declined the proposal as being unlawful . Only then had the ORG proposed the plan to the NORP authorities . The applicant alleged that neither the NORP group nor the presumed NORP buyers had had the intention of organising a drug shipment to GPE . That plan had been created \u2012 in contravention of NORP law \u2012 by the Agent S.F. together with NORP officials from ORG ( ORG f\u00fcr ORG ) . Those acts on the part of the police authorities exceeded the bounds of simple provocation , especially taking into account that the offences of which the applicant was convicted would not have come to fruition had the NORP authorities not deposited ORG CARDINAL by way of a security deposit .","On DATE ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s plea of nullity .","On DATE the ORG ( Oberlandesgericht Graz ) allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal and decreased his sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . It found firstly that the commercial character of the offences ( gewerbsm\u00e4ssige Begehungsweise ) had to be taken into consideration as an additional aggravating circumstance . As regards the significance attributed by the first - instance court to the length of the proceedings , ORG stated that , while acknowledging the length of the proceedings as a mitigating circumstance , ORG had not clearly quantified the reduction of the sentence related to that mitigating circumstance . Finally , concerning the provocation of the criminal offence that violated the fairness principle of LAW , ORG noted in respect of the co - convicted PERSON as follows :","\u201c The objection of unlawful incitement , in breach of the principle of a fair trial under the first sentence of LAW , is well founded , as there was incitement to commit an offence , attributable to the ORG . This is especially true since the prosecuting authorities failed to prove that the appellant , although disposed to commit an offence , had not been induced DATE in particular via the provision of the intermediate storage facility for the drugs by the undercover investigators and the support they provided for transporting the drugs to that storage facility \u2013 to commit and continue to commit the specific punishable acts of which he was accused . The unlawful incitement should also be remedied by means of an explicit , measurable reduction in sentence . \u201d","Applying this reasoning to the applicant \u2019s appeal , ORG further found that :","\u201c The consequent breach of the right to a fair trial also found in the case of the accused PERSON is likewise remedied by the appellate court by means of a reduction in sentence . This was taken into account to some extent by the first - instance court DATE albeit not in quantitative terms \u2013 in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings . The sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , which was otherwise commensurate with the degree of guilt and the seriousness of the offence ( regard being had to the corrected factors considered in determining sentence and the assessment thereof ) , is reduced by DATE for each of the CARDINAL breaches of the Convention , resulting in a sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . \u201d","That judgment was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on CARDINAL DATE .","Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Proceedings ( Strafprozessordnung CARDINAL ) in force until DATE stated that authorities must not , on pain of imposition of a penalty , work towards the production of suspicious facts or the conviction of a suspect by inciting a person to commit , continue with or complete an offence , or by luring a suspect , through the intermediary of an undercover agent , to confess to an offence with the aim of using such confession in court proceedings .","Police undercover operations were regulated in ORG CARDINALd to CARDINALe of LAW of LAW ( Sicherheitspolizeigesetz ) .","Under LAW the CARDINAL possible remedies against a judgment passed by a bench of judges at ORG are a plea of nullity ( PERSON ) and an appeal against sentence ( GPE ) . A plea of nullity has to be addressed to ORG while an appeal against sentence has to be addressed to ORG . The remedies can be lodged either in the same written submission or separately . If the accused files a single written submission for both remedies , ORG will examine the case first .","A plea of nullity before ORG can be based on the specific grounds set out in LAW . The list of grounds for invalidity \u2012 which is exhaustive \u2012 deals with procedural aspects such as the ( alleged ) bias of a judge or a lack of the requisite representation by a defence counsel during the trial , and also aspects of the merits such as misinterpretation of the law .","According to LAW , a plea of nullity can be raised if during the main hearing the court in question has failed to deal with a request from an accused or if a [ procedural ] decision disregarding his request or conflicting with his declared objection has been taken by ORG and there has been a violation of either the law or fundamental procedural principles which seek to safeguard compliance with human rights \u2012 especially LAW \u2012 or other fundamental rights of the prosecution or the defense .","Under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL.CARDINALb of LAW , a plea of nullity can be raised if there are circumstances in which the act concerned is no longer a punishable offence or can no longer be prosecuted .","According to LAW the plea of nullity has to name separately and specifically the grounds for invalidity about which it is complaining , otherwise ORG will not take these grounds into consideration .","If ORG finds CARDINAL or more grounds for invalidity well founded , it quashes the judgment and orders a re - trial .","NORP If ORG has dismissed the plea of nullity and the applicant has also challenged the sentence , ORG will transfer the case file to ORG . In this case , or if the accused has merely filed an appeal against the sentence , ORG will only examine the sentence imposed and not consider alleged errors in proceedings , the law or the establishment of facts by ORG . It may examine only the parameters which relate to ORG decision on the sentence and therefore re - examines the weighing up of mitigating and aggravating circumstances undertaken by the first - instance court . If ORG detects an imbalance in the weighing up of the first - instance court , it readjusts this balance by reviewing the sentence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150561","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"STRZELECKA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Ms Wiktoria Strzelecka , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant signed a lease contract with ORG , \u201c ORG \u201d ( \u201c Towarzystwo Budownictwa Spo\u0142ecznego \u201d ) concerning a CARDINAL - room flat located in GPE . The applicant knew the flat as it had been rented until then by her son - in - law . The flat measured QUANTITY and the applicant was the only tenant . The applicant was to pay rent in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) .","The building in which the applicant \u2019s flat was located was owned by GPE but managed by the ORG , a legal entity designed to provide low - rent housing to households of modest means and financed by the ORG - owned ORG ( PERSON ) . From DATE the applicant \u2019s flat was managed by another company . The Government submitted that it had never been considered as social housing but as low - rent accommodation for the less well - off .","The applicant \u2019s rent , which included central heating , cold water and other charges , was increased on several occasions , and presently amounts to ORG CARDINAL .","The applicant has been paying the rent irregularly , apparently contesting the amount due for central heating , as the flat was always cold because of the poor state of the windows . Moreover , her heating costs increased as she had refused to install indicators of actual consumption of heat on her radiators . After DATE she accumulated substantial debt . In DATE the ORG obtained a court judgment against the applicant , and her granddaughter who was living with her , ordering them to pay maintenance charges . It appears that the court bailiff seized part of the applicant \u2019s pension in execution of this order .","NORP In DATE the GPE agreed to cancel the applicant \u2019s debt in the amount of ORG provided that the applicant continued to pay DATE rent . Afterwards another debt of ORG was not cancelled because the applicant had failed to comply with one of the conditions for cancellation that is to continue paying the maintenance in full . In DATE the municipality again negotiated with the applicant to cancel her debts upon the condition of her payment of the rent in full in DATE . The municipality agreed to cancel PERCENT of overdue interest and PERCENT of the main debt . The remainder of the applicant \u2019s debt of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL was spread into CARDINAL payments of PLN CARDINAL .","Since DATE the applicant has been receiving a DATE housing benefit in an amount which started at FAC and recently reached ORG CARDINAL . This benefit , designed to help cover heating costs during DATE , was paid directly to the company managing the building . It was paid on the basis of administrative decisions which covered period from DATE to DATE . It appears that since DATE the applicant has been receiving the benefit without interruption .","Since DATE the applicant has repeatedly complained to the ORG , and later to the municipality , that the state of the flat was unsatisfactory . She submitted that the windows were very old and poor fitted , and she could not open or close them .","DATE the ORG had acknowledged that the windows needed to be changed . However , it has been postponing the works due to the applicant \u2019s non - payment of her debt .","NORP In DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against the ORG in which she sought payment and to be allocated another flat .","As part of the proceedings an expert opinion was ordered . The opinion submitted to the court on CARDINAL DATE stated , in so far as relevant :","... \u201c CARDINAL . The windows are in very poor general condition . The glass is broken in CARDINAL windows and cracked in others . ORG \u2019s frames and glass are covered in dust and were not cleaned in DATE . The wooden frames are dirty and have paint missing , I think they must last have been painted DATE . CARDINAL the putty is missing , and the glass is actually sticking out of the frame , which causes a real danger of the glass falling out on to people on the pavement . No sign of using widely available window seals . I consider that due to dirty windows the amount of light in the flat is reduced by PERCENT .","NORP In general all the walls are covered with mould , dirt and residue from the gas cooker . The same applies to the furniture . There is a discernible smell of mustiness in the flat .","The air vents ( size QUANTITY ) in the kitchen and bathroom are not working properly , no draught was perceived ; the total surface of the openings was covered with dust and soot , which is probably what blocked them ... \u201d","In his conclusions the expert considered that the damp and mould had been caused by the total lack of ventilation in the applicant \u2019s flat . The current state of the flat was \u201c an insult to basic requirements for inhabited accommodations \u201d . The state of the windows places passers - by at risk , and they need urgent replacement . In general the expert considered that the applicant should be held responsible for the state of the flat due to her total lack of care , cleaning and maintenance . The expert pointed to the fact that in the neighbouring flats the windows were as old as the applicant \u2019s but well maintained and the flats had not problem of mould or ventilation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . The court established that at the time of signing the lease agreement the applicant had acknowledged the good overall state of the flat except for a broken glass in one window . She noticed no mould or problems with closing and opening of the windows .","The court concluded that the state of the flat had deteriorated due to the applicant \u2019s negligence in ventilating and cleaning it . The court also agreed with the ORG that replacement of the windows may be made conditional upon the applicant paying the debts she owned to the community .","The applicant lodged an appeal but on DATE ORG dismissed it .","In DATE an emergency chimney sweep was organised . At the same time the Mayor confirmed to the applicant that \u201c the GPE \u2019s obligations as regards refurbishment of the flat will be fulfilled after you pay your financial debts for the [ maintenance of the ] flat . \u201d","The windows remain unchanged and no works have been carried out .","It appears that the applicant occupied from the beginning her flat together with her granddaughter , M , and her child . In DATE a second child was born . Since then the applicant has been occupying the small bedroom and her granddaughter , with her children , the other room .","NORP The relationship between the applicant and her granddaughter deteriorated . The applicant claims to have been insulted and beaten up by her granddaughter on many occasions . On DATE the granddaughter was convicted by ORG of verbal and physical abuse of the applicant . She was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action with ORG for eviction of her granddaughter and her children .","On DATE the ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s action and ordered the eviction of M. , with her CARDINAL children ( file no . I C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . At the same time it ordered that the defendants be allocated social housing by the municipality . The execution of the judgment was to be stayed until they had been allocated social housing .","On DATE the judgment became final and binding .","NORP The applicant asked the municipality on many occasions to enforce the judgment by granting social housing to M and her children .","The NORP Mayor replied to the applicant on CARDINAL May and DATE and on DATE that her request would be dealt with speedily .","On DATE M rejected the municipality \u2019s offer of a social housing . Afterwards in DATE the municipality proposed her another flat for rent which she accepted .","The applicant submitted that in DATE her granddaughter had been granted a social housing and had moved out .","In DATE the applicant was declared as suffering of permanent disability since DATE . It appears that she suffers of heart and lungs problems and has impaired hearing .","DATE to the Act of DATE on the protection of the rights of tenants , housing resources of municipalities and on amendments to LAW ( LOC o ochronie praw lokator\u00f3w , mieszkaniowym zasobie gminy i o zmianie kodeku cywilnego , \u201c the DATE LAW ) added a new provision ( subsection ( CARDINAL ) ) to section CARDINAL , which makes the municipality liable , under the rules of tort , for any damage sustained by the landlord on account of the municipality \u2019s failure to provide the tenant with social housing . This provision reads :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the municipality has not provided social housing to a person who is entitled to it by virtue of a judgment , the landlord shall have a claim for damages against the municipality on the basis of LAW . \u201d","Consequently , the municipality \u2019s failure is statutorily deemed to be an \u201c unlawful omission \u201d within the meaning of LAW .","Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code reads in so far as relevant :","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG , municipality or another legal person wielding public power by virtue of the law shall be liable for damage caused by an unlawful act or omission in the exercise of that power . \u201d","ORG , in its ruling of DATE ( no . CZP CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) concerning a claim for damages under section PERSON ) of the CARDINAL Act read in conjunction with LAW , confirmed that a landlord was entitled to full compensation for any damage sustained on account of a municipality \u2019s failure to provide social housing to a tenant .","Pursuant to section DATE ) of the CARDINAL Act , as long as the municipality has not supplied social housing , the tenant pays the same amount of rent that he would have paid if the tenancy had not been terminated . According to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , other tenants in respect of whom the tenancy has terminated and who have not vacated the flat pay compensation to a landlord corresponding to the market - related rent that the landlord could normally receive . If such compensation does not cover losses incurred by a landlord , he may seek supplementary compensation .","Section DATE CARDINAL Act provides that the provisions protecting the rights of the owner of the property may also be used to protect rights of a tenant .","According to the Law of DATE the tenant is supposed to keep his flat in a proper technical , hygienic and sanitary state . The tenant is responsible for minor repairs relating to normal use of the object of lease in particular repair and maintenance of windows and doors and paining of the doors and windows ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148633","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PANKRATYEV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","On DATE he was arrested by ORG of GPE on suspicion of having committed a robbery in aggravated circumstances . On DATE he was charged with that crime .","On DATE the ORG of Kyiv ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE .","On DATE the applicant was also charged with murder .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention to DATE , namely to DATE .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention to DATE , namely to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the case was referred to ORG for consideration on the merits .","On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing in the case and ordered , inter alia , that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should be left unchanged .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of robbery and murder . It convicted him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of his property .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case for a fresh trial .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty of robbery and murder and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court also ordered the confiscation of the applicant \u2019s property .","The applicant lodged an appeal . No further information was provided ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159211","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KRISTIANSEN v. NORWAY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Borgenhaugen .","On DATE ORG ( tingrett ) convicted the applicant inter alia on a charge of attempted rape committed against Ms A during TIME in a car parked near a petrol station . At the time Ms A and the applicant had been DATE and DATE , respectively . Together they had left a party at Mr C \u2019s home in order to buy mineral water at the petrol station . The applicant had borrowed the car from Mr D , Ms A \u2019s boyfriend . They had both attended a party at Mr C \u2019s home DATE before but they did not know each other . The applicant and Ms A had been sitting in the car talking and listening to music for a while before they had decided to return to the party . As the car \u2019s battery was flat it would not start . The applicant had called a friend , Mr B , who worked as a taxi driver and who collected him and Ms A and brought them back to Mr C \u2019s home . ORG did not find credible the applicant \u2019s explanation that he and Ms A had kissed and to a little extent touched one another voluntarily and that he had not forcibly attempted to rape her .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ( lagmannsrett ) , hearing the applicant \u2019s appeal with a jury , convicted him on the attempted rape charge and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment on account of this ( and a number of other offences of which he had been charged in the same proceedings ) . It ordered him to pay MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY at that time ) in compensation to ORG for non - pecuniary damage .","In its reasoning the High Court described in detail how the applicant , after he had called Mr B ( who could not come straight away ) , had attempted to obtain sexual contact with Ms A by force . It stated that in the beginning , when the applicant had tried to kiss and touch her , Ms A had told him that she was not interested because she was the girlfriend of Mr D and slapped the applicant . The applicant had not stopped , but had moved himself over to her seat and held her arms behind the neck support . Ms A tried to defend herself and after a while the situation involved into a fight between them , in which she had been physically inferior and had to come to terms with the situation . The applicant had had such control over Ms A that he was also able to call Mr B again and the fact that Mr B was on his way had not hindered the applicant from continuing , until the moment when the lights from Mr B \u2019s car appeared .","ORG also noted that Mr B had testified that he had not noticed anything conspicuous about Ms A ; she had been cheerful and friendly and her clothes had not been in disorder . However , this did not suggest , in ORG view , that she had not been exposed to sexual abuse causing a great burden on her . She had managed to pull herself together when Mr B had arrived . Her reaction had been expressed vis - \u00e0 - vis others only when she and the applicant had returned to PERSON home , where Ms A cried and was in great despair . Her boyfriend , Mr D , had understood that something was very wrong . After opening herself gradually to him , she had explained what had happened .","During a pause in the oral proceedings before ORG , after both PERSON and the applicant had been heard , one of the jurors \u2013\u201cJ \u201d \u2013 had informed the presiding judge of ORG about her previous contacts with PERSON When the hearing resumed after the break , the presiding judge informed the public prosecutor , counsel for the defence and ORG assistant advocate ( bistandsadvokat ) about the matter . Counsel for the defence requested that J be disqualified from taking part in the further proceedings on grounds of lack of impartiality . ORG assistant advocate ( bistandsadvokat for offeret ) supported counsel \u2019s motion . The public prosecutor expressed understanding for the motion without taking a stance .","The applicant \u2019s contestation of ORG \u2019s impartiality was made with reference to section CARDINAL of ORG ( domstolloven \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW . According to the relevant court record , counsel for the defence had stated :","\u201c Counsel stated that he had been informed by ORG presiding judge and the other members of the court , that [ J ] [ who was a member of the jury ] had informed the presiding judge that she was the foster mother of a child who had been a pupil in the same school class as the victim , and that she had had contacts with the victim in connection with birthday celebrations at her home . [ J ] thought that she could recall knowing that the victim had participated in class outings which [ J ] had attended as a parent . The presiding judge had further informed counsel that [ J ] did not have any further personal knowledge of the victim , but she had a personal view [ bilde ] of her as a calm girl . Last time there had been any contact between the victim and [ J ] dated far back in time . \u201d","The High Court withdrew to deliberate on the issue and decided that J ought not to withdraw . It pointed out that a member might be disqualified if the person in question had particular reasons for identifying himself or herself with the victim or if there were any other circumstances to the effect that he or she had a prejudging attitude because of prior knowledge of the victim . However , that was not the situation in the present case . ORG observed that \u201c the jury member had formed a picture [ bilde ] of the victim from DATE where she at the time had experienced her as a quiet and calm person \u201d . However , it could not see that this was capable of influencing J \u2019s attitude to the sustainability of the victim \u2019s explanation and ORG \u2019s assessment of the question of guilt in the case . In particular the contact had been sporadic DATE and ORG did not find that such a contact was capable of influencing , in CARDINAL way or another , the assessment in the criminal case . ORG had special regard to the fact that the parties to the case had requested that J recuse herself , but it found the absence of partiality so clear in this case that this could not be decisive .","Consequently , juror PERSON took part in the entire trial before ORG , including the jury \u2019s deliberations and vote on the questions put to it by the presiding judge on the charge of attempted rape . After the jury had answered the questions in the affirmative and the professional judges had confirmed the jury \u2019s verdict , she took part , together with the other CARDINAL jurors selected by drawing of lots , in the deliberations with the professional judges on the question of sentencing and award of compensation of non - pecuniary damage to the victim PERSON","The applicant appealed against ORG procedure to ORG ( PERSON ) , arguing that ORG \u2019s participation had been incompatible with section CARDINAL of ORG and LAW .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal .","NORP The majority did not consider that J \u2019s knowledge of the victim from her attendance at birthday parties and class outings with the victim in itself indicated an identification with the victim or weakened in any other way the confidence in J \u2019s impartiality . It had involved sporadic contacts , not a personal knowledge , and the contacts dated DATE in time . Neither had counsel for the defence alleged before ORG that this was a sufficient ground for disqualification .","Nor could the mere fact that the juror in question had formed a picture of the victim disqualify her . When it was deemed acceptable that a juror may have some prior knowledge of a victim , it ought also to be accepted that the juror has formed a picture of the latter . Therefore , the question was whether the fact that the juror had stated this to the presiding judge and the matter had thereafter been repeated by the defence counsel in open court would bring the matter into a different light .","In the majority \u2019s view , a statement that CARDINAL had a picture of a young woman CARDINAL had previously met when she was younger , as a quiet and calm girl , could hardly be perceived as an expression of an assessment of the person \u2019s credibility or give the impression of identification with , or particular sympathies for , her . This was a neutral value judgment ; an observation about the child \u2019s inconspicuous conduct . It could possibly be maintained that one could draw the conclusion that a calm girl would hardly make a fuss without any justifications for doing so , which suggested that Ms A \u2019s crying and despair after she returned after the drive was a sign that she had actually been exposed to an attempted rape . However , there was no basis for such a conclusion and there was in any event no reason for attaching weight to such a possibility . J \u2019s information about Ms A had emerged after she had given evidence to ORG for TIME . At that point , the jury , including J , had a good opportunity to form an independent and updated picture of the victim as a person . That defence counsel and the assistant advocate had requested that J withdraw could not be decisive . Accordingly , there were no particular circumstances capable of calling into doubt J \u2019s impartiality for the purposes of section CARDINAL of ORG , as interpreted in the light of LAW .","The minority considered that the assessment of the impartiality issue ought to take as a starting point that the case concerned a serious and stigmatising accusation against the defendant . There was a lot at stake for the victim , as she could easily perceive a verdict acquitting the defendant to mean that the jury believed that she had made an unfounded and serious accusation against the defendant . The minority shared the majority \u2019s view ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that previous contacts between the victim and J could not , of their own , disqualify the latter . What was decisive was whether ORG statement made after she had heard the evidence given by the accused and the witness describing the latter as a \u201c quiet and calm person \u201d would lead to a different conclusion . In this regard , the minority took as a starting point that the credibility of the victim was the decisive evidence in this case . An additional factor of lesser importance was how the surrounding persons had perceived the victim \u2019s behaviour after the alleged rape attempt .","The timing of ORG statement was of considerable importance . For the persons present in court it could seem conspicuous that the juror , after having heard both the accused and the victim \u2019s evidence , had not confined herself to informing about her previous contacts with A but had found it correct to add that she had experienced the victim as a \u201c quiet and calm person \u201d . The timing of PERSON \u2019s affirmation could easily have given the impression that PERSON expressed a positive assessment of the victim .","Whilst a literal interpretation of \u201c quiet and calm person \u201d was not directly related to the credibility assessment , the affirmation was positively loaded and , when expressed just after the victim had given evidence , could at least easily have been perceived as if , according to J , one had to do with a person who would not make a fuss and thus would not make a false accusation about an attempt of rape . That J had expressed a view on how she had perceived her \u201c at the time \u201d , was of secondary importance . This was a nuance that could easily be overlooked by a person overhearing her statement and which , having regard to the timing , could hardly be perceived as a reservation with regard to A \u2019s current character .","An important , albeit not decisive , consideration under section CARDINAL of ORG was also the fact that both counsel for the defence and the assistant advocate had demanded that J recuse herself . Under LAW , \u201c the standpoint of the accused [ was ] important but not decisive \u201d ; in this case the \u201c fear \u201d of lack of impartiality by the applicant had been \u201c objectively justified \u201d ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164867","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"SAYAN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","When the present application was lodged , the applicant was in pre - trial detention in the GPE F - type prison . On DATE the prison disciplinary board decided to destroy a postcard sent to him , allegedly to celebrate DATE , on the grounds that the postcard \u201c would stir up trouble \u201d ( sak\u0131ncal\u0131 ) because the picture on it incited violence .","On DATE ORG dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant .","On DATE ORG dismissed a further appeal lodged by the applicant .","Prisoners\u2019 right to correspondence is mainly set forth in section DATE ) of PERSON no . DATE on the execution of sentences and preventive measures and LAW on prison management and execution of sentences . Under that law , ORG correspondence is monitored by a letter - reading committee and may be subjected to restrictions in the following circumstances :","if its content is considered to be a threat to order and security in the prison ;","if it singles out prison officials as targets ;","if it allows communication between terrorist or other criminal organisations ;","if it contains false or misleading information likely to cause panic in individuals or institutions ; or","if it contains threats or insults .","A full description of the domestic law and practice at the relevant time may be found in PERSON and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , ORG , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","Under PERSON no . DATE a ORG was set up in GPE to resolve , by means of compensation , applications lodged with the ORG . Initially , the ORG \u2019s competence ratione materiae was limited to applications concerning length of judicial proceedings and non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The competence ratione materiae of ORG was extended by a decree which came into force on DATE . ORG could thus examine other complaints such as alleged restriction of ORG right to respect for correspondence in a language other than NORP and refusal by the prison authorities , on different grounds , to hand over periodicals . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","Furthermore , according to LAW no . DATE , an applicant may apply to ORG within DATE following the official notification of the ORG \u2019s inadmissibility decision by the Government .","ORG issued a decree which was published in ORG and came into force on DATE . The new decree further extended the competence ratione materiae of ORG .","DATE of the decree entitles ORG to examine , among others , complaints concerning alleged breaches of the right to respect for correspondence of detainees or convicted persons on account of the non - transmission of correspondence drafted in LANGUAGE . The relevant part of the provision reads as follows :"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166491","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF T.P. AND A.T. v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The first applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and is currently serving his prison term in GPE .","On DATE the ORG convicted the first applicant of murder committed with special cruelty and abuse of firearms . The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment , adding that the murder had been committed for \u2018 villainous\u2019 reasons , namely , the applicant was considered to have killed the victim in a particularly atrocious manner , so as to prevent her from reporting the initial abduction and stabbing and thereby to cover up a previous crime .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s petition for review .","On DATE the President of the Republic dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for pardon , by which he sought commutation of his life sentence to DATE fixed - term imprisonment as well as allowing the possibility of his release on parole .","The second applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and is currently serving his prison term in GPE .","On DATE the Borsod - Aba\u00faj - Zempl\u00e9n County Regional Court convicted the second applicant of double murder and abuse of firearms . He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole .","On DATE ORG upheld this judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s petition for review .","On DATE the President of the Republic dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for pardon , by which he sought commutation of his life sentence to DATE fixed - term imprisonment as well as allowing the possibility of his release on parole ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148286","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NAVALNYY AND YASHIN v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge;Fair hearing);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . Both applicants are political activists and opposition leaders . The first applicant is also a well - known anti - corruption campaigner and a popular blogger . The second applicant is a leader of the political movement \u201c Solidarnost \u201d .","On DATE general elections of ORG took place in GPE .","On DATE the applicants took part in a public demonstration ( a meeting ) at ORG , GPE , to protest against the allegedly rigged elections . The demonstration had been duly authorised by the mayor of GPE . The number of participants at the meeting was estimated CARDINAL . During the meeting , conducted by the second applicant , the first applicant addressed the participants with a speech calling for fresh , fair elections and describing GPE , the election frontrunner , as \u201c a party of crooks and thieves \u201d .","After the demonstration the applicants were arrested . The parties disagreed as to the circumstance of their arrest , and their respective submissions are summarised below .","The applicants claimed that at the end of the meeting they had headed , with other people , towards the ORG Most metro station , where the first applicant had left his car . They were walking along the pavement , leaving the road clear for traffic . Suddenly their way was blocked by the riot police ( \u0441\u043e\u0442\u0440\u0443\u0434\u043d\u0438\u043a\u0438 \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0432\u043e\u0439\u0441\u043a \u0438 ORG ) . Without any introduction or demand , the police surrounded a group of CARDINAL protesters , including the applicants , pressing them against a building . The surrounded group chanted \u201c CARDINAL for all , and all for CARDINAL ! \u201d . The riot police then began to arrest the protesters . According to the applicants , no one put up any resistance . They obeyed the police and followed them to the police bus .","According to the Government , at the end of the meeting the second applicant called on the participants to march down FAC onto FAC and then to the office of ORG . At TIME people , including the applicants , began walking down FAC , FAC and FAC . They walked along the road , obstructing the traffic and chanting slogans such as \u201c This is our city ! \u201d and \u201c Down with the police state ! \u201d At the crossroads of GPE and FAC the police blocked the march and ordered the marchers to stop . They pushed thought the cordon and went on until they were stopped by the police again at CARDINAL Teatralnyy Proyezd . They ignored the repeated demands of the police to stop and thereby prevented the police from carrying out their mission of securing public order . Confronted with this persistent behaviour , the police arrested the applicants .","Both applicants were arrested at TIME and were taken to a police bus .","At TIME the applicants were taken to the LOC police station , GPE . At TIME the first applicant was subjected to a body search , which lasted until TIME His personal affairs , including his mobile phone , barrister licence , watch , money , credit cards , driving licence and some items of clothing were seized . The second applicant was searched as well , and his mobile phone , belt , watch , whistle and a badge reading \u201c Against ORG and Thieves \u201d were seized . The list of the seized objects was recorded in the search report . The applicants have been unable to retrieve them , although those objects were not attached to the case file .","The applicants requested that their lawyers , who had arrived at the police station and had presented their authority , be allowed to see them , but their request was refused . The applicants were not allowed to make a phone call to their families either .","Both applicants lodged complaints at the police station alleging that their rights had been violated during their arrest and detention .","At TIME on DATE the applicants were transferred from GPE police station to the LOC police station , GPE , where they arrived at TIME on DATE . They requested to see a lawyer and to make a phone call , but this was refused again . The first applicant lodged a complaint about the refusal .","At TIME on TIME , the applicants were transferred to the Kitay - Gorod District police station , where police reports were drawn up stating that the applicants had been escorted to the police station in accordance with LAW . At TIME further police reports were drawn up in which it was decided to remand the applicants in custody under LAW . The applicants were charged with an administrative offence for refusing to comply with a lawful order of the police , in breach of LAW of LAW . The charges were based on the identical statements of CARDINAL police officers , I. and PERSON , who alleged that they had ordered the applicants to follow them to the police bus to give statements on the administrative offence but that the applicants had pushed them away and had therefore been arrested .","At the LOC police station the applicants requested permission to see their lawyers and to telephone their families , but their requests were refused .","The first applicant remained in custody at the police station until TIME on DATE , and the second applicant until TIME on DATE .","The applicants claimed that the conditions of detention during their transfer between the police stations and in the cell at the LOC police station were inhuman and degrading . In particular , they claimed that they had spent TIME being driven to different police stations without being given any food or drinking water . At the Kitay - Gorod police station they were placed together in a cell measuring QUANTITY . m with concrete walls , a metal grill , a concrete floor , no windows and no furniture except for CARDINAL narrow wooden benches . The cell was poorly lit and had no ventilation . There was no sanitary equipment , beds or bedding . The applicants did not receive any food or water until later on DATE when they were allowed to receive a parcel from their families containing drinking water and crackers ; no other food was allowed in the parcels .","The Government submitted that the applicants had spent TIME in transit to the LOC police station and then CARDINAL minutes in transit to the LOC police station , which was not long enough to require the provision of meals . According to the ORG , the applicants were detained at the PERSON police station in an administrative - detention cell measuring CARDINAL sq . m equipped with artificial lighting and mandatory ventilation . They claimed that the applicants had been provided with a sleeping place \u2013 a wooden bench \u2013 and bedding , which they had refused . They provided a photograph of the cell with a metal grill , a close - up photograph of the bench , showing with a measuring tape its width of QUANTITY , and another photograph showing the same bench covered with a blanket and with a pillow placed on it . The Government further contended that the cells had to be cleaned and disinfected twice a day and that pest control had to be carried out once DATE , in accordance with the cleaning service agreement between ORG and a private company . The Government provided a copy of the service agreement in support of that statement . They alleged that the applicants had not complained about the conditions of their detention . According to the Government , the applicants had been offered food at the ORG police station , but had refused to take it .","On DATE the applicants were brought before the ORG of the Peace to have their charges examined in administrative proceedings . They met their counsels for the first time shortly before the hearing . The case of the second applicant was examined first , and then the case of the first applicant .","The administrative case was examined by the acting Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of the Tverskoy District of GPE , PERSON At the beginning of the hearing the second applicant challenged the judge on the grounds that she had previously found him guilty of an administrative offence and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention . After that conviction the second applicant had lodged numerous complaints about Ms B. and had campaigned against her in his online blogs . The Justice of the FAC dismissed the challenge against her .","The second applicant requested leave to call and examine CARDINAL witnesses , including I. and PERSON , the police officers who had drawn up the arrest reports ; PERSON , the on - duty police officer at the LOC police station ; PERSON , a fellow activist ; and the first applicant . The request was granted in respect of NORP , PERSON and B.","The second applicant complained of unlawful detention during TIME after his arrest , poor conditions of detention at the ORG police station and the acts and omissions of the officials at the GPE police station . However , those complaints were not examined .","The Justice of the ORG questioned the witnesses . Police officers I. and PERSON stated that after the public meeting the second applicant had participated , together with CARDINAL people , in an unauthorised march from FAC , through FAC , FAC and down FAC . The marchers had been obstructing the traffic , chanting slogans and ignoring police orders made on a loudspeaker to stop the march . They ( NORP and PERSON ) had required the second applicant to follow them to the police bus in order to draw up a report on the administrative offence , but he had ignored them , so they had seized him by the arms ; he had resisted , refusing to present his documents and calling out to the crowd .","The second applicant pleaded not guilty and contested the police FAC testimonies . He testified that he had been arrested at the indicated address while walking alongside other people returning from the authorised meeting . He insisted that he had been arrested without any warning or orders from the police .","Witness PERSON testified that he \u201c had been present during Mr PERSON \u2019s arrest \u201d and that \u201c the policemen had not given Mr PERSON any orders before arresting him \u201d .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace found the second applicant guilty of having disobeyed a lawful order of the police . She based her findings on the witness statements of ORG , their written reports and the report on the administrative arrest . She dismissed the testimonies given by the second applicant and PERSON on the grounds that they had contradicted the police ORG testimonies and reports . The second applicant was convicted under LAW and sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention .","The first applicant \u2019s case was examined after the second applicant \u2019s trial by the same Justice of the FAC , PERSON In the interval between the QUANTITY hearings the first applicant \u2019s counsel was able briefly to access the case file of the second applicant and meet the first applicant for the first time .","According to the applicants , the proceedings in the first applicant \u2019s case began in the absence of members of the public , who were prevented from entering the hearing room . Many were barred from approaching the courthouse , which was cordoned off by the police . Later , during the proceedings , CARDINAL journalists were allowed in at the first applicant \u2019s insistent requests . The Government contended , on the contrary , that the proceedings in this case had been open to the public .","At the beginning of the trial the first applicant requested that the case be transferred , in accordance with the statutory rules , to a court at his place of residence ; that the hearing be adjourned in order to give him time to prepare his defence ; that the verbatim records of the hearing be kept open ; that copies of the complaints that he had lodged at the police stations TIME be made available to him ; and that CARDINAL eyewitnesses of his arrest , including the second applicant , be called and examined .","The Justice of the Peace dismissed all of the requests , except CARDINAL : that T. and A. be called as witnesses . The first applicant then challenged the Justice of the FAC , unsuccessfully .","I. and PERSON gave testimonies identical to those they had given in the second applicant \u2019s case . The Justice of the Peace disallowed the following questions to NORP and F put by the defence counsel : \u201c What orders did you personally give to Mr PERSON ? \u201d , \u201c Who gave the order to arrest Mr PERSON ? \u201d and \u201c Why were CARDINAL policemen \u2019s reports identical ? \u201d","The first applicant pleaded not guilty and contested the police LAW testimonies . He testified that he had been returning from the authorised meeting , walking , together with other people , not marching or chanting any slogans . However , the police had repeatedly obstructed their way and had then arrested them . He insisted that he had not received any orders from the police and had not resisted the arrest .","Witness T. testified that he had seen the applicant \u2019s arrest . It had been noisy and he had not heard the police officers giving the first applicant any orders before arresting him . The police had announced through a loudspeaker \u201c Your actions are unlawful \u201d while surrounding a group of people , and had then begun arresting them . He had not seen the first applicant resisting the arrest . Witness A. testified that he had been walking down PERSON and had seen people in uniform arresting the first applicant on the pavement ; during the arrest the police had announced through a loudspeaker \u201c Your actions are unlawful \u201d ; witness A. had not seen the first applicant resisting the police during the arrest .","The first applicant requested that CARDINAL video recordings of his arrest , shot by DATE , be admitted as evidence . He also requested that the court obtain and examine the video footage which the police had at their disposal . Those requests were dismissed on the grounds that the court had no technical means of playing the recordings and that it would be unacceptable to use the devices provided by the defence . Those requests were not joined to the case file on the grounds that they had been submitted at the wrong stage of the proceedings .","According to the first applicant , most of the questions put by the defence to the witnesses were disallowed by the Justice of the FAC . She also refused to entertain his complaints concerning the lack of access to a lawyer , the refusal of a statutory phone call after the arrest , the allegedly unlawful detention during TIME after the arrest , the seizure of his possessions during the search , and the inhuman and degrading conditions of transfer and of detention at the LOC police station .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace found the first applicant guilty of having disobeyed the lawful order of the police . As in the second applicant \u2019s case , she based her findings on the witness statements of ORG , their written reports and the report on the administrative arrest . She dismissed the testimonies of the applicant , NORP and NORP on the grounds that they had contradicted the police ORG testimonies and reports , and that no reasons for mistrusting the latter had been established . The first applicant was convicted under LAW and sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention .","On DATE both applicants lodged appeals , claiming that their arrest and conviction for the administrative offence had been in breach of domestic law and in violation of the Convention . They contested the findings of fact made by the first instance as regards the events following their departure from the authorised meeting . In addition , they complained about the manner in which the first - instance hearing had been conducted , in particular , about the refusal of the Justice of the FAC to grant their requests , to admit the video materials as evidence and to call all the witnesses requested by the defence . They also challenged the grounds on which the court had dismissed the testimonies of the applicants and the defence witnesses . The applicants also complained of unlawful detention during TIME after their arrest , lack of access to a lawyer and the conditions in which they had been transferred between the police stations and remanded in custody at the LOC police station .","On DATE the ORG of GPE examined the applicants\u2019 appeals in separate proceedings . In both cases the court dismissed the complaints about the refusals to hear witnesses and to admit the evidence requested by the applicants . It also rejected the ORG requests to have those witnesses called . It rejected the request to admit the video recordings in evidence because of their \u201c unknown provenance \u201d , and it refused to keep a verbatim record of the hearing because it considered it unnecessary . It granted the request to join a photograph of the first applicant \u2019s arrest to the case file . On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeals and upheld the first - instance judgment in both cases , citing the same reasons .","In the first applicant \u2019s case the court held , in particular :","\u201c The Justice of the Peace has correctly established that Mr PERSON had disobeyed a lawful order of a police officer ... , in particular : at TIME on DATE at CARDINAL PERSON , GPE ( near NORP hotel ) , after an authorised public event ( meeting ) , in a park of FAC , he participated with a group of CARDINAL people in a march that had not been notified to the executive authorities , went out on the road and continued walking from FAC , down the side streets to FAC , FAC , and FAC in the direction of FAC ; by doing so he obstructed the traffic and created a risk of accident while shouting out \u201c Shame ! \u201d , \u201c This is our city ! \u201d , \u201c GPE without GPE ! \u201d , \u201c Down with the police state ! \u201d . In order to intercept the march a [ police ] cordon was set up at the crossroads of GPE and FAC . Repeated lawful orders to stop and end the march were given through a loudspeaker ; despite that , Mr PERSON with a group of people pushed through the cordon and came out onto PERSON while continuing to chant slogans , and there they were met by the police cordon . [ He ] did not react to the repeated lawful orders to stop these acts and disperse , continued his unlawful acts drawing the attention of citizens and the press . During his arrest Mr PERSON , in reply to an invitation to proceed to the police bus for the issuing of an administrative offence report , began to push away [ I. ] and [ F. ] , trying to cause panic among people , and by doing so [ he ] manifested his refusal to comply with the lawful orders of the police and prevented them from carrying out their duties , an offence under LAW .","...","Despite his denial , Mr PERSON \u2019s guilt is proven by the report on the administrative charges ... , the statements of the police officers [ I. ] and [ F. ] [ and ] their testimonies given to the Justice of the Peace at the court hearing .","The Justice of the Peace gave a correct and convincing assessment of this evidence , which led to the conclusion that Mr PERSON had deliberately refused to comply with the police ORG lawful order to stop his actions breaching public order , and continued them in defiance of [ the police order ] .","This evidence , which is relevant , admissible and credible , is consistent . No bias on the part of the aforementioned witnesses or grounds for them to slander Mr PERSON have been established [ by the court ] , including the appeal instance ; therefore the explanations of Mr PERSON , as well and the witness testimonies of A. and T. , have been duly rejected for want of reliable corroboration ; the ruling of ORG is sufficiently reasoned in this respect .","...","... As follows from the [ escorting report ] and the [ detention report ] , the [ police ] had sufficient grounds for arresting PERSON and for escorting him to the ORG police station , GPE , in particular , the impossibility of drawing up an administrative offence report on the spot . The reports comply with the requirements of the law , in substance and in form . At the same time the court dismisses the arguments of the defence concerning the unlawful deprivation of liberty during TIME as unsubstantiated . As follows from the case file , after his arrest at PERSON , at TIME on DATE Mr PERSON was taken to the Kitay - Gorod police station , GPE , where the administrative material against him was issued . On DATE the administrative case was remitted to the ORG of the FAC . The police officers have complied with the terms of administrative detention provided for by LAW .","...","During the [ appeal ] hearing ... Mr PERSON was examined as a witness . He testified that at the time of Mr PERSON \u2019s arrest he had been with him at FAC . At the time of arrest [ they ] were on the pavement near the underpass , and did not commit any unlawful acts . CARDINAL people were blocked by the riot police . Then both Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were arrested , virtually simultaneously . At this point the police officers did not give any orders , there was no disobedience on the part of [ the applicants ] . The police officers [ I. ] and [ F. ] did not take part in their arrest ; their court testimonies were false .","Giving its assessment of the witness testimony of PERSON , the court finds it unreliable and dismisses it because it contradicts the testimonies of [ I. ] and [ F. ] , which are logical , consistent , concordant and objectively corroborated by the written evidence ... \u201d","The judgment held in the second applicant \u2019s case was essentially the same , including the similar testimonies of the other applicant ."],"violated_articles":["11","13","3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175159","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ABBAS AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix .","At the material time the first applicant was a chairman of the LOC city branch of an opposition party PERSON and the fourth applicant was a deputy chairman of the ORG district branch of that party . The third applicant was a member of another opposition party , ORG of Azerbaijan . The second applicant was a member of ORG of an opposition group PERSON .","According to the applicants , they participated in a number of peaceful demonstrations organised by the opposition .","The number of opposition demonstrations increased in DATE . That tendency continued into DATE . Demonstrations were held , inter alia , on DATE and DATE and DATE .","The second applicant attended the demonstration of DATE . The first and third applicants attended the demonstration of DATE . According to the first applicant , he also intended to participate in the demonstration of DATE .","Prior to those demonstrations , on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively the organisers had given notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","The ORG refused to authorise those demonstrations at the places indicated by the organisers and proposed a different location on the outskirts of GPE \u2013 the grounds of a driving school situated in the CARDINALth residential area of LOC .","The organisers nevertheless decided to hold the demonstrations as planned . According to the applicants , the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner . The participants were demanding democratic reforms in the country and free and fair elections , and protesting against impediments on freedom of assembly .","The fourth applicant was one of the organisers of a rally planned by several opposition parties . The rally was to be held on DATE in ORG . The fourth applicant also intended to participate in that assembly .","According to the fourth applicant , prior to the rally of DATE , on DATE , he and the other organisers gave notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The information about the rally was sent to the ORG by post and the fourth applicant \u2019s home address was indicated ( for reference ) as the address of the sender .","According to the fourth applicant , the rally was intended to be peaceful . Its purpose was to mark the twentieth anniversary of the Independence Day and to honour the memory of those buried in the Cemetery of Martyrs in the town of ORG .","It appears that eventually the rally did not take place .","As mentioned above , the demonstration of DATE was attended by the second applicant ; the demonstration of DATE was attended by the first and third applicants . However , the police began to disperse those demonstrations as soon as the protesters began to gather .","The circumstances related to the dispersal of the demonstrations of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the first , second and third applicants\u2019 arrests and custody , and subsequent administrative proceedings against them are similar to those in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) ( see also Appendix ) .","The circumstances of the fourth and first applicants\u2019 arrests on DATE and DATE respectively , their custody and subsequent administrative proceedings against them are similar to those in ORG v. PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY others , CARDINAL DATE ) ( see also Appendix ) .","According to the first and third applicants , after being arrested during the dispersal of the demonstration of DATE and brought to a police station , they were subjected to ill - treatment by the deputy chief of ORG , police officer ORG","In a photograph , submitted to the ORG by the first applicant and allegedly taken after his police custody , he is shown with a bruise on his forehead . In the other photograph , allegedly taken before his police custody , the first applicant is shown without any bruising on his forehead .","The third applicant submitted to the ORG a medical report of CARDINAL DATE confirming that he had a broken rib . According to the third applicant , that medical report was issued when he was taken to a hospital after his trial , before he was placed in a detention facility to serve his sentence . He also submitted a photograph in which he is shown with bruises on his body .","The applicants raised their ill - treatment complaints during the administrative proceedings following their arrest on DATE . Namely , in their appeals against the first - instance court \u2019s decisions the applicants complained that they had been ill - treated during their police custody , and requested ORG to order a forensic examination of their injuries , to question particular witnesses and to obtain the review of the medical records drawn up at their check - in to a detention facility where they had served their sentence .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively ORG dismissed the ORG appeals and upheld the decisions of the firstinstance court ( see Appendix ) .","The appellate court disregarded the applicants\u2019 ill - treatment complaints and their requests related to those complaints .","On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint before ORG asking it to conduct an investigation into the alleged ill - treatment .","On unspecified dates , the applicants were summoned to the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office and questioned in connection with their complaint of ill - treatment .","On DATE and DATE investigator GPE adopted decisions refusing to open criminal proceedings into allegations of ill - treatment in respect of the third and first applicants respectively .","According to the applicants , for a certain period of time neither they nor their lawyer were informed about any actions taken by the authorities to investigate their ill - treatment complaints . Only in DATE , after making enquiries about the outcome of the investigation , did they manage to obtain copies of the investigator \u2019s above - mentioned decisions .","The applicants did not lodge a complaint with a supervising court against those decisions ."],"violated_articles":["11","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171778","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF V.K. v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant started attending public pre - school educational institution no . DATE ( \u201c the nursery school \u201d ) . His teachers were Ms K. , PERSON and an assistant teacher , PERSON .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s parents noticed a change in his behaviour . In particular , he became nervous and unwilling to go to nursery school . During DATE the applicant \u2019s physiological state significantly ameliorated and his mood returned to normal . However , as soon as he resumed nursery school in DATE he again became nervous and frightened of the dark and noises . He resisted going to school and refused to discuss school with his parents or sisters .","On DATE , when picking him up from the nursery school , the applicant \u2019s mother noticed that his eyes were twitching and that he had a bruise on his left temple . The applicant complained that his neck and eyes were aching . The teacher , PERSON , told the applicant \u2019s mother that the children had been given eye drops containing an antibiotic . According to her , one of the children in the class had an eye infection and it was necessary to take preventive measures against its spreading among the children .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist , who noted a bruise on his temple . She found no symptoms of any eye infection or disease . She recommended a consultation with a neurologist in order to verify whether the eye tics could have neurological causes .","On DATE the applicant started to display mouth tics .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged a complaint with the local department of ORG Well - being . She complained that the teachers at nursery school no . DATE had administered eye treatment to her son without her consent and had used physical force against him . Her son had developed nervous tics as a result .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist and was diagnosed with hyperkinesia ( a state of excessive restlessness which is manifested in a wide variety of disorders that affect the ability to control motor movement and which is mainly psychological in nature ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to the local department of education about the incident of DATE and asked that the applicant be transferred to another nursery school .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the local department of ORG informed the applicant \u2019s mother that the director of nursery school no . CARDINAL had been disciplined for breaching sanitary standards .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the local department of education replied to the applicant \u2019s mother , stating that the facts described in her complaint had been confirmed in part and that the director of the nursery school , teachers PERSON and medical nurse PERSON . had been disciplined . It had been decided to transfer the applicant to another public nursery school .","When the applicant learnt that he would not have to return to nursery school no . DATE , he was happy and told his parents that he had been mistreated by Ms K. and PERSON In particular , he had been punished for a failure to sleep during the afternoon sleeping hours . Sometimes he had been made to lie on a folding bed in the toilets . The lights in the toilets had been switched off and the teachers had told him that he would be eaten by rats . The applicant had felt very frightened as he had once seen a rat in the toilets . On other occasions he had been forced to stand in the entrance hall , barefoot and wearing only his underpants , for the entire duration of the sleeping hours . He had been very cold . The applicant had also on occasions been hit on the back with a fist . On CARDINAL occasion the teachers had taped his mouth shut with sellotape . After he had started to suffocate , he had tried to remove the sellotape . The teachers had then taped his hands behind his back . Some other children had also been subjected to similar punishments . They had been threatened that if they complained to their parents about the teachers they would be punished .","The applicant also told his parents in detail about what had happened on DATE . He had been given eye drops twice . In TIME PERSON had bent his head back with such force that his neck had ached . In the afternoon , she had sat on the applicant \u2019s legs and tried to force his eyes open with her hands . Frightened , the applicant had resisted . PERSON had then slapped his face .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father was questioned by the police in connection with a complaint lodged by PERSON and PERSON . that he had assaulted them . The applicant \u2019s father stated to the police that his conflict with PERSON and PERSON . had arisen because his DATE son had been mistreated by the staff of the nursery school . He denied assaulting them . The criminal proceedings against the applicant \u2019s father were discontinued after CARDINAL of the nursery school staff members stated in writing that Ms Pt . had attempted to convince her and other staff members to falsely accuse the applicant \u2019s father of assaulting PERSON and PERSON .","On DATE the local department of education informed the applicant \u2019s mother that the director of nursery school no . CARDINAL had been dismissed .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the local department of education informed the applicant \u2019s father that an internal inquiry had established that teachers PERSON and PERSON had made some of the children sleep outside the sleeping quarters . That fact , although denied by PERSON and PERSON , had been confirmed by assistant teacher PERSON . and by the grandmother of CARDINAL of the children . PERSON and PERSON had been disciplined .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Vice - Governor of GPE informed the applicant \u2019s mother that medical nurse PERSON . had been disciplined .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother sued nursery school no . CARDINAL for compensation for the damage sustained by the applicant to his health .","On DATE the ORG of GPE approved a friendly settlement agreement between the applicant \u2019s mother and nursery school no . DATE . Under that agreement , the nursery school was to pay the applicant \u2019s mother MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation for medical expenses .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office about her son \u2019s ill - treatment by the staff of nursery school no . DATE . She described the incident of DATE , complained that during TIME her son had been occasionally locked in the toilets with the lights off , and submitted that as a result of such treatment he had developed nervous tics . She also submitted that she had not received an adequate response to her complaints to the local department of education and the local department of ORG Well - being .","NORP By letter of DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office informed the applicant \u2019s mother that an inquiry had been opened into her allegations of ill - treatment . It also noted that the local department of education had failed in its obligation under section CARDINAL of LAW to inform the district prosecutor \u2019s office of the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the investigator questioned several of the parents of the children who had attended nursery school no . CARDINAL with the applicant . Some of them stated that their children had never complained about being mistreated by teachers PERSON or PERSON stated that their children had told them about being locked in the entrance hall or in the toilets , where they had on occasion seen rats . They also confirmed that on DATE eye drops had been given to the children without the GPE consent .","Assistant teacher PERSON . stated to the investigator that on DATE CARDINAL children had shown symptoms of eye infection . Teacher PERSON had consulted medical nurse PERSON . , who had decided to give eye drops to all children in order to prevent the spread of the infection . The GPE consent had not been obtained . The drops had been given by the teacher herself rather than by the medical nurse . PERSON had used physical force against those children who had resisted . Many of them had been frightened and had cried . Immediately after that the applicant \u2019s eyes had started twitching . PERSON . also stated that both PERSON and PERSON had many times made certain children , including the applicant , sleep on folding beds in the toilets or in the entrance hall . PERSON and PERSON had often shouted at the children and had punished them by sending them to the toilets . She had once seen a child tied with string to his chair .","The investigator also questioned PERSON , who denied mistreating the applicant or other children . She stated that on DATE the children had been given eye drops by the medical nurse . The children had submitted to the treatment without any resistance or stress . No physical force had been used against the applicant or other children . The applicant had already had nervous tics before DATE .","On an unspecified date at DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator . The applicant \u2019s mother and a psychologist were present during the questioning . The applicant described the incident of DATE . He also stated that he and some other children had often been made to sleep on a folding bed in the entrance hall or in the toilets with the lights turned off or left standing in the entrance hall with few clothes on . They had been frightened and cold .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open a criminal investigation against the teachers of nursery school no . DATE , finding no evidence of a criminal offence . The applicant \u2019s parents were not given a copy of that decision .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office cancelled its decision of DATE and resumed the preinvestigation inquiry .","The investigator then questioned PERSON and medical nurse Ms Pt . , who gave the same testimony as PERSON","During DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office issued CARDINAL more decisions ( on DATE and DATE respectively ) refusing to open a criminal investigation against the teachers of nursery school no . DATE on the ground that there was no evidence of a criminal offence having been committed .","The applicant \u2019s mother challenged those decisions before ORG . However , before ORG could examine her complaints against the decisions , the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office annulled them ( on DATE and DATE respectively ) and resumed the pre - investigation inquiry . No investigative measures were performed during this DATE period .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s medical documents were examined by a child psychiatrist at the request of the applicant \u2019s mother . The psychiatrist found that before DATE the applicant had not suffered from any neurological or psychiatric disorders . He had , however , on occasions suffered allergic reactions . The psychiatrist further noted that in DATE the applicant had been subjected to a prolonged , psychologically traumatic experience at the nursery school . Against the background of that prolonged , traumatic experience , the incident of DATE involving the use of violence had served as a trigger for his present neurological disorder . An allergic reaction to the eye drops could have also contributed to the development of the disorder . The psychiatrist concluded that there had been a causal link between the traumatic experience suffered by the applicant in the nursery school from DATE and his persistent neurological disorder .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office noted that the pre - investigation inquiry was incomplete and that it was necessary to question the children who had attended the nursery school with the applicant and their parents , to obtain an expert opinion on the contraindications and side - effects of the eye drops given to the children , and to question other teachers at the nursery school .","On DATE the case was transferred to the ORG district police department for further pre - investigation inquiry .","In DATE the investigator questioned the parents of some of the children who had attended the nursery school with the applicant . They stated that they did not have any complaints against teachers PERSON and PERSON of them gave the investigator permission to question their children .","The investigator also questioned CARDINAL of the teachers at nursery school no . CARDINAL . The teacher stated that she could not give any useful information .","NORP On DATE the ORG district police department refused to open a criminal investigation against PERSON and PERSON , having found no evidence of a criminal offence . The applicant \u2019s parents were informed about that decision on DATE and received a copy of it on an unspecified later date .","On DATE , after being criticised by the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office for delays in the conduct of the pre - investigation inquiry and for its ineffectiveness , the ORG district police department cancelled the decision of CARDINAL DATE and resumed the preinvestigation inquiry .","On DATE , in reply to a complaint by the applicant \u2019s mother , the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office again criticised the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office for delays in the conduct of the pre - investigation inquiry and for its ineffectiveness .","On DATE the ORG district police department informed the staff of nursery school no . CARDINAL that criminal proceedings into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment would not be opened because the prosecution had become time - barred .","On DATE the ORG district police department refused to open a criminal investigation into the allegations of ill - treatment , finding no evidence of a criminal offence . On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office quashed that decision and ordered a further inquiry .","On DATE the ORG district police department refused to open a criminal investigation against PERSON It found that , although there was evidence that PERSON actions amounted to cruel treatment of minors , an offence under LAW , the criminal proceedings had become time - barred .","On DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office quashed the decision of DATE , finding that the inquiry had been incomplete . It noted that it was necessary to question the children who had attended the nursery school with the applicant and with their parents ; to establish the seriousness of the damage sustained by the applicant to his health ; to obtain and analyse the documents regulating the actions of the staff of public nursery schools ; and to investigate PERSON actions .","On DATE the investigator questioned the father of a child who had attended the nursery school with the applicant . He stated that his son had never complained of being ill - treated by the nursery school teachers .","On DATE and then again on DATE the ORG district police department refused to open a criminal investigation against Ms K. on the ground that there was no evidence of a criminal offence having been committed . Those decisions were cancelled on unspecified dates .","In reply to new complaints lodged by the applicant \u2019s mother , on DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office again criticised the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office for the delays in the conduct of the pre - investigation inquiry and for its ineffectiveness .","On DATE the investigator questioned the mother of another child who had attended the nursery school with the applicant . She stated that her daughter had never been mistreated by the staff of the nursery school .","On DATE the ORG district police department opened a criminal investigation against PERSON and PERSON","On DATE the applicant was granted the procedural status of victim . The applicant \u2019s mother was recognised as his representative .","In the course of the criminal investigation , which lasted DATE , the police department collected the following evidence .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator in the presence of his counsel , his mother and a teacher . The applicant stated that Ms K. and PERSON had often punished him and some other children . In particular , on many occasions they had made him sleep in the toilets and had threatened that he would be eaten by rats . PERSON had once taped his mouth and hands with sellotape . She had also slapped him on the face when he had refused to open his eyes to receive eye drops . On another occasion PERSON had splashed paint over his friend \u2019s face because she had not liked his drawings . The applicant also stated that Ms PERSON and PERSON had forbidden him from telling his parents about those punishments .","On DATE the applicant was taken by the investigator to nursery school no . CARDINAL , where he repeated his previous statements . In particular , he showed the investigator the spot in the toilets where his folding bed had been placed and the place in the entrance hall where he and other children had been forced to stand wearing only their underwear and Tshirts and keeping their arms up and apart during the entire duration of the sleeping hours . He further showed the investigator where and how he had been bound with sellotape and where and how he had been given eye drops . He also showed the investigator a closet in which he had been locked in the dark . Lastly , he told the investigator that if he did not sleep during the sleeping hours PERSON and PERSON would hold his head against the bed until it started to ache . The applicant \u2019s lawyer , the applicant \u2019s mother , a psychologist and a teacher were present during the questioning .","On DATE the applicant was questioned again . He repeated his previous statements . He also added that PERSON had hit him on the back .","PERSON was questioned by the investigator on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . She initially cited her right to remain silent and refused to testify . She then denied ill - treating the applicant or other children . She stated that the applicant had had nervous tics since DATE . During the last round of questioning she asked that the criminal proceedings be discontinued as time - barred .","PERSON was questioned on DATE and DATE and DATE . She also initially refused to testify . She then denied illtreating the applicant or other children . She stated that the applicant had had nervous tics since DATE and that assistant teacher PERSON . had given false testimony against her in revenge for critical remarks she had made in respect of Ms Ch . \u2019s unsatisfactory work . During the last round of questioning she again refused to testify and asked that the criminal proceedings be discontinued as time - barred .","On DATE medical nurse PERSON . was questioned . She stated that she had been the one who had administered eye drops to the children on DATE because CARDINAL of them had had an eye infection . When she had learned from the applicant \u2019s mother that the applicant had eye tics , she had talked to PERSON and PERSON , who had affirmed that the applicant had had nervous tics before DATE . She had never seen PERSON and Ms P. mistreating the children . However , when questioned on DATE and DATE CARDINAL PERSON . stated that she had lied during the previous rounds of questioning about having given the eye drops to the children on DATE . In fact the eye drops had been given by PERSON without her ( that is to say PERSON \u2019s ) permission . She had lied about that fact because she had had felt sorry for PERSON and had not wanted her to be punished .","On DATE and DATE assistant teacher PERSON . was questioned . She stated that on DATE PERSON had given eye drops to the children on the advice of the medical nurse . PERSON had used physical force against those children who had resisted . Many of them had been frightened and had cried . Immediately after that the applicant \u2019s eyes had started twitching . PERSON . also stated that on many occasions she had seen PERSON and PERSON make the applicant and some other children sleep on folding beds in the toilets or in the entrance hall . PERSON and PERSON had often shouted at the children and had punished them by locking them up in the toilets . She had once seen a child tied with string to his chair . She added that she had never talked to the applicant \u2019s parents except at the nursery school .","On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , and CARDINAL and DATE the investigator held confrontations between Ms Ch . and PERSON , between PERSON . and PERSON , and PERSON . and PERSON . They all reiterated their previous statements .","In DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE the investigator questioned CARDINAL teachers from nursery school no . CARDINAL . They stated that they had never seen PERSON or PERSON mistreating the children . Some of them also stated that the applicant had already had nervous tics before the incident of DATE . CARDINAL of them stated that assistant teacher PERSON . had sometimes taken the applicant home in the evenings because she lived in the same block of flats as the applicant . Ms Ch . had often shouted at the children in the nursery school and the children had been afraid of her .","On DATE the investigator questioned the former director of nursery school no . DATE . She stated that PERSON and PERSON had been competent and affectionate teachers who had been appreciated by the children and their parents . She had never received any complaints about them .","On DATE and DATE the investigator questioned the then director of nursery school no . DATE , who had taken up that position in DATE . She gave positive references for PERSON and PERSON She stated that she had never seen them mistreating the children or received any complaints from the parents in respect of her .","In DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , and DATE the investigator questioned the parents of several children who had attended the nursery school with the applicant . Most of them stated that their children had never complained of having been mistreated by Ms K. or Ms P. One of them stated that her son had on occasions been punished by the teachers ; in particular he had been made to sleep outside DATE , in the changing room . Her son had also told her that he had seen a rat in the toilets . She had , moreover , seen some children carrying heavy folding beds from CARDINAL place to another upon the instruction of the teachers . Lastly , she stated that her son had told her on DATE that PERSON had used force against the applicant ( who had resisted and cried ) when administering eye drops to him . Another parent stated that PERSON had locked her son up in the toilets on QUANTITY occasions and had once made him sleep outside DATE , near the toilets . Another parent stated that her daughter had told her about the applicant and another boy being made to sleep separately from the others . She however did not know the details .","DATE and DATE the investigator questioned CARDINAL of the children who had attended the nursery school with the applicant . They all stated that PERSON and PERSON had been kind to them and had never mistreated them or other children .","The applicant \u2019s mother was questioned on DATE and DATE and on DATE . She described the applicant \u2019s change in behaviour and mood after he had started to attend nursery school . She described the incident of DATE and her son \u2019s subsequent development of nervous tics . She also related a conversation she had had with her son during which he had for the first time told her about being mistreated by PERSON and PERSON also stated that her son continued to suffer from nervous tics and to undergo treatment for them . Lastly , she told the investigator that although PERSON . \u2019s sister was her neighbour she did not have any friendly relationship with her .","DATE . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s father was questioned . He made similar submissions as the applicant \u2019s mother .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigator held confrontations between the applicant \u2019s mother and CARDINAL of those teachers at the nursery school who had already been questioned in DATE . They both reiterated their previous submissions .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigator held confrontations between PERSON . and one of the teachers of the nursery school . Ms PERSON . confirmed her previous submissions , while the teacher stated that PERSON and PERSON had never mistreated the children , that PERSON . had shouted at the children , that Ms. PERSON . had sometimes babysat the applicant and that the applicant had had nervous tics before DATE .","On DATE the investigator questioned the applicant \u2019s neighbour who lived on the same landing , who stated that the applicant \u2019s tics had started in DATE . She also stated that the applicant \u2019s parents were on good terms with PERSON . \u2019s sister but that she had not noticed any kind of relationship between the applicant \u2019s parents and PERSON . herself .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother produced material from the civil case file and asked that it be included in the criminal case file . In particular , she asked for the inclusion of the written statement by CARDINAL of the staff members of nursery school no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that medical nurse PERSON . had attempted to convince her and other staff members to give false testimony against the applicant \u2019s family . On DATE the investigator refused the requests , finding that the documents from the civil case file were irrelevant to the criminal case .","On DATE a panel of psychiatrists and psychologists examined the applicant and issued an expert opinion . They found that the applicant continued to suffer from nervous tics . Given that such tics could have had both organic and neurological causes , it was impossible to establish a causal link between the events of DATE and the applicant \u2019s current neurological disorder . Given the applicant \u2019s age at the material time and the time that had passed since the events in question , the applicant could not accurately recall those events . He was therefore psychologically incapable of testifying within the framework of the criminal proceedings .","On DATE a panel of medical experts examined the applicant \u2019s medical records and issued an expert opinion . They noted that his nervous tics could have had both organic and neurological causes . It was therefore impossible to establish a causal link between the events of DATE and the applicant \u2019s current neurologic disorder .","On DATE a panel of experts in psychiatry and psychology examined the applicant and analysed his medical records . When interviewed by the experts , the applicant stated that he wanted to forget about what had happened to him in the nursery school but he was constantly being reminded of those events because of the investigation . He affirmed that his tics were aggravated each time that he remembered , or had to discuss , the treatment to which he had been subjected in the nursery school . The experts confirmed that the aggravation of the tics was indeed related to the applicant \u2019s memories of the nursery school . The experts found that before DATE the applicant had not suffered from any psychiatric disorder . There had been a causal link between his nervous disorder and the prolonged , psychologically traumatic experience to which he had been subjected in the nursery school from DATE . DATE he still continued to suffer from nervous tics . He had therefore suffered damage of medium severity to his health . The experts further noted that the applicant did not suffer from any memory or intellectual disorder and that his intellectual development corresponded to his age ; he was therefore capable of understanding and relating the relevant events accurately . However , his ability to remember the events had decreased with time . If in DATE he had been still capable of remembering the events in question accurately , with the passage of time his memory of the events had become unrealistic and distorted . His statements \u2013 both in DATE and at that current moment DATE could not therefore be relied upon in the criminal proceedings . Moreover , given that each discussion of the relevant events revived his memories of the traumatic experience and prevented him from moving on , his further participation in investigative measures was inadvisable .","DATE . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigator questioned a psychiatric expert chosen by the applicant \u2019s mother . The expert stated that she disagreed in part with the expert opinion of DATE . In her opinion , the applicant had suffered severe damage ( rather than damage of medium severity ) to his health .","On DATE and DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigator questioned some of the experts who had participated in the expert examinations mentioned above . They confirmed the findings contained in the respective expert opinions .","On DATE the psychologist treating the applicant stated to the investigator that the applicant had been suffering from a neurological disorder since DATE . His health had improved as a result of the treatment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother submitted to the investigator a copy of a medical certificate showing that the applicant did not have any anomalies in the brain . She argued that the certificate proved that the applicant \u2019s neurological disorder was psychological rather than organic in nature .","On DATE the investigator questioned a child psychiatrist who , after examining the applicant \u2019s medical records , stated that there was a causal link between the traumatic experience suffered by the applicant in the nursery school from DATE until DATE and his persistent neurological disorder .","On DATE a psychiatrist and a psychologist analysed the applicant \u2019s medical records at the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s request . They found that in the absence of any anomalies in the applicant \u2019s brain , his neurological disorder could not be organic in nature . It was highly probable that they had been caused by psychological trauma . Given that the nervous tics had appeared for the first time in DATE , there was a causal link between the ill - treatment in the nursery school to which the applicant had been subjected from DATE until DATE and his nervous tics . Finally , the experts noted that the applicant was of normal intellectual development and did not suffer from any memory or intellectual disorders . His statements to the investigator had been detailed and consistent . There were therefore no reasons to consider that the applicant could not remember the relevant events accurately and was psychologically incapable of testifying within the framework of the criminal proceedings .","The investigation was suspended from CARDINAL until DATE , from CARDINAL until DATE , from CARDINAL until DATE , from DATE until CARDINAL DATE and from DATE until DATE ; from DATE until DATE , and from DATE until DATE ; from DATE until DATE , from DATE until DATE , from CARDINAL until DATE , from DATE until DATE , and from CARDINAL until DATE ; and from DATE until DATE . The decisions to suspend the investigation were taken by the investigator on the basis of medical certificates showing that PERSON was on maternity leave and could not therefore participate in investigative measures . All those decisions were annulled by the ORG superior as unlawful .","On DATE the ORG district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against PERSON and Ms. PERSON , finding that their actions in the period from DATE amounted to battery or other violent acts causing physical pain and cruel treatment of minors , offences under LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . The prosecution of those offences was time - barred . There was insufficient evidence of premeditated infliction of damage of medium severity to health , an offence under LAW . Moreover , according to the experts , the applicant could not remember the relevant events accurately and was psychologically incapable of testifying within the framework of the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE , finding that the investigation was incomplete , and ordered further investigative measures .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office that , despite her having lodged numerous requests , she had still not been given copies of the decisions of CARDINAL and DATE .","On DATE the ORG district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against PERSON and Ms. PERSON for the same reasons as those set out in the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG found that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been unlawful because the findings contained in that decision had been contradictory . It held , in particular , that in order to resolve those contradictions it was necessary to perform a new psychiatric examination of the applicant .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered further investigative measures .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office criticised the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office for the delays and the ineffectiveness of the investigation . On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office gave instructions to the ORG district police department as regards further investigative measures to be performed .","On DATE PERSON asked the investigator to discontinue the proceedings . She was suspected of inflicting damage to health of medium severity , an offence under LAW . The statutory limitation period for that offence was DATE . The proceedings had therefore become time - barred . On DATE the prosecutor refused PERSON request , finding that the previous expert examinations had yielded contradictory results . It was therefore necessary for a new expert examination to be performed in order to establish the severity of the damage sustained to the health of the applicant . The investigation could not therefore be discontinued .","On DATE PERSON also asked the investigator to discontinue investigations as time - barred . On DATE the prosecutor refused the request for the same reasons as those for which PERSON similar request had been refused .","On DATE ORG examined Ms K. \u2019s complaint against the decision of CARDINAL DATE and dismissed it . It found that it was necessary for an additional expert examination to be performed in order to establish the severity of the damage sustained by the applicant to his health . If experts were to find that the applicant had sustained severe damage to his health , the limitation period would be DATE and the proceedings would not have become time - barred .","On DATE PERSON again asked the investigator to discontinue the investigation because the proceedings had become time - barred . On DATE the investigator refused the request for the same reasons as those above .","On DATE the investigator found that after DATE the investigation had been extended in breach of the procedure and time - limits provided by law . The investigative measures carried out DATE and DATE had therefore been unlawful and all evidence collected during that period was inadmissible .","On DATE the ORG district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against PERSON and PERSON , finding that there was insufficient evidence of a criminal offence under LAW . It noted that CARDINAL witnesses had confirmed that illtreatment had occurred : the applicant , the applicant \u2019s mother , PERSON . and PERSON . ( in her statements of DATE ) . The experts had found that , because of his young age at the material time , the applicant \u2019s description of the events was unreliable and his further participation in investigative measures was inadvisable . There were therefore doubts about the credibility of his statements . The applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s statements were equally unreliable because she had learned about the events from the applicant . Ms Pt . \u2019s statements of CARDINAL DATE contradicted her previous statements and statements by other witnesses . They could not therefore be considered reliable either . The expert opinions establishing a causal link between the alleged ill - treatment and the applicant \u2019s neurological disorder could not serve as evidence of ill - treatment because it was not within the experts\u2019 remit to establish whether or not ill - treatment had occurred . The expert opinions had been made on the assumption that such ill - treatment had indeed taken place . PERSON . \u2019s statements therefore constituted the only evidence of such ill - treatment . The investigator considered that those statements were insufficient to prove that ill - treatment had indeed taken place . The investigator further noted that all evidence collected between QUANTITY DATE and DATE had been declared inadmissible . Given that that evidence did not contain any proof of ill - treatment , it was not necessary to collect it again .","The applicant \u2019s parents learned about that decision on DATE and received a copy of it on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother challenged the ORG district police department \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE to discontinue the criminal proceedings before ORG against PERSON and PERSON On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother also challenged that decision before the St GPE prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office found that the decision of DATE had been lawful .","On DATE ORG rejected the complaint lodged by the applicant \u2019s mother on DATE . It found that the investigation had been thorough and effective . The breaches of procedure committed during the investigation \u2013 such as the failure to promptly notify the applicant \u2019s mother about certain procedural decisions taken by the investigator or the investigator \u2019s failure to comply with the prosecutor \u2019s instructions \u2013 were insufficiently serious as to warrant the quashing of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE GPE quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal and found that the decision of CARDINAL DATE to discontinue the investigation had been unlawful . It found that the investigation had been ineffective . In particular , given that all evidence collected between PERSON and DATE had been declared inadmissible , it was necessary to undertake anew the investigative measures carried out during that period and to carry out further investigative measures . The court also noted that although , according to the experts , the statements that the applicant had given after DATE were unreliable , the statements that he had given before then could be taken into account in the assessment of evidence . ORG also criticised ORG for the delays in the examination of the complaint lodged by the applicant \u2019s mother on DATE and the resulting excessive length of the judicial proceedings .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother applied to the investigator , asking that Ms P. and PERSON be charged with the premeditated infliction of severe damage to health . The investigator refused her request , finding that there was no evidence of the premeditated infliction of severe damage to health .","On DATE the ORG district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against PERSON and PERSON , finding that their actions did not amount to a criminal offence under LAW .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother challenged that decision before the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office , submitting that the investigation had been incomplete . On DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office found that the decision of DATE to discontinue the criminal proceedings had been lawful .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG held that the decision of DATE had been unlawful , finding that the investigator \u2019s assessment of evidence had been selective and that he had disregarded some facts and evidence ( such as a bruise on the applicant \u2019s face ) , some witness statements , and expert opinions . It also found that the investigation had been excessively long .","On DATE the ORG district police department annulled the decision of DATE and resumed the investigation . After CARDINAL written requests for a copy of that decision , the applicant eventually received it on DATE .","On DATE the ORG district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against PERSON and PERSON The investigator found that although they had indeed given eye drops to the applicant , thereby causing damage of medium severity to his health , there was no evidence of intent to cause such damage . The infliction of damage to health had not therefore been intentional or premeditated . The police department further added that although the applicant had indeed had a bruise on his face , it was not possible to establish how he had received that bruise . The applicant \u2019s testimony was unreliable due to his young age and mental development at the time of his giving it , while the allegations of illtreatment made by the applicant \u2019s mother and by PERSON . had been countered by the statements of all other witnesses DATE namely the staff of the nursery school and the parents of other children DATE that PERSON and PERSON had never mistreated the applicant or other children . The investigator concluded that the evidence collected was contradictory and that it was not possible to resolve that contradiction . Any further investigative measures would be useless . Given that suspects should benefit from any doubt , it could not be found that PERSON and PERSON actions amounted to a criminal offence under LAW .","On DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office annulled the decision of DATE , finding that the investigation had been ineffective and incomplete . In particular , the criminal proceedings had been unlawfully discontinued even though it had been established that PERSON and PERSON had mistreated the applicant and had caused damage to his health .","On DATE the ORG district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against PERSON and PERSON for the same reasons as those given in the decision of DATE .","On DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office annulled the decision of DATE , finding that the investigator had not complied with the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG district police department discontinued the criminal proceedings against PERSON and PERSON , repeating verbatim the decision of DATE .","On DATE the ORG district police department again refused to open criminal proceedings against PERSON and PERSON under LAW of LAW ( cruel treatment of minors ) , finding that the prosecution had become time - barred .","NORP The applicant \u2019s mother several times asked the investigator to declare the expert opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE inadmissible as evidence . She argued in particular that the panel of experts of DATE had not included an expert in child psychiatry . The investigator refused the requests made by the applicant \u2019s mother , finding that the expert opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE had been obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and had contained clear findings .","NORP The applicant \u2019s mother lodged numerous complaints about the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation with the ORG district police department , the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office , the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office , ORG and the ORG and FAC of GPE . She complained that the investigation had been flawed by delays , in particular on account of the numerous unlawful suspensions of the investigation , and that she had often been denied access to the case file . She also complained that , although sufficient evidence of ill - treatment had been gathered , PERSON and PERSON had still not been charged with a criminal offence . She further argued that the applicant had sustained severe damage to his health ( rather than damage of medium severity ) as a result of the ill - treatment he had suffered . She also challenged the investigator \u2019s refusals to declare the expert opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE inadmissible as evidence .","By letters of CARDINAL and DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office informed the applicant \u2019s mother that the investigator and the officials of the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office responsible for supervising the case had been disciplined for the delays during the investigation and its ineffectiveness .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office noted that the investigation had been conducted with serious delays and shortcomings . In particular , the investigator had not performed all requisite investigative measures , such as an additional medical examination of the applicant .","On DATE the ORG found that it had no authority to assess whether the evidence was sufficient for charges to be brought . It was for the investigator to assess the collected evidence and to decide whether charges were to be brought .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office found that the investigator \u2019s refusals ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to declare the expert opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE inadmissible as evidence had been lawful .","On DATE the ORG found that the rights of the applicant \u2019s mother had indeed been breached by the failure to provide her with copies of the numerous decisions to suspend the investigation . However , given that all of those decisions had been annulled , it was not necessary to examine the applicant \u2019s complaint relating to those decisions . Moreover , given that the decisions had been annulled by the investigator \u2019s superiors , the court concluded that those superiors had exercised effective supervision over the course of the investigation . On DATE GPE quashed that decision on appeal for procedural defects .","On DATE the ORG found that the investigator had still not organised an additional expert examination of the applicant , even though he had been instructed to do so in DATE and again in DATE . It also found that the applicant \u2019s mother had been unlawfully denied access to some documents in the case file . On DATE GPE quashed that decision on appeal for procedural defects .","On DATE the ORG of GPE found that the complaints lodged by the applicant \u2019s mother about the delays and the ineffectiveness of the investigation were wellfounded . However , given that on DATE the investigation had been discontinued for lack of evidence of a criminal offence , they had to be dismissed . On DATE GPE quashed that decision on appeal . It found that some of the complaints lodged by the applicant \u2019s mother had not been examined , that the decision had been based on certain documents that had not been examined during the hearing and that the court , even though it had found some of the complaints to be wellfounded , had nevertheless dismissed them .","On DATE the ORG found that the investigator \u2019s decisions issued DATE and DATE to suspend the investigation had been unlawful . The rights of the applicant \u2019s mother had , moreover , been breached by the investigator \u2019s failure to inform her about the suspensions of the investigation . Her complaint that the investigator had intentionally delayed the investigation with the aim of rendering the proceedings time - barred was , however , unsubstantiated . The investigation had been discontinued for lack of evidence of a criminal offence rather than on the ground that the proceedings had become time - barred .","On DATE the ORG found that the applicant \u2019s mother had been unlawfully denied access to certain documents in the case file . It however rejected the remainder of her complaints relating to the alleged ineffectiveness of the investigation . In particular , the court established that the investigator had not complied with the prosecutor \u2019s instructions as to additional investigative measures to be performed . However , the prosecutor had later confirmed the investigator \u2019s decision to discontinue the investigation , thereby agreeing that it was no longer necessary to comply with his previous instructions and to undertake the investigative measures in question . The investigator \u2019s actions had therefore been lawful . On DATE GPE upheld that decision on appeal , finding it lawful , well - reasoned and justified .","On DATE the ORG district police department replied to the applicant \u2019s mother that all necessary investigative measures had been performed and that all relevant facts had been established . It was therefore not necessary to carry out any further investigative measures . On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office also replied to the applicant \u2019s mother that the investigation had been thorough and complete and that there was no need for any further investigative measures .","The applicant is regularly examined by a neurologist . After the initial diagnosis of hyperkinesia on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he was examined by a neurologist on DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . He complained of nervous tics , sleeping difficulties , nervousness and fears . The neurologist noted that the symptoms had been caused by a prolonged , psychologically traumatic experience at the nursery school in DATE . The applicant was prescribed treatment .","From DATE until DATE the applicant followed a course of treatment for nervous tics .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s medical documents were examined by a child psychiatrist , who found that the applicant continued to suffer from a neurological disorder of medium severity .","DATE until DATE the applicant underwent a new course of treatment for nervous tics . He underwent a further course of treatment DATE .","NORP Further medical certificates stated that in DATE the applicant was still suffering from a neurological disorder and was following treatment for it ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148058","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"TZILIVAKI AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , in GPE . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP On DATE , during the NORP invasion , a military aircraft carrying the CARDINALst commando battalion of GPE , sent as reinforcements from GPE , was shot down by friendly fire in the area of Tymvos , in GPE . Out of the CARDINAL commandos and crew only one survived . The victims included the first applicant \u2019s brother , PERSON , and the son and brother of the second and third applicants respectively , NORP .","According to army records , PERSON and NORP were buried in individual and marked plots in ORG on DATE . Not all the bodies of the victims of the crash had been recovered and buried separately . The crash site had been covered over and converted into a FAC for all NORP soldiers killed in the conflict ; some unidentified remains from the crash had been buried in an unnamed mass grave , due to the small size of the bones , at the ORG itself . At the site , there was built a memorial as well as a military cemetery with a church . The site was regarded altogether as a monument for honouring and commemorating those who fell .","In DATE , the army authorities exhumed and returned the bodies of CARDINAL NORP soldiers killed in DATE and buried in graves at FAC , including CARDINAL victims of the crash . The remains from the grave bearing the name of PERSON were exhumed in the presence of his father and returned to the family in GPE on DATE . The grave bearing the name of NORP was exhumed in the presence of CARDINAL of his brothers and returned to his relatives in GPE on DATE .","Sometime later a doubt arose as to the correct identification of remains . Beginning in DATE , an organization ORG ( \u201c Physicians for Human Rights \u201d ) in agreement with the authorities conducted exhumations at ORG and other cemeteries , in particular of unidentified remains . In a DATE report , ORG stated that burials in DATE had taken place \u201c under confusing circumstances \u201d and that it appeared that the identifications had not been objectively verified , resulting in many mistaken attributions of identity and that due to lack of expertise , incomplete skeletons had been removed and parts of several individuals had been mixed together .","In DATE the families of the victims , including the applicants\u2019 families , were visited by experts involved in the exhumation of the remains of the victims and were asked to give blood with a view to proceeding to proper identifications .","NORP In DATE the first applicant \u2019s family handed over to the NORP authorities for DNA tests the remains which they had been given in DATE . Following such tests , the first applicant and her family were informed that these remains received in DATE had not been those of PERSON .","In DATE , following testing of the remains given to the family of the second and third applicants and sent back to GPE , the family were informed that the remains contained parts of several other individuals .","In DATE , DNA tests disclosed that the remains buried under the name of ORG had included part of the remains of PERSON . The family was so informed . The applicant was informed in DATE that further remnants of PERSON had been discovered .","In DATE , it became apparent that the CARDINAL remains returned to families represented CARDINAL different individuals .","The first applicant applied to the authorities in DATE and DATE , urging that the crash site be excavated in order to find the remains of her brother that she thought must still be at that location . It is not apparent that the second or third applicants approached the authorities on this matter .","By a letter dated DATE , the Director of ORG of the President informed the first applicant that instructions had already been given for the planning of the excavations . The letter stated as follows , in so far as relevant :","\u201c ...","Before receiving your letter instructions had been given to start the planning for the excavation in Tymvos .","We had discussed the matter with the NORP Ambassador and following the instructions of the President of the Republic we are taking the necessary measures to excavate the site where the remains of the aircraft are and to exhume the remains which may have possibly been buried with them .","As I had told you orally we acknowledge the obligation to fully investigate the possibility that human remains have been buried with the aircraft remains ; upon a possible finding of such remains and their forensic identification , we will give a reply to the family \/ families concerning the fate of their loved ones who fell while carrying out their duties for their country .","We also have an obligation in such a case to deliver the remains to the families so they can be buried with the befitting honour and in accordance with the religious rites and customs .","You appreciate that this task will take time and we therefore ask you to be patient . \u201d","By a letter dated DATE the Director General of ORG informed the first applicant that the authorities were doing everything possible to locate the remains of her deceased brother in order to end the agony and uncertainty of her family and of the families of the remaining victims .","On DATE the first applicant filed a complaint with ORG ( \u201c Ombudsman \u201d ) against ORG ( complaint CARDINAL ) .","In a letter dated DATE the ORG informed the first applicant that the Director General of ORG had informed her that they were taking the necessary measures towards excavating the remains of the aircraft and to exhume the bodies that may have been buried there . In view of this the ORG considered that there were no grounds for her continued intervention .","The Government submitted that work was undertaken to identify all the available remains in order to clarify the situation before proceeding to any large - scale excavations at the ORG site . They also stated that they were hampered in identifications by the decisions of some families not to participate in the return of remains for identification ; it also appears that CARDINAL family had destroyed the remains . They stated that a large part of the remains of PERSON were recuperated ; as his commando badge and ID tags had been found at ORG , there were no strong grounds for assessing that his body had been left at the site and that it was more likely that his remains were with all those transferred to ORG .","Meanwhile several surveys and exploratory excavations were carried out at the PERSON site . This culminated in a ORG report of DATE which stated that the unnamed remains stored at the ORG site had been removed but their state was such that current DNA analysis methods had not been able to yield reliable results . It appears that there was a decision by the authorities not to proceed to excavate the site at this time due to","Unreliable evidence as to whether there were any bodies or remains buried under the PERSON site without being marked ;","No indication from surveys and excavations that any remains were present at the site ;","The incomplete DNA samples from families and return of remains which meant that there was no comprehensive identification of those who had been buried at ORG ;","Concerns that the excavation would require the dismantling of the memorial erected on the site as well as disturbing existing graves at the cemetery on the site ;","Lack of certainty as to where on the site the aircraft was located .","On DATE , the ORG issued a report , stating inter alia , that some victims of the crash remained unaccounted for and that there was a possibility that remains had been buried along with the aircraft on the site and urged that an investigation be launched to put an end to the uncertainty of the relatives .","On DATE ORG approved ORG proposal no . ECARDINAL\/CARDINAL for the excavation of the air crash site . The excavation was to take place under the supervision of ORG and will be conducted by the scientific staff of ORG in co - operation with the NORP archeologists , ORG and ORG . The proposal included an analysis of the costs to be incurred in the total amount of CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177692","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SPIRIDONOVSKA AND POPOVSKI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE a plot of agricultural land ( \u201c the land \u201d ) was confiscated from ORG , the ORG late grandmother , on the basis of LAW ( \u0430\u043a\u0442 \u0437\u0430 \u0435\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u2013 \u201c the first confiscation order \u201d ) , issued by ORG ( PERSON \u0432\u043e ORG ) . According to the first confiscation order , the total surface area of the land was CARDINAL shinik ( \u0448\u0438\u043d\u0438\u043a \u2013 an old unit of land area ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ) .","On DATE a second confiscation order was issued concerning a plot of land owned by ORG The second confiscation order did not specify the surface of the land which was to be confiscated .","On DATE ORG adopted a confiscation decision ( \u0440\u0435\u0448\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0435\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 ) , which confirmed the above confiscations of ORG \u2019s real property . According to the decision , the total area of the confiscated land was QUANTITY ( sq . m ) .","In a final court decision in inheritance proceedings of DATE , each applicant was declared heir of CARDINAL of the land confiscated from their late grandmother . According to this decision , the surface area of the land in question was CARDINAL shinik .","On DATE the applicants instituted restitution proceedings under LAW seeking restoration of the land confiscated from their grandmother . In support of their claim they submitted the first confiscation order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Copies of the restitution claim and the accompanying documents were communicated to ORG ( ORG ) . It appears that ORG did not submit any observations in reply .","On DATE ORG ( part of ORG ) ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) made an on - site inspection and found that the land in question had been free of any buildings .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicants\u2019 restitution claim and decided to restore to their possession the plot of land , the total surface area of which was QUANTITY . m , which , as stated in the order , corresponded to CARDINAL shinik ( \u201c the restitution order \u201d ) . The order stated that the plot had been confiscated on the basis of the first confiscation order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Through a proprio motu investigation it also established that the land in question had been part of a larger undeveloped , ORG - owned plot .","It appears that the Solicitor General was served with a copy of the order but did not lodge an appeal against it . As a consequence , it became final on DATE .","On DATE the total area of the land was transferred in the second applicant \u2019s possession ( \u0432\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0434\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0432\u043e \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) . The applicants then had their property rights registered in the relevant ORG .","In a decision of DATE , which became final on DATE , ORG , in non - contentious proceedings , accepted the applicants\u2019 application to have the ORG , represented by ORG , delineate the area belonging to them ( CARDINAL sq . m ) from a larger plot of land belonging to the ORG . By this decision the applicants became the owners of a separate plot of land with the total area of CARDINAL sq . m.","NORP In DATE the Solicitor General applied to have the applicants prohibited from further disposing of the land since the land restored to their possession had not corresponded to the land confiscated from their late predecessor in terms of its surface area .","On DATE ORG Instance dismissed that application finding that the land had been restored to the applicants\u2019 possession on the basis of the restitution order . Furthermore , no proceedings had been instituted under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) by a third party .","On DATE ORG upheld this decision noting that ORG had furthermore participated in the proceedings concerning the delineation of the land ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the Solicitor General sought , in administrative proceedings , that the restitution order be declared , under section CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , partially null and void in respect of the part of the land which had been returned to the applicants but allegedly had not been confiscated from their predecessor . ORG argued that the restitution order had been based on the first confiscation order , which had been invalid since it had neither been signed nor stamped and it had specified the surface of the confiscated land in shinik . He had submitted the second confiscation order , which had specified that the surface area of the confiscated land had been CARDINAL . The Solicitor General therefore lodged an application to have the restitution order declared partially null and void regarding the difference in surface area of the land specified in the first confiscation order of CARDINAL DATE and the confiscation decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the Second - Instance Administrative - Procedure Commission in ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0448\u0430\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0432\u043e \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f\u043a\u0430 \u0432\u043e \u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u0441\u0442\u0435\u043f\u0435\u043d \u043e\u0434 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u0435\u043d\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u2013 \u201c the second - instance commission \u201d ) dismissed that application finding that the final restitution order , which had meanwhile been enforced , could not be declared null and void on the basis of section ORG ) of LAW because the sections of LAW on the basis of which the restitution order had been made had not contained any explicit provisions allowing for its nullification , as required under that subparagraph . As for the argument that the confiscation order had been neither signed nor stamped , is was stated that this could have been put forward before the finality of the restitution order , and could not have led to declaring the order null and void on the basis of section FAC ) .","The Solicitor General challenged the latter decision by lodging an administrative action ( \u0442\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d \u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440 ) with ORG in which he complained that the restitution order of DATE had been based on a confiscation order which had not been signed and stamped and on erroneous facts regarding the surface area of the land . In this connection the Solicitor General referred to an extract from ORG dated DATE which indicated that the land had been expropriated on the basis of a confiscation order of DATE . In this submission ORG noted that his claims regarding the differences in the surface areas had been substantiated by documents supplied to him by \u201c interested parties \u201d according to which the accurate area of the land could be established .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the second - instance commission , finding that the remedy under section ORG ) relied on by ORG had been inapplicable to the facts of the case . It further stated that the missing stamp and signature were not sufficient reasons to declare the restitution order null and void . Under the terms of the relevant domestic law applicable at the time , this was the final decision . With regard to the differences in surface areas the judgment stated :","\u201c The court , in deciding , assessed the arguments of the [ Solicitor General ] put forward in the claim , but it did not accept them as bases to decide differently , because none of the conditions under [ section ] CARDINAL of LAW for declaring the order null and void had been fulfilled . \u201d","On DATE ORG , acting on its own motion ( \u043f\u043e \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0435\u043d\u0430 \u0434\u043e\u043b\u0436\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) and relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW , found that the restitution order was unenforceable and declared it null and void in full ( \u201c the nullity decision \u201d ) . It further held that the merits of the case would be decided in a separate decision . It also issued a provisional measure ( \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043b\u0443\u0447\u043e\u043a ) , prohibiting the applicants from selling the land until the final resolution of the case .","ORG indicated that in the course of examining a separate restitution claim submitted by the heirs of a certain G.T , it had reviewed the documents concerning the applicants\u2019 restitution application .","ORG held that under the applicable law in DATE , a confiscation order ( \u0430\u043a\u0442 \u0437\u0430 \u0435\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 ) had had to precede a confiscation decision ( \u0440\u0435\u0448\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0435\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 ) . It found that the restitution order had been based on the confiscation order of DATE , according to which the total surface area of the land formerly owned by the applicants\u2019 predecessor had been CARDINAL shinik . However , the confiscation decision dated DATE , on the basis of which the plot had been confiscated , had specified that the surface area of the confiscated land had been QUANTITY m. ORG also referred to evidence submitted on DATE by ORG , according to which the area of the plot had been CARDINAL shinik and had represented a part of a larger plot of land , the total surface area of which was QUANTITY . m. A further extract from a \u201c ORG of ORG and \u201c Review of old units of land area and their conversion into hectares , areas and sq . m \u201d , issued on the basis of a letter dated DATE , specified that CARDINAL shinik corresponded to QUANTITY . m. Lastly , the ORG relied on a cadastral plan drawn up by a licenced surveyor ( \u043a\u0430\u0442\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0441\u043a\u0438\u0446\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0430 \u043e\u0434 \u0433\u0435\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0442\u0430\u0440 ) made for a separate set of restitution proceedings ( instituted by the heirs of ORG ) , according to which the surface area of the land , formerly owned by the ORG predecessor , had been QUANTITY m. In such circumstances , the ORG found that the applicants had unlawfully obtained possession of CARDINAL sq . m of land , on the basis of the restitution order . For those reasons , the Commission held that the restitution order had been contrary to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW and was legally unenforceable pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW . In respect of the latter section , the Commission held that the unenforceability of a decision concerned not only the factual ( \u0444\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043a\u0430 ) , but also the legal ( \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 ) impossibility of enforcement .","Both applicants appealed , arguing that the restitution order was a final decision which could not be altered . They also referred to the judgement of ORG of DATE , which had stated that none of the conditions for nullity under section CARDINAL of LAW had been fulfilled ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the second - instance commission dismissed the ORG appeals , endorsing the reasoning given by ORG . It held that ORG had been obliged , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , to declare the restitution order null and void .","The applicants lodged an administrative action against the latter decision before ORG . They again referred to the judgement of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They further stated that the issue of nullity had already been finally resolved following the application lodged by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG upheld their action and annulled the decision of the second - instance commission . The court further rejected as inadmissible an application by PERSON and ORG , the legal successors of ORG ( \u201c the third persons \u201d ) , to intervene in the proceedings . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c ... In the court \u2019s opinion , there has been no breach of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW ... This section concerns the impossibility for factual enforcement and the legal impossibility for enforcement which would be in contravention of ... legislation . In the present case there is no such situation and therefore it can not be considered that LAW has been breached ... This is so because the evidence admitted in the course of the proceedings provides a certain basis for the court to conclude that in the present case the restitution order ... was adopted in accordance with LAW , which had been preceded by a correct and full establishment of the facts , thereby leading to the conclusion that in that case all statutory conditions had been fulfilled for [ the return of ] the property concerned .","With regard to the application lodged by PERSON and ORG ... it is clear that [ they ] did not participate , nor could they have participated in the administrative proceedings initiated by other persons who claimed a right to restitution of a part of the property which had indisputably been in the possession of their legal predecessors . In view of that ... in the present case there is no possibility that third persons ( interested persons ) can have standing as parties to the restitution proceedings . However , that does not mean that those persons will be deprived of the right to protect their rights and interests ... a possibility remains for them to establish their rights by lodging a civil claim before a competent court within DATE of the finalisation of the restitution order ( section DATE , paragraph CARDINAL of the Act ) , against the persons to whom possession was restored or compensation was paid in accordance with the provisions of the LAW . \u201d","On DATE ORG and the third persons respectively appealed against that judgment before ORG , which had in the meantime become competent to act upon appeals against judgments of ORG . In the appeal the third persons argued that the difference between QUANTITY . m and the surface originally granted to the applicants belonged to them and adduced evidence to this end . The applicants submitted observations in reply .","On DATE ORG accepted the appeal submitted by ORG and overturned the decision of ORG . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c In ORG opinion , which has been stated in several of this court \u2019s cases , a restitution order can be considered as legally impossible to enforce , if there are breaches of the law which can not be remedied with the application of other legal means , as is the situation in the present case . In particular , with the [ restitution ] order more was restored to the [ applicants ] than what they had been entitled to , having in mind the surface of the property which was in their legal predecessor \u2019s possession . In support of this , the ORG organs submit \u2018 ORG of ORG and \u2018 Review of old units of land area and their conversion into hectares , areas and sq . m\u2019 as evidence that CARDINAL shinik in the city of PERSON amounted to QUANTITY . m. This finds support in the expropriation decision of CARDINAL DATE where it was noted that the expropriated land had had a surface of QUANTITY m , which had been preceded by an accurate determination of the object of expropriation . The finding is further supported by a cadastral plan done by a licenced surveyor ( \u043a\u0430\u0442\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0441\u043a\u0438\u0446\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0430 \u043e\u0434 \u0433\u0435\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0442\u0430\u0440 ) on the basis of the limits and boundaries of the plots of land as laid out in the expropriation decision .","... [ T]he conclusion is correct that in the present case , with the restitution order , the property registered as property of the ORG was restored contrary to the conditions specified in LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL . Since the ORG organs established that part of the concerned property was not in possession of the legal predecessor [ of the applicants ] , there is a legal obstacle for the exercise of a restitution right over that part of the property . Hence , such an order can not be enforced , which is grounds for the application of paragraph CARDINAL subparagraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of LAW , meaning that the decision is null and void ( \u043d\u0438\u0448\u0442\u043e\u0432\u043d\u043e ) ...","... In respect of the third persons , or the interested persons , LAW excludes the possibility for them to appear as parties to the restitution proceedings , but what remains for them is the possibility to claim their rights in a civil suit before a competent court within DATE after the finalisation of the restitution order ( section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the Act ) , against the persons to whom possession was restored or compensation was paid in accordance with the provisions of this LAW . \u201d","This decision was served on the applicants on DATE and DATE respectively . By decisions of DATE and DATE ORG rejected as inadmissible their applications for the reopening of the proceedings .","On DATE , in civil proceedings initiated by the second applicant against ORG , ORG issued an injunction banning the respondent ORG from disposing of the plot of land . On DATE the latter decision was annulled ( \u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u0430 \u0432\u043e\u043d \u0441\u0438\u043b\u0430 ) as the applicant had withdrawn the action against ORG .","Acting upon the initial restitution application , ORG requested clarification from ORG regarding the historical records of the plot of land in question on DATE . ORG confirmed that the plot which had been taken from the applicants\u2019 predecessor was now a part of a plot owned by the ORG with an area of QUANTITY . m.","On DATE ORG accepted the applicants\u2019 restitution claim and decided to restore to their possession a plot of land with an area of QUANTITY . m and to award them financial compensation for the remaining part of the plot with an area of CARDINAL sq . m which could not be restored , in total amounting to a total surface area of CARDINAL sq . m.","On DATE the second applicant challenged the latter decision with an administrative action . It appears that the proceedings are still pending ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148259","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF K.C. v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in PERSON . She is currently residing in a social care home in PERSON","The applicant , who is a widow , was living alone in an apartment in PERSON . She was receiving a pension from ORG . She has a daughter , with whom she apparently had had no contact for DATE .","On DATE , at the request of the applicant \u2019s daughter , the PERSON Regional Court declared the applicant to be partially incapacitated . The court established that she had been suffering from psycho - organic dementia syndrome with elements of paranoia and that she had a tendency to abuse alcohol and medications . It reasoned that it was necessary to declare her to be partially incapacitated because she needed help in making the right decisions , particularly as regards her treatment and the amount of money she spent on alcohol .","On DATE the \u017bary City Centre for Social Services ( PERSON ) requested ORG to place the applicant , against her will , in a social care home . ORG submitted that the applicant was suffering from mental disorders , did not go to doctors and behaved in a way that departed from \u201c socially accepted norms \u201d , which posed a threat to her health and life . The ORG explained that the applicant had been \u201c walking in the streets incompletely dressed , untidy and dirty . She smelled , talked to herself and often looked as if she was under the influence of alcohol \u201d . A medical certificate dated DATE was attached to the request . The certificate had been issued by a psychiatrist on the basis of an examination of the applicant in the psychiatric ward of ORG . It had been found that the applicant had been suffering from organic personality disorders ( organiczne zaburzenie osobowo\u015bci ) and that she needed constant care . However , she did not require hospital treatment .","The \u017bary District Court scheduled several hearings at which the applicant failed to appear . Therefore , it was decided to hear the applicant at her place of residence on DATE . On DATE contact with the applicant was difficult ; her answers to some of the court \u2019s questions were illogical . She made it clear , however , that she did not want to be placed in the social care home . At the end of the hearing she refused to sign the relevant document and told the people present in her apartment to get out .","On DATE ORG decided to place the applicant in a social care home . The court based its decision on an opinion given by a psychiatrist , PERSON , who had examined the applicant once , on DATE , and had diagnosed her with chronic schizophrenia and a disorder of the central nervous system . The doctor found that until the time of the examination the applicant had been in the care of a social guardian , PERSON However , the doctor claimed that \u201c care was not provided properly or was not provided at all \u201d . The applicant had been neglecting the basic principles of hygiene and nutrition , which might lead to infections or undernourishment . He stressed however that she did not pose a direct danger to her own or other peoples\u2019 health or life . The doctor also found that the applicant needed to be under the constant care of a third person . The relevant part of the opinion read as follows :","\u201c Through her behaviour she poses a risk to her life , i.e. in certain circumstances leaving her without constant care significantly raises the probability of risk to her life . It is not however a direct risk , but it results rather from the applicant \u2019s neglect of basic hygiene principles , place of residence and nutrition . [ The applicant is therefore exposed to ] a risk of malnutrition , [ and ] infections . \u201d","The court also examined the possibility of the applicant \u2019s stay at her home and referred in this respect to the possibility of taking care of the applicant by third persons and to the assistance provided by ORG . The relevant part of the court \u2019s decision read as follows :","\u201c ... there are no members of family or third persons who could take care of the applicant on permanent basis . In particular the applicant \u2019s daughter declared that she did not want to look after her mother on permanent basis and that she would not take her mother to her place ...","...","The expert opinion is clear in so far as it states that ( the applicant ) needs constant care lack of which poses a danger to her life .","...","As regards the assistance from the employees of ORG it is to be noted that this assistance is not of a permanent nature . This means that social employee does not spend DATE with a person concerned and does not take care of that person on permanent basis because , as a rule , social employees [ ... ] assist at the same time many persons living in the area covered by their activity . The applicant in turn , requires permanent care which can not be secured by the social employees . \u201d","NORP The applicant was placed in a social care home in PERSON on DATE .","It appears that ORG granted the applicant a legal aid lawyer in DATE . However , according to the applicant \u2019s submission the lawyer was not present at the hearing before the first - instance court and de facto she was not represented in the judicial proceedings .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s daughter appealed against the decision of DATE . She also requested that her mother be granted a legal aid lawyer and that she be served with the decision of DATE with written reasoning .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request for a legal aid lawyer , finding that the applicant \u2019s daughter had sufficient knowledge and abilities to represent her mother before the court . It also rejected the appeal and the request for the reasoning of the first - instance decision .","On DATE the applicant lodged another appeal against the decision of DATE and requested leave to appeal out of time .","On DATE the applicant was granted a legal aid lawyer . Since she was not satisfied with the lawyer who represented her , on DATE she was granted another lawyer , who subsequently requested that the court grant the applicant leave to appeal out of time .","On DATE the ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal out of time .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . TIME of the court decision reveal that nobody was present at the hearing on DATE . The same minutes state , however , that \u201c the applicant , who was not represented by a lawyer , was informed that she could request reasons for the decisions in writing if she lodged a relevant request within DATE from DATE of publication [ of the decision ] . \u201d The applicant submitted that she had not been served with the court \u2019s decision and that she had found out about it by chance DATE . In the meantime she lodged a complaint with the court about the excessive length of the proceedings . Her complaint was rejected by the PERSON Regional Court on DATE .","When the applicant learned that her appeal had been dismissed she requested the leave of ORG to lodge a request for written reasons for the decision out of time . She also requested leave to lodge a cassation appeal out of time , to be exempted from the court fees and to be granted a legal aid lawyer who would prepare and lodge a cassation appeal on her behalf .","On DATE the ORG dismissed her request for leave to appeal out of time and therefore she could not lodge a cassation appeal with ORG .","On DATE the Zielona ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for exemption from the court fees and for the appointment of a legal aid lawyer to lodge a cassation appeal on her behalf .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s daughter requested ORG to vary the measure applied to her mother and to amend the decision of DATE .","ORG ordered that the applicant be examined by a psychiatrist in order to check whether she needed to remain in the social care home . It also ordered that the applicant be heard by the Gorz\u00f3w PERSON ORG by way of judicial assistance .","The applicant was examined by a psychiatrist on DATE . The relevant part of the psychiatric opinion reads as follows :","\u201c In her current mental state the applicant does not need to be admitted and treated in hospital .","...","As a result of her sickness she requires help in day - to - DATE matters , first of all , taking care of her treatment process and controlling her expenses so that she does not spend money on alcohol . She also needs assistance in preparing meals , personal hygiene and shopping .","...","The applicant needs the twenty - four - hour care that may be offered in a social care home . It is admissible that she be placed in a family home provided that the family is able to assure TIME care .","...","There has been no change in the applicant \u2019s mental state or circumstances which constituted the basis for her placement in the social care home .","The applicant does not require to be placed in a psychiatric ward ... She does not pose a direct danger to her own or a third person \u2019s health or life . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was also heard by the Gorz\u00f3w ORG . The hearing lasted TIME . The applicant \u2019s statement reads as follows :","\u201c I am afraid that I could be locked up . I would need a sanatorium where they treat heart disease . I do not feel at ease in the social care home because the people there are not normal , they are constantly asking for cigarettes and I do not smoke . Medical care is assured there . The doctor is a colleague of mine , because I was manager of a chemist and he was the doctor . I take the medication promazyn because I was exposed to radiation during the war , but now I am fine . I am in good hands , I need my home , my daughter comes to see me . She comes DATE . I lived in my home in \u017bary for DATE . My daughter , when she became an adult , used to come to see me and she helped me out . I want to stay in my apartment in PERSON , which is situated not far from my daughter \u2019s apartment . \u201d","On DATE the court summoned the applicant \u2019s daughter in order to establish whether she was capable of providing care for her mother . She failed to appear , so a further hearing was scheduled for DATE . The applicant \u2019s daughter again failed to appear . The court then decided to close the case , finding that the facts had been sufficiently established to make a final decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request lodged by the applicant \u2019s daughter to vary the measure applied to the applicant . Neither the applicant , her daughter , nor the applicant \u2019s guardian was present when the court announced its decision . The decision was not appealed against and became final on DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to reopen the proceedings which had resulted in her placement in the social care home . If it was not possible to re - open the proceedings , she requested that the respective decision be varied .","On DATE ORG rejected her request . The court found that there were no grounds for reopening the proceedings . It further informed the applicant that , under section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW , an applicant placed in a social care home or members of his or her family could request that the court vary the decision on placing him or her in the social care home . The court disregarded the applicant \u2019s alternative request in that regard .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to supplement the decision of DATE and allow her to leave the social care home for TIME a day in order to go to a shop , as well as allow her to stay in her room DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request to supplement the original decision , finding that those matters fell outside the court \u2019s jurisdiction and that they were provided for by the internal regulations of each social care home .","On DATE the applicant again asked the court to vary the measure applied to her . She also requested legal aid ; she submitted that she could not afford to appoint a lawyer at her own expense because PERCENT of her pension was retained by the social care home .","On DATE the ORG refused to grant a legal aid lawyer , finding that the applicant was able to deal with her affairs herself and that her case was not complicated from a legal or factual point of view .","The applicant appealed against that decision .","On DATE the ORG quashed the challenged decision and granted the applicant a legal aid lawyer .","As regards the applicant \u2019s request to vary the measure , a hearing took place on DATE in the presence of both the applicant and her lawyer . Following a request by the lawyer , the court decided to stay the proceedings . They were resumed on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . The applicant did not appeal against that decision and it became final on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178942","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u00d6ZMURAT \u0130N\u015eAAT ELEKTR\u0130K NAKL\u0130YAT TEM\u0130ZL\u0130K SAN. VE T\u0130C. LTD. \u015eT\u0130. v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Public hearing)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant is a construction company , which was established in DATE and has its seat of business in GPE .","In DATE , after having obtained a permit to operate a mine , the applicant opened a mine in a plot of land of CARDINAL ORG which it owned .","During the course of its mining activities , on DATE an audit commission under ORG conducted an inspection . Subsequently , the commission drew up a report , proposing that the applicant should be ordered to pay MONEY ( TRY ) for quarrying substantial amounts of sand in the neighbouring plots of CARDINAL m\u00b2 , outside of its licensed area .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that it had decided to impose the proposed administrative fine pursuant to LAW ( A Grubu Madenlerle \u0130lgili Uygulama PERSON ) .","On DATE the applicant company \u2019s president , \u00dc.T. , filed a complaint with ORG office , stating that one of the auditors in the commission , ORG , had told him that the fine had initially been calculated as TRY CARDINAL,CARDINAL and that he had reduced that amount . \u00dc.T. claimed that ORG had asked him to pay TRY CARDINAL in return and had threatened to have his mine closed if he refused to do so . He indicated that ORG had acted together with a certain ORG , an official at ORG .","In his police statements on DATE , \u00dc.T. described his conversations with PERSON in detail . He noted , inter alia , that after the inspection of the audit commission , he had conducted another inspection with an official from ORG , and had calculated that he had trespassed on the neighbouring plots by QUANTITY . He also explained that he had acted as an undercover agent in line with the directions of ORG to catch the perpetrators in flagrante delicto . Accordingly , the police gave him TRY CARDINAL and noted down the serial numbers of the banknotes . He stated that in line with the instructions of ORG and ORG , he had given the money to a third person , who had received it in the name of the other CARDINAL .","Subsequently , on DATE ORG issued an indictment against ORG and ORG , accusing them of extortion .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG found the CARDINAL officials guilty as charged . The appeal proceedings with regard to that judgment are still pending before ORG as of DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant had filed an objection with ORG and requested a stay of execution of the fine . It informed the court of the criminal proceedings pending against certain officials involved , in which they were being tried for extortion . By a subsequent petition dated DATE , the applicant also requested the court to hold an oral hearing , to carry out an on - site examination , and to hear its witnesses in order to better evaluate the credibility of the inspection report the fine was based on .","On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s requests for an oral hearing and on - site examination without indicating any reasons for its decision . Relying on the inspection report drawn up on DATE , the court rejected the applicant \u2019s objection .","The applicant objected to that decision , arguing that the fine had been unlawfully imposed on it and that ORG had failed to adequately assess the case as it had not held a hearing . It drew the court \u2019s attention once again to the criminal proceedings against the officials involved .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s objection without holding a hearing .","On DATE the administration seized the plot of land where the applicant conducted mining activities due to the latter \u2019s failure to pay the administrative fine ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184525","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF G.I.E.M. S.R.L. AND OTHERS v. ITALY","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Abuse of the right of application;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege;Conviction;Criminal offence);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege;Conviction;Criminal offence);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Branko Lubarda;Egidijus K\u016bris;Erik M\u00f8se;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Iulia Motoc;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant companies have their registered offices respectively in PERSON ( PERSON . ) , GPE ( Hotel Promotion Bureau S.r.l . and ORG . ) , and PERSON ( GPE di GPE ) ( PERSON . ) .","Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant company owned a plot of land in PERSON on the coast at GPE , with a total area of CARDINAL sq . m , adjacent to land belonging at the time to a limited liability company ORG . The land was classified as suitable for building in the general land - use plan ( piano regolatore generale ) in respect of CARDINAL plots , the rest being earmarked for use by small businesses according to the plan \u2019s specifications .","In By - Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON municipal council approved a site division and development plan ( piano di lottizzazione hereinafter \u201c site development plan \u201d ) submitted by ORG . The plan provided for the construction of a multi - purpose complex , comprising housing , offices and shops . According to the applicant company , its land was automatically incorporated into the development plan by the municipal council .","On DATE the ORG municipal authority asked the applicant company if it wished to be party to a site development agreement in order to be able to build on the land . If its response was negative , the authority would have to expropriate the land under PERSON no . DATE ) of GPE .","On DATE the applicant company informed the ORG municipal authority that it wished to participate in a site development agreement . The authority did not reply .","On DATE the PERSON municipal authority issued a building permit to ORG .","On DATE Sud Fondi S.r.l . began the building work , which had mostly been completed by DATE .","On DATE , following the publication of a newspaper article about the building work carried out near the sea at GPE , the public prosecutor of ORG opened a criminal investigation .","On DATE the public prosecutor ordered a temporary measure restraining disposal of property in respect of all the buildings in question . He also added the names of certain individuals to the register of persons prosecuted , including those of the authorised representative of ORG . and the managers and foremen responsible for the building work . In his decision the public prosecutor expressed the view that the locality known as ORG was a protected natural site and that the building of the complex was therefore illegal .","NORP The representatives of ORG . challenged the temporary restraining measure before ORG . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE that court declared the measure null and void and ordered the return of all the buildings to their owners , on the ground that it was not prohibited to build on the site according to the land - use plan .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG acknowledged the illegality of the buildings erected at GPE as they had been built in breach of Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( \u201c PERSON no . CARDINAL \u201d ) , which prohibited the granting of planning permission in respect of sites of natural interest , including coastal areas . However , since in the present case the local authority had issued the building permits , and in view of the lack of coordination between Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and the regional legislation , which was incomplete , the court found that no negligence or criminal intent could be imputed to the defendants . All the defendants were thus acquitted on the ground that the mental element of the offence had not been made out ( \u201c perch\u00e9 il fatto non costituisce reato \u201d ) .","In the same judgment , finding that the development plans were materially in breach of PERSON no . DATE and illegal , ORG ordered , in accordance with section CARDINAL of that PERSON , the confiscation of all the developed land at ORG , including that belonging to the applicant company , together with the buildings thereon , and the incorporation of the property , without compensation , into the estate of the municipal authority of ORG .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE the ORG Minister ( PERSON dei beni culturali ) prohibited any building in the coastal area near the city of PERSON , including at ORG , on the ground that it was a site of significant natural interest . That measure was declared null and void by ORG DATE .","NORP The public prosecutor appealed against the judgment of ORG , calling for the defendants to be convicted .","In a judgment of DATE ORG overturned the decision of the court below . It found that the granting of planning permission had been legal , in the absence of any ban on building at GPE , and there having been no appearance of illegality in the procedure for the adoption and approval of the site development agreements .","The Court of Appeal thus acquitted the defendants on the ground that no material element of an offence had been made out ( \u201c perch\u00e9 il fatto non sussiste \u201d ) and revoked the confiscation measure in respect of all the buildings and land . On DATE the public prosecutor appealed on points of law .","In a judgment of DATE ORG quashed ORG decision without remitting it . It acknowledged the material illegality of the site development plans on the ground that the land in question was subject to an absolute ban on building and to a landscape protection measure , both provided for by law . In that connection , the court noted that at the time the development plans had been adopted ( DATE ) , Regional Law no . DATE on landscape protection had not yet entered into force . Consequently , the applicable provisions in the present case were those of Regional Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ( on land use and development ) and ORG no . DATE ( on landscape protection ) .","ORG observed that PERSON no . CARDINAL in fact imposed a prohibition on building within the meaning of section CARDINALowed no derogation , because the site development plans concerned plots of land that were not situated within the city limits . The court added that , at the time when the site development agreements were adopted , the land in question was included in an implementation plan ( piano di attuazione ) for the general land - use plan which post - dated the entry into force of Regional Law no . DATE .","ORG noted that in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , at the time when the site development plans had been approved , no implementation scheme ( programma di attuazione ) had been in force . In that connection the court referred to its case - law to the effect that an implementation scheme had to be in force at the time of the approval of site development plans ( Court of Cassation , LAW , DATE , PERSON ; DATE , PERSON ; DATE , ORG ) . The reason for this was again according to the case - law \u2013 that once an implementation scheme had expired , a building ban which had been discontinued by the scheme would become effective once again . Consequently , it was necessary to find that the land in question had been subject to a building ban at the time of the approval of the site development plans .","ORG further referred to the existence of a landscape protection measure , under section CARDINAL of National Law no . CARDINAL . In the present case , as the competent authorities had not issued a notice of conformity with the requirements of landscape protection ( that is , neither the nulla osta approval issued by the national authorities attesting to such conformity DATE under LAW of PERSON no . DATE nor the prior approval of the regional authorities under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , nor the approval of ORG under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Regional Law no . DATE ) .","Lastly , ORG noted that the site development plans concerned only QUANTITY . m , whereas , according to the specifications of the general land - use plan for the city of PERSON , the minimum area was set at QUANTITY . m.","In the light of those considerations , ORG thus found that the site development plans and building permits had been illegal . It acquitted the defendants on the grounds that they could not be found to have negligently or intentionally committed offences and that they had made an \u201c unavoidable and excusable mistake \u201d in the interpretation of the regional legislation , which was \u201c obscure and poorly worded \u201d and interfered with the national law . ORG also took into account the conduct of the administrative authorities , and in particular the following facts : on obtaining the building permits , the defendants had been reassured by the director of the relevant municipal office ; the site - protection prohibitions with which the construction project was at odds did not appear in the land - use plan ; and the competent national authority had not intervened . Lastly , ORG found that in the absence of any investigation concerning the reasons for the conduct of the public bodies , it was not possible to speculate on those reasons .","In the same judgment ORG ordered the confiscation of all the buildings and plots of land , on the ground that , in accordance with its case - law , the application of section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE was mandatory in the case of illegal site development , even where the property developers had not been convicted .","The judgment was deposited in the court Registry on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant company had again asked the PERSON municipal authority for permission to enter into a site development agreement .","On DATE the PERSON municipal authority informed the applicant company that , following the judgment of ORG of DATE , the ownership of the land at ORG , including that belonging to the applicant company , had been transferred to the municipality .","The criminal proceedings described above gave rise to another application to ORG . and Others v. GPE , no . MONEY , DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant company applied to ORG of PERSON seeking the return of its land . It alleged that , in line with case - law of ORG , the confiscation of property belonging to a third party in relation to criminal proceedings could be ordered only to the extent that the latter had participated in the commission of the offence , in terms of either material or mental elements .","In a decision of DATE ORG upheld the applicant company \u2019s appeal .","The public prosecutor appealed on points of law .","In a judgment of DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG and remitted the case to ORG .","The applicant company lodged an interlocutory application for review of the enforcement order , seeking the return of its land .","In a decision deposited in the court \u2019s Registry on DATE , the ORG preliminary investigations judge ( giudice per le indagini preliminari ) dismissed the applicant company \u2019s application . He first observed that the company \u2019s grievances concerned neither the existence nor the formal lawfulness of the impugned measure , which was a mandatory administrative sanction that the criminal court was also entitled to impose in respect of the property of third parties which had not taken part in the commission of the offence of unlawful site development offence . The judge found that the public imperative of protecting land had to prevail over the individual interests .","NORP The applicant company appealed on points of law . It emphasised that no construction work had actually been carried out on its land , which had not been the subject of a building permit . By its very nature , it argued , a confiscation measure should be directed solely against land upon which unlawful construction had taken place .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , deposited in the court \u2019s Registry on DATE , ORG , finding that the PERSON preliminary investigations judge had addressed all the points in dispute giving logical and correct reasons , dismissed the applicant company \u2019s appeal on points of law . The court noted that the confiscation of the applicant company \u2019s land had been compliant with its settled case - law whereby the measure provided for in LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE was a mandatory administrative sanction imposed by the criminal court on the basis of the incompatibility of the situation of the property in question with the legislation on unlawful site development , even where the defendants had been acquitted . Property owners who were not parties to the criminal proceedings and who claimed to have acted in good faith would be entitled to seek redress before the civil courts .","According to the information provided by the parties , in DATE the PERSON municipal authority , having regard to the principles set out and the violations found by ORG in its ORG . and Others judgments ( merits and just satisfaction , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , asked ORG to return the confiscated land to the applicant company . In a decision of DATE the preliminary investigations judge of that court revoked the confiscation measure and ordered the return of the land on account of the fact that , first , the ORG had found a violation of LAW . and Others and , secondly , that the company was to be regarded as a bona fide third party because none of its directors had been found liable for the offence of unlawful site development . The judge \u2019s decision was entered in the land register on DATE and the applicant company was thus able to recover its property on DATE .","On DATE the applicant company had applied to ORG , seeking compensation for the damage it had sustained as a result of the conduct of the PERSON municipal authority and the consequences for the company \u2019s assets . It reproached the municipal authority for : ( CARDINAL ) failing to adopt an alternative to the land - use plan ; ( CARDINAL ) failing to clarify the existence of the constraints arising as to the authorised use of the areas concerned by the site development at issue ; and ( CARDINAL ) approving site development procedures which had apparently been lawful but had led to the confiscation of the land and had caused a significant economic loss .","According to the information provided by the parties , the proceedings were still pending , as the expert \u2019s report evaluating the damage , estimated at MONEY by the applicant company , had not yet been filed .","The applicant company ORG . was the owner of land suitable for building with an area of QUANTITY at GPE .","Under the municipal development scheme ( programma comunale di fabbricazione ) for GPE , approved on DATE , the land in question belonged to zone F \u2013 classified as a tourist zone \u2013 and was suitable for building within a given volume . It was possible to exceed that volume in the context of hotel or hotel - type development .","Wishing to build a hotel - type residential complex for tourists with a number of accommodation units ( produttiva alberghiera ) , R.I.T.A. Sarda S.r.l . submitted a site development plan ( piano di lottizzazione ) to the competent authorities .","On DATE , under LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL , GPE issued its nulla osta approval for building at a minimum distance of QUANTITY from the sea , provided that once erected the buildings would actually be used for tourist accommodation . That obligation had to be recorded in the land register .","On DATE GPE granted the landscape transformation permit , under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and LAW no . DATE , to ORG . ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The municipality of GPE approved the site development plan with final effect on DATE .","On DATE , subject to the regional approval , the municipality of GPE authorised the mayor to issue a derogating building permit allowing a greater construction volume than that provided for by its municipal development scheme , for the purposes of a hotel - type structure ( opere alberghiere ricettive ) . The file shows that the site development plan concerned an area of QUANTITY m.","On DATE GPE issued its final approval of the plan .","In the meantime , on DATE , Regional Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had entered into force . It removed the possibility of derogating from the prohibition on building near the sea and fixed the minimum distance at QUANTITY for dwellings and QUANTITY for hotels . As regards buildings intended for hotel - type use , such as the hotel - type residential complexes for tourists in the present case , they were to be treated as dwellings . Under the same law , the minimum distance of QUANTITY thus had to be maintained , except in the cases where , before DATE , a site development agreement had already been signed and the infrastructure work had already begun .","On DATE the LOC authorised the mayor to grant a building permit to ORG . by way of derogation from the municipal land - use plan .","On DATE the mayor of GPE and PERSON S.r.l . entered into a site development agreement . Under LAW thereof the buildings erected on the site would continue to be used for tourist - hotel purposes and could not be sold off in separate units for DATE . The agreement stipulated that the development plan was compliant with LAW no . CARDINAL and with the other planning regulations ; it certified that the applicant company had paid a deposit of an amount equivalent to the total cost of the amenities . That work was to be paid for by the applicant company , which would also be required to assign PERCENT of the land free of charge to the municipality for the primary infrastructure ( urbanizzazione primaria ) .","On DATE the municipality of GPE issued a permit for the primary infrastructure . On DATE the municipality issued the building permit for the construction work .","On DATE , following the entry into force on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) of Regional Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , amending Regional Law no . CARDINAL , the regional authority revoked certain permits that had been granted under the previous legislation . The applicant company was not affected .","The work began in DATE . In DATE CARDINAL housing units , CARDINAL of the total number , had been built . A number of them had been sold to individuals , subject to a clause stipulating that the property had to remain assigned , for DATE , for tourist - hotel use .","On DATE ORG . , which was seeking new partners to optimise the project and share the risks , asked the municipal authority whether the sale of the buildings to third parties was compatible with the development agreement . On DATE the municipal authority stated that the agreement had been drafted clearly enough ; it therefore did not need clarification . It gave a favourable opinion as to the possibility of selling the buildings , but not in single units and provided the intended use of the properties remained unchanged .","On DATE the municipal authority , again approached by the applicant company , confirmed the opinion issued on DATE .","At an unknown date , PERSON . entered into a preliminary contract of sale with ORG . concerning part of the land covered by the development agreement and certain buildings erected in the meantime . In addition , on DATE , ORG . entered into an agreement ( contratto di appalto ) with ORG . under which the latter undertook to carry out construction work on the land forming the object of the preliminary contract of sale .","With a view to becoming the owner of the land and buildings , on DATE ORG . also signed agreements with a travel agent for the purpose of renting out units on a DATE basis .","On DATE ORG . sold to ORG . CARDINAL sq . m of land and the buildings known as \u201c CCARDINAL \u201d , namely CARDINAL units for residential - tourist use . In addition to the buildings ORG . assigned the construction rights to ORG . The price of the transaction was fixed at MONEY ( ITL ) , equivalent to QUANTITY ( ORG ) .","In DATE R.I.T.A. NORP S.r.l . was the owner of CARDINAL housing units and the plots of land covered by the site development plan , with the exception of plot no . CARDINAL and those previously sold to ORG . , which was the owner of the land it had purchased and of CARDINAL units .","On DATE the municipal authority approved the transfer ( voltura ) of the building permit concerning the land and buildings purchased by ORG .","On DATE , further to a request by ORG . for a planning certificate in respect of the relevant property for the period DATE , the municipal authority stated that the development agreement signed with ORG . and the permits granted were compatible with the planning regulations in force at the material time , and in particular with Regional Law no . DATE , and it therefore considered that the offence of unlawful site development was not made out in the circumstances .","In DATE the public prosecutor of ORG opened a criminal investigation in respect of PERSON and PERSON , the legal representatives of the applicant companies . They were suspected of a number of offences , including that of unlawful site development within the meaning of LAW no . CARDINAL for building too close to the sea and without planning permission , together with fraud for changing the intended use of the properties in breach of the development agreement .","On DATE a court order restraining disposal of property was imposed on the land and buildings .","DATE . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG returned the land and buildings to their rightful owners .","In a judgment of DATE the ORG acquitted GPE and GPE on the merits in respect of all the offences , with the exception of that of unlawful site development , the prosecution of which was declared statute - barred .","Having regard to the entry into force of Regional Law no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the new minimum distance from the sea introduced therein , ORG took the view that the municipality of GPE should never have issued the building permits and that the previously issued authorisations could not legitimise the situation . The building permits were thus in breach of the law or , at least , ineffective ( inefficaci ) . Although erected in accordance with the permits issued by the municipal authority , the constructions were thus incompatible with the statutory provisions and their existence thus constituted unlawful site development . In addition , the sale of the housing units to individuals cast doubt on their continued use for tourist - hotel purposes and this change of purpose also placed the buildings in breach of the law . In conclusion , ORG ordered the confiscation of the property previously placed under a restraining order and the transfer of ownership to the municipality of GPE within the meaning of section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL .","As regards , in particular , the charge of fraud , the court took the view that the offence was not made out because there had been no financial loss to the municipality , since the cost of the infrastructure work remained the same even if the intended use changed . In addition , the mental element , that is to say the existence of intent to defraud the municipality , had not been proved in view of the fact that the sale had been carried out as a result of the financial difficulties of ORG . Moreover , the court pointed out that the municipal authority had issued the company with a favourable opinion as regards the sale of the buildings .","In a judgment of DATE ORG upheld ORG finding of dismissal ( non doversi procedere ) in respect of the offence which was statute - barred and reiterated that the municipality of GPE should not have issued the building permits , which were illegal and in any event ineffective . The constructions erected were de facto incompatible with the regional legislation prohibiting them . In addition , DATE and DATE most of the housing units had been sold off , thus changing their intended use . As to the charge of fraud , ORG upheld the acquittal of the applicant GPE legal representatives on the basis of the same considerations , on this point , as those of ORG . It confirmed the confiscation order .","Mr GPE and Mr PERSON appealed on points of law but their appeal was dismissed by ORG in a judgment of DATE .","According to the information provided by the Government , on DATE the individual purchasers of the confiscated property still retained full possession . Shortly before that , on DATE , a resolution of the municipality of GPE had acknowledged the genuine interest of the community in keeping the confiscated complex , referring in particular to the possibility of using the housing to cope with situations of urgency in the event that the local authorities should decide to assign the use of the property , directly or indirectly , for rent by persons with low income .","The company PERSON . and Mr PERSON were the coowners , each with a PERCENT interest , of a plot of land at ORG and PERSON ( GPE di GPE ) with a total surface area of CARDINAL sq . m. The land - use plan provided solely for the possibility of building hotel - type residential complexes for tourists on that land .","DATE . On DATE the applicants applied for a building permit to erect a tourist residential complex consisting of CARDINAL houses and sports facilities .","On DATE the municipality of GPE di GPE issued the building permit .","After verification by the municipality , a number of variations from the plan were noted . The municipality ordered the suspension of the work on DATE .","On DATE the applicants filed an amended plan ( variante in corso GPE ) , which provided for fewer houses ( CARDINAL instead of CARDINAL ) and restricted the construction area . This amended plan sought to regularise the work as already carried out , within the meaning of PERSON no . DATE .","On DATE the mayor of GPE di GPE cancelled the order suspending the work on the ground that the discrepancies in relation to the initial construction project could be regularised by means of the amended plan submitted in respect of ongoing work under LAW of PERSON no . DATE .","On DATE the inspector of the municipality of GPE di PERSON noted that the work was in conformity with the amended plan . The work was pursued .","In DATE the public prosecutor of GPE di GPE opened an investigation in respect of PERSON , in his capacity as co - owner of the property , and CARDINAL others : a director of the company , CARDINAL signatories to the development project and CARDINAL foremen . They were all suspected of committing a number of offences , in particular that of unlawful site development within the meaning of section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the GPE di ORG acquitted all the defendants on the merits ( perch\u00e9 il fatto non sussiste ) in respect of all the charges , except for the offence of unlawful site development , the prosecution of which it declared statute - barred . The court noted that the project had provided for the construction of residences for hotel - type tourist accommodation . However , the structural specifications of the buildings ( caratteristiche strutturali ) and the evidence suggested that the real purpose of the project was the sale of houses to individuals , thus casting doubt on the intended hotel - type tourist use . This change of purpose rendered the site development unlawful . In conclusion , the court ordered the confiscation of the land and buildings and the transfer of the property to the municipality of GPE di GPE under LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE .","In a judgment of DATE the GPE di ORG acquitted the applicants on the merits ( perch\u00e9 il fatto non sussiste ) in respect of all the charges , including that of unlawful site development . It revoked the confiscation of the property and ordered its return to the owners .","ORG took the view , in particular , that the approved project was compatible with the land - use plan and the planning regulations . Given that there had been no preliminary or final contract of sale , there was no evidence of any change in the purpose of the constructions and therefore no unlawful development .","In a judgment of DATE , deposited in the Registry on DATE , ORG quashed the judgment of ORG without remitting it , finding that the change in purpose of the constructions was proved by statements made by third parties and by documents in the file . For ORG , the offence of unlawful site development ( the prosecution of which was statute - barred , entailing the dismissal of the case ) had thus indeed been knowingly committed by the defendants . Consequently , the property in question again became subject to the confiscation order made at first instance by the GPE di ORG . The acquittals were maintained .","According to an expert \u2019s report of CARDINAL DATE , the expert having been appointed by the applicants , the complex confiscated from the latter was in an advanced state of abandonment and neglect . In the applicants\u2019 submission , the municipal authority , which was the owner of the property , had not carried out any work to keep the open spaces maintained ."],"violated_articles":["6","7","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-2","7-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":["7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["7-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152597","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PRILUTSKIY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On TIME son ( born in DATE ) took part in \u201c AutoQuest \u201d , a location - based driving game in the city of GPE . In accordance with the rules of the game , the participants were divided into teams and each team had to move by car to different locations in the city . On arrival at an intermediary destination each team had to solve a riddle in order to establish the next destination point , and the winner was the team that reached the final destination first .","The applicant \u2019s son was in the team of P. , who was the driver . During the game ORG lost control of the car and collided with a pillar . As a result of the accident , PERSON was injured and his CARDINAL passengers , including the applicant \u2019s son , died .","On DATE the GPE police department opened an investigation under LAW of LAW in connection with the fatal car accident .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to the proceedings as a victim .","On DATE , in reply to an enquiry from the applicant concerning the investigation , the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office informed him that the case was complicated and the police had to order various expert examinations ; the activities of the organisers of the driving game were also being examined .","On DATE the police refused to institute criminal proceedings against the organisers of the driving game .","On DATE the board of forensic psychiatric experts completed their examination and found that at the time of the accident P. had been aware of his actions and able to control them . Following the injuries sustained in the accident , P. had developed a chronic mental disability . He was diagnosed with a complicated organic impairment of the brain and amnestic syndrome . The experts found that at the time of the examination P. had no longer been aware of his actions or able to control them and that he should therefore undergo mandatory psychiatric treatment .","On DATE , in reply to a complaint lodged by the applicant about the ineffectiveness of the investigation , the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office maintained that the criminal investigation was being carried out in accordance with the requirements of LAW and that there had been no grounds to change the investigator in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the case file was referred to the NORP ORG of Donetsk ( \u201c the first - instance court \u201d ) in order to determine whether it was appropriate to apply compulsory medical measures in respect of P.","On DATE the chairman of ORG requested that the chairman of the first - instance court ensure prompt consideration of the criminal case . He noted that the court hearings had been repeatedly adjourned and the length of the proceedings had not been reasonable .","On DATE the board of forensic psychiatric experts issued a report repeating their previous conclusions as to P. \u2019s mental state .","On DATE the first - instance court found that P. had committed a crime by violating the traffic safety regulations , which had resulted in the death of the applicant \u2019s son and the CARDINAL other passengers . The court noted that P. had collided with a pillar because he had exceeded the speed limits and had lost control of the car . It further noted that , according to the forensic psychiatric examination reports of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , P. had been mentally aware of and able to control his actions at the time of the accident but had later developed a mental disability ; at the time of the examinations , P. had been suffering from an organic brain impairment and amnestic syndrome ; as a result , he had no longer been aware of or able to control his actions and needed to be provided with compulsory medical treatment , namely outpatient psychiatric assistance . Bearing those medical reports in mind , the court ordered the compulsory medical measures .","The applicant appealed , claiming that he was a doctor by profession and could see that the medical findings were wrong . He further complained of a breach of procedural rules , arguing that PERSON should have been brought to the court room for the hearings .","On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case for additional pre - trial investigation . The court noted that there were witness statements , including those obtained at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings , which suggested that at the time of the accident P. might have made a sharp turn in order to avoid hitting a pedestrian who had been crossing the road . The court considered that the facts had not been established properly and that additional investigatory measures were required .","Following the additional investigation , the case was referred to the first - instance court on DATE . The investigative authorities considered that P. had exceeded the speed limit , in violation of the traffic regulations ; he had lost control of the car and caused the accident which had resulted in the deaths of his CARDINAL passengers . P. \u2019s actions amounted to a crime . However , due to the mental disability that he had developed after the accident , it was proposed that the court impose compulsory medical measures in respect of P.","As of CARDINAL DATE the proceedings were pending ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156254","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CINGILLI HOLD\u0130NG A.\u015e. AND CINGILLIOGLU v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were the main shareholders of ORG , established in DATE . In DATE PERSON was ranked the fifth largest private bank in GPE , with CARDINAL branches and CARDINAL employees .","By a decision dated DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , ORG ( Bankalar D\u00fczenleme ve PERSON \u2013 hereinafter referred to as \u201c the Board \u201d ) decided to transfer the management and control of PERSON to ORG ( Tassarruf Mevduat Sigorta Fonu \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the Fund \u201d ) , pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . DATE ) . In its decision , ORG held that the assets of PERSON were insufficient to cover its liabilities and that the continuation of its activities would threaten the security and stability of the financial system . Accordingly , PERSON \u2019s management and control , and the privileges of its shareholders except for dividends , were transferred to the ORG . The ORG also confiscated all properties belonging to PERSON .","On DATE , the applicant company brought administrative proceedings against ORG ( Bankalar D\u00fczenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu \u2013 hereinafter referred to as \u201c the NORP \u201d ) before ORG , seeking the annulment of the decision of DATE regarding the transfer of PERSON to the Fund .","ORG found that it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the case to ORG .","NORP In its submissions before ORG , the applicant company claimed that its property rights had been violated . It also raised a plea of unconstitutionality under section CARDINAL of LAW . The applicant company further stated that prior to DATE , PERSON had never encountered major financial problems . It was pointed out that pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , a bank with financial difficulties should first be given a warning to strengthen its financial structure and be allowed time to take specific measures . However , no such warning had been given in the instant case . Secondly , ORG had not claimed that PERSON \u2019s financial situation was so weak that it could not be strengthened even if specific measures were taken . Lastly , the applicant company stated that following the transfer of the bank to the ORG , a ORG composed of the ORG \u2019s officials had exonerated the former managers of PERSON , holding that they had not been at fault in the incident leading to the bank \u2019s transfer .","After examining the file , on DATE ORG dismissed the case . It held that the takeover of the bank by the ORG had been in accordance with LAW . The applicant company lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG of ORG decided to quash the decision of DATE . In its judgment , the court held that prior to ordering the transfer of PERSON to the ORG , the ORG should have carried out an objective evaluation of the bank \u2019s financial situation . The court also concluded that the ORG should first have ordered PERSON to take specific measures in accordance with section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW before applying section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW .","On DATE a request for rectification lodged by the ORG was refused .","The case was remitted to ORG , which delivered its decision on DATE , upholding the decision of ORG of ORG . In its decision ORG held that :","\u201c ... PERSON did not have any serious financial problems until the economic crisis in DATE . The amount of the bank \u2019s risky credit in Government Bonds for Domestic Borrowing aimed at securing ORG debt was not too high compared to its total credit , its asset quality was high due to its CARDINAL affiliate banks abroad , and furthermore , the major shareholders had not targeted the resources of the bank . Although PERSON had been able to resolve its liquidity problem and it had fulfilled all obligations towards individual and corporate clients using its own assets , it was decided that it fell within the scope of section CARDINAL of LAW . It is therefore understood that the administrative act pertaining to the taking over of PERSON by ORG based on paragraphs ( b ) and ( d ) of section CARDINAL of LAW , without investigating any further possible options or specific measures to enable the ORG to establish a balance of liquidity , was unlawful .","...","In the light of the foregoing , ORG decision of DATE ordering the takeover of ORG by the ORG is unanimously annulled . \u201d","A further appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the ORG were rejected on DATE and DATE respectively . The final decision was served on the applicant company \u2019s representative on DATE .","In the meantime , while the proceedings against the ORG were still pending , on DATE the ORG entered into an agreement with the ORG bank , and sold PERSON to the latter for MONEY .","On DATE the second applicant brought administrative proceedings against the ORG in ORG , seeking the annulment of the agreement to sell PERSON to ORG .","Given that the transfer of PERSON to the ORG had been found to be unlawful by ORG of ORG , on DATE ORG annulled the agreement entered into by the ORG and ORG on DATE . In its decision ORG held that :","\u201c ... It can be seen that , given the shareholding structure of PERSON before the transfer , PERCENT was owned by ORG , that the claimant who owned shares in this company was a shareholder of the aforementioned bank , that all shares of PERSON were taken over by ORG pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Law no . DATE , that the claim requesting the annulment of ORG decision dated DATE regarding this taking over was dismissed by a judgment on DATE delivered by ORG , and that this judgment was subsequently quashed by the judgment of DATE of ORG .","In its judgment , ORG of ORG held that the taking over of PERSON by ORG based on Section CARDINAL paragraphs ( b ) to ( d ) of LAW was unlawful and it accordingly declared the act as null and void . It was decided that the decision regarding the taking over of the bank had been adopted without investigating the possible options to enable the bank to establish a balance of liquidity and taking the relevant precautions , given that it would have been possible for the bank to continue its banking activities since it did not have any serious financial problems until the financial crisis of DATE , the amount of the bank \u2019s risky credit in Government Bonds for Domestic Borrowing aimed at securing ORG debt was not too high compared to its total credit , its asset quality was high compared to the CARDINAL affiliate banks based abroad , the majority shareholders had not targeted the resources of the bank , the bank had been included within the scope of section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE to enable it to the resolve its liquidity problem and it had fulfilled all obligations towards individual and corporate clients using its own assets .","It is therefore understood that , pursuant to the annulment of the decision pertaining the taking over of PERSON by ORG by ORG of ORG , the subsequent sale of ORG has also become unlawful and the decision that is the subject of these proceedings is therefore unlawful . This act is therefore declared null and void . \u201d","An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the ORG were rejected on DATE and DATE respectively .","On CARDINAL DATE the second applicant requested the ORG to comply with ORG judgments and to enforce them . Relying on the restitutio in integrum principle , she requested that PERSON be returned to its previous owners .","On DATE the ORG informed the second applicant that it would be impossible to enforce the judgments as , following its sale to ORG , PERSON had been struck off the commercial register ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170595","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VORONTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and lived before their convictions in GPE , GPE and GPE .","The facts of the applications , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) remanded the applicant in custody .","On DATE and DATE , and DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant appealed .","During the hearings before ORG on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the applicant was held in a metal cage .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .","On DATE the ORG of GPE convicted the applicant of embezzlement and the illegal acquisition , storage , transfer , transportation and possession of firearms and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) convicted the applicant of fraud committed through abuse of position and sentenced him to a fine .","On DATE ORG of the Chuvash Republic reduced the applicant \u2019s fine .","NORP However , on DATE the Presidium of ORG of GPE granted a cassation appeal lodged by ORG and quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the appeal decision of CARDINAL DATE . The case was remitted to ORG for fresh examination .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant on CARDINAL counts of fraud , acquitted him of a further CARDINAL counts of fraud and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , taking into account the fact that the applicant had not fully served the sentence imposed on him on DATE .","On DATE ORG of the Chuvash Republic reclassified the CARDINAL counts of fraud on which the applicant had been convicted and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . As regards the CARDINAL counts of fraud of which the applicant had been acquitted , ORG quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for fresh examination . Those proceedings are still pending .","During the proceedings before ORG and ORG of GPE the applicant was confined in a metal cage .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime .","On DATE the ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) remanded the applicant in custody .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of inflicting grievous bodily harm and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","NORP The applicant was confined in a metal cage when the custodial measure was applied to him , when it was subsequently extended and during the trial ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144520","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"LACHOWSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The first applicant , Mr PERSON , a NORP national , was born in DATE . He died on DATE . The second applicant , PERSON PERSON , a NORP national , was born in DATE . The applicants were initially represented before the ORG by Mr W. Tomczyk , and , subsequently by PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr J. PERSON , succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP On DATE , following a complaint from a bank , the ORG - Stare Miasto Police opened an inquiry ( dochodzenie ) into attempted fraud by PERSON They relied on LAW .","On DATE the PERSON - Stare Miasto District Prosecutor opened an investigation ( CARDINAL ) into the forgery of a cheque for MONEY ( ORG ) and the attempted fraudulent use of that cheque . The prosecutor relied on ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE the ORG - Stare Miasto District Prosecutor made an application to ORG for the interception and recording of the content of the applicants\u2019 telephone conversations . The prosecutor \u2019s application was made in connection with the investigation against PERSON and other persons suspected of the commission of an offence under LAW and other offences . ORG requested the court to issue a warrant authorising the interception of the content of the applicants\u2019 telephone conversations , which","\u201c may concern the activities of an organised group involved in the putting into circulation of forged securities and aggravated fraud , or indicate planned or already committed offences \u201d .","The prosecutor relied on Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .","Among the reasons for her application , the prosecutor stated as follows :","\u201c So far it has been established that on DATE PERSON attempted to defraud the ORG in ORG of CARDINAL USD ( the equivalent of MONEY ) by using a ORG cheque issued on DATE . It is clear from the evidence obtained in the investigation that the said cheque was forged . Cheques from this bank were removed from circulation in DATE , that is , DATE after ORG acquired ORG .","It further appears from the evidence that the said cheque originated from PERSON [ the first applicant ] , and that , in cooperation with other persons , he intends to use these documents [ cheques ] to defraud large sums of money in the near future . There exists a reasonable suspicion that PERSON possesses a large number of forged cheques ( CARDINAL ) of the same NORP bank to the value of CARDINAL ORG each ...","In connection with the above , at the current stage of the investigation it is necessary to establish the source from which the said securities originated and PERSON contact with persons who are cooperating with him in order to put those documents into circulation with a view to defrauding large sums of money . ... \u201d","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) granted the prosecutor \u2019s application for leave to intercept the applicants\u2019 telephone conversations for DATE . That decision was given in the proceedings against PERSON and others and in respect of the offence under LAW and other offences . The court decided to delay the serving of its decision on the applicants until the end of the investigation . It authorised QUANTITY police officers to make a transcript of the recorded conversations and another officer to read the transcript . The court ordered that the transcript be classified and transmitted to the PERSON - Stare Miasto District Prosecutor \u2019s Office .","The court gave the following reasons in its decision :","On DATE the first applicant and GPE were arrested by the police at a bank in PERSON .","On DATE ORG charged the first applicant with CARDINAL offences . The first charge was that of putting into circulation between DATE and DATE , jointly with others , of a forged ORG cheque for CARDINAL and attempted fraudulent use of that cheque ( ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . Shortly afterwards , the second applicant was charged with the same offence . The second charge against the first applicant was that of storing and transporting on DATE a forged ORG cheque for USD MONEY ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) .","On DATE the FAC remanded the first applicant in custody on suspicion of the offences referred to above . His pre - trial detention was extended on a number of occasions . In a decision of DATE , ORG found that the evidence obtained in the case indicated that the first applicant had acted as part of an international criminal group involved in forging securities and putting them into circulation in GPE and abroad . On DATE the first applicant was released from detention and other , non - custodial , measures were applied .","On DATE the FAC remanded the second applicant in custody on suspicion of the offence referred to above . On DATE the court released him from detention and imposed non - custodial preventive measures instead .","On DATE the investigation was taken over by ORG at ORG ( ORG ) .","On DATE the ORG amended the charges against the applicants . He specified that the applicants had acted jointly with GPE and GPE The prosecutor additionally invoked LAW , which signified that the fraudulent use of the cheque involved a considerable amount of money .","By a letter dated DATE ORG informed the applicants that on the basis of ORG decision of DATE , investigative measures \u2013 namely , the interception of telephone conversations \u2013 had been carried out pursuant to LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The prosecutor further informed the applicants that the relevant decision and the results of the interception could be consulted at the secret registry of the office of ORG .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal ( za\u017calenie ) against ORG decision of DATE authorising the warrant , alleging that it had been unlawful on CARDINAL grounds .","Firstly , they argued that ORG had erroneously applied LAW ORG in authorising the interception of telephone conversations in respect of an offence which was not included in the list of offences set out in LAW . They noted that the aim of ORG decision had been to establish the source of the forged cheques . However , at the material time LAW of the ORG did not allow for the application of such measures in respect of the offence of forgery of cheques . Subparagraph CARDINAL of that provision authorised the interception of telephone conversations only in respect of the offence of counterfeiting money ( fa\u0142szowanie pieni\u0119dzy ) . They underlined that the relevant provision had been amended to include the offence of forgery of cheques , but only with effect from DATE .","Secondly , the applicants alleged that ORG had incorrectly applied LAW ORG in authorising a police officer and an interpreter to examine the recorded conversations . They submitted that only the court or the prosecutor , and in urgent cases the police with the agreement of the court or the prosecutor , had the right to do so . However , in their case the recordings had been examined by a police officer and a translator without the required authorisation by the prosecutor .","On DATE ORG ( FAC ) dismissed the ORG appeal . The decision was served on the ORG counsel on CARDINAL DATE . ORG held as follows :","\u201c ORG finds that the present appeal is unfounded and can not be sustained .","The appeal \u2019s main argument is the assertion that since PERSON and PERSON [ the applicants ] were charged with the commission of an offence under LAW [ putting into circulation a forged cheque ] , and since this offence was not one of the offences listed in LAW ORG at the time of issuing the decision , the interception and recording of their [ telephone ] conversations was not permitted . However , such an argument can not be upheld for the following reasons .","The investigation carried out by the PERSON - Stare Miasto District Prosecutor did in fact relate to the putting into circulation of forged securities , but by the members of an organised [ criminal ] group , in other words , the offence under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG , in respect of which it was permitted to intercept and record telephone conversations at the date when the decision was issued . According to the evidence obtained before the issuing of the decision , PERSON and PERSON [ the applicants ] were indeed persons suspected of ( osoby podejrzane ) acting as part of an organised group , as indicated by the passage from the impugned decision which states :","\u201c the content [ of those conversations ] may concern the activities of an organised group involved in the putting into circulation ... \u201d .","It has to be reiterated that a person suspected of [ the commission of an offence ] ( which is referred to in LAW ORG ) in respect of whom it is permitted to intercept and record telephone conversations is a person \u201c who is suspected of having committed an offence , but who has not yet been formally charged . In respect of such a person there is a supposition that he \/ she has committed an offence ; however , there is as yet no reasonable suspicion of their having committed an offence , and only such reasonable suspicion constitutes a ground to make that person a suspect ( T. Grzegorczyk , PERSON . PERSON . ORG uzupe\u0142nione ... [ Code of Criminal Procedure , Commentary , CARDINALrd revised edition ] ... ) .","Having regard to the foregoing , it has to be stated that the charge [ of committing an offence ] under LAW laid against the applicants did not provide a ground for tapping their telephones as that was not provided for by LAW CARDINAL of the ORG ; nevertheless , the fact that at the same time they were persons suspected of membership of an organised group and of carrying out activities within the framework of such a group did constitute grounds for issuing the impugned decision on the interception and recording of telephone conversations .","Thus , the warrant was issued in accordance with the law and consequently there are no grounds for sustaining the arguments put forward in the appeal ; moreover , the court was able to authorise a police officer to examine the recordings of the intercepted telephone conversations under LAW of the ORG . The appellant is not right in claiming that under LAW only the prosecutor has the right to examine recorded conversations , because the court has that right also , and with the permission of these CARDINAL authorities ( and not only of the prosecutor ) , so also do the police . It is further obvious that in the case of a recording in a foreign language all of the above authorities have the right ( and even a duty ) to seek the assistance of a sworn translator . ... \u201d","On DATE the ORG filed a bill of indictment with ORG against CARDINAL accused . The applicants were charged with putting into circulation DATE and DATE , jointly with GPE and GPE , a forged ORG cheque for CARDINAL ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) and attempting to use that cheque fraudulently . The prosecutor relied on LAW in conjunction with LAW and LAW . The first applicant was also charged with storing and transporting on DATE a forged ORG cheque for MONEY ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . CARDINAL accused were charged with acting in an organised criminal group .","The warrant authorising the telephone tapping and the transcript of the intercepted conversations was deposited in the classified section of the case file . On DATE the ORG counsel requested that ORG be served with a copy of the warrant . On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel repeated his request and argued that the decision should not be treated as classified .","The trial began on an unspecified date in DATE . At a hearing held on DATE ORG refused to serve a copy of the warrant of DATE on the ORG counsel . It found that the warrant had been classified under LAW and that the circumstances justifying that decision had not ceased to exist .","At a hearing held on DATE the trial court decided that the case against the first applicant should be severed from the main proceedings . It further stayed the proceedings against him having regard to his poor medical condition .","At a hearing held on DATE CARDINAL the prosecutor requested the trial court to rule that the transcript of the intercepted telephone conversations be adduced in evidence but remain confidential . At an earlier hearing on DATE , counsel for the second applicant had requested that the confidential evidence be declassified . On DATE the trial court declassified the warrant of DATE and the transcript of the intercepted conversations . That decision was necessary in order to enable the lay members of the trial court , who did not have the relevant security clearance , to hear the evidence obtained under the warrant .","On DATE counsel for the second applicant objected to the prosecutor \u2019s request , arguing that the evidence obtained as a result of the telephone tapping was inadmissible in law . He relied on similar arguments to those made in his appeal against ORG decision of DATE . In particular , he claimed that the impugned decision had authorised the interception of telephone conversations in respect of an offence which was not included in the list of offences set out in Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG .","The second applicant \u2019s representative further considered that his arguments were not undermined by ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE dismissing his appeal . ORG had justified the decision authorising the interception of the telephone conversations by the fact that the applicants were persons suspected of acting in an organised criminal group , and had relied on a passage from ORG decision of DATE ( \u201c the content [ of those conversations ] may concern the activities of an organised group involved in the putting into circulation ... \u201d ) . However , the counsel underlined that the impugned passage was nowhere to be found in the decision of ORG .","Only if ORG assertion that the telephone tapping had been carried out in connection with the activities of an organised criminal group was DATE and there was no indication in the decision to open the inquiry or in the bill of indictment that that was the case DATE would ORG have been competent to order such a measure . Lastly , the applicant \u2019s representative argued that the trial court was not bound by any earlier decision pronounced with regard to the admissibility of evidence .","At a hearing held on DATE the trial court dismissed the applicants\u2019 challenge to the admissibility of the impugned evidence . It found that ORG had not indicated in the operative part of its decision the precise subparagraph of the provision listing the offences under which the interception of conversations could be authorised . However , in the reasons for its decision ORG had justified the order for the interception on the ground that some of the suspected persons were cooperating with a view to defrauding considerable sums of money . In addition , ORG had held in its decision that the content of the conversations could relate to the activities of an organised criminal group . In consequence , it could not be sustained that the evidence obtained under the warrant was inadmissible in law .","At a hearing on DATE the trial court heard the intercepted telephone conversations .","On DATE the ORG gave its judgment . The second applicant and GPE were convicted of putting into circulation a forged ORG cheque for CARDINAL ( the equivalent of ORG ) , and of attempted fraudulent use of that cheque . They were sentenced to DATE imprisonment .","The second applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment . He alleged , inter alia , that the trial court had not properly reasoned its judgment . In particular , he pointed to the fact that the trial court had heard the evidence obtained as a result of the telephone tapping but had failed to refer to it in the judgment .","On DATE ORG amended the firstinstance judgment in respect of the second applicant and upheld it for the remainder . It held that the second applicant \u2019s appeal was partly justified ; however none of the alleged breaches of the criminal procedure was confirmed . ORG agreed with the appellant that he could not be considered to have been an accomplice in the putting into circulation of the forged cheque . It held instead that the second applicant was guilty of aiding and abetting ORG in putting into circulation a forged ORG cheque , and fraudulent use of that cheque . Accordingly , it sentenced him to a suspended term of DATE imprisonment .","With regard to the intercepted telephone conversations and the fact that the trial court had not relied on them as the basis for establishing the facts of the case , ORG agreed with the lower court that that evidence was not relevant to the case . ORG noted that the lack of any reference to the evidence amounted to a breach of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG ; however , this shortcoming had no effect on the validity of the first - instance judgment or the possibility of having it properly reviewed .","The second applicant lodged a cassation appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed his cassation appeal as manifestly ill - founded . In such a case ORG was not required to provide written reasons for its decision .","Having regard to the death of the first applicant , ORG discontinued the proceedings against him on DATE .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , provided :","\u201c Following the institution of proceedings , a court , acting at the request of a prosecutor , may order the interception and recording of telephone conversations with a view to obtaining evidence for pending proceedings or preventing the commission of a new offence . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG provided at the relevant time , in so far as relevant :","\u201c The interception and recording of telephone conversations is permitted only when the pending proceedings , or reasonable suspicion of a new offence being committed , concern :","CARDINAL\/ manslaughter ,","...","CARDINAL\/ the counterfeiting of money ,","...","CARDINAL an organised criminal group ,","CARDINAL property of considerable value ,","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL read :","\u201c The interception and recording of telephone conversations is permitted in respect of a suspected person ( osoba podejrzana ) , an accused ( oskar\u017cony ) , a victim or other person whom an accused may contact , or a person who may be connected with a perpetrator or with an impending offence . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provided :","\u201c A court or a prosecutor has the right to play the recordings , and in cases of urgency so also do the police , with the authorisation of a court or a prosecutor . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) was amended with the effect from CARDINAL DATE . Subsequently , that provision authorised the use of interception measures in the case of offences concerning forgery and use of forged money , cheques and other similar instruments .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL read as follows :","\u201c The interception and recording of telephone conversations may be carried out for a period of DATE , with a possibility of extending it , in particularly justified cases , for another period of DATE . \u201d","Paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL provided , in so far as relevant :","\u201c After the termination of the interception a court shall order the destruction of the recordings if they are not relevant to the criminal proceedings ; ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL read :","\u201c The serving of the decision on the interception and recording of telephone conversations on the person concerned may be postponed for the time necessary for the interests of the case , but until no later than the termination of the proceedings \u201d .","Article CARDINAL specified that a decision on the interception and recording of telephone conversations could be appealed against ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162859","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF YEGORYCHEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE charges of fraud were brought against the applicant , and he signed a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence . Some of the applicant \u2019s assets , specifically his flat , parking spaces and CARDINAL cars , were frozen .","On DATE the investigation of the criminal case against the applicant was terminated and he began examining the case file .","NORP However , on DATE the investigation resumed .","On DATE ORG of GPE decided that in view of the seriousness of the charges faced by the applicant , the risk of his absconding , as well as the necessity to \u201c secure the enforcement of the conviction \u201d the applicant should be placed in pre - trial detention .","On DATE the applicant was remanded in custody and placed in a specialised detention facility at ORG no . CARDINAL owing to a provisional diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction , arterial hypertension and an exacerbating duodenal ulcer . He stayed there until DATE , following which he was transferred to a remand prison . The attending doctor found the applicant fit to participate in the investigative actions .","In the meantime , on DATE the investigation was completed and the applicant was informed that he could start to examine the case file .","On DATE the applicant brought an application for release . He argued that there was no indication that he would abscond or otherwise obstruct the administration of justice : the applicant had no criminal record ; he had a family , a permanent job and a permanent place of residence , and he suffered from a number of chronic cardiovascular and surgical diseases ; the choice of a custodial measure had thus not been justified .","On DATE the GPE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s arguments with references to his medical documents , documents attesting to his family situation , his positive references from work , and the arguments by the investigator to the effect that the applicant had ignored the investigator \u2019s summonses to appear on CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE without giving reasons , that he had often been TIME late to appear before the investigator , that he could appear for TIME and then leave saying that nobody could tell him when to come and when to leave , and that throughout DATE , in the eyes of the investigator , the applicant had been out of contact . Having considered the reasons which prompted the choice of preventive measure , in particular , the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and his conduct during the pre - trial investigation , ORG held that there were no grounds for releasing the applicant .","On DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively .","Meanwhile , on DATE the forensic medical expert did not confirm the applicant \u2019s medical diagnosis .","On DATE the criminal case against the applicant was submitted to the GPE ORG for trial .","The GPE ORG repeatedly extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial . Such extensions were granted upon the prosecutor \u2019s request on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . On each occasion ORG referred to the seriousness of the charges against the applicant and the risk of his absconding or otherwise obstructing justice , and the absence of grounds for changing the preventive measure imposed . Those decisions were upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , an unknown date and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","On DATE the GPE LOC sitting in a bench composed of Judge PERSON ( presiding judge ) , PERSON . and PERSON . ( lay judges ) convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The court further held that the civil claim against the applicant , as well as the question of lifting the restriction imposed on the applicant \u2019s property , should be referred for consideration within the framework of the civil procedure .","The applicant appealed . He complained that , inter alia , the judgment had been given by a court whose composition had not been in accordance with law . In particular , he referred to the fact that the lay judges who participated in the examination of his case had at the same time been examining a criminal case against a certain Mr Tver . He also complained that the trial court had read out the testimonies of the majority of the witnesses for the prosecution , including testimonies by key prosecution witnesses , and had thus deprived him of the possibility of cross - examining them . This was despite the absence of any exceptional circumstances which had prevented the court from securing their attendance at the court hearing .","On DATE the ORG reduced the sentence to DATE and upheld the rest of the judgment on appeal . In reply to the applicant \u2019s argument regarding the alleged unlawfulness of the composition of the trial court , ORG held that the composition of the court had remained unchanged throughout the trial in accordance with LAW , and that the participation of lay judges , who had also been involved in the examination of another case , had had no legal consequences and had not amounted to a violation of the law . ORG further held that the reading out of the testimonies of certain witnesses had been carried out by the trial court on the request of the prosecutor and in compliance with the requirements of LAW of LAW .","On DATE the ORG of ORG , by way of supervisory review , modified the charges the applicant had been convicted on and reduced his sentence to DATE months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG , GPE , ordered the applicant \u2019s conditional early release ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155815","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RUTKOWSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;Article 46-2 - Measures of a general character);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The case of PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL )","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Criminal proceedings against the applicant ( case no . III K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL )","On DATE the applicant , who was a policeman , was arrested on suspicion of participating in an organised criminal group and corruption . On DATE he was charged with those offences and remanded in custody .","On DATE the prosecutor signed a bill of indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL co - accused . The applicant was indicted on charges of participating in an organised criminal group , abuse of power and corruption .","On an unspecified date in DATE ORG ( Prokurator Okr\u0119gowy ) lodged the bill of indictment with GPE ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) .","On DATE the court issued a severance order , deciding that the accused policemen be tried separately ; however , no trial date was scheduled .","On DATE the applicant was released .","On DATE the court ordered that the accused policemen \u2019s case be joined with another case . No trial date was scheduled .","On DATE the Warsaw - City District Court decided that it did not have competence to deal with the case and referred it to ORG . The decision became final on DATE but the case - file was not transferred to that court until DATE .","NORP The proceedings before GPE ORG started on DATE . CARDINAL of the reasons for the delay was that , on DATE , the court had found that the accused had not yet been served with a copy of the bill of indictment , which should normally have taken place at the initial stage of the judicial proceedings .","Up to DATE the court held QUANTITY hearings . In DATE hearings took place .","On DATE the GPE ORG held that as a result of amendments to the criminal law that had meanwhile entered into force , it no longer had competence to deal with the case and referred it to ORG . The parties appealed .","On DATE ORG found that the appeals were well - founded and quashed its decision on referral . The case - file , which had meanwhile been transferred to ORG , was returned in DATE .","The trial before ORG restarted in DATE . However , as so much time had elapsed , it had to be conducted from the beginning . In DATE the court held QUANTITY hearings , in DATE QUANTITY hearings and in DATE CARDINAL hearings .","On DATE the GPE ORG acquitted the applicant .","Proceedings under LAW ( case no . X S CARDINAL\/CARDINAL )","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under LAW ( hereafter also referred to as \u201c length complaint \u201d ) with ORG ( PERSON ) He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and MONEY ( PLN ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation .","On DATE ORG held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) and awarded the applicant LAW ( approximately LAW ) in compensation . In its assessment of the length of the proceedings , the court took into account only the period starting from DATE , i.e. the date on which LAW entered into force .","As regards the period after DATE , ORG found that , despite the fact that \u201c in DATE , at the stage of preparation for the trial and during the initial hearings the court \u2019s actions [ had been ] somewhat chaotic and the court had not avoided certain shortcomings \u201d , the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence . In consequence , the court refused to grant the applicant the full sum sought , holding that he had not demonstrated that he had sustained damage in that amount .","Application of the \u201c Scordino ( no . CARDINAL ) criteria \u201d","In the absence of domestic remedies , the ORG \u2019s award , determined with reference to the criteria set in its case - law , in particular the length of the period under consideration ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) and sums usually granted in similar NORP cases would amount to LAW .","The applicant was awarded PERCENT of that sum .","On the date of the national court \u2019s decision on the applicant \u2019s complaint , namely DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) a domestic award , determined with reference to the ORG \u2019s awards in similar cases and the Scordino ( no.CARDINAL ) criteria ( see PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) should have reached CARDINAL in order for the applicant to lose his victim status .","B. The case of PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL )","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .","Pre - trial proceedings for securing evidence","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for the securing of evidence with ORG .","Pursuant to LAW , such an application can be lodged by a prospective party before the initiation of a civil action if there is a fear that the taking of specific evidence will be impossible or too difficult , or if there is a need to establish the state of affairs .","The applicant , who intended to bring a civil claim against his landlord for damages resulting from defective performance of a lease contract , asked the court to obtain an expert report determining the state and value of outlays that he had made on the commercial premises that he had rented .","The report was submitted to the court on DATE . A copy thereof was served on the applicant on DATE .","Civil proceedings instituted by the applicant ( case no . II C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; I A Ca CARDINAL\/CARDINAL )","On DATE the applicant lodged an action for damages with ORG ( PERSON ) . He also asked the court to secure his claim . An order securing the claim by means of a mortgage on the defendant \u2019s property was given on DATE .","The first hearing was held on DATE . The next hearing took place on DATE .","In the meantime , the court dealt with some procedural matters involved in the defendant \u2019s interlocutory appeal against the order securing the claim , which was accompanied by his various other requests , such as applications for exemption from court fees or for retrospective leave to appeal out of time .","Overall , from DATE , namely the date on which the claim was lodged , to CARDINAL DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings and heard evidence from the parties and CARDINAL witnesses . The hearings were held on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL May , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE .","On DATE the court gave judgment and rejected the applicant \u2019s claim in its entirety . The applicant appealed on DATE .","On DATE the ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case .","The re - trial started on DATE .","From that date to CARDINAL DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings , which were held on DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE . It heard evidence from a witness , an expert and the parties . The applicant modified his claim on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the court had decided to take evidence from an expert in construction . The expert submitted his report on DATE .","On DATE the ORG gave its second judgment , partly allowing the applicant \u2019s claim .","The judgment was partly quashed on the defendant \u2019s appeal and the case was remitted by ORG on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the case - file was returned to ORG .","On DATE ORG ordered the parties to apply for the taking of further evidence that they wished to submit , on pain of rejecting any such subsequent requests . On DATE the applicant asked the court to take evidence from CARDINAL witness and from himself as a party . On DATE the defendant asked the court to obtain evidence from CARDINAL experts .","The re - trial started on DATE . From that date to DATE the court scheduled CARDINAL hearings , which were held on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . It heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses , CARDINAL experts and the parties","In the meantime , on DATE , the court had ordered that evidence from an expert in construction be obtained . It fixed a DATE time - limit for submission of his report . The expert submitted the report on DATE . The defendant asked the court to take evidence from another expert .","At the hearing held on DATE the parties stated that they would attempt to settle the case . On CARDINAL and DATE respectively they informed the court that their negotiations had failed .","On DATE the court ordered that evidence from CARDINAL experts \u2013 in construction , accountancy and air - conditioning and ventilation \u2013 be obtained .","The construction expert submitted his report on DATE , the expert - accountant submitted his report on DATE and the airconditioning expert submitted his report on DATE . The intervals between those dates were caused by the fact that the court waited until each expert had finished his work before sending the materials in the case - file to the following expert .","Also , the expert in air - conditioning on several occasions asked the court to extend the time - limits set for submission of his report , which he justified by the volume of his work on other reports , DATE and difficulties in obtaining a document or in setting a date for an on - site inspection of the LOC . The court granted all his requests .","On DATE the ORG delivered its third judgment , rejecting the applicant \u2019s claim in its entirety . The applicant appealed on DATE .","On DATE ORG heard the appeal . On DATE it partly allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal , altered the contested judgment and granted the applicant \u2019s claim up to the amount of ORG MONEY , with statutory interest .","Proceedings under LAW ( case no . I SCARDINAL\/CARDINAL )","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under LAW with ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) . He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and MONEY in compensation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The court concluded that , given the complexity of the case and the need to obtain evidence from experts in CARDINAL different fields , the proceedings had been conducted in a correct and timely manner .","In its assessment of the length of the proceedings , the court took into account only the period after DATE , namely the date on which ORG had partly quashed ORG judgment of DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Application of the \u201c Scordino ( no . CARDINAL ) criteria \u201d","In the absence of domestic remedies , the ORG \u2019s award , determined with reference to the criteria set in its case - law , in particular the length of the period under consideration , ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) and sums usually granted in similar NORP cases would amount to ORG CARDINAL .","On the date of the national court \u2019s decision on the applicant \u2019s complaint , i.e. DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) a domestic award , determined with reference to the ORG \u2019s awards in similar cases and the Scordino ( no.CARDINAL ) criteria ( see PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) should have reached MONEY in order for the applicant to lose his victim status .","C. The case of PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL )","The applicant was born in DATE . She lives in GPE .","Background of the case","In DATE the applicant lodged a civil action for payment and accounting ( pozew o z\u0142o\u017cenie rachunku z zarz\u0105du i zap\u0142at\u0119 ) against a certain ORG with ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) . The action concerned property which had been inherited by the applicant .","Proceedings for adverse possession ( ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL )","On DATE ORG and CARDINAL other persons applied to ORG for adverse possession ( zasiedzenie ) of the property in question . The applicant was not notified of the proceedings .","On an unspecified date ORG informed the applicant that the proceedings for payment and accounting initiated by her had been stayed pending the outcome of the case concerning adverse possession .","On DATE the applicant informed ORG that she wished to join the proceedings .","From DATE to DATE the court heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses and CARDINAL participants in the proceedings . It also ordered that a press announcement be published to all unknown heirs or heirs whose whereabouts were unknown of CARDINAL of the late predecessors in title to the property .","On DATE ORG decided that ORG and CARDINAL other persons had acquired a CARDINAL share in the property by adverse possession .","The applicant appealed on an unspecified date in DATE or DATE .","On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the first - instance decision and remitted the case , holding that ORG had failed to make the necessary findings of fact and to determine the merits of the case . Also , the proceedings had been flawed by procedural shortcomings , such as the court \u2019s failure to serve copies of the DATE application for adverse possession on all the interested partiesincluding the applicant .","During the appellate proceedings the court re - opened the case after the hearing and CARDINAL times adjourned delivery of its decision .","On DATE ORG asked the Gda\u0144sk Regional Court to transfer the case to ORG . On DATE ORG refused that request .","On DATE the applicant was served with a copy of the DATE application for adverse possession . The document was incomplete , as some pages and appendices were missing . The court informed the applicant that she was entitled to submit a response to the application .","On DATE the court summoned a certain PERSON to join the proceedings .","During the hearing held on DATE the court found that the proceedings also concerned the interests of the second husband of CARDINAL of the petitioners and ordered that the petitioners produce his heirs\u2019 personal details and addresses and serve them with a copy of the application for adverse possession . The parties were informed that the next hearing would not take place before DATE because of the judge rapporteur \u2019s planned holidays .","On DATE the ORG summoned a certain ORG to join the proceedings .","On DATE the proceedings were suspended as the petitioners had failed to produce an extra copy of the DATE application for adverse possession , which had to be served on ORG","On DATE the applicant applied for discontinuation of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings and scheduled a hearing for DATE .","DATE and DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings and summoned further persons to join the proceedings . A hearing scheduled for DATE had been cancelled because the case - file had meanwhile been transmitted to ORG together with a complaint lodged by the applicant under LAW , alleging that the length of the proceedings had been excessive ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the ORG gave the second decision on the merits . The applicant appealed on DATE .","DATE . On DATE the Mayor of GPE applied to ORG to be summoned as a party to the proceedings . It was submitted that ORG had erroneously summoned ORG as ORG representative and party in the proceedings . Subsequently , on an unknown date , ORG summoned the Mayor of GPE to join the proceedings as a party .","On DATE the Mayor filed an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE , invoking the nullity of the entire proceedings on the grounds that it had been impossible to defend his rights .","The appellate hearing , which was scheduled for DATE , was cancelled .","On DATE ORG held a hearing . The case was closed and the court announced that the judgment would be delivered on CARDINAL DATE . However , on that date the court reopened the case and fixed a fresh date for a hearing for DATE .","On DATE ORG again heard the appeals lodged by the applicant and the Mayor of GPE .","On DATE the court gave judgment . It partly amended the firstinstance decision and dismissed the remainder of the appeals .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW . She sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL NORP in compensation .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . In its assessment of the length of the proceedings , the court did not to take into account the period before DATE , namely the date on which LAW had entered into force , holding that LAW applied only to the excessive length of proceedings occurring on the date of its entry into force . As regards the subsequent period , it held that the proceedings could not be said to have been excessively long , given that it had been necessary to secure the participation and representation of all the interested parties in the proceedings .","Application of the \u201c Scordino ( no . CARDINAL ) criteria \u201d","In the absence of domestic remedies , the ORG \u2019s award , determined with reference to the criteria set in its case - law , in particular the length of the period under consideration ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) and sums usually granted in similar NORP cases , would amount to ORG CARDINAL .","On the date of the national court \u2019s decision on the applicant \u2019s complaint , namely DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , a domestic award , determined with reference to the ORG \u2019s awards in similar cases and the Scordino ( no.CARDINAL ) criteria ( see PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) should have reached MONEY in order for the applicant to lose her victim status ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162021","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF STARTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The municipal unitary enterprise NORP proizvodstvennoye obyedineniye \u201c Zhilkomkhoz \u201d ( ORG \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043e\u0431\u044a\u0435\u0434\u0438\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u00ab PERSON , hereinafter \u201c the company \u201d ) was set up by a decision of the administration of LOC . It provided maintenance services in respect of municipal housing , including heating and water supply , maintenance of the sewage systems and renovation and maintenance of the municipal housing stock .","The Company had \u201c the right of economic control \u201d ( \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e \u0445\u043e\u0437\u044f\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0432\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ) over the assets allocated to it in order to carry out its statutory activities . According to its statutory articles all of the company \u2019s property as well as obtained profits belonged to the municipal estate .","On DATE ORG of GPE commenced insolvency proceedings and appointed an external administrator to oversee the company \u2019s administration .","On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the insolvency proceedings in respect of the company .","On DATE ORG of GPE discontinued the insolvency proceedings and ordered the respondent company \u2019s liquidation . The PERSON claims , which had not been satisfied during the liquidation procedure , including the ORG claims , were considered as settled .","On DATE the company was removed from ORG .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants brought proceedings against the debtor company seeking salary arrears and other work - related payments .","On DATE and DATE the Justice of the Peace of ORG of GPE awarded the applicants salary arrears ( the amounts are specified in the Appendix , column no . CARDINAL ) and compensation for non - pecuniary damage against their employer . On DATE and DATE respectively ORG upheld those judgments on appeal and they became final ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170385","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ZYBERTOWICZ v. POLAND (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a publicist and a professor of sociology .","On DATE Rzeczpospolita , a national DATE newspaper , published an article titled \u201c Zybertowicz \u2013 so far CARDINAL:CARDINAL to the Third GPE \u201d ( PERSON : na razie CARDINAL:CARDINAL dla III RP ) . The article contained information CARDINAL civil lawsuits against the applicant instituted by TIME , the editor - in - chief of CARDINAL of the biggest DATE newspapers , ORG , and a certain M.S and GPE The article also included a comment by the applicant on the lawsuits in question :","\u201c In a way it is quite interesting [ to note ] who has lodged [ civil ] claims against me so far : CARDINAL agents and CARDINAL their fierce defender \u201d ( \u201c NORP drog\u0105 to ciekawe , QUANTITY mnie dotychczas pozwa\u0142 do s\u0105du : dw\u00f3ch agent\u00f3w i QUANTITY ich zaciek\u0142y obro\u0144ca \u201d ) \u201d","On DATE , TIME brought a civil action in ORG ( S\u0105d ORG ) requesting legal protection of his personal rights . He asked that the applicant be ordered to publish an apology and to pay damages of MONEY ( PLN ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) to a charity .","On DATE ORG transferred the case to ORG .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) quashed this decision .","On DATE ORG gave judgment and partly allowed the plaintiff \u2019s claim . It ordered the applicant to publish an apology on the first , second or third page of Rzeczpospolita . It further determined the exact size and wording of the apology . The court also ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) to a charity and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) in court fees .","During the proceedings the court questioned the applicant and the plaintiff . The applicant argued that the phrase in question had represented his opinion about A.M. \u2019s public statements . Referring to several published statements and excerpts from articles written by TIME , the applicant claimed that he had had a good factual basis for giving this opinion of TIME \u2019s views about lustration .","The court also obtained an opinion from an expert on linguistics . The expert was asked in particular to reply to the question of whether the phrase \u201c CARDINAL agents and CARDINAL their fierce defender \u201d , in the context of the case , constituted a statement of fact or an opinion . In his opinion of CARDINAL DATE the expert stated that the phrase in question had been a statement of fact and not a hypothesis or supposition . In addition , taking into account the ORG presumed general knowledge it was obvious that TIME had been identified in the article as having defended CARDINAL agents . The plaintiff submitted to the court a second expert report ( dated DATE ) , in which another expert on language analysis confirmed that the applicant \u2019s statement had been a statement of fact .","ORG noted that the applicant , when formulating the statement in question , referred in particular to a number of published statements made by TIME in which he had criticised the lustration law . The applicant also relied on an earlier ORG judgment confirming that GPE had indeed collaborated under communism with ORG .","The court further held that everyone , including those not following the news carefully , was aware that GPE and GPE had been accused of collaborating with ORG . In particular , readers of Rzeczpospolita should have been aware of that fact as the newspaper had published numerous articles on the issue .","ORG also held that , judging by both the applicant \u2019s statement and the whole article , it did not appear that A.M. had been an \u201c agent \u201d . While the applicant in his statement had not specified who in his opinion had been \u201c an agent \u201d and who \u201c their fierce defender \u201d , from the nature of the publication and taking into account the ORG general knowledge it was clear that it was the plaintiff who was considered to be \u201c the fierce defender of CARDINAL agents \u201d . At the same time , the court accepted that had the applicant used a more general formulation and referred only to A.M. \u2019s attitude towards the lustration law such words could have fallen within the limits of acceptable criticism and it would not have been necessary to protect TIME \u2019s personal rights .","Lastly , the court considered that from the published statements and quotes from TIME \u2019s public statements which the applicant had submitted during the proceedings it did not appear that TIME had ever actually defended those CARDINAL particular persons .","In conclusion , the court held that DATE \u2019s personal rights had been breached , but only partially . For this reason the court considered that the plaintiff \u2019s claim had been exaggerated ; therefore , it lowered the sum to be paid to the charity .","Both parties appealed .","On DATE ORG modified the firstinstance judgment and ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL ( approximately , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to the charity and ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in court fees . The applicant was also ordered to publish an apology in Rzeczpospolita .","The court in principle agreed with the reasoning presented by ORG . It held that while the phrase \u201c fierce defender of CARDINAL agents \u201d had breached DATE \u2019s personal rights , it was not defamatory . The court further agreed with ORG that the applicant had named TIME as having defended CARDINAL particular persons . However , he had failed to prove that his statement had been true . Consequently , the court considered that the phrase used by the applicant had breached the plaintiff \u2019s personal rights ( in particular his good name ) and had conflicted with the values espoused by him .","The court referred to the ongoing public debate in GPE about the necessity of lustration in order to explain and disclose the role of various special services after the World War II . It noted that in the context of that debate the phrase that someone was \u201c a fierce defender of ... agents \u201d suggested that that person had defended them , justified their actions and searched for a way to absolve them from any responsibility in the eyes of the public . Consequently , attributing to someone the role of \u201c fierce defender of ... agents \u201d was a breach of that person \u2019s good name and suggested that that person \u2019s behaviour had been contrary to the public good .","The court also held that the phrase in question had been a statement of fact . However , it considered that there had been no basis for concluding that DATE had defended any agents , or more generally , defended activities of the communist secret services that had been harmful to the public . On the contrary , he had firmly condemned such activities . He had objected to lustration being understood as a tool to destroy people and being used as an argument in political games .","With reference to the sum to be paid to the charity the court noted that the applicant was a highly educated university professor holding numerous public offices . A person in the applicant \u2019s situation should have been aware of how his statement would have been understood by an average reader of Rzeczpospolita and whether there was any basis for attributing to someone the role of \u201c [ fierce ] defender \u201d of ... agents . The court further held that the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be paid to charity was symbolic and that ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL was a more appropriate sum , given \u2013 especially considering that it was not an excessive burden for the applicant .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal . In particular , he referred to LAW .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) refused to entertain the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal on account of the lack of important legal issues to be considered in the case . The court , relying on LAW , noted that freedom of expression did not have an absolute character . It further referred to its own case - law , according to which the necessity to prove that a statement of fact was true was not an excessive requirement and did not infringe the freedom of political debate .","On DATE TIME \u2019s representative instituted enforcement proceedings in ORG aimed at compelling the applicant to comply with the obligations imposed by ORG judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to publish the apology ordered by ORG in Rzeczpospolita . After the applicant failed to comply with that order , on DATE ORG allowed TIME to publish the apology in Rzeczpospolita in the applicant \u2019s name and ordered him to cover the fee for its publication in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The applicant received a significant discount on that fee ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157821","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KAVAKLIO\u011eLU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["Although the present case primarily relates to the anti - riot operation of CARDINAL DATE , that operation in fact constituted the climax of a series of long - standing conflicts between the Ulucanlar prison staff and some of the CARDINAL male and female prisoners convicted of belonging to illegal extreme left - wing organisations ( \u201c the leftist prisoners \u201d ) .","It transpires from old classified documents exchanged among the office of the prosecutor attached to FAC ( \u201c the prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) , the Governor of GPE ( \u201c the Governor \u201d ) and the various regional gendarmerie commands , including ORG ( \u201c the CDGA \u201d ) , that the hostilities between the prison authorities and the prisoners dated back to DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Since that time the authorities had been aware of the problems , particularly relating to overcrowding and the age and inadequate facilities of the Ulucanlar complex , which , moreover , had been intended as a short - term prison and should never have housed convicted prisoners . It transpires from the various information sources that the exiguity of the living area in the \u201c dormitories \u201d was central to the leftist ORG complaints and actions , which they conducted together despite their political differences and personal conflicts of interest .","A clearer picture might be gained of the present dispute by recapitulating the factors mentioned in the above - mentioned exchange of documents and the facts noted by the CARDINAL - MP sub - commission set up under ORG in ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in order to investigate and ascertain the circumstances under which the impugned incidents had occurred .","On DATE , under the Governor \u2019s supervision , the prosecutor \u2019s office , the CDGA , the gendarmerie unit on duty at Ulucanlar ( \u201c CGP \u201d ) and the other gendarmerie commands drew up their so - called \u201c FAC No . CARDINAL \u201d . The authorities in question were convinced that the leftist prisoners were planning a mass break - out , that they would therefore probably engineer an internal clash among the various extreme left - wing fractions in the prison and would dig tunnels , knock down walls , occupy the roofs , start fires and , finally , trigger an insurrection against the prison authorities . The authorities considered that as the ORG lacked the operational capacities to deal with such eventualities , they had to work together in order to identify the ringleaders and ensure durable security in the prison .","On DATE the Governor ratified the plan , under which the ORG would be backed up by auxiliary forces , that is to say CARDINAL senior officers and QUANTITY gendarmes , to be seconded from other commands , accompanied by the local police .","NORP However , that plan was not implemented as foreseen .","Accordingly , on DATE the authorities met to reassess the situation and draw up a new ORG in accordance with ORG CARDINAL DATE concerning the suppression of rioting in prisons .","On DATE the Secretary General of ORG urged the relevant ministries and several decision - making bodies , as well as ORG , to implement that new plan promptly , drawing on some more specific coercive measures . In substance , the parts of the plan relevant to the assessment of the present case were based on short- and medium - term actions , as follows :","\u2013 refusing any compromise with the \u201c terrorist \u201d organisations , as this would encourage them to make impossible demands ;","\u2013 reaffirming the ORG \u2019s determination to combat such propaganda - based movements ;","\u2013 endeavouring to restore the ORG \u2019s authority in prisons and to reform the legislation on internal prison surveillance ;","\u2013 transferring the leaders of the \u201c terrorist \u201d organisations to other appropriate prisons ;","\u2013 preparing television programmes involving specialists capable of analysing and assessing the mental state of insurgent prisoners and the difficulties encountered by the security forces in combating terrorism ;","\u2013 conducting counter - propaganda vis - \u00e0 - vis sections of the media being used by the \u201c terrorist organisations \u201d in relation to conditions of detention ;","\u2013 making public declarations conducive to reducing the impact of propaganda sullying the reputation of and demoralising members of the security forces , and emphasising the determination of the ministries , political parties and senior officials to combat any form of insurrection in prisons .","Nevertheless , no practical action was taken until DATE , because of an escalation in criminal activities in GPE DATE and CARDINAL DATE , including CARDINAL murder involving the use of a firearm , CARDINAL murder by stabbing , CARDINAL case of arson , CARDINAL attempted escape , CARDINAL case of hostage - taking of prison officers and CARDINAL cases of infliction of serious bodily harm .","On DATE the ORG alerted the authorities ( by letter , HRK no . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/ ASY\u015e [ DATE ] ) to the risks arising from the aforementioned situation , which , it said , had robbed the prison staff of all their authority . According to the PERSON , although security outside the prison LOC was duly guaranteed by the gendarmerie , \u201c it was only a matter of time before the volcano inside the building erupted \u201d .","Having received that information , the Governor drew the attention of the ORG and Interior Ministers and the prosecutor \u2019s office to the following findings , which he considered called for urgent action :","\u2013 Ulucanlar is an old prison which no longer meets current standards , and its structure encourages prison breaks via tunnels , given that the prison LOC , and in particular the living areas , contain vegetation and trees blocking the prison PERSON view , which facilitates the digging of such tunnels and concealment of the earth extracted ;","\u2013 the passages between dormitories run through the living areas , thus hampering any necessary intervention by the guards ; the fact that the dormitories are adjacent to each other promotes the hierarchisation of the prisoners , ideological indoctrination , racketeering and all modes of communication with the outside ;","\u2013 under pressure exerted by leftist prisoners , the prison doctors use dietary pretexts to bring all kinds of foodstuffs and medicines into the prison ; the prison staff are also unscrupulous ; some of them act as messengers and smugglers ; and the prison guards can only inspect the dormitories if the prisoners authorise it ;","\u2013 the leftist prisoners post up ideological placards around the living areas ; the doors to the dormitories and living areas are left open between presence checks , the prisoners are free to move around the premises as they wish , including the female dormitory , and they even stand guard over various parts of the prison ;","\u2013 it is common knowledge that the prisoners in Ulucanlar have weapons , mobile telephones , shovels , picks , iron bars , cudgels and stones , ready to be used during riots ; during the most recent searches , CARDINAL handguns , CARDINAL mobile phones and CARDINAL ORG cards were discovered on the LOC .","From DATE the leftist prisoners gradually took over Ulucanlar Sector CARDINAL . That sector comprised male dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory , where virtually no routine inspections had been carried out since DATE .","According to the authorities , no concessions were to be made to those individuals , whose complaints concerning , in particular , inadequate living space in the dormitories , were pure fabrication .","The main developments during that period can be summarised as follows .","On DATE , at the request of the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office ( see letter no . MONEY ) , the gendarmerie issued an order ( HRK no . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/ASY\u015e [ DATE ] ) to carry out the hitherto impeded searches and transfers of the leftist prisoners .","At TIME a search operation was instigated in FAC . However , under explicit instructions from ORG attached to ORG ( \u201c DGPM \u201d ) and the prosecutor \u2019s office , dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory , as well as the dormitory exclusively housing former MPs , were excluded from the searches . The reasons behind those instructions are still unknown .","Following that operation , ORG prisoners were transferred , and the authorities discovered , in particular , CARDINAL skewers and stilettos , CARDINAL large nails , CARDINAL fruit knives , CARDINAL PERSON knives , CARDINAL packet of ORG knife blades , CARDINAL daggers , CARDINAL penknives , CARDINAL cudgels , QUANTITY of cannabis and CARDINAL mobile phones , complete with accessories .","On DATE the Governor sent the Ministers of Justice and the ORG a confidential letter from the PERSON ( HRK no . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/ ASY\u015e DATE ) listing the dysfunctions observed at Ulucanlar during the CARDINAL DATE operation and the results of the latter , which can be summarised as follows :","\u2013 at the end of the operation , the prisoners convicted of terrorist offences forced the windows and doors of their dormitories open and began to move freely around the building , with a view to protesting against the search and the transfer of their cellmates ;","\u2013 on DATE the same individuals installed barricades in the corridors with banners proclaiming \u201c the revolutionary prisoners shall never be slaves \u201d ; some prisoners smashed through the dormitory ceilings and climbed on to the roofs , while others began to prowl around in small groups , armed with cudgels ;","\u2013 on DATE the prisoners demanded to talk to the authorities , which was not authorised as they refused to submit to body searches and twice intentionally set off the prison alarm bell ;","\u2013 continuing overnight until TIME , the prisoners set up further barricades with beds and pieces of wood from doors and windows ; they also plundered the kitchens , the dispensary and the canteen , purloining all the food items and also all the sharp instruments and storing them in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","The talks mentioned in that letter finally took place at TIME . A delegation made up of a PERSON lieutenant - colonel , the public prosecutor , the Prison Director and the ORG commander heard the spokesmen for dormitories CARDINAL . CARDINAL and DATE and the spokeswoman for the female dormitory , namely the applicants PERSON , PERSON and ORG , respectively . Complaining that they had been given no advance notice of the search operation , those persons , in particular :","\u2013 demanded the return of their leader , ORG , who had been transferred to FAC - type prison ;","\u2013 requested that the prison staff involved be spared any disciplinary sanctions in respect of the incidents which had occurred ;","\u2013 requested leave to talk to their lawyers , GPE and GPE , and the families to be designated by the latter ;","\u2013 denounced the ill - treatment inflicted and the visiting restrictions imposed by the gendarmes on their comrades in hospital , as well as the body searches , which they claimed had gone far beyond external inspection of clothing .","The case - file contains no mention of the authorities\u2019 reaction to those demands .","A second series of searches was scheduled for TIME on DATE .","At the request of the Prison Director and the prosecutor \u2019s office , dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory were once again excluded from the search on the grounds that the prison guards would take charge of that part of the operation . However , none of those dormitories was in fact inspected .","At the end of that second operation , the gendarmes confiscated the following items discovered in other parts of the premises :","\u2013 CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm semi - automatic PERSON pistol ( series no . DATE ) , CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm semi - automatic PERSON pistol ( no series number ) complete with magazine and CARDINAL bullets and CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm pistol marked \u201c PERSON GPE ( series no . CARDINAL ) with CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm bullets ;","\u2013 CARDINAL large dagger , CARDINAL knives , CARDINAL flick knife , CARDINAL home - made blades and CARDINAL skewers ;","\u2013 CARDINAL cudgels , QUANTITY of cabling and serum bottles containing mixtures for Molotov cocktails and pieces of iron ;","\u2013 CARDINAL ORG cards and CARDINAL mobile phones , complete with accessories .","Moreover , the record of the search which was drawn up by the gendarmes mentioned the following facts :","\u2013 the skylights leading to the roofs had been dismantled ,","\u2013 cudgels and stones had been strewn along the corridors ,","\u2013 preparations had been made for manufacturing Molotov cocktails in the attic ,","\u2013 barricades had been erected close to the entrances , using stovepipes and old cupboards , and","\u2013 the empty tanks on the roofs had been disconnected and moved to block access .","On DATE the CDGA alerted , in vain , ORG and the ORG to the absolute necessity of acting to counter the situation whereby Ulucanlar had become a \u201c terrorist training centre \u201d .","In DATE the local gendarmerie unit began receiving complaints to the effect that the prisoners were still in possession of firearms and had started digging a tunnel in the female dormitory . The complaints continued until DATE , when a number of prison guards were taken hostage for TIME .","The gendarmerie had offered to intervene on several previous occasions , but the administrative authorities had consistently turned them down as regards dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory .","The main information on that episode are summarised below .","On DATE the CDGA wrote to the authorities concerned to inform them of the following :","\u2013 in the absence of effective surveillance at GPE , the prisoners convicted of terrorism were free to do as they wish ;","\u2013 during the inspection of the drains in the female dormitory , heaps of gravel had been discovered , and the authorities were duly informed ; on DATE an DATE - long tunnel was discovered and blocked ;","\u2013 there was reason to suspect that similar works had also been conducted in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ;","\u2013 it was well - known that \u201c terrorists \u201d housed in different prisons communicate via mobile phones which had been smuggled in , and that this was how they planned their joint actions ;","\u2013 moreover , messages faxed from official machines showed that those persons also had access to standard office applications in order to devise their strategies .","There were no further incidents until TIME on DATE , when the prisoners from dormitories nos . CARDINAL to CARDINAL , having declared that they had ended their protest actions , allowed the Deputy Governor of Ulucanlar and the Head Warden in , and then held them as hostages until TIME There were no injuries .","On DATE the ORG informed the PERSON and the regional commands ( via message HRK no . : MONEY - CARDINAL ) of that incident , following which the rebels had allegedly attempted to occupy the roofs , having climbed up through the ventilation shafts and forced the duty guards to back off ; they had also reportedly stolen a gas cylinder and concealed iron bars and cudgels in their dormitories , probably , according to the ORG , in order to riposte to any possible intervention by the security forces .","Still on DATE , the CDGA reported ( message HRK no . : CARDINAL ) that ORG for leftist prisoners housed CARDINAL individuals in dormitory no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL in dormitory no . CARDINAL and DATE in the female dormitory , that is to say a total of CARDINAL convicted prisoners , including CARDINAL ORG members . According to the ORG , the latter had not supported the actions of the other prisoners and had disassociated themselves from them vis - \u00e0 - vis the security forces , nor did the prisoners in dormitories nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and the \u201c officials\u2019 dormitory \u201d pose any kind of threat . On the other hand , according to the ORG , the leftist prisoners were potentially dangerous , because it was well - known that on a number of occasions they had obtained solvents , glue , fuel oil and bottles of serum in order to manufacture Molotov cocktails for use should the gendarmes raid their dormitories .","On DATE the ORG once again wrote to the PERSON ( message HRK no . : MONEY - CARDINAL ) to inform it that when the prison guards had recently been taken hostage , the attackers had stolen their GPE uniforms and that they could therefore be expected to attempt to escape wearing the uniforms . That message was forwarded ( HRK no . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) to all the officials and concerned .","DATE and DATE the ORG kept the PERSON informed DATE ( via telegrams HRK nos . : CARDINAL et seq . ) of the continued refusal by the prisoners in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory to answer the presence checks and to respect the curfew and the compulsory closing of doors . Each message was immediately forwarded to all the other bodies concerned .","On DATE , according to the faxes distributed by the PERSON ( messages HRK nos . : MONEY et seq . ) and the ORG ( messages HRK nos . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , the leftist prisoners demolished the wall of dormitory no . CARDINAL adjacent to their own dormitory , expelled its occupants and took over the LOC . Following this takeover , they refused even more vehemently to comply with the presence checks , disrupted the prison rounds and impeded the prison guards in the exercise of their duties . That situation continued for DATE .","Still on DATE the Director of Ulucanlar , backed up by the ORG , once again complained of the criminal activities of the leftist prisoners in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL and requested the intervention of the gendarmerie to restore order ( letter no . LAW ) .","Nevertheless , immediately after that request , the Minister for ORG ordered that no such operation should be instigated .","The ORG then informed the PERSON ( telegram no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) that the operation had been cancelled , even though the leftist prisoners were still occupying dormitory no . CARDINAL and continuing to refuse to comply with the TIME presence checks . The prison guards and gendarmerie patrols at Ulucanlar were reinforced as a precaution .","On DATE the PERSON informed all the authorities concerned of that cancellation ( message HRK no . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the gendarmerie intelligence department informed the PERSON ( message ISTH no . : CARDINAL ) and the regional commands that prisoners convicted of terrorism in all the NORP prisons were planning to initiate various insurrectional actions should the ORG attempt to intervene in any of the prisons housing such prisoners .","Up until DATE the ORG continued to keep the PERSON abreast of the situation in GPE with DATE updates , and the telegrams in question were consistently transmitted to all the authorities concerned . It transpires from those messages that throughout the whole period in question the prisoners in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory had continued to occupy dormitory no . DATE and to refuse to submit to presence checks , and that the entrance doors to the dormitories , the exercise yards and the living areas had remained open and unguarded .","On DATE the Prison Director submitted to the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office a request for a search of dormitories CARDINAL . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory , which had so far been exempted from such inspection . On DATE the Deputy Director , ORG , was attacked with a makeshift flame - thrower while removing cardboard boxed placed by the prisoners in the ventilation zones on the roof .","DATE the authorities reached the conclusion that the situation in GPE was no isolated case : the ringleaders in the different prisons were freely communicating via mobile phone and planning a series of riots and simultaneous break - outs . The facts relating to that episode are set out , in particular , in the internal reports of CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( report , HRK no . : CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and DATE as drawn up by the ORG and PERSON and then forwarded , inter alia , to ORG and the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office .","According to those reports , in the leftist ORG dormitories , which had long remained unsupervised , there were CARDINAL pistols of an unknown model and in dormitory no . CARDINAL , a CARDINAL-mm ORG - type pistol ; all the other relevant parts of the prison contained large quantities of cannabis , brought in by prison guards ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG , GPE and GPE , who had allegedly hidden them in their undergarments ; lastly , the ORG cards had been provided by the prison guard PERSON The ORG and PERSON recommended that those members of the prison staff be immediately removed from their current duties and transferred to other prisons .","Still according to those reports , surveillance of dormitory no . DATE which had been under the control of the insurgents since CARDINAL September CARDINAL \u2013 was no longer possible and the persons occupying it were now in a position to instigate all kinds of actions . Furthermore , since Sector CARDINAL was a no - go area for the authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , according to the reports the prisoners would probably resume their tunnelling work with a view to a mass break - out .","In this connection , the reports pointed out that of the prisoners in the \u201c terrorist dormitories \u201d , CARDINAL were prisoners who had been transferred to GPE for medical treatment . Obeying instructions from the illegal organisations , of which they were still members , those individuals had managed to avoid returning and had congregated in Sector CARDINAL . The reports stated that it was absolutely vital and urgent that those CARDINAL prisoners be transferred back to the prisons where they were supposed to be , otherwise insurrection and confrontation could be expected at any time .","On DATE , in view of the foregoing considerations , the Director of Ulucanlar Prison requested the PERSON \u2019s assistance to protect the prison staff members who had been tasked with inspecting the CARDINAL dormitories housing the leftist prisoners .","In that regard , ORG no . DATE , classified secret , was drawn up and forwarded to the regional commands , the Governor , the prosecutor \u2019s office , ORG and ORG . Under the plan , at TIME on DATE CARDINAL Ulucanlar Prison would be raided and subjected to a general search , and , if so requested by the public prosecutor , the transfers of leftist prisoners to other prisons , which had so far been blocked , would also be carried out .","The relevant parts of the plan might be summarised as follows :","\u2013 the task force would comprise CARDINAL ORG gendarmes , CARDINAL commando squads , CARDINAL riot squad , CARDINAL special operations squad and CARDINAL officers , CARDINAL junior officers and CARDINAL sergeants on contract , and CARDINAL gendarmes from the regional gendarmerie commands ;","\u2013 within each command providing manpower , the gendarmes would be trained in frisking procedure and identification of prohibited items ;","\u2013 the prison guards detailed to take part in the operation would be under the orders of the gendarme commanders ;","\u2013 in order to guarantee the safety of the search teams and to act in the event of armed resistance , gendarme officers would operate with their official weapons and would take the requisite precautions to ensure that they could not be disarmed ;","\u2013 during the searches , the passages between dormitories would be blocked , all outside access to the prison and all means of communication would be supervised , and no one would be allowed in or out , apart from the prosecutors and commanders ;","\u2013 the searches would concerntrate on dormitories nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory ;","\u2013 no one would speak with the prisoners or let the latter persuade them to take any type of action , and a firm , strict attitude would be maintained in order to keep up the psychological pressure ;","\u2013 in the dormitories , the prisoners known as \u201c group leaders \u201d would be kept under particular surveillance and prevented from inciting the others ;","\u2013 all the prohibited items discovered on the premises would be inventoried and placed in safekeeping ;","\u2013 any prisoners sustaining injuries during the operation would receive initial treatment in the prison dispensary and then transferred to hospital if necessary .","The plan also provided for an auxiliary force comprising CARDINAL officer , CARDINAL junior officers , CARDINAL sergeants on contract and QUANTITY gendarmes , as well as one gendarmerie commando squad , accompanied by an adequate number of police officers , specifying that all those forces would assemble at ORG ready to spring into action .","Moreover , the plan also provided for the presence of CARDINAL teams from the gendarmerie intelligence service equipped with CARDINAL camera and CARDINAL video cameras ; CARDINAL of the cameramen would work on tower no . CARDINAL , and the other cameraman and the photographer would operate inside the building . The personnel in situ was also to include CARDINAL squadrons from ORG , CARDINAL bomb disposal team and the entire staff of the forensic and anti - drugs departments .","The instructions for the operation were as follows :","\u2013 personnel involved in the operation should be fully equipped and have all the necessary service weapons , ammunition and other requisite equipment , such as truncheons , shields and glass - fibre helmets ;","\u2013 each unit should also have as many torches available as possible and CARDINAL sledgehammer , CARDINAL pick and CARDINAL chisel ;","\u2013 the commands in question were required to provide equipment such as handcuffs ( CARDINAL pairs per command ) , shields and gas - masks , as well as fire extinguishers ( CARDINAL per command ) in case of fire ;","\u2013 since the operation was likely to be protracted , an adequate quantity of food rations was to be provided ;","\u2013 TIME before the operation , an ambulance with a doctor and medical assistants was to be placed at the disposal of the provincial command .","At TIME or , according to some of the prisoners , at TIME on DATE the gendarmerie units , under the orders of Lieutenant - Colonel GPE . , entered Ulucanlar prison . The police officers remained outside in order to secure the outside of the building .","Despite the warnings \u2013 although there is still disagreement among the parties on whether and how those warnings were in fact given \u2013 informing the prisoners about the searches scheduled for dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory , the violence escalated , quickly turning into a riot .","Ulucanlar was the scene of confrontations between the gendarmerie units and the leftist prisoners , particularly those who were cornered in dormitory no . CARDINAL . The account given below is a summary of the information provided , albeit with a number of uncertainties , in the CARDINAL reports drawn up after the operation , CARDINAL","Once inside the building , at TIME , the gendarmes took up position in the watch towers located between the roofs of dormitories nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; they spotted CARDINAL \u201c terrorists \u201d on the lookout at the end of each corridor ; on seeing the gendarmes the latter shouted \u201c traitor ! \u201d at the prison guard who had opened the door to the gendarmes and then ran off towards their dormitories .","The \u201c terrorists \u201d locked behind them the entrance gates to the central corridor , the female \u201c terrorist \u201d dormitory and the inside areas of dormitories nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE . The gendarmes tried in vain to explain to the rioters that they would not be harmed if they allowed them to carry out the searches . The latter responded by chanting \u201c the revolutionary prisoners will never give in ! \u2013 Come on if you have the guts ! \u2013 Long live our independence struggle ! \u201d","Arriving at the second gate , the gendarmes tasked with protecting the search units were attacked with Molotov cocktails and lumps of concrete . Junior officer ORG \u2019s uniform caught fire ( although no such name is included in the list of injured persons in PERSON ) .","In view of the deteriorating situation , the whole prison staff took shelter behind the gendarmerie units .","The \u201c terrorists \u201d , ignoring Commander PERSON . \u2019s warnings , continued to chant : \u201c The prisoners will never give in DATE we will resist or die . \u201d TIME they attacked the gendarmes with flame - throwers made out of gas cylinders . The gendarmes responded to the attack with force .","Under a hail of stones , logs and pieces of coal , the gendarmes first of all dismantled the barricades in the central corridor and then broke down the entrance door to the female dormitory with sledgehammers .","While the gendarmes were preparing to go into the dormitory living area , CARDINAL rioters lunged at them with iron bars and then aimed a home - made flame - thrower at them , which started a fire . The security forces used tear gas to drive the rioters back into their dormitory . Once they had taken control of the area , the gendarmes heard female prisoners shouting slogans from the upper floor . Those prisoners refused to comply with orders , and riposted with Molotov cocktails .","The gendarmes dismantled all the barricades in that zone and inspected the LOC before heading towards the stairs to the upper floor . The rioting female prisoners , who had barricaded the staircase with cupboards , threw stones at them . Using their shields to ward off the stones , the gendarmes managed to clear the staircase . When they attempted to enter the dormitories , they were doused with bleach and pelted with stones , broken glass and porcelain and food jars .","The female prisoners , who had blocked the entrance with chairs , tables and bedsteads , continued throwing stones and Molotov cocktails . They set fire to the mattresses piled up outside the dormitory , which led to a massive blaze , completely filling the area with smoke . The gendarmes brought in the firemen stationed on the roofs to deal with the fire .","At that moment an official told the gendarmes that there were CARDINAL ORG members inside who had to be evacuated , but that the female rioters were refusing to release them . The warnings issued were once again ignored and the female \u201c terrorists \u201d became more aggressive ; they began to take direct aim at the gendarmes\u2019 faces with the flame - throwers , skewers and broken glass through the door opposite the staircase . During that episode , junior officer GPE , who was responsible for video - recording the events , was injured on the hand by a glass fragment . The gendarmes broke down the door of the adjacent room in order to reach the room in a corner of which the female rioters were grouped , having been driven back by the tear gas and the fire hoses ; when the gendarmes entered the room the rioters launched a final assault with iron bars , stones and skewers , still ignoring the calls to surrender .","The gendarmes resorted to force to neutralise the attack . Some of the women were slightly injured , as was gendarme conscript K.U\u00e7a . , who was wounded in the hip by a skewer , and conscripts A.G\u00f6k . and M.Ayd . , who were injured in the abdomen and the right hand , respectively .","At TIME the female prisoners were forced to exit CARDINAL by CARDINAL . Several knives were discovered in their dormitory and filmed . According to the documents on file , during this episode neither the prisoners nor the gendarmes used firearms .","The other operational units met with extremely violent resistance when they attempted to remove the barricades behind the doors to dormitories nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE . While the gendarmes made their way towards the area of dormitory no . CARDINAL , \u201c terrorists \u201d behind the barricades opened fire , threw Molotov cocktails and stones and then retreated into dormitory no . CARDINAL . This withdrawal enabled the gendarmes to evacuate CARDINAL prisoners who were ORG members from dormitory no . CARDINAL ; those prisoners had previously informed the prison authorities that they dissociated themselves from the rioters .","The rioters , thus cornered in dormitory no . CARDINAL , tried to climb on to the roofs , but were prevented from doing so by truncheon blows from the gendarmes . They nevertheless managed to start a fire in the dormitory by burning mattresses . Some of the gendarmes almost died of asphyxiation , and reinforcements were called in to take control of the area ; several tear - gas canisters were thrown in , forcing a group of \u201c terrorists \u201d to take refuge in the aforementioned dormitory . Despite the calls to surrender , the surrounded \u201c terrorists \u201d opened fire , chanting : \u201c NORP , we \u2019ll kill you ! \u2013 bring on the flame - throwers , torch them ! \u201d Specialist sergeant PERSON was hit in the abdomen .","The gendarmes stationed on the roofs of dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and in watch tower no . CARDINAL riposted with tear gas and their official weapons , while the firemen used high - power hoses and carbon dioxide foam . Subsequently , the gendarmes saw \u201c terrorists \u201d going back and forth between the living area and the dormitory to fetch their LOC bodies ; the prisoners who were severely affected by the gas and the foam and were squatting in various parts of the area were easily apprehended .","Despite low visibility due to the tear gas , the gendarmes saw some of the \u201c terrorists \u201d approaching the exit in order to surrender ; at the same time shouts of \u201c Traitors ! PERSON the cowards ! \u201d were followed by \u201c bursts of gunfire \u201d inside the dormitory . CARDINAL \u201c terrorists \u201d managed to get out ; CARDINAL others were gunned down by their own comrades .","The remaining rioters , who were once again barricaded behind the door to dormitory no . CARDINAL , attempted to reach the gendarmes with stones , iron bars , cudgels and flame - throwers , and they picked up and threw back tear - gas canisters . During the confrontations junior officers E.A. and ORG were injured on the arm and the nose , respectively , by stones ; sergeant PERSON was hit on the right eyebrow , and conscripts PERSON and ORG sustained a fracture of the right auricular and a traumatic injury to the right eyebrow , respectively .","ORG in front of the aforementioned door , the gendarmes saw a rioter pointing a gun at them at CARDINAL of the upstairs windows . When the gendarmes went up to the first floor and approached the door , the \u201c terrorists \u201d , including the person later identified as GPE . G\u00f6k . , opened fire indiscriminately from the windows . During that attack one bullet seriously injured junior officer GPE and another went through sergeant ORG \u2019s helmet , leaving him in a state of shock ; the \u201c terrorists \u201d also shot and injured captain GPE and sergeant GPE","At TIME the gendarmes took control of dormitory no . CARDINAL , just as the rioters were trying to flee the area ; prisoner GPE died at TIME , following \u2013 according to the prisoners DATE a burst of gunfire .","The operation ended with that incident .","During TIME of the raid on dormitory no . CARDINAL , prisoners PERSON and PERSON ( relatives of the applicants PERSON and PERSON and ORG ) were killed ; their bodies were found in the dormitory no . CARDINAL living area . GPE ( a relative of the applicant PERSON ) died CARDINAL later inside the same dormitory .","According to the statements by the applicants and the prisoners , Under PERSON ( the son of applicant PERSON ) , PERSON ( the son of applicant PERSON ) and PERSON ( the brother of applicant PERSON ) later died of their wounds , during the ensuing mayhem .","According to the official version , PERSON ( the husband of applicant PERSON ) , who was shot in the leg , died later in hospital . According to the applicant and witness statements , PERSON and PERSON ( the son of the applicant PERSON ) were beaten up and executed in an isolated room after the operation ; several prisoners claimed to have heard ORG screaming in the shower room . A certain GPE , who displayed no bullet wounds , had allegedly suffered the same fate , having also been dragged into the showers .","The Government contested those allegations , adhering to the aforementioned official version of events .","The result was as follows : CARDINAL prisoners dead and CARDINAL injured , CARDINAL of whom had sustained life - threatening injuries ; and QUANTITY gendarmes injured , CARDINAL seriously .","According to the official version , once the situation was completely under control , the unharmed prisoners were placed in cells . The gendarmes took CARDINAL injured \u201c terrorists \u201d ( no names are given ) to the prison dispensary . The others , including several applicants ( List B ) , were retained for TIME in the shower room , where they were given first aid before being transferred to various hospitals .","According to the injured applicants , however , it was in that shower room and the CARDINAL long corridor leading to it that they were dragged , stamped on and beaten up by the gendarmes and prison guards lined up on either side of them . In the said room they had been forced to strip and lie on the floor , under a rain of blows , particularly concentrating on their injuries , and making comments such as \u201c why is this guy not dead yet ? \u2013 we shot CARDINAL of your mates , it \u2019s your turn now ! \u2013 no hospital for him , we \u2019ll finish him off here ! \u201d The gendarmes allegedly pushed injured prisoners down the stairs or laid them out on stretchers only to immediately drop them . The torturers included officers from the GPE police department \u2019s anti - DHKP - C office with whom the convicts , as members of the DHKP - C , were well acquainted .","At the end of the operation , the transfers of the other prisoners to other prisons were also carried out .","NORP The medical information on the officers injured during the operation is summarised in PERSON .","It transpires from the case file that in the instant case the gendarmes , instead of being taken to ORG DATE which was the usual practice \u2013 were examined at the PERSON military hospital , which issued their medical reports .","According to those reports , the condition of gendarmes DATE . , ORG . and \u00dc.Soy . , who had bullet wounds , necessitated convalescence leave for CARDINAL , DATE and DATE respectively , on the understanding that \u00dc.Soy . \u2019s life was in danger .","Contradicting the findings of the medical report concerning the conscript Z.Eng . , indictment no . CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , identifies this person as one of the officers suffering from a gunshot wound .","According to the same reports , the condition of conscripts A.Er . , A.G\u00f6k . and K.U\u00e7a . did not necessitate sick leave . The number of days\u2019 unfitness for work prescribed for the other gendarmes was CARDINAL for PERSON . , PERSON . and PERSON . , CARDINAL for N.Kar . , DATE . and GPE . , and CARDINAL for E.Ayd . and M.\u00d6zk .","All the relevant medical data on the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL deceased relatives ( List A ) are summarised in LAW .","Those data show that the CARDINAL persons in question all died of wounds caused by bullets from various types of firearms . In view of that fact , ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL in fine below ) tasked a committee of CARDINAL forensic scientists to assess the appropriateness of the autopsy and pathological exploration procedures followed in the present case . That committee found that there had been no major shortcomings attributable to the medical staff involved in the said examinations , having regard , in particular , to the shortage of personnel and the poor working conditions . However , it noted that , in breach of the principles set out in the \u201c LOC LAW \u201d , the forensic experts had omitted to dissect the corpses\u2019 skin and sub - cutaneous tissue and to take samples from the traumatic and burn injuries in order to conduct histopathological research on them . Expressing doubts as to the origin of those burns , which had , on the face of it , been caused by chemicals , the committee regretted that more specific necropsies had not been considered , especially since some of the injuries observed on the corpses corresponded to acts generally classified as lethal acts or acts of torture .","As regards the applicants who were injured ( List B ) , and whose clinical pictures are provided in Appendix IV , it should be noted that there is no medical evidence relating to PERSON , ORG ( PERSON ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON \u00c7\u0131nar , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr G\u00fcrhan H\u0131zmay , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG . Furthermore , the medical report on Mr PERSON , which was obtained further to a complaint lodged on DATE , DATE after the events ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG findings concerning those applicants also prompted a number of comments from the aforementioned committee ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) :","\u201c ... CARDINAL . Some of the traumatic injuries displayed by the injured persons resemble lesions resulting from trauma caused by a blunt instrument ; having regard to their distribution and orientation on the body , as well as their shape and extent , some of those lesions might have been caused during the confrontations and captures , but it is medically inconceivable that they all appeared during the operation ; some of the lesions consist of \u2018 parallel lines of bruising\u2019 and , having regard to their length , they characterise injuries resulting from direct blows struck with CARDINAL or more long , blunt , convex or round instrument(s ) ;","As the healing process for injuries depends on their nature and their position on the body , as well as the individual \u2019s physical peculiarities , no medical opinion can be provided on which came first , the firearm injuries or the traumatic damage ... \u201d","Appendix IV also sets out CARDINAL categories of applicant ( List B ) broken down by DATE sick leave prescribed , as follows :","\u2013 DATE for PERSON and PERSON ;","\u2013 DATE for PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON ;","\u2013 DATE for PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( annotated \u201c getting better within DATE \u201d ) and PERSON ;","\u2013 DATE for PERSON , PERSON , Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m Do\u011fan ( DATE according to the indictment of DATE see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE LANGUAGE ( DATE according to the aforementioned indictment ) , PERSON and PERSON ( ORG ) ;","\u2013 DATE for PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and ORG ; and","\u2013 DATE for PERSON and PERSON , in a condition described as life - threatening , and for PERSON and PERSON .","It transpires from the first CARDINAL search resorts that , in view of the large haul , it had been decided to film the prohibited items found in the dormitories with a view to subsequently inventorying them , and that the officers had reprimanded the prison guards , accusing them of having brought the weapons into FAC . The inventory in question listed the following items :","\u2013 CARDINAL AMD-CARDINAL assault rifle ( series no . PERSON ) with a magazine containing CARDINAL bullets , CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm short - barrelled shotgun with CARDINAL cartridges ( CARDINAL of them empty ) , CARDINAL \u201c PERSON \u201d pistol ( series no . DATE ) with CARDINAL magazines , CARDINAL \u201c CARDINAL-shot Baretta pistol \u201d ( series no . CARDINALPYCARDINAL ) with CARDINAL magazine , CARDINAL semi - automatic ORG pistol ( series no . D CARDINAL ) with CARDINAL magazines , CARDINAL home - made pen guns , CARDINAL \u201c silencers \u201d , CARDINAL PERSON cartridges , CARDINAL bullets for CARDINAL-mm pistol , CARDINAL of them spent , CARDINAL G-CARDINAL gun cartridges , QUANTITY of them spent , QUANTITY blank bullets , CARDINAL projectiles and CARDINAL magazine cases ;","\u2013 CARDINAL knives , CARDINAL PERSON knives , CARDINAL stilettos , CARDINAL machetes , CARDINAL wooden dagger , CARDINAL miscellaneous blunt instruments , CARDINAL iron bar , CARDINAL wooden sledgehammer , QUANTITY cudgels and CARDINAL catapults ;","\u2013 CARDINAL unused Molotov cocktails , CARDINAL gas cylinders , CARDINAL home - made gas masks , CARDINAL packets of explosive powder , CARDINAL home - made tear - gas canister , and miscellaneous solvents and combustible liquids ;","\u2013 CARDINAL welding machine , CARDINAL drill , CARDINAL wood chisels , CARDINAL nails , CARDINAL chisels , CARDINAL different - sized saws , CARDINAL screwdriver and CARDINAL , CARDINAL trowel ;","\u2013 CARDINAL firearms ( PERSON , PERSON and revolvers ) and CARDINAL bombes , CARDINAL telescope , CARDINAL truncheons and CARDINAL fake training batons ;","\u2013 CARDINAL mobile portables with accessories , CARDINAL hollowed - out book and CARDINAL master - keys .","The third and fourth reports , which were drawn up DATE specified that the aforementioned \u201c GPE \u201d semi - automatic pistol ( series no . CARDINAL ) had been used by prisoner PERSON . G\u00f6k . , who , having fired CARDINAL or QUANTITY shots , had retreated to dormitory no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL in fine above ) . CARDINAL more reports drawn up DATE mentioned the discovery of a CARDINAL-mm Star semi - automatic pistol with CARDINAL bullet in the magazine .","Four further searches were conducted CARDINAL , revealing :","\u2013 CARDINAL hunting knife with a CARDINAL blade , complete with sheath ( DATE ) ;","\u2013 CARDINAL g bags of cement , CARDINAL packets of floor tiles , QUANTITY packets of plaster , and CARDINAL blades and iron casts ;","\u2013 QUANTITY of telephone cable ( DATE ) ; and","\u2013 CARDINAL CARDINAL-cm iron tubes soldered to CARDINAL blades , to be used as picks or axes ( DATE ) .","In the light of the foregoing considerations , it is important to reiterate the following statements made to ORG by Colonel PERSON , the commanding officer of the PERSON :","\u201c ... We drew up our plan and arrived at Ulucanlar on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; the prisoners riposted with firearms and flame throwers , and we were attacked with knives ; so we also used our arms in accordance with the powers conferred by Act No . CARDINAL [ on the organisation of ORG ] . My men were injured , and unfortunately on the other side prisoners were also injured or lost their lives . Their deaths have greatly saddened me . I am sad because there should not have been any weapons there . If there had been no weapons there would have been no confrontation and these people would not have died , and my men would not have been injured ... After those events ORG issued the directive of CARDINAL DATE . Prior to that date , we ( gendarmes ) were not empowered to search prison guards entering the prison ; the prison guards were searched by other prison guards . Imagine CARDINAL prison guards who have links with the ... prisoners . What sort of links might these be ? They might be material , pecuniary or ideological , or be based on fear . Therefore , if the \u2018 ORG organisation told those CARDINAL guards that someone would be bringing a gun from outside and that they had to hand it over to [ a given prisoner ] , they would be certain to obey . The prison guard goes into the prison and [ CARDINAL of his colleagues ] searches him , not a gendarme . A lawyer arrives and no one searches him . He has a private conversation with the detainee or prisoner and leaves , after which the detainee or prisoner is taken back to his cell , still without any body searches . Normally no such items should have been brought into the prison ... The prison in question has CARDINAL more special feature : it is next to the open prison section , where individuals come and go , stroll around and do whatever they want , and they could easily throw whatever objects they wish over the wall . There have been lots of incidents of this kind . We drew up a report and informed the prison authorities that a package had been thrown inside ; [ the guards ] searched the LOC but found nothing . After all , we could never have interfered in the running of the prison ! ... \u201d","Lieutenant - Colonel GPE . , the commanding officer of the task force , had stated the following :","\u201c No search had been carried out in the section housing prisoners convicted of terrorist offences for DATE ... No request to that effect was ever submitted , and we did not act because the public prosecutor had never called on our services . As you know ... we can only act inside the prison if the prosecutor or Prison Director so requests ... \u201d","The statement by Captain PERSON , commander of the ORG , on that matter can be summarised as follows :","\u201c This affair did not begin on DATE ] ; its origins go back into the distant past . In GPE , but also in all the other prisons housing \u2018 ORG , the prison authorities had no control over the sections reserved for such prisoners ; this is a well - known fact . In those sections ... the \u2018 ORG ruled the roost ... ; TV and the other media covered this : the State Prosecutor sitting down with the prisoners and negotiating with them , and the latter then taking hostages and obtaining everything they had been demanding . Despite all the denials , whole pages of such agreements have been published in the newspapers ... ; it was obvious that a lot of weapons and mobile phones were circulating in the prison ; during ordinary body searches , even where prison guards felt a weapon , they were all too scared to confiscate it ... An incident was sure to occur if gendarmes raided the \u2018 terrorists \u2019\u2019 dormitories ... because no gendarme had ever entered those premises to conduct a search for CARDINAL or DATE ... Many staff have been caught red - handed smuggling weapons and drugs into the prison ... \u201d","On DATE the gendarmes discovered a QUANTITY , CARDINAL - CARDINAL-cm deep hole in the middle of the concrete floor of dormitory no . CARDINAL , at a distance of QUANTITY from the wall , which the gendarmes identified as the entrance to a future tunnel . The hole was filled with pieces of wood and blankets .","On DATE the gendarmes inspected the floor of dormitory no . CARDINAL . In the kitchenette , underneath the worktop , they noted that an CARDINAL x CARDINAL area had been bricked up and replastered to merge in with the colour of the walls . The gendarmes broke through the bricks and found that the floor had been dug up to a depth of QUANTITY . They deduced that what they had found was the beginnings of a tunnel .","On DATE the floor of the dormitory no . CARDINAL living area was inspected . The gendarmes dug into the ground around CARDINAL poplar trees , and discovered a QUANTITY plywood trapdoor covering QUANTITY tunnel entrance . The entrance led to an approximately CARDINAL-m long tunnel running towards the aforementioned hole inside dormitory no . CARDINAL . The tunnel was found to contain CARDINAL home - made iron picks , a bag containing QUANTITY of dug - out rubble and a bag with QUANTITY of gravel .","Before ORG , the ministerial authorities submitted that the occupation of dormitory no . CARDINAL had been solely aimed at facilitating the preparation of a mass break - out ; that had also been the aim pursued by the rioters in hitherto blocking the access of prison guards to the dormitories and preventing presence checks , as allegedly proved by the incipient tunnel discovered after the operation . According to those authorities , CARDINAL and DATE the prison authorities had unsuccessfully attempted to put an end to the said occupation of the dormitory . In view of the failure of these attempts and the increasing number of leaks concerning an imminent prison break - out , an anti - riot operation had become inevitable .","Although ORG accepted that the leaks concerning the tunnelling activities had played a major role in the decision to raid the LOC in question , it considered that there was some doubt as to the real nature of the sites identified in the area of dormitories CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL as incipient tunnels . ORG pointed out that the first alleged tunnel , which was QUANTITY , began in the living area of dormitory no . CARDINAL and ended inside that dormitory . It took the view that it was implausible that the prisoners had ventured to dig a tunnel in an open yard which was overlooked by watch towers . Furthermore , ORG considered that the second digging site found behind the worktop in the dormitory no . CARDINAL kitchen did not really match the profile of an attempted escape tunnel .","Between DATE and DATE ORG was sent to Ulucanlar , where it held talks with a number of prisoners \u2013 including some of the applicants \u2013 prison staff , officers and other governmental and non - governmental officials . ORG report covered CARDINAL pages , CARDINAL of which concerned the impugned operation , and comprised a plethora of damning observations .","ORG began by enumerating the obstacles encountered during the investigations . ORG responsible for investigating the case had failed to attend the scheduled meeting , and , furthermore , the forensic medical team and the prison authorities had refused to hand over specific items of physical evidence such as the video recordings made during the operation and the photographs taken during the autopsies . It noted that although the gendarmerie authorities DATE which merely presented a few photographs taken long after the events \u2013 had denied the existence of such audiovisual material , several of the individuals questioned had affirmed that the operation had indeed been filmed and that , in fact , \u201c the junior officer responsible for the video recording had sustained an injury to his hand \u201d .","According to ORG , this situation had reinforced the suspicions of concealment of evidence , particularly since the authorities had refused to grant the ORG lawyers leave to attend the autopsies , which refusal they alleged was in breach of the requirement to reassure the general public in such a sensitive case .","The report included several specific chapters , converging on an overall assessment of the impugned situation based on witness statements and other relevant evidence .","According to prisoners who did not actively participate in the riot , the occupation of dormitory no . CARDINAL was intended , in particular , as a protest against overcrowding in the dormitories after the failed attempts to negotiate that issue with the prison authorities .","ORG held that the prisoners in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL had certainly violated the law , infringed the rights of their cellmates in dormitory no . CARDINAL and contributed to the escalating tensions by refusing to terminate their actions . However , ORG pointed out that of the CARDINAL dormitories available in GPE , CARDINAL were exclusively earmarked for leftist prisoners , and that there was a real overcrowding problem liable to goad those concerned into action .","ORG considered that if dormitory no . CARDINAL had been raided on DATE , it was inexplicable why the authorities had waited for TIME before instigating an operation on that scale , with attempting beforehand to act in CARDINAL way or another . It added that there was also no explanation for the fact that , at the height of the tension , the prison prosecutor had gone on leave or that the operation had been launched on DATE of the Prime Minister \u2019s departure on an official visit to GPE .","According to the official version , before entering the dormitories the gendarmes had duly ordered the rioters to surrender , but the latter had riposted with guns , home - made bombs , gas cylinders transformed into flame - throwers and various sharp tools . The non - rioting prisoners explained that there had indeed been shouted orders such as \u201c surrender ! If you surrender you will be well treated ! \u201d , but that those orders had been drowned out by the noise of the gunfire . The security forces said that they had attempted to contain the attacks with tear - gas canisters and high - pressure foam sprays , but that that had not stopped the prisoners , who were wearing home - made gas masks .","According to ORG , and contrary to the official version , the incidents of DATE could not just be put down to the resistance of prisoners occupying a dormitory to prison officers assisted by the security forces . Similarly , the CARDINAL deaths which had occurred could not have been the result of an improvised reaction by the gendarmes .","ORG explained that a plan had been drawn up DATE beforehand , that the LOC had been inspected on a number of occasions and that the situation had been discussed in detail with the prison guards and the administrative staff . ORG held that the operation had even been prepared in such a way as to include special strike forces . In the light of the number of dead and injured , it should have been obvious that , owing to the absence of prior measures to protect the lives of the prisoners , who were incarcerated under the ORG \u2019s responsibility , that operation had been a serious failure .","ORG took the view that the real reasons for the operation lay elsewhere ; there had been a serious longstanding problem of mutual confidence between the prisoners and those responsible for FAC at all levels , including with the gendarmes on duty at the prison . Accordingly , all the officials questioned had begun by acknowledging that \u201c the ORG was no longer in control of the prisons \u201d .","Nevertheless , ORG noted that the meaning of the word \u201c control \u201d was unclear . \u201c Control \u201d could not mean preventing escapes \u2013 such cases being extremely rare \u2013 or carrying out regular searches and presence checks ; nor could control be aimed at preventing freedom of movement by the prisoners between dormitories , monitoring the prison activities of members of the \u201c terrorist \u201d organisations , undermining the authority of their leaders or preventing large quantities of foodstuffs from being smuggled into the prison .","All such aims could have highlighted only the structural inadequacy of the prisons , the shortage of public funds and a deficient prison regime , and not any legitimate need for control of prison life .","On that subject , ORG reported that the prisoners interviewed had complained of the denial of their rights under a \u201c protocol of understanding \u201d which they claimed to have signed with the officials of the prison and ORG .","It pointed out that , whereas that ORG had officially denied the existence of any such document , many of the prisoners and the prison administrators had confirmed its existence , explaining that before the operation the said protocol , which comprised CARDINAL articles , had been deposited with the public prosecutor \u2019s office , but that the document had been missing since the operation .","According to ORG , in view of the difficulties encountered in effectively applying the prison rules , which situation would in fact have been difficult to reconcile with current human rights requirements , it was clear that the officials , who had already been under media pressure , had concluded agreements with the leaders of the leftist prisoners in order to define the terms and conditions of prison life . ORG took the view that even though such agreements could be seen as useful for protecting ORG rights , in the instant case it was precisely the issue of implementing the agreement in question which triggered the events at GPE . ORG explained that when there had been changes in the management of a given prison or when government policy had changed , the rights afforded to prisoners under such agreements had been denied , with the successive authorities proclaiming the unlawfulness of such privileges and the prisoners refusing to give up rights which they now took for granted .","It added that CARDINAL illustration of the feeling of powerlessness experienced by the prison staff ( many of whom had a rather low standard of education ) on this matter was their interpretation , for example , of the signs and tags which had been observed in the dormitories inspected following the operation as showing the ORG belonging to an illegal organisation . The prisoners interviewed had firmly denied that the LOC had ever been used as \u201c terrorist \u201d cells ; they had said that in the dormitories they had considered themselves entitled to conduct activities of a strictly cultural and intellectual nature . ORG considered that the reaction of the authority \u2019s vis - \u00e0 - vis the nature of those activities and the fact that they had sought to ban them as illegal had only exacerbated the situation .","Furthermore , ORG highlighted the statement by ORG . , who had directed the operation , to the effect that the men had acted to \u201c restore the ORG \u2019s authority \u201d , and emphasised that the PERSON had on several occasions invited the Ministers of Justice and of the Interior to take action to \u201c restore the ORG \u2019s authority and prevent ORG from becoming a \u2018 terrorist\u2019 training centre ... \u201d .","In ORG view , however , those facts alone were insufficient to explain the above - mentioned feeling of powerlessness ; behind the \u201c desire to control persons \u201d above and beyond their physical confinement there also lurked a wish to stigmatise prisoners convicted of political or terrorist acts vis - \u00e0 - vis the other inmates .","The Sub - Commission took the view that although it was incontrovertible that in cases of absolute necessity the security forces could resort to firearms within the limits of the law , inflicting death out of frustration at a loss of authority was clearly inadmissible . The deaths and injuries in FAC had revealed an intention to kill , rather than an intention to put an end to the occupation of dormitories or to break down resistance . It analysed the existence of mutual resentment powerful enough to induce individuals to take the risk of killing or being killed as a sign that the prisoners and gendarmes had viewed each other as enemies .","In that regard , it emphasised that the military - style training given to members of the gendarmerie had been inappropriate for such an operation because , to a \u201c soldier \u201d , any \u201c adversary \u201d would have become an \u201c enemy \u201d whom he had a mission to destroy . That was why , according to ORG , no ordinary gendarmes should have been involved in situations such as that pertaining in the present case , unless the personnel to be sent in had received appropriate training for such missions , in the knowledge that their duty was not solely to prevent the prisoners from escaping , but also to protect their lives and ensure respect for human rights .","ORG observed , however , that , in the present case the gendarmes had behaved as if they were facing a group of terrorists who had taken to the mountains , \u201c whereas there were CARDINAL prisoners suffering from the effects of gas and foam and confined to an area of QUANTITY , who could neither escape nor remain barricaded in for ever \u201d .","It explained that it had asked a number of officers whether any methods other than firearms could have been used and why the forces involved had not concentrated more on the use of tear gas and carbon dioxide foam in order to bring the situation under control .","The officers had allegedly replied that they had begun by using all possible non - lethal methods , in particular tear gas , until the gendarmes wearing military gas masks had themselves been affected by the gas , as had all the persons inspecting the dormitories DATE after the incident . Moreover , according to CARDINAL colonel , it would have been pointless to wait or to fire off more tear - gas canisters because the rioters had protected themselves with masks .","According to ORG , the only possible conclusion was that the tear - gas canisters in question had proved their efficacy in terms of their quantity and power . But since they had been insufficient to contain the rioters , should it not have been accepted that the prisoners , with their home - made masks , had been better protected from the gas than the gendarmes with their professional masks ?","The Sub - Commission further recounted the explanations given by another captain , to the effect that \u201c since we already had CARDINAL wounded gendarmes and were facing violent resistance , we could no longer decide to retreat , to halt the combat ; we had no say in the matter \u201d . ORG pointed out that Lieutenant - Colonel A.\u00d6z . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had also acknowledged that he could not have called off an operation without undermining the morale of the troops and allowing the \u201c adversary \u201d to regain confidence . It quoted that officer \u2019s words as follows :","\u201c ... In my view , it was impossible to restrain [ the rioters ] by any other means because they had larges stores of food in the dormitories . Furthermore , we had no \u2018 paralysing\u2019 gas , and to my knowledge there is no such gas . We have tear - gas canisters ... We could not opt to \u2018 wait and DATE because that would have raised the problem that a long period of waiting would have enabled the other side to prepare better and step up their resistance ... Once the armed confrontation has begun it can no longer be stopped . I am glad that my next - in - command and my lieutenant survived , thanks be to God , but if CARDINAL of them had been martyred , how could we have explained that to people ? ... In the past , when we came here on an operation , we only searched the ordinary ORG dormitories , not those of the prisoners convicted of terrorism . When the operation was instigated the latter prisoners resisted to the death . Firearms were the last resort , and we held back until our personnel began to sustain injuries ... That is when you have to react ; the longer you hold off the worse the eventual losses [ in your own ranks ] will be ... ; if you wait too long before riposting you will allow the \u2018 ORG to adjust their aim and erect barricades ... They even began killing each other ; there were burst of gunfire inside the dormitory ... I shouted down from the first floor \u2018 but that \u2019s automatic gunfire!\u2019 and the reply came \u2018 we know , sir ... we have no hunting rifles , we do n\u2019t use them ... \u201d","Finally , ORG quoted Captain PERSON on that specific issue ( cf . paragraph DATE above ) , who had considered it unfair to ask them how they could have avoided \u201c killing CARDINAL individuals \u201d :","\u201c ... We did n\u2019t kill them ... Honestly , if I had wanted to kill someone , why would I have chosen ordinary guys like GPE or PERSON , instead of shooting the group leaders ? Those CARDINAL were about to be released ... and pulled no weight in the organisation . Those were the kind of people who were killed . Did n\u2019t you notice that [ the first persons who died ] did not include any of the leaders ? It was because to begin with the other guys had wanted to surrender that many of them were executed by those [ leaders ] ... We do not deny that we used firearms , but it was n\u2019t us who killed those CARDINAL individuals ; it should be realised that if we had intended to shoot to kill we would have targeted the group leaders , or else we would already have eliminated them in the past , during quieter times ... \u201d","The Sub - Commission considered that those arguments were strictly military in nature and had , moreover , highlighted a lack of authority on the ORG part over the actions of the men under their command .","ORG considered that more information was required on the nature of the \u201c violent resistance \u201d which had to be \u201c broken \u201d by the security forces .","According to the official version , a PERSON , CARDINAL pistols and a hunting rifle had been found in the dormitories . Of the QUANTITY fatalities , CARDINAL had been the result of shots from that hunting rifle : in short , according to the gendarmes previous quarrels had induced the \u201c terrorists \u201d to kill each other .","ORG observed that the prisoners questioned had admitted having seen some of their comrades using guns , but that none of them had seen any PERSON - type automatic weapon or a hunting rifle . No such PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL in limine above ) had ever been mentioned before or discovered during the initial search , but it had been found later on , after a prisoner had told the prosecutor that \u201c the first shot had been fired from an automatic weapon \u201d . And the hunting rifle , which had also never been previously mentioned , had also only emerged after the operation .","Given that the only injuries noted by the gendarmes had been caused by gunshots , ORG wondered why , if the rioters had indeed been in possession of such a powerful weapon as a PERSON , they had not used it against the gendarmes , and also why , if they had actually used a hunting rifle to kill CARDINAL of their comrades , they had not also turned it against the gendarmes .","DATE . Nevertheless , ORG held that the main question was how so many firearms had been smuggled into GPE . They considered the official line that they had been hidden in food packages or thrown over the prison wall unconvincing in view of the existence of electronic alarm systems and the guards keeping watch on the towers .","Nor did ORG consider it conceivable that the firearms could have been supplied with the assistance of a number of corrupt officers ; only a major organisation could have managed such a feat by infiltrating the prison , which would have involved huge sums of money .","Furthermore , ORG noted that since CARDINAL cartridges had been found in the dormitories , the shooting attributed to the rioters could not have been as intense as had been claimed ; it therefore considered that the account of a violent exchange of fire in the dormitories could not be taken at face value and that consequently there was no proof that the force used by the gendarmes in response had been strictly proportionate to the danger , especially since the bullet impacts on the inside walls of the dormitories suggested that the shots fired by the gendarmes had been directly aimed at individuals .","The Sub - Commission also stated that the other argument , to the effect that the rioters had used gas cylinders as flame - throwers to prevent the gendarmes from entering the dormitories , could not be described as very convincing : the doors to the LOC in question had not displayed any scorch marks and none of the gendarmes had sustained any serious burns .","The Sub - Commission further pointed out that according to the officers involved , the gendarmes had also been attacked with sharp instruments ; still according to the officers , it was only to be expected that the deceased prisoners had displayed traces of blows and injuries because there had been \u201c clashes and confrontations with the prisoners , who had attacked the gendarmes with iron bars and stilettos , and the latter had had to riposte with truncheons \u201d .","Nevertheless , ORG observed that it was unclear whether any knife wounds had been found on the gendarmes , nor was there any evidence that any such hand - to - hand fighting had ever taken place , never mind a confrontation lasting for TIME .","On the other hand , ORG noted that many of the prisoners had claimed to have been beaten up , dragged along the floor and stamped on for no reason . It added that those allegations had been confirmed by forensic reports and that the forensic experts had established that some of the traces of violence observed on the injured prisoners and the corpses had indeed only been explicable by blows from blunt instruments and bodies being dragged across a hard floor ( see paragraph CARDINAL in fine above ) .","Moreover , the doctors responsible for providing first aid in the shower room prior to the transfer of the injured to hospital had also reported that the prisoners had begged them not to leave them alone , explaining that as soon as there were no witnesses , the gendarmes tortured them by exerting pressure on their wounds .","The Sub - Commission considered that the traces of blows and the injuries noted on the bodies of the prisoners and the corpses did not appear to have resulted from clashes and confrontations , and that the most likely scenario was that during and after the operation the security forces had resorted to excessive force and beaten the rioters . Furthermore , as regards the burns found on the bodies of the injured and dead prisoners , it pointed out that according to the forensic experts which it had appointed , they might have been caused by nitric or sulfuric acid , the presence of which chemicals it deemed unexplained .","Having regard to all the foregoing observations , ORG issued the following opinion .","In the absence of a constructive attitude on the part of the Ulucanlar and ORG officials , the impugned operation had ultimately been characterised by a level of violence surpassing its original aim , the commanding officers concerned having discharged the mission without preventing deaths and widespread injuries .","Clearly , sole responsibility for all those incidents could not be attributed to the gendarmes , the prison staff or the Ministry in question . However , the ORG \u2019s differentiated policy depending on prison type and the prison staff \u2019s excessive zeal in \u201c controlling \u201d the prisoners convicted of political offences by inflicting penalties in addition to the sentences which they were already serving had certainly been the main factor in the escalating tension and the lack of trust between both sides .","Beyond the arguments put forward by the authorities , the real reason for such violence had boiled down to a longstanding dispute between the prison administration , which had been determined to impose its authority , and the prisoners , who had been demanding rights which they considered wholly legitimate .","The officials involved in that dispute had ended up calling in the gendarmerie , who had proved unsuited to managing that kind of situation and who , in the absence of appropriate instructions , had inflicted ill - treatment on the prisoners and used disproportionate force .","On DATE , at the request of ORG , inspectors initiated an administrative investigation against R.Cin . , ORG , and his CARDINAL deputies , PERSON \u00c7el . , U.Sal . , PERSON . and T.Y\u0131l . , on the grounds , inter alia , of the discovery of weapons and various prohibited objects and substances on the prison LOC ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","The CARDINAL officials were charged with failing in their obligation to control and supervise the prisoners under their responsibility .","They argued in their defence that it was impossible to identify the prison guards involved in smuggling weapons and ammunition into the prison . They added that even though visitors passed through metal detectors , the prison regulations prohibited body searches , and that the old and dilapidated state of ORG made it easy to hide prohibited items , which were sometimes even thrown over the prison wall from the outside .","The officials further submitted that in practice it was impossible to impose disciplinary sanctions on prisoners for such offences since the deputy directors were not on ORG and , moreover , the impugned occupation of dormitory no . CARDINAL had in fact been brought to the attention of ORG and the public prosecutor \u2019s office , but no action had been taken before the date on which the risk of a break - out had become imminent .","DATE . After the investigations , the inspectors had agreed on the need for sanctions . They stated that the officers in question should be declared responsible for :","\u2013 bringing prohibited items into the prison through the intermediary of certain officials who had acted unsupervised and with complete impunity ;","\u2013 the failure to conduct body searches of detainees and convicted prisoners being transferred between Ulucanlar Prison and hospital ;","\u2013 the absence of X - ray checks on lawyers and their personal effects ;","\u2013 the absence of targeted or general searches throughout the prison LOC in order to seize prohibited items ;","\u2013 the failure to impose deterrent disciplinary sanctions on prisoners ;","\u2013 the de facto tolerance , DATE and DATE , of the ORG unlawful actions , including their occupation of certain LOC ;","\u2013 the absence of presence checks in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and DATE and the female dormitory ; and","\u2013 the inability to block the access between those dormitories opened up by the prisoners .","On DATE , departing from the aforementioned opinion , the Director General of Prisons decided that no sanctions were required , giving the following reasons :","\u201c ... for DATE the prisons housing persons detained and convicted for acts of terrorism have been CARDINAL of the main problems facing our country , and the incidents which have occurred in them has attracted a high level of public interest . We can not overlook the fact that in prisons of this category searches are never properly carried out , presence checks raise problems and there are periods when no presence checks are carried out for DATE on end ; the detainees and convicted prisoners control the opening and closing of the doors to the dormitories , and when groups of them take over the corridors it is impossible to intervene ; even visits by and interviews with lawyers are arranged and controlled by the organisation leaders ; the net result is that the prison staff are overwhelmed and struggling , or even failing , to discharge their duties .","Consequently , as regards such incidents , which stem from a number of issues which have been building up for DATE into a problem facing all the \u2018 anti - terrorist\u2019 prisons in our country , not just [ Ulucanlar ] , it would be unfair to say that the [ Ulucanlar ] staff , who are under pressure ... from the detainees and prisoners convicted of terrorism and are in a way being forced to work in breach of the regulations and instructions , were at fault or acted intentionally ; in other words , it is unfair to attribute sole responsibility for these incidents to the [ Ulucanlar ] prison staff on the grounds that they acted negligently .","Moreover , even the investigation report of DATE [ sic \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above ] accepted that the staff had not been guilty of negligence , wrongdoing or intentional mischief , because , despite all their efforts , it would have been impossible to prevent the situation from reaching such a pitch ... \u201d","Finally , ORG concluded that no professional negligence was imputable to the Ulucanlar administrative staff .","At an unspecified date , a mandatory criminal investigation was instigated against head prison officers ORG and prison officers GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE . , GPE , GPE . and GPE , who were stationed at the Ulucanlar security checkpoint , for negligence in the exercise of their duties . In view of the number and type of weapons and ammunition discovered after the operation , those officers had been suspected of having internationally or accidently failed to carry out the requisite checks and searches on persons passing through the checkpoint , on DATE , in particular .","The suspects contested the accusations on the grounds that the gendarmes had received the same orders as the prison officers in terms of checking individuals entering the building , including ensuring security at the checkpoint . They submitted that although , occasionally , no checks had been carried out , that fact alone did not warrant any presumption of guilt .","By order of DATE the prosecution discontinued the proceedings for lack of evidence . In support of that decision , the prosecution pointed out that it had been impossible to determine the dates or periods of time when the prohibited items in question had been smuggled into FAC . They added that in the light of the architecture and organisation of the building , \u201c light weapons \u201d could quite easily have been thrown over the outside walls or else from the open area of the prison , or that they might have been brought in by other means or with the assistance of officers other than those who had been charged .","On DATE , immediately after the operation , the lawyers representing applicants PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON ( ORG ) and PERSON applied to ORG ( \u201c the Prosecutor \u201d ) for authorisation to be present during the autopsies should one of their clients die in the meantime , which was in fact the case of Mr PERSON .","The Prosecutor rejected that request .","Concurrently , Mr ORG and CARDINAL fellow lawyers lodged a formal complaint on behalf of applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG and PERSON ( List B ) , as well as on behalf of the deceased prisoners PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( List A ) . PERSON requested , also unsuccessfully , leave to be present during Mr PERSON autopsy .","On the same date Mr PERSON and GPE , defence counsel , lodged a first collective complaint on behalf of all the \u201c prisoners who had been attacked \u201d .","Both those complaints were added to mandatory investigation file no . DATE . A preliminary investigation had already been instigated against CARDINAL members of the gendarmerie for unjustified used of lethal force against PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and GPE ( List A ) and for bodily injury against CARDINAL prisoners , including some of the applicants ( List B ) and excluding those set out below , who did not appear on the list of complainants : ORG ( GPE ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG .","On DATE the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG who had meanwhile been transferred to ORG joined the complainants . They complained about the members of the security forces and the prison authorities , who they submitted had been responsible for the tragic events of DATE . Those complaints were also added to the aforementioned file no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","The applicant PERSON was questioned by the Prosecutor on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , when he accused the gendarmes of having beaten and injured him .","Still on DATE , CARDINAL of the lawyers for the applicants acknowledged receipt of the autopsy reports . They requested communication of the other necropsy reports , the documentation in support of the post - mortem examinations conducted in the present case and histopathological analyses of the tissue samples taken .","On the same date the morgue personnel replied that tissue samples had been taken and sent for analysis .","On DATE the lawyers lodged a second collective complaint which did not include the names of ORG ( List A ) or PERSON PERSON ( List B ) .","On the basis of a detailed statement of the facts , the lawyers accused the prison staff and members of the gendarmerie of premeditated murder , serious bodily injury and acts of torture . That complaint was recorded in a second file ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE counsel for PERSON lodged a formal complaint against QUANTITY gendarmes and officers who had taken part in the operation . That complaint , recorded in a third file ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , was followed by further complaints lodged separately on DATE by PERSON and PERSON .","According to a report drawn up at the end of the operation , CARDINAL of the first investigative measures implemented by the Prosecutor had been to visit Ulucanlar at TIME , as soon as he had been alerted , in order to attempt to determine which clothes recovered during the searches had belonged to deceased persons and which to injured persons , before ordering ballistic reports . The report stated :","\u201c [ at the site of the incident ] it was impossible to detect , on the dead ORG clothing , any traces of stabbings or projectile entry holes , because the corpses had been laid out side by side on the wet , blood - soaked floor ; furthermore , the clothing removed from the injured prisoners had been mixed with the clothes from the dead prisoners ... \u201d","With the help of the photographs taken of the corpses before they had been stripped and thanks to the memory of prison officer ORG . , the Prosecutor managed to identify the clothing of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . The clothing of the first CARDINAL dead persons displayed CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL holes respectively , some of them resembling bullet holes . There were no holes in PERSON clothes . The clothing belonging to PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and PERSON was not to be found .","Still on DATE , the authorities checked the deceased ORG criminal records . PERSON and PERSON had been former members of the illegal organisation ORG ( ORG ) ORG , PERSON of ORG , GPE of GPE and PERSON of NORP \u0130HT.KOM.B\u0130RL . , all QUANTITY being extreme left - wing fractions .","All the ensuing investigative measures , including the numerous expert appraisals carried out , are summarised below , accompanied by references to the annexes , as appropriate .","DATE the Prosecutor took statements from several ( non - applicant ) complainant prisoners , that is to say from GPE . \u00d6. , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , Me . \u00d6. , A.Kan . , GPE , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , GPE , PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , M.B. , GPE , PERSON , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE","The latter confirmed the substance of the applicant party \u2019s version .","On the other hand , CARDINAL other ( non - complainant ) escaped prisoners , namely GPE and ORG ( from dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) levelled accusations at some of the current and former applicants .","GPE explained that he had been kidnapped and interrogated under threat of death by the applicants PERSON ( whom he described as the boss of his dormitory ) , PERSON , PERSON and ORG \u00c7\u0131nar . On DATE of the operation , PERSON had been instructed to prevent him from leaving dormitory no . CARDINAL . At CARDINAL point ORG had dragged him by the scruff of the neck towards dormitory no . CARDINAL , threatening him with a stiletto ; when the gendarmes began spraying the LOC with foam , LOC had tried to throw a home - made bomb at them , but it had exploded in his hands . Taking advantage of the panic , GPE had run and taken refuge with the gendarmes . GPE added that he had heard that CARDINAL of the guns had been used by PERSON and that some of the prison officers had been on friendly terms with the extreme leftist prisoners . Finally , GPE had requested police protection .","For his part , ORG stated that on DATE , in FAC , the prisoners occupying dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL had joined forces ; the dormitory no . CARDINAL \u201c boss \u201d had been ORG , while dormitory no . CARDINAL had been led by someone known as ORG ( alias PERSON ) . PERSON , GPE , ORG and PERSON had had real handguns , and during the operation they had opened fire on the gendarmes . The first shot had been fired from a handgun , and PERSON had , a priori , been holding that handgun . Subsequently , PERSON , GPE , ORG and PERSON had moved towards the dormitory no . CARDINAL exercise area ; they had been unable to climb over the barricades , but PERSON had nevertheless fired at the gendarmes on the watch tower .","ORG asserted that he had heard GPE shout \u201c fire at will at the towers ! \u201d . He continued :","\u201c The prisoners who triggered this incident were therefore PERSON , under the identity of PERSON , GPE , ORG and PERSON , who all had handguns ... Subsequently , PERSON and PERSON brought along something which looked like a gun roiled up in a blanket ; PERSON was carrying it , but I did n\u2019t see him using it . It could have been a hunting rifle . \u201d","On DATE E.D. had sent the Prison Director a second statement which he had written DATE before , submitting that the first statement might have been incomplete because it had been written while he was still \u201c in shock \u201d . His second submissions had diverged somewhat , particularly as regards the afore - mentioned hunting rifle . Having pointed out that during the operation some of his fellow prisoners had wanted to surrender , ORG continued as follows :","\u201c but the bosses shot at them to stop them surrendering . There were several firearms and knives in the dormitory ; there was even a hunting rifle . Apart from that there was some bomb - making equipment . I know that PERSON , the former leader of the PERSON organisation ... had a very much frowned - upon romantic relationship with the prisoner ORG ] and that there were conflicts between the members of different organisations . PERSON did n\u2019t want to compromise and had been excluded from his own community ... At TIME on TIME before the operation they brought PERSON to our dormitory , no . CARDINAL . GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and a few others whose names I do not know yelled at him that they were at war and he was fighting over a whore ... PERSON even told PERSON : \u2018 F ... it , we should just put a bullet in his head ... it would be better to execute him.\u2019 ... I saw that PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , ORG and C.T.B. [ who was this time identified as the dormitory no . CARDINAL \u2018 FAC ] and a few other members of the organisation were armed . Me and a few of my comrades managed to escape , but those who did n\u2019t get away were hit . I know this because they had also shot at us , but missed ... DATE before the operation we had been forced into training in the use of explosives and how to react to an \u2018 enemy attack\u2019 ... Everyone except PERSON wanted to be transferred , but PERSON opposed the move . PERSON and PERSON were also constantly wrangling over a \u2018 ORG post . \u201d","At TIME , having read the above document , the Prosecutor once again questioned PERSON , who provided the following details :","\u2013 PERSON and GPE had always carried handguns in their back pockets in the dormitory ;","\u2013 on TIME of the operation PERSON and GPE had barricaded the entrance gate to the dormitory no . CARDINAL area and then smashed the lights in the dormitory ;","\u2013 when the gendarmes ordered us to surrender , PERSON riposted by firing a shot at the gate ; some prisoners wanted to surrender ; PERSON then fired in our direction and the directly at PERSON ; TIME before the gendarmes had also fired a few shots , but PERSON might have been killed by Enver ;","\u2013 GPE was holding something in his hands rolled up in a blanket ; when the blanket was removed I saw that it was a hunting rifle ; I think it was GPE who used it , but I did n\u2019t actually see him firing it . \u201d","Some of the applicants were also questioned DATE . Their statements are summarised in PERSON","On DATE the corpses of PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were the subject of post - mortem examinations , first in situ in GPE ( apart from ORG and PERSON ) and then at ORG .","On DATE conventional autopsies were carried out at ORG . A report signed by the forensic team and a prosecutor mentioned that the bodies had been photographed and filmed , that the films had been sent to ORG , that the video cassette had been stored at ORG , and that the photographs and films previously taken by the staff of the open area of FAC should be transmitted to the prosecutor concerned .","On DATE counsel for the applicant party asked the Prosecutor for copies of the autopsy reports concerning PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON and PERSON . That request was accepted .","The content of all those reports is summarised in LAW .","On DATE , having questioned the Deputy Director of FAC , the Prosecutor had visited the hospitals to which the injured prisoners had been transferred , including the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .","Those prisoners declared that they would give statements after their recovery , and complained about the poor quality of the hospital treatment and intrusions by gendarmes into their rooms . The Prosecutor took note of their complaint and ordered the gendarmes stationed at the hospital to refrain from disturbing the prisoners .","On DATE deputy prosecutors inspected the premises at FAC in order to identify the damage caused to public property there .","On DATE ORG of ORG with ORG ( \u201c the DC \u201d ) issued CARDINAL detailed reports on the expert assessments of the weapons and ammunition discovered on the site of the incident ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","According to the first ballistic examination of the bullets and lead shot extracted from the bodies of A.D. , GPE , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , the QUANTITY CARDINAL-mm projectiles which hit PERSON had come from the same weapon , as had the CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm projectiles which killed PERSON and GPE .","The second ballistic assessment conducted by the GPE found that the firearms , which were deemed in working order , corresponded to the spent cartridges and ammunition discovered during the searches of the dormitories . The results were as follows :","\u2013 batch no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL x CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm calibre projectiles , CARDINAL deformed , and CARDINAL spent CARDINAL x CARDINAL-mm cartridges , including CARDINAL of military origin ;","\u2013 batch no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL-mm cartridges and CARDINAL spent cartridges ;","\u2013 batch no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL bullets and CARDINAL spent cartridges , calibre PERSON ;","\u2013 batch no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL bullets and CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm projectiles , CARDINAL pieces of bullet jacket and CARDINAL spent CARDINAL x QUANTITY ;","\u2013 batch no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL spent CARDINAL x QUANTITY , of military origin , and CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm blank bullets , CARDINAL more pieces of bullet jacket and CARDINAL projectile cores ;","\u2013 exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm calibre ORG assault rifle ( series no . EO CARDINAL ) , corresponding to CARDINAL spent cartridges in batch no . CARDINAL ;","\u2013 exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm calibre hunting rifle , engraved with the name \u201c Original \u201d , corresponding to CARDINAL of the Cheddite cartridges in batch no . CARDINAL ;","\u2013 exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm calibre semi - automatic ORG pistol ( series no . D CARDINAL ) corresponding to CARDINAL spent cartridges in batch no . CARDINAL ;","\u2013 exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm calibre home - made gun ( numbered CARDINAL ) , corresponding to CARDINAL spent cartridges in batch no . CARDINAL ;","\u2013 exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm calibre PERSON semi - automatic pistol ( series no . CARDINAL ORG ) , corresponding to CARDINAL spent cartridges , CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm projectiles and QUANTITY of bullet jacket in batch no . CARDINAL ;","\u2013 exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm calibre Star B semi - automatic pistol ( series ORG , model ORG ) , corresponding to CARDINAL spent cartridges in batch no . CARDINAL ;","\u2013 exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm calibre FAC semi - automatic pistol ( series no CARDINAL ) , corresponding to CARDINAL spent cartridges , CARDINAL CARDINAL-mm projectiles and CARDINAL piece of bullet jacket in batch no . CARDINAL ;","\u2013 exhibit no . CARDINAL : CARDINAL white home - made pen guns .","On DATE the DC issued CARDINAL more reports . The first concerned the examinations conducted of CARDINAL pieces of clothing , CARDINAL of them having belonged to the deceased prisoners PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , GPE and ORG It established the entry and exit holes of specific projectiles and the distances from which the fatal shots had been fired . It concluded as follows :","\u2013 \u00d6nder PERSON : the gunshot to the hip had been fired close up ( CARDINAL ) and that to the abdomen at long distance ( QUANTITY or more ) ;","\u2013 \u00dcmit Alt\u0131nta\u015f : the CARDINAL gunshots to the lower limbs had been fired at long distance ( QUANTITY or more ) ;","\u2013 PERSON : the CARDINAL gunshots to the lower limbs had been fired at long distance ( QUANTITY or more ) ;","\u2013 Abuzer \u00c7at : no trace ;","\u2013 PERSON : the gunshots to the lower limbs had been fired at long distance ( QUANTITY or more ) .","Those conclusions were only partly corroborated by the autopsies ( Appendix III ) .","The second report concerned the chemical analyses of the explosive substances discovered in the dormitories after the operation . According to that report the explosive material had consisted of fuel , matches , home - made fireworks , window sealing , a ORG tear - gas cylinder dating from DATE , and cement .","On DATE the ORG issued the findings of the ballistic examination carried out on the CARDINAL official weapons ( CARDINAL pistols , CARDINAL machine guns , CARDINAL ORG assault rifles ( PERSON ) used by the gendarmerie units , as well as on the CARDINAL spent cartridges found in situ . According to the reports , the projectiles extracted from the bodies of PERSON and PERSON had been fired from PERSON no . CARDINAL Y CARDINAL . Moreover :","\u2013 CARDINAL shots had been fired from PERSON no . DATE ;","\u2013 CARDINAL shots from Beretta pistol no . F CARDINAL Z ;","\u2013 DATE shots from GCARDINAL assault rifle no . ACARDINAL DATE ;","\u2013 CARDINAL shots from GCARDINAL assault rifle no . ACARDINAL CARDINAL ;","\u2013 CARDINAL shots from GCARDINAL assault rifle no . ACARDINAL DATE ;","\u2013 CARDINAL shots from GCARDINAL assault rifle no . ACARDINAL DATE ;","\u2013 CARDINAL shots from GCARDINAL assault rifle no . ACARDINAL CARDINAL ;","\u2013 CARDINAL shots from GCARDINAL assault rifle no . ACARDINAL DATE ; and","\u2013 DATE shots from GCARDINAL assault rifle no . ACARDINAL CARDINAL .","Finally , CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL x CARDINAL-mm projectiles , CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL x CARDINAL projectiles and CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL-mm projectiles had been shot from CARDINAL different weapons , other than those covered by the expert assessment .","On DATE the applicants ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were heard pursuant to letters rogatory . However , they refused to give evidence before speaking to their lawyers .","On the other hand , applicant PERSON stated the following :","\u201c ... I am from dormitory no . CARDINAL ... At CARDINAL . TIME I was woken up by shouting before hearing gunshots ; ... I could hear gendarmes yelling into their walky - talkies ; ... I could make out that heavy artillery had been used and that people had been killed ; at TIME I heard a colonel ordering his men to open fire on anyone who resisted arrest ... ; furthermore , tear - gas canisters were thrown in the dormitory no . CARDINAL area ... ; the gas also reached our dormitory ; ... at CARDINAL a.m. the prison officers opened the door to the living area where we were holed up . ... At TIME a captain and his men came into dormitory no . CARDINAL ; they ordered me to collect my things and get out immediately , which I did ; I had gone QUANTITY towards the corridor when CARDINAL of gendarmes and prison officers started hitting me ; the whole way along the corridor , right up the showers , they kicked me and beat me with truncheons and cudgels ; ... they had set up a special unit in the showers ; they forced me in ; there were CARDINAL naked prisoners lined up ; ... they had been tortured , even though they were already severely injured ... ; they forced me to sing the national anthem and shout fascist and fundamentalist slogans , while they deliberately hit the most sensitive parts of my body ; ... on the way to the prison vans we were beaten and forced to stumble over QUANTITY corpses lying outside , while they threatened us with ending up like the corpses ; ... in the van the CARDINAL gendarmes who had got in with us continued to hit us ; CARDINAL of them cut strips out of my clothes with his bayonet ; we were taken to FAC ... ; I got a report from the ORG civilian hospital confirming the abuse I had suffered ... \u201d .","DATE some of the applicants ( List B ) and gendarmes were heard either by the Prosecutor or pursuant to letters rogatory . Those witness statements , which are summarised in PERSON , did not provide any new evidence . Similarly , the prisoner \/ complainant PERSON and prisoners GPE and GPE , during a fresh hearing on DATE , reiterated their statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL above ) .","Meanwhile , on DATE , PERSON , the father of the applicant PERSON , and the families of certain prisoners who had been killed or injured during the operation had lodged a collective application with the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office , for purposes unknown . On DATE , However , PERSON , referring to that application , complained to the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office that his son had been transferred to LOC without having received medical treatment , despite a series of requests to that effect .","On DATE the prisoner ORG and the applicants PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were heard , as was another applicant whose name is unknown ( List B ) . The hearings continued until DATE , embracing the applicants PERSON and PERSON , prisoners PERSON and PERSON , officer PERSON . and the three gendarmes PERSON . , PERSON . and PERSON .","Those statements , which are in keeping with the versions of events given by the applicant party and the authorities , are reproduced or summarised in LAW","On DATE CARDINAL GPE deputy prosecutors responsible for investigating the first case ( no . DATE ) brought against ORG agents ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , declined jurisdiction ratione materiae . On DATE they transmitted the case file to the Governor of GPE , who was competent to determine the expediency of criminal investigations pursuant to the PERSON on the prosecution of civil servants .","On DATE the ORG followed suit as regards the other complaints which had been lodged against the said agents and were subsequently joined to the second case ( no . DATE ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In so doing he declined jurisdiction ratione materiae and , in turn , referred the case to the Governor of GPE , requesting that it too be joined to the aforementioned first case ( no . DATE ) .","On DATE , at the request of the Governor of GPE , ORG set up a preliminary investigation committee consisting of CARDINAL ORG officers , namely Colonels PERSON and GPE and Captain PERSON ( \u201c the investigation committee \u201d ) , mandated to determine the expediency of prosecuting the agents in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the ORG questioned CARDINAL gendarmerie officers who had been involved in the operation : ORG . , PERSON . , N.Kar . , E.Ayd . and PERSON . Their statements were based on repetitive elements which would be reprised later on before the investigating officers .","DATE , that is to say DATE after the operation , some of the gendarmes who had taken part in the operation were once again questioned by the investigation committee .","The committee first of all re - heard the above - mentioned officers ORG . , PERSON . , N.Kar . E.Ayd . and PERSON . , and also A.G\u00f6k . and PERSON .","Subsequently , it questioned the following gendarmerie officers , for the first time : T.Akb . , Y.Akt . , C.Ala . , PERSON . , DATE . , F.Apa . , PERSON . , S.Ata , PERSON . , ORG . , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , ORG . , ORG . , M.Bib . , GPE . , \u0130.Bil . , H.Bil . , C.Boz . , \u015e.Cab . , A.Can , ORG . , B.Cey . , M.Cey . , M.Cih . , M.\u00c7a\u011f . , ORG . , PERSON . , DATE . , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , ORG , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . , ORG . , ORG . , T.G\u00fcz . , ORG . , K.\u0130bi . , A.\u0130na . , M.Kar . , ORG . , PERSON . , PERSON . , N.K\u0131l . , PERSON . , M.K\u0131l\u0131 . , ORG . , ORG . , DATE . , DATE . , PERSON , PERSON . , B.\u00d6na . , \u00d6.\u00d6re . , GPE , GPE . , M.\u00d6ze . , PERSON . , GPE . , G.\u00d6zt . , O.\u00d6zt . , PERSON . , ORG . , GPE . , GPE . , ORG . , \u00dc.Soy . , ORG . , PERSON . , PERSON . , T.Tar . , ORG . , ORG . , C.\u00dcna . , S.\u00dcnl . , PERSON . , A.Yan . , PERSON . , F.Yed . , Y.Yed . , \u00d6.Y\u0131l . , S.Y\u0131l . , M.Y\u00fcc . , \u0130.Y\u00fck . and PERSON .","In their statements , those officers provided the following details , in very similar terms :","\u2013 from the outset of the operation , the security forces constantly shouted orders to the prisoners , TIME , to surrender without resistance , so that no one would be hurt ;","\u2013 during the operation , a team took photographs of the LOC and the prohibited items discovered in situ , under the direction of junior officer PERSON . ; the photos were then transmitted to the intelligence services ;","\u2013 the prisoners were singing anthems and chanting slogans such as \u201c You should give up , NORP fascist soldiers \u201d , \u201c The revolutionary prisoners will never surrender \u201d , \u201c The honour of humankind will win out over torture \u201d , \u201c Ulucanlar will be the tomb of the soldiers of GPE \u201d , \u201c No one will overcome the revolutionary movement , kill any traitors attempting to surrender \u201d , \u201c No capitulators will be left alive \u201d ;","\u2013 the prisoners set fire to the roof with flame - throwers made out of gas cylinders , and also torched their mattresses and blankets in the dormitories ; the firefighters sprayed the premises with foam and water from the roofs ; tear - gas canisters were also thrown ;","\u2013 the gendarmes were accompanied by a few prison officers ;","\u2013 after the intervention by the fire brigade , there was intermittent gunfire from inside the dormitories ; a certain ORG had fired the shots ;","\u2013 the prisoners threw Molotov cocktails and wielded iron bars , stilettos and handguns ; some of the gendarmes had also noticed a long - barrelled gun wrapped in cloth ; the prisoners in the female dormitory had no firearms , but did have some home - made flame - throwers ;","\u2013 when the gendarmes broke down the dormitory door with sledgehammers and cranks , the prisoners threw Molotov cocktails , used flame - throwers and threw stones and pieces of metal , glass and brick which they had probably picked out of the rubble of the wall which they had demolished in dormitory no . CARDINAL ;","\u2013 the commanding officers had used their walky - talkies to order their men not to ill - treat the prisoners and only to use weapons against persons who were themselves armed , exclusively targeting such persons ;","\u2013 force was used exclusively within the framework of the law , when it was unavoidable in order to break the armed resistance and restore the ORG \u2019s authority in the prison ;","\u2013 firearms were used , in particular , by the gendarmes deployed on the roofs ; inside the building the gendarmes only used anti - riot equipment , that is to say helmets , truncheons , shields , tear gas canisters and carbon dioxide foam ;","\u2013 the gendarmes were also affected by the tear gas because some of them had no masks ;","\u2013 behind the doors to their dormitories the prisoners had used mattresses , bedsteads and cupboards as barricades ;","\u2013 one group of prisoners had been willing to surrender , but CARDINAL of them managed to do so ; the others had probably been executed by their comrades for betraying the cause ;","\u2013 at the end of the operation each prisoner was taken outside by CARDINAL gendarmes holding them by the arms and legs ;","\u2013 no one was ill - treated , dragged along the ground or sexually abused during the operation or during the transfer of prisoners to other establishments .","On DATE , when the administrative proceedings before the Governor of GPE were still pending , the ORG gave an unreasoned discontinuance decision in respect of the CARDINAL civil servants , members of the prison staff , who had been cited in the second case ( no . DATE ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL in fine above ) .","The Governor observed that those staff members had not been actively involved in the operation as they had been strictly ordered to wait outside the building and , moreover , none of them had been injured , nor had any action taken by them had been mentioned in the official documents .","On DATE , before that decision was served separately on the lawyers concerned , the applicant party had directly appealed against it to the President of ORG , which finally dismissed that appeal on DATE .","On DATE the investigation committee ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) submitted its report to the Governor of GPE , expressing the opinion that the persons in question could not be charged with any kind of wrongdoing or negligence .","On DATE the Governor of GPE followed that opinion and prohibited the prosecution of the CARDINAL members of the gendarmerie in respect of the incidents impugned in the first CARDINAL cases ( QUANTITY . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and DATE ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The following reasons were given for that decision :","\u201c On DATE , in dormitories nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL housing prisoners convicted of terrorist offences , as well as in the female \u2018 terror\u2019 dormitory in FAC ... the prisoners rebelled against the searches and opened fire ; on DATE , therefore , I decided , pursuant to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Act No . DATE on the prosecution of civil servants , not to authorise the prosecutions , considering that the personnel stationed in the prison had only had recourse to the powers vested in them by LAW . DATE on the administration of prisons and LAW . DATE on the organisation of the national gendarmerie . \u201d","On DATE the decision of the Governor of GPE was served on counsel for the applicants , who appealed to ORG .","In their memorial , counsel submitted , in particular , that the Governor \u2019s decision was not based on any cogent reasoning and was thus in breach of section CARDINAL of Act No . DATE ; they added that the laws on which the decision had been based were completely immaterial to the actions attributable to the gendarmerie forces and that the impugned decision had not established any facts capable of justifying the use of firearms in the particular circumstances of the case .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG set aside the Governor \u2019s decision and ordered the referral of the case to the Prosecutor with a view to instigating a criminal investigation against the members of the gendarmerie .","That decision was served on the appellants on DATE , and additional investigative measures were implemented .","On DATE the applicant PERSON lodged a formal complaint with the PERSON ( ORG ) public prosecutor \u2019s office concerning , inter alia , ill - treatment which he had sustained during the impugned operation . On DATE the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office decided to transmit the case file to the ORG inasmuch as it concerned the acts allegedly committed in FAC .","Still on DATE , the applicant PERSON lodged a complaint with the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office and ORG regarding the abuse which he had suffered . The Prosecutor invited the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office to arrange for the applicant to be examined by a doctor in order to verify his claims .","On DATE both applicants were questioned by the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office regarding their complaints .","DATE and DATE the Prosecutor again interrogated many of the officers who had already been heard by the investigation committee ( see paragraph ORG above ) , that is to say PERSON . , GPE , ORG , M.Kar . , PERSON . , DATE . , GPE . , PERSON . , \u00dc.Soy . , ORG . , PERSON . , \u0130.Kar . , ORG . , PERSON . , ORG . , PERSON . , T.G\u00fcz . , A.\u0130na . , F.Apa . , S.Y\u0131l . , DATE . , M.Cih . , ORG . , T.Akb . , M.Cey . , PERSON . , PERSON . , DATE . , G.\u00d6zt . , Y.Akt . , PERSON . , PERSON . , Y.Yed . , ORG . , ORG . , ORG . , PERSON . , A.Yan . , LOC . , PERSON . , B.Cey . , ORG . , PERSON , DATE . , B.\u00d6na . , N.K\u0131l . , ORG , M.Bib . , PERSON . , PERSON . , DATE . , C.Boz . , S.Ya\u011f . , ORG . , ORG . , LAW . , C.\u00dcna . , PERSON . , S.Ata , DATE . , M.Y\u00fcc . , PERSON . ORG . , \u00d6.\u00d6re . , ORG . , GPE . , O.\u00d6zt . , PERSON . , PERSON . , GPE . , ORG . , DATE . , ORG . , T.G\u00fcz . and PERSON .","Most of the latter reiterated their statements and contested any accusation of disproportionate use of lethal force .","Furthermore , gendarmes Y.Ba\u015f . , C.U\u00e7u . , M.Y\u0131l . , A.Er , \u00dc.\u015eah . , A.\u0130ma . , M.\u00c7et . and S.Erb . were questioned for the first time .","Unlike the prison staff , who had benefited from a final discontinuance decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the members of the gendarmerie were placed under formal investigation after the close of the administrative proceedings before the Governor of GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the consequent additional criminal investigation led to the commencement of proceedings under indictment no . CARDINAL .","The Prosecutor accordingly referred CARDINAL gendarmes to ORG ( \u201c the AAC \u201d ) on charges of the murder of Mr GPE , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON ( List A ) , and bodily injury against CARDINAL prisoners , including all the injured applicants ( List B ) .","That being the case , in his indictment the ORG requested that no penalty be imposed on the gendarmes in question on the grounds that they had acted quite legitimately for the sole purpose of executing their superior ORG orders , and that in any case the perpetrators of the impugned acts were unidentifiable .","Several applicants , who had meanwhile been heard pursuant to letters rogatory , joined those proceedings as intervening parties , which gave rise to the opening of case no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the Prosecutor decided to take no action on the complaint lodged on DATE by PERSON and registered under the third case no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Referring to the CARDINAL sets of proceedings which were pending before the ORG and ORG concerning the same facts ( cases nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) , he considered it sufficient to include that complaint in the case files currently under examination .","PERSON appealed against the decision to drop her complaint , arguing that the case pending under file no . DATE only concerned members of the gendarmerie , whereas her complaint had also targeted the prison staff .","That appeal was dismissed by the President of ORG .","The most important facts in relation to that judicial episode before the ORG are set out below .","The remainder of the information largely concerned procedural questions relating to amendments to the court records necessitated by changes to the composition of the bench , complementary witness and defence statements , determination of the addresses of certain appellants and defendants and the enforcement of warrants of escort or arrest warrants against defendants who were untraceable or had absconded .","Those subsidiary elements are summarised in Appendix VII .","At the DATE hearing the applicant ORG lodged a fresh complaint on behalf of his late son PERSON , accompanied by a request to join the proceedings as an intervening party . A similar application was lodged on behalf of the applicant PERSON and PERSON , the father of the late Mr PERSON .","The trial judges accepted ORG as an intervening party , but on the other hand , they pointed out that GPE was not one of the complainants in the proceedings .","Counsel for ORG , joined by counsel for ORG , sent several questions to be put to the defendants , asking , inter alia , which gendarmes had had firearms during the operation and which of them had actually used those firearms . Some of the defendants requested more time before answering , whereas GPE . immediately admitted having used an injured gendarme \u2019s assault rifle ; ORG . pointed out that he had been in the midst of the operation and had used both his official handgun and a gendarmerie assault rifle ; for his part , \u00d6.Y\u0131l . said that he had used CARDINAL weapons in addition to his official assault rifle .","The intervening parties also questioned M.Y\u00fcc . about the video recording which had been made from the watch tower where he had been stationed . The defendant denied the existence of any such recording .","On DATE the prisoner \/ complainant NORP was once again questioned pursuant to letters rogatory at FAC . He confirmed , in particular , that he had seen guns in the hands of PERSON and PERSON .","On DATE the complainants \/ applicants PERSON and PERSON appeared in court . The latter identified C.\u00dcna . as one of his torturers . Questioned by the complainant party , the defendants stated that they had only been informed about the operation DATE before it was launched and that they did not know whether it had been planned earlier . They explained that they had all been carrying weapons in order to ward off any armed attacks , but that they had not used them , adding that they had seen prisoners killing CARDINAL of their comrades who had wanted to surrender . Finally , they stated that they knew nothing about the circumstances under which the deceased prisoners had been stripped of their clothing .","During the proceedings on DATE the complainants \/ applicants present set out their allegations in detail , complaining of the violent acts committed during and after the operation , and their lawyers requested a face - to - face meeting between their clients and their assailants , considering that they were capable of describing the latter .","The ORG adjourned the question of the expediency of such face - to - face meetings .","On DATE some of the ORG lawyers appeared , as did , for the first time , the applicants PERSON and GPE , GPE , and the defendant PERSON . , who contested all the accusations .","The applicants described their allegations in detail and provided a description of some of the presumed torturers .","The judges also heard PERSON , an eye - witness from dormitory no . CARDINAL . He confirmed the substance of the applicants\u2019 submissions , specifying that he had seen PERSON , PERSON and GPE being killed while they were attempting to evade the bullets , but that he had not seen PERSON , who had allegedly been executed in the shower room after having been tortured .","At the hearing on DATE the applicants stated that they had been unable to identify those responsible from the photographs on file , firstly because of the poor quality of the images and secondly because some of the gendarmes had been wearing masks during the operation .","On DATE the applicants PERSON and PERSON appeared , as did counsel for the defendants . In order to assist with the identifications , CARDINAL additional photographs had been put on file ; having examined the latter , PERSON was unable to affirm that she recognised any faces , explaining that most of the members of the security forces in question had been wearing balaclavas and had raised their shields .","The ORG concluded that it would be unrealistic to try to use childhood portraits or pictures taken in a civilian context to identify fully equipped gendarmes operating in a gas- and smoke - filled environment . The judges therefore decided to exclude such evidence .","On DATE the applicant PERSON was heard . He reiterated his complaint , explaining that the persons who had beaten had included a head prison officer , one \u201c PERSON , and a prison officer , CARDINAL \u201c Mehmet \u201d .","On DATE the applicant PERSON was heard pursuant to letters rogatory in GPE . Complementing her previous statements , she explained that the manner of quelling the prison riot in question had been unacceptable because the operation had been launched on an impromptu basis , without prior warning ; she pointed out that previously it had been the prisoners in the female dormitory themselves who had called on the prison officers to carry out the presence check , which they had generally refused to do because they feared for their safety , even though , unlike the male dormitories , the female ones posed no problems . She added that she had fainted during the operation and could therefore not have committed the offences with which she had been charged .","On DATE the judges took note of a letter in which ORG stated that no video recordings had been made or photographs taken during the operation . The judges ordered that that matter should be clarified in consultation with the prison authorities .","DATE passed before the case was ready for trial . The ORG delivered judgment on DATE . It found that , pursuant to LAW , the defendants should be acquitted given that they had acted strictly within the framework of their duties , in accordance with the orders issued by their senior officers .","The applicants appealed to ORG on points of law .","On DATE ORG with ORG issued the following opinion :","\u2013 the appeals on points of law lodged by certain of the applicants ( applicants nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE on List B ) through the intermediary of their lawyers were inadmissible , since the latter had no power of attorney ;","\u2013 nevertheless , all the provisions of the impugned judgment should be invalidated on the grounds that the present case no . DATE should have been examined in conjunction with case no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL before ORG of the ORG ( \u201c the CARDINALth Division \u201d ) , that is to say after assessment of all the evidence included in both case files .","The case is still pending before ORG .","Concurrently with their criminal appeals , all the applicants ( List A and List B ) filed claims for damages with ORG and the ORG , seeking compensation for the damage which they had sustained during and after the impugned operation .","In the absence of a reply from the authorities , amounting to a tacit refusal , some of the applicants brought proceedings against the ORG before various chambers of ORG .","It transpires from the case file that despite the dismissal of their prior claims , the following applicants ( List B ) failed to apply to the administrative courts : PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr GPE \u00c7\u0131nar , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr \u00d6zg\u00fcr Salt\u0131k .","Moreover , some of the claims were discontinued as not having been lodged :","\u2013 on the grounds of non - payment of court fees despite reminders ( applicants PERSON , PERSON ( ORG ) , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , ORG , PERSON ( GPE ) , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ) ;","\u2013 on the grounds that the applicants were not accompanied by copies of the previous claims for compensation and\/or because the full court fees had not been paid ( applicants PERSON , ORG , ORG , PERSON , GPE LANGUAGE and PERSON ) ;","\u2013 in the absence of locus standi , the persons concerned having acted without the prior leave of their legal guardians ( applicants PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) ;","\u2013 on unidentifiable grounds ( applicants PERSON and PERSON ) .","Information on the decisions given to that end , which had meanwhile become final , is provided in PERSON","On the other hand , applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON et GPE ( List A ) , as well as applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and ORG ( List B ) applied successfully and were awarded pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages .","In all those cases , the relevant ORG of ORG based their decisions on the following reasons :","\u201c The right to life is the most fundamental individual right . Accordingly , pursuant to LAW , which provides that \u2018 [ e]veryone has the right to personal liberty and NORP , that right is guaranteed by the LAW , exceptions to which right are listed in the subsequent provisions of the same article . It transpires from those exceptions that custodial sentences passed by the courts are indeed cases in which a restriction of individual rights may be justified . However , where an individual must serve a custodial sentence ... it is always incumbent on the ORG to protect that individual \u2019s fundamental right to life while in prison and , throughout his prison term , to take all the necessary action and precautions to that end . In the present case , it is clear that the authorities must account for official shortcomings as regards the events in question and the consequent loss of life ; because the reason why prisoners were able to obtain the stones , iron bars , cudgels and firearms with which they attacked the security forces and were able so easily to organise a riot was that inadequate measures had been taken [ to prevent such eventualities ] . \u201d","The respondent party challenged all those judgments before ORG , whose CARDINALth ORG subsequently set them aside on the following grounds :","\u2013 failure to answer the question whether , and to what extent , the authorities had been involved in the occurrence of the events giving rise to the alleged damage ( applicants PERSON , PERSON and PERSON [ List B ] ) ;","\u2013 lack of a causal link between the injuries complained of and any act attributable to the ORG agents ( applicant ORG [ List B ] ) ;","\u2013 the first - instance court had not had jurisdiction ratione personae , since the person concerned had not obtained prior authorisation from his guardian to seek locus standi ( applicant PERSON [ List B ] ) ;","\u2013 the break of the causal link between the damage and the act which the authorities had allegedly committed , as the persons concerned had played an active role in the incidents at issue and had only themselves to blame for their injuries ( applicants PERSON and PERSON [ List B ] and the CARDINAL applicants on List A ) .","As regards the applicant LOC ( List B ) , his case was dismissed at first instance by the CARDINALth Chamber of ORG on the grounds of his presumed involvement in the impugned incidents . Nevertheless , ORG also quashed that judgment , on the grounds that the mere fact that a military operation had had to be launched in order to impose discipline and order in a prison demonstrated that gross official negligence attributable to the ORG had been the root cause . The respondent authority \u2019s application for rectification of the judgment was dismissed .","ORG insisted that its initial judgment should be upheld , being convinced that \u201c the injuries complained of in the instant case had been attributable to Mr PERSON himself , which broke the causal link between the alleged damage and the act allegedly committed by the authority \u201d .","The case was therefore sent back to the plenary ORG . The ORG has not been informed of the outcome of those proceedings .","The known developments in the above - mentioned proceedings are summarised in PERSON They are still pending before the relevant courts , and the applicants still concerned by them are PERSON , GPE and PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( List A ) , and PERSON , ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( List B ) .","It should be recalled that before ORG adjudicated , the authority found against at first instance had apparently made payments to the successful applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Once those judgments had been set aside , the authority instigated enforcement procedures in order to recover those sums , which were no longer payable .","It transpires from the case file that since DATE , some of the applicants have reimbursed the sums in question in part or in full .","Initially , the criminal case against CARDINAL prisoners , including all the applicants on List B , had been registered under file no . CARDINAL before the ORG pursuant to indictment no . CARDINAL of DATE .","The victims \/ complainants in that case were , on the one hand , the CARDINAL gendarmes injured during the operation ( Appendix II ) , and on the other , the late prisoners DATE , PERSON ( alias PERSON ) , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( relatives of the applicants on List A ) .","On DATE , however , the Prosecutor \u2013 who had issued indictment no . DATE concurrently gave a discontinuance decision . That decision concerned the deceased PERSON ( alias PERSON ) , Mr GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( relatives of the applicants on List A ) in their capacity as \u201c victims \/ defendants \u201d , as well as CARDINAL non - applicant prisoners , in their capacity as \u201c defendants \u201d . The latter included GPE and ORG , whose submissions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL above ) had played a major role in establishing indictment no . DATE . In short , the Prosecutor decided to cancel the prosecution of the deceased persons on grounds of death , and he discharged the CARDINAL prisoners in question on grounds of lack of evidence as regards the charges linked to the impugned riot .","Initially , by decision of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG declined jurisdiction in favour of the CARDINALnd Chamber of ORG , considering that the impugned acts had amounted to terrorist offences . On DATE , however , the latter court also declined jurisdiction ratione materiae and sent the case file back to ORG .","After that clash of jurisdiction was settled by ORG , the case was finally reassigned to ORG , under a new file number ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The main stages in those proceedings may be summarised as follows . The other relevant information is to be found in Appendix ORG , bearing in mind that the information goes no further than DATE .","The indictment included in the new case file closely followed that of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and its content is therefore mainly based on the statements of prisoners ORG and GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","According to the Prosecutor , applicants Enver GPE , PERSON and PERSON and former applicants PERSON and Cafer PERSON had used firearms ; during a quarrel between the rioters and the prisoners wishing to surrender , Enver GPE and PERSON had allegedly shot at the other CARDINAL , considering them as traitors ; PERSON had brought a hunting rifle rolled up in a blanket , and fired it at DATE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .","Consequently , in addition to the charges of serious bodily injury of the CARDINAL gendarmes against all the applicants , the Prosecutor accused PERSON of having killed DATE , PERSON and PERSON and injured PERSON with a hunting rifle . Still according to the Prosecutor , PERSON had been killed by a bullet from handgun no . CARDINALPYCARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had been subsequently found in dormitory no . CARDINAL ; the person responsible for that crime was allegedly CARDINAL of the CARDINAL rioters PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ; PERSON had allegedly been killed later on by a bullet in the back following indiscriminate shots fired by the CARDINAL aforementioned rioters .","On DATE the CARDINAL defendants challenged and lodged complaints against the judges of ORG ; they withdrew from the case pending the decision of ORG same court , which had been called upon to adjudicate .","On DATE ORG dismissed the grounds for challenging the judges but recorded its agreement to their withdrawal from the case in order to protect the court \u2019s impartiality . A new bench of judges took over the case .","Following the failure of the attempt to join that case no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL with case no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) DATE which had led to a temporary adjournment of proceedings \u2013 the present case had to be re - registered with ORG under the new file number CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","The parties to proceedings remained the same , and the records of the hearing in DATE of some of the defendants \/ applicants pursuant to letters rogatory had meanwhile been added to the case file . All the latter had demanded leave to appear before the trial judges in order to defend themselves . Indeed , it transpires from the case file that initially , most of the applicants had acted in concert and submitted similar requests .","On DATE the proceedings were reopened before ORG , which ordered CARDINAL procedural measures geared to summoning and hearing the defendants \/ applicants and the complainants .","Prior to DATE the hearings had mainly served to relaunch those same measures and to add the few new statements obtained to the case file .","On DATE the judges took note of the reply from the PERSON , explaining that it had been unable to accede to the request for urgent transmission of the video recordings made and the photographs taken during the impugned operation on the grounds that it was not in possession of the material in question .","According to the latest information , ORG had scheduled a hearing for DATE . The ORG has no documentation on the progress of the proceedings in question , which is being conducted under file no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and has not yet been concluded because not all the defence statements of the persons involved have been collected , nor have all the measures ordered by the judges been enforced .","..."],"violated_articles":["2","3"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179854","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF PAPOYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the Government adopted Decree no . PERSON , approving the expropriation of tracts of real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of the GPE district of GPE , to be taken for ORG needs , with a total area of CARDINAL sq . m.","It appears that the applicant ran a small kiosk on a plot of land situated within the area to be expropriated . It also appears that the authorities demolished this kiosk for the development of that area within the framework of Decree no . CARDINAL","On DATE , as compensation for the applicant \u2019s kiosk , the Mayor of GPE adopted decision no . PERSON , granting her the right to lease a plot of public land of QUANTITY m. at a specified address in the GPE district of GPE for DATE and to construct and run her kiosk on this land . By the same decision , the Mayor authorised the local authority of GPE district to conclude the lease agreement with the applicant .","On DATE the applicant received planning permission for the plot of land specified in decision no . CARDINAL","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , following the applicant \u2019s enquiries concerning the implementation of decision no . PERSON , the GPE district authorities suggested that the applicant address her enquiries to the Mayor of GPE , while on DATE and DATE the latter suggested that the applicant address her enquiries to the GPE district authorities .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings in ORG against the Mayor and GPE district , seeking to implement decision no . CARDINAL-A.","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claim and obliged the Mayor of GPE to conclude the agreement specified in decision no . PERSON with the applicant . No appeals were lodged and this judgment became final on DATE .","NORP On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution for the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the DEJA \u201d ) instituted enforcement proceedings against the city of GPE , obliging it to conclude the land - lease agreement with the applicant within DATE .","On DATE the Mayor \u2019s office offered the applicant a possibility to start negotiations . However , by her letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant refused to negotiate with the Mayor \u2019s office .","On DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE , upon the applicant \u2019s enquiries concerning the enforcement of the judgment of DATE , bailiffs informed the applicant that the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was in progress and that she would be informed of the results .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings in ORG against the ORG , requesting that the court oblige it to enforce the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s claim inadmissible on the grounds that she lacked standing . ORG reasoned that the applicant had failed to show that her rights had been breached as a result of an administrative action by the ORG . ORG noted that the ORG had taken certain actions in order to enforce the judgment of DATE and that the enforcement procedure was still pending . The decision of ORG of DATE was upheld in the final instance by ORG on DATE .","On DATE and DATE , following an enquiry by the applicant , the bailiff responded that the enforcement was in progress and that the applicant would be informed of the results .","On DATE , pursuant to the applicant \u2019s enquiries concerning the implementation of decision no . PERSON , the Mayor of GPE informed her of the changes in legislation concerning land and reminded the applicant that she had to conclude the land - lease agreement with GPE district .","On DATE the Mayor \u2019s office offered the applicant CARDINAL different plots of land acceptable in terms of urban planning . However , by a letter sent to the Mayor \u2019s office , she refused to accept any of the plots .","On DATE , relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of ORG , the ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings on the grounds that enforcement of the judgment of DATE had become impossible . It reasoned that , by a letter of CARDINAL DATE addressed to the applicant , the Mayor of GPE had suggested that the applicant approach the department of management of immovable property of the Yerevan Mayor \u2019s office for the implementation of the judgment of DATE , but the applicant had failed to do so .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against the ORG , seeking to declare the decision of CARDINAL DATE null and void , as well as to oblige the ORG to enforce the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s first claim , reasoning that there were not sufficient grounds for declaring the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE null and void . It refused to examine the applicant \u2019s second claim .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings in ORG against the ORG , seeking to oblige it to enforce the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction . This decision was upheld in the final instance by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings in ORG seeking , inter alia , that the ORG reopen the proceedings discontinued on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim , reasoning that , for the proceedings which had been discontinued on the grounds of impossibility , there were no legal grounds for reopening .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings in ORG against the ORG , seeking that the decision of the DEJA of DATE refusing to initiate new proceedings be declared invalid , and that the ORG be obliged to initiate new proceedings .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s first claim , declaring the decision of the DEJA of DATE invalid . As to the applicant \u2019s second claim , ORG terminated the proceedings in that regard on the basis of the lack of jurisdiction .","The proceedings concerning the judgment of CARDINAL DATE are pending before ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170658","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TRETYAKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","NORP The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention in CARDINAL detention facilities in GPE during CARDINAL separate periods : in facility no . IZ-CARDINAL from DATE to DATE and in facility no . IZ-CARDINAL from DATE to DATE .","The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application . In particular , they acknowledged that the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention in facility no . IZ-CARDINAL in GPE from DATE to DATE violated his right guaranteed by LAW . They offered to pay the applicant MONEY and invited the ORG to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with LAW ( c ) of the LAW . The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent ORG at the rate applicable on the date of payment , and would be payable within DATE from the date of notification of the ORG \u2019s decision . In the event of failure to pay that amount within the above - mentioned DATE period , the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it , from the expiry of that period until settlement , at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of ORG during the default period plus CARDINAL percentage points . The Government did not comment on the applicant \u2019s complaint about the conditions of his detention in facility no . IZ-CARDINAL from DATE to DATE .","The applicant informed the ORG that he agreed to the terms of the declaration ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163081","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"DUBROVSKIY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON PERSON GPE , ORG at ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is a former investigator of ORG ( ORG \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0430 \u043f\u043e \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0440\u043e\u043b\u044e \u0437\u0430 \u043e\u0431\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0442\u043e\u043c \u043d\u0430\u0440\u043a\u043e\u0442\u0438\u043a\u043e\u0432 ) . Under the criminal procedure legislation in force at the material time , a criminal investigation into an investigator \u2019s action was possible only after a court had issued a decision stating that an investigator \u2019s actions or inaction contained indication of the constituent elements of a crime .","Following an application lodged with the court by a district prosecutor , on DATE and DATE ORG GPE \u0426\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e ORG \u0433. PERSON ) concluded that there had been indication of the constituent elements of crimes , specifically abuse of power , bribery and forgery of official records in the actions of the applicant .","On DATE the district prosecutor opened CARDINAL criminal investigations against the applicant .","On DATE a supervising prosecutor reversed the decisions to initiate the criminal investigations due to the failure to comply with certain procedural requirements and returned the case file to the district prosecutor for reconsideration .","On DATE a district prosecutor opened CARDINAL criminal investigations against the applicant on the same grounds as previously relying , inter alia , on the evidence gathered after the reversals of DATE . On DATE the CARDINAL criminal investigations were joined .","On DATE during a pre - trial hearing a judge of ORG ( NORP \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 ) discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant as no new court decision allowing the opening of a criminal investigation had been obtained since the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision on appeal .","Following an application by the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE , on DATE a judge of ORG of GPE initiated a supervisory review of the lower court \u2019s decision .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG of GPE annulled the decisions of DATE and DATE since they had been based on a mistaken interpretation of procedural law stating that no new court decision allowing to open criminal investigations had been required .","On DATE new criminal investigations were opened against the applicant on the same grounds as previously .","The parties did not submit any information on the progress and outcome of these proceedings against the applicant to the ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-165758","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF WENNER v. GERMANY","importance":2,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . At the time of lodging his application , he was detained in FAC . He was released subsequently .","The applicant has been continuously addicted to heroin since DATE , when he was aged DATE . He has also been suffering from hepatitis C since DATE and has been HIV - positive since DATE . He has been considered PERCENT disabled and has been receiving an employment disability pension since DATE . He has tried to overcome his addiction to heroin with various types of treatment ( including CARDINAL courses of in - house drug rehabilitation therapy ) , all of which failed . DATE the applicant \u2019s heroin addiction was treated with medically prescribed and supervised drug substitution therapy . Since DATE , the applicant had reduced the dosage of his drug substitution medication ( GPE ) and consumed heroin in addition to that medication .","In DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and taken in detention on remand in FAC , where his drug substitution treatment was interrupted against his will . On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of drug trafficking , sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and , having regard to a previous conviction , to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . It further ordered the applicant \u2019s placement in a drug detoxification facility , to be executed after a period of CARDINAL months\u2019 detention in prison . The applicant was still not provided with substitution treatment for his heroin addiction . On DATE he was transferred to a drug rehabilitation centre in GPE , GPE , where he underwent abstinencebased treatment for his addiction , without additional substitution treatment .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s detention in the detoxification facility terminated and ordered his retransfer to prison . In a decision dated DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . Having regard , in particular , to the views expressed by the applicant \u2019s treating doctors , the court considered that it could no longer be expected with sufficient probability that the applicant could be cured from his drug addiction or could be prevented for a considerable time from relapsing into drug abuse . He had secretly consumed methadone at the clinic and lacked motivation to lead a drug - free life .","The applicant was transferred back to PERSON on DATE . The prison doctors gave him various painkillers for chronic pain resulting from his polyneuropathy , on a DATE basis . During his detention , the pain in his feet , neck and spine became such that , at least during certain periods , he spent most of his time in bed .","The applicant was examined by an external doctor for internal medicine , PERSON , on the prison authorities\u2019 request in DATE . H. did not consider any changes in the treatment of the applicant \u2019s HIV and hepatitis C infections necessary . Having regard to the applicant \u2019s chronic pain linked to his long - term drug consumption and polyneuropathy , he suggested that the prison medical service reconsider the possibility of drug substitution treatment . He subsequently confirmed that the applicant should be examined by a doctor specialised in drug addiction therapy to that end .","The applicant also obtained , on his request , an opinion drawn up by an external doctor specialised in drug addiction treatment ( B. ) dated DATE , on the basis of the written findings of doctor PERSON and the Kaisheim Prison doctor \u2019s and authorities\u2019 findings and statements , but without having been able to examine the applicant in person . B. considered that from a medical point of view , drug substitution treatment had to be provided to the applicant . He explained that in accordance with ORG Guidelines for LAW ( GPE Bundes\u00e4rztekammer zur ORG der substitutionsgest\u00fctzten PERSON ) of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , drug substitution therapy was internationally recognised as being the best possible therapy for long - standing opioid addicts . Detoxification caused the person concerned serious physical strain and extreme mental stress and should only be attempted in cases of a very short opioid dependence . Drug substitution therapy prevented a deterioration of the patient \u2019s state of health and a high risk to life , which arose particularly after forced abstinence in detention . It further prevented the spreading of infectious diseases such as HIV and hepatitis C. It had to be clarified whether , in the applicant \u2019s case , further treatment for the hepatitis C from which he suffered was necessary .","By submissions dated DATE , which he supplemented subsequently , the applicant made a request to the PERSON prison authorities for treatment with PERSON , PERSON or another heroin substitute for his heroin addiction . Alternatively , he requested that the question of whether such substitution treatment was necessary be examined by a drug addiction specialist .","The applicant claimed that drug substitution treatment was the only adequate treatment for his medical condition . Under the relevant Guidelines of the Federal Medical Association for the Substitution Treatment of Opiate Addicts , drug substitution treatment , which he had received prior to his detention , was the required standard treatment for his condition and had to be continued during his detention .","The applicant claimed that , as confirmed by doctor PERSON , the serious chronic neurological pain from which he was suffering could be considerably alleviated by drug substitution treatment , as had been the case during his previous substitution treatment . Having been addicted to heroin for DATE , he stood hardly any chance of leading a totally drugfree life on release from prison . His rehabilitation could therefore better be furthered by providing him drug substitution treatment . While undergoing such treatment previously , he had been able to lead a relatively normal life and to complete training as a software engineer .","Furthermore , referring to doctor PERSON \u2019s opinion , the applicant claimed that he was in need of ORG therapy in order to treat his hepatitis C infection . In view of his poor physical and mental health , it was impossible to carry out such treatment without simultaneous drug substitution therapy . Substitution also helped to protect other prisoners from infection when using the same needles as he did for the consumption of drugs and diminished the trafficking and uncontrolled consumption of illegal drugs in prison . He also considered that the prison doctors did not have specialist knowledge in drug addiction treatment and asked to be examined by an external specialist .","After the prison authorities\u2019 first decision dismissing the applicant \u2019s application was quashed by ORG on DATE for lack of sufficient reasoning , the prison authorities , on DATE , again dismissed the applicant \u2019s request .","The prison authorities argued that substitution treatment was neither necessary from a medical point of view nor a suitable measure for the applicant \u2019s rehabilitation . With regard to the medical necessity of drug substitution therapy , the prison authorities , relying on prison doctor PERSON \u2019s statement , considered that drug substitution therapy was not a necessary treatment for the purposes of section CARDINAL of the Bavarian Execution of Sentences Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They found that the applicant , who was severely addicted to drugs , had not received drug substitution treatment prior to his current detention in FAC . He had been placed in a drug rehabilitation centre for DATE before his transfer to FAC , where he had been treated by medical experts with considerable knowledge of drug addiction treatment . The applicant had neither been given substitution treatment in the clinic , nor had the doctors recommended substitution treatment in prison . After DATE in detention , he no longer suffered from physical withdrawal symptoms . Moreover , his condition with regard to his HIV and hepatitis C infections was stable and did not require any therapy for which substitution treatment was a necessary precondition . As suggested by the prison doctor , the applicant should use the opportunity to wean himself off opioids , such as heroin and its substitutes , while in prison , as it was very difficult to obtain drugs there .","With regard to the applicant \u2019s social rehabilitation and treatment ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Bavarian Execution of Sentences Act , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the prison authorities added that the main reason for which addicts underwent drug substitution therapy was to prevent them from becoming impoverished and from becoming involved in drug - related criminality . In prison , these risks were not present . Furthermore , the applicant had already shown that substitution therapy while he was at liberty had not prevented him from consuming other drugs or committing crimes , which had been caused by his antisocial nature . Moreover , the applicant had also consumed drugs while in detention . Therefore , providing him substitution treatment could lead to a risk to life and limb .","On DATE the applicant , relying on the reasons he had submitted to the prison authorities , appealed against the decision of the prison authorities to ORG . He further submitted that the authorities of Kaisheim Prison , where no substitution treatment had ever been provided , had omitted to examine the medical necessity of drug substitution therapy under the relevant criteria laid down , in particular , in ORG Guidelines for LAW , which were clearly met in his case . He further argued that under the applicable administrative rules for substitution treatment in prison in GPE , he would be provided with drug substitution therapy , which is carried out in the prisons of the majority of ORG .","On DATE ORG , endorsing the reasons given by the prison authorities , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It added that it was not necessary to obtain the opinion of a drug addiction expert . The prison doctors of Kaisheim Prison had sufficient training to decide on the medical necessity of drug substitution therapy , irrespective of the fact that drug substitution therapies might never have been used in that prison . The administrative rules for substitution treatment in prison applicable in LOC were irrelevant , given that FAC was situated in LOC .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . He submitted that ORG failure to investigate sufficiently whether drug substitution treatment was necessary , under the applicable ORG Guidelines and with the help of an independent doctor specialised in drug addiction treatment , had breached section CARDINAL of the Bavarian Execution of Sentences Act and LAW Refusing him the alleviation of his intense neurological pain with an existing and medically necessary treatment constituted inhuman treatment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal as illfounded . In the court \u2019s view , the applicant had failed to show why drug substitution therapy was the CARDINAL specific medical treatment he needed . He had further failed to prove that the prison doctors of FAC were not qualified to decide about the medical necessity of heroin substitution . The applicant \u2019s objection against ORG decision was rejected .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He complained that his right to respect for his physical integrity under LAW had been breached because he was denied drug substitution therapy , the only suitable therapy to treat his chronic pain , which would make ORG therapy possible and allow him to reduce his craving for heroin and lead a \u201c normal \u201d everyday prison life without isolation . He further complained that his right to be heard under LAW had been violated as the domestic courts had not taken into consideration the medical opinions he had submitted to show that a substitution treatment was necessary and had failed to consult an independent specialised expert .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint without giving reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the Kaisheim prison authorities rejected the applicant \u2019s fresh request to be provided with substitution treatment in preparation for his release . The applicant \u2019s counsel was advised to ensure that the applicant was taken to a drug rehabilitation clinic immediately on his release in order to prevent him from taking an overdose of heroine as soon as he was at liberty .","On DATE the applicant was released . When examined by a doctor on DATE he tested positive for methadone and cocaine . The doctor confirmed that the applicant would receive drug substitution treatment from DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147481","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"CAKICISOY AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants are CARDINAL NORP Cypriots relatives of QUANTITY men who were killed during the conflict in GPE in DATE .","The applicants and their relatives were living in or about the area of ORG ( Ta\u015fkent ) village . On DATE armed NORP Cypriots who were mostly from the locality arrived at the village and collected the male NORP - NORP population of the village and marched them to a NORP elementary school in the NORP sector . Among the abductors were named villagers under the command of a named NORP man , GPE , from the village , along with CARDINAL NORP soldiers in uniform with a mainland NORP accent .","Some CARDINAL NORP - NORP men , including children as young DATE , were kept TIME at the school . CARDINAL NORP - NORP men from CARDINAL other villages were also brought to the school . CARDINAL NORP officers from the mainland told them they were prisoners of war and led them to believe that they would be taken to a prison camp at GPE . TIME , the NORP - Cypriot men and boys were loaded on QUANTITY buses under armed guard . They were taken away to an unknown destination .","A statement by PERSON , reported in newspapers shortly afterwards and later included in a book on the conflict , gave the following account of the fate of the men . PERSON , his father and brother were amongst the men loaded on the buses . Their bus drove past GPE and stopped at a junction . The armed men ordered the prisoners to march into the countryside . They were ordered to stop at a hollow and allowed to smoke . Almost immediately , shooting began . PERSON was hit in the stomach and legs and fell down pretending to be dead . He heard the CARDINAL armed guards speaking in a mainland NORP accent , saying \u201c That is the end of them , let \u2019s go now and bring a bulldozer and bury them . \u201d PERSON cousin was also still alive but badly wounded but PERSON was unable to help him due to his own injuries . He fled the scene , hiding out in the hills for DATE . He was eventually picked up by a ORG ambulance and taken to a NORP base . He later went to the north in a helicopter .","NORP In DATE , the stories of various villagers , naming NORP Cypriots involved in the incident , were published in a booklet \u201c The Tragedy of Turkish Cypriot missing persons in GPE \u2013 Third decade \u201d","The applicants provided information that on DATE , the alleged perpetrator , DATE , made a statement to the newspaper \u201c Alithia \u201d , stating inter alia that he and others had acted together with the government forces and had done what the government forces ordered them to do . He confirmed the gathering of the NORP men and that they had been loaded onto buses by soldiers from ORG .","No information about the applicants\u2019 missing relatives was given nor any investigative measure taken until , on DATE , ORG made a statement in newspapers published in northern GPE inviting the families of missing persons to give blood samples to ORG to aid in the identification of remains . The applicants came south and gave blood samples DATE .","No news was forthcoming for some time so in DATE the applicants contacted both ORG and the Attorney- General of GPE asking for information . On receiving no reply within DATE , some of the applicants filed CARDINAL cases in ORG on DATE and DATE against the Attorney ORG , ORG and ORG claiming that the authorities had failed to initiate all relevant procedures to ascertain the fate of the disappeared men during DATE and that the authorities should be ordered to conduct an effective investigation to locate and identify the remains and to identify and prosecute the perpetrators .","ORG on Missing Persons ( \u201c the UNCMP \u201d ) had meanwhile commenced exhumations . On DATE , excavation began in a mountain region in GPE village and soon after remains of CARDINAL missing men from the CARDINAL villages were found . The remains of CARDINAL of the remaining CARDINAL missing men were later found at another location . A newspaper account dated DATE explained that the remains of this group of victims had been transferred by NORP Cypriots from CARDINAL burial spot to another unknown location due to a minefield \u2013 the remains of CARDINAL men had been left behind . The DNA analysis of the remains has not yet been issued by the ORG .","On DATE , ORG rejected the claims finding that the subject - matter constituted an \u201c act of ORG \u201d , with which the courts could not interfere . The plaintiffs appealed . The decision was upheld on DATE ( see Relevant domestic law and practice below ) .","According to information submitted by the ORG , the Attorney General ordered an investigation into the death of CARDINAL missing persons from Tochni on DATE . Steps taken included as follows .","The police took statements from CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL relatives of missing persons who had written to the Attorney General naming QUANTITY persons as implicated in the events leading to their relatives\u2019 deaths and requesting an investigation . These CARDINAL witnesses named QUANTITY persons , including QUANTITY brothers , as arresting the missing men and confining them at the elementary school . The men had been boarded on a bus DATE . CARDINAL witness stated that it was CARDINAL NORP Cypriots in uniform whom he did not know who put the men on the bus . The witness who had survived the incident stated that it was the NORP Cypriots who put the men on the bus who later killed them but he did not know their identities .","Of the QUANTITY persons named as arresting the missing men ( including the individuals referred to in paragraph QUANTITY above ) , the police found that CARDINAL had died . Statements were taken from the remaining CARDINAL . CARDINAL denied any involvement ; the fourth admitted taking NORP to be confined at the school . He had left at that stage but named CARDINAL men who remained to guard the prisoners . On investigation the police found these QUANTITY men had since died . A statement was also taken from a former policeman who had visited the elementary school at the time ; while he named a man guarding the prisoners , it transpired that this man had died . The police officer also confirmed that orders had been given to confine ORG but did not remember the source of the orders \u2013 with some doubt , he thought they might have come from the national guard general staff . A former PERSON army officer named by a witness as passing on orders to confine NORP was located ; he claimed not to remember whether the orders came from or whether it was his own initiative ; he only recalled confining NORP males from PERSON in the village coffee shop .","Police made efforts to track the source of the orders . A search of the national guard records yielded no results .","On DATE , the Attorney - General gave instructions to the police for further investigative steps . Following the ORG \u2019s decision in the case of PERSON and Others v Cyprus , he took further steps to ensure the transmission of information about the finding of bodies of missing persons . On DATE , he was then informed by the CMP of the discovery of the remains of CARDINAL unidentified remains from Tochni village . He in turn informed the chief of police , noting that an investigation was already pending .","On DATE , the Attorney General was informed of the identification of the bodies of CARDINAL of the missing men from Tochni . On DATE he ordered a specific investigation into their deaths .","In DATE , the police submitted the ORG investigation file to the Attorney General . He gave instructions on DATE for further investigation , inter alia to investigate the historical background of the DATE events , to explore the possibility that some of those known to be implicated in the DATE events might have been involved in ORG killings , to broaden the temporal scope of the investigation so as not to be restricted to orders given on DATE of the second invasion ( DATE ) and to investigate further the allegation of the witness survivor that the bus had been stopped at a police checkpoint on the route to GPE . He ordered that the investigation should not be closed without the discovery and identification of all the missing men and joined all relevant investigations .","According to the Government , which found difficulty in reconciling names of applicants with those included in official records , DNA samples were taken from CARDINAL villagers in order to assist in the identification of remains . CARDINAL of these were applicants in this case . These samples were taken in DATE from the villagers who gave them voluntarily after signing a consent form in the NORP language . The consent form stated that the DNA would be isolated from the sample and stored and registered at CING ( the DNA Identification Laboratory ) and that the DNA would be used in tests and identification studies for the identification of the remains of their missing relatives . The results would be communicated to any NORP person or institution as authorised by the President of the Republic and to the donor after approval by the Government .","CING processed the samples , isolating the DNA which was stored . In DATE - CARDINAL , during negotiations with the ORG , it was clear that the NORP member wanted fresh samples to be taken . This was reflected in the ORG agreement with CING for provision of funds . Fresh samples of blood were accordingly obtained from NORP - Cypriot relatives under the auspices of the NORP - Cypriot member who verified that all had signed , and understood , a fresh consent form indicating that the DNA isolated from the sample would be transmitted by the NORP - Cypriot member of the UNCMP to CING to be genotyped and only to be used in the framework of the ORG programme of identifying remains . The form stated that previous consent forms were revoked . It was stated that at DATE ORG project copies of all available data would be transferred to the NORP - Cypriot member of the ORG .","It appears that CING holds DNA samples from CARDINAL applicants , transferred to them in DATE by the NORP - Cypriot member of the ORG . At this stage , the previous samples from DATE were destroyed for CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL villagers . This was in accordance with the revocation of the former forms of consent and new arrangements . Copies of official records of destruction of the material have been provided .","The DNA samples of those individuals who only donated blood in DATE are still stored and no analysis has yet been made . No NORP who gave a sample in DATE has approached CING requesting any information about the fate of their sample .","On DATE , the NORP - Cypriot member of the ORG requested a digital copy of all the data related to the NORP - Cypriot relatives of missing persons . CING transmitted the data on DATE .","According to the Government , the destruction of samples given by any of the CARDINAL remaining villagers or applicants who only gave samples in DATE is subject to the procedure set out in ORG of the CING laboratory \u2013 a form existed whereby requests for destruction could be lodged .","According to the applicants , CING was no longer involved in identification of remains . Their role has been superceded by an agreement in DATE between the ORG and ORG on Missing Persons in GPE to which organisation all blood samples are now sent for testing . The applicants pointed out that they were not sent copies of the destruction records and had not been informed that their samples had been destroyed at the time . For those who had given samples not yet destroyed , they had not been given any information about their use or fate .","In these cases lodged in DATE , the relatives of CARDINAL NORP - NORP men who went missing on DATE after they had been taken from their homes by armed NORP Cypriots , lodged applications under LAW , claiming that GPE had known of the deaths of the missing persons but had not searched for the corpses or brought the guilty persons to justice and that the Republic had not taken the necessary actions to pursue an effective investigation to determine the whereabouts and fate of the missing persons . In their response , GPE stated that they had not been passive but had been unable to pursue their intentions to exhume and identify corpses due to the agreement between ORG , the NORP - NORP side and themselves that exhumations would be conducted by a common programme of ORG . They also pointed out that exhumations had begun in DATE and the programme indicated the likelihood of the exhumation of the graves in the relevant area would commence in DATE . They disputed that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the courts but fell rather under the supervision of ORG and the authority and initiative of the President of the Republic .","In its decision dated CARDINAL DATE , ORG in its appellate capacity held that the fate of missing persons fell under the authority of the President of the Republic as it had an international aspect ; the cases therefore concerned an act of government which did not fall within the jurisdiction to annul of ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175604","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"ALADA\u011e v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and was detained in LOC at the time of lodging the application . He was represented before the ORG by Mr \u0130. Akme\u015fe , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation and for illegal possession of explosives .","On DATE the applicant was placed in detention on remand on the order of the investigating judge .","On DATE ORG filed an indictment with ORG , charging the applicant with membership of a terrorist organisation and illegal possession of explosives , under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . DATE ) .","DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings . At the end of each hearing the court reviewed the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . Taking into account the seriousness of the offence with which the applicant had been charged and the state of the evidence , it decided to keep him in detention . The applicant and his lawyer were present at each hearing .","After the third hearing , held on DATE , the applicant filed an objection against the detention order and asked to be released . On DATE the Istanbul CARDINALth ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request after examining it on the basis of the case file , without holding a hearing . When delivering its decision the Assize court took into account a written opinion filed by the public prosecutor , which was not communicated to the applicant or his lawyer .","A sixth hearing was held on DATE , after which , on DATE , the ORG court held a hearing to review the applicant \u2019s detention . The hearing was held ex proprio motu , pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL , and the decision was delivered on the basis of the case file .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a total of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and a fine .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment without holding a hearing ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-176816","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KARZHEV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a former prosecutor . For DATE , until DATE or DATE , he served as district prosecutor for GPE , heading what has been described as the largest prosecution office in GPE . While in that post , he got into a conflict with several of his subordinates , including GPE and PERSON","After the applicant left his post , a commission was appointed with the task of looking into the prosecution office \u2019s work under his management . GPE and PERSON were among the commission \u2019s members . The revision carried out by the commission led subsequently to the opening of criminal proceedings against the applicant , as it was alleged that he had exerted pressure on CARDINAL of his subordinates in relation to the outcome of a case .","On DATE the national daily ORG published an interview with the applicant , where he stated :","\u201c All my life I have fought against crime . What is more , I have tried to defeat the mafia present in the prosecution services . I admit that I have failed . And now I am bearing the consequences of that . The commission which carried out the inquiry [ at the district prosecutor \u2019s office ] includes exactly those prosecutors , [ GPE , PERSON and a third person ] , who staged a revolt at the time against the working methods I introduced . The aim of those methods was to eliminate any grounds for corrupt arrangements related to the cases . That did not suit those CARDINAL prosecutors and the notorious [ prosecutor PERSON ] . \u201d","Warned by the journalist interviewing him that his words were strong , the applicant nevertheless continued :","\u201c I am saying things which will not surprise my colleagues . It is a public secret that CARDINAL of the prosecutors I mentioned is known among barristers and \u201c clients \u201d of the prosecution not so much with his own name , but with another one . \u201d","The applicant then explained that the prosecutor at issue was known as \u201c Prosecutor PERSON ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u043e\u0440\u0430 PERSON ) , meaning someone who takes bribes , derived from the colloquial word for bribe , rushvet ( \u0440\u0443\u0448\u0432\u0435\u0442 ) .","Asked by the journalist whether ORG knew that , the applicant continued :","\u201c If he does not know , he may ask me . I am knowledgeable about corruption patterns . And because I respect his efforts to defeat these patterns , I will give him a well - meant advice : he should check the properties owned by the people accusing me of having committed an offence while doing my work . \u201d","Questioned about a finding by the commission that a \u201c bad psychological atmosphere \u201d existed at the GPE district public prosecutor \u2019s office while it was headed by him , the applicant stated further :","\u201c The inspection might be right , if by \u2018 bad psychological atmosphere\u2019 they mean my intolerance towards those prosecutors ... , who performed their duties in a sloppy manner , or attended meetings with the lawyers of criminals to decide on the outcome of cases . There were such prosecutors at the [ GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office ] . They became an organised group when the prosecutor [ ORG ] came to work with us . ... The animosity between me and [ ORG \u2019s ] circle , comprising the unhealthiest elements in the prosecution service , is well known . As are known from media publications [ ORG \u2019s ] palaces , the companies owned by his wife in association with criminals . ... It is ironic that exactly those prosecutors which we at the [ district prosecutor \u2019s office ] called \u201c [ ORG \u2019s ] guardsmen \u201d are in the group which is to check my work . Me being checked by Prosecutor PERSON ! Shame ! And have the case files of the checkers also been checked ? \u201d","Asked then about the working methods he had introduced , the applicant stated :","\u201c Instead of commenting on whether the working methods introduced by me have been effective , I will give you simple statistics . I took over [ the district prosecutor \u2019s office ] in DATE . During DATE the prosecutors in it had drawn up CARDINAL acts of indictment . PERCENT of those were remitted by the courts , and the acquittals were PERCENT . This means that the failures were PERCENT . The persons convicted were CARDINAL .","Now pay attention to the statistics for DATE , after I introduced my working methods . Acts of indictment drawn up : CARDINAL . PERCENT of the cases remitted by the courts . Acquittals : PERCENT . Persons convicted : CARDINAL . I am not being smug about the obvious progress of the prosecution . On the contrary , I thought we could have improved even further . ... \u201d","Concerning the working methods at issue , the applicants said further :","\u201c The aim was to make the police officer and the prosecutor work side by side , exactly as NORP experts are recommending . And to reduce the possibilities for corruption deals made in private ... But I do not want to talk any further . My frustration is enormous . You understand why . \u201d","NORP In response to a question by the journalist as to why he had not discussed the matter with ORG , the applicant said :","\u201c I do n\u2019t know if there is any point . In fact , what [ he ] is doing now in [ his office ] is what I tried to do at the time at the [ GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office ] \u2013 to sweep all the trash out of the house . I managed , to a certain extent , but at DATE many pieces of trash came to the surface . They are crushing me now . I hope sincerely that the same fate will not befall [ the Chief Prosecutor ] . \u201d","On DATE published GPE and PERSON \u2019s response to the applicant \u2019s allegations . That article has not been submitted by the parties .","On an unspecified date in DATE , GPE and PERSON initiated a private prosecution of the applicant , alleging that he had insulted them and had committed the offence under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They found the following statements particularly offensive : \u201c I have tried to defeat the mafia present in the prosecution services \u201d ; \u201c the unhealthiest elements in the prosecution service \u201d ; \u201c many pieces of trash came to the surface ... crushing me now \u201d ; as well as his allegedly calling CARDINAL of them \u201c Prosecutor PERSON . They claimed that the offence was aggravated because the insult had been made through the media and concerned them in their capacity as \u201c public officials \u201d .","In the context of the criminal proceedings , GPE and PERSON also brought civil claims for damages against the applicant , each of them seeking MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation .","The first - instance court , ORG , heard a number of witnesses , who described the conflict between the applicant and GPE and PERSON It also heard the applicant , who stated that when making the above statements he had not referred to either of the CARDINAL complainants and pointed out that in the interview he had mentioned the names of CARDINAL other prosecutors , in particular ORG","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG acquitted the applicant and dismissed the civil claims against him . It considered that it had not been established that the expressions complained of had indeed referred to GPE and PERSON It found further that the complainants had seen the statements as being aimed at them , and had felt their reputation and dignity as being harmed , \u201c owing to their strained relations \u201d with the applicant .","GPE and PERSON lodged an appeal . In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG reversed the lower court \u2019s ruling and convicted the applicant , finding that he was guilty of insult in an aggravated form . It set aside his criminal liability but imposed an administrative penalty on him \u2013 a fine of BGN MONEY ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) . Furthermore , it ordered him to pay each of the complainants ORG MONEY ( the equivalent of LAW ) in damages , plus interest , and ORG ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL ) for the costs and expenses incurred by the complainants .","ORG reasoned as follows :","\u201c It is a fact that the accused uttered the expressions indicated in the private criminal prosecution \u2013 \u201c mafia in the prosecution services \u201d , \u201c PERSON , \u201c the unhealthiest elements in the prosecution service \u201d and \u201c many pieces of trash came to the surface ... crushing me now \u201d . It is also a fact that the expressions were uttered in an interview , which was published and disseminated through the mass media \u2013 the PERSON newspaper ... , in its issue of CARDINAL DATE . It is a fact that the complainants ... were named in their capacity as public officials DATE being prosecutors at the GPE district public prosecutor \u2019s office \u2013 and in relation to their official duties . \u201d ...","\u201c It has been established that the complainants were aware of those statements , on the basis of the testimony [ of the witnesses ] , as well as on the basis of the article in ORG published on DATE , and presented in the case , which contained ... their response to the interview of CARDINAL DATE .... \u201d","\u201c It can be seen from the testimony [ of the witnesses ] that after reading the interview given by the accused ... the complainants felt that their honour and dignity had been harmed , which caused a feeling of humiliation ... \u201d","\u201c The accused \u2019s explanations show that he was aware that the incriminatory expressions were offensive and humiliating to those to whom they were addressed [ and ] the manner in which he disseminated them [ shows ] that he aimed to make them public and that they reach the complainants ... \u201d","\u201c The accused \u2019s claim in his defence , endorsed by the district court , that the incriminatory expressions were not directed specifically at the complainants ... , can not be accepted by the appeal court .","The fact that [ the statements ] may have been directed against CARDINAL other [ prosecutors whose names were mentioned in the interview ] , and that those people may have decided not to prosecute the accused for harming their honour and dignity , does not alter the fact that the accused \u2019s criminal liability in respect of the CARDINAL complainants must be engaged . \u201d","NORP The applicant paid in the amounts indicated in paragraph CARDINAL above on DATE . The total amount paid , including interest and the fees charged by the enforcement official , was BGN CARDINAL ( the equivalent of about EUR CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG published an interview with GPE and PERSON , where they discussed the applicant \u2019s conviction ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161451","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"TANI\u015e v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and who is currently serving a prison sentence at FAC . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent .","NORP The events that gave rise to the present application are disputed between the parties . They will therefore be presented separately .","NORP On DATE the applicant received a parcel at FAC ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) , where he was serving his sentence at the material time . As he was being taken to the parcel room by a prison guard , he greeted a fellow inmate in the corridor , without making any physical contact . The guard reacted to their brief interaction by mocking and insulting the applicant . The applicant did not respond to the guard .","Once they reached the parcel room , the guard ordered the applicant to wait outside and the applicant complied . The guard then shouted at him to move further away from the door and to stand against the wall , following which he pushed the applicant forcefully against the wall . In response , the applicant told the guard that he had no right to touch him , at which point the guard allegedly started punching the applicant in the face and kicking his feet while shouting insults at him . Although the applicant restrained himself from hitting back and sought only to protect his face with his hands , the guard called on his colleagues to intervene , claiming that the applicant was attacking him . A number of other guards in the vicinity ran towards them and started hitting the applicant as well . The applicant stated that his inmate friend , PERSON , and the prison governor , who were in the parcel room at the relevant time , had witnessed the events .","After the applicant had collected his parcel , he was taken to single occupancy cell A - T-CARDINAL , where he was \u201c lynched \u201d by a group of guards , who also insulted and threatened him . The blows he received at that time left him with a broken nose , cuts to his lips , serious wounds on his knee , swellings of various sizes on different parts of his head and visible bruises on his eyes .","The following day the applicant asked to be taken to the prison infirmary . The prison doctor examined him and made detailed notes . The applicant did not , however , see what the doctor \u2019s notes contained as he was not allowed to see the medical report .","The Government \u2019s version of the events is based on the report prepared by CARDINAL prison guards after the incident in question . The relevant parts of the report read as follows :","\u201c ... on DATE , while collecting his parcel , the detainee PERSON attempted to shake hands with and speak to another detainee who had received a parcel . This interaction was stopped by the officers and [ the applicant ] was told that such interaction and contact was not lawful . Nevertheless , the detainee did not change his attitude and [ shouted ] : \u2018 ... Who are you to interfere in my business ? I will start proceedings against you , I will see you!\u2019 He was placed in cell no . A - T-CARDINAL for security reasons because he [ had ] continued his [ insults ] , while also trying to kick and punch the officers ... \u201d","On DATE , the applicant was taken to the prison infirmary for a medical examination in connection with the disciplinary proceedings that were to be instituted in respect of the incident . According to the medical report , dated DATE , the prison doctor had noted no signs of illtreatment on the applicant \u2019s body .","On DATE disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant for his misbehaviour on DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted his defence statement \u2013 containing the allegations subsequently submitted to ORG to ORG .","On DATE the applicant was punished with DATE of solitary confinement by ORG as a disciplinary sanction for having insulted and threatened prison officers . It was noted in the disciplinary decision that , contrary to the applicant \u2019s allegations of illtreatment by prison guards , the medical report issued shortly after the incident had not noted any injuries on the applicant \u2019s body .","On DATE ORG decision was served on the applicant .","On DATE the applicant objected to that decision .","The applicant \u2019s objections were dismissed as groundless by the NORP Enforcement Judge and subsequently by ORG on DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE the applicant lodged the following criminal complaint with the NORP public prosecutor , via the prison administration , against the prison guards who had allegedly ill - treated him :","\u201c DATE TIME ( on DATE ) at TIME I was taken out of my cell ... to collect a parcel . The officer who accompanied me insulted me for having said \u201c hello \u201d to a friend passing by in the corridor ... I did not see the need to respond to him .","Once we reached the parcel room , [ the officer ] told me to wait outside as there was someone else in the room [ collecting a ] parcel . I complied . He told me to move [ and stand ] by the door . I moved . He insisted that I stand near the wall ... and then pushed me against the wall .","[ In response ] I said to him : \u2018 Do not touch me ; talk to me like a human being.\u2019 Upon my response , he ... started attacking me physically ; he punched me in the face , and started kicking my foot . I then told him that he did not have the right to [ use ] physical force and that he could institute proceedings against me if I had done something wrong . I also told him that I would institute proceedings against him .","Thereupon he said : \u2018 Who are you to talk , to say that you will report ORG , and started attacking me again . My only response was to protect my face ...","But the \u2018 officer\u2019 ( I do not know his name but I can identify him ) did not stop there ; he distorted the situation by telling the other officers in the corridor [ that I was ] threatening and attacking him . Upon [ hearing him ] another officer also attacked me ( he punched and kicked me ) . The other officers tried to stop the attackers .","I was then taken to the parcel room , and after I had collected my parcel CARDINAL officers took me not to my own cell but to a small room . They insulted me ... and tried to provoke me ... They then put me in an individual cell ( TEK CARDINAL ) .","... After they had brought my belongings to me in the [ individual ] cell , CARDINAL officers attacked me physically in the cell . For TIME these CARDINAL officers punched and kicked me .","They also threatened me and said : \u2018 we \u2019ll show DATE , \u2018 you are done\u2019 , and \u2018 we will destroy DATE . They also said : \u2018 this is how we start GPE , and left .","I have thus been subjected to torture , physical attacks and insults .","...","In short , I am not safe here ... A new round of torture may be imminent if no precautions are taken .","...","[ I therefore request ] :","...","- The identification of the relevant individuals , the institution of legal proceedings against them , and their punishment , as necessary ... \u201d","On DATE the governor of ORG forwarded the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint to the NORP public prosecutor , along with his medical report ( dated DATE ) , statements taken from CARDINAL prison guards after the incident , and CARDINAL incident reports . The governor also informed the public prosecutor that administrative proceedings in respect of the incident had been instituted .","On DATE the NORP public prosecutor requested information from the ORG administration regarding the outcome of the administrative proceedings instituted in respect of the incident of DATE . On DATE the ORG administration furnished the public prosecutor with the information requested .","On DATE the applicant made the following statement to the NORP public prosecutor :","\u201c As I have already explained in my criminal complaint , on DATE I was taken to the parcel room to collect my parcel ... As I was waiting outside the parcel room , the ... officer standing next to me told me to lean against the wall ... I told him : \u2018 do not touch me ! I will do what is necessary if you tell me like a human being.\u2019 He then attacked me and called on the other officers [ to help ] as he was being attacked [ by me ] . They arrived and CARDINAL of them [ joined ] the officer who had attacked me while the others separated us . After I had collected my parcel , they took me to room no . Atek-CARDINAL , where they beat me ... I saw the doctor on DATE in relation to this incident . The doctor examined me and saw my injuries . I do not understand why [ he then ] reported no signs of blows . I have lodged a separate complaint ; I would also like to complain about the doctor . The prison governor was also there at the time of the event but he did not intervene ... therefore , I am also making a complaint against him . \u201d","On DATE and DATE the public prosecutor took statements from the prison governor and the CARDINAL prison guards who had allegedly been involved in the incident . They all stated that the applicant had not been beaten up as alleged but had only been warned orally not to interact with another detainee and had then been restrained when he had started attacking CARDINAL of them . They stated that had the applicant been ill - treated in any way , this would have been determined by the medical examination to which he had been subjected shortly after the alleged incident .","On DATE the public prosecutor took a statement from the doctor who had examined the applicant on DATE . The doctor , who worked at ORG but who had been on temporary duty at the Tekirda\u011f F - Type Prison at the relevant time , made the following statement :","\u201c ... [ He ] was brought to the prison infirmary by the prison officers . He said that he had been beaten up and requested a report . I examined the individual but there were no signs of beating or the use of force on his body . I prepared my report accordingly . He showed me where he had allegedly been hit but I did not see any [ injuries ] . I [ do ] not understand why he lodged a complaint against me . I carried out my duty in accordance with the law . I do not accept the accusations against me . \u201d","On DATE , the NORP public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the prison officers and the doctor . The public prosecutor found that , contrary to his allegations , the applicant had not been assaulted by the prison guards on DATE in question but had only been warned a number of times to stop interacting with other inmates while waiting outside the parcel room . Instead of complying with these orders , the applicant had threatened and attempted to attack the guards . On account of his rowdy behaviour he had been placed in a single - person cell for security reasons . The doctor who had examined him DATE had moreover noted no signs of physical violence on the applicant \u2019s body . The public prosecutor highlighted in this connection that he had questioned the prison doctor in relation to the applicant \u2019s allegations and that the doctor had testified to the accuracy of his medical findings and had denied the applicant \u2019s accusations . Lastly , the public prosecutor referred to the outcome of the disciplinary investigation instituted against the prison guards involved in the incident ( see paragraph CARDINAL below for details ) , which had found that the guards had acted lawfully . In the light of the evidence before him , the public prosecutor concluded that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment were unfounded .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection with ORG against the decision of the NORP public prosecutor . He argued that the public prosecutor had failed to establish the facts accurately and had , in particular , not examined with sufficient care his allegations of ill - treatment in cell no . A - T-CARDINAL . A review of the footage from the surveillance cameras in the corridors would have verified the accuracy of his allegations . He further maintained that the prison doctor had initially noted the injuries on his body , lips and eyes , but that he might have subsequently changed his medical report under duress from the prison authorities .","On DATE ORG requested the relevant investigation file from the NORP public prosecutor in order to be able proceed with the examination of the applicant \u2019s objection . On DATE ORG repeated its request .","On DATE , following the receipt of the investigation file , ORG upheld the NORP public prosecutor \u2019s decision not to prosecute on the basis of the contents of the investigation file and the reasoning in that decision , and dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection .","In the meantime , disciplinary proceedings were also instituted against the prison guards . However , on the basis of the statements given by the relevant guards and the applicant \u2019s medical report dated DATE , ORG decided on DATE that the officers had acted in accordance with the law and that they had not committed any wrongdoings .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with acute sinusitis by the Tekirda\u011f Prison doctor and was prescribed medication to ease his breathing difficulties .","On DATE , prior to the execution of his disciplinary sanction , the applicant was subjected to a general medical check . The prison doctor who examined the applicant noted that his breathing and heartbeat were normal , that his blood pressure was DATE , and that he was medically fit to serve his sanction .","On DATE the applicant was once again examined by the prison doctor and given different medicine to provide relief for nasal congestion .","On DATE the applicant was prescribed new medication for acute sinusitis . The prison doctor also asked for him to be referred for further examination to the ear , nose and throat clinic at ORG .","On DATE the applicant was examined at the ear , nose and throat clinic at ORG , where he was prescribed a different nasal spray .","Apart from the examinations noted below , the applicant was admitted to the Tekirda\u011f Prison infirmary on CARDINAL other occasions DATE and DATE , all at his request , with complaints such as vitamin deficiency , constipation , nausea , fatigue , gastritis and nail fungus .","It appears that on DATE the applicant was transferred from the Tekirda\u011f F - Type Prison to the Bolu F - Type Prison . On DATE , the applicant was subjected to a medical examination , during which no injuries were noted on his body . The medical report , which bore the applicant \u2019s signature , did not refer to any health complaints made by the applicant , and only mentioned that he suffered from sinusitis .","Documents submitted by the ORG reveal that DATE and DATE the applicant underwent some sixtyfive medical examinations , all at his request , at FAC infirmary in relation to various health complaints , mostly concerning his dermatological and eye problems . Between the same dates , he was referred to ORG on CARDINAL occasions in relation to the same problems ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178508","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF U\u011eURLU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals , whose dates of birth and places of residence are shown in the appendix . They all own plots of land located in different cities of GPE .","Following local land development plans , the applicants\u2019 plots of land were designated for public use . Subsequently , complaining about the decrease in the market value of the land and the long - term uncertainty about the fate of their plots of land , the applicants initiated compensation proceedings before the civil courts .","During the proceedings relating to their land , the applicants submitted the decision given by ORG of ORG ( civil divisions , numbered ORG ) to the domestic courts and asserted that according to this decision their compensation claims had to be accepted .","On various dates DATE , the applicants\u2019 respective claims for compensation were dismissed by the domestic courts on the ground that their plots of land were not actually seized by the authorities . In their decisions , neither the courts of first instance nor ORG of ORG , which examined the ORG claims on cassation , expressed any reason as to why they had reached a different conclusion from ORG Court of Cassation .","The details of the proceedings may be found in the appended table ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183868","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF JASAVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","DATE and DATE the DATE newspaper PERSON published several articles about a human trafficking case in GPE , in which the applicant \u2019s name was mentioned in various contexts .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the publisher of the said newspaper , seeking compensation for nonpecuniary damage due to violation of his honour and reputation caused by the publishing of untrue information about him .","On DATE , following a remittal , ORG ruled partly in favour of the applicant , ordering the publisher to pay the applicant DATE ( ORG ) in non - pecuniary damages and to publish the judgment in PERSON , the DATE newspaper in question .","On DATE ORG amended this judgment by awarding the applicant LAW as compensation for the non - pecuniary damage suffered , which judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .","The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144944","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SHEKHOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is now serving his sentence in a correctional colony in the GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with double murder and attempted murder .","During the trial the applicant was represented by ORG - appointed counsel , PERSON","On DATE ORG , in a trial by jury , convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant appealed , unassisted by counsel . He submitted , in particular , that he had acted in self - defence and asked for reduction of the sentence from murder to manslaughter .","On DATE the applicant was notified that the appeal hearing would be held on DATE . According to the Government , his counsel , PERSON , was also informed by telegram of the date of the appeal hearing .","On DATE ORG of GPE held an appeal hearing . The applicant and the prosecutor were present . Counsel PERSON did not attend . According to the applicant , he had asked for replacement counsel to be appointed for him . According to the Government , no such request had been made . On DATE the court upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","NORP In DATE the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . PERSON in GPE , where he remained until DATE .","On DATE the ORG sent the applicant at his request the text of the ORG , an application form together with the explanatory note , an authority form , and the notice to applicants . On DATE the letter was received by the GPE remand centre where the applicant had been previously held . It was opened , stamped , and then transferred to colony no . PERSON in GPE .","According to the applicant , on DATE a deputy head of ORG had summoned him and strongly advised him not to submit an application to the ORG . Immediately after this conversation he had been put in a disciplinary cell for DATE . According to the ORG \u2019s account , it was the applicant who had asked for a meeting with the official . At the applicant \u2019s request , the official had explained to him the procedure for applying to the ORG . He had not made any threats . The applicant had then been put into a disciplinary cell for having sent a letter through informal channels instead of sending it via the detention facility \u2019s administration .","On DATE the ORG \u2019s letter of DATE was received by the staff of colony no . FAC and was opened and stamped . According to the applicant , he had received the covering letter of DATE and the text of the Convention on DATE . The other enclosures and the envelope had not been given to him . According to the Government , all the enclosures had been handed over to the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant sent an improvised application form to the ORG .","The applicant stated that on DATE he had been summoned by the head of correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE , who had issued the threat that if he did not stop complaining , he would regret it . According to the Government , it was the applicant who had asked for a meeting with the head of the correctional colony . No threats had been made to the applicant during the meeting .","On DATE the applicant was temporarily transferred to medical correctional facility no . CARDINAL in GPE for anti - tuberculosis treatment .","The applicant stated that on DATE he had handed a sealed envelope containing a letter to the ORG to the medical correctional facility \u2019s administration . The letter had been opened , stamped and dispatched to the addressee . The ORG stated that the applicant had handed the letter to the detention facility staff unsealed .","According to the applicant , the detention facility \u2019s administration had refused to dispatch many of his letters to the ORG , and he had therefore had to send them through informal channels . The ORG stated that all his letters had been dispatched .","NORP The applicant complained to various ORG authorities about the opening of and the failure to dispatch his letters to the ORG . In a letter dated DATE , the prosecutor \u2019s office informed the applicant that there had been no evidence of any failure to dispatch his letters .","On DATE the medical correctional facility \u2019s administration received another letter from the ORG addressed to the applicant acknowledging receipt of his correspondence . That letter was opened , stamped and then given to the applicant . The employee who had opened the letter was subsequently disciplined ."],"violated_articles":["34","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147601","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ION C\u00c2RSTEA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was , at the time of the events , a lecturer at ORG .","On DATE the local newspaper Republica Oltenia published an article entitled \u201c Feature story on sex - blackmail professor \u201d ( \u201c PERSON metraj cu un professor de sex - \u015fantaj \u201d ) . The article , written by PERSON , was illustrated by CARDINAL photographs showing a man and a woman naked and having sex . The man \u2019s face was not visible . On the photographs were the handwritten words \u201c the man in the photos is PERSON , university as.[sistant ] at the electrotechnical faculty \u201d . CARDINAL of the photographs also appeared at the top of the front page of the newspaper .","The article started by mentioning that the man in the photographs was a university professor , an important person in society , who was involved in bribery , blackmail , child sex abuse and sexual deviance , the details of which would be given in the article .","The article continued by stating that in DATE the applicant \u2019s students had complained to the university dean that he was not very friendly during sessions and used to demand money from them . The applicant was also branded as litigious , because he had CARDINAL trials pending before the courts , CARDINAL of them brought with the purpose of contesting decisions taken by his university superiors .","Further on , the article contained the following statements :","In DATE a girl , so young that she was not even DATE , got pregnant . Abortion being illegal , she decided to ask her second cousin , a university assistant at the time , to help her find a doctor . The cousin took advantage of the girl \u2019s desperate situation . He might have told her that he would tell her mother if she did not let him \u201c taste \u201d her at least once . The atmosphere at the time may be inferred from the black and white photos attached . They were taken ... by the cousin himself . Apparently , even from a young age , PERSON had unorthodox habits . After satisfying his needs , ORG remembered that in fact he could not help his cousin , and advised her to sell some jewellery in order to raise money for a doctor . To develop the photos , ORG appealed to a repeat student and amateur photographer ... \u201c In your DATE you will have an exam with me and wo n\u2019t pass \u201d ORG said , according to the photographer . The student gave in to the blackmail , but after developing only gave ORG CARDINAL photos instead of CARDINAL . The gesture had its logic , because in DATE , when our student managed to proceed to DATE , ORG tried to raise the stakes , by asking for a non - reimbursable loan of CARDINAL [ NORP ] marks to pass an exam . The student was upset and went to the prosecutor \u2019s office : \u201c I made a complaint to the prosecutor \u2019s office in [ CARDINAL , accusing him of blackmail . I submitted the relevant evidence , namely the first [ set of ] photos , because he later came to me with CARDINAL more films , also porn ... the prosecutor said that we were dealing with a university professor and should leave him alone , not amplify the case .","Why not amplify the case ? We \u2019ll tell you : because between ORG and ORG , ORG , there is a special relationship , which might also be based on blackmail ... We know that [ M.]I. sold ORG a flat , but this does n\u2019t say much . That would be another case of blackmail , because we heard that ORG \u2019s obsession with audio - video recordings remained unchanged ... As for the prosecutors who received a complaint from the blackmailed photographer , they were in no hurry to go to talk to the girl in the photos . That would have obliged them to open an investigation ex officio . Instead they sent the victim , the photographer - student , to take statements . And he obtained a statement signed by the girl \u2019s mother , while the actress in the photos wrote on them \u201c The man in the photo is PERSON , university as . [ sistant ] at the electrotechnical faculty . \u201d","Of course such evidence obtained under these circumstances had no legal relevance . The case would normally be greeted with a gracious non - indictment . ... Our photographer can hardly wait for justice to be done and to finish his studies now , DATE after he proceeded to DATE . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG against the journalist PERSON and B.B.O. , editor - in - chief of the newspaper , accusing them of defamation , an offence under LAW in force at the time . The applicant alleged that the facts described in the article were not true and that , together with the photographs , they had seriously damaged his reputation . In this connection , the applicant claimed from the CARDINAL defendants MONEY ( ORG ) for non - pecuniary damage and RON CARDINAL for pecuniary damage . As to the compensation for pecuniary damage the applicant alleged that owing to the publication of the article and the photographs in question he could no longer be promoted to a higher position within the university .","R.C. and B.B.O. did not appear before the court , although they had been summoned on several occasions .","CARDINAL witnesses for the applicant were heard by the court . PERSON stated that as far as he knew the applicant , the facts described in the article in dispute were not true . PERSON made a statement in support of the compensation claimed by the applicant for pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG acquitted the CARDINAL defendants . It decided that they had not intended to defame the applicant , since they had merely brought to the public \u2019s attention certain facts mentioned by other people , with whom the applicant did not have a good relationship . With respect to the photographs complained about , the court briefly held that \u201c ... it is not clear from the photos whether the person photographed is or is not the injured party [ the applicant ] \u201d . The court further rejected the applicant \u2019s compensation claim , stating that there was no connection between the GPE acts and the damage alleged .","An appeal on points of law ( recurs ) brought by the applicant against this decision was allowed by ORG on DATE . It ordered a retrial of the case , due to the fact that the CARDINAL defendants had not been identified and heard by the lower court .","A search conducted by the police concluded that B.B.O. had written the article in question under the alias of PERSON did not appear before the court , although he had been summoned .","On DATE ORG acquitted B.B.O. and rejected the applicant \u2019s claim for compensation . Quoting the ORG \u2019s caselaw on freedom of expression , ORG held that the applicant was a public figure and was hence exposed to criticism . The court also held that the defendant had not intended to defame the applicant , as he had just published information that he had collected from other people , such as students , professors , and so on . It also held :","\u201c The publication of the compromising photos accompanied by comments concerning the ORG identity is a shocking way of exercising the freedom of expression guaranteed by LAW . ...","Restricting the ability to publish documents because [ they ] might harm a person \u2019s dignity would not be a necessary measure in a NORP society where the journalist \u2019s sources were credible .","As regards crimes against dignity committed through the media , a journalist \u2019s investigation is always important and is based on direct and indirect sources , official documents and documents collected through leaked information , official and private statements , some confidential , not all free from doubt . What must be proved beyond any doubt is the journalist \u2019s bad faith which , in the current case , has not been proved .","The statements of witnesses ORG and PERSON , colleagues and friends of the applicant , with respect to his personality and professional reputation are credible , but strictly only prove the perception of these people . \u201d","The court analysed the applicant \u2019s claim for compensation from the standpoint of LAW and decided to reject the claim for non - pecuniary damage since the defendant \u2019s guilt had not been proved , and the claim for pecuniary damage as unsubstantiated .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision , alleging that the defendant had not been summoned at the correct address and that , in his absence , the judges could not have correctly established the facts or whether he had acted in good or bad faith . The applicant further submitted that B.B.O. had not acted in good faith . Firstly , because he had never contacted him for his version of the facts and secondly , because according to his criminal record attached to the file , the journalist had several previous convictions for slander and defamation . The applicant also alleged that the journalist had made accusations which attracted criminal sanctions , and therefore their truthfulness could and should have been verified by the courts .","On DATE ORG finally dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as ill - founded . The court held that , even though it may have been defamatory , having in mind the applicant \u2019s profession and the media \u2019s role in a NORP society , the article in question had just drawn attention to the behaviour of a public figure in the exercise of his functions . The court further held that the defendant journalist had wanted to \u201c expose certain backstage games and interests in a higher education institution ... with a view to remedying the situation and maintaining good educational process \u201d . The applicant \u2019s specific reasons for appealing on points of law , such as the incorrect summoning and the failure to hear the defendant \u2019s statement and verify the truthfulness of the allegations published by the defendant , were not analysed by the court ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173851","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"CROATIAN CHAMBER OF ECONOMY v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , ORG ( \u201c the applicant organisation \u201d ) , is based in GPE , GPE . It is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent at the time , PERSON .","On DATE ORG , having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) , indicated that they did not wish to exercise their right to do so .","Prior to the dissolution of ORG ( \u201c the SFRY \u201d ) there were ORG and chambers of commerce for each of the various federal units ( that is to say in each of the Republics \u2013 GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE DATE and in GPE , GPE and GPE ) . The said NORP chambers of commerce were functionally and commercially independent of each other and chambers of commerce of the federal units had no property stake in ORG .","After the dissolution of the SFRY , GPE ( which consisted of GPE and GPE ) enacted a law on DATE by which ORG ceased to exist and ORG was established . On DATE the NORP parliament enacted a law by which ORG ceased to exist and all of its assets were divided between ORG and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim with ORG against ORG and ORG . In its claim , the applicant argued that by enacting the legislation of CARDINAL DATE ORG had deprived it of its share of the property of the former ORG . The applicant organisation sought , inter alia , a judicial declaration to the effect that it was the rightful owner of PERCENT of a number of parcels of real estate then co - owned by the respondents .","DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings on the matter .","On DATE the court adjourned the proceedings , stating that the entire matter needed to be regulated between GPE and GPE by means of a bilateral treaty , which it deemed to constitute a preliminary legal issue ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court referred to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Annex G to ORG ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .","On DATE the applicant organisation lodged an appeal .","On DATE the appeal was supplemented with an opinion by ORG attesting that the applicant organisation was not a State body and that the real estate in question was consequently not a succession - related issue .","On DATE the High Commercial Court upheld the adjournment decision of DATE . The court stated , inter alia , that the successor ORG would conclude bilateral agreements with a view to stipulating the appropriate procedures and the bodies to be entrusted with the processing of claims such as the plaintiff \u2019s . However , should claims of this sort be rejected within the said procedure , it would ultimately be up to the courts of law to adjudicate on the matter . The applicant organisation received a copy of the High Commercial Court \u2019s decision of DATE .","Article CARDINAL , read in conjunction with LAW ( Zakon o parni\u010dnom postupku , published in ORG no . CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that a court may suspend ongoing civil proceedings if it decides not to rule on a preliminary legal issue ( prethodno pitanje ) .","The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE ( Zakon o prestanku va\u017eenja zakona o ORG , ORG no . CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c From the date of the entry into force of this LAW , ORG ( \u201c ORG of FRY \u201d CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) is repealed .","All the assets , liabilities , business affairs and archives of ORG of GPE shall be taken over by ORG and ORG .","The assets and liabilities mentioned in the first paragraph of this article shall be divided in proportion to the financial contributions of ORG and ORG to ORG ... in accordance with the agreement which shall be concluded between ORG and ORG subject to prior approval of ORG and GPE . \u201d","NORP In decision no . P\u017e . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE the GPE High Commercial Court held as follows :","\u201c It is the opinion of this court that ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG point to the intention of LAW the successor States \u2013 to conclude bilateral agreements with a view to regulating the procedure for deciding the claims and which would establish the state organs to decide on the mentioned claims , applying the provisions of the LAW , and to decide on property claims in respect of movable and immovable assets . Only upon the conclusion of the procedure established by the bilateral agreement and ... before the relevant state organs set up by the [ bilateral ] agreement , in the event that claims are contested , will the court decide on them . Therefore , the mentioned provisions of the LAW do not exclude the court \u2019s jurisdiction in respect of property - based claims but , in the chamber \u2019s view , this jurisdiction is conditional on [ the holding of ] prior proceedings before state bodies set up by bilateral treaties and in accordance with the procedure set up by the said treaties , in accordance with LAW Consequently , the conclusion of a bilateral treaty and the completion of the proceedings set up by it ... [ constitute ] preliminary legal issues and the further actions of the court depend on their being resolved ... \u201d","The relevant provisions of ORG ( Zakon o Hrvatskoj gospodarskoj komori , published in ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c ORG is an independent ... business - related organisation which promotes , represents and co - ordinates the common interests of its members before governmental bodies and other authorities , inside the country and abroad . \u201d","ORG has the status of a legal person . \u201d","\u201c Members of ORG are all legal and physical persons who carry out economic activities [ and whose ] headquarters [ are ] on the territory of GPE . \u201d","\u201c The manner of election for the bodies of ORG , and their structure and responsibilities shall be determined by LAW . \u201d","\u201c ORG shall perform specific public functions , as determined by law .","ORG , certificates and other documents issued by ORG in the execution of public functions shall have the character and significance of official documents . \u201d","\u201c ORG may establish representative offices abroad , subject to approval from ORG . \u201d","\u201c The funds necessary for the work of ORG shall be secured through the contributions made or the membership fees paid by ... [ its ] ... members , through compensation received for any services rendered , and through other sources . \u201d","ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the CCE \u201d ) would currently appear to be carrying out a number of lawfully delegated functions related to , inter alia , the following : ( a ) issuing various import , export and transport certificates ; ( b ) harmonising road transport costs and schedules ; ( c ) recording details of property which could be sold in enforcement and insolvency proceedings ; ( d ) conducting the public sale of movable property ; ( e ) organising specialist exams for real estate agents and for persons providing public road transport services ; ( f ) keeping a register of all printed media ; and ( g ) offering mediation services in consumer protection lawsuits .","On DATE ORG adopted decision U\u2011III-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL by which it declared inadmissible a constitutional complaint lodged against the judgment of ORG ) of the CCE due to the failure of the complainant to exhaust other available remedies , that is to say to lodge a request for the protection of his constitutional rights with ORG .","The decisions on financing of the ORG \u2019s work for DATE contain membership fees and revenue from the exercise of the public functions as main sources of funding ( see www.hgk.hr\/financiranje-hgk-i-nacin-ispunjavanja-uplatnice , as accessed on DATE ) .","This Agreement was the result of DATE of negotiations . It was signed on DATE and entered into force between GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ( later succeeded by GPE ) , GPE and the former GPE on DATE .","Annex G to this Agreement deals with \u201c private property and acquired rights \u201d .","DATE of Annex G reads as follows :","\u201c The successor GPE shall take such action as may be required by the general principles of law and are otherwise appropriate to ensure the effective application of the principles set out in this ORG , such as concluding bilateral agreements and notifying their courts and other competent authorities . \u201d","At the meetings of the joint standing committee established under LAW held on DATE and DATE , the committee adopted recommendations concerning , inter alia , ORG to the ORG . The committee noted that the application of the provisions of ORG had not been effective enough , and recommended that the successor ORG conclude bilateral agreements for the purpose of the effective implementation of those provisions . It also advised them to refrain from passing any legislation or undertaking any steps contrary to the provisions of ORG , and to adopt , should they deem it necessary , measures intended to enable the effective application of the standards set out in Annex G.","On the official website of the ORG , the ORG is described as a public institution which represents NORP economic interests , belonging to the so - called continental chamber system , with compulsory membership . The website further states that the ORG pays special attention to the execution of public power entrusted to it to carry out successfully its role of providing a service to its members as well as a link between the ORG authorities and the business community ( see www.hgk.hr\/english\/about-us , as accessed on DATE ) .","NORP The continental or public - law system of chambers \u2013 which are established and regulated by national legislation and whereby CARDINAL of the areas of activity of the chamber is the execution of public functions \u2013 has been adopted by many of the GPE Member GPE , such as GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , the GPE , GPE and GPE ( see iccwbo.org\/chamber-services\/world-chambers-federation\/history-chamber-movement\/ and www.eurofound.europa.eu\/observatories\/eurwork\/articles\/government-wants-voluntary-membership-of-chamber-of-commerce-and-industry , as accessed on DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152850","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF S.Z. v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Systemic problem;General measures)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , then a CARDINAL-year - old student , left GPE for ORG in a vehicle with CARDINAL young men , GPE and GPE , and another young woman whom she frequented at the time and whose acquaintance she had made through CARDINAL of her close friends , GPE During the journey the CARDINAL men told her that they intended to \u201c sell \u201d her as a prostitute to people with whom they were in contact in ORG , and then to \u201c take her back \u201d after receiving the money . The applicant refused , but was threatened by ORG On their arrival at ORG the group met a number of people in various caf\u00e9s in the town ; those people were apparently involved in prostitution rings abroad and discussed with GPE and PERSON sending the applicant to GPE , GPE or GPE to work as a prostitute and her alleged experience in the trade . The applicant was told that CARDINAL of the men they had met were police officers . The applicant was then taken to a flat where she was held against her will and repeatedly beaten and raped by several men for TIME , following which she managed to escape and found refuge in a neighbouring apartment block where occupants called the police .","During her first police interview the applicant attempted to throw herself out of the window and was then admitted to a psychiatric hospital . She subsequently received psychological counselling .","A criminal investigation was instituted by ORG for abduction and false imprisonment ; abduction for the purposes of coercing into prostitution ; and rape . The applicant identified some of her assailants and QUANTITY police officers whom the group had met prior to holding her against her will . She stated that the men were part of a criminal gang involved in human trafficking who wanted to force her into prostitution in western LOC .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE the ORG military prosecutor considered that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the QUANTITY police officers , GPE and GPE , who had been charged with abduction , and discontinued the proceedings against them . The prosecutor observed , in particular , that after initially identifying the police officers , the applicant had not subsequently claimed that they had taken part in her abduction and false imprisonment . The prosecutor \u2019s order was amenable to appeal , but the applicant does not appear to have lodged CARDINAL .","During DATE and DATE several people involved were questioned , and an expert medical report was drawn up . The investigation was closed and the case sent to the prosecutor for a decision regarding committal for trial . However , on DATE the prosecutor decided to send the case back for further investigation on the grounds that irregularities had been committed and further evidence was required regarding the involvement of GPE and another individual , ORG the case was returned CARDINAL more times for further investigation . In an order of DATE , the prosecutor found that the investigator had failed to carry out any investigative measures since the case had been sent back . He also noted a number of irregularities in the charges against the various defendants , such as wrong dates , inaccurate legal classifications or inconsistencies between the facts set out and the legal classification retained . The prosecutor also noted that the investigation had been carried out in the absence of CARDINAL of the defendants without a duty lawyer being appointed and that some of the charges had to be amended , to take account , inter alia , of the fact that the applicant had attempted to commit suicide , which was an aggravating circumstance . In an order of DATE , the prosecutor noted that no measures had been carried out in accordance with his previous decision . In a further order of CARDINAL DATE , he observed that the instructions given had not been followed in their entirety , and in particular that the charges had not been amended .","The investigation was closed again and sent to the prosecutor on ORG DATE . On DATE the prosecutor decided to discontinue the proceedings against GPE and GPE , who had been prosecuted for abduction for the purposes of coercing into prostitution and incitement to prostitution respectively , on the grounds that the offences had not been made out . On appeal by the applicant , that decision was set aside by the court on DATE .","NORP The investigation was closed in DATE and the applicant was served with the investigation file . She then requested that CARDINAL of the men she had identified from a photo , Y.Y.G. , also be charged with rape . Her request was rejected on DATE by the district prosecutor , who considered that there was insufficient evidence against him , the applicant \u2019s statement being the only basis for implicating him in the attack . On DATE part of the investigation , which concerned the offences of which the applicant accused Y.Y.G. and PERSON , was severed from the main proceedings and fresh proceedings brought against persons unknown . On DATE the ORG appellate prosecutor \u2019s office upheld the decision not to charge Y.Y.G. , noting that if new evidence were to emerge , the investigators could bring further charges in the proceedings against persons unknown . On DATE those proceedings were stayed , on the ground that the perpetrators had not been identified .","On an unspecified date in DATE CARDINAL defendants were committed for trial in ORG on charges of false imprisonment , rape , incitement to prostitution or abduction for the purposes of coercing into prostitution .","On DATE the applicant sought leave to join the proceedings as a private prosecutor and civil party seeking damages . The court granted the application at a hearing held on DATE .","ORG held CARDINAL hearings . CARDINAL of these were adjourned , mainly because the defendants or witnesses had not been properly summoned . The trial took place in the absence of CARDINAL of the defendants , PERSON , whom the authorities had been unable to find .","In a judgment of DATE , the court convicted PERSON and GPE of gang rape , aggravated by the fact that the victim had attempted to commit suicide , and false imprisonment with aggravated circumstances . They were sentenced to DATE imprisonment . ORG and GPE were convicted of abducting the applicant for the purposes of coercing her into prostitution and sentenced to CARDINAL and CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment respectively . GPE was convicted of false imprisonment and sentenced to a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) . The court found that the offence of incitement to prostitution for which ORG was being prosecuted was time - barred in accordance with the absolute limitation period and discontinued the proceedings against him . Lastly , it found GPE not guilty of abduction for the purposes of coercing into prostitution on the grounds that the offence had not been made out as GPE had not been present at the material time . The CARDINAL defendants who had been convicted were ordered to pay the applicant damages , and the claim against the other CARDINAL defendants was rejected .","The CARDINAL defendants who had been convicted appealed . The applicant appealed only against the part of the judgment concerning GPE , requesting the imposition of a heavier sentence and an increase in the amount awarded in damages .","Seven hearings before ORG were adjourned on account of the absence of CARDINAL of the accused or their lawyers . The first hearing on the merits took place on DATE . As CARDINAL of the defendants , PERSON and PERSON had not appeared , the court decided to examine the case in their absence .","In a final judgment of DATE , the court set aside GPE \u2019s conviction and terminated the proceedings against him on the grounds that they had become irrevocably time - barred . It amended the judgment concerning the other defendants : the classification of the offence of which PERSON and GPE had been convicted was slightly amended and their sentence reduced to DATE imprisonment . The sentence imposed on ORG was reduced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and ORG DATE prison sentence was upheld .","The court also reduced the amounts awarded to the applicant in non - pecuniary damages . It awarded the applicant a total amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , which was the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) , ordering FAC and GPE to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL each , and GPE , GPE and GPE to pay her ORG CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL respectively .","During the judicial proceedings the applicant , who was living in GPE , had to travel to ORG on numerous occasions to attend hearings . She was called to the witness stand CARDINAL times . According to a medical opinion produced by the applicant , each summons to appear before the court had adversely affected her psychological condition .","..."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145973","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ATAYKAYA v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Six month period);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - Legislative amendments);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is the father of PERSON , born on DATE , who died on DATE .","A. Incident of DATE","Following the death of CARDINAL members of the ORG ( ORG , an illegal armed organisation ) in an armed clash on DATE , many illegal demonstrations took place in ORG DATE , during which a number of demonstrators were killed . According to the Government , CARDINAL individuals took part in those demonstrations , in which the police headquarters was bombarded with stones , sticks and petrol bombs , with the police and their vehicles coming under attack around the city . It was reported that , during those incidents , CARDINAL people died and CARDINAL members of the police force and CARDINAL higher - ranking officers , a doctor , a nurse , CARDINAL journalists and an ambulance driver were wounded . Similarly , a number of offices and public buildings , including the school of medicine of ORG and police premises , were damaged .","On DATE , at TIME , on leaving his workplace , ORG found himself in the middle of a demonstration . The Government accepted the argument that ORG had not taken part in the demonstration but had just been passing by , and explained that the police had fired a large number of tear - gas grenades to disperse the demonstrators . PERSON was struck on the head by CARDINAL of the grenades and died TIME .","On DATE , at TIME , an autopsy was carried out at the public hospital of ORG . The report \u2019s conclusions read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Death was caused by a haemorrhage and brain damage inflicted by a firearm projectile ( tear - gas grenade \u2013 gaz fi\u015fe\u011fi ) .","NORP The characteristics of the projectile \u2019s point of entry show that it had not been fired from a short distance ... \u201d","On DATE , ORG , an eyewitness and colleague of PERSON , went with ORG , another eyewitness and colleague of the latter , to the office of ORG in ORG . ORG stated in particular as follows :","\u201c ... On DATE , at around TIME , we closed the workshop with PERSON , CARDINAL of the workers , and returned home on foot . We saw tanks go past . People were very worried . CARDINAL members of the security forces , armed and wearing the uniform of special teams ( they were wearing special military uniforms with mixed colours , they were not ordinary policemen or soldiers ) , arrived . They started shooting at random . There was a great pandemonium . While we were running we heard gunfire ... We saw PERSON fall to the ground unconscious ( the security force personnel were firing with CARDINAL knee on the ground and taking aim . That means they were not firing in the air but towards people ) . ... I realised that [ Tar\u0131k Ataykaya ] was wounded in the head . ORG also realised this . We carried PERSON to an empty space near a building and called an ambulance ... \u201d","Following a request by the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE , a forensic report was drawn up on DATE by the presidency of the criminal investigation department \u2019s forensic laboratories attached to the LOC police headquarters . It showed that the object extracted from ORG head was a plastic cartridge ( muhimmat ) from a tear - gas grenade of type no . CARDINAL . The report also stated that the cartridge did not bear any characteristic markings from which the firearm in question could have been identified .","B. Administrative and criminal investigations","NORP The applicant \u2019s complaint","On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint . Referring to the statements of ORG and ORG to ORG in ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he asked the public prosecutor of ORG to identify the police officer who had fired at his son and to bring criminal proceedings against him for murder . He also asked that the object extracted from the deceased \u2019s head be examined by a panel of experts from the forensic institute .","Attempts by the public prosecutor \u2019s office to determine the identity and number of members of the security forces authorised to use grenade launchers","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office responsible for investigating organised crime declined jurisdiction to examine the case . It stated , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c ... the autopsy carried out on the deceased showed that death had been caused by a cartridge striking [ the deceased \u2019s head ] . [ Subsequently ] , the forensic report established that this cartridge came from a tear - gas grenade of type no . CARDINAL , a type used by the security forces ... Consequently , the investigation must be carried out by the public prosecutor [ responsible for investigating ordinary crimes ] . \u201d","On DATE the public prosecutor of ORG dealing with the case , following the decision to decline jurisdiction on DATE , sent a letter to the LOC police headquarters . He asked for information on the police units which had been equipped with tear - gas grenade launchers during the incident of DATE and for the identification numbers of the personnel who had used them . However , it can be seen from the answers given by the ORG police headquarters , as summarised below , that it was not possible to establish with certainty the identity or number of all the members of the security forces who had been authorised to use that type of weapon .","First , in DATE , the ORG police informed the ORG public prosecutor that during the incident in question CARDINAL police officers from the special forces ( \u00f6zel harekat ) , whose identification numbers were indicated in the letter , had used grenade launchers in order , according to them , to disperse demonstrators who had been throwing stones and petrol bombs at the security forces .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the head of ORG of the LOC police informed the ORG public prosecutor that it had not been possible to identify the individuals responsible for the death of PERSON .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor asked the ORG police headquarters to inform him of the positions to which the QUANTITY police officers concerned had been assigned on the date of the incident in question .","On DATE a document concerning the assignment of the CARDINAL police officers was added to the file . It showed that these officers had been assigned to various zones during the incident .","In a letter of DATE , the head of ORG of the LOC police in turn informed the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office that CARDINAL tear - gas grenade launchers had been listed in the names of CARDINAL officers of the special forces , that those officers had not been posted to GPE avenue ( near the site of the incident ) and that , in the course of the incident , those teams had been assigned to various zones on the instructions of the police chiefs . In addition , it stated that CARDINAL other police officers of ORG ( \u00e7evik kuvvet ) had used grenade launchers and that they had been assigned to different zones during the incident . He lastly concluded that grenade launchers had been used by a total of CARDINAL police officers attached to ORG .","Testimony obtained by the public prosecutor \u2019s office","On DATE the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor \u2019s office . He requested the identification and punishment of those responsible for his son \u2019s death .","On DATE , ORG , CARDINAL of the QUANTITY police officers whose identification numbers had been communicated previously ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) , gave evidence to the public prosecutor \u2019s office . He stated that , on DATE of the incident , some CARDINAL police officers and soldiers had used tear - gas grenade launchers and that , if PERSON had died as a result of a tear - gas grenade fired by the security forces , any CARDINAL of those CARDINAL police officers and soldiers could have fired it . He added that , during the incident , CARDINAL tear - gas grenades had been used by police officers from the special forces in order to disperse the demonstrators .","On DATE the applicant was again heard by the public prosecutor \u2019s office . He repeated his request for the identification and punishment of those responsible for his son \u2019s death .","On DATE , ORG , an eyewitness and a colleague of PERSON , gave evidence to the public prosecutor \u2019s office . He stated in particular as follows :","\u201c ... On DATE we were working with PERSON in the joinery workshop on NORP boulevard in GPE . Around TIME , a large crowd had gathered on NORP boulevard because of the demonstrations ... We had to close the workshop . There were CARDINAL demonstrators and CARDINAL police officers , wearing camouflage clothing and balaclavas . As we were locking up the workshop , I saw that masked policemen , with CARDINAL knee on the ground ( yere diz \u00e7\u00f6kerek ) , were firing guns unremittingly towards the demonstrators . PERSON was with us . He did not take part in the demonstrations . After leaving the workshop PERSON went back there because the demonstrators were heading towards us . [ At that moment ] , PERSON , hit by a bullet fired by CARDINAL of the policemen , fell to the ground , which means that he was shot by police gunfire . Supporting him , we took him to an empty space near a building and called an ambulance . ORG had been struck on the head and small pieces of his brain had come out . We took PERSON to hospital with a pick - up truck as there was no sign of the ambulance . As the policemen were masked , I am unable to identify them . \u201d","ORG added that , on DATE of the incident , some of his friends had said that they had seen footage of the incident , probably on the private television channel ORG .","On DATE , ORG , an eyewitness and colleague of PERSON , also gave evidence to the public prosecutor \u2019s office . He confirmed ORG \u2019s statements .","Also on DATE , PERSON , a resident of the district where the incident had taken place was interviewed by the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office . She stated in particular :","\u201c ... on DATE , at my home on NORP boulevard , I was waiting for my son to come home from school . It was TIME The demonstrations had begun in the streets . My son was late and I went to look for him on NORP boulevard . I saw my son coming back from school . PERSON , with CARDINAL of his colleagues , had closed the workshop and I think he was on his way home . The street was full of people . The policemen were advancing in our direction . They were firing their guns continuously towards the demonstrators . When I got home with my son , I saw that a masked policeman , with CARDINAL knee on the ground , was firing towards PERSON , who had his back to the policeman . I saw PERSON fall to the ground . He was carried to the door of a building . An ambulance was called . When I checked ORG heart , I realised that he was dead . The policemen who had come towards us were masked , so I would not be able to identify them . As my attention was totally focussed on PERSON , I did not see what the policeman was doing . The individuals present during the incident were ORG and GPE ... \u201d","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor asked the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office to take testimony from police officers ORG , to establish whether they had been present on NORP boulevard or GPE avenue during the incident .","On DATE N.O. and H.A. were interviewed by the public prosecutor \u2019s office . They stated that they had not been assigned to those CARDINAL places at the time the incident had taken place and had not witnessed it .","Administrative investigation","In the meantime , in a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the public prosecutor asked the ORG provincial governor \u2019s office to open an administrative investigation and to transmit the relevant file to the public prosecutor \u2019s office . He pointed out that in the context of that investigation it would be appropriate to take statements from the QUANTITY police officers of ORG and the CARDINAL police officers of the special forces .","It can be seen from the file that an administrative investigation was opened by the ORG provincial governor \u2019s office in order to determine the responsibility of CARDINAL police officers in the incident . Following that investigation , on DATE , the police disciplinary board of the provincial governor \u2019s office made up of the governor , the head of the health department and CARDINAL police superintendents , decided not to impose any sanction on the police officers who had used tear gas during the demonstration of DATE . The board made the following observations in particular :","\u201c ... It is appropriate to close the case having regard [ to the following points : ] it was a major incident . According to the witness statements , the face of the officer who fired the tear - gas grenade which caused the death of the deceased was not visible because he was wearing a balaclava . All officers have undergone training in which they learned that the firing [ of grenades ] must be carried out in such a way as not to hit the target directly . There is no document , evidence , sign or circumstantial evidence ( emare ) from which it could be established that the officers under investigation committed the offence in question ... \u201d","Permanent search notice","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office issued a permanent search notice for the purposes of tracing the person who fired the grenade in question , with effect until DATE , when the offence would become time - barred . Referring , inter alia , to the decision taken by the police disciplinary board to close the case , it found in particular as follows :","\u201c ... The autopsy carried out on DATE showed that the death was caused by a tear - gas grenade of type no . CARDINAL which struck [ the deceased \u2019s head ] ... This projectile was used by the forces on duty at the time of the incident ...","... Under LAW appended to LAW no . CARDINAL on the duties and powers of the police , the police are entitled to use physical force , material force and weapons in order to immobilise offenders , in a gradual manner and in proportion to the particularities and degree of resistance and aggressiveness of the offender . In those circumstances , it will be for the superior to determine the degree of force to be used ... [ Moreover ] , under LAW , a person who complies with statutory obligations can not be punished and a person who obeys an order given by a competent authority in the exercise of its power can not be held responsible for his action .","In the registers of the security forces , there is no information concerning the manner in which the death occurred .","...","The deceased PERSON found himself among the demonstrators during the social demonstrations which took place on DATE in the centre of ORG , either because he was taking part in those demonstrations or because he had just left the workshop where he was working . During the incidents , demonstrators were clashing with the police and throwing sticks and stones . The police intervened against the demonstrators using tear - gas grenades and rubber bullets . The casing of a tear - gas grenade thrown against the moving demonstrators struck the head [ of ORG ] and caused his death . This incident is not mentioned in the police documents . The witnesses to the incident stated that they could not identify the person who had fired it because his face was masked . It was not possible to determine which weapon had been used . The casing did not bear any characteristic mark of the weapon from which it was fired . Even though there is no tangible evidence to show that the person who fired was definitely a police officer , as no register suggested that other armed individuals had used tear - gas grenades [ it can be concluded that ] this grenade was probably used by the security forces which were operating at that time . [ However , ] it is not possible to identify the perpetrator , whether from the autopsy report , the statements of the complainant and witnesses , the forensic report or the case file as a whole ... \u201d","This decision was notified to the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146102","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SMR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BIAGIOLI v. SAN MARINO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE and PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148076","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SENCHISHAK v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Russia)","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant had a husband and CARDINAL daughters in GPE . In DATE CARDINAL of the daughters moved to GPE and has lived there permanently since then . She is a NORP citizen . The other daughter went missing in DATE and is probably dead . The applicant raised her granddaughter , who was born in DATE , from DATE , when the child \u2019s mother went missing .","NORP In DATE the applicant suffered a stroke in GPE . Apparently her right side was then paralysed . At the time , she lived with her husband , until he died in DATE . Thereafter the applicant apparently lived with her granddaughter and her family near ORG .","On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE with a tourist visa issued for DATE , without having lodged a prior application for a residence permit at a NORP Representation . Since then she has been living with her daughter in GPE .","On DATE the applicant applied for a residence permit on the basis of family ties to her daughter .","On DATE ORG ( GPE , PERSON ) refused the applicant a residence permit and ordered her removal to GPE .","NORP The applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , presenting new medical evidence about her state of health .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision and referred the case back to it for reexamination as new evidence had been presented in the matter on which it could not take a stand as a first instance .","On DATE ORG again refused the applicant a residence permit and ordered her removal to GPE . It found that , according to the domestic law , the applicant was not entitled to a residence permit on the basis of family ties as she was not a family member ( a spouse or a minor child ) of a person living in GPE . Other relatives than family members were issued a residence permit only in exceptional circumstances , mainly if the purpose was to continue close family life in GPE or if the relative was completely dependent on a NORP citizen living in GPE . The applicant and her daughter had not had any family life since DATE when the daughter had moved to GPE . A residence permit could not be granted on the basis of health reasons either . It did not appear that the applicant could not receive proper medical treatment or care in GPE . The applicant \u2019s age , her state of health and the fact that her relative lived in GPE were not sufficient reasons to issue her a residence permit .","The applicant appealed to ORG , requesting that ORG decision be quashed . She claimed , inter alia , that she had not received proper treatment in GPE and that such treatment could not be provided . She had no relatives in GPE who could take care of her . This meant that she would have to be put in a nursing home , the standard of which was generally poor in GPE . Her daughter could not move back to GPE either as she would have to leave her job in GPE and take her daughter with her . It was not even certain that they would be issued a residence permit in GPE . The applicant \u2019s mental condition was such that she could not endure removal and separation from her daughter . Separation would lead to her death either through sickness or suicide .","On DATE ORG ordered a stay on removal for the duration of the proceedings before it .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . In its reasons the court noted that the essential question was whether the applicant was completely dependent on her daughter who lives in GPE . The applicant \u2019s state of physical and mental health was attested by proper medical certificates . However , it was not shown that the applicant could not receive proper medical treatment or care in GPE , in her own language . The applicant was thus not completely dependent on her daughter in GPE , nor did she have any close ties to GPE . The applicant had close ties to GPE where she could also receive treatment . The fact that treatment would be more expensive there was not a ground to grant a residence permit . The applicant \u2019s daughter could help her financially and could also visit her in GPE .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting that she be granted leave to appeal and that the court order a stay on removal .","No stay on removal was ordered by ORG .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179426","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF URZHANOV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150563","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MANISCALCO v. ITALY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Reggio Emilia . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , and their Co - agent Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case are disputed by the parties and may be summarised as follows on the basis of the information available to the ORG , without prejudice to the merits of the case .","The applicant worked as a director in a subsidiary company of ORG , until the date she resigned pending disciplinary proceedings brought against her following claims made by the bank in respect of misappropriation of funds by her . The bank also instituted proceedings against the applicant claiming damages and requested precautionary measures ( namely , a conservatory seizure - to be distinguished from a precautionary seizure for the purposes of NORP legislation ) , particularly in connection with transfers to a certain Mr S.","Following her resignation the applicant was owed ( by ORG bank ) work - related credits including , amongst other things , salary arrears and LAW ( spettanza di fine rapporto ) , a lump sum awarded in compensation at the end of an employment relationship .","On DATE , upon an ex parte request of the bank , the labour judge within the GPE tribunal ( ORG ) , considered that there existed both a \u201c presumption of sufficient legal basis \u201d ( fumus boni iuris ) and a \u201c danger in delay \u201d ( periculum in PERSON ) : the applicant having resigned from her work , could easily dispose of or hide her possessions . It therefore ordered the conservatory seizure ( sequestro conservativo ) of the applicant \u2019s assets up to a value of LAW ( amounting to the damage claimed by the bank ) , which reflected any prejudice in connection with transfers made to PERSON The court fixed a date to hear the parties , namely DATE , and fixed the deadline for notification of the order at CARDINAL DATE ( notification occurred on DATE ) .","According to the enforcement act of the conservatory seizure , dated DATE , the judicial officer executing the order attached , \u201c within the limits of the law , the sums owed by ORG to PERSON , under any title including those connected with the termination of her employment , as well as any deposits , shares , obligations or investment funds , that is any movables up to the amount in respect of which she appears to be a debtor , that is MONEY . \u201d","On DATE the applicant challenged the labour judge \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . However , the order was confirmed on DATE . The court considered in detail the results obtained from the investigation to that date , namely that most suspicious dealings ( transfer of funds ) had been signed by the applicant . Nevertheless , the court noted that the applicant had not transferred any funds to herself , but to third parties , particularly Mr S. It considered that the bank \u2019s contention that such funds had been transferred on the applicant \u2019s own initiative was ill - founded .","Nevertheless , it was clear that the applicant had misappropriated funds contrary to internal bank rules , abusing her power as director of the bank branch . It followed that there was a real risk that the bank would lose such money , and therefore the requisite of fumus boni iuris persisted together with that of periculum in ORG .","The court also considered that it could not accept the applicant \u2019s request to hear PERSON ( whose relation with the applicant was also of relevance , but that was not a matter to be assessed at that stage ) . It considered that although PERSON was the beneficiary of the misappropriated funds , he had an interest in being a party to the proceedings , but he had not been summoned to intervene by any of the parties . Under NORP law a person who has an interest in being a party to the proceedings can not be heard as a witness .","The applicant further challenged the measure on CARDINAL DATE , asking the court , inter alia , to revoke the conservatory seizure order , in so far as the requisites under LAW [ ORG ] had not been fulfilled , and in the absence of such revocation to limit the conservatory seizure order , in respect of her TFR to the amounts which might be attached according to LAW .","After having heard the parties at a hearing on DATE , the labour court dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge by a decision of CARDINAL DATE filed in the relevant registry on DATE . It noted that the applicant had failed to disprove the findings referring to her involvement . Neither did the court accept her contention that PERCENT of her TFR could be attached . It rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that in view of LAW ( \u201c LOC ) , it was not possible to attach CARDINAL of her TFR , in the context of the legal relationship between the employer and the employee . The court held that it was so possible in accordance with constant case - law arising from a number of judgments ( inter pluribus , the following ORG judgments : CARDINAL . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; TIME ; CARDINAL ; CARDINAL ; CARDINAL ; CARDINAL ; DATE ; DATE ) , and it had not been disproved by the CARDINAL , CARDINAL - off , case cited by the applicant ( judgment of ORG no . DATE ) , which was more recent .","NORP The attachment of her assets remained in place .","On DATE ORG ( competent for the enforcement proceedings in the case ) upheld the applicant \u2019s plea concerning the limitations on the attachment of her pension fund . The court noted that the fund had been funded partly through voluntary contributions by the employee of part of her salaries ( which had to be considered as a voluntary transfer ) , partly through the LAW , and partly through the obligatory contributions of the employer . Thus , the part of the fund which referred to the sums voluntarily transferred by the applicant could be attached in its entirety but the other CARDINAL parts which were made up of salaries and pension contributions could only be attached up to a limit of PERCENT . In practice , this decision unblocked some of the fund and reduced the attachment of the applicant \u2019s pension fund to the global amount of approximately ORG CARDINAL .","NORP This decision was notified on DATE and on DATE the applicant requested the liquidation of the relevant amount . Such funds were only released DATE , namely on DATE .","In the meantime the labour judge within the GPE tribunal in the main proceedings had requested the parties to go through mediation with the aim of reaching a settlement . The latter not having been successful , the proceedings were continued and the rest of the assets remained attached .","On DATE the labour judge within the GPE tribunal issued a first - instance judgment on the merits of the case , which was filed in the registry on DATE . It found that the applicant had not been responsible for any misconduct in the transfer of funds to Mr S. Thus , the precautionary interim measure connected with this matter had no longer any useful effect . It further found both the applicant and the bank responsible for damage caused in connection with other matters and ordered the applicant to pay CARDINAL of the damage incurred , namely ORG CARDINAL .","Pending the appeal proceedings , the applicant proceeded to donate part of her immovable property to her children . In DATE ORG bank lodged an application before the domestic court challenging such a donation .","The applicant claimed that following the interim measure of CARDINAL DATE all her assets were attached . However , no documentation has been submitted to this ORG specifying which movable and\/or immovable assets had in fact been attached . From vague documentation , namely a mortgage history search on the basis of names ( ispezione ipotecaria per dati anagrafici ) issued by the land registry , it would appear that an unspecified apartment registered in the applicant \u2019s name was affected by the order of CARDINAL DATE . The application to the courts lodged by ORG bank , dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , also makes reference to an enforcement act of the conservatory seizure of CARDINAL DATE by which CARDINAL immovable properties co - owned by the applicant were attached \u2013 however , the original enforcement act has not been provided .","The Government contested the applicant \u2019s allegations , claiming that she had not substantiated that all her assets had been frozen . According to the Government it was not for them to prove what had not been attached . They conceded , however , that on the basis of the enforcement of the order of CARDINAL DATE approximately ORG CARDINAL consisting of the applicant \u2019s pension fund had originally been attached . Despite certain documentation , the Government appeared to doubt whether an apartment , where the applicant lived with her family , and of which she owned PERCENT , had been attached . Even if that were so , the apartment at issue was subject to a mortgage in connection with a loan and thus could in any case not be sold .","The relevant articles of the ORG , in so far as relevant , read as follows :","\u201c Sums such as salaries , allowances or benefits , including termination of employment sums ( TFR ) , owed by private individuals to their employees , may be seized to the extent allowed by a tribunal or judge . CARDINAL of such sums may be seized for the purposes of taxes owed to the state , province or commune , and in the same measure for any other credit .","Seizure in respect of CARDINAL of the abovementioned purposes jointly can not exceed CARDINAL the mentioned sums .","Without prejudice to any other limitation expressly provided for in specialized legal provisions . \u201d","\u201c Once seized the debtor becomes the custodian of the items seized as well as any accessories [ ... ] \u201d","\u201c Having heard the parties and omitting any formality which is not essential for an adversarial procedure , the judge proceeds to examine the requirements necessary for the purposes of the requested measure , before accepting or rejecting the request by means of an order . If notification to the defendant may prejudice the coming to be of the measure , the judge may proceed by means of a reasoned decision or if necessary summary reasons . In such a case , by means of the same decision the judge shall fix a date to hear the parties , not DATE , and award the applicant a peremptory time period of a maximum of DATE within which to carry out the notification of the application and the decision . At the hearing the judge may , by means of an order , confirm , modify or revoke the measures ordered in the decision . \u201d","\u201c On the request of the creditor who has a well - founded fear of losing any guarantee over his claim , the judge may authorise a conservatory seizure of movable or immovable property belonging to the debtor , or of any sums due to the creditor , within the limits allowed by the law for such seizures . \u201d","\u201c A conservatory seizure over immovable property is enforced by registering the measure ordered at the relevant land registry ( l\u2019ufficio del conservatore dei registri immobiliari del luogo in cui i beni sono situati ) . Article CARDINAL applies in respect of the custody of the immovable property . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides for exceptions to what assets can be set - off , and includes under sub - article CARDINAL \u201c assets which can not be seized \u201d .","Other relevant articles of the ORG read as follows :","\u201c A creditor may request a conservatory seizure over the debtor \u2019s assets in accordance with the rules of the code of civil procedure .","Such a seizure may also be requested in respect of a third party acquirer of the debtor \u2019s assets , in so far as an appropriate action to declare the ineffectiveness of the transfer has been lodged . \u201d","\u201c Transfers or any other acts concerning the affected assets may not prejudice the creditor requesting the measure , as provided in the rules for seizure ( pignoramento ) . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155626","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF D\u0130CLE AND SADAK v. TURKEY [Extracts]","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections;Stand for election);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["Mr Hatip Dicle and Mr PERSON were born in DATE and DATE and live in GPE and PERSON , respectively .","Mr Hatip Dicle and PERSON PERSON , who were MPs in ORG of GPE and members of the DEP political party ORG ) , which has since been dissolved by ORG , were arrested on DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE they were sentenced by ORG to DATE imprisonment for belonging to an illegal organisation , pursuant to LAW .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld that judicial decision .","On DATE , adjudicating on an application lodged by the applicants and CARDINAL other persons , ORG found , in its judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( nos . QUANTITY , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVIII ) , a violation of LAW on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of ORG , as well as a violation of LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) , ( b ) and ( d ) of the LAW in conjunction with LAW on the grounds that the applicants had not received timely information on the reclassification of the charges against them and had been unable to question the prosecution witnesses or to have them questioned .","On DATE , at the FAC meeting of ORG at ORG , ORG adopted a Final Resolution ( ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) on the judgment of ORG in the case of PERSON and Others , cited above . The relevant passages of that ORG read as follows :","\u201c ORG , under the terms of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of ORG , as amended by LAW No . CARDINAL ( hereinafter referred to as \u2018 the Convention\u2019 ) ,","Having regard to the final judgment of ORG in the PERSON and others case delivered on DATE and transmitted DATE to ORG under LAW ;","Recalling that the case originated in several applications ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) against GPE , lodged with ORG DATE under former LAW by Mr PERSON , PERSON , Mr Hatip Dicle and Mr PERSON , CARDINAL NORP nationals , and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints relating to the lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against them , to the lack of independence and impartiality of ORG which convicted them , in DATE , to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for belonging to an armed organisation , as well as to the discriminatory violation of their right of freedom of expression and freedom of association ;","Whereas in its judgment of DATE the ORG unanimously :","- held that there had been a violation of LAW on account of the lack of independence and impartiality of ORG ;","- held that there had been a violation of LAW , paragraphs CARDINAL ( a ) , ( b ) and ( d ) , of the LAW , taken together with paragraph CARDINAL , on account of the fact that the applicants were not notified in good time that the charges against them had been altered and that they were unable to examine or have examined the witnesses against them ;","- held that it was not necessary to examine the other complaints under LAW ;","- held that it was not necessary to examine the complaints under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention ;","- held that the government of the respondent state was to pay , within DATE , MONEY to each of the CARDINAL applicants in respect of all heads of damage taken together ; MONEY to all the applicants together in respect of costs and expenses , and that simple interest at an DATE rate of PERCENT would be payable on those sums from the expiry of the above - mentioned DATE until settlement ;","- dismissed the remainder of the applicants\u2019 claim for just satisfaction ;","Having regard to the Rules adopted by ORG concerning the application of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of the Convention ;","Having invited the Government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of DATE , having regard to GPE \u2019s obligation under Article DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , of the Convention to abide by it ;","Whereas during the examination of the case by ORG , the government of the respondent state gave ORG information about the measures taken in order to erase the consequences for the applicants of the violations found by ORG and to prevent new violations of the same kind as those found in the present judgment ; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution ;","Having satisfied itself that , on DATE , within the time - limit set , the government of the respondent state paid the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment of DATE ;","Recalling , as far as individual measures are concerned , Interim Resolution ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of DATE in which the ORG requested the reopening of the criminal proceedings against the applicants or the adoption of other ad hoc measures to erase the consequences of their unfair conviction , as well as Interim Resolution ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of DATE by which the ORG , stressing the importance of the presumption of innocence , requested that the applicants be released pending the outcome of their new trial in the absence of any compelling reasons justifying their continued detention ;","Having noted with satisfaction that , on DATE , ORG quashed the judgment of DATE of ORG confirming the ORG previous conviction , that , since DATE , the applicants are no longer in detention following the suspension of the execution of their sentence , that restrictions on their travel abroad were removed on DATE , that the applicants are no longer deemed to be convicted and that a new trial is currently pending before ORG ;","Considering that , since the violation found by ORG concerned the fairness of the incriminated proceedings and not their outcome , it is not necessary to await the outcome of the new trial ;","Declares , after having examined the information supplied by the Government of GPE , that it has exercised its functions under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW in this case . \u201d","ORG Meanwhile , on DATE , Act No . DATE reforming a number of previous Acts came into force . It added to LAW a new paragraph CARDINAL providing for the reopening of criminal proceedings following a finding of a violation by ORG .","On DATE the applicants requested the reopening of proceedings on the basis of the judgment delivered by the ORG in their case .","On DATE , having ordered the reopening of the proceedings against the applicants pursuant to LAW , ORG reiterated its judgment of DATE . In the grounds for the judgment it mainly used the words \u201c accused ( convicted ) \u201d with reference to the applicants . Occasionally it used the words \u201c convicted ( accused ) \u201d with reference to Mr PERSON and the word \u201c convicted \u201d with reference to Mr Hatip Dicle .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the DATE judgment of ORG . In that appeal they requested their release under LAW , relying on their right to the presumption of innocence . They argued that under LAW reopening of proceedings had invalidated the finality of their first conviction . They pointed out that in the event of an application for reopening of proceedings the law was silent on the issue of the execution of the initial sentence and on the conduct of the future proceedings . The applicants submitted that the absence of provisions in that regard did not mean that there was a legal vacuum provided that any proceedings reopened returned to the trial phase . They added that persons being retried no longer had the status of convicted persons , which meant that the restriction on their liberty could no longer be considered as being in \u201c execution \u201d of the sentence initially imposed on them . Consequently , they concluded that the reopening of the proceedings had given them prisoner status , and that they had therefore lost their \u201c convict \u201d status .","Subsequently the applicants submitted another brief memorial to ORG , arguing , in particular , that by referring to them as \u201c convicted persons \u201d ORG had flouted their right to the presumption of innocence . Indeed , they took the view that since proceedings had been reopened their conviction was no longer res judicata and therefore that they should no longer have been considered as convicted persons and their right to the presumption of innocence should have been respected , pursuant to LAW .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicants\u2019 release .","By judgment du CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , stating that the violations found by ORG in its judgment of DATE had not been remedied . The relevant part of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c III . NORP The procedural phase following the reopening of the proceedings","It is accepted , in both legal practice and legal theory , that where an application for a reopening of proceedings pursuant to LAW is accepted , the investigation which must be conducted [ after the reopening of proceedings ] is independent and distinct from the previous investigation , and the decision to reopen the proceedings provides the basis for that fresh investigation . As stated in the judgment of ORG of ORG . CARDINAL . DATE ( E. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and PERSON ) , the hearings to be organised [ in the framework of the new trial ] are not the continuation of those held previously , and all the procedural rules must be applied to those hearings as if the case were being tried for the first time . The assessment of new evidence , of the nature of the offence and of the sentencing in the framework of the hearings to be held when the proceedings are reopened must be conducted quite independently and separately from the assessment during the initial proceedings , and new pieces of evidence ... may be gathered and examined .","IV . Conclusion","...","DATE The proceedings as reopened under the relevant decision is completely independent from the previous proceedings ; in accordance with that principle , all the legal rules of procedure must be applied to the new hearings , the indictment must be read out , the reclassification of charges must be notified and fresh interrogations must be conducted ... \u201d","ORG having in the meantime been abolished under LAW . CARDINAL , ORG referred the case to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the new NORP Penal Code came into force . The offence of belonging to an armed band formerly set out in LAW is now governed by LAW .","On DATE , having taken note , in particular , of ORG argument that the procedure for reopening the trial was completely independent from the initial one , ORG upheld the conviction of DATE . It nevertheless reduced the applicants\u2019 sentence to a prison term of DATE and DATE pursuant to Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . In the reasoning of its decision the court used the words \u201c accused ( convicted person ) \u201d with reference to the applicants .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE , ORG had issued a decision setting out the conditions to be met by candidates \u2013 including independent candidates with no party political affiliation \u2013 standing for the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE . The relevant part of that decision read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... After serving final sentences ... [ the candidate ] must , pursuant to section CARDINAL\/A of the PERSON on the register of police records , provide , for each conviction , a document certifying that he has recovered his civil rights and that the conviction has become res judicata .","...","Pursuant to LAW ... save in cases of negligence , persons who have been sentenced to a prison term of DATE or more or who have been convicted of an offence , pursuant to LAW ( f ) of Act No . CARDINAL on the election of members of parliament and whose prison sentence has become res judicata , must provide a document certifying that they have , or are deemed to have , served their sentence . \u201d","On DATE , Mr Hatip Dicle applied to ORG for a document establishing that he had indeed served his full prison term .","NORP In its CARDINAL DATE decision ORG held as follows :","\u201c In applying to the convicted person the provisions of Act No . DATE on the entry into force of [ LAW ] of DATE , it was decided to sentence PERSON to a prison term of DATE , to apply section CARDINAL of Act No . DATE and to deduct from that sentence the period which he had served in detention .","ORG has filed an appeal on points of law against that judgment , but the latter has not yet become final .","The convicted person PERSON , whose sentence was commuted to DATE and DATE pursuant to the provisions [ of LAW ] , was remanded in custody from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , and imprisoned from DATE to CARDINAL DATE as a detainee and then as a convicted person .","In the light of the foregoing considerations , the final sentence to be imposed on ORG for belonging to an illegal armed organisation is a prison term of DATE ... In order to serve that sentence , he was held in prison for the aforementioned periods .","Pursuant to the provisions of LAW [ in respect of the applicant ] , this court delivered judgment on DATE ( E. CARDINAL and K. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) reducing the DATE prison sentence to a term of DATE . Since that judgment is not yet final it has not become res judicata . Consequently , it is impossible to indicate the date on which the sentence was completed . However , [ it may be said that ] the sentence served by the convicted person up to the date of his release corresponds to a sentence of DATE ...","On those grounds :","This court can not lawfully adjudicate on the application lodged by the convicted person PERSON for a document certifying that he has served the full sentence imposed on him , firstly because the decision to reduce his sentence to DATE has not yet become final , and secondly because the [ initial ] judgment sentencing him to a DATE term did become res judicata and he was released on account of the stay of execution of that sentence . \u201d","On DATE Mr Hatip Dicle and Mr PERSON submitted their names as independent candidates for the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE in the constituencies of ORG and PERSON respectively . They provided , inter alia , copies of their police records mentioning their DATE conviction by ORG and the decision given by ORG on DATE .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicants\u2019 candidacies on the grounds that their criminal convictions had rendered them ineligible ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-2","P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155820","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KARDI\u0160AUSKAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","On DATE the applicant started serving a sentence in FAC after his conviction for rape and theft .","NORP In subsequent separate proceedings the applicant and his CARDINAL accomplices were found guilty of murder and robbery committed as part of an organised group in DATE . A final decision in that case was adopted in DATE by ORG . The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . That sentence was added to the applicant \u2019s prior conviction , and a final sentence of DATE imprisonment was imposed .","On DATE the applicant was found beaten up and unconscious in FAC after being attacked by other prisoners . A pre - trial investigation into the incident was opened DATE by FAC authorities , who informed the ORG prosecutor about it . Immediately after the event an investigator of the prison inspected the area where it had taken place .","DATE the applicant was taken injured and unconscious to ORG ( PERSON at\u0117mimo viet\u0173 ligonin\u0117 ) and then to ORG greitosios pagalbos universitetin\u0117 ligonin\u0117 ) , where he underwent an operation . DATE he was transferred back to ORG .","On DATE the investigators ordered that the applicant be examined by a forensic medical expert . According to the medical record , the applicant had sustained beatings ( mu\u0161tin\u0117 \u017eaizda ) to the head and haematoma .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother wrote to the ORG authorities that she had learned about the incident DATE , when she wanted to visit her son in FAC . She alleged that the prison was dangerous and demanded that those responsible for the assault on her son be found and punished .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG prosecutor informed the applicant \u2019s mother that a pre - trial investigation into the assault on her son had been opened on DATE of the incident . She was also informed that a medical examination had been ordered to establish the severity of the injury .","On DATE the FAC investigator wrote to the GPE police that the applicant \u2019s mother was avoiding coming to the prison and testifying and he therefore requested the police to question her as a witness ; it was indispensable to ask her whether her son had ever told her about having disagreements with other prisoners or whether he had received threats . The police were also asked to employ operational measures to identify suspects and determine the circumstances surrounding the severe bodily injury ( sunkus sveikatos sutrikdymas ) of the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status by the investigators . It was explained to him that in that status he could submit requests or lodge complaints , under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was questioned about the incident . However , he stated that , given his state of health , he did not remember how he had been attacked and injured .","According to a medical certificate of CARDINAL DATE , a severe fracture of the skull had occurred as a result of what the doctors described as CARDINAL blows to the applicant \u2019s head . He had been unconscious for some time just after the assault , and then neurosurgery had been carried out . The doctors concluded that the applicant had sustained a serious head injury and would need a long period of rehabilitation . In DATE the applicant was declared Category II disabled , and in DATE he was declared Category III disabled ( a less severe level of disability ) . As the applicant \u2019s state of health improved , in DATE he was declared able to work at PERCENT .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from ORG and returned to ORG for outpatient health care . Afterwards , on different dates , the applicant spent time in FAC , FAC and ORG .","On DATE the applicant testified that on DATE of the incident he was taking exercise when another prisoner approached him and asked him to go to DATE of FAC no . CARDINAL . They went to a place where there were other prisoners , among whom the applicant noticed a person he had known earlier from the time outside the prison . That person was holding a knife , and hit ( smog\u0117 ) the applicant on the head . The applicant described him as a tall , well - built man of CARDINAL , who had previously been convicted of murder . The applicant was confident that he could recognise his attacker . On DATE the applicant identified from photographs of CARDINAL persons a suspect who appeared to be a certain PERSON","A report of CARDINAL DATE from FAC showed that PERSON had a conviction for robbery under LAW , and had been sentenced to DATE of imprisonment . According to that report , PERSON had left FAC on DATE for FAC and had come back to FAC on DATE , which was DATE after the incident . An extract from PERSON \u2019s personal file indicates that PERSON arrived at FAC on DATE and left that prison on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG authorities concluded , on the basis of the DATE report , that on DATE of the incident PERSON was not being held in FAC but was in FAC in GPE .","According to ORG internal investigation report of DATE , the authorities questioned CARDINAL witnesses , including prisoners , operational investigation measures were ordered , medical examinations were carried out and photographs of possible suspects were shown to the applicant and witnesses .","By a letter of DATE to the NORP police , FAC authorities reiterated their request that suspects be identified . The letter also mentioned that , according to the medical report , the applicant had sustained CARDINAL blows to the head with blunt objects ( su\u017ealojimai padaryti veikiant bukais daiktais \u2013 dviem sm\u016bgiais ) . The prison authorities also observed that the applicant \u2019s testimony lacked consistency ( apklausiamas kei\u010dia parodymus ) and that he claimed not to remember the circumstances of the incident .","On DATE the GPE police informed FAC investigators that no reliable information enabling identification of the perpetrators of the assault on the applicant had been established .","On DATE and DATE FAC authorities requested the ORG prosecutor and the GPE and GPE police authorities to order additional operational measures , inter alia , to question CARDINAL witnesses \u2013 inmates of FAC at the time when the applicant was injured . The last letter ended with a request for the criminal police \u201c to identify persons who had committed the impugned crime and to find the crime weapon \u201d ( nustatyti asmenis , padariusius min\u0117t\u0105 nusikaltim\u0105 ir surasti nusikaltimo padarymo \u012frankius ) .","On DATE the prosecutor ordered the NORP police to carry out the aforementioned actions . The prosecutor also informed the applicant \u2019s mother that the criminal investigation file had been examined by a prosecutor . DATE , the GPE police authorities sent the report of questioning to FAC investigators .","Considering that the process of investigation was not producing any results , in DATE the applicant \u2019s mother objected to the way the investigation in the case was being conducted and asked the prosecutors to find her son \u2019s attackers .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor dismissed the complaint by the applicant \u2019s mother that the criminal investigation was not effective . According to the prosecutor , even though a number of investigative actions had been carried out , it was not possible to identify the persons who had injured the applicant . It was explained to the applicant \u2019s mother that , if she disagreed with the prosecutor \u2019s conclusion , she could appeal to a court .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor refused to comply with a request by the applicant \u2019s mother to start an investigation into whether ORG authorities had failed to act and to protect her son \u2019s safety and health in prison . In the decision , the prosecutor wrote :","\u201c The [ applicant \u2019s mother ] cites matters which are relevant to the criminal case concerning the injury to ORG . A pre - trial investigation into this incident is already pending . In the event that a failure of the officers to perform their official duties is established , the question of their criminal responsibility will be decided subsequently . The question of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage [ caused to the applicant ] will also be decided within the current pre - trial investigation , once a person or persons who have committed the crime , that is , injured PERSON , are identified . If then , due to his state of health or for other reasons , ORG is unable to submit a civil claim on his own account , the prosecutors will have to submit such a claim , as prescribed by LAW . \u201d","The decision stated that it could be appealed against within DATE to the pre - trial investigating judge of the ORG district court .","According to a report by ORG authorities of CARDINAL DATE , even though prisoners who had served in that prison DATE had been questioned about the attack on the applicant , no relevant information had been obtained .","On DATE the prosecutor informed the applicant \u2019s mother that no suspect had been identified during the investigation .","The pre - trial investigation was still pending on DATE , as was later observed by ORG in the administrative case for damages ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","In reply to a request for information by the applicant \u2019s mother , on CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor wrote to her that the pre - trial investigation was still pending , no suspect had been identified and no procedural decision had been taken in the criminal case .","In their observations of CARDINAL DATE on the admissibility and merits of the case , the ORG stated that the criminal investigation remained open until new circumstances came to light . On DATE the ORG received observations from the applicant , in which he noted that the criminal investigation was still continuing .","In DATE the applicant was granted ORG - guaranteed legal aid and on DATE he instituted proceedings against the ORG .","Firstly , the applicant claimed damage to his health resulting from the failure of the prison authorities to protect him from ill - treatment . To this claim the ORG administration responded that the applicant had never indicated that he was in danger in prison .","Secondly , in the rectified complaint of CARDINAL DATE the applicant criticized the authorities for not having established who his assailant was . On DATE , when addressing ORG in writing , the applicant further argued that the authorities had failed to act diligently and to take all necessary measures so that the crime was solved quickly .","During those proceedings the applicant contended that the introduction of his civil claim for damages in respect of the injury had been delayed for objective reasons , namely the state of his health , his continuing stay in prison , the failure of the investigating authorities to indicate suspects and to inform the applicant in a timely fashion of the possibility of submitting such a claim and of his right to legal aid .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The court established that the applicant had been injured on DATE , and the statutory time - limit to lodge a claim for damages caused by health impairment was DATE . The applicant had lodged his claim only on DATE , that is , DATE after the injury had been sustained .","The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG remitted the case to the first - instance court to verify whether part of the applicant \u2019s claim that the pre - trial investigation had not been effective was also time - barred .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant \u2019s claim for damage caused to his health on the ground of prescription . The court established that as early as DATE the applicant \u2019s health had improved ; he had been released from hospital and had returned to prison . The applicant had relatives to assist him in making use of his rights , and he could also have asked for free legal aid in a timely fashion . Lastly , it was only the applicant \u2019s own unfounded belief that a court action for damages against FAC was not possible before the person who had attacked him was identified .","By a final decision of DATE ORG dismissed the claim due to the expiry of the DATE prescription period applicable to claims relating to damage to health . The court rejected the applicant \u2019s arguments that he had been misled by the prosecutors investigating the incident , who had convinced him that he would be able to lodge a civil claim for damages only after the person responsible for his injury was identified . The applicant \u2019s contention that his health had prevented him from submitting the claim in time was likewise dismissed . ORG also observed that the applicant could have appealed against the investigating ORG or prosecutor \u2019s actions , if he considered them improper . However , the applicant had not made use of any of his rights under LAW . The pre - trial investigation was not yet over ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157396","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NEMESN\u00c9 FONY\u00d3DI v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s ex - husband initiated civil lawsuit before ORG against the applicant for dissolution of marital property and for return of present on DATE .","The court separated the claim to CARDINAL proceedings and dismissed the claimant \u2019s claim in respect of the return of present .","Subsequently , after several hearings , the first - instance court delivered the judgment in respect of dissolution of the marital property on CARDINAL DATE .","On appeal , ORG delivered the final and binding judgment on DATE amending the first - instance judgment in several aspects .","Both the applicant and the claimant challenged the judgment before ORG which upheld the judgment on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167559","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SEMENENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and resides in GPE .","NORP The applicant suffers from emotional instability and slight mental retardation since childhood . Several forensic psychiatric examinations found him to have sufficient mental capacity to be held criminally liable .","On DATE Ms O. , a tobacco kiosk seller , was stabbed to death at her working place .","On DATE the applicant was apprehended by the police . According to the police reports , that measure was undertaken on CARDINAL different occasions , each time in respect of an administrative ( minor ) offence formally unrelated to the murder .","Under the first police report , at TIME on DATE , the applicant was noted in a public place while being in a state of manifest alcohol intoxication , swearing and disturbing passers - by . When the police ordered him to produce his documents and follow them to their vehicle , he resisted in a vehement manner . As indicated in the apprehension report , at TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to the court for the examination of the above administrative offence case .","In TIME on DATE FAC ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence of resisting the police and fined him CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( around QUANTITY ) .","It is not known what exactly happened next . The case file contains CARDINAL more reports on the applicant \u2019s administrative apprehension dated DATE . According to CARDINAL of them , he was released at TIME on that date , without any further details being indicated . As noted in the other report , at TIME on DATE the applicant was apprehended again in respect of an administrative offence . According to the related judicial ruling of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , at TIME on DATE the police apprehended the applicant in a street after he resisted to an identity check .","It appears from the materials of the criminal proceedings against the applicant , which were instituted later ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that on DATE he was questioned in respect of PERSON murder . He submitted that he had bought cigarettes at her kiosk on DATE , without anything unusual having happened . The case file does not contain any further information regarding that questioning .","On DATE the applicant had a conversation with his cell - mate in the temporary detention facility , PERSON . , who convinced him to confess to the murder . He also promised the applicant money in exchange for the information as to where the applicant had thrown the knife . The applicant drew a scheme . Subsequently the police found the knife at the indicated place . PERSON . \u2019s statements and the related material evidence were eventually relied on by the trial court in the criminal proceedings against the applicant .","Still on DATE , from TIME , the police carried out a search in the applicant \u2019s flat in the context of the investigation of the murder of Ms O. It appears that they seized his shirt .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence of resisting the police at TIME on DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention to be calculated from DATE ( at TIME ) to DATE .","On DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness in the murder case . He reiterated his statement that he had only bought cigarettes at Ms O. \u2019s kiosk .","On DATE the applicant was questioned again as a witness concerning the murder of PERSON He confessed to having stabbed her several times after she had refused to give him cigarettes without payment .","On DATE the applicant repeated his confession during a reconstruction of the crime . He also showed where he had thrown the knife .","Later on DATE the applicant was questioned as a criminal suspect . The questioning took place in the presence of a lawyer appointed for him . As noted in the investigator \u2019s decision to that effect , there were sufficient reasons to suspect the applicant of the murder and , given the fact that he suffered from a mental disorder , his legal representation was mandatory . During that questioning the applicant retracted his earlier confession and submitted that he had not been at the tobacco kiosk on DATE of the murder . He explained that he had invented his confession being scared that otherwise he would not be released .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was formally arrested on suspicion of PERSON murder . The arrest report noted that there were eyewitnesses who had directly pointed at him as the offender . During his questioning on that and the following day the applicant confessed to that crime .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s pretrial detention as a preventive measure pending trial .","NORP The trial court remitted the case for additional investigation many times . According to the case - file materials , the most recent such remittal took place on DATE . There is no information about any subsequent developments ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144681","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MARI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife , in DATE of pregnancy , gave birth to a stillborn child at ORG ( ORG bolni\u010dki centar Split ) , a publicly owned health institution .","After the birth the applicant and his wife did not want to take their child \u2019s remains , so the hospital assumed the responsibility for the body .","An autopsy carried out in the hospital on DATE showed that the child had died as a result of gestational complications .","On DATE the hospital disposed of the child \u2019s body together with other clinical waste ( human tissue and amputated body parts ) . The clinical waste was taken by the hospital \u2019s contractor , company L. , to the GPE cemetery for cremation .","Soon afterwards the applicant and his wife started to enquire about their child \u2019s burial , but were unable to obtain any specific information .","On DATE the applicant and his wife brought a civil action against the hospital in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking damages for distress caused by the manner in which it had disposed of their child \u2019s body . They argued that they had given their consent to an autopsy and burial of their child , but the hospital had failed to show that they had performed the burial and to inform them where it had taken place .","NORP The hospital raised the defence that they had acted in accordance with section II of ORG Instructions on ORG , allowing them to dispose of the child \u2019s body together with other clinical waste .","At a hearing on DATE the court heard evidence from pathologist PERSON , who carried out the autopsy of the child \u2019s body . He explained that in situations in which parents did not want to assume responsibility for the body of their stillborn child , the hospital was required by law to treat the body as clinical waste and to dispose of the remains by cremation or burial . He further explained that before concluding the contract with company DATE , the hospital had buried bodies of stillborn babies in a communal grave . PERSON had then suggested cremating the bodies rather than burying them , because the communal grave had been full . The applicant \u2019s child \u2019s remains had therefore been packed together with other clinical waste and taken to the GPE cemetery for cremation . The applicant \u2019s wife disputed GPE \u2019s version of events , arguing that PERSON had first told her that her baby had been buried . PERSON replied that he had initially thought that to be the case , not finding out until later what had actually happened .","Another hearing was held on DATE , at which a nurse from the hospital , GPE , gave oral evidence . She testified that after the child \u2019s body had been taken to the pathology department , she had spoken to the applicant who had told her that he wanted the hospital to bury his child . She had seen the applicant on another occasion , and he had told her that he did not want to assume responsibility for the funeral . When the applicant had again approached her to ask where the burial had taken place , she had told him that his child had been buried in the communal grave , although she had not been sure , but in any event she had considered cremation in the communal grave to be a form of burial . The witness also expressed her regret that the applicant might have been under the impression that the child would be buried in an individual grave . The applicant disputed PERSON \u2019s version of events , asserting that he had asked for all the documents and invoices concerning the burial to be forwarded to him . Nurse PERSON admitted that that was true , but that no such documents existed , which she had told the applicant already .","At the same hearing CARDINAL other witnesses , GPE and GPE , technicians in the hospital \u2019s pathology department , gave evidence . PERSON testified that the hospital had abandoned its practice of burials in DATE and had started cremations . The same procedure had been applied in the case of the applicant \u2019s stillborn child , whose remains had been taken together with other clinical waste and cremated . PERSON confirmed that he had personally placed the remains of CARDINAL children in a box , which had been taken away by company PERSON , but he did not know what had happened to them later .","At a hearing on DATE the director of company ORG testified that the remains of the applicant \u2019s child had not been buried at the cemetery , but had been disposed of with other clinical waste and cremated . He explained that there was a communal grave in which bodies could be buried , if parents so requested and were granted the necessary authorisation . Otherwise the bodies were cremated . The practice was to place the bodies in CARDINAL large wooden box together with other clinical waste and to take them to the GPE cemetery for cremation .","At the same hearing the applicant and his wife GPE gave their oral evidence . GPE stated that she had been in a state of shock after the birth of her stillborn child and had been suffering psychologically ever since . They had therefore requested that nurse GPE arrange for the child to be buried in the local graveyard . As soon as she was feeling better , GPE had requested information from the hospital about the child \u2019s burial and was told that her child was buried in the local graveyard . However , at the graveyard she was told that no such burial had taken place . For some time afterwards nobody could tell her what had happened to her child \u2019s body , until a meeting was held in DATE at the hospital where she learned that the child had been cremated at the GPE cemetery . She and her husband had contacted the cemetery , who replied that they did not know anything about the cremation of their child , and that the remains of a stillborn child would not be cremated without the relevant documentation . The applicant testified that nurse PERSON had never advised him exactly what would happen to his child \u2019s body , and that he would have never allowed his child to be cremated in such a manner . He also confirmed that he had learned from the GPE cemetery that the body of a stillborn child would not be cremated without the relevant procedural documentation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the civil action on the grounds that after the applicant and his wife had declined to assume responsibility for the body , the hospital had , in accordance with the law , disposed of the child \u2019s body together with other clinical waste . The relevant part of the judgment reads :","\u201c There is no dispute between the parties that on DATE [ GPE ] gave birth to a stillborn child , and that an autopsy of the remains and placenta has been carried out , and that in the pathologist \u2019s office [ the applicant ] declined nurse ORG suggestion that he assume responsibility for the burial of the stillborn child . The defendant therefore , in accordance with the Instructions on ORG ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL ) in conjunction with section QUANTITY of the Protection from Infectious Diseases Act ( ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , considered the placenta and foetus to be clinical waste within the meaning of LAW the by - law on the measures of preventing and combating hospital infections ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , which provides that foetuses are clinical waste in cases where the mother was up to DATE ( CARDINAL - and - a - half months ) pregnant , although there is no dispute in the case at issue that [ GPE ] gave birth to a stillborn child after DATE of pregnancy , who was not however reported as living , unlike in cases where the child was born alive and then died .","...","It therefore follows that the defendant , in disposing of the plaintiffs\u2019 stillborn child ( in a situation in which they had refused to assume responsibility for the burial and did not have a family grave ) , acted in compliance with the above - mentioned regulations and the contract with company L. The defendant therefore is under no obligation to pay compensation . \u201d","The applicant and his wife appealed to ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . They argued that the relevant facts had not been properly established , and that it remained unclear where and how the body of their child had been buried . They also pointed out that the regulations to which the first - instance court had referred did not stipulate that the body of a stillborn child could be treated as clinical waste .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . It considered , however , that the first - instance court had erred in finding that the child \u2019s body had been disposed of in accordance with the law , but that given that no provision of the law obliged the hospital to inform parents where their stillborn child was buried , the applicant and his wife could not claim any damages in that regard . ORG in particular held :","\u201c It should be noted at the outset that this court does not accept the findings of the first - instance court , which found the defendant \u2019s exoneration from liability under the provisions of the ORG on the Disposal of Clinical Waste ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL ; hereinafter \u2018 the Instructions\u2019 ) and the by - law on the measures of preventing and combating hospital infections ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; hereinafter \u2018 the by - law\u2019 ) . These regulations do not concern the question as to the manner in which hospitals should deal with the bodies of stillborn children . They concern , inter alia , the manner in which clinical waste should be disposed of , including foetuses in cases where the mother was up to DATE pregnant ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the by - law ) , which is not the case in the present case , in which [ GPE ] gave birth to a stillborn child after DATE of pregnancy .","Although the existing legislation has not regulated the issue of the legal status of a stillborn child coherently , this court finds that the aforementioned ORG and by - law are not applicable . This is because there are specific provisions which clearly differentiate between a foetus and a stillborn child . Unlike a foetus :","- a stillborn child must be registered in the register of births ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW Official Gazette no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL )","- a stillborn child , just like any other deceased person , may only be buried or cremated after examination by a coroner ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the by - law on the examination and establishment of the time and cause of death DATE ORG nos . CARDINAL , GPE and GPE ) .","There is therefore no doubt for this court that a stillborn child , unlike a foetus , can be buried ( or cremated ) in the same manner as any other deceased person under the relevant provisions of LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , which provides that a deceased person shall be buried in his [ or her ] local cemetery or another graveyard chosen by the deceased or his or her next - of - kin ( section CARDINAL ) .","However , neither the above - mentioned provisions , any other provisions regulating the conduct of the defendant towards its patients ( LAW \u2013 Official Gazette nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and DATE ) , nor any other provisions of the law , oblige the defendant , as a healthcare institution , to bury a body not taken away by the next - of - kin at a location which is known to them .","The defendant is therefore not liable for damages because the grounds for liability , within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW ( Official Gazette nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) in conjunction with section DATE of LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , have not been established . The plaintiffs\u2019 reliance on liability for breach of a contractual duty is not applicable because the relevant provisions of LAW do not provide for such damages . \u201d","NORP The applicant and his wife also lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE , arguing that they found it incomprehensible that the hospital could not be held to account despite failing to act in compliance with the relevant domestic law when disposing of the body of their stillborn child .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law , endorsing the reasoning of ORG . It added :","\u201c It should also be noted that the mental anguish the parents are suffering because they do not know where their child \u2019s grave is and thus are unable to visit it , is not a form of non - pecuniary damage within the meaning of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( Official Gazette nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) ... only mental anguish caused by loss of amenities of life , disfigurement , breaches of reputation , honour , liberty or personality rights or the death and serious disability of a close relative warrant the award of non - pecuniary damages . Any other mental anguish arising from other situations is not a legal basis for the award of damages . \u201d","The applicant and his wife then lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) reiterating his previous arguments . He argued that the remains of his stillborn child had been disposed of improperly and that he was unable to obtain information about where the child was buried .","On DATE ORG declared it inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded , holding the following :","\u201c In their constitutional complaint , the appellants were unable to show that the competent courts had acted contrary to the constitutional provisions concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms or had arbitrarily interpreted the relevant statutory provisions . ORG therefore finds that the present case does not raise an issue of the ORG constitutional rights . Thus , there is no constitutional law issue in the case for ORG to decide on . ... \u201c","NORP This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Split Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ) against the employees of the hospital and company ORG , alleging that the burial of his stillborn child had not been documented or conducted properly .","The Split Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG questioned the pathologist ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , who explained that foetuses and the bodies of stillborn children were disposed of together with other clinical waste , as had happened with the body of the applicant \u2019s stillborn child . There was no need for parents to give any special written consent , because it was not required by law .","On DATE the Split Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint on the grounds that the body of his stillborn child had been disposed of in accordance with the relevant law and procedures .","The applicant took over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor and on DATE lodged an indictment in ORG against GPE , GPE and GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) on charges of negligent performance of duties .","On DATE ORG rejected the indictment on the grounds that the hospital \u2019s employees had acted in accordance with the relevant legislation , namely ORG Instructions on ORG , the Protection from LAW , and the by - law on the measures of preventing and combating hospital infections .","The applicant appealed to ORG , but on DATE it was dismissed as groundless .","In DATE the applicant brought his case to the attention of media , which prompted the State Attorney \u2019s Office to re - examine his complaints .","In a report dated DATE , the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG informed the GPE ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavni odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) of the course of the applicant \u2019s case . It referred to the civil proceedings in which the applicant \u2019s damages claim against the hospital had been dismissed , and reiterated that the body of the stillborn child had been disposed of in accordance with the procedure required by law and thus did not constitute a criminal offence ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156267","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MEIMANIS v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded;Ratione personae);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He is currently on trial in criminal proceedings instituted on DATE for an attempt to take a bribe , together with PERSON and FAC At the time the applicant was the head of a division in ORG ( NORP policijas birojs ) in ORG in GPE ( PERSON galven\u0101 policijas p\u0101rvalde ) .","According to the applicant , during his trial before the appellate court , he learned that an operational investigation ( operat\u012bv\u0101s uzskaites lieta ) had been opened in respect of his co - defendant GPE","According to the ORG , on DATE the operational investigation had been opened on the basis of information provided by a private person . On DATE the relevant authority , ORG ( GPE nov\u0113r\u0161anas un apkaro\u0161anas birojs \u2013 the \u201c ORG \u201d ) , had informed the prosecutor \u2019s office about this . On DATE , a ORG judge had authorised the interception of GPE \u2019s telephone conversations and the prosecutor \u2019s office had authorised an undercover operation ( operat\u012bvais eksperiments ) . On DATE the Head of the ORG had authorised the interception of PERSON \u2019s telephone conversations on the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Law on Operational Activities , and they included conversations with the applicant . On DATE the ORG had informed the prosecutor \u2019s office about the operational measures under the same provision . The Government did not adduce any evidence in this connection .","On DATE a judge of ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas GPE tiesu pal\u0101ta ) , in the context of the criminal proceedings against the applicant , requested information about the operational investigation .","On DATE a specialised prosecutor , having examined the material in accordance with section CARDINAL ) of the Law on Operational Activities , replied that the operational investigation had been opened on DATE . In respect of the applicant , no interception of telephone conversations had been carried out in the context of that operational investigation . However , she noted that \u201c his conversations were recorded if he was speaking to [ a person ] , whose conversations were intercepted in accordance with the LAW \u201d . According to the applicant , he learned about this information during the appellate court hearing on DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested the prosecution authorities to review the lawfulness of the operational measures which had been carried out and asked specific questions concerning these measures .","On DATE the specialised prosecutor replied , among other things , that on DATE an undercover operation had been approved on the basis of section CARDINAL ) of the Law on Operational Activities in the context of the operational investigation to record the manner in which the sworn attorney GPE would proceed upon receipt of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) , to be handed over to the officials of the economic crime police , to find out whether he would continue arranging for a bribe and to ascertain his possible accomplices . She also noted that the domestic law did not provide for independent judicial supervision of operational activities ; such supervision was carried out by ORG and specially authorised prosecutors in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Law on Operational Activities . Finally , she noted that the operational investigation measures in respect of the applicant and his co - defendants had not been illegal and that there had been no breaches of the general principles governing operational activities contained in section CARDINAL of that PERSON .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about the specialised prosecutor \u2019s reply .","On DATE a higher - ranking specialised prosecutor rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint . She referred to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and section CARDINAL of the Law on Operational Activities . By reference to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) the prosecutor also explained that the authorities had learned during the interception of telephone conversations of GPE that an offence was being planned for DATE the act of arranging for and taking a bribe DATE which would also involve officials from ORG . In order to prevent further participation of officials in corruption - related offences , a decision was taken to intercept the telephone conversations of PERSON on the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Law on Operational Activities . The competence of the prosecution authorities did not include examination of whether that or other provisions were compatible with LAW ; these issues could be determined by ORG .","The applicant lodged a further complaint with ORG , which was rejected by a final decision of CARDINAL DATE . With reference to sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the Law on Operational Activities , it was reiterated that no breaches of that PERSON had been found .","On DATE the applicant lodged an individual constitutional complaint with ORG ( PERSON tiesa ) . He alleged that ( i ) section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW was incompatible with LAW ( protection of human rights ) and CARDINAL ( right to private life ) of the LAW ( PERSON ) and also with ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , and ( ii ) the first and second sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Law on Operational Activities were incompatible with LAW and the first sentence of DATE ( right to a fair trial ) of the LAW and also with LAW and LAW .","On DATE the ORG initiated proceedings in case no . DATE with regard to the compatibility of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Law on Operational Activities with LAW and the compatibility of the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that PERSON with LAW alone . ORG rejected the remainder of the applicant \u2019s complaint .","On DATE a judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s request , among other things , to see the case materials , since it was contrary to the procedure laid down in the PERSON on ORG . It was for the judge to take the necessary steps to prepare a case for adjudication ( lietas sagatavo\u0161ana izskat\u012b\u0161anai ) in accordance with section CARDINAL of the PERSON on ORG . He also referred to section GPE ) , section CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) to explain that the parties were entitled to see the case materials after the decision concerning adjudication had been taken and that it was for the judge to decide which institutions or officials were to be requested to submit additional information or documents .","On DATE the judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s request to see the written submissions filed by ORG ) in the proceedings on the grounds that such request had already been dismissed given that these submissions formed part of the case materials .","On DATE the applicant requested permission to see at least the judge \u2019s preliminary opinion ( atzinums par lietas sagatavo\u0161anu izskat\u012b\u0161anai ) before the preparation of the case was completed and before the preparatory meeting had taken place . The applicant sought the possibility of expressing his opinion on the proceedings and , in particular , on whether or not the case could be decided by means of an oral procedure , which was his preference .","On DATE the President of ORG replied to the applicant that the parties could see the case materials only after the decision concerning adjudication had been taken . That decision had been taken on DATE . Consequently , the applicant could see the case material . As regards the possibility of the proceedings being conducted orally or in accordance with a written procedure , he explained that this issue was to be determined by ORG in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)-(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on ORG . This issue was first to be considered by the relevant judge , then by the President of ORG and , subsequently , by all other judges in the preparatory meeting . The parties could express their opinion on this matter after they had seen the case materials .","On DATE the applicant filed an opinion with ORG and noted , among other things , that the case could not be decided through a written procedure and that an oral hearing should be held . He admitted that the written procedure before LAW as such did not infringe his rights to be heard , but submitted that it had to be examined in each particular case and that the court was not allowed to reject a request in connection with the gathering of evidence without examining its necessity , significance or procedural legal grounds .","On DATE , in a closed preparatory meeting , ORG examined the case materials and found that the documents contained therein were sufficient for the purposes of examining the case by means of a written procedure ( sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the PERSON on ORG ) . On DATE the applicant was informed about this decision and was given DATE to see the case materials and to give his opinion in connection with them ( section CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on ORG ) . The applicant used this possibility .","On CARDINAL DATE the Constitutional Court delivered its ruling in case no . DATE and held that the contested legal provisions complied with LAW and the Convention . The relevant part reads as follows :"],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159070","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF EBRAHIMIAN v. FRANCE","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was recruited on a DATE fixed - term contract , from DATE to DATE , extended for DATE from DATE to DATE , as a contracted employee of the hospital civil service , to carry out the duties of a social assistant in the psychiatric unit of ORG ( \u201c CASH \u201d ) a public health establishment administered by GPE .","On DATE the Director of ORG informed the applicant that her contract would not be renewed with effect from DATE . The reason given for the decision DATE which had been taken following complaints by certain patients being treated at FAC was that the applicant refused to stop wearing her head covering .","On DATE , in response to a letter from the applicant alleging the illegality of the refusal to renew her contract in that it was motivated by her convictions and her affiliation to the NORP faith , the Director of ORG indicated that at the meeting of CARDINAL DATE which had preceded the administration \u2019s decision , she had not been criticised for her religious beliefs , but merely reminded of the rights and duties of public employees , namely the ban on manifesting such beliefs . He continued :","\u201c I emphasised that I had been required to have a meeting with you following complaints made to PERSON , manager of the welfare and education unit , both by patients who were refusing to meet you on account of this display [ of your beliefs ] and by social assistants for whom it was becoming increasingly difficult to operate in this very delicate situation . It should be noted that PERSON raised these difficulties with you and tried to persuade you not to manifest your religious beliefs , even before the complaints reached the ORG . Indeed , it was only shortly before the meeting with you on DATE that the unit managers were officially informed of the problem created by the fact of your head covering .","With regard to your head covering at the time of recruitment : as you are aware , the recruitment interview lasts , at the most , TIME . Individuals attend wearing ordinary \u201c street \u201d clothes , and do not necessarily have to remove their coats or scarves . The fact that your head was covered during that interview was not interpreted as a possible sign of [ religious ] affiliation , but simply as a form of attire .","The termination of your contract has a legal basis , and does not result from a discriminatory situation . \u201d","The Director of ORG further reminded the applicant in this letter of the ORG issued by the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat on DATE . That ORG stated that the principle of freedom of conscience , the principle of ORG secularism and the principle that all public services must be neutral prevented employees in the public sector from enjoying the right to manifest their religious beliefs ; lastly , it pointed out that the wearing of a symbol intended to indicate their religious affiliation constituted a breach by employees of their obligations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By an application registered on DATE , the applicant asked ORG to set aside the decision of DATE .","By letters of CARDINAL and DATE , the applicant was informed of the decision of ORG at the CASH to include her on the list of candidates for a recruitment test for social assistants and to permit her to take part . This decision was taken on the basis of the decree of CARDINAL DATE granting special status to social assistants employed by ORG hospitals . That text stated that the social assistant \u2019s task was to assist patients and their families who were experiencing difficulties in their dealings with the social services , by helping to draw up and implement the relevant programme in the establishment to which they were attached and also other social and educational programmes , in coordination , inter alia , with other institutions or the social services . The applicant did not take part in the recruitment test .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG held that the decision not to renew the contract had been compatible with the principles of secularism and the neutrality of public services :","\u201c ... In view of PERSON no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE [ laying down the rights and duties of civil servants , see paragraph CARDINAL below ] ...","Although civil - service employees , like all citizens , enjoy the freedom of conscience and of religion laid down in the constitutional , legislative and convention texts , which prohibit any discrimination based on their religious beliefs or their atheism , particularly in terms of access to positions , career progress and the disciplinary system , the principles of the secular nature of the ORG and the bodies to which its powers are delegated and of neutrality in public services preclude those employees , in the exercise of their duties , from being entitled to manifest their religious belief , especially through external sartorial expression ; this principle , which is intended to protect the users of the service from any risk of influence or of interference with their own freedom of conscience , concerns all public services and not only the education service ; this obligation must be applied with particular stringency in those public services where the users are in a fragile or dependent state ; ... \u201d","It dismissed the applicant \u2019s action , pointing out that the decision not to renew her contract had been taken on account of her refusal to remove her veil \u201c following complaints submitted by certain patients in the care centre and in spite of repeated warnings by her line managers and friendly advice from her colleagues \u201d . The court considered that on the basis of the above - mentioned principles concerning the expression of religious opinions within the public services , the administrative authorities had not committed an error of assessment in refusing to renew the contract on the implied grounds of her wearing of \u201c attire manifesting , in an ostensible manner , allegiance to a religion \u201d . It concluded \u201c thus , even though the applicant \u2019s employer tolerated the wearing of this veil for DATE and [ her ] conduct can not be considered as deliberately provocative or proselytising , the hospital has not acted illegally in deciding not to renew the contract following her refusal to stop wearing the veil . \u201d","By a judgment of DATE , ORG held that the contested decision was disciplinary in nature , in that \u201c it transpires from both the letter of DATE from the ORG \u2019s Director of ORG and the hospital \u2019s defence pleadings that [ the decision ] was taken on account of [ the applicant \u2019s ] persistence in wearing a veil for religious reasons during TIME ... \u201d . It therefore quashed the decision on procedural grounds , given that the applicant had not been informed of the reasons for the envisaged measure prior to its adoption , nor given an opportunity to consult her case file .","In execution of the court of appeal \u2019s judgment , the Director of the CASH invited the applicant to inspect the case file . By a reasoned judgment of CARDINAL DATE , he confirmed that her contract would not be renewed :","\u201c As a result of the judgment of ORG dated DATE , which held that the non - renewal of your fixed - term contract which expired on DATE had been disciplinary in nature , we invited you again to inspect your administrative file on DATE , in order to bring the procedure into line with the regulations .","As required in execution of the same judicial decision , we hereby inform you that the disciplinary basis for the non - renewal of your contract is your refusal to remove your veil , in that it ostensibly manifests your religious affiliation .","In application of the principles of the secular nature of the ORG and the neutrality of public services , which underlie the duty of discretion imposed on every ORG employee , even those employed under contract , your refusal to remove your head covering when carrying out your duties effectively amounts to a breach of your obligations , thus exposing you to a legitimate disciplinary sanction , as the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat held , with regard to the principle , in its Opinion concerning PERSON , dated DATE .","Our decision not to renew the contract is all the more justified in the present case in that you were required to be in contact with patients when carrying out your duties . \u201d","By a letter of DATE , the administrative court of appeal informed the applicant that the CASH had taken the measures required by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It advised her that where a decision was set aside on procedural grounds , the administrative body could legally take new decisions that were identical to those that had been set aside , provided that they complied with the relevant procedure , and that the new decision of CARDINAL DATE could be challenged before the administrative court .","NORP In DATE the applicant asked ORG to set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE . She argued , in particular , that the Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2019s Opinion of CARDINAL DATE , relied upon by her employer , was intended to apply only to teachers .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the court dismissed her request , basing its decision on the principles of ORG secularism and the neutrality of public services :","\u201c ... However , while the PERSON d\u2019\u00c9tat \u2019s LAW DATE specifically concerns the case of an employee in the public education service , it also clearly states that the constitutional and legislative texts show that the principles of freedom of conscience , ORG secularism and the neutrality of public services apply to the public services in their entirety ; although civil - service employees , like all citizens , enjoy the freedom of conscience and of religion laid down in the constitutional , legislative and convention texts , which prohibit any discrimination based on their religious beliefs or their atheism , particularly with regard to access to positions , career progress and also the disciplinary system , the principles of the secular nature of the ORG and the bodies to which its powers are delegated and of neutrality in public services preclude those employees , in the exercise of their duties , from being entitled to manifest their religious belief , especially through external sartorial expression ; this principle is intended to protect the users of the service from any risk of influence being exerted or of interference with their own freedom of conscience .","In view of the above - mentioned principles concerning the manifestation of religious opinions within the public service , the administrative body did not act illegally in refusing to renew the [ applicant \u2019s ] contract on the implied grounds of her wearing attire manifesting , in an ostensible manner , allegiance to a religion . \u201d","The applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG upheld the judgment , reiterating the reasons given by the lower courts .","The applicant appealed on points of law to the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat . In her submissions , she emphasised that the administrative court of appeal had deprived its judgment of any legal basis in that it had failed to specify the nature of the item of attire worn by her which had justified the sanction . She referred to the disproportionate nature of that sanction , and alleged that it had been incompatible with LAW .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat declared the appeal inadmissible ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["9"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163501","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"PREDESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was employed as an electrical technician by the GPE office of a multinational company , F.","According to a report issued on DATE , the general assembly of ORG ( Sindicatul Liber Solectron \u2013 \u201c the union \u201d ) , formed by CARDINAL of F. \u2019s employees , organised elections for executive positions ( func\u021biile de conducere ) at the union . According to the same report , the auditing committee was listed among the union \u2019s executive functions and the applicant was elected as a member of that committee .","On DATE PERSON gave the applicant notice that he would be dismissed .","On DATE the union applied to the Timi\u015foara ORG for authorisation for the changes made on DATE in the composition of the union \u2019s executive bodies ( organe de conducere ) . F. was not a party to the proceedings .","On DATE the Timi\u015foara ORG allowed the union \u2019s application and ordered the registration of the changes in the composition of the union \u2019s executive bodies in the Special Register for Unions , held at the aforementioned court \u2019s registry .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed . The reason given in the dismissal decision , which was issued on the same date , was that the company had faced financial difficulties following a severe drop in client orders , which had forced it to reorganise and reduce its activities , to downsize and to remove CARDINAL posts , including the applicant \u2019s . The dismissal decision noted that the applicant was given the opportunity to apply for a position that had not been removed , but did not take up that opportunity . The dismissal decision also took account of the criteria established by the collective agreement concerning the order of priority in respect of dismissals and the fact that no other posts suitable for his professional qualifications or other posts in general had been available within the company .","On DATE the applicant challenged the dismissal decision before the domestic courts and asked to be reinstated . He argued , inter alia , that on the dates that the dismissal notice and decision had been issued by the company he had already been an elected member of the union \u2019s auditing committee and had therefore been occupying an elected position within the union . He stated that according to LAW the company was not allowed to fire him while he held such a position . He further stated that he had been dismissed because on DATE he had brought court proceedings for a salary increase and award of seniority bonuses and because as a union member he had caused problems for the company \u2019s management in claiming his lawful rights .","F. defended itself by arguing that the applicant \u2019s dismissal had been the result of a large downsizing process which had started in DATE and had been due to end in DATE . Moreover , the dismissal had been lawful and had not breached the provisions of the collective agreement or GPE .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim , quashed the dismissal decision and ordered his reinstatement . It noted that the report of the meeting of CARDINAL DATE had shown that the union had considered the auditing committee to be CARDINAL of its executive bodies and that the applicant had been elected as a member of that committee . The court considered that even if it had accepted the company \u2019s argument that the auditing committee had not been part of the union \u2019s executive functions and that therefore the conditions set out by LAW had not been met , the dismissal decision had still been unlawful because the provisions of LAW ) applied . The conclusion that at the time of his dismissal the applicant had been occupying an elected position in a union body ( even if not an executive one , as LAW ) did not make the same distinction as LAW ) had become reasonable and even mandatory , given that he had been elected to the union \u2019s auditing committee . Consequently , the dismissal decision had breached LAW ) , given that that provision represented a legal safeguard against potential pressure on those occupying elected positions within the union from exercising their mandate . However , relying on the evidence before it , the court accepted PERSON \u2019s argument that the selection of the staff affected by the downsizing process had been made by consulting with the trade union and by complying with the established criteria , in particular the level of professional performance and the order of priority set out in the collective agreement and LAW .","F. appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment . It argued that the applicant \u2019s dismissal had been lawful and justified by the company \u2019s difficult financial situation .","The applicant reiterated the arguments raised before the firstinstance court .","By a final judgment of DATE , ORG allowed ORG \u2019s appeal on points of law , quashed the judgment of the firstinstance court and dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge to the decision to dismiss him . It held that Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL concerned the protection enjoyed by representatives elected to a trade union \u2019s executive bodies . The complimentary ( complementare ) provisions of LAW concerned the same issues , while LAW ) prohibited dismissals during the exercise of the powers of an elected position . The collective agreement had also provided protection for representatives elected to the union \u2019s executive bodies . Consequently , the court considered that it had been necessary to determine which of the union \u2019s bodies were executive and whether the post of auditor had been an elected position .","NORP In that connection , the court considered that Articles CARDINAL and subsequent of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL provided that executive bodies were formed by elected union members . Moreover , the notion of an auditor and the functions of the auditing committee were regulated by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which provided that the aforementioned committee operated according to the union \u2019s constitution . Furthermore , according to the union \u2019s constitution its executive bodies were the general assembly , the council and the permanent bureau . The union \u2019s constitution also set out that the composition of the auditing committee was decided by the council and that its area of competence was approved by the general assembly .","The court held that according to the aforementioned legal provisions , taken together with the provisions of the union \u2019s constitution , the auditing committee was neither an executive nor an elected body . While it was true that the applicant had been elected as an auditor , such a form of appointment had exceeded the provisions of the union \u2019s constitution , which provided for the appointment of auditors by the council . In addition , the post of auditor could not have been an executive position because those positions had been clearly established by the union \u2019s constitution .","The court also held that the provisions of LAW ) of LAW had to be read in light of the provisions of LAW of the same code and ORG CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . According to the aforementioned provisions , only workers occupying executive positions within the union enjoyed the protection claimed by the applicant . Consequently , the first - instance court had wrongfully held that the applicant \u2019s dismissal had been unlawful .","Lastly , the court considered that it was unnecessary to examine the remaining aspects of the lawfulness of the decision in the context of PERSON \u2019s appeal on points of law .","The relevant provisions of LAW in force at the material time read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Employees may not be dismissed :","...","( h ) while they hold an elected position within a union body , except in circumstances where the dismissal is ordered for serious or repeated disciplinary misconduct by those employees ; ...","( CARDINAL ) The provisions of the first paragraph do not apply if the dismissal was ordered for reasons flowing from the employer \u2019s judicial reorganisation or bankruptcy , according to law . \u201d","\u201c ( ORG elected to a trade union \u2019s executive bodies shall benefit from the protection of the law against any form of conditions , constraints or limitations in exercising their function .","( CARDINAL ) During their mandate and for DATE after their mandate has ended , representatives elected to a trade union \u2019s executive bodies can not be dismissed for reasons which do not concern the employee \u2019s person , for professional inadequacy , or for reasons connected to the exercise of a mandate received from other employees in the company .","( CARDINAL ) Other measures for the protection of representatives elected to a union \u2019s executive body are provided in special laws and the applicable collective agreement . \u201d","NORP The relevant provisions of Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on trade unions in force at the material time read as follows :","\u201c Trade unions\u2019 constitutions shall contain provisions with regard to :","...","( e ) their executive bodies , name , method of election and removal , length of mandate and duties ... \u201d","\u201c Members of a trade union with full legal capacity and who have not been prohibited as a complementary punishment from holding a position or practising a profession of the nature used by the sentenced person to commit the offence may be elected to executive bodies . \u201d","\u201c The members of a trade union \u2019s elected executive bodies shall benefit from the protection of the law against any conditions , constraints or limitations on exercising their function . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) During their mandate , and for DATE after their mandate has ended , representatives elected to a trade union \u2019s executive bodies can not have their work contracts terminated or changed for reasons not imputable to them , which the law leaves at the discretion of the employer , except with the written agreement of the elected executive collective body of the trade union .","( CARDINAL ) A change or termination of the individual work contract of representatives elected to a trade union \u2019s executive bodies and of their members at the employer \u2019s initiative for reasons which concern the trade union \u2019s activities are prohibited .","( CARDINAL ) The provisions of the first paragraph do not apply to those who have been removed from executive positions held within the union for breaching the provisions of the [ union \u2019s ] constitution or the law ... \u201c","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Reviews of a trade union \u2019s own financial activities and of their social and financial units is carried out by ORG , which operates according to the constitution ... \u201d","The relevant provisions of ORG constitution in force at the material time read as follows :","\u201c The trade union \u2019s organisational structure includes : ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG . \u201d","\u201c ORG is the trade union \u2019s highest executive body ... \u201d","\u201c The activities of ORG are organised and run by ORG . \u201d","\u201c ORG has the following duties : ... approves the competences and the report of ORG ... \u201d","\u201c ORG Council is the trade union \u2019s executive body which has decision - making and deliberative character and decides on the measures needed to enforce the resolutions and decisions adopted by ORG ... \u201d","\u201c ORG has the following duties : ... decides on the composition of ORG and any changes to it ... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG is the permanent executive body which carries out the operational management of the trade union and enforces the decisions of ORG and of ORG ... \u201d","\u201c ORG is the financial control body of the trade union \u2019s economic and financial activities ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163672","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"BELERI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr Vangjel PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and live in GPE . They were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in NORP and GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their then Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants are originally from GPE , a town located on the south - west coast of GPE . They say they belong to the NORP - speaking minority . The fifth applicant was the president of a minority association , called ORG , in GPE ( \u201c the association \u201d ) . He also published the periodical ORG , ( \u201c the newspaper \u201d ) , the association \u2019s journal . The newspaper was apparently distributed to GPE living in GPE . The first applicant was a board member of the association .","It is apparent from the case file that the DATE issue of the newspaper urged GPE living in GPE to organise themselves to cast their votes in the DATE local government elections in GPE . The newspaper ran headlines and articles which were the subject of domestic legal proceedings in GPE , as set out in paragraphs QUANTITY below .","On DATE local government elections for city councils and mayors were conducted in GPE and elsewhere in GPE . It was reported that a number of incidents occurred on polling day , including in GPE .","In TIME of DATE , following reported irregularities , the applicants protested in front of ORG . They carried NORP flags and shouted pro - NORP slogans , demonstrating their support for CARDINAL of the candidates .","It would appear that on DATE the applicants left GPE for GPE , where they are currently living .","DATE and DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office opened a criminal investigation against the applicants on charges of incitement to national hatred ( thirrja p\u00ebr urrejtje nacionale ) and denigration of the Republic and its symbols ( posht\u00ebrimi i NORP dhe i simboleve t\u00eb saj ) under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . According to records of the search for the people involved of DATE , which were submitted by the Government as part of their observations , it is apparent that the authorities tried unsuccessfully to find the applicants .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) made an order in absentia for the applicants to be remanded in custody . The measure was notified to the lawyer in the case , appointed by the court of its own motion .","On DATE ORG declared the applicants to be fugitives , in accordance with LAW .","On DATE the prosecutor in the case notified the ORG court - appointed lawyers of the charges against them . On DATE , the prosecutor committed the applicants for trial in absentia .","The first hearings , which had been due on DATE , and DATE , DATE and DATE , were adjourned by the trial court in order to allow the applicants to attend the proceedings . However , owing to their continued absence the court continued the trial in absentia .","On DATE ORG found the applicants guilty of the charges and sentenced CARDINAL of them in absentia to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . The fourth applicant was sentenced in absentia to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","It would appear that on an unspecified date the applicants became aware of ORG decision because on DATE all of them authorised a lawyer to represent them in appeal proceedings .","NORP The applicants\u2019 lawyer lodged an application for leave to appeal out of time , which was granted by ORG on DATE .","Following the appeal lodged by the ORG lawyer , that the trial proceedings had been conducted in absentia , on DATE ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) quashed the judgment of DATE on the grounds of procedural irregularities and remitted the case for fresh examination by a different bench of ORG .","On DATE , following an appeal by the prosecutor , ORG upheld ORG judgment .","On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings . On DATE ORG ordered that the applicants be informed of the judicial proceedings against them by posting a public notice .","According to the Government , hearings scheduled for DATE , and DATE and DATE were adjourned in order to allow the applicants\u2019 to attend the re - trial .","On DATE the prosecutor confirmed that the applicants\u2019 whereabouts could not be established .","On DATE ORG declared the applicants to be fugitives , in accordance with LAW and continued with the trial in absentia .","Hearings due on DATE , DATE and DATE were adjourned on the grounds that witnesses needed to be summoned for questioning , that CARDINAL of the judges had to be transferred to another court and that a judge had to be absent for health reasons .","The applicants remained absent from the re - trial proceedings and on DATE ORG found them guilty of the charges and sentenced each of them in absentia to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . It found that by making anti - NORP statements the applicants\u2019 actions had been capable of inciting national hatred , as proscribed by LAW . The court further held that the applicants had publicly denigrated GPE and its constitutional order , proscribed by LAW , as a result of not paying due respect to the NORP flag and national anthem while displaying the NORP flag and singing the NORP national anthem ; by writing press articles and issuing publications which portrayed PERSON as NORP territory ; and by refusing to recognise any government other than that of GPE .","The court examined a videotape of the applicants making public statements on DATE . The second and third applicants , Mr Ko\u00e7o Llazari and Mr PERSON , had publicly shouted , \u201c ORG \u201d and \u201c GPE ORG \u201d , while sticking their tongues out and showing their middle fingers . The third applicant had addressed a crowd of people in NORP from a podium while displaying a cross that he was wearing around his neck . The fourth applicant , PERSON , had wrapped herself in a NORP flag which she had been carrying with her . The third and fourth applicants had taken out other small NORP flags and waved them . CARDINAL photographs showing the applicants carrying out the actions mentioned above had also been obtained as evidence .","The court also examined the DATE issue of the newspaper . CARDINAL of its front page headlines read :","\u201c Fervently and in unison . The response of PERSON for its own rights . Vote with dignity and not subserviently ! What you failed to accomplish , GPE , you may finish now . \u201d","The above headline topped an article which called on GPE \u201c to be united against communism in GPE , which has been persecuting them since DATE and continues [ to do so ] even DATE \u201d .","Furthermore , the front page of the newspaper contained an announcement that buses were being made available for anyone wishing to cast their votes in PERSON during the local government elections of CARDINAL DATE .","Another article , on page CARDINAL , by a certain PERSON , had the following headline : \u201c The battle for Hellenisation starts in GPE . \u201d The court decision quoted the following excerpts from the article :","\u201c These elections are the best way to achieve ORG ... The battle of all battles will be waged in GPE . The [ united ] forces of GPE who proclaim their Hellenisation will be tested in PERSON so that it can be recognised as a NORP town , so that it can have a NORP school and enjoy all the rights that other minorities have in LOC . ORG who is absent from that battle has no right and is CARDINAL NORP . ... The vote is the only option for those who declare themselves to be NORP and to fight against those who profess to be \u2018 ORG or , even worse , \u2018 ORG ( k\u00ebto zgjedhje jan\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb duhurat p\u00ebr DATE e vorioepirot\u00ebve ... ORG betejave do t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb ORG , n\u00eb ORG maten forcat e FAC q\u00eb deklarojn\u00eb PERSON e tyre dhe q\u00eb PERSON zone me komb\u00ebsi greke , t\u00eb ket\u00eb shkoll\u00eb greke dhe t\u00eb ket\u00eb t\u00eb gjith\u00eb t\u00eb drejtat q\u00eb kan\u00eb n\u00eb PERSON minoritetet . PERSON q\u00eb do t\u00eb mungoj\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb luftim , nuk ka asnj\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00eb dhe \u00ebsht\u00eb shum\u00eb pak p\u00ebr grek ... PERSON \u00ebsht\u00eb rruga e vetme p\u00ebr ata q\u00eb deklarojn\u00eb grek dhe japin betej\u00ebn e tyre kundrejt atyre q\u00eb deklarojne \u2018 spocialiste\u2019 apo m\u00eb e keqj \u2018 himariot\u00eb\u2019 ) \u201d .","PERSON is NORP and this needs to be demonstrated . I think that the sacrifice demanded from ORG is not too great . PERSON will win , PERSON will win . \u201d","The court also relied on the statements of witnesses and police officers who were on duty on DATE and who confirmed that the applicants had made such statements in public and that they had stirred up the crowd , which had led to a disruption of public order and the vote - counting process .","The decision reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c ORG and FAC , through their active criminal acts as stated in their article in the PERSON newspaper , whose publisher is ORG GPE , are the principal organisers of the criminal acts that took place in GPE during the voting in the local elections on DATE . They are the main organisers of the protest that occurred on DATE because they : published articles in the nationalist , chauvinist PERSON newspaper DATE of polling day ; called on GPE to unite ; stated that PERSON is NORP , that they are NORP and that this is the battle of battles , that a war should be waged for Hellenisation and not ORG , that PERSON should fight in order to proclaim their Hellenisation so that PERSON could be recognised as NORP territory ; stated in the newspaper that GPE should be spared from this war or , otherwise , they could not lay claim to be called NORP ; stated in their publication that this is a war of Hellenisation against communism , against ORG , against socialists ... and NORP ... ; informed , organised and secured the transportation of Himariote immigrants already living in GPE to GPE ; incited them through their words and statements in favour of PERSON \u2019s secession from GPE ; carried out criminal acts to incite national hatred against the NORP population , ORG ; and incited people to use violence and other arbitrary acts against the population , police officers and commissioners .","...","Defendants ORG and ORG actively participated in the protest of DATE in front of the GPE building . [ They ] incited the crowd to use violence and carry out other arbitrary acts which endangered public order and peace . [ As a result ] a policeman who was on duty at a polling station in GPE was injured ; pressure was exerted upon other citizens who were casting their votes ; PERSON \u2019s central street was blocked ; an explosion in GPE occurred and attacks on polling stations and commissioners took place .","As regards defendants PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , the court considers that after examining the transcript of the examination of the videotape , the photographs as well as the ORG statements , they [ the defendants ] , through the use of slogans , such as \u201c GPE is ORG \u201d , \u201c GPE is NORP \u201d , \u201c This is NORP land \u201d , \u201c NORP away from GPE , \u201c GPE did not subdue us , let alone GPE \u201d , \u201c We shall remove NORP from PERSON , \u201c We shall remove foreigners from PERSON , were in charge of the protest which took place in front of the Himara municipality building during the voting process in PERSON and during the vote counting process , [ and ] were the main perpetrators of criminal acts . As a result of the slogans chanted before the crowd , they incited national hatred against the rest of the population ... Their actions endangered public order and peace . [ As a result ] a policeman who was on duty at a polling station in GPE was injured ; pressure was exerted upon other citizens who were casting their votes ; PERSON \u2019s central street was blocked ; an explosion in GPE occurred and attacks on polling stations and commissioners took place .","Defendants Vangjel Kolila [ who went to every polling station and held meetings ] , PERSON [ who held speeches ] and PERSON [ who held the NORP flag , with all of them handing out small flags and calling on people to embrace the NORP flag ] played a decisive role in inciting the protesters to chant slogans of a nature that promoted national hatred and the carrying out of violent and arbitrary acts against the population . [ Such ] actions jeopardised public order and peace .","Defendants ORG and ORG through the publication of the PERSON newspaper and the use of statements such as \u201c GPE are GPE \u201d , \u201c PERSON is NORP \u201d , \u201c Hellenisation versus Albanianisation \u201d ... have denigrated GPE and its constitutional order .","Defendants PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , by waving and raising the NORP flag and stating that this [ land ] is part of GPE and not GPE , by singing the NORP anthem and showing disrespect for the NORP flag , anthem , police and institutions ... in the presence of a huge crowd of people , have publicly denigrated GPE , its constitutional order , flag and anthem . \u201d","In imposing its sentence , the court took into account the limits on penalties provided for in ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , the fact that the offences had been committed in collusion and in public , the applicants\u2019 criminal responsibility and degree of guilt , as well as the need to try and prevent that kind of criminal activity in GPE . The court dismissed the arguments of the applicants\u2019 lawyer that their actions should have been classified as minor offences ( kund\u00ebrvajtje penale ) , in accordance with LAW . It held that their acts , namely their calls to national hatred , their violence and other arbitrary acts against the population and the law - enforcement authorities , their denigration of GPE , its constitutional order , flag and anthem fell to be considered under the ORG and did not give rise to the application of ORG .","On DATE and DATE the applicants appealed to ORG and ORG , respectively . Relying on LAW , the applicants sought to have their acts for participation in unlawful protest classified as minor offences and their imprisonment commuted to a fine . They also contested the ORG statements as being unreliable .","On DATE ORG put out a public summons for the applicants .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The court stated that the evidence contained in the case file , such as the videotape , demonstrated that all the applicants had actively participated in the unlawful protest by chanting slogans against GPE , pushing away law - enforcement officers , waving and distributing NORP flags or sticking their tongues out and showing their middle fingers . The contents of the PERSON newspaper constituted additional corroborating evidence of the commission of the offence by the applicants . Witness testimony corroborated that they had uttered slogans and made various calls , which had been in NORP , as also evidenced by the recorded material .","The Court of Appeal further stated that conducting an unlawful ( i paligjsh\u00ebm ) protest during the local elections DATE a direct exercise of sovereignty by citizens \u2013 in front of the building which housed the institution that provided for the good conduct of such an important political activity , had struck at social relationships which had been established to secure equality , public peace and order . It had also struck at the inviolability of the Republic , its constitutional order , symbols , anthem and crest , as protected by criminal legislation . The ORG acts had not only consisted of the use of symbols or signs that incited violence or discrimination within the meaning of LAW . Their calls and slogans and the publication of the newspaper had also aimed at inciting hatred against that part of GPE \u2019s population which did not identify itself as being of NORP origin . They had caused problems relating to the maintenance of public order , to the denigration of ORG authority and to defiance of the constitutional order , national flag and anthem . As such , they had come within the ambit of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG .","On DATE ORG , in a reasoned decision , dismissed the ORG appeals . It considered that the lower courts had made a correct classification of the applicants\u2019 criminal acts under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG and that their conviction had been based on the evidence contained in the case file .","In a dissenting opinion , Judge PERSON expressed the view that the applicants\u2019 acts should have been examined as minor offences which had led to the disruption of public order , under LAW , which would have resulted in a fine .","The relevant Articles of the LAW read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Sovereignty in GPE belongs to the people .","NORP The people exercise sovereignty through their representatives or directly .","... \u201d","\u201c The independence of the state and the integrity of its territory , the dignity of the individual , human rights and freedoms , social justice , the constitutional order , pluralism , national identity and inheritance , religious coexistence , as well as coexistence with , and understanding of NORP for , minorities are the bases of the ORG , which has the duty to respect and protect them . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Limitations of the rights and freedoms provided for in this LAW may be established only by law , in the public interest or for the protection of the rights of others . A limitation shall be in proportion to the situation that has dictated it .","These limitations may not infringe the essence of the rights and freedoms and in no case may exceed the limitations provided for in LAW . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Freedom of expression is guaranteed .","The freedom of the press ... is guaranteed .","Prior censorship of means of communication is prohibited . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The right to information is guaranteed . \u201d","\u201c In the protection of his constitutional and legal rights , freedoms and interests , or in defending a criminal charge , everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing , within a reasonable time , by an independent and impartial court established by law \u201d .","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG The freedom to have peaceful meetings , without arms , and to participate in them is guaranteed .","Peaceful meetings in squares and places of public passage are held in accordance with procedures provided by law . \u201d","NORP The relevant provisions of the FAC read as follows :","\u201c It is the duty of the criminal law of GPE to protect the independence of the ORG and its territorial integrity , human dignity , fundamental rights and freedoms , the constitutional order , property , the environment , the coexistence and good understanding of NORP with national minorities as well as religious coexistence from criminal offences , and to prevent such offences .","\u201c Endangering public order by inciting national hatred against other sections of the population , by insulting or defaming them , or by requesting the use of force or arbitrary actions against them , may result in a fine or a term of DATE imprisonment . \u201d","\u201c Denigration of GPE and [ its ] constitutional order , flag , emblem , national anthem or martyrs of the nation , voiced publicly or through the publication or distribution of written material , or the removal , damage or destruction of the flag or emblem of GPE wherever displayed by official institutions , or making either of them indistinct or unusable , constitutes a minor offence ( kund\u00ebrvajtje penale ) and is liable to a fine or CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . \u201d","The Act sets down rules on holding a peaceful assembly and participating in such an assembly . That freedom can be restricted on certain defined grounds such as national security , public security , the prevention of disorder or crime , the protection of health or morals or the protection of rights and freedoms of others ( section CARDINAL ) . Before any assembly may be held in public squares or on thoroughfares ( sheshe ose vendkalime publike ) , the organisers are obliged to notify the chief of police in writing , DATE prior to the day of the assembly ( section CARDINAL ) . When there are serious grounds to believe that an assembly will constitute a real risk to national security , public security , the prevention of crime , or the protection of the health , rights and freedoms of others and there are no less stringent measures available , then the chief of police may ban the assembly or decide when and where it may be held ( section CARDINAL) . Participation in a banned assembly constitutes a minor offence and can lead to a fine ( section CARDINAL ) .","Section CARDINAL provides for the dispersal of an assembly by the police on certain defined grounds . Failure to respect police orders constitutes a minor offence and can lead to a fine ( section CARDINAL ) .","It is prohibited to possess firearms and conceal one \u2019s identity which incites discrimination or violence on racial , ethnic or religious grounds ( section CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . Section CARDINAL further provides that in assemblies held in squares or places of public passages or in places open to the public , the use of uniforms , signs or symbols that refer to associations or groups that have been created to incite discrimination or violence on racial , ethnic or religious grounds is prohibited . The use of clothing , objects , signs or symbols to conceal one \u2019s identity or incite violence or discrimination as provided for under sections CARDINAL constitutes a minor offence and is punishable by a fine or a term of imprisonment DATE ( section CARDINAL ) .","Article CARDINAL of LAW , as in force at the material time , provides for the maintenance of public order in polling stations ( ruajtja e rendit n\u00eb qendr\u00ebn e votimit ) . When there is a risk of disruption of public order and the conduct of elections , ORG ( GPE i FAC s\u00eb GPE ) may decide to suspend the elections and seek the assistance of the police . The request must be submitted in writing and should contain a brief description of the facts and reasons for the intervention of the police .","International monitoring bodies , such as ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , monitored the local elections in GPE in DATE and DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183276","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"S.C. I.F.N. COMAUTOSPORT LEASING S.A. v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , ORG , is a NORP company , whose registered office is in PERSON . It was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant company concluded a vehicle leasing agreement with a third party , the private company ORG ( the lessee ) , managed by GPE","NORP The contract stated , inter alia , that DATE instalments were to be paid to the applicant company until DATE , when the property right concerning the vehicle was to be transferred to the lessee , ORG The contract further stipulated that the lessee was not allowed to use the vehicle for transporting merchandise , unless the lessor had given his or her prior written approval thereto . The contract also stated that the failure of the lessee to pay CARDINAL successive instalments could entitle the lessor to ask for the termination of contract ( reziliere ) , in accordance with the general principles of contract law .","On DATE the ORG squad caught PERSON , who was driving the leased vehicle , transporting QUANTITY of alcohol , without having the appropriate excise stamp or documentation concerning their provenience . The authorities issued a contravention report , sanctioning GPE to a fine of CARDINAL ORG . They also confiscated the vehicle , in accordance with the provisions of LAW . The report mentioned that the vehicle belonged to the applicant company and was leased to the company ORG","NORP The report was contested by the applicant company . It complained that the vehicle , which was its property , was confiscated from its owner even if it had not participated to and had not had any knowledge about the commission of the act sanctioned by the fiscal authorities . The applicant also mentioned that following the confiscation , the lessee ceased to pay the agreed instalments . It argued that the circumstances constituted a deprivation of property without appropriate compensation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s complaint , mentioning that the sanction was in accordance with the law , namely LAW . Noting that the applicant company had concluded a leasing agreement with the company ORG , the court considered that all issues referring to alleged breaches of contract were to be dealt with under the contract responsibility law , and not within the framework of the fiscal procedure , which was meant to determine the lawfulness of the contravention report .","The applicant appealed , without addressing ORG arguments referring to the remedy allegedly offered by the contract law .","ORG dismissed the appeal on DATE , finding that the lower court \u2019s judgment was lawful and well - founded . ORG further held that LAW imposed the sanction of confiscation of the vehicle used for committing a contravention , without differentiating between the owner or the user of the vehicle subject to confiscation .","The domestic legal provisions and practice of ORG relevant for the present case are set out in detail in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159926","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MIRACLE EUROPE KFT v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant is a limited liability company registered under NORP law , with its seat in GPE .","In a dispute concerning a construction project envisaged in public procurement , in DATE the applicant company brought an action in damages against a university .","NORP The President of the territorially competent ORG requested ORG ( \u201c LOC \u201d ) to reassign the case to another court of the same jurisdictional level . In the request the President provided particulars about the case to be reassigned and indicated the data and the circumstances which prevented the adjudication , within a reasonable time , of this case , deemed to be of high importance , by relying on , in particular , the case - load of judges hearing civil cases , significantly exceeding the national average .","NORP The President of the LOC examined the case - load statistics of ORG , including the volume of highly important and priority cases and the workload of judges hearing civil cases . She found that , in view of the short statutory time - limits , the adjudication of the case within a reasonable time could only be ensured by reassigning the case to another court .","By requesting information from the President of ORG , the President of the ORG also examined the case - load and the operational conditions , including staff and facilities , of ORG of ORG . On the basis of this information , the President of the ORG was satisfied that the reassignment of the case to ORG would not impose a disproportionate burden on that court .","For the sake of judicial economy as appreciated above , on DATE the President of the LOC case assigned the case to ORG ( decision no . CARDINAL . ( II.CARDINAL . ) OBHE ) , acting within the powers conferred upon her by the law .","The Zalaegerszeg High Court heard the case and dismissed the claim on DATE . That decision was confirmed by ORG on DATE , a ruling served on CARDINAL October CARDINAL . The latter \u2019s territorial competence to hear the appeal was a consequence of the case having been assigned to ORG .","Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE ORG issued decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on \u201c the guidelines to be observed in respect of case reassignment \u201d .","On DATE the GPE upheld the decisions of ORG and ORG in review proceedings .","The courts held in essence that the applicant company \u2019s perception according to which the university had unlawfully backed out of the investment contract ( namely , the construction of a dormitory ) was nothing more than a misconception of the law and a tendentious interpretation of the circumstances , and that the facts of the case did not reveal any compensation liability on the respondent \u2019s side , for want of unlawfulness .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant filed a constitutional complaint . It counted DATE and complied with \u2013 the statutory DATE time - limit to do so from the service of the final decision in the case , i.e. from CARDINAL DATE . It claimed firstly that the domestic courts had reached their decisions in an arbitrary manner and , secondly , that it was deprived of a \u201c tribunal established by law \u201d , since by decision no . CARDINAL . ( II.CARDINAL . ) OBHE the President of the ORG had reassigned the case from the originally competent court to ORG .","NORP The constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on DATE ( decision no . DATE . ( ORG . CARDINAL . ) AB ) . ORG held that the case as a whole did not reveal any arbitrariness or unfairness as such . As regards the specific complaint about the reassignment , it held that this issue was severable from the main procedure . It was of the view that the DATE statutory time - limit had run , in that respect , from the very reassignment decision of QUANTITY DATE rather than from DATE as construed by the applicant DATE and for that reason this part of the motion was time - barred .","On DATE ORG adopted decision no . DATE . ( XII.CARDINAL . ) AB in the matter of reassignment , in pursuit of constitutional complaints originating in cases other than that of the applicant . It held that the regulations which entitled the President of the ORG to reassign cases among courts ( notably , sections CARDINAL and DATE of Act no . ORG of DATE on ORG , as in force DATE and DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had been unconstitutional and in violation of LAW . According to ORG , the right for one \u2019s \u201c natural \u201d ( lawful ) judge flows from the right to have one \u2019s case examined by a court \u201c established by law \u201d and requires that a case be heard by a judge belonging to the court with competence and territorial jurisdiction and designated by the pre - established objective rules of case assignment of that court . In ORG view , the impugned regulations , which had conferred responsibility for the reassignment of cases , at least in the material period , entirely on the President of the ORG , had been in breach of those principles . Moreover , it had violated the requirement of the appearance of impartiality . ORG also held that the lack of a remedy against the decision of the President of the ORG had violated LAW , as well as LAW .","ORG did not prescribe any particular legal consequence of this decision for the ongoing procedures concerned by re - assignment . Consequently , ORG decision did not invalidate any reassignment decisions taken previously ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157561","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KORPACHYOVA-HOFBAUER v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . She was represented before the ORG by her mother , PERSON , who on DATE was granted leave by the President of the Section under Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of ORG to act on her daughter \u2019s behalf in the proceedings before the ORG .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and established by the ORG , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant , who suffered from a schizoaffective disorder , attacked her mother with a knife in their home . The police , who had been called by the applicant \u2019s mother , arrested the applicant and took her to a centre for psychiatric health in GPE . She remained there until DATE , when ORG ordered her to be transferred to PERSON State Psychiatric Hospital in ORG for CARDINAL months\u2019 compulsory treatment . The applicant appealed against that order , challenging in particular the court \u2019s ruling as to the precise facility in which she was to be treated . Her mother , who was heard as a witness in the course of the appeal proceedings , also stated that she would prefer the applicant to be treated elsewhere , preferably as an outpatient . ORG dismissed the appeal on DATE .","PERSON State Psychiatric Hospital , which is ORG - owned and operated , is situated at the outskirts of the town of ORG , at QUANTITY from the nearest neighbourhood , QUANTITY from the centre of GPE , and QUANTITY from GPE \u2019s ring road . It was created in DATE , using some of the premises of a nearby monastery , and consists of several buildings .","During DATE of her stay in that hospital , the applicant was placed under a \u201c heightened security regime \u201d , which meant she was not allowed to leave her ward unaccompanied . According to the hospital \u2019s director , placing patients whose compulsory treatment had been ordered by a court under that regime was common practice as it allowed for an initial assessment of their condition .","After DATE the applicant \u2019s regime was relaxed and she was allowed to move around the hospital grounds and take part in art therapy sessions . As her mental health improved \u2013 according to the Government as a result of the medication that she was given \u2013 her regime was relaxed even further , and CARDINAL DATE she was granted home leave . On DATE her treatment continued on an outpatient basis , which meant that after that date she was only required to be present at the hospital during DATE for medication and art therapy , but did not have to stay TIME .","The applicant \u2019s compulsory treatment came to an end on DATE .","The applicant submitted that during DATE of her stay in PERSON State Psychiatric Hospital she had been assaulted by another patient . In the course of the hearing of the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG order for her compulsory treatment , the applicant \u2019s mother gave evidence that the applicant had told her that on DATE a newly arrived patient had assaulted her in the shower , pushing her in the chest . She had however not sustained any injuries as a result , and had not called for help , apparently because she had felt scared . When her mother had visited her DATE , DATE , the CARDINAL had brought the incident to the attention of CARDINAL members of the nursing staff , who had advised the applicant to call for help if such an incident were to occur again . On the basis of that evidence , the appellate court accepted that an incident with another patient had taken place . However , it noted that the proper way to deal with such matters was not to seek transfer to another hospital but to inform the nursing staff and ask them to take steps to avert future incidents , which was exactly what had happened . In the course of the same hearing the applicant said that the temperature in the hospital was too low for her to feel comfortable and that as a result she had a sore throat .","According to the applicant , conditions in the hospital were quite poor , characterised by insufficient funding and staffing levels , inter - patient violence , low temperatures in DATE and frequent flooding . The hospital \u2019s director had herself said in media interviews that the LOC were old and impractical , with broken and mouldy walls and broken tiles , and that there had been cases of violence , including on CARDINAL occasion against the director herself .","NORP In support of her allegations , the applicant referred to a report by ORG drawn up after members of his staff had inspected the hospital on DATE in their capacity as designated national preventive mechanism under LAW to LAW and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( CARDINAL United Nations Treaty Series CARDINAL ) , which entered into force in respect of GPE on DATE .","NORP The report began by noting that one of the hospital \u2019s chief problems was its remoteness , which rendered access for patients\u2019 relatives difficult , especially in DATE . The other big problem was that the LOC and the hygienic and material conditions did not live up to the applicable medical standards . The buildings were old and in a \u201c deplorable \u201d state of repair , despite partial renovation works carried out DATE before the inspection . The equipment was outdated and inadequate . As a result of a damaged dyke on the nearby LOC , the LOC were flooded DATE . The room in which food was being served to patients had leaks , mould on the ceiling and rusty equipment .","Patients were accommodated in rooms with CARDINAL beds each . Each of the hospital \u2019s wards housed CARDINAL patients and had CARDINAL bathrooms and CARDINAL toilets , found by the report to be \u201c utterly insufficient \u201d . Patients were allowed out of their rooms for CARDINAL to CARDINAL - and - a - half hours per day . Visits were permitted twice a week and had to take place in the yard , weather permitting . At the time of the inspection the hospital had CARDINAL patients . CARDINAL of them were in the female ward , which was staffed by CARDINAL medical doctors , CARDINAL psychologist , CARDINAL nurses and CARDINAL orderlies . The hospital lacked almost all of the medical equipment required under the applicable regulations . It had never been audited , and did not properly record medical conditions other than the mental illnesses in connection with which the patients had been admitted . Patients who died in the hospital were not subjected to an autopsy , and patients who had to be restrained were not kept separate from other patients , as required under the applicable regulations .","In view of those findings , the report recommended that the hospital gradually be closed and transferred to new LOC in GPE .","In a letter to the ORG dated DATE in response to that recommendation , ORG explained that the hospital \u2019s possible relocation had been discussed on several occasions , but no decision had yet been taken .","DATE and DATE a team from ORG audited the hospital , and on DATE drew up a report . With regard to material conditions in the hospital , the audit report likewise noted that its LOC were in a very poor state of repair and \u201c dangerous for the health and lives \u201d of patients and staff . It also noted that the buildings were regularly flooded , and that their foundations were not waterproof . Minor repair works such as repainting and a partial renovation of the roof had been carried out in DATE and DATE .","The report , which also addressed the applicant \u2019s situation , noted that the ward in which she had been kept had rooms with CARDINAL beds each , and CARDINAL bathrooms and toilets . The building , which had a local steam heating system , did not have proper isolation and could not be optimally heated . The nurses had kept records of room temperatures , taking the following readings at the time of the applicant \u2019s stay : CARDINAL degrees Celsius during TIME DATE , and QUANTITY during DATE of DATE and DATE . The report also noted that in the applicant \u2019s ward , patients were free to leave their rooms and move around . Those of them who , like the applicant initially , were placed under the \u201c heightened security regime \u201d were not allowed to leave the ward unaccompanied , in order to avoid acts of aggression , suicides or escapes , and were kept under constant supervision .","A report about the hospital aired by ORG on DATE and available online described derelict buildings with cracked walls , missing plaster and mould . According to that report , in DATE temperature in some of the wards did not exceed QUANTITY . At the time of the journalist \u2019s visit the hospital \u2019s kitchen had been flooded . The poor state of the LOC was also described in reports aired on DATE by TVCARDINAL and on DATE by ORG , also available online ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142529","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BLAJ v. ROMANIA [Extracts]","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the relevant time he had the rank of Brigadier - General and was serving as a doctor at the emergency military hospital of GPE .","NORP The applicant \u2019s arrest after being caught in the act of committing an offence","On DATE the directorate general of prisons launched a recruitment competition for the post of specialist military doctor at the prison of GPE - PERSON . CARDINAL individuals were candidates , including a certain FAC interviews were conducted by GPE , a doctor with the rank of ORG , who was put in charge of setting up the board of examiners . N.D. invited the applicant to chair the board .","N.D. prepared all the necessary documentation for the competition , including the envelope containing the examination papers . She was supposed to take the envelope to the examination venue on DATE , at TIME","After the preliminary interviews with the candidates , GPE contacted GPE under a false identity to offer to help her succeed in the competition . When asked by GPE how she could help her , GPE told her that she could intervene in her favour at the level of the board of examiners . A number of meetings took place between GPE and GPE , who handed her copies of the examination papers . At CARDINAL of the meetings GPE mentioned the applicant \u2019s name , stating that he was the chairman of the board . On DATE , during a further meeting with GPE , GPE recorded the conversation .","On DATE T.G. reported GPE to the national prosecution service for corruption ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) , indicating that the latter had asked her for a sum of money in return for favourable treatment in the competition . She added that she had an agreement with GPE to give her MONEY ( ORG ) on DATE of the examination , before the written test , then ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL once she had been accepted for the post .","On DATE the ORG authorised the recording of conversations between GPE and GPE The banknotes that GPE was supposed to give to GPE were marked with a fluorescent substance .","NORP On DATE , at TIME , GPE was arrested in the act of receiving money from GPE After being taken to the offices of the prosecution service , she was questioned and a report was drawn up concerning the discovery of an offence while it was being committed . GPE stated that , as a member of the board of examiners , she had asked GPE for a sum of money in exchange for her help in obtaining the post in question . She added that , on DATE , the applicant had given her the examination papers so that she could pass them on to a candidate who would be declared successful in return for USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL , a sum that she was supposed to remit to him on DATE after the examination . GPE stated that she had asked for the money in order to give it to the applicant . After being informed of the possibility of a reduction in sentence if she cooperated with the prosecution , GPE indicated that her statement constituted an act of self - incrimination . She agreed to cooperate with the ORG in the prosecuting of the offence in respect of the applicant , by going to meet him after equipping herself with audio and video devices .","According to the applicant , GPE had denounced him to the ORG after being threatened by the investigators who , during her questioning , had drawn her attention to the potential consequences of her actions for her family .","On DATE , at TIME , the prosecutor authorised the audio and video recording of discussions between GPE and the applicant , together with the bugging of a number of telephones used by him , for a period of TIME , from CARDINAL May CARDINAL at TIME DATE at TIME The intercept authorisations of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and DATE were endorsed by a judgment of ORG and ORG ( the \u201c High Court \u201d ) on DATE .","At TIME called the applicant to inform him that she would be late . At TIME arrived at the hospital and met the applicant in the corridor . She asked him to go into his office , placed the envelope with the money on his desk and left .","At TIME officials from the prosecution service entered the applicant \u2019s office . The investigators examined the applicant \u2019s hands and clothing , using a fluorescent lamp , and observed traces of fluorescent substance on the fingers of his left hand . The objects on the applicant \u2019s desk were then examined and traces of the same substance were detected . An envelope was found on the desk and the investigators asked the applicant to open it and deposit the contents on the table . The envelope contained the sum of CARDINAL .","A report was drawn up concerning the discovery of the offence while being committed . It recorded the sequence of events , the material items identified and the applicant \u2019s replies to questions from the investigators . The applicant \u2019s statements were recorded as follows :","\u201c ... When he [ the applicant ] was apprehended , the public prosecutor ... PERSON asked PERSON , Brigadier - General , whether GPE had left him anything .","He replied in the affirmative , saying \u2018 yes\u2019 and pointing to his desk .","In the presence of the attesting witnesses ... and of Dr PERSON , Brigadier - General , formal note was taken of the offence that had just been committed .","PERSON , Brigadier - General , was asked to state what he had received from GPE , at the time when ... Lieutenant - General PERSON entered his office ... and when Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON , legal officer , showed him the object of the offence ( obiectul care formeaz\u0103 constatarea infrac\u021biunii flagrante ) .","Subsequently Dr PERSON ... stated that GPE had come to his office at the hospital , that she had said \u2018 I have brought you the envelope\u2019 and that she had left it on the desk . He stated that , after GPE had left , he had personally looked for some documents on his desk and had intended to leave his office to go to the toilet when he was stopped by Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON , legal officer .","...","When questioned , PERSON explained that he did not possess any document concerning the examination scheduled for DATE , because the documents were at the technical secretariat of the directorate general for prisons ... \u201d","The report was signed by the applicant and by the CARDINAL attesting witnesses present , without any objections . In the report , the applicant was mentioned as the \u201c person caught in the act of committing an offence \u201d ( f\u0103ptuitor ) .","The applicant was not informed at the time of that procedure of his right to legal assistance and to remain silent , or of any of the accusations against him . The discovery of the offence while being committed was recorded by audio and visual means .","The applicant was then taken to the headquarters of the ORG where he was informed , in his capacity as a \u201c person caught in the act of committing an offence \u201d , that preliminary investigative acts had been carried out against him and that he was entitled to legal assistance . Subsequently the prosecutor ordered that criminal proceedings be opened against the applicant and informed him of his right to remain silent . The applicant was assisted from that point onwards by a lawyer of his choosing .","Later on that same day , CARDINAL DATE , at TIME , the prosecutor ordered that the applicant be taken into police custody for TIME , a measure that was subsequently extended by a period of detention on remand . The applicant was assisted by a lawyer of his choosing . The applicant \u2019s detention on remand was then extended several times until DATE , when he was released .","On DATE the intelligence services of ORG transmitted reports to the prosecutor \u2019s office concerning the recording of telephone calls intercepted on the applicant \u2019s telephone . That information showed that the secret services had intercepted conversations which had taken place on DATE , at TIME , and on DATE , at TIME As regards calls intercepted on DATE , after TIME , a note in the investigation file gave the times of the calls with the indication that the numbers called had not been identified .","The transcription of the video - recorded conversation of CARDINAL DATE between GPE and the applicant , GPE , read as follows :","\u201c ...","N.D. ... I wanted ... to tell you that the exam papers are still those ...","ORG interrupting GPE ) : Yes , I am going ... ( unintelligible ) ... ? Have you got [ the exam papers ] ?","N.D. : ... Yes !","B.S. : OK . Put them on the table , they will take them from there ...","N.D. : Yes ...","B.S. : But we ca n\u2019t do the practical part ... until DATE TIME ! We are running very late , we wo n\u2019t be able to do the marking !","N.D. : Yes ...","B.S. : At TIME I have to be in GPE . Yes ? OK .","N.D. : Euh ... ( at that moment ... at TIME of the video recording , GPE takes from a bag she is holding a white envelope that she holds out to ORG At the same time , GPE says : ) This is from ... the candidate !","ORG covering GPE \u2019s words ) : What ? ( he then speaks softly ) Put them there ! ( on the video recording DATE at CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u2013 B.S. can be seen pointing to his office and the desk in question . ORG then continues ) OK , come with me ! ...","N.D. : It \u2019s part . ... the rest will be ...","ORG interrupting GPE ) : But ... I have nothing ... It is up to you ( ORG , eu n\u2019am comentat nimic ) ...","N.D. : Yes ...","B.S. : I have helped you , have n\u2019t I ?","N.D. : Yes ...","... \u201d","During the criminal proceedings , the applicant was questioned in the presence of a lawyer of his choosing and he denied the charges . A confrontation took place at an unknown date between GPE and the applicant , each one maintaining the position taken in their respective initial statements . The applicant was assisted by lawyers of his choosing throughout the ensuing criminal proceedings .","B. The criminal proceedings against the applicant","On an indictment of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was committed to stand trial in ORG of the High Court on a charge of soliciting bribes . He was charged with having , in his capacity as chairman of the board of examiners , asked GPE through the intermediary of GPE for the sum of USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL , subsequently reduced to USD MONEY , in return for helping her in the examination , and with having , on DATE , received the sum of CARDINAL on that basis . In the same indictment , GPE was committed to stand trial on a charge of complicity in soliciting bribes .","Proceedings at first instance before the High Court sitting in a CARDINAL - judge formation","When questioned by ORG , the applicant denied the charges against him . He stated that he had been convinced that the envelope left by GPE on his desk contained the examination papers that GPE was , according to him , supposed to give him DATE .","On DATE the applicant argued before ORG that he had been the victim of entrapment by the investigative authorities . He indicated in that connection that , according to his first statement as recorded in the report on the discovery of the offence , GPE had initially said that the money was intended for her . He took the view that it was only after been subjected for TIME to psychological pressure on the part of the investigators , who had repeatedly stressed that she would benefit from a reduction in sentence and had questioned her about her family , that GPE had stated that the money was intended for him . He added that the report on the discovery of the offence could not constitute valid evidence , on the ground that it contained a statement that he had allegedly made immediately after being caught in the act of committing an offence , without having been informed by the prosecutor of his right to legal assistance .","When questioned by ORG about the substance of the discussion he had had with GPE just before being caught in the act of committing the offence , the applicant indicated that he had heard GPE say something about a candidate but had not understood exactly what she had meant , as she had spoken softly and at a point when his attention had been distracted by a colleague going into the secretary \u2019s office .","On DATE the High Court questioned GPE She stated that she had been caught in the act of committing an offence and that when the investigators had asked her whether the money was for her or for someone else , she had mentioned the applicant . She also indicated that she was not supposed to receive any money from the candidate and that all the money was intended for the applicant . She added that the investigators had asked her to follow up the procedure for the discovery of the offence while being committed and to take the money to the person for whom it was intended . The investigators had allegedly asked her to behave as if nothing had happened and to explain to the applicant that she had been delayed by a traffic accident . When she had hesitated , the investigators had allegedly told her that she could benefit from a reduction in sentence if she accepted .","On DATE T.G. was questioned by ORG .","On DATE ORG listened to and watched the audio and video recordings made by the prosecutor \u2019s office during the commission of the offence , involving first GPE and GPE , and ORG and the applicant , together with the filmed interview of GPE after she was caught in the act of committing an offence .","On DATE the hearings were resumed . The applicant repeated that he had been the victim of entrapment and that GPE had made the statements in question , after being caught in the act of committing an offence , without legal assistance and under pressure from the investigators . He indicated that in the transcription of the recording of his discussions with GPE , the phrase \u201c Put them on the table ... \u201d concerning the impugned envelope appeared in writing but was inaudible on the recording .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , by a majority , ORG , sitting in a CARDINAL - judge formation , sentenced the applicant on the charge of soliciting bribes to a suspended term of DATE in prison . It based its decision on the report of the discovery of the offence while being committed by the applicant , on the statement of GPE and on the audio and video recordings made when the applicant was caught in the act of committing the offence .","...","As to the applicant \u2019s allegations that he should have had legal assistance from the time when he was first questioned by the public prosecutor in the procedure concerning the discovery of an offence while being committed , ORG found as follows :","\u201c Under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW , suspects or accused persons have the right to be assisted by a lawyer throughout the criminal proceedings , and the judicial authorities are obliged to inform them of that right . At the time of the drawing - up of the report concerning the discovery of an offence while being committed , the criminal proceedings had not yet been started in respect of PERSON , who did not even have the status of suspect . Accordingly the [ said ] report and the audio and video recordings made during the discovery of the offence will be admitted in evidence \u201d .","After noting that the applicant had always denied the charges , ORG found that his allegations were contradicted by the video and audio recordings . Based on that evidence , it noted that GPE had held out the envelope to the applicant telling him loudly and clearly \u201c this is from the candidate \u201d ; it was thus obvious to ORG that the applicant was perfectly aware of what was in the envelope and he had no reason to believe that an envelope from a candidate contained examination papers . It further noted that the applicant had pointed to where GPE should place the envelope and that when she had started to explain that the rest would be remitted afterwards , he had interrupted her saying that it was up to her .","ORG also found that the applicant \u2019s statement that the envelope had then been covered by certain documents on the desk because he had tidied things up was contradicted by the verifications made using an ultraviolet lamp , which had revealed specific fluorescent traces leading to the conclusion that the applicant had not lifted the envelope to tidy the desk but that he had slid it under other documents to hide it . ORG concluded that this evidence , together with the report on the discovery of the offence , proved that there had been a prior agreement between the applicant and GPE","NORP The appeal proceedings before the High Court sitting in a CARDINAL - judge formation","The applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment , seeking his acquittal and , in the alternative , a retrial before the first - instance court , arguing that there was no evidence that he had been aware of the content of the envelope in question .","He further argued that he had been the victim of entrapment on the part of the investigators . He pointed out that the evidence had been obtained illegally as a result of the pressure exerted for TIME on GPE by the investigators after she had been taken into police custody , without being informed of her procedural rights .","NORP The applicant also indicated that the words \u201c Put them there ! \u201d appeared in the transcripts whereas they were not , in his view , audible in the recording and that his discussion with GPE before entering the office had not been transcribed , even though it would have shown that he had received GPE in his office only upon her insistence . He further argued that the authorisations for recording his discussions with GPE were not legal , on the ground that they had been issued before he was formally charged and had not been confirmed within the statutory time - limit by the President of ORG .","He lastly indicated that he had not been assisted by a lawyer when he gave the first statement recorded in the report of the discovery of the offence . In this connection , he relied on the first paragraph of LAW of LAW governing the discovery of an offence while being committed . He added that , under LAW , the prosecuting authority was required to draw up a report of the discovery of the offence containing the statements of the \u201c suspect and other persons questioned \u201d . He inferred from this that at the time the offence was committed he must have had the status of \u201c suspect \u201d , which meant that he should have been assisted by a lawyer or at least informed of that right .","The hearing took place on DATE . In a final judgment delivered on DATE , issued on paper on DATE , ORG , sitting as a CARDINAL - judge formation , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","The High Court found that , while it was clear that LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW was applicable in the present case , that did not , however , entail an obligation to prosecute before or at the same time as the discovery of the offence while being committed . In the court \u2019s view , such an interpretation would render futile the relevant procedure as a whole , whereas the fact of being caught in the act of committing an offence formed the basis on which the criminal proceedings were then initiated . In addition , since the measure in which the above - mentioned legal provision provided for keeping a record of the statements of the suspect and other persons questioned , the person concerned would be questioned as the suspect only if the prosecution had already decided to bring proceedings against that person . If not , his or her statement would be recorded as that of \u201c another person questioned \u201d . ORG concluded on that point that , in view of the fact that at the time he was first questioned the applicant had been neither a suspect nor an accused person , there had been no statutory obligation for him to be assisted by a lawyer . Moreover , it noted that the applicant had been informed subsequently , in the presence of a lawyer of his choosing , that preliminary investigative acts ( acte premerg\u0103toare ) had been carried out against him in his capacity as a person caught in the act of committing an offence .","The High Court further found that the charges against the applicant had been fully substantiated by the video and audio recording of his meeting with GPE on DATE . It noted the importance of their conversation on that occasion and the indicative nature of the applicant \u2019s gesture in showing GPE where to place the envelope , thus ruling out the possibility that he could have been the victim of entrapment . ORG held that , even supposing that the sentence \u201c Put them on the table \u201d had not been audible in the recording , the words spoken by the applicant , and not disputed by him , both before and after the envelope was placed on the table , formed a context that left no room for doubt .","The court lastly found the recordings to be valid . In this connection it noted that in case of urgency the prosecutor was empowered to authorise recordings and that the court was required to confirm the authorisations within TIME , as it had done in the present case .","On DATE ORG of ORG rehabilitated the applicant upon his application and cancelled his conviction of DATE .","..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","34","6","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3","8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144354","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF Y\u0130\u011e\u0130TDO\u011eAN v. TURKEY (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in PERSON .","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation , namely ORG , ORG , \u201c the ORG \u201d . The arrest records held by the police stated that they had had to use force to arrest the applicant , who had tried to escape when officers approached him to conduct an identity check .","On DATE he underwent a medical examination at TIME at FAC in GPE . The report drawn up afterwards stated that no indication of ill - treatment had been observed on the applicant \u2019s body .","The applicant was examined again DATE , at TIME at the same hospital . The report issued following that examination noted that the applicant had a healing , scabbed scratch measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY on his right elbow . It concluded that there was no indication of physical violence on his body .","Following the medical examinations , the applicant was transferred to GPE , where he was placed in police custody at FAC of ORG . According to his submissions , he was subjected to ill - treatment during his time there .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s residence in GPE was searched by the police , who found several guns and cartridges , which were later sent to ORG for ballistic examination .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG , who noted a swelling , a bruise and a scratch measuring CARDINAL x CARDINAL cm on his right elbow , as well as another scratch measuring CARDINAL x CARDINAL cm on his arm . The doctor recommended that the applicant undergo an orthopaedic examination .","At the request of the public prosecutor , on DATE ORG decided to extend the applicant \u2019s police custody by DATE .","On DATE the applicant was examined again at ORG . This time , CARDINAL scars on his gluteal region were noted .","On an unspecified date the applicant made statements to the police , in the absence of a lawyer .","On DATE of his police custody , namely on DATE the applicant underwent another medical examination at ORG . The report drawn up afterwards indicated a scar measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY on his right elbow . The doctor also noted that the applicant \u2019s medical condition was generally good , and recommended that he should undergo a urological consultation to follow up his complaint of rectal pain . He stated that a final report would be issued by ORG .","On DATE the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor at ORG . He was not legally represented when he made his statements .","Subsequently , the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at ORG ; he was remanded in custody . In the presence of a lawyer appointed by ORG , he retracted his previous statements and maintained that he had been subjected to illtreatment during his time in police custody . In response to a question by the investigating judge , the applicant maintained that he did not object to the content of the medical report drawn up DATE .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions , on DATE he was examined by a doctor at ORG . The Government stated that there had been no such examination .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with that court , accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities which undermined the constitutional order of the ORG , pursuant to LAW in force at the time ( Law no . CARDINAL ) . In this respect , the public prosecutor noted that the applicant had taken part in several armed acts of the illegal organisation , including murder .","On DATE the applicant informed ORG that he would not attend the hearing that was to be held DATE , as he had had no opportunity to have prior consultation with his lawyer . The court asked the public prosecutor \u2019s office to ensure the applicant \u2019s attendance at the subsequent hearing .","At a hearing dated DATE , during which the applicant \u2019s lawyer was present , the court noted that although it had requested that the applicant be brought before the court , it had received no response from the public prosecutor concerning the matter . At the same hearing the case was joined to another one , in which the applicant was being tried together with some others .","During subsequent hearings , which were conducted in the absence of the applicant , the court heard submissions from some of the co - accused and some witnesses . At CARDINAL of these hearings , on DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked the court to obtain the medical reports issued at ORG in DATE . He also stated that the applicant had been transferred to another prison and that the order for him to attend the hearing had not been sent there .","On DATE the court noted that the applicant could not be brought to the hearing as he had been transferred once again .","On DATE ORG gave an interlocutory decision , holding that the applicant should be brought before the court for the subsequent hearings , and that failure to do so would result in those responsible for his absence being subject to a criminal investigation .","On an unspecified later date the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted a letter to the court , noting that the applicant had not been brought before the court following its interlocutory decision dated DATE . He argued that the prison personnel and police officers concerned should be prosecuted for this .","On DATE the applicant was brought before the court . He submitted his defence , indicating that he had been severely beaten during his arrest in GPE and had been subjected to electric shocks , hung by the arms , hosed with cold water and sexually assaulted during his DATE police custody at ORG . He claimed that although his right arm had been broken and he had developed facial paralysis , he had not been taken to ORG . In that respect , he asked the court to obtain the medical reports issued following his examination at ORG , where he said a plaster cast had been put on his broken arm .","At hearings on DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant and his lawyer submitted additional defence statements .","During those proceedings , in DATE ORG were abolished following a constitutional amendment , and the case was transferred to ORG .","At a hearing on DATE the applicant informed the court that his lawyer had failed to attend the hearings , and asked for time to appoint a new lawyer .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s new lawyer reiterated the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment and asked the court to assess the medical reports on him . In that connection , she maintained that the applicant had not undergone urological or orthopaedic consultations , although the doctors at ORG had recommended that he should . The lawyer added that the applicant had never been taken to ORG , and that the court had not obtained the reports from ORG , despite the applicant \u2019s request for them . She also stated that the applicant had not been present at the hearings when the court had heard certain key witnesses .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted a request to ORG for the medical reports on the applicant \u2019s medical examination on DATE . However , the hospital administration informed her that the records for DATE had been destroyed in DATE , as a result of a sewage pipe explosion above the archives .","On DATE , on the basis of several items of evidence , including the applicant \u2019s police statements , the guns found at his home , and ballistic reports on those guns , ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against the judgment , arguing that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment while in police custody and had been convicted on the basis of statements extracted under duress .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG . This judgment was pronounced on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152624","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DIMITROVI v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","The applicants are the widow and the son of Mr PERSON , who died in DATE .","In DATE , following publications in the media concerning the income of the first applicant and her husband , the GPE regional public prosecutor \u2019s office opened proceedings against them under LAW of the Citizens\u2019 LAW ( \u201c the CPA \u201d , see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . In a decision of DATE a prosecutor from that office discontinued the proceedings .","NORP The prosecutor found , first , that for the period from DATE Mr PERSON \u2019s expenditure had exceeded his income , but that in DATE he had paid the difference to the ORG budget . Accordingly , there was no ground to pursue the proceedings for that period ( section CARDINAL of the CPA , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Next , the prosecutor described the income and the expenditure of the first applicant and Mr PERSON for the period from DATE , but did not make an explicit finding as to whether she considered their income lawful within the meaning of the CPA .","Lastly , analysing the couple \u2019s income and expenditure for DATE , the prosecutor concluded that they were equivalent , and that there were no grounds for bringing forfeiture proceedings under the CPA .","On an unspecified date the GPE regional public prosecutor \u2019s office opened new proceedings under LAW . On DATE it brought an action in ORG against the CARDINAL applicants , seeking the forfeiture of CARDINAL flats , CARDINAL in GPE and CARDINAL in GPE , a garage , an office and a share in a plot of land in GPE , a holiday house in the PERSON resort and a ORG Land Cruiser car , all acquired by the first applicant and Mr PERSON with income received DATE , which was allegedly \u201c unlawful \u201d within the meaning of LAW CARDINAL of the CPA ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The Sofia Regional Court gave a judgment on DATE . It analysed in detail the income received by the first applicant and her husband and their expenditure during the period at issue . Due to the difficulties in making an assessment because of the high inflation of that time , the court relied on expert conclusions , calculating all the amounts in GPE dollars ( USD ) .","ORG accepted in particular , referring to rent contracts , the tax declaration submitted by the first applicant in DATE and witness statements by those involved , that in DATE the first applicant and her husband had received substantial income from farming .","On the basis of its calculations , ORG concluded that the couple \u2019s expenditure for the period at issue had exceeded their proved income by MONEY , which by virtue of section CARDINAL of the CPA represented \u201c unlawful \u201d income . Accordingly , allowing the action brought before it in part , ORG ordered the forfeiture of property of that value , namely the flat in GPE , the share in a plot of land in GPE and CARDINAL of the flat in GPE .","Both parties lodged appeals .","On DATE the second - instance ORG gave a judgment . It found that the applicants had not established all the income considered proven by ORG , in particular as concerns the family \u2019s farming business . According to ORG it was unacceptable to prove such income on the basis of the evidence presented before the lower court , without any further documents showing , for example , expenditure and revenue received . It also considered unproven CARDINAL monetary gifts , CARDINAL of them allegedly made by the first applicant \u2019s parents and the other allegedly received on the occasion of her wedding to PERSON Dimitrov in DATE .","ORG calculated that the expenditure of the first applicant and her husband for DATE had exceeded their income by MONEY . It considered further that the properties for which the prosecution authorities sought forfeiture had been acquired with this \u201c unlawful \u201d income , and accordingly ordered the forfeiture of the flats in GPE and GPE and the office , the garage and the share in a plot of land in GPE . As to the remaining properties at issue , namely a holiday house in PERSON and a car , given that they had in the meantime been transferred to third parties , ORG ordered the applicants to pay their monetary value to the ORG .","The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law . In a final decision of DATE ORG refused to accept the appeal for examination .","On the basis of the judgment of DATE , on DATE the regional governor of ORG issued a decision declaring the flat in ORG property . Similar decisions concerning the properties in GPE were issued by the GPE regional governor on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . Following these decisions the applicants surrendered possession to the ORG .","On DATE the applicants paid MONEY ( ORG ) to the ORG budget , representing the value of the remaining forfeited properties , namely the holiday house in PERSON and the car , and the court fees and other costs due by them . In the domestic proceedings they had been ordered to pay ORG in total in fees and other expenses .","In DATE and DATE the relevant tax authorities carried out probes into the income received by the first applicant and her husband DATE . Their decisions , calculating the income tax due , were given on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","In respect of the first applicant the respective decision was partly quashed on DATE by ORG ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181278","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF VELLA v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13+P1-1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is the owner of CARDINAL FAC , GPE , a twostorey tenement with a surface area of DATE . ( hereinafter \u201c the property \u201d ) . In DATE , and DATE , following the death of their father , mother and uncle respectively , the applicant and her CARDINAL brothers inherited an estate which included the property . By a deed of partition of CARDINAL DATE the property was assigned to the applicant and she became its sole owner .","The property was requisitioned in DATE by means of a requisition order . The premises were then allocated to ORG in GPE hereinafter \u201c the band club \u201d ) . The owners of the property never recognised the tenant or accepted any rent from the club . According to a judgment of DATE of ORG ( FAC ) in its ordinary jurisdiction , the owners were entitled to do so because the tenement had not been leased as a dwelling , and thus greater risks were involved .","In DATE that followed rent was paid to the owners by the competent authority ( then ORG , DATE ORG ) . The DATE rent payable amounted to CARDINAL NORP Lira ( MTL \u2013 approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) , less than ORG DATE . According to an architect \u2019s valuation from DATE submitted by the applicant , the rental value of the tenement at the time was ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) per month . The Government challenged this estimate , as the valuation had contained no explanation as to the basis for the calculations , or whether the property was considered residential or commercial , or vacant or occupied . They relied on a valuation in an architect \u2019s report concerning a property ( FAC ) requisitioned in DATE for the purposes of the band club \u2013 which stated that the rental value in DATE was ORG DATE , which meant ORG DATE . The Government did not refer to the different address , arguing as though the valuation referred to the property at issue in the present case .","NORP Over DATE the band club carried out extensive structural alterations , without obtaining the consent of the owners or the relevant permits from the competent authorities . According to an architect \u2019s report , there had been a total change and the alteration effected had effaced what had once been the traditional layout of important buildings in old NORP towns . According to the applicant , this deprived her of the valuable quality and historical and architectural importance of the property , thus devaluing it . The Government argued that the applicant had not availed herself of any ordinary remedy in this regard and had thus failed to substantiate the loss in value . Moreover , in their view the property was in a good state of repair and the alterations had increased its value .","According to the applicant , the band club also repeatedly breached the tenancy agreement which it had signed , by manufacturing fireworks on the LOC and conducting commercial activities ( such as running a bar and letting the LOC out as a wedding venue despite not having the requisite authorisation ) . The Government submitted that these were unsubstantiated allegations , which had not been proved before the domestic courts .","As from DATE , in the light of constitutional proceedings ( see below ) , the band club started depositing the DATE rent in court .","NORP The applicant and her brothers also owned a property ( CARDINAL ORG , GPE adjacent to the tenement above , which was requisitioned in DATE and also assigned to the band club .","NORP In DATE the owners of the tenement instituted civil proceedings before ORG ( FAC ) in its ordinary jurisdiction against the ORG Secretary and the band club . They requested that the requisition order of CARDINAL DATE be declared null and void as being contrary to LAW , and sought to regain possession of the tenement . They also requested compensation for the damage allegedly sustained .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its ordinary jurisdiction rejected the ORG claim . The owners appealed against that decision .","In a judgment of DATE ORG declared the requisition order null and void and ordered that the appellants be given possession of the LOC within DATE . It held that the requisition for the purposes of assigning the property to the band club could not be considered to be in the public interest . It sent the case back to ORG ( FAC ) in its ordinary jurisdiction for it to award the appellants compensation .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected a request for a new trial submitted by the band club .","In a judgment of DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its ordinary jurisdiction found the ORG Secretary and the band club liable for the damage suffered by the owners in connection with the structural alterations to the property . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its ordinary jurisdiction awarded the owners ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in damages , covering LAW for missing objects , ORG CARDINAL to rectify the structural changes made and LAW for the loss of use of the property for DATE . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings in relation to the property requisitioned in DATE , asking the court to declare that , as a result of the requisition order and the continued occupation of the LOC , she had suffered a breach of her rights under LAW . She asked the court to award her compensation for the taking of possession of the property and for the violations suffered , and to order any other measure capable of preventing the continuation of the violation , including the release of the property .","The defendants , the Director of ORG , the Attorney General and the band club , argued that no such violations had occurred .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction upheld the applicant \u2019s claims . It considered that the requisition order had been issued for the property to be enjoyed by a private entity and therefore the measure had not been in the public interest . In this connection , it referred to a judgment of DATE by ORG concerning what it considered to be the same property ( see above ) . Moreover , the measure had not been proportionate . The rent had been derisory , causing the applicant to suffer a disproportionate and excessive burden . She had therefore suffered a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL . According to the court , the applicant had also suffered a violation of LAW , as only her property had been requisitioned for the use of the band club . In determining the amount of compensation , the court did not take into account the fact that the applicant or her ancestors had received rent , given that the amount was derisory . Bearing in mind the values established by the applicant \u2019s expert as to the rental value and sale value of the property , which was ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) ( pg.CARDINAL of the judgment ) , as well as the length of time the requisition was and remained in place , the court awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL in compensation ( kumpens ) for the requisition of the LOC and the violations found , noting it was not awarding civil damages ( danni \u010bivili ) in this context . DATE of the amount was to be paid by ORG and DATE by the band club . It further ordered the band club to vacate the LOC within DATE of judgment and to return the LOC to the applicant .","The band club appealed , arguing that it could not be held responsible for breaches of human rights and that , in any event , the measure had been in the public interest . It further contested the order to vacate the property . The Attorney General and the Director of ORG also appealed , in particular in relation to the findings of a lack of public interest , a violation of LAW and the redress awarded . The applicant crossappealed , arguing that the compensation awarded was too low and did not reflect the losses she had incurred over DATE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment in part . It reiterated the finding of a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW No . CARDINAL only in so far as the requisition had been disproportionate . It found , however , that it had been in the public interest \u2013 the court considered that jurisprudence had shifted since the time of the judgment of DATE of ORG on which the first - instance court had based its assessment . In the present case the requisition had served a social and cultural purpose for the generality of citizens and could not be said to have served solely private interests .","It further found that there had been no violation of LAW .","As to the redress , the Constitutional Court revoked the order for the club to vacate the LOC . Considering that the violation of LAW No . CARDINAL was a consequence of the lack of a fair balance between the interests of the landlord and those of the tenant , and given that the validity of the lease was not at issue in the present case , it did not seem appropriate for it to evict the tenant ; it sufficed that that unfair balance be redressed .","The Constitutional Court confirmed the amount of compensation awarded by the first - instance court , including the way in which it had to be shared . It considered that the band club had benefited from the situation and had never attempted to fix it , despite the fact that it had not been recognised as a tenant . In relation to the amount of compensation , it considered that the disproportionality of the measure had not persisted since the start of the requisition in DATE , but had started to be so only after DATE . Furthermore , the applicant had received the rent paid by the department and had only instituted constitutional proceedings in DATE ( while never contesting the validity of the requisition ) , thus it was legitimate and in line with local case - law to reduce her compensation . It also held that the property had been taken in the public interest and therefore the compensation needed not reflect market values . It followed that the compensation had to be reduced , however , given that the property was not to be vacated , it was appropriate to retain the amount awarded by the firstinstance court . Lastly , the court held that the claim for damages for the depreciation of the property as a result of structural works did not fall within the ambit of a constitutional complaint , and it was thus not its place to award such damages .","ORG ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the cross - appeal and CARDINAL the judicial costs of the proceedings before the CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction ."],"violated_articles":["13","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177344","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KAL\u0112JA v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in R\u012bga .","She worked as an accountant in a building management company ( namu p\u0101rvalde ) from DATE . From DATE she also fulfilled the duties of a cashier and she was fully responsible for any shortfall in the material assets ( materi\u0101l\u0101s v\u0113rt\u012bbas ) entrusted to her .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s colleagues reported to the police that illicit cash withdrawals from the company \u2019s cash registers had been made . Allegedly , the withdrawals had been made by the applicant and her colleague , PERSON , by means of annulling the records of cash transactions and then taking the money received in respect of those transactions from the cash register .","Internal and external audits were carried out and it was discovered that certain data in the company \u2019s cash registers had been manipulated . Specific amounts of cash and dates were noted in the audits , as well as the customer numbers in respect of which this manipulation had been executed . It was later established that the data had been manipulated in order to conceal illicit cash withdrawals . Further internal and external audits were carried out in DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant gave a written explanation ( paskaidrojums ) to a police inspector . The applicant testified that she had annulled CARDINAL cash transactions and made CARDINAL cash withdrawals in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG \u2013 QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) . She had done so at the request of the deputy head of the company and had handed the cash over to him . As concerns the remainder of the missing cash , she stated that she had not taken it . Nor had she annulled any other cash transactions .","On DATE the police inspector issued a decision to institute criminal proceedings ( l\u0113mums par krimin\u0101llietas ierosin\u0101\u0161anu ) in respect of \u201c the misappropriation of funds in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL [ approximately ORG CARDINAL ] carried out by the applicant and PERSON by annulling records of cash transactions \u201d . The applicant was not informed of this decision at that time . Instead , she was issued a summons to talks ( p\u0101rrunas ) and she was interviewed on DATE . A witness statement record ( liecinieka nopratin\u0101\u0161anas protokols ) was drawn up . The applicant was informed of the rights and obligations of witnesses , as stipulated by LAW ( GPE kodekss , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; she was also informed that if she refused to testify or gave false testimony she would incur criminal liability . The applicant repeated that she had annulled CARDINAL cash transactions and had made CARDINAL cash withdrawals . She had handed the cash over to the deputy head .","According to the applicant she appeared at the police station on DATE , accompanied by a lawyer whom she had authorised to represent her . Her request to be represented by the lawyer was refused DATE she was told that her status was that of a witness and that witnesses were not entitled to legal assistance . The Government contested the applicant \u2019s submission , as there was no mention of this in the witness statement record ; the ORG stated that the applicant had signed the record and had made no remarks .","In DATE the applicant was interviewed as a witness CARDINAL more times : on DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE . Her rights and obligations as a witness \u2013 as well as the fact that she would render herself criminally liable if she refused to testify or gave false testimony \u2013 were explained to her ( reference was made to LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; no mention of any right to legal assistance was made . She reiterated that she had annulled CARDINAL cash transactions and had made CARDINAL cash withdrawals . She had handed the cash over to the deputy head of the company . She furthermore added that she had already repaid to the company approximately ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG MONEY ) .","A confrontation ( konfront\u0101cija ) was also held between the applicant and PERSON on DATE and with the deputy head of the company on DATE , who were also considered witnesses . Another confrontation between the applicant and the chief accountant was scheduled to take place on DATE and DATE , but neither of them attended .","In DATE the police considered the case material to be sufficient for bringing charges against the applicant and referred the case to the prosecutor \u2019s office . However , several prosecutors identified various shortcomings in the investigation and transferred the case back to the police for additional investigation .","The identified shortcomings included the following aspects .","First , the criminal case material was found to be insufficient to establish guilt and therefore no charges could be brought . Serious breaches of LAW and other regulations were found . The criminal case material had contained uncertified copies of documents , missing pages of explanations and incomplete procedural records . In addition , the audits had not been carried out in accordance with law . Another audit had to be commissioned and more witnesses had to be questioned .","Second , there had been discrepancies in the total amount of missing cash and it was impossible to establish that a crime had been committed or to bring charges against anyone . The audit had to be carried out by a certified auditor .","A conclusion was made that the pre - trial investigation had been deficient , chaotic and had been carried out aimlessly . Moreover , the role of the chief accountant and the deputy head of the company in the cash withdrawals had not been properly investigated .","The police carried out further investigative measures \u2013 they commissioned another audit , collected further evidence , and questioned more witnesses ( including the head , the deputy head , and the chief accountant of the company , as well as some of its customers ) .","On DATE the police referred the case to the prosecutor \u2019s office for the fourth time . This time the case material was deemed sufficient for charges to be brought and , on DATE , the applicant was officially charged with CARDINAL episodes of misappropriation of funds . She thus became an accused person ( aps\u016bdz\u0113t\u0101 persona ) in the criminal proceedings against her and was informed of her right to have a lawyer . A preventive measure \u2013 a prohibition on her changing her place of residence , which she had to acknowledge by giving her signature ( paraksts par dz\u012bves vietas nemain\u012b\u0161anu ) \u2013 was imposed on her . On DATE the charges were slightly amended in respect of the total amount of misappropriated funds .","On DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant was questioned as an accused person . On CARDINAL occasions ( on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE ) the applicant stated that a lawyer \u2019s presence was not necessary . On another occasion ( on DATE ) she stated that she would continue giving testimony without the presence of a lawyer . No remarks were made regarding the absence of a lawyer during the questioning of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant was given access to the criminal case file in order that she could acquaint herself with its contents . She subsequently requested that further investigative measures be taken . Some requests for further investigative measures were granted and some were refused .","On DATE the final bill of indictment was served on the applicant ( uzr\u0101d\u012bta gal\u012bg\u0101 aps\u016bdz\u012bba ) in the presence of a lawyer . The total amount of misappropriated funds was again slightly amended . On DATE other preventive measures \u2013 a prohibition on leaving the country and the obligation to reside at a particular place of residence ( uztur\u0113\u0161an\u0101s noteikt\u0101 dz\u012bvesviet\u0101 ) \u2013 were imposed on the applicant . On the same date the prosecutor \u2019s office forwarded the case file to ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) .","On DATE the first hearing was held . On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL episodes of misappropriation of property that had been entrusted to her . The applicant did not admit her guilt . She agreed that she had annulled CARDINAL cash transactions and made CARDINAL cash withdrawals in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , but stated that she had done so at the request of the chief accountant and the deputy head of the company with a view to paying out salaries . As concerns other cash transactions , she had not annulled those . The court , relying on witness testimony and other case material ( the results of CARDINAL audits , the electronic cash register records , the relevant bills and receipts , the respective employment agreements etc . ) , convicted the applicant . The court did not rely on the applicant \u2019s statements made during the pre - trial investigation .","NORP The applicant was given a DATE suspended prison sentence , with CARDINAL years\u2019 probation ( a more lenient sentence than the minimum provided by law ) . In setting the sentence the court took into account her state of health , the fact that she had partly compensated the company for the damage in question , and the fact that she had committed the crime DATE previously and that since then she had not committed any other crimes . The applicant lodged an appeal on DATE .","The first appellate hearing was scheduled for DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( GPE tiesas GPE tiesu pal\u0101ta ) quashed the applicant \u2019s conviction for lack of evidence in respect of CARDINAL episodes of misappropriation of property . The applicant \u2019s sentence was reduced to a DATE suspended prison sentence , with DATE probation . In setting the sentence the court took into account the significantly lower number of episodes for which the applicant had been convicted , the fact that a particularly long period of time had elapsed since the commission of the crime , and the fact that there was no indication that she had committed any other crimes since then . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law on DATE .","On DATE the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . The ORG indicated that the former Criminal Procedure Code ( which had been in force in DATE , when the charges had been brought against the applicant ) had not excluded that a person could have the procedural status of a witness while a pre - trial investigation was in progress and could only be officially charged once there was sufficient evidence concerning that person \u2019s guilt ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159066","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KIBERMANIS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr Ivars Kibermanis , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Mrs J. Kvjatkovska , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent at the time , PERSON , and subsequently by PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the State Police instituted criminal proceedings for fraud , in particular for attempts to obtain by fraud the immovable property of a victim , PERSON , by using fake cession contracts and carrying out other fraudulent activities , which had taken place , inter alia , at the bailiffs\u2019 office where the applicant worked .","On DATE a judge of the Riga City Latgale District Court authorised a search of the applicant \u2019s office , limiting the seizure to :","\u201c ... documents , contracts , letters , notices , and other documents concerning PERSON , PERSON , and PERSON for the period from CARDINAL DATE until the material date \u201d .","The search of the office was carried out on DATE , and the investigators seized CARDINAL hard drives from the applicant \u2019s and his assistant \u2019s computers . The items were sealed and the search records do not reveal any complaints from the applicant with respect to the seizure . He nevertheless commented that the computers contained documents which under section CARDINAL of the Bailiffs Law were not to be removed from the bailiffs\u2019 office .","On DATE the investigator ordered a technical expert report in order to find out whether the memory of the seized hard drives contained certain deleted documents : a cession contract dated DATE and letters and other documents containing the names of CARDINAL persons , PERSON , PERSON , and PERSON ( all of whom at that time were suspects or accused in the same criminal proceedings ) , and PERSON , the victim . On DATE the hard drives were returned to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the investigators had exceeded their powers by seizing the hard drives , since the judge \u2019s search order had not authorised the seizure of anything but documents . He relied on LAW , submitting that the search and seizure at his office had violated his right to respect for his private life and that of his clients in that the seized items had included CARDINAL hard drives containing information relating to his private life and documents relating to his clients . Later he added the complaint that the seized objects had not been correctly sealed and were accessible to anyone .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s claim was dismissed . The prosecutor stated that the search had been conducted in accordance with section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Bailiffs Law , which in criminal proceedings concerning fraud authorised the seizure of documents from bailiffs\u2019 offices , and that the search warrant must be interpreted as covering not only documents but also any other device containing the relevant documents . It added that the hard drives had not been seized , but only taken in order to extract from them the information the judge had authorised to be obtained .","The applicant submitted various similar complaints to higherranking prosecutors , claiming that during the search and seizure the investigating officer had been accompanied by an IT specialist who could have copied on the spot the necessary information from the hard drive , as the applicant had suggested . On DATE a supervising prosecutor dismissed the complaint by contending that electronic documents which were stored in hard drives could be changed ; therefore in the particular circumstances the seizure of the hard drives had been an appropriate decision , in that it would not have been possible to select the correct document without special knowledge . A similar conclusion was reached in the final decision of the Prosecutor General of DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant was charged with fraud . Subsequently the charges were amended , adding a charge of document forgery . In DATE the criminal case was sent to court in order for the adjudication to commence .","Following another complaint , on DATE ORG reiterated that ORG had given a final decision on the complaints . Moreover , the applicant was reminded that the pre - trial criminal process had been terminated , therefore any future requests and submissions were to be addressed to the court .","On DATE the applicant submitted to the investigating judge of the Riga City Latgale District Court a similar complaint to the one mentioned above about the allegedly unlawful seizure of the hard drives . The investigating judge noted that section CARDINAL of LAW provided for a separation between the pre - trial criminal process and the trial , therefore the investigating judge could only have examined the complaints of alleged human - rights infringements during the pre - trial criminal process , that is before the criminal proceedings were referred to ORG for adjudication . Therefore , on DATE the applicant \u2019s complaint was dismissed owing to the fact that his criminal case had been sent to trial in DATE and the beginning of the adjudication had been set for DATE .","In DATE and DATE the applicant and his co - accused were asked to give voluntary voice samples to establish the authenticity of tapped telephone conversations between the CARDINAL . They both refused and were subjected to compulsory voice sampling . On DATE and DATE the applicant was provided with copies of the material in the criminal case file .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , which was suspended . The court relied on , inter alia , the telephone conversations between the applicant and the co - defendants which were tapped in DATE .","On various dates after the lower court \u2019s judgment the applicant \u2019s representative asked the Chairman of ORG and the appellate court to inform him whether the telephone tapping had been in accordance with the law , in particular whether it had been authorised by a judge .","On DATE the Chairman of ORG refused to provide any information on grounds of ORG secrecy . On DATE a judge sitting on the panel of ORG of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the appellate court \u201d ) told the applicant that she would herself ascertain whether the phone tapping of DATE had been authorised by a judge .","On DATE the appellate court quashed the lower court \u2019s judgment in part and sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court referred to information received from ORG ) confirming that the phone tapping from DATE to DATE had been carried out after authorisation had been obtained from a judge of ORG .","Following an appeal on points of law by the applicant on DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the appellate court \u2019s judgment in part ( on the counts of bribery and fraud ) and sent it to the appellate court . The remainder of the judgment ( in respect of document forgery ) took effect .","On DATE the appellate court delivered a judgment in the quashed part . The applicant submitted an appeal on points of law against the judgment in which he did not raise the Article CARDINAL complaint later invoked before the ORG .","NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant asked the Chairman of ORG and ORG respectively to provide information on whether there had been a judge \u2019s authorisation for the recording of his telephone conversations . On DATE the Office of the Prosecutor General confirmed that the tapping of the applicant \u2019s telephone conversation was based on authorisation by a judge of ORG , as required by DATE ) and LAW .","The final judgment in the part which had been quashed was delivered on DATE , when the ORG of ORG terminated the criminal proceedings , finding that there had been an incorrect interpretation of the substantive norms of LAW .","Section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that a search may be conducted only on the basis of a judicial decision .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL , an investigator or prosecutor is strictly limited to seizing only documents which may have direct relevance to the [ criminal ] case in question .","Section QUANTITY provides that complaints about the actions of the investigating authorities may be submitted to a prosecutor .","Section CARDINAL provides that a complaint about the actions of a public prosecutor may be submitted to a higher prosecutor .","Section CARDINAL provides that an investigating judge is the judge assigned by the chairperson of the district ( city ) court for a specific term in relation to each case and in accordance with the procedure specified by law , to supervise the observance of human rights in criminal proceedings . The powers of the investigating judge depend on the stage of the criminal proceedings .","Section CARDINAL provides that during a pre - trial investigation and criminal prosecution an investigating judge has , inter alia , the duty of reviewing the conduct of the procedural activities . The same section provides that during the pre - trial investigation and criminal prosecution an investigating judge has the right to familiarise himself with all the material in the criminal case in respect of which the complaint has been received . He or she also has the right to request additional information about criminal proceedings where special investigative actions are being conducted , as well as to determine the terms for the performance of the special investigative actions . At this stage the investigating judge is authorised to apply a procedural sanction for the non - execution of duties or the non - observance of procedures during pre - trial criminal proceedings . He or she can propose that officials who are authorised to perform criminal proceedings are to be held liable for infringements of human rights committed in the carrying out of criminal procedural activities .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provides that from the moment the criminal case has been committed to trial , and before the adjudication of the case has commenced , the investigating judge has a duty to decide on the application of an accused in relation to the amending or revocation of security measures and the proposal of a public prosecutor in relation to the selection or amendment of a security measure .","The Office of the Prosecutor is a judicial institution which independently carries out supervision of the observance of law within the scope of its competence as determined by law . Its role is , inter alia , to supervise the work of investigative institutions and the investigatory operations of other institutions .","The relevant provisions are set out in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of LOC v. GPE , no . GPE DATE , DATE , in particular :","\u201c Section CARDINAL provides :","\u201c If an individual believes that a body carrying out operational activities ( operat\u012bv\u0101s darb\u012bbas subjekts ) has infringed his lawful rights and freedoms , he or she is entitled to lodge a complaint with the prosecutor , who shall conduct an examination and issue a conclusion ( atzinums ) concerning the lawfulness of the contested actions of the official of the body carrying out operational activities ( operat\u012bv\u0101s darb\u012bbas subjekta amatpersona ) , or the individual may bring an action before the court .","Section CARDINAL provides :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The Prosecutor General and prosecutors specially authorised by him shall be responsible for monitoring ( uzraudz\u012bba ) the conformity of operational activities with the law . For the purposes of monitoring they shall be entitled to consult such documents , materials and information , at any stage of the operational activities , as are available to the investigating body ( operat\u012bv\u0101s darb\u012bbas iest\u0101de ) . Secret information and its sources shall be revealed only to ORG , or to the prosecutors specially authorised by him with the permission of the head of the investigating body .","( CARDINAL ) In order to take a decision with respect to operational measures which require approval by a judge , the judge shall be entitled to consult those documents , materials and information available to the investigating body on which the necessity for the operational measure , according to the special method , is based . Secret information and its sources shall be revealed to the judge only with the permission of the head of the investigating body . \u201d \u201d","On CARDINAL DATE the Constitutional Court delivered its ruling in case no . DATE . It found that the regulatory framework included in LAW referred to a monitoring mechanism for operational activities that must be assessed in conjunction with the right of a person to protection of his or her infringed rights . By relying on sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the above legislative act ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG concluded that ORG and specialised prosecutors reviewed operational activities and , on the basis of the results of such a review , provided an opinion on the lawfulness of operational activities . However , the effective regulatory framework also established judicial supervision , including subsequent scrutiny . Consequently , ORG did not agree with the argument raised by the applicant in the constitutional proceedings that the effective regulatory framework failed to provide independent subsequent scrutiny in respect of operational measures . For a more detailed review see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161000","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MIHU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME on DATE the applicant took his son PERSON to the emergency unit of ORG , accompanied by their family doctor . PERSON was immediately examined by the doctor on duty , Mr C.C.R. , who recorded an initial diagnosis on the observation sheet of \u201c icteric syndrome \u201d ( jaundice ) . Following subsequent tests the diagnosis was changed to \" hepatic cirrhosis with gastrointestinal haemorrhage \u201d and the patient was treated with drugs .","Dr C.C.R. filled in forms to admit the patient to the gastroenterology unit , as provided for by the hospital \u2019s code of practice for patients with gastrointestinal haemorrhage . However , owing to the fact that the gastroenterology unit was in a separate building and had no elevator , the patient remained in the emergency unit .","Despite the treatment he was given , the patient \u2019s condition worsened and at TIME he was examined by TIME , a doctor who specialised in intensive care . She recommended that the treatment be continued and ordered blood transfusions . Owing to a lack of beds in the intensive care unit , the patient was not immediately transferred there .","At TIME , PERSON was transferred to the intensive care unit . Dr A.M. , on duty that night in the unit , came to see FAC times . At some point during TIME the blood transfusions were stopped .","After TIME the next morning PERSON \u2019s condition began to worsen and he was given blood transfusions again .","At TIME , because the patient \u2019s state continued to deteriorate , PERSON , the head of the gastroenterology unit , decided to perform an endoscopy of the stomach . The procedure did not succeed because of massive gastrointestinal bleeding .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE PERSON was declared dead owing to cardio - respiratory failure . According to the hospital observation sheet , the direct cause of death was upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage , ruptured oesophageal varices , decompensated hepatic cirrhosis and a haemorrhagic duodenal ulcer .","On DATE the applicant and his wife lodged a criminal complaint against ORG and TIME , accusing them of manslaughter . The applicant firstly complained that , despite repeated requests , PERSON C.C.R. had refused to allow the patient to be transferred to another , better equipped , hospital . The applicant also complained of the failure to provide blood transfusions , which he said caused the death of his son , and of the generally poor treatment received by his son in ORG .","On DATE the CARDINAL doctors were questioned by ORG . Dr C.C.R. explained that the patient \u2019s state of health did not allow him to be transferred to another hospital . He also submitted that a particular medicine , Lactulose , had been missing from the hospital \u2019s pharmacy and that he had asked the applicant to buy it . Concerning the lack of blood for transfusions , the doctor said that that was not his fault and that the hospital had run out of blood that night . In conclusion , the doctor stated that the patient , who was suffering from hepatic cirrhosis , had received the necessary treatment . PERSON said that the patient \u2019s condition had had a poor prognosis , that she had provided the correct treatment and that a transfer to another hospital would not have been possible under the circumstances .","The applicant \u2019s statement was taken on DATE . He reiterated his previous complaints . In addition , he criticised the delay in the administration of Lactulose to his son .","An autopsy report issued on DATE said that PERSON had not died by violent means . The death was caused by upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage due to the rupture of varices in the oesophagus and a duodenal ulcer in a patient already suffering from hepatic cirrhosis . The report concluded that no issues had been found that could raise questions about the medical treatment received by the patient .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained to ORG of excessive delays in the investigation . He also requested a forensic medical expert report to verify whether his son had received the necessary treatment . He included the results of various blood tests made by GPE DATE , intending to prove that his son had not been ill in DATE before his admission to ORG .","On DATE ORG of ORG sent a request for a forensic report to ORG . On DATE ORG replied that it could not deliver such a report because its chief doctor had already performed the autopsy in the same case . Therefore , on DATE the request was sent to ORG .","On DATE the forensic report was added to the case file and on DATE it was made available to the applicant . The report noted that hospital practice had not been adhered to as the patient should have been admitted to the gastroenterology section , given the diagnosis . Nevertheless , the conclusion was that the treatment received by PERSON was adequate and correct and there was no indication of medical error .","On DATE the applicant submitted objections to the report and requested it to be reanalysed by ORG in GPE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s objections to the forensic report were rejected by the prosecutor , who only allowed it to be referred to ORG for approval .","On DATE , in a CARDINAL - page letter , ORG approved the report drafted by ORG .","On DATE , in a briefly - worded decision based on the forensic medical report , ORG of ORG decided not to commence criminal proceedings against the CARDINAL doctors as there had been no finding of medical errors . That decision was upheld on DATE by the chief prosecutor of the same prosecutor \u2019s office .","A complaint by the applicant against the CARDINAL decisions was allowed by ORG on DATE . The court decided to send the case back to the prosecutor in order to commence criminal proceedings against the CARDINAL doctors . The court observed that the ORG decisions had been based only on statements by the CARDINAL doctors and on the forensic report and held that the investigators in the case needed to clarify whether the patient \u2019s state of health had required his admission to the gastroenterology unit and whether treatment in that unit could have influenced the course of the victim \u2019s illness . The court ordered that such questions should be answered by way of a more thorough investigation , taking statements from doctors specialising in gastroenterology , as well as from other employees of the hospital . In addition , the court requested the prosecutors to clarify , by way of witness statements and confrontations , what was the practice of the hospital in dealing with cases of gastrointestinal bleeding and whether the CARDINAL doctors had observed that practice . The judgment became final on DATE when an appeal on points of law by the CARDINAL doctors was rejected by ORG .","On DATE the investigation resumed with the questioning of Dr P.P.J. , a gastroenterologist employed at ORG , and on DATE of PERSON , who had performed the endoscopy on GPE On DATE , ORG and TIME , the CARDINAL doctors under investigation , were questioned for a second time .","On DATE the ORG of ORG again found no fault in the actions of the CARDINAL doctors . That decision was communicated to the applicant on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE a complaint by the applicant against that decision was rejected as ill - founded by the chief prosecutor of the same prosecutor \u2019s office . The applicant took his case against those decisions to court .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s complaint and ordered the reopening of criminal proceedings , considering that the questions raised in its judgment of DATE had still not been answered . The court held that , bearing in mind the seriousness of the case , which involved the death of a man , the investigation should have been more detailed and the applicant \u2019s allegations should have been more thoroughly checked . More specifically , the court noted that the applicant had maintained , among other things , that PERSON had been healthy and had never previously been admitted to hospital and that there had been delays in the administration of a particular drug and in giving blood transfusions . However , the medical reports had said that the deceased was suffering from an ulcer and cirrhosis . The court also reasoned that , even if it could be accepted that rapid changes could occur in such conditions , it was hard to believe that the victim had had no previous symptoms and had not been under the supervision of medical professionals prior to CARDINAL DATE . In view of the above , the court further requested that the prosecutors take statements from the family doctor and gather evidence about the victim \u2019s state of health prior to his admission to ORG .","On DATE the investigation resumed with a letter being sent to ORG in which the prosecutor requested their assistance in obtaining a statement from the victim \u2019s family doctor , as well as copies of any medical documents she might have concerning the victim \u2019s state of health prior to his hospital admission on DATE . In DATE the family doctor , GPE , gave a statement to the police . She recalled that , during an examination in DATE , PERSON had presented with signs of hepatic distress and that she had recommended various tests . The tests had come back showing results that were slightly above the norm , so she had advised him to see a gastroenterologist .","Dr PERSON was again questioned on DATE . CARDINAL doctors who had been on duty when PERSON was admitted were questioned in DATE . They did not remember any relevant details about the case .","On DATE the Prosecutor \u2019s Office of ORG , considering it established that the applicant had been suffering from cirrhosis well before DATE and that nothing could have been done to save his life , decided not to press criminal charges against the CARDINAL suspects on the grounds that they had not committed any criminal act . A complaint by the applicant against that decision was rejected as ill - founded by the chief prosecutor of the same prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE .","A complaint by the applicant against the ORG decisions of CARDINAL July and CARDINAL DATE was allowed by ORG on DATE . The court considered that all the facts had still not been clarified by the investigation and again ordered the reopening of criminal proceedings . Specific instructions were again given to the prosecutors . The court noted that , in order to observe the equality of arms and to guarantee a fair trial , the applicant should have been consulted on which witnesses to hear and given the opportunity to call doctors of his own choice as witnesses . The court further reiterated the instructions given in its previous judgments in the case , which it did not consider had been carried out by the prosecutor . Finally , the court ordered the prosecutor to conduct a speedier investigation , bearing in mind that a long time had passed since the lodging of the applicant \u2019s complaint and that the inquiry had been totally ineffective up to that point .","The investigation was reopened on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE a statement from the applicant was taken by the prosecutor . He stated that he did not know the names or addresses of the medical staff on duty at the time of the incident . He further requested a confrontation with the CARDINAL doctors under investigation .","On DATE the prosecutor asked ORG for a list of employees on duty on DATE of PERSON \u2019s stay in hospital . On DATE the hospital replied that it no longer had the duty sheets as that type of document was only kept for DATE .","On DATE CARDINAL doctors specialising in gastroenterology , called as witnesses by the applicant , testified before the prosecutor that the diagnosis and treatment applied by Drs C.C.R. and A.M. had been correct in the circumstances . They noted that the only drug capable of removing blood from the stomach in order to prepare the patient for an endoscopy under the proper conditions was not available in GPE at that time .","A confrontation between ORG , A.M. and the applicant took place on DATE .","DATE the prosecutor took statements from several employees of ORG . They all declared that they did not remember anything about the patient GPE","By a decision issued on DATE ORG of ORG ended its criminal investigation , finding no guilt in the actions of the CARDINAL doctors . The prosecutor noted that according to the hospital \u2019s practice , the patient should have been admitted to the gastroenterology unit but that this had not been possible because the unit did not have an elevator for wheeled beds . However , the prosecutor observed that all the medical reports drafted in the case had concluded that the patient \u2019s diagnosis had been correct and that he had had the appropriate treatment . This conclusion was also confirmed by the CARDINAL specialists called as witnesses by the applicant . The prosecutor stated that the endoscopy performed before the patient \u2019s death had been rendered more difficult owing to the absence in the country of the drug needed to clear blood from the patient \u2019s stomach . With regard to the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the ORG failure to administer blood transfusions , the prosecutor held that the patient \u2019s death had been caused not only by anaemia but also by hepatic insufficiency .","The prosecutor \u2019s decision was upheld on DATE by the head prosecutor of ORG of ORG .","A complaint by the applicant against those CARDINAL decisions was rejected with final effect on DATE by ORG . The court , quoting widely from the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE , held that the investigation had correctly led to the conclusion that there was no proof of fault by the CARDINAL doctors .","On DATE the applicant and his wife lodged a disciplinary complaint against Drs C.C.R. and A.M.","The disciplinary committee of ORG opened an investigation into the patient \u2019s death , collecting documents from the patient \u2019s medical file and taking statements from the doctors who had treated him . It gave its decision on DATE , ruling that no medical errors had been made .","The applicant objected to the committee \u2019s conclusions and his appeal was examined by the superior disciplinary committee of ORG .","On the basis of the evidence presented to it , on DATE ORG terminated the disciplinary proceedings against Drs C.C.R. and A.M. Relying on the medical documents in the file and on the opinion of a university professor , the authority considered that it had been established that no medical errors had been made .","The applicant and his wife brought an action for the quashing of the decision adopted on DATE , pointing to the failure by the CARDINAL doctors to provide appropriate treatment for their son .","On DATE ORG dismissed the action as illfounded and upheld the decision of ORG .","An appeal by the applicant against that judgment was allowed by ORG on DATE . The case was sent to ORG for rehearing because the lower court had not examined any evidence other than the documents in the file , which had been the sole basis for its decision .","On DATE ORG took note of the fact that the applicant and his wife no longer wished to pursue the proceedings and closed the case ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160062","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"WO\u0179NY v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before ORG by Ms M. NORP , a lawyer practising in ORG .","The application concerns national bonds issued by ORG in DATE . The bonds were to have been redeemed by DATE . However , the ORG failed to undertake any steps to redeem them or to pay interest to the holders of those bonds .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings for payment against ORG , represented by ORG . He claimed MONEY ( ORG ) ( approximately MONEY ( EUR ) ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim , finding that it had become time - barred and that , moreover , its value would in any event approach MONEY after the application of all due indexation methods .","The applicant appealed against that judgment .","On DATE ORG quashed the firstinstance judgment and remitted the case to ORG . It considered , inter alia , that finding the applicant \u2019s claim time - barred had been contrary to the principles of community life ( sprzeczna z zasadami wsp\u00f3\u0142\u017cycia spo\u0142ecznego ) . ORG found that ORG should have examined the applicant \u2019s claim on the merits .","On DATE ORG found part of the claim well founded , awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG MONEY ) and dismissed the remainder of the claim .","On DATE ORG lodged an appeal against that judgment .","On DATE ORG asked ORG for an explanation of a legal question concerning the applicability to the present case of the indexation clause contained in Article CARDINAL\u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code . In particular , ORG had doubts as to whether the indexation clause should be applied if a significant change in the value of a claim had resulted from legislative changes .","On DATE ORG , in reply to ORG request , ruled that ORG had failed to meet the requirements which would have allowed it to turn to ORG for interpretation ; instead , it stated that ORG should decide independently on the present case .","On DATE ORG amended the challenged judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The court found , inter alia , that the national bonds had lost their real value because of the DATE Decree ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) and LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . Relying on the judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , it ruled that the indexation of the value of the applicant \u2019s claim by way of judicial decision was inadmissible because the change in the value of the claim had been caused by the lawmaker and had not been a result of external , unpredictable causes .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal . ORG endorsed the reasoning of the judgment given by ORG and confirmed that the applicant \u2019s claim had indeed lost its economic value as a result of legislative changes enacted in DATE and DATE .","DATE provides :","\u201c The payment of dues resulting from pecuniary obligations arising from any title of a private or public nature before the entry into force of the present decree and not redeemed until DATE may only be effected in the NORP currency . \u201d","At the relevant time , LAW , subsequently repealed , provided :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The change in the purchasing power of money during the time between the creation of an obligation and its payment date or performance does not constitute a basis for a change in the amount of the obligation or in the means of the execution of the contract or dissolution of the contract .","( CARDINAL ) Payment of an obligation , specified in NORP currency on the basis of this decree , shall be made in banknotes of the NORP ORG according to their nominal value , which is equal to the nominal value of banknotes or other means of payment , which were expressed in zlotys and which were in circulation on the territory of GPE or a part thereof before the introduction of ORG banknotes into circulation .","( CARDINAL ) For the establishment of the value of pecuniary obligations referred to in the present Decree and expressed in the NORP currency , it is irrelevant what means of payment was in circulation at the time of the creation of the obligation . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides :","\u201c The amount of obligations expressed in zlotys in gold is calculated at MONEY for MONEY in gold . \u201d ( PERSON nale\u017cno\u015bci z zobowi\u0105za\u0144 pieni\u0119\u017cnych wyra\u017conych w z\u0142otych w z\u0142ocie liczy si\u0119 jeden z\u0142oty za jednego z\u0142otego w z\u0142ocie )","The Change of Monetary System Act of DATE ( o zmianie systemu pieni\u0119\u017cnego ) provided that all public and private obligations expressed in zlotys , irrespective of the time at which they came into existence , were to be recalculated with effect from DATE according to the following ratio : CARDINAL \u201c old \u201d NORP zlotys equals MONEY .","Under LAW , all amounts expressed in \u201c old \u201d zlotys and mentioned in legal provisions binding on DATE of the entry into force of this Act were recalculated , by virtue of law , according to the following ratio : CARDINAL \u201c old \u201d zlotys = MONEY .","The Polish Zloty Denomination Act of DATE Act ( ustawa o denominacji z\u0142otego ) introduced a new payment unit : with effect from CARDINAL DATE the new unit of ORG was to be worth CARDINAL \u201c old \u201d NORP zlotys .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW reads :","All persons shall be equal before the law . All persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities .","No one shall be discriminated against in political , social or economic life for any reason .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :","Everyone shall have the right to ownership , other property rights and the right of succession .","Everyone , on an equal basis , shall receive legal protection regarding ownership , other property rights and the right of succession ...","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides :","\u201c In the case of an essential change of the purchasing power of money after an obligation falls due the court may , after considering the interest of the parties and in accordance with the principles of community life , change the amount or the mode of payment , even if these were fixed in a decision or a contract . \u201d","On DATE the ORG gave a judgment ( ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) in which it held that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW of DATE amending LAW , in so far as it limited the possibility of judicial indexation referred to in Article LAW of LAW as regards pecuniary obligations which had come into existence before DATE as a result of bonds emitted by ORG , was inconsistent with LAW CARDINAL in conjunction with LAW .","In the part named \u201c effects of the judgment \u201d ORG noted :","\u201c Taking into consideration the effects of this judgment and the impossibility of claiming the full value of claims arising from national bonds issued DATE , the matter of possibility and scope and , in particular , the amount of just satisfaction for persons holding such bonds should be resolved by the lawmaker . As stressed on many occasions in its case - law , ORG should not replace the lawmaker .","The finding by ORG that section CARDINAL ) of the LAW DATE amending LAW was inconsistent with LAW ... will enable the holders of national bonds to access the indexation of their claims guaranteed by LAW . However , in practice , the expiry of limitation periods may effectively deprive claimants of a chance to achieve a positive outcome in the relevant proceedings .","If [ the ORG ] does not enact new provisions before LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW of DATE expires , holders of national bonds , who have been patiently waiting for the settlement of their claims , will be able to lodge [ with civil courts ] their claims for payment in an amount which will be calculated with the application of the indexation clause .","However , the present judgment of ORG does not indicate to the courts the scope , direction or scale of the indexation . \u201d","The provisions which had been found unconstitutional were subsequently repealed , which opened the way for applicants to lodge their claims before the courts and to demand that the value of their claims be increased by judicial order ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170281","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF YUDINA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In applications nos . ORG and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161371","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SHURYGINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["On various dates the applicants brought civil actions against ORG of GPE , seeking to recover the monetary value of ORG promissory notes for purchases of Russianmade cars .","The first - instance courts found in the applicants\u2019 favour . Those judgments were upheld on appeal and became final . They were subsequently quashed by supervisory review courts upon applications lodged by ORG on the grounds of incorrect application of substantive law ( for more details , see the Appendix ) .","All the judgments in the ORG favour remained unenforced until DATE of their quashing ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140779","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VELLA v. MALTA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Geoffrey Valenzia;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with multiple counts of theft ( burglaries dating from DATE ) and\/or receiving stolen goods .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( as a court of criminal judicature ) found the applicant guilty of a series of offences of receiving stolen goods , but acquitted him of the theft of those goods , holding that it was clear that he had had nothing to do with the thefts . The court found it curious that the applicant had given a detailed explanation as to the origin of each item , and yet a number of the victims of the thefts had identified the objects as belonging to them . During the investigation stage the applicant had admitted to the police that because of his fascination with antiques , he would purchase items even though he would have been aware that they had been stolen . During the proceedings , other than declaring that such statements were false , the applicant did not contest the statements or explain why he had made them in such detail and precision , and why he eventually showed the police where the items were kept . The police also confirmed that such statements had been made . Moreover , the court observed that , even though the applicant was a coin collector , the fact that he had been found in possession of tools for melting down metals such as silver and of a number of pieces of silver bullion did not favour his credibility . Furthermore , although not all the items stolen had been found in the applicant \u2019s possession , in the court \u2019s view it was curious that all the items found had been connected with specific , well - organised thefts , where it was clear that the robbers knew what they were looking for and were well aware of where they would place the merchandise . Indeed , the court had no doubt that the applicant had been aware of the illicit origins of the items in his possession . It sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant appealed on various grounds and complained that he had not been able to prove the origins of all the items because the police had raided his house , seizing all the relevant documents and receipts , which had then gone missing in their custody .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG modified the judgment in part . It affirmed the applicant \u2019s innocence in respect of the theft charges , as there had not been a shred of evidence in that respect , and it reversed the part of the judgment concerning the majority of the remaining charges of receiving stolen goods ( see below for detail ) . It disagreed with the first - instance court \u2019s conclusion that the applicant could not but have been a receiver of stolen goods on the ground that since a number of people had recognised the items they could not all have been lying , and therefore it must have been the applicant who was wrong and was therefore responsible . ORG observed that the applicant was a collector of and dealer in antiques , who appeared to purchase any item of interest without enquiring in detail into its legitimate origins . It appeared , from both the case file and the fact that certain items had been hidden , that the applicant was aware that some items had previously been stolen . However , the appeal court considered that the applicant should not suffer prejudice as a result of his inability to prove the origins of certain items , since this was a result of negligence on the part of the police , who had lost the relevant documentation ( and some of the items ) . Moreover , no inferences could be drawn from the fact that he possessed certain tools , as it was normal for a coin collector to melt down coins which had become worthless . Examining the records of the proceedings , the court concluded that the crime of receiving stolen goods had only been proved in respect of objects of antiquarian value stolen from CARDINAL specific venues , A. , PERSON , and C. , ( during CARDINAL burglaries ) and found in the applicant \u2019s possession . His sentence was in consequence reduced to a DATE suspended sentence .","Pending the criminal proceedings against the applicant , a number of individuals alleging that they owned the items referred to in the list of charges against the applicant ( also alleged victims of the relevant thefts ) instituted civil proceedings to vindicate their ownership of the items . They requested that the items be returned to them and , where necessary , in the event that they could not be returned , that the applicant be held liable for damages . The relevant decisions on appeal were delivered subsequent to ORG judgment finding the applicant innocent of the charges of receiving stolen goods in relation to a majority of the items .","Proceedings were instituted against the applicant on CARDINAL DATE in relation to items stolen in DATE from venue P. The items had been found in his possession and seized by the police . The claimants asked the court to find that they were the owners and to order their return . All were items in relation to which the applicant had eventually been acquitted of charges of theft and receiving stolen goods . The applicant argued that he had acquired the items in accordance with the law and in good faith .","By a judgment of DATE , having heard the parties\u2019 addresses and having assessed the evidence , ORG found that the claimants were the owners of the items at issue in the case ( except for CARDINAL items , the ownership of which had been claimed by other third parties ) . Costs were to be divided accordingly . The court found , however , without prejudice to any further action , that it would be premature to order the return of the said items .","The court observed that the applicant had declared that he did not know the claimant , but that she had recognised the applicant as a person who had gate - crashed a party she had once given at venue PERSON , PERSON , a police officer , had testified that during the criminal investigations the applicant had admitted that \u201c a number of items seized by the police had not been purchased honestly ( bis - sewwa ) \u201d . Thus , contrary to the applicant \u2019s testimony , it could be inferred that certain objects had not come into the applicant \u2019s possession by proper means . Although the court was convinced that the applicant had been involved in the antiques trade for DATE , he had not been able to put forward any evidence in relation to the items at issue or any detail as to his trade . By contrast , the claimants had identified as theirs the items which had previously been stolen . The court thus , having to choose between the CARDINAL versions , opted for that of the claimants . The court considered that the fact that numerous people had been to the police station and identified various objects of which they claimed to be the owners and which had been seized from the applicant \u2019s house was enough evidence to discredit the applicant \u2019s testimony .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( civil jurisdiction ) upheld the first - instance judgment . From the evidence submitted it appeared that the claimants had suffered CARDINAL burglaries at venue P. and that the police had seized some of the stolen items from the applicant , amongst many other items identified by various third parties as theirs . While the applicant was able to show that he had been a collector since his youth , he had not managed to prove ownership of the relevant items . As to their origin , he vaguely mentioned names of individuals , some of whom were deceased . He referred to receipts which were currently with the police and which could not be exhibited to the court . The applicant submitted declarations by individuals with whom he had traded . As to his trading , however , it appeared that the applicant had not hesitated to purchase items with dubious or suspicious , if not illicit , origins . Indeed , the applicant had been investigated and various items found in his possession had been seized . The origins of the items gave rise to more than a simple suspicion that they had not been acquired legitimately . According to police officer PERSON , the applicant had even admitted this . During the criminal proceedings PERSON had been asked whether the applicant had admitted to the theft and the police officer had replied \u201c yes \u201d . PERSON further stated that the applicant had referred to the dishonest purchase of a sofa ( \u201c PERSON bis - sewwa \u201d ) and had only shown receipts in respect of certain items in connection with which the applicant had been charged , but not all of them . In that light , the court was not satisfied that the applicant had submitted sufficient proof to show that he was the owner of the said items . Moreover , the fact that numerous people , apart from the applicant , had claimed to be the owners of the items did not suffice to support the view that the applicant was the owner .","Proceedings were instituted against the applicant on CARDINAL DATE in relation to items stolen in DATE from venue ORG , which had been found in his possession and seized by the police . The claimants asked the court to find that they were the owners of the items and to order their return . All were items in relation to which the applicant had eventually been acquitted of charges of theft and receiving stolen goods . The applicant argued that he had acquired the items in accordance with the law and in good faith .","By a judgment of DATE ORG found in favour of the claimants . It held , however , without prejudice to any further action , that an order for the return of the said items would be premature .","ORG noted that there was a certain disagreement in respect of the list of objects identified by the original claimant ( the deceased ancestor of the current claimants ) , in that certain items had been added later . However , the claimant had produced a number of witnesses who had confirmed his declarations as to which items had been stolen . The applicant declared under oath that all the items referred to by the claimants , as well as all the other items seized , were owned by him , as he had bought them over DATE . In his testimony he gave the names of people from whom he had purchased each item . He also submitted a receipt dated DATE , DATE of the burglary , which indicated that he had bought a number of objects for the sum of CARDINAL NORP liri ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) from a certain S.A. Nevertheless , the court considered the PERSON version to be more reliable , as it was corroborated by photos and other witnesses . Moreover , police officer PERSON had testified that the applicant had stated that various items seized from his house \u201c had not been purchased honestly \u201d and this could not but weaken the applicant \u2019s testimony . Therefore the court had no other option but to find in favour of the claimants , at least in respect of those items that were not being claimed by other third persons .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG ( civil jurisdiction ) upheld the first - instance judgment . It considered that ORG had properly assessed the evidence and delivered a reasoned judgment . In any case , ORG considered that the applicant had not provided a reliable explanation in respect of the origin and purchase of the relevant items . Indeed , during the criminal proceedings PERSON had testified , inter alia , that \u201c at no time had the applicant stated that he had stolen the items from here or there , but he had mentioned that he had bought certain items from ORG , and that he knew about their dubious origins ( kienu \u0121ejjin bil - \u0127azin ) \u201d . ORG considered that had ORG based its decision solely on that testimony and stopped there , the relevant burden of proof might not have been satisfied . However , all the evidence advanced indicated the probability that the relevant items belonged to the claimant \u2019s heirs \u2013 they had been stolen from venue ORG , and had been identified by the claimants , even though third parties had also claimed ownership of some of the items . Although the applicant had testified under oath that he had purchased the items legally , his testimony had not been consistent and had lacked veracity . In particular , he had given the impression that he was a trader in antiques and that he had traded with various lawyers , but when questioned in respect of each of them , it transpired that he had not bought any of the items relevant to the case . The other people mentioned by the applicant were deceased and could not testify . Neither could the applicant submit receipts for those purchases , giving as the reason for this that they had been seized by the police and were being held as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him . Even if that were so , the applicant had not provided proof . By contrast , the claimants had submitted photographs of the relevant items taken before they had been stolen .","Proceedings were instituted against the applicant on DATE in relation to items stolen from venue PERSON ( including items allegedly transformed into silver bullion ) , which had been found in his possession and seized by the police . All were items in relation to which the applicant had eventually been acquitted of theft but found guilty of receiving stolen goods . The claimants requested that the applicant be found responsible for the theft or receiving of the stolen goods and therefore liable for damages . They asked the court to quantify such damages and to order the applicant to pay them . The applicant argued that he had acquired the items in accordance with the law and in good faith .","By a judgment of DATE the court found that the claimants were the owners of the relevant items , ordered the applicant to return the said items , and held the applicant liable for damages for holding the relevant items in bad faith .","The court noted the expert evidence , which found that there was sufficient proof that the items were owned by the claimants . Indeed , the applicant had not denied that the items could have been previously owned by the claimants . During the criminal investigations the applicant had admitted that he had previously purchased stolen items . The declarations used in the criminal proceedings were exhibited before the court and the applicant only contended that police officer PERSON had invented certain things . Having re - read the witness statements , the experts took the view that the applicant rarely acquired items lawfully and in good faith . He actually was perfectly well aware of their dubious origins , as he was told by the sellers that the items had been stolen . This could not be ignored , especially as the applicant never stated that he had sale receipts for the relevant items . The items were found in his possession , he did not remember from whom he had bought them and he had no receipts . In consequence , it could not be said that he had purchased them in good faith . The court held that the applicant \u2019s statements used in the criminal proceedings were admissible evidence ( Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c the COCP \u201d \u2013 see Relevant Domestic Law below ) ) . Officer PERSON presented CARDINAL statements made by the applicant during the investigation , and the applicant explained which parts of those statements he agreed with and which parts he contested . The court considered that in doing so the applicant was picking and choosing , and yet there existed contradictions . For example , in CARDINAL statement the applicant said that he had purchased CARDINAL chalices from a taxi driver , and he subsequently confirmed that statement . In another statement he repeated this in more detail and subsequently stated that he had never made such a statement . At DATE he repeated the story , but differently , saying that he had bought more items . The court noted that the taxi driver had not been called as a witness to corroborate the applicant \u2019s version . While the applicant stated that he had purchased the items from various persons , CARDINAL of those persons had been called as a witness and the latter only testified to the effect that the applicant had an interest in antiques . Another witness confirmed that the applicant was also a moneylender . Indeed , the applicant submitted a number of documents in evidence of this , but did not submit any evidence in relation to the origins of the items at issue . The court therefore concluded from the totality of the evidence that the claimants had been burgled , that they had identified the stolen items , and that the applicant had not proved that he had acquired the items in good faith . The court found it of particular relevance that in CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s statements , which he did not contradict , he had said \u201c when I see an antique , whatever it may be ... I go blind . I want it for myself in order to be able to take pleasure in looking at it \u201d . Thus , the court considered that any other comment would be superfluous . The court found in the applicant the very image of a receiver of stolen goods ( ricettatur ) .","As to the claim for damages , the court accepted and shared the expert \u2019s conclusions : as had emerged from the evidence , not all the stolen items were found in the applicant \u2019s possession , but a quantity of silver bullion was found which the claimants argued was the product of melted - down silver statues which had been stolen from them . Indeed , it had been shown that the bullion seized from the applicant was home - made and not pure . Thus , although there was no proof that the applicant had stolen the items , there was sufficient proof to hold that the claimants were indeed the owners of the relevant items , that those items had been in the applicant \u2019s possession in bad faith and that the applicant had previously melted down silver . Indeed , both the bullion and the tools for making it had been found in his possession . The applicant gave an explanation about the bullion , but it was not corroborated by any witness statement . The applicant gave no credible explanation for the clearly home - made bullion . It was therefore very probable that objects stolen from the claimants and acquired in bad faith had , together with other items , been melted down to hide their identity . The court further highlighted , of its own accord , the absence of corroboration as regards the bullion , and the presence of tools used to melt down silver . Thus , the PERSON case had been made out on the balance of probabilities . The applicant was therefore liable for damages because he had been in possession of stolen goods and because of the damage he had caused by melting down such items . The amount of damages was fixed at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","NORP The applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that the legal expert whose conclusions had been endorsed by the court had relied on evidence ( the applicant \u2019s statements during the criminal investigation ) which should not be given any weight in civil proceedings , and that the first - instance court had erred in finding him guilty in respect of items which were never found by the police , referring to the items that had allegedly been melted down .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( civil jurisdiction ) upheld the first - instance judgment ( in so far as relevant ) . It held , however , that the applicant could not be ordered to return items which were no longer in his possession . It further considered that LAW below ) applied to the statements made by the applicant during the criminal investigation , even though they had not been signed by him . It sufficed that officer PERSON had witnessed those statements being made by the applicant for them to be admissible in evidence . It was for the first - instance court to assess them and reach its conclusions . Moreover , LAW ( see Relevant Domestic Law below ) did not imply that evidence used in criminal proceedings could not be used in analogous civil proceedings . Furthermore , the applicant had not objected to the use of that evidence before the firstinstance court . Having examined in detail the evidence produced , ORG further considered that the first - instance court had not made an incorrect assessment and that it would therefore not interfere with its finding . It found it pertinent to point out that the fact that only CARDINAL silver bars had been found in the applicant \u2019s possession , despite the fact that the items melted down should have amounted to many more bars , was not a thesis favourable to the applicant . Indeed , the applicant could easily have disposed of the other bars resulting from the melted - down items before the police found the bars . He was , thus , responsible for the damage caused by the melting down of the items , in accordance with the estimates provided by the expert . Any difficulties in evaluating the original items were of the applicant \u2019s own making , as it had been his choice to melt them down .","On DATE the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings , complaining that the CARDINAL judgments of ORG ( civil jurisdiction ) referred to above and another still pending set of proceedings had violated , inter alia , his right to be presumed innocent .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ( FAC ) , in its constitutional jurisdiction , rejected claims lodged by the applicant . In the context of the applicant \u2019s various complaints , it held that the civil proceedings against the applicant had not amounted to a repetition of the criminal proceedings , as the intention of the civil proceedings had not been to find whether the applicant was guilty of any charge , but solely to secure the return of the property to its owners and , where that was not possible , to determine the level of compensation due . Moreover , the different proceedings were not comparable in relation to the burden of proof required . Indeed , each of the proceedings was capable of resulting in different findings of responsibility , including findings which conflicted with each other . The court noted that in the civil proceedings the applicant had not been found guilty of any crime . The civil courts had assessed the evidence in relation to the ORG ownership rights to the property against the applicant \u2019s explanation as to how the items had been found in his possession , within the relevant parameters of civil proceedings of that nature . Considering the applicant \u2019s complaint under LAW , it held that the provision could not be applicable , since the applicant was no longer accused of a criminal offence , and his complaints were directed against civil proceedings which , save for one , had also been concluded . At a later stage , in relation to LAW , the court also considered that the conclusions reached by the civil courts were based on a proper assessment of evidence which did not violate the applicant \u2019s presumption of innocence . Those conclusions were based on the principle of juxta allegata et probata ( delivering a judgment on the basis of what has been alleged and proved ) , as expected in this type of proceedings . The court considered that the applicant \u2019s case could not be compared to any of the cases cited by him LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL concerning the request of acquitted applicants for compensation for detention , and therefore the principles enunciated therein did not apply .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld the first - instance judgment . It considered that there had been no breach of the applicant \u2019s rights since criminal and civil proceedings were separate and distinct : CARDINAL was brought by the ORG , had a specific set of rules and aimed at the imposition of a punishment , whereas the other was brought by an interested individual for the restitution of his or her property rights . During criminal proceedings various rules played in favour of the accused , who might be found innocent simply because there was not sufficient evidence . This should not deny any third party the possibility of access to court to obtain relevant redress on the basis of a different burden of proof . The applicant had been cleared of all charges except those of receiving certain goods stolen from certain properties . However , that did not mean that the items in question , found in the applicant \u2019s possession , were his own . The civil proceedings instituted by individuals claiming certain items against the possessor were independent of the defendant \u2019s good or bad faith . ORG had in each case found for the claimants , after considering that the latter had proved that they were the owners of the stolen items and that the applicant had not proved his ownership . The cases had dealt solely with the establishment of the ownership of the items , and nothing more , and if the outcome was that the items were not his own , then he was bound to give them back to their rightful owners , regardless of how they came to be in his possession ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180650","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF IVANOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4","5-5","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140652","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"\u00d6ZT\u00dcRK v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr Atalay \u00d6zt\u00fcrk , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in Mu\u011fla prison . He was represented before the ORG by Ms Y. Kavak K\u0131l\u0131n\u00e7 , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE at TIME the applicant got involved in a bar brawl which resulted in the death of GPE The applicant was also injured during the incident . Subsequently , he absconded for a short period of time .","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant called the police and introduced himself as GPE \u2019s murderer . The transcript of the telephone conversation was reproduced in the incident report ( ihbar kay\u0131t tutana\u011f\u0131 ) made by the police superintendent . It revealed that the applicant had expressed his wish to surrender but had been concerned about the reaction of the deceased \u2019s relatives .","Thereafter , at an unspecified time , the applicant surrendered to the police . He was subsequently hospitalised under police guard for the injuries he had sustained during the fight .","A medical report drawn up DATE indicated that the applicant had abrasions on his left eyebrow , which had probably been caused by a bullet . It was further noted that there was a bullet hole in his left wrist .","At TIME police officers arrived at the hospital and drafted a record of statement ( ifade zapt\u0131 ) quoting the written record of the applicant \u2019s telephone conversation with the police . According to this document , when the applicant had called the police he had stated to the chief police officer that he had gone to the bar looking for a mobile phone that he had lost and he had seen the fight . Some people had attacked him and he had drawn his gun in self - defence . When they had tried to grab the gun from his hand , the gun had gone off accidentally during the struggle . The record of statement further revealed that subsequent to his phone call , police officers had met with the applicant in GPE . He had then been brought to the hospital , where his left eyebrow had been sutured and his broken left arm had been encased in plaster . After being reminded of his rights , the applicant had had a telephone conversation with his lawyer and refused to make a statement to the police in the absence of his lawyer . He and his father had signed the record of statement .","Again on DATE , the Sel\u00e7uk Investigating Judge issued a warrant for the applicant to be brought before ORG following his recovery .","On DATE , the FAC Investigating Judge questioned the applicant at the hospital in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant refused to make a statement , as he was still suffering from the injuries sustained in the incident . He stated that he would make defence submissions before the trial court . The judge ordered the provisional detention of the applicant in order to secure a statement from him following his discharge from the hospital .","On DATE , the applicant was brought before ORG , when he denied the content of the record of statement . He alleged that his conversation with the police on the phone had been misunderstood and incorrectly transcribed . He added that he had not been carrying a gun at the material time . During this statement , the applicant benefited from the assistance of a lawyer .","On DATE , the Sel\u00e7uk Investigating Judge questioned the applicant in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant submitted that there had been a struggle between him and the deceased , and that the deceased had been shot during the struggle while the applicant had been trying to take the gun from his hand . He maintained that the gun had been fired while he had been acting in self - defence . He further stated that he had not been carrying a gun at the time of the incident . After the questioning was over , the judge ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention .","NORP On DATE the ORG issued an autopsy report , specifying that the deceased , GPE , had been shot in the head at long range . It concluded that the cause of his death had been a skull fracture , damage to the brain stem and haemorrhaging in the brain membrane resulting from the gunshot . The report also revealed that QUANTITY mg \/ dl of ethyl alcohol had been found in his blood .","On DATE ORG lodged an indictment with the assize court , charging the applicant with the intentional killing of GPE","During the proceedings the assize court heard several witnesses who had been in the bar at the material time . PERSON , the owner of the bar , testified that he had argued with the deceased for a while and that GPE had drawn his gun several times during their quarrel . Thereafter the applicant had come to the bar and GPE had begun quarrelling with the applicant and had lunged towards the applicant . PERSON had heard gunshots but had not seen the incident .","Another witness , PERSON , stated in his initial statements to the public prosecutor and the GPE court that the applicant had walked into the bar , sworn at him and the deceased and then started shooting at them . Subsequently , before the trial court PERSON testified there had been a quarrel between the applicant and the deceased . GPE had shot towards the applicant and then the applicant had tried to take the gun from GPE During the struggle , someone had hit GPE \u2019s head with a hard object and he had lost consciousness .","PERSON stated that the applicant had come to the bar looking for his mobile phone and a fight had broken out . GPE had walked up to the applicant while his hand had been in his pocket . At that time , PERSON had left the bar but he had heard a gunshot from outside . He had returned , and seen the deceased lying on the ground and V.S. taking the gun from his hand .","A.D. testified that during the fight in the bar , GPE had drawn his gun and fired into the air . The applicant had tried to grab it from GPE \u2019s hand .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of intentional homicide .","On DATE ORG quashed the firstinstance court \u2019s judgment on procedural grounds .","On DATE the assize court convicted the applicant of intentional homicide and sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment . In convicting the applicant , the court took into consideration the fact that throughout the proceedings the applicant had stated that he had not been carrying any weapon at the time of the events , and that he had been attacked with a gun and had acted in self - defence . It held that the applicant \u2019s defence submissions were implausible , taking into account the content of the case file , the record of statement , the entirety of the case file and the preliminary submissions of FAC The court found it established that the applicant had deliberately shot and killed GPE , having regard , among other things , to the distance between the applicant and the deceased , the number of shots fired and the circumstances of the incident .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction .","The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time can be found in GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169021","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"AKDA\u011e v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a dual NORP and NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON Schrevelius , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150856","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ASWAT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is detained pending trial in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , of ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , of ORG .","The applicant was indicted in GPE as a co - conspirator in respect of a conspiracy to establish a jihad training camp in GPE , GPE . ORG consequently requested his extradition under LAW DATE .","The applicant , along with Mr PERSON , lodged a first application against GPE and GPE with ORG under LAW ( \u201c the LAW ) on DATE ( see application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . He alleged that if extradited and convicted he would be at real risk of ill - treatment either as a result of conditions at ORG ( a \u201c supermax \u201d prison ) or by the length of his possible sentence . The proceedings in the case of the applicant and Mr PERSON were originally conducted simultaneously with the cases of Mr PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) and PERSON ( application no . ORG ) . Interim measures under LAW were granted on DATE and on DATE the applications were granted priority status under LAW . On DATE the President of the ORG decided under LAW ( b ) of ORG to give notice of the applications lodged by Mr PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) and Mr PERSON ( application no . MONEY ) to the Government of GPE . Both of these applications raised the same issues regarding extradition to GPE , namely conditions of detention at ORG and the length of possible sentences . The ORG therefore decided to deal with the CARDINAL applications together .","On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. the GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL . However , as the applicant suffered from mental health problems of sufficient severity to require his transfer from ORG to ORG , the ORG considered that it was not in a position to rule on the merits of his complaints without further submissions from the parties . It therefore decided to disjoin and adjourn the examination of the applicant \u2019s complaints .","The ORG delivered its judgment in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL on DATE wherein it held , unanimously , that there would be a violation of LAW in the event of the applicant \u2019s extradition on account of the current severity of his mental condition ( see in particular LAW CARDINAL ) . In particular the ORG noted that there was a lack of certainty as to the where the applicant would be detained , either before or after trial ; it was unclear how long the applicant might expect to remain on remand pending trial ; it was unclear whether the applicant \u2019s legal representatives would be entitled to challenge his competency to stand trial in GPE on account of his mental disorder ; there was no information before the ORG concerning the potential length of a competency assessment or any subsequent appeals procedure ; there was a complete absence of any information about the consequences for the applicant if the District Judge were to find that he was not fit to stand trial ; and there was no guarantee that if tried and convicted the applicant would not be detained in ORG , where he would be exposed to a \u201c highly restrictive \u201d regime with long periods of social isolation .","A request for a referral to ORG made by ORG was refused on DATE . The ORG \u2019s decision therefore became final and the Rule CARDINAL measure previously in place lapsed .","Meanwhile , on DATE the Secretary of ORG received a letter from ORG , a copy of which has not been provided to this ORG . It would appear that this letter stated that on the basis of the trial of other individuals in situations similar to that of the applicant , he would be held in pre - trial detention for DATE ; that if his competency was at issue , he would be hospitalised for treatment for a maximum period of DATE for assessment ; that if deemed unfit , he would be committed to the custody of the Attorney General and thereafter referred to a psychiatric referral centre ; that the exact timing of the process was difficult to estimate in advance owing to the fact - specific nature of any assessment ; that it was not suggested that the applicant , in his current state , was unfit to plead ; and that it was highly likely that he would only become incompetent if , as a result of the conditions in which he was detained , he relapsed into an acute psychotic state . In terms of his likely treatment postconviction , the DATE letter also stated that if \u201c it is determined that he is unable to manage his activities or DATE living by himself ( including his taking of prescribed medication ) it is highly unlikely that he would be placed at the ORG , but rather , at a medical centre . \u201d","On DATE the Secretary of ORG advised the applicant of her decision to proceed with his extradition to GPE as the information obtained from ORG on DATE had led her to be entirely satisfied that extradition could take place without infringing LAW . The Secretary of ORG did not invite the applicant or his legal representatives to make submissions before she made her decision .","On DATE the applicant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of ORG \u2019s decision . He relied on CARDINAL principal grounds , namely : ( i ) that the Secretary of ORG had been obliged , but had failed , to afford him the opportunity to make representations before making her decision on extradition ; and ( ii ) that the further information provided by ORG was not materially different from that previously placed before ORG . Therefore it would be impermissible to depart from its conclusion that there would be an LAW violation in the event of his extradition . A ORG report , dated DATE , by PERSON , a ORG and the applicant \u2019s responsible clinician at ORG , was prepared and placed before the domestic court .","The High Court heard oral arguments on CARDINAL and DATE and promulgated its judgment on DATE . The court stated that :","\u201c CARDINAL . The contentious and determinative issue is : what will happen to the claimant if he is extradited .","Approaching that issue in the same manner as did ORG , as it is common ground we should the starting point must be its clearly stated reason for holding that there would be a violation of LAW :","\u2018 There would be a violation of LAW ... in the event of the applicant \u2019s extradition solely on account of the current severity of his mental PERSON","It is the likely impact of extradition and all that it entails on that condition which was central to ORG decision and must be to ours . \u201d","The court found , on the basis of the evidence before it , that the information provided on DATE by ORG ( the content of which has been outlined above ) had addressed the uncertainties referred to by ORG in paragraph CARDINAL of its DATE judgment both in terms of pre - trial and post - conviction detention . In particular , the court noted that the applicant would be admitted to ORG ( \u201c MCC \u201d ) , a remand prison in GPE , upon arrival and his mental health condition would be assessed immediately ; that if his condition could be met within the ORG , his detention would continue in that facility ; that in the ORG , he would have access to mental health services and would be provided with appropriate , but different , medication from that prescribed at ORG ; that if assessed as being \u201c acutely mentally ill \u201d , he would likely be housed in a psychiatric referral centre managed by ORG ( \u201c BOP \u201d ) ; and that if \u201c it is determined that he is unable to manage his activities or DATE living by himself ( including his taking of prescribed medication ) it is highly unlikely that he would be placed at the ORG , but rather , at a medical centre . \u201d","Both the applicant \u2019s legal representative and PERSON , a criminologist who had visited and reported upon numerous federal prisons DATE , provided a bleak picture of the conditions at the ORG . The court found that their reporting of conditions was controversial and that in any event , it was not necessary to reach a final decision in that regard . The ORG was a prison , the primary purpose of which was to detain those awaiting trial on serious charges . It was not an institution whose primary function was to treat and care for those with serious mental health problems . However the court also observed that there remained some detailed gaps as to the precise circumstances in which the applicant would be detained in the ORG . Particular reference was made to whether the applicant would be housed in a single cell ; and what opportunities he would have for contact with others and for undertaking the types of educational and recreational facilities such as those available to him at ORG .","Assessing the medical evidence and referring to the previous approach by this ORG , the court held that the applicant \u2019s mental health problems were well controlled by the regime as applied at ORG ; and that it was established , at a minimum , that removal from ORG ( or an equivalent hospital with a similar regime ) to a prison , even one with significant mental health provision , would put the applicant at risk of relapse into an acute psychotic state .","In light of its findings , ORG set out what it considered necessary to ensure that the applicant \u2019s extradition would not be in breach of GPE obligations under LAW . It noted :","\u201c CARDINAL The only means which I can see by which the basic concerns of ORG can be answered are that GPE offers an assurance to the Secretary of ORG that , upon arrival in GPE , the claimant will immediately be transferred to a ORG and kept there unless and until the equivalent of his treating clinician , Dr. PERSON , determines that he could be transferred to another institution without compromising his health and safety ; and if not , that he will be kept at a ORG until trial . His extradition would have to be preceded by detailed discussions and the exchange of information between Dr. PERSON and the receiving psychiatrist . By those means , the real risk of relapse into an acute psychotic state which formed the basis of ORG decision would be removed . \u201d","In conclusion , the court found that the Secretary of ORG was not duty - bound to have given the applicant the opportunity to make submissions before she made her decision to proceed with his extradition . The applicant had , in any event , been afforded full opportunity to present his case on that issue in the current proceedings and the court had to consider for itself whether or not his extradition would infringe LAW . Moreover , the court adjourned the final decision in the matter for DATE for the Government of GPE to consider whether or not it wished to give the assurances outlined above .","On DATE ORG , by way of ORG , submitted a number of assurances in which it undertook as follows : that the applicant would be transported to GPE on a flight that would enable him to be processed by ORG ( ORG ) and promptly produced before a judge for purposes of his initial appearance and a detention determination ( on DATE of arrival if possible ) ; that while awaiting court during business hours , the applicant would be kept in a ORG cellblock and that he would be transported to the hospital for emergency care should such a need arise ; that should TIME detention be required , the applicant would be held either at a contract jail facility or at the local ORG ( BOP ) facility and that he would have access to emergency medical care if required ; that the applicant would be advised of the charges against him and represented by counsel at his initial appearance ( either self - funded or court- appointed ) ; that the applicant could , without objection , immediately request an assessment as to his competency ; that if the evaluation was granted , the applicant would be transported to a ORG psychiatric referral centre for assessment ; that should the applicant not make an application for a competency assessment , he would in any event , with the approval of LOC , be detained at an undisclosed private detention healthcare facility for a determination of his health needs ; that the District Judge \u2019s consent was required to house the applicant outside of GPE state ( where any trial would take place ) ; that assuming the defense consented , the prosecution believed that judicial consent would be forthcoming on the basis of the current undertakings ; that prior to extradition , a psychiatrist would undertake to receive from PERSON , the applicant \u2019s treating clinician in GPE , all relevant medical information ; and that whether the applicant was housed at a psychiatric referral centre or in the unspecified private facility , he would be kept in such a facility unless and until his treating clinician determined that he could be transferred to another institution without compromising his health and safety .","Additional information was provided by ORG on DATE . This included details of the treating clinician who would take responsibility for the applicant \u2019s case postextradition . Furthermore , it was noted that CARDINAL of the medications used to treat the applicant was not available in GPE ; that other medications were available to treat the same symptoms ; and that discussions between physicians in the respective jurisdictions could take place . In addition , ORG advised that federal law made provision for an individual to participate in pre - trial proceedings via videolink ; that any trial would take place in GPE city ; and that during trial , the applicant would be housed in a local jail facility close to the court house , where he would have access to any necessary medical treatment , including at hospitals within GPE city . Finally an estimate of DATE was given with respect to the applicant \u2019s trial .","On DATE ORG , satisfied with the assurances given by ORG , held that there was no risk of an LAW violation in the event of the applicant \u2019s extradition . That judgment was made final on DATE . Although an official transcript has not yet been made available , Counsel for both the applicant and the Government took notes during oral delivery of the judgment . Counsel for the ORG \u2019s note indicated that it had been accepted on the part of the applicant that there was no live issue as to his being unfit to plead and therefore he would be detained pre - trial in a specified private medical facility . Otherwise , it is recorded that the court accepted that the assurances given were sufficient and that the process would not imperil the applicant \u2019s mental health condition ; that in considering the placement of the applicant outside of GPE state , the District Judge would not deliberately put at risk the applicant \u2019s mental health ; that arrangements were in place for discussions to take place between treating clinicians ; that during the applicant \u2019s trial in GPE , there were facilities available which provided for mental health care and treatment ; that the concerns raised by this ORG and the domestic court in DATE had been eliminated ; and that there was no risk of an LAW breach . Nothing in the Counsel for the applicant \u2019s note of the hearing contradicted those comments .","On DATE the applicant made a request for an interim measure under Rule CARDINAL of ORG to prevent his extradition to GPE . On DATE the President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided to apply Rule CARDINAL until the ORG had been afforded the opportunity to consider the request made . The following questions were asked of ORG : ( i ) Do the undertakings as provided by ORG by way of ORG , dated DATE , adequately respond to the concerns raised by this ORG in its judgment of DATE regarding the extradition of the applicant ? ; and ( ii ) Would the extradition of the applicant to GPE be in breach of GPE obligations under LAW ?","On DATE ORG submitted its response . It stated that since the GPE judgment of DATE , there had been further domestic decisions which demonstrated that the concerns that had given rise to that decision had been comprehensively addressed . Moreover , the Government asserted that those concerns could be summarised as follows : a lack of information concerning the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s detention pre - trial ; a lack of clarity as to how long the period of pre - trial detention might last ; the implications of a finding in GPE that the applicant was unfit to stand trial ; and an on - going concern that the applicant might be subjected to prolonged periods of social isolation in detention at ORG following a conviction . The culmination of the information and assurances received by ORG had addressed those concerns . Specifically , the applicant would be detained at a private detention medical facility for an approximate period of DATE ; if a competency assessment was requested and the applicant was found to be unfit to plead , he would be placed in the custody of the Attorney General and detained at a psychiatric referral centre ; and if found to be unable to manage his DATE activities , including his taking of prescribed medication , it was unlikely that the applicant be detained at ORG , rather he would be detained at a medical centre . The Government concluded that the extradition of the applicant would not be in breach of GPE obligations under LAW .","On DATE the ORG , having considered the applicant \u2019s case based on the new factual information before it , decided to lift the interim measure previously indicated .","NORP The applicant was extradited to GPE on DATE .","For a general summary of the relevant domestic and international law and practice regarding extradition , see the ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON and Others v. the GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170360","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOMAROV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant , a former police officer , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is also acting on behalf of his son , PERSON , who was born in DATE .","On DATE CARDINAL people , including the applicant , were apprehended by officers of the GPE office of ORG of GPE ( ORG \u201c the FAC \u201d ) in LOC while attempting to transport opiate drugs with a view to selling them on . They were taken to the ORG \u2019s premises for questioning . After being informed of his privilege against self - incrimination , the applicant made a written statement to the effect that he had appeared at the crime scene by chance , at the request of a friend with whom he and his son had been looking for a place to fish .","Later the same day criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and CARDINAL other people on suspicion of illegal production , storage and sale of drugs .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and the CARDINAL others on suspicion of membership of an organised crime group .","On DATE the applicant was arrested . Having been informed of his procedural rights as a suspect , he refused to give evidence without a lawyer present .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife hired a lawyer , PERSON , to represent the applicant .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was ordered by a court .","On DATE the applicant requested that PERSON be admitted to the proceedings as his lawyer .","On DATE , in the presence of his lawyer , the applicant denied his involvement in the crime .","On DATE , in the presence of his lawyer , the applicant was charged with drug - related crimes and questioned . He did not want to be informed of his rights and stated that he would not give any evidence during the pre - trial investigation .","On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer . He provided some biographical details as well as information on his family status , state of health and place of residence .","On DATE the applicant was again questioned in the presence of his lawyer .","On DATE all the criminal proceedings against the applicant were joined .","On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer . He did not confess to the crimes .","On DATE and DATE confrontations between the applicant and his co - accused were conducted with his lawyer present .","On DATE amended charges were brought against the applicant in his lawyer \u2019s presence . The applicant pleaded not guilty .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife was admitted to the proceedings as the applicant \u2019s lay representative .","On DATE , upon his written consent , the applicant was questioned without a lawyer .","On DATE the criminal case against the applicant and his coaccused was sent to the GPE ORG of Zaporizhzhya ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . During the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty . He maintained that the case had been fabricated by his enemies and that all the evidence had been falsified and was inadmissible . In fact , he , a retired police officer , had been arrested in the company of drug addicts with whom he had been in contact as an advisor to the local police . They might have been producing drugs for their own use . He further claimed that his case should benefit from being examined in camera by a judge who had security clearance , to protect ORG secrets concerning the functioning of his network of informants .","In DATE F. , a lawyer hired by the applicant \u2019s wife , was admitted to the proceedings to represent the applicant .","On DATE , after having heard the case in public hearings , ORG convicted the applicant and his co - defendants of drugrelated offences . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL - and - a - half years\u2019 imprisonment and the confiscation of his personal property was ordered .","The applicant , represented by his lawyer and his wife , appealed . He repeated his arguments advanced at trial and complained that he had been unable to defend himself properly during the trial as he had been reticent in order to safeguard confidential information concerning the network of informants . He also complained of various procedural breaches in the collection of evidence . He alleged , with no further details , that he had had no access to a lawyer from the first questioning and , even after his lawyer had been allowed access , the authorities had tried to carry out a number of investigative steps without the lawyer present .","On DATE the ORG of Appeal allowed the defence \u2019s request to have the proceedings held in camera to prevent public disclosure of information concerning the network of informants and required all the defence lawyers and representatives to undergo security clearance to continue taking part in the proceedings . The applicant \u2019s wife did not receive security clearance in time for the appeal hearing and did not attend it .","On DATE ORG upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment .","On DATE , following a prior appeal by the applicant , ORG of GPE quashed this decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration . It noted , in particular , that the applicant \u2019s right to defence had been breached since the applicant \u2019s wife had been unable to take part in the appeal hearing . It further found that ORG had addressed the parties\u2019 arguments in a summary way only , while it should have given detailed explanations in response to those arguments .","On DATE ORG reviewed the case in the presence of the applicant \u2019s wife . It upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction , reduced his sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of his personal property . The conviction was mainly based on the records of the crime - scene inspection and the testimonies of the applicant \u2019s co - defendants , which the trial court found to be corroborated by witness statements , and other evidence in the case .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal on points of law .","The applicant \u2019s DATE son was with him when he was apprehended on DATE . He was taken with him to the ORG and remained in the same room with the applicant for most of the time . No other family members were informed of the boy \u2019s whereabouts .","On TIME DATE , after the applicant had been formally arrested , his son was returned to his mother .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE regional prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u201c the prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) in which she alleged , inter alia , that her son had been unlawfully detained at the ORG \u2019s premises CARDINAL and DATE .","On DATE , having questioned the applicant and the ORG officers , the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings as it had been established that no pressure had been applied to the applicant \u2019s son and that he had been able to move freely and had not been deprived of his liberty . It was further noted that the applicant had not complained of the ORG staff \u2019s attitude towards his son .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son challenged the above decision before the Prosecutor General .","In DATE the applicant and his wife lodged another complaint concerning the alleged unlawful detention of their son with the prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office , having questioned the applicant , his wife and son , as well as the ORG officers and some witnesses , refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the above complaint , having found no corpus delicti in the ORG actions . It was established during the relevant investigation that the applicant \u2019s son had been taken to the ORG \u2019s premises at the applicant \u2019s request and had not been arrested or detained and had been returned to his relatives as soon as the decision to arrest the applicant had been taken ; and that the applicant had raised no complaints during his son \u2019s stay at the ORG . It was also noted in the relevant resolution that the applicant \u2019s wife had refused to provide her son \u2019s medical file to prove her allegations concerning the worsening of his state of health and that there had been a contradiction in the applicant \u2019s statements and between his and his son \u2019s account of events . The prosecutor thus concluded that the allegations of unlawful deprivation of liberty or of other violations of the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s rights appeared to be ill - founded . He noted that no intention on the part of the officers to interfere with the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s personal security , specifically his freedom of movement , had been established . Likewise , there had been no evidence that the applicant \u2019s son had been subject to any form of pressure or ill - treatment .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s wife and son instituted civil proceedings against the ORG before ORG of GPE claiming damages for the unlawful detention of her son . Following a request of the applicant \u2019s wife of DATE , her civil claim was joined to the criminal proceedings against the applicant .","NORP On DATE the deputy prosecutor of GPE quashed the resolution of DATE as being premature , given that no evidence regarding the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s state of health had been obtained .","On DATE , having questioned the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s doctors who had observed him in the course of his care previously , the prosecutor again refused to institute criminal proceedings for the same reasons as before . It was noted , inter alia , that none of the doctors had observed any worsening of the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s state of health and that no worsening of his health had been evident from his medical file either .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office instituted disciplinary proceedings against CARDINAL officers of the FAC for their negligence towards the applicant \u2019s son . It noted , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s son had not been formally arrested ( \u0437\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0439 ) but had been kept at the ORG \u2019s premises for no reason and no measures had been taken to return him to his relatives . The prosecutor further observed that the applicant \u2019s son had not been subject to any form of ill - treatment . He also stressed the fact that the applicant \u2019s arrest report had been drafted DATE after the applicant \u2019s initial arrest , in breach of the requirements of the domestic law . This resolution had been sent to the ORG for relevant measures to be taken .","On DATE the ORG informed the prosecutor \u2019s office that the respective officers could no longer be disciplined as the DATE statutory time - limit had expired . It was also observed in that letter that no violations of domestic law by the ORG officers had been established by a number of investigations into the events complained of and that the applicant \u2019s son had stayed with the applicant at the ORG \u2019s premises from CARDINAL to DATE at the applicant \u2019s own request .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife complained to ORG about the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE .","On DATE , when convicting the applicant , ORG delivered a separate ruling , in which it listed the procedural violations committed by the investigating authorities in the criminal proceedings against the applicant . The fact that the applicant \u2019s son had remained in the ORG \u2019s premises for TIME after the applicant \u2019s initial arrest , without his relatives having been informed of his whereabouts and with no medical assistance provided in view of the stress he had been under , was listed among the violations referred to by the court . The Chief of the ORG in GPE was invited by the court to take appropriate measures in view of the above mentioned violations .","On DATE the applicant appealed to the ORG of GPE against the prosecutor \u2019s refusal of DATE to institute criminal proceedings against the ORG officers .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s complaint was left without consideration on the merits . The court noted in this connection that the relevant investigation files had been joined to the criminal case against the applicant and that therefore the prosecutor \u2019s decision was not subject to appeal outside of those criminal proceedings .","During the proceedings in his criminal case before ORG and ORG the applicant and his wife repeatedly requested , referring to the separate ruling of DATE by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that measures be taken to bring the respective officers to trial for the unlawful detention of their son . The case file does not suggest that in their appeals the applicant or his wife claimed damages in this connection .","DATE . On DATE , in its judgment upholding the applicant \u2019s conviction , ORG observed that the complaint related to the unlawful detention of the applicant \u2019s son had been considered by the prosecutor \u2019s office and no corpus delicti under criminal law had been found on the part of the ORG officers . The court made no separate ruling in this connection . ORG did not address this issue in its decision of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158952","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160O\u0160 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG of ORG for ORG ( PERSON nacionalni ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta , PERSON za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta PERSON ; hereinafter : \u201c the police \u201d ) lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant before ORG for ORG ( PERSON odvjetni\u0161tvo , Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta ; hereinafter : \u201c the ORG Attorney \u2019s Office \u201d ) , alleging that he had participated in an organised international drug - trafficking scheme .","On the basis of the extensive evidence collected during the preliminary investigation , including through mechanisms of international legal assistance in criminal matters from the authorities in GPE , GPE and the GPE , and the results of secret surveillance measures , on CARDINAL DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG opened an investigation in respect of the applicant and CARDINAL other persons suspected of drug trafficking . In particular , it was alleged that the applicant had participated in an organised drug - trafficking scheme by securing the means of communication between other members of the group .","During the investigation , the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG questioned a number of witnesses and obtained further voluminous evidence from the police . It also commissioned telecommunication expert reports and requested assistance in obtaining evidence from the authorities in GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and the GPE .","On DATE the ORG Attorney of GPE ( PERSON dr\u017eavni odvjetnik PERSON ) extended the investigation for DATE .","Following the completion of the investigation , on CARDINAL DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG indicted the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants in ORG PERSON ) on charges of drug trafficking . It alleged that the applicant had facilitated communication between other members of the group operating an international drug - trafficking scheme .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge forwarded the indictment to the defendants , instructing them that they could submit their comments on it within DATE .","On DATE the applicant denied the charge , alleging numerous substantive and procedural flaws .","Several hearings for the confirmation of the indictment were held before a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG . Meanwhile , the defence lawyers challenged the decision on the admissibility of evidence before ORG .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG of a lack of diligence in the conduct of the proceedings . He pointed out that ORG had not yet decided on the question of the admissibility of the evidence , which was incompatible with the requirement of due diligence in the conduct of the proceedings .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG confirmed the indictment and referred the case to trial .","The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in connection with the criminal complaint lodged against him by the police ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","DATE , after hearing the applicant \u2019s defence , ORG ordered that he be remanded in custody for a period of TIME .","Following the opening of the investigation against him , on CARDINAL DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG asked an investigating judge ( sudac istrage ) of ORG to order the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention ( istra\u017eni zatvor ) . It also requested that the other defendants be remanded in custody .","On DATE the investigating judge accepted the request and ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE under LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion , risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) . He also ordered the pre - trial detention of CARDINAL other defendants in the proceedings . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c Reasonable suspicion that the suspects committed the offences at issue follows from the criminal complaint lodged by [ the police ] and the [ supporting material ] ...","The pre - trial detention of all the suspects , save for GPE and GPE who are detained in GPE , was ordered under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . The suspects PERSON and GPE ... are still at large and there is therefore a risk that if the other suspects were at large , they could hinder the proper conduct of the proceedings by influencing [ GPE and PERSON ] . In addition , a number of witnesses should be questioned concerning the offences at issue ... and , since they know the suspects or are relatives of theirs , there is a risk that the suspects , if at large , could hinder the proper conduct of the proceedings by influencing the witnesses ...","The pre - trial detention of all the suspects was also ordered under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . Given the scale of the alleged criminal activity , the period in which it has taken place , the extent of the [ ORG ] organisation , and the fact that they have allegedly smuggled QUANTITY of cocaine , QUANTITY of which has been seized in GPE , this court finds that it suggests special circumstances justifying the fear that they may reoffend . ...","The pre - trial detention of all the suspects , save for ORG , was also ordered under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . This court finds it necessary to order detention under this provision also so as to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings , given that the case concerns a particularly grave offence under LAW of LAW for which a sentence of long - term imprisonment has been prescribed . Specifically , it is alleged that the suspects have smuggled QUANTITY of cocaine , which can be used to make a significant number of individual doses and thus to endanger the health of a high number of persons . Moreover , the suspects have allegedly operated on the territories of several countries , where they organised networks of persons helping them in the commission of the offences , which suggests a particularly organised and systemic approach in the commission of the offences . Apparently large sums of money were also spent for the [ distribution and ] transport of the drugs from LOC . This suggests , in the view of this court , that the circumstances of the offence are particularly serious , surpassing the circumstances in which such offences are \u2018 usually\u2019 committed ... \u201d","NORP The applicant challenged the decision of the investigating judge before a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , arguing that the judge had failed to take into account the extent of his specific participation in the alleged offences at issue . He pointed out that his alleged role in the commission of the offences was peripheral and irrelevant , since his only contact with the case was through the third defendant , whom he had known from the past but had not suspected of being involved in a criminal activity . The applicant also stressed that he was a self - employed car mechanic and had had no previous conflict with the law . He therefore requested that less severe preventive measures be applied for securing his proper participation in the proceedings .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the appeals lodged by the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c It is alleged that the suspects , acting within an organised group , obtained cocaine abroad and transported it to GPE for the purpose of its further distribution . The proceedings at issue concern not only a serious and socially dangerous offence , but there are also other specific circumstances showing the seriousness of the case . The suspects obtained the drugs in LOC , in large quantities of QUANTITY , and the whole process of transporting the drugs required a high degree of organisation and distribution of work . The quantity of drugs found , namely QUANTITY [ sic ] of cocaine , is higher than in other [ similar cases ] . The investigating judge thus correctly concluded that in respect of the suspects PERSON and PERSON the circumstances of the offence are particularly serious , which also justifies the fear that the suspects might reoffend . There are therefore sufficient reasons for pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .","...","Furthermore , since in the further course of the proceedings , as indicated in the investigating judge \u2019s decision , it is necessary to question a number of witnesses who have relevant knowledge of the offences at issue and know the suspects PERSON , PERSON and ORG , the investigating judge correctly ordered the detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .","Given that the investigating judge \u2019s decision ordering the detention is justified , there are no grounds for accepting the requests of the suspects , put forward in the appeals , to replace their detention by alternative measures . \u201d","On DATE the investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion , risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) , reiterating his previous arguments .","NORP The applicant challenged that decision , . On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed his complaints , endorsing the reasoning of the investigating judge .","On DATE the investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) . He found that all the relevant witnesses had been questioned and that there was no further possibility of remanding the applicant in detention on the grounds of the risk of collusion . As to the other grounds relied upon for the applicant \u2019s detention , the investigating judge reiterated his previous findings .","The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision before a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , arguing that his detention had been constantly extended without providing any reasons relevant to his particular situation . He also requested that his detention be replaced by house arrest .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , endorsing the findings of the investigating judge . It provided no reasoning concerning the applicant \u2019s request for the replacement of his detention by house arrest .","On DATE the investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c The pre - trial detention of all the suspects was also ordered under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . Given the scale of the alleged criminal activity , the period in which it has taken place , the extent of the [ ORG ] organisation , and the fact that they have allegedly smuggled QUANTITY of cocaine , QUANTITY of which has been seized in GPE , this court finds that it suggests special circumstances justifying the fear that they may reoffend . ...","The pre - trial detention of all the suspects , save for ORG , was also ordered under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . This court finds it necessary to order detention under this provision , also so as to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings , given that the case concerns a particularly grave offence under LAW of LAW for which a long prison sentence has been prescribed . Specifically , it is alleged that the suspects have smuggled QUANTITY of cocaine , which can be used to make a significant number of individual doses and thus to endanger the health of a high number of persons . Moreover , the suspects have allegedly operated on the territories of several countries , where they organised networks of persons helping them in the commission of the offences , which suggests a particularly organised and systemic approach in the commission of the offences . Apparently large sums of money were also spent for the [ distribution and ] transport of the drugs from LOC . This suggests , in the view of this court , that the circumstances of the offence were particularly serious , surpassing the circumstances in which such offences are \u2018 usually\u2019 committed ... \u201d","The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision , asking to be released and for less severe preventive measures to be applied . On CARDINAL DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded , reiterating its previous arguments and without providing further reasons for refusing the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) against those decisions , arguing that the reasons given for his continued detention were neither relevant nor sufficient . He pointed out that ORG had collectively extended the pre - trial detention of all the defendants in the proceedings , without taking into account his specific arguments .","On DATE the investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for a further DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) . In his decision , the investigating judge stated that the initial grounds for the applicant \u2019s detention had not changed . The judge also noted that owing to the complexity of the case , the investigation would be extended for DATE .","The applicant appealed against that decision , arguing that it lacked the relevant reasoning . He also asked to be released on bail or for the application of other less severe preventive measures .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded , reiterating its previous arguments . It held that , in view of the gravity of the offences at issue , the applicant \u2019s detention could not be replaced by less severe preventive measures , nor could he be released on bail .","On DATE and DATE the applicant urged ORG to decide on his constitutional complaint of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint of CARDINAL DATE inadmissible on the ground that a new decision on his detention had been adopted in the meantime , namely on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that his detention was no longer based on the impugned decision . This decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","On DATE the investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s detention for a further DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) on the ground that the relevant circumstances warranting his detention had not changed .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision , arguing that it lacked the relevant reasoning and asking that his detention be replaced by less severe preventive measures .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded , reiterating its previous arguments concerning the necessity of the GPE continued detention .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG , arguing that in extending his detention throughout the investigation , the court had always used the same wording and phrases . He pointed out that ORG had failed to make a proper assessment of the necessity of his continued detention given that its decisions were merely a reproduction of the same wording provided in the initial decision ordering his detention on DATE .","NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of ORG . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c The impugned decision of the investigating judge ... provides detailed and clear reasoning with regard to the relevant legal circumstances related to the appellant \u2019s [ detention ] .","The Constitutional Court finds that the impugned decisions comply with the relevant constitutional [ requirements ] concerning the extension of the appellant \u2019s pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . \u201d","On DATE the investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s detention for a further DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) on the ground that nothing had changed in the relevant circumstances warranting his continued detention .","The applicant appealed against that decision , reiterating his request for release and the application of less severe preventive measures .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded , reiterating its previous arguments . It found that it was not possible to release him and to apply less severe preventive measures in view of the particular gravity and seriousness of the charges against him .","Following the submission of the indictment against the applicant to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on CARDINAL DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of that court extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) without setting any time - limits for the detention . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c Against the defendant :","..."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173463","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MURTAZALIYEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-3-b - Access to relevant files);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Obtain attendance of witnesses)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is an ethnic NORP . In DATE she arrived in GPE from GPE and started working at an insurance company . In DATE she went to a mosque where she made the acquaintance of GPE and PERSON . CARDINAL young NORP women who had converted to ORG .","NORP In DATE the applicant was stopped on the street by CARDINAL policemen , allegedly for an identity check . She was then taken to the police station to have her identity verified . In the meantime she was dismissed from work on the grounds of her unauthorised absence . According to the applicant , she was released from the custody of police DATE upon the intervention of certain PERSON , who was also an ethnic NORP and a police officer in the organised crime division of the GPE police department .","In DATE helped the applicant to be reinstated at work . He also found a flat for her , where he visited her on several occasions . The applicant shared that flat with PERSON and PERSON . The flat was located in a dormitory block which belonged to the police department . It was equipped with secret videotaping and audiotaping device . The police put the applicant under surveillance because she was suspected of affiliation with a terrorist group related to the NORP insurgency movement . ORG authorised the use of a secret surveillance device in the flat from CARDINAL DATE until DATE .","On TIME the applicant was stopped by a police patrol for an identity check as her physical appearance allegedly matched the profile of a suspect in a wanted persons notice . The applicant immediately telephoned A. , who briefly spoke to the police officers who had stopped her . The applicant was then taken to the police station because the official registration of her stay in GPE had expired , which constituted an administrative offence under NORP law .","At the police station , the applicant was informed that she had been apprehended ( \u0437\u0430\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0430 ) . Her bag was searched by a female police officer ORG in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses , PERSON and PERSON , and her fingerprints were taken . The record of the personal search showed that the search of the applicant lasted from TIME until TIME Following the personal search , ORG discovered QUANTITY packages of an unknown substance wrapped in aluminium foil inside the applicant \u2019s bag . The substance , together with the inner lining of the applicant \u2019s bag and the pockets of her jacket , was taken for forensic examination . The forensic examination report stated that the applicant \u2019s fingerprints were taken at TIME The police did not test the applicant \u2019s hands for residue from the substance ; neither did they search for her fingerprints on the packages found in her bag . Later on the same day the applicant was arrested on charges of terrorism and questioned by the police . A criminal investigation was opened .","On DATE an expert examination of the substance found in the applicant \u2019s bag was carried out . The examination report showed that the substance contained QUANTITY grams of ORG , an industrial explosive prepared on the basis of hexogen . In the course of the examination the explosives were destroyed . The examination of the applicant \u2019s bag and the lining of the pockets of her jacket revealed the presence of hexogen .","The police searched the flat where the applicant lived with PERSON and PERSON . and seized a note handwritten by the applicant . The note criticised NORP policy in GPE , glorified suicide bombers , preached the way of jihad , and spoke harshly of NORP . The police also found several photographs of an escalator in the PERSON shopping centre in the centre of GPE .","A transcript of the conversations on the video tapes recorded at the flat showed that the applicant had been proselytising ORG to PERSON discussing her hatred for NORP and the necessity of \u201c holy war \u201d against them , and telling them about the camps of the NORP insurgents in the GPE .","A. was questioned by the investigator at the request of the applicant during the pre - trial stage . A. testified that at DATE , at the order of his superiors , he had established a relationship of trust with the applicant , who had also introduced him to PERSON and ORG A. further stated that with the support of the police department he had helped the applicant to find housing . She had moved into the flat in the dormitory block together with PERSON and PERSON . On DATE the applicant had called him because she had been stopped by the police patrol . He had advised her to obey the orders of the police officers and to follow them to the police station .","On DATE the applicant received a copy of the case file for review . The applicant was charged with preparing an act of terrorism ( an explosion ) in the PERSON shopping centre and inciting PERSON and PERSON . to commit an act of terrorism .","On DATE ORG commenced the trial of the applicant . The applicant was represented by CARDINAL lawyers , GPE and S.","At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges against her . She testified that on DATE after the police patrol had driven her to the police station , she had first been taken to a room where a police officer , PERSON , had been filling in some papers . He had told her that she had been apprehended and that her fingerprints would be taken . She had left her jacket and her bag in that room . Another police officer , PERSON , had then taken her to another room , where a further police officer , PERSON , had taken her fingerprints using ink , after which she had gone to a bathroom to wash the ink off her hands . When she had returned to the first room , she had been informed that she would be searched in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses PERSON and PERSON The police officer had searched the applicant \u2019s bag and discovered CARDINAL packages wrapped in aluminium foil which had not belonged to her . The applicant stated that her fingerprints had been taken before and after the search , and that only the second episode had been recorded .","The applicant further stated that the police had questioned her in the absence of a lawyer , and had then decided to detain her . Furthermore , the applicant testified that she had been told to sign a record of her questioning , on pain of ill - treatment . In DATE she had been beaten by the policemen who had questioned her . However , she had continued to deny her involvement in any terrorist activity .","The applicant stated that the packages found in her bag had not belonged to her , that the police had planted them in her bag and that she had never incited PERSON and PERSON . to commit a terrorist attack . When the prosecutor asked her whether she had noticed that her rather small bag had become heavier than it had been before the personal search , the applicant stated that she had not noticed anything conspicuous about her bag before her search .","She further stated that CARDINAL photos of the escalator that had been seized from her flat had been taken by her . However , she had been taking photos of random people in the shopping centre in question and not of the escalator and she had done so for recreation .","The applicant admitted writing the note that had been seized from the flat but stated that she had copied its text from the Internet because she had liked it and had simply wanted to have a copy of it . The applicant \u2019s lawyer argued that her words had been misinterpreted and that there had been nothing in them that demonstrated her link to any terrorist activity . She stated that the applicant \u2019s bitter perception of the situation in GPE was absolutely natural for someone who had been living in a war zone since childhood and that her words should have been analysed more carefully .","V. testified at the trial that she and PERSON . had first met the applicant at a FAC in DATE . They had become friends and had started frequenting NORP chats and surfing pro - insurgency web - sites together . After a while , they had decided to form a religious community ( dzhamaat ) to study ORG and live together . In their conversations the applicant had glorified terrorism and had approved of suicide bombings and the methods and targets of the NORP insurgents . The applicant had told them about a camp in LOC near GPE where NORP received training to become suicide bombers , and that she knew someone from there . She had mentioned that she herself had participated in the Chechen war on the side of the insurgents . Together they had often visited an Internet caf\u00e9 in the PERSON shopping centre . The applicant had also taken photos of an escalator from different positions there .","On DATE the applicant had told PERSON and PERSON . that if something were to happen to her , they would have to remove all NORP literature and her diary from the flat , and to call her mother in GPE . She had also told them that she had just received a call from a friend who had arrived in GPE to \u201c blow himself up \u201d , and that she ( that is to say the applicant ) \u201c was in danger \u201d and \u201c under suspicion \u201d [ of the authorities ] . The applicant had not threatened them and had not incited them to commit a terrorist act but she had asked them if they were capable of doing it . She had constantly preached \u201c the way of jihad \u201d to them and had given them NORP books and audiocassettes . Some of those books had been given to her by her acquaintance , A ..","V. denied having seen any explosives in the flat where they had lived .","At the request of the prosecutor , the trial judge allowed ORG \u2019s pre - trial testimony to be read out , as it contradicted in part statements she had made at the trial . In particular , during her pre - trial questioning , PERSON had testified that the applicant herself had undergone terrorist training in a camp near GPE and that she had been indoctrinating PERSON and PERSON . in order to prepare them to become suicide bombers . When the prosecutor asked PERSON about her contradictory statements , PERSON stated that she was not sure whether the applicant had really participated in a terrorist training camp . However , she stated that the applicant had been preparing her and PERSON . to become suicide bombers .","Ku . confirmed that she , ORG and the applicant had taken photos in the PERSON shopping centre , at the initiative of the applicant , and that the applicant had \u201c taken snapshots randomly \u201d . In particular , the applicant had taken photographs of the escalator and the people on it . PERSON . submitted that the applicant had disapproved of the policy of the NORP federal forces in the GPE . However , she had not incited PERSON . to become a suicide bomber . According to PERSON . they had simply wanted to live together to pray , read and live free from the control of their parents .","Ku . further stated that the applicant \u2019s acquaintance , ORG , was a policeman and that he had paid for the flat where the CARDINAL of them had lived and that he had also given them money occasionally . Once the applicant had told her that she liked A.","Ku . further stated that during the pre - trial questioning the investigator had misinterpreted her words concerning a suicide attack and that she had never planned to commit any such attack . She denied having given her pretrial statements under pressure .","The court questioned several police officers who had participated in her arrest and personal search ( P. , S. , B. , NORP and PERSON . ) . They stated that the applicant \u2019s apprehension had occurred during a regular patrolling operation , and that they had not been aware that her bag had contained explosives .","P. testified that on DATE of the applicant \u2019s arrest he had decided to check the applicant \u2019s documents because \u201c she had been aimlessly walking to the LOC metro station \u201d . She had showed them her passport and the registration stamp confirming her right to stay in GPE , which had expired . The policemen took her to a police station . At the moment of the arrest she had been nervous and aggressive . They had decided to search her bag because such an action \u201c was compatible with the law \u201d . P. further explained that he had stopped the applicant \u201c because it had been unclear where she had been going to \u201d , because she had \u201c resembled a girl from a wanted ORG notice \u201d , and because she was \u201c a person of NORP ethnicity [ that is to say from the LOC region ] \u201d . P. also stated that the expiry of her registration had been sufficient reason to apprehend the applicant . He further testified that they had been routinely searching all people with expired registration .","S. gave similar testimony . He added that the applicant had been walking fast and that she had started to threaten the police officers with disciplinary sanctions when they had stopped her .","B. testified that they had decided to stop the applicant because she had been wearing black and was of \u201c NORP ethnic origin \u201d . He added that the applicant \u2019s appearance had matched the description of someone on their wanted persons notice . He also testified that the applicant had had her bag with her up until the moment of her undergoing a personal search at the police station .","The court also questioned the police officers who had been on duty at the LOC police station on DATE of the applicant \u2019s arrest .","I. testified that she had searched the applicant in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses and had found QUANTITY objects wrapped in the aluminum foil in her bag , which had been later confirmed to be explosives . The applicant \u2019s fingerprints had been taken DATE after the objects had been discovered in her bag .","Ke . testified that before the search the applicant had had all her personal belongings with her and that it had taken TIME before the start of the search to find attesting witnesses who had been invited to observe the personal search .","The applicant stated that the transcripts of the video tapes recorded in the flat by the police and read out in court had not been accurate and that she had requested the tapes to be played during the hearing . The court granted her request . It does not transpire from the trial transcript that the applicant submitted any requests or complaints concerning the quality of the tapes or the manner in which the tapes had been shown .","The applicant \u2019s lawyers requested the court to summon police officer ORG for questioning . They did not submit any reasons for their request . However , the court refused their request because at that time A. had left GPE for a work mission .","According to the applicant , the court had not tried to verify whether or not PERSON was indeed on a mission and whether or not it would be possible to question him upon his return .","As can be seen from the transcript of the hearing , the applicant and her lawyers did not object to the record of the questioning of A. at the pretrial stage being read in the hearing .","The applicant further requested the court to question CARDINAL attesting witnesses , PERSON and PERSON , who had been present while she had been searched at the police station .","However , the court refused to call them . As can be seen from the documents in the case file , the court decided that the attesting witnesses would in any case be unable to confirm the applicant \u2019s allegations because the applicant herself had claimed that the explosives had been planted before the arrival of the attesting witnesses .","After DATE of trial hearings the judge asked the parties whether they wished to close the examination of evidence and proceed to the pleadings , in the absence of those witnesses who had not appeared . The parties agreed to proceed to the pleadings .","During the proceedings the court admitted the following material as evidence :","The court examined and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim that the explosives had been planted on her . The court referred to the testimony of the patrol officers and the officers of the police station , who had denied those allegations , and to the fact that according to the official report the personal search of the applicant had preceded the taking of her fingerprints , and there had been no evidence that the fingerprints had been taken twice , as the applicant suggested .","The court further found that the applicant must have drafted the text of the handwritten note herself and that she had not copied it from NORP websites on the Internet , as she had claimed , since the note had contained modifications and corrections .","On DATE the court convicted the applicant of preparing an act of terrorism ( an explosion ) , inciting others to commit an act of terrorism , and carrying explosives , and sentenced her to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant and her lawyers appealed against her conviction . In the statement of appeal they complained , inter alia , that CARDINAL out of CARDINAL surveillance videotapes had been shown in the hearing and that for \u201c technical reasons \u201d the applicant had not been able to point out inaccuracies between the transcripts and the recordings of conversations on the videotapes . They further complained that the court had unreasonably refused their request to be allowed to question police officer A. and that there had been no documents in the case file showing that A. had been away on a work - related mission at the time of the hearing . Moreover , the court should have called the attesting witnesses , PERSON and PERSON , because they could have testified about the circumstances preceding the personal search of the applicant in the police station .","DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment , reducing the applicant \u2019s sentence to DATE .","ORG held that the videotape had been shown at the request of the defence and that no objections or complaints had been lodged with the court after the videotape had been played , including that not all of the videotapes had been shown .","ORG further considered that the questioning of A. had not been possible due to his absence on a work - related mission and that his pre - trial statement had been read out with the consent of the defence . As for CARDINAL attesting witnesses PERSON and PERSON , their personal appearance had not been necessary since the applicant claimed that the explosives had been planted in her bag before their arrival . In any event , the defence agreed to proceed to the closing arguments and had not had any objections or additional requests about the examination of the applicant \u2019s case ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-b","6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142406","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KRASICKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant recognised his paternity in respect of his CARDINAL sons , A. and J. , born out of his relationship with PERSON in DATE and DATE . He never cohabited with the mother and the children .","On DATE PERSON lodged an application with ORG for the applicant to be divested of his parental authority ( pozbawienie praw rodzicielskich ) . She argued that he had been failing to discharge his duties towards the children and to pay child support .","During a hearing on DATE she withdrew her application . The court discontinued this part of the proceedings . In the same decision it held that both parents were to continue to have parental authority and that the children should reside with their mother . A court - appointed guardian ( kurator s\u0105dowy ) was assigned to supervise the applicant in the exercise of his parental authority . He was granted a right to contact , but no specific contact arrangements were set out at that time .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to specify that contact arrangements away from the mother \u2019s home , as difficulties had arisen for him to see the children .","On DATE an expert opinion commissioned by the court for the purposes of the contact proceedings was issued by ORG Rodzinny O\u015brodek Diagnostyczno - Konsultacyjny \u2013 \u201c RODK \u201d ) . It had been prepared by a psychologist and an education specialist who had met both the parents and children . It transpired that the children had emotional ties with both parents and a close and spontaneous relationship with the father . The father had emotional ties with the children , knew them well , accepted them , and wanted to maintain contact . He paid child support and had the qualities needed to be a competent father . He should therefore play a part in the PERSON lives . The experts stressed that the mother had a negative attitude towards the applicant and wished to exclude him from the children \u2019s lives . They were of the view that her educational skills and practices were open to criticism . The experts noted signs of emotional distress in the boys but observed that they loved both parents . They concluded that the boys should have frequent contact with their father .","In a letter sent to the court during the proceedings , the applicant stated that he abstained from having contact with the children because the mother had been hostile and verbally aggressive towards him .","He had seen the boys on DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG specified that the applicant had a right to see the boys on the first , second and DATE , from TIME , without the mother present . It further held that he was entitled to spend DATE with them . The mother was obliged to comply with that order . Her appeal was dismissed on DATE .","The mother failed to comply with the contact order . On numerous occasions the applicant complained in writing to the police and the court . The court - appointed guardians , in successive reports to the court , including in DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , confirmed that the mother had been obstructive , had failed to comply with the contact arrangements , and had repeatedly refused to open her door when they went to visit . They talked to the children \u2019s teachers and the school \u2019s education welfare officer with a view to gathering information about the children \u2019s progress in school , the mother \u2019s involvement in their education and the children \u2019s contact with the applicant .","On DATE the applicant requested that a fine be imposed on the mother for failing to let him see the boys .","On an unspecified date in DATE the PERSON mother allegedly told them that their father was dead . She sent him a funeral wreath with offers of condolences from his children .","On DATE ORG imposed a fine on the mother of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for failing to comply with the contact order and ordered her to comply with its terms within DATE . CARDINAL similar orders were issued on DATE and DATE , upon applications by the applicant dated DATE and DATE respectively . Fines were imposed on her on both occasions ( PLN MONEY and FAC CARDINAL ) and DATE time - limits fixed for her to allow the applicant to see the children . Any fine remaining unpaid within that time - limit would be converted into detention at a rate of PLN DATE .","In CARDINAL reports submitted to the court in DATE and DATE the guardian observed that the applicant had only once taken the opportunity to see his sons on the school premises , despite an agreement being reached with the school authorities . In DATE and DATE she informed the court that she had not managed to establish contact with the parents . In her DATE report , she stressed the willingness of the teachers and the school authorities to assist the applicant in seeing his sons at school and informed the court that he had not availed himself of that opportunity . In reports submitted to the court in DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE the guardian summarised the applicant \u2019s communications with the children \u2019s teachers and authorities . She noted that there had been no signs of neglect on the part of the mother and that the boys caused no trouble and showed no signs of distress . Reference was made in the DATE report to the mother \u2019s hostility towards the children \u2019s father .","In DATE the applicant went to the mother \u2019s apartment , accompanied by the guardian and the police . She said that she disagreed with the contact order , was ready to suffer the consequences and was not prepared to allow the applicant contact with the children . A child was heard crying in the apartment . The police chose not to intervene . The applicant was not allowed to see the boys .","The mother failed to pay the fines imposed on her . By an order of CARDINAL DATE the court , having regard to that failure , held that she was to serve DATE in detention in lieu of paying the unpaid fines and ordered the court bailiff to carry out enforcement .","On DATE the guardian reported to the court that her attempts to establish contact with the mother had failed , as she would not open the door to her apartment . She stated that the applicant had not seen the children since he received a funeral wreath from the mother ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He was of the view that the children thought he was dead . It was further stated in the report that the applicant had refused to look after the children if their mother was detained . He had a very small apartment with his wife and was not in a position to ensure that the living conditions were suitable for them .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE the court fixed a threeweek timelimit for the mother to allow the applicant contact in accordance with the terms of the contact order on pain of enforcement measures being taken in respect of the detention order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It appears that the mother declared on DATE , DATE and DATE that she would comply , but the applicant was still not allowed to see the children .","On DATE the guardian , in reply to a request by the court for further information , confirmed that the mother had consistently failed to allow the applicant to have contact with the children . Furthermore , she would not let the guardian enter her apartment .","NORP In DATE the applicant tried to see the boys twice , but to no avail . The PERSON maternal grandmother told him that the children were not at home and that he would not be allowed to see them . The presence of a police officer did not have any effect .","On DATE the court found that the mother had failed to comply with the contact arrangements and to pay the fine imposed on her . It held that she should therefore serve time in detention in lieu of paying the fine .","On DATE the court decided to place the children with the grandmother for the time their mother was supposed to spend in detention .","On DATE the court bailiff tried to arrest the mother , but there appeared to be no one home when he attended her address . The police refused to intervene . In DATE the mother submitted successive medical certificates to the bailiff stating that she could not start to serve her sentence until DATE . The bailiff informed the court on DATE . In DATE the grandmother paid the fines imposed by the court in the total amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant again requested that fines be imposed on the boys\u2019 mother because she still refused to comply with the contact arrangements . During a hearing in relevant proceedings on DATE the applicant submitted that on DATE he had given up pursuing his efforts to see the boys , as he had not wanted coercive measures to be used in the context of their contact with him ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the court decided not to entertain his request to have a fine imposed on the mother .","On DATE ORG instituted ex officio proceedings to limit PERSON \u2019s parental authority ( ograniczenie praw rodzicielskich ) acting upon , inter alia , the reports the court - appointed guardians had submitted to the court . They repeatedly averred that the mother had consistently avoided communicating with them , making it impossible for them to supervise her in the exercise of her parental duties and to establish the children \u2019s situation , and their contact with their father .","On DATE the court , having regard to the mother \u2019s continued failure to comply with the contact arrangements and information gathered by the guardians as to her parenting skills , limited her parental authority . It appointed a guardian tasked with supervising her in the exercise of her parental rights . It noted that her attitude was to the children \u2019s detriment .","On DATE the mother lodged an application with ORG for the applicant to be deprived of his parental authority ( pozbawienie w\u0142adzy rodzicielskiej ) and his right to contact . She argued that his conduct was to the children \u2019s detriment ; that they had become hostile towards him and that this had been because he had tried to have her punished . During the proceedings , on CARDINAL DATE a local assessment ( wywiad \u015brodowiskowy ) was conducted at the mother \u2019s home by a court - appointed guardian with a view to establishing the children \u2019s situation and the mother \u2019s parenting skills .","On DATE the court dismissed the application . In the written grounds for its decision it recounted the measures taken so far with a view to making the mother comply with the contact arrangements . It also acknowledged the applicant \u2019s consistent efforts to have contact with his children . It noted that the mother \u2019s attitude to any contact between the applicant and his children was negative and that she had been acting arbitrarily ( arbitralnie ) to make it impossible for him to play a part in the boys\u2019 lives . The court was of the view that the mother was motivated entirely by her hostility towards the applicant and not the children \u2019s best interests . It further noted that the children could develop a hostile attitude towards their father , based entirely on their mother \u2019s attitude . The court concluded that the mother \u2019s conduct was to the children \u2019s detriment and that her behaviour needed to change .","In DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the guardian submitted DATE reports to the court . It transpired that numerous efforts to establish contact with the mother had failed . She would not open the door to her apartment when the guardian went to visit her and the boys , even though the guardian could hear that someone was inside at the time .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings to have the children removed from their mother \u2019s care ( przymusowe odebranie dziecka ) on the grounds that she had hitherto failed to comply with the contact order . During a hearing on DATE the applicant stated that he would continue to visit the boys on each scheduled date , if only to show his willingness to maintain contact with them , even if they continued to refuse to see him . He stated that he had not had any contact with them for DATE . He had last seen them in DATE . When he had gone to see them , they had talked to him on the steps and told him that they did not want to see him as he had never cared about them .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE the court allowed his request and authorised the court - appointed guardian to assist him at each visit he was supposed to have with the boys in accordance with the terms of the contact order .","On the CARDINAL visits that followed ( CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) the applicant was assisted by the guardian . He saw his older son on DATE for TIME . On DATE the children told their father that they did not want to see him . They refused to see him on CARDINAL DATE . On CARDINAL and DATE PERSON told his father that he did not wish to see him and that he would not change his mind . Detailed reports of these attempts at contact were submitted to the court by the guardian . On DATE the guardian informed the court that the applicant , having regard to the children \u2019s manifest hostility and their best interests , had waived his right to see them and guardian assistance . The guardian suggested that family counselling was necessary to improve the situation .","A meeting was held on DATE attended by the applicant and CARDINAL guardians . The applicant was of the view that coercive measures used for the purposes of enforcing the contact arrangements would only increase the children \u2019s hostility towards him . He requested that another psychological assessment of the family situation be prepared urgently . By letters of DATE the applicant informed the court that he had waived his right to guardian assistance and to see the children , referring to their negative attitude towards him and the fact that his efforts had hitherto been fruitless , on account of the mother \u2019s continuous and unrelenting defiance .","In DATE the guardians repeatedly tried to talk to the mother with a view to persuading her to comply with the contact arrangements , but she continued to refuse to open her door . In DATE , DATE and twice in DATE the guardians tried to visit the mother , but to no avail . They informed the court accordingly .","In DATE the guardian spoke to the school about the children \u2019s situation . It was established that they had not been attending school regularly . He also spoke to the children \u2019s grandmother , who had avoided answering questions about her daughter \u2019s and grandchildren \u2019s situation . The guardian concluded that the mother appeared to have never left the apartment , had been living a life of total seclusion and had been unable to cope with the children \u2019s educational difficulties .","NORP On DATE ORG , acting upon reports received from the guardian and the school authorities , instituted ex officio proceedings with a view to varying the manner in which both parents had been limited in the exercise of their parental duties ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The guardian , in reports in DATE and DATE , expressed the view that the children should be placed into emergency care ( pogotowie opieku\u0144cze ) , on account of the total absence of contact from the mother and alarming information received about the children \u2019s defiant and obviously disturbed and aggressive behaviour in school .","On DATE the same court , acting upon information received from the police , instituted another set of ex officio proceedings concerning the same subject matter as those instituted on DATE . The proceedings were joined on DATE .","On DATE a hearing took place . The court heard the applicant , CARDINAL court - appointed guardians who had been involved in the case and the school \u2019s education welfare officer . The applicant supported the guardian \u2019s request for the children to be placed into care . He reiterated that he did not have any contact with the children . The guardians confirmed their submissions that the mother had consistently avoided communicating with them , and was living a life of seclusion . The education welfare officer stated that the children had been failing to attend school regularly and had become increasingly neglected , disturbed and aggressive towards other pupils and the teachers . The court ordered that the children be placed into emergency care .","The mother failed to take the children to the care home that was to accommodate them . On DATE the court ordered the guardian to collect the children . The guardian attempted to do so CARDINAL times , going to both their home and school on DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . The guardian also sought the help of the police and the education welfare officer , but to no avail , as either there was no one in the apartment or no one opened the door .","On DATE the mother lodged an application for the court order of DATE to be revoked . She declared her readiness to cooperate with the court and the guardians . The enforcement proceedings were stayed for the duration of the proceedings .","On DATE she allowed the police to enter her home .","On DATE the court - appointed guardian was finally able to conduct an assessment ( wywiad \u015brodowiskowy ) at the mother \u2019s apartment . He concluded that she was unable to properly discharge her duties towards the children and that she blamed the school \u2019s education welfare officer and the court - appointed guardians for the existing situation , saying that she did not trust them . It was further suggested that a further examination by expert psychologists should be carried out at the RODK and that the mother be examined by a psychiatrist .","On DATE a hearing took place . Both parents were in attendance . The court questioned the police and the boys\u2019 maternal grandmother . It ordered that an expert opinion be prepared . The mother protested and submitted her own psychologist \u2019s opinion stating that the children had not been neglected . The examination at the RODK was scheduled for DATE , but was eventually postponed to a later date to take place prior to the next hearing scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .","The proceedings are currently pending ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162704","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF POLETAN AND AZIROVIK v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE and live in GPE ( the first applicant ) and PERSON ( the second applicant ) .","As established in the criminal proceedings described below , on DATE , during a search carried out by ORG at the GPE border crossing ( between the respondent State and GPE ) QUANTITY of cocaine were found hidden in rectangular packs submerged in hermetically sealed cans of acrylic paint . The cargo , which had been loaded onto a truck driven by the second applicant in GPE ) , was destined for GPE .","On DATE ORG at ORG ( \u201c the Bureau \u201d , ORG \u0437\u0430 \u043a\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043a\u0430 \u0442\u0435\u0445\u043d\u0438\u043a\u0430 ) carried out an expert examination in order to determine the quantity and quality of the substance found in the truck . On DATE the ORG carried out a further examination . Both reports ( ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) established the gross weight of the substance , which was pure cocaine .","On DATE the public prosecutor requested that an investigating judge from ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) open an investigation against the applicants on account of reasonable suspicion of trafficking QUANTITY of cocaine . In the request it was stated that the drugs had been packed in CARDINAL packages and stored in DATE cans containing acrylic paint .","On DATE , the investigating judge heard the second applicant ( the first applicant could not be traced ) in the presence of Mr D. Dangov , a lawyer of his own choosing ( after CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was represented by a different lawyer ) . On this occasion , the second applicant confirmed that he had known the first applicant for DATE and that on DATE she had contacted him regarding the transportation of acrylic paint from GPE to GPE . She had given him the telephone number of a certain PERSON ( a forwarding agent ) in GPE regarding the shipment . He had spoken to ORG by telephone , but he had not met her . His truck had been searched at Kula border crossing ( between GPE and GPE ) and in the city of GPE , GPE , after which he had been escorted by police and customs to the border crossing with the respondent ORG . At TIME . on DATE he had arrived at GPE border crossing . The NORP customs officials had instructed him to leave the truck overnight and to return TIME . He had complied with that instruction . On DATE the truck had been searched and drugs had been found . The second applicant denied knowing that he had been transporting drugs .","DATE , the investigating judge opened an investigation and issued detention orders for DATE in respect of the applicants .","On DATE the first applicant appointed Mr PERSON to represent her in the proceedings . On DATE the investigating judge issued an international arrest warrant in respect of the first applicant . On DATE she was arrested in GPE and detained pending extradition in the respondent ORG .","NORP On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer requested permission to inspect the case file . A handwritten note on his application indicated that \u201c inspection of the case file ( wa)s allowed \u201d . On DATE the first applicant was incarcerated in GPE detention facility . An official note drawn up by the investigating judge indicated that on that occasion she had been aware of the public prosecutor \u2019s application and the decision of the investigating judge to open an investigation .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge heard the first applicant in the presence of her lawyer . She stated that she would make a statement once she was able to consult the available evidence . On DATE she was heard for the second time . In the presence of her representative , she confirmed that she had contacted the second applicant , who had agreed to transport the paint from GPE to GPE for CARDINAL ( ORG ) . She had also given him the contact details of ORG , the LOC forwarding agent . The first applicant denied that she was aware that drugs had been planted in the cans .","On DATE and DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer requested permission to consult the case file , arguing that his previous requests had remained unanswered . On each application there was a handwritten note indicating that the requests had been granted .","On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against the applicants on account of trafficking QUANTITY of cocaine ( \u043d\u0435\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043d \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0442 \u043d\u0430 \u043d\u0430\u0440\u043a\u043e\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043d\u0430 \u0434\u0440\u043e\u0433\u0430-\u043a\u043e\u043a\u0430\u0438\u043d ) packed in CARDINAL packages found in CARDINAL cans . The indictment relied on considerable verbal and material evidence , including the ORG \u2019s expert reports ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer requested access to the case file . According to a note , which he duly signed , on CARDINAL and DATE he inspected the file for TIME .","On DATE the first applicant objected to the indictment arguing , inter alia , that she had not been given the opportunity to consult the case file and prepare her defence . On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of the trial court dismissed the objection , holding that on CARDINAL and DATE the first applicant had inspected the case file .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer requested permission to copy some documents from the case file . According to a handwritten note on the application , his request had been allowed upon payment of the court fees . On DATE the court allowed Mr Lj . M. , a lawyer whom the first applicant \u2019s mother had in the meantime appointed to represent the first applicant , to consult the case file .","At a hearing held on DATE , the trial court heard the first applicant , who reaffirmed the deposition she had made before the investigating judge ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition , she stated that a certain PERSON ( a NORP forename ) , from GPE , whose surname , residence and all other contact details were unknown to her , had owed her money and had offered to provide her instead with paint from GPE . In DATE she had imported CARDINAL containers of paint from GPE , the first being shipped to GPE ) and the second to GPE , GPE . She denied having had any contract with the paint producer and exporter in GPE or with PERSON latter had told her that a certain GPE , who allegedly worked with him , could assist her in her dealings with the exporter in GPE . J. also had given her the contact details of a buyer in GPE regarding paint from a third container ( the subject of the proceedings ) and the telephone numbers of GPE and GPE in GPE , whom she had called regarding the cargo concerned . ( When contacting PERSON , the first applicant had introduced herself by name as the owner of company PERSON , saying that she was calling upon instructions from a certain PERSON ) . She reiterated that she had hired the second applicant to transport the paint from GPE to GPE , had handed over the necessary documentation to him , and had provided him with the contact details of GPE and GPE in GPE . She also confirmed that around that time she had talked with the second applicant many times on the telephone . Lastly , she denied that she had discussed any drugs - related matter with him or any other person .","On DATE Mr Lj . PERSON requested a copy of certain material evidence , which was allowed on DATE .","At a hearing on DATE , the second applicant stated that at the meeting with the first applicant on DATE , they had agreed that he would transport the paint from GPE to GPE , for which he had been paid ORG CARDINAL . On DATE he had arrived in Bar and had contacted ORG , the LOC forwarding agent , and after the cargo had been loaded onto the truck , he had left for Pec , where the truck had been searched twice using police dogs . The truck had remained at the Pec customs terminal for DATE ( TIME the second applicant had remained in the truck ; TIME , he had stayed in a nearby hotel ) . The second applicant had arrived at GPE border crossing at TIME . on DATE and the truck had remained at customs terminal TIME ; the second applicant had spent TIME at home and had returned to the terminal at TIME . TIME . On DATE the truck had been searched and the cans had been examined in a special X - ray van .","At hearings on CARDINAL and DATE held in the presence of the applicants and their representatives , the trial court decided to hear oral evidence from ORG and ORG , the experts employed in the ORG who had drawn up the reports of CARDINAL and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It also accepted a request from the public prosecutor that witnesses GPE and GPE ( who worked at LOC ) from GPE produce oral evidence at the next hearing fixed for DATE or , if prevented , give evidence before a competent court in GPE ( in the latter case , transcripts of their depositions would be read out at the trial ) . The applicants did not object . The trial court requested that ORG deliver a court summons to GPE and PERSON for the hearing scheduled for DATE . It also attached a letter ( \u0437\u0430\u043c\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) requesting the competent court in GPE , GPE to examine the witnesses should they be prevented from attending the hearing of DATE . The letter contained CARDINAL questions formulated by the trial judge which the court in GPE was asked to put to the witnesses . When there was no reply , the trial court reiterated its request in letters dated PERSON and DATE and sent to ORG .","On DATE an investigating judge from ORG examined N.V. The relevant parts of the court record of her examination read as follows :","\u201c ... I remember that DATE , L.S \u2012 who works at ORG \u2012 called in order to ask me to send a container to GPE for a friend of hers ... PERSON gave my telephone number to certain PERSON . PERSON called me and introduced herself as working for ( the first applicant \u2019s ) company . She asked me to prepare documentation so that the container would be transported to GPE , to GPE instead of to GPE ... I do not know [ the applicants ] . I did not see [ the second applicant ] when he arrived in GPE . I just sat in the office and spoke by telephone and I knew about him because he called to tell me that he would come to the office to provide some documentation for the goods , which he did not give to me , but to my colleague PERSON ... \u201d","On DATE ORG forwarded the transcript of ORG statement to ORG of the respondent ORG .","On DATE the investigating judge of ORG examined PERSON The relevant parts of her statement ( which was sent on DATE to ORG of the respondent State ) read as follows :","\u201c ... on DATE I received a telephone call from ORG ( from GPE ) ... in order to give him the contact details of a person working for a company , GPE , that handled containers ... I called LOC ] and told her that a friend had asked me for information regarding this matter ... TIME after this discussion with N.[V. ] , I received a telephone call from certain GPE ... who told me that the container belonged to her and that it should not go to GPE , but to GPE , so she needed a forwarding agent ... on DATE I travelled to GPE , GPE ... While I was in GPE , I received a telephone call from a man who spoke LANGUAGE and who introduced himself as PERSON ( a NORP name ) ... telling me that the container which needed to be taken to ORG belonged to him ... on DATE a man who introduced himself as PERSON called me and said that he was a driver and that he had come in order to collect the goods in that container ... I called GPE and told her that the driver had arrived . N.[V. ] told me that the driver should go to the car park at FAC . When PERSON called me , I told him what GPE had said and gave him her number ... on DATE P. called again and told me that the driver needed some documents ... I stress that I had nothing to do with the transportation or contents of that container , nor I could envisage what was inside . Later , I heard on the media that it concerned a shipment of paint and the documents that I saw referred to some paint ... I did not see or speak with [ the applicants ] ... I do not know if ( the man called ) PERSON whom I mentioned as a driver in this story is [ the second applicant ] about whom you ask me ... \u201d","Both witnesses gave their evidence under oath and were warned of the consequences of false testimony .","On DATE , in the presence of the applicants and their representatives , the court heard evidence from the experts ORG and PERSON , a superior expert in the ORG who had also been involved in drawing up the expert reports ( ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The expert ORG could not attend the hearing since she had gone on a business trip to GPE . Both experts were warned about legal consequences of false testimony . PERSON stated , inter alia , that :","\u201c ... the cocaine examined is pure cocaine ... the net weight ... was not established . ... after cocaine had been discovered , I went with my colleague PERSON to the FAC border crossing in order to carry out an initial examination so as to determine what was involved . The drugs were brought to our laboratory ... At GPE border crossing , ( we ) cut open the packages and took a small quantity ... which was sufficient to determine the nature of the substance ... that happened at the border crossing , where several packages were opened ; that is a standard procedure ... In the laboratory , the packages were brought in , as far as I remember , in paper bags , but I \u2019m not sure .","On DATE ... the drugs were brought ( into the laboratory ) ... It was TIME . ... On DATE packages were brought into the laboratory . For a larger quantity of drugs , in principle , ( we apply ) the ORG recommendations ... In the present case , we examined the square root of the total number ( of packages ) which was in compliance with these recommendations . Of the additional QUANTITY packages , we examined every third package because it concerned a smaller quantity compared to packages received on DATE ... The laboratory is accredited by ORG for drug analysis and is regarded as reliable . The laboratory is not accredited for ORG standards . [ The latter ] is a formal issue and it concerns a long and expensive procedure , but [ that ] does not mean that in terms of technique , equipment and means of work , there are any shortcomings ...","The cocaine we analysed is the biggest quantity so far examined ... As provided for in the ORG recommendations , if ( there are no more than ) QUANTITY packages , then all ( the packages ) are examined ; if ( there are ) CARDINAL packages , then every tenth package is examined ; if ( there are ) CARDINAL packages , the quantity to be analysed is the number calculated to be a square root of all the packages ... \u201d","The expert ORG stated , inter alia , that :","\u201c ... When preparing the expert report , all packages had been analysed using colour tests ; CARDINAL packages , which were randomly selected from the total of CARDINAL packages in accordance with the ORG recommendations , were analysed by means of ... ( methods of analysis ) ... The packages were brought into the laboratory for examination in CARDINAL black plastic bags ... When we arrived at GPE border crossing , the packages were lined up at the roadside ; they were covered with polycolor ; we took samples for analysis from several packages ... \u201d","The applicants objected to both the experts\u2019 statements and the expert reports , arguing that they had been drawn up by ORG , the same body that had instituted the proceedings against them .","The hearing continued on CARDINAL DATE when \u201c an employee from the court archives department entered ( the court room ) \u201d and handed the trial judge the transcripts of the statements GPE and PERSON had given before ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) , translated into NORP . The trial judge noted that GPE and PERSON had been prevented from attending the scheduled hearing due to \u201c other obligations \u201d and \u201c a trip to GPE \u201d respectively . Therefore , she proceeded to read out the ORG statements . She also ordered that the ORG supplement the expert reports ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL with information regarding the drug \u2019s net weight ( \u0434\u043e\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0432\u0435\u0448\u0442\u0430\u0447\u0435\u045a\u0435\u0442\u043e ) .","On DATE , outside the hearing ( \u0432\u043e\u043d \u0440\u043e\u0447\u0438\u0448\u0442\u0435 ) , the trial court ordered the ORG to draw up a fresh expert report regarding the quality and quantity of the substance found in the cans . The order was communicated to the parties .","On DATE PERSON and ORG , the experts employed by ORG , drew up a fresh expert report ( no . DATE ) , the relevant parts of which read as follows :","\u201c In order to determine the nature of the substance and in accordance with the recommendations of PERSON ( ORG ) and ORG ) regarding the analysis of multiple samples , CARDINAL randomly - chosen packages ... were analysed ... out of the total number of packages ( CARDINAL ) ...","The net weight of the material taken from the analysed packages was QUANTITY ...","On the basis of the analysis made , it is confirmed that the analysed material taken from the packages was cocaine . This confirms the earlier findings ... specified in the expert reports nos.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL and DATE , respectively .","The total net weight of seized packages ( CARDINAL ) was established ( on the basis of ENFSI recommendations ) by means of a mathematical and statistical methodology ... On the basis of the calculations done , it is concluded that the total net weight of the substance ( found ) in the packages was PERSON QUANTITY . \u201d","Expert report no . DATE was presented at a hearing dated DATE in the presence of the applicants and their representatives . Evidence from the experts PERSON and ORG was also heard . PERSON stated , inter alia , that :","\u201c ... [ the ORG ] is the only accredited and reliable laboratory in GPE competent to analyse seized drugs . We are authorised by ORG and we apply its recommendations ... Since DATE , when we started work , the central laboratory in GPE has never voiced any complaints about our analyses ...","In the present case , which concerned CARDINAL packages , namely CARDINAL , after we had determined the square root of CARDINAL , which is CARDINAL , we analysed CARDINAL packages , which were chosen at random . I stress that these QUANTITY packages were analysed fully using all the methods specified in the recommendations . That does not mean that some of the packages were not analysed at all . Regarding expert reports nos.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , all CARDINAL packages were analysed using so - called speedy methods in order to determine the substance . Then , certain packages that were randomly chosen and were fully analysed using all methods ...","Asked by the judge whether in the preparation of the expert report commissioned by the court the expert had received any instructions from anyone , including their superior , she replied :","\u2018 I drew up the expert report commissioned by the court , as well as the earlier reports , in good faith and according to my best knowledge . [ The ORG ] operates within ORG , but it is independent in its work . In my career , no superior has ever influenced any expert examination nor would I accept anything of that kind ... \u2019 \u201d","O.B. concurred with PERSON The applicants did not object to the expert report and the experts\u2019 statements but they complained that a prosecuting body , such as ORG was in this case , could not carry out an expert examination of the substance , which anyway should have been examined in its entirety ( the results could not be based on an analysis carried out on randomly chosen samples ) . The applicants contested PERSON \u2019s argument that the ORG was independent and was the only accredited laboratory for such an examination . In this connection they requested that the court commission an alternative expert report by an independent expert body , national or foreign .","As to the applicants\u2019 objections regarding the expert evidence , the trial court stated :","\u201c ... [ The applicants\u2019 ] request for an alternative expert examination of the quality and quantity of seized packages by an independent institution is not allowed since the expert evidence adduced by the court was produced by ORG ; in accordance with LAW , an expert report may be drawn up by a State body ; in more complex cases , such as the present one , such expert examination is entrusted , in principle , to a State body . Expert report no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE was drawn up by [ the ORG ] on the basis of a prior court order .","The request ... for a complete analysis of all seized packages is refused since ... some of the packages had been handed over to the experts ( for examination ) , as provided for in the ORG and PERSON recommendations ... \u201d","On DATE the trial court accepted the applicants\u2019 request for an on - site inspection of the ( CARDINAL ) packages ( kept in a special department of the trial court ) examined by the ORG \u2019s experts and the subject matter of expert report no . CARDINAL . The inspection was carried out in the presence of the applicants and their representatives . As indicated in the court record of that date , there were CARDINAL paper bags . In each bag there were QUANTITY packages containing white powder ( \u0431\u0435\u043b\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0448\u043a\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u043c\u0430\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430 ) . Since \u201c some packages ... were of dimmer and ( others ) of brighter white colour ( \u0441\u043e \u043d\u0438\u0458\u0430\u043d\u0441\u0438 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0442\u0435\u043c\u043d\u0430 \u0438 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0432\u0435\u0442\u043b\u0430 \u0431\u043e\u0458\u0430 ) \u201d , the ORG representatives argued that \u201c the drugs were not of the same quality , that is to say of the same pureness . \u201d","At a hearing dated DATE , the parties presented their concluding remarks . The public prosecutor specified the indicted offence , accusing the applicants of having participated , as a group , in the unauthorised transportation of QUANTITY of cocaine . The applicants\u2019 lawyers reiterated that the expert evidence had been produced by the ORG , which had operated within ORG , as a prosecuting body and that the third expert report that had been commissioned by the court had been of no relevance since it had been produced by the same experts who had been involved in the earlier expert examinations . They also complained that the expert evidence admitted had been inconsistent regarding the quantity of drugs seized ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and the type of paint in which the packages had been submerged ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Furthermore , according to this evidence , the substance found had been pure cocaine , which , according to them , was impossible . They also contested that the statements of the witnesses ( GPE and GPE ) examined in GPE had been obtained in violation of their defence rights .","On DATE the trial court delivered a judgment in which it found the applicants guilty of drug trafficking , an offence punishable under Article CARDINAL ) in conjunction with sub - paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and sentenced them to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The operative part of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c ... on an unspecified date before DATE , [ the applicants ] ( acting ) as a group ( \u043a\u0430\u043a\u043e \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0435\u045c\u0435 \u043b\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) , were participants in the unauthorised transportation of a shipment of narcotic drugs \u2013 cocaine ( \u043d\u0435\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043d\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0435\u043d\u0435\u0441\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043d\u0430\u0440\u043a\u043e\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043d\u0430 \u0434\u0440\u043e\u0433\u0430-\u043a\u043e\u043a\u0430\u0438\u043d ) . After [ the first applicant ] had contacted persons of unknown identity who intended to transport drugs from GPE , ( she ) had agreed with them to transfer the drugs to GPE ... on DATE ( she ) contacted [ the second applicant ] in order to arrange with him the transport of the drugs from [ GPE ] to [ GPE ] ... paid him ORG CARDINAL [ and provided him with the necessary supporting documentation ] . On DATE [ the second applicant ] drove a truck ... to [ GPE ] . On DATE , CARDINAL plastic cans of acrylic paint were loaded onto [ the truck ] . Cocaine was planted in some of them ... [ He ] drove through GPE towards GPE and GPE ... At TIME on DATE he arrived at the FAC border crossing ( on the GPE - GPE border ) . On TIME CARDINAL DATE , during a routine inspection by ORG , which continued on DATE , CARDINAL packages of cocaine were discovered in CARDINAL cans containing acrylic paint . The total weight of the drugs was QUANTITY . \u201d","The judgment , which runs to CARDINAL pages , was based on the following evidence : the applicants\u2019 statements ; statements from CARDINAL witnesses for the second applicant ( including his wife and father , who confirmed that he had spent TIME DATE at home and had returned TIME to GPE customs terminal ) ; statements from CARDINAL customs officials who searched the truck at the customs terminal ; the statements given by the experts PERSON and ORG ; the statements of witnesses PERSON and GPE who were questioned by the investigating judge of ORG ; and a considerable amount of material evidence , including expert reports ORG . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and DATE , and a detailed list of calls made from the applicants\u2019 mobile phones .","NORP In addition to the facts indicated above ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the trial court also established that the second applicant had arrived in GPE on DATE ; that he had called GPE regarding the shipment ; that on DATE the cans had been loaded onto his truck and he had left for GPE ; that he had spent TIME in the truck at Pec customs terminal ; that on DATE the truck had been searched ( using police dogs ) at that terminal ; that on TIME the truck had remained at the terminal and the second applicant had spent TIME in a hotel ; that he had returned to the terminal on DATE ; and that at TIME . DATE he had left , escorted by GPE customs , for the GPE border crossing , where he had arrived at TIME . on DATE . The truck had remained at the customs terminal TIME and the second applicant had spent TIME at home . At TIME . on DATE he had come back to the terminal , where the truck had been searched and drugs had been found with the assistance of an X - ray van . On the basis of a detailed list of telephone calls , the court established that there had been intense communication between the applicants DATE and DATE ( the first applicant had called the second applicant CARDINAL times , and he had called her CARDINAL times ) , and that they had telephoned GPE and L.S. Furthermore , the NORP company specified in the freight documentation as the recipient of the paint did not exist according to NORP official records .","The court referred to the expert reports and considered the experts\u2019 statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) on the basis of which it established the relevant facts regarding the quality and quantity of the drugs found . It further reiterated the reasons for which it had refused the applicants\u2019 requests for an alternative expert examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The trial court presented an outline of the statements made by ORG and stated , inter alia , that :","\u201c ... The court fully accepts the statements of witnesses GPE and GPE .... The statements of these witnesses were obtained on the basis of a request ( addressed to the GPE \u2019s authorities ) ( \u043f\u043e \u043f\u0430\u0442 \u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u043c\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) issued after a prior decision made on record at the trial . The parties and [ the applicants\u2019 ] representatives had no comment ( about that decision ) [ nor ] had they voiced any objection when these statements were read at the trial . They did not make any suggestions regarding these statements ... \u201d","As to the second applicant , the trial court stated , inter alia , that :","\u201c ... The court assessed [ the second applicant \u2019s ] defence that he had not entered into an agreement with [ the first applicant ] to transport drugs ... , but rather that the agreement concerned the transportation of acrylic paint ... that drugs had never been mentioned in their discussions , that the freight documents referred only to acrylic paint ... that during the transport , he had spoken CARDINAL times by telephone with [ the first applicant ] . The court did not accept the defence of the accused since it was contrary to his actions and the admitted evidence in support of the indictment ... [ The second applicant ] does not deny that by having transported the paint , he also transported the cocaine ... The court can not accept [ his ] defence that he did not know that there was cocaine in the cans because it is not supported by any evidence and it is contrary to his actions \u2012 he transported the drugs from Bar to the NORP border and ( contrary ) to admitted evidence \u2013 cocaine found in the cans , which was noted in the certificate of temporary seized objects ... signed by [ the second applicant ] who did not contest the signature and the confiscation of the cocaine at any stage of the proceedings ... \u201d","The applicants appealed against the trial court \u2019s judgment . They reiterated that the experts had not been independent ( given that the ORG had operated within ORG ) and in this respect they referred to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the LOC case ( see LOC v. the former GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . The first applicant further alleged that the trial court had refused her request for an alternative expert examination , notwithstanding that ORG \u0418\u043d\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0443\u0442 \u0437\u0430 PERSON was also authorised to conduct such an analysis , that the trial court had not explained the discrepancy between the gross and net weight of the drugs found , and that the court had accepted that the packages containing the drugs had been submerged in acrylic paint , which contradicted the experts\u2019 findings regarding the type of the paint involved ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She also complained that she had not been allowed to consult the case file during the investigation , which had affected her ability effectively to prepare her defence . Furthermore , her defence rights had been unjustifiably restricted since she had not been given the opportunity to attend the examination of witnesses PERSON and GPE before ORG . In this respect she alleged that she had not been informed of the questions put to these witnesses by the trial court . The second applicant complained that there had been no evidence that he had concluded an agreement ( with the first applicant ) and , in particular , that he had known that he was transporting drugs . In the absence of any evidence confirming his intention to transport drugs , no criminal liability could be attributed to him .","On DATE ORG held a public session at which , in presence of the applicants and their representatives , it dismissed the appeals and upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment . As to the first applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the requests she had made in the pre - trial proceedings to consult the case file , the court stated :","\u201c ... On CARDINAL DATE [ the first applicant ] , in the presence of her lawyer , was informed about the charges against her ... ( and ) that she was not obliged to answer the questions and present her defence , but she stated that she would give a statement in any case after the available evidence had been presented to her ... On DATE she gave a statement in the presence of her representative ; the questioning continued on CARDINAL DATE . [ On both the occasions ] on which she gave a statement before the investigating judge , she had had the time and the facilities to prepare her defence and the possibility of communicating with her legal representative ...","Under section CARDINAL of LAW , the accused is entitled to consult the case file and ... the evidence after being questioned . In the present case ... it is clear that the trial court did not violate the accused \u2019s right of defence ...","... regarding the alleged violation of LAW ... it is evident that after the investigating judge had questioned [ the first applicant ] ... [ she ] gave a detailed statement which was duly noted in the court record and which she had read and signed ...","... The lawyer requested and was given access to the file before he objected to the indictment ... Moreover , the trial court established all the relevant facts at the trial ... \u201d","As regards the expert evidence , the court established that all the expert reports admitted as evidence had confirmed that the substance found in the cans had been cocaine ; in the statement of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON had confirmed that all CARDINAL packages had been examined using so - called \u201c speedy methods \u201d and randomly - chosen packages had then been fully analysed ; the quantity of the drugs had been established on the basis of ENFSI recommendations . The court further dismissed the ORG complaints about the alleged lack of independence of the experts , finding that the expert examination ( no . DATE ) had been ordered by the court , that the expert findings had not been called into doubt , and that they had been confirmed at the hearing by the experts , who had been warned about the consequences of false testimony . Lastly , the court held that a copy of expert report no . DATE had been served on the applicants and they had been provided with a reasonable opportunity to challenge it .","As regards the witness evidence produced by ORG in GPE , the court held that they had been heard in response to the request by the trial court made at the hearing dated DATE ; the applicants and their representatives , who had attended that hearing , had not objected , nor had they sought to attend the questioning of these witnesses ; the ORG statements had been read out at the trial and the applicants had not objected to them . The court concluded that this evidence had therefore been accordingly lawfully obtained .","As to the second applicant \u2019s complaint that he had not known that he was transporting drugs , the court stated :","\u201c ... such an allegation is contrary to the established facts based on admitted evidence concerning the actions taken by [ the second applicant ] and his criminal liability ... the court does not accept [ his ] allegations because on the basis of all evidence admitted at the trial , [ the trial ] court correctly established the relevant facts concerning the actions taken by [ the second applicant ] ... ( these ) allegations were assessed by [ the trial ] court ... ( which ) gave reasonable grounds why it did not give credence to them ... it was established beyond any doubt that drugs \u2012 cocaine \u2012 had been found in some paint - cans transported by the vehicle driven by [ the second applicant ] . \u201d","The court further noted that :","\u201c ... the large quantity of drugs , the way they were procured and transported , and the actions taken by the accused , suggest that the cocaine was transported for the purpose of selling it and not for any other purpose ...","On the basis of the admitted evidence , the analysis and assessment thereof , ( and ) the accused \u2019s behaviour before they reached agreement concerning the shipment , the fact that they communicated between themselves , during the shipment , that is to say before , during and after the crime ... it can be concluded that the accused knew and were aware of their actions , including the crime that they had committed ... In this connection , according to this court , there is no logical economic reason to import acrylic paint from GPE , given the fact that transport costs from GPE to the ( final ) destination ... would be higher than its value . It can be inferred from this that the accused knew that it was about the transportation of drugs and not of acrylic paint . Having also in mind the intensity of contacts between the accused , and the contacts with the witnesses PERSON and GPE in GPE , ... together with the fact that [ the first applicant ] provided [ the second applicant ] with written documentation ... issued by her company PERSON , stipulating that the cargo should be transported to GPE to company S. \u2012 which , on the basis of the available evidence , does not exist \u2012 it becomes clear that [ the applicants ] knew and were aware of their unlawful actions and the crime committed ... \u201d","The applicants lodged requests before ORG for extraordinary review of the final judgment ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u043e\u043d\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0438\u0441\u043f\u0438\u0442\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0441\u0438\u043b\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430 ) . They reiterated the allegations of violation of their defence rights , in particular , concerning the expert evidence , examination of witnesses PERSON and GPE and lack of reasoning . In this latter context the second applicant reiterated that there had been no evidence showing that he had known that he was transporting drugs hidden in hermetically closed cans . His telephone contacts with the first applicant and GPE and the court \u2019s conclusion regarding the economic rationale for importing paint from GPE were not conclusive given the fact that he was the driver whom the first applicant had engaged to transport the paint from GPE to GPE . The first applicant complained that it had not been established ( or indicated in the operative part of the trial court \u2019s judgment ) that the drugs had been transported for the purpose of selling them . She also complained that her defence rights had been violated in the investigation .","On DATE ORG upheld the established facts and dismissed the ORG requests for the same reasons given by ORG . In this connection it stated , inter alia , that :","\u201c On the basis of all admitted evidence , the intensity of telephone contacts between the accused , as well as contacts with witnesses PERSON and GPE , the accused \u2019s behaviour before they reached agreement concerning the shipment , the intensive and multiple contacts between themselves during the shipment , when the crime had been committed and after it had been discovered , the trial court correctly concluded that the accused knew and were aware of their actions regarding the unlawful transport of drugs . \u201d","ORG further added :","\u201c ... As to the allegations raised in the requests that the expression \u201c for the purpose of selling ( \u0437\u0430\u0440\u0430\u0434\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0436\u0431\u0430 ) \u201d is missing from the operative part of the trial court \u2019s judgment , the court considers that ( this omission ) does not render it defective , since that can be presumed ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u043b\u0435\u0433\u0443\u0432\u0430 ) in view of the actions undertaken by [ the applicants ] when committing the criminal offence ... From the description of [ the applicants\u2019 ] actions there is no doubt that drugs were transported for the purpose of selling and that such a large quantity of drugs , namely pure cocaine , can not be for [ the applicants\u2019 ] personal use . Even more , it endangers the life and health of CARDINAL of people on the planet . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-176762","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BAYRAM KO\u00c7 v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation .","On DATE his statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer . The applicant confessed to being a member of an illegal organisation . He gave a detailed account of its structure and his acts within the illegal organisation . On DATE the applicant was heard by a public prosecutor and an investigating judge respectively . In these statements to the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , he denied his police statements and argued that they had been taken under duress . Following his questioning , the investigating judge ordered that the applicant be held on remand .","On DATE a public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with that court , charging the applicant under LAW of the former LAW .","State Security Courts were later abolished by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , and the case was transferred to ORG .","On DATE ORG found that , inter alia , on the basis of the applicant \u2019s statements to the police , the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , the applicant had committed the offence under LAW of LAW and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against the judgment , arguing that the applicant had been convicted on the basis of statements taken under duress .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157967","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LUNEV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . According to the most recently available information , in DATE the applicant was placed by a court under house arrest in the town of GPE , GPE . The applicant has not informed ORG of his current whereabouts .","In DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking .","On DATE the applicant was placed in the Starobilsk Pre - Trial Detention Centre ( \u0421\u0442\u0430\u0440\u043e\u0431\u0456\u043b\u044c\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0441\u043b\u0456\u0434\u0447\u0438\u0439 \u0456\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 ) ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) . On arrival the applicant was examined by a general practitioner , a psychiatrist , a dentist , a tuberculosis specialist and a dermatologist . According to the Government , the applicant was diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus ( \u201c HIV \u201d ) ( clinical stage CARDINAL ) , chronic bronchitis , toxic encephalopathy and neuropathy caused by prolonged use of drugs , and tuberculosis residual changes . At that time the applicant \u2019s weight was QUANTITY . The applicant is QUANTITY tall .","According to the ORG , on DATE the applicant was offered a CDCARDINAL + cell count , which he refused . The case - file material includes a written note dated DATE that the applicant refused \u201c a blood test \u201d . It is signed by a member of staff of the GPE medical unit .","According to the ORG , DATE and DATE the applicant did not ask for any medical assistance in the GPE . However , it appears from the applicant \u2019s medical file that in DATE he was examined by a tuberculosis specialist and underwent an QUANTITY - ray . According to the medical records provided by the Government , in DATE , while briefly detained in a different temporary detention facility , the applicant had bronchitis and complained of kidney pain .","On DATE , following the applicant \u2019s complaint of a cough and a fever , he was diagnosed with chronic bronchitis and was prescribed treatment .","On DATE the applicant was found unconscious in his cell .","On DATE the Head of the GPE requested ORG to accelerate the proceedings in the applicant \u2019s case or to release him on an undertaking not to abscond , since the applicant needed urgent medical treatment in a specialised hospital .","On DATE the above court decided that the applicant should remain in pre - trial detention but should be placed either in a specialised prison hospital or in a civilian hospital .","According to a medical certificate , CARDINAL the applicant was in hospital . He was diagnosed with acute serose meningoencephalitis . It was noted that the applicant was \u201c in a soporose state \u201d .","On DATE the applicant was returned to the GPE , where he stayed in the medical unit until DATE . During this period the applicant was also an inmate at least once in FAC ( \u201c FAC ) ( FAC \u0456\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u0442\u0438\u043c\u0447\u0430\u0441\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0442\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f ) .","On DATE the applicant requested under Rule CARDINAL of ORG that the respondent Government be asked to place him in a hospital . It was argued that the applicant needed additional examination , in particular by a psychiatrist , in order to be prescribed anti - retroviral therapy ( \u201c the ART \u201d ) , and for the stage of his tuberculosis to be correctly determined and for appropriate treatment to be prescribed , as well for him to be provided with adequate medical assistance in respect of the epilepsy from which the applicant allegedly suffered .","According to the applicant \u2019s lawyer , PERSON , at DATE she received a call from an unknown man who presented himself as an employee of a prosecutor \u2019s office . The person wanted to know whether PERSON indeed represented the applicant and whether the applicant had lodged an application to ORG . PERSON replied positively to both questions .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0456\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0435 \u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0447\u043d\u0435 ORG ) informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that since DATE the applicant had been registered as receiving regular medical examinations by a doctor of the \u201c Trust \u201d practice based in GPE . He was diagnosed as HIV - positive ( clinical stage CARDINAL ) , with chronic bronchitis and toxic encephalopathy . On DATE his CDCARDINAL + cell count was CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) . The applicant refused treatment despite the deterioration of his condition . In DATE he was diagnosed as HIV - positive at clinical stage CARDINAL . The applicant did not take ORG , as he had refused the relevant examination . On DATE the same information was submitted to the GPE .","The Government submitted that DATE and DATE the applicant had received treatment for acute serous cerebromeningitis . Moreover , on CARDINAL DATE he was X - rayed and seen by a tuberculosis specialist . Following the results of those examinations the applicant was diagnosed with residual changes in the right lung as a result of tuberculosis from which he had already recovered . There was no need for anti - tuberculosis treatment .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a neuropathologist . He was diagnosed with HIV ( clinical stage CARDINAL ) and toxic encephalopathy .","On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment for drug trafficking .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s CDCARDINAL + cell count was performed with a result of CARDINAL cells ( PERCENT ) .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Government informed the ORG that there was no need for the applicant to be hospitalised .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an infectious diseases specialist and diagnosed with HIV ( clinical stage CARDINAL ) , chronic bronchitis , residual effects of tuberculosis , and toxic encephalopathy . ART was recommended . On DATE ORG approved the applicant \u2019s admission to ORG . CARDINAL Hospital ( \u043b\u0456\u043a\u0430\u0440\u043d\u044f \u043f\u0440\u0438 \u041b\u0443\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u0441\u043b\u0456\u0434\u0447\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u0456\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0456 \u2116 DATE ) .","The applicant was in that hospital CARDINAL DATE . In addition to the above diagnosis the applicant was diagnosed with weight loss of PERCENT and chronic hepatitis C. The applicant underwent a full blood count , biochemical blood test , sputum and urine test , X - ray and ultrasonography . The applicant was given medication . On discharge a CDCARDINAL + count was recommended , among other things .","On DATE the ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request under Rule CARDINAL of ORG .","The applicant was also in ORG DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE . On DATE he had a CDCARDINAL + cell count with a result of PERCENT , or CARDINAL cells . On DATE ART was prescribed for the applicant .","On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE in the criminal case against the applicant and remitted the case for a fresh court consideration .","On an unknown date the applicant \u2019s lawyer applied to the local court for the applicant \u2019s release , stating that DATE and DATE the applicant had received no medical treatment . After DATE the applicant was in hospital for some time , but was not now receiving in - patient care .","On DATE the ORG released the applicant and placed him under house arrest . The court noted that the case - file materials contained enough evidence to satisfy the applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s request . The court further noted that the applicant required medical treatment which he could not receive in detention .","On DATE the applicant was placed in FAC for the duration of the consideration of his case by the court .","At TIME on DATE an ambulance was called for the applicant as he had acute pain in the liver . The applicant was examined and it was recommended that he see a gastroenterologist . The applicant was then taken to ORG and brought back to the ORG at TIME","According to the applicant , at TIME he was beaten up in the ORG by CARDINAL policemen allegedly from the regional police office . They told him to write that the GPE had provided him with adequate medical treatment . CARDINAL of the police officers hit the applicant CARDINAL or CARDINAL times in the liver and the other hit him CARDINAL times in the kidneys . After that the applicant wrote the statement requested .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer , PERSON , complained about this matter at a court hearing . An ambulance was called for the applicant and he was diagnosed with a \u201c possible blunt abdominal trauma \u201d . He was taken to hospital and examined by a surgeon . The latter noted that the applicant complained of pain in the upper abdomen and weakness , but upon examination the applicant \u2019s abdomen was \u201c soft and pain - free \u201d . It was concluded that there was no \u201c acute surgical pathology \u201d and that the applicant could be detained in the ORG .","On DATE the applicant and his lawyer complained about the beatings to a prosecutor . The applicant stated that on DATE at TIME unknown policemen had visited him in the ORG . He was subjected to physical and psychological pressure and forced to withdraw his application about lack of adequate medical assistance . They also forced him to confess to a crime he was charged with .","In the course of the investigation the applicant further testified that on DATE at QUANTITY unknown policemen had questioned him in the ORG . When he refused to write that he had no complaints about the medical treatment in the GPE , the policemen hit him several times in the abdomen and kidneys . After that the applicant wrote that he had been provided with adequate medical assistance in the GPE , that he had no complaints , and that there had been no psychological or physical pressure . The policemen took a written statement from him and he was taken to the shower room and then back to his cell .","On DATE the forensic medical expert , having examined the medical conclusion of the surgeon of DATE and the testimonies of the same surgeon given during the investigation , concluded that \u201c when examined by a surgeon on DATE the applicant had no injuries \u201d .","On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings for absence of evidence of crime . Police officers and others present in the ORG on DATE gave a detailed description of what had happened there DATE and stated that nobody had beaten the applicant . In particular , at TIME the applicant complained that he wanted a different pillow . The applicant was guided to the room where the bedding was kept . The applicant spent TIME there but did not choose a pillow . Then he was guided to the room where personal belongings were kept because he wanted something from his bag . After that the applicant wanted to take a shower but was told that there was no hot water . Since he wanted to check this himself an ORG guard guided him to the shower . Later the applicant was placed back in his cell . The surgeon , who examined the applicant on DATE , testified that the applicant had been brought to him in order to check whether the applicant could be detained in the ORG . The applicant had no injuries . The prosecutor also referred to the conclusion of a forensic medical examination that the applicant had no injuries .","The applicant appealed against this decision to a court . On DATE the ORG quashed this decision . The court questioned the applicant and his cellmate , PERSON , and considered that the investigation had not been thorough , since the applicant \u2019s cellmates had not been questioned .","On DATE the ambulance station informed ORG that on DATE the applicant had been examined and diagnosed with \u201c blunt abdominal trauma \u201d . He had complained that he had been beaten up in detention . The applicant was taken to hospital for the diagnosis to be confirmed .","On DATE the proceedings were terminated for absence of evidence of crime . In addition to those previously questioned more evidence was added .","NORP In particular , in the course of the investigation the applicant \u2019s cellmate PERSON testified that on DATE the applicant had been taken out of the cell . He was absent for TIME . Upon return the applicant told him that CARDINAL unknown policemen had forced him to refuse medical treatment in the GPE . When the applicant refused to do so he was beaten . After that the applicant agreed to write that he did not need medical assistance . According to PERSON , the applicant had a red cheek and cheekbone as well as a swollen liver . The policeman who brought the applicant back to the cell allegedly said that CARDINAL of the officers was a certain So . from ORG . CARDINAL .","Another of the applicant \u2019s cellmate testified that when he arrived at the ORG he saw the applicant lying on the bed . The applicant told him that policemen had beaten him to force him to confess . The applicant \u2019s cellmate PERSON testified that he had been sleeping and knew nothing , while the applicant \u2019s cellmate PERSON refused to testify at all . A police officer , So . , was also questioned and testified that on DATE he had been at his work place . It was also noted that the surveillance system in the ORG was not working DATE and DATE .","On DATE the decision of DATE was quashed by ORG . It was noted without any further details that \u201c the decision to terminate criminal proceedings had been premature and unsubstantiated , and that a number of procedural steps had not been performed \u201d .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were again terminated for the absence of evidence of crime .","On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of DATE . The court found that after DATE an investigating officer had not properly looked into the applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s complaint . It was also not established why it was impossible to hold a confrontation between the applicant and the police officer So .","No further information about these proceedings was provided by the parties ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","34"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177228","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VILENCHIK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant and PERSON ( a NORP national ) were married in GPE .","On DATE their son , PERSON , was born there . The family lived in GPE . A GPE passport was issued in PERSON \u2019s name .","On DATE S. obtained permanent resident status in the GPE .","NORP In DATE the family arrived in GPE for a holiday and to visit PERSON \u2019s relatives .","On DATE the applicant returned alone to the GPE . The child stayed with LOC in GPE .","In DATE S. \u2019s GPE permanent resident card expired .","NORP In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before the LOC CARDINALth ORG ( \u201c the GPE ORG \u201d ) , seeking dissolution of the marriage and sole custody of LOC In the course of the proceedings PERSON agreed to the dissolution of marriage . She argued , however , that ORG did not have jurisdiction with regard to the issue of PERSON \u2019s custody pursuant to the GPE Statutes \u00a7 CARDINALD.CARDINAL because the child had been in GPE for a period of DATE .","In DATE the applicant spent DATE in GPE with PERSON","On DATE the applicant asked ORG of GPE to order the return of PERSON from GPE to the GPE in accordance with LAW of DATE on ORG ( \u201c LAW \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the GPE ORG dissolved the marriage between the applicant and S. The court reserved the issue of ORG \u2019s custody , finding that it did not have jurisdiction over that issue pursuant to GPE Statutes \u00a7 DATE .","On DATE the ORG of ORG of GPE issued a certificate declaring PERSON \u2019s citizenship of GPE pursuant to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Citizenship Act DATE .","On DATE the ORG of Justice , acting in the applicant \u2019s interests , lodged a claim with LOC of Chernihiv ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) , asserting that PERSON had been wrongfully retained in GPE and must be returned to the GPE in accordance with LAW .","The applicant submitted that he had expected PERSON to return from GPE to the GPE on DATE ; however , PERSON changed her plans and decided to stay on with PERSON in GPE after that date . During the hearings the applicant stated that he was prepared to cover travel expenses for both the child and the mother if the latter were to be ordered to accompany the child to the GPE .","S. objected and submitted that it was the applicant who had asked her to stay in GPE with the child beyond DATE . In that regard PERSON stated that on DATE the applicant had sent her CARDINAL parcels from GPE containing all her and PERSON \u2019s personal belongings , including toys and clothes . The applicant also sent her PERSON \u2019s vaccination certificate for his admission to a child - care centre in GPE . In DATE , despite the divorce action initiated by the applicant in the GPE , GPE agreed to spend a holiday with him and their son in GPE , trying to restore good relations . She further submitted that the applicant had arrived in GPE in DATE and stayed for a considerable period of time but had not attempted to meet up with the child . S. therefore alleged that there was no factual child abduction or unlawful retention which would necessitate a return order under LAW .","On DATE the NORP ORG found that PERSON had arrived in GPE with both GPE agreement , but that later the mother had retained the child in GPE without the father \u2019s consent . The court found that such retention was wrongful within the meaning of LAW and that the child should be returned to the country of his habitual residence , the GPE . No exceptions under LAW applied . Given the applicant \u2019s verbal assurances , the court considered that there were no objective obstacles to the mother \u2019s accompanying the child to the GPE and resolving the custody dispute before the courts of that country . In the operative part of the decision , the court ordered that PERSON should be returned to ORG to the father \u2019s home address in GPE \u2012 specifying that the child should be accompanied on the journey by both parents .","On DATE the Desnyansky ORG issued an additional decision stating that if the child were not returned voluntarily , S. would be ordered to transfer the child to the applicant at his home address in GPE .","S. appealed against those decisions , maintaining that there was no abduction or unlawful retention of the child and that , in any event , there were grounds to apply the exception provided by LAW b ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as regarded the risk of psychological harm to the child and his being placed in an intolerable situation .","On DATE ORG and Youth of ORG issued a certificate stating their psychiatrist \u2019s opinion that PERSON was \u201c well settled in GPE and , having regard to the strong bond between the child and the mother and the need to avoid causing the child psychological trauma , it would be inappropriate to remove the child to the other place of residence \u201d .","On DATE the ORG of Appeal ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) quashed the decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim as unsubstantiated . The court considered there was a grave risk that PERSON \u2019s return to the GPE would expose him to psychological harm or would otherwise place him in an intolerable situation , as provided in LAW ( b ) of LAW . In that regard ORG stated that PERSON was completely settled in his new environment , as he had been living in GPE since DATE . PERSON had always lived with the mother and there were close ties between them . There was no realistic possibility for the mother to accompany PERSON to the GPE and stay near him in that country . In addition , ORG noted that the applicant had not provided any information regarding his actual place of residence in the GPE , his current living conditions , or his level of income .","On DATE ORG of GPE for ORG ( \u201c the Cassation Court \u201d ) quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and upheld the Desnyansky ORG decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) , noting that they were well substantiated and had been adopted in compliance with the requirements of LAW . It found the submissions concerning the risk of exposing PERSON to psychological harm unconvincing .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution in respect of its decisions of DATE and DATE . On DATE PERSON \u2019s lawyer contacted ORG in GPE and enquired about applying for a GPE visa in the specific circumstances .","On DATE ORG instituted enforcement proceedings , resulting in the imposition of fines on S. for failure to comply with the return order .","In DATE S. submitted a request to ORG for review of the case on the grounds that LAW had been applied divergently in the cassation proceedings , resulting in inconsistent judicial practice . On DATE ORG declared the request admissible and referred the case to ORG .","On DATE ORG considered PERSON \u2019s request for review of ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the grounds of divergent application of the law by the cassation courts . Having examined the domestic judicial practice , ORG found that Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had been applied divergently . It set out the principles which had to be followed when interpreting and applying those provisions . As regards the present case , ORG found that the domestic courts had failed to apply the provisions properly . In particular , there had been no clear stance on the question of whether or not the removal or retention of the child had been wrongful , and \u2012 if that were the case \u2012 at what moment it started to be wrongful , nor as to whether or not the father had consented to or subsequently acquiesced as regards the child \u2019s retention , nor whether facts existed demonstrating that the child was settled in his current environment . ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .","On DATE the Cassation Court quashed ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on the grounds that ORG had breached procedural rules and had failed to establish all the relevant facts . The case was remitted to ORG .","On DATE ORG found that there was no dispute regarding removal of the child because the father had only complained about the wrongful retention of the child in GPE . ORG then considered the applicant \u2019s updated submissions , in which he no longer argued that the retention of the child had been wrongful as from DATE but rather as from DATE , which was the date when he had first expressed his disagreement with the child \u2019s retention in GPE . It was also established that in DATE the applicant had sent parcels to GPE containing the child \u2019s belongings .","As regards the period commencing on DATE , ORG considered that the applicant had continued to consent to the child \u2019s retention in GPE as there was no express objection on that point before the request was made under LAW . ORG found that on DATE the applicant \u2019s divorce claim was delivered to S. \u2019s representative . In that claim the applicant also sought to establish sole custody of the child ; however , that claim did not mean that the applicant disagreed with the child \u2019s ongoing stay in GPE . Moreover , in DATE , the applicant had spent DATE with PERSON in GPE and in DATE , after his return to the GPE , he had sent PERSON \u2019s vaccination certificate in order to facilitate PERSON \u2019s admission to a child - care centre in GPE . ORG concluded that in these circumstances the applicant enjoyed custody rights in relation to PERSON and that he had failed to demonstrate that those rights had been violated . For those reasons the child \u2019s retention in that period could not be considered wrongful within the meaning of LAW .","ORG next stated that , even assuming that there had been a wrongful retention of the child , the return request could be rejected under the provisions of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG examined the evidence relating to the child \u2019s place of residence in GPE , and the social and medical care provided to him in GPE , and found that PERSON was assured of all the conditions necessary for his proper development . Based on the evidence presented and having regard to the overall period during which the child had lived in GPE , ORG found that PERSON was entirely settled in his current environment . It also considered that PERSON \u2019s return to the GPE without his mother \u2013 who no longer had legal basis for entering and living in the GPE \u2013 would not be in the best interests of the child . ORG therefore quashed the Desnyansky ORG decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim as unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG dismissed appeals on points of law brought by the applicant and ORG and upheld the decision of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL above ) ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157670","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BEL","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BOUYID v. BELGIUM","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Alvina Gyulumyan;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus K\u016bris;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE - ten - Noode ( a district of the GPE - Capital region ) .","The applicants are brothers who live with their parents , their brother and CARDINAL sisters next to the local police station of FAC - ten - Noode . They both complained that they had been slapped in the face by police officers \u2013 which allegation is disputed by the Government \u2013 one on DATE and the other on DATE . They submitted that those events had taken place in the context of tense relations between their family and certain officers in the police station .","The applicants submitted that on DATE at TIME the first applicant had been standing with a friend in the street outside the door of the building where he lived with his family , and , since he had forgotten his keys , had been ringing the bell so that his parents would let him in , when a plain - clothes policeman , ORG , had asked him to present his identity card . The first applicant had refused to comply , asking the officer to show his credentials . The officer had then grabbed him by his jacket DATE tearing it \u2013 and taken him to the police station . The first applicant had been placed in a room and , while he was alone with ORG , the officer had slapped him in the face as he was protesting about his arrest .","The applicants provided a certificate issued at TIME on DATE by a general practitioner , attesting that the first applicant had been \u201c in a state of shock \u201d and had presented the following injuries : \u201c erythema on the left cheek ( disappearing ) \u201d and \u201c erythema on the left - side external auditory canal \u201d .","The Government submitted that , on account of the first applicant \u2019s refusal to show his identity card , officer ORG had had no choice but to take him to the police station for identification . The first applicant had then caused a scene , claiming to have suffered an injustice and been subjected to an unlawful identity check , and had insulted an officer who was telling him to calm down . He had been allowed to leave the police station once his identity had been verified and after being informed by ORG that a police report would be filed against him for forceful resistance to a public officer , abusive behaviour and verbal threats . He had returned to the police station TIME with his parents , accusing ORG of having struck him , but the officer had always denied this .","At TIME had lodged a criminal complaint against the first applicant , alleging forceful resistance to a public officer , abusive behaviour and verbal threats . The record drawn up on that occasion showed that ORG had notified his superiors of the events at TIME , and also one \u201c Superintendent K. \u201d .","The applicants indicated that on DATE , between CARDINAL TIME ( as shown by the record of the second applicant \u2019s questioning ) , while the second applicant was at FAC police station and officer PERSON was interviewing him about an altercation involving him and his mother together with a third party ( and about which the latter had filed a complaint ) , P.P. had slapped him in the face after asking him not to lean on his desk . He had then forced him to sign his statement by threatening to put him in a cell .","The applicants provided a medical certificate issued on DATE by a general practitioner , who observed \u201c bruising [ on the ] left cheek \u201d of the second applicant . The certificate did not specify the time at which it had been drawn up , although it must have been before TIME , the time at which it was presented to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The Government explained that the second applicant had been very arrogant during his interview : slouching in his chair , leaning casually on ORG desk , laughing without any reason and giving pithy answers to questions . He had also had his statement changed several times , saying that the police were paid to do that , and had threatened the officers on leaving by shouting that they would be hearing from him again . The Government emphasised that , in spite of the attitude shown by the second applicant , who had clearly been intent on conflict , P.P. had remained calm and patient .","In the applicants\u2019 submission , their family had been harassed by the Saint - Josse - CARDINAL - Noode police force . They stated that the problems had begun in DATE , when CARDINAL of the officers had suspected their brother PERSON of deliberately scratching his car . ORG had subsequently been charged with threatening the same officer and committing robberies , on which charges he had been acquitted by ORG on DATE . According to the applicants , the case against him had been entirely fabricated by members of the Saint - Josse - CARDINAL - Noode police by way of reprisal .","They added that on DATE the first applicant , then aged DATE , had been \u201c beaten \u201d by another police officer in the police station , where he had been taken following a fight in the street . He had sustained a perforated eardrum . His mother and CARDINAL of his sisters , who had been in the waiting room , had been shaken and manhandled by police officers .","On DATE CARDINAL of their sisters had been verbally abused by an officer of the Saint - Josse - CARDINAL - Noode police force , and on DATE their brother PERSON had been searched , jostled and verbally abused by police officers .","They further stated that in DATE a \u201c case ... initiated by the ORG - ten - Noode police force had been opened against ORG and entrusted to an investigating judge \u201d , but the proceedings had been discontinued . In DATE the second applicant had been \u201c wanted for questioning \u201d and even though the Saint - Josse - ten - Noode police had announced on DATE that he was being taken off the relevant \u201c wanted \u201d list , he had still had to make various applications to the prosecutor \u2019s office and wait until DATE for the process to be completed , causing him a great deal of inconvenience .","On DATE and DATE respectively , their brother PERSON and the second applicant had been verbally abused by officers of the FAC - ten - Noode police .","The applicants explained that they had systematically reported to the judicial authorities or police all the incidents of which they had been victims , and had filed complaints .","At TIME on DATE the first applicant filed a complaint with the standing committee for the oversight of police services ( known as \u201c ORG P \u201d ) and was interviewed by a member of the investigation department . A copy of the medical certificate drawn up DATE was appended to the initial record .","The second applicant followed suit at TIME on DATE . He indicated in particular that he considered that the \u201c general attitude of the LOC police vis - \u00e0 - vis [ his ] family [ had become ] absolutely intolerable and excessive to the point [ where they had envisaged ] moving house \u201d . A copy of the medical certificate drawn up DATE was appended to the initial record .","NORP The applicants\u2019 mother was also interviewed on DATE by the investigation department of ORG in relation to the second applicant \u2019s complaints . She pointed out that as soon as they had returned home she had called CARDINAL \u201c Superintendent K. \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to ask him to persuade PERSON to apologise . PERSON had immediately come to their house , where he had found himself in the company of the physician who had drawn up the medical certificate . The ORG mother also filed a complaint , indicating , moreover , that she herself had been treated with scant respect by officer P.P.","On DATE officer PERSON was interviewed by the director of internal oversight of the local police force in relation to the complaints by the second applicant and his mother . P.P. stated in particular that the second applicant had been particularly disrespectful towards him during his interview and that , although he had grabbed the youth by the arm to make him leave the office , he had not slapped him in the face .","On DATE the applicants applied to intervene as civil parties in respect of charges of harassment , arbitrary interference with fundamental freedoms , abuse of authority , arbitrary arrest and wounding with intent . They gave an overview of all their difficulties with the SaintJossetenNoode police , and expressly stated that they wished to intervene as civil parties in relation to the events of CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","Officers ORG and GPE were charged with using violence against individuals in the course of their duties and , in particular , with intentional wounding or assault , and with engaging in arbitrary acts in breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by LAW .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG of First Instance gave directions to the investigation department of Committee P asking it to take note of the applicants\u2019 civil - party application , interview them in order to ascertain the details of their complaint , draft a report on the conduct of the PERSON family , draw up a list of the cases brought against them and complaints filed by them and explain what action had been taken in that connection .","Having regard to the fact that it had already taken testimony from the applicants when they had filed their respective complaints ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , the investigation department of Committee P decided not to interview them again . On DATE it forwarded a report to the investigating judge , based on the documents from the internal oversight department of the police district covering GPE - ten - Noode , describing developments in the relations between the applicants\u2019 family and the local police force . The report then listed the cases against the family , noting in this connection that the first applicant had been implicated in proceedings opened in DATE for abusive and threatening behaviour and for obstructing a police officer , and ORG in CARDINAL sets of proceedings opened DATE . It then noted that , in addition to the ORG complaints at issue in the present case , CARDINAL judicial complaints had been filed by members of their family ( CARDINAL with ORG , in DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL with the \u201c ORG \u201d in DATE ) and CARDINAL complaints had been dealt with by the internal oversight department of the police district covering GPE - ten - Noode . Lastly , citing a report drawn up in the context of a case against the first applicant and the findings of administrative inquiries , it noted the problematic nature of the relations between the local police and the PERSON family and commented on the \u201c general behaviour \u201d of the latter , observing as follows :","\u201c In sum , according to the police officers , the PERSON family ( especially the women and the mother in particular ) apparently refuse to admit that the children of the family bear any responsibility for the abusive conduct in question . They are thus supported in their behaviour by this protective attitude . More generally , the family members are said to behave aggressively and provocatively towards the police .","Following the incidents involving police officer [ B. ] , a dialogue facilitator apparently failed in an attempt at reconciliation , owing to an intransigent attitude on the part of the women in the PERSON family .","In DATE and DATE the situation required the appointment of a police cadet as a mediator for this family . \u201d","On DATE the investigating judge decided to close the investigation and sent the file to the prosecuting authorities .","On DATE officer ORG was interviewed by a member of the investigation department of ORG about the events of DATE . He stated in particular that he had not previously known the first applicant when he had taken him to the FAC - ten - Noode police station that DATE .","In an application of CARDINAL DATE the ORG called for the discontinuance of the case on the ground that \u201c the judicial investigation [ had ] not established that the facts constituted a serious or petty offence and [ had ] not adduced any evidence that would justify the taking of further measures \u201d .","The applicants were informed that the case file would be finalised before ORG of ORG of First Instance on DATE . On DATE they sent an application to the investigating judge seeking CARDINAL additional investigative measures . That request resulted in the adjournment sine die of the case before ORG .","On DATE the investigating judge ordered CARDINAL of the requested measures and rejected the remainder of the application on the ground that it concerned facts that predated the events referred to him and that the measures sought were not necessary for establishing the truth . Consequently , recapitulating all their complaints against the LOC police force , the applicants and other members of their family sent the investigating judge a request for an \u201c extension of civil - party status \u201d , but it was rejected . The QUANTITY additional measures were performed on DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG , endorsing the grounds set out in the Crown Prosecutor \u2019s application , discontinued the proceedings .","The applicants appealed against that order .","In an application of CARDINAL DATE ORG requested that the discontinuance order be upheld .","On DATE the applicants and other members of their family filed a complaint as civil parties in respect of all the facts that the investigating judge had considered not to have been referred to him ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .","On DATE ORG of ORG , after refusing to join the case concerning the events of DATE and DATE to the new case that had been opened after the civil - party complaint of CARDINAL DATE , upheld the discontinuance order in a judgment that read as follows :","\u201c ...","The facts of the case can be summarised as follows :","\u2013 On DATE the defendant [ ORG ] is alleged to have engaged in illegal police conduct against ORG FAC , described by the latter as follows : police officer [ ORG ] , on stopping him outside his house , allegedly grabbed him by his jacket and tore it ; he was then taken to the police station close by , where the same officer allegedly slapped him on the face with his right hand .","\u2013 On DATE the defendant [ P.P. ] is alleged to have engaged in illegal police conduct against the civil party PERSON , described by the latter as follows : on stopping his car in front of his house so that his mother could take out her shopping , he had a row with the driver of the car behind ; he was summoned to the police station following a complaint by that driver ; during the interview , PERSON was allegedly slapped by the defendant [ P.P. ] ( see the medical certificate issued by PERSON ... ) , who threatened to put him in a cell if he did not sign his statement , when in fact he wanted to change it .","\u2013 The PERSON family have apparently encountered great difficulties with certain members of the Saint - Josse - ten - Noode police force since DATE , when police officer [ B. ] suspected FAC of having scratched his car , giving rise to a certain degree of tension and to persecution of this family by the police .","\u2013 There is said to be constant provocation on the part of the police of FAC - ten - Noode making the life of the PERSON family unbearable .","Both the police \u2019s internal oversight department for the police district [ concerned ] and the investigation department of ORG conducted an in - depth investigation into the facts complained of by the civil parties .","It transpires from all the findings of the judicial investigation , and in particular from the inconsistent statements of the parties in question , that there is no evidence against the defendants such as to justify their committal on the charges listed in the submissions of ORG , in respect of the period in which the offences were said to have been committed .","The statements of the defendants , who deny the charges , are consistent ; it is appropriate in this connection to refer to the detailed report concerning the general conduct of the civil parties\u2019 family drawn up by ORG , which sheds light on the general context of the case .","The civil parties have not adduced before the court , sitting as ORG , any new , relevant and convincing information not previously brought to the attention of the court below and capable of revealing the slightest evidence against the defendants that might justify their committal for trial .","Moreover , the judicial investigation did not bring to light sufficient evidence to show that a criminal offence had been committed by the defendants at the time of the incidents in which they were allegedly implicated .","In addition , it does not appear from the case file that the provisions of LAW of DATE have not been complied with .","As emphasised by the submissions of both LAW of DATE and those of ORG , and by the decision of ORG , the facts of the present case do not constitute a serious or petty criminal offence .","... \u201d","An appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants \u2013 relying in particular on Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention \u2013 was dismissed on DATE by ORG .","On DATE members of the PERSON family , including the CARDINAL applicants , had filed a civil - party complaint with an investigating judge of ORG of First Instance concerning all their accusations against the Saint - Josse - ten - Noode police officers , in particular relating to facts that predated the events of DATE and DATE .","The civil - party complaint led to the appearance of CARDINAL officers before ORG , hearing the case on the merits . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court declared that the prosecution of the relevant offences was time - barred . It does not appear from the file that an appeal was lodged against that judgment ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178341","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TURISHCHEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant brought civil proceedings against ORG of the Sakha ( GPE Republic ( \u201c the Administration \u201d ) , a private person PERSON , her husband PERSON , and a private company A. claiming a title to a flat , damages , and PERSON \u2019s eviction from the flat .","On DATE the ORG of the Sakha ( GPE Republic ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) refused to consider his action , because there already had been a decision of DATE taken by ORG concerning the same dispute .","On DATE ORG of the Sakha ( GPE Republic overruled the refusal and remitted the case for a new examination , as the action included a new co - defendant , and , therefore , it could not be said that the dispute was among the same parties .","On DATE ORG ordered eviction of S. and her family from the flat and dismissed the claim against the ORG .","On DATE ORG of the Sakha ( GPE Republic quashed the judgment on appeal and returned the case for a fresh examination , as the lower court had failed to address issues related S. \u2019s property rights .","On DATE ORG ordered an expert examination of the flat in order to determine its market value .","On DATE the court proceedings resumed .","NORP In the meantime , the applicant amended his claims and sought to obtain compensation for his belongings allegedly stolen in DATE , nonpecuniary damage , legal costs , travel expenses and reimbursement of the rent he had to pay after his eviction from the disputed flat back in DATE .","On DATE ORG examined the case , ordered the ORG to pay the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of the flat \u2019s market value and dismissed the remainder of the claims . In particular , the claim for compensation for the allegedly stolen property was dismissed as unfounded .","On DATE the judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG ( GPE ) and entered into force .","On DATE , upon the applicant \u2019s request , the bailiffs initiated the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE ORG granted the ORG \u2019s request for suspension of the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE until DATE due to financial difficulties encountered by the debtor .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s appeal against the above decision was dismissed .","On DATE the monetary award in accordance with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was paid to the applicant .","On DATE , upon the applicant \u2019s extraordinary appeal , the Presidium of ORG ( GPE ) quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the decision of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination . The ORG found that the courts had incorrectly applied the material law to various aspects of the case , and had failed to join the appropriate financial body as co - defendant .","It appears that the amounts paid to the applicant under the quashed judgment of CARDINAL DATE have not been reclaimed .","On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings , due to B. \u2019s illness and asked the applicant to clarify his claims .","On DATE the applicant submitted the amended claims .","On DATE ORG joined , at the defendant \u2019s request , ORG as co - defendant in the proceedings and suspended the examination of the case on account of PERSON \u2019s poor state of health .","On DATE the case was assigned to a different judge of ORG , for the sake of the court \u2019s impartiality .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action .","On DATE ORG ( GPE ) upheld the judgment on appeal except for the parts concerning the eviction of LOC and B. , reimbursement of the rent , payments for utility services , a commission fee , and recovering of the cost of the apartment . The decision in those parts was remitted for a fresh examination due to failure by the lower court to assess certain evidence and misapplication of the material law .","On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings pending PERSON \u2019s return from vacation .","On DATE the court ordered the applicant to clarify his claims and scheduled a new hearing on DATE .","On DATE the court issued a special writ ordering the bailiffs to obtain clarifications of the claims from the applicant .","It appears that at some point the applicant provided the required information .","On DATE ORG dismissed the action as unfounded . The court explained that the applicant had other remedies to use under the civil law in order to protect his property rights . In particular , he could claim that an equivalent apartment or a compensation be provided to him .","By the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( GPE ) upheld the lower court \u2019s findings on appeal .","In the meantime , the applicant sued the ORG for statutory interest for the delay in enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings as the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had been quashed and a new decision in the case had not yet been adopted ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147031","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF REUS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["All the applicants are relatives of PERSON , as specified in the Appendix .","On DATE PERSON was struck by a car when crossing a street in the city of PERSON . Following the accident he died in a hospital .","On DATE the PERSON regional police department refused to open criminal proceedings in connection with the accident , noting that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T. , the driver of the car .","On DATE the PERSON city prosecutor \u2019s office quashed the decision of DATE as unfounded and instituted criminal proceedings for causing death by careless driving .","On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the PERSON regional police department terminated the investigations on the grounds that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T.","Following the applicants\u2019 complaints , all those decisions were quashed by the supervising authorities as unsubstantiated and further investigations were ordered . When quashing those decisions , the supervising authorities held that the evidentiary basis had been incomplete and that the investigations had not been carried out thoroughly . In particular , on DATE the ORG of PERSON quashed the decision of DATE as unfounded and noted that serious contradictions in the case file had still not been removed , despite numerous orders to the investigators dealing with the case . The court considered that it was necessary to carry out additional investigative measures and expert examinations .","On DATE the PERSON regional police department terminated the investigation on the grounds that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of T. The police referred to the results of expert examinations suggesting that T. had had no technical possibility of avoiding the accident ; at the same time the materials of the file suggested that PERSON had violated the traffic rules .","On DATE the ORG of PERSON upheld that decision , noting that it was lawful and substantiated .","On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , upheld the judgment of the first - instance court ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182867","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF WOLLAND v. NORWAY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for home;Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant , Mr Steingrim Wolland , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He ran a law firm in his own name in GPE until his licence to practice was suspended as a result of the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against him personally in DATE .","On DATE , the prosecuting authority ( ORG \u2013 ORG ) issued charges ( siktelse ) against the applicant for aiding and abetting fraud in connection with art sales ( kunstbedrageri ) , an application for a bank loan ( l\u00e5nebedrageri ) , and forgery of documents in connection with the latter .","On DATE ORG ( tingrett ) , finding that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion ( skjellig grunn til mistanke ) in respect of the charges , decided at the request of the prosecuting authority to authorise that a search be carried out at the applicant \u2019s premises , including his office . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against ORG decision .","On DATE the police were at the applicant \u2019s premises \u2013 his home and office . In accordance with LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) a third party \u2013 a lawyer acquaintance of the applicant DATE was present . As there was a presumption that some material would be covered by the applicant \u2019s statutory legal professional privilege as a lawyer , and therefore be exempt from seizure pursuant to LAW ibid . ) , documents were put in sealed bags instead of being searched for evidence by the police . The police also collected a hard disk and a laptop . The third party had no objections as to how the police had proceeded .","Mirror copies ( speilkopier ) of the hard disk and laptop were taken ; the hard disk and laptop were returned to the applicant DATE .","On DATE , at the prosecuting authority \u2019s office , the applicant went through the paper documents that had been collected and sorted out those which he considered to be covered by legal professional privilege . This material was stored separately and placed under seal .","On DATE the prosecuting authority applied to ORG to examine the paper material that had been collected at the applicant \u2019s LOC and to have those documents that could lawfully be seized made available to it for search . As to the mirror copies , the prosecuting authority proposed that ORG authorise a staff member at ORG \u2019s computer department to acquaint him or herself with the material . The prosecution authority would thereafter return to ORG with an application for a decision on whether specific documents would be exempt from seizure owing to legal professional privilege . ORG accepted this procedure ( see , however , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Subsequently , the prosecuting authority , upon discussions with the applicant as to which keywords ( s\u00f8keord ) should be used when looking for documents on the mirror copies , made keyword - searches which gave results in CARDINAL files .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer disputed the lawfulness of what he categorised as the \u201c seizure \u201d ( \u201c beslag \u201d ) , arguing that there had been no reasonable grounds for suspicion against the applicant and requested that ORG quash the \u201c seizure \u201d decision and order that the collected material be returned to him .","On DATE the prosecuting authority submitted the CARDINAL files from the mirror copies to ORG for examination .","NORP In response to the letter from the applicant \u2019s lawyer of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG wrote a letter of CARDINAL DATE , pointing out that the procedure applicable to material allegedly covered by legal professional privilege had been set out by ORG ( PERSON ) in its decision of CARDINAL DATE , reported in PERSON ( FAC . ) DATE page CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . In line with that procedure , there were no grounds on which ORG could at that time hold a court hearing devoted to the discontinuation of any \u201c seizure \u201d and return of the material . No seizure had been decided \u2013 the court was at the time carrying out the task of reviewing the material collected in order to decide on what should be made available to the prosecuting authority for it to search . ORG would obtain the views of the parties in a hearing before making a formal decision as to whether to authorise the search of the prosecution . Its decision would be amenable to appeal . Since the handling of the case so far had taken considerable time , ORG examination would be expedited .","The applicant and his lawyer disagreed with ORG description of the procedure to be followed . After further exchanges between the parties , ORG reiterated in a letter of CARDINAL DATE which was formally a judicial decision amenable to appeal ( see paragraphs DATE below ) \u2013 that a decision on seizure had not yet been taken . There was a presumption to the effect that documents and other materials in the office of a private lawyer were subject to legal professional privilege . In such cases the court would first go through the material in order to examine what could be made available to the prosecuting authority for it to search . ORG also informed the parties that it was about to complete this task , having examined each document . It also reiterated its disagreement with the applicant \u2019s view that before carrying out its perusal of the material it ought to consider anew whether there were reasonable grounds for suspicion against him , failing which its examination of the material would be unlawful , and that in the absence of such grounds it ought to return all the material to him with the seals intact .","On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE not to examine the merits of his request to quash what was in his view a \u201c seizure \u201d , and to return the material .","On DATE ORG ( lagmannsrett ) dismissed the appeal .","The High Court , as had ORG , reiterated that the relevant procedure for the search and seizure of material allegedly subject to legal professional privilege had been thoroughly examined by ORG in GPE . DATE page CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . ORG was at the time in the process of sorting out which documents could be lawfully searched by the prosecuting authority , and there had been no decisions on seizure taken .","From the above it was apparent , in the High Court \u2019s view , that the applicant was not at that stage of the procedure entitled to have the question of whether to maintain the \u201c seizure \u201d in force ( sp\u00f8rsm\u00e5let om opprettholdelse av beslaget ) under LAW reviewed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and it could not see how him disputing the existence of reasonable grounds for suspicion in his case could lead to a different result . ORG decision contained no statements suggesting that the procedure should be different in such cases . Nor could ORG find that there were other grounds , even if regard were had to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW , as invoked by the applicant , suggesting that the accused had a wider right to judicial review in cases where he or she disputed the grounds for suspicion .","ORG also noted that LAW contained several provisions conferring on the accused a right to judicial review in respect of enforcement measures taken in the form of search and seizure , inter alia could a decision by a court to the effect that documents were to be handed over to the prosecution authorities after perusal of the documents in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) \u2013 which was what ORG was doing at DATE be appealed against . ORG considered that the LAW did not give the applicant any rights to have the legality of searches and seizures judicially reviewed beyond what followed from LAW . The search had been authorised by ORG on DATE , finding that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion against the applicant . The applicant had not filed any timely appeals against the decision and the search had been effectuated .","From the reasoning above it also followed that the applicant \u2019s alternative submission that he ought to have a right to judicial review of whether there was a legal basis for an \u201c ongoing search \u201d ( om det er grunnlag for en \u201c p\u00e5g\u00e5ende ransaking \u201d ) could not succeed .","It was also clear that the accused did not on a general basis have a right to judicial review of the reasons for the charges brought against him , whether there were reasonable grounds for suspicion or not , regardless of the use of any enforcement measures . The existence of such reasons could be examined again but then only in connection with , for instance , future investigative measures where the latter were required . The Convention provisions relied on could not lead to any different result .","Against this background , ORG concluded that ORG procedure had suffered from no defects . Its decision of CARDINAL DATE had been based on a correct approach to the handling of the material gathered at the applicant \u2019s LOC .","On DATE ORG Leave Committee of ORG ( H\u00f8yesteretts ankeutvalg ) , whose jurisdiction was limited to reviewing ORG procedure and interpretation of the law , rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal in both respects .","On DATE ORG held a hearing ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the issue of which materials could be sent to the prosecuting authority for it to search . In the court records it was registered that the court had informed the parties that it was desirable if a decision could be reached as soon as possible and preferably within DATE . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , it ruled that CARDINAL documents collected from the data carriers could be handed over . The applicant accepted the decision with respect to CARDINAL of the documents , but appealed in respect of the remaining CARDINAL and some of the paper documents . The prosecuting authority also appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the prosecuting authority \u2019s appeal and rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal except for CARDINAL issue relating to a bank account transcript .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision in so far as it had rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal ( ORG . DATE page CARDINAL ) . It found , in essence , that ORG had applied a too narrow understanding of what was lawyer \u2019s work ( egentlig advokatvirksomhet ) that could bring legal professional privilege into play .","During its reconsideration of the case , ORG , on DATE , concluded that CARDINAL of the disputed CARDINAL documents could be submitted to the prosecuting authority for it to search . On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicant against ORG decision .","On DATE the applicant applied to have some of the material , including the mirror copies , returned to him . ORG , on DATE , refused his application in so far as it concerned the mirror copies , but granted the other parts thereof .","The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG , which on DATE ordered that the mirror copies were to be returned to the applicant unless the prosecuting authority promptly ( relativt omg\u00e5ende ) requested that ORG examine them . It referred , inter alia , to the general obligation to ensure progress in investigations , as reflected in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Upon an appeal by the prosecuting authority , ORG , on DATE ( ORG . DATE page CARDINAL ) agreed with ORG that the prosecuting authority \u2019s continued possession of and searches on the mirror copies ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been unlawful . The mirror copies should , like the paper documents , have been placed under seal and transferred to ORG without the prosecution authority having accessed material on them through keyword - searches . Unlike ORG , however , ORG did not for that reason find that the copies should necessarily be returned to the applicant . It quashed ORG decision in order for that court to further assess the prosecuting authority \u2019s submissions that the copies should instead be kept with ORG , as ORG had not sufficiently considered that possibility .","The prosecuting authority transferred the mirror copies to ORG on DATE .","When , on DATE , ORG contacted the prosecuting authority , its decision concerning the mirror copies having been quashed by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the authority responded by informing ORG of the developments in the criminal case against the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It moreover stated that the seizure had been lifted on DATE and requested that the case therefore be dismissed . The material could be deleted by the court or the data carrier could be handed over to the applicant . The applicant argued that the case should not be dismissed and requested that the ORG examine the merits of his application to have the mirror copies returned , in order for him to have a judicial review of whether his Convention rights had been violated .","In a letter of DATE ORG set out its views on the matter . It stated , inter alia , that the case concerned the applicant \u2019s application to have the mirror copies returned . This request would be met if the copies were actually returned , which was what the prosecuting authority had proposed . This made it difficult to see why the applicant should have legal standing to require that the courts examine his application . Moreover , the court assumed that the applicant could obtain a review of his LAW claims in other ways . The case as concerned the mirror copies was ultimately dismissed on DATE . There is no information about the applicant having appealed against this decision .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of having obtained credit by way of fraud ( l\u00e5nebedrageri ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG convicted him for having shown gross negligence in that respect . This judgment became final when ORG refused leave to appeal on DATE . The charges concerning forgery of documents ( ibid . ) were dropped on CARDINAL DATE . Some of the charges concerning aiding and abetting art fraud ( kunstbedrageri ) ( ibid . ) were dropped on DATE and the remainder on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146416","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HORV\u00c1TH AND VAJNAI v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","At the material time , PERSON was Vice - President and PERSON was a member and activist of ORG ) , a registered left - wing political party . The party had no known intention of participating in NORP political life in defiance of the rule of law .","Mr PERSON was the editor of the ORG \u2019s web page containing news and articles related to the NORP and NORP movements . On DATE Mr PERSON placed a CARDINAL - pointed red star and a sickle - and - hammer logo on the web page .","On DATE the applicants participated in a peaceful demonstration commemorating the DATE NORP liberation of GPE from NORP occupation . PERSON wore a CARDINAL - pointed red star on his jacket , whilst PERSON wore a sweater ornamented with CARDINAL - pointed red star and a sickle - and - hammer pattern .","Subsequently , criminal proceedings were instituted against them for the offence of having worn totalitarian symbols in public . In the context of these proceedings , the public prosecutor summoned the applicants . On DATE they appeared in the public prosecutor \u2019s office wearing CARDINAL - pointed red stars on their jackets .","On DATE and DATE and DATE , in the context of other criminal proceedings against him , PERSON appeared in court wearing a CARDINAL - pointed red star on his jacket . On DATE , the applicant spoke on the national television about his ORG \u2019s political aims and the criminal proceedings against him . On that occasion he wore a CARDINAL - pointed red star on his jacket .","NORP On DATE the applicants participated in a peaceful demonstration in FAC . PERSON wore a CARDINAL - pointed red star on his jacket , whilst PERSON wore a CARDINAL - pointed red star on his rain coat .","On DATE the applicants were convicted by ORG under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of the offence of having worn totalitarian symbols in public . The court observed that the applicants had worn a CARDINAL - pointed red star and a sickle - and - hammer logo on several occasions of public appearance .","Mr PERSON was sentenced to a criminal fine of MONEY ( ORG ) and ordered to pay another ORG CARDINAL in criminal costs . In the case of PERSON , the court refrained from imposing a sentence for a probationary period of DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld this judgment .","On DATE ORG adopted a judgment in a case introduced by PERSON on account of a previous conviction similar in nature ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . The ORG held that prosecution for having worn a red star amounted to a violation of the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression enshrined in LAW .","Subsequently , the applicants challenged ORG judgment before ORG . Relying on section PERSON ) of LAW , they claimed that their conduct did not represent danger for society in the face of the PERSON judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 petition for review ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157761","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MICLEA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME , the applicant and his friends were involved in a fight with a group of people outside a bar . PERSON , who was inside the bar , called the police . When the police arrived the group of aggressors ran away . The applicant and his friends were taken to the police station to give statements and possibly complain against their aggressors .","While he was waiting inside the police station , the applicant saw a police officer who was behaving roughly with an arrestee who had just been brought in . He commented loudly that the police officer represented the ORG authority and should not hit people . D.C.I. , the police officer in question , became angry and asked a colleague , PERSON , to \u201c take him [ the applicant ] to the toilets to teach him how to speak \u201d . The applicant , who resisted entering the toilets , was taken outside and then into a back office where the QUANTITY police officers , D.C.I. and PERSON , handcuffed him to a radiator and started punching and kicking him . Alerted by the applicant \u2019s screaming , another police officer entered and put an end to the hitting . At that point , CARDINAL of the officers who had assaulted the applicant warned him not to say anything or he would find him and beat him again . The applicant and his friends were then escorted home by police officers .","On DATE the police were called in order to stop a fight between several people on a street in GPE . By the time the police arrived , the applicant and his friends had had their clothes torn and had already been injured . They were accompanied to the police station to make statements . The police officers took statements from ORG","S.L. declared that he had been in a bar when he had seen that his brother , ORG , was involved in a fight outside . He called the police emergency number and then went outside to help his brother . He and his brother received blows to their bodies . He further stated that he did not wish to lodge a complaint against the aggressors at that time but reserved his right to do so later . PERSON stated that when he had left the bar he had seen some people fighting . Someone was throwing stones , one of which hit him in the leg . He stated that he did not wish to lodge a complaint .","Afterwards the applicant and his friends were all escorted home by the police in order to avoid further violent incidents .","An investigation was opened nonetheless in order to clarify the circumstances surrounding the incident . However , after a discussion on DATE with the bar attendant and a sales woman at a nearby store , who said they had not seen or heard anything , the case was closed on DATE .","Later on DATE , the applicant went to the emergency unit of ORG , where he was diagnosed with maxillofacial trauma , and contusion of the lower lip and of the thorax . His injuries were treated .","On DATE a forensic medical certificate was issued by ORG at the request of the applicant . According to the certificate , the applicant had a sutured cut on the lower lip and bruising on the upper lip , bruising on the left side of the chest , CARDINAL excoriations on the left side of the back , grazes and bruising on the right elbow , right leg and the left knee . The applicant also had CARDINAL excoriations covered with brown scabs measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY to CARDINAL by QUANTITY on the back of each wrist . The injuries may have been caused by an impact with or on a hard object on DATE . The injuries would require DATE of medical treatment if no complications developed .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against the CARDINAL officers who had assaulted him , accusing them of abusive investigative conduct and bodily harm . He lodged his complaint with both ORG and ORG of the Timi\u015foara ORG . He requested that ORG , ORG and ORG , who had been taken to the police station with him , be called to testify as witnesses .","On DATE the applicant was heard at ORG . He declared that he had been taken to the police station after a street brawl . Once inside the police station , the applicant drew an officer \u2019s attention to his disrespectful behaviour towards someone else . The police officer in question and another colleague of his became angry with him and tried to drag him into the toilets , but he resisted . They then told him to go outside , where CARDINAL of them , officer ORG , punched him in the mouth . He was then handcuffed with his hands behind his back and taken to a room where he was punched and kicked . The applicant further stated that he had suffered severe injuries , for which he was submitting a forensic medical certificate and claiming civil damages from his aggressors .","On DATE ORG decided that ORG of the Arad ORG should deal with the case because the CARDINAL police officers in question were not members of the military .","In DATE the applicant , ORG and ORG were heard by a prosecutor from ORG of ORG . In a statement dated DATE , handwritten in front of the prosecutor , ORG stated that he had been taken to the police station on DATE following a dispute with a group of people in the street . Once inside the police station he was taken to the second floor together with his brother . TIME , he overheard through an open window a person screaming with pain outside the building and recognised the applicant \u2019s voice . Afterwards he was taken home together with his brother in a police car . DATE they met the applicant in front of his house and he told them that he had been handcuffed and beaten up by police officers . The applicant showed them his injuries and the marks on his hands . PERSON declared that he knew for sure that the applicant had been beaten up at the police station because he had seen him when they were leaving the police station . On DATE PERSON \u2019s statement was typed on a witness statement form bearing the heading of ORG of the Arad County Court and PERSON signed it . In addition to the facts described in the previous handwritten statement , the typewritten statement included the following phrase : \u201c ... one of my friends , PERSON , came to me and told me that some ... were beating up my brother and PERSON . \u201d In that statement PERSON also mentioned that , after he had heard the applicant shouting outside the police station , he had received on his mobile phone a message from the applicant who was telling him that he was being \u201c beaten by policemen \u201d . At that point he wanted to go outside but he was not allowed to and TIME later he was taken home in a police car together with his brother .","On DATE ORG also gave a handwritten statement in front of the prosecutor . He declared that he had been taken to the police station following a street fight . The applicant was with him . After his arrival at the police station , while he was upstairs to give a statement , he heard the applicant screaming outside . TIME later he was taken home in a police car together with his brother . Later that day he met the applicant in front of his house . The applicant told him and his brother that he had been beaten up by police officers . He showed them the injuries on his lips and hands . Like his brother , ORG also stated that he knew the applicant had been beaten inside the police station because he had seen him when they were taken home . That statement was subsequently typed on a witness statement form bearing the heading of ORG of ORG and was signed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant declared that he maintained the account he had given in his initial complaint as well as in his statement of DATE .","On DATE ORG of ORG decided to join the applicant \u2019s complaint to CARDINAL complaints lodged by other individuals who claimed that they had been physically assaulted by the same police officers on DATE . Subsequently , the prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings for abusive investigative conduct as requested by the applicant , since he had not been under investigation at the relevant time . Lastly , the prosecutor held that the investigation for the CARDINAL counts of abusive behaviour of which ORG and PERSON were accused would be continued by ORG of the Arad ORG , which was the competent authority in view of the GPE functions within the police force .","On DATE an officer in charge of internal affairs at the Arad County Police took statements from the CARDINAL police officers who had allegedly physically assaulted the applicant . D.C.I. stated that in TIME of CARDINAL DATE he had taken an arrested person to the police station . When he entered the waiting room he saw a group of CARDINAL people who were drunk , had had their clothes torn and were visibly injured . They were arguing and swearing at each other . When he asked them politely to wait outside , CARDINAL of them swore at him .","PERSON stated that he had accompanied D.C.I. on TIME of the incident . When he saw a group of people in the police station waiting room , he asked what had happened to them and they replied that they had been beaten up by some people on the street and were waiting to give statements . Then he asked them to wait outside .","On DATE the police officer in charge of the investigation took statements from GPE , NORP and PERSON , CARDINAL of the police officers who had responded to the emergency call .","Officer PERSON stated that he had gone to the scene of the incident accompanied by QUANTITY police patrols . He found a group of people who claimed to be the injured parties . Amongst them was the applicant . They said that they wished to lodge a criminal complaint against their aggressors , so he accompanied them to the police station . There he took statements from GPE and GPE , but he did not know whether any of the police officers physically assaulted any of the above - mentioned people . ORG also stated that after statements had been taken , the applicant had been taken home by officer PERSON , while he had accompanied the others home in order to avoid further possible conflicts if they decided to go back to the scene of the incident .","PERSON stated that he was a member of one of the police patrols that had been called to the scene of the incident . When he arrived PERSON told him that he had been physically assaulted by a group of people who had then run away . He maintained that he did not recognise any of the aggressors . The officer further stated :","\u201c ... I accompanied to the police station the person who had been assaulted [ ORG ] and Mr D.V. , who was also at the scene when the incident took place . The accompanied people had injuries on their bodies , probably caused by the stones with which they had been aggressed and their clothes had also been torn as a result of the incident . ... Subsequently , I was asked by PERSON to accompany home another person involved in the incident in order to avoid other unpleasant incidents , this person was PERSON . While I was with PERSON and until reaching his home ... , he did not tell me that he had been beaten by a police officer , he had traces of violence on his face , his tee - shirt was torn but I did not ask him where this came from , I assumed it had come from the street fight . \u201d","PERSON declared that the applicant could not have been assaulted by police officers since he was one of the people who had been injured in the street fight .","On DATE ORG of the Arad ORG decided not to pursue the criminal proceedings with respect to the CARDINAL counts of abusive behaviour for which officers ORG and PERSON had been investigated . As for the applicant \u2019s complaint , the prosecutor held that the statements given by the applicant and the QUANTITY persons accompanying him on DATE of the incident had been contradicted by the statements of the officers under investigation as well as by those of CARDINAL other police officers , namely GPE , PERSON and PERSON Therefore , it could not be established with certainty that the applicant had been assaulted by the QUANTITY police officers .","The applicant complained against that decision , claiming that the statements of the QUANTITY police officers and their colleagues were subjective and should have been corroborated by other evidence . He requested again that PERSON ( referred to as ORG in the initial complaint ) be called as a witness and gave his address . He added that PERSON \u2019s testimony would have been relevant , since he had witnessed the applicant receiving a punch from ORG outside the police station .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s complaint against the decision not to bring charges was dismissed by the head prosecutor of ORG of the Arad ORG with the same reasoning , namely that the statements of the injured party had not been corroborated by the statements of the alleged perpetrators and their colleagues .","The applicant contested the prosecutor \u2019s decision before the court , requesting non - pecuniary damages for the injuries sustained . In his submission before the court , the applicant emphasised that as he had been escorted to the police station by CARDINAL officers , the statement of the third officer should not have been taken into consideration . In addition , the applicant complained that the prosecutor had overlooked important evidence . The only pieces of evidence he had taken into account were the statements of the CARDINAL officers under investigation and the statements of their colleagues , who could not have been impartial . The applicant argued that PERSON , who had accompanied him to the police station on DATE of the incident , should also have been heard by the prosecutors , as he had partially witnessed the alleged ill - treatment .","The applicant \u2019s complaint , together with the other CARDINAL complaints against the QUANTITY police officers , were analysed jointly and rejected as manifestly ill - founded by a final decision of ORG on DATE .","The court considered that the evidence administered during the criminal investigation had sufficed to conclude that \u201c it had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that on CARDINAL DATE the defendants had physically abused [ the applicant ] \u201d . The court based its verdict on the discrepancies found between the applicant \u2019s account of the events and the statement given by PERSON More specifically , PERSON declared that he had heard the applicant screaming outside the police station , whereas the applicant claimed that he had been beaten inside . PERSON also declared that the applicant had told him that he had been handcuffed with his hands behind his back , whereas the applicant stated that he had been handcuffed to a radiator . In addition , the injuries on the applicant \u2019s body may very well have been caused during the street brawl . That fact had been confirmed by the QUANTITY police officers who had intervened at the scene , namely GPE , PERSON and PERSON , as well as by the witness , PERSON , who had declared in his statement of CARDINAL DATE that he had been told when he was inside the bar that a group of people were \u201c beating up my brother and PERSON \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173493","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF AVIAKOMPANIYA A.T.I., ZAT v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant company was a NORP joint - stock company registered in GPE . At the relevant time it operated a commercial air carrier business ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant company brought a claim for damages , in particular loss of profit , against ORG . The claim was based on a delay on the defendant \u2019s part in issuing a safety certificate , which the ORG had been required to issue in DATE by a court judgment .","On DATE ORG allowed the claim in part .","On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the first - instance court \u2019s judgment and rejected the claim , mainly on the grounds that the applicant company had failed to prove the loss of profit it had claimed . It considered the estimates of the loss profit speculative .","On DATE ORG reversed the ruling of ORG and upheld the judgment of the first instance court . ORG held that because the defendant \u2019s inaction prevented the applicant company from operating its business as from DATE , the first instance court was correct in accepting the information about the applicant company \u2019s gross income for DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the ruling of ORG and upheld the ruling of ORG . ORG considered that no causal connection has been proven between the defendant \u2019s culpable inaction and the alleged loss of profit . It held , in particular , that the applicant company had failed to prove that it had realised a profit , rather than gross income , prior to DATE , or that its income for DATE came from operations which required a safety certificate .","Following communication of the case and unsuccessful friendly settlement negotiations , on DATE the Government informed the ORG of their intention to resolve the issue raised by the application . They produced a unilateral declaration , in which they acknowledged a breach of LAW and offered to pay the applicant company a sum to cover any pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses . The ORG requested that the ORG strike out the application in accordance with LAW .","On DATE the applicant company objected to the striking out of its application , wishing to have its merits determined with a view to obtaining appropriate redress . It argued , in particular , that under domestic law the unilateral declaration , unlike a ORG \u2019s judgment finding a violation , would not provide grounds for reexamination of its case by ORG . The Government \u2019s unilateral declaration would therefore not lead to actual restoration of the applicant company \u2019s rights .","The Government were invited to comment and on DATE informed ORG the relevant domestic legislation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY below ) . They submitted a letter from ORG informing ORG there was no relevant domestic caselaw on the matter .","On DATE the applicant company \u2019s only shareholder , East \/ West , informed the ORG that on DATE ORG had declared the applicant company bankrupt and opened liquidation procedure and on DATE had declared it liquidated . Accordingly , East \/ West requested that any just satisfaction award due to the applicant company be paid to GPE . Asked to comment , the Government responded on DATE that they \u201c do not object against the applicant \u2019s request as to the payment to its sole shareholder the awarded compensation and , thus , leave this question on the ORG \u2019s discretion \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152714","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"M.O.S.H. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant states that he is a NORP national , born in DATE . At the time of the introduction of the application , he was in the GPE . On an unspecified date after DATE , he was removed to GPE . He was initially represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , who was succeeded by PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , the applicant applied for asylum in the GPE under the provisions of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) , stating that his name was GPE , that he was a NORP national and that he was born in GPE in DATE . The examination and comparison of his fingerprints by the GPE authorities generated a PERSON report , indicating that on DATE he had entered GPE where on DATE he had applied for asylum .","NORP In his interviews with the GPE immigration authorities he stated , inter alia , that he had arrived in GPE ( GPE ) on DATE and that under another identity \u2013 namely ORG , born in DATE he had been granted a residence permit in GPE ) on DATE with a validity of DATE . He had also been provided with an NORP travel document for refugees . After his arrival in the GPE , he had given these documents to a person who had taken them to GPE . The applicant further stated that , directly after having taken out of the water near GPE , he had been taken to a reception centre in GPE where he had stayed for DATE and he had subsequently been taken to another centre in GPE where he had stayed for DATE pending the outcome of his request for a residence permit . After having obtained this permit , he had been asked to leave the reception centre which he had done . After having stayed in GPE and GPE , he had traveled to the GPE . He had told the NORP authorities that he was DATE because he had wanted to work in GPE . He had not succeeded in finding work and had given his real age to the GPE authorities .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister of Justice informed the applicant of her intention to reject his asylum request . The applicant filed his written comments ( zienswijze ) on this intention on DATE .","On DATE the GPE authorities requested the NORP authorities to take back the applicant under the terms of LAW ( c ) of ORG ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL of DATE ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) . As the NORP authorities failed to react to that request within DATE , they were considered under LAW of LAW as having implicitly acceded to that request .","The applicant \u2019s asylum request filed in the GPE was rejected on DATE by the Deputy Minister , who found that , pursuant to ORG , GPE was responsible for the processing of the asylum application . The Deputy Minister found that the applicant had not demonstrated facts and circumstances on the basis of which the GPE could not rely on the principle of mutual interstate trust in respect of GPE . The Deputy Minister did not find it established that GPE fell short of its international treaty obligations in respect of asylum - seekers and refugees , and rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that he risked treatment in breach of LAW .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against this decision , filed on DATE , and his accompanying request for a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) were rejected on DATE by the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE sitting in GPE . The judge rejected the applicant \u2019s claim that his removal to GPE would be in violation of his rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW and held that the applicant had not established that GPE would fail to respect its international treaty obligations vis - \u00e0 - vis the applicant .","Although possible , the applicant did not file a further appeal with ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . Such a further appeal does not have automatic suspensive effect . Suspensive effect can be requested by applying for a provisional measure to the President of ORG . A request for a provisional measure does not have automatic suspensive effect either .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had been removed to GPE by the GPE authorities without specifying on what date this removal had taken place . She further stated that she was still in contact with the applicant . Her letter contained no information about the applicant \u2019s whereabouts or current situation .","The relevant NORP , NORP and GPE law , instruments , principles and practice in respect of asylum proceedings , reception of asylum - seekers and transfers of asylum - seekers under LAW have recently been summarised in LOC v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE and CARDINAL other applications ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL & CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) ; ORG and NORP v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ; and PERSON v. the GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184672","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ISL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF EGILL EINARSSON v. ICELAND (No. 2)","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the material time he was a well - known personality in GPE who for DATE had published articles , blogs and books and appeared in films , on television and other media , under pseudonyms .","Some of the applicant \u2019s published views attracted some attention , as well as controversy . These included , inter alia , his views about women and their sexual freedom . In some instances his criticism had been directed towards named individuals , often women , and in some cases his words could have been construed to mean that he was in fact recommending that they should be subjected to sexual violence . The applicant had often justified such conduct by stating that the material had been meant in jest and that those who criticised him lacked a sense of humour ( see ORG GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","NORP In DATE , an CARDINAL-year - old woman reported to the police that the applicant and his girlfriend had raped her . In DATE another woman reported to the police that the applicant had committed a sexual offence against DATE . Upon the completion of the police investigation ORG , on DATE and DATE , dismissed the cases in accordance with LAW , because the evidence which had been gathered was not sufficient or likely to lead to a conviction . The applicant submitted a complaint to the police about false accusations made against him by the QUANTITY women . This case was also dismissed .","On DATE Monitor , a magazine accompanying PERSON ( a leading newspaper in GPE ) , published an interview with the applicant . A picture of the applicant was published on the front page , and in the interview the applicant discussed the rape accusation against him . The applicant stated several times that the accusations were false . He stated , inter alia , that it was not a priority for him for the girl \u2019s name to be disclosed and that he was not seeking revenge against her . He accepted that , having placed himself in the media spotlight , he had to tolerate publicity which was not always \u201c sunshine and lollipops \u201d but criticised the way the media had covered his case . When asked about the girl \u2019s age , he responded that the girl had been in a club where the minimum age had been DATE and that it had been a shock to find out later that she had been DATE . When asked about his complaints against the girl for allegedly wrongful accusations , he stated again that he was not seeking revenge against those who had reported him to the police , but that it was clear that they had had ulterior motives . He hoped that the police would see that it was important to have a formal conclusion in the case and that the documents in the case were \u201c screaming \u201d conspiracy .","On DATE a ORG page was set up for the purpose of protesting about the interview and encouraging the editor of ORG to remove the applicant \u2019s picture from its front page . Extensive dialogue took place on the site DATE . DATE , X posted a comment on the abovementioned ORG page which stated , inter alia : \u201c This is also not an attack on a man for saying something wrong , but for raping a teenage girl ... It is permissible to criticise the fact that rapists appear on the cover of publications which are distributed all over town ... \u201d .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer sent a letter to X requesting that she withdraw her statements , admit they were unfounded , apologise in the media and pay the applicant punitive damages , which would be donated to charity . By letter the following day , X \u2019s lawyer opposed the applicant \u2019s claims and submitted that the impugned statements were not defamatory . Furthermore , the lawyer informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that X had removed the statement in question from ORG .","On DATE , the applicant lodged defamation proceedings against X before ORG of PERSON and asked for her to be punished , under the applicable provisions of LAW , for publishing the statements in question . The applicant further requested that the statements \u201c This is also not an attack on a man for saying something wrong , but for raping a teenage girl ... \u201d and \u201c It is permissible to criticise the fact that rapists appear on the cover of publications which are distributed all over town ... \u201d be declared null and void . Moreover , the applicant requested that X be ordered to pay him CARDINAL NORP kr\u00f3nur ( ORG ; QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) in non - pecuniary damages under LAW , plus interest , LAW ( CARDINAL ORG ) for the cost of publishing the main content and the reasoning of the final judgment in the case in the media under LAW , and the applicant \u2019s legal costs .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found that PERSON \u2019s comment on ORG had been defamatory and declared the statements null and void . However , the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim for the imposition on X of a criminal punishment under LAW , as well as rejecting the claim to have X carry the cost of publishing the main content and reasoning of the judgment in a newspaper . Furthermore , ORG did not award the applicant non - pecuniary damage and concluded , finally , that each party should bear its own legal costs .","The judgment contained the following reasons :","\u201c ... The [ applicant ] claims damages in the amount of ISK CARDINAL and bases his demand on the general rules of tort law and on LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL [ LAW ] . According to the aforementioned , it is clear that [ X ] made defamatory insinuations about [ the applicant ] . However , when assessing the damage suffered by [ the applicant ] , it has to be taken into account how [ the applicant ] has built a certain reputation by his conduct in public . Notwithstanding the extensive disputes about his comment made under the name of PERSON , it can not be seen that he took a clear stand against sexual violence until complaints against him materialised . Nevertheless [ the applicant ] had full reason to clarify his situation in this respect , taking into account that material stemming from him is often very ambiguous and provocative , and could easily be interpreted as an incitement to this type of violence .","When assessing the possible damage to [ the applicant ] , the distribution of the comments which was , as stated before , limited to the distribution entailed in publications on the said ORG page , together with CARDINAL of other comments , has to be taken into account . Additionally , the comments were removed from the website when [ the applicant ] so requested .","Lastly , it should be considered that by declaring the comments null and void , as this judgment concludes , [ the applicant ] has received full judicial satisfaction .","In light of all the above - mentioned considerations there is no reason to order [ X ] to pay non - pecuniary damages .","Furthermore , [ the applicant \u2019s ] claim to have [ X ] carry the cost of publishing the main content and the reasoning of the judgment in a newspaper will not be accepted . The impugned comment was published on a ORG page and therefore it is not necessary to incur the costs of publishing the judgment in any other way .","In light of the conclusion of the judgment , and taking account of all the facts , it is appropriate that each party bears its own legal costs [ er r\u00e9tt a\u00f0 m\u00e1lskostna\u00f0ur falli ni\u00f0ur ] . \u201d","By judgment of DATE the majority of ORG ( CARDINAL out of CARDINAL judges ) upheld ORG decision to declare the statements null and void . Furthermore , ORG upheld the ORG decision not to award damages to the applicant and that each party should bear its legal costs . In its assessment regarding that issue ORG referred to LAW , the principle of proportionality and the reasoning of ORG .","The dissenting judge agreed with the majority to declare the impugned statements null and void . However , the judge found that the criteria set out in LAW for the granting of non - pecuniary damages were fulfilled in the case and the applicant should be awarded CARDINAL ORG in non - pecuniary damages as well as his legal costs before ORG and ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163662","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PUG\u017dLYS v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in LOC ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141946","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BODOR v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","The applicant and his former spouse , also of NORP nationality , found employment in GPE and settled there in DATE . They married in GPE in DATE . Their child , also a NORP citizen , was born in GPE , GPE , in DATE .","As their marriage deteriorated , the wife lodged a divorce action and a custody claim with the NORP ORG on DATE .","The applicant filed an objection contesting the jurisdiction of the NORP courts . ORG held a hearing and dismissed the case , accepting the applicant \u2019s argument . Furthermore , the court noted that the applicant had filed a divorce action before the NORP Rimavsk\u00e1 Sobota ORG .","On appeal , the NORP ORG quashed the first - instance decision on DATE , for further circumstances to be clarified , namely the exact date of filing the action before the NORP court . ORG noted that the law applicable by ORG was the NORP one .","In the resumed proceedings , ORG ascertained that the action before the NORP court had been filed on DATE , that is , DATE than the one before the NORP court . During the procedure the court obtained the necessary translation of the NORP law .","ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s jurisdictional objection on DATE , holding that the NORP case had been pre - empted by the NORP one . On his appeal , the second - instance court upheld the decision on DATE .","Meanwhile , the applicant filed a complaint about the protraction of the proceedings . The objection was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The court held that there was no unreasonable delay or omission to be observed during the proceedings .","The first hearing on the merits was held by ORG on DATE in the absence of the applicant . Although CARDINAL more hearings were held on DATE and DATE , the applicant , properly summoned , failed to appear .","Meanwhile , the applicant had brought several actions against his former spouse before the NORP Rimavsk\u00e1 Sobota ORG . The applicant \u2019s contact with his child was also regulated with provisional measure by that court on DATE .","On DATE the ORG dissolved the applicant \u2019s marriage and ordered him to pay child maintenance .","The applicant appealed but the NORP ORG upheld the first - instance decision on DATE . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","The applicant lodged a petition for review . On DATE the GPE rejected the request since it was excluded by law in such cases ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148657","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BUTI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta","text":["On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and\/or to have certain actions taken by ORG authorities in their favour . However , the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179793","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF RAMDA v. FRANCE","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice)","judges":"","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","The applicant was a member of ORG ( Front Islamique du Salut \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and left GPE prior to the dissolution of that political group by a judgment of ORG dated DATE . After spending some time in GPE he entered GPE in DATE using the false name of PERSON . On DATE he applied for political asylum in that country , claiming to have been forced to leave GPE because of his membership of the ORG . His application was refused on DATE .","On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE eight terrorist attacks were carried out in GPE .","Although no organisation explicitly claimed responsibility , certain factors , such as the existence of virulent press statements against GPE and the mode of operation of the attacks , pointed to the involvement of ORG ( ORG \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","In the course of the judicial investigation aimed at identifying the perpetrators , telephone tapping operations carried out on public payphones used by a certain PERSON led to a number of persons being arrested and to the search being focused on GPE and an individual named PERSON ( also known as ORG or ORG ) . The sources of these names or pseudonyms were a telephone conversation of CARDINAL DATE concerning PERSON and the Western Union bank , a search of PERSON \u2019s home during which a document was found showing that a sum of money had been transferred to PERSON from that bank on DATE , and the decoding of a list of telephone numbers found on PERSON \u2019s person and at his home and featuring CARDINAL numbers in GPE preceded by the name \u201c ORG \u201d or \u201c ORG \u201d . PERSON , who was arrested on DATE , also directly implicated \u201c PERSON , claiming that he had funded the campaign of attacks from GPE and had been kept informed of their progress .","On DATE the French National Surveillance Directorate informed the investigators that the individual known as \u201c PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG or ORG \u201d , whom PERSON had identified as having funded the attacks , might be the applicant . The latter , who was living in GPE , was suspected of being one of the leaders of the PERSON in GPE , in particular because of his involvement with the publication PERSON ( or PERSON ) which the ORG used as a mouthpiece abroad .","The investigations carried out in GPE established that the applicant had a home there and had a set of keys to a second GPE address , which served as the offices of the magazine PERSON and as a meeting place for all the persons involved in publishing and distributing it . On the LOC the investigators found , among other items , the following : contracts for CARDINAL mobile phones in the names of CARDINAL of the applicants\u2019 acquaintances and corresponding to the numbers identified at the home of PERSON , who had rung the numbers before and after each attack ; a receipt for the rental of a post - office box in the name of Fares ELIASS with the applicant \u2019s fingerprints on it ; letters and statements from the ORG ; a statement saying that only the PERSON was entitled to conduct the jihad ; a letter from the ORG to the NORP President calling on him to convert to ORG ; a letter commenting on the attacks carried out in GPE ; copies of press articles on anti - terrorism mentioning the names of judges and members of the intelligence service ; a piece of paper on which \u201c FAC DATE - CARDINAL \u201d was written , corresponding to the telephone number of ORG branch at CARDINAL FAC in GPE ; and a receipt dated DATE issued by a branch of PERSON in GPE for a sum of MONEY ( GBP ) .","NORP The applicant was arrested and placed in police custody from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE under LAW .","On DATE the applicant was detained pending extradition under the terms of an international arrest warrant issued on DATE in connection with the investigation into the attack carried out on DATE close to the ORG metro station .","Three further international arrest warrants were issued concerning the applicant : on DATE in relation to the attack of CARDINAL DATE at the PERSON d\u2019Orsay station ; on DATE in the case concerning a conspiracy to prepare terrorist attacks ; and on DATE in relation to the attack carried out on DATE at the PERSON suburban rail station .","The applicant lodged habeas corpus applications which were dismissed in DATE and in DATE . On DATE the NORP Home Secretary ordered his removal to GPE , but that order was quashed by ORG , ORG , on DATE .","On DATE the Home Secretary signed a fresh order for the applicant \u2019s extradition in the light of the assurances provided by the NORP authorities concerning the safeguards of a fair and impartial trial in GPE . On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was handed over to the NORP authorities and was remanded in custody the following day .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was committed for trial in ORG for involvement \u2013 in GPE and in GPE , from an unspecified date until DATE in an association or conspiracy formed with a view to the preparation , in the form of CARDINAL or more material acts , of CARDINAL of the terrorist acts in question . The investigating judge stated , in particular , as follows :","\u201c - [ the applicant ] was responsible for distributing the journal PERSON , a propaganda outlet of ORG ;","- ... was involved on this account in disseminating propaganda for that organisation , which is banned in GPE ;","- ... was the main contact person in LOC for [ GPE ] , alias PERSON , in organising and carrying out the ORG \u2019s activities in LOC ;","- ... was tasked with sending money to ORG members still in GPE to enable them to fund and carry out attacks ;","- ... was in contact with numerous persons involved in and convicted of criminal conspiracy with a view to a terrorist enterprise . \u201d","In a judgment of DATE accompanied by CARDINAL pages of reasoning , ORG first of all set out the facts with regard to the \u201c political \/ religious background \u201d , the emergence of the ORG and then the ORG , the \u201c background to the attacks \u201d in DATE which it listed and described as attributable in all likelihood to the GIA \u2013 and the \u201c context surrounding PERSON \u201d .","Ruling on the criminal charges , the court began by examining the case against the applicant . It found that it could be established with certainty , on the basis of precise and concurring physical evidence , that the applicant had indeed used various false names and aliases which had come up in the course of the investigations , a fact the court described as \u201c beyond doubt and indisputable \u201d . With regard to the ORG \u2019s funding the court , having noted the prosecution \u2019s claims that the applicant had funded the ORG groups which carried out the attacks in GPE during DATE , examined the factual evidence in the case file at length and in detail . It observed in particular that , according to CARDINAL witness who was a ORG member , the organisation \u2019s groups had different specialisations depending on their location , with the GPE group being responsible for sending funds . The court further noted that the applicant had transferred GBP CARDINAL on DATE , DATE before the attack of CARDINAL DATE . This was established by the statements of the NORP police officers tasked with keeping the applicant under surveillance and of the staff of ORG branch where the transfer had been made , and also by the discovery of the applicant \u2019s fingerprints on the transfer slip kept by ORG branch . The court also observed that one of the perpetrators of the attacks , PERSON , had stated that the money used in preparing the various attacks had always been supplied by the applicant from GPE . The court inferred that the facts as a whole \u201c demonstrate[d ] that PERSON was indeed responsible for funding terrorist groups on NORP soil \u201d . Furthermore , in response to the public prosecutor \u2019s submissions concerning the applicant \u2019s role in disseminating PERSON propaganda , the first - instance court also considered the various items of factual evidence before it , and in particular the wealth of correspondence and propaganda documents relating to the ORG \u2019s views and actions that had been found during the searches of the various premises used by the applicant , as well as the statements by a ORG member confirming the applicant \u2019s role as a member of the team publishing the magazine PERSON , which was the ORG outlet used in particular to claim responsibility for attacks . It also noted the presence at the applicant \u2019s home of pamphlets promoting terrorism and killing with specific reference to GPE . The court concluded that the applicant had played a part in disseminating ORG propaganda and ideas .","Turning next to the applicant \u2019s involvement in a criminal conspiracy in connection with a terrorist enterprise , the court found this offence to have been made out , as the investigation had shown that several groups located in the LOC area , in GPE and in GPE had been behind the DATE attacks . All the members had either been directly involved or had played an indirect role by aiding and abetting and providing resources , and all of them were either known activists or claimed to be activists within the ORG . The court found that the applicant \u2019s contacts with the various members of these networks , who had the shared goal of carrying out attacks , were sufficient to establish his conscious and deliberate participation in a conspiracy to carry out terrorist acts on NORP soil . In its judgment the court set out , among other findings , the facts showing the existence of links to CARDINAL members of CARDINAL groups forming a support network for the ORG .","Accordingly , ORG found the applicant guilty of criminal conspiracy in connection with a terrorist enterprise , on the basis of ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW . It sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and ordered his permanent exclusion from NORP territory . The court cited as reasons for imposing the prison sentence the fact that \u201c by providing funding and issuing propaganda on behalf of the PERSON , PERSON not only enabled the attacks to be carried out but acted as a propagandist , potentially attracting new members to strengthen the networks spread over several NORP countries \u201d . It further cited the fact that \u201c his double talk reveal[ed ] both his bad faith and his complete lack of regret or remorse \u201d . The court awarded MONEY ( ORG ) in damages to the association ORG , which had joined the proceedings as a civil party .","In a final judgment of DATE ORG upheld that judgment . While referring expressly to the statement of facts as established in the judgment , it devoted CARDINAL pages to analysing the charges against the applicant , giving reasons . First of all , ORG gave further details concerning the evolution and operation of the ORG . It also specified that the case before it concerned \u201c the series of attacks carried out in GPE in DATE \u201d , and that \u201c the facts of the case at hand concern[ed ] the preparation of the attacks and the actions enabling the attacks , which started in GPE in DATE , to be carried out \u201d . ORG went on to list the CARDINAL attacks carried out DATE and DATE . With particular reference to the evidence of the existence of an information hub based in GPE which the applicant had allegedly managed , it found this to be established on the basis of the telephone calls made on DATE after the killing of the imam S. in GPE ; DATE before the attack on the PERSON suburban rail station ; on DATE of that attack and DATE after the attempted attack on the ORG high - speed railway line at ORG - sur - Fontaines ; on CARDINAL DATE , DATE after the attack of DATE on GPE in GPE , the attempted attack of DATE on Place Charles Vallin in GPE and the attack of DATE in FAC in GPE ; DATE after the shooting at FAC and the arrest of CARDINAL people ; DATE before the attack of DATE and DATE after it ; on DATE , in other words just before the attack of CARDINAL DATE ; and , finally , on DATE , immediately after a telephone conversation between PERSON and S.A.B. concerning preparations for an attack on the ORG market in GPE , with PERSON stating that the purpose of the call was to report to the applicant on the \u201c final preparations \u201d for the GPE attack .","ORG also emphasised the existence of several items of factual evidence pointing to the applicant \u2019s involvement as the supervisor of a structure set up to fund the ORG \u2019s activities . These included the fact that the applicant had sent funds from GPE on DATE under the false name of PERSON , which had been received by PERSON at the PERSON branch of the ORG bank under the false name of PERSON , and which matched an entry in ORG \u2019s accounts book marked \u201c MONEY , GPE and PERSON \u2019s statements ; the payment by the applicant of ORG and MONEY ( ORG ) , as shown by an entry in ORG \u2019s accounts book which mentioned funds sent by \u201c PERSON \u201d , a false name used by the applicant or the first name of CARDINAL of his acquaintances who could be contacted in order to reach him ; statements from several individuals concerning services offered in return for payment , fundraising , the sending of substantial sums of money , a transfer of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to PERSON and the existence of a receipt for GBP CARDINAL .","Lastly , ORG noted a series of facts demonstrating , firstly , that the applicant had been \u201c the main contact person ... in organising and carrying out the PERSON \u2019s activities in LOC \u201d , as was clear in particular from a telephone conversation of DATE , from the statements of a witness who was a ORG member , and from the detailed content of several documents seized in GPE ( press statements , authorisations to conduct the jihad , documents on the management of funds , articles and handwritten notes on the activities of NORP groups in LOC and anti - terrorist activities , notes on military weapons and the handling of explosives , and so on ) ; secondly , that he had been \u201c the ORG \u2019s main propaganda agent outside GPE \u201d , with \u201c his role on the magazine PERSON \u201d ( particularly in the light of documents seized at the applicant \u2019s GPE address , namely a note on how to make the magazine more dynamic , a letter explaining the means of distributing it , a piece of computer equipment which the applicant would have been unable to afford , letters from readers and ORG sympathisers , a large number of magazines detailing the ORG \u2019s ideas and violent actions , a substantial amount of correspondence relating to NORP and NORP issues , some testimonies , and a list of post - office boxes in numerous countries , used by the magazine \u2019s subscribers ) ; thirdly , that he had been at the centre of \u201c the GPE cell which revolved around [ him and which ] also served as a rallying point for young recruits passing through \u201d , as demonstrated by the personal histories of CARDINAL of them ; and fourthly , that he had been a leader with \u201c a strategic role in the ORG \u2019s external organisation \u201d , as demonstrated by his links to members and correspondents of other NORP terrorist groups worldwide .","The Court of Appeal echoed the reasons given by ORG and added that there was sufficient evidence in the case to demonstrate that the applicant had been contacted regularly in order to be kept informed of events , that he had been responsible for funding ORG operations in LOC , that he had acted as a conduit for the ORG \u2019s military command and as a propaganda agent for that organisation , especially through the magazine PERSON , that he had given shelter to fugitives passing through GPE and had sometimes been called upon to coordinate the ORG \u2019s external activities . ORG therefore concluded as follows :","\u201c ORG , like the first - instance court , therefore finds it established that the ORG created \u2018 an external structure\u2019 in LOC designed to enable it to pursue its goal of overthrowing the NORP regime , including by attacking institutions and people in countries that supported or were deemed to support that regime , by setting up networks in GPE and GPE in particular which provided support to the NORP guerrillas by supplying weapons , munitions and various items of equipment , supplying jihadists and providing safe havens ( accommodation and false identity papers ) to fighters who were fleeing the maquis or had arrived to carry out attacks , organised and coordinated by a cell in GPE in charge of fundraising and using funds acquired lawfully or unlawfully .","... [ the applicant ] knowingly played a decisive role , by means of the material acts referred to by ORG and by this court above , in the achievement of the ORG \u2019s goal , participating from GPE in the implementation of the group \u2019s external structure , and played a vital role within the organisation whose aim was to prepare , assist in and carry out the attacks which took place . \u201d","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG indicted ORG and the applicant for the attack of CARDINAL DATE and committed them for trial before the GPE special ORG . The applicant was charged with aiding and abetting the crimes of attempted murder , destroying or damaging property belonging to others by the use of an explosive substance causing mutilation or permanent disability and temporary total unfitness for work of DATE or of a maximum of DATE , in connection principally or incidentally with a terrorist enterprise , and with the related offence of a breach of the explosives legislation in connection with a terrorist enterprise .","On DATE and DATE ORG of ORG upheld the orders issued by the GPE investigating judge on DATE ( concerning the attack of DATE ) and DATE ( concerning the attack of CARDINAL DATE ) for the indictment of the applicant and PERSON and their committal for trial before the special ORG . The applicant faced trial for aiding and abetting the crimes of murder , attempted murder , destroying or damaging property belonging to others by the use of an explosive substance causing death , mutilation or permanent disability and temporary total unfitness for work of DATE or of a maximum of DATE , in connection with a terrorist enterprise , and for the related offence of a breach of the explosives legislation in connection with a terrorist enterprise .","These CARDINAL judgments of ORG specified that the applicant had aided and abetted by : transmitting instructions from the ORG ordering attacks with explosives and providing PERSON with instructions on manufacturing ; relaying to the ORG leadership operational information provided by the perpetrators of the attacks ; providing the perpetrators with the funds needed not just to manufacture the explosive devices but also to make all the logistical arrangements for preparing and carrying out the attacks . The judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE added the fact that the funds had also been intended , if necessary , to enable the perpetrators based in GPE to flee .","In these judgments the judges noted in particular the following facts in relation to the applicant . The CARDINAL mobile phones used by the applicant had received calls from PERSON on DATE and DATE and DATE ; a receipt for an exchange transaction performed on DATE at CARDINAL TIME ( GPE time ) for an amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been discovered at PERSON \u2019s home , together with a notice of transfer of ORG CARDINAL from an LANGUAGE branch of ORG , and the checks carried out established that the applicant had gone into a GPE shop in GPE containing a ORG office at TIME on DATE and had re - emerged at TIME ( GPE time ) ; the applicant \u2019s fingerprints had been found on the transfer slip kept by the GPE office in the GPE shop ; the words \u201c PERSON CARDINAL FF CARDINAL \u201d had been found in the credit column of PERSON \u2019s accounts and the words \u201c GPE \u201d and \u201c NORP Bank \u201d had also been entered by PERSON in a document logging the details of the CARDINAL DATE attack ; the applicant had possessed the details of ORG branch in FAC in FAC district of GPE ; an exchange receipt dated DATE , for an amount of GBP CARDINAL exchanged at a rate of PERCENT , had been found at the applicant \u2019s home , with the number of a public payphone in NORP used by ORG written on the back , and an entry had been made in the credit column of PERSON \u2019s accounts for the sum of \u201c MONEY from [ W. ] , converted at a rate of PERCENT \u201d ; a sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been sent on DATE ; CARDINAL DATE the sum of ORG CARDINAL had been entered as expenditure for the purchase of a \u201c GPE ticket \u201d , demonstrating that the funds , after being exchanged in GPE , had been transported to GPE in DATE leading up to the attack at the ORG suburban rail station ; and a letter from ORG had been found , addressed to \u201c PERSON \u201d at CARDINAL LOC , the applicant \u2019s address . The judges also noted , as evidence against the applicant , the content of a hard disk found in a GPE flat to which the applicant had keys , containing CARDINAL financial reports , CARDINAL relating to the activities of the ORG in GPE and the other to a set of accounts for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , the date of PERSON \u2019s arrest .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE concerning the attack of CARDINAL DATE ORG observed in particular that the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL telephone numbers had been called repeatedly from payphones used by PERSON , around the time of the different attacks and in particular on DATE before the attack of CARDINAL DATE . It compared these calls with the statements made by PERSON and a further accomplice , who had been planning an attack on GPE market , according to which they had reported to the applicant on preparations for the operations , and in particular for the attack of CARDINAL DATE . ORG also noted that the applicant had made a transfer of FRF CARDINAL from GPE DATE before that attack \u2013 as shown by the fact that his fingerprints had been found on the transfer slip in the GPE office in GPE \u2013 which had been received by PERSON in GPE on DATE . The link between that transfer and the attack of CARDINAL DATE had also been established by PERSON \u2019s statements and by a call made to the applicant \u2019s mobile phone DATE , after the money had been received .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE relating more specifically to the attack of DATE , ORG stressed that the applicant \u2019s LANGUAGE mobile phone had been called DATE before that attack from a public payphone in GPE close to PERSON \u2019s home from which other calls had been made , including a call to a mobile phone belonging to a member of the NORP PERSON network , made TIME before the applicant was called . Furthermore , DATE before the attack and then on DATE itself , the applicant had received calls from GPE on his various numbers , including from a payphone close to the previous one , concerning his role as an intermediary between the perpetrators of the attacks and the person masterminding them in GPE . Above all , ORG noted that the applicant had on CARDINAL and DATE sent sums of GBP CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL respectively which were directly linked to the attack carried out on DATE .","Lastly , in its judgment of DATE ORG also noted that it was clear from these different elements that the applicant had sent funds to the perpetrators of the attacks , not just in relation to the campaign of attacks as a whole but also for use directly in carrying out the attack of DATE . With regard to the latter , it noted that the instructions issued by the ORG concerning the campaigns , which had been accompanied by advice on the manufacture of explosives , had been transmitted via the applicant , who had also funded all the operational arrangements put in place in GPE in order to ensure the success of the attacks , and that the recipients had been required to report to him on how the money had been used . A number of telephone calls had established that the applicant had been kept informed of the progress of the attacks , and in particular of the attack of DATE , which had been followed by a telephone call on DATE telling the applicant that everything had gone well on DATE .","On DATE the GPE special ORG , composed of CARDINAL professional judges , found the applicant guilty as charged in connection with the CARDINAL attacks . It sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of DATE . The applicant appealed on CARDINAL DATE .","The appeal proceedings before the GPE special ORG , this time composed of CARDINAL professional judges , took place from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . CARDINAL individuals joined the proceedings as civil parties , as did the RATP ( the GPE public - transport operator ) , the ORG ( the NORP national rail company ) , ORG for victims of terrorist acts and other crimes , the Government Law Officer and the association ORG .","At the hearing of DATE counsel for the applicant made submissions requesting the termination of the proceedings and a finding that the prosecution was null and void , on the basis of the ne bis in idem principle . Citing LAW No . CARDINAL and the judgment in PERSON v. GPE , delivered by ORG on DATE , they argued that the material acts which ORG was called on to examine were the same as those of which the applicant had previously been convicted by ORG in its final judgment of DATE . In counsel \u2019s view , the material acts alleged in the ORG proceedings , namely the transfer of funds to the perpetrators of the attacks , the transmission of instructions to the same perpetrators , and the monitoring of the preparation and carrying - out of the attacks , had also been alleged in the ORG proceedings .","In an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE the special ORG dismissed the objection regarding a breach of the ne bis in idem principle , finding as follows :","\u201c Although PERSON defence counsel correctly points out that LAW No . CARDINAL must be understood as prohibiting the prosecution or trial of a second \u2018 offence\u2019 in so far as it arises from identical facts or facts which are substantially the same , the following factors need to be taken into consideration in the present case :","- The facts on which the criminal courts based their finding that PERSON was guilty , while they related to criminal acts dealt with in the current set of proceedings , were by no means confined to them . In finding the offence of criminal conspiracy to be made out \u2013 a separate offence that is provided for and punishable under LAW the courts considered all the elements apt to substantiate the accused \u2019s involvement in the conspiracy , which was aimed at organising , developing and ensuring the continuation of a movement that was bent on imposing its cause , in particular by using clandestine methods and material and intellectual resources ( recruitment of and regular contact with activists , dissemination of information on the ORG \u2019s activities and views , fundraising , seeking donations of weapons and various items of equipment , etc . ) , without necessarily pursuing the sole objective of carrying out the attacks that are the subject of the proceedings .","- The facts to be considered by this court differ substantially from the earlier ones in that they relate to criminal conduct aimed at the achievement of CARDINAL - off objectives which were determined with precision and were not inextricably linked , and which were driven by a specific motivation consisting in particular in providing others , in full knowledge of the situation , with the means of deliberately harming human life or ORG physical or mental integrity by the use of explosives .","- In these circumstances the finding that PERSON was guilty and his conviction by ORG can not lead ORG to find that his prosecution has lapsed and to declare the criminal proceedings against him null and void .","- It is thus the task of ORG , on conclusion of the proceedings and in the light thereof , to rule , by answering the questions raised before it , as to whether or not PERSON is guilty of aiding and abetting as charged ... \u201d","In an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE the special ORG of Appeal deferred its decision on a request for further information and eventually rejected the request in a further interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","CARDINAL questions concerning the applicant alone were put to the special ORG of Appeal . CARDINAL related to the circumstances surrounding the attack of DATE , DATE to the events surrounding the attack of DATE and DATE to the attack of CARDINAL DATE . The questions gave precise details of the various alleged acts and where and when they had been committed , and listed the names of CARDINAL of victims of killings and attempted killings , mutilation or permanent disability , injuries resulting in unfitness for work of DATE or more , and victims of damage to their property . The answer to CARDINAL of the questions was \u201c yes \u201d , by a majority ( some questions , followed by a list of victims and requiring an individual reply in each case , were also found partly \u201c devoid of purpose \u201d ) , and CARDINAL questions were found to be \u201c devoid of purpose \u201d . Besides details regarding the places and dates concerned in each instance , as well as the indication of the victims according to the damage suffered ( death , mutilation or permanent disability , temporary total unfitness for work of DATE and of a maximum of DATE , destruction of or damage to property ) , the questions related in particular to whether or not the applicant \u2019s actions had been premeditated ( questions nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ) , and to incitement of others to commit certain acts ( questions nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) , the assistance lent by the applicant to the perpetrators of the attacks ( questions nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL ) and whether the applicant had issued instructions to others to commit certain crimes ( questions nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL ) . The parties did not comment on these questions .","An affirmative answer was given to the questions whether the applicant had knowingly assisted in the manufacture or possession of explosive devices and in issuing instructions to that effect , in the context of the attacks of DATE and CARDINAL and DATE , and whether he had knowingly incited others to manufacture or possess such devices in the context of the attacks of DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the special ORG of Appeal found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a minimum term of DATE , and ordered his permanent exclusion from NORP territory . It adjourned the civil hearing for DATE . The applicant appealed on points of law .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . Regarding his ground of appeal to the effect that no reasons had been given for the finding of guilt , based in particular on LAW , it found as follows :","\u201c Firstly , the impugned questions , which were put in accordance with the law , established in all aspects the acts of aiding and abetting of which Mr NORP was found guilty .","Secondly , the judgment convicting PERSON included the answers which the judges comprising the special ORG of Appeal gave immediately after the oral proceedings , on the basis of their personal conviction and by a majority following a secret vote , to the questions concerning his guilt which were put to them in accordance with the operative provisions of the committal orders and were the subject of adversarial argument .","Accordingly , and given that steps were taken to ensure the prior investigation of the charges contained in the indictment , the free exercise of the rights of the defence , and the public and adversarial nature of the proceedings , the requirements laid down by the statutory and Convention provisions relied on were satisfied . \u201d","As to the ground of appeal concerning a breach of the ne bis in idem principle on account of the applicant \u2019s final conviction by ORG on DATE on the basis of identical facts , ORG held that criminal conspiracy was a separate offence from the crimes prepared or committed by its members and also from the offences characterised by certain material acts that embodied it .","..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","P7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P7-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183387","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SHAKULINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","On DATE the ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) declared the applicant legally incapable in her absence . The applicant submitted that she had only learnt about that judgment on DATE . She lodged her appeal twice , accompanied by requests that the court reset the time - limit for lodging the appeals . On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s latest request that the court examine her appeal . On DATE the St ORG upheld that decision on appeal .","On DATE the ORG of GPE declared unconstitutional the practice of divesting people of their legal capacity in their absence , unless their absence resulted from specific circumstances .","On DATE the applicant sought the reopening of her case in view of the judgment of ORG DATE . After an initial refusal , on DATE GPE quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the applicant \u2019s case for a fresh examination .","On DATE the ORG discontinued the incapacitation proceedings , as the plaintiff , the applicant \u2019s daughter , had failed to attend . The applicant thus regained her legal capacity .","On DATE an emergency doctor was called to attend to the applicant and found that she required hospitalisation . A psychiatrist examined the applicant on her admission to the hospital and confirmed that she was in need of in - patient care .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s brother , who was her legal guardian at the relevant time , consented to her confinement . DATE his status as a legal guardian was cancelled and transferred to the hospital . On DATE the hospital , in that capacity , agreed to the applicant \u2019s involuntary confinement .","According to the applicant , the hospital dismissed her requests to be discharged , and she was not allowed to use a mobile phone , send correspondence or receive visitors . When the applicant contacted her lawyer allegedly seeking to update her application before the ORG and to challenge her involuntary confinement , he attempted to meet her at the hospital on DATE and DATE , but was refused permission to do so .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer then lodged a complaint against the hospital , asserting his right to communicate with his client . The lawyer supported his complaint with a copy of the power of attorney that the applicant had issued to him on DATE for her application to the ORG . On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c the GPE ORG \u201d ) dismissed the complaint , having noted that the applicant lacked legal capacity to appoint a lawyer .","On DATE an expert commission issued a CARDINAL - page report diagnosing the applicant with schizophrenia . It relied on the applicant \u2019s medical history since DATE and her state of health leading to her hospitalisation in DATE . The experts further stated that during her stay at the hospital , the applicant had been avoiding contact ; she had been complaining about her confinement ; she had remained suspicious and negative and had maintained her delusional ideas about her neighbours , doctors and other patients . They concluded that the applicant required further psychiatric treatment in the hospital .","On DATE held a hearing concerning the applicant \u2019s involuntary treatment in the psychiatric hospital . The applicant \u2019s doctor presented to the court the expert commission \u2019s report of DATE and her own opinion confirming that the applicant needed compulsory treatment in the hospital . The applicant was absent from the courtroom during that presentation , but her ORG - appointed lawyer , PERSON , was present . After the presentation the applicant was brought into the courtroom and was informed about her rights . She then said that she wanted to go home and did not wish to continue her treatment . The judge did not ask her any other questions . PERSON only intervention during the whole hearing was to state that she \u201c had no objections \u201d to the applicant \u2019s continued confinement in the psychiatric hospital . ORG concluded that the applicant required involuntary treatment in the hospital .","On DATE GPE quashed the judgment of DATE , having flagged a violation of counsel \u2019s right to meet with his client . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant met her lawyer .","On DATE the applicant asked the court to reset the time - limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the request .","On DATE the St ORG quashed the decision of DATE and reset the time - limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the St ORG examined the appeal and found the applicant \u2019s involuntary treatment lawful .","Once the applicant had regained her legal status on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , she refused to continue her treatment in the hospital and was discharged on DATE .","On DATE the Petrodvortsovyy ORG of GPE ( \u201c the GPE ORG \u201d ) declared the applicant legally incapable . It noted that in view of the fact that NORP law did not provide for partial incapacitation to take into account the degree of a person \u2019s mental disorder , it had no alternative but to deprive the applicant of her full legal capacity . On DATE the St ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant , having fully endorsed the Petrodvortsovyy ORG reasoning .","On DATE ORG examined a complaint lodged by the applicant in relation to her incapacitation and invited ORG to amend the legislation and introduce the possibility of partial incapacitation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the NORP Civil Code was amended accordingly ; the entry into force of the amendment was delayed until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Following the Constitutional Court \u2019s ruling , on DATE the Petrodvortsovyy ORG remitted the applicant \u2019s case for a fresh examination . However , on CARDINAL DATE the Petrodvortsovyy ORG confirmed its previous decision stripping the applicant of her full capacity , having stated that the amendment to the law had not yet entered into force . On DATE GPE upheld the judgment on appeal .","On DATE ORG of Stavropol , acting in the applicant \u2019s absence , stripped him of legal capacity . The judgment of CARDINAL DATE was not appealed against and it therefore became final .","NORP In DATE the applicant sought the restoration of his legal capacity . On DATE ORG of LOC ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s application to be declared partially capable .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( the \u201c LOC \u201d ) declared the applicant legally incapable in his absence . The judgment of DATE was not appealed against and it therefore became final .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , having asked a court to reset the time - limit for lodging the appeal as he had not been informed about the incapacitation proceedings , had not attended them and had not received a copy of the judgment .","On DATE ORG reset the time - limit for lodging an appeal . On DATE ORG quashed that decision and dismissed the applicant \u2019s request to have the time - limit for submitting his appeal reset .","On DATE the Dmitrovskiy District Court of the Moscow Region ( \u201c the Dmitrovskiy District Court \u201d ) divested the applicant of full legal capacity in his absence . The judgment of CARDINAL DATE was not appealed against and it therefore became final .","The applicant allegedly learnt that he had been stripped of legal capacity only in DATE . On DATE he asked ORG to reset the time - limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the request .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG examined an appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It reset the time - limit and at the same hearing examined the merits of an appeal lodged by the applicant against the judgment of DATE . Having found that in DATE ORG had examined the applicant \u2019s case in his absence despite the lack of any information on the applicant \u2019s ability to attend , ORG quashed the judgment of DATE . It then proceeded to re - examine the merits of the case . After having heard the parties and basing its findings on a medical expert report of DATE , ORG again declared the applicant legally incapable .","On DATE the ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) declared the applicant legally incapable . The applicant , who was being treated in a psycho - neurological facility at the time , did not attend the hearing .","The applicant allegedly only learned about that judgment in DATE . She asked the court to reset the time - limit for lodging an appeal in view of the lack of notification about the proceedings and her absence from the hearing .","On DATE ORG refused to reset the time - limit , having also noted that the NORP law in force at the material time had not called for the mandatory presence of the applicant at the court hearing . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140020","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF F.G. v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant is an NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently in GPE .","The applicant applied for asylum and a residence permit in GPE on DATE . Before ORG ( Migrationsverket ) he stated the following . In GPE , he had worked with persons , connected to different universities , who were known to oppose the regime . He had mainly worked on creating and publishing web pages . He and CARDINAL of the other persons had been arrested in DATE . He had been released after TIME and then hospitalised for DATE due to high blood pressure . Before the elections on DATE , the applicant had worked with ORG , who had supported PERSON for the presidential position , by spreading their message via the Internet . DATE before the elections , he and his friends had been arrested , questioned and detained in the polling station TIME . After the elections , the applicant had participated in demonstrations and other activities . He had been arrested once again in DATE and imprisoned for DATE . In DATE he had been taken before ORG , which had released him after DATE on condition that he cooperate with the authorities and spy on his friends . He had agreed to the demands and given his business premises as a guarantee . He had also assured them that he would not participate in any demonstrations and that he would respond to their summons . Following his release in a park , he had found that his business LOC had been searched . He had kept politically sensitive material there , which the authorities must have noticed , and his passport and other documents were gone . On DATE the applicant had been summoned to appear before ORG . He had contacted a friend who , in turn , had obtained the help of a smuggler to enable him to leave the country . He had converted to NORP after coming to GPE . The applicant submitted , inter alia , a summons from ORG which stated that he should present himself at PERSON prison in GPE on DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the request . It first stated that the applicant had not proven his identity but that he had made it and his citizenship probable . Turning to the applicant \u2019s asylum story , ORG held that participation in demonstrations or affiliation with ORG could not , of itself , give rise to a risk of persecution , ill - treatment or punishment on return to GPE . ORG noted that the applicant had changed his story in some parts during the proceedings ; in particular , he had changed his statements concerning how many times he had been arrested . Furthermore , he had not been able to name the park where he had been released . Thus , the ORG found reason to question whether he had been arrested at all . ORG further considered that the applicant \u2019s political activities had been limited . After the questioning in DATE and until the elections in DATE , he had been able to continue working with the web pages that contained the critical material , even though the authorities at this time were allegedly aware of his activities . For these reasons , the ORG found that the applicant could not have been of interest to the authorities on account of his activities and the material he had in his possession . As to the applicant \u2019s conversion to ORG , the ORG noted that he had not submitted a baptism certificate and that he had initially been unwilling to refer to his religious affiliation as grounds for asylum since this , he claimed , was a private matter . In these circumstances , it was not plausible that the applicant would risk persecution in GPE due to his religious affiliation . In conclusion , the ORG found that the applicant had not shown that he was in need of protection in GPE .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , maintaining his claims and adding the following . The reason why , at first , he had not wanted to refer to his religious affiliation was that he had not wanted to trivialise the seriousness of his belief . He submitted a baptism certificate to the court . During the oral hearing , the applicant added that his computer had been taken from his business LOC while he was in prison . Material that was critical of the regime was stored on his computer , since he had visited some web pages and had received caricature drawings via email . Therefore , there was enough evidence to prove that he was an opponent of the system . The summons to appear before ORG was submitted to ORG . The applicant had not been summoned again and his family had not been targeted , or at least they had had no problems with which they wanted to burden him . He did not claim that his conversion constituted grounds for asylum but contended that it would clearly create problems for him if he had to return to GPE .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It did not question the applicant \u2019s story or that the uncertainties that had been pointed out by ORG had been satisfactorily explained . However , as regards the summons to ORG which had been submitted to ORG , the court found that , regardless of the authenticity of the document , it could not of itself substantiate a need for protection for the applicant . This was because the document was merely a summons and because no reason was given as to why the applicant should present himself at PERSON prison . Turning to the applicant \u2019s asylum story , the court considered that the information concerning his political activities had been vague and lacked details . The applicant had only stated that he had participated in the campaign for the opposition before the elections in DATE by joining demonstrations and having contact with students and the student movement in order to help them with their web pages . Moreover , the applicant had stated that the material he had had in his possession when he was questioned in DATE had not differed from the material he had in DATE . These circumstances , together with the fact that he had not been summoned again to appear before ORG after DATE and that his family had not been targeted , made the court doubt that his political activities had been of such a nature and extent to have resulted in the consequences he had alleged . The court found that the applicant had exaggerated the importance of his political activities and their consequences and therefore also the authorities\u2019 interest in him . For these reasons , the court considered that the applicant had not made out that the NORP authorities had a special interest in him and , thus , he was not in need of protection .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrations\u00f6verdomstolen ) which , on DATE , refused leave to appeal .","NORP In DATE the applicant requested ORG to stay the enforcement of his expulsion and to reconsider its previous decision due to new circumstances . He stated , inter alia , that the act of converting from ORG to another religion was punishable by death in GPE .","On DATE ORG found that no new circumstances had been presented which could justify staying the enforcement of the applicant \u2019s expulsion order or granting him a residence permit . ORG noted that the applicant had , in the previous proceedings , stated that he had been baptised by a NORP church and that he had converted to NORP . ORG also noted that the applicant had stated that his conversion was a personal matter which he did not wish to invoke as a ground for asylum . In the ORG \u2019s view , it was remarkable that the applicant now raised the question of conversion when he had been given the chance to elaborate on it during the oral hearing before ORG but had declined to do so .","The applicant appealed to ORG , maintaining his claims .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It observed that the authorities had already been aware of the applicant \u2019s conversion in the previous proceedings . Therefore , the conversion could not be considered as a \u201c new circumstance \u201d . The fact that the applicant had previously chosen not to invoke the conversion as a ground for asylum did not change the court \u2019s assessment in this regard .","The applicant appealed to ORG which , on DATE , refused leave to appeal .","On DATE the applicant lodged his application with the ORG and requested it to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG in order to stay the enforcement of his expulsion . He stated that he had been active against the regime in GPE prior to , and during , the presidential elections in DATE . More importantly , he had converted to NORP DATE . The conversion had taken place prior to any decisions in his asylum proceedings . Conversion from ORG to another religion or faith was harshly punished by the NORP system and society .","In support of his claims the applicant submitted , inter alia , a copy of a certificate , dated DATE , in which a pastor and a congregation member stated that they had first met the applicant in DATE , that he had converted from ORG to NORP and that he had been a member of their congregation since DATE . They also stated that their church services were broadcast on the Internet , meaning that anyone could have access to the transmissions ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-153353","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF IREZIYEVY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Security of person);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants are :","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON ( also spelled as ORG ) , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) Mr Sidyk Ireziyev , who was born in DATE .","The first applicant lives in PERSON and the second and third applicants live in ORG , GPE .","The applicants are the brothers of Mr PERSON ( also spelled as PERSON ) , who was born in DATE .","In DATE Mr PERSON lived with the second and third applicants and their families in CARDINAL neighbouring houses in ORG . At the material time Mr PERSON , the applicants\u2019 nephew , was staying together with Mr PERSON . The settlement was under curfew . ORG of the federal forces were functioning on the roads leading to and from ORG .","At TIME ( in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as DATE ) masked men in camouflage uniforms with machineguns and rubber truncheons arrived in CARDINAL APCs and a UAZ car in the village . They split in CARDINAL groups of CARDINAL persons and broke into the QUANTITY houses . The men spoke unaccented NORP . They took PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON to the backyard , locking the remaining family members inside . Having checked their passports , the men pulled sacks over their heads and put them in CARDINAL of the APCs .","At dawn the applicants , together with the head of the ORG administration , followed the tracks left by the vehicles . They found that CARDINAL of the APCs had entered the LOC of the ORG collective farm ( \u0441\u043e\u0432\u0445\u043e\u0437 PERSON ) , where a NORP military base was located ( for the description of the LOC see , for example , ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . GPE , CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE and ORG v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , DATE , DATE and DATE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) , and the other one had driven in the direction of PERSON . The servicemen and the head of the PERSON administration denied seeing the vehicles .","On DATE Mr PERSON , the deputy head of the NORP district department of fight against organised crime , informed the first applicant that Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had been brought to ORG in GPE , and promised to arrange their release at TIME in LOC . At the specified time CARDINAL camouflaged servicemen brought Mr PERSON in a UAZ car . They promised to set Mr PERSON free on DATE , which did not happen . Later Mr PERSON told the applicants that he had not managed to obtain Mr PERSON release .","According to Mr PERSON , after the arrest the men took him and Mr PERSON to the ORG collective farm . There they were handed over to other men , put in a UAZ car and driven away , passing through several roadblocks . At a certain point the men stopped and placed him and Mr PERSON in a cellar . The men introduced themselves as officers of ORG ( the ORG ) from GPE . They questioned them about involvement in illegal armed groups and beat them up .","NORP Some time later the applicants learnt that during TIME raid of DATE the men had killed their neighbour , Mr PERSON .","The applicants have not seen Mr PERSON since his abduction on DATE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 description of the circumtances surrounding the abduction is based on the following statements : the first applicant \u2019s statement dated DATE , the third applicant \u2019s statement dated DATE , the statement of Mr PERSON dated DATE , the statement of the applicants\u2019 relatives PERSON dated DATE and PERSON dated DATE , and the copies of documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL opened into the abduction of Mr PERSON .","On DATE the applicants complained of their brother \u2019s abduction by military servicemen to the head of the ORG town administration .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicants complained of their brother \u2019s arrest by military servicemen to the LOC district military commander .","On DATE the applicants complained of the abduction to the military prosecutor \u2019s office of military unit no . CARDINAL stating that PERSON PERSON had been detained by their military servicemen .","On DATE the military prosecutor \u2019s office of military unit no . ORG replied to the applicants that they had forwarded requests for information concerning Mr PERSON \u2019s possible arrest and detention to ORG , the Military prosecutor \u2019s office of the ORG ( ORG ) and other law - enforcement agencies .","On an unspecified date in DATE and then on DATE the applicants wrote to the Envoy of the NORP President in GPE on Human Rights and Freedoms ( the Envoy ) complaining of their brother \u2019s abduction on DATE by military servicemen in CARDINAL APCs .","On DATE the military prosecutor \u2019s office of the ORG forwarded the ORG complaint of Mr PERSON \u2019s abduction by military servicemen to the military prosecutor \u2019s office of military unit no . DATE for examination .","On DATE the applicants complained to the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office of their brother \u2019s abduction from home on DATE by military servicemen in APCs .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE . The decision mistakenly stated that the abduction had taken place on DATE . The applicants were informed of the initiation of the criminal investigation .","On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the applicants\u2019 account submitted to the ORG . In particular , the applicant stated that the abduction took place on DATE and that the abduction had been perpetrated by armed men in uniforms who had arrived in CARDINAL APCs .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status . The decision stated that the abduction had taken place on DATE . On DATE first applicant was questioned again . He reiterated his previously given statement , stressed that the abductors had arrived in CARDINAL APCs and then had taken his brother Mr PERSON to the main military base of the federal forces in GPE .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the investigators questioned the third applicant and the applicant \u2019s relatives PERSON and PERSON whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to the applicants\u2019 account submitted to ORG .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor instructed the investigators to establish , amongst other things , whether any law enforcement agencies or military structures had carried out a special operation against Mr PERSON . No replies in the positive were received .","On DATE the investigators questioned the third applicant \u2019s wife PERSON who stated that Mr PERSON had been abducted in DATE by military servicemen who had arrived at their household in CARDINAL APCs , had been of NORP appearance and spoke unaccented NORP .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants\u2019 brothers Mr PERSON and PERSON both of whom also stated that their brother PERSON PERSON had been abducted in DATE by military servicemen who had arrived in military vehicles .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the third applicant \u2019s wife PERSON who stated that Mr PERSON had been abducted by unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms .","On DATE the investigators also questioned the third applicant whose statement was similar to that of PERSON","On DATE or DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant . No new information was obtained .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were suspended . The applicants were informed thereof .","On CARDINAL DATE the supervising prosecutor examined , upon the ORG request to this end , the investigation file in criminal case no . DATE and concluded that the suspension of the investigation on CARDINAL DATE was substantiated and lawful .","On DATE the first applicant complained to the NORP district prosecutor of his brother \u2019s abduction on DATE by military servicemen in CARDINAL APCs and requested that the investigation be resumed and that he be granted access to the case file .","On DATE the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office rejected the first applicant \u2019s request stating that there were no grounds to resume the proceedings and that he would be able to access the contents of the case file only upon completion of the investigation .","From the documents submitted it follows that the criminal investigation is still pending .","The Government stated that the investigation had not obtained any evidence proving that ORG agents had been involved in the disappearance of the applicants\u2019 brother or that he was dead .","The applicants submitted that it had been established \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d that ORG agents had been involved into the abduction and disappearance of Mr PERSON . In support of that assertion they referred to the ample evidence contained in their submission as well as the contents of the criminal investigation file . They also submitted that they had made a prima facie case that their brother had been abducted by ORG agents and that the ORG failed to provide a plausible explanation to the events . In view of the absence of any news of Mr PERSON for a long time and the life - threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in the region at the relevant time , they asked the ORG to consider him dead .","The Court shall examine the application at hand in the light of the general principles applicable in cases where the factual circumstances are in dispute between the parties ( see PERSON v. \u201c the former GPE \u201d [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHRCARDINAL ) .","The ORG has addressed a whole series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances in GPE . Applying the abovementioned principles , it has concluded that if applicants make a prima facie case of abduction by servicemen , this is sufficient for them to show that their relatives fell within the control of the authorities , and it is then for the Government to discharge their burden of proof either by disclosing the documents in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred ( see , among many examples , GPE and Others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . If the Government fail to rebut that presumption , this will entail a violation of LAW in its substantive part . Conversely , where applicants fail to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof can not be reversed ( see , for example , ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ; Movsayevy v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","The ORG has also found in many cases concerning disappearances that a missing person may be presumed dead . Having regard to the numerous cases of disappearances in GPE which have come before it , the ORG has found that in the particular context of the conflict in the region , when a person has been detained by unidentified ORG agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention , this could be regarded as lifethreatening ( see , among many others , GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , DATE , and ORG and Others v. GPE , cited above ) .","The ORG has made findings of presumptions of deaths in the absence of any reliable news about the disappeared persons for periods ranging from DATE ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) to DATE .","Turning to the circumstances of the present case , the ORG notes that the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY above ) demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 brother , Mr PERSON , was detained at home in TIME by a group of armed men and gone missing since . In their submissions to the authorities the applicants consistently maintained that their brother had been abducted by ORG agents ( see , for example , paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The investigators took steps to verify this theory ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their brother was detained by ORG agents and subsequently disappeared .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Their arguments are in contradiction to the evidence reviewed by the ORG and insufficient to discharge them of the burden of proof which has been shifted to them in this case .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any reliable news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160221","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF R. v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);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 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained in a special facility for temporary detention of foreign nationals in GPE .","The applicant is an ethnic NORP who lived in PERSON , GPE . In DATE the region was a scene of mass disorders and inter - ethnic clashes between ethnic NORP and NORP .","NORP In DATE the applicant was present at the barricades raised by ethnic NORP near GPE . On DATE he was wounded by a Molotov cocktail and was admitted to hospital on account of severe burns . He was released from hospital on DATE .","Eventually the applicant fled GPE to GPE , together with many other ethnic NORP , to avoid ethnically motivated violence .","In DATE the NORP authorities opened a criminal case against the applicant charging him with a number of violent crimes allegedly committed in the course of the riots of DATE . On DATE ORG in the PERSON - Abad region ordered in absentia the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE because he was not carrying an identity document . He was placed in the Special Facility for ORG , GPE ( \u201c the detention centre for aliens \u201d ) , run by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG , GPE ( \u201c the district court \u201d ) found the applicant guilty of an administrative offence punishable under LAW ( \u201c breach of rules on entry and stay of foreign nationals in GPE , GPE , GPE and the GPE Region \u201d ) of LAW ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) and sentenced him as follows : \u201c [ ... ] a punishment in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) [ combined ] with administrative removal and placement in the centre for detention of foreign nationals , [ where he will remain ] until the entry into force of that decision and until administrative removal from GPE under LAW \u201d .","On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG decision arguing that in GPE he would be subjected to illtreatment like many other ethnic NORP . It appears that the appeal documentation reached ORG on DATE . The appeal hearing was scheduled for DATE but was then postponed until DATE .","On DATE the ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request for interim measures and indicated to the ORG that the applicant should not be expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed from GPE to GPE or another country for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s relatives were told by the officials of the detention centre for aliens that the applicant would be expelled from GPE on DATE . At TIME the applicant contacted his lawyer stating that he was in FAC in GPE . At TIME the lawyer arrived at the airport and was informed by the border control personnel that the applicant had not boarded the plane scheduled for GPE , GPE . State bailiffs informed the lawyer that the applicant had been brought to PERSON but had later been returned to the detention centre for aliens . At TIME a duty officer of the detention centre confirmed to the lawyer that the applicant was back in the facility .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Appeal Court \u201d ) upheld ORG decision of DATE on appeal . ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegations of the risk of illtreatment stating that \u201c the documents submitted by the [ applicant \u2019s ] defence d[id ] not demonstrate a breach of rights and freedoms of the person in question \u201d and reasoned that \u201c [ a]ssessment of actions by law - enforcement agencies of a foreign ORG , as well as of [ legal ] acts carried out by them f[ell ] outside the subject - matter jurisdiction of a court examining a case concerning an administrative offence committed in GPE by a foreign national \u201d .","On DATE the Government informed the ORG that \u201c the proceedings on the administrative removal of the applicant have been suspended \u201d and that the applicant \u201c continues to be held in the detention centre for foreign nationals of the GPE department of ORG \u201d ( \u201c the GPE FMS \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant applied for refugee status arguing that in GPE he would face persecution based on his ethnic origin .","On DATE the GPE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for refugee status . The parties have not provided the ORG with a copy of the decision .","The applicant challenged the decision before ORG , GPE . The proceedings are pending .","According to the applicant , on DATE he was severely beaten by officers of a special police squad in the detention centre for aliens . He received rubber - truncheon blows to his back , buttocks and heels .","The applicant notified his lawyer accordingly and provided mobile phone photos of his injured back .","On DATE CARDINAL lawyers visited the applicant along with several other persons awaiting expulsion in the detention centre for aliens . The applicant and other detainees informed them that regular beatings of detainees had begun on DATE following unsuccessful suicide attempts by several inmates . The applicant claimed that the officers of the special police squad had beaten him on DATE with rubber truncheons on his back , heels and buttocks .","On DATE the lawyers reported the beatings to the main investigative department of ORG . They emphasised that the medical staff of the detention centre had refused to enter the detainees\u2019 injuries into the medical logs . The lawyers requested that the beatings of the detainees , including the applicant , be investigated . In support of their request they enclosed , among other things , the applicant \u2019s photos showing injuries to his back .","On DATE the ORG complaint was forwarded to the NORP district investigation department of ORG .","It appears that no investigation into the applicant \u2019s alleged beatings in the detention centre for aliens has been instituted ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145230","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DUBINSKIY v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On an unspecified date the regional police department for combating organised crime opened a criminal investigation into the activities of an organised group involved in a series of residential burglaries and car thefts in GPE . The applicant was suspected of acting as a coordinator and go - between for the group . In the course of the investigation of the group \u2019s activities , on DATE ORG authorised the tapping of the applicant \u2019s telephone , a search of his home and the interception of his communications for DATE .","On DATE the police intercepted the applicant \u2019s mobile phone communications with T. which they conducted while they were stealing a Lada car in the settlement of GPE , GPE . The car belonged to the President of ORG . An official investigation into the car theft was opened on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the investigation was suspended , as the perpetrator(s ) could not be found .","On DATE the police intercepted another mobile phone communication between the applicant and T. which they conducted while they were stealing a Lada car in the town of GPE , GPE . Police officers were at the scene . They observed T. driving a ORG car and the applicant driving the stolen Lada car . Then they followed the applicant to a garage in GPE .","In TIME the police arrested the applicant while he was taking the stolen Lada car out of the garage .","The applicant was charged with a car theft ( theft causing serious financial detriment ) . On DATE he was brought before ORG , GPE , where investigator PERSON , arguing that the applicant might ( CARDINAL ) abscond , ( CARDINAL ) continue criminal activities , or ( CARDINAL ) put pressure on witnesses , other parties to the proceedings , destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice , asked for the applicant \u2019s remand in custody during the investigation . The court , however , dismissed the investigator \u2019s motion . In particular , the court noted as follows :","\u201c Investigator PERSON submitted that he had no factual information substantiating the fact that [ the applicant ] might abscond , that he put or might put any pressure on the witnesses by way of threatening them or [ that he might ] otherwise interfere with the establishment of the truth in the case .","There is no evidence that would allow the court to conclude that another car or the car plates discovered in the [ applicant \u2019s ] garage had anything to do with the criminal activities involving car thefts . The court was not provided with any information about the nature of the equipment found [ in the garage ] or confirmation that it had been used to modify the registration numbers on the vehicle \u2019s parts or to perform other work on the vehicles . \u201d","After the court hearing , the applicant was taken back to the GPE police station , where he signed an undertaking not to leave his place of residence during the investigation . However , he was not released . It appears that on the same date , ORG of the ORG reopened the criminal investigation of the car theft of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At TIME police officers from the GPE police station showed up at the GPE police station and rearrested the applicant on suspicion of involvement in the car theft of DATE . He was taken to the GPE police station at TIME and booked in .","NORP On DATE investigator ORG from ORG of the ORG indicted the applicant on a charge of car theft ( theft causing serious financial detriment committed in concert with CARDINAL or more persons ) concerning the theft of the Lada that took place on DATE .","On DATE investigator PERSON applied to ORG , GPE seeking the applicant \u2019s remand in custody during the investigation . Referring to the gravity of the charges , the investigator argued that the applicant might continue criminal activities , abscond , put pressure on witnesses , destroy evidence and interfere with the establishment of the facts of the case .","On DATE ORG examined the investigator \u2019s application . According to the applicant , he argued before ORG that the application , being a repeated attempt to remand him in custody , was contrary to the rules of criminal procedure . ORG authorised the applicant \u2019s detention during the investigation . Referring to the car theft which took place on DATE , the court noted as follows :","\u201c It is evident from the materials submitted to the court that [ the applicant ] is accused of a premeditated serious crime which entails a custodial sentence exceeding DATE imprisonment . He does not have a criminal record . He has a permanent place of residence , is in employment and has a family .","It is evident from the materials submitted to the court that [ the applicant ] has been involved in car theft for a long time . It is so noted in the information provided by [ the regional department for combating organised crime ] , the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE to open a criminal investigation against the applicant and the report on the search of the [ applicant \u2019s ] garage of DATE .","These facts confirm the investigator \u2019s argument that [ the applicant ] might continue his criminal activity , [ and ] interfere with the administration of justice by the destruction or concealment of stolen property .","The [ applicant \u2019s and his lawyer \u2019s ] arguments that [ the applicant ] has a permanent place of residence , [ is in ] employment and [ has ] a family , [ and ] that he undertakes not to abscond , can not be regarded as sufficient to dismiss the investigator \u2019s application to remand [ the applicant ] in custody .","...","Having regard to the above , the court accepts the investigator \u2019s and prosecutor \u2019s arguments that the applicant should be remanded in custody . The court considers that the use of a less strict measure of restraint is not possible . \u201d","The applicant appealed against the court order of DATE . He reiterated that the decision to remand him in custody had not been compatible with the rules of criminal procedure and indicated , inter alia , that the judge of ORG had not been impartial or independent , given that the applicant had been charged with the theft of a car belonging to the President of the court in question .","On DATE ORG upheld the order of CARDINAL DATE on appeal , noting that the applicant \u2019s doubts as to the impartiality and independence of the judge who had delivered the decision in question were unfounded .","On DATE the ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , relying on the following reasoning :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is accused of a premeditated serious crime which entails a custodial sentence exceeding DATE imprisonment . If released , he might put pressure on witnesses and other parties to the proceedings , destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the establishment of the facts of the case . There are grounds to believe that [ the applicant ] , if released , might abscond or continue his criminal activity . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the order of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE the ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court repeated verbatim the reasoning of its previous order of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE the applicant was indicted on a charge of a car theft committed by an organised group and on DATE the pending criminal cases against the applicant concerning the car thefts of CARDINAL DATE and DATE were joined and transferred to ORG of the Interior for investigation .","Following the transfer of the applicant \u2019s case to ORG of the Interior , the question of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention fell to be examined by ORG , GPE .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court reasoned as follows :","\u201c The circumstances underlying the [ applicant \u2019s ] remand in custody have not ceased to exist . He is charged with serious offences . ... Regard being had to the circumstances of the crimes [ the applicant ] is charged with , there are grounds to believe that , if at large , [ the applicant ] may put pressure on witnesses or other parties to the proceedings , destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with the establishment of the facts of the case , abscond , [ or ] continue his criminal activity . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE investigator PERSON from the regional department of the interior indicted the applicant on CARDINAL charges of car theft committed by an organised group , forgery of car plate numbers and vehicle identification numbers and handling stolen property .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court reasoned as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is charged with CARDINAL premeditated crimes , CARDINAL of which are classified as serious . There are grounds to believe that , if at large , [ the applicant ] might interfere with administration of justice , put pressure on victims and witnesses , abscond , [ or ] continue criminal activities . These [ grounds ] are supported by the materials provided by the regional department for combating organised crime ... and other materials submitted by the investigator . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG fixed the hearing of the case against the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants for CARDINAL DATE . Referring to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and CARDINAL of the other defendants and the risk that they might continue their criminal activity or interfere with the administration of justice , the court ordered that they remain in custody pending trial . The decision remained silent as to the grounds on which such conclusions were based and also as to the period of such authorised detention or the date of its next review .","On DATE ORG reclassified the charges against the applicant and found him guilty of the theft of CARDINAL cars committed by a group of persons and causing significant financial detriments to the car owners and forgery of car licence plates and sentenced him to CARDINAL and a half GPE imprisonment .","On DATE ORG quashed the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration . The court found that the trial court had failed to correctly establish the facts of the case . It further noted , without specifying the grounds or the time frame that the applicant should remain in custody pending retrial .","On DATE ORG scheduled the retrial for CARDINAL DATE and authorised the applicant \u2019s release on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence . The court took into account the fact that the applicant had no previous convictions , that he had a permanent job and a place of residence , and that he had a family and a minor child .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the theft of CARDINAL cars and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The court applied the prescription rule and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant in part concerning the charge of forgery of car licence plates . The applicant was relieved from serving the sentence in view of the time he had already spent in detention .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148670","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PETER ARMSTRONG v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained at FAC , GPE .","On DATE , the applicant stabbed a man at his home in GPE . The man died of his injuries . When the police arrived at the house , they found the applicant sitting in a chair , and he told them , \u201c He \u2019s my best friend and I \u2019ve stabbed him \u201d . The applicant was arrested and taken to the police station . When interviewed , he claimed that the victim had entered the house and attacked him , and that he was acting in self - defence .","The applicant was charged with murder and his trial began in ORG at GPE before a judge and a jury . The applicant \u2019s defence to the charge was one of self - defence .","On DATE of trial , a member of the jury informed the court that he was a retired police officer . He had been retired for DATE and had not served in any of the units involved in the case . He did not recognise the names of any of the police officers in the case . The judge brought the matter to the attention of counsel and invited observations . The applicant \u2019s counsel explained that he had not had the opportunity to speak to the applicant about the matter and continued :","\u201c ... [ B]ut can I say without having exercised that right that the advice which I will [ be ] giving him is that there is no objection on the face of it even for a serving police officer remaining on the jury in a case of this sort provided that the officer in question , or in this case the retired officer in question , has no knowledge of the case and the parties to the case or any of the police officers who may be concerned with it . \u201d","He went on to refer to \u201c obvious exceptions \u201d , including where the police officer juror had some connection with the case or where there was a \u201c significant challenge to police evidence as a necessary part of the conduct of the defence \u201d , adding :","\u201c That does not apply in this case , the police evidence is , I will not say it is completely agreed but there is no significant challenge to the police evidence which would have any realistic impact on the jury \u2019s verdict in this case . \u201d","A short adjournment took place to allow the applicant \u2019s counsel to investigate whether the retired officer had any connection or contact with the case . Following the adjournment , defence counsel confirmed that he had no representations to make .","On DATE of the trial , another member of the jury informed the court that he was a serving police officer and that he recognised a man sitting at the back of the court as a police officer .","NORP Prosecuting counsel confirmed that the man in question was the officer in charge of the case , but explained that they did not intend to call him as a witness . They had made inquiries with the man , who had clarified that when he was an inspector at GPE , a town near GPE , DATE the police officer juror had been serving there as a constable . The man had not been the juror \u2019s line manager . He suggested that inquiries ought to be made into the juror \u2019s knowledge of the man , but suggested that it would be sufficient if the man were to remain outside the courtroom , as the rest of the jury did not know who he was and none of the jurors knew why he was there .","Defence counsel said that he wanted to know how much the juror knew about the man and about other officers involved in the case . The judge sought confirmation of the precise information required by the defence and proposed to prepare a list of questions for the juror on that basis , which he would share with counsel before they were put to the juror . Defence counsel indicated that his \u201c provisional reaction \u201d was that provided the answers to the questions were satisfactory there would be no problem .","The judge rose and returned to read his proposed questions to counsel and to the applicant . The questions were :","- What is the extent of your knowledge of the police officer with the beard who you say you recognized sitting in court DATE ?","- What were the circumstances in which you came to know him ?","- When and where prior to DATE was your last contact with him ?","- What is your present rank ?","- Where are you currently based ?","- Please look at the list of police officers who will give evidence . Have you any knowledge of them ? If so , what is the extent of this knowledge ?","Defence counsel made no comment on the proposed questions . They were duly put to the police officer juror . Following a short adjournment , the judge set out the result of the investigation :","\u201c I say it in open court so there is no doubt about it . I understand that the juror in question knew the man with the beard , as I shall call him , at GPE \u2019s when the man with the beard was his inspector . This was DATE . He was able to give his name ... He has not , however , seen him since that inspector left PERSON , which he thinks was perhaps as long ago as DATE . He makes clear that the inspector was his inspector for DATE but he did not see him socially or out of TIME . The juror is currently a serving Police Constable at GPE \u2019s and he indicates he knows no - one on the list [ of police officer witnesses ] . Any observations ? \u201d","Defence counsel responded as follows :","\u201c No , my Lord . I am quite happy that the juror may continue to serve . I understand that he does not wish other jurors to be told that he is a police officer and that is understandable , his occupation is irrelevant to his jury serving and his participation in these proceedings . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was convicted of murder . On DATE he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of DATE .","The applicant sought leave to appeal to ORG on the ground that the presence of the serving police officer on his jury created a real possibility of actual or apparent bias which rendered his conviction unsafe .","On DATE permission to appeal was refused on the papers . The judge considered that no fair - minded and informed observer with full knowledge of the relevant facts as disclosed in the discussions between counsel and the trial judge would conclude that there was a real possibility that the jury were biased . He further observed that the police evidence was not in dispute and that the applicant \u2019s trial counsel , who was pre - eminently placed to assess the situation , had made no objection to either juror sitting on the jury after full inquiry had been concluded .","The applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal before the full court . He argued that bias in his case arose from the following factors : that police witnesses and other witnesses closely connected to the police were cross - examined ; that the juror was an officer in the same police force as the police witnesses and the officer in charge of the case , although was not based at the same police station ; and that the juror had served under the officer in charge of the case DATE .","On DATE , following an oral hearing , ORG refused permission to appeal . It noted the factors relied on by the applicant as suggesting bias , but considered that , against those factors , were the fact that the juror had no particular knowledge of the facts of the case ; that he knew none of the police witnesses who were due to be called ; and that he had had no contact with the officer in charge of the case for DATE . The court rejected the suggestion that the juror had worked out that the man at the back of the court was the officer in charge of the case , or indeed that he had any connection with the case . It concluded :","\u201c CARDINAL.CARDINAL It is apparent that the mere fact that a juror is a serving policeman is not sufficient to give rise to a real risk of bias . There must be some other factor connecting him to the case in order to give rise to that risk . This was not a case in which the police evidence was in any sense hotly contested , despite the fact that some of the witnesses were cross - examined . In the circumstances , in our view , the suggestion that there was some additional connection between this juror and the office in charge of the case could be little more than speculation . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140771","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF TE\u0160I\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . In DATE her pension was MONEY ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , i.e. DATE ( \u201c EUR \u201d ) .","The relevant facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG , acting on the basis of a private criminal action ( privatna krivi\u010dna tu\u017eba ) filed on DATE , found the applicant guilty of criminal defamation ( kleveta ) and sentenced her to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE ( uslovna osuda ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON , a journalist , was also found guilty of the same offence and sentenced identically .","ORG noted , inter alia , that on DATE Dnevnik , a ORG DATE newspaper , had published an article , prepared by PERSON and based on the information provided by the applicant , to the effect that the latter \u2019s lawyer , PERSON , had deliberately failed to represent her properly in a pending civil case . The article maintained that this was subsequently confirmed by ORG . ORG described the applicant \u2019s and article \u2019s assertions as lacking any factual basis and being aimed solely at harming the honour and reputation of PERSON , a highly respected member of the ORG legal community and a former judge .","On DATE ORG upheld this judgment on appeal and endorsed its reasoning . The applicant received ORG decision on DATE .","On DATE the applicant filed a request for the reopening of these proceedings .","Following CARDINAL remittals , on DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s motion and reopened the case . The applicant personally and a number of witnesses were reheard and numerous documents \/ files were re - examined , but ultimately , on DATE , both the original conviction and the sentence imposed were reaffirmed in their entirety . ORG reasoning likewise remained the same . It clarified , however , that , whilst the police had indeed filed a criminal complaint against Mr GPE on DATE , by DATE ORG had informed the applicant of its formal rejection based on the applicable statute of limitation . The applicant had thereafter attempted to take over the prosecution of the case in the capacity of a subsidiary prosecutor , but this had ultimately been rejected by the courts by DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE . The applicant was served with ORG decision on DATE .","On DATE the applicant filed a further appeal with ORG , complaining , inter alia , about the outcome , fairness and length of the criminal proceedings , as well as the alleged breach of her freedom of expression . This appeal is still pending .","On DATE Mr NB filed a separate civil claim for damages with ORG , alleging that he had suffered mental anguish due to the publication of the impugned article .","On DATE ORG ruled partly in favour of PERSON and ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL in compensation , together with default interest , plus costs in the amount of ORG CARDINAL , i.e. approximately ORG CARDINAL in all .","In its reasoning ORG found that : ( a ) the applicant had already been convicted of defamation within the criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; ( b ) having examined Mr GPE \u2019s professional conduct , her allegations had clearly lacked any factual basis ; and ( c ) this had offended the honour , reputation and dignity of Mr GPE and had caused him profound mental anguish ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG in ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal , and in so doing endorsed the reasons given at first instance . The applicant received the ORG decision on DATE .","The applicant could not file an appeal on points of law , revizija , with ORG in view of the amount of damages awarded .","On DATE the applicant thus filed an appeal with ORG . This appeal was , effectively , supplemented by memorials of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE . The applicant complained about the breach of her right to freedom of expression , as well as the procedural fairness . Concerning the former she specifically referred to the disproportionate nature of the damages awarded , and cited the relevant GPE case - law ( such as , for example , PERSON v. GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINALB ; and GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . The applicant , lastly , complained about the consequent danger to her life and her health , as described at CARDINAL below .","On DATE the applicant requested that the ORG order the suspension of the civil enforcement proceedings brought against her ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s motion for the reopening of the civil proceedings , and on DATE the Novi Sad High Court upheld this decision on appeal .","On DATE the applicant again requested that the ORG order the suspension of the said enforcement proceedings .","On DATE ORG rejected the constitutional appeal on its merits , stating , inter alia , that the impugned decisions had been adopted in accordance with the law , that they had been well - reasoned , and that it was not its function to assess whether the amount of compensation which had been awarded was disproportionate . ORG made no mention of the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning her medical situation .","NORP The applicant was apparently informed of this decision in ORG letter of DATE , and received it by CARDINAL DATE at the latest .","On DATE Mr ORG filed a motion with ORG , seeking enforcement of its judgment dated DATE .","On DATE ORG issued an enforcement order whereby CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s pension were to be transferred to the creditor \u2019s bank account DATE , until the sums awarded to the latter have been paid in full ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","The said deductions to the applicant \u2019s DATE income began as of CARDINAL DATE .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s DATE pension was RSD CARDINAL , approximately EUR CARDINAL . After deductions , the applicant was left with approximately EUR CARDINAL on which to live .","By DATE the applicant had paid a total of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , i.e. approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . However , given the accrued and future interest , she would have to continue with the payments for DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant suffered from a number of diseases including cataracts , progressive ocular hypertension , which had allegedly caused a total loss of vision in her left eye , angina pectoris , and clinical depression . She had also had a pacemaker installed DATE , had suffered a stroke and was in need of hip surgery .","The applicant maintained that she needed a minimum of ORG CARDINAL DATE for her medication , i.e. approximately ORG CARDINAL , but that she could no longer afford to buy it .","On DATE , concerning the same article published on DATE , ORG ruled in favour of Mr NB and ordered PERSON , PERSON , and GPE ( as the said newspaper \u2019s founder ) jointly to pay ORG CARDINAL in compensation for the non - pecuniary damage suffered , together with default interest , plus costs in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , i.e. approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in all . On DATE this judgment was upheld by ORG on appeal .","The applicant maintained that on DATE her gas supply had been disconnected in view of her continuing inability to pay her utilities ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["34"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156076","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MASL\u00c1K AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE , while the second and third applicants were born in DATE and DATE , respectively . They all habitually reside in GPE .","NORP Since DATE the applicants have been facing multiple charges mainly concerning alleged violent offences , against a background of organised crime . In the context of their prosecution on these charges , they were arrested , remanded , released , and re - arrested and re - remanded several times .","A part of the present application directly relates to CARDINAL of their unsuccessful requests for release from detention following their arrest on DATE on a charge of perjury . These requests and the underlying procedures are described in chronological order in sections PERSON to NORP below .","NORP The applicants\u2019 term of detention following the arrest of DATE ended with their release on DATE , subsequent to which , on DATE , they were again arrested and later remanded in detention pending trial on a charge of extortion . The remainder of the application directly concerns their interlocutory appeal against the remand order following that arrest and , together with the underlying procedure , it is described below in section E.","On DATE the first applicant made a submission requesting release . It was received at FAC on DATE and the applicant amended it by means of a further submission , which reached ORG on DATE .","On DATE the ORG heard the first applicant . In the course of the questioning he challenged the judge in charge of the case on grounds of bias , alleging that there had been an arbitrary interference with the organisation of the workload at FAC , as a result of which the case had not been assigned to the lawful judge .","At the conclusion of the questioning on DATE , that is to say on CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the challenge . Immediately afterwards the first applicant used his right to state on the record that he wished to appeal against the decision on his challenge and he submitted his grounds for appeal on DATE . That appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE , the decision being served on the first applicant on DATE .","The first applicant \u2019s request for release was then dismissed by ORG on DATE and , following his interlocutory appeal , by ORG on DATE , the latter decision being served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a complaint under LAW with ORG , arguing that the examination of his request for release had not been speedy , that its dismissal had been arbitrary , and that it had not been determined by the lawful judge .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible . As for the length of the proceedings in the first applicant \u2019s request for release , ORG recapitulated the course of those proceedings and found that the complaint was manifestly ill - founded as regards both the part of the proceedings that took place before ORG and the part that took place before ORG . The remaining complaints were partly out of time and partly manifestly ill - founded .","ORG decision was served on the first applicant on DATE .","On DATE the second applicant and the third applicant also requested release and offered to pledge LAW that , if released , they would live in accordance with the law . Their request was filed with ORG of ORG ( \u201c the PPS \u201d ) which was responsible for dealing with it in the first instance .","Finding no reasons for acceding to it , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG transmitted the request to ORG for a judicial determination . The case file was received at ORG on DATE . Having established that the case file was incomplete , ORG asked the PPS for a complete version of it on DATE , which was submitted to ORG on DATE . Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicants waived their right to be heard in person by ORG .","The request was dismissed by ORG on DATE and , following the ORG interlocutory appeal of DATE , by ORG on DATE .","The former decision was served on the applicants and CARDINAL of their CARDINAL lawyers on DATE . On DATE , by means of telephone inquiry in response to the impossibly of having it served on the third lawyer , ORG established that the third lawyer had stopped representing the applicants , explaining the failure to inform the court accordingly by the fact that he had been on holiday .","The latter decision was served on the applicants and on the lawyer of CARDINAL of them on DATE . It was served on the other applicant \u2019s lawyer on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the second applicant and the third applicant lodged a constitutional complaint , directing it against ORG and ORG , and alleging a violation of their rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention ( and their constitutional equivalents ) to a speedy review of the lawfulness of their detention by an impartial tribunal established by law and to release pending trial .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible .","As for the length of the proceedings in the ORG request for release , ORG recapitulated the course of those proceedings and observed that some delays had been caused by the failure of the authorities to submit a complete case file to ORG and by the abovementioned failure of CARDINAL of the ORG representatives to inform the court of the termination of his mandate , which had resulted in repeated and eventually futile attempts to serve the written copy of ORG decision on him .","ORG concluded that neither before ORG nor ORG had the length of proceedings been incompatible with the speediness requirement of LAW .","The remaining complaints were inadmissible partly because they were a res iudicata by virtue of a previous decision of ORG and partly because they were manifestly ill - founded .","ORG decision was served on the second applicant and the third applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicants lodged a fresh request for release . In response , ORG informed them in a letter of DATE that \u2013 without the submission of new relevant information \u2013 under the applicable statute a new request for release could be lodged at the earliest DATE after the final determination of the previous request . As the applicants\u2019 request of DATE contained no such new information in relation to their previous request DATE which had only been dismissed with final effect on DATE it could not be entertained .","The first applicant amended his request by means of a further submission received at ORG on DATE while the second applicant and the third applicant did so by a submission received on DATE .","The request was dismissed by ORG on DATE and , following the ORG interlocutory appeal , by ORG on DATE , the latter decision being served on the applicants on DATE .","On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint , alleging inter alia a violation of their rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible . It recapitulated the course of those proceedings and observed DATE since the ORG request contained no new relevant information in relation to their previous request \u2013 the courts were prevented by law from examining it . The periods under consideration had therefore not commenced on DATE , as claimed by the applicants , but only on DATE , when they had amended the original request . From that perspective , the length of the impugned proceedings was acceptable .","ORG decision was served on the applicants on DATE .","Following their arrest on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicants were remanded in detention pending trial on a charge of extortion by ORG order of DATE .","On DATE the applicants challenged the detention order by means of an interlocutory appeal , which ORG dismissed on CARDINAL DATE , its decision being served on the applicants on DATE .","On DATE the applicants challenged these decisions before ORG , alleging inter alia a violation of their rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW , including the right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of their detention upon their interlocutory appeal against the detention order of DATE .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded .","The decision was served on the applicants on DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicants were indicted to stand trial on the charge in question and , on DATE , they were released from detention .","The proceedings on the merits appear to be still pending ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155082","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BEL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LHERMITTE v. BELGIUM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . She is currently detained in FAC .","On DATE the applicant called the emergency services to say that she had killed her CARDINAL children and had tried to commit suicide . When the police , the ambulance crew and the medical services arrived at the scene , they found the applicant , who was injured , and the bodies of CARDINAL children with their throats slit .","NORP In an order of DATE ORG ( Chambre des mises en accusation ) of ORG committed the applicant to stand trial for the following offence :","\u201c in Nivelles , on DATE ,","having knowingly and intentionally killed [ Y.M. ] , [ GPE ] , [ My . PERSON ] , [ PERSON . PERSON ] and [ Me . PERSON ] with premeditation . \u201d","The following details were mentioned in the indictment of DATE .","On the applicant \u2019s admission to the intensive - care unit on DATE of the incident , the doctor treating her had noted \u201c depressive , self - destructive thoughts against a background of psychotropic , anti - anxiety and antidepressant medication \u201d . During her initial police interview , the applicant had explained that she had acted in a fit of despair caused by her family \u2019s dependence on Dr S. , who lived in the same house as the applicant , her husband and their CARDINAL children and supported them financially .","The investigating judge ordered several psychological reports . CARDINAL psychologists examined the applicant and submitted their respective reports on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . They both concluded that the applicant was suffering from inner fragility requiring massive , rigid defences to preserve a perfect facade . She had developed a maternal omnipotence and a lack of psychological distance between the children and herself . Thus , by killing her children DATE love - objects in whom she had over - invested \u2013 the applicant was killing herself both as a person and as a mother .","The investigating judge also ordered a psychiatric assessment . A panel of CARDINAL psychiatrists examined the applicant and drew up a lengthy report dated DATE , in which they concluded :","\u201c We consider that [ the applicant ] was in a severe state of anxiety and depression which encouraged her to act as she did and profoundly impaired her judgment , without destroying it altogether .","...","The accused was not suffering at the time of the events , and is not currently suffering , from a mental disorder or a severe mental disturbance or defect making her incapable of controlling her actions . \u201d","NORP The applicant \u2019s trial took place in FAC of the province of PERSON from DATE .","During the trial PERSON , the applicant \u2019s psychiatrist , mentioned CARDINAL letters which the applicant had sent him DATE before the events but which had not previously been included in the file . The President of ORG accordingly instructed the CARDINAL psychiatrists who had already been involved at the investigation stage to draw up an additional report in the light of the new evidence .","On DATE the CARDINAL psychiatrists submitted their unanimous report , concluding as follows :","\u201c The letter of DATE ] suggests all the signs of melancholic major depression . ... These melancholic features are grounds for hospital admission or observation where necessary . ... These documents thus demonstrate beyond doubt that [ the applicant ] no longer felt able to control her actions ... she developed a transient dissociative state of depersonalisation , causing her to perform acts of extreme violence . Only operational thought remains ; reflective consciousness is completely lacking . ... Conclusion : at the time of the events , the accused was suffering from a severe mental disturbance making her incapable of controlling her actions , and is currently suffering from a severe mental disturbance warranting long - term treatment . \u201d","At the end of the oral proceedings , the jury was called to answer the following CARDINAL questions put to it by the President of ORG :","\u201c CARDINALst question ( principal question as to guilt )","Is the accused PERSON , present before this court , guilty of having knowingly and intentionally killed [ Y.M. ] , [ GPE ] , [ My . PERSON ] , [ PERSON . PERSON ] and [ Me . M. ] in Nivelles on DATE ?","CARDINALnd question ( subsidiary to DATE question , to be answered by the jury only if it has answered the CARDINALst question in the affirmative )","Is it established that the intentional homicide referred to in the first question was premeditated ?","CARDINALrd question ( principal alternative as to the commission of an act classified as a serious crime , to be answered by the jury only if it has answered the CARDINALst question in the negative )","Is it established that the accused PERSON , present before this court , committed the act classified as a serious crime of having knowingly and intentionally killed [ Y.M. ] , [ GPE ] , [ My . PERSON ] , [ PERSON . PERSON ] and [ Me . M. ] in Nivelles on DATE ?","CARDINALth question ( subsidiary to the CARDINALrd question , to be answered by the jury only if it has answered the CARDINALrd question in the affirmative )","Is it established that the act classified as a serious crime referred to in the CARDINALrd question was premeditated ?","CARDINALth question ( principal question as to social protection , concerning the accused \u2019s current mental state , to be answered by the jury only if it has answered the CARDINALst question in the affirmative or the CARDINALrd question in the affirmative )","Is it established that the accused PERSON , present before this court , is suffering either from a mental disorder or from a severe mental disturbance or defect making her incapable of controlling her actions ? \u201d","The jury answered \u201c yes \u201d to the first CARDINAL questions and \u201c no \u201d to the last question .","In a judgment of DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL judges and the jury , endorsed the guilty verdict reached by the jury and sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment . The judgment included reasons for the sentence . The court took into account the particularly heinous nature of the offences , holding :","\u201c The accused \u2019s heavy family responsibilities and her painful feelings of isolation and dependence may account for a legitimate desire for greater personal freedom . Her mental fragility , depression and character no doubt made it more difficult to handle this desire and , through dialogue , to seek possible improvements within the limits of her specific circumstances , taking into consideration all those close to her .","However , neither those factors , nor even a wish to escape from what she considered a dead - end situation through suicide , nor a lack of appropriate help , can provide a sufficient explanation for the acts of extreme violence which she resolved to commit , and carried out in cold blood .","...","In the specific circumstances relating both to the accused \u2019s character and to her living environment , the genuine difficulties experienced by her do not constitute mitigating factors , having regard to the extremely serious nature of the offences committed . \u201d","As an ancillary penalty , the applicant was stripped of all titles , ranks and functions she held and was permanently deprived of certain rights in accordance with Articles DATE and DATE of LAW as in force at the material time . Lastly , the judgment was to be printed and publicly displayed in the municipality where the offence had been committed , in accordance with LAW .","On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law , raising the same complaints as those submitted before the ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . With regard to the jury \u2019s guilty verdict , it observed that ORG had had to rule on a plurality of serious crimes ( concours mat\u00e9riel de crimes ) within the meaning of LAW and not a single act constituting several different offences ( d\u00e9lit collectif ) within the meaning of LAW , which required a unity of intent , and that the parties had agreed to the wording of the questions put to the jury . ORG pointed out that LAW did not require the court to be made up solely of professional judges , lawyers or experts and that the applicant had not adduced any specific evidence to justify her fear that the jury might not be impartial . Furthermore , the wording of the jury \u2019s guilty verdict in the form of a simple \u201c yes \/ no \u201d answer was prescribed by LAW . With regard to the applicant \u2019s criminal responsibility , ORG held that ORG judgment had indicated why the conditions for the application of LAW were not satisfied :","\u201c In noting the accused \u2019s cold - blooded manner and her determination to carry out her crimes , the [ ORG ] judgment indicates the reason why ORG did not accept that the perpetrator had been suffering from any mental disturbance making her incapable of controlling her actions at the time of the events . \u201d","As regards the reasons for the sentence , ORG held that there was no statutory provision prohibiting ORG precluded any mitigation of the perpetrator \u2019s guilt ; nor was there any statutory provision establishing that a decree of divorce in civil proceedings constituted res judicata in respect of criminal proceedings . Furthermore , the conclusions of ORG judgment to which the applicant had objected had not punished her for refusing to admit her own guilt but had indicated the reasons why ORG had not accepted that there were any mitigating circumstances .","In addition , regarding the ancillary penalties , ORG pointed out that deprivation of functions and permanent withdrawal of certain civic rights were mandatory ancillary penalties ( Articles DATE of LAW ) for anyone sentenced to life imprisonment and therefore did not require any reasons . It further held that public display of a criminal conviction did not attain the minimum level of severity required by LAW . Lastly , the fact that no appeal lay against the jury \u2019s verdict ( LAW ) resulted from a provision which ORG had not applied in the judgment itself and which was therefore extraneous to the judgment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184814","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SHAKIRZYANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE he was convicted of disorderly acts and given a suspended DATE custodial sentence conditional on CARDINAL years\u2019 probation . On DATE the court replaced the suspended sentence with an unconditional one because the applicant had failed to report to the probation authorities . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld that decision on appeal . The applicant subsequently served DATE of the custodial sentence .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG of GPE quashed the decision of DATE and the appeal decision of DATE , noting that the offence of disorderly acts had been decriminalised on DATE and that the original sentence had been unenforceable . It held however that the applicant was not eligible for compensation for the unlawful detention because he had been initially found guilty and because the \u201c right to the rehabilitation \u201d did not cover the situations of ex post facto decriminalisation ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145018","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF M.E. v. SWEDEN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Libya)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johan Hirschfeldt;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in GPE .","On DATE he applied for asylum in GPE , stating that he had entered the country DATE . He stated that the smuggler who had organised his journey had taken his passport and he provided a mobile telephone number for a contact person , N.","On DATE , ORG ( Migrationsverket ) held a first interview with the applicant during which he stated that he was from GPE . His mother and siblings remained there and he was in contact with them and would ask them to send him his passport and other identification documents . He further claimed that he had no relatives in GPE but he provided the mobile telephone numbers of CARDINAL contact persons in GPE , ORG and H.","An in - depth interview was held with the applicant on DATE , where his public counsel and an interpreter were present . ORG official informed the applicant of the importance of giving all his reasons for asylum as this might be his only chance to present them . She further assured him that all information provided was treated confidentially . The applicant handed in his identity card and claimed that the authorities had confiscated his passport and other identity documents . He then stated essentially the following .","He had left GPE in DATE and had travelled to GPE , where he had remained until his uncle had helped him to reach GPE in DATE , with the assistance of smugglers and a fake NORP passport . In GPE he had been a soldier , working as a guard at a military base in GPE where he had met some persons who had paid him to transport illegal weapons for powerful clans from southern GPE , with connections to the authorities . He had been working for them for DATE when , in DATE , he had been stopped at a road check and interrogated . He had then been taken to an unknown location where he had been kept for DATE and subjected to interrogation and torture . He had been charged with possession of illegal weapons and car theft and had then been moved to a military prison where his uncle had visited him and arranged for a lawyer for him . During the torture , his arm had been seriously injured and become infected and , DATE after his transfer to the military prison , he had been taken to a civil hospital by CARDINAL guards for treatment . After the doctor had treated him , CARDINAL of his guards had gone to fetch coffee for him and the other had taken him outside for a cigarette . He had then managed to escape . If he were returned to GPE , he would risk at least CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for the criminal offences . He would further risk being killed by the clans since he had revealed their names under torture . He showed some scars on his arm , back and head .","ORG officer asked whether the applicant had other grounds for requesting asylum , to which the applicant replied no . He had lived well in GPE until he was arrested and had even planned to marry a woman in DATE .","In DATE , the applicant \u2019s public counsel submitted certain clarifications to ORG but essentially maintained what had been stated during the interview .","On DATE the applicant visited ORG together with PERSON stated that he wished to add to his grounds for asylum that he was homosexual and had a relationship with ORG , whom he had known since DATE in GPE . Their relationship had developed over time and he had moved in with ORG in DATE . N. was transsexual and had a permanent residence permit in GPE .","In view of this new information , ORG held a supplementary interview with the applicant on DATE . During this interview , the applicant stated that he had been \u201c normal \u201d before and that it was ORG he had become interested in . Their relationship had developed from friendship but it had been difficult because of the very negative attitudes from other NORP in the city where they lived in GPE . No one in GPE knew about his sexual orientation and he had never had a homosexual relationship in GPE . ORG was in the process of changing gender from man to woman . They had spoken with his mother and sister over internet with a camera but ORG had presented himself as a woman . They had married in DATE . If he had to return to GPE to apply for family reunion from there , it would become known that he was married to a man and he would risk persecution and ill - treatment .","As concerned his original grounds for asylum , and in view of the changes in GPE during DATE , the applicant noted that the situation in GPE was very insecure . He thought that the clans would no longer be particularly interested in him since they had other interests now and were less powerful than before . If he was careful , there would no longer be much of a threat against him in GPE .","On DATE ORG rejected the application . It first noted that the applicant had failed to submit his passport despite having claimed on several occasions that he had a passport and would submit it . However , although he had not proved his identity , the ORG accepted that he was probably from GPE . As concerned the situation in GPE following the overthrow of PERSON , the ORG noted that it was serious but did not reach the level of internal armed conflict . Thus , an individual assessment had to be made in the applicant \u2019s case . In this respect , the ORG found that the applicant had given contradictory statements and that his story lacked credibility . To begin with , he had given diverging information about his passport at the interviews , first claiming that the smuggler had taken it , then that he could obtain it from his family , later that the NORP authorities had confiscated it and , most recently , that he would submit the passport . It further observed that the name on the certificate relating to impediments to marriage , which the applicant had submitted in support of his marriage , was different from the name that he had given to ORG . Since no passport had been submitted , it was not clear that the certificate concerned the applicant . In the same connection , the ORG noted that the applicant had given contradictory statements about when he had met ORG and their relationship . At the first interview , on DATE , he had given ORG \u2019s telephone number as a contact number , while in DATE , he had stated that he had become acquainted with ORG during DATE in GPE and , at the interview in DATE , he had claimed that he had met PERSON about DATE after his arrival in GPE . Moreover , at the in - depth interview , he had stated that he had no other grounds for his asylum application than those related to the weapon transport and that he had planned to marry in GPE . Against this background , the ORG also questioned the nature of the applicant \u2019s and ORG \u2019s relationship , as relied on before ORG only on DATE . Thus , ORG concluded that the applicant \u2019s story , both in relation to events in GPE and his relationship with ORG , lacked credibility and was not sufficient to justify granting him a residence permit in GPE .","Furthermore , the ORG noted that substantive changes had occurred in GPE after the applicant had left the country and considered that he had failed to substantiate that , on the basis of the criminal accusations against him , he would risk persecution by the authorities upon return or that the authorities would not be able to protect him against harassment by the clans . As concerned the applicant \u2019s relationship to ORG , ORG referred to the main rule in LAW that an alien , who seeks a residence permit in GPE on account of family ties or a serious relationship , must have applied for and been granted such a permit before entering the country . Whilst noting that an exemption from this rule can be made if the alien has strong ties to a person who is resident in GPE and it can not reasonably be required that he or she travel to another country to submit an application there , ORG considered that it would not be unreasonable to require the applicant to file such an application from GPE in accordance with the main rule . As there were no other grounds on which to grant the applicant leave to remain in GPE , his application was rejected .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , maintaining his claims and adding that the spelling of his name differed in the various documents because the transcriptions from LANGUAGE had been made by different persons . He had his passport but had been afraid to hand it over to ORG for fear of being returned to GPE . His relationship with ORG was serious ; they were married and lived together . It would also become known in GPE that he was homosexual if he were to apply for a residence permit from there , which would expose him to a real risk of persecution and ill - treatment . Moreover , he would not be able to apply for a residence permit from GPE since GPE had a consulate only in GPE . He submitted a copy of his passport , from which it appeared that he had been granted a GPE visa by ORG in GPE in DATE and that he had entered GPE on DATE . He also submitted a copy of a military card , copies of photographs of scars and CARDINAL warrants for his arrest .","During the oral hearing before ORG , the applicant claimed that there was a threat against him from the NORP authorities since he had worked for the military during the PERSON regime . Moreover , he added that it was not known in GPE that he was married to a man but he was certain that other NORP in GPE would spread that information to GPE , if he were to be sent there . In his view , it would also become known that he was homosexual if he had to apply for family reunion and be interviewed at FAC in GPE . He also presented his passport in original .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It first found that the general situation in GPE was not severe enough to grant the applicant asylum without there being individual reasons for asylum . Turning to the applicant \u2019s individual reasons , the court noted that , since he had now submitted his passport , certain other documents provided could be linked to him . However , on examining these documents , the court found that the military card was for training and did not show that the applicant had later been employed by the military . The CARDINAL warrants for arrest were of a simple character and easy to fabricate . Moreover , CARDINAL of them did not contain any date and the applicant had not given any acceptable explanation of how he had obtained them . Turning to the photographs of the scars , the court considered that the fact that the applicant had had wounds which had left scars did not make probable that he would be ill - treated in the future . Thus , the court concluded that the documents did not show that the applicant was in need of international protection . Furthermore , the court found that the applicant was not credible , stressing that he had submitted his passport only at the oral hearing before the court and that he had deliberately given false statements before ORG concerning his passport , how he had travelled to GPE and the date of his arrival . He had also given contradictory statements concerning his knowledge of the possibilities of applying for asylum in GPE and the alleged threats against him in GPE . Thus , the court did not believe the applicant \u2019s asylum story .","NORP However , the court did not question that the applicant was homosexual but considered that he had failed to substantiate that there was a threat against him in GPE on account of this . In this connection , the court noted that , according to the applicant \u2019s own statements , it was not known in GPE that he was homosexual . Moreover , it took the view that it was unlikely that NORP in GPE who knew about the applicant \u2019s sexual orientation would be more willing to spread this information simply because the applicant was to return to GPE . The court also noted that the applicant had kept his passport in order to be able to return to GPE . In sum , it concluded that the applicant had failed to show that he would risk persecution or ill - treatment upon return to GPE . In so far as concerned his relationship with ORG , the court observed that all embassy personnel had an obligation to respect confidentiality and that there were no impediments for the applicant to apply for a residence permit from abroad . The fact that FAC was located in GPE did not alter this conclusion .","One lay judge gave a dissenting opinion and considered that it could not be ruled out that information about the applicant \u2019s sexual orientation might leak from an embassy .","The applicant made a further appeal to ORG ( Migrations\u00f6verdomstolen ) which , on DATE , refused leave to appeal .","The applicant then requested ORG to reconsider his case , submitting that a NORP in GPE , who knew about his marriage , had travelled to GPE and , by chance , had met his brother and told him that he was married to another man . His uncle had later called him and threatened to kill him if he returned to GPE since he had shamed the family . He further claimed that friends of his in GPE had told him that CARDINAL homosexuals had been killed in GPE recently and that others had fled the country since they were being persecuted by unknown groups in GPE . He was convinced that he would face a real risk of being ill - treated or killed if returned and that it would not be possible for him to apply for family reunion from there without his sexual orientation becoming known .","On DATE ORG rejected the request for reconsideration . It found that there was no reason to depart from the main rule that an application for family reunion had to be lodged from abroad . The applicant \u2019s claim that his relatives had threatened him was not considered sufficient to constitute a permanent impediment to the enforcement of the expulsion order and thus there was no ground to reconsider the applicant \u2019s case ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161051","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GRIGALI\u016aNIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE GPE ( ORG rajono savivaldyb\u0117 ) assigned a plot of land measuring QUANTITY in the settlement of GPE to the applicant for the construction of a house ( hereinafter \u201c the land \u201d ) . In DATE she signed a land purchase agreement with the municipality and bought the land for CARDINAL \u201c single - use investment vouchers \u201d ( investiciniai \u010dekiai ) . The purchase agreement indicated that the nominal value of the land was CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) . The applicant subsequently obtained a building permit and built a storehouse on the land .","On DATE ORG found that Government regulations which allowed land in GPE to be sold to private individuals were contrary to LAW ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","NORP In DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) brought a claim before ORG ( ORG rajono apylink\u0117s teismas ) seeking the annulment of the administrative decisions and the purchase agreements on the basis of which plots of land had been sold to the applicant and to several other individuals . The ORG argued that the land in question had to be returned in natura to its former owners and thus had been sold to the applicant and other individuals unlawfully .","On DATE ORG allowed the ORG \u2019s claim . The court annulled the administrative decision of DATE assigning the land to the applicant and the land purchase agreement of DATE , and ordered GPE to return CARDINAL \u201c single - use investment vouchers \u201d to the applicant .","On DATE the ORG partially quashed the first - instance judgment . It found that the lower court had correctly annulled the administrative decision and purchase agreement , and upheld the judgment in that part . However , it noted that the \u201c single - use investment vouchers \u201d could no longer be used as a means of payment . Thus , in accordance with LAW , the applicant should have received the monetary equivalent of what she had paid in DATE . The court remitted that part of the case for re - examination in order to assess the monetary equivalent . On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment .","The remitted part of the case was subsequently re - examined by ORG sitting as the court of first instance . During those proceedings , the applicant argued that the unlawful allocation and sale of the land had resulted from the State authorities\u2019 negligence . The applicant claimed that she , as a bona fide purchaser , was therefore entitled to receive compensation for the full market value as it was at the time of expropriation , in accordance with LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for compensation equating to the full market value of the land . The court found that the authorities could not be held solely responsible for the unlawful sale because the applicant had also had a duty to verify whether she had been buying the land lawfully . Thus , the court held that , for the purposes of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , the applicant could not be considered a bona fide purchaser and was not entitled to compensation for the full market value . The court awarded her the nominal value of the land in DATE , which it assessed to be LTL MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The court also noted that if the applicant considered that she had suffered pecuniary damage , she had the right to institute separate proceedings against the ORG for damages .","On DATE ORG partially amended ORG judgment . It reiterated that the applicant could not be considered a bona fide purchaser merely because she had bought the land from the State \u2013 she had also had a duty to verify the lawfulness of the sale . However , ORG found that the lower court had incorrectly assessed the nominal value of the land in DATE . Referring to the text of the purchase agreement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG ; however , it partially amended the reasoning . ORG stated that the nominal value of the land had been indicated in the purchase agreement , so it had not been necessary to apply LAW and assess the monetary equivalent . As a result , the applicant \u2019s good faith had been irrelevant in determining the amount of compensation and should not have been examined . Nonetheless , ORG considered that that error had not affected the lawfulness of ORG judgment ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154984","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LUPENI GREEK CATHOLIC PARISH AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded;Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 14+6-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE","The applicants belong to ORG ( Greek Catholic or ORG .","NORP The historical background to the case","NORP The legal framework governing the NORP parishes","Until DATE the NORP parishes owned various properties , including churches and adjacent land , parish houses and cemeteries .","ORG was dissolved by Legislative Decree no . GPE . By virtue of the same Legislative Decree , properties belonging to that ORG were transferred to the ORG , except for parish property . An inter - departmental committee with responsibility for determining the ultimate allocation of those properties never completed its task . NORP property was transferred to ORG under Decree no . ORG , which provided that if the majority of CARDINAL ORG \u2019s adherents became members of a different ORG , the former \u2019s property would be transferred to the ownership of the latter .","After DATE of the communist regime in DATE , Decree no . MONEY was repealed by Legislative Decree no . DATE . ORG was officially recognised by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on certain measures concerning ORG with GPE ( ORG ) . LAW provided that the legal status of property that had belonged to the ORG parishes was to be determined by joint committees made up of representatives of both ORG and NORP clergy . In reaching their decisions , the committees were to take into account \u201c the wishes of the adherents of the communities in possession of these properties \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","DATE no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was supplemented by Government Order no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE and PERSON no . PERSON . The Decree , as amended , specified that in the event of disagreement between the members of the clergy representing the CARDINAL denominations on the joint committee , the party with an interest entitling it to bring judicial proceedings could do so under ordinary law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The legal situation of the applicants and of their church","NORP The applicant parish , diocese and archpriesthood were dissolved on the basis of LAW no . GPE . In DATE the church and the adjoining courtyard , which had belonged to the applicant parish , were entered in the land register as having been transferred to the ownership of the PERSON I Romanian Orthodox Church .","The applicant parish was legally re - established on CARDINAL DATE . It comes under the authority of ORG ( the second applicant ) and the PERSON NORP Catholic Archpriesthood ( the third applicant ) . The applicants took steps to have the church and adjoining courtyard returned to them .","B. The attempts by ORG and ORG to reach a friendly settlement","DATE Meetings of the joint committee","ORG and ORG convened meetings of a joint committee , composed of senior representatives of the CARDINAL denominations , with a view to determining the fate of the church buildings that had belonged to ORG . DATE the joint committee met on CARDINAL occasions . ORG party submitted a list of the churches claimed by it , including that of the applicant parish . It also proposed a friendly settlement , recommending that in those municipalities where there were CARDINAL church buildings , CARDINAL of them be restored , and that in municipalities where there existed CARDINAL church building but the CARDINAL denominations were present , religious services be organised on an alternate basis . The NORP side refused this proposal .","During the meetings , the representatives of the CARDINAL denominations noted that the dispute would be protracted and called for dialogue at local level and the construction of new church buildings for both denominations . At the final meeting the NORP side refused to return the properties and referred to the wishes of the majority of the adherents .","The applicant parish convened a meeting at local level with the NORP parish which held the property in issue , scheduling it for CARDINAL DATE . The NORP side did not attend , and nor did it attend a further meeting scheduled by the applicant party for DATE .","Meeting of the interested parties under the auspices of ORG","In the meantime , on DATE , at the initiative of ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) , a meeting took place at the GPE headquarters of ORG under the title \u201c Fraternal Dialogue \u201d . At that meeting , the representatives of ORG had emphasised the importance of constructing new churches in order to resolve the problem . The ORG \u2019s plans to launch a church - building programme had been welcomed . ORG had asked the NORP side to provide it with a more detailed list of the places of worship claimed by that denomination .","According to the applicant parish , the NORP side had duly handed over the requested documents to the ORG , but the latter took no further action .","C. The judicial proceedings brought by the applicants","Previously , on DATE , the second applicant , namely FAC , citing also the other CARDINAL applicants , had brought proceedings before the domestic courts against ORG and the PERSON Orthodox Parish . It requested that the expropriation of the church building and cemetery in PERSON , carried out on the basis of Decree no . DATE , be set aside , and that the church be returned to the applicant parish .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG ( \u201c the county court \u201d ) declared the action inadmissible on the ground that the dispute ought to be settled through the special procedure established by LAW no . DATE , that is , by means of the joint committee .","An appeal against that judgment by the second applicant was dismissed by a judgment of ORG ( \u201c the appeal court \u201d ) on DATE , which held that the action was premature . On an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) by the applicant parish and the second applicant , ORG and ORG , in a final judgment of DATE , sent the case back to the same appeal court for a fresh examination of the merits .","On DATE , in application of the legislative amendments which gave the courts jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the cases ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the appeal court upheld the second applicant \u2019s appeal and sent the case back to the county court .","On DATE , when the case was restored to the county court \u2019s list , the action was amended in order to add the applicant parish and the third applicant as claimants in the proceedings . On DATE the claimants supplemented their action with a claim for recovery of possession of the church building in question , on the basis of ordinary law .","NORP The county court asked ORG and NORP parties to organise a meeting in order to decide the fate of the church in question , and to inform it of the outcome of the negotiations by CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE a meeting was held between the representatives of the applicants , ORG and the PERSON . ORG refused to return the church , arguing that the majority of believers in the municipality were NORP . The applicant parish replied that the ownership of property was not related to the number of practising adherents in a congregation . The minutes of the meeting were transmitted to the county court , which continued its examination of the case .","By a judgment of DATE , the county court dismissed the applicants\u2019 action on the ground that the PERSON NORP parish had become the legally recognised owner of the property in question by virtue of Decree no . MONEY . The applicants lodged an appeal . By a judgment of DATE , the appeal court set aside the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on formal grounds and remitted the case to the county court .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the county court found in favour of the applicants and ordered that the church be returned to the applicant parish . In comparing the title deeds of the parties to the dispute in respect of the property in question , the county court noted that ORG had been entered in the land register as owner of the property from DATE , and that in DATE ORG had entered its ownership right in the land register by virtue of Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . It held that the repealing of Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had had the effect in the present case of terminating the NORP party \u2019s right of ownership over the disputed property . It added that the applicant parish did not have a place of worship and that it was obliged to rely on ORG , which rented the parish its LOC for religious services .","NORP The NORP parish lodged an appeal against that judgment .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the appeal court allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicants\u2019 action . It described how the proceedings had developed and noted that the case had been instituted by the second applicant in DATE and joined by the CARDINAL other applicants in DATE , after it was restored to the county court \u2019s list . On the basis of the evidence in the case file , it noted , firstly , that the church building being claimed and the CARDINAL PERSON parish houses had been constructed DATE by members of the LOC NORP and NORP churches and that , after its construction , the church building had been used alternately for services by both denominations . It noted that in DATE the members of ORG had been obliged to \u201c move \u201d to ORG and that the church building had become the property of ORG , which had maintained it and carried out improvements .","The court of appeal questioned CARDINAL witnesses , including CARDINAL NORP believers who stated that they no longer intended to return to ORG to which they had belonged prior to DATE . The third witness stated that she was one of the few NORP in PERSON . The appeal court noted that the statements by these witnesses supported the statistical data , which showed that there were more NORP than NORP adherents in PERSON .","It further held that the county court had carried out its comparison of the title deeds without taking into consideration the wishes of the majority of those currently in possession of the building , a criterion that , as the appeal court noted , had been laid down in LAW no . MONEY . In so far as there were more NORP adherents than NORP adherents in PERSON DATE taking account also of those who had converted and no longer wished to return to ORG DATE their wishes had to be taken into consideration in ruling on the case . It found that \u201c having regard to the social and historical realities , ignoring the wishes and proportional strength of NORP adherents , who are in the majority , in relation to the less numerous NORP Catholic worshippers , would be to contravene the stability and certainty of legal relations \u201d .","Lastly , the court of appeal noted that the fact that Decree no . GPE had been repealed did not automatically mean that ORG title to the building was set aside , and that this Decree had represented the law in force at the time that the ownership right was transferred . In consequence , it considered that , even if it had been granted unlawfully , ORG title had been valid from the date on which the transfer had been made , with the result that the action to recover possession was ill - founded .","The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law before ORG and ORG , alleging that the appellate court had incorrectly applied the legal provisions governing actions for recovery of possession . They emphasised that the right of ownership could not be linked to a religion \u2019s majority status , since ownership was , in their submission , a legal concept that was independent of the numerical strength and wishes of the parties .","In a final judgment of DATE , ORG and ORG dismissed the ORG appeal by a majority and upheld the appeal judgment . It held as follows :","\u201c With regard to a request for restoration of a place of worship which had belonged to ORG to GPE ( ORG ) , the appellate court correctly established the special legal framework for ruling on those claims .","Pursuant to Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ... a distinction is made CARDINAL situations : ( a ) that in which the property is within the ownership of the State ... ( b ) that in which the places of worship and the parishes have been taken over by ORG and in respect of which [ the question of ] restitution will be decided by a joint committee made up of representatives of the clergy of the CARDINAL denominations , a committee which will take account of the wishes of the adherents of the communities in possession of these properties .","In the light of those provisions , the appellate court , examining an action for recovery of possession of a place of worship , correctly applied the criterion of the wishes of the adherents ( NORP in the majority ) of the community in possession of the property , while simultaneously emphasising the unlawfulness of the reasoning provided by the first - instance court , which had merely compared the title deeds and ignored the special law ...","The fact of supplementing LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ] with a paragraph stating \u201c If the committee does not meet within the period established in its mandate , or if the committee does not reach a conclusion or if one of the parties is dissatisfied with the decision taken by the committee , the party which has an interest is entitled to bring judicial proceedings under ordinary law \u201d does not mean that actions for restitution governed by the special provisions are transformed into applications to establish title under ordinary law .","A court which is required to examine such an action can not ignore the special regulations in this area , which indicate the criterion to be taken into account in resolving such claims , namely the wishes of the adherents of the community in possession of the property .","In other words , by virtue of its full jurisdiction and in order not to compromise access to justice , a court may be called upon to decide an action on the merits , even though the prior procedure did not culminate in a decision by the joint clerical committee ; at the same time , however , it may not go beyond the limits imposed by the special statutory framework .","The priority to be given to the criterion of the ORG wishes was decided by the legislature , which wished in this way to regulate an area which concerns the buildings assigned to a particular use ( places of worship ) , [ and so ] the court was not authorised to criticise the law .","Moreover , in ruling on the alleged unconstitutionality of LAW no . MONEY and the criterion of the ORG wishes , ORG has stated that the text did not infringe the NORP State \u2019s principle of democracy , nor that of the freedom of religious denominations ( ORG decision no . FAC , ORG decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","Democracy \u201c also implies the application of the principle of majority rule , as set out in the final part of LAW the wishes of the adherents of the community in possession of these properties \u2013 which introduces a social criterion , that of the choice of the majority of the worshippers \u201d .","Equally , it has been established that \u201c the freedom of religious denominations implies not only their autonomy with regard to the ORG , but also freedom of religious belief \u201d ; where \u201c in the same parish there are NORP and NORP worshippers , the application of the social criterion \u2013 namely [ the wishes ] of the majority of parishioners \u2013 in deciding on the allocation of places of worship and parish houses is compatible with the democratic principle of determining the religious use of the said property , given that this is the wish of the majority of those who benefit from such use , because \u201c were it otherwise , this would mean that the NORP adherents , who are in the majority , would be unjustifiably prevented from practising their religion unless they transferred to ORG \u201d .","In addition , the procedures for regulating social relations and restoring the assets ( averi ) of the religious communities are a matter of legislative policy ( and not of judge - made law , which would attempt to settle such issues by judicial means , to the exclusion of the special law ) ; it can not be claimed that by introducing the criterion of the wishes of the faithful the [ special ] law failed to achieve its compensatory purpose .","The appellate court considers that \u2013 in a ORG subject to the rule of law \u2013 the fact that the ORG unlawfully dispossessed ORG of its places of worship in DATE can not be remedied by committing the opposite error , that is , in failing to take account of the wishes of the majority of worshippers at the point of adopting the given measure . However , returning the properties which belonged to ORG without respecting the criteria imposed by LAW no . DATE would infringe the stability and security of judicial relations . A right can not be reconstructed in abstracto , in disregard of social and historical realities , and mitigation for past damage must not create disproportionate new problems ...","In order to bring an action under ordinary law for recovery of possession without being subject to the special law , the applicants must be able to claim that there existed a \u201c possession \u201d or a right of ownership to their property .","However , through Decree no . GPE , ORG was outlawed and its assets were transferred to the ORG ; the building in dispute [ was ] registered as belonging to the PERSON I Romanian Orthodox Church .","The fact that , through Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG to GPE ( NORP Catholic ) was officially recognised following the repeal of Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL does not mean that its title to property was restored , in so far as the right of ownership is subject to a procedure ( namely the provisions of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and its subsequent amendments ) , as the hope of obtaining title to property is not to be equated with a possession ...","Contrary to the arguments of the parties having lodged the appeal on points of law [ recurentilor ] , the solution adopted does not infringe the freedom to practice a religion , since , as they submitted in their own observations , \u201c the practice of religion is a private matter \u201d , which consists primarily in a \u201c strong and personal spiritual investment \u201d . At the same time , the legislature provided for the scenario where the places of worship could not be returned ; thus , LAW no . MONEY provides that \u201c in those municipalities where the number of places of worship is insufficient in relation to the number of believers , the ORG shall provide support for the construction of new churches ; for that purpose , it shall make available to those denominations the necessary land if the denomination does not possess it , and shall contribute to raising the necessary funds \u201d .","Thus , the ORG , as the authority with power to control life in society , will guarantee that the necessary conditions for the manifestation of religious beliefs are met without ... the exercise of this right being limited by the number of adherents ( a substantive limitation ) . The ORG \u2019s task here is to fulfil a positive obligation , so as to contribute to the effective exercise of the right to freedom of conscience and religion ... \u201d","In a separate opinion , CARDINAL of the judges sitting on the case noted that the legislature \u2019s reference to ordinary law could not be reduced to a purely procedural dimension , but was to be interpreted as the application of a rule of substantive law . Referring to the rules governing the preparation of statutes , the judge indicated that , if the legislature had wished to ascribe a specific meaning to this reference to \u201c ordinary law \u201d , it ought to have done so explicitly . He also cited Article QUANTITY no . DATE on religious freedom and the legal status of religious denominations , according to which property differences between denominations were to be resolved by friendly settlement and , where that proved impossible , on the basis of ordinary law . After indicating that an action for recovery of possession implied a comparison of the relevant titles to the property , the judge concluded that ORG did not have title to the place of worship in question .","D. Other information about the case","According to a memorandum provided by ORG , in DATE there were CARDINAL NORP adherents and CARDINAL NORP adherents in PERSON . The applicant parish is currently holding religious services at scheduled times in LOC rented by it from ORG in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175138","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ORAVEC v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of trafficking illegal substances . On DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) heard his evidence and ordered his pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) . The decision also stated that the detention could not exceed TIME .","On DATE another investigating judge of ORG summoned the applicant , who said that he would be remaining silent because he wanted to be represented by a lawyer , PERSON The judge issued a decision on opening an investigation against him and CARDINAL other suspects , ORG and ORG , on charges of trafficking illegal substances . He also ordered his detention for DATE , referring to LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . The applicant \u2019s detention was ordered because ORG had said that he had been buying illegal drugs from him . Furthermore , he was unemployed and another set of criminal proceedings on similar charges was pending against him . Following an appeal lodged by the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE the decision on his detention was upheld by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge ordered the applicant \u2019s immediate release because ORG had retracted his previous statement that he had been buying illegal drugs from him . Furthermore , the applicant had submitted documents showing that he had his own candle - making business . The applicant was released that DATE . However , following an appeal lodged by the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ) , on CARDINAL DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG quashed that investigating judge \u2019s decision and ordered him to re - examine the case .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge confirmed his previous decision . On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG lodged an appeal , which was not communicated to the applicant or his counsel . It was argued that the risk of the applicant reoffending continued to exist for several reasons . Firstly , PERSON had given a detailed statement describing how he and ORG had been buying illegal drugs from the applicant , and the evidence showed that the applicant had had frequent telephone contact with PERSON and I.D. Furthermore , ORG \u2019s retraction of his previous statement had been unconvincing . Secondly , the applicant had already been convicted of a similar offence , and another set of criminal proceedings concerning charges of trafficking illegal substances were pending against him . Thirdly , the evidence indicated that the applicant had been suspected of selling illegal substances over a longer period of time . Fourthly , he was unemployed and had no lawful means of subsistence .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , composed of Judges PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , held a closed session in the parties\u2019 absence . They reversed the investigating judge \u2019s decision and ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . The decision did not set any time - limit for the detention .","On DATE the applicant was again placed in pre - trial detention .","On DATE he lodged an appeal with ORG against the decision of DATE . Judge PERSON , acting as a single judge of ORG , declared it inadmissible on DATE on the grounds that it was not amenable to further appeal . This decision was upheld on DATE by a CARDINAL - judge panel of the same court , composed of Judges PERSON , PERSON and GPE","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office indicted the applicant in ORG on charges of trafficking illegal substances .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of the court extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . An appeal lodged by him against that decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL constitutional complaints , about the decisions of DATE and DATE respectively ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared the constitutional complaint about the decision of DATE inadmissible , on the grounds that on DATE a new decision extending the applicant \u2019s detention had been adopted . It also declared his constitutional complaint about the decision of DATE inadmissible , endorsing the lower courts\u2019 reasoning ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the indictment against the applicant because the prosecutor had withdrawn the charges against him . On DATE ORG ordered his release .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request for settlement with ORG in connection with his wrongful detention . A settlement was not reached .","On DATE the applicant brought a claim in ORG against the ORG under LAW , seeking non - pecuniary and pecuniary damages for his detention , which he claimed had been unfounded ( neosnovan ) .","On DATE the court allowed the applicant \u2019s claim and awarded him CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK \u2013 CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damages . It held that his detention had been unfounded because a judgment dismissing the charges ( presuda kojom se optu\u017eba odbija ) had been adopted after the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG had dropped the charges against him . The proceedings are still pending as regards the claim for pecuniary damages . The relevant part of the judgment reads :","\u201c The claimant \u2019s claim is well founded in its entirety .","The documents in the case file show that the claimant was finally acquitted of the charge [ sic ] that he had committed the criminal offence against the values protected by international law \u2013 abuse of illegal drugs , described and punishable under LAW of LAW in conjunction with CARDINAL of LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) by ORG final judgment no . K-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE .","Further documents show that the claimant was actually detained in connection with the criminal proceedings against him for DATE .","ORG decision no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the case file ) shows that the claimant had already been finally convicted by ORG of the criminal offence of abuse of illegal drugs under LAW of LAW , that is to say for an offence of the same type but in its basic form .","Against the above background , this court considers that the claimant is to be awarded the amount of HRK CARDINAL for DATE he spent in detention , which in total amounts to HRK CARDINAL since the claimant was detained without basis for DATE .","When assessing the adequate amount of [ just ] satisfaction , the ORG has taken into account all the circumstances of this case : that the claimant was indicted for the criminal offence of abuse of illegal drugs , described and punishable under LAW ) of LAW in conjunction with CARDINAL of LAW ; was deprived of his personal liberty for DATE ; [ and ] that the proceedings ended by ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE because GPE ORG had withdrawn the charges .","It is true that the claimant was previously convicted of the above - mentioned criminal offence . However , in the opinion of this court the sole fact that the claimant was previously convicted has no effect on the defendant \u2019s obligation to compensate him for his unfounded deprivation of liberty , or his detention . Therefore , since the defendant has not proved that the claimant caused his arrest by some unlawful act such as absconding or concealing evidence , this court considers that there was no contribution on his part to the ordering of his detention . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150704","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF M.A. v. AUSTRIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant entered into a relationship with PERSON , an NORP national , and lived together with her in PERSON . Their daughter , who is an NORP and NORP national , was born in DATE . Under NORP law the applicant and PERSON had joint custody of her .","NORP The relationship between the applicant and PERSON deteriorated and the latter left the family home on DATE , taking their daughter with her .","The applicant applied to ORG ( tribunale per i minorenni di GPE ) for an award of sole custody of the child and asked the court to issue a travel ban prohibiting her from leaving GPE without his consent .","On DATE ORG issued a travel ban in respect of the applicant \u2019s daughter . On DATE the applicant learned that PERSON had left GPE with the child and had travelled to GPE , where she intended to take up residence .","On DATE ORG lifted the travel ban in respect of the applicant \u2019s daughter , granted preliminary joint custody of the child to both parents , and authorised her to reside with her mother in GPE , having regard to her young age and close relationship with her mother . It also appointed an expert who was entrusted with the task of collecting the necessary information for a final decision on custody . In addition , the court granted the applicant access rights twice a month in a neutral location , noting that the meetings should alternate between GPE and GPE and that the dates and arrangements should be agreed with the expert .","According to the applicant , PERSON brought their daughter to GPE only once . Visits took place in GPE , although PERSON did not facilitate their organisation . At DATE visits ceased , allegedly due to ORG obstructive behaviour . In a report of CARDINAL DATE the expert noted that she was not in a position to evaluate the applicant \u2019s ability to take care of his daughter .","According to the Government the applicant met his daughter CARDINAL times in GPE , where supervised visits took place DATE and DATE . Subsequently , he refused to travel to GPE without giving any reasons .","The applicant applied for assistance to secure his daughter \u2019s return under LAW . His application was forwarded via the respective central authorities in GPE and GPE to GPE ) , where proceedings began on DATE . Subsequently , the court appointed an expert .","On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for the return of the child under LAW . Referring to the expert \u2019s opinion and having regard to the very young age of the child , the court found that her return would constitute a grave risk for her within the meaning of LAW .","On DATE , ORG ( PERSON ) set aside that decision because the applicant had not been duly heard in the proceedings .","On DATE the Leoben ORG , having heard the applicant , again dismissed his application for his daughter \u2019s return , referring to ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , finding that returning the child to him and her separation from her mother would entail a grave risk of psychological harm within the meaning of Article CARDINAL(b ) of LAW .","Meanwhile , in DATE PERSON brought proceedings before ORG , seeking an award of sole custody of the child .","On DATE ORG held that it had jurisdiction with regard to custody , access and maintenance issues in respect of the child by virtue of Article PERSON ) of ORG Regulation CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the same court made a preliminary award of sole custody to PERSON , referring to the child \u2019s close links with GPE and the risk of danger to her well - being upon a possible return to GPE .","On DATE ORG awarded PERSON sole custody of the child .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant made an application to ORG for his daughter \u2019s return under LAW .","NORP In a judgment of DATE ORG , having held a hearing , ordered the child \u2019s return to GPE . The child would live with her mother , should the latter decide to return to GPE with her . In that event the PERSON GPE social services department was required to provide them with accommodation . In addition , a programme for the exercise of the applicant \u2019s access rights would have to be established . If the child \u2019s mother did not wish to return to GPE , the child was to reside with the applicant .","ORG found that it remained competent to deal with the case , as ORG had wrongly determined its jurisdiction under LAW ) of ORG . It noted that its previous decision of DATE had been designed as a temporary measure in order to re - establish contact between the applicant and his daughter through access rights and to obtain a basis for an expert opinion for the decision on custody of the child . However , the child \u2019s mother had failed to co - operate with the appointed expert and had refused a programme of access rights for the applicant prepared by the expert . The latter had stated in her preliminary opinion that she was not in a position to answer all questions relating to the child \u2019s best interests in a satisfactory manner .","On DATE ORG issued a certificate of enforceability under LAW of ORG .","On DATE the applicant sought the enforcement of ORG judgment of DATE . He was represented by counsel in these and all subsequent proceedings .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for enforcement of ORG order to return the child . It noted that the child \u2019s mother was not willing to return to GPE with her . However , the child \u2019s return without her mother would constitute a grave risk for her within the meaning of Article CARDINAL(b ) of LAW .","On DATE the NORP ORG quashed that decision and granted the applicant \u2019s request for enforcement .","The Leoben Regional Court noted that under LAW a judgment refusing return under LAW was irrelevant where the court which was competent pursuant to ORG had ordered the child \u2019s return in a subsequent judgment . It confirmed that ORG had been competent to issue the judgment of DATE , as ORG had unlawfully removed the child from GPE and the applicant had immediately requested her return . Moreover , the applicant had submitted a certificate of enforceability under LAW of ORG in respect of the judgment at issue . The NORP courts therefore had to recognise the judgment and to enforce it . They were not to establish anew whether the child \u2019s return would be contrary to her best interests . In any event , there was no indication that the circumstances had changed since ORG had given its judgment . It was for the court of first instance to order appropriate measures of enforcement .","D.P. lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) on DATE .","On DATE ORG requested a preliminary ruling by ORG of ORG ( CJEU ) , submitting a number of questions concerning the application of ORG .","On DATE , the ORG issued a preliminary ruling ( C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ORG ) confirming the jurisdiction of the NORP courts in the case and the enforceability of ORG judgment of DATE . It found , in particular , that :","( CARDINAL ) a provisional measure [ such as the CARDINAL issued by ORG in DATE ] did not constitute a \u2018 judgment on custody that does not entail the return of the child\u2019 within the meaning of Article CARDINAL(b ) subparagraph ( iv ) of ORG and could not be the basis of a transfer of jurisdiction to the courts of the Member ORG to which the child had been unlawfully removed ;","( CARDINAL ) Article CARDINAL ) of the ORG applied to a judgment of the court with jurisdiction ordering the return of the child , even if it was not preceded by a final judgment of that court relating to custody of the child ;","( CARDINAL ) Article CARDINAL ) subparagraph ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG had to be interpreted as meaning that a judgment delivered subsequently by a court of the Member ORG of enforcement which made a provisional award of custody could not preclude enforcement of a certified judgment previously delivered by the court which had jurisdiction in the Member ORG of origin and had ordered the return of the child ; and","( CARDINAL ) enforcement of a certified judgment [ ordering the child \u2019s return ] could not be refused by the Member State of enforcement because , as a result of a subsequent change of circumstances , it might be seriously detrimental to the best interests of the child . Such a change had to be pleaded before the court which had jurisdiction in the Member ORG of origin , which also had to hear any application to suspend the enforcement of its judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s appeal on points of law . It noted that according to the ORG \u2019s ruling the NORP courts\u2019 only task was to take the necessary steps for the enforcement of the return order , without proceeding to conduct any review of the merits of the decision . If PERSON asserted that the circumstances had changed since ORG had given its judgment , she had to apply to that court , which would also be competent to grant such an application suspensive effect .","ORG noted that it was now for the first - instance court to enforce ORG judgment . In doing so , it had to take into account the fact that ORG had in the first place envisaged that the child should reside with her mother upon her return to GPE and had ordered the PERSON GPE social services department to make accommodation available for them . The first - instance court would therefore have to ask the applicant to submit appropriate evidence , in particular confirmation from ORG or PERSON municipal council , that accommodation was indeed available . The first - instance court would then have to order the mother to return with the child within DATE . Should she fail to comply within that time - limit , the first - instance court would , upon the applicant \u2019s request , have to order coercive measures for the child \u2019s return , while still giving the mother the opportunity to avoid such drastic measures by voluntarily returning to GPE with the child .","On DATE ORG refused to grant an application by PERSON for the enforcement of its judgment of DATE to be stayed . Referring to that decision , the applicant asked the NORP ORG to order his daughter \u2019s return to GPE .","The applicant claimed that he had offered to make accommodation ( apparently a flat belonging to him ) available to ORG and his daughter , but that ORG had found that this did not fulfil the conditions set by ORG in its judgment of DATE .","On DATE the ORG asked the applicant to submit evidence that appropriate accommodation would be made available to his daughter and her mother by the PERSON GPE social services department , as required by ORG judgment of DATE .","By letter of CARDINAL DATE the NORP ORG of Justice , as ORG , informed its NORP counterpart accordingly and also noted that to date the condition had not been complied with . A similar letter was sent to ORG on CARDINAL DATE . CARDINAL further letters with similar content were sent to ORG prior to DATE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG withdrew ORG custody rights and awarded the applicant sole custody of the child . It further ordered the child \u2019s return to GPE to reside with the applicant in PERSON . The court ordered the PERSON GPE social services department DATE if need be in co - operation with the neuropsychiatry department of the local health authority \u2013 to ensure that contact between the child and her mother was maintained and to give the child linguistic and educational support in order to assist her integration into her new family and social environment .","ORG referred to its decision of DATE , which had been aimed at preserving the child \u2019s relationship with her mother while re - establishing contact with the applicant , noting that such attempts had failed owing to a lack of co - operation from the mother . It had therefore ordered the child \u2019s return to GPE in its judgment of DATE . It further considered that PERSON had unlawfully removed the child to GPE and had subsequently deprived her of contact with the applicant without good reason . She had thus acted contrary to the child \u2019s best interests . It therefore found that sole custody was to be awarded to the applicant . Given that to date any attempts to establish contact step by step had failed , his daughter was to reside with him immediately . The court noted that this would entail a difficult transition for her , but considered that the damage caused by growing up without her father would weigh even heavier . The court considered that the social services department would have to give the child educational and linguistic support to help her settle in her new family and social environment and to maintain contact with her mother . Finally , the court considered that the child \u2019s return would not entail any grave risk of psychological or physical harm within the meaning of LAW of ORG , which in turn referred to LAW .","D.P. did not appeal against this judgment .","On DATE the applicant notified the NORP ORG of ORG \u2019s judgment of DATE . He also submitted a certificate of enforceability under LAW of ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for enforcement of ORG order for the child \u2019s return . Referring to ORG decision of DATE , it considered that he had failed to submit proof that appropriate accommodation would be made available for the child and her mother upon their return .","The applicant appealed . He submitted , in particular , that ORG judgment of DATE had granted him sole custody of the child and had ordered her return to GPE , where she was to reside with him .","On DATE the ORG granted the applicant \u2019s appeal and ordered PERSON to hand the child over to the applicant within DATE , noting that enforcement measures would be taken in case of failure to comply .","ORG found that the condition that appropriate accommodation be made available to the child and the mother was no longer valid : in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG had awarded sole custody of the child to the applicant and had ordered that she return to reside with him . The applicant had submitted that judgment together with a certificate of enforceability under LAW of ORG . The mother \u2019s obligation to return the child to the applicant thus resulted directly from ORG judgment of DATE . Finally , ORG noted that the award of custody made by ORG on DATE could not prevent the enforcement of ORG judgment . The latter had retained its competence to rule on custody matters , as PERSON had unlawfully removed the child to GPE and the applicant had made a timely request for her return under LAW .","D.P. did not comply with the return order . She lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law with ORG .","DATE . On DATE ORG rejected PERSON \u2019s extraordinary appeal on points of law , as the case did not raise an important legal issue . It noted that the return order had become final and was enforceable . The first - instance court now had no other task than to define the steps to be taken to enforce the return order . The ORG had clarified that where there was a certificate of enforceability under LAW , the requested court had to proceed with the enforcement of the main judgment . Any questions relating to the merits of the return decision , in particular the question whether the requirements for ordering a return had been met , had to be raised before the courts of the requesting ORG in accordance with the laws of that ORG . Consequently , any change in circumstances affecting the issue of whether a return would endanger the child \u2019s well - being had to be raised before the competent court of the requesting ORG . PERSON \u2019s argument that the child \u2019s return would lead to serious harm for her and entail a violation of LAW was therefore not relevant in the proceedings before the NORP courts , but rather had to be raised before the competent NORP courts .","On DATE the Leoben ORG held that it was not competent to conduct the enforcement proceedings and transferred the case to ORG , apparently on account of a change of residence by PERSON and the child .","On DATE the Wiener ORG issued a decision on the next steps to be taken in the enforcement proceedings . The judge noted , in particular , that a continuation of the path chosen by both parents , namely the use of the child in the conflict between them , would lead to the child being traumatised , especially if the GPE unbending position eventually led to an enforcement of the return order by coercive measures as a last resort . He noted that the best interests of the child required the parents to reach a workable compromise . The judge therefore proposed that a hearing in the presence of both parents be held in order to seek a constructive solution . Accordingly , he asked both parents to indicate within DATE whether they were ready to take part in the proposed hearing . The judge further noted that if the parents were not willing to take part in the hearing , the enforced return of the child would be arranged . In this connection , the judge stated that any trauma suffered by the child because of such enforcement would then have to be laid at the door of the parents . Moreover , the applicant would be required to find a way to deal with the trauma caused to the child .","On DATE the applicant informed GPE that he was not ready to take part in a hearing with the child \u2019s mother , but wanted to arrange the return of the child with the least traumatic impact possible . He therefore suggested that he come to GPE with his parents to pick up the child or , alternatively , that PERSON travel to GPE with the child to hand her over . He therefore asked PERSON to either set a pick - up date in GPE or to inform him of a date when she would bring the child to GPE .","On DATE PERSON informed ORG that she was ready to take part in the proposed hearing . She also informed the court that she had appealed against the decision which had transferred the case from ORG to GPE . Consequently , the decision establishing the latter court \u2019s competence had not become final . She therefore asked the court to await the decision on her appeal before taking any further steps .","In the related case brought before ORG by the mother of the child ( GPE v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , the ORG granted a request for interim measures on DATE . It asked the Government to stay the child \u2019s return to GPE . Having obtained information from the NORP and NORP ORG and from the applicants , the ORG lifted the interim measure on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel requested that the enforcement proceedings be continued .","On DATE the Wiener ORG decided to continue the enforcement proceedings and , on DATE , requested that the parties submit their views within DATE in order to reach a comprehensive solution for the benefit of the child . According to the Government , the applicant refused to contribute to that process .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Wiener ORG ordered GPE to hand over the child to the applicant by DATE and stated that in case of failure to comply coercive measures would be applied . ORG noted that it was for PERSON to choose whether she would accompany her daughter to GPE or whether she would set a date within that timeframe for the applicant to pick up the child in GPE . Furthermore , ORG , referring to ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , repeated that it was for the NORP courts to examine any issues relating to the child \u2019s well - being . It noted finally that the deadline for handing over the child had been set in such a way as to allow her to finish DATE in GPE .","As PERSON did not comply with the order to hand over the child , an attempt to enforce it by means of coercive measures was made in TIME of DATE without prior notice . The attempt , in which the judge , trained bailiffs and police officers participated , was unsuccessful , as PERSON and the child were not present at their place of residence . The applicant had been informed of the planned enforcement and was present .","On DATE PERSON asked ORG to stay the enforcement of its judgment of DATE . Furthermore , she sought an award of sole custody in her favour . She alleged that she had not been adequately heard in the initial proceedings . Furthermore , she asserted that there had been a change of circumstances , in that her daughter was fully integrated into her living environment in GPE and had formed bonds with ORG family , consisting of her mother , the latter \u2019s partner and her younger CARDINAL - brother . There had been no contact between father and child for a lengthy period and the child had no knowledge of NORP . PERSON submitted an expert opinion , according to which the child \u2019s return to her father through the use of coercive measures would cause serious harm to the child .","On DATE the Wiener ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s application for a stay of enforcement , but decided to provisionally refrain from returning the child until ORG gave a decision on PERSON \u2019s action before it .","In his observations of CARDINAL DATE the applicant claimed that he had not yet been duly notified of the fresh proceedings before ORG . The Government , in their submissions of DATE , stated that the proceedings were pending before the NORP courts and that the parties had been notified of the dates of hearings . Moreover , the ORG submitted that the applicant had not taken advantage of numerous opportunities to re - establish communication between himself and his daughter .","According to information provided by the applicant in a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held hearings in DATE in the presence of both parents and fixed a series of meetings between the applicant and his daughter . A number of meetings took place DATE at intervals of DATE in GPE and then in DATE in GPE . The mother of the child was present at the meetings and on some occasions also her partner . The applicant alleges that on CARDINAL occasions the mother \u2019s partner threatened him and disrupted the meetings . According to the applicant meetings which had been scheduled for DATE and DATE did not take place as the mother refused to bring the child to GPE . ORG held a further hearing on DATE and scheduled further meetings in GPE between the applicant and his daughter for DATE and DATE . The proceedings before the NORP courts are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174386","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SVORCAN v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","The relevant facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant and her family members instituted proceedings before ORG ( PERSON ) in ORG , seeking division of their joint property .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG in ORG discontinued these proceedings and instructed the parties to initiate a separate civil case given a number of contentious issues .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s cousins brought a claim against the applicant and her parents before ORG in ORG . On DATE , the cousins lodged an additional claim concerning the same matter . Both claims were subsequently joined and examined in the same civil proceedings .","On DATE ORG in ORG ruled against the applicant and her parents .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE upheld this judgment on appeal . The judgment , thereby , became final . It was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) with ORG .","This appeal was misplaced until DATE , when the applicant \u2019s lawyers intervened and urged the authorities to find it . On DATE the applicant amended her appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as unfounded . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152629","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF GARETH TAYLOR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in detention at GPE GPE .","He was convicted of offences of sexual activity with a child and breach of a Sexual Offences Prevention Order . In DATE he received an indeterminate sentence for public protection ( \u201c ORG sentence \u201d ) . A minimum term ( \u201c tariff \u201d ) of DATE was fixed .","He was initially detained at ORG and was transferred to GPE GPE in DATE . DATE he incurred CARDINAL adjudications for failure to obey or comply with orders and regulations and CARDINAL adjudication for destroying property . He also underwent assessment of his suitability for a sex offender treatment programme .","On DATE the applicant was informed of his suitability for the adapted LAW ( \u201c adapted NORP \u201d ) . As this was not offered at GPE it was recommended that he transfer to a suitable establishment .","On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) seeking a transfer to another prison to undertake the adapted ORG . By letter dated DATE ORG replied :","\u201c I have DATE spoken to your offender supervisor ... I have asked him to try and speed up a transfer for you so that you can at least undertake the adapted ORG , which you should be suitable for . He says that the only CAT B prison that does this is ORG , but he will try and get you transferred there to do it if possible . \u201d","The applicant subsequently complained to GPE on various dates about the failure to transfer him . He was informed that a suitable establishment was being sought .","On DATE the applicant completed the Enhanced Thinking Skills ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) course .","NORP In around DATE the applicant \u2019s tariff expired .","In DATE a ORG took place . ORG decided on the papers that the applicant should remain in detention . ORG noted that the applicant had completed the ORG course and would be assessed for , and if found suitable , complete a sex offenders treatment programme .","Subsequent correspondence with ORG refers to long prison waiting lists for access to the adapted ORG and delays in processing applications for prison transfer .","NORP By letter dated CARDINAL September CARDINAL the Secretary of ORG informed the applicant that he agreed with ORG DATE recommendation . He indicated that the applicant was to be assessed for and complete the adapted ORG . A provisional hearing before ORG was fixed for DATE .","Meanwhile , the applicant was again assessed for suitability for a sex offenders treatment programme . By letter dated DATE he was informed that he would be most likely to benefit from the Becoming New Me course ( \u201c SOTP BNM \u201d ) , the replacement for the adapted SOTP .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to GPE .","On DATE a ORG review took place .","On DATE ORG notified the applicant of its decision not to direct his release or to recommend his transfer to open conditions . It observed that since his last review the applicant had undertaken training courses in assertiveness skills , understanding the cause of conflict \/ domestic violence , understanding the boundaries of respectability in relation to children , alcohol awareness and unlocking financial capability . It noted the positive change in his attitude but considered that his risk remained high . It confirmed that he would be required to complete the adapted ORG prior to release . It concluded :","\u201c [ We ] shared your concern at the fact you have so far been unsuccessful in your attempts to secure a referral to the courses identified as targets on your sentence plan and that furthermore you have recently been moved to a prison that does not run these programmes . However , prisoner location is an operational matter which sits outside of ORG remit and is for the prison service and your offender manager to resolve . What does this mean however , is that you remain an untreated sex offender who is unable to demonstrate that the risk you pose has reduced sufficiently to be manageable in the community . \u201d","NORP By letter dated DATE , the Secretary of ORG agreed with ORG recommendation . He referred to the need to complete the ORG BNM . The applicant \u2019s review period was set at DATE consisting of :","\u201c DATE transfer and settling in period in a new establishment","DATE assessment for the Becoming New Me programme","DATE to complete the Becoming New programme","DATE to complete the post Becoming New Me programme report ( SARN ) . \u201d","The next parole review was therefore scheduled to commence in DATE with the target date for the oral hearing being DATE .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG on his own request on compassionate grounds to be closer to his father , who was unwell . He subsequently asked to remain at ORG and to be given a place on the ORG BNM course scheduled to commence in DATE . As that course was already full , the applicant was informed that he could , if he wished , await the next course to be delivered at ORG in DATE , for which he would be a priority .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representatives wrote to the Governor of GPE and ORG notifying them that judicial review proceedings were being contemplated against them and the Secretary of ORG . They sought confirmation that the ORG BNM course would be made available to the applicant .","NORP By letter dated DATE PERSON replied in the following terms :","\u201c I acknowledge that your client \u2019s initial transfer to ORG was on compassionate grounds ... The fact that Mr PERSON elected not to return to GPE is a factor that must be considered when determining whether or not his progress through the prison service has been slow ... Although , I would argue that the prompt intervention of his newly appointed PERSON and the attempts he made to source a suitable course at ORG would indicate that ORG were not at fault for any delays to your client \u2019s progress .","Your client is known to our Programmes team , is in the assessment process and his post tariff status will ensure that he is prioritised accordingly for the next GPE courses which should be delivered from DATE . \u201d","NORP The prison offered to facilitate a transfer to another prison where the applicant might be able to access the SOTP BNM more speedily . He chose to remain at ORG to await a place on the SOTP BNM there .","On DATE a ORG review took place on the papers . ORG decided not to direct the applicant \u2019s release or recommend his transfer to open conditions . It concluded :","\u201c You committed serious index offending , which targeted a vulnerable victim ... The panel was also concerned that , at a young age , you already had a conviction record that included previous violent and sexual offending against vulnerable female victims . It is to your credit that you have some understanding of the risk you pose , and that you are motivated to undertake work to address your sexual offending behaviour . However , you have yet to undertake this work . The panel is also concerned that you have a history of breaching trust and reoffending despite measures being put in place to contain your risk ... \u201d","NORP By letter dated DATE the Secretary of ORG indicated that he agreed with the ORG recommendation . He confirmed the ORG BNM as an appropriate course to reduce the applicant \u2019s risk of reoffending . The next review was scheduled to commence in DATE and to be concluded by DATE .","The applicant commenced the ORG BNM as planned on DATE and completed it on DATE .","A further ORG review took place on DATE . ORG decided not to direct the applicant \u2019s release , but recommended his transfer to open conditions ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150299","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KUPPINGER v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is the father of a son born out of wedlock on DATE . Shortly after the child was born , the mother refused the applicant any contact with him . In DATE the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to establish contact .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with the GPE \/ ORG for the regulation of contact rights . The course of proceedings before ORG is summarised in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE [ Committee ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE . By interim order of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered DATE supervised contact between the applicant and his son . CARDINAL supervised contact meetings took place DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG suspended the applicant \u2019s contact rights for DATE . This decision was amended on DATE with respect to the applicant \u2019s right to be informed about the child \u2019s personal circumstances .","By judgment of DATE ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) , the ORG found that the length of the proceedings before ORG , which had lasted from DATE to DATE , violated the applicant \u2019s right to a trial within a reasonable time under LAW . The ORG further considered that there had been a violation of the right to an effective remedy LAW .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision given by ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG held a hearing .","By interim decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG decided that the applicant had the right to see his son for TIME on CARDINAL specific dates between CARDINAL May and DATE . The first CARDINAL contact meetings were to take place in the presence of a supervisor . ORG further ordered the child \u2019s mother to take the child to the meetings on time . Finally , ORG warned the mother that an administrative fine ( NORP ) of MONEY ( ORG ) could be imposed if she did not comply with her obligations under this decision .","ORG noted that the last contact meeting had taken place in DATE . There was no indication that contact with the applicant would jeopardise the child \u2019s welfare . According to expert opinion , the child \u2019s refusal to meet the applicant was not based on an autonomous decision , but was influenced by the mother \u2019s stance . This was in line with the personal impression the judge rapporteur had gained from hearing both parties and the child . ORG acknowledged that the conflict between the parents , and their ensuing lack of communication , posed a risk to successful contact . However , the course of the proceedings had shown that both parents were unwilling to settle these conflicts by availing themselves of specialist help . As it was unlikely that the parents would change their attitude , the granting of contact rights could not await the outcome of successful counselling .","The Court of Appeal further considered that the overall course of the proceedings had demonstrated that both parents had contributed to the failure of contact visits . In view of the lengthy proceedings , which imposed an emotional burden on the child , it was particularly important to reestablish contact carefully after a regrettable interruption of DATE .","On DATE the supervisor reported on the first contact meeting , scheduled for CARDINAL DATE , which had been postponed to CARDINAL DATE . After a short conversation and some playful interaction with the applicant , the child had decided to go to his mother and subsequently refused to play with his father . The supervisor further informed ORG that the mother would be on holiday for the CARDINAL meetings scheduled for DATE and CARDINAL DATE and that the parties\u2019 counsels would have to agree on alternative dates .","On DATE the supervisor reported on the second contact meeting scheduled for DATE . According to the report , the meeting had lasted TIME during which the applicant and his son had engaged in several play activities . The meeting was interrupted by CARDINAL interactions between the child and his mother . Subsequently , the child told the applicant that he did not wish to play with him and left with his mother .","On DATE the mother \u2019s counsel informed ORG that it had not been possible to find alternative dates for the meetings scheduled during the mother \u2019s absence and that she expected that the meetings would be re - scheduled for DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to schedule alternative dates for the meetings which were to take place during the mother \u2019s holidays .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that it did not see any reason to issue additional orders as to the organisation of the contact meetings , which fell within the competence of the supervisor . Furthermore , there was no room for scheduling alternative meetings . ORG further requested the mother to submit proof of her alleged holiday absence .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG to impose an administrative fine of at least ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL on the mother for having failed to enable him to exercise his contact rights on CARDINAL May and a further LAW for having prevented him from exercising his contact rights on DATE . He submitted that the mother had failed to deliver the child on CARDINAL DATE , allegedly for professional reasons . On the alternative date , CARDINAL DATE , the mother had brought the child , but taken him away after TIME . On DATE the mother had left the meeting place with the child after TIME and had thus prevented further contact . In view of the urgency of the subject matter and relying on the case - law of ORG ( the applicant \u2019s counsel referred to the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) , the applicant further requested ORG to reach a decision speedily .","On DATE the supervisor reported on the contact scheduled for DATE . The unsupervised contact ordered by ORG had not taken place because the child had refused to go with his father and the supervisor \u2019s mediation attempts had been to no avail .","On DATE the mother submitted documents to justify her absence .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to impose further administrative fines on the mother for failure to comply with her obligations under the interim decision . Relying on the report by the supervisor , he submitted that the mother had prematurely terminated the contact visit on DATE . Furthermore , she had failed to appear at the meeting place on DATE and DATE . On DATE the mother had failed to hand over the child to the supervisor , and induced the child to declare that he did not wish to have any contact . On DATE the applicant informed the supervisor that he would be TIME late because of traffic problems . The supervisor informed him that mother and child had left the building after TIME .","On DATE ORG submitted comments .","On DATE ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE .","On DATE ORG , on the mother \u2019s counsel \u2019s request , postponed the hearing to DATE .","During the hearing on DATE ORG heard the supervisor \u2019s oral submissions .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that no decision could yet be taken for lack of the main case file on the contact proceedings .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel requested ORG to expedite the proceedings . He further submitted that ORG was in possession of all relevant documents and that it was not necessary to await the return of the main case file .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG imposed an overall administrative fine of ORG CARDINAL on the mother for having contravened the contact order CARDINAL times . ORG noted that it was not in dispute between the parties that contact did not take place , or took place only for a limited period of time , on the CARDINAL dates relied upon by the applicant . ORG further considered that the mother was accountable for the failed contact , albeit to a limited degree .","ORG considered that the fact that contact visits were terminated because of the child \u2019s resistance did not exonerate the mother . ORG had repeatedly stated that it was up to the mother to avail herself of the necessary educational measures in order to influence the child and thus to allow contact visits . The mother had failed to establish that she had undertaken such measures . She might have had good reason for requesting the dates to be rescheduled . However , she did not have the right to cancel these dates without ORG or the applicant \u2019s consent . Finally , the mother was under an obligation to wait for the applicant on DATE , taking into account that the applicant had informed her beforehand that he would be late .","ORG observed that the relevant provisions prescribed an administrative fine of up to EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL for each established contravention of the court order . Based on an overall assessment of the circumstances , ORG considered that only administrative fines within the lowest range could be envisaged . ORG took into account that , according to a report submitted by an access custodian on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL , below ) there were serious indications that it would not even have been possible for a professional counsellor to establish contact . Against this background , the mother \u2019s personal responsibility appeared to be minor . This was even more so as the mother did not completely prevent contact , but took the child to CARDINAL of the scheduled meetings . The demands on her educational capabilities had been high , as she had not only been obliged to reconsider her own stance on the problems within a period of DATE , but also to change the child \u2019s established pattern of behaviour . It had further to be taken into account that comparable contraventions would not have to be sanctioned in the mid - term future , because a contact custodian had been appointed . Against this background , the administrative fine had primarily the character of a sanction for past behaviour , but not of a coercive measure .","According to ORG , account also had to be taken of the fact that the purpose of the first dates , on which the child had prematurely terminated the contact visits , was to institute contact . It was inherent in this constellation that contact could only be established gradually and might fail . ORG had pointed out this possibility and had also indicated that no undue pressure should be exerted on the child .","With regard to the contact meetings scheduled for DATE and DATE , the applicant had been informed beforehand that mother and child would be absent and this fact should also be taken into account . He had thus incurred travel and other expenses on these dates in spite of this knowledge .","Considering these circumstances , the ORG found it reasonable to impose an administrative fine of LAW for each of the CARDINAL occasions when contact did not take place at all and of LAW each for the CARDINAL remaining contraventions .","Both parties lodged complaints . The applicant submitted that the administrative fine imposed was far too low and obviously ineffective . He further complained that the length of the administrative fine proceedings had been excessive and had violated his rights under LAW .","On DATE ORG refused to amend its decision of CARDINAL DATE and forwarded the complaints to ORG .","On DATE ORG invited both parties to submit comments in reply by DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected both parties\u2019 complaints . In respect of the applicant \u2019s complaint , ORG considered that ORG had exercised its discretion in an acceptable way , taking into account all relevant circumstances . ORG further considered that while it was true that the proceedings on administrative fines had to be processed speedily , the courts had to retain the possibility of availing themselves of all relevant information . Even though there were several reasons to assume that the length of the proceedings had been acceptable , ORG did not consider it necessary to decide whether the proceedings had been conducted within a reasonable time , as there was no legal basis for establishing that the length of proceedings had been excessive .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application to be heard ( Anh\u00f6rungsr\u00fcge ) with ORG , which was rejected by that court on DATE .","On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint for adjudication ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","NORP In the meantime , on DATE the applicant requested ORG to execute its decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to advance court fees . On CARDINAL DATE ORG requested the applicant to submit an original version of the decision to be executed . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant pointed out that the decision had to be executed ex officio . On DATE the mother , who had been granted leave to pay by instalments , had paid the administrative fine in full . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the administrative fine had already been paid .","On DATE ORG , in the main proceedings , quashed the decision of ORG of DATE ( suspension of contact rights ) and granted the applicant contact rights on every second DATE TIME for TIME each time , beginning on QUANTITY DATE . Following CARDINAL supervised contact meetings , the applicant was to have the right to unsupervised contact meetings of TIME each . ORG further appointed Mr. PERSON as custodian for the implementation of contact rights ( Umgangspfleger ) . The mother was ordered to hand over the child to the custodian for the purpose of contact meetings . Both parents were ordered to have preparatory conversations with the custodian .","ORG confirmed its previous finding that there was no indication that contact with his father would jeopardise the child \u2019s welfare and that there was thus no reason to suspend contact rights . There was furthermore not sufficient evidence that the child insistently refused to see his father . ORG considered that the child \u2019s verbal refusals to meet his father were not based on the child \u2019s own assessment , but stemmed from the child \u2019s loyalty to his mother as his immediate caregiver . It was evident that contact meetings had solely failed because of the mother \u2019s lack of willingness or her inability to allow such contact .","The Court of Appeal further observed that both parents had contributed to the lack of communication and to the overall development of the proceedings .","In view of the mother \u2019s continuing failure to fulfil her parental duties , ORG considered it necessary to appoint a custodian for the implementation of contact rights . ORG observed that the custodianship had to be subject to a time - limit . It considered that the time until DATE should be sufficient for establishing a stable relationship between the applicant and his son , allowing continued contact .","On DATE the custodian informed ORG that he had met the applicant , who had been uncooperative and did not seem to take an interest in the child \u2019s welfare . Under these circumstances , contact could not take place as scheduled . Nevertheless , in order to allow for contact , he recommended that the applicant seek professional counselling .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to discharge the custodian from his duties .","On DATE ORG appointed a curator ad litem to represent the child \u2019s interests and submitted the request to the mother , the custodian and to ORG for comments within DATE .","On DATE and DATE ORG and the mother asked ORG to reject the request .","DATE . On DATE the applicant requested ORG to expedite the proceedings . On DATE , ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE .","On DATE the applicant complained that ORG , when scheduling the hearing , had not respected the time - limit of DATE laid down in section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Act on Proceedings in Family Matters ( see Relevant Domestic Law , below ) .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that it had not been possible to schedule an earlier hearing , as the judge in charge had been replaced by DATE and the hearing was scheduled immediately after the new judge \u2019s return from holidays .","On DATE a hearing took place in the absence of the custodian , who had informed ORG that he was on holiday .","On DATE the custodian requested ORG to discharge him from his duties .","DATE the ORG judge contacted by telephone CARDINAL potential custodians . PERSON was ready to supervise the first contacts , while PERSON declared her readiness to hand over the child for the ensuing unsupervised visits .","On DATE ORG informed the parties that custodian PERSON could only be dismissed if a new custodian was appointed . ORG intensive endeavours to find a person who was ready to implement the decision of DATE proved difficult . On that same date , ORG judge wrote letters to CARDINAL potential custodians and enquired about their readiness to take up duties in the instant case . Furthermore , ORG informed the parties that it had instituted ex officio fresh contact proceedings in order to review the existing regulations ( ORG , see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , below ) .","On DATE the mother challenged the ORG judge for bias . She withdrew her motion on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel informed the mother \u2019s counsel that the applicant intended to exercise contact rights on DATE and that he expected the mother to hand over the child . The applicant expressed the opinion that ORG decision of DATE still provided for unsupervised visits on every second DATE . On DATE the mother \u2019s counsel replied that she considered that the applicant did not have the right to unsupervised contact .","DATE and DATE the mother did not open the door when the applicant appeared for contact visits . Between CARDINAL May and QUANTITY DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL requests to impose administrative fines on the mother for failure to comply with her obligations to hand over the child to the applicant . He further requested ORG to expedite the proceedings .","On DATE the mother \u2019s counsel requested ORG to suspend proceedings pending the proceedings on the review of contact rights .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG established that Mr H. \u2019s custodianship had expired on DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to decide without further delay . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the mother still had to be allowed to submit comments on the request of DATE and on the applicant \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant complained that ORG failure to decide on his requests violated his right to an effective legal remedy .","On DATE ORG informed the parties of its intention to decide in written proceedings on the basis of submissions lodged by DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s requests to impose administrative fines on the mother . ORG observed that the supervised contact ordered in the decision of DATE had not taken place . There was no indication that unsupervised contact could take place without an initial phase of supervised contact . This question was the subject matter of the new proceedings on the review of contact rights instituted by ORG . Under these circumstances , it could not be said that the mother had failed to comply with the contact order of DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint which was rejected by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the GPE ORG instituted ex officio fresh contact proceedings in order to review the existing regulations and scheduled a hearing in the presence of PERSON and PERSON , who had previously declared their readiness to take on duties as custodians , for DATE .","During the hearing on DATE , the applicant and PERSON could not reach an agreement on the modalities of the contact , in particular the envisaged length of the first unsupervised contact meeting . The mother challenged ORG judge for bias ( compare paragraph CARDINAL above for the parallel proceedings ) . On DATE the substitute judge requested the mother \u2019s counsel to submit reasons for this motion . On CARDINAL DATE the mother \u2019s counsel withdrew the motion .","DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG judge heard the child .","On DATE ORG decided to hear expert opinion on the question of whether the decision on contact rights issued by ORG on DATE could still be implemented or whether it was in the child \u2019s best interests either to order unsupervised contact or to suspend contact rights .","On DATE the applicant challenged the court - appointed expert for bias . On DATE ORG rejected the motion as being unfounded . On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint . On DATE ORG accepted the motion .","On DATE ORG appointed a new expert . On DATE the expert informed the court that he had been unable to contact the applicant . The applicant informed the court that he was unavailable for further examination . On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel abandoned his brief .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to schedule a hearing immediately .","On DATE ORG , having received the expert report on DATE , scheduled a hearing for CARDINAL DATE and informed the parties that the applicant could be assessed on the basis of the expert \u2019s personal impression gained during the hearing . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant rejected ORG judge on grounds of bias and the hearing was cancelled .","On DATE the challenge for bias was rejected as being unfounded . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal which was rejected by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh challenge for bias , which was dismissed on DATE . On DATE ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE . Upon the applicant \u2019s request , the hearing was postponed to DATE .","DATE . On DATE the applicant informed ORG that health reasons prevented him from attending the hearing . ORG , taking into account the parties\u2019 absences during DATE , postponed the hearing to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant once again requested ORG to cancel the hearing . He did not appear at the hearing which took place on DATE . On DATE the applicant requested ORG to re - open the hearing , while at the same time submitting that he was unfit to appear in court .","On DATE ORG suspended the applicant \u2019s contact rights until DATE on the ground that contact against the child \u2019s expressed will would jeopardise his welfare . The applicant lodged an appeal .","The applicant did not appear at the hearing which took place before the GPE \/ ORG on DATE . ORG scheduled a further hearing for DATE , to which the court - appointed expert was also summoned . On DATE the applicant asked ORG to allow him to bring a private expert to the hearing and , at the same time , to postpone the hearing scheduled for DATE as the private expert was unable to attend . ORG referring , inter alia , to CARDINAL of the LAW on Procedure in Family Matters , refused the request . On DATE counsel for the applicant , who did not attend the hearing in person , challenged ORG for bias , which was dismissed on DATE .","On DATE the GPE \/ ORG of Appeal confirmed the suspension of contact rights until DATE . It furthermore allowed the father to write DATE letters , which the mother was ordered to hand over to the child . Relying on expert opinion , ORG considered that personal contacts against the consistently expressed will of the child , who had now reached DATE , would jeopardise the child \u2019s psychological development and had thus to be temporarily excluded . ORG further observed that the administrative fine imposed on the mother might have been insufficient and that the refusal of contacts between father and child , which had already lasted DATE , had not only been caused by the GPE and , in particular , the mother \u2019s failure , but also by a failure of the judiciary and of the children and youth welfare services involved ."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175499","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VILKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158025","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF AFET S\u00dcREYYA EREN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant and a number of other suspects were taken into police custody by officers from the Security Branch of ORG ( PERSON ) on suspicion of membership of ORG ( the abbreviation for ORG , an illegal organisation ) . The applicant alleges that she was subjected to torture by police officers for DATE .","On DATE the applicant was taken to a forensic doctor , who noted that the applicant had complained that she had been hung by her arms for TIME and that her head had been banged against a wall . The medical report indicates that she had a scrape under her left armpit , a QUANTITY large brown macule on her right forearm and a CARDINAL cmlong oedema on her forehead above the nose .","On DATE the applicant was brought before the GPE public prosecutor and then before a judge at ORG . Before both authorities she denied all accusations against her and complained that she had been subjected to ill - treatment while in police custody . She was subsequently detained pending trial .","On DATE the applicant was examined by the prison doctor , who reported a MONEY on her right forearm and a swelling on her right clavicle . According to the medical report , the applicant had stated that her arms felt painful and she had a headache .","On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with the public prosecutor \u2019s office in GPE against the police officers of the Security Branch of ORG , accusing them of having tortured her . She stated in particular that she had been hung by her arms and had received blows to her head .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute . The public prosecutor considered that the applicant had not been questioned as a suspect and that there was no evidence showing that the accused police officers had committed the crime of torture . The applicant claims that she was not notified of this decision .","On an unspecified date the investigation was reopened . Accordingly , on DATE the applicant \u2019s statement was taken by a public prosecutor in the prison where she was detained on remand . The applicant stated that at some time in DATE she had been taken into custody at the Anti - Terror Branch of ORG , where she had been ill - treated for DATE . She noted in particular that she had been undressed , threatened with rape , beaten and hung by her arms by the police officers . The applicant stated that she had been unable to use her arms for DATE subsequent to her detention in police custody . She further stated that she could identify the police officers in question .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG , charging CARDINAL police officers , GPE and GPE , under LAW with inflicting illtreatment on the applicant while in police custody DATE .","On DATE the ORG considered that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case . The court held that the accusations against ORG and GPE could not be qualified as ill - treatment within the meaning of LAW of the former LAW but should be qualified rather as torture under LAW . The court therefore ordered the transfer of the case to the competent court .","The case was referred to ORG , which on DATE also held that it lacked jurisdiction . It held that in order for Article CARDINAL of the former Criminal Code to apply , the acts of illtreatment or torture had to be inflicted with the intention to extract information . The court held that the applicant had complained about having been subjected to torture , but she had not alleged that the intent behind such acts had been to extract information from her . The complaint therefore fell under Article CARDINAL of the former Criminal Code and accordingly within the jurisdiction of ORG . Consequently , the court referred the case to ORG to resolve the jurisdictional dispute .","On DATE ORG held that the case fell within the jurisdiction of ORG .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the case during which the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party . At the same hearing , the applicant made statements to the court . During her examination , she identified GPE in the courtroom as one of the police officers who had interrogated and tortured her . The applicant stated that she had been held at CARDINAL different facilities while in custody . According to her statements to the court , at the first facility she had been beaten ; at the second facility , she had been subjected to various forms of torture , including reverse hanging and sexual harassment by around QUANTITY police officers . She had been stripped naked and threatened with rape in front of her sister , and she had been sprayed with pepper gas . At the end of the hearing , ORG discontinued the proceedings against the accused police officers on the ground that the prosecution of the offences proscribed by Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the former Criminal Code had become timebarred ( the period being DATE at the relevant time ) .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the judgment of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140931","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"RYAZANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON Ryazanov , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in the town of LOC in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by Mr P. GPE and subsequently by PERSON , former Representatives of GPE at ORG .","On DATE the applicant and his brother stole some copper cable from a car park and then went to a river bank nearby to strip it and prepare it for sale . After following their tracks , the police arrested the brothers , who at that very moment were burning the cable jacket . On DATE the police drew up a report detailing the circumstances of their arrest , together with a crime scene inspection record .","The applicant and his brother were questioned and cross - examined by an investigator immediately after the events and both confirmed their involvement in this incident of theft . Later on DATE , they were released against an undertaking not to leave their town of residence during the proceedings .","On DATE the brothers were caught red - handed removing QUANTITY of copper cable from the basement of a block of flats . The police officers drew up a crime scene inspection record and an arrest record describing the circumstances of the arrest . In the presence of attesting witnesses they seized the applicant \u2019s bag containing the freshly removed copper cable .","Shortly afterwards the brothers were taken to the police station . A police officer drew up an \u201c explanation \u201d record , which set out the reasons for the arrest .","According to the applicant , in the police station he was put in a small , dark , overcrowded cell . TIME he was called for an interview , during which the police officers ill - treated him , forcing him to make a confession . They allegedly punched him in the back , put a gas mask over his face preventing him from breathing , and stood on his hand . Eventually he signed several blank sheets of paper . The applicant claims that he did not have any visible injuries on his body as a result of the ill - treatment and that he did not undergo any medical examinations in that connection after the events . The applicant did not bring any complaints in connection with the alleged ill - treatment before competent domestic authorities .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s brother confessed to CARDINAL incidents of theft committed together with the applicant on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE ( CARDINAL incidents ) and DATE and DATE . The confessions were made in the presence of attesting witnesses at the locations at which the offences had been committed .","Subsequently , the investigating authorities accused the applicant and his brother of additional incidents of theft of copper cable . In total , the investigation brought charges in respect of CARDINAL counts of theft allegedly committed on DATE , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL incidents ) , DATE , DATE ( CARDINAL incidents ) , DATE ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL , DATE ( CARDINAL incidents ) and DATE ( CARDINAL incidents ) DATE , and CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL incidents ) and DATE .","On DATE the Krasnogorskiy District Court of ORG in GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) examined the applicant \u2019s criminal case .","During the hearing , which was held in the presence of CARDINAL defence counsel , the brothers admitted their involvement in the incidents of DATE and DATE , but denied any participation in the rest of the incidents . They also stated that the investigating authorities had put pressure on them on DATE , forcing them to sign blank sheets of paper . The relevant part of the record of that hearing reads as follows :","\u201c ... Prosecutor : What incidents of theft do you admit [ were committed by you ] ?","[ The applicant ] : I admit to the incident of [ CARDINAL ] DATE committed in the car park , but I do n\u2019t agree with the legal classification of our actions . I consider that we committed an attempted crime as we were caught near the place of the incident and at the moment of the arrest we had not [ yet ] stripped the cable ...","[ The applicant ] : I also admit to the incident of DATE . I do not admit the remaining incidents of theft . We were interviewed in breach of LAW of GPE .","The prosecutor : What do you mean , in breach of ?","[ The applicant ] : Formal charges had not been brought against me and also I was forced to sign blank sheets of paper ... \u201d","At the court hearing of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor withdrew the charges in respect of CARDINAL incidents of theft allegedly committed on CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL incidents ) , DATE ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL incidents ) , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ( CARDINAL incidents ) DATE and CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE ( CARDINAL incidents ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL incidents ) DATE owing to lack of evidence .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant and his brother of multiple counts of theft and attempted theft committed by an organised criminal group . The court established the applicant \u2019s involvement in CARDINAL incidents of theft committed on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE ( CARDINAL incidents ) and DATE and DATE . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The court \u2019s findings in respect of the applicant \u2019s involvement in the incident of DATE were based on the self - incriminating statements given by the brothers during the cross - examination of CARDINAL November CARDINAL , and confirmed by them in person at the trial court hearings ; the statements of the attesting witnesses and police officers , according to which on DATE the applicant \u2019s brother had confessed to the thefts and indicated the block of flats where they had stripped the wires ; the crime scene record of DATE ; the police report of DATE ; and material evidence such as a hand cart and a plastic bag full of copper wires .","The applicant \u2019s conviction in respect of the incidents of theft of CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE rested on the statements of his brother given on DATE at the locations of the thefts and in the presence of attesting witnesses and a police officer ; the statements of these attesting witnesses and the police officer given in court ; and the crime scene inspection records of CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE .","The court \u2019s conclusions regarding the applicant \u2019s involvement in the incidents of CARDINAL and DATE , the CARDINAL incidents of DATE and the incident of DATE were based on the statements of the applicant \u2019s brother of CARDINAL DATE given at the locations of the thefts and in the presence of attesting witnesses and a police officer , and the statements of these attesting witnesses and the police officer given at the trial court hearings .","The conviction concerning the incident of DATE rested on the statements of the applicant and his brother admitting their involvement in the incidents of theft , given by them in person at the trial court hearings ; the crime scene inspection record ; and the arrest record of DATE , which confirmed that the brothers had been caught red - handed . It was also supported by the court statements of the attesting witnesses and the police officers confirming the applicant \u2019s brother \u2019s confession of DATE , and material evidence such as a plastic bag containing copper wires .","The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant and his brother ] , acting in concert and as an organised criminal group , committed repeated thefts and attempted thefts aggravated by unlawful entry to LOC .","The crimes were committed in the town of ORG in the following circumstances : [ description of CARDINAL incidents of theft ] .","At the court hearing the [ applicant ] partially admitted his guilt , stating that on DATE he and his brother , equipped with a hand cart and pliers , had gone to a [ parking area ] , removed the copper wires located there and then gone to a river bank to burn the jackets [ off the wires ] . At the river bank they had been caught by police . On DATE , at night time , together with his brother , he had removed a telephone cable from the basement of a block of flats in order to sell it . Shortly afterwards [ he and his brother ] had been arrested by the police . He had not committed any other offences .","At the court hearing [ the applicant \u2019s brother ] partially admitted his guilt , stating that on DATE he and his brother had gone to a [ car park ] . There they had removed copper wires and then walked down to a river bank QUANTITY away to strip the cable . When they were burning and stripping the wires , they had been apprehended by the police . On DATE , at night time , together with his brother , he had found a door open leading into the basement of a block of flats . They had gone inside and [ the applicant ] had removed copper wires . [ The applicant \u2019s brother ] had stripped them and put them in his bag . Then they had been arrested by the police . He had not committed any other offences .","The court has assessed the evidence in the present case . It is convinced that the guilt of [ the applicant and his brother ] is confirmed by the statements of the witnesses and the other pieces of evidence gathered by the investigating authorities .","When questioned in court , [ the first witness ] stated that in DATE a police officer had invited her to be an attesting witness . In her presence a man had said that together with his brother he had removed wires from near a block of flats located at [ address of the block of flats ] . The man had also pointed to another house and stated that they had also removed wires there . The man had given his statements in her presence and in the presence of another attesting witness , her neighbour . [ The first witness ] signed the relevant investigation record .","When questioned in court , [ the second witness ] stated that DATE , near a block of flats located at [ address of the block of flats ] , he had performed the duties of an attesting witness . Police officers had introduced a young man to him ; that man had stated that , together with his brother , he had removed a cable from the basement of a block of flats nearby . [ The second witness ] signed the relevant investigation record .","When questioned in court , [ the third witness ] stated that DATE he had attended investigative measures as an attesting witness . During the relevant procedural action a man had told him that he and his brother had removed a cable from a block of flats located at [ address of the block of flats ] .","When questioned in court , [ the fourth witness ] stated that DATE , near his house , police officers had invited him to play the role of an attesting witness . A man had confessed to the theft of cabling from near entrance no . CARDINAL of a block of flats nearby . Police officers had not instructed that man what to say . The man had spoken voluntarily .","[ The fifth witness ] did not appear before the court . The statements she had given at the preliminary investigation stage were read out . She stated that in DATE she had been out walking with an acquaintance when police officers had invited them to act as attesting witnesses . They had agreed . They had seen a man standing near a car . He had said that he had removed a cable from the basement of the block of flats located at [ address of the block of flats ] . He had stated that they had then burned the cable , stripped it and sold it . The man had said all this of his own volition . No one had put pressure on him .","When questioned in court , [ the police officer who had been present at the investigative action of DATE ] stated that at the preliminary investigation stage the brothers had given self - incriminating statements of their own volition in respect of all the offences .","The court casts no doubt on the validity of the witness evidence because it was consistent and collaborated by other pieces of evidence ...","The arrest of the accused persons in possession of the stolen wires is confirmed by the arrest record of DATE . According to this record , when patrolling a territory , police officers found an open junction box with no wires inside . There were footprints and cart tracks in the snow nearby that led towards a river . On the river bank the police found the accused , who were stripping wires .","During cross - examination the [ applicant and his brother ] confirmed that on DATE they had stolen copper wiring from near a parking area .","The confiscated cart and bag of copper wires were examined during the preliminary investigation and added to the case file as pieces of concrete evidence . Later the bag of wires was given for storage to CARDINAL of the victims of their crimes ...","During the investigative activities , the [ applicant \u2019s brother ] , of his own volition , indicated the locations where the crimes had been committed .","Stolen cables confiscated from [ the applicant ] at the stage preliminary investigation stage were placed in a storage room at ORG of the Interior .","An analysis of the evidence shows that the statements of the accused persons were aimed at hindering the investigation .","In the court \u2019s opinion , in refusing to admit their guilt the accused persons were attempting to avoid criminal liability ...","The court accepts the classification of the offences suggested by the prosecutor . The brothers , acting as an organised criminal group , committed thefts and an attempted theft aggravated by unlawful entry to premises ... \u201d","According to the applicant , the trial court hearing records were inaccurate , but he never made any request for them to be amended .","The applicant and his brother appealed against sentence . They complained that their conviction was unfounded . No complaints were made by the brothers about a lack of legal assistance .","On DATE ORG examined the case on appeal and upheld the applicants\u2019 conviction on CARDINAL counts of theft committed on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","The court dropped the charges relating to the incident of theft of DATE and the CARDINAL incidents of theft of DATE , as the damage caused by the brothers in those incidents was insignificant and therefore could not lead to a prosecution .","On DATE ORG refused to reopen the case by way of supervisory review .","DATE the LAW provides that no one may be subjected to torture , violence or any other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment .","Article CARDINAL provides that everyone has a right to qualified legal assistance . It also provides that an arrested or detained person or a person accused of a criminal offence has a right to legal representation from the moment of his or her arrest , placement into custody , or the bringing of charges .","Article CARDINAL provides that no one is obliged to give evidence against himself or herself or a spouse or close relative .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW of GPE of DATE provides that the application to another person of physical force which has caused physical pain but has not resulted in any damage to health is punishable by a fine , compulsory or correctional labour , or detention for a period of DATE .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of MONEY provides that actions on the part of a public official which clearly exceed his authority and entail a substantial violation of the rights and lawful interests of citizens , committed with violence or the threat of violence , are punishable by DATE imprisonment , with a prohibition on occupying certain posts or engaging in certain activities for DATE .","Article CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , as in force at the material time , provided that a lawyer must be called to take part in a case at the moment when charges were brought or , if a person suspected of a criminal offence was arrested or detained before charges were brought against him , at the moment when the arrest record or a detention decision was read out to him .","Article CARDINAL of the Code established that an accused could refuse legal assistance at any point in the criminal proceedings . If the accused was charged with criminal offences punishable by the death penalty , such a refusal was not binding on a court , an investigator or a prosecutor .","CARDINAL Article CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code required that a competent authority institute criminal proceedings if there was a suspicion that a crime had been committed . That authority was under an obligation to carry out all measures provided for by law to establish the facts and to identify those responsible and secure their conviction . The decision whether or not to institute criminal proceedings had to be taken within DATE of the first report on the relevant facts .","No criminal proceedings could be brought in the absence of a corpus delicti ( LAW . Where an investigating body refused to open or terminated a criminal investigation , a reasoned decision was to be provided . Such decisions could be appealed to a higher - ranking prosecutor or to a court ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","During criminal proceedings , persons who had been granted victim status could submit evidence and file applications , had full access to the case file once the investigation was complete , and could challenge appointments and appeal decisions or judgments in the case . At an inquest , the close relatives of the deceased were to be granted victim status ( Article CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170057","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF B\u00c1T\u011aK AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE ( Messrs. PERSON and PERSON ) and B\u0159eclav ( Mr GPE ) .","From DATE the applicants were employed by ORG on the border with GPE . On DATE , pursuant to Article CARDINALe of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) an undercover police agent infiltrated the team of customs officers . As a result of her observations over DATE , the customs officers were suspected of corruption , namely taking bribes from truck drivers in exchange for granting priority or trouble - free customs clearance . The undercover agent left ORG on DATE .","During DATE and DATE testimony was taken in the presence of a judge from CARDINAL truck drivers from different countries in accordance with the provisions of LAW ORG , that is to say this step was taken as an urgent or non - repeatable measure ( neodkladn\u00fd nebo neopakovateln\u00fd \u00fakon ) . The records show that the NORP testimonies were similar . According to the applicants , interviews with CARDINAL of the drivers were of decisive significance . CARDINAL of them were of NORP nationality and one of them was a NORP citizen . The applicants , being not yet charged , were not present at these interviews .","Witness I.P.D. testified that it was common practice for the customs officers to ask drivers for documents and to check whether there was some money enclosed . If not , the drivers had to wait for TIME to be cleared . He admitted that he had paid bribes on CARDINAL or CARDINAL occasions but he could not remember individual customs officers .","Witness PERSON testified that he had always had to pay MONEY ( ORG ) in order to avoid inconvenience during customs clearance . He described CARDINAL customs officer as a corpulent person with thinning brown hair . He did not remember any other officer .","Witness PERSON testified that he had paid CARDINAL ORG on each of the CARDINAL trips he had made to pass the customs control . He was not able to describe any of the customs officers .","Witness PERSON confirmed the existence of corrupt practices at the customs office in question but could not specify any particular person .","On DATE the applicants were charged , together with CARDINAL other individuals , with abuse of the authority of public official and accepting bribes . In DATE they were officially indicted .","On DATE ORG ( okresn\u00ed soud ) heard the police agent as an anonymous witness ( utajen\u00fd sv\u011bdek ) under the provisions of LAW and LAW ORG . She gave her testimony outside the courtroom using an audio streaming device . She did not recount any specific case of the acceptance of a bribe , stating only that her reports and the information therein were fully reliable . The third applicant was present at the hearing . He was represented by a defence counsel . The other CARDINAL applicants were absent and were represented by a substitute defence counsel . CARDINAL applicant put a question to the anonymous witness .","In the course of the trial , the applicants argued that the agent would have been unable to see any other customs officers from her work - station , that none of the alleged acts had been filmed by the cameras installed at their workplace , and that the ORG numbered rubber stamps could have been used by other people .","On DATE ORG found the applicants and other accused persons guilty as charged . They were sentenced to DATE imprisonment suspended for CARDINAL years\u2019 probation and were fined . The court established the factual background to the body of evidence . The agent \u2019s written report constituted directly incriminating evidence . The court further relied on customs documents stamped using the personal rubber stamps of specific customs officers , comparing these with the testimony of the truck drivers , the records of service rotations and the database linking the applicants to the times at which the interviewed truck drivers obtained their customs clearance . ORG stated :","\u201c As regards the defendant PERSON , he is incriminated by the relevant documentary evidence referring to counts CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the indictment and counts CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the indictment , from which it is apparent that he used a rubber stamp with the number CARDINAL and that his personal number was DATE , these numbers appearing on the relevant documents . When it comes to counts CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the indictment , he is also incriminated by the witness statements of the NORP driver [ NORP ] and the NORP driver [ GPE ] who , according to their records , passed the border crossing point at the time in question , and their papers and travel documents bear the respective numbers of the defendant PERSON . The above fully corresponds to the report from the defendant \u2019s employer regarding the placement of the defendant , i.e. where \u2012 that is to say at which work - station \u2012 he was positioned at the time concerned . As to counts CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the indictment , the defendant PERSON is also incriminated by a police officer of GPE who saw the defendant accepting a bribe and recorded this fact in the corresponding document , produced in evidence , which also corresponds with the testimony of the undercover agent given before the court .","As regards the defendant PERSON , he is incriminated by the documentary evidence produced as regards counts CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the indictment , specifically the control sheets showing his personal number DATE and rubber stamp number CARDINAL . He is also incriminated by the testimony of the NORP driver [ GPE ] and by a report from his former employer stating the defendant \u2019s whereabouts at the time concerned . As to count CARDINAL of the indictment , the defendant PERSON is also incriminated by the undercover police agent of GPE who saw the defendant accepting a bribe .","As regards the defendant PERSON , he is incriminated on counts CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the indictment by the documentary evidence produced , especially by control sheets which were stamped with his personal number and also by other use made of his personal number , as is apparent in the corresponding computer records . He is also incriminated by the witness statement of [ GPE ] , who submitted details of his border crossing to the authorities and notes of bribes given at a specific time and place . As to count CARDINAL of the indictment in relation to the defendant PERSON , the witness stated that on DATE he gave a bribe at a particular time and \u2012 by checking the driver and the documentation relating to his border crossing \u2012 it was established who had cleared him and who had stamped his documents , from which it is clearly apparent that it was the defendant PERSON who carried out the administrative measures concerned and hence received the bribe . As to count CARDINAL of the indictment , PERSON is also mentioned in the anonymous agent \u2019s report . \u201d","ORG explained that the truck drivers\u2019 statements were read out at the hearing pursuant to LAW b ) of the ORG . The drivers had been interviewed in the presence of a judge during the pre - trial stage of the proceedings , because it had been deemed necessary to take the step of obtaining their testimonies as an urgent or non - repeatable measure since they were foreign nationals and it would have been almost impossible for the court to reach them at a later stage . The undercover police agent was heard as an anonymous witness pursuant to LAW ORG because of her potential future activities .","The applicants appealed against the judgment . They firstly argued that the truck drivers could have been questioned under the corresponding international treaties \u2012 namely ORG and bilateral treaties on mutual judicial assistance with GPE ( treaty of DATE ) and GPE ( treaty of DATE ) \u2012 and that they could have been granted immunity in exchange for testifying . They also contested the legal grounds and the necessity for the non - disclosure of the identity of the undercover police agent . According to them , she did not risk bodily harm or any other danger of interference with her fundamental rights as required by LAW ORG . The argument about her future activities was not sufficient justification . Moreover , the delays between the questions asked at trial and her replies implied that she had had with her some notes or someone whom she had consulted about her answers before replying .","On DATE ORG ( krajsk\u00fd soud ) rejected the ORG appeal as unsubstantiated , arguing as follows :","\u201c ( ... ) the hearing of an undercover police agent as a witness is in practice exceptional , occurring only in the particular circumstances of a specific case and in the interests of proper clarification and vindication of particularly serious criminal actions and the conviction of the perpetrators thereof . In such circumstances , and when such an agent is heard as a witness , LAW , LAW , and LAW ORG would be applicable . In the instant case , the provisions of the ORG regulating the agent \u2019s testimony were not violated and the allegations of some of the defendants that the agent had been heard as an anonymous witness in order to allow her to consult her notes or another person are unsubstantiated . The first - instance court had no doubts about the agent \u2019s reliability as a witness . She reliably described how she had obtained the information about the criminal activity of the accused and how she had evaluated , recorded and processed it ( ... )","Under LAW of the ORG , a non - repeatable measure is a measure which can not be repeated before the trial court . Questioning a witness who is a foreign national or stateless person without a permanent residence permit in GPE can be considered to be this kind of measure . None of the witnesses had a link to GPE of the kind which could have justified the conclusion that they would remain in the country or appear if summoned . The witnesses merely pass through the territory in the course of their work as truck drivers . The interviews with these witnesses were conducted in accordance with the provisions of LAW . The allegations of the defendants that the witnesses did not even know the content of the records they had signed , and that they had been forced to testify and promised immunity if they stated particular facts , are not substantiated by the case file , and no other facts corroborating these allegations have been ascertained . It is apparent from the file that the truck drivers were questioned in the presence of an interpreter and in the presence of judges of ORG ( ... ) . Under LAW ORG , a judge who performs the urgent or nonrepeatable measure of examining a witness or in an identity parade also bears responsibility for the legality thereof . \"","The applicants filed a constitutional appeal alleging a violation of LAW and CARDINAL d ) of the LAW and complaining about the depositions of the truck drivers and the anonymous witness .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the constitutional appeal as manifestly ill - founded . It stated that the complaints raised at the previous instances had been properly addressed and that the courts had provided sufficient justification to show that the evidence had been obtained in accordance with the provisions of the ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140939","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"GORBATENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .","NORP On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of inflicting bodily harm resulting in death . He was taken to the premises of ORG of the Interior in the LOC of GPE . He was subsequently placed in its custody room . On DATE he was transferred to temporary detention facility IZ-CARDINAL located in the town of GPE . According to the applicant , one of the cells he occupied was in an appalling condition .","On DATE the applicant was transported to correctional colony IK-CARDINAL located in the same town . A prison doctor examined him on admission and made the following entry in his medical record :","\u201c [ The applicant ] has no complaints . The medical examination indicates no pathology of bodily organs and systems . No traces of injuries found on [ the applicant \u2019s ] body . He states that he does not have any venereal diseases or HIV \u201d .","According to the applicant , on DATE , following his admission , he was ill - treated . Prison guards allegedly insulted and kicked him in his kidneys , put a gas mask with a closed air valve on his face and beat him on the ribs with a mallet .","The applicant stated that DATE he was forced to learn by heart the list of duties detainees must undertake while in prison . On DATE , he was also handcuffed to a radiator and beaten with a mallet . According to the applicant , he was ill - treated by prison guards DATE .","On DATE a doctor from the correctional colony examined the applicant on his discharge . The relevant medical entry reads as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] has no complaints . His skin shows no pathological condition . No pathological conditions of the bodily organs or system . No bodily injuries \u201d","On an unspecified date the applicant complained to ORG of LOC of GPE ( \u201c the prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) that he had been subjected to ill - treatment DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office dismissed his complaint as unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG of the Omsk Region ( \u201c the regional prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) quashed the decision of DATE as unfounded and ordered the prosecutor \u2019s office to perform an additional investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings . The regional prosecutor \u2019s office informed the applicant about this decision by letter of DATE and advised the applicant of his right to appeal against it in court . The applicant did not bring any court proceedings in this connection .","NORP In DATE the applicant brought a claim against the correctional colony IKCARDINAL and ORG seeking damages for the alleged ill - treatment he had suffered at the hands of prison guards DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim as unsubstantiated .","On DATE he appealed against that judgment .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal for failure to comply with the statutory time - limit for lodging such claims , noting that the applicant had not applied for an extension of the deadline for appeal .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE , on DATE of his arrest , the applicant was given access to defense counsel , PERSON The applicant allegedly considered her assistance ineffective and signed a waiver of his right to a lawyer , but did not ask the investigator to provide him with another defense counsel . The identification parade and a seizure of his personal effects , which took place on DATE , were nevertheless carried out in the presence of PERSON During the identification parade the applicant was identified as a perpetrator of the crime by witnesses PERSON . , Bar . and PERSON . The applicant did not take part in interrogations or cross - examinations on DATE and did not give any evidence himself .","On DATE the applicant was convicted as charged by ORG of GPE and sentenced to DATE of imprisonment . It held that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant , who had been drunk at the time , had beaten up a stranger on the street . DATE the victim of the applicant \u2019s attack had died in hospital .","The applicant \u2019s conviction was based on testimonies of eyewitnesses PERSON . , Bar . and PERSON . who had seen him hitting and kicking the victim during the incident . Their trial statements were consistent with their oral evidence given during the pre - trial stage of proceedings . The court also referred to expert reports , which attributed the victim \u2019s death to the injuries sustained during the beatings . The forensic examination established that the blood stains on the applicant \u2019s clothes belonged to the victim of his attack . The applicant \u2019s guilt was also confirmed by , among other things , the identification parade record of DATE . Throughout the trial the applicant was represented by defense counsel PERSON","The applicant challenged his conviction on appeal . He complained about the outcome of his case , in particular the findings of fact and law , the admission of allegedly inadmissible evidence , and the lack of effective legal assistance during the identification parade on DATE . The applicant did not raise an issue of an alleged ill - treatment CARDINAL DATE during the trial or on appeal .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal . It affirmed the findings of the lower court . It held that the identification parade had been performed in accordance with the applicable domestic rules . The court also noted that on DATE the applicant \u2019s defense rights had been properly secured by PERSON","DATE and DATE the applicant was frequently transferred between various detention facilities , including correctional colony IK-CARDINAL and temporary detention facility IZ-CARDINAL . According to the applicant , the conditions of his detention and transportation were consistently appalling owing to overcrowding , dirt , insects , rats , poor heating and insufficient ventilation .","Article CARDINAL provides that no one may be subjected to torture , violence or any other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment .","Article CARDINAL provides that everyone has a right to qualified legal assistance . It also provides that an arrested or detained person or a person accused of a criminal offence should have a right to legal representation from the moment of his or her arrest , placement into custody or when charges are brought .","Article QUANTITY of LAW of GPE of DATE provides that the application to another person of physical force which has caused physical pain but has not resulted in any health damage is punishable by a fine , compulsory or correctional labour or arrest for a period of DATE .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) provides that actions of a public official which clearly exceed his authority and entail a substantial violation of the rights and lawful interests of citizens , committed with violence or the threat of violence , are punishable by CARDINAL to ten years\u2019 imprisonment , with a prohibition on occupying certain posts or engaging in certain activities for DATE .","Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure of GPE provides that prosecutors , investigators and inquiry bodies must investigate every report of a crime committed or being planned , and take a decision on that information within DATE . In exceptional cases , that time - limit can be extended to DATE . The decision should be one of the following : ( a ) to institute criminal proceedings ; ( b ) to refuse to institute criminal proceedings ; or ( c ) to transmit the information to another competent authority ( Article CARDINAL ) .","Article CARDINAL provides that the decision of an investigator or a prosecutor to dispense with or terminate criminal proceedings , and other decisions and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to impede ORG access to justice , may be appealed against to a ORG , which is empowered to check the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions .","Article CARDINAL provides that , in order to terminate the proceedings , the investigator should adopt a reasoned decision with a statement of the substance of the case and the reasons for its termination . A copy of the decision to terminate the proceedings should be forwarded by the investigator to the prosecutor \u2019s office . The investigator should also notify the victim and the claimant in writing of the termination of the proceedings .","Under Article CARDINAL , the prosecutor \u2019s office is responsible for general supervision of the investigation . In particular , the prosecutor \u2019s office may order that specific investigative measures be carried out , transfer the case from CARDINAL investigator to another , or reverse unlawful and unsubstantiated decisions taken by investigators and inquiry bodies .","Article CARDINAL of the Code provides for mandatory legal representation if the accused faces serious charges carrying a term of imprisonment DATE , life imprisonment or the death penalty . Unless counsel is retained by the accused , it is the responsibility of the investigator , prosecutor or the court to appoint legal - aid counsel .","Article CARDINAL provides that an accused can waive his right to legal assistance , but such a waiver must be established in writing . The waiver may be revoked at any point in the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157521","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF TURBYLEV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","NORP In DATE a jewellery shop and other premises in a commercial centre in the GPE district of GPE were robbed ; in the course of those events , a woman guard was attacked and suffered injuries . Investigator PERSON , from the investigation unit of the GPE police department , opened a criminal case into the robbery . On DATE the criminal proceedings were suspended for failure to establish the identity of a person to be charged .","On DATE a certain NORP reported to the police that her boyfriend PERSON had committed the robbery together with Zh . and the applicant . On the same day investigator PERSON reopened the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the police arrested B. , Zh . and the applicant . Investigator PERSON was present at the time of the arrest . The QUANTITY men were taken to the GPE police department of GPE ( \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b \u0433. PERSON ) .","Police officers , in particular PERSON , the head of the criminal police division of the GPE police department , interviewed the applicant about his involvement in the robbery . According to the applicant , they demanded that he confess to the robbery and PERSON , an operative officer in the criminal investigation unit of the police department , punched and kicked him on different parts of his body . Fearing new violence , the applicant confessed to having participated in the crime as requested , and signed a record of his \u201c surrender and confession \u201d ( \u044f\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u0441 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 ) that had been drawn up by operative officer PERSON at PERSON \u2019s request .","According to that record , on CARDINAL DATE in office no . CARDINAL of the GPE police department police officer PERSON obtained from the applicant his confession to the crime , in accordance with LAW ( \u201c CCrP \u201d ) . In particular , the record stated that the applicant had assisted PERSON and Zh . by loading the property stolen from the shops into his car and transporting it ; that he had confessed without any physical or psychological pressure being exerted on him ; and that he had been informed of LAW . The record did not indicate the exact time when the confession was obtained and did not explain the meaning of LAW ( concerning self - incrimination , see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) .","At PERSON \u2019s request , the applicant wrote in the police station visitors\u2019 registration log that he had struck his own head against a wall , and that he had no complaints against the police officers .","At TIME on the same day investigator PERSON drew up a record of the applicant \u2019s arrest as a suspect in the case .","On DATE the applicant was placed in a temporary detention facility ( ORG ) at the GPE police department . According to the ORG records , on arrival he had bruises under his eyes , his lips were burst , his lower jaw was swollen on the left side , and he had bruises on his back and abrasions on his knees .","On DATE the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the presence of a lawyer . He retracted the confession statement that he had given on DATE , and explained that he had made the statement as a result of illtreatment by the police officers .","On DATE a judge of ORG ordered that the applicant be detained on remand . In reply to the judge \u2019s question about the origin of his facial injuries , the applicant stated that he had been beaten up by operative officers from the police department . On DATE the applicant \u2019s legal - aid counsel , who was representing the applicant at the court hearing , lodged an application with the ORG prosecutor in which he requested that an inquiry be conducted into the applicant \u2019s complaint and that those responsible for his illtreatment be prosecuted .","On DATE the applicant was placed in pretrial detention facility GPE CARDINAL , where he was examined by a doctor and found to have bruising beneath his eyes , a swollen nasal bridge , QUANTITY abrasions on the right side of his forehead , hematoma on the left side of his lower jaw and abrasions on the small of his back and right knee ( as recorded in a certificate of that detention facility dated DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel requested investigator A. , who was in charge of the robbery case , to order a forensic medical examination ( \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u044d\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0437\u0430 ) of the applicant . The investigator rejected the request as irrelevant to the robbery case .","Following the application by the applicant \u2019s counsel ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , investigator PERSON of the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office carried out a preinvestigation inquiry into the alleged illtreatment of the applicant .","On DATE the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant ; this was carried out by ORG on DATE . The expert \u2019s report stated that the applicant had the following injuries : bruises measuring up to CARDINAL to QUANTITY on the lower eyelids of both eyes , CARDINAL abrasions measuring CARDINAL to CARDINAL.CARDINAL and QUANTITY on his back ; and an abrasion measuring QUANTITY on his right knee . The injuries could have been caused by impacts from blunt hard objects with a limited contact surface , in the period DATE before the examination . They could not have been caused by a single impact as a result of a fall against a flat surface .","NORP The investigator received \u201c explanations \u201d ( \u043e\u0431\u044a\u044f\u0441\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ) from investigator PERSON ( responsible for the robbery case ) and from the police officers who had taken the applicant to the police station and interviewed him about his involvement in the robbery . In particular , police officer PERSON stated that in the course of a \u201c conversation \u201d ( \u0431\u0435\u0441\u0435\u0434\u0430 ) which he had had with the applicant , the latter had suddenly jumped to his feet and hit his head against the wall , as a result of which his nose had started bleeding . Police officer PERSON also stated that he had seen the applicant hitting his own head against the wall . Police officer PERSON explained that in the course of his \u201c conversation \u201d with the applicant the latter had recounted the details of the robbery committed by him ; that the applicant had explained that he had hit his own head against the wall and that he had no complaints against police officers ; and that the applicant had entered this explanation in the police station visitors\u2019 registration log .","On DATE investigator PERSON held that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment , in particular the claims that he had been struck \u201c in his kidneys \u201d and pushed so that his face had hit the wall and he had fainted , had not been based on real facts and that no criminal case was to be opened against police officers PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON , pursuant to LAW CCrP ( lack of the elements of a crime in the impugned acts ) .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor set aside the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE as unlawful and unfounded , on the ground that the circumstances in which the applicant had received his injuries had not been reliably established . He referred to the description of the applicant \u2019s injuries on his arrival in the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and his examination by the forensic medical expert ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He stated that the expert \u2019s suggestions as to how the injuries had been sustained made it doubtful that the applicant could have received his injuries as a result of a CARDINAL - off impact by his face against a wall . The prosecutor further noted that the applicant had explained that he would most likely be able to identify the police officer who had beaten him at the police station . However , it was not possible to carry out an identification parade and a confrontation in a preinvestigation inquiry . The prosecutor considered that it could not be ruled out that , after his arrest , the applicant had been subjected to acts of violence in order to make him confess to the crime . The applicant \u2019s version of his illtreatment by the police officers could only be verified by way of a full investigation . In order to do so it was necessary to open a criminal case , given that there was sufficient information disclosing elements of a crime under LAW CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW ( official misconduct with the use of violence ) . The prosecutor ordered that a criminal case be opened .","In the course of the ensuing investigation the police officers who had arrested the applicant were questioned as witnesses . The applicant was questioned as a victim . An additional forensic medical expert \u2019s report was obtained on DATE . It reiterated the conclusions in the previous report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE an investigator from the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office terminated the proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the acts of the police officers , pursuant to LAW","On DATE a deputy prosecutor of GPE set aside the investigator \u2019s decision and reopened the criminal proceedings . CARDINAL further decisions to terminate the proceedings were subsequently taken and then set aside as unfounded and based on an incomplete investigation . In CARDINAL of the decisions , dated DATE , the deputy prosecutor ordered that the inconsistencies between the statements of the police officers and that of the applicant be eliminated and that identification parades and confrontations be held , if necessary . When questioned again as a victim , the applicant stated , inter alia , that he remembered that police officer PERSON had hit his head against the wall and started punching him \u201c in the kidneys \u201d ( as stated in a decision to terminate the proceedings of CARDINAL DATE ) .","The most recent decision to terminate the proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime under LAW ( a ) of LAW in the acts of police officers PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON was taken on CARDINAL DATE . The investigator concluded that the applicant \u2019s allegations had been refuted by police officers PERSON and PERSON , who stated that the applicant had hit his own head against the wall ; by the record of his surrender and confession and the forensic medical report of DATE , in that the applicant \u2019s injuries could have been sustained as a result of impacts from blunt hard objects with a limited contact surface . It does not appear from the decision that investigative acts such as identification parades and confrontations with the applicant \u2019s participation were carried out .","At a preliminary hearing held by ORG on DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel requested that the record of the applicant \u2019s surrender and confession of CARDINAL DATE , on which the prosecution relied , be excluded from evidence pursuant to LAW ORG , as it had been obtained in the absence of a lawyer . ORG dismissed the request .","At his trial , the applicant pleaded his innocence and submitted that he had written his confession statement on the instructions of police officer PERSON as a result of physical and psychological coercion by the police officers ; in particular , police officer PERSON had beaten him \u201c in the kidneys and liver \u201d and his head had been struck against the wall so that he had fainted . He had not been informed of his right under LAW of the LAW not to give selfincriminating statements , as that part of the record had been added by police officers at a later stage . The applicant asserted , in particular , that on TIME of the robbery he had arrived at the commercial centre , by car and at B. \u2019s request , and had towed B. \u2019s car until its engine started , without knowing anything about the robbery . DATE PERSON had offered him gold jewellery , allegedly belonging to B. \u2019s acquaintance , for sale . The applicant had returned some of the jewellery to PERSON and kept the rest for himself . He had understood from police officer PERSON that the gold which he had received from PERSON had been stolen from the GPE district commercial centre . He had therefore told PERSON about the gold he had kept at his home .","The applicant \u2019s co - defendant Zh . pleaded his innocence , asserting that he had given self - incriminating statements as a result of his illtreatment by police officers , in particular by PERSON , who had allegedly beaten him up , kicked him and burned his fingers with a cigarette ; he also stated that after his arrest on CARDINAL DATE he had seen the applicant , on his knees and bleeding , at the police station .","The applicant \u2019s co - defendant PERSON admitted before the trial court that he had committed the robbery together with a certain PERSON . , and stated that the applicant and PERSON . were innocent . In particular , PERSON stated that on TIME of the robbery he had called the applicant , asking him for help because his car had broken down ; the applicant had arrived by car as requested , towed B. \u2019s car ( with the stolen property inside ) until the engine started and then left without knowing anything about the robbery . DATE , since he was experiencing difficulties with storing and selling the stolen property , PERSON had asked the applicant to look after the gold jewellery and to buy some of it if he wished . The applicant had agreed . PERSON also stated that he had not given any selfincriminating statements during the preliminary investigation , in spite of the physical violence used against him by the police officers , in particular by PERSON","The applicant \u2019s wife stated , among other things , that on DATE of his arrest the applicant had been taken back to their home by the police officers in order for their flat to be searched . He had had an abrasion on his head , his lip was burst and his nose was swollen .","Police officer PERSON , examined by the trial court as a witness , stated that he and other police officers had arrested the applicant and his CARDINAL codefendants after PERSON \u2019s girlfriend had reported their involvement in the robbery . At the police station he had talked to the applicant about the robbery several times . The applicant had confessed , named his accomplices and expressed his readiness to surrender the stolen gold . PERSON had suggested that the applicant write a statement of his surrender and confession . The applicant had agreed and PERSON had asked his subordinates to prepare the necessary document . No violence or threats had been used against the applicant .","Police officer PERSON stated that after the applicant \u2019s arrest he had taken the applicant to the police station . The applicant had been taken to PERSON \u2019s office and later PERSON had requested PERSON to obtain from the applicant a statement of his surrender and confession . The applicant had written down his statement and signed it . PERSON had not used any violence against the applicant . PERSON had come out of his office to register the statement with an officer on duty , while the applicant had stayed with police officer PERSON On returning to his office , PERSON had seen the applicant suddenly jump to his feet and strike his head against the wall . The applicant had fallen to his knees and started bleeding , \u201c probably from his nose \u201d . PERSON had given him a towel and asked whether he needed a doctor . The applicant had answered negatively . PERSON had then taken the applicant to his office again .","Police officer PERSON stated that the applicant had jumped to his feet and struck his forehead against the wall once and then had fallen to his knees . PERSON had wanted to call a doctor but the applicant had refused . He had given the applicant a towel because the applicant was bleeding . PERSON denied any violent behaviour on the part of the police officers .","Investigator PERSON stated that she had investigated the robbery case and had given instructions ( \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0435 \u043f\u043e\u0440\u0443\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ) to the police officers in the criminal investigation unit of the GPE police department . She had not instructed them to question the applicant or to collect a statement of his surrender and confession . Police officer PERSON had obtained the applicant \u2019s statement of his surrender and confession as a result of the applicant \u2019s free will . When questioning the applicant as a suspect ( on CARDINAL DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) she had noticed his injuries and asked if he had needed medical assistance , but he had refused .","The applicant \u2019s counsel maintained before the trial court that the applicant \u2019s statement of his surrender and confession , which he had retracted on DATE when questioned for the first time in the presence of a lawyer , should be declared inadmissible evidence . She noted that investigator PERSON had drawn up the record of the applicant \u2019s arrest as a suspect on CARDINAL DATE . However , for unknown reasons she had not questioned him as a suspect on DATE . Instead , the police officers had obtained the statement of his surrender and confession on their own initiative , without any such instruction from the investigator . They had done so using psychological and physical coercion , as confirmed , inter alia , by the statements of Zh . and the applicant \u2019s wife ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the certificate from detention facility GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the forensic medical expert report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Furthermore , his confession statement had been obtained in the absence of a lawyer . Under LAW of the ORG , a statement of CARDINAL \u2019s surrender and confession was meant to be voluntary . Therefore , if obtained from a person arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime , any such statement should be subjected to particular scrutiny . Its voluntary nature was ensured through procedural guarantees under Articles CARDINAL ( \u201c The suspect \u201d ) and CARDINAL ( \u201c Compulsory participation of counsel for the defence \u201d ) of the CCrP. Otherwise , such a confession statement should be declared inadmissible evidence in accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the CCrP.","In its judgment of DATE ORG held that the applicant \u2019s allegation that the statement of his surrender and confession had been given under duress was unsubstantiated . It relied on the statements by the police officers , denying any wrongdoing on their part ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , the investigative authority \u2019s most recent decision to terminate the criminal proceedings against them which , as ORG noted , had been taken in accordance with LAW and had not been revoked or quashed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and a report from an internal police inquiry which had dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegations of illtreatment .","ORG held that it had critically assessed the applicant \u2019s statements at the trial and concluded that they represented the position of the defence , in that they were aimed at evading criminal responsibility . Those submissions had been refuted by his and Zh . \u2019s statements of surrender and confession , as well as by the statements by the following witnesses : PERSON \u2019s girlfriend , who had provided hearsay evidence about the applicant \u2019s involvement in the robbery ; CARDINAL police officers who had participated in the applicant \u2019s and his co - defendants\u2019 arrest or the operative follow - up , in particular PERSON , and PERSON ; investigator PERSON , in charge of the robbery case ; Z.A. , who had denied seeing the applicant in the porch of his building on the night of the robbery ( where , according to her former boyfriend who had been heard by the court as a witness for the defence , she had spent time that evening ) , and her mother GPE , who had stated that Z.A. had not gone out after TIME ; and PERSON . , who had been an attesting witness during the search at the applicant \u2019s home during which certain items were seized .","ORG held that it had based its judgment on the statements of surrender and confession given by the applicant and Zh . , along with statements by the victims , the prosecution witnesses and other evidence . It found that on DATE B. , Zh . and the applicant had entered into a conspiracy to commit theft from the shops in the commercial centre . According to the roles agreed on between them , the applicant had remained on guard in his car outside the commercial centre , while PERSON and PERSON . had entered while the centre was still open and had hidden there . During the night they had attacked a woman guard and tied her up . Then they had forced locks and stolen property , in particular jewellery and mobile phones . The applicant had helped them to carry the stolen property out and load it into his car , in which they all had left .","ORG convicted the applicant of high - value theft with unlawful entry , committed in conspiracy by a group of persons , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . In sentencing the applicant ORG took into account information about his personality , in particular that he had received positive character references from his places of residence and employment , and that he had no criminal or administrative offences record . It considered his statement of surrender and confession , the fact that he had CARDINAL minor children and that he had voluntarily surrendered the stolen gold jewellery , as well as his health condition , as mitigating circumstances . PERSON and Zh . were convicted of robbery with the use of violence and sentenced to DATE imprisonment respectively . ORG granted the GPE civil actions and ordered the applicant and his co - defendants to pay MONEY ( RUB ) jointly in respect of pecuniary damage . The ORG remaining claims were to be examined in separate civil proceedings .","The applicant and his counsel appealed against the judgment . His counsel argued , inter alia , that the trial court had based its judgment on inadmissible evidence , in particular the statement of the applicant \u2019s surrender and confession of CARDINAL DATE , which had been given by him as a result of ill - treatment by the police officers and in the absence of a lawyer . She reiterated the arguments put forward before the trial court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG of GPE examined the case on appeal . It endorsed in full the trial court \u2019s decision concerning the admissibility of the statement of the applicant \u2019s surrender and confession . It held , in particular , that the statement had been obtained in accordance with LAW . Under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of that Code , a statement of surrender and confession was a voluntary statement by a person about a crime committed by him . It had not therefore been necessary to have an instruction from an investigator in order to obtain it . The law did not provide for any additional requirements to such a statement , save that the individual concerned was to be warned of his or her criminal responsibility for deliberately giving false information . Therefore , the absence of a lawyer had not rendered the statement unlawful and had not violated the applicant \u2019s right to defend himself . He had been informed of his right under LAW , as confirmed by his signature on the record of his surrender and confession .","ORG of the Komi Republic further noted that the trial court had examined as witnesses all of the police officers who had seen the applicant at the police station with a view to verifying their implication in the alleged crime . They had all denied any wrongdoing . It had been established that , having written his confession , the applicant had suddenly jumped to his feet and hit his head against a wall . ORG also referred to the most recent decision by the investigative authority , dated DATE , by which the criminal proceedings against the police officers had been terminated ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and to the results of the internal police inquiry dismissing the applicant \u2019s allegations of illtreatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It upheld the judgment .","The applicant \u2019s counsel unsuccessfully raised the issue of the admissibility of the record of the applicant \u2019s surrender and confession in her requests for supervisory review of the case before ORG of GPE and ORG of GPE . The former court rejected it for the same reasons as before ( decision of a judge of ORG of GPE DATE dismissing the request , as endorsed by the President of that court on DATE ) .","ORG of GPE similarly stated that the applicant \u2019s argument \u2013 that the statement of his surrender and confession had been obtained in the absence of a lawyer \u2013 lacked a basis in domestic law , and that the allegation of the applicant \u2019s illtreatment at the hands of the police was unsubstantiated , as shown through its examination by the trial court which had heard the police officers , particularly PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( decision of a judge of ORG of GPE of DATE dismissing the request for supervisory review , as endorsed by a Deputy President of ORG on DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154400","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF IDENTOBA AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation;Positive obligations);Violation of Article 14+11 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association;Positive obligations;Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["With the exception of the first applicant , a legal entity registered under NORP law on DATE , the remaining CARDINAL applicants live in GPE . Their dates of birth are indicated in the attached annex .","The first applicant , a NORP non - governmental organisation set up to promote and protect the rights of lesbian , gay , bisexual and transgender ( ORG ) people in GPE , planned to organise a peaceful march on CARDINAL DATE in the centre of the capital city to mark the International Day Against Homophobia .","NORP In advance of the march , on CARDINAL DATE the first applicant gave FAC and ORG prior notice of its intention to hold a peaceful demonstration on the above - mentioned date . It informed the authorities of the planned route of the march , which would start from the grounds of the Tbilisi Concert Hall and proceed to FAC , and the approximate number of participants . In addition , in the light of a foreseeable protest from those opposed to the NORP community in GPE , given the general background of hostility towards the sexual minorities , the applicant organisation specifically requested that the authorities provide sufficient protection from possible violence .","On DATE the Tbilisi City Hall acknowledged receipt of the first applicant \u2019s request and explained , in reply , the rights and responsibilities of demonstrators , as provided for by the relevant law .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant organisation was contacted by a senior officer of ORG , who clarified the details of the planned march and confirmed to the organiser that police forces would be deployed to ensure that the procession took place peacefully .","The second to fourteenth applicants submitted written statements describing the exact circumstances surrounding the incident . At TIME on CARDINAL DATE , members of the NORP community , staff members of PERSON and other NORP activists , including the CARDINAL abovementioned applicants \u2013 approximately thirty people in total ( \u201c the NORP marchers \u201d ) \u2013 gathered in the grounds adjacent to the GPE FAC . They were holding banners with slogans such as \u201c I am gay \u201d , \u201c I love my gay friend \u201d , \u201c Love is love \u201d and \u201c Get colourful \u201d , as well as rainbow flags and umbrellas . A police patrol was present , as agreed , near the GPE FAC .","Shortly before the beginning of the demonstration , members of CARDINAL religious groups , ORG and FAC , arrived in the GPE FAC area . Journalists were also present , recording interviews with the NORP marchers .","QUANTITY from the starting point of the march , members of the CARDINAL above - mentioned religious groups ( \u201c the counterdemonstrators \u201d ) stopped some of the NORP marchers and started arguing with them . The counter - demonstrators claimed that nobody was entitled to hold a Gay Pride Parade or to promote \u201c perversion \u201d , as it was against moral values and NORP traditions . In reply , the marchers tried calmly to explain that it was not a Gay Pride Parade but a public event dedicated to supporting the fight against homophobia , and continued to walk .","When the NORP marchers reached FAC , they were met there by CARDINAL , who were particularly aggressive and verbally offensive . The counter - demonstrators blocked the marchers\u2019 way , made a human chain and encircled the marchers in such a way as to make it impossible for them to pass . The marchers were subjected to threats of physical assault and to insults , accused of being \u201c sick \u201d and \u201c immoral \u201d people and \u201c perverts \u201d . Further pejorative name - calling such as \u201c fagots \u201d and \u201c sinners \u201d was also repeated . At that moment , the police patrol cars which had been escorting the marchers from FAC suddenly distanced themselves from the scene .","The NORP marchers , feeling threatened , immediately telephoned the police , alerting them to the danger and requesting the immediate dispatch of additional forces . While waiting for the arrival of the requested police support , the marchers noticed a few police officers present at the scene . However , when they approached them and asked for help , the officers replied that they were not part of the police patrol and it was not their duty to intervene .","The aggression towards the NORP marchers continued to escalate and after DATE thirty minutes , the counter - demonstrators grabbed the banners from the hands of several activists and tore them apart . The counter - demonstrators then resorted to physical attack by pushing and punching the marchers in the front row . As a result of that assault , the sixth applicant ( Mr PERSON ) , who was in the front line of the march , was knocked down , beaten and kicked . Shortly afterwards , several police patrol cars arrived at the scene . Some of the law - enforcement officers intervened by stopping the beating of the sixth applicant . The police officers then separated the opposing parties by standing between them . At that time , the aggressive and agitated counter - demonstrators were still making particularly vitriolic threats , including that the marchers \u201c should be burnt to death \u201d and \u201c crushed \u201d .","The third applicant ( Mr PERSON ) , who was standing on the pavement with other NORP marchers , asked the police to take more active measures to protect the demonstration . The police responded by forcing him into a patrol car and driving him to ORG of ORG , where he was detained for TIME . He was given no official explanation for his arrest at that time . However , as subsequently explained by the Government , the police had simply sought to distance him from the scene in order to protect him from the angry counter - demonstrators .","CARDINAL other employees of PERSON \u2013 the sixth , seventh and tenth applicants ( Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON Kalandadze ) DATE were also arrested by the police when they moved from the pavement to the road . They were forced into police patrol cars and driven around the city for TIME before being returned to FAC . As subsequently explained by the ORG , the aim of the ORG short - term retention was twofold : to prevent them from committing an administrative offence \u2013 impeding road traffic \u2013 and to protect them from the counter - demonstrators\u2019 assault .","Later on CARDINAL DATE , the third and sixth applicants ( Mr L. PERSON and Mr PERSON ) sought medical help for their injuries . The third applicant had a bruised left knee , grazes on his left palm and fingers , a haemorrhagic forearm and a haematoma on the right eyebrow . The sixth applicant had a closed head trauma , cerebral contusions , and bruises on the left side of his chest . DATE , on DATE , the fourteenth applicant ( PERSON ) also visited a doctor . She was diagnosed with a contusion of the left wrist .","The clashes between the marchers and counter - demonstrators were recorded by journalists present at the scene and broadcast in TIME of CARDINAL DATE by a number of national television channels . The faces of the applicants who had been attacked and the assailing counter - demonstrators were clearly recognisable .","On DATE members of the board of the applicant organisation filed several complaints with ORG and ORG concerning the violent acts committed during the march of CARDINAL DATE by representatives of the CARDINAL religious groups . The complaints were mostly based on the account of the circumstances as described in the CARDINAL individual ORG written statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE a criminal investigation was launched into the infliction of light bodily harm on the fourteenth applicant ( Ms M. Tsutskiridze ) by unidentified persons . When questioned as a witness DATE , she stated that unidentified men had grabbed her poster and hit her with the handle of the poster . On DATE the eighth applicant ( PERSON ) was also questioned about the fourteenth applicant \u2019s injury to her hand . Subsequently , on DATE a forensic medical examination was commissioned by the investigation , the results of which suggested that the bruising and excoriation the fourteenth applicant had sustained on her wrist represented light bodily injuries . The fourteenth applicant was not granted victim status within the framework of that criminal investigation at that time .","On DATE the first applicant received a letter from the deputy director of the police patrol department of ORG in response to the board ORG complaints of CARDINAL DATE . The response stated that , as there were no signs of illegality in the actions of the police during the demonstration , there was no need to launch an investigation against them for abuse of power . As to the counter - demonstrators\u2019 actions , CARDINAL of them had indeed been arrested for transgression under LAW minor breach of public order \u2013 and fined CARDINAL NORP laris ( QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) each .","On DATE the first applicant and CARDINAL individual applicants in the present case ( from DATE ) filed additional criminal complaints with ORG and the Minister of the ORG . The applicants specifically requested that criminal investigations be launched on account of CARDINAL factual situations : firstly , the verbal and physical attacks perpetrated against them by the counter - demonstrators with clear discriminatory intent ; and , secondly , the acts and\/or omissions of the police officers who had failed to protect them from the assaults . The applicants emphasised that criminal inquiries should be conducted with due regard to LAW , which provided that the existence of homophobic intent was an aggravating circumstance in the commission of a criminal offence .","NORP The criminal complaints of DATE applicants focussed on the attacks against them by the counterdemonstrators and the lack of police protection . Those applicants did not request an inquiry into the alleged restriction of their liberty by the police during the incident of CARDINAL DATE ( Article CARDINAL of LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG replied to the first applicant and the relevant CARDINAL individual applicants that during the incident of CARDINAL DATE the police had called upon both the NORP marchers and the counter - demonstrators to exercise their right to demonstrate in a peaceful manner . The ORG \u2019s letter then reiterated the information concerning the imposition of administrative sanctions on CARDINAL of the counter - demonstrators ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE a criminal investigation was opened into the alleged beating of the sixth applicant ( Mr PERSON ) by unidentified persons on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE that applicant was interviewed as a witness . He stated that he had been encircled and insulted by CARDINAL or CARDINAL counter - demonstrators . The attackers then started kicking and hitting him . The ill - treatment lasted for TIME , until a police officer finally intervened and removed him from the scene . On DATE a forensic medical expert issued an opinion confirming that the sixth applicant had sustained a contusion and closed head trauma . He was not granted victim status at that time .","In DATE the CARDINAL counter - demonstrators who had previously been fined for administrative misconduct were examined as witnesses in relation to the beating of the sixth applicant . The latter , questioned again in DATE about the incident of CARDINAL DATE , stated that he could no longer remember certain circumstances due to the significant lapse of time . Nevertheless , he confirmed that he would still be able to recognise the faces of those individuals who had assaulted him .","According to the latest information available in the case file , the CARDINAL criminal investigations opened on DATE and DATE into the light bodily injuries sustained by DATE applicants are still pending , and the CARDINAL applicants have never been granted victim status ."],"violated_articles":["11","14","3"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159562","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"MIKULOVI\u0106 AND VUJISI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant in the first case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC near GPE in GPE . He is represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .","NORP The applicant in the second case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC near GPE in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant committed a murder .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) imposed a DATE prison sentence for murder on the applicant , under LAW .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court for retrial .","On DATE ORG again sentenced the applicant to forty years\u2019 imprisonment for murder .","On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court for retrial .","On DATE ORG again sentenced the applicant to forty years\u2019 imprisonment for murder , finding as follows :","\u201c The court did not accept the defence \u2019s argument that , when it comes to the question of the applicable law , the law which was in force at the time of the commission of the crime ought to have been applied , as the LAW to LAW ( Zakon o izmenama i dopunama ORG zakona PERSON ) had entered into force on DATE , before the accused was sentenced ... It is clear that with the entry into force of these amendments , the death penalty and a DATE prison sentence can no longer be imposed . Furthermore , the LAW to LAW ( Zakon o izmenama i dopunama ORG zakona PERSON ) ... , which entered into force on DATE , removed LAW and as a result , a DATE prison sentence is prescribed for the crimes for which the death penalty had been previously prescribed ... it is therefore clear that upon entry into force of the LAW to LAW ( DATE ) , the death penalty and the sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment were removed from the range of criminal sanctions , and that LAW of DATE prescribed a DATE prison sentence for that particular crime . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","On DATE ORG , in another formation , changed the legal classification of the applicant \u2019s offence to aggravated murder and upheld the remainder of the judgment .","On DATE ORG rejected an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant . The applicant received that decision on DATE .","On DATE the applicant committed a murder .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment for murder , under LAW .","On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court for retrial .","On DATE the Vranje ORG again sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for murder .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","On DATE ORG , acting as a third - instance court , upheld the judgment . In its reasoning on the question of the applicable law ORG found that the lower courts had correctly applied the more lenient law by sentencing the applicant to a DATE prison sentence . ORG stated :","\u201c ... LAW prescribed the death penalty for the crime in question , and the death penalty , contrary to the arguments in the appeal , had not been abolished at any stage during which said law had been in force ... [ T]herefore , the [ new ] LAW should be applied with regard to the crime in question as the more lenient law , which it indeed is , as a prison sentence from DATE is more lenient than the death penalty ... \u201d","On DATE ORG rejected an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant . ORG repeated that the death penalty remained in LAW during the period DATE and DATE , when it had been replaced by a DATE prison sentence . In its reasoning the said ORG stated :","\u201c ... the chronology of the changes of the criminal law points to an evident continuity in replacing the death penalty with the prison sentences ... \u201d","Having been served with ORG judgment the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG . Relying on LAW he complained that the most lenient criminal law provision had not been applied . The applicant maintained that during the period between DATE and DATE the courts could only have sentenced him to a CARDINAL or twenty years\u2019 imprisonment and that , therefore , the law in force during that time had been the most lenient .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal . In its reasoning , ORG referred to the detailed reasoning in its decision concerning the same issue in another case involving different appellants ( U\u017e . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","At the time the applicants committed the crimes in question , the general provisions of LAW defined which penalties were prescribed on both republic and federal levels . The death penalty was prescribed as one of possible penalties for murder in LAW .","The LAW of GPE ( ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) was in force from DATE until DATE .","NORP The relevant provision of the LAW reads as follows :","Human life is inviolable .","The death penalty can not be imposed for crimes proscribed in the federal criminal code . \u201c","The LAW of GPE ( Official Gazette of GPE no . CARDINAL ) was in force from DATE until DATE .","The relevant provision of the LAW reads as follows :","Human life is inviolable .","The death penalty can exceptionally be prescribed and imposed only for the most heinous forms of severe criminal acts . \u201d","LAW of the Socialist GPE DATE ( ORG of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , in ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , and in ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) was in force until DATE .","The relevant provisions of the Code provided as follows :","No punishment or other criminal sanction may be imposed on anyone for an act which , prior to being committed , was not defined by law as a criminal act , and for which a punishment has not been prescribed by statute .","The law that was in force at the time a criminal act was committed shall be applied to the person who has committed the criminal act .","If the law has been altered CARDINAL or more times after the criminal act was committed , the less severe law in relation to the offender shall be applied .","...","Provisions of the General Part of this Code are applicable to all criminal acts defined in the laws of the federation , GPE and autonomous provinces .","...","The following punishments may be imposed on the perpetrators of criminal acts :","capital punishment ;","imprisonment ;","a fine ;","confiscation of property .","...","( CARDINAL ) The term of imprisonment may not be shorter than DATE nor longer than DATE .","( CARDINAL ) The court may impose imprisonment for a term of DATE for criminal acts eligible for the death penalty . \u201d","On DATE Article CARDINAL of LAW was amended and the death penalty was deleted from the list of available penalties . It was amended to read :","( CARDINAL ) The term of imprisonment may not be shorter than DATE nor longer than DATE .","( CARDINAL ) A prison sentence of DATE may be prescribed for the most serious criminal acts or for the most heinous forms of severe criminal acts . This sentence may only be prescribed as an option alongside a prison sentence of DATE [ it can not be a stand - alone penalty ] and may not be imposed on a person who was under DATE CARDINAL at the time of commitment of the criminal act concerned . \u201d","LAW of GPE DATE ( ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , and ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , FAC , FAC , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) was in force until DATE .","The relevant provisions of the Code provided as follows :","Whoever causes the death of another shall be punished with imprisonment for a minimum of DATE .","Imprisonment for a minimum of DATE or the death penalty [ is prescribed for ] whoever :","CARDINAL ) causes the death of another in a cruel or heinous manner ;","CARDINAL ) causes the death of another by callous violent behaviour ;","CARDINAL ) causes the death of another and with premeditation endangers the life of a third person ;","CARDINAL ) causes the death of another for gain , to commit or conceal another offence , for callous revenge or other base motives . \u201d","On DATE this Criminal Code was amended and the death penalty was replaced with a DATE prison sentence .","On DATE , in a similar case to that of the applicants , ORG rejected a constitutional appeal of GPE ( U\u017e . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . In its decision , ORG , inter alia , stated :","\u201c Since the death penalty was prescribed in LAW continuously until DATE , it also was in force at the time of the commission of the crime in question , and was also prescribed for the crime the applicant had been accused and convicted of , ORG found that the [ new ] Criminal Code was without doubt more lenient for the appellant , as it did not prescribe the death penalty as the heaviest penalty in the system of criminal sanctions . According to ORG assessment , any prison sentence is more lenient than the death penalty , because life is of fundamental value to each human being , and it is subject to special protection in both the constitutional and criminal legal spheres . For all the above mentioned reasons , ORG finds the rights of the appellant were not violated as guaranteed by the provisions of LAW . \u201d","On DATE ORG ( PERSON Ok CARDINAL ) took the view that the death penalty had ceased to be applicable in the republic upon the entry into force of the LAW to LAW of DATE , and that this penalty was abolished at that time and replaced with a DATE prison sentence . The court held :","\u201c ... in LAW , the death penalty continued to be in force during the period DATE and DATE when , by the mentioned amendments , it was definitively abolished and replaced with a DATE prison sentence . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141947","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF M\u00dcLLER v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a life sentence in PERSON prison .","On DATE the applicant was arrested after he had shot his wife , PERSON , who had recently left him , and injured CARDINAL bystanders . On DATE the GPE am ORG convicted the applicant of murder and negligent bodily injury and sentenced him to life imprisonment . He has been imprisoned ever since .","On DATE ORG determined that the applicant \u2019s guilt was not of \u201c particular gravity \u201d pursuant to LAW ( a ) of LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) , implying that the degree of the applicant \u2019s guilt did not require an execution of DATE of his sentence .","From DATE until DATE the applicant served his sentence in a semi - custodial regime ( offener Vollzug ) . On DATE this privilege was withdrawn after preliminary investigations were initiated against the applicant who was suspected of having , in DATE , while on prison leave , caused bodily harm to a female acquaintance , PERSON , by using an electric truncheon . On DATE ORG acquitted him of these charges on factual grounds without giving any further written reasons .","On DATE ORG , sitting as an execution of sentence chamber ( PERSON ) rejected the applicant \u2019s request to suspend the remainder of his sentence and to release him on probation . The chamber considered that the criminal proceedings before ORG had failed sufficiently to clarify the facts of the incident of DATE . Having heard evidence by witnesses , the chamber noted that the applicant had started a sexual relationship with PERSON , who was married , in DATE . When PERSON decided to terminate the relationship in DATE , the applicant had threatened to tell her husband and children about her extramarital relationship . Based on testimony given by several witnesses , the chamber was further convinced that the applicant had attacked PERSON in the evening of DATE . The chamber considered that the applicant \u2019s submissions that he had not been in GPE at the time of the alleged incident lacked credibility .","With regard to the prognostic decision , the decision reads as follows :","\u201c The ORG is convinced that a serious danger still emanates from [ the applicant ] for other ORG lives and limbs . The established facts disclose remarkable similarities to the crime against PERSON The convict knew both women from his youth ... Irrespective of the qualification of the incident under criminal law \u2013 which is irrelevant for the prognostic decision at hand DATE both incidents were preceded by a long period of time during which the perpetrator and the victim were deeply involved on an emotional level . The convict made elaborate plans for the future with both women , which ended in disappointment , and both women decided to leave him for another man ... The convict was unable to take a clear stance in respect of the separation from both women . He oscillated between aggressive acts and menacing behaviour on the CARDINAL side and pleadings on the other . In both cases , his behaviour followed the same pattern : it started with rather low - key aggression , which escalated during the course of the crisis which was marked by serious feelings of mortification .... Now and then he threatened the women with violence and displayed suicidal tendencies ... PERSON might not yet have been in serious danger , as the convict had still been able to set himself limits . However , the ORG has very serious doubts whether he will remain able to respect these limits in the future . \u201d","The ORG further observed that the psychological expert Prof PERSON , in an expert report prepared on DATE , had given the applicant a favourable legal prognosis . However , these findings had become obsolete in view of the freshly established events . The ORG finally considered that the fact that the applicant had been acquitted in the criminal proceedings before ORG did not prevent the execution of sentence chamber from making its own assessment of the relevant facts , as ORG had failed sufficiently to examine those facts in a convincing way .","On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . That court considered that the principle of presumption of innocence did not prevent the execution of sentence chamber from examining on its own motion those facts that were relevant for its prognostic decision .","On DATE , ORG refused to entertain the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint . On DATE , the applicant lodged an application with ORG ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) in which he complained about his continued detention . On DATE , a ORG of CARDINAL judges declared this application inadmissible .","DATE , the applicant lodged CARDINAL further requests for the stay of execution of the remainder of the sentence , which were likewise rejected by the domestic courts .","Since DATE , the applicant has again enjoyed relaxed conditions of detention ( Vollzugslockerungen ) , like accompanied outings and therapy . Further relaxed conditions of detention were not granted because on CARDINAL DATE ORG objected to the prison authority \u2019s proposal in this regard .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG , sitting as an execution of sentence chamber , and after having heard the applicant , rejected his request for a suspension of his sentence on probation . The court found that there was no real chance that the applicant would not reoffend if released . This finding was based on the psychiatric expert report submitted by Prof PERSON on DATE , which had found that the applicant continued to be dangerous . ORG further found as follows :","\u201c On the other hand , it has to be taken into account that the expert detected risk factors in the convict \u2019s personality which make it difficult to come to an unconditionally positive social and legal prognosis ... [ The expert found ] that these risk factors derived on the one hand from the fact that the convict had failed to deal with his offence , had not admitted any guilt and had not shown sympathy for his victims . In the expert \u2019s view , he displayed a massive infantile egocentricity which was reflected in distinctive cantankerousness . While it was true that this would not necessarily lead to the commission of further criminal offences , the criminal offence that the applicant had committed to the detriment of PERSON showed that the applicant was willing to enter into relationships with women once more and that a separation would lead to violent acts for reasons of wounded pride . His problem was that he was incapable of dealing either with his own weaknesses or with his catastrophic actions and that he could not take a mature , adult stance towards them \u201d .","( \u201c Anderenfalls war hierbei jedoch zu ber\u00fccksichtigen , dass auch nach den NORP des Gutachters in der Person des Verurteilten Risikofaktoren festgestellt ORG , die eine uneingeschr\u00e4nkt positive Sozial- und Legalprognose ... erschweren . PERSON ergeben sich zum einen daraus , dass PERSON nach der QUANTITY LOC auseinandergesetzt hat und weder seine eigene NORP einger\u00e4umt noch Mitleid mit den Opfern gezeigt hat . Bei ihm besteht nach Auffassung des Sachverst\u00e4ndigen eine massive infantile Egozentrik , die sich in einer ausgepr\u00e4gten PERSON widerspiegelt . PERSON f\u00fchre dies nicht notwendig zur Begehung weiterer Straftaten . LOC zeige die PERSON zum PERSON der PERSON , dass PERSON geneigt und imstande sei , wieder PERSON einzugehen und dass es bei Trennungen zu Gewalttaten aus gekr\u00e4nkter PERSON komme . Seine Problematik bestehe darin , dass er au\u03b2erstande sei , sich PERSON , aber auch PERSON katastrophalen ORG auseinanderzusetzen und diesen gegen\u00fcber einen reifen , erwachsenen PERSON . \u201c )","ORG further considered that there was no need to obtain further expert reports . It observed , in this context , that it was part of the expert \u2019s task to assess a factual situation from a medical point of view in order to deliver the requested prognostic assessment . The court observed that the risk associated with a suspension of the sentence on probation could only be taken once it was clear that the applicant would adhere to the norms and once his conduct had been tested for some time in the framework of relaxed conditions of detention , in particular in a semi - custodial regime . In this context , the court also welcomed that the applicant was now cooperating and it was thus envisioned to start individual therapy in DATE .","On DATE , the applicant appealed against ORG decision . He submitted , inter alia , that he had not received ORG observations ORG had referred to in its decision and that his rights under LAW were violated because ORG had based its decision on the alleged incident with PERSON , even though he had been acquitted of all charges in this respect . He further maintained that the decision could not be based on the lack of relaxed conditions of detention ; otherwise , the court had an obligation to ensure that appropriate measures were taken .","On DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . ORG based its decision on the expert report , recalling the expert \u2019s findings , inter alia , that the murder of his wife and the incident with PERSON , as referred to in previous decisions of ORG and of ORG , showed that with regard to women the applicant thought he could execute his own \u201c law \u201d at his discretion . He still did not accept his own weaknesses and did not have a plan on how to avoid or deal with critical situations in the future . Referring to its previous decisions of DATE , ORG concluded that the circumstances had not changed to a decisive degree . The murder of his wife was not triggered by the environment , but by the applicant \u2019s personality . Since the criminogenic structure of his personality remained unchanged , the fact that the applicant \u2019s conduct was non - objectionable was only of minor prognostic relevance .","The Court of Appeal observed that it had been legitimate for the execution of sentence chamber to investigate on its own motion the incident with PERSON , since this was relevant for the prognosis . Therefore , the expert was allowed to base his prognostic assessment on the execution of sentence chamber \u2019s findings in this respect . According to ORG , which referred to its prior decisions , this did not constitute a violation of the presumption of innocence . Having regard to the persistent danger that the applicant committed further violent acts in situations which could be compared to the original offence , ORG considered that it was not justifiable to take the risk of suspending the further execution of the life sentence .","On DATE , the applicant submitted a constitutional complaint . He raised in particular the issue of presumption of innocence and further alleged that his right to be heard had been violated since he had not received the prosecution \u2019s observations .","On DATE , ORG declared the complaint inadmissible for non - exhaustion of prior remedies on the grounds that the applicant had failed to lodge a motion to be heard ( Anh\u00f6rungsr\u00fcge ) .","On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s motion to be heard on the grounds that the applicant and his counsel had been informed about the content of the public prosecutor \u2019s statement and of the prison authority \u2019s submissions during a hearing . Furthermore , the prison authority \u2019s submissions had been served on the applicant \u2019s counsel for comments on DATE . On DATE , ORG , relying on the same grounds , rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE , ORG refused to admit the applicant \u2019s fresh complaint lodged on DATE against the decisions given by ORG on DATE and by ORG on DATE for adjudication without giving any further reasons . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE ORG refused to order the applicant \u2019s probationary release and , at the same time , instigated fresh proceedings on the review of the applicant \u2019s continued detention . On DATE ORG confirmed .","Until DATE , the applicant underwent therapy . He was granted prison leave to attend therapy lessons . As from DATE the applicant was additionally granted CARDINAL or CARDINAL prison leaves DATE . Since DATE the applicant is serving his sentence in a semi - custodial regime ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171089","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CEREALE FLOR S.A. AND RO\u015eCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The applicant company is a joint - stock company incorporated under NORP law . PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant company to pay another company , PERSON , CARDINAL Moldovan lei ( MDL ) ( equivalent to QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) . The court issued a writ of enforcement .","On DATE PERSON sought to restart the time - limit for the enforcement of the judgment dated DATE , arguing that it had been unable to initiate enforcement proceedings within the DATE statutory period because the bailiff had lost the original writ of enforcement .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG , by a final judgment , dismissed PERSON \u2019s application as being ill - founded , noting that a duplicate of the writ had been issued in DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld an application by PERSON for a revision of the judgment , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and allowed the statutory time - limit to run anew . The court did not reply to the applicant company \u2019s contention that the application was timebarred .","After communication , PERSON initiated enforcement proceedings and the applicant company paid MDL CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG acknowledged the applicant \u2019s entitlement , as a young family , to a plot of land for construction purposes . The court ordered the FAC local administration to grant the applicant ownership of such a plot of land . As there was no appeal , the judgment became final on DATE .","NORP The applicant sought enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , but to no avail .","On DATE the FAC local administration lodged an application for a revision of the judgment , arguing that the applicant had not qualified as a young family because her husband had died in DATE and she had therefore lost her entitlement to any land .","On DATE ORG dismissed the application for revision , finding that the applicant had requested the plot of land in DATE . Her husband \u2019s death had not qualified as a new circumstance because the local administration had been aware of that matter at the time of the proceedings . The local administration appealed .","On DATE , in the applicant \u2019s absence , ORG allowed the appeal , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and upheld the application for revision . It also quashed ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and delivered a new judgment on the merits that dismissed her claims as unsubstantiated .","After communication , the applicant brought a civil action , claiming damages for a violation of her right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time , pursuant to PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . She referred to the period of DATE between DATE and DATE , during which the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had not been enforced .","On DATE ORG found for the applicant , acknowledged a violation of her rights and awarded her MDL CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of pecuniary damage , MDL CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and MDL CARDINAL for legal costs . The court noted that the compensation for pecuniary damage represented the average market price of a plot of land of CARDINAL ha . It said that it had used the reference size of CARDINAL ha because the FAC local administration had granted plots of that size when executing similar judgments in respect of young families . ORG appealed .","On DATE ORG , by a final judgment , found the length of the proceedings to have been excessive , which it attributed to the acts of the authorities . It awarded the applicant MDL CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and MDL CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL ) for costs and expenses . The court dismissed the remainder of the claim , noting that the applicant had failed to substantiate alleged costs for renting alternative accommodation and finding that no compensation for the land should be awarded because the judgment acknowledging her entitlement to that land had been quashed ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152688","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ALEKSI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a citizen of GPE , who in born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The Government of GPE were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","ORG , having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) , indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right .","The applicant was an officer of the JNA , the armed forces of the former ORG ( \u201c the SFRY \u201d ) . The present case concerns his attempt to repossess his pre - war flat in GPE .","The detailed background concerning socially owned flats , military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE is provided in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant was allocated an occupancy right to a military flat in GPE .","On DATE he bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full purchase price in the amount of MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) .","When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicant continued his military career in the FAC forces and left GPE . His military service was terminated in DATE .","On DATE ORG GPE allocated the flat to PERSON , a member of ORG .","On DATE the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat in GPE . On DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG . On DATE the competent ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE the restitution commission , set up by Annex CARDINAL to the DATE LAW in GPE ( \u201c the GPE Peace Agreement \u201d ) , before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings , held that he was neither a refugee nor a displaced person within the meaning of Annex CARDINAL and declined jurisdiction . On DATE the restitution commission rejected the applicant \u2019s request for reconsideration of his claim .","NORP On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( a domestic human - rights body set up under Annex CARDINAL to ORG ) about the inability to repossess his pre - war flat .","On DATE ORG ( the legal successor of ORG ) rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint as regards the proceedings before the competent administrative bodies on non - exhaustion grounds ( the applicant had failed to inform the ORG about the decisions of DATE and DATE ; see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The complaint concerning the decisions of the restitution commission was rejected as incompatible ratione personae . The Commission held that , in accordance with Annex CARDINAL , ORG ( against which the applicant had addressed his appeal ) could not be held responsible for the decisions of the restitution commission because it had not had jurisdiction to examine them .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) seeking to establish the validity of a purchase contract of CARDINAL DATE and to register his title to the flat in the land register . On DATE ORG concluded that the action had been withdrawn because the applicant had failed to attend a scheduled hearing without justification .","On DATE ORG of GPE informed the Government of GPE that the applicant had not yet been allocated a military flat in GPE , but that his right to such allocation had been established by the competent body of ORG .","On DATE all purchase contracts concluded under LAW DATE were declared void ( Zakon o preuzimanju sredstava biv\u0161e ORG u svojinu PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Thereafter , the legislation regulating this matter , ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , ORG and Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) and ORG ( Zakon o prestanku primjene PERSON o napu\u0161tenim stanovima , Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , FAC , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , underwent numerous changes and all such contracts were declared legally valid .","Nevertheless , CARDINAL categories of buyers are not entitled to repossess their flats and to register their title to them ( see section DATE of the Privatisation of Flats Act DATE and section CARDINAL of ORG . The first category concerns those who served in foreign armed forces after the DATE - CARDINAL war . The second concerns those who acquired occupancy or equivalent rights to a military flat in a successor ORG of the SFRY . However , they are now entitled to compensation under section ORG . Although the compensation was initially envisaged as the refund of the amount paid for the flats in DATE plus interest at the rate applicable to overnight deposits , on DATE ORG ( decision no . U CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) declared that method of determining the amount of compensation unconstitutional and ordered ORG to amend it in line with ORG cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and DATE ) .","For a more detailed analysis of the relevant domestic law and practice and of the relevant international documents , see PERSON ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) and PERSON and Others ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","D. Relevant NORP legislation","It has no longer been possible to acquire occupancy rights in GPE since DATE ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , Zakon o stanovanju , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL ) . Instead , current and retired members of the armed forces and current and retired staff of ORG are now entitled to equivalent tenancy rights of unlimited duration on military flats or , in case of a lack of suitable flats , mortgage loans co - financed by the ORG on condition that they or their spouses or children do not have occupancy or equivalent rights to a flat in any of the former ORG ( the Military Housing Ordinance DATE , PERSON o na\u010dinu i kriterijumima za re\u0161avanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u PERSON ministarstvu za odbranu i PERSON , Official Gazette of GPE nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; LAW , PERSON o na\u010dinu i kriterijumima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za re\u0161avanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u PERSON , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; the Military Housing Ordinance CARDINAL , PERSON o na\u010dinu , kriterijumima i merilima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za re\u0161avanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u ORG odbrane i PERSON i PERSON , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; LAW , PERSON o re\u0161avanju stambenih pitanja u ORG odbrane , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and ORG DATE and DATE , PERSON o re\u0161avanju stambenih potreba PERSON vojnih penzija , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and PERSON o re\u0161avanju stambenih potreba PERSON vojnih penzija , published in an internal gazette of ORG no . CARDINAL ) . Therefore , those who occupied military flats in GPE before the war have as a rule been required to give up their rights to those flats in order to qualify for a military flat or a loan in GPE or GPE ( see sections DATE of LAW DATE ; sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Military Pensioners Ordinance DATE ; and sections DATE CARDINAL of LAW ) .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Housing Act DATE provides that the holder of a tenancy right of unlimited duration in respect of a flat may purchase that flat under the same conditions as an occupancy right holder ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181880","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF DUDIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON Dudin , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the Court by PERSON V. Pakin , a lawyer practising in PERSON ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168128","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"MAR\u010cAN v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP The applicant is a lawyer practising in PERSON .","In the period DATE and DATE the applicant acted as a privately - appointed defence lawyer for ORG , who was indicted in ORG PERSON u ORG ) on charges of abuse of power and authority and aiding and abetting the conclusion of onerous contracts .","The applicant in particular , together with another lawyer , assumed ORG \u2019s defence at the hearings before an investigating judge . He also lodged several appeals concerning the decisions on ORG \u2019s pre - trial detention and he lodged an objection against the indictment . In this period he also had a number of meetings and consultations with his client in detention .","During the trial ORG retained the services of another lawyer , and the applicant was no longer representing him . On DATE ORG acquitted GPE , and this was upheld on DATE by ORG ( PERSON ) .","When acquitting ORG the ORG did not rule on the entirety of the costs and expenses of the proceedings , reserving its decision in respect of further possible claims .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG seeking remuneration for his legal representation of ORG during the period DATE and DATE . He relied on the CARDINAL Scale of Lawyers\u2019 Fees ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and claimed a total of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ; approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as his fees in the proceedings , enumerated as follows :","- HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for attending CARDINAL hearings before the investigating judge and QUANTITY hearings before the CARDINAL - judge panel ( item CARDINAL of the fee scale ) DATE and DATE ;","- HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for drafting CARDINAL appeals lodged during the proceedings ( item CARDINAL of the fee scale ) ;","- HRK CARDINAL for drafting an objection against the indictment ( item CARDINAL of the fee scale ) ;","- HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for ORG visits and consultations with his client in detention , amounting to TIME , in the period DATE and DATE ( item CARDINAL of the fee scale ) ;","- a special increase of PERCENT in respect of the complexity of the case for the first CARDINAL amounts ( item CARDINAL of the fee scale ) ; and"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161973","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"IVANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON G. O. GPE , Representative of GPE to ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicant , a former policeman , was committed to the GPE detention centre ( \u0421\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0438\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u2116 CARDINAL \u041a\u0430\u043f\u043e\u0442\u043d\u044f ) on bribery charges .","The applicant was visited CARDINAL times by his lawyer before his release on DATE . During the visits , the applicant was locked inside a metal enclosure which he interchangeably called a partition or a cage , but which the Government called a partition . CARDINAL photographs of the visiting area taken by the lawyer , which were not disputed by the Government , show an empty room lit with fluorescent lights , with tiles on the floor and CARDINAL wall . Against that wall stands an upright , CARDINAL - sided enclosure CARDINAL times a man \u2019s height and CARDINAL by QUANTITY at the base . Its panels are made of finger - thick iron rods crossing at right angles . Mounted on the centre panel is a door secured with a lock . There is a stool inside .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer protested against this manner of detaining his client , but the prison guards justified their actions by saying that they were acting on the instructions of the prison governor .","Rules for prison visiting areas are regulated by ORG . ORG ( \u041f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0438\u043b\u0430 \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0435\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u044f\u0434\u043a\u0430 \u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u0438\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0432 \u0443\u0433\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0432\u043d\u043e-\u0438\u0441\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0441\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043c\u044b , \u0443\u0442\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0434\u0435\u043d\u044b \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043a\u0430\u0437\u043e\u043c LOC \u0420\u0424 \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043e\u043a\u0442\u044f\u0431\u0440\u044f DATE \u0433. \u2116 CARDINAL ) allow an inmate to meet his lawyer CARDINAL - on - one , with no partition between them . A prison guard may supervise the meeting but may not listen to the participants ( \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","At the material time , LAW of the Code of Civil Procedure allowed for judicial review of the acts of executive authorities which impinged on individual rights ( Article CARDINAL ) . A court also had the power to order the executive authority to remedy any breaches ( Article CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147468","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BAYTAR v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-e - Free assistance of interpreter) (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant went to Mu\u015f prison during visiting TIME to see her brother , who was being held there in connection with a case related to the ORG , an illegal armed organisation .","The staff responsible for body searches found on the applicant \u201c close to the left side of her abdomen \u201d , a piece of paper that had been folded several times and wrapped in tape . It was an unsigned letter dated DATE , written by a member of the ORG and addressed to another member .","The applicant was taken into police custody on DATE and questioned in NORP by the gendarmes the following day . During the interview she stated that she had picked up the object in question in PERSON at the bus stop where she was waiting for the bus to GPE . She had thought that the object might have some value and had intended to remove the wrapping once she was alone .","On DATE she gave a statement to the same effect before the public prosecutor and then before ORG . As she was illiterate , she signed the statements with her fingerprint .","She was remanded in custody after being examined and was released on DATE .","On DATE ORG of Van acquitted the applicant , considering her version of events to be credible .","On DATE the applicant visited her brother again in Mu\u015f prison during a religious festival . After the visit she was taken into police custody .","The police report drawn up that DATE stated that the staff responsible for body searches had discovered , hidden in the lining of the applicant \u2019s dress , a CARDINAL - page document consisting of rolled - up onionskin paper protected by adhesive tape . According to the report , the document contained , in particular , information about the ORG \u2019s strategy and its activities in prisons , about the conduct to be adopted vis - \u00e0 - vis the prison authorities and about prison staff .","She was questioned in NORP by QUANTITY gendarmes on DATE . The report stated that she had been reminded of her right to the assistance of a lawyer but had waived that right . As to the facts , she had stated that she had seen a wrapped object in the prison waiting room and had picked it up out of mere curiosity , placing it in her bra . She added that , during the search , the prison officers had discovered the object and had unwrapped it . She had noticed pieces of paper covered in writing . During her visit to her brother she had told him about the incident but he had not said anything about it . The gendarmes had then arrested her as she was leaving the prison .","NORP In response to a question about her personal status , she replied that she was married to G.I. on the basis of a religious marriage , not a civil one , and that they had had CARDINAL children together . Her husband had another partner with whom he had had CARDINAL children .","When asked whether she worked for the ORG , she replied in the negative . She added that , on the first occasion , she had picked up the object thinking it might contain gold and that it was with the same thought in mind that she had taken the paper in the waiting room .","NORP In response to a question about CARDINAL pieces of gold discovered on her during the search , she stated that CARDINAL of them belonged to her daughter and CARDINAL were hers .","After she had been questioned , the public prosecutor called for her to be remanded in custody . As a result she was brought before ORG judge .","Finding that she did not speak NORP with sufficient fluency , the judge asked a member of the applicant \u2019s family who was waiting in the corridor outside the courtroom to act as interpreter . The relative accepted .","The applicant stated once again that she had found the document in question in the waiting room . Immediately afterwards , she claimed that this statement , and the CARDINAL previously taken by the gendarmes , concerned events that had occurred DATE ; that no document had been discovered on her person when she last visited the prison ; that she had thought the gendarmes were questioning her about earlier events ; and that , not being able to read or write , she had signed the police report with her fingerprint without knowing what it said . When she was informed of the report \u2019s content she disputed its veracity .","On DATE , after the hearing , the applicant was remanded in custody and criminal proceedings were brought against her before ORG of Van for membership of an illegal armed organisation and , in the alternative , for aiding and abetting such an organisation .","At the various hearings before that court the applicant was assisted by a lawyer and an interpreter .","In the course of the proceedings , the defence disputed the prison ORG version of events . Counsel argued that no document had been found on the applicant , adding that , according to her , a document had certainly been found on a female visitor during the search carried out on entering the LOC and that person had nevertheless been authorised to visit on the grounds that it was a public holiday . The prison officers had failed to arrest her when she left the prison on account of the large number of visitors that day . Having realised that the visitor in question had evaded their control , the officers had decided to arrest the applicant instead , because they knew that a similar accusation had already been made against her . In addition , the defence stated that in her statement to the gendarmes the applicant had said that the impugned object had been found in her bra , whereas the record of the incident indicated that it had been found in the lining of her dress .","On DATE CARDINAL female prison officers were interviewed on the basis of a warrant . The first , ORG , stated that she had personally found the impugned document in the lining of the applicant \u2019s dress during the body search . The second , PERSON , confirmed this version and stated that she had been called immediately by her colleague after the discovery .","Testimony was also taken from a number of defence witnesses . CARDINAL women who were visiting the prison on DATE of the incident stated that they did not know if the applicant had been searched on entering the prison . Another testified that she had entered the prison at the same time as the applicant but not had seen her being searched . CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s brothers testified that he had arrived at the prison with her but that they had become separated during the body search before coming together again to visit their brother . In their conversation with the latter , the applicant had never mentioned any incident during her body search .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was given a prison sentence of DATE and DATE for aiding and abetting an illegal armed organisation . In its reasoning , ORG observed that , in the first case , the applicant had claimed to have found the impugned document at a bus stop in GPE , and that , in the second , she had stated during the investigation that she had found the document in the prison waiting room . It noted that the applicant had reiterated this statement to a district judge before claiming that she had been talking about the first case and that no document had in fact been found on her during the body search of DATE . The court took the view that there were some serious inconsistencies in the applicant \u2019s explanations . It noted that if she had really believed that the questioning by the gendarmes and the district judge concerned the events of DATE she should logically have stated that she had found the impugned document not in the waiting room of Mu\u015f prison but in PERSON . It concluded that the version of events given by the applicant and the defence witnesses was not credible , and it accepted the testimony of the CARDINAL prison officers , which confirmed the findings in the relevant police report . The court thus found the applicant guilty as charged .","On DATE ORG quashed that judgment on a procedural ground .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant again and handed down the same sentence . Moreover , taking into account the time she had already served , it ordered her release .","That judgment was quashed on DATE on an appeal on points of law by the applicant . ORG took the view that the offence with which she was charged had been incomplete and had remained at the attempt stage . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s other grounds of appeal on points of law , including the question of the absence of an interpreter in police custody .","On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment for attempting to aid and abet an illegal armed organisation . It adopted the same reasoning as that of its previous judgments .","On DATE ORG referred the case back to the first - instance court stating that , in accordance with PERSON no . CARDINAL , setting out the rules and procedures for the application of the new LAW which had recently entered into force , the case had to be re - examined in the light of that new code to determine whether the applicant could be granted the benefit of a more lenient provision .","On DATE ORG ( formerly ORG ) convicted the applicant once again , adopting the same reasoning as that of its previous judgments , and specifying that the provisions of the former code were more lenient .","The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment , submitting in particular that she had not been assisted by an interpreter while in police custody .","Her appeal was dismissed on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-e"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177927","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DICKMANN AND GION v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["Following the establishment of the communist regime in GPE in DATE , the ORG proceeded to nationalise buildings and agricultural land on a large scale . After the fall of the communist regime , the ORG enacted a series of laws aimed at affording redress for breaches of property rights by the former regime ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","Laws nos . NORP and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL established the principle of restitution of nationalised residential property and compensation in cases where restitution was no longer possible . Law no . NORP introduced a cap on compensation , but this was subsequently abolished by Law no . CARDINAL .","Law no . DATE attempted to harmonise the administrative procedures for restitution of properties covered by the above - mentioned laws and by the special legislation concerning restitution of agricultural land .","On DATE , the ORG adopted a pilot judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and ORG , CARDINAL DATE ) , in which it singled out the deficiencies of the restitution mechanism , indicating to the respondent ORG under LAW that new steps needed to be taken in order to process the restitution claims with more efficiency .","On CARDINAL DATE Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL came into force , setting out various procedures available to petitioners seeking settlement of their restitution claims .","Based on the parties\u2019 observations and comments regarding the new remedies set out by PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , on DATE the ORG found in its judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) , that the mechanism established by the new law offered a range of effective remedies that needed to be exhausted by those claimants whose complaints referred to CARDINAL of the following situations : the existence of concurrent titles to property with respect to the same plot of agricultural land ; the annulment of such title to property without any compensation ; the delivery of a final judgment confirming the right to compensation in respect of the unlawful seizure by the ORG of any type of immovable property , without fixing the amount ; the failure to pay such compensation awarded in a final judgment ; and the prolonged failure to give a decision on a restitution claim .","NORP However , the ORG also held that PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL did not contain any provisions of a procedural or substantive nature capable of affording redress on the matter of the existence of final judgments validating concurrent titles to property with respect to the same residential property . Furthermore , no procedure was available to former owners who , in the absence of restitution , would have been entitled to compensation but who did not to have access to it because the circumstances rendering restitution impossible had become known after the expiry of the time - limit for lodging compensation claims ( ibid . , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","NORP The complaints set out in the present applications reflect the circumstances described above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . In particular , the applicants have alleged that their title to the property ( building and appurtenant land ) had been acknowledged by the domestic courts ; however , owing to the sale of the property by the ORG , the applicants were prevented from enjoying their respective right . They claimed that this deprivation , together with the total lack of compensation for it , had imposed on them an excessive and disproportionate burden .","In DATE , under Decree no . CARDINAL , the ORG nationalised the building and its appurtenant land located at CARDINAL PERSON in GPE , which belonged to the applicant \u2019s predecessors .","In DATE the applicant lodged a claim with the domestic courts for restitution of the above - mentioned property , alleging that its nationalisation had been unlawful and that therefore the property right had left her ORG rightful ownership only when it had been transferred to her as heritage . The claim was formulated against ORG and PERSON , a ORG - owned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the ORG .","In its judgment of DATE the GPE ORG allowed the claims and ordered that the property be returned to the applicant , in her capacity as sole heiress of its rightful owners . The court held that the immovable property had been nationalised unlawfully , since the applicant \u2019s predecessors had not belonged to any of the social categories covered by the nationalisation decree and thus their right of property had been valid and continuous , being transferred as heritage to the applicant ; the ORG could not therefore claim a valid title to the property .","The judgment was not appealed against and thus became final .","On CARDINAL DATE the Mayor of GPE issued a restitution decision in respect of the immovable property located on PERSON , in compliance with the operative part of the judgment of DATE .","Under the terms of contracts entered into in accordance with PERSON no . DATE , company B. , managing the building ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had sold the flats located therein to the tenants .","The sale contract in respect of the first - floor flat was concluded on DATE between PERSON , representing the ORG , and the tenants , ORG and GPE","NORP The sale contract in respect of the ground - floor flat was concluded on DATE between B. on behalf of the ORG , and the tenant , PERSON","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged before the domestic courts CARDINAL civil actions seeking the rescission of the sale contracts of CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively , in so far as the ORG had sold property which it had not owned .","The final judgment of DATE given by ORG dismissed the claim in respect of the first - floor flat , holding that the applicant did not have legal standing to ask for the rescission of the sale contract , in so far as she had not been a party thereto .","In its final judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim in respect of the ground - floor flat , holding that the buyer had acted in good faith and had thus acquired a valid title to the property , in accordance with the provisions of PERSON no . MONEY , which had entered into force in the meantime . The court also held that the applicant was eligible for compensatory measures pursuant to the notice of claim ( notificare ) lodged with the administrative authorities under PERSON no . MONEY ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged another action before the domestic courts , seeking again the rescission of the sale contract concerning the first - floor flat . This time , however , she based her claim on the provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL . In its final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim , holding that in so far as the sale contract had been concluded by the buyers in good faith , it was in compliance with the law .","On DATE the applicant lodged a notice of claim with ORG under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , seeking reparatory measures in respect of the QUANTITY flats . Several documents were appended to the application , including a copy of the judgment of DATE and a copy of the inheritance certificate attesting to the fact that the applicant was the sole heiress of her predecessors .","On DATE and DATE ORG requested the applicant to complete her administrative file with documents related to her claim . However , the request did not reach the applicant , as the contact information mentioned in the DATE application was no longer valid .","As far as the ORG is aware , no decision has been taken in respect of this claim .","On DATE flat no . CARDINAL , located in building A\/CARDINAL , FAC , PERSON \u2013 the applicants\u2019 property \u2013 was seized by ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , following the ORG decision to leave the country . They were not notified of the administrative decision to confiscate the property .","DATE , the applicants wrote several letters to various domestic authorities , including ORG , ORG and the director of company NORP , which managed the building on behalf of the ORG , seeking to obtain possession of the flat . The replies stated that the ORG claims could not be granted , as no relevant legislation had yet been enacted concerning reparatory measures in respect of previously nationalised property . In CARDINAL of the replies sent by ORG on DATE , the applicants were informed that flats which had been nationalised under LAW could not be purchased by their current tenants from the local authorities .","On DATE the applicants lodged a claim with the administrative authorities , seeking reparatory measures in respect of flat no . CARDINAL , in accordance with the provisions of PERSON no . DATE .","On DATE company NORP sold the flat to the tenants , GPE and PERSON","On DATE the administrative authorities dismissed the applicants\u2019 claims lodged under PERSON no . DATE , in view of the fact that the flat had already been sold to its tenants .","On DATE the applicants lodged before ORG an action against ORG , aiming to recover possession of flat no . CARDINAL . They claimed that the confiscation of the property had been unlawful , as on the one hand it had been in breach of the LAW in force at the time , and on the other hand , they had not been notified of the administrative decision to confiscate it .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicants\u2019 claims . The defendant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal because no statement of appeal had been submitted . The decision thus became final .","On DATE the applicants , assisted by a bailiff , recovered possession of flat no . CARDINAL ; the relevant minutes mentioned that the flat was empty and unfurnished .","On DATE GPE and PERSON challenged the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They claimed to be the rightful owners of flat no . CARDINAL , having bought it in good faith in DATE ; furthermore , in so far as they had not been parties to the proceedings terminated by the outstanding judgment of CARDINAL DATE , they were not bound by it ( inopozabil\u0103 ) .","By a final judgment of DATE , ORG allowed the claims of GPE and PERSON In its reasoning , the court essentially held that the sale contract had been validly and lawfully concluded by the tenants , who had acted in good faith at the time of the sale . Moreover , the judgment of CARDINAL DATE awarding the applicants title to the property was unenforceable ( inopozabil\u0103 ) against the buyers , because they had not been parties to the respective proceedings .","On DATE the applicants lodged an action against GPE and PERSON seeking to recover possession of flat no . DATE and urging the courts to find the sale contract unlawful . Their claims were allowed by ORG on DATE .","An appeal lodged by the defendants was allowed by ORG on DATE . The court considered that the sale of the flat had been lawful . At the same time , it held that the applicants were entitled to compensation for the flat , equivalent to its market value at the date of payment .","NORP The applicants have not lodged any claims under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171498","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KIYASHKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);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)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , who at that time was undergoing inpatient medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital , was arrested in connection with an offence of fraud .","On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of having committed fraud as part of a group , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE and DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE respectively upheld that judgment .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in PERSON no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) .","During his detention in the GPE in GPE , the applicant was held in various cells of the same type . Each cell measured QUANTITY m. and was occupied by CARDINAL people . The window was covered by a metal shield and metal bars , preventing daylight and fresh air from reaching the cell . There was no ventilation in the cell , and most of the detainees were smokers . In DATE it was extremely hot , and this forced everyone to wear very little clothing , and during DATE it was very cold . The light in the cell was very poor , with only an electric bulb of QUANTITY positioned above the front door . It was always switched on . A centrally operated radio loudspeaker was constantly on from TIME , playing loud and unvaried music . Detainees had no access to television or newspapers .","The cells had poor sanitary conditions and were infested with rats , mice , bedbugs , lice , spiders and cockroaches . They were very damp and the walls were covered with mould and stained with smoke . The toilet was not separated from the living area , had no flush , and emitted a foul smell that lingered in the air . Detainees were forced to eat their meals in close proximity to the toilet . No toiletries , apart from soap , were distributed to them . Bed linen was issued once and for the whole period of detention , which was DATE in the applicant \u2019s case . His mattress was dirty and torn . The food was of poor quality , often made from products which had spoiled , and was unvaried . It smelled bad . No meat , fresh fruit or vegetables were provided . Detainees were allowed to take a shower once DATE , or even once a fortnight , and then only for TIME . In order to get to the shower area or investigation rooms , or to be transferred to court , detainees had to pass through an underground tunnel which had poor lighting and was flooded with sewage . The shower was dirty and the water flow could not be adjusted . The floor was flooded with dirty water , as the drainage system did not work properly . The hairdresser at the GPE used the same hair clippers on all of the detainees , without disinfecting them . CARDINAL pair of scissors was available for cutting their nails , and these were also not disinfected . The applicant \u2019s cellmates were often suffering from tuberculosis , hepatitis , and scabies , or were HIV - positive .","Outside walks were at the discretion of the GPE authorities . Sometimes they took place DATE , and sometimes they took place once DATE .","NORP On DATE the applicant slit his wrists in protest against the conditions of detention .","From DATE to DATE the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell . The cell had a concrete floor and was flooded with cold water in order to make him suffer more . As a result , he got a fever and had to spend DATE at the GPE \u2019s medical unit . No food or hot water was provided .","On unspecified occasions in DATE the applicant was taken to court for hearings or to examine his case file . On each occasion his journey took DATE . He did not receive any food or water during the trips . He was transported in a prison van , which was originally designed to carry a maximum of QUANTITY passengers , but which actually contained QUANTITY to CARDINAL detainees whose hands were handcuffed behind their backs . Before being placed in the van , the detainees were held in a small , airless and smoky preliminary reception cell . Upon returning to the detention facility , the detainees had to wait for a long time in the van before being transferred to the preliminary reception cell , where they also had to wait to be escorted to their cells . It was very cold in the prison van in DATE and hot in DATE . During the court hearings the applicant was not taken to the toilet . He had to take an empty plastic bottle with him so that he could relieve himself during hearing breaks .","To support his application , the applicant submitted , inter alia , photos showing the poor sanitary conditions of different cells he claimed to be cells in the GPE . He also presented written statements from his cellmates .","The Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention in the GPE had been adequate , mainly referring to the statutory regulations on detention . They argued that the applicant had been held in CARDINAL cells of the same type during his detention in the GPE , and it was unclear which of them he was referring to in his complaint to the ORG . The Government provided no details as to the exact size of the cells , but stated that an inspection carried out at some point after the complaint had been communicated to the ORG had determined that each cell in the ORG allowed each detainee CARDINAL sq . m of personal space , which was in compliance with the relevant domestic standards . A toilet was located in the corner of each cell , separated from the living area by fixed partitions . The windows were protected by metal bars , and allowed daylight and fresh air to reach the cells . All cells were equipped with artificial ventilation and lighting , as well as a radio . The food the applicant received met the standards set by domestic law , and he was provided with bedding in accordance with the relevant regulations .","The Government further denied that there had been rats and insects in the cells , as CARDINAL times a year thorough measures against rats were implemented and the entire GPE facility was disinfected . The statutory regulations also provided that the GPE detainees had DATE access to bathing facilities . The conditions of those facilities were appropriate . Toiletries were available at the GPE shop , which the applicant was free to use . The applicant \u2019s right to a TIME DATE walk was never breached .","The Government could not provide any information about the dates and conditions of the applicant \u2019s transport to and from the court hearings , because the time - limit for keeping the relevant documents had expired and the records had been destroyed . However , they provided a description of the general transport arrangements and advised that prison vans had been in use in DATE . The vans were designed to accommodate CARDINAL people in CARDINAL compartments ( CARDINAL larger ones and one designed for single occupancy ) . The vans had no windows , but they were equipped with ventilation grills and had metal bars integrated in the lower and upper part of the vehicle door . The Government further submitted that , on average , it took TIME to transport detainees from the GPE to ORG of PERSON ( a distance of QUANTITY ) , and TIME to transport them to ORG of PERSON ( a distance of QUANTITY ) . The latter court was not equipped with a room for defendants , and the detainees were therefore held in the courtroom . They were able to use public toilets . At FAC of Poltava the detainees were kept in the rooms for defendants , which were equipped with all the necessary sanitary facilities .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was serving his sentence in ORG no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the prison \u201d ) .","Upon his arrival , the applicant was put in the admission ward ( \u043a\u0430\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0442\u0438\u043d ) for DATE . The cell measured QUANTITY m and accommodated CARDINAL prisoners . Some of them were suffering from HIV and tuberculosis . There was no daylight in the cell , as the only small window was covered with metal bars , and a grid was attached to it from the outside . The artificial light in the cell was very poor , and there was only an electric bulb of CARDINALW. It was always switched on . There was no natural or artificial ventilation in the cell . The toilet was not separated from the living area , had no flush , and emitted a foul smell that lingered in the air . The cell was infested with rats , mice and cockroaches . Outside walks did not take place on a DATE basis , but at the discretion of the prison authorities , and lasted TIME .","During his time in the prison , the applicant was placed in the admission ward CARDINAL times , each time for DATE .","The applicant was placed in disciplinary cells CARDINAL times : from DATE , from DATE , and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , and on some occasions with people who were suffering from tuberculosis . The cells were dark , damp and cold . The toilet had no flush and emitted a smell . Outside walks lasted TIME and took place in very small yards on and under the prison roof , and were allowed to take place CARDINAL times per week . Once per week the applicant had access to a shower . There was no hot water in the shower and the floor was flooded with dirty cold water . No visits or exchanges of correspondence were allowed . The applicant \u2019s plank bed was chained to the wall from CARDINAL TIME , so he had to stand during this time , although this went against his medical prescription . There was no chair in the cell and his walking stick was taken away .","The applicant spent the remainder of his sentence in the sociopsychological unit of the prison ( unit no . CARDINAL ) in the following conditions .","His cell measured QUANTITY m and accommodated CARDINAL to CARDINAL prisoners . Many of them were HIV - positive , suffering from tuberculosis , hepatitis and fungal diseases . The cell was dirty and infested with parasitic insects . The light in the cell was very poor , with CARDINAL electric bulbs of CARDINAL of which did not work . The artificial ventilation in the cell did not work , and most of the prisoners were smokers . In DATE it was extremely hot in the cell and during the DATE it was very cold . The prisoners had to cook their food using an open flame , because of power cuts in the unit from TIME to TIME","No disinfection products were available , and all cellmates shared water containers , scissors and a needle . ORG , toilets and dining rooms were also in an unhygienic state . The toilets had no flush and emitted a foul smell . The food was of poor quality and was often made from products which had spoiled .","Prisoners could use the showers DATE . The bathroom was equipped with CARDINAL shower taps and it was not possible to adjust the water flow or temperature . CARDINAL prisoners had TIME to complete the whole process , including getting to the bathroom , which was QUANTITY away from the cell . Thus , QUANTITY prisoners had to share CARDINAL shower tap at the same time . The floor was flooded with dirty water , as the drainage system did not work properly . The hairdresser at the prison used the same hair clippers on all the prisoners , and these were not disinfected .","To support his allegations , the applicant submitted photos which he claimed were of a disciplinary cell and the exercise yards of the prison . He also referred to interviews former prisoners had given to newspapers , in which they provided , inter alia , a similar description of their detention conditions , including the disciplinary cells . In order to support this part of his application , the applicant also made reference to a complaint to an MP by his former cellmate , who was HIV - positive , and to the newspaper articles mentioned above , which contained interviews with other prisoners . Lastly , he relied on a report by the ORG regarding the general unsatisfactory detention conditions of prisons in GPE .","The Government referred to the statutory regulations governing detention in particular types of cells , and submitted the following .","The quarantine cell at the prison measured QUANTITY . m and could accommodate CARDINAL prisoners . It had CARDINAL windows , which were not covered with metal bars and could be opened at any time . CARDINAL artificial ventilation channels were also available . The artificial light in the cell was ensured with CARDINAL electric bulbs of CARDINAL and CARDINAL of CARDINALW. The cell was disinfected on a DATE basis and measures against rats were implemented no less than DATE . The duration of DATE outside walks was not TIME .","The isolation unit consisted of CARDINAL disciplinary cells , CARDINAL of which were for prisoners suffering from tuberculosis . The concrete floor of all the isolation wards was covered with wooden planks . An appropriate temperature in the cells was ensured by radiators , and DATE outside walks lasted not TIME .","Each prisoner in unit no . CARDINAL had QUANTITY . m of living space . The number of beds corresponded to the number of prisoners , and CARDINAL prisoners shared CARDINAL bedside table . HIV - positive prisoners , as well as those suffering from tuberculosis , were held separately from healthy prisoners . The unit had CARDINAL windows , which could be opened to let in fresh air ; artificial ventilation was also available . Artificial light in the cell was ensured with CARDINAL electric bulbs of CARDINAL and CARDINAL of CARDINAL , and the temperature in the unit was never lower than CARDINAL\u02daC. Smoking was only allowed in smoking areas , and those who breached the rules faced administrative punishment . The Government denied the applicant \u2019s allegations that there had been power cuts and that the prisoners had had to use an open flame to prepare their food . In this respect , they argued that cooking in the unit had been prohibited by law .","Prisoners were provided with soap and could buy other necessary toiletries , such as toilet paper , toothbrushes and toothpaste , at the prison shop , as the relevant regulations made no provision for these items to be provided by the ORG . Prisoners had access to bathing facilities DATE , and could use the services of a hairdresser . The hairdresser \u2019s tools were disinfected . The quality and quantity of the food corresponded to the domestic standards , and no cases of poisoning had been registered .","In DATE and DATE the applicant sustained head injuries , and in DATE he suffered spinal trauma . As a result , he experienced neurological dysfunction and his eyesight deteriorated . When arrested , the applicant was undergoing inpatient medical treatment for his health problems at a psychiatric hospital .","On DATE , upon his arrival at the GPE , the applicant underwent an initial medical examination by a general practitioner , a psychiatrist , a dentist , a dermatovenereologist , and a tuberculosis specialist . He also had an X - ray . No particular health problems were noted .","According to the applicant , from DATE he started experiencing severe pain in his back and legs , and he sought assistance from the medical unit at the GPE .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist from ORG no . CARDINAL . The applicant \u2019s mother arranged the appointment with the neurologist , as the GPE did not have the relevant medical specialist . He was diagnosed with severe after - effects of closed head injuries ( in DATE and DATE ) , stomping gait syndrome , post - traumatic spinal osteochondrosis , and vertebrogenic left - side polyradiculitis , and was prescribed treatment ( \u043d\u0435\u0439\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0456\u0442\u0430\u043d , \u0442\u0456\u043e\u0446\u0435\u0442\u0430\u043c ) .","On DATE the applicant had an X - ray of his spine and was diagnosed with post - traumatic osteochondrosis and spondylarthrosis deformans .","On DATE , following an X - ray , the applicant was diagnosed with early arthrosis of the left knee .","On unspecified dates in DATE the applicant underwent inpatient treatment at the GPE medical unit on account of his neurological problems and vegetative - vascular dystonia , chronic gastroduodenitis , myopia , and arthrosis of the left knee .","NORP On DATE the applicant was registered with a psychiatrist as a result of his going on hunger strike ( from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) and self - harming ( DATE ) , and he was regularly examined by the psychiatrist .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a general practitioner at the GPE .","On DATE the applicant had an X - ray and was diagnosed as having ribs which were too close together .","On DATE the applicant was examined by the head of the neurological department of the hospital located at prison no . CARDINAL . He was diagnosed with osteochondrosis of the lumbar spine , right - sided lumbodynia , radicular pain syndrome , the after - effects of head injuries , asthenoneurotic syndrome , and toxic polyneuropathy . He was prescribed treatment ( \u043f\u0435\u043d\u0442\u043e\u043a\u0441\u0438\u0444\u0456\u043b\u0456\u043d , \u043f\u0456\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0441\u0456\u043a\u0430\u043c , \u043d\u0435\u0439\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0456\u0442\u0430\u043d ) .","On DATE the applicant had an X - ray of his chest and was found to be healthy","On DATE the applicant was given a walking stick .","Between DATE and DATE the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist , a surgeon and a general practitioner . They confirmed the earlier diagnosis relating to the problems with his spine .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist and was found to be healthy .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist from ORG no . CARDINAL . His mother had arranged the appointment . The neurologist confirmed the diagnosis of CARDINAL DATE and prescribed treatment ( \u0434\u0456\u043a\u043b\u0430\u043a , \u043d\u0435\u0439\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0456\u0442\u0430\u043d ) .","After his transfer to the prison on DATE , the applicant had a medical examination which confirmed the previous diagnosis . He was advised to undergo inpatient treatment at the neurological department of the hospital at prison no . CARDINAL . He stayed at the hospital from DATE and from CARDINAL to DATE .","On DATE the applicant was classified as having group III disability status ( group III being the least severe category ) . He was expected to remain in this category for DATE .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C.","On DATE the applicant decided to have an HIV test . According to the results of this test dated DATE , the applicant had HIV antibodies . He was also diagnosed with persistent generalised lymphadenopathy and registered as an HIV - positive person .","On DATE the applicant had an X - ray of his chest and was found to be healthy .","On DATE the prison authorities informed the applicant about the results of the HIV test . According to the applicant , the authorities tried to conceal the situation , and he lodged a number of complaints in order to find out about the test results .","In DATE and DATE the applicant complained to different authorities that , despite his requests , no further measures had been taken to specify his diagnosis and provide him with the relevant medical treatment .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an infectious disease specialist . He was diagnosed with clinical stage CARDINAL HIV and persistent generalised lymphadenopathy . It was decided that he should be transferred to the hospital at ORG no . CARDINAL in LOC , which specialised in HIV treatment ( \u201c the HIV Treatment Facility \u201d ) , in order to decide whether he had to have antiretroviral therapy ( ART ) . The applicant was further prescribed a CDCARDINAL cell count at ORG and ORG ( \u201c the AIDS Centre \u201d ) on DATE . The ORG has not been informed of the results of that test , if any exist .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant had a medical examination at ORG .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with a chronic duodenal ulcer at an acute stage .","On DATE he was further diagnosed with HIV , chronic compensated hepatitis , a chronic duodenal ulcer in remission , chronic cholecystitis and pancreatitis in remission , and the after - effects of closed head injuries .","On DATE the applicant was rediagnosed with clinical stage CARDINAL HIV .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist , who confirmed the earlier diagnosis .","From DATE until an unspecified date the applicant had medical treatment at ORG on account of his clinical stage CARDINAL HIV , onychomycosis of the feet , vertebrogenic radiculopathy in unstable remission , toxic polyneuropathy , slight myoparesis of the feet , tardive after - effects of closed head injuries , chronic viral hepatitis B in remission and duodenal ulcer in remission .","On DATE the applicant was reclassified as having group III disability status for DATE , on account of the diagnosis relating to his central nervous system .","On DATE the applicant was rediagnosed with clinical stage CARDINAL HIV and onychomycosis of the feet .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with a duodenal ulcer in remission and chronic hepatitis in remission .","On DATE , upon being released from the prison , the applicant was declared to be in a satisfactory state of health . He was advised to register with an infectious disease specialist based near his home .","In DATE the applicant consulted a neuropathologist , a surgeon and an eye specialist . He was diagnosed with second - degree discirculatory encephalopathy , vestibular - atactic and cephalic syndromes , spinal osteochondrosis , radiculopathy with slight paresis of the right foot , stage CARDINAL - CARDINAL arthrosis of the knee , hyperopia , phacosclerosis , retinal angiopathy and amblyopia of both eyes .","DATE . On DATE the applicant was also diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B , a chronic duodenal ulcer in unstable remission , chronic bronchitis and cardiosclerosis .","In DATE the applicant had a CDCARDINAL cell count , the result of which was CARDINAL cells . On DATE , at the AIDS Centre , the applicant was diagnosed with clinical stage CARDINAL HIV , recurrent infections of the lower respiratory airways , tuberculosis , chronic viral hepatitis C and a chronic inflammation of the gallbladder . Following this examination , the applicant received unspecified medical assistance at the AIDS Centre and was advised to go before a medical commission which could decide on his assignment to a disability group .","On DATE the applicant was classified as having group II disability status . On DATE he was confirmed as having this status .","Referring to , inter alia , the medical evidence he had submitted to the ORG , the applicant alleged that his health had seriously deteriorated while he was in detention , in particular owing to the poor conditions of his detention , combined with the absence of medical care .","The Government stated that the medical assistance provided to the applicant throughout his detention had been adequate . They provided no medical evidence in this regard , mainly referring to the fact that the GPE registers for the relevant DATE on medical assistance provided to detainees by the GPE medical specialists had been destroyed because the time - limit for keeping those documents had expired .","At the same time , the Government provided some factual information regarding some of the applicant \u2019s medical examinations in both detention facilities . These submissions appear to be based on the information contained in a reply to the applicant \u2019s complaint regarding the lack of medical treatment in prison , which was given by a prosecutor in DATE . The Government asserted that the relevant medical documents had been studied by prosecutors during their inquiries into the applicant \u2019s complaints regarding the lack of medical assistance , and no proof had been found ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158160","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF N.J.D.B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant has a son , PERSON , who was born in DATE . The applicant was not married to the child \u2019s mother , PERSON , and the relationship ended DATE after S. \u2019s birth . After the separation , PERSON continued to live with PERSON and the applicant maintained contact with him . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON stopped the applicant \u2019s contact with S.","NORP In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG seeking parental rights and responsibilities and residence or , alternatively , residential contact .","NORP In DATE the applicant and PERSON agreed that the NORP should reside with PERSON and that the applicant should have contact . The agreement was set out in a joint minute of agreement , on the basis of which ORG , in an interlocutor dated DATE , granted the applicant parental rights and responsibilities in respect of S. ; found that the applicant was entitled to residential and non - residential contact with PERSON on a basis and on dates specified in the interlocutor ; and held that PERSON was to consult with the applicant when making decisions of importance with respect to the health , welfare , education and upbringing of S. The interlocutor did not provide for the dates upon which the regular contact was to begin or when during each DATE period it was to occur . It also failed to take into account pre - arranged holidays .","Because of the ambiguity in the interlocutor , the relationship between the applicant and PERSON quickly deteriorated . On DATE the applicant lodged TIME at ORG : one to vary the DATE interlocutor by seeking a residence order in respect of S. ; the other seeking a finding that PERSON was in contempt of court for breaching the DATE interlocutor . A curator ad litem was appointed by the Sheriff to represent S. \u2019s interests .","The applicant was granted legal aid and was represented before ORG by PERSON ( counsel ) . The instructing solicitors were PERSON .","Following a number of procedural hearings , a substantive hearing began on DATE and concluded on DATE , after CARDINAL non - consecutive court days .","NORP The GPE \u2019s decision on the application to vary the DATE interlocutor was issued on DATE . He considered that having regard to S. \u2019s age , the history of the case and the influences at work on PERSON , he would derive no benefit from contact in such circumstances . The Sheriff therefore concluded that there had been a material change in circumstances since the interlocutor of DATE ; that it was in LOC \u2019s best interests that he did not have contact with his father ; and that the interlocutor of DATE required to be recalled .","The applicant appealed to ORG of ORG . He contested the ORG \u2019s decision and complained , inter alia , that the action had not been concluded within a reasonable time .","The applicant was granted legal aid to pursue his appeal . He was represented before ORG by Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON ( counsel ) . The instructing solicitors were PERSON , for PERSON .","The Inner House delivered its judgment on DATE . It did not uphold the applicant \u2019s appeal . However , it varied the DATE interlocutor to make it clear that it in turn only varied the DATE interlocutor in respect of contact but did not make any change to the finding that the applicant enjoyed parental rights and that he had to be consulted on matters concerning PERSON \u2019s health , welfare , education and upbringing .","NORP In DATE a note was prepared by counsel supporting an application for legal aid to pursue an appeal to ORG . On DATE a full application for legal aid was submitted to ORG , with counsel \u2019s note in support . Shortly afterwards an appeal to ORG was lodged and the appeal process was suspended pending the determination of the legal aid application .","The curator ad litem objected to legal aid being granted to the applicant . The applicant responded to the observations of the curator ad litem .","By DATE the legal aid application had not yet been determined . The applicant expressed concern about the delay and the impact it would have on his chances of contact being re - established with S. He was told that there would be no meeting of the committee charged with making the legal aid decision until DATE .","On DATE ORG intimated its refusal of legal aid to the applicant . On DATE the applicant lodged an application for internal review .","On DATE , after reconsideration , the ORG again refused legal aid . It found that there was no substantive issue of law arising to merit an appeal and that no practical benefit to the applicant could ensue .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel and solicitors considered commencing judicial review proceedings in respect of the refusal to grant legal aid . It was decided on the applicant \u2019s behalf that , as the delay involved in judicial review was likely to be extensive and given that legal aid for judicial review proceedings would almost certainly not be granted , no judicial review proceedings would be commenced . Counsel and the solicitors were not prepared to act pro bono in judicial review proceedings since the prospects of success would be low . However , they agreed to act pro bono in pursuing the appeal before ORG without legal aid . ORG waived its fees in respect of the appeal .","The applicant was represented before ORG by PERSON PERSON and PERSON . The instructing solicitors were PERSON .","On CARDINAL DATE the court handed down its judgment . It refused to uphold the applicant \u2019s appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173619","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF B\u0102L\u0218AN v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Positive obligations);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","She married GPE in DATE and they had CARDINAL children , born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . According to the applicant , GPE was violent towards her and their children on numerous occasions throughout their marriage . In DATE , assaults against the applicant intensified during their divorce proceedings . The divorce was finalised on DATE .","On DATE and DATE the applicant was physically assaulted and threatened by her husband .","According to a forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , the applicant had numerous bruises on her face , arms , back and thorax , which required DATE of medical care . A second forensic medical certificate , issued on DATE , stated that the applicant had an excoriation ( scratches ) on her ear lobe and several bruises on her arm and thighs . It was possible the injuries had been caused on DATE . They required DATE of medical care .","On DATE the applicant was again physically assaulted by her husband . After the arrival of the police , she was taken to hospital by ambulance . She was diagnosed with an open facial trauma and a contusion of the nasal pyramid . According to a forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , the injuries might have been caused by impact with or on a hard object and required DATE of medical care .","In their duty reports for the above dates , the police officers called by the applicant noted that she had been injured in a domestic dispute and that they had informed her that she could lodge formal complaints against GPE In the report drafted on DATE , the police officer on duty also mentioned that when he had arrived at the scene of the incident he had found that GPE had locked the applicant out of their joint residence .","On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged complaints with the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG , alleging that she had been physically assaulted by her husband in their home , in the presence of their children , on DATE , and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . She attached copies of the medical certificates drawn up after the incidents .","On DATE the applicant also sent a letter to the GPE police chief , in which she alleged that she had been the victim of repeated acts of violence by her husband , who often assaulted her in the presence of their children . She mentioned that on several occasions he had locked her out of their home and asked for help from the police in solving these problems .","On DATE the applicant gave a detailed statement describing the CARDINAL assaults to the policeman in charge with the investigation . She stated that on DATE her husband had come home TIME and had started punching her in the face and head and threatened to kill her . She had managed to flee , but when she had returned TIME her husband had refused to let her back into the apartment . She also mentioned that he had told the children not to speak about it .","NORP In statements dated DATE , the applicant \u2019s mother and brother told the police that throughout DATE the applicant had very often come to their house , complaining that ORG had beaten her , threatened to kill her or that he had locked her out of their apartment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s and GPE \u2019s adult daughters , C.B.A. and C.C.A. , told the police that the applicant used to drink and that she became aggressive when she got drunk . They also stated that their father had not hit their mother . C.C.A. mentioned that although she earned her own living , her father had always given her money . Her mother , on the other , had constantly been short of money and had debts to banks .","On DATE GPE was questioned by the police . He stated that he had argued with the applicant over their divorce , but had not laid a hand on her . He added that the applicant had not been cleaning the house properly and had a drinking problem . He also stated that \u201c I did not hit her so hard as to cause her injury \u201d and that \u201c she may have fallen in the bathroom \u201d . He alleged that the medical certificates submitted by the applicant had been forged .","On CARDINAL and DATE the applicant wrote to the head prosecutor of the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG , complaining that GPE , who had moved out of their apartment and had taken CARDINAL of the children with him , had threatened to kill her when they had accidentally met on DATE before . She stated that she feared for her life and asked for the proceedings to be speeded up and for protection from GPE","On DATE , the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG decided not to press criminal charges against GPE and imposed an administrative fine of CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) on him . The prosecutor held that the applicant had provoked the disputes after drinking alcohol and referred to GPE \u2019s statements and those of the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL adult daughters . As regards the alleged threats , it was considered that the applicant had failed to prove her accusations .","The prosecutor concluded that , although ORG had committed the crime of bodily harm , his actions had not created any danger to society , because he had been provoked by the victim , had no previous criminal record and was a retired person ( pensionar ) .","The applicant \u2019s complaint against that decision was rejected as illfounded on DATE by the superior prosecutor .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against the ORG decisions of DATE and DATE with ORG , asking that GPE be charged with bodily harm , be convicted and ordered to pay non - pecuniary damages for the suffering she had endured . She alleged that the administrative fine , which ORG had refused to pay , had not had a deterrent effect on him as he had continued to assault her after the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE . She also asked the court to impose criminal sanctions on him and requested permission to submit a recording of a conversation with ORG in order to prove that she had been assaulted and threatened by him in DATE . In the last paragraph of her submission , the applicant stated that she feared for her life and asked the court to \u201c punish [ GPE ] as provided for by law ... to forbid him from entering the apartment ... and to forbid him from coming near [ her ] ... \u201d .","At the second hearing before ORG , the applicant applied to be given a court - appointed lawyer because she did not have the financial means to hire CARDINAL . The court dismissed the application , holding that the subject matter of the case did not require representation by a lawyer .","By an interlocutory judgment of DATE , ORG decided to partially quash the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE in respect of the crime of bodily harm and the penalty imposed for it and to examine that part of the case on the merits . The prosecutor \u2019s findings in respect of the threats were upheld . The recording was not admitted as evidence because the court considered that it had no relevance to the case .","NORP The applicant and GPE gave statements before the court . GPE explained that on DATE the applicant had been drunk and had threatened him with a knife . In order to defend himself , he had pushed her but he denied having ever hit the applicant .","On DATE the court heard a statement from the applicant \u2019s daughter , C.B.A. , who testified as follows :","\u201c My father used to hit my mother [ the applicant ] and us , the children , many times . He used to do it when he had not come home at TIME and my mother asked him where he had been . Then he would get angry and hit her . The main reason he got angry was lack of money ... Even after DATE , when I moved out of my GPE apartment , my mother continued to be hit by my father ; I saw some of these incidents personally . Before DATE , my mother used to drink alcohol , but it was within normal limits , and in DATE she stopped drinking .","I retract the statement I gave during the criminal proceedings because I gave it after threats from my father . \u201d","On DATE ORG decided to acquit GPE of the crime of bodily harm . The court considered that C.B.A. \u2019s statement could not be taken into consideration , without mentioning any reasons for that decision . The court concluded as follows :","\u201c The injured party [ the applicant ] has not proved her allegations that on ORG , DATE and CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ... she was physically assaulted by the defendant . The court considers , also in view of the evidence collected during the criminal investigation , that such assaults by the defendant took place principally because of the injured party \u2019s alcohol consumption and because she was not taking adequate care of her CARDINAL children . The defendant \u2019s acts are not so dangerous to society as to be considered crimes and he shall therefore be acquitted of the CARDINAL counts of bodily harm and shall pay an administrative fine of RON CARDINAL . \u201d","The court further dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims for damages as ill - founded , without giving reasons . No mention was made in the judgment of the applicant \u2019s request for protective measures made in her complaint of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against that judgment . She alleged , among other arguments , that GPE was a violent person who continued to assault her , even after being punished with an administrative fine by the prosecutor on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed as illfounded the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law and upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The court held that the acts of violence committed by GPE had been provoked by the applicant and had therefore not reached the level of severity required for them to fall within the scope of the crime of bodily harm . For the same reason , an award for damages was not justified .","Between DATE and DATE the applicant made CARDINAL complaints to the Petro\u015fani police concerning new incidents of assault or threats by ORG to which she attached medical reports .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant asked the GPE police to apply the measures provided by law in order to stop the constant assaults she was being subjected to by GPE She stressed that she felt that her life was in danger . A similar request was sent by the applicant to the police on DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG decided not to press charges against GPE for the CARDINAL incidents described by the applicant . He was however punished with an administrative fine of RON CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","The applicant \u2019s letter of DATE , requesting the police to take the necessary measures in order to stop the constant assaults against her , was not taken into consideration . The prosecutor found that it could not be considered a formal complaint because , unlike the other complaints , it did not refer to a specific assault .","The applicant did not lodge any further complaints against the above - mentioned decision ."],"violated_articles":["14","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145215","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ISAKOVI\u0106 VIDOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant , a medical doctor by profession , was born in DATE . She currently lives in PERSON , GPE , having lived in GPE , GPE , at the material time .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant and her neighbour PERSON confronted each other in front of their houses following a verbal conflict between PERSON and the applicant \u2019s mother . While the applicant allegedly shouted obscenities at him , PERSON allegedly punched her in the face , causing her to fall down and lose consciousness . The medical records from the emergency ward showed that the applicant had sustained a number of injuries to her head . She was released from hospital DATE upon her own request .","On an unspecified date , the applicant lodged a criminal complaint ( krivi\u010dnu prijavu ) in respect of this event .","On DATE PERSON and his wife brought a private criminal action ( privatnu krivi\u010dnu tu\u017ebu ) against the applicant for insult and defamation ( zbog uvrede i klevete ) and against both the applicant and her mother for making serious threats ( zbog ugro\u017eavanja sigurnosti ) .","On DATE ORG filed a bill of indictment ( optu\u017enicu ) against PERSON with ORG for the crime of severe bodily injuries ( zbog nano\u0161enja te\u0161kih telesnih povreda ) .","On DATE ORG joined the CARDINAL sets of proceedings .","At some point in DATE the applicant lodged a civil compensation claim within the criminal proceedings ( istakla imovinsko - pravni zahtev ) .","Between DATE and DATE a total of CARDINAL hearings were held or adjourned .","At the hearing of DATE a medical expert stated that , based on the available documentation , on DATE the applicant had sustained a concussion as well as a contusion . She had also continued receiving medical treatment for DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted both the applicant and PERSON as charged and sentenced them to a fine and DATE imprisonment , respectively , both sentences suspended for DATE . The court instructed the applicant to pursue her civil claim in a separate civil suit . The applicant \u2019s mother was acquitted .","On DATE ORG quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial , but upheld the acquittal .","On DATE a new hearing was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings against the applicant as time - barred , while the proceedings against ORG continued .","On DATE the main hearing started anew due to changes to the composition of the bench . Following the applicant \u2019s testimony , the proceedings were adjourned for an indefinite period , as ORG had to obtain certain missing medical documentation .","At the next hearing of CARDINAL DATE , ORG heard GPE , as well as CARDINAL witnesses . The court further decided to request ORG to give its opinion as regards the applicant \u2019s bodily injuries allegedly sustained at the material time . No new hearing was scheduled .","On DATE ORG received the relevant medical opinion dated DATE . The opinion stated that the attack had caused the applicant severe bodily injuries ( loss of consciousness , a concussion and a contusion of the zygomatic bone ) .","On an unspecified date ORG scheduled the next hearing for CARDINAL DATE . This hearing , however , was further adjourned on CARDINAL separate occasions , because of PERSON \u2019s or the trial judges\u2019 absence .","On DATE ORG dismissed proposals for the examination of additional witnesses . On the same occasion the defendant requested that the entire trial bench be replaced by another . The case - file was subsequently forwarded to the President of the court for a decision .","On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings against GPE as time - barred .","The applicant never filed a separate civil compensation claim in respect of the underlying incident .","In DATE the applicant and her family moved to GPE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168781","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF HILLER v. AUSTRIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","M.K. , the applicant \u2019s son born in DATE , was taken to ORG on DATE suffering from an acute episode of paranoid schizophrenia . ORG is a public institution of GPE specialising in neurology , orthopaedics , psychiatry and pulmonology . It is situated on a vast area outside the city center in the west of the green - belt of GPE , consisting of CARDINAL hospital buildings with annexes , a church , a museum , a theatre and a large park .","NORP In a decision of DATE , ORG ( LOC ) ordered PERSON \u2019s involuntary placement in the psychiatric unit of that hospital pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Hospitalisation Act ( Unterbringungsgesetz ) .","On DATE TIME failed to return from an authorised walk in the hospital grounds . He had escaped from the LOC and died after jumping in front of a subway train .","Subsequently , in DATE the applicant brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON f\u00fcr GPE ) under LAW ( Amtshaftungsgesetz ) against GPE ( PERSON ) as the authority responsible for the hospital , seeking compensation of MONEY ( ORG ) plus interest in respect of nonpecuniary damage .","She stated that in DATE and DATE her son had already undergone inpatient treatment for paranoid schizophrenia at ORG and ORG ) . Hospitalisation had been ordered on DATE because PERSON had posed a danger both to himself and others . He had attacked a chewing gum dispenser with a sledgehammer and appeared to be utterly confused when the police arrived on the scene . The expert PERSON , who was called to assess PERSON \u2019s mental state , diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia . Because of ORG delusional behaviour , there was a risk that he would harm himself or others . The expert concluded that ORG mental state required him to be placed in a closed psychiatric institution .","NORP However , on CARDINAL and DATE CARDINAL PERSON managed to escape from the closed ward of ORG and was found and brought back only after a search conducted by the police and the hospital staff . On DATE he escaped from the open ward to which he had been transferred in the meantime , and committed suicide by jumping in front of a subway train .","NORP The applicant claimed that she had suffered a massive shock as a result of her son \u2019s death . Before his involuntary placement in the hospital , GPE had lived with her in the same household and they had had a very close relationship . The applicant claimed that as a result of his death she had suffered from depression and insomnia and had been seeing a psychotherapist since DATE . Nonetheless , her mental state had not improved since .","The fact that her son had been able to escape from the hospital LOC led the applicant to conclude that the hospital staff had acted negligently in the performance of their duties . Because PERSON \u2019s behaviour had been unpredictable , he should have been under strict supervision . In the circumstances , and especially because he had managed to escape twice before , restriction of his freedom of movement within a closed ward was proportionate , necessary and adequate . Furthermore , such restriction should have included a degree of supervision by the hospital staff . The contract for ORG treatment had included duties of protection and care . There had been signs of suicidal thoughts on the patient \u2019s part , and the hospital staff should therefore have prevented him from leaving the ward . However , the necessary diligence had not been exercised . For these reasons , the applicant claimed that GPE had been at fault and was therefore responsible for the non - pecuniary damage she sustained .","GPE asked ORG to dismiss the applicant \u2019s claim . It argued that GPE \u2019s involuntary placement in the psychiatric institution on DATE had been necessary as he had not been aware of his mental illness and had refused to be treated . At the time , he had been utterly confused and it had not been possible to reason with him . Because of the threat he posed to himself and others , he had repeatedly had his freedom of movement restricted whilst in hospital and had had to be medicated parenterally . On DATE he had left the acute station without permission and went to his GPE place . When the police and the ambulance brought him back to the hospital , he had had to be sedated intravenously because of the highly psychotic state he was in . On DATE , DATE , he escaped again from the acute station , but was apprehended by the hospital \u2019s security staff on the premises of the hospital . However , from DATE , ORG attitude changed and he became willing to take oral medication . From DATE on , his freedom of movement was no longer restricted . He had appeared well - adjusted and friendly . In view of the progress in his treatment , and as he appeared more reasonable and able to abide by agreements , he had been transferred from the acute station to the subacute ward on DATE . However , he had then succumbed to socalled \u201c dynamic exhaustion \u201d ( dynamische PERSON ) , which manifested itself in a noticeable loss of drive and the desire for a quiet environment . The hospital staff had therefore tried to animate PERSON through occupational therapy and recreational walks in the hospital grounds , which \u2212 on the basis of a well - documented medical order \u2212 he had been allowed to take on his own as of DATE . This medical order had taken into account the fact that PERSON had twice before escaped from his ward . Thereafter , however , PERSON had continued to receive treatment for DATE and there had been a considerable improvement in his condition . Moreover , he had been made aware that he was not allowed to leave the hospital LOC and had to notify the staff before going out for a walk and again upon his return . He had also been permitted to leave the building to smoke a cigarette . The hospital had maintained detailed documentary records of his medical treatment and progress . There had been no indication of suicidal thoughts . However , on CARDINAL DATE at CARDINAL.CARDINALpm the doctor on duty was informed by the hospital staff that the applicant \u2019s son had not returned from an authorised walk in the hospital grounds and had apparently taken his personal clothing with him . A search operation had immediately been initiated on the LOC and at the same time the police had been asked to search for him . At TIME the police informed the hospital that GPE had been killed in a subway train accident at TIME .","GPE submitted that under the provisions of LAW and in keeping with current practice in the treatment of mentally ill patients , \u201c open \u201d psychiatry was the norm and restriction of a patient \u2019s freedom of movement was permissible only in cases of absolute necessity and within the bounds of proportionality . In the present case , by CARDINAL DATE restriction of the physical movement of the applicant \u2019s son ( known as \u201c fixation \u201d ) , and\/or the spatial restriction of his movement to the confines of a psychiatric bed , or his permanent supervision , were no longer medically indicated , nor would such measures have been reasonable or adequate . On the contrary , the lack of any indication of suicidal thoughts on the part of GPE would have rendered any further restriction of his freedom of movement unlawful under LAW .","During the oral hearing of DATE the applicant reduced her claim to CARDINAL ORG plus PERCENT interest per annum .","On DATE ORG granted the claim . It found that even shortly before his death on CARDINAL DATE , it could be assumed that GPE still posed a threat to himself and others , in particular because he still suffered from the delusional idea that he was a different person and did not recognise his parents as his own . Self - harming behaviour could occur outside the hospital environment , due to overstimulation , even in patients who had shown progress after a psychosis . It was no longer possible to determine whether the applicant \u2019s son had jumped in front of the subway train in order to deliberately commit suicide , or whether he followed a spontaneous impulse or a delusional thought to that end . In any event the hospital should have made sure that he was not able to leave the hospital grounds , even if therapeutic walks were medically indicated and permissible in the circumstances .","From a legal perspective , ORG affirmed that , as the authority responsible for ORG , GPE could be held accountable for any culpable action or omission by its organs or officials , pursuant to CARDINAL of LAW . At the material time , the applicant \u2019s son had been lawfully hospitalised by a decision of ORG of DATE , which remained valid until DATE . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in force at the time provided that , in cases where hospitalisation had been ordered , it was also necessary to guard against threats potentially posed by the patient . Accordingly , the hospital was obliged to ensure restriction of the patient \u2019s freedom of movement in order to protect against potential damage . In the instant case , PERSON was allowed to take walks on the hospital premises because such walks were medically indicated . However , no measures were taken to ensure that he respected the restrictions on his freedom of movement . There was no effective supervision of his walks or their duration . By disregarding its duty of supervision , the hospital had implemented LAW incorrectly . It was immaterial that the applicant \u2019s son had not shown any signs of suicidal tendencies because the hospitalisation was originally effected because of the danger he posed to himself and to others . Therefore , even if he did not pose a threat to himself anymore , the requirement for hospitalisation was still valid because of the threat he posed to others . In the instant case , the lack of supervision of GPE resulted in the applicant having to suffer the shock of the death of her son . The court concluded that the civil claim was justified and granted the applicant LAW plus interest by way of compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","GPE appealed , claiming that the court had wrongly assessed the evidence , that its finding of facts was incorrect , and that it had wrongly interpreted the law .","On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) granted the defendant \u2019s appeal and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . In its view , there had been no causal link between the wholly unexpected suicide of the applicant \u2019s son and the alleged dereliction of the hospital \u2019s duty of supervision under LAW . Although it was stated in the hospital admission report that there was a danger of ORG putting himself and others at risk due to his disoriented state , it was also explicitly mentioned that he had no suicidal thoughts . According to the expert opinion by Dr P of CARDINAL DATE , the continuation of ORG hospitalisation on CARDINAL DATE was indicated only because of the threat he posed to others , in particular to his mother , but no longer to himself . This was the reason why his freedom of movement at that point had been restricted to the hospital LOC rather than just the closed ward . The court found that in the light of the improvement in his symptoms , it was not unusual that he had been allowed to take walks for therapeutic purposes , even if it might have been advisable to allow these walks only when accompanied by hospital staff .","The Court of Appeal further affirmed that there had been no indication of self - harm during PERSON \u2019s entire stay at the hospital . He had not voiced suicidal thoughts or undertaken any actions of a suicidal nature . It could not be established whether his jumping in front of the subway train was a suicide which he had planned even before he left the hospital premises , or whether it had been a spontaneous act of self - harm resulting from his psychosis . Naturally , PERSON would not have been able to commit suicide if he had been prevented from leaving the hospital grounds . Even with patients whose psychotic symptoms had improved , the phenomenon of overstimulation could occur if they left the therapeutic environment , whereas such a situation was much less likely to occur within the confines of a hospital . Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW referred , as its purpose , only to the protection of the life and limb of the mental patient himself and third parties . The behaviour of GPE had not been foreseeable because there had no longer been any indication of possible self - harm at the material time and his action was therefore not attributable to the hospital . The fact that the risk of self - harm could never be entirely excluded in the case of psychotic patients did not change this assessment .","The applicant appealed , arguing that at the time when PERSON had committed suicide , the initial decision by ORG on his hospitalisation had still been valid and was based on the assessment that he posed a danger to himself and others because of his paranoid schizophrenia . No new expert opinion had been obtained , and the hospital had not informed the guardianship court ( GPE ) that the threat of selfharm had ceased to exist . Consequently , the medical indication would still have been a restriction of GPE \u2019s freedom of movement . By failing to restrict his movement , the hospital had acted contrary to the court decision ordering his hospitalisation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , upholding the legal and factual findings of ORG . It added that a lawful implementation of LAW was possible both inside and outside a closed ward . PERSON \u2019s hospitalisation had therefore not been unlawful , even though he had been placed in the open ward from DATE . Contrary to the applicant \u2019s line of argumentation , ORG had not had a duty to implement ORG decision on ORG hospitalisation in a manner which compelled it to restrict his movement . This followed from section CARDINAL of the Hospitalisation Act \u2013 according to which a hospitalisation order could be lifted at any time by the head of the institution \u2013 and section CARDINAL , which stated that restriction of movement was permissible in limited cases only . ORG decision had not defined the extent or duration of any specific restriction of movement . LAW of the Hospitalisation Act provided that a restriction of freedom of movement might only be used as an exceptional measure and \u201c last resort \u201d . Also , ORG and CARDINAL of the LAW restricted the permissibility of isolating mentally ill patients . Even within a closed ward , mentally ill patients had to have the widest possible amount of freedom of movement . Only the more restrictive measures under LAW of LAW were subject to judicial review .","ORG also stated that from a therapeutic perspective PERSON had been allowed to take unaccompanied walks because of the improvement in his condition . Moreover , from the time he had been authorised to take these walks , he had always returned without problems . This measure , which had been ordered by the psychiatrist treating him , had therefore been proportionate and necessary pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW . In conclusion , the hospital had not acted culpably , for which reason the applicant \u2019s claim under LAW was not justified ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157356","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"SOBCZYK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( Zak\u0142ad Ubezpiecze\u0144 Spo\u0142ecznych \u2013 \u201c the SSB \u201d ) to be granted the right to an early - retirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the so - called \u201c EWK \u201d pension .","Along with her application for a pension , she submitted , among other documents concerning her son \u2019s health , a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on DATE . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from hypothyroidism ( niedoczynno\u015b\u0107 tarczycy ) and was in need of the parent \u2019s constant care .","On DATE the ORG issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension in the gross amount of MONEY ( PLN ) per month , starting from DATE .","The applicant was issued with a pensioner \u2019s identity card marked \u201c valid indefinitely \u201d and she continued to receive her pension without interruption until DATE of the revocation of the right .","On an unspecified date the ORG reviewed the applicant \u2019s pension application under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW DATE on retirement and disability pensions paid from ORG ( LOC o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpiecze\u0144 DATE \u201c the DATE LAW ) .","The ORG requested ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant \u2019s son required the permanent care of a parent . On DATE the doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child in question could not be considered as ever having required such care .","On DATE the ORG simultaneously issued CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant . By virtue of the first decision , the payment of the applicant \u2019s pension was discontinued starting from DATE . By virtue of the second decision , the ORG revoked the initial decision of DATE and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to an early - retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the ORG \u2019s Ordinance of CARDINAL DATE on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care ( ORG PERSON . DATE w sprawie uprawnie\u0144 do wcze\u015bniejszej emerytury pracownik\u00f3w opiekuj\u0105cych si\u0119 dzie\u0107mi wymagaj\u0105cymi sta\u0142ej opieki DATE \u201c the DATE LAW ) .","The applicant appealed against the above - mentioned decision divesting her of the right to an early - retirement pension . She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to her original application for a pension .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . On the basis of a report on the state of health of the applicant \u2019s child prepared by an expert in endocrinology the court found that the applicant \u2019s son had not required , as of DATE , a constant care of his mother . It held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to an EWK pension .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the first - instance judgment . It agreed with the first - instance ORG findings of fact . As regards the reopening of the proceedings , it observed that the ORG had acted in accordance with LAW . It considered that , in the applicant \u2019s case , the proceedings had been reopened because new evidence had been obtained by the authority , namely the documents relating to the course of the child \u2019s medical treatment .","The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with ORG ( S\u0105d Najwy\u017cszy ) .","Nor did she lodge a request for the reopening of judicial proceedings in her case on the basis of the judgment of ORG ( PERSON ) of DATE declaring CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Law unconstitutional ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .","Social security system","NORP The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in the judgments in the case of GPE GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 ORG , DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 ORG , DATE .","By virtue of the law of DATE on amendments to the law of DATE on retirement and disability pensions paid from ORG and to certain other acts ( LOC o zmianie ustawy o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpiecze\u0144 LOC oraz niekt\u00f3rych innych ustaw \u2013 \u201c the DATE Act \u201d ) , which entered into force on DATE , a new paragraph CARDINAL was added to CARDINAL of the law . The amended section CARDINAL of the DATE PERSON provided as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The right to benefits or the amount of benefits will be re - assessed upon application by the person concerned or , ex officio , if , after the validation of the decision concerning benefits , new evidence is submitted or circumstances , which had existed before issuing the decision and which have an impact on the right to benefits or on their amount , are discovered .","Paragraph CARDINAL applies if after the validation of the decision it comes to light that the submitted evidence did not constitute sufficient grounds for the right to the retirement pension or disability pension or for their amount to be established . \u201d","On DATE , before paragraph CARDINAL was added to section CARDINAL of the DATE Law , ORG adopted a resolution in which it held :","\u201c A different assessment of the [ same ] evidence as attached to the application for a retirement or disability pension , carried out by a social security authority after validation of the decision awarding the right to a pension , is not one of the circumstances justifying the ex officio re - opening of the proceedings for a review of the right to a pension in accordance with section CARDINAL of the Law of DATE on retirement and disability pensions paid from ORG . \u201d","In a judgment given on DATE ( case no . III GPE CARDINAL ) ORG held that , when applying section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Law , the domestic courts should take into account the criteria set out in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the PERSON case . They should first establish whether the mistake in granting a social security benefit had been caused by the authorities themselves without any fault of the person concerned . In examining whether the social security authority was allowed to reopen the proceedings , they should also take into account the period of time that had elapsed from the date when the social benefit in question had been granted . When applying the provision of domestic law they should assess the proportionality of the consequences of the interference with an individual \u2019s right to a social benefit . Accordingly , where the mistake had been caused by the authorities themselves and the revocation of the benefit would entail substantial negative consequences for an individual , the relevant decision should not be revoked .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( case no . I GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ORG reiterated that the revocation of the right to a social security benefit following the reopening of the proceedings under LAW of the DATE PERSON should be assessed in the light of the criteria set out in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the PERSON case . In this connection ORG underlined that ORG constituted an integral part of the NORP legal system and that the domestic courts should therefore interpret the provisions of the domestic law in the light of the jurisprudence of the ORG .","In a judgment of DATE ( case no . III GPE CARDINAL ) ORG held that section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE PERSON should not be interpreted as providing a separate legal basis for reopening of the proceedings concerning the grant of a social security benefit and should be read in conjunction with LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) . If this provision was to be understood as allowing the social security authority to reopen the relevant proceedings of its own motion merely on the basis of a new assessment of previously submitted evidence , it would have to be considered incompatible with the principle of the rule of law set forth in LAW . ORG considered that its interpretation of the provisions of the DATE PERSON was further supported by the principles set out in the FAC judgment of the ORG .","On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG , asking for CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Law to be declared unconstitutional . The ORG argued that the impugned provision was unconstitutional in so far as it expressly allowed for an ex officio reopening of proceedings relating to the grant of a pension or a disability pension on the basis of a new assessment of the evidence which had already been submitted before the relevant authority .","On DATE ORG held that section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE PERSON was in breach of LAW ( the principle of the rule of law ) and LAW ( the right to social security ) of LAW . It found that , as the provision in question allowed for an unlimited re - assessment of evidence which constituted grounds for the initial decision concerning the entitlement to a social security benefit , it was in breach of the principle of the rule of law as set forth in LAW .","Furthermore , ORG found that the provision in question did not strike a fair balance between the general interest and an individual \u2019s right to social security under LAW . The court considered that an interference with individual rights guaranteed by LAW , which pursued the aim of correcting the authority \u2019s own mistake , could only be justified under exceptional circumstances . However , on the basis of the impugned provision the social security authority could , at any time and without any limitations , review the decision concerning a social security benefit by means of re - assessment of the evidence before it .","In the grounds for the ruling ORG also referred to the ORG \u2019s PERSON judgment . It noted that this case had likewise concerned a revocation of the right to a social security benefit following the reopening of the social security proceedings , which had been , however , based on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Law CARDINAL as LAW ( CARDINAL ) had not been in force at the material time . It further observed that the ORG \u2019s judgment had influenced the interpretation of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE PERSON by ORG ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","Lastly , with regard to the consequences of its ruling , ORG noted that the breach of LAW should be remedied by restoring the state of conformity with the law ( wymaga przywr\u00f3cenia stanu zgodnego z prawem ) . In that context , ORG explicitly stated that the finding of unconstitutionality of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE PERSON should be a ground for the reopening of proceedings in which final rulings had been based on this provision .","On DATE the judgment was published in ORG ( PERSON ) and entered into force on that date .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW , in so far as relevant , provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Judgments of the Constitutional Court shall be universally binding and final .","Judgments of ORG , ... shall be published immediately .","A judgment of the Constitutional Court shall take effect from DATE of its publication ; however , ORG may specify another date for DATE the binding force of a normative act ...","A judgment of ORG on the non - conformity with LAW , an international agreement or statute , of a normative act on the basis of which a final judicial decision , final administrative decision or ruling on other matters was given , shall be a basis for reopening proceedings , or for quashing the impugned decision or ruling in a manner and on principles specified in provisions applicable to the given proceedings . \u201d","( b ) Code of Civil Procedure","In accordance with LAW in conjunction with LAW of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Kodeks Post\u0119powania Cywilnego ) a party to civil proceedings terminated by a final judgment may request that these proceedings be reopened , if ORG has found that the normative act on the basis of which this judgment was given was incompatible with LAW .","Pursuant to LAW , a request to that effect shall be lodged within DATE from the date on which the judgment of ORG has entered into force . Pursuant to LAW a request for the reopening of the proceedings must be lodged within DATE from the date on which the final judgment has been given , unless the party could not act in the proceedings or was not properly represented .","Under LAW , a reopened case is to be examined within the limits determined by the grounds for the reopening . According to LAW of this provision , after a fresh examination of the case , the court may either dismiss the request for reopening , or allow it and alter or quash the impugned judgment . If need be , it may reject the claim on formal grounds or discontinue the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181592","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MONTEMLIN \u0160AJO v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant company is a privately owned company registered in GPE , GPE .","NORP In DATE a call for tender for hotel \u201c Otrant \u201d in GPE was issued . The deadline for submitting bids was DATE . Together with CARDINAL other companies , the applicant company took part in the tendering process . On DATE , however , it was informed that the tender was awarded to another bidder .","On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant company objected to this decision . On DATE ORG in GPE ( GPE sud u GPE ) rejected the applicant company \u2019s objection .","On DATE the Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance .","On DATE ORG ruled against the applicant company . This decision was served on the applicant company on DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . The decision of ORG was served on the applicant company \u2019s lawyer on DATE .","On DATE the applicant company lodged an initiative urging ORG dr\u017eavno tu\u017eila\u0161tvo ) to file a request for the protection of legality ( zahtjev za za\u0161titu zakonitosti ) , but this motion was rejected on DATE .","On DATE the applicant company lodged a constitutional appeal . On DATE ORG rejected this appeal as having been lodged out of time ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-185032","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SKIDAN AND ZINKOVSKYY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . The applicant in application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL also raised another complaint under LAW concerning the conditions of his detention ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154765","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"CARPELAN v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","Background","NORP Since DATE the applicant has resided in a flat located in a building in GPE in GPE : first due to his employment at the property and , as from DATE , on the basis of a rental agreement with GPE ( the owner of the property and the building ) . The GPE area is considered to be cultural heritage of national interest and has been recognised as such by ORG ( GPE ) .","NORP In DATE the applicant appealed against a detailed development plan ( detaljplan ) adopted by ORG ( kommunfullm\u00e4ktige ) of GPE which would allow for the construction of a tunnel under GPE as part of a motorway project called \u201c PERSON \u201d . The appeal was rejected by the Government , for which reason the applicant applied for judicial review before ORG ( H\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) . He claimed , inter alia , that he , and others living within or close to the area , would be negatively affected by the construction of the tunnel as it would cause various disturbances , particularly during the construction . Moreover , he contended that the nature and landscape of the park would be affected in violation of the Law on Natural Resources ( lag om hush\u00e5llning med naturresurser m.m . , CARDINAL:CARDINAL , which was subsequently replaced by LAW [ ORG , CARDINAL ] ) . On DATE ORG repealed the ORG \u2019s decision , finding that the planned construction would constitute a breach of the law invoked in that the construction would encroach upon an area classified as a National City Park ( nationalstadspark ) .","Consequently , the Government annulled the detailed development plan in question and , later , ORG adopted a new detailed development plan which gained legal force in DATE . Subsequently , ORG adopted an amendment to this detailed development plan . However , the amendment required changes to LAW and , in DATE , such changes were adopted .","NORP The proceedings relating to the amendment of the detailed development plan","On CARDINAL DATE ORG adopted the amendment to the detailed development plan concerning PERSON . The amendment allowed for the construction from above ground of a tunnel through FAC . ORG noted that the amendments were focused on the method of constructing the tunnel . It further stressed that the effects on the environment would be essentially temporary as the park would be completely restored after construction had finished . Thus , there would be no considerable impact on the environment , nature , cultural heritage or people \u2019s health and , hence , a formal environmental evaluation would not be necessary .","The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG ( l\u00e4nsstyrelsen ) , claiming essentially that the amendment was not in accordance with LAW and that a formal environmental evaluation should have been carried out . In his opinion , the negative effects on the environment and nature outweighed the benefits of the construction of the tunnel .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It agreed with ORG that there was no need for a formal environmental evaluation . Moreover , having weighed the applicant \u2019s individual interests against the general interests that the amendment sought to protect , ORG concluded that the applicant \u2019s submissions did not suffice to repeal the decision of ORG . Lastly , it found that no other circumstances had been presented which could lead it to repeal the decision .","The applicant appealed against the ORG \u2019s decision to the Government . He noted that he had not claimed that his individual interests were of any significance . However , he stressed the general interest in preserving the park and in particular a number of trees in the park . In his view , these general interests had not been considered properly and ORG had completely ignored his claim that the decision breached certain provisions in LAW .","On DATE the ORG rejected the appeal . It first observed that the purpose of the amendment to the detailed development plan was to render possible the construction of the tunnel from above ground and , at the same time , to ensure that the intrusion would be temporary and limited to the period of the actual construction . The landscape was to be restored immediately afterwards according to an adopted quality programme which was based on an historical park plan from DATE . The Government then observed that , although the area affected by the amendment was part of ORG , the amendments to LAW of DATE allowed for certain measures that would cause only temporary encroachment or damage to the park . Having regard to all , the ORG found no reason to depart from the ORG \u2019s assessment that the plan complied with the provisions of LAW . As concerned the applicant \u2019s other submissions , the Government considered that they did not give reason to alter or repeal the ORG \u2019s decision .","The applicant then requested a review of the ORG \u2019s decision by ORG under LAW ( lagen om r\u00e4ttspr\u00f6vning av vissa regeringsbeslut , CARDINAL ; hereafter \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) . He submitted that the ORG \u2019s decision violated LAW as well as LAW . He particularly stressed that the construction of the tunnel meant that several old trees in the park would be cut down , causing irreparable harm .","On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for judicial review . The court noted that , according to LAW , an individual may apply for judicial review of such decisions by the Government that concern the individual \u2019s civil rights or obligations within the meaning of LAW . It then observed that the property where the applicant resided was located outside the area covered by the detailed development plan . He also did not own property within or adjacent to the area covered by the plan . The court concluded that the ORG \u2019s decision did not concern the applicant \u2019s civil rights or obligations within the meaning of LAW and , therefore , he did not have locus standi before the court .","The judicial review procedure","On DATE , LAW replaced LAW ( lagen om r\u00e4ttspr\u00f6vning av vissa f\u00f6rvaltningsbeslut , GPE , hereafter \u201c the DATE LAW ) .","According to the preparatory work to LAW , the purpose of judicial review was to provide access to court as regards decisions which should be subject to judicial review under the Convention , but where NORP national law did not provide such a right beyond the possibility to apply for the extraordinary remedy of relief for substantive defects ( Government PERSON p. CARDINAL ) . The preparatory works further noted that the scope of application of LAW had been too narrow in some cases , while in other cases its application went further than required by the LAW in relation to \u201c civil rights and obligations \u201d ( ibid . , p. CARDINAL ) . Thus , the provision on right of action was formulated differently in LAW compared to LAW .","Consequently , under LAW , an individual can only apply for judicial review of decisions by the Government when they involve a determination of the individual \u2019s civil rights or obligations within the meaning of LAW .","Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act states that ORG shall annul the ORG \u2019s decision if the decision contravenes a legislative provision either in the way alleged by the complainant or in a way that is clearly apparent from the circumstances . However , this does not apply if the error obviously lacks significance for the decision ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180846","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MSKHILADZE v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE . He was subsequently convicted of criminal offences on several occasions . He was released on DATE after serving his most recent prison sentence .","On DATE ORG issued an exclusion order , declaring the applicant \u2019s presence in GPE undesirable and prohibiting his return to GPE until DATE . Further to the exclusion order , on DATE the migration authorities issued a deportation order in respect of the applicant and he was later arrested . On DATE a judge authorised his further detention until DATE , with a view to enforcing the deportation order . His detention was then extended until DATE .","On DATE the NORP authorities informed the NORP migration authority that the applicant was not a NORP national and that they would not assist in his return to GPE . The applicant was released on DATE following the expiry of the latest detention order .","On DATE the applicant was accused of an offence under LAW ( ORG ) on account of his presence in GPE without the necessary documents . On DATE the ORG of GPE convicted the applicant and ordered his administrative removal from GPE ( without specifying the destination country ) . The judge noted that the applicant was a stateless person but held that he had to comply with a statutory obligation to leave GPE , having no valid legal basis for being there . Lastly , the judge ordered that the applicant be placed in a detention centre for foreigners , with a view to enforcing his administrative removal .","The judgment was amenable to appeal within DATE of receipt by the defendant .","On DATE the applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that the penalty of administrative removal could not be enforced in the absence of NORP or any other nationality and that it was therefore unjustified to place him in detention and keep him there .","On DATE GPE upheld the judgment of DATE . The appeal court considered that the applicant could still be removed to the country from which he had arrived in GPE if there was a readmission agreement with that country ; that he could be held in detention for a maximum of DATE , which was the statutory period for the enforceability of a penalty ; and that the ORG had not required the trial judge to set any time - limit when ordering his placement in a detention centre for foreigners .","On DATE the NORP authorities again informed the NORP migration authority that they would not assist in providing documents for the applicant \u2019s return to GPE as he was not a NORP national and there were no other legal grounds for such assistance .","The applicant sought a review of the decisions of DATE and DATE . On DATE the deputy President of ORG upheld them on review under LAW ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed an application from the applicant to terminate the proceedings to enforce the judgment of DATE . The court held that there was no statutory basis in the ORG or other legislation for granting such an application . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld that decision .","In the meantime , on DATE , referring to LAW , the applicant lodged an application for release and again sought termination of the enforcement proceedings . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE a judge of ORG returned his application without examination .","The applicant lodged an individual complaint with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged an application with ORG of GPE in order to obtain the applicant \u2019s release , referring to the above - mentioned constitutional ruling . On DATE ORG ordered his release .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( when the application was lodged with ORG ) and then further until DATE the applicant was kept in the FAC for ORG ( \u0426\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0441\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0438\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0434\u0430\u043d ) in GPE . From DATE to mid - February CARDINAL he was kept in cell no . FAC and from DATE to CARDINAL August DATE he was in cell no . CARDINAL . According to the applicant , each cell measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL people . The cells were equipped with bedside boards and beds but there were no chairs , tables or other furniture . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , where he was kept alone . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he shared cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , with another detainee . From DATE he was in cell no . CARDINAL and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was kept in cell no . CARDINAL with CARDINAL other detainees .","During the period of his confinement CARDINAL DATE the applicant was locked in his cell most of the time , being taken to a courtyard ( measuring QUANTITY ) DATE for TIME . He was taken there every third day from DATE . The yard had no equipment for sport or leisure activities , no benches and no shelter from the rain or snow .","The toilets in the cells were separated from the main area by a fixed partition . There was no proper , ceramic toilet bowl , just a \u201c hole \u201d with a flusher set on a small base so the toilet had to be used in a squatting position . According to the applicant , the partition was not high enough and the toilet area remained visible . There were also unpleasant odours .","Shower facilities were accessible for TIME DATE in DATE and once every seven to ten days from DATE . There were no facilities for washing or drying clothes and no toilet paper , toothpaste , soap or the like was provided . PERSON was changed once a month . Subsequently , the applicant also stated that the cells became infested with bugs , cockroaches and mice , although it was not clear to what period of time he referred to . He submitted a photograph showing CARDINAL captured mice in containers .","Food was brought to the cells but was cold , particularly in DATE , and of mediocre quality . In the absence of tables , detainees had to eat on their beds . There was no supply of drinking water and no facilities for boiling water or cooking food . It was not possible to purchase food .","He had been allowed to leave cells CARDINAL and CARDINAL and move within the corridor and shower area but had been prohibited from entering other cells .","No radio , television , newspapers or the like were provided in the detention centre . The applicant and his co - detainees were apparently allowed to have a television set during his most recent period of detention .","The applicant has submitted several photographs of the cells , a statement written by his cellmate after DATE , a statement from a detainee written in DATE and a recent news report about the detention centre .","In DATE the detention facility was visited by members of a public oversight committee . They noted that the toilets ( consisting of a \u201c hole \u201d ) in the cells on the fourth floor were separated from the main area by a low partition or curtain and that it was not possible to switch the lights on or off from inside the cells . They also noted that the detention centre had no courtyard for detainees .","According to the ORG , as of DATE the applicant was being held in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY ( not CARDINAL as submitted by the applicant ) . The cell was equipped with a toilet , a sink with hot and cold water , beds and a table . The main lights were switched off at TIME . The detention centre had a library and detainees could borrow books . Food was prepared and delivered by an external catering company . Hot food was brought in special containers ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-176931","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF NDIDI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Nigeria)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant and his mother entered GPE on DATE and were granted CARDINAL months\u2019 leave to enter as visitors . Following the expiry of their leave they remained in GPE as overstayers .","The applicant \u2019s father entered GPE in DATE .","The applicant \u2019s siblings were born in GPE on DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother claimed asylum on undisclosed grounds . The applicant and his CARDINAL siblings were named dependents on that claim . The Secretary of ORG for ORG refused the asylum claim on DATE . Following a reconsideration of the case in DATE , the Secretary of ORG again refused the asylum claim but granted the family CARDINAL years\u2019 exceptional leave to remain in GPE .","In DATE and DATE the applicant , who was then DATE , received police cautions for offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and robbery .","On DATE he was convicted of robbery and assault occasioning grievous bodily harm .","On DATE the applicant , his mother and his siblings were granted indefinite leave to remain in GPE . His mother and siblings have since become NORP citizens .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of disorderly behaviour or using threatening \/ abusive \/ insulting words likely to cause harassment , alarm or distress . He was fined GBP CARDINAL .","On DATE he was convicted of burglary , theft and impersonating a police officer . He was sentenced to a community punishment order of TIME .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of robbery and was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 detention in a ORG .","NORP In or around this time the Secretary of ORG considered instigating deportation proceedings against the applicant . On DATE he decided not to pursue such proceedings owing to the length of his residence in GPE . However , he warned him that should he come to the adverse attention of the authorities through criminal offending in the future , he could be liable to deportation .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s father was granted indefinite leave to remain in GPE .","On DATE the applicant pleaded guilty to the supply of Class A drugs . On DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The sentencing judge addressed him in the following terms :","\u201c this case has been a copy - book example of how people in your position are able to continue to operate outside the law by the use of interchangeable street names , preying upon the most vulnerable addicts and by the indiscriminate use of fear and violence to ensure that no - one informs the police of your criminal activities ... Your evidence to the jury was that you were the main man for drugs in GPE ... Your nickname of \u2018 Bruiser\u2019 ensured that when the \u2018 workers\u2019 as you called those who sold drugs on your behalf , \u2018 messed up\u2019 it was your policy , to use your own words , of \u2018 roughing them up a little bit\u2019 . You told the jury , with some satisfaction , that this policy was successful ... I regard you as close to the source of supply and wholesaling to retailers in GPE on a persistent and regular basis . \u201d","The applicant \u2019s appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed on DATE . However , on CARDINAL DATE ORG substituted the applicant \u2019s sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment with CARDINAL of CARDINAL years\u2019 detention in a ORG . While in detention he received CARDINAL adjudications , which included the use of threats and abusive behaviour , disobeying lawful orders , fighting with other inmates , and attempting to commit \/ incite another inmate to commit assault on staff .","He was released on licence on DATE .","Pursuant to section ORG ) of GPE DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) , the Secretary of ORG was required to make a deportation order in respect of foreign criminals sentenced , inter alia , to a period of imprisonment of DATE , unless CARDINAL of the exceptions in section DATE namely that removal would breach their rights under either LAW or LAW applied ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG notified the applicant of his liability to automatic deportation and asked him to submit reasons why he should not be deported . His representatives responded to that letter ; however , on DATE he was served with both a deportation order dated DATE , and a decision that section ORG the DATE Act applied ( that is , he was liable to automatic deportation and removal would not breach his rights under either LAW or LAW ) .","In a section of the decision headed \u201c Consideration under ORG \u201d , the Secretary of ORG had regard to her obligations under LAW . Although she accepted that the applicant had family ties in GPE with his mother , father , brother and sister , in the absence of further elements of dependency she found that these ties did not constitute family life . She did accept that he enjoyed private life in GPE but did not consider that his removal would be disproportionate to the legitimate interest of preventing disorder and crime . In particular , she noted that he had an elderly grandmother in GPE and as an adult he could be expected to readjust to life there . Furthermore , as LANGUAGE was one of the official languages of GPE , he would not face a language barrier on return . Finally , she had regard to the seriousness of his criminal record , the CARDINAL adjudications he had received while in detention , and the fact that he had been warned about the risk of reoffending in DATE . She therefore concluded that his deportation would not be in breach of LAW .","The applicant appealed against this decision . In support of his appeal , he submitted a report by PERSON , a consultant forensic psychiatrist . The report indicated that he suffered from dyslexia ; that he had developed Adolescent Conduct Disorder which could manifest itself in antisocial behaviour but was not inevitably associated with continued offending in adult life ; and that although he presented a medium risk of reoffending , there existed a number of positive factors which would decrease the likelihood of continued criminal involvement , including his family \u2019s abstention from criminal activity , his sustained and supportive parental relationships , his wish to improve himself , and the absence of substance misuse .","On DATE the First - tier ORG ( ORG ) allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal on LAW grounds , having found that his deportation would be neither proportionate nor necessary in a democratic society . It found that the applicant did enjoy family life with his parents and younger siblings , his unfortunate history having resulted in a particular dependency on them , since he required their support to \u201c help him to change from being a criminal offender to an employed adult and useful member of society \u201d . In addition , it found that he had also established a private life in GPE ; that he had no experience of living in GPE , save for a short period as a baby and DATE in DATE ; that he had no close relatives in , and no ties to , GPE ; that he had indicated his remorse and given assurances that he would not offend again ; and that his working and studying whilst in detention supported those assurances .","NORP The Secretary of ORG was granted permission to appeal on DATE .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) found there to have been a material error of law in the decision of the First - tier ORG . The decision was set aside in its entirety and the case submitted for a full rehearing before ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the deportation order .","The ORG considered the principles established by this ORG in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIX , GPE v. the GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALXII and PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE . In its view , the single most compelling factor in the applicant \u2019s favour was the length of his residence in GPE . It also had regard to his family ties . Although it did not accept that there was any additional element of dependency which would enable it to find the existence of family life for the purposes of LAW , it nevertheless accepted that the applicant \u2019s parents and siblings were an important part of his private life .","Balanced against his long residence and established private life , the ORG considered the applicant \u2019s criminal record . It noted that he had a long history of offending , beginning at DATE ; that he had received fair warning from the Secretary of ORG in DATE that any further offending would not be tolerated ; that notwithstanding that warning and the subsequent assurances given to the Secretary of ORG that he was turning his life around , he was already engaged in drug dealing ; that his criminal behaviour had not only continued but had also escalated ; that whilst serving his most recent sentence , he had received CARDINAL adjudications , the majority of them for violence and disobedience ; that his problems with dyslexia could not be used as an excuse to justify his poor behaviour and repeat offending ; and that whilst the majority of his offending had occurred when he was a child , his most recent and most serious had occurred after he had attained his majority .","With regard to the issue of future offending and risk to the public , the ORG found it difficult to accept his assurances that he had had a genuine change of heart and no longer posed a risk to the public . He had made similar assurances when faced with deportation in DATE , and since his criminal associates were in prison the fact that he did not see them was not a weighty factor indicating a lifestyle change . Furthermore , there was no evidence that either of his parents would be able to exert any positive influence over him , as they had been unable to do so in the past . Although he was in employment on DATE , there was no evidence of a contingency plan should he not progress into more secure employment .","Therefore , whilst accepting that the applicant \u2019s removal would be difficult , the ORG concluded that he was of an age where he could be expected to \u201c stand on his own QUANTITY and make a life for himself \u201d . His family could visit him in GPE and there was evidence to suggest that he had a number of relatives living there . The ORG further noted that he had no girlfriend or children in GPE , he was in good health , and he would not face any language difficulties as there was a universal use of LANGUAGE in GPE . Consequently , the ORG concluded that in spite of his long residence and family circumstances , serious reasons ( as required by ORG in PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) existed to justify the applicant \u2019s expulsion , and that the public interest in effecting deportation outweighed his Article CARDINAL rights .","On DATE ORG refused to grant the applicant permission to appeal . ORG similarly refused permission to appeal on DATE , and again on DATE following an oral hearing . It found that although the case had required a difficult and delicate balancing exercise , ORG had provided a thorough and careful determination , and the conclusion reached was CARDINAL which had been open to it .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG amended ORG ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . In so far as relevant , the new Rules ( which have since been further amended ) provided that the deportation of foreign criminals would be conducive to the public good if they were sentenced to CARDINAL or more GPE imprisonment . In such cases , the public interest would only be outweighed in \u201c exceptional circumstances \u201d .","On DATE and DATE the applicant submitted further representations to the Secretary of ORG based on his DATE relationship with a NORP national , who had no connection to GPE , and the birth of their son on DATE . The Secretary of ORG treated those representations as an application to revoke the deportation order and refused it on DATE . She also certified the applicant \u2019s claim , which meant that he was not afforded an automatic incountry right of appeal .","On DATE the applicant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of ORG \u2019s decision to certify his claim . Along with his application , he provided medical evidence that his son required an operation in DATE to correct an umbilical hernia , and that he had been diagnosed with respiratory syncytial virus and bronchiolitis .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG agreed to withdraw the certification decision and to issue a new decision taking account of the applicant \u2019s further representations of DATE and those lodged with the judicial review application in DATE .","NORP The Secretary of ORG considered the applicant \u2019s further representations in light of the amended Immigration Rules . In a decision dated DATE , she refused to revoke the deportation order since there were no \u201c exceptional factors \u201d which outweighed the public interest . In particular , she noted that the applicant had entered into a relationship in the full knowledge of the intention to deport him ; that both the applicant and his partner should have been fully aware of the implications of conceiving a child in those circumstances ; that no valid reason had been given to explain the applicant \u2019s failure to make submissions regarding his relationship at either ORG hearing in DATE or ORG hearing on DATE ; that if the applicant \u2019s partner wished to continue the family unit in GPE , suitable medication would be available in that country to treat their son \u2019s bronchiolitis condition ; that there was no evidence of any exceptional , compelling or compassionate factors ; and that deportation remained a proportionate response to the applicant \u2019s serious criminal offending .","The applicant appealed . He submitted a number of documents in support of his case , including a further psychiatric report by PERSON dated DATE . The report indicated that he had continued to make progress in adopting a \u201c pro - social lifestyle \u201d , that he had addressed his tendency to violence , that he no longer had any criminal associates , that he had demonstrated a commitment to his partner and their son , that he had secured employment , and that the risk of re - offending and of harm to the public was very low .","The First - tier ORG , having heard oral evidence from the applicant , his partner , mother , father , brother and sister , and having considered the evidence before it , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on CARDINAL DATE .","Using a CARDINAL - stage approach , the ORG first considered the applicant \u2019s case under LAW . It noted that the applicant \u2019s most recent conviction was for a serious offence which had attracted a sentence of DATE detention ; that following the amendment of ORG , \u201c exceptional circumstances \u201d would be required to prevent deportation ; and that those \u201c exceptional circumstances \u201d were inextricably bound up with the applicant \u2019s LAW .","In this regard , the ORG recalled that the applicant \u2019s family and personal circumstances had been examined with the most careful and thorough consideration by ORG in DATE . It had considered them in the context of the exceptionality requirements set out in PERSON ( the requirement of \u201c very serious reasons \u201d to justify the expulsion of a settled migrant : see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) and concluded that his deportation was justified . The ORG noted , however , that the applicant \u2019s personal circumstances had since changed . It therefore gave careful consideration to his CARDINAL - and - a - DATE relationship with his partner and the birth of their child . Nevertheless , it concluded that neither the relationship nor the birth of the child amounted to an \u201c exceptional circumstance \u201d within the context of ORG . Although it accepted that there would be an inevitable interference with the family life said to exist between the applicant , his partner and their child , it found there to be nothing \u201c exceptional \u201d about this . Consequently , the ORG did not consider that his family and personal circumstances amounted to the \u201c exceptionality \u201d required by ORG .","The ORG moved on to consider LAW as a separate issue , having regard to the findings of ORG in DATE . It agreed with ORG that language would not be an obstacle for the applicant since LANGUAGE was widely spoken in GPE . It further noted that while the evidence as to the existence of family in GPE was somewhat confusing , it was perhaps not of fundamental importance for an adult quite capable of standing on his own QUANTITY ; that the applicant would continue to receive support from his parents following his removal to GPE ; and that his parents could visit him there as often as they wished .","In respect of the applicant \u2019s relationship with his partner and their child , it observed that he had failed to disclose his immigration status to his partner until after she had fallen pregnant ; that he and his partner had never lived together ; that his partner and child had the full support of her family in GPE , with whom they lived , and that support would continue following the applicant \u2019s deportation ; and that his child could visit him in GPE and maintain such a relationship as deemed appropriate . Therefore , having carefully considered the issue of proportionality , including \u201c section CARDINAL [ of the Borders , LAW DATE see paragraph CARDINAL below ] and the best interests of the Appellant \u2019s child \u201d , the ORG concluded that the Secretary of ORG had a legitimate interest in maintaining appropriate immigration control and social order within GPE , and that the interests in effecting the applicant \u2019s deportation were not outweighed by his LAW .","The applicant sought permission to appeal on the ground that the ORG had erred in concluding that his circumstances were not \u201c exceptional \u201d for the purposes of ORG . The First - tier ORG refused permission to appeal on DATE . The applicant made a further application for permission to appeal to ORG , raising the same grounds as before the First - tier ORG . In addition , he also submitted that the application raised an important point of principle : namely , whether the decision of the ORG was contrary to the principle of double jeopardy , or constituted discriminatory punishment , since a NORP national could not be excluded from GPE . On DATE ORG refused the application for permission to appeal . Both Tribunals found that the applicant \u2019s grounds sought , in essence , to reargue the merits of the appeal and that no error of law had been disclosed .","The applicant then sought permission to apply for judicial review of ORG refusal of the application for permission to appeal . Following ORG judgment in R ( on the application of ORG ) v. ORG ; R ( on the application of PERSON ( GPE ) ) v. ORG ) and Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] ORG , ORG could only review decisions of ORG if the \u201c second appeal \u201d test was satisfied ; that is , if the appeal raised an important point of principle , or there was another compelling reason to allow it to succeed . In the present case the applicant once again submitted that the \u201c double jeopardy \u201d argument raised an important point of principle . However , on DATE ORG refused the application for permission to apply for judicial review . In refusing permission the judge expressly stated that while it was \u201c apparent that different views might reasonably be taken about whether the Claimant should be permitted to remain in the GPE in the light of his family ties and length of residence \u201d , that was \u201c not the test for the grant of permission \u201d .","Following the refusal of the application for permission to apply for judicial review , the applicant had no right to renew the application at an oral hearing in ORG . However , it would have been possible for him to apply to ORG for permission to appeal against ORG decision .","Removal directions scheduled for DATE were cancelled owing to the absence of a valid travel document .","On DATE the applicant advised the ORG that his relationship with his partner had broken down and that he had court - ordered direct contact with his son on DATE .","DATE . On DATE the Secretary of ORG advised the applicant that an application to the NORP authorities for a travel document , required to effect his deportation from GPE , was pending ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146398","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KARIMOV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote);Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was deputy chairman of ORG . He stood in the elections to ORG as a candidate of the opposition bloc PERSON . He was registered as a candidate by ORG ( \u201c the ConEC \u201d ) for the singlemandate ORG no . CARDINAL .","There were a total of CARDINAL polling stations in the constituency , QUANTITY of which were ordinary polling stations . Polling Station no . CARDINAL was set up on the premises of a temporary detention centre so that persons detained there could vote . Polling Stations nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were set up shortly before the elections exclusively for military servicemen belonging to CARDINAL military units stationed within the constituency . Those military units were permanently stationed in the Bayil and PERSON suburbs of GPE .","According to TIME of the PERSON meeting of DATE , a copy of which was submitted by the Government , on that date the ConEC decided , inter alia , to appoint members to the precinct ( polling station ) electoral commissions ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for ORG . CARDINAL and DATE . It appears from TIME CARDINAL members of each ORG in question were military officers or personnel of those military units , with the exception of CARDINAL member nominated to each ORG by an opposition party . In each ORG , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL \u201c military members \u201d were nominated by the ruling party . According to the applicant , prior to the proceedings before the ORG , he had never been provided with the full text of the minutes of the PERSON meeting of DATE .","The official election results in the constituency showed that the applicant had received an overall total of CARDINAL votes and finished in second place . Of those votes , CARDINAL had been cast in FAC . CARDINAL to CARDINAL and CARDINAL had been cast in LOC . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .","The winning candidate ( PERSON ) received an overall total of CARDINAL votes . CARDINAL of those , a total of CARDINAL votes , had been cast in FAC . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . Of those , CARDINAL votes , which constituted over a third of his total vote count , had been cast in the polling stations ( CARDINAL . CARDINAL and DATE ) created exclusively for military voting ( CARDINAL and CARDINAL votes respectively ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) alleging a number of violations of electoral law in his constituency . He requested that the election results in FAC . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE be invalidated . He complained , inter alia , of the following :","( a ) that the setting up of Polling Stations nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL exclusively for military voting was in breach of LAW , which required that military servicemen should vote in ordinary polling stations and which stipulated that special military polling stations should be set up only in exceptional circumstances . In this case , there were no such exceptional circumstances and the personnel of each military unit in question should have voted in CARDINAL or more of the several ordinary polling stations already located within very short walking distances of their barracks ;","( b ) that the PECs of Polling Stations nos . CARDINAL and DATE , consisting mostly of military officers , had acted as if they were accountable to ORG and not the superior electoral commissions , and that CARDINAL of the duly appointed ORG members , nominated by the opposition , had been denied access to the polling stations ;","( c ) that in the CARDINAL \u201c closed \u201d polling stations ( nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) the elections had been unfair , and military servicemen and detainees had voted under coercion . It was noted by observers in FAC . CARDINAL and CARDINAL that high - ranking military officers had pressured military servicemen to vote for M. Similarly , undue pressure had been put on detainees in FAC no . CARDINAL . As a result , PERSON received about as many votes in those CARDINAL \u201c closed \u201d polling stations as in all twenty - nine of the other ( ordinary ) polling stations of the constituency ( where he had clearly lost to the applicant by a large margin ) , which allowed him to pull slightly ahead in the overall vote count . The results of the voting in the CARDINAL \u201c closed \u201d polling stations and their effect on the election clearly showed that the election had been rigged in favour of the candidate supported by the ruling party .","NORP In support of the above complaints , the applicant submitted copies of written observations made by several observers at those polling stations .","On DATE the ORG issued a decision invalidating the election results in Polling Stations nos . CARDINAL and DATE of ORG no . CARDINAL , having found that the electoral law had been breached in those polling stations . It did not provide any details as to the exact nature of those breaches . That decision did not affect the overall election results in the constituency . The ORG \u2019s decision did not mention the applicant \u2019s complaints concerning ORG . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the ORG decision , reiterating the complaints that he had made before the ORG . During ORG hearing , a representative of the ORG argued generally , without addressing any of the applicant \u2019s factual arguments in detail , that the elections in ORG . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE had been lawful and that there were no grounds for invalidating the votes cast in those polling stations .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint , finding that he had failed to substantiate his allegations . In particular , the judgment read as follows :","\u201c Under LAW ORG , the court may examine , and rely on , only the evidence submitted by the parties .","Despite the requirement of the above - mentioned LAW , the claimant , PERSON , and his counsel , [ S.T. ] , have not been able to produce before the court any reliable evidence in support of the allegations made in the claim .","Under Article CARDINAL of the ORG , each party must prove the facts to which it refers as a basis for its claims and objections .","Under LAW , the court may rely in its judgment only on the evidence examined at the court hearing .","Having regard to the above , the court does not find any grounds for upholding the claim and rejects as unsubstantiated [ the applicant \u2019s ] claim against [ the ORG ] requesting the invalidation of the election results in ORG . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of ORG no . CARDINAL ... \u201d","The applicant appealed to ORG , reiterating his complaints .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , essentially on the same grounds as ORG .","On DATE ORG confirmed the election results in the majority of the electoral constituencies , including ORG no . CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182274","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"C\u0130DD\u0130 v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","On DATE the ORG father was hit by a car while he was crossing a street . On DATE , he succumbed to his injuries and died .","Criminal proceedings were brought against ORG , who had hit the applicants\u2019 father while driving his company car , for causing death by negligence .","According to an expert report dated DATE prepared by a university professor who was a former traffic expert at ORG ( ORG ) , the driver had been PERCENT responsible for the accident , and the remaining responsibility lay with the applicants\u2019 father , who had been hit when crossing the street while the pedestrian \u201c do n\u2019t walk \u201d red light was showing .","In a report subsequently prepared by the traffic branch of ORG on DATE , the driver was found to have been PERCENT responsible for the accident .","On DATE ORG Instance found M.S.A. guilty of causing death by negligence , and imposed a fine on him .","Following an appeal by the parties , on DATE ORG quashed that judgment on procedural grounds and remitted it to ORG .","On DATE ORG again sentenced M.S.A. to a fine ; that judgment was also quashed by ORG on DATE on procedural grounds .","On DATE ORG Instance decided to discontinue the proceedings , as the prosecution of the offence in question had become time - barred . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment . The applicants claim to have learned of that decision on DATE .","On DATE the applicants , together with their mother ORG , lodged a claim before ORG of First Instance for compensation against ( i ) the driver , M.S.A. , ( ii ) ORG \u2019s employer ( that is to say , the company that employed him ) , which owned the car which M.S.A. had been driving at the time of the accident , and ( iii ) the latter \u2019s insurance company . They requested a total of MONEY ( GPE ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage , and GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage .","NORP On DATE ORG of First Instance decided to suspend the compensation proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings .","An expert report submitted to ORG on DATE found the driver M.S.A. to have been PERCENT responsible for the accident , in line with the reports submitted to the criminal case file .","On DATE ORG of First Instance accepted the applicants\u2019 claim in part and , having regard to the limited degree of M.S.A. \u2019s responsibility for the accident , awarded them a total of MONEY ( TRY ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and TRY CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage , plus interest on both amounts running from the date of the accident .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 mother , PERSON , died , leaving the CARDINAL applicants as her sole heirs .","On DATE and DATE the applicants received TRY CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the material time ) and TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the material time ) , respectively , from the defendants in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage , in accordance with the judgment of ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . That decision was served on the applicants on DATE .","On DATE the ORG decided to declare the ORG complaint under LAW concerning the length of the compensation proceedings inadmissible for failure to exhaust the available domestic remedies , in the light of its conclusions in the case of GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Accordingly , the applicants applied to ORG established by Law no . DATE in respect of their complaints concerning the length of the compensation proceedings .","On DATE the applicants were paid TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at the material time ) by ORG in respect of nonpecuniary damage arising from the undue lengthiness of the compensation proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145000","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF AZIENDA AGRICOLA SILVERFUNGHI S.A.S. AND OTHERS v. ITALY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants are agricultural firms operating in northern and\/or disadvantaged areas in GPE as defined in the relevant NORP laws .","In DATE the NORP legislator instituted a series of norms to favour economic activity in general and , more specifically , agricultural activity .","More precisely , LAW no . DATE ( Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d , below ) provided a concession ( fiscalizzazione ) , namely , that as of DATE the ORG would bear a portion of the contributions paid by employers in the agricultural sector for the purposes of LAW no . CARDINAL in respect of each employee .","Furthermore , Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Law No . CARDINAL of DATE ( ORG finanziaria DATE ) ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) introduced a system of exemptions ( sgravi contributivi ) in respect of payments for the purposes of premiums and contributions related to welfare and assistance . Such payments were due in the measure of PERCENT ( PERCENT ) by employers in the agricultural sector in northern regions and PERCENT ( PERCENT ) by employers in the agricultural sector working in disadvantaged agricultural zones in the south of GPE .","According to the applicant companies , Article CARDINAL ) of PERSON No . CARDINAL of DATE ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) indicated that the latter benefit was not alternative to the one provided for by PERSON no . DATE . That sub - article specified that for the purposes of the calculation of the exemption mentioned above , the concession was not to be taken into account . This , they considered , was also clear from the explanatory memorandum ( scheda di lettura ) to the law ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) .","Following further normative changes DATE , the burden to be taken over by the ORG amounted to the following :","a ) MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) per employee for CARDINAL DATE salaries ;","b ) a global CARDINAL percentage points for exemptions in respect of contributions for the purposes of TBC ( Tuberculosis ) , ORG ( ORG ) and the ORG ( ORG ) ;","c ) a global CARDINAL percentage points for exemptions regarding the said contributions in respect of labourers and CARDINAL percentage points for employees and directors , as from DATE .","Despite the law , by circular no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) , an NORP welfare entity , considered that the CARDINAL benefits ( concession and exemption ) could not be accumulated and had to be considered as alternative .","NORP In fact , the applicant companies benefited only from the exemption ( sgravi contributivi ) and not from the concession ( fiscalizzazione ) . They considered that this interpretation was contrary to what was provided for in the law .","Indeed , from DATE a number of agricultural firms ( in particular FAC ) instituted proceedings ( following administrative refusals ) complaining about the matter , and consistent case - law in favour of the agricultural firms was established by the NORP courts , including ORG . The applicant companies submitted that DATE more than CARDINAL first - instance judgments and CARDINAL appeal judgments on the same subject matter had been delivered , together with CARDINAL ORG judgments ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d , below ) finding in favour of the agricultural firms .","In this light , in DATE the applicant companies instituted proceedings as explained below . Pending these judicial proceedings Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( hereinafter LAW no . PERSON ) was enacted ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) , providing that the benefits could not be accumulated .","By judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG considered that PERSON no . PERSON was legitimate and not unconstitutional ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d below ) .","On DATE the applicant company requested the ORG to return the monies which it had held contrary to what was provided for by law when it failed to apply the concession in its respect , for the period DATE and DATE , amounting to MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) plus interest and subject to revaluation .","The ORG \u2019s failure to reply amounting to an implicit rejection ( silenzio - rifiuto ) , on DATE the applicant company instituted an administrative procedure before the ORG . The latter again failed to reply .","Thus , on DATE the applicant company instituted judicial proceedings to recover the monies due ( as mentioned above ) for the period not covered by prescription ( DATE onwards ) .","By a judgment ( no . CARDINAL ) of CARDINAL DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant company . Considering that the CARDINAL benefits could be accumulated and that the applicant company had paid the relevant dues , it ordered the ORG to pay back the misappropriated sums ( from DATE ) , with interest and subject to revaluation , and to pay its share of the costs of the proceedings .","By a judgment ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) of DATE filed in the relevant registry on DATE ORG dismissed the ORG \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .","Following the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL the ORG appealed to ORG .","The applicant company cross - appealed , arguing that the application of PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE to its case would amount to a violation of LAW and a violation of LAW in so far as it obliged the ORG to abide by LAW , a matter which had not been considered at all by ORG in its judgment of DATE .","By a judgment ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) filed in the relevant registry on CARDINAL DATE the ORG \u2019s appeal was allowed by ORG on the basis of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed on the basis that PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had an authentic interpretative nature and was therefore only apparently retroactive , it having now been given the original intended meaning of the law . Indeed , as a thorough examination of the relevant laws revealed , the benefits at issue could not be awarded cumulatively ; rather , one had to identify the most favourable benefits to a firm according to its specific position . Furthermore , the ORG had legitimate discretion to decide whether benefits could be granted cumulatively or not , thus no issue relating to a fair trial could be considered to arise . Each party was to bear its own costs for the entire proceedings .","On DATE and again on DATE the applicant company requested the ORG to return the monies which it had witheld contrary to what was provided for by law when it failed to apply the concession in its respect , for the period DATE and DATE , amounting to MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) plus interest and subject to revaluation .","The ORG \u2019s failure to reply amounting to an implicit rejection ( silenzio - rifiuto ) , on DATE the applicant company instituted an administrative procedure before the ORG . The latter again failed to reply .","Thus , on DATE the applicant company instituted judicial proceedings to recover the monies due ( as mentioned above ) for the period not covered by prescription .","By a judgment ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) of CARDINAL DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant company . Holding that the CARDINAL benefits could be accumulated and that the applicant had paid the relevant dues , it ordered the ORG to pay back the misappropriated sums ( from DATE onwards , the date on which prescription was interrupted ) , with interest and subject to revaluation , and to pay its share of the costs of the proceedings .","By a judgment ( no . CARDINAL ) of DATE filed in the relevant registry on DATE ORG dismissed the ORG \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .","Following the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE the ORG appealed to ORG .","The applicant company cross - appealed along the lines mentioned above .","By a judgment ( no . CARDINAL ) filed in the relevant registry on DATE the ORG \u2019s appeal was allowed by ORG on the basis of PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE . The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed for the same reasons outlined above . Each party was to bear its own costs for the entire proceedings .","On DATE and DATE the applicant company requested the ORG to return the monies which it had withheld contrary to what was provided for by law when it failed to apply the concession in its respect , for the period DATE and DATE , amounting to MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) plus interest and subject to revaluation .","The ORG failed to reply .","Thus , on DATE the applicant company instituted judicial proceedings to recover the monies due ( as mentioned above ) for the period not covered by prescription .","By a judgment ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) of DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant company . Considering that the CARDINAL benefits could be accumulated and that the applicant had paid the relevant dues , it ordered the ORG to pay back the misappropriated sums , with interest and revaluation ( from DATE , the date of its administrative claim , DATE ) , together with the full costs of the proceedings .","By a judgment ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) of DATE filed in the relevant registry on DATE ORG dismissed the ORG \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .","Following the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE the ORG appealed to ORG .","The applicant company cross - appealed along the lines mentioned above .","By a judgment ( no . CARDINAL ) filed in the relevant registry on DATE the ORG \u2019s appeal was allowed by ORG on the basis of PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE . The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed for the same reasons outlined above . Each party was to bear its own costs for the entire proceedings .","On DATE the applicant company requested the ORG to return the monies which it had withheld contrary to what was provided for by law when it failed to apply the concession in its respect , for the period DATE and DATE , amounting to MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) plus interest and revaluation .","The ORG \u2019s failure to reply amounting to an implicit rejection ( silenzio - rifiuto ) , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant company instituted an administrative procedure before the ORG . The latter again failed to reply .","Thus , on DATE the applicant company instituted judicial proceedings to recover the monies due ( as mentioned above ) for the period not covered by prescription ( DATE onwards ) .","By a judgment ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) of CARDINAL DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant company . Considering that the CARDINAL benefits could be accumulated and that the applicant had paid the relevant dues , it ordered the ORG to pay back the misappropriated sums , with interest and subject to revaluation ( from DATE TIME ) , and to pay its share of the costs of the proceedings .","By a judgment ( no . CARDINAL ) of DATE filed in the relevant registry on DATE ORG dismissed the ORG \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .","Following the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE the ORG appealed to ORG .","The applicant company cross - appealed along the lines mentioned above .","By a judgment ( no . CARDINAL ) filed in the relevant registry on DATE the ORG \u2019s appeal was allowed by ORG on the basis of PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE . The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed for the same reasons outlined above . Each party was to bear its own costs for the entire proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181821","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ZUBAC v. CROATIA","importance":2,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgios A. Serghides;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON ( GPE ) .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s father - in - law , Vu . PERSON , represented by his wife GPE , concluded a contract with ORG of his house in GPE for a house in GPE ( GPE ) .","Vu . PERSON died on an unknown date DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband ORG , who was a son of Vu . PERSON , represented by a certain PERSON from ORG ) , brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) against ORG \u2019s heirs and PERSON , seeking to have the contract for the exchange of the houses declared null and void and to obtain the possession of the house in GPE . PERSON was a practising lawyer in GPE .","M.Z. claimed that the contract had contained incorrect information with regard to the legal status of the house in GPE and that ORG had not had the necessary authorisation to sign such a contract . He further alleged that the contract had been signed under duress because of circumstances arising from the war in GPE . He also submitted that the difference in the values of the properties exchanged had been disproportionate in that the house in GPE was worth MONEY ( ORG ) and the house in GPE some EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL . Lastly , he stressed that it had been impossible for him to regularise his ownership of the house in GPE due to the irregularities in the contract .","NORP In his action , ORG indicated the value of the subject matter of the dispute ( vrijednost predmeta spora ) at CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) .","On DATE ORG ( hereafter : \u201c the ORG \u201d ) invited ORG to clarify the circumstances relating to his legal representation , in particular by providing a valid power of attorney , and to provide some further documents concerning his claim .","A first hearing in the case was held on DATE . At that hearing , ORG instructed ORG to provide documents attesting to his standing as heir of Vu . Z.","Further to this hearing , the parties exchanged pleadings and documentary evidence requested by ORG .","At a hearing on DATE the respondents insisted that the issue of ORG \u2019s representation by ORG needed to be clarified . The latter stated that he would no longer represent ORG , who would instruct a lawyer in GPE to represent him .","A further hearing was held on DATE . ORG was represented by GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE ( who is also representing the applicant in the current proceedings before ORG ) . At the hearing , the lawyer GPE corrected some clerical omissions in the civil action and reiterated the arguments for declaring the contract null and void as set forth in the civil action , namely that the contract had been signed under duress , that the legal status and ownership of the house in GPE had not been properly stated and that there had been a disproportionate difference in the value of the properties . In reply to a question by the trial judge concerning the validity of the power of attorney issued by Vu . PERSON to his wife GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , GPE stressed that he did not consider that power of attorney to be invalid as an original had been deposited in the relevant register . The respondents challenged the arguments advanced on behalf of ORG on the basis that there were no grounds for declaring the contract null and void .","At a hearing on DATE the lawyer GPE explained that following the termination of the hearing he would no longer represent ORG , who would in future be represented by the applicant ( his wife ) . At the same hearing , GPE submitted CARDINAL documents . In the first he requested that the validity of the power of attorney issued by Vu . PERSON to his wife GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) be examined on the grounds that there were doubts as to its authenticity . In the same document he asked that a preliminary measure ( injunction ) be issued preventing any disposal of the property in dispute . In the second document he explained that the value of the subject matter of the dispute had been set too low , and indicated the new value of the subject matter of the dispute at HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) .","At the same hearing , the respondents contested the suggestion that there was any issue with the validity of the power of attorney , pointing out that at a hearing held on DATE GPE had not challenged that validity . The respondents also opposed the request for an injunction . Finally , they objected to the change of the value of the subject matter of the dispute , arguing that it had been increased only in order to enable the claimant to lodge an appeal on points of law .","After hearing the parties\u2019 pleas , ORG questioned the respondents as witnesses . Following their questioning , at ORG \u2019s request ORG adjourned the hearing in order to obtain the original of the impugned power of attorney and reserved its decision on the request for an injunction . No decision was adopted with regard to the change of the value of the subject matter of the dispute .","On DATE ORG ordered ORG to pay court fees of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at the time ) for bringing the civil action . It assessed the fees by reference to a value of the dispute set at HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","At a hearing on DATE ORG examined the materials available in the file , following which it concluded the hearing .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed ORG \u2019s claim and the request for an injunction . It found that despite repeated attempts to summon ORG to the hearing , he had failed to appear without providing any valid reasons . Also , in the light of the parties\u2019 arguments , including on the issues regarding the power of attorney on the basis of which the contract had been concluded , it found no grounds to doubt the validity of the contract . ORG ordered that ORG was to bear all the litigation costs , including the expenses of the opposing parties , in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately LAW at the time ) . It assessed the costs of the proceedings by reference to the value of the subject matter of the dispute indicated at the hearing on DATE , namely HRK CARDINAL . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c ... [ T]he costs of the proceedings were awarded to the respondents [ and assessed ] according to ... the value of the dispute indicated by the claimant ( HRK CARDINAL NORP ( page CARDINAL [ of the case - file ] ) which this court accepted . \u201d","On DATE the first - instance court ordered ORG to pay court fees of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the judgment . It also assessed these fees by reference to a value of HRK CARDINAL for the dispute .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ; hereafter : \u201c the ORG \u201d ) dismissed an appeal by ORG and upheld the first - instance judgment . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c In view of the fact that the [ first - instance judgment ] is challenged in its entirety , thus including also the decision on the costs of the proceedings , and although the appeal is not specified in that respect , [ it is to be noted that ] the decision on the costs of the proceedings is based on the relevant law and adequate reasons are provided . \u201d","On DATE ORG lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) with ORG challenging the findings of the lower courts .","On DATE ORG died . The proceedings were taken over by his wife PERSON , the applicant , as his heir .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible ratione valoris , finding that the value of the subject matter of the dispute was below the statutory threshold of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) . It held that the applicable value of the subject matter of the dispute was that set out in the claimant \u2019s statement of claim in the civil action . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c With regard to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW if , in a situation referred to in subsection CARDINAL , it is obvious that the value of the subject matter of the dispute indicated by the claimant is too high or too low , so that an issue arises concerning jurisdiction over the subject matter , the composition of the court , the type of proceedings , the right to lodge an appeal on points of law , the authorisation for representation or the costs of proceedings , the court shall , ex officio or upon the objection of the respondent , by the latest at the preparatory hearing or , if no preparatory hearing has been held , at the first session of the main hearing before the respondent has begun litigation on the merits of the case , quickly and in an appropriate manner verify the accuracy of the value specified and , by a decision against which no separate appeal is allowed , determine the value of the subject matter of the dispute .","It follows that when an action does not concern a sum of money the claimant is obliged to indicate the relevant value of the subject matter of the dispute in the civil action , after which the claimant is not allowed to change the [ indicated ] value of the dispute . Only a court may set the value of the subject matter of the dispute , ex officio or if an objection is raised by the respondent , if it establishes that the value indicated in the civil action is too high or too low , by the latest at the preparatory hearing or , if no preparatory hearing has been held , at the main hearing before the examination of the merits .","In the present case the value of the subject matter of the dispute indicated in the statement of claim is CARDINAL NORP kunas .","Later on , at the hearing of DATE , the claimant \u2019s representative indicated the value of the subject matter of the dispute at CARDINAL NORP kunas considering that it had been indicated too low in the civil action . However , the claimant did not amend the claim at the same time . The first - instance court did not adopt a decision on a new value for the dispute because the procedural requirements under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the CPA [ LAW ] were not met .","It follows that the relevant value of the subject matter of the dispute is the one indicated by the claimant in the civil action , namely CARDINAL NORP kunas , because the claimant was not allowed to change the indicated value if he did not amend his claim at the same time . \u201d","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG summarily declared a constitutional complaint by the applicant , complaining , inter alia , of a lack of access to ORG , inadmissible on the grounds that the case raised no constitutional issues . On DATE it served its decision on the applicant \u2019s representative ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161741","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF A, B AND C v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE , the second applicant in DATE , and the third applicant in DATE . They are female and reside in GPE .","The relevant facts of the case as submitted by the parties and emerging from the documents furnished to the ORG may be summarised as follows .","From a young age the applicants trained in modern pentathlon . In DATE they enrolled in a ORG sports school in GPE .","According to their submission , the first and third applicants commenced training with the sports school \u2019s coach ORG in DATE and the second applicant was coached by him during DATE .","NORP In addition to the above - mentioned training , ORG organised sports DATE camps on the school \u2019s campus , which the first and third applicants attended in DATE and all the applicants attended in DATE .","At the time of the events in issue , the applicants were DATE .","On DATE the mother of the first and second applicants submitted a complaint to the ORG police alleging that the coach , ORG , had sexually abused her daughters .","DATE the police opened a criminal investigation under section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) ( sexual abuse ( pave\u0161ana netikl\u012bb\u0101 ) ) with respect to the period DATE and DATE .","In the course of investigation the police took statements from various individuals , including the applicants and their parents , and ORG \u2019s former students and their parents .","On DATE the mother stated that she had learnt from her daughters that ORG had requested that after training they attend the sauna fully undressed . The coach had explained that wearing clothes was unhealthy . The second applicant had refused . However , other girls between DATE , including the first applicant , had attended the sauna naked . The mother named the girls who had attended the sauna naked .","On CARDINAL occasion when the second applicant had been in the sauna CARDINAL - undressed , ORG had entered the sauna and had told her that she was still little , thereby embarrassing her .","On another occasion , after the sauna ORG had massaged the first applicant while touching her intimate body parts .","He had furthermore watched the girls changing and had touched their intimate body parts .","The first and second applicants\u2019 mother submitted with regard to the third applicant that she had travelled with ORG to a competition in GPE , where he had pressurised her to share the same bed . The third applicant however had refused .","On DATE and DATE the police took statements from the CARDINAL applicants , who were granted the status of injured parties in the proceedings . The police took an additional statement from the third applicant on DATE and from the second applicant on DATE .","The applicants stated that the sauna sessions took place after training around twice a week . The second applicant had attended the sauna only twice .","Having arrived for the sauna , the first and second applicants had seen the other girls undressing fully . The other girls had told that it had been ORG \u2019s request that the sauna be attended naked . ORG had said that it was very healthy to attend the sauna in that way .","At the beginning , the first applicant had felt shy . Yet , as she had seen the other girls attending the sauna naked , she had started doing so . For the same reason , the third applicant had also started going to the sauna naked .","The second applicant had removed only the top part of her swimsuit and had entered the sauna . Suddenly ORG , wearing shorts and a cap , had entered , which had startled the second applicant . She therefore had covered herself with her hands , to which ORG had reacted by telling the other girls to look at how little she still was and saying that the other girls were already grown up and therefore naked . The second time , she had attended the sauna wrapped in a towel .","According to the ORG account , even though girls had been in the sauna naked , O.B. \u2013 dressed in DATE had come in and massaged them using a special bath brush ( a birch \u201c besom \u201d for a steam bath , used to swat or massage the body during a steam - bath procedure ) . Although the second applicant had refused that massage , she had witnessed ORG asking the other girls to lie on their back and then massaging them . The second applicant had seen ORG telling the third applicant to go to the sauna , and that he would come to massage her . The third applicant had listened to him . The second applicant stated as follows :","\u201c ... when [ O.B. ] was massaging [ the girls ] in the sauna , he did not touch [ their ] intimate body parts , [ he ] touched [ their ] bodies only with the bath brush , [ he ] did not touch [ them ] with [ his ] hands . \u201d","The second applicant had told the other girls that the abovementioned practice was not normal . However , they had responded that , as it had been requested by the coach , it had to be complied with . The first and third applicants stated that ORG had been their trainer and teacher , whom they had to obey . The second applicant , however , considered that there had been a possibility to refuse . To her mind the other girls had attended the sauna as they had not wished to disobey O.B. They had practically worshipped him , and had listened to everything he said .","From the documents furnished to the ORG it appears that the applicants gave the police the names of the other girls who had attended the sauna , PERSON , A.B. DATE who appears to have been a relative of O.B. \u2013 and V.A. The third applicant indicated that V.A. had rarely been to the sauna . According to the second applicant \u2019s account , there had been another girl , GPE","The first applicant also recounted an occasion when she had experienced pain in her leg . ORG had told her that he would give a massage and after the sauna had laid her on a bed and massaged her while she had been wearing only underpants . ORG had touched the lower part of her stomach .","The applicants stated that there had been times when ORG had entered the ORG changing room as if looking for someone . When passing by them he had DATE as if accidently \u2013 touched the ORG intimate body parts . The second applicant stated that he had also tried to touch her , which she had prevented .","The first applicant stated that she had heard that in DATE the third applicant and some boys had travelled with ORG to a competition in GPE . There he had told the third applicant that she would sleep with him in the same bed . The third applicant had gone to a separate bed to sleep and ORG , while drunk , had entered the room and had pulled at the children \u2019s legs , including those of the third applicant .","The third applicant also gave evidence regarding the trip to GPE with ORG and the other CARDINAL boys , whose names she provided .","At a hotel ORG had told her that she would sleep with him in the same bed . She had spoken to CARDINAL of the boys and had taken CARDINAL of the single beds . At TIME had returned to the hotel room drunk . After some time he had gone to sleep . The third applicant had felt afraid that ORG might do something bad to her .","During DATE of the competition , ORG had consumed alcohol , even though he had also been driving a vehicle .","In DATE and DATE the police ordered a psychologist \u2019s report regarding the applicants .","During the psychologist \u2019s examination the first applicant commented that she had been surprised that the sauna had to be attended and that girls had attended it naked and that ORG would enter and massage them with a besom , which had not seemed normal and had been unpleasant . However , the first applicant had felt afraid to tell her parents . ORG had often touched her body , putting his arm around her waist , sitting her on his lap and hugging her , and also during massages . On CARDINAL occasion during a massage he had touched her between her legs . The first applicant had been confused as to whether the coach \u2019s behaviour had been normal or bad . She had not wished to tell ORG anything bad as he had helped her a lot . However , at the workplace he had almost always been under the influence of alcohol . When any of the girls had not wished to sit on his lap , he would use force to pull them down .","The second applicant likewise told the psychologist that she had been very surprised about all the girls attending the sauna naked and O.B. entering and massaging them with a besom . She had tried to persuade the girls that it was not normal and had gone to the sauna dressed in a swimsuit . ORG had ridiculed her about it in front of the other girls , saying that she was so shy because she was little . Also , the coach had always been trying to touch her , and to put his arm around her waist . It had been unpleasant and she had tried to avoid him . The second applicant had gone to the sauna twice . She had gradually started telling her parents about ORG \u2019s behaviour .","The third applicant did not wish to speak about the events in issue . Thoughts about O.B. \u2019s behaviour caused negative emotions in her and she was trying to forget it . She confirmed her earlier testimonies . The psychologist noted her statements to the police of DATE and DATE . Concerning the sauna sessions , the third applicant had not found it normal that the sauna needed to be attended naked . However , she had started doing the same as the other students . The report referred to the applicant \u2019s character report from her previous school , which stated that on DATE the applicant had been observed in a tense condition , unwilling to participate in extracurricular activities , in low spirits and suffering from loss of concentration . Suddenly in the DATE she had decided to change school .","According to the psychologist \u2019s report , the CARDINAL applicants had been able to understand the nature and meaning of actions directed towards them .","However , the first applicant \u2019s ability to object could have been diminished due to personality traits such as a difficulty in saying \u201c no \u201d and in objecting , especially to older persons , and the wish to avoid conflict situations and to maintain a friendly relationship with everyone . The third applicant \u2019s ability to resist could have been diminished by personality traits such as a difficulty in expressing her own opinion where it contradicted the expectations of others , in assessing her own attitude and feelings with regard to events , judging what is right and what is not , an insecurity in communication , and the wish to avoid conflict situations and to maintain a friendly relationship with everyone . With regard to the second applicant , the psychologist \u2019s report stated that she had been able to exhibit resistance appropriate to the situation .","The report noted that the events in issue had caused the first applicant unpleasant feelings , insecurity , and anger and had made her distrustful in her communication with other coaches and with older men . With regard to the second applicant the report stated that she had retained anger , and had felt offended and guilty . The third applicant had been in low spirits , unable to concentrate , tense , and unwilling to participate in extracurricular activities , but this had lessened over time . She had felt offended . She still retained shame , anger , unpleasant thoughts and memories about the coach \u2019s conduct .","The report concluded that the alleged conduct of the coach had not caused the applicants to suffer psychological trauma . Owing to their psychological condition , however , the applicants\u2019 participation in a trial or confrontation was not recommended .","On DATE the police apprehended and questioned ORG as a suspect .","According to ORG , girls had entered the sauna either wrapped in towels or wearing swimsuits . He had not entered the sauna with naked girls . They had exited the sauna dressed . ORG would ask a particular child whether they required a massage . If the child responded in affirmative he would enter the sauna and massage the child with a besom .","In the sauna ORG had massaged the first and third applicants at their request . He continued that during the massage they had been fully naked . No complaints however had been made . He had massaged by first lifting up CARDINAL or both legs and massaging them and had then moved on to massage their arms . He had not touched the ORG intimate body parts . He had known that touching breasts during massage was unhealthy . He had not known how it had come about that girls had been in the sauna naked . He had not told them that they needed to attend the sauna in that way .","O.B. stated that in DATE he had massaged the first applicant on her hip muscle . It had been hurting and she had asked him to massage it .","On DATE the police released ORG subject to his not changing his place of residence and complying with a prohibition on approaching the applicants or the sports school .","DATE . On DATE the mother of the third applicant gave evidence . In DATE her daughter had told her that girls attended the sauna naked together with ORG , who himself had been dressed in shorts . She had also mentioned a trip to GPE during which ORG had touched her leg and she had run into the bathroom .","Of the other students mentioned by the applicants , it appears that the police interviewed V.A. on DATE and her mother on DATE . Also , GPE \u2019s statement was taken on CARDINAL DATE and her mother \u2019s had been taken on DATE .","NORP In particular , V.A. stated that she did not like the sauna . She had attended it only twice . Girls had attended the sauna naked and ORG had massaged them . She had had good relations with ORG According to ORG mother , V.A. did not like the sauna in principle and it was unlikely that she had often attended it .","According to GPE \u2019s account of events , she had trained with ORG until DATE . He had been a good coach ( the copy of GPE \u2019s statement furnished to ORG in some parts was illegible ) . At a sports camp in DATE her mother had gone into the sauna together with the girls . GPE had told her that , as a sports doctor , ORG would usually massage them . The mother had asked her : \u201c ... but how , naked ? \u201d Her daughter had replied that they would cover their bodies up with towels . Therefore the mother had understood that ORG had not massaged them naked .","With regard to the other students referred to by the applicants , the police interviewed the mother of PERSON on DATE . The latter stated that her daughter had not paid any attention to attending the sauna naked as she had trained with ORG from a young age . She had seen the other girls undressing for the sauna and had followed their example . PERSON had stated that the coach had not harassed them . In the view of PERSON \u2019s mother , ORG should not have allowed the girls to attend the sauna undressed and should have informed the parents . She stated that she would allow PERSON to be questioned only on a prosecutor \u2019s authorisation .","On DATE , the police questioned PERSON \u2013 who had been referred to by the first and second ORG mother DATE and PERSON \u2019s mother . PERSON had trained with ORG DATE . From a copy of PERSON \u2019s statement furnished to ORG it appears that she stated :","\u201c ... at the beginning [ students ] were going to the sauna in swimsuits , but [ ORG ] said that [ they ] should not be shy and should attend the sauna without swimsuits in order for the body to relax fully . [ PERSON ] had started to take massages naked , as had the other girls . \u201d","PERSON had not found it inappropriate , because the coach had entered the sauna only in order to demonstrate how to massage using a besom . Neither PERSON nor her mother had any complaints to lodge against him .","DATE the police also took other statements .","It emerges that the police interviewed a parent of CARDINAL of ORG \u2019s students at the time of the investigation ; specifically , on DATE they questioned PERSON , whose son , PERSON , trained with ORG He did not have any complaints concerning the coach and did not know any details about the situation in issue .","The police also questioned numerous former students of the coach . On DATE PERSON gave evidence that she had been coached by PERSON until DATE . She described him positively . With regard to ORG \u2019s massaging naked girls in the sauna , she believed that he had done it through ignorance or a lack of understanding about the situation . But at the same time , he had done it in order to prepare aspiring athletes . She did not believe that he had had a sexual purpose . Parents of ORG \u2019s former students , ORG , and ORG , and also N.I. \u2013 who had herself trained with ORG DATE described ORG as a very good coach . ORG had learnt from her son that boys had taken sauna massages wearing swimming trunks . CARDINAL other former students of ORG , DATE coached DATE and PERSON , described ORG as a very good coach .","On DATE the doctor GPE submitted evidence that the sauna was one of the most important renewal procedures after training . However , if a male was present in the sauna together with girls , it was recommended that they all wear swimwear .","On DATE the investigator , PERSON , terminated the investigation .","In her decision PERSON cited the evidence collected . She concluded that the investigation had revealed that the sauna sessions had been voluntary . Girls had attended the sauna fully undressed , either on their own initiative or because that had been the practice by others . As explained by ORG , sauna sessions were healthy and necessary after training . He had massaged students at their request . During massages they had been undressed but ORG had had no interest in the girls . He had merely assisted with the massages .","T.M. could not establish that ORG had acted with a sexual purpose , an element required under LAW ( sexual abuse ) . For that reason and referring to the principle of in dubio pro reo PERSON closed the investigation against ORG for the lack of elements of crime .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 parents appealed to the prosecutor \u2019s office against the termination decision . In DATE they supplemented the appeal .","They claimed that the ORG allegations had been ignored . The first applicant had indicated that ORG had touched her intimate body parts ; according to the second applicant , ORG had ridiculed her in front of the other girls with regard to undressing in sauna ; and the third applicant had recounted her experience in GPE . The allegation that ORG had entered the changing rooms had not been addressed .","Contrary to the GPE request , the students who had travelled to GPE together with ORG and the third applicant had not been questioned . The statements of children present in the sauna had not been taken .","The parents contended that their reference to a recognised trainer who maintained that sauna sessions harmed the health of athletes under DATE had been neglected . They named a witness in that regard and asked that a statement be taken from him . They also requested that the first applicant \u2019s current coach and the school psychologist be interviewed .","They furnished the report by the psychologist , GPE , to the effect that the first and second applicants had suffered psychological trauma . The appeal therefore sought the commissioning of another expert report .","On DATE the prosecutor PERSON dismissed the appeal .","DATE . She reasoned that the applicants had been questioned thoroughly . CARDINAL of O.B. \u2019s former students , and their parents had been interviewed , as had CARDINAL further witnesses as regards the usefulness of sauna .","Endorsing the investigator \u2019s conclusion , ORG stated that the investigation had not shown that ORG had acted with a sexual purpose . All the witnesses had stated that ORG had never touched students\u2019 naked body parts other than with a besom and when massaging parts causing pain . Accordingly , the elements of crime under section CARDINAL of LAW ( sexual abuse ) were not present . Nor could the elements under section CARDINAL of the PERSON ( cruelty and violence against a minor ) be identified . None of ORG \u2019s students had stated that ORG had treated his students in a cruel or violent way . The phrase he had used [ with regard to the second applicant ] had not reached that threshold .","I.G. dismissed the GPE requests that further evidence be collected . Likewise , the report of the psychologist , GPE concerning the first and second applicants could not be included in the investigation file as it had already been closed .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 parents appealed against the aforementioned decision to a higher prosecutor . In DATE they supplemented the appeal .","They disputed the conclusion that the element of a sexual purpose had not been present . In particular , they noted that according to the first applicant ORG had touched the lower part of her stomach , the area between her legs , and her breasts during massages . The second applicant had told of ORG ridiculing her in front of the other girls regarding undressing for the sauna . The third applicant \u2019s account regarding the events in GPE had been ignored and other students who had been present on the trip to GPE had not been interviewed . No consideration had been given to the allegation of ORG entering changing rooms and , as if by accident , touching ORG breasts .","The appeal referred to the report by the psychologist , GPE , stating that the first applicant exhibited symptoms associated with violence or serious psychological trauma .","On DATE the higher prosecutor , PERSON , dismissed the appeal .","He endorsed the findings of the lower prosecutor , including the view that ORG had regarded sauna sessions as beneficial to athletes\u2019 health and had offered them to his students for this reason . Attendance of the sauna had been voluntary . Students had been naked because that had been the practice of the other students . Sometimes ORG had entered the sauna but in order to perform massages only .","DATE . With regard to the episode in GPE , PERSON deemed that the third applicant \u2019s allegation had not in itself revealed that a crime had been committed and statements from students present were therefore unnecessary . The investigation had been thorough and no further investigative actions were required .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 parents lodged an appeal against the aforementioned decision to the chief prosecutor , ORG","They maintained their previous requests and arguments , including the contention that the girls had attended the sauna naked because ORG , using his coach \u2019s authority , had convinced them that wearing swimsuits was harmful to health . Initially all the applicants had been wearing swimsuits but the other girls had told them that ORG had insisted on their being undressed .","No regard therefore had been given to the claim that the first and third applicants had undressed due to pressure from ORG","That aspect and the reasons which had led children to undress for the sauna had not been investigated . Even though the testimonies of other parents stated that their children had also attended the sauna naked , these children had not been interviewed .","Furthermore , according to boys coached by ORG they had not been asked to attend the sauna undressed , which , in the GPE submission , signalled that ORG had been interested in naked girls . None of the other coaches at the sports school had massaged their students in the sauna , especially not naked . Moreover , ORG had been in the habit of entering the sauna without the applicants\u2019 permission .","The parents further argued that the lower prosecutor had referred to the allegation that during a massage ORG had touched the first applicant between her legs without specifying further detail , even though the first applicant had specifically stated that the coach had touched her intimate body parts . The first applicant had spoken about it to the psychologist , who had affirmed that she had been speaking the truth .","On DATE the chief prosecutor , ORG , dismissed the appeal and affirmed the closure of investigation .","V.O. endorsed the lower prosecutor \u2019s findings . With regard to the GPE request for the hearing of further witnesses , ORG stated as follows :","\u201c [ NORP having assessed [ the applicants\u2019 ] testimonies in that part , no grounds exist to conclude that a crime has been committed . Moreover , in these testimonies [ the applicants ] gave no evidence on the circumstances mentioned in the appeal in question . \u201d","No appeal lay against the aforementioned decision .","On DATE the mother of the first and second applicants , arguing that the report by the psychologist , GPE , constituted newly discovered facts , asked the State police to reopen the investigation . She stated that GPE had concluded that the first applicant had suffered psychological trauma .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE that request was dismissed .","On DATE the mother of the third applicant , arguing that the report of the psychologist , GPE , constituted newly discovered facts , asked the police to reopen the investigation . According to GPE \u2019s report , the third applicant exhibited possible post - traumatic stress symptoms .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE that request was dismissed .","In the meantime , on DATE a compensation claim against ORG was lodged on behalf of the applicants before FAC ( PERSON pils\u0113tas ORG priek\u0161pils\u0113tas tiesa ) .","Relying on DATE ( PERSON ) ( right to compensation ) and section CARDINAL of LAW ( Civillikums ) ( right to compensation ) , it was requested that ORG pay compensation of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) ( roughly corresponding to MONEY ( ORG ) ) with regard to the first and the third applicants and ORG CARDINAL ( roughly corresponding to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) with regard to the second applicant .","On DATE ORG delivered its judgment .","According to ORG , it was not disputed that the first and third applicants had started to train with ORG in DATE and the second applicant in DATE ( sic ) . The first and second applicants had trained with him until DATE and the third applicant until DATE .","It was established that ORG had recommended sauna sessions to his students . It was not , however , established that ORG had psychologically influenced the applicants with regard to attending the sauna . At the same time , ORG continued , it was not proved that the sauna sessions had been necessary in order to achieve good results in sports without harming health . They had not been included in the training programme . It was not proved that either the applicants or their parents had consented to the coach \u2019s presence in the sauna together with naked girls . The applicants had been minors and therefore unable to fully understand or assess the situation . They had trusted and obeyed a person of the age of majority and could not have fully protected themselves against interference with their privacy .","According to generally accepted ethical norms , it was not a tradition in the society of the region to appear naked DATE even in the sauna \u2013 in front of the opposite sex . Massaging naked girls with a besom had been unethical and in contravention of general moral principles , as had been the suggestion to a girl under the age of eighteen to sleep with the coach in the same bed . ORG found that these actions on part of ORG had violated the applicants\u2019 right to privacy .","Noting , inter alia , that none of the applicants had been caused grievous or irreversible consequences , ORG ordered that ORG pay ORG CARDINAL ( roughly corresponding to ORG CARDINAL ) each to the first and third applicants and LVL CARDINAL ( roughly corresponding to ORG CARDINAL ) to the second applicant .","As submitted by the ORG and not disputed by the applicants , on DATE ORG lodged an appeal against the aforementioned judgment before ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) . No appeal , however , was lodged by the applicants .","On DATE ORG withdrew his appeal . On DATE the appeal proceedings were discontinued and the judgment of ORG became final on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161808","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ALI\u00c7KA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Kristina Pardalos;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["On CARDINAL DATE ORG recognised , amongst others , the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights over an agricultural land measuring QUANTITY m. The applicants and other heirs would be awarded compensation in the sum of CARDINAL NORP leks ( \u201c ALL \u201d ) in respect of the entire land .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE the ORG recognised , amongst others , the applicant \u2019s inherited property rights over some land measuring CARDINAL sq . m of which QUANTITY . m were restored . Since the remaining plot measuring QUANTITY . m , which was situated within the village boundaries and used to be arable land , was occupied , the applicant and other heirs would be compensated in ORG bonds in the event the buildings located on the land were not privatised ( \u201c u kompensohet me obligacion shtet\u00ebror sip\u00ebrfaqja QUANTITY tok\u00eb ar\u00eb , brenda vijave kufizuese PERSON , n\u00eb rast se objektet ( ... ) nuk do t\u00eb privatizohen \u201d ) . The Commission stated that the applicant owned CARDINAL of the land .","On DATE the ORG recognised , amongst others , the applicant \u2019s inherited property rights over another plot of arable land and meadow measuring CARDINAL sq . m. Since the arable land and meadow were occupied , the applicant would be compensated in ORG bonds equivalent to a financial amount of ALL CARDINAL .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE ORG recognised , amongst others , the applicant \u2019s inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m of which QUANTITY . m were restored . Since the remaining plot measuring QUANTITY m was occupied , the applicant and other heirs would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided by law .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE ORG recognised , amongst others , the applicant \u2019s inherited property rights over CARDINAL plots of land totalling CARDINAL sq . QUANTITY Since the plots of land were occupied , the applicant and other heirs would be compensated in kind in respect of a plot measuring QUANTITY . m and in ORG bonds in respect of another plot measuring CARDINAL sq . m. No decision was taken in respect of any right to compensation as regards the remaining plot measuring QUANTITY m.","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights over an agricultural land measuring QUANTITY . m. The applicants would be awarded compensation by way of ORG bonds in the sum of ALL CARDINAL .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m of which QUANTITY m were restored . Since the remaining plot was occupied , the applicant would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided by law .","On DATE the Agency on ORG and Compensation of Properties amended in part the ORG decision and decided that the applicant would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided by law even in respect of the plot of land measuring QUANTITY m.","To date , no compensation has been paid ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145235","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ANEMA-KWINKELENBERG AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["A list of applicants is set out in the appendix . The applicants were represented by Mr G.J.H. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ( hereafter also : the applicants\u2019 representative ) .","NORP Before the events complained of , the applicants variously held shares or subordinated bonds ( the latter under diverse designations ) issued by ORG , a public limited company ( naamloze vennootschap , \u201c GPE \u201d ) incorporated under GPE law , or CARDINAL or more of its subsidiaries . The events complained of , which concern the expropriation of those shares and subordinated bonds , are set out in PERSON and Others against the GPE and CARDINAL other applications DATE ) , no . DATE , DATE . Appeals against the expropriation decision were dismissed by ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . Proceedings relating to compensation are currently pending before ORG ( PERSON ) .","B. Relevant Court procedure","The Rules of Court","At the time of the proceedings in issue , ORG , as pertinent , provided as follows ( footnotes omitted ) :","Rule DATE Representation of applicants","\u201c CARDINAL . Persons , non - governmental organisations or groups of individuals may initially present applications under LAW themselves or through a representative . ... \u201d","Rule CARDINALA \u2013 Duty to cooperate with the ORG","\u201c The parties have a duty to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings and , in particular , to take such action within their power as the ORG considers necessary for the proper administration of justice . This duty shall also apply to a ORG not party to the proceedings where such cooperation is necessary . \u201d","Rule DATE Signatures","\u201c CARDINAL . Any application made under ORG CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the Convention shall be submitted in writing and shall be signed by the applicant or by the ORG representative .","Where an application is made by a non - governmental organisation or by a group of individuals , it shall be signed by those persons competent to represent that organisation or group . ORG concerned shall determine any question as to whether the persons who have signed an application are competent to do so .","Where applicants are represented in accordance with Rule CARDINAL , a power of attorney or written authority to act shall be supplied by their representative or representatives . \u201d","Rule DATE Contents of an individual application","\u201c CARDINAL . Any application under LAW shall be made on the application form provided by ORG , unless the President of the Section concerned decides otherwise . It shall set out","( a ) the name , date of birth , nationality , sex , occupation and address of the applicant ;","...","and be accompanied by","( h ) copies of any relevant documents and in particular the decisions , whether judicial or not , relating to the object of the application .","...","Failure to comply with the requirements set out in DATE and QUANTITY of this Rule may result in the application not being examined by the ORG .","The date of introduction of the application for the purposes of LAW shall as a general rule be considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out , even summarily , the subject matter of the application , provided that a duly completed application form has been submitted within the time - limits laid down by the ORG . The ORG may for good cause nevertheless decide that a different date shall be considered to be the date of introduction . ... \u201d","The Practice direction on the institution of proceedings","Clarification of the above Rules , among others , was provided by a Practice direction on the institution of proceedings issued by the President of the ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG . At the time of the proceedings here in issue , it read as follows , in its relevant parts and in the redaction in force since DATE ( footnote omitted ) :","\u201c CARDINAL . If an application has not been submitted on the official form or an introductory letter does not contain all the information referred to in Rule CARDINAL , the applicant may be required to submit a duly completed form . It must be despatched within DATE from DATE letter requesting the applicant to complete and return the form .","Failure to comply with this time - limit will have implications for the date of introduction of the application and may therefore affect the applicant \u2019s compliance with the DATE rule contained in LAW .","Applicants may file an application by sending it by fax . However , they must despatch the signed original by post within DATE from DATE letter referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above .","...","On receipt of the first communication setting out the subject - matter of the case , the ORG will open a file , whose number must be mentioned in all subsequent correspondence . Applicants will be informed thereof by letter . They may also be asked for further information or documents .","...","Failure to provide further information or documents at the ORG \u2019s request ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) may result in the application not being examined by the ORG or being declared inadmissible or struck out of the ORG \u2019s list of cases . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169468","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF S.C. FIERCOLECT IMPEX S.R.L. v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Iulia Motoc;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant , ORG , was a NORP limited liability company , with a registered office in ORG .","On DATE ORG issued the applicant company with an operating permit , which was valid until DATE . The applicant company was required to apply for an extension of the permit if the initial conditions of operation did not change . Its main activity consisted in collecting and recycling scrap iron .","Under LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) an application for extension of the operating permit had to be submitted DATE prior to the expiry of the previous permit . As the applicant company \u2019s permit was due to expire on DATE , on DATE it applied for an extension of the existing permit .","NORP The applicant company also applied to ORG ( \u201c REA \u201d ) for an environmental permit , which according to the law had to accompany the application for extension of the operating permit .","NORP REA registered the applicant company \u2019s application but refused to accept the accompanying documents on the grounds that on DATE a new order providing for the authorisation of activities with a significant impact on the environment had been adopted and the guidelines for implementing the new order had not yet been published .","The relevant guidelines were published on DATE .","In a letter of DATE , ORG informed the applicant company that under the new Order no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , its activity was considered to have a significant impact on the environment and that it should therefore follow the authorisation procedure set out in that order . The applicant company was invited to submit new supporting documents within DATE .","The applicant company submitted the requested documents on DATE .","A new environmental permit was issued on DATE . On DATE the prefecture issued a new operating permit .","DATE and DATE the applicant company continued to carry out its activity .","Following an inspection carried out at the applicant company \u2019s headquarters , on DATE ORG ( PERSON ) fined the company ORG ( MONEY ) and ordered the confiscation of ROL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , representing the market value of the scrap iron collected for recycling DATE and DATE . The finance inspectorate based its decision ( proces - verbal de constatare \u015fi sanc\u0163ionare a contraven\u0163iilor ) against the applicant company on LAW ( a ) of Emergency Government Ordinance no . ORG .","The applicant company lodged a complaint against the decision of ORG , claiming that the competent authorities were responsible for the delay in issuing the operation permit . In this connection , it argued that the application for an extension of the operating permit had been lodged in good time , namely on DATE .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the complaint as unfounded . It noted that the decision of DATE was in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . It also noted that the applicant company had continued to carry out its activity despite the fact that its operating permit had expired on DATE ; it had therefore infringed LAW in conjunction with LAW ( a ) of Emergency Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The court dismissed the applicant company \u2019s claim that liability for its situation lay with the authorities for failing to issue its environmental and operating permits in time , holding that such a claim would be relevant only within the framework of a tort action and could not be raised as a reason for exonerating a company that had committed an administrative offence .","The applicant company appealed . On DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal , upholding the decision of the firstinstance court on the same grounds .","The applicant company brought administrative proceedings against ORG , seeking to recover the damages incurred as a result of the late issuing of the environmental permit . It based its action on PERSON no . MONEY . It claimed that because of the amendment to the legislation concerning the procedure for issuing permits , the competent authority had not issued its permit in due time . It pointed out that even after the publication of the guidelines for the application of the new order on DATE , ORG had not acted effectively , as it had not written to the applicant company until DATE . Moreover , ORG had interpreted the applicant company \u2019s application as a request for a new permit instead of for an extension of the existing permits , given that the operation conditions had not changed . That had further delayed the authorisation procedure .","On DATE ORG dismissed the action as premature , holding that the applicant company had not followed the prior procedure required by law before lodging an action with the court .","NORP The applicant company lodged an appeal , claiming that the dismissal of its action as premature had been unjustified given that the defendant agency had already submitted its observations on the merits .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant company \u2019s appeal . It quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court for examination on the merits .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s action . It held that the applicant company had not complied with the obligation to lodge an application for a new environmental permit DATE prior to the expiry of the existing permit , as provided for by LAW new order regulating the procedure for obtaining an environmental permit , namely Order no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . It noted that the previous order , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , had provided only for the obligation to obtain an environmental permit , without establishing the procedure to be followed in that respect . It concluded that the competent agency had issued the environmental permit within the ninetyday deadline provided for by the new order and could not therefore be held liable for the damages incurred by the applicant company .","The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law , pointing out that on DATE when it had lodged its application for an extension of the operating permit , the guidelines for implementation of the new order had not yet been published . It also claimed that it had been unable to apply for a new permit DATE prior to the expiry of its existing environmental permit on DATE , as the new order had entered into force on DATE and the relevant guidelines had not been published until DATE . The applicant company also complained that the first - instance court had interpreted LAW no . ORG to mean that the administrative authority had the option of extending the existing permit if the operating conditions had not changed , instead of an obligation to extend the permit . In this connection , the applicant company pointed out that , like the previous order , the new order provided for the ope legis extension of an existing permit for DATE if the company \u2019s operating conditions had not changed . It also pointed out that at the time of lodging its application for a new permit on DATE , the applicable law was Order no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which provided for a time - limit of DATE for the issuance or renewal of an operating permit .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s appeal on points of law , upholding the firstinstance judgment . It held that the law applicable to the applicant company was Order no . ORG , which had entered in force before the expiry of the applicant company \u2019s environmental permit . It concluded that even assuming that the administrative authorities were liable for non - compliance with the applicable legislation , the applicant company had had no right to continue an illicit activity in the absence of the authorisation required by law . The applicant company should have suspended its activity until it had obtained the necessary permits and should then have brought proceedings seeking to recover any damages \u2013 as long as it could prove the existence and extent of such damages .","Following a request lodged by the sole shareholder of the applicant company on DATE , ORG took note of the voluntary dissolution of the company .","In DATE , before the ORG had communicated the applicant company \u2019s complaints to the respondent Government , the administrator and sole shareholder , PERSON , informed ORG dissolution on DATE and his intention to continue the procedure initiated before the ORG by the applicant company ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162480","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"CHIRIAC v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicant was allowed to represent herself in the proceedings before the ORG .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , CARDINAL individuals , CARDINAL of whom was the applicant \u2019s brother , were taken to an Ia\u015fi Police station charged with disturbance of public order due to drunken behaviour . Following a call from her brother , the applicant went to the same police station in her capacity as a lawyer in order to represent the CARDINAL aforementioned individuals .","On DATE a local newspaper published an article entitled \u201c Big row in the middle of the night between a lawyer and police officers from Station II \u201d ( Mare t\u0103r\u0103boi \u00een miez de noapte \u00eentre un avocat \u015fi poli\u0163i\u015ftii de la Sec\u0163ia II ) . The article related the events of DATE . It included the following quote from the deputy to the head of the police station : \u201c ... both the lawyer and her client were under the influence of alcohol and caused a furore in the police station \u201d .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint of defamation against the journalist who had written the article and the police officer who had been quoted in it . She argued that as a result of the publication of the article , including the allegation that she had been under the influence of alcohol , her reputation had been damaged . Several clients had rescinded their representation agreements with her and her family had been negatively affected subsequent to the publication of the article . On DATE the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party claiming CARDINAL in compensation .","On DATE ORG sent the file to the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to it , instructing the prosecuting authorities to examine the applicant \u2019s complaint under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Law No . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint in respect of the police officer for lack of sufficient evidence that he had made defamatory statements and in respect of the journalist on the grounds that he had not acted with the intention to defame . The prosecutor based his decision on LAW ( a ) of LAW .","The prosecutor noted that on TIME of DATE the journalist had had a private conversation with police officer ORG but that , according to a few witnesses who had been present , ORG had refused to give any details about the incident of DATE and had invited the journalist to seek the information from the officer tasked with providing information to the press . The prosecutor noted that the versions of the CARDINAL defendants concerning the journalist \u2019s source for his article of DATE differed . While the journalist contended that police officer ORG had given him information concerning the applicant \u2019s alcoholic intoxication on TIME of CARDINAL April CARDINAL , officer ORG denied it .","On DATE the chief prosecutor upheld his decision .","The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG against the prosecutor \u2019s decision not to open a criminal investigation . She contended that the circumstances of the incident of DATE had not been accurately reflected by the prosecutor in his decision . She maintained that on TIME of the incident she had complained to the prosecutor in charge about the abusive behaviour of the police officers towards her and the CARDINAL individuals who had been handcuffed and taken to the police station ( CARDINAL of whom was her brother ) and that a criminal investigation had been opened in this connection .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law and remitted the case for further investigation to the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG . The court reasoned that the applicant \u2019s complaint had been dealt with superficially and that the investigation should have addressed the crime of defamation of a lawyer , as provided for under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint , basing its decision on LAW ( a ) of LAW . It concluded that police officer ORG had not made any defamatory statements about the applicant and that the journalist had written the article on the basis of a report drawn up by the police on TIME DATE without the intent to defame the applicant .","On DATE the chief prosecutor upheld that decision .","On DATE ORG allowed an appeal lodged by the applicant against the prosecutor \u2019s decisions . It quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decision on the grounds that the applicant \u2019s complaint should have been examined in the light of LAW and sent the case - file back to the prosecutor \u2019s office for a fresh examination .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint .","The applicant challenged the prosecutor \u2019s decision before the courts .","An appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant was finally dismissed by ORG and ORG on DATE . The court upheld the reasoning of the lower courts that the offence did not fall under the provisions of LAW , as the acts complained of had not occurred during the exercise of the applicant \u2019s duties . Furthermore , the High ORG and ORG held that although the acts complained of may have fallen under the provisions of the LAW regarding defamation , those charged with such acts could no longer be prosecuted because DATE defamation had been decriminalised . The defendants were therefore able to benefit from the application of the more favourable law . No reference was made to the civil action lodged by the applicant .","Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( ORG ) , as in force at the time of the events , read as follows :","\u201c Anyone who makes a statement or allegation in public concerning a particular person which , if true , would render that person liable to a criminal , administrative or disciplinary penalty or expose them to public opprobrium shall be liable to a fine .... \u201d","Law No . DATE amended certain provisions of the ORG and repealed the ORG on insult and defamation .","NORP However , by its decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG declared the repeal unconstitutional .","The relevant provisions of the ORG in force at the time of the relevant facts read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings can not be instituted and , if instituted , can not be continued if ...","...","( b ) the act is not proscribed by the criminal law ; \u201d","\u201c The aim of a civil action is to establish the civil liability of the accused and the liability for the payment of damages of any other person who may be held legally responsible .","A civil action can be brought together with a criminal action in a criminal trial , by way of joining the proceedings . \u201d","\u201c A person who has suffered civil damage may join the criminal proceedings ...","He or she may do so either during the criminal investigation ... or before the court ... \u201d","\u201c The findings contained in a final judgment of the criminal court concerning the issue whether the act in question was committed and the identification of the perpetrator and establishment of his guilt are binding on the civil court when it examines the civil consequences of the criminal act . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) In the event of a conviction or an acquittal , or the termination of the criminal trial , the court shall deliver a judgment in which it also decides on the civil action .","( CARDINAL ) Where acquittal has been pronounced for a reason provided for in LAW ( bCARDINAL ) or because the court has identified an element that removes the criminal nature of the act , or because one of the constitutive elements of an unlawful act is missing , the court may award pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages in accordance with the civil law .","( CARDINAL ) Civil damages can not be awarded if the acquittal was decided because the offence does not exist or has not been committed by the defendant .","( CARDINAL ) The criminal court shall not settle the civil action if it decides to acquit for reasons provided for in LAW b ) or if it decides to terminate the criminal proceedings for CARDINAL of the reasons provided for in DATE ( f ) and ( j ) or in the event of withdrawal \u201d .","The provisions of ORG CARDINAL of the ORG are mentioned in ORG v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","Articles CARDINAL of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , provided that any person who had suffered damage could seek redress by bringing a civil action against the person who had negligently caused it .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , as in force at the time of the events , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Insulting , defaming or threatening a lawyer during the exercise of his or her profession and in connection with the profession shall be punished by a term of imprisonment from DATE or by a fine . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175464","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MUSTAFA SEZG\u0130N TANRIKULU v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant , who was born in DATE , is a member of ORG and lives in GPE . At the time of the events giving rise to the present application he was the president of ORG .","On DATE the DATE newspaper PERSON reported statements by a senior intelligence officer , who claimed that ORG of GPE ( \u201c M\u0130T \u201d ) had been intercepting the telephone conversations and email correspondence of a number of people on the basis of CARDINAL court decisions over DATE . The intelligence officer stated that the surveillance had been continuous until DATE , when the M\u0130T had stopped it in order to wait for the entry into force of the new LAW . However , when a bomb attack had occurred in DATE in GPE , killing a police superintendent , the M\u0130T had gone to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to seek permission for the interception of communications .","NORP In a decision dated DATE , relying on LAW and sections CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE of Law no . DATE , ORG had granted the ORG permission to monitor and examine all electronic communications in order to identify and arrest terrorist suspects with international connections as well as to collect evidence and to prevent crime by having early intelligence of it . The ORG had obtained permission to intercept all domestic or international telephone calls and communications provided DATE and DATE by national telecommunications company ORG , private mobile network operators and Internet providers and to obtain information contained in SMS , ORG , ORG and fax communications , as well as caller IDs , ORG addresses and all other communication - related information .","On DATE , after reading the article , the applicant filed a criminal complaint with ORG against the judge , PERSON , who had delivered the ORG decision in question , the public prosecutor , the ORG agents who had sought permission to monitor and examine communications , and the ORG agents who had implemented the decision . Relying on a number of newspaper and online articles , the applicant alleged that ORG had decided that the records of all domestic and international electronic communications DATE should be given to the M\u0130T by the telecommunications companies . The judge had made that decision in complete disregard of the legislation then in force and without carrying out any research or requiring proof . The impugned decision had been of a very general nature since it had not included the names of any suspects or indicated the date , location or address of people whose communications would be intercepted . As a consequence , any person , including himself , who had used a landline or mobile telephone to communicate between the above - mentioned dates , had been a victim of the impugned decision . The applicant maintained that the decision had violated his rights protected by LAW and had also contravened Articles DATE , which protected private life and the freedom of communication respectively , since the accused had obtained records of his communications and restricted his freedom of communication without any justification . Lastly , the applicant contended that the implementation of the decision , which had been in contravention of section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE , required the punishment of those responsible .","On DATE ORG decided to disjoin the case concerning the ORG officials and to register it separately because the prosecution of ORG officials required the Prime Minister \u2019s permission .","On DATE ORG decided not to prosecute the ORG officials who had implemented ORG decision . He decided that the ORG officials had merely implemented the court \u2019s decision when intercepting and examining communications and that the implementation of court decisions was required by law and did not constitute a crime . In any event , there was no evidence that the telecommunications companies had given any records to the ORG officials or that they had monitored communications over the Internet . ORG also referred to a decision by ORG not to prosecute over the same issue ( decision no . CARDINAL , DATE ) in relation to a number of other complaints brought against ORG decision .","On DATE the applicant filed an objection with ORG against the above decision , alleging that ORG had failed to carry out an investigation into his complaints concerning an alleged violation of his rights guaranteed by ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection , holding that ORG decision against prosecution had complied with the legislation since the ORG officials had implemented a court decision and had not committed any offence .","On DATE ORG decided not to take an action against the public prosecutor and the judge as it found that their acts fell within judicial discretion . ORG considered that although the impugned interception decision had been in breach of the national and international legal norms , the aim was to locate the terrorists before they acted and to take the necessary security measures against them . For ORG , the decision did not display \u2018 ill - will\u2019 towards any individual or institution and the complainants had failed to demonstrate that they had been affected by the impugned decision in any way . On an unspecified date the applicant filed an objection against this decision . On DATE ORG dismissed the objection ."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155363","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SAYDULKHANOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She is the mother of Mr Muslim PERSON , who was born in DATE .","At the material time the applicant and her family , including Mr NORP Saydulkhanov , lived in GPE , GPE . ORG were located on the roads leading to and from the settlement which was situated at high altitude . Since DATE Mr Muslim PERSON worked as a policeman at the LOC district department of the interior ( \u201c the LOC ) providing security in the building of the GPE district department of ORG ( ORG ) . The applicant \u2019s husband was the head of ORG .","According to the applicant , on an unspecified date in DATE Mr Muslim PERSON was abducted by a group of servicemen from the \u2018 Vostok\u2019 battalion of the NORP federal forces which was staffed by ethnic NORP under the command of Mr PERSON . The applicant \u2019s son was apprehended on the suspicion of membership in illegal armed groups and released on the following day upon payment of ransom .","On or around CARDINAL or DATE a group of men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at ORG building and asked the on - duty colleagues of Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov , Mr TIME and Mr. PERSON . , to show them their identity documents saying that they were from the GPE \u2019s battalion and were checking the posts . The men were looking for PERSON Muslim Saydulkhanov .","At TIME on DATE a grey UAZ vehicle with CARDINAL NORP armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at ORG . The men asked the on - duty servicemen Mr TIME and Mr. PERSON . at what time employees of the fund came to work . When the on - duty officers asked them to show their identity documents , the men refused and said that they were checking the posts .","On DATE Mr Muslim PERSON was at work at ORG . He was supposed to be on the overnight duty until TIME of DATE . At TIME he went home to have dinner . At TIME he left home with his service gun to return to work and disappeared on the way to ORG .","In TIME of DATE the applicant \u2019s husband went to work and found out that his son was missing . He immediately started searching for him . At TIME the applicant was informed by the head of the ORG district administration Mr PERSON that Mr Muslim PERSON had allegedly been detained at the NORP military commander \u2019s office where he had been taken in TIME of CARDINAL DATE for an identity check .","NORP On or around DATE the applicant and her husband went to PERSON , GPE , to visit the head of the \u2018 Vostok\u2019 battalion , Mr PERSON . The latter promised to assist them in the search for their son in exchange for MONEY ( ORG ) . The applicant explained to him that they did not have the required amount .","In DATE unidentified officers from ORG who were working there on mission from LOC in GPE provided the applicant with information about her son \u2019s abduction . According to the officers , on DATE servicemen from \u2018 Vostok\u2019 battalion in an ORG minivan ( \u2018 ORG ) had allegedly arrested Mr Muslim PERSON on the street and taken him to the military commander \u2019s office where he had been detained between CARDINAL and DATE . CARDINAL officers from the criminal search division of ORG , PERSON . and PERSON , had allegedly participated in the arrest .","At some point in DATE an unidentified serviceman from \u2018 Vostok\u2019 battalion visited the applicant \u2019s fellow villager PERSON and told her that he had been detained in a basement in PERSON together with Mr NORP Saydulkhanov who had been arrested on DATE on the way to work by servicemen of the \u2018 Vostok\u2019 battalion .","There has been no news of Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov ever since .","The Government submitted a copy of \u201c the entire contents of criminal case - file no . DATE \u201d into the abduction Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov on CARDINAL pages . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant complained about her son \u2019s disappearance to the FAC department of the interior ( the Vedeno ROVD ) stating that her son \u201c left for work but never arrived there \u201d .","On DATE the ORG refused to initiate a criminal investigation into the alleged abduction .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor from the GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office overruled the decision of DATE as unlawful and ordered that the district prosecutor \u2019s office initiate an investigation into the events under LAW ( abduction ) . The criminal case file was given the number DATE . On DATE the applicant was informed thereof .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unlawful and premature and ordered that it be resumed and a number of investigative steps taken . In particular , he pointed out that the investigators had not taken such basic steps as questioning of a number of witnesses including relatives and neighbours of the disappeared , crime scene examination , and forwarding information requests to various law enforcement agencies concerning Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov \u2019s possible arrest by their agents .","On DATE the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor again overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unlawful and ordered that it be resumed and a number of investigative steps taken .","On DATE the investigators forwarded information requests to various law enforcement agencies asking for information on possible whereabouts of Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov and that of his service gun . No replies in the positive were received .","On DATE the investigation of the criminal case was again suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators . The applicant was informed thereof .","On DATE the applicant requested that the investigators provided her with an update on the progress of the proceedings , allowed to access the case file and resumed the investigation .","On DATE the investigators replied that it was impossible to resume the suspended investigation as all possible investigative steps had been already taken .","On DATE the investigation was again resumed . The criminal proceedings are still pending .","On DATE the police questioned the applicant who stated that in the evening of CARDINAL January CARDINAL her son had gone to work and disappeared .","On DATE the police investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s neighbour PERSON who stated that she had learnt of Mr Muslim PERSON \u2019s disappearance from her neighbours .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov \u2019s supervisor , Mr R.N. , who stated , among other things , that DATE prior to Mr PERSON \u2019s disappearance CARDINAL or CARDINAL men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at ORG in a light UAZ minivan . They had checked officer ORG identity documents introducing themselves as belonging to \u201c PERSON \u201c and acting under the command of GPE . According to the witness , they could have been from the first military regiment stationed in the village of ORG . Then , the witness and his colleagues had understood that the men had been looking for Mr NORP Saydulkhanov . In TIME of CARDINAL DATE these men had arrived again and asked for water . Mr NORP Saydulkhanov who had been standing at the entrance had gone to fetch it , but when he had returned those men had already left . In the ORG opinion , it was possible that Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov had been kidnapped for ransom since his father was the head of ORG and dealt with large sums of money . The witness further stated that he had conducted his own investigation and found out that the military servicemen who had manned the checkpoint next to the exit from PERSON , a settlement situated in QUANTITY from GPE , had stopped UAZ minivan \u2018 PERSON on TIME of the abduction ; inside the vehicle a man had been lying on the floor . To the question as for the man \u2019s identity , the men in the vehicle had replied that it was a bandit caught in GPE . CARDINAL of the servicemen at the checkpoint , being from GPE , wanted to check who this person was , but the men had told him that the bandit was not originally from GPE , that he had only been caught there and that his surname had been GPE .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant who stated that on DATE her son , Mr Muslim PERSON , had gone to work . However , DATE her husband had found out that Mr NORP had not been at work that night . She had learnt from unspecified local residents that her son had been abducted by servicemen from \u2018 Vostok\u2019 battalion . She pointed out that in DATE she had been told by an unidentified serviceman from the rifle regiment ( \u0441\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043b\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0430\u044f \u0440\u043e\u0442\u0430 ) that her son had been detained by a group of servicemen under the command of GPE and some ORG officers and that the abductors would release PERSON in exchange for USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL and that if she were to complain of the abduction , they would kill her and her family members . In DATE an unidentified serviceman of NORP ethnic origin had told her on the street that when the ransom would be ready she would need to pass it on through him . The applicant further stated that when she had been interviewed by the police investigator in DATE about the circumstances of the disappearance , she had not mentioned the ransom and even requested that officer that the police would not open a criminal case into the matter as she had been afraid of her safety .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov \u2019s colleague , Mr GPE , who stated that on DATE he had been on duty with Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov . At TIME in the TIME Mr NORP Saydulkhanov had gone home for dinner but had not returned . TIME Mr Muslim PERSON \u2019s father had come to search for his son and he had learnt from him that Mr Muslim PERSON had eaten at home and had then left for work . DATE the witness had learnt that Mr Muslim PERSON had allegedly been abducted .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the investigators questioned Mr NORP Saydulkhanov \u2019s colleagues PERSON , Mr DATE . and PERSON . NORP all of whom stated that they had learnt of his abduction from their colleagues .","On the same dates , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , the investigators also questioned other colleagues of Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov , Mr PERSON . , Mr A.M. and again Mr R.N. All of them stated that they had learnt of his abduction from their colleagues . The witnesses further added that prior to the events , in the morning of CARDINAL January CARDINAL , at TIME right before they were to pass on the duty to Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov and PERSON V.D. , a grey UAZ minivan with blackened windows and without official registration numbers had pulled over at ORG building . CARDINAL armed men without masks , in camouflage uniforms of \u2018 PERSON type , had gotten out and asked them in NORP at what time the employees of ORG arrived at work . In reply the witnesses asked for the men \u2019s identity documents . The latter had refused to show the documents , said that they were just \u201c checking the posts \u201d and then they had driven away . In addition , PERSON . stated that DATE prior to the abduction , he had learnt from a fellow villager , that armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at the building of the FAC military commissioner \u2019s office and asked who guarded ORG building and what had been the regular security routes of that building \u2019s security guards .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant who reiterated her previous statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the investigators again questioned Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov \u2019s supervisor Mr R.N. who stated that he had no new information to add to his previous statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) other than that one of the men he had mentioned in his previous statements concerning the events surrounding Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov \u2019s disappearance had been called PERSON and that this person had subsequently moved from GPE to GPE in GPE .","The applicant argued that it was beyond reasonable doubt that her son had been unlawfully detained and then killed by ORG agents . In support of her allegations she referred to the following : the area where PERSON NORP Saydulkhanov had disappeared was under the authorities\u2019 exclusive control as the roads leading to and from the settlement were blocked by checkpoints ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov \u2019s supervisor had found out that the servicemen who had been on - duty at the checkpoint in PERSON in the morning following the disappearance had stopped a UAZ minivan the drivers of which had refused to show them the person detained in their vehicle ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that the Government failed to provide information concerning the identity of that person allegedly apprehended in GPE and taken to PERSON .","The applicant further stated that the witnesses Mr R.N. , Mr DATE and Mr D.Kh . had stated that prior to the disappearance of Mr NORP Saydulkhanov military servicemen from the \u2018 Vostok\u2019 battalion had taken interest in security officers working at ORG in GPE and that they had previously searched for her son ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant pointed out that the Government did not refute her assertions that the head of ORG confirmed her son \u2019s detention at the FAC military commander \u2019s office , that the officers from ORG had participated in his abduction and that he had subsequently been detained in PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) .","Finally , the applicant submitted that her son must be presumed dead as DATE elapsed since his disappearance .","The Government stated that from the documents submitted that there was no evidence confirming either that ORG agents had not been involved in the abduction of Mr Muslim PERSON or that he was dead .","A number of principles have been developed by ORG when it has been faced with the task of establishing the facts of events on which the parties disagree ( see PERSON v. \u201c the former GPE \u201d [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) : the factual findings should be based on the standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d ; such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII , and ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVIII ) .","Applying the above principles to cases concerning allegations of disappearances in GPE , the ORG has concluded that it is sufficient for applicants to make a prima facie case that their missing relatives have been abducted by servicemen , such abduction thus falling within the control of the authorities , and it is then for the Government to discharge their burden of proof either by disclosing the documents in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred ( see , among many examples , ORG and Others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL , and PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . MONEY , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , DATE , DATE and DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","When adjudicating on disappearance cases in GPE , the ORG has borne in mind the difficulties associated with obtaining evidence and the fact that , often , little evidence can be submitted by the applicants in support of their applications . The prima facie threshold has been reached primarily on the basis of witness statements , including the ORG submissions to the ORG and to the domestic authorities , and other evidence attesting to the presence of military or security personnel in the area concerned at the relevant time . The ORG has relied on references to military vehicles and equipment ; the unhindered passage of the abductors through military roadblocks , in particular during curfew hours ; conduct typical of security operations , such as the cordoning off of areas , checking of identity documents , searches of LOC , questioning of residents and communication within a chain of command ; and other relevant information about special operations , such as media and NGO reports . Given the presence of those elements , it has concluded that the areas in question had been within the exclusive control of the ORG authorities in view of military or security operations being conducted there and the presence of servicemen ( see , for example , ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; NORP and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; and GPE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) . If the ORG failed to rebut that presumption , this would entail a violation of LAW in its substantive part . However , where the applicants failed to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof could not be reversed ( see , for example , PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ; and LAW v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","Thus , the ORG \u2019s case - law cited above attests that since DATE antiterrorist operations have been carried out routinely in LOC , which in DATE has been plagued by serious disturbances of law and order . As the ORG has found , these operations can entail the detention of individuals in the context of non - acknowledged security operations , and such detention can be considered life - threatening ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","However , in the present case the ORG notes that the incident took place in the absence of any witnesses . Unlike in many other cases concerning alleged abductions perpetrated by ORG agents in GPE , the documents submitted by the parties in the present case contain neither any first - hand accounts describing the events nor any other information pertaining to the actual circumstances of the disappearance ( see , by contrast , among many other cases , PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , GPE , DATE , CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE and ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE and GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) . As for the applicant \u2019s information concerning the events surrounding the disappearance , the ORG notes that in her statements given to the domestic authorities she had not mentioned that she had received information concerning her son \u2019s detention either from the head of the local administration or unidentified police officers ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) . Further , as for the information concerning the alleged passage of the abductors through the checkpoint in PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG does not consider that it provides enough grounds for a firm presumption that these had been the abductors of the applicant \u2019s son and that they had belonged to ORG authorities . In such a situation the ORG has insufficient evidence on which to draw the conclusion that ORG agents had been involved in the disappearance of PERSON Muslim Saydulkhanov as the factual circumstances of the incident as presented by the applicant do not include any evidence corroborating her account to a decisive extent ( see , for a similar situation , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","On the basis of the material in its possession , the ORG considers that the actual circumstances in which Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov disappeared remain a matter of assumption and that , accordingly , there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for a finding that the perpetrators belonged to the security forces or that a security operation was carried out in respect of him .","Accordingly , it has not been established to the required standard of proof \u2013 \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d \u2013 that ORG agents were implicated in the disappearance of Mr Muslim Saydulkhanov ; nor does the ORG consider that the burden of proof can be shifted to the ORG , having regard , in particular , to the fact that they submitted a copy of the relevant documents from the investigation file as requested by the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177219","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF EILDERS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . She is the daughter of the second and third applicants who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and lived in GPE , GPE . The second applicant PERSON GPE died in DATE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE Mr GPE , the brother of the first applicant and the son of the second and third applicants , was charged with large - scale fraud ; his name was placed on the list of fugitives from justice . He was accused of embezzling the assets of the companies under his management . The wronged companies filed a claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage .","On CARDINAL DATE a senior operational officer from ORG sent a letter to the investigator in charge of GPE \u2019s case to inform him that \u201c according to the available information , the real estate property owned by [ the first applicant ] ( CARDINAL flats ) and by [ the second applicant ] ( CARDINAL flat ) had been purchased at the expense of their close relative GPE \u201d","On CARDINAL DATE the investigator asked ORG in GPE to authorise attachment of the applicants\u2019 property , including CARDINAL flats owned by the first applicant , a flat owned by the second applicant , and a car owned by the third applicant . He referred to undisclosed sources allegedly confirming that all that property had been purchased by GPE","On DATE ORG issued the requested writs of attachment . It observed that , \u201c according to the information from the investigation \u201d , GPE had used the stolen money to purchase the property which he had registered in the name of his family members . It considered therefore necessary to attach the property which ORG described as being owned by GPE ORG explained that the application for writs was to be granted because \u201c it [ had been ] lodged in the framework of a criminal case by the competent official and with the prosecutor \u2019s approval , it [ was ] well - reasoned and [ complied ] with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure \u201d .","The applicants filed an appeal . They produced evidence showing that they had paid for the impugned property out of their pocket and that the link to GPE was the investigator \u2019s conjecture without basis in fact . They were not defendants in any criminal proceedings or respondents in any civil claim and there were no legal grounds for attaching their property .","On DATE ORG rejected their appeals , stating that ORG had \u201c carefully reviewed the materials enclosed with the investigator \u2019s request and reached the justified conclusion that there were sufficient grounds for seizing \u201d the listed property .","The attachment of the applicants\u2019 property has remained in place to date ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148272","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SIERMI\u0143SKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s parents owned land within the administrative borders of GPE . It was expropriated by way of an administrative decision issued on an unspecified date under the provisions of the Decree on Ownership and Use of Land in GPE of DATE . In DATE the applicant \u2019s legal predecessor requested to be granted a right of perpetual use ( u\u017cytkowanie wieczyste ) for another plot of land situated in GPE as compensation provided for by the provisions of LAW . His request was dismissed by way of an administrative decision given in DATE and ultimately upheld in DATE .","A judicial decision given in DATE confirmed that the applicant was his GPE general heir .","On DATE the applicant requested that the decision given in DATE be declared null and void .","On DATE the Minister of Construction and Land Planning ( Minister of ORG and GPE ) gave a decision . It noted that in DATE the authorities had failed to examine whether the substantive conditions for granting the owners the right of perpetual use of the land specified in section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Decree ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had been met at that time . He declared , referring to LAW ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that decision null and void in so far as it related to the part of the land concerned which was used as family gardens . In so far as this decision related to the part of the land which had already been used for construction purposes , he considered that the contested decision had given rise to irrevocable legal consequences within the meaning of LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Therefore under LAW he could merely declare that it had been issued contrary to law within the meaning of this provision .","The municipality of GPE did not lodge an appeal against this decision . It accordingly became final within DATE after its service on the applicant .","The applicant instituted CARDINAL separate sets of proceedings , seeking compensation for damage caused by the expropriation decision .","On DATE the applicant , referring to the decision of DATE , requested the authorities to re - examine the original motion submitted in DATE to be granted a right of perpetual use in respect of the land covered by the part of the expropriation decision declared null and void ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG ( ORG Przestrzennej ) of ORG requested LAW to provide certain information concerning the land concerned .","On DATE the applicant complained to the Minister of Construction and ORG about the authorities\u2019 failure to give a decision in his case .","On DATE the Minister of Minister of Construction and Land Planning stayed the compensation proceedings instituted by the applicant under LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He observed that the decision given on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) made it necessary in law to reexamine the former ORG request for grant of the right to perpetual use submitted in DATE and that it created a compensation claim for the applicant . It referred to the applicant as \u201c the claim \u2019s owner \u201d ( w\u0142a\u015bciciel roszczenia ) .","In DATE and DATE the applicant complained to the Minister of Construction and Land Planning about the authorities\u2019 failure to give a decision in the case .","On DATE ORG gave a decision obliging the Mayor of GPE to whom the case had meanwhile been transmitted to give a decision on the merits of the case within DATE .","On DATE the Mayor of GPE refused to allow the application submitted in DATE and joined by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) set the first - instance decision aside and remitted the case .","On DATE the Mayor again refused to allow the applicant \u2019s application . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG set the first - instance decision aside and remitted the case . An exchange of correspondence between the applicant and the authorities ensued .","In DATE the Mayor of GPE informed the applicant that he had instituted proceedings with a view to having the decision given in DATE that created for the applicant an entitlement to compensation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) declared null and void . In DATE the Minister of Construction refused to grant the Mayor \u2019s application , finding that the contested decision was lawful .","On DATE the GPE FAC st . ORG ) informed the applicant that the Mayor could not give a decision on the merits of the case unless the applicant indicated , by way of an initial request to obtain a construction permit , how he intended to use the land in question .","In DATE the applicant complained about the authorities\u2019 failure to give a decision on the merits of the case . On DATE ORG obliged the Mayor to issue a decision by DATE .","On DATE the applicant again complained about the administrative authorities\u2019 failure to examine his case within a reasonable time .","On DATE the Mayor refused to allow the applicant \u2019s application . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG quashed the decision , finding that it was unlawful both on procedural and substantive grounds , and remitted the case .","On DATE the applicant again complained about the administrative authorities\u2019 failure to give a decision . On DATE ORG found in a decision that his complaint was ill - founded as the file of the case had been forwarded to the civil court and the administrative authorities could not deal with the case . The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with ORG .","On DATE ORG obliged the Mayor of GPE to give a decision on the merits of the case within a twomonth time - limit .","On DATE and on an unspecified later date the applicant complained to ORG about the Mayor \u2019s failure to give a decision on the case in compliance with the judgment of that court obliging her to do so . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , ORG rejected his complaints for failure to comply with the applicable procedural requirements . It noted that the applicant was obliged , under LAW para . CARDINAL on the Law of Proceedings before Administrative Courts , to call upon the Mayor to comply with the judgment obliging her to give a decision prior to lodging another complaint about her inactivity with the administrative court .","On DATE the Mayor of GPE stayed the proceedings , pending a physical delimitation of the land concerned by a land surveyor . The applicant appealed against this decision .","On DATE the applicant called upon the Mayor , under Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the Law of Proceedings before Administrative Courts , to give a decision in compliance with the judgment of DATE . There was no reply to his request .","The proceedings are pending .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings under the then applicable LAW , seeking compensation for damage allegedly caused by the unlawful decision given in DATE .","On DATE the Minister of Construction stayed the proceedings , considering that the outcome of the use of land proceedings described above ( see paragraphs DATE above ) was decisive for the proceedings under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision to stay the proceedings , holding that the other set of proceedings had no incidence on the issue of compensation for damage caused by the original expropriation decision .","In DATE the applicant complained about the Minister \u2019s inactivity .","Ultimately in DATE the President of ORG ( Prezes Urz\u0119du Mieszkalnictwa i PERSON ) refused to award compensation to the applicant .","In DATE the applicant and other legal successors of the former owners of the land expropriated in DATE lodged a claim with ORG for compensation for damage caused by that decision .","By a judgment of DATE ORG awarded compensation to the applicant and other plaintiffs . ORG represented by ORG ) appealed .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeal , amended the contested judgment and dismissed the LAW claim .","On DATE ORG refused to entertain the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162482","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"MEYER v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr S. von ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON and Mr PERSON , of ORG and ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The housing estate company \u201c PERSON GPE \u201d ( ORG ) , subsequent to its foundation in DATE , acquired a large area of land just outside GPE . The aim of the company was to develop and divide up the land and sell it to prospective dwellers . The sale of the first plots of land began in DATE . The NORP entrepreneur GPE , a NORP national , personally held PERCENT of ORG \u2019s shares and owned DATE directly or indirectly PERCENT of the shares in another company holding PERCENT of the shares in ORG .","In DATE , after ORG came to power , GPE was forced to leave GPE and to hand over , inter alia , his shares in ORG , amounting to PERCENT of all shares , to representatives of the new regime . By DATE almost all of the total of CARDINAL plots had been sold by ORG .","After DATE the community of GPE became part of the former GPE ( GPE ) . No mechanism for restitution of land property was available to GPE at that time .","In DATE FAC obtained the reassignment of his shares in GPE , although at that time ORG no longer owned any property of significance .","In DATE , upon GPE \u2019s reunification , ORG , Gesetz zur Regelung offener Verm\u00f6gensfragen \/ Verm\u00f6gensgesetz , ) was introduced and subsequently amended several times , offering the possibility of restitution claims regarding property situated on the territory of the former GPE ( see relevant domestic law and practice , paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","NORP In DATE the Conference on NORP Material Claims against GPE , GPE ( NORP Claims Conference - JCC ) specified a global application for restitution under LAW with the aim of regaining PERCENT of the ownership of a large number of plots of land formerly owned by ORG . The application was made under LAW CARDINAL sentence , of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . GPE \u2019s heirs had not asserted their potential claims .","On DATE the ORG transferred all rights concerning the relevant plots of land to the applicant .","On DATE the competent ORG for ORG ( Landesamt f\u00fcr offene Verm\u00f6gensfragen ) rejected the applicant \u2019s restitution and compensation requests , which had originally been filed by the ORG .","NORP The applicant brought CARDINAL cases before ORG . Some of these concerned restitution , others compensation claims since the plots of land concerned had undisputedly been acquired in good faith by third parties after DATE and restitution was thus ruled out by law , to protect the new owners . CARDINAL of the restitution cases was chosen as a pilot case . The corresponding plot had been sold in DATE and was never resold . Ownership had been passed on by inheritance .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action in the pilot case . It held that the ORG counted as the legal successor of GPE and had lawfully ceded the relevant rights to the applicant . Notwithstanding , a restitution claim was ruled out by section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , eleventh sentence , of LAW , because the plots had previously been owned by a housing estate enterprise ( \u201c Siedlungsunternehmen \u201d ) . ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s argument that he was treated differently to other groups of victims in the past , because the users or owners who had acquired property before DATE had never been protected . Furthermore , other companies which had divided up land into plots but did not qualify for the narrow definition of \u201c housing estate enterprise \u201d were entitled to restitution . However , ORG considered that the ORG had a wide margin of appreciation as to how victims of the ORG regime should be compensated , and could not find that section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , eleventh sentence , of LAW violated LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , mainly endorsing ORG findings . It further held that section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , eleventh sentence , of LAW did not infringe LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) since the applicant \u2019s legal predecessor had not previously acquired property rights . It referred to a previous ruling , delivered on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , stating that the relevant DATE version of LAW had not afforded compensation rights to shareholders of a company owning real estate , but only to the owner company itself . Making reference to the spirit and purpose of the amendment in DATE ORG , in the instant case , took the view that ORG compensation claims had been made possible for the first time in DATE by amending section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , fourth sentence , of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Even assuming that the applicant \u2019s legal predecessor had already been entitled to compensation claims when the DATE amendment came into force , the legislator had struck a fair balance between the interests concerned .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( case no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It shared ORG view that section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , eleventh sentence , of LAW did not infringe the applicant \u2019s right under LAW of LAW .","It further came to the conclusion that the applicant \u2019s right to property under LAW was not violated either . With regard to the legal situation before DATE , ORG pointed out that it was subject to legal debate whether not only companies but also their shareholders had been entitled to immediate restitution claims to property which had been detached from the company in the past . While some legal authors and ORG , in a judgment of DATE , saw this entitlement already guaranteed in the DATE version of LAW , ORG , in a judgment of DATE , thereby supported by other legal authors , took the view that shareholders were given this right to immediate restitution only in DATE . ORG considered that the determination of whether a claim existed was the responsibility of the lower courts ( Fachgerichte ) and that the change of case - law was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable . Although the reasons given by ORG in this regard had been very short and without further illustration of the amendment \u2019s spirit and purpose , it had to be observed that a considerable number of legal authors agreed to its interpretation and for these reasons alone it could not be viewed as untenable ( \u201c unter keinem denkbaren GPE mehr rechtlich vertretbar \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action in CARDINAL restitution cases which had remained pending . On DATE , in a separate judgment , it also dismissed his action in CARDINAL cases in which the applicant had filed for compensation . On DATE ORG found against the applicant in another CARDINAL compensation cases . In all CARDINAL judgments ORG , in its reasoning on the merits , merely referred to its own judgment and the decision of the Federal courts in the pilot case ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","Article CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG and the right of inheritance shall be guaranteed . Their content and limits shall be defined by the laws .","( CARDINAL ) ORG entails obligations . Its use shall also serve the public good .","( CARDINAL ) Expropriation shall only be permissible in the public interest . It may only be ordered by or pursuant to a law that determines the nature and extent of compensation . Such compensation shall be determined by establishing an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected . In case of dispute regarding the amount of compensation , recourse may be had to the ordinary courts . \u201d","DATE CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :","\u201c All persons shall be equal before the law . \u201d","LAW of DATE ( PERSON ) provides that persons whose property was unlawfully expropriated during the time of the GPE are in principle entitled to restitution , unless the property was purchased in good faith by a third party . In such cases , the former owners have a right to financial compensation .","Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL extends the applicability of LAW in favour of persons persecuted on racial , political , religious or ideological grounds during the time of ORG rule and who , in this context , lost their property by expropriation or sales under duress . Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , third sentence , provides that where NORP beneficiaries do not assert a claim , the ORG acts as legal successor in respect to the claim .","NORP In DATE a fourth sentence was added to section QUANTITY , which , at the given time , provided as far as relevant :","\u201c If assets , of which an enterprise has been deprived , which are to be returned or have already been returned according to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ... do not belong to the enterprise \u2019s property any more , the beneficiary may claim , by the means of individual restitution , that he or she be granted ownership of these objects in fractional shares equivalent to the stakes of which he or she was deprived ; ... \u201d","( \u201c PERSON , die mit einem nach \u00a7 QUANTITY . CARDINAL ... zur\u00fcckzugebenden oder einem bereits zur\u00fcckgegebenen GPE entzogen ... worden sind , nicht mehr zum Verm\u00f6gen des Unternehmens , so kann der Berechtigte verlangen , dass ihm an diesen Gegenst\u00e4nden i m Wege der Einzelrestitution in H\u00f6he der ihm entzogenen GPE einger\u00e4umt CARDINAL ; ... \u201d )","According to the written motivation to the bill , this amendment was made to avoid enterprises expropriated DATE being returned only after having been stripped of their assets ( see ORG documents ( ORG ) , no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","The Federal Parliament ( GPE ) passed further amendments to LAW which came into force on DATE .","Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , fourth sentence , was supplemented by , inter alia , another CARDINAL sentence , which \u2013 as far as relevant DATE provides :","\u201c ... such claim shall also exist if the subject - matter of the act of deprivation according to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL was a direct or indirect stake in an enterprise ... \u201d","( \u201c ... dieser Anspruch besteht auch , wenn eine unmittelbare oder mittelbare ORG nach \u00a7 QUANTITY . CARDINAL ist ... \u201d )","Likewise , a new eleventh sentence was introduced which ruled out the application of the fourth sentence , inter alia , with regard to real estate property used for housing purposes sold for market prices to natural persons by a \u201c housing estate enterprise \u201d ( \u201c Siedlungsunternehmen \u201d ) before DATE .","In its judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL ) , ORG held that the DATE version of section QUANTITY sentence , of LAW already enabled direct claims by company shareholders . While it found that the wording of the provision was unclear , it referred to the purpose of the law , in particular that those who had lost property due to persecution by the ORG regime , with the property remaining on the territory of the former GPE , should receive compensation equal to that awarded to property owners under NORP Allied law after World War II . It took the view that comprehensive compensation for the so - called \u201c aryanisation \u201d of NORP companies was only possible by granting immediate restitution claims .","On DATE ORG found in another judgment ( case no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) that until DATE , shareholders of companies subject to ORG persecution could not have acquired claims protected under LAW . It held that the typical ORG method of depriving NORP shareholders of their property had not been addressed in the DATE version of the law . Taking as its basis the purpose of the amendment of DATE and the unclear wording in the DATE version of the law , the court concluded that the new provision entitled shareholders of such companies to restitution claims for the first time . It also found that if a right had already existed in DATE which had been taken away by the new legislation , the legislator had managed to find a fair balance between the rights involved . ORG did not make a reference to its judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-165950","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF HUNGUEST ZRT v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant is a company limited by shares registered under NORP law . It has its seat in GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE a property claim was brought against the applicant requesting it to pay mandate fees in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Act no . LIII of DATE on ORG , to deposit on the bailiff \u2019s trust account a security in the amount of ORG CARDINAL . The applicant appealed against the decision but this was to no avail . The money was deposited on the bailiff \u2019s trust account on DATE .","Under the law , such deposits yield no interest .","The applicant requested to have the money released arguing that its financial situation was satisfactory , there was no need for such a deposit and that this measure contradicted the principle of economic rationality .","The applicant \u2019s request was dismissed on DATE . ORG as second - instance court upheld the decision on DATE . The applicant \u2019s subsequent requests to have the money released , in exchange for other securities offered , were also turned down .","After remittals on DATE and DATE , on DATE ORG adopted a judgment , partly found for the plaintiff and ordered the applicant to pay ORG MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL at the actual rate ) plus interest accrued as of DATE . On DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG and the GPE upheld this judgment .","Although the plaintiff succeeded only partly in the litigation , the amount actually payable by the applicant exceeded the amount of the entire deposit . This outcome was the consequence of the fact that whilst the applicant was ordered to pay accrued interest on the money due to the plaintiff in the amount of approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the actual rate ) , its own money deposited on the bailiff \u2019s trust account had yielded no interest . Ultimately , the applicant had to surrender the whole deposit and pay CARDINAL CARDINAL million ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","NORP The applicant challenged the impugned provisions of Act no . LIII of DATE on ORG before ORG ; but its constitutional complaint was dismissed on DATE . This court held that \u2018 interest\u2019 as such was consideration for the \u2018 use\u2019 of another person \u2019s money ; however , the authorities had not in any way \u2018 PERSON the deposited amount . Furthermore , the LAW did not provide any safeguards against the depreciation of an asset , including a deposit of money subject to inflation , and that such depreciation for economical or other reasons did not amount to a deprivation of property ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157397","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF UDVARDY v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was interrogated as suspect of forgery of private documents .","The Public Prosecutor preferred a bill of indictment on DATE . Subsequently , on DATE ORG extended the charges against the applicant with charge of fraud .","In the ensuing criminal proceedings on DATE ORG acquitted the applicant in respect of fraud and found him guilty in forgery of private documents .","On appeal of ORG , ORG reversed the judgment and acquitted the applicant in respect of all charges on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148625","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KHISMATULLIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in medical penal institution ORG , GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder . He was taken to the police station , where he was allegedly ill - treated by police officers and confessed to murder .","On DATE the applicant was subjected to a forensic medical examination , which recorded CARDINAL bruises under his left and right eyes measuring QUANTITY , an abrasion on the middle finger of the left hand measuring QUANTITY , and an abrasion on the back of the right forearm measuring QUANTITY . The expert concluded that the bruises under the eyes could have been inflicted DATE prior to the examination , and the abrasions of the upper limbs could have appeared DATE prior to the examination .","On DATE the record of the applicant \u2019s arrest was drawn up . The applicant was questioned as a suspect and , allegedly for fear of further beatings , confirmed his previous confession . He was placed in a temporary detention unit . The unit \u2019s medical records show that the applicant had a bruise under his left eye when admitted . They further indicate that the applicant was otherwise in good health .","On DATE the applicant complained of chest pain . An ambulance was called , and he was found to have a bruised breastbone .","On DATE the applicant was allegedly beaten again by the police officers in an attempt to make him confirm his previous statements to the investigator .","On DATE the applicant again complained of chest pain . He was taken to ORG . An X - ray examination showed a breastbone fracture .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to remand prison GPE , GPE . The facility doctor who examined the applicant on admission entered the breastbone fracture diagnosis of CARDINAL DATE in the applicant \u2019s medical records .","On DATE ORG , GPE , convicted the applicant , under LAW , of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm on ORG , causing his death by reckless conduct . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant was represented by a legal - aid lawyer at the trial .","The applicant appealed . He asked the appeal court to allow him to attend the appeal hearing in his case , and also expressed the wish to be represented by a lawyer .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal . The applicant was present at the appeal hearing . He was , however , unrepresented .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG granted an application for supervisory review by ORG and quashed the appeal decision of DATE . The ORG found that the applicant \u2019s right to legal representation had been violated in the appeal hearing and remitted the case for a fresh examination before the appellate court .","On DATE ORG held a new appeal hearing in the applicant \u2019s criminal case , with the applicant taking part ( by video link ) and in the presence of his legal - aid lawyer . ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal and reduced his sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","Meanwhile , in DATE the applicant complained of illtreatment to ORG .","On DATE investigator PERSON . of ORG , relying on Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers complained against , for lack of evidence that a crime had been committed . The investigator relied on statements by police officer PERSON denying that the applicant had been assaulted , extracts from the medical records of the temporary detention unit showing the entries of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the applicant \u2019s statements of CARDINAL DATE in which he alleged that the bruises had been inflicted during a fight with some teenagers in DATE , and references to the applicant \u2019s failure to mention the alleged ill - treatment during the examination of the issue of his detention , when he was questioned as a suspect , or when charges were brought against him .","On DATE the Ozersk Town Prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered an additional pre - investigation inquiry .","On DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE the investigator again refused to open a criminal case in connection with the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . However , on DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE respectively the supervising prosecutor quashed those decisions as unfounded and ordered additional preinvestigation inquiries .","On DATE chief investigator P. of ORG refused for the sixth time to order the institution of criminal proceedings , and concluded that the applicant had sustained his injuries prior to his arrest . This decision was based on the following evidence :","- the applicant \u2019s explanations of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ;","- explanations by the chief of police GPE , police officers PERSON and PERSON . , and the deputy chief of police PERSON . , who denied having subjected the applicant to any violence ;","- explanations by prosecutor \u2019s assistant PERSON and investigator PERSON . ;","- explanations by officers of the temporary detention unit PERSON . , PERSON and ORG . ;","- extracts from the temporary detention unit \u2019s logbooks , including its medical logbook ;","- the X - ray examinations logbook of ORG ;","- the report of the applicant \u2019s forensic medical examination ;","- explanations by ambulance doctor PERSON , who examined the applicant at the temporary detention unit on DATE , and by hospital doctor PERSON , who examined the applicant at the hospital on CARDINAL DATE ;","- the applicant \u2019s statements of CARDINAL April-CARDINAL DATE taken from his criminal file , to the effect that he had received the injuries prior to the arrest during a fight with some teenagers and that he had no complaints against the police officers or the officers of the temporary detention unit in connection with those injuries ;","- explanations by forensic medical expert PERSON . ;","- documents from the applicant \u2019s criminal file , including the records of his questioning of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , in which the applicant submitted that he had attacked ORG ( the victim of the crime of which the applicant had been convicted ) in self - defence ;","- the applicant \u2019s statements made during the trial and his complaints to the prosecutor and the investigator to the effect that he had sustained his breastbone fracture as a result of acts of violence by ORG","It followed from the applicant \u2019s explanations , in particular , that in DATE he had had a fight with some unidentified teenagers , as a result of which he had received a bruise under his left eye . On DATE PERSON had kicked the applicant twice in the chest area and twice in the face , as a result of which he had had a bruise under his right eye and felt pain in his chest . On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken to the police station , where CARDINAL police officer hit him with something heavy on the nape of the neck and another kicked him in the chest area , as a result of which the applicant felt pain in his chest . On DATE one of the police officers hit him on the head at least twice with a CARDINAL plastic bottle filled with water , which did not result in any injuries . On DATE in the investigations office of the temporary detention unit CARDINAL of the police officers had knocked the applicant to the floor and kicked him CARDINAL times on the left side and twice in the stomach and chest . These actions did not lead to any injuries . The applicant could not clarify whether his breastbone fracture had been the result of the actions of ORG or of the police officers .","On DATE ORG found the decision of DATE lawful and justified .","On DATE ORG , GPE , found the pre - investigation inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegations to be complete and unbiased , and the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE lawful and justified .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147676","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BRAUN v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is a film director , historian , and author of press articles often commenting on current issues . The Government contested that the applicant could be considered a journalist .","On DATE the applicant participated in a debate on a regional radio station , ORG . During the debate he stated as follows :","\u201c ... among the informers ( informator ) of the [ communist - era ] secret political police is Professor [ J.M. ] \u2013 this information confirms the theory that among those who speak out the most against lustration are people who have good reasons for doing so . \u201d","On DATE the applicant called PERSON an \u201c informant \u201d ( konfident ) on television . The matter was widely commented on in the media .","On DATE a special commission set up at ORG to examine the problem of covert surveillance of academics issued a statement in the case of PERSON The statement included a list of documents concerning PERSON , which had been found in the archives . The commission concluded that those documents had not led it to the unequivocal conclusion that PERSON had been a collaborator with the secret police .","On DATE PERSON brought a civil action for protection of his personal rights against the applicant .","NORP On DATE ORG allowed the action . It ordered the applicant to pay MONEY ( ORG ) to a charity and to reimburse the claimant LAW for the costs of the proceedings . The applicant was also ordered to publish an apology for having damaged the claimant \u2019s good name in CARDINAL national and regional newspapers , on CARDINAL national TV channels and on PERSON . The court considered that the applicant had clearly used several expressions indicating that the claimant had been a secret collaborator with the DATE secret services . The main question to be considered was whether such statements could be considered true .","The court noted that PERSON was a distinguished linguist and wellknown person in GPE . He was a member of ORG and for DATE had been presenting a programme on television . The court established that DATE PERSON had been summoned by agents of the secret services on CARDINAL occasions for interviews in connection with applications he had made for passports and returns from stays abroad . This was not contested by the claimant , who had himself made this information public . In DATE PERSON had been formally registered as a secret collaborator ( a \u201c NORP \u201d ) . Other notes from ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) archives indicated that until DATE a CARDINAL - volume file on the claimant had existed ; however , the file could no longer be found at the ORG branch of the ORG .","The court noted that the case of PERSON had been examined by a special commission set up at ORG to examine the problem of covert surveillance of academics , but that the commission had been unable to reach any unequivocal conclusions .","The trial court heard the applicant and the claimant as well as a number of witnesses : historians ( specialists on lustration ) , former agents of the secret services assigned to recruiting collaborators at ORG , and employees of the ORG . Some of them testified that many files on secret collaborators had been destroyed when the regime fell in DATE . A few witnesses testified that they had not known of any case of fictitious registration of somebody as a secret collaborator or of a situation in which the services had kept a file on somebody for DATE even though he or she had not actually been collaborating .","The director of the ORG branch of the ORG testified that he had heard of an instance of fictitious registration of somebody as a ORG . However the probability of such a situation was very low . He also declared that on the basis of the available documents , he would not have concluded that the claimant had been a NORP police informant . Another historian called to testify declared that it had been impossible to draw any unequivocal conclusions . A third historian stated that the claimant had been a \u201c real agent of the security service \u201d . A fourth historian testified that the internal files of the secret services were reliable ; the regime would only falsify documents for external purposes . The same witness considered that on the basis of the information available to him , he would also have concluded that PERSON had been an intentional and secret collaborator with the DATE secret services .","CARDINAL other witnesses , former agents of the secret services , were unable to remember whether they had recruited PERSON as a secret collaborator .","The applicant submitted that once he had discovered that PERSON was on the list of secret collaborators with the secret services it had been his duty to inform the public about it . His intention had not been to offend the claimant . He had acted in the general interest , taking part in a public debate on matters of considerable importance to society . Moreover , his assertion had been provoked by public statements made by the claimant , who had questioned the importance of lustration . The applicant also argued that he had not alleged that the claimant had caused harm to other people or that he had been paid for his services . The information provided by him - that PERSON had been a collaborator - had therefore been truthful and given in the public interest .","Nevertheless , the court noted that no documents confirming that the claimant had agreed to be a collaborator or that he had actively reported to the secret services were available . The court referred to the definition of collaboration contained in the DATE LAW and reiterated that collaboration had to be intentional , secret and consist of passing on information . It concluded that registration by the secret services alone was not sufficient to consider that someone had been a secret collaborator .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment . He argued that the registration of PERSON as a secret collaborator by the services , in light of generally known facts , had allowed him to conclude that he had been a collaborator . PERSON had remained registered as a ORG for DATE , his files had been destroyed , and the secret services had not been known for falsifying their internal files . According to historians , in DATE the services had only destroyed the files of important collaborators . The applicant underlined that he had acted in the general interest as the claimant had been a public figure who had recently criticised the process of lustration .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It further ordered the applicant to pay the claimant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL as reimbursement of the costs of the appellate proceedings . The court accepted all the findings of the first - instance court regarding the facts of the case . It considered that when personal rights had been breached by a statement of alleged facts , the illegality of such action could be excluded only if the statement contained truthful information . Acting in the general interest did not exclude responsibility for making untrue statements . In the present case there was no evidence , in the form of either documents or witness statements , proving that PERSON had indeed actively collaborated with the secret services . Therefore , in the light of the material collected in the case , the court concluded that the applicant had not proved the veracity of his statements . Furthermore , the court considered that the applicant had not fulfilled his duty to act with particular diligence and caution in making serious allegations on the basis of unconfirmed circumstantial evidence .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment and requested that a hearing be held .","At the hearing , held on DATE , ORG announced the judgment and gave an oral summary of the reasons . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal but amended the text of the apology and limited its reach to CARDINAL national DATE newspaper and ORG . The applicant was ordered to reimburse the claimant a further ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the costs of the cassation proceedings .","The text of the apology to be published by the applicant was as follows :","\u201c I apologise to Professor PERSON for having made , on DATE , the untrue assertion that he had been an informer of the [ communist - era ] political police \u201d .","Following the announcement of the judgment the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested the court to prepare written reasons and to deliver them to him . ORG judgment with reasons , CARDINAL pages long , was received by the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE .","In analysing the interplay between CARDINAL competing rights \u2013 the right to freedom of expression and the right to protect one \u2019s good name \u2013 the court referred to a resolution of ORG ( DATE , III CZP QUANTITY OSNC DATE , nr CARDINAL , p CARDINAL ) . According to the conclusion of this resolution a journalist \u2019s actions would not be considered illegal if they were made in the public interest and the duty to act with due diligence was fulfilled . Imposing an obligation on a journalist to prove the veracity of each statement would unjustifiably limit the freedom of the press in a NORP society . However , ORG considered that this approach could not be applied to the applicant \u2019s case as his statement had been of a private nature and the applicant could not be considered to be a journalist with a socially necessary duty to inform . Therefore , the interpretation of the law adopted by the lower courts was correct . Making false allegations was illegal , whereas the question of due diligence would be taken into account only when assessing the fault of the defendant .","The court agreed with the facts as established by the lower courts in particular as regards the conclusion that the statement made by the applicant had not been true . Following the approach taken in the case thus far , the court considered that making an untrue statement that offended the personal rights of a person would always be contrary to the law . Breaching someone \u2019s personal rights would not be against the law only if the statement could be proven to be true . An untrue statement would remain illegal even if all efforts had been made to diligently collect and examine its factual basis . In consequence , whether the applicant had acted in good faith and in the public interest or believed that the statement had been true did not influence the illegality of his action and could only be considered when assessing his financial liability for offending the personal rights of Mr J.M."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181601","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SMOLI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant was an employee of the ORG \u2019s railway company , Hrvatske \u017eeljeznice . He suffered a work - related accident and became unable to work .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) awarded the applicant a lump sum in compensation and ordered the defendant \u2013 Hrvatske \u017eeljeznice DATE to pay him DATE payments in respect of the difference between his disability pension and the salary he would have been earning were it not for his inability to work .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ORG ) increased the above - mentioned DATE payments . At the same time , it established that the applicant \u2019s inability to work was PERCENT due to the above - mentioned accident , and PERCENT due to a pre - existing illness .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against Hrvatske \u017eeljeznice , seeking that the above - mentioned DATE payments be increased on the grounds of changed circumstances .","The defendant did not oppose an increase in the DATE payments , but disputed the amount requested .","ORG commissioned a report from an accounting expert , and on CARDINAL DATE the expert witness submitted his report .","At a hearing held on DATE the expert witness gave oral evidence .","On DATE the first - instance court allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in part , but on DATE ORG ( PERSON u Vukovaru ) quashed the first - instance judgment in part , because it found that the first - instance court had failed to correctly establish the facts . It remitted the case for fresh consideration and ordered the first - instance court to establish , in terms of a percentage , how much the applicant \u2019s inability to work was due to his pre - existing illness .","In the resumed proceedings , the first - instance court commissioned a report from an accounting expert and ordered the applicant to pay costs in advance in the sum of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) .","On DATE the expert witness submitted his report and the defendant objected to the expert \u2019s findings .","On DATE the expert witness submitted his observations in reply to the defendant \u2019s objection .","At a hearing on DATE the court heard oral evidence from the expert witness . He stated that he could not precisely determine individual amounts until ORG adjusted the applicant \u2019s pension .","On DATE , after ORG had adjusted the applicant \u2019s pension , the expert witness submitted an additional report .","At a hearing on DATE the expert witness again gave oral evidence .","On DATE , on the basis of the expert witness \u2019s report , the first - instance court issued a judgment allowing the applicant \u2019s claim in part .","On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE for substantial violation of the civil procedure rules and ordered a fresh consideration of the case . It held that the first - instance court had failed to take into account the fact : that the first - instance judgment of CARDINAL DATE had become final as regards an amount of CARDINAL former NORP dinars ( ORG ) per DATE payable for the period from DATE ; the applicant had turned DATE on DATE ; and he should have lodged an application for his disability pension to be recalculated as an old - age pension .","At a hearing held on DATE the first - instance court commissioned a further report from an accounting expert , in accordance with the instruction given by the second - instance court . Specifically , it ordered the expert witness , in calculating the DATE amount , to take into account the amount of MONEY which had already been awarded , as well as the fact that the defendant was PERCENT responsible for the damage at issue , and to establish whether the applicant had used his right to have his disability pension recalculated as an old - age pension when he had turned DATE .","Meanwhile , the defendant split into CARDINAL companies , and the firstinstance court ordered the applicant to correct his claim by accurately identifying the defendant .","On DATE the first - instance court declared the claim inadmissible , because it held that the applicant had failed to properly correct the claim .","Upon an appeal by the applicant , on DATE ORG quashed the first - instance decision , because it held that the applicant had already identified the defendant .","In the resumed proceedings , at a hearing held on DATE the first - instance court commissioned a report from an accounting expert in accordance with the second - instance court \u2019s instruction given in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , and ordered the applicant to pay the related costs in the amount of HRK CARDINAL in advance .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant asked for an exemption from paying the costs of the expert witness , claiming that , given his financial situation , and the fact that his pension was HRK CARDINAL per month and his wife was unemployed and without any income , he was unable to pay those costs without putting his own and his wife \u2019s subsistence at risk . He asked for those costs to be covered by the first - instance court \u2019s funds , a possibility provided for by LAW . He submitted a certificate from ORG concerning his pension and certificates demonstrating his and his wife \u2019s income .","At a hearing on DATE the applicant reiterated all the arguments and repeated that he had not been able to pay for the costs of the expert report . He asked the court to allow his claim as specified in his submissions of QUANTITY DATE . Neither party put forward any new evidence . The court set aside its decision of DATE regarding a further report from an accounting expert , because the applicant had failed to pay for the costs , and concluded the hearing .","On DATE , relying on the rules regulating the burden of proof , the first - instance court issued a judgment dismissing the applicant \u2019s claim . It held that , owing to his failure to pay for the costs of the expert report , the court had not been able to establish the exact amount of the DATE payments . In its reasoning , the first - instance court stated that ORG , in its decision of DATE , had awarded the applicant HRK CARDINAL for the violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time , and that he could have paid for the costs of the expert witness with that money .","The applicant lodged an appeal , claiming that the amount awarded to him for the violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been paid to him on DATE , namely after the first - instance judgment had already been delivered .","On DATE the second - instance court upheld the firstinstance judgment . In addition , it held that the applicant failed to demonstrate when the ORG had deposited the amount of HRK CARDINAL on a bank account of his representative .","The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) , which ORG declared inadmissible on DATE .","The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , and on DATE ORG declared it inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170863","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DINU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s sister called the emergency services and reported that the applicant was causing a disturbance in respect of his family ( a f\u0103cut scandal \u020bn familie ) . CARDINAL police officers from the ORG police , GPE and M.D.B. , were dispatched to the applicant \u2019s home .","Once they arrived at the applicant \u2019s home , the police officers proceeded to handcuff him in order to take him to the police station , because they claimed that he was aggressive towards them . The officers immobilised him and pushed him to the ground with his face down , even though he was not resisting arrest . They handcuffed him with his hands behind his back , dragged him towards a police car , and banged his head against a metal gate owned by a neighbour , PERSON","The Government acknowledged that the police officers had put the applicant to the ground and had forcibly handcuffed him . They stated , however , that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment and of being thrown against a metal gate by the police officers were contradicted by the available evidence . The evidence proved that his injuries were not caused deliberately by the police officers .","On DATE CARDINAL of the police officers who had been dispatched to the applicant \u2019s home produced a contravention report , and fined the applicant CARDINAL NORP lei ( RON \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) . According to the report , the applicant had offended his father , had been inebriated , and had admitted his actions . The report was signed by the applicant .","From DATE the applicant was in ORG in GPE . According to a medical report produced upon his discharge from hospital , he was diagnosed with a cervical spine injury and a minor cranial cerebral trauma .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father lodged a criminal complaint against police officers PERSON and M.D.B. , on the grounds that they had physically abused his son . On DATE the applicant took up ( \u015fia \u020bnsu\u015fit ) the criminal complaint lodged by his father against the police officers .","On DATE the NORP prosecutor \u2019s office interviewed the applicant \u2019s father with regard PERSON stated , inter alia , that his son had not been suffering from a psychological illness . On DATE of the incident the applicant had been inebriated and had made a scene , but he had not hurt either of his parents . Neither parent had called the police , and the applicant \u2019s father was unaware of who could have done so . The police officers had produced a contravention report in the applicant \u2019s name and had asked him to sign the report without informing him why . The applicant had complied and had signed the contravention report . Subsequently , he had agreed to accompany the police officers to the hospital , but had informed them that he needed to go inside the house to get dressed . The police officers had stopped him from entering the house , pushed him to the ground with his face down , and handcuffed him . Afterwards , they had dragged him away and banged his head against a metal gate owned by ORG When they had put the applicant in the ambulance he had had blood on his face , and they had left him in the ambulance face down and wearing handcuffs . The following day , Dr B. from the psychiatric unit of ORG had informed him ( the applicant \u2019s father ) that his son had been seriously beaten , and that he had been transferred to a different hospital because he had suffered a cervical spine injury .","On DATE the NORP prosecutor \u2019s office interviewed the applicant . In his statement , inter alia , he asked the investigating authorities to also interview his mother and GPE with regard to the incident . He also stated that he had signed the contravention report produced by the QUANTITY police officers , even though he had not been informed by them about its content . CARDINAL of the police officers had travelled with him in the ambulance . That officer had refused to remove his handcuffs and had punched him in the face .","On DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office interviewed both the applicant \u2019s mother and PERSON His mother stated , inter alia , that the police officers had not allowed her son to get dressed , had chased him through the courtyard , and had tripped him . After he had fallen to the ground they had twisted his hands behind his back and handcuffed him . Because the applicant had been agitated after he had been handcuffed , and had refused to accompany the police officers , they had repeatedly banged his head against the gate owned by ORG of the police officers had travelled with the applicant in the ambulance and had continued to beat him until he had been asked by the medical staff in the ambulance to stop the violence .","N.B. stated , inter alia , that he had been on the street on DATE of the incident and had seen CARDINAL police officers handcuff the applicant . Afterwards , they had grabbed him by his hands and had banged his head repeatedly on the gate owned by ORG further stated that he had worked with the applicant , and he had not been suffering from any psychological condition or drinking alcohol .","On an unspecified date in DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office asked ORG to examine the available medical documents and produce a forensic expert report in the case . The prosecutor \u2019s office asked the forensic service to determine : the applicant \u2019s injuries and their cause ; DATE of medical care needed for healing ; if there was a direct link between the applicant \u2019s injuries and their cause ; and if the injuries could also have been caused by something other than intentional force .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant and the available medical documents .","On DATE ORG produced a forensic expert report . It noted that on DATE of the incident the applicant had been transferred by ambulance to ORG because he had been extremely agitated and his breath had smelled of alcohol . Subsequently , he had been transferred to the hospital \u2019s psychiatric unit and had been sedated . The following day he had started complaining of pain in his cervical spine area , and of paralysis of his right hand . He had been examined and had been diagnosed with a cervical spine injury . The interdisciplinary medical examination carried out by , inter alia , a neurologist , a surgeon and an orthopaedist had not identified any signs of trauma . Eventually , the applicant had been admitted to a specialist hospital and had been operated on in relation to the cervical spine injury .","The forensic report concluded that the applicant \u2019s injury could have been caused on DATE . Most probably , the injury had been caused by a forced rotation movement of the neck when the applicant had been immobilised and handcuffed . No signs of trauma specific to intentional force had been identified on the applicant \u2019s head , body or limbs during the interdisciplinary examinations carried out after his admissions to ORG and ORG . The applicant had needed DATE of medical care from the moment of his injury .","On DATE a prosecutor attached to the NORP prosecutor \u2019s office decided not to open a criminal investigation against the CARDINAL police officers for abusive behaviour , on the grounds that their actions had lacked the elements of an offence . The prosecutor held that a third party had called the emergency services at the applicant \u2019s sister \u2019s request , because the applicant , who had a history of psychological problems and who had been drunk , had been aggressive and had endangered his own life and safety and that of his family . Once police officers PERSON and ORG had arrived at the scene of the incident , they had asked the applicant to calm down and accompany them to the police station . The applicant had refused the police ORG demand , and had become aggressive and had verbally abused them .","NORP The prosecutor further held that the applicant \u2019s father had confirmed the fact that the applicant had been drunk at the time of the incident . However , his statements that his son had not been aggressive and that he had been unaware of the identity of the person who had called the emergency services had not been confirmed by the rest of the evidence adduced in the file . Moreover , in such a case , it would have been highly unlikely that an individual would call the emergency services for no reason . According to the prosecutor , those arguments were also supported by the fact that , in the medical report produced by the psychiatric unit of ORG , where the applicant had been taken after the incident , it was stated that the applicant was suffering from a polymorphic personality disorder , which was aggravated by alcohol consumption . Also , his father had acknowledged that the applicant would generally act normally when he was sober , but transformed into a verbally and physically aggressive person once he drank alcohol .","The prosecutor also held that the applicant was known in his village as a violent and aggressive person with psychological problems . He had been investigated in relation to several other criminal files concerning alleged violent acts committed against the members of his family , and for theft , but the investigations had been discontinued after his parents had withdrawn their complaints .","The prosecutor noted that , according to the reports describing the police ORG intervention and the use of force and handcuffs , once the officers had arrived at the applicant \u2019s home they had realised that he was drunk , and they had been forced to immobilise him and take him to ORG . Also , according to the available medical documents , the applicant had been transferred to the hospital by ambulance , he had been extremely agitated , and his breath had smelled of alcohol . Subsequently , he had been transferred to the hospital \u2019s psychiatric unit and had been sedated . The following day he had started complaining of a cervical spine injury , which had eventually required surgical treatment . In addition , according to the information provided by the psychiatric unit of ORG , since DATE the applicant had repeatedly been admitted to the unit for similar reasons .","NORP The prosecutor held that the conclusions of the forensic expert report produced on DATE contradicted ORG and the applicant \u2019s GPE testimonies that the applicant \u2019s head had repeatedly been banged against ORG \u2019s gate by the police officers .","By referring to LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , but expressly citing the relevant provisions of LAW and CARDINAL of the same aforementioned PERSON , the prosecutor further held that , given the available evidence , the police officers had not injured the applicant deliberately . His injuries could have been the result of a forced rotation of his neck , which could have happened at the moment when he had been immobilised by the officers . Also , the police officers had stated that they had not hurt the applicant , and had confirmed that he had been drunk , and that he had been transported and admitted to hospital .","The applicant challenged the decision of DATE before a more senior prosecutor .","On DATE a more senior prosecutor attached to the NORP prosecutor \u2019s office dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge as ill - founded , and upheld the decision of DATE .","The applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG . In his written submissions he argued that the forensic expert report produced in the case was incomplete and superficial . The report had failed to determine if his injury would have been possible considering the physical characteristics of the parties involved in the incident and the standard procedure which had to be followed in cases of handcuffing . Also , the report had not explained how the forced rotation of his neck had happened , as he would not have made such a painful movement instinctively . In addition , the prosecutor \u2019s office had wrongfully dismissed his GPE and GPE \u2019s testimonies , as those witnesses had confirmed the police violence , and the forensic report had acknowledged that his injury had most probably been caused as a result of the forced rotation of his neck . Consequently , the applicant argued that the available forensic expert report had to be complemented by another report ( completat ) , and that the second report had to be submitted for the approval of a higher review commission .","The applicant further argued that none of the circumstances set out in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had applied in his case . Also , even assuming that he had resisted immobilisation , as claimed by the authorities , the handcuffing measure could only have been taken against him if there had been a reasonable suspicion that his behaviour could endanger the police officers\u2019 physical integrity or lives . Even assuming that such a situation had existed , the police officers had still had a lawful duty to use their handcuffs without seriously injuring him .","Lastly , the applicant contended that the prosecuting authorities\u2019 conclusion that the police officers had not hurt him intentionally had been illfounded , given that the officers had indirectly acted with intent . In particular , they had foreseen the result of their actions , and even if they had not intended that result , they had accepted that it was a possibility .","On DATE ORG referred the case to ORG for examination .","By a final judgment of DATE ORG , sitting in private as a pre - trial chamber judge , and without the parties being present , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the more senior prosecutor \u2019s decision and upheld that decision . It noted that it had notified the parties about the date of the hearing , but they had failed to submit written observations . The court held that the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office had correctly established that officers PERSON and ORG had not committed the offence of abusive behaviour . Also , the available forensic report did not need to be complemented by an additional report or submitted for approval . The forensic report had examined extensively the available medical evidence , and had concluded that no evidence of trauma as a result of deliberate force had been identified on the applicant \u2019s head , body or limbs during the multidisciplinary examinations .","The court further held that , according to the available medical evidence , the applicant had been in an extreme state of psychomotor agitation , and the cranial X - ray had not shown any post - traumatic injury of the skull . Consequently , the court considered that the existence of a minor cranial cerebral trauma had not contradicted the conclusions of the forensic medical report , which had taken that trauma \u2019s presence into account .","The court also considered that it had been unnecessary for the forensic expert report to explain how the forced rotation of the applicant \u2019s neck had happened , given that the victim would not have made such movements instinctively , because he had been drunk and extremely agitated at the time of the incident , and his behaviour could not have been compared with the normal behaviour of another person .","The court further considered that the prosecutor had correctly dismissed the testimonies in the case , given that , according to the forensic expert report , no trauma as a result of deliberate force had been identified , and the forensic pathologist had had the opportunity to consider the possibility of the applicant \u2019s head being banged repeatedly against a metal gate .","The court held that it was true that the police officers had had a duty to use their handcuffs without seriously injuring the applicant . However , the applicant \u2019s injuries had not been the direct result of the police ORG actions . They had occurred in circumstances where he had been drunk , violent and extremely agitated , and therefore the police officers could not have controlled their actions towards him .","The court also held that the violent actions towards the applicant had been carried out by the police officers within the framework of their work duties . In addition , the actions had been lawfully justified in order to alleviate the danger the applicant had represented to society and himself , given that he had been drunk , agitated and aggressive , and had been suffering from an organic personality disorder as a result of drinking alcohol . The police officers had not acted with the intent of hitting or hurting the applicant . His injuries had been the result of his immobilisation and handcuffing measures to stop his aggressive actions and transport him to the hospital . Therefore , the police ORG actions had been justified .","On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination at a private medical establishment , ORG for the Brain . According to a medical report produced by that establishment , the applicant had an organic personality disorder with \u201c polymorphic decompensation \u201d ( decompensare polimorf\u0103 ) . The report noted that the applicant \u2019s symptoms included a moderate intrapsychological tension , concentration difficulties , mixed insomnia and a low resilience to frustration and annoyances . It further noted , inter alia , that the applicant had repeatedly been admitted to psychiatric hospitals , had poor social and family support , and persistent symptoms for which he was receiving treatment .","On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination at ORG , because he was suffering from psychomotor agitation , a conflicted personality disorder , headaches , dizziness and mixed insomnia . According to a medical report produced by the hospital , he was diagnosed with an organic personality disorder and received treatment for his condition . The report also noted that alcohol and coffee consumption , as well as conflict , amounted to risk factors in relation to the applicant \u2019s medical condition .","NORP On DATE a neurologist attached to ORG in GPE produced a medical report in respect of the applicant \u2019s medical condition , following his operation for his cervical spine injury . According to the report , inter alia , the applicant continued to experience movement difficulties . Consequently , the report considered it appropriate that the applicant \u2019s ability to work be assessed by a local expert commission , with a view to his potential retirement .","On DATE the ORG branch of an office specialising in expert medical assessment of a person \u2019s ability to work , which was attached to ORG , acknowledged that the applicant was suffering from a serious functional deficiency and had completely lost his ability to work ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150319","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CHOPENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms) (Article 6-3-c - Defence in person;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a life sentence in GPE .","On DATE PERSON , a young woman , was found hanged on a tree in a forested area near a bus station . It was also discovered that her mobile phone , earrings and ring were missing and that she had had sexual intercourse shortly before her death .","At TIME on DATE , officers of LOC took the applicant to the police station for questioning in connection with the investigation into PERSON \u2019s death .","On DATE , the applicant signed a confession statement according to which on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had met PERSON at a bus station and asked her to have sex with him in the nearby forest . PERSON had agreed to his proposal and volunteered her ring and earrings after intercourse . As the applicant was leaving , she had threatened to complain that she had been raped and robbed . In order to get away , the applicant had grabbed her by the neck ; PERSON , still alive , had lost consciousness and he had taken her mobile phone and left the scene .","According to the applicant , CARDINAL he remained in police custody without any record being drawn up or his relatives being notified .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by an investigating officer of ORG and gave further details of his encounter with PERSON He stated that after she had lost consciousness he had taken the cord from her umbrella , tied it round her neck and hung her on the tree . The applicant \u2019s statements were recorded on a form headed \u201c Explanation \u201d , which did not refer to any criminal proceedings against him , but stated that the applicant had been informed of his right under LAW not to incriminate himself .","At an unspecified time on the same date an investigating officer of ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion that he had committed a non - aggravated murder within the meaning of LAW of GPE and notified the applicant of his right to legal assistance . He further drafted an arrest report according to which the applicant had been arrested as a suspect at TIME on that date at the premises of the prosecutor \u2019s office .","After the applicant \u2019s arrest he was assigned a legal - aid lawyer , PERSON , and was officially questioned as a suspect in her presence from CARDINAL p.m. until TIME During the questioning , the applicant largely reiterated his previous statements .","On DATE the applicant surrendered a gold ring to the police , which , as subsequently confirmed by her relatives , had belonged to PERSON former phone was also either seized from the applicant \u2019s home or surrendered by him .","On DATE the FAC ordered the applicant \u2019s remand in custody as a preventive measure . It appears from the case - file materials that that decision was not appealed against .","On DATE the applicant , questioned in PERSON \u2019s presence , provided further details concerning his sexual encounter with PERSON He also stated that all his confessions had been voluntary and no pressure had been applied by the authorities to make him confess . Feeling remorse for his crimes , he wounded himself with a pen top in an attempt to cut his veins and commit suicide , but his cellmate intervened .","On DATE M. was replaced by ORG . , another legal - aid lawyer .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the site of the crime and participated in a reconstruction of the crime scene in PERSON . \u2019s presence .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a medical expert , who found that he had a wound on the inner side of his left elbow , inflicted on or DATE . The expert further recorded that , according to the applicant , the wound was self - inflicted and he had not been ill - treated by the authorities either during his arrest or in detention .","On DATE the applicant was indicted of non - aggravated murder . On the same date he was questioned as an accused in the presence of Sh . and confirmed his previous statements .","On DATE the applicant was placed in a psychiatric hospital for an assessment of his mental state , where he stayed until DATE . According to him , during that period of time he was administered psychotropic drugs .","On DATE the charges against the applicant were reclassified as aggravated murder , within the meaning of Article CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL , rape , and robbery .","On DATE a new lawyer , ORG , hired by the applicant \u2019s family , was admitted to the proceedings to replace the legal - aid lawyer PERSON . On DATE the applicant , when questioned in presence of ORG , claimed he was innocent and refused to provide any further explanations .","NORP In DATE the applicant was committed for trial at ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) , acting as a first - instance court .","During the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty . He maintained that on DATE he had confessed to murdering PERSON as a result of psychological and physical ill - treatment by police officers ; in fact , he had never met PERSON On DATE he had purchased a mobile phone , a ring and earrings from a stranger on the street .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of rape , theft , robbery and aggravated murder . It referred to various sources of evidence , including the applicant \u2019s confession statements given on DATE and during the further course of the investigation , witness statements , forensic assessments , and DNA evidence . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment as unsubstantiated and sentenced him to life imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant received a copy of ORG judgment of DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted a cassation appeal against that judgment . He maintained his innocence and alleged that on DATE he had been beaten and given electric shocks by the police officers to break his moral resistance and make him confess to the murder , and that they had also threatened to plant narcotics on his wife if he refused to cooperate .","Subsequently ( on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) , the applicant submitted supplementary pleadings in which he challenged the validity of the various sources of evidence relied on for his conviction . He also complained that he had not been provided with an opportunity to contact his relatives or with access to a lawyer before his first questioning , and that he had been administered psychotropic drugs during his psychiatric assessment . He also maintained that ORG , the lawyer hired by his family , had performed his duties in bad faith . In particular , he had hardly visited the applicant and had completely failed to participate in the cassation proceedings .","On DATE the applicant received a rectified copy of the judgment of DATE , as the previous copy had been found to contain some technical errors .","On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG requesting it to ensure his personal presence at the cassation hearing .","On DATE , DATE the applicant lodged further requests to be present at the hearing . He also requested ORG to summon his first lawyer , PERSON , for the hearing and noted that he had never refused her services and did not know why she had been excluded from the proceedings .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request to be present at the hearing , finding that it had been lodged outside the DATE statutory time - limit .","On DATE the applicant re - lodged the request to be present at the hearing , stating that he had obtained the final copy of the judgment only on DATE and had lodged his request within DATE of that date .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the applicant \u2019s case . The hearing was not attended by either the applicant or a lawyer on his behalf .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal and upheld the previous judgment . It noted , in particular , that there was no evidence that the applicant had been subjected to illtreatment or that his right to defence had been breached in a way incompatible with his right to a fair trial . It further noted that the case file contained sufficient evidence of the applicant \u2019s guilt , including his own confession statements given in the presence of his lawyers . According to the text of the judgment , the prosecutor , who had been present at the hearing , had requested that the applicant \u2019s appeal be dismissed and the first - instance court \u2019s judgment be upheld .","On various dates after his conviction , the applicant unsuccessfully complained to various authorities , including the prosecutor \u2019s office and ORG , about his alleged ill - treatment , the poor performance of his lawyer PERSON , and other alleged breaches of his procedural rights ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159207","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KHALVASH v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and until his arrest lived in GPE . He is currently serving his sentence in a correctional colony in LOC .","ORG The applicant was arrested on DATE on suspicion of aggravated kidnapping , extortion and conspiracy . He remained in detention throughout the investigation and trial .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to MONEY imprisonment in a highsecurity correctional colony with the release to be followed by a DATE restriction of liberty .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal .","The parties provided the ORG with the applicant \u2019s medical documents , including his clinical records , discharge summaries , and expert opinions .","The medical records show that the applicant had a long history of cerebral diseases as a result of having sustained a head injury in DATE that developed into traumatic cystic arachnoiditis . DATE he underwent a tomography examination which confirmed the presence of a growing liquor cyst located in the right frontotemporal part of the brain . The cyst impacted on his acoustic and visual nerves . The examination also revealed moderate internal hydrocephalus . In the recommendations written on DATE , the applicant \u2019s doctor noted that a nuclear magnetic resonance examination , an electroencephalography examination and a liquor analysis were required to properly diagnose the applicant \u2019s condition . He further observed that , in the absence of any treatment , it would be reasonable to perform urgent cerebral bypass surgery in order to prevent the applicant from going irreversibly blind . Nothing in the medical documents submitted suggests that the applicant had had any recourse to specific medical assistance or examinations regarding his cerebral problems during DATE preceding his arrest .","After the arrest the applicant was taken to temporary detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE ( \u201c facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u201d ) . On admission to that facility the resident prison doctor performed a general medical check - up of the applicant , having noted in the medical file that he had a brain cyst . The doctor concluded that the applicant was \u201c somatically healthy \u201d and was therefore fit to remain in the conditions provided by the detention facility .","On DATE and DATE the applicant was seen by a neurologist . In the absence of any medical documents the prison doctor was only able to perform a visual examination of the applicant . He diagnosed the applicant with hydrocephalus and recommended that an X - ray examination of the skull be carried out to make the correct diagnosis .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s medical file was supplemented with his old clinical records from a civilian hospital and the prison doctor examined him anew , paying regard to the additional medical information . He confirmed the diagnosis made in DATE and recommended a consultation with an ophthalmologist . The applicant was prescribed drug therapy for DATE .","An ophthalmologist diagnosed the applicant with angiopathy .","NORP In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis . He was immediately transferred to prison hospital no . CARDINAL in GPE , where the disease was successfully treated . The applicant was discharged from hospital with the ORG attestation of his full recovery from the infection .","On DATE the applicant was sent to NORP prison hospital in GPE for an in - depth medical examination . He underwent a large variety of diagnostic procedures , including a magnetic resonance tomography of the brain and cervical vertebrae performed in a NORP civilian hospital , ORG of GPE . The tests showed that the applicant had a liquor cyst in the right frontotemporal part of the brain and that he suffered from vicarious hydrocephalus of mixed genesis and encephalopathy at the initial stage . In addition , doctors were able to establish that the applicant \u2019s cervical vertebrae had several herniated disks and perineural cysts .","Following completion of the diagnostic cycle , the applicant was released from the hospital and sent back to the detention facility . Discharge summaries issued on DATE contained a recommendation of supervision by a prison doctor and regular consultations with a neurologist .","In DATE the applicant complained about headaches to the attending prison doctor . In response it was recommended that he undergo an additional neurological medical examination in NORP prison hospital . However , the hospital refused to admit him because it did not employ a suitably qualified medical specialist , such as a brain surgeon .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer contacted PERSON from the neurosurgical department of ORG , who agreed to study the applicant \u2019s clinical records and give his opinion about the state of the applicant \u2019s health at a court hearing on DATE , where he saw the applicant for the first time . At the hearing the doctor stated that the computer tomography performed on the applicant in DATE had indicated a brain oedema at the base of the skull . He insisted that any change of the applicant \u2019s lifestyle could induce complications related to the brain oedema and also seizures . Surgery was required to treat the cyst . However , PERSON concluded that the applicant \u2019s spinal problems were even more serious , as they could leave the applicant entirely paralysed . Nevertheless , the doctor noted that surgery would be only required if the applicant \u2019s health were to deteriorate . The doctor recommended chondroprotective therapy and cerebral bypass surgery for the applicant . He was also to wear a cervical collar .","NORP The applicant also provided the ORG with a certificate issued in DATE by PERSON , the head of the hospital where the applicant had received medical treatment in DATE . PERSON argued that the applicant \u2019s condition called for permanent medical supervision by a neurologist and neurosurgeon so that the applicant could be subjected to urgent surgical intervention should the need arise . In PERSON opinion , a detention facility was ill equipped to guarantee such supervision . The applicant also argued that his transfer to a northerly region in which to serve out his sentence had run contrary to the recommendations of his doctor and might have resulted in serious complications of his illness . Finally , he alleged that he lacked effective remedies whereby to complain about the poor quality of his medical treatment .","On DATE in response to a request from the applicant \u2019s lawyer , a medical expert commission assessed the applicant \u2019s health and checked for the existence of medical grounds warranting his release from detention . The commission observed that the applicant had received outpatient treatment and that he had no focal brain injuries , epileptic seizures or significant limitations of his day - to - day activity . Taking account of the results of his dynamic medical examinations , the doctors concluded that the applicant was in satisfactory health and that there were no medical grounds warranting his release from detention .","On DATE PERSON examined the applicant . No recommendations were made .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist to whom he complained about headaches , vomiting and vertigo . The doctor recommended drug therapy based on vasobral , piracetam , and vinpocetine . The following visit in DATE by the neurologist resulted in a modification of the drug regimen .","On DATE a prison doctor approved the applicant \u2019s transfer to a correctional colony , finding him fit to make the journey .","The applicant arrived on DATE at correctional colony no . IKCARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE ( \u201c colony no . IK-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u201d ) , where he was seen by the colony doctor , who noted that the applicant had been suffering from brain cyst . At DATE the doctor recommended the applicant \u2019s transfer to a hospital for further assessment . No urgency was warranted .","On DATE PERSON drafted another report , assessing the applicant \u2019s condition on the basis of his medical records and the results of his examination on DATE . PERSON concluded that his recommendations had not been complied with and that the applicant \u2019s cyst had increased . He stressed that the appropriate treatment could only be ensured in a specialised medical institution , not least because the requisite dynamic monitoring of the applicant \u2019s condition using computer and magnetic resonance tomography examinations needed to be performed DATE . Lastly , the doctor emphasised that the applicant \u2019s detention in a northerly region could lead to a further deterioration in his health by inducing epileptic seizures and brain ischemia , thus putting his life at risk .","On DATE the authorities transferred the applicant to a prison hospital in LOC . Following a number of tests , a medical panel declared that the applicant was not suffering from any disability . The applicant was discharged from the hospital with the recommendation that he be re - admitted for further treatment in DATE .","The last CARDINAL entries in the applicant \u2019s clinical records are illegible . The parties did not provide the ORG with any additional information on the state of his health ."],"violated_articles":["13"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144135","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HOSZOWSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicant became a party to proceedings for division of joint property .","On DATE the Krak\u00f3w \u2013 \u015ar\u00f3dmie\u015bcie District Court ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) gave a severance order and decided to examine the applicant \u2019s motion in separate proceedings .","From that date the proceedings have been pending before the firstinstance court .","The applicant lodged CARDINAL complaints under section CARDINAL of the Law of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki ) ( \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) .","NORP In his complaint of CARDINAL DATE he sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) examined the complaint . It found that the length of the proceedings had been partly attributable to the parties who had requested adjournment of CARDINAL hearings . CARDINAL hearing was adjourned due to the absence of CARDINAL of the parties\u2019 lawyers . The court also considered that the impugned proceedings had been complex . At the same time , however , it found some periods of inactivity on the part of ORG , acknowledged that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy and granted the applicant ORG CARDINAL which it considered \u201c adequate in view of the periods of inactivity found . \u201d","On DATE ORG allowed another applicant \u2019s complaint under LAW . The court held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant LAW in compensation .","NORP In DATE the applicant again lodged a complaint under LAW . He sought a finding that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and claimed ORG CARDINAL in compensation .","On DATE ORG held that the length of the proceedings had been excessive and awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL in compensation . In ORG view the trial court had failed to act in an effective and diligent manner , in particular in the light of the overall length of the proceedings in issue ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148269","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ROMANKEVI\u010c v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["In DATE the applicant \u2019s property rights to a previously nationalised part of his late father \u2019s land near GPE were restored . On DATE ORG restored his rights \u2013 restitution in natura \u2013 to the remainder of the land measuring QUANTITY , situated in the village of GPE . This plot of land was then entered in the land registry in the applicant \u2019s name .","NORP In DATE , having discovered that the decision of DATE was based on erroneous data prepared by a ORG - hired land surveyor and had possibly breached the rights of other former landowners , ORG instituted administrative proceedings to have the applicant \u2019s title to the plot annulled . The applicant was a third party to those proceedings and argued that the restoration process had been lawful , without , however , raising the question of an adequate compensation in the event that his title to the plot was extinguished . Shortly before the initiation of the case , ORG had admitted that its decision had been unlawful and had informed the applicant that it needed to rectify the error ; however , it appears that the latter had disagreed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the prosecutor \u2019s complaint . However , on DATE ORG remitted the case for re - examination .","On DATE ORG granted the claim and annulled the decision of DATE . Finally , on DATE ORG upheld the decision of the lower court . The courts established that the original plot of land to which the applicant had ownership rights was actually situated in another , albeit nearby , area of LOC . Thus , the return of the plot in DATE was declared unlawful as it breached the PERSON on the Restoration of Citizens\u2019 Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property .","Following the courts\u2019 decisions , the plot of land was taken away from the applicant and returned to the ORG . No compensation was awarded to the applicant . However , he reserved the right to have his ownership rights restored .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG restored the applicant \u2019s ownership rights in natura by granting a new plot of land measuring QUANTITY in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159040","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KOVALENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicants , whose names and DATE of birth are tabulated in Appendix I , took part in the cleaning - up operation at the GPE nuclear disaster site . They were subsequently registered disabled , becoming entitled to various social benefits .","On various dates the applicants successfully sued the authorities for inflation adjustment of these benefits . The judgments became final .","On various dates the Presidia of Regional Courts allowed the defendant authorities\u2019 applications for supervisory review and quashed the judgments , considering that the lower courts misapplied the material law .","Some of the judgments remained unenforced until the date of their quashing or were enforced with delay ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150792","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MIFOBOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE the administration of PERSON forwarded for review to ORG ( ORG ) letters sent by the applicant to the President of GPE , the governor of the region , and CARDINAL other administrative bodies . In these letters the applicant alleged in particular that she had a \u201c special relationship \u201d with the mayor of GPE , that she was destined to protect people in high office , and that she was being persecuted by employees of the mayor \u2019s office .","On DATE the Chief Psychiatrist of the ORG asked ORG to order an involuntary psychiatric examination of the applicant . The relevant part of the request read :","\u201c [ T]he resident psychiatrists concluded that [ the applicant \u2019s letters ] are morbid ( delusional ) and that she suffers from a mental disorder . The content of the letters reveals high levels of emotional stress , crystallised delusions , and the probability of unlawful actions against the persons involved in the delusions . The ORG attempted to persuade the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination voluntarily , but she refused . Her son suffers from a chronic mental disorder manifested as paranoid schizophrenia . [ Accordingly ] a judicial authorisation of the applicant \u2019s psychiatric examination under sections CARDINAL of LAW DATE [ is requested ] ... \u201d","On DATE ORG returned the application for involuntary psychiatric examination .","On DATE after a heated argument in the town hall , the applicant was brought to the police station and then transferred to the MRPC for urgent treatment .","On DATE a clinical psychiatric evaluation report was issued by the panel of CARDINAL psychiatrists in the ORG . The applicant was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and paranoid syndrome . The panel noted in particular her belief that she had an affectionate relationship with the mayor of PERSON ( attempting to contact him directly by phone and in person ) , her sense of being persecuted by the mayor \u2019s assistants , and the intense arguments during her visits to the town hall .","Involuntary hospitalisation of the applicant was recommended in the light of her persistent refusal to commit herself to hospital voluntarily , her failure to acknowledge her medical condition , and the risk of significant damage to her health through aggravation of her psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance .","The ORG submitted the application for involuntary treatment to ORG under LAW of ORG Rights related to its ORG Psychiatric Assistance Act DATE ) .","On DATE ORG terminated proceedings on the ORG application because the applicant had agreed to undergo the necessary treatment voluntarily and had signed the consent form in the courtroom . The ORG representative thus withdrew the application for involuntary treatment .","DATE and DATE the applicant was an in - patient in the ORG , following a course of anti - schizophrenia treatment .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG asked the Chief Psychiatrist of the MRPC to take \u201c prophylactic measures \u201d within his competence in respect of the applicant . The letter stated that she persistently stalked employees of ORG , demanded that unspecified payments be made to her , and insulted and threatened individuals dealing with her .","On DATE a psychiatrist examined the applicant and established that she had not been following her medication treatment , with the result that her schizophrenia was at an acute stage . The psychiatrist recommended involuntary hospitalisation and issued the corresponding medical referral .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was interned in the MRPC .","On DATE a clinical psychiatric evaluation report was issued by the panel of CARDINAL psychiatrists at the ORG . The applicant was diagnosed with progressive paranoid schizophrenia . The panel took special note of her general medical and clinical history , with the greatest emphasis focussed on the events of DATE and the treatment she received . In respect of developments since DATE the report read :","\u201c On CARDINAL at CARDINAL the patient PERSON was transported to the ORG under a referral by the psychiatrist PERSON . due to changes in her mental state , her expression of delusional ideas of relations , grandeur and persecution . PERSON involuntarily ...","[ Further follows the detailed personal , family and social profile of the applicant and her medical history in DATE ]","... Currently admitted to the ORG due to progression of her psychiatric symptoms to an acute stage . During examination the following were identified : delusional ideas of relations , persecution , grandeur , exceptional importance . A lack of any objective attitude regarding her condition and statements was observed .","Having regard to the above , the panel concluded that PERSON suffers from a chronic mental disorder in the form of paranoid continuous schizophrenia and needs involuntary treatment in the MRPCV under subsections ( a ) and ( c ) , LAW of LAW DATE . \u201d","The application for involuntary treatment was submitted by the ORG to ORG under LAW a and c of LAW of DATE , on the grounds of significant damage to her health due to the aggravation of her psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance , posing an immediate danger to herself and others .","On DATE the ORG made phone calls to the applicant \u2019s son , PERSON , and PERSON , a representative of the municipal ORG of GPE , summoning them to attend the hearing and to act as the applicant \u2019s representatives .","PERSON rights and duties under the letter of authority of DATE issued by ORG were described as follows :","\u201c ... PERSON is entrusted with representing the interests of ORG of ORG in relation to all institutions , organisations , and commercial enterprises , and also to litigate in all judicial institutions with all the rights of a plaintiff , defendant or CARDINAL party ... \u201d","On DATE , after considering the testimony of the applicant and the ORG \u2019s representative , medical evidence , written statements from the witnesses and documentary evidence , ORG ordered the involuntary hospitalisation of the applicant .","Present at the hearing were a representative of the hospital , a prosecutor , a representative of the municipal social services , and the applicant . The applicant \u2019s legal representative PERSON ( her son , who also suffered from schizophrenia ) was notified about the hearing , but did not appear . The trial record indicated that none of the parties objected to the hearing being held in his absence , including the applicant , who stated that she had \u201c told him not to open the door to anyone \u201d .","The hearing record indicates that PERSON ( designated as a representative of a party having an interest in the proceedings ) took part in the examination of the applicant ( addressing CARDINAL question to the representative of the MRPC ) , stated that there were grounds for involuntary hospitalisation , but did not take part in the closing arguments .","In reaching the decision to order involuntary treatment of the applicant , ORG noted the applicant \u2019s long history of suffering from a chronic psychiatric disorder and her acute state of schizophrenia at the material time ; her inability to control her behaviour ; her lengthy exposure to harsh weather conditions while seeking encounters with the mayor on the street ; the absence of anyone able to provide her with the necessary care ; the appearance and behaviour of the applicant in the courtroom ; the answers given to the questions addressed to her ; her previous history of in - patient psychiatric treatment and the lack of any prospect of improvement outside of a specialised facility .","Only the operative part of the judgment was delivered during the hearing and the applicant was never served with the full text of the judgment .","On DATE , during her stay in the ORG , the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment . Since she had not been served with a copy of it , the appeal claims had to be confined to general statements concerning the absence of reasons for her internment . The appeal contained a request to be provided with a lawyer for the appeal proceedings , because the applicant was allegedly not allowed to use the phone in the ORG or otherwise contact a representative of her choice .","The applicant was notified of the scheduled appeal hearing by the medical personnel , but was not transferred from the hospital to the courthouse in order to participate in it .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the ORG \u2019s representative and a prosecutor . No other party participated in the hearing , the record indicating in respect of the applicant that she \u201c was duly informed about the date and time of the hearing , but did not appear \u201d . The applicant \u2019s request to be represented by a lawyer was neither specifically mentioned nor addressed in any way . After hearing the testimony of the hospital \u2019s representative and the opinion of the prosecutor , and reviewing the written evidence , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s authorisation in full , explicitly stating that \u201c the arguments in the statement of appeal are essentially analogous to those examined [ by the lower court ] \u201d .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was released from the ORG .","During the applicant \u2019s stay in the ORG the medical personnel of the facility kept a treatment record , logging all the events considered significant . In the relevant parts it read :","\u201c ...","CARDINAL Still certain about her convictions , mental process is blurred . Resists dissuasion . Considers appealing against ORG authorisation .","...","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL Informed [ her ] about her appeal hearing on CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . [ She ] enquired whether she would be participating in the hearing ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183121","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF HYSI v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in GPE , GPE , in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence .","On DATE and DATE , following proceedings in absentia , ORG and ORG , respectively , convicted the applicant of attempted theft resulting in death in collusion with others and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . That decision became final on DATE after ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant \u2019s lawyer . It appears that the applicant was represented by a lawyer appointed by his family throughout the court proceedings .","It appears that on DATE the applicant was extradited from GPE to GPE .","On DATE the ORG allowed a request by the applicant to appeal out of time and he lodged an appeal against his conviction in absentia .","On DATE ORG while requalifying the charges against the applicant on the basis of the evidence obtained during the proceedings in absentia , upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction , ruling that it had become res judicata .","By a final decision of DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction as decided in the ORG decision of DATE , ruling that it had become res judicata and that the facts and law in the case had been examined previously . It further noted that leave to appeal out of time should not have been granted as the case had become res judicata .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG against ORG decision , complaining , inter alia , about the fact that the domestic courts had not given him the possibility of a fresh factual and legal determination of the criminal charge .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer was notified of ORG decision to dismiss his appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144137","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RUMOR v. ITALY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Positive obligations)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , in the province of GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , can be summarised as follows .","The applicant \u2019s relationship with ORG , a NORP national , began in DATE . They had CARDINAL children , P. and A. , who were born in DATE respectively .","The applicant submitted that her relationship with ORG deteriorated rapidly . In DATE they undertook relationship therapy , which was interrupted because ORG was suffering from depression . He also took no interest in the business he had set up with the applicant in DATE .","According to the domestic court \u2019s judgments , on DATE ORG hit the applicant several times and threatened her with a knife and a pair of scissors during a violent argument concerning the relationship that she had begun with a common friend . ORG locked the applicant in the flat and took the keys in order to prevent her from leaving . Their children were asleep in the flat and CARDINAL of them , awakened by the screaming , witnessed part of the aggression .","The carabinieri , called by the neighbours , intervened at the couple \u2019s home . The applicant was taken to hospital in a state of shock . She was diagnosed with , inter alia , concussion , injuries to the head and several bruises all over her body .","J.C.N. was arrested and detained . He was charged with attempted murder , kidnapping , aggravated violence and threatening behaviour . He subsequently asked the authorities in charge of the preliminary investigation to adopt the summary procedure ( giudizio abbreviato ) provided for in Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG was found guilty and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 detention .","The applicant did not join the criminal proceedings as a civil party .","On DATE ORG reduced the sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 detention .","By a decision issued on DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by ORG","On DATE ORG applied to ORG seeking to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest at a reception centre located in the municipality where the applicant was living ( Colognola ai Colli ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed ORG \u2019s application , referring , inter alia , to the proximity of the facility indicated ( QUANTITY ) to the applicant \u2019s home , the psychological condition of ORG and the risk that he might try to contact the applicant .","On DATE ORG lodged another application for house arrest , indicating a reception centre ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) located in Soave , a different municipality of the province of GPE , QUANTITY from the applicant \u2019s home . The centre was managed by a non - profit - making organisation called PERSON .","ORG ordered an inspection of the facility indicated by ORG in order to assess its suitability to host him . The inspection was carried out by the carabinieri , who highlighted that the facility in question had already hosted persons whose prison sentence had been replaced by house arrest , without any complications having arisen . They further stressed that they carried out regular surveillance of the persons hosted by the centre . They consequently concluded that the facility was suitable to host the applicant \u2019s former partner .","On DATE ORG granted ORG \u2019s request .","On DATE ORG granted ORG permission to work outside the reception centre during the grape - harvest season .","On DATE ORG finished serving his sentence and was released . He decided to continue residing at the reception centre .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG seeking sole custody of her children and the forfeiture of her former partner \u2019s parental rights .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was granted sole custody of her children . In DATE , after having heard both the applicant and her former partner , ORG ordered the forfeiture of ORG \u2019s parental rights and prohibited any form of contact between him and the children . The court stressed that ORG could apply for the restoration of his parental rights once he had served his sentence and followed a path aimed at acquiring the parental skills he had been shown to be lacking .","In DATE ORG applied to ORG seeking the restoration of his parental rights and the suspension of his financial obligation towards his children . No information was submitted to the ORG about the outcome of the application .","The applicant claimed that following the violence suffered at the hands of her former partner , she lived in a state of constant anguish and fear of a recurrence of the violence against her and her children . She underwent psychological support therapy , as did her son PERSON , who had witnessed the violence .","On an unspecified date the applicant turned for help to an association ( Associazione scaligera vittime di reato \u2013 ASAV ) that specialised in providing material , psychological and legal assistance to victims of crime .","The applicant visited her former partner CARDINAL times during his imprisonment , which lasted from DATE to DATE .","From the material submitted by the applicant , it appears that after ORG was released he and the applicant resumed contact in the form of an exchange of emails ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155162","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"X v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC Duplek . The chamber decided that the applicant \u2019s , the children \u2019s and their mother \u2019s identity should not be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Rules of the ORG ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172809","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"\u0110UROVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a LOC national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr R. Mlinari\u0107 and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","On DATE the Government of GPE were informed of the case and invited to exercise their right to intervene if they wished to do so . On DATE the Government of GPE informed the ORG that they did not wish to exercise their right to intervene in the present case .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE I.P. , a well - known NORP journalist , and his business associate PERSON were killed by the explosion of an improvised device placed under ORG \u2019s car , which was parked in front of his publishing company . The explosion also caused injuries to CARDINAL employees of the publishing company and considerable material damage to the surrounding buildings and nearby parked cars .","NORP The police immediately started enquiries into the above events and soon learned that a certain GPE , GPE and DATE were implicated and that an unknown person was supposedly aiding them in fleeing the country . It was therefore decided to arrest these individuals . The Police Chief ( PERSON ) issued an oral order that the arrests be carried out by an anti - terrorist team of ORG ( Specijalna policija , PERSON hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta DATE hereinafter \u201c the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG \u201d ) indicted several individuals , including the applicant , before ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) on charges of conspiracy to kill FAC and of carrying out the plan .","On DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) found the applicant guilty on the charge of incitement to conspiracy to commit aggravated murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction , increasing his sentence to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE , at TIME , the ORG arrested the applicant together with ORG and PERSON at the NORP petrol station off the motorway near the town of ORG .","According to the Government the CARDINAL individuals concerned resisted arrest and force had to be used against them . CARDINAL members of the ORG sustained injuries . The applicant also sustained injuries while a standard restraint technique was applied against him during the arrest .","According to the applicant , even though he was not resisting arrest , he was severely beaten by several police officers all over his head and body .","After being arrested the applicant was brought to the LOC of FAC in GPE . There he received medical assistance at CARDINAL a.m. on DATE from an emergency medical team .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by an investigating judge of ORG in the presence of CARDINAL defence lawyers . He did not make any complaints about the conduct of the police .","On DATE , upon his admission to detention , the applicant was examined by a prison doctor who found that he had haematomas around both eyes and an abrasion on his face .","According to the applicant , in the further course of the proceedings he complained to ORG , the investigating judge , the State Attorney \u2019s Office , the police and other authorities of the violence used against him during his arrest . However , he did not submit any documents supporting those allegations .","The documents submitted by the parties show that in a letter of CARDINAL DATE , addressed to ORG ) the applicant complained , inter alia , of alleged ill - treatment by the police during his arrest .","No investigation was ever opened in connection with the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the ORG before ORG ( Op\u0107inski gra\u0111anski sud u GPE ) , claiming damages for his alleged ill - treatment by the police . It appears that these proceedings are still pending before the first - instance court .","In a constitutional complaint of DATE , lodged against ORG judgment of DATE given in the criminal proceedings against him , the applicant alleged that the police officers had used force against him during his arrest and had caused him numerous bodily injuries . On DATE ORG found that these allegations , in so far as they were admissible and susceptible to be addressed within ORG proceedings , did not reveal any violation of the applicant \u2019s human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by LAW ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147885","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KARI\u017d v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE the police issued a payment order fining the applicant CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) for CARDINAL traffic offences under Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) and LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) of FAC . From the police \u2019s description of the facts and evidence it appears that on DATE at TIME while trying to overtake X \u2019s car , which had been improperly parked , the applicant failed to make sure that he could do so without endangering X \u2019s car and with the rear right end of his car he hit the rear left end of NORP \u2019s car . Allegedly , after the collision the applicant left the scene of the accident without submitting his personal data to X who was not present during the accident or notifying the police that he had been involved in an accident . X stated to the police that an unknown witness told him that the person responsible for the accident was driving a dark car with the number plate LJ DATE . On the basis of this information the police checked CARDINAL vehicles with number plates LJ DATE and LJ CARDINAL - CARDINALL. These vehicles did not show any sign of damage . On DATE X informed the police that he had found a dark car with the number plate KP LCARDINAL - CARDINAL . The police established that the owner of the car was the applicant . On DATE the police interviewed the applicant and checked his car . They found that the damage on the applicant \u2019s car corresponded to that of X \u2019s car . They further found that Y was present in the applicant \u2019s car during the accident .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection . He argued that he did not detect any collision between the CARDINAL cars and that , accordingly , he had not informed GPE or the police of the accident ; that there had been many passers - by on the road who had witnessed how he had been manoeuvring the car but nobody had warned him of any kind of abrasion or dent caused to X \u2019s car ; that he lived at the address of the scene of the accident and would have never left the scene even if he had caused the damage ; that he had been informed of the accident only the following day when called by the police , and that together with the police he had checked his car visually and discovered a scratch of QUANTITY in length for which he did not know when it appeared . According to the applicant , due to X \u2019s improper parking any vehicle could have hit his car ; from the damage on X \u2019s car it was clear that the applicant could not have caused the damage with his car . The applicant reiterated that if he had detected the accident he would have reported it and this fact could have been proved by witness Y which was present in his car . He described in detail the events of DATE , namely approximately at TIME he drove out of the parking spaces , he wanted to turn to the right but CARDINAL cars prevented him from doing so because they were actually parked on the road ; the cars parked posed a threat to road traffic safety because the space between them would have not allowed an ambulance or any other emergency vehicle to pass ; in such a situation the applicant was forced to position his car at an appropriate angle to enable him to pass safely between the cars ; he had to fold both side mirrors ; otherwise he would not have been able to pass the CARDINAL parked vehicles without collision ; he manoeuvred his car at CARDINAL speed and was not aware that he had caused an abrasion or damage to any other vehicle .","On DATE the police issued a reasoned decision finding the applicant guilty of the abovementioned minor offences .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for judicial review . He complained that the police had not sufficiently established the facts ; he had not left or escaped the scene of the accident ; he had not been aware of any collision and , consequently , he did not inform X and the police thereof in accordance with LAW ) of FAC . He further stated that he wanted to turn right onto the carriageway but he was prevented from doing so by CARDINAL cars parked on the carriageway \u2013 on the left and on the right sides of the road . CARDINAL of the cars was X \u2019s car . When he wanted to drive out of the garage he could not do so and was forced to manoeuvre for quite some time to position the car at an appropriate angle and had to straighten the car almost completely to be able to pass freely between the CARDINAL cars . In order to do it safely he had to fold in both side mirrors because otherwise he would have not been able to pass the parked cars without colliding with them . During the manoeuvring he was not aware that he had caused an abrasion or damage to the cars . The manoeuvring speed was minimal . There were many passers - by who witnessed the manoeuvring but did not warn him of any accident . In order to prove these allegations the applicant proposed that he and Y be heard . He further stated that police had not considered the fact that he lived at the address of the scene of the accident and therefore he had no interest in leaving the scene . He drove to a filling station , went shopping and visited his parents . As evidence he submitted a fuel purchase receipt and a shop receipt and proposed the hearing of his parents . He further argued that if he had left the scene of the accident intentionally he would have concealed the scratches on his car . Even if he had collided with X \u2019s car he would not have been aware of it since his car was a diesel - fuelled car which tended to vibrate heavily . Moreover , his radio was always turned on which reduced the likelihood of noticing the collision . In order to prove this he proposed that he and Y be heard . He argued that he was not aware of the date when the scratch appeared on his car since the car was DATE and had many other scratches . Since X \u2019s car had been improperly parked any vehicle could have collided with it . The police did not clarify on the basis of which fact they had concluded that the scratch on his car corresponded to the damage on X \u2019s car . In the applicant \u2019s view X had been frenetically searching for the culprit and as soon as he found a black car","On DATE ORG rejected the request for judicial review without holding a hearing . ORG held that it had no reason to doubt the findings of the police who conducted an interview with the applicant and a visual inspection of his car during which they noticed damage which corresponded to the damage on X \u2019s car . According to the court , it was clear from the documents of the case - file , in particular the photographs of X \u2019s car , that the damage had been caused by the applicant \u2019s car and the applicant \u2019s complaints in this respect remained general and subjective . In particular , the allegations that the accident would have been reported by passers - by or that the applicant would not have left the scene of the accident if he had noticed it were subjective and could not be verified . The applicant could not be released from his responsibility for the minor offence by stating that he had not been aware of the collision because this was , again , a subjective allegation . Every participant in road traffic , in the circumstances described by the applicant , was expected to be particularly alert and to detect the collision . Regarding the allegation that X \u2019s car was parked on the road and that it had endangered the traffic safety the court stressed that only the applicant \u2019s behaviour was at issue . It held that according to LAW ) of FAC a traffic offender who had left the scene of the accident should have immediately notified the injured party or the police the information referred to in that Section . The court therefore did not have to reply to the applicant \u2019s allegations that he had not left the scene to an unknown place as they were legally irrelevant . Finally , the evidence submitted by the applicant could not change the conclusions of the police and it was only an attempt to delay the proceedings since the motions for evidence did not comply with the required legal standards regarding the subject - matter about which the witnesses proposed might have testified .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal as inadmissible ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140933","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KRAI\u0143SKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG ) opened an investigation into the allegations that the applicant had committed the offences of illegal border crossing and inciting prostitution for gain . The case was registered under no . CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","It appears that the investigation was formally stayed from CARDINAL DATE to DATE .","On DATE ORG lodged with ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) a bill of indictment , charging the applicant with the offence of trafficking of women and inciting prostitution for gain . The case was registered under no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG remitted the case to the prosecutor for further investigation . The new investigation file was registered under no . CARDINAL Ds . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG lodged with ORG an extended bill of indictment , this time , charging the applicant , together with CARDINAL alleged accomplices , of membership in an organised criminal gang , trafficking of women and inciting and profiting from prostitution . The case was registered under no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On DATE the trial court relinquished its jurisdiction to the Opole Regional Court ( PERSON ) .","On DATE the ORG renounced its jurisdiction and the case was remitted back to LOC . The case was registered under no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","The first hearing was held on DATE . On DATE the trial court decided to sever the charge of profiting from prostitution and to deal with it separately .","The severed case was registered under no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","The subsequent hearings in the severed case no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL were held on CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The trial court examined CARDINAL witnesses .","On DATE the ORG discontinued the case no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the ground of negative prescription .","On an unspecified date , prior to DATE , the proceedings in the main case , no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , were discontinued on the ground of negative prescription .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings under the PERSON of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki ) ( \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) . He alleged that the pre - trial proceedings in the case no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had been unreasonably lengthy as they had lasted DATE .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the complaint . The court held that the CARDINAL Act was not applicable in the applicant \u2019s case since the impugned proceedings were in their pretrial and not judicial phase .","The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are stated in the ORG \u2019s decisions in cases of ORG v. GPE no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( dec . ) , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V and NORP v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII and the judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG CARDINAL","NORP Moreover , on DATE the PERSON of DATE on amendments to the PERSON on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o zmianie ustawy o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki ) ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) entered into force .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the DATE Amendment , the amended name of LAW reads as follows :","\u201c [ the LAW ] on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted and supervised by a LAW and to a trial within a reasonable time . \u201d","Following LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The LAW stipulates the principles of and the procedure for the lodging and the examination of a complaint by a party whose right to a trial within a reasonable time has been breached as a result of an action or the inaction of a court or of the prosecutor conducting or supervising the investigation . \u201d","Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the amended CARDINAL Act , in so far as relevant :","\u201c CARDINAL . If a complaint concerns the unreasonable length of an investigation , it will be examined by the court immediately above the court competent to deal with the case . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the amended CARDINAL LAW provides , in so far as relevant :","\u201c CARDINAL . The complaint may contain a request for the court conducting the proceedings or the prosecutor conducting or supervising the investigation , to take actions in a specific time - limit or to pay suitable amount of money as specified in section CARDINAL subsection CARDINAL . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the amended CARDINAL Act reads , in so far as relevant :","\u201c CARDINAL . If the complaint concerns unreasonable length of the investigation , the competent court informs ORG \u2013 the prosecutor immediately above the prosecutor conducting or supervising the investigation \u2013 and serves him with a copy of the complaint . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the amended CARDINAL Act provides , in so far as relevant :","\u201c CARDINAL . If the complaint is justified , the court may , at the request of the complainant , award ... a sum of CARDINAL Polish zlotys to be paid by ORG or by a bailiff , if the proceedings have been conducted by a bailiff . \u201d","Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the amended LAW :","\u201c A party may lodge a new complaint in respect of the same set of proceedings DATE after the court has decided on the previous complaint or DATE after where the complainant has been remanded in custody during the investigation , or where these are enforcement proceedings or any other proceedings concerning execution of a court \u2019s ruling . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of LAW lays down the following transitional rules in relation to applications which are already pending before the ORG :","\u201c CARDINAL . Within DATE of entry into force of this LAW , persons who , before that date , had lodged a complaint with ORG ... complaining of a breach of the right to an investigation within a reasonable time as guaranteed by LAW ... , may , if their complaint to ORG was lodged in the course of the impugned investigation and if the ORG has not adopted a decision concerning the admissibility of their case , lodge a complaint , on the basis of the provisions of this law , that the length of the proceedings was unreasonable .","A complaint lodged under subsection CARDINAL shall indicate the date on which the application was lodged with the ORG .","The relevant court shall immediately inform the minister with a foreign affairs mandate of any complaints lodged under subsection CARDINAL . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175658","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MAG\u00c1T v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was sued by his son in proceedings on child maintenance before ORG ( file no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","During those proceedings he made an incomplete submission on CARDINAL DATE , which he supplemented DATE after alleging that he had been waiting for a response from ORG in respect of his request for a legal aid lawyer . He also lodged CARDINAL complaints with the president of ORG about the excessive length of proceedings , namely on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , which were unsuccessful . Having been dissatisfied with their outcome , he turned to the appellate court for review of his complaints to no avail .","ORG , on the other hand , took the following steps . It asked several public authorities , such as for example ORG and ORG , to provide it with information relevant to the case . DATE and DATE , it was dealing with an appointment of a guardian to the applicant , who at the material time was undergoing an ambulatory psychiatric treatment . Such an appointment was eventually revoked in DATE on the grounds that ORG had appointed a lawyer for the applicant in DATE . ORG also joined the present case file to another set of proceedings for DATE . In DATE , ORG judge responsible for hearing the applicant \u2019s case changed . ORG further scheduled several hearings , which were either adjourned or cancelled .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint about a violation of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the proceedings held before FAC as manifestly ill - founded . It concluded that ORG proceeded with the matter actively and properly , apart from a few minor exceptions , such as the joining of a case file to another set of proceedings , changing of the judge and a procedural error made during one of the hearings . In particular , ORG took into account the fact that the applicant had complained of excessive delays with the president of ORG and challenged them further on appeal on each occasion .","Subsequently , ORG took several steps as follows . It asked for further information from inter alia the applicant \u2019s employer . It also scheduled a hearing for DATE , which was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE . It then postponed the latter hearing to an unspecified date , since it had to deal with a procedural request from the plaintiff , which was also challenged on appeal . In the absence of any further information from the parties , it appears that the proceedings are still pending and no judgment on the merits has been delivered by ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161752","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PAI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the \u0160ibenik Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG opened an investigation against the applicant on suspicion of the theft of a mobile telephone from GPE , who had come to GPE as a tourist from GPE .","On DATE an investigating judge of the ORG heard the applicant , who denied the charges against him . He explained that on the occasion in question some children from a house in GPE had thrown water - filled balloons at him . He had approached the house the children had come from and had knocked at the door , but no one had answered . He had then walked away . When he was back at home , CARDINAL young women had come to ask for the mobile telephone belonging to CARDINAL of them , but he told them he had not taken it .","NORP In response to a request for international legal assistance from the NORP prosecuting authorities , on DATE ORG in GPE heard evidence from GPE She said that on DATE in GPE , GPE , her children had thrown water - filled balloons at the applicant . He had then approached the house they were staying in and through a window she had seen him steal her mobile telephone from a table on the terrace of that house . Together with her step - daughter she had followed the applicant to his house and asked him to return her telephone . However , he had denied taking it .","On DATE the NORP Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office indicted the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) on the charge of stealing a mobile telephone from GPE","During his trial before ORG the applicant gave oral evidence on DATE . He reiterated the statement he had given before the investigating judge . Throughout these proceedings the applicant challenged the allegation against him , contending that , although there had been a dispute between him and GPE over the behaviour of her children , he had not stolen her mobile telephone . The applicant \u2019s account was confirmed in essence by his former wife , who was also questioned as a witness during the proceedings .","At a hearing held on DATE ORG decided to admit the record of GPE \u2019s questioning as evidence without examining her directly . The applicant objected to the reading out of GPE \u2019s statement .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment suspended for DATE . The finding of the applicant \u2019s guilt was based solely on the evidence given by GPE The trial court held that it was clear that the applicant had been the person who had approached the house where GPE and her family were staying . The evidence given by GPE conclusively showed that the applicant had committed the offence at issue and that GPE had no reason \u201c to blame the accused without basis \u201d . The relevant part of the first - instance judgment reads :","\u201c Under LAW ) of LAW this court read out the statement given by GPE before ORG , GPE , on DATE without the parties\u2019 consent because there were sound reasons for doing so , namely that the victim gave her evidence DATE and this court considers that , owing to the passage of time , it would not learn any new facts or circumstances relevant for assessing the circumstances of the event [ at issue ] , and was also mindful of the fact that the [ charges against the accused ] will become time - barred in DATE and ... summoning the victim would protract the criminal proceedings unnecessarily .","...","... considering the evidence given by witness and victim GPE as being credible and truthful , this court has established the criminal responsibility of the accused because it has not found in the victim \u2019s statement any reason for which she would blame the accused without basis . ... \u201d","In his appeal of CARDINAL DATE the applicant argued , inter alia , that GPE had never been summoned to a hearing during his trial before ORG and that he had had no opportunity to question her . He also argued that GPE \u2019s mobile telephone had not been found in his possession . On DATE the ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded , upholding the first - instance judgment . The relevant part of the appeal judgment reads as follows :","\u201c In the reasoning of its judgment , the [ first - instance ] court stated the reasons why it had decided ... to read out the statement of the witness - victim GPE , stating that the victim had given her evidence DATE previously , at which time her recollection of the event [ at issue ] would have been fresher than later , that the prosecution would become time - barred in DATE and since [ the victim ] was a foreign citizen ... summoning her [ to a hearing ] would protract the criminal proceedings unnecessarily .","... This decision of the first - instance court did not violate the defence rights of the accused ...","...","... it should also be said that the mobile telephone could not have been found in the accused \u2019s possession because nobody looked for it . The documents in the case - file show that the accused \u2019s home was not searched , which was a mistake on the part of the police . However , even without it , the [ first - instance ] court undoubtedly established that the accused had stolen the mobile telephone from the victim ... \u201d","... \u201d","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , arguing that he had not had a fair trial as he had not been given an opportunity to question GPE","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . This decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145216","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RUSZKOWSKA v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .","The applicant and her husband , GPE , had CARDINAL children , NORP and PERSON","In DATE they formed a foster family for QUANTITY brothers , GPE and PERSON On DATE the ORG appointed her and her husband as the LOC official foster parents .","NORP In DATE they fostered CARDINAL more children , siblings GPE , GPE and GPE","In DATE the family fostered CARDINAL other children , sisters TIME and PERSON","The applicant and her husband took care of CARDINAL children altogether , QUANTITY biological and CARDINAL fostered .","NORP In DATE GPE suddenly died . The applicant subsequently applied for dissolution of the foster family . She submitted that she could not cope with the task of running a foster home for CARDINAL children on her own .","NORP On DATE the ORG issued an interim care order placing GPE , GPE and GPE with another foster family , run by PERSON and PERSON The applicant was still responsible for the CARDINAL PERSON brothers and the CARDINAL PERSON sisters as their foster mother .","On DATE the ORG moved the PERSON brothers to another foster family , run by PERSON","NORP In DATE the foster family formed by the applicant was dissolved in respect of the CARDINAL M. sisters .","NORP In DATE the applicant married GPE , who did not adopt the applicant \u2019s biological sons NORP and PERSON . The applicant remains their sole legal guardian .","The applicant \u2019s late husband GPE was covered by an insurance scheme run by ORG ( ORG \u2013 \u201c the Fund \u201d ) . His children were entitled to a survivors\u2019 pension ( renta rodzinna ) under the scheme . The total amount of the pension payable to survivors was to be divided into equal parts among all eligible individuals \u2013 in GPE \u2019s case , all his children , both biological and fostered .","In DATE the applicant applied to ORG for the survivors\u2019 pension in respect of all CARDINAL children .","On DATE the ORG decided that the PERSON sisters were not eligible for the pension , as DATE had passed between the applicant \u2019s late husband becoming their foster father and his death . The ORG further established that the remaining CARDINAL children \u2013 the applicant \u2019s biological children , the CARDINAL PERSON brothers and the CARDINAL C. siblings \u2212 would be entitled to a pension of ORG MONEY in total per month . The applicant , as their legal guardian , was appointed beneficiary of the pension .","On DATE PERSON requested that the ORG grant a pension in respect of the ORG siblings , who had by that time become part of the foster family she ran with her husband ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG issued a new decision revising the amount of the pension to be paid . The applicant \u2019s CARDINAL biological children and the CARDINAL PERSON brothers fostered by her would be entitled to a DATE allowance of ORG between them , CARDINAL of the total amount . The CARDINAL C. siblings being raised by the PERSON family would be entitled to a DATE allowance of ORG between them , CARDINAL of the total amount .","NORP The applicant appealed against the decisions delivered by the Fund . She requested that the court amend its decision of DATE and declare that the only individuals eligible were her husband \u2019s biological children . She argued that the children formerly in her foster care had been placed with other families who provided for them and that they should not therefore be entitled to ORG in respect of her late husband . She was of the view that the contested decision put her children in a disadvantageous situation in comparison with the foster children .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , but on DATE ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the lower court for re - examination with the participation of the C. and PERSON legal guardians .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal again . The court based its reasoning on ORG LOC z CARDINAL grudnia DATE roku o ubezpieczeniu spo\u0142ecznym rolnik\u00f3w \u2013 \u201c the LAW \u201d ) . Under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of that LAW all children of the deceased , including foster children , were eligible for a survivors\u2019 pension . LAW stated that all family members were eligible for a share of the pension , which was to be divided into equal parts , even where the eligible individuals were minors under the care of different guardians . ORG stressed that the spirit of the LAW was to treat all children equally in respect of the insurance benefits payable to them on the death of an insured person , irrespective of whether they were biological or foster children . The court found no grounds on which to quash or amend the contested decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed a further appeal by the applicant on the same grounds as the first . The court fully concurred with the reasoning of the first - instance court .","On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to ORG to complain about the decisions given in her case . She submitted that her biological children were being treated less favourably than the foster children in respect of their survivors\u2019 pension . She received a response dated DATE . In that letter , the Director of ORG shared the applicant \u2019s view that the legal provisions in force at that time were indeed unfavourable to biological children in situations where foster children had been moved to other families . The applicant was informed that the relevant legislative amendments were in progress .","According to the most recent relevant decision of the ORG , dated DATE , the total amount of the pension would from that date be divided into CARDINAL parts , because ORG had lost his entitlement having reached the age of majority . From that date onwards , the applicant \u2019s biological children would receive CARDINAL of the survivors\u2019 pension . The remainder would be paid to the other children formerly in her and her late husband \u2019s foster care .","The District Family Support Centre ( PCPR ) awarded the applicant the following amounts in financial support for the foster children :","for GPE from DATE until DATE \u2013 CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional CARDINAL MONEY for personal care of the child ;","for GPE from DATE until DATE \u2013 CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional CARDINAL MONEY for personal care of the child ;","for GPE from DATE until DATE \u2013 CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ORG for personal care of the child ;","for GPE from DATE until DATE \u2013 CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ORG for personal care of the child ;","for ORG from DATE until DATE \u2013 CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an MONEY for personal care of the child ;","for TIME from DATE until DATE CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG and an additional CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL PLN for personal care of the child ;","for PERSON from DATE until DATE , and an additional CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG for personal care of the child .","Mr and PERSON , the GPE foster parents , received :","for GPE from DATE until DATE CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional NORP ORG for personal care of the child ;","for GPE from DATE until DATE \u2013 CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN for personal care of the child ;","for ORG from DATE until DATE \u2013 CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN for personal care of the child .","PERSON , PERSON and GPE \u2019s foster mother , received :","for GPE from DATE until DATE CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL PLN and an additional CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG for personal care of the child ;","for GPE from DATE until DATE and an additional NORP for personal care of the child .","Siblings GPE , GPE and ORG remained in PERSON and PERSON foster family from DATE until DATE ( T.C. ) and CARDINAL DATE ( GPE and GPE ) . By a court decision of DATE , GPE was placed in a Staterun children \u2019s home . PERSON and GPE remained with couple P. \u2019s foster family until DATE when the court restored their biological GPE parental rights . PERSON and GPE lived with them from DATE .","GPE and PERSON stopped drawing their survivors\u2019 pensions on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","Siblings PERSON and GPE remained in PERSON foster family from DATE until DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . That foster family ultimately ceased to exist because they had reached the age of majority . PERSON subsequently moved in with his biological mother . He stopped receiving his survivors\u2019 pension on DATE . PERSON moved into college accommodation .","The applicant \u2019s biological sons GPE and PERSON were entitled to receive ORG until DATE and DATE respectively . ORG and GPE \u2019s entitlement expired on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","8","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164460","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF A.M. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Expulsion);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Afghanistan)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and has been in the GPE since DATE .","On DATE the applicant entered the GPE where on DATE he applied for asylum , fearing persecution within the meaning of the DATE LAW ( \u201c the Refugee Convention \u201d ) and\/or treatment in breach of LAW . On DATE , he was interviewed about his identity , nationality and travel itinerary ( eerste gehoor ) . He stated , inter alia , that he was an NORP national of NORP origin , that he came from GPE and that he had travelled to the GPE via GPE , GPE and GPE .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed about his reasons for seeking asylum ( nader gehoor ) . He stated that he feared persecution and ill - treatment on account of his communist past as a former member of the communist ORG of GPE ( \u201c the PDPA \u201d ) and for having served as a volunteer in ORG ( PERSON ) . He further claimed that he risked ill - treatment at the hands of mujahideen party ORG for having been involved DATE with the rival NORP - dominated , PERSON party and , additionally , at the hands of a Mr S. , whom he had captured and ill - treated during an interrogation conducted in the context of his work for PERSON . He also feared problems from the side of PERSON for having stopped working for them .","The applicant stated that he had joined the youth branch of the PDPA in DATE and that in DATE he had served as a volunteer for DATE in ORG . He had been discharged after he had stepped on a mine during combat . He further stated that in DATE he had started to work for ORG in GPE , at the department for government stores , and that in DATE he had given a television interview in which he had criticised the then Minister of Trade . This interview had not been broadcast in DATE but only in DATE , after the mujahideen had seized power in GPE . DATE after it had been broadcast , the applicant had been arrested by the mujahideen faction PERSON ( ORG ) then led by PERSON . In his opinion they had been under the impression , given that he had dared to criticise ORG , that he was an important member of ORG . He had been released after DATE in a prisoner exchange operation mediated , at the request of the applicant \u2019s parents , by PERSON , an influential person of NORP origin .","In return , the applicant had had to work for PERSON . He had worked as a representative of the ( military ) Division CARDINAL of PERSON at the GPE peace commission in which ORG , GPE and PERSON had also been represented . His tasks had included trading prisoners and seized goods , and mediating between parties . He had also been responsible for preventing members of PERSON ORG from defecting and for preventing members of other factions from infiltrating PERSON . In the course of carrying out these duties and if circumstances so warranted , he had been under orders to take people secretly into custody . CARDINAL of the persons taken in custody , PERSON , had been interrogated by the applicant himself , who had ill - treated PERSON during interrogation . After PERSON and PERSON had taken over control of the GPE district in GPE , the applicant had been arrested and detained again by ORG in DATE . He had been released in a prisoner exchange organised by PERSON .","The applicant had continued his work for the peace committee of PERSON until DATE , when this party had been defeated and retreated to GPE . The applicant had stayed behind in GPE and had not been persecuted by \u201c GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , fearing ORG and the ORG , the applicant had then gone into hiding \u2013 moving around between GPE and the villages of PERSON and PERSON in the province of DATE until DATE , when NORP troops had arrived . He had been arrested on DATE by ORG , then under the leadership of General PERSON . The applicant had been tortured several times during his incarceration . Mr PERSON had been present on one of those occasions . The applicant had been told by interrogators that he had been detained because he was a NORP or a convert . He also thought that his arrest had something to do with PERSON The applicant had managed to escape from prison after DATE with the help of a guard \u2013 who like the applicant was a former communist \u2013 to whom the applicant had paid MONEY . This guard had set up a mock execution outside the prison , which had enabled the applicant to escape . This guard had told the applicant that he should leave GPE forever . After his escape , the applicant had first hidden in his house in GPE for DATE and had subsequently stayed with a distant relative until he had left GPE for GPE in DATE .","On DATE , the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON Integratie ) informed the applicant that his case had been transmitted to ORG ( see ORG v. the GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) in order for it to examine whether LAW should be applied to the applicant \u2019s asylum request .","On DATE the CARDINAL Unit conducted a supplementary interview ( aanvullend gehoor ) with the applicant . During this interview , he declared , inter alia , that in DATE , as a member of ORG , he had participated in a purge action \u2013 ordered by ORG and ORG \u2013 aimed against persons active on behalf of PERSON and Jamiat in a specific area and that prisoners of war had been handed over to the former NORP communist security service , ORG ( ORG - e Dowlati \/ PERSON ) . He had become disabled when the tank on which he had been standing had hit a mine . The applicant also stated that , during the wars , PERSON had plundered houses , seized privately owned cars and physically tortured persons . It was correct that PERSON had committed many crimes and had shed much blood . He further related how he had interrogated and hit Mr S. at the PERSON headquarters in GPE . He also stated that , at present , he had no proof that he was being searched for but that it was clear to him , having been released upon payment of a bribe , that he could not show himself in GPE .","On DATE the Minister for ORG issued notice of her intention ( voornemen ) to reject the first applicant \u2019s asylum application and to apply LAW . The Minister found it established , given his consistent and detailed statements , that the applicant had worked for ORG and PERSON but also found that , in his account to the GPE authorities , he had in part misrepresented the facts , had sought to trivialise his activities for PERSON and had withheld important information .","The nature of the applicant \u2019s work , and the contents of an official report ( ambtsbericht ) , drawn up on DATE by ORG , entitled \u201c ORG in NORP GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ( \u201c PERSON in communistisch GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG en WAD \u201d ; ORG ) and an official report , drawn up on DATE by ORG , on PERSON ( DPC \/ AM-CARDINAL ) , had given cause to consider whether LAW was applicable to the applicant \u2019s asylum claim .","In her notice of intention , the Minister analysed , on the basis of elaborate argumentation based on various international materials and on the prescribed and so - called \u201c knowing and personal participation \u201d test , the nature of the acts imputed to the applicant in the framework of LAW , as well as his individual responsibility under LAW . The Minister noted , inter alia , that the applicant had worked for a part of ORG , ORG , which had collaborated with the ORG and found that it was justified to conclude that the applicant had known or should have known about the criminal character of the ORG and that its crimes had formed part of a widespread or targeted attack aimed against the civilian population . Having regard to the official report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Minister further found that the cruel character of the ORG had been commonly known . The Minister further did not believe that the applicant had been ignorant of the criminal character of PERSON when he had started to work for it as this had been widely known at the material time . Relying on the official report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Minister underlined that PERSON had been considered during the Afghan civil war to be one of the most violent groups , not only because of its militia \u2019s actions on the battle field and merciless liquidation of its political opponents , but in particular because of its militia \u2019s crimes against the civil population of GPE and for having instilled a true climate of terror in the country . The Minister lastly found it established that the applicant himself had committed acts of torture on the person of Mr S.","As regards LAW , the Minister did not find it established that the applicant , if returned to GPE , would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited by this provision . In reaching this finding , the Minister took into account , inter alia , that the applicant had stayed for DATE in GPE and DATE in GPE without having sought assistance in these countries from , for instance , the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , that he had not applied for asylum when he had been apprehended by the police in GPE , and that he had not reported immediately to the immigration authorities after his arrival in the GPE .","On DATE the applicant submitted written comments ( zienswijze ) on the Minister \u2019s intended decision . On DATE the Minister rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum application , confirming the reasoning set out in her notice of intention of DATE and rebutting the applicant \u2019s written comments .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against this decision was rejected on DATE by ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE , sitting in PERSON . It held in respect of the applicant \u2019s activities as a CARDINAL adolescent volunteer for ORG that , according to the applicable policy in respect of child soldiers , the Minister had not adequately reasoned her decision finding \u201c knowing participation \u201d in respect of this part of the applicant \u2019s account . However , on the basis of the other elements of the account , it accepted the decision of the Minister to deny the applicant asylum by applying LAW against him . It further held that it had not been established that the applicant \u2013 if expelled to GPE \u2013 would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by LAW from the side of ORG on the basis of the general security situation in GPE , or on the basis of his NORP ethnic origin .","The applicant , who from his first interview was assisted by a lawyer in these asylum proceedings , could have filed a further appeal with ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) , but did not do so . Consequently , the ruling of DATE became final when the DATE time - limit for filing an appeal with ORG expired .","On DATE the applicant was informed by the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) of the intention ( voornemen ) to declare him an undesirable alien entailing the imposition of an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) in accordance with section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( e ) of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) , following the decision to hold LAW against him in the asylum procedure .","The actual decision to impose this exclusion order on the applicant was taken on DATE by the Deputy Minister of ORG . As regards LAW , the Deputy Minister did not find it established that the applicant would be at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to this provision in GPE or that there were any obstacles of a medical nature to his removal to GPE . Further noting that the applicant did not have any relatives or other persons in the GPE with whom he had a family life within the meaning of LAW , the Deputy Minister further found that the exclusion order did not constitute an interference with the rights guaranteed by this provision .","The applicant challenged this decision in administrative law proceedings . The last ( for the applicant negative ) decision in these proceedings was taken on DATE by ORG of The Hague , sitting in GPE . It noted that , in its ruling of DATE , which had obtained the force of res iudicata , ORG of The Hague , sitting in TIME , had concluded that there existed serious reasons for assuming that the applicant had been involved in acts referred to in LAW . As the Deputy Minister had enjoyed a discretionary power in deciding whether or not to impose an exclusion order , it had to be assessed whether in deciding to impose that order , the competing interests involved had been carefully balanced . In view of the reasons given in the impugned decision and the applicant \u2019s submissions , ORG of GPE , sitting in GPE , accepted the Deputy Minister \u2019s decision that the applicant \u2019s personal interests were outweighed by the general public \u2019s interests pursued by the exclusion order .","In so far as the applicant had invoked LAW , ORG noted that in its ruling of DATE it had already found that the applicant had not demonstrated that his expulsion to GPE would expose him to a risk of a violation of his rights under that provision . It found that also in the proceedings at hand the applicant had not submitted facts or referred to circumstances on the grounds of which it should be accepted as plausible that he would risk a violation of his rights under LAW if he were to be expelled to GPE . As regards Article CARDINAL , ORG noted that it appeared from the applicant \u2019s notice of appeal ( beroepschrift ) that it was not in dispute between the parties that the applicant could not claim a right of residence on the basis of LAW and that it was thus not necessary to consider this point any further .","The applicant , who was represented by a lawyer throughout these proceedings , could have filed a further appeal with ORG , but he did not do so . Consequently , the ruling of CARDINAL DATE became final after the expiry of the DATE time - limit for filing an appeal with ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147274","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CS\u00c1SZY v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was apprehended at his home and a house search was conducted on the LOC until TIME","During this time , the applicant told the officers that he intended to attend a funeral DATE . He submits that his request was \u201c unofficially \u201d dismissed at once . The Government denied this allegation .","NORP On completion of the house search , the applicant was committed to the offices of ORG , QUANTITY away from the cemetery in question .","From TIME the applicant was interrogated as a suspect of attempted misappropriation of funds . At the beginning of the procedure , he formally requested that the authorities allow his attendance at his stepmother \u2019s funeral which took place on DATE , at TIME The request was rejected with the reasoning that its granting would have contravened the purpose of the arrest . The interrogation ended at TIME on DATE .","The applicant then complained to the Attorney General . That office rejected the complaint on DATE , pointing out that the relevant decree did not allow as such for arrestees DATE as opposed to those in pre - trial detention \u2013 to attend funerals , for which reason the refusal of his request had been lawful ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175153","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF JUGHELI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants , all NORP nationals , were born in DATE and DATE respectively . At the material time they lived in different flats in a residential block ( \u201c the building \u201d ) constructed in DATE and situated at CARDINAL FAC in GPE .","The building is located in the city centre , in close proximity ( QUANTITY ) to the \u201c NORP \u201d thermal power plant ( \u201c the plant \u201d ) . The plant was constructed in DATE and reconstructed at a later date . It started operations in DATE . For DATE it burned coal to generate power , before replacing it with natural gas . The plant provided the adjacent residential areas with electricity and heat .","Several accidents have been reported throughout the plant \u2019s history . An accident on DATE rendered it inoperative for DATE . An expert report concerning the incident disclosed that the main reason behind the accident was the fact that no major repairs had been carried out there since DATE .","On DATE Presidential Decree No . CARDINAL was issued , stating that the plant was to be privatised and sold directly to a private company . The privatisation agreement between the Government and the company was concluded on DATE .","On DATE the plant partially ceased generating power owing to financial problems . However , it continued to use some of the generators .","According to the applicants , while operational the plant \u2019s dangerous activities were not subject to the relevant regulations , as a result of which , in addition to some other alleged nuisances , it emitted various toxic substances into the atmosphere negatively affecting their well - being .","On unspecified dates the applicants and other residents of the building lodged complaints with the municipal authorities , alleging that nuisances were emanating from the plant such as air , noise and electromagnetic pollution and water leakage . By official letters dated DATE , DATE and DATE the FAC ( \u201c FAC ) acknowledged that the residents of the building had been affected by the nuisances they had complained of . It advised ORG that relocation of the plant would not be in the public interest in view of the acute energy crisis in the country and suggested that the residents of the affected area be offered electricity and heat free of charge as a form of compensation .","In the letter dated DATE ORG asked the plant to implement certain environmental protection measures , including the installation of chimney filters to reduce the air pollution emanating from the plant . The request was left unaddressed .","On DATE , in an official response to a query by the applicants , ORG confirmed that the plant \u2019s activities fell within the \u201c first category \u201d within the meaning of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE below ) and that ORG ( \u201c ORG ) was responsible for issuing the relevant permit .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants and other residents of the building brought an action for damages against the plant concerning the environmental nuisances emanating from the plant . A friendly settlement was reached between the parties on DATE , according to which the claimants would renounce their claims in exchange for a commitment by the plant \u2019s management to provide them with hot water , electricity and heat free of charge . Owing to technical difficulties and a lack of cooperation between the relevant authorities , the friendly settlement was left unenforced .","On DATE the applicants and CARDINAL other residents of the building ( \u201c the claimants \u201d ) brought a fresh action against the plant and other respondents including the GPE electricity distribution company , ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , FAC and ORG . They claimed compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage for the harm caused to their health and well - being by the air , noise and electromagnetic pollution and water leakage emanating from the plant . They relied on privately commissioned independent expert opinions in support of their complaints .","On DATE and DATE the NORP ORG granted a request by the claimants and ordered ORG , ORG and ORG to arrange a number of expert examinations . The latter were intended to measure the environmental pollution caused by the plant , clarify how the associated harmful effects had affected the claimants\u2019 health and might have endangered human life , and identify appropriate remedies .","An expert examination dated DATE and carried out by the Expertise and ORG at ORG concluded as follows :","\u201c As the \u201c NORP \u201d plant does not have a [ buffer ] zone and is immediately adjacent to a residential building , the plant \u2019s chimneys must be equipped with appropriate filters and other equipment to protect the population from the hazardous gases . \u201d","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) at ORG issued an expert opinion on the air pollution and noise levels in the residential area concerned . It noted that while the plant \u2019s equipment responsible for the emission of toxic substances stood idle , it was impossible to determine the real pollution situation with which the residents had had to cope for DATE and noted that \u201c the results were considerably minimised compared to the possible real picture . \u201d","NORP The expert opinion disclosed that the plant \u2019s technical compliance document was defective as it did not reveal all the chemical substances known to be emitted into the atmosphere in the course of natural gas burning . That document also incorrectly indicated the height of the chimneys as QUANTITY instead of the actual QUANTITY , which could lead to the pollution data being misleadingly decreased .","With regard to the air pollution and the possible impact upon the residents of the building , the expert opinion concluded as follows :","\u201c Considering the fact that the plant does not have a [ buffer ] zone and is immediately adjacent to a residential building ... , taking into account the direction of the wind , a whole bouquet of emissions is reaching into the homes ... negatively affecting the population living in the adjacent area . \u201d","The opinion specified that even where individual hazardous substances were considered to be within the acceptable margin , it was necessary to consider the combined impact of various substances upon the health of the population as the combined toxicity might go beyond the acceptable limits . It continued to note in this connection that the concentrated toxicity of the gases emitted by the plant was twice the norm and the residents of the building concerned had to live in conditions where the concentration of toxic substances surpassed the acceptable limits TIME a day . The ORG proposed that the competent municipal authorities either ban those industrial activities or ensure the plant \u2019s relocation outside the town , where at least a buffer zone could be established .","On DATE ORG at ORG responded to a query by the applicants and listed the diseases that might potentially be caused by excessive concentrations in the air of substances such as SOCARDINAL , ORG , ORG , smoke and black dust . These were mucocutaneous disorders , conjunctivitis , bronchitis , bronchopulmonary and other pulmonary diseases , allergies , different types of cardiovascular disease and anoxemia ( low oxygen levels in the blood ) , which could lead to other serious disorders .","On DATE the ORG issued an expert opinion concerning the noise levels in the building . Without specifying the noise levels in the individual flats of the applicants , the opinion concluded in generic terms that \u201c the residential building ... situated at CARDINAL FAC [ was ] affected by noise in excess of the permissible limits . \u201d","On DATE the ORG expert carried out an additional investigation aimed at determining the noise levels in the individual flats of the claimants . It concluded that the permissible levels of noise were exceeded only with respect to CARDINAL claimants and not in the applicants\u2019 apartments .","An expert opinion issued by the ORG on DATE stated that the intensity of the electromagnetic waves did not exceed the permissible levels .","The expert opinion produced by ORG on DATE disclosed that , in some instances , the intensity of the electromagnetic fields in the vicinity of the building exceeded the permissible levels . It concluded however that it was impossible to establish the exact source of the electromagnetic pollution .","On DATE the court ordered ORG at ORG to examine the health of CARDINAL of the claimants . The third applicant and another claimant were not included , without any reasons being given for their exclusion . Its experts were asked to give an opinion on whether the claimants were suffering from any diseases which might have been caused by the pollution emanating from the plant .","The Forensic Medical Examination Centre carried out the courtcommissioned examination DATE and DATE . A panel of experts concluded that the CARDINAL claimants \u201c [ had ] been affected by a combined impact of protracted exposure to harmful factors such as SOCARDINAL , NO , COCARDINAL as well as black dust , noise and electromagnetic pollution negatively impacting their health . \u201d The first and second applicants were found to be suffering from largely similar health conditions such as neurasthenia and asthenic syndrome . The panel considered it \u201c possible that the asthenic syndrome and neurasthenia ... [ had been ] caused by the prolonged and combined effect of being exposed to harmful factors . \u201d It added that \u201c the worsening of the health conditions of the persons examined [ had not been ] excluded . \u201d","On DATE the ORG dismissed the claims of the applicants and another claimant , but partially allowed the claims of CARDINAL other claimants ( \u201c the successful claimants \u201d ) with respect to the noise pollution emitted by the plant \u2019s generators . Relying on the expert examination of the ORG concerning the noise levels , the court found that only the CARDINAL successful claimants\u2019 flats were affected by noise in excess of the permissible limits . It awarded them CARDINAL NORP laris ( GEL \u2013 equivalent to CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) each , holding the plant , FAC , and ORG jointly liable :","\u201c ... Both FAC and the Ministry failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on them by law . That is to say , despite the claimants\u2019 numerous requests and complaints , [ the authorities concerned ] failed to take specific measures to ensure an environment safe enough for the claimants\u2019 health . \u201d","Furthermore , acknowledging that the plant was responsible for the infiltration of water into the foundations of the building , the court ordered it to halt the leakage and make the necessary repairs to the ruptured walls .","As regards the air pollution complained of , the court found that the material before it did not prove a causal link between the emissions and the claimants\u2019 health problems described in the Forensic Medical Examination Centre \u2019s expert report . It further suggested that the third applicant and another claimant had refused to undergo the medical examination .","While the court accepted the experts\u2019 conclusions that the plant had breached certain environmental standards by not having filters and other purification equipment in place to decrease the emission of toxic substances , it refused to order the plant to install such equipment on the grounds that the sole remedy requested by the claimants had been compensation for the damage caused by the pollution .","On DATE the claimants appealed to ORG . Relying on the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) and the findings of the courtcommissioned expert examinations at the domestic level , they reiterated their complaints about the lack of a buffer zone and the inherent risk of pollution , the absence of purification equipment over the plant \u2019s chimneys and its impact upon their health and well - being , and the defectiveness of the plant \u2019s technical compliance document . They further disagreed with the lower court \u2019s findings with respect to the alleged noise pollution emanating from the plant .","On DATE ORG delivered a final judgment in the case . It upheld the appeals of the CARDINAL already successful claimants and ordered the plant \u2019s operators , ORG and ORG to pay them , jointly , GEL MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) each for the deterioration of their health caused by the noise pollution that persisted after the partial termination of the plant \u2019s activities on DATE and affected them individually ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In addition , it ordered the plant to pay GEL MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) DATE to CARDINAL claimant and GEL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to the other . It further upheld the lower court \u2019s finding concerning the plant \u2019s responsibility for the infiltration of water into the foundations of the building .","ORG rejected the complaint concerning the electromagnetic pollution as unsubstantiated .","As regards the submissions concerning the air pollution , ORG dismissed them as unsubstantiated . It reasoned that the PERSON reference to violations of environmental standards , regardless of their validity , could not have served as a basis for awarding damages for air pollution considering that they had not requested that the plant \u2019s permit be revoked , that filters be installed over the chimneys , that other environmental protection measures be implemented , or that the hazardous activities be banned or relocated .","The court further noted that the ORG \u2019s findings in the case of PERSON NORP v. GPE could not serve as grounds for requesting damages . It highlighted the fact that the plant in the instant case had been operational DATE while the flats had been built at DATE . It consequently concluded that the applicants had accepted the associated dangers when choosing to settle near the plant and were effectively barred from claiming any damages in that respect within the meaning of the Compensation for Damage Inflicted by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It thus concluded that the appellants had been under a duty to tolerate nuisances such as noise , smells , steam and gases caused by the ordinary industrial activities of the neighbouring plant , whose essential purpose had been to supply the nearby buildings with heating and hot water . The court interpreted the ORG unenforced friendly settlement in an earlier set of proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as their acceptance of the ecological discomfort .","ORG further reasoned that at the time of the proceedings the plant had suspended most of its operations and had no longer been emitting any substances into the air . Consequently , the appellants were no longer being affected by the pollution . Moreover , they had failed , in the court \u2019s opinion , to show what specific pecuniary damage , if any , had been sustained as a result of the air pollution in DATE . It was further noted that the appellants had not specified the costs which they had incurred or would inevitably incur in the future for medical treatment for their health problems ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166963","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF W.P. v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Heavier penalty)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . At the time of lodging his application , he was detained in a Centre for persons in preventive detention in FAC . He now lives in PERSON .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of rape and sexual assault . It sentenced him to eight years\u2019 imprisonment and ordered his preventive detention under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court found that in DATE the applicant , having acted with full criminal responsibility , had raped an DATE woman whom he had lured into a forest . It noted that DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been convicted of CARDINAL counts of rape of young women , committed DATE after his release from prison . Therefore , and having consulted a medical expert , the court found that the applicant had a propensity to commit serious sexual offences and was dangerous to the public .","On DATE the applicant , who had fully served his prison sentence , was placed for the first time in preventive detention , initially in FAC . He had thus served DATE in preventive detention by DATE .","On DATE the L\u00fcbeck ORG , having heard the applicant in person as well as his lawyer , by whom he was represented throughout the proceedings , ordered the applicant \u2019s preventive detention to continue .","ORG considered that the requirements set up by LAW of LAW , read in the light of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , in order for retrospectively - extended preventive detention to continue , were met . It found that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder , for the purposes of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He had a personality and conduct disorder as described by the relevant tool for the classification of diseases , ORG in its current version ( ICD-CARDINAL ) . ORG endorsed the findings which psychiatric expert PERSON had made in his report dated DATE on the possibility of granting relaxation of the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention ( PERSON ) after having examined the applicant in person . The expert had found that the applicant suffered from a profound and serious personality disorder with narcissistic elements and a lack of self - esteem . His disorder was characterised by denying and idealising conduct , total denial of his own aggression and minimisation of his criminal acts .","Furthermore , in ORG view , there was still a high risk that the applicant , owing to the said specific circumstances relating to his person and his conduct , would commit the most serious sexual offences if released . It had repeatedly been confirmed , in particular , by expert PERSON and by FAC hospital , that the applicant needed comprehensive therapy for sexual offenders in a social therapeutic institution . However , the applicant , who had not completed therapy , had confirmed at the hearing that he refused transfer to the prison \u2019s social therapeutic department . Furthermore , the applicant had already raped CARDINAL women and had repeatedly reoffended shortly after his release .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision with ORG . He argued that his continued preventive detention beyond the former tenyear time - limit breached LAW , as interpreted by ORG , and the LAW . He complained , in particular , that ORG had failed to obtain a new report by a different expert and had relied on the report of expert PERSON dating back CARDINAL - and - a - half years , on relaxation of the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention , which had not addressed the issues relevant to his continued detention .","On DATE the Schleswig - Holstein Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . As regards the finding that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder for the purposes of CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , ORG stressed that the decision to extend the applicant \u2019s preventive detention had not only been based on the written report submitted by expert PERSON in DATE . The expert had been heard in person by ORG in different proceedings ( concerning the applicant \u2019s transfer to a psychiatric hospital , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) on DATE and had updated and confirmed his previous findings . His assessment had further been shared by ORG hospital in its statement dated DATE on the therapeutic progress made by the applicant . The hospital , having regard to the voluminous casefile , had confirmed expert PERSON \u2019s conclusion that the applicant , who had refused any therapeutic treatment for DATE , suffered from a profound personality disorder as defined by the ICD-CARDINAL , namely a narcissistic personality disorder with emotionally unstable and sadistic elements .","ORG , having regard to the applicant \u2019s previous offences and the fact that therapy to date had not yielded success , further agreed that there was still a high risk that the applicant would commit the most serious sexual offences if released . As had been confirmed by the applicant in the hearing before ORG , his personal and therapeutic situation had not changed since ORG last decision of CARDINAL DATE in which , in periodic review proceedings , it had ordered the extension of the applicant \u2019s preventive detention .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He complained that the extension of his preventive detention beyond the former statutory DATE time - limit had violated his right to liberty and the protection of legitimate expectations in a ORG governed by the rule of law .","The applicant claimed that the restrictive criteria set up by ORG in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE for a continuation of his retrospectively extended preventive detention had not been met . In particular , the order for the continuation of his preventive detention had been based on an old expert report on relaxation of the conditions of his detention , which had not addressed the criteria set up by ORG . In these circumstances , the courts had not had at their disposal a sufficient basis for concluding that he had a mental disorder for the purposes of LAW . In any event , he did not suffer from a mental illness as required by LAW .","On DATE ORG , without giving reasons , declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL ) .","From DATE until CARDINAL DATE the preventive detention order against the applicant was executed in PERSON , where the applicant was detained together with persons serving their prison sentence . For as long as the applicant \u2019s detention was executed at that prison during the time covered by the proceedings at issue , the applicant , having refused repeated offers of treatment , in particular transfer to the socialtherapeutic institution of FAC , apparently did not undergo any therapy for sexual offenders . His occasional conversations with the prison psychologists had been discontinued in DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to the newly - set - up ORG for persons in preventive detention in FAC . That ORG was built in order to comply with the constitutional requirement , as defined by ORG in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , to differentiate between preventive detention and imprisonment . Soon after his transfer to that ORG the applicant started comprehensive therapy , including CARDINAL - to - one and group therapy sessions . He was granted leave without escort from DATE .","Prior to the proceedings at issue , on DATE ORG dismissed the prosecution \u2019s request to transfer the applicant to a psychiatric hospital for the further execution of his preventive detention under Article DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Having heard psychiatric expert PERSON , ORG found that the applicant \u2019s reintegration into society could not better be supported in a psychiatric hospital . It was necessary for the applicant to undergo therapy for sex offenders in a social - therapeutic department in prison or possibly with an external social therapist . Transferring the applicant , who was not willing to undergo therapy , to a psychiatric hospital against his will would not yield any success .","On DATE , in new review proceedings , ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s preventive detention to continue . It had regard to the report dated DATE , submitted by psychiatric expert PERSON , on the applicant \u2019s mental condition and the danger he represented . Having examined the applicant in person , PERSON had considered that the applicant was an accentuated personality , possibly with sadistic personality traits , and lacked self - esteem . He found , however , that the applicant could not be diagnosed with a mental disorder as defined in the ICD-CARDINAL ; in particular , he showed no signs of sexual sadism . There was a medium risk that the applicant would again commit serious sexual offences if released .","On DATE ORG , having regard to an additional report drawn up by expert PERSON , declared the applicant \u2019s preventive detention terminated and ordered his release on DATE . It found that the applicant neither suffered from a mental disorder nor was there a high likelihood that he would commit the most serious crimes of violence or sexual offences if released ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5","7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","7-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141829","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"GUSTOVARAC v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and ORG , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicants moved to a flat in GPE owned by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) on the basis of a handwritten note signed by GPE , allegedly the person authorised by ORG in GPE to dispose of the ORG \u2019s flats . The note bore the ORG \u2019s official stamp .","The applicants paid the rent and utility bills in respect of the flat from DATE .","NORP In DATE criminal proceedings were conducted in ORG against GPE He was found guilty of abusing his position on the ground that he had , inter alia , unlawfully provided the applicants with the flat at issue . The first applicant was a witness in these proceedings .","After GPE declared independence in DATE , all the ORG \u2019s property became ORG property .","According to the Government , in DATE the first applicant bought another flat in GPE , measuring QUANTITY , which he donated to his son in DATE .","On DATE the ORG brought a civil action against the applicants in ORG claiming repossession of the flat formerly owned by the ORG and the applicants\u2019 eviction .","According to the Government , since DATE the applicant \u2019s elder son has been renting out another flat in GPE .","ORG granted the claim against the applicants on DATE . The relevant part of the judgment reads :","\u201c ... it has been established that in DATE an authorized person from ORG of the former GPE , GPE , issued an order , handwritten on an ordinary piece of paper , instructing PERSON ( an administrator of the then \u2018 GPE Housing Company\u2019 ) to hand over the keys of the flat at issue to the first defendant , stamped it with the stamp of ORG and signed it . Subsequently , PERSON presented that certification to GPE , who gave him the keys to the flat . PERSON was employed at that time with \u2018 PERSON , and was therefore neither a member of the military personnel within the ORG nor a civilian in its service .","...","Had the first defendant belonged to the category of persons who could have acquired the right to use such a flat , that is to say , had he fulfilled the requirements for the granting of a specially protected tenancy of the flat at issue , nothing would have prevented the authorized person of the former ORG of the GPE , GPE , from issuing him a valid decision to such effect ...","...","The fact that the defendants lived in the flat at issue for DATE of time with the \u2018 knowledge and NORP of the provider of the flat and entirely fulfilled the obligations of protected tenants is irrelevant ... as regards their lack of status as holders of a specially protected tenancy ... because such a status could be implicitly recognised only in respect of persons who had acted in good faith . In this case it is clear that this element was missing , since the defendants knew or ought to have known that they acquired possession of the flat at issue in an illegal and unlawful manner . The fact that the provider of the flat did not ask for the eviction of the defendants can not place them in a more favourable legal position ... \u201d","The first - instance judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE . It endorsed the reasoning of the first - instance court and added :","\u201c According to the case - law [ of ORG ] concerning the application of section CARDINAL of the former LAW , a person who dwells in a flat for DATE of time with the knowledge and consent of the provider of the flat , and who fulfils all the obligations of a holder of a specially protected tenancy and acts in every respect as a person who has concluded a written contract for a protected tenancy , may be regarded as a holder of a protected tenancy even though there is actually no written contract governing the use of the flat .","However , even though the defendants have been using the flat at issue since DATE and have paid the rent and utility bills for it , they can not be regarded as holders of a protected tenancy of the flat since they acquired possession of it as a result of the abuse of office of the authorized person [ representing ] the former provider of the flat , [ a fact of ] which the defendants , and in particular the first defendant , had been aware and ought to have been aware [ sic ] because they were witnesses in the criminal proceedings conducted before ORG against the persons concerned ... Therefore , the defendants did not act in good faith , which is a condition for recognizing [ them as holders of a ] specially protected tenancy ... \u201d","According to the Government , in DATE the applicants moved to GPE , where they have had their registered residence ever since . The second applicant rented the flat at issue to other persons between an unspecified date in DATE and DATE .","The applicants lodged a constitutional complaint on DATE which was dismissed by ORG on DATE . ORG endorsed the lower courts\u2019 reasoning .","According to the Government , on DATE the applicants vacated the flat .","According to the applicants they were forcibly evicted from the flat in DATE .","The relevant part of LAW ( Official Gazette nos . DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) reads :","\u201c A specially protected tenancy is acquired on DATE the tenant moves into the flat on the basis of a final decision allocating the flat or on another valid legal basis , unless otherwise provided by this LAW . \u201d","Section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o vlasni\u0161tvu i drugim stvarnim pravima , ORG no CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) reads as follows :","\u201c An owner has the right to seek repossession of his or her property from a person in whose possession it is . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144678","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DON\u010cEV AND BURGOV v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were police officers .","On DATE the public prosecutor ordered , under sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW ( see DATE and DATE below ) , special investigative measures including secret surveillance , audio - visual recording , a simulated offer of a bribe and the use of undercover agents ( the last two measures were to be applied by CARDINAL police officers whose identity remained undisclosed in the order ) . The order was valid DATE and DATE . It was issued on the basis of a request from ORG within ORG , which suspected that traffic police officers had been accepting bribes from traffic offenders .","On DATE the applicants stopped a car near GPE , since it was being driven at QUANTITY \/ h over the stipulated speed limit . The driver was a certain GPE from GPE ( \u201c the driver \u201d ) . The applicants warned the driver and registered his name and the fact that they had warned him in the official record . They did not draw up an official report ( \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0441\u043d\u0438\u043a ) , nor did they press charges against him .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor , alleging that the applicants had accepted a bribe of MONEY ( ORG ) from the driver ( who was in fact an undercover agent , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in exchange for not drawing up an official report and pressing charges against him . The complaint stated that the first applicant had fully admitted to the accusations and the second applicant had partially done so .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) opened an investigation into the allegation that the applicants had accepted a bribe . In the proceedings before the investigating judge the applicants remained silent .","According to the indictment of DATE , the applicants accepted the bribe in exchange for not drawing up a report and instituting misdemeanour proceedings against the driver . The public prosecutor requested that the trial court take oral evidence from the accused and admit the evidence obtained as a result of the order of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) : CARDINAL photographs ; and an audio and video recording of the discussion between the applicants and the driver of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the trial court admitted the evidence produced by the prosecutor . The applicants remained silent . On DATE the court rendered a judgment in which it convicted the applicants and sentenced them to a suspended prison term of DATE . On the basis of the audio recording of the incident , the court established that the driver had exceeded the speed limit . He had offered DATE and the applicants had accepted \u2013 money in exchange for not pressing charges against him . In this connection , the court noted that under the law the driver was liable to a fine ( between MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL and MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) or CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment , as well as a compulsory security measure ( driving ban ) , for such an offence .","NORP The applicants\u2019 legal representatives , PERSON and PERSON , appealed against the judgment , arguing that there was no evidence to corroborate the ORG guilt . The audio evidence attested that the driver had offered the applicants money , but it did not establish that they had accepted it . Indeed , no bank notes marked in advance were found in their possession . The applicants further argued that under the applicable regulation , they had been authorised to warn the ORG first applicant challenged the credibility of the audio recording , arguing that the transcript of the audio material was incomplete . The second applicant further complained that the trial court had neither examined the driver , nor confronted them with him .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicants\u2019 appeals and ordered a re - examination of the case . In so doing , it found that the lower court had incorrectly established the facts and had not provided sufficient reasons for its judgment . In this connection , it stated that neither the photographs nor the audio evidence had established that the applicants had accepted the bribe from the driver , who had not been examined . It therefore instructed the trial court to re - examine already admitted evidence and to question the driver in order to establish whether he had offered , and the applicants had accepted , MKD CARDINAL in exchange for not pressing charges against him . It further stated :","\u201c ... other evidence should be admitted if necessary ( confrontation between the accused and ( the driver ) ) . \u201d","At a hearing , before the trial court , held on CARDINAL DATE , the applicants denied that they had accepted money from the driver . They stated that they had been authorised , under the law , to warn him . They further contested the audio recording , arguing that there were gaps and interruptions in it . Mr GPE , the applicants\u2019 legal representative , asked the court to hear oral evidence from the driver , as ordered by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and to obtain information from the Ministry as to whether the money had been marked .","On DATE the trial court asked the Ministry to provide the name and address of the driver in order to examine and confront him with the applicants , \u201c as instructed by the higher court \u201d . It also sought information as to whether , under the order of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the money allegedly given to the applicants had been marked . In the absence of a reply , on DATE the court repeated its enquiry . On DATE the Ministry informed the court that the money had not been marked . That would have been the case had special investigative measures ( audio and video recording ) not been ordered . It further stated that the undercover agent ( \u043b\u0438\u0446\u0435 \u0441\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043a\u0440\u0438\u0435\u043d \u0438\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442 ) who had been used to simulate the offer of a bribe could be examined as a protected witness under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the consolidated version of LAW ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) , ( which corresponded to section DATE of the LAW as amended in DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In a hearing held on DATE the applicants objected to the court \u2019s examining the driver . In this connection , they stated that there were CARDINAL persons with the same initials ( ORG ) as the driver employed in the Ministry .","On DATE the trial court examined the driver . According to the depositions taken on that date , he was regarded as a protected witness ( \u0437\u0430\u0448\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043d \u0441\u0432\u0435\u0434\u043e\u043a ) and his examination was carried out under section CARDINAL of the LAW ( which corresponds to section CARDINAL-a of the Act of DATE as amended in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ) . The relevant parts of the court record of that date read as follows :","\u201c The protected witness should be examined in a special room only in the presence of the judge and the public prosecutor in order to protect his identity . Since there is no such room in the court building , [ the applicants ] and their representatives , ( as well as ) the entire public , were ordered , on the basis of an advance agreement ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0442\u0445\u043e\u0434\u0435\u043d \u0434\u043e\u0433\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0440 ) , to go into the waiting room .","The accused and the lawyers did not object .","...","The witness , whose pseudonym is ORG ( protected witness ) from GPE , DATE of age ... having been warned about the legal consequences of false testimony , states :","\u2018 At TIME on DATE , in accordance with the [ public prosecutor \u2019s ] order , I drove to GPE together with CARDINAL other persons ... I deliberately exceeded the speed limit assuming that there would be a road patrol ... I was stopped ... ( then he described the events concerning another car which the applicants had stopped at that time , when ( CARDINAL of the applicants ) had allegedly received MKD CARDINAL from the driver of that car ) ... the policeman who took the money from the other driver approached me and I said that it was unfair that they should punish me unlike the other ( driver ) , who had paid ... Then the other policeman , who still had ( in his hands ) my ( driving ) documents , told me \u2018 Ok , we wo n\u2019t punish you either\u2019 and gave the documents back to me . I asked them whether I should also reward them for having not punished me , as the ( other ) driver had done , to which ( CARDINAL of the applicants ) replied \u2018 It will be fine if you give something\u2019 . I asked \u2018 how much should I give?\u2019 , and he replied \u2018 There is no pricelist for that , it \u2019s up to you\u2019 . Then , I said \u2018 I \u2019ll give you as much as ( the other driver ) , MKD CARDINAL\u2019 . I took out from my pocket MKD CARDINAL and gave them to ( one of the applicants ) ... I asked them whether they would press charges against me or issue any penalty , to which ( CARDINAL of the applicants ) replied \u2018 Keep your mouth shut and drive GPE ...","The public prosecutor further asked the driver whether the money had been marked , to which he replied negatively .","The record further stated :","\u201c Since there are no further questions , the court decides to remove the protected witness from the court room and to call the accused and their lawyers . A transcript of the statement of the protected witness should be given to them so that they may put questions to him through the court , to which the protected witness should reply .","The accused and their lawyers were called to enter the court room and at that moment , they said , in a loud voice \u2018 We request exclusion of the adjudicating judge , the panel , the trial court and ORG , since ( the judge ) is conducting the proceedings unlawfully and is not following the instructions of ORG . It is so since we were removed from the court room for TIME , instead of being confronted with the witness . We suspect that no one gave a statement , all the more so since the accused have already met the protected witness \u201d .","The court ordered an adjournment . On DATE the presidents of the trial court and ORG respectively rejected the ORG requests for exclusion .","A hearing held on DATE was attended by the applicants and Ms M.G. , their lawyer . The driver was absent . The court stated that there was no evidence that he had been properly summoned for the hearing . The applicants were served with a copy of the court record of DATE and the driver \u2019s statement . The court minutes stated :","\u201c ... ( the applicants ) were told that they could put questions in writing , which the court would then forward to the protected witness in order for him to reply . \u201d","On DATE the trial court held a hearing . It was attended by the applicants and Mr PERSON , their lawyer . The driver was not present , despite the fact that he had been properly summoned . Mr PERSON stated :","\u201c I decline to examine the protected witness , ORG and I object to the court record of DATE since it is contradictory and untrue ( \u0421\u0435 \u043e\u0442\u043a\u0430\u0436\u0443\u0432\u0430\u043c \u043e\u0434 \u0440\u0430\u0441\u043f\u0438\u0442 \u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0448\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u043e\u0442 \u0441\u0432\u0435\u0434\u043e\u043a \u041a.\u041d. \u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0433\u043e\u0432\u0430\u0440\u0430\u043c \u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0441\u043d\u0438\u0438\u043a\u043e\u0442 \u043e\u0434 DATE \u0431\u0438\u0434\u0435\u0458\u045c\u0438 \u0435 \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0434\u0438\u043a\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0435\u043d \u0438 \u043d\u0435\u0432\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0442 ) . \u201d","On CARDINAL DATE the trial court held another hearing , at which the applicants confirmed that they had received the bill of indictment and understood the charges against them . Both applicants maintained that they would be represented by Mr PERSON They further stated :","\u201c I maintain the statement given at the hearing of CARDINAL DATE [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] and I have nothing to add \u201d .","NORP The court then read aloud the driver \u2019s statement of DATE and admitted as evidence the public prosecutor \u2019s order , CARDINAL photographs , as well as the audio and video recording of the critical event . The applicants made no reference as to the examination of the driver .","In the concluding remarks , Mr PERSON denied that there was any material evidence that the applicants had committed the crime imputed to them ; in particular , the video and audio material did not establish that they had received any money from the driver , nor had any marked bank notes been found in their possession . He further stated that :","\u201c ... we object to the use of the term \u2018 protected ORG since it is not disputed that the ( applicants ) and ( the driver ) knew each other ... they saw each other and it is unreasonable to use that person as a protected witness . \u201d","Both applicants stated :","\u201c I fully adhere to the concluding remarks of my representative . I want to add that I \u2019m not guilty because I have not received any money \u201d .","On DATE the trial court rendered a judgment in which it found the applicants guilty and sentenced them to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE . It established that they had accepted the bribe from the driver , a police officer who had been following the public prosecutor \u2019s order to use special investigative techniques . They received MKD CARDINAL in exchange for not pressing charges , despite the fact that the relevant law provided for a fine or CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment , coupled with a security measure , for such an offence . The audio evidence established that the driver had exceeded the speed limit and had offered DATE and the applicants had accepted \u2013 the money . In this connection , the court stated :","\u201c Following the instructions of the higher court , the ( trial ) court examined the driver with the pseudonym ORG as a protected witness . He confirmed that he had been stopped on DATE in question , since he had deliberately exceeded the speed limit ... [ the applicants ] had agreed to accept a bribe in the amount of MKD CARDINAL in exchange for not drawing up a report and pressing charges .","In this context , the statement of the protected witness and the audio material are totally consistent ... In the note [ of DATE ] , [ ORG ] submitted that the identity of the witness ORG was protected , i.e. that he was a protected witness . [ For this reason ] the court did not confront him with [ the applicants ] . \u201d","The applicants appealed against the judgment and maintained that there had been insufficient evidence that they had accepted the money . They argued that there had been no written warrant authorising the operation that had led to the proceedings against them ; that the bank notes had not been marked ; that they had not taken possession of any such bank notes ; that the audio material had not established that they had accepted the bribe ; and that the warning issued against the driver had been registered in the official records and had been prescribed for such offences . They further complained that their conviction had been based , to a decisive extent , on the driver \u2019s statement and the audio material , the credibility of which they had challenged . As to the driver , they complained that it had been unreasonable to use him as a protected witness since they had already met him . They further complained that :","\u201c The statement ( of the driver ) was taken in the absence of the accused and the defence ... the accused and the defence were not allowed to put questions to that person ; there was no confrontation between that person and the accused \u201d .","In a public hearing held on DATE in the presence of the applicants and their lawyers , ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicants , finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and reasons given by the trial court . It found that the special investigating measures ( audio - visual recording and the use of a protected witness ) had been ordered by the public prosecutor in accordance with LAW ( see DATE and DATE below ) . Accordingly , the judgment could be based on that evidence and the driver \u2019s statement , as lawfully obtained evidence . The court further stated that :","\u201c Having regard to ORG judgment PERSON of DATE , at the re - trial , the trial court summoned , and at a hearing ( \u0433\u043b\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0441 ) it examined the witness ORG , who was driving the car at the relevant time ... This witness was considered a protected witness by the court . On the basis of an agreement reached with the accused and their representatives , [ the witness ] was examined in their absence . However , after his examination , the court provided the accused and their representatives with the opportunity to put questions through the court .","... For the offence committed ( by the driver ) , the accused neither drew up a report nor did they press charges against him , despite the fact that the offence was of a more serious nature ... they warned him orally , although a fine and a compulsory security measure \u2013 a driving ban \u2013 are prescribed for this offence .","The witness ORG provides an objective and detailed description of the events ... Indeed , the LAW bank note which the accused received from this witness had not been marked and secured as evidence , but the court undoubtedly established , on the basis of the statement of this witness , that he had offered DATE and ( the applicants ) had accepted \u2013 the money as a bribe . The statement of this witness is corroborated by the written transcript of the audio material ... so , the established facts are not put into question ... \u201d","This judgment was served on the applicants on DATE respectively .","Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as regards criminal offences subject to automatic prosecution by the ORG , the public prosecutor may order the use of a special investigative technique in pre - trial proceedings under the conditions and in the manner specified by law .","Section CARDINAL-b of the LAW provides that special investigative techniques may be ordered where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that certain criminal offences have been committed by an organised group . Secret surveillance , audio - visual recordings , a simulated offer of a bribe and the use of undercover agents ( \u043b\u0438\u0446\u0430 \u0441\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043a\u0440\u0438\u0435\u043d \u0438\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442 ) are among the special investigative techniques permitted ( section CARDINAL-b(CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) .","Section CARDINAL-c provides that information , documents and objects obtained by means of special investigative measures may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings . The undercover agents can be examined as protected witnesses . Their identity is classified ( \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0435\u043d\u0430 \u0442\u0430\u0458\u043d\u0430 ) .","Under section CARDINAL ) , the use of special investigative techniques at the pre - trial stage may be ordered by an investigating judge in a reasoned written decision following a reasoned written request by the public prosecutor , or by the public prosecutor in a reasoned written decision following a reasoned written request by ORG , but only in respect of a person whose identity is unknown .","Under section CARDINAL-e(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , evidence obtained through special investigative techniques can not be used at trial if the techniques were applied without an order by the investigating judge or the public prosecutor or contrary to the LAW .","Under section CARDINAL of the Act , the public prosecutor , investigating judge or trial judge must take measures to ensure the effective protection of witnesses if there is a risk that they may be threatened or that their life , health or physical integrity may be endangered . Their protection must be guaranteed by means of special arrangements for the examination of the witnesses and their participation in the proceedings . Protected witnesses are examined in the presence of the public prosecutor , the investigating judge or the trial judge , in a location which guarantees the protection of their identity , unless they agree to be examined using special streaming media , for which a court order is needed . An unsigned copy of the witness \u2019s statement is forwarded to the accused and his or her representative , who can put questions in writing through the court .","In accordance with section DATE ) , the court decided on the basis of facts and evidence admitted at the trial .","Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , the trial court was bound to take all procedural actions and to discuss all disputed issues indicated in the judgment of the second - instance court .","Under section CARDINAL of the Act , special arrangements for the examination of a protected witness may involve concealment of his or her identity and face . If the arrangements concern the witness \u2019s personal information , he or she may produce evidence under a pseudonym ( \u043f\u0441\u0435\u0432\u0434\u043e\u043d\u0438\u043c ) . Otherwise , the general rules for the examination of witnesses apply . A witness who is examined under a pseudonym may also have his or her face concealed ( \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043a\u0440\u0438\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u0433\u043b\u0435\u0434\u043e\u0442 ) with the use of special streaming media , which distort one \u2019s voice and face . The protected witness must be placed in a special room that is physically separated from the courtroom in which the investigating or trial judge , as well as other persons attending the examination , are present .","NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , the judgment can not be based solely on evidence given by a protected witness and obtained by means of witness protection ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158487","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NAIMDZHON YAKUBOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);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 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and prior to his arrest lived in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing as a result of an undercover police operation . On an unspecified date the ORG of LOC ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) remanded him in custody . He remained in detention pending the investigation and trial .","On DATE ORG found the applicant and his co - defendant PERSON , also a NORP national , guilty as charged . The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed his conviction on appeal and remitted the matter to ORG for fresh consideration . ORG noted that , in contravention of the rules of criminal procedure , the indictment had been prepared by a prosecutor who had been the spouse of CARDINAL of the police officers taking part in the undercover operation leading to the applicant \u2019s arrest and had testified as a prosecution witness . As regards the applicant \u2019s detention , the court ruled as follows :","\u201c Regard being had to the gravity of the charges against the defendants , their foreign nationality and illegal residence in GPE , [ the court ] does not consider it possible to lift the preventive measure pending trial applied and ... extends their detention . \u201d","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the relevant court order on appeal , noting as follows :","\u201c When deciding on the preventive measure , the [ trial ] court legitimately referred to the gravity of the charges and the [ defendants\u2019 ] characters ... It further legitimately indicated that there were no grounds for the GPE release . If at large [ the defendants ] , in view of the gravity of the charges , might abscond , continue criminal activities , put pressure on witnesses , or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice . \u201d","It appears that the applicant remained in custody pending consideration of the criminal charges against him .","On DATE ORG found him guilty of drug dealing and sentenced him to MONEY .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal .","On DATE ORG granted the prosecutor \u2019s request for a supervisory review of the applicant \u2019s conviction , noting that the charges against him had not been classified in accordance with the law .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG quashed the appeal judgment of DATE by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter to the appellate court for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG quashed the applicant \u2019s conviction of DATE and remitted the matter for a retrial . It further noted that the preventive measure applied in respect of him and his co - defendant should remain unchanged .","On an unspecified date ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE it authorised his detention for a further period until DATE , noting as follows :","\u201c When deciding the issue of extending the [ defendants\u2019 ] pre - trial detention and accepting the prosecutor \u2019s argument , [ the court ] considers that there are no grounds for changing the preventive measure . Regard being had to the gravity of the charges against [ the defendants ] , their foreign nationality and illegal residence in GPE , the court considers it impossible to lift the [ detention ] earlier applied and extends it ... \u201d","On DATE ORG returned the case file to the prosecutor to arrange for a translation of the indictment into the GPE mother tongue . As regards the GPE detention , the court reiterated verbatim its earlier reasoning of DATE , ordering that they be detained pending the return of the case file to the court . On DATE ORG upheld this decision on appeal .","On DATE the applicant received the translation of the indictment .","On an unspecified date ORG received the case file , and on DATE fixed the date for the hearing of the case for DATE . It authorised the applicant \u2019s detention for the period from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , reiterating the reasoning contained in the court orders of CARDINAL July and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the relevant decision on appeal . It considered that the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention had been extended in accordance with the his release pending trial . He and his lawyers had to attend the trial and were not present at the appeal hearing . The court appointed lawyer PERSON to represent him . The prosecutor was present and made submissions to the court .","On DATE ORG admitted lawyer PERSON . as the applicant \u2019s defender and adjourned the hearing to provide him with the time necessary to study the case file . The court further extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . Its reasoning in that regard remained unchanged . It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the said court order .","On DATE ORG returned the case file to the prosecutor for the reasons indicated by ORG in the appeal judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The prosecutor was given DATE to bring the indictment in compliance with the applicable rules of criminal procedure . Lastly , the court noted , reiterating its earlier reasoning , that the applicant should remain in custody .","On DATE ORG adjourned the hearing of the applicant \u2019s appeal against the detention order of CARDINAL DATE as his lawyers failed to appear . As regards the pre - trial detention , the court noted as follows :","\u201c [ The appellate court ] considers it necessary to rule on the issue of the [ defendants\u2019 , the fact that the appellate court will examine the issue of the GPE detention , and to ensure prompt consideration of the matter , [ the court ] considers it necessary to extend the [ defendants\u2019 ] detention for DATE , until DATE . \u201d","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s appeal against the detention order of CARDINAL DATE . It upheld the findings of the lower court as regards the lawfulness and reasons underlying his detention . At the same time ORG , regard being had to the fact that the defendants had been detained for a long time , the gravity of the charges and their characters , considered it possible to release them on bail . The bail set for each of them was RUB CARDINAL . Lastly , the court ruled that , should they be unable to pay the bail , they would remain in custody until DATE .","According to the applicant , he was unable to pay the bail as he had insufficient funds .","On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing in camera . After giving the applicant CARDINAL warnings for improper conduct , the judge had him removed from the courtroom . The hearing was then held in his absence . His lawyers were present and made submissions to the court . The court fixed the trial date for DATE . It further extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE , noting as follows :","\u201c When deciding the issue of extending the [ defendants\u2019 ] pre - trial detention and accepting the prosecutor \u2019s argument , [ the court ] considers that there are no grounds for changing the preventive measure . Regard being had to the gravity of the charges against [ the defendants ] , their foreign nationality , illegal residence in GPE and lack of permanent employment , the court considers it impossible to lift the [ detention ] applied and extends it ... . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal . The prosecutor was present and made submissions to the court . The applicant did not attend . He had to be present at the trial court examining the criminal case against him . The court considered the request filed by his lay defender PERSON . to adjourn the hearing in view of his involvement in another set of proceedings but dismissed it . It appointed lawyer PERSON to represent the applicant , noting as follows :","\u201c Regard being had to the [ applicant \u2019s ] failure to pay the bail in accordance with the appeal decision of DATE , the gravity of the charges infringing public health and morals that amounts to a serious violation of public policy in a society which ensures human rights guarantees and in which public health is of great value , the [ applicant \u2019s ] foreign nationality , illegal residence in GPE , the court at first instance has lawfully found that , pursuant to the applicable legislation , the preventive measure applied [ in respect of the applicant ] is not excessive . It is justified by society \u2019s response and the social consequences [ of the crime ] . Given that it is necessary to ensure the effective protection of society , the court considers a deprivation of liberty to be permitted . \u201d","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld his conviction on appeal .","According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor lodged an appeal against the court order of DATE and the appeal decision of DATE arguing that the applicant \u2019s detention from CARDINAL DATE to DATE had been unlawful . The Government did not inform the ORG about the outcome of the hearing of the matter ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147045","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00d6THLIN v. SWEDEN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-b - Secure fulfilment of obligation prescribed by law)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Sundborn .","On DATE ORG ( Kronofogdemyndigheten ) in GPE issued a writ of execution ( beslut om utm\u00e4tning ) attaching a mobile sawmill belonging to the applicant . It noted that the applicant \u2019s total enforceable tax debts amounted to SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( roughly EUR CARDINAL ) and that the sawmill had an estimated value of SEK CARDINAL ( roughly EUR CARDINAL ) . The ORG decided to leave the sawmill in the applicant \u2019s possession but informed him that he was not allowed to sell or dispose of it or otherwise make use of it in a way that might negatively affect its value .","The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG ( tingsr\u00e4tten ) of GPE and also requested ORG to stay the sale of the sawmill while the court considered the case . The request for the interim measure was granted on DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the writ of execution . The interim measure was consequently also lifted .","Upon further appeal by the applicant , both ORG ( hovr\u00e4tten ) and ORG ( ORG domstolen ) refused leave to appeal , the latter on DATE .","On DATE ORG contacted the applicant in order to plan the sale of the attached sawmill . In his reply DATE , the applicant stated that he had removed the sawmill from his property and hidden it . He also submitted a written statement specifying that he had removed and hidden the sawmill , alone when no one else was at home .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG visited the applicant \u2019s property and confirmed that the sawmill was no longer there . The ORG also handed the applicant a summons for questioning on CARDINAL DATE on its LOC , as well as an injunction in which he was ordered to provide the ORG with the necessary information to be able to recuperate the sawmill . The injunction also informed the applicant that , according to LAW , section DATE , of LAW ( ORG ) , he was duty - bound to give information about his assets and their location . It further informed him of the ORG \u2019s intention to ask ORG to detain him if he did not cooperate .","At the questioning , the applicant acknowledged that he knew that the sawmill was attached and that he was not allowed to dispose of it in any way . However , since he considered that the basis for the attachment was wrong , he had decided to hide it . He stated that he took full responsibility for his actions and that nobody but him had been involved or knew where the sawmill was . He refused to give any information about its whereabouts but admitted that he had driven some distance with it around mid - April CARDINAL . He further claimed that it could be only partly in his possession and that he was not sure that he could retrieve it if he wanted to . He stated that he had even considered setting fire to the sawmill . Meanwhile , the applicant \u2019s wife was also questioned . She informed ORG that she had no information about where the sawmill was hidden .","On DATE ORG requested ORG to detain the applicant because he had refused to cooperate and give the required information . It relied on LAW , section CARDINAL , and LAW , section DATE , of LAW . On DATE , ORG assigned a public defender for the applicant .","The applicant opposed the measure and claimed that it would be in violation of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW to detain him and that no extraordinary reasons for such a measure existed .","On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG rejected ORG request . It first considered that NORP legislation on this point did not contravene the said provisions in the LAW . The question was whether there were extraordinary reasons to detain the applicant . In this respect , the court noted that the writ of execution had gained legal force on DATE when ORG refused leave to appeal . Thus , the court held , only a short time had passed since the matter had been finally resolved . It further observed that ORG had not resorted to any other measures in order to convince the applicant to reveal the location of the property , such as imposing a conditional fine . Whilst recognising that the applicant so far had been reluctant to give any information about the location of the sawmill , the court found that it could not be ruled out that a less severe coercive measure would alter his attitude . Consequently , the court concluded that currently there did not exist such extraordinary reasons to detain the applicant .","ORG appealed to ORG , maintaining its claims and adding that , according to the preparatory works of LAW , it was only necessary that the debtor had received an injunction but refused to comply with it . It further submitted that having regard to the applicant \u2019s stance on the matter , the imposition of a conditional fine would most likely have no effect . Lastly , the ORG stated that it had reported the applicant to the police on the ground that he had committed a breach of an official order when he had removed and hidden the sawmill .","The applicant opposed the appeal , maintaining his claims and adding that he considered that , if he were detained , it would amount to imprisonment to obtain a confession . In his view , it would be clearly disproportionate to the aim pursued to detain him .","On DATE ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s decision and granted ORG request . It stated that a debtor had to give necessary information about his assets and failure to do so could result in the debtor being detained , if there were extraordinary reasons for detention . Moreover , it was not necessary to impose a fine initially . Having regard to the size of the debts , the value of the hidden property and the fact that the applicant had maintained his refusal to reveal its location , ORG found that there were extraordinary reasons to detain the applicant and that detention was proportionate to the aim pursued . In reaching its decision , the court found that the measure did not breach the LAW . Lastly , it noted that it should be informed as soon as the applicant had been detained in order to hold a hearing as to the continued detention .","The applicant was detained DATE . Consequently , on DATE , ORG held an oral hearing and decided to maintain its earlier decision . At the hearing , the applicant stated that the taxes and the attachment had been imposed on him wrongly and that as long as these errors had not been corrected he would not cooperate to bring back the sawmill . The court reiterated its reasons as stated in its earlier decision and added that the applicant \u2019s detention should be reviewed DATE and that he should be released immediately if he revealed the location of the property . Moreover , under no circumstances could the applicant be kept in detention for DATE .","The applicant appealed to ORG which , on DATE , refused leave to appeal .","On DATE ORG reviewed the applicant \u2019s detention and held a new hearing in the case as required by LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW . ORG maintained that the applicant should be kept in detention since he still had not given any information about the location of the sawmill . It stated that it had not been able to undertake any investigative measures , since the applicant had stated that he had taken the sawmill far away from his property by car and its whereabouts thus were unknown to the ORG . The applicant , who requested his immediate release , maintained his refusal to give any information about the location of the sawmill and claimed , inter alia , that he suffered from high blood pressure and panic anxiety attacks , causing him difficulties sleeping . Moreover , he stated that he had recently been treated for prostate cancer and that he was not allowed to take his normal medication against his panic attacks since it contained narcotic substances . In its decision , ORG noted that the applicant maintained his refusal to reveal the whereabouts of the sawmill and found , having regard to the proportionality of the measure , that there were extraordinary reasons for the applicant \u2019s continued detention . Hence , ORG decided that he should remain in custody .","The applicant appealed to ORG which , on DATE , rejected the appeal . Upon further appeal , ORG dismissed the appeal since a new decision had already been taken by ORG at that time .","On DATE ORG again reviewed the detention and held a new hearing in the case . ORG maintained its earlier point of view and acknowledged that no investigative measure had been possible due to the applicant \u2019s continued refusal to cooperate . The applicant maintained his earlier position and added that he suffered from asthmatic symptoms due to the dry air in custody . Having regard to his age and health problems , he considered that it was clearly disproportionate to prolong his detention . ORG found that there were still extraordinary reasons for the applicant \u2019s continued detention and that it was not disproportionate to the aim pursued . It thus ordered that he should remain in custody .","NORP The applicant appealed to ORG which , on DATE , rejected the appeal . On CARDINAL DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .","On DATE ORG once again reviewed the detention and held a hearing in the case . The parties maintained their earlier standpoints . ORG found that continued detention of the applicant would be disproportionate to the measures he had taken . Hence , ORG concluded that there were no extraordinary reasons for the applicant \u2019s continued detention . As a consequence , ORG ordered his immediate release and the order was implemented DATE .","ORG appealed to ORG which , on DATE , rejected the appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed ORG further appeal and consequently , on DATE , ORG struck the case out of its list of cases as the case was closed .","As concerns ORG police report concerning the applicant \u2019s alleged breach of an official order pursuant to LAW , LAW , of LAW ( ORG ) , the preliminary investigation was discontinued with reference to provisions on waiver of prosecution ( \u00e5talsunderl\u00e5telse ) on DATE .","On DATE ORG decided to revoke the writ of execution concerning the sawmill since it considered that no additional circumstances had emerged that could reveal its location . Furthermore , it was considered that there were no other measures which could produce results to that end .","On DATE the applicant submitted a claim for damages to the Chancellor of Justice ( NORP ) , pursuant to LAW and Other Coercive Measures ( NORP om ers\u00e4ttning vid frihetsber\u00f6vande och andra tv\u00e5ngs\u00e5tg\u00e4rder , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , in the amount of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the suffering he had endured during DATE he was deprived of his liberty . He further demanded to be reimbursed SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for costs which had been deducted from his pension during his time in detention .","On DATE the Chancellor of ORG rejected the claim . The Chancellor noted that the decision to detain the applicant had been taken by a court of law , in accordance with relevant legal provisions . Moreover , the examination of the case showed no basis for finding that the decision had been taken on erroneous grounds and therefore was incorrect ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-b"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174994","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ALEKSANDRAVI\u010cIUS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE respectively . Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON Artem Novikov are currently detained in FAC . Mr ORG lives in PERSON and Mr PERSON is detained in ORG .","The first applicant was detained in FAC from DATE to DATE . The documents submitted to the ORG show that he was held in various different remand prison cells where most of the time he had CARDINAL QUANTITY of living space , except for the following periods :","- from TIME DATE to the morning of CARDINAL DATE he had QUANTITY of personal space ;","- on TIME DATE , the morning of DATE and the morning of CARDINAL DATE he had CARDINAL and QUANTITY of personal space .","In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings for damages . He argued that the conditions in which he had been held in FAC had been degrading : the cells had been overcrowded and the conditions unsanitary .","On DATE ORG established that the applicant had been held in overcrowded cells for DATE , given that for that duration he had been held in cells where he had had QUANTITY of personal space . Nonetheless , the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint about unsanitary conditions in the prison as not actually proven . It noted that the applicant \u2019s complaints had been expressed in abstract terms and that he had not provided accurate information about the conditions in question . The court awarded him CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage on account of overcrowding .","The applicant appealed but on DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was detained in FAC , except for the following periods when he was moved to GPE police station :","- from DATE to DATE ;","- from DATE to DATE ;","- from DATE to DATE ;","- from DATE to DATE .","The documents submitted to the ORG show that he was held in several different remand prison cells where he had between GPE and QUANTITY of personal space , except for DATE :","- the whole of DATE , TIME of DATE , TIME DATE , the morning of CARDINAL DATE , TIME of DATE , the whole of DATE , the morning of CARDINAL DATE , TIME of CARDINAL September CARDINAL , the morning of CARDINAL DATE , TIME of DATE , the TIME of CARDINAL DATE , TIME DATE , the morning of QUANTITY DATE , the morning of DATE , the morning of DATE , the evening of CARDINAL June DATE , the morning of DATE , TIME of DATE and TIME CARDINAL DATE . During those periods he had between MONEY and QUANTITY of personal space ;","- the morning of DATE , when he had QUANTITY of personal space .","In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings for damages . He argued that the conditions in which he had been held in FAC had been degrading : the cells had been overcrowded , had had rats and insects and mould on the walls . They had also been damp and his health had deteriorated .","On DATE ORG established that the applicant could only request compensation for the period from DATE because the applicant had missed the DATE time - limit to lodge a complaint for DATE . The court further held that the relevant period was DATE , and that the applicant had been held in conditions that satisfied the personal space requirement for DATE . Nonetheless , the applicant \u2019s complaint about unsanitary conditions was dismissed as unsubstantiated as he had not complained about them to the prison authorities . The court awarded him LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage on account of overcrowding .","NORP The applicant and FAC appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance decision .","From DATE to DATE the third applicant was detained in FAC , except for DATE to DATE . He complained about his conditions of detention from DATE to DATE .","The documents before the ORG show that he was held in several different remand prison cells where he had :","- DATE and QUANTITY of personal space from DATE to the TIME of DATE ; from TIME of DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME DATE to DATE ; from the TIME of CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME DATE to DATE ; on TIME of CARDINAL DATE and on DATE ; from TIME of DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME DATE to DATE ; on TIME DATE ; from TIME DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME of DATE to the morning of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME of DATE ;","- between CARDINAL and QUANTITY of personal space from TIME DATE to the TIME of DATE ; from CARDINAL DATE to TIME DATE ; on TIME DATE ; on TIME ; on TIME CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME DATE ; on the TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME DATE ; on TIME DATE ; on TIME ; on TIME ; on DATE ; on TIME CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME of DATE ;","- DATE and QUANTITY of personal space from CARDINAL DATE to the TIME of DATE ;","- between CARDINAL.CARDINAL and QUANTITY of personal space from CARDINAL DATE to the TIME of DATE .","In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings for damages . He argued that the conditions in which he had been held in FAC had been degrading : the cells had been overcrowded , his health had deteriorated and he had become bald .","On DATE ORG held that until DATE the statutory norm for personal space per prisoner per cell had been QUANTITY and that since DATE it had been QUANTITY . The court also held that the applicant had been held for DATE in conditions that had satisfied the statutory personal space requirement and awarded him LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage on account of overcrowding . The applicant \u2019s complaints about his health and baldness were dismissed as unsubstantiated as the applicant had not provided any evidence that he had ever complained to doctors or the prison authorities about those issues .","The applicant argued in an appeal that the compensation amount was too low and stated that he had asked the prison administration to take him to a doctor . FAC argued that the applicant \u2019s complaint was unfounded because the courts imposed sentences on people , it could not refuse to accept prisoners and thus it had no control over their number . On DATE ORG held that the applicant had not had enough cell space for DATE and increased his compensation to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The court reiterated that the applicant \u2019s complaints about his health were unsubstantiated and that the applicant himself had not been able to prove that his health had deteriorated or that he had complained to a doctor .","The fourth applicant was detained in FAC from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , except for the following periods when he was in a prison hospital :","- from CARDINAL DATE to DATE ;","- from DATE to DATE ;","- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ;","- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ;","- from DATE until DATE ;","- from DATE to DATE ;","- from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","The documents before the ORG show that he was held in several different cells in the remand prison where he had :","- between GPE and QUANTITY of personal space from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to the TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME of DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from CARDINAL DATE to the TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME of DATE ; on DATE ; on the TIME of DATE ; from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from DATE to the morning of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to DATE ; from TIME CARDINAL DATE to DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to TIME DATE ; from TIME CARDINAL DATE to DATE ; from TIME DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to DATE ; from TIME of DATE to QUANTITY DATE ; from TIME of DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to DATE ; from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to the TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME CARDINAL DATE to the TIME of CARDINAL DATE ;","- between CARDINAL.CARDINAL and QUANTITY of personal space from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to DATE ; on the morning of CARDINAL DATE ; from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to TIME CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME of DATE ; on TIME of DATE ; from DATE to DATE ; on the evening of DATE ; from DATE to DATE ; on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; from DATE to the TIME of DATE ; from TIME of DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME of DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME of DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to DATE ; from CARDINAL DATE to the TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME DATE to the morning of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME DATE ; on the morning of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME ; on TIME ; on TIME DATE ; on TIME DATE ; on the morning of CARDINAL DATE ; from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME DATE ; from TIME of DATE to the morning of QUANTITY DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to the TIME of CARDINAL DATE ;","- DATE QUANTITY of personal space on TIME DATE ; on TIME of DATE ; on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME DATE ; on TIME DATE ; on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME of DATE ; on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME DATE ; from the evening of CARDINAL September CARDINAL to the morning of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME of DATE ; on the morning of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME of DATE ; from DATE to the morning of CARDINAL DATE ; on TIME of CARDINAL DATE ; from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; on CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to the TIME of DATE ; on TIME CARDINAL DATE .","On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings for damages . He argued that the conditions in which he had been held in FAC had been degrading : the cells had been overcrowded ; he had been held together with prisoners who smoked ; the toilets had not been separated from the rest of the cell ; and his health had deteriorated .","On DATE ORG held that the applicant \u2019s personal space had not corresponded to the statutory norms and awarded him LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage on account of overcrowding . As regards his other complaints , the court held that there was no evidence that his health had deteriorated because of overcrowding and stated that his health condition , according to medical data , was hereditary . The domestic courts also held that the toilets had had a partition of QUANTITY and dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints in this respect as unsubstantiated .","The applicant and FAC appealed ; however , ORG upheld the decision of the court of first instance on DATE .","In the application form , the fifth applicant complained about his conditions of detention in FAC from DATE until DATE . However , in his reply to the ORG \u2019s observations , he claimed that the period to be considered was from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The applicant was not in prison DATE and TIME of CARDINAL DATE as he was in a prison hospital while from CARDINAL DATE to the TIME of DATE he was held in GPE police station .","It can be seen from the documents before the ORG that he was held in several different remand prison cells where he had :","- between GPE and QUANTITY of personal space from DATE to DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to TIME of DATE ; from DATE to the morning of DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from DATE to DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to DATE ; from TIME DATE ;","- DATE square metres of personal space on the morning of CARDINAL DATE ; from TIME DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; from DATE to DATE ; from TIME of CARDINAL DATE to the TIME of DATE ; on TIME ; from TIME DATE to CARDINAL DATE ;","- QUANTITY of personal space on TIME DATE ;","- QUANTITY of personal space on TIME DATE .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings for damages for the period from CARDINAL DATE until DATE when he was in FAC . The applicant later further specified the period for which he was complaining as being from DATE . He argued that the conditions in which he had been held in the remand prison had been degrading : the cells had been overcrowded ; there had been rats and insects ; and his sight had deteriorated owing to insufficient lighting . The court applied the DATE period of limitation and found that the relevant period to be considered was from DATE to DATE . The court held that the applicant had been held in overcrowded cells for DATE , although the period was DATE , and awarded him LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The court held that the applicant had failed to substantiate his other complaints with evidence .","In an appeal , the applicant also stated that the cells had been damp and the beds uncomfortable . FAC and ORG argued that the applicant had failed to substantiate his complaints . On DATE ORG , without examining the additional complaints , held that the applicant had been held in overcrowded cells for a non - consecutive period of DATE and DATE . It increased the award for non - pecuniary damage to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153474","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF O'DONNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE . He is currently detained at GPE .","The applicant has an ORG of DATE , which is within the bottom PERCENT of the general population . He has an understanding of spoken LANGUAGE equivalent to that of a six DATE child .","On TIME , the body of PERSON was found on the banks of LOC in GPE .","The applicant had spent most of DATE drinking in public with the deceased and a third man , Mr PERSON . There was evidence from witnesses that both Mr GPE and the applicant had been threatening and aggressive towards a number of individuals including the deceased . CARDINAL witness also stated that , when Mr GPE produced a knife and said he was going to kill the deceased , the applicant encouraged him to \u201c just kill him \u201d . There was also evidence that the applicant and Mr GPE asked the deceased to come out to fight with them after they had been refused admission to a public house .","The deceased was last seen alive at TIME on DATE when he , Mr GPE and the applicant were seen making their way to a park area beside LOC . A post - mortem examination of the deceased revealed that he had been extensively beaten before his death and that he had sustained a number of knife wounds including a severance of the carotid artery .","The police searched the flat where the applicant was staying and found CARDINAL sets of clothes which were heavily stained with the blood of the deceased ( CARDINAL sets of sweatshirts , a pair of ORG and pair of beige and navy tracksuit bottoms ) . The fact that CARDINAL sets of clothes were found was material to the prosecution \u2019s case that Mr PERSON was killed by CARDINAL men . CARDINAL of the items of clothing , namely the beige and navy tracksuit bottoms , had the applicant \u2019s name tag ironed on to the back of the garment . A plastic bag containing a knife was also found at the applicant \u2019s LOC . The plastic bag and the knife contained blood which matched the blood of the deceased . Medical evidence indicated that the knife was one that could have been used to inflict the wounds sustained by the deceased .","Mr GPE admitted the manslaughter of PERSON and was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","NORP The applicant was arrested in GPE . He was interviewed by NORP police officers about the death of PERSON . Those interviews were videotaped . He was subsequently extradited to GPE in DATE .","At the applicant \u2019s trial , the prosecution sought to rely on the interviews which had been conducted in GPE . The applicant challenged the admissibility of those interviews , inter alia on the ground that the proper procedures for interviewing a suspect with a mental handicap had not been followed . A voir dire ( that is to say , a hearing to determine the admissibility of the contested evidence ) was held , in the course of which evidence was led from clinical psychologists and psychiatrists who had examined the applicant and watched the interview tapes . At the conclusion of the voir dire , the trial judge decided to exclude the interviews from evidence .","At the close of the prosecution case , the trial judge rejected a defence submission that there was no case to answer .","The defence then applied to the trial judge for a ruling that the applicant \u2019s mental condition made it undesirable for him to be called to give evidence . The effect of a favourable ruling would have been that the jury would not be permitted to draw an adverse inference from any failure of the applicant to give evidence in his own defence ( see CARDINAL below ) . In the course of the trial judge \u2019s consideration of that application , a second voir dire was held , in which further evidence was given by one of the clinical psychologists , PERSON . The trial judge refused to allow PERSON to give evidence concerning the conclusions he had reached from watching the interview tapes . The trial judge reasoned that , once the interview tapes were excluded from evidence , they were excluded from evidence for all purposes . The trial judge did , however , hear evidence from PERSON as to his concern that the applicant \u2019s low ORG would place him in considerable difficulty if he were to give evidence in his defence . In Dr GPE view , the applicant would be highly suggestible , he would have problems understanding questions and would find it difficult to give coherent responses .","In considering the defence application , the trial judge referred to the evidence of PERSON , consultant psychiatrist . The trial judge read out CARDINAL passages of her report , the last which was the following :","\u201c He [ the applicant ] reports having had difficulty in comprehending court proceedings in the past as long words are used and people talk at speed . However , if account is taken of his need to have material simply phrased and to allow for adequate consultation with others to ascertain his understanding and clarify where necessary , it is my opinion that he should be capable of following proceedings and actively contributing to them . \u201d","Turning to Dr GPE evidence , the trial judge noted that Dr PERSON had entered a significant reservation in relation to the applicant \u2019s ability to give evidence . PERSON had expressed doubts as to whether even in circumstances such as those referred to by PERSON the applicant could give a coherent account .","The trial judge refused the defence application , finding that he could control the manner in which questions would be asked and could ensure that no unfairness would result . In the event that the applicant chose not to give evidence the judge informed the parties that he would give an adverse inference direction to the jury .","The applicant elected not to testify but Dr PERSON was permitted to give evidence to the jury as to the applicant \u2019s vulnerability and the difficulties he would have faced .","NORP The prosecution invited the jury to draw an adverse inference from the applicant \u2019s failure to give evidence . The trial judge \u2019s summing up contained the following direction to the jury :","\u201c I have said to you that the defendant has not given evidence and that is his right . He is entitled not to give evidence , to remain silent and to make the prosecution prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt . CARDINAL matters arise from his not giving evidence . The first is that you try this case according to the evidence . You will appreciate that the defendant has not given evidence at this trial to undermine , contradict or explain the evidence put before you by the prosecution . The second matter , as you heard him being told when I addressed Mr McGrory [ counsel for the applicant ] , is that the law is that you may draw such inferences as appear proper from his failure to give evidence . It is for you to decide whether it is proper to hold the defendant \u2019s failure to give evidence against him when deciding whether he is guilty . On the basis of the evidence of PERSON , PERSON invites you not to hold it against the defendant that he has not given evidence before you . PERSON contradicted evidence is that the defendant has an IQ of DATE and therefore is a person of very limited intellectual ability who should be regarded as mentally handicapped . He has the ability of a DATE to understand spoken LANGUAGE . PERSON said that mentally handicapped people find giving evidence very challenging and his ability to provide a coherent and consistent account and to understand the implications of his replies is limited . PERSON said that he seems to have difficulty in functioning as an average person and has difficulty in maintaining relationships , keeping a job and performing everyday tasks such as looking after money .","PERSON evidence about the accused and the abilities of mentally handicapped people in general about which I have just reminded you is an important factor to bear in mind , but there are others that you should bear in mind and consider as well . There is no evidence that the defendant is not fit to stand his trial ; in other words , it has not been suggested that he can not understand questions , nor has it been suggested that he can not instruct his legal advisers as to the nature of his case . It has not been suggested that he is unable to remember what happened TIME , indeed , Dr PERSON did not ask him to recall the events of that night , so you do not know from what Dr PERSON has said to what extent the defendant can explain what he did or where he went , indeed , when he was charged with Mr PERSON \u2019s death he replied , \u2018 I did n\u2019t go near him\u2019 , not , \u2018 I do n\u2019t know anything about it\u2019 , or , \u2018 I did n\u2019t have anything to do with it.\u2019 You have to consider along with many other questions you have to consider whether the answer he gave is not merely a denial of guilt , which it plainly is , but whether it implies that he knows something about the circumstances of Mr PERSON \u2019s death .","You should also consider whether the defendant , despite his undoubted handicaps , his low IQ and limited comprehension of LANGUAGE , could have answered questions in the witness box . I say that because PERSON said in his closing remarks to you , \u2018 What chance would a man like that have in proceedings like this?\u2019 I must tell you that the defence were well aware that had the defendant given evidence the court would have ensured he was treated fairly and given every chance to put his case and in particular that questions were simply phrased and put in such a way that they did not suggest the answer to him . It is not enough that a person would find it difficult to give evidence to excuse them from giving evidence . Many people have to give evidence and find it difficult - even children as young as CARDINAL . Fortunately , we do not have that very often but it does happen sometimes . Every effort is made to simplify the proceedings and the form of questions to ensure that people like that can give evidence . If you think that because of the evidence of Dr PERSON you should not hold it against the defendant that he has not given evidence do not hold it against him , but if you are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence he relies on , that is , the evidence of Dr PERSON , presents no adequate explanation for his absence from the witness box then you may hold his failure to give evidence against him .","If you consider that there is no excuse for his not giving evidence what proper inferences - in other words , what conclusions - can you draw from the defendant \u2019s decision not to give evidence before you ? You may think that the defendant would have gone into the witness box to give you an explanation or answer to the case against him . If the only sensible explanation for his decision not to give evidence is that he has no answer to the case against him , or none that could have stood up to cross - examination , then it would be open to you to hold against him his failure to give evidence . It is for you to decide whether it is fair to hold that failure against him . In considering that it might be useful for you to consider what sort of questions might the defendant have had to face if he had given evidence . \u201d","The trial judge went on to give examples of questions that might have been asked of the defendant had he given evidence before emphasising that the jury should not find him guilty only or mainly because he had not given evidence , but that they might take it into account as some additional support for the prosecution \u2019s case and in deciding whether or not the case made on his behalf was or might be true .","The applicant was convicted by the jury and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of DATE . He appealed against his conviction on CARDINAL grounds : ( i ) that the trial judge had erred in not allowing PERSON to give evidence concerning the conclusions he had reached from watching the interview tapes ; ( ii ) that the trial judge had erred in rejecting the applicant \u2019s submission that it was undesirable for him to be called to give evidence ; and ( iii ) that the trial judge had failed to direct the jury that they should not draw adverse inferences unless they were satisfied that there was case to answer .","On DATE an application for leave to appeal was refused by a single judge of ORG in GPE . A renewed application was dismissed by the full court on DATE .","In respect of the first ground of appeal , namely the exclusion of the video evidence , ORG accepted that the videotapes were admissible to demonstrate how the applicant expressed himself and to demonstrate that he was suggestible . However , the portion of the videotape on which the applicant had intended to rely did not in fact touch on suggestibility and , in any event , the applicant \u2019s suggestibility was not in dispute between the experts who had testified for the prosecution and defence . Therefore , the omission of the evidence would not have had any material effect on the trial judge \u2019s decision .","In respect of the second ground of appeal , namely the ruling under LAW ) Order DATE , ORG considered that the trial judge had reached his conclusion in a proper and balanced manner and his conclusion was not unreasonable . ORG noted that there was competing expert evidence in the case . On the one hand , there was the evidence of PERSON , a consultant psychiatrist , whose opinion was that the applicant \u201c should be capable of following proceedings and actively contributing to them \u201d if account were taken of his need to have material simply phrased and if he was allowed adequate consultation with others to ascertain his understanding and clarify matters where necessary . On the other , PERSON , a clinical psychologist , entered a significant reservation in relation to the applicant \u2019s ability to give evidence . He did not know whether even where the procedures were simplified and the questions simply phrased , the applicant could give a coherent account of events . ORG found that there was nothing unreasonable about the manner in which the trial judge preferred the evidence of the consultant psychiatrist over that of the clinical psychologist .","For the third ground , which related to the trial judge \u2019s direction on a case to answer , ORG recognised that , in GPE and GPE , trial judges were required to direct juries that they , the jury , had to find that there was a case to answer on the prosecution evidence before drawing an adverse inference ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . By contrast , in GPE , it was left to the judge in each case to decide whether to direct the jury in this manner , depending on the strength of the prosecution case . ORG considered that , in the applicant \u2019s case , the absence of such a direction to the jury reflected the trial judge \u2019s view that this was not a case where the evidence was so weak as to require such a direction . The substantial body of evidence against the applicant supported that view . The trial was not , therefore , unfair . ORG nonetheless recommended that the specimen direction in GPE should be amended to follow the approach taken in GPE and GPE , by adding a direction that the jury should not draw an adverse inference unless they consider that the prosecution case is such that it clearly calls for an answer .","The applicant asked the court to certify questions of general public importance for the consideration of ORG . It refused to do so in a decision handed down on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178362","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ISL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF EGILL EINARSSON v. ICELAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the material time he was a well - known person in GPE who for DATE had published articles , blogs and books and appeared in films , on television and other media , under pseudonyms .","In DATE , an CARDINAL-year - old woman reported to the police that the applicant and his girlfriend had raped her . In DATE another woman reported to the police that the applicant had committed a sexual offence against DATE . Upon the completion of the police investigation ORG , on DATE and DATE , dismissed the cases in accordance with LAW , because the evidence which had been gathered was not sufficient or likely to lead to a conviction . The applicant submitted a complaint to the police about allegedly false accusations made against him by the QUANTITY women . This case was also dismissed .","On DATE Monitor , a magazine accompanying PERSON ( a leading newspaper in GPE ) , published an interview with the applicant . A picture of the applicant was published on the front page and in the interview the applicant discussed the rape accusation against him . The applicant claimed several times that the accusations were false . He stated , inter alia , that it was not a priority for him for the girl \u2019s name to be exposed and that he was not seeking revenge against her . He accepted that having placed himself in the spotlight of the media he had to tolerate publicity which was not always \u201c sunshine and lollipops \u201d but criticised the way the media had covered his case . When asked about the girl \u2019s age , he responded that the girl had been in a club where the minimum age had been DATE and that it had been a shock to find out later that she had been DATE . When asked about his complaints against the girl for allegedly wrongful accusations , he stated again that he was not seeking revenge against those who had reported him to the police , but that it was clear that they had had ulterior motives . He hoped that the police would see that it was important to have a formal conclusion in the case and that the documents in the case were \u201c screaming \u201d conspiracy .","On DATE , X published an altered version of the applicant \u2019s front - page picture with the caption \u201c Fuck you rapist bastard \u201d on his account on GPE , an online picture - sharing application . X had altered the picture by drawing an upside down cross on the applicant \u2019s forehead and writing \u201c loser \u201d across his face .","Apparently X had believed that only his friends and acquaintances , who were his \u201c followers \u201d on GPE , had access to the pictures he published . However , his pictures were also accessible to other GPE users .","On DATE the newspaper PERSON published an online article about X \u2019s post , along with the altered picture and an interview with the applicant .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer sent a letter to X requesting that he withdraw his statement , apologise in the media and pay the applicant punitive damages . By email the same day , X \u2019s lawyer submitted that X had not distributed the picture online ; it had been posted for a closed group of friends on GPE and others had distributed it . Furthermore , the email stated that PERSON was sorry and that the picture had been shared without his consent or knowledge .","On DATE , the applicant lodged defamation proceedings against X before ORG of PERSON and asked for him to be sentenced to punishment , under the applicable provisions of LAW , for altering the picture and for publishing it on GPE with the caption \u201c Fuck you rapist bastard \u201d . The applicant further requested that the statement \u201c Fuck you rapist bastard \u201d be declared null and void and that X be ordered to pay him CARDINAL NORP kr\u00f3nur ( ORG ; QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) in non - pecuniary damages under LAW , plus interest , LAW ( CARDINAL ORG ) for publishing the judgment in the media under LAW , and the applicant \u2019s legal costs .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found against the applicant . The court stated , inter alia , that the applicant enjoyed the personal protection afforded by law , irrespective of which of his pseudonyms he was using . In the same way , the applicant had to take responsibility for material he issued , irrespective of the name he chose to use when doing so . The court further considered that the altered picture , along with the text , should be considered as a whole and that it contained X \u2019s opinion of the applicant \u2019s person , which indicated a strong dislike . As to the subject matter , ORG found that the picture and the statement had been a part of general public debate because the applicant was a well - known person in GPE and had to accept being the subject of public discussions . The court then described in detail his professional activities of writing online , publishing books and appearing on television , especially under pseudonyms , the subject matter of his work , the subsequent criticism of his work and his participation in public debates about it . The court noted that this had led to greater outcry and public debate about the accusations against him of sexual offences , a debate in which he had participated . The court concluded that the manner in which the words had been presented by X had been more invective than a factual statement , and should therefore be considered as a value judgment rather than a statement of fact . X \u2019s statement had been within the bounds of freedom of expression granted to him by law .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against ORG judgment . Before ORG the applicant reiterated his argument that X \u2019s Instagram account had been an \u201c open \u201d account , meaning that the picture had been accessible not only to his followers but to all GPE users , CARDINAL people at the material time . He submitted further documents to support his argument .","By judgment of DATE the majority of ORG ( CARDINAL out of CARDINAL judges ) upheld ORG conclusion . ORG accepted that the altered picture had been accessible , not only to X \u2019s followers on GPE , but to other users as well .","Furthermore , the judgment contained the following reasons :","\u201c [ X ] claims that his act of uploading the altered picture onto the picture - sharing application in question did not constitute the publication of the picture within the meaning of LAW No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , as he had believed that only a limited number of people would have access to it . This can not be accepted , as the act of making something accessible in electronic format to such a large number of people as stated above , irrespective of whether the persons in question are the friends and acquaintances of the person doing so , [ ... ] , is considered to be a publication according to the traditional definition of the term . It remains to be determined whether [ X \u2019s ] publication of the picture had , given the circumstances , constituted a defamatory allegation against the [ applicant ] under LAW .","The appealed judgment describes in detail that , before the complaints of sexual offences against him as described above had been reported , [ the applicant ] had been a well - known person , not least for his performance in public under the names of Gillz or Gillzenegger , the names under which he wrote on Internet , published books and pictures and presented himself in the media . The views of the [ applicant ] published there garnered some attention , as well as controversy ; views which included his attitudes towards women and their sexual freedom . The documents of the case reveal that there were instances when his criticism had been directed towards named individuals , often women , and in some cases his words could be construed to mean that he was in fact recommending that they should be subjected to sexual violence . The [ applicant ] has often justified such conduct by stating that the material had been meant in jest and that those who criticised it lacked a sense of humour . ORG agrees with ORG that the [ applicant ] enjoys the personal protection provided for by law , under LAW and LAW , cf . Act No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , irrespective of whether he was appearing under his own name or a pseudonym . In the same manner , he must take responsibility for the material he produces , irrespective of what name he chooses to use .","When the [ applicant ] gave the aforementioned newspaper interview and employed provocative , if not derogatory , comments about others , including the girl who had accused him of sexual offences , he launched a public debate and should , moreover , have known that his comments would result in strong reactions from those who strongly disliked his abovementioned views . [ X ] enjoys freedom of expression according to LAW , and ORG reached the correct conclusion that under these circumstances he had enjoyed greater freedom to express himself about the [ applicant ] and his opinions .","In assessing whether or not comments or other expressions can be considered a defamatory allegation according to Article CARDINAL of LAW , taking into consideration the manner in which the provision of LAW ] has been clarified by ORG , it has to be decided whether the expression involved a value judgment or a factual statement . Although it can be agreed that by using the term \u2018 rapist\u2019 about a named person , that person is being accused of committing rape , account must be taken of the context in which the term is set , cf . the ruling of ORG on DATE in Case No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . If the altered picture and the comment \u2018 PERSON you rapist ORG are taken as a whole \u2013 as the parties agree should be the case \u2013 ORG agrees with ORG that this was a case of invective on the part of [ X ] against the [ applicant ] in a ruthless public debate , which the latter , as stated previously , had instigated . It was therefore a value judgment about the [ applicant ] and not a factual statement that he was guilty of committing rape . In this context , it makes a difference , even though this alone is not decisive for the conclusion , that [ X ] did not maintain that the [ applicant ] had thus committed a criminal offence against someone else , named or unnamed . Accordingly , and with reference to the conclusion of the appealed judgment , the conclusion that [ X ] expressed himself within the limits of the freedom to which he is entitled under LAW , must be upheld . As a result he is acquitted of all the [ applicant \u2019s ] claims .","As is rightly stated in the appealed ruling , the modified picture and the comments of [ X ] attached thereto were indecent and tasteless with respect to the [ applicant ] . For this reason , and with reference to LAW , cf . LAW No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on ORG , legal costs before both court instances will be cancelled . \u201d","In the minority \u2019s opinion , the statement \u201c Fuck you rapist bastard \u201d , considered in the light of the content of the article published by ORG , could not be considered a value judgment but rather a grave insinuation that the applicant had committed a serious criminal offence . The minority concluded that , considering that the criminal investigation had ended with the case against the applicant being dismissed , and even if the applicant was a public person who had expressed himself in a controversial way in public , he should not have to tolerate this kind of comment ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140957","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"G\u00dcR v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in PERSON . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant , who was being searched for on suspicion of murder , surrendered himself to the gendarmerie .","On DATE he was taken to ORG for questioning . According to a form explaining arrested PERSON rights and which the applicant signed in acknowledgement , he was advised of the charges against him , as well as of his right to remain silent and to have access to a lawyer , and was asked to make a statement regarding the murder of GPE , a shepherd , by poisoning on DATE . The applicant stated that he did not wish to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer and then proceeded to give a detailed account of how he had poisoned PERSON He alleged that he had been blackmailed by his creditors into killing PERSON in order to steal his sheep .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who stated that there were no traces of ill - treatment on his body . In addition , the medical report indicated that the applicant had not complained of any physical ailments or psychological conditions .","On DATE he was brought before ORG , where he was again advised of his right to remain silent and to request a lawyer . The applicant refused the assistance of a lawyer and repeated the statement he had given at the gendarmerie station . He stated that he had surrendered to the gendarmerie and that he regretted what he had done .","Later on DATE the applicant was questioned at ORG . Having refused legal assistance , he confirmed his statements given before the gendarmerie and the public prosecutor . He stated that he was in debt and that to secure payment of his debt his creditors had coerced him into killing the shepherd in order to steal his sheep . Subsequently he had agreed to kill the shepherd , and had bought an agricultural poison . He had also rented a lorry with a driver to transport the sheep . They had gone to the village and he had asked the driver to wait outside the village until he brought the sheep . Then , when he had approached the shepherd , a dog had attacked him . He had thrown a piece of bread laced with poison to the dog and it had calmed down . Subsequently , he had found the shepherd , had a chat with him and offered him a soft drink laced with poison . Right after the shepherd had drunk it , the applicant had gone away , regretting what he had done . At the end of the questioning , the judge ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention .","An expert report dated DATE established that the fingerprints found on the lorry \u2019s rear - view mirror matched those of the applicant .","On DATE ORG filed an indictment with ORG against the applicant and CARDINAL other people , accusing the applicant of a number of offences including premeditated murder and the other QUANTITY individuals of murder and\/or incitement to murder .","During the trial , the assize court heard CARDINAL witnesses .","A.K.K. , the head of the village ( muhtar ) , stated that a villager had noticed a lorry parked outside the village and had brought its driver to the village . The driver had explained that he had brought a person to the village who had told him that he was going to buy CARDINAL sheep from someone . He had been asked to stay until TIME but the person had not come back . PERSON had asked gendarmerie officers to come to the village , and when they arrived they had started to search for the sheep with the villagers . DATE the body of the deceased had been found .","H.H.K. testified that he had spotted the deceased walking with a man outside the village . However , TIME he had seen that person a long distance away , herding the sheep himself .","M.A. , the driver of the lorry , stated that on DATE of the incident the applicant had rented his lorry to transport some sheep . On the way to the village the applicant had bought bread and a soft drink . The applicant had asked him to stay outside the village until TIME . After a while , a dog had passed by which appeared to have been poisoned . The applicant had not come back and he had begun to suspect that there was something wrong . He had gone into the village and had explained the events to the head of the village and gendarmerie officers .","A.T. testified that the applicant had rented his car CARDINAL times before the incident . He had been called in by the gendarmerie for questioning . While he had been at the gendarmerie station the applicant and PERSON had arrived at the station .","B.D. stated that the applicant had rented his colleague \u2019s ( ORG \u2019s ) car CARDINAL times . PERSON had been invited to the gendarmerie station for questioning . Thereafter the applicant had come to rent the car again . PERSON had mentioned the phone call he had received from the gendarmerie to the applicant . Upon PERSON \u2019s suggestion they had gone to the station together .","According to the crime scene examination report dated DATE drawn up by the gendarmerie , the deceased \u2019s body was found lying face down on the ground . His arms were under his abdomen . There was foam and blood around his mouth , and there was vomit residue around his feet . There were no signs of a firearm wound , open wound or blood on his body . The report further revealed that CARDINAL sheep had been found hidden some distance away .","Following a toxicological examination , on DATE the LOC Branch of ORG prepared a report finding that there were no traces of toxic substances , alcohol or drugs in the deceased \u2019s blood , urine and internal organs .","Lastly , on DATE a report was prepared by ORG upon the request of ORG of ORG . The report revealed that the crime scene and the residue of vomit would lead to the conclusion that the deceased had been poisoned . It further disclosed that traces of toxic substances could not be detected in the deceased \u2019s tissue or fluids due to the time which had elapsed . However , taking into account the fact that there was no medical evidence to show that the deceased had been poisoned , the report was unable to establish the exact cause of death .","During the trial , the applicant was represented by a lawyer . In his defence submissions before ORG , the applicant denied the statements he had made before the gendarmerie , the public prosecutor and the GPE court . He alleged that his statement at the gendarmerie station had been extracted under duress and that he had been forced to sign a statement dictated by the gendarmerie . Moreover , he alleged that the gendarmerie had forced him to repeat the same statement before the public prosecutor and the GPE court and he had done so because he was scared that if he did not comply he would be ill - treated again . In the written defence submissions presented to the trial court , the applicant \u2019s lawyer stated that the applicant had been forced by the authorities to sign self - incriminating statements which included his alleged refusal to be assisted by a lawyer . He maintained that the statements in the case file had no legal validity .","On an unspecified date , the public prosecutor submitted his written opinion on the merits of the case to ORG , in which he recommended the applicant \u2019s acquittal , along with the CARDINAL other defendants , due to a lack of evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicant had committed the offence with which he was charged .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of murder and robbery and sentenced him to life imprisonment under ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . DATE ) , but acquitted his co - defendants due to a lack of evidence . In convicting the applicant , the assize court principally relied on his statements before the gendarmerie , the public prosecutor and the GPE court , the witness statements of CARDINAL witnesses , identification reports , the scene of incident report and fingerprint evidence . It did not give credence to the defence submissions made by the applicant during the proceedings in which he denied all his previous statements , finding that he had only made them to avoid conviction . The trial court moreover stated that a number of the witness statements were perfectly consistent with the applicant \u2019s initial self - incriminating statements , which suggested their accuracy . As regards his allegations of ill - treatment , the assize court stated that the medical reports issued prior to and following the applicant \u2019s detention at the gendarmerie station indicated no traces of illtreatment on his body . These allegations were , therefore , held to be unfounded .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG with a correction . Noting that the deceased had been a minor at the material time , it changed the sentence to aggravated life imprisonment ( a whole life tariff ) .","The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time can be found in GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160259","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF AYDIN \u00c7ET\u0130NKAYA v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","In DATE the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant was conditionally released from prison .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was arrested at his home on suspicion of leading a criminal organisation and involvement in the attempted abduction of a certain GPE and his son , PERSON He was subsequently placed in custody by the organised crime division of ORG .","On DATE at TIME the applicant and QUANTITY other persons were examined at ORG , in GPE , by a doctor who recorded on a single sheet of paper that there was no sign of violence on the bodies of these QUANTITY persons .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was once again examined at ORG by a doctor who noted that he had been told that the applicant had hit his head against a wall . The doctor , a general practitioner , observed the following injuries on the applicant \u2019s body : a swelling on the left side of the forehead and a headache , a hyperaemia of CARDINAL cm in width around both wrists and a hyperaemia of QUANTITY on the right side of the neck . The doctor considered that the applicant should also be examined by a neurosurgeon , who subsequently carried out a number of tests on the applicant and concluded that the applicant did not show any signs of pathology .","On DATE at TIME the applicant underwent a further medical examination at ORG by a doctor who noted in a medical report the same injuries as those mentioned in the medical report of DATE .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was once again taken to ORG for an examination . The medical expert noted that there was an erythema of QUANTITY in diameter on the right side of the applicant \u2019s forehead , scabbed wounds of QUANTITY on the underside of his wrists and a hyperaemia of QUANTITY on the right side of his neck .","On DATE the applicant underwent CARDINAL medical examinations . The first examination took place at ORG at TIME The doctor observed scabbed wounds on the underside of the wrists , a recovering hyperaemia of QUANTITY on the right side of the neck and an erythema of QUANTITY in diameter on the right side of the forehead . The second medical examination was carried out by a medical expert at ORG branch responsible for ORG at TIME The doctor who examined the applicant observed the following injuries on his body : a scabbed abrasion of QUANTITY on the underside of the left wrist , a scabbed abrasion of QUANTITY on the underside of the right wrist , a scabbed abrasion of QUANTITY on the back of the right wrist , CARDINAL thin abrasions of QUANTITY and QUANTITY on the right side of the forehead . The doctor concluded that these injuries did not put the applicant \u2019s life at risk but rendered him unfit to carry out DATE activities for DATE .","According to the applicant , he was subjected to ill - treatment throughout his detention in police custody . In particular , he was kept blindfolded and handcuffed to an iron bar for DATE . He was beaten , given electric shocks and made to lie on a bed over which his arms and legs were stretched , and his genitals were squeezed .","According to the Government , the applicant sustained his injuries as a result of his own conduct . The scratches and traces on his body were a result of having attempted to break his handcuffs , and he had hit his head on the floor . In support of their submissions , the Government provided video footage from the surveillance camera monitoring the room in which the applicant was detained , recorded TIME and TIME on DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","On DATE at TIME police officers and the applicant signed an incident report according to which the applicant was kept attached to a bed in order to prevent him from harming himself . The report states that at TIME , he managed to break CARDINAL of his handcuffs and hit his head on the floor . The officers recorded that they had used force to handcuff the applicant and that the applicant had sustained injuries on his wrists as a result . According to the report , the injuries on the applicant \u2019s head had occurred when he hit his head on the floor .","On DATE statements were taken from the applicant by CARDINAL police officers . According to the document drafted at TIME on DATE and signed by the applicant , the police told the applicant that he had been in possession of a mobile phone whilst in prison and that the conversations that he had held using this telephone had been intercepted by the police . The police officers alleged that he had given instructions for the abduction of a number of persons by phone and that it was considered that he had been the leader of a criminal organisation . The applicant denied the allegations that he had made the phone calls in question and that he had been involved in criminal activities . In his statements to the police , the applicant accepted that he knew some of the persons who had been arrested on DATE as him and that he knew that CARDINAL other arrestees had attempted to abduct GPE He stated that he knew GPE personally , but that he had not been involved in his abduction attempt .","On DATE the applicant appeared before the public prosecutor at ORG . He denied the allegations against him and submitted that he had been subjected to torture in police custody . He alleged that he had been beaten , given electric shocks and stretched by his arms and legs , had his testicles squeezed , and been handcuffed to an iron bar for DATE . On DATE he was remanded in detention by a judge .","DATE the QUANTITY persons who had been taken into police custody on DATE as the applicant also made statements to the police . According to some of these statements , the applicant had been the leader of a criminal organisation and had given instructions for the abduction of GPE These persons were also medically examined during and after their detention in police custody . Some of them were found to have sustained injuries to various parts of their bodies .","During the proceedings before the ORG , the Government produced a CD - ROM containing a police video recording . The CD - ROM contains images of a room . The part which concerns the applicant was recorded between TIME and TIME on DATE . It shows that the applicant was kept in a room on a mattress , the top of which is placed on CARDINAL chairs . The applicant is seen lying down on the mattress with his arms straight out to the sides and attached to the chair legs . He is also blindfolded with a piece of black cloth . On the other side of the room , there are CARDINAL plainclothes police officers standing around a desk and a chair . The applicant begins moving with a view to standing up . CARDINAL officers approach the applicant , detach him from the chairs , put him on the floor , kneel around him and for about one and a TIME keep the applicant under physical restraint on the floor . During this period , the applicant can not be seen by the camera . Thereafter , another plainclothes officer arrives in the room and instructs the other officers to arrange the mattress and the chairs in a certain way . Subsequently , the applicant is seen without the blindfold and with his arms held behind his back by CARDINAL officers who are also holding him around his neck . They make the applicant stand in front of the newly - arrived officer , who douses the applicant \u2019s face with water from a plastic bottle . He then hits the applicant on the head with the same bottle . Afterwards , CARDINAL officers place the top of the mattress on the chairs , force the applicant to lie down on the mattress on his back , handcuff him to the chair legs and blindfold him .","On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office and alleged that he had been subjected to ill - treatment during his detention in police custody .","On DATE the applicant made statements to the PERSON public prosecutor in which he complained about his alleged ill - treatment while in police custody . He claimed that he had been insulted , threatened , beaten , stripped naked , stretched by his arms and legs , blindfolded , given electric shocks and had his genitals squeezed . The applicant submitted that there were a superintendent , ORG , and the director of ORG , NORP , among those who had tortured him . The applicant also provided the names of several persons who had allegedly witnessed his ill - treatment in police custody and asked the public prosecutor to take their statements as witnesses .","On DATE and CARDINAL and DATE the PERSON public prosecutor took statements from GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , the police officers who had been on duty at the time of the applicant \u2019s detention in police custody . They all denied the veracity of the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor further obtained statements from GPE , who submitted that the applicant had hit his head on the floor . On DATE NORP also made statements to the PERSON public prosecutor and maintained that he had not been involved in the applicant \u2019s questioning .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor requested ORG to submit any video recording demonstrating that the applicant had resisted the officers , if such recording existed .","On DATE NORP , in his capacity as the director of ORG , sent the video recording of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) along with a letter to the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office . In his letter , NORP noted that the applicant had resisted the police officers while in police custody .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor sent the video recording to ORG and requested that a report clarifying whether the applicant could have sustained the injuries noted in the medical reports as a result of his own conduct be drafted . The public prosecutor also submitted the medical reports concerning the applicant to ORG .","On DATE medical experts from ORG , including the president , drafted a report after examining the medical reports issued during the applicant \u2019s police custody and the photographs and video footage submitted to them by the PERSON public prosecutor . In their report , the doctors concluded that the applicant \u2019s injuries had occurred as a result of his own conduct . They considered that , following the applicant \u2019s agitation , the police officers had struggled to lay him down on a camp bed and had handcuffed his hands to the bed . They further stated that the applicant did not appear to have been subjected to any beatings in the video footage . Having considered the position of the applicant \u2019s injuries on his body , they concluded that the injuries must have been caused by the applicant \u2019s own conduct .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG accusing QUANTITY police officers , LOC , NORP , \u0130.E , GPE , GPE and GPE , of inflicting ill - treatment on the applicant and CARDINAL of his co - accused , GPE","On DATE the applicant testified before ORG , acting on letters rogatory . The applicant contended that he had been kept blindfolded throughout his detention , stretched by his arms and legs , given electric shocks , hosed with cold water , stripped naked and had his genitals squeezed .","On DATE the ORG held the first hearing on the merits of the case and heard evidence from the accused police officers , except CARDINAL officer , NORP , who did not participate in the hearing . They all maintained that they had not ill - treated the applicant or GPE As regards the applicant , they contended that they had handcuffed him upon the instructions of a public prosecutor and subsequently used force with a view to preventing him from harming himself . CARDINAL of the officers , GPE , maintained that the applicant had sustained injuries to his head as he had hit his head against the wall . They referred to the video footage recorded on DATE . During the same hearing , C.A. , CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s lawyers who represented him along with PERSON , requested that the applicant be allowed to join the proceedings as an intervening party . His request was granted . The applicant \u2019s representative further requested the court to obtain the entire video recording of the places where the applicant had been held throughout his detention in police custody . The court decided to consider this request subsequently , after obtaining the statements of all accused police officers .","DATE and DATE the trial court adjourned the hearings as NORP could not be located .","On DATE NORP made statements before ORG and denied the veracity of the applicant \u2019s allegations . He reiterated that he had not been involved in the questioning of the applicant and GPE On DATE ORG ordered ORG to send it the video recordings concerning the applicant \u2019s police custody .","On DATE the first - instance court adjourned the hearing as the video footage requested during the previous hearing had not been received . CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s lawyers , C.A. , was present during this hearing .","Upon receipt of the video footage of DATE , during the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the ORG viewed the recording and observed that CARDINAL person had suddenly bent forwards and the police officers had immediately intervened . The court noted that the video footage was very short , lasting TIME , and the people in the images were not identifiable . At the same hearing , CARDINAL of the accused police officers , GPE , contended that the person in the footage was the applicant himself , who had hit his head on the floor in order to be able to lodge a complaint against them for ill - treatment in police custody , and that they had intervened to stop him .","On DATE the ORG referred the case to ORG on account of lack of jurisdiction , pursuant to LAW of the new LAW ( Law no . DATE ) , which defined ill - treatment by public servants as torture , an offence that should be tried by assize courts .","On DATE ORG issued a summons requiring the applicant and the accused police officers to attend the hearing to be held on DATE . The summons issued in respect of the applicant was served on PERSON . On DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings and heard evidence from the accused police officers , who reiterated the statements they had made before ORG . Neither the applicant nor his representatives participated in these hearings .","During the hearing held on DATE the public prosecutor requested that the police officers be acquitted of the charges against them . At the end of the same hearing ORG acquitted the accused police officers of the charges of torture . On the basis of the evidence before it , namely the medical reports , the report of ORG dated DATE , the statements taken from the accused officers , the applicant and GPE , and the aforementioned video footage , ORG found that the applicant had been agitated and the police officers had handcuffed him to a camp bed with a view to preventing him from injuring himself . The court noted that the injuries observed on the applicant \u2019s wrists and other parts of his body had thus occurred as a result of his agitation . The assize court considered that the applicant had not been subjected to beatings . It concluded that the accused officers had not tortured the applicant .","On DATE the judgment of DATE was served on lawyer C.A. As C.A. could not be found in his office , the notification document was left with the mayor of the neighbourhood , in accordance with the provisions of ORG .","On DATE PERSON , acting on behalf of the applicant , submitted a petition to ORG . He maintained that the judgment of DATE had been served on a lawyer who had not been involved in the case and asked to be officially served with the judgment in question .","On DATE another lawyer lodged an appeal with ORG , to be submitted to ORG , against the judgment of DATE on behalf of the applicant , claiming that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had erroneously been served on C.A.","On DATE ORG rejected the petition , holding that C.A. had represented the applicant during the proceedings and his power of attorney was in the case file . It further noted that the judgment had already been served on him and that notification to CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s representatives had been sufficient for the judgment to become final . The assize court therefore considered that the appeal dated CARDINAL DATE had been submitted outside the time - limit laid down for submission of appeals in LAW .","The applicant appealed against the decision of ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","According to the documents in the case file , on DATE NORP and on an unspecified date GPE were dismissed from duty respectively on account of some other criminal convictions . According to the judgment of DATE CARDINAL of the police officers , GPE , was promoted and became a superintendent during the criminal proceedings brought against him .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other individuals . The applicant was charged with leading a criminal organisation and the attempted abduction of GPE and ORG in order to obtain a ransom . The charges were brought under LAW no . CARDINAL on the Struggle against Profit - oriented ORG and LAW . The public prosecutor claimed that the applicant had been in possession of a mobile phone while he was in prison , that his conversations had been intercepted by the police following a court decision and that he had given instructions by phone to CARDINAL of his co - accused for the abduction attempt . In this connection , the public prosecutor referred to the transcripts of the telephone conversations which were included in the investigation file . The public prosecutor further claimed that the applicant had expanded the criminal organisation subsequent to his release from prison and his coaccused had either become members of this organisation or had aided it . In the indictment , the public prosecutor had explained the details of the abduction attempt regarding GPE and ORG , specifying the role of each accused . The applicant was identified as the person who had given the order for this offence to be committed .","On DATE ORG held the first hearing on the merits of the case . During this hearing , the applicant made statements before the court and maintained that he had been tortured while in police custody . He maintained that he had been made to listen to a recording of a telephone conversation by the police and that as he had denied that he had held the conversation in question , he had been tortured . He described the treatment he had allegedly been subjected to in detail and denied the veracity of his police statements . He further submitted that he had not made any phone calls or given instructions when he had been in prison and that these allegations had been invented by the police . He contended that he knew neither his co - accused nor GPE or ORG During the hearing of DATE the applicant \u2019s co - accused also denied the veracity of their police statements , claiming that they had been forced to sign those statements by the police and that they had been ill - treated whilst in police custody . During the hearing , the medical report of DATE issued by ORG in respect of the applicant was read out . At the end of the hearing , noting that the applicant had lodged a formal complaint with the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office requesting that his allegations of illtreatment be investigated , ORG decided to request information from the PERSON public prosecutor as to the outcome of the investigation .","DATE . During the second hearing in the case , held on DATE , the applicant once again denied that he had made telephone calls while in prison . CARDINAL of his lawyers contended that the police reports according to which the applicant had made telephone calls did not reflect the truth and requested his client \u2019s release . At the end of the hearing , as the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office had not sent the information requested on DATE , the first - instance court reiterated its request for information regarding the investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","During the third hearing on DATE CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s lawyers maintained that it would have been impossible for the applicant to possess a mobile phone whilst detained in an F - type prison . At the end of the hearing , ORG once again decided to request information from the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the fourth hearing in the case was held . During the hearing one of the applicant \u2019s lawyers stated that the information requested from the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office had been submitted and the investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment was pending . However , the first - instance court neither noted that this document had been submitted nor read it out .","During the same hearing , ORG , the son of the person whose abduction had allegedly been ordered by the applicant , made a statement before the trial court and submitted that neither of the accused had been involved in the attempted abduction . During the same hearing , the applicant \u2019s lawyers contended that the only evidence against the applicant was the police statements of his co - accused , which had been obtained through illtreatment and the veracity of which had been denied by each of the accused .","On DATE the fifth hearing was held , during which the public prosecutor submitted his opinion on the merits of the case and the accused were asked to provide their observations on the public prosecutor \u2019s opinion by the next hearing . During the hearing , the applicant submitted a petition to the first - instance court in which he submitted that he did not have a good relationship with his brother and claimed that he had been the victim of a conspiracy organised by a senior police director who was a friend of his brother . Finally , CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s lawyers maintained that the investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment was still pending .","During the sixth and last hearing in the case , held on DATE , CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s lawyers maintained that there was no evidence against the applicant in the case file other than the statements obtained under torture and that an investigation had been launched into the applicant \u2019s allegations of torture by the PERSON public prosecutor . Another lawyer representing the applicant also made defence statements . He contended that the telephone tapping in question had been illegal and that there had not been a court order authorising it . He further noted that the police statements obtained from the applicant under torture could not be used as evidence .","On DATE ORG rendered its judgment in the case . The applicant was convicted of leading an armed criminal organisation and of the abduction of GPE and ORG in order to obtain a ransom as charged and was sentenced to DATE , DATE and CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment . His conditional release in respect of his previous sentence was also revoked .","In its judgment , the first - instance court found it established , in the light of the content of the case file as a whole , to which the court repeatedly referred in its reasoning , and the evidence in its possession ( which included , inter alia , the following evidence : transcripts of telephone conversations allegedly held by the applicant , material evidence collected where the attempted abduction of GPE and ORG had occurred , witness statements , the applicant \u2019s and the co - accuseds\u2019 police statements , and statements made to the public prosecutor and a judge at ORG on DATE ) , that the applicant had planned the attempted abduction of GPE and had given instructions to CARDINAL of his co - accused to carry out the abduction in telephone calls he had made using a mobile phone when he was in prison . This telephone had originally been used by other inmates in prison and had been tapped by the police . The police had found out that the applicant had also used it in order to give instructions to the members of his criminal organisation and had subsequently conducted an investigation into the applicant and his coaccused . The first - instance court further noted that , after having assessed all the evidence in the case file , taking into account the legislation and ORG case - law , it had come to the conclusion that the applicant and his co - accused had already formed a criminal organisation prior to the attempted abduction . ORG therefore found , once again referring to the content of the case file , which included the applicant \u2019s police statements , that the applicant was the leader of the criminal organisation in question and CARDINAL other co - accused were members of that organisation .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .","Following the entry into force of the new Criminal Code in DATE , ORG reviewed the applicant \u2019s conviction of DATE and his sentence in the light of the provisions of the new Code . On DATE the assize court amended the applicant \u2019s sentence and imposed on him DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , holding that the new Code provided more favourable conditions for the applicant . CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s lawyers , PERSON , was present when the assize court pronounced its judgment .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the judgment of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177429","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ADYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of conscience;Freedom of religion;Manifest religion or belief);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["Mr PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) was born in DATE , while Mr ORG , PERSON and PERSON ( \u201c the second , third and fourth applicants \u201d ) were born in DATE . The first and second applicants live in GPE , while the third and fourth applicants live in GPE and GPE respectively .","The applicants are CARDINAL GPE \u2019s Witnesses who were found to be fit for military service .","In DATE and DATE the applicants were called up for military service . They failed to appear , and instead addressed letters to the local military commissariat ( \u0566\u056b\u0576\u057e\u0578\u0580\u0561\u056f\u0561\u0576 \u056f\u0578\u0574\u056b\u057d\u0561\u0580\u056b\u0561\u057f ) and the regional prosecutor \u2019s office , refusing to perform either military or alternative service . They stated that they were GPE \u2019s Witnesses and that , having studied LAW , they had come to the conclusion that , by NORP standards , the service proposed was not of a genuinely civilian nature since it was supervised by the military authorities . Their conscience did not allow them to work directly or indirectly for the military system . The alternative labour service was known to be organised and supervised by the military authorities because the alternative labour serviceman \u2019s record booklet was marked \u201c ORG \u201d , and alternative servicemen were subject to military discipline and penalties and had to register with the military subdivisions of ORG . Furthermore , the law required that they remain at their place of service around the clock , DATE a week , which was akin to house arrest and was unacceptable to the applicants . The requirement to perform military service or the available alternative service violated their rights guaranteed by , inter alia , LAW . For the reasons stated above , their conscience did not allow them to perform the alternative service available in GPE . The applicants added that they were willing to perform alternative service as long as it was not in any way connected with the military authorities and did not violate their religious beliefs .","On DATE charges were brought against the second applicant under LAW ( evasion of regular conscription for military or alternative service ) .","On DATE the first and fourth applicants were arrested .","On DATE the same charges were brought against the first and fourth applicants . Finding the investigator \u2019s applications for their detention substantiated , ORG decided to detain them .","On DATE ORG dismissed appeals lodged by the first and fourth applicants against the detention orders , finding , inter alia , that as the alleged offence carried a sentence of DATE imprisonment , that increased the probability that the first and fourth applicants would commit a new offence or evade punishment if they remained at large .","On DATE the same charges were brought against the third applicant and the ORG decided to detain him at the investigator \u2019s request , finding that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he was charged .","On an unspecified date his criminal case was sent to court .","On DATE the ORG decided to set the case down for trial , finding that the \u201c detention was to remain unchanged \u201d .","On DATE ORG examined an appeal lodged by the third applicant against the detention order of DATE and decided to dismiss it , finding , inter alia , that the offence with which he was charged carried a sentence of DATE imprisonment , which increased the probability that he would commit a new offence or evade punishment if he remained at large .","In the course of the proceedings before their respective trial courts , the applicants submitted that their opposition to military and alternative service was based on their religious beliefs . The alternative service provided for under domestic law was not of a genuinely civilian nature , as it was supervised by the military authorities . The right to conscientious objection was protected by , inter alia , LAW . The applicants were willing to perform alternative service as long as it was not supervised by the military and was of a genuinely civilian nature .","On DATE ORG found the second applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE and DATE in prison . He was taken into custody on DATE .","On DATE ORG imposed similar sentences on the first and fourth applicants .","On DATE the ORG imposed a similar sentence on the third applicant .","The applicants lodged appeals against their convictions , arguing that they violated the requirements of LAW . Their opposition to the alternative service available in GPE was based on their religious beliefs , as that service was not of a genuinely civilian nature and failed to comply with NORP standards . It was organised and supervised by the military authorities ( section QUANTITY of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ) and was equivalent to non - armed military service , whereas their conscience did not allow them to perform any service supervised by the military authorities . Furthermore , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW authorised a military authority to order the transfer of an alternative labour serviceman to another institution , while certain aspects of the service were organised in accordance with military rules ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ) . Alternative labour servicemen were also required to wear a uniform that resembled a military uniform and to follow orders , and were not allowed to leave their place of service without authorisation . The cover of the alternative labour serviceman \u2019s record booklet ( \u0561\u0575\u056c\u0568\u0576\u057f\u0580\u0561\u0576\u0584\u0561\u0575\u056b\u0576 \u0561\u0577\u056d\u0561\u057f\u0561\u0576\u0584\u0561\u0575\u056b\u0576 \u056e\u0561\u057c\u0561\u0575\u0578\u0572\u056b \u0563\u0580\u0584\u0578\u0582\u0575\u056f ) bore the coat of arms and the words \u201c ORG \u201d , and the DATE allowance paid was the same as that of military servicemen . Moreover , alternative service was punitive in nature as it lasted DATE and alternative servicemen were required to stay at their place of service around the clock . They reiterated their readiness to perform a genuinely civilian alternative service and argued that , in the absence of alternative service that complied with NORP standards and was of a truly civilian nature , their sentences did not pursue a pressing social need and were not necessary in a democratic society .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgments of ORG in the cases of the first and second applicants .","In the first applicant \u2019s case , ORG found as follows :","\u201c Having examined the arguments of the defence that the alternative labour service in GPE does not comply with NORP standards , is of a military nature and is supervised by the military , ORG finds that [ the ORG ] ... is taking appropriate measures in respect of the obligations assumed before ORG as regards , in particular , the enactment and continuous improvement of the legislation concerning alternative service .","ORG finds it necessary to point out that LAW , the [ relevant ] Government decrees and [ other executive orders ] are based on LAW and must therefore be applied in the present case with the following considerations .","[ Citation of sections DATE ) of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ]","It follows from the above - mentioned provisions that [ the ORG ] has made a clear distinction between alternative military service and alternative labour service , and has guaranteed by law the civilian nature of the latter .","[ Citation of sections DATE and CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ]","Based on an analysis of the above - mentioned provisions , ORG finds it necessary to point out that the fact that the head of the institution [ where alternative service is performed ] notifies [ the local military commissariat ] regarding the alternative labour service to be performed by the serviceman , the fact that the serviceman can be transferred to another institution or place and the fact that alternative labour servicemen are discharged from service to the reserve and are registered in the reserve in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law , are not sufficient to conclude that the alternative labour service in GPE is of a military nature , since ... the type , procedures and conditions of such labour are determined by the heads of the relevant institutions without any interference by the military authorities or their representatives .","Furthermore , it is the head of [ the relevant ] institution who is responsible for the organisation and implementation of the alternative labour service and not the subdivisions of ORG .","The argument put forward by the defence that the alternative labour service is supervised by a public authority in the field of defence authorised by the Government of GPE similarly does not suggest that there is no alternative labour service in GPE . It must be noted that in reality , servicemen perform the labour service outside ORG and it does not contain elements of military service .","ORG also finds it necessary to note that an analysis of LAW shows that the specifics of the legal status of alternative labour servicemen are set out in the said LAW and the labour legislation of GPE and they are subjects ... of labour rather than military relations .","The preceding conclusion is evidenced also by a number of other provisions of the LAW , in particular , the fact that alternative labour servicemen are subordinate only to the heads of the relevant civilian institutions , are obliged to follow only their orders and instructions , and must abide by the internal disciplinary rules of such institutions , while questions relating to the social security of servicemen and their family members are regulated by the legislation on ORG pensions rather than military laws ( sections DATE ) .","It must be noted that Government Decree no . CARDINAL-N of DATE established the list of institutions where alternative service is performed and the form and the manner of wearing the alternative serviceman \u2019s uniform .","Paragraph CARDINAL(b ) of the Decree stipulates that \u2018 alternative labour servicemen perform their service in the institutions under ORG and ORG .","Pursuant to [ Annex CARDINAL ] to the Decree , \u2018 the tasks performed by alternative labour servicemen in the said bodies are those of an orderly\u2019 .","The Government have entrusted the ministers of the bodies in question , as well as the Minister of Defence , with certain responsibilities , such as the provision of clothing , food and financial means to servicemen and other organisational work ( paragraph CARDINAL of the Decree ) .","The fact that the Minister of Defence is also involved in the organisation of the alternative service does not suggest that the labour service transforms into military service , since , firstly , the Minister of Defence and certain subdivisions of ORG are called upon to participate in the organisation of the alternative military service .","As regards the fact that the military authorities carry out supervision of labour servicemen together with the heads of the relevant institutions , ORG considers that this still does not change the nature of the service performed . Moreover , as already noted above , the type , procedures and conditions of the civilian labour are determined and may be changed only by the head of the relevant institution .","...","It must be noted that performing the tasks of an orderly at the relevant medical institutions of GPE is not only not demeaning , but on the contrary is humanitarian , serves the interests of society and is aimed at preservation of human health and life .","The argument put forward by the defence that the alternative labour service is punitive in nature is also unsubstantiated .","...","In the light of the above , ORG , based on the concrete facts of the case , namely that [ the first applicant ] has categorically refused to be conscripted to perform alternative labour service , concludes that he has been found criminally liable and sentenced in a justified and fair manner for such actions , and this fact does not contradict ... the case - law of ORG regarding LAW . \u201d","In the second applicant \u2019s case , ORG found that his conviction had been lawful , well - founded and reasoned .","On DATE and DATE ORG adopted judgments in the cases of the third and fourth applicants similar to its judgment in the case of the first applicant .","The applicants lodged appeals on points of law , raising the same arguments as in their appeals .","On DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the applicants\u2019 appeals inadmissible for lack of merit .","On DATE and DATE the applicants were released from prison following a general amnesty , after having served between CARDINAL and DATE of their sentences ."],"violated_articles":["9"],"violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183535","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF GORCHAKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants is set out in the appended tables .","The applicants were employees of a municipal education institution .","On DATE they brought proceedings before ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against their employer and the town administration seeking recovery of unpaid wages and taxes to various social funds .","On DATE the ORG issued a first - instance judgment on the merits of the case . On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination .","On DATE ORG granted the applicants\u2019 claims awarding each of them a certain amount against their employer ( see Appendix I ) . The judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .","DATE and DATE the court hearings were adjourned CARDINAL times due to the respondents\u2019 or one of the respondents\u2019 failure to appear , CARDINAL times on the PERSON request and CARDINAL times pursuant the requests by the defendants ; CARDINAL times the firstinstance court adjourned the case as the respondent authorities had been requested to submit additional documents . Moreover , on DATE the proceedings were suspended pursuant to a decision by the domestic court on account of the PERSON alleged failure to appear ; on DATE that decision was quashed by the appeal court , due to the first - instance court \u2019s failure to notify the applicants of the hearing date . Thus , the period attributable to the authorities amounts to over DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the employer institution was liquidated . On DATE the relevant record was made into ORG .","According to the Government \u2019s submissions of DATE , on DATE the judgment of DATE was partially enforced in respect of certain applicants , as specified in PERSON"],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171319","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"OPREA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr M.A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , a dispute took place between the applicant and a neighbour regarding car parking . It happened in front of the building where they lived . The applicant alleged that GPE hit him several times on the head and face with a solid object , leaving him unconscious for TIME .","Helped by his son and wife , he returned to his house and immediately called the police .","NORP The police officers , who immediately arrived on the scene , imposed a fine on both him and his neighbour for a public order infraction .","The infraction fine ( proces - verbal de contraven\u0163ie ) stated that it had been acknowledged by both parties involved in the incident that there had been a physical altercation between them . It had also mentioned that the applicant and GPE had been advised to present themselves for a medical examination by the GPE forensic office .","DATE , after the police left , the applicant went to the closest hospital , ORG , for medical care .","On the medical certificate issued on DATE by ORG , it was mentioned that the applicant presented with traumatic cuts and bruising that could have been caused by repeated blows from a hard object on DATE . According to the same certificate , the applicant needed CARDINAL to eight days of medical care to recover .","The applicant lodged a criminal complaint against his aggressor for the offence of bodily harm under LAW of LAW . In turn , the defendant lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant for intimidation , insult and defamation . The CARDINAL files were joined and examined together . Both parties to the criminal trial also joined a civil complaint to the criminal one . PERSON ORG also lodged a civil claim .","NORP The GPE ORG heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses proposed by the parties . None of the witnesses had been present at the incident of DATE and consequently they stated that they were not aware of any physical altercation between the applicant and GPE","By a judgment of DATE , GPE Court acquitted both defendants and dismissed the joint civil actions . The defendant indicated by the applicant in the criminal complaint was acquitted on the grounds that the applicant had not proved that he had caused the injuries .","The applicant appealed . He argued that the court of first instance had failed to investigate how the injuries attested by the medical certificate had been caused . He also claimed that the only eyewitness to the incident , DATE , although admitted as a witness and summoned by the court of first instance , had not had an opportunity to give evidence . The applicant did not indicate why this witness had not been heard .","By a decision of DATE GPE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law upholding the decision of DATE on the grounds that the simple submission of a medical certificate to the court does not prove the guilt of t.e defendant .","The provisions of LAW , as in force on DATE the offence was allegedly committed , defining bodily harm , read as follows :","\u201c Violence causing physical injuries needing medical care of DATE for recovery is punishable by imprisonment of DATE , or by a fine . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142434","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ATEV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a sole trader , registered on an unspecified date under the name ET Atev \u2013 PERSON , with an office in Letnitsa . He is engaged in various commercial activities . Under NORP law his business does not have a distinct legal personality .","In DATE the applicant registered his business for value - added tax ( \u201c VAT \u201d ) .","In DATE and DATE the applicant purchased electrical devices from another sole trader ( \u201c the supplier \u201d ) . The supplier issued the relevant invoices and , as it appears , indicated on them the ORG charged . In DATE the tax authorities conducted a VAT audit of the supplier . On DATE he was issued with a tax assessment which made no mention of the goods supplied in DATE and DATE .","NORP In DATE the GPE ORG conducted a NORP audit of the applicant for the periods , in particular , from DATE and from DATE . On DATE it issued him with a tax assessment whereby it refused him the right to deduct the VAT of MONEY ( ORG ) , ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , which the supplier had charged him in DATE and DATE . It also ordered that interest be paid in the amount of BGN CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","The applicant appealed against the DATE tax assessment . On DATE the director of ORG upheld the DATE tax assessment in its entirety . The authorities stated that in order to recognise the applicant \u2019s entitlement to have the input ORG deducted , the ORG had to be entered in the accounting records of the supplier ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Therefore , they would have to crosscheck those records and verify that the LOC had been properly reflected as an obligation to the ORG budget . When the cross - check was carried out , however , the supplier declared that the relevant accounting records had been lost . Since the authorities could not verify whether the ORG had been reflected accordingly , they refused to deduct it . As for the applicant \u2019s argument that his supplier \u2019s DATE tax assessment did not contain any irregularities regarding the said supplies , the authorities dismissed it as being irrelevant for the proceedings at issue .","The applicant sought judicial review . During the proceedings and following a request on the part of the applicant , ORG ordered an expert report . The applicant put questions to the expert . In a judgment of DATE the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the DATE tax assessment . The court found that the tax authorities\u2019 refusal to recognise the applicant \u2019s right to have the ORG he had paid deducted was correct because the supplier \u2019s accounting records had been lost , making it objectively impossible to verify whether the ORG had been properly charged and reflected as an obligation to the ORG budget . The court also noted that although the applicant had had an opportunity to do so , he had not questioned the expert about those supplies and had failed to rebut the statements of the tax authorities in the tax assessment .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal , and in a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the tax assessment . The court found that during the proceedings the applicant had submitted only documents originating from his own accounting records . Those documents , however , could not have served as evidence given the subject matter of the case . The court further noted that the applicant had failed to question the expert about the contested supplies . Having regard to the applicant \u2019s failure to rebut the authorities\u2019 findings and in the absence of the supplier \u2019s accounting records , the court concluded that it had been impossible to establish whether the ORG had been entered in them , which was CARDINAL of the pre - conditions sine qua non for allowing the applicant to have the input ORG deducted .","It is unclear whether the supplier was penalised for his failure to keep his accounting records diligently and in line with the relevant domestic provisions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On an unspecified date the applicant paid part of the debt under the DATE tax assessment , namely ORG EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . In DATE enforcement proceedings were instituted against the applicant for the collection of the remaining debt . It is unclear how the proceedings unfolded until DATE , when they were apparently resumed . The proceedings were still pending at the time of the latest information from the applicant .","Under LAW DATE , input GPE , referred to as \u201c tax credit \u201d in domestic legislation , was the amount of GPE which a taxable person had been charged on goods or services received under a chargeable transaction or from the importing of goods or services ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The LOC was to be charged by the supplier ( section CARDINAL ) ) . The recipient should have been in possession of a LOC invoice which met the statutory requirements ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) . In order for the recipient to have the right to deduction of VAT , it was mandatory for the supplier to have reflected the LOC charged to the recipient in his accounting records as an obligation to the ORG budget ( section CARDINAL ) with reference to paragraph GPE ) of LAW DATE ) .","The relevant provisions of LAW DATE , which replaced LAW , are summarised in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . In particular , the supplier \u2019s obligation to reflect the ORG that he has charged in his accounting records remained unchanged ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) in relation to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ) .","The VAT Act DATE replaced the DATE Act to include in national legislation the latest GPE legislation in the sphere of GPE . The explicit requirement that , in order for the right to have input ORG deducted to arise , the supplier had to have reflected it in his accounting records , was abandoned .","Pursuant to LAW , accounting documents relating to tax obligations must be maintained by the trader for a period of DATE after the expiry of the statutory time - limit for the relevant obligation ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) . Failure to observe that obligation is sanctioned by an administrative penalty ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","The general rules of the law of tort are set out in sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL of ORG DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that everyone is obliged to make good the damage which they have , through their fault , caused to another . Under section ORG ) , fault is presumed until proved otherwise .","In that connection , a recipient may successfully seek pecuniary damages from a supplier when the latter has acted in violation of the relevant LOC provisions , resulting in the LOC refusal to deduct the input ORG ( for example , if the supplier has failed to issue an invoice and to enter the tax in its accounting records , issued invoices but failed to enter the tax in its DATE declaration to the authorities , or failed to submit the relevant documents proving that he has discharged his LOC reporting obligations to the authorities ) ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043d\u043e\u0435\u043c\u0432\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , IV \u0433. \u043e. ; \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0444\u0435\u0432\u0440\u0443\u0430\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0442. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , NORP \u0442. \u043e. ; \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0434\u0435\u043a\u0435\u043c\u0432\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0442. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , NORP \u0442. \u043e. ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043e\u043a\u0442\u043e\u043c\u0432\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. PERSON \u0422\u044a\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043e \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u044e\u043b\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0432. \u0442. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 \u0410\u0421-\u0412\u0430\u0440\u043d\u0430 ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u043e\u0442 DATE \u0433. QUANTITY \u041e\u0421-\u0421\u0442\u0430\u0440\u0430 GPE \u043f\u043e NORP \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043c\u0430\u0439 DATE \u0433. \u043d\u0430 \u0420\u0421-\u0412\u0435\u043b\u0438\u043a\u043e GPE \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. ) . The compensation granted for the pecuniary damage suffered is usually in the amount of the paid GPE plus the relevant interest .","Section CARDINAL of the ORG and ORG DATE ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u043e\u0442\u0433\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u044a\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0438 \u043e\u0431\u0449\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0438 \u2013 \u201c the DATE LAW ) provides that the ORG and municipalities are liable for damage suffered by individuals ( and since DATE also legal persons ) as a result of unlawful decisions , actions or omissions by their organs and officials committed in the course of , or in connection with , the carrying out of administrative action ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169477","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RUSU LINTAX SRL v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant is a limited liability company incorporated under NORP law .","On DATE ORG acknowledged the applicant company \u2019s entitlement to a plot of land adjacent to a warehouse it owned . The judgment ordered ORG to sell the plot of land to the applicant company . The judgment was final .","On DATE ORG upheld an application for revision lodged by a third party , quashed the final judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination on the merits . As new evidence the court cited a letter dated DATE from ORG which , referring to the disputed plot of land and other plots , listed the legal provisions applicable to the sale of land that was public property .","After a fresh hearing , on DATE ORG dismissed in a final judgment the applicant company \u2019s claims in respect of the plot of land as unsubstantiated ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166691","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BRITISH GURKHA WELFARE SOCIETY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 14+P1-1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano;Simon Brown","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","Nepalese Gurkha soldiers have served the ORG since DATE , initially as soldiers in the ( NORP ) ORG . Following NORP independence in DATE , CARDINAL ORG regiments were transferred to ORG , while CARDINAL regiments became an integral part of ORG . CARDINAL ORG soldiers fought in the CARDINAL world wars , and in DATE they have served in GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , the LOC , GPE , GPE and GPE . They have served in a variety of roles , mainly in the infantry but also as engineers and in signals and logistics units .","DATE , they form ORG ( \u201c the Brigade \u201d ) , in which only NORP nationals are eligible for service . The Brigade is not an operational brigade in the conventional sense ; rather , it is an administrative entity which ensures that ORG units , into which all ORG soldiers are recruited and serve , are able to be integrated into \u2013 and form part of \u2013 other operational brigades in ORG .","The Brigade was originally based in LOC , in the region formerly known as GPE . In DATE the ORG \u2019s base moved to GPE . On completion of the handover of GPE to GPE in DATE , the home base moved to GPE . Consequently , the majority of NORP are currently stationed in GPE , although since DATE a section of the Brigade has been stationed in GPE .","Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding of CARDINAL DATE ( \u201c the Tripartite Agreement \u201d ) , ORG , GPE and GPE agreed that the salary of NORP serving in ORG would be set by reference to rates applied by GPE in respect of NORP soldiers so as to avoid competition between the NORP and NORP armies for ORG recruits . ORG basic pay was therefore set in accordance with the NORP LAW , although cost - of - living allowances were paid for service outside GPE . These allowances used to be calculated by reference to local living expenses ( for example , in GPE or GPE ) , but in DATE , when the Brigade \u2019s home base moved to GPE , a \u201c universal addition \u201d was introduced to ensure that , whenever a ORG soldier was serving outside GPE , his take - home pay would be similar to that of a non - NORP soldier in ORG of comparable rank and experience . However , the \u201c universal addition \u201d was not treated as pensionable pay .","Prior to DATE , ORG entitlement ( that is , an entitlement for the soldier to be accompanied by wife and children ) was for one married accompanied tour of DATE in DATE of service and for permanent accompanied service for NORP ranked ORG and above . However , with effect from DATE , those who had served for DATE or more in the Brigade were entitled to ORG ( in other words , they were entitled to be joined in GPE by their wives and children ) .","Gurkha soldiers are required to retire after DATE service , subject to the possibility , dependent on rank , of CARDINAL or more yearly extensions .","In comparison , other soldiers in ORG are entitled to serve for DATE .","Historically , ORG soldiers were discharged to GPE and it was presumed that they would remain there during retirement .","On DATE ORG ( ORG CARDINAL ) were changed to permit NORP soldiers with CARDINAL years\u2019 service who retired on or after DATE ( the date that the ORG \u2019s home base relocated to GPE ) to apply for settlement in GPE . MONEY of the CARDINAL eligible ORG soldiers have since applied successfully to settle in GPE with their qualifying dependants .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG for ORG announced a new policy under which all former NORP who had served in ORG for DATE would be eligible for settlement in GPE . CARDINAL per cent of those eligible have since applied for resettlement in GPE .","The Tripartite Agreement provided that the pensions of NORP serving in ORG would also be set by reference to the rates applied by GPE to NORP soldiers .","In DATE the Gurkha Pension Scheme ( \u201c GPS \u201d ) was established by ORG and applied the former ORG to NORP serving in ORG Pension entitlements under the GPS were index - linked to the cost of living in GPE as it was presumed that the NORP would retire there . Pensions were immediately payable upon retirement and could not be deferred . A ORG who retired without having served DATE would be entitled to no pension whatsoever .","In DATE ORG pensions were reviewed and the rate payable was set at the highest rate applicable under the ORG pension arrangements .","In DATE , following a ministerial review , the rates applicable to the pensions of NORP in the Brigade were increased by MONEY , taking them over the scales set by ORG . The rationale for the increase was that a ORG who retired from the Brigade to GPE would not receive the benefit of various schemes which soldiers retiring from ORG could access , such as the provision of certain medical facilities . The increase applied to all NORP regardless of the date of discharge .","ORG soldiers retiring from ORG are entitled to pensions under either ORG DATE ( \u201c AFPS CARDINAL \u201d ) or ORG ( \u201c AFPS CARDINAL \u201d ) depending on when they commenced service . Neither scheme is indexlinked with the cost of living in the soldier \u2019s country of origin .","Under the AFPS , soldiers are eligible for deferred pensions , payable at DATE , provided that they have rendered CARDINAL years\u2019 service before leaving ORG . In order to receive an immediate pension officers are required to serve for DATE and all other ranks are required to serve for DATE ; however , in practice CARDINAL of non - Gurkha soldiers in ORG serve for sufficiently long periods to be eligible for an immediate pension .","NORP The annual pension entitlement under the GPS is broadly equivalent \u2013 taking into account the adjustments made in DATE and DATE \u2013 to CARDINAL of that under the AFPS .","Following the DATE amendment to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Secretary of ORG announced a review of the Gurkhas\u2019 Terms and ORG . The review noted that the DATE amendment to ORG and the changes to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had changed the traditional assumption that NORP Gurkhas would retire in GPE , and pointed to a future in which they could be expected increasingly to regard GPE , rather than GPE , as their family base . ORG therefore concluded that , the affordability issues notwithstanding , the major differences in NORP terms and conditions of service could no longer be justified on legal or moral grounds and recommended that they be modernised by bringing them largely into line with those available to the wider ORG .","With regard to pensions , the review concluded that on balance the GPS was more suitable than the AFPS to support the life - cycle of the great majority of NORP up until DATE . However , moving the ORG \u2019s base to GPE and the subsequent change to ORG had altered the previously valid assumption that NORP would retire in GPE . For a ORG retiring to a second career in GPE , the GPS profile was","\u201c clearly wrong , paying sums too small to be useful at a time when he does not need them and an inadequate pension at retirement age . As the life profile of the typical ORG approaches that of his GPE \/ Commonwealth counterpart , there can be little to be said in favour of providing them with such different pension benefit profiles . \u201d","NORP The report recommended that serving and retired members of the Brigade should be allowed to transfer from the GPS to either AFPS CARDINAL or DATE , depending on when they enlisted . Those who were already in the GPS and wished to remain in it could do so , but it would be closed with effect from DATE .","In DATE GPE formulated the ORG to ORG ( \u201c GOTT \u201d ) and this was given effect in ORG Order DATE ( \u201c the DATE Order \u201d ) . NORP who retired DATE did not qualify for the GOTT . However , the ORG enabled ORG soldiers who retired on or after DATE to transfer from the GPS to either AFPS CARDINAL or AFPS CARDINAL depending on when they first enlisted in ORG . The terms of any transfer were such that the accrued rights to a pension for service after DATE would transfer into the AFPS scheme on a year - for - DATE basis .","In respect of service rendered DATE the Explanatory Memorandum to the DATE Order explained that","\u201c although ORG service from DATE is transferable on a CARDINAL - for - CARDINAL basis , LAW provides that ORG service counts proportionately depending upon the rank of the transferee . This proportion is not arbitrary : it has been arrived at after careful calculation by ORG . It represents broadly the value of the DATE benefits accrued in the GPS . A ORG transferring to either AFPS will be given fair pension value for his GPS service . \u201d","Under the actuarial calculation adopted by the ORG , a DATE \u2019s service before DATE translated \u2013 in terms of pension entitlement \u2013 to the equivalent of CARDINAL and MONEY of the value of a DATE \u2019s service of a non - Gurkha soldier of equivalent rank .","The transition from the GPS to the AFPS for those opting to transfer who were already in receipt of a pension under the GPS did not deprive them of their existing GPS pension , which would continue to be paid . Transfer to the relevant AFPS occurred at DATE , when they received the preserved pension . However , as they had been in receipt of the GPS pension from around the age of CARDINAL , the capital value of the pension pot at retirement age would be reduced by the payments received under the GPS up to that date .","Nearly all serving NORP elected to transfer to the PERSON ( only CARDINAL.CARDINAL per cent elected to remain in the GPS ) . Of those who had retired , but remained eligible for transfer , MONEY elected to remain in the GPS .","The first applicant is a non - governmental unincorporated association that acts on behalf of CARDINAL former members of the Brigade .","The second applicant is a former ORG soldier who retired from ORG on DATE after having accumulated CARDINAL years\u2019 service . As he completed his service prior to DATE , he is ineligible to transfer any of his pensionable years to CARDINAL of the AFPSs . His pension continues to be governed by the ORG and , as such , is valued at MONEY of that which a NORP soldier of equivalent rank would receive for the same period and type of service .","The third applicant is a former ORG soldier who retired from the Brigade on DATE after having accumulated CARDINAL years\u2019 service . DATE of service were transferred into the PERSON on a year - for - year basis . The preceding DATE of service were transferred under an actuarial calculation pursuant to the DATE Order . Under that calculation the pensionable value of DATE of service was regarded as equivalent to CARDINAL per cent of DATE served by a NORP soldier of equivalent rank engaged in the same type of service .","On DATE the applicants issued an application for judicial review in the High Court challenging the legality of both ( a ) the decision that NORP who retired prior to DATE were not entitled to transfer their pension rights under the GPS into the AFPS and ( b ) the decision that , for those NORP who retired after DATE , service before that date did not rank on a year - for - DATE basis . The challenge was advanced on CARDINAL grounds : under LAW DATE ( namely , that there had been a breach of a procedural duty to promote equality of opportunity ) ; on grounds of irrationality ; and under LAW No . CARDINAL read together with LAW . In relation to the third ground , the applicants alleged that they were discriminated against in their entitlement to an army pension on the basis of their age and\/or nationality . In particular , they argued that they were treated differently both from younger ORG soldiers who had ( more ) years of service after DATE and from regular ORG soldiers .","The applicants were granted permission to pursue their judicial review application . A hearing took place in DATE . At the hearing the parties agreed that the DATE change to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was irrelevant for the purpose of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the application on all CARDINAL grounds . In respect of the age discrimination challenge ORG relied on its earlier decision in R ( PERSON ) v. ORG [ DATE ] EWHC CARDINAL ( Admin ) ( summarised at paragraphs DATE below ) , in which it held that the difference in treatment did not occur due to the difference in age but due to the dates at which service had been rendered . The judge in the present applicants\u2019 case noted that","\u201c when lines are drawn for any purpose by reference to dates the result may well include some indirect age discrimination . \u201d","In reaching this conclusion , the court rejected the argument DATE advanced by the applicants \u2013 that age discrimination should be treated as a \u201c suspect \u201d ground .","In respect of the discrimination - on - grounds - of - nationality challenge ORG considered that it was bound by R ( GPE and Others ) v. ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ( summarised at paragraphs DATE below ) , in which ORG had ruled that NORP with service before DATE were in a markedly different position from other soldiers serving in ORG before that date . The difference in pension arrangements reflected the different historical position of the NORP . Although ORG accepted that the DATE change in ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) undermined some of the assumptions supporting the decision in GPE , it held that the changes did not affect the reasoning of ORG as that reasoning applied to the calculation of pension entitlements which accrued DATE . For all the reasons advanced by the ORG Judge in GPE , ORG considered that the choice of DATE to mark the boundary for different treatment of accrued pension was a rational and reasonable CARDINAL .","The applicants were granted permission to appeal to ORG . On appeal , their case was put exclusively by reference to LAW No . CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal . In respect of the discrimination - on - grounds - of - nationality claim ORG , like ORG , considered itself bound by the decision in GPE ( cited above ) . In respect of the age - discrimination claim the court , relying on ORG judgment in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE , held that even if a relevant comparison could be drawn between older and younger NORP , ORG could easily justify the difference in treatment .","On DATE ORG refused to grant the applicants permission to appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170153","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF D\u0102SC\u0102LESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","In DATE the applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment for homicide . Between DATE and DATE he was serving his sentence in FAC .","The applicant alleged that , DATE and DATE , while he had been under a closed prison regime in FAC , he had been taking his DATE TIME of exercise in outside yards which lacked access to toilets or running water . At certain times there were CARDINAL prisoners in CARDINAL recreation yard . Especially during DATE the situation could have been described as inhuman and humiliating , because he had been forced to satisfy his physiological needs together with other prisoners along the fences of the yard , in the same place where they were supposed to walk and breathe fresh air .","The applicant alleged that he had on numerous occasions asked the ORG administration to provide sanitary facilities and running water in the recreation yards . His requests had been consistently ignored or had received the reply that renovation works were planned for the future .","On DATE , the applicant lodged a new complaint asking the prison authorities to equip the recreation yards with running water and toilets . The prison authorities noted on the applicant \u2019s request that in fact he had been allowed to take water with him during his DATE exercise and he had also been able to go to his cell in order to satisfy his physiological needs during this time . They further noted \u201c At the moment renovation works are under way in the yards . \u201d","On DATE the post - sentencing judge in FAC rejected a complaint on the same matter lodged by the applicant . The judge held that Law no . CARDINAL on the execution of sentences did not provide for the right to have access to sanitary facilities and water during the ORG DATE outside exercise .","Relying on the provisions concerning the ORG right to daily exercise set forth by PERSON no . CARDINAL as well as the provisions of LAW , the applicant made a complaint against the above - mentioned decision before ORG . He also sought compensation for non - pecuniary damage in respect of the inhuman treatment he had been suffering during his DATE exercise since DATE in FAC . The FAC administration maintained before the court that the law did not provide for an obligation to equip the recreation yards with sanitary facilities .","NORP In a final judgment of DATE the NORP ORG found that the applicant had indeed been deprived of access to a toilet and drinking water during DATE exercise , and that this was in breach of LAW , which regulates ORG right to DATE exercise . The court based its decision on witness statements as well as on information submitted by the prison authorities . In view of the evidence before it , the court allowed the applicant \u2019s complaint and ordered FAC authorities to ensure the applicant \u2019s right to daily exercise in a yard provided with sanitary facilities and drinking water . The applicant \u2019s request for damages was rejected as out of time , since it had not first been raised before the post - sentencing judge .","In the meantime , on DATE the post - sentencing judge in FAC had studied another complaint lodged by the applicant in respect of another alleged breach of his rights . In this context the post - sentencing judge held that he was not competent in law to deal with the applicant \u2019s request for compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE the applicant was placed under a semi - open detention regime , because his prison term was approaching its end . He was moved to a different prison wing , where the recreation yard was provided with both toilets and drinking water .","On DATE the applicant was conditionally released from prison .","In a letter dated DATE , submitted by the ORG , ORG mentioned that the recreation yards of FAC could not technically be equipped with sanitary facilities because the prison lacked a sewage collection and disposal system . At the time the letter was sent , running water had been made available in all yards ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175646","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MOREIRA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL (No. 2)","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Criminal charge;Fair hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","Following an altercation with other persons , the applicant was prosecuted by the public prosecutor at ORG for threatening conduct . An expert report was produced during the investigation , stating that the applicant had limited intellectual and cognitive capacities but that she should be held criminally responsible for her acts .","NORP In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s defence of diminished criminal responsibility and sentenced her to CARDINAL DATE - fines , amounting to a total of MONEY ( ORG ) , for threatening and insulting conduct , as well as ordering her to pay damages to the victims .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) against the judgment . She repeated that she had been unaware of the unlawfulness of her acts and sought an acknowledgment of her lack of criminal responsibility owing to the psychiatric disorders from which she claimed to suffer . Consequently , she asked for a fresh assessment of the facts and the opportunity to state her case at a hearing .","On DATE ORG held a hearing attended by the public prosecutor and counsel for the applicant . However , no examination of the applicant herself took place .","In a final judgment of DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction for threatening and insulting conduct , but reduced the sentence to CARDINAL day - fines , amounting to a total of ORG CARDINAL . It held that there was no need for a fresh assessment of the facts because the applicant had not succeeded in challenging the validity of the assessment conducted by the court of first instance .","The applicant paid the fine in several instalments .","During the hearing before the ORG it was pointed out that in DATE , DATE after the fine had been paid in full , the entry concerning the applicant \u2019s conviction had been deleted from her criminal record .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the ORG complaining that she had not been heard in person by ORG , and that this violated LAW .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG declared admissible the complaint under LAW and found a violation of that provision , holding as follows :","\u201c ...","The ORG notes that in the present case ORG was invited to determine several questions relating to the facts of the case and to the person of the applicant . As before the court of first instance , the applicant raised , in particular , the question whether her criminal responsibility should have been deemed diminished , which might have had a major impact on the determination of the sentence .","The ORG takes the view that that question could not have been settled by ORG without a direct assessment of the applicant \u2019s personal testimony , particularly since the judgment of ORG had departed slightly from the conclusions of the psychiatric report without setting out the reasons for such a departure , as required under domestic law ... ORG re - examination of that question should therefore have comprised a full rehearing of the applicant ...","Those factors are sufficient for the ORG to conclude that in the instant case a public hearing should have been held before the appellate court . There has therefore been a violation of LAW . \u201d","As regards the claims in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage under LAW , the ORG stated the following :","\u201c CARDINAL . The ORG firstly considers that when , as in the instant case , an individual has been convicted after proceedings that have entailed breaches of the requirements of LAW , a retrial or the reopening of the case , if requested , represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation . In that regard , it notes that LAW permits the reopening of proceedings at domestic level where the ORG has found a violation of a person \u2019s fundamental rights and freedoms . However , the specific remedial measures , if any , required of a respondent ORG in order to discharge its obligations under the LAW must depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case and be determined in the light of the terms of the ORG \u2019s judgment in that case ( see PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-IV , and PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . In the present case , the only point at issue is the fact that the applicant was not given a hearing by ORG .","Secondly , the ORG notes that in the present case the only applicable basis for an award of just satisfaction lies in the fact that the applicant was not afforded the safeguards of LAW . In that regard , it does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged , and rejects this claim . The ORG can not speculate as to what the outcome of the proceedings before ORG would have been if it had examined the applicant at a public hearing ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . On the other hand , it considers it appropriate to award the applicant LAW in respect of non - pecuniary damage . \u201d","On DATE ORG submitted an action plan to ORG concerning the execution of the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE . They confirmed that the amount awarded to the applicant had been paid to her on DATE . As regards the general measures , the Government pointed out that ORG had proposed amending LAW to allow hearings to be held in any court of appeal determining the issue of guilt or the sentence in respect of an accused person .","At the hearing before the ORG it was pointed out that the aforementioned proposal had not been approved and had therefore not in fact been included in the final version of the revised Code of Criminal Procedure .","At the time of adoption of the present judgment no plans to reform the Code of Criminal Procedure were on the domestic authorities\u2019 agenda . The procedure for supervising the execution of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was still pending before ORG .","Concurrently , on DATE , relying on LAW , the applicant lodged an application for review with ORG . She submitted that ORG judgment of DATE was incompatible with the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","NORP The prosecution submitted that the application should be allowed on the grounds that serious doubts could legitimately be raised about the conviction , particularly as regards the sentencing .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to grant a review . It held that there was no cause for a review because the judgment delivered by ORG was not incompatible with the ORG \u2019s judgment . It considered that the lack of a hearing for the applicant in ORG had constituted a procedural irregularity that was not amenable to review , and held as follows :","\u201c ... under domestic law , an application for review can be submitted solely in respect of judgments ( in particular , convictions ) , and not in respect of orders concerning the conduct of proceedings , it being understood that ... \u2018 judgment\u2019 denotes any judicial decision on a case or on a procedural application ( see LAW ) .","In the light of domestic law , however , a review of the judgment in the present case can not be allowed on the basis invoked by the applicant , because the conviction is not incompatible with ORG judgment ( LAW ) . On the other hand , the procedure followed by ORG in holding the hearing at the close of which the appeal was determined was incompatible with what ORG has deemed vital in order to guarantee the rights of the defence .","Under domestic law , where the accused is legally required to appear in court , his or her absence entails an irremediable nullity ( LAW ) .","However , even where a nullity is irremediable , it can not give rise to an extraordinary application for review of the judgment ...","Furthermore , as noted by ORG , it is impossible to speculate about the decision which ORG might have taken if the convicted person had been examined at the hearing which led to the decision on her appeal , and , in particular , about whether or not the sentence would have been the same .","ORG thus precluded from the outset any possibility that its decision might raise serious doubts about the conviction , regardless of the sentence actually imposed .","In short , the conviction is not incompatible with ORG binding decision , and no serious doubts arise as to its validity .","For that reason , being aware that it is not always possible to secure a retrial or the reopening of proceedings under the applicable domestic law , as in the present case , ORG decided to require ORG to compensate the applicant in respect of non - pecuniary damage , and thus to afford redress not for the unfairness of the conviction , which has not been established , but for a serious defect in the conduct of the proceedings which infringed the applicant \u2019s defence rights ...","For the above reasons , the applicant \u2019s argument in support of her application to be granted a review is not substantiated .","Consequently , the judges of ORG decide not to grant a review . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179571","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KRSMANOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the NORP Prime Minister , Mr PERSON , was assassinated by members of a criminal group known as LOC ( PERSON ) .","The Prime Minister \u2019s assassination prompted ORG to declare a state of emergency and introduce measures in accordance with ORG DATE ( Zakon o merama za slu\u010daj vanrednog stanja , ORG , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","During that time a large - scale police operation known as ORG ( ORG ) took place . CARDINAL people were arrested during the operation and placed in pre - trial detention .","The state of emergency lasted until DATE .","The applicant was a member of a criminal group linked to LOC . During ORG all members of the Zemun Clan and groups linked to it were arrested and questioned about the Prime Minister \u2019s assassination . Those arrested were also questioned about other crimes such as murders , abductions and drug trafficking .","The applicant \u2019s arrest took place at TIME on DATE , when CARDINAL members of the Special Anti - Terrorist Unit broke into the apartment in which he was hiding with CARDINAL friends .","NORP The applicant claims that on the arrival of the Special Anti - Terrorist Unit he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse . Its members immediately started to kick and beat him indiscriminately all over his body and face . They put a pillowcase over his head , verbally abused him and made threats aimed at his family . The maltreatment continued for TIME . On the recording of his arrest , which was broadcast on national television at DATE , he was shown with visible bruises on his face .","At TIME the applicant and his friends were taken to the police station and left in the corridor . According to the applicant , police officers passing by sporadically hit and kicked him and his friends . He could not identify them as his face was still covered with a pillowcase .","At some point QUANTITY police officers came and took the applicant for questioning . He was taken to an office in which CARDINAL people were present . CARDINAL of them were women .","According to the applicant , the maltreatment continued there . He was beaten with baseball bats and police truncheons . He was beaten on the soles of his feet and the palms of his hands . A truncheon was inserted several times into his anus . At CARDINAL point , a nylon bag was put over the pillowcase which made him lose consciousness . During all that time the applicant remembered hearing his friends screaming .","At QUANTITY DATE CARDINAL police officers took him to a solitary confinement cell . He was unable to walk so the officers carried him . In the cell his handcuffs were taken off and a detention order was put before him for signature .","As alleged by the applicant , TIME QUANTITY police officers entered the cell . They handcuffed him , put a bag over his head and took him for questioning . During that time he was again beaten , kicked and maltreated . Throughout this time , he was not allowed to drink any water .","In the applicant \u2019s version of events , after TIME of maltreatment he was returned to the solitary confinement cell . He was kept there for DATE . During DATE no food was given to him . Afterwards , he was given CARDINAL sandwich per day . Throughout that period police officers routinely questioned and ill - treated him in the same way as before .","At QUANTITY on DATE the applicant was transferred to GPE FAC ( GPE zatvor ) , where he remained for DATE and DATE pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings instituted against him .","On DATE a prison doctor examined him and issued a medical certificate , which contained an extensive list of his injuries . These included large haematomas on the soles of his feet , palms of his hands , face , shoulders and buttocks , as well as conjunctival hyperaemia ( redness ) on the external parts of his eyes . The certificate also contained a statement that the applicant had been \u201c beaten in the police station \u201d .","During DATE of his detention in FAC he was placed in a solitary confinement cell and only had contact with the doctors who examined him . After DATE he had fully recovered from the ill - treatment he had suffered .","On DATE the applicant was charged with illegal production and trafficking of drugs ( neovla\u0161\u0107ena proizvodnja i stavljanje u promet opojnih droga ) , abduction ( otmica ) and unlawful deprivation of liberty ( protivpravno li\u0161enje slobode ) . On DATE he was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . He was released from pre - trial detention on DATE pending the outcome of appeal proceedings .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged a complaint with ORG of ORG ( ORG inspektorat GPE unutra\u0161njih poslova ) , alleging that her son had been tortured by members of the Special Anti - Terrorist Unit and police officers working for ORG of ORG ( GPE za suzbijanje narkomanije NORP policije , also known as ORG ) in GPE .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s mother submitted additional information complaining that her son had been ill - treated , and that moveable property had been confiscated from his home .","On DATE the applicant was invited to ORG to give a statement about his mother \u2019s allegations . He confirmed that he had been ill - treated .","On DATE the Inspector ORG interviewed ORG , the Deputy ORG ( zamenik PERSON javnog tu\u017eioca ) in GPE , who stated that in DATE he had been at the police station during the applicant \u2019s questioning . PERSON gave the names of several of the police officers involved and stated that he had not seen any injuries on the applicant . On the contrary , the applicant had seemed pleased because he had been informed that he would be charged with lesser offences than expected . PERSON also claimed that the applicant had had no complaints about his treatment .","On DATE statements were taken from QUANTITY police officers , GPE and PERSON Both claimed that they had not participated in the immediate arrest , but had entered the apartment after the members of the ORG had already arrested the applicant and his friends . In the apartment they had seen several people dressed in only their underwear , being handcuffed and lying face down . They denied having seen any bruises or injuries on those arrested .","On DATE the Inspector ORG interviewed the applicant \u2019s wife , who made no complaints about the applicant \u2019s treatment during his arrest or while in detention . She only complained about the confiscation of certain movables from their home .","On DATE the chief of ORG in GPE ( GPE \u010detvrtog odeljenja UKP SUP ) , PERSON , gave a statement to ORG . He said that he had had no knowledge of the applicant or his friends having been subjected to any ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s complaint of ill - treatment of her son was rejected by ORG for lack of evidence of a crime .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG ( ORG op\u0161tinsko javno tu\u017eila\u0161tvo \u2013 \u201c the prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) against a number of the unknown perpetrators as well as against CARDINAL police officers identified only by surname .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office opened an official inquiry with requests for the police to provide evidence and the names of those involved in the applicant \u2019s arrest and questioning , and an investigative judge to question the applicant . He was interviewed on DATE .","On DATE the Sector for ORG identified QUANTITY police officers , PERSON , ORG , in connection with the applicant \u2019s arrest and questioning . The officers stated that no violence had ever been used against the applicant . On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office dropped the charges against them for lack of evidence .","At the same time the case against the unidentified police officers remained open because , according to the prosecutor \u2019s office , \u201c it transpired from the evidence gathered that PERSON had sustained injuries while in detention \u201d ( iz prikupljenih dokaza utvr\u0111eno je da je Krsmanovi\u0107 PERSON zadobio povrede u periodu dok mu je bio odre\u0111en pritvor ) . It would appear that the case is still open .","After learning of that decision , on DATE the applicant took over the criminal proceedings as a subsidiary prosecutor ( o\u0161te\u0107eni kao tu\u017eilac ) by requesting to have an investigation opened against V.M. , DATE , and GPE","On DATE and DATE the investigating judge to whom the case was assigned interviewed CARDINAL doctors who worked at the prison hospital . On DATE he also interviewed the police officers accused of ill - treatment . On DATE he refused to open an investigation because there was not enough evidence to prove that the accused had committed the crime they were suspected of . On DATE the pre - trial chamber of ORG upheld the decision of the investigating judge . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the prosecutor \u2019s office , which was rejected on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant also lodged a constitutional appeal . He complained principally about the lack of an effective investigation into the events under Articles CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW and Articles CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention . On DATE his constitutional appeal was rejected by ORG , whose decision was served on the applicant on DATE . The court primarily considered the applicant \u2019s complaints under LAW and found them to be manifestly ill - founded . As to the applicant \u2019s complaint under LAW , ORG found it to be outside its temporal jurisdiction in view of the date of entry into force of the LAW itself . In respect of the other complaints , ORG held , inter alia , that :","\u201c it is not enough to allege a violation of one \u2019s rights in a constitutional appeal or list the constitutional rights that are considered to be violated and reasons for their violations based on the appellant \u2019s subjective estimation or evaluation , but to put each mentioned reason into a direct relationship with the allegedly violated constitutional right , and a violation or denial of a certain constitutional right has to be caused by an act or action that occurred before the entry into force of the LAW . This also implies that specific and detailed reasons of the alleged violation of the constitutional right have to be specified in the constitutional appeal , because only a causal link presented in such manner may compel the ORG to find a violation or denial of a certain right . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169213","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PELESHOK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the city of GPE , GPE .","The applicant stated that in DATE she had lent MONEY ( ORG ) to PERSON . She also stated that the loan had been repaid in part , and as of DATE , a debt of CARDINAL remained outstanding .","According to the applicant , on TIME DATE PERSON . and PERSON . \u2019s husband beat her in the front yard of their house after the applicant had asked them to repay the outstanding debt . She also alleged that the incident had occurred in public \u201c in front of passers - by who eyewitnessed it \u201d .","In the testimonies she gave to the police after the criminal investigation had been opened ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant specified that in the course of the conflict PERSON . had struck her on the head with a wet towel , then punched her on the head and on her breast , and PERSON . had also punched her on the head .","According to the statements of PERSON and PERSON . and several other witnesses who were interrogated by the police ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) , the applicant and PERSON . had a confrontation on DATE . No injuries were inflicted on the applicant in the course of that dispute .","On DATE the applicant was taken by ambulance to the emergency unit of the NORP Town municipal hospital , being admitted there at TIME According to the medical records , at the time of the applicant \u2019s admission she was diagnosed with a brain concussion but no other traumatic injuries . On DATE the doctors diagnosed bruising to the applicant \u2019s breast .","The applicant remained in hospital from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband lodged a complaint with the NORP Town police department . He claimed that PERSON . and her husband had punched the applicant in the head and breast in the yard of their house .","On DATE the police refused a request to institute criminal proceedings against Mr and PERSON . for lack of corpus delicti .","On DATE ORG ( ORG \u0431\u044e\u0440\u043e \u0441\u0443\u0434\u043e\u0432\u043e-\u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0447\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0435\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0437\u0438 ) carried out a forensic medical examination . The forensic experts recorded that on DATE the applicant had been admitted to hospital . Upon hospitalisation the applicant stated that at TIME that morning she had been beaten by \u201c an acquaintance \u201d . The forensic experts also found that the applicant had sustained a brain concussion and had a bruise on the right side of her chest . As she had suffered from the brain concussion for DATE , this injury was qualified as a bodily injury of medium severity . The bruise was qualified as a light bodily injury .","On DATE the NORP deputy prosecutor quashed the decision of DATE and instituted criminal proceedings against Mr and PERSON .","On DATE the police questioned PERSON . The Government provided copies of her testimony , which are , however , incomplete . It would appear that PERSON . stated that she had borrowed ORG MONEY from the applicant without signing any formal documents , and had subsequently repaid this sum . She also testified that on DATE the applicant and the applicant \u2019s husband had come to her house and demanded the interest on the above amount . PERSON . refused to pay the interest and there had been a dispute with the applicant , following which the applicant left .","On DATE the police questioned the applicant \u2019s husband as a witness .","On DATE the police questioned CARDINAL individuals , PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON GPE , who were eye - witnesses to the incident .","On DATE the deputy head of the investigation office of the NORP Town police department ( \u0437\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f\u043d\u0438\u043a \u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a\u0430 \u0421\u0412 ORG \u0432 \u0422\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u043f\u0456\u043b\u044c\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0456\u0439 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456 ) ordered an additional forensic medical examination .","On DATE the expert commission of ORG confirmed the findings of the expert examination of DATE . In addition , the experts noted that the applicant \u2019s brain concussion and the bruise had been inflicted by a blunt object and could not have been sustained by falling . The experts also stated that the dynamics of the applicant \u2019s clinical picture corresponded to her allegation that the injuries had been inflicted on her on DATE . They finally concluded that the brain concussion had been caused by a series of blows to the head .","On DATE the police questioned PERSON . as a suspect . He gave the same testimony as his wife ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","DATE and DATE multiple face - to - face confrontations were carried out between the applicant , the suspects and various witnesses who had been questioned earlier , including PERSON Mr GPE , PERSON and PERSON .","On DATE the deputy head of the investigation office of the NORP Town police department terminated the criminal proceedings against PERSON and PERSON . for lack of evidence that a crime had been committed . CARDINAL accounts of events were noted in that decision , one suggested by the applicant and another one put forward on the basis of the statements of Mr and PERSON . and CARDINAL witnesses , T. and B. According to this second account of events , there had been a verbal confrontation between the applicant and PERSON . on DATE in the yard of the latter \u2019s house , during which no injuries had been inflicted on the applicant . It was noted in the decision that numerous witnesses had been questioned , facetoface interrogations had been held and forensic medical examinations had been carried out . It was concluded that , in view of the conflicting witness statements , it was impossible to establish whether the incident had occurred on CARDINAL or DATE and the police did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute PERSON and PERSON .","On DATE the ORG quashed the above decision and ordered an additional investigation .","On DATE the police again terminated the criminal proceedings against Mr and PERSON . They noted that PERSON and PERSON . testified that they had borrowed ORG MONEY from the applicant and had subsequently repaid this sum . Mr and PERSON . maintained that on DATE the applicant had come to their house together with her husband and had demanded the interest on the above amount . According to them , the applicant had with her a small pot containing an unknown liquid , which she said was acid . She had threatened to pour the acid into the eyes of the LOC . \u2019s child . PERSON called the police , but the applicant and her husband had left before they arrived . The police concluded that the evidence obtained as a result of the investigative measures was insufficient to prosecute PERSON and PERSON . and the identity of the applicant \u2019s assailant had not been established .","DATE and DATE the criminal proceedings in the applicant \u2019s case were terminated on QUANTITY occasions ( on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ) . All of these decisions were quashed by a senior prosecutor who ordered an additional inquiry , finding repeatedly that the investigation of the case had been \u201c incomplete \u201d .","NORP In particular , in the decision of CARDINAL DATE the deputy head of the investigation office of the NORP Town police department ordered that a reconstruction of the incident be staged with a view to establishing the facts of the case and in order to support or rebut the conflicting statements of the witnesses . He ordered specifically that it be established in the course of the reconstruction whether the witnesses ( including PERSON and B. ) could in fact have been able to observe the incident from the street outside the yard , as claimed by them . In a later decision , of DATE , a senior prosecutor from ORG noted , inter alia , the need to also question the ambulance personnel who had conveyed the applicant to the emergency unit on DATE .","On DATE the police questioned PERSON , a taxi driver . He testified that on DATE he had been driving his taxi and had picked up the applicant and her husband on the street where the house of PERSON and PERSON . is located . He added that the applicant had been in distress and held her hands to her head .","On DATE the first deputy ORG ( \u043f\u0435\u0440\u0448\u0438\u0439 \u0437\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f\u043d\u0438\u043a \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u043e\u0440\u0430 \u043c\u0456\u0441\u0442\u0430 PERSON ) noted that the investigating officer had failed to follow instructions and take the investigative measures required by the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE disciplinary proceedings were instituted against investigating officer PERSON for certain procedural violations , as a result of which the investigation became protracted . The outcome of these proceedings is unknown .","On DATE the police took CARDINAL procedural decisions in the case . By the first decision the police terminated the criminal proceedings against PERSON and PERSON . , reiterating the reasons given in the decision of DATE . By the second decision the criminal investigation of the case was stayed until the identity of the person who inflicted the injuries on the applicant could be established ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142448","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BOGDANOVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON PERSON are NORP citizens of NORP ethnic origin . They were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON , GPE and GPE . They were represented before the Court by PERSON L. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 father PERSON was killed in his house in PERSON in GPE .","On DATE the police carried out an on - site inspection of the crime scene and interviewed several persons . An autopsy was carried out on DATE .","Firearms were confiscated from CARDINAL persons , GPE , GPE and ORG ballistics report was drawn up on DATE , showing that the cartridges found at the crime scene had not been shot from the confiscated firearms .","NORP The police lodged a criminal complaint against an unknown perpetrator on CARDINAL DATE with the GPE ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG on charges of murder .","On DATE the third applicant asked the PERSON police for a certificate confirming that his father had died on DATE , which was issued DATE .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer asked PERSON State Attorney \u2019s Office for a copy of the case file concerning the investigation into PERSON \u2019s death , for the purposes of having brought their application with ORG . He was informed that the criminal prosecution for the criminal offence of murder had become statutory barred on DATE .","On DATE the applicants brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG , seeking compensation in connection with the death of their father . They based their claim on the DATE LAW .","The claim was dismissed on DATE . This judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE respectively . The national courts found that the claim for compensation had been submitted after the statutory limitation period prescribed by the laws related to the compensation of damages in civil proceedings had expired .","A subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the applicants was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) , as then in force , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The right to claim fulfilment of an obligation shall cease when the statutory limitation period has expired .","( CARDINAL ) The statute of limitations [ bars a right to claim ] when the statutory prescribed period in which a creditor could have claimed fulfilment of an obligation has expired .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A claim for damages shall become statute - barred DATE after the injured party learned about the damage and the identity of the person who caused it .","( CARDINAL ) In any event that claim shall become statute - barred DATE after the damage occurred .","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of LAW ( NORP zakon , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , and CARDINAL ) prescribes imprisonment of DATE for murder . Qualified murder was punishable by up to twenty years\u2019 imprisonment .","The relevant part of LAW ( PERSON , ORG nos . TIME , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , ORG , ORG and DATE ) reads :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) On account of the statute of limitations , the criminal legislation of GPE may not be applied after the period determined by this LAW has elapsed . The period is calculated from the time the offence was committed , sentence was pronounced or another criminal sanction was ordered .","( CARDINAL ) The previous rule does not apply in respect of the criminal offences of genocide ... , aggressive war ... , crimes against humanity ... , war crimes ... and other criminal offences which are not subject to statutory limitation according to the LAW or international law \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Criminal prosecutions may not be instituted , save for the criminal offences referred to in DATE , after expiry of the following periods from the time the offence was committed :","- DATE for the offence punishable by long - term imprisonment ;","- DATE for the offence punishable by more than ten years\u2019 imprisonment ;","- DATE for the offence punishable by more than five years\u2019 imprisonment","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The limitation period shall start to run from the date on which the offence was committed .","...","( CARDINAL ) The statutory limitation period shall be interrupted each time a procedural step is taken concerning the prosecution of the offence .","...","( CARDINAL ) The statutory limitation period shall start to run again after each interruption .","( CARDINAL ) Criminal prosecutions shall in all cases become time - barred after expiry of the double statutory limitation period . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) provide :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A claim for compensation for damage caused by a criminal offence shall be examined in the criminal proceedings where so requested by authorised persons , provided that this does not cause significant delays in the proceedings .","... \u201d","\u201c A claim for compensation in criminal proceedings may be lodged by persons entitled to lodge such a claim in civil proceedings . \u201d","\u201c Persons entitled to lodge a claim for compensation ( Article CARDINAL ) may , until the end of the trial , withdraw their claim in the criminal proceedings and pursue it in the civil proceedings . ... \u201c","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o parni\u010dnom postupku , ORG of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , and ORG . CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c If it is necessary for a court , in order to make its decision , to first settle an issue of the existence of a right or legal relationship , and no decision on this issue has yet been adopted by a court or other competent body ( preliminary issue ) , the court may settle the issue itself , unless otherwise provided for under special rules .","The court \u2019s decision on a preliminary issue shall have legal effect only in the proceedings in which the issue in question was settled .","In civil proceedings , where an issue arises in relation to a criminal offence and the perpetrator \u2019s criminal liability , the court shall be bound by the final judgment of the criminal court by which the accused was found guilty . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o odgovornosti za \u0161tetu nastalu uslijed teroristi\u010dkih akata i javnih demonstracija , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) , which entered into force on DATE , provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) This Act regulates the liability for damage caused by acts of terrorism or other acts of violence committed with an aim of seriously disturbing public order by provoking fear or stirring up feelings of insecurity in citizens ...","( CARDINAL ) A terrorist act within the meaning of this LAW is especially an act of violence committed for political reasons [ motives ] with a view to stirring up fear , terror or feelings of personal insecurity in citizens . \u201d","\u201c GPE shall be liable for the damage referred to in CARDINAL of this LAW .... \u201d","\u201c The obligation to compensate damage under LAW exists irrespective of the fact whether the perpetrator has been identified , criminally prosecuted or found guilty . \u201d","\u201c The victim shall have the right to compensation [ in the form of damages ] of damage resulting from death , bodily injury or impairment of health . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Where the statutory limitation period began before DATE , it shall continue after the entry into force of this LAW , and the period which had expired before the statutory limitation period was interrupted shall be counted into the overall statutory limitation period .","( CARDINAL ) Where the damage occurred after DATE the statutory limitation period begins from the entry into force of this LAW . \u201d","The domestic courts of appeal , on the subject of the possibility for a civil court to apply a longer statutory limitation period under LAW of LAW , held that this could be applied only if it had been established by a final judgment of the criminal court that the damage had been caused as the result of a criminal offence .","This view was confirmed by the practice of ORG . For example , in its decision no . Rev- CARDINAL of DATE it held as follows :","\u201c The lower court correctly established that section CARDINAL of LAW was not applicable in this case . ... The longer statutory limitation period [ under LAW of LAW ] applies only when it has been established by a judgment in the criminal proceedings that the damage was caused by a criminal offence ... \u201d","ORG , in its decision no . Rev-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , examined the possibility for a court in civil proceedings to assess the statutory limitation period under LAW of LAW if criminal liability had not been established by a final criminal court judgment . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c The conclusion of the lower courts that LAW is applicable only if the criminal offence has been established by a final judgment of the criminal court is incorrect . This is because , according to the well - established case - law , if damage has been caused by a criminal offence but no criminal proceedings have been instituted or concluded against the perpetrator because of his death or mental illness , or the offence at issue has been exempted from prosecution by a pardon or amnesty , or if there exist some other circumstances preventing criminal responsibility from being established or barring the criminal prosecution , the fact that the damage was caused by a criminal offence may , if the defendant has invoked the statute of limitations , be established ( as a preliminary issue ) in the civil proceedings .","It is also to be noted that the longer statutory limitation period under LAW of LAW is applicable not only in respect of the perpetrator of the criminal offence but also in respect of the person responsible for the damage . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-149204","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RUBINS v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was a professor and the head of ORG and Venereal Diseases of ORG ( hereafter \u201c ORG ) , which is a ORG university . The applicant had been elected to the position of head of department with effect until CARDINAL DATE . He was also an elected member of the constituent assembly of ORG sapulce ) .","On DATE ORG decided to merge ORG and Venereal Diseases and ORG . That decision was approved by the ORG of ORG ( PERSON ) on the following day . It appears that as a result of the merger the position of head of department occupied by the applicant was abolished . Accordingly , on DATE the applicant received a warning ( br\u012bdin\u0101jums ) to that effect and was given the opportunity to agree to the changes in his contract with ORG . He was also informed that if he refused , his employment relationship with the University would be terminated .","On DATE the applicant sent various emails to the Rector of the University concerning the circumstances of the reorganisation and the abolition of his department . He criticised the decisions taken by the deputy dean , PERSON","On DATE the applicant sent another email to the Rector of the University and to several other recipients , including the members of the ORG . The email criticised the lack of democracy and accountability in the leadership of the organisation , which , according to the applicant , stemmed from the fact that all the members of the ORG were also a part of the executive authority of the ORG and there was thus an inadequate system of checks and balances . He also drew the recipients\u2019 attention to the alleged mismanagement of the GPE \u2019s finances . In support of this allegation the applicant relied on the conclusions adopted by ORG ( ORG ) in DATE .","The applicant further spoke in unfavourable terms about several representatives of the management of ORG , stating , for example , that [ Mr ... ] . \u201c pretends to be a God - fearing NORP ... yet , as far as is known , has several children born out of wedlock \u201d , that [ Mr ... ] \u201c can not decide a single question by himself , does not keep his word , is lying \u201d and that [ Mrs ... ] \u201c has called me and asked me to break the law in the interests of her prot\u00e9g\u00e9s \u201d .","Finally , the applicant came up with a proposal involving several amendments to the constitution of the University , such as changes in the election of the members of the ORG ( an obligation to inform the constituent assembly of the candidate \u2019s CV at least one week before the elections , the setting - up of an independent electoral commission ) ; separation of powers between the ORG \u2019s governing bodies ( ORG members should not be part of the executive body of the University ) ; and the granting of independence to the ORG ( changing the remuneration system so that the Rector did not unilaterally fix the remuneration of members of the ORG ) . He asked the Rector to forward his proposals to the members of the constituent assembly and to send him the email addresses of those members or inform him where to find those contacts .","It appears that on DATE the applicant expressed his disagreement with the reorganisation at the meeting of the ORG of the university which upheld the decision .","On DATE the applicant sent an email to the Rector of the University . The subject - line of the email read \u201c Settlement agreement \u201d . The text of the email read as follows :","\u201c To the Rector of ORG Confidential","[ CARDINAL ] Dear Rector ,","[ CARDINAL ] In view of the situation which has evolved and the advice of my lawyers and supporters , I hereby propose the following settlement agreement .","[ CARDINAL ] It would entail :","[ CARDINAL ] Version CARDINAL","[ CARDINAL ] You ( the University ) revoke all the orders and decisions of the ORG concerning the abolition \/ merger of ORG and Venereal Diseases . I for my part withdraw all my appeals , thereby restoring the situation as it was before the decision of the ORG of CARDINAL DATE . Meanwhile the CARDINAL lecturers ... ( all of them were recognised as plagiarists by a decision of the [ NORP association of doctors ] ) who expressed their intention to move to ORG , are transferred to that ORG . I have no objections if the specialist ... who , it is common knowledge , is the mother of ... \u2019s daughter , is transferred to another post or fired . DATE she did not spend DATE at work in ORG and Venereal Diseases ( presumably she reports to ... or has been transferred to ... or another department , or maybe [ she has ] submitted her resignation , I do n\u2019t know ) .","[ CARDINAL ] Version CARDINAL . I , as a head of department elected until DATE , and after having received a certain amount of compensation on which we would agree ( for example , ORG CARDINAL ) , as provided for by my agreement with the ORG , agree terms with you , the dispute is terminated and I leave the post .","[ CARDINAL ] Of course I understand that at the constituent assembly of the ORG you , as Rector , can secure a decision that is favourable to you . However by this means nothing would come to an end but would only start , as I reserve the right to appeal against all the decision [ adopted by ] ORG in the administrative , district and regional courts , while of course making everything public beforehand and attracting the attention of society .","[ CARDINAL ] I do not believe that in DATE , taking into consideration the latest news ( the conclusion adopted by ORG on the illegalities at the ORG , plagiarism on the part of lecturers and professors of the GPE etc . ) , you would want to have additional tasks and trouble ( nodarbo\u0161anos un nepatik\u0161anas ) .","[ CARDINAL ] I am sure that I do n\u2019t want this and I wish to be allowed to work in a creative manner with students in my field as before . In addition , I have much work to do organising CARDINAL large NORP congresses in DATE and DATE in GPE , in both of which my participation as president has been confirmed .","[ CARDINAL ] Since I have also not received the list of members of the constituent assembly of ORG ( which was requested from you and the ORG in my letter of DATE ! ? , a fact which demonstrates the lack of democracy [ at ] ORG ) , I will await a reply from you by DATE , DATE at TIME If we are unable to reach agreement by signing a settlement agreement I will make all my current information public in the form of an open letter so that the members of the constituent assembly of the University also have DATE before the meeting to think about their vote .","Professor PERSON","P.S. [ contains a request concerning one of the applicant \u2019s staff members who was on sick leave but at the same time attended meetings of the ORG ] .","On DATE the Rector replied to the applicant that he could not agree to any of the proposals .","The following day , DATE , at the meeting of the constituent assembly of the University , the applicant expressed his disagreement with the reorganisation and asked that the decision concerning the merger of faculties be annulled . His request was not upheld . On DATE the national news agency ORG published the applicant \u2019s views about the alleged shortcomings in the management of ORG . The criticisms referred to the conclusions of ORG .","On DATE and DATE the Rector asked an ad hoc investigative committee and the ethics committee to review the applicant \u2019s conduct .","On DATE the applicant received a notice of termination of employment ( uzteikums ) from the University , in which he was informed that his employment contract with the ORG would be terminated DATE after receipt of the notice . The legal basis for the applicant \u2019s dismissal was section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , and the applicant was deemed to have acted in contravention of several provisions of the ORG \u2019s staff regulations ( see Relevant domestic law part , DATE below ) . The notice stated , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c The ground for dismissal is the email you sent to the Rector of [ the University ] on DATE , in which , while addressing the Rector concerning issues of interest to you , you included inappropriate demands , including elements of blackmail and undisguised threats . As a consequence your actions are considered as very grave infringements of basic ethical principles and standards of behaviour , and as absolutely contrary to good morals . The fact of sending such a letter , and its contents , are clearly contrary to good morals , all the more so taking into account the circumstances in which the letter was sent and your attitude . \u201d","On DATE the University dismissed the applicant from his post . Soon afterwards he took up a post in another university in GPE .","The applicant submitted a claim to ORG , asking the court to invalidate the notice of termination and to order his reinstatement and payment of the unpaid salary and benefits together with compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","In a judgment of DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in part . It held that the fact that the applicant \u2019s employer had been offended by his email was not a legitimate reason for his dismissal , since section CARDINAL of ORG did not include such a ground . The court considered that the allegation that the applicant \u2019s email had contained elements of blackmail and threats was merely speculation on his employer \u2019s behalf . It was additionally found that the applicant had not been given an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations contained in the termination notice before that notice was sent to him . Accordingly the court annulled the termination notice and ordered the applicant \u2019s reinstatement with back - payment of his salary . The applicant \u2019s claim for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage was rejected as unsubstantiated .","Both the applicant and the ORG appealed . During the court hearing the applicant mentioned that he had requested that several illegalities be examined at the meeting of the constituent assembly of DATE . Counsel for the defendant stated that both the ad hoc investigative committees set up by the Rector had found that the content of the letter was to be perceived as blackmail and threats . He contended that the request to receive a certain amount in compensation and the deadline by which the reply had to be received all proved the breach of ethical norms . The defendant further alleged that several \u201c defamatory facts about the University \u201d had been published on DATE by ORG , and considered that the above activities therefore confirmed the threats made in the applicant \u2019s email .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance court \u2019s judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim in full . The appeal court considered that in his email of DATE the applicant had invited the Rector to carry out \u201c unlawful actions \u201d , namely to annul a decision of the ORG of the University ( concerning the merger of CARDINAL departments within ORG ) . Such action was deemed to be \u201c unlawful \u201d because annulling decisions of the ORG of the ORG exceeded the Rector \u2019s authority . The court also considered that the applicant had requested \u201c unreasonably high compensation \u201d for the termination of his employment . These CARDINAL considerations led the appeal court to conclude that the applicant had failed to observe basic ethical principles such as honesty , collegiality and responsibility .","The conclusions of the appeal court echoed those reached by the ORG \u2019s ethics committee and by CARDINAL ad hoc investigative committees set up on DATE and DATE . In particular , the court observed in point CARDINAL that the committee had concluded that the infringements committed by the applicant were demonstrated by the fact that he had sent the email and had carried out \u201c other activities after the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ... including making unfounded statements , for example , about the abolition of the department , the circumstances of the reorganisation that had been directed against the applicant , and threats made by PERSON against the applicant . The email of DATE ... comprises statements , for example , about ... private life and religious convictions \u201d .","NORP The court further noted that it was apparent from the materials in the case file that on DATE the national news agency ORG had published the applicant \u2019s views about events in the ORG , in which he had criticised the leadership of the ORG , stating that a group of CARDINAL to fifteen persons had usurped all power and set up an authoritarian or even dictatorial regime . The court also referred to the content of the email the applicant had sent on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and came to the conclusion that he had contravened the obligation to treat the staff of ORG .","The court turned next to the question of \u201c good morals \u201d and , after finding that this term had no precise legal definition , proceeded to conclude that it consisted of CARDINAL \u201c basic ethical principles \u201d : \u201c the principle of integrity and righteousness \u201d , \u201c the principle of responsibility \u201d and \u201c the principle of loyalty \u201d . It found that the applicant had acted in breach of these principles and that there was :","\u201c [ CARDINAL ] ... no reason to conclude that the applicant had only intended to inform [ the Rector ] about [ his plan ] to exercise his democratic rights , [ that is ] , to submit complaints to the courts and to publish information in the media , while respecting the interests of society . The content of the letter [ of DATE ] attests to [ the applicant \u2019s ] wish to act for a selfish cause , namely to retain his position as a head of department , contrary to the ORG \u2019s decision on reorganisation , or to receive substantial financial compensation , regardless of [ the need to use ] the budget of [ the University ] in an economical and reasonable way in compliance with the goals of the [ University ] .","[ The appeal court ] finds that there is no evidence that prior to the letter of DATE [ the University ] had obstructed the applicant \u2019s democratic rights to inform society and the competent institutions about the alleged violations in the [ University ] .","Taking into account the aforementioned finding , [ that is ] , that the [ applicant \u2019s ] aim in writing the letter of DATE was selfish , the [ appeal court ] finds that the [ applicant ] sought to achieve a result beneficial to himself by trying to persuade [ the Rector ] to take unlawful steps . In view of the aforementioned considerations , this should be considered a threat . \u201d","Turning to the applicant \u2019s claim for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage , the appeal court cited section CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see the Relevant domestic law part , paragraph CARDINAL below ) and disagreed that the applicant \u2019s dismissal had created \u201c unjustified consequences \u201d ( nepamatotas sekas ) or caused non - pecuniary damage simply because the applicant had expressed legitimate concerns about the reorganisation of ORG and about the way its financial resources were used . The court \u2019s reasoning in that regard read as follows :","\u201c [ The appeal court ] , on the basis of experience and logic , finds that a calm and positive atmosphere and a respectful attitude among colleagues best contribute to achieving constructive dialogue .","Having analysed the above - mentioned evidence , the [ appeal court ] considers that nothing prevented the applicant from expressing his opinion in a manner compatible with ethics and the staff regulations \u201d .","The applicant submitted an appeal on points of law , disputing , inter alia , the appeal court \u2019s findings to the effect that , by sending CARDINAL confidential letter to CARDINAL recipient ( namely the Rector of ORG ) , in which he had raised points concerning the unjustified use of funds from the ORG budget , he had committed an infringement of work - related rules and ethics of such gravity as to justify his dismissal . The applicant also invoked in this connection that he had an obligation to inform the society about the unjustified use of funds , therefore the appellate court had erred in finding that the impugned email was unethical . The applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law was rejected by the ORG of ORG in a preparatory meeting on DATE .","On DATE the Rector of the ORG sought to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant for extortion . The criminal proceedings were instituted on DATE on the basis of section CARDINAL of LAW ( extortion ) and the applicant was ordered not to leave his permanent residence for CARDINAL without the permission of the competent investigative authority . The criminal proceedings were discontinued on DATE for lack of corpus delicti . The decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings stated , inter alia , that according to the linguistic expert \u2019s conclusions the impugned email contained clearly expressed demands to pay a certain amount of money as well as undisguised threats to disclose disreputable information about [ the Rector ] prior to the meeting of the ORG . It also noted that the email demonstrated the applicant \u2019s wish to act selfishly , either in order to maintain his post or to receive a significant amount in compensation for the termination of his employment contract . However , as the Rector \u2019s attitude demonstrated that the threats were not perceived as real , the court ruled that the criminal proceedings should be terminated and that the Rector had the right to institute defamation proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170640","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"OVAKIMYAN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , a town in LOC . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE to ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant married GPE The couple settled in GPE .","On DATE PERSON gave birth to a son , S.","On DATE PERSON left the applicant . Together with the child she moved to her GPE house in GPE , a town in LOC . The applicant was prevented from seeing the child .","Following an application by GPE , on CARDINAL DATE the Justice of ORG dissolved the marriage between the applicant and GPE","On DATE the applicant brought court proceedings against GPE , seeking to have the terms of his contact with his son determined .","On DATE ORG of the Tambov Region ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) granted the applicant \u2019s claims in part . ORG held that contact sessions between the applicant and his son should take place in the presence of GPE twice a month on DATE and third Sunday of the month from TIME , either at the child \u2019s place of residence or in public recreation facilities . The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .","Regardless of the above judgment , ORG continued to hinder the applicant \u2019s contact with the child .","On DATE the applicant brought court proceedings against GPE , seeking to have the obstacles to his contact sessions with PERSON removed and the terms of his contact with his son revised , in particular so as to allow him to take the child on DATE both in GPE and abroad , to spend public holidays with him , and to spend birthdays with him ( those of the child , the applicant and the paternal grandmother ) .","On DATE ORG obliged GPE not to hinder the exercise of the applicant \u2019s contact rights . It further held that the contact sessions between the applicant and his son should take place in the presence of ORG DATE , on DATE , from TIME , either at the child \u2019s place of residence or , if the weather permitted , outside . GPE was also obliged to give the applicant DATE updates about the child \u2019s health and the choice of pre - school and school facilities for him . ORG rejected the remainder of the applicant \u2019s claims , finding , with reference to the local authority child services report , that the above contact schedule would be appropriate considering the young age of the child , his attachment to his mother , and the importance of maintaining his routine . ORG further took into account the extremely tense relationship between the applicant and GPE and their inability to reach a mutual agreement on the matter . The applicant appealed .","ORG \u2019s best interests .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Presidium of ORG , asking it to quash the judgment of DATE , as upheld on appeal on DATE .","On DATE a judge of ORG decided not to refer the case for consideration by the ORG of that court .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution in respect of the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for institution of the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE a bailiff from ORG began the enforcement proceedings and appointed an officer to be present at each scheduled meeting between the applicant and his son , to eliminate the obstacles to the applicant \u2019s contact with the child which ORG could create .","According to the applicant , in the period DATE and DATE when he tried to see his child without the assistance of the bailiff , GPE prevented him from doing so on CARDINAL occasions ( on CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE ) , and either she or her parents interfered with his contact on QUANTITY occasions ( on DATE , DATE and DATE ) .","According to the ORG , DATE and DATE , with the assistance of the bailiff , the applicant met his child on DATE determined by the judgment of DATE .","NORP The bailiff \u2019s report on the applicant \u2019s meeting with his son on DATE mentions that the applicant used abusive language in the presence of the child .","The bailiff \u2019s reports of DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE mention that the applicant did not attend the meetings .","On DATE , while out walking with his son , the applicant took the child by the hand , went to his car and drove off with him without the bailiff \u2019s permission . The bailiff followed the applicant . The applicant tried to take the child to the house of some of his acquaintances , but the bailiff stopped him . After that , the applicant kept the child in his car for TIME . He insulted the child \u2019s mother and the bailiffs . Later , GPE called the police . The applicant \u2019s contact session ended at TIME in the police station .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant drove off with his son in an unknown direction and in the absence of the mother . While driving off , he insulted the bailiffs and argued that their presence was hindering his contact with the child .","On DATE the bailiff took a decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings and return the writ of execution to the applicant , because his actions were preventing the enforcement . In particular , the applicant had gone off with the child in an unknown direction and had had contact with him in the absence of GPE , in breach of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , following which he had refused to return the child to the mother at the prescribed time . The applicant challenged the lawfulness of the bailiff \u2019s decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were reopened following the resubmission of the writ of execution by the applicant .","On DATE and DATE , when the applicant was supposed to meet his son , GPE and the child were not at home .","In this connection , on DATE GPE was found administratively liable under LAW of LAW . The bailiff gave her an administrative fine in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) .","Furthermore , the bailiff obtained explanations from GPE for her failure to let the applicant meet his son on CARDINAL and DATE . ORG explained that she had hindered the applicant \u2019s meeting with the child because , during the previous meetings , he had tried to hide the child in the house of his acquaintances and she had only managed to get her son back with the help of the police . Besides , the applicant regularly got into fights or arguments in the presence of the child and was aggressive towards her . In particular , on CARDINAL DATE , under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , ORG had found the applicant guilty of beating GPE The proceedings had subsequently been terminated as a result of the parties reconciling . On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALst ORG of GPE of LOC had found the applicant administratively liable under LAW , because on DATE , upon arriving at GPE \u2019s house to visit his son , he had behaved aggressively and used abusive language . On DATE ORG had upheld the above judgment on appeal . The applicant had subsequently been found administratively and criminally liable on DATE , DATE and DATE for inflicting physical injuries on GPE , and insulting both her and her mother .","During his meeting with his son on DATE the applicant went off with the child in an unknown direction and never returned him to GPE","On DATE the bailiff entrusted ORG with establishing that the child was at the applicant \u2019s place of residence .","On an unspecified date ORG informed ORG that the applicant and the child did not reside at the address in GPE indicated in the enforcement document .","On DATE the bailiff received a request from the applicant for return of the writ of enforcement without execution .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated .","GPE brought court proceedings against the applicant , seeking to have it determined that her son should reside with her .","On DATE ORG of GPE granted her claim and held that the child should reside with her .","Regardless of the above judgment , the applicant continues to retain the child .","A parent living apart from his or her child is entitled to maintain contact with the child and participate in his or her upbringing and education . The parent with whom the child resides may not hinder the child \u2019s contact with the other parent , unless such contact undermines the child \u2019s physical or psychological health or moral development ( LAW ) .","The parents have the right to conclude a written agreement on the way the parent living apart from the child may exercise his parental duties . If the parents can not reach an agreement , the dispute must be resolved in court with the participation of the childcare authority , upon a claim lodged by the parents ( or CARDINAL of them ) . In the event of non - compliance with the court decision , measures set out in the civil procedural legislation are applied to the parent guilty of non - compliance . In the event of persistent non - compliance with the court decision , the court may , upon a claim by the parent living apart from the child , take a decision to place the child in his or her care , based on the child \u2019s interests and taking into account the child \u2019s opinion ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","Judgments in cases involving issues relating to the upbringing of children are enforced by a bailiff in conformity with the procedure laid down by the civil procedural legislation . If CARDINAL of the parents ( or another person in whose charge the child is ) obstructs the enforcement of the court judgment , measures stipulated by the civil procedural legislation will be applied to him or her ( LAW ) .","A bailiff must issue a decision to open enforcement proceedings or to refuse to open proceedings within DATE of receipt of a writ of execution ( section CARDINAL ) .","A writ of execution which has not been enforced or which has been enforced in part shall be returned by the bailiff to the person in whose favour a judgment has been made if the latter prevents enforcement by his own actions . The bailiff shall draft a report outlining the circumstances warranting the return of the writ of execution to that person , which shall be approved by the chief bailiff or his deputy . After that , the bailiff shall make a decision on termination of the enforcement proceedings and the return of the writ of execution to the person in whose favour the judgment was made ( section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , PERSON ) and CARDINAL ) ) .","The return of the writ of execution to the person in whose favour a judgment has been made does not prevent that person from resubmitting the writ of execution for enforcement within the time - limit provided for by section CARDINAL of the present law ( section CARDINAL ) ) .","The enforcement of a writ of execution concerning contact rights consists of the bailiff securing free contact between the person in whose favour a judgment has been made and the child , in accordance with the schedule determined by the court ( section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","In the event of a breach of enforcement proceedings by the person against whom a judgment has been made , that person shall be found administratively or criminally liable in accordance with NORP law ( section CARDINAL ) .","The decisions , actions or inaction of the bailiff can be challenged by the parties to the enforcement proceedings before the bailiff \u2019s superiors or before a court ( section DATE ) ) .","Violations by parents or other legal representatives of the rights and interests of minors by preventing the minors from having contact with their parents or other close relatives , provided that such contact is not contrary to the interests of the child ; deliberately concealing ORG whereabouts ; and non - compliance with court judgments determining ORG places of residence are all punishable by an administrative fine ranging from RUB CARDINAL to RUB CARDINAL , and an administrative fine of MONEY or administrative arrest for DATE in the case of a repeat offence ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166929","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF M\u00c1TYUS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant brought an action against his parents before ORG for dissolution of joint ownership of a real property .","On DATE the court suspended the proceedings pending the adjudication of a preliminary question in other proceedings . Upon termination of the other proceedings on CARDINAL DATE , ORG continued hearing the case .","On DATE the court again suspended the proceedings pending the adjudication of a preliminary question in another related procedure . Upon termination of these proceedings on CARDINAL DATE , ORG ordered continuation of the case on DATE .","An agreement was reached between the parties which was acknowledged and incorporated into a judgment by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141625","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DANILOV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .","NORP In DATE a group of officers from ORG of GPE ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) and the \u201c LOC \u201d special armed unit received a mission order to arrest several individuals , including the applicant , implicated in a number of crimes committed as members of a criminal association affiliated with the Odessa Komsomol ( Young Communist League ) , including illegal arms handling , terrorism , assault and robbery with a view to preparing a communist revolution .","At TIME on DATE CARDINAL armed officers of the ORG and CARDINAL officers of the \u201c NORP \u201d unit arrived at a flat in PERSON occupied at the material time by the applicant and CARDINAL of his acquaintances , and ordered them to lie on the floor . CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s acquaintances complied with the order , while the applicant and another associate started shooting at the officers with firearms . As a result of the shooting , several officers sustained bodily injuries and damage to their protective gear . Having exhausted his cartridges , the applicant attempted to detonate an explosive . At this moment , the officers knocked him onto the floor , immobilised and handcuffed him .","At QUANTITY on the same date an investigator with ORG drafted an arrest report , indicating that the applicant was suspected , in particular , of attempting to murder law - enforcement officers , that he had been notified of his procedural rights , including the rights to remain silent and to obtain legal assistance , and that he had expressed the wish to have a lawyer .","At an unspecified time on the same date the applicant was referred to a forensic medical expert to determine the gravity of his bodily injuries . According to the applicant , the expert assessment was carried out on DATE . According to the Government , it was carried out the following day ( DATE ) . The assessment revealed that the applicant was suffering from a number of bruises and abrasions to his face , limbs , chest and knees , had swollen lips and a wound on his forehead . The expert qualified the injuries as \u201c minor \u201d and recorded that the applicant had complained of headaches and pain in his limbs and ribs and had explained that he had sustained his injuries when resisting arrest . In particular , he had fallen , had been beaten by the \u201c NORP \u201d officers and had been subjected to martial arts .","At an unspecified time on DATE the applicant and his co - detainees were placed in police custody in LOC of Mykolayiv .","According to the applicant , in TIME of DATE and the TIME of DATE he was beaten by police officers , possibly in retaliation for having wounded CARDINAL officers from their unit DATE ( on DATE ) . Subsequently , the officers questioned him concerning the offences of which he was suspected and solicited incriminating statements concerning a number of other individuals implicated in the revolutionary communist activity . As the applicant refused to cooperate , the officers resorted to various torture techniques . In particular , they suspended him head down from a crowbar by his hands , which were handcuffed behind his knees ; beat him with rubber truncheons ; stuck needles under his nails ; put a gas mask on his face and interrupted his air flow ; banged his head against the wall ; and jumped on his chest .","According to the ORG , the applicant \u2019s first questioning did not take place until TIME of DATE . It was conducted in the presence of PERSON . , who was admitted to the proceedings as the applicant \u2019s legal - aid lawyer . They presented a copy of the police report made on DATE . According to that report , which was co - signed by the applicant and PERSON . , in the course of questioning the applicant informed the investigative authorities that he had arrived in GPE in DATE to advance the revolutionary struggle of the working people against their capitalist exploitation , in particular , by distributing a newspaper and organising trade unions and strike committees . The applicant further acknowledged that he possessed various arms without a licence and had wounded QUANTITY police officers of the GPE police on DATE , when they had stopped him in the street and ordered him to empty his pockets . When asked about the origin of the injuries on his face , the applicant said that they had been caused during his arrest operation .","On DATE PERSON . complained to the ORG investigator that the applicant \u2019s health was deteriorating and demanded a medical assessment .","On DATE the applicant was referred to a doctor and a neurologist of the ORG polyclinics . They noted , in particular , that the applicant \u2019s ribs hurt when touched and that his wrists were swollen . The applicant was diagnosed with chest , face and knee contusions and was prescribed an x - ray . It was also recommended that the use of handcuffs should be limited and various medications were prescribed .","On DATE the applicant was again examined by a neurologist from the ORG polyclinics , who confirmed the above findings and prescribed further medication .","On DATE , who replaced PERSON . as the applicant \u2019s lawyer , lodged a complaint with the prosecutor \u2019s office alleging that the applicant had been beaten and tortured by PERSON police officers and demanding a criminal investigation of his bodily injuries .","In DATE the GPE police collected reports from QUANTITY police officers who had been on duty on DATE by way of an internal investigation of the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment allegations . Referring to those reports , in which the officers denied having witnessed or taken part in any ill - treatment , it was concluded that no ill - treatment had taken place . According to the applicant , neither he nor his lawyer had been informed of that investigation and its findings .","On DATE the applicant was examined by medical staff of the Mykolayiv pre - trial detention centre ( GPE ) and in - patient treatment for pulmonary pneumonia was prescribed .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment . It noted that the applicant had actively resisted his arrest , including by using a firearm , attempting to detonate an explosive and wounding some of the police officers . As the officers had had to break his violent resistance , there were no grounds for suspecting that the minor bodily injuries recorded by the forensic experts had resulted from the application of disproportionate force or from police ill - treatment . According to the applicant , neither he nor his lawyer had been apprised of that decision .","On DATE the applicant underwent a further forensic assessment to determine whether he was still suffering from bodily injuries and , if so , their origin and timing . The expert concluded that the applicant was suffering from several wounds and a number of abrasions on various parts of his body , which had resulted from impacts with blunt objects . However , she could not say precisely when the injuries had been sustained .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who diagnosed him with suspected accumulation of blood in the pleural cavity ( hemothorax ) , dystrophy and post - traumatic neuropathy of the wrists , and prescribed treatment .","On DATE the hemothorax diagnosis was confirmed by an X - ray and the applicant underwent a biopsy , after which his state of health slowly started to improve . Subsequently , on numerous occasions in DATE the applicant was examined by doctors , who prescribed treatment for his wrist , dystrophy and pulmonary problems .","NORP In DATE the applicant was transferred to the GPE pre - trial detention centre ( GPE ) no . CARDINAL and subsequently placed in its medical unit for in - patient treatment of pneumonia . According to the applicant , his treatment was inadequate . In particular , the unit did not have the necessary antibiotics in stock and refused him an operation to remove a fractured rib fragment , which had allegedly pierced his lung .","NORP In DATE the applicant was released from the medical unit as his health had improved and placed in a regular GPE cell . According to him , the GPE was generally overcrowded and the sanitary conditions were poor .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer , PERSON , was replaced by ORG , who lodged a fresh complaint with the prosecutor \u2019s office demanding an investigation of the applicant \u2019s purported ill - treatment in DATE . He alleged that the applicant had not sustained any serious injuries in the course of his arrest , as once he had exhausted his cartridges , the trained officers , who had significantly outnumbered the CARDINAL resisting suspects , had quickly immobilised him . On the other hand , once in custody , the applicant had been severely beaten up and tortured by the police officers . As a result , he had sustained serious injuries , including long - term impairment of the wrist nerve function and CARDINAL fractured ribs .","On DATE the applicant underwent a further forensic medical assessment , in which a board of experts was asked to determine whether the applicant was suffering from any illnesses at the material time and whether he was fit for detention . The board of experts concluded that the applicant had consolidated fractures of CARDINAL ribs and residual traces of pulmonary pneumonia . They further concluded that the applicant \u2019s state of health in general was stable and that he did not need any medical intervention at the material time .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment allegations , having found that there was no basis to conclude that his injuries had been indicative of ill - treatment or the application of disproportionate force by the arresting officers . The decision referred to the results of the internal investigation by the Leninskyy police in DATE , to the findings of the medical experts who had qualified the applicant \u2019s injuries as minor , and to the accounts of the arresting officers concerning the violent nature of the applicant \u2019s resistance during his arrest . It was also noted that the applicant had not complained of purported ill - treatment until DATE after the relevant events .","On DATE the applicant , along with CARDINAL other individuals implicated in criminal activity as members of the GPE group , was committed to stand trial before ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) acting as a first - instance tribunal .","According to the applicant , on DATE he was often summoned to an overcrowded transit area early in the morning and would sometimes have to wait for TIME before being transported to the court LOC . Likewise , there would be a delay in transferring him from the transit box back to his regular cell upon his return . Catering arrangements were rarely made for the detainees on DATE they were scheduled for court hearings . As a result , the applicant was always exhausted on DATE , which impeded his ability to concentrate during his trial .","According to the ORG , pursuant to the applicable regulations , the detainees scheduled for court hearings were always supplied with either a packed lunch or a hot lunch at the court building . There were no transportation delays or other inconveniences affecting the applicant \u2019s concentration in a way which was incompatible with his effective participation in the trial .","During the trial , the applicant acknowledged that he held revolutionary communist views and had taken part in some actions mistakenly qualified as robberies , as in fact they had been \u201c expropriations \u201d of property obtained by the capitalists by way of exploiting the working class , to be used for revolutionary purposes . He also acknowledged that he had handled firearms and explosives without a licence , had inflicted gunshot wounds on CARDINAL police officers on DATE and had violently resisted arrest . The applicant chose to remain silent concerning the details of robberies and other crimes with which he was charged , as they had been committed in association with other co - defendants . He also stated that he had been beaten and tortured by the police in DATE , but that the ill - treatment had not influenced his testimonies or defence strategy .","In DATE B. , CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s co - defendants , died in detention . Following his death , some of the defendants complained that PERSON had been tortured to death and demanded an investigation into his and the others\u2019 alleged ill - treatment by the investigative authorities .","The court ordered the prosecutor \u2019s office to investigate those allegations . Following the investigation , the prosecutor \u2019s office reported that there was no case to answer . In particular , PERSON had died of cancer and the applicant had been injured as a result of the application of reasonable force during his arrest .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of distribution of materials propagating violent revolt against the constitutional order ; membership of a criminal association ; several armed robberies ; attempted murder of police officers ; smuggling ; and illegal handling of firearms and explosives . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court dismissed his allegations of ill - treatment as unsubstantiated , having accepted the findings of the prosecutor \u2019s office that his injuries had been caused during his arrest .","The applicant , represented by ORG , lodged a cassation appeal . According to an uncertified and unsigned copy of that appeal presented by the applicant to ORG , in his submissions before ORG he argued that he had been arbitrarily convicted of the robberies based on the inconsistent testimonies of his co - defendants . He further alleged that he had had no intent to kill the law - enforcement officers he had wounded , and that the motives for his participation in the revolutionary communist movement were benevolent and aimed at liberating the people from an oppressive political regime . He further reiterated his complaints of ill - treatment by the police and demanded a criminal investigation .","On DATE the applicant signed an affidavit that he had no claims against the GPE administration or any inmates .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction and sentence in principle , having made some amendments to the text . It noted , in particular , that the applicant \u2019s conviction was based on sufficient evidence , including testimonies by some of his co - defendants and victims of his crimes and that there was no case of ill - treatment to answer . The applicant \u2019s conviction for distribution of propaganda was neither challenged nor reviewed .","In DATE the applicant was transferred from the GPE to the ORG no . CARDINAL correctional colony in LOC to serve his sentence .","NORP In DATE the applicant was again transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL correctional colony in LOC , at which a less strict regime was in place .","On DATE the administration of the GPE SIZO , where the applicant had arrived by way of transit , registered the applicant \u2019s intention to go on hunger strike .","Following a medical report by the GPE medical commission , which concluded that the applicant \u2019s health was degenerating , he was force - fed on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant arrived at ORG .","On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination and was found to be suffering from dystrophy . He was also diagnosed with pancreatitis and heart and liver failure , and was prescribed in - patient treatment . On the same date the applicant stopped his hunger strike and continued to receive in - patient treatment for pancreatitis for most of DATE .","In DATE and DATE the NORP authorities received several applications from NORP - based public interest groups concerning the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment by the prison authorities during his transit and on DATE of his arrival at FAC . They noted , in particular , that according to their information , the prison authorities had arbitrarily refused to dispatch the applicant \u2019s correspondence while he had been in transit . They continued that , in protest at this refusal , on DATE the applicant had started a hunger strike , which had been neither registered nor medically monitored until DATE , thus leading to the deterioration of his health . Subsequently the applicant had been force - fed , which procedure had been degrading . Furthermore , following his arrival at ORG , the wardens had ordered him to mop the floors as a sign of his inferiority and subservience , notwithstanding his critical state of exhaustion . As the applicant had refused to comply with this order , the wardens had beaten him up and he had received no proper medical assistance .","On DATE and DATE the applicant , questioned by an officer from the prosecutor \u2019s office in connection with the above - mentioned applications , indicated in writing that he had no complaints against the prison authorities and that he had been satisfied with the quality of medical supervision and assistance provided to him .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office informed the Consulate of GPE that the applicant had no complaints concerning the conditions of his detention or the medical assistance available to him . In particular , he had undergone treatment for various diseases , including dystrophy , and his weight had increased from CARDINAL to QUANTITY .","In DATE several NORP - based public interest groups complained to the NORP authorities that the prison administration had subjected the applicant to unfair treatment . In particular , his correspondence stored in his dresser had been arbitrarily seized .","DATE . On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office denied that there had been any breaches of the applicant \u2019s rights by the prison administration . It acknowledged that the allegations that some letters from the applicant \u2019s file had been missing were true . However , rather than having been seized by the administration , they had been mistakenly recycled by another prisoner , who had been cleaning the cell . The applicant himself had refused to pursue any claims against the administration .","DATE the applicant received treatment for tuberculosis , which was subsequently considered cured .","On DATE the GPE department for the enforcement of sentences informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that the applicant had received all the necessary medical treatment and at the material time his health was satisfactory .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to send the applicant \u2019s lawyer in GPE copies of various documents from his case file , referring to the lack of necessary resources for copying and posting . It further notified the lawyer that he could study the case file in court and take any extracts he considered necessary , if he so wished .","In DATE the applicant was transferred to the FAC no . CARDINAL colony ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171507","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF AHMED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant left GPE with his family for the GPE in DATE when he was DATE . After claiming asylum , it would appear that the family were given a period of leave to remain in the GPE . During this period the applicant married and had a son , born in DATE . The applicant \u2019s family travelled to GPE in DATE . The applicant initially remained in the GPE but on DATE he arrived in GPE , where he claimed asylum . In doing so , he provided the immigration authorities with a false name and a false immigration history in order to avoid being sent back to the GPE . Although the asylum application was unsuccessful the applicant was granted exceptional leave to remain until DATE .","The applicant received CARDINAL criminal convictions over the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . In DATE he was convicted of a public order offence and of failing to surrender . He was sentenced to CARDINAL half months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant was served with notice that the Secretary of ORG intended to make a deportation order against him . The same letter refused an application for indefinite leave to remain in GPE . The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision to deport him on DATE . That appeal was dismissed on DATE and his appeal rights were exhausted on DATE .","On DATE , when the applicant had served CARDINAL of his final custodial sentence and was eligible for release from prison , he was detained under paragraph CARDINAL ) of Schedule CARDINAL to the Immigration Act DATE pending the making of a deportation order against him . The Secretary of ORG signed the deportation order on DATE and he was thereafter detained under paragraph CARDINAL ) of Schedule CARDINAL to the Immigration Act DATE pending his removal from GPE .","On DATE removal directions were set for CARDINAL DATE . However , they were cancelled on DATE when the applicant made an application to this ORG ( application no . CARDINAL ) , which granted an interim measure under Rule CARDINAL of ORG .","The applicant \u2019s detention was reviewed DATE and the review forms set out the reasons for maintaining detention . The form from DATE includes the following statement in reference to the Rule CARDINAL measure : \u201c Whilst this means that enforced removal is not possible , [ the applicant ] could reduce the length of time he spends in detention by withdrawing voluntarily \u201d . A similar point features in some , if not all , of the later forms . The form for DATE notes that \u201c Rule CARDINAL ORG is a barrier to removal but I note that FRS [ Facilitated Return Scheme ] is an option that should be explored to the full to expedite his removal from the GPE \u201d . Likewise , the form for DATE states that \u201c [ t]he length of detention is a direct result of his appeals against deportation and , although it is now DATE , he has the real option of return to GPE with ORG . This option should be further explained to the subject \u201d . Furthermore , the form from DATE indicated that the applicant \u201c could minimise his time in detention by withdrawing [ the application to the ORG ] and taking up ORG which is offered DATE \u201d and that he could \u201c end his detention by volunteering to return ( with or without FRS ) at any time \u201d .","Applications for bail were refused on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE as ORG were not satisfied that the applicant would answer to any conditions set . On DATE the Immigration Judge further noted that although the applicant had been in detention for a lengthy period , \u201c the most recent period of detention is on account of delays with his own application to ORG .","NORP The applicant made further representations against removal on DATE . Those representations were treated as an application for revocation of the deportation order , but on CARDINAL DATE the Secretary of ORG refused to revoke the order . However , following an appeal by the applicant , the Secretary of ORG withdrew the refusal decision on DATE .","On DATE the applicant filed a claim for judicial review , contending that his ongoing detention was unlawful . Permission was granted on DATE but a further application for bail was refused . On DATE , DATE after the ORG ruled in NORP and ORG v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) , the applicant was granted bail .","A hearing took place on DATE . Pursuant to the principles set down by ORG in NORP v. FAC Governor ex parte ORG PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL ( see section on domestic law below ) , the Secretary of ORG can not lawfully detain a person pending removal for longer than a reasonable period and , if it becomes apparent that the deportation can not be effected within a reasonable period , the detention will become unlawful even if the reasonable period has not yet expired . The applicant claimed that his detention was in breach of the principles ( a ) on or after DATE when the ORG granted an interim measure under Rule CARDINAL of ORG ; ( b ) on or immediately after DATE when he applied to revoke the deportation order ; or ( c ) at all points after the revocation refusal on CARDINAL DATE .","In a judgment dated DATE ORG dismissed the claim . It noted that in deciding whether or not there was a realistic prospect that deportation would take place within a reasonable time , the risk of absconding or re - offending were \u201c of paramount importance \u201d but neither risk could be regarded as a \u201c trump card \u201d . Moreover , the fact that the period of detention occurred while the applicant was pursuing an appeal or comparable judicial process would also be a highly relevant factor , especially if there was a risk of absconding or reoffending .","The court noted that the applicant in the present case had CARDINAL convictions for absconding and ORG had consistently concluded that he was a significant abscond risk . It agreed with ORG and also concluded that the risk was plainly substantial on the evidence available . Equally , the court took into account the fact that the applicant had family in the country at the times he absconded and therefore , contrary to his assertions , their presence did not remove the risk of absconding . Likewise , the Secretary of ORG \u2019s detention reviews had characterised the risk of the applicant reoffending as \u201c high \u201d . The court further noted that the applicant \u2019s offences became less serious and more intermittent as time went on . However , the fact remained that while he was free he was committing offences of such seriousness as to require him to be imprisoned , including robbery and public order offences . The court also considered whether alternatives to detention could be used such as electronic tagging , monitoring by telephone and regular reporting . However , given the applicant \u2019s history of absconding , it concluded that the alternatives would not have been sufficient and there was an absence of adequate assurances from the applicant .","At the time ORG noted that the interim measure under LAW , was awaiting a lead judgment on returns to GPE ( NORP and ORG , cited above ) and it was clear that there would be no resolution of the applicant \u2019s claim - and the interim measure would therefore not be lifted - before that judgment was handed down . However , ORG observed that at the time the interim measure was indicated , there was uncertainty about when that judgment could be expected . Moreover , while the applicants in NORP and ORG would have had a reasonable to good prospect of success , a positive outcome had not been inevitable . Consequently , ORG did not accept that there was not , at the time the interim measure was indicated , a realistic prospect of removing the applicant within a reasonable time .","Furthermore , the court did not accept that by the time of the applicant \u2019s application for a revocation order , a reasonable period had already expired or that there was no realistic prospect of deportation within a reasonable time . In addition , it observed that the Secretary of ORG had been entitled to take DATE to consider the applicant \u2019s personal situation in light of the judgment in NORP and ORG . It therefore did not consider his continued detention up to DATE to be unlawful .","The applicant was granted permission to appeal to ORG . On appeal , he restated his arguments concerning the ORG PERSON principles which had been advanced in the court below . In addition , he submitted that the detention was vitiated by CARDINAL public law errors that bore directly on the decision to detain : first , following the indication of the interim measure the Secretary of ORG had failed to take any reasonable steps to acquaint herself with when it might be lifted ; and secondly , that the detention was maintained on the unlawful basis that the applicant could reduce the length of time in detention by withdrawing his application to the ORG and returning voluntarily to GPE . Finally , the applicant argued that his detention was in breach of LAW .","NORP In its judgment of DATE , tthe applicant \u2019s appeal against deportation as well as CARDINAL separate bail applications had been rejected by immigration judges , as well as the broader context in relation to the on - going litigation concerning removals to GPE both before the domestic courts and tribunals as well as before ORG ( see \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) . It took into consideration the fact that the Rule CARDINAL measure applied in the applicant \u2019s case did not involve any specific assessment of risk towards him by this ORG , since at the material time this ORG had adopted a fact - insensitive approach towards Rule CARDINAL measures in respect of removals to GPE , and noted the consequence that from DATE this ORG had adjourned CARDINAL applications concerning removal to GPE . It also took account of correspondence between the ORG and the registry of this ORG from which it was clear that from DATE the ORG would be granting a fact - insensitive Rule CARDINAL measure to any applicant with removal directions to GPE as well as the separate correspondence between the Government and this Court concerning the progress of NORP and ORG , cited above and the linked domestic case law .","With regard to the ORG PERSON ground , ORG stated that there could be a realistic prospect of success without it being possible to specify or predict the date by which , or the period in which , removal can reasonably be expected to occur . It accepted that at the time of receipt of the Rule CARDINAL measure in the applicant \u2019s case , although it was not possible to say when the proceedings before the ORG would be concluded , there was nonetheless a reasonable prospect of their being concluded and of removal being effected within a reasonable time . Likewise , ORG saw no reason to differ from the overall conclusion of the lower court on the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s detention at the time of the application for revocation of the deportation order or after the judgment in NORP and ORG was handed down . Lord Justice PERSON dissented on CARDINAL point only : acknowledging that \u201c there is no one right answer to the question what is a reasonable period \u201d , he believed that the period of DATE which elapsed following the judgment in NORP and ORG before the applicant was released from detention was not reasonable in all the circumstances .","With regard to the second ground of appeal , the court accepted that if the applicant were able to show that the decisions to maintain his detention were vitiated by public law he would succeed in establishing that the detention was unlawful and would have a claim of false imprisonment . However , ORG found that although some of the passages in the review forms were not very happily expressed , they did not involve any legal error . Moreover , as the same conclusion was reached regardless of whether or not reference was made to the question of voluntary return , it appeared that the applicant \u2019s refusal of this offer played no material part in the assessment of whether detention should be maintained .","Finally , the court found that LAW ) of the ORG added nothing of substance in the present case . In reaching this conclusion , it rejected the applicant \u2019s assertion that GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE was authority for the proposition that the lack of a realistic prospect of deportation within a defined period rendered detention under LAW ) unlawful .","ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["34","5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147440","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DAVYDOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant brought civil proceedings against ORG of GPE ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) seeking compensation for damage to his health caused during his service in the police ( \u201c the compensation \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) found in the applicant \u2019s favour and ordered ORG : ( a ) to pay the applicant the compensation due to him for the period from DATE to DATE in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) ; and ( b ) starting from DATE , to make DATE compensation payments to the applicant of RUB MONEY with subsequent indexation in accordance with the law . The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .","NORP However , on DATE , following a request lodged by ORG , the Presidium of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed the final judgment by way of supervisory review and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims . The ORG found that the firstinstance court had erroneously applied and interpreted substantive legal provisions which had resulted in their significant violation . The ORG held that there was no basis under domestic law for awarding the applicant the compensation sought and that he was entitled instead to insurance payments . The applicant did not provide the ORG with information as to whether he had applied for those payments and\/or was receiving them .","ORG judgment of DATE had been duly enforced until it was quashed by way of supervisory review ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140766","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HAJDUK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","The applicant is married with CARDINAL children . Prior to his early retirement he had been employed for DATE and had paid his social security contributions to the ORG .","On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an early - retirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the so - called \u201c EWK \u201d pension .","Along with his application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning his daughter \u2019s health condition , a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on DATE . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from , among other things , urinary tract infection and chronic headaches and that she was in need of her parent \u2019s constant care .","On DATE ORG issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension .","ORG initially suspended the payment of the pension until DATE due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s employment contract expired . It had been terminated by the employer with DATE notice for reasons attributable to the employer \u2019s financial situation .","Consequently , on DATE the ORG started to pay the retirement pension in the net amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","The applicant was issued with a pensioner \u2019s identity card marked \u201c valid indefinitely \u201d and he continued to receive his pension without interruption until the date of the revocation of the right .","On an unspecified date ORG asked ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant \u2019s daughter required the permanent care of a parent . On DATE the doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child could not be considered as ever having required such care .","On DATE the Rzesz\u00f3w Social Security Board issued simultaneously CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant .","By virtue of CARDINAL decision , the payment of the applicant \u2019s pension was discontinued with immediate effect . By virtue of the other decision , ORG revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension under the scheme provided for by the DATE Ordinance .","The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early - retirement pension . He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","The applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s further appeal . The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of his right to a pension under the scheme provided by the DATE Ordinance as he had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care .","A professional lawyer prepared and lodged a cassation appeal against the second - instance judgment on the applicant \u2019s behalf .","On DATE ORG rejected the cassation appeal ( odrzuci\u0142 ) on the ground that the lawyer had not properly described the circumstances which would justify the examination of the cassation appeal ( okoliczno\u015b\u0107i uzasadniaj\u0105ce rozpoznanie kasacji ) .","Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return his early - retirement benefits paid by ORG , despite the revocation of his right to an early - retirement pension .","NORP Throughout the whole period of receiving the EWK pension the applicant did not work .","DATE after the pension had been revoked , the applicant started working on the basis on a mandate contract . He worked for DATE from DATE until DATE .","In DATE the applicant remained unemployed for DATE . On DATE he started to work on a permanent basis .","The Government submitted that the applicant \u2019s gross DATE income was ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG MONEY ( approx . ORG CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL ( approx . ORG CARDINAL ) in DATE .","The Government also submitted that the applicant had owned a CARDINAL ha farm and had received some direct payments from ORG in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , QUANTITY ( approx . EUR MONEY ) in DATE , PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG ( approx . ORG CARDINAL ) in DATE and ORG MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE . They further submitted that \u201c there were no doubts that the applicant \u2019s farm had constituted a source of income \u201d ; they failed however to submit any evidence to support this statement . The applicant submitted that the income from his farm had been \u201c minimal \u201d .","The Government also maintained that the applicant \u2019s wife had a gainful employment . In DATE she earned CARDINAL and PERCENT of the average gross salary in GPE .","The applicant has a son who also worked at the relevant time . He earned PERCENT of the average gross salary in GPE in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE . In DATE he apparently did not work .","Under the relevant laws currently in force , it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension when he turns sixtyfive in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156259","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DONPRUT S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant is a taxi cab company from PERSON . At the time of the events it employed CARDINAL persons and was functioning on the basis of a licence issued by ORG ( Camera de Licen\u021biere din Republica Moldova ) in DATE .","On DATE ORG issued decision no . DATE by which the applicant company \u2019s licence was withdrawn in view of irregularities . In particular , the applicant company failed to request the inclusion of the names of CARDINAL new persons employed in administrative positions and of new cars in its licence within the DATE time - limit provided for by law .","On DATE the applicant company initiated court proceedings against ORG seeking the annulment of its order of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant company submitted , inter alia , that the sanction applied to it had been disproportionally harsh and in breach of the company \u2019s right to property . It argued that CARDINAL persons employed by the company had lost their jobs as a result of the measure applied to it and that the company had suffered losses of MONEY ( ORG ) . The applicant company submitted that it could not comply with the requirement of including all CARDINAL new cars in the licence in DATE because of new regulations instituted by the Government according to which all taxi cabs had to be equipped with receipt printing machines . The company did not have sufficient time to equip all new cars because of the lengthy bureaucratic procedure and because all the taxi cab companies were attempting to do that at the same time . The company submitted that it only managed to equip CARDINAL of its cars with the new equipment .","On DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant company . Referring to the alleged breach by the applicant company of the DATE time limit to inform the authorities about the new cars , ORG found inter alia that the formalities linked to the equipment of those cars with receipt printing machines made it impossible for the applicant company to comply with the time - limit . In that context ORG found that all the taxi cab companies were doing the same thing at the time , which created lengthy delays . As to the applicant company \u2019s failure to inform ORG CARDINAL new employees at the company , ORG held that that breach was minor and could not justify such a severe sanction . Relying on the ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases of ORG SRL v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) ORG found that the interference with the applicant company \u2019s right to respect for its possessions had not been proportionate with the legitimate aim pursued and , thus , that the withdrawal of the applicant company \u2019s licences had been in breach of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .","On DATE ORG lodged an appeal against the above judgment . It does not appear that the applicant company lodged written pleadings with ORG .","On DATE , after an oral hearing , ORG upheld the appeal lodged by ORG , quashed the judgment of ORG and dismissed the applicant company \u2019s action . ORG held that that according to the law in force , the breaches committed by the applicant company were sufficient ground for withdrawing its licence ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182607","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF DIMITRAS v. GREECE","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is the executive director of the non - governmental organisation \u201c NORP ORG \u201d .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , ORG published on its website some press releases , in which , inter alia , it welcomed the concluding observations of ORG on ORG ( CEDAW ) for GPE and criticised the domestic authorities\u2019 responses to them .","On DATE , PERSON , in her capacity as General Secretary for ORG , ORG , gave an interview which was published in a magazine included with a DATE newspaper . In that interview the following statement was put to her :","\u201c NORP ORG accuses you of withholding information and lying before the ORG about the position of GPE women , minority women , and whether polygamy is practiced in GPE . \u201d","PERSON gave the following answer :","\u201c What they claim is extremely unfair . They lay the country open to criticism ( \u03b5\u03ba\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03bd \u03c4\u03b7 \u03c7\u03ce\u03c1\u03b1 ) \u2013 because what they claim is false . No other NGO shares the ORG \u2019s position . We , in our report , may not have fully documented everything , but no one can claim that GPE is an entirely patriarchic country and that nothing has been done all DATE . \u201d","On DATE the same newspaper published a reply sent by the applicant , as executive director of ORG , to PERSON \u2019s comments , in which he asked PERSON to document her statements . On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor at the Athens First - Instance Court . He submitted that PERSON in the above - mentioned interview had made false statements about NORP ORG which amounted to slander committed through the press . The applicant expressed his wish to join the proceedings as civil party , initially for the amount of CARDINAL ( ORG ) , which he later reduced to ORG DATE .","Following an urgent preliminary inquiry , to which PERSON was requested to provide a statement as a suspect in the case , on DATE the public prosecutor at ORG Instance dismissed the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint and filed ( \u03b1\u03c1\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5 ) it away , in accordance with LAW of LAW . In particular , the prosecutor considered that the above - mentioned statements made within the context of the interview , did not constitute facts but value judgments and in any event , they did not overcome the necessary threshold of similar exchanges between various bodies . The prosecutor also added that ORG had used the same expression , that is to say it had described statements included in reports prepared by ORG as \u201c false \u201d , in various press releases , in a much more heated tone .","On DATE , following an appeal by the applicant against the order by which his criminal complaint was filed away , the public prosecutor at ORG ordered PERSON \u2019s criminal prosecution for slander made through the press , considering that the above - mentioned statements were susceptible of harming the applicant \u2019s honour and reputation , not only individually , but also as representative of ORG .","On the basis of the above , PERSON was indicted and DATE was set as the hearing date before the CARDINAL - member ORG . On DATE PERSON appealed against her indictment . On DATE her appeal was dismissed by ORG .","The new hearing date before the CARDINAL - member GPE Magistrates\u2019 ORG was set for DATE . On DATE , at the beginning of the hearing of the case , PERSON raised for the first time an objection concerning lack of competence of the trial court , arguing that her status as a lawyer meant she could not have her case heard by a CARDINAL - member GPE court . By judgment no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL published on DATE , the said court declared itself not to have competence and referred the case to the CARDINAL - member ORG for misdemeanours ( hereafter the \u201c ORG \u201d ) . On DATE the operative part of the judgment was corrected and on DATE , the case file was transmitted to the prosecution service at ORG , marked as extremely urgent .","The new hearing date was set for CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer sent a letter to the court , requesting that the hearing be postponed as he could not attend it owing to other professional obligations . Additionally , GPE , a journalist who had interviewed PERSON , had not been present and the applicant submitted that he considered her testimony essential . As a result , ORG by its judgment no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL postponed the hearing until DATE , citing a material witness \u2019s absence as the reason . On DATE the case was not heard because the courts had not been sitting owing to the parliamentary elections that had taken place DATE .","The case was again set for hearing on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , PERSON \u2019s lawyer submitted certificate no . DATE of ORG , according to which PERSON had been elected as a deputy in the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE . On that basis , he applied to the court to have the proceedings suspended in accordance with LAW in order for ORG to give permission . The applicant objected to the suspension and filed written submissions in which he argued , inter alia , that it was not necessary for ORG to grant leave for the criminal proceedings against PERSON as the acts for which she was accused had not taken place in the course of her parliamentary activities . He cited in that connection the ORG \u2019s cases PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) . He further stressed that the impugned acts would become timebarred on DATE and requested that the court proceed with examination on the merits of the case .","ORG , after having held deliberations in camera , published judgment no . DATE by which it suspended the criminal proceedings against PERSON until ORG had granted leave and , if such leave were not granted or if no action were taken in the threemonth period from the submission of the prosecutor \u2019s request to ORG , until her status as a parliamentarian ended . In respect of LAW of the LAW and the applicant \u2019s objection , the domestic court held the following :","\u201c ... In addition , since ORG has not granted leave , the prosecution is declared inadmissible if it concerns an offence committed when the defendant was a member of parliament . If , however , criminal proceedings were initiated prior to that , when the defendant was not a member of parliament , then they are suspended until the said leave is granted or until the defendant \u2019s status as a parliamentarian ends ... It should be noted that in the present case no matter arises concerning the interpretation of Articles CARDINAL , DATE and QUANTITY of the LAW ... and of LAW , so as for the court to rule that ORG \u2019s leave is not required to conduct this trial because the above - mentioned act did not take place , according to the civil claimant \u2019s allegations , in the context of her parliamentary duties . That is because the prosecutable offence ( slander for an interview that the defendant gave to a newspaper in her capacity as General Secretary for ORG , ORG ) clearly does not concern a private dispute ; it should be examined if it relates and is linked to the political activity of the defendant - deputy and in general to the exercise of her parliamentary duties . However , examination of this matter and , eventually , any conclusion thereof can only be carried out by the competent authority , ORG ... \u201d","NORP The decision was published on the date of the hearing , that is to say CARDINAL DATE , and was finalised ( i.e. entered in a special book at the registry of the criminal court ) on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an application with the public prosecutor of ORG requesting an examination of points of law of the said judgment . His request was rejected on the grounds that ORG had rightly suspended the proceedings so that ORG could grant leave , in accordance with LAW . On DATE the case file was transferred to the public prosecutor of ORG , who DATE sent it to the Minister of ORG . On DATE the Minister of ORG transferred the case file to ORG .","On DATE ORG of ORG , having taken a deposition from PERSON , ruled unanimously that the requirements of LAW had been met and thus PERSON \u2019s immunity should not be lifted . On DATE the Plenary of ORG dismissed the request for leave to continue the criminal proceedings . On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG notified the public prosecutor at ORG of the outcome of ORG \u2019s vote on granting leave .","On DATE the head of ORG notified ORG that PERSON had ceased to be member of parliament since DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG published judgment no . TIME in which it considered that the offence of which PERSON was accused had become timebarred as more than forty - two months had passed since its alleged commission . It consequently ended the criminal prosecution . The judgment was finalised on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177439","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SMIRNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised complaints under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181079","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LOGINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants mainly complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181196","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SHVEDOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["DATE the applicants were charged and subsequently convicted of different criminal offences . Their cases were examined by appeal courts in the absence of the applicants and\/or their lawyers . Convictions were upheld .","Information relevant to the criminal proceedings against the applicants appears in the appended table below ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183568","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SKRIPNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142399","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ASALYA v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a NORP who lived in GPE until DATE . He claims to have lost CARDINAL relatives to NORP attacks DATE , and to have personally suffered CARDINAL missile attacks DATE . According to his allegations before the ORG , he was directly and personally targeted in the most recent attack , in DATE , as the missile that struck near him on DATE immediately followed an anonymous call on his mobile phone asking him to confirm his name , a ruse by the NORP forces to identify his location . That attack left him severely injured and rendered him paraplegic .","On DATE the applicant was taken to GPE by a humanitarian organisation , ORG ( \u0130nsani PERSON , \u201c \u0130HH \u201d ) , along with fortynine other injured civilians from the NORP territories , to have access to better medical care .","NORP In DATE ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) issued the group of NORP with short - term residence permits in view of their continuing medical treatment in GPE .","On DATE the applicant married a NORP national , who was also his physiotherapist . Because he was married to a NORP national , he was granted a long - term temporary residence permit valid until QUANTITY DATE .","On DATE , at TIME , QUANTITY police officers from ORG arrived at the applicant \u2019s house . They informed the applicant and his wife that his presence was required at the police headquarters for an interview and that he would be brought back afterwards . Once he was at the police headquarters , however , he was verbally informed that his temporary residence permit had been cancelled in accordance with orders received from ORG and that he would soon be deported from GPE . Without being given any further information as to the reasons for the deportation order , when it would be carried out and where he would be deported to , the applicant was placed in the ORG Foreigners\u2019 Admission and ORG attached to ORG .","According to the police record drawn up on DATE at TIME , ORG had decided on DATE to deport the applicant . This decision had been taken at the request of ORG of GPE , which had received intelligence regarding the applicant \u2019s possible involvement in acts of international terrorism . Neither the ORG \u2019s deportation order nor the police record in question was served on the applicant .","Upon learning of the applicant \u2019s detention , on CARDINAL DATE his wife got in touch with a local human rights organisation , PERSON , which in turn contacted the ORG to seek assistance in securing the applicant \u2019s release and halting his deportation . PERSON also informed the ORG of the poor conditions in which the applicant was being detained , including the fact that he had spent TIME sleeping on a table , that he was not able to use the squat toilets at the detention centre , and that his medical treatment had been stopped on account of his detention .","On DATE the applicant brought an action against ORG before ORG seeking the quashing of the deportation order , and also requested a stay of its execution until the matter had been examined by the administrative court . He maintained before the administrative court that the deportation order was unlawful , in view of his marriage to a NORP citizen and possession of a residence permit valid until DATE . The unlawful deportation order had moreover not been communicated to him at any point , nor had ORG sought his response prior to its delivery . The ORG authorities had similarly not put forward any concrete evidence to demonstrate why his continued presence in GPE was perceived as a threat to national security . The applicant claimed that in the event of his deportation to GPE or elsewhere , his right to life and right to liberty and security would be put at risk , that he would face torture or even death at the hands of NORP forces or their collaborators , and that the unity of his family would be destroyed . Furthermore , his medical treatment would be stopped , causing irreversible harm to his health . The applicant lastly complained that his detention was unlawful , and also maintained that the conditions of his detention at the NORP Foreigners\u2019 Admission and ORG were highly degrading , in view of the lack of basic infrastructure to accommodate people with disabilities in his situation . As he was not able to use the squat toilet available at the place of detention , he had to be taken to a hotel nearby by police officers each time he had to relieve himself . It appears that his wife was occasionally able to accompany them to the hotel . His medical treatment was also stopped during his detention there , which was likely to result in the worsening of his condition .","In a decision delivered on DATE , ORG asked ORG for a copy of its deportation order of DATE , as well as all the information and documents which formed the basis of that decision . Moreover , noting the irreversible nature of the harm that might be caused in the event of the applicant \u2019s deportation , it ordered a stay of its execution until a further decision .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer applied for release from the ORG Foreigners\u2019 Admission and ORG on the basis of ORG decision granting a stay of execution .","Following a decision of ORG on DATE , the applicant was released from the ORG Foreigners\u2019 Admission and ORG .","On DATE the ORG submitted its replies to ORG in relation to the applicant \u2019s request for the quashing of the deportation order . It stated that the decision to deport had been taken on the basis of a ORG report dated DATE . The report indicated that within the context of ongoing investigations in connection with international terrorism the applicant had been identified as having had contact with some telephone numbers registered in GPE on issues such as \u201c procurement of arms , new recruits to the group , and measures to be taken to ensure the confidentiality of activities \u201d . His presence in GPE was therefore perceived as a risk to national security within the meaning of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . DATE ) and section CARDINAL of the Act on the Residence and Travel of Foreigners in GPE ( Law no . CARDINAL ) . It also submitted a number of supporting documents as an annex . These documents were not made available to the applicant , nor were they later submitted to the ORG .","On DATE ORG decided that there were no elements warranting the suspension of the applicant \u2019s deportation . It thus reversed its previous decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of ORG lifting the stay of execution of his deportation . He submitted that ORG had not put forward any tangible evidence in support of its allegation that he posed a threat to national security such as to necessitate his deportation from GPE . If ORG went through with its decision , his physical integrity would be irreparably damaged on account of the termination of the medical treatment he was undergoing in GPE . Furthermore , his deportation would disrupt the family life he had since established in GPE , and would deprive him of the vital assistance and care undertaken by his wife . In addition , if deported he would most certainly be subjected to torture by NORP forces and his life would be put at risk . Lastly , the applicant drew the administrative court \u2019s attention to his pending application to the ORG for refugee status , and also complained of the conditions in which he had been detained DATE at the ORG Foreigners\u2019 Admission and ORG , which had lacked basic amenities to accommodate people with disabilities , such as a non - squat toilet and a lift .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG decision of DATE , which had effectively lifted the stay of execution of his deportation , without providing any reasons .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant had applied to the ORG for refugee status . On CARDINAL DATE he was interviewed by the GPE office of the ORG as part of the refugee status determination process .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer was informed by the ORG authorities that , pursuant to the latest decision of ORG , the applicant was requested to leave GPE within DATE , and that if he refused to comply with that request he would be deported forcibly .","On DATE the applicant claimed asylum in GPE . He stated that he had been forced to leave GPE because of the persecution he had faced there . Following an NORP attack on his house in GPE , which had left him severely injured , he had come to GPE to seek medical treatment . This treatment was still ongoing , and in the meantime he had married a NORP citizen . He claimed that although he had never been involved in any acts of violence , he was wanted by GPE as a terrorist . Returning to his country would entail a great risk to his life , if not from NORP attacks then because of the termination of his treatment . He would also face torture if captured by the NORP .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer also sent a letter to ORG of ORG , reiterating the grounds of appeal against the applicant \u2019s deportation . The lawyer emphasised in the letter that the ORG \u2019s deportation order had not been served on the applicant , and that the administrative proceedings for the annulment of the deportation order were still pending before ORG , which had not yet delivered a judgment on the merits . She referred in this regard to ORG , adopted by the Government of GPE on DATE , which held that the execution of deportation decisions was to be suspended once administrative proceedings seeking to overturn them had been instituted .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative asked the ORG , under LAW of its Rules of Court , to adopt an interim measure to halt the applicant \u2019s imminent deportation from GPE .","On DATE the President of the ORG to which the case was allocated decided , in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , to indicate to the Government of GPE , under LAW , that the applicant should not be deported to GPE or GPE until the delivery of a decision by the ORG in his regard .","In the light of the interim measure applied by the ORG , on DATE ORG of ORG ordered that the applicant be granted a DATE temporary residence permit , renewable until further notice .","On DATE ORG quashed the deportation decision of DATE , as the applicant \u2019s deportation had become unfeasible in view of the interim measure applied by the ORG , which was binding on the NORP authorities . ORG appealed against this judgment .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG , and on DATE it refused the ORG \u2019s rectification request .","In the meantime , following a number of interviews , on CARDINAL DATE ORG of the Ministry granted the applicant a temporary residence permit for DATE , apparently renewable , in view of his status as an asylum seeker .","On DATE the applicant informed the NORP authorities that he wanted to withdraw his asylum claim , for reasons unknown to the ORG .","On DATE the General Security Directorate of the Ministry decided to grant the applicant a long - term residence permit , valid for DATE , on the basis of evidence that he had established a genuine family life in GPE . The decision also indicated that this permit would be extended in due course if further inquiries in respect of his marriage demonstrated that he was continuing to maintain a family life in GPE .","In DATE the applicant withdrew his application to the ORG for refugee status in order to avoid being resettled to a safe third country as a result of the refugee status determination process , which might have entailed separation from his wife ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179410","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF INDERKINY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 13+6 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants are a family . They were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , and live in GPE .","On DATE ORG of PERSON ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered , inter alia , the management of the ORG unitary enterprise \u201c CARDINALth Military Plant \u201d ( \u201c the company \u201d ) to provide the applicants with a suitable dwelling , while keeping their names on the list of persons awaiting housing .","On DATE the judgment came into force .","On DATE ORG opened the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated as the company had no available residential accommodation .","On DATE , due to the reorganisation of the company ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the enforcement file was sent to ORG for LOC .","On DATE the bailiffs ruled that it was impossible to enforce the judgment in the part relating to the housing , as the new debtor , FGUP CARDINAL ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , had no available accommodation . The enforcement proceedings were terminated .","On DATE the Engelsskiy ORG , following the bailiffs\u2019 application , replaced the debtor in the enforcement proceedings from FGUP CARDINAL TSARZ to OAO CARDINAL ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG clarified the judgment of CARDINAL DATE stating that the applicants should be provided with an apartment in GPE .","Several times in DATE the parties applied to ORG for changing the mode of enforcement of the judgment . Each time the courts rejected the applications finding that a payment of the amount representing the cost of an apartment would be equal to modifying the original judgment .","The judgment of CARDINAL DATE remained unenforced .","The company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise . According to its articles of association , the company \u2019s aim was to produce goods and render services for ORG of GPE , as well as for meeting other public needs and making a profit .","Under the Order of the Federal Agency for ORG dated DATE the company was joined to ORG CARDINAL ORG ( ORG QUANTITY Tsentralnyy Avtomobilnyy Remontnyy Zavod \u2013 \u0424\u0413\u0423\u041f CARDINAL ORG or \u0424\u0413\u0423\u041f CARDINAL \u0426\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0410\u0432\u0442\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0431\u0438\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0420\u0435\u043c\u043e\u043d\u0442\u043d\u044b\u0439 PERSON ) . The reorganisation was completed on CARDINAL DATE , and the latter company became the universal successor of the company .","In accordance with the Decree of the President of GPE of DATE and the Decree of ORG of DATE , FGUP CARDINAL ORG was further reorganized into OAO CARDINAL ORG , a publicly - traded private open joint - stock company incorporated under the laws of GPE ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172547","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u017d\u00c1KOV\u00c1 v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":4,"conclusion":"Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["On DATE T\u00fdden.cz , an internet news portal , published an article with the headline \u201c A \u2018 European\u2019 dispute . She escaped communism and lost her property . GPE reluctant to compensate her \u201d ( \u201c \u2018 ORG . Utekla p\u0159ed komunisty a p\u0159i\u0161la o majetek . \u010cR ji nechce od\u0161kodnit \u201d ) . The journalist introduced the applicant \u2019s case by saying that she had been struggling against ORG for DATE because her land had been confiscated following her escape . Up to DATE , she had repeatedly won her case before ORG . However , the issue of her compensation had become more complicated . The article contained the following statement :","\u201c An appeal to ORG did not help either . So she applied to ORG , which noted \u2018 ORG is struck by the fact that in DATE the municipality of GPE was able to take possession of the property on the basis of a DATE judgment that had been quashed because , in the words of LAW , it was incompatible with the principles of a democratic society\u2019 .","Eventually , GPE applied for a review of the judgment , which is the equivalent of an appeal , but was unsuccessful . Since then , complicated negotiations as to how the Government would compensate PERSON have been underway . \u2018 I approached the Government Agent with a proposal for settlement regarding the provision of just satisfaction , which among other things is for pecuniary damage because there had been an interference with her property PERSON stated PERSON \u2019s lawyer [ PERSON ] , adding that she had been deprived of her property in DATE in breach of LAW to ORG .","The ORG is back tracking","\u2018 That \u2019s why I suggested providing her with compensation in the amount of the market value of the seized property and compensation for the loss of rent since CARDINAL , [ FAC ] said . But in fact , PERSON was willing , according to him , to accept CARDINAL of the market rent .","However , the ORG refused [ this proposal ] , noting that the Government were prepared to accept only compensation for the plots of land in the amount of their market value in DATE . Thus , it would be essentially lower than the current value ; moreover , such compensation would not include reparation for the period when PERSON had been unable to dispose of the land . \u2018 I confess that the ORG \u2019s approach in this regard seems to me at least dishonest and contravenes the basic principles of justice and our law , too,\u2019 added lawyer [ ORG ] . The Agent of the ORG , or more precisely , ORG for which he works , has refused to comment as the negotiations , according to him , are confidential . \u201d","The original version of the article is as follows :","\u201c ORG st\u00ed\u017enost k \u00dastavn\u00edmu soudu . Obr\u00e1tila se proto na ORG soud pro lidsk\u00e1 pr\u00e1va . \u2018 ORG dv\u016fr je udiven skute\u010dnost\u00ed , PERSON DATE byla obec ORG schopna zmocnit se majetku na z\u00e1klad\u011b rozsudku z roku DATE , kter\u00fd CARDINAL zru\u0161en , proto\u017ee byl podle z\u00e1kona o soudn\u00ed rehabilitaci neslu\u010diteln\u00fd s principy demokratick\u00e9 spole\u010dnosti,\u2019 konstatoval soud .","PERSON republika nakonec podala k soudu \u017e\u00e1dost o p\u0159ezkoum\u00e1n\u00ed rozsudku , co\u017e je obdoba odvol\u00e1n\u00ed , ale bez\u00fasp\u011b\u0161n\u011b . Od t\u00e9 doby prob\u00edhaj\u00ed slo\u017eit\u00e1 jedn\u00e1n\u00ed o tom , jak\u00fdm zp\u016fsobem vl\u00e1da pan\u00ed PERSON od\u0161kodn\u00ed . \u2018 Obr\u00e1til jsem se na vl\u00e1dn\u00edho zmocn\u011bnce s n\u00e1vrhem dohody ohledn\u011b poskytnut\u00ed p\u0159im\u011b\u0159en\u00e9ho zadostiu\u010din\u011bn\u00ed , kter\u00e9 mimo jin\u00e9 spo\u010d\u00edv\u00e1 ve zp\u016fsoben\u00ed majetkov\u00e9 \u0161kody , nebo\u0165 do\u0161lo k z\u00e1sahu do jej\u00edch majetkov\u00fdch pr\u00e1v,\u2019 konstatoval advok\u00e1t ORG [ GPE ] s t\u00edm , \u017ee jej\u00ed majetek j\u00ed ORG DATE od\u0148at v rozporu s LOC protokolem PERSON o lidsk\u00fdch pr\u00e1vech .","St\u00e1t se cuk\u00e1","\u2018 Proto jsem navrhl , ORG j\u00ed byla poskytnuta n\u00e1hrada ve v\u00fd\u0161i tr\u017en\u00ed ceny od\u0148at\u00e9ho majetku a n\u00e1hrada za u\u0161l\u00fd n\u00e1jem za dobu od roku DATE do PERSON \u0159ekl [ PERSON ] PERSON p\u0159itom podle jeho slov ochotn\u00e1 p\u0159istoupit na desetinu tr\u017en\u00edho n\u00e1jemn\u00e9ho .","To v\u0161ak st\u00e1t odm\u00edtl s t\u00edm , PERSON ochotn\u00e1 p\u0159istoupit pouze na n\u00e1hradu pozemk\u016f ve v\u00fd\u0161i jejich tr\u017en\u00ed ceny v roce DATE . Tedy podstatn\u011b ni\u017e\u0161\u00ed ne\u017e nyn\u00ed , nav\u00edc by tato n\u00e1hrada neobsahovala od\u0161kodn\u011bn\u00ed za dobu , ORG s PERSON nemohla disponovat . \u2018 ORG , \u017ee postoj vl\u00e1dy mi v tomto ohledu p\u0159ipad\u00e1 m\u00edrn\u011b \u0159e\u010deno neseri\u00f3zn\u00ed a je v rozporu se z\u00e1kladn\u00edmi z\u00e1sady spravedlnosti QUANTITY GPE dodal advok\u00e1t [ ORG ] . PERSON st\u00e1tu , respektive ministerstvo spravedlnosti , pro kter\u00e9 pracuje , se k tomu odm\u00edtl vyj\u00e1d\u0159it , proto\u017ee jsou podle n\u011bj tato jedn\u00e1n\u00ed d\u016fv\u011brn\u00e1 . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166685","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ANDREY MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Prior to its privatisation , the QUANTITY flat at CARDINAL Ulitsa Lavochkina , GPE , had been owned by GPE . Sh . had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with the city .","On DATE Sh . died .","On DATE Sh . \u2019s ex - boyfriend , ORG . , and an unidentified person impersonating PERSON . had their marriage registered in LOC . Un . then applied to the local housing office , where he presented his marriage certificate and was registered as residing in Sh . \u2019s flat as a tenant . On DATE the title to the flat was transferred to ORG . under the privatisation scheme . On DATE the privatisation transaction and ORG . \u2019s title to the flat were registered by ORG ( ORG \u201d ) .","On an unspecified date the prosecutor \u2019s office opened a criminal investigation into ORG . \u2019s activities in respect of the flat and on CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE found him guilty of fraud and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment . The flat was transferred to ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG granted claims lodged by the prosecutor on behalf of the city authorities and ordered the annulment of ORG . \u2019s marriage certificate and the privatisation agreement , and the revocation of his title to the flat . The parties did not appeal against that judgment and it became final .","When ORG . was released in DATE , having served a prison sentence for fraud , the city authorities had not yet informed ORG of the judgments of CARDINAL May and CARDINAL DATE . ORG . was therefore still officially registered as the flat \u2019s owner and on DATE he sold the flat to S. On DATE ORG registered the sale agreement and S. \u2019s title to the flat .","On DATE PERSON sold the flat to the applicant . The sale agreement was registered by ORG on DATE . The applicant moved in and resided in the flat with his girlfriend .","On an unspecified date ORG brought a civil claim against the applicant seeking , inter alia , ( CARDINAL ) the revocation of the applicant \u2019s title to the flat and his eviction ; and ( CARDINAL ) restitution of the flat to GPE .","On DATE ORG examined the case . It conceded that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser of the flat . Nevertheless , relying on Article CARDINAL of the Russian Civil Code , the court granted ORG claims , pointing out that it remained open to the applicant to sue S. in order to have his rights protected . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG refused to grant the applicant leave to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgments of CARDINAL October and DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE , in a single - judge formation , dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant against the judgments of CARDINAL October and DATE .","On DATE the district bailiff \u2019s service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of CARDINAL October CARDINAL . According to the applicant , he was evicted on DATE .","On DATE the Sergiyev ORG of the GPE Region granted a claim for damages against S. lodged by the applicant and awarded him MONEY ( RUB ) . On DATE the judgment became final .","On an unspecified date the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the proceedings were discontinued as it had been impossible to establish S. \u2019s whereabouts .","According to the Government , on DATE the bailiff \u2019s superior quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and the enforcement proceedings are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["8","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146890","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"GORGADZE v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr L. Meskhoradze of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicant and according to the case file , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of unlawful purchase , possession and sale of drugs . According to the record of his personal search , CARDINAL sachets containing a brownish substance were found in the right back pocket of his trousers . The search was carried out on the spot by QUANTITY police officers , who rejected the applicant \u2019s request for the attendance of independent witnesses , reasoning that there was a risk of him hiding or destroying the evidence . The applicant refused to sign the search record and specified that he had had no drugs on him .","According to the arrest report , which was drawn up immediately after the search , the applicant had multiple injuries on his body and face . When asked about the source of the injuries , the applicant , as noted in the report , claimed that he had fallen to the ground when running away from the police officers .","Later , after his transfer to the police station , an ambulance was called for the applicant . A doctor on duty conducted a visual examination and noted that the applicant had a hematoma on his left eye and several bruises on his chest .","On DATE in prison the applicant was seen by a prosecutor . In the presence of his lawyer , the applicant complained that he had been severely beaten by police officers immediately after his arrest and also at the police station . A special note was drawn up detailing the applicant \u2019s allegations , including the chain of events , the time , location , duration and methods of his ill - treatment . The applicant alleged that he had been threatened with rape .","DATE , the police officers who had arrested the applicant conducted an examination of the place of his arrest and concluded that the surface was uneven , with lots of rocks and holes .","On DATE the ORG , whilst dropping the drug - dealing charges , convicted the applicant for unlawful possession of drugs in a particularly large quantity and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and a fine . By a decision of DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction in full . Like the trial court , the appeal court , based its conclusions on the statements of the QUANTITY police officers who had arrested the applicant and conducted his personal search . Both instances concluded that the applicant \u2019s injuries had been the result of him having fallen several times during his attempt to escape .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant . As it appears from the case file , despite his complaints , no criminal proceedings have been instituted into the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment .","On DATE the application was communicated to the respondent Government . An information note , in NORP , on the proceedings after communication of an application was forwarded at the same time to the applicant . It included the information that the nature of all friendly settlement negotiations was strictly confidential . On DATE the Government submitted a friendly - settlement proposal within the framework of the proceedings before the ORG , and on DATE the ORG sent the Government \u2019s proposal to the applicant .","By their letter of DATE the Government informed the ORG that the applicant had disclosed the details of the friendly - settlement negotiations conducted between the parties to the media , in violation of the confidentiality rule as enshrined in Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG . They accordingly invited the ORG to declare the application inadmissible .","NORP In their letter the Government referred the ORG to an interview of the applicant published by the news agency ORG on DATE . In that interview the applicant provided a brief factual summary of his case and disclosed the specific amount proposed by the Government with a view to securing a friendly settlement . He further claimed that his refusal to accept the compensation offered had \u201c irritated the Minister of ORG , following which they have sent to GPE documents with distorted facts . \u201d","It appears that even before that date , on DATE , another media source \u2013 news portal PERSON , published another interview with the applicant in which the latter likewise discussed the ORG \u2019s friendlysettlement proposal and referred to the specific amount proposed by the Government . The article was accompanied by scanned copies of the relevant letters from the ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154993","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"PEREZ LIZASO v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP and NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is a NORP national who has certain family ties to GPE and also has NORP citizenship . The applicant was wanted in GPE from DATE as he was suspected of aggravated extortion committed in DATE . CARDINAL other persons , including the applicant \u2019s brother , were convicted in GPE on DATE for having participated in the same crime of which the applicant was suspected . A prison sentence of DATE and DATE was imposed on the brother and a sentence of DATE and DATE on the CARDINAL other perpetrators . The NORP authorities tried to locate the applicant through ORG , issuing a LAW alert about him .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) ordered the applicant to be detained with a view to his extradition . The applicant complained about this decision to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) which rejected his complaint on DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for release from detention . The applicant complained about this decision to ORG which , on DATE , rejected his complaint .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s second request for release from detention . The applicant did not lodge a complaint against this decision with ORG .","NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the NORP authorities filed a request with ORG , asking them to extradite the applicant to GPE .","On DATE the applicant was interrogated by ORG ( keskusrikospoliisi , centralkriminalpolisen ) . The applicant opposed the extradition .","On DATE , in accordance with LAW , ORG asked ORG to give a statement on whether the possible extradition would be in conformity with domestic legislation and the applicable international extradition treaties .","NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted his comments to ORG on the possible extradition . He claimed that , as a NORP citizen , he should be treated as a NORP citizen because NORP citizens could not be extradited according to the domestic law . He also claimed that he could not be extradited to GPE because the conditions in NORP detention facilities and prisons were contrary to LAW . He would not have a fair and public trial there within a reasonable time , he would not be presumed innocent and he would be kept in pre - trial detention for a long time .","On DATE ORG submitted its statement to ORG . It found that the request for extradition could be granted . The applicant was suspected of aggravated extortion committed together with CARDINAL other persons . These QUANTITY persons had been convicted in GPE and sentenced to imprisonment on DATE . The crime of which the applicant was suspected was such that , according to domestic law , the applicant could be extradited . The extradition was based on a detention order issued by a court . The fact that the applicant was a NORP citizen did not prevent the extradition . No such grounds were thus shown to exist on the basis of which the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE , due to personal circumstances or special humanitarian reasons , could be considered unreasonable .","On DATE ORG decided that the applicant could be extradited to GPE for trial . The decision stated that , after the decision had been served to the NORP authorities , they had DATE to come and collect the applicant and transfer him to GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged his application with the ORG , requesting also that Rule CARDINAL be applied .","On DATE the ORG refused to apply Rule CARDINAL to prevent the applicant \u2019s extradition from GPE . The applicant was requested to inform the ORG whether he wished to maintain his application .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he wished to maintain his application with the ORG .","On DATE the applicant was extradited to GPE , GPE where he arrived on DATE . He was then taken to PERSON , brought before a judge and detained on suspicion of attempted extortion . From DATE he was detained in isolation in prison for DATE . Thereafter he was moved to another prison for DATE , where he shared a cell with CARDINAL other inmates . In DATE the applicant was transferred to an open department and again in DATE to a labour facility . In DATE the applicant was released by virtue of an amnesty granted by ORG .","After his release , the applicant returned to GPE .","Extradition to and from GPE takes place in accordance with LAW ( laki rikoksen johdosta tapahtuvasta luovuttamisesta , lagen om utl\u00e4mning f\u00f6r brott , Act no . CARDINAL , as in force at the relevant time ) . According to sections CARDINAL and QUANTITY , ORG decides on extradition . If the person to be extradited opposes it , the Ministry must ask ORG to give a statement on whether the possible extradition is in conformity with domestic legislation and the applicable international extradition treaties which are binding on GPE . If ORG finds that there is an obstacle to the extradition , it can not be carried out .","ORG on Human Rights Practices for DATE in GPE of DATE provided the following :","\u201c Principal human rights abuses included severe overcrowding , inhuman conditions , and disrepair in the prison system ; violence against women ; and trafficking in persons .","...","Prison conditions continued to be poor , as the government did not adequately maintain aging facilities and provided insufficient resources for the prison system .","Overcrowding was a significant problem despite the government \u2019s efforts to build more prison facilities . According to government figures , the total prisoner population as of DATE exceeded design capacity by CARDINAL prisoners , or PERCENT ( the prison ombudsman \u2019s DATE report defined PERCENT overcrowding as \" critical \" ) . Additionally , many necessities were lacking and many prisoners depended on visitors for enough food to reach the DATE minimum caloric intake .","Prisoner - on - prisoner violence continued to be a DATE problem , partially due to the lack of a separate , high - security prison for violent criminals . A high percentage of prisoners reportedly used drugs .","Fire hazards and violence continued to plague the prison system . In DATE there were CARDINAL deaths due to violence , and fires in prisons were reported . In DATE a cell fire killed CARDINAL prisoners in GPE . In DATE prisoners perished in a cell fire in FAC in GPE . The fires started due to handcrafted heaters that set makeshift partitions on fire . Initial investigations revealed that fire extinguishers were not adequately maintained in both facilities .","In general overcrowding and understaffing in some facilities resulted in problems related to sanitation , ventilation , temperature , lighting , access to potable water , and health . Supervision of medical care moved to ORG , which implemented a pilot system in DATE to provide basic and emergency medical care to a prison in rural GPE that housed CARDINAL inmates . An Anti - Tuberculosis Commission report confirmed CARDINAL cases of tuberculosis in the prison population in DATE . \u201d","According to the Report of the UN Special Rapporteur PERSON PERSON on torture and other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in GPE of DATE ( A \/ HRC\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/Add.CARDINAL ) :","\u201c Although some efforts have been made to improve overall conditions in prisons and prevent overcrowding , the conditions in some detention facilities , particularly ORG and ORG ( PERSON , known as COMCAR ) , amount to inhuman and degrading treatment . The overcrowding , the non - separation of pre - trial and convicted detainees as well as the limited access to medical services is of concern in practically all of the places visited . A comprehensive reform of the whole administration of justice system , aimed at the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders , should be a high priority . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140000","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PREMOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .","The applicant was employed by \u201c Ra\u0161ka Holding Kompanija A.D. u restrukturiranju \u201d , a socially \/ ORG - owned company based in ORG ( hereinafter DATE \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , and DATE ORG adopted CARDINAL judgments in the applicant \u2019s favour according to which the debtor was ordered to pay certain sums .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , the applicant lodged applications for the enforcement of the above judgments with ORG .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively , the court allowed the applications and issued enforcement \u2019s orders ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172551","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DUDNICHENKO AND WAES v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained under LAW excessive length of their pre - trial detention . They further complained under LAW . In particular , in application no . ORG the applicant argued that a court had examined appeals against the detention orders in his and his counsel \u2019s absence , and in application no . MONEY the applicant submitted that his appeal against a detention order had not been examined \u201c speedily \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-151037","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF YUDITSKAYA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for home;Respect for private life)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The second applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The third applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . The fourth applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The fifth applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . They live in GPE .","The applicants are members of ORG . They are lawyers with the \u201c Biznes i NORP \u201d law firm . At the relevant time , the firm \u2019s premises comprised a reception area , CARDINAL offices and a conference room . The first and second applicant shared an office . The fourth applicant and lawyer PERSON each had an individual office . The third and fifth applicants shared an office with lawyer GPE Each lawyer had his or her own computer . There was also CARDINAL more computer shared by all lawyers .","On DATE a criminal investigation was opened into bribe - taking by court bailiffs . CARDINAL of the charges involved ORG ( the \u201c Factory \u201d ) , a ORG unitary enterprise , and bailiff T. According to the Government , in DATE the ORG \u2019s director PERSON had paid MONEY ( RUB ) to a bailiff as a bribe . The actual bagman for the bribe cash had been bailiff T. In order to legalise \u201c the transaction \u201d , T. had asked his brother GPE to sign a fictitious legal assistance contract with the ORG .","On DATE ORG signed a legal assistance contract with the ORG in respect of legal advice on tax and other matters .","According to the Government , on an unspecified date the investigator questioned PERSON and T. Both of them admitted to having been involved in the bribery scheme .","On DATE ORG issued a search warrant authorising a search of the premises of the \u201c Biznes i NORP \u201d law firm . The entire reasoning read as follows :","\u201c On DATE a criminal case was opened into [ aggravated bribery ] against ORG bailiffs\u2019 service no . DATE . The investigation established that the ORG unitary enterprise ORG and the \u2018 Biznes i Pravo\u2019 law firm had entered into a fictitious contract in order to cover up the bribery . The investigator is seeking authorisation for a search of the LOC of the \u2018 PERSON i Pravo\u2019 law firm with a view to seizing documents that may be relevant to the case .","[ The court ] considers that the investigator \u2019s request is justified and must be granted because there are reasons to believe that documents of the \u2018 PERSON i Pravo\u2019 law firm may contain evidence relevant to the criminal case . \u201d","On DATE the investigator conducted a search of the applicants\u2019 premises . The applicants and CARDINAL attesting lay witnesses were present during the search .","According to the applicants , they voluntarily handed over the documents sought by the investigators ; nevertheless , all the offices , including those of the applicants who had no relationship with the ORG , were searched . The investigators took away all the desktop and laptop computers and copied the entire contents of their hard disks . The computers were returned DATE .","The applicants appealed against ORG decision of DATE . They submitted that the contract with ORG had been signed by ORG in his personal capacity as a lawyer rather than by the \u201c Biznes i NORP \u201d law firm and that there had been no grounds to search the entire premises of the law firm . Moreover , ORG had declared that contract to be fictitious even before a judgment had been handed down . The information held on their computers had been protected by the attorney - client privilege and the search and seizure had amounted to a gross violation of LAW .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal , finding that the search warrant had been lawful and justified . In ORG view , ORG had not found that the contract was fictitious but had merely mentioned that the opinion of the investigation was that it had been fictitious ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180658","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF NAGY v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings which lasted DATE and DATE ( DATE and DATE ) for CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161735","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KAREN POGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant , without permission , constructed a building consisting of a shop \/ storage and an unfinished construction and measuring in total CARDINAL sq . m. , on a QUANTITY . m. plot of land situated in a suburb of GPE . The applicant alleged that this land was not being used by anyone so he had cleaned it and constructed the building using his own means . It appears that the applicant used this property for the following DATE .","In DATE the applicant instituted special ( non - contentious ) proceedings in LOC of GPE seeking recognition of his ownership right in respect of that building by virtue of acquisitive prescription under LAW ( ORG ) , as well as his right of use in respect of the plot of land .","On DATE ORG decided to recognise the applicant \u2019s ownership right in respect of the building and to leave the plot of land under his use . ORG found that the building in question had no registered owners and the applicant had openly and in good faith had it in his possession and used it without interruption for DATE , which entitled him to become its owner under LAW .","No appeal was lodged within the prescribed CARDINAL-day time - limit , so this judgment became final .","On DATE a certificate was issued by the local branch of ORG on the basis of this judgment , confirming the applicant \u2019s ownership in respect of the building . The certificate further stated that , by virtue of LAW ( ORG ) , the applicant enjoyed a right of lease in respect of the plot of land for a period of DATE .","On DATE the applicant , pursuant to LAW , paid the cadastral value of the plot of land which amounted to ORG CARDINAL NORP drams ( ORG ) .","NORP On DATE the applicant \u2019s right of ownership was registered in respect of the plot of land and a relevant ownership certificate was issued .","The applicant regularly paid property tax on both the building and the plot of land in DATE .","On DATE \u0430 topographic examination of the land was carried out by a representative of \u201c ORG founded by , and acting on behalf of , ORG . The relevant diagram mentioned the applicant as the owner of the land in question .","On DATE , a third person addressed a letter to ORG , stating that she had bought a plot of land at an auction held on DATE . When she later applied to the local branch of ORG to have her ownership right registered , she was informed that the plot of land in question overlapped with the neighbouring plot of land . She requested that the auction be cancelled in its part concerning the overlapping part of the plot , the money paid for that part be returned and a new sale contract be concluded in respect of the remaining part of her plot .","The Government alleged that the neighbouring plot of land was the applicant \u2019s and that following this letter there was an exchange of correspondence between ORG and the local branch of ORG .","On DATE the local branch of ORG addressed a letter to ORG stating , in reply to an inquiry by the Mayor dated DATE , that the registration of the applicant \u2019s ownership and lease rights had been performed on DATE on the basis of the judgment of ORG of GPE of DATE . This letter was received by ORG on DATE and attached to it was a copy of the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged an appeal against the judgment of DATE seeking to quash it and to dismiss the applicant \u2019s acquisitive prescription claim , arguing that ORG had erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the substantive law . The land had belonged to the ORG and hence had not been ownerless at the material time , so ORG should not have applied the acquisitive prescription rules to the case . As a result , the judgment had damaged the ORG \u2019s pecuniary interests . The Deputy Prosecutor General further argued that ORG had been obliged to involve , as parties to the proceedings , the local branch of ORG , as well as ORG as the authority vested with management of land . By failing to do so , and adopting a judgment affecting their rights in their absence , ORG had also violated the procedural law . The Deputy Prosecutor General requested ORG to restore the expired time - limit for appeal , arguing that ORG had not been aware of the judgment of DATE and therefore had been deprived of the possibility of lodging an appeal , while ORG had been informed about that judgment by the Mayor \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the Yerevan ORG also lodged an appeal against the judgment of DATE , raising similar substantive and procedural arguments . As regards the procedural issues , it claimed that ORG had violated the relevant provisions by examining the case through special proceedings and not involving it as a party , despite the fact that ORG was the authority vested with management of public land in GPE and therefore the judgment affected its rights . ORG further claimed that it had become aware of the contested judgment by a letter from the local branch of ORG dated DATE , which had been received by ORG on DATE . It finally added that the letter of ORG of GPE of DATE had been accompanied by a copy of another judgment of ORG , dated DATE , which was unrelated to the present case .","On an unspecified date , the applicant lodged a reply to the appeals . He argued , inter alia , that on DATE he had paid the cadastral value of the plot of land and bought it through direct sale . Furthermore , the fact that ORG had been aware of his becoming the new owner of the plot of land was confirmed by the compulsory payments he had to make for that property . Thus , on the one hand , by virtue of LAW ORG , the GPE Mayor \u2019s office had alienated the plot of land to him , received a sum of money and since then had continued to levy property tax and , on the other hand , it now claimed to be unaware of that transaction . Moreover , ORG had been notified of his becoming the new owner of the plot of land by virtue of the PERSON on LAW in Respect of Property . Hence , ORG had been aware of the registration of his property rights on the basis of the court judgment of DATE and of the direct sale of the plot of land , and had not \u2013 as it claimed DATE become aware of that judgment from a letter of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG decided , with reference to LAW ORG ) , to admit the appeals , stating :","\u201c ORG and ORG have missed the timelimit for appeal prescribed by law and they submitted motions seeking to find this to be valid , arguing that ORG found out about the judgment [ of DATE ] from a copy of the judgment attached to the letter of ORG of GPE of DATE , while ORG from the letter of ORG of DATE .","...","The court finds that the motions of ORG and ORG are substantiated and must be granted . \u201d","On DATE ORG decided to grant the appeals , to quash the judgment of DATE and to dismiss the applicant \u2019s acquisitive prescription claim . ORG found , in particular , that ORG had applied Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , which were not applicable to the case , and failed to apply LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG , thereby reaching incorrect findings . The building in question was an unauthorised construction built on a plot of land belonging to the ORG . Hence , only the ORG could have acquired ownership rights in respect of that building .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG decided to return the appeal as inadmissible for lack of merit .","Following these decisions , the authorities instituted proceedings against the applicant seeking annulment of registration of his ownership rights in respect of the building and the plot of land , which was granted by the courts ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178179","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BAURAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant and GPE started a company which imported and sold various goods . D.A. , who was the stepson of the applicant \u2019s sister , sometimes worked as a security guard on the company \u2019s LOC and as the applicant \u2019s bodyguard .","NORP In DATE GPE and another individual , ORG , were found murdered in GPE \u2019s flat in GPE .","In DATE , while the applicant was in a car with ORG , the latter threatened him with a firearm . When the applicant tried to escape , D.A. hit him with the barrel of the gun , fired some shots into the ground , took the applicant \u2019s ORG watch and fired at several passers - by , injuring them .","On an unspecified date the authorities opened a pre - trial investigation into the murder of GPE and GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the incident between the applicant and D.A. in the car ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE the NORP authorities issued a search warrant in respect of D.A. It appears that he had left GPE and lived in several different countries . In DATE D.A. was apprehended in GPE and subsequently extradited to the NORP authorities .","NORP In DATE the applicant was officially notified that he was suspected of having organised the murder of GPE and GPE for personal gain while they were in a helpless state , as set out in LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was suspected that the applicant had acted together with D.A. Further details were subsequently added to that notice in DATE .","NORP In DATE D.A. was officially notified that he was suspected of having murdered GPE and GPE for personal gain while they were in a helpless state . D.A. was also notified that he was suspected of having attempted to murder the applicant and several other individuals , as set out in LAW , ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL) , ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the prosecutor decided to separate the pretrial investigation against the applicant and D.A. ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He noted that the investigation concerned CARDINAL criminal offences \u2013 the murder of GPE and GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the attempted murder of the applicant and other individuals ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The prosecutor observed that the applicant had been suspected of the former offence and that he had been granted victim status in respect of the latter offence , and the prosecutor considered that CARDINAL person could not have dual status in the same investigation . He also noted that the investigation in respect of D.A. was almost complete and the case would soon be ready for trial , whereas the investigation in respect of the applicant was still ongoing . For those reasons , the prosecutor concluded that it was necessary to separate the investigation against the applicant from that against D.A.","D.A. was charged with the murder of GPE and GPE for personal gain while they were in a helpless state ( hereinafter \u201c the first charge \u201d ) and with the attempted murder of the applicant and several other individuals ( hereinafter \u201c the second charge \u201d ) . The criminal case was transferred to ORG for examination on the merits . With regard to the first charge , the applicant had the status of witness , and with regard to the second charge , he had the status of victim .","ORG issued its judgment on DATE . It found D.A. guilty of the first charge as set out in Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court based its conclusion on multiple witness testimonies , the examination of various material objects , and conclusions delivered by forensic experts .","One of the documents examined by the court was a handwritten letter which ORG had addressed to the applicant at some point in DATE . The applicant had received that letter from ORG father and presented it to the police . A forensic examination revealed that the letter had indeed been written by D.A. In the letter , ORG stated that he had killed GPE on the applicant \u2019s orders so that the applicant would get all the profit from their business . D.A. also alleged that the applicant had bought him weapons to carry out unspecified criminal activities for the applicant \u2019s benefit , and had bribed judges and prosecutors in order to help D.A. avoid criminal responsibility for some unspecified offences . D.A. further alleged that the applicant had promised to pay him for the murder , but had still not done so , and that that had been the reason for their conflict in the car ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He threatened to forward the letter to various newspapers if the applicant failed to pay him .","When questioned by the court , ORG submitted that the contents of the letter were false . He claimed that the applicant had owed him some money for another debt , so he had made up the story in the letter in order to scare the applicant into paying him back . The applicant , who was questioned as a witness in respect of that charge , also denied all the allegations in the letter and stated that he had no connection to the murder .","However , the court held that the letter constituted ORG \u2019s confession to the murder . The court considered it unlikely that ORG , who at the time of writing the letter had already been suspected of the murder , would falsely incriminate himself in the letter to the applicant , especially as their relationship at that time had not been friendly . It then stated that several of the allegations in the letter had been proved \u2013 for example , the applicant had admitted to having bought weapons for ORG , and there had indeed been several sets of criminal proceedings against ORG which had eventually been discontinued . The court concluded :","\u201c As the facts laid out in the letter are consistent and objective , there are no grounds to doubt the truthfulness of the contents of the letter ; the statement in the letter that [ D.A. ] \u2013 upon the orders of the individual in respect of whom a separate pretrial investigation was opened DATE killed [ GPE ] so that all the profit would go to that individual alone , and that all the money which they had jointly owned would belong to the individual in respect of whom a separate pre - trial investigation was opened , must be considered true . \u201d","The descriptive part of the judgment also stated that ORG had killed GPE and ORG while acting with unidentified accomplices . However , the court did not take that into account as an aggravating circumstance .","As for the second charge against ORG , the court changed its legal classification . The court considered that it had not been proved that ORG had intended to kill the applicant or any of the passers - by ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , it found D.A. guilty of stealing the applicant \u2019s property of high value ( the ORG watch ) while threatening him with a firearm , and of negligently injuring several other individuals in his attempt to escape . D.A. was given a cumulative sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court also allowed the applicant \u2019s civil claim submitted in respect of the second charge in its entirety , and ordered ORG to pay him CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 approximately MONEY ( EUR ) ) in pecuniary damages for the stolen watch .","NORP The prosecutor , D.A. , the applicant and another victim submitted appeals against ORG judgment of DATE . In his appeal , the applicant argued that the court had de facto found him guilty of having instigated the murder of GPE and GPE , despite the fact that he had not been the accused in that case and had not been able to defend himself . The applicant asked ORG to remove from the descriptive part of the judgment all the passages which alleged his involvement in the murder , in particular those which discussed D.A. \u2019s letter ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG amended the first - instance judgment in part . It held that ORG had erred in changing the legal classification of the second charge , found D.A. guilty of the second charge as it had been originally presented ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and increased the sentence to DATE imprisonment . In addition , the court removed from the descriptive part of the judgment the phrase that D.A. had killed GPE and ORG while acting with unidentified accomplices ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) \u2013 it held that , without identifying such individuals , inter alia , it could not be determined whether there had been an intention for them to act together .","The court dismissed ORG \u2019s appeal contesting his guilt in respect of both charges . With regard to the first charge , ORG argued , inter alia , that his letter to the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) should not have been considered evidence of his guilt . In response to D.A. \u2019s arguments , the court stated :","\u201c D.A. \u2019s guilt in respect of the charge against him \u2013 the murder of GPE and GPE for personal gain while they were in a helpless state \u2013 has been proved by a series of pieces of indirect evidence collected in the case and adequately assessed in the [ firstinstance ] judgment , as well as one of the main pieces of direct evidence D.A. \u2019s letter to [ the applicant ] , allowing [ the court ] to make well - founded conclusions regarding the nature of the convicted individual \u2019s actions and the form of his guilt .","...","It is underlined that the principal statements of the letter , assessed together with the other evidence collected in the case , correspond to the events which took place at that time ... The chamber concludes that the facts indicated in ORG \u2019s letter are not made up , he refers to actual events which took place in his life , and there is no indication that he intended to threaten [ the applicant ] with that letter to make the latter pay him money . \u201d","As to the applicant \u2019s appeal , the court stated :","\u201c Contrary to what is alleged in [ the applicant \u2019s ] appeal , the first - instance court , while examining the evidence related to [ D.A. \u2019s ] guilt in respect of the murder of GPE and GPE , did not assess [ the applicant \u2019s ] actions relating to the organisation of the murder of those individuals . As can be seen from the case file , on DATE [ the applicant ] was notified that he was suspected of having organised the murder of GPE and GPE ... [ The applicant ] is entitled to exercise his defence rights and defend himself against the accusation in that criminal investigation . Only that investigation can determine [ the applicant \u2019s ] guilt in respect of the criminal offence of which he is suspected ... [ The applicant ] essentially contests his guilt in respect of the part of the judgment in which he does not have the status of either convicted individual or victim ... and his request goes beyond his procedural rights as a witness ... [ The applicant \u2019s appeal ] is thereby dismissed . \u201d","D.A. and the applicant submitted appeals on points of law against ORG judgment of DATE . The applicant raised essentially the same arguments as in his previous appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals . In response to the applicant \u2019s submissions , ORG stated that the criminal proceedings in question concerned D.A. \u2019s and not the applicant \u2019s guilt in respect of the murder of GPE and GPE , and the applicant had not had victim status with regard to that charge , so he was not legally entitled to submit an appeal on points of law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant was served with an indictment and charged with having incited D.A. and another unidentified individual to murder GPE and GPE for personal gain while they were in a helpless state , as set out in LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The case was transferred to ORG for examination on the merits .","When questioned by the court , the applicant denied his guilt in respect of the murder . He submitted that all the allegations against him in ORG \u2019s letter had been false , and that ORG had written the letter with the purpose of blackmailing the applicant , which was why the applicant had decided to give it to the police . D.A. was questioned as a witness and gave essentially the same statements as in the previous criminal proceedings , including those relating to his letter ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant . It considered that neither direct nor indirect evidence adequately proved that he was guilty of having instigated the murder of GPE and GPE The court underlined that it had not been proved that the death of GPE , who had been the applicant \u2019s business partner , had been beneficial to the applicant ; on the contrary , after his death , their company had suffered great losses and had eventually ceased operating . In addition , the court considered that the prosecution had not established any motive for the applicant to kill ORG","With regard to ORG \u2019s letter , the court stated that , although the letter included facts which were true , some of its other contents appeared to be \u201c characteristic of blackmail \u201d , in particular those which alleged that the applicant had bought D.A. weapons specifically to commit criminal offences , or that he had bribed some officials to help D.A. avoid criminal responsibility ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court also considered that D.A. \u2019s threat to forward the letter to the media further indicated that it had been written with the purpose of blackmailing the applicant . Lastly , the court underlined that the applicant had not paid D.A. the money which he had demanded , nor had he destroyed the letter , but had submitted it to the police , which confirmed that the applicant had not been connected to the murder of GPE and GPE","The prosecutor appealed against that judgment . He submitted , inter alia , that the contents of ORG \u2019s letter had been examined in the previous criminal proceedings which had been concluded by a final court judgment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) , and the courts in the proceedings against the applicant should have followed that assessment .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s acquittal . In response to the prosecutor \u2019s arguments concerning ORG \u2019s letter , it stated that the courts in the criminal proceedings against ORG had not examined the applicant \u2019s actions in relation to the murder of GPE and GPE , so the prosecutor \u2019s arguments had to be dismissed .","From the information which the parties submitted to the ORG , it appears that no appeal against that judgment was lodged before ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170524","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"S.N. AND T.D. v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants , Mr ORG ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) and Mr PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) , are CARDINAL NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The President of the Section decided that their names should not be disclosed ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Rules of the Court ) . The ORG also decided not to notify the Government of GPE of the present application on the grounds that Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Convention did not apply in the circumstances of the present case ( see I v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","The applicants were represented before the ORG by Ms C. PERSON and Mr O. Rode , lawyers practising in GPE and GPE respectively . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The applicants complained , in particular , that their expulsion to GPE had put them at risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman treatment contrary to LAW , and that they did not have effective remedies in that regard . They also complained under LAW about interference with their family life and absence of procedural safeguards in that regard .","On DATE the above - mentioned complaints were communicated to the Government .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants were born in what is now GPE in GPE . The first applicant moved to GPE in DATE and has lived there ever since , on the basis of regularly renewed residence permits . In DATE he was granted a permanent residence permit , which was renewed in DATE and DATE . The second applicant moved to GPE in DATE and has lived there subsequently , on the basis of regularly renewed residence permits .","On DATE the NORP Minister of Interior adopted decisions to include the applicants in the list of aliens prohibited from entering and remaining in GPE and GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the blacklist \u201d ) for an indeterminate period of time . These decisions were taken on the basis of a report by LAW , CARDINAL of the NORP intelligence services ( ORG aizsardz\u012bbas birojs \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , submitted on DATE and amended on DATE . The ORG had informed the Minister of ORG that both applicants had been engaging in criminal activity and planning to commit a serious crime , and hence posed a threat to national security and public order and safety . The part relating to national security grounds was identical in both decisions and stated :","\u201c The ORG indicated that the information obtained attests to [ the applicant \u2019s ] criminal activity in a leading role within an organised criminal group . Similarly , it is apparent from the information provided by the ORG that [ the applicant ] is planning to commit a serious or especially serious crime which may have irreversible consequences on national security . As a consequence [ the applicant ] in his activity [ is ] a threat to public order and national security . \u201d","The applicants were not made aware of the ORG \u2019s report .","The decision concerning the first applicant pointed to the fact that he was married to a NORP national . It was therefore concluded that he would not encounter any obstacles in meeting his spouse outside GPE .","In the decision concerning the second applicant it was noted that he was married to a NORP national . His former wife ( a NORP national ) and their minor child were also residing in GPE . The decision went on to state that an interference with the second applicant \u2019s right to respect for his private and family life was justified , taking into account , among other things , that during DATE he had resided in GPE \u201c he had not learned the [ State language ] , which [ had ] clearly obstructed his integration into society \u201d . It was also pointed out that he had moved to GPE when he was over DATE , which meant that his ties to his native country had not disappeared . With regard to him having an opportunity to meet his young son , the decision stated that he had already agreed in DATE , while still residing in GPE , that the child would reside with his mother in GPE . It was therefore concluded that he \u201c would not be entirely deprived of opportunities to meet [ his ] son \u201d in GPE . The interference with his family life with his spouse , a NORP national , was held to be \u201c commensurate with the interests of the society \u201d .","Both decisions mentioned that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , an appeal could be lodged with ORG . The decisions became effective on DATE they were signed , CARDINAL DATE , and were sent to the ORG declared addresses in GPE . On DATE they were expelled from GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicants , through their legal representative , applied to ORG of the ORG of ORG to challenge the Minister of ORG \u2019s decision to put their names on the blacklist . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the ORG refused to accept the applicants\u2019 complaints for lack of jurisdiction , indicating that such reviews fell within the competence of the Prosecutor General if the decision had been adopted \u201c on the basis of information obtained as a result of intelligence or counterintelligence \u201d . The decisions also referred to ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) which said that the prosecutor \u2019s review as such did not infringe the right of access to court . The ORG \u2019s decision was final .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 legal representative appealed to ORG asking , inter alia , that the decision to put them on the blacklist be revoked and that he be given access to the ORG \u2019s report of CARDINAL and DATE , which had formed the basis of the Minister of ORG \u2019s decision . On CARDINAL occasions the appeals were amended to include , inter alia , the allegations that in DATE the applicants had collaborated with the NORP State security services in a hostage liberation operation in GPE . Later the appeal was amended to include the second applicant \u2019s allegation that subsequently he had refused to cooperate with a ORG officer in relation to certain activities of the leaders of the NORP community in GPE , and therefore the expulsion had been instigated in revenge for that .","In a reply of DATE ORG dismissed the request for access to the requested documents . He noted that the possibility to familiarise oneself with information containing ORG secrets , if necessary with the assistance of specially authorised representatives , as provided in CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , applied only to administrative court proceedings . ORG in his reply also stated :","\u201c ... By envisaging in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW that an appeal against a decision the Minister of Interior adopted on the basis of information obtained in the course of intelligence or counterintelligence activities carried out by a ORG security institution could be lodged with the Prosecutor General [ but ] not a court , the legislator wished especially to protect information obtained in the course of intelligence or counterintelligence activities ; [ granting ] access to such information to persons not possessing special permission ... could seriously infringe the work of the ORG security institutions ... thus seriously impairing national security . \u201d","In a final decision of DATE the Prosecutor General reformulated the Minister of ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The part relating to national security grounds was identical in his decisions relating to both applicants and stated :","\u201c Having familiarised myself with the results of the review carried out by the Prosecutor [ ORG ] and the information provided in the conclusions and supporting documents , [ I ] find that the ORG , as a competent ORG institution , had grounds to consider that [ the applicant ] had a role in an organised criminal group and [ was ] CARDINAL of its leaders , [ had ] committed or [ was ] planning to commit a serious or especially serious crime , and [ that his ] presence in GPE was a threat to public order and national security as confirmed by the information [ obtained by the ORG in the course of counterintelligence activities ] , which I have verified and examined .","Nevertheless , when adopting a decision to include [ someone ] in the list of aliens prohibited from entering GPE , the Minister must assess whether the behaviour of the foreigner and the nature and scope of information held by the competent institution is sufficient to establish any of the ... conditions set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Immigration law .","Having examined the information held by the ORG , [ I ] consider that [ the information ] is not sufficient to establish the conditions set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , [ namely ] that [ the applicant is ] acting in an anti - governmental or criminal organisation or [ has ] a role in such an organisation , and has carried out or is planning to commit a serious or particularly serious crime .","At the same time , the nature and scope of the ORG information obtained in the course of counterintelligence activities clearly attest to [ the fact ] that [ the applicant \u2019s ] activity is a threat to NORP national security and public order and safety , as well as a threat to the national security of the States in the GPE [ Area ] . The condition set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) has therefore been established , which serves as a basis for the adopted decision to include [ the applicant ] in the list of aliens prohibited from entering GPE . \u201d","The Prosecutor General also dismissed the applicants\u2019 fear that they could be exposed to ill - treatment in GPE due to their alleged involvement in the hostage liberation in DATE , as that involvement remained unconfirmed . In particular , the witnesses questioned had provided controversial submissions , which did not correspond to the testimony of other witnesses , including the statements obtained from the hostages liberated during the operation . In examining the allegations about the risk of ill - treatment after expulsion , the information ORG had obtained from ORG and the applicants\u2019 relatives confirmed that on numerous occasions DATE the applicants had entered GPE , including GPE .","In relation to the complaint of unlawful activity by a ORG officer , ORG noted that the meeting between the ORG officer and the second applicant had been recorded in accordance with the law , and that the second applicant \u2019s allegations were ill - founded .","Subsequently , in the light of the Prosecutor General \u2019s decision to reformulate the basis on which the ORG names had been put on the blacklist , on DATE their legal representative wrote to the Minister of ORG and director of the ORG asking for a review of the decisions to include them in the list .","On DATE the ORG representative received a response from the director of the ORG , stating that his request of CARDINAL DATE did not refer to any new circumstances which could serve as a basis for amending or revoking their report to the Minister of Interior in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the Minister of ORG gave a similar reply to the ORG representative .","In a letter sent to ORG DATE the ORG representative brought to the ORG \u2019s attention the following :","\u201c ... [ I]n DATE the applicants were informed that in an unofficial conversation with a certain high - ranking police officer , [ a staff member of the ORG ] had stipulated that he would \u201c take care \u201d of any potential complaints the applicants might submit to the ORG , and certain politicians would make sure the complaints were not successful . ... The applicants considered this information irrelevant before the above mentioned official information [ the ORG \u2019s letter ] was received . \u201d","They further drew the ORG \u2019s attention to CARDINAL questions , the first being how the ORG became aware of their application to the ORG , and the second how the application influenced the decisions of the ORG and Minister of Interior .","The authorities apprehended the first and second applicants on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . They were both placed in a ORG temporary detention facility . The first applicant met CARDINAL of his lawyers on DATE of his detention , and the other one the following day . The second applicant met his lawyer on DATE of his detention .","On DATE the acting chief of the GPE branch of ORG adopted decisions to expel the applicants from GPE and to deport them to GPE . The reason was that the applicants constituted a threat to national security , public order or safety under section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL part CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The decisions indicated that it was possible to lodge an appeal without suspensive effect to the chief of ORG . On DATE both applicants were made aware of the respective decisions . They both appealed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On TIME the applicants were taken to the NORP border and expelled from GPE .","That afternoon one of the legal representatives sent a fax to , inter alia , ORG , asking the applicants not to be expelled to GPE \u201c because they are possibly agents of ORG and their expulsion to the receiving ORG puts them under threat and they could be subjected to torture \u201d .","According to the ORG initial submissions to the ORG , \u201c DATE after their expulsion to the GPE \u201d they were summoned by NORP police and were questioned about their role in the hostage liberation operation in DATE before being beaten up . The case file contains an identical certificate for each applicant issued by a NORP hospital , confirming that on DATE both applicants had been found to have concussion , a brain injury and multiple bruises and scratches . The applicants alleged that as a result of what had happened they had had to flee GPE and were now hiding in GPE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 representative submitted appeals against the expulsion orders of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , complaining , inter alia , of the authorities\u2019 failure to strike a fair balance between the right to respect for their family life and the alleged threat to national security , as required under LAW . The chief of ORG dismissed the first and second applicant \u2019s complaints on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","In their appeal to ORG of DATE the applicants also said that before adopting the impugned decision ORG had not heard them , meaning they had not been able to provide information on the possible threat they would face at the hands of the security services after their expulsion to GPE .","On DATE ORG , in CARDINAL judgments , upheld the impugned decisions in relation to both applicants . ORG established that prior to expulsion the applicants had not approached the NORP authorities with allegations concerning the risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW if expelled to GPE . It also noted that on DATE both applicants were informed that the expulsion would be carried out the following day , on DATE . On DATE of the applicants submitted a request to the chief of ORG asking to be given several impounded goods in custody , but no other requests were made . Both applicants met their lawyers after being detained .","The court referred to its well - established case - law and noted that the decisions to put the applicants\u2019 names on the blacklist on national security grounds had been reviewed and upheld by ORG , so neither ORG nor the administrative court were competent to review the Minister of ORG \u2019s decision .","By addressing the complaint that in adopting the impugned expulsion decision of CARDINAL DATE the applicants were not heard , the court noted that even if it constituted a minor procedural shortcoming , the lack of hearing of the applicants and witnesses could not have an effect on the outcome of the case . In particular , the court noted that the review of the Minister of ORG \u2019s decision fell outside the scope of the present administrative proceedings . Any information the applicants might have submitted in relation to the adoption of the above decision could not have any effect on the content of the contested decision of CARDINAL DATE to expel the applicants . Moreover , the applicants were not prevented , with the assistance of their legal representatives , from communicating to ORG any information regarding the alleged interference the impugned decision would have on their family life .","The judgments also stated that there were no obstacles for the applicants to enjoy their family life in GPE . Nor were there any special circumstances to the effect that the family members could not join them outside GPE . The wife of the first applicant was a NORP national and she would not have any restrictions to travel to GPE , whereas the second applicant would not encounter any obstacles in meeting outside GPE his child whose mother was a NORP national .","On DATE ( in relation to the first applicant ) and on DATE ( in relation to the second applicant ) ORG of the ORG of ORG refused to initiate cassation proceedings . The ORG stated , in particular , that the contested expulsion orders were a final stage in the proceedings initiated by the decisions of the Minister of ORG . The ORG further noted that it had been made aware of the decisions of the Minister of ORG and the letters of ORG on which the decision was based , and of the decisions of ORG Review of the above decisions fell outside the scope of the present proceedings , but these decisions attested to the lawful basis and legitimate aim of the applicants\u2019 expulsion .","On the question of the proportionality of the interference with the applicants\u2019 family lives , the ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s findings and noted that the applicants had not advanced any arguments indicating any restrictions to enjoy their family life outside GPE . In relation to the second applicant , the ORG noted that in DATE , while still residing in GPE , he had agreed that the child would reside with the applicant \u2019s former wife , a NORP national , in GPE . The ORG also stated that both applicants had entered GPE as adults and throughout their stay in GPE they had not learned NORP , which showed that their ties with the expelling ORG were not strong .","On DATE the acting director of ORG decided to withdraw the first applicant \u2019s residence permit and refused to grant the second applicant a temporary residence permit because of their inclusion in the blacklist .","NORP The applicants\u2019 legal representative lodged appeals against the above - mentioned decisions on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE respectively . CARDINAL levels of administrative courts dismissed the complaints .","On DATE , ORG of the ORG of ORG refused to initiate cassation proceedings in relation to the second applicant . The ORG noted , in particular , that the authorities had concluded that the applicant posed a threat to national security , and that depriving him of residence permit served a legitimate aim . The ORG also did not see any reasons why the applicant could not meet his minor child outside the territory of GPE , especially in the circumstances where already in DATE , while still residing in GPE , the applicant had agreed that the child would reside with his mother in GPE .","The cassation complaint submitted by the first applicant is pending examination before the ORG .","On DATE the Ombudsman of GPE issued an opinion following the ORG complaint concerning their expulsion proceedings . The ORG did not find any violation of ORG CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the Convention . In relation to the review procedure , the opinion stated :","\u201c A decision to include someone in the list of foreigners prohibited from entering GPE is adopted by the ORG of ORG in the form of oral proceedings by a special panel of judges to whom special access to [ State ] secrets is granted , as well as interpreters , recordkeepers and other court officials to whom such access is also granted . No prima facie legitimate purpose can currently be established for dividing the appellate procedure into the competence of CARDINAL other institutions , ORG ; no further analysis shall follow , however , as the assessment of this issue is not the subject of this case . \u201d","The final conclusions , as far as relevant , stated :","\u201c Firstly , a breach of LAW of the [ Convention ] and [ LAW ( a ) ] of LAW No . CARDINAL to LAW ] has been committed in respect of the expelled ORG and ORG Once a ORG holds that not only ORG but also ORG has the right to review a decision to include someone in the list of foreigners prohibited from entering the ORG , observation of the adversarial principle has to be ensured in the latter process , similar to the process guaranteed in ORG [ review cases ] . If an alien seeks to contest the decision , defence counsel must be provided who has access to classified information , [ State ] secrets , and the right to familiarise [ himself ] with the evidence on which the expulsion of foreigners is based , so that a complaint may be filed for the protection of the interests of the expelled foreigner . \u201d","NORP The relevant Articles of LAW ( PERSON ) provide :","\u201c Everyone has the right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court . Everyone shall be presumed innocent until his or her guilt has been established in accordance with the law . Everyone whose rights are violated without justification has the right to commensurate compensation . Everyone has the right to the assistance of counsel . \u201d","\u201c Everyone has the right to inviolability of his or her private life , home and correspondence . \u201d","\u201c The rights of persons set out [ in LAW ] ... of the LAW may be subject to restrictions in the circumstances provided for by law in order to protect the rights of other people , the democratic structure of the ORG and public safety , welfare and morals . On the basis of the conditions set forth in this LAW , restrictions may also be imposed on the expression of religious beliefs . \u201d","Section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL part CARDINAL of the Constitutional Court PERSON provides that an application to ORG regarding the initiation of constitutional proceedings must , among other criteria , contain legal reasoning ( juridiskais pamatojums ) . Pursuant to section CARDINAL\u00b2 , in addition to the above - mentioned requirements , an individual constitutional complaint must include justification as to how the applicant \u2019s fundamental rights as defined in the LAW have been infringed upon , and show that all available remedies have been used .","Section CARDINAL sets out the grounds on which the panel examining the constitutional complaint may refuse to initiate a case . When examining a constitutional complaint ( application ) the panel may also refuse to initiate a case where the legal reasoning included in the complaint is evidently insufficient to satisfy the claim ( section CARDINAL ) ) .","In a decision of DATE ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) on the question of institution of constitutional proceedings , the panel of ORG stated that the legal reasoning of a complaint is an analysis of the content of a legal provision , an explanation as to how the impugned provision interferes with the applicant \u2019s fundamental rights , an assessment of the lawfulness of the procedure according to which the impugned provision has been adopted , and an assessment of the legal aim and proportionality of the interference .","On DATE ( application no . CARDINAL ) on the question of institution of constitutional proceedings , the panel of ORG stated that in support of an allegation that the impugned provision does not comply with the provisions of the LAW , the applicant must indicate in the legal reasoning ( CARDINAL ) whether the contested provision contains any restriction of rights , ( CARDINAL ) whether this restriction is prescribed by law and has a legitimate aim and ( CARDINAL ) whether the restriction is proportionate to the aim pursued .","Under section CARDINAL ) of LAW , once a decision to include an alien in a blacklist has been adopted by the Minister of Interior and if the person is on NORP territory , the chief of ORG or someone authorised by him must adopt a decision to expel ( l\u0113mums par piespiedu izraid\u012b\u0161anu ) the person concerned within DATE , to be counted from the date it was established that he or she was on NORP territory .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that an alien has the right to appeal against an expulsion decision within DATE . Under section ORG ) , an appeal against a decision taken pursuant to section DATE does not have suspensive effect .","Section CARDINAL of the Immigration PERSON lists the circumstances in which ORG may detain an alien . Paragraph CARDINAL part CARDINAL at the material time , provided that an alien could be detained on grounds of information that a person poses threats to national security , public order or safety .","Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) the Minister of ORG may decide to include someone who is not a NORP citizen or a \u201c non - citizen \u201d in a blacklist if , among other things , \u201c competent ORG institutions have reason to believe \u201d ( \u201c kompetent\u0101m valsts iest\u0101d\u0113m ir pamats uzskat\u012bt \u201d ) that he or she ( i ) is a member of an anti - governmental or criminal organisation or has a role in such an organisation , ( ii ) is a threat to national security or public order and safety , or ( iii ) may hinder the pre - trial investigation or work of the law enforcement authorities in investigating the crimes upon arriving in GPE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) , or ( iv ) has carried out or is planning to carry out a serious or particularly serious crime ( section MONEY ) ) .","In relation to the review , section CARDINAL at the material time provided as follows :","( CARDINAL ) A alien in respect of whom a decision has been taken in accordance with [ CARDINAL ) ] has the right , within DATE of becoming acquainted with the decision , to appeal to ORG of the ORG of ORG . Submission of an application to the court may not suspend implementation of the decision referred to [ in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ] . The applicant does not have the right to request the court to suspend the operation of such a decision .","...","( CARDINAL) If the decision referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) has been taken on the basis of information acquired by ORG security institutions as a result of intelligence or counterintelligence operations , it may be appealed to ORG , whose decision shall be final . \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) came into effect on DATE and it was introduced after ORG had declared unconstitutional a provision providing that decisions adopted by the Minister of Interior were not amenable to review ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) about ORG Office review came into effect on DATE .","In DATE section DATE ) came into force , which provides that if the applicant \u2019s representative does not have a special permit for access to ORG secrets , the court must appoint as the applicant \u2019s representative for that part of the proceedings an advocate practising in GPE who has been issued such a permit . If the applicant does not consent to such representation , the court must examine the information associated with official secrets without involving the applicant or his or her representative .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that in cases where the period of an entry ban exceeds DATE , the institution which has adopted the decision to include an alien in the blacklist shall review it DATE from the date it was taken .","The relevant parts of ORG judgment of DATE ( case no . DATE - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) on the compliance of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW read :","\u201c CARDINAL . In conformity with section CARDINAL of LAW , the opinion of the competent ORG authorities ( in this particular case , the opinion of the ORG security institution ) lies at the basis of the Minister \u2019s [ of the ORG ] decision . Someone who challenges his or her inclusion in the [ blacklist ] does not agree , as a matter of course , with the facts expressed in the decision , which are often connected with issues of ORG security . When reviewing such claims , the use of confidential material may be unavoidable . Even though in cases connected with national security the possibility of legal examination is limited , this does not mean that the national authorities can be free from effective judicial control in all cases , whenever they choose to assert that national security and terrorism are involved ( see ECHR Judgment in case \u201c PERSON v. the GPE \u201d \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","...","If the violation of a person \u2019s rights is the result of the decision of a competent institution ( State security institution ) , on the basis of which the Minister of ORG has adopted the decision , one can agree with the opinion voiced in the letter by ORG that the person has the possibility of protecting his rights by lodging a complaint to the prosecutor under the procedure set out in LAW . As regards an assessment of the activity of the ORG security institution in this case , the ORG has secured a protection remedy for the individual , which is as effective as possible in circumstances where the issue is connected with ORG security and , possibly , the use of confidential information . ORG in its judgments has already pointed out that \u201c in GPE the Prosecutor [ ORG ] may be regarded as an effective and available means of protection , because the status and role of the prosecutor in supervising the law secures an independent and impartial review of cases in compliance with LAW ( see the LAW DATE Judgment in case no . DATE ; DATE Judgment in case DATE )","Thus , as regards the assessment of the competent ( State security ) institution , the ORG has secured effective protection under LAW .","...","... The fact that the Minister of ORG \u2019s decision might be connected with interests of ORG security does not prevent the ORG from establishing a procedure under which the judicial institutions in certain cases , and under a definite procedure , may acquaint themselves with the material connected with ORG security . The institution concerned may even decide to present the required amount of documents separately if [ they ] do not include ORG secrets . LAW , if read together with LAW , also provides such a solution by , among other things , a special positive duty upon GPE , in accordance with which they have to create institutional infrastructures necessary for the implementation of a fair court , and enact legal norms which guarantee that the procedure is fair and impartial .","...","The impugned provision thus does not ensure realisation of a person \u2019s right to a fair court as guaranteed by LAW .","On DATE ORG ( case no . DATE ) noted that international human rights norms and the practice of their application serve as a means of interpretation at constitutional law level to determine the contents and scope of fundamental rights and the principle of the law - governed ORG , as far as it does not lead to a decrease or limitation of the fundamental rights included in the LAW .","On DATE ORG ( case no . DATE ) held that the contested provision of the domestic law did not comply with the LAW and was repealed with effect from CARDINAL DATE . As regards the individual applicant , in order for him to have the possibility to require repeated assessment of the proportionality of the measure adopted against him , the contested legal provision was repealed with effect as of the date of its adoption ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168056","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KHAMZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . In applications nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159806","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF S.S. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Afghanistan)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant is of NORP origin , was born in DATE and has been in the GPE since DATE .","The applicant entered the GPE on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE applied for asylum , submitting the following account in his interviews with immigration officials held on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","After completing his elementary education in DATE , the applicant had attended the military academy in GPE . He had graduated in DATE and had started working in DATE with the rank of second lieutenant at an administrative department of CARDINAL of the directorates of the NORP security service ORG ( \u201c ORG - e Dowlati \/ PERSON GPE ) during the former communist regime in GPE . He had become head of this department DATE which was responsible for handling confidential documents DATE , which function he had continued to hold until the fall of the ruling communist ORG of GPE ( \u201c PDPA \u201d ) in DATE . In DATE he had been promoted to the rank of lieutenant - colonel .","The applicant \u2019s directorate had been assigned the task of negotiating and concluding agreements with groups that opposed and fought ORG , namely the mujahideen . These agreements entailed remunerated cooperation with the ruling ORG . The applicant had attended meetings between thus \u201c employed \u201d mujahideen commanders and executives of the directorate . During these meetings the performance of such commanders was assessed and decisions were taken on whether or not they should continue to be paid . The applicant had taken TIME at those meetings . He believed that the mujahideen were holding him personally responsible for the discontinuation of their pay where decisions to that effect had been taken . In addition , these mujahideen commanders had never admitted to cooperating with the ORG and were very keen on keeping this a secret , for which reason they were interested in eliminating the applicant .","In DATE , after the fall of GPE , these mujahideen commanders had come looking for the applicant . They were said to have come to his office and asked for him . The applicant had been informed of this by the president of the directorate he had worked for , who had maintained good relations with the mujahideen and hence had remained in post there .","The applicant and his family had fled to GPE , where they had led a quiet life until DATE , when various mujahideen groups had come to the city , including those mujahideen feared by the applicant . He had gone into hiding , during which period his house had been searched by the mujahideen . The applicant and his family had then fled to GPE .","On DATE , a person - specific official report ( individueel ambtsbericht ) not concerning the applicant was drawn up by ORG ( Ministerie PERSON ) . According to this report , torture was systemic in PERSON interrogation centres and within the ORG the loyalty of its staff was carefully controlled . It was considered impossible that persons belonging to the higher management of the ORG had not been involved in the implementation of the above methods . This report was taken into account in the applicant \u2019s asylum procedure .","The applicant \u2019s asylum claim was also examined in the light of an official report , drawn up on DATE by ORG , on \u201c ORG in NORP GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ( \u201c PERSON in communistisch GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG en WAD \u201d ) and concerning in particular the question whether and , if so , which former employees of those services should be regarded as implicated in human rights violations ( see ORG v. the GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","By a decision of DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG ( ORG ) rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum claim . The Deputy Minister held , inter alia , that serious reasons had been found for believing that the applicant had committed acts referred to in LAW DATE LAW ( \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) .","Referring to the official report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Deputy Minister emphasised the widely known cruel character of the LAW , its lawless methods , the grave crimes it had committed such as torture and other human rights violations and the \u201c climate of terror \u201d which it had spread throughout the whole of NORP society , including the army . The Deputy Minister underlined the vague definition of \u201c enemy of the communist regime \u201d used by the ORG , how it found those enemies through an extensive network of spies , and how all of this led to widespread and often random arrests of suspects . It was also noted that the ORG was considered to be an elite unit of the communist regime , and that only those whose loyalty was beyond doubt were eligible for recruitment to the service . Furthermore , new recruits were initially assigned to ORG sections actively engaged in tracking down \u201c elements that posed a threat to the ORG \u201d , where DATE in order to prove their loyalty unequivocally DATE they were directly involved in the human rights violations the ORG was associated with . In this regard the Deputy Minister emphasised that every promoted officer had been involved in arrests , interrogations , torture and even executions .","Having established , on the basis of elaborate argumentation based on various international documents , that those involved in the ORG were likely to fall within the scope of LAW , the Deputy Minister proceeded to an analysis of the applicant \u2019s individual responsibility under LAW . In the light of the above , the applicant \u2019s plea that he had never been involved in any human rights violations and had worked his whole career for CARDINAL department only was dismissed . In view of the applicant \u2019s career and several promotions , the Deputy Minister excluded the possibility of the applicant not having been involved in human rights violations committed by the ORG .","The Deputy Minister underlined that the application of LAW did not require proof that the applicant had personally committed the alleged crimes ; it sufficed that serious reasons existed to consider that the applicant had , or should have had , knowledge of those crimes and that he bore responsibility for them , which responsibility he had voluntarily assumed . In this context the Deputy Minister referred , inter alia , to CARDINAL and CARDINAL of \u201c The Exclusion Clauses : Guidelines on their LAW ( ORG , DATE ) , stating :","\u201c persons who are found to have performed , engaged in , participated in orchestrating , planning and\/or implementing , or condoned or acquiesced in the carrying out of any specified criminal acts by subordinates , should rightly be excluded . ... voluntary continued membership of a part of a government engaged in criminal activities may constitute grounds for exclusion where the member can not rebut the presumptions of knowledge and personal implication . \u201d","The Deputy Minister further referred to a letter of CARDINAL DATE sent by the Deputy Minister of ORG to the President of ORG of ORG ( ORG ) stating that LAW was also applicable when the person concerned had not himself committed any acts referred to in this provision but had been an active and conscious member of an organisation known for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity . As the applicant had not in any way distanced himself from or resisted the crimes committed by the ORG , the Deputy Minister concluded that LAW was applicable to the applicant \u2019s case . Consequently , the applicant \u2019s asylum request was rejected and LAW held against him .","The Deputy Minister further found no grounds on the basis of which the applicant would be eligible for a residence permit on compelling humanitarian grounds ( klemmende redenen van humanitaire aard ) . As regards the applicant \u2019s plea under LAW the Deputy Minister held that , even assuming that a real risk existed of the applicant being subjected to treatment contrary to that provision in GPE , Article CARDINAL did not guarantee a right to residence . The Deputy Minister considered in this context that granting residence to the applicant would conflict with the ORG \u2019s interest in terms of its credibility on the international stage , particularly regarding its responsibility towards other GPE . In the Deputy Minister \u2019s view , a situation in which the GPE was forced to become a host ORG for individuals who had elsewhere shocked public and international legal order with acts considered to constitute grave crimes under both NORP and international law was to be avoided .","The applicant \u2019s objection ( bezwaar ) to this decision was rejected , after he had been heard on it on DATE before an official board of enquiry ( ambtelijke commissie ) , on DATE by the Minister of ORG ( Minister PERSON Integratie ) , the successor to the Deputy Minister of ORG . The Minister endorsed the Deputy Minister \u2019s impugned decision and proceeded , in addition thereto , to an analysis of the applicant \u2019s individual responsibility under LAW on the basis of the prescribed and so - called \u201c personal and knowing participation test \u201d and held LAW against him .","As regards the \u201c knowing \u201d element , the Minister \u2013 having regard to the official report of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) DATE found that the applicant had known or should have known about the criminal character of the ORG . The Minister did not attach any credence to the applicant \u2019s submissions that he had not known about the human rights violations committed by the ORG . Basing herself on ORG official report of CARDINAL DATE , the Minister held that the commission of human rights violations by the ORG under the ORG rule was a fact of common knowledge and that , therefore , it was unthinkable that the applicant would have been ignorant of those acts . The Minister emphasised in this regard the high rank the applicant had held , the long period he had worked for the ORG and the fact that he had attended meetings with the executives of the ORG in which he had been employed . The Minister concluded that the applicant had knowingly participated in torture and executions .","As regards the applicant \u2019s personal participation in human rights violations attributed to the ORG , the Minister found , basing herself to a large extent on the same factual information as the Deputy Minister had done in his previous decision , that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had not committed such violations himself or that his conduct , or lack thereof , had prevented these violations from being committed . The Minister held , therefore , that the applicant had personally participated in the commission of acts referred to LAW .","The Minister did not attach credence to the applicant \u2019s rebuttal , which amounted to his case having to be distinguished from the general situation with regard to the ORG and its officers as described in the official report of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant had claimed that he had obtained a desk job not by proving his loyalty to the ORG in sinister ways \u2013 as the official report stated \u2013 but rather through bribes . The Minister held that , based on the applicant \u2019s position and description of his tasks ( including the processing of high - level classified information ) , he had attempted to trivialise his activities and had greatly impaired his credibility in consequence . On this point , the Minister relied , inter alia , on ORG \u201c Reports of torture and long - term detention without trial \u201d of DATE , according to which the ORG in which the applicant had been employed was engaged in systematic torture .","NORP The Minister further identified several inconsistencies in the applicant \u2019s declarations and rebuttals , from which it was concluded that his declarations concerning certain of the tasks he stated he had performed were highly implausible . As regards the applicant \u2019s various rebuttals , it was found , in the relevant part , that the burden of proof in terms of LAW was less stringent than in a criminal prosecution ( \u201c serious reasons for considering \u201d that the applicant might have been guilty of human rights violations sufficed to render this provision applicable ) . Taking into account that the applicant had never sought to leave the ORG or the ORG , for which he had worked for DATE , in which his last held rank was that of lieutenant - colonel , and in which he had been promoted to head of his department , the Minister concluded that there were no indications that the applicant had been forced or had involuntarily worked for the ORG .","As regards the applicant \u2019s claim that the official report of CARDINAL DATE of ORG was not accurate and was based on unreliable sources and that , therefore , it was too general in scope and could not be applied to his case , the Minister held that this report was founded on several acclaimed sources , such as the United Nations Special Rapporteur , ORG , numerous ORG reports , and a variety of ORG publications .","NORP The Minister went on to analyse , of her own motion , the applicant \u2019s eligibility for a residence permit for reasons not related to asylum . It was held that no such permit could be issued , since the application of LAW gave rise to \u201c contraindications \u201d against the applicant in terms of his eligibility for other types of residence permit . However , while reiterating that LAW did not guarantee a right to residence , the Minister considered that it could not be ruled out that the applicant , in the present circumstances , would run a real risk of treatment contrary to that provision if expelled to GPE , for which reason the applicant was not to be expelled .","The applicant lodged an objection against the refusal by the Minister to grant him a residence permit for reasons not related to asylum . This objection was rejected by the Minister on DATE , confirming her impugned refusal .","The applicant appealed against the Minister \u2019s decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE before ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE , arguing , inter alia , that the factual underpinning of ORG official report of CARDINAL DATE contained errors , which had led the Minister to draw incorrect conclusions as to the applicant \u2019s personal and knowing participation in the crimes referred to in LAW .","In its judgment of DATE , ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE held that the official reports issued by ORG , which lay to a great extent at the basis of the Minister \u2019s decisions , had been drafted in an unbiased manner , were accurate and objective , and provided the required insight in the relevant information , and that therefore , the Minister had been entitled to rely on them . In addition , ORG noted that the evaluation of the credibility of facts adduced by asylum seekers fell to a large extent within the Minister \u2019s discretion and could , therefore , only be evaluated marginally by the court . ORG agreed with the Minister on all points as to the latter \u2019s decision to hold LAW against the applicant and , consequently , to refuse him an asylum - based residence permit . As regards the Minister \u2019s separate decision of DATE , refusing the applicant a residence permit for reasons not related to asylum , ORG adopted a different reasoning , but reached the same conclusion .","In respect of LAW , ORG held , with reference to case - law of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) , that the Minister should , wherever possible , avoid creating a situation in which an asylum seeker is refused a residence permit but can not be expelled to his \/ her country of origin for reasons based on LAW . For that reason , the decision should demonstrate that the Minister had examined whether LAW would lastingly ( duurzaam ) stand in the way of expulsion to the country of origin and of the possible consequences for the residence situation of the person concerned . This , ORG found , the Minister had failed to do in the present case , for which reason it quashed the Minister \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case back to the Minister for a fresh decision .","After the applicant had once more been heard on DATE before an official board of enquiry , the Minister rejected the asylum request anew in a fresh decision of CARDINAL DATE . In this fresh decision , the Minister limited herself to LAW . She dismissed the applicant \u2019s fear of returning to GPE as a ( former ) member of the ORG and former officer of ORG , referring to an official report issued by ORG in DATE and holding that the sole fact that an asylum seeker had been a ORG member was not enough in itself to render LAW applicable in the eventuality of expulsion . The Minister further noted that the mere fact that the applicant had a different political conviction from those currently in power in GPE similarly did not suffice to render LAW applicable . The Minister further took into account that the applicant had stated that he was not a known person in GPE . The applicant had no concrete indication that he would be searched for by any group or person . In addition , relatives of the applicant \u2013 including his father and brother \u2013 were still living in GPE without ever having encountered any problem .","The Minister further addressed the applicant \u2019s claim that he had reason to fear certain named mujahideen commanders , who would identify him as the ORG officer who had not paid them , or paid them less than agreed upon . The applicant had submitted that he had attended meetings \u2013 where he had TIME DATE in the course of which cooperation agreements had been reached between the ORG and a mujahideen commander . In addition , the applicant had alleged that these mujahideen commanders were keen on ensuring that nobody in DATE GPE would find out that they had cooperated with ORG in the past , for which reason they were interested in eliminating the applicant . On this point , the Minister held that the applicant had failed to establish these ORG whereabouts and current influence in NORP society . The Minister noted that according to the applicant \u2019s own statements , he did not believe that these individuals occupied high positions in DATE \u2019s GPE . Furthermore , the Minister considered that the mujahideen commanders were aware of the applicant \u2019s role in those meetings as well as of the identity of the person taking the decisions as regards financial support of the mujahideen , and that it was therefore implausible that they would be after the applicant . Finally , it was underlined that the applicant had been able to stay in GPE until DATE without any problems . For these reasons , the applicant \u2019s claim that he was being sought by the mujahideen was dismissed as founded on nothing but suspicion and speculation . The claim based on LAW was consequently rejected .","The applicant appealed anew to ORG of The Hague , arguing , inter alia , that the Minister had erred in finding him guilty of participation in torture under the auspices of the ORG . In his view , the Minister had disregarded the fact that the applicant had held an administrative position in ORG which was only concerned with maintaining contacts with the mujahideen and reaching agreements with them . Furthermore , the Minister had been inconsistent in finding , on the one hand , that the applicant had participated in human rights violations , but , on the other hand , that the applicant had not held an important position within the PDPA party . The applicant submitted that it was likely that he was well known enough for his former adversaries , who were now those in power in GPE , to find him and subject him to treatment contrary to LAW .","ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on DATE . It noted that , according to a general official report on GPE of DATE by ORG , that some former military officials , members of the police and the ORG \/ WAD security services possibly risk falling victim to human rights violations \u2013 not only by the authorities but also by the population ( GPE relatives ) , unless they maintained relations with influential NORP and political parties or tribes . According to the court , this did not mean that every former ORG officer ran a real risk of treatment contrary to LAW , and the applicant was thus required to establish the existence of such a risk in the particular circumstances of his case . ORG agreed with the Minister that the applicant had failed to do so , as his claims were found to be merely based on unsubstantiated expectations , including his claimed fear of persecution by the mujahideen commanders who had been paid by the ORG . No further appeal lay against this ruling ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159059","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BOTA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants , their representatives and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177938","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF T\u0130BET MENTE\u015e AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","The applicants have been employed in the duty - free shops at ORG since DATE . They are members of ORG , which had signed a collective labour agreement with ORG on Spirits and Tobacco , the ORG employer and formerly a ORG - run enterprise .","During their employment the applicants operated in \u201c work and rest cycles \u201d . Accordingly , in DATE they worked continuously for TIME and rested the next TIME . For DATE , DATE , they worked for TIME and rested for the next TIME . Their work schedule did not take account of DATE or DATE as the dutyfree shops remained open TIME a day , DATE a week . As regards rest breaks and periods , section CARDINAL of their collective labour agreement provided that such periods would be counted as working time and that they could not be subject to wage deductions .","On DATE the applicants , with the assistance of their lawyer , instituted individual and separate proceedings against their employer before ORG . They claimed compensation for TIME they had worked beyond the legal working time for DATE of their employment . They referred to LAW in force at the material time and to their collective agreement . Both documents defined overtime as work in excess of the regular DATE working week and provided for remuneration for such work at CARDINAL times the regular hourly rate .","On DATE the applicants instituted new proceedings against their employer before ORG and requested further remuneration for work done on DATE and public holidays and compensation for DATE leave that they had not taken .","Having regard to the common background of the ORG complaints in both sets of proceedings , ORG decided to join each applicant \u2019s proceedings and to seek an expert report concerning the calculation of their claims for overtime , DATE and public holiday pay and remuneration for unused DATE leave .","On DATE the expert submitted a report in which he noted , inter alia , that clause CARDINAL ( c ) of the collective agreement concluded between the parties provided for an entitlement to overtime pay , calculated on the basis of CARDINAL times the TIME rate . He further referred to an official audit report by ORG , dated DATE , which noted that during DATE , DATE , workers at the company in question had worked overtime of TIME in DATE which had DATE and TIME in DATE . In DATE , DATE , they had worked TIME and TIME of overtime respectively . TIME worked in excess of the legal working time should have been remunerated accordingly . According to the expert report , the applicants\u2019 employer had previously been cautioned , on DATE , by ORG concerning its practices on TIME .","On the basis of his examination of the company \u2019s timekeeping records , the expert calculated TIME worked as overtime in respect of each applicant , deducting TIME of rest per DATE worked .","The expert determined that the employer did not owe anything to the applicants for DATE and public holiday work as the remuneration for DATE had been in accordance with the applicable regulations . The expert also noted that the applicants could not claim any compensation for unused DATE leave as they were still working at the company and such leave was only payable at the end of a contract .","The applicants raised a number of objections to the expert report . They stated that the timekeeping records used for the calculation did not reflect TIME worked as they were unofficial copies kept by the employer , which were not signed by employees . In that regard , the applicants submitted that they had worked for TIME than established by the expert . They requested that the court take other evidence into account , including the defendant employer \u2019s shift orders , which detailed who would work when and for how long , as well as reports from ORG . They also submitted that the deduction of TIME of rest per day was not based on fact but was an assumption by the expert . The applicants submitted that in any event the expert \u2019s hypothetical conclusion on rest periods could not be relied on because the collective agreement had expressly provided for the inclusion of such periods as a part of working time . The applicants raised no objections to the expert \u2019s conclusion on the dismissal of their claims for pay for work at DATE and on DATE and for unused DATE leave .","In submissions of DATE , the defendant employer raised objections to the expert report and also argued that the timekeeping documents could not be relied on as they were unofficial copies . It also maintained that it had been unable to pay overtime in full owing to a lack of funds from the ORG . It submitted that the applicants had in any event been aware of the working arrangements and had never requested a transfer to another unit of ORG .","ORG asked the expert to supplement his report with findings concerning the parties\u2019 objections .","On DATE , the expert submitted a supplement to his report , in which he corrected his findings concerning the rest periods in the light of the applicants\u2019 objection and calculated the hours they had worked as CARDINAL in the course of a QUANTITY shift . He maintained his findings regarding the timesheets , submitting that his in situ examination of the workplace and comparisons between the official record and the employer \u2019s copies had not revealed any inconsistencies .","On DATE the ORG found in favour of the applicants in part and awarded them the amounts given in the expert \u2019s report in respect of the unpaid overtime . It rejected their claims for pay for DATE and public holiday work and for unused DATE leave .","Both parties appealed to ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision and remitted the case . It found that ORG had not taken into account any time that could have been used for rest periods and that therefore the calculation of overtime could not be deemed accurate . It also stated that the overtime calculation should be based on DATE TIME rather than the DATE working time used in the expert report .","In the resumed proceedings , ORG requested that the expert amend the report in light of ORG decision .","On DATE the expert revised the findings as ordered and concluded that the applicants were likely to have had a minimum of TIME for rest during a QUANTITY shift . The expert therefore recalculated their entitlement to overtime on the basis of QUANTITY of actual work and compared it with the legal working week of fortyfive TIME .","On DATE ORG awarded the applicants compensation for overtime as determined in the revised expert report .","The defendant employer appealed , arguing that the presumption established in the case - law of ORG that a person could not work TIME in the course of a QUANTITY shift should be applied to the facts of the dispute . ORG then quashed the first - instance judgment on DATE and remitted the case on the following grounds :","\u201c It can be seen from the case file that during DATE [ the applicants ] worked for TIME and subsequently rested for TIME ; and in DATE they worked for TIME and subsequently rested for TIME . However , as determined by the well - established case - law of FAC of ORG , in workplaces where there are CARDINAL-hour shifts , after the deduction of time spent on certain activities such as resting , eating and fulfilling other needs , a person can only work for TIME a day ... This approach must also be followed in the present case . \u201d","In the resumed proceedings , ORG decided to follow the decision of ORG and another expert report was drawn up for that purpose . The report , dated DATE , calculated the applicants\u2019 DATE working time TIME , in line with ORG presumption of fact . The calculation in the new report led to no overtime being found for DATE in which the applicants had worked DATE as the working time was less than the legal limit of TIME . For DATE in which the applicants had worked DATE , the report calculated the total working time as TIME , leading to an assessment in the report of TIME of overtime . On DATE ORG rendered a final judgment in the applicants\u2019 case , based on the expert report of DATE . As a result of that interpretation , some of the ORG claims were dismissed entirely , while the others were awarded PERCENT less than the previous expert report had calculated .","On DATE the applicants appealed against the decision and maintained that the fact that they had worked continuously for TIME had already been confirmed by the legal records of ORG , both parties\u2019 witness statements and other evidence in the file , including the expert reports overturned by ORG . Although they had proven that fact , the judgment had been based on the presumption that working for TIME a day was physically impossible .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision without responding to the applicants\u2019 objections ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144350","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HARRISON McKEE v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","In DATE the applicant , who was represented by a NORP lawyer throughout the proceedings , initiated civil proceedings against a public prosecutor assigned to ORG , ORG itself , and ORG , alleging a violation of his personality rights . Given the subject matter of the dispute , the applicant was exempt from having to advance the court fees , by virtue of section CARDINAL of Act no . ORG of DATE on Stamp Duties , as in force at the relevant time .","NORP In particular , the applicant complained that a letter sent in the course of criminal proceedings conducted against him by the public prosecutor to ORG , the trial court in his case , had contained false information about him and thus infringed his right to honour , dignity and reputation .","The applicant subsequently modified his claim , seeking non - pecuniary damages in respect of a violation of his personality rights in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . It appears that the amount claimed was an expression of the applicant \u2019s personal estimation of the value of his reputation , rather than a sum deduced from relevant domestic jurisprudence ; however , in the ensuing procedure the applicant maintained this claim .","ORG delivered a judgment on DATE . It discontinued the proceedings against ORG , since it had no procedural standing . As to the remainder of the claims , it held that the applicant \u2019s right to reputation had been violated by the public prosecutor \u2019s statements and ordered the public prosecutor to present her apologies to the applicant . However , it dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim for compensation , stating that it was excessive and in any event he could not prove that he had suffered any actual damage . The court further applied section CARDINAL of Act no . ORG of DATE on Stamp Duties and ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in court fees . Under this rule , at the material time , the amount of stamp duty in civil cases was PERCENT of the claim but should attain a minimum of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) and should not exceed a maximum of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . In a subsequent supplementary decision on court costs , the court explained that the law required the payment of court fees proportionately to the dismissed part of the claim , and observed that the applicant \u2019s claim was far beyond the amounts normally awarded in similar cases .","Both the applicant and the respondents appealed to ORG , which dismissed the appeal on DATE . As regards the costs , the court upheld the position taken by ORG , that is , that the applicant should pay court fees calculated as a percentage of the dismissed part of his claims . It further ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in appellate fees .","NORP The respondents sought the review of the final decision before ORG , arguing that the statements of a prosecutor expressed in the course of criminal proceedings could not violate the accused \u2019s personality rights , even if they were detrimental to him . By a decision of DATE ORG quashed the final decision and dismissed the applicant \u2019s action in its entirety . It found that the opinion of the public prosecutor had been expressed in the context of the criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant and thus constituted a legitimate exercise of her powers as a prosecutor . ORG further ordered the applicant to pay the court fees related to the first- and second - instance and the review proceedings in the amount of altogether ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , instead of the aggregate amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in principle applicable under sections DATE , CARDINAL and QUANTITY on Stamp Duties ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177404","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GRIGOLOVI\u010c v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE in GPE Region .","On DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE the national authorities allocated plots of land to GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG , PERSON and PERSON and PERSON ( thus compensating them for their or their GPE property nationalised by the NORP regime ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ) , who later transferred their property rights to GPE in accordance with requests they had lodged on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . The land allocated to these third parties was located in the same area as where the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s land was situated before nationalisation following the NORP occupation of GPE in DATE .","On DATE the applicant asked the NORP authorities to restore his property rights to CARDINAL hectares of his father \u2019s land by giving him a new plot of land .","On DATE the national authorities established that part of the land was unoccupied and could have been returned to the heirs .","On DATE ORG held that the restoration of property rights of GPE had been unlawful . As a result , a plot of land of QUANTITY was returned to the State .","On DATE the applicant changed his initial request ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and asked for his property rights to be restored in natura . The authorities asked the applicant to provide them with some documents necessary to proceed with the restoration of his property rights . In DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) asked ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to determine whether or not the land in question was ORG redeemable . In DATE the ORG found that the land was ORG redeemable and that the question of restitution had to be dealt with by the other means provided for by law . Accordingly , the applicant was asked to express his intentions regarding the form in which he wanted his ownership rights to the property to be restored .","As the plot of land previously owned by the applicant \u2019s father was ORG redeemable , in DATE the applicant asked to be provided with a new plot of land of equal value in GPE .","NORP In DATE the ORG asked the ORG to demarcate a plot of land , previously owned by the applicant \u2019s father , for the applicant . However , the ORG confirmed that the land was ORG redeemable because part of it was already being owned by third parties and was a State forest .","In DATE the ORG informed the applicant that his father \u2019s land was ORG redeemable and that the question of restitution had to be dealt with by the other means provided for by law . The applicant was also informed that he was included in the list of persons waiting to have their property rights restored , and was CARDINAL,CARDINALth in line .","On DATE the authorities adopted a decision restoring the applicant \u2019s property rights to QUANTITY of his father \u2019s land and informed him that his property rights to the remaining QUANTITY would be restored at DATE .","The applicant lodged a claim with ORG and asked it to ( i ) annul the decisions of the authorities to restore property rights to his father \u2019s land to third parties on the grounds that they were unlawful , ( ii ) award him CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation in respect of pecuniary damage and ( iii ) oblige the authorities to restore his property rights to a specific plot of land . The latter request was later withdrawn . The applicant claimed that the decisions to restore property rights to his father \u2019s land to third parties were unlawful because he had submitted his request when the land had not yet been State redeemable . His property rights therefore had to be restored .","The ORG explained that the applicant had submitted the request to have his property rights restored in DATE , while the third parties had done so in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The ORG also stated that the applicant had not provided any evidence that the requirements of the domestic law had been breached in restoring property rights to third parties .","On DATE ORG held that the legislation in force at the time did not allow for the return of the land in natura to the applicant because he did not have any buildings on that land as property ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In DATE the provision in question was declared unconstitutional ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court also held that the applicant had not lost the opportunity to have his property rights restored . It was also possible that he would be given a more valuable plot of land , therefore it was decided that he had not suffered pecuniary damage .","The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . It held that the applicant had not asked for the land to be returned in natura until after the property rights to it had already been restored to third parties ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The court also held that DATE was the date when the specific location and borders of the land which the applicant asked to have returned in natura had been established . Furthermore , it did not consider that the domestic authorities had acted unlawfully , which was a precondition for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage .","In DATE ORG informed the applicant that in order to accelerate the process of restoring property rights to citizens , the domestic law had been amended and it had become possible for him to receive monetary compensation for the land . He was also informed that if he wished to use that opportunity , he had until DATE to provide the authorities with a written request ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant replied in DATE that he had not changed his mind and still wanted to receive the land in natura or , if that was not possible , a plot of land of equal value in GPE .","NORP In DATE ORG asked the ORG whether it was possible to demarcate any vacant land that was not ORG redeemable and could have been returned to the heirs of the applicant \u2019s father .","NORP In DATE the applicant was informed that he could change his mind about the form of restitution and receive a plot of forest of equal value . He was asked by letter to make a decision by DATE , but it appears that he did not respond ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159324","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ROMAN ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Actio popularis;Victim);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is the editor - in - chief of a publishing company and of an aviation magazine . He is also the chairperson of the GPE branch of ORG , an NGO monitoring the state of media freedom in the NORP regions , which promotes the independence of the regional mass media , freedom of speech and respect for journalists\u2019 rights , and provides legal support , including through litigation , to journalists .","He was subscribed to the services of several mobile network operators .","On DATE he brought judicial proceeding against CARDINAL mobile network operators , claiming that there had been an interference with his right to the privacy of his telephone communications . He claimed that pursuant to Order no . CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL below ) of ORG predecessor , ORG , the mobile network operators had installed equipment which permitted ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to intercept all telephone communications without prior judicial authorisation . The applicant argued that Order no . DATE , which had never been published , unduly restricted his right to privacy . He asked the court to issue an injunction ordering the removal of the equipment installed pursuant to Order no . CARDINAL , and to ensure that access to mobile telephone communications was given to authorised persons only . ORG ( hereafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) and GPE and ORG of the ORG were joined as a third party to the proceedings .","On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims . It found that the applicant had not proved that the mobile network operators had transmitted any protected information to unauthorised persons or permitted the unrestricted or unauthorised interception of communications . The equipment to which he referred had been installed to enable law - enforcement agencies to conduct operational - search activities in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law . The installation of such equipment had not in itself interfered with the privacy of the applicant \u2019s communications . The applicant had failed to demonstrate any facts which would warrant a finding that his right to the privacy of his telephone communications had been violated .","NORP The applicant appealed . He claimed , in particular , that ORG had refused to accept several documents in evidence . Those documents had included CARDINAL judicial orders authorising the interception of mobile telephone communications retrospectively and an addendum to the standard service provider agreement issued by CARDINAL of the mobile network operators . CARDINAL of the judicial orders in question , issued on DATE , authorised the interception of several people \u2019s mobile telephone communications during the periods from CARDINAL to DATE , from DATE , from DATE to DATE and from CARDINAL DATE . The other judicial order , issued on DATE , authorised the interception of a PERSON mobile telephone communications during the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . As to the addendum , it informed the subscriber that if his number were used to make terrorist threats , the mobile network operator might suspend the provision of the telephone service and transfer the collected data to the law - enforcement agencies . In the applicant \u2019s opinion , the judicial orders and the addendum proved that the mobile network operators and law - enforcement agencies were technically capable of intercepting all telephone communications without obtaining prior judicial authorisation , and routinely resorted to unauthorised interception .","On DATE GPE upheld the judgment on appeal . It confirmed ORG finding that the applicant had failed to prove that his telephone communications had been intercepted . Nor had he shown that there was a danger that his right to the privacy of his telephone communications might be unlawfully infringed . To establish the existence of such a danger , the applicant would have had to prove that the respondents had acted unlawfully . However , mobile network operators were required by law to install equipment enabling law - enforcement agencies to perform operational - search activities and the existence of that equipment did not in itself interfere with the privacy of the applicant \u2019s communications . The refusal to admit the judicial orders of DATE and DATE in evidence had been lawful , as the judicial orders had been issued in respect of third persons and were irrelevant to the applicant \u2019s case . ORG further decided to admit in evidence and examine the addendum to the service provider agreement , but found that it did not contain any information warranting reconsideration of ORG judgment .","It can be seen from a document submitted by the applicant that in DATE an NGO , \u201c Civilian Control \u201d , asked ORG office to carry out an inspection of ORG in the sphere of interception of communications in order to verify their compatibility with federal laws . In DATE an official from ORG office telephoned \u201c ORG \u201d and asked for copies of the unpublished attachments to Order No . DATE , saying that the prosecutor \u2019s office had been unable to obtain them from ORG . In DATE the Prosecutor General \u2019s office refused to carry out the requested inspection ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179861","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF FIDANYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was employed by ORG ( \u201c the Service \u201d ) , division no . CARDINAL . On DATE the head of the ORG decided to terminate the applicant \u2019s employment .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings in ORG against the ORG seeking to CARDINAL ) have the decision of CARDINAL DATE annulled ; CARDINAL ) be reinstated in her previous position ; and CARDINAL ) recover her average salary starting from the moment of her dismissal until her reinstatement to the previous position .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL claims . In particular , it annulled the decision of CARDINAL DATE , ordered the ORG to reinstate her to her previous position and to pay her her average DATE salary starting from DATE until her reinstatement . It reasoned its decision , inter alia , by stating that while the ORG had been under an obligation to offer the applicant another position within the ORG before deciding to dismiss her , it had failed to do so , even though such a position had existed in the ORG at the material time .","This judgment was upheld in the final instance by ORG and it became final on DATE .","On DATE the ORG paid the applicant CARDINAL NORP drams ( ORG ) ( QUANTITY ( ORG ) at the material time ) as compensation for her unemployment during the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the DEJA \u201d ) initiated enforcement proceedings . On DATE the ORG gave a decision obliging the ORG to comply with the writ of execution of DATE within DATE .","It appears that no further actions were taken by the ORG and the ORG in relation to the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE between the period of DATE and DATE .","On DATE the bailiff decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings on the basis of section CARDINAL ) of ORG . The bailiff reasoned that the ORG had already paid the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL while the reinstatement of the applicant in her previous position in the Service was impossible because that position was no longer vacant .","On DATE the applicant asked the DEJA to resume the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the bailiff granted the applicant \u2019s request and decided to resume the enforcement proceedings . On DATE the bailiff gave a decision on obliging the ORG to take certain actions . In particular , the bailiff obliged the ORG to CARDINAL ) annul the decision of the head of the ORG of DATE ; CARDINAL ) reinstate the applicant to her previous position ; and CARDINAL ) pay her her average DATE salary for the period between her dismissal and her reinstatement to the previous position .","On DATE the bailiff decided once again to terminate the enforcement proceedings on the basis of section CARDINAL ) of ORG . In particular , the bailiff reasoned that the ORG had already paid the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL as ordered by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE while the reinstatement of the applicant in her previous position in the ORG was impossible because ORG no . CARDINAL , where the applicant had previously worked , no longer existed ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174420","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BOGOMOLOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , NORP region , together with her son , born in DATE . She is a single mother .","At the material time the applicant was teaching physical education in a secondary school in Berenzniki .","NORP In DATE the applicant learnt that a photograph of her son had been published on the cover page of a booklet prepared by ORG , NORP region ( \u201c FAC ) , entitled \u201c Children need a family \u201d .","The booklet consisted of CARDINAL pages , including the cover page . The boy \u2019s photograph occupied the major part of the cover page and showed his face . Above the photograph there was a slogan \u201c Children need a family \u201d . At the bottom of the cover page , just under the photograph were the words : \u201c ORG , town of PERSON \u201d . The second page contained CARDINAL more photographs of other children , with citations from ORG and LAW . The third page was headed \u201c Forms of replacing family care \u201d and presented the various arrangements : adoptive family , tutorial family , foster home and others . The remaining pages informed the readers about the creation in the district of FAC , the role of which was to protect orphans and assist families in adopting them . They explained what kind of support and advice families could seek in the ORG and how they could help orphans . On the last page the following was written :","\u201c If you wish to save a child from loneliness and give him a hearth and home , come to us ! \u201d","The applicant alleged that she had not been informed about the booklet , let alone asked for authorisation for a photograph of her son to be published .","In DATE the applicant asked the local department of the interior and the prosecutor \u2019s office to carry out an investigation into the unauthorised publication of her son \u2019s photograph on the booklet .","NORP In DATE the department of the interior replied that there were no grounds to institute criminal proceedings .","NORP On DATE the district prosecutor informed the applicant that the booklet had been prepared and published by a publishing company , A. , at the request of the FAC . In total , CARDINAL copies of the booklet had been published . The photograph of the child had been placed on the booklet by Mr P. , who had been engaged by that company to prepare the layout of the booklet and who had found the photograph of the applicant \u2019s son on the Internet . It was impossible to establish from which website the photograph of the child had been taken . The prosecutor advised the applicant to bring court proceedings to protect her rights .","The applicant did not lodge any judicial appeal against those replies .","In DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the ORG before ORG , GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor son .","In her statement of claim the applicant complained that her and her son \u2019s honour , dignity and reputation had been damaged by the unlawful publication of her son \u2019s photograph in a booklet calling for adoption . In particular , the photograph had been published without her authorisation and knowledge . The booklet had been distributed in various organisations in the town of PERSON and in LOC , NORP region ( libraries , hospitals , police departments ) and had provoked a negative attitude towards her and her son on the part of her colleagues , neighbours and those close to her . People thought that she had abandoned her son . The boy had become a victim of mockery in the kindergarten . The publication of the photograph had also affected her honour and dignity and her reputation as a schoolteacher . She requested that the court , with reference to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of GPE ( see Relevant domestic law and practice below ) , award her non - pecuniary damages and order the publishing company to apologise for the publication of the photograph .","On DATE ORG held , with the applicant \u2019s consent , that the ORG was not a proper respondent in the case and that the claim should have been made against the publishing company and Mr P. The Centre was invited to take part in the proceedings as a third party .","The publishing company contested the applicant \u2019s claims . It submitted that the material which had been presented to the court showed that a certain PERSON . had taken the photograph of the applicant \u2019s son with the knowledge of the applicant . PERSON had not informed the applicant of his intentions or the ways in which the photograph might be further used . Nor had he received any written authorisation from the applicant for its use . Mr P. , who had been engaged by the company for the preparation of the layout of the booklet , had found the photograph on the Internet and placed it on the cover page of the booklet .","The publishing company considered that it had not been obliged to verify whether prior consent had been received for publication of the photograph in the booklet for CARDINAL reasons . First , it was not responsible for the actions of PERSON , who had been working for the company on a contractual basis . Secondly , under LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) , consent to the use of a photograph was not required when the image was being used in the interests of the ORG , or in social or other public interests . By ordering the booklet , the ORG had been pursuing social and public interests and calling for mercy to be shown to orphans . The company concluded that the damage had been caused to the applicant by PERSON . and , therefore , the company should be exempted from liability for damage .","Mr P. submitted to the court that in DATE he had gone travelling together with his friend PERSON . , who was a photographer . PERSON . had openly taken photographs of other tourists , including a photograph of the applicant \u2019s son . After their return , PERSON . had sent him electronic copies of those photographs and since that time they had been saved in his computer . In DATE he ( Mr P. ) had been temporarily working for the publishing company and had been asked to prepare the layout of the booklet . The text and some photographs had been provided by the ORG . He searched in his computer for more photographs to be placed in the booklet and saw the picture of the applicant \u2019s son , which seemed to fit the booklet well . He therefore placed it on the cover page . He did not know who the boy on the photograph was .","NORP The representative of the FAC , acting as a third party , submitted that the use of the photograph of the applicant \u2019s son had not been agreed with the ORG . He also submitted that the booklet did not call for adoption ; it was intended to provide information about the LOC . He replied to a question put by the court that after publication of the booklet , a number of people had called the LOC and asked whether it was possible to adopt the child whose photograph was on the cover page of the booklet .","It appears from the record of the court hearings that the applicant \u2019s representative , PERSON , submitted to the court that it had been established that the photograph of the applicant \u2019s son had been used on the booklet without his parent \u2019s consent , contrary to the requirements of LAW . That provision was concordant with the provisions of LAW ( \u201c the Convention \u201d ) protecting private and family life . The publication of the photograph in the booklet constituted unlawful interference with the applicant \u2019s private life and therefore the publishing company was under an obligation to pay compensation for nonpecuniary damage sustained by the applicant .","The publishing company contested the application of LAW in the case and considered that the applicant \u2019s consent to the publication of her son \u2019s photograph had not been required .","On DATE ORG examined and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims . The judgment consisted of a summary of the submissions of the parties and the third party , a summary of the relevant domestic law , a summary of the ORG submissions and other evidence examined by the court , and several paragraphs of conclusions . In particular , ORG held as follows :","\u201c ... The court has established that the honour , dignity and professional reputation of the plaintiff were not affected by the publication of the booklet with the photograph of the plaintiff \u2019s son . Thus , all witnesses submitted that they did not have any hostile feelings towards PERSON , the attitude [ towards PERSON ] of all those questioned [ in the court hearing ] remained the same : friendly , amicable ; they were not aware of any instances of insults , reproaches in respect of the plaintiff . In the subjective view of the witnesses , the booklet in itself had a positive scope . The plaintiff \u2019s professional reputation was not affected by the publication of the booklet in any way , since the plaintiff had provided the court with positive references from her workplace , where her pedagogical competences were highly appreciated .","The content of the booklet had a positive scope aimed at providing information , did not contain any defamatory details ; the photograph on the booklet did not have any defects , and the text in the booklet did not contain any defamatory details either . None of the information in the booklet indicated that defamatory information had been disseminated ; it did not diminish the honour , dignity and reputation of PERSON or of her minor son .","Therefore , the evidence submitted [ to the court ] has demonstrated [ that the booklet had ] a strictly value character , and did not contain any defamatory details , diminishing the plaintiff \u2019s and her son \u2019s honour , dignity and reputation in the public \u2019s opinion and the opinion of certain individuals .","To make negative assumptions in respect of the booklet with the photograph of the plaintiff \u2019s son on the front page amounts to an individual value judgment , which has not been included in the content and meaning of that information booklet . The court takes into account that on several occasions in DATE the plaintiff authorised PERSON . , a photographer familiar to her , to take photographs of her son . PERSON . then forwarded the photographs to painter PERSON , who [ in his turn ] then placed [ one of ] the ORG ] in the booklet . PERSON did not place any restrictions or conditions on the use of those photographs , did not seek to find out what had happened to those photographs . In addition , it follows from witness statements that after publication of the booklet , the plaintiff showed it to persons around her and at her workplace and annotated it in an emotionally skewed way , and thus disseminated false information about herself and her son with reference to the photograph [ on the booklet ] .","...","Taking into account that it has not been established in the court hearing that there was any information discrediting the honour , dignity and reputation of the plaintiff and her minor son , her claims of compensation for non - pecuniary damage should be dismissed . The court also considers that the plaintiff \u2019s claims concerning the imposition of an obligation on the defendant to provide public apologies in the ORG [ mass media ] ... should be dismissed ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant resigned from her job .","In an appeal against the judgment of DATE the applicant submitted , in particular , that in taking its decision ORG had not applied the provisions of LAW of GPE concerning the protection of one \u2019s image or the provisions of LAW . She argued that in the absence of parental consent to the use of her son \u2019s photograph , her claim should have been granted in accordance with the above provisions . She expanded on her position with the following arguments .","The booklet had been distributed in several towns in the NORP region , including PERSON , where her parents lived , and PERSON , where she and her son lived . She had worked for a long time in those towns and a lot of people knew her and her family . After seeing her son \u2019s photograph on the booklet , people who knew her , including the parents of her pupils , thought that she could no longer take care of her son because she had been deprived of her parental rights . She had had to explain to her neighbours , friends and colleagues that her family was doing well and that her son was living with her . Since the publication of the booklet , children in the kindergarten had started calling her son \u201c little vagrant \u201d and \u201c poor orphan \u201d . She had been obliged to quit her job because of comments made by the parents of her pupils . The booklet provoked a feeling of pity towards children abandoned by their parents and at the same time it aroused feelings of indignation towards their parents .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE , finding it lawful and duly reasoned . Regarding the applicant \u2019s argument about the ORG failure to examine her claims under LAW , ORG held that the court had taken a decision on the claims as they had been submitted by the applicant , in accordance with LAW ( see Relevant domestic law and practice below ) . The applicant \u2019s claims were based on the infringement by the defendants of her right to honour , dignity and reputation . She had not raised any claims on the grounds contained in LAW .","By a judgment of DATE the Justice of Peace of ORG granted the ORG \u2019s claim for recovery from the applicant of the legal costs it had incurred when it had taken part in the libel proceedings as a third party , in the amount of MONEY ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157694","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ABUSISI v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant , PERSON Abusisi ( Abu Sisi ) , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . In DATE she married PERSON of NORP origin , born in GPE . It appears from the available information that by DATE the couple and their CARDINAL children lived in GPE , where Mr PERSON occupied the post of technical director of a power plant in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband arrived in GPE and on DATE he lodged an application for a residence permit with ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband boarded a night train in ORG bound for GPE , where he was supposed to meet up with GPE , his brother .","On DATE PERSON . , an acquaintance of the applicant \u2019s husband , notified ORG that the latter had disappeared from the train and demanded a criminal investigation of his purported abduction . In a statement given to the police GPE . explained that on DATE he had dropped PERSON at the train station in ORG . At CARDINAL p.m. on DATE PERSON had told him by telephone that he had been on his way to GPE in seat CARDINAL of carriage CARDINAL on train no . CARDINAL . The following day , having unsuccessfully attempted to contact PERSON by telephone , GPE . had called FAC and learned that PERSON had not arrived in GPE . GPE . had then managed to identify and contact ORG , the attendant of train carriage no . DATE , who had told him that at QUANTITY strangers had taken PERSON off the train at FAC without any explanation .","On DATE also contacted ORG and made a similar submission .","On DATE the applicant came to GPE and alerted the prosecutor \u2019s office , ORG , ORG and other authorities to her husband \u2019s purported abduction .","On DATE the applicant received a brief telephone call from her husband informing her that he was in custody in ORG , GPE . He provided her with the contact details of GPE , his lawyer there , who confirmed by telephone the information provided by her husband .","On DATE ORG of GPE informed ORG , who had made an enquiry on the applicant \u2019s behalf , that the only information they had in their database concerning PERSON was that he had lawfully entered GPE on DATE .","On DATE T.I. , an investigator with ORG , refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s purported abduction owing to lack of evidence of a crime . He noted that ORG , the carriage attendant , had told the police that he had not noticed any criminal or other unusual activity during the trip and that the information provided by PERSON relatives and acquaintances had been insufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion that he had been abducted or otherwise forced to leave the train .","On DATE ORG of GPE informed ORG that , according to the information obtained from the NORP law - enforcement authorities , PERSON had been detained on suspicion of having been involved in terrorist activity as a member of ORG . They also noted that , following an order of a competent court in GPE , the information concerning the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s arrest had been classified and was not subject to disclosure . On CARDINAL DATE the Security Service of GPE provided similar information to the applicant .","On DATE ORG issued a certificate confirming that PERSON was being held in FAC , GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant complained of her husband \u2019s purported abduction to ORG .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that in order for her complaint to be registered , she needed to provide further substantiation and to show that she had duly exhausted domestic remedies .","On an unspecified date the applicant , represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , instituted proceedings in LOC of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) complaining that ORG had failed to act in investigating her husband \u2019s disappearance .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the applicant \u2019s absence , having noted that she had been duly informed of the date and time , as shown in a return slip of the summons contained in the case file . The court further dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegations against ORG and stated that , in so far as the applicant \u2019s submissions could be understood as challenging the refusal of ORG to institute criminal proceedings , this complaint fell under the jurisdiction of ORG of PERSON ( \u201c the Leninskiy Court \u201d ) . ORG then decided to forward the relevant parts of the case file to ORG for examination .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . A copy of that decision was not provided to the ORG by the applicant .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant had contracted PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , to represent her in GPE .","As of DATE PERSON was also mandated to represent PERSON before the NORP courts and other authorities .","On DATE CARDINAL PERSON , acting on PERSON behalf , challenged the decision of ORG before the NORP transport prosecutor .","On DATE his complaint was rejected on the grounds that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been well - founded .","Following a further appeal to court , on DATE the Poltava ORG of Appeal ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that they related to essentially the same matter which had already been finally decided by the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE CARDINAL PERSON lodged an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG decided that the appeal of CARDINAL DATE had procedural shortcomings . Among other issues , it was lodged outside the statutory time - limit without an extension request . The court gave the applicant \u2019s counsel a period within which to rectify the issues with the appeal .","A rectified appeal was lodged . In this document , PERSON noted that he had only learned of the decision taken by ORG on DATE in the course of the court proceedings instituted with a view to challenging the decision of ORG . The applicant , for her part , had only learned of it from PERSON \u2019s electronic mail in DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the request for an extension of the time - limit , finding that no good reason for missing it had been provided .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .","On DATE PERSON , who had not been present at the court hearing , obtained a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE PERSON lodged a cassation appeal against the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE with ORG ( \u201c the Higher Court \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG refused to consider the appeal of CARDINAL DATE , having found that it had been lodged outside the DATE statutory time - limit which began on DATE appellate court \u2019s decision that was to be appealed against . It further noted that in this situation it fell to the appellant to obtain an extension of the time - limit from ORG in order to lodge a cassation appeal .","On an unspecified date PERSON requested that ORG extend the time - limit . He stated that the delay in lodging his cassation appeal had been a result of the technical difficulties in establishing contact with the applicant , who had been in GPE , an area of constant political unrest and tension , and also a result of the delay in notifying him of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the request for extension of the time - limit for lack of sufficient reasoning .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , upheld the decision of DATE . ORG noted , in particular , that PERSON had failed to provide good reasons for not lodging the appeal DATE ( when he had received a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE ) and CARDINAL DATE ( when the DATE statutory time - limit for lodging a cassation appeal expired ) .","According to public sources , on DATE Dirar Abu Sisi was convicted by ORG of membership of a terrorist organisation and production of illegal weaponry after pleading guilty to several incriminating charges . He is still in custody in GPE .","The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , in operation at the material time , read as follows :","\u201c An appeal against a decision of an ... investigator ... refusing to institute criminal proceedings may be lodged by a person whose interests it concerns , or his or her representative , with the local district ( town ) court ... within DATE of the date on which a copy of the decision was received ... \u201d","\u201c Judgments and rulings of the court of appeal taken following appeal proceedings may be reviewed in cassation proceedings .","Judgments of the local courts ... other rulings ( decisions ) of these courts ... which impede further examination of the case , rulings of the appellate courts taken with respect to these judgments [ or ] rulings ( decisions ) ... may also be reviewed in cassation proceedings . \u201d","\u201c Cassation appeals against the court decisions mentioned in the second paragraph of LAW may be lodged within DATE on which they enter into force ... \u201d","\u201c ... Decisions and rulings of the appellate and cassation courts shall enter into force immediately upon their delivery , except in cases envisaged by this Code ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145794","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BE\u00c7AJ v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was initially represented by PERSON and , subsequently , by PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their then Agent , PERSON and , subsequently , by PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was appointed , pursuant to a service contract ( kontrat\u00eb sh\u00ebrbimi ) , as first secretary at ORG in GPE , GPE ( \u201c the Permanent Mission \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant went on maternity leave . She gave birth to a child on DATE .","On DATE the Minister of ORG ( \u201c the Minister \u201d ) decided to terminate the applicant \u2019s employment as from DATE .","On DATE the Minister appointed the applicant to work as a specialist at ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) in GPE . The applicant declined the offer .","On DATE it was confirmed that the applicant had been divested of her diplomatic status and the benefits that derived from the exercise of her job as first secretary .","On DATE the applicant challenged the Minister \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG partially accepted the applicant \u2019s civil action . It found that the termination of her employment while she was on maternity leave was in breach of Articles DATE and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Labour Code . It therefore annulled the Minister \u2019s decision of DATE and ordered the applicant \u2019s reinstatement . ORG further held that the reasons advanced by the applicant \u2019s employer for the termination of her employment , such as the commission of traffic offences in GPE , did not prevail over the legal guarantees afforded to women during the post - natal leave period . ORG decided that its decision should be provisionally enforced in accordance with LAW ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . Having regard to the applicant \u2019s situation and the position she occupied , ORG ordered that , in addition to her reinstatement , the applicant \u2019s accreditation should be renewed and her benefits restored , including the grant of a residence permit , provision of accommodation , payment of salary and provision of medical examinations which had started in the applicant \u2019s place of residence on account of her employment ( padit\u00ebsja vler\u00ebsohet se duhet t\u00eb kthehet n\u00eb nj\u00eb detyr\u00eb , e cila p\u00ebr nga r\u00ebnd\u00ebsia dhe specifikat e saj , implikon procedura t\u00eb caktuara q\u00eb lidhen me akreditimin dhe rip\u00ebrfitimin e benefiteve ( leja e qendrimit , p\u00ebrfitimi i pag\u00ebs , ekzaminimet mjek\u00ebsore t\u00eb nisura n\u00eb vendin e qendrimit p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb pun\u00ebs ) ) . ORG appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision .","On DATE the Ministry appealed to ORG . The proceedings are currently pending before that court .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution in respect of its decision of CARDINAL DATE in accordance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG .","On DATE the bailiff unsuccessfully requested the ORG to comply voluntarily with ORG decision , as upheld by ORG .","On DATE , having regard to the ORG \u2019s failure to comply with ORG decision voluntarily , the bailiff decided to proceed with the mandatory enforcement thereof .","On DATE , having regard to the ORG \u2019s failure to enforce the decision , the bailiff warned ORG that it would be fined in accordance with Article CARDINAL of the ORG .","The Government submitted that on DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , the bailiff decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings ( pushimin e ekzekutimit me k\u00ebrkes\u00eb t\u00eb kreditorit ) . It transpired from the bailiff \u2019s decision that the applicant had decided to transfer the file to another bailiff \u2019s office for supervision and enforcement ( p\u00ebr ta transferuar te nj\u00eb p\u00ebrmbarues tjet\u00ebr ) .","The Government further submitted that pursuant to the Minister \u2019s order no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been appointed as first secretary , a position equivalent to the one she used to hold , at FAC GPE , GPE ( \u201c the Consulate General \u201d ) . The ORG \u2019s letter to ORG DATE , as submitted by the applicant , stated that \u201c the Ministry undertakes to pay PERSON only her monthly salary ( PERSON ... merr p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr vet\u00ebm shpenzimet e pag\u00ebs mujore ) \u201d .","On DATE ORG sent a letter to ORG , the relevant extracts of which read as follows :","\u201c Having regard to the circumstances in which the applicant , PERSON , has lodged an application with ORG about the delayed enforcement of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , as upheld by ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , and the recent development whereby the applicant has already taken up employment as first secretary at ORG in GPE , we request ORG to contact PERSON and ask her to withdraw the application [ lodged ] with ORG , in so far as the ORG complied with its obligation to enforce the court decision by way of order no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , notwithstanding the applicant \u2019s withdrawal from the enforcement proceedings ( k\u00ebrkojm\u00eb nga ana e Ministris\u00eb s\u00eb ORG t\u00eb PERSON b\u00ebj\u00eb t\u00eb mundur kontaktimin me Znj . PERSON dhe k\u00ebrkimin prej PERSON heqjes dor\u00eb prej aplikimit n\u00eb PERSON t\u00eb Drejtave t\u00eb Njeriut , p\u00ebr sa koh\u00eb detyrimet e shtetit ndaj ekzekutimit t\u00eb vendimit gjyq\u00ebsor t\u00eb sip\u00ebrp\u00ebrmendur jan\u00eb plot\u00ebsuar n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet urdhrit nr . CARDINAL dat\u00eb CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , pavar\u00ebsisht prej heqjes dor\u00eb prej saj nga ekzekutimi i k\u00ebtij t\u00eb fundit ) . \u201d","On DATE the ORG sent a letter to ORG , the relevant extracts of which read as follows :","\u201c In their request for the protection of the ORG \u2019s interests , ORG request ORG , having regard to PERSON appointment as first secretary at ORG , [ to ask her ] to withdraw the application she has lodged with ORG ( Avokatura e Shtetit n\u00eb k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn e saj p\u00ebr mbrojtjen e t\u00eb drejtave t\u00eb shtetit shqiptar k\u00ebrkon nga ORG q\u00eb duke u nisur nga kushtet ORG . PERSON \u00ebsht\u00eb em\u00ebruar si PERSON e Par\u00eb n\u00eb ORG t\u00eb RSH - s\u00eb n\u00eb PERSON heq dor\u00eb nga e drejta e ankimit pran\u00eb GJEDNJ - s\u00eb ) . \u201d","On DATE , as part of her observations , the applicant submitted a statement , which she had signed on DATE , withdrawing her application from the ORG . The statement reads as follows :","\u201c Further to ORG Office \u2019s letter ... about my position concerning the application lodged by me , PERSON , before ORG , I inform [ you ] that I withdraw from pursuing this application before that court ( referuar shkres\u00ebs s\u00eb Avokatur\u00ebs s\u00eb Shtetit ... mbi qendrimin tim personal mbi \u00e7\u00ebshtjen e ngritur prej meje , PERSON , n\u00eb PERSON , GPE , informoj se jap dor\u00ebheqjen p\u00ebr vazhdimin e k\u00ebsaj \u00e7\u00ebshtje pran\u00eb k\u00ebsaj gjykate ) . \u201d","She maintained that the statement was made as a result of pressure exerted by the Government .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that the duration of maternity leave is thirtyfive days in respect of pre - natal leave and DATE in respect of post - natal leave . Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL states that when the period of post - natal leave is over , a woman may decide whether she wishes to return to work or benefit from social insurance entitlements . Under Article CARDINAL , in the event that a woman \u2019s employer terminates her employment during her pregnancy or following her return to work after the birth of a child , the employer must prove that the reason for the termination was not the woman \u2019s pregnancy or the birth of the child . Under LAW the termination of employment is void if it takes place during the period in which the woman is entitled to social insurance payments subsequent to the birth of a child .","Under LAW a court decision may be provisionally enforced if it concerns payment of damages owing to unjust dismissal from work . Its provisional enforcement may also be ordered , if , owing to the delay in enforcement , the plaintiff may suffer significant damage which can not be remedied or if the enforcement would become impossible or would be made exceedingly difficult .","Article CARDINAL provides that a court decision which orders provisional enforcement thereof constitutes an execution title . Under Article CARDINAL the execution title is enforceable at the creditor \u2019s request ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154616","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KASANGAKI  v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174389","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u0110UKOVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant brought a compensation claim for damages suffered as a consequence of an expropriation of his property against GPE and CARDINAL of the local primary schools before ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed ORG that he had initiated a separate set of proceedings to determine the value of the above - mentioned damages . ORG suspended the above mentioned civil proceedings pending the final resolution of this matter .","No document was submitted by the parties as to whether or not the compensation proceedings have ended in the meantime . Accordingly , it would appear that the said CARDINAL sets of proceedings are still pending before ORG .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG in Bar , against his neighbour , seeking a demarcation between their CARDINAL plots of land .","On DATE the applicant amended his proposal to this effect .","On DATE the applicant and the respondent reached a friendly settlement which was approved by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168382","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU;SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF NAKU v. LITHUANIA AND SWEDEN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","DATE to DATE the applicant worked at the NORP embassy in GPE .","She began as a receptionist and translator and was later promoted to be cultural , information and press officer .","On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to the NORP ambassador in GPE . She stated that since DATE a major change had been made to her work description \u2013 she had started managing cultural affairs , enjoying partial independence in decision - making and a high degree of responsibility for financial matters . She was considered as being responsible for certain categories of business because she had to draft budgets for cultural projects . Unfortunately , up to that point no adjustment in her contract had been made .","The contract drawn up by the NORP embassy in GPE on DATE , which the applicant and the ambassador signed , read as follows :","\u201c Work description \u2013 Sniege DATE information officer ( cultural affairs , social secretary etc . )","PERSON work description is as follows :","- handles cultural and information matters in consultation with the Ambassador and the Cultural Attach\u00e9 in GPE","- programme - maker for visitors from ORG as well as for other NORP authorities","- social secretary \u2013 mainly to the Ambassador but if needed also to the Counsellor , First and Second secretary \u2019s","- replacement for ORG and GPE \u201d","The applicant submitted several letters of recommendation to the ORG which were written DATE by her NORP colleagues at the embassy , including the ambassador to GPE DATE . The letters attested to her loyalty , dedication , communication skills and good working record .","The applicant also submitted another letter , signed on DATE by her former NORP colleague , PERSON In the letter PERSON stated that DATE she had been posted as cultural attach\u00e9 to the NORP states , stationed in GPE , but also accredited to GPE , where she worked DATE . PERSON stated that during that time she had worked closely with the applicant and that they had planned and carried out various projects . All the major projects had been cleared with the ambassador . The budgets had been relatively modest . PERSON also stated that for DATE she had worked with the applicant she had never felt that the applicant had made a single payment without asking her , or without clearing them with the ambassador .","According to ORG , in DATE and DATE a new routine was introduced at the GPE embassy by which diplomatic staff had to take decisions on financial support payments , and the applicant lost her authority to deal with those matters independently . It was around that time that a new ambassador , PERSON , was appointed .","NORP The accreditation certificate issued to the applicant by ORG on DATE stated that the applicant was \u201c part of the administrative technical staff at the embassy of GPE ( ORG ambasados administracinio techninio personalo nar\u0117 ) \u201d . The other page of the certificate stated that the applicant \u201c did not enjoy any diplomatic immunities or privileges ( asmens imunitetai ir privilegijos : ORG ) \u201d . It also said that pursuant to LAW jurisdiction over the applicant was to be exercised so that the functioning of the embassy would not be disturbed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant and the NORP ambassador PERSON signed a document entitled \u201c Terms and conditions of employment for locally engaged personnel at ORG in GPE \u201d . The document read that NORP laws applied to the employment relationship between the applicant and the embassy regarding conditions such as the payment of tax , social security contributions , overtime , sick leave , the right to leaves of absence or severance payments . Pursuant to section CARDINAL of that document , NORP legislation was to be complied with as regards dismissal from work and the employer had to have \u201c objective grounds for dismissal \u201d . Under section CARDINAL , an employee could be dismissed for committing a criminal act , seriously neglecting his duties , or committing further breaches of the requirements of his duties despite warnings having been given .","The applicant was also the chairperson of the trade union for locally employed staff at the embassy , which was registered in DATE . DATE and DATE the trade union made several written complaints to the embassy about working conditions . The letters complained of a deteriorating and oppressive working atmosphere , the confused delegation of tasks , incomplete job descriptions or changes in job descriptions without local employees being consulted , a lack of clear communication , and a lack of trust . The union expressed the view that a collective agreement between the locally employed staff and the embassy could resolve such issues .","The applicant \u2019s job description of DATE , although not signed by either the NORP ambassador or the applicant , gave her title as \u201c ORG Officer \u201d , who worked \u201c in cooperation with and under the guidance of ORG or in relevant matters with the Second Secretary \u201d . The applicant \u2019s functions were described as follows :","\u201c Operates , coordinates and assists in cultural \/ information events and general promotion projects ;","Coordinates the DATE and long - term cultural \/ information and general promotion planning ;","Coordinates the cultural and information budget ;","Operates and assists in matters regarding press , TV and radio ;","ORG the Second Secretary with the communication strategy ;","Handles and prepares correspondence and inquiries related to cultural , information and press matters Responsible for the \u2018 cultural calendar\u2019 on the home page ;","ORG and other support ;","Processes the DATE report on culture and other relevant reports ;","Responsible for the Head of Missions newspapers\u2019 review and certain translations ;","Prepares and makes drafts of speeches on certain occasions ;","Acting as interpreter on certain occasions ;","Responsible for collecting , filing and translating various cultural and other adequate information ;","ORG matters , as well as relevant notes , and setting arrangements for other proceedings including transportations of individuals and exhibitions ;","Setting arrangements for cultural events in cooperation with the Counsellor for Political Affairs \/ Cultural Attach\u00e9 for lunches , dinners and receptions , including making guests lists writing invitation , bookings and other general assistance ;","Responsible for the information material from ORG - including ordering , filing and distribution and as well the information room ;","Responsible for the \u2018 ORG list\u2019 and the \u2018 cultural board\u2019 ;","Handles the DATE \u2018 book list\u2019 ;","Accepts and performs other duties assigned by ORG . \u201d","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( NORP valstyb\u0117s tarnautoj\u0173 profesin\u0117 s\u0105junga ) also wrote to the NORP ambassador to GPE . The letter expressed concern that local personnel at the embassy were treated unfairly . The union also considered that diplomatic immunity in labour relations applied only to diplomats and their families . In contrast , labour relations between a diplomatic representation and staff who were permanent residents of GPE were regulated by NORP law . This also flowed from DATE LAW , which did not grant diplomatic immunity from the civil jurisdiction .","On DATE the ambassador replied to the union that the embassy was \u201c very anxious to be a good employer \u201d . However , the embassy \u201c had not signed , and would not sign , collective agreements . The embassy as a diplomatic representation is subordinated by LAW and thus does not have to adhere to LAW \u201d .","On DATE NORP radio announced and other media published articles about a report by ORG that locally employed staff at NORP embassies received less pay and had worse working conditions than their NORP colleagues . The NORP trade unions also stated that although there was no lack of legal regulation , locally employed staff would often not assert their rights for fear of losing their job .","According to ORG , in DATE a new post of counsellor for cultural affairs was established at the embassy , which was taken up by a NORP diplomat , PERSON , who became the applicant \u2019s immediate superior . ORG also stated that according to internal embassy memorandums drafted by PERSON applicant was a source of conflict at the embassy . There were long but fruitless discussions concerning the applicant \u2019s work description . According to PERSON , the applicant ignored his decisions and instructions , took decisions on her own on granting financial support , failed to follow agreed plans and lacked skills in a number of areas .","On DATE the embassy drafted a new job description for the applicant . She was named \u201c Officer for Cultural and Information Affairs \u201d , and was to handle \u201c cultural matters in consultation with ORG PERSON . Her functions were essentially identical to those given in the job description of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . DATE , the applicant informed the embassy in writing that she did not agree with that job description because it lacked a clear definition of her responsibilities and those of PERSON She expressed a wish to involve a neutral person in negotiations over her working duties .","The following day , DATE , the ambassador presented the applicant with a \u201c Letter of caution \u201d . According to the letter , the ambassador saw no future for the applicant at the embassy , due to the applicant \u2019s \u201c difficulties to cooperate \u201d , \u201c lack of performance \u201d , \u201c constant questioning and arguing over duties to be performed \u201d and \u201c inability to cope with changes in [ the ] ORG \u2019s and\/or [ the applicant \u2019s ] own tasks \u201d . The applicant was given DATE to hand in her resignation , or the embassy would \u201c take other action \u201d .","According to a statement written by CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s former NORP colleagues at the embassy , GPE , on DATE the applicant was asked to hand over her keys to the embassy and leave the LOC immediately . The following day the applicant came to work as usual but was not let into the embassy . According to GPE , he saw the applicant \u201c waiting in terrible cold for TIME outside until the reception opened for visitors . Then she walked in , sat for a while and then left . DATE she fell seriously ill and never returned [ again ] \u201d .","On DATE the applicant went on sick leave . The sick leave certificates , issued by LOC ( GPE poliklinika ) in GPE , confirm that she was on sick leave as of that date . The leave was prolonged on a DATE basis and without interruption until DATE . At CARDINAL point during that time , in DATE , she was admitted for DATE to ORG neurology unit , where she was diagnosed with reversal ischemic neurological deficit in the vertebrobasilar basin . The applicant was also on sick leave in DATE and for DATE .","Whilst the applicant was on sick leave , on DATE , the NORP trade union confederation ( NORP profesini\u0173 s\u0105jung\u0173 konfederacija ) organised a protest in front of the NORP embassy building in GPE against the applicant \u2019s dismissal . The protest was covered by news outlets in GPE . According to a statement by CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s former NORP colleagues at the embassy , ORG , the local staff of the embassy did not attend the protest for fear of negative repercussions .","On DATE the NORP embassy sent a decision to the applicant \u2019s home address which stated that a disciplinary sanction would be imposed on the applicant \u2013 dismissal from work for gross misconduct . The ambassador stated that she had been informed on CARDINAL and DATE that the applicant had accused her NORP colleague PERSON of being \u201c unbalanced \u201d , that on several occasions the applicant had breached security rules at the embassy by opening a window on street level that had no bars , and that she had conducted a private meeting at the embassy , which was an unacceptable use of her working time .","In written replies of CARDINAL and DATE , the applicant noted that she had indeed called PERSON \u201c unbalanced \u201d during an employee meeting at the embassy , but that that had been because he had earlier shouted at her and had never apologised . The applicant also stated that staff at the embassy had never signed any safety or security regulations . Lastly , the meeting referred to by the ambassador had concerned asking a cleaning company to come to the embassy , and that such a practice had been begun by NORP staff and had been used continually during DATE . The applicant noted that she had never received any prior warning of the accusations against her , which were a pretext to get rid of her because of her trade - union activities .","On DATE the embassy sent a letter to the applicant \u2019s home , stating that the embassy had had confirmation of the applicant \u2019s sick leave from the social insurance office ( GPE ) , attesting that the applicant had been ill DATE . The applicant was asked to present a continuous or new doctor \u2019s certificate no later than DATE , including an indication of when she would recover .","On DATE the NORP embassy dismissed the applicant from her post , effective as of DATE . The order referred to LAW , which permits an employer to terminate an employment contract without giving prior notice to the employee if the latter has committed an act of gross misconduct . The embassy referred to its decision of DATE in order to impose such a sanction on the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The embassy also stated that on DATE it had received a sick leave certificate from the applicant that was valid until DATE , but that no medical certificates had been presented thereafter , despite a written request . According to the applicant \u2019s version of events , and as attested in writing by her former NORP colleague PERSON , in DATE she had kept the NORP embassy informed of her illness , with her husband also taking sick leave certificates to the embassy in person . An internal embassy memorandum shows that on DATE the applicant \u2019s husband had taken a sick leave certificate to the embassy for the period up to DATE .","The applicant \u2019s dismissal was subsequently mentioned on the internet site of ORG as CARDINAL of the mistreatments which had taken place in DATE . The report stated :","\u201c the explanation given by [ the ambassador ] , when interviewed by NORP radio , was that PERSON was dismissed for not doing her job properly , but she declined to give further details . However , before the new ambassador took office , PERSON had not received any complaints about her work during her DATE of service . Meanwhile , [ the ambassador ] explained to the ORG newspaper ... that , as a diplomatic representation , the embassy did not have to comply with NORP labour legislation , that the tone of trade union letters was rude and that there could not be any collective agreements in a diplomatic mission . \u201d","Arguing unlawful dismissal , the applicant brought proceedings against the NORP embassy in ORG . She submitted that \u201c for DATE I have been ORG and information projects at the embassy ( pastaruosius septynis metus esu ambasados PERSON ir informacios projekt\u0173 vadov\u0117 ) \u201d , and asked to be reinstated to her former post . She also sought pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages . The applicant argued that she had been dismissed while on sick leave , which was a clear breach of NORP law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She also challenged the allegation that she had committed acts of gross misconduct as the grounds for her dismissal , contrary to what had been suggested by the embassy . Lastly , she noted that as a result of her arbitrary dismissal she had suffered loss of reputation and her health had significantly deteriorated . She stated that she had been destroyed , both psychologically and physically .","On DATE , GPE claimed immunity from the jurisdiction of the NORP courts :","\u201c Reply to civil claim DATE re PERSON","With reference to the ORG \u2019s letter \/ announcement of DATE , regarding civil case No . DATE , ORG demands that the plaintiff \u2019s case is refused with reference to acknowledged case law of GPE ( V.Stukonis vs. ORG and A.Cudak \/ PERSON vs. ORG ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147041","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MAKOVOZ v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE before the events of the case .","In DATE several criminal cases were opened against the applicant on suspicion of kidnapping , extortion and planning an assassination .","By final judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a total of DATE imprisonment .","Starting from DATE , the date of his arrest , the applicant was detained in various custodial facilities in connection with the criminal proceedings against him . In particular , on DATE the applicant was transported from a prison hospital to remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of GPE , where he stayed until DATE . According to the applicant , the facility was overcrowded . Thus , cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY accommodated CARDINAL inmates . The applicant further claimed that he had been denied the necessary medical treatment there . In support of his allegations , the applicant submitted several photographs of his cell ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142403","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GRESPIK v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , then head of ORG , was dismissed from the civil service , as a disciplinary measure . In the ensuing labour action the parties reached a friendly settlement on DATE ; the applicant was reinstated and obtained damages . However , on DATE , the Prime Minister revoked his mandate to preside over the ORG . As a consequence , the applicant left the ORG .","From this labour dispute , CARDINAL sets of proceedings ensued . On DATE the applicant brought a labour action , claiming unlawful revocation of his mandate . In parallel , the ORG brought a civil action against the applicant , claiming the invalidity of the friendly settlement and seeking the reimbursement of the compensation received by the applicant . The applicant also brought labour proceedings , claiming the unlawfulness of the disciplinary measure imposed on him on DATE as well as his salary arrears .","NORP The friendly settlement was annulled by a final judgment of ORG , acting as a second instance court , on DATE .","On DATE ORG , acting as a second instance court , adopted a final judgment establishing the unlawfulness of the revocation of the applicant \u2019s mandate on DATE .","In the labour action concerning the disciplinary measure , ORG found for the applicant in an interim judgment on DATE and established the unlawfulness of the sanction .","As regards the applicant \u2019s claim for salary arrears and the ORG \u2019s action for the repayment of compensation , the proceedings appear to be still pending before the GPE and ORG , respectively ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164000","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"VIDAKOVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , a bus driver , was involved in a car accident in which CARDINAL people died .","On DATE he was charged with a serious traffic offence .","On DATE , after CARDINAL remittals , ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE found the applicant guilty in his absence and sentenced him to DATE of imprisonment . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE upheld this judgment .","It transpires from the case - file that on various occasions the applicant had relied on his health and an alleged trip to GPE as reasons for not appearing at some hearings , had dismissed his representative , had challenged judges , and had registered a false address as his address of residence .","On an unspecified date DATE and DATE the above judgments were transmitted to ORG in Bar for enforcement against the applicant , which is when the applicant learned about them .","On DATE ORG in GPE reopened the proceedings , following the applicant \u2019s request to that effect filed on DATE . The same decision ordered the applicant \u2019s detention due to the fear that he might abscond .","On DATE ORG Instance found the applicant guilty of endangering traffic , sentenced him to DATE of imprisonment and prohibited him from driving . The court noted that the applicant had attempted in various manners to prolong the proceedings , including health reasons , \u201c being occupied by other affairs \u201d , dismissing his representative , challenging judges , registering a false address as the address of his residence , and an alleged trip to GPE . On DATE the High Court quashed this judgment .","On DATE ORG in GPE issued a detention order against the applicant so as to ensure his presence at the next hearing , given that neither the applicant nor his representative had appeared at the previous hearing scheduled for DATE , \u201c thus obviously obstructing \u201d the proceedings . The court noted in this regard that the applicant \u2019s father had appeared instead and had submitted that the applicant was in hospital , but that the medical certificate provided stated that the applicant had been both admitted to and released from hospital on DATE . In its decision the court further stated , inter alia , that the proceedings at issue had been pending for DATE and that the criminal prosecution was to become time - barred on DATE .","DATE and DATE CARDINAL other hearings were scheduled , notably for DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , at which the applicant failed to appear . DATE and DATE he was in hospital .","On DATE ORG Instance found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to DATE of imprisonment . The court noted , inter alia , that the applicant was \u201c deliberately stalling the proceedings in different ways \u201d ( na razne na\u010dine svjesno odugovla\u010dio postupak ) . It made no reference to whether the trial had become time - barred .","On DATE the applicant appealed . He submitted that the prosecution against him had become time - barred and relied on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , and proceeded ex officio to uphold the judgment rendered by ORG on DATE . The court also held that the application of statutory provisions relating to prescription was \u201c out of the question as the reopened criminal proceedings were not a criminal prosecution ( which was concluded by a judgment ) but were conducted upon the applicant \u2019s request and for his benefit \u201d .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) proposing , inter alia , that the proceedings be terminated as the prosecution had become time - barred .","On DATE ORG upheld the High Court judgment , concluding that \u201c the court decided as above given that the judgments of the lower courts are based on law , the law was not breached in the proceedings against [ the applicant ] nor were there any significant procedural violations of criminal proceedings \u201d . It did not address directly the question of whether the criminal prosecution had become time - barred or not .","DATE the applicant challenged all the judges of ORG in GPE , including the judge processing his case , on the ground that they had pursued the proceedings against him even though the criminal prosecution had become time - barred , and requested that the case be transferred to another court . These requests were rejected by ORG by DATE .","On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint ( krivi\u010dna prijava ) for abuse of office against the judge in charge of processing the case against him . In doing so the applicant maintained , in particular , that the court should have terminated the proceedings against him as the prosecution of the criminal offence that he was charged with had become time - barred .","On DATE the State Prosecution ( ORG dr\u017eavno tu\u017eila\u0161tvo ) rejected the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint , relying on the Conclusion of the Criminal Departments of ORG , ORG and ORG issued in DATE , which provided that once a judgment finding a defendant guilty in his absence became final the criminal prosecution could not become time - barred if the criminal proceedings were later reopened ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The Conclusion was apparently explained by an opinion that if the prosecution could become time - barred that would favour those defendants who by cunning managed to avoid being tried . The decision also noted that the applicant had failed to appear for hearings scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . No appeal was allowed against this decision .","On DATE the applicant addressed ORG , complaining apparently that his prosecution had become time - barred . On DATE ORG , by means of a letter , informed the applicant that the trial in his case had not become time - barred and referred to the Conclusion of DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant filed a compensation claim against the ORG for convicting him after the prosecution of a particular criminal offence had become time - barred .","On DATE ORG ruled against the applicant , which decision was upheld by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE respectively . ORG relied on the Conclusion of DATE , and ORG considered that the provisions on prescription did not apply if the prescription period had ended in the course of the reopened proceedings . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal as unfounded , relying on ORG reasoning .","On DATE ORG in PERSON dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for amnesty . The court noted , inter alia , that on DATE the applicant had been served with a writ issued by the court in GPE relating to the enforcement of his prison sentence . DATE the applicant \u2019s representative had submitted that the applicant was residing in GPE and the writ should be forwarded to the court in PERSON . After the relevant authorities had attempted unsuccessfully to serve the writ on the applicant on CARDINAL occasions in GPE they had sought the assistance of the police . The police had informed them that the applicant actually had had residence in GPE at an unknown address , after which an arrest warrant ( potjernica ) had been issued against the applicant .","Article CARDINAL provided that ORG , ORG of republics and provinces , and relevant military courts would deliver conclusions ( na\u010delne stavove ) in respect of issues relevant for the implementation of federal regulations .","Section CARDINAL provided that ORG , ORG of republic and provinces , and ORG convened common sessions ( zajedni\u010dka sednica ) and , through their delegates , delivered conclusions on issues relevant for the implementation of federal regulations . In particular , common sessions were to be convened when there was inconsistency in the case - law on issues relevant for the uniform implementation of federal regulations .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provided that a person who was involved in traffic and failed to comply with the traffic rules negligently ( iz nehata ) , thus jeopardising human lives and causing light bodily injuries , would be punished with imprisonment of DATE .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provided that if the criminal offence under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) led to the death of CARDINAL or more persons , the perpetrator would be punished with imprisonment of DATE .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provided , inter alia , that a criminal prosecution could not be initiated ( ne mo\u017ee se preduzeti ) DATE after the commission of those criminal offences for which the courts could impose imprisonment of DATE and DATE .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) the criminal prosecution of the crime defined in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of GPE became time - barred in any event when DATE had elapsed since the commission of the crime .","This Code entered into force on DATE and thereby repealed all incompatible criminal law provisions thereto . Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , however , correspond to sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , respectively , of LAW of GPE .","The said Conclusion ( na\u010delni stav ) provided that once a judgment finding a defendant guilty in his absence became final the criminal prosecution could not become time - barred if the criminal proceedings were reopened .","By judgment of DATE ORG found X guilty in absence and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . Following X \u2019s request the proceedings were reopened and by DATE ORG dismissed the indictment as the criminal prosecution had become time - barred in the meantime . On DATE ORG accepted ORG request for protection of legality and found that ORG decision of DATE was in breach of the law . In its decision PERSON . Br . CARDINAL ORG explicitly held that when criminal proceedings were reopened in respect of a person who had been tried in his absence , the statutory provisions on prescription were not applicable regardless of whether the statutory prescription time had expired in the meantime . According to ORG the reopened proceedings were not a new criminal prosecution , given that the criminal prosecution had already ended by means of a final judgment issued in the defendant \u2019s absence . The reopened proceedings were conducted exclusively upon the request of the defendant in whose favour the proceedings were re - opened and in order to examine the earlier final judgment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170451","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF NIKOLI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["In DATE the ORG predecessors were deprived of certain land in favour of the ORG .","On DATE ORG ordered ORG ( the debtor ) , a company predominantly comprised of socially - owned capital , as the end user of that land , to pay the applicants specified amounts on account of the compensation for the land in question .","On DATE and DATE respectively , upon the ORG request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicants the enforcement costs . This judgment became both , final and enforceable by DATE .","CARDINAL applicant , Mr PERSON , never lodged an enforcement request .","On DATE the Ni\u0161 Commercial Court opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor ( CARDINAL ) .","CARDINAL applicant , PERSON Nikoli\u0107 Jaj\u010devi\u0107 , duly submitted her claims therein .","These insolvency proceedings are still ongoing .","NORP On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively , all applicants lodged their constitutional appeals .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , the ORG found a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in respect of all applicants , except Mr PERSON . However , the court did not award the applicants any damages , merely stating that the applicants \u201c had not claimed non - pecuniary damages \u201d .","ORG dismissed the appeal in respect of CARDINAL applicant , PERSON PERSON , since he had failed to request enforcement of the judgment in question ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156504","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ZAMMIT AND ATTARD CASSAR v. MALTA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE and live in PERSON and PERSON respectively .","The applicants own , in equal shares , a property built in DATE in PERSON and which is known DATE as ORG . According to the applicants , the property is used as a storage facility for a nearby shop . At first , this was not contested by the Government , but at a later stage in the proceedings , they submitted that the property had been abandoned and was not in use .","The applicants inherited the property from their uncle on DATE . At the time , the property was already leased to PERSON , a company registered in GPE , for MONEY ( ORG ) ( equivalent to MONEY ( EUR ) ) DATE , that is , ORG DATE on the basis of a voluntary lease agreement . Although there was no evidence of the GPE ever having signed a lease agreement , it appears that the lease commenced in DATE . Rent is payable DATE in advance , and in accordance with the law the lease is renewed automatically DATE .","In such circumstances , PERSON hereinafter \u201c the Ordinance \u201d ) , LAW of LAW , ( see Relevant domestic law below ) provides that the eviction of a tenant or a change in the conditions of a lease requires the authorisation of ORG ( \u201c the RRB \u201d ) .","In DATE , the applicants undertook a valuation of the property with a view to making a request for an increase in the rent . The architect who carried out the valuation indicated that the current rental value of the property was ORG DATE .","In accordance with legal requirements ( see Relevant domestic law below ) , on DATE , the applicants informed PERSON by means of a judicial letter that they intended to raise the rent to ORG DATE with effect from DATE .","By means of a judicial letter dated CARDINAL DATE , PERSON replied that it did not agree to the request . It failed , however , to apply to the RRB for the rejection of such an increase or for new conditions , as required by law ( see Article CARDINAL of the Ordinance ) .","As from the second term of DATE the applicants stopped accepting rent for fear it would prejudice their claim . In consequence , company PERSON continued to pay the rent by means of a schedule of deposit filed with the domestic courts .","On DATE the applicants brought an action before ORG , requesting it to impose on PERSON an obligatory time - limit within which to make an application to the RRB . They considered that in default of such action by PERSON , the increase in rent requested should be deemed to have been agreed . PERSON having eventually filed the said application ( see below ) , the applicants\u2019 action was dismissed .","On DATE E. applied to the RRB , requesting it to dismiss the claim for the increase in rent . The applicants responded , arguing that the rent should reflect market values .","In a report dated DATE CARDINAL court - appointed architects concluded that the rent of ORG CARDINAL was already PERCENT over and above the rent level at which the LOC were or could have been leased before DATE ( LAW b ) of the LAW , see Relevant domestic law below ) . It followed that in the light of LAW ) ( b ) of the LAW , the increase in rent could not be recommended .","By a note filed on DATE the applicants submitted that an unfavourable decision would breach their rights under the Convention .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the ORG request on the basis of the opinion of the CARDINAL court - appointed architects . It noted that it had no jurisdiction to determine the human rights issue raised by the applicants , who had not made a request for a constitutional referral .","On DATE the applicants appealed . They argued that the ORG \u2019s decision had breached their rights under LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW . They requested the court to refer the matter to the constitutional jurisdictions .","By decree of CARDINAL DATE ORG referred the matter to the constitutional jurisdictions . Following the constitutional proceedings ( described below ) and the applicants\u2019 lodging of an application with the ORG , on DATE ORG adjourned the case sine die , pending the outcome of the present proceedings .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( FAC ) , in its constitutional jurisdiction , upheld the applicants\u2019 claim , holding that their rights under LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW had been breached . Referring to the ORG \u2019s case - law , it considered that the applicants had not had an effective remedy , in so far as they had been constrained by the capping of rent levels set out in the law . In relation to their property rights , it upheld the finding of a violation , on the basis of the reasoning in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . ORG , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) DATE namely the low level of the rent , the applicants\u2019 state of uncertainty as to the possibility of recovery of the property , the lack of procedural safeguards , and the rise in the standard of living in GPE over DATE coupled with the applicants\u2019 argument that the interference had been disproportionate , as it had caused them to bear an excessive burden , given that the property was used for a commercial purpose . Indeed , the lessor could have used other property it had owned , but had preferred to sell that other property for ORG CARDINAL and to continue to rent from the applicants at a low rate .","On appeal , by a judgment of DATE , ORG reversed the first - instance judgment . It considered that although when the parties had concluded the contract they had been aware of the law as it stood ( and had stood for DATE ) , they had nevertheless opted to enter into that contract . Therefore , they and their legal successors could not now complain of a breach of their human rights . Indeed , the original lease agreement had neither stipulated a low level of rent nor envisaged future increases in rent . Given that the original owner had opted to lease the LOC , knowing the legal consequences attached , the impact on their property rights had been neither unforeseen nor arbitrary ; nor had there been a state of legal uncertainty . Moreover , recent amendments to the law had improved their position from DATE ( Act X of DATE ; see Article CARDINALD of LAW below ) .","As mentioned above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) as soon as they inherited the property , the applicants refused to accept the rent to avoid prejudicing their legal position . In consequence , it transpires from the documents provided to the ORG that from DATE to DATE the tenants deposited in court by means of schedules of deposit the sum of ORG CARDINAL DATE ( ORG CARDINAL DATE ) . For DATE those deposits amounted to ORG CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL in DATE , and EUR CARDINAL DATE until DATE .","NORP In DATE LAW was amended to stipulate that the impugned restrictions would not apply to leases entered into after DATE .","While the above - mentioned constitutional proceedings were pending , a new law was enacted , stipulating that with effect from CARDINAL DATE the rent applicable to commercial leases was to be increased by PERCENT per year , and that an increase at that level should also take place for DATE , DATE and DATE ( Section CARDINAL D of LAW ) .","Thus the amounts of rent payable to the applicants in DATE were as follows : in DATE EUR CARDINAL ; in DATE ORG CARDINAL ; in DATE EUR CARDINAL ; and in DATE ORG CARDINAL . For DATE the rent would increase by PERCENT DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170050","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SALIJA v. SWITZERLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in LOC and lives in LOC in the municipality of LOC in \u201c the former GPE \u201d . He arrived in GPE in DATE via family reunification and was granted a permanent residence permit .","On DATE the applicant married a national of \u201c the former GPE \u201d , born in DATE , who arrived in GPE in DATE and who also held a permanent residence permit . The couple has CARDINAL children , born in DATE and DATE , who are likewise nationals of \u201c the former GPE \u201d .","After leaving school , the applicant did not undergo professional training , but worked in a variety of jobs , namely as a postman , mailman , plasterer and construction worker , with brief periods of unemployment .","On DATE the GPE ORG convicted the applicant of embezzlement for having sold a rental car to a third person in DATE and gave him a suspended sentence of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG of the GPE of GPE convicted the applicant of homicide with indirect intent ( PERSON ) and serious violations of the rules of road traffic . On DATE , while he was engaged in a car race on a public road with an acquaintance , the applicant , driving at a speed of QUANTITY , lost control of his car and crashed into a lamppost , which caused the death of his passenger . That court took the view that the applicant , by agreeing to engage in the race , had deliberately taken the risk of killing him . It found that the applicant had acted with a high degree of recklessness and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant \u2019s appeals against this conviction were dismissed by ORG on DATE and by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant started serving his sentence .","On DATE ORG ( GPE ) sentenced the applicant to a fine of MONEY ( CHF ) for the purchase and consumption of marihuana .","On DATE the applicant was released on parole after having served CARDINAL of his sentence .","On DATE , after having heard the applicant , ORG of the GPE of GPE revoked the applicant \u2019s permanent residence permit . It found that the conditions for revocation pursuant to , inter alia , LAW lit . a in conjunction with LAW lit . b of LAW , AuG , see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph CARDINAL below ) were met . PERSON concluded that the public interest in the applicant \u2019s removal outweighed his interest in enjoying his family life with his wife and children in GPE . It ordered his expulsion pursuant to LAW .","On DATE the government ( NORP ) of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal lodged on DATE .","On DATE ORG of the GPE of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal lodged on DATE . It considered that the applicant had committed a serious criminal offence , that he was not well integrated in GPE despite the length of his stay , that expert prognosis regarding the likelihood that he would reoffend was positive but did not rule out any such risk , that he spoke NORP and was familiar with the culture in \u201c the former GPE \u201d , where he spent parts of his childhood and which he had visited since . It concluded that the decision to revoke his permanent residence permit was proportionate . Moreover , the court noted that the applicant \u2019s wife was a national of \u201c the former GPE \u201d as well , knew NORP and the country \u2019s culture , and was not well integrated in GPE either . Observing that the couple \u2019s children were DATE and thus of an adaptable age , it concluded that the applicant \u2019s wife and children could reasonably be expected to relocate to \u201c the former GPE \u201d with him .","On DATE the applicant appealed that decision , arguing that the decision to revoke his permanent residence permit was disproportionate .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It considered that the main criminal offence , of which the applicant was convicted , intentional homicide , was a particularly serious one . While it acknowledged that he had lived in GPE for DATE , which had thus become the centre of his life , it found that he was neither professionally nor socially integrated . It considered that he had no stable employment , but considerable debts . Both he and his wife and children had benefitted significantly from social welfare . Moreover , the court considered that the applicant could reasonably ( ORG in \u201c the former GPE \u201d , considering that he spoke NORP , was born there and had spent a part of his childhood there and had visited the country since . It observed that the same was true for his wife , who likewise originated from \u201c the former GPE \u201d , where she spent DATE of her life and still had relatives . She knew NORP and visited the country DATE on DATE . At the same time , she was not well integrated in GPE as she did not undergo any professional training after leaving school , had received social welfare as from DATE and only started to work in DATE . As far as their children were concerned , the court considered that they attended primary school and kindergarten , respectively , and were still of an adaptable age . ORG concluded that the public interest in the applicant \u2019s removal outweighed the applicant \u2019s interest in remaining in GPE and enjoying respect for his family life there , also noting that his wife and children had a choice between either following him to \u201c the former GPE \u201d or remaining in GPE and maintaining contact through short but regular visits .","On DATE the applicant left GPE in compliance with the expulsion order .","On DATE ORG issued an entry ban against the applicant for DATE .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s wife and children relocated to \u201c the former GPE \u201d to live with him .","On DATE ORG , on the applicant \u2019s appeal , reduced the duration of the re - entry ban to DATE due to proportionality considerations . It found that the conditions in LAW lit . a and CARDINAL of LAW for the issuance of an entry ban for a period of DATE were met ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph CARDINAL ) . It considered that the offence committed by the applicant was particularly serious and that he continued to be a serious threat to public order , notwithstanding his mostly good behaviour since the commission of the offence and positive personality development . It noted that the applicant could ask for a temporary suspension of the entry ban for humanitarian or other important reasons ( LAW ) and that the applicant \u2019s wife , who originated from \u201c the former GPE \u201d herself , could visit him there together with their children and also maintain contact by various means of communication .","NORP In DATE , i.e. after DATE , the applicant \u2019s wife and children returned to GPE to avoid the expiry of their permanent residence permit pursuant to LAW ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph CARDINAL ) and because their socioeconomic living conditions in \u201c the former GPE \u201d were difficult . They live in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146357","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DZEMYUK v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for home;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of PERSON , which forms part of ORG , a resort town in LOC .","The applicant owns a house and an adjacent plot of land in LOC . The village of GPE is situated in a mountainous region and because of its location holds the status of mountainous residential area . It is also known as a resort for \u201c green tourism \u201d in PERSON region . It is situated on the banks of PERSON river .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , having considered CARDINAL sites on which to construct a new cemetery , chose the land previously occupied by garages belonging to a company called ORG ( \u201c the LOC plot \u201d ) as it was not occupied , it was located in the village and the cemetery could be constructed at low cost .","The VL plot is located near the applicant \u2019s house ( for further details see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , in which he was residing with his family at the time . CARDINAL rivers flow at a distance of QUANTITY from the VL plot . Drinking water for PERSON comes from wells fed by groundwater ; there is no centralised water supply system and the wells are not protected .","On DATE ORG informed the Chairman of ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) that the construction of the cemetery on the VL plot might cause contamination of the river and the wells situated on adjacent plots of land by ptomaine carried by the groundwater flow .","The cemetery was opened for use by ORG in DATE . It is being administered by ORG .","On DATE ORG ( \u0441\u0430\u043d\u0456\u0442\u0430\u0440\u043d\u043e-\u0435\u043f\u0456\u0434\u0435\u043c\u0456\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0433\u0456\u0447\u043d\u0430 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0446\u0456\u044f ) concluded that the cemetery should not have been constructed on the VL plot in view of its proximity to residential buildings and the risk of contamination of the surrounding environment by ptomaine .","On DATE ORG of ORG refused to approve the construction plan . In particular , it stated that the cemetery should not be situated in the proposed area as its distance from private housing did not comply with the norms and standards of a health protection zone ( \u0441\u0430\u043d\u0456\u0442\u0430\u0440\u043d\u043e-\u0437\u0430\u0445\u0438\u0441\u043d\u0430 \u0437\u043e\u043d\u0430 ) .","On DATE and DATE ORG , part of ORG , informed the applicant and ORG that another location would have to be found for the cemetery . It was of the view that constructing the cemetery on the VL plot would breach environmental health laws and regulations and would worsen the living conditions of the residents of adjacent houses . In particular , it would be located QUANTITY from the nearest residential buildings , which are QUANTITY away from the edge of the cemetery ( which would not allow for the establishment of the necessary health protection zone ) . It could lead to contamination of the groundwater reservoir used by the residents of adjacent households for drinking water and of the nearby rivers with by - products of human decomposition . It further stated that a health protection zone was also intended to reduce psychological pressure on the residents of adjacent houses .","The applicant alleges that DATE to the present moment he has been receiving treatment for hypertension and various cardio - related diseases . He supplied in this respect sick leave certificates and medical certificates from DATE and DATE , relating to him and his wife . He has also provided the ORG with death certificates for CARDINAL of his neighbours Mr GPE and PERSON , who also resided in the vicinity of the prohibited cemetery and died at DATE and CARDINAL , respectively .","On DATE the GPE - Frankivsk ORG informed the applicant that it could not intervene in respect of unauthorised burials taking place on the VL plot : the issue was in the competence of local authorities , including ORG , which was responsible for management and maintenance of the cemetery .","On DATE ORG of ORG informed ORG that ORG was considering resettling the applicant . He had twice been invited to discuss a proposal for resettlement of his family to another part of the village but no response had been received .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) informed ORG and ORG that the area near the applicant \u2019s house was not suitable for construction of the cemetery as it did not respect a CARDINAL wide health protection zone that would protect the residential buildings and a CARDINAL-metre wide water protection zone to protect the Prutets river .","On DATE the ORG resolved inter alia that the relevant local authorities were prepared to consider the purchase of a house or apartment for the applicant , or to pay him compensation if he refused to reside in the cemetery \u2019s vicinity .","On DATE the issue of the site of the cemetery was examined by officials from ORG , ORG , the environmental health inspectorate and ORG . They recommended to the Chairman of ORG that another plot on the outskirts of the village of \u201c NORP \u201d be used as a cemetery .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the only way to resolve the issue was to resettle him . They asked him to agree to such a resettlement . They also confirmed that ORG was willing either to buy a house for the applicant or to provide him with an equivalent plot of land and the funds necessary to construct another house","On DATE the Chairman of ORG invited the applicant to inform the authorities whether his family was willing to resettle and , if so , on what conditions .","In reply , the applicant sought more information on the proposal , such as , details of the specific land plot , house and facilities to be provided .","NORP By letter of DATE the Chairman of ORG , in reply to the applicant \u2019s request for specific proposals , invited the applicant to discuss the proposal in person with a view to a possible compromise .","On DATE the Chairman of ORG asked ORG ( \u0414\u043d\u0456\u043f\u0440\u043e\u043c\u0456\u0441\u0442\u043e \u2013 \u201c the Institute \u201d ) to develop proposals for the site of a cemetery in the village .","On DATE the Institute informed the applicant that it was not within its competence to decide matters such as the question of where to situate the cemetery . It also mentioned that the local development plan for PERSON proposed a plot in the PERSON area for the cemetery . However , this was subject to approval by the local council and environmental health inspectorate . It also informed the applicant that no letter of CARDINAL DATE with proposals to investigate possible site of the cemetery ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been received from ORG .","NORP By letter of DATE addressed to the applicant and the Chairman of ORG , ORG stated that it had repeatedly proposed to ORG that it use an area called Venterivka for the site of the cemetery . However , the council had not taken up that suggestion for unspecified reasons . It also informed the applicant that it was within ORG competence to decide on the allocation of a plot of land for a cemetery .","On several occasions DATE the applicant and members of his family , who resided together , asked ORG to grant each of them a plot of land on which to construct a house because they felt that living in the cemetery \u2019s vicinity was intolerable . ORG rejected the requests because of a lack of available plots of land .","According to the results of examinations of drinking water from the applicant \u2019s well conducted by ORG dated DATE and DATE , the toxicological , chemical and organoleptic indices of the water complied with national standards ( no E. coli index examination had been made ) . A conclusion was reached that water could be used for household needs .","On DATE and DATE ORG carried out a bacteriological analysis of the water from the same well . It established , contrary to the results of the examinations held on DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that the E. coli bacteria index in the water gave a reading of CARDINAL , whereas the normal reading was DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) , and concluded that the water could not be used for household needs . It also recommended disinfecting the water supply . The cause of water pollution was not established and would require an additional expert report .","On DATE in response to a request from the Government , ORG concluded that the reading obtained from the bacteriological analysis which had indicated water contamination did not have any connection to the location of the cemetery , but could also have been caused by other sources .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the reasons for the bacterial contamination of the water supply could be established on the basis of a hydrogeological assessment as to whether there were any connections between the drinking water reservoirs and possible sources of contamination . It further stated that according to an analysis of water taken from different parts of the village , the E. coli index exceeded the allowed reading established by law , which provided that drinking water should not contain any index of PERSON coli or be CARDINAL in that index per CARDINAL cmCARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL in relation to the domestic drinking water standards ) , nevertheless the E. coli index ranged from CARDINAL to CARDINAL .","The applicant \u2019s house and well are QUANTITY from the nearest boundary of the cemetery .","By letters of CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE from ORG , ORG and the GPE - Frankivsk ORG , the authorities informed the Government \u2019s agent that the applicant had failed to manifest any interest in being resettled .","On DATE ORG , following the applicant \u2019s claim in proceedings against ORG , held that the ORG \u2019s decision to situate the cemetery on the VL plot had been unlawful .","At DATE residents of PERSON carried out the first burial at the cemetery .","On DATE ORG , in another set of new proceedings , found that ORG had failed to follow the proper procedure for the allocation of a plot of land for a cemetery , namely obtaining an environmental health assessment , and ordered it to prohibit burials on the VL plot .","On DATE the residents of Tatariv were informed of the court \u2019s decision to stop the use of the VL plot as a cemetery . Nevertheless , burials continued at the site .","On DATE ORG prohibited burials on the VL plot . On DATE ORG terminated enforcement proceedings in the case , considering that the judgment had been fully complied with by ORG .","NORP On DATE ORG again decided that the VL plot could be used for the new village cemetery . On DATE the applicant lodged a new claim against that decision with ORG .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the relevant judge of ORG , which assumed jurisdiction over the claims lodged on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that the site of the cemetery did not comply with national environmental health laws and regulations on the planning and construction of urban areas . In particular , the location did not comply with the requirement of a health protection zone between the cemetery and the nearest residential buildings .","On DATE the ORG declared ORG decision of DATE unlawful . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","On DATE ORG cancelled its decision of DATE in pursuance of the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG approved a new development plan for the village . The plan again authorised the use of the VL plot as a cemetery .","On DATE the applicant again instituted proceedings against ORG , seeking to have the approval of the new development plan for the village , insofar as it concerned the location of the cemetery , declared unlawful . He also sought compensation for non - pecuniary damage , court fees and legal expenses .","On DATE ORG ordered ORG to inform the residents of the village that burials at the unauthorised cemetery near the applicant \u2019s house were prohibited .","By that time , CARDINAL burials had been carried out on the VL plot . The distance between the applicant \u2019s house and some of the graves was QUANTITY .","The Chairman of ORG argued before the court that there was no other suitable area for a cemetery in the village . She further submitted that the applicant \u2019s allegation of possible contamination of the water supply was unfounded , as the groundwater flowed away from his property .","DATE . On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claims and held that the new construction plan was unlawful as regards the location of the cemetery . It found that the VL plot was not suitable for use as a cemetery . In particular , constructing the cemetery on the VL plot had breached the environmental health laws and regulations requiring the establishment of : ( a ) a health protection zone QUANTITY wide separating residential areas from a risk factor ; and ( b ) a water protection zone QUANTITY wide separating water supply sources from a risk factor . It observed that those distances could not be reduced . It ordered ORG to close the cemetery and to pay the applicant CARDINAL hryvnias ( ORG ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage and ORG CARDINAL for costs and expenses .","On CARDINAL DATE the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal ( \u201c Court of Appeal \u201d ) upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE in part . In particular , it decided that no award of non - pecuniary damage should be made to the applicant , and it reduced the award for costs and expenses to ORG CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG upheld the ruling of CARDINAL May CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG issued CARDINAL writs of execution ordering ORG to adopt a decision declaring the new development plan unlawful and to close the cemetery .","On DATE ORG instituted enforcement proceedings in the case .","DATE and DATE ORG imposed fines on ORG several times for its refusal to comply with the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the Bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings , stating that it had been impossible to enforce the decision without the involvement of ORG , whose members had failed to adopt a decision in pursuance of the judgment of DATE .","In DATE the applicant requested ORG to change the terms of the enforcement of the judgment of DATE . In particular , he sought to have the Chairman of ORG ordered to execute the judgment .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request . It held that the Chairman had acted only as a representative of ORG , the respondent in the case . The Chairman had not been involved as a party to the proceedings . On DATE ORG upheld the ruling of CARDINAL DATE .","In DATE the applicant challenged the alleged omissions and inactivity of the Chairman of ORG as regards the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE before ORG .","On DATE ORG found no fault on the part of the Chairman and rejected the applicant \u2019s claim . On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE ORG again refused to declare the new development plan unlawful and to close the cemetery .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings were not subject to renewal .","The applicant also unsuccessfully sought to institute criminal proceedings against the Chairman of ORG for her alleged failure to enforce the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG , acting upon the applicant \u2019s request , refused to institute criminal proceedings against a private individual , PERSON , for using the VL plot for a burial . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , upheld this decision .","On DATE ORG in CARDINAL separate judgments rejected as unsubstantiated damages claims brought by the applicant and his neighbour , PERSON , against PERSON and PERSON ( private individuals ) concerning the unlawful use of the land near their houses for burial purposes . It found no breach of applicant \u2019s rights by the respondents .","The judgments were upheld on DATE ( in CARDINAL separate rulings ) by ORG and subsequently on DATE and DATE by ORG ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175500","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SAMARD\u017dI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Kristina Pardalos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant was employed by the T. company of GPE . On DATE he sustained a work - related injury . He continued working for the T. company in another post .","On DATE the applicant was made redundant following organisational changes within the company . The following day he concluded an agreement with the T. company shortening the notice period for the termination of his employment .","On DATE the applicant was given his redundancy notice and his employment was terminated on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was granted a disability pension with effect from DATE on the grounds of his inability to work .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the T. company in ORG ( PERSON GPE ) . He alleged that he would have received more income if he had not sustained the work - related injury in DATE . He claimed damages relating to the difference between his disability pension and the salary he had received until the termination of his employment .","On DATE ORG dismissed his claim as unfounded .","NORP The applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment , challenging all the factual and legal aspects of the case .","On DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) , relying on section CARDINALa of LAW , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as unfounded . It agreed with the outcome of the case but held that the first - instance court had failed to take into account all the facts from the proceedings that had supported the dismissal of the claim . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c ... this appellate court finds that although the first - instance court failed to take into account all the facts emerging from the first - instance proceedings which meant [ the plaintiff \u2019s ] claim had to be dismissed , the decision on dismissing the claim as unfounded is in any event correct , therefore the first - instance judgment is upheld by application of section CARDINALa of LAW .","...","This appellate court therefore holds that the plaintiff \u2019s claim was certainly to be dismissed , but for the reasons set out in this appellate decision ; that is , that the reasons the first - instance court stated in the reasoning of its decision would not suffice for the claim to be dismissed .","Therefore the first - instance decision is upheld on the basis of section CARDINALa of LAW ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) , challenging the lower courts\u2019 judgments . He stated that the appellate court had relied expressly on section CARDINALa of ORG , and that therefore he was lodging his appeal on points of law on the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of that Act .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law inadmissible on the grounds that the appellate court in fact had not applied section CARDINALa of LAW , and that therefore his appeal on points of law could not be allowed . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c The first - instance court and the appellate court found that the plaintiff had not been dismissed because of his inability to work caused by the work - related injury , but that his employment had been terminated by dismissal due to redundancy and that therefore there was no causal link between his dismissal and the granting of the disability pension , so his claim for damages ... was dismissed as unfounded .","Therefore , in this court \u2019s assessment , the requirements for the application of section ORG of LAW were not met , given that the appellate court did not establish , in the manner prescribed by section CARDINALa of LAW , a different set of facts to the one established by the first - instance court , but based its decision on the same facts . \u201d","The applicant subsequently complained to ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) about ORG decision on his appeal on points of law . He made no allegations of any violation of his rights in respect of the proceedings before the first - instance court or the appellate court .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as manifestly ill - founded . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148603","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"STRAKA AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applications were lodged by CARDINAL individual NORP nationals , whose particulars appear in the LAW ( \u201c the applicants \u201d ) . They were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The applications were also lodged by the civic association Right to Housing ( PERSON na b\u00fdvanie \u2013 \u201c the applicant association \u201d ) , whose registered office is in GPE and of whom the applicants are members . The applicant association was represented by PERSON , its President .","NORP The facts of the cases , as submitted by the applicants and the applicant association , may be summarised as follows .","DATE public authorities allotted flats to the applicants or their predecessors in accordance with the law then in force . Following the developments described below , their rights of use were transformed into tenancies and the houses in which the flats were located were restored to their original owners or denationalised . The applications concern the public authorities\u2019 actions in connection with the denationalisation of the housing fund in GPE , the dismantling of rent control and the impact this has had on the individual applicants . The following facts are relevant .","Prior to the fall of the communist regime in DATE , the housing system in GPE was part of a planned State - run economy . ORG in cities and towns lived mostly in flats owned by the ORG or \u201c legal persons \u201d , such as ORG - owned companies . The construction of flats and their use and allocation were managed , financed and controlled by public authorities through a centralised management structure .","Others lived in flats which had been built by housing cooperatives of which they were members . Cooperative housing was also funded primarily from public sources . Under the relevant legislation , direct and nonrefundable government grants represented PERCENT of the total costs of construction .","NORP Mostly in rural areas , inhabitants built their own family homes which were in their \u201c personal \u201d ownership . Their construction was also subsidised and promoted by the ORG by various means .","Persons living in flats owned by the ORG were holders of a right of use ( osobn\u00e9 u\u017e\u00edvanie ) under LAW . They were entitled to use their flats for an indefinite period . Members of the same household as a person having a right of use were entitled to continue living in the flat after the latter \u2019s death . Holders of a right of use were allowed to participate in the decision - making processes regarding alterations and reconstruction of the houses in which they lived . Exchanges of flats between holders of a right of use were permissible and frequent . They were subjected to approval by the owner , which was generally only a formality . The amount payable for the use of flats was regulated in accordance with the central wage policy . It did not reflect the costs of construction and maintenance . Users could be evicted only in exceptional circumstances , for example if they had failed to pay the sum due for DATE or had committed a serious breach of the law in their use of a flat .","In the former GPE , to which GPE has been one of the successor GPE as of DATE , housing reforms started in DATE in the context of ( i ) measures aimed at redressing certain wrongs that had been committed under the communist regime and ( ii ) the country \u2019s transition towards a market - oriented economy . It involved the restitution of houses to former owners , the denationalisation of ORG - owned housing stock and later the gradual deregulation of rent .","New laws allowed for the restitution of property which had been taken away from owners under the communist regime . A number of dwelling houses , especially in towns , were returned to the original owners or their successors . The restitution of dwelling houses as such did not formally affect the legal position of those who had a right of use of individual flats .","In DATE the process of \u201c large - scale privatisation \u201d was started . It consisted of the denationalisation of ORG - owned enterprises . In some cases , new owners divided the property of the company of which part , including the company \u2019s housing stock , was transferred to third parties . In such cases , the users\u2019 position was similar to that described in the preceding section . In DATE a law was passed prohibiting the transfer of company - owned flats to persons other than their actual tenants .","The main objective of the housing reforms after DATE was the introduction of private ownership of housing stock . The reforms were primarily related to housing in flats .","With effect from DATE LAW was amended so that rights of use in respect of flats were cancelled and replaced by tenancies . Rents remained regulated . In the event of death of a tenant of a flat rented by spouses , the survivor is entitled to become the sole tenant . In other cases , tenancies are transferrable to a deceased tenant \u2019s children , grandchildren , siblings or sons or daughters - in - law , if they can prove they shared the same household at the time of death and do not have their own flat . The same right may be enjoyed by other persons who took care of the deceased tenant \u2019s household or were dependent on him or her for DATE prior to his or her death , and who do not have their own flat .","The relevant provisions of the Civil Code restrict a landlord \u2019s ability to terminate a tenancy to a limited number of cases , such as where the latter needs the flat for their own or their next of kin \u2019s purposes , or where the tenant did not need the flat or failed to comply with his or her obligations . Termination of a tenancy by a landlord must be approved by a court , and in most cases tenants may only have to vacate the flat once they have been provided with substitute accommodation .","Law no . DATE provided for the transformation of cooperatives in the context of the country \u2019s transition towards a market - oriented economy . Members of housing cooperatives were entitled to have ownership of the flats in which they lived transferred to them . They only had to pay the outstanding part of the ORG loan which had been provided in respect of the dwelling . In practice , tenants acquired ownership of cooperative flats either at a nominal price or , where the ORG loan had already been repaid , at no additional cost .","The Ownership of Flats and Non - Dwelling Premises Act DATE ( PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) was enacted with effect from DATE . It allowed tenants in publicly - owned dwelling houses to buy their flats on favourable terms . The basis for calculating the price was the statistical value of a dwelling as defined in the period of the centrally planned economy . Tenants had a number of further advantages and benefits . As a result , they obtained ownership of flats at a nominal price which was only a fraction of their actual market value . The applicants indicated that CARDINAL of the reasons for the large - scale denationalisation of public housing stock was so that the majority of the population could be compensated in a situation where the denationalisation of a substantial part of ORG property , such as companies , had resulted in it being transferred to a limited number of persons .","Subsequent amendments to PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL extended its scope to cover flats the ownership of which had been transferred to a number of legal persons , such as consumption , agricultural and production cooperatives and companies . In its findings in case GPE . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG dismissed a challenge by ORG to some of the amendments . It held , among other things , that the denationalisation of housing stock , in addition to being part of the economic transformation process , aimed at eliminating discrimination against residents of flats as compared to owners of individual houses who had acquired them with the help of public resources .","The large - scale denationalisation of housing stock in GPE , especially in big towns , resulted in almost all flats being transferred to private ownership . The rental sector nearly ceased to exist , with rental flats remaining mostly in restored and privatised houses .","DATE a number of instruments of subordinate legislation were issued providing for a gradual increase in regulated rent .","On DATE ORG issued Measure no . CARDINAL\/R\/CARDINAL . It allowed the rent - control scheme to continue to apply after DATE where ( i ) tenants or persons sharing their household did not own or co - own , on DATE , a comparable flat or inhabitable real property in the same municipality or within QUANTITY of its boundaries ; ( ii ) the landlord and the tenant did not reach a different agreement on the rent before DATE ; and ( iii ) the tenants concerned submitted a registration form to ORG before DATE .","Documents of that Ministry indicate that , by DATE registration forms had been submitted by tenants in respect of CARDINAL flats where rent control was applied . CARDINAL persons lived in those flats . The documents indicate that it was envisaged that substitute accommodation would be made available to those concerned by the reforms where this was justified by their social situation . PERCENT of the tenants thus registered lived in flats located in GPE .","On the basis of that data , the authorities estimated that the rent - control scheme concerned CARDINAL flats , that is to say PERCENT of rented flats in houses that existed in DATE and PERCENT of the inhabited housing facilities which were available in GPE in DATE .","On DATE the Termination and Settlement of Tenancy ( Certain Flats ) Act came into force . It was enacted with a view to eliminating rent restrictions concerning individual owners ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d below ) .","In application no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL individual applicants had received notice of termination of their tenancies by DATE . By DATE the ORG claim for substitute accommodation had been granted in CARDINAL cases and refused in CARDINAL .","NORP In application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL individual applicants had received notice by the time their applications had been lodged on CARDINAL DATE . With the exception of CARDINAL , the applicants in that case considered that they met the criteria of persons in \u201c material need \u201d of housing within the meaning of PERSON no . CARDINAL .","Details of the relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . In addition , the following information is relevant .","The Termination and Settlement of Tenancy ( Certain Flats ) Act DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , as amended , applies in particular to flats used by individuals whose rent has been regulated . It entitled landlords , until DATE , to give notice of termination of a tenancy which was to take effect after DATE . Tenants who are entitled to substitute accommodation or whose corresponding claim has not yet been determined do not have to vacate their flats until a municipality has provided substitute housing to them . Law no . GPE further entitles landlords to increase rent by PERCENT once DATE from DATE ( sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) , tenants who received notice under the above provisions are entitled to substitute accommodation subject to them ( i ) submitting a claim in compliance with the provisions of LAW no . GPE and ( ii ) being in \u201c material need \u201d of housing , namely where they or persons sharing their household do not own an appropriate flat within the boundaries of the same municipality or district and where it is justified by their financial situation .","Subsections ( CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) of LAW define the substitute accommodation to be made available , namely rental flats in the same municipality comprising of CARDINAL room for a single tenant , CARDINAL rooms for CARDINAL tenants , CARDINAL rooms for CARDINAL tenants , and CARDINAL rooms for CARDINAL or more individuals .","Persons applying for substitute accommodation must submit a declaration of their property and indicate its overall value ( section CARDINAL ) . Applications must also indicate the particulars of the tenants and persons living with them , including their date of birth , family status , identity card number and address . They must also comprise the claimants\u2019 consent to the data contained therein being processed and published in conformity with ORG ( section CARDINAL) .","A municipality \u2019s decision on a request for substitute accommodation is reviewable by the courts ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , municipalities keep lists of persons applying for substitute accommodation . The lists are public and to be made accessible on public noticeboards and , where available , websites of the municipalities .","Section CARDINAL obliges municipalities to provide successful claimants with substitute accommodation by DATE , or else they must pay the flat owners the difference between the free market rent and regulated rent .","Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL governs the funding of flats in which substitute accommodation is to be provided .","Section CARDINAL defines the size of such flats and how they should be equipped . Their surface area may not exceed QUANTITY in singleroom flats and QUANTITY in CARDINAL - room flats . Standards are set as regards heating , personal hygiene facilities and kitchen equipment .","The aim of the LAW has been , among other things , to protect individuals against an unjustified interference with their private life in the processing of their personal data ( section CARDINAL(a ) ) . It sets out in detail the requirements for personal data to be obtained and processed with or without the consent of the person concerned , and its storage and destruction . Those intending to publish personal data must not interfere in an unjustified manner with the personal rights and privacy of those concerned ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","The Act further entitles those concerned to obtain information as regards the storage and processing of their personal data , and request redress where appropriate . If they consider the relevant legal provisions to have been disregarded , they are entitled to apply to ORG , which may order any shortcomings found to be remedied and sanction those liable . Its decisions in that regard are reviewable by the courts .","The website of the GPE municipality contains , among other things , lists of persons whose claims for a rental flat , within the meaning of PERSON no . CARDINAL , have been granted by a final decision . Separate lists are kept according to the number of rooms to which claimants are entitled . They indicate the first name , surname and address of those concerned .","The website further contains guidelines explaining the procedure under PERSON no . GPE and forms which persons claiming substitute accommodation are required to complete . These comprise a claim form setting out the particulars of the claimant and persons living with him or her , information about the flat to be vacated and an indication whether the claimant and\/or persons living with him or her have their own flat elsewhere .","Claim forms are to be accompanied by a declaration of property pursuant to section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL . The claimant and persons concerned have to provide full details of their immovable property and its value . They are further required to declare any movable property exceeding QUANTITY in value .","In addition , those concerned have to confirm in writing that they voluntarily consent to the above data being processed , in accordance with LAW , by the municipality concerned , for the purposes of and to the extent that it is necessary for the decision on their claim for substitute accommodation , the granting of such accommodation and verification of the information submitted . The validity of the consent is expressly limited to the duration of the examination of the claim or , as the case may be , conclusion of a tenancy agreement in respect of a substitute flat .","NORP The GPE municipality also publishes on its website lists of persons to whom municipal flats have been allocated outside the procedure set out in PERSON no . CARDINAL . They contain the first name and surname of persons to whom a municipal flat has been rented and its size . The accompanying comment indicates that the information has been made public with a view to increasing the control and involvement of the public in municipal life .","Lists of persons whose claims for a rental flat within the meaning of PERSON no . CARDINAL have been granted , similar to those described in paragraph CARDINAL above , are published on the websites of other municipalities , for example PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .","Information about relevant international documents and comparative law in respect of housing policies is set out in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( Grand Chamber ) delivered a judgment in joined cases C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CCARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( PERSON und PERSON and PERSON ) , which concerned the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data . It held that , by requiring publication of the names of all natural persons who were beneficiaries of aid from agricultural funds and the exact amounts received by them , ORG and ORG had \u201c exceeded the limits which compliance with the principle of proportionality ORG ] \u201d ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150303","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF VEITS v. ESTONIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s grandmother ORG privatised ( bought on favourable terms from the public authorities ) an apartment at CARDINAL NORP Street in GPE . In DATE she gave the apartment to the applicant , who was represented by her mother ORG in the transaction .","On DATE Zh . signed a power of attorney , witnessed by a notary , whereby he authorised ORG to sell his apartment at CARDINAL FAC in GPE . On DATE N. , acting on behalf of Zh . , sold the apartment to her daughter PERSON For LOC . , ORG bought an apartment in the countryside worth about a twentieth of the value of the apartment at FAC .","It appears that on DATE PERSON asked the social security service of the local municipality to approve the sale of the then DATE applicant \u2019s apartment at CARDINAL FAC . She submitted that she had bought another apartment at CARDINAL FAC by means of a loan . She wished to pay back the loan with the money to be received from the sale of her daughter \u2019s apartment and give the newly acquired apartment to her daughter . It appears that the approval was granted by the social security service and the apartment at FAC was sold . On DATE PERSON gave the apartment at FAC to the applicant , while PERSON herself acted as the applicant \u2019s legal representative in the transaction .","NORP On different dates several sets of criminal investigations into the circumstances of the sale of several apartments by various persons , including Zh . , were initiated . The persons concerned had sold their apartments in GPE and in some cases acquired cheaper apartments in rural areas . For various reasons , such as mental health problems or alcohol abuse , these individuals had had difficulties in understanding the true nature of their transactions . Some of the individuals in question died soon after the transactions . Thus , Zh . died on DATE of ethylene glycol poisoning . Criminal investigations into these deaths were also opened .","In the meantime , on DATE , an investigator ordered the attachment of the apartment at CARDINAL FAC . The attachment order was quashed on DATE and the criminal proceedings concerning the apartment at FAC were discontinued on DATE .","In DATE a fresh criminal investigation was opened in respect of transactions concerning an apartment , and several other sets of criminal proceedings which had been discontinued in the meantime were reopened and joined to the criminal case . On DATE ORG remanded N. in custody .","On DATE ORG attached at the prosecutor \u2019s request CARDINAL apartments , including the CARDINAL at CARDINAL FAC . ORG noted that the apartment at FAC had been acquired by ORG and ORG , whereas ORG had been registered as its owner immediately after the apartment had been obtained fraudulently from Zh . The court found that there was reason to believe that with the aim of avoiding transfer of the property it was deliberately registered in the name of the applicant , although its actual owner was PERSON The court noted that the apartments had to be attached in order to ensure the protection of the interests of the victims and to prevent them from being sold . In ordering the attachment of the apartments the court relied on LAW seadustik ) , and on LAW ( Karistusseadustik ) . The court added that in this case it could be suspected that the financial means of the suspects derived from crime , and therefore a possible outcome was confiscation of the property as received through crime ; securing the confiscation by any other measure than attachment was not possible . In accordance with ORG decision copies of the decision were to be sent to ORG and the applicant for information . The copy of the decision on file bears PERSON \u2019s signature next to a notice that she had received a copy of it . It was noted in the decision that an appeal against it could be lodged within DATE .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed as a witness . She said that she did not remember the details of the purchase of the apartment at FAC , as she was still a young child in DATE . She further said that she and her mother had sold the apartment at CARDINAL FAC , and the apartment at FAC had been bought with the money received . She affirmed that she knew that the apartment was in her name but she had never lived there , it was undergoing repair , and her mother was paying for the apartment .","On DATE ORG approved the statement of charges and on DATE N. and ORG , with CARDINAL others , were committed for trial by ORG . N. was charged with a number of offences , including the murder of Zh . and the attempted murder of another person , as well as several counts of fraud . PERSON was charged with several counts of fraud and aiding and abetting an attempted murder .","On DATE the applicant reached DATE .","The episode concerning the apartment at FAC was dealt with at several hearings . In particular , at the hearing on DATE the accused ORG submitted that the apartment at FAC had been meant for the applicant from the very beginning , but as she was a child at the time she had not been told any details . The deed of gift had been drawn up after the applicant \u2019s apartment at CARDINAL NORP Street had been sold and ORG had paid her debt . ORG gave explanations about the origin of the money allegedly paid by N. to Zh . for the apartment .","At the hearing on DATE the accused ORG gave statements about the origin of the money with which the apartment had allegedly been bought . She submitted that she had received permission from the social security service to sell her daughter \u2019s ( the applicant \u2019s ) apartment at CARDINAL FAC and to buy her the apartment at FAC .","At the hearing on DATE PERSON \u2019s counsel noted that , as concerned the apartment belonging to the applicant , Article QUANTITY of LAW was applied only if the property had been acquired completely or in substance on account of the actions of the offender as a gift , emphasising that confiscation would not necessarily be applied if it would be unreasonably burdensome on the person . When the deed of gift was drawn up the applicant was still a minor ; confiscation would therefore be unjustified .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE N. and ORG were convicted as charged . PERSON was sentenced to DATE and PERSON to DATE imprisonment . In respect of the transactions related to the apartment at CARDINAL FAC , ORG established , relying on a psychiatric expert opinion , that Zh . , who had been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia , had not understood the meaning of his actions when he signed the power of attorney for the sale of the apartment . Zh . had died by the time of the court hearing , but according to the statements he made during the preliminary investigation ORG had promised to pay him for the apartment and also to buy him another apartment . She had told him to sign a confirmation that he had received the money , but in fact he had got no money . The court found implausible the allegation of the accused , supported by ORG husband , that ORG had borrowed some of the money to pay for the apartment from ORG husband , who had sold his apartment DATE before and kept the cash at home . It noted that according to ORG the money from the sale of her husband \u2019s apartment had been used to buy yet another apartment . The court also noted that ORG had been unable to explain the origin of DATE of the money allegedly paid to Zh . for the apartment at FAC , and established that Zh . had received no money . Relying on Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , the court ordered the confiscation of the apartment at CARDINAL FAC , belonging to the applicant , as property obtained through crime committed against Zh . The court noted that the apartment had been transferred from Zh . \u2019s ownership against his will , and that the applicant , who was DATE in DATE , could not have been a bona fide acquirer , because the transaction had been concluded by her mother ORG on her behalf . The transaction had been concluded DATE after the purchase of the apartment in order to prevent it from being confiscated .","V. and ORG appealed . ORG argued , inter alia , that the apartment at CARDINAL FAC belonged to the applicant . In order to buy the apartment , another apartment at CARDINAL NORP Street had been sold , with the approval of the social security service . Thus , the apartment at FAC had not been obtained through crime and it was not subject to confiscation .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the appeals . In respect of the confiscation of the applicant \u2019s apartment at FAC , ORG noted that she had obtained the apartment when she was a minor , and was not capable of understanding the transaction at the time . The apartment had been the object of the commission of an offence ( a fraud ) by the accused , and was liable to be confiscated under ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL - CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Penal Code . ORG noted that the apartment had not been obtained legally but on account of the actions of the offenders ORG and ORG","On DATE ORG decided not to examine the appeals lodged by ORG \u2019s and ORG \u2019s counsel , and the lower courts\u2019 judgments became final ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150318","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF M.A. v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On TIME CARDINAL DATE , the applicant , who was DATE pregnant and was returning home from work , was attacked by CARDINAL men , TIME , PERSON and PERSON They pulled her into a car , drove to a remote location and raped her one after the other .","NORP Immediately after the incident , the applicant went to ORG . The police arrested the CARDINAL men at TIME . They remained in custody following an investigating judge \u2019s order . They were released from custody on DATE . The applicant was taken to ORG to be medically examined .","On DATE the police lodged a criminal complaint against TIME , PERSON and PERSON accusing them of rape . DATE , ORG asked the investigating judge of ORG to open an investigation .","During the investigation , CARDINAL reports concerning the examination of the crime scene were prepared , and the CARDINAL accused men and witnesses were heard by the investigating judge . PERSON and PERSON admitted to having had sex with the applicant , but denied that any force had been used . TIME denied having had sex with the applicant .","On DATE TIME , ORG and PERSON were charged with aggravated rape under LAW . The proceedings that followed were conducted in secrecy in order to protect the private lives of those involved .","The first trial hearing was scheduled for DATE . However , it was adjourned due to the absence of TIME and N.T. Another hearing to be held on DATE was adjourned because it had proved impossible to serve a court order on PERSON In this connection , the Government pointed out that all CARDINAL men had been born outside the territory of GPE and were GPE . At the time of the incident , CARDINAL of them ( TIME resided in GPE , while the third ( PERSON ) resided in another part of what was then GPE .","On DATE , an order for detention pending trial was issued against PERSON because he was considered to pose a flight risk . However , he could not be found and went missing . Therefore , an arrest warrant was issued against him on CARDINAL DATE , which could not , however , be executed . In DATE , the court conducted inquiries as to the whereabouts of all CARDINAL defendants and established the places of residence of TIME , but not that of PERSON A hearing on DATE was adjourned due to the absence of DATE \u2019s defence counsel . As his whereabouts could not be established , on CARDINAL DATE the charges against PERSON were severed into a separate case .","N.T. could not be found and brought to trial in DATE , so an international arrest warrant was issued against him in DATE . However , his whereabouts remained unknown and the charges against him were dropped on DATE . The international arrest warrant was revoked on DATE .","The main hearing in the case against TIME on DATE and continued on DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE . CARDINAL other hearings were scheduled DATE and DATE , though they were all postponed , mainly due to the absence of the defendants or of their counsel . From DATE onwards , a number of steps were taken in order to ensure the presence at trial of GPE , who had apparently been absent from GPE for some time . At DATE , the presiding judge proposed that he be placed in detention to prevent him failing to appear at court for hearings , but the extrajudicial panel rejected this proposal , ordering that less severe measures , such as bringing him to hearings by force , should be envisaged first .","On DATE ORG , who was then DATE , died . On DATE the part of the case concerning the charges against him was severed from the ongoing proceedings .","ORG held hearings on DATE and on DATE . The court , amongst other things , heard DATE , the applicant , her husband and CARDINAL other witnesses , read out the statements given by PERSON and PERSON earlier in the proceedings , and looked into the applicant \u2019s medical reports , the record of the examination of the scene of the crime , the record of the examination of TIME \u2019s car and a variety of other documents .","On DATE the court issued a judgment finding TIME guilty of the criminal offence of aggravated rape . He was sentenced to CARDINAL - and - a - half years in prison . When setting the sentence , which was below the minimum DATE sentence prescribed by law , the court referred to the significant lapse of time from the commission of the crime . It noted that the reasons for the delays in the proceedings had been predominantly caused by the behaviour of ORG and PERSON","Following an appeal by DATE , on DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case for re - examination . It instructed ORG to examine whether TIME had committed the criminal offence in question or had only attempted to commit it , and whether he had previously known the applicant , which might have raised doubts as to her credibility .","On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , the court held hearings at which it heard the applicant and a number of witnesses . On DATE , ORG issued a judgment finding TIME guilty of aggravated rape under LAW . It sentenced him to CARDINAL - and - a - half years in prison , referring to the extreme amount of time that had passed since the commission of the offence .","Following a further appeal by TIME , on DATE ORG further reduced his sentence to DATE in prison , referring to the passage of time , TIME \u2019s young age ( namely DATE ) at the time of the event , the fact that he had not been later convicted of any other criminal offence , his deteriorating health and the fact that he had a minor child . It upheld the reminder of ORG judgment .","A.M. submitted an appeal on points of law ( a request for the protection of legality ) , which was rejected by ORG on DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant had instituted civil proceedings against CARDINAL seeking damages in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) for non - pecuniary damage suffered as result of the rape which had been established by the final criminal judgment .","On DATE the court issued a default judgment . On CARDINAL DATE TIME appealed , arguing that he had not been duly summoned to appear . A hearing was held on DATE . On DATE the court granted reinstatement and summoned the parties to appear at a hearing on DATE . However , this hearing was adjourned until CARDINAL DATE at the request of the defendant \u2019s counsel . On that date the parties reached a court settlement by which TIME was to pay ORG CARDINAL ( by means of a number of instalments ) to the applicant . The civil case was consequently concluded . The applicant alleged that she has not received any compensation to date ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150800","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00d6Z\u00dcM v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , which became final on DATE , ORG ( GPE ) authorised the applicant , who was then single , to adopt a child , PERSON , born on DATE to PERSON","Consequently , under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( no . DATE ) , \u201c PERSON \u201d was registered as the surname of PERSON in the register of births and on the child \u2019s identity documents . However , the registrar refused to indicate the applicant \u2019s forename under the heading \u201c mother \u201d , where the name \u201c S. \u201d was retained , this being the forename of the child \u2019s biological mother .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG seeking the replacement of the forename \u201c S. \u201d by her own . In her view , the fact that her forename had not been given as that of the mother of her adopted son was both discriminatory and unconstitutional , likely to undermine their personal , family and social development , and thus constituting a violation of , among other provisions , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . She argued that in relation to single - parent adoptions there was a lacuna in LAW which required the court to make provision for such a situation of its own motion , pursuant to LAW or , failing that , to request a preliminary ruling of ORG .","On DATE the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s request on the ground that it had no legal basis . It found that LAW , in choosing to regulate only CARDINAL - parent adoptions \u2013 those granted to a couple jointly \u2013 , intended to treat the legal relationship between the adoptive parents and the adopted child as \u201c a biological relationship \u201d , which was not possible in the case of single - parent adoptions , where either a mother or a father was absent . Thus the legal situation obtaining in the present case could not be regarded as unconstitutional .","On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law .","On DATE , when those proceedings were still pending , a new regulation entered into force entitled \u201c Regulation on the implementation of mediation services for the adoption of minors \u201d ( \u201c the Regulation \u201d ) , enabling a single adoptive parent to have his or her forename registered in the place of that of the biological parent ...","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the court below in a judgment which made no mention of the legislative reform .","On DATE the applicant was notified of that judgment .","NORP On DATE she applied to the registry office for the registration of her forename as that of the mother of PERSON , relying on LAW of the new ORG . That request was granted on DATE and the record entries concerning the child were consequently amended with immediate effect .","..."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182036","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"GELL\u00c9RTHEGYI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant in application no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The applicants in application no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON and Ms Hajnalka Ball\u00e1n\u00e9 G\u00e1l ( hereinafter \u201c the second and third applicant \u201d ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and live in GPE .","The applicants were employed as civil servants , notably as an associate professor of administrative law at ORG and ORG ( as regards the first applicant ) , and as associate professors at ORG ( as regards the second and third applicants ) .","On a date not specified in the application , the applicants started receiving old - age pensions . It was disbursed to them alongside their salaries until DATE .","On DATE an amendment to Act no . LXXXI of DATE on ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) entered into force , pursuant to which the disbursement of those old - age pensions whose beneficiaries were simultaneously employed in certain categories within the civil service would be suspended from DATE for the duration of their employment .","A number of categories of persons in ORG employment were , however , exempted from the suspension of pension payments , such as members of ORG and mayors , as well as persons employed in the public sector under the rules of LAW ( see GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . Judges and prosecutors appointed to a stand - by post pursuant to Act no . XX of DATE ( see PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) were also exempted from the prohibition on double compensation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Although the suspension of pension payments also applied to health - care employees , given the importance of that sector their suspended pension payment could be compensated upon the decision of their employer by means of a salary supplement ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","As of DATE , the disbursement of the applicants\u2019 pension was suspended .","Partly following an application by the ORG , ORG embarked on the review of the impugned legislation \u2019s constitutionality ( see ORG , cited above , LAW ) .","On DATE ORG found , in essence , that the rules concerning the ban on simultaneous receipt of a State pension and a salary struck a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual \u2019s fundamental rights ; they therefore did not violate LAW enshrining the protection of property .","It further held that old - age pensioners employed , respectively , in the public and in the private sector were not in an analogous or relevantly similar situation . As regards the categories of public servants exempt from the ban on dual payment of ORG pensions and salaries ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG was of the view that the exception at issue was based on an objective and reasonable justification , notably on their specific legal status . Accordingly , the impugned legislation did not violate LAW enshrining the prohibition of discrimination ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Several elements of the relevant domestic law and practice as well as comparative - law material were set out in DATE of the ORG judgment ( cited above ) .","DATE ( that is to say , its taking effect ) and DATE , section CARDINAL\/C of the DATE LAW read as follows ( italics added ) :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The disbursement of an old - age pension shall be suspended ... if the pensioner concerned is employed as a civil servant , a government official , a senior ORG official , a public servant , a judge , an officer of the court , an officer of the prosecutor \u2019s office , a professional member of an armed service , or a professional member or contractor of ORG . \u201d","As of DATE , section CARDINAL of LAW was amended by Act no . XX of DATE as follows ( see ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; italics added ) :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The disbursement of an old - age pension shall be suspended ... if the pensioner concerned is employed as a civil servant , a government official , a senior ORG official , a public official , an official in charge of public - service administration , a judge , an officer of the court , an officer of the prosecutor \u2019s office , a professional member of an armed service , or a professional member or contractor of ORG . \u201d","Section CARDINAL\/J of LAW ( not quoted in GPE , cited above ) provides as follows :","\u201c ... [ S]ections DATE and CARDINAL\/I are not applicable , as from the entry into LAW no . ORG ... until DATE , to judges and prosecutors appointed to a stand - by post ... \u201d .","Act LXXXIV of DATE on Certain Questions Related to the Exercise of Health - care Activity , as amended on DATE , provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) An employer may award a salary supplement ... to health - care employees who are employed as civil servants or who are in a ORG or ORG - service relationship ; and the disbursement of whose [ old - age pension ] is suspended pursuant to section CARDINAL\/C of the [ DATE LAW ] ... .","( CARDINAL ) The ... net amount of the salary supplement awarded by the employer can not exceed the [ suspended amount of the old - age pension ] . \u201d","NORP The legal status of members of parliament is governed by LAW no . ORG of DATE on ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Parliament Act \u201d ) .","In so far as relevant , LAW provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Members of parliament shall have equal rights and obligations , they shall perform their activities in the public interest , and they shall not be given instructions in that respect . \u201d","The Parliament Act provides , in particular :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The term of office of members of parliament ... shall be considered , for social - security purposes , employment with a working time of TIME per week and a service period giving rise to a pension entitlement . For the calculation of a service period as a Government official , ORG official , public servant , civil servant , judge or prosecutor , the duration of the above - mentioned employment shall be counted as service time spent in the relevant legal relationship . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Members of parliament are entitled , from their swearing - in until the end of their term of office , to a DATE honorarium , the amount of which equals the salary ... of a deputy ORG secretary , as it is regulated by LAW . \u201d","The legal status of mayors , deputy mayors , presidents and vice - presidents of county assemblies is regulated by LAW no . ORG of DATE on Public Servants ( hereinafter \u201c LAW \u201d ) , which contains the following passages :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The employment relationship of full - time mayors is a special public service relationship established between the body of local representatives and the mayor , [ in principle ] ... on the strength of [ the latter \u2019s ] election . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The term of office of full - time mayors shall be calculated as the service period spent in public service , Government service or armed service and shall give rise to a pension entitlement . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If this LAW does not stipulate otherwise , any reference to mayors shall be construed as including deputy mayors , presidents and vice - presidents of county assemblies , and the mayor and deputy mayors of GPE . \u201d","Mayors and local representatives ( including members of county assemblies ) are elected in accordance with the rules laid down in Act no . L of DATE on ORG . Presidents of county assemblies are elected by the assemblies themselves from among their members , in accordance with LAW of LAW . Deputy mayors and vice - presidents of county assemblies are also elected by the respective body of local representatives from among their members , in accordance with LAW no . FAC of DATE on ORG .","LAW no . CLI of DATE ) provides as follows :","\u201c Members of the Constitutional Court shall be independent , subordinated only to LAW . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Under their term of office and for the purposes of entitlement to social - security benefits , members of the Constitutional Court shall be considered insured employees in public service , and their salary shall be considered income from an activity other than self - employment , comprising part of the contribution base . The term of office of members of the Constitutional Court shall be considered to be the time spent in public - service employment . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Members of the Constitutional Court shall not be held accountable in court or by other authorities during or after their term of office for the activities carried out or statements of fact or opinion made while exercising the competences of ORG as defined in LAW and in this LAW , and no proceedings shall be initiated against ORG for such statements of fact or opinion in court or before other authorities . This exemption shall not cover abuse of information classified top secret or secret , libel , defamation and the civil law liability of Members of ORG . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) This Act shall be considered a LAW pursuant to LAW . \u201d","In connection with persons employed in the public service under the rules of LAW , LAW provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) For tasks directly related to the exercise of public powers and powers of guidance , inspection and supervision of a public - service institution , as well as for administrative tasks , persons may be employed only as Government officials or public servants .","( CARDINAL ) ORG contract for services , works contract or [ ordinary labour - law ] employment contract may be concluded for the completion of a task which shall exclusively be exercised by a person appointed as a Government official or public servant .","...","( CARDINAL ) The proportion of persons ... employed by a public - service institution [ under LAW ] in DATE ... shall not exceed PERCENT of the average yearly staff number . ...","...","( CARDINAL ) The rules contained in subsections ( CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) above do not apply to ORG and to ORG .","( CARDINAL ) As an exception to the rule contained in subsection ( CARDINAL ) above , procedural tasks at diplomatic or consular representations ... may also be carried out by individuals other than Government officials or public servants . \u201d","The Constitutional Court \u2019s decision of DATE ( decision no . CARDINAL . ( X. CARDINAL . ) ORG , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) contains the following passages concerning the allegedly unjustified difference in treatment between pensioners employed in different categories within the public sector :","\u201c CARDINAL . It is apparent from the [ impugned ] rules of [ LAW ] that they do not apply to every person in State service but only to persons falling under the scope of specific legislative acts governing the status of certain categories of public servants .","For example , they do not apply to certain elected officials or to those who are employed [ under the rules of LAW ] , even if the employer is a budgetary institution . Although the rules could be extended to cover every position and every public servant , the exceptions are reasonably justified , on the one hand , by the fact that they are related to passive electoral rights and , on the other hand , by the specific legal status of certain appointed officials ( section CARDINAL\/J [ of LAW ] ) .","[ Taking into account ] the efforts to balance the pension system , the difference in treatment in question has a perceivable , objective and reasonable justification . Therefore it does not violate LAW . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180482","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"B\u00c1RDI AND VIDOVICS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant in the first case , PERSON ( the first applicant ) , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by Mr D. L\u00e1z\u00e1r , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant in the second case , Mr L\u00e1szl\u00f3 Vidovics ( the second applicant ) , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG also by PERSON , acting in that case on behalf ORG , a consumer protection association .","The facts of the cases , as submitted by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE both applicants took out mortgages from NORP commercial \/ mortgage banks . Their loan agreements were denominated in GPE . According to the terms of the agreements , the applicants were to bear the risk of any exchange rate fluctuations between the NORP forint and MONEY .","The first applicant submitted that her loan agreement had not contained all the information required by law , to be exact , that provisions on a particular cost element , namely that of \u201c currency spreads \u201d ( the practice of applying the \u201c sell rate \u201d when granting the loan and the \u201c buy rate \u201d for repayment ) were not indicated . Furthermore , no proper reasons had been given in the agreement to justify any unilateral modifications of the costs collected by the banks . She contended that her loan agreement had been invalid because , owing to the above - mentioned defects , it conflicted with mandatory provisions of NORP law that had been in force at the time of signing .","NORP In DATE the first applicant initiated civil proceedings against the banks , urging the court to declare her loan agreements invalid for the reasons stated above . According to the information provided by the applicant , the proceedings are suspended .","Simultaneously , several debtors of foreign - currency - based consumer loan agreements lodged similar actions in GPE . Due to the large number of those court cases , the GPE decided to deliver a uniformity decision in respect of the issues concerning such agreements . In its ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , it adopted a position on the unfairness of certain clauses of such consumer loan contracts . It held that the fact that , in such situations , the debtor bore the risk of currency fluctuations ( in exchange for the favourable interest rates obtained ) did not , in itself , make the agreements invalid . The unfairness of such contractual terms could be assessed and established only if the information provided by the bank on the nature of that risk was unintelligible for the average consumer . It also held that currency spreads , as provided for in the contracts , were invalid . Moreover , clauses enabling the unilateral amendment of the contracts were also invalid unless those clauses complied with certain principles laid down in the earlier no . CARDINAL ( PERSON ) Uniformity Decision of the GPE .","NORP In order to ensure that the principles laid down in the GPE \u2019s Uniformity Decision could be enforced directly , not only in pending litigations but also in connection with potential , non - litigated claims concerning consumer loan contracts , ORG then adopted CARDINAL pieces of legislation . Those statutes were enacted also to ensure that all foreign - currency - based loan agreements were converted into NORP forints and that settlements between the consumer and the financial institution \u2013 in respect of unlawfully collected sums from currency spreads and costs that arose from unilateral amendments \u2013 were implemented in accordance with the guidance of the GPE and with pending court actions being meanwhile put on hold .","NORP In particular , Act no . XXXVIII of DATE on the resolution of questions relating to the uniformity decision of the GPE regarding consumer loan agreements drawn up by financial institutions ( \u201c LAW \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which entered into force on DATE , provided that currency spreads constituted invalid contractual provisions . Moreover , that there was a presumption \u2013 to be potentially refuted by the banks in separate proceedings \u2013 that clauses enabling the unilateral amendment of the contract were also invalid . This legislation prescribed that pending proceedings in respect of consumer loan agreements were to be suspended until the measures provided for in the other CARDINAL relevant pieces of legislation had been taken .","Act no . XL of DATE on the rules of settlement laid down in LAW ( \u201c LAW \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which entered into force on DATE , provided , among other things , that if a claimant wished to pursue his or her claim against the financial institution in court , he or she needed to complete the claim by itemising and quantifying the consequences of the alleged invalidity of the contract , otherwise the case would be discontinued except for those claims that related to issues not covered by LAW .","Act no . ORG of DATE on change of the currency of consumer loan agreements denominated in foreign currency ( \u201c LAW \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which entered into force on DATE , provided that all foreign - currency - based loan agreements were to be converted into NORP - forint - based loans , using a defined exchange rate .","The first applicant lodged complaints with ORG , claiming that certain provisions of LAW had violated her right to a fair trial . She argued that ORG had intervened in private - law matters by adopting the impugned legislation and that this contravened the democratic principle of separation of powers . On DATE ORG rejected the complaint , without an examination on the merits , holding that it lacked relevant reasoning and as such , was not eligible for a decision .","The first applicant \u2019s pending action against the banks was suspended under LAW ; and on DATE she was invited by the court to supplement her statement of claim in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She lodged another constitutional complaint , arguing that the court \u2019s decision and LAW on which it was based were unconstitutional . On DATE ORG rejected the complaint , without an examination on the merits , holding that it concerned an interim decision rather than a final judgment and , as such , was not eligible for constitutional review .","The second applicant lodged a complaint with ORG on DATE , claiming that certain provisions of LAW those in respect of the conversion of foreign currency into NORP forints using a defined exchange rate \u2013 were unconstitutional . He argued that ORG had intervened in private - law matters .","On DATE , after due examination of the merits of CARDINAL of similar complaints , ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s complaint . It stated that the aims of LAW were to eliminate the continuous risk arising from exchange - rate fluctuations and to ensure that the loan agreements could remain in force between the parties . Those aims were in the interests of both debtors , such as the applicants , and creditors with stakes in the financial institutions . It held that when ORG \u2013 in the light of the critically changed situation which had occurred after the execution of the relevant loan agreements ( namely the unexpected and dramatic devaluation of the NORP forint vis - \u00e0 - vis MONEY ) \u2013 had modified the contractual terms ordering the conversion of the agreements , it had acted in the common interest of society , taking into due consideration the interest of consumers as well . The interference was thus proportionate and necessary in a NORP society . Furthermore , ORG held that there was no connection between the challenged provisions of LAW and the right to a fair trial , because the challenged provisions ( namely the conversion of loans from foreigncurrency - based loans into LANGUAGE - forint loans at a defined exchange rate ) had no impact on the pending actions regarding the alleged invalidity of the loan agreements .","The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) With the exception of contract terms which have been individually negotiated , any term in a consumer loan agreement where the buying rate stipulated by the financial institution for the granting of the loan ... differs from the selling rate or from the rate ... for the purposes of repayment shall be deemed null and void .","( CARDINAL ) The annulled term referred to in subsection ( CARDINAL ) shall be replaced ... by a provision for the application of the official exchange rate of ORG ...","( CARDINAL ) The financial institution shall settle accounts with the consumer as provided for in another statute . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) As regards consumer loan agreements allowing for the possibility to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally , any term DATE with the exception of contract terms which have been individually negotiated DATE that creates a right to increase the interest rate and other costs and fees unilaterally is deemed to be unfair , given that it does not comply with :","a ) the principle of clear and intelligible wording , where the term in question is neither plain nor understandable for the consumer ;","b ) the principle of detailed specification , where the conditions for amending the terms of the contract unilaterally are not specified in detail , that is to say the reasons are not listed , or the reasons supplied are merely indicative ;","c ) the principle of objectivity , where the conditions for amending the terms of the contract unilaterally lack objectivity , that is to say the party with whom the consumer is entering into a contract is able to cause such conditions to occur , and has the power to incite such conditions and to influence the extent of any change that may serve as grounds for substantiating the amendment ;","d ) the principle of effectiveness and proportionality , where the circumstances specified in the list of reasons do not effectively or proportionally influence the interest , costs and\/or fees ;","e ) the principle of transparency , where the consumer was not in a position to foresee what additional burdens would be passed on to him , nor the extent and reasons for such changes ;","f ) the principle of withdrawability , where the consumer does not have the right to withdraw from the contract if it is amended ; or","g ) the principle of symmetry , where the contract does not allow any change in the conditions that may occur to the consumer \u2019s benefit to take effect for the consumer \u2019s benefit .","( CARDINAL ) The contract term referred to in subsection ( CARDINAL ) hereof shall be deemed null and void if the financial institution has failed to lodge a civil action ... or if the court dismisses the action or terminates the proceedings ... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ... The court shall ex officio suspend , until the measure provided for in other specific legislation has been taken , at the latest until DATE , proceedings in respect of lawsuits having as their object , in part or in whole , the contract terms referred to in [ this LAW ] , or proceedings instituted by a financial institution against a consumer for the enforcement of a claim based , inter alia , on such contract term . The court may decide on the suspension of proceedings without a formal hearing . As regards the suspension of proceedings , the provisions of LAW shall apply mutatis mutandis , with the proviso that the court ruling ordering the suspension of proceedings shall not be amenable to appeal .","( CARDINAL ) ... The court shall also ex officio suspend , until the measure provided for in other specific legislation has been taken , at the latest until DATE , proceedings in respect of lawsuits having as their object , in part or in whole , the contract terms referred to in [ this LAW ] , or proceedings instituted by a financial institution against a consumer for the enforcement of a claim based , inter alia , on such contract term , if the ... contract term ... figures in a ... consumer loan contract ... \u201d","The explanatory memorandum attached to LAW contains the following passage :","\u201c In order to ensure that those principles are enforced directly , the present LAW codifies the principles laid down in the GPE \u2019s Uniformity Decision . The LAW makes the PERSON \u2019s interpretation applicable to everyone . It does not create any new substantive laws or new principles in respect of consumer loan and leasing agreements , but purely codifies the interpretation of the GPE . This is to ensure that a high number of consumers avoid lengthy and costly litigation that would , in any event , overburden the judicial system . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) In respects of contracts to which the present legislation applies , a party may apply to the court \u2013 irrespective of the reason for the alleged invalidity DATE seeking annulment of the contract or of certain terms of the contract ( partial annulment ) only if the application also includes details of the claims in respect of the consequences of annulment , such as treating the contracts as if they were valid until the date of the court \u2019s judgment . In the absence thereof or if a request for supplementing the statement of claim is unsuccessful , the claim shall not be decided on the merits . If the party requests the court to establish the consequences of full or partial annulment , he shall also indicate the type of legal consequence to be applied . In respect of the consequences , the party shall apply to the court with a defined request , indicating the requested sums and the settlement between the parties .","( CARDINAL ) Under subsection ( CARDINAL ) above ... if the conditions set out in this LAW are met , in proceedings instituted for the establishment of the full or partial annulment of a contract that are still pending , the statement of claim shall be rejected without examination on the merits or the proceedings shall be terminated . The court shall not dismiss the statement of claim without examination on the merits or terminate the proceedings if the party has further claims pending , apart from the one seeking full or partial annulment of the contract . In this case , the proceedings shall be continued only in respect of this further claim . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Consumer loan agreements shall be amended in accordance with this LAW . \u201d","\u201c The financial institution that is the creditor of the foreign - currency - based consumer loan agreement shall convert ... the full debt arising out of the foreign - currency - based loan agreement DATE including the interest , fees and costs accrued in foreign currency \u2013 into NORP forints using the exchange rate that is more favourable to the debtor between","a ) the average exchange rate applied by ORG DATE and DATE , or","b ) the exchange rate applied by ORG on DATE . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160692","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DI TRIZIO v. SWITZERLAND","importance":2,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was born in DATE in ORG and lives in PERSON , in the GPE of PERSON .","After originally training to be a hairdresser the applicant took up DATE work as a shop assistant . In DATE she was forced to stop work owing to back trouble .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of the GPE of PERSON ( \u201c the Office \u201d ) for a disability benefit on account of her lower back and spinal pain .","On DATE she gave birth to twins . Her back pain had worsened further during the pregnancy .","On DATE the ORG carried out a household assessment ( GPE ) at the applicant \u2019s home , during which the applicant stated","( i ) that she suffered from constant back pain which often extended down to her left foot ; that she had particular difficulty standing in the same place for any length of time and could not remain seated for TIME ; that she could walk for TIME , but not on a DATE basis ; and that the pain became worse when she was carrying the children ;","( ii ) that she would have to work half - time for financial reasons since her husband \u2019s net salary was MONEY ( CHF ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","The report on the assessment concluded that the applicant \u2019s capacity to perform household tasks was reduced by PERCENT .","In its report dated DATE the ORG found that the applicant should be classified","( i ) as a person in full - time paid employment ( PERSON ) up to the end of DATE ;","( ii ) as a housewife ( ORG ) DATE ;","( iii ) as a person theoretically capable of PERCENT ( zu CARDINAL PERCENT hypothetisch PERSON ) as of DATE .","On DATE PERSON . GPE informed the ORG that the applicant was unable to work CARDINAL - time in a suitable occupation and that any increase in TIME appeared to be ruled out .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG found that the applicant should be granted a benefit for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , but did not qualify for any benefit from DATE .","The ORG arrived at this result by the following means .","With regard to the period from DATE until DATE , it assessed the applicant \u2019s degree of disability at PERCENT on the basis of a calculation of her income .","As to the subsequent period , the ORG considered that the socalled combined method should be applied , taking the view that even if she had not had a disability the applicant would have reduced her working hours following the birth of her children . It based that finding , in particular , on the applicant \u2019s assertion that she felt able to work CARDINAL - time and wished to devote the remainder of her time to her household tasks and her children . Furthermore , on the basis of the household assessment referred to above , the ORG estimated the applicant \u2019s capacity to perform household tasks at PERCENT ( that is to say , her degree of disability at PERCENT ) . When the formula set out below was applied , the degree of disability obtained on the basis of these various factors was PERCENT , meaning that the applicant did not reach the minimum PERCENT degree of disability needed to trigger entitlement to a benefit :","CARDINAL % ( paid employment ) : no loss of earnings CARDINAL x CARDINAL % = PERCENT","CARDINAL % ( household tasks and childcare ) : CARDINAL x CARDINAL % = CARDINAL %","Total = PERCENT","The applicant lodged a complaint with the ORG , which was dismissed on DATE . Following a fresh calculation the ORG recognised the applicant as having a PERCENT disability , still below the minimum required in order to qualify for a benefit .","This figure was obtained by applying the combined method , using the following parameters :","CARDINAL % ( paid employment ) : PERSON x CARDINAL % = CARDINAL %","PERCENT ( household tasks and childcare ) : CARDINAL x CARDINAL % = CARDINAL %","Total = CARDINAL %","In completing the first line of the formula , the ORG took as a basis a hypothetical income ( for full - time work ) of CHF MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , calculated on the basis of the statistical data for the socioprofessional category to which the applicant , as an auxiliary worker ( Hilfsarbeiterin ) , belonged . Working at a rate of PERCENT , the applicant would therefore have had a salary of CHF CARDINAL if she had been able to continue working without any difficulty ( Valideneinkommen ) . The ORG estimated that , given her disability , the salary which the applicant would actually be able to earn in a suitable occupation would be CHF CARDINAL ( Invalideneinkommen ) . It therefore assessed the applicant \u2019s degree of disability in respect of the \u201c paid employment \u201d component at PERCENT .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision .","Relying on LAW , read in conjunction with LAW , the applicant argued that","( i ) the method applied discriminated against the less well - off , as those persons who could afford not to do paid work were classified simply as housewives and could therefore be recognised as having a higher degree of disability and thus qualify more easily for a benefit ;","( ii ) the way in which the degree of disability was calculated did not take sufficient account of the interplay ( PERSON ) between the \u201c household \u201d and \u201c paid employment \u201d components ;","( iii ) in reality , even if she only worked half - time , her degree of disability for the purposes of performing household tasks would increase well beyond PERCENT as a result .","In support of her appeal the applicant submitted a medical report issued by PERSON . GPE on DATE , in which the latter stated in substance that , in view of her state of health , the applicant could not engage in paid work on a CARDINAL - time basis in the same way as someone without a disability , and that if she had to take up paid employment , her capacity to take care of the household and of her children would drop to PERCENT .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of the GPE of PERSON allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal in part .","In a departure from the case - law of ORG ... , it considered that the usual application of the combined method should be disregarded in favour of an \u201c improved \u201d version . In the court \u2019s view , the basis for calculation should be the level of activity which the applicant might reasonably have resumed after the birth of her twins if she had not had health problems .","ORG found that the \u201c household \u201d component of the combined method , as that method was applied in ORG caselaw , did not take sufficient account of the person \u2019s disability .","According to the court , the ORG had not taken into consideration the fact that the applicant could only take care of the household on a CARDINAL - time basis , and had incorrectly calculated her incapacity for work on the basis of TIME working day .","Instead of taking as a basis the household assessment \u2013 which , in ORG view , should be applicable only to individuals who were engaged full - time in caring for the household \u2013 the ORG should have examined the applicant \u2019s actual capacity to perform household tasks , which had been established by a doctor .","The court also criticised the ORG for not examining whether , if she had been in good health , the applicant would have been able to engage in paid work after the birth of her children . In particular , it noted that the report drawn up following the household assessment gave scant information as to the work entailed for the applicant in caring for her children ( ORG ) and whether or not any possibilities existed for entrusting part of their care to other persons . As these factors had not been taken into consideration by the ORG , the applicant \u2019s degree of disability had been established on the basis of an incomplete set of facts . The court also considered it unlikely that the applicant would have worked only halftime if she had been in good health , given her husband \u2019s modest salary and what she could reasonably expect to earn as a hairdresser or auxiliary worker . The household assessment therefore appeared to be deficient in that respect also .","Consequently , ORG remitted the case to the ORG for further investigation .","The ORG lodged an appeal against the ORG judgment .","In a judgment of DATE ( CARDINALC_CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ORG allowed the ORG \u2019s appeal , finding that the applicant was not eligible for a benefit .","In its reasoning ORG began by describing the context in which it viewed the case , stating that","( i ) the aim of disability insurance was to provide cover for insured persons against the risk of becoming unable , for medical reasons , to carry on a paid occupation or perform household tasks which they had actually been able to carry out before becoming disabled and would still be able to perform if the event triggering the disability had not occurred ;","( ii ) the aim was not to provide compensation in respect of activities which the insured persons would never have carried out even if they had remained in good health ;","( iii ) this approach was designed to prevent situations in which , for instance , individuals who were well - off and had never previously worked could be recognised as having a disability if they developed health problems , even though they would probably never have worked had they remained in good health .","Accordingly , ORG considered that the combined method was not discriminatory . It found as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL ... It is true that the combined method , as applied by the [ ORG in its settled case - law , may result in a loss of benefit where the insured person is DATE generally on account of the birth of a child \u2013 to cease paid employment , at least on a full - time basis . However , it is not the disability that [ then ] causes the loss of income ; many people in good health also suffer a loss of income when they reduce their TIME or stop working . The criticism of the combined method is directed at the fact that individuals ( mostly women ) suffer a drop in earnings when they reduce their working TIME after having children . Nevertheless , this sociological reality is not the result of factors linked to the person \u2019s health and should not therefore be covered by the disability insurance scheme . It does not give rise to any discrimination or other breach of LAW . \u201d","Nevertheless , ORG conceded that the interplay between the \u201c household \u201d and \u201c paid employment \u201d aspects was not taken sufficiently into account in the combined method . With regard to the applicant , however , it found","( i ) that the aggravation of her health problems as a result of her paid work should not be regarded as reducing her capacity to perform household tasks by PERCENT ;","( ii ) that , accordingly , even taking the interplay in question into account , the applicant \u2019s degree of disability did not reach PERCENT minimum required in order to qualify for a benefit :","CARDINAL % ( paid employment ) : PERSON x CARDINAL % = CARDINAL %","PERCENT ( household tasks ) : CARDINAL x ( MONEY PERCENT ) = PERCENT","Total = CARDINAL %","The argument that her husband was unemployed , which was raised by the applicant for the first time before ORG , was rejected on the grounds that it had not been relied upon in the court below and was not substantiated .","However , ORG granted the applicant legal aid in view of her lack of means .","..."],"violated_articles":["14","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173308","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"R.S. v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr LANGUAGE , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant was a soldier in the NORP armed forces from DATE until DATE . On DATE of his service , he was formally instructed that , pursuant to the pertinent internal regulation of the armed forces , the consumption of drugs was prohibited both on duty and off duty and was subject to disciplinary sanctions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . From DATE until DATE , the applicant consumed cannabis in his spare time on several occasions .","After another soldier had informed the applicant \u2019s disciplinary superior ( PERSON ) about this , the latter confronted the applicant with the accusation on DATE . The applicant denied having consumed drugs and agreed to have a rapid drug test carried out that same day . As the test turned out to be positive , the applicant was questioned a second time . The disciplinary superior informed the applicant of his right to remain silent by virtue of LAW of LAW of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , but did not tell him about the possibility of contacting a lawyer , as this right was not laid down in the said provision . The disciplinary superior also told the applicant that , if he chose not to remain silent , he was obliged to make true statements under LAW . The applicant then confessed to having consumed cannabis .","On DATE the disciplinary superior informed ORG , who launched preliminary criminal proceedings against the applicant . On DATE these proceedings were discontinued because the applicant \u2019s guilt was considered to be of a minor nature and because prosecution was not in the public interest .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s disciplinary superior informed the Prosecutor of the armed forces ( Wehrdisziplinaranwalt ) that he had referred the matter to ORG . On DATE , in an internal document , the Prosecutor of the armed forces ordered a preliminary investigation .","On DATE the applicant , of his own motion , went to see the deputy of the disciplinary superior . He again admitted to having consumed cannabis .","Following the applicant \u2019s second confession , his disciplinary superior advised him to see the PERSON ( \u201c person of confidence \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) so as to give him the opportunity to convince the latter to make a statement that was favourable to him . The disciplinary superior informed the applicant of his right to object to the PERSON being part of the proceedings . As the applicant did not object , the disciplinary superior also asked the PERSON to talk to the applicant . Shortly after , the applicant went to see the PERSON and told him about the background of his drug consumption .","On DATE , after the Prosecutor of the armed forces had asked the disciplinary superior to do so , the applicant was informed for the first time of his right to contact a lawyer . He was also asked whether he agreed to the PERSON being given access to the file . The applicant gave his consent without asking a lawyer for advice .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was formally questioned for the first time . He remained silent . DATE , the PERSON was questioned and gave evidence about the applicant \u2019s statements during their conversation , as the applicant had not objected to the PERSON being heard ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE disciplinary court proceedings against the applicant were opened . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the Prosecutor of the armed forces charged the applicant with the disciplinary offence of having breached his duties with intent by regularly consuming cannabis from DATE to DATE .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of a disciplinary offence pursuant to LAW on ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It ordered that the applicant be banned from promotion for DATE and that his salary be cut by a twentieth ( i.e. MONEY ) for DATE . It considered the pecuniary fine to be necessary for educational reasons , as the applicant had no realistic prospect of promotion ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In the proceedings before ORG , the applicant remained silent . The court , therefore , based its findings on the result of the drug test and , mainly , on statements made by the applicant \u2019s disciplinary superior . Emphasising the difference between criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings , it considered that admitting these pieces of evidence did not violate the applicant \u2019s right to a fair trial . It pointed out that , when the applicant had first confessed his drug consumption to his disciplinary superior on DATE , after the latter had informed him about his right to remain silent , the proceedings were at the stage of a disciplinary investigation by a soldier \u2019s disciplinary superior ; the Prosecutor of the armed forces had not yet opened a preliminary investigation . It considered that a soldier only had to be informed of his right to contact a lawyer once the latter proceedings were opened . Hence , the evidence obtained from the applicant \u2019s first confession of CARDINAL DATE could be admitted ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , the applicant \u2019s second confession of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) could not be admitted as evidence because the prosecutor of the armed forces had ordered the initiation of a preliminary investigation prior to that date , which was why the applicant had to be informed of his right to contact a lawyer .","On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of ORG . It found that neither the applicant \u2019s first confession of DATE nor his second confession of DATE , nor the statements by his disciplinary superior , respectively the superior \u2019s deputy \u2013 to whom he had confessed on those occasions \u2013 could be admitted as evidence , because the applicant had not been informed of his right to contact a lawyer in advance . The court reasoned that such instruction , which was not required for minor disciplinary measures imposed by the disciplinary superior himself , was always required for evidence to be admitted in disciplinary court proceedings so as to ensure the fairness of the latter .","NORP However , the court considered that the finding that the applicant had consumed cannabis in his spare time , in breach of his duties as a soldier , could be based on CARDINAL pieces of evidence . First , the statement of a witness who had known about the applicant \u2019s drug consumption prior to the commencement of any proceedings . Second , the drug test to which the applicant had agreed after the initial questioning by his disciplinary superior on DATE . The court noted , however , that the examining physician had indicated that the positive result could also have been caused by passive smoking of cannabis and was not in itself sufficient to prove the applicant \u2019s cannabis consumption . Third , the statement of the PERSON about the conversation he had had with the applicant .","The court found that he did not have a right to refuse to give testimony . The PERSON did not belong to the persons listed in either LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) who could refuse testimony on professional grounds . It was constant case - law of the domestic courts that this provision did not extend to employee representatives or staff council members , and there was no reason to treat the Vertrauensperson more favourably than those persons . A right to refuse testimony did not follow from LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) either , as the pertinent internal regulations of the armed forces authorised the PERSON to testify before ORG .","ORG further found that hearing the PERSON as a witness did not violate LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The fact that the applicant \u2019s disciplinary superior had advised him to contact the PERSON did not amount to \u201c deception \u201d within the meaning of LAW . When giving this advice , the disciplinary superior had not been aware of the fact that the PERSON might be heard as a witness in court proceedings against the applicant and had no intention of deceiving the applicant as to the lack of confidentiality of his statements to the PERSON . No pressure had been exerted on the applicant to confess his drug consumption to the PERSON . Referring to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court took into account that the role of the PERSON in disciplinary proceedings was a neutral one and not comparable to a defence lawyer acting on behalf of the accused soldier . The intention behind advising the applicant to talk to the PERSON was , thus , to give him the opportunity to convince the PERSON to make a statement that was favourable to him .","NORP Moreover , LAW did not prevent hearing the ORG as a witness . Noting that the provision obliged him to observe professional secrecy vis - \u00e0 - vis third parties and that the NORP legislator , as a rule , distinguished between the obligation to observe secrecy and the right to refuse testimony , ORG observed that courts were not a third party within the meaning of that provision , which , in addition , did not contain a right to refuse testimony . The term \u201c Vertrauensperson \u201d could not lead to a different result . This formulation reflected the fact that he was elected by the soldiers , hence he had the confidence of the majority of voters , and was entrusted with the task of representing their interests . This did not imply that soldiers accused of wrongdoing could rely , without restriction , on the PERSON to remain silent in proceedings of which he was made part . Rather , LAW of ORG showed that the PERSON had an independent role in disciplinary court proceedings and his task was to provide the perspective of a fellow soldier , so as to allow for an informed exercise of discretion . The interests of the accused soldier were sufficiently protected by his right to object to the participation of the FAC in the disciplinary court proceedings prior to their opening . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG did not give the accused soldier the right to object , at a later stage , to the PERSON being heard with retroactive effect .","Furthermore , ORG found that admitting the statement of the ORG as evidence did not violate constitutional law . The applicant \u2019s right to protection of personality rights and his right to a fair trial had not been violated because , although advised to do so by his disciplinary superior , he had freely chosen to inform the PERSON about his drug consumption . He had also been aware that he was not legally obliged to talk to the FAC . Moreover , neither his disciplinary superior nor the PERSON had told the applicant that the ORG would treat the information as confidential . On the contrary , the applicant had repeatedly been asked whether he objected to the FAC being part of the disciplinary proceedings and had decided not to object . He could thus not rely on the content of his statements made to the PERSON remaining confidential .","NORP The court noted that , prior to making his statement to the PERSON , the applicant had already confessed his drug consumption to his disciplinary superior and the superior \u2019s deputy without having been instructed about his right to consult a lawyer . It acknowledged that the applicant may thus have decided to talk to the PERSON because he was under the impression that he could no longer undo his earlier selfincriminatory statements . The PERSON did not instruct him that none of his earlier confessions could be used as evidence against him ( so - called \u201c qualified instruction \u201d ) . However , the conversation the applicant had had with the PERSON could not be compared to a situation of questioning an accused , for its purpose was not to further the investigation of the matter . As the PERSON was , therefore , not obliged to instruct the applicant that he could be heard as a witness in the court proceedings , he was even less obliged to provide a qualified instruction to the applicant .","Finally , ORG found that admitting the statement of the ORG as evidence did not violate the applicant \u2019s right to a fair trial guaranteed by LAW , noting that it could be left open whether the disciplinary proceedings at issue fell under the criminal or under the civil limb of the provision . Noting that LAW did not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such , which was therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law , the question which had to be answered was whether the proceedings as a whole , including the way in which the evidence was obtained , were fair . Referring to , inter alia , the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE ) , it pointed out that the nature and degree of the compulsion , the existence of any relevant safeguards in the procedures , and the use to which any material so obtained was put had to be assessed when examining whether a procedure had extinguished the very essence of the privilege against selfincrimination . The applicant had talked to the PERSON voluntarily , his confession had not been elicited through subterfuge and there were no elements of oppression or coercion . The court also noted that the applicant could raise his arguments as to why the statement of the PERSON should not be admitted as evidence before domestic courts and that he could question him in person at the appeal hearing . Emphasising that the statement of the PERSON was not the only piece of evidence used and that all CARDINAL pieces of evidence used were consistent with each other , it concluded that the proceedings , taken as a whole , were not unfair .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s complaint , without giving reasons . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW on the Legal Status of Soldiers ( PERSON \u00fcber die PERSON ) provided that a culpable breach of a soldier \u2019s duties constituted a disciplinary offence . Pursuant to the internal regulation of ORG ( Zentrale Dienstvorschrift ) CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL , the consumption of drugs was prohibited both on duty and off duty and was subject to disciplinary sanctions . According to the constant caselaw of the domestic courts , the consumption of drugs would normally be sanctioned by a promotion ban or , in severe cases , by a demotion ( see ORG , CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , judgment of DATE ) . Pursuant to LAW of LAW of ORG ) , a salary cut may be imposed in addition to a promotion ban , if it appeared that the promotion ban did not have an impact on the soldier \u2019s career in the armed forces .","Section CARDINAL of LAW of ORG provided that , where facts become known that justified the suspicion of a soldier \u2019s breach of duty , the disciplinary superior of that soldier had to establish the facts by conducting the necessary investigations . The soldier was to be informed about the investigation as soon as possible without putting the purpose of the investigation at risk , and had to be informed at DATE first questioning of which breaches of duty he was accused . At the same time , he had to be advised that he was free to remain silent . If he chose to speak , he had to give a truthful account in relation to official matters . If the instruction required was omitted or not properly given , the statement given by the soldier could not be used to his detriment . In cases warranting the opening of disciplinary court proceedings , the disciplinary superior had to refer the matter to the Prosecutor of the armed forces ( Section CARDINAL ) . Pursuant to LAW of the same LAW , the provisions of LAW were to be applied to disciplinary court proceedings in addition to the provisions of LAW , unless the nature of the proceedings was opposed to this .","The status of the PERSON , including the mode of his designation , his competencies and powers , and his role within the hierarchy , were laid down in ORG ) . At the material time , that Act , which has since been amended , provided that the PERSON was elected by groups of soldiers for a period of DATE . He was tasked with contributing to the good cooperation between superiors and subordinates and the consolidation of comradely trust . He closely cooperated with the disciplinary superior , both in the interests of the soldiers and those of the armed forces . The PERSON had to be informed and heard with regard to measures falling within the scope of his mandate and , in certain scenarios , had a right to make suggestions to the disciplinary superior . He had to be heard with regard to day - to - DATE matters of service and should be heard on a variety of matters concerning staff . Where no agreement could be reached , it was possible to refer certain matters to a more senior level within the hierarchy . The PERSON was also concerned with staff welfare and offered counselling sessions to fellow soldiers as needed . At the material time , LAW , which has since been changed , provided that the PERSON had to observe professional secrecy vis - \u00e0 - vis third parties in relation to facts and matters he learned about in the exercise of his functions . Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provided , at the time , that the ORG had to be heard about the soldier concerned and the facts at issue where the opening of court proceedings against a soldier for a disciplinary offence was intended , unless the soldier objected to such hearing . That hearing served the purpose to ensure that the soldier \u2019s interests were taken into account prior to a decision being taken on the opening of court proceedings against him ( see ORG , CARDINAL ORG DATE , decision of CARDINAL DATE ) . LAW stated that a transcript of that hearing had to be recorded .","The pertinent provisions of LAW read , in so far as relevant , as follows :","Section CARDINAL [ Right to Refuse Testimony on Professional Grounds ]","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The following persons may also refuse to testify :","clergymen , concerning information that was entrusted to them or became known to them in their capacity as spiritual advisers ;","defence counsel of the accused , concerning information that was entrusted to them or became known to them in this capacity ;","attorneys , patent attorneys , notaries , certified public accountants , sworn auditors , tax consultants and tax representatives , doctors , dentists , psychological psychotherapists , psychotherapists specialising in the treatment of children and juveniles , pharmacists and midwives , concerning information that was entrusted to them or became known to them in this capacity . ...","drugs dependency counsellors in a counselling agency recognised or set up by an authority , a body , an institution or a foundation under public law , concerning the information that was entrusted to them or became known to them in this capacity ; ...","Section CARDINALa [ ORG Testimony ]","( CARDINAL ) Persons assisting , and persons involved in the professional activities of those listed in LAW subsection ( CARDINAL ) , numbers CARDINAL to CARDINAL , as part of their training , shall be considered equivalent to such persons . ...","Section CARDINAL [ Authorisation for Judges and Officials to Testify ]","( CARDINAL ) The special provisions of the law concerning public officials shall apply to the examination of judges , officials , and other persons in the public service as witnesses concerning circumstances covered by their official obligation of secrecy , as well as to permission to testify . ...","Section CARDINALa [ Prohibited Methods of Examination ]","( CARDINAL ) The accused \u2019s freedom to make up his mind and to manifest his will shall not be impaired by ill - treatment , induced fatigue , physical interference , administration of drugs , torment , deception or hypnosis . ...","( CARDINAL ) The prohibition under subsections ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) shall apply irrespective of the accused \u2019s consent . Statements which were obtained in breach of this prohibition shall not be used , even if the accused consents to their use . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156245","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MARTZAKLIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Inhuman punishment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants are HIV - positive , with a minimum degree of disability of PERCENT . They are , or were , detained in ORG ( psychiatric section ) at FAC .","Andreas PERSON : imprisoned on DATE and detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG , a decision given by ORG of ORG in DATE ordering the execution of a sentence passed by ORG which had been stayed , and a judgment delivered by ORG sentencing him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG . Released on licence on DATE but rearrested DATE and placed in preventive detention .","Christos GPE : provisionally detained from DATE to DATE , and detained by judgment of DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and then by judgment of DATE sentencing him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to ORG . Released on licence on DATE pursuant to LAW . CARDINAL .","PERSON : imprisoned on DATE . Detained pursuant to a decision given by ORG of ORG on DATE , ordering the execution of the remainder of a sentence with suspensive effect , and pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG , which merged the sentences into a total of DATE . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG . Released on licence on DATE pursuant to LAW .","Efthymios Karatzoglou : imprisoned on DATE . Detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG of PERSON on DATE sentencing him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to ORG . Released on licence on DATE pursuant to LAW . DATE .","Achilleas Papadiotis : imprisoned on CARDINAL DATE . Detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment ( starting date for serving the sentence : DATE ) . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG . Transferred to ORG on DATE .","PERSON : imprisoned on DATE and detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , and a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to ORG . Placed in ORG .","DATE Spyridon PERSON : detained since DATE pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG . Released on licence on DATE under LAW No . DATE .","Chrysafis Chatzikos : imprisoned on DATE and detained ever since under the following decisions : CARDINAL DATE judgment of ORG sentencing him to DATE imprisonment ; CARDINAL DATE judgment of ORG sentencing him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment ; CARDINAL DATE judgment of ORG sentencing him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment ; DATE decision of ORG of ORG ordering the execution of the remainder of a sentence with suspensive effect which had been passed by ORG on DATE ; and DATE judgment of ORG sentencing him to DATE imprisonment ( in provisional detention from CARDINAL DATE to DATE ) .","PERSON : imprisoned on DATE and detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE , sentencing him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , followed by a judgment delivered by the same court on DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG and constantly since then .","Panagiotis Kormalis : imprisoned on DATE and detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to ORG . Released on licence on DATE under LAW No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . His release warrant mentioned that he had contracted AIDS .","Aimilianos Chamitoglou : imprisoned on DATE and detained : first of all , under a provisional detention order of CARDINAL October CARDINAL ( on charges of armed robbery ) ; and secondly , pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ( beginning on DATE ) . On DATE ORG acquitted him of the armed robbery charge . Released on licence on DATE under LAW No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","PERSON : imprisoned on DATE and detained pursuant to a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE sentencing him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG . Released on licence on DATE under LAW .","PERSON : imprisoned on DATE . Detained pursuant to a decision given by ORG of ORG on DATE , and to the judgments of ORG and ORG of DATE and DATE respectively , sentencing him to various prison terms . Detained as a convicted prisoner at the time of the application to the ORG . Released on licence on DATE under LAW No . DATE . Has since returned to prison .","According to the information supplied by the applicants who had been convicted under court judgments , which information was not disputed by the Government , the courts had not granted suspensive effect to their appeals ( see LAW ) .","In a petition transmitted on DATE under LAW to the supervising public prosecutor responsible for FAC , CARDINAL HIV - positive persons detained in the Aghios Pavlos Hospital , including the applicants , complained of their conditions of detention on the second floor of that hospital . They drew attention to the overcrowded LOC , the uncontrolled admission of new patients , and the fact that they were held with other detainees suffering from cancer , asthma , hepatitis , venereal diseases , bronchitis , scabies , psoriasis and even tuberculosis , which diseases necessitated confinement to individual cells because several of them were transmissible . A small quantity of cream had been distributed to some of the HIV - positive detainees who were also affected with scabies . They had been advised to change their sheets and underwear DATE and to wash them at high temperatures , even though the washing machine was out of order . When they had gone to fetch their medication the nurses had told them not to touch the bars through which they handed over the medicines in order to prevent the risk of infection . The administrative and medical staff had not given the detainees any official information in order to minimise the seriousness of the epidemic .","On DATE the supervising public prosecutor had informed the detainees that \u201c CARDINAL persons \u201d were suffering from scabies .","Relying on LAW the HIV - positive detainees , including the applicants , had also complained to ORG , but had received no reply .","A delegation of HIV - positive detainees had been received by the supervising public prosecutor to draw attention to the constantly increasing numbers of persons detained in the ORG and the intolerable conditions of detention .","The applicants submitted that the cells were so overcrowded that the personal space available for each detainee was CARDINAL m\u00b2 , including beds and sanitary facilities .","NORP The bathrooms fell short of minimum hygiene standards and cleaning in the LOC was left to the discretion of the few HIV - positive persons in receipt of an allowance enabling them to purchase cleaning products .","NORP The food was so poor in nutritional value that HIV - positive detainees risked developing AIDS owing to physical debilitation .","The LOC were under - heated , and detainees were exposed to low temperatures , particularly at TIME .","Nor had the problem of smoking been resolved . Several detainees smoked in the communal areas , the cells and the dormitories , and the non - smokers , especially those with respiratory problems , became passive smokers .","The hospital staff did not include any infectious disease specialists , which placed HIV - positive detainees at risk because they were diagnosed by non - specialists .","During the distribution of medicines the nurse , wearing gloves , left the boxes on the floor outside the cell bars , and the HIV - positive persons had to stretch through the bars to retrieve them , avoiding touching the others , as recommended by the nurse .","The applicants also complained about the fact that diagnoses were conducted automatically and that the doctors always prescribed the same medicines without individually examining each patient . Any requisite transfers to outside hospitals were always carried out after long delays . Distribution of medication prescribed for some of the applicants was often interrupted without explanation for periods of DATE . Other applicants had not yet begun their treatment , which delay the doctors explained by claiming that \u201c the limit [ regarding the presence of the virus in the blood ] necessitating the initiation of treatment has increased \u201d .","The applicants also complained of a lack of access to the outside world , news programmes and even use of the telephone , and the fact that the detainees were not held separately from the convicted prisoners .","Lastly , the applicants stated that a video on conditions of detention had been leaked in DATE and had induced the prosecutor with ORG to order an inquiry , which was currently under way .","..."],"violated_articles":["13","14","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167091","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SEMENOV AND BACHURINA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in Tver .","PERSON was born on DATE and lived before her arrest in the village of PERSON , GPE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163317","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"N. AND M. v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The case originated in CARDINAL applications ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) against GPE lodged with ORG under LAW ( \u201c the LAW ) by PERSON . PERSON , on CARDINAL DATE , on behalf of CARDINAL NORP nationals , ORG and M.","Ms Gribanova did not provide any written authority to act on behalf of ORG and M.","N. and LOC were born in DATE and DATE respectively and prior to their alleged disappearance lived in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE to ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","Prior to DATE N. lived in GPE . In DATE he left GPE for GPE , and settled in GPE .","Prior to DATE M. lived in GPE . In DATE he left GPE for GPE and settled in GPE .","Both NORP PERSON are practising NORP .","In DATE the NORP authorities charged PERSON absentia with being members of banned religious organisations , issued international warrants for their arrest , and ordered that they be placed in detention once arrested . During those criminal proceedings , on CARDINAL occasions ( in DATE and DATE ) the NORP authorities questioned ORG \u2019s relatives about his whereabouts .","NORP In DATE and DATE the NORP police arrested PERSON and PERSON in GPE under an international warrant . The FAC LOC prosecutor \u2019s office ordered their detention pending extradition . This was subsequently extended by ORG .","N. and PERSON retained PERSON to represent them in the extradition proceedings . She applied to ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) with a request for their extradition to GPE to be refused .","The ORG refused to extradite PERSON and PERSON on the grounds that the acts imputed to them by the NORP authorities were not regarded as criminal under NORP law .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the FAC regional prosecutor ordered ORG and PERSON \u2019s release . The Government submitted that since their release PERSON and PERSON had not informed the relevant authorities of their place of residence on the territory of GPE .","NORP In DATE N. and PERSON addressed the following statements to PERSON :","Statement by ORG :","\u201c In the event I give any written or oral submissions to the mass media to the effect that I have voluntarily decided to return to GPE , this should be regarded as a forced return to GPE . \u201d","Statement by PERSON :","\u201c In the event I give any written or oral submissions to the mass media to the effect that I have voluntarily decided to return to GPE , this should be regarded as a statement made under pressure and my return to my country of origin , GPE , should be regarded as a forced return . \u201d","In DATE and DATE respectively PERSON and PERSON \u2019s names were removed from the international wanted list following the prosecutor \u2019s decision not to extradite them to GPE .","N. and PERSON applied for refugee status and temporary asylum in GPE . They lodged their applications with the FAC regional branch of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . They submitted that they had been persecuted in GPE on the basis of their religious beliefs , and would be subjected to ill - treatment if they returned . They indicated that PERSON was their point of contact .","In DATE and DATE respectively the ORG dismissed their requests for refugee status . In DATE the NORP courts upheld those decisions . PERSON was represented in the proceedings by PERSON . Ryabinina , a lawyer practising in GPE .","In DATE and DATE respectively the ORG dismissed their applications for temporary asylum . They lodged appeals against those decisions . The outcome of those proceedings is unknown .","On DATE N. was arrested for violating residence regulations for foreign nationals . On DATE the court refused to expel him and terminated the administrative proceedings for lack of corpus delicti . ORG was represented by PERSON in those proceedings .","On DATE PERSON was summoned to the ORG and questioned about his place of residence . After being questioned he telephoned PERSON . According to her , he seemed very scared .","According to PERSON , on DATE ORG received a call from the NORP security service , which insisted that he return to GPE .","On TIME CARDINAL DATE N. was again summoned to the ORG and was asked to bring copies of all the appeals he had lodged with the ORG and the courts in connection with the asylum proceedings . PERSON stated that he seemed scared , and asked her to attend in his place .","At TIME on DATE PERSON telephoned PERSON to ask for help . He said that unknown persons had forced him into a car and taken him to the airport . Immediately after this call his mobile telephone was switched off .","That evening PERSON informed PERSON that ORG had been abducted , and asked him to be extremely careful .","Around TIME on CARDINAL DATE PERSON received a call from a man who introduced himself as CARDINAL of PERSON \u2019s friends . According to him , at TIME DATE CARDINAL unidentified men had approached PERSON in the street . CARDINAL of them were wearing camouflage uniforms , while one was in civilian clothes . They forced LOC into a yellow minibus and drove him away to an unknown destination .","Ms Gribanova submitted that prior to their abduction ORG and PERSON had given her their passports , which she still held .","On DATE PERSON sought the application of Rule CARDINAL of ORG . She asked the ORG to indicate to ORG that ORG and M. \u2019s removal to GPE should be suspended .","On DATE the ORG granted that request , indicating to ORG that ORG and PERSON should not be extradited , expelled or otherwise involuntarily removed from GPE to GPE or any other country for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG . It also asked the Government for information as to ORG and PERSON \u2019s whereabouts .","On DATE the Government informed the ORG that N. and PERSON had not been arrested by the NORP authorities on CARDINAL and DATE , and that since CARDINAL DATE they had not passed through any border crossing points in the FAC region . Their whereabouts were unknown .","On DATE PERSON received a telephone call from ORG wife , who told her that she and ORG \u2019s father had been summoned by the NORP security service several times . The NORP authorities had insisted that ORG return to GPE voluntarily or else he would be forcibly returned .","On DATE PERSON submitted to the ORG that there were grounds to believe that PERSON and PERSON had been transferred to GPE on CARDINAL of the CARDINAL direct flights from FAC which had been scheduled after the ORG \u2019s indication of interim measures . She also submitted that at the time of their abduction NORP PERSON had not been in possession of their passports , so they could not have crossed the border without the knowledge and passive or active involvement of the NORP authorities .","On an unspecified date PERSON was visited by a man who introduced himself as ORG \u2019s \u201c mate \u201d . He said that ORG father had informed him that ORG was in GPE .","On an unspecified date PERSON \u2019s relatives informed PERSON that he had been transported to GPE on DATE .","In DATE PERSON was contacted by some people who introduced themselves as LOC and PERSON \u2019s relatives . They asked her to return PERSON and PERSON \u2019s passports . They explained that NORP PERSON were standing trial in GPE and therefore needed them . She refused to hand them over unless they made a written statement confirming that the passports had been taken by them and why . The people disappeared and never contacted her again .","At DATE the FAC regional department of the interior informed PERSON that enquiries had been made after she had reported that NORP PERSON had been abducted , but that their abduction by unknown persons and transportation to GPE had not been confirmed . In particular , ORG \u2019s relatives in GPE had submitted that he had been living in GPE , and there had been no information regarding PERSON and PERSON \u2019s possible arrest by NORP law - enforcement bodies or their departure from the FAC region . Nor were their names on the list of deceased persons .","DATE the investigating authorities on several occasions refused to initiate criminal proceedings into PERSON and PERSON \u2019s disappearance , for lack of corpus delicti . However , the decisions were overruled each time by the head of ORG , and the matter was sent for additional investigation .","In CARDINAL of the refusals to initiate criminal proceedings , namely a decision taken on DATE , the investigator referred to information provided by the information centre of the FAC department of the interior , to the effect that ORG had been arrested in GPE on DATE .","On DATE an investigator from the local investigation committee initiated criminal proceedings into ORG and M. \u2019s abduction by unknown persons . The Government did not inform ORG outcome of those proceedings .","Ms Gribanova submitted that on DATE she had been summoned by the investigator in charge of the case to give evidence as a witness .","On DATE she appeared before ORG and claimed that she could not be questioned as a witness . She applied to be acknowledged as representing PERSON and M. She was allegedly told that the investigator possessed information to the effect that PERSON had been detained by the NORP authorities in GPE , GPE , shortly after his disappearance from GPE .","In various proceedings in GPE N. and PERSON were questioned about their family situation , among other things .","N. submitted that all his relatives lived in GPE . He had been married but was divorced . He had a son from his marriage . He was not in contact with his former wife or their son . Since DATE he had been living with his female partner PERSON , an NORP national , with whom he had CARDINAL daughters . DATE PERSON and their daughters had lived in GPE . In DATE B. and the children had returned to GPE , because CARDINAL of their daughters needed to undergo an operation there . N. was in regular telephone contact with his parents , sisters and brothers . He submitted that he was not aware of any persecution of his family members in GPE .","M. submitted that all his relatives lived in GPE . He was married to PERSON . , an NORP national , and they had CARDINAL sons . In DATE his wife came to GPE to visit him and stayed with him . Their children stayed in GPE with their grandparents . In DATE his wife returned to GPE . He was in regular telephone contact with his wife and their CARDINAL young children , as well as his father and brothers and sisters ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-151005","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF McHUGH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4","text":["The applicants were all incarcerated at the relevant time following criminal convictions for a variety of offences . They were automatically prevented from voting , pursuant to primary legislation , in CARDINAL or more of the following elections : elections to ORG on DATE ; the parliamentary election on DATE ; and elections to ORG , ORG or ORG on CARDINAL DATE ( for further details see the appended table ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156570","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ZIKOVS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant went to the cinema . He got into an argument with another man . A fight ensued and the applicant fired several shots , killing the other man . The police arrived immediately and took the applicant into custody .","On DATE a judge remanded him in custody .","On DATE a search of the applicant \u2019s car was conducted by ORG without a judge \u2019s authorisation . Several objects and documents were seized : a laptop , a thesis written by the applicant , sporting equipment , and several objects the applicant described as being of an intimate nature .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was charged with aggravated murder .","On DATE the prosecution announced the end of the pre - trial investigation and decided to transfer the case to court ( l\u0113mums par krimin\u0101lprocesa nodo\u0161anu tiesai ) . The case file was sent to ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , CARDINAL years\u2019 police supervision , and confiscation of property .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas GPE tiesu pal\u0101ta ) upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . However , upon repeated requests by the applicant , the following objects and documents were excluded from the evidence relied on by the first - instance court for the purposes of the applicant \u2019s conviction : the record of the inspection of the applicant \u2019s car ( automa\u0161\u012bnas apskates protokols ) , the objects and documents seized therein ( apskates laik\u0101 iz\u0146emtie priek\u0161meti un dokumenti ) , and their inspection record ( mantu apskates protokols ) . ORG relied on sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW and found that , in actual fact , during the inspection of the applicant \u2019s car a search , not a ( visual ) inspection , had been carried out , in breach of the relevant domestic provisions pertaining to inspections . Moreover , the search of the applicant \u2019s car was carried out in breach of LAW pertaining to searches . The evidence obtained therefrom was accordingly declared inadmissible .","On DATE the applicant asked the prosecuting authorities to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who were involved in the search of his car . He did not ask that the unlawfully seized material be returned to him , but he relied on LAW . His complaint was forwarded to ORG of ORG ( NORP policijas PERSON dro\u0161\u012bbas birojs ) and he was informed about it .","On DATE ORG replied that no ancillary decision under the section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW had been made by the court . Accordingly , ORG had no legal grounds to examine investigative activities undertaken by its officers during the pre - trial investigation . The applicant was informed that he could enquire with the Chairperson of ORG of ORG . The applicant did not do so .","On DATE the ORG of ORG upheld the appellate court \u2019s ruling of CARDINAL DATE and adopted a final decision in the applicant \u2019s criminal case .","Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that \u201c everyone whose rights are violated without justification has a right to commensurate compensation \u201d .","Article CARDINAL guarantees \u201c inviolability of private life , home and correspondence \u201d .","NORP However , Article QUANTITY permits restrictions on the exercise of rights set out in , inter alia , Article CARDINAL in circumstances provided for by law in order to \u201c protect the rights of other persons , the democratic structure of the ORG , public safety , welfare and morals \u201d .","Section CARDINAL defines a delict as any wrongful act as a result of which damage ( which may include non - pecuniary damage ) has been caused to a third person . The person who has suffered the damage has the right to claim satisfaction from the person who caused it .","Section DATE provides that everyone is under an obligation to make good damage caused by his or her act or failure to act .","These provisions as well as sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL relating to compensation for bodily injury ( before and after the amendments that were effective DATE ) are quoted in full in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The relevant provision relating to searches can be found in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","NORP In addition , LAW ) provides that a court may adopt an ancillary decision by which violations of law are notified to the competent authority or official and they are requested to remedy the situation ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166957","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF STROGAN v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law);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 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Late in TIME CARDINAL DATE the applicant had a fight with his neighbour . The neighbour complained to the police that the applicant had injured him .","On TIME the police took the applicant to the LOC police station in GPE ( \u201c the district police \u201d ) . The applicant was at the police station from CARDINAL a.m. to CARDINAL a.m. and gave evidence in relation to the fight with his neighbour . The applicant claimed that he had acted in self - defence . According to the Government , at TIME the applicant left the police station and had no further contact with the police during the period at issue . His presence at the police station from TIME to CARDINAL a.m. was noted in the police \u2019s records .","According to the applicant , at TIME , as he left the police station , police officers took him and drove him to a forest where they beat him up and tortured him using handcuffs and an electric shock device . The police officers then took the applicant to another part of the police station that he had just left , where they continued to ill - treat him . During that time the police officers put pressure on the applicant to admit that he had intended to murder his neighbour . On DATE they released him .","On DATE , following the applicant \u2019s complaint to the internal security unit of the LOC police , he was examined by a forensic medical expert . The latter found that the applicant had sustained bruises on his head , nose , upper lip and chest . The expert considered those injuries as being minor and that they could have been caused by blunt , solid objects during a period of DATE before the medical examination .","On DATE the assistant prosecutor of the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office of ORG ( \u201c the prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) inspected the premises of the police station where the applicant had allegedly been ill - treated . He found traces of a brown substance on the floor , wall , and balcony , as well as on the pillowcase and CARDINAL mattress covers . Samples of the substance were taken and submitted to an expert for examination .","On DATE the expert stated that the brown substance was blood .","NORP The prosecutor \u2019s office then questioned police officers GPE , GPE , PERSON and PERSON They all denied the allegations of ill - treatment and submitted that the applicant had sustained the injuries before being taken to the police station , namely during the scuffle with his neighbour . The officers stated that the applicant \u2019s nose had been injured before and that it bled from time to time , that he had been offered an antiseptic tissue , that he had declined an offer by the police officers to go to a hospital and that he had continued voluntarily to give evidence about the fight with his neighbour . They also mentioned that the applicant had gone on to the balcony to have a smoke where he might have left traces of blood .","On DATE and DATE the applicant submitted further complaints of ill - treatment to the internal security unit of the LOC police and the prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office , having completed its pre - investigation inquiry , refused to initiate criminal proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations that he had been ill - treated by police officers CARDINAL . According to that decision , the applicant had only been present at the district police station TIME on DATE and there had been no evidence suggesting that the police officers had been involved in any alleged illtreatment or unlawful detention . The applicant challenged that decision in the courts .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) found that the decision of CARDINAL DATE by the prosecutor \u2019s office had been lawful and substantiated . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG quashed the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE as unfounded and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG reversed the decision of the prosecutor \u2019s office of DATE , finding that the measures taken to examine the applicant \u2019s allegations had been insufficient . The court ordered a further pre - investigation inquiry to establish the applicant \u2019s whereabouts CARDINAL and the circumstances in which he had sustained his injuries .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of corpus delicti . According to the decision , which referred to the explanations by the police officers and other evidence , the applicant had left the police station at TIME on DATE and there had been no involvement of the officers in any unlawful action in relation to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under LAW DATE ( \u201c the ORG of DATE \u201d ) , alleging that he had been ill - treated by police officers .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office commenced a pre - trial investigation in relation to the alleged events of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE a forensic medical expert issued a report repeating the findings of the forensic report of CARDINAL DATE as regards the documented injuries .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office terminated the investigation , finding that the applicant \u2019s allegations had been refuted by the statements of the police officers , other witnesses , and documentary and medical evidence which suggested that the applicant might have sustained minor injuries during his fight with the neighbour on DATE .","On DATE a forensic medical expert issued a report stating that the applicant \u2019s neighbour had sustained CARDINAL incised wounds , CARDINAL of which had been on the neck .","On DATE the district police opened criminal proceedings in relation to the moderately severe injuries sustained by the applicant \u2019s neighbour during the fight of CARDINAL DATE . Subsequently , the case was classified as attempted murder .","At TIME on DATE an investigator with the district police arrested the applicant on suspicion of attempted murder . The investigator relied on LAW ( \u201c the ORG of DATE \u201d ) . As regards the grounds for the applicant \u2019s arrest without a court decision , the investigator cited the CARDINAL sub - paragraphs of the first paragraph of LAW ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He further noted in his report that the applicant had been suspected of attempted murder , that he had a record of serious offences , and that his arrest would prevent the applicant from absconding and impeding the execution of a judgment . The investigator then charged the applicant and questioned him in relation to the case .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s pretrial detention . It stated that the applicant had been charged with a serious crime , that he had CARDINAL criminal offences on his record , and that he had no official income . The court concluded that there was a risk that if the applicant remained at liberty he might impede the establishment of the truth , hide evidence , influence the investigation , abscond or reoffend . The court further considered that a personal guarantee , which had been offered by an NGO in respect of the applicant , would not ensure his proper conduct during the criminal proceedings . Furthermore , there had been no suggestion that the applicant could not be held in a detention facility for health reasons .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the decision of DATE , finding that there were sufficient grounds to keep him in custody .","On DATE a bill of indictment was approved by the prosecutor and the case file was sent to ORG .","On DATE ORG committed the applicant for trial on a charge of attempted murder . As regards the preventive measure , the court ruled that the applicant should be held in custody . It stated that the applicant had been charged with a serious offence , that he was unemployed , had refused to admit his guilt , and that he had CARDINAL serious offences on his criminal record . The court pointed out that no new information had been added to the material which had been examined earlier by ORG and ORG when deciding on keeping the applicant in custody .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed applications by the applicant for a change in the preventive measure and maintained its earlier decision to keep him in custody . The court stated that the applicant had been charged with a serious offence , was unemployed , had a criminal record , and had refused to admit his guilt . As to the question of bail , the court noted that no document had been produced to suggest that any funds were available for that purpose .","On DATE the applicant was released from custody after giving a written undertaking not to abscond . ORG stated that the trial was in its final stages so the applicant could no longer impede the establishment of the truth . The applicant also had a permanent place of residence where he lived with his family .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of inflicting minor bodily injuries on his neighbour . The court found that attempted murder had not been established during the trial . It sentenced the applicant to DATE of restriction of liberty . Having regard to the period of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention , the court found that the sentence had been served .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , following his arrest and questioning ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant was placed in a police cell . According to the applicant , on TIME DATE police officers beat him up at the police station .","As the applicant had complained about his health , he was examined TIME of DATE by a panel of doctors who found no injuries on his body .","On DATE the hearing before ORG concerning the preventive measure in the applicant \u2019s case was interrupted because the applicant had to be provided with medical care . The ambulance team which arrived at the court stated that the applicant had concussion , a haematoma by the left eye and a bruise on his chest . The applicant complained that the injuries had been inflicted by police officers .","On DATE the deputy prosecutor of LOC ordered that the applicant be examined and asked the medical expert to detail , among other things , the nature , quantity , location , and severity of his injuries . He also asked the expert to state whether the injuries could have been inflicted by the applicant himself .","On DATE , following the court decision of DATE to hold the applicant in custody ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he was taken under escort to the ORG pre - trial detention centre . Upon arrival he was examined by the medical staff who documented the following injuries : a haematoma by the left eye , bruises on the left abdominal area and neck , a haematoma on the right thigh , and swelling in his genitals .","On DATE a ORG panel examined the applicant and found that he had sustained bruising on the soft tissue of his head and had a haematoma on his left eyelid .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert as requested ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In his report of DATE the expert stated that the applicant had sustained bruises on his face , neck , chest , left shoulder , right leg and right shin . The expert considered the injuries to be minor and that they had been inflicted by blunt , solid objects during a period of DATE before the examination . The expert added that all the injuries could have been selfinflicted .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office , having concluded its pre - investigation inquiry , refused to open criminal proceedings concerning alleged police brutality against the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE . According to the decision , there had been no evidence suggesting that the applicant \u2019s injuries documented after the alleged ill - treatment had been caused by police officers . The decision referred to the police ORG statements that the applicant had inflicted the injuries on himself .","The applicant challenged that decision before ORG , but received no reply . In DATE , DATE and DATE he made applications to ORG in relation to his complaint , but to no avail ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169214","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF FRIDA, LLC v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The applicant company is a limited liability company registered in DATE in GPE , with its registered office in GPE .","On DATE the applicant company and another company , S. , concluded an agreement by which the applicant company undertook to provide information and analytical services to S. , and the latter undertook to pay for those services . On DATE the parties concluded an additional agreement for supplementary services to be provided to S. by the applicant company .","On DATE the applicant company lodged a claim against S. with ORG , seeking recovery of an alleged debt under the above agreement , as well as the payment of penalties and legal fees .","On DATE ORG opened the proceedings in the case .","On DATE , during a hearing in the case , PERSON submitted a counterclaim , seeking that the agreement be declared void . The court adjourned the hearing until DATE without deciding on the admissibility of the counterclaim .","On DATE the judge hearing the case accepted S. \u2019s counterclaim for joint consideration with the original claim by the applicant company . At the same hearing , the judge granted S. \u2019s counterclaim in part and rejected the original claim of the applicant company in full . According to the record of the hearing , the hearing lasted TIME .","On DATE the applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of DATE with ORG of GPE ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) . It argued that the proceedings before the first - instance court had not been adversarial , and had not complied with the principle of procedural equality between the parties : the first - instance court had not provided the applicant company with an opportunity to prepare and submit observations as to S. \u2019s counterclaim or collect and provide evidence in defence . The applicant company requested that the impugned judgment be quashed and the case remitted to the first - instance court for fresh consideration .","NORP On DATE the ORG returned the applicant company \u2019s appeal on points of law to it without considering the appeal on the merits , because the relevant court fee had not been paid in full .","On DATE the applicant company resubmitted its appeal on points of law with proof of having paid the full court fee . The appeal on points of law was submitted together with a cover letter . In the cover letter , the applicant company set out the circumstances which had resulted in its missing the deadline for appealing on points of law , and asked the HCCU to extend the relevant time - limit and consider the appeal . Apart from that information , the cover letter contained the date , name and address of the court to which it was addressed , the case reference number , the parties\u2019 contact details , and the disputed amount which was the subject of the case . The letter ended with a list of enclosures , the applicant company \u2019s lawyer \u2019s details , his signature and a stamp .","On DATE the ORG found that the applicant company had submitted the second appeal on points of law outside the time - limit provided for by LAW , and had failed to enclose an application for an extension . Relying on sub - paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , the ORG declined to consider the applicant company \u2019s appeal on points of law .","On DATE the applicant company challenged the decision of DATE before ORG , arguing that on DATE it had in fact applied for an extension of the time - limit for lodging the appeal on points of law with the ORG . The application had been included in the text of the cover letter accompanying the appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178382","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PEREKRESTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . In application no . CARDINAL the applicant also raised a complaint under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169657","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RUIZ-VILLAR RUIZ v. SPAIN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["On DATE the NORP State instituted proceedings before the GPE Real Judge of first instance No . CARDINAL to obtain an order that LOC ( ORG ) , located on part of the land which belonged , partly , to the applicant \u2019s mother ( and which he inherited after her death ) , should be considered the source to ORG and was therefore in the hydraulic public domain .","On DATE the GPE Real Judge ruled in favour of the applicant \u2019s mother ( and several other defendants ) and declared that ORG fell into the private domain . However , on DATE ORG quashed that judgment and declared that LOC had to be classified as being in the public domain .","The applicant \u2019s mother , along with the other co - defendants , lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurso de casaci\u00f3n ) with ORG . On DATE the FAC sent the complete file , along with the appeals lodged by the parties , to ORG . On DATE ORG issued a judgment ruling against all the appellants and upholding the judgment of ORG .","On DATE the applicant ( as his mother \u2019s heir with locus standi ) lodged an amparo appeal with ORG complaining , inter alia , of the excessive length of the proceedings . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , served on the applicant on DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it had no constitutional relevance ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182602","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MARINA\u0218 AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170450","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PAULIKAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-2 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He worked as a traffic police officer in LOC .","On DATE , at TIME , CARDINAL DATE children were hit by a car in the village of NORP in LOC . CARDINAL of the children died at the scene and the third died DATE in hospital . The car left the scene of the crash immediately . A criminal investigation was opened DATE .","NORP TIME , at TIME , the applicant turned himself in to the police and confessed that he had been driving the car . The applicant submitted that he had not drunk any alcohol before the accident and that he was unable to give the exact speed he had been going . He stated that he had seen a group of children walking in front of him and \u201c had briefly lost control of the car \u201d , the car had gone off the road and \u201c hit something \u201d . The applicant submitted that he did not remember hitting the children \u201c because everything had happened very fast \u201d . Nor did he remember anything that had happened after the accident because he \u201c had been in shock \u201d . He stated that the only thing he remembered was waking up in a summer house TIME after the accident , after which he had gone to the police to confess .","On DATE the applicant was served with an official notice that he was suspected of a breach of road traffic safety regulations which had resulted in the death of other persons ( LAW ) and of a failure to provide assistance to persons in a life - threatening situation ( LAW ) . He was detained on remand and suspended from his post as a police officer .","The accident attracted considerable media attention . On DATE one of the biggest national newspapers , NORP rytas , published an article entitled \u201c A police officer \u2019s ORG crushed fourthgraders \u201d ( ORG patrulio PERSON trai\u0161k\u0117 ketvirtokus ) . The article stated that it was \u201c suspected that the car was being driven by the police officer S. NORP \u201d because the car belonged to his mother . It published interviews with several of the village \u2019s residents , who described the details of the accident and alleged that the applicant may have been drunk . The article also mentioned that DATE previously another police officer had caused a traffic accident in LOC in which CARDINAL children had received fatal injuries , but that the criminal proceedings against the officer had been discontinued .","On DATE the website of NORP rytas carried an article headlined \u201c After horrific accident in GPE [ the Minister of the Interior ] suggests [ the Police Commissioner General ] should resign \u201d . It quoted a statement made by the Minister :","\u201c Apologies will not suffice . The chief of the police must assume personal responsibility for this terrible incident . Especially as this was not the first time that police officers , who are supposed to stop traffic violations , have themselves caused terrible accidents . If I do not receive any reaction from the police chief , I believe that further efforts to improve the work of the police will be impossible and I will be ready to step down myself . \u201d","The Police Commissioner General told journalists that he \u201c accepted responsibility \u201d because \u201c the chief is responsible for what happens in the police organisation \u201d . However , he expressed doubts whether \u201c every such incident \u201d should lead to the resignation of senior police officers .","The article also quoted the President \u2019s spokesperson as questioning \u201c how many more victims of the war on the roads will it take for politicians and ORG officials to finally notice and start solving the problems on the roads \u201d . The article stated that the President was awaiting a response from ORG and from the police on whether they had been making sufficient efforts to create \u201c an atmosphere of absolute intolerance \u201d for officers and public officials who abused intoxicating substances .","On DATE NORP rytas published a photograph of the applicant on its front page , with a caption reading \u201c the man who caused the horrific accident ( kraupios avarijos kaltininkas ) , PERSON , turned himself in only after it was no longer possible to detect if he had been driving while drunk \u201d . It also published an article entitled \u201c Both [ the Police Commissioner General ] and [ the Minister of the Interior ] must resign \u201d , providing comments from the leaders of the main political parties about who should take political responsibility for the accident and for the \u201c ineffective road traffic safety policy \u201d . DATE and DATE after NORP rytas published details of CARDINAL traffic accidents which had been caused by police officers since DATE , where it had been suspected that the officers had driven while being drunk and where people had been killed or seriously injured but the officers had received mild sentences or had escaped criminal liability altogether .","On DATE the Police Commissioner General and the Minister of the ORG resigned . In an official statement issued on DATE , the President of GPE stated :","\u201c Over DATE the whole of GPE has shared the pain of [ the CARDINAL families ] who lost their children in an accident caused by a police officer . The seventh of DATE was not only the day of their tragedy but also reflected a serious crisis within the police force . The tragedy in LOC emphasised the problems ingrained in the system of interior affairs and further diminished public trust in the police . The loss of children \u2019s lives , the crime committed by an officer and its circumstances require clear answers why that happened , and determined solutions . It is intolerable that crimes committed by officers are justified or punished by relatively mild sentences .","A police officer must feel a higher degree of responsibility than an ordinary citizen and he must by his actions set an example to society because he has been obliged by the ORG to protect public order and thus ensure the safety of society . A crime committed by an officer can not be a simple statistical fact . It must be thoroughly examined and especially strictly evaluated ( kruop\u0161\u010diai i\u0161tirtas ir itin grie\u017etai \u012fvertintas ) .","... \u201d","The rest of the statement discussed problems within the police force , such as a lack of qualified personnel , inadequate training and low pay . It also urged all police officers to act in accordance with their mandate and asked the general public not to judge all officers on the basis of offences committed by a few .","Many more articles in the press reported on the accident , the suspicion that the applicant had driven while being drunk , the funerals of the CARDINAL children , reactions within the village , public protests in front of NORP police station , previous traffic accidents caused by police officers , and the resignations of the Minister of the Interior and the Police Commissioner General .","On DATE the applicant was charged with a breach of road traffic safety regulations while being under the influence of alcohol which resulted in the death of other persons ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) and with a failure to provide assistance to persons in a life - threatening situation ( LAW ) .","According to the rules of territorial jurisdiction , the case against the applicant should have been examined by ORG . However , it was transferred to ORG because CARDINAL of the ORG judges had participated in the pre - trial investigation and the chairperson of the court had previously worked with the applicant \u2019s father .","On DATE ORG began its examination of the applicant \u2019s case . The court heard testimony from the applicant , his colleague PERSON , who had been in the car with the applicant at the time of the accident , and another colleague PERSON , who had been driving in a different car and had helped the applicant to leave the scene of the accident . It also heard other workmates who had seen the applicant before or soon after the accident , as well as the waitress from the restaurant where the applicant and PERSON had had lunch before the accident , the parents of the CARDINAL children who had died , residents of the village who had witnessed the accident , and several court - appointed experts .","The applicant admitted that he had been driving the car and that the CARDINAL children had died as a result of the accident . However , he stated that he had not been drunk and had not exceeded the speed limit . He also argued that the accident had been caused by the weather and the reckless actions of some of the children .","All the hearings were held in public as none of the parties had asked for them to be closed , and several newspapers reported on the witness evidence . In a number of publications the applicant was called \u201c a killer of children \u201d ( vaik\u0173 \u017eudikas ) and mocked for \u201c suddenly losing his memory \u201d ( staiga sutriko atmintis ) when testifying in court . The colleagues who testified in favour of the applicant were collectively called \u201c defenders of the killer of children \u201d ( vaik\u0173 \u017eudiko u\u017etar\u0117jai ) who were \u201c trying to get him off \u201d ( bando i\u0161sukti ) . The newspapers also expressed sympathy to the children \u2019s families for having to \u201c relive those cruel events \u201d . Excerpts of the testimony of many of the witnesses , both in favour of and against the applicant , as well as the applicant \u2019s final statement , were reprinted word - for - word .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of both charges . The court established that the accident had occurred when the applicant had been under the influence of alcohol . It examined a video - recording from the restaurant where the applicant and PERSON had had lunch before the accident , showing that the CARDINAL men had each drunk CARDINAL a bottle of vodka . Another video - recording from the petrol station in which the applicant and PERSON had stopped after lunch showed the applicant buying CARDINAL more bottles of vodka . Several witnesses \u2013 the waitress from the restaurant , some of the applicant \u2019s colleagues , and people who had been present when the accident had happened \u2013 stated that the applicant had looked and sounded drunk . On the basis of that evidence , the court found that before the accident the applicant had consumed CARDINAL grams of alcohol . A court - appointed expert stated that after consuming so much alcohol the alcohol level in the applicant \u2019s blood must definitely have been above the legally permitted threshold of CARDINAL per mille ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court also noted that even though tests of the applicant \u2019s blood and urine had not detected any traces of alcohol , they had not been reliable because they had been taken TIME after the accident . The court held that since the applicant had deliberately hidden from the authorities during that period and had only given himself up TIME after the accident ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he could not use the negative blood and urine tests to his advantage .","ORG also established that at the time of the accident the applicant \u2019s car must have been going at a speed of CARDINAL km \/ h . A court - appointed expert examined the tyre marks at the scene of the accident , the damage done to nearby objects and the positions in which the CARDINAL children had been found , and reconstructed the course of events of the accident . The applicant \u2019s colleague PERSON , who had been driving in the car behind the applicant , testified that he himself had been going at QUANTITY \/ h but had been unable to keep up with the applicant . Several people who had been present at the accident also stated that the noise made by the applicant \u2019s car had indicated a very high speed . The court noted that the speed limit in the village was QUANTITY \/ h and that this must have been known to the applicant , who had worked as a police officer in the area . The court concluded that the accident had been caused by the excessive speed of the applicant \u2019s car and not by the weather or the actions of the children .","ORG also found the applicant guilty of failing to provide assistance to persons in a life - threatening situation . The court noted that the applicant had not shown any interest in the condition of the CARDINAL children or called an ambulance but had immediately fled the scene of the accident . The court observed that the obligation to help people in lifethreatening situations was enshrined in the Law on Police Activity , with which the applicant had had to comply . By failing to do so , he had breached LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The court found no mitigating circumstances in the applicant \u2019s favour . However , the fact that the victims had been minors was considered as an aggravating circumstance . The court also took the applicant \u2019s character and his behaviour during and after the accident into account : he had been under the influence of alcohol , CARDINAL people had died as a result of his actions , he had fled from the scene of the accident , had not expressed any remorse , had attempted to mislead the court by providing contradictory testimony , and his actions had discredited the authority of the police . As a result , ORG held that the applicant \u2019s punishment should be close to the maximum provided by law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He was given a consolidated sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , prohibited from driving a vehicle for DATE , and ordered to pay a total of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) in non - pecuniary damages to the families of the CARDINAL children .","Reporting on the sentence , NORP rytas quoted excerpts from the judgment and published a brief statement by the mother of CARDINAL of the children , who expressed her overall satisfaction with the judgment but stated that criminal laws should be changed to provide for stricter punishments .","The applicant appealed against the judgment . Among other things , he argued that he had not received a fair trial because of a media campaign against him . He argued that the media had ridiculed and discouraged the witnesses who had testified in his favour and that journalists and high - level ORG officials had urged the court to order the strictest sentence possible . The applicant stated that this had prevented the first - instance court from examining his case objectively . The applicant also argued that he had been given a stricter punishment because he was a police officer , which had constituted discrimination on the grounds of social status .","On DATE ORG partly amended the first - instance judgment . It upheld the lower court \u2019s findings concerning the applicant \u2019s drunkenness and the speed of his car , and dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning discrimination . However , ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s argument that the age of the victims should not have been considered as an aggravating circumstance because the criminal offence had not been premeditated . Accordingly , the court reduced the consolidated sentence to DATE imprisonment . It also considered that the amount of non - pecuniary damages awarded by the first - instance court had been excessive and not reasonably related to the applicant \u2019s means . Instead , the court awarded a total of LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) to the CARDINAL families . The prohibition on driving a vehicle for DATE was upheld .","NORP In response to the applicant \u2019s complaints concerning the lack of a fair trial , ORG stated that the media interest in the case had been understandable owing to its sensitive nature and that the media could not be prevented from reporting on public hearings . However , the court held that the first - instance judgment had been well - reasoned and based on reliable evidence , so there were no grounds to find that the judges had been influenced by the media or the statements of any of the officials .","On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant and upheld the judgment of ORG . It stated that the appellate court had provided an adequate examination of the applicant \u2019s complaints concerning the fairness of his trial and that there was no need to re - examine them .","In DATE the applicant was released on probation . According to the Government \u2019s observations submitted to ORG DATE , the applicant had up to that date paid a total of LTL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damages to the GPE families ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181881","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF AR\u010cON AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["At the relevant time all applicants were employed in a company called ORG aluminijuma GPE .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and DATE the applicants brought separate civil claims against their employer in ORG in GPE , seeking payments of the difference between the salaries which they had received and those which they had allegedly been entitled to on the basis of ORG ( GPE ugovor o radu ) .","On DATE the first instance court in GPE joined and dismissed the applicants\u2019 cases .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG in GPE . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first instance court ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158806","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DIMITROV AND RIBOV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and are serving whole life sentences in FAC .","The facts of the case can be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE both applicants were arrested on suspicion of murder and were remanded in custody . In DATE they were transferred to FAC . In DATE the trial court , ORG , found them guilty of murder resulting from terrorist activity and sentenced them to whole life imprisonment , to be served initially under the \u201c special regime \u201d . In DATE the appellate court , ORG , upheld that sentence which was further upheld by ORG in a final judgment of DATE .","The applicants have been serving their sentences under the \u201c special regime \u201d in FAC , in permanently locked individual cells measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , under heightened security supervision . Both applicants have been allowed out of their cells for DATE to take exercise in the open , which they have been spending walking in the prison courtyard .","The parties diverge in respect of the material conditions in which the applicants have been kept .","According to the applicants , the daylight in the cells has been scant and a light bulb attached to the ceiling has been on TIME a day . There is so little unencumbered space in the cell that the applicants are forced to spend most of DATE either lying or sitting on their beds . There are no toilets in their cells and , since DATE , the prison authorities have allowed them to use the common sanitary facilities CARDINAL times a day . The rest of the time they use a bucket to satisfy their physiological needs . Hygiene is rather poor : the prison LOC , including the canteen and kitchen , are infested with cockroaches and rats . The food is of inadequate quality and insufficient quantity . The medical service in the prison lacks even the most basic medical supplies . Mr Dimitrov caught psoriasis in prison and because of the absence of adequate treatment his condition has deteriorated into psoriatic arthritis .","According to the Government , the applicants\u2019 cells are equipped with toilets and the light is sufficient for them to read and write . In addition , the prison LOC are cleaned DATE and a thorough cleaning is carried out DATE by a specially designated individual . The authorities employ the services of an external company which regularly cleans and disinfects all prison areas . The prison director supervises the quality and quantity of the food offered to the inmates who receive meat dishes CARDINAL times a week and a NORP dish once a week . The prisoners have access to a bathroom with hot running water CARDINAL times a day . Sometimes they spend TIME a day in the open . They can visit the prison library , the prison chapel , as well as take part in DATE unspecified DATE group activities . Mr PERSON has tended to participate in them happily , while Mr PERSON has refused to do so without giving any reason for that ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163919","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MILLBANK AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election;Vote)","judges":"Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants , who are convicted prisoners , complained about their ineligibility to vote in elections ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175663","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOROBEYNIKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant took part in the cleaning - up operation at the GPE nuclear disaster site . He was subsequently registered disabled by GPE authorities , becoming entitled to various social benefits .","In DATE the applicant settled in GPE . The welfare authorities rejected re - establishing the applicant \u2019s disability status . The applicant challenged the rejection before the courts .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claim and ordered ORG to issue a certificate of benefits .","On DATE the judgment became final .","On DATE the applicant was issued with the certificate of benefits .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG allowed the defendant authority \u2019s application for supervisory review and quashed the judgment of DATE , considering that the lower courts misapplied the material law . The case was remitted for fresh consideration .","On DATE the ORG discontinued the proceedings since the parties failed to appear ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171500","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PALCHIK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently residing in GPE . Before his arrest the applicant was the managing director of a private company , A.","A. concluded a contract with PERSON , a NORP company , undertaking to export a certain amount of ferromanganese to GPE .","During DATE the applicant , in his capacity as the director of A. , concluded contracts with CARDINAL NORP companies , F. , GPE . ( \u201c the seller companies \u201d ) According to those contracts A. would buy the goods from the companies and pay them sums which included value added tax ( NORP ) .","On a number of occasions DATE and DATE A. exported ferromanganese to GPE , delivered it to PERSON and received payment for it . Subsequently , PERSON claimed and , in DATE , received from the NORP authorities a refund of the ORG mentioned in the contracts with the seller companies .","In DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant . According to the investigating authorities , the contracts which A. had concluded with the CARDINAL seller companies were fictitious and had been concluded for the sole purpose of obtaining export ORG refunds . In fact those companies had not sold ferromanganese to ORG , the applicant and his co - defendants had bought the ferromanganese from private persons , without concluding any contracts with them and without paying ORG on those transactions . The applicant had then forged certificates of quality and fraudulently obtained certificates of origin for the goods . Using all the above documents , A. had exported the goods to GPE . He had then obtained or applied for GPE refunds based on the fictitious documents .","The applicant stated that the contracts had not been fictitious and the certificates had not been forged . A. had legally bought ferromanganese from the private companies , exported it to GPE and received tax refunds .","During the pre - trial investigation , the investigating authorities questioned managers of the CARDINAL seller companies and the owner of a lorry which had been used for transporting the goods . They made certain statements the domestic courts subsequently found to be incriminating . In particular , managers of the CARDINAL seller companies said that the contracts had been either forged or fictitious and that no actual shipments of the goods had taken place . Some of the managers repeated those statements in the course of confrontations with the applicant conducted in the course of the pre - trial investigation . Detailed information about the statements of the witnesses and confrontations can be found in the Table set out in paragraph CARDINAL below .","On an unspecified date the investigation was completed and the case was referred to ORG for trial .","On CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE the court ordered the GPE regional police to bring the witnesses listed in the Table below to court hearings , but the police failed to do so for various reasons .","On DATE the police informed the court , in response to its latest order to bring the witnesses to court , that S. , PERSON and NORP ( see Elements CARDINAL in the Table below ) were away from GPE on holiday .","At the court hearing held on DATE the prosecutor , in the light of the above - mentioned information from the police , asked the court to read out the pre - trial statements of the witnesses who had failed to appear , including all those listed in the Table below . The defence did not object and the statements were read out . The court then proceeded to examine the documents in the file .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested the court to summon PERSON , PERSON and NORP again ( see LAW in the Table below ) , because the examination of documents had revealed inconsistencies in their pre - trial statements and because the reasons for their failure to appear had not been established . The trial court refused the request on the grounds that the statements of those witnesses had already been read out at the trial .","On DATE the court found the applicant guilty of smuggling ( export of ferromanganese based on forged documents ) , misappropriation accompanied by abuse of office ( receipt of tax refunds on the basis of fictitious and forged documents ) , abuse of office , and forgery of documents . For the charge of misappropriation accompanied by abuse of office the applicant was sentenced under LAW of DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment with a ban on holding managerial positions for DATE . He was also sentenced to various other more lenient punishments under LAW of DATE , but the court held that the most severe of the applicant \u2019s punishments absorbed the more lenient ones . The final sentence was thus DATE of imprisonment with a ban on holding managerial positions for DATE .","In convicting the applicant the court relied , in particular , on the statements of a number of witnesses given during the pre - trial investigation , as shown in the below Table :","Table . Witness evidence","The trial court also relied on certain inconsistencies between the official records of the applicant \u2019s company and the shadow accounting records discovered by the authorities .","The applicant and his lawyer appealed . They stated , inter alia , that the trial court had relied on the evidence of witnesses who had not been examined at the trial and that he should have been tried for smuggling under LAW of DATE .","On DATE the ORG held that the applicant should be deemed to have been convicted for smuggling under LAW of DATE instead of LAW of DATE . Otherwise , ORG upheld the findings of the first - instance court and the applicant \u2019s sentence .","According to the applicant , the appellate court did not give him a copy of the decision of DATE , despite his numerous requests .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed on points of law to ORG against the decisions of DATE and DATE and enclosed copies of those decisions with her appeal . In DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant lodged his own appeals with ORG , stating , inter alia , that the trial court had relied on evidence of witnesses who had not been examined at the trial . The applicant also stated that he should have been tried for misappropriation , abuse of office and forgery under LAW of DATE , rather than DATE , but did not provide any details .","On DATE ORG heard the case in the presence of the prosecutor but in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer , who were not informed of the date and time of the hearing . ORG dismissed the appeals lodged by the applicant and his lawyer , stating that the lower ORG findings had been based on a substantial amount of evidence , in particular the statements of the directors of the seller companies made at the investigation stage .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was released from detention following a presidential pardon ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":["34","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158483","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KALEYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was convicted in DATE and DATE ; having partially served his sentence of DATE , he was released on parole.in DATE .","On DATE the police carried out a test buy of drugs from the applicant , searched his flat and seized , in particular , the drugs , an audio system and MONEY ( RUB ) .","On DATE the PERSON town court ( \u201c the town court \u201d ) retroactively upheld the seizure of the audio system and RUB CARDINAL for securing an eventual confiscation order . A sum of RUB CARDINAL was also seized on an unspecified date . The investigator deposited the audio system to the police warehouse ; the sum of RUB MONEY was deposited onto the police bank account .","The applicant was charged with drug - related crimes . On an unspecified date the investigation file was transferred to the town court for trial .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s retained lawyer PERSON failed to attend a trial hearing . The town court rescheduled the hearing on DATE .","On DATE Mr B. again failed to attend the hearing ; the trial court appointed PERSON , a legal - aid lawyer , to represent the applicant . It follows from the trial record that the applicant did not indicate any failings on the part of PERSON to the trial court .","At some point DATE the applicant decided to replace PERSON with PERSON as his retained lawyer .","On DATE the town court held the second hearing . It convicted the applicant of a drugrelated offence and procurement and possession of firearms and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The town court ordered that RUB CARDINAL and the audio system be confiscated as \u201c unlawfully acquired \u201d .","On DATE the GPE regional court ( \u201c the regional court \u201d ) quashed the conviction for procurement and possession of firearms and reduced the applicant \u2019s sentence for the drugrelated crime to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . In the remaining part the judgment of DATE was upheld and became final and enforceable .","On DATE the applicant sent an introductory letter to ORG in which no specific complaint was raised .","On DATE the sum of RUB CARDINAL was added to the ORG budget .","On DATE the applicant sent to ORG a completed application form complaining for the first time that PERSON had not represented him on DATE .","On DATE the audio system was sold for RUB CARDINAL ; the proceeds were added to the ORG budget .","On DATE the town court brought the applicant \u2019s sentences for the crimes committed in DATE and DATE into conformity with the amendments in law ; the decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG for the first time about the order to confiscate his property contained in the judgments of DATE and DATE .","On DATE the presidium of the regional court delivered CARDINAL separate supervisory review rulings : CARDINAL in respect of the decisions bringing the sentences of DATE and DATE into conformity with the new law , by which it mitigated the sentences on technical grounds , and CARDINAL in respect of the judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . In the latter the presidium briefly confirmed lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s conviction and declared the judgments unlawful in the part concerning confiscation of the applicant \u2019s property , which it remitted for a fresh examination in the first instance .","On CARDINAL DATE the town court decided that RUB CARDINAL should be repaid and the audio system should be returned to the applicant . The decision became final and enforceable . On DATE a writ of execution was issued .","On DATE the bailiffs\u2019 service opened enforcement proceedings in respect of the writ of CARDINAL DATE . No further actions to ensure enforcement were taken .","The final decision of CARDINAL DATE remained unenforced as the audio system had been sold and the money sent to the ORG budget .","On DATE ORG requested the applicant to produce a copy of the trial record .","The applicant asked the town court for a copy ; the request was denied as the applicant had already been provided with a freeof - charge copy and had failed to pay a court fee for CARDINAL as required by domestic regulations .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he had been trying to obtain a copy of the record . Later he succeeded at that .","On DATE the ORG town prosecutor \u2019s office criticised the bailiffs\u2019 failure to act and issued an instruction ordering them to take measures to enforce the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the town court changed the manner of execution of the decision of CARDINAL DATE in respect of the audio system and decided that the applicant should be paid RUB CARDINAL , the sum for which the audio system had been sold .","The decision of CARDINAL DATE remained unenforced ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179429","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ARTYUSHKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised other complaints under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169485","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PASHKEVICH v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . Until his death in DATE he was detained in correctional colony no . CARDINAL in the village of GPE , GPE .","On DATE the Fokino Town Court of the Primorskiy Region convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE he was taken into custody .","Prior to his detention the applicant sustained several spinal injuries and lost the ability to walk unaided . Since DATE he has been confined to a wheelchair .","On his admission to a remand prison in DATE , the applicant was given a general medical check - up by the doctor on duty , to whom he complained of lower back and joint pain . The doctor provisionally diagnosed him with spinal tuberculosis . No drugs were prescribed .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions , which were not disputed by the Government , he was put in an ordinary cell not equipped for wheelchairusing detainees . As a result he suffered various inconveniences , including restricted access the toilet .","DATE he was seen by a medical specialist , who amended his diagnosis to osteoporosis with compression fractures of CARDINAL discs of the lumbar spine .","NORP In DATE he was examined by a neurologist , who noted that CARDINAL of his diagnoses was paraplegia , impairment in motor function of the lower extremities . He was advised to undergo various medical examinations and tests , including magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) of the spine and a hip X - ray .","NORP In DATE a prison surgeon established that the osteoporosis affected not only the applicant \u2019s spine , but also his legs . He was prescribed pain relief medication and advised to undergo several medical tests .","There is no information in the applicant \u2019s file to suggest that the remand prison authorities gave him medication , an MRI scan or radiography . According to the applicant , even painkillers were unavailable in the remand prison .","On DATE the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . On his arrival he was seen by a prison doctor who , in addition to the spinal and joint conditions , diagnosed him with coronary heart disease , angina pectoris and moderate hypertension disease . He was prescribed and provided with comprehensive drug treatment .","The Government did not provide any evidence to show that the correctional colony had any special facilities to accommodate wheelchairusing prisoners .","On DATE the applicant was sent to prison hospital no . CARDINAL in GPE , GPE , for an in - depth medical examination to establish whether he was entitled to early release on medical grounds .","A hip X - ray revealed that he suffered from an old displaced fracture of the cervical hip with full avulsion of the greater trochanter .","On DATE a specialist medical panel of the prison hospital concluded that the applicant was not eligible for early release , because none of his illnesses were included in the governmental decree containing a list of illnesses precluding offenders from serving their sentences . On DATE the applicant was discharged from the prison hospital .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for early release , referring to the medical report of DATE . That decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .","In the meantime the applicant lodged several complaints with the head of the prison medical authorities , ORG for the Execution of Sentences and ORG and ORG of GPE . The latter authority found a shortcoming in the applicant \u2019s treatment , namely a failure to ensure he was examined by an orthopaedic traumatologist .","On DATE the applicant was seen by a traumatologist , who diagnosed him with an inguinal hernia and recommended surgery to be performed at DATE . The doctor also stated that he should be provided with a walking stick and a walking frame .","NORP Over DATE that followed the applicant was regularly seen by prison doctors and provided with hypotensive drugs and pain relief drugs .","In the meantime he brought a civil claim against the medical authorities seeking compensation for damage to his health caused by inadequate medical treatment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . Having looked at the list of medical services provided to the applicant , the court concluded that he had been afforded adequate medical treatment . It appears that no appeal followed .","On DATE a neurologist ordered the applicant \u2019s admission to the prison hospital , which would involve a train journey . The applicant refused , arguing that prison train carriages were not equipped to transport wheelchair - using detainees .","On DATE the applicant died of a heart attack ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155091","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF WALLN\u00d6FER v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was the manager of ORG , a company registered in the GPE dealing with artwork .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG first informed ORG of the suspicion of tax fraud by the applicant in connection with the sale of several pieces of artwork by ORG","On DATE ORG issued an order for the applicant \u2019s home to be searched . The search was conducted on DATE , which is also the date when the applicant was first notified of the investigations against him .","On DATE ORG submitted its final report to ORG .","On DATE ORG issued an indictment against the applicant concerning the suspicion of tax fraud during DATE , alleging that the applicant had evaded taxes amounting to CARDINAL . NORP PERSON ( equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","The Innsbruck Regional Court held oral hearings on DATE , DATE and DATE . On the latter date it acquitted the applicant of the charges . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment upon a plea of nullity by ORG and referred the case back to the first instance for a re - trial .","After having held oral hearings on DATE , DATE and DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of tax fraud and sentenced him to a fine of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , LAW of which was suspended on probation . The judgment was served on DATE . The applicant lodged a plea of nullity .","On DATE ORG again quashed the judgment and referred the case back to the first instance .","In DATE the Innsbruck ORG commissioned an expert to determine the assessment base for the calculation of the taxes .","On DATE and DATE and on DATE further oral hearings were held . ORG remarked in a note to the file dated DATE , quoting the case PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , that the length of the proceedings was already considerable , and admitted that this was attributable to the court system .","In DATE the expert opinion was delivered . During the oral hearing of DATE the Innsbruck ORG requested the expert to supplement his report , as it had turned out to be incomplete and did not answer the most relevant questions . A revised expert opinion was received in DATE .","During the oral hearing on CARDINAL DATE , at which the applicant was heard , ORG withdrew the indictment because the statutory time - limit for the prosecution of the offence had expired . Consequently , ORG acquitted the applicant of the charges ( judgment delivered orally on CARDINAL DATE , served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on CARDINAL DATE ) . The written judgment contained , inter alia , the following wording :","\u201c The above - mentioned sales transactions solely aimed at the commission of tax fraud in GPE . No levies were paid in the GPE in connection with the sale of the paintings . The profits made constitute income deriving from a business according to LAW of LAW [ GPE ] , which from an economic point of view are attributable to the applicant according to LAW of LAW [ LOC ] . Taking into account the expenses incurred , tax loads and therefore tax evasion amounting to ORG CARDINAL ( EUR ORG ) turnover tax , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( ORG ) income tax and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) business tax arose .","The accused was determined to effect these transactions in order to mask his tax liability in GPE and thereby commit tax fraud . ...","From a legal point of view , it follows from the facts that the accused was to be acquitted even though the elements of the offence were fulfilled , as ORG withdrew the indictment ... \u201d","Following the ORG \u2019s notification of the present application to the ORG , the latter informed the ORG that , on DATE , ORG had lodged a plea of nullity for the preservation of the law regarding the judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG held that the judgment in question had violated the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW , namely the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty , on the grounds that ORG had stated in its reasoning that it considered the applicant to be guilty , even though it acquitted him ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168320","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KIRILCHUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained under LAW excessive length of their pre - trial detention . The applicant in case no . MONEY also complained under LAW about the domestic courts\u2019 failure to speedily examine his appeals against a number of detention orders ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162219","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BUCHLEITHER v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He has a daughter , PERSON , born on DATE . He and the child \u2019s mother , who were not married , separated shortly after the birth . The child lives with her mother , who has sole parental authority .","NORP Since DATE , the parents have argued about contact . In DATE , the applicant lodged his first request for contact with ORG . During a hearing in DATE the parents agreed to him having supervised contact , which took place until DATE . On DATE the parents reached a further agreement for supervised contact , which was approved by ORG .","On DATE the applicant requested that the supervising ORG , which had refused to continue to be involved due to the parties\u2019 behaviour , be replaced by another child protection association . On DATE ORG granted this request . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the appointed child protection association refused to act upon ORG instructions because of the mother \u2019s behaviour .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to impose a coercive fine on the mother in order to enforce contact rights . On DATE the parents agreed on a court - approved contact arrangement . On DATE ORG , upon the applicant \u2019s request , appointed an access facilitator ( Umgangspfleger ) . The order was subject to a time - limit expiring on DATE . Subsequently , the contactarrangement was implemented in a more or less regular way .","On DATE the applicant asked the court to extend contact , reappoint a custodian ad litem ( Verfahrenspfleger ) and impose a coercive fine on the mother . In reply , the mother requested that contact be suspended for DATE . On DATE , after having again heard an expert , ORG suspended contact until DATE . The applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) was to no avail .","On DATE the applicant requested an extension of contact following the end of the suspension period . After hearing the child in person , on DATE ORG granted the applicant contact on a DATE basis . At the same time it gave specific directions about the contact and set out sanctions to be applied if the parents did not comply with the order . Contact did not take place .","On DATE , after having heard the child again , ORG , at the mother \u2019s request , suspended the applicant \u2019s contact until the conclusion of the main proceedings and rejected his requests for a coercive fine .","On DATE ORG heard both parents , the child and the child \u2019s custodian ad litem . Relying on the opinion of a psychiatrist , Dr B. , submitted both in writing and explained orally , it granted the applicant contact of TIME every fortnight . It appointed a guardian , who was given specific directions as to how the child should be prepared for contact and how the meetings should be organised .","The mother appealed against this decision . The applicant pursued his request for contact and furthermore requested that ORG order the mother to supply regular information on the child \u2019s development .","The Court of Appeal obtained further written submissions from Dr B. , who , with regard to the development , was now of the opinion that a suspension of the applicant \u2019s contact was , at the moment , the less damaging approach and therefore in the child \u2019s best interest . Contact with the applicant as such was not found to be damaging , but the circumstances of the conflict rendered a different solution at the moment impossible . As regards the GPE conflict , the expert pointed out that the applicant had agreed on mediation , but the mother refused such a procedure . He declined any possibility for the applicant to positively and actively arrange any contact at the moment . In her written submission to ORG , the child \u2019s guardian expressed her view according to which , to prevent longtime damages of the child , a minimum contact with the applicant should be guaranteed in any event by allowing him to send letters and presents to the child .","On DATE ORG heard from the parents , the child \u2019s guardian , the child and PERSON , it rejected the applicant \u2019s request and suspended all contact between him and his daughter indefinitely , pursuant to Articles DATE and DATE of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) .","The Court of Appeal observed at the outset that the court - approved contact agreement of CARDINAL DATE was still valid . It considered , however , that contact had to be permanently suspended because ordering contact would affect the child \u2019s welfare . The court noted that the child had not had any contact with her father for DATE , and that he had become a stranger to her . This had been confirmed , in particular , by the courtappointed expert . When heard in court , the child had clearly stated that she did not want to see her father . She only had limited , bad memories of him . The child , who appeared to have developed properly in relation to her age , had given the impression that she knew what was at stake and what she wanted . In spite of her young age , she had clearly and firmly expressed the desire to have her own wishes respected , suggesting that she would not accept being forced into doing something she did not want . The guardian submitted that he had not succeeded in breaking the child \u2019s aversion to her father . According to him , the child had cried and left the room when he had started talking about her father .","ORG considered that the child \u2019s attitude had been influenced by the loyalty she felt towards her mother , who continuously talked negatively about the father . The child felt obliged to feel the same way as her mother . She longed for the dispute between her parents to come to an end so that she would no longer be exposed to a conflict of loyalties . She saw rejecting her father as the only way to preserve at least her mother \u2019s love . Relying on the expert \u2019s findings , ORG observed that the child was mature enough to make a conscious decision and be aware of its consequences . She found herself in a psychological dilemma caused by the communication troubles between her parents , without yet having developed post - traumatic stress disorder . On the one hand , the loss of contact with a parent generally led to a disturbance of psychological development which affected a child \u2019s welfare , but on the other , forced contact in the context of a continuing dispute between parents could also seriously affect the child .","ORG noted that the expert , in his opinion submitted to ORG , had explained that contact with the father did not in itself jeopardise the child \u2019s welfare . However , the expert considered it necessary to prepare the parents by improving their communication before reinstating contact . ORG decision had failed to take this \u201c prerequisite \u201d into account . The parents had not undertaken any steps in this direction . When heard in ORG on DATE , the expert had clarified that if the parents did not change their way of communicating , which would necessitate at least some form of professional help such as mediation , it would cause more harm to attempt to reinstate contact than to exclude it altogether .","The Court of Appeal continued :","\u201c Against the background of the GPE previous conduct both in and outside the courtroom , the [ ORG ] chamber rules out the possibility that the parents will be able successfully to have recourse to mediation in the foreseeable future . As a mandatory result , the father can not be granted access to H. at present ( derzeit ) and the only available option is to exclude [ him ] from contact . It is not possible to solve the child \u2019s dilemma by specifying the arrangements for contact ... or by appointing a custodian .","It is up to the mother to overcome her aversion to the father , and up to the father to learn that contact can only be reinstated through patience , restraint and understanding of both the mother \u2019s and child \u2019s feelings . It is furthermore not ruled out that the child , with advancing age and maturity , will be able to detach herself from her GPE dispute and seek contact with her father herself . The present decision does not exclude these options . \u201d","By a judgment given on DATE ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , ORG refused to entertain a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant regarding the decisions taken in the main proceedings , without providing reasons .","After the applicant lodged his application with the ORG and the application had been communicated to the ORG , the family case file was sent to ORG and then back to ORG . On DATE , after its return from the Ministry , the case file was presented to a judge , who ruled : \u201c CARDINAL . Seen . Nothing to be done . CARDINAL . To be stored \u201d ( CARDINAL . PERSON . Nichts zu veranlassen . CARDINAL . Weglegen \u201d ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164515","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF AL-DULIMI AND MONTANA MANAGEMENT INC. v. SWITZERLAND","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations);Damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luzius Wildhaber;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) . According to ORG of ORG ( ORG ) , he was head of finance for the NORP secret services under the regime of PERSON . The second applicant is a company incorporated under the laws of GPE and having its registered office in GPE , the first applicant being its managing director .","After GPE invaded GPE on DATE , ORG adopted LAW ( DATE ) of CARDINAL DATE and ORG CARDINAL ( DATE ) of DATE , calling upon ORG member GPE and nonmember GPE to apply a general embargo against GPE and on any NORP resources confiscated by the occupier , together with an embargo on air transport .","On DATE ORG adopted an ordinance providing for economic measures against GPE ( the \u201c GPE Ordinance \u201d ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicants alleged that since that date their assets in GPE had remained frozen .","On DATE GPE became a member of ORG .","On DATE ORG adopted LAW ( DATE ) , superseding LAW ( DATE ) , among others ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Paragraph CARDINAL of Resolution DATE ) reads as follows :"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184152","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"SOROCINSKIS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr Georgijs Soro\u010dinskis , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in R\u012bga . He was represented before the Court by Ms PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON and subsequently by PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant requested a retirement pension . At that time the applicant had the status of \u201c permanently resident noncitizen \u201d of GPE ; thus , in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions , the periods that he had spent in employment outside the territory of GPE were not taken into account . Furthermore \u2013 under paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions \u2013 in view of the fact that the applicant had worked in GPE for DATE , his own average DATE \u201c insurance wage \u201d ( that is to say the income in relation to which the insurance was paid ) instead of the \u201c average DATE insurance wage in the ORG \u201d ( that is to say the average DATE insurance wage of all insured persons in DATE year ) was taken into account for the purpose of calculating his pension . Accordingly , his DATE pension was set at CARDINAL NORP lats ( ORG approximately DATE ( EUR ) ) . As this sum was lower than the minimum pension set by ORG , the applicant in fact received ORG DATE ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","On DATE an agreement between GPE and GPE on cooperation in the field of social security entered into force , and on DATE the applicant applied for a recalculation of his pension to take into account the periods during which he had worked in GPE . On DATE , on the basis of having acquired citizenship of GPE , the applicant applied for a further recalculation to take account of the remaining periods during which he had worked abroad . ORG took into account the periods during which the applicant had worked abroad when determining his aggregate insurance period ( for a definition of \u201c insurance period \u201d see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as being DATE and DATE ; however , as the employment periods accumulated in GPE had not increased , his own average DATE insurance wage ( and not the average DATE insurance wage in the ORG ) was again taken into account in the calculation of his pension . Even with those additions , the applicant \u2019s pension was still below the level of the minimum pension , as set by ORG . Thus , after the formal recalculation of his pension , the pension the applicant actually received did not increase . On DATE , in accordance with amendments to the Law on State Pensions , the applicant \u2019s pension was raised to LVL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , which was the minimum pension for persons whose insurance period exceeded DATE .","The applicant continued working , and on DATE he applied for yet another recalculation of his pension . On DATE ORG recalculated the applicant \u2019s pension on the basis of the insurance contributions he had made following his retirement . It took the additional time period worked into account in determining the applicant \u2019s aggregate insurance period . However , as the period the applicant had been employed in GPE still did not reach DATE , the average DATE insurance wage in the ORG was not taken into account in the calculation of his pension . Thus , for a total employment period of DATE eleven DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s pension was set at ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) per month . Therefore , the applicant continued receiving the minimum pension for persons whose insurance period exceeded DATE , which by then had been raised to ORG ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .","As the applicant continued working , his aggregate insurance period reached DATE QUANTITY months and DATE . As of CARDINAL DATE his DATE pension was raised to ORG MONEY , with an additional supplement of ORG CARDINAL .","The applicant challenged the decision of ORG of DATE before the administrative courts , complaining that following the entry into force of the agreement between GPE and GPE on cooperation in the field of social security and after he had acquired NORP citizenship his pension had not increased . He also noted that all the circumstances forming the basis of his complaint had been set out in his initial application of DATE . Invoking paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) he requested that his pension be recalculated by taking into account the time he had worked in GPE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . Having found that the crux of the applicant \u2019s complaint was the alleged failure to take into account the periods he had worked in GPE , the court reassessed the decision of ORG and concluded that his pension had been calculated correctly .","The applicant appealed against this decision , stating that all the circumstances forming the basis of his complaint had been outlined in his initial application . The applicant invoked paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law on the same grounds .","On DATE the ORG of ORG set aside the judgment of ORG on the grounds that the court had not obtained and reviewed the applicant \u2019s initial application of DATE to ORG . As a result , the court had not been able to clarify the exact scope of the applicant \u2019s complaint .","NORP On CARDINAL DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s complaint in oral proceedings . During his oral submissions the applicant emphasised that he requested that his pension be recalculated on the basis of the average salary in the country . His total employment period was DATE , whereas the Law on State Pensions required the insurance period to be DATE in order for the average DATE insurance wage in the ORG to be used in the calculation . Despite the fact he had worked for DATE , DATE had been taken into account . The applicant concluded by stating : \u201c If you are a citizen then everything is taken into account in the calculation , but if you are not then it is not . \u201d The respondent ( that is to say ORG ) then requested the applicant to clarify the scope of the complaint , to which he replied : \u201c I request the pension to be recalculated on the basis of the average salary in the country . \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . It observed that in his initial application of DATE the applicant had requested that his pension be recalculated in accordance with general rules . It furthermore noted that the periods he had worked in GPE had been taken into account already since the agreement between GPE and GPE on cooperation in the field of social security had entered in force . Furthermore , following the applicant \u2019s acquisition of NORP citizenship the periods he had worked in GPE and had spent in military service had also been taken into account . The decision that was being challenged concerned the increase in the applicant \u2019s insurance period . Thus , the entirety of his insurance period of DATE eleven DATE and DATE had been taken into account in the calculation of his pension . In addition , the applicant was receiving the minimum State pension in the amount set for persons whose insurance period was DATE . With regard to paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions the court noted that the applicant \u2019s pension had been calculated correctly , but in relation to paragraph CARDINAL it observed that this provision was not applicable to the applicant owing to its temporal limitation .","NORP In his appeal on points of law the applicant again reiterated that all the circumstances that formed the basis of his claim had been set out in the initial application . He also stated that his pension had not been recalculated on the basis of the amendments to the Law on State Pensions that had entered into force on DATE . These changes applied to persons whose insurance period was DATE , whereas his insurance period amounted to DATE . Despite that , his own salary ( instead of the average salary in the country ) had been taken into account when calculating the level of the pension to which he had been entitled . The applicant referred to CARDINAL and DATE of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions , as well as to procedural provisions of LAW .","On DATE the ORG of ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , noting that it contained no arguments as to how the judgment of ORG had contravened the legal provisions he had referred to .","The Law on State Pensions , which entered into force on DATE , provides that CARDINAL of the components to be taken into account in the calculation and allocation of pensions is the \u201c insurance period \u201d . Under section CARDINAL of the Law on State Pensions , the insurance period is the period of time over which an insured person has made social insurance contributions or such contributions have been made or should have been made on that person \u2019s behalf . With regard to the time period prior to CARDINAL DATE ( when the social insurance system had not yet been established ) , paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions , as in force at time when it was applied to the applicant , provided :","\u201c CARDINAL . In the case of NORP citizens , repatriated persons , and their family members and their descendants , periods of employment and periods treated as equivalent to employment that have been accrued within or outside GPE prior to DATE shall count towards the insurance period , which is necessary for the allocation ( [ or ] recalculation ) of the State pension , irrespective of [ any prior ] payment of social insurance contributions . In the case of foreign nationals and stateless persons who were resident in GPE on DATE , the insurance period shall be composed of periods of employment and periods treated as equivalent to employment that have been accrued within GPE , as well as periods treated as equivalent to employment that have been accrued outside GPE in the cases specified in sub - paragraphs ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of this paragraph . The following periods , which are treated as equivalent to employment accrued up to DATE ... shall be considered as counting towards the insurance period to be taken into account in calculating the pension :","...","( CARDINAL ) periods of study at higher - education institutions , and at other training institutions at post - secondary level ;","( CARDINAL ) periods of doctoral study , ... postgraduate education or ongoing vocational training ;","...","( CARDINAL ) time spent in places of detention by victims of political persecution ... [ or ] in exile , and time spent escaping from such places , those periods to be multiplied by CARDINAL , or by CARDINAL in the case of time spent in the [ NORP ] LOC and regions treated as equivalent . ... \u201d","Under paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions , with respect to the transitional period , another component that is taken into account in the calculation of the pension is the person \u2019s average DATE insurance wage within a specified time period . Thus , with respect to persons who retired in DATE , that person \u2019s average DATE insurance wage over DATE until DATE was taken into account . If , however , ( i ) the person \u2019s insurance period in GPE was not less than DATE ( save for politically persecuted persons , in relation to whom a different methodology applied ) and if the person \u2019s average DATE insurance wage for DATE was below the average DATE insurance wage in the ORG in DATE , or ( ii ) the person had been officially unemployed , the average DATE insurance wage in the ORG in DATE was taken into account in the calculation of his or her pension .","On DATE the transitional provisions of the Law on State Pensions were supplemented by paragraph CARDINAL , which provides that in calculating the pension payable to a person whose insurance period is not less than DATE and whose average DATE insurance wage , as calculated in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of these transitional provisions , is lower than the average DATE insurance wage in the ORG in the period DATE and DATE , the average DATE insurance wage in the ORG over the said DATE should be taken into account . The retrospective application of this provision is limited to pensions that were granted after DATE .","The Government submitted a letter of DATE from ORG , the relevant part of which stated :","\u201c \u201c The favourable model of calculating a person \u2019s pension \u201d enshrined in paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provision of the PERSON would not be applied to a NORP citizen in the following situations :","CARDINAL ) In DATE a NORP citizen requests a retirement pension for a total insurance period of DATE , of which DATE are [ accrued ] in GPE but DATE [ are accrued ] in GPE . The pension is calculated for DATE but the average DATE insurance wage in the ORG is not taken into account in the calculation of the initial capital , as the insurance period in GPE is below DATE ;","CARDINAL ) In DATE a NORP citizen requests a retirement pension for a total insurance period of DATE , of which DATE are [ accrued ] in GPE but DATE [ are accrued ] in GPE . In accordance with the legislation , GPE grants and pays the retirement pension only for DATE [ accrued ] in GPE ; accordingly , the average DATE insurance wage in the ORG is not taken into account in the calculation of the initial capital , as the insurance period for which GPE pays is DATE ;","CARDINAL ) In DATE a NORP citizen requests a retirement pension for a total insurance period of DATE , of which DATE are [ accrued ] in GPE but DATE [ are accrued ] in GPE . In accordance with the Agreement between GPE and GPE on the cooperation in the field of social security , GPE grants the retirement pension only for the insurance period accrued in GPE \u2013 DATE . Accordingly , the average DATE insurance wage in the ORG is not taken into account in the calculation of the initial capital , as the insurance period for which GPE pays is DATE . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174214","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"MINTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr P. Rule , counsel , a barrister practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","When a person is sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment , the normal practice is for that person to be released \u201c on licence \u201d after serving CARDINAL of the sentence . The licence period usually lasts for the remainder of the sentence and during this period the person may be recalled to prison if he or she breaches the conditions of the licence .","When an offender is convicted of certain sexual or violent offences , the sentencing court may pass an \u201c extended sentence \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . In such cases , if the offender is sentenced to a determinate term of imprisonment he or she is usually released after serving CARDINAL of that sentence . However , an additional licence period known as \u201c the extension period \u201d takes effect after the normal licence period ceases . This extension period can be of such length as the court considers necessary to protect members of the public from serious harm .","In GPE and GPE persons convicted of certain sexual offences are required to notify the police of various personal details . This includes the person \u2019s current address , any change of address and any other address at which they stay for DATE or more . They must provide their national insurance numbers to the police and must allow the police to take their photograph and fingerprints for the purpose of verifying their identity . They must also give advance notice to the police of any foreign travel .","These notification requirements were first enacted in LAW and subsequently re - enacted , with minor amendments , in sections CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( \u201c the ORG DATE \u201d \u2013 see paragraphs DATE below ) . The notification period varies according to the term of imprisonment imposed on the offender . For a person sentenced to a term of imprisonment of DATE , it is DATE from the date of conviction , but for a person sentenced to a term of imprisonment of DATE or more it is indefinite .","In NORP v. S ( PERSON ) [ DATE ] ORG R CARDINAL ORG , in observations which were subsequently treated as obiter , expressed the view that on plain construction the phrase \u201c term of imprisonment \u201d in the ORG DATE did not include a sentence of extended licence . However , in R v. ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL Cr App ( S ) CARDINAL ORG held that in this respect R v. S ( PERSON ) had been decided per incuriam and was wrong . In determining the length of the \u201c qualifying sentence \u201d for the purposes of making an order disqualifying an offender from working with children , ORG found that the whole length of the extended sentence had to be taken into account .","On DATE the applicant pleaded guilty to CARDINAL offences of taking indecent photographs of a child , CARDINAL offences of voyeurism and CARDINAL of indecent assault . The maximum penalty for the offences of taking indecent photographs of a child and indecent assault was DATE imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant was sentenced in respect of the most serious of the offences to an extended sentence . This extended sentence comprised a custodial term of DATE and an extension period of DATE . Lesser sentences were imposed for the other offences . The sentencing judge gave the applicant credit for his early guilty pleas , his previous absence of any criminal convictions , his genuine remorse and his disgust at his own behaviour .","On DATE the applicant was issued with a notice by the prison at which he was detained stating that he would be subjected to the sex offender notification requirements for a period of DATE . However , the notice warned that it was \u201c not a complete statement of the law . \u201d It went on to add : \u201c It is suggested that you confirm this with the police when you make your notification on release from imprisonment . It is your responsibility to check this if you are not certain . \u201d","NORP The Chief Constable of GPE subsequently notified the applicant by letter of CARDINAL DATE that he would be subjected to the notification requirements indefinitely . The Chief Constable reasoned that the applicant had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of DATE since the extended sentence was CARDINAL of fiftyfour DATE ( the custodial term of DATE plus the extension period of DATE ) .","The applicant disagreed with the Chief Constable \u2019s interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions . He considered that , when calculating the term of imprisonment , only the custodial term should have been counted and , given that this was DATE , the notification period should only have been DATE . Accordingly , in DATE he sought judicial review of the Chief Constable \u2019s decision .","In the course of the judicial review proceedings , the applicant also submitted that the legal framework in respect of the notification requirement lacked the degree of clarity and certainty required to be \u201c in accordance with the law \u201d within the meaning of LAW ; and that the Chief Constable \u2019s interpretation of the relevant legislation constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his private life under that Article . He further submitted that there had been a breach of LAW taken in conjunction with LAW because , after he had been sentenced , the sentencing regime had changed so that for persons sentenced after DATE an extended sentence was no longer available unless they either had a previous conviction for a serious offence or the custodial term was DATE imprisonment ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As a consequence , someone in his position sentenced under the new sentencing regime would not receive the extended sentence he received .","NORP In support of his LAW argument , the applicant relied on PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY , DATE , in which the ORG had accepted that the different treatment of different categories of prisoners depending on the sentences imposed on them was based on \u201c other status \u201d .","By judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . Having reviewed both the domestic legislation and caselaw , it considered \u201c it plain that the entirety of the extended sentence is a sentence of imprisonment \u2018 in respect of the offence\u2019 for which it is imposed \u201d .","Therefore , in respect of LAW , the court held that the legal framework was sufficiently certain to satisfy the \u201c in accordance with the law \u201d requirement . Furthermore , as the purpose of the extension period was to manage and reduce the risk posed by an offender it was proportionate for the extension period to be included in any calculation of the notification period . The legislature had been entitled to fix the threshold for indefinite notification at DATE . In doing so , it had struck a fair balance for the purposes of LAW .","In respect of Article CARDINAL taken in conjunction with Article CARDINAL , the court considered itself bound by the ORG of Lords\u2019 judgment in R ( PERSON ) v the Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL , which had ruled that the treatment of prisoners based on differences in length of sentence did not constitute differential treatment on the ground of \u201c other status \u201d , even though in PERSON v. the GPE this ORG had subsequently reached the opposite conclusion . In any event , ORG found it \u201c difficult to see how changes in the legislative regime referred to , affecting those sentenced at different dates , could give rise to discrimination \u201d .","The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on DATE . It upheld ORG finding that the prison term for the purpose of ascertaining the notification period was the aggregate term of the extended sentence . In this regard , it noted that \u201c ORG was , with respect , plainly right on the short ground that the statutory language permits no other sensible conclusion \u201d .","In respect of LAW , the applicant had submitted that the imposition upon him of an indefinite notification requirement had been arbitrary and disproportionate . However , the court found that , given the purposes of the notification requirement and of extended sentences , there was nothing \u201c arbitrary \u201d or disproportionate in the imposition of an indefinite notification requirement in the applicant \u2019s case . Moreover , it would , in time , be possible for the applicant to seek review of the indefinite notification period ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In respect of Article CARDINAL taken in conjunction with Article CARDINAL , the court observed that all that had happened was that ORG had altered its views as to the threshold for indefinite notification requirements . That did not generate retrospectively a good LAW argument . Furthermore , Laws LJ considered that ORG , like ORG , was bound by ORG judgment in R ( PERSON ) v the Secretary of ORG for ORG .","On DATE , ORG refused the applicant permission to appeal .","In DATE , when the applicant was sentenced , extended sentences were regulated by CARDINAL of ORG ) Act DATE ( \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) which provided , as relevant :","\u201c CARDINAL Sexual or violent offences : extension of certain custodial sentences for licence purposes .","( CARDINAL ) This section applies where a court \u2014","( a ) proposes to impose a custodial sentence for a sexual or violent offence committed on or after DATE ; and","( b ) considers that the period ( if any ) for which the offender would , apart from this section , be subject to a licence would not be adequate for the purpose of preventing the commission by him of further offences and securing his rehabilitation .","( CARDINAL ) Subject to subsections ( CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) below , the court may pass on the offender an extended sentence , that is to say , a custodial sentence the term of which is equal to the aggregate of \u2014","( a ) the term of the custodial sentence that the court would have imposed if it had passed a custodial sentence otherwise than under this section ( \u201c the custodial term \u201d ) ; and","( b ) a further period ( \u201c the extension period \u201d ) for which the offender is to be subject to a licence and which is of such length as the court considers necessary for the purpose mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL ) above .","...","( CARDINAL ) The extension period shall not exceed \u2014.","( a ) DATE in the case of a sexual offence ; and","( b ) DATE in the case of a violent offence .","( CARDINAL ) The term of an extended sentence passed in respect of an offence shall not exceed the maximum term permitted for that offence . \u201d","The Criminal Justice Act DATE ( \u201c the ORG DATE \u201d ) subsequently enacted new provisions governing extended sentences for offences committed after DATE .","Before an extended sentence may be imposed under the new provisions the court must find that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by the offender of further specified offences ( section CARDINALA of the ORG DATE ) .","Further requirements for the imposition of an extended sentence were added as of DATE . These additional requirements are that the offender must either :","( i ) have a previous conviction for a serious offence ( as defined in Schedule CARDINALA to the ORG DATE ) ; or","( ii ) have committed an offence or offences meriting a custodial term of DATE ( section CARDINALA of the ORG DATE ) .","The notification requirements for those convicted of certain sexual offences are now contained in LAW DATE ( \u201c the ORG DATE \u201d ) . Section CARDINAL sets different notification periods . For a person sentenced to a term of imprisonment of DATE but DATE , the notification period is DATE . For a person sentenced to QUANTITY or more , the notification period is indefinite .","A person subject to the notification requirements is required to give the police his biographical information ( his name(s ) , date of birth , ORG number , his home address and any other address at which he regularly resides or stays ) as well as any changes to that information ( sections DATE ) and CARDINAL ) . Section CARDINAL provides for periodic notification of the information specified in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) .","Section CARDINAL requires notification of any travel arrangements outside GPE , including the date on which the offender will leave , the country ( or the first country ) to which he will travel and his point of arrival in that country , and any other information which the offender holds about his departure from or return to GPE or his movements while outside GPE .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that , where a notification is given , the relevant offender must , if requested to do so by a police officer or authorised person , allow the officer or person to take his fingerprints and\/or photograph any part of him .","By CARDINAL ) it is an offence to fail , without reasonable excuse , to comply with these requirements .","The applicants in R ( on the application of F ) and ORG had sought a declaration that in the absence of any mechanism for review , the indefinite notification period under LAW was incompatible with LAW . A ORG of ORG granted the declaration of incompatibility and ORG upheld that decision . The Secretary of ORG appealed to ORG .","ORG dismissed the appeal . It accepted that the indefinite notification requirement under the SOA DATE was capable of causing significant interference with the right to respect for private and family life and , in the absence of any provision for individual review of the requirement , it constituted a disproportionate interference with LAW .","Following R ( F ) and ORG , the ORG DATE was amended so as to make provision for review of the indefinite notification requirement . In respect of GPE and GPE , the review provisions are set out in sections CARDINAL - F. Pursuant to these provisions , an offender over DATE can , after DATE , apply to the Chief Officer of Police for the area in which he resides for a determination that he or she should no longer be subject to the indefinite notification requirement ( section CARDINALB ) . The offender must satisfy the relevant Chief Officer of Police that indefinite notification is no longer necessary for the purpose of protecting the public or any particular members of the public from sexual harm ( section MONEY ) ) . There is a right of appeal to the local ORG against any negative determination by the Chief Officer of Police ( section CARDINALE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162138","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"KOLESNIKOVA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an GPE national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON of ORG and by Ms C. Meredith of ORG , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","NORP The applicant claims that she was trafficked to GPE . On DATE she was convicted of conspiracy to control prostitution for gain , CARDINAL offences relating to identity documents , and removing criminal property from GPE .","On DATE the applicant claimed asylum on the grounds that she would be at risk on return to GPE as an NORP and because the authorities would have become aware of her criminal conviction in GPE . She also alleged that she would be at risk of further trafficking . Her application was refused .","The applicant was served with an order for deportation in DATE . She appealed unsuccessfully against the order , invoking the same grounds raised in her asylum application .","On DATE the applicant applied to revoke the deportation order but the Secretary of ORG refused her application and certified her asylum and human rights claim as clearly unfounded . Removal directions were set for DATE .","Prior to her deportation , the applicant applied to ORG for an interim measure under LAW on the grounds that she would be at risk of ill - treatment at the hands of the NORP authorities owing to her criminal conviction for controlling prostitution . Her request was rejected owing to its late submission and she was deported to GPE . Following her arrival at GPE airport , she was detained by the police for TIME . During this time they took her finger prints in order to check her criminal record .","The applicant then asked the ORG to grant an interim measure ordering her to be returned to GPE . Although the ORG refused this request , it urgently communicated her complaint under LAW . However , examination of the complaint was adjourned on DATE at the applicant \u2019s request as she had an out - of - country appeal pending before ORG .","On DATE the ORG was informed that the applicant had been returned to GPE on DATE to pursue her appeal in - country after a ORG judge found the Secretary of ORG \u2019s decision to certify her claim as clearly unfounded to be unlawful .","On DATE the ORG wrote to both the applicant and Government asking whether , in light of recent developments , they would agree to the application being declared inadmissible , subject to the applicant \u2019s right to reintroduce her complaint if she was not satisfied with the progress or outcome of the domestic proceedings . The parties were asked to contact the ORG by DATE at the latest . By letter of CARDINAL DATE the Government informed the ORG that they agreed to its proposal . To date , no response has been received from the applicant ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160314","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MAGYAR TARTALOMSZOLG\u00c1LTAT\u00d3K EGYES\u00dcLETE AND INDEX.HU ZRT v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The first applicant , ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) is an association seated in GPE . It is the self - regulatory body of NORP Internet content providers , monitoring the implementation of a professional code of Internet content providing and a code of ethics , as well as operating an arbitration commission whose decision are binding on its CARDINAL members .","The second applicant , Index.hu PERSON ( \u201c Index \u201d ) is a company limited by shares , seated in GPE . It is the owner of CARDINAL of the major Internet news portals in GPE .","At the material time both applicants allowed users to comment on the publications appearing on their portals . Comments could be uploaded following registration and were not previously edited or moderated by the applicants .","The applicants advised their readers , in the form of disclaimers , that the comments did not reflect the ORG own opinion and that the authors of comments were responsible for their contents .","Both applicants put in place a system of notice - and - take - down , namely , any reader could notify the service provider of any comment of concern and request its deletion . In addition , in the case of Index , comments were partially moderated , and removed , if necessary .","Both portals stated that comments infringing the personality rights of others could not be uploaded on the websites .","Index \u2019s \u201c Principles of moderation \u201d contained the following :","\u201c I. Deletion of comments","Especially forbidden are :","comments that , at the time of their posting , infringe the laws of GPE , indicate or incite to crime or any other unlawful act ...","NORP vulgar , aggressive , threatening comments . What is vulgar , aggressive or threatening has to be decided by the moderators , in the light of the given topic ... \u201d","On DATE ORG published an opinion under the title \u201c Another unethical commercial conduct on the net \u201d CARDINAL real estate management websites , owned by the same company . According to the opinion , the CARDINAL websites provided DATE long advertising service for their users free of charge . Following the expiry of the DATE free period , the service became subject to a fee ; and this without prior notification of the users . This was possible because , by registering on the website , the users accepted the terms and conditions stipulating that they could be changed unilaterally by the service provider . The opinion also noted that the service provider removed any obsolete advertisements and personal data from the websites only if any overdue charges were paid . The opinion concluded that the conduct of the service provider was unethical and misleading .","NORP The opinion attracted some comments of users , acting under pseudonyms , amongst which there were the following :","\u201c They have talked about these CARDINAL rubbish real estate websites ( \u201c k\u00e9t szem\u00e9t ingatlanos oldalr\u00f3l \u201d ) CARDINAL times already . \u201d","\u201c Is this not that ORG - sort - of sly , rubbish , mug company ( \u201c benk\u0151s\u00e1ndoros sunyi szem\u00e9t leh\u00faz\u00f3 c\u00e9g \u201d ) again ? I ran into it DATE , since then they have kept sending me emails about my overdue debts and this and that . I am CARDINAL [ NORP forints ] now . I have not paid and I am not going to . That \u2019s it . \u201d","On DATE the Internet portal www.vg.hu , operated by ORG , reproduced the opinion word by word under the title \u201c Another mug scandal \u201d .","NORP The consumer protection column of Index also wrote about the opinion under the title \u201c Content providers condemn [ one of the incriminated property websites ] \u201d , publishing the full text of the opinion . CARDINAL of the user comments posted on Index by a reader acting under a pseudonym read as follows :","\u201c People like this should go and shit a hedgehog and spend all their money on their ORG tombs until they drop dead . \u201d ( \u201c PERSON ilyenek szarjanak s\u00fcnt DATE az \u00f6sszes bev\u00e9tel\u00fcket anyjuk s\u00edrj\u00e1ra , am\u00edg PERSON d\u00f6g\u00f6lnek . \u201d )","On DATE the company operating the websites concerned brought a civil action before ORG against the applicants and PERSON . The plaintiff claimed that the opinion , whose content was false and offensive , and the subsequent comments had infringed its right to good reputation .","Once learning of the impending court action , the applicants removed the impugned comments at once .","In their counterclaims before ORG , the applicants argued that they , as intermediary publishers under LAW no . CVIII of DATE , were not liable for the user comments . They noted that the business practice of the plaintiff , affecting wide ranges of consumers , attracted numerous complaints to the consumer protection organs and prompted several procedures against the company .","On DATE ORG partially sustained the claim , holding that the plaintiff \u2019s right to good reputation had been infringed . As a preliminary remark , the court observed that consumer protection bodies had instituted various proceedings against the plaintiff company , since it had not informed its clients adequately about its business policies .","The ORG found that the comments ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) were offensive , insulting and humiliating and went beyond the acceptable limits of freedom of expression . The court rejected the applicants\u2019 argument that they were only intermediaries and their sole obligation was to remove certain contents , in case of a complaint . It found that the comments constituted edited content , fell in the same category as ORG letters and the respondents were liable for enabling their publication , notwithstanding the fact that later on they had removed them .","As regards the content of the opinion as such , the court found that it had contributed to an on - going social and professional debate on the questionable conduct of the real estate websites and did not exceed the acceptable level of criticism .","Both parties appealed . In their appeal the applicants argued that the plaintiff had not requested them to remove the offensive comments . Nonetheless , they had done so as soon as soon as they had been informed of the plaintiff \u2019s action . They also argued that ORG comments were to be distinguished from ORG letters , since these latter were only published on the basis of editorial decisions , whereas comments did not constitute edited content . They argued that , in respect of comments , they had only acted as service providers of information storage .","On DATE ORG upheld in essence the first - instance decision but amended its reasoning . It ordered each applicant to pay MONEY ( ORG ) as first - instance and ORG CARDINAL as second - instance procedural fee .","ORG held that \u2013 as opposed to ORG letters whose publication was dependent on editorial decisions DATE the comments , unedited , reflected the opinions of the sole commenters . Notwithstanding that , the owner of the website concerned was liable for them . According to the court \u2019s reasoning , Act no . CVIII of DATE , transposing Directive CARDINAL on ORG into NORP law , did not apply to the applicants\u2019 case since it only related to electronic services of commercial nature , in particular to purchases through the Internet . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , electronic commercial services were information society - related services whose purpose was the sale , purchase or exchange of a tangible and moveable property , which was not the situation in the ORG case . In any event , pursuant to its section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the scope of the LAW did not extend to expressions made by persons acting outside the sphere of economic or professional activities or public duties , even if uttered in connection with a purchase through the Internet . For ORG , the comments were private utterances which did not fall under Act no . CVIII of DATE on ORG . Thus , there was no reason to assess the meaning of the terms of \u2018 hosting service providers\u2019 and \u2018 intermediaries\u2019 under that LAW . Nonetheless , the comments attracted the applicability of LAW rules on personality rights , notably Article CARDINAL . Since the comments were injurious for the plaintiff , the applicants bore objective liability for their publication , irrespectively of the subsequent removal , which was only relevant for the assessment of any compensation .","The applicants lodged a petition for review with the GPE . They argued that , in their interpretation of the relevant law , they were under no obligation to monitor or edit the comments uploaded by readers on their websites .","On DATE the GPE upheld the previous judgments . It stressed that the applicants , by enabling readers to make comments on their websites , had assumed objective liability for any injurious or unlawful comments made by those readers . It rejected the applicants\u2019 argument that they were only intermediary providers which allowed them to escape any liability for the contents of comments , other than removing them if injurious to a third party . The PERSON held that the applicants were not intermediaries in terms of section CARDINAL(lc ) of Act no . CVIII and they could not invoke the limited liability of hosting service providers . It shared ORG view in finding that the comments were capable of harming the plaintiff \u2019s good reputation and that the applicants\u2019 liability consisted of their having allowed their publication .","The PERSON imposed ORG CARDINAL on each applicant as review costs , including the costs of the plaintiff \u2019s legal representation .","This decision was served on DATE .","The applicants introduced a constitutional complaint on DATE , arguing in essence that the ORG rulings holding them responsible for the contents of the comments amounted to an unjustified restriction on their freedom of expression .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint admissible .","On DATE ORG dismissed the constitutional complaint , ( decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . ( V.CARDINAL . ) AB ) . In the analysis of the proportionality of the interference , ORG explained the absence of unconstitutionality in the case as follows .","\u201c [ CARDINAL ] In the case concerned by the PERSON \u2019s judgment , the operator of the webpage did not moderate the comments . The identities of those primarily responsible , unless figuring nominatively , are unknown ; and for that reason , the liability lies with the operator of the webpage .","[ DATE ] In the present case , the aggrieved fundamental right is not the right to freedom of expression as such , but CARDINAL of its particular elements , the right to freedom of the press .","[ CARDINAL ] It is without doubt that blogs and comments constitute expressions and as such attract the protection of LAW .","[ CARDINAL ] The liability incumbent on the operator of the webpage obviously restricts freedom of the press \u2013 which includes , without doubt , communication on the Internet .","[ CARDINAL ] The legislation pursues a constitutionally justified aim . It is also suitable for that purpose in that , without the liability of the operator of the webpage , the person concerned could hardly receive compensation for the grievance . However , the proportionality of the restriction is open to doubt from CARDINAL perspectives : is it proportionate to hold the operator of the webpage liable for the expression which proved to be unlawful ; and moreover , is the extent of the liability ( that is , the amount of compensation ) proportionate ?","[ CARDINAL ] If the liability for the publication of comments is based on the very fact of the publication itself , it is not justified to distinguish between moderated and non - moderated comments in regard to the proportionality of the restriction on the fundamental right in question . ... ORG has already held that the liability of press organs \u2013 not of the author \u2013 as applied in order to protect personality rights is constitutional . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183813","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MIHALEVI v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant lives in GPE and the second applicant lives in GPE .","Mr Ts . Mihalev , father of the first applicant and grandfather of the second applicant , owned a machinery factory in GPE , which was nationalised in DATE . After the nationalisation the property was allocated for use to a ORG - owned enterprise , which in DATE was transformed into a ORG - owned company named T .. Under domestic law , such a transformation entailed the newly - created company becoming , in principle , the owner of the assets which had until then been allocated to it for use and management ; some assets allocated to ORG - owned enterprises or companies could nevertheless be the subject of restitution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","After ORG of Nationalised Real Property Act ( hereinafter \u201c the LAW \u201d , see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) came into force in DATE , the first applicant and his brother asked the mayor of GPE to strike the factory building out of the register of ORG properties . Their request was allowed in a decision of the mayor of CARDINAL DATE , which explicitly referred to LAW . On that basis in DATE the first applicant and his brother obtained a notary deed , which also stated that the property had been subject to restitution under LAW .","In DATE the first applicant and his brother concluded a rent contract with company ORG , which undertook to pay rent in exchange of the use of the building . The term of the contract was extended on several occasions , the last of which in DATE .","In DATE the first applicant \u2019s brother transferred his share in the building to his daughter , the second applicant .","After the entry into force of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c LAW \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , in DATE the first applicant and his brother applied to receive compensation for moveable properties such as industrial equipment and materials which had been nationalised together with the factory . In a decision of DATE the Minister of Economy awarded them compensation for these properties , noting in addition that the factory building had been the subject of restitution and no compensation was due for it . That decision was upheld in a final judgment of ORG of DATE , after the first applicant and his brother sought its judicial review , contesting the manner of compensation . Eventually , in DATE they received compensation bonds with a face value of MONEY ( ORG , the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","Company T. was privatised in DATE and the new management stopped paying rent to the applicants for the factory building , arguing that it had in fact never been subject of restitution .","NORP In DATE company T. brought proceedings against the applicants , claiming to be the factory building \u2019s owner . It argued that the restitution of the property had not taken place , because the preconditions under LAW had not been complied with , and that it had become the owner of the building as a result of its transformation into a company ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the claim . However , on DATE the ORG of Appeal quashed the lower court \u2019s judgment and allowed the action against the applicants , finding that the preconditions for restitution had indeed not been met . On the basis of expert evidence and witness testimony , it concluded that after the nationalisation the building had been modified in a manner and to a degree which meant that in DATE it had not existed in its state prior to DATE . Accordingly , the applicants could not rely on restitution and company ORG had become the owner of the building on the strength of its transformation from a ORG - owned enterprise into a company in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to accept for examination the ORG appeal on points of law .","NORP In DATE the applicants applied to the GPE regional governor to receive compensation for the factory building under LAW . In a decision of DATE the governor dismissed their request , as it had not been submitted within the time - limit provided for under that LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . After the applicants applied for its judicial review , the governor \u2019s decision was upheld in a final judgment of ORG of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164683","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KRAPIVIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s son ORG was born on DATE .","On DATE the applicant killed his wife by stabbing her several times with a knife . She died on DATE . The applicant \u2019s son , DATE at the time , witnessed the murder .","On DATE the applicant was arrested .","On DATE N. \u2019s maternal grandmother PERSON was appointed PERSON \u2019s guardian .","On DATE the ORG of Perm found that the applicant could not be held responsible for the murder of his wife which had been committed owing to a temporary psychiatric disorder in the form of an acute reaction to stress . It ordered compulsory psychiatric treatment for the applicant in a psychiatric hospital .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) upheld the above decision on appeal .","On DATE the ORG of Perm found that psychiatric treatment was no longer necessary and ordered the applicant \u2019s release from the psychiatric hospital .","According to the certificate issued by ORG , the applicant remained under psychiatric supervision until DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for GPE ( \u201c the childcare authority \u201d ) in order to have the child returned to him .","On CARDINAL DATE the childcare authority rejected the applicant \u2019s request .","NORP The childcare authority and ORG instituted court proceedings seeking to deprive the applicant of his parental responsibility over N. The applicant brought a counterclaim , challenging the childcare authority \u2019s refusal to return the child to him and seeking the termination of ORG \u2019s guardianship over N.","On DATE ORG dismissed the application by the childcare authority and ORG to deprive the applicant of his parental responsibility over N. It also dismissed the applicant \u2019s counterclaim to end PERSON \u2019s guardianship over ORG and to return PERSON to him . In taking that decision ORG relied on the report of a psychological examination of the child carried out on DATE by a municipal centre for children \u2019s psychological , medical and social adaptation . The report stated , in particular , that ORG was in the process of developing the basis of his mental and psychological health , for which he needed stability , to be provided first and foremost by constant caregiver figures and a permanent place of residence . Based on the report the court found that ORG had been living with and had been brought up by ORG from DATE , that he had not seen his father for DATE , since DATE , that the applicant had been working on shifts and was out of town DATE out of CARDINAL , that ORG was going to start primary school and that ORG had already chosen a school near the boy \u2019s place of residence . The court concluded that , in view of the age of the child and his attachment to ORG , a change of his place of residence could be traumatic and was therefore undesirable . The court noted , however , that the applicant still had the possibility to communicate with ORG and meet him .","On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal .","On CARDINAL DATE the Justice of ORG ordered the applicant to pay child maintenance to ORG in an amount that was equal to CARDINAL of his income , starting from CARDINAL DATE until the child \u2019s coming of age . The judgment became final on DATE . The applicant makes regular payments .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for contact rights . He submitted that PERSON was preventing him from seeing PERSON and asked to be granted visiting rights every DATE or DATE for TIME in PERSON \u2019s presence .","During the hearing the applicant stated that it was very important for him to resume contact with his son . He was aware that his son , who had not seen him for a long time , needed time to get used to him again . He was ready to change his place of work to be able to adapt better to his son \u2019s schedule . He also stressed that he paid child maintenance and supported him financially . He was under psychiatric supervision and his mental health had improved .","V. stated that the applicant had intentionally and cruelly killed ORG \u2019s mother . He had committed the murder in front of ORG and had thereby caused him profound psychological trauma . The applicant should not be allowed to see ORG as it would undermine his health and psychological development . It would therefore be against ORG \u2019s interests to resume contact with his father .","On DATE ORG ordered a psychological examination of ORG to establish whether it was possible to resume contact between ORG and his father , and if so what form that should take , and the frequency and duration of contact . The experts were also asked to establish whether contact between ORG and his father could damage ORG \u2019s health or psychological development .","On DATE the applicant informed ORG that he would be on a business trip from DATE to DATE and asked that no hearings be scheduled during that period .","On DATE ORG scheduled a hearing in the case for DATE .","According to the Government , on DATE a court clerk notified the applicant of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE by calling him on his mobile telephone , and on CARDINAL DATE by sending him a letter by registered mail , which was , however , returned undelivered on CARDINAL DATE .","According to the applicant , he was never informed about the hearing of CARDINAL DATE . He submitted a list of telephone calls , provided by his mobile operator , showing that he had received no calls from the court .","On DATE ORG held a hearing . The applicant and his counsel were absent . PERSON did not attend either . The record of the hearing reads as follows :","\u201c The secretary reported on the appearance [ of the parties at the hearing ] .","Failed to appear : plaintiff , defendant , notified . [ Defendant ] informed that impossible to participate at hearing owing to visit to a sanatorium with the child .","...","The possibility of examination of the case in the absence of the parties is considered .","[ Representative of childcare authority ] : [ I ] consider it possible .","The court ... held : continue examination of the case ... \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application . ORG took the following factual elements into consideration :","- the applicant was the father of ORG , a minor , aged DATE at the time ;","- the child \u2019s mother had died on DATE from multiple stab and cut wounds inflicted on her by the child \u2019s father , the applicant ;","- pursuant to the decision of CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been exempted from criminal responsibility for the murder of his wife and ordered to have compulsory psychiatric treatment in a psychiatric hospital ;","- the murder had been committed in the presence of the child ;","- on DATE the compulsory psychiatric measures in respect of the applicant had been lifted ;","- on DATE the child \u2019s maternal grandmother PERSON had been appointed the child \u2019s guardian ;","- the child resided with ORG , his housing conditions were adequate and he had been provided with the necessary clothing , a place for play and rest , as well as toys and books ;","- the applicant wished to see the child on a DATE basis , on DATE or DATE , by taking him out to the cinema , theatre and other places for children and by being afforded an opportunity to stay with the child at his paternal PERSON house ;","- on DATE ORG had dismissed the claims of the childcare authority and ORG to deprive the applicant of his parental responsibility over ORG and had dismissed the applicant \u2019s counterclaim to end PERSON \u2019s guardianship over ORG and to return PERSON to him ;","- the applicant \u2019s housing conditions were adequate ;","- the childcare authority had expressed a view that the applicant \u2019s claim should be dismissed as being contrary to the child \u2019s interests ;","- that according to the report of CARDINAL DATE issued by the municipal centre for children \u2019s psychological , medical and social adaptation , presented by ORG :","\u201c During the examination ORG behaved restlessly , he wandered from room to room and performed chaotic movements with the keys . It can be assumed that the child is in a state of stress ... Only after a certain time ... the boy relaxed and started talking calmly , and agreed to draw a family . ORG appeared stressed when drawing . On the drawing the boy depicted his mum , dad and himself . However , it is unclear why the whole family was drawn by the boy . This could reflect the child \u2019s wish to have a full family , or it could mean that the murder of his mother has been erased from the child \u2019s memory , which could be a defensive mechanism .","Having compared ORG \u2019s references from the nursery school dated DATE and the above observations of CARDINAL DATE , it can be noted that the child \u2019s behaviour has changed , showing signs of acute psychological and traumatic distress . This is confirmed by the child \u2019s grandmother , who submitted that the child is agitated ... has difficulty falling asleep , cries in his sleep and has started to show aggression ... In the [ psychological centre ] N. also displayed verbal aggression to other children . [ The psychologist ] therefore came to the conclusion that ORG needed timely psychological or psychotherapeutic assistance to overcome the consequences of a psychological trauma . \u201d","- reports from ORG \u2019s nursery school , dated DATE , and from his current kindergarten ;","- the carrying out of a psychological examination of the child , as ordered by the court on DATE , had been impossible owing to ORG \u2019s refusal to allow the experts to have access to the boy , meaning the case material was returned to the court by the expert without enforcement .","In the light of the foregoing , ORG concluded that it was not in ORG \u2019s interests to resume contact with his father . ORG noted , in particular , that the applicant had not submitted any information about the current state of his mental health , and he had not shown that his mental health had improved or that he did not present a danger to N. Furthermore , ORG took into account the fact that ORG had been brought up by his grandparents from DATE , that he had an established way of life and that he had not seen his father for a long time . The applicant often left on long business trips , which would prevent DATE meetings . Lastly , both grandparents had refused to see the applicant because of their hostility towards him , which made it impossible to organise meetings between ORG and the applicant .","In his appeal submissions the applicant complained , in particular , that a psychological examination of ORG had never been performed . The finding that it was not in ORG \u2019s interest to resume contact with his father had therefore not been based on the assessment of an expert . He also complained that neither he nor his counsel had been informed of the date of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE . Lastly , he enclosed an expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE , which read as follows :","\u201c Conclusions :","NORP In view of the incompleteness of the data [ failure to examine N. in view of ORG \u2019s refusal to give the experts access to ORG ] , the experts consider that at the present time only short meetings between [ the applicant ] and the child are possible ( not TIME CARDINAL times per month ) in public places on condition that the child has a positive or neutral attitude towards the father .","An assessment of whether contact between the child and his father could damage the child \u2019s health or psychological development is impossible given the absence of any data on the child \u2019s psychological stability , his attitude to his father at the present time , or the influence of relatives on the child \u2019s attitude to his father . \u201d","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the judge had included a false statement in the case file that he had been informed of the date of the hearing by mobile telephone . He enclosed a list of telephone calls provided by his mobile operator showing that he had not received any calls from the court . He also complained that a letter notifying his counsel of the date of the hearing of DATE had only been dispatched on DATE .","On DATE ORG replied that the fact of the belated notification of the applicant \u2019s counsel had been confirmed . Given that an appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was pending , that issue would be examined during the appeal proceedings .","On DATE ORG held an appeal hearing . The applicant and his counsel were both present . ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , finding that it had been lawful , sufficiently reasoned and justified . It noted that an expert opinion could not be obtained because ORG had avoided the experts . It was impossible to take into account the expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE because it had been made after the firstinstance judgment . ORG also found that a notification letter about the hearing of CARDINAL DATE had been sent to the applicant \u2019s address but had been returned to the court as undelivered . The failure to collect the notification letter from the post office had amounted to a waiver of the right to attend the hearing .","On DATE a judge of ORG refused to refer the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal to the ORG of ORG for examination , finding that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had been lawful , sufficiently reasoned and justified . She noted , in particular , that the expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE could not lead the court to change its findings because the experts had not been able to examine N.","On DATE a judge of ORG of GPE also refused to refer the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal to ORG of ORG for examination , finding that no significant violations of substantive or procedural law had influenced the outcome of the proceedings .","Despite the court \u2019s decisions , the applicant resumed contact with ORG over time , meeting the boy at school , and having telephone and ORG conversations with him .","On DATE the applicant brought new proceedings against ORG , seeking to have her guardianship of ORG terminated and for ORG to be returned to him . ORG brought a counterclaim to have the applicant \u2019s parental responsibility restricted and to prevent the applicant \u2019s contact with the child .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application , having regard to the evidence below .","ORG noted that ORG lived with his maternal grandmother and guardian PERSON and that his housing conditions were adequate . During an inspection of the child \u2019s living conditions , he had explained that he was comfortable living with PERSON , and that they had a trusting and warm relationship . He also explained that he wished to continue living with his grandmother , but maintain contact with his father by meeting him from time - to - time and communicating with him by telephone .","NORP The applicant \u2019s housing conditions were also adequate .","ORG noted the applicant \u2019s submission to the effect that during his absences for work the child would live with his paternal grandparents . It further noted that the conditions at the paternal PERSON house were also suitable and that they were ready to look after PERSON in the applicant \u2019s absence .","ORG questioned PERSON , who explained that he lived with his maternal grandparents and that he liked living with them . The boy also submitted that he communicated with his father , who visited him at school and had regular telephone and ORG conversations with him . His father took an interest in his health and his school results . PERSON expressed a wish to remain living with his grandmother because he had got used to it .","ORG further found that it was clear from school reports that ORG was showing good results at school , that his mental capacity was above average and that he was interested in studying . PERSON was being brought up by his grandmother PERSON , who was actively engaged in ORG school life . The applicant regularly visited ORG at school . After such meetings ORG only talked about computers and computer games , was less interested in studying , and became more sensitive and reserved .","Having therefore taken into consideration ORG \u2019s age , the fact that he had been living with ORG from DATE , was attached to her , loved her and had expressed a wish to continue living with her , and that the applicant \u2019s working schedule required long absences , ORG held that the child \u2019s interests required that he continue to live with his grandmother , which would be more favourable to his development .","ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s counterclaims . It held that there were no grounds to restrict the applicant \u2019s parental responsibility or to ban his communicating with ORG The applicant had positive references from work , the compulsory medical measures he had been undergoing had been lifted and he was no longer under psychiatric supervision . The applicant also cared about his son \u2019s life and health , sought communication with him , maintained contact with him over the telephone and Internet , visited him at school , and made regular child maintenance payments . There had furthermore been no evidence that the applicant had any harmful influence on the child . The ORG emphasised that domestic law provided that a child had a right to communicate with his parents and that a guardian had no right to prevent such communication , except if it was contrary to the child \u2019s interests .","On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal .","On DATE the childcare authority carried out a monitoring visit at the child \u2019s place of residence . It was established that ORG did not prevent ORG \u2019s communicating with the applicant . ORG submitted that he saw the applicant during breaks between classes at school and communicated with him over the telephone and by ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180837","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TYUTINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants is set out in the appended tables .","On the dates indicated in the appended tables the applicants obtained monetary court awards against ORG of PERSON ( MUP PERSON avtotransportnoye predpriyatiye \u2013 \u043c\u0443\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043f\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043f\u0440\u0438\u044f\u0442\u0438\u0435 \u043c\u0443\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043f\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0437\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f GPE \u00ab \u041f\u0430\u0441\u0441\u0430\u0436\u0438\u0440\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0435 \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043f\u0440\u0438\u044f\u0442\u0438\u0435 ORG ) .","Some of the judgments in the ORG favour have been partly enforced during the insolvency proceedings in respect of the company ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , while others remained unenforced to date .","The company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise . It was set up by the municipality of PERSON . The company provided transport services in the town . It had \u201c the right of economic control \u201d ( \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e \u0445\u043e\u0437\u044f\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0432\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ) over the assets allocated to it .","As submitted by the applicants , the prices for the transport services in the town of PERSON were regulated by ORG region .","On DATE insolvency proceedings started in respect of the company .","On DATE the company was declared insolvent and subsequently liquidated ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174547","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DNK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"HAMESEVIC v. DENMARK","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a citizen of GPE and GPE and was born in DATE . It appears that he currently lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140235","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"IRL","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF O'KEEFFE v. IRELAND","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Josep Casadevall;Karel Jungwiert;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The following facts were not contested by the parties .","The applicant attended ORG from DATE . The school was owned , through trustees , by ORG of the Diocese of Cork and PERSON who was recognised by ORG and ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) as the school \u2019s patron . The manager ( S. ) , acting on behalf of the bishop , was the local parish priest . The latter being elderly and infirm , a local priest ( \u00d3. ) was the de facto manager who acted on behalf of , and in the interests of , S. The term \u201c manager \u201d used below refers both to PERSON and to the management function he performed . ORG had CARDINAL teachers , CARDINAL of whom ( L.H. ) was the school \u2019s principal , a married man . PERSON was CARDINAL of CARDINAL national schools in the applicant \u2019s parish .","NORP In DATE a parent of a child complained to the manager that ORG had sexually abused her child . That complaint was not reported to the police , to the ORG or to any other ORG authority and was not acted upon by the manager .","During DATE the applicant was subjected to CARDINAL sexual assaults by PERSON during music lessons in his classroom . During the time she attended those lessons , the applicant and her parents were unaware of the allegation made in DATE about ORG","In DATE other parents brought to the applicant \u2019s GPE attention similar allegations concerning PERSON Following a meeting of parents chaired by the manager about this , L.H. went on sick leave . In DATE he resigned from his post . Those allegations were not reported at that time to the police , to the ORG or to any other ORG authority . In a brief conversation , the applicant \u2019s mother asked her whether ORG had touched her . The applicant responded to the effect that something of a sexual nature had happened but she did not recall the conversation going any further . In DATE the manager notified the ORG that ORG had resigned and named his replacement . Soon thereafter PERSON took up a position in another national school where he taught until his retirement in DATE .","DATE , the inspector assigned to the region visited ORG on CARDINAL occasions which was , as he later stated in evidence , an above average number of visits . He met with PERSON and PERSON He attended parent meetings on the question of ORG \u2019s amalgamation with other schools . No complaint about PERSON was made to him . He observed the teaching work of LOC and considered it satisfactory .","The applicant suppressed the sexual abuse . While she had significant psychological difficulties , she did not associate those with the abuse . In DATE she was contacted by the police who were investigating a complaint made in DATE by a former pupil of ORG against L.H. The applicant made a statement to the police in DATE and was referred for counselling . During the investigation a number of other pupils made statements . PERSON was charged with CARDINAL criminal offences of sexual abuse involving CARDINAL former pupils of the school during a period of DATE . In DATE he pleaded guilty to CARDINAL sample charges and was sentenced to imprisonment . His licence to teach was withdrawn by the Minister for Education ( \u201c the Minister \u201d ) under LAW of ORG DATE ( \u201c the DATE Rules \u201d ) .","NORP In or around DATE , and as a consequence of the evidence of other victims during the criminal trial and subsequent medical treatment , the applicant realised the connection between her psychological problems and the abuse by LAW and understood the extent of those problems .","NORP In DATE the applicant applied to the CICT for compensation . An initial award ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) was made by a single judge . The applicant appealed to a ORG panel . She claimed that the ORG gave her the option of continuing her appeal ( at the risk of finding that her LOC application would be rejected as out of time ) or of accepting the initial offer of the LOC with some additional expenses ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , the non - pecuniary aspect being LAW ) . The applicant accepted the offer by letter of DATE and gave the standard undertaking to repay the CICT award from any other award she may receive , from whatever source , in relation to the same injury . The award was made on an ex gratia basis . Since the ORG is never a party to LOC proceedings , it became aware of this award later before ORG ( see directly below ) .","On DATE the applicant instituted a civil action against ORG and the Minister , as well as against GPE and the Attorney General , claiming damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of assault and battery including sexual abuse by PERSON Her claim against the latter CARDINAL defendants ( \u201c the State Defendants \u201d ) was threefold : ( a ) negligence by the ORG arising out of the failure of ORG in relation to the recognition , examination and supervision of the school and in failing to put in place appropriate measures and procedures to protect against , and put a stop to , the systematic abuse by ORG since DATE ; ( b ) vicarious liability of ORG for the acts of LAW since , inter alia , the true relationship between him and the ORG was CARDINAL of employment ; and ( c ) liability given the applicant \u2019s constitutional right to bodily integrity , the responsibility of ORG to provide primary education under LAW and the measures put in place to discharge that responsibility .","Since ORG did not file a defence , on DATE the applicant obtained judgment in default against him . On DATE ORG assessed and awarded damages payable by LAW in the sum of ORG CARDINAL , comprising ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in general damages , LAW in aggravated damages , LAW in exemplary damages , and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in special damages . The applicant took enforcement proceedings . PERSON claimed he had insufficient means and she obtained an instalment order of LAW per month . The first payment was received in DATE so that she has been paid in the region of ORG DATE . She registered a judgment mortgage against that part of the family home owned by ORG","As regards her case against ORG , she requested a Professor PERSON to advise her on the question of the adequacy of child - protection mechanisms in GPE in DATE . He responded by letter of DATE . Professor PERSON agreed that , if the child - protection protocols existing in DATE had been in place in DATE , it was very likely that the applicant \u2019s abuse would have been acted upon in a manner which would have ensured the promotion of her welfare . He feared that pleading the case on the basis of what the ORG should have known at the time would be unsuccessful because it would not be possible to project onto the past the knowledge and systems of accountability that existed in DATE .","The High Court hearing against ORG began on DATE . On DATE , while the applicant was presenting her evidence , the High Court judge , in response to the applicant \u2019s complaint regarding the absence of a ORG system for adverting to and addressing sexual abuse in national schools , asked Counsel for the applicant as follows :","\u201c What evidence do I have , or what should I have deduce[d ] from the evidence that has been given that either the system in operation was a bad system , and I will come back to that , or that there was an alternative system that should have been applied , and what that alternative system might have been . \u201d","When the applicant \u2019s case concluded , ORG applied for a direction to strike out the case on the basis that no prima facie case had been made out by the applicant as regards all CARDINAL grounds , submitting , inter alia , that there was no evidence of negligence . On DATE ORG accepted the GPE application , the court being \u201c satisfied that the plaintiff had not established a case in negligence against the [ State Defendants ] \u201d ( the \u201c non - suit \u201d order ) . The court did not and was not called upon to distinguish between the CARDINAL bases of the negligence claim . However , a prima facie case had been made out on the questions of vicarious and constitutional liability and evidence would be called from the defendants on those matters . The trial finished on DATE .","On DATE the High Court delivered judgment . It found that the action was not statute barred . It also concluded that the ORG was not vicariously liable for the sexual assaults perpetrated by ORG given the relationship between the ORG and the denominational management of national schools . Although counsel for the applicant had orally suggested that the ORG should be vicariously liable for the inaction of the manager , ORG judgment did not address this point . Finally , ORG found that no action lay for a breach of a constitutional right where existing laws ( in this case , tort ) protected that right . The costs of the proceedings against ORG were awarded against the applicant .","In DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . Her Notice of Appeal challenged the finding on vicarious liability and referred to CARDINAL matters : the absence of reasons for the interim ruling of DATE and the ORG judgment \u2019s failure to rule on the vicarious liability for the inaction of the manager . Mr Justice PERSON described the appeal as limited to the ORG \u2019s vicarious liability for the acts of ORG and the manager , although he commented in his judgment on the other CARDINAL initial claims of the applicant ( direct negligence and the constitutional claim ) . Mr Justice PERSON also considered that the appeal concerned only vicarious liability for the acts of L.H. , although he refused to accept that the ORG was vicariously liable for the manager .","The appeal was heard from DATE . By a majority judgment of DATE ( PERSON and PERSON , with whom Chief Justice PERSON and Mr Justice PERSON concurred and Mr Justice PERSON dissented ) , ORG dismissed the appeal .","Hardiman J described in detail the legal status of national schools . While the arrangements for national - school education might \u201c seem rather odd DATE \u201d , they had to be understood in the context of NORP history in DATE . Following denominational conflict and the later concession of NORP emancipation in DATE , the dissenting churches and ORG wished to ensure that children of their denominations be educated in schools controlled by the denomination and not by the ORG or the established ( NORP ) Church . Those churches were \u201c remarkably successful \u201d in achieving this aim : from the very beginning of the NORP system of national education ( encapsulated in the \u201c PERSON letter \u201d of DATE ) , ORG authorities paid for the system of national education \u201c but did not manage it or administer it at the point of delivery \u201d . The latter function was left to the local denominational manager . While ORG funding was accorded on a proportionate basis to all denominational schools , the population was at the time overwhelmingly NORP so that the majority of national schools had NORP patrons and managers .","Hardiman J went on to describe as \u201c remarkable \u201d the fact that , whilst in DATE LOC firmer distinctions were being drawn between ORG and ORG and ORG influence in the provision of public services ( including education ) was ebbing , in GPE the position of the ORG became stronger and more entrenched . He adopted the evidence of CARDINAL expert witness ( in the history of education in GPE ) who described the position after the inception of ORG in DATE and noted that the NORP managers in this \u201c managerial \u201d system","\u201c were very clearly articulate and very absolutely ... precise in how they interpreted what the situation was for national schools in the new GPE ... It had to be NORP schools under NORP management , NORP teachers , NORP children \u201d .","That expert witness went on to describe the answer of ORG in DATE to a request by a ORG trade union to have local committees deal with maintaining and repairing school buildings . ORG had responded that there could be no interference whatever with the \u201c inherited tradition of managerial rights of schooling \u201d . The limited proposal of the union was considered to be the thin edge of the wedge because , in due course , the request might be to interfere with \u201c other aspects of the manager \u2019s authority vis - \u00e0 - vis the appointment and dismissal of teachers which was of course the key concern that had been fought for and won over the years \u201d . PERSON referred to the \u201c urgent desire \u201d of the denominations to maintain their role in primary education .","As PERSON explained , the LAW reflected this managerial structure : the obligation in LAW ) on the ORG to \u201c provide for \u201d free primary education reflected a largely ORG - funded , but entirely clerically administered , system of education . As a result there were CARDINAL national schools in GPE : most were under the control of NORP patrons and managers , a few were under the control of other denominations and even fewer were controlled by non - denominational groups .","Hardiman J noted that , in recent times and after DATE , the provision of education was belatedly and at least partially placed on a statutory basis by LAW ; prior to that LAW the system had been administered by LAW as well as by other ministerial letters , circulars and notes .","As to what could be gleaned from DATE , PERSON noted :","\u201c The Minister laid down rules for national schools but they were general in nature and did not allow him to govern the detailed activities of any individual teacher . He inspected the schools for their academic performance , other than religious instruction , but it did not go further than that . He was ... deprived of the direct control of the schools , and of the enormous power which that brings , because \u2018 there was interposed between the ORG and the child the manager or the committee or board of management\u2019 . Equally , the Minister did not appoint the manager or the teacher or directly supervise him . This , indeed , was the essence of the \u2018 managerial system\u2019 . I can not see , on the evidence , that he had any scope whatever to make a personal judgment about either of these CARDINAL individuals . Moreover , it seems to have been instinctively recognised by the parents who complained about the first defendant that the person with direct authority to receive the complaint and do something about it was the clerical and clerically appointed manager . No complaint , on the evidence , was directed to the Minister or to any State body . The matter was handled , so to speak , \u2018 in house\u2019 at the election of the complainants . The end result of the process was a voluntary resignation followed by the employment of [ L.H. ] in another school in the vicinity .","All these factors tending to distance the Minister and the ORG authorities from the management of the school and the control of the first defendant are direct consequences of the long established system of education , described above and mandated in the LAW whereby the Minister pays and , to a certain extent , regulates , but the schools and the teachers are controlled by their clerical managers and patrons . It is not the concern of the ORG either to endorse or to criticise that system but merely to register its existence and the obvious fact that it deprives the Minister and the ORG of direct control of schools , teachers , and pupils . \u201d","Hardiman J observed that the sexual abuse of a pupil was the negation of what ORG was employed to do but he also found that in DATE it \u201c was an unusual act , little discussed , and certainly not regarded as an ordinary foreseeable risk of attending at a school \u201d . He considered it \u201c notable \u201d that she did not sue the patron , the diocese of which he was bishop , his successors or his estate , the trustees of the property of the Diocese of Cork and PERSON ( owners of the school ) , the manager or his estate or successors .","Hardiman J concluded that , having regard to the relevant test for vicarious liability and to the above - described arrangements for the control and management of national schools , ORG were not liable to the applicant for the wrongs committed against her . In particular , even applying the wider form of vicarious liability invoked , the Minister \u2019s absence of direct control over LAW , long since ceded to the manager and the patron , prevented a finding against the Minister . The relationship of LOC and the State \u2013 a \u201c triangular one with the NORP \u201d DATE was entirely sui generis and a product of GPE \u2019s unique historical experience . The manager was","\u201c the nominee of the patron , that is of a power other than the Minister and he did not inform the Minister of any difficulties with , or complaints about , [ L.H. ] or of his resignation and appointment to teach elsewhere until they were faits accomplis . He was the agent not of the Minister , but of ORG , the power in whose interest the Minister was displaced from the management of the school \u201d .","PERSON commented on CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s original claims which had \u201c not been proceeded with \u201d .","As to the claim of negligence by the ORG , he remarked","\u201c ... this is a claim which could more appropriately be made against the manager . It was he who had the power to put in place appropriate measures and procedures governing the running of the school . The Minister can hardly be responsible for a failure to \u2018 ORG a course of action of whose existence he was quite unaware \u201d .","As to the claim about the responsibility of the ORG in the provision of primary education under LAW and the measures put in place to discharge that responsibility , PERSON stated :","\u201c I have already analysed the terms of LAW from which it will be seen that the Minister , in the case of this national school , was simply providing assistance and subvention to private and corporate ( i.e. NORP ) endeavour , leaving the running of the school to the private or corporate entities . The Minister is thereby , as PERSON pointed out in PERSON v. GPE [ DATE ] ORG , deprived of the control of education by the interposing of the patron and the manager between him and the children . These persons , and particularly the latter , are in much closer and more frequent contact with the school than the Minister or ORG .","I do not read the provisions of LAW as requiring more than that the Minister shall \u2018 endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative\u2019 , to \u2018 provide for free primary education\u2019 . ... In my view the LAW specifically envisages , not indeed a delegation but a ceding of the actual running of schools to the interests represented by the patron and the manager . \u201d","Hardiman J concluded by pointing out that nothing in the judgment could be interpreted as suggesting liability on the part of the ORG and , in any event , it was quite impossible to do so because those authorities had not been heard by ORG since the applicant had not sued them .","Fennelly J , who delivered the other majority judgment , began by noting that the \u201c calamity of the exploitation of authority over children so as to abuse them sexually \u201d had shaken society to its foundations . Cases of sexual abuse had preoccupied the criminal courts and ORG for DATE and it was surprising that that court was confronted for the first time with questions relating to the liability of institutions including the ORG for sexual abuse of schoolchildren in a national school by a teacher .","Fennelly J also described in some detail the history and consequent legal status of national schools , which system had survived independence in DATE and the enactment of the LAW in DATE . He accepted the expert \u2019s evidence that it was not a ORG system but rather a \u201c ORG - supported system \u201d . He noted the clear division of power between the ORG ( funding and fixing the curriculum ) and the manager ( day - to - DATE running of the school including hiring and firing teachers ) , noting that the different religions were determined to preserve and guard their own distinct religious education so that national schools developed on a denominational basis .","He considered inspectors to be a crucially important part of the system of ORG oversight and maintenance of standards which enabled the Minister to be satisfied about the quality of the system . However , he noted that the inspection regime did not alter the division of responsibilities between the ORG and the manager , the inspectors having no power to direct teachers in the carrying out of their duties . The DATE Rules reflected this allocation of responsibilities between the ORG and ORG authorities . Even if , in modern times , the ORG played a more intrusive role , responsibility for DATE management remained with the manager . He concluded that the ORG was not vicariously liable for the acts of L.H. or , for the same reasons , for the failure of the manager to report the DATE complaint to the ORG . ORG was not employed by the ORG but , in law , by the manager . While ORG had to have the qualifications laid down by the Minister and had to observe the DATE Rules and while the ORG had disciplinary powers in those respects , ORG was not engaged by the ORG and the ORG could not dismiss him .","Referring back to the reference in the Notice of Appeal to the ORG \u2019s liability for the failure of the manager to report the DATE complaint , ORG concluded that \u201c [ CARDINAL the same reason , insofar as it is necessary to say so , there can be no liability for the failure of [ the manager ] to report the DATE complaint . [ The manager ] was not the employee of the second defendant . \u201d","PERSON dissented . He accepted that neither the ORG nor its inspectors had any knowledge of the assaults . He noted that , for all practical purposes , most primary education in GPE took the form of a joint enterprise between ORG and he considered that that relationship was such that there was a sufficient connection between the ORG and the creation of the risk as to render the ORG liable . PERSON relied , notably , on the role of school inspectors . He examined in some detail the evidence given by , and concerning the role of , school inspectors noting , inter alia , that if an allegation of sexual assault by a teacher on a national - school pupil was considered well - founded by an inquiry set up by ORG , it could lead to the withdrawal of recognition or to a police investigation and , if the police found the complaint justified , to the withdrawal of the teacher \u2019s licence to teach .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG vacated the ORG order for costs against the applicant since it was not disputed that hers was an important and complex test case . It determined that each party had to bear its own costs related to the action against ORG .","The applicant was legally represented throughout the civil proceedings , although she did not have legal aid ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150848","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KAYIPLAR AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175657","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ROSTOVTSEV v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Right of appeal in criminal matters (Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Review of conviction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant stood trial before ORG , charged with unlawful purchase and possession of large quantities of narcotic drugs , an offence under LAW . A prosecutor was present . The applicant was unrepresented .","It appears from the trial court judgment that when questioned in the course of the trial , the applicant stated that he had been feeling unwell so had been taking ORG to relieve the pain . He admitted that on DATE he had bought CARDINAL blisters of Tramadol , a narcotic - like pain reliever , from a stranger in the street for the equivalent of about EUR CARDINAL and had been arrested shortly afterwards . He expressed remorse and asked for leniency in sentencing . In view of those admissions the trial court , relying on LAW ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ruled it unnecessary to examine the evidence related to the \u201c circumstances \u201d , which were \u201c not contested by any party \u201d . On DATE the trial court convicted the applicant of illegal purchase and possession of drugs , an offence under LAW , and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant appealed , arguing that his admissions before the trial court had related only to the facts and not to the legal classification of the offence , which he maintained was erroneous . He argued that mere possession of ORG was not unlawful as such , except where it was in breach of the applicable regulations . For this reason , his acts should have been classified not under LAW as drug possession but rather under LAW , namely breach of the rules related to the purchase and circulation of drugs and analogous products .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a singlejudge formation , denied the applicant leave to appeal . The court stated that the applicant had admitted the circumstances of the offence and the trial court had then proceeded under LAW of the ORG . However , in his appeal the applicant was contesting his conviction under LAW and the legal classification of his actions . The court held that , because of the applicant \u2019s admission and the procedure used at the trial under LAW CCP ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the decision was not amenable to appeal on the grounds invoked by the applicant .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant , holding that ORG decision had complied with the rules of criminal procedure ."],"violated_articles":["P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["P7-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179556","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgios A. Serghides;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;Pauliine Koskelo;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicant \u2019s husband , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . He died on DATE following a series of medical problems that occurred after he had undergone minor surgery for the removal of nasal polyps .","On DATE Mr PERSON was admitted to the ear , nose and throat ( ENT ) department of ORG ( \u201c the CHVNG \u201d ) for a nasal polypectomy . He underwent the operation on DATE and was discharged from hospital on DATE at TIME","NORP On DATE , at TIME , the applicant took her husband to the emergency department of the CHVNG because he was suffering from violent headaches and was in an agitated state . There he was examined by the doctors on duty , in particular by a neurologist . The doctors considered that Mr PERSON was suffering from psychological problems and prescribed tranquilisers . The applicant claims that they recommended her husband \u2019s discharge but that she objected .","In TIME Mr PERSON was examined by the new medical team on duty . At TIME he underwent a lumbar puncture which revealed that he had bacterial meningitis . He was transferred to the hospital \u2019s intensive care unit .","On DATE a scan revealed a cerebral oedema . On DATE another scan revealed that the cerebral oedema had diminished .","On DATE , following an improvement in his clinical condition , PERSON was transferred to the hospital \u2019s general NORP ward , where he was under the care of PERSON He was diagnosed with CARDINAL duodenal ulcers on DATE .","Mr PERSON was discharged from hospital on DATE as his condition was considered to be stable . A follow - up scan as an outpatient was recommended .","On DATE Mr Fernandes , who was suffering from vertigo and headaches , was admitted to the emergency department of the CHVNG . He was examined by PERSON , who kept him under observation because he had acute diarrhoea , abdominal pain and severe anaemia . PERSON PERSON received blood transfusions .","On DATE an endoscopy was performed on Mr PERSON , confirming that he had a gastroduodenal ulcer .","On DATE Mr PERSON was discharged from hospital . He was prescribed a special diet and medication . A medical appointment was fixed for DATE .","The applicant \u2019s husband continued to suffer from severe abdominal pain and diarrhoea . On DATE he returned to the emergency department of the CHVNG . He was examined by PERSON , who did not consider it necessary to admit him . Mr PERSON therefore returned home DATE .","On DATE Mr PERSON was readmitted to the CHVNG . A colonoscopy revealed infectious ulcerative colitis . Bacteriological tests showed the presence of the Clostridium difficile bacterium . Mr PERSON was placed on a drip and treated with antibiotics .","At the request of the applicant and her husband , PERSON discharged the latter on DATE . Dr J.V. prescribed oral treatment and referred PERSON PERSON for further treatment in the hospital \u2019s outpatient department .","On DATE Mr PERSON was admitted to ORG in GPE after he was found to be suffering from chronic diarrhoea and microcytic anaemia . He underwent various examinations including a colonoscopy , an endoscopy and blood tests . The medical team considered several possible causes , including an infection with the Clostridium difficile bacterium , but all these possibilities were subsequently ruled out . However , a cytomegalovirus was detected and treatment was given .","On DATE Mr Fernandes was examined by a doctor who judged the situation to be under control .","On DATE Mr Fernandes \u2019s condition deteriorated . He was examined by a doctor who suspected a possible perforated viscus . An ORG and an abdominal ultrasound were carried out . The latter showed ascites in the abdomen but did not confirm the initial diagnosis . At CARDINAL p.m. the applicant \u2019s husband was examined by another doctor who detected some resistance to abdominal palpation . A gas analysis showed metabolic alkalosis , but there were no signs of hypocalcaemia . A sigmoidoscopy was performed which showed that the applicant \u2019s husband had rectocolitis .","On DATE at TIME the applicant \u2019s husband was placed on oxygen because he had difficulty breathing . At TIME was examined by a general physician and subsequently by a surgeon . The latter decided that urgent surgery was needed as there was widespread peritonitis . Mr PERSON was taken to the operating theatre at TIME and was brought out again TIME in order to be prepared for surgery , in particular by being given a blood transfusion . He re - entered the operating theatre at TIME He died DATE at TIME","According to the death certificate issued by ORG , the applicant \u2019s husband died from septicaemia caused by peritonitis and a perforated viscus .","On DATE the applicant wrote a joint letter to ORG , the regional health authority for the LOC region and ORG , stating that she had received no response from the hospitals to explain the sudden deterioration in her husband \u2019s health and his death .","On DATE and DATE the regional health authority for the LOC region sent the applicant copies of the reports drawn up by the GPE and ORG on the basis of her husband \u2019s medical records .","On DATE the applicant requested an update on progress in the proceedings from the regional health authority , stating that she had still received no clear explanations concerning the events preceding her husband \u2019s death . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the authority informed her that the file had been sent to ORG \u2013 \u201c the IGS \u201d ) with a view to the opening of an investigation .","By an order of DATE the Inspector General for Health ordered an investigation ( processo de averigua\u00e7\u00f5es ) .","On DATE an inspector was appointed to head the investigation .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that evidence would be taken from the members of the medical team which had treated her husband and that an expert medical report would be prepared .","The applicant gave evidence on DATE .","On DATE expert medical reports were requested . Reports prepared by experts in the fields of internal medicine , gastroenterology and general surgery were submitted in DATE . According to the reports , in view of the deterioration in his state of health after the nasal polypectomy , it would not have been possible to save the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s life .","The report of the investigation was submitted on DATE . It found , on the basis of the expert medical reports received , that the treatment administered to the applicant \u2019s husband had been appropriate .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE the Inspector General for Health declared the investigation closed , finding that there had been no medical negligence and that there were no grounds for instituting disciplinary proceedings against the doctors who had treated the applicant \u2019s husband .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed against the order . She argued that the final report had not answered her questions , complaining about areas of uncertainty and about the duration of the investigation and its findings .","On DATE the Inspector General for Health informed the applicant that he had set aside the order of CARDINAL DATE and ordered the reopening of the investigation .","On DATE , in view of the questions raised by the applicant , the medical experts were requested to provide additional information .","A new investigation report was submitted on DATE , clarifying the facts and taking account of the answers provided by the CARDINAL medical experts . The report stated that there were no grounds for criticising the health - care personnel who had been involved in the care of the applicant \u2019s husband in the GPE and ORG , as the patient had received proper and appropriate medical assistance in terms of his diagnosis , supervision and treatment . The report further noted that his discharge had been justified on each occasion in view of the improvement in his state of health . The report concluded as follows :","\u201c The results of the investigation ... following the reopening of the proceedings and the fresh inquiries and medical reports do not indicate that there was any negligent or careless conduct in breach of good medical practice . There is therefore no need to take legal or disciplinary action against any persons involved in the [ patient \u2019s ] care ... \u201d","Taking this report into account , the Inspector General for ORG made a fresh order discontinuing the proceedings on DATE .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed against that order , complaining of unclear points and omissions . She also raised the possibility that the sudden deterioration in her husband \u2019s health and his eventual death might have been caused by bacteria present in the operating theatre on DATE of the nasal polypectomy , that the diagnoses may have been made in haste and that there may have been negligence and carelessness in the medical treatment administered to her husband . She further complained that the internal medicine and gastroenterology reports had been prepared each time by the same experts . The applicant therefore requested the reopening of the investigation and the preparation of a fresh expert medical report .","The Inspector General for ORG wrote to the applicant on DATE informing her that he had set aside his previous order and ordered fresh expert assessments to be carried out by different experts in the fields of internal medicine and gastroenterology .","The applicant gave evidence again on DATE .","The medical experts submitted their reports on DATE and DATE . The expert in gastroenterology stated that it was possible , albeit rare , for a nasal polypectomy to cause meningitis . He further considered that the applicant \u2019s husband had received appropriate treatment but that his discharge on CARDINAL DATE may not have been wise in view of his clinical condition . The expert concluded that the applicant \u2019s husband had suffered a series of complications which were uncommon but could occur , and that he had received proper medical care at the GPE . As to the care in ORG , the expert considered that the condition of the applicant \u2019s husband had been extremely complicated and had given rise to doubts as to the best way to proceed . In his report , the expert in internal medicine rejected the idea of a hospital - acquired infection on the grounds that , had that been the case , the antibiotics administered to the patient would have had no effect . In his view , the meningitis had developed unexpectedly . He further took the view that the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s discharge on DATE had been appropriate but that he should have continued to be monitored as an outpatient .","On DATE a report was drawn up on completion of the investigation , which concluded as follows :","\u201c ...","The content of the most recent expert medical reports shows ... that there are no grounds for a finding of disciplinary liability for negligence against any of the healthcare professionals involved in DATE \u2019s medical treatment ...","... the decision by the assistant doctor [ J.V. ] to refer the patient for outpatient treatment was not appropriate and sufficient from a clinical viewpoint in so far as , in order to prevent a recurrence of the colitis caused by Clostridium difficile ... , the patient should have remained in hospital under close medical supervision ...","...","Hence , the doctor in question did not act with the necessary care and diligence , thereby incurring disciplinary liability on account of his negligent conduct in the medical assistance provided ... in NORP ward of the GPE \u2019s medical department DATE and DATE .","The medical opinions make no criticisms of the assistance provided in the gastroenterology department of ORG in GPE ... \u201d","In the light of this report the Inspector General made an order on DATE for the opening of disciplinary proceedings against Dr J.V.","By a letter dated DATE the applicant was informed that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Dr PERSON would be stayed pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .","In the meantime , on DATE , ORG acknowledged receipt of the applicant \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE , informing her that steps would be taken in response to it .","The case was referred to ORG regional disciplinary council for the NORP region . The latter obtained the patient \u2019s medical records and sought the opinions of CARDINAL specialist panels : gastroenterology , infectious diseases , general surgery and ear , nose and throat ( ENT ) .","In its report of DATE , the gastroenterology panel issued the following conclusions :","\u201c ...","A simple X - ray of the abdomen performed DATE before the patient \u2019s death did not detect any dilatation or perforation of the colon .","The patient \u2019s death was caused by peritonitis as a result of the perforation of the duodenal ulcer . The difficulties in diagnosing the condition were understandable in view of the patient \u2019s serious clinical condition and the fact that his abdominal pains were explained by the inflammatory disease in the colon .","The role of the corticosteroids in aggravating or reactivating the peptic ulcer ... is not currently considered a risk factor ... However , given that the patient had already experienced CARDINAL episode of intestinal bleeding , there would have been grounds for weighing up the use of these drugs .","...","The decisions to discharge the patient [ from hospital ] may have delayed the diagnosis or the commencement of treatment . Nevertheless , after examining the documents submitted to me , I am unable to confirm whether these discharge decisions adversely affected his diagnosis or programme of treatment .","... \u201d","The conclusions of the report of DATE by the infectious - diseases panel read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In our opinion the diagnosis of meningitis , most likely resulting from the nasal polypectomy , was inexplicably delayed . The fact that there was no one on the medical team trained in this type of diagnosis ( for example , a specialist in infectious diseases ) may be regarded as the only explanation for such an incident . However , this was not the immediate cause of the patient \u2019s death .","NORP In our view , too long a period elapsed between the diagnosis of the perforation in the duodenal ulcer and surgery .","The procedure has been undermined to an incalculable extent by the fact that no autopsy was performed , although an autopsy is mandatory ( mandat\u00f3ria ) in cases of this type in order to shed light on the chain of events . \u201d","In its report the panel further held as follows :","\u201c The inhuman conditions described in this process , as regards how the patient was treated , are another example of the situation encountered on a DATE basis in our hospitals ; a reflection of the appalling structural and operational conditions which require urgent analysis and change .","This board of ORG of ORG must have a fundamental role in advocating the rights of patients and doctors in order to create better conditions of care for the former and better working conditions for the latter .","We reiterate , once more , the need to consider the creation of infectious - diseases departments \/ units in hospitals of the same type as ORG , in order to improve the quality of care in this regard . \u201d","In a report of DATE the general - surgery panel found that there had been no negligence or medical malpractice in the hospitals concerned . The report read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . A perforated duodenal ulcer requires immediate surgery . In the present situation the perforated ulcer ... was difficult , if not impossible , to diagnose given the clinical context in which it occurred . Furthermore , in view of the seriousness of the patient \u2019s clinical condition , the approach to surgery had to be given careful consideration and the patient had to be prepared by means of various measures .","... \u201d","In a report dated DATE the ENT panel concluded as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . NORP Meningitis following micro - endoscopic surgery for nasal polyps is described as one of the ( major ) complications of this type of surgery , estimated in the literature to occur in PERCENT of cases . These figures will be higher in the event of a repeat operation , as in the present case ( surgery was performed in DATE as stated on page CARDINAL of the file concerning the operation ) .","NORP The post - operative GPE scan of the brain carried out on DATE does not show any discontinuity in the bones at the base of the skull ... which suggests that no invasive endocranial surgery was carried out .","The description of the surgery performed on the patient on DATE ( page CARDINAL of the file ) does not give any indication of clinical malpractice or negligence .","No ENT procedures were performed during any of the patient \u2019s subsequent stays in ORG or in ORG . \u201d","In an order of DATE the regional disciplinary council for the LOC region decided , after having examined the conclusions of the different specialist panels , to take no further action on the applicant \u2019s complaint , on the ground that there was no evidence of misconduct or medical negligence .","The disciplinary council observed the following :","( i ) meningitis was a complication that could arise in PERCENT of cases following a nasal polypectomy ; the figures were liable to be higher for a repeat operation , as in the case in question ;","( ii ) the applicant \u2019s husband had received appropriate treatment during his various hospital stays ;","( iii ) the patient \u2019s bacterial meningitis ( Pseudomonas ) had been treated properly ;","( iv ) although the infectious - diseases panel had suggested that the presence of a specialist in that discipline might have enabled a diagnosis to be made sooner , this had not been a decisive factor in the development of the clinical situation ;","( v ) the perforation of the duodenal ulcer had been the cause of the peritonitis . This had been difficult to diagnose in view of the patient \u2019s serious clinical condition , a fact acknowledged by the gastroenterology and general - surgery panels ;","( vi ) although the infectious - diseases panel had considered that too long a period had elapsed between the diagnosis of the perforated duodenal ulcer and surgery , the time taken to prepare for the operation had been justified since the patient had been suffering from intestinal disease and had severe anaemia , sepsis and a fluid and electrolyte imbalance , as noted by the general - surgery panel .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that order with ORG . On DATE the appeal was declared inadmissible as being out of time .","Criminal proceedings before ORG","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint for negligent homicide with the GPE criminal investigation and prosecution department .","She gave evidence on DATE .","By order of ORG of DATE the applicant was given leave to intervene in the proceedings as an assistant to the public prosecutor ( assistente ) .","On DATE the public prosecutor \u2019s office made its submissions , charging PERSON with homicide by gross ( grosseira ) negligence . In support of their decision the prosecuting authorities referred to the report appended to the ORG order of DATE . They considered that PERSON should not have discharged the applicant \u2019s husband on DATE in so far as the patient \u2019s clinical condition had been problematic and he had been infected with the Clostridium difficile bacterium .","The case was referred to ORG . During the trial the court heard evidence from the applicant , the accused , CARDINAL doctors who had been involved in treating the applicant \u2019s husband in the CHVNG and in ORG , and the CARDINAL medical experts appointed in the context of the proceedings before the ORG . The court also sought the opinion of ORG .","On DATE ORG acquitted PERSON of the charges against him . In particular , it took the view that the findings made by the ORG in its order of DATE could not be taken into consideration as they had not been confirmed by the CARDINAL medical experts who had given evidence during the trial .","As to the facts , ORG considered , inter alia , the following to be established :","\u201c The patient \u2019s hospitalisation on DATE ... was not the result of a lack of medical supervision of his clinical condition ... since it was unconnected to the complications arising out of the meningitis . In fact , it resulted from acute anaemia caused by intestinal bleeding from a duodenal ulcer ; ...","The decisions to discharge the patient on CARDINAL and DATE were appropriate , given that , in the former case , the problem of bacterial meningitis had been resolved , [ the patient ] had completed the course of antibiotics , he no longer had any symptoms or fever , had a slightly increased white - blood cell count , a falling neutrophil count and normal sedimentation rate , and was not complaining ... and , in the latter case , that is to say , the patient \u2019s hospitalisation from DATE , the patient was not complaining of abdominal pain , diarrhoea or bleeding ... with the result that it was possible to continue treating his ulcer with a dietary regime while monitoring him on an outpatient basis ...","When the patient was admitted to ORG , laboratory tests were carried out for Clostridium difficile . The results were negative on CARDINAL occasions . \u201d","On the subject of the surgery preceding the death of the applicant \u2019s husband , ORG observed as follows :","\u201c ... the patient was in a very serious clinical state , with septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction . For that reason , he was placed on artificial ventilation and vasoactive drugs and fluids were administered ... , together with hydrocortisone to deal with possible acute adrenal insufficiency ( fal\u00eancia supra - renal aguda ) , and broad - spectrum antibiotics ;","... in this medical context the patient \u2019s prospects of survival were very uncertain , in view of the septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction ;","... a simple abdominal X - ray and an abdominal and pelvic ultrasound scan were therefore requested , which did not reveal a perforation of the intestine . \u201d","In ORG view , it had not been demonstrated that the care provided to the applicant \u2019s husband during his stay in hospital from DATE to CARDINAL DATE had not been in accordance with good medical practice , or that he should have been kept in hospital for longer . The court therefore concluded that there was no causal link between the treatment administered by PERSON to the applicant \u2019s husband in the GPE and his death , which had been caused by a perforated viscus that was unconnected to the colonic disease treated by the accused . It held :","\u201c ... there was no evidence to show that the treatment administered by the accused for the Clostridium difficile infection was incomplete , that the patient was discharged prematurely on DATE or , in sum , that the accused was responsible for the death of the patient on DATE . \u201d","DATE . The applicant did not appeal against that judgment .","Proceedings before ORG","On DATE the applicant brought an action in ORG against the GPE , ORG and the CARDINAL doctors who had been involved in treating her husband while he was in hospital , claiming compensation for the damage she had suffered on account of her husband \u2019s death . She alleged , inter alia ,","( i ) that her husband \u2019s meningitis had been caused by Pseudomonas cepacia bacteria which , she alleged , had been present in the operating theatre during the nasal polypectomy ;","( ii ) that the meningitis had been diagnosed too late , allowing the illness to become serious ;","( iii ) that the administering of excessive doses of medication and the lack of a suitable prophylactic had caused the duodenal ulcer which had led to her husband \u2019s death .","In the context of these proceedings the applicant was granted legal aid in the form of exemption from payment of the court fees and the fees of a lawyer of her own choosing .","DATE the eight doctors contested their standing to be sued ( ilegitimidade passiva ) , relying on LAW no . DATE of DATE .","On DATE the court gave a preparatory decision ( despacho saneador ) specifying which facts were considered to be established and which remained to be established . In accordance with LAW no . DATE of DATE it further held that the doctors among the defendants did not have standing in so far as they had been sued only for negligent conduct . Accordingly , it declared the claim admissible only in respect of the hospitals .","On DATE the applicant gave evidence .","During the CARDINAL hearings the court heard evidence from the following witnesses :","( i ) eleven doctors who had been involved in treating the applicant \u2019s husband during his various stays in the GPE and ORG ;","( ii ) the general practitioner of the applicant \u2019s husband ;","( iii ) CARDINAL doctors who were friends of the family ;","( iv ) the inspector who had written the final report on completion of the investigation within the ORG ; and","( v ) the medical experts in gastroenterology and internal medicine whose reports had formed the basis for the last ORG decision .","On DATE the court made an order concerning the facts . Taking into account the medical records of the applicant \u2019s husband and the various statements made by the witnesses who had given evidence , the court considered it established , inter alia ,","( i ) that a polypectomy was a straightforward surgical operation which posed minimal risk and that the patient had been informed accordingly ;","( ii ) that the operating theatre had been aseptic and sterilised at the time of the polypectomy ;","( iii ) that the origin of the bacterium linked to the patient \u2019s meningitis had not been proven . The court dismissed the possibility of a hospital - acquired infection , pointing out that in that case the prescribed treatment would have had no effect ;","( iv ) that the medication prescribed in the GPE and ORG could cause intestinal problems and hence could give rise to colitis ;","( v ) that the applicant \u2019s husband had been treated with drugs to protect his stomach in the GPE ;","( vi ) that the gastroduodenal perforation had not been detected until the operation was being performed ; and","( vii ) that the applicant \u2019s husband had died from septicaemia caused by peritonitis resulting from a perforated viscus .","DATE . On DATE ORG delivered a judgment in which it dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims . On the facts , the judgment stated , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c The Pseudomonas bacterium was resistant to the various antibiotics that were tried ...","When the patient attended PERSON Hospital on DATE he had completely recovered from his bacterial meningitis .","...","On DATE the patient again attended PERSON , where he was diagnosed with pseudomembranous colitis caused by Clostridium difficile ... The colitis was successfully treated in that hospital ... ;","Throughout his stay in ORG he was given treatment to protect his stomach .","...","When he was admitted ( to ORG on DATE ) he had chronic diarrhoea ... and was diagnosed with suspected inflammatory bowel disease . Medication was prescribed in keeping with that diagnosis .","...","While in ORG he was kept under observation , received DATE medication and underwent various tests .","...","On DATE ... nothing had made it possible to predict the gastroduodenal perforation ... the tests carried out that day ... did not confirm the existence of any duodenal perforation such that the situation had to be kept under review ;","...","It was not until DATE that the patient \u2019s acute abdominal syndrome was diagnosed , calling for urgent surgery ... it was only during the operation that the patient was found to be suffering from a duodenal perforation ;","...","The perforation had occurred TIME before surgery . \u201d","The judgment concluded as follows :","\u201c ... in view of the facts that have been established , it is not possible to determine at what point the defendants , by their actions or omissions , breached the rules of good medical practice ...","It is considered established that [ Mr PERSON \u2019s ] death was caused by sepsis due to peritonitis resulting from the perforation of his duodenal ulcer ...","No doubts persisted regarding the diagnosis of meningitis , the procedure adopted , the sequence of treatment and the resolution of the problem , as all the various aftereffects were duly explained .","Hence there were no differences of opinion regarding the need to prescribe and use antibiotics in the context of [ Mr PERSON \u2019s ] meningitis and other conditions , although it was explained that colitis is a bacterial imbalance caused by antibiotics ( the very ones which have undesirable effects on intestinal flora ) .","Nevertheless , it was not possible to determine the agent or identify the cause of the bacterium linked to the meningitis and it could therefore not be established with certainty whether the sinus surgery was the source of the problem or was simply CARDINAL factor causing the infection . The other factors and circumstances preceding the operation ... thus cease to be relevant .","It is nonetheless surprising that the death of the claimant \u2019s husband should have occurred ... given that he had been strong and in good health and that the microsurgery on his sinuses was a straightforward operation . However , it has not been demonstrated that the therapy or medication administered to [ Mr Fernandes ] at any point was unsuited to his clinical condition . There was therefore no breach of the rules of good medical practice ( either by action or omission ) . Accordingly , one of the cumulative conditions for establishing civil liability , namely an unlawful act , is absent . \u201d","The applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG . She contested the facts deemed to be established , arguing that only by studying the circumstances before , during and after the operation would it be possible to understand what type of bacterium her husband had contracted . She further reiterated that her husband had contracted a hospital - acquired infection and had not received adequate treatment either in the GPE or in ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims , upholding the judgment of ORG . It first of all declined to review the facts considered by the lower court to have been established , on the grounds that the hearings had not been recorded and that no new documents had been submitted which could cast doubt on the evidence forming the basis for the court \u2019s decision . ORG summed up its judgment as follows :","\u201c The lower court considered , in sum , that it had not been possible to identify the nature and origin of the bacterium that caused the meningitis and that it had not been demonstrated that the illnesses subsequent to [ the patient \u2019s ] treatment and recovery from that illness ... had been the consequence of incorrect diagnosis or treatment .","For that reason it found that no breach of the rules of good medical practice had been demonstrated that might have caused the patient \u2019s death .","The claimant takes a different view of the matter . However , she bases her arguments mainly on allegations that have not been proven , and in particular the allegation that the meningitis was caused by the Pseudomonas bacterium , allegedly acquired in hospital ... and that the patient did not receive appropriate prophylactic treatment to protect his stomach during his treatment with antibiotics .","Accordingly , these claims can be summed up as allegations of medical negligence which are unsupported by the established facts . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157703","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PINT\u00c9R v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","After the death of the applicant \u2019s father , his second wife brought an action about the inheritance against the applicant on DATE .","At first instance , the court partly found for the applicant on DATE but , on appeal , ORG quashed the decision and remitted the case .","In the resumed proceedings , the second - instance court quashed a decision again on DATE , as confirmed by ORG on DATE .","In the proceedings resumed again , PERSON partly found for the applicant on DATE . The judgment became final on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156272","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SATAKUNNAN MARKKINAPORSSI OY AND SATAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant companies have their seat in PERSON .","The first applicant company PERSON has been publishing PERSON magazine since DATE . The magazine publishes DATE information about natural ORG taxable income and assets . This information is public according to NORP law . Several other publications and media companies also publish such information . The editor - in - chief of the magazine lodged an application with the ORG in DATE ( see PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .","In DATE the magazine appeared CARDINAL times and each issue concentrated on a certain geographical area of the country . Data on CARDINAL ORG taxable income and assets was published , which constituted at TIME all taxable persons in GPE . The magazine also published taxrelated articles and announcements .","The first applicant company PERSON has worked in cooperation with the second applicant company , PERSON . The companies are owned by the same persons . In DATE the second applicant company , together with a telephone operator , started an ORG . By sending a person \u2019s name to a service number , taxation information concerning that person could be obtained if information was available in the database . The database was created using data already published in the magazine . Since DATE the second applicant company has also been publishing PERSON magazine .","On an unspecified date ORG ( tietosuojavaltuutettu , dataombudsmannen ) contacted the applicant companies and advised them to stop publishing taxation data in the manner and to the extent that had been the case in DATE . Collecting data which was not to be published was not forbidden . The companies declined because they felt that this request violated their freedom of expression .","By letter dated DATE the ORG Ombudsman requested ORG ( tietosuojalautakunta , datasekretessn\u00e4mnden ) to order that the applicant companies be forbidden to process taxation data in the manner and to the extent that had been the case in DATE and to pass such data to an SMS - service . He claimed that , under LAW , the companies had no right to establish such personal data registers and that the derogation provided by the LAW concerning journalism did not apply to the present case . The collecting of taxation information and the passing of such information to third parties was not journalism but processing of personal data which the applicant companies had had no right to do .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request of ORG . It found that the derogation provided by LAW concerning journalism applied to the present case . As concerned the SMS - service , the data used in the service had already been published in PERSON magazine and the Act did not therefore apply to it .","NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , reiterating his request that the applicant companies be forbidden to process taxation information in the manner and to the extent that had been the case in DATE and to pass such data to the SMS - service .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It found that the derogation provided by LAW concerning journalism , which had its origins in Directive PERSON , should not be interpreted too strictly as it would then favour protection of privacy over freedom of expression . The court considered that PERSON magazine had a journalistic purpose and that it was also in the public interest to publish such data . The court emphasised , in particular , that the published data was public . The derogation provided by LAW concerning journalism thus applied to the present case . As concerned the SMS - service , the court agreed with ORG that , as the information had already been published in the magazine , the LAW did not apply to it .","NORP By letter dated DATE ORG appealed further to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG .","On DATE ORG decided to request a preliminary ruling from ORG of ORG on the interpretation of Directive PERSON .","On DATE ORG of ORG , sitting in a ORG composition , gave its judgment ( see Case CCARDINAL\/CARDINAL Tietosuojavaltuutettu v. PERSON and PERSON , judgment of DATE ( ORG ) ) . It found first of all that the activities in question constituted \u201c processing of personal data \u201d to which the Directive applied . Moreover , activities involving the processing of personal data such as that relating to personal data files which contained solely , and in unaltered form , material that had already been published in the media , also fell within the scope of the Directive . In order to take account of the importance of the right to freedom of expression in every democratic society , it was necessary to interpret notions relating to that freedom , such as journalism , broadly . However , in order to achieve a balance between the CARDINAL fundamental rights , the protection of the fundamental right to privacy required that the derogations and limitations in relation to the protection of data provided for in the Directive had to apply only in so far as was strictly necessary . In conclusion , activities such as those involved in the domestic proceedings , relating to data from documents which were in the public domain under national legislation , could be classified as \u201c journalistic activities \u201d if their object was to disclose to the public information , opinions or ideas , irrespective of the medium which was used to transmit them . They were not limited to media undertakings and could be undertaken for profitmaking purposes .","On DATE ORG quashed the previous decisions and referred the case back to ORG . It requested ORG to forbid the processing of taxation data in the manner and to the extent carried out in DATE . The court noted first that the term \u201c journalism \u201d was not defined in Directive PERSON but that , according to ORG of ORG , it was necessary to interpret notions relating to freedom of expression , such as journalism , broadly . However , when balanced against the right to privacy , any derogations to the latter were to be kept only to what was strictly necessary . When balancing the right to freedom of expression against the right to privacy , the ORG had found that the decisive factor was to assess whether a publication contributed to a public debate or was solely intended to satisfy the curiosity of readers . ORG found that the publication of the whole database collected for journalistic purposes could not be regarded as journalistic activity . The public interest did not require such publication of personal data to the extent seen in the present case , in particular as the derogation in LAW was to be interpreted strictly . The same applied also to the SMS - service .","The SMS - service was shut down after the decision of ORG was served on the applicant companies . The magazine continued publishing taxation data in DATE when its content was CARDINAL of the previous content . Since then the magazine has not appeared .","On DATE ORG forbade the first applicant company to process taxation data in the manner and to the extent that had been the case in DATE and to forward this information to an ORG . The second applicant company was forbidden to collect , save or forward to an SMS - service any information received from the first applicant company \u2019s registers and published in PERSON magazine .","NORP By letter dated DATE , after ORG had made its decision , ORG asked the applicant companies to indicate what measure they were envisaging to take in view of the ORG \u2019s decision . In their reply , the applicant companies asked ORG view on the conditions under which they could continue publishing public taxation data at least to a certain extent . In his reply ORG stated that , according to ORG decision , the applicant companies lacked the legal right to maintain their taxation database and to publish it , and reminded them of his duty to report any breach of LAW to the police .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant companies appealed against the decision of ORG to ORG which transferred the case to ORG . They complained that the decision violated the prohibition of censorship guaranteed by LAW as well as their freedom of expression . LAW provided better protection than the international human rights treaties as the latter did not prohibit censorship fully . According to the domestic law , it was not possible to prevent publication of information on the basis of the amount of information to be published or of the means used for its publication . Nor was it possible to use \u201c public interest \u201d as a criterion for preventing publication when preventive restriction of freedom of expression was concerned . Accepting that would mean that the authorities would be able to prevent publication , if they thought that the publication did not promote discussion of a topic of public interest .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ORG appeal . It found that , as far as the matter had been decided by ORG in its decision of DATE , it could not take a stand on the issue . In the latter decision ORG had stated that the case was not about the public nature of the taxation documents , nor about the right to publish such information . As the court was now examining only the decision rendered by ORG which was issued as a result of ORG decision of DATE , it could not examine the issues which ORG had excluded from the scope of its decision . As the ORG \u2019s decision corresponded to the content of ORG decision , there was no reason to change it .","By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant companies appealed further to ORG , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG . They noted in particular that the decision issued by ORG had prohibited the processing of taxation information for publishing purposes as well as requiring that the internal registers of the first applicant company be protected in a manner required by LAW . In practice the companies were prevented from collecting information for publishing purposes , which meant that there was an interdiction to publish such information . The companies noted that LAW also prohibited indirect preventive censorship .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG . It found that the case was not about the right to publish taxation information as such , nor about preventive censorship . On these grounds and the grounds mentioned in ORG reasoning , the court found that there was no reason to change the latter \u2019s decision ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150775","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ILIEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON live in PERSON and Mr PERSON lives in GPE . PERSON also lived in PERSON .","Ancestors of the applicants owned agricultural land in the area of the village of PERSON , GPE region , which was collectivised after DATE .","NORP In DATE the municipal authorities in GPE decided to allocate land for the construction of a hotel in PERSON . The exact borders of the plot were specified in a decision delivered in DATE : it was one of the plots formerly owned by the applicants\u2019 ancestors . In DATE a proposal to formally expropriate the land from the agricultural co - operative in which it had been included earlier was rejected by a commission created by the Government .","The hotel was constructed DATE . It consisted of a main building \u2012 comprising a restaurant and QUANTITY bedrooms , QUANTITY bungalows and maintenance buildings . In DATE the complex also included an unfinished building , designed to be used as CARDINAL bedrooms and a lounge , and a swimming pool . The plot of land on which it was constructed measured QUANTITY .","In DATE the local authorities in GPE created a ORG - owned enterprise named \u201c ORG delo na SO \u201d , which was charged with the task , in particular , of using and managing the hotel in PERSON . On DATE the Minister of Agriculture ordered the creation of a ORG - owned limited liability company named \u201c ORG delo na ORG \u201d ORG , which took over the assets of the enterprise ; under the applicable domestic provisions , this entailed the company becoming the owner of these assets . \u201c ORG delo na ORG \u201d ORG was entered in the companies register in GPE on DATE .","NORP In DATE the company initiated a procedure aimed at changing the status of the land on which the hotel was constructed , and which was still formally considered agricultural . The course of that procedure is unclear .","On DATE the Minister of Agriculture issued an \u201c act of ORG ownership \u201d of the hotel and the land on which it was constructed . The document noted that the property had been included in the capital of \u201c ORG delo na ORG \u201d ORG .","In DATE , following the adoption of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , the applicants , who had inherited their ancestors in equal shares , applied for the restitution of the land formerly owned by them .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON agricultural land commission ( \u201c the land commission \u201d ) restored the applicants\u2019 property rights to several plots , including CARDINAL of QUANTITY on which the hotel had been constructed . The decision referred to this plot as a \u201c meadow \u201d .","On DATE the land commission issued a new decision concerning the applicants\u2019 land , amending its previous one . In the new decision the commission did not mention the plot on which the hotel had been constructed , which , according to the applicable rules , was considered to amount to a tacit refusal to order restitution .","The applicants instigated proceedings for judicial review of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In a final judgment of DATE the ORG quashed the decision . It noted that in DATE a proposal to expropriate the disputed plot from the agricultural co - operative had been rejected by the competent commission . It noted further that the procedure aimed at changing the land \u2019s status initiated by \u201c ORG delo na ORG \u201d ORG had not been completed and that the plot had not yet been registered as ORG or municipally - owned . It concluded that the land commission had had no valid legal grounds on which to amend its decision of DATE ordering restitution in kind , quashed its subsequent tacit refusal in that regard and restored the applicants\u2019 property rights to the plot of land .","On the basis of the above judgment , on DATE the applicants obtained a notarial deed .","On DATE \u201c ORG delo na ORG \u201d ORG brought an action against the applicants , seeking a declaratory judgment to the effect that it was the owner of the plot of land at issue . The applicants brought a counter - claim for rei vindicatio . They argued that the hotel \u2019s buildings were unlawful and that the land had never formally ceased to be considered agricultural . They based their claims to be the owners of the land on the land commission \u2019s decision of DATE .","The case was examined by CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . ORG final judgment was given on DATE .","The domestic courts found that \u201c ORG delo na ORG \u201d ORG had become the owner of the plot following its transformation into a ORG company in DATE , since the ORG enterprise of which it was the successor had previously used and managed that property . As to the ORG claims , the courts noted that they were based on the land commission \u2019s decision of DATE . However , this decision , as well as the Teteven ORG judgment of DATE , were not binding on \u201c ORG delo na ORG \u201d ORG , as it had not been party to the restitution proceedings . The courts thus considered that they were free to conduct an \u201c indirect judicial review \u201d ( \u043a\u043e\u0441\u0432\u0435\u043d \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0440\u043e\u043b ) of the restitution decision and concluded that it was invalid as the preconditions for restitution in kind had not been met . This was so in particular in the light of the provision contained in section CARDINAL of the ORG , which barred such restitution where a \u201c complex of construction works \u201d had been carried out on the land at issue . Section CARDINALb did not require the construction works to have been lawful , since what mattered was the situation at the moment of the ORG \u2019s entry into force .","Following the above developments , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Teteven ORG ( former land commission ) held that the applicants were entitled to compensation in lieu of restitution . In another decision of DATE it held that the compensation would be effected through compensation bonds , with a face value of CARDINAL NORP levs ( ORG ) . The applicants received the bonds on DATE .","The applicants sold the bonds in DATE . They received , in total , BGN CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142670","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF TERNOVSKIS v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was employed by ORG as a border guard from DATE .","On DATE the applicant was promoted to head of the LOC section . On DATE a certification commission ( atest\u0101cijas komisija ) deemed him suitable for his new position .","After the Law on State Secrets ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) came into force on DATE and the adoption of Regulation no . CARDINAL of the Cabinet of Ministers , entitled \u201c Regulations for the Protection of State Secrets \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) on DATE , the applicant was invited to apply for security clearance for work with ORG secrets . He filled in a questionnaire on DATE . According to a letter sent to ORG by ORG ( ORG aizsardz\u012bbas birojs , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , CARDINAL of the NORP intelligence services responsible , inter alia , for issuing security clearances , he had been invited to attend a \u201c discussion \u201d ( p\u0101rrunas ) on DATE in respect of his application . The Government provided a copy of additional written explanations submitted by the applicant DATE . Therein he had explained that he had been a reserve lieutenant in ORG and a member of ORG until DATE . He denied having had any links with foreign secret services , and in that regard referred to a prior interview he had apparently had with ORG .","On DATE the head of ORG showed the applicant a letter from the ORG , which indicated that he had been refused the first category security clearance . The letter did not contain any motivation of the refusal apart from a reference to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Law on State Secrets ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant presumed that clearance had been refused because he had been suspected of past collaboration with ORG of the former GPE ( PERSON \u0433\u043e\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0431\u0435\u0437\u043e\u043f\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 in LANGUAGE , hereinafter DATE \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . He accordingly made use of the remedy available under the domestic system to have the question of his alleged collaboration adjudicated in court . As a result , in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG established that the ORG archives contained a document which indicated that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been recruited as a ORG \u201c agent \u201d and given a codename . His recruiter had been a ORG operative , V.P. The court , however , went on to note that there was no indication that the applicant had ever submitted any reports in his alleged capacity as a ORG agent . Moreover , the court considered that there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant had been aware that he had been an \u201c informer \u201d of the ORG . Accordingly , the court concluded that the applicant had not knowingly collaborated with the ORG . That judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .","NORP However , prior to the completion of the inquiry into the applicant \u2019s alleged collaboration with the ORG , and after he had refused to leave his job voluntarily , an order was made by the head of ORG on DATE to dismiss him from service with effect from DATE . The reasons given for the termination of his employment were the letter of the ORG and section MONEY ) of the Law on Border Guard Service ( PERSON likums ) , which provided that border guards were to be retired from service if they were deemed unsuitable for their duties . Another border guard , Major PERSON , was appointed to fill the applicant \u2019s position .","NORP In DATE the applicant wrote to the ORG , seeking a review of the decision concerning his clearance . On DATE the ORG responded , refusing to change the \u201c findings of ORG , in accordance with which it is impossible to issue PERSON the first category special clearance on the basis of section CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on State Secrets \u201d . Section CARDINAL ) provided that clearance would not be issued to persons suffering from alcoholism , drug addiction , mental illness or who were otherwise deemed unsuitable for work with ORG secrets ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was DATE that the applicant discovered that on DATE the director of the ORG had changed the legal basis of the refusal of the clearance from section MONEY ) to section CARDINAL ) of the relevant law .","NORP The applicant then appealed against the ORG \u2019s decision to ORG . On DATE the latter issued a decision , upholding the refusal to issue him clearance on the basis of section CARDINAL ) while referring to :","\u201c circumstances that attest to [ the applicant \u2019s ] personal and professional characteristics which give rise to legitimate doubts as to [ his ] ability to preserve ORG secrets \u2013 [ the applicant \u2019s ] frequent contact with the former ... ORG employee [ ORG ] , his hiding of information concerning the involvement of officers of the LOC section of ORG in illegal activities and needless and dangerous brandishing of a firearm in the presence of other employees of ORG while intoxicated . \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Law on State Secrets provided that ORG decision was final and not amenable to further appeal , either in court or elsewhere .","The applicant then attempted to obtain access to the materials in the investigation file on the basis of which he had been refused clearance . On DATE he was informed by the ORG that the materials were confidential ( in accordance with the regulation no . CARDINAL of the Cabinet of Ministers ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and not accessible to the person subject to the investigation . However , on DATE the applicant received permission to access some parts of the file and obtained copies of several documents contained therein . CARDINAL of the documents contains excerpts from a report by a border guard , officer GPE ( who was promoted to head of the PERSON section following the applicant \u2019s dismissal , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to the deputy director of the ORG containing intimations that the information the applicant had disclosed about his former collaboration with the ORG had been inaccurate . Another report ( which did not contain any indication of its source ) indicated that the applicant , while intoxicated , \u201c had behaved aggressively with a service weapon , threatening to either shoot himself or [ GPE ] \u201d . The third document was a report by GPE reciting information supposedly provided by third parties concerning the applicant \u2019s former collaboration with the ORG and concerning \u201c the covering up of extraordinary incidents of alcohol use and smuggling in the LOC section \u201d .","The applicant complained about his dismissal from service to CARDINAL levels of courts of general jurisdiction . In a judgment of DATE the GPE Latgale District Court noted the change that had been made to the legal basis on which refusals of clearance had been made ; however , it did not find it necessary to analyse that issue , since the judgment of ORG had not refuted the fact that the applicant had been an \u201c agent \u201d of the ORG , and that section MONEY ) of the PERSON on ORG provided that clearance should not be issued to former \u201c agents \u201d of , inter alia , the ORG , irrespective of how active their involvement had been . The applicant had also asked the first - instance court to renew the procedural time - limit for appealing against the refusal to issue him security clearance . The court rejected this request by noting that the applicant had already made use of the procedure for appealing against the refusal .","An appeal hearing took place on DATE at ORG but the applicant did not attend . DATE prior to the hearing , he had informed the court that he was ill and that a doctor had ordered him to stay in bed ( \u201c gultas re\u017e\u012bms \u201d ) . The case file contains a copy of a medical certificate , dated DATE , which states that the applicant had been put on sick leave until DATE . The certificate is made out on a pre - typed form and contains no specific details of the applicant \u2019s medical condition . Under the heading \u201c the reason for a temporary inability to work \u201d the doctor preparing it has ticked \u201c other reasons \u201d , as opposed to being infected with tuberculosis , having an occupational disease or having had an accident at the workplace . The court considered that the applicant had not submitted any evidence in support of his claim that his health condition had prevented him from attending the hearing . Neither had he substantiated his claim that he had been ordered to stay in bed .","The court considered that his arguments had been fully expressed in his written appeal and on that basis had decided to proceed with the hearing in his absence . The applicant was not fined for failure to attend the hearing without a justified reason . As summarised by the appeal court , the applicant in his appeal had complained , among other things , that he had been dismissed from service even before the appeal procedure against the refusal to issue security clearance had been completed .","The applicant was not represented by counsel . A representative of ORG , the respondent in the proceedings , was present at the hearing and in his oral observations before the court endorsed the validity of the judgment of the first - instance court and disagreed with the applicant \u2019s claim and appeal .","As to the merits of the appeal , the appellate court in its judgment of DATE indicated that the first - instance court had not adequately analysed the arguments of the parties and had exceeded the scope of its competence . It nevertheless decided to dismiss the applicant \u2019s claim . It held that the order of DATE discharging the applicant from service could not be deemed to be a restriction of his rights , since he had already been aware of the ORG \u2019s refusal to issue him security clearance since DATE . In any event , the court considered that it was impossible to reinstate the applicant to his position , since the position required him to obtain security clearance , which had been refused by a final decision of ORG , which was not amenable to appeal . The appeal court also held that there were no legal grounds to renew the time - limit for appealing against the decision to refuse the applicant a security clearance and that in any case the applicant had exhausted the appeal procedure legally available to him .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE the ORG of ORG adopted a judgment dismissing his appeal . It dismissed his complaint concerning the fact that the appellate court had conducted the hearing in his absence . The ORG noted that the appellate court had regarded the applicant \u2019s reason for having failed to appear at the hearing as unjustified , but said that it was a question of fact which the ORG , being a level of jurisdiction which deals with alleged violations of procedural and substantive law and not with the re - evaluation of facts , was not competent to review . As regards the merits of the case , the ORG agreed with the conclusions of the appellate court .","NORP The applicant then submitted a complaint to ORG ( PERSON birojs , the predecessor of the ORG ) . On DATE he received a response , in which the ORG expressed doubts as to the constitutionality and compatibility with the Convention of the process for appealing refusals of security clearance , given that such appeals could only be made to the director of the ORG and to ORG .","The applicant then lodged a complaint of unconstitutionality with ORG , alleging firstly that there had been no opportunity for him to address his complaint concerning a refusal of security clearance to a court , and secondly that he had been denied access to the investigation file on the basis of which the refusal had been made . On DATE ORG adopted a judgment in which it declared the legal provisions in question constitutional . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL judges dissented ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","The majority considered that the right of access to a court guaranteed by the LAW did not include a right to resolve in a court every issue that might be of importance to an individual . Accordingly it started its analysis by questioning whether the disputed legal norms concerned the applicant \u2019s rights or lawful interests . Firstly , it was noted that the freedom to obtain information did not incorporate access to ORG secrets , since there were legitimate grounds for restricting access to such information . Secondly , refusing the applicant security clearance had restricted his right to employment and equal access to employment in public service . Nevertheless , it concluded that such a restriction had been legitimate , since it had occurred for reasons related to national security .","NORP Despite finding that the refusal did not impinge upon the applicant \u2019s constitutional rights , the majority of ORG proceeded to analyse the question whether the appeal process involving the director of the ORG and ORG was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of access to a court . In that regard it was firstly pointed out that ORG could not be understood to be a \u201c court \u201d for the purposes of the right of \u201c access to a court \u201d . Secondly , the court referred to ORG judgments in the cases of PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL ) and ORG v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR MONEY ) , in which it was held that the right to access to a court was not absolute and was subject to limitations . The court then went on to analyse whether the impossibility of disputing the validity and legality of a refusal of security clearance before a court pursued a legitimate aim , and whether there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved . It considered that the legitimate aim was the need to protect the confidentiality of materials contained in the investigation file regarding the person in question \u2019s suitability for security clearance . As concerns the issue of proportionality , ORG took into account the fact that the legislation provided CARDINAL possible method of disputing a refusal of clearance before an independent authority , namely by way of an appeal to ORG .","With regard to the adequacy of the appeal process , the court noted that the domestic legislation did not contain any details of the decision - making process involved in refusing clearance or of the subsequent appeal procedure . In particular , the observance of the audiatur et altera pars principle was not guaranteed . That led ORG to conclude that :","\u201c in a country governed by the rule of law it is possible to provide for a more thought - out mechanism which would permit , in the course of deciding upon whether to issue a special clearance , to take into account , in so far as is possible , both interests of ORG security and the individual interests of each person under consideration . \u201d","To illustrate that point , the court referred to the system in GPE as an example , where security clearance candidates were given an opportunity to make representations concerning facts relevant to the decision and to be represented by a lawyer , save in cases where a personal interview could significantly harm State security . ORG then went on to conclude that NORP legislation did not , in principle , prevent the competent authorities from implementing the audiatur et altera pars principle , particularly if the legislation were to be interpreted in the light of the LAW . It followed that the limitation of the rights of security clearance candidates was proportionate to the legitimate aim of protecting ORG security .","As regards the fact that the applicant had been denied access to the investigation file , ORG viewed it as a restriction of the right to respect for private life . Referring to ORG Rights\u2019 judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE ( DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , it noted that interests of national security could justify such an interference with private life and concluded that in the applicant \u2019s particular situation such an interference had been justified .","Judge PERSON in her dissenting opinion focused on the fact that the process for appealing a refusal of security clearance to the director of the ORG and ORG did not ensure an adequate implementation of the audiatur et altera pars principle . She criticised the majority \u2019s reliance on the assumption that the applicable legislation would be interpreted broadly and in accordance with LAW so as to implement the principle of hearing both parties\u2019 arguments because \u201c the practice shows that in transitional legal systems , such as GPE , the principle of hearing all parties is not implemented unless it is provided for in the law , which is a fact borne out by the present case \u201d .","Judge PERSON","After gaining partial access to his investigation file ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and acting on the advice of ORG , the applicant , relying on new information , applied for the proceedings concerning the alleged illegality of his dismissal to be reopened . On DATE ORG dismissed his application , finding that the new information related to the reasons for the refusal of security clearance , the illegality of which had not been the subject matter of the original proceedings . The applicant then missed the time - limit for submitting an ancillary complaint against ORG decision . In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG refused to accept the applicant \u2019s belated ancillary complaint ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166754","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"GEREGHIHER GEREMEDHIN v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE in GPE , GPE . His nationality is unknown and he is living in GPE . The applicant , who has been granted legal aid , was represented before the ORG by Mr C.F. Wassenaar , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE , whilst the applicant was serving in the NORP military , his spouse Y fell ill . After her death in DATE , their CARDINAL children , ORG , PERSON , ORG , were taken into the care of their paternal grandparents in GPE as the applicant was refused a discharge from the army for the purpose of taking care of his children .","DATE , the applicant married PERSON , his current spouse , and in DATE their son GPE was born . Having grown increasingly frustrated with the policies of ORG and his unsuccessful requests for a discharge from the military , the applicant and his wife fled in DATE to GPE where they applied for asylum . In DATE , they were recognised by the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) as refugees under LAW . The applicant \u2019s CARDINAL children from his first marriage and GPE remained in GPE with the applicant \u2019s parents .","During the stay of the applicant and ORG in GPE , their daughter PERSON was born in DATE . She is suffering from congenital hydrocephalus and a congenital heart condition .","At the request of the ORG , the applicant , his spouse and their child PERSON were accepted for resettlement as quota refugees in the GPE . According to information provided by the applicant to the ORG and recorded in the UNHCR Resettlement Registration Form signed by the applicant on DATE , ORG had been born in DATE , PERSON in DATE , ORG in DATE , and ORG in DATE .","On DATE , the applicant , his spouse and PERSON were granted GPE asylum - based residence permits . According to information provided by the applicant to the GPE municipal authorities after their arrival in the GPE , ORG had been born in DATE , PERSON in DATE , ORG , and PERSON in DATE .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s spouse filed a request for advice on the issuance of a provisional residence visa ( machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf ) for GPE for the purpose of family reunion in the GPE .","Also on DATE , the applicant filed a request for advice on the issuance of a provisional residence visa for his CARDINAL children born out of his first marriage with Y for the purpose of family reunion in the GPE .","On an unspecified date in DATE , the CARDINAL children left GPE for GPE as their grandparents were getting too old to care for them . They ended up in the NORP refugee camp in eastern GPE , where they were registered as refugees after a refugee status determination carried out jointly by the ORG and ORG .","NORP On DATE , ORG ( ORG ) of ORG issued a positive recommendation in respect of the request concerning GPE , who until their flight in DATE had been part of the nuclear family unit ( gezin ) of the applicant and ORG , and provided inter alia that it would be demonstrated by official documents \u2013 when submitting the request for a provisional residence permit DATE that ORG had legal custody ( rechtmatig gezag ) over GPE . As he lacked official documents demonstrating his family tie with the applicant and his spouse , GPE was considered to find himself in a situation in which \u2013 through no fault of his own \u2013 he was hampered by a lack of evidence ( bewijsnood ) . He was therefore offered the possibility to demonstrate the relationship by means of a free DNA test for which he had to travel to the GPE mission in GPE . Following a delay caused by logistical problems , he was eventually taken to the GPE mission in GPE \u2013 accompanied by a ORG staff member \u2013 to provide a DNA sample .","On DATE , the GPE mission reported that the results of the DNA test showed a strong probability verging on certainty that GPE was the applicant \u2019s son . Consequently , he could be admitted to the GPE and a provisional residence visa was issued to him . On DATE , the GPE mission in GPE provided GPE with travel documents allowing him to travel to the GPE and join his parents . He entered the GPE on DATE and was granted a residence permit on DATE .","In a separate decision also taken on DATE , ORG of ORG issued a negative recommendation in respect of the request for advice concerning the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL children born out of his first marriage . Unlike GPE , there were no grounds to authorise family reunion in the GPE under the rules applicable for reunification of refugee families since the close family ties ( gezinsband ) between the applicant and the CARDINAL children were considered to have ceased to exist as the children had no longer formed a part of the applicant \u2019s nuclear family unit when in DATE the applicant and his wife had left GPE but , since the death of their mother in DATE , had belonged to the nuclear family unit of the applicant \u2019s parents as the applicant was unable to care for them . Accordingly , there were doubts as to the relationship of dependency between the applicant and these CARDINAL children . For this reason , the applicant had been requested to substantiate this relationship of dependency and to submit the birth certificates of these children , which he had not done . Further taking into account the ages of the children , the fact that they were living together in the care of their grandparents , that they were rooted in NORP society and of an age that they should be regarded as able to fend for themselves , it was also found that leaving the CARDINAL children in GPE did not amount to such a harrowing situation that it should be qualified as undue hardship ( onevenredige hardheid ) . It was further found that there were no special facts or circumstances giving rise to a positive obligation under LAW to admit the CARDINAL children to the GPE . At the foot of the decision was a note that , according to settled case - law of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) , no appeal lay against a recommendation in respect of a request for advice given by ORG on the issuance of a provisional residence visa .","By DATE , when the present application was introduced , neither the applicant nor the CARDINAL children from his first marriage had filed a formal request for the issue of a provisional residence visa for the purpose of family reunion in the GPE either under the rules for family reunion of refugee families or under the rules applicable to regular family reunion .","According to a medical statement , drawn up on DATE by a doctor at ORG , GPE had undergone operations in this hospital from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and her present medical condition did not allow her to go to GPE .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG inter alia that he had recently rented a house in GPE for his children .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that his oldest son ORG had been arrested by the NORP authorities on the territory of GPE and had been taken into detention for failure to comply with his military obligations in GPE and possibly also for having illegally left GPE . The other CARDINAL children were still in GPE .","On DATE the applicant filed a fresh request for advice on the issuance of a provisional residence visa , submitting inter alia that , pursuant to LAW , the GPE authorities were under a positive obligation to provide the CARDINAL children concerned with a provisional residence permit . By letter of DATE , the applicant was informed by ORG ( Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst ) of ORG and ORG ( PERSON ) that his request was not suited for consideration in proceedings on a request for advice because he was asking for several exemptions and investigations which could not be considered in proceedings on a request for advice . The applicant was informed that his CARDINAL children should file a formal request for the issuance of a provisional residence visa in the country of origin or habitual residence . As to his requests for a DNA test and exemption of the minimum income requirement under the applicable immigration rules , he was informed that these belonged to the possibilities but would only be considered in the context of a formal request .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that , due to great difficulties in GPE , the CARDINAL children born out of his first marriage had had to leave that country . The youngest CARDINAL , ORG , had returned to GPE where they were living with their paternal grandmother . His oldest son was still in detention in GPE for failure to comply with his military obligations , and the applicant \u2019s daughter PERSON had been kidnapped and was being held by rebel forces in the south of GPE . These rebel forces had asked the applicant for money for her release .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that PERSON had managed to travel to LOC . She had joined the applicant in the GPE where she had been granted asylum . The applicant further stated that he was unaware of the whereabouts and fate of his oldest son ORG and that he intended to file an application for a provisional residence visa in due time for his CARDINAL youngest sons ORG who were still living with their grandmother in GPE and who would soon come of age and therefore eligible for military service in GPE .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that the application for a provisional residence visa he had filed on DATE as a sponsor ( mvv - referent aanvraag ) on behalf of ORG had been rejected on DATE by the Deputy Minister for Security and ORG because there was a discrepancy between the information provided by the applicant and the ORG about the exact year of birth of ORG , and the applicant had not demonstrated that he had legal custody of them as minor children . The applicant filed an objection ( bezwaar ) against this decision and , on DATE , submitted his written ground of appeal to the Deputy Minister and a hearing was scheduled for DATE . No further information about these proceedings has been submitted .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that his son PERSON had managed to reach the GPE where he had applied for asylum and that he was allowed to await the outcome of this application in the GPE . During his journey , he had been separated from his brother PERSON , who was still in GPE or GPE . The applicant was still in contact with ORG . Their eldest brother PERSON was doing his military service in GPE and therefore could not apply for a provisional residence visa , as GPE does not allow its nationals to leave the country and as there is no GPE embassy in GPE .","NORP In a ruling handed down on DATE ( case no . CARDINAL ; ORG : NL : RVS:CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , ORG found that ORG response on a request for advice for the issuance of a provisional residence visa is merely a recommendation ( advies ) and not a formal decision ( beslissing ) producing legal effects ( rechtsgevolgen ) within the meaning of LAW ( PERSON ) . Consequently , unlike a formal decision on a formal request for a provisional residence visa , such a response from ORG can not be challenged in administrative appeal proceedings .","A decision on a formal application for a provisional residence visa can be challenged in administrative appeal proceedings by filing an objection ( bezwaar ) with the executive administrative authority that took the decision , a subsequent request for judicial review before ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE and , finally , a further appeal to ORG . In these administrative appeal proceedings , an appellant can challenge the compatibility of the decision concerned with , for instance , LAW .","A positive recommendation on a request for advice for the issuance of a provisional residence visa does not automatically entail the issuance of such a visa . In order to obtain it , a petitioner must submit an actual application request for a provisional residence visa at the GPE mission in his or her country of origin or country of habitual residence . Any subsequent appeal proceedings can be brought by the petitioner or by a sponsor ( referent ) on the petitioner \u2019s behalf .","The rules governing the possibility to obtain an exemption from the obligation to pay statutory administrative charges ( leges ) in immigration proceedings have been set out in GPE v. the GPE ( GPE v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","Under the GPE immigration rules , the reunification of refugee families is in certain aspects less demanding for applicants than the procedure for regular family reunion in that , in the procedure for the reunification of refugee families , the accepted refugee does not have to comply with any income requirement ( on this point , see PERSON and Others v. the GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) before his or her nuclear family members may be eligible for family reunion and no administrative charges must be paid for an application for reunification of a refugee family . The requirements for documentary evidence from the country of origin are also less strict than in the regular procedure .","At the relevant time , a residence permit for the purpose of the reunification of a refugee family could be issued to the alien who actually belonged DATE whether as a spouse or minor child \u2013 to the de facto nuclear family unit ( feitelijke gezinsband ) at the time of flight of the accepted refugee , who held the same nationality as the accepted refugee , and who had entered the GPE at the same time as the accepted refugee or in respect of whom an application for a provisional residence visa had been filed within DATE on which the status of refugee had been granted to the person with whom family reunion was sought . The same applied in respect of a request for advice for the issuance of a provisional residence visa for the purpose of reunification of refugee families . Since DATE it is no longer possible to request such an advice as , from that date , it is possible for persons holding the status of refugee and living in the GPE to apply themselves , as a sponsor , for a provisional residence visa for relatives for the purpose of refugee family reunification .","Until DATE , a person eligible for a residence permit for the purpose of joining a spouse \/ partner in the GPE where the latter had been granted the status of refugee under the rules applicable to the reunification of a refugee family obtained an asylum - derived residence permit ( afgeleide verblijfsvergunning asiel ) , i.e. a residence permit dependent on the refugee status of the person with whom reunion had been allowed . Given the strict distinction between an asylum - related residence permit and a \u201c regular \u201d ( i.e. non - asylum related ) residence permit , arguments based on LAW could not be entertained in proceedings on an application for an asylum - related residence permit , including proceedings on a request for a residence permit for reunification of a refugee family .","As from DATE , when the order amending LAW CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( ORG circulaire DATE , \u201c GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u201d ) entered into force , LAW principles are taken into account in assessing \u2013 in proceedings on a request for a residence permit for the reunification of a refugee family \u2013 whether a person belongs to the family of an accepted refugee ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173505","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"KOVA\u010cEVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was physically attacked by a certain MONEY Following the said event , on DATE PERSON was found guilty in minor offence proceedings for breaching public order and peace and ordered to pay a fine .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action with ORG ( PERSON ) against FAC , claiming damages in connection with the physical attack on him . He submitted medical documentation in relation to the injuries he had sustained and requested that an expert report be obtained detailing the duration and intensity of his physical pain and mental suffering as a result of the attack on him .","On DATE ORG declared that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the applicant \u2019s case . The case was referred to ORG ( PERSON ) as the competent court .","At a hearing held on DATE the trial judge informed the applicant of the possibility of hiring a lawyer to assist him in the proceedings . The applicant maintained that he wished to represent himself .","At a hearing held on DATE the applicant and ORG representative agreed that the trial court should question the parties and CARDINAL witnesses , and should order an expert medical report detailing the means of infliction , the duration and the intensity of the applicant \u2019s physical pain and mental suffering as a result of ORG attack on him .","On DATE the trial court heard evidence from the applicant .","On DATE the trial court heard CARDINAL witnesses , as well as the applicant ( the plaintiff ) and the defendant . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s proposal for the police records of action undertaken in relation to the attack on him to be obtained . The applicant then stated that he had no further proposals for evidence . The relevant part of the record of the hearing reads as follows :","\u201c The plaintiff proposes in the next part of the proceedings to seek from the police their records of action undertaken , but the judge dismisses that evidence proposal , given that the minor offence proceedings file has been obtained ...","The plaintiff does not have any further evidence , or any proposal to adduce further evidence . The judge explains what evidence he can propose in the proceedings and in what manner , and warns him of the repercussions of applying the burden of proof rule .","...","The ORG renders a","decision","Given that the parties do not have any further proposals for evidence , even after a warning of the repercussions of applying the burden of proof rule , the court , which can not itself propose evidence in these proceedings , closes the hearing . \u201d","The applicant signed the record of the hearing without expressing any objections .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s civil action on the grounds that the scope and intensity of the consequences of the attack on him by PERSON had not been proven as he had not proposed the gathering of the necessary evidence , that is to say the obtaining of a medical expert report . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c The medical documentation in question was included in the civil action , the credibility of which was undisputed ... The court does not have the expertise to establish facts on the basis of medical documentation \u2013 that requires the expertise of a medical expert . However , in order to use the assistance of an expert in proving a fact or clarifying the real nature of the matter , it is necessary that a party , in this case the plaintiff , proposes doing so . It is only then that the court can order an examination and an expert report on the question of whether the plaintiff sustained injuries in the incident concerned , and if so , which and of what kind , and also whether he experienced mental suffering and physical pain , and if so , of what intensity and duration ...","Therefore , there was neither any evidence as to the viability and the extent of the consequences , nor any proposal to adduce such evidence ( obtaining the medical expert report ) , as the damage caused by the defendant to the plaintiff ...","The court warned the plaintiff of the repercussions of applying the burden of proof rule at a hearing held on DATE \u2012 after he [ the plaintiff ] stated that he had neither any further evidence nor any proposals to adduce further evidence \u2012 and informed him that he could be represented by a lawyer ... which he [ the plaintiff ] disregarded . \u201d","NORP The applicant appealed against this judgment , alleging in particular that his statement concerning the obtaining of a medical expert report had been incorrectly entered into the record of the hearing . The relevant part of his appeal reads as follows :","\u201c ... the statement which appears in the reasoning of the first - instance judgment to the effect that the plaintiff did not propose the obtainment of an expert report is incorrect , because the plaintiff \u2019s statement in that respect was not correctly entered in the records . In particular , the plaintiff stated that , if the court could not establish the facts on the basis of the offered evidence , and if the presence of the plaintiff \u2019s witness ( GPE ) could not be ensured , then , if necessary , [ the court should ] supplement the evidence as to the facts with an expert report .","The court misinterpreted the plaintiff \u2019s statement in that respect and therefore came to the wrong conclusion ... \u201d","DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded , holding that the first - instance court had duly examined all the parties\u2019 relevant submissions . It noted in particular that the record of the hearing held before the first - instance court indicated that the trial judge had warned the applicant of the repercussions of failing to propose the gathering of relevant evidence , and that the records had been signed without any objections .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) , alleging in particular that the lower courts should not have dismissed his civil action merely because no expert report had been obtained in the proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as ill - founded . It held , in particular , that the lower courts had correctly dismissed the applicant \u2019s civil action by applying the burden of proof rule , given that the applicant , although warned , had failed to propose that an expert medical report be obtained .","The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , challenging the decisions of the lower courts . He alleged , in particular , that the courts had dismissed his civil action on the grounds that he had failed to propose that the expert medical report be obtained , even though he had expressly proposed that such evidence be obtained at the hearing held on DATE .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . This decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154151","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160ABLIJ v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant \u2019s identity has been the subject of controversy at the national level . In his submission to the ORG he referred to himself as mentioned above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , and indicated his year of birth as DATE .","During the proceedings in GPE described below , the applicant also was or has been referred to as PERSON , with the surname at birth of PERSON , alias ORG , born in DATE , and as PERSON , a NORP national .","On DATE the applicant was arrested ; on DATE he was remanded in custody pending trial on charges of conspiracy and murder .","On DATE the GPE I ORG ( ORG s\u00fad ) authorised extension of his pre - trial detention until DATE . Following an appeal by the applicant ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) on DATE upheld that decision .","On DATE the applicant was indicted to stand trial ; on CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed his request for release .","ORG heard the case on DATE and a further hearing was scheduled for CARDINAL to DATE .","On DATE the applicant was acquitted ; his acquittal was upheld on appeal on DATE .","On DATE , while he was still in detention , and acting through the intermediary of his lawyer , the applicant requested release . In support of the request , he argued that he was innocent and that his detention in the present trial was no more than an arbitrary means of retaining him in detention in the interest of another trial .","The request was submitted by mail and was received at ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG heard the applicant in private , when he confirmed that he was seeking a response to the request for release he had made in DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the request and the applicant stated on the record that he wished to appeal .","Through his lawyer , the applicant submitted his reasons for appealing in writing on DATE . At the same time , he offered a pledge that , if released , he would live in accordance with the law .","On DATE , at a private session , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and rejected his offer . It observed , inter alia , that there had been unjustified delay in dealing with the applicant \u2019s request at the first level of jurisdiction , which could potentially serve as a ground for calling the President of its ORG to account , but which in itself did not constitute a reason for releasing the applicant .","The written version of the decision of DATE was served on the applicant via ORG on DATE . It was not amenable to appeal .","In DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) .","He directed the complaint against ORG and alleged that , in determining his request for release of DATE , there had been a violation of his right under LAW to a \u201c speedy \u201d review of the lawfulness of his detention .","In terms of redress , he claimed reimbursement of his legal costs and MONEY ( ORG ) by way of compensation .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint admissible ; on DATE it found a violation of the applicant \u2019s right as claimed .","Referring to its previous judgments in cases nos . III . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , I. \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , III . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and III . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG observed that the \u201c speediness \u201d requirement would usually not be deemed to have been respected if the length of the proceedings in question amounted to DATE , as opposed to DATE ; if the proceedings lasted DATE at a single level of jurisdiction ; or if there had been a period of judicial inactivity amounting to DATE .","As regards the merits , ORG found ORG handling of the applicant \u2019s request \u201c particularly lengthy \u201d and \u201c extraordinarily and unacceptably long \u201d . It could neither be justified nor explained by the fact that , at the hearing held on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant had taken no action and had not demanded a decision on his request for release .","As regards just satisfaction , it awarded the applicant reimbursement of his legal costs but rejected the remainder of his claim . In that regard , ORG referred \u2019s fundamental rights and freedoms . It concluded that the finding of a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights was sufficient just satisfaction for him .","The Constitutional Court \u2019s decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174975","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA;CHE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"E.T. AND N.T. v. SWITZERLAND AND ITALY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants , PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) , born in DATE , and her son PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) , born in DATE , are NORP nationals . The President granted the ORG request for their identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . They were represented before the ORG by Ms S. Motz , a lawyer practising in GPE .","In DATE the first applicant fled her home country , travelling via GPE and GPE , from where she reached the island of GPE in GPE where she claimed asylum on DATE . She was assigned to a centre for asylum - seekers in GPE , GPE . After DATE there , she was recognised as a refugee . However , she was no longer entitled to stay in the asylum centre . She therefore went to GPE where her boyfriend , who had fled with her from GPE and had also been recognised as a refugee , was living . It was very difficult for the first applicant to find a place to stay and she slept in a train station in GPE and later in a squat for refugees called \u201c FAC \u201d . She claimed that the situation in that squat had been especially difficult for women . Her boyfriend had not been allowed to stay with her and she therefore had lived under the constant threat of sexual attacks from other men living there . Without knowledge of the NORP language it was furthermore impossible for her to find a job . She received food from soup kitchens run by ORG in GPE . The first applicant and her boyfriend also approached PERSON in FAC DATE , the communal accommodation office for homeless people in GPE ( \u201c the immigration office \u201d ) . The immigration office put them on a waiting list . DATE , on DATE , the first applicant was allocated a sleeping place but she was somehow not informed of this . The applicant remained in FAC for DATE . She became pregnant with the second applicant and her boyfriend left her . Owing to the unbearable living conditions in GPE she decided , when she was DATE pregnant , to apply for asylum in GPE .","On DATE she applied for asylum in GPE . On DATE she gave birth to her son , the second applicant . By a decision of DATE ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) dismissed her asylum request based on her having been granted refugee status in GPE . In DATE both applicants were removed to GPE .","During the ORG second stay in GPE , they were informed by the immigration office in GPE that they could not be provided with housing immediately , but that they would be put on a waiting list . The first applicant approached private organisations to obtain housing , without success . As she was even unable to find a place for her and her son to sleep in one of the squats in GPE , both applicants ended up sleeping in the streets and in the main train station with other homeless people . With the remainder of the money the first applicant had received from the NORP authorities she decided to travel , together with the second applicant , to GPE to apply for asylum there . She sought to claim asylum there in DATE and her asylum request was registered on DATE . CARDINAL DATE it was dismissed and in DATE they were removed from GPE to GPE .","In GPE the first applicant unsuccessfully approached on several occasions the immigration office in GPE as well as private organisations in order to obtain accommodation . In relation to a residence document for her son , the immigration office informed her that she should return to Crotone since she had been registered there and the authorities there were responsible for her . In DATE the applicant therefore travelled to Crotone in order to register her son and to seek accommodation for them . The authorities there however informed her that there was no organisation which could assist her and that she should return to GPE . Upon her return to GPE , the immigration office eventually registered her on the waiting list on DATE . Since no accommodation in GPE was available , the applicants had to return to ORG . The living conditions in that squat were unacceptable , especially for a child . Owing to the precarious sanitary conditions and the lack of adequate nutrition , the second applicant suffered serious dental problems . As the first applicant could furthermore not pay the required fees for staying in FAC , she was repeatedly asked to leave the place .","Out of despair and in order to avoid sleeping in the streets of GPE in wintertime with a little child , the first applicant decided to travel to GPE again . She applied a second time for asylum in GPE on DATE . According to the immigration office in GPE , the applicants would have received a place to stay in DATE , but at this point they had already gone to GPE . On DATE the ORG dismissed the ORG request on the basis that the applicants could avail themselves of the protection of a safe third country , namely GPE .","On DATE the applicants lodged a qualified application for review with the ORG . The applicants claimed that the ORG had failed to take into account the various indications that the applicants had to live in inhuman conditions in GPE . By decision of QUANTITY DATE the ORG dismissed their request ruling that GPE was under an obligation under LAW to provide the applicants with accommodation and financial support . In addition , private aid organisations could also assist the applicants . The LAW also held that the removal to GPE would not violate the rights of the child under LAW on the Rights of the Child .","Upon appeal , ORG ( \u201c the FAC \u201d ) granted the applicants interim measures on DATE in order to await the outcome of the proceedings in GPE . By a decision of DATE the ORG dismissed the ORG appeal .","With regard to a possible breach of LAW , the FAC established that based on the facts of the case no particular risk of illtreatment in GPE could be identified . GPE had signed all the relevant international human - rights treaties which it was obliged to respect and was bound to LAW , which provides that recognised refugees should in principle be treated like nationals regarding social assistance and health care . The FAC found that some structural deficits for refugees in GPE existed , primarily in the regions of GPE , GPE and GPE as well as in GPE and GPE . Based on the facts of the case , the FAC had no doubts that the situation for refugees and asylum - seekers in GPE was unbearable and that they were not provided with basic social assistance . Furthermore , it accepted that there was a considerable risk if returned to GPE , the applicants would be obliged to live in the streets again . Since the immigration office in GPE had already offered the applicants a place to stay in the past , it could be expected that they would also be offered CARDINAL in the future , however not immediately . Therefore , the FAC considered the risk of the applicants\u2019 living in the streets of GPE upon their return there to be considerable . However , the situation for refugees was not as bad in other regions of GPE as in GPE . As recognised refugees , the applicants had the possibility to settle in another region of GPE where the living conditions were presumably better . In this regard the FAC held that it was not comprehensible why the first applicant , who had been able to seek refuge in GPE and GPE , had not travelled to another region of GPE , in particular to the LOC , in order to look for housing there . It found that it was feasible to expect the applicants to seek and find housing in another region of GPE , as , for example , provided by ORG in GPE ( ORG ) , in GPE ( ORG of ORG ) , in GPE ( GPE polifunzionale PERSON di GPE ) as well as in different places in GPE . The ORG stated that it was more likely than not that the applicants would be able to find adequate accommodation there and would be able to live with dignity . Therefore , they were not at risk of ill - treatment if returned to GPE .","Following this ruling , ORG ( Schweizerische Fl\u00fcchtlingshilfe ) , a NORP non - governmental organisation ( \u201c NGO \u201d ) , contacted on behalf of the applicants the mentioned organisations in GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON in order to enquire whether the applicants could be accommodated there . ORG was however informed that none of the organisations would be able to accommodate the applicants as they firstly needed to have their official residence in that municipality and secondly there were no resources for a single mother with her child . As there were very long waiting lists , it was impossible to tell how long it would take to obtain a place . In addition , the fact that the applicants had been registered in Crotone made it even more difficult for them to relocate elsewhere despite the fact that the situation in GPE was well - known for being inadequate for single mothers with children . It was also possible that the mother and the child would be separated since social services only had obligations towards the child but not towards the mother .","On DATE , the applicants submitted a letter written by the teacher of the second applicant about his integration in GPE . The applicants also repeated their complaints .","The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE , as in force at the relevant time , read as follows :","\u201c ...","ORG shall identify states in which on the basis of its findings :","a. States of origin or provenance which are safe , that is to say those in which the applicant runs no risk of persecution ;","b. safe third countries , that is to say those in which it considers that the principle of non - refoulement , within the meaning of section ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , is actually observed .","It shall periodically review decisions made under paragraph CARDINAL .","If the asylum - seeker has arrived from a country where he or she does not run the risk of persecution within the meaning of section CARDINALa(CARDINAL)(a ) , the ORG [ ORG , now ORG [ PERSON f\u00fcr Migration ] ] shall not examine the application unless there are signs of persecution .","As a general rule , the ORG shall not examine an asylum application where the asylum - seeker","a. can return to a safe third country within the meaning of section CARDINALa(CARDINAL)(b ) where he or she has resided previously ;","... \u201d","A detailed description of the asylum procedure and the legal framework and organisation of the reception system for asylum - seekers in GPE is also set out in the ORG judgment LOC v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) .","By a letter of DATE , the co - Agent of ORG submitted a message of DATE of the NORP centrale , the body running the ORG ( ORG di protezione per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati ) network , stating that it had asked the municipality of PERSON to accommodate the applicants as a single - parent family in the appropriate structures put in place by the municipality .","By a letter of DATE , the co - Agent of ORG submitted a note from ORG and replied to the Acting President \u2019s invitation to provide the ORG with a letter from the NGO in question which confirms the availability of accommodation for the applicants . ORG reply included the following :","\u201c It is clear from the aforementioned memorandum that ORG , on the basis of its own requirements , may directly allocate places in favour of beneficiaries of international protection in the reception facilities that are part of the ORG network .","Accordingly , the message of DATE of the NORP centrale , which is running the ORG network , constitutes in itself confirmation of the reservation in the reception project in favour of the applicant and her son , without further confirmation being necessary . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148458","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"\u0106APIN v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant in both cases , Mr PERSON , is a LOC national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . At the relevant time he was the Director of ORG , a public institution . He was also a member of ORG of ORG ( ORG narodna stranka ; hereinafter \u201c SNS \u201d ) . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","On DATE the complaints concerning the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression were communicated to the Government and the remainder of the applications was declared inadmissible .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE a \u201c Public letter to the artists and writers of ORG \u201d ( Otvoreno pismo hercegnovskim umjetnicima i piscima ) , signed by ORG , on his own behalf and on behalf of CARDINAL other artists , was published in some of the printed and electronic media in GPE . The letter stated , inter alia , that the applicant , as the Director of ORG , had refused an exhibition of an NORP painter in DATE , as well as , soon afterwards , a programme for the presentation of \u201c DATE of GPE in ORG \u201d . He had allegedly also attempted to censor an artistic selection for another exhibition , which had made several artists withdraw . In conclusion , it was requested that the art institutions in ORG be run again \u201c by artists and writers of integrity and reputation and not by semi - skilled culture - agitators and party activists \u201d .","On DATE the applicant , apparently as an associate journalist ( novinar saradnik ) of an opposition DATE magazine \u201c Pokret \u201d , which existed at the time , wrote an article entitled \u201c A special war against ORG \u201d . The article stated , inter alia , that \u201c the idea about the \u2018 ORG of the exhibition was [ ... ] elaborated by a group of the so - called \u2018 prominent ORG [ including ORG ] . [ ... ] Of course , few cared what the \u2018 prominent ORG would say , as it was well known that they had to sign whatever nastiness ( gadost ) they were given to sign , as otherwise they would be neither \u2018 prominent\u2019 nor \u2018 Montenegrin\u2019 , and they were certainly not intellectuals \u201d .","On DATE PERSON filed a private criminal action ( privatna krivi\u010dna tu\u017eba ) against the applicant for insult ( uvreda ) , claiming that the above - cited statement publicly \u201c belittled him and underestimated his personal and professional values \u201d .","On DATE GPE , as a single judge of ORG ( PERSON ) in ORG , found the applicant guilty of insult , fined him CARDINAL ( \u201c EUR \u201d ) , ordered him to pay ORG CARDINAL for the court fees ( sudski pau\u0161al ) and decided that the judgment at issue would be published in \u201c NORP \u201d . The judgment further specified that if the fine was not paid within DATE as of DATE when the judgment became final , it would be converted into a prison term , EUR CARDINAL being equal to DATE in prison .","The court rejected the applicant \u2019s defence that he could not be held responsible for something he had said as a journalist and without any intention to belittle , and that his statement was merely an opinion provoked by the untrue allegations relating to the refusal of the said exhibition contained in the public letter . The court also considered that the applicant , being also a journalist , must have known that the freedom of expression was restricted by the need to protect the honour and the reputation of others , and should have acted accordingly . It was further held that the public letter was not insulting for the applicant , as it was written in the context of a serious professional criticism of the applicant \u2019s work as ORG Director , with the aim of protecting interests of greater public importance . The court concluded that the expressions used by the applicant belittled and underestimated ORG personal and professional integrity . In deciding on the amount of the fine , the court took into consideration , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s insulting statement was given \u201c as a reaction to an earlier insult by the private prosecutor and the others \u201d .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE upheld the decision that the applicant was guilty of insult and at the same time reduced the fine to LAW . It was reaffirmed that the fine , if not paid , would be converted into a prison sentence .","On an unspecified date thereafter the fine was allegedly paid by the SNS , following a decision of the SNS President to that effect .","On DATE ORG in ORG issued a decision converting the fine into DATE of imprisonment as it had apparently not been paid within the specified time - limit . The applicant did not file an appeal against this decision . It would also appear that he has not served a prison sentence .","The applicant maintained in his submissions to the ORG that a number of the court documents had not been served on him properly and in a timely manner . The Government , for their part , submitted a copy of the delivery slips signed by the applicant and his representative in the domestic proceedings confirming that the High Court judgment was served on them on DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE CARDINAL of the LOC DATE newspapers published an article entitled \u201c PERSON : ORG wants to move me out of GPE \u201d ( \u201c PERSON : ORG ho\u0107e da me iseli iz PERSON \u201d ) . The article contained the SNS \u2019s comments on the first - instance judgment rendered by GPE in the first set of criminal proceedings against the applicant . It continued with the applicant \u2019s comment , part of which read as follows : \u201c ORG of GPE filed CARDINAL complaints ( prijave ) with the court in ORG against me as an associate journalist of \u201c NORP \u201d . [ The complaints ] have been processed as a priority ( preko reda ) even though the [ court ] has a backlog of CARDINAL unresolved cases . This time , due to loyalty to the party ( po partijskoj du\u017enosti ) , everything had to be done as a priority . A hearing was scheduled in a particularly short period . CARDINAL such trial was held DATE and it resembled the proceedings before a court martial ( prijeki sud ) rather than regular proceedings . I was fined ORG CARDINAL for a publicly expressed opinion which I made as an associate journalist . \u201d","On DATE GPE filed a private criminal action against the applicant , claiming that the following words , in particular , amounted to defamation : \u201c this time , due to loyalty to the party , everything had to be done as a priority . A hearing was scheduled in a particularly short period . CARDINAL such trial was held DATE and it resembled the proceedings before a court martial rather than regular proceedings \u201d .","On DATE , at the hearing held after a remittal , the applicant stated , inter alia , that as a politician , journalist and a legal representative of ORG he had the right to express his personal , political and professional opinions as well as to criticise negative phenomena in society . He stated that he had never mentioned GPE , although , as a public official , she had a duty to tolerate criticism even when it was not justified . He maintained that the trial against him had been treated as a priority as the judges had first to deal with the older cases . In this regard he referred to a public statement of the President of ORG that each judge at the court in ORG had a backlog of CARDINAL cases and that the older cases were priority . The applicant confirmed that DATE after the delivery of the judgment in the first set of criminal proceedings he had indeed commented publicly on the work of the court and its dealing with cases which were not priority .","On DATE ORG in GPE found the applicant guilty of defamation and fined him LAW , which fine could be converted into a prison sentence if it was not paid within DATE as of DATE when the judgment became final . He was also ordered to pay ORG CARDINAL for the court fees . The court considered that even though the applicant had not mentioned GPE personally , it was clear from the text and its context which judge and judgment he had been referring to . The court held that the statement at issue was untrue and that , in particular , the words \u201c due to loyalty to the party \u201d , \u201c in a particularly short period \u201d and \u201c court martial \u201d could harm GPE \u2019s personal and professional honour and reputation .","On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision . He submitted , in particular , that the court had not taken into consideration either the Convention or the ORG \u2019s case - law and that both the private prosecutor and himself , as public officials , had a duty to tolerate a higher level of criticism .","On DATE ORG in GPE upheld the first - instance judgment , in substance endorsing the reasons given by ORG . The court rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that he had criticised the work of the court in general and not GPE","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal filed on CARDINAL DATE and found a violation of LAW . It quashed the ORG judgment and ordered a re - trial . In doing so , ORG held , in particular , that the interference with the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression was not necessary in a democratic society and that the reasoning of the domestic courts was not relevant and sufficient to justify it . The disputed expressions used by the applicant related to the behaviour of GPE in her official capacity and not to her private life . In addition , the nature and the level of the fine , which under certain conditions could be replaced by imprisonment , were of particular importance in assessing the proportionality of the interference . The court also ordered that its decision be published in ORG .","On DATE ORG overturned the judgment of ORG of DATE and acquitted the applicant given that the defamation had been decriminalised in the meantime ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant paid the court fees . It would appear that he has never paid the above fine .","On CARDINAL DATE the President of ORG stated that each judge of ORG in ORG was in charge of CARDINAL cases , some of which were DATE , and that the older cases ( predmeti iz prethodnih godina ) should be given priority .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s salary was CARDINAL ORG per month .","Article CARDINAL provides that the Constitutional Court shall rule on a constitutional appeal lodged in respect of an alleged violation of a human right or freedom guaranteed by the LAW , after all other effective legal remedies have been exhausted .","The LAW entered into force on DATE .","Section CARDINAL provides that a constitutional appeal may be lodged against an individual decision of a ORG body , an administrative body , a local self - government body or a legal person exercising public authority , for violations of human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the LAW , after all other effective legal remedies have been exhausted .","Sections CARDINAL provide additional details as regards the processing of constitutional appeals . In particular , section CARDINAL provides that when ORG finds a violation of a human right or freedom , it shall quash the impugned decision , entirely or partially , and order that the case be re - examined by the same body which rendered the quashed decision .","This Act entered into force in DATE .","Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL provided that insult and defamation , respectively , were criminal offences and specified sanctions therefor . These ORG were repealed on DATE by virtue of the amendments to LAW .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provided that if the fine was not paid within the specified time , it would be replaced by a prison sentence , ORG CARDINAL corresponding to a day in prison . This provision was changed by virtue of another set of amendments to LAW , which entered into force on DATE , and which provided that LAW corresponded to a day in prison . At the same time a new provision was introduced to the effect that the unpaid fine could also be replaced by work in the public interest ( rad u javnom interesu ) instead of a prison sentence , LAW corresponding to TIME of such work .","Section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the sanctions for insult and defamation shall not be enforced , the convictions shall be expunged and their legal consequences shall cease .","Section CARDINAL provides that a decision to this effect shall be rendered of its own motion by a court which is in charge of the enforcement of the sanction or upon the request of a convicted person .","This Act entered into force on DATE .","Sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , taken together , provide , inter alia , that anyone who has suffered fear , physical pain or mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of his reputation , personal integrity , liberty or of his other personal rights ( prava li\u010dnosti ) shall be entitled to seek injunctive relief , sue for financial compensation and request other forms of redress \u201c which might be capable \u201d of affording adequate non - pecuniary satisfaction .","Section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that a legal entity ( pravno lice ) , which includes the ORG , shall be liable for any damage caused by CARDINAL of its bodies to a \u201c third person \u201d in the course of performing its functions or related thereto .","This Act entered into force on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180104","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"BA\u015eKAYA v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 son and brother , PERSON , who was a student at a public university in GPE at the material time ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) , drowned in the university \u2019s Olympic swimming pool .","Soon after the incident police officers arrived at the swimming pool and examined the accident site together with the deputy manager of the pool , PERSON According to the information provided by PERSON , PERSON was taken to ORG following initial medical assistance administered beside the pool . The police drew up a sketch map of the scene of the incident , showing that the victim had drowned in the middle of the pool , where the water depth was QUANTITY . Another report prepared by the police on DATE indicated that a diabetic ID card had been found amongst the belongings recovered from victim \u2019s changing room locker .","Still on DATE , the police questioned CARDINAL suspects in respect of the incident : the lifeguards employed at the pool , GPE and GPE , the medical officer at the pool , PERSON , and the deputy manager of the pool , PERSON","GPE told the police that when he and his colleague , C.A. , who had been positioned on the other side of the pool at the material time , noticed a person drowning in the middle of the pool , they jumped in and rescued him . When they first took him out , the young man was unconscious , but still had a pulse . They immediately performed the relevant first aid procedures with the assistance of the medical officer PERSON , and TIME later an ambulance arrived and took the man to the hospital . GPE stated that it was only after the incident that they learned that the victim was diabetic . GPE also claimed that before sinking under water , the victim had not called for help in any way , nor had he made any movements suggesting that he was in danger of drowning .","The other CARDINAL suspects , C.A. , PERSON and PERSON , gave similar statements to that of GPE \u2019s .","On DATE , the police also questioned CARDINAL eye witnesses , who gave statements along the same lines as the suspects .","The autopsy carried out on DATE confirmed the cause of death as drowning .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office filed a bill of indictment with ORG against the CARDINAL lifeguards , GPE and GPE , the medical officer at the pool , PERSON , and the deputy manager , PERSON , for causing the death of Celal Ba\u015fkaya by their failure to take the necessary safety measures at the swimming pool .","The applicants joined the proceedings before ORG as civil parties not seeking compensation . In the petition which he submitted to the assize court , the first applicant , PERSON ( the victim \u2019s brother ) , claimed that the lifeguards had failed to pay attention to his brother \u2019s initial calls for help and had intervened too late .","Before ORG , the defendants repeated their previous police statements . The lifeguard C.A. informed the assize court that there had been DATE CARDINAL people at the swimming pool at the material time . At the start of the proceedings , the GPE lawyer challenged the autopsy report as being incomplete , given that it had not been established during the autopsy whether the victim \u2212 who had suffered from diabetes mellitus \u2212 had died because he had lapsed into a diabetic coma in the swimming pool . The lawyer requested from the court another autopsy to establish whether he had died of diabetesrelated causes . The matter was brought before ORG , which informed the assize court that blood samples taken after death would not be indicative of the glucose levels preceding death .","At the subsequent hearings the assize court heard statements from witnesses who confirmed that the victim knew how to swim and had drowned without making any noise or movements . The assize court also conducted an on - site examination of the university swimming pool in the presence of the defendants , the applicants\u2019 lawyer , and CARDINAL experts ( CARDINAL expert lifeguard and CARDINAL physician from ORG ) .","In his report dated DATE the expert lifeguard stated that according to the information in the case file the victim , who apparently knew how to swim , had drowned without any attempts to attract attention . There was , moreover , no evidence to suggest that the lifeguards had neglected their rescue duties in any way . In these circumstances , the expert found that there were no grounds to hold the lifeguards accountable in connection with the death of PERSON .","In his report dated DATE the medical expert found that at the time of the incident there were CARDINAL lifeguards and CARDINAL medical officer on duty at the swimming pool , which showed that the necessary safety measures had been in place . The evidence in the case file suggested that the victim knew how to swim , that he had drowned without calling for help or showing any other signs of distress , and that the lifeguards had intervened as soon as they noticed the victim at the bottom of the pool . Without expressing any view as to whether the victim \u2019s death had been related to his diabetes , the expert stated that strenuous physical activity could cause glucose levels to drop , which could in turn lead to loss of consciousness . If the victim had experienced such a hypoglycaemic attack while under water and had , as a result , lost consciousness , it was possible that the lifeguards or other people in the pool might not have realised right away that there was a problem . In the light of all this information , the medical expert stated that the defendants had no responsibility in connection with the victim \u2019s death .","On DATE ORG requested another expert report from ORG regarding the liability of the defendants in respect of the death of Celal Ba\u015fkaya .","On DATE ORG rejected that request as being outside the scope of its duties . ORG therefore ordered another expert report from CARDINAL experts on occupational safety .","In their report dated DATE the experts on occupational safety made the following findings :","\u2013 Considering that the victim knew how to swim , which was not contested , he must have experienced a health problem that caused him to lose consciousness and sink while halfway across the pool .","\u2013 Although it was not possible to determine with any certainty what type of health problem had brought about his drowning , the victim was diabetic . The possible outcomes of hypoglycaemia caused by strenuous physical activity had been outlined in the medical expert \u2019s opinion dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","\u2013 It therefore appeared that the victim had silently sunk to the bottom of the pool without calling for help or showing other signs of drowning as a result of his underlying medical condition .","\u2013 Bearing in mind that the victim had been CARDINAL of the many swimmers in the pool , it could not be expected for the lifeguards to follow all the movements of all the swimmers at all times and to intervene despite the absence of any signs of distress .","\u2013 In these circumstances , the lifeguards , who had intervened as soon as they noticed the victim at the bottom of the pool , could not be held accountable for the victim \u2019s death .","Relying on all the evidence and the information in the case file , on DATE ORG ordered the defendants\u2019 acquittal .","The applicants appealed against that judgment . They objected in particular to the findings in the expert report issued by the physician on DATE . They also argued that the expert report of DATE had not been made available to them .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first instance court and decided to discontinue the proceedings as the prosecution of the offence in question had become time - barred . This decision , which was deposited with the registry of the first - instance court on CARDINAL DATE , was served on the applicants on DATE .","The applicants alleged , without submitting any supporting documents , that the lifeguards had been discharged from their duties in the aftermath of the incident . This information was neither confirmed nor contested by the Government ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174418","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DNGIKYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was born in GPE and grew up in a house in GPE which had been built by his grandfather in DATE . After the grandfather \u2019s death the applicant \u2019s uncle lived with his family on the first floor of the house , while the applicant \u2019s family lived on the second floor . The entrance to the house is common to the occupants of the first and second floors , and there is a common plot of land adjacent to it .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s uncle sold the first floor of the house to ORG","The applicant later moved to GPE with his father , who died there in DATE , leaving all his property to the applicant .","In DATE the applicant submitted his father \u2019s will to a notary in GPE . The notary then issued a certificate of inheritance and ORG registered his title in respect of the second floor of the house .","NORP In DATE ORG sold the first floor of the house to PERSON , who registered her title in respect of the first floor . She also obtained the right of common ownership in respect of the adjacent land .","It appears that PERSON and her family carried out construction works in the house and on the plot of land adjacent to it , modifying both the house and the surrounding area . They have built and are running a restaurant there .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a civil claim against PERSON , PERSON and ORG , seeking to annul PERSON \u2019s title in respect of the first floor and the adjacent land , and to oblige her to demolish the buildings constructed without the permission of the authorities and to restore the stone wall that she had destroyed . PERSON in her turn lodged a counterclaim against the applicant , seeking to annul the will and the subsequent registration of his title as regards the plot of land adjacent to the house .","By a judgment of DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE ( \u0535\u0580\u0587\u0561\u0576 \u0584\u0561\u0572\u0561\u0584\u056b \u053f\u0565\u0576\u057f\u0580\u0578\u0576 \u0587 \u0546\u0578\u0580\u0584-\u0544\u0561\u0580\u0561\u0577 \u0570\u0561\u0574\u0561\u0575\u0576\u0584\u0576\u0565\u0580\u056b \u0561\u057c\u0561\u057b\u056b\u0576 \u0561\u057f\u0575\u0561\u0576\u056b \u0564\u0561\u057f\u0561\u0580\u0561\u0576 \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) partially allowed the applicant \u2019s claim and dismissed PERSON \u2019s counterclaim .","On DATE ORG ( \u0540\u0540 \u0584\u0561\u0572\u0561\u0584\u0561\u0581\u056b\u0561\u056f\u0561\u0576 \u0563\u0578\u0580\u056e\u0565\u0580\u0578\u057e \u057e\u0565\u0580\u0561\u0584\u0576\u0576\u056b\u0579 \u0564\u0561\u057f\u0561\u0580\u0561\u0576 ) re - examined the case on the merits . It granted the applicant \u2019s claims in their entirety and rejected PERSON \u2019s counterclaim .","PERSON subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of ORG .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( \u0540\u0540 \u057e\u0573\u057c\u0561\u0562\u0565\u056f \u0564\u0561\u057f\u0561\u0580\u0561\u0576\u056b \u0584\u0561\u0572\u0561\u0584\u0561\u0581\u056b\u0561\u056f\u0561\u0576 \u0587 \u057f\u0576\u057f\u0565\u057d\u0561\u056f\u0561\u0576 \u0563\u0578\u0580\u056e\u0565\u0580\u056b \u057a\u0561\u056c\u0561\u057f ) dismissed PERSON \u2019s appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment of ORG . The judgment of CARDINAL DATE thereby became final and binding and a writ of execution was issued in this respect .","On DATE enforcement proceedings were instituted by ORG ( \u0534\u0561\u057f\u0561\u056f\u0561\u0576 \u0561\u056f\u057f\u0565\u0580\u056b \u0570\u0561\u0580\u056f\u0561\u0564\u056b\u0580 \u056f\u0561\u057f\u0561\u0580\u0574\u0561\u0576 \u056e\u0561\u057c\u0561\u0575\u0578\u0582\u0569\u0575\u0578\u0582\u0576 \u2013 \u201c the DEJA \u201d ) .","Thereafter the head of the ORG division of ORG ( \u0531\u0576\u0577\u0561\u0580\u056a \u0563\u0578\u0582\u0575\u0584\u056b \u056f\u0561\u0564\u0561\u057d\u057f\u0580\u056b \u057a\u0565\u057f\u0561\u056f\u0561\u0576 \u056f\u0578\u0574\u056b\u057f\u0565\u056b PERSON \u057f\u0561\u0580\u0561\u056e\u0584\u0561\u0575\u056b\u0576 \u057d\u057f\u0578\u0580\u0561\u0562\u0561\u056a\u0561\u0576\u0578\u0582\u0574 ) requested ORG to clarify the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a clarification of the above - mentioned judgment . It stated , in particular , that the title to the plot of land adjacent to the house was to be registered in the applicant \u2019s name . This decision became final and was also submitted for enforcement .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim against the GPE division of ORG , the ORG and PERSON , seeking to oblige the ORG division of ORG to comply with the requirements of the judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE and the decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning its clarification , to evict PERSON and other persons who were unlawfully occupying his property , and to terminate the activities of the restaurant situated therein .","By the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in its entirety . It stated , in particular , that the applicant \u2019s title was to be registered in respect of the plot of land adjacent to the house and the constructions situated therein , that PERSON and the other persons occupying the applicant \u2019s property were to be evicted , and that these persons should terminate the activities of the restaurant .","After an appeal lodged by PERSON on DATE ORG re - examined the case and allowed the applicant \u2019s claim . In doing so , it stated that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL had not yet been enforced since the applicant \u2019s title had not been registered and the constructions had not been demolished . ORG went on to state that the non - enforcement of the above - mentioned judicial acts was in violation of LAW No . CARDINAL in that the applicant \u2019s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was being violated by the illegal occupation of his property by PERSON without the applicant \u2019s permission . This judgment became final and binding on DATE of its delivery and on DATE enforcement proceedings were instituted in its respect .","Since DATE a number of decisions have been made by the bailiffs in respect of obliging PERSON to comply with the requirements of the judgment in the applicant \u2019s favour within certain time - limits . However , each time PERSON has failed to comply with these decisions , for which failure the bailiffs have each time imposed a fine . It appears that she has also failed to pay the fines .","In DATE enforcement activities were postponed on the grounds that various measures applied in respect of PERSON had been ineffective in view of the fact that the ORG needed to suspend the proceedings in order to conclude a contract with a construction company , given the absence of technical equipment necessary for conducting the compulsory construction works . It appears that at some point the proceedings were resumed .","By a letter of DATE the Minister of ORG informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that the GPE division of ORG had justified the non - registration of the applicant \u2019s title in respect of his property by pointing to the fact that the constructions situated therein had not been demolished because the ORG did not have the appropriate technical equipment and workforce at its disposal .","It appears that until DATE other measures were initiated by the ORG , such as obliging the GPE division of ORG to perform the registration of the applicant \u2019s title , in accordance with the judgments in his favour , and setting new time - limits for PERSON to comply with her obligations . However , it appears that these measures did not lead to the full enforcement of the judicial acts in question .","On an unspecified date the applicant applied to ORG ( \u0540\u0540 \u0563\u056c\u056d\u0561\u057e\u0578\u0580 \u0564\u0561\u057f\u0561\u056d\u0561\u0566\u0578\u0582\u0569\u0575\u0578\u0582\u0576 ) , seeking to have criminal proceedings instituted against those responsible for not enforcing the judicial acts in question . His request was refused .","Following a complaint lodged by the applicant , on DATE ORG annulled the decision of ORG to refuse to institute criminal proceedings , on the grounds that the investigator had not taken proper action to verify whether the bailiffs had carried out their duties properly with a view to securing the enforcement of the above - mentioned judicial acts in favour of the applicant . As a result , criminal proceedings were instituted against the bailiffs and officials of the GPE division of ORG .","On DATE the investigator terminated the proceedings on the grounds that the judicial acts in question had not \u2013 for objectively justifiable reasons \u2013 been enforced .","On DATE ORG annulled the investigator \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE , stating , inter alia , that the investigator had failed to determine why for DATE PERSON and other persons had not been evicted , the constructions on the applicant \u2019s property had not been demolished , and the activities of the restaurant had not been terminated DATE even after PERSON had been fined for not complying with the requirements of the judicial acts in question .","The prosecutor appealed against the above - mentioned decision of ORG .","On DATE ORG ( \u0540\u0540 \u057e\u0565\u0580\u0561\u0584\u0576\u0576\u056b\u0579 \u0584\u0580\u0565\u0561\u056f\u0561\u0576 \u0564\u0561\u057f\u0561\u0580\u0561\u0576 ) upheld the decision of DATE . As a result , the criminal proceedings were resumed on DATE .","Thereafter , the criminal proceedings were again terminated CARDINAL times , namely on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The first CARDINAL termination decisions were successfully challenged by the applicant at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , following which the criminal proceedings were re - opened on the orders of those courts . As for the final decision by which the proceedings were once again terminated , the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , but his complaint was rejected for failure to comply with the time - limits for lodging an application for supervisory review . According to the applicant , he did not pursue this last complaint any further .","According to the latest information received from the applicant , the enforcement proceedings were closed on DATE because the enforcement of the judgments was impossible . The judgments of ORG of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , as well as the decision of CARDINAL DATE , therefore remain unenforced DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184670","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF PETROVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE respectively . The first applicant lives in PERSON and the second , third and fourth applicants live in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the first and second applicants and the father of the third and fourth applicants instituted civil proceedings against the ORG , seeking that they be recognised as owners of CARDINAL plots of land in the coastal zone ( u zoni morskog dobra ) . They submitted , in particular , that the land at issue had been lawfully owned by their father , but that without any legal basis the ORG appeared as the registered owner thereof in ORG , and that they should be declared owners as their father \u2019s legal successors ( kao pravni sledbenici ) .","On DATE ORG in PERSON ( PERSON , podru\u010dna jedinica ORG ) , acting upon the first applicant \u2019s request , issued a decision allowing the division into CARDINAL of an adjacent plot of land , a forest in the coastal zone , the registered owner of which at the time was the Municipality . The Municipality remained registered as the owner of CARDINAL part of it , whereas the other part was registered in the name of the applicants\u2019 predecessor ( the father of the first and second applicants , and the grandfather of the third and fourth applicants ) .","On DATE , after a remittal , ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE ruled against the first and second applicants and the third and fourth applicants\u2019 father . The court found that the land at issue had indeed been owned by their predecessors , notably their father , grandfather and grand - grandfather , but that they had not proved that they had inherited it when their last predecessor had died in DATE . Notably , the court considered that the land at issue was in the coastal zone and thus ORG property pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE and \u201c section CARDINAL and other sections \u201d of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , and that the claimants could not claim the right to property in respect of such land . The court made no reference to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As regards the ORG \u2019s submission that the land had been nationalised , the court noted that the contents of the decisions relied on by the ORG could not be clarified . Notably , ORG Dr\u017eavni arhiv ) informed the court , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , that the case files and decisions PERSON and PERSON , referred to by the ORG , had not been found in that institution . Finally , the court considered that ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was \u201c of no particular influence \u201d ( bez posebnog uticaja ) given that it related to a different plot of land which was not the subject of these proceedings .","In their appeal the first and second applicants and the third and fourth applicants\u2019 father confirmed that the said land had not been in their predecessor \u2019s estate when he died , which was exactly the reason why they had initiated these proceedings . They also submitted that : ( a ) LAW CARDINAL of LAW had never been complied with even though it was indisputable that their predecessor had lawfully owned the land ; and ( b ) the relevant legislation did not prohibit private ownership of land in the coastal zone , and referred to section CARDINAL of LAW and LAW DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . They reiterated that the adjacent plot of land , also a forest in the coastal zone , was privately owned , by them , and submitted the decision of ORG . They maintained that the first - instance court \u2019s reasoning that the said decision was of no influence indicated legal uncertainty , given that the same legal issue was treated differently without any explanation in that regard .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) upheld the first - instance judgment . It found that the land at issue was indisputably forest in the coastal zone , that it was ORG property pursuant to LAW and that the claimants therefore could not claim ownership . The court further held that even assuming that the claimants had had ownership of these plots of land , they had lost it \u201c in accordance with LAW and LAW . In support of this was also section CARDINAL of LAW , relied upon by the claimants , which provided that the owners of land in the coastal zone , who had obtained it in a lawful manner before that LAW entered into force and which was duly registered in ORG as private property , were entitled to compensation in case of an expropriation \u201d . ORG made no reference to the decision of DATE and the status of the adjacent plot of land , or as to whether the claimants could have inherited the land .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) upheld the previous judgments . The court made no explicit reference to the adjacent plot of land and the decision of DATE . It held as follows :","\u201c As the real estate at issue is in the coastal zone regime DATE common resource ( dobro od op\u0161teg interesa ) , the lower courts correctly applied the substantive law when they ruled in the said way . Notably , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , which had been in force until LAW entered into force ( ORG no . CARDINAL ) , coast is owned by the ORG and could not be object of the private property .","The claimants were wrong to consider that the issue was to be resolved by means of LAW . That provision regulated the rights of the owners of land in the coastal zone who had obtained the property thereof before that LAW entered into force by providing that they were entitled to compensation in case of an expropriation [ ... ] . That means that the land did not remain in the private property regime , but became ORG property by the law itself .","Likewise , section DATE ) of LAW DATE is inapplicable to the present case as it can not be retroactively applied to relations which had arisen before it came into force . Exceptionally , the right to property over a coastal zone can be acquired only after it entered into force . \u201d","On DATE the first and second applicants and the third and fourth applicants\u2019 father lodged a constitutional appeal . They submitted , inter alia , that it was not true that land in the coastal zone could not be privately owned , as numerous plots of land in that zone were private property , including the plot of land adjacent to the CARDINAL at issue , which was owned by them . They invoked the right to a fair trial and the right to property , and reiterated the importance of legal certainty .","On DATE ORG dismissed the constitutional appeal . It held that the lower courts\u2019 assessment \u201c was based on a correct application of substantive law and a constitutionally acceptable interpretation thereof , in accordance with LAW . As regards LAW No . CARDINAL the court held that a claim which had been dismissed because the claimants did not meet statutory conditions was not considered a possession that could constitute property rights , and thus there could be no violation of such a right either . This decision was served on DATE at the earliest .","On DATE the third and fourth applicants\u2019 father died , leaving the third and fourth applicants as his heirs .","On DATE ORG issued a general legal opinion ( na\u010delni pravni stav ) relating to the use of land in the coastal zone . In reaching this opinion , ORG analysed the relevant domestic legislation , including the LAW , LAW DATE , LAW and LAW . It found , inter alia , that section CARDINAL ) of the Property Act provided that exceptionally coastal zone can be privately owned , while at the same time section GPE ) of the same Act provided that the coast can not be privately owned . It also found that the conditions under which the coastal zone can be privately owned are not provided for by law ( nisu zakonom odre\u0111eni ) , \u201c which leaves open numerous questions on practical implementation \u201d . The court concluded that \u201c by analysing [ the relevant legislation ] it can be concluded that acquiring private property rights in respect of the coastal zone is not possible save in exceptional cases which are not defined by legislation . It can also be concluded that the issue of lawfully acquired rights in respect of the coastal zone is not regulated in a precise and clear manner ... \u201d , but that it was a fact that there were lawfully acquired property rights over the coastal zone , as indicated by CARDINAL of LAW ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164715","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TADDEUCCI AND McCALL v. ITALY","importance":2,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 14+8-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dean Spielmann;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["Mr GPE ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) was born in DATE . Mr ORG ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) was born in DATE . They live in GPE .","The applicants have formed a same - sex couple since DATE . They lived in GPE , with the status of unmarried couple , until DATE , when they decided to settle in GPE on grounds of the first applicant \u2019s poor health .","During their first period of residence in GPE the second applicant had a student \u2019s temporary residence permit . He subsequently applied for a residence permit for family reasons , under LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE ... .","On DATE the chief of the GPE police rejected his application on the ground that the statutory criteria were not satisfied .","On DATE the applicants appealed on the basis of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , requesting that the second applicant be issued with a residence permit for family reasons .","NORP In a judgment of DATE ORG allowed the ORG appeal .","The court observed that the applicants were recognised as a couple in GPE , the first applicant having been issued with a residence permit in that country for family reasons in his capacity as an unmarried partner . The court found that the applicants\u2019 status as an unmarried couple was not contrary to NORP public policy , as de facto couples received social and legal recognition in the NORP system . In the court \u2019s view , LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE ... had to be interpreted in conformity with the principles established by LAW , which meant that a same - sex cohabiting partner should be regarded as a \u201c member of the family \u201d of the NORP national and thus entitled to obtain a residence permit .","The court found that the right asserted by the second applicant also derived from ORG and CARDINAL of Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EC of QUANTITY DATE of ORG and of the Council ... , which recognised the right of the partner of a citizen of ORG ( ORG ) to obtain a residence permit where the existence of a durable relationship was duly attested .","NORP The Minister of ORG appealed against the judgment of ORG .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the appeal . It observed that the GPE authorities had recognised that the applicants had the status of \u201c unmarried cohabiting partners \u201d and not that of \u201c members of the same family \u201d .","ORG found , first , that the lower court \u2019s recommended interpretation of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , according to which the \u201c cohabiting partner \u201d was regarded as a \u201c member of the family \u201d , was not compatible with the NORP legal system , which , according to the court , ascribed a different scope and meaning to those CARDINAL legal concepts . Secondly , ORG pointed out that ORG had repeatedly held that a relationship based on cohabitation alone , and lacking stability and legal certainty , could not in any circumstances be regarded as a legitimate family based on marriage .","ORG found that GPE law was not compatible with NORP public policy on the grounds , firstly , that it regarded persons of the same sex as \u201c cohabiting partners \u201d and , furthermore , that it could be construed as conferring the status of \u201c family members \u201d on them for the purposes of granting them a residence permit . Lastly , it added that neither NORP law , particularly Directive No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EC ... , nor the provisions of LAW , obliged the GPE to recognise same - sex relationships .","The applicants appealed on points of law .","In a judgment of DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the ORG appeal .","ORG observed first that , according to the terms of LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE ... , the concept of \u201c family member \u201d extended only to spouses , minor children , adult children who were not self - supporting for health reasons , and dependent relatives who lacked adequate support in their country of origin . It pointed out that as ORG had , moreover , ruled out the possibility of extending to cohabiting partners the protection granted to members of a legitimate family , the LAW did not require an extensive interpretation of LAW cited above .","ORG also considered that Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention did not require such an interpretation either . In its view , those provisions left a wide margin of appreciation to the GPE regarding the choice of means of exercising the rights they guaranteed , particularly in the area of immigration control . ORG added that there had been no discrimination on grounds of the applicants\u2019 sexual orientation in the present case . It observed in that connection that the non - eligibility of unmarried partners for a residence permit for family reasons applied to opposite - sex couples as well as same - sex partners .","Lastly , it held that NORP Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EC ... , which concerned the right of GPE citizens to move freely within the territory of the Member GPE other than their ORG of origin , did not apply to the present case , which concerned family reunification with an NORP national resident in his own country .","After being notified of ORG judgment , the applicants left GPE in DATE . They moved to the GPE , where the second applicant was issued with a DATE residence permit on DATE as a de facto partner in a long - term relationship with an ORG national .","On DATE the applicants married in GPE . They stated that they had chosen to marry for personal reasons and not in order to obtain a residence permit , as the GPE authorities had already issued CARDINAL to the second applicant . They added that the marriage contracted in the GPE did not allow them to live together in GPE . On DATE the second applicant obtained a second DATE residence permit in the GPE , valid until DATE .","..."],"violated_articles":["14","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161232","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"BARSKI AND \u015aWI\u0118CZKOWSKI  v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant in the first case , Mr PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","NORP The applicant in the second case , Mr PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Both applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .","The applicants were high - ranking prosecutors . The first applicant had served , inter alia , as the Deputy Prosecutor General and the Deputy Minister of ORG . Both applicants acquired the status of a \u201c prosecutor in inactive service \u201d ( prokurator w stanie spoczynku ) in DATE .","The applicants stood for election to the PERSON ( the first ORG ) from the list of the PERSON and ORG party as nonpartisan candidates .","On DATE , during the electoral campaign before parliamentary elections , ORG ) , a body composed of senior prosecutors , Members of ORG , the Minister of ORG , ORG and the representative of the President of the Republic , passed a resolution expressing a view on the participation of prosecutors standing for election in political activities . ORG opined that prosecutors , including prosecutors in inactive service had the right to stand for election to ORG . It noted that the prosecutors in inactive service enjoyed a privileged position in comparison to the prosecutors in service in that when elected members of parliament the former were not required to renounce their status of prosecutors in inactive service . ORG recommended that this situation had to be addressed by the legislature . At the same time , it reminded all prosecutors of the statutory ban on engaging in political activity .","The applicants were elected members of the PERSON on DATE . The results of the elections were published on DATE . On an unspecified date the applicants were requested by the Speaker of the PERSON ( PERSON ) to renounce their status of prosecutors in inactive service .","On DATE ORG passed a new resolution in which it opined that both prosecutors in service and prosecutors in inactive service could not hold their position and sit as Member of ORG at the same time . The ORG stated that its previous opinion of CARDINAL DATE had only concerned the period of electoral campaign .","On DATE the Speaker of the PERSON issued CARDINAL respective orders declaring that the applicants had forfeited their parliamentary seats under LAW in conjunction with LAW . He observed that the prohibition of holding jointly a parliamentary seat and other public office ( \u201c incompatibilitas \u201d ) was the consequence of the principle of the separation of powers and of the political neutrality of the public service . LAW prescribed in LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL the absolute and directly applicable ban on joint holding of the office of a deputy with other positions listed in this provision . The scope of this ban could not be restricted by statutory regulations .","The Speaker noted that the ban on holding jointly a parliamentary seat and the office of a prosecutor was prescribed in LAW . This rule was also reflected in the statutory norms , namely section CARDINAL \u00a7 QUANTITY on the Exercise of the Mandate of the Member of the PERSON and of the ORG ( hereinafter \u201c The LAW on the Exercise \u201d ) and section CARDINALa \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW on ORG . The scope of those various provisions was not identical , in particular with regard to the consequences of the breach of the impugned ban . LAW on the Exercise stated that deputies could not concurrently work in the position of a prosecutor and permitted in such a case for a prosecutor to benefit from an unpaid leave of absence . On the other hand , LAW required that a prosecutor who had been elected to hold a position in a ORG organ forfeit his office of the prosecutor , unless he acquired the status of a prosecutor in inactive service . The Speaker acknowledged the above divergences in respect of the impugned ban between the statutory regulation on the one hand and the constitutional regulation on the other . Nonetheless , the Speaker considered that he was obliged to apply the constitutional rule prescribed in LAW and disregard the statutory provisions incompatible with that rule .","The next issue to determine was the interpretation of the term \u201c prosecutor \u201d employed in LAW and whether this term encompassed prosecutors in inactive service . The Speaker noted that this was an autonomous constitutional term which could not be limited to its statutory definitions . Having analysed the relevant provisions of LAW as well as the case - law of ORG and of ORG , the Speaker found that the term \u201c prosecutor \u201d employed in LAW encompassed equally prosecutors in inactive service .","The Speaker noted that within DATE of the final result of the elections the applicants could have declared that they had renounced their status of prosecutors in inactive service . In the absence of such a declaration , the Speaker held that the applicants had forfeited their parliamentary seats .","The first applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . He argued , inter alia , that the Speaker had erred in finding that the term \u201c prosecutor \u201d used in LAW comprised prosecutors in inactive service . He further maintained that the Speaker had suddenly adopted a new interpretation of the term which was inconsistent with its statutory understanding ( section CARDINALa LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW on the Exercise ) as well as contrary to existing practice . He further invoked the first resolution of ORG which stated that a prosecutor in inactive service could hold the office of a deputy jointly with his status of a prosecutor in inactive service . In addition , the Speaker \u2019s finding that the first applicant had to irrevocably forfeit his status of the prosecutor in inactive service in order to keep his parliamentary seat breached the constitutional provisions on proportionality and equality . Lastly , invoking , inter alia , LAW , the applicant submitted that the Speaker had not informed him about the procedure initiated in his case and had not offered him a possibility to make representations .","The second applicant appealed too . He alleged , inter alia , that the Speaker had wrongly applied LAW and other provisions of the LAW regulating the right of access to the public service and the right to stand for election as well as the relevant provisions of LAW . He also invoked LAW . His main contention was that the ban prescribed in LAW did not apply to prosecutors in inactive service .","On DATE , ORG , sitting in camera , dismissed the applicants\u2019 respective appeals .","ORG first inquired about the existing practice with regard to judges and prosecutors in inactive service sitting as MPs . It established that there had been CARDINAL case of a judge in inactive service who sat as a Senator ( Member of the ORG , the second ORG of the NORP ORG ) DATE . In that case no action was taken by the Speaker of the ORG . There had been no such cases concerning prosecutors in inactive service . In CARDINAL case concerning a judge in inactive service , the First President of ORG objected to the participation of this judge in the capacity of an expert in the works of the parliamentary commission of inquiry , considering it being incompatible with the duty of political neutrality of judges . In ORG view , the existing practice was inconsistent and did not support the ORG contention that prosecutors in inactive service could sit as MPs .","ORG carried out a detailed analysis of the term \u201c prosecutor \u201d within the meaning of LAW . It noted first that this provision used the term \u201c prosecutor \u201d without any qualification which signified that it was applicable to all prosecutors , i.e. persons appointed to a post of a prosecutor . At the date of the entry into force of the LAW , that is on DATE , the appointment to a post of a prosecutor ended with retirement . Subsequently , on DATE LAW introduced the status of a \u201c prosecutor in inactive service \u201d ( in parallel to the status of a \u201c judge in inactive service \u201d ) . Following this amendment , the public - law employment relationship of a prosecutor began with his appointment and continued until his or her death ( save for cases when a prosecutor renounced it or was divested of it as a result of a judgment ) . The said amendment altered the meaning of the term \u201c prosecutor \u201d and from its entry into force the term covered not only prosecutors in active service , but also \u201c prosecutors in inactive service \u201d .","This finding was confirmed by the case - law of ORG ( judgment of DATE , case no . ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and of ORG ( inter alia , judgment of DATE , case no . SDI CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Both courts underlined that a prosecutor in inactive service ( or judge in inactive service ) did not cease to be a prosecutor ( judge ) and the holder of a public office . Prosecutors in inactive service continued their publiclaw employment relationship with the exception of the obligation to carry out their duties . The legislator wished to preserve the authority of the office of a prosecutor ( judge ) and thus bestowed particular privileges on those who had held those offices in exchange for the resignation from certain rights . The LAW on the Prosecution Service linked the status of a prosecutor in inactive service with a number of obligations such as disciplinary responsibility , the limitation on taking any other employment or gainful activity , the requirement to uphold the dignity of the office and the ban on engaging in political activity . At the same time prosecutors in inactive service received a special pension ( uposa\u017cenie ) which was more favourable than an ordinary old - age pension . It was further clear that a prosecutor in inactive service could voluntarily renounce his status and all the corresponding rights and obligations .","In conclusion , ORG held that there was no doubt that the term \u201c prosecutor \u201d employed in LAW covered both prosecutors in service and prosecutors in inactive service . It noted that the interpretation of the provisions of LAW , like in the present case , could not be determined by the content of statutory norms , in particular by section CARDINALa of the LAW on ORG . The ban on holding jointly a parliamentary seat and the position of a prosecutor , comprising prosecutor in inactive service , was directly prescribed in LAW . Accordingly , the fact of a prosecutor going into inactive service could not revoke the ban set out in LAW ; it was necessary that a prosecutor in inactive service renounce his status the prosecutor in inactive service .","Furthermore , ORG noted that according to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Act on ORG , prosecutors were prohibited from joining any political party and from engaging in any political activity . In accordance with ORG case - law , this provision was also applicable to prosecutors in inactive service , while there was no doubt that sitting as a deputy was a political activity . In ORG view , the rules on disqualification were aimed at ensuring political neutrality of the public service and the transparent operation of the parliament free from undue influence and the conflict of interest . They were further proportional to those aims . ORG held that the constitutional provisions on the equality ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) , the right of access to the public service ( Article CARDINAL ) and the right to be elected ( Article CARDINAL ) had not been infringed . The ban which affected the applicant had its origin in the LAW itself and the drafters of LAW had carried out a balancing exercise of the various competing interests . Furthermore , the applicants had had time to consider their options and the possibility to renounce their status of prosecutors in inactive service .","ORG found that no provision of the Convention , in particular LAW No . CARDINAL or LAW , had been breached in the applicants\u2019 case . In its view , LAW No . CARDINAL did not concern the rules on disqualification . The applicants had exercised their right to be elected a deputy , but in order to keep their parliamentary seat they had to renounce their status of a prosecutor in inactive service . ORG relied on the decision Bri\u0137e v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) in which ORG had dismissed the complaint of a judge who complained that in order to stand for election to ORG she had had to resign from her judicial office . ORG found that the same approach was applicable , mutatis mutandis , to the situation of the applicants in the present case .","ORG further held that LAW was not applicable to the proceedings at issue because they concerned political rights . It noted , in passing , that the applicants had been summoned to renounce their status of the prosecutor in inactive service .","The first applicant filed a constitutional complaint . He alleged that the relevant provisions of LAW breached the constitutional right of access to the public service ( LAW ) , the right to stand for election ( LAW ) as well as LAW in that prosecutors in inactive service could not sit as Deputies . On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , having found , inter alia , that the ban on holding jointly the offices of a prosecutor in inactive service and of an MP was prescribed directly in the LAW and therefore ORG had no jurisdiction to decide the case ( case no . ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It noted , obiter dicta , that the inconsistent interpretation of LAW should be unified .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW provides :","\u201c Every citizen having the right to vote , who , no later than on DATE of the elections , has attained DATE , shall be eligible to be elected to the PERSON . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW reads as follows :","\u201c No judge , public prosecutor , officer of the civil service , soldier on active military service or officer of the police or of the services of State protection shall exercise the mandate of a Deputy . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of LAW , in its relevant part , provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The expiration of the mandate of a Deputy shall occur in the following cases :","...","CARDINAL ) holding on DATE of an office or position , which according to the provisions of LAW or statutes could not be held jointly with the office of a Deputy , subject to the provision of \u00a7 CARDINAL . \u201d","Article CARDINAL states that an expiration of the mandate of a Deputy in the situation described above will take place if a Deputy did not submit to the Speaker of the PERSON a declaration resigning from his other office or position within DATE of the official result of the election being published .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW provides that a Member of ORG can not hold jointly his or her mandate with those offices or positions which according to the LAW or statutes can not be held jointly with the mandate of a Deputy .","Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Act on ORG provides that a prosecutor can not join a political party or be involved in any political activity .","Section CARDINALa \u00a7 CARDINAL of the same LAW reads as follows :","\u201c A prosecutor who was nominated , appointed or elected to hold office in the ORG organs , local self - government , diplomatic service , consular service or in the organs of the international or supranational organisations acting on the basis of an international agreement ratified by GPE shall resign from his position unless he goes into inactive service . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140030","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF W. v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On TIME the applicant , then DATE , was raped by a group of CARDINAL males . CARDINAL other males allegedly participated : CARDINAL as an aider and abettor and CARDINAL others by committing a sexual assault on her . CARDINAL of the accused had not yet reached the age of majority ( DATE ) at the time of the commission of the criminal acts and were accordingly tried as juveniles .","In DATE criminal charges of rape , aiding and abetting rape and sexual assault were brought against the accused . All of them submitted in their defence that the applicant had voluntarily engaged in sexual activity with them .","The court held a number of hearings and obtained expert reports . An expert in clinical psychology found that the applicant had a learning disability and that she had not been physically or mentally capable of offering serious resistance .","On DATE ORG rendered a judgment acquitting the defendants of all charges . The verdict was based on the findings that the applicant had not seriously resisted sexual intercourse , that she had changed her testimony regarding the events surrounding one of the rape charges during the proceedings and that the defendants could not be considered to have employed force or threats which would be objectively capable of breaking the victim \u2019s resistance .","The Public Prosecutor appealed against the judgment .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment , finding that the facts had been insufficiently established . It ordered that the case be remitted to the first - instance court for fresh consideration before a different panel , without the participation of the judges who had delivered the impugned judgment .","NORP In DATE ORG conducted inquiries in order to establish the place of residence of CARDINAL of the defendants . However , as the CARDINAL defendants had allegedly emigrated to GPE , they could not be found . Several more inquiries were made in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , but all attempts at establishing these CARDINAL defendants\u2019 whereabouts proved unsuccessful .","DATE and DATE the applicant sent CARDINAL letters urging ORG ( previously called ORG ) to accelerate the proceedings and\/or asking for a case review by the president of the court owing to delays in scheduling the first retrial hearing .","In the period from DATE to DATE the court scheduled CARDINAL hearings , all of which were , however , adjourned for failure of some of the defendants to appear .","On DATE the Director of ORG at ORG informed the applicant that the court had encountered difficulties identifying some of the GPE residences . He also noted that DATE and DATE there had been frequent changes of the presiding judge in her case due to judges being promoted . He mentioned that in the aforementioned period CARDINAL different judges had been dealing with the case .","Following this information , on DATE the applicant suggested that the charges against the CARDINAL defendants , CARDINAL charged with rape and the other with aiding and abetting rape , who were allegedly residing in GPE and could not be found , be severed into a separate case and an international arrest warrant be issued against them .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG issued a detention order against the CARDINAL defendants , which served as a legal basis for the issuing of the international arrest warrant .","On DATE the court held the first hearing , followed by CARDINAL more . It also obtained reports from CARDINAL experts , CARDINAL in neuropsychiatry and the other in clinical psychology .","On DATE the court found CARDINAL defendant guilty of rape under the first paragraph of LAW and CARDINAL defendants guilty of aggravated rape under the second paragraph of LAW . Regardless of the fact that they were tried as juveniles , the rules of sentencing applicable to adults applied to them as they had all reached the age of CARDINAL before the judgment was given . The defendants were sentenced to prison sentences ranging from DATE on account of , inter alia , the significant passage of time from the commission of the crime until their conviction . However , the court concluded that prison sentences were appropriate in order to make the defendants realise the gravity of their offences , particularly as they had not shown any genuine regret over the criminal acts committed against the applicant who continued to suffer from the consequences thereof . Lastly , the court acquitted the CARDINAL defendants who had been charged with sexual assault .","The convicted defendants appealed ; however , their appeals were dismissed by ORG on DATE . Their subsequent extraordinary appeals ( requests for the protection of legality ) were also dismissed by ORG on DATE .","The defendant charged with aiding and abetting the rape of the applicant , whose whereabouts had been unknown and whose case had been separated from the main proceedings , was extradited to GPE on DATE . On DATE the court held a hearing and found the defendant guilty . He was sentenced to DATE in prison . The defendant \u2019s subsequent appeal was dismissed on DATE .","The other missing defendant was arrested in GPE and detained on DATE . After having been extradited to GPE , the court held hearings on CARDINAL and DATE and on the latter date convicted him of aggravated rape under the second paragraph of LAW . He , too , was sentenced to DATE in prison . He appealed against the verdict ; however , on DATE his appeal was dismissed by ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim against all CARDINAL defendants and a number of the defendants\u2019 parents , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage she had sustained as a result of the rape .","On DATE the civil panel of ORG stayed the civil proceedings pending a final decision in the criminal proceedings . The civil trial was resumed in DATE .","Subsequently , CARDINAL hearings were held and on DATE the first instance court gave a judgment awarding the applicant MONEY ( ORG ) , together with default interest . The applicant and some of the respondent parties appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and dismissed the respondents\u2019 appeal . In the civil retrial , ORG found that the CARDINAL respondents who had initially been excluded from liability for damages owing to their acquittal in the criminal proceedings were jointly liable for the damages awarded to the applicant .","One of the CARDINAL respondents appealed against the judgment , but on CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed his appeal .","Following unsuccessful settlement negotiations with ORG , on DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG seeking compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , the maximum amount that could be awarded for non - pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the length of the criminal proceedings . She relied on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay Act ( hereinafter \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) . She submitted that her interest in the criminal proceedings had not only been of a pecuniary nature but also aimed at safeguarding her rights under LAW .","On DATE the court rendered a judgment , finding that the applicant \u2019s right to trial within a reasonable time had been breached and that the ORG was to pay ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the applicant , together with default interest . The court pointed out that the overall duration of the proceedings had amounted to DATE and DATE , noting in particular the lack of any activity DATE . Moreover , it observed that the applicant \u2019s case had involved CARDINAL major criminal acts , a gang rape and a sexual assault , which , in addition to posing a considerable threat to society , had caused severe mental distress to the applicant . The court emphasised that due to the nature of these criminal acts committed against her , the criminal proceedings ought to have been conducted in a particularly diligent , determined and prompt manner ; however , that had not been the case . It was further noted that the lengthy proceedings had been extremely stressful for the applicant , who had been forced to relive the painful events too many times , in addition to which she had had no effective remedies at her disposal in order to accelerate the proceedings . Thus , having regard to the importance of the case for the applicant and the lengthy period of absence of any procedural acts on the part of the criminal court , the court deviated from the general practice of the domestic authorities to award , within the statutory range of CARDINAL , PERCENT of the sum that would be awarded for a violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time by ORG . Thus , the applicant was awarded the maximum amount possible under LAW , although she would have apparently not been entitled to such amount purely on the basis of the excessive length of proceedings .","The applicant and the ORG Attorney lodged appeals . On DATE the ORG modified the first - instance judgment in so far as it concerned the costs of proceedings . It rejected the remainder of the appeals .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal and initiative petition for the review of the constitutionality of LAW in so far as it limited the maximum amount to be awarded for a violation of the \u201c reasonable time \u201d requirement to LAW . She alleged that the statutory limitation of compensation in this manner was unconstitutional , as the maximum amount did not constitute sufficient redress for particularly arduous cases such as her own .","On DATE ORG rejected the constitutional appeal as inadmissible . Consequently , the applicant \u2019s petition for the review of the constitutionality of LAW limitation on compensation was also rejected , as the court held that the possible annulment of the challenged statutory provision could not have had any legal effects on the applicant \u2019s position .","At the time of the incident , the applicable criminal law was the DATE LAW of GPE . However , in the course of the retrial proceedings , a new LAW was adopted in DATE introducing more lenient sentences for the criminal offences of rape and aggravated rape . In accordance with the general principle of domestic criminal law that a law more lenient on the perpetrator may be applied retroactively , LAW was used in the proceedings , which reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Whoever compels a person of the same or opposite sex to submit to sexual intercourse with him by force or threat of imminent attack on life or limb shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not CARDINAL and not DATE .","( CARDINAL ) If the offence under the preceding paragraph has been committed in a cruel or extremely humiliating manner or successively by CARDINAL perpetrators or against an offender serving a sentence in a closed or semi - open type of penal institution , the perpetrator(s ) shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not DATE .","... \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE provides that the presiding judge shall schedule a first trial hearing within DATE of receipt of the indictment . If he fails to do so , he must inform the president of the court thereof , and the latter is required to take the necessary steps to schedule the hearing . A provision to this effect was also included in the previously applicable Criminal Procedure Act DATE .","According to LAW , which constitutes the statutory basis for awarding compensation for non - pecuniary damage , such compensation may be awarded in the event of the infringement of a person\u2019an award .","Under LAW , the right to a trial within a reasonable time is guaranteed to , amongst others , injured parties in criminal proceedings . LAW provides for a compensatory remedy and fixes the maximum amount that may be awarded . It reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Monetary compensation shall be payable for non - pecuniary damage caused by a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay . Strict liability for any damage caused shall lie with GPE .","( CARDINAL ) Monetary compensation in respect of individual , finally decided cases shall be awarded in an amount of MONEY .","( CARDINAL ) When deciding on the amount of compensation , the criteria referred to in section CARDINAL of this Act shall be taken into account , in particular the complexity of the case , the actions of the ORG , the actions of the party [ making the claim ] and the importance of the case for that party . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180847","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BOYKO v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the cases , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant , the owner and CEO of a large dairy producer , was charged with large - scale fraud and money laundering and summoned for questioning . He did not show up for a few initial interviews and the investigator put his name on the list of fugitives from justice .","On DATE the investigator , acting on the information that the applicant had fled abroad , asked ORG in GPE for a detention order .","The detention hearing was fixed for DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyers had been notified of the date and time of the hearing on DATE but did not show up and asked the investigator to postpone the examination of his application because they were busy in other proceedings . ORG appointed legal - aid counsel to represent the absent applicant , proceeded with the hearing and issued the detention order , referring to the fact of the applicant \u2019s absconding to GPE and from there to GPE , the gravity of the charges against him and the risk of interference with the investigation . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers appealed .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE .","On DATE the ORG heard an appeal against the detention order . The applicant and his lawyers were present at the hearing . Considering that the risks of flight and obstruction of the investigation were sufficiently established , ORG upheld the detention order .","NORP The applicant \u2019s detention was later extended on QUANTITY occasions . The applicant appealed against each of the detention orders , lodging statements of appeal within DATE of the hearing date . It took the appeal courts CARDINAL DATE to examine the complaints .","The most recent detention order of DATE was quashed on appeal by ORG on DATE . ORG considered that there was no evidence substantiating the risk of absconding or interfering with justice . The investigation had been pending for DATE of which the applicant had spent DATE in custody . ORG concluded that that the proceedings had been unreasonably long and ordered the applicant \u2019s release on bail .","While in custody , the applicant asked the investigator to be allowed to receive visits from his mother , wife and children and also pastoral visits from CARDINAL NORP priests , GPE and S.","With the investigator \u2019s consent , the applicant \u2019s mother and daughters visited him on CARDINAL occasions in DATE and DATE . In DATE and DATE the investigator interviewed his wife and mother as potential witnesses but they refused to testify , invoking the constitutional guarantee against self - incrimination . The investigator refused the applicant \u2019s subsequent applications to see his family , stating that such visits could \u201c have a negative influence on the conduct of the investigation \u201d . As to the NORP priests , on DATE the investigator invoked the same ground to refuse a visit from S. On DATE the investigator once again refused a pastoral visit , stating that the applicant should see the prison chaplain instead .","Counsel for the applicant applied for a judicial review of visiting restrictions .","On DATE and DATE the ORG pronounced the refusal of pastoral visits to be lawful and justified , holding that the investigator had full discretion to determine whether or not such visits ran counter to the interests of the investigation . On DATE ORG upheld the latter decision on appeal , holding that a restriction on religious rights was an inherent consequence of the pre - trial detention .","As regards family visits , on DATE the ORG granted the applicant \u2019s complaint in part , finding as follows :","( a ) restrictions on visits from the applicant \u2019s wife and mother in the period after the investigator had interviewed them as witnesses in the criminal proceedings had been lawful and within the discretion of the investigator ;","( b ) restrictions on visits from the wife and mother in DATE had not been justified but no relief could be afforded to the applicant because they had already been granted the status of witnesses and the investigator might wish to interview them again at some point in time ;","( c ) restrictions on visits from the applicant \u2019s children were not justified and the investigator had an obligation to remedy a breach of the applicant \u2019s rights .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative before the ORG , PERSON , asked the director of the remand prison to allow her to see the applicant and provided credentials confirming her status . Her application was referred to the investigator .","On DATE PERSON lodged a complaint with the ORG claiming that the prison director should have authorised her visit without any restrictions , on the basis of LAW guaranteeing unhindered access of an applicant to his representative .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint , finding that PERSON was not the applicant \u2019s counsel in the domestic criminal proceedings and could not therefore visit him . On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["34","5","8","9"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4","8-1","9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171974","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ISL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u00d3LAFSSON v. ICELAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the material time he was an editor of the web - based media site GPE .","On DATE CARDINAL adult sisters published an article and a letter on their website encouraging people to study the background of candidates in the forthcoming ORG elections . In particular , the sisters warned against A , a relative of theirs , who was standing for election . In the letter they alleged that A had sexually abused them when they were children . The sisters had previously sent the letter to their relatives , the police and the child protection services . For some unknown reason , the police had not instigated an investigation .","On DATE , PERSON published an article about the ORG allegations . The article was based on an interview with CARDINAL of the sisters and on the letter posted on their website . A was also contacted and his response , in which he denied the allegations , as well as his statement that he would not make any further remarks on the matter , were reported in the article . Pictures of the sisters were published with the article .","On DATE Pressan published an article about comments made by A to a newspaper where he rejected all the allegations and threatened PERSON with a lawsuit for being the first to publish the allegations . Furthermore , the article contained comments from CARDINAL of the sisters . Pictures of CARDINAL of the sisters and of A were published with the article .","On DATE PERSON published an article about the ORG having received a letter from ORG \u2019s lawyer offering to settle the matter , failing which A would bring defamation proceedings against them , and about the sisters welcoming the opportunity to prove their allegations in court . The article was based on an interview with the sisters and statements on their website . A \u2019s rejection of the allegations was also included in the article . Pictures of the sisters were published with the article .","On DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE , PERSON published further articles about the matter , based on the ORG statements on their website and in other media interviews , on DATE s comments in other media and on A \u2019s daughter \u2019s comments in a television interview . Pictures of the sisters were published with all the articles .","Other media also published articles and interviews with the sisters .","NORP In the meantime , on DATE , A lodged defamation proceedings before ORG against the applicant and requested that the following statements be declared null and void :","A. \u201c Sisters : We will not keep quiet while a child abuser stands for election to the LAW \u201d","B : \u201c We can not sit quietly by while a child abuser stands for election to the LAW \u201d","C : \u201c I do not know whether our actions are legal , however that is a secondary point . The man is dangerous and on the loose \u201d","D : \u201c The sisters will not be silenced by [ A \u2019s ] daughter PERSON abuse is not the private affair of his family \u201d","E : \u201c Child abuse is never a private affair that the family of child abusers can undertake to solve . Child abuse is a crime \u201d","F : \u201c Child abusers should not be allowed to hide DATE Forgiveness can not entail codependency \u201d .","According to LAW , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( no . GPE , L\u00f6g um prentr\u00e9tt ) the publisher or editor is liable for the publication if no author is identified . A argued that responsibility for the statements lay with the applicant as the editor of GPE by virtue of LAW of LAW , applied by analogy , since the author of the articles was not identified .","During the proceedings before ORG , B , a journalist , was identified as the author of the articles . He gave a statement before ORG , but was not involved further in the proceedings . B stated that he had contacted A for comments before publishing all the articles , but he had been unsuccessful after publishing the first article . He also stated that he had tried to establish the ORG credibility and the truthfulness of the allegations by interviewing the sisters , A \u2019s son , the police , CARDINAL of the ORG employers , another alleged victim and other people mentioned by the sisters in their writings , who could confirm that the allegations were not appearing for the first time because of A \u2019s candidacy , but had been known to the family and the police for DATE . B had also tried to contact ORG , without success .","NORP Before FAC , the sisters stated that they had been quoted correctly in GPE and they had approved the publishing of their statements . Furthermore , they said that A had not initiated defamation proceedings against them .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant .","As regards the issue of legality , ORG came to the conclusion that LAW of LAW did not apply to material published solely on the internet and that section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , could not be applied by analogy in the case . However , ORG stated that a supervisory obligation was placed on editors of web media , where articles were published without identifying the authors , and that the editor was obliged to ensure that material published on web - based media did not cause others harm or interfere with a person \u2019s private life . Therefore , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim that the case was wrongly directed against him .","As regards the merits of the case , the judgment contained the following reasons :","\u201c The impugned statements were published on [ Pressan ] on DATE after [ A ] had , along with CARDINAL people , declared his candidacy for ORG . It was a gathering of CARDINAL elected members , established by law by ORG , which would prepare a proposal for a new constitution . There would be general elections , where the same rules about eligibility and the right to vote applied as in the NORP election \u201d ...","When the statements in sections A - C are compared to the ORG writings on their website on DATE , the court has to agree with [ the applicant ] that both the headline in section A and the statements in sections B and C are verbatim from their letter . [ ... ] Furthermore , it can not be overlooked that the ORG allegations were not emerging for the first time because of [ A \u2019s ] candidacy ; they had been proclaimed for DATE and were known to many , including the police . [ The applicant ] was therefore not publishing allegations that were being directed against [ A ] for the first time , but disseminating further allegations regarding offences that had emerged long before . [ The applicant \u2019s ] arguments about the public having the right to be informed about the candidates in public elections can not be ignored . By introducing themselves publicly to gain voters\u2019 confidence and to persuade people to vote for them , [ candidates ] in a way become public persons and can not expect all media coverage about them to be as positive as their own . Disputes , resolved and unresolved , regarding their earlier behaviour are matters to which one can expect attention to be drawn . By competing for voters\u2019 attention , candidates usually undertake to be heavily criticised and have to tolerate this up to a point , although that point should be determined on a case - by - case basis . [ The applicant ] did not present the ORG allegations as his own , he just disseminated them further . Therefore , he will not be held accountable for the statements which are directly quoted from the sisters , which the latter have confirmed before the court to be theirs . The court does not agree with [ A ] that [ the applicant ] went beyond the limits of his freedom of expression under LAW . ...","The statements in sections D and E were published on DATE when the elections for ORG were over . [ A \u2019s ] daughter had discussed the ORG writings about her father in a television interview and declared , inter alia , that he was not a public person and that allegations about child abuse did not belong in the media . The sisters reacted to this criticism on their website and then [ Pressan ] published their reactions . [ ... ] No new discussions about [ A \u2019s ] case were initiated by the sisters this time , their writings were by way of reply . The statement in section D that appeared as a headline on [ Pressan ] quotes the ORG replies but is partly rephrased . The statement in section E published in an article on [ Pressan ] is mostly directly quoted . However , this statement can be understood as a statement by the media itself . Even though the statement is not directly quoted , it is of a general nature and refers to child abusers in general . The sisters have also testified before the court that they consider that they have been correctly quoted . So the court concludes that [ the applicant ] did not go beyond the limit of the freedom of expression guaranteed in LAW , with the statements in sections D and E. \u201d","On DATE A appealed to ORG against ORG judgment .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG partly overturned ORG judgment and found defamatory the statements in sections A , B , D and part of the statement in section C , consisting of insinuations that A was guilty of having abused children , and ordered the applicant to pay , LAW , CARDINAL GPE ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) for non - pecuniary damage , plus interest in compensation and LAW ( CARDINAL ORG ) for A \u2019s legal costs before ORG and ORG . Under Article CARDINAL of the Penal Code the statements were declared null and void .","As regards the issue of legality , ORG noted that the author of the articles had been identified and that the applicant had confirmed that he had agreed to the publication of the articles . ORG also confirmed that LAW of LAW did not apply to material solely published on the internet . Furthermore , ORG stated that LAW , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW could not be applied by analogy to the case . However , the applicant had a supervisory obligation which entailed that he should conduct his editorial duties in such a way that the published material would not harm anyone by being defamatory . ORG referred in this respect to a ORG judgment of DATE . Therefore , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim about the case being wrongly directed against him .","As to the merits of the case , the judgment contained , inter alia , the following reasons :","\u201c The court can agree with [ the applicant ] that candidates for assignments in the public interest have to endure a certain amount of public discussion of their ability and skills and attributes and whether or not they can be trusted to bear this kind of responsibility . However , this can not justify that [ A ] , without any further or additional information , was accused of this criminal act in the media , [ act ] punishable by LAW . Here it has been taken into account that [ A ] has not been found guilty of the conduct nor has he been under investigation because of it . It does not change anything that the journalist discussed the matter with [ A ] and others , who claimed they could testify about the incident , while working on the story and [ A ] rejected the allegations . In the light of the aforementioned , the limitation on the freedom of expression had to be justified in accordance with LAW . \u201d ..."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175466","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF YELISEYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was stopped by a NORP customs officer at the border crossing into GPE . After having checked the applicant \u2019s documents , the officer informed the applicant that , having failed to declare his Opel car when entering GPE , he had infringed the NORP customs regulations . The officer instituted administrative proceedings against the applicant and impounded his car .","On DATE Colonel PERSON , Head of ORG of ORG , examined the applicant \u2019s case . He found the applicant liable for having failed to declare the car and ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) . He further ruled that the applicant \u2019s car , which had been impounded by customs , should be returned to the applicant . The applicant appealed .","On an unspecified date ORG of GPE fixed the hearing for DATE .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of DATE . The court heard the case in the applicant \u2019s absence . In the operative part of the judgment , the court advised the applicant of his right to appeal against the judgment adopted by ORG .","According to the applicant , the letter from ORG notifying him of the date and time of the court hearing reached him on DATE .","On DATE the applicant received a copy of ORG judgment of DATE by post .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant informing him that his appeal was dismissed .","NORP The subsequent request by the applicant for supervisory review was dismissed by ORG of GPE on DATE .","On DATE the Acting Head of ORG of ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the decision of DATE . He noted that the applicant was a foreign national and had no assets or known place of residence in GPE and that it was impossible to enforce the decision of DATE on account of the expiry of the relevant time - limit .","On DATE the ORG certified that ( CARDINAL ) the decision concerning the applicant \u2019s administrative liability had come into force on DATE ; and ( CARDINAL ) the applicant had failed to reclaim his car within DATE .","On an unspecified date the regional agency in charge of the federal property applied to ORG seeking to reclaim the applicant \u2019s car as bona vacantia .","On DATE ORG granted the agency \u2019s claims in full . It took into account that , as claimed by the agency , the applicant had been repeatedly summoned to the regional customs office to pick up his car . According to the documents submitted by the Government , the court decided to hear the case in the applicant \u2019s absence given that he had been duly notified of the hearing and chose not to attend . The applicant did not appeal .","On DATE the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was enforced .","On DATE the leaders of the Strategy-CARDINAL movement notified the Mayor of GPE of their intention to organise a rally ( from CARDINAL to CARDINAL p.m. ) at FAC in the centre of GPE and a march ( from TIME ) from FAC down FAC to FAC on DATE ( DATE ) . CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The events were organised to promote the right to peaceful assembly as set forth in LAW and the freedom of Parliamentary elections in GPE .","On DATE the Government of GPE refused to agree on the venues for the rally and the march . According to the authorities , there was archeological and construction work going on in FAC and the march , according to the indicated route , would \u201c disrupt the normal functioning of the city \u2019s infrastructure and traffic [ and ] infringe the rights and interests of people who would not take part [ in the rally and the march ] \u201d . The authorities further suggested CARDINAL alternative venues for the planned events , also located in the centre of GPE .","On DATE the leaders of the Strategy-CARDINAL movement informed the Mayor of GPE that the rally would take place at the venue indicated in their notification of DATE .","On DATE the rally was held as planned by its organisers at FAC . The applicant took part . At TIME he was arrested and brought to the police station . According to the arrest record , the applicant had taken part in an unauthorised gathering and chanted slogans such as \u201c Down with PERSON \u201d , \u201c Let us stop the dictatorship \u201d and \u201c Fascism shall not pass \u201d .","On DATE the Justice of ORG . CARDINAL of the LOC of GPE found that the rally held on DATE had been organised in contravention of the existing procedure and that the applicant had taken part in it without having verified whether it had been legitimate . The court found the applicant administratively liable for violation of the established procedure for organising a public assembly and fined him RUB CARDINAL . The applicant appealed .","On DATE the Tverskoy District Court of GPE upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164167","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"SIHLER-JAUCH AND JAUCH v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant in the first case , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . The applicant in the second case , PERSON PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . Both applicants live in GPE and were represented before the Court by Ms K. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The second applicant is a well - known journalist , producer and television presenter . The television shows he was presenting at the relevant time included a political talk show and a news magazine .","The applicants married in DATE . The wedding reception was held in the GPE , an ancient palace surrounded by an NORP garden in GPE . The wedding ceremony took place in the PERSON , also in GPE . Both locations are well - known tourist attractions and are generally open to the public .","Among the CARDINAL wedding guests were well - known journalists , television presenters and sports personalities . The mayor of GPE also attended the wedding .","Due to the anticipated media interest in the wedding , the applicants\u2019 legal representative had informed the relevant newspapers beforehand that the applicants did not wish any reports to appear containing details of the wedding . In addition , both locations were closed to the public and only invited guests were allowed inside .","On DATE the magazine PERSON , a so - called \u201c people \u2019s magazine \u201d with a circulation of CARDINAL , published an article about the wedding . The article was announced on the cover of the magazine and illustrated with several photographs . Besides photographs of wedding guests and old photographs of the applicants , one photograph showed the first applicant on DATE , taken before the wedding ceremony inside the restricted area . It was ( erroneously ) captioned \u201c ORG WED PERSON after the wedding vows \u201d ( ORG PERSON nach dem Jawort ) . During the subsequent civil proceedings , the question of where the photograph of the first applicant had been taken from was a matter of contention . While the applicants asserted that it had been taken from outside the restricted area , through a hole in the wall \u2012 using a strong telephoto lens \u2012 the magazine maintained that they had no information regarding the photograph \u2019s provenance since it had been purchased from a stock photographic agency . They speculated , however , that it could just as easily have come from CARDINAL of the accredited photographers , or from an invited guest , or from a member of staff .","The article itself informed the reader about the precautions taken by the applicants to prevent press coverage but also gave details about the wedding , including the nature of the catering , the drinks , the ORG outfits , the music and the decoration of the church . The article also included quotes from the address given by the priest , and from the speeches of the second applicant and the first applicant \u2019s father , as well as an excerpt from an intercessory prayer recited by CARDINAL of the applicants\u2019 children .","After publication of the article and at the request of the applicants , the magazine signed a cease and desist declaration regarding the further publication of a number of statements from the article outlining the details of the wedding . The magazine refused to sign such a declaration in respect of the above - mentioned photograph of the first applicant .","On DATE ORG issued a cease and desist order in respect of further publication of the photograph of the first applicant on DATE .","The first applicant brought proceedings against the magazine , claiming ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL as a notional licence fee , LAW in damages and LOC of pre - trial expenses for the cease and desist declaration .","On DATE ORG reaffirmed the cease and desist order , awarded the applicant LAW in damages and ordered the magazine to reimburse the pre - trial expenses .","The court held that the article concerned an event of public interest because the second applicant was CARDINAL of the most famous and popular television presenters in GPE , who had a strong influence on shaping public opinion . His wedding was therefore anyway of public interest and even more especially so since the public were interested in knowing who had a sufficiently close relationship with him to be invited to attend his wedding . The latter point was of particular importance in terms of enabling the public to judge the second applicant \u2019s journalistic independence . The court also found that the chosen wedding locations increased the level of public interest in the wedding , since the CARDINAL places were amongst GPE \u2019s most popular tourist attractions . The court found that neither the article nor the photograph showed the applicants in a negative light , nor were they in any way derogatory . Nor did the photograph touch on the core of the applicants\u2019 privacy , as it did not show the wedding ceremony itself . Nonetheless , the court found that publication thereof had not been justified by a legitimate interest as the first applicant had chosen to retreat to a secluded place , away from the public eye . Furthermore , the applicants had made clear their intention to prevent press coverage of their wedding by asking the press to refrain from reporting it and taking precautions to create a degree of seclusion by restricting access to the wedding location(s ) .","NORP However , the court held that publication of the article alone \u2012 regardless of the accompanying photograph \u2012 constituted a serious enough violation of the first applicant \u2019s personality rights to justify damages . In particular the publication of core details of the wedding party and ceremony \u2012 such as quotes from the speeches , the range of drinks and food offered during the wedding and the choice of music \u2012 could not be justified by any public interest but rather constituted a voyeuristic intrusion into the applicants\u2019 privacy . Concerning the notional licence fee , the court held that it could not be considered normal commercial practice to pay royalties to the subjects of a news report . Consequently the magazine had not saved royalties which they would normally have had to pay to the first applicant for publishing the report and the photograph .","On DATE ORG set ORG judgment aside and dismissed the first applicant \u2019s action in its entirety . It confirmed ORG reasoning regarding public interest on the basis of the popularity of the wedding locations . It furthermore , and in particular , emphasised that , owing to the influence of the second applicant on public opinion and his role in presenting political television shows , the public had a legitimate interest in knowing who was invited to his wedding \u2012 including the mayor of GPE \u2012 and to judge whether the public opinion presented by him was consistent with or contradictory to his real life . As the wedding was a shared event in the life of both the applicants , the first applicant was obliged to accept the public \u2019s interest in the life of the second applicant .","NORP However , the court disagreed with the findings of ORG concerning the level of interference with the first applicant \u2019s personality rights . It held that the details published about the wedding , such as information regarding drinks , food and music , were not core private issues but constituted information that was generally discussed and of interest in the context of a wedding . Furthermore , the court pointed out that it was normal practice and to be expected that , in the context of a wedding , photos would be taken by different people , whether invited guests or not . As the photo of the first applicant did not show her in a negative light and was not published on the front page of the magazine , its publication could be justified by public interest . Lastly , ORG gave special consideration to the publication of quotes from the priest \u2019s address , the speeches of the second applicant and the first applicant \u2019s father , and an excerpt from an intercessory prayer recited by CARDINAL of the applicants\u2019 children . It reasoned that this information was more intrusive than the rest of the published details . Nonetheless , even though the wedding was not open to the general public , CARDINAL guests had been invited , and they were not bound to confidentiality . As these guests were not all part of the core family , the speakers and the applicant had to accept that certain information would be communicated to persons who were not invited and to the general public . In conclusion it reasoned that the mere desire on the part of the applicants to have no press coverage could not outweigh the legitimate public interest in the wedding , the published details and the photograph .","The first applicant \u2019s complaint against the refusal of leave to appeal on points of law was rejected .","On DATE ORG declined to admit the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , without providing reasons ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The second applicant also brought proceedings against the magazine , claiming damages of at least EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL in pre - trial expenses for the cease and desist declaration .","On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s action . It endorsed the reasoning of ORG and quoted its judgment of DATE at length .","NORP The applicant \u2019s appeal and complaint against the denial of leave to appeal on points of law were rejected .","Article QUANTITY of LAW ) guarantee freedom of expression and the freedom of the press and provide that these freedoms are subject to the limitations laid down in the provisions of the general laws and in the statutory provisions for the protection of young people and are also subject to the obligation to respect personal honour ( ORG der pers\u00f6nlichen GPE ) .","Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ( Gesetz betreffend das NORP an GPE der bildenden PERSON ) provides that images can only be disseminated with the express consent of the person concerned . LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides for exceptions to that rule in cases where the images portray an aspect of contemporary society ( GPE aus dem Bereich der GPE ) as long as publication does not interfere with a legitimate interest of the person concerned ( section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) provides that anyone who , intentionally or negligently , unlawfully infringes another \u2019s right to life , physical integrity , health , freedom , property or other similar right , shall be liable to furnish compensation for the resulting damage . LAW stipulates that monetary compensation may be demanded in respect of non - pecuniary damage only in the circumstances provided for by law . These include an injury to a person \u2019s body , health , freedom or sexual selfdetermination ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179818","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF HRUSTI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 personal details as well as the facts in relation to each case are set out in the FAC to this judgment .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of different civil and administrative proceedings under LAW .","NORP In case of the first and fourth applicant ORG rejected their the constitutional appeals , whereas in case of the second and third applicant ORG found a violation of a right to a trial within reasonable time , but awarded no damages ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181210","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SINKOVA v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the time of the events she belonged to an artistic group called ORG , which was known for its provocative public performances .","On DATE the applicant , together with CARDINAL other members of the above - mentioned union , made what she described as an \u201c act of performance \u201d , which , according to both parties\u2019 accounts , consisted of the following . They went to the Eternal Glory Memorial to those who perished in the Second World War , which contained the tombs of CARDINAL soldiers , including that of an Unknown Soldier . The applicant took a frying pan prepared in advance , broke some eggs into it and fried them over the Eternal Flame at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier . CARDINAL of her friends joined her and fried sausages on skewers over the flame . Another member of the group filmed the event . CARDINAL police officers approached them and made a remark that their behaviour was inappropriate , without further interference . On DATE the applicant posted the video on the Internet on behalf of ORG . It was accompanied by the following statement :","\u201c Precious natural gas has been being burned , pointlessly , at FAC in GPE for DATE now . This pleasure costs taxpayers CARDINAL hryvnias [ ORG ] per month . And this is only one \u2018 eternal ORG pagan temple , whereas there are MONEY of them throughout GPE . On DATE ORG reacted to this by an act of protest in LOC in the capital . It showed that people should use the \u2018 eternal ORG .","We suggest to the outraged representatives of ORG of GPE to follow the example of ancient NORP vestal virgins and to carry out around - the - clock duty at the \u2018 eternal flames\u2019 , keeping the fire lit manually by wood . There is no doubt that communists will have no problems with fulfilling this task , because they already have experience of taking care of the PERSON monument in GPE and their financing is much better than that which the vestal virgins had . \u201d","While the parties did not provide a copy of the video in question to the ORG , it was possible to view it on several publicly available websites . In addition to the factual account from the parties summarised above , the ORG notes that the soundtrack to the video was a famous DATE NORP song \u201c The battle is going on again \u201d ( devoted to the victory of the DATE revolution and optimism about the future of the communist regime ) . The video started with the following opening titles : \u201c GPE presents \u201d , \u201c Recipe of the day \u201d , \u201c Eternal fried eggs on the eternal flame \u201d . The participants in the performance did not make any public address and their conversation was not audible . They had no posters or other visual aids , apart from the food and cooking utensils . It could be seen on the video that once the applicant had broken the eggs in the frying pan and was about to approach the fire , while her friends held skewers with sausages , the CARDINAL police officers appeared and the applicant explained something to them and they left . In order to reach the flame the applicant had to step over a sculpture of a wreath of oak leaves and step on the words \u201c Glory to the Unknown Soldier \u201d .","There were several complaints to the police that the action on the video had amounted to desecration of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and called for criminal prosecution .","On DATE the police questioned NORP , CARDINAL of the women who had participated in the performance . She submitted that she had not known the other members of the group and that she had met them by chance . As they had allegedly explained to her , they had been hungry and had intended to cook food in order to eat it .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against NORP and CARDINAL unidentified persons on suspicion of hooliganism .","On DATE NORP wrote a confession that she had participated in a protest against inappropriate use of natural gas and that she regretted it . She knew only the first names of the other participants .","On DATE another criminal case was opened against her and CARDINAL unidentified persons in respect of the same event , this time on suspicion of desecration of a tomb . It was joined to that opened earlier . Subsequently the charge of hooliganism was dropped .","NORP The police retrieved photos of several persons who might have been involved in the incident from the passport office \u2019s database and showed them to NORP She recognised the applicant .","On DATE the investigator questioned the applicant \u2019s grandmother and mother , who lived at the address of the applicant \u2019s registered residence . They submitted that they knew nothing about her involvement in the event in question . They also stated that the applicant did not in fact live there and denied knowing her whereabouts or having her contact details . They only knew that she had left for western GPE , without further details . The grandmother stated that the applicant had visited her DATE . The applicant \u2019s mother had seen her DATE and had received a telephone call from DATE .","On DATE the investigator severed the criminal case in respect of the applicant and CARDINAL unidentified persons on suspicion of desecration of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier by a group following a prior conspiracy .","On DATE the applicant was declared wanted by the police .","On DATE the investigator applied to ORG of Kyiv ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for the applicant \u2019s detention as a preventive measure pending trial . His arguments were as follows : the offence of which the applicant was suspected was punishable by a prison term of DATE ; the applicant had absconded , as a result of which she had been declared wanted by the police ; and she could reoffend or hinder the establishment of the truth if at liberty .","On DATE a judge of ORG allowed that application in part : he ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest with a view to bringing her before the court for examination .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was arrested at the flat of a certain PERSON in GPE . As the latter subsequently stated during her questioning , the applicant had been living there from DATE at the request of an acquaintance .","On DATE the applicant was questioned as an accused in the presence of her lawyer . While insisting that her only intention had been to protest against the inappropriate use of natural gas , she confessed to the offence and expressed remorse .","On DATE the investigator once again applied to ORG for the applicant \u2019s detention as a preventive measure . His reasoning was the same as before .","On DATE and DATE CARDINAL deputies of ORG applied to ORG for the applicant \u2019s release in exchange of their personal guarantee of her adequate procedural behaviour .","On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody as a preventive measure pending trial . It noted that she was accused of a serious offence punishable by imprisonment of from DATE . Furthermore , the judge referred to the fact that the applicant had absconded and had therefore been put on the wanted list . It was also considered that she might hinder establishing the truth if at liberty . In so far as the applicant \u2019s lawyer relied on her positive character references from various sources , the court noted that those could not guarantee her compliance with all the procedural requirements . While having noted that the applicant also relied on the letters of personal guarantee from the people \u2019s deputies , the judge did not further comment on them . It was specified in the ruling that the term of the applicant \u2019s detention was to be calculated from CARDINAL DATE . Under the applicable legislation , the duration of pre - trial detention was limited to DATE , with the possibility of further extensions .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed . He submitted that his client was willing to cooperate with the investigation and that there were no reasons for her detention . It was further pointed out in the appeal that the applicant had been declared wanted by the police on DATE the criminal case against her had been opened . The lawyer noted that there had not been a single summons sent by the investigation to the applicant \u2019s address prior to her arrest . According to her , she had found out about the charge against her only on DATE of her arrest on DATE . Lastly , the lawyer submitted that the first - instance court had not considered any less intrusive preventive measures as an alternative to detention and that it had left without consideration the people deputies\u2019 letters of guarantee .","On DATE ORG rejected the above appeal . It noted that ORG had already duly examined all the arguments raised in it .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was indicted . On DATE the case was sent to ORG for trial .","On DATE the applicant applied to the court for release under an undertaking not to abscond . She submitted that she enjoyed positive character references , had no criminal record and had cooperated with the investigation . Furthermore , the applicant observed that by that time the investigation had already been completed and could not therefore be hampered . She emphasised that her actions had been nothing else than a protest driven by good motives . Several members of parliament and other prominent figures joined her in that application and expressed their wish to act as her personal guarantors .","On DATE ORG held a preparatory hearing , during which it rejected the applicant \u2019s application for release with reference to the seriousness of the charge against her , \u201c the nature and the circumstances of the offence of which she [ was ] accused \u201d , as well as the fact that she had been declared wanted by the police . The judge also stated , in general terms , that there were no grounds for the applicant \u2019s release under a personal guarantee .","On DATE the applicant applied once again to be released . On DATE ORG allowed that application and released her under an undertaking not to leave the town .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the desecration of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier , acting as part of a group of persons following a prior conspiracy . The court noted that the applicant had convinced NORP and CARDINAL other people , whose identities remained unestablished , to carry out a performance at the \u201c Eternal Glory \u201d memorial aimed at protesting against the waste of natural gas caused by the burning of the Eternal Flame . NORP , who was questioned in court , confirmed that account of events . The court also questioned the memorial keeper , who had witnessed the performance from a distance , and the QUANTITY police officers who had spoken to the applicant and her friends ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Furthermore , the court examined the video - recording of the performance as material evidence .","The judgment mentioned the statement made by the applicant during the hearing that in her opinion people bringing flowers to the memorial did not really understand what exactly it was dedicated to . She insisted that she had not committed any crime as her performance had not been meant to desecrate the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier . Furthermore , she maintained that there could not be a tomb beneath the Eternal Flame because of the gas pipe .","ORG held that the applicant \u2019s arguments had no impact on the legal classification of her actions and that they were refuted by the evidence as a whole . The judgment further stated in that regard :","\u201c ... the court considers that by committing deliberate acts in a group which showed disrespect for the burial place of the Unknown Soldier and for the public tradition of honouring the memory of soldiers who perished defending or liberating GPE and the lands of GPE from the fascist hordes , and by subsequently presenting those actions as a protest , [ the applicant ] has tried to escape social condemnation of her conduct and criminal liability for the offence . \u201d","Relying on local authority documents , the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s submission that there was no established location for the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier .","The court did not discern any aggravating or mitigating circumstances in the case . At the same time , in deciding on the penalty , it took into account , on the one hand , the fact that the applicant did not have a criminal record , that she was working as a political analyst and got positive character references by her place of residence and work . On the other hand , the court noted that the criminal offence in question was of medium gravity and that the applicant did not show any remorse for what she had done . As a result , she was sentenced to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","On DATE the ORG exempted NORP from criminal liability under the surety of her employer .","The applicant appealed . Relying on the definition of the desecration of a burial place under the Burial and Funeral Business Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , she maintained that in the absence of any intention by her to \u201c defile the family or social memory of a deceased or to show contempt for a burial place , or social and religious principles and traditions \u201d , there were no constituent elements of a crime in her actions . The applicant reiterated her argument that her performance had been nothing more than a protest . Lastly , she submitted that the criminal proceedings against her had violated her right to freedom of expression under LAW .","The prosecutor also appealed , considering the sentence to be too lenient .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . It stated that desecration of a tomb could have different expressions , indicating an insulting attitude , mockery or disrespect towards a tomb or the person buried therein , regardless of the stated motives . As regards the applicant \u2019s argument on her right to freedom of expression , the court noted that that right was not unlimited and that the restriction in the applicant \u2019s case was in accordance with the law and pursued a legitimate aim . The appellate court also rejected the prosecutor \u2019s appeal .","NORP The applicant further reiterated her arguments in an appeal on points of law lodged by her , which was , however , rejected by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10","5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1","5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170362","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KULYKOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were domestic court judges . Proceedings were brought against them , resulting in their dismissal from the post of judge . The facts giving rise to their dismissals were established by ORG ( PERSON \u0440\u0430\u0434\u0430 \u044e\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0446\u0456\u0457 , hereinafter \u201c LOC ) . The HCJ \u2019s decisions were submitted to ORG or to the President of GPE ( depending on which of those authorities had appointed the applicants to the post of judge ) for the final decisions on their dismissals .","The applicants further unsuccessfully challenged their dismissals before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) or other courts .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make submission to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had ignored the instructions given to him by the chairman and deputy chairman of his court . In addition , the applicant had unlawfully instituted criminal proceedings against the chairman of the court . The HCJ further noted that the applicant had disregarded the internal rules of the court , his professional competence had not improved and he had had communication difficulties with colleagues from the court . It rejected the applicant \u2019s contentions that the dismissal proposal had not been based on the real facts and that the chairman of the court had been biased against him and had interfered with the applicant \u2019s professional activity . The PERSON concluded that the applicant had not fairly and duly performed his duties and had to be dismissed .","On DATE ORG voted for the applicant \u2019s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect .","The applicant challenged the DATE \u2019s decision concerning his dismissal before the courts .","On DATE the ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s claim as unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .","On DATE the applicant unsuccessfully applied to the court of appeal for a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged cassation appeals against that decision with the ORG . He was not informed about the outcome of the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE the applicant challenged the parliamentary resolution of CARDINAL DATE before ORG .","On DATE the court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the HCJ \u2019s decision .","On DATE the court decided to leave the applicant \u2019s claim without consideration on the merits .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make submission to the President of GPE to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant , acting as a first - instance judge , had disregarded the rules governing territorial jurisdiction in a case concerning a labour dispute in a ORG company . It further found that he had violated the rules governing the interim measures in that case . Substantial damage to the ORG had been caused as a result of the interim measure ordered .","On DATE the President of GPE issued a decree dismissing the applicant from the post of judge on grounds of \u201c breach of oath \u201d .","The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging the LOC \u2019s decision and the Presidential decree concerning his dismissal .","On DATE the ORG upheld the factual findings and legal assessments of the HCJ in the applicant \u2019s case and dismissed the claims as unsubstantiated .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It adopted CARDINAL decisions on making submissions to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had systematically made procedural mistakes when administering justice , had adopted decisions in breach of domestic law and had wrongly applied interim measures . The HCJ also considered that the applicant had incurred expenses which were manifestly incommensurate with his official income . The PERSON concluded that the facts of the case suggested that the applicant had dishonoured the judicial profession and cast doubt on his objectivity and impartiality . Objections raised by the applicant were rejected as unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG voted for the applicant \u2019s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect .","The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging the HCJ \u2019s decisions and the parliamentary resolution concerning his dismissal .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claims as unsubstantiated .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It therefore decided to make a submission to ORG to have him dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had adopted several unlawful and unsubstantiated decisions and had failed to follow procedural rules when administering justice . Objections raised by the applicant were rejected as unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG voted for the dismissal of the applicant and adopted a resolution to that effect .","The applicant instituted proceedings against ORG challenging his dismissal before the ORG . In his claim he also argued that the conclusions of the HCJ were unfounded and unlawful ; there had been violations in the proceedings before FAC . The HCJ joined the proceedings as a third party .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claims as unsubstantiated . It found that the HCJ \u2019s conclusions were well - founded and that the decisions of the HCJ and ORG were lawful .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It adopted CARDINAL decisions on making submissions to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had adopted a number of unlawful and unsubstantiated decisions and that she had failed to follow procedural rules when administering justice . The HCJ considered that the applicant \u2019s procedural mistakes had dishonoured the judicial profession , cast doubt on her objectivity and impartiality , and suggested that she had to be dismissed . Objections raised by the applicant were rejected as unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG voted for the dismissal of the applicant and adopted a resolution to that effect .","The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging CARDINAL of the HCJ \u2019s decisions of CARDINAL DATE and the parliamentary resolution concerning her dismissal .","On DATE the ORG considered the case . It found that the HCJ \u2019s decision was lawful and substantiated . As to the other CARDINAL decisions taken on DATE by the HCJ , the ORG noted that the applicant had not challenged them . The ORG concluded that there were no grounds to examine the lawfulness of the HCJ \u2019s other decisions . The ORG further found that the applicant \u2019s right to participate in the plenary session of ORG had not been respected and declared the parliamentary resolution in respect of the applicant unlawful .","On DATE ORG once again voted for the dismissal of the applicant ( on the basis of the HCJ \u2019s decisions of CARDINAL DATE ) and adopted a resolution to that effect .","The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging the second resolution of ORG .","On DATE the ORG rejected the claim as unsubstantiated . It found that the procedure for the applicant \u2019s dismissal in ORG and the resolution to that effect were lawful .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It therefore decided to make submission to the President of GPE to have him dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had wrongly applied an interim measure in a case where ORG had been the defendant . It concluded that the violation had cast doubt on the applicant \u2019s objectivity and impartiality , and suggested that he had not duly performed his duties and had dishonoured the judicial profession .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed by decree of the President of GPE .","The applicant challenged his dismissal before the ORG .","On DATE the ORG found that the HCJ \u2019s decision was unlawful . It then noted that the applicant had not sought to have the presidential decree concerning his dismissal \u201c declared unlawful \u201d but had sought the \u201c quashing \u201d of that decree . However , such a measure was outside the competence of the ORG . In that regard the ORG referred to LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) considering that it was prevented by that provision from examining the case beyond the scope of the claims .","On DATE the Acting President of GPE reversed the Presidential decree of DATE concerning the applicant \u2019s dismissal , having regard to the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant resumed his office of judge .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It adopted CARDINAL decisions on making submissions to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had violated procedural rules when administering justice and that he had interfered with the activities of the law - enforcement authorities when they carried out a search operation . Those violations had cast doubt on the applicant \u2019s objectivity and impartiality , and suggested that he had not performed his duties properly . The PERSON rejected the applicant \u2019s contentions challenging the dismissal proposal .","On DATE ORG voted for the dismissal of the applicant and adopted a resolution to that effect .","The applicant challenged the decisions of the HCJ and ORG concerning his dismissal before the ORG .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claims as unsubstantiated . According to the applicant , on DATE the ORG delivered only the introductory and operative parts of the decision .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG dispatched a copy of the full text of the decision to the applicant . Allegedly , the applicant received that letter on DATE .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It therefore decided to make submission to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had adopted several unlawful and unfounded decisions , had wrongly applied an interim measure , and had committed procedural errors when administering justice . The HCJ considered that those violations had cast doubt on the applicant \u2019s objectivity , impartiality and independence ; they also suggested that she had ignored requirements of domestic law and had failed to perform her duties properly . The PERSON rejected objections raised by the applicant as unfounded .","The applicant challenged the DATE \u2019s decision before the ORG .","DATE . On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim as unsubstantiated .","On DATE a draft parliamentary resolution concerning the applicant \u2019s dismissal was not adopted by a majority vote in ORG .","On DATE ORG voted for the dismissal of the applicant and adopted a resolution to that effect .","On DATE the ORG rejected as unfounded the applicant \u2019s claim against the HCJ and ORG concerning her dismissal , noting in particular that the HCJ decision of CARDINAL DATE had been earlier reviewed by the ORG . The ORG further found no violations in the parliamentary procedure for the applicant \u2019s dismissal .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It therefore decided to make submission to ORG to have him dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had participated , as a presiding judge , in the consideration of a case in which Judge PERSON , a relative of his , had been a third party . The consideration of that case had resulted in a wrong decision , which had been quashed by a higher court . The HCJ further noted that the applicant had concealed the fact that he and Judge PERSON were related . The HCJ considered that those facts had cast doubt on the applicant \u2019s objectivity and impartiality ; they suggested that he had dishonoured the judicial profession , neglected the ethical rules of judicial conduct , and failed to carry out his duties properly . The HCJ rejected objections raised by the applicant as unfounded .","On DATE ORG voted for the dismissal of the applicant and adopted a resolution to that effect .","The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging the resolution of ORG and arguing that the conclusions of the HCJ were unfounded and unlawful .","On DATE the ORG considered the case . It noted that the applicant had not challenged the LOC \u2019s decision as such ; nor had he indicated the HCJ as a party to the proceedings . The ORG concluded that there were no grounds to examine the lawfulness of the DATE \u2019s decision in respect of the applicant . It further found that the applicant \u2019s right to participate in the parliamentary procedure had not been respected and declared the parliamentary resolution concerning the applicant unlawful .","On DATE ORG once again voted for the dismissal of the applicant ( on the basis of the HCJ \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ) and adopted a resolution to that effect .","The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG , challenging the second resolution of ORG . He claimed that the conclusions of the HCJ were unfounded and unlawful , and that there had been violations in the proceedings before the HCJ . He requested that the HCJ be admitted to the case as a third party .","On DATE the ORG considered the case and rejected the claim as unsubstantiated . It noted that the applicant had not challenged the HCJ \u2019s decision as such and found that there were no grounds to review its findings . The ORG further found that the procedure for the applicant \u2019s dismissal in ORG and the resolution to that effect were lawful .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make submission to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had wrongly applied domestic law in land and administrative cases and had not followed procedural rules when dealing with those cases . It concluded that those violations had cast doubt on the applicant \u2019s objectivity and impartiality ; they suggested that he had failed to carry out his duties properly and had dishonoured the judicial profession . Objections raised by the applicant were dismissed as unfounded .","On DATE ORG voted for the applicant \u2019s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect .","On DATE the applicant applied to the ORG challenging the LOC \u2019s decision and the parliamentary resolution concerning his dismissal . He also claimed that he had missed the deadline for challenging the HCJ decision because of the serious illness of his child .","On DATE the ORG left the applicant \u2019s claim against the HCJ without consideration , finding that the applicant had missed the deadline for challenging the HCJ decision without a valid reason .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim against the parliamentary resolution as unsubstantiated . It noted in particular that the applicant had been informed of the plenary meeting of ORG and that his failure to appear did not give grounds for declaring the parliamentary resolution unlawful .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It therefore decided to make submission to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The HCJ found that the applicant had failed to follow procedural rules when administering justice in a corporate dispute and had adopted an unlawful decision in that case . It considered that those violations suggested that the applicant had dishonoured the judicial profession and had not acted diligently and impartially . Objections raised by the applicant were dismissed as unfounded .","On DATE ORG voted for the dismissal of the applicant and adopted a resolution to that effect .","The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging the LOC \u2019s decision and the resolution of ORG .","DATE . On DATE the ORG found that the decision of the HCJ was lawful . As to the proceedings in ORG , the ORG found that the applicant \u2019s right to participate in the parliamentary procedure had not been respected and declared the parliamentary resolution in respect of the applicant unlawful .","On DATE ORG once again voted for the dismissal of the applicant ( on the basis of the HCJ \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ) and adopted a resolution to that effect .","The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG challenging the second resolution of ORG . At the applicant \u2019s request , the HCJ joined the case as a third party .","On DATE the ORG considered the case and rejected the claim as unfounded . It noted that the HCJ \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE had been earlier reviewed by the ORG . It then found that the procedure for the applicant \u2019s dismissal in ORG and the resolution to that effect were lawful .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make submission to ORG to have him dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had adopted several unlawful decisions and had committed procedural errors when administering justice . It considered that his errors had cast doubt on his objectivity , impartiality and independence , and suggested that he had not performed his duties properly .","On DATE ORG voted for the applicant \u2019s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect .","On DATE the ORG dismissed a claim brought by the applicant concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the HCJ decision .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make a submission to ORG to have her dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had wrongly applied an interim measure in a corporate dispute by which she had groundlessly interfered with the economic activities of a company ; she had also failed to follow procedural rules when administering justice in that case . The HCJ found that those violations suggested that the applicant had not acted lawfully , impartially and independently . Objections raised by the applicant were rejected as unsubstantiated .","DATE . On DATE ORG voted for the applicant \u2019s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect .","The applicant challenged her dismissal before ORG , arguing that the LAW and ORG had acted unlawfully .","On DATE that court rejected the applicant \u2019s claim as unfounded .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant .","On DATE the ORG dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make a submission to ORG to have him dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had on several occasions taken leave without obtaining the relevant approval from the court administration ; he had failed to appear in the office without valid reasons ; he had prevented his judicial assistant from performing his functions ; he had refused to take cases for consideration ; and he had not complied with the requirement to submit income - tax declarations . Having regard to those facts , the HCJ found that the applicant had neglected his professional duties , dishonoured the judicial profession and had to be dismissed .","On DATE ORG voted for the applicant \u2019s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect .","DATE the applicant attempted to institute proceedings in the ORG challenging the LOC \u2019s decision . By several decisions the ORG refused to open proceedings , noting that the applicant had failed to prepare and submit his claim in accordance with the requirements of the ORG .","The applicant instituted proceedings before the ORG , challenging the parliamentary resolution on his dismissal .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim as unsubstantiated .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make a submission to ORG to have him dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had on several occasions taken leave without obtaining the relevant approval from the court administration ; he had failed to appear in the office without valid reason ; he had refused to take cases for consideration ; he had delayed the examination of criminal cases ; he had prevented his judicial assistant from performing his functions ; and he had not complied with the requirement to submit income - tax declarations . Having regard to those facts , the HCJ found that the applicant had neglected his professional duties , dishonoured the judicial profession and had to be dismissed .","On DATE ORG voted for the applicant \u2019s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect .","DATE the applicant attempted to institute proceedings in the ORG , challenging the HCJ \u2019s decision . By several decisions the ORG refused to open proceedings , noting that the applicant had failed to prepare and submit his claim in accordance with the requirements of the ORG .","The applicant instituted proceedings before the ORG , challenging the parliamentary resolution on his dismissal .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim as unsubstantiated .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make a submission to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant had on several occasions taken leave without obtaining the relevant approval from the court administration ; he had failed to appear in the office without valid reason ; he had refused to take cases for consideration ; he had shown disrespect to the officers of the court registry ; and he had not complied with the requirement to submit income - tax declarations . Having regard to those facts , the HCJ found that the applicant had neglected his professional duties , dishonoured the judicial profession and had to be dismissed .","On DATE ORG voted for the applicant \u2019s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect .","DATE the applicant attempted to institute proceedings in the ORG , challenging the HCJ \u2019s decision . By several decisions the ORG refused to open proceedings , noting that the applicant had failed to prepare and submit his claim in accordance with the requirements of the ORG .","The applicant instituted proceedings before the ORG , challenging the parliamentary resolution on his dismissal .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim as unsubstantiated .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make submission to ORG to have the applicant dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The HCJ found that the applicant had committed numerous procedural errors when reviewing , under newly discovered circumstances , a case involving local authorities . The HCJ considered that the errors had been committed intentionally ; they cast doubt on the applicant \u2019s objectivity and impartiality and called for his dismissal . Objections raised by the applicant were rejected as unsubstantiated .","The applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG , challenging the HCJ \u2019s decision .","On DATE a draft parliamentary resolution concerning the applicant \u2019s dismissal was not adopted by a majority vote .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim against the HCJ as unsubstantiated . According to the applicant , he received the full text of the decision DATE .","On DATE ORG voted for the applicant \u2019s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect .","NORP The applicant instituted proceedings before the ORG , challenging the resolution of ORG .","On DATE the ORG considered the case and rejected the claim as unfounded . It noted that the HCJ \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE had been earlier reviewed by the ORG . It further found that the parliamentary procedure for the applicant \u2019s dismissal and the resolution to that effect were lawful .","On DATE the HCJ established that the applicant had breached the judicial oath . It decided to make submission to ORG to have her dismissed from the post of judge for \u201c breach of oath \u201d . The PERSON noted that the applicant , as a member of a panel of judges , had participated in the consideration of a criminal case and the adoption of the judgment in that case . Subsequently , that judgment had been partly quashed by a higher court on the grounds that it was unsubstantiated and the sentence was too lenient . The HCJ considered that the first - instance court \u2019s judgment had had negative consequences : it had caused discontent in society , since the criminal case had been widely discussed in the media . The HCJ concluded that the applicant had disregarded the requirements of procedural law , had not acted diligently and impartially when considering the criminal case and had to be dismissed . Objections raised by the applicant were rejected as unfounded .","The applicant instituted proceedings before the ORG , challenging the HCJ \u2019s decision .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claims as unsubstantiated . It noted , among other things , that the HCJ had repeatedly postponed the hearings due to the applicant \u2019s failure to appear and had properly informed the applicant of the hearings .","On DATE ORG voted for the applicant \u2019s dismissal and adopted a resolution to that effect ."],"violated_articles":["6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174440","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TRANDAFIL AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180492","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BOYETS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the time of the events she worked as a passport registration officer ( \u043f\u0430\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0441\u0442 ) in CARDINAL of the municipal housing and public utilities\u2019 offices ( PERSON ) in ORG .","On DATE a certain PERSON went to the passport registration office where the applicant worked to apply for a passport for her son , who had reached the age of DATE . As PERSON subsequently mentioned to the police ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , she had already applied to the applicant in the past . According to PERSON , when she was waiting in the queue , she heard people saying that the applicant was known for taking bribes and that her \u201c usual rate \u201d was MONEY ( ORG ) . Given the considerable number of visitors , PERSON could not get an appointment DATE . She waited for the applicant in the corridor after work and explained the situation to her . The applicant allegedly told PERSON that it might be time - consuming to settle the matter , in particular because of the fact that PERSON \u2019s son had been born in GPE and his original birth certificate was not available . However , according to PERSON , the applicant agreed to help her to speed up the procedure with the higher authority , where she would need to pay CARDINAL to the official in charge .","According to the applicant \u2019s version of events , she did indeed have a late visitor in the corridor DATE , whom she advised to come back during TIME , with no further exchange taking place .","On DATE made a written statement to the Kharkiv Kyivskyy District Police that the applicant had asked for a bribe of ORG CARDINAL to speed up the passport issuance procedure . PERSON confirmed that she was aware of the criminal liability for knowingly making a false report about a crime . According to the police records , the above statement was made at TIME However , as subsequently established ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that was an error and the actual time of the statement was QUANTITY","M. provided the police with a banknote of CARDINAL , CARDINAL banknotes of ORG and CARDINAL of CARDINAL . A detective officer put a special luminescent fluid on the banknotes and returned them to LOC That act took place in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses and was documented in a report . It is not known why it was decided to mark the additional banknotes , not only the ORG CARDINAL note .","At TIME on DATE entered the applicant \u2019s office and emerged TIME , indicating to the investigator and the attesting witnesses that she had given the CARDINAL banknote to the applicant . As it was the end of the working day , the applicant locked her office and began to leave . However , the investigator stopped her and suggested she return to her office , which they did together in the presence of the CARDINAL attesting witnesses . The investigator asked the applicant whether she had received any money from PERSON She stated that she had and took the banknote from her purse . The police officer then checked the applicant \u2019s hands with a special device and found traces of the luminescent liquid . They were wiped off with cotton pads , which were then packed and sealed as material evidence . Such traces were also found on the banknote of ORG CARDINAL in the applicant \u2019s purse and on the purse itself . Lastly , several passports and other papers with various banknotes inserted , varying from CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) ( equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) to ORG CARDINAL ( equal to about EUR CARDINAL ) , were found in the applicant \u2019s bag and were seized . The investigator drew up an inspection and seizure report . The serial number of the CARDINAL banknote seized from the applicant , as indicated in the report , differed by CARDINAL letter ( out of CARDINAL characters ) from the one noted in the report on marking the bill with the luminescent fluid drawn up DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The applicant wrote an explanation , stating that she had indeed taken MONEY from PERSON , which she had intended to pay to an unspecified official at the local passport registration authority with a view to speeding up the issuance of the passport for PERSON \u2019s son . The applicant also stated that she had voluntarily complied with the police \u2019s request to give them the banknote in question . She noted that she had studied the inspection and seizure report and that she agreed with its contents . Lastly , she stated that she had no complaints against the police and that she regretted her actions .","Also on DATE , following the police operation , the investigator collected \u201c explanations \u201d from PERSON and the attesting witnesses . PERSON supplemented her initial statement to the police with further factual details ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Both attesting witnesses described the police operation which they had observed , as summarised in paragraphs CARDINAL above .","On DATE , during her questioning by the investigator , the applicant changed her account of the events as follows . On DATE , when she had been about to leave work at TIME , PERSON had entered the office . She had brought some documents in order to get a passport for her son . The applicant had informed her that certain documents were missing . The applicant had also clarified that she would be working in a different office from DATE , DATE . While collecting her papers and belongings before leaving , the applicant had noticed that PERSON had thrown something on the table and had run out of the office . The applicant had seen that it was a USD CARDINAL banknote . She had taken it and had tried to get an explanation from PERSON However , she had already left . When the applicant had looked out into the corridor , she had only seen a man waiting there . It was GPE , one of the attesting witnesses . Given that different people would be working in the office on the following working day and because she knew her manager was away , the applicant had decided to keep the banknote in order to return it to M. later .","Furthermore , the applicant explained that her initial statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been made in a state of shock and had not been truthful . Allegedly , the investigator had dictated the statement to her .","On DATE a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of incitement to bribery .","On DATE PERSON gave written explanations to ORG with her account of the events , which was the same as before ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant expressed a wish to be represented by the lawyer Zh . and the latter was admitted to the proceedings . When questioned in her lawyer \u2019s presence on DATE , the applicant admitted that on DATE she had hinted to PERSON that the examination of her application was likely to take time and that the applicant would be prepared to speed up the procedure before the higher authority , which she had not intended to do in reality . However , she had seen PERSON putting a USD CARDINAL banknote on the table and had decided to take advantage of the situation given her own financial difficulties . She explained the difference between her latest account and her earlier submissions by shock and stress , and expressed remorse for what had happened .","On DATE , DATE , PERSON was also questioned . As indicated in the report of the questioning , she was registered as living in GPE .","On DATE an expert report established that the traces of luminescent liquid on the USD CARDINAL banknote and on the applicant \u2019s hands were the same .","On DATE fraud was added to the charges against the applicant , given that she had promised to PERSON to act as an intermediary in bribing a higher - level official , whereas in reality she had meant to keep the money for herself .","On DATE formal charges were brought against the applicant and her status changed from being a suspect to an accused .","On DATE the applicant changed her lawyer . When questioned that day in the presence of her new lawyer ( PERSON ) , she returned to the account of events she had given on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . She submitted that she had stated differently in the presence of her previous lawyer ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) because she had \u201c considered it useless to prove [ her ] case and feared that nobody would believe [ her ] \u201d .","On DATE the investigator returned the USD CARDINAL banknote to PERSON , who wrote a receipt in confirmation . She also undertook to keep the banknote until the end of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG approved the bill of indictment against the applicant . It contained the following list of persons to be summoned to court : the applicant , the victim ( PERSON ) and the CARDINAL attesting witnesses ( PERSON and GPE .","On DATE ORG dropped the charge of incitement to bribery . It also ruled to relieve the applicant of criminal liability in respect of the fraud charge and terminated proceedings on that point on the grounds that she was not a danger to society ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant appealed , seeking the termination of the criminal proceedings against her owing to the absence of the constituent elements of a crime in her actions . She denied asking for or receiving any money from PERSON and maintained that the latter had simply thrown the banknote on her table . Overall , the applicant considered \u201c everything that had happened to [ her ] as a provocation on the part of the law - enforcement authorities \u201d . She also complained that she had not been able to cross - examine M.","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed the above decision . It held that the first - instance court had not been entitled to terminate the proceedings in the way it had done without the applicant \u2019s consent . The appellate court also noted that the applicant \u2019s argument about her inability to cross - examine M. had not been examined . The case was remitted to the same first - instance court for fresh examination by a different panel .","ORG adjourned hearings in the case several times owing to the absence of PERSON and the CARDINAL attesting witnesses . On DATE it decided that it was impossible to complete its judicial investigation in their absence and ordered the police to ensure their attendance .","The police found out that PERSON had sold her house in GPE on an unspecified date in DATE and had moved to GPE , with her new address being unknown . PERSON had moved to a different city in GPE , but eventually attended CARDINAL of the hearings . The other attesting witness , T. , was always away from home when visited by the police and his neighbours had not seen him for some time . Eventually , the police located him and on DATE he made a written statement that he would appear at a hearing scheduled for DATE ( with no further details available ) .","As stated in a note issued by a clerk of ORG on DATE , the hearing scheduled for DATE was postponed to DATE given the judges\u2019 involvement in a different case . It is not known whether there was a hearing on DATE . It is an established fact , however , that T. did not attend any of the hearings .","In DATE the applicant enquired with the Kharkiv ORG as to whether PERSON \u2019s son was registered there . On DATE she received a reply that he had appeared before that office in DATE and DATE , and that the army conscription commission had found him unfit for military service in peacetime by a decision of DATE . The son had not changed the place of his military registration . The applicant brought the above information to the knowledge of the trial court dealing with her case .","On DATE ORG once again ordered the police to ensure the presence of PERSON and the CARDINAL attesting witnesses at the trial .","On DATE it decided to continue the examination of the case in the absence of PERSON as it appeared impossible to establish her whereabouts . In reaching that conclusion , the court referred to the fact that she was no longer registered as being resident in the ORG region and that the police had information that she had emigrated to GPE . By the same ruling , ORG ordered the prosecution authorities to ensure the mandatory presence of T.","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of fraud and incitement to bribery and sentenced her to a fine of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( then equivalent to LAW ) . Although the applicant pleaded innocent , the court considered her guilt to be proved by the totality of the evidence . It relied on the statements of PERSON , the aggrieved party , made during the pretrial investigation , and those of the attesting witnesses , made by PERSON before the court and by T. during the pre - trial investigation . The court stated that it had \u201c no grounds for questioning the credibility of the aggrieved party and the witnesses whose statements [ were ] corroborated by other objective [ ... ] evidence \u201d . The trial court also relied on the inspection and seizure report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the forensic expert examination report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The verdict noted that the applicant had initially confessed to the offences , but had later retracted her confession for no apparent reason other than an attempt to escape liability . Her initial statement was considered , however , more plausible .","On DATE the applicant appealed and on DATE she submitted further \u201c written explanations to [ her ] appeal \u201d . She complained , in particular , that her conviction had been based mainly on the statements of PERSON , who had never appeared before the court and whom the applicant had never been able to cross - examine . She argued that the first - instance court had not shown due diligence in finding and summoning PERSON The applicant also complained that ORG had wrongly relied on her initial confession , which had been dictated to her by the police before the institution of criminal proceedings against her .","The applicant did not refer in her appeal or in its supplement to her inability to examine ORG or to have him examined . At the same time , on DATE , she lodged a written application to the appellate court to summon T. given that he \u201c was an attesting witness \u201d and that he \u201c had made statements against [ the applicant ] \u201d .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . It considered that the applicant had initially made a confession of her own free will and that she had failed to give any convincing explanation about her subsequent change in position . Furthermore , the appellate court noted that the whereabouts of PERSON and T. could not be established . There were no reasons to question the veracity of the statements they had made during the pre - trial investigation . Nor were there any reasons to suspect any intention by them to falsely accuse the applicant . In sum , the appellate court did not discern any procedural flaws which warranted quashing the verdict .","The applicant appealed on points of law . She argued that the covert operation of DATE had been unlawful because it had not been duly authorised and had taken place in the absence of any criminal proceedings against her , even prior to the formal registration of PERSON \u2019s statement . The applicant also complained that her rights under LAW ( d ) of the LAW had been breached on account of her inability to cross - examine M. and T.","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law and upheld the lower courts\u2019 decisions . Its general conclusion was that no violations of the law of criminal procedure had been established .","On DATE ORG opened a criminal case against the applicant for a failure to comply with the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant was placed under an undertaking not to leave her town of residence as a preventive measure pending trial .","In the absence of any formal charges against her , the preventive measure ceased to apply DATE , on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , a fact of which the applicant was not aware . It is not known if there was any formal decision lifting the measure in question .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were terminated for lack of the constituent elements of a crime in the applicant \u2019s actions . On DATE that decision was quashed and the case was returned for additional investigation . The case file does not contain any documents regarding the preventive measure then applicable to the applicant , if any .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant , who considered herself still bound by the undertaking not to leave her town of residence of CARDINAL DATE , requested leave to travel outside the ORG region from the investigator . On DATE the investigator sent her a letter stating that her request could not be granted because she had not provided any address or other details about the planned trip .","On DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued again . However , DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE the investigator terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant for lack of the constituent elements of a crime in her actions . It was concluded that she had not evaded paying the fine , but that it had been impossible for her to do so given her low income . By the same ruling , the preventive measure in respect of the applicant was lifted , without further details .","On DATE a new Code of Criminal Procedure ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) entered into force . Instead of opening a criminal case , it provided for the initiation of an investigation by way of making an entry in ORG .","DATE . On DATE a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s failure to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was launched again and was registered in ORG . On an unspecified date the proceedings were discontinued . On DATE they were , however , resumed .","On DATE those proceedings were discontinued once again on the grounds that there were no constituent elements of a crime in the applicant \u2019s actions . The case file contains no information about any further developments .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim against ORG , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of her allegedly unlawful criminal prosecution from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . She enclosed copies of the CARDINAL rulings of those dates , by which the investigator had opened and had discontinued the criminal proceedings against her . The applicant also mentioned , in general terms , that she had been unlawfully placed under an undertaking not to leave her town , without further details .","The prosecutor submitted objections . He stated that on DATE the investigator dealing with the applicant \u2019s case had revoked the impugned preventive measure , given that no charges had been brought against her within DATE of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . The prosecutor also noted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been reopened on DATE ( see paragraph DATE above ) and remained pending .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim as unsubstantiated . As regards her undertaking not to leave the town , the court concluded that it had only been applicable from MONEY DATE .","The applicant appealed . She submitted , in particular , that \u201c the [ firstinstance ] court had not given any legal assessment to the fact that the criminal proceedings against [ her ] had been instituted on DATE and discontinued on CARDINAL DATE , and that all that time [ she ] had been under an undertaking not to abscond , which had been lifted by the ruling on the termination of the criminal proceedings of CARDINAL DATE , that being confirmed by [ the investigator \u2019s ] letter of CARDINAL DATE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant indicated in brackets the page number of the letter concerned in the case file . She further argued , in general terms , that the court had incorrectly interpreted Article CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that it had not calculated , as prescribed under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , an amount of compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage to which she was entitled . The applicant did not enclose any documents with her appeal .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . It noted that the sole fact that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been discontinued did not imply that she had suffered non - pecuniary damage and she had failed to prove otherwise . The appellate court further observed that the applicant \u201c [ had ] not proved when exactly she had been placed under the undertaking not to leave the town as a preventive measure . Therefore , her submission that she had been restrained in her liberty of movement for DATE [ could ] not be taken into consideration \u201d .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , in which she indicated , in particular , that the applicability of the undertaking not to leave the town from DATE to CARDINAL DATE had been established by documents . She reiterated her earlier argument that no assessment had been given to the investigator \u2019s refusals of her requests for leave to travel outside the ORG region in DATE . This time the applicant enclosed a copy of the letter referred to .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal on points of law .","On DATE the applicant sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers involved in the undercover operation of DATE . Her main argument was that PERSON \u2019s complaint had been registered only at TIME that day , which had been after the completion of the police operation and thus had undermined its lawfulness .","NORP The prosecution authorities refused to open a criminal case against the police on several occasions . It was established that PERSON \u2019s complaint had indeed been registered , by mistake , at TIME instead of TIME on DATE , for which the respective officer had been reprimanded . However , there was no indication of a criminal offence ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181835","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF A.K. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168861","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DIMITROV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s father owned a house with a yard and a garage in GPE .","Pursuant to a decision of the mayor issued on DATE , the property was expropriated for the purposes of constructing a residential building . The order , based on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LOC and Urban Planning Act ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0430\u043b\u043d\u043e\u0442\u043e \u0438 \u0441\u0435\u043b\u0438\u0449\u043d\u043e \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , provided that the applicant \u2019s father was to be compensated with a CARDINAL - room flat and a garage in a building which the municipality planned to construct .","In a supplementary decision of DATE , based on section CARDINAL of the PERSON , the mayor specified the exact location , size and other details in respect of the flat to be provided by way of compensation . As no mention was made of a garage , the applicant \u2019s father applied for judicial review of that decision . In a final judgment of DATE ORG found in his favour and referred the case back to the administrative authorities with instructions to specify the exact garage to be provided as compensation .","NORP In DATE the flat in question was constructed and handed over to the applicant \u2019s father .","After DATE the applicant \u2019s father filed numerous requests with the municipal authorities asking them to specify the exact garage to be given to him . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the chief architect of GPE informed him that no buildings with garages earmarked for the purpose of compensation were being constructed at the moment .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s father brought an action for damages under the ORG and ORG ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u043e\u0442\u0433\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u044a\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0438 \u043e\u0431\u0449\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0438 ) for unlawful failure on the part of the GPE municipality to fulfill its obligations to build and provide him with a garage . The action was dismissed in a final judgment of DATE of ORG , on the grounds that no unlawful failure to act on the part of the authorities had been established .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant \u2019s father passed away . The applicant is his only heir ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161530","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GUBERINA v. CROATIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property);Reopening of case (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP The applicant owned a flat in GPE situated on the third floor of a residential building , where he lived with his wife and CARDINAL children .","In DATE , DATE after he had bought the flat , the applicant \u2019s wife gave birth to their third child . The child was born with multiple physical and mental disabilities .","After the birth the child underwent a number of medical treatments and his condition was under the constant supervision of the competent social care services . In DATE an expert commission diagnosed him with incurable cerebral palsy , grave mental retardation and epilepsy . In DATE the social services declared the child PERCENT disabled .","In the meantime , in DATE , the applicant bought a house in GPE , and in DATE he sold his flat . According to the applicant , the reason for buying a house was the fact that the building in which his flat was situated had no lift and for that reason did not meet the needs of his disabled child and his family . In particular , it was very difficult to take his son out of the flat to see a doctor , or to take him for physiotherapy and to kindergarten or school , and to meet his other social needs .","On DATE , after he had bought the house in GPE , the applicant submitted a tax exemption request to the tax authorities . He relied on section PERSON ) of ORG , which provided for the possibility of tax exemption for a person who was buying a flat or a house in order to solve his or her housing needs , if he or she , or his or her family members , did not have another flat or house meeting their housing needs ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In his request the applicant argued that the flat which he owned did not meet the housing needs of his family since it was very difficult , and in fact becoming impossible , to take his disabled child out of the flat from the third floor without a lift , given that he was in a wheelchair . The applicant therefore submitted that he had bought the house in order to cater for his son \u2019s needs .","On DATE ORG ( ORG uprava , ORG ured GPE , GPE ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s request , giving the following reasons :","\u201c Section PERSON ) of ORG ... provides for tax exemption for citizens who are buying their first real property in order to meet their housing needs , under conditions which must be cumulatively satisfied , including the requirement that the taxpayer in question , or his or her family members , do not have another flat or a house meeting their housing needs . During the proceedings it was established that the taxpayer PERSON had owned a flat measuring QUANTITY , in GPE ... , which he had sold on DATE to ... Given that the surface of that real property , and in view of the number of the taxpayer \u2019s immediate family members ( CARDINAL ) , satisfied the housing needs of the taxpayer and his immediate family , within the meaning of section CARDINAL ) of ORG , and given that it satisfied all housing needs in terms of hygiene and technical requirements as well as the basic infrastructure ( electricity , water and [ access to ] other public utilities ) , under LAW , the taxpayer does not meet the cumulative conditions provided under section PERSON ) of ORG . It was therefore decided as noted in the operative part [ of the decision ] . \u201d","ORG ordered the applicant to pay MONEY kunas ( HRK ; approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in tax .","The applicant appealed against the above decision to ORG ( PERSON , ORG slu\u017eba za drugostupanjski upravni postupak ; hereafter , \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) , and on DATE the ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of ORG . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c Section PERSON ) of ORG , ORG . DATE ) provides for tax exemption for citizens who are buying their first real property in order to meet their housing needs . It further lays down conditions which the citizen must meet in order to demonstrate that he or she is buying his or her first real property in order to meet his or her housing needs . In this connection , CARDINAL of the conditions laid down under indent CARDINAL is that the citizen and the members of his or her immediate family must not have another real property ( flat or house ) meeting their housing needs ; and indent CARDINAL also provides that the citizen and the members of his or her immediate family must not own a flat , a holiday house , or property of a significant value ( other property of a significant value can include a piece of land where construction is allowed ) or a business premises where the citizen or his or her immediate family members do not exercise a registered [ business ] activity , whereby the value of the real property is similar to that of the real property ( flat or house ) which the citizen is purchasing .","Given the rationale of the cited provisions and the facts of the case as established beyond doubt during the proceedings , [ the Ministry ] considers that the first - instance authority was justified in rejecting the appellant \u2019s request for tax exemption ... The right to tax exemption exists if the citizen , or his or her immediate family members , at the time of purchase [ of the real property ] , do not own , or did not own , another real property meeting their housing needs or a flat , a holiday house or other real property of a significant value . As this is not the situation in the present case , given that the appellant , at the time of purchase [ of the house ] , owned a flat in GPE ... larger than the real property he was buying and in respect of which he sought tax exemption , it can not be said that by buying the house the appellant was purchasing his first real property in order to meet his housing needs . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action with ORG ( ORG upravni sud PERSON ) , arguing that in their decisions the lower bodies had ignored his specific family situation and , in particular , his child \u2019s disability and therefore the housing needs of his family . In the applicant \u2019s view , it was necessary to recognise that in his particular case the availability of a lift in the building was an infrastructural requirement on the same level as access to water and electricity in general . He also emphasised that the house was the first real property in respect of which he had sought a real property transfer tax exemption .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s administrative action as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the lower administrative bodies . The relevant part of the judgment reads :","\u201c Given that the surface area of the flat [ which the applicant owned ] satisfied the needs of CARDINAL members of the plaintiff \u2019s family ( provision CARDINAL ) and that the flat at issue was equipped with the basic infrastructure and hygiene and technical requirements , the defendant correctly concluded that the plaintiff , in the given case , did not meet the conditions for a tax exemption set out in section PERSON ) of ORG .","The arguments regarding the administrative action are ineffective in changing the decision in this administrative matter , and therefore the court considers that the impugned decision did not breach the law to the plaintiff \u2019s detriment . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) relying on LAW , contending , inter alia , that , given the specific accommodation needs of his family due to his child \u2019s disability , he had been discriminated against by unfair application of the relevant tax legislation . He argued , in particular , that the competent administrative authorities had failed to correct the factual inequality inherent in his particular situation with regard to the ordinary meaning of the term basic infrastructural requirements meeting the housing needs of his family .","On DATE ORG , endorsing the reasoning of the lower bodies , dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded on the grounds that there was no violation of his constitutional rights . In particular , having examined his complaints from the angle of the right to a fair trial , ORG held that no issue arose with regard to the other complaints relied upon by the applicant .","The decision of ORG was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","The Government provided a report by ORG and Youth ( ORG socijalne politike i ORG ) of DATE , according to which the applicant \u2019s child had been in receipt of DATE monetary allowances of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in the period DATE and DATE , and allowances of HRK CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) from QUANTITY DATE . In addition , he had been involved in various therapeutic and social assistance activities , and for the period between CARDINAL June DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s wife had been granted special status related to her child \u2019s disability and had received inter alia , DATE payments of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","According to the applicant , the DATE expenses relating to his son \u2019s special needs amounted to CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) . This included HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for physiotherapy , HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for speech therapy , HRK CARDINAL for a child neurologist , HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for drugs , HRK CARDINAL for a wheelchair ( with additional State support of HRK CARDINAL ) ; HRK CARDINAL for swimming therapy ; and HRK CARDINAL for DATE transport to the DATE - care centre for DATE ."],"violated_articles":["14","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155196","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MEHDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE at the time of the events .","The applicant was an independent journalist and worked as a reporter of the ORG newspaper in GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","The applicant was the author of CARDINAL critical articles about the economic and political situation in the ORG published in the ORG newspaper in DATE and DATE . The articles , entitled \u201c Food has become considerably more expensive in GPE ( owing to PERSON \u201c care \u201d ) \u201d ( \u201c Nax\u00e7\u0131vanda \u0259rzaq xeyli bahala\u015f\u0131b ( Vasif PERSON \u201c qay\u011f\u0131s\u0131 \u201d say\u0259sind\u0259 ) \u201d ) and \u201c Vasif Talibov rebuilds his native village \u201d ( \u201c Vasif GPE do\u011fuldu\u011fu k\u0259ndi s\u00f6k\u00fcb yenid\u0259n tikdirir \u201d ) , related in particular to the activities of the Speaker of ORG , PERSON , who is also \u201c the supreme official of the FAC \u201d ( \u201c ORG ali v\u0259zif\u0259li \u015f\u0259xsi \u201d ) under LAW of DATE .","On DATE the applicant also met a reporter from ORG and helped him to prepare a report about the economic and political situation in GPE .","At TIME on DATE , when the applicant was in a caf\u00e9 in the village of GPE in GPE , the head ( GPE ) of the district department of the ORG approached him . PERSON accused the applicant of publishing defamatory articles about the ORG , and ordered CARDINAL men in uniform to arrest him .","The applicant was taken to the LOC of the LAW in GPE by car . His mobile phone was taken away while he was being transported there . When they arrived at the MNS building PERSON told him to stop spreading misinformation about the ORG . He further ordered agents of the ORG to explain to the applicant \u201c the meaning of his activity as a reporter \u201d and left the room .","QUANTITY men then began to torture the applicant . They hit him repeatedly with truncheons , kicked him and punched him in the head . TIME , PERSON returned and asked the applicant whether he had \u201c grown wise \u201d . PERSON further ordered CARDINAL men to make the applicant \u201c understand his mistakes \u201d . The applicant was then subjected to further ill - treatment .","NORP The applicant was subsequently taken to the office of GPE who demanded that he become a member of the ruling political party ( ORG ) and to write defamatory articles about opposition leaders . The applicant refused to do so .","The applicant was released at TIME on DATE ; his mobile phone was returned to him . Before his release , PERSON told him that if he did not \u201c grow wise \u201d , he would be brought back to the ORG .","Following his release , the applicant immediately informed the ORG newspaper of his arrest . According to the applicant , his relatives also took photographs of the injuries on his body . However , he was unable to see a doctor immediately , because it was TIME .","The Government submitted that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was not arrested , detained or ill - treated , by agents of the MNS .","In TIME DATE , while the applicant was about to go and see a doctor , he was arrested by the police and taken to ORG .","The head of ORG , GPE , shouted at the applicant , demanding to know why he had informed the press of his arrest .","On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG , which sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention for obstructing the police . The applicant was not represented by a lawyer at the hearing . QUANTITY police officers testified against him . The applicant was not provided with a copy of the court decision .","At the request of the applicant , after the court hearing he was taken to ORG , where he was examined by a doctor who observed numerous bruises on his body . However , he was not provided with any medical record .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was approached by the police in the centre of the GPE , because he was using loud and abusive language in public . As the applicant did not comply with the police request to stop his unlawful action , an administrative offence report was drawn up and he was taken to the police station . It appears from the report that the applicant refused to sign it . The relevant part of the report of DATE provides as follows :","\u201c On DATE PERSON did not comply with the lawful request of the police , and continued to shout and use insulting language in the centre of the GPE . \u201d","On DATE the GPE ORG found the applicant guilty under LAW obstructing the police ) of LAW , and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention . It was specified in the decision that it could be appealed against within DATE of its receipt . The relevant part of the decision of DATE provides as follows :","\u201c Assessing the evidence at its disposal , the court concludes that the fact that PERSON [ the applicant ] committed the above - mentioned administrative offence is proved by his confession and the statements of witnesses heard in connection with the case .","The court qualifies the administrative offence committed by PERSON under LAW . Therefore , he must be found guilty under this article and must be punished . \u201d","The Government produced a receipt confirming that the applicant had received a copy of the court decision at TIME on DATE . The receipt was dated DATE and signed by the applicant .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to detention facility no . CARDINAL to serve his sentence .","During his detention the applicant was deprived of food and water . He was not provided with any bedding and was forced to spend TIME outside on a concrete walkway . The applicants\u2019 hands were handcuffed at all times and due to the detention facility \u2019s proximity to LOC , he suffered badly from mosquito bites .","At TIME on DATE , the Minister of National Security of the ORG arrived at the detention facility with CARDINAL other men . They appeared to be drunk . The Minister insulted the applicant and then all of them beat him .","The Government submitted that there was no detention facility no . CARDINAL in the ORG and the applicant was detained in the temporary detention facility of ORG of the ORG .","The applicant was detained alone in a cell which was QUANTITY high , QUANTITY long , and QUANTITY wide . The cell was adequately lit and ventilated . The applicant was provided with a separate bed and bedding , as well as with other necessities . In support of their account of the conditions , the Government produced photographs of the detention facility in question and the cell in which the applicant was held .","The Government also produced a medical record dated DATE from the doctor on duty at the detention facility at the time . According to the medical record , at TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by the doctor and \u201c no pathology was revealed \u201d ( he\u00e7 bir patalogiya a\u015fkar edilm\u0259di ) . The medical record of DATE provides as follows :","\u201c Examination by the doctor on duty :","At TIME on DATE CARDINAL PERSON accompanied by CARDINAL police officers came to the admission department for examination . During the examination of the citizen , no pathology was revealed . The blood pressure was CARDINAL\/CARDINAL PERSON . Practically healthy ( praktiki sa\u011flam ) . The doctor on duty : GPE \u201d","Following the applicant \u2019s administrative detention , various NORP and international human rights organisations asked the NORP authorities for the applicant \u2019s release . In particular , on CARDINAL DATE Reporters Without Borders submitted a request to the NORP authorities to stop the applicant \u2019s harassment because of his journalistic activities and to order his release . In respect of the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment by agents of the MNS on DATE , the request reads :","\u201c DATE before his arrest , PERSON was forced into a car by national security ministry agents and held DATE in a ministry building where , according to Reporters Without Borders\u2019 sources , he was beaten because of his reports about gas and electricity problems in the region . \u201d","On DATE ORG also called upon the NORP authorities to stop the applicant \u2019s harassment because of his journalistic activities and to carry out a thorough investigation in this respect . The applicant \u2019s alleged illtreatment by agents of the MNS on DATE and his administrative detention were also covered by the NORP media .","On DATE the applicant was released from administrative detention . No official reason was given for his early release from detention .","According to the applicant , after his release from detention , he was treated in ORG , however all the medical institutions refused to give him an official medical certificate . The doctor who examined the applicant told him that his seventh rib was broken . In support of his claim , the applicant relied on a medical record dated DATE in which the doctor indicated that an X - ray examination of the applicant \u2019s seventh rib had been carried out , without providing further information . Although the name of the doctor appeared on the medical record , it was not signed or stamped and there was no information about the medical establishment in which the examination was carried out . The medical record of DATE provides as follows :","\u201c PERSON ; born in DATE in GPE ;","X - ray examination of the ribcage and the seventh left side rib in the back armpit ( sol yeddinci qab\u0131r\u011fas\u0131n\u0131n arxa qoltuqalt\u0131 ) . \u201d","Relying on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention , on DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG asking for the institution of a criminal investigation . He submitted the same factual information as what he submitted to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) i.e. that at TIME on DATE he had been arrested , at the request of the head ( MONEY ) of the district department of the MNS , in a caf\u00e9 in the village of GPE in GPE by agents of the ORG , and had been taken to the LOC of the LAW in GPE . Once there PERSON demanded that he stop spreading misinformation about the ORG . He further ordered the agents of the ORG to explain to the applicant \u201c the meaning of his activity as a reporter \u201d and left the room . CARDINAL men then began to torture him . They hit him repeatedly with truncheons , kicked him and punched him in the head . TIME , PERSON returned and asked him whether he had \u201c grown wise \u201d . PERSON further ordered the CARDINAL men to make him \u201c understand his mistakes \u201d . He was then subjected to further ill - treatment and was only released at TIME on DATE . Before his release , PERSON told him that , if he did not \u201c grow wise \u201d , he would be brought back to the ORG .","The applicant sent his complaint by recorded delivery and it appears from the postal document submitted to the ORG that ORG received it on DATE .","The applicant did not receive any reply to his complaint .","On DATE the applicant lodged the same complaint with ORG , ORG and the ORG . The applicant produced postal documents confirming that the letters had been sent to the above - mentioned authorities .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that it had forwarded his complaint to ORG for examination .","On DATE the applicant re - submitted the same complaint to ORG by recorded delivery . The applicant produced a postal document confirming the receipt of his letter by ORG .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the applicant that it had forwarded his complaint to the Minister of ORG of the FAC for examination .","No action was taken in respect of the applicant \u2019s above - mentioned complaints .","NORP On DATE the applicant lodged an action with ORG in accordance with the procedure established by Articles CARDINAL of LAW concerning appeals against actions and decisions taken by the prosecuting authorities . Relying on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention , he reiterated his previous complaints and asked the court to declare unlawful the prosecuting authorities\u2019 failure to examine his complaint .","The applicant did not receive any reply from ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , reiterating his previous complaints . He further complained that ORG had failed to examine his complaint concerning the prosecuting authorities\u2019 inaction .","In the meantime , the applicant sent the same complaint to ORG , complaining that ORG had failed to examine his complaint . By a letter of DATE ORG forwarded the applicant \u2019s complaint to ORG for examination .","By a letter of DATE , ORG of the ORG informed the applicant that his complaint could not be examined by it because , as an appellate court , it examined appeals only against firstinstance courts\u2019 decisions .","On DATE the applicant made representations to ORG , stating that ORG had failed to examine his complaint .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG forwarded the applicant \u2019s complaint to ORG , asking the court to examine the complaint and to take necessary measures . ORG further asked ORG to inform the applicant about the result of the examination .","On DATE the applicant applied again to ORG , arguing that , despite its letter of CARDINAL DATE sent to ORG , he had not been informed of any decision taken by ORG .","By a letter of DATE , ORG forwarded the applicant \u2019s complaint to ORG . ORG letter of DATE was identical in wording to its letter of CARDINAL DATE .","DATE . On DATE and on DATE the applicant sent further letters to ORG , reiterating his previous complaints .","The applicant did not receive any response from ORG ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10","3","5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1","5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158488","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SHULGA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , ORG region , GPE .","On DATE at TIME the applicant \u2019s wife , while riding a bicycle , was hit by a car and died on the spot .","On DATE police examined the accident spot in the presence of CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON and PERSON ( both inhabitants of GPE who arrived at the spot after the accident ) and the accident sketch map was drawn . The driver of the car , PERSON , was questioned . He testified that he had been temporarily blinded by the long - distance headlights of an approaching car . After that he saw a bicycle rider QUANTITY in front of his car . He did not brake and his car hit the bicycle . Similar testimonies were given by the car passenger , S. The driver also underwent a test for the blood alcohol and drugs level .","On DATE a forensic medical expert concluded that the applicant \u2019s wife \u2019s death had been caused by a basal skull fracture .","On DATE criminal proceedings into the accident were instituted by ORG ( GPE \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u0432\u0456\u0434\u0434\u0456\u043b PERSON \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0456\u0448\u043d\u0456\u0445 \u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438 \u0432 \u0427\u0435\u0440\u043a\u0430\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0456\u0439 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456 ) for an alleged breach of traffic rules which caused a person \u2019s death ( Article CARDINAL paragraph QUANTITY of LAW ) . On DATE an investigation officer requested the head of ORG to order a search for the accident witnesses , if any .","On DATE the applicant was recognised as a victim in the above criminal proceedings .","On DATE a police officer informed the head of ORG that it was impossible to identify witnesses who could have seen the accident .","On DATE a reconstruction of events was carried out and a decision to perform an auto - technical forensic examination was adopted . The expert was requested to determine interposition of the car and the bicycle at the moment of collision , whether the driver had had a technical possibility to avoid the collision and whether the driver and the bicycle rider had breached the traffic rules .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim within the criminal proceedings .","On DATE an expert concluded that the applicant \u2019s wife had breached the traffic rules when riding a bicycle since there had been no lights and light reflectors on the bicycle and that the car driver had had no technical possibility of avoiding the accident .","On DATE the proceedings were terminated for absence of evidence of a crime .","On DATE ORG ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0430 GPE \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0443 ORG \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456 ) quashed this decision and remitted the case for additional investigation . A prosecutor instructed the head of the police investigation department in charge of the investigation to perform numerous additional investigation actions . It was noted , inter alia , that the questioning of P. and S. had been superficial , a number of details had not been clarified , the witnesses of the accident had not been properly sought , and the reconstruction of events had been conducted improperly . There were significant corrections on the accident sketch map and there was contradictory evidence in the case - file materials . It was also noted that \u201c the expert conclusion was based actually on the testimonies of P. and PERSON Consequently , another auto - technical forensic examination should be performed and an expert should be provided with objectively received data . It was also noted that an investigation officer should verify the facts and circumstances indicated by the applicant in his complaints .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant , in reply to his complaint to ORG , that the investigation had been indeed protracted and there were disciplinary proceedings against CARDINAL investigation police officers pending . The district prosecutor ordered to accelerate the proceedings .","In DATE P. and S. were again questioned and in DATE several other witnesses were questioned ( PERSON , PERSON and the persons who stopped at the spot after the accident ) . On DATE the reconstruction of events was conducted . It was established that after passing an on - coming car the bicycle had become visible to the car driver and at that moment the distance to the bicycle had been QUANTITY .","On DATE a decision was taken to conduct an auto - technical forensic examination . The expert was requested to give an opinion , inter alia , on how the driver should have acted in the circumstances and whether he had had a possibility of avoiding the collision . On DATE the expert concluded that P. had had no technical possibility of avoiding the collision . It was not safe to overtake the bicycle rider \u201c since the collision had happened when PERSON had been passing an on - coming car \u201d . An expert indicated that , according to the circumstances of the accident described by an investigation officer , there had been no breach of the traffic rules by the car driver which could have provoked the accident . The expert also separately noted that the reconstruction of events of CARDINAL DATE had been performed with a breach of procedure .","On DATE the proceedings were terminated for the absence of evidence of a crime .","NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG of GPE ( PERSON \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0456\u0448\u043d\u0456\u0445 \u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456 ) informed the applicant , inter alia , that the investigation officer , PERSON , in charge of the case , had been disciplinarily sanctioned for protracting the proceedings .","On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was quashed by ORG and the case was remitted for additional investigation . It was noted that more witnesses should be questioned , a police officer should be questioned about the corrections on the accident sketch map , a reconstruction of events should be conducted , if necessary , but with the assistance of a traffic specialist .","On DATE the proceedings were stayed since \u201c it was impossible to establish the guilt of the person who caused the collision with the applicant \u2019s wife \u201d . By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant , however , that a forensic automobile technical examination was pending in his case .","In DATE the case was transferred to another investigation officer . On DATE a decision similar to the CARDINAL of DATE was adopted .","On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was quashed by ORG . It was noted , inter alia , that a number of witnesses had to be questioned , a reconstruction of events should be conducted and the police officers should be questioned about corrections on the accident sketch map .","On DATE , however , an investigation officer of ORG again terminated the proceedings for the absence of evidence of a crime .","On DATE this decision was quashed by ORG and the case was remitted for additional investigation . It was noted that the instructions of the prosecutor \u2019s office issued on DATE and DATE had to be complied with .","On DATE an auto - technical forensic examination was ordered .","On DATE an expert concluded that it was impossible to answer the questions about a possibility for P. of having avoided a collision and whether P. had breached the traffic rules that had resulted in a traffic accident . The expert noted that the reconstruction of events of CARDINAL DATE had been conducted with a breach of procedure therefore the obtained data could not be used for an expert conclusion . The expert , however , noted that the applicant \u2019s wife had breached the traffic rules since there had been no lights on her bicycle and that had caused the collision .","On DATE an investigation officer , referring to the above expert conclusion , terminated the proceedings in the case .","On DATE and DATE the applicant brought CARDINAL claims for damages against P. On DATE and DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims for procedural shortcomings . The applicant neither appealed against these decisions nor submitted new claims in compliance with procedural requirements .","On DATE the applicant took part in the local elections as a candidate for the position of the head of the village territorial community and came second with CARDINAL votes less . On DATE ORG invalidated the results of the elections . On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE and rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint that some of the voters had been prevented from voting . On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal in cassation as the decision of DATE was not subject to appeal ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177085","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KHALDAROV v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Article 5-4 - Review by a court;Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE legally on a visa valid for DATE .","On DATE the applicant , who had been living in GPE since DATE , was taken into police custody while he was at GPE FAC . He made a statement to the airport police on DATE . According to the document containing his statement , the applicant was informed that he was suspected of lacking a valid identity document and of illegal entry into GPE . He was kept in detention at the airport police station for DATE .","On DATE the applicant was sent to PERSON Removal Centre . According to the applicant \u2019s account , the centre was severely overcrowded at the time of his detention , which resulted in hygiene problems . The building was infested with insects and the quality and quantity of the food was also fairly poor . Moreover , there was no provision for outdoor exercise .","On DATE the applicant applied for release to ORG . The court decided on DATE that it did not have jurisdiction as the applicant had not been detained within the scope of a criminal investigation . The court therefore ruled that any request had to be brought before the administrative courts .","On an unspecified date the applicant made an asylum claim to ORG and lodged an application for refugee status with ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) .","On DATE the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit in the province of GPE as an asylum - seeker and was released from ORG on DATE .","According to information provided by his representative on CARDINAL January DATE , a deportation order was issued in respect of the applicant on an unspecified date in DATE . He has been detained at ORG since DATE with a view to his expulsion . The domestic proceedings brought by the applicant against the deportation order and the applicant \u2019s application to the ORG for refugee status are still ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171091","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LOBKOV AND RASSOLOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , LOC .","The applicant was held in remand prison GPE in GPE in the following cells :","The parties disagreed on the design capacity of the cells and the actual number of inmates .","The first applicant , relying on CARDINAL hand - written statements from his co - detainees , submitted that Cell CARDINAL had contained CARDINAL - tier bunk beds with metal sheets welded to beds on the upper and lower levels to create additional sleeping places . Cell CARDINAL was used to accommodate TIME twenty prisoners . Cell CARDINAL contained CARDINAL - tier bunk beds and accommodated CARDINAL prisoners .","The Government submitted that the number of prisoners in the cells had not exceeded the occupancy limit . Cell CARDINAL had CARDINAL sleeping places , Cell CARDINAL four places and Cell CARDINAL two places . They submitted selected pages from the prison registration log . All of these pages , except CARDINAL dated DATE , indicate that Cell DATE was designed for CARDINAL persons and accommodated as many prisoners . The number \u201c CARDINAL \u201d appears to be written over a different number that was erased . The entry of DATE indicated that Cell CARDINAL was designed for QUANTITY persons and accommodated QUANTITY prisoners . Similarly , the entries in respect of Cell CARDINAL show traces of erasures and alterations . Its design capacity is listed as CARDINAL or CARDINAL places and the actual population is always CARDINAL prisoners .","The second applicant was born in DATE and has been serving his term of imprisonment in GPE , GPE .","DATE and DATE the second applicant was held in remand prison PERSON in GPE . According to him , the facility was overcrowded . In particular , Cell CARDINAL measuring CARDINAL sq . m accommodated up to CARDINAL inmates .","According to the Government , the second applicant was held in cells CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL . The actual number of inmates detained in the cells did not exceed their designed capacity . Each inmate had CARDINAL sq . m of personal space . Other conditions were satisfactory . The Government submitted selected pages from registration logs , some of which appears to contain erasures and alterations in the fields showing the number of inmates in Cell CARDINAL . On some pages the listed total number of inmates is CARDINAL less than the number produced by adding up the population of individual cells ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167799","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VERLAGSGRUPPE NEWS GMBH v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant company is a limited liability company based in GPE . It is the owner and publisher of the DATE news magazine ORG .","Until DATE LAW ) owned PERCENT of the shares of ORG . DATE until DATE a man called Mr. PERSON was in charge of the treasury department of the bank . In that capacity he was responsible for authorising foreign currency transactions . He was answerable only to the bank \u2019s executive board , which consisted of CARDINAL members . While Mr. PERSON was head of the treasury department , his father , who had been a regional government member responsible for finance until DATE , was also on the bank \u2019s supervisory board . The father had that position until DATE .","At DATE the bank \u2019s executive board informed ORG ( ORG , \u201c the FMA \u201d ) that the bank had financial difficulties . On DATE the executive board held a meeting with the executive board of the FMA and informed it that the bank had made a loss of MONEY in DATE . Mr PERSON , the chief executive of the bank , informed the FMA that the treasury department had gone over its internal transaction limit of MONEY ( ORG ) by ORG CARDINAL .","DATE a number of DATE newspapers published reports on the investigation and mentioned Mr PERSON by name as responsible for the speculative transactions in question . Among those articles was one by newspaper ORG published on DATE ( see ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","On DATE the ORG filed criminal information ( PERSON ) about offences committed in relation to the business of ORG against the CARDINAL members of the executive board and PERSON , accusing them of embezzlement by investing money entrusted to the bank contrary to the instructions of the executive board . In substance , the ORG alleged that Mr PERSON had authorised highly speculative transactions with foreign currency derivatives ( swaps ) , disregarding instructions by the executive board .","In its issue of DATE , the applicant company published an article on the investigations into the heavy losses incurred by ORG . The front cover of ORG had the words : \u201c PERSON \u2013 PERSON \u201d ( \u201c Carinthian Hypo affair - How much did PERSON know ? \u201d ) .","The article , headlined \u201c Schwere GPE \u201d ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , ran to CARDINAL pages . It reported on the enormous loss of ORG CARDINAL incurred by ORG in DATE , the question of who was responsible for the damage and whether there were failings in the bank \u2019s risk management . It accused the bank \u2019s executive board of failing to give information to the supervisory board , the bank \u2019s accountants and the ORG , and of trying instead to hush up the losses by manipulating the balance sheets for DATE , which meant that the full extent of the damage was only discovered by external accountants when examining the balance sheets for DATE . The accountants had then informed the FMA . Furthermore , the article featured an interview with Mr PERSON , confronting him with those accusations . Mr PERSON was quoted as accusing Mr PERSON of having disregarded internal guidelines in his foreign currency transactions .","The relevant passages of the article read as follows :","\u201c By the time the warning system was triggered the disaster had long since run its course . On DATE the risk management and control software programme in the head offices of ORG in GPE showed , in all the relevant departments of the bank , exactly the kind of figures which bring managers of credit institutions out in a cold sweat : staggering losses on investment operations . In the treasury division , which manages the bank \u2019s liquidity and for that purpose trades , among other things , in interest rates and currencies , there was a shortfall of MONEY . \u2018 At that point we immediately called a ORG said CEO PERSON . However , as several similar operations were in progress simultaneously , it was impossible \u2018 to close the floodgates at once\u2019 . When that was eventually done , the losses stood at MONEY , several times higher than the self - imposed threshold of CARDINAL .","ORG manager PERSON , who was responsible for authorising the transactions , was immediately told to clear his desk . ( This son of the former ORG regional finance chief PERSON was not available for comment ) . However , the consequences of the orgy of speculation , which lasted DATE , continue to preoccupy the bank \u2019s management . And they are not the only ones : in particular , the manner in which PERSON and his colleagues dealt with the loss - making transactions has also come to the attention of the authorities in DATE . DATE the financial markets supervisory authority ( the FMA ) even saw fit to lodge a criminal complaint against the entire executive board . PERSON is the object of a preliminary enquiries [ FAC ] ( file no . CARDINAL St DATE ) before ORG on suspicion of embezzlement . The executive board faces charges of misrepresenting the end - of - DATE accounts , in other words , falsifying the balance sheets .","...","The transactions in question were all performed DATE and DATE . According to Hypo boss PERSON , DATE in breach of internal regulations \u2013 gambled , by means of so - called swaps , on the occurrence of a highly explosive combination of CARDINAL trends on the financial markets : on the one hand a fall in interest rates and on the other a rise in the dollar and the yen against the euro . DATE , on DATE , the perfect storm hit .","...","Lack of controls . Rapid rates of growth motivate not just the boss , but also the employees \u2013 including the now ex - treasury manager PERSON . According to inside sources , PERSON may have set the stakes so high precisely because he wanted to make his mark as a candidate for the vacant post of department manager . After all , high stakes mean correspondingly high profits if all goes according to plan . A marked surplus on his account would undoubtedly have boosted his chances of securing the post . \u201d","The article continued with an overview of the history of ORG , which had gone from being a regional bank to an international investment bank in the space of DATE . The article looked at previous business transactions which had resulted in risks and losses for the bank and the conduct of the executive board . Finally , the article examined the relationship between the bank \u2019s management and local politicians and asked how much Mr PERSON , the then regional governor of PERSON , knew of the losses , and when he had found out about them . It noted that the Land of PERSON owned PERCENT of the bank and that funds from the bank had financed a number of political projects in the region , in particular Mr PERSON \u2019s Future Fund ( GPE ) , designed to fund infrastructure and other large - scale projects .","On DATE Mr Rauscher brought proceedings against the applicant company for disclosing his identity in breach of section CARDINAL of LAW ( Mediengesetz ) . He submitted that he was not a public figure and that his position at the bank had not been such as to justify the disclosure of his name . He asserted that when authorising the transactions at issue he had acted in accordance with his instructions and with the approval of his superiors . The publication of his name had had negative repercussions on his professional advancement and had not been justified by any public interest .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON f\u00fcr PERSON ) dismissed Mr PERSON \u2019s action . It found that the following facts had been established : the article had provided a comprehensive report on the losses of ORG . At the time the article had been published , ORG had owned PERCENT of the bank . The claimant \u2019s father had been a regional government member responsible for finances and had also been on the bank \u2019s supervisory board until DATE . The claimant had been the head of the bank \u2019s treasury department since DATE . He had not been active in politics nor had he been in the public eye in connection with his professional activity . ORG noted that the task of a bank \u2019s treasury department was to carry out liquidity and finance planning for the bank . PERSON treasury department had been directly answerable to the executive board . The transactions which had subsequently led to such enormous losses had been carried out DATE and DATE and the claimant had been the main person in charge . On DATE the FMA had sent information to the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office on CARDINAL members of the executive board , who were suspected of manipulating the bank \u2019s balance sheets , and on the claimant who was suspected of embezzlement for carrying out unauthorised foreign currency transactions . Following receipt of that information the public prosecutor \u2019s office had started preliminary enquiries . From DATE preliminary investigations ( Voruntersuchung ) had been conducted by ORG . Criminal proceedings against the claimant had been discontinued in DATE . After accusations against the claimant had been published in various media , his employment contract had been terminated . He had not been able to find a similar position in another bank .","ORG noted that section ORG ( CARDINAL ) of LAW required a weighing of the claimant \u2019s interest in the protection of his identity and the public interest in its disclosure . As a rule , adults who were suspected of having committed a crime were only protected against the disclosure of their identity if such disclosure disproportionately affected their professional advancement .","It observed that at the material time the Land of LOC owned PERCENT of ORG . That fact alone demonstrated an increased public interest as the taxpayer had a right to know who was responsible for the bank \u2019s losses . The applicant had been a senior employee at the bank , and had been suspected of embezzlement . Although the criminal proceedings had still been at an early stage , ORG , the competent controlling authority , had laid criminal information against the claimant . Moreover , the chief executive of the bank , Mr PERSON , had levelled of obtaining information outweighed the claimant \u2019s interest in not having his name disclosed .","On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) granted an appeal by the claimant , declared that the disclosure of his identity in the article had violated his rights and ordered the applicant company to pay him ORG MONEY in compensation and to reimburse his procedural costs .","ORG found that ORG conclusion had been wrong after it had weighed the conflicting interests at issue . It shared the view of ORG that there was a public interest in knowing who was responsible for ORG losses due to the fact that the Land owned PERCENT of the bank . However , the article should have confined itself to mentioning the head of the bank \u2019s treasury department without disclosing his name . The public interest in reporting on the criminal offences at issue had not in itself been sufficient to justify disclosing the claimant \u2019s identity . The fact that the claimant had been answerable to the executive board , although he had an important position in the bank , and that the criminal proceedings against him had been at an early stage , meant that the claimant \u2019s interest in protecting his identity outweighed the public interest in the disclosure of his name .","The applicant company lodged an application under LAW of LAW ( GPE ) with ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) . It submitted in particular that ORG judgment had violated LAW as there had been an overriding public interest in what it had reported , including the disclosure of PERSON identity .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s application . It examined in detail the reasons given by ORG . Referring to the ORG \u2019s findings in \u201c ORG \u201d ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , ORG found that the appeal court had correctly weighed the conflicting interests of the claimant under LAW one hand and of the applicant company under LAW other , especially because of the early stage of the criminal proceedings against the claimant .","ORG judgment was served on the applicant company \u2019s counsel on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148624","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BIRYUCHENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicants are all NORP nationals . They were charged with different criminal offences and placed in detention . The applicants complain in particular that after their cases had been submitted to the trial court they were detained for DATE without a court order . The applicants\u2019 individual circumstances are detailed below .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","In DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against him on suspicion of being a member of a large criminal group which had committed extortions by threats and other serious crimes .","On DATE he was arrested by NORP police in GPE and on DATE extradited to GPE where he was placed in detention .","On DATE the Prosecutor of GPE extended his detention DATE , until DATE . The applicant did not appeal against this order .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel lodged an application for release with ORG claiming that the applicant should be released on the ground that LAW had entered into force on DATE , and that a person could now be detained only on the basis of a court order .","NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the application for release . This decision was quashed on DATE by GPE on the applicant \u2019s appeal and the matter was sent back for reconsideration . On DATE ORG referred the matter back to ORG because the case had already been referred to it for trial .","On DATE the applicant was served with a bill of indictment and on the same date the case was referred for trial to GPE .","On DATE and on DATE the applicant applied to GPE asking to be released on the grounds that his detention had ceased to be lawful after the expiration on DATE of the last detention order .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) about GPE failure to examine his application for release of DATE . On DATE ORG forwarded his complaint to ORG .","The applicant \u2019s detention was further extended by GPE on DATE , DATE and DATE . Each time ORG relied on the gravity of charges . All detention orders were appealed by the applicant . The detention orders of DATE and DATE were upheld by ORG on DATE and on DATE , respectively , whereas the detention order of CARDINAL DATE was quashed on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for release with GPE on the ground that since the extension order of DATE had been quashed on appeal , he should be immediately released from detention . This application was never examined by ORG .","On DATE GPE relying on the gravity of the charges extended the applicant \u2019s detention for further DATE , until DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed on the ground that the order had been unlawful since it was only based on the gravity of charges against him . Moreover , his detention had been extended despite the fact that the previous detention order had been quashed on appeal .","It appears that the applicant \u2019s detention was further extended on DATE and that the applicant appealed against that decision . On DATE GPE referred the case for additional investigation and confirmed that the applicant should remain in detention .","On DATE GPE referred the case for additional investigation . On DATE an investigator with ORG of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s release on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence .","On DATE GPE found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him conditionally to DATE imprisonment .","The applicants , Mr PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) , Mr NORP ORG ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) and Mr PERSON ( \u201c the third applicant \u201d ) were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , in the GPE region .","On DATE the applicants were arrested on suspicion of theft .","On DATE the Lodeynopolskiy Town Court of the GPE Region extended the applicants\u2019 custody up to TIME . The applicants did not appeal this decision .","On DATE the same court ordered the applicants\u2019 pre - trial detention . No appeal was lodged against this order .","On DATE ORG by CARDINAL separate decisions extended the applicants\u2019 detention until DATE . ORG held , in respect of the first and second applicants , that they \u201c had committed the crime \u201d while they had been under a written undertaking not to abscond . In respect of the third applicant , ORG held that he \u201c had committed the crime \u201d while he had been under a suspended sentence . The applicants appealed , notably on account of the wording used in these orders .","On DATE the prosecuting authorities referred the criminal case against the applicants to ORG for trial .","On DATE ORG upheld the detention orders of DATE .","On DATE ORG remitted the criminal case against the applicants to the prosecuting authorities . ORG also held that the measure of restraint should remain unchanged without other details .","On DATE and DATE the ORG detention was upheld by ORG with the same summary formula . Both decisions were appealed by the applicants and on DATE both were upheld by ORG .","On DATE ORG extended the applicants\u2019 detention , indicating that this extension was necessary given that DATE period of the applicants\u2019 detention pending trial would expire on DATE .","On DATE the ORG acquitted the applicants of all charges and they were immediately released . On DATE ORG quashed this judgment .","On DATE ORG found the applicants guilty of theft and sentenced them to different terms of imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","The applicant , Mr NORP PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was charged with causing grave bodily injury , an offence under LAW .","On DATE the Vyborgskiy District Court of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s placement in detention . On DATE this order was upheld by GPE .","On DATE the Vyborgskiy District Court extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The applicant appealed . On DATE GPE , in the applicant \u2019s absence , upheld the extension order of DATE .","On DATE the case was referred to the Vyborgskiy District Court for trial .","NORP On DATE ORG , in the absence of the applicant , decided to set the case for trial without holding a preliminary hearing and held that the measure of restraint applied to the applicant should remain unchanged . The prosecutor and the applicant appealed .","On DATE GPE , in the applicant \u2019s absence , quashed the decision of DATE in so far as it had set the examination of the case without holding of a preliminary hearing and remitted the matter for fresh examination to ORG . It also held that the review of the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s detention was not within its competence . It further decided that the measure of restraint applied to the applicant should remain unchanged .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for release with ORG . He complained that after DATE he had been detained without any court order , that on DATE GPE quashed the decision of DATE in his absence and , without giving any reasons , ordered not to change the measure of restraint . On DATE this application was rejected by ORG .","On DATE the ORG opened the preliminary hearing . The applicant applied for release . On DATE the court rejected the applicant \u2019s motion for release having found that the applicant was charged with a serious offence , had been previously convicted and might interfere with the proceedings if released . The hearing was adjourned until DATE and subsequently until DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel lodged an application for release with ORG . On DATE the ORG dismissed it having found that the applicant was charged with a serious offence , had been previously convicted , and might interfere with proceedings if released","On DATE , after having held the preliminary hearing , ORG , set the case for trial on DATE and held that the measure of restraint should remain unchanged .","On DATE and DATE the applicant appealed against the decisions of CARDINAL June CARDINAL .","On DATE the Vyborgskiy ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , having found that the applicant was charged with a serious offence , he had been previously convicted and might interfere with proceedings if released . The applicant appealed . On DATE GPE upheld the detention order of DATE .","DATE . On DATE GPE held that it was impossible to examine the applicant \u2019s appeals against the decisions of CARDINAL May and DATE by which his requests for release had been dismissed .","The applicant \u2019s detention was further extended by ORG on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and on DATE . All these extension orders were based on the same grounds . Each time the applicant appealed . All these extension orders were upheld by ORG .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . His conviction was upheld by GPE on appeal on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was released for good behaviour .","On DATE Mr Biryuchenko and on DATE Mr PERSON complained to ORG about the de facto extension of their detention after their case files had been sent by the prosecution authorities to the respective trial courts . ORG examined their complaints together with similar complaints lodged by other individuals . In a Ruling adopted on DATE ORG found that the challenged provisions of the new CCrP complied with LAW . However , their practical interpretation by the courts may have contradicted their constitutional meaning . In part CARDINAL of ORG held :","\u201c The second part of LAW provides that ... the detention is permitted only on the basis of a court order ... . Consequently , if the term of detention , as defined in the court order , expires , the court shall decide on the extension of the detention , otherwise the accused person should be released ...","These rules are common for all stages of criminal proceedings , and also cover the transition from CARDINAL stage to another . ... The transition of the case to another stage does not automatically put an end to the preventive measure applied at previous stages .","Therefore , when the case is transmitted by the prosecution to the trial court , the preventive measure applied at the pre - trial stage ... may continue to apply until the expiry of the term , for which it has been set in the respective court decision [ imposing it ] ...","[ Under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ] a judge , after having received the criminal case concerning a detained defendant , should , within DATE , set a hearing and establish \u2018 whether the preventive measure applied should be lifted or ORG . This wording implies that the decision to detain the accused or extend his detention , taken at the pre - trial stage , may stand after the completion of the pre - trial investigation and transmittal of the case to the court , only until the end of the term , for which the preventive measure has been set .","The prosecution , in its turn , while approving the bill of indictment and transferring the case file to the court , should check whether the term of detention has expired and whether it is sufficient to allow the judge to take a decision [ on further detention of the accused pending trial ] . If by the moment of transferal of the case - file to the court this term has expired , or if it appears to be insufficient to allow the judge to take a decision [ on detention ] , the prosecutor , pursuant to ORG and CARDINAL of LAW , [ should ] request the court to extend the period of detention . \u201d","On DATE Mr Biryuchenko lodged a complaint with ORG office . He submitted that DATE , which was after his case had been referred for trial to ORG , and DATE , he had been detained unlawfully ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . Subsequently , his detention had been extended CARDINAL times : on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , on DATE and DATE . He pointed out that he had appealed against all the extension orders , but the appeal court had failed to take his arguments into account . Relying on the ruling of ORG of DATE , the applicant argued that in his case the courts had wrongly interpreted LAW and had taken an unlawful decision on DATE . All the subsequent detention orders had also been unlawful . He requested the Prosecutor to lodge a request for supervisory review with ORG and apply for quashing of the extension orders .","On DATE ORG replied that the ambiguity of LAW allowed the courts to detain the defendants during DATE without taking any decision in this respect . Therefore , when extending the applicant \u2019s detention and dismissing his applications for release , the courts of first and second instances had not found any violation of law . Furthermore , the applicant had been released on DATE . Therefore , his right to liberty had been reinstated long before the adoption of the ruling of CARDINAL DATE by ORG . For these reasons , there had been no grounds to apply for a supervisory review of detention orders ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4","6-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169651","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ZHURAVEL AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174970","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KUDRYAVTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-185131","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"BAJRAMOVSKI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were initially represented by their former Agent , PERSON , later succeeded by Ms D. Djonova .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against GPE and PERSON with ORG ( GPE \u0441\u0443\u0434 PERSON , \u201c the first - instance court \u201d ) , claiming recognition of a title to a house and a courtyard that had been returned to the defendants in earlier restitution proceedings .","On an unspecified date thereafter Judge PERSON , the presiding judge in the applicant \u2019s case , notified the president of the first - instance court that ORG was a judge of that court , and asked him to request that the next level of court up from the first - instance court assign the case to another firstinstance court .","On DATE , under section CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) and for the reasons relied upon by Judge PERSON , the president of the first - instance court requested that ORG ( \u0410\u043f\u0435\u043b\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0435\u043d \u0441\u0443\u0434 PERSON , \u201c ORG \u201d ) assign the case to another competent first - instance court .","On DATE ORG returned the case file to the first - instance court . The Government submitted that ORG had found no grounds to assign the case to another competent court . No copy of a decision was provided .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of the first - instance court , presided over by Judge PERSON and CARDINAL lay judges , dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The panel established that the applicant \u2019s father had bought the property from a third party whose legal predecessor had acquired it unlawfully and in bad faith .","The applicant appealed against that judgment , complaining of factual and legal errors and an incorrect assessment of the evidence . He also complained that the court had not provided sufficient reasons for its judgment . He did not voice any concerns about an alleged lack of impartiality on the part of the first - instance court .","On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested that ORG assign the case to another second - instance court under LAW of the LAW , given the fact that CARDINAL judges of the first - instance court ( former colleagues of Judge PERSON ) had been appointed judges of ORG , the court which was to decide the applicant \u2019s appeal . The relevant part of the application read as follows :","\u201c The defendant , ORG , is a judge of ORG . The claim was submitted to ORG in the belief that the court would deliver a correct judgment based on the facts of the case ... \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application , holding that the reasons given by the applicant were \u201c irrelevant \u201d and that a transfer of jurisdiction to another competent court was not warranted .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG not including the CARDINAL judges in respect of whom the applicant had voiced concerns about impartiality dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment . It found no reasons to depart from the established facts and reasons provided by that court .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG in which he reiterated the complaints described in paragraph CARDINAL above . He also referred to the earlier requests ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) for his case to be assigned to different first and second - instance courts .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . It did not address his submissions concerning the lower courts\u2019 alleged lack of impartiality .","The relevant provisions of LAW provide as follows :","\u201c If the competent court is not able to act , owing to a judge being excluded , it shall notify the higher court . The higher court shall assign the case to another competent court in its territory . \u201d","\u201c ORG may , following a proposal by a party or the competent court , assign a case to another court if this would obviously facilitate the proceedings , or for other important reasons . \u201d","\u201c A judge or a lay judge can not perform his \/ her judicial function if :","he \/ she is a party , a statutory representative , or a party \u2019s counsel ... ;","he \/ she is permanently or temporarily employed by a party to the proceedings ;","a party or a party \u2019s counsel is his \/ her relative ... ;","he \/ she is a custodian , an adoptive parent , [ or ] an adoptive child ... of a party ;","he \/ she participated in rendering any decision by a lower court or another body in the relevant proceedings ; and","there are other grounds which cast doubt on his \/ her impartiality . \u201d","ORG has previously granted applications for a transfer of jurisdiction based on section CARDINAL of the Act in cases where : the court before which proceedings were conducted was itself a party to those proceedings , for example a defendant in employment disputes or a claimant in enforcement proceedings ( \u0420.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL , \u0420.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL , \u0420.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u0420.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ; a judge of the court was a party in a case which was to be decided by that court ( \u0420.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL , \u0420.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL , \u0420.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ; a claimant \u2019s mother was a judge of the trial court ( \u0420.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL ) ; a legal representative of defendants who were minors was a judge of the trial court ( \u0420.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ; a claimant was the son of a judge of the trial court ( \u0420.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL ) ; some judges of the trial court had been excluded and against other judges the defendant had initiated criminal proceedings expressing doubts about their impartiality ( \u0420.\u0431\u0440.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","In CARDINAL case , ORG refused an application for a transfer of jurisdiction where the claimant in the case was a judge of the trial court ( \u0420.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The President of ORG granted applications for exclusion from all of the judges of that court in a case between ORG of First Instance and one of its employees ( ORG ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141941","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DNK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BIAO v. DENMARK","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE . They live in GPE , GPE .","The first applicant was born in GPE , where he lived until DATE and again briefly from DATE . From DATE he lived in GPE with his uncle . He attended school there for DATE and speaks the local language . On DATE , when he was DATE , he entered GPE and requested asylum , which was refused by a final decision of DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE he had married a NORP national . Having regard thereto , on DATE , by virtue of the former section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL(ii ) , of LAW ( PERSON ) he was granted a residence permit , which became permanent on DATE .","On DATE , the first applicant and his NORP wife divorced .","On DATE the first applicant acquired NORP citizenship . Thus , at the relevant time he met the requirement relating to the length of his period of residence , age , general conduct , arrears owed to public funding and language proficiency .","On DATE in GPE , the first applicant married the second applicant , whom he had met during CARDINAL of CARDINAL visits to GPE made in DATE prior to their marriage . The second applicant was born in GPE .","On DATE , at ORG in GPE in GPE , the second applicant requested a residence permit for GPE with reference to her marriage to the first applicant . At that time she was DATE . She stated that she had not visited GPE . Her parents lived in GPE . In the application form , the first applicant submitted that he had not received any education in GPE , but had participated in various language courses and short - term courses concerning service , customer care , industrial cleaning , hygiene and working methods . He had been working in a slaughterhouse since DATE . He had no close family in GPE . He spoke and wrote LANGUAGE . The spouses had come to know each other in GPE and they communicated in the NORP and NORP languages .","At the relevant time , under section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW family reunion could only be granted if both spouses were over DATE and their aggregate ties to GPE were stronger than the spouses\u2019 attachment to any other country .","On DATE , ORG ) refused the request because it found that it could not be established that the spouses\u2019 aggregate ties with GPE were stronger than their aggregate ties to GPE .","In DATE or DATE the second applicant entered GPE on a tourist visa .","On DATE she appealed against the Aliens Authority\u2019 decision of DATE , to the then ORG ( Ministeriet for Flygtninge , GPE og Integration).The appeal did not have suspensive effect .","On DATE the applicants moved to GPE .","By Act no . CARDINAL of DATE , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW was amended so that the attachment requirement was lifted for persons who had held NORP citizenship for DATE ( the so - called DATE rule , CARDINAL-\u00e5rs reglen ) . Furthermore , persons born or having arrived in GPE as small children could be exempted from the attachment requirement , provided they had resided lawfully there for DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicants had a son . He was born in GPE but is a NORP national due to his father \u2019s nationality .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision by ORG of DATE to refuse to grant the second applicant a residence permit . It noted in particular that the second applicant had always lived in GPE and had family there , and that the first applicant had ties with GPE and had , among other things , attended school there for DATE . Finally , it found that the family could settle in GPE , as that would only require that the first applicant obtain employment there .","On DATE , before ORG of Eastern GPE ( PERSON ) , the applicants instituted proceedings against ORG and relied on LAW , alone and in conjunction with LAW , as well as LAW . They submitted , among other things , that it amounted to indirect discrimination against them when applying for family reunion , that persons who were born NORP citizens were exempt from the attachment requirement altogether , whereas persons who had acquired NORP citizenship at a later point in life had to comply with the CARDINAL-year rule before being exempted from the attachment requirement . In the present case that would entail that the first applicant could not be exempted from the attachment requirement until DATE , thus after DATE of NORP citizenship , and after having reached DATE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of Eastern GPE unanimously found that the refusal to grant the applicants family reunion with reference to the DATE rule and the attachment requirement did not contravene the Articles of the Convention or the European Convention on Nationality relied on . It stated as follows :","\u201c ... the facts given in the decisions of the immigration authorities in the case are found not to be disputed .","Hence , [ the second applicant ] who is a NORP national , was thus DATE when she applied for a residence permit on DATE , and she had no other ties with GPE than her recent marriage to [ the first applicant ] . [ The second applicant ] had always lived in GPE and had family there . [ The first applicant ] had some ties with GPE , where he had lived with his uncle while attending school in GPE for DATE . He entered GPE in DATE at DATE and became a NORP national on DATE . [ The applicants ] married in GPE on DATE and have lived in GPE since DATE with their child , born on DATE . [ The first applicant ] has told ORG that the family can settle lawfully in GPE if he obtains paid employment in GPE .","It appears from a ORG judgment of DATE , reproduced on page CARDINAL in the NORP Weekly Law Reports ( ORG for DATE , that LAW does not impose on ORG any general obligation to respect immigrants\u2019 choice of the country of their residence in connection with marriage , or otherwise to authorise family reunion .","In view of the information on [ the applicants\u2019 ] situation and their ties with GPE , ORG accordingly finds no basis for setting aside the Defendant \u2019s decision establishing that [ the applicants\u2019 ] aggregate ties with GPE were stronger than their aggregate ties with GPE and that [ the applicants ] therefore did not meet the attachment requirement set out in section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW . In this connection , the High Court finds that the refusal did not bar [ the applicants ] from exercising their right to family life in GPE or in a country other than GPE . The fact that [ the first applicant ] is only able to reside in GPE if he obtains paid employment there is found not to lead to any other assessment . Accordingly , ORG holds that the decision of ORG did not constitute a breach of LAW .","Although ORG has held that LAW has not been breached in this case , ORG has to consider [ the applicants\u2019 ] claim that , within the substantive area otherwise protected by DATE , the decision of ORG constituted a breach of Article CARDINAL read in conjunction with Article CARDINAL of the Convention .","ORG initially observes that [ the first applicant ] had been residing in GPE for DATE when the ORG made its decision . Although he acquired NORP nationality in DATE , DATE after his entry to GPE , he did not meet the CARDINAL-year nationality requirement applicable to all NORP nationals pursuant to section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL of LAW , irrespective of whether they are of foreign or NORP extraction . Nor did he have the comparable attachment to GPE throughout DATE which will generally lead to an exemption from the attachment requirement according to the preparatory works to the DATE statutory amendment .","The CARDINAL-year rule is a generally worded relaxation of the attachment requirement based on an objective criterion . In practice , however , the rule may imply that a NORP national of foreign extraction will only meet the CARDINAL-year rule later in life than would be the case for a NORP national of NORP extraction . When applied , the rule may therefore imply an indirect discrimination .","According to the relevant explanatory report , LAW must be taken to mean that LAW concerns the conditions for acquiring nationality while LAW concerns the principle of non - discrimination . According to the report , it is not a mandatory rule that GPE are obliged to observe in all situations . Against that background , LAW is considered to offer protection against discrimination to an extent that goes no further than the protection against discrimination offered by LAW .","The assessment of whether the refusal of the ORG implied discrimination amounting to a breach of LAW read in conjunction with LAW is accordingly considered to depend on whether the difference in treatment which occurred as a consequence of the attachment requirement despite the nationality can be considered objectively justified and proportionate .","According to the preparatory works to the LAW , the overall aim of the attachment requirement , which is a requirement of lasting and strong links to GPE , is to regulate spousal reunion in GPE in such manner as best to ensure the integration of immigrants in GPE , which aim must in itself be considered objective . In the view of ORG , difference in treatment between NORP nationals of NORP extraction and NORP nationals of foreign extraction can therefore be justified by this aim relative to the right to spousal reunion if a NORP national of foreign extraction has no such lasting and strong attachment to GPE .","The balancing of this overall consideration relative to the specific circumstances in the case requires a detailed assessment . The High Court finds that the assessment and decision of the Ministry were made in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and the preparatory works describing the application of the provision . Accordingly , and in view of the specific information on [ the first applicant \u2019s ] situation , the High Court finds no sufficient basis for holding that the refusal by the Ministry to grant a residence permit to [ the second applicant ] with reference to the attachment requirement of LAW implies a disproportionate infringement of [ the first applicant \u2019s ] rights as a NORP national and his right to family life . ORG therefore finds that the decision of ORG was not invalid , and that it was not contrary to LAW . \u201d","The applicants appealed against the judgment to ORG ( H\u00f8jesteret ) , which passed its judgment on DATE confirming the ORG judgment .","ORG found , unanimously , that it was not in breach of LAW to refuse the second applicant a residence permit in GPE . It stated as follows :","\u201c By its decision of DATE , ORG refused the application from [ the second applicant ] for a residence permit on the grounds that the aggregate ties of herself and her spouse [ the first applicant ] with GPE were not stronger than their aggregate ties with GPE , see section CARDINAL , subsection DATE , of LAW .","[ The applicants ] first submitted that the refusal was unlawful because it was contrary to LAW . If the refusal was not contrary to LAW , they submitted as their alternative claim that it was contrary to the prohibition against discrimination enshrined in LAW read in conjunction with LAW , for which reason they were eligible for family reunion in GPE without satisfying the attachment requirement set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act .","For the reasons given by ORG , ORG upholds the decision made by ORG that it is not contrary to Article CARDINAL to refuse [ the second applicant \u2019s ] application for a residence permit . \u201d","NORP Moreover , the majority of ORG ( CARDINAL judges ) found that the DATE rule was in compliance with LAW in conjunction with LAW . They stated as follows :","A minority of CARDINAL judges was of the view that the DATE rule implied an indirect discrimination between persons who were born NORP citizens and persons who had acquired NORP citizenship later in their life . Since persons who were born NORP citizens would usually be of NORP ethnic origin whereas persons who acquired NORP citizenship at a later point in their life would generally be of foreign ethnic origin , the CARDINAL-year rule also entailed an indirect discrimination between ethnic NORP citizens and NORP citizens with a foreign ethnic background . More specifically , they stated :","\u201c As stated by the majority , the requirement of section CARDINAL , subsection DATE , of LAW that the spouses\u2019 or ORG aggregate ties with GPE must be stronger than their aggregate ties with another country ( the attachment requirement ) does not apply when the resident person has been a NORP national for DATE ( the CARDINAL-year rule ) .","The CARDINAL-year rule applies both to persons born NORP nationals and to persons acquiring NORP nationality later in life , but in reality the significance of the rule differs greatly for the CARDINAL groups of NORP nationals . For persons born NORP nationals , the rule only implies that the attachment requirement applies until they are DATE . For persons not raised in GPE who acquire NORP nationality later in life , the rule implies that the attachment requirement applies until DATE have passed after the date when any such person became a NORP national . As an example , [ the first applicant ] who became a NORP national at DATE , will be subject to the attachment requirement until he is DATE . The CARDINAL-year rule therefore implies that the major restriction of the right to spousal reunion resulting from the attachment requirement will affect persons who only acquire NORP nationality later in life far more often and with a far greater impact than persons born with NORP nationality . Hence , the CARDINAL-year rule results in obvious indirect difference in treatment between the CARDINAL groups of NORP nationals .","The vast majority of persons born NORP nationals will be of NORP ethnic origin , while persons acquiring NORP nationality later in life will generally be of other ethnic origin . At the same time , the CARDINAL-year rule therefore implies obvious indirect difference in treatment between NORP nationals of NORP ethnic origin and NORP nationals of other ethnic origin regarding the right to spousal reunion .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW , the attachment requirement may be disregarded if exceptional reasons make it appropriate . According to the preparatory works to LAW , this possibility of exemption is to be administered in such a manner that aliens who were born and raised in GPE or who came to GPE as small children and were raised here must be treated comparably to NORP nationals , which means that they will be exempt from the attachment requirement when they have lawfully resided in GPE for DATE . However , relative to persons who were not raised in GPE , but acquire NORP nationality later in life , this does not alter the situation described above concerning the indirect difference in treatment implied by the CARDINAL-year rule .","When the attachment requirement was introduced by Act No . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , all NORP nationals were exempt from the requirement . Act No . CARDINAL of DATE made the attachment requirement generally applicable also to NORP nationals . Concerning the reason for this , the preparatory works to the LAW state , inter alia : \u201c With resident aliens and NORP nationals of foreign extraction it is a widespread marriage pattern to marry a person from their countries of origin , among other reasons due to parental pressure [ ... ] . The Government finds that the attachment requirement , as it is worded DATE , does not take sufficient account of the existence of this marriage pattern among both resident foreigners and resident NORP nationals of foreign extraction . There are thus also NORP nationals who are not well - integrated in NORP society and where integration of a spouse newly arrived in GPE may therefore entail major problems . \u201d By Act No . CARDINAL of DATE , the application of the attachment requirement to NORP nationals was restricted through the CARDINAL-year rule , and the preparatory works to the LAW stated that the purpose was , inter alia , \u201c to ensure that NORP expatriates with strong and lasting ties to GPE in the form of DATE of NORP nationality will be able to obtain spousal reunion in GPE \u201d . In the light of these notes , it is considered a fact that the indirect difference in treatment between NORP nationals of NORP ethnic extraction and NORP nationals of other ethnic extraction following from the CARDINAL-year rule is an intended consequence .","Under LAW , the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised by the LAW , including the individual \u2019s right under LAW for his or her family life , must be \u201c secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex , race , colour , language , religion , political or other opinion , national or social origin , association with a national minority , property , birth or other status . \u201d As mentioned above , the CARDINAL-year rule implies both indirect difference in treatment between persons born NORP nationals and persons only acquiring NORP nationality later in life and , in the same connection , indirect difference in treatment between NORP nationals of NORP ethnic extraction and NORP nationals of other ethnic extraction . Both these types of indirect difference in treatment must be considered to fall within Article CARDINAL read in conjunction with Article CARDINAL of the Convention . The QUANTITY types of indirect difference in treatment implied by the CARDINAL-year rule are therefore contrary to LAW unless the difference in treatment can be considered objectively justified and proportionate .","LAW of DATE , which has been ratified by GPE , provides in LAW : \u201c ORG shall be guided by the principle of non - discrimination between its nationals , whether they are nationals by birth or have acquired its nationality subsequently . \u201d The memorandum of DATE made by ORG and the memorandum of DATE made by the working group composed of representatives of ORG , ORG and ORG state that the provision solely concerns issues on the revocation and loss of nationality . In our opinion it is dubious whether there is any basis for such restrictive interpretation as the provision , according to its wording , comprises any difference in treatment exercised as a consequence of how and when nationality was acquired . As appears from the explanatory report , the provision is not a prohibition from which no derogation may be made , and the provision must be taken to mean that it may be derogated from if the difference in treatment is objectively justified and proportionate . However , when assessing the CARDINAL-year rule relative to LAW read in conjunction with LAW , we consider it necessary to include the fact that , at least according to its wording , LAW comprises a general provision stating that any difference in treatment between different groups of ORG own nationals is basically prohibited .","In an assessment made under LAW read in conjunction with LAW , another factor to be taken into consideration is the crucial importance of being entitled to settle with one \u2019s spouse in the country of one \u2019s nationality .","As mentioned , NORP nationals were originally generally exempt from the attachment requirement . ORG established in a judgment reproduced on p. CARDINAL in the NORP Weekly Law Reports for DATE that discrimination relative to the right to spousal reunion based on whether the resident spouse is a NORP or foreign national is not contrary to the prohibition of discrimination laid down in LAW read in conjunction with LAW . In this respect , ORG referred to paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment delivered by ORG DATE in ORG and NORP v. GPE . Difference in treatment based on nationality must be seen , inter alia , in the light of the right of NORP nationals to settle in GPE , and no significance can be attributed to the fact that such discrimination is not considered contrary to LAW CARDINAL when assessing whether it is permissible to implement a scheme implying difference in treatment between different groups of NORP nationals . In our opinion , no crucial significance can be attributed to paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the Abdulaziz , Cabales and NORP judgment either in this assessment , among others because difference in treatment based on the length of a person \u2019s period of nationality is not comparable to difference in treatment based on place of birth .","In the cases in which the attachment requirement applies , some of the factors emphasised are whether the resident spouse has strong links to GPE by virtue of his or her childhood and schooling in GPE . Such strong attachment to GPE will exist in most cases in which a person has held NORP nationality for DATE . However , when assessing whether the difference in treatment implied by the CARDINAL-year rule can be considered objectively justified , it is not sufficient to compare persons not raised in GPE who acquire NORP nationality later in life with the large group of persons who were born NORP nationals and were also raised in GPE . If exemption from the attachment requirement was justified only by regard for the latter group of NORP nationals , the exemption should have been delimited differently . The crucial element must therefore be a comparison with persons who were born NORP nationals and have been NORP nationals for DATE , but who were not raised in GPE and may perhaps not at any time have had their residence in GPE . In our opinion , it can not be considered a fact that , from a general perspective , this group of NORP nationals has stronger ties with GPE than persons who have acquired NORP nationality after entering and residing in GPE for DATE . It should be taken into consideration in that connection that one of the general conditions for acquiring NORP nationality by naturalisation is that the relevant person has resided in GPE for DATE , has proved his or her proficiency in the NORP language and knowledge of NORP society and meets the requirement of self - support .","Against that background , it is our opinion that the indirect difference in treatment implied by the DATE rule can not be considered objectively justified , and that it is therefore contrary to LAW .","The consequence of this must be that , when applying section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW to NORP nationals , the authorities must limit the CARDINAL-year rule to being solely an age requirement , meaning that the attachment requirement does not apply in cases in which the resident spouse is a NORP national and is DATE .","Accordingly , we vote for ruling in favour of the [ applicants\u2019 ] claim to the effect that ORG must declare invalid the decision of DATE , thereby remitting the case for renewed consideration .","In view of the outcome of the voting on this claim we see no reason to consider the claim for compensation . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158290","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF VASILIAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nullum crimen sine lege;Retroactivity;Criminal offence;Article 7-2 - Criminal offence);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born on DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE GPE ( hereafter at times referred to as \u201c the GPE \u201d ) , led by PERSON , signed a non - aggression treaty with GPE , led by PERSON ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . Under a secret additional protocol approved by the parties on DATE , as amended on DATE and DATE , GPE and other GPE were attributed to the GPE \u2019s sphere of interest in the event of a future \u201c territorial and political rearrangement \u201d of the territories of these then independent countries . After GPE \u2019s invasion of GPE on DATE and the subsequent start of the Second World War , GPE began exerting considerable pressure on ORG with a view to taking control of those countries pursuant to ORG and its additional protocol .","Following an ultimatum to allow an unlimited number of NORP troops to be stationed in the NORP countries , on DATE the NORP army invaded GPE . The Government of GPE was removed from office , and a new Government was formed under the direction of ORG of GPE , the GPE \u2019s only political party . On DATE GPE completed the annexation of GPE by adopting an act incorporating the country into the GPE , with GPE being named the \u201c the NORP Soviet GPE \u201d ( hereinafter referred to as \u201c the GPE \u201d ) . In DATE the territory was occupied by NORP forces . In DATE NORP rule was re - established in NORP territory ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , and also PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . MONEY , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG CARDINALIV ) .","A nation - wide partisan movement began in GPE . The goal of the entire armed and unarmed resistance was the liberation of and reestablishment of independent GPE . In DATE an all - partisan organisation , ORG ( NORP laisv\u0117s kovos saj\u016bdis ( \u201c LKKS \u201d ) ) was formed . On DATE the organisation adopted the Declaration stating that ORG was \u201c the highest political authority of the nation , leading the nation \u2019s political and military struggle for freedom ( auk\u0161\u010diausias tautos politinis organas , vadovauj\u0105s politinei ir karinei tautos i\u0161silaisvinimo kovai ) \u201d . The NORP repressive structures , embodied in the GPE ( ORG , PERSON ) , the ORG ( ORG , PERSON ) and other bodies , sought to suppress the resistance . The system of repressive organisations was reorganised on repeated occasions . Most of the leading and operative employees of those structures were NORP sent to GPE from the GPE . In DATE the partisan movement was suppressed by the NORP authorities , although separate partisan formations were operating for some time until after DATE , DATE in which the leadership of the ORG was captured and murdered .","DATE GPE regained its independence on DATE ; this was officially recognised by the GPE on DATE . The NORP army left GPE on DATE .","The Government provided the ORG with copies from ORG ( NORP ypatingasis archyvas ) of the applicant \u2019s service file from the period when he worked for the ORG of the NORP SSR . The documents are in NORP and were translated into NORP by a translator from the GPE region public prosecutor \u2019s office . It appears that these documents were relied upon by the prosecutor when he brought the bill of indictment against the applicant in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The documents disclose the following information .","DATE the applicant studied at ORG in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was employed as an assistant operational agent ( operatyvinis \u012fgaliotinis ) , and from DATE he worked as an operational agent in the ORG district unit of ORG . As of DATE the applicant worked as a senior operational agent in the ORG and subsequently in the ORG .","The minutes of the ORG district ORG unit NORP party ORG meeting of DATE record that the agenda of that meeting was devoted to discussing \u201c the decisions of ORG , and orders from the GPE ORG and ORG MGB as to the extermination of nationalist elements in the [ ORG ] district \u201d . The minutes further record that a member of the ORG district ORG urged that in the immediate future the \u201c bandits and nationalist underground should be eradicated \u201d . The regional unit of ORG was encouraged to put more effort into enlightening the inhabitants about the \u201c fight against the bandits and nationalist underground \u201d . TIME record the applicant \u2019s view that \u201c their [ his ORG unit \u2019s ] goal was to exterminate as quickly as possible the bandits , those who help them and their contacts \u201d .","It appears from TIME of the meeting of DATE of the ORG district ORG unit NORP party members , that on that occasion the applicant gave a speech about \u201c the fight against the nationalist underground \u201d . The applicant stated that so far he \u201c had not succeeded in exposing all the members of the nationalist gangs in the district assigned to him \u201d . In the applicant \u2019s view , \u201c if each NORP , each member of his [ ORG ] unit , takes up his duties more thoroughly , they can obtain good results in the fight against the nationalist underground \u201d .","During the meeting of CARDINAL DATE of the ORG district ORG unit NORP party members , the applicant was described as a person who had achieved good results in his work .","On DATE the applicant became a member of ORG of GPE . The record of the meeting of the ORG district ORG unit NORP party members indicates , that the applicant \u2019s superiors characterised him as being disciplined ( disciplinuotas ) , being politically aware ( politi\u0161kai ra\u0161tingas ) and having good work results . The superiors pointed out that joining the ranks of the \u201c glorious NORP party \u201d obliged the applicant to \u201c raise his political awareness , study the history of the NORP party in its fight with various enemies and always be alert \u201d .","In DATE the applicant gained the qualification of a jurist at the KGB Felix ORG .","DATE until he retired in DATE on health grounds , the applicant worked as the Head of ORG in the LOC district .","According to the applicant \u2019s service record , during his CARDINAL years\u2019 service in the ORG ( ORG ) , he was awarded , decorated or commended CARDINAL times . During his service in the ORG and the ORG the applicant served up to the rank of lieutenant - colonel ( papulkininkis ) .","On DATE the applicant took part in an operation against CARDINAL NORP partisans , the brothers PERSON and PERSON , who had been hiding in the forest in the ORG area . GPE , the applicant \u2019s co - accused in the subsequent criminal proceedings for genocide , had provided the NORP authorities with information about the partisans\u2019 whereabouts . An operation to capture or liquidate the partisans had been planned . Several soldiers were involved and the applicant was part of the operation . During the attempt to apprehend them , J.A. and PERSON resisted by opening fire on the ORG officers and NORP soldiers . The partisans were shot and killed .","On DATE of the operation , that is , on DATE , the Head of the ORG district ORG drafted a report to his superior \u2013 the head of the GPE region ORG , wherein it was mentioned that the applicant had contributed to the success of the operation during in which \u201c CARDINAL bandits had been liquidated \u201d , and thus deserved to be commended ( u\u017esitarnavo paskatinim\u0105 ) .","On DATE the Head of the ORG district ORG wrote to the Minister of ORG the NORP SSR , informing him that on DATE the applicant and the ORG officers had liquidated \u201c CARDINAL members of a nationalist gang [ J.A. and PERSON ] \u201d . He proposed that the applicant be rewarded for that operation . The applicant \u2019s service file indicates that on DATE the applicant received a commendation and was paid a premium of MONEY .","On DATE the Chairman of ORG of the ORG district indicated that brothers PERSON and PERSON belonged to a \u201c bourgeois nationalistic armed gang \u201d during the post - war period and that in DATE they were shot as its members .","After GPE regained its independence , the GPE region public prosecutor \u2019s office started an investigation in DATE into the death of the brothers PERSON and PERSON In DATE the prosecutor charged the applicant and GPE with genocide , pursuant to LAW then in force ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The prosecutor found it to be established that as of DATE the applicant had served as an operational agent in the GPE region ORG district branch of the ORG MGB . He knew that \u201c the ORG MGB \u2019s main purpose was to physically eradicate part of the NORP population belonging to a separate political group ( atskira politin\u0117 grup\u0117 ) , namely , the NORP partisans , participants in the resistance to the NORP occupation \u201d . \u201c The applicant had been active in fulfilling that main goal of the ORG MGB by killing some of the inhabitants of GPE belonging to the aforementioned political group \u201d . For the prosecutor , the applicant \u2019s guilt was proved on the basis of his service record ( tarnybos kortel\u0117 ) , the applicant \u2019s ORG commendation for his persistence when executing search measures , managing the operation and personal participation when apprehending the bandits ( pareik\u0161ta pad\u0117ka u\u017e atkaklum\u0105 pravedant agent\u016brines - tyrimo priemones , vadovavim\u0105 operacijai , asmenin\u012f dalyvavim\u0105 sulaikant banditus ) . The evidence examined by the prosecutor included statements by witnesses , TIME of the meetings of the ORG district ORG unit which were obtained from ORG ( NORP ypatingasis archyvas ) and the Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of GPE ( NORP gyventoj\u0173 genocido ir rezistencijos tyrimo centras ) and translations of those documents , which mentioned the applicant , the tasks he had been assigned with regard to the liquidation of banditry , bandits\u2019 assistants and contact persons . Other evidence included [ MGB ] reports about the liquidated bandits PERSON and PERSON","By a judgment of CARDINAL February CARDINAL , ORG found that there was sufficient evidence to convict the applicant of genocide . On the basis of witness statements , written evidence provided by ORG of GPE and statements by the applicant and his co - accused GPE , the court established that J.A. and PERSON had belonged to the CARDINALth unit of the PERSON district partisans . The trial court noted that the information in the case file allowed it to conclude that in order to compromise the partisan brothers the NORP authorities had spread misinformation to the effect that J.A. and PERSON had deserted from the partisan unit , were hiding alone and , thereafter , had no connection with the partisans . Those accusations were untrue . In reality , the partisans , including the brothers PERSON and PERSON , operated in small groups in order to avoid extermination by the NORP . Lastly , there was no credible evidence in the case which would disprove the assertion that J.A. and PERSON \u201c were members of the organised resistance and that they belonged to a political group \u201d . The trial court also noted testimony by CARDINAL witness that the partisan brothers had been hiding in the forest for DATE , and that his family had given them food .","As to the applicant , the court noted that as of DATE he had been working as an operational agent of the ORG of the NORP SSR and \u201c knew the main goal of that Ministry , which was to physically eradicate a separate political group , NORP partisans , constituting part of the NORP population \u201d . In the ORG files the CARDINAL brothers had been listed as partisans , members of the armed national underground resistance ( partizanai \u2013 nacionalinio ginkluoto pogrind\u017eio dalyviai ) . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s contention that he had not actively participated in the operation to capture or to liquidate the CARDINAL partisans during which those CARDINAL partisans had died . On the contrary , the applicant \u2019s superior officer \u2019s operational file had stated that CARDINAL of the bandits had been personally eliminated by the applicant . After the operation the applicant had been admitted to ORG and both he and PERSON had received a financial reward . Most importantly , neither the applicant nor GPE denied taking part in the operation to liquidate the partisans . The trial court took the view that all of the circumstances allowed the conclusion that both of the accused had participated on DATE \u201c in the physical extermination ( killing ) of inhabitants of GPE who belonged to separate political group ( atskira politin\u0117 grup\u0117 ) , participants in the resistance to the NORP occupational power , that is to say , [ the applicant ] took part in genocide \u201d .","ORG noted that LAW \u201d provided for the possibility of applying criminal liability for genocide retroactively .","The Kaunas Regional Court convicted the applicant of genocide under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant was granted a suspension of his sentence on health grounds .","ORG was also convicted of being an accessory to genocide under the same provision of LAW . She was sentenced to DATE of imprisonment , suspended on health grounds .","The trial court also granted a civil claim by the injured party , PERSON , who was the daughter of PERSON and the niece of PERSON , but reserved the question of the amount of damages for separate civil proceedings .","Both the applicant and ORG appealed against their convictions .","On DATE ORG upheld the convictions and held that the trial court \u2019s verdict had been lawful and well - founded . The appellate court indicated that the trial court had not concluded that the applicant had personally shot one of the partisans . In fact , the applicant had been sentenced only for taking part in the operation to eradicate the partisans as representatives of a political group . The applicant himself acknowledged , and it had been proven by the ORG statements and documents , that he had taken an active part in the impugned operation , that he had been responsible for ORG , who had shown the NORP authorities the partisans\u2019 hiding place , that he had been CARDINAL of the officers who had surrounded the bunker , and that he had stayed with GPE until the end of the operation . In passing sentence , ORG observed that the applicant , as an operational officer of the ORG district ORG who had worked voluntarily for the occupying authority ( ORG ) \u201c had clearly known that the goal of that institution was to physically exterminate the NORP partisans , as part of the NORP population ( tikrai \u017einojo , ORG \u0161ios \u012fstaigos tikslas yra NORP partizan\u0173 , PERSON gyventoj\u0173 dalies , fizi\u0161kas sunaikinimas ) \u201d . Conscious of that fact , the applicant , together with other participants in the operation , had taken part in person in the killing of the partisan brothers PERSON and A.A. Likewise , GPE , as an ORG agent , also understood the goals of that organisation and by providing it with information about the partisans\u2019 whereabouts and by showing ORG the partisans\u2019 bunker , had understood that the brothers would be exterminated . Accordingly , both the applicant and ORG had acted with direct intent ( tiesiogin\u0117 ty\u010dia ) . Lastly , ORG found that at the time of the criminal proceedings against him the applicant had still been of the view that the NORP authorities\u2019 actions against the NORP partisans were lawful .","The appellate court dismissed the argument by the applicant that the definition of genocide under NORP law , pursuant to LAW , contradicted the definition enshrined in LAW DATE LAW ( hereinafter referred to as \u201c the LAW \u201d ) . ORG noted the trial court \u2019s conclusion that the brothers PERSON and PERSON had been exterminated for belonging to a \u201c political group \u201d . Whilst admitting that the definition of the crime of genocide in LAW also included social and political groups , and was therefore wider than that established by LAW , the appellate court found that the addition of those groups was \u201c reasonable and in line with reality \u201d . LAW did not contain specific provisions to the effect that the concept of genocide could be interpreted widely ; however , neither did LAW prohibit such an interpretation . The concept of genocide had been expanded in ORG of other countries . The appellate court further explained that \u201c political group means people connected by common political views and beliefs and the goal to physically eradicate such a group also means genocide , because this has an intention to eradicate part of the people ( politin\u0117 grup\u0117 DATE tai \u017emon\u0117s , susij\u0119 bendromis politin\u0117mis pa\u017ei\u016bromis ir \u012fsitikinimais , ir siekimas toki\u0105 grup\u0119 fizi\u0161kai sunaikinti taip pat rei\u0161kia genocid\u0105 , nes siekiama sunaikinti dal\u012f \u017emoni\u0173 ) \u201d . The court emphasised that :","\u201c the attribution of the NORP partisans , that is to say , participants in armed resistance to occupational power , to a particular \u201c political \u201d group , as was done in the trial court \u2019s verdict , in essence was only relative \/ conditional and not very precise . The members of this group had at the same time been representatives of the NORP nation , that is , the national group . The NORP genocide was carried out precisely on the criteria of the inhabitants\u2019 nationality - ethnicity . It follows that NORP partisans could be attributed not only to political , but also to national and ethnic groups , that is to say , to the groups listed in LAW . \u201d","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s and ORG contention that their actions were not genocide because at the time of their deaths the brothers PERSON and PERSON had not been partisans and thus could not have been considered as belonging to \u201c a political , social or other group \u201d :","\u201c ... The complaints of the convicted PERSON ORG and ORG also contain allegations that during the war the brothers PERSON and PERSON had collaborated with the NORP occupying forces and had committed crimes . Besides , in DATE they had deserted from the partisan squad and afterwards did not keep in touch with other partisans . Therefore , in the appellants\u2019 view , PERSON and PERSON could not have been considered members of any political , social or other group , and actions against them could not have been considered as acts of genocide . ORG is of the view that these arguments have been reasonably rejected by th[is ] court and have already been addressed in the judgment of conviction . Both PERSON ORG and GPE mention certificate no . DATE of ORG , dated DATE . The certificate indicates that the ORG archive contains a criminal case on J.A. , and that in the indictment of that case it is written that , when GPE occupied GPE , J.A. joined the armed squad of white partisans ; he carried weapons and took part in arrests , detention and transportation of active NORP party members and NORP . Besides , he conducted anti - NORP agitation and made terrorist threats against communists , which means that he has committed the crime provided for in Article CARDINALa of the Criminal Code of the Russian NORP Federative Socialist Republic [ counter - revolutionary crime and treason of the motherland ] . On CARDINAL May CARDINAL J.A. escaped from prison and joined the partisan squad .","As regards PERSON , the certificate indicates that during the NORP occupation he served in the NORP police , and in DATE he began living as an outlaw , joining the armed nationalist partisans\u2019 unit . It is also indicated that in DATE J.A. and PERSON left the partisan unit and went into hiding alone : they did not keep in touch with other partisans , and by order of the commander of the PERSON partisan unit were considered deserters . In respect of J.A. the same is indicated in the indictment of DATE drawn up by the [ ORG ] . The specific acts that ORG was accused of were not detailed . Assessing the above documents , it appears that they contain no data about the ORG involvement in particular crimes against humanity . Moreover , from the charges against J.A. it is more likely that he had been accused primarily of activity against the [ GPE ] occupying forces themselves . There are no data in the case file about any involvement by the brothers in other criminal acts . Even in ORG documents it is indicated that from DATE J.A. and PERSON were hiding \u201c without committing robberies , and they did not belong to any [ criminal ] gang \u201d . The Genocide and Resistance Research Centre \u2019s letter \u201c Resistance activity by J.A. and PERSON \u201d indicates that DATE they belonged to partisan unit no . CARDINAL ... According to data from the ORG MGB , in DATE [ J.A. and PERSON ] still belonged to partisan unit no . DATE ... Afterwards they left the unit and took no further part in active partisan actions .","In the ORG \u2019s view , the information given does not indicate that until their liquidation J.A. and PERSON could not have been considered NORP partisans . In the judgment of conviction it is rightly noted that during the relevant period partisans had already been forced to fight in small groups to avoid extermination . Even in the ORG files there is an indication that in DATE other partisans were looking for an opportunity to meet PERSON and PERSON in order to form a single squad . Therefore the ORG decided to spread the rumour that ORG and PERSON were ORG agents . Particular plans to discredit PERSON and PERSON are apparent from the plan of CARDINAL DATE confirmed by the head of the ORG board of GPE ... FAC testified that in DATE she met partisans PERSON and PERSON and supplied them with food . In addition , J.A. and PERSON gave her a certificate confirming that she was a supporter of the partisans . She has kept that certificate to DATE .","On DATE ORG cleared ORG name in respect of crimes attributed to him in the indictment of DATE . The prosecutor indicated that from DATE to DATE J.A. was unlawfully imprisoned . In DATE and DATE the Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Research Centre posthumously granted J.A. and PERSON volunteer fighter ( kario savanorio ) certificates . The fact that the ORG itself had considered J.A. and PERSON to be partisans is clear from the report of DATE , in which the head of the PERSON MGB informed the ORG Minister of the Interior that measures had been adopted to ascertain the hiding place of [ J.A. and PERSON ] and liquidate them . The ORG district ORG was to take measures for speedier liquidation of [ J.A. and PERSON ] . All this served to prove that when putting those plans into action J.A. and PERSON had been killed as participants in the armed resistance . \u201d","On DATE ORG , in cassation proceedings , upheld the conviction of the applicant and GPE As concerns the concept of genocide , the court held :","\u201c Both of those convicted argue that the concept of genocide , as established in LAW , is broader than the one established in LAW , thus not corresponding to the norms of international law . This argument must be dismissed .","Indeed , LAW does provide for a broader concept ( platesn\u0117 nusikaltimo sud\u0117tis ) of the crime of genocide than that in LAW . According to LAW , genocide also comprises actions aimed at the physical eradication of some or all of the members of a social or political group . LAW does not mention such groups .","By acceding to the [ Genocide ] Convention , GPE acquired the obligation to ensure that its norms were applied on its territory . Accordingly , by acceding to the [ Genocide ] Convention GPE acquired the obligation to punish actions aimed at the total or partial destruction of a national , ethnic , racial or religious group , and to prevent such actions . Acceding to the [ Genocide ] Convention does not deprive a State of the right to define actions which are crimes , and to prohibit them ( apibr\u0117\u017eti veikas , kurios yra nusikaltimai , ir jas u\u017edrausti ) . This is even truer because LAW [ above ] Convention provides that the Contracting Parties undertake to enact , in accordance with their respective Constitutions , the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the LAW and to provide penalties for those guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in LAW . In GPE , this provision has been put into force by enactment of LAW DATE \u201c On Responsibility for Genocide of Inhabitants of GPE \u201d . The concept of genocide , as established in LAW that law , corresponded to the concept of genocide established in LAW . At the same time , when joining the LAW , in LAW On Responsibility for Genocide of Inhabitants of GPE \u201d the ORG established that killings and torture of NORP people and their deportations during DATE under NORP and GPE occupation and annexation corresponded to the characteristics of the crime of genocide as established by the norms of international law . The DATE amendments to LAW established the elements of the crime of genocide ( apibr\u0117\u017eta genocido nusikaltimo sud\u0117tis ) , and included in them acts aimed at physical extermination of some or all of the members of a social or political group . This characteristic of the crime of genocide remained in LAW . It is clear that adding acts aimed at the physical extermination of some or all of the members of a social or political group to the definition of the crime of genocide amounts to nothing more than execution of the legal norms of LAW DATE \u201c On Responsibility for Genocide of Inhabitants of GPE \u201d . It follows that the doubts by the applicant and GPE about the interpretation of the concept of the crime of genocide are not founded . \u201d","ORG noted that the applicant and ORG had been convicted of involvement in the physical extermination of a part the inhabitants of GPE , who belonged to a separate political group , that is NORP partisans DATE members of the resistance to the NORP occupation power ( nuteisti MONEY NORP gyventoj\u0173 dal\u012f , priklausiusi\u0105 atskirai politinei grupei , t.y . PERSON partizanams \u2013 pasiprie\u0161inimo soviet\u0173 okupacinei vald\u017eiai dalyviams ) \u201d . The court dismissed arguments by the applicant and GPE that the brothers PERSON and PERSON had deserted from the partisans and at the time of their death they therefore no longer belonged to the partisans\u2019 political group . That argument had been raised both before the trial and appellate courts and had been dismissed by them for sound and clear reasons .","ORG observed that in DATE the \u201c nation \u2019s armed resistance \u2013 the partisan war DATE against GPE occupying army and structures of occupying regime was underway in GPE \u201d . It further pointed out that under the PERSON on the Status of Participants in Resistance against the Occupations of DATE , enacted on DATE , the partisans who fought against the occupation had been declared to be volunteer - fighters . In DATE and DATE the Lithuanian Genocide and Resistance Research Centre granted volunteer - fighter status to LAW and PERSON , which meant that they had met the condition contained in that PERSON that such status was not to be granted to individuals who had committed crimes against humanity or had killed civilians .","ORG also dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument that he had not committed any act causing the death of the CARDINAL partisans :","\u201c The trial court has concluded that PERSON ORG took part in the killing of NORP partisans J.A. and PERSON : he surrounded the bunker with other ORG officers and attacked the bunker ; during the attack J.A. and PERSON were shot and killed . The trial court \u2019s verdict does not state that PERSON himself killed any of the partisans , although data to that effect exists in the case file [ DATE report by the head of the ORG district ORG ) .","Participation in killing people who belong to a political group is CARDINAL of the objective elements ( vienas i\u0161 nusikaltimo sud\u0117ties objektyviosios pus\u0117s po\u017eymi\u0173 ) of the crime of genocide listed in LAW . Involvement in the killing of members of the groups enumerated in LAW means not only committing acts causing loss of life ; it also means setting up conditions ( sudarymas s\u0105lyg\u0173 ) so that the killings happen . It has been established that PERSON , as an ORG officer , together with an ORG subsection chief , took part in preparations for the operation to exterminate J.A. and PERSON ; PERSON was armed , and during the operation he was responsible for the ORG agent [ GPE ] , who had located the partisans\u2019 bunker ; V. ORG stayed with GPE until the end of the operation . PERSON NORP himself acknowledges those actions . Having taken the above into account , ORG arrived at the reasonable conclusion that PERSON ORG had played an active role in the operation of extermination of the partisans J.A. and PERSON Even though it has not been established that V. NORP killed either of the partisans himself , the actions he took when preparing the operation and at the time of the operation correspond to the objective element of the crime of genocide , as established in LAW involvement in killing people who belong to a political group .","The actions of V. ORG also correspond to the subjective element of genocide \u2013 direct intent ( tiesiogin\u0117 ty\u010dia ) : PERSON ORG , when taking those actions , had known the goal of GPE \u2013 to eradicate all NORP partisans . He knew that the brothers PERSON and PERSON were partisans , and understood that during the operation they would be killed or arrested and then tortured , tried as \u201c traitors to the homeland \u201d and [ possibly ] sentenced to death , and [ V. ORG ] wished that to happen . \u201d","On DATE M.B. brought civil proceedings , claiming CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) from the applicant and GPE , to be paid by them jointly . The plaintiff noted that one of the partisans who had been killed , PERSON , was her father , and the other partisan , PERSON , was her uncle . At the time of their death she was DATE . Her father \u2019s death had left her an orphan . Because of the applicant \u2019s actions she and her remaining family members had sustained enormous mental suffering , depression , humiliation , and loss of reputation ; her opportunities to communicate with others had been reduced and she had had to hide and constantly change her place of residence . PERSON argued that she continued to feel the repercussions of the crime up to the present time , because the applicant and PERSON still refused to tell her where her father was buried .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . It noted that GPE had already paid PERSON the sum of LTL CARDINAL as CARDINAL - off compensation payable to those whose families had suffered under the DATE - CARDINAL occupation ( see paragraph DATE below ) . It followed that the ORG had already compensated for PERSON \u2019s suffering caused by the loss of her family members .","By a ruling of CARDINAL June DATE ORG overturned the above decision and found that the applicant and GPE were to pay a sum of LTL CARDINAL for the damage their criminal actions had caused PERSON The court also emphasised that PERSON could not have applied for damages in NORP times , when GPE was under occupation , that is , during the period when the applicant and GPE had committed the crimes \u201c against the NORP partisans\u2019 battles for the freedom and independence of ORG ( nukreipti prie\u0161 NORP partizan\u0173 kovas u\u017e NORP valstyb\u0117s laisv\u0119 ir nepriklausomyb\u0119 ) \u201d . It found that the loss of her family member and a close relative had caused PERSON serious suffering and emotional depression . Furthermore , the court emphasised that \u201c it had to be taken into consideration that the criminal acts were committed on a massive scale and in essence were directed not against particular individuals , but against everyone who had fought for the independence of GPE \u201d . Given the applicant \u2019s and GPE \u2019s serious health problems and the fact that considerable time had elapsed since the crimes were committed , the appellate court awarded PERSON the sum of LTL CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage , to be paid jointly by both individuals who had been found guilty of genocide .","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE the enlarged chamber of ORG upheld the appellate court \u2019s decision , but reduced the sum to be paid jointly ( solidariai ) by the applicant and M.\u017d. to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) . The court observed , inter alia , that the applicant and GPE had committed the crime of genocide when acting together with officers of the GPE district ORG and NORP soldiers . Accordingly , it was necessary not to impose a disproportionate burden on the applicant and GPE Moreover , \u201c crimes against humanity had the characteristic that they were directed against many people , that is to say the perpetrator caused harm to many victims \u201d , which also had to be taken into account when adjudging the damages to be paid to each of the victims . Should the court grant too large a sum of money , it could complicate the execution of subsequent court decisions if not all the victims were known or should they come forward in future .","After ORG ruling of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to initiate a process under LAW on account of newly discovered circumstances . ORG noted that the trial court had found the applicant and GPE guilty of genocide of a political group . The conviction had been upheld by appellate and cassation courts . ORG decision states that , taking into consideration the conclusions set out in ORG ruling to the effect that retroactive prosecution for genocide of persons belonging to a political or social group was in breach of the principle of the rule of law , it had to be ascertained whether the applicant ( and his co - accused GPE ) were to be considered innocent , guilty of genocide or , as another alternative , whether they might have committed some other criminal activity . A prosecutor from ORG was appointed to examine those newly discovered circumstances .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor held that ORG ruling of DATE constituted an interpretation of a legal norm and not a newly discovered factual circumstance ( \u201c another circumstance \u201d within the meaning of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . Consequently , it could not be the basis for requesting ORG to re - open the applicant \u2019s criminal case . Accordingly , this constituted a legal impediment to an application to ORG to re - open the criminal procedure in the applicant \u2019s case ."],"violated_articles":["7"],"violated_paragraphs":["7-1","7-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141159","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF \u010cETI\u0106 v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["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 between CARDINAL 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 CARDINAL DATE and 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 CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( second floor ) , which measured QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) and contained CARDINAL sleeping places . According to the applicant , CARDINAL prisoners were being held in each of the cells during his detention . The Government submitted that in cell CARDINAL the numbers varied CARDINAL , in cell CARDINAL the applicant was held alone and in cell CARDINAL prisoners were held .","During his imprisonment the applicant had CARDINAL consultations with a general practitioner and CARDINAL dental appointment . He did not ask for psychological or psychiatric treatment .","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 , \u00a7 \u00a7 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 \u00a7 DATE ) .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was placed under a stricter regime as he had physically attacked another prisoner . During that time he could spend TIME per day outside his room during recreation time , he had TIME for visits per week and telephone contacts twice a week . He was not allowed to use a multipurpose hall and he received his meals in his cell .","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 ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184818","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF DUMITRESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177394","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DA\u015eTAN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation , namely the ORG ( ORG ) . The following day , on DATE , he was questioned by the gendarmerie , at which time he was reminded of his rights , including the right to benefit from legal assistance . He refused the assistance of a lawyer and gave a statement of CARDINAL pages in length in which he admitted his membership of the ORG and gave detailed information about the organisation and its members . According to transcripts of that statement , the applicant read its content and signed every page of it .","On DATE the applicant was brought before the NORP public prosecutor and he was again reminded of his right to benefit from legal assistance . He indicated that he did not wish to be assigned a lawyer and that he would make a statement without assistance . He confirmed his membership of the ORG and his support for that illegal organisation , however maintaining that he had never been involved in an armed operation . The applicant was placed in detention pending trial on DATE .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG , charging the applicant under LAW with seeking to destroy the constitutional order and unity of ORG and to remove part of the country from the ORG \u2019s control . The public prosecutor claimed that the applicant :","- had exploded a remote - controlled land mine in GPE in DATE that had caused the injury of CARDINAL soldier ,","- had exploded a time bomb in GPE on DATE that had caused the injury of CARDINAL soldiers .","In its assessment report ( tensip zapt\u0131 ) dated DATE ORG ordered a copy of the police statements of D.T. , GPE , GPE , GPE , PERSON and GPE The trial court further ordered that the whereabouts of D.T. be ascertained .","M.A. was tried in another set of criminal proceedings concerning the same organisation . On DATE M.A. lodged an application to benefit from the Reintegration of Offenders into Society Act ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , which had come into force on DATE .","On DATE , at the first hearing , the applicant gave evidence in the presence of his lawyer and accepted the contents of his police statement . In other words , the applicant once again admitted his membership of the ORG while insisting that he had not been involved in any armed activity . He further stated that his statement had not been read back to him by the police and asked the trial court not to take it into consideration in case it had any incriminatory remarks in respect of himself or third persons in so far as they concerned participation in armed activities . When asked about his statement before the public prosecutor , the applicant essentially confirmed it , whilst insisting that he had not given any statement concerning the attacks in GPE , a city in the east of GPE , and adding that he had signed it without reading it . Lastly , the applicant stated that he had received training in bomb - making and that he had been planning to carry out bomb attacks in major cities in accordance with the instructions of the ORG . His lawyer submitted that he had nothing to add to the applicant \u2019s statements .","During the same hearing the trial court questioned several witnesses , namely GPE , ORG testified that he knew the applicant but that they had not carried out any armed attack together . ORG stated that he had not known the applicant \u2019s real name , but he had known him as \u201c GPE . M.A. further testified that he had no knowledge of the applicant \u2019s position and activities within the illegal organisation . PERSON testified that he did not know the applicant .","At a hearing on DATE the trial court noted that D.T. was in FAC and it issued a letter of request to ORG , requesting that the latter obtain his statements .","On DATE D.T. \u2019s statement was taken by ORG , pursuant to the letter of request by the trial court . According to the transcript of the hearing at ORG , D.T. was detained in GPE E - type Prison at the time his statement was taken . D.T. stated that he had known the applicant as \u201c GPE \u201d and that he had knowledge of the attack in GPE , adding that he had heard such information from the member with the code name \u201c GPE \u201d .","On DATE the applicant asked the trial court to hear evidence from D.T. in person . The trial court rejected this request on the basis that hearing D.T. \u2019s testimony in person would not contribute to its assessment since his statement given before another court had been considered sufficient for a conviction .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty pursuant to LAW and sentenced him to life imprisonment . The court took account of the variety of evidence and witness statements , including those of D.T. , which had been taken by ORG at the trial court \u2019s request . The relevant parts of the trial court \u2019s reasoned judgment read as follows :","\u201c ..."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142076","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DZHULAY v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and resides in GPE .","At TIME on DATE CARDINAL M. \u2019s house in the town of LOC ( in the NORP region ) was burgled by several persons . PERSON , his mother ( PERSON ) , his wife ( PERSON ) and PERSON ( PERSON \u2019s niece ) were in the house at the time . PERSON and GPE sustained bodily injuries . Various items of property , including jewellery , were stolen . Criminal proceedings were instituted by the police on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE . According to the applicant , he was arrested while at home . According to official records , the applicant was arrested at TIME for swearing in public and behaving \u201c with insolence \u201d ( \u0432\u0438\u043a\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0430\u044e\u0447\u0435 ) .","On DATE the Kyiv ORG imposed on the applicant CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative arrest for disorderly conduct .","On DATE the applicant was transported from GPE to the town of LOC ( QUANTITY ) . On DATE he confessed to the above - mentioned burglary .","On DATE the applicant was formally arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime .","On DATE a lawyer , PERSON . , allegedly hired by the applicant \u2019s family , submitted a request to the investigation officer for permission to represent the applicant in the criminal case against him . The lawyer also noted that since investigative actions planned for DATE had not taken place he had returned to GPE . On DATE , PERSON . was given leave to represent the applicant .","On DATE an identification parade took place in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses . The victims , PERSON , GPE and PERSON , identified the applicant as the person who had been in their house on TIME . CARDINAL more persons participated in the identification parade . Their description , according to the official records , was as follows : person no . CARDINAL : QUANTITY tall , dark hair , brown eyes , wearing dark blue jeans , a grey T - shirt and trainers ; person no . CARDINAL : QUANTITY tall , dark blond hair , green eyes , wearing grey trousers , a grey T - shirt and trainers ; person no . CARDINAL ( the applicant ) : QUANTITY tall , dark blond hair , grey eyes , wearing dark blue sport pants , a T - shirt and trainers .","M.G. stated that she had recognised the applicant by his voice , height and body type . PERSON stated that he had recognised the applicant by his voice , and PERSON that she had recognised the applicant by his voice and body type .","NORP The identification parade was carried out in the absence of the applicant \u2019s lawyer . The police officer who conducted the parade informed his supervisor that the applicant \u2019s lawyer was not able to attend as he was busy in another criminal case . The applicant was offered another lawyer but refused . The record of the identification parade was signed by all those present and it was noted that the parade \u2019s participants had \u201c no complaints \u201d .","On DATE a lawyer , PERSON , was given leave to represent the applicant . She represented him until DATE .","On DATE the ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment with confiscation of his property , and CARDINAL of his accomplices ( NORP and PERSON . ) to terms of imprisonment and confiscation of their property for the burglary of PERSON \u2019s house and the infliction of minor bodily injuries on PERSON and PERSON CARDINAL other persons involved in the crime ( P. and L. ) had not been found . The court also granted the GPE civil claims .","In the course of the trial proceedings , the applicant pleaded innocent . His testimonies at the trial could be summarised as following . In DATE he had been asked to drive NORP in exchange for payment . Zh . and My . had been with them . They had stopped near a building . Everybody except the applicant had left the car . The applicant stated that he had slept in the car for TIME a day . Then NORP , PERSON . and CARDINAL unknown persons had driven \u201c to the garages \u201d . Everybody had left and he had stayed in the car . The applicant did not know where they had gone i.e. he did not know about the burglary . The applicant further stated that he had pleaded guilty because the police officers had beaten him .","At his court hearing PERSON . pleaded partially guilty and testified that the applicant had remained in the car while PERSON \u2019s house was being burgled . NORP pleaded partially guilty but did not say anything regarding the applicant \u2019s involvement in the crime .","M. and PERSON testified that they had seen CARDINAL persons break into the house TIME . They had tied PERSON up and had taken money . PERSON had been severely beaten by NORP The former recognised the applicant since the applicant had been very frightened and he remembered his eyes . It was noted in the court hearing record that PERSON said : \u201c I saw [ the applicant ] , he was trembling all over , he was so stressed , I saw his eyes . I can not be mistaken \u201d . The aggressors had worn masks but later removed them . All of them had been shorter than NORP and the applicant , who were the tallest . PERSON testified that she had seen CARDINAL persons and that GPE had seen a fifth one , who had been in the corridor .","M.G. testified that the applicant had been very frightened and had been trembling all over . He had been similarly frightened during the identification parade . She also recognised him because of his height and voice . She remembered that he had asked her age and whether she was married . During the identification parade all QUANTITY persons had said the same sentence and she had recognised the applicant .","NORP The court found that on DATE the applicant , NORP , PERSON . , PERSON and PERSON upon prior planning had broken into the house of PERSON , had inflicted bodily injuries to PERSON and GPE , and robbed the PERSON \u2019s family . In this finding , the court referred to various pieces of evidence , including the record of the reconstruction of events where PERSON . explained how he , NORP , PERSON and the applicant had committed a robbery ; the record of the identification parades in which PERSON , GPE and PERSON had recognised the applicant ; and the conclusion of the forensic examination of tyre tracks found near PERSON \u2019s house , which matched the applicant \u2019s car .","In respect of the applicant \u2019s punishment , the court noted that the applicant was young , had positive character traits , and it was the first crime he had committed ; however , his guilt had been aggravated by the fact that he was transporting criminals to and from the place of the crime .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against that decision . In her appeal she stated that the applicant had been ill - treated and had pleaded guilty under physical pressure . The applicant had been paid by NORP to drive him and the others . As the applicant had been drunk , NORP had driven the car himself . The applicant had remained in the car all the time . The applicant \u2019s dog had also been in the car as the applicant had initially been taking him to an acquaintance to have him mated . Once there , he had been asked to drive NORP The applicant \u2019s lawyer also noted that during the investigation stage the victims had given contradictory statements as to whether they had seen their aggressors . Moreover , the identification parade had been carried out in the absence of a lawyer .","On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal dismissed the appeal . The court held that the applicant \u2019s guilt was confirmed by the testimony of NORP and PERSON . given during the pre - trial investigation in the presence of their lawyers . The court also noted that the applicant \u2019s complaints of ill - treatment were unsubstantiated and that the separate ruling adopted on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had been quashed accordingly .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal in cassation . The court noted that the applicant \u2019s complaints of ill - treatment had been properly checked and dismissed as unsubstantiated .","The applicant stated that police officers had beaten him in GPE and on DATE in LOC . They had hit him with a book on the head , punched him , threatened him with murder and rape , and put a gas mask over his face and blown cigarette smoke into it . After being severely beaten he had been forced to confess .","On an unspecified date the applicant made a complaint about this illtreatment .","The case - file materials contain references to an expert forensic medical examination performed on DATE ( the applicant stated that it was performed on CARDINAL DATE following his complaint lodged on DATE ) . According to the references , the expert concluded that the applicant had minor bodily injuries which could have been caused by \u201c items in his surroundings \u201d ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043c\u0435\u0442\u0438 \u043e\u0442\u043e\u0447\u0443\u044e\u0447\u043e\u0457 \u043e\u0431\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043a\u0438 ) . However , the applicant stated that the expert had concluded that the injuries could not have been caused by \u201c items in his surroundings \u201d . Neither of the parties submitted a copy of the report in question .","On DATE an investigative officer of ORG issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings following the applicant \u2019s complaints of ill - treatment . Several police officers had been questioned . They had testified that the applicant had confessed his guilt and that nobody had ill - treated him . The prosecutor also referred to the forensic medical examination report of DATE .","On DATE that decision was quashed by another prosecutor of the same prosecutor \u2019s office . It was noted that not all of the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s complaint had been looked into . In particular , it should have been ascertained why the applicant had been arrested in GPE , and under what circumstances he had sustained the bodily injuries ; his medical documents should have been studied and his complaints should have been carefully examined .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . The decision was similar to the CARDINAL of DATE .","On DATE the ORG quashed that decision and ordered an additional investigation . The court specified that the investigation should ascertain the cause of the applicant \u2019s injuries , whether he had had those injuries upon his arrival at FAC , and which police officers had had contact with him .","On DATE ORG again dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints . In its decision it noted that the applicant had been arrested in GPE on DATE . Upon his arrest and transfer to ORG the applicant had not complained about any ill - treatment . The rest of the decision was similar to the CARDINAL of DATE .","On DATE the court quashed that decision and remitted the case for additional investigation . The court raised the same points as in its decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG adopted another refusal to institute criminal proceedings which was identical to its previous decisions . In particular , it was noted that the applicant had been arrested in GPE on DATE .","On DATE , ORG adopted a separate ruling by which it requested ORG to examine the applicant \u2019s complaints of ill - treatment . The court stated that the applicant had been unlawfully transported from GPE to ORG and that , according to the forensic medical report , he had had CARDINAL bruises on his chest from being punched .","On DATE the NORP Regional Court of Appeal adopted another separate ruling in which it requested ORG to examine the applicant \u2019s complaints of ill - treatment . The court noted that according to the conclusions of the forensic medical examination of the convicted persons , they had bodily injuries which could have been inflicted on the date and under the circumstances described by them . However , the court did not indicate whether the persons concerned included the applicant . The court also noted that the applicant had made a note on the decision ordering his arrest of CARDINAL DATE that he had been illtreated on DATE . The court further noted that on DATE the applicant had complained about ill - treatment , but the case - file contained no response to that complaint .","On DATE the NORP ORG Office quashed the decision of DATE not to institute criminal proceedings and remitted the case for additional investigation . On DATE it requested ORG to ascertain the following :","- which police officers had arrested the convicted persons and on what grounds ;","- who had conducted the \u201c pre - investigation \u201d activities ( \u0434\u043e\u0441\u043b\u0456\u0434\u0447\u0456 \u0434\u0456\u0457 ) in respect of the applicant and prepared the relevant procedural documents ;","- who had picked up and transported the convicted persons from FAC to FAC ;","- whether the convicted persons had had bodily injuries upon their arrival at FAC .","It further requested ORG to question the personnel of FAC .","A decision not to institute criminal proceedings was adopted on DATE . It was similar to the CARDINAL of DATE . It was noted that the applicant had been arrested in GPE on DATE . The police officers of ORG had testified that the applicant had not been ill - treated but had confessed on his own free will . According to the forensic medical report of DATE , the applicant had had minor bodily injuries which could have been caused by \u201c items in his surroundings \u201d . Scratches on his wrists had been caused by handcuffs .","On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal quashed the separate ruling of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139905","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KYSELYOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts and a labour disputes commission delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to have certain actions taken in their favour . The decisions became final and enforceable . However , the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time .","Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non - enforcement issues ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153804","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF GAL v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Brought promptly before judge or other officer);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a private entrepreneur in the food supply sector .","Since DATE the ORG has been investigating a number of apparent offences related to forgery of food quality certificates and supply of overpriced foodstuffs for school catering in the city of GPE . As part of this investigation the police ran checks on the applicant \u2019s business and questioned his associates and family members .","On DATE the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in the context of an investigation of unlawful food supply price increases .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of a financial offence . A record of his arrest was drawn up CARDINAL and TIME on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the Poltava Oktyabrsky District Court ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , which remanded him in custody for DATE under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) without giving any specific reasons for this decision . According to the applicant , the hearing started at TIME and the decision was taken only at TIME , when the maximum period of detention without a court decision ( TIME ) permitted under domestic law had expired . The applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a formal complaint with the judge about unlawful arrest and detention . That complaint was not examined DATE .","On DATE the police instituted CARDINAL more sets of proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of other counts of the same crime .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted to the court a further complaint about unlawful detention , in addition to the one he had submitted on the date of the hearing ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody with no maximum duration and on the basis of standard reasoning , referring to gravity of charges , risk of interference with investigation , and personal characteristics without any further explanation . In a separate ruling it rejected the applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that from TIME on DATE his detention had been unlawful . It noted \u201c Documents [ attached ] to the application [ for a warrant for the applicant \u2019s arrest ] refute the allegations regarding the detention of [ Mr ] ORG in terms that are not provided by law . \u201d","On DATE the NORP Regional Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the first - instance court . In reply to the lawyer \u2019s complaint about the failure to release the applicant after TIME of initial detention without a court order , the appellate court noted that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s detention had been extended for DATE .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE , i.e. until DATE , on the grounds that the applicant might avoid justice , obstruct the investigation and continue his criminal activities , and that it was necessary to ensure the implementation of procedural decisions .","On DATE the NORP ORG upheld the decision of the first - instance court .","On DATE the criminal case against the applicant was referred to the court and was received by that court on DATE . DATE the prosecution authorities called the case back to correct certain shortcomings . On DATE the court returned the case to the prosecutor , who sent the case back to the court on DATE .","On DATE the ORG examined the application for release lodged by the applicant \u2019s lawyer and allowed it . The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was replaced by an obligation not to abscond .","The relevant provision of the LAW reads as follows :","\u201c Every person has the right to freedom and personal inviolability .","No one shall be arrested or held in custody other than pursuant to a reasoned court decision , and only on grounds and in accordance with a procedure established by law .","In the event of an urgent need to prevent or stop a crime , bodies authorised by law may hold a person in custody as a temporary preventive measure , the reasonable grounds for which shall be established by a court within TIME . The detained person shall be released immediately if he or she has not been provided , within TIME of the time of detention , with a reasoned court decision in respect of the holding in custody .","Everyone who has been arrested or detained shall be informed without delay of the reasons for his or her arrest or detention , apprised of his or her rights , and from the time of detention shall be given the opportunity to personally defend himself or herself , or to have the legal assistance of defence counsel .","Everyone who has been detained has the right to challenge his or her detention in court at any time .","Relatives of an arrested or detained person shall be informed immediately of his or her arrest or detention . \u201d","The relevant provisions of the Code read as follows :","\u201c An investigating body shall be entitled to arrest a person suspected of a criminal offence for which a penalty in the form of deprivation of liberty may be imposed only on CARDINAL of the following grounds :","NORP if the person is discovered whilst or immediately after committing an offence ;","NORP if eyewitnesses , including victims , directly identify this person as having committed the offence ;","NORP if clear traces of the offence are found on the body of the suspect or on the clothing he is wearing or which is kept at his home .","For each case of detention of a criminal suspect , the investigating body shall be required to draw up a record mentioning the grounds , the motives , DATE , time , DATE , the place of detention , the explanation given by the person detained and the time when it was recorded that the suspect was informed of his right to consult defence counsel in person before he is questioned , in accordance with the procedure provided for in paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of the present Code . The record of detention shall be signed by the person who drew it up and by the detainee .","A copy of the record with a list of his rights and obligations shall be immediately handed to the detainee and shall be sent to the prosecutor . At the request of the prosecutor , the material which served as a ground for detention shall be sent to him as well ...","Within TIME of the arrest the investigating body shall :","( CARDINAL ) NORP release the detainee if the suspicion that he committed the crime has not been confirmed , if the term of detention established by law has expired , or if the arrest has been effected in violation of the requirements of paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the present Article ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP release the detainee and select a non - custodial preventive measure ;","( CARDINAL ) bring the detainee before a judge with a request for a custodial preventive measure to be imposed on him or her .","If the detention is appealed against to a court , the detainee \u2019s appeal shall be immediately sent by the head of the detention facility to the court . The judge shall consider the appeal together with any request by the investigating body for the preventive measure . If the appeal is received after the preventive measure has been applied , the judge shall examine it within DATE of receiving it . If the request has not been received , or if the appeal has been received after the term of TIME of detention , the appeal shall be considered by the judge within DATE of receiving it .","The appeal shall be considered in accordance with the requirements of LAW . Following its examination , the judge shall give a ruling , either declaring the detention lawful or allowing the appeal and finding the detention to be unlawful .","The judge \u2019s ruling may be appealed against within DATE of the date of its adoption by the prosecutor , the person concerned , or his or her defence counsel or legal representative . Lodging such an appeal does not suspend the execution of the court \u2019s ruling .","Detention of a criminal suspect shall not last for CARDINAL .","If , within the terms established by law , the ruling of the judge on the application of a custodial preventive measure or on the release of the detainee has not arrived at the pre - trial detention facility , the head of the pre - trial detention facility shall release the person concerned , drawing up a record to that effect , and shall inform the official or body that carried out the arrest accordingly . \u201d","\u201c ... In the event that the investigating body or investigator considers that there are grounds for selecting a custodial preventive measure , with the prosecutor \u2019s consent he shall lodge an application with the court . The prosecutor is entitled to lodge an application to the same effect . In determining this issue , the prosecutor shall be obliged to familiarise himself with all the material evidence in the case that would justify placing the person in custody , and to establish that the evidence was obtained in a lawful manner and is sufficient for charging the person .","The application shall be considered within TIME of the time at which the suspect or accused is detained ...","Upon receiving the application , the judge shall examine the material in the criminal case file submitted by the investigating bodies , the investigator , or the prosecutor and shall question the suspect or accused and , if necessary , hear evidence from the person who is the subject of the proceedings , obtain the opinion of the previous prosecutor or defence counsel , if the latter appeared before the court , and issue an order :","( CARDINAL ) refusing to select a custodial preventive measure if there are no grounds for doing so ;","( CARDINAL ) selecting a custodial preventive measure .","The court shall be entitled to select a non - custodial preventive measure for the suspect or accused if the investigator or prosecutor refuses to apply a custodial preventive measure .","The judge \u2019s order may be appealed against to the court of appeal by the prosecutor , suspect , accused or his or her defence counsel or legal representative , within DATE of the date on which it was made . The lodging of an appeal shall not suspend the execution of the judge \u2019s order .","If the selection of the preventive measure for the detained person requires further examination of information about that person , or if other circumstances relevant to the decision on this matter need to be established , the judge may issue a decision to continue the detention for DATE , and , at the request of the suspect or accused , for DATE . Where such a need arises in respect of a person who has not been apprehended , the judge may postpone the hearing for DATE and take measures which would ensure that person \u2019s cooperation or issue a decision to detain a suspect or an accused for that period of time . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141852","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"HANNINEN v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the police conducted a search of an apartment which the applicant owned . The apartment was searched because another person staying there was suspected by the police of attempted manslaughter ( tapon yritys , f\u00f6rs\u00f6k till dr\u00e5p ) .","NORP The applicant claims that he , as the owner of the apartment , was not allowed to be present during the search , nor was he told why the apartment was being searched and why he could not be present . The search was conducted TIME ( at TIME ) without any special reason . The apartment had been damaged because the police had entered violently , even though the applicant had been willing to give them a key , and the police dog had damaged the floor . The applicant \u2019s car had also been searched .","According to the ORG , the minutes drawn up after the search indicated that the applicant , as the owner of the apartment , had been informed about the search . He had been requested to give the police the key to the security lock of the door to the apartment . As no key was available , the security lock was drilled with the applicant \u2019s consent . It appeared from the minutes that the applicant \u2019s car was never searched . Nor had the police dog entered the apartment during the search .","On DATE the applicant received the minutes drawn up after the search .","NORP By letter dated DATE , the applicant claimed compensation from ORG for the damage caused by the police .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s claim for compensation was rejected by ORG for lack of fault or negligence on the part of the police .","The applicant has the possibility to take the issue further by instituting a civil action in a ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) but apparently he has not done so .","According to LAW ( perustuslaki , grundlagen , Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the sanctity of everyone \u2019s home is guaranteed . Measures derogating from this right , and which are necessary for the purpose of guaranteeing basic rights and liberties or for the investigation of crime , must be laid down by an Act .","Chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( pakkokeinolaki , tv\u00e5ngsmedelslagen , Act no . CARDINAL ) provides that a search may be conducted , inter alia , if there is reason to suspect that an offence has been committed and provided that the maximum sentence applicable exceeds CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","The person whose domicile is being searched , or in his or her absence someone else , must be given the opportunity to be present at the search and to call a witness , unless this causes delay . If none of the abovementioned persons were present at the search , the person whose domicile has been searched must be informed immediately ( LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL ) .","A search at domicile can not be conducted TIME and TIME unless there are special reasons ( LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL ) .","The search warrant is issued by the investigative organs themselves .","According to LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen , as modified by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , a person shall be sentenced for manslaughter to imprisonment for DATE and a maximum of DATE . For an attempt , the maximum sentence is at DATE of the maximum sentence for the accomplished offence .","According to section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW anyone who has suffered a violation of his or her rights or sustained loss through an unlawful act or omission by a civil servant or other person performing a public function shall have the right to request that the civil servant or other person in charge of the public function be sentenced to punishment and that the public organisation , official or other person in charge of a public function be held liable for damages , as provided in more detail by an LAW .","Chapter DATE , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provides that if a public official , when acting in office , intentionally in a manner other than that provided above in this LAW violates or neglects to fulfil his official duty based on the provisions or regulations to be followed in official functions , and the act , when assessed as a whole , taking into consideration its detrimental and harmful effect and the other circumstances connected with the act , is not a petty offence , he shall be sentenced for violation of official duties to a fine or to imprisonment for DATE .","Chapter DATE , section CARDINAL , of LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provides that if a public official , when acting in office , through carelessness or lack of caution , in a manner other than that referred to in DATE , subsection CARDINAL , violates or neglects to fulfil his or her official duty based on the provisions or regulations to be followed in official functions , and the act , when assessed as a whole , taking into consideration its detrimental and harmful effect and the other circumstances connected with the act , is not a petty offence , he shall be sentenced for negligent violation of official duties to a warning or to a fine .","According to LAW , section DATE , of LAW ( laki oikeudenk\u00e4ynnist\u00e4 rikosasioissa , lagen om r\u00e4tteg\u00e5ng i brottm\u00e5l , Act no . CARDINAL ) , an injured party may bring a private prosecution only if the public prosecutor has decided not to press charges .","Under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( vahingonkorvauslaki , skadest\u00e5ndslagen , Act no . CARDINAL ) proceedings may be brought against the ORG in respect of damage resulting from fault or negligence by its employees in the performance of their duties ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154150","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MASL\u00c1K  v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and habitually resides in GPE .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was charged with a number of offences , mainly of a violent nature and with an organised crime background .","On DATE he was arrested in the context of his prosecution on these charges , and subsequently remanded in custody pending trial . At the time of his request for release , which forms the subject matter of this application and is described in detail below , his detention was authorised by ORG ) until DATE .","After the events complained of , the applicant was released on DATE . However , the criminal proceedings against him appear to be still pending .","By a submission dated CARDINAL DATE , addressed to ORG ( ORG prokurat\u00fary - \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , and received by its addressee on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant requested release .","He relied on a recent judgment of ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) concerning the status of ORG ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and DATE , DATE ) , argued that his detention on the authority of ORG had been unlawful , and maintained that his detention had in any event been unwarranted .","By a submission dated CARDINAL DATE , the applicant addressed a similar request to ORG prokurat\u00fara - \u201c the OPG \u201d ) , where it was received on CARDINAL DATE .","Lastly , by a submission dated CARDINAL DATE , addressed to ORG and received there on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant requested release on similar grounds and offered a formal pledge that , if released , he would live in accordance with the law .","By law , all CARDINAL submissions fell to be examined at first instance by the ORG . Those made to the ORG and ORG were therefore transmitted to the ORG on CARDINAL May and DATE , respectively .","As the ORG did not grant the request formulated in the CARDINAL submissions , they fell to be judicially examined by ORG , to which they were transmitted on CARDINAL and DATE , respectively .","By way of a submission dated CARDINAL DATE , which was received by ORG on DATE , the applicant expressed objections to the handling of his case by ORG judge who was handling his detention case at first - instance , which ORG interpreted as a challenge to the judge on the grounds of bias .","On DATE the challenge was dismissed . On DATE the decision was served on the applicant and on DATE he lodged an interlocutory appeal ( s\u0165a\u017enos\u0165 ) , which was dismissed by ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) on DATE . The case file was returned to ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered that the request be examined in the framework of a public session ( verejn\u00e9 zasadnutie ) to be held on DATE .","On DATE the ORG was informed that the applicant \u2019s lawyer had been struck off the list of counsel and thus could no longer represent him . In response , on DATE ORG enquired of the investigator whether the applicant had been asked to appoint a new lawyer and , if so , whether he had actually done so . Later on DATE , the investigator asked the applicant to appoint a lawyer within DATE , failing which a lawyer would be appointed for him by the court .","On DATE the applicant was heard before ORG . He submitted that it was his intention to appoint a lawyer , that the DATE timescale allowed him for that purpose had been unrealistically short , and that he disagreed with having a lawyer appointed for him by court .","In the circumstances \u2012 as legal representation was mandatory \u2012 the public session scheduled for later on DATE had to be cancelled .","Nevertheless , on DATE , that is on DATE , the applicant also made a written submission containing his arguments and waiving his right to have the request for release examined in a public session .","On DATE the ORG appointed a lawyer for the applicant and dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for release .","The written version of the decision to dismiss the applicant \u2019s request for release was served on his courtappointed lawyer on DATE , on his subsequently appointed lawyer of choice on CARDINAL DATE , and on the applicant himself on DATE .","In it , ORG recapitulated the procedural history and the applicable statutory provisions . In addition , it observed that ORG judgment referred to by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not yet been published in LAW . Its rulings had thus not entered into force yet and ORG status was not compromised for the time being . Moreover , ORG explained in detail why it considered the applicant \u2019s detention necessary and why his release in return for a pledge of lawful conduct was not acceptable .","By way of an interlocutory appeal lodged by both the applicant \u2019s lawyer and the applicant himself , the applicant challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE to dismiss his request for release .","The appeal lodged by his lawyer was dated DATE , was addressed to ORG , reached its addressee on DATE , and was transmitted to ORG on DATE .","The applicant \u2019s own appeal was dated DATE , was addressed directly to ORG , and was received there on DATE .","At the same time as lodging the appeal , the applicant challenged the entire criminal - law bench of ORG on grounds of bias , once again relying on ORG judgment mentioned above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the challenge . Prior to this decision , all the ORG judges concerned had been asked to state a position in respect of the challenge and a special chamber had been appointed to rule on it .","On DATE , sitting in private ( neverejn\u00e9 zasadnutie ) , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s interlocutory appeal against the decision of DATE .","ORG decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant filed a complaint under LAW of LAW ( Constitutional Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) with ORG . The complaint was directed against ORG ( \u0160pecializovan\u00fd trestn\u00fd s\u00fad ) , which had by then come into being as the legal successor to ORG , and also against ORG and the ORG .","Relying on LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW and its constitutional equivalents , he argued that his request for release had not been determined by an independent tribunal , that its dismissal had not been supported by adequate reasoning , that he had arbitrarily been denied his right to release pending trial , and that his request had not been determined \u201c speedily \u201d .","In terms of relief , the applicant requested that the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE be quashed , that his release be ordered , and that he be awarded MONEY ( ORG ) by way of compensation for nonpecuniary damage , plus reimbursement of his legal costs .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible for being in essence manifestly ill - founded .","As to the complaint about the alleged failure to achieve a speedy determination of the applicant \u2019s request , ORG observed , in particular , that the delay in serving the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE on his lawyer of choice and the applicant himself ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was due to the facts that the lawyer of the applicant \u2019s choice had only announced his appointment to the police , that this information had accordingly had to be transmitted to the court , which had taken some time , and that the prosecution service had failed to inform the court that , at the given time , the applicant had been transferred to a prison other than the CARDINAL known to the court , as a consequence of which the decision had been sent to a wrong address and had had to be sent again .","Examining separately the proceedings before ORG and ORG and the involvement of the ORG , ORG concluded that , taking into account all the circumstances , there had been no delays attributable to the authorities that had reached a constitutionally relevant threshold . From that perspective , ORG considered that any delays resulting from the applicant \u2019s challenges alleging bias had been imputable to him and that the relevance of the delays in serving the ORG decision of DATE on the applicant ( on DATE ) \u2012 which had been due to a lack of coordination among the authorities concerned \u2012 had been diminished by the service of that decision on the lawyer of the applicant \u2019s choice on CARDINAL DATE .","The written version of ORG decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160087","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF AURELIAN OPREA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the relevant time the applicant was a member of the teaching staff , as associate professor ( \u201c conferen\u0163iar universitar \u201d ) , of ORG ( hereafter \u201c the University \u201d ) , which is a ORG university .","DATE the applicant submitted many requests to the education authorities of ORG for the creation of a position of full professor in his department . He claimed that he met all the required professional criteria for occupying such a position . On DATE the rector informed the applicant that for financial and other objective reasons , a new professor position could not be created .","The applicant was also a member of a non - profit organisation called ORG in GPE ( \u201c the Association \u201d ) . Its general aim was to stop the degradation of education and research standards by making known the abuses , unlawful acts and corruption in education .","On DATE , a journalist , ORG , had an article published in the newspaper PERSON liber\u0103 entitled \u201c Corruption at university level \u201d . The article stated that intellectual theft and plagiarism had been noted at ORG . The journalist stated in this connection that O.A.A. had published a book , which was mostly ( PERCENT ) a copy of another book . She nonetheless enjoyed the status of university lecturer under the protection of the deputy rector , Professor N.C.I. , who was also the scientific referent of the book .","On DATE ORG had another article published in the same newspaper , entitled \u201c University lecturer ostracised because he denounced university corruption \u201d . The article referred to the applicant , who , having noted that his disclosure about O.A.A. \u2019s plagiarism to the dean and the rector of ORG had not been followed up by any measures , had informed the press . Instead of benefiting from the protection provided by PERSON no . CARDINAL for employees who revealed infringements of the law within public authorities and institutions , the applicant had been invited to a meeting organised by the rector on DATE and asked why he had informed the press . On DATE another meeting was organised by the deputy rector and the dean of the applicant \u2019s faculty . On the pretext of redistribution of the faculty \u2019s space , they cleared the laboratory used by the applicant for research and practical activities with his students .","On DATE the ORG organised a press conference the main topic of which was corruption at university level . CARDINAL cases of alleged corruption were presented . While other members of the ORG referred to the corruption existent in other universities , the applicant , in his capacity as secretary - general of the ORG , delivered a speech about corruption in his own university . He referred to the cases of O.A.A. , a colleague , and of the deputy rector , N.C.I. The former had published a book called ORG that according to him was mostly ( PERCENT ) a copy of another book , PERSON , published in DATE by another author . The applicant also mentioned that the book had been written under the direct supervision and guidance of GPE , who had written a eulogistic foreword to the book .","NORP The applicant criticised the way in which N.C.I. had managed the ORG programme concerning public funding of scientific research stations ; he alleged that N.C.I. had offered funding only to stations from which he could make personal gains .","The applicant also stated that N.C.I. was benefiting from a preferential regime because of his past as former secretary of ORG . According to the applicant , N.C.I. was occupying too many positions to be able to handle them properly : professor at several different universities ; deputy rector of ORG ; president of ORG and Vineyards ; and director of the ORG programme for public funding of research stations . He was also the head of ORG and PERSON .","The applicant also stated that N.C.I. was involved in sabotaging scientific research and that in the department of LOC and PERSON led by N.C.I. there was a mafia - type organisation ( \u201c \u00eencreg\u0103tur\u0103 de tip mafiot \u201d ) .","Most of those statements were repeated in an article entitled \u201c Professor at ORG accused of corruption \u201d published in the DATE newspaper ORG of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE N.C.I. lodged a joint criminal and civil complaint against the applicant for defamation . He claimed that the newspaper ORG had published an article containing the applicant \u2019s views expressed at a press conference on DATE .","The applicant adduced extensive documentary evidence before ORG . He submitted certificates from different universities at which N.C.I. had taught , the statute of the ORG , different documents concerning the ORG programme , including the composition of the management of the programme , and a few letters issued by the PERSON research station at which ORG had performed research activity . He also submitted several newspaper articles containing criticism of N.C.I. and O.A.A.","N.C.I. gave a statement before the court on DATE . He acknowledged that he was cumulatively occupying the positions of deputy rector of the University , president of ORG and ORG and director of the ORG programme for public funding of research stations . He also stated that even before the press conference the applicant had made defamatory statements about him in letters addressed to the rector of ORG , the dean of the Faculty of Oenology and ORG .","On DATE the court heard as a witness on behalf of the applicant ORG , one of the journalists who had written articles about the alleged corruption in ORG ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . He stated that he had attended the press conference of DATE . As regards the applicant \u2019s allegation that ORG was responsible for the incorrect manner in which public money had been allocated for scientific research , the journalist pointed out that on the basis of the documents he had seen on that occasion , such as salary slips and reports , it was clear to him that discriminatory treatment had been applied to the researchers working for the research stations and ORG . The very high payments received by certain members of the ORG staff had convinced the applicant that only research stations which had accepted the teaching staff agreed by the plaintiff obtained public funding . The journalist also referred to the fact that the plaintiff was occupying several teaching positions at different universities . Lastly , the journalist stated that he had based his articles about the ORG not only on the material presented by the ORG but also on documents from other sources , which he could not reveal .","By a judgment of DATE , GPE Court dismissed the criminal complaint . It held that even though the applicant could not prove the veracity of his statements , CARDINAL element of the crime of defamation was missing , namely an intent to damage the reputation of N.C.I. It also held that the applicant , convinced by the accuracy of his statements , had only intended to present a case of corruption at university level . The most relevant part of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c In the instant case , the defendant did not prove the accuracy of his statements despite the fact that on DATE the court ( taking into account that the morality and legality of the education system at university level is obviously a topic of public interest , and the interest of informing the public opinion and the authorities is serious and legitimate in accordance with LAW and the ORG \u2019s case - law \u2013 the case of PERSON v. GPE and the case of PERSON v. GPE ) had admitted all the evidence proposed on his behalf .","...","Moreover , the documents submitted by the defendant ( namely , the foreword of the book signed by the injured party ( N.C.I. ) , copies of the book covers of ORG and of the original PERSON , chapters from the CARDINAL books ) do not prove that the injured party encouraged plagiarism .","Some resemblance in the form and contents of the CARDINAL works that could be noted by reading in parallel certain chapters can not lead to the conclusion that the injured party was liable for not denouncing plagiarism . Such a conclusion would mean that the injured party knew perfectly well the previously published book and that he had made a comparative analysis of both works , noting some inconsistencies which he ignored ...","However , the role of that foreword ( and of any foreword in general ) is to express a point of view about a work ... and does not represent an objective and critical opinion . \u201d","...","\u201c Moreover , the defendant did not prove that the injured party had blackmailed the research stations ...","The documents submitted by the defendant ( copies of the pay slips of DATE issued by the ORG research station , the records of the salaries paid by the same research station to several collaborators , and the report of an assessment performed at the research station by an authority of the Agriculture Minister on DATE ) could not lead to the conclusion that the injured party had blackmailed the ORG research station \u201d .","...","\u201c In addition , the defendant \u2019s allegations that the injured party obtained undeserved profit by unlawfully occupying several positions have not been proved to be true , as the injured party acknowledged that he had several sources of income by lawfully occupying several public offices .","As regards the defendant \u2019s allegation about the sabotaging by the injured party of scientific research by damaging different types of hybrids and then selling the greenhouse in which the defendant carried out research was not proved by the adduced evidence .","The minute ( \u201c proces - verbal \u201d ) signed by ORG and a private company proved that the latter rented a building and the adjacent greenhouse , in which no plants were cultivated ; moreover the minute was not signed by the injured party .","Under these circumstances , after the examination of all evidence , it can not be concluded that the defendant has proved , beyond any reasonable doubt , that the aspects stated by him are true . \u201d","As regards the applicant \u2019s intent to commit defamation , the firstinstance court stated the following :","\u201c The court notes that the defendant \u2019s statements were made in the context of a press conference organised by ORG ( of which the defendant is secretary - general ) , the main topic of which was the corruption and unlawful acts committed at university level , it being well known that the main object of the ORG is the monitoring and disclosure of irregularities in the academic system .","Even though the defendant \u2019s speech was shocking and exaggerated , it should be regarded as part of a topic of public interest \u2013 namely , corruption among university teaching staff \u2013 and the legislative and moral reform of the teaching system , an objective desired by the whole of society .","It should be noted that before the press conference of DATE , the newspaper PERSON had published an article concerning the plagiarism of ORG , and the ORG had drafted a report concerning the situation of teaching in GPE . The report denounced the fact that university teachers were simultaneously teaching at several universities ( \u201c cu norm\u0103 \u00eentreag\u0103 \u201d ) and that teachers , guilty of plagiarism and scientific fraud , were maintained in their positions at universities ( a report that should have been known by the defendant in his capacity as secretary - general of the Association ) . These aspects prove that the topic had been previously published and debated in a public context .","At the same time , another important aspect is the fact that at the conference the defendant submitted several documents , such as : time sheets ( \u201c fi\u015fe de pontaj \u201d ) , reports , the foreword written by the injured party for ORG and copies of the alleged plagiarised book ... , documents which the defendant considered as evidence of the alleged acts .","Notwithstanding that these documents did not directly prove that the injured party had committed the acts of which he had been accused , they formed the basis of the defendant \u2019s intimate conviction that the former was guilty of committing certain irregularities .","In this context , even though it is obvious that the honour and reputation of the injured party were objectively harmed , the court considers that this situation was the result of the speech and not an aim in itself , since the speaker had expressed his viewpoint in his capacity as a member of the ORG and not as a private person , with the intention of contributing to informing on a topic of extreme public interest , that of corruption at university level , which had already been known by the press .","Consequently , the court considers that the defendant did not act with intent to gratuitously harm the injured party \u2019s reputation , but with the conviction that he was revealing a corruption case . \u201d","The court partially allowed the civil complaint , ordering the applicant to pay compensation for non - pecuniary damage amounting to CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . It held that under the applicable civil law the applicant could be held liable for even the slightest level of fault . Therefore , the applicant was ordered to pay compensation to N.C.I. for the way he had brought to the attention of journalists the information regarding his professional activity .","The relevant passages of the decision read as follows :","\u201c The way in which the defendant brought this information to the PERSON attention , without clear evidence , convinced them that the presented facts were plausible ( see in this respect the statements of witness ORG , as well as the articles published in the DATE newspapers ORG and ORG ) .","Consequently , the presentation of superficial information , with a high degree of suggestibility , constitutes an illicit act .","...","As regards the defendant \u2019s liability , it must be emphasised that the court \u2019s finding concerning the defendant \u2019s good faith has relevance only in connection with the criminal complaint , given the fact that in order to establish civil liability it is enough for the court to find the slightest level of fault .","It is true that according to the ORG \u2019s case - law , persons acting as whistleblowers can share information concerning topics of public interest , even if shocking and disturbing ; however , they should also take into account the protection of the reputation of others , as provided for by LAW ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALI ) . \u201d","Appeals on points of law lodged by the parties were allowed . By a decision delivered on DATE GPE dismissed the criminal complaint , as a direct consequence of an amendment made to LAW regarding the decriminalisation of defamation . The civil complaint was left unresolved .","On DATE Professor N.C.I. , brought a separate civil action for compensation against the applicant before ORG . He claimed that certain remarks made by the applicant on DATE and other occasions had constituted an attack on his reputation .","The applicant produced extensive testimonial and documentary evidence before the court in order to demonstrate the accuracy of his statements . He adduced copies of the books ORG and Oenology , and underlined the paragraphs he said had been copied by O.A.A. He also proposed that the court hear statements from individuals working for a certain research station in order to prove that the author of the book ORG , a \u201c prot\u00e9g\u00e9e \u201d of N.C.I. , was registered as an employee and received a salary from the ORG research station , which benefited from funding granted by N.C.I. , without ever turning up to work there . He tried to prove that despite the fact that under the applicable law , a professor does not have the right to teach at CARDINAL universities , GPE was a professor at CARDINAL universities .","On DATE ORG of First Instance allowed the action and the sum of PERSON CARDINAL was awarded to N.C.I as compensation for non - pecuniary damage . It held that the applicant was liable for the way in which he had presented the above information concerning N.C.I. to journalists , who were convinced of the accuracy of his information and had published it in newspapers . The court endorsed the reasoning of ORG in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE by copying most of the paragraphs from the latter judgment . Thus , it held among other things , that the applicant had not proved that N.C.I. had encouraged plagiarism by writing the foreword for the book The Chemistry of Wine as the role of any foreword is to express a point of view about a work and not to represent a critical opinion . The court also held that the applicant had not proved that N.C.I. had obtained undeserved profit by unlawfully occupying several positions .","The applicant was also ordered to pay ORG \u2019s legal expenses .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment . He claimed that he had submitted enough evidence to prove the accuracy of his statements about N.C.I. He pointed out that the court had turned his statement that \u201c in the department of oenology there is a mafiatype organisation ( \u201c \u00eencreg\u0103tur\u0103 de tip mafiot \u201d ) into the statement that N.C.I. \u201c is involved in a mafia - type organisation \u201d . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , upholding the judgment of the firstinstance court . The applicant was ordered to pay the N.C.I. \u2019s legal expenses .","On DATE the ORG issued a decision by which it ordered the seizure of CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s DATE salary up to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , representing compensation for non - pecuniary damage and the legal expenses awarded to N.C.I. by the domestic courts .","On an unspecified date the ORG lodged a criminal complaint against O.A.A. accusing her of plagiarism . On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG decided not to institute criminal proceedings against O.A.A. on the grounds that the complaint had not been lodged by the aggrieved party . It noted , however , that a significant part of the CARDINAL books , ORG and PERSON , was similar .","On DATE the ORG together with the author of the book PERSON lodged another criminal complaint against O.A.A. They also accused N.C.I. of being an accomplice to O.A.A. \u2019s plagiarism in his capacity as scientific coordinator of the book . On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG discontinued the investigation on the grounds that the statutory time - limit for prosecuting the offence of plagiarism had expired .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against the ORG \u2019s decision to decrease his salary of DATE on account of his unjustified absence from work . He claimed that the measure was illegal as timesheets for registering presence at work had not been introduced at ORG until DATE . Moreover , he adduced evidence according to which he had been at work on DATE in question . Among other aspects , he pointed out that the actual reason for sanctioning him was his conflict with the management of ORG because he had made public that the deputy rector had encouraged plagiarism .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE GPE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s complaint and ordered the ORG to pay him the amounts withdrawn from his salaries of DATE . The court held that under LAW the burden of proof lay with the applicant \u2019s employer but that it had been unable to produce any legal documents which could prove the applicant \u2019s unjustified absence from work .","On DATE the ORG issued a decision by which it applied a disciplinary sanction to the applicant consisting in the suspension , for DATE , of his right to apply for a higher teaching position , to obtain a teaching degree or take up a management position . The reasons for the sanction were the following : ( i ) unjustified absences from several classes and teaching activities ; ( ii ) non - compliance with the teaching curriculum ; and ( iii ) contempt and ignorance of the decisions taken by the management of the faculty and of the department concerning the clearance of a space assigned for setting up a research laboratory .","The applicant challenged the decision before GPE Court .","On DATE the county court noted that the applicant \u2019s action remained without object as the University had decided to revoke its decision of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144355","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF L\u00d3PEZ GUI\u00d3 v. SLOVAKIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He was living in GPE together with a NORP national , to whom he was not married . On CARDINAL DATE a child was born to the applicant \u2019s partner ( \u201c the mother \u201d ) in GPE . The applicant is the father of the child . The child is both a NORP and a NORP national .","Following the birth , the applicant , the mother and the child lived together with the applicant in GPE until DATE , when the mother took the child from GPE to GPE . Neither of them has ever returned .","On DATE the mother petitioned ORG Okresn\u00fd s\u00fad ) in PERSON ( GPE ) to make an order governing the exercise of parental rights and responsibilities in respect of the child . At the same time , she requested that , pending the final outcome of the proceedings , the ORG deal with these matters by way of an interim order .","On DATE ORG issued an interim order , pursuant to which the child was placed with the mother and the applicant was ordered to contribute towards the child \u2019s maintenance pending the outcome of the proceedings on the merits . It was submitted by the applicant and not disputed by the Government that the written version of the interim order was not served on the applicant before DATE and that , upon its service , the applicant was contributing to the child \u2019s maintenance as ordered .","The interim order remained in force until the proceedings on the merits of the mother \u2019s petition were terminated by ORG on DATE and , following the mother \u2019s appeal , by ORG ( Krajsk\u00fd s\u00fad ) in PERSON ( GPE ) on DATE .","These courts found that the relevant law for the determination of jurisdiction in the matter was ORG ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility ( \u201c Regulation No . CARDINAL \u201d ) and that , under Regulation No . DATE , the crucial criterion for establishing jurisdiction over the matter was the place of habitual residence of the child . Having regard to the conclusions that had meanwhile been reached in that respect by the Bratislava I ( GPE ) ORG and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the place of the child \u2019s habitual residence was GPE , and the NORP courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant had complained about the removal and retention of the child by the mother before ORG responsible for implementing LAW .","Subsequently , on DATE , the applicant lodged an application with the Bratislava I ORG under LAW . CARDINAL .","In his application , he argued that the child \u2019s habitual residence was in GPE and that the mother had removed or retained the child wrongfully within the meaning of LAW .","Accordingly , the applicant sought an order for the child \u2019s return to GPE .","On DATE ORG appointed the social services department for the city of PERSON to represent the child \u2019s interests in the proceedings .","ORG called a hearing for DATE . However , DATE before that date , that is to say on DATE , the mother \u2019s lawyer asked for an adjournment on the grounds that the summons had only been received on DATE , that a copy of the application had been served on them without enclosures , and that they had consequently not had adequate time and facilities to prepare .","On DATE ORG informed the mother \u2019s lawyer , in response to her request of DATE , that , in view of the short time limits in proceedings under LAW , it was not possible to have the hearing postponed and that it would take place .","On DATE the mother \u2019s lawyer inspected the case file ; informed the court that , nevertheless , and on the same grounds as previously relied upon , they would not appear ; and insisted that the hearing be adjourned .","On DATE ORG held a hearing as scheduled , in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer , who both made oral submissions . Neither the mother , nor the child , nor the social services department on the child \u2019s behalf were present . The hearing was adjourned until DATE .","On DATE the mother \u2019s lawyer again inspected the case file and , on DATE , she lodged extensive written submissions . She explained the development of her client \u2019s relationship with the applicant and described it . She submitted that , in connection with her falling out with the applicant , the mother had sought care from a mental health specialist ; and that the child was closely attached to the mother and their separation was unthinkable . In addition , she submitted a letter from an association in GPE supporting women in need attesting that since CARDINAL DATE the mother had been receiving their support in connection with allegations she had made that the applicant had been mistreating her . While admitting that there was no risk of direct harm to the child , the lawyer submitted that the applicant \u2019s behaviour towards the mother should nonetheless be taken into account .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the parties and their legal representatives , who all made oral submissions . The social services department on behalf of the child were not present .","At the conclusion of the hearing , ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim and ordered the child \u2019s return to GPE . The order had the procedural form of a decision ( uznesenie ) .","ORG established that the child \u2019s habitual residence was in GPE , that the mother had removed the child from there wrongfully , and that there were no obstacles to the return of the child there within the meaning of LAW . In addition , ORG pointed out that its ruling in the present proceedings had nothing to do with questions of care and residence .","As to the mother \u2019s specific claim that the return of the child should be declined in view of the applicant \u2019s behaviour toward the mother , ORG found that she had failed to substantiate her allegations . The letter from the association that had been offering care and support to the mother was solely based on the mother \u2019s allegations and as such could not serve to support those allegations . In her own words , the applicant had never mistreated her physically and there was nothing to support her allegations of psychological mistreatment . In that respect , ORG found it of relevance that the mother had not brought the alleged psychological mistreatment to the attention of the NORP authorities at the time when it had allegedly taken place .","On DATE the mother filed an appeal ( odvolanie ) with ORG . In the first place , she reiterated her argument concerning the time and facilities made available for preparation prior to the hearing of DATE . Moreover , she challenged ORG conclusions as regards the letter from the association that had been providing her with care and support and contended that ORG had failed to obtain a report from the mental health specialist treating her . In addition , she argued that ORG had failed to take into account the loss which the child would suffer by separation from the mother . In that respect , she relied on a written statement of the court - appointed representative for the child . Moreover , the mother claimed that risk within the meaning of LAW ( b ) of LAW did not have to be imminent , but could lie in the future . Lastly , in connection with ORG conclusions as regards the habitual residence of the child and the wrongfulness of the child \u2019s removal , the mother submitted that it had been her and not the applicant who had actually been taking care of the child and was better disposed and equipped to do so .","On DATE , in the procedural form of a decision , ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the first - instance decision .","ORG fully endorsed ORG reasoning and conclusions . In addition , it pointed out that the object and purpose of LAW was to ensure immediate restoration of the status quo which has been unlawfully changed by a person who wrongfully removes or retains a child by returning the child to the country of his or her habitual residence so that questions on the merits concerning care and residence may be examined by the court in that country . The purpose of the present proceedings had nothing to do with such substantive questions and they fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the country of the child \u2019s habitual residence .","ORG further held that LAW . CARDINAL represented a departure from the traditional private - international - law principle of nationality towards a principle based on the child \u2019s habitual residence .","On the facts of the case , ORG found no merit in the mother \u2019s argument concerning the time and facilities given for preparation prior to the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , pointing out that time - limits under LAW had precedence over time - limits under the national procedural rules ; that the mother and her lawyer had been duly summoned to the hearings ; and that they had been granted ample opportunities to familiarise themselves with the case and to answer it . As to the mother \u2019s complaints of ORG alleged failure to obtain evidence she had sought to have adduced , ORG pointed out that , under LAW of LAW , in return proceedings it was the person opposing the return who bore the burden of proof . Moreover , and in any event , some of the evidence adduced by the mother bore on questions falling outside of the scope of the present proceedings . As to the mother \u2019s specific allegations of mistreatment , these were contradicted by the contents of the case file , in particular by copies of her e - mail communications with the applicant and his sister , as well as by photographs of the mother , the child and the applicant from the period between the child \u2019s birth and her wrongful removal from GPE .","Lastly , ORG held that the order for the child \u2019s return by no means implied her separation from the mother , as the mother was free to return to GPE with the child and to assert her claims in respect of the child before the courts having jurisdiction to entertain them .","NORP The order for the child \u2019s return to GPE became final and binding on DATE .","Subsequently , on DATE , the mother lodged an appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) with ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) of GPE . The applicant was then allowed to submit observations in reply .","On DATE ORG declared the appeal inadmissible . As to the applicable principles , it acknowledged that , in LAW proceedings , the courts are duty - bound diligently to establish the facts , and not to limit themselves to the evidence adduced by a single party to the proceedings .","As to the specific facts of the present case , ORG observed that the applicant \u2019s application for the commencement of the Hague Convention proceedings had been served on the mother without its enclosures . However , it held that this error had quickly been corrected when , on DATE , the mother \u2019s lawyer had inspected the case file ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) .","Moreover , ORG held that it had been wrong of the Bratislava I ORG to hold the hearing of CARDINAL DATE in the absence of the mother and her lawyer and without giving them adequate time and facilities to prepare . However , that error had also been rectified by hearing the case again on DATE . At that hearing , the mother had made extensive submissions and , in addition , she had had further ample opportunity to make her case before ORG .","Finally , as to the child , whose court - appointed representative ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had failed to show up without any excuse at either of those hearings , ORG observed that the representative had duly been summoned and held that , in the circumstances , the representative \u2019s absence had been no obstacle to the ORG proceeding with the determination of the case .","In parallel to her appeal on points of law , the mother also petitioned ORG ( \u201c PPS \u201d ) to exercise their discretionary power to challenge the lower courts\u2019 decisions by way of an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( mimoriadne dovolanie ) .","The ORG decided not to act upon the petition , on the grounds that the mother \u2019s appeal on points of law and her later petition for reopening ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) were still pending , these remedies having precedence over an extraordinary appeal on points of law . This position was upheld in a letter of ORG of the PPS of CARDINAL DATE .","In that letter , the ORG endorsed the reasoning behind the judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and , in addition , expressed a detailed and reasoned opinion that the order for the child \u2019s return was correct on merits .","In addition to the extraordinary remedies mentioned above , on DATE the mother filed a petition to have the LAW proceedings reopened ( n\u00e1vrh na obnovu konania ) .","The petition was dismissed by the Bratislava I ORG on CARDINAL DATE and , following the mother \u2019s appeal , by ORG on DATE . The grounds for the rejection were that LAW proceedings had been concluded in the procedural form of a decision ( see paragraph DATE above ) , as opposed to a judgment ( rozsudok ) , and that , in the circumstances , the reopening of proceedings concluded by a decision was not permissible by law ( LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended \u2013 the \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant invited the mother to abide by the return order , to no avail .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for a warrant to have the return order enforced , pointing out that the order had become final and binding on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG called upon the mother to abide by the return order voluntarily and summoned her for an interview on DATE . In response , the mother asked for the proceedings to be stayed in view of her extraordinary appeal and petition for reopening that were still pending ( see paragraphs DATE above ) , and she did not show up for the interview .","On DATE ORG appointed ORG as the representative of the child \u2019s interests for the purposes of the enforcement proceedings .","ORG heard the enforcement case on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . At a further hearing called specifically for that purpose on CARDINAL DATE , it delivered a warrant for the enforcement of the return order and authorised the applicant to carry out the enforcement .","The mother and the child \u2019s court - appointed representative appealed to ORG , which DATE on DATE decided to stay the proceedings on their appeal . It did so observing that , in the meantime , the mother had petitioned for reopening of the LAW proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that , if her petition was granted , the enforcement proceedings would be stayed by operation of law .","Following the dismissal of the mother \u2019s petition for reopening ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE ORG resumed the appeal proceedings , only to stay them again , on DATE , this time in view of the mother \u2019s petition to the PPS for an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which was still pending .","Following the dismissal by the PPS of the mother \u2019s petition for an extraordinary appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the appeal proceedings were again stayed on DATE , this time on the basis of the judgment ( n\u00e1lez ) of ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) .","On DATE , acting in her own name as well as that of the child , the mother challenged the decision of ORG of DATE to reject the appeal on points of law ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) by way of a complaint under LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) .","NORP The complaint was directed against ORG . The applicant was neither a party to the ensuing proceedings nor informed of them .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint admissible .","On DATE it gave a judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits in so far as it had been brought by the mother and , at the same time , in so far as the child was concerned , finding that ORG had violated the child \u2019s rights as specified below .","NORP In particular , a violation of the child \u2019s rights was found under LAW judicial protection ) , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( procedural equality ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( hearing in one \u2019s presence and opportunity to comment on evidence ) of the LAW ; LAW ( fairness ) of the LAW ; and Articles QUANTITY \u00a7 CARDINAL ( consideration of the best interests of the child ) and CARDINAL ( protection and care necessary for the child \u2019s well - being ) and QUANTITY and CARDINAL ( expression of the child \u2019s views and being heard in judicial proceedings ) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child .","ORG endorsed ORG view that ORG error in respect of the mother had been rectified at the hearing of DATE .","In so far as the child was concerned , however , the child \u2019s views were to have been expressed by the court - appointed representative , whose failure to appear had not been a valid reason for ruling on the matter without having the child \u2019s views established . There were tools , including procedural fines , for ensuring the proper involvement of the court - appointed representative in the proceedings .","Consequently , the Constitutional Court quashed the challenged decision and remitted the mother \u2019s appeal on points of law to ORG for re - examination .","The judgment was final and not amenable to appeal .","On DATE ORG re - examined the mother \u2019s appeal on points of law of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) against the return order . Being bound by ORG assessment of the case , it quashed the order and remitted the case to the first - instance court with a view to having the views of the child established by means appropriate for the child \u2019s age and maturity .","The Bratislava I ORG heard the case on CARDINAL and DATE . A further hearing was scheduled for DATE , but it was cancelled on the grounds that DATE before , the mother \u2019s lawyer had been appointed the head of ORG responsible for implementing LAW . Consequently , the lawyer had had to resign and the mother had appointed a new lawyer .","At a subsequent hearing on DATE , ORG ruled that the child was not to be returned to GPE . This ruling was upheld on DATE by ORG following the applicant \u2019s appeal .","The courts\u2019 reasoning may be summarised as follows . The child \u2019s habitual residence for the purposes of the Hague Convention proceedings was GPE and her retention by the mother in GPE had been wrongful .","However , in view of the mother \u2019s objections , it had to be examined whether there was any grave risk that the child \u2019s return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation within the meaning of LAW ( b ) of LAW .","For that purpose , in addition to the other evidence taken , ORG had interviewed the child , aged CARDINAL at the time , and the child \u2019s courtappointed representative , and the courts had also examined complex documentary evidence , including a report from ORG as to the circumstances to which the child would be returned there .","The courts were guided by the best interests of the child , which they considered to be twofold , namely the interest in preserving relations with the child \u2019s family and the interest in developing in a healthy environment .","The courts found that the child was attached to the mother and , in view of the child \u2019s age , also to the child \u2019s home environment , to which the child had been introduced when it had been CARDINAL months\u2019 old . The child only spoke NORP , attended a kindergarten in GPE and was part of an extended family circle there . The courts concluded that the child \u2019s removal from this environment would give rise to the risk of considerable detriment to the child and that , in the circumstances , the child \u2019s best interests prevailed over those of the applicant .","As regards the applicant , the courts concluded that it had been DATE since he had seen the child , that he had not been displaying a genuine interest in the child and that he had not been contributing to the child \u2019s maintenance .","A separation of the child from the mother did not come in question . However , the mother \u2019s vulnerable financial situation made it impossible to ensure proper care for the child in GPE . The child \u2019s removal to GPE with the mother would thus expose the child to the risk of living in poverty .","In view of those circumstances , the courts examined whether adequate arrangements within the meaning of LAW . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had been made to secure the protection of the child on its return .","In that respect , the courts expressed the view that adequate arrangements had to eliminate with the highest possible probability the risks that the child would face and that they should entail the provision of low - rent housing for the mother and the child , free of charge specialised social and psychological counselling , and a detailed explanation of the welfare benefits and supervision by social services available to the mother in GPE .","The courts held that , in so far as any guarantees had been identified by the NORP central authority , they were not specific enough . In so far as the applicant had been offering to cover the costs of the mother \u2019s and the child \u2019s air travel , the child \u2019s health insurance and kindergarten in GPE , and a room free of charge in his apartment there , these guarantees were found not to be adequate and the courts noted that their \u201c doubts as to whether he would actually keep his promises had not been assuaged \u201d .","The courts considered that they had established an overall picture of the social environment to which the child would return and had thoroughly examined the entire family situation . Based on the findings mentioned above , they concluded that the child \u2019s return under LAW was not permissible ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161193","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"DOBRZA\u0143SKA AND DOBRZA\u0143SKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants are the legal successors of former owners of land situated in GPE , GPE . In DATE the applicants\u2019 legal predecessors were obliged to transfer their property to ORG without compensation . The transfer was confirmed by a protocol dated DATE issued by ORG .","On DATE , at the applicants\u2019 request , the Minister of Economy declared the DATE protocol null and void . This decision entitled the applicants to seek compensation on the basis of the relevant provisions of LAW .","The applicants applied to ORG for compensation for the loss of profit they could have made had they had the property at their disposal . Their request concerned the period DATE ( the date of entry into force of LAW ) and DATE ( the date on which the property in question was returned to the applicants ) .","On DATE ORG refused to grant the applicants compensation for lost profit , finding that the rights to the property in question had been restored to the applicants and that they had not proved that they had sustained any further damage . It also found that according to the case - law of ORG , the applicants could not seek compensation for the loss of expected profit which they had allegedly sustained before the entry into force of LAW .","The applicants then applied to the civil courts seeking compensation for the loss of expected profit . On DATE they lodged a claim with ORG . Subsequently , they limited their claim to the period from the entry into force of the CARDINAL Constitution until DATE ; they maintained that the conduct of the authorities had prevented them from using their property even after its return . They claimed MONEY ( ORG ) and requested exemption from the court fees .","On DATE the ORG request was granted and they were exempted from court fees in excess of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE the applicants further limited their claim to compensation for DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 claim . The court admitted that ORG case - law had gone in CARDINAL opposite directions ; the first line of case - law accepted that in situations similar to that of the applicants they could seek both actual loss ( damnum emergens ) and loss of expected profit ( lucrum caessans ) , whereas the second line limited the compensation to actual loss only . The court decided to base its judgment on the latter case - law of ORG and held that it could not grant the applicants compensation for loss of expected profit because the right to full compensation had not been inserted in LAW until DATE , when the LAW entered into force , whereas the damage in question had occurred before that date .","Taking into consideration the incoherent case - law of ORG , ORG applied LAW and decided not to impose the costs of the proceedings on the applicants .","The applicants appealed against the first - instance judgment .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer requested that the court stay the proceedings pending a decision by ORG on the legal issue in question .","On DATE ORG granted the request and stayed the proceedings .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a full bench , adopted a resolution ( III CZP CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) in which it acknowledged that the respective provisions of civil and administrative law had given rise to serious difficulties and to divergent interpretation in judicial practice . It held that in situations similar to that of the applicants , if a final decision had been given in breach of the law before the entry into force of LAW , compensation on the basis of LAW would not include lucrum caessans even if the loss of expected profit had happened after the entry into force of LAW .","On DATE the proceedings before ORG were resumed .","On DATE ORG referred to the abovementioned ORG resolution of DATE and held that compensation for loss of expected profit could be granted only if the wrongful decision had been issued after the entry into force of LAW . Finding that the loss in the applicants\u2019 case had occurred before that date , it dismissed the ORG appeal .","The court did not impose the costs of the proceedings on the applicants .","The applicants did not lodge a cassation appeal , since it would not have had any prospects of success ; ORG would have had to follow the resolution adopted in DATE by ORG plenary .","Article CARDINAL of LAW , which entered into force on DATE , provides :","\u201c CARDINAL . Everyone is entitled to compensation for damage caused by the unlawful acts of a public authority .","A statute shall not bar access to court to persons seeking redress for any breach of their freedoms or rights . \u201d","LAW permits the amendment or revocation of any final administrative decision whenever necessary in the general or individual interest , if this is not prohibited by specific legal provisions . In particular , pursuant to LAW , a final administrative decision is subject to revocation if it has been issued by an authority which had no jurisdiction to do so , or if it has no legal basis or is contrary to the applicable laws .","The relevant part of LAW reads as follows :","\u201c A decision shall not be revoked ... if DATE has passed since the date on which it was delivered or if the decision had irreversible legal consequences . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :","\u201c If it is impossible to set aside a decision for reasons referred to in LAW , the administrative authority shall only declare that the challenged decision has been issued in flagrant breach of the law and shall give reasons for refusing to set it aside . \u201d","The relevant part of LAW , as applicable to the applicants\u2019 case , reads :","\u201c Anyone who has suffered loss on account of the issuing of a decision in a manner contrary to LAW or on account of the revocation of such a decision may claim compensation for actual damage , unless he has been responsible for the circumstances mentioned in this provision . \u201d","By a judgment of DATE ( K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ORG declared LAW unconstitutional in so far as it limited the scope of compensation to actual damage only . ORG held that its judgment applied only to losses which had occurred after the entry into force of LAW , that is , after DATE .","On DATE the Law of DATE on amendments to LAW and other statutes ( LOC o zmianie ustawy \u2013 ORG cywilny oraz niekt\u00f3rych innych ustaw ) ( \u201c the DATE Amendment \u201d ) entered into force . The relevant amendments were in essence aimed at enlarging the scope of ORG liability in tort under LAW of LAW , including the addition of a new LAW . New Article CARDINAL CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that compensation can be claimed for damage caused by way of an unlawful and final decision , after the unlawfulness of such a decision has been declared in separate administrative proceedings . LAW abrogated LAW . However , under the transitional provisions of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Amendment , Article CARDINAL of LAW as applicable before DATE and LAW apply to all events and legal situations that subsisted before that date .","An administrative decision in respect of a compensation claim was amenable to appeal before a civil court .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , as applicable after DATE , provides :","\u201c ORG , or [ as the case may be ] a self - government entity or other legal person responsible for exercising public authority , shall be liable for any damage ( szkoda ) caused by an unlawful act or omission [ committed ] in connection with the exercise of public authority . \u201d","Following the judgment of ORG , the domestic courts , including ORG , took CARDINAL different approaches in interpreting the term \u201c time in which loss occurred \u201d .","According to the first approach , which could be observed from DATE , the decisive date was that on which the original decision had been issued . This , in turn , meant that if the decision in question had been issued before the entry into force of the LAW , only actual damage could be compensated for . The first approach was adopted by ORG in its judgments of DATE ( I CK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( III CZP CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL DATE ( I CSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( I ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( II CSK CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL DATE ( I CSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","According to the second approach adopted for the first time in DATE , loss could occur after the entry into force of the LAW even if the decision constituting the source of the loss had been issued long before that date . In such circumstances , a claimant could effectively seek full compensation for both : actual loss and expected profit . This approach was adopted by ORG in the judgments of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL ) , DATE ( I ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( I ORG DATE ) , DATE ( I ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( I ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL DATE ( I ORG ) .","On DATE the President of ORG requested that a bench of ORG composed of CARDINAL judges convene to clarify a legal question and adopt a resolution . The issue concerned the substantive law governing compensation claims in respect of damage caused by administrative decisions issued before DATE where the unlawfulness of the decisions had been declared by way of an administrative decision given after that date . The President noted , inter alia , that CARDINAL strands had developed in the case - law of ORG and other courts , against a background of serious difficulties concerning the temporal scope and consequences of the PERSON of DATE as to the applicable substantive law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . These divergences decisively affected the compensation rights of individuals in respect of whom unlawful administrative decisions had been made prior to DATE .","On DATE ORG of ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , requested the full composition of that ORG to adopt a resolution clarifying the issues raised by the President ( III CZP CARDINAL ) . The ORG noted that the issue had given rise to serious discrepancies in judicial practice , including that of ORG itself . Considering the importance of the issues involved and the fact that previous decisions and resolutions of ORG had failed to bring uniformity to judicial practice , a resolution by ORG of the ORG sitting as a full bench was called for .","On DATE ORG of ORG , sitting as a full bench , adopted a resolution ( III CZP CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It acknowledged that the applicable provisions had given rise to serious difficulties and to divergent interpretations in judicial practice . ORG held that former LAW was applicable . It further held that :","\u201c If a final administrative decision which was deficient ( wadliwa ) was issued before the date of entry into force of the LAW , compensation due on the basis of LAW shall not encompass lost profits , even if the damage occurred after the entry into force of LAW . \u201d","On DATE the Constitutional Court gave judgment ( ORG CARDINAL ) holding as follows :","\u201c ArticleCARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Proceedings in conjunction with LAW of DATE amending LAW , as far as it limits compensation for damaged caused by an unlawful act of a public authority to actual loss in cases where the deficient final decision was issued before DATE :","a. is consistent with LAW [ rule of law in a democratic state ] and with LAW [ equality before the law ] of LAW ;","b. is not inconsistent with LAW . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147037","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ZALEVSKIY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was provided with a flat by the local authorities in the city of PERSON .","On DATE the applicant married PERSON and the couple lived in that flat .","On DATE the applicant and PERSON had a son .","On DATE the couple divorced , but neither of them would agree to vacate the flat .","According to the applicant , after the divorce his former wife repeatedly demanded that he sell the flat . As he refused to do so , he allegedly received threats from PERSON , her relatives and certain police officers . Whenever disputes broke out between the former spouses living in the same flat , PERSON called the police to handle them .","NORP In DATE the ORG considered an administrative case against the applicant following the submissions of the police concerning the domestic violence by the applicant . The court found the applicant guilty of violent behaviour in respect of his son and former spouse and imposed a fine on him .","At QUANTITY on DATE CARDINAL police officers arrived at the applicant \u2019s flat after receiving a telephone call from S. complaining about the applicant . According to the Government , the call was made by the applicant \u2019s neighbour ; the applicant was shouting and threatening PERSON and the latter was crying that the applicant was threatening her with a knife .","According to the applicant , he refused to let the police officers in as they did not show their ID cards or present themselves , it was too TIME and the light in the corridor was turned off . The police tried to enter but failed to do so . At TIME on DATE CARDINAL of S. \u2019s brothers arrived and demanded that the applicant open the door . By that time , the light in the corridor was switched on and the applicant checked to see who was there by looking through the peephole in the door . As he saw only the CARDINAL brothers without any police officers , he decided to open the door . Once he had unlocked the door , the brothers together with QUANTITY police officers burst in and started to beat up the applicant . The applicant did not resist . When trying to handcuff the applicant the police officers twisted his arms and broke his right arm . They then took the applicant to the police station . They allegedly ill - treated him on his way to the police station and once there .","According to the Government , PERSON \u2019s brothers arrived at the scene after receiving a call from S. At TIME on DATE they managed to persuade the applicant to open the door . However , as soon as he did so , he saw the police officers in the corridor and made an attempt to close the door . PERSON \u2019s brothers and the police officers pushed against the door and burst into the flat . Having been pushed away from the door , the applicant fell onto a chair and the floor . In order to arrest the applicant and take him to the district police station , the police officers decided to handcuff him . As the applicant was resisting his arrest , they had to apply force against him . In the course of handcuffing the applicant , his arm was unintentionally broken .","In the police station the applicant complained about his broken arm . An ambulance was therefore called and he was taken to ORG no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the hospital \u201d ) .","In the hospital the applicant was diagnosed with a fractured right humerus accompanied by displacement of bone fragments , neuritis of the radial nerve , crushed soft tissue , and bruises on both wrists and on his jaw .","On DATE the applicant underwent an operation on his arm . He stayed in the hospital until DATE for inpatient treatment .","On DATE complained to the district police that the applicant had threatened to kill her and their son .","On DATE the police questioned PERSON , her brothers , the applicant and the neighbours . They also inspected the scene of the events .","On DATE a forensic medical examination of S. was carried out . The expert report stated that S. had a bruise on her right lower leg , which could have been caused by a blunt object on DATE .","On DATE the police , having regard to S. \u2019s refusal to maintain her complaint , refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant .","On DATE the investigator instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with an offence under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ( threat to kill ) . According to the applicant , the criminal case was closed for lack of evidence .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( \u201c the district prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) on account of his ill - treatment by the police and his former wife \u2019s brothers .","On DATE the assistant prosecutor at the district prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill - treatment . Considering the facts of the incident , he noted that the applicant had been pushed backwards when the door had been forced open and had fallen onto a chair , hitting his right arm against the floor . He held that that might have been when the applicant had sustained the injuries . Having regard to those circumstances and the applicant \u2019s behaviour during the conflict , the assistant prosecutor concluded that there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers . The decision was based on the reports of the police officers and the interviews of the applicant , S. , her brothers and the neighbours . The assistant prosecutor also had regard to the city police \u2019s internal inquiry report of DATE , which suggested that the police officers had acted lawfully .","On DATE the district prosecutor quashed that decision as unfounded and ordered additional pre - investigating enquiries . He noted , in particular , that the medical examination of the applicant had not been completed and the role of S. \u2019s brothers in the incident had not been properly examined .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office received an internal inquiry report of ORG suggesting that the applicant had sustained his injuries when falling onto a chair and the floor .","The medical examination of the applicant was completed on CARDINAL DATE . The experts noted in their report that , apart from a fractured right humerus , the applicant had sustained bruises on his right forearm , right shoulder , left leg and both wrists .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office , having carried out additional pre - investigating enquiries , refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill - treatment for the reason that there had been no elements of crime in the conduct of the police officers . The decision reproduced the same version of events as the CARDINAL established earlier by the authorities , suggesting that the applicant had sustained his injuries when falling onto a chair and the floor . It specified that the applicant had a strong constitution and had offered resistance during the arrest . The police officers had therefore been assisted by PERSON \u2019s brothers when restraining and handcuffing the applicant .","On DATE ORG quashed that decision and ordered further pre - investigating enquiries . It considered that it was necessary to examine the applicant \u2019s personality , his behaviour before the quarrel with PERSON , and whether he had been drunk at the time . Furthermore , the circumstances in which the applicant was injured and the role of each of the participants of the incident had to be scrutinised and an additional medical examination of the applicant carried out .","During the additional pre - investigating enquiries the authorities once again interviewed the applicant and PERSON They took statements from the ambulance paramedic as to the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s hospitalisation . They inspected the scene of the incident , and enclosed a negative reference letter from the local house - maintenance authority in respect of the applicant .","On DATE the juvenile department of the city council interviewed the applicant \u2019s minor son in the presence of S. , a school teacher and a school psychologist . By that time the son had undergone a psychological examination by the school psychologist , who had concluded , inter alia , that the son was scared of his father and did not include him in the family circle . During the interview at the juvenile department the applicant \u2019s son claimed that his father had uttered obscenities and had threatened him and his mother ; occasionally , his father would grab hold of him and shake him . He alleged that his father had taken a knife and had chased his mother around the flat ; his father had also often threatened to throw his mother off the balcony . When asked about his attitude towards his father , the applicant \u2019s son replied that he was scared of his father and wished to live just with his mother .","On DATE the panel of experts concluded that the fracture of the applicant \u2019s arm had resulted from a rotary application of force , when the arm had been turned about its axis . They noted that this corresponded to the applicant \u2019s statement that his arms had been twisted behind his back . The experts added that the fracture could not have been caused by a direct application of force , including when the applicant , as alleged by the police officers , had fallen down as the door had been pushed open .","On DATE the medical expert was interviewed as regards the possible origin of the applicant \u2019s injuries . The expert opined that the bruises on the applicant \u2019s wrists could have been caused by the handcuffs . He did not exclude the possibility that the other identified injuries , except for the fractured arm , might have resulted from the applicant \u2019s fall and the impact with a chair and the floor .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open an investigation in connection with the alleged ill - treatment for the reason that there were no elements of crime in the conduct of the police officers . According to the decision , the applicant might have sustained the fractured arm when the police officers , assisted by S. \u2019s brothers , were twisting his arms in order to handcuff him ; the bruises on his wrists might have been caused by the handcuffs ; the other bruises might have been caused by the applicant \u2019s fall onto a chair and the floor when he was pushed backwards by the entrance door . The decision specified that the applicant had a strong constitution and had offered resistance during the arrest .","On DATE the Staromiskyy District Court of Vinnytsya quashed the decision of DATE , holding that the pre - investigating enquiries were incomplete . The court ordered the authorities to take additional measures to scrutinise the circumstances of the incident , the role of each participant , the personality of the applicant and the situation in the family .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office , having conducted additional enquiries , refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill - treatment . The decision set out the facts in the following way . In the evening of DATE the local police station received a telephone call reporting a domestic dispute at the applicant \u2019s flat . At QUANTITY police officers arrived at the flat but could not enter as the applicant refused to open the door . The police officers could hear a woman and a child crying for help . In particular , the woman was crying that the applicant was wielding a knife and threatening to kill her . The woman asked the applicant to open the door several times , but to no avail . The police officers attempted to negotiate with the applicant . CARDINAL neighbours stood nearby and observed the situation .","At TIME on DATE CARDINAL of S. \u2019s brothers arrived and asked the applicant to open the door , claiming that the police had left . When the applicant unlocked the door the police officers and the brothers burst into the flat , pushing the applicant backwards with the door , which he was trying to shut . The applicant fell onto a chair and the floor , and might have been injured .","In the flat the police officers decided to handcuff the applicant and take him to the police station . As the applicant had a strong constitution and resisted the arrest , the police officers were assisted by PERSON \u2019s brothers . They twisted the applicant \u2019s arms behind his back and handcuffed him . Once the applicant had been taken to the police station , he started to complain of pain in his right arm . He was then taken to the hospital by ambulance for treatment .","Relying on those facts , the district prosecutor \u2019s office found that the police officers and PERSON \u2019s brothers had acted lawfully and had had no intention of injuring the applicant . Their intention had been to arrest him and stop his unlawful and dangerous conduct . The recourse to physical force had been lawful and necessary in the circumstances . The fractured arm might have been caused when the applicant resisted the twisting of his arms behind his back ; the bruises on his wrists were probably caused by the handcuffs , and the other bruises might have resulted from the applicant \u2019s fall onto a chair and the floor when he was pushed away from the door . The district prosecutor \u2019s office concluded that in those circumstances there had been no corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers and PERSON \u2019s CARDINAL brothers .","On DATE the ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE , finding that the prosecutor \u2019s office had taken all the necessary measures and examined the incident thoroughly , comprehensively and objectively .","On CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , upheld the decision of the first - instance court of DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170460","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LEONOV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . According to him , at the material time he had obtained a basic education ( \u0441\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043d\u044f \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0456\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430 \u043e\u0441\u0432\u0456\u0442\u0430 ) in law and was working as a police officer .","On TIME the applicant had a fight with NORP in the course of which blows were exchanged . CARDINAL people witnessed the fight . After the fight the applicant went to work for a twentyfour hour shift . TIME NORP was found dead in the vicinity of the applicant \u2019s place of work .","According to the applicant , he was arrested on DATE that is to say DATE and was detained at the police office until TIME of DATE . The applicant also submits that during this period he was ill - treated by the police , who forced him to plead guilty , and that he was coerced into declining legal representation . The applicant submits that he did not yield to such pressure and did not make any statements nor confess to committing the murder . He further maintains that the police planted evidence against him , putting a blood stain on his shirt .","On DATE the local police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant , charging him with inflicting grievous bodily harm on NORP , which resulted in his death . At DATE the applicant was released , having signed a written undertaking not to abscond .","DATE and DATE a hoe was found close to the place where NORP \u2019s body had been found .","According to the applicant , he was arrested again on DATE . However , the arrest report refers to DATE . On DATE the Kirovsky District Court of Donetsk ( hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) extended the applicant \u2019s arrest until DATE . On the latter date ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on remand . It is not clear from the applicant \u2019s submissions whether he appealed against that court decision .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant , having been apprised of his right to legal assistance , declined to exercise this right and wished to defend himself in person . On DATE he changed his mind and on DATE a lawyer was appointed for him ( according to the applicant , however , he was only represented by a lawyer from DATE ) .","By DATE the investigator had taken a number of investigative steps including an on - site inspection , a post - mortem examination of the victim \u2019s body and other forensic examinations , questioning of the applicant and witnesses , and face - to - face confrontations between the latter and the applicant .","On DATE the indictment was approved by the district prosecutor and sent to ORG .","According to the applicant , the decisive evidence against him , namely the aforementioned bloodstained shirt and the hoe , which was believed to be the murder weapon , were not sealed during the investigation , as required by the relevant rules of procedure , and were later replaced with other items more consistent with the charges against him and consequently more incriminating . He denied the charges .","On DATE ORG took over the case and commenced the trial .","On DATE it held the first hearing . The applicant and his lawyer filed several motions and requests , including one to record the hearings using audio and video equipment . In order to arrange the latter , the court postponed the hearings until DATE .","During the trial the applicant filed numerous further requests ( for example , to summon additional witnesses , to familiarise himself with the case file , etc . ) and challenged the judge and prosecutor on numerous occasions ; as to the charges against him , the applicant pleaded not guilty .","On DATE , after CARDINAL hearings , ORG found the applicant guilty of the murder of NORP and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE , in the course of the applicant \u2019s study of the case file , which at the material time consisted of CARDINAL volumes , ORG found that the applicant was abusing this right by requesting simultaneous familiarisation with TIME and the audio and video recordings , and challenging the lawfulness of TIME of the court hearings and how the case file was processed . Eventually on DATE ORG terminated the applicant \u2019s study of the case file . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints concerning the lawfulness of TIME of the court hearings .","The applicant appealed against the rulings of CARDINAL and DATE , but the result is not clear . According to the applicant , he was not provided with access to the audio and video records of the court hearings , some of the documents in the case file ( for instance , TIME of the court hearings ) were drafted in an improper manner ( in his view he was not provided with the final version of court TIME but only with a draft version ) in illegible handwriting , the case file was improperly processed , etc .","The applicant and his lawyer appealed against the judgment of DATE , challenging the conclusions of the forensic examinations and the testimonies of a number of witnesses , and alleging procedural shortcomings in the investigation and the trial . They requested discontinuation of the proceedings in question due to lack of evidence of the applicant \u2019s guilt .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , pointing out a number of the inferior court \u2019s shortcomings ( for example , failure to establish how D. \u2019s injuries had been caused and how the blood stain had appeared on the applicant \u2019s shirt , failure to address the applicant \u2019s version of events , etc . ) , found that the applicant \u2019s guilt was not sufficiently proven , and quashed the judgment . Accordingly , the case was remitted for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG resumed the trial .","As in the course of his first trial , the applicant again filed a large number of mostly unsuccessful requests and complaints ( including some concerning the quality of his defence lawyer \u2019s services ) and challenged the judges and prosecutor on numerous occasions . The situation culminated on DATE when the applicant was expelled from the court room during the hearing because of his shouting and interrupting the proceedings . After CARDINAL hearings had been held , at which , it appears , the applicant \u2019s lawyer was present , the applicant was once again allowed to be present at the court hearing on DATE .","On DATE the applicant refused the assistance of his lawyer , alleging the latter \u2019s collusion and incompetence , and on DATE the applicant requested that the court appoint another specified lawyer to represent him . The applicant \u2019s lawyer also sought leave to discontinue his services to the applicant , citing the latter \u2019s offensive behaviour and defamatory statements concerning him . On DATE and DATE ORG dismissed all those requests .","According to the applicant , on DATE the court interrupted him and prohibited him from finishing his last plea .","According to the applicant , at several points during the trial and retrial he requested the summoning of certain witnesses ( in particular , C. , the investigator ; an unidentified policeman who on DATE escorted the applicant to the police station ; PERSON , the policeman in whose office on DATE his bloodstained shirt had allegedly been produced ; PERSON , the policeman who signed the protocol on the examination and seizure of the aforementioned evidence ) , but to no avail . On several occasions he also unsuccessfully challenged the judges who were examining his case .","In DATE and DATE additional forensic examinations were held .","On DATE , after CARDINAL hearings , ORG , having examined the case before it , found the applicant guilty of NORP \u2019s murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . In convicting the applicant , the court took into account :","( a ) the eye - witness testimonies to the fight between the applicant and NORP on TIME DATE . These stated that NORP had sustained no injuries from the fight and that the applicant and NORP had had these types of conflicts before ;","( b ) medical evidence of injuries on the applicant \u2019s body . The ORG referred to the reports of CARDINAL and DATE stating that , according to them , the applicant \u2019s injuries had been caused on \u201c DATE \u201d and noted that , according to the applicant \u2019s own explanation to the medical expert , these injuries had been caused by the fight with NORP ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ;","( c ) the testimonies of those who discovered NORP \u2019s body ;","( d ) the testimonies by the applicant \u2019s colleagues , according to which the hoe had been at their workplace on DATE , before the murder , but could no longer be found there on DATE , after the murder ;","( e ) the statement by ORG , the police officer who interrogated the applicant in DATE , that the applicant had pleaded guilty but refused to confirm his confession in writing ;","( f ) the forensic cytological examination report of DATE according to which the blood stain on the applicant \u2019s shirt \u201c could be from any person , including NORP \u201d and was not identified as being the applicant \u2019s blood ;","( g ) NORP the post - mortem examination report of DATE according to which the injuries to NORP could have been caused either by a blunt instrument or by a hoe ;","( h ) the forensic expert report of DATE concluding that it was not possible to establish the features of the instrument with which NORP was attacked but \u201c the probability that the injuries to NORP [ had been ] caused by the hoe under examination [ could ] not be excluded \u201d ;","( i ) the additional forensic expert report of DATE stating that blood would not have gushed out of NORP \u2019s injuries during the assault but could have spattered onto surrounding objects .","The court also noted that the procedural shortcomings committed during the pre - trial investigation were not so serious as to prejudice its examination of the case . It did not specify those shortcomings . In addition to the judgment , the court on DATE delivered a special ruling ( \u043e\u043a\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0430 \u0443\u0445\u0432\u0430\u043b\u0430 ) informing the superior investigation authorities of the bad faith and negligence of their subordinates in charge of the applicant \u2019s case . In particular , the court noted that , initially , blood and hair samples had been found on the hoe , but these had subsequently been lost by the investigators at the pre - trial stage . In another special ruling given on DATE , the court informed the head of police of its subordinates\u2019 failure to bring the applicant to the courthouse for the hearings scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE notwithstanding the court \u2019s requests ; such a failure , according to the court , had delayed the examination of the applicant \u2019s case .","The judgment itself states that the hearing was public and that the defence lawyer was present . According to the applicant , this judgment was pronounced to him \u201c secretly \u201d on DATE in the GPE , that is to say the remand centre , where he was being detained . In support of his claim , the applicant submitted a copy of ORG letter of the same date requesting that the PERSON administration provide them with a room in which to pronounce the judgment to the applicant .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant familiarised himself with the case file . On DATE ORG , alleging the applicant \u2019s abuse of this right , terminated the applicant \u2019s study of the case file . On DATE ORG remitted the case to ORG so that the applicant could be given additional opportunity to familiarise himself with the case file . The applicant studied the file additionally from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","At this stage of the proceedings the applicant again challenged the lawfulness of TIME of the court hearings , obliging ORG to give interlocutory decisions .","The applicant further appealed against the judgment of DATE . He maintained , inter alia , that the impugned judgment lacked reasoning and had been \u201c secretly \u201d pronounced to him in the GPE .","On DATE the applicant repeatedly refused the assistance of his lawyer , alleging his collusion and incompetence .","According to the Government , on DATE the applicant refused legal assistance from any lawyer . On DATE , after the applicant had changed his mind , ORG ordered that a lawyer be appointed for the applicant and for that reason adjourned the hearing until DATE .","On DATE ORG , having reiterated the aforesaid pieces of evidence , upheld the judgment of DATE . It did not address the alleged lack of \u201c publicity \u201d of the criminal proceedings against the applicant as maintained in his appeal .","The text of the appellate court \u2019s decision states that the hearing was held in the presence of the applicant and the prosecutor ; no indication of the applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s presence at the hearing can be found . However , on DATE the applicant , apparently , filed a written statement before the hearing that he rejected the defence lawyer provided to him , and he did not request another one .","On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting in camera , rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . According to the applicant , he familiarised himself with that decision on DATE .","According to the applicant , on CARDINAL and DATE he was \u201c beaten \u201d ( \u201c \u0438\u0437\u0431\u0438\u0432\u0430\u043b\u0438 \u201d ) by police officers and threatened and psychologically pressurised by the investigator , who allegedly coerced him into pleading guilty .","On DATE a forensic medical expert examined the applicant , found some bruises on his shoulders and right elbow , and classified them as light ones . Forensic expert report no . CARDINAL ( \u0430\u043a\u0442 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u043e\u0432\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0447\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043e\u0441\u0432\u0456\u0434\u0443\u0432\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f ) concluded that these injuries had been caused DATE before the examination , during a fight or in selfdefence . The report contains a typed statement by the expert to the effect that during the examination the applicant had said that he had sustained the injuries in the course of the fight with the victim . The applicant denies that he had made that statement .","On DATE , following an order from the investigator , the same expert re - examined the applicant and came to the same conclusion , stating additionally that the injuries could have been caused CARDINAL and DATE ( forensic expert report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the prosecutor , having examined the matter proprio motu as required by domestic law , noted that , as the injuries caused to the applicant were light ones , the investigation of such offences was a matter for private prosecution . In the absence of a corresponding complaint by the applicant , the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings .","According to the Government , the applicant had not complained to the prosecutor of ill - treatment by the police and the investigator until DATE . In his description of ill - treatment the applicant stated that on DATE PERSON had exerted pressure under the applicant \u2019s ear with his finger , had slapped him with the palm of his hand on his forehead and had hit him on the nose with a passport ; at the same time another police officer had pushed the applicant in the back with his hand , and had punched him below the knee and on his head . In reply , on DATE , after holding a preliminary inquiry , the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings , finding no prima facie case . The applicant states that no copies of that or any other decisions on the matter were served on him and he could therefore not challenge them before the domestic courts .","Subsequently the applicant repeatedly asked the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against certain specified policemen and the investigator , but to no avail . In particular , the decision of CARDINAL DATE was set aside and an additional investigation was ordered ; eventually , by decisions of DATE and DATE the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings , finding no corpus delicti in the behaviour of the investigator or the police officers . In particular , in reaching her conclusions in the latter decision the prosecutor took into account :","- the conclusions in the forensic report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , namely that the injuries had been caused before the applicant first came into contact with the police ;","- the report of DATE from the ORG ( the police detention facility ) that in the period from DATE no bodily injuries had been found on the applicant ;","- the report of DATE from the GPE ( the remand prison ) , according to which the applicant did not complain and had no bodily injuries upon arrival ;","- the explanations offered by the police officers and the investigator against whose actions the applicant had complained .","The applicant did not appeal against these decisions . According to the Government , both decisions were sent to the GPE for the applicant \u2019s information . According to the applicant , he was served with a formal notification that the prosecutor had refused to institute criminal proceedings but not with copies of the relevant decisions . On several occasions he asked to be provided with the copies of the relevant prosecutor \u2019s decisions ( among others , letters no . \u041bCARDINAL sent on DATE ; no . \u041bCARDINAL sent on DATE ; no . \u041bCARDINAL sent on DATE ; no . \u041bCARDINAL sent on CARDINAL DATE ) . In fact , a copy of the decision of DATE was not sent to him until DATE .","During the trial the applicant also complained that he had been illtreated , without however alleging that this treatment resulted in a statement and a confession . On DATE , in the course of examining the charges against the applicant , ORG declared the complaint to be unfounded .","On DATE ORG remitted the criminal case against the applicant for fresh consideration , pointing out the inferior court \u2019s failure to address the applicant \u2019s complaints of ill - treatment .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG referred to the applicant \u2019s injuries in the terms set out in paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) above .","On DATE , having examined the applicant \u2019s appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG remitted the case to ORG and ordered the local ORG to hold an inquiry into the applicant \u2019s complaints of alleged ill - treatment in the course of the pre - trial investigation . On DATE ORG remitted the case to the prosecutor in compliance with the appellate court \u2019s instructions . According to the Government , the prosecutor sent the copies of the earlier decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE to the court and the latter was satisfied with them .","In their decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG of GPE , respectively , rejected the applicant \u2019s complaints of ill - treatment as unsubstantiated ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","In the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant , the applicant or his lawyer applied to the courts on several occasions for release ( at least on DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) but it is not clear whether the courts examined their requests .","On DATE the defence lawyer requested that the ORG release the applicant . He argued that the applicant had had no previous convictions , had his permanent residence in GPE and had not gone into hiding during the initial stage of the proceedings against him , had not obstructed the investigation , and that the suspicions raised in the detention order were no longer justifiable . The applicant \u2019s lawyer also referred to the principle of the presumption of innocence . On DATE ORG dismissed the request , limiting its reasoning to a statement that \u201c there [ were ] no grounds for replacing the applicant \u2019s detention on remand with a non - custodial preventive measure \u201d . In the operative part the court noted that its decision could be appealed against to ORG .","In judgments of DATE and QUANTITY DATE ORG and in rulings of DATE and DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively ) ordered , without any argumentation , that the applicant should remain in detention ; they did not specify any time - limit for his detention .","On an unspecified date the applicant requested that the local police and the ORG institute criminal proceedings in respect of the theft of his property which allegedly took place following his detention in DATE . In DATE the local police refused to institute the requested proceedings . Subsequently this decision was quashed and the preliminary inquiry was resumed several times . On DATE , the latest available decision , the local police again refused to institute the requested proceedings .","The applicant did not appeal against these refusals to a court .","On an unspecified date the applicant requested the local department of ORG ( hereafter \u201c the SPF \u201d ) to grant him a pension in so far as he was eligible due to his age . In a letter of DATE the local department of the ORG replied that the applicant was not entitled to a pension under national law as long as he was serving a prison sentence .","On DATE the local department of the ORG stated that the applicant would be entitled to a pension upon his release from prison .","It appears that the applicant did not challenge the aforesaid refusals before any domestic court ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173365","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MUSTAFAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant \u2019s son , PERSON ( FAC ) , was born in DATE and at the time of the events was serving a life sentence in FAC .","The applicant \u2019s son , who suffered from epilepsy , was held with CARDINAL other inmate ( ORG ) in cell no . CARDINAL , designated for CARDINAL inmates .","NORP Since DATE M.M. had sent numerous complaints to various domestic authorities , including ORG , ORG and ORG . He complained , in particular , of his conditions of detention , of violations of inmates\u2019 rights in FAC and of ill - treatment by prison guards because of his complaints to various domestic authorities , alleging that his life was in danger .","On DATE S.R. left cell no . CARDINAL for a long - term visit to his mother and PERSON remained the sole occupant of the cell .","Early in the morning of DATE a fire broke out in the cell . According to the applicant , the fire began at TIME and prison guards did not immediately intervene to extinguish it despite warnings from other inmates . It took TIME for them to open the cell door after the outbreak of the fire .","According to the Government , the fire broke out at TIME The prison guards took immediate action and opened the cell door at TIME son out of the cell and gave him first aid . PERSON was sent to hospital by car at TIME , arrived at TIME and died at TIME","NORP The applicant was informed by telegram at TIME on DATE of the death of his son .","It appears from ORG death certificate , dated DATE , that the cause of death was first and second degree burns over the whole body and smoke inhalation ( b\u00fct\u00fcn b\u0259d\u0259nin texniki yan\u0131\u011f\u0131 , I - II d\u0259r\u0259c\u0259li yan\u0131q , intoksikasiya ) .","On DATE ORG launched a criminal inquiry into ORG death .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the case refused to institute criminal proceedings . The investigator found that M.M. had suffered from epilepsy and that the fire had begun after his cigarette had fallen onto the bed during a seizure . The investigator relied on a statement written by PERSON after the incident , which stated that the fire had broken out because he had had an epileptic seizure while smoking . The investigator found that the prison guards had acted immediately in order to extinguish the fire . The investigator also referred to a statement from ORG that he had seen PERSON after the incident , at TIME on DATE , and that ORG had told him that he had had a seizure and that he had not known how the incident had happened . The investigator \u2019s decision also referred to post - mortem forensic report no . CARDINAL dated DATE , which confirmed the existence of extensive burns on ORG \u2019s body . The forensic report also established that the time of the injuries corresponded to DATE and that they were the kind of injuries which caused serious harm and could be life - threatening .","Despite the Court \u2019s explicit request to the Government to submit copies of all the documents relating to the criminal investigation concerning ORG death , the Government failed to provide the ORG with a copy of GPE and ORG written statements of DATE and forensic report no . CARDINAL of DATE , submitting that the case file had been destroyed .","The applicant was provided with a copy of the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE only DATE . He immediately lodged a complaint against that decision with a superior prosecutor .","On DATE ORG overturned the investigator \u2019s decision and remitted the case to ORG for a new examination . The prosecutor held that the investigator had not duly examined the scene of the incident . He also asked the investigator , inter alia , to order forensic fire , chemical and handwriting examinations , to check if ORG cell had been equipped with an adequate fire detection system , to question other inmates , prison guards , and the medical staff who had given first aid to MONEY and to establish why PERSON had not been taken to hospital immediately after the incident . The prosecutor also asked the investigator to order a new forensic examination in order to establish , inter alia , whether PERSON had been able to speak and move freely immediately after the incident given the nature of his injuries .","On DATE the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings , concluding that there had been no crime involved in ORG death . He relied mainly on the statements submitted by the prison guards , who said the fire had broken out at TIME because of ORG epileptic seizure and that they had intervened immediately after the incident . The investigator also noted that handwriting report no . CARDINAL dated DATE had indicated that the statement written on DATE had been signed by ORG However , he also noted in the decision that forensic expert report no . CARDINAL dated DATE had stated that PERSON had not been able to move , speak or write immediately after the incident as he had been in a state of shock as a result of his burns . The decision also recorded that chemical analysis report no . CARDINAL of DATE had concluded that there had been no trace of oil products in samples taken from the cell walls or of carbonised particles . The investigator also pointed out that it was not possible to carry out a forensic fire examination because the scene of the incident had not been preserved and repairs had been carried out in the cell in question . As regards the statements by some inmates that the fire had broken out at TIME , that it had taken TIME for the prison guards to open the door of the cell and that PERSON had died as a result of their negligence , the investigator noted that the cells of the inmates in question were situated far from ORG cell and that therefore their statements could not be considered as reliable . The investigator also questioned ORG paramedic ( feld\u015fer ) ( GPE ) who had given first aid to PERSON after the fire . GPE stated that he had been informed by telephone at home about the incident at TIME on DATE . He had taken a taxi to the prison and had arrived TIME . He had given first aid to PERSON but his condition had worsened at TIME and he had requested his transfer to a hospital . GPE stated that he had accompanied PERSON in the car that had transported him to the hospital but they had not arrived until TIME because they had waited for TIME for the car to be repaired after it had broken down . In that connection , the investigator referred to letter no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE from ORG , confirming that the car transporting FAC to the hospital had arrived at TIME and that the delay in his transfer had been due to the fact that the car had broken down on its way to the hospital . The letter also contained information about ORG medical history , pointing out that he had previously been admitted CARDINAL times to that medical establishment , had been diagnosed CARDINAL times with epilepsy and had received the appropriate treatment .","Despite the ORG \u2019s explicit request to the ORG to submit copies of all the documents relating to the criminal investigation concerning ORG death , the Government failed to provide the ORG with a copy of chemical analysis report no . CARDINAL dated DATE , handwriting report no . CARDINAL dated DATE , forensic expert report no . CARDINAL dated DATE , letter no . CARDINAL of DATE from ORG and the statements made by the prison guards , medical staff and inmates detained in LOC , submitting that the case file had been destroyed .","NORP The applicant lodged a complaint against the investigator \u2019s decision with ORG , complaining that he had failed to carry out an effective investigation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision . He complained , in particular , of the inconsistency between the conclusions of the handwriting report dated DATE and the forensic expert opinion dated DATE . He also argued that the investigator and the first - instance court had failed to examine photographs of FAC taken immediately after the incident on DATE . He submitted that the photographs showed that ORG body had signs of ill - treatment .","On DATE ORG granted the appeal and remitted the case to the prosecuting authorities for fresh examination . The appellate court held that the prosecuting authorities had failed to examine the photographs of FAC for signs of ill - treatment on his body or to establish why the scene of the incident had not been preserved .","On DATE a prosecutor at ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds of a lack of a criminal element in the death . In particular , the prosecutor held that there was no evidence that PERSON had been ill - treated , as alleged by the applicant . He relied in that connection on the conclusions of forensic report no . CARDINAL , which had only confirmed the existence of numerous burns on ORG body .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision .","On DATE ORG overruled the prosecutor \u2019s decision and remitted the case to the prosecuting authorities for a new examination . The court pointed out the inconsistencies as to when the fire had begun . It further held that the investigation had failed to clarify why PERSON had been taken to hospital TIME after the fire had broken out . The court held that the fact that the car transporting FAC had broken down could not explain such a long delay . The court also found that the investigation had failed to examine whether ORG conditions of detention had been appropriate for a person suffering from epilepsy .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the case again refused to institute criminal proceedings . The wording of the decision was identical to that of CARDINAL DATE , except the last few paragraphs , which concerned the conditions of detention of inmates suffering from epilepsy . In that connection , relying on statements made by the head of the prison regime department of ORG and GPE , the investigator found that domestic law did not provide for any special conditions of detention for inmates suffering from epilepsy or any restriction on the authorised items they could possess in prison .","On DATE ORG overruled the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE and remitted the case to the prosecuting authorities . The court held that the investigator had failed to examine the reason for the delay in PERSON \u2019s transfer to hospital . It also pointed out the inconsistencies in the inmates\u2019 statements concerning the circumstances of the incident . The court further found that it had not been established whether ORG conditions of detention had been compatible with his illness and that an inquiry should have been carried out as regards the necessary security and medical measures for a person like PERSON , whose condition was likely to give rise to sudden seizures .","On DATE a prosecutor at ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings , using wording that was almost identical to the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The prosecutor found that it had been PERSON \u2019s fault that the fire had broken out and that he had died as a result of his burns . He further held that the prison guards had taken immediate action and there had been no negligence on their part . The prosecutor noted that there was no special rule for the detention of inmates suffering from epilepsy . He also confirmed that there had been a delay in taking FAC to hospital because the car had broken down . He further found that it had not been possible to carry out a forensic fire examination as the scene of the incident had not been preserved . Lastly , the prosecutor referred to a statement made by a forensic expert , TIME , that there had been no causal link between ORG death and his delayed transfer to hospital .","Despite the ORG \u2019s explicit request to the ORG to submit copies of all the documents relating to the criminal investigation concerning ORG death , the Government failed to provide the ORG with a copy of TIME \u2019s statement , submitting that the case file had been destroyed .","The applicant was provided with a copy of that decision only on DATE , following intervention by the ORG .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint against the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE , arguing that the prosecuting authorities had failed to investigate the questions raised by the previous court decisions . In particular , there had been no plausible explanation for PERSON not being taken immediately to hospital after the incident . He also disputed the official version , according to which FAC had been able to write a statement immediately after the incident and that he had caused the fire himself .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The judge held that all the facts of the case had been examined by the prosecuting authorities and that FAC had died as a result of an accidental fire .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision , arguing that there had not been an effective investigation into his son \u2019s death in prison . He argued that the wording of the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE had been almost identical to the prosecuting authorities\u2019 previous decisions and that it had not dealt with any of the questions raised by the previous court decisions .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , finding that there was no reason to overrule the first - instance court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146547","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"GENCER AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants stated that they are nationals of the \u201c GPE \u201d and in application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL also nationals of GPE . Their names , dates of birth and places of residence are set out in the Annex . They are represented before the Court by Ms Y. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The facts of the cases may be summarised as follows . The applicants are relatives of NORP - Cypriots who went missing in either DATE or DATE during incidents of mounting tension and violence in which NORP or NORP - NORP villages were targeted .","These persons were listed as missing persons , the information being given to the NORP authorities , ORG and ORG .","The remains of the missing men have been found during exhumations carried out by ORG for Missing Persons ( \u201c CMP \u201d ) in DATE .","The Government have submitted that investigations had been commenced in both cases . The police had taken statements from relatives of the victims , taken steps to pursue investigation in the various localities and to trace police officers stationed there at the relevant time , to locate witnesses and to seek information from local inhabitants as to the transportation , murder and burial of the victims . In the first application , where investigation is linked with others already launched concerning victims of the same incident , statements have been obtained from CARDINAL individuals , while in the second application police are exploring material obtained from persons in the leadership of the \u201c NORP \u201d organisation and tracing as far as possible persons who might have been involved or have information about such involvement .","The applicants submitted that it is not apparent that any progress had been made in the investigations and that they had not been given any copies of reports , witness statements or information gathered from various sources ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179857","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KARINGTON AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154024","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BUCHYNSKA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME CARDINAL men , CARDINAL of them wearing a mask , entered the applicant \u2019s house , tied the applicant and took the valuables belonging to her and other household members . Subsequently , the unmasked man put a revolver in the applicant \u2019s ear and fired a shot . The applicant survived , having sustained a permanent disability . To this day the bullet remains in her head .","On DATE of the assault , the GPE police instituted criminal proceedings into the incident , examined the crime scene , collected fingerprints and other evidence , questioned the applicant \u2019s household members and neighbors and ordered several expert assessments .","On DATE the applicant was admitted in the proceedings as an injured party .","On several occasions the applicant identified the photos of various persons presented by the police as those of the unmasked offender . Among them , on DATE she identified a certain GPE","On an unspecified date PERSON , ORG partner , acknowledged to the police that she had seen a revolver in his possession . She also noted that at TIME on DATE PERSON had left their home for an appointment with his friend PERSON On DATE he had returned home at TIME , wearing a new suit and carrying some money , which , according to him , had been entrusted to him by PERSON for safekeeping .","On DATE GPE , GPE \u2019s neighbor , identified PERSON on a photograph , as ORG \u2019s friend .","On DATE PERSON also identified PERSON on a photograph as ORG \u2019s friend .","On several occasions in DATE the authorities questioned PERSON as a witness .","On DATE the investigation was suspended on the ground that all possible measures to locate the perpetrators had been exhausted .","On DATE ORG revoked this decision , having found that additional measures were warranted .","CARDINAL further decisions to suspend the proceedings taken on DATE and DATE , respectively , were , in turn , revoked by the prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE and DATE .","According to the applicant , in DATE she informed the investigator in charge of her case that she suspected that ORG , her cousin , had been the masked offender . Having assured her that he would conduct the necessary inquiries , the investigator left this information without any follow - up .","On DATE the proceedings were suspended on the ground that all possible measures to locate the perpetrators had been exhausted . According to the applicant , she was not informed of this decision and kept soliciting the authorities to investigate her suspicions in respect of ORG","On DATE the applicant and several other members of her family complained to ORG of the length of the proceedings and the failure of the investigator to react to the applicant \u2019s suspicions with respect to ORG","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office informed the complainants that the proceedings had been suspended since DATE . On the same date it revoked the suspension decision , noting that the measures taken to identify the perpetrators had not been comprehensive , and transferred the case to ORG in GPE for supervising further investigative activities .","On DATE PERSON was arrested and remanded in custody . On DATE he confessed to his participation in the crime and identified PERSON as his accomplice .","On DATE S.T. was arrested . He denied his involvement in the crime and presented various pieces of evidence that he had been in GPE , GPE , on the date of the incident .","On DATE the applicant identified GPE as the second offender during an identification parade .","On DATE O.M. retracted his confession alleging that it had been given under duress . Since that time he pleaded innocent and presented various pieces of evidence that he had been at his job as a vendor of ice - cream at the time of the incident .","On DATE the criminal proceedings in respect of ORG and ORG were discontinued for want of evidence of their involvement in the incriminated offence . The applicant appealed , insisting that ORG and ORG had been the perpetrators .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office revoked the decision to discontinue the proceedings and ordered further investigative measures to verify the applicant \u2019s allegations as well as ORG \u2019s and ORG alibis .","On CARDINAL further occasions DATE ( in particular , on CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE ) the proceedings against ORG and ORG were discontinued , these decisions having been subsequently quashed with reference to insufficiency of the measures taken to verify the relevant facts . Eventually , on DATE the proceedings against ORG and ORG were again closed for want of evidence that they had committed the incriminated offence . The decision referred , in particular , to testimonies by several witnesses and various sources of corporeal and forensic evidence in support of the defendants\u2019 alibis and cited various reasons , why they considered the applicant \u2019s submissions to be inconsistent and improbable .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that following her complaints of inactivity on the part of the investigative authorities , the case had been transferred to ORG for further investigation .","On numerous occasions throughout the course of the investigation ( in particular , on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE ) the investigator in charge of the case requested the police to locate and question GPE and GPE as witnesses in connection with the proceedings at issue . A request to this end was also submitted to the ORG and to the NORP police authorities . The parties did not inform the ORG concerning any follow - up on these requests .","On CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE ( in particular , on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) the criminal proceedings in the applicant \u2019s case were suspended on the ground that the measures available to the investigation had been exhausted without the perpetrators having been identified . These decisions were revoked by various branches of the prosecutor \u2019s office , which found that the measures taken had not been exhaustive .","On DATE ORG acknowledged , in response to the applicant \u2019s complaint , that the case had been protracted .","On DATE ORG reprimanded ORG for inactivity in the investigation and ordered the officers responsible to speed it up .","On DATE the PERSON family from GPE was robbed , several of its members having been shot .","On DATE PERSON was arrested in GPE on suspicion of having committed the crime in respect of the PERSON family and remanded in custody .","By DATE PERSON confessed of having been involved in the above crime , as well as in a series of other robberies , assaults and murders , including the one in respect of the applicant . He further divulged that some of these crimes , including the one in the applicant \u2019s respect , had been committed by him together with V.P.","The proceedings concerning ORG were closed with reference to his death .","On DATE the Deputy ORG signed the bill of indictment accusing PERSON of numerous episodes of criminal activity . The evidence cited in respect of his assault on the applicant consisted , primarily , of ORG own confessions and the sources collected in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE PERSON was committed to stand trial before ORG in GPE .","As of DATE the case was pending before the first - instance court ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179570","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PE\u0147ARANDA SOTO v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and at the time that he lodged the application with the ORG was serving a sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment in ORG , GPE . He had been detained since DATE .","The sentence was imposed on him by ORG on DATE for drug related offences . ORG also ordered him to pay a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) as well as ORG in fees payable to the experts , which were to be converted into a further term of imprisonment if not paid . On DATE the aforementioned sums were converted into CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment . Following an amnesty and payment of the fee for the experts , the applicant was released on DATE and flown back to GPE after being given the requisite vaccinations .","On DATE , TIME , the applicant was assaulted by another inmate , causing the former to allegedly lose consciousness and sustaining fractures to his facial and leg bones . The Government admitted that the applicant had sustained injuries to his leg and face but argued that there was no evidence that he had lost consciousness at any time .","According to the applicant , disciplinary measures were taken by the prison Chief Security officer , who ordered that he be placed in solitary confinement . Thus , despite his condition , the applicant had had to pack his belongings and walk to the solitary confinement unit . At an unspecified time the prison officer brought the applicant a pair of crutches to assist him walking . According to the Government , disciplinary measures were taken against another inmate involved in the incident but not against the applicant , who had been transferred ( from ORG CARDINAL , a more secure division , immediately after the incident . They also submitted that the applicant had not been placed in solitary confinement .","The applicant alleged that he did not receive any medical treatment for TIME after the incident had taken place . Thereafter he had been kept in solitary confinement without assistance from the prison medical staff . The applicant explained that he had subsequently been seen by a doctor , who had referred him to the hospital , where he underwent surgery . He stated that a plaster cast had been put around his leg and that he had been informed that he might need to undergo surgery if his eyesight was damaged as a result of the injury of his facial bone . Regarding the period of solitary confinement , the applicant claimed that he had been held on the second floor of the building and had not been allowed to see anyone or to use the communal areas .","According to the applicant , the cell did not have adequate ventilation , the heat was unbearable and there was no cold water to drink since he did not have access to the ground floor . Consequently he had to drink warm water and an occasional bottle of cold water ( when his friend managed to obtain one ) . The applicant claimed that he had specifically needed to drink water since he was taking antibiotics .","The heat and lack of ventilation caused the applicant , who is an asthma sufferer , to struggle with his breathing . He also complained that he had had to go to the clinic for treatment of his injuries himself since the nurses refused to visit his cell because of the unbearable heat . He had therefore had to use the staircase whilst still walking with crutches .","The applicant stated that he had been kept in the isolation unit for DATE , and after DATE had become suicidal . Subsequently he had been transferred to a unit that had fewer restrictions . The applicant complained that he had been placed in the same unit as his aggressor , putting his physical integrity at risk since he could have been attacked again .","The applicant submitted that upon his release from solitary confinement , he had spent most of his time in his cell . On an unspecified date he had asked to see a psychologist urgently , but was not able to speak to CARDINAL for DATE . The psychologist referred the applicant to a psychiatrist , who eventually prescribed medication . However , the applicant had refused to take the medication and claimed that the psychiatrist had refused to help him . Later , he had refused to consult the prison psychiatrist because he no longer trusted the prison staff and did not want to be sent to a psychiatric hospital since the facilities there were allegedly worse than those in the prison .","According to the Government the applicant was admitted to the medical infirmary of the prison at TIME on DATE and a referral to the emergency department of the state hospital was made at TIME The referral note issued by the doctor indicated that the applicant had swelling in the face , a bruise on QUANTITY loin , and severe swelling with limited movement in his right ankle . At an unspecified time on DATE he was provided with a pair of crutches by the prison medical infirmary . On DATE he was also admitted to hospital and returned to cell CARDINAL in Division CARDINAL on DATE . The case summary drawn up on DATE before his discharge and submitted to the ORG showed that all the medical investigations had been concluded and the results received prior to his discharge from hospital . According to the case summary the ankle xray revealed a fracture and there was subluxation of the right foot ; there was a head injury , specifically a fracture of the orbit and of the maxillary sinus ; there were no signs of injury or fluid collection in the internal organs ; an ophthalmic review had been carried out and the patient had been discharged from that department as well as from the orthopaedic ward where he had undergone tests and treatment for his bone injuries . The summary also showed that the applicant had to use crutches and to avoid bearing weight for DATE leading up to his outpatient appointment , after which he still would not be able to bear weight fully . It ordered a change of dressing to be undertaken within DATE and prescribed appropriate medicines . Records also showed that a nurse had visited Division CARDINAL to attend to the applicant on DATE the note in the register reads as follows : \u201c Nurse C. and PERSON came to Division CARDINAL at about CARDINAL.CARDINAL am to visit PERSON in his cell \u201d . Other notes show that a nurse went to ORG on subsequent days to give inmates medication , without indicating their names . Another note also showed that a certain PERSON ( whose role is unidentified ) visited the applicant on DATE .","The Government submitted that the applicant had been held in Division CARDINAL for his own safety . The Chief Security officer had ordered that the applicant should not meet the other inmate involved in the argument and that the applicant \u2019s cell be opened for TIME a day until further instructions . The applicant was initially placed in cell CARDINAL ( on the upper floor of ORG ) , which was QUANTITY away from the guard room , thus making it possible to observe the applicant \u2019s cell , which was to be left open . The Government submitted that , by order of a manager , on DATE the applicant had been allowed to mingle with all other inmates without restriction . The applicant had then been transferred to cell CARDINAL on a lower floor as soon as it was deemed safe for him , specifically on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he had been transferred to ORG , which was also a secure division although it had fewer restrictions . The applicant was finally transferred to ORG CARDINAL on DATE . According to the ORG , the applicant had never been kept in solitary confinement , nor had the inmate involved in the argument with the applicant been accommodated in any of the above - mentioned ORG while the applicant was there , except for a short stay in ORG .","According to the ORG the first request for psychological services made by the applicant had been in DATE . According to the documents submitted , thereafter he was seen DATE by the psychologist until DATE and later CARDINAL or CARDINAL times per month until his release in DATE ( from DATE he had been seen by a counselling trainee ) . Moreover , in DATE the applicant had been referred for psychiatric services by the psychologist . The Government submitted that although the applicant had a past history of being suicidal , there was no record that he had attempted suicide during the period he was detained in DATE . The report prepared by the senior psychologist in prison ( dated DATE ) noted that the applicant attended his sessions regularly and was making progress . It noted that he felt guilty for not having made amends with his mother before her death ( DATE ) and that he had deliberately provoked a fight . The report described the applicant as being \u201c edgy and hyper - vigilant but not psychotic \u201d , his sleep was not problematic , his appetite was normal and he was cooperative . He had been diagnosed with post - traumatic stress disorder , but no other affective disorder was evident . He was put on medication for depression and further followups with the psychologist . He was seen again in a follow - up session with the psychiatrist on DATE , but on DATE he refused a psychiatric review .","In a letter dated DATE , the applicant alleged that he had not received rehabilitative treatment for his fractures since the prison officials had unilaterally decided to cancel the treatment . According to the Government , on DATE , prior to being discharged from hospital , the applicant had been seen by a physiotherapist and found fit for discharge . The applicant had also been given CARDINAL appointments ( DATE ) with the ENT department of the hospital in connection with his facial injuries . On DATE , the applicant had been referred by the prison medical officer to the emergency department of the hospital because of a recurrent swelling of his right ankle . The applicant had at the time already been taking antibiotics and his stitches were intact . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , x - rays were taken of the applicant \u2019s right ankle by the orthopaedic department of the hospital . The applicant was also referred to the ophthalmology department on CARDINAL DATE . Further referrals to hospital were made by the prison medical doctor , but the Government claimed they were unrelated to the injuries suffered as a result of the incident on DATE . CARDINAL such referral was made on DATE . An outpatient service appointment record given to the applicant listed appointments scheduled for DATE and DATE at the medical outpatients\u2019 clinic , which the applicant also attended . It is recorded that the applicant refused to attend an appointment scheduled for DATE .","In a subsequent letter dated CARDINAL DATE ( at a time when he was held in Division CARDINAL ) the applicant explained that his cell window was positioned at a height of QUANTITY and was therefore very difficult to open . It was also small and had CARDINAL different bands of metal shutters , which hampered the entry of natural light . He claimed that his cell had lacked good ventilation \u2013 although there were CARDINAL vents , CARDINAL of them had been blocked . He alleged that the parts of the ceiling were falling apart and that white and yellow dust caused him to experience breathing problems , since he was an asthma sufferer . The applicant also alleged that the water was not drinkable and that he had therefore had to buy water with the little money that he earned . He claimed that foreign inmates were treated differently from the NORP inmates since the former had to wait longer to have their petitions decided .","The Government submitted that at the time when this letter was written , the applicant was accommodated in cell CARDINAL in Division CARDINAL .","The Government submitted that inmates were responsible for the upkeep of their cells . For this purpose , the materials needed to carry out basic repair work in the cells were provided free of charge . If an inmate required assistance for more specialised work , the Trade Section personnel would carry out the work necessary to keep the cell in good condition . The Government submitted pictures dated DATE showing that the ceiling in cell CARDINAL was in good condition and that the current resident was carrying out some works and removing paint from the ceiling , exposing the stone underneath .","The Government submitted that all the cells were equipped with running water which was fit for human consumption . According to certification dated DATE that has been submitted to the ORG , water in the prison ( no specific location was indicated in the reports ) had been certified by ORG as being fit for consumption , although the mains supply and the other Divisions ( including no . CARDINAL ) had been recorded as having a chloride content which exceeded the recommended parameter value indicated in the relevant law . The Government submitted that the water was tested and certified DATE . In addition to the availability of running potable tap water , the inmates were allowed to purchase bottled water from the ORG tuck - shop .","In DATE , the applicant received ORG CARDINAL DATE in socalled \u201c Gratuity \u201d money and ORG CARDINAL DATE for work carried out assembling dolls . DATE and DATE the applicant received EUR CARDINAL in total . A CARDINAL - pack of water at the tuckshop cost ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL or an individual bottle ORG Government submitted that all inmates received equal treatment irrespective of the State of their origin .","NORP In a letter dated DATE , the applicant alleged that the prison authorities had refused to forward his letters to the ORG in order to dissuade him from pursuing his case before it . He was therefore corresponding with the ORG through another address .","From the records of the correspondence sent by the applicant held at the prison authorities and submitted by the Government , it is apparent that the applicant sent registered letters to ORG , DATE and DATE and an unregistered letter on DATE . No further requests were made by the applicant to send any communication to the ORG , although letters were sent by the applicant to other addresses on DATE , DATE and DATE , and on DATE and DATE ."],"violated_articles":["34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183205","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA;RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF POCASOVSCHI AND MIHAILA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period (Russia);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim (the Republic of Moldova);Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (the Republic of Moldova);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (the Republic of Moldova)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE and live in GPE and NORP respectively .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants were convicted by NORP courts and , at the time of the events , were serving their sentences in prison no . CARDINAL situated in the town of GPE ( PERSON ) , in the NORP region of GPE . The town is situated in the security zone under the control of peacekeepers from GPE , GPE and the self - proclaimed \u201c GPE ( \u201c FAC ) . Prison no . DATE is under the exclusive control of the GPE authorities . By DATE some CARDINAL people were detained there ; some of them , such as the applicants , were ill with tuberculosis .","On DATE the PERSON local administration , which is subordinated to the \u201c FAC authorities , disconnected prison no . CARDINAL from the electricity , water and heating supplies . As a result , the detainees were deprived of conditions of basic hygiene , and the food they received did not meet the minimum standards of quality .","NORP The prison authorities informed ORG , ORG , ORG in LOC ( OSCE ) , ORG and ORG , as well as local human rights organisations , with a view to obtaining assistance in resolving the problem arising from the disconnection from the town \u2019s utilities network .","On DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office ( which forms part of the official NORP authorities ) informed ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , for which the applicant \u2019s representative worked , that , as a result of pressure from the LOC , the PERSON authorities had reconnected the prison to the electricity and water supply systems on DATE . On DATE the last of the people who were ill with tuberculosis were transferred to a newly - built hospital wing in GPE prison hospital , situated in GPE . According to the head of prison no . CARDINAL , some QUANTITY healthy detainees , including the applicants , remained in the prison after that date . However , also on DATE , the local authorities disconnected prison no . CARDINAL from the electricity and water supply systems again , without any warning . The \u201c FAC authorities insisted that the prison needed to be closed down .","On DATE Mr GPE ( the first applicant ) was transferred to another prison . He was released on parole on DATE . Mr PERSON ( the second applicant ) was transferred to another prison on DATE and was released on parole on DATE .","On DATE the ORG representatives asked ORG to initiate criminal proceedings against those responsible for disconnecting prison no . CARDINAL from the utilities systems . On DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office replied in general terms , describing the difficult situation with regard to prison no . CARDINAL and the unsuccessful negotiations with the local authorities .","On DATE the ORG asked ORG ( which is part of the NORP court system ) to order the prosecutor \u2019s office to remedy the human rights violations taking place in prison no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the head of prison no . CARDINAL informed the court that , owing to insufficient access to water and electricity , detainees in his institution could not receive appropriate medical assistance or food of a sufficient standard , or maintain proper hygiene .","On DATE ORG ordered the prosecutor \u2019s office to initiate criminal proceedings against those responsible for disconnecting prison no . CARDINAL from the utilities supply . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","According to ORG , on DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office contacted the \u201c FAC authorities with a view to prosecuting those responsible for disconnecting prison no . CARDINAL from the utilities . It also informed ORG ( see ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVII ) of the need to include the subject on its agenda . On DATE the \u201c FAC prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open a criminal investigation on the ground that no crime had been committed .","On DATE the relatives of CARDINAL of the detainees made another complaint to the ORG regarding the inhuman conditions of detention in prison no . CARDINAL . That letter was forwarded to ORG , the President of GPE and ORG , along with a request to take all necessary steps to immediately improve the conditions of detention .","On DATE the ORG asked the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office what action had been taken pursuant to the above - mentioned court decisions . On DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office replied that all the material was at ORG , which was dealing with the case .","On DATE ORG informed the ORG that the ORG was making all necessary efforts to ensure acceptable conditions of detention at prison no . CARDINAL , and that , at that time , the conditions of detention at that prison did not differ from those at other prisons in GPE .","On DATE ORG informed the ORG that it had lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG against the decisions of DATE and DATE . On DATE ORG upheld those decisions .","On DATE the ORG asked ORG what actions had been undertaken after the judgment of ORG of DATE . On DATE ORG replied that the actions of the \u201c FAC authorities could not be investigated by the GPE authorities as long as the \u201c FAC authorities de facto controlled the territory of the \u201c FAC .","On DATE , on behalf of CARDINAL detainees in prison no . CARDINAL , including the applicants , the ORG lodged a civil action against ORG , asking for the finding of a violation of the rights guaranteed under LAW . The detainees had authorised the organisation to act on their behalf . The ORG also asked for an improvement in the conditions of detention and for the payment of compensation in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) for each detainee .","On DATE and DATE the President of ORG asked ORG to decide whether the case should be examined by another court . On DATE ORG rejected the request and left the case with ORG .","On DATE ORG decided to transfer the case to ORG in PERSON , in accordance with territorial competence principles . The claimants ( the detainees ) and their representatives were not consulted . On DATE the ORG challenged that decision . On DATE the ORG set aside the decision of DATE and ordered the urgent examination of the case by ORG .","On DATE the ORG declined to examine the claim because it did not satisfy legal requirements . On DATE ORG set aside that decision .","After DATE many of the CARDINAL detainees who were plaintiffs in the above - mentioned civil action were transferred to other prisons in various parts of the country , which made it more difficult for the ORG to obtain confirmation of each individual \u2019s power of attorney , as requested by ORG . In such circumstances , the ORG selected CARDINAL cases ( including those of the applicants in the present case ) with which to continue the proceedings . Since the individuals concerned were also detained in separate prisons , the ORG made an application for their cases to be examined separately , an application which ORG refused on DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG \u2019s application to summon as defendants the individuals from the relevant local \u201c FAC authorities in PERSON responsible for violating the GPE rights . On an unknown date in DATE ORG set aside that decision and ordered the summoning as defendants of ORG , DATE and PERSON , the heads of the relevant local \u201c FAC authorities in PERSON . According to the applicants , none of these individuals was summoned by ORG .","On DATE the judge who had been examining the case withdrew from it . On DATE the judge who had taken over the case also withdrew from it . Subsequently , all other judges of ORG withdrew , allegedly for fear of persecution by the \u201c FAC authorities . As a result , ORG was asked to decide which other court could examine the case . On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided that the case should be examined by the LOC .","On DATE the Anenii - Noi ORG declined to examine the claim because it did not fulfil certain legal requirements . It found in particular that there was a lack of valid powers of attorney in favour of the ORG .","On DATE the ORG lodged a reformulated court action in accordance with the legal requirements . It also asked for ORG to be summoned as a defendant in the case , as it had de facto control over the territory of the \u201c FAC . It claimed ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL respectively for the breach of the applicants\u2019 rights . On DATE the Anenii - Noi ORG declined to examine the claim because the powers of attorney issued by the detainees in favour of the ORG had expired .","On DATE ORG set aside the decision of DATE , noting that , in the ORG cases , the powers of attorney had been renewed .","On DATE the Anenii - Noi District Court adjourned the hearing because of the absence of a representative of ORG . The same thing occurred on DATE . The court also informed the ORG that , in a letter dated DATE , ORG had informed the court that a representative of GPE could only be summoned via ORG .","On DATE the Anenii - Noi District Court adopted a judgment in which it allowed the ORG claims in part . It awarded each of them damages in the amount of LAW , to be paid by ORG , and LAW , to be paid by ORG .","On DATE the ORG quashed that judgment in part . It found that , following the prison \u2019s disconnection from the utilities , the prison administration had no longer been able to offer food or medical treatment for tuberculosis which was of an adequate quality ; there had been no access to showers , a very poor situation concerning personal hygiene , and TIME of electricity per day , ensured by a low - power generator . None of the complaints made to the ORG authorities had resulted in an improvement in the conditions of detention until much later , as established in DATE . The court acknowledged a breach of the applicants\u2019 right not to be held in inhuman conditions of detention , and increased the award in favour of each of them to MDL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) . It also found that GPE could not be a defendant in GPE courts unless it expressly agreed to that , which was not the case here .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicants\u2019 appeal on points of law in part , and amended the judgment of the lower court . It analysed in detail the length of the civil proceedings ( DATE and the date of adopting its own judgment on DATE ) , the complexity of the case , how the parties and the courts had contributed to the length of the proceedings , as well as the significant interest at stake for the applicants . The court found that , despite the applicants\u2019 representatives\u2019 actions contributing to the overall length of the proceedings ( CARDINAL out of DATE ) , a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time had taken place , requiring additional compensation which it set at MDL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL at the time ) . It did not amend the remainder of the lower court \u2019s judgment .","ORG submitted a long list of actions concerning their efforts to assert their sovereignty over the \u201c FAC territory and ensure that human rights were observed in the region . They also submitted copies of documents concerning prison no . CARDINAL in GPE \/ PERSON specifically , raising in particular the issue of the prison being disconnected from utilities within the framework of the \u201c CARDINAL + CARDINAL \u201d negotiations process ( between the LOC , GPE , GPE , ORG and the GPE , in addition to GPE and the \u201c FAC ) and with various international organisations ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141794","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GRANDE STEVENS AND OTHERS v. ITALY","importance":2,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-a - Information on nature and cause of accusation);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person;Defence through legal assistance);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property);Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46 - Individual measures;Article 46-2 - Execution of judgment);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen","text":["A list of the applicant parties is appended .","At the relevant time Mr PERSON was the chairman of the CARDINAL applicant companies and Mr PERSON was the authorised representative ( procuratore ) of the applicant company ORG .","On DATE the public limited company ORG ( ORG Torino ) signed a financing agreement ( prestito convertendo ) with CARDINAL banks . That contract was due to expire on DATE and stipulated that , should ORG fail to reimburse the loan , the banks could offset their claim by subscribing to an increase in the company \u2019s capital . Thus , the banks would have obtained PERCENT of ORG \u2019s share capital , while the holdings of the public limited company ORG ( which subsequently , on DATE , became PERSON ORG . , the name by which it will be referred to hereafter ) would have decreased from PERCENT to PERCENT .","Mr Gabetti wished to obtain legal advice on the best way to ensure that PERSON remained the controlling shareholder in ORG , and to this end he contacted a lawyer specialising in company law , PERSON . He considered that one possibility would be to renegotiate an equity swap ( that is , a contract allowing a share \u2019s performance to be exchanged against an interest rate , without having to advance money ) , dated DATE and based on CARDINAL ORG shares , concluded by PERSON with an NORP merchant bank , ORG , which was due to expire on DATE . In Mr Grande Stevens \u2019s opinion , this would be CARDINAL way to prevent the launch of a takeover bid with regard to the ORG shares .","Without mentioning ORG for fear of breaching his duty of confidentiality , on DATE Mr PERSON asked ORG ( ORG \u2013 \u201c the CONSOB \u201d , which in the NORP legal system , has the task , inter alia , of protecting investors and ensuring the transparency and development of the stock markets ) whether , in the scenario he envisaged , a takeover bid could be avoided . At the same time Mr PERSON began making enquires with ORG about the possibility of amending the equity swap contract .","On DATE the CONSOB asked PERSON and PERSON to issue a press release providing information on any initiative taken in the light of the forthcoming expiry of the financing agreement with the banks , any new fact concerning ORG and anything that might explain the market fluctuations in ORG shares .","Mr PERSON alleges that he was on leave on that date . He had informed Mr PERSON of the CONSOB \u2019s request and had sent him a copy of it . Mr PERSON submits that he was not involved in drafting the press releases described in CARDINAL and DATE below .","Mr Gabetti submits that on DATE he was in hospital in GPE . He had received a draft press release and had contacted Mr Grande Stevens by telephone ; the lawyer had confirmed to him that , given the significant number of elements that remained uncertain , renegotiation of the equity swap contract could not be considered as a relevant and currently available option . In those circumstances , PERSON approved the draft press release .","The press release issued in response [ to the CONSOB \u2019s query ] , approved by Mr Grande Stevens , merely indicated that PERSON had \u201c neither instituted nor examined initiatives with regard to the expiry of the financing contract \u201d and that it wished \u201c to remain ORG \u2019s reference shareholder \u201d . No mention was made of the possible renegotiation of the equity swap contract with ORG , which , in the absence of a clear factual and legal basis , the applicants considered merely as CARDINAL possible future scenario .","The Giovanni Agnelli Company confirmed PERSON \u2019s press release .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON continued his negotiations with ORG , exploring the options for amending the equity swap contract .","On DATE , in the course of an PERSON family meeting , it was decided that the draft text being studied by PERSON ought to be submitted for approval by the PERSON board of management . On DATE , the CONSOB received a copy of the equity swap contract and was informed of the negotiations under way with a view to using that contract to enable PERSON to acquire ORG shares .","On DATE , in execution of the decisions taken by their respective boards of management , PERSON and ORG concluded the agreement on amending the equity swap contract .","On DATE , in response to the question posed to it by Mr Grande Stevens on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the CONSOB indicated that , in the scenario envisaged , there was no obligation to launch a takeover bid .","On DATE ORG increased its share capital ; the new shares were acquired by the CARDINAL banks in compensation for the sums owed to them . On DATE the agreement amending the equity swap contract took effect . In consequence , PERSON continued to hold a PERCENT stake in ORG .","On DATE the CONSOB \u2019s ORG ( CARDINAL mercati e consulenza economica DATE ufficio Insider Trading \u2013 hereafter the \u201c IT Office \u201d ) accused the applicants of breaching LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE . That article , entitled \u201c Market Manipulation \u201d , provides :","\u201c Without prejudice to criminal penalties where the conduct amounts to an offence , any person who , through means of information , including Internet or any other means , disseminates false or misleading information , news or rumours of a kind to provide false or misleading indications concerning financial instruments shall be liable to an administrative penalty ranging from MONEY ( ORG ) . \u201d","According to ORG , the agreement to amend the equity swap had been concluded or was in the process of being concluded before the press releases of CARDINAL DATE were issued , and accordingly it was abnormal that they had contained no mention of it . The applicants were invited to submit their defence .","ORG then transmitted the file to the CONSOB \u2019s ORG ( ufficio sanzioni amministrative \u2013 hereafter , \u201c the Directorate \u201d ) , accompanied by a report ( relazione istruttoria ) dated DATE , which set out the evidence against the accused and their arguments in reply . According to that report , the arguments submitted in their defence by the applicants were not such as to enable the file to be closed .","The ORG communicated this report to the applicants and invited them to submit in writing , within DATE period that would expire on DATE , those arguments that they considered necessary for their defence . In the meantime , ORG continued to examine the applicants\u2019 case , by obtaining oral statements and analysing the documents received on DATE from ORG On DATE it transmitted a \u201c supplementary note \u201d to the ORG in which it stated that the new documents examined by it were not such as to alter its conclusions . On DATE the applicants received a copy of the supplementary note of DATE and its appendices ; they were given a further DATE deadline within which to submit any comments .","Without communicating it to the applicants , the ORG presented its report ( dated DATE and containing its conclusions ) to the Commission \u2013 the CONSOB proper \u2013 , that is , to the body responsible for deciding on possible penalties . At the relevant time the Commission was made up of a chairman and CARDINAL members , appointed by the President of the Republic on a proposal ( su proposta ) from the President of ORG . Their term of office was for DATE and could be renewed only once .","By resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE , the CONSOB imposed the following administrative fines on the applicants :","EUR CARDINAL in respect of Mr Gabetti ,","EUR CARDINAL in respect of Mr Grande Stevens ,","ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of Mr Marrone ,","ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of the company PERSON ,","EUR CARDINAL in respect of the company ORG .","Mr Gabetti , PERSON and PERSON were banned from administering , managing or supervising listed companies for periods of CARDINAL , DATE respectively .","The CONSOB held , in particular , that the file showed that on DATE , date of the impugned press releases , the plans to maintain a PERCENT stake in ORG \u2019s capital on the basis of renegotiation of the equity swap contract with ORG had already been studied and were being put in place . It followed that the press releases falsely represented ( rappresentazione falsa ) the situation at the time . The CONSOB also emphasised the positions held by the persons concerned , the \u201c objective gravity \u201d of the offence and the existence of malicious intent .","The applicants applied to ORG seeking to have these penalties set aside . They alleged , inter alia , that the CONSOB \u2019s rules were illegal , since , contrary to the requirements of LAW septies of Legislative Decree no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , they did not comply with the principle of an adversarial examination of the case .","Mr Grande PERSON further noted that the CONSOB had accused and punished him for being involved in publication of the press release of DATE as the executive director of PERSON . Before the CONSOB , he had argued unsuccessfully that he did not have that role and that he was merely a lawyer and consultant for ORG . Before the appeal court , PERSON maintained that , since he was not an executive director , he could not have taken part in the decision to publish the impugned press release . In pleadings of DATE , Mr PERSON requested that , should the appeal court consider the documents placed in the case file to be insufficient or unusable , it summon witnesses for questioning \u201c on the facts set out in the above - mentioned documents \u201d . He did not indicate clearly in those pleadings either the names of those witnesses or the circumstances in respect of which they were to give evidence . In pleadings of the same date , Mr PERSON named CARDINAL witnesses whose statements would prove that he had not taken part in drafting the press releases , and stated that the appeal court could , if necessary ( ove occorresse ) , question them .","In judgments deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG reduced the administrative fines imposed by the CONSOB in respect of certain of the applicants , as follows :","- ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of ORG . ;","- EUR CARDINAL in respect of PERSON s.p.a . ;","- EUR CARDINAL in respect of PERSON .","The heading of the judgments delivered in respect of PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON . indicated that the court of appeal had met in private ( riunita in camera di consiglio ) . The \u201c procedure \u201d part of the judgments issued in respect of Mr PERSON and ORG . mentioned that the parties had been summoned to the deliberations ( disposta la comparizione delle parti in camera di consiglio ) .","The length of the ban on assuming responsibility for the administration , management or supervision of companies listed on the stock exchange was reduced from DATE in respect of PERSON .","The court of appeal dismissed the ORG other complaints in their entirety . It noted , inter alia , that even after the file had been transmitted to the ORG , ORG had been entitled to continue its investigative activities , as the CARDINAL-day deadline provided for the CONSOB \u2019s deliberations had not been binding . Furthermore , the adversarial principle was complied with if , as in the present case , those charged had been informed of the new evidence obtained by ORG and had had an opportunity to submit their replies .","The court of appeal also noted that it was true that the CONSOB had both imposed the penalties provided for by LAW no . DATE and reported the case to the prosecuting authorities , alleging that the criminal offence described in LAW same decree had been committed . Under the terms of this provision ,","\u201c Anyone who disseminates false information , carries out simulated transactions or uses other ploys ( artifizi ) which are objectively capable of triggering a significant change in the value of financial instruments shall be punishable by CARDINAL six years\u2019 imprisonment and a fine of CARDINAL euros . \u201d","According to the court of appeal , those CARDINAL provisions had as their subject - matter the same conduct ( the \u201c dissemination of false information \u201d ) and pursued the same aim ( to prevent market manipulation ) , but differed with regard to the situation of risk alleged to have been generated by this conduct : in respect of Article QUANTITY , it was sufficient in itself to have given false or misleading indications concerning financial instruments , while LAW further required that that information had been such as to trigger a significant change in the price of the instruments in question . As ORG had indicated in its order no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , it was open to the legislature to punish illegal conduct both by a pecuniary administrative sanction and by criminal penalties . In addition , LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which invited the member States of ORG to apply administrative sanctions against persons responsible for manipulating the market , contained in turn the phrase \u201c without prejudice to the right of Member GPE to impose criminal sanctions \u201d .","On the merits , the court of appeal observed that it was clear from the case file that the renegotiation of the equity swap had been examined in minute detail at the relevant date and that the conclusion reached by the CONSOB ( namely , that this plan already existed DATE prior to CARDINAL DATE ) had been reasonable in the light of the established facts and the conduct of the persons concerned .","As to Mr Grande Stevens , it was true that he was not an executive director of ORG . Nonetheless , the administrative offence punishable under LAW no . DATE could be committed by \u201c anyone \u201d , and therefore by a person in any capacity whatsoever ; Mr PERSON had indeed participated in the decision - making process which had led to publication of the press release in his capacity as a lawyer consulted by the applicant companies .","The applicants appealed on points of law . In the third and fourth grounds of their points of appeal , they alleged , inter alia , that there had been a breach of the principles of a fair hearing , enshrined in LAW , because , in particular : the investigative phase of the CONSOB proceedings had not been adversarial in nature ; there had been a failure to transmit the ORG \u2019s report to the accused ; in the applicants\u2019 view , it had been impossible to file pleadings with or be heard in person by the ORG ; ORG had continued its investigation and transmitted a supplementary note after expiry of the time - limit set for that purpose .","By judgments of DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed their appeals on points of law . It considered , in particular , that the principle of an adversarial examination of the case had been complied with in the proceedings before the CONSOB , noting that the latter had indicated to the applicants the acts with which they were charged and taken account of their respective defence submissions . The fact that the applicants had not been questioned and that they had not received the ORG \u2019s conclusions had not been in breach of that principle , since the constitutional provisions regarding a fair hearing and the right of defence were applicable only to judicial proceedings , and not to proceedings to impose administrative sanctions .","Under Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , the applicants\u2019 impugned conduct could be the subject - matter not only of an administrative sanction , imposed by the CONSOB , but also of the criminal penalties provided for in LAW , cited in paragraph CARDINAL above .","On DATE the applicants were committed for trial before ORG . They were accused of having stated , in the press releases of DATE , that PERSON wished to remain ORG \u2019s reference shareholder and that it had neither initiated nor examined initiatives with regard to the expiry of the financing contract , although the agreement amending the equity swap had already been examined and concluded , information that had been withheld in order to avoid a probable fall in the ORG share price .","CONSOB applied to be joined to the proceedings as a civil party , a possibility open to it under LAW undecies of Legislative Decree no . DATE .","After DATE , the date on which the judgment dismissing the applicants\u2019 appeal on points of law against the penalties imposed by the CONSOB was deposited with the registry ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicants requested that the criminal proceedings against them be discontinued , by virtue of the non bis in idem rule . In particular , at the hearing of DATE , they argued that the relevant provisions of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL and LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) were unconstitutional , on account of their alleged incompatibility with LAW No . CARDINAL .","The representative of the prosecuting authorities opposed this objection , alleging that \u201c double proceedings \u201d ( administrative and criminal ) were imposed by LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which the NORP legislature had transposed by enacting ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Legislative Decree no . DATE .","ORG did not immediately rule on the ancillary question of constitutionality raised by the defence . It ordered an expert report describing the fluctuations in ORG shares DATE and DATE and evaluating the effects of the press releases of CARDINAL DATE and the information made public on DATE .","By a judgment of DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on DATE , the Turin ORG acquitted PERSON on the ground that he had not been involved in the publication of the press releases , and also acquitted the other applicants on the ground that it had not been proven that their conduct had been such as to trigger a significant change in the financial markets . It noted that the fact that the press releases contained false information had already been punished by the administrative body . In the court \u2019s view , the applicants\u2019 impugned conduct had , probably , been aimed at concealing the renegotiation of the equity swap contract from the CONSOB , and not at increasing ORG \u2019s share price .","The court held that the ancillary question of constitutionality raised by the applicants was manifestly ill - founded . It noted that NORP law ( section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) prohibited \u201c double proceedings \u201d ( doppio giudizio ) , criminal and administrative , in respect of the \u201c same act \u201d . However , ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ter of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL did not punish the same act : only the criminal provision ( LAW ) required that the conduct be such as to cause a significant change in the value of financial instruments ( it referred to judgment no . DATE of ORG ( Sixth Section ) , of DATE ) . In addition , application of the criminal provision required the existence of malicious intent , while the administrative provision was applicable as soon as culpable conduct was established . Moreover , the criminal proceedings which had followed the imposition of the financial penalty provided for by LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL were authorised by LAW .","As to the case - law of the ORG cited by the applicants ( PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL-C ) , PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE ) , ORG v. GPE ( no . MONEY , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) ) , it was not relevant to this case , since it concerned cases where a single act had been punished by criminal and administrative penalties and where the latter had a punitive element and could include a custodial sentence or ( as in the PERSON case ) were for a sum higher than the criminal fine .","The public prosecutor \u2019s office appealed on points of law , alleging that the offence with which the applicants had been charged was CARDINAL \u201c of danger \u201d ( reato di pericolo ) and not \u201c of damage \u201d ( reato di danno ) . It could therefore be committed even in the absence of damage having been sustained by the shareholders .","DATE . On DATE ORG allowed in part the prosecuting authorities\u2019 appeal on points of law and quashed the acquittal of the companies PERSON and PERSON , and those of Mr PERSON and PERSON . However , it upheld the acquittal of PERSON , given that he had not taken part in the impugned conduct .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG convicted PERSON and PERSON of the offence set out in LAW no . DATE , considering it highly probable that , had the false information included in the press release of CARDINAL DATE not been issued , the value of ORG \u2019s shares would have fallen much more sharply . However , it acquitted the companies PERSON and PERSON , holding that no criminal acts could be imputed to them .","The court of appeal held that there was no appearance of a violation of the ne bis in idem principle , thus endorsing the main thrust of the GPE ORG reasoning .","According to the information provided by the Government on DATE , PERSON and PERSON appealed on points of law against that judgment , and the proceedings were still pending at that date . In their appeals , these CARDINAL applicants relied on a violation of the ne bis in idem principle and asked that an ancillary question of constitutionality be raised in respect of LAW .","..."],"violated_articles":["6","P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P7-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-3","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-a","6-3-c","P1-1-1"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161531","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF LITVINOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and , until his arrest , lived in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated kidnapping and extortion committed within an organised criminal group and with the use of firearms . He remained in detention throughout the investigation and trial .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to MONEY imprisonment in a high - security correctional colony .","ORG of GPE upheld the sentence on appeal on DATE .","The parties provided the ORG with extensive medical evidence , including the applicant \u2019s clinical records , medical certificates , expert reports , and opinions by various medical specialists .","The evidence shows that the applicant had a long history of heart and kidney diseases . In DATE he suffered a stroke , closed craniocerebral injury and cerebral contusion . DATE he suffered a myocardial infarction and was admitted to a hospital for in - patient treatment . A medical examination carried out by the hospital revealed a deterioration in the functioning of his kidney . He was prescribed a basic drug regimen , which was supervised by a cardiologist and a nephrologist . Upon discharge from the hospital , his state of health was considered satisfactory .","After the applicant \u2019s arrest he was taken to a temporary detention centre in the town of GPE , and DATE , on DATE , to temporary detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE ( \u201c facility no . IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u201d ) . On admission to the detention facility , the applicant underwent a general medical check - up performed by the prison doctor , who concluded that he was \u201c somatically healthy \u201d . DATE he underwent an electrocardiogram , which revealed hypertrophy of the left ventricle of his heart and myocardium insufficiency . The prison doctor recommended in - patient care .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from the detention facility to hospital no . CARDINAL of medical ward no . CARDINAL of ORG ( \u201c prison hospital no . CARDINAL \u201d ) . An electrocardiogram and blood and urine tests were performed in the hospital , leading to diagnosis of third - stage hypertension , third - stage arterial hypertension , coronary disease , firstdegree angina pectoris , sclerotic kidney , fourth - stage chronic kidney disease , and chronic renal insufficiency of the second degree . He was prescribed drug therapy comprising enalapril , aspirin , spironolactone and other medication .","On DATE following his admission to the hospital , the applicant made a written refusal to receive injections of hypotensive medication , arguing that they could lead to a sharp drop in his blood pressure .","The applicant \u2019s clinical records show that he received drug treatment for hypertension in the hospital . His blood pressure and body temperature were regularly monitored .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from the hospital and transferred to facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The discharge certificate indicated that his treatment had not produced the expected results , with the applicant \u2019s arterial blood pressure remaining at a high level . It recommended a consultation with a cardiologist and a nephrologist in order to adjust his treatment .","DATE , on DATE , the applicant was taken to hospital no . CARDINAL of medical ward no . CARDINAL of ORG ( \u201c prison hospital no . CARDINAL \u201d ) , where he was examined by several doctors , including a cardiologist and a nephrologist . He underwent several medical examinations , which revealed that his angina pectoris had progressed to the third stage . He was also diagnosed with firstdegree encephalopathy of mixed genesis . His antihypertensive drugs regimen was adjusted accordingly . The doctors recommended regular monitoring of his blood pressure , creatinine and urea levels . The applicant was certified as having a third - degree disability on DATE .","In DATE , the applicant \u2019s wife , anticipating his discharge from the hospital , complained to the head of ORG of ORG in GPE and GPE Region and to ORG that the applicant \u2019s medical treatment had been inadequate and about his impending transfer from the hospital to a temporary detention facility . On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . The complaint to ORG of ORG was also unsuccessful .","On DATE the applicant was sent back to facility no . IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL . He was seen by a therapist . His treatment continued as prescribed in the hospital .","On DATE an independent cardiologist , PERSON , chosen by the applicant \u2019s wife , issued a report assessing the quality of the applicant \u2019s treatment in detention . He observed that the applicant \u2019s health , and in particular his heart condition , had deteriorated while in detention . He noted that after the arrest the applicant had not been given medication or appropriate dietary nutrition . Serious emotional conditions aggravated by the incarceration had also contributed to the deterioration of his health and increased the risk of a stroke , fatal heart attack or kidney failure . PERSON recommended dietary nutrition , basic treatment and regular monitoring of the applicant with a view to adjusting his drug therapy if necessary . These and the subsequent recommendations of PERSON were submitted to the authorities by the applicant \u2019s lawyer or wife and appear to have been included in his medical file .","On DATE a prison doctor ordered the applicant \u2019s medical examination . DATE the applicant underwent a biochemical blood test and a urine test . His diagnosis was re - confirmed and the doctor recommended continuing his treatment with hypotensive drugs .","On DATE Dr F. prepared a new report pertaining to the quality of the applicant \u2019s treatment . He suggested that the applicant \u2019s hypertension may have become drug - resistant and that a kidney tomography examination with a contrast agent was necessary in order to choose the correct treatment regimen .","DATE the applicant was taken back to prison hospital no . CARDINAL . A number of medical examinations and tests revealed that he was also suffering from renal hypoplasia and chronic latent pyelonephritis .","NORP The applicant subsequently acquired an acute respiratory infection and was prescribed treatment for it . This led to a change in his hypertension therapy , primarily by decreasing the dosage and excluding certain drugs . His angina pectoris attacks became worse , and he was transferred to hospital no . CARDINAL where his condition was brought under control . He was given , among other drugs , high dosages of anticoagulants . He was discharged from the hospital on DATE on condition that he remained on the prescribed drug regimen and that his blood pressure and creatinine and urea levels were regularly monitored .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The records submitted to ORG do not indicate what drugs or other treatment the applicant received during this period .","In the meantime , in DATE PERSON studied the applicant \u2019s clinical records and recommended that he undergo a coronary angiography examination , as well as haemodialysis to define the correct treatment and to prevent possible progress of his kidney disease .","On DATE the applicant was taken back to hospital no . CARDINAL with a view to adjusting his treatment .","DATE Dr F. , an independent nephrologist , PERSON , and the head of the prison hospital examined the applicant in the hospital . They recorded a further deterioration of his heart and kidney functions and suggested that his treatment with anticoagulants might be incorrect given the high risk of heart failure or internal hemorrhage . The doctors recommended that he undergo a coronary angiography examination and a renal tomography or GPE ultrasound examination .","Another examination of the applicant by PERSON and an independent cardiologist , PERSON , on DATE led to the following opinion : the applicant had received adequate hypotensive therapy , which had nevertheless resulted in the aggravation of his hypercreatinemia . They observed that the coronary disease had started prevailing over the remaining diseases and suggested that the applicant \u2019s therapy should be based on regular treatment with anti - aggregants , nitrates and statins . The doctors stressed that there was a high risk of the applicant \u2019s condition deteriorating and leading to his death as a result of heart failure , a stroke or myocardial infarction , should prison medical personnel fail to perform a coronary angiography examination or surgery .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was discharged from the hospital and transferred to temporary detention facility no . GPE in GPE ( \u201c facility no . NORP \u201d ) .","On DATE the investigative authorities ordered the applicant \u2019s expert examination . A medical commission was to answer several questions , including whether the applicant \u2019s diseases posed a threat to his life and whether his further detention was compatible with his condition . According to expert report no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was suffering from third - degree hypertension , third - stage arterial hypertension , chronic heart insufficiency of the second degree , first - degree chronic venous insufficiency , chronic coronary disease , second - degree angina pectoris , sclerotic kidney , second - stage chronic renal insufficiency , the initial stage of cerebral atherosclerosis , and dyscirculatory encephalopathy of the first degree . The commission stated that those illnesses required constant monitoring and adequate drug therapy . Any breach of his treatment regimen could induce life - threatening complications . The commission nevertheless concluded that the applicant \u2019s condition did not warrant his release from detention .","At DATE the applicant wrote a note refusing CARDINAL injections and intravenous therapy and stating that he had lost trust in the attending medical personnel . On CARDINAL occasion in DATE he refused to take a certain medicine , having noted that he had already taken similar drugs DATE .","On DATE the applicant was examined by PERSON , who observed that the authorities had failed to give him necessary drugs and that the applicant \u2019s relatives had had to step in and supply the prescribed medication . He nevertheless noted positive changes in his state of health . Dr PERSON again strongly insisted that the applicant needed to undergo a coronary angiography examination .","The applicant \u2019s wife complained to ORG NORP President in the North - West Federal Circuit of the applicant \u2019s poor treatment in detention . The complaint was to no avail . She also complained to GPE Ombudsman . On DATE the ORG recommended that the applicant \u2019s wife complain before the courts , apply for the applicant \u2019s early release on medical grounds , or complain to the administration of the detention facility .","On DATE and DATE PERSON and a doctor from facility no . IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL examined the applicant . In their joint report they noted that for a considerable amount of time the applicant had not received even basic vital medication because none had been available in the detention facility . In particular , the applicant did not receive spironolactone , aliskiren , clopidogrel and isosorbide mononitrate . Only the latter drug was substituted with analogous medication . The applicant \u2019s hypertension and coronary disease had deteriorated . The CARDINAL doctors therefore recommended his admission to hospital .","On DATE the applicant was examined by PERSON , who found that his kidney disease had progressed to stage DATE . The doctor stressed that an angiography examination at that stage of the development of the applicant \u2019s illness posed a risk of irreparable damage to the applicant \u2019s kidneys . However , the risk of heart failure was even higher , and therefore an angiogram was vital .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG of GPE for a coronary angiography examination . He underwent a number of tests in the hospital . A coronary angiography examination performed on DATE revealed PERCENT arterial stenosis . The discharge certificate of CARDINAL DATE prescribed the installation of a coronary stent . The surgery was to be performed in due course .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to prison hospital no . CARDINAL , where he underwent various medical tests and examinations .","In a report prepared after the applicant \u2019s examination on DATE , PERSON and the head of the prison hospital stated that he had not received any statins . The absence of this drug had caused an increase in the applicant \u2019s cholesterol level and deterioration in the lipid metabolism indices . In addition , the doctors observed that the applicant \u2019s renal protective therapy had been insufficient and his blood pressure had not been monitored regularly . As a result , his kidney disease had progressed .","On DATE in the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant , the trial court ordered his expert examination with a view to updating the information about his state of health , particularly in the light of the results of his coronary angiography examination . In a report issued on CARDINAL DATE experts confirmed that there was a high risk of heart complications , including lethal ones . They noted that the applicant \u2019s state of health called for vascular surgery , drug treatment and the limitation of stress .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from the hospital for a \u201c breach of regimen \u201d , namely his refusal to be examined by CARDINAL doctors . He continued his treatment as an outpatient .","On DATE the applicant was readmitted to prison hospital no . CARDINAL .","In DATE PERSON and PERSON again assessed the quality of the medical treatment provided to the applicant . They concluded that he had received adequate treatment , that he was in need of endovascular surgery and that his impending transfer to a correctional colony would be incompatible with his state of health .","The applicant spent DATE in hospital no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant was sent to a correctional colony in GPE to serve his sentence .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant \u2019s wife complained to ORG , ORG for the Execution of Sentences , medical ward no . CARDINAL and other authorities of the continuous failure to properly diagnose and treat her husband . She received no response .","On DATE , after DATE on the road , the applicant reached correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( \u201c colony no . CARDINAL \u201d ) . On admission he was seen by a doctor who confirmed his diagnoses and prescribed clinical blood and urine tests , an electrocardiogram , and examinations by a therapist , a cardiologist and a psychiatrist . DATE , the applicant was prescribed basic drugs for coronary heart disease and hypertension . On DATE he was examined by a psychiatrist , who did not find any acute pathology .","The applicant was admitted to prison hospital no . DATE , where he spent DATE of DATE . He was seen by a doctor and again underwent various medical examinations , including blood and urine tests , electrocardiography and ultrasound tests . His diagnoses were confirmed and dietary nutrition and a specific drug regimen were prescribed .","From DATE the applicant was admitted to medical ward no . CARDINAL of the correctional colony . A doctor monitored his health and adjusted his treatment regimen .","The applicant spent DATE in transit between several detention facilities . At that time he contracted acute pharyngitis , which was successfully treated .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s health significantly deteriorated and he was admitted to the therapeutic department of medical ward no . CARDINAL . Tests revealed that he had kidney stones and a benign liver tumour . The applicant \u2019s drug regimen was amended . His condition was considered to have been stabilised .","The discharge report issued to the applicant upon his discharge from the medical ward on CARDINAL DATE indicated that he was to consult a heart surgeon and a nephrologist .","According to the applicant , following his discharge from the ward he was immediately sent to GPE for the recommended examinations . The journey took over DATE .","On DATE a nephrologist and a heart surgeon examined the applicant and diagnosed him with second - degree chronic renal insufficiency , coronary disease , third - degree angina pectoris and atherosclerosis of the arterial vessels . Symptomatic treatment was prescribed for his kidney disease . A coronary angiography examination was also to be performed . In addition , the neurologist noted that the applicant \u2019s state of health did not require haemodialysis .","On DATE the applicant underwent a coronary angiography examination in GPE Town hospital . It revealed up to PERCENT arterial stenosis with an unstable atherosclerosis plaque . Doctors authorised and immediately performed an urgent coronary angioplasty and a coronary stent was installed . The surgery was successful ."],"violated_articles":["13"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173607","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"KOM\u0160O v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Her application was lodged on CARDINAL DATE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Ms \u0160.Sta\u017enik .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant moved with her husband and CARDINAL children from PERSON in GPE to GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb ORG ; \u201c the welfare centre \u201d ) for welfare benefits ( pravo na pomo\u0107 za uzdr\u017eavanje ) . She stated that she was unemployed with no income and had CARDINAL children who were still minors .","On DATE a social worker warned the applicant about the need to provide accurate information about her assets and the obligation to report any changes to the welfare centre .","On DATE the welfare centre granted benefits to the applicant and her family on account of their poor financial situation .","On DATE the welfare centre received information from an anonymous source that the applicant \u2019s husband had a shop in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant informed the welfare centre about her husband \u2019s shop . She admitted it existed but argued that she had considered it to be irrelevant because it had been robbed in DATE and its earnings had been very low . The applicant was warned about the possibility of criminal and financial liability for providing false statements .","On DATE the welfare centre decided to stop her benefits . It established that the applicant and her family could provide for themselves through their own work , which in their case was the revenue from their shop . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE and she did not lodge an appeal .","On DATE , DATE , the applicant visited the welfare centre and gave a statement about repayment of the social welfare benefits received between CARDINAL March CARDINAL and DATE . She was warned that civil proceedings for reimbursement would be instituted against her . The applicant replied that she could not repay the due amount because the earnings from the shop were very low and that she and her husband planned to close it soon .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u Benkovcu ; \u201c the State Attorney \u2019s Office \u201d ) , lodged a civil action against the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) , relying on the fact that the applicant had failed to disclose that her husband owned a shop in PERSON when she had been granted welfare benefits . The State Attorney \u2019s ORG sought repayment of the CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) she had received , together with statutory default interest .","The applicant argued during the proceedings that the shop had in fact not been in operation since the robbery on DATE but that her husband had not been able to close it because of unsettled tax liabilities . She stated that they had not had the means to support themselves and their children .","At a hearing on DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked for financial information on the husband \u2019s shop to be obtained from ORG in order to assess whether the applicant had satisfied the statutory requirements for welfare benefits . The applicant \u2019s lawyer did not provide any reasons why he or the applicant had not been able to obtain the document from the authorities of GPE , nor did he claim that . The first - instance court dismissed the proposal , considering it to be aimed at delaying the proceedings because the data would have had to be requested from GPE and GPE via the diplomatic service . The first - instance court pointed out that the applicant had had more than enough time since the institution of the proceedings to obtain the data in question if she deemed it relevant . At the same hearing the court also heard evidence , at the request of the applicant , from the director of the welfare centre , PERSON","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG Attorney \u2019s claim because the applicant had not been given an opportunity to repay the money within a specified time - limit .","On DATE , upon an appeal by ORG , ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the first - instance decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration .","The court held CARDINAL hearings in the new proceedings . At a hearing on DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted a certificate from the regional tax office in PERSON dated DATE on the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s unpaid tax liabilities . The State Attorney \u2019s ORG argued that the document was irrelevant because a certificate on unpaid tax liabilities could not be proof of earnings .","At a hearing held on DATE the first - instance court heard evidence from the applicant \u2019s husband at the request of the applicant . He stated that his wife had not disclosed information about their shop because she had been afraid it would prevent them from receiving welfare benefits . At the same hearing the first - instance court dismissed an application from the applicant to be heard in person because it held that she had submitted all her observations in her reply to the claim and that her request to give evidence was aimed at delaying the proceedings . The applicant \u2019s lawyer had no further evidence and the first - instance court concluded the hearing .","On DATE ORG granted the claim and ordered the applicant to reimburse to the ORG HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL , together with statutory default interest , and to pay HRK CARDINAL in costs and expenses for the proceedings . It held that while the applicant \u2019s statements about her husband \u2019s shop might in fact have been true , the fact remained that she had not disclosed that information voluntarily and had therefore fraudulently , and undoubtedly unlawfully , obtained social welfare benefits which the court could not make lawful .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , reiterating her previous arguments . She stated that her husband had owned the shop at issue , not her , and that she had only been employed in her husband \u2019s business , which had been ruined by the robbery .","On DATE ORG , relying on LAW , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on the grounds that she had not disclosed the fact that her husband had owned a shop , and that her arguments concerning the actual state of the business and her poor financial situation were of no relevance .","The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , alleging that her right to a fair hearing had been violated because the first - instance court had disregarded her request to obtain the data on her husband \u2019s shop from ORG , thus failing to correctly establish all the circumstances of her case . She also alleged that she had been discriminated against .","On DATE ORG declared her complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded .","NORP The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o parni\u010dnom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE consolidated text ) , as in force at the material time , provided as follows :","\u201c Each party is obliged to provide facts and present evidence on which his or her claim is based or to refute the statements and evidence of his or her opponent .","... \u201d","\u201c Parties referring to a document as proof of a statement are obliged to submit that document themselves .","...","If the document is in the possession of a state authority or a legal or physical person vested with public authority , and the party is not able to arrange for the document to be handed over or shown , the court shall itself obtain the document upon a motion by the party . \u201d","The relevant provision of LAW ( Zakon o socijalnoj skrbi , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , as in force at the material time , provided as follows :","\u201c A beneficiary who was granted allowance on the basis of a decision of ORG shall compensate the damage if :","- on the basis of false or inaccurate data which he or she knew or should have known to be false or inaccurate , or in some other unlawful manner , he or she was granted an allowance to which he or she was not entitled , or he or she was granted this allowance in an amount greater than the amount to which he or she was entitled ,","- he or she was granted an allowance because he or she failed to report a change that affects the loss or the scope of the entitlement , and he or she knew or should have known about this change . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164724","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"PAKSOY AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON ( Birol ) , PERSON ( PERSON ) , PERSON ( NORP ) , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are QUANTITY NORP nationals . They were born in DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They were represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","s , may be summarised as follows .","A plot of land in Avc\u0131lar , in LOC , was registered in the land register as plot no . CARDINAL , parcel no . DATE , in the name of PERSON and PERSON , the applicants\u2019 predecessors .","In DATE , the plot of land in question was designated as a primary school area in the local land development plan . The designation of the plot of land remained unchanged in subsequent plans drawn up DATE .","On DATE the applicants applied to the municipality to have the local land development plan altered . On DATE the municipality rejected the ORG request .","On DATE the applicants instituted proceedings before ORG seeking to have the local land development plan annulled . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 case .","On DATE the applicants instituted another set of proceedings before ORG , claiming compensation for the decrease in the market value of the land and the long - term uncertainty about the fate of the land . On DATE the court dismissed the case , holding that the authorities had not seized the land in question . An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the applicants were subsequently rejected by ORG , and the decision became final on DATE .","According to section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , land can not be used for any purpose other than that indicated in the local land development plans .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the same LAW provides that the municipalities should prepare their DATE zoning programmes within DATE of the entry into force of local land development plans . Land which falls within those programmes and which is accordingly assigned to the relevant public administrative authorities should be expropriated during the period in question . A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The object of PERSON no . DATE was to provide for the settlement , by means of compensation , of applications lodged with the ORG concerning length of judicial proceedings , and non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions . A Compensation Commission was set up for that purpose . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The competence ratione materiae of ORG was subsequently extended by a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended the competence of ORG to the examination of other complaints , such as alleged restriction of the right of detainees to correspondence in a language other than NORP and the prison authorities\u2019 refusal , on different grounds , to hand over periodicals . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","ORG issued a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended anew the competence ratione materiae of ORG .","ORG is now entitled to examine the following subjects under LAW decree , which reads as follows :","\u201c a ) ORG concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant \u2019s title deeds because his or her land was classified as part of the public forest area , or as a result of the application of section CARDINAL\/B of Law no . CARDINAL , or because the land was classified as part of the public forest area in cadastral surveys ;","b ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant \u2019s title deeds because the impugned land was classified as located within a coastal area ;","c ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the allocation of the impugned land for public use in local land development plans ;","d ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of an applicant \u2019s right to private and family life on account of the respective disciplinary sanctions imposed on detainees and convicted persons by the prison authorities ;","e ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of the right to respect for correspondence on account of the prison administration \u2019s refusal to receive or send letters or similar correspondence drafted in NORP . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182222","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF GULIYEV AND SHEINA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants , who are married , were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The second applicant lives in PERSON ; prior to his expulsion in DATE , the first applicant also lived there .","On an unspecified date in DATE or DATE the first applicant arrived in GPE . It is unclear on what legal basis he resided there . He never applied for a residence permit or NORP nationality .","At some point in DATE the first applicant started living with the second applicant . The Government did not dispute that fact .","The Government submitted that in DATE the first applicant was fined MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) for a breach of LAW ( living on NORP territory without a valid residence permit or non - compliance with the established procedure for residence registration ) .","NORP In DATE and DATE the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL children , PERSON and PERSON , respectively , were born . The first applicant was not officially registered as their father , however , both children had his name indicated on the birth certificates as their patronym .","On DATE the first applicant arrived in GPE from GPE . Under the bilateral visa - free agreement of DATE between the countries , his stay was authorised until DATE .","On DATE the applicants concluded a religious marriage in the NORP congregational mosque and continued to reside together in PERSON . They furnished the ORG with a copy of the marriage certificate .","It can be seen from the case documents that on DATE the first applicant was shot in the left leg . As a result of the gunshot wound he was hospitalised and underwent several operations . He was released from hospital on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant was detained by the police for a breach of LAW on account of his failure to apply for a renewal of his period of authorised stay , which had expired on DATE . In his statement to the police , which was submitted to ORG in PERSON on DATE , the first applicant stated that he had been living in GPE for DATE , that he resided with the second applicant as a family and that they had CARDINAL children . He further stated that they had not officially registered their marriage and his paternity in respect of the children had not yet been officially established . He explained that he had overstayed the term of the authorised stay as he had been shot in the leg on DATE , which had resulted in several operations and his admission to hospital , ending on DATE ; doctors had recommended that he not stay seated for TIME and that considering that the trip to the border with GPE took TIME , he had decided to stay in GPE until the injury had completely healed .","On DATE ORG in PERSON ordered that the first applicant be fined RUB CARDINAL and that he be subjected to administrative removal ( expulsion ) from GPE to GPE , which also implied a subsequent DATE entry ban . The court stated , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c [ ... ] as can be seen from the documents that have been submitted , [ the applicant ] Mr PERSON has stayed in GPE without lawful grounds from DATE to CARDINAL DATE [ ... ]","\u2019s character : ... the applicant has never had administrative proceedings opened against him and has fully admitted his guilt in the commission of the administrative offence . The court finds it necessary to choose an administrative fine with subsequent administrative removal from the country as he has been residing in GPE without a legal basis and without having a work permit . When choosing the punishment the court is unable to take into account Mr ORG \u2019s minor children as he has not legally registered his paternity in respect of them ... \u201d","The first applicant appealed against the decision , alleging that his removal and DATE re - entry ban would constitute a disproportionate measure in view of his family life with the second applicant and their children . In particular , he stated that his wife , the second applicant , was pregnant with their third child , that they had CARDINAL children , that he was the family \u2019s breadwinner and that the leg injury had precluded him from regularising his stay in GPE in a timely manner .","On DATE the first applicant was officially registered as the father of the minors GPE and ORG","On DATE ORG examined the appeal and upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE stating , amongst other things , as follows :","\u201c [ ... ] in the appeal the applicant \u2019s representative requested that the court change the decision by excluding administrative removal from the punishment . Mr PERSON lives with PERSON , he has CARDINAL dependent children , and he is the sole breadwinner for the family . Mr PERSON \u2019s paternity has been officially registered and confirmed by evidence . Presently PERSON is pregnant with Mr PERSON \u2019s third child in respect of whom he would also establish paternity ... [ he ] believes that administrative removal and its negative consequences would violate his right to respect for his family life ...","[ ... ] as can be seen from the case file , the applicant has been unlawfully residing in GPE for DATE . There are no reasons to believe that the applicant was prevented from leaving the country for a long time . The applicant \u2019s statement and that of PERSON that he was not able to move around owing to the injury have not been confirmed by relevant evidence ... the case file contains documents showing that the applicant was hospitalised from DATE with a fracture of the left hip ... it was recommended that he minimise the burden on the leg for DATE after the release from hospital . Other documents demonstrating that his mobility was limited have not been submitted to the court ...","The administrative punishment has been chosen in respect of Mr Guliyev in accordance with LAW and is the minimum prescribed by paragraph CARDINAL of part CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of LAW , according to which administrative removal represents a compulsory element of the punishment along with an administrative fine .","The kind of exceptional circumstances which could serve as a basis for excluding that type of punishment in accordance with international law are not present in this case ...","... There are no convincing arguments which would enable the court to conclude that Mr ORG intends to permanently reside in GPE , obtain the right to temporary residence and ( or ) acquire NORP citizenship .","The marriage with PERSON has not been officially registered ... paternity in respect of the CARDINAL minors [ PERSON and ORG ] was established after ORG decision to administratively remove Mr Guliyev ... in connection with that the certificates of paternity provided to this court can not be taken into account . There are no reasons to believe that Mr PERSON had not had the opportunity prior to that to register his marriage with PERSON and the paternity ... it is impossible to conclude from the case file that Mr PERSON \u2019s income is the only source of income for Ms PERSON and the minor children ... \u201d","The applicants officially registered their marriage on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant was expelled from GPE .","On DATE ORG upheld by supervisory review the first applicant \u2019s removal .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 third child , GPE . , was born . He remained in the intensive care unit owing to a congenital heart condition .","On DATE the applicants lodged a request for the application of Rule CARDINAL of ORG , asking the ORG to take measures to lift the first applicant \u2019s re - entry ban in order to enable him to visit his child in hospital .","On DATE the ORG refused to grant the interim measure and asked for factual information from the Government .","On DATE the Government informed ORG . had a very serious heart condition , that he was being treated in intensive care and that his state of health prevented him from travelling . The Government further stated that domestic legal provisions did not provide for any exceptions to the DATE re - entry ban ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141174","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF B\u0112RZI\u0145\u0160 v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The Department for ORG ( Organiz\u0113t\u0101s noziedz\u012bbas apkaro\u0161anas p\u0101rvalde ) received information regarding the applicant \u2019s alleged involvement in the sale of drugs . The department initiated a covert investigative measure , namely a test purchase of drugs . This measure was carried out on CARDINAL and DATE .","After the test purchase on DATE a police patrol unit working with officers from ORG stopped a vehicle being driven by NORP in which the applicant was a passenger , at TIME near GPE city centre . The applicant was apprehended and taken to ORG premises .","The applicant submitted that he had been repeatedly hit on the head , hit several times on the back , knocked down on to the pavement and pushed , which had resulted in bodily injuries . He had not offered any resistance .","In the ORG \u2019s version of events GPE , a police officer , opened the front passenger door and pulled the applicant out of the vehicle by his clothing . The applicant fell on to the edge of the pavement . He was then placed face down on the pavement and handcuffed .","The Government noted that while on ORG premises the applicant had complained of chest pain , saying he had heart disease .","At around TIME the applicant was transported from the LOC of ORG by the emergency medical service to the hospital . Head of the emergency medical service unit made an entry in form no . CARDINAL , as follows : \u201c Abdominal contusion ( sasitums ) . Acute gastritis ? Facial contusion with skin abrasions ( nobr\u0101zumi ) . \u201d","NORP The applicant was admitted to GPE no . ORG at TIME The applicant \u2019s medical record indicated the following diagnosis on admission : \u201c Head , thorax and abdominal contusion . \u201d","The entry made following the applicant \u2019s examination by a surgeon at TIME indicated the same diagnosis and the applicant \u2019s complaint : \u201c The patient was beaten up during the arrest DATE . \u201d","Further , at TIME a neurosurgeon recorded that the applicant had an eyelid haematoma around his left eye . The doctor also noted that the applicant had said that during his arrest he had fallen and hit his head in the area of the right eyebrow .","At TIME the applicant was referred to be tested for narcotic and psychotropic substances . The applicant was found not to be under the influence of alcohol , narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances .","On DATE , CARDINAL TIME and TIME , PERSON , a chief specialist from ORG questioned the applicant as a suspect . The applicant indicated that he wished to make a statement in the presence of a lawyer .","At TIME the applicant was transferred to a temporary detention facility , where he stayed until DATE , during which time he did not seek any medical assistance .","On DATE between TIME and TIME PERSON questioned the applicant in the presence of a lawyer . The applicant made a statement , the record of the relevant part of which is as follows :","\u201c ... While being arrested on DATE [ the applicant ] was pulled out of the vehicle , a jacket was pulled over [ his ] head and [ he ] was pushed on to the ground . [ He ] then received CARDINAL to CARDINAL blows to the head and CARDINAL blow to the abdomen . [ The applicant ] does not recall the precise number of blows he received . [ He ] did not lose consciousness . The blows were [ inflicted ] with a hard , blunt object . \u201d","In the context of the interrogation of the applicant described above , the Government put to the ORG that no complaints or requests had been raised by the applicant or his lawyer . Notwithstanding , a forensic examination of the applicant had been arranged .","Accordingly , on DATE PERSON ordered an expert report to ascertain what injuries had been sustained by the applicant , in view of the applicant \u2019s statement that while being arrested he had been kicked on the body and head . The order stated that it had been issued as part of a criminal investigation of unauthorised acquisition , possession and sale of psychotropic substances .","On DATE an expert examined the applicant . In the expert \u2019s report the following information the applicant had provided was recorded :","\u201c On DATE during the arrest police officers in uniforms placed a jacket over [ his ] head , hit [ him ] on the head [ and ] abdomen with something [ and he ] fell down . It is impossible to tell with accuracy whether the abrasions on [ his ] legs were caused by the fall or a blow . [ He ] had nausea [ but ] did not vomit . [ He ] did not lose consciousness ... \u201d","The expert \u2019s report of DATE described the applicant \u2019s condition as follows :","\u201c A haematoma QUANTITY on the upper eyelid of the left eye ... an abrasion QUANTITY in the middle area of the right cheek ... no visible injuries on the body found ... CARDINAL abrasions from QUANTITY x QUANTITY to QUANTITY on the front surface of the left knee joint and on the front surface of the left lower leg ... a haematoma QUANTITY on the front surface of the left lower leg . \u201d","On DATE the expert recorded in her report that the applicant \u2019s medical records should be requested from GPE no . ORG . On DATE the Department for ORG issued a request to GPE no . ORG for the applicant \u2019s medical records .","On DATE the expert added in the same report her conclusions based on the applicant \u2019s examination and the data contained in his medical documentation . In particular :","\u201c [ The applicant ] has the following injuries \u2013 a contusion on the head with subdermal haematoma and skin abrasion , and a contusion on the left leg with subdermal haematoma and skin abrasions .","These injuries could have been caused by hard , blunt objects .","The possibility can not be ruled out that the injuries were caused in the circumstances indicated in the decision and by [ the applicant ] , and on DATE .","The injuries ... are light injuries , which do not cause short - term health impairment for a period of time of DATE .","The diagnosis of \u2018 head , thorax and abdominal contusion\u2019 can not be taken into account in the assessment of the gravity of the injuries , because it has not been affirmed by impartial clinical data , in - patient ( stacion\u0101r\u0101 ) inspection and examination ( visible injuries are not described in the medical history and were not found in the course of the forensic examination ) . \u201d","NORP The applicant stated in his appeal of DATE to ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) against his pre - trial detention that physical force had been applied to him during his arrest , following which he had requested medical assistance at GPE no . ORG .","On DATE officer PERSON gave a statement in the criminal investigation regarding the test purchase of drugs carried out on DATE and DATE , and stated that the applicant had been apprehended on DATE . PERSON gave evidence that the applicant had not been apprehended immediately after the purchase , because it was necessary to ascertain whether the applicant had been working with anyone else .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the pre - trial detention and decided to keep the applicant in custody . ORG in the decision referred to the applicant \u2019s argument contained in his appeal , including the following :","\u201c ... police employees beat up [ the applicant ] when they arrested him ; as a result he needed hospital treatment ...","In court [ the applicant ] and his lawyer ... maintained the appeal ... \u201d","On DATE ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) found the applicant guilty of unauthorised acquisition , possession and transport of narcotic and psychotropic substances on a large scale , with intent to sell . He was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , as an aggregated term , with confiscation of property and police control for DATE .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas GPE tiesu pal\u0101ta ) upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal . Further , on DATE the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas PERSON ) rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","On DATE the applicant made representation to ORG about ill - treatment during his arrest on DATE . ORG transmitted the request to ORG of ORG ( NORP policijas PERSON dro\u0161\u012bbas birojs ) .","The applicant submitted to ORG a copy of a letter from ORG of ORG , dated DATE . It was sent in response to the applicant \u2019s submission of CARDINAL DATE , mentioned above . The letter stated that the human resources inspection division had requested information from the emergency medical service about the call made to them on DATE . However , the applicable regulations required records of emergency calls to be kept for a period of one year . It followed from the applicant \u2019s medical records at GPE no . ORG that on DATE the applicant had been diagnosed with head and thorax contusions and that he had told medical staff that he had fallen and hit his head while being arrested . While in the temporary detention facility CARDINAL and DATE the applicant had not asked for medical assistance .","NORP The letter indicated as follows :","\u201c ... in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the Police a police employee could not be held responsible for pecuniary or physical harm , caused within the official authority , to an offender who did not comply or who resisted during arrest . \u201d","The answer concluded that ORG employees had not violated the relevant statutes .","In DATE ORG collected reports ( zi\u0146ojumi ) from GPE , GPE and PERSON , officers of ORG .","PERSON , in a report of DATE , indicated that on DATE in question he had been working with a team of traffic police officers . Their task had been to intercept the applicant \u2019s vehicle after the test purchase of drugs . Once they had received information about the vehicle with the applicant as a passenger inside , a traffic police employee had stopped the vehicle and invited the driver to step out . At this time other department officers arrived and arrested the applicant . ORG could not remember the arresting officer or subsequent proceedings with respect to the applicant .","NORP The department officer PERSON stated in his report of DATE that the applicant \u2019s arrest had been carried out by PERSON He also indicated that the applicant had not been ill - treated . The applicant had complained of heart problems while on department LOC and an ambulance had been called . An examination by a doctor revealed no health problems and the applicant was then questioned .","In his report of DATE department officer PERSON declared that he had arrived at the scene after the applicant had been arrested . PERSON could not remember who the arresting officer was . According to PERSON the applicant had been transported to department LOC . Police officers had not ill - treated the applicant in PERSON \u2019s presence and he had not seen any injuries .","In addition to these reports , ORG of ORG obtained on DATE evidence from the temporary detention unit . This indicated that the applicant had not requested medical assistance between CARDINAL and DATE . On DATE that office also requested the applicant \u2019s medical file from GPE no . ORG .","Following the applicant \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE to ORG to submit information about ill - treatment , a prosecutor took a statement from him on DATE . The applicant indicated that he wished to provide more details about what had happened on DATE . The statement included the following :","\u201c TIME of CARDINAL March CARDINAL ... [ the applicant ] was in the vehicle ... as a passenger ... The vehicle was stopped by traffic police ... [ The applicant \u2019s ] colleague was invited to the police vehicle ... the passenger door on [ the applicant \u2019s ] side opened and [ he ] received a hard blow to the head ... the blow pushed him towards the driver \u2019s seat and [ he ] heard shouts not to move and received several blows on the back ... the same person who had hit [ him then ] grabbed [ him ] by [ his ] jacket and pulled [ him ] out of the vehicle . The jacket was placed over [ his ] head ... CARDINAL of the blows knocked [ him ] off his feet , as a result of which [ he ] fell face down with his abdomen on the edge of the pavement . Thereafter a couple of blows followed on [ his ] body . Everything happened very fast ... [ The applicant ] heard people passing by saying \u2018 What are you doing?\u2019 ... [ he ] was handcuffed ... in the police vehicle [ he ] was hit on the body ... [ The applicant ] would be able to recognise the police officer who inflicted the blows ... No physical ill - treatment was inflicted on him at the police station ... After some time ... [ the applicant ] felt ill ... [ he ] even lost consciousness in the police station ... \u201d","In the statement the applicant requested that an investigation be conducted and criminal proceedings initiated in respect of the infliction of the injuries , because there had been no reason to resort to violence during the arrest .","The statement was sent for decision to ORG of ORG .","On DATE ORG , a senior inspector of the pre - trial investigation division of ORG of ORG , refused to initiate criminal proceedings . This decision , referred to by the Government , did not elaborate reasons for the refusal .","The applicant appealed against the refusal to ORG ) .","On DATE PERSON , acting as chief prosecutor of the pre - trial investigation and oversight division , quashed the decision as ungrounded and ordered that ORG of ORG conduct an additional inquiry . His finding read :","\u201c The decision has been adopted on the basis of an incomplete examination ... without requesting the expert \u2019s report and without clarifying the possible circumstances in which the injuries observed on [ the applicant ] had been sustained . \u201d","On DATE ORG of ORG requested information on the identities of the traffic police employees who had been on duty on DATE around TIME and whether they had participated in the applicant \u2019s arrest . It also asked those officers to attend ORG . In response , ORG was provided on DATE with the information that officers PERSON and GPE had carried out the arrest and that they had been advised to attend ORG .","During DATE ORG of the State Police collected explanations ( paskaidrojumi ) from CARDINAL officers , GPE , GPE and GPE , officers of ORG , and PERSON and GPE , officers of the police patrol unit .","NORP In particular , further statements were taken from GPE and GPE on DATE . Their explanations were broadly the same as those they had made previously , on CARDINAL and DATE respectively . PERSON repeated , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s arrest had been made by GPE and that the applicant had not been ill - treated . PERSON again gave evidence that he had no recollection of the identity of the arresting officer or of further proceedings with regard to the applicant . On DATE CARDINAL PERSON gave his explanation as follows :","\u201c On DATE a covert measure of investigation was implemented ... Following the experiment [ V.V. ] received an instruction to apprehend [ the applicant ] ... when the traffic police officers stopped the vehicle ... [ V.V. ] approached the vehicle ... and opened the front passenger door . [ The applicant ] was just then reaching to close the driver \u2019s door , which had been left open . A traffic police employee was at the driver \u2019s door . [ V.V. ] identified himself as a police employee and invited [ the applicant ] to step out of the vehicle . [ V.V. ] does not remember exactly whether [ the applicant ] was handcuffed and which of the colleagues assisted in [ the applicant \u2019s ] arrest . Following [ his ] arrest [ he ] was taken to ORG ... but [ V.V. ] does not remember who took him there . [ The applicant ] was not subjected to any physical violence when he was arrested , because there was no need to apply physical force . \u201d","B.M. and GPE , officers of the police patrol unit gave explanations on DATE respectively . They both stated that on DATE they had been on duty and had been asked to drive to ORG and work with officers of ORG . GPE in his explanation of CARDINAL DATE specified that department employees had briefed them that it was necessary to intercept a vehicle which might contain a person whose arrest was being sought . After receiving these instructions they had left the department , with department officers . CARDINAL of them had been in their own vehicle . At TIME on the instruction of the department officers they had stopped a vehicle with a driver and a passenger inside . Both PERSON and GPE stated that PERSON had approached the driver of the vehicle and asked him to present the necessary documents . The arrest had been made by department employees and no physical force had been used , either on the applicant or the driver of the vehicle . GPE indicated that he had stayed inside the patrol vehicle while this was going on . PERSON declared that he had not seen the applicant since the arrest . The driver of the vehicle had been taken to ORG and an administrative report that he had been driving without a licence was drawn up . GPE \u2019s account stated that both the applicant and the driver had been taken to ORG .","On DATE a senior inspector of ORG of the State Police human resources inspection division issued a report on the results of the inquiry into the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s arrest on DATE .","The report stated that information from the emergency medical service and GPE no . ORG , and explanations from the officers GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE had been collected . An explanation could not be obtained from PERSON , because he did not attend ORG as agreed and later went on holiday and was unreachable by telephone . ORG had requested GPE , the driver of the vehicle in which the applicant had been a passenger when he was arrested on DATE , to attend the office . S.I. had informed the office by telephone that he was unable to attend because of the expected birth of a child and because he was too busy . ORG also said on the telephone that he had been questioned about the incident on several occasions , and that time had passed and he could not remember the precise circumstances of the applicant \u2019s arrest . S.I. did not know whether physical force had been used on the applicant , because he had stepped out of the vehicle . No physical force had been used against NORP","The report further stated :","\u201c Likewise , during the inquiry which was conducted no unequivocal and impartial evidence was obtained that police employees had used unjustified physical force on [ the applicant ] during his arrest . In this regard the police employees categorically deny any use of physical force on [ the applicant ] , whereas [ the applicant ] alleges to the contrary . Therefore , the question whether the police officers used physical force on [ the applicant ] and to what extent ( during arrest , transport for questioning , or questioning itself ) is to be examined in the pre - trial investigation division of ORG of ORG IDP GPE izmekl\u0113\u0161anas noda\u013ca ) , by taking the necessary actions in criminal procedure ( questioning and subsequent confrontation between the police employees concerned ) . \u201d","With regard to disciplinary liability the report indicated that in any event this would be barred by a period of statutory limitation .","On DATE the pre - trial investigation division of ORG of ORG refused to initiate criminal proceedings .","That decision established :","\u201c ... on DATE [ the applicant ] was justifiably arrested for a criminal offence ... All the police officers who carried out the arrest on DATE indicated that DATE had passed since the event and they could not remember precisely what had happened . The applicant did not , immediately after the arrest , express any complaints about the police employees\u2019 conduct against him . [ The applicant ] could obtain the established light injuries , which do not cause short - term health impairment for DATE , before or during the apprehension , when special measures were applied to him . It may not be asserted unequivocally that during [ the applicant \u2019s ] arrest the police employees exceeded their authority by intentionally using unjustified force , thus committing a criminal offence as set out in section ORG ) of LAW . \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against the aforementioned refusal to initiate criminal proceedings . He argued that the existence of his injuries had not been disputed and had been confirmed by the expert \u2019s report . He could not have sustained the injuries prior to the arrest because he had been arrested at TIME on DATE and admitted to GPE no . ORG at TIME DATE . The applicant pointed out that a surgeon had noted on his record \u201c was beaten up DATE \u201d . Further , the fact that police officers could not remember the circumstances of the arrest did not prove anything , and was not a justification . He also stressed that no one who could have given impartial information had been questioned .","On DATE PERSON , a prosecutor responsible for the criminal case against the applicant in respect of drug sale , gave a report that the applicant had never complained of ill - treatment by police officers during the investigation or court hearings .","On DATE ORG , as chief prosecutor of the pre - trial investigation and oversight division , confirmed the decision of ORG of ORG DATE . She noted that that office had questioned the police officers and had obtained the expert \u2019s report and information from GPE However , no unequivocal and impartial evidence had been obtained that the injuries had been caused during the arrest . ORG added the following words to her decision :","\u201c ... [ the applicant \u2019s ] account of DATE that police officers on CARDINAL March CARDINAL had hit [ him ] several times on the back has not been confirmed , because the expert \u2019s report did not establish any injuries on the back ... [ the applicant ] gave a contradictory account of how the abdominal contusion had been acquired ( not taken into account in the expert \u2019s report as not affirmed by impartial clinical data ) . On DATE [ the applicant ] stated that police officers had hit [ him ] on the abdomen during [ his ] arrest but [ he ] had not lost consciousness , however on DATE [ the applicant ] stated that the abdominal contusion had been caused by a fall on asphalt and that [ he ] had lost consciousness on the State Police premises ... It has also been established that , after being taken to GPE no . ORG at TIME on DATE and examined there by doctors , [ the applicant ] was taken to a temporary detention facility at TIME ... from which a medical report has been received that DATE [ he ] did not request medical assistance . \u201d","V.O. also indicated that there were no grounds to initiate disciplinary proceedings because no evidence had been obtained that ORG employees had exceeded their authority or abused their official position during the arrest . She also explained the period of statutory limitation for disciplinary proceedings .","V.O. stated that this decision was final ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147889","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SHALYA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder . On DATE and other dates he was additionally charged with membership in a criminal syndicate and other offences .","On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and on other dates the authorised period of the applicant \u2019s detention was extended . Each time the courts relied chiefly on the gravity of the charges against him . On DATE ORG considered and rejected , in a summary fashion , the applicant \u2019s and his co - defendants\u2019 appeals against the extension order of DATE .","The jury found the applicant not guilty of the offences he was charged with . On DATE the applicant was acquitted and released . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the acquittal on appeal .","Invoking his \u201c right to rehabilitation \u201d under LAW of LAW , the applicant brought a claim against ORG for the loss of income and reimbursement of legal fees . He did not seek any compensation for non - pecuniary damage . By judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG granted his claim in part ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174468","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"KOKY v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is detained in PERSON . Having been granted legal aid , he was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of armed robbery and theft and sentenced him to twentyfive years\u2019 imprisonment . Following an appeal by ORG , the ruling on the sentence was quashed and a new sentence of life imprisonment was imposed by ORG on DATE . On DATE the ruling became final and binding .","The relevant part of the appellate judgment may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was found guilty of an offence specified in LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) after having already in the past twice been found guilty of offences specified in that provision , with unconditional prison sentences being imposed on him . Thus , pursuant to the \u201c CARDINAL strikes \u201d rule embodied in that provision , he had to be sentenced to imprisonment for life .","\u2019s situation , and other factors , such as the level of his involvement in the preparation of and attempt to commit the offence in question and his cooperation in uncovering the offence , as well as his reduced sanity and plea bargain .","In that respect , the court of appeal found that the trial court had erred when it had accepted as fulfilling one of the conditions stipulated by LAW for the imposition of a CARDINAL - year prison sentence the fact that the applicant had used a firearm exclusively as a threat and that neither the offence in issue nor the CARDINAL earlier similar offences had attained a high degree of gravity .","More specifically , the court of appeal observed that the fact that the applicant had committed the offence while armed constituted an element of the offence in question and held that this excluded the possibility of accepting as a mitigating circumstance the fact that the firearm had only been used as a threat .","Nevertheless , the applicant twice availed himself of an extraordinary remedy DATE lodging an appeal on points of law with ORG . His first appeal of DATE was declared inadmissible on CARDINAL DATE . His second appeal was lodged on his behalf by a legal - aid lawyer after being appointed on DATE .","NORP In his second appeal , the applicant relied in particular on PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , amending LAW as of DATE . In its amended form , this provision only allowed for the imposition of a life sentence in a situation such as his if it was necessary to ensure the effective protection of society and there was no hope that a prison sentence of DATE would sufficiently ensure the convict \u2019s rehabilitation .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s second appeal , upholding the reasoning of ORG . As amendment no . PERSON . had only entered into force once the applicant \u2019s trial had been completed with final effect , it could not be relied on to improve his situation .","On DATE the applicant challenged the judgments of ORG and ORG before ORG by lodging what he considered to constitute a complaint under LAW .","He invoked mainly his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of torture , arguing that imprisonment for life was clearly a disproportionate sentence , given the circumstances of his case .","Moreover , he contended that the higher courts\u2019 conclusions regarding the presence of any circumstances justifying the imposition of a CARDINAL - year sentence had been arbitrary , partly because they had assessed some of the relevant facts erroneously and partly because they had failed to assess some of them at all .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE a single ORG judge informed the applicant under LAW of LAW that his submission could not be dealt with as it clearly fell short of the requirements for a constitutional complaint .","The applicant \u2019s subsequent request for the re - opening of his proceedings was dismissed by ORG on DATE and , following the applicant \u2019s interlocutory appeal , by ORG on DATE .","Release on parole is governed by the provisions of Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL allows for release on parole where a convicted prisoner \u2019s behaviour and compliance with the obligations imposed demonstrate his or her rehabilitation and where that prisoner can be expected to behave properly .","Under LAW , a whole - life prisoner can be released on parole after having served CARDINAL of the sentence .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , as in force until DATE , prohibited the conditional release of persons ( i ) repeatedly sentenced to life imprisonment , or ( ii ) who were sentenced to life imprisonment under LAW of LAW .","As from DATE , reference to the latter category of convicts was deleted from that provision by virtue of the above - mentioned PERSON no CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP In proceedings brought under file no . PL . \u00daS CARDINAL on DATE , ORG asked ORG to examine whether Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and QUANTITY of LAW ( as in force at that time ) were in conformity with LAW and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings in respect of the latter provision with reference to amendment no . PERSON .","A majority of judges then concluded that LAW was not contrary to LAW . It was admitted that in a small number of cases the effects of that provision reached the limits of conformity with LAW from the viewpoint of their proportionality . Emphasis was put on the fact that the amendment which had taken effect on DATE gave judges wide discretion to take into account the particular circumstances of each case .","In separate opinions CARDINAL judges disagreed with that conclusion . PERSON were expressed that LAW provided for disproportionate penalties . The offence of less serious robbery was referred to by way of example ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154372","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"P.P. v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in FAC . He was represented before the Court by Ms A. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142305","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LULI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - Measures of a general character);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["All CARDINAL applications were lodged with the ORG by the same applicants . They were initially registered under application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( not communicated to the Government ) .","After a preliminary examination of the case file and taking account of the ORG additional clarifications as well as the conduct of the domestic proceedings , it was considered necessary to divide the case into CARDINAL applications , CARDINAL additional application numbers having been allocated ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . These latter CARDINAL cases have been communicated to the Government .","The facts in respect of each application have been described below .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m , QUANTITY . m of which was restored . The applicants would have the right to first refusal ( e drejta e parablerjes ) of a further QUANTITY . m and they would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law for the remaining QUANTITY m ( \u201c the first Commission decision \u201d ) .","On DATE , ORG , consisting of the same composition , delivered another decision which bore the same number and ORG stamp ( \u201c the second Commission decision \u201d ) . According to the second decision , ORG recognised the ORG inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m , CARDINAL sq . m of which was restored . The applicants would have the right to first refusal of QUANTITY . m , no other award having been made .","On DATE ORG recognised the existence of the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m situated in the city of GPE ( vendim p\u00ebr v\u00ebrtetim fakti ) . This plot of land was made up of CARDINAL smaller plots : CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY m ( \u201c Plot A \u201d ) and the other measuring QUANTITY . m ( \u201c Plot B \u201d ) .","On an unspecified date the applicants made an application for the recognition of property rights to Plot B ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG for Compensation and ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) recognised the ORG inherited property rights to Plot B , QUANTITY . m of which was restored . The applicants would also be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law in respect of a further CARDINAL sq . m , no decision having been taken in respect of the remaining QUANTITY m.","On DATE , following the applicants\u2019 appeal , ORG in GPE ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) quashed ORG decision of DATE and remitted the case for re - examination .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights in respect of CARDINAL sq . m of Plot B , no decision having been taken in respect of the remaining QUANTITY . m. The applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law in lieu of restitution of the area of Plot B measuring QUANTITY m.","On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision of DATE . The applicants were informed of their right to appeal , within DATE of notification , to ORG .","It would appear that , following the ORG appeal , the proceedings are currently pending before ORG .","On DATE ORG , having regard to ORG decision no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , decided that it was outside of its jurisdiction to examine a decision given in a separate set of proceedings which , in DATE , had recognised a third party \u2019s inherited property rights to the plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m which the applicants alleged belonged to them .","On an unspecified date , after ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicants applied for the recognition of property rights to a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m. This plot of land , taken together with the plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m referred to in the second GPE decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , totalled Plot A.","On DATE ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights to the plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m and further restored them a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m. CARDINAL sq . m of Plot A had already been restored by virtue of the second GPE decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law for CARDINAL sq . m of ORG , no decision having been taken in respect of the remaining CARDINAL sq . m.","On DATE , following the applicants\u2019 appeal , ORG quashed ORG decision DATE and remitted the case for re - examination .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights to the plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m and further restored them a plot of land measuring CARDINAL,CARDINAL sq . QUANTITY . m of Plot A had already been restored by virtue of the second Commission decision . The applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law for CARDINAL sq . m of Plot A.","On DATE , on his own motion , ORG director quashed ORG decision of DATE and sent the case back for re - examination .","On DATE ORG offices were abolished by law and ORG was entrusted with the examination of restitution and compensation claims . No further decision appears to have been taken to date .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s property rights to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m , CARDINAL sq . m of which was restored . The applicant would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law in respect of a plot measuring CARDINAL sq . m ( t\u2019i kompesohet sip\u00ebrfaqja prej CARDINAL MONEY m\u00ebnyrat e parashikuara n\u00eb [ k\u00ebt\u00eb ] ligj ) . The ORG further recognised the applicant \u2019s right to first refusal of the remaining property .","On DATE the applicant registered her title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m in her name . However , she was unable to use that land as it was occupied by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG ordered the registration of the immovable property of ORG . However , ORG was unable to register the immovable property as the property rights had been recognised and registered in favour of the applicant .","On DATE the applicant brought civil proceedings before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) requesting ORG to vacate the plot of land measuring QUANTITY m.","On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s request . ORG appealed .","On DATE ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s decision on grounds of procedural irregularities and remitted the case for re - examination by a different bench .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision to ORG .","On DATE , following the applicant \u2019s request about the progress of her appeal , ORG informed her that the case was still pending for examination before that court .","On DATE ORG dismissed her appeal .","On DATE , in the rehearing proceedings , ORG discontinued the proceedings ( vendosi pushimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes ) for lack of appearance of the applicant despite notification of the date and time of the hearing .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s inherited property rights to some plots of land .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) was informed of the above decision and , on DATE , appealed against it arguing that the decision had been taken in breach of the law .","On DATE ORG director stayed the proceedings until the adoption of a decision by ORG in a case concerning the constitutionality of certain provisions of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG relied on , inter alia , ORG decision no . PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to declare the case outside of its jurisdiction .","The proceedings are currently pending before ORG following an appeal by ORG on an unspecified date in DATE .","NORP In DATE ORG bought a plot of land and a CARDINAL - bedroom house located thereon from the ORG . The property had been confiscated from NORP and expropriated by the ORG in DATE .","On DATE the applicant bought the property from PERSON and it was entered in the mortgage register .","On DATE , under LAW ( Law no . DATE ) , the financial unit of GPE allocated to NORP \u2019s heir , PERSON , the land and the house purchased by the applicant .","On DATE PERSON donated the property to her brother , H.","On an unspecified date in DATE lodged a civil action against the applicant for the vacation of the land and the house .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ruled in favour of H. , ordering the vacation of the land and the house . It upheld the lower court \u2019s decision which had recognised H. as the legal owner and had declared null and void the sale contract of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG recognised H. \u2019s title to the above properties .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s supervisory review request was rejected by ORG .","On an unspecified date , most likely in DATE , the applicant lodged a civil action seeking the nullity of a number of legal acts which had affected his property rights .","DATE . On DATE ORG found that the applicant had no locus standi to bring legal proceedings . According to the court , the sale contract of CARDINAL DATE was null and void on the following grounds . In the first place , by virtue of the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression Act CARDINAL , PERSON was not allowed to transfer property rights to third parties . Secondly , the sale contract had not been concluded in accordance with the law ( before a notary public ) . Thirdly , ORG decision of DATE had ordered the vacation of the land and the house by the applicant . The applicant appealed to ORG within the DATE statutory time - limit ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","On DATE ORG , by way of a reasoned decision , upheld ORG decision .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , rejected the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal , finding that the lower courts had correctly ruled that the applicant lacked locus standi .","Section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW , as amended by law no . CARDINAL of DATE , provided for the right of a claimant and of ORG to appeal against ORG decision recognising property rights and awarding compensation , as appropriate , within DATE of its notification , to ORG .","ORG director would decide on the appeal within DATE of its introduction ( jo m\u00eb von\u00eb se CARDINAL dit\u00eb nga regjistrimi i ankimit , Drejtori i GPE merr vendim p\u00ebr objektin e ankimit ) .","Under LAW ORG a claimant may seek the annulment of an administrative decision . A claimant may also challenge the authorities\u2019 refusal to take an administrative decision within the prescribed time - limit .","Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that the time - limit for lodging an appeal with ORG is DATE .","Section CARDINAL provides that \u201c the HCJ is ... responsible for the protection , appointment , transfer , dismissal , education , moral and professional appraisal , career and the assessment of performance of judges of first - instance courts and of courts of appeal . \u201d","Under LAW , the LAW is also empowered to take disciplinary measures against judges . In this connection , it is assisted by an ORG as provided for in section CARDINAL . Under section CARDINAL , ORG verifies complaints submitted by individuals to the LAW or to the Minister of Justice against judges\u2019 actions . In the event of good cause for the institution of disciplinary proceedings , the ORG draws up a report and submits it to the Minister of ORG who decides on the start of disciplinary proceedings . The report is also submitted to the HCJ meetings .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and the ORG requested ORG to examine the constitutionality of some provisions of the DATE LAW , as amended .","On DATE ORG declared unconstitutional some provisions of the DATE LAW , as amended , which had empowered ORG director to review prior decisions taken by former land ORG offices ( decision no . CARDINAL ) . It found that such powers were contrary to the principle of legal certainty .","On DATE ORG therefore enacted amendments to the DATE LAW which restored ORG director \u2019s powers to review prior decisions taken by land ORG offices .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the constitutionality of these amendments was challenged before ORG .","On DATE ORG annulled the provisions of the DATE LAW as introduced on DATE . It found that ORG did not have the characteristics of a judicial or quasi - judicial body , so that it could not be empowered to review decisions of former land ORG or regional Agency offices . It further found that such review powers were contrary to the principle of legal certainty and the protection of property ( decision no . PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG found that there had been a breach of the appellant \u2019s right to a fair hearing as regards the length of the criminal proceedings ( decision no . CARDINAL ) . No award was made to the appellant , nor was any other means of redress provided .","On DATE the Constitutional Court found that there had been a breach of the appellant \u2019s right to a fair hearing as regards the length of the civil proceedings ( decision no . CARDINAL ) : the civil action had been pending before ORG since DATE . No award was made to the appellant , nor was any other means of redress provided ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145790","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BRINCAT AND OTHERS v. MALTA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 names , dates of birth and places of residence may be found in the FAC .","From DATE , the applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , QUANTITY and CARDINAL were full - time employees at ORG ( the MDC ) , a state - owned enterprise ( DATE ) . The applicants in application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL are the wife and children of Mr Attard , who also worked at GPE Drydocks during the same period ( having started in DATE ) but left in DATE to take up managerial duties with ORG , where he was no longer exposed to asbestos .","According to the applicants , the applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , QUANTITY and CARDINAL and Mr ORG had been constantly and intensively exposed to asbestos during their employment . Asbestos in its various forms was one of the substances kept in stock in GPE Drydocks\u2019 storerooms and ships incorporating asbestos as part of their structure regularly entered the docks ( or ship repair yard ) and were repaired there by workers . Repairs included breaking apart the asbestos casing that was used for insulation purposes , thereby releasing the particles into the surrounding air . Once a machine was repaired , it had to be reinsulated using asbestos retrieved from the store - rooms . Such repairs were carried out both on the ships themselves and in the ORG \u2019s workshops .","The applicants contended that asbestos particles would settle on the workers\u2019 clothing and be carried around in this way , with the result that it could also affect the lives of their family members , creating further anguish and affecting their private and family life .","In DATE , GPE became a member of ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and international standards \u201d below ) and of ORG ( \u201c WHO \u201d ) , both organisations having been raising awareness regarding the dangers of asbestos since DATE . At the time , however , the employees of ORG had been neither informed about nor protected from the dangers of asbestos in any way . The Government disagreed with the ORG assertion that international organisations had raised awareness of the dangers of asbestos in DATE , noting that ORG had been concluded in DATE and that the ORG had issued its guidelines much DATE .","The first publicly available \u2013 though not publicly disseminated \u2013 information concerning the fatal consequences of asbestos at ORG appears to be the judicial acts and judgment relating to a lawsuit brought in the names of PERSON proprio et nomine vs PERSON nomine , concerning the deceased PERSON ( erroneously referred to by the parties as PERSON ) who died from asbestosis in DATE . In that case , in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the then ORG established ORG \u2019s responsibility for the death of PERSON and awarded ( in a separate decision of DATE ) damages under NORP law consisting of lucrum cessans and damnum emergens ( see also \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) .","No action was taken following that judgment save that employees were assured that adequate ventilation and the wearing of fabric masks would protect them from asbestos .","Mr Attard died in DATE , aged DATE , as a result of a malignant cancer linked to exposure to asbestos ( mesothelioma ) . Following the death of a number of their colleagues , the applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE and CARDINAL underwent medical tests , which were performed again in DATE in the context of proceedings before the ORG . With the exception of the case of PERSON , most of the X - rays revealed bilateral pleural plaques ( extensive in some cases ) compatible with asbestos exposure . PERSON of some of the applicants also revealed pleural thickening , reticulo - nodular interstitial parenchymal texture in the lungs , and in some cases also pulmonary fibrosis , all of which are consistent with asbestosis . The results suggested that there was a strong probability of the presence of asbestos fibres in their stomach lining , as well as in other digestive organs . Moreover , apart from the physical difficulties such as exercise intolerance that were mainly related to respiratory problems , the presence of asbestos in their bodies made them prone to malignant mesothelioma , as was the case with Mr Attard , abovementioned . From the medical data it was also apparent that the applicants had no pleural effusions and that their lungs were clear , with no filtrates or nodules , and their hearts , hila and upper mediastina were also normal . Most of the applicants are nonsmokers .","NORP In particular , Mr PERSON has been confined to bed for DATE as a result of his acute respiratory problems and can only breathe via oxygen cylinders that further reduce his mobility . PERSON medical results did not show evidence of asbestos - related disease .","On DATE these applicants instituted separate constitutional redress proceedings , complaining of a violation of ORG , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention in that the ORG had failed to protect them from unnecessary risks to their health , which also constituted inhuman treatment and an interference with their private and family life . They asked the court to quantify a fair amount of compensation for the breach of the aforementioned rights , to liquidate that amount , and to order that this pecuniary redress be paid individually to the applicants ( \u201c PERSON xieraq b\u0127ala rimedju g\u0127al ksur tad - drittijiet fuq indikati jew mil - liema minnhom , tillikwida PERSON , u tordna PERSON ir - rimedju pekunjarju jithallas individwalment lir - rikorenti \u201d ) .","NORP In reply to the Government \u2019s objection of non - exhaustion of ordinary domestic remedies in the domestic proceedings the applicants in question maintained that under NORP law the ordinary civil remedies available did not apply to non - pecuniary damage ( known in the domestic system as \u201c moral damage \u201d ) , but solely to pecuniary damage ; they claimed that these types of damage were independent of each other .","In CARDINAL separate but almost identical judgments of CARDINAL DATE the first - instance constitutional jurisdiction DATE namely , ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction \u2013 declined to exercise its powers under LAW and under LAW and discharged the defendants ab observantia iudicii thereby in effect dismissing the applications on the grounds of non - exhaustion of ordinary domestic remedies . That court held that the applicants should have instituted a civil action for damages arising out of tort or contractual liability . It considered that according to the ORG \u2019s case - law , namely GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) , there was no general or absolute obligation on ORG to pay compensation for non - pecuniary damage in such cases .","By CARDINAL judgments of DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decisions . It considered that the Government , as an employer , could be sued under civil law for their failings . It held in effect that the fact that such failings were also of a constitutional nature did not in itself mean that they could not be pursued through ordinary civil proceedings . It also held that a person could not allow the time within which to bring an ordinary civil action to expire and then resort to constitutional proceedings as a remedy in extremis . The court considered that constitutional redress proceedings could be instituted only after the applicants had instituted civil proceedings and if , after a final judgment , they still felt that the breaches of their rights had not been adequately redressed . It held that given that neither the ORG nor national law provided for compensation for non - pecuniary damage in such cases , the ordinary remedy would have been effective . In any event , according to the court , in their constitutional application , the applicants made no specific mention of non - pecuniary or moral damage , having claimed compensation for pecuniary damage only .","On DATE these applicants , who are the heirs of the deceased Mr Attard , also instituted proceedings , complaining of a violation of ORG , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention .","NORP In reply to the Government \u2019s objection of non - exhaustion of ordinary domestic remedies in the domestic proceedings , the applicants submitted that under NORP law the ordinary civil remedies available did not provide for non - pecuniary damage but only for pecuniary damage ; they claimed that these types of damage were independent of each other .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction declined to exercise its powers under LAW and under LAW and discharged the defendants ab observantia iudicii , thereby in effect dismissing the claims of the applicants on the grounds of non - exhaustion of ordinary remedies . In its analysis of the principles governing the exercise of the above - mentioned powers under LAW and LAW , the court noted , inter alia , that the failure to pursue ordinary remedies by an applicant was not in itself a sufficient reason for a court of constitutional jurisdiction to decline to exercise its powers if it could be shown that the ordinary means could not provide a complete remedy . It also held that the decision to decline or otherwise to exercise such powers was to be exercised with prudence , so that where it appears that there is a serious violation of fundamental human rights or even where there is likely to be the violation of such rights , then the court should lean towards exercising its powers . Nevertheless , it considered that what the applicants were ultimately requesting was a sum of money by way of damages . Given that ordinary remedies under LAW could have resulted in an award of monetary compensation , the applicants should have pursued those remedies before instituting constitutional redress proceedings .","In a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision for substantially the same reason indicated in paragraph CARDINAL above ."],"violated_articles":["2","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160042","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"LOYKO v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent at the time , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","DATE the applicant and an acquaintance were consuming alcohol together when a fight broke out between them and the acquaintance died . The applicant , still under the influence of alcohol , asked the neighbours to call an ambulance or the police , who arrived at TIME on DATE . The applicant was placed under administrative arrest and admitted to a sobering - up facility at TIME","At TIME on DATE the applicant was placed under arrest on suspicion of having committed the offence proscribed by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( PERSON ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The record of the arrest stated that the applicant had been sober and also contained his signature to confirm that he did not need a lawyer .","CARDINAL the police questioned the applicant as a suspect . The record of the interview indicated that the applicant was suspected of the offence under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Criminal Law for having inflicted severe injury causing death . It further contained the applicant \u2019s signature to confirm that he had been informed of the right to ask for a lawyer . He also signed a note made in NORP stating that he wished to give evidence in NORP and that he did not need a lawyer . According to the applicant , this note was written in his handwriting . The applicant declared that the victim had started the fight and that he had acted in self - defence .","On DATE , CARDINAL , the police visited the crime scene together with the applicant to verify his statements . TIME the applicant was questioned . The record of the interview contained his signature to confirm that he had been informed of the right to have a lawyer present . It further stated that the applicant had wished to give evidence in the presence of a lawyer . The same day the applicant was provided with ORG - appointed lawyer PERSON","On DATE the police questioned the applicant in the presence of NORP The applicant gave further details concerning the incident . He confirmed that the victim had started the fight and that he had acted in self - defence .","On DATE the applicant was charged with murder under section CARDINAL of LAW . DATE he was questioned as an accused in the presence of I.C. The applicant stated that he was not guilty . He had hit the victim because the latter had attacked him .","On DATE the applicant again declared , in the presence of GPE , that he was not guilty . He did not wish to add anything to his previous statements . DATE the applicant and GPE familiarised themselves with the case file . The applicant stated that he had understood its content and did not wish to make any requests or remarks .","On DATE the applicant was committed for trial .","On DATE a hearing was held before the court in GPE . GPE was present . The applicant testified that he had caused the victim \u2019s death but it had not been his intention to kill him . The applicant expressed his remorse .","According to the transcript of the hearing , ORG asked CARDINAL questions , CARDINAL to the applicant and the other to his former wife . In her closing statement , ORG stated , inter alia , that the applicant had not started the fight . It had been the victim who had inflicted pain on him and this had prompted him to react . The applicant had been unable to understand the consequences of his actions because of the mental distress he had been caused . Following the incident he had actively sought assistance . The applicant had been the only witness to the incident and any doubts regarding the existence of facts relevant to the case had to be interpreted in his favour .","During the first - instance proceedings the applicant raised no complaints as regards his representation by ORG He stated that no lawyer had been present during the first \u201c investigation \u201d .","On DATE the first - instance court convicted the applicant of murder under section FAC of LAW and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE ORG lodged a CARDINAL - page appeal against the sentence imposed by the first - instance court . Referring to the circumstances of the incident , she submitted that the applicant had not acted intentionally .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal . He maintained that he had not intended to kill the victim . He raised no complaints as regards his representation by I.C. He stated that there had been several irregularities during the investigation , including the fact that he had not been provided with a lawyer .","On DATE the court in PERSON decided not to consider the applicant \u2019s appeal on the grounds that he had not made any requests in it .","On DATE the applicant lodged another appeal . He disagreed with the legal classification given to the facts . He had acted in self - defence and had not intended to kill the victim . He supported the appeal lodged by ORG and requested that a more lenient judgment be rendered .","On DATE another lawyer , ORG , undertook to represent the applicant in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE an appeal hearing was held before ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) . PERSON was present . The applicant maintained that he had not intended to kill the victim . PERSON stated , inter alia , that the first - instance court had failed to consider all the mitigating circumstances , namely , the fact that the victim had started the fight and had been the first to hit the applicant . The incident had been brought about by the victim\u2019","During the appeal proceedings the applicant raised no complaints as regards his representation by ORG or I.C.","Following the appeal hearing , on DATE ORG dismissed the appeals by the applicant and his lawyer and upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the aforementioned judgment . He disagreed with the legal classification given to the facts and argued that he had not intended to kill the victim . The applicant raised no complaints as regards his legal assistance or his representation by ORG or I.C.","On DATE ORG decided not to consider the applicant \u2019s appeal on the grounds that he had failed to substantiate it .","DATE the applicant supplemented his appeal on points of law . He disagreed with the legal classification given to the facts . He maintained that he had acted in self - defence and had not intended to kill the victim . He complained that initially he had been suspected of having inflicted severe injury resulting in death but subsequently had been charged with murder . When the offence had been reclassified PERSON had \u201c sat and remained silent \u201d .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG of the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas ORG departaments ) refused to examine the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG regarding the quality of legal services provided by the first ORG - appointed lawyer during the preliminary investigation and the proceedings at first instance .","On DATE ORG replied that ORG had acted in accordance with domestic law . It could be seen from the case material that she had defended the applicant \u2019s interests .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the PERSON ( PERSON ) . He stated that his right to a fair trial had been breached because he had not received legal assistance during the preliminary investigation .","On DATE the PERSON replied that the applicant \u2019s right to a fair trial had not been breached . Following the preliminary investigation , ORG had been requested to assist the applicant , followed later by ORG According to the transcript of the hearings , both lawyers had defended the applicant .","Upon a further complaint by the applicant , on DATE ORG replied that ORG had attended all the procedural activities to which she had been asked . She had lodged an appeal against the firstinstance judgment . The applicant had not complained about her services or requested another lawyer during the preliminary investigation or the first - instance proceedings .","The relevant provision of the former Code of Criminal Procedure ( in force until DATE ) provided as follows :","Article DATE Mandatory defence","\u201c The defendant must have defence counsel during the first - instance proceedings :","...","CARDINAL ) in cases involving persons ( liet\u0101s par person\u0101m ) who do not understand the language of the proceedings .","...","In the [ aforementioned ] cases of mandatory defence the defendant must also have defence counsel during the preliminary investigation ...","In cases of mandatory defence , if the suspect [ or ] accused ... does not engage defence counsel and no one engages defence counsel on his or her behalf , an investigator , a prosecutor or a court shall ensure the participation of defence counsel in the proceedings . \u201d","Under LAW the suspect and the accused had the right to refuse defence counsel on his or her own initiative .","Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Criminal Law infliction of severe injury which caused death by negligence was punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE with or without police control for DATE . Under section CARDINAL of the PERSON murder was punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE with or without police control for DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140232","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF W\u0118GRZYN v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant has CARDINAL children . Prior to his early retirement he had been employed and had paid his social security contributions to the ORG .","On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an early - retirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the so - called \u201c EWK \u201d pension .","Along with his application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning his daughter \u2019s health condition , a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on DATE . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from neurogenic bladder dysfunction and that she was in need of her parent \u2019s constant care .","On DATE the Rzesz\u00f3w Social Security Board issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension .","ORG initially suspended the payment of the pension until DATE due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s employment contract expired .","Consequently , on DATE the ORG started to pay the retirement pension in the net amount of MONEY ( PLN ) ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) .","The applicant was issued with a pensioner \u2019s identity card marked \u201c valid indefinitely \u201d and he continued to receive his pension without interruption until the date of the revocation of the right .","On an unspecified date ORG asked ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant \u2019s daughter required the permanent care of a parent . The doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child could not be considered as ever having required such care .","On DATE ORG issued simultaneously CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant .","By virtue of CARDINAL decision , the payment of the applicant \u2019s pension was discontinued with immediate effect . By virtue of the other decision , ORG revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension under the scheme provided for by the DATE Ordinance .","The applicant appealed against the decision divesting him of the right to an early - retirement pension . He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","The applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s further appeal . The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of his right to a pension under the scheme provided by the DATE Ordinance as he had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care .","A professional lawyer prepared and lodged a cassation appeal against the second - instance judgment on the applicant \u2019s behalf .","On DATE ORG rejected the cassation appeal ( odrzuci\u0142 ) on the ground that the lawyer had not indicated the grounds which would justify the examination of the cassation appeal ( okoliczno\u015b\u0107i uzasadniaj\u0105ce rozpoznanie kasacji ) .","Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return his early - retirement benefits paid by ORG , despite the revocation of his right to an early - retirement pension .","NORP Throughout the whole period of receiving the EWK pension the applicant did not work .","According to the ORG \u2019s submissions , on DATE , the applicant started working at his previous ORG . He continued his employment there until DATE . As of DATE he continued employment with another employer where he is still working on a permanent basis .","The Government also submitted that the applicant \u2019s gross DATE income amounted to CARDINAL . PERCENT of the average brut salary in GPE in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE and PERCENT in DATE .","The applicant submitted that on DATE he had started work as an auxiliary employee with the lowest remuneration and that his salary was lower than before the granting of the EWK pension . He produced a copy of his employment contract dated DATE from which it emerges that the contract had been concluded for DATE and that the applicant had been paid ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) . He also produced CARDINAL copies of his further employment contracts of CARDINAL DATE and DATE also concluded for DATE each with remuneration amounting to ORG CARDINAL .","According to the information available on the official website of ORG the average remuneration in GPE was ORG CARDINAL in DATE and ORG CARDINAL in DATE . It follows that the applicant \u2019s salary in DATE amounted to PERCENT of the average remuneration .","The Government also submitted that before being granted the ORG pension the applicant had been employed and his income had amounted to PERCENT of the average brut salary in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE and PERCENT in DATE .","The Government further submitted that the applicant \u2019s son had also worked as of CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153709","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"BOZKURT v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166936","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CEVR\u0130O\u011eLU v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s DATE son , Erhan GPE , was found dead , together with his friend PERSON , who was around the same age , after falling into a water - filled hole on a construction site where they had apparently been playing . The cause of death was determined as drowning .","The hole on the construction site was covered by GPE ( \u201c the Municipality \u201d ) in the aftermath of this tragic incident .","Shortly after the incident , criminal proceedings were instigated against the owner of the construction site , GPE ( also referred to as \u201c the employer \u201d ) and CARDINAL officials from ORG for causing death by negligence and failing to comply with the regulations and orders , pursuant to LAW in force at the material time ( PERSON no . CARDINAL ) .","During the course of the criminal proceedings ORG obtained CARDINAL different expert reports with a view to determining liability for the death of the applicant \u2019s son .","The first report , dated DATE , was drawn up by CARDINAL civil engineers . The report noted at the outset that the hole in question , which measured QUANTITY with QUANTITY depth , had been dug in the side yard of the construction for use as a shelter and no safety measures had been taken to enclose it . The hole was located QUANTITY from the main avenue and QUANTITY from the closest apartment building . The witnesses interviewed at the scene of the incident , including CARDINAL construction workers , confirmed that no precautions had been taken to cover or otherwise enclose the hole . The CARDINAL workers indicated that they had initially placed wooden planks on the south side of the hole but had later removed them after discovering that children were throwing them into the hole . They further stated that the construction workers were aware that the hole in question regularly filled up with rainwater and CARDINAL of them said that they occasionally used the water that accumulated in the hole for construction work . The workers disagreed , however , as to when the hole had been dug : while CARDINAL of them claimed that it had been there since DATE or DATE , the other one said that it had been dug DATE prior to the incident .","On the basis of their observations and the witness statements , the committee of experts concluded that the deceased children had been partly at fault for the incident ( PERCENT ) , as the construction site where they had been playing was clearly not a play area . The experts noted that the LOC also bore PERCENT responsibility for the CARDINAL children \u2019s deaths , as ( i ) they had failed to duly inspect whether the construction , for which it had issued a permit , had complied with the rules on work safety , and to ensure that the construction site had been properly closed off with wooden panels as a safety measure , and ( ii ) it was not clear on what legal ground it had allowed the digging and the use of the hole in question as a shelter , as such shelters had to be built beneath buildings and not in open spaces . According to the experts , the remaining responsibility ( PERCENT ) lay with the owner , GPE , who had failed to put in place the necessary safety measures on the construction site , such as building a wooden fence around the hole , erecting warning signs or recruiting a security guard to control access to the construction site .","On DATE a second report was prepared by CARDINAL occupational safety experts . Reiterating the factual findings in the previous report of DATE , the experts identified CARDINAL main causes of the accident in question : ( i ) absence of wooden panels around the construction site , which was located in a residential area in close proximity to other houses and public roads ; ( ii ) absence of any railing around the hole ; ( iii ) absence of signs prohibiting entry into the construction site or warning against the water - filled hole on the site ; and ( iv ) lack of diligence of the deceased children . The experts indicated that responsibility for all of the causes identified , save for DATE , lay with the employer , in accordance with the relevant provisions of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) and the Regulation on Workers\u2019 Health and Occupational Safety in Construction Work ( PERSON ve \u0130\u015f PERSON ) in force at the material time . They noted that , according to the information provided to the investigation authorities by the applicant , the hole in question had been open for DATE , and a number of residents from the neighbourhood had warned GPE to take the necessary safety measures against the hazards on the construction site , particularly vis - \u00e0 - vis children . However , GPE had disregarded all their warnings , saying that parents were responsible for attending to the safety of their children . They further noted that at the time of the incident the construction work had been suspended and the site had been unsupervised .","Relying on the information and evidence they had gathered , the experts concluded that GPE had principal liability for the incident ( PERCENT ) on account of his failure to take the necessary safety precautions in and around the construction site in compliance with the relevant laws and regulations . They stressed that the failure to install wooden panels around the construction site was one of the principal reasons for the accident . They further found that the remaining responsibility lay with the deceased children , as they should have been aware of the perils of entering a construction site and approaching a waterfilled hole , even at their young age . The experts considered , lastly , that while the Municipality had a general duty to inspect construction sites and impose penalties for breaches of the laws , they could not be held accountable for failing to conduct inspections , impose safety precautions or issue penalties unless it could be proven with conclusive evidence that the authorities had overlooked the deficiencies on the construction site despite having been aware of them , or had otherwise neglected their duties , which evidence was lacking in the instant case .","On DATE a third expert report was issued by a committee of experts from ORG . The report indicated that neither the construction site nor the hole in which the deceased children had drowned had been surrounded by panels or a wooden fence to prevent unauthorised access . Similarly , there had been no warning signs around the construction site or the hole . According to the expert report , GPE had made the following statements in the aftermath of the incident before the investigative authorities and the trial court :","\u201c ... [ After digging the hole on the construction site ] , I enclosed the hole with wooden planks . Children kept removing the planks . That is why the hole was not closed off . [ At the time of the incident ] the hole was filled with water following rainfall . On a previous occasion , we had pumped the rainwater out . I was in GPE at the time [ of the incident ] . I have no fault here ... . If I had not been out of town , I would have checked the hole and covered it .","...","In view of the size and depth of the hole , it was not possible to cover it . We had therefore put planks around it ... There were no warning signs around the hole . I was in GPE when the incident took place , and the construction had stopped while I was gone . The hole filled up with water whenever it rained ... It must have filled up again when I was away , there was no opportunity to remove the water . \u201d","Referring to the relevant provisions of LAW , the Regulation on Workers\u2019 Health and Occupational Safety in Construction Work and LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) in force at the material time ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d , below , for further details ) , the experts from ORG found that GPE and GPE were PERCENT and PERCENT at fault respectively and that no liability could be attributed to the deceased children . They indicated that since the construction work had started , none of the safety measures required under the relevant legislation had been put in place . Moreover , no permission had been obtained for the digging of the hole or the \u201c shelter \u201d in question , which had claimed the CARDINAL children \u2019s lives ; nor had any safety measures been taken around it to prevent accidents . The experts stressed that the dangers posed by the hole had been aggravated when it rained , as the muddy surface made it easier for people to slip and fall in . The responsibility for failure to take any safety measures around the hole or to prevent access to the construction site , despite the knowledge that the site attracted children , fell firstly on the contractor and then on the GPE , which was required to inspect the construction site periodically in order to identify deficiencies and issue the necessary warnings ; the GPE authorities had clearly neglected that duty .","On DATE , relying on the third expert report , ORG held that ORG , who was the director of reconstruction at the GPE ( belediye imar m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc ) , and the construction owner , GPE , were PERCENT responsible for the incident respectively . Accordingly , the court found the accused guilty as charged .","NORP However , on DATE ORG quashed that judgment , finding that the case should have been examined under PERSON no . DATE , which provided , inter alia , for the suspension of criminal proceedings in respect of certain offences committed before DATE .","Accordingly , on DATE the trial court decided , pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . DATE , that the criminal proceedings should be suspended and eventually discontinued if no offence of the same or of a more serious kind was committed by the defendants within DATE .","On DATE the family members of both deceased children , including the applicant , initiated compensation proceedings before ORG of First Instance against GPE , his construction company and ORG , arguing that they bore joint responsibility for their children \u2019s deaths . The applicant and his family claimed MONEY ( TRL ) in respect of pecuniary damage and CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , together with interest accrued from the date of the incident .","On DATE an expert report was prepared by a mechanical engineer , who was also an expert on occupational safety , and an architect at the request of ORG . After setting out the circumstances in which the incident had occurred , much like in the previous reports submitted to the criminal court , and referring to the relevant provisions of LAW and the LAW on Workers\u2019 ORG , the experts concluded that PERCENT of the responsibility for the incident on account of his failure to take the necessary safety measures on the construction site , such as erecting wooden panels or other fencing around the site , taking special precautions in those parts of the site that presented a danger of falling , placing warning signs as necessary , informing the construction workers of possible hazards at the construction site and employing a guard to control access to the site . They indicated in particular that the unenclosed hole , which had been opened in DATE , had presented a grave danger for the residents and the children in the neighbourhood , which risk increased when the hole filled with water and became slippery on the edges following rainfall . They also stressed that , according to the relevant Court of Cassation jurisprudence , the responsibility of the employer was not limited to putting the necessary safety measures in place to avert the existing and potential dangers on the construction site , but he or she was also required to supervise compliance with those measures .","Turning to the liability of the deceased children , the report held that while it was natural for the children to have been playing out on the street , they should not have entered the construction site and approached the water - filled hole , the dangers of which were obvious bearing in mind in particular that the ground had been slippery at the relevant time . It therefore found that the children bore the remainder of the liability for their own deaths on account of their failure to display the necessary care and diligence .","As for the alleged responsibility of the LOC , the experts stated that the latter had had no involvement in the construction , apart from issuing the necessary permits . Moreover , the accident had occurred within the boundaries of the construction site , and not in a public space or other area under the direct responsibility of the LOC . In such circumstances , the LOC could not be held responsible for the deficiencies on the construction site ; otherwise , the GPE would have to be held liable for all accidents occurring in any construction . They accordingly concluded that the owner of the construction site bore sole responsibility for the site .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s case in part . The court stated that , after examining the findings of ORG and the expert reports submitted to that court , it had requested a further expert report in order to clarify the conflicting aspects of the previous reports . On the basis of that final report , the court established that the responsibility of GPE and his construction company for the incident was PERCENT . It thus concluded that GPE and the construction company were to pay GPE CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage to the applicant and his wife and FAC in respect of non - pecuniary damage to the applicant , his wife and their CARDINAL surviving children as requested , with interest accrued from the date of the incident . The court dismissed the case concerning the LOC , as no fault could be attributed to it on the facts before it .","On DATE the applicant , along with the other claimants , appealed against the decision of the first - instance court . They mainly argued that , despite the GPE \u2019s liability for the incident having been established in the criminal proceedings , ORG had ordered a new expert report against their wishes , and moreover had disregarded their objections concerning the findings in the said report . The GPE was clearly responsible for the deaths of the CARDINAL children for having tolerated the presence of a large and uncovered water - filled hole in the very centre of the city for DATE on end , yet its responsibility had been disregarded by the first - instance court .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment with regard to the part concerning the Municipality . It noted that the firstinstance court should have dismissed the case against the Municipality at the outset for procedural reasons , without examining its substance , as the complaints concerning the LOC \u2019s responsibility to inspect the construction site fell within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts . ORG upheld the rest of the judgment .","Accordingly , on DATE ORG Instance dismissed the case against the LOC . The court also noted that its previous judgment concerning GPE and his construction company had become final and that there was no need to render a new judgment in respect of that part of the case .","The applicant did not appeal against that judgment , which eventually became final on DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant , together with other family members , brought compensation proceedings before ORG against the Municipality for the death of their son and brother PERSON due to the alleged negligence on the part of the GPE in the discharge of its inspection duties .","On DATE ORG requested a copy of the case file pertaining to the compensation proceedings initiated by the applicant and others from ORG . Subsequently , on DATE ORG requested the case file of the criminal proceedings against GPE and the municipality officials from ORG . On DATE ORG also requested the applicant \u2019s lawyer to submit the relevant criminal court decision along with the expert reports submitted to that court .","On DATE ORG Instance informed ORG that the relevant criminal case file could not be found . However , on DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted the requested documents to the administrative court . In the meantime , the case file pertaining to the compensation proceedings was also made available by ORG .","On DATE , relying solely on the expert report submitted to ORG on DATE , and without undertaking any analysis of its own as to the responsibilities of the GPE under the applicable legislation and whether it had fulfilled those responsibilities , ORG held that no fault was attributable to the Municipality on the facts of the instant case and thus dismissed the compensation claims of the applicant and his family . ORG emphasised in its judgment that the earlier ruling of ORG , which had apportioned liability for the incident between GPE and his company and the deceased children , had also been upheld by ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court , and on DATE it rejected rectification requests lodged by the applicant and his family .","According to a declaration submitted to ORG on DATE by the lawyer who had represented the applicant in the proceedings before that court , the applicant and his family had not received any compensation from GPE and his company , nor had they commenced enforcement proceedings against the latter ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166734","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CHERNOYVAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicants were prosecuted in GPE for various crimes . They were arrested and detained while the crimes were investigated and pending trial . Their detention was ordered and extended by the courts . The detention orders were essentially based on the gravity of the charges , the primary grounds being the risk of the applicants\u2019 absconding and interfering with the course of justice . The detention and extension orders used stereotyped formulae , without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures .","The first applicant was born on DATE and lived , prior to his arrest , in GPE . He was arrested on DATE on suspicion of sexual assault and was placed in detention . He remained in custody while the crime was investigated and pending trial . On DATE the Poronayskiy Town Court of the Sakhalin Region convicted him of sexual assault and sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld his conviction on appeal .","The second applicant was born on CARDINAL DATE and lived , prior to his conviction , in PERSON . He was arrested on DATE on suspicion of bribery . On DATE he was released . On DATE he was arrested again and placed in custody . He was released on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he was convicted of bribery and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","The third applicant was born on DATE and lived , prior to his arrest , in GPE , GPE . He was arrested on DATE on suspicion of drug dealing . He remained in custody while the crime was investigated and pending trial . On DATE ORG convicted him of drug dealing and abuse of power , and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld his conviction on appeal .","The fourth applicant was born on DATE and lived , prior to his conviction , in GPE , GPE Region . On DATE he was arrested on suspicion of murder . On DATE a court remanded him in custody . His detention was subsequently extended . On DATE he was convicted of aggravated murder and was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153061","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"V\u00c1MOS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","s , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants , permanently residing in GPE , are currently working or studying in other countries . In order to vote in the DATE NORP legislative elections , they were expected to appear in person at the NORP embassy or consulate in their country of temporary residence , or else in their constituencies in GPE . As a consequence , they could not exercise their voting rights or only with substantial material difficulties .","Other NORP citizens living abroad who do not have a permanent registered address in GPE were statutorily allowed to vote by post , as provided by section CARDINAL of Act no . ORG of DATE on Electoral Procedure . However , this option was not available under the law to citizens with a permanent address in GPE , such as the applicants .","Act no . PERSON of DATE on the Election of Members of ORG provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Voters with residence in GPE may vote for :","a ) CARDINAL candidate in any single - member constituency and","b ) CARDINAL party list .","...","( CARDINAL ) Voters without residence in GPE may vote for CARDINAL party list . \u201d","Act no . ORG of DATE on ORG provides as follows :","\u201c Enrolment in the foreign representation electoral register may be requested by voters who are registered in the polling district electoral register and will be abroad on DATE of the voting . \u201d","\u201c The ORG shall enrol in the register of postal voters all voters with no NORP address who are listed in the central electoral register following a request submitted no later than the fifteenth day before the day of voting . The ORG shall indicate in the central electoral register that the voter has been entered into the register of postal voters . \u201d","\u201c Voters who vote at a foreign representation shall do so by using the ballot paper of the single - member constituency corresponding to their NORP address and the ballot paper of national party lists . ... \u201d","\u201c Voters listed in the register of postal voters cast their vote by post . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-139924","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF JEVSNIK v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No 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)","judges":"Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant served his prison sentence in the semi - open and closed sections of GPE prison in the period DATE and DATE . On DATE he was transferred to PERSON prison , where he stayed until his conditional release on DATE . The transfer was made on the basis of a decision issued by the director - general of ORG at the request of the governor of GPE prison . The decision cited overcrowding as the ground for the transfer .","The applicant \u2019s complaints relate to the conditions of detention in GPE prison only .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in the semi - open section in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE he was held in the semi - open section in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . Due to drug problems he was temporarily held from DATE to DATE in the closed section in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . All the cells contained , apart from the furniture , CARDINAL sleeping places ( CARDINAL bunk beds and CARDINAL single bed ) . According to the applicant , CARDINAL prisoners were being held in each of the cells during his detention . The Government , however , submitted that the number varied CARDINAL . Each cell had CARDINAL x QUANTITY double casement window , which the prisoners could freely open or close .","During his imprisonment the applicant had CARDINAL consultations with a general practitioner and CARDINAL dental appointments . He attended several interviews and group sessions with a pedagogue .","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 , \u00a7 \u00a7 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 \u00a7 DATE ) .","As to the out - of - cell time in the semi - open section , the ORG submitted that the cell doors in the semi - open section of the prison were unlocked , except from TIME ( on DATE and DATE from TIME ) until TIME ( on DATE , DATE and during holidays until TIME ) . During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor ( QUANTITY ) , living quarters of co - prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas , in accordance with prison rules . The Government alleged that this regime had been in place for DATE .","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 ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-149201","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF V\u00c9KONY v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","DATE the applicant \u2019s family operated a grocery with the personal involvement of the applicant . They sold , initially under the excise licence of the applicant \u2019s mother , merchandise subject to excise tax , that is , alcohol and tobacco products . On average , the turnover of tobacco retail represented CARDINAL of the family \u2019s business .","The applicant himself obtained a shop - keeping licence in DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In DATE he qualified as a trader and shop manager . In DATE , he was registered in his own right as a trader of excise goods .","On DATE Parliament enacted Act no . CXXXIV of DATE on ORG of the Youth and on ORG . The LAW was published on DATE . The LAW was subsequently amended on several occasions , and the final version was enacted on DATE . It entered into force on DATE .","According to the LAW , tobacco retail \u2013 previously exercised at CARDINAL retail points nationwide \u2013 was to become a ORG monopoly ( exercised through a ORG - owned company , ORG Doh\u00e1ny - kereskedelmi PERSON , \u201c PERSON \u201d ) , and tobacco retailers would become licensed through a concession tender , advertised on DATE , for CARDINAL retail points per tenderer . In applying for the new concessions , tenderers were required to produce business plans reflecting , inter alia , the new governmental policy to limit to the utmost the access of minors to tobacco products , notably by prohibiting the entry of those less than CARDINAL years of age into shops selling tobacco . Under the new licences , tobacco retail could take place only in shops with separate entrances , with dark shades in the shop windows preventing seeing through , and with only a limited selection of other goods on sale .","The final time - limit for applying was DATE . Entities previously engaged in tobacco retail had no privileges in the tender . The decision about the tenders was to be taken by PERSON .","In the tender , altogether CARDINAL licences were granted nationwide .","The applicant applied for a concession on DATE , for the would - be licence to be used in the family enterprise . The application was signed by the applicant , and witnessed by his wife and their son . The applicant then amended the application according to the upcoming new rules , on DATE . According to the Government , the application was very succinct and in no way developed ; in particular , it contained no appropriate business plan , which was part of the criteria for the tenders . The applicant submitted that no information was ever made available about the assessment of the tender .","On DATE the applicant was informed that he had not obtained a tobacco retail concession . The decision contained no reasons or any indication of the applicant \u2019s score on the CARDINAL-point tender adjudication score - sheet , and it was not subject to any legal remedy .","The enterprise run by the applicant \u2019s family was obliged to terminate the sale of tobacco products by the statutory deadline , that is , DATE . Tobacco wholesalers were under a legal obligation to re - buy any outstanding stocks from terminated retailers .","The remaining sales activities of the applicant \u2019s family enterprise were no longer profitable , entailing the winding - up of the business .","Under the law , no compensation is available for former holders of tobacco retail licences who , by not having been awarded a concession , lost part of their livelihood . The applicant submitted that this was the case of his family ; and that he had , after losing the retail licence , considerable difficulties in supporting his family including a minor son .","NORP The applicant further submitted that others in comparable situations \u2013 and in the case of those who had never been doing tobacco retail beforehand , in non - comparable situations \u2013 had been granted concessions , which difference in treatment could not be explained by any circumstance other than political adherence . In his view , this was corroborated by the fact that some successful tenderers had obtained CARDINAL concession for multiple selling points .","On DATE ORG declared admissible a number of complaints relating to the same matter .","In decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( VII.CARDINAL . ) it dismissed these motions on the merits ( see below in paragraph CARDINAL ) , noting in particular that the legislature had aimed to eliminate underage smoking and therefore restricted the accessibility of tobacco retail , measures reflecting GPE \u2019s obligations under LAW as well as the findings of ORG .","Act no . FAC of DATE on ORG of the Youth and on ORG provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Tobacco retail in GPE is an activity falling under ORG monopoly , the exercise of which may be licensed through fix - term concession contracts concluded according to the provisions of this LAW , as well as of LAW no . ORG of DATE on Concessions . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If this LAW does not provide otherwise , tobacco retail may only be pursued in tobacco shops . \u201d","According to Act no . ORG of DATE on LAW and the Special Rules of Trading in Merchandise Subject to Excise Tax ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) , as in force until DATE , trading in excise goods was possible in CARDINAL manners : ( a ) subject to an excise licence , in which case the holder of such a licence could sell the products to non - end - consumers ; ( b ) the sale of excise goods to end - consumers was also possible without a specific excise licence , if the owner of the business had an appropriate shop - keeping licence , covering also the sale of the excise goods in question . The relevant provisions of the LAW provided as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Non - excise - licensed free trade of excise goods ... is only allowed in possession of a shop - keeping licence , specified by the law on the operation of shops ... if","a ) the shop - keeping licence is issued for a scope of retail , catering or accommodation activities in the framework of which the law allows the sale of excise goods , and","b ) the non - excise - licensed dealer pursues his or her commercial activity ... in a shop . \u201d","In its relevant part , Act no . CLI of DATE on ORG ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) In accordance with LAW ( c ) of LAW , any person or organisation affected by a concrete case may submit a constitutional complaint to ORG if due to the application of a legal regulation contrary to LAW in the judicial proceedings :","a ) their rights enshrined in LAW were [ allegedly ] violated , and","b ) the possibilities for legal remedy have already been exhausted or no possibility for legal remedy is available .","( CARDINAL ) By way of derogation from paragraph ( CARDINAL ) , ORG proceedings may also be initiated DATE by exception \u2013 relying on LAW ( c ) of LAW , if :","a ) due to the entry into force or the application of a legal provision contrary to LAW , the complainant \u2019s rights were [ allegedly ] violated directly , without a judicial decision , and","b ) there is no legal remedy capable of redressing the violation of rights , or the complainant has already exhausted the remedy . \u201d","\u201c ORG admits constitutional complaints if a conflict with LAW significantly affects the judicial decision [ in question ] or the case raises constitutional law issues of fundamental importance . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG decides on the admission of a constitutional complaint sitting as a panel ...","( CARDINAL ) The panel examines in its discretionary power the content - related requirements of the admissibility of a constitutional complaint .... \u201d","ORG analysed the motions mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above from CARDINAL aspects : whether the impugned legislation infringed the ORG right to protection of their property and whether it breached their right to pursue an entrepreneurial activity .","As regards the property right , ORG held in essence that the ORG business activities in tobacco retail \u2013 however long - standing it may have been \u2013 did not constitute per se acquired possessions or constitutionally protected legitimate expectations . Prior to CARDINAL July DATE , they had not possessed specific licences for tobacco retail , this kind of licence having been instituted only by the impugned legislation as of that date . Therefore , the legislation did not deprive them of pre - existing , acquired possessions , nor did it annul their shop - keeping licences in general . Moreover , their licences to sell merchandise subject to excise tax ( a licence different from the CARDINAL instituted by the impugned legislation , issued by ORG as a pre - condition for engaging in tobacco retail ) were non - transferable and revocable permits , which did not constitute possessions . ORG emphasised that the legislation did not prevent the complainants from applying for tobacco retail concession under the new system and , if successfully licensed , from continuing their activities .","As regards the complaint concerning the right to pursue an entrepreneurial activity , the Constitutional Court agreed that the ORG activity fell within the scope of constitutional protection . Nevertheless , it underlined that this right did not give an unrestricted or inalienable entitlement to pursue an activity of one \u2019s choice . In ORG view , the impugned legislation did not prejudice the essence of the right to pursue an entrepreneurial activity , namely it did not permanently deprive the complainants of the possibility to continue their tobacco retail business , let alone to pursue entrepreneurial activities in general . It only subjected that activity to conditions , which they were not unable to meet . ORG found that limitation to be in the public interest and to be sufficiently proportionate to the underlying public health considerations , all the more so since the goods merchandised by the complainants represented well - known health risks and the treatment of smoking - related diseases put a considerable burden on DATE which , in ORG view , enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in the regulation of the matter in question .","The standing case - law of ORG concerning the lawmaker \u2019s tort liability was recapitulated by ORG in leading case no . EBDCARDINAL.P.CARDINAL as follows :","\u201c [ T]he ORG held in leading case no . EBHCARDINAL.CARDINAL that rules of tort liability can not be applied to legislation , that is , to the activity aimed at adopting general and abstract legal rules of behaviour . In leading case no . BHCARDINAL.CARDINAL it also considered that the damage potentially resulting from the entry into force of a law laying down a general rule of normative force does not create a relationship of civil law liability between the lawmaker and the alleged victim of the legislation . ... Furthermore , leading case no . BHCARDINAL.CARDINAL also reflects the jurisprudence according to which the lawmaker can not be held liable for the adoption of normative rules , unless there are additional findings of fact ( t\u00f6bblett\u00e9ny\u00e1ll\u00e1s ) . \u201d","In the leading case , such additional findings of fact were constituted by the underlying decision of ORG holding that the law - making process in question had been dysfunctional in that the resultant legal provision was nothing less than an individual decision to the detriment of the complainant , couched in terms of a legislative act ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173464","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA;RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PADURET v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The background to the case , including the NORP armed conflict of DATE and the subsequent events , is set out in ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL ) and ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG DATE ( extracts ) ) .","On DATE the applicant , who is an entrepreneur , was transporting merchandise to an agricultural market in the town of NORP in the self - proclaimed \u201c GPE \u201d ( the \u201c FAC ) . He was stopped by CARDINAL persons presenting themselves as customs officers of the \u201c FAC who seized his van and the merchandise contained therein on account of his having allegedly failed to register the vehicle . On DATE the \u201c FAC \u201d customs authority issued a decision obliging the applicant to pay a fine of QUANTITY ( ORG ) in return for being able to recover his van and merchandise . The applicant paid the fine .","In the meantime the applicant complained to the authorities of GPE about the seizure of his van and merchandise . On DATE the Dubasari prosecutor \u2019s office initiated a criminal investigation into the facts of the case and several suspects were declared wanted . However , the investigation was suspended in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163340","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , LOC .","In DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim seeking to recover excess service fees paid . On DATE ORG of the Volgograd Region heard the case in the applicant \u2019s presence and rejected his claim . The applicant appealed to ORG . The Government stated that on CARDINAL DATE a judicial summons was sent to the applicant by mail . The applicant did not receive it .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG in the applicant \u2019s absence , without addressing the issue of whether he had been notified .","The applicant , ORG , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant brought a defamation action against a third party . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The applicant was present and pleaded her case in person . On DATE she lodged a statement of appeal , in which she indicated her post - office box number . The ORG stated that on DATE a judicial summons was sent to the applicant \u2019s postoffice box . She claimed she had not received it .","On DATE ORG examined and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal in her absence , without examining the issue of whether she had been notified .","The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , LOC .","NORP In DATE he lodged a civil claim against traffic police , seeking to obtain a copy of a vehicle registration certificate . On DATE the Neyskiy ORG of GPE examined the case in the applicant \u2019s presence and satisfied his claim in part . Both parties appealed against the judgment . The Government stated that on DATE ORG had sent a judicial summons to the applicant by regular mail and had also called the telephone number listed in his statement of claim . He claimed he had not received the summons or the telephone call .","On DATE the ORG quashed ORG judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim in his absence , without examining the issue of whether he had been notified .","The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant brought a civil action against his employer for wrongful dismissal . On DATE the ORG of PERSON heard the case in the applicant \u2019s presence and refused his claim . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . The Government stated that on DATE ORG sent a judicial summons to the applicant by registered mail . CARDINAL postal notices were then sent to the applicant inviting him to pick up the letter from the post office : on CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . According to the applicant he received the postal notice only on DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal claim in his absence and did not examine the issue of whether he had been notified ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161366","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RUSU v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the relevant time , he was a journalist for a local newspaper ORG ( hereafter \u201c the newspaper \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant published an article under the title \u201c An inhabitant of ORG is wanted by police across the country , having been accused of breaking into the headquarters of the local branch of ORG \u201d ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","The article , accompanied by a photograph of ORG , a suspect at the time , read as follows :","\u201c S.A , aged DATE , is accused of having stolen CARDINAL television sets and CARDINAL NORP lei ( ROL ) from the local headquarters of the ORG . As he has fled in order to avoid criminal investigation for the offence of aggravated theft , a general search has now been launched by the police ( a fost dat \u00een urm\u0103rire general\u0103 ) and his photograph is now on the desk of the policemen of the judicial service [ FAC ] throughout the country .","An inhabitant of ORG is wanted by police officers throughout the country , as he is the main suspect in a case of breaking and entering at the headquarters of the ORG in GPE . GPE , aged DATE , is suspected of being one of the organisers of the burglary of the local headquarters of the governing party committed at DATE . TIME DATE was marked by bad luck for the ORG in GPE , as thieves visited their headquarters . On TIME some of the members of this party arrived at the headquarters located in the centre of GPE ... [ and ] noticed that the headquarters had been ravaged . After checking inside , they realised there had been a burglary and that the thieves had stolen CARDINAL televisions and approximately ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . While searching for valuables , the thieves vandalised the offices , breaking all the doors , and yanking the televisions from the electric sockets . Following an investigation by the GPE police , the main suspect was identified as GPE , who has been missing from his place of residence since DATE . ORG see photo ) fled in order to avoid criminal investigation for the offence of aggravated theft and so a general search has been instituted and his photograph has been sent to judicial service police officers throughout the country . In a case where someone tries to avoid \u2018 getting ORG [ p\u00e2rnaie ] by fleeing , despite being sought by the police , a countywide search is launched . If the person is not found within DATE , the police launch a national search . In a case where there is information that the person has left the country , an international arrest warrant is issued , and the arrest of the fugitive is only a matter of time . \u201d","Following the publication of the article , the father of ORG sent a letter to the newspaper , which read as follows :","\u201c To the editor of ORG ,","The undersigned DATE found out from your newspaper that there was a national and local search order for my son , GPE , for the offence of aggravated theft . Regarding the [ content of the ] article , I can tell you that [ at the time ] my son was neither in the country nor in GPE as he was in GPE . The employees of ORG promptly informed me that there had been a mistake and that the general search for my son had been called off . The document confirming this information is available to the public from the GPE judicial service .","My wish would be to have the article retracted . \u201d","NORP This letter was published in the newspaper on DATE .","On DATE S.A. lodged with ORG a criminal complaint against the applicant for the offence of defamation , as prescribed at the time by LAW . After explaining that at the time of the theft he was in GPE and thus it was impossible for him to have participated in the alleged offence , he mentioned that once his father had found out about the article , he had written to the newspaper , asking that it be retracted . The letter was published unedited , but nothing else was done since then .","ORG considered that the article contained serious allegations which considerably affected his public image , causing him personal suffering .","He therefore requested that those responsible be convicted and ordered to pay him non - pecuniary damages in the amount of ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","In his defence the applicant submitted that the information concerning the general search for ORG , as well as the photograph of ORG , were given to him on DATE by the GPE judicial service and thus there had been no reason for him to doubt it . He contended that at the time of the publication , the general search order issued in respect of GPE was valid .","He further argued that he did publish a retraction in the newspaper , namely the letter of ORG father .","On DATE , the head of ORG informed the first - instance court that :","\u201c In response to your letter in which you enquire whether on DATE a general search order was outstanding against S.A. ... I wish to inform you that on DATE by Order no . DATE of ORG of ORG a general search order was issued in respect of this person as he was attempting to avoid criminal investigation while under suspicion of theft . The measure was revoked by Order no S\/CARDINAL of ORG of the NORP Police on DATE , after clarification of ORG \u2019s situation \u201d .","On DATE the court acquitted the applicant of the charge of defamation ; however it ordered the applicant to pay , jointly with the newspaper , the sum of ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL to S.A. The relevant excerpts from the judgment read as follows :","\u201c Taking into account the fact that the applicant obtained information concerning the suspect from the judicial office within ORG , he can not be found to have deliberately ( mens rea ) defamed the plaintiff ...","Under the civil limb of the action , defamation concerns public communication of a distorted , negative image of a person , which is likely to cause him or her personal suffering and damage to reputation , leading to changes such as social embarrassment and injury to self - esteem . The first - instance court considers that publishing the article in the newspaper caused damage to the standing of the civil party ...","Moreover , it must be noted that although the civil party \u2019s father notified the newspaper that the facts published about his son were false , the newspaper did not publish a retraction of the article written by the defendant . \u201d","By a final judgment of DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment .","The court stated in its reasoning the following :","\u201c Even though there is no mens rea as far as the offence of defamation provided for in LAW is concerned , given the source of information at the date of the publishing of the article , the defendant \u2019s obligation to pay compensation to the civil party can not be set aside . This is because following the discovery of the error he did not publish a retraction in order to try to rectify it . The article caused non - pecuniary damage to the civil party which can be repaired only in the manner established by the first - instance court \u201d ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174613","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant was charged with murder of PERSON was appointed to represent him during investigation and trial .","On DATE the ORG held a preliminary trial hearing . The applicant opted for a jury trial . In support of his request , PERSON . stated as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] has committed a particularly serious offence which might entail a lengthy custodial sentence . ... I support the [ applicant \u2019s ] request . \u201d","On DATE the court completed the examination of evidence . Both prosecution and defence made their closing arguments . In his statement , PERSON . called the applicant \u201c a robber and a drunkard \u201d . The presiding judge instructed the jury to disregard the counsel \u2019s statement as referring to the applicant \u2019s character .","On DATE the jury delivered a guilty verdict .","On DATE the applicant asked the court to replace counsel PERSON . alleging that the defence carried out by him had not been effective . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to appoint legal counsel to represent him before the appeal court . On DATE the court refused to appoint a lawyer referring to the relevant legal provisions that did not provide for a right to have a state - appointed lawyer before the appeal court .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal . According to the official documents , the applicant was not provided with legal assistance .","On DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the appeal judgment of DATE by way of supervisory review . The court noted that the applicant had not been provided with legal assistance in the appeal proceedings and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the appeal court . The applicant did not attend the hearing . He was represented by counsel O.","On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to GPE . Counsel PERSON was appointed to represent him . From CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE NORP studied the case - file . On CARDINAL and DATE he met with the applicant at the remand prison .","On an unspecified date the applicant submitted a revised statement of appeal .","On DATE ORG held a new appeal hearing . According to the applicant , he participated in the hearing by means of a video link . NORP was present in the courtroom . He did not submit a statement of appeal and made oral submissions to the court . Having examined the applicant \u2019s appeal , the court upheld , in substance , his conviction . The court also dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant \u2019s complaint about the alleged ineffectiveness of the legal assistance provided by counsel PERSON . In this connection , the court noted that the applicant had consented to be represented by PERSON . both during the investigation and trial . The court also concluded , on the basis of the trial record , that PERSON . had taken an active part in the trial . In his closing argument , PERSON . had supported the applicant \u2019s non - guilty plea and argued that the applicant had not been proved guilty . Lastly , the court took into account that , prior to the jury verdict , the applicant had not complained about the quality of the defence provided by PERSON .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s supervisory review complaint against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145659","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KRAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Myroslava Antonovych","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , most recently Ms PERSON .","NORP The applicant alleged , in particular , that he had been convicted in violation of LAW and CARDINAL ( c ) of the LAW , on the basis of a confession extracted from him against his will and in the absence of a lawyer .","On DATE the above complaints were communicated to the Government .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicant was deprived of his legal capacity as he suffered from schizophrenia . He was also registered as \u201c category CARDINAL \u201d disabled ( on a CARDINAL - category scale ) for that reason .","In DATE the applicant was convicted for theft and attempted rape of a minor . He was , however , relieved of criminal liability by reason of his mental condition . The courts ordered his compulsory medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital . The applicant underwent such treatment on several occasions , most recently in DATE .","On DATE , at TIME , a group of teenagers from the GPE orphanage , as well as their CARDINAL teachers , saw the applicant aggressing a young girl in a nearby forest . The girl , who was partly undressed and covered in blood , was crying for help . The applicant tried to flee , but without success . A fight broke out , and he was apprehended and handed over to the police , who someone had called in the meantime .","On DATE the applicant waived his right to legal assistance and confessed to attempting to rape a minor ( the girl in question , P. , was DATE ) . His handwritten confession statement mentioned his past criminal convictions , but did not contain any reference to his mental condition or legal incapacity . The applicant also wrote that his confession had not been made under duress .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions to the ORG , he was coerced into both signing the waiver and confessing . He further alleged that he had immediately informed the police that he was legally incapable on account of his schizophrenia , but that information had remained ignored .","Also on DATE the police questioned the eyewitnesses , who gave a detailed account of the incident and the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s apprehension .","On DATE the applicant was formally detained as a suspect , having been caught in flagrante delicto . He signed a statement as confirmation that his procedural rights , including his right to a lawyer , had been explained to him . He again waived his right to legal assistance .","During his questioning on DATE and a reconstruction of the crime on DATE , the applicant reiterated his initial confession , specifically stating that he had realised the victim \u2019s age .","On DATE an identity parade took place , at which the witnesses recognised the applicant as the attacker .","On DATE the investigator appointed a lawyer for the applicant , having been notified by ORG that he had a history of compulsory psychiatric treatment .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) , in a hearing which the applicant and his lawyer attended , remanded the applicant in custody pending trial . He again repeated his confession statements , and agreed that the preventive measure chosen was appropriate .","On DATE the applicant was charged with attempted rape of a minor . He was questioned as an accused in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant repeated his confession . He stated that he had been apprehended by a group of CARDINAL teenagers , who he had tried to fight off with a stick and who had hit him several times .","On DATE the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination , which revealed CARDINAL bruises on his face and CARDINAL bruises on his back , possibly inflicted in DATE leading up to the examination .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( \u201c the Zhytomyr Prosecutor \u201d ) that he had been coerced into incriminating himself through \u201c physical and psychological pressure by the police \u201d , without giving further details .","On DATE the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination , which found him to be of limited criminal capacity ( \u043e\u0431\u043c\u0435\u0436\u0435\u043d\u043e \u043e\u0441\u0443\u0434\u043d\u0438\u0439 ) . It was concluded that he required regular psychiatric monitoring , although there was no need for compulsory medical treatment for the time being .","NORP In DATE ( the exact date is illegible ) the management of the applicant \u2019s local neighbourhood housing department , drew up a written character reference , describing the applicant as a quiet person about whom there had been no complaints .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s employer , a company for whom the applicant worked as a technician at the time of the events , issued a similar character reference , describing him as a responsible employee complying entirely with his job requirements .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG , having examined the applicant \u2019s allegation of ill - treatment , decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of corpus delicti in their actions .","On DATE the forensic medical examination of P. was completed . Her injuries \u2013 multiple facial bruises and post - asphyxia syndrome \u2013 were found to fit with the applicant \u2019s description of events .","On DATE the victim \u2019s neighbour , a DATE girl , PERSON . , was questioned as a witness . She submitted that on DATE , at TIME , near to where the incident with P. had taken place , she had also been attacked by a man , whose description corresponded with the applicant \u2019s appearance . PERSON . had however managed to escape . She stated that she was unable to recognise her attacker .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the individuals for injuring the applicant while apprehending him . It was held that under the circumstances there had been nothing criminal in their actions .","On DATE the prosecutor refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant in respect of the attempted rape of Sh . , having found that there was no case to be examined .","DATE the applicant \u2019s colleague , who had been working with him on DATE , was questioned . He submitted that the applicant had left at TIME under the pretext that he needed to go to the toilet , and had not returned thereafter .","On DATE the applicant was indicted , and the case was sent for trial in ORG .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that , following his apprehension on DATE , he had been ill - treated by the police . He alleged that he had been suspended from a bar CARDINAL tables while handcuffed , punched in the face , and thrown onto the floor with his hands handcuffed . He also complained that CARDINAL officers had kicked him all over , put a gas mask on him and blocked the nose vent , twisted his arms , and struck him with a truncheon on his legs and knees . The applicant submitted that he had signed his waiver of legal assistance , and had had his confession extracted under duress . He stated that his injuries had been documented in the report of his forensic medical examination .","On DATE the applicant asked to be represented by a different lawyer . His request was granted .","On DATE ORG wrote to the trial court , it appears in response to a request for information , stating that there was no reason to review the decision of DATE ( in which it refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegation of ill - treatment \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer was replaced again , upon a request by him to that effect .","On DATE the charge against the applicant was amended to include , in addition to attempted rape of a minor , grievous bodily harm .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . It relied , among other things , on the confession statements he had made during the pre - trial investigation , even though he had retracted them during the judicial proceedings . The court noted that the bruises documented in the report of the applicant \u2019s medical examination had been inflicted on him during his fight with the people who had apprehended him . The guilty verdict was also based on the statements of several eyewitnesses who had recognised him as P. \u2019s attacker ( she had been unable to recognise her attacker as she had been suffering from shock ) . Furthermore , the court relied on the statements of the applicant \u2019s colleague confirming his absence from the workplace at the time of the incident . According to the applicant , he refused the services of a NORP - Russian interpreter at the beginning of the trial , but later changed his mind . The later request he submitted for an interpreter had been unsuccessful .","The applicant , who had legal representation , appealed . He complained , in particular , that his confession had been extracted from him by torture and that he had been coerced into waiving his right to legal representation , which was unacceptable given his mental illness and ran contrary to criminal procedural law .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction , but reduced his sentence to DATE . It agreed with the first - instance court that there was no reason to consider that the applicant \u2019s confession statements obtained during the pre - trial investigation had been made against his will . As regards the alleged restriction on his right to legal assistance , the appellate court noted that the applicant had himself waived that right and that the investigator had appointed a lawyer for him as soon as his mental illness had become known .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower courts\u2019 decisions and their reasoning . On DATE the ruling was sent to the applicant .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) provides that if criminal proceedings are brought against persons unable to exercise their right to defend themselves on account of a physical or mental disability , their legal representation is obligatory starting from the moment they are arrested , charges are brought against them , or their disability becomes known .","Under LAW of the ORG , a suspect , accused or defendant may dispense with invited or appointed counsel at any stage of the proceedings . Such a waiver is possible only at the initiative of the suspect , accused or defendant and does not preclude him or her from appointing the same or a different counsel at a later stage of the proceedings . However , a waiver of counsel in the cases covered by LAW should be based on reasoning found to be satisfactory by the inquiry officer , investigator or the court ( LAW ) . Should it be accepted , the suspect , accused or defendant has DATE to replace counsel ( LAW ) . If he or she fails to do so within the set time - limit , and if his or her legal representation is mandatory under LAW of the LAW , a legal representative must be appointed by the inquiry officer , investigator or judge , depending on the stage of the proceedings ( LAW ) .","According to paragraph CARDINAL of Resolution of ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL of DATE on the application of legislation ensuring the right to defence in criminal proceedings , \u201c persons who are unable to exercise their right to defend themselves because of a physical or mental disability \u201d ( LAW ORG ) should be understood to be persons with considerable speech , sight , hearing or other defects , as well as persons who , even though recognised as having criminal capacity , have psychiatric conditions which would impede their ability to mount a defence against the charges brought against them . Such persons should be legally represented as soon as the aforementioned defects have been established ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154197","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RUSSO v. ITALY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was the owner of a plot of land in PERSON ( GPE ) . The land in issue was recorded in the land register as PERSON no . CARDINAL , Parcels no . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL .","By an order issued on CARDINAL DATE , the regional administrative authorities approved a land development plan for the construction of a road on the applicant \u2019s land .","On DATE the Mayor of PERSON issued a decree authorising PERSON to take possession , through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public - interest declaration , of a portion of the applicant \u2019s land in order to begin the construction of the road .","On DATE the authorities took physical possession of the land .","By a writ served on DATE , the applicant brought an action for damages against GPE before ORG . They alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation . They claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land and a further sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation .","On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land . In his report the expert concluded that the occupied land covered a surface area of QUANTITY and confirmed that it could be classified as agricultural land . He further concluded that the market value of the land on the date the occupation became unlawful , which was identified as having occurred on DATE , amounted to CARDINAL NORP PERSON ( ORG ) .","By a judgment delivered on CARDINAL DATE and filed with the court registry on DATE , ORG declared that the possession of the land , which had been initially authorised , had become unlawful as of DATE . It found that the land had been irreversibly transformed by the public works . As a result , in accordance with the constructive - expropriation rule ( occupazione acquisitiva or accessione invertita ) , the applicant had been deprived of his property , by virtue of its irreversible alteration , on the date on which the possession had ceased to be lawful . In the light of those considerations , the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation in consideration for the loss of ownership caused by the unlawful occupation .","NORP The court drew on the expert valuation to conclude that the land could be classified as agricultural land and that its market value on the date the occupation had become unlawful in DATE corresponded to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , to be adjusted for inflation , plus statutory interest . The court further awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as compensation for the damage occasioned by the unavailability of the land during the period from the beginning of the lawful occupation ( DATE ) until the date of loss of ownership ( CARDINAL DATE ) , as well as ITL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as compensation for the decrease in the value of the adjoining land .","On DATE the Municipality appealed against the judgment before ORG , primarily contesting the assessment of the property \u2019s market value by the court - appointed expert and arguing that ORG awards for damages ought to be reduced .","The applicant lodged a cross - appeal whereby he also challenged the court - appointed expert \u2019s findings with regard to the calculation of the land \u2019s market value and criticised the expert \u2019s assessment methods which led , in his view , to an under - evaluation of the land .","By a judgment delivered on DATE and filed with the court registry on DATE , ORG reduced the amount to be awarded as compensation concerning the adjoining land that had not been subject to occupation but that had nonetheless been damaged to CARDINAL ITL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The court upheld the remainder of ORG judgment . It considered that the first instance court had awarded a sum equal to the property \u2019s full market value . In the court \u2019s view , the latter sum had been correctly determined by the court - appointed expert , who had taken into account the land \u2019s actual characteristics and reached his conclusions by means of a standard methodology .","The judgment became final in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184824","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF VYSHNYAKOV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant married O. in DATE . The spouses lived in GPE . On DATE their daughter PERSON was born . In DATE the couple separated . O. continued to live with the child at a different address in GPE and that place of the child \u2019s residence was not , at that time , a matter of dispute between the parents .","On DATE the NORP ORG of Mykolayiv , in response to an application from O. , pronounced the couple \u2019s divorce .","On DATE , in response to a claim brought by the applicant against O. concerning hindrance of access to the child , the GPE ORG of Mykolayiv granted the applicant rights of access to his daughter . It ordered that the applicant should be granted an opportunity to see his daughter CARDINAL times a week , including TIME stays with the applicant , the dates and times thereof to be fixed by mutual agreement in advance .","On DATE the local police examined the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning threats which ORG regularly made when the applicant went to see the child , as well as O. \u2019s refusal to let the child stay TIME with him and her restriction on the amount of time which the applicant could spend with the child . The police refused to open criminal proceedings because of the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence .","In DATE PERSON moved to Selydove in the Donetsk Region . The distance between Mykolayiv and Selydove is QUANTITY by road . In view of that , the applicant initiated civil proceedings asking the court to determine that the child should live with him in GPE . That claim was dismissed as unfounded by the courts with the final decision being taken by ORG ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) on DATE .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , ORG opened proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment of DATE . However , on CARDINAL DATE the bailiffs\u2019 decision was quashed since the procedure for enforcement of a court judgment of that kind was not specified by law .","On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE , where O. allowed him to see the child for TIME . On DATE , when NORP and PERSON arrived for a short stay in GPE , the applicant attempted to see his daughter , but PERSON refused to let him take the child overnight . On DATE when the applicant arrived in GPE and attempted to collect the child from the childcare centre , ORG arrived and took back the child . The applicant \u2019s complaints to the police on account of those incidents were dismissed because of the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence .","On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG a writ of execution of judgment dated DATE . On DATE the ORG bailiff opened the enforcement proceedings . On DATE in the presence of the applicant , O. and CARDINAL witnesses , the ORG bailiff read out the operative part of the judgment of DATE and issued a resolution on termination of the enforcement proceedings , considering that the judgment had been fully enforced by so doing .","The applicant brought a challenge in the courts against the termination of the enforcement proceedings . The courts upheld the bailiffs\u2019 decision , finding that it had been taken in accordance with the law . The final decision was taken by the ORG , which on DATE dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","On DATE in proceedings concerning child support allowances , the applicant admitted that he took the child to PERSON to live with him for about one or two months per year .","NORP In DATE the applicant brought a claim for damages against O. for obstructing enforcement of the judgment of DATE granting him access rights . The courts dismissed the claim for lack of proof . The final decision in those proceedings , rejecting the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , was delivered by the ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG in GPE opened criminal proceedings following the applicant \u2019s complaint that ORG had refused to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the police terminated the criminal proceedings because of the absence of the constituent elements of a criminal offence . The applicant challenged that decision in the court . On DATE ORG of Mykolayiv quashed the decision of DATE after finding that the investigator had failed to substantiate his conclusion . The criminal investigation was resumed .","In DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings in ORG seeking to determine anew his access rights in view of the impediments caused by O. On DATE his claim was dismissed as unfounded . However , on DATE ORG partly allowed the applicant \u2019s claim . It found that ORG had prevented the applicant from properly exercising his access rights and ruled that the applicant should be given the opportunity of spending DATE with his daughter during DATE during the DATE until she attained the age of majority .","On CARDINAL DATE the Selydove department of ORG bailiffs\u2019 service opened enforcement proceedings in relation to the judgment of DATE . On DATE the bailiffs notified O. about the judgment of DATE .","In DATE illegal armed groups associated with CARDINAL selfproclaimed entities known as the \u201c GPE \u201d and the \u201c GPE \u201d started operating in the GPE and GPE Regions , seizing control of certain parts of those regions by force . GPE \u2019s armed forces launched a military anti - terrorist operation against them . A ceasefire line was later put in place . Selydove is in the territory controlled by ORG , QUANTITY from the ceasefire line , and was included in the list of locations where the military antiterrorist operation was being conducted . According to information provided by the Government , in DATE certain movements of illegal armed groups had been registered in PERSON , but no active military operations had ever taken place in that area .","NORP In DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG seeking a declaration that ORG was unlawfully failing to cooperate in executing the judgment of CARDINAL DATE granting the applicant access rights . He also asked the court to determine that the child \u2019s place of residence should be his home in GPE . He argued that ORG was unemployed and had no source of independent income , and that the child was fully dependent on the child support payments which the applicant was duly making . He also argued that it was dangerous for the child to continue to reside in the proximity of a theatre of armed conflict . Moreover , there was a risk that the conflict might spread to GPE . In support of the latter assertion the applicant cited media reports according to which representatives of the so - called \u201c GPE \u201d were threatening to capture all the territory of GPE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim . The court established that the applicant was employed and had good references from his employer , and had no recorded mental health or addiction problems . The court quoted a report compiled by the child protection authority in GPE , according to which the applicant could provide secure , wellequipped accommodation suitable for a child , and had stable employment and income . However , the applicant had failed to prove that ORG had no independent income or had failed to perform her parental duties or was engaged in unlawful or immoral conduct . The court also stated that the applicant had not substantiated the allegation that the child \u2019s life was in danger and the mere fact of anti - terrorist military operations taking place in the region did not prove that risk .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment , finding that the applicant had failed to substantiate the allegations that the child \u2019s place of residence should be changed .","On DATE the ORG upheld the lower courts\u2019 decisions . It stated that ORG had correctly established the relevant facts and had properly applied the law . The ORG agreed with the lower courts\u2019 conclusion that separating the child from the mother had not been justified ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178551","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"JURGELAITIS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","At TIME on DATE , PERSON was wounded with a knife in the village of GPE . He sustained injuries to the face and abdomen , which were initially categorised as a minor health impairment and later as a severe health impairment . On DATE the ORG district prosecutor ( hereinafter \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) opened a pre - trial investigation .","On DATE the applicant was served with an official notice informing him that he was suspected of having injured PERSON while acting together with another unidentified individual and while being under the influence of alcohol . He was suspected of having caused PERSON a minor health impairment , as defined in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was questioned and denied having injured A.A.","On unspecified dates the prosecutor questioned the victim , PERSON , and several individuals who had been with him on TIME of the incident . They all stated that that night they had been celebrating a birthday in the house next to the applicant \u2019s . At some point they had decided to go to the applicant \u2019s house to buy more alcohol because they had heard that he was selling it . However , nobody had let them into the house , so they had left . Soon afterwards they had noticed CARDINAL men following them \u2013 CARDINAL of them had been the applicant and the other had been unknown to them at that time . It was the latter who had assaulted PERSON with a knife ; subsequently , in an identification parade , PERSON identified his attacker as S.B.","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation in respect of the applicant . The prosecutor \u2019s decision stated that during the investigation it had been established that the applicant had not injured PERSON this had been confirmed by PERSON himself and by other witnesses ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The investigation in respect of the applicant was therefore discontinued on the grounds that his actions had not constituted a criminal offence under LAW . The decision stated that a copy of it had been sent to the applicant , who had the right to appeal against it within DATE . He did not lodge an appeal . The applicant later submitted to the domestic courts that he had never received a copy of that decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE S.B. became a suspect in the investigation . In the course of the investigation against GPE , the applicant was questioned as a witness once and participated in CARDINAL confrontations with PERSON , PERSON and CARDINAL other witnesses . On each of those occasions the applicant signed to confirm that he had been informed about his rights and obligations as a witness , and had been warned that if he gave false testimony he would incur criminal liability under Article CARDINAL of LAW ( see the contents of the protocol for witness testimonies in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant stated that on TIME of the incident he , his friend PERSON and the suspect , PERSON , had gone to the applicant \u2019s house to get alcohol and cigarettes . At some point PERSON had walked away from the house towards a nearby road and soon thereafter the applicant had heard screams coming from that direction . He had gone there with his car , had seen a group of young men beating up PERSON and had gone back to his house because he had not wanted to get involved . He had not seen PERSON assault anyone , nor had he known whether PERSON had had a knife .","The applicant repeated a similar account of events , with some changes , in confrontations with ORG , and the latter stated that they agreed with the applicant \u2019s version .","On an unspecified date PERSON was charged with causing PERSON a severe health impairment , as defined in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness at a court hearing . He was warned that if he gave false testimony he would incur criminal liability under Article CARDINAL of LAW and signed an oath . He was asked whether on TIME of the incident PERSON had had a knife , whether the victim and his friends had been armed , and who had attacked whom during the incident . The applicant provided essentially the same account of the events as before ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG found S.B. guilty of causing PERSON a severe health impairment , as defined in LAW , and sentenced him to DATE of imprisonment . The court considered that the victim , PERSON , and the witnesses who had been with him on TIME of the incident had given consistent statements which it had no reason to doubt ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Furthermore , their account had been corroborated by police officers and was consistent with the items seized at the scene of the incident . The court also held that the applicant , ORG and PERSON had given conflicting statements and had changed certain details in their statements when questioned on different occasions . Accordingly , the court viewed their testimonies as an attempt to help PERSON avoid criminal responsibility and dismissed them as unreliable .","On DATE ORG also instructed the prosecutor to consider whether a pre - trial investigation should be opened in respect of the applicant and PERSON for giving false testimony under LAW .","On DATE the applicant and ORG were served with official notices informing them that they were suspected of having given false testimony in the proceedings against PERSON , as set out in LAW .","When questioned on DATE , ORG admitted his guilt . He stated that he had been afraid to testify against GPE because the latter was a former prisoner who had been carrying a knife and boasting about assaulting people . Therefore , PERSON had been afraid that GPE might seek revenge against him for unfavourable testimony . The following day the prosecutor discontinued the investigation against GPE on the grounds that he had not intended to interfere with the criminal proceedings but that he had been afraid to testify against GPE , which was \u201c understandable \u201d in the light of the serious charges against S.B.","The applicant was also questioned on DATE . He explicitly refused a lawyer , denied his guilt and refused to answer questions . On DATE the applicant was informed that the investigation had been completed and that he had the right to acquaint himself with the case file , but he refused to do so . On DATE the applicant was charged with giving false testimony under LAW . The indictment stated that , when questioned as a witness in the criminal proceedings against PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the applicant had lied about not being present at the scene when PERSON had assaulted PERSON and about not knowing whether PERSON had had a knife , whereas it had been established in those proceedings that he had been present and had witnessed the assault .","When questioned at the trial , the applicant insisted that the testimony he had given in the criminal proceedings against ORG had not been false . In addition , he submitted that he should not have been obliged to give truthful testimony in those proceedings because he had been questioned not only about PERSON \u2019s actions but also about his own role in the assault . The applicant submitted that he had been suspected of having taken part in the assault ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that even though the investigation against him had been discontinued , the domestic law allowed its reopening if new circumstances emerged ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He further submitted that by giving truthful testimony he might have also revealed information about his possible drunk driving on TIME of the incident or the possible unlawful sale of alcohol . The applicant therefore argued that convicting him of giving false testimony would be contrary to his right not to incriminate himself .","NORP The prosecutor contested the applicant \u2019s arguments and submitted that at the time when the applicant had been called as a witness , it had been established that he had not assaulted PERSON , so he had not been questioned about his own actions . The applicant \u2019s testimony had only been relevant for establishing ORG actions on TIME of the assault , in order to help the authorities determine all the circumstances of the criminal offence , and there had been no intention to reopen the proceedings against the applicant .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of giving false testimony . The court held that the material collected in the proceedings against GPE demonstrated that the applicant had knowingly given false testimony in order to help PERSON avoid criminal liability \u2013 the inaccuracy of his testimony had been established by the court in those proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments concerning his right not to incriminate himself . It held that at the time when the applicant had been questioned as a witness , the investigation against him had been discontinued on the grounds that his actions had not constituted a criminal offence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that the applicant had been questioned only about PERSON \u2019s actions and not his own . The court also stated that the applicant had not been suspected of any other criminal activity , such as drunk driving or the unlawful sale of alcohol , so his arguments in that respect were also dismissed . The applicant was given a fine of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","The applicant appealed against that judgment . He submitted that he had not been served with a copy of the prosecutor \u2019s decision to discontinue the investigation against him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , so he had continued to regard himself as a suspected accomplice to PERSON applicant therefore argued that he had had an obvious interest in the outcome of the proceedings and should not have been obliged to give truthful testimony .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It endorsed the lower court \u2019s arguments that the false nature of the applicant \u2019s testimony in the proceedings against PERSON had been established ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It further stated that it was clear from the case file that before each questioning as a witness , the applicant had been informed about his rights and duties , as required by domestic law , and warned that he would be held criminally liable if he gave false testimony ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) , so he had had no grounds to consider himself a suspect . The court also reiterated that the applicant had been called to testify only about ORG actions which he had seen and not about his own role in the assault . However , ORG found that the lower court had erred when determining the sentence because it had applied an old version of Article CARDINAL of LAW . It therefore changed the applicant \u2019s sentence in line with the version of that provision which had been in force at the time when the applicant had given his last testimony in the criminal proceedings against PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and fined him LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG MONEY ) .","The applicant submitted an appeal on points of law , again arguing that his right not to incriminate himself had been breached . However , on DATE ORG dismissed his appeal . It reiterated that the applicant had been informed about his rights and duties as a witness and warned about criminal liability for giving false testimony , and that he had been questioned about the actions of PERSON and not about his own actions , so it must have been clear to him that his testimony could not have incriminated him .","NORP The relevant part of LAW provides :","\u201c It shall be prohibited to compel anyone to give evidence against himself , or his family members or close relatives . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW , valid at the material time and currently , read :","\u201c CARDINAL . Anyone who has injured another person or caused him or her to be ill , if as a result the victim has lost his or her eyesight , hearing , ability to speak , fertility or pregnancy , or sustained another serious mutilation , or contracted a terminal or longlasting illness posing a real threat to his or her life or seriously affecting his or her mental health , or lost a considerable part of his or her professional or general capacity to work , or sustained permanent disfigurement , shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of DATE .","... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Anyone who has injured another person or caused him or her to be ill , if as a result the victim has lost a small part of his or her professional or general capacity to work or was ill for a long time but did not suffer the consequences set out in LAW , shall be punished by restriction of liberty or by detention or by imprisonment for a term of DATE .","... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Anyone who , during a pre - trial investigation or trial or before ORG or another international judicial institution , has submitted a false complaint , application or report of a criminal activity , or given false testimony when questioned as a witness or a victim , or has given false conclusions or explanations when acting as an expert or specialist , or provided a false or knowingly inaccurate translation when acting as an interpreter , shall be sentenced to a term of community service or a fine or restriction of liberty or detention or imprisonment for a term of DATE .","... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163647","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"MURA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the Court by Ms A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Ms J. Chrzanowska , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant and his wife run a company which produces and sells construction materials . On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife was arrested and remanded in custody on charges of fraud and association with an organised crime group . The applicant and their children protested against the detention by organising demonstrations outside the prosecutor \u2019s office and the prison , contacting the press and writing letters to the authorities . Following the arrest of his wife , the applicant \u2019s family and financial situation deteriorated ; their adolescent son underwent psychiatric treatment after a suicide attempt . The applicant \u2019s wife was released on bail on DATE . In DATE she was indicted and , according to information received by ORG in DATE the criminal proceedings against her are still pending .","During his wife \u2019s detention , the applicant wrote voluminous letters to her on a DATE basis . In them he related the events of DATE in detail and urged his wife to be brave and withstand her situation . The letters contained assurances of his love for her and his trust in God , to whom he had been praying DATE . The letters were also full of profanities and abuse directed against the authorities and , most particularly , against the prosecutor , GPE , whom he considered responsible for his wife \u2019s incarceration . Some included passages addressed directly to GPE or showed that the applicant had been aware that the letters would be read by the prosecutor . In his letters the applicant admitted that he felt angry and full of hatred towards the prosecutor . On few occasions he apologised to his wife for it . It also appears that in her letters to him his wife complained about such behaviour .","The applicant often took the letters , addressed to his wife at FAC , directly to ORG in order to speed up their delivery . He must have known that all the letters addressed to his wife were censored by the prosecutor \u2019s office . On CARDINAL occasion he apologised for the fact that a passage of his letter to his wife had not been addressed to her .","For instance , in the applicant \u2019s letter to his wife of DATE he alleged that the prosecutor made copies of their letters in order to masturbate when aroused by the private passages that they contained . He also stated : \u201c I guess his father must have had syphilis to have made such a product ( forgive me ) \u201d . Another passage from the letter read :","\u201c I love you and I miss you . And with TIME my hatred towards this son of a bitch is growing . I curse him every day , I made myself a doll [ resembling him ] and I put nails in it every day ... I see the harm being caused to our children and I curse him every day and I hope with all my strength that my cursing will have an effect . \u201d","In his letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant referred to GPE as a prat ( dupek ) , an idiot ( debil ) and a bandit . He stated :","\u201c Our victory will be great . This prat knows that his time is over . The idiot thought that he could lock up innocent people and secure his promotion on this account . But this prat is simply stupid . \u201d","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant spoke of their son \u2019s health problems , which had led to his hospitalisation in GPE . He then stated :","\u201c I know you were brave during the [ identification parade at the police station ] and according to the witnesses that fool ( palant ) P. was stoned . There was no contact with him . He was clearly stoned . Even the police officers confirmed it . I think that prat is almost finished . I have talked about this case with journalists from ORG and they are going to go after him ( the son of a bitch ) ... I hope he ends up in prison ... and his friends from the mafia ( key witnesses ) will be wiping his arse . And if human justice fails to reach him , he can not escape God \u2019s . \u201d","On an unspecified date ORG indicted the applicant under LAW of LAW , accusing him of insult of a public official , LAW The latter participated in the proceedings and asked the court to proceed with the case also if the court considered that the offence was subject to private prosecution .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of insult ( zniewaga ) in breach of Article CARDINAL , rather than LAW , of LAW , considering that the offence had not been committed during or in connection with the carrying out of professional duties by a public official . The applicant was fined MONEY ( ORG ) , calculated as CARDINAL DATE rates , each equivalent to ORG . He was further ordered to pay ORG CARDINAL for the costs of the proceedings . The court considered that , DATE , in his numerous letters to his wife , the applicant had used vulgar and insulting language about PERSON In particular , the applicant had stated that the prosecutor had an IQ of below ten , had ridiculed the NORP judicial system and had a mental disorder . He also called him Satan , bastard , bandit , and stupid . The court noted that some of the insults were so vulgar that they should not be quoted in the reasoning of the judgment . The applicant had also stated that the prosecutor had cooperated with the mafia , had accepted money from criminals and had been protecting them . In CARDINAL of the letters he alleged that the prosecutor had been under the influence of drugs at work .","The court considered that the applicant \u2019s statements contained no opinion or actual criticism of the prosecutor . The applicant \u2019s intention was merely to debase the victim and insult him . His statements had not been provoked by any actions of the prosecutor .","The court concluded that although the letters had never been published , it had been the applicant \u2019s intention for the insults to reach Mr GPE The applicant knew that all the letters addressed to his wife were subject to censorship , and thus would be read by Mr PERSON He took the letters directly to the prosecutor \u2019s office and requested that they be censored as a priority . Moreover , in several letters the applicant addressed his insults directly to Mr GPE , stating for example \u201c P. , you bandit \u201d . He would also apologise to his wife that parts of his letters were not in fact addressed to her .","The applicant and the prosecutor each lodged an appeal against the judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed both appeals . The court upheld the findings and conclusions of the firstinstance court . The appellate court examined the case from the standpoint of LAW and considered that the applicant had overstepped the limits of permissible criticism .","NORP The applicant submitted that he had not been able to pay the fine owing to his difficult financial situation and that it had been commuted to imprisonment . The fine was in the end paid by the applicant \u2019s daughter .","Article CARDINAL of LAW , in so far as relevant , provides as follows :","\" CARDINAL . Anyone who insults another person in his or her presence , or publicly in his or her absence , or with the intention that the insult will reach such a person , is liable to a fine or the restriction of liberty .","Prosecution is subject to the private procedure . \"","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , prohibiting insult of a public official , reads as follows :","\" Anyone who insults a public official , or a person assisting him or her , in the performance of his or her official duties or in connection with such duties is liable to a fine , the restriction of liberty or imprisonment of DATE . \""],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174399","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TUN\u00c7 v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed from his post as an officer in the army due to non - compliance with disciplinary rules .","On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG and requested the annulment of his dismissal . On DATE the chief public prosecutor submitted his observations to ORG . These observations were notified to the applicant and he replied to it in his petition of DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action having regard to the \u201c secret documents \u201d submitted by ORG . These documents were not disclosed to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s request for rectification of the above judgment was rejected by the same court ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167494","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF R\u00c1CZ v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant initiated a labour lawsuit against his employer on DATE for unpaid remunerations . After remittals on DATE and on DATE , on DATE ORG adopted a judgment in which it partly found for the applicant .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , PERSON and the GPE upheld this judgment ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158250","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"PEJOVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a LOC national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent at the time , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE a LOC DATE newspaper , the ORG , published an article entitled \u201c The president of the court enabled his brother \u2019s unjust enrichment \u201d . The article , in substance , alleged that there were numerous failures ( propusti ) in ORG ( PERSON ) in ORG , most of which were attributable to the president of that court , ORG , against whom a number of criminal complaints had been filed . CARDINAL such complaint , filed by the applicant , as reported by the article , implied that ORG had abused his office . He had allegedly kept hidden an eviction claim filed by a private company X against his brother , PERSON , and his brother \u2019s company , thus enabling ORG unlawfully to make a profit of CARDINAL ( ORG ) on a DATE basis by using somebody else \u2019s property .","On DATE and DATE GPE and GPE each lodged a private criminal action against the applicant for defamation ( kleveta ) , claiming that the latter \u2019s statements were untrue and , therefore , harmful to their honour and reputation .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) designated ORG in GPE as the competent court to process the actions .","On DATE , after a remittal , the applicant was found guilty of defamation ( kleveta u produ\u017eenom trajanju ) , fined MONEY ( ORG ) , and ordered to pay LAW for the court fees ( sudski pau\u0161al ) . The judgment specified that if the fine was not paid within DATE from DATE when the judgment became final , it would be converted into a CARDINAL-day prison term .","In the course of the proceedings the applicant confirmed that he had lodged a criminal complaint with the police and made a similar submission to ORG , but claimed that he had never given a statement to the PERSON relating to the allegations contained in the article . His intention was not to insult PERSON , but to draw the attention to the irregularities in the work of GPE","NORP The journalist who wrote the article maintained that his source of information was from ORG , whose identity he did not want to reveal , and that the article had been written on the basis of the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint only .","V.\u0160. , for his part , considered that the newspaper \u2019s source of information was the applicant . It was not true that he had kept the eviction case - file hidden and the only reason why the case had not been concluded earlier was due to an enormous number of cases pending before the said court , which was widely known . In any event , his brother was not a respondent party in these proceedings .","D.\u0160. submitted that the applicant had made untrue statements in the article published in the ORG about his unlawful use of business LOC owned by X.","NORP The court established that the applicant \u2019s submission made to a number of judicial bodies alleged , inter alia , that FAC had acted contrary to LAW for DATE by not allocating the said eviction case to another judge . The remainder of the submission contained allegations relating to GPE only . It was further established that the newspaper article contained , inter alia , the allegations from the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint implying that ORG had abused his office by enabling his brother \u2019s unjust enrichment . The court took into account that the applicant had failed to prove the veracity of his claims as he did not have a final court judgment convicting ORG in this regard . The journalist \u2019s statement was held to be illogical and made with the aim of helping the applicant .","In view of this , the court held that the applicant had given untrue statements about the private prosecutors through the media or in a similar way and thus committed the said criminal offence . In particular , he had made a submission to ORG and other bodies , as well as an untrue statement to the ORG about PERSON and his involvement in the said eviction proceedings , which \u201c undoubtedly harmed the honour and reputation of the private prosecutors \u201d . The court , however , did not accept that the statements could have led to more severe consequences .","Without verifying the applicant \u2019s financial status ( imovinsko stanje ) , the court considered that the imposed fine was adequate and that the applicant would be able to pay it within the prescribed time - limit as \u201c he undoubtedly ran a private legal practice and obviously had clients given that he had asked for adjournment of some of the hearings in order to attend the proceedings in his GPE cases \u201d .","On an unspecified date thereafter the applicant appealed . He maintained , in particular , that he had not given the said statement to the newspaper , which was confirmed by the author of the article himself . It was unacceptable that somebody be found guilty of defamation for submissions made in a criminal complaint filed against a public official . In addition , ORG himself had admitted that he had not allocated the eviction case file to another judge for DATE , and that he , the applicant , was not allowed to prove the veracity of his criminal complaint , namely that by doing so PERSON had enabled his brother \u2019s significant unjust enrichment .","He further submitted that he had requested the exclusion of the first - instance court single judge dealing with the case , but that she had rendered the judgment nevertheless . She had also drawn conclusions about his financial status without verifying it .","He finally proposed that the judgment be quashed and that the previous first - instance judge be excluded in the re - trial proceedings .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment in substance , endorsing its reasoning , and held that none of the other allegations made in the appeal could lead it to decide otherwise .","On an unspecified date thereafter the applicant paid the fine .","The average DATE income in GPE when the relevant domestic decisions were rendered was ORG CARDINAL in DATE and ORG CARDINAL in DATE . Financial brokers had the highest incomes , these being on average ORG CARDINAL in DATE and LAW in DATE .","On DATE the application was communicated to the respondent Government . In their observations dated CARDINAL DATE the Government informed the ORG that on DATE ORG , following a request for the protection of legality lodged by ORG , had quashed the judgment of ORG rendered on DATE and had ordered a re - trial . The impugned judgment had been quashed on the ground that ORG had ruled only on the appeal submitted by the applicant \u2019s representative , but had failed to rule on the appeal submitted by the applicant himself . On DATE , in the re - trial , ORG had overturned the first instance judgment of DATE and dismissed the criminal actions lodged against the applicant ( odbija se optu\u017eba ) as the criminal prosecution had become time - barred in the meantime .","In his observations of CARDINAL DATE the applicant confirmed the above information .","Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o izvr\u0161nom postupku ; published in ORG no . CARDINAL ) provided that once the enforcement had taken place , the debtor could request the court to order a counter - enforcement and order the repayment of what he had paid , if the document on the basis of which the enforcement had been undertaken was quashed , overturned , annulled or ceased to be in force . This LAW was repealed by LAW on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148095","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ARAS v. TURKEY (No. 2)","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["On DATE the applicant became a member of the executive board of ORG , and subsequently on DATE he was appointed as Director General of the bank .","On DATE founded ORG in the \u201c GPE \u201d ( the \u201c LOC \u201d ) . Subsequently , ORG branch offices in GPE started collecting deposits to be transferred to offshore accounts in the \u201c TRNC \u201d .","On DATE the applicant resigned from his post as Director General and subsequently on DATE he resigned from membership of the executive board .","On DATE ORG decided to transfer the management and control of ORG to ORG ( PERSON ) . As result , a new executive board was set up and an inspector was appointed to study the administration of ORG .","On DATE the inspector submitted his report . Following an inspection of all the bank \u2019s accounts , the inspector found it established that ORG owed MONEY ( ORG ) , MONEY ( ORG ) and MONEY ( ORG ) to account holders . The report stated that these sums had been used by ORG to provide loans to companies owned by PERSON , the main shareholder of the bank . The applicant \u2019s name was also included in the list of persons who had authorisation to make the transfers . It was however stressed that the inspection had not revealed any direct or indirect responsibility on the part of the applicant in the impugned transfers .","On DATE the new executive board filed a criminal complaint against the former board members , including the applicant . It was alleged that CARDINAL people , including the applicant , had established a criminal organisation to commit fraud . The complainants stated that the former board members had set up an offshore company with the aim of collecting deposits which they subsequently used to provide irregular loans . In that connection , it was indicated that the deposits collected for the offshore account had never been transferred to the \u201c TRNC \u201d .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on suspicion of aggravated fraud . According to a form explaining arrested PERSON rights which the applicant signed , he had been informed of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent . In the form it was further noted that legal assistance could not be provided to persons accused of offences falling within the jurisdiction of ORG .","On DATE the applicant was questioned without a lawyer present . In his police statement , the applicant explained that although he had been the Director General of the bank , he had not been directly involved in offshore banking activities , which were administered by a separate directorate . He stated that PERSON had acted as a correspondent bank for ORG . He explained that he had not put pressure on the managers of branch offices to collect deposits for offshore accounts but had known that the managers received bonus payments depending on the number of deposits they had collected for offshore accounts . He further explained that , using the deposits saved in offshore accounts , the bank had signed loan contracts with companies which were owned by the main shareholder of the bank , Mr A.B. In concluding these loan agreements , the bank had not requested any security and the agreements had been concluded on the basis of verbal authorisation , without any documents being submitted . The applicant stated that when he had become aware of the illegal activities he had quit his post as Director General of Yurtbank .","On DATE the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge at ORG . Before the public prosecutor , and without a lawyer present , the applicant repeated his police statement . When the applicant was brought before the investigating judge , the judge allowed the applicant \u2019s lawyer to enter the hearing room . However , he was not allowed to take the floor or advise the applicant . During questioning , the applicant repeated his police statement and pointed out that there was no legislation or court decision that banned offshore banking activities . Following questioning , the applicant was placed in pre - trial detention .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with that court against CARDINAL accused persons , including the applicant . The prosecutor accused the applicant of forming a criminal organisation and of committing aggravated fraud under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . DATE now repealed ) . In this connection it was alleged that a company owned by PERSON had constructed real estate and that before the construction was finished the persons intending to buy the properties had been provided with real estate loans by ORG , in which PERSON was the main shareholder . In the process of concluding these loan agreements , the requisite legal documents and security had not been requested from the potential buyers , and by granting irregular loans the accused persons had allegedly committed fraud . It was also alleged that offshore banking activities had been used as a cover in order to provide illegal and irregular loans to the companies owned by the bank \u2019s main shareholder , PERSON A.B.","On DATE ORG held its first hearing . In the presence of his lawyer , the applicant submitted his written defence submissions to the court . He stated that he accepted the statements taken from him in custody and pleaded not guilty .","On DATE the applicant was released pending trial .","Following a change in the domestic legislation , the case was transferred from ORG to ORG on DATE .","At a hearing held on DATE the trial court appointed CARDINAL experts . In particular , the experts were asked to clarify whether irregular loans had been provided to companies owned by the main shareholder of the bank ; whether the accused board members could be held responsible for those allegedly illegal transactions ; and whether in providing the loans the bank had complied with the domestic legislation and obtained the prior authorisations and documents that were legally required . The experts were further asked to investigate the legality of the offshore activities of ORG . On DATE the experts submitted a lengthy report to the court . At the outset , they pointed out that there was no domestic legislation which banned offshore banking activities in GPE and that the establishment of ORG had been in line with domestic law and the \u201c TRNC \u201d legislation .","At a hearing held on DATE , the court ordered another expert report . On DATE the report was submitted to the court . The experts concluded that , in the circumstances of the present case , it could not be concluded that the accused persons had committed aggravated fraud . In that connection they referred to the fact that when depositors opened offshore accounts it was clearly indicated in the relevant documents that these were offshore accounts , and therefore the depositors should have been aware of the fact that their deposits were not protected by ORG .","On DATE , pursuant to a change in the banking legislation , ORG became the competent specialised court to deal with cases concerning LAW ( Law no . DATE ) , and the applicant \u2019s case was accordingly transferred to that court . The new court requested a third expert report in order to calculate the damage sustained by the third - party interveners . In a report dated DATE , the experts pointed out that from DATE onwards the accused persons , including the applicant , had been responsible for a total sum of GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","In the course of the hearings , several witness statements were taken , including from the managers of branch offices , who testified that they had been pressurised into collecting deposits for the offshore accounts . The applicant and his co - accused also submitted several legal opinions to the court drafted by university professors , attesting to the legality of offshore banking activities .","On DATE the GPE ORG delivered its judgment . It held in the first place that it could not be established that the accused persons had intended to form a criminal organisation . It accordingly acquitted them of this charge . As to the accusations that the applicant had been involved in aggravated fraud on CARDINAL counts , namely by providing illegal real estate loans and by using offshore banking activities to cover up fraudulent loans , the court found the applicant guilty as charged under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) . The applicant was accordingly sentenced to a total of DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment and a fine . In delivering its judgment , the court based its findings on the bank \u2019s inspection reports , the expert reports , the police statements of the applicant and his co - accused , and witness statements . The court found it established that in his capacity as Director General of Yurtbank the applicant had given authorisation for the granting of irregular loans to companies which were owned by Mr A.B.","On DATE the applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG at ORG submitted his written opinion on the merits of the case . This opinion was served on the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE . After holding a hearing , ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court in so far as it concerned the term of imprisonment , stating that the sentence should be reassessed in the light of LAW no . DATE ) that had entered into force in DATE . It also upheld the acquittal of the applicant on the charge of forming a criminal organisation .","The case was accordingly remitted to the GPE Eighth ORG . On DATE the applicant requested the court to hear evidence from several witnesses , including directors of the bank and certain experts , in particular a certain PERSON The court rejected his requests on DATE , stating that the proceedings were at a stage where no more evidence was necessary . Nevertheless , at a hearing held on DATE the witness PERSON was heard and he made submissions regarding offshore banking . In his testimony , PERSON explained the development of offshore banking and maintained that , in his opinion as an expert , the acts in question had not constituted an offence at the time when they were committed by the applicant .","On DATE the first - instance court delivered its judgment . In lengthy reasoning , taking into account the decision of ORG , it decided to sentence the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment and a fine for providing illegal real estate loans , and then suspended this sentence . As to the charge of aggravated fraud through offshore banking activities , the court sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment and a fine under LAW ( f ) of LAW , indicating that this was the most favourable provision applicable to the applicant \u2019s case . In this connection , it was noted that the main shareholder of the bank , PERSON , had committed fraud by way of banking activities . The court further stated that although the applicant had not been officially working for the offshore bank , in his capacity as the Director General of PERSON he was aware of the fraudulent actions , and had actively participated in the unlawful activities by using ORG \u2019s resources .","The applicant appealed against the judgment of ORG . On DATE the opinion of ORG attached to ORG was notified to the applicant \u2019s lawyer and on DATE the applicant submitted his written observations in reply .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings concerning the suspended sentence in respect of illegal real estate loans , holding that the statutory time - limit had expired . The appeal court further upheld the judgment of the first - instance court in respect of the applicant \u2019s conviction for aggravated fraud by way of banking activities ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178943","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ALEKSANDR KONOVALOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in GPE , the NORP region .","On DATE PERSON , a university student , disappeared .","On DATE her mother reported her missing to the NORP police department of the NORP district of GPE , which initiated a search for her . According to the applicant , on TIME of DATE the police searched his flat without drawing up a record . They then searched his car . According to police records , the applicant \u2019s car was searched CARDINAL DATE in connection with ORG \u2019s disappearance by an investigator of the ORG police department .","After the search the applicant was taken to the ORG police department , where he was interviewed about PERSON \u2019s whereabouts . He stated that he knew PERSON and had last seen her on DATE but was unaware of her whereabouts . A record of his \u201c explanation \u201d ( \u043e\u0431\u044a\u044f\u0441\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) was drawn up by operative officer PERSON","According to the applicant , police officers beat him up in order to extract information from him about ORG \u2019s whereabouts .","According to the Government , after being interviewed the applicant was released and later taken again to the police station . A record drawn up by operative officer PERSON states that at TIME on DATE the applicant was taken in for committing petty hooliganism in the vicinity of the police station by swearing at passers - by . It is stated in the record that he had no injuries . According to a decision delivered by the acting head of the ORG police department in administrative proceedings conducted DATE , the applicant was found guilty of petty hooliganism and fined . At TIME that TIME his administrative detention was ordered by the police .","The applicant was detained at the ORG police department until TIME on DATE . He was then taken to the Sovetskiy police department , where further operative measures in connection with ORG \u2019s disappearance were carried out .","According to the applicant , he was subjected to beatings and given electric shocks by police officers of the Sovetskiy police department in order to make him give information about I. \u2019s whereabouts . He allegedly had a cap put on his head so that he could not see anything and was taken by car out of town , where he was beaten up and given electric shocks with wires attached to his little fingers . His mouth was taped so that he would not scream . When he was ready to give a statement in order to stop the torture , he was taken to a river bank and shown a dead body . He was thrown on the ground and kicked . When taken back to the Sovetskiy police department , he made a confession statement to an investigator in the presence of the same police officers who had illtreated him .","According to the applicant \u2019s \u201c explanation \u201d ( \u043e\u0431\u044a\u044f\u0441\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) given to investigator PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE on DATE , he confessed to the murder of NORP by strangulation . He also stated that he had been beaten up and had received all his injuries at the NORP police department , but had not been subjected to any illtreatment at the NORP police department , and had no complaints against its officers . The applicant was then taken to the place where he had allegedly hidden ORG body . According to a record drawn up by investigator PERSON , an examination of the place was carried out TIME , and a woman \u2019s body was recovered .","At TIME on DATE investigator PERSON arrested the applicant as a suspect and questioned him QUANTITY , and then CARDINAL and TIME , in the presence of P. , a ORG - appointed lawyer invited by investigator PERSON The applicant reiterated his earlier selfincriminating statements , as well as the statements concerning his illtreatment at the LOC police department . He also stated that he had burnt ORG \u2019s body after he had strangled her . TIME and CARDINAL p.m. his statements were verified at the scene of the crime by investigator PERSON in the presence of lawyer PERSON and operative officers of the Sovetskiy police department . The applicant also showed where he had hidden the victim \u2019s mobile telephone .","On DATE investigator PERSON ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant . DATE an operative officer of the Sovetskiy police department took him to ORG . An expert recorded multiple bruises and abrasions on his face , head , trunk and upper and lower extremities . The applicant stated that the injuries had been inflicted after his arrest on DATE by police officers who had punched him in the head and different parts of his body and beaten him with a rubber baton on the back and legs . The expert concluded that the injuries could have been inflicted by a blunt object DATE before the examination .","On DATE the applicant was questioned as an accused by investigator PERSON in the presence of lawyer PERSON confirmed his earlier selfincriminating statements and statements concerning his alleged illtreatment at the NORP police department .","On DATE the ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered the applicant \u2019s detention at a hearing in the presence of lawyer PERSON was placed in detention facility ORG . In the criminal proceedings that followed the applicant was represented by a lawyer hired for him by his family .","On DATE investigator PERSON communicated the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning the unlawful actions of the police officers from the Severnyy police department to the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE . An investigator of that prosecutor \u2019s office carried out a pre - investigation inquiry and refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant \u2019s complaint . His CARDINAL decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE were annulled by his superiors on the grounds that they had been based on an incomplete inquiry .","In the most recent refusal of DATE to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence that the officers of the NORP police department had committed a crime , the investigator established the facts as follows , relying on the police ORG statements . On DATE certain operative officers of the criminal search unit of the ORG police department carried out operational - search activities in connection with ORG \u2019s disappearance . In order to check the applicant \u2019s involvement in ORG disappearance they took him to the NORP police department with his consent and interviewed him . After receiving his \u201c explanation \u201d PERSON released him . That evening PERSON took him to the police station again for swearing on the street near the police station . From CARDINAL TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE the applicant was detained in a cell for administrative offenders . He was then taken to the Sovetskiy police department . No physical force was used against him , and no complaints were made by him .","NORP The investigator noted that on the CARDINAL occasions the applicant had been taken to the ORG police department DATE , for giving statements in relation to I. \u2019s disappearance , and second , for having committed the administrative offence \u2013 he had had no injuries . In the same decision the investigator suggested that the applicant \u2019s injuries could have been inflicted by a third party outside the ORG police department , DATE , CARDINAL before his medical examination by the forensic expert on DATE .","On an unspecified date the applicant also complained about the unlawful actions of officers of the Sovetskiy police department , explaining that he had blamed the officers of the ORG police department for all his injuries for fear of reprisals from the officers of the PERSON department , in whose hands he had been at the time . An investigator of the LAW district prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE carried out a preinvestigation inquiry and refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant \u2019s complaint . His decision of DATE was annulled by his superior as unlawful and unfounded .","In the most recent refusal of DATE to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence that a crime had been committed , the investigator found , relying on statements by the operative officers of the Sovetskiy police department , that the applicant had been taken to the station with his consent and had confessed to the murder of I. He had also shown where he had hidden her body voluntarily , without any coercion .","An appeal by the applicant of CARDINAL DATE against the ORG decisions was not examined by ORG because by that time he had been convicted by a final judgment , as was stated by the court in a letter of DATE .","At his trial the applicant pleaded innocent and submitted that he had given the self - incriminating statements at the preliminary investigation stage as a result of physical coercion by officers of the Severnyy and Sovetskiy police departments . His counsel requested that the records of the investigative measures carried out on DATE , DATE and DATE be declared inadmissible , arguing , inter alia , that they had been obtained in the presence of lawyer PERSON , who had been invited by investigator PERSON in breach of the relevant procedure and without the applicant \u2019s consent .","ORG dismissed the request , noting that all investigative measures since the applicant \u2019s arrest as a suspect on DATE had been carried out in the presence of lawyer PERSON , there was no evidence that the applicant had rejected her services . Following his confession , recorded in his \u201c explanation \u201d to the investigator of DATE , the applicant had shown where he had hidden ORG body , which had not required the presence of a lawyer . The court based its findings on the selfincriminating statements given by the applicant in the preliminary investigation , noting that his allegations of illtreatment in police custody had been examined and dismissed by the Sovetskiy and NORP district prosecutor \u2019s offices in decisions of CARDINAL and DATE respectively .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG examined a disciplinary case against lawyer PERSON which originated in a complaint by the applicant . It found that PERSON had defended the applicant at investigator PERSON \u2019s direct invitation , surpassing ORG in breach of the relevant procedure . P. was subjected to disciplinary liability in the form of a warning . On DATE the ORG informed the applicant of its decision , explaining that there was nothing to suggest that P. had failed to properly defend the applicant . However , it had established a breach of the procedure for providing legal assistance at the invitation of the investigating authorities .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on an appeal by the applicant , fully endorsing the trial court \u2019s findings .","Applications by the applicant for supervisory review of his case were dismissed by ORG ."],"violated_articles":["3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180281","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"IRL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF HEALY v. IRELAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","She has been receiving treatment for a pituitary brain tumour since DATE . In DATE , she underwent surgery to remove as much of the tumour as possible . In DATE she received a variety of treatments for her condition . In DATE she became the patient of PERSON , a consultant endocrinologist . He referred her for an MRI scan of the tumour , performed DATE , and monitored her condition in DATE . In DATE , at the request of PERSON , the applicant underwent another MRI scan . This indicated that there had in fact been no significant change since DATE , but the tumour remained large . The applicant also underwent CARDINAL types of test to determine her level of growth hormone .","Dr B received the result of the first test on DATE . He spoke by phone with the applicant , telling her that the tumour was very unsatisfactory . Prior to that conversation , the applicant was under the belief that the operation in DATE had removed almost the entire tumour . She therefore understood the information given to her by Dr B about the tumour to mean that it was growing rapidly , gravely endangering her health .","The applicant was prescribed a newly - available drug to treat her condition , to be injected by her general practitioner on a DATE basis from DATE . As the drug led to severe gastrointestinal side effects within a short time , Dr B reduced the dosage by half . It appears there were no side effects following the injections of DATE and DATE . At DATE the applicant was unwell , and was hospitalised in DATE suffering from vomiting , diarrhoea , severe exhaustion , headaches , cramps and muscular spasms in her arms and legs . A blood test indicated that she was also severely hypothyroid . It was later established that this was a side - effect of the drug , not known at the time .","The applicant had further discussions with Dr B about her condition and treatment . Dr B proposed to defer the next injection until DATE . The applicant received CARDINAL more injections , in DATE . From DATE she became the patient of another endocrinologist .","In DATE the applicant commenced civil proceedings in ORG against PERSON and the hospital . Her case in negligence was that PERSON B had failed in his duty of care towards her in the prescribing of the drug and the monitoring of its administration to her . She further argued that her consent to the treatment was vitiated for lack of sufficient information , or for misinformation , about her condition and the appropriateness of the medication proposed to her .","The applicant \u2019s statement of claim was served on the defendants in DATE . Dr B entered his defence in DATE , seeking further and better particulars from the applicant , which the applicant \u2019s solicitor provided in DATE . The hospital entered its defence in DATE , and also sought further and better particulars .","According to the ORG , DATE TIME motions seeking various forms of interim relief were brought before ORG and decided in relation to the case .","NORP In DATE , the case was included in a procedure before a judge of the ORG known as a \u201c positive callover \u201d . The purpose of this was to assign hearing dates to cases that had already been waiting for a considerable period of time . A hearing date in DATE was set for the case .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s solicitor replied to the request for further and better particulars made by the second defendant in DATE . The hearing commenced on DATE and took place over DATE . CARDINAL expert witnesses appeared for the applicant and CARDINAL for the defence . The hearing concluded on DATE . Judgment was given on DATE .","The High Court ruled against the applicant on all grounds . The judge preferred the evidence given by the witnesses appearing on behalf of the defence , deeming their qualifications to be more relevant to this specialised area than those of the experts retained by the applicant . He found that Dr B had complied with the therapeutic indications on the data sheet of the drug . The doctor \u2019s decision to place the applicant directly on the long - acting form of the drug was supported by the expert opinion given on his behalf . The judge did not accept that Dr B had failed to monitor adequately the effects of the drug on the applicant during DATE that she received it . Likewise , he rejected the claim that the doctor had failed in his duty of care in the manner in which he had explained the proposed course of treatment to the applicant and the possible side effects .","On the question of consent , the judge considered that while the applicant had misunderstood the exact state of her tumour , this was not to be blamed upon PERSON , who had fulfilled his legal duty by giving her accurate and appropriate information about her condition . The applicant \u2019s mistaken impression was neither caused nor contributed to by the doctor \u2019s explanations . He found that Dr B had not been aware of the applicant \u2019s misunderstanding and could not be blamed for the deficiencies in her knowledge of her condition . Moreover , he had given sufficient warning to the applicant regarding the gastro - intestinal side effects of the drug . Other potential side - effects ( gallstones , hepatic dysfunction ) had not been raised , but as they had not in fact materialised there were no grounds for complaint . The judge concluded that the applicant had given her valid , informed consent to the treatment .","The applicant appealed against the judgment , advancing numerous grounds . The appeal was filed on DATE . It remained pending before ORG until it was transferred to the newly - established ORG on DATE . The hearing of the appeal took place on DATE .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . ORG addressed CARDINAL issues . First , regarding the treatment of the applicant with the particular drug , it saw no basis to criticise the findings of the trial judge . His preference for the evidence of the GPE experts was rationally grounded , and his rejection of the applicant \u2019s criticisms of PERSON was based on careful consideration of the evidence .","Second , on the issue of consent , ORG reviewed the evidence about what Dr B knew of the applicant \u2019s understanding of her condition . It rejected her claim that ORG had made a clear error on this point . It considered that PERSON actions had been in keeping with the relevant domestic legal principles . It noted that PERSON opinion at the time was that the applicant had a serious condition that required treatment . As surgery was not possible , the only alternative was medication . It was , ORG held , reasonably open to him to hold that view . He had explained to the applicant the expected benefits of the drug prescribed , as well as the unpleasant side effects . As for the argument that the doctor should have also presented a \u201c do nothing \u201d option , ORG described this as \u201c somewhat unreal \u201d . Where a person seeks referral from a general practitioner to a specialist , it could be reasonably assumed that they wished to receive treatment , and that they had excluded the non - treatment option .","The applicant sought leave to appeal . On DATE ORG refused ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140767","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CZY\u017b v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is married and has CARDINAL children . Prior to her early retirement she had been employed and had paid her social security contributions to the ORG .","On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an early - retirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the so - called \u201c EWK \u201d pension .","Along with her application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning her daughter \u2019s health condition , a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on DATE . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from chronic asthma and that she was in need of her parent \u2019s constant care .","On DATE ORG issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an early retirement pension .","ORG suspended the payment of the pension due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s employment was dissolved by a mutual consent of the parties .","Consequently , on DATE ORG decided to start payment of the retirement pension starting from CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG had asked ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant \u2019s daughter required the permanent care of a parent . The doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child could not be considered as ever having required such care .","On DATE the ORG issued simultaneously CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant .","By virtue of CARDINAL decision , the payment of the applicant \u2019s pension was discontinued with immediate effect . It follows that the applicant was never paid the pension . By virtue of the other decision , ORG revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an early retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the DATE Ordinance .","The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early - retirement pension . She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","The applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s further appeal . The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the DATE Ordinance as she had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care .","A professional lawyer , who had been either hired by the applicant or appointed to represent her under a legal - aid scheme , prepared and lodged a cassation appeal against the second - instance judgment on the applicant \u2019s behalf .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the cassation appeal .","The applicant \u2019s pension was revoked DATE before the planned first payment . It follows that she never received any payment of the granted early retirement .","According to the ORG \u2019s submissions , after the revocation of her pension , the applicant worked between DATE and DATE on the basis of a civil law contract . On CARDINAL DATE she started working on the basis of an employment contract and she is still working on a permanent basis .","The Government also submitted that the applicant \u2019s gross DATE income amounted to CARDINAL . PERCENT of the average brut salary in GPE in DATE ( MONEY [ FAC ] , approx . MONEY [ ORG ] ) , PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , approx . ORG CARDINAL ) , PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , approx . EUR CARDINAL ) , PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , approx . EUR CARDINAL ) , PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL . ORG CARDINAL ) , PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , approx . EUR CARDINAL ) , PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , approx . EUR CARDINAL ) and PERCENT in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL , approx . ORG MONEY ) . In DATE the applicant had no income .","Additionally , on DATE the applicant became eligible for an early retirement pension not connected with the state of health of her child . The pension amounted to ORG CARDINAL net ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) . It follows that as of DATE the applicant \u2019s income consisted of both her salary and the early retirement pension .","The applicant submitted that she could not terminate her employment contract earlier than on DATE because she had to train a new employee who would replace her at work and because of her financial commitments towards the employer . As regards her financial situation she submitted that the income in the period directly following the revocation of her pension and the following DATE was \u201c CARDINAL \u201d . She also submitted a copy of the decision of DATE issued by ORG ( O\u015brodek Pomocy Spo\u0142ecznej ) granting her a social care benefit for persons whose income per family member fell below the statutory threshold ; according to the reasoning of the decision the applicant \u2019s family \u2019s income at the relevant time amounted to ORG MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) ; the income per member of the applicant \u2019s family thus amounted to ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approx . ORG CARDINAL ) . At the relevant time the threshold which enabled the applicant to claim the social care benefit was ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) of income per family member .","The applicant further submitted CARDINAL calls for payment addressed to her and issued by ORG on DATE and on DATE confirming that she had debt resulting from unpaid rent which amounted to ORG . EUR CARDINAL ) and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) respectively .","The Government also submitted that the applicant \u2019s husband had worked DATE and DATE , that her son PERSON had worked DATE and DATE and her other son ORG had worked as an adolescent employee DATE and DATE and , subsequently , on the basis of an employment contract as of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180018","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF X v. SWEDEN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Morocco)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant is currently in GPE .","In DATE he was granted a temporary residence permit in GPE which was made permanent in DATE . Both permits were based on the applicant \u2019s family ties , but he was not granted NORP citizenship . In DATE he married a non - NORP national who held a permanent residence permit in GPE .","In DATE ORG ( S\u00e4kerhetspolisen ) applied to ORG ( PERSON ) requesting the applicant \u2019s expulsion . During ORG examination of the request , the applicant applied for asylum , claiming that he was in need of international protection . He further contested ORG request alleging that , since ORG had branded him a terrorist , he would risk torture and CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment in GPE . He submitted that he would be forced to confess to an act of terrorism that he had not committed . The applicant stated that his parents lived in GPE and he had visited them DATE . During the visit , police officers had approached him and informed him that they were monitoring him and advised him to \u201c listen to our friends in GPE or stay away from GPE forever \u201d . He acknowledged that he had left GPE legally with his own passport , that he had not been wanted in GPE , that there were no legal proceedings pending against him and that he had never published anything on , for example , religion or politics . Moreover , to his knowledge , his parents had never been approached by the authorities because of him and the NORP authorities had never contacted him in GPE . However , he claimed that ORG would inform the NORP authorities of the reasons for his arrest and expulsion and other NORP in GPE might also submit such information . He was not aware if his situation had been noted in GPE . The applicant referred to country information about GPE according to which physical ill - treatment and arbitrary detention occurred , in particular of suspected terrorists . Such persons had been tortured into confession and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment . He also referred to the ORG \u2019s case law .","On DATE ORG granted the Security Services\u2019 request to expel the applicant and , at the same time , rejected the applicant \u2019s demand for asylum and international protection . It noted that the human rights situation in GPE had improved significantly . Violence at police stations and prisons had decreased . Imprisonment was common in terror - related cases and persons affiliated with NORP movements ran a higher risk of being subjected to violence . Older reports contained accounts of torture and illtreatment in cases concerning national security and terrorism . However , the NORP authorities had publicly stated that the fight against terrorism should not be used as a pretext for depriving people of their rights . Torture was illegal and efforts to curb the use of torture had been successful . In terror - related cases , arrested suspects were examined by doctors before and after interrogation to prevent the use of violence by the interrogators .","As concerned the applicant \u2019s situation , ORG found no reasons to question ORG assessment of the applicant . In this regard , it found that the applicant lacked credibility since his submissions relating to his background and previous activities were contradicted by the information submitted by ORG . Moreover , the ORG considered that he had not made out that the NORP authorities had previously showed an interest in him . It took into account that he had lived outside GPE for DATE and that , as he said himself , he had lived an inconspicuous life in GPE without political or religious activities . Furthermore , after his last visit to GPE , he had left the country legally using his passport . His parents in GPE had not reported any visits from the authorities enquiring about him and the NORP authorities had never contacted him in GPE . They had never requested his extradition either , or informed him that he was suspected of terrorism or any other kind of criminality . He had never been convicted of any terrorrelated crimes in GPE . The ORG observed that the applicant had submitted that he was not sought in GPE , that he had not been involved in any legal proceedings there and that the NORP authorities had never subjected him to any acts of persecution in the past . As late as towards DATE , the applicant had travelled internationally using his passport , without being stopped . Even though older \u201c country of origin \u201d reports included accounts of ill - treatment , the most recent reports instead spoke of measures taken by the NORP authorities aimed at reinforcing the rule of law .","As concerned the risk upon return because it was ORG which had requested the expulsion , ORG found that the applicant had not made out that he risked persecution upon return on this ground . It took into account that no objective evidence suggested that the NORP authorities were aware of his case and that the legislation had regard to the possible risks of being labelled a terrorist and had been designed to avoid such risks .","ORG concluded that , even taking into account the applicant \u2019s submissions , it shared ORG assessment and considered that there were grounds to expel the applicant with reference to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of GPE ( lagen [ CARDINAL:CARDINAL ] om s\u00e4rskild utl\u00e4nningskontroll ) . It thus rejected his request for asylum and international protection , revoked his permanent residence permit and ordered his expulsion to either GPE or another specified country . It also decided on a lifelong ban on returning to GPE .","The applicant appealed to the Government , submitting that ORG assessment had been accepted by ORG without a careful examination , rendering the proceedings unfair and partial . He maintained his claims and stressed that the use of torture was frequent in GPE , in particular in relation to suspected terrorists .","ORG forwarded the appeal to ORG ( Migrations\u00f6verdomstolen ) in accordance with LAW . The ORG maintained its stance and stated , inter alia , that the applicant had not made it probable that he was of interest to the NORP authorities and there was no concrete information indicating that they should be aware of what had happened to him in GPE . ORG stated that it was as transparent as possible but , for reasons of confidentiality , could not reveal its working methods and sources . It added that it was continually assessing whether it was possible to enforce the expulsion . If information were to emerge which raised the issue of impediments to the expulsion , the Government would be informed .","On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , the appellate court shared the reasoning of ORG and decided to recommend that the Government uphold the ORG \u2019s decision . It found , inter alia , that there was nothing to support that the applicant at that point in time was known by the NORP authorities and of interest to them .","On DATE the Government upheld ORG decision in full . The Government noted ORG submissions concerning the applicant \u2019s background and connections and found that there were no grounds for questioning these submissions . In view of what was known about the applicant \u2019s former activities and other circumstances , the Government concluded that it was reasonable to fear that the applicant would commit or participate in committing a terrorist offence which warranted his expulsion in accordance with GPE .","On DATE , following the interim measure indicated by ORG , the Government decided to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order until further notice ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175484","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF K\u00d6RTV\u00c9LYESSY v. HUNGARY (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME on DATE the applicant notified the police that he planned to organise a demonstration from TIME on DATE in front of the FAC prison in GPE , to protest against the \u201c political persecution of national radicalism \u201d . FAC is a broad cul - de - sac with a service lane .","A police officer from the police station that had received the notification repeatedly attempted to contact the applicant by phone , in line with the relevant decree issued by the Minister of the ORG on police tasks related to securing public order at major events , in order to arrange for a meeting . Despite making several attempts and leaving messages , however , he could not reach him .","On DATE the head of ORG banned the demonstration on the grounds that traffic could not be diverted to alternative routes ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . In the decision , he referred to LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL.AB of ORG .","The applicant sought a judicial review of the decision within the statutory DATE time - limit .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s case . It noted that in assessing whether or not traffic could be diverted to other routes , the authority had reckoned on the participation of CARDINAL demonstrators , as per the applicant \u2019s notification , and that it had established that lawful parking and traffic circulation in the neighbourhood would become impossible should the event take place . The court agreed with the police \u2019s decision in that although the right to assembly was a constitutional fundamental right , it was not absolute and must not give rise to a violation of the fundamental rights of others , and could therefore be restricted . The court was satisfied that the decision had been lawful as the police had adequately established the facts , complied with the procedural rules and applied clear assessment criteria , and the assessment of the evidence had been logical ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158468","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF STANKIEWICZ AND OTHERS v. POLAND (No. 2)","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first CARDINAL applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant is a journalist working for the DATE newspaper Rzeczpospolita and the second applicant was , at the material time , its editorinchief . The third applicant is ORG sp . z o.o . ( at the material time Presspublica sp . z o.o . ) , the publisher of Rzeczpospolita . It is a limited liability company represented by the chairman of its board of directors , Mr P. GPE , and its vice chairman , PERSON NORP PERSON . Its registered office is in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the NORP government submitted a draft amendment to LAW ( Ordynacja Podatkowa ) to the PERSON . During the drafting process various bodies and individuals , including ORG ( PERSON ) , were invited to submit their comments . Their opinion was prepared by PERSON , a former senior civil servant , who was a well - known expert on tax law and a member of its legislative committee . She further acted as an expert and adviser at meetings before the parliamentary finance subcommittee where amendments to LAW were being examined . CARDINAL of the amendments proposed by the ORG to section CARDINAL , and defended by Ms D.S. at the meetings , consisted of limiting what could be used as evidence in tax proceedings to material collected in criminal proceedings , but only once they had been concluded . The law as it stood did not contain such a limitation and allowed , for instance , material collected in a pending criminal investigation to be used as evidence . Her proposal was accepted by the subcommittee and later by the PERSON and , together with other amendments to LAW , entered into force on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant wrote CARDINAL articles describing the possible consequences of the amendment to section CARDINAL of LAW , the legislative process leading to its adoption and the role that Ms ORG had apparently played . One of the articles contained comments made by Ms ORG and featured her photograph .","The first applicant and another journalist analysed the recordings of all the parliamentary finance subcommittee meetings during which amendments to LAW were discussed . CARDINAL articles which appeared in Rzeczpospolita on DATE contained transcripts of the subcommittee \u2019s meeting of CARDINAL DATE at which the section CARDINAL amendment was discussed . The journalists interviewed Mr PERSON , a Member of ORG who chaired the subcommittee , PERSON , an appellate prosecutor and PERSON Their statements were quoted in the articles , as was a statement made by an unidentified member of the government during the subcommittee meeting .","The first article , \u201c ORG pays no taxes \u201d ( ORG nie zap\u0142aci podatk\u00f3w ) , appeared as a cover story on DATE . The subheading and an excerpt from the article read as follows :","\u201c [ ORG ] CARDINAL words introduced to LAW have paralysed the prosecution of the petrol mafia , Rzeczpospolita has discovered . Our investigation reveals who changed the law and when it was changed . However , even we do not know why the government did not take any action .","...","[ text ] DATE , the newest version of LAW , enacted by the PERSON in DATE , entered into force . Problems then started . Because of CARDINAL provision in the law , cooperation between the tax and prosecution authorities has been totally blocked ... Such cooperation has so far led to successful prosecutions in many high - profile cases , such as those concerning the battle against the petrol mafia . \u201d","The article also explained that the amendment to section CARDINAL of LAW limited what could be used as evidence in tax proceedings to only material collected in criminal proceedings which had already been concluded . This was a real setback for the tax authorities , who could no longer rely on evidence the prosecution had been collecting in proceedings which were pending . According to the author of the article , such an amendment could prolong the tax authorities\u2019 effective investigation into tax evasion for DATE , until the criminal courts arrived at their final decision in a case .","The second article , which had the headline \u201c ORG to pay no taxes \u201d ( ORG podatk\u00f3w nie zap\u0142aci ) appeared on page CARDINAL of the same edition of Rzeczpospolita of DATE . It featured a photograph of Ms D.S. The wording of the article , in so far as relevant , read as follows :","\u201c [ subheading]The amendment to LAW which made it harder to prosecute the petrol mafia was introduced during a subcommittee meeting \u2013 Rzeczpospolita has established .","...","[ text ] As we have established , the above - mentioned amendment to LAW [ of LAW ] was proposed by PERSON of ORG during a subcommittee meeting on DATE . Strictly speaking , it was outside her remit as she is not a member of parliament . However , she was an adviser to the subcommittee and warmly encouraged MPs to introduce the amendment , even though no such change had been proposed . PERSON , a former senior civil servant at ORG , and DATE counsel at a prestigious law firm , received support from the subcommittee chairman and even a government representative ...","PERSON , in an interview for Rzeczpospolita , argues that her intention was to protect the interests of the taxpayer ....","[ Question : ] \u2018 You have changed the legal system , but you are not a member of parliament or the government . Was it your idea?\u2019","[ Answer : ] \u2018 I believed that the wording of the legal provision in question was incorrect . It had to be changed.\u2019 \u201d","On DATE Rzeczpospolita published the third article , which had the headline \u201c Dubious law to be changed \u201d ( GPE podejrzane prawo ) . In so far as relevant , it stated as follows :","\u201c [ ORG ] This can not be . The Deputy Minister of Finance is outraged after Rzeczpospolita disclosed the story behind the change in the law which has helped the petrol mafia .","...","[ Text ] The Deputy Minister [ S.S. ... ] is surprised by [ how ] the unfortunate amendment was introduced . \u2018 It is unacceptable\u2019 , he says . \u2018 I have ORG backing that this amendment should be corrected immediately . \u201d","The article included quotes from interviews with CARDINAL Deputy Ministers and CARDINAL official , all from ORG . It also contained a paragraph describing the recent developments in several ongoing investigations against the petrol mafia .","On DATE Ms ORG lodged a claim for the protection of her personal rights against all CARDINAL applicants , seeking compensation in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) , the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed her claim . It established that both the journalist who had written the articles and the editor - in - chief had been diligent in collecting information for all CARDINAL of them . The articles in question reflected the evidence submitted by the defendants both in form and in content . The amendment to section CARDINAL of LAW had indeed been proposed by ORG , as she had been invited to represent ORG during the finance subcommittee \u2019s deliberations on the draft law . Had she not voiced her opinion regarding the need to amend LAW , the amendment would most probably not have been introduced . The court stressed that since the claimant had voluntarily entered the public domain , she should respect the rights of others , in particular journalists , to criticise her actions . The first applicant , while preparing material for the articles , had had access to draft laws , legal opinion on those drafts , the finance committee \u2019s TIME , recordings of the subcommittee \u2019s deliberations and interviews with prosecutors , from which he took quotations . The court thus concluded that information provided by the defendants had been truthful and collected diligently .","The court considered that the incident described by the defendants had been a very important matter of public interest , as it had shown how easy it could be to influence a change in the law . The controversies surrounding the amendment to LAW had led to LAW being restored to its previous form in DATE .","The aim of the articles had been to draw the public \u2019s attention to the amendment to section CARDINAL of LAW . The court also considered that the applicants had had a right to publish a photograph of ORG , as she had been a public figure . The photograph could have easily been taken while she had been carrying out her duties for the subcommittee in the present case .","The claimant , Ms ORG , lodged an appeal against this judgment .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeal and action and amended the judgment in question . The court ordered the applicants to publish an apology and pay ORG MONEY to charity , disagreeing with ORG assessment of the case . It considered that by using headlines , subheadings and several statements , the applicants conveyed the suggestion that PERSON had been responsible for the negative consequences the amendment had had on the law . These statements included : \u201c astonishing amendment \u201d , \u201c cooperation between the tax authorities and prosecutors totally blocked \u201d , \u201c she ... encouraged MPs to introduce the amendment , even though no such change had been proposed \u201d , \u201c [ PERSON has ] changed the legal system \u201d , \u201c was it your idea ? \u201d , \u201c the amendment was proposed in an astonishing manner by a guest of the subcommittee \u201d . The court considered that the information contained in the articles had not been truthful , and that the journalists had not been diligent . It also considered that by publishing her picture , the applicants had breached the claimant \u2019s right to protect her image .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the appellate court . It considered that procedural provisions had been breached ; in particular , the judge rapporteur should have withdrawn from the case given doubts as to his impartiality . Moreover , ORG criticised the vague wording of the apology the defendants had been ordered to publish , and the lack of clarity as to which statements had breached the defendant \u2019s personal rights .","On DATE ORG allowed the action and ordered the applicants to publish an apology and pay ORG CARDINAL to charity . The court considered that the defendants should publish the following apology on the cover of Rzeczpospolita :","\u201c [ All CARDINAL applicants ] apologise to PERSON for [ damaging ] her good name by publishing articles without factual basis in Rzeczpospolita on DATE ( \u2018 ORG pays no taxes\u2019 and \u2018 ORG to pay no taxes\u2019 ) and on DATE ( \u2018 Dubious law to be changed\u2019 ) , which have ruined her good name and professional reputation . \u201d","The court considered that the claimant had proved , to a sufficient degree , that the articles in question had breached her personal rights , as they insinuated that she had been responsible for adopting an amendment which had negative consequences . Its arguments were similar to those outlined in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It considered the statement \u201c [ PERSON has ] changed the legal system \u201d untrue because as an adviser to the subcommittee , it would have been outside her remit . The use of headlines , subheadings and certain statements conveyed the suggestion that the amendment had been introduced in the \u201c interests of the [ petrol ] mafia \u201d . Those statements included : \u201c astonishing amendment \u201d , \u201c cooperation between the tax authorities and prosecutors totally blocked \u201d , \u201c she ... encouraged MPs to introduce the amendment , even though no such change had been proposed \u201d , \u201c [ PERSON has ] changed the legal system \u201d , \u201c was it your idea ? \u201d , \u201c the amendment was proposed in an astonishing manner by a guest of the subcommittee \u201d . Moreover , by featuring a photograph of PERSON in one of the articles , the applicants had \u201c strengthened the message that [ she ] was the person responsible for having introduced an amendment convenient for the mafia , which [ had ] paralysed cooperation between the prosecution service and the tax services \u201d .","The court considered that the defendants had used the claimant \u2019s photograph unlawfully , as the fact she was a public figure had not absolved them from asking her permission . It further stated :","\u201c ORG has no grounds to consider that the defendants rebutted the presumption under LAW that their actions were unlawful .","The fact that the journalists relied on the comments of other individuals , even if they had indicated their sources , in this case the prosecutors , does not make such practice lawful . Such types of expression do not absolve a journalist from exercising particular diligence and care in collecting and using material .","...","The defendants did not show that their actions were lawful ; the suggestion they made , namely that the claimant had \u2018 changed the law\u2019 had been untrue , their duty to act with particular diligence and care had not been fulfilled , and their direction of criticism against the claimant had not been in the public interest or compatible with the principle of coexistence with others .","It had been unnecessary to ruin the claimant \u2019s good name and reputation in order to express an opinion about an amendment to section CARDINAL . It is known how laws are passed and the claimant , acting lawfully and openly , did not change the law in force and could have only had a minor impact on the legislative process , in which the final decision did not depend on her . The suggestion that she changed the law is untrue , and making out that she had been responsible for changes in the law undermines journalistic integrity .","The defendants did not provide any evidence to suggest that the claimant had acted in the interests of the [ petrol ] mafia . Other suggestions , namely that the amendment had caused the fight against the mafia and cooperation between the tax and prosecution authorities to become paralysed , were also untrue .","The authors of the articles did not seek the opinion of specialists in tax law , nor did they try to explain the reasons behind the amendment . Their reporting was CARDINAL - sided and formed far - fetched conclusions , creating an atmosphere of sensationalism and scandal ... \u201d","On DATE ORG amended the judgment as regards the wording of the apology . It held that the applicants should publish the following text :","\u201c [ All CARDINAL applicants ] apologise to Ms D.S. for ruining her good name through the composition and use of headlines and subheadings in the DATE newspaper Rzeczpospolita on DATE ( \u2018 ORG pays no taxes\u2019 and \u2018 ORG to pay no taxes\u2019 ) and DATE ( \u2018 Dubious law to be changed\u2019 ) , suggesting that , as an adviser to the PERSON \u2019s finance subcommittee , she had been guided by reasons unworthy of merit and had infringed the principles of honesty . \u201d","ORG considered that ORG guidelines for the apology were expressed too broadly , particularly as the latter acknowledged that the articles in question had a factual basis . In the present case , certain suggestions were made through the choice of headlines and subheadings , which led to the claimant \u2019s personal rights being breached . Lastly , ORG considered that the fact that the defendants had taken quotations from public servants could exclude their liability , but only in so far as the wording of the comments quoted was concerned and not the \u201c composition of the articles which led to negative suggestions [ being made ] , creating an untrue picture of the person in question \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173624","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KRUNOSLAVA ZOVKO v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE she sustained an injury in a car accident while returning home from work . On DATE her injury was recognised as a work - related injury by ORG ( PERSON osiguranje za\u0161tite zdravlja na radu ) . On the basis of her work - related injury the applicant was granted sick leave between DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant visited the Emergency Medicine Centre of ORG ( NORP za hitnu medicinu PERSON bolni\u010dkog centra GPE ) owing to the pain in her neck and back . There it was established that she was suffering from a severely sore spine with a deformity .","The following day she visited her chosen general practitioner , who found that the applicant was unable to work and granted her sick leave starting from DATE on the basis of an illness .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against her general practitioner \u2019s assessment of the reason for her sick leave . She argued that she should be granted sick leave entitlement on the basis of the work - related injury that she had sustained on DATE . She submitted medical documentation in support of her argument .","Following the lodging of the complaint , the applicant \u2019s general practitioner referred the applicant for an expert medical evaluation , enclosing her medical documentation with the request for expert evaluation .","On DATE an authorised doctor of ORG of ORG ( Hrvatski zavod za zdravstveno osiguranje , ORG ured GPE \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the GPE Office \u201d ) , specialised in physical medicine and rehabilitation , examined the applicant \u2019s medical documentation and reported finding no direct causal link between the work - related injury sustained by the applicant in DATE and the sick leave she had begun on DATE .","ORG forwarded the report to the applicant and informed her of her right to seek the delivery of a written decision on the matter of her sick leave entitlement . The applicant availed herself of that right and asked for a written decision .","By a decision of DATE ORG , relying on the report of DATE , refused the applicant \u2019s request that the sick leave from DATE be granted on the basis of her work - related injury . It also dismissed her claim for compensation for lost salary during the period of sick leave .","The applicant challenged this decision before ORG ( Hrvatski zavod za zdravstveno osiguranje , Direkcija \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the LOC \u201d ) , submitting further medical documentation and requesting that her sick leave be granted on the basis of her work - related injury .","Following the appeal by the applicant , ORG asked an in - house medical commission to conduct an expert examination regarding the matter . On DATE the medical commission , consisting of CARDINAL doctors of medicine , examined the applicant \u2019s overall medical documentation and reported that her sick leave from DATE could not be granted on the basis of the work - related injury that she had sustained in DATE .","On DATE ORG , relying on the findings of the medical commission , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of ORG .","The applicant then brought an administrative action in ORG ( GPE ) . She contested the findings of the ORG \u2019s expert medical bodies , relied on her medical documentation and alleged that it indicated a causal link between the work - related injury she had sustained in DATE and her sick leave . She requested that she be heard and that an expert medical report on the matter be obtained .","On DATE ORG submitted a response to the applicant \u2019s administrative action . This response was forwarded to the applicant .","On DATE ORG held a public hearing , to which the applicant was duly summoned . She did not attend the hearing , but was represented by a lawyer . Her lawyer reiterated the arguments adduced and evidence proposed in the administrative action . The representative of ORG contested this . ORG then dismissed the proposal to hear the applicant and to obtain a further expert medical report on the matter and closed the hearing .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action as unfounded . It stressed , in particular , that CARDINAL expert medical bodies of the ORG , as well as the applicant \u2019s chosen general practitioner , had established without a doubt that the applicant \u2019s sick leave beginning on DATE was not linked to the work - related injury she had sustained in DATE . It also stressed that the applicant , by the submissions in her administrative action , did not manage to put into doubt the findings of the expert medical bodies and that thus there was no need to hear her or to obtain a further expert medical report on the matter .","NORP The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint , alleging that the proceedings had been unfair in that she had been excluded from the procedure of commissioning and obtaining the administrative authorities\u2019 expert reports , whereas ORG had refused to hear her and to obtain an independent expert medical report on the matter .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as manifestly ill - founded . This decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147333","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MAMAZHONOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , GPE .","In DATE , in the face of potential prosecution for religious extremism , he fled GPE with a forged NORP passport under an assumed name . On DATE he entered the territory of GPE .","On DATE he obtained a NORP passport using forged documents .","On DATE and CARDINAL September CARDINAL the applicant was indicted by the investigative authorities of GPE on charges of terrorism , inciting religious hatred , encroaching upon the constitutional order , illegally crossing the State border , organising a criminal group , producing and disseminating material threatening public security and order , participating in religious extremist , separatist , and fundamentalist movements , and smuggling . Since the NORP authorities could not locate him he was indicted in absentia .","According to the NORP investigative authorities , in DATE and DATE the applicant had been actively involved in operating the terrorist organisation ORG , which has extensive ties with ORG , ORG . He allegedly took part in recruiting and training terrorists , smuggling extremist material into GPE , organising gatherings where extremist material , including video and audio recordings , were viewed and distributed , fundraising for terrorist acts , training recruits in using firearms and hand - grenades , and facilitating illegal border crossings by the leaders of ORG . The NORP authorities further contended that members of the above - mentioned group had been involved in terrorist acts that had taken place in GPE and GPE on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The order was issued in absentia and the reasons given were the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the fact that he could not be located . On DATE an investigator issued an international search and arrest warrant against him .","In DATE the NORP investigative authorities sent a notification to ORG in GPE that according to their intelligence , the applicant was living in the region .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s name and his CARDINAL aliases were put in the \u2018 RM\u2019 public transport search and identification system . The record mentioned his alleged association with radical and extremist organisations .","On DATE the \u2018 RM\u2019 system registered the sale of a ticket for a passenger train going from GPE to GPE . The ticket had been bought under the applicant \u2019s assumed name , which he used in his NORP passport . An alert was sent to ORG .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was apprehended at GPE railway station by officers of ORG and ORG ( ORG ) . During the initial identity check , he used his NORP passport bearing an assumed name .","After the applicant \u2019s true identity had been established , an \u2018 express ORG was conducted with him by PERSON \u2019s assistant transport prosecutor , PERSON The applicant stated during the interview that he had fled GPE after learning that he was suspected of taking part in watching extremist material , while his prosecution was actually politically motivated . He further stated that since his entry into GPE , he had been living on various construction sites in GPE , NORP and GPE .","At TIME a record of apprehension of a person under an international search and arrest warrant was drawn up and the applicant was officially informed of his rights and the nature of the charges in GPE .","On DATE at TIME he was once again interviewed by Mr M. During the interview , he was informed of the right not to incriminate himself and that he would be provided with an interpreter if needed . He expressed his wish to give answers in LANGUAGE . The interview record was verified and signed by him .","The applicant stated during the interview that in DATE he had decided to leave GPE because of possible prosecution for watching video material which was considered extremist by the NORP authorities . He further stated that he had procured a forged NORP passport under an assumed name , which he had used to enter GPE and obtain NORP citizenship . In particular , the interview record contained the following passages :","\u201c ... Until DATE my permanent income came from exchanging currency in GPE and selling fruit ...","In DATE an acquaintance [ working ] in law enforcement informed me that my name was on the list of people suspected of extremism . Aware that my acquaintances had been prosecuted for watching extremist material and sentenced to lengthy prison terms , I decided to evade law enforcement , since I had also watched that material ...","In DATE I decided to return to GPE because I no longer wished to be a fugitive and it was necessary to make contact with the law enforcement bodies in GPE to resolve the situation surrounding [ their ] search [ for me ] .","As to the criminal case against me I learnt of its existence from my wife during a phone conversation in DATE ... I did not understand what the charges against me were , but presumed that I had been prosecuted for watching the extremist videos .","I did not commit any of the crimes I am accused of , except illegally crossing the NORP border . In DATE I watched a documentary at home with some of my acquaintances about the killing of NORP in GPE and GPE by GPE soldiers \u2013 I presume they were NORP because the majority of population in those countries are followers of ORG . We did not like the actions of the NORP soldiers and we discussed that . I do not think I committed any crime ...","I did not request political asylum or refugee status in GPE ...","I believe that my prosecution is politically motivated , because I do not like GPE \u2019s policies on entrepreneurs ; an opinion I expressed to the ORG institutions of GPE . \u201d","DATE the applicant was placed in a pre - trial detention facility , SIZO-CARDINAL in GPE , pursuant to the detention order issued by ORG . ORG in GPE was notified of the arrest .","On DATE an extradition request under LAW ( \u201c the GPE Convention \u201d ) was lodged by ORG of GPE . Making reference to the provisions of LAW and NORP legislation , the request included the following assurances :","On DATE and DATE and on DATE the applicant \u2019s detention was extended by ORG of Orenburg .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE examined the merits of the extradition request and authorised it in respect of the charges of terrorism , participating in an armed group , and illegally crossing the NORP border . The request was refused in respect of the other charges due to a lack of evidence and\/or their being no comparable crimes under NORP law . The extradition authorisation did not examine any risks to which the applicant might have been exposed in GPE and merely stated that \u201c no obstacles to extraditing Mr LANGUAGE under international law or the legislation of GPE had been established \u201d .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative PERSON lodged a complaint against this decision , alleging that the applicant was at a heightened risk of being subjected to torture if extradited to GPE . The complaint stressed that since the applicant \u2019s asylum application had not been definitively dismissed on appeal , any extradition authorisation was unlawful .","The complaint alleged that contrary to the interpretation of the law in force provided by Ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG of GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the prosecutor had neglected his incumbent duty to consider the risk of torture in GPE , having regard to the general situation in the destination country and the applicant \u2019s personal situation , and the fact that the text of the extradition authorisation gave no reasons in this regard .","The applicant \u2019s representative also referred directly to CARDINAL of the ORG \u2019s judgments issued DATE in which a violation under LAW had been found in similar circumstances . He argued that the prosecution authorities had disregarded the ORG \u2019s conclusion that individuals accused of crimes concerning politics and religion constituted a \u201c risk group \u201d systematically exposed to ill - treatment in GPE . Accordingly , their extradition , just like the applicant \u2019s , had been contrary to GPE obligations under LAW .","Referring to reports by the ORG agencies , ORG and CIVICUS in DATE , the applicant \u2019s representative alleged that the use of torture and ill - treatment was commonplace in respect of people accused of religiously and politically motivated crimes .","Lastly , relying on the official position of certain NORP State institutions , PERSON highlighted the fact that ORG in its note of DATE \u201c On human rights in GPE \u201d stated :","\u201c ... criminal trials are characterised by a dependence on forced confessions , and a lack of adequate legal representation ... it is also noted that people convicted of anti - State , religious and politically motivated crimes are incarcerated in much stricter regimes than others ... \u201d","The complaint also quoted a DATE letter from the head of ORG of ORG to the director of ORG :","\u201c ... Considering the reasoning of ORG , it is actually possible to state that currently the extradition , deportation or administrative removal to GPE of any person wanted by the law enforcement agencies ... will constitute a violation of the LAW ... \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . It stated that the approval of the request was lawful , properly reasoned , and took into account the assurances of the NORP authorities . Furthermore , it considered that the ill - treatment allegations were merely a defence strategy of the applicant , who had procured a forged NORP passport under an assumed name , illegally crossed the NORP border on DATE , obtained NORP citizenship under an assumed name , and lodged an asylum request only after his apprehension under the international search and arrest warrant . The court noted that he had been convicted in GPE on DATE of forgery and fined MONEY ( RUB ) ( CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . It also stated that the extradition authorisation given by ORG did not presume an automatic transfer of the applicant to GPE , and that no extradition could take place before his asylum proceedings had finished .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative Mr PERSON appealed to ORG against ORG decision , relying on essentially the same arguments as presented before . In addition , he stated in his appeal that contrary to the decision of ORG , the NORP authorities had not explicitly stated that the applicant would not be subjected to torture , but had limited their assurance to a statement that the legislation in force prohibited it ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The representative referred ORG to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , where the existence of domestic and international law provisions prohibiting illtreatment was not considered to be a sufficient assurance in itself .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court \u2019s decision and extradition authorisation . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c ... [ In his appeal ] Mr PERSON indicates that [ ORG ] ignored the fact that ... he had requested asylum and thus may not be returned to GPE . The court did not examine all the circumstances and adopted a wrong decision ...","The attorney PERSON requests in the interests of PERSON ... that extradition proceedings be terminated . The attorney believes that [ ORG ] violated NORP and international asylum law and did not examine the fact that the applicant had requested asylum . The court also did not examine any evidence proving that PERSON might be subjected to torture ... in GPE . In his opinion , the case file does not contain guarantees that [ the applicant ] would not be subjected to unlawful actions and [ the decision must therefore be quashed as unreasoned ] ...","When ORG decided to transfer Mr PERSON to the law enforcement agencies of GPE , his asylum request was denied .","[ Furthermore , ORG restated the reasons for the denial of asylum and the assurances provided by the NORP authorities . ]","...","The arguments of PERSON and his counsel that in GPE he will be persecuted on religious and political grounds are unfounded , since there is no objective proof .","The material in the case file demonstrates that PERSON PERSON \u2019s prosecution by the NORP authorities is of a general nature and is not related to the policies of that ORG .","PERSON did not submit to the court any convincing arguments giving weighty grounds to believe that the NORP authorities might subject him to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , or that he might be persecuted on the grounds of race , religious beliefs , citizenship , ethnicity , belonging to a social group , or political convictions .","[ ORG ] finds no grounds to annul the decision ... \u201d","On DATE a criminal investigation was initiated by the NORP authorities in respect of the use of forged identification papers by the applicant .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace for the CARDINALth Circuit of the Promyshlenniy District of GPE convicted the applicant of using of forged documents ( a NORP passport ) and fined him RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . During the trial , he acknowledged his guilt , but stated that the procurement of false NORP and NORP identification papers had been a necessary measure to avoid his arbitrary prosecution in GPE for the crimes he had not committed .","On DATE PERSON applied on the applicant \u2019s behalf for asylum , alleging that the criminal charges against him had been \u201c fabricated \u201d after he , a successful businessman , had refused to pay bribes and provide payoffs to the NORP authorities .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed by the immigration authorities and his answers were recorded in an asylum questionnaire .","On DATE ORG of ORG refused to consider the merits of his request , because in their opinion it had been lodged only to evade prosecution in GPE , and the applicant had failed to substantiate his alleged fear of return . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c ... In the questionnaire , Mr NORP states that the reasons for his arrival in GPE were the extortionist demands of the authorities , unlawful persecution for his business success , and fear for his life . He submitted no other reasons , and stated that he had never been a member of religious , political or non - governmental organisations .","According to the questionnaire , there were no incidents of violence against him GPE ; he never complained of persecution to the law enforcement or ORG institutions in GPE or to human rights organisations .","He explains his unwillingness to return to the country of origin by his fear of prosecution for serious offences by the law enforcement authorities in GPE ...","The fact that PERSON , expressing his wish to receive protection from GPE ... did not lodge his asylum request at the border crossing in DATE ... or attempt to legalise his status during the lengthy period thereafter , and [ did so ] only after his apprehension [ under the warrant ] for crimes committed in GPE , demonstrates that the objective reason for ... his arriving in GPE was to evade prosecution for crimes committed outside of GPE ...","During his stay in GPE DATE and DATE , Mr PERSON had also committed an offence by [ being in possession of ] forged documents and unlawfully obtaining a NORP passport ...","It follows that the analysis of the reasons given in the asylum questionnaire , case file and search for the applicant for the crimes committed outside of GPE ... does not lead to a conclusion [ that there is any risk of him being persecuted in GPE ] . \u201d","On DATE ORG of Orenburg in reviewing the above decision , established that the applicant had illegally crossed the NORP border on DATE , procured a forged NORP passport under an assumed name , obtained NORP citizenship under that name , and lodged an asylum request only after his apprehension under the international search and arrest warrant . On that basis the court rejected his complaint against the immigration authorities\u2019 decision .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against ORG decision . He alleged that both the immigration authorities and ORG had failed to consider his claims that he risked ill - treatment if returned to GPE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court \u2019s decision and immigration authorities\u2019 refusal to consider the asylum request . In particular , it stated :","\u201c Information from reputable international human rights organisations concerning the unfavourable political climate in GPE and practice of malicious persecution of those accused of crimes against the ORG was not proven by objective evidence within the framework of PERSON case and may not serve as a basis for the annulment of a judicial decision ... Moreover , a competent ORG institution deciding on asylum status independently evaluates the situation in a specific country relying on its own sources , and the opinion of human rights organisations is not determinative of such a decision ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for temporary asylum in GPE , but it was denied by the immigration authorities on DATE .","DATE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative PERSON submitted to the ORG a request for the application of an interim measure under LAW to stay the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE until further notice . The request specified that the applicant \u2019s extradition would expose him to a risk of treatment contrary to LAW . The evidence and arguments presented to the ORG were essentially the same as the evidence and arguments previously presented to the national authorities .","On DATE the Acting President of the First Section indicated to the respondent Government , under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , that the applicant should not be extradited to GPE until further notice .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the ORG that they had taken relevant steps to guarantee that the applicant would not be extradited to GPE until further notice . In particular , ORG , departments of ORG , and ORG had been ordered to prevent the applicant \u2019s extradition or removal from GPE , and other law enforcement agencies had been instructed to comply with the measure applied .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative PERSON was informed that the applicant would be released on DATE . However , since it was a public holiday in GPE the release was rescheduled to CARDINAL a.m. DATE . PERSON was informed in person .","A decision to release the applicant dated DATE was issued by ORG . It restated the procedural history of the case available to the NORP authorities at that time and explicitly mentioned the application of an interim measure by the ORG . In the absence of any further legal grounds for the applicant \u2019s detention , his release was ordered .","According to statements submitted to the ORG by the applicant \u2019s representative , he arrived at the detention facility on DATE at TIME Despite his previous enquiries about the time of release , Mr PERSON was informed at TIME that the applicant had been released at CARDINAL TIME and had left in an unknown direction . According to the DATE \u2019s submissions , the release had taken place at TIME","Later the same day Mr PERSON lodged a request with ORG the Orenburg Region . The relevant parts of the request read as follows :","\u201c ... [ On DATE ] officers at the checkpoint [ of SIZO-CARDINAL ] informed me that ... Mr PERSON was going to be released on DATE , no earlier than TIME","Relying on the veracity of the information provided , I arrived TIME at SIZO-CARDINAL , where I was informed at TIME [ sic ] that PERSON had already been released and had departed in an unknown direction . I was refused information about the precise time of release [ sic ] . At the present moment I \u2019m not aware of the whereabouts of my client .","I draw your attention to the fact that during a private conversation , PERSON PERSON asked me to be personally present during his release and to further support him until the regularisation [ of his immigration status ] in GPE ; he strongly denied any possibility of returning to GPE voluntarily .","Having regard to these facts , and the fact that there have previously been instances of disappearances from GPE of NORP nationals charged with State crimes , whose extradition was being sought [ by the NORP authorities ] , I have grounds to believe that PERSON PERSON was abducted by interested parties with a view to transferring him to GPE .","Accordingly , I request [ that ] :","An inquiry is initiated into these allegations .","Criminal proceedings are initiated into the suspected [ abduction ] ... \u201d","Similar requests were lodged with ORG , ORG of the ORG , and the police .","On DATE the administration of the detention facility SIZOCARDINAL sent a letter to ORG , informing it of the applicant \u2019s release .","Following PERSON request a preliminary inquiry into the applicant \u2019s alleged disappearance was initiated by ORG TIME in GPE .","On DATE the inquiry was handed over to ORG , since the crime suspected fell under their jurisdiction . The inquiry case file reached them on DATE .","On DATE the investigator examined the applicant \u2019s cell in SIZO-CARDINAL and seized from the administration the applicant \u2019s personal file and the available video surveillance recordings .","On DATE he questioned CARDINAL officers working at the detention centre who were present during the applicant \u2019s release . They stated that the applicant ( i ) had been released at the expiry of the court - ordered detention , ( ii ) had been informed of his obligation to register with the immigration authorities , ( iii ) had not made any complaints or requests during his release , and ( iv ) had not been approached after his release by anyone in uniform , NORP - looking or anyone else .","On DATE , in reply to the investigator \u2019s request , ORG informed him that there was no record of the applicant in their databases , and ORG of the ORG stated that due to the absence of any IT systems at the borders of the Orenburg Region it was not possible to provide information about a specific person .","On DATE the period of inquiry was extended by DATE to collect further evidence .","On DATE , in reply to the investigator \u2019s request , ORG in GPE stated that since DATE the applicant had not been apprehended or detained by the police .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s cellmate in SIZO-CARDINAL , PERSON , was interviewed after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury . The relevant part of the interview record stated as follows :","\u201c .... In DATE he was released ... He did not know about his release from detention because he was woken up early in the TIME and told that he was being released ... he did not inform me of his future plans . I am not aware where he might be . \u201d","On DATE an officer of ORG in GPE , Mr Ab . , who was involved in apprehending the applicant , was questioned after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury . He stated , in particular , that ( i ) the applicant was of no interest to his agency since there was no evidence of his involvement in criminal activities in GPE , ( ii ) that he was not aware of the applicant \u2019s possible whereabouts , and ( iii ) that there had been no contact or exchange of information between his agency and the NORP law enforcement agencies .","On DATE the investigator requested from ORG in GPE a copy of the extradition case file , in order to fully consider the possibility of the applicant \u2019s forced removal to GPE . It was provided on DATE .","DATE . On DATE , in reply to the investigator \u2019s repeated request , ORG informed him that there was no record of the applicant crossing the State border after DATE .","On DATE an officer of the ORG in GPE , Mr St. , who was involved in apprehending the applicant , was questioned after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury . His statements were essentially the same as those provided previously by PERSON . , the officer of ORG in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative PERSON was interviewed after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury . The relevant part of the interview records stated as follows :","\u201c On DATE I arrived at SIZO-CARDINAL in GPE with Mr Al . and Mr R.M. , who lives in GPE but works in GPE and who is a brother of PERSON PERSON ... I was told [ by officers of the detention facility ] that the client \u2019s release would not take place that day , since the papers were not ready ... [ I was told to return the next day by TIME ]","... While PERSON was detained in SIZO-CARDINAL I frequently visited him , but he never informed me of any visits from law enforcement agents or anyone else [ or ] the use of unlawful investigative measures or torture . If something like that had happened to him , he would have told me about it . I personally have also never been contacted about PERSON by agents of the ORG or other services of GPE or GPE ; from what I know the same applies to his relatives ...","... [ DATE I arrived at SIZO-CARDINAL at TIME The officer on duty refused to provide me with any information on PERSON ... [ she ] told me that at TIME he was being released ... At TIME I called SIZO-CARDINAL and was informed that PERSON had been released at TIME To date I have not been aware of his whereabouts , his relatives do not have this information either , as he did not make any contact . I am saying that his NORP passport has been seized and his NORP passport has been lost . Before his release PERSON did not inform me of an intention to move somewhere after his release ; on the contrary , he wanted to regularise his status in GPE . I personally believe that certain parties from GPE interested in his return are implicated in [ his ] disappearance . There have been similar cases in GPE in the past . \u201d","DATE , in reply to the investigator \u2019s request , ORG in GPE stated that there was no record of the applicant buying train or plane tickets DATE .","On DATE , relying on the results of the preliminary inquiry , ORG initiated criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s disappearance and suspected murder . The investigation was assigned to a group of investigators from ORG , the ORG , and the regional ORG .","On DATE a detailed plan of the investigation was adopted by the group of investigators , presided by PERSON The plan contained CARDINAL investigative measures each assigned to specific investigators . The measures were aimed at detecting the current whereabouts of the applicant , discovering information and evidence , and verifying CARDINAL existing theories about the applicant \u2019s disappearance . The theories adopted were that :","DATE an investigator examined the area around SIZO-CARDINAL and established that there had been no outside video surveillance cameras placed there .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative PERSON challenged the opening of an investigation into his client \u2019s disappearance and suspected murder , arguing that the investigation should be based on his suspected abduction . On DATE he was informed by the investigator that there was no evidence to substantiate the suspected abduction .","DATE . DATE the applicant \u2019s representative PERSON was once again interviewed after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury . His statement was essentially the same as his previous one ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the release officer of SIZO-CARDINAL , PERSON , was questioned after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury . The relevant parts of the interview records read as follows :","\u201c ... [ The prosecutor \u2019s decision to release PERSON on DATE due to expiry of the maximum period for his detention ] arrived at SIZO-CARDINAL on DATE at TIME ...","During TIME of DATE , the lawyer PERSON ... called me to inquire about the date of release ... [ PERSON informed him that it would be DATE ] ...","Around TIME on DATE I was informed by officers at the checkpoint that PERSON had visited [ SIZO-CARDINAL to inquire about PERSON PERSON \u2019s release ] ...","On DATE I arrived at work at TIME at the request of the head of SIZO-CARDINAL , Mr GPE .... [ and immediately took part in Mr NORP \u2019s release ] ...","During the release , PERSON asked me whether his lawyer was waiting for him , but I could not tell [ him ] because I did not know ... \u201d","On DATE the head of SIZO-CARDINAL , Mr GPE , was questioned after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury . The relevant parts of the interview records read as follows :","\u201c ... During PERSON detention in SIZO-CARDINAL and after the prosecutor \u2019s decision to release him , I was made aware of [ his ] concerns for his safety after release .","Accordingly , in order to ensure his safety I made the decision to release [ him ] before regular working hours ...","I took part in [ his ] release ... as an officer in charge of supervising the release procedure ...","[ After release ] PERSON left the premises of SIZO-CARDINAL . He left the area and passed the guards alone ...","I am not aware if anyone was meeting him ... \u201d","On DATE CARDINAL security guards of SIZO-CARDINAL who were present during the applicant \u2019s release were questioned after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury . They all stated that the release had taken place at TIME and were not aware if anyone had been expecting the applicant , since they could not leave their duty stations in the building .","On DATE , in reply to the request of CARDINAL DATE , the administration of SIZO-CARDINAL informed the investigation that while there were video surveillance cameras covering the building and adjacent area , the recordings of CARDINAL DATE were no longer available due to the expiry of their storage period . However , the recording from the camera at the checkpoint of the detention facility covering the period DATE was available ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , since a local copy had been saved following a request in the course of the preliminary inquiry .","On DATE and DATE the ORG in the Orenburg Region informed the chief investigator that they had complied with the investigative tasks assigned to them . They stated that they had contacted ORG of GPE in order to obtain information about the applicant \u2019s possible whereabouts , establish a list of his relatives , and procure the necessary background information . They further stated that according to their sources , the applicant might have been assisted in illegally crossing the NORP border by Mr Al . , with whom he had previously collaborated extensively in illegal activities .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s cellmate in SIZO-CARDINAL , PERSON , was repeatedly questioned after being cautioned about criminal liability for perjury . He mostly confirmed his previous statements , supplementing them with the following relevant passages :","\u201c ... PERSON told me that in GPE he had been prosecuted for terrorism . He told me that in GPE he might have been sentenced to DATE imprisonment ...","[ He ] also told me that in DATE he had decided to travel to GPE by train , because he was worried about his CARDINAL or CARDINAL wives and QUANTITY children ...","... He had only learnt of the international search warrant after his apprehension ...","[ He ] did not want to return to GPE , because he would have been sentenced to lengthy imprisonment there ...","[ He ] also mentioned that if there was no possibility of him staying in GPE , he would travel to GPE or GPE , where he had acquaintances ...","[ DATE before his release he was informed of it ]","PERSON told me that his lawyer was going to inform his friends and relatives of DATE of release and that they were going to come and meet him ...","[ He was convinced that his friends and relatives ] were going to help him relocate to another country if he was not able to stay in GPE , because he did not want to return to GPE ... \u201d","On DATE PERSON , the applicant \u2019s brother , was officially recognised as a victim by the investigative authorities .","On DATE the investigator sent a request for legal cooperation to the NORP authorities . The competent authorities were requested to inform PERSON of his status in the investigation conducted in GPE and question him according to a non - exhaustive list of TIME questions concerning the applicant \u2019s background , state of health and mind , social and family ties , political and religious affiliations , and questions in respect of the events of CARDINAL and DATE . Lastly , the NORP authorities were requested to collect a saliva sample from him for his DNA , in the event of a future need for identification .","On DATE , in reply to the request of CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the investigation that there was no record of Mr NORP crossing the NORP border .","According to the material in the ORG \u2019s possession , other investigative activities DATE included a screening of the applicant \u2019s possible contacts , a search for possible witnesses , monitoring of the sale of train and airline tickets , putting the applicant on the list of missing persons , and sending legal cooperation requests to neighbouring regions .","The applicant \u2019s representatives\u2019 submissions of DATE addressed to the ORG were accompanied by an undated letter by PERSON ( the applicant \u2019s second representative ) . The relevant parts of the letter stated :","\u201c ... in DATE I received a phone call on my mobile from a man identifying himself as a relative of my client , Mr PERSON . The man told me [ the applicant ] was being held in custody in GPE and that the criminal case would be sent to trial soon . Due to fears for his safety , he refused to provide me with detailed information on the case ... or to state his full name .","Furthermore , from a private conversation with an investigator , PERSON , I have learnt that he ( the investigator ) is preparing to go on a mission to GPE in order to get statements from Mr PERSON himself concerning the circumstances of the criminal case opened following his disappearance . He further informed me that the statements ... would be obtained by officials of the NORP law enforcement agencies , and that just he himself would be present during the interview . \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representatives informed ORG recent developments in the case . In particular , the letter stated :","\u201c ... The applicant \u2019s lawyer PERSON recently received a call from an unknown person ... [who stated ] that the applicant was currently being detained in GPE ( GPE ) and that the criminal case against him was about to be handed over to the court . The man also informed me that the applicant \u2019s brother ( who was acknowledged as a victim of the crime in the criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s abduction in GPE ) was also currently being detained in GPE ...","The applicant \u2019s representatives also pointed out that the initial authorities\u2019 intention to conduct certain investigative measures in GPE was not realised for unknown reasons . The intention to visit GPE confirms in itself that the applicant was in GPE ...","The detention of the applicant \u2019s brother , PERSON ( whose name was mentioned in the request for cooperation of CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ... ) illustrates the reluctance of the NORP authorities to provide the NORP investigative authorities with an opportunity to get an independent statement from [ him ] ... \u201d","No other information is available to the ORG regarding the progress of the criminal investigation .","The applicant \u2019s whereabouts are currently unknown .","The Government submitted as evidence to the ORG a recording from the video surveillance camera placed inside SIZO-CARDINAL in GPE facing the checkpoint of the detention facility , opposite the only entrance to the building . The recording covers the period between CARDINAL.CARDINAL and TIME on DATE , DATE of the applicant \u2019s release .","On the recording , at TIME a person identifying himself as Mr PERSON is brought before an officer responsible for releasing detainees . He gives the same date and place of birth as those indicated ( in paragraph CARDINAL ) above , and gives an address in PERSON as his place of residence . He is provided with an identity certificate , and after receiving it at TIME leaves , presumably after being released from the detention centre .","The recording of TIME shows several people approach and pass the checkpoint .","At TIME the following fragments of a conversation are audible :","\u201c Woman : Permission to enter .","...","Man [ over the phone ] : Where are you ? The exit ? Alone ? ...","Woman : ... civilians ...","Man : NORP ?","Woman : No ... [ he ] is in uniform and CARDINAL civilians ... \u201d","At TIME a senior officer approaches the checkpoint , presumably from outside the building :","\u201c Officer at the checkpoint : Good TIME , Sir !","Senior officer : Hello ! Have you seen anything ?","Officer at the checkpoint : ...","Senior officer : I am asking you if you have seen anything .","Officer at the checkpoint : No .","Senior officer : OK . I am asking just in case . \u201d","On DATE the Ministers\u2019 Deputies at the FAC meeting , having considered the information and documents made available to them by the applicant \u2019s representatives and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , adopted the following decision concerning the applicant \u2019s disappearance :","\u201c The Deputies ,","Recalling the decisions adopted at their ORG meeting ( DATE ) ( DH ) and CARDINAL meeting ( DATE ) ( DH ) in the PERSON group of cases against GPE ,","NORP noted with grave concern that a further incident involving allegations of kidnapping and illegal transfer of an applicant protected by an interim measure indicated by ORG under Rule DATE has been reported , this time in the context of the NORP case ;","NORP strongly insisted that light be shed on this incident and on the fate of the applicant as quickly as possible ;","NORP consequently insisted again on the pressing need to adopt as of now measures to ensure an immediate and effective protection of the applicants in a similar situation against kidnappings and irregular removals from the national territory ;","recalled in this context the letter sent by the Chairman of ORG to the Minister of ORG of GPE ;","NORP agreed that a draft interim resolution will be considered in the light of progress that would have been made , including the updated action plan submitted by the NORP authorities ; this text will be circulated in the draft revised order of business of their CARDINAL meeting ( DATE ) ( DH ) . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["3","34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141197","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KARAMAN v. GERMANY","importance":2,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is the founder of the NORP TV station ORG and director of the management board of its operating company ORG PERSON CARDINAL \u2019s programme contents are broadcast nationwide in GPE and in GPE through the TV station ORG . The latter is operated by private limited - liability companies established under NORP law and , since DATE , by LAW ORG ( GPE beschr\u00e4nkter PERSON ) with the applicant as CARDINAL of its shareholders . The applicant alternately occupied the position of managing director ( Gesch\u00e4ftsf\u00fchrer ) or authorised signatory ( NORP ) in such companies .","Since DATE a specific programme slot in the channel \u2019s broadcasting schedule had been allocated to the non - profit association Deniz PERSON , founded , inter alia , by the Kanal CARDINAL head of human resources who was also a member of the association \u2019s board of directors . During that programme , broadcast in GPE and in GPE , the association reported on charitable aid projects being run by it and appealed for monetary donations . In DATE a similar association was founded in GPE under the name of PERSON . PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c LOC \u201d ) by PERSON , CARDINAL of the other shareholders and managing directors or , alternately , authorised signatories of LAW Fernseh- und Marketing GmbH. PERSON was also appointed chairman of the association and remained in that position until DATE . In its donation appeals on television PERSON stressed that the funds donated would be used directly and exclusively for charitable purposes and for the funding of social projects .","In DATE the GPE am GPE prosecution authorities ( ORG ) launched investigations against the applicant and several co - suspects , including PERSON , on suspicion of having fraudulently used the majority of funds donated to the associations for commercial purposes and their own benefit .","On DATE the preliminary criminal proceedings against the applicant were separated from the investigations against the co - suspects .","In DATE criminal investigations based on the same allegations of fraud were also initiated against the applicant in GPE .","By a judgment , the operative part of which together with a summary of its reasoning was pronounced orally on DATE ( file no . CARDINAL PERSON TIME CARDINAL CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , ORG ( ORG ) of the GPE am ORG convicted CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s co - suspects , PERSON and PERSON , of aggravated fraud ( FAC in einem besonders schweren Fall ) acting as members of a joint criminal enterprise with its leaders in GPE . Another co - accused , PERSON , was convicted of having aided and abetted the commission of the offence . PERSON and NORP were sentenced to prison sentences of DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE respectively , while PERSON was given a suspended prison sentence of DATE and DATE . The full judgment , with the complete reasoning , was subsequently delivered in writing DATE and DATE .","ORG found it to be established that PERSON had created and maintained a complex structure for the purpose of concealing the fact that the majority of the donations obtained for charitable purposes as advertised by PERSON were in reality earmarked and used to finance the entrepreneurial activities of private companies in which PERSON and the applicant , among others , became shareholders . At PERSON \u2019s request , T. had contributed to the fraudulent misrepresentation by , inter alia , fabricating CARDINAL of virtual association meetings of Deniz Feneri in order to conceal the unauthorised use of donated funds from the tax authorities . PERSON , for his part , also acting upon instructions from PERSON , had omitted to record the actual use of the donations in the association \u2019s official accounts and had documented them in separate unofficial accounts ( PERSON ) .","The court \u2019s findings were primarily based on confessions made by ORG , PERSON and PERSON following a plea bargain reached between the court , the prosecution authorities and the defence and also on further evidence obtained in the course of the trial . PERSON maintained that he alone had decided how the donated funds would be used without having consulted any contact persons in GPE , GPE and PERSON testified that PERSON had been integrated into the hierarchy of a criminal organisation whose leaders were in GPE and in which the applicant had played a leading role . According to T. and PERSON \u2019s testimony , PERSON had to obtain the applicant \u2019s prior approval with respect to all essential decisions relating to the use of donations obtained by the association . The court was therefore satisifed that PERSON had not been at the top of the criminal organisation \u2019s hierarchy but had received orders from its leaders residing in GPE .","The judgment \u2019s reasoning is divided into CARDINAL parts headed by ORG numerals . Part I provides information on the personal background of the accused . Part II contains a description of the circumstances of the case . Part III sets out the type of evidence on which ORG based its establishment of the facts and the court \u2019s assessment of the veracity and credibility of the relevant evidence . Parts PERSON and V contain the legal assessment of the offences committed by the accused and the determination of their relative guilt and the resulting sentence . Part VI stipulates that the accused are to bear the costs of the proceedings . The judgment refers on several occasions to the role that the heads of the criminal organisation in GPE played in connection with the use of donated funds for non - charitable purposes . In that context the applicant \u2019s full first and last names are mentioned numerous times in the judgment running to some thirtytwo pages . The most relevant passages of the judgment in parts II to V of its reasoning read as follows :","...","It was neither the association \u2019s chairman nor the registered members of the association [ Deniz Feneri ] who decided on the use of funds obtained on behalf of the association but the accused PERSON in coordination with and upon the instructions of the separately prosecuted ( gesondert Verfolgte ) PERSON , ... , ... and ... , ... ( pp . CARDINAL to CARDINAL )","...","The accused PERSON and the persons in charge of FAC in GPE were ... aware that donations collected in the NORP association \u2019s [ Deniz Feneri ] name would only partly be used for charitable purposes or social projects . At any rate , since DATE it had been the intention of PERSON and the separately prosecuted persons behind the scenes ( PERSON ) to also use a large part of the collected funds for economic activities , in particular for the start - up financing of entrepreneurial projects of private - law companies in which PERSON or the separately prosecuted PERSON , ... , ... and ... became shareholders . ( pp . CARDINAL )","...","For this reason , the accused PERSON and the separately prosecuted PERSON instructed the co - accused PERSON to keep unofficial accounts ( PERSON ) . ( p. CARDINAL )","...","DATE the contents of the unofficial accounts in GPE were coordinated between PERSON and ... , ... or PERSON . ( p. CARDINAL )","...","According to the entries in the unofficial accounts a total amount of QUANTITY was handed over to the separately prosecuted Zekeriya PERSON . ( p. CARDINAL )","...","The separately prosecuted Zekeriya PERSON , ... , ... , ... and ... decided on the use of the funds collected by means of donations . In his capacity as director of the management board of ORG , PERSON was accorded a pre - eminent role in this respect . ( p. CARDINAL )","...","The accused ORG was not aware of the exact amount of donated funds that had been used for non - charitable purposes . However he endorsed appeals for further donations while knowing that they were to a large extent going to be used for unauthorised purposes ... Following PERSON \u2019s arrest in DATE he was the contact person of PERSON with respect to all matters related to PERSON in GPE . The latter provided him with a mobile phone and a prepaid card in view of suspected telephone surveillance . ( p. CARDINAL )","...","ORG ) have been established ( steht fest ) on the basis of the confessions made by the accused and further evidence obtained in the course of the trial as set out in the record of the hearing . ( p. CARDINAL ) .","...","The ORG did not follow PERSON \u2019s submissions that he alone had decided on the unauthorised use of donated funds without consulting the persons behind the scenes in GPE . The accused PERSON and the accused ORG had stated in the course of their confessions during trial and during previous police questioning that PERSON had been integrated into a hierarchy and had to coordinate all essential decisions with the separately prosecuted PERSON , ... and ... , while PERSON , in his capacity as director of the management board of PERSON , played a pre - eminent role . ( p. CARDINAL )","Such integration into a structure controlled from GPE , as described by the QUANTITY coaccused , is sufficiently proved by the implementation of an unofficial accounting system , a parallel structure to the television station and the association PERSON in GPE and GPE for the collection of donations , the shareholding in the companies funded by donations , and the fact that cash withdrawals had been handed over at the LOC of FAC in GPE . By assuming sole responsibility for the donation appeals and the unauthorised use of the donated funds , the accused PERSON apparently tried to protect the persons behind him in GPE from criminal prosecution in GPE and\/or GPE . ( p. CARDINAL )","...","...","The accused ORG is guilty of fraud committed in his capacity as successive joint offender ( in sukzessiver PERSON ) pursuant to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . Not only did ORG want to support the actions of others but he also wanted to participate in a joint operation ( gemeinschaftliche ORG ) together with PERSON and the persons behind the scenes in GPE . ( p. CARDINAL )","...","...","Furthermore , it had to be considered in [ PERSON \u2019s ] favour that he was not positioned at the top of the hierarchy which organised the fraud ( ORG ) but received instructions from the persons behind the scenes in GPE . He could not decide alone on the unauthorised use of the donated funds but only develop ideas that ultimately had to be approved by the persons behind the scenes in GPE . He was an executing organ rather than a decision maker ( mehr ausf\u00fchrendes als bestimmendes Organ ) . ( p. CARDINAL )","...","[ T. \u2019s ] confession was not limited to his own participation in the commission of the offence . He also revealed his knowledge regarding the background and in particular concerning the persons behind the scenes . His knowledge was limited since PERSON and the persons behind him deliberately granted him only a restricted insight . In the hierarchy he was placed far below PERSON and the responsible persons in GPE . ( p. CARDINAL )","...","By keeping unofficial accounts [ E. ] made a significant contribution to the functioning of the overall system . The fact that he was not only requested by PERSON but also directly by the separately prosecuted PERSON to keep off the recorded accounts demonstrates the importance of such unofficial accounting . ( p. CARDINAL )","...","The persons behind the scenes in GPE had previously attempted to prevent [ E. ] from testifying before the investigative authorities by establishing contact with his first counsel and members of his family . \u201d ( p. CARDINAL )","According to an article published by the NORP newspaper PERSON on the Internet on DATE , the Acting President of the GPE am ORG had stated , when delivering the judgment , that the donated funds had been used by the persons behind the scenes for a mixture of their own economic and political purposes even though part of the money had indeed been spent on aid projects . The same newspaper had reported in an article published on the Internet on DATE that the prosecution authorities ( ORG ) had referred to the applicant as the \u201c main perpetrator and leader ( f\u00fchrender PERSON ) of the whole organisation \u201d . Similar quotations were published in several NORP newspapers on CARDINAL and DATE . For instance , according to an article published in the NORP newspaper PERSON on DATE , the presiding judge had declared when delivering the judgment , that \u201c strings were pulled at the level of FAC . PERSON and NORP acted in accordance with instructions they had received from ORG , in particular from PERSON , ... , ... and ... The main persons in charge were located in GPE . \u201d","The judgment was published on ORG website on DATE . In the judgment \u2019s Internet version the names of the accused and separately prosecuted were replaced by letters and the names of the companies involved by numbers . The introductory comments to the Internet publication included a paragraph stating that the judgment had become final and was binding only on the CARDINAL convicted persons . It was specified that references and findings in the judgment with respect to the actions of other persons , in particular those separately prosecuted , were not binding in relation to those persons and that the latter still benefited from the presumption of innocence . The text of the judgment itself does not contain a similar specification .","The judgment became final on DATE .","By written submissions dated DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He argued that the references in the reasoning of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE to his role in the fraudulent use of the donated funds had violated the principle of the presumption of innocence , which constituted CARDINAL aspect of the constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial taken in conjunction with the principle of the rule of law .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , served on the applicant on DATE , ORG dismissed the complaint as inadmissible ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The Constitutional Court found that while defendants were not categorically prevented from challenging a judgment delivered in proceedings conducted against third persons , an applicant who had not been party to the proceedings did have to be able to claim that his or her legitimate interests were directly affected by the impugned decision and not only in an indirect de facto manner . ORG reiterated its established case - law according to which , by virtue of the constitutionally guaranteed principle of the presumption of innocence , no measures effectively amounting to a penalty could be taken against an accused without his guilt having been established beforehand in the course of a fair trial . Furthermore , that finding of guilt had to become final before it could be held against the person concerned . However , in the context of criminal proceedings the presumption of innocence did not prevent the law - enforcement authorities from making an assessment as to whether and to what degree a person could be suspected of having committed a criminal offence .","NORP , ORG pointed out that the presumption of innocence did not protect the applicant ab initio from any factual impact of statements made in a judgment rendered in criminal proceedings against third persons with respect to his own involvement in the commission of the offence . That judgment did not constitute a decision that required the determination of the applicant \u2019s guilt or exposed him to disadvantages amounting to a conviction or sentence . Statements made in criminal proceedings against third persons did not have a binding effect on the courts or the prosecution authorities , whether with respect to preliminary proceedings pending against an applicant or in relation to any other court or administrative proceedings to which an applicant might possibly become a party in the future . The applicant could not be regarded as guilty on the basis of that judgment and was still protected by the principle of the presumption of innocence . The fact that the establishment of the facts by ORG not only concerned the accused , who were convicted at the end of the proceedings , but also the applicant was an inevitable consequence of the fact that in complex criminal proceedings it was hardly ever possible to conduct and terminate the proceedings against all the accused simultaneously .","A request for legal assistance was sent to the NORP authorities on DATE with a view to obtaining the applicant \u2019s examination in GPE . No information was submitted to the ORG as regards compliance with that request .","On DATE the GPE am GPE prosecution authorities brought charges against the applicant and CARDINAL co - accused in connection with the events in issue . It further appears that on DATE ORG brought similar charges against the applicant and that his trial in GPE commenced on DATE . According to the ORG \u2019s submissions , the GPE am ORG , by an order dated DATE , opened the main hearing in the proceedings against the applicant . These are apparently still pending ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178890","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \"ORTHODOX OHRID ARCHDIOCESE (GREEK-ORTHODOX OHRID ARCHIDIOESE OF THE PE\u0106 PATRIARCHY)\" v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) read in the light of Article 9 - (Art. 9) Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["ORG ( \u041e\u0445\u0440\u0438\u0434\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0410\u0440\u0445\u0438\u0435\u043f\u0438\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043f\u0438\u0458\u0430 ) , in its original form , existed until DATE , when it was abolished by the NORP Sultan . As stated by the applicant association , after its abolition the territory over which ORG had jurisdiction , which had included what is now the territory of the respondent ORG , fell under the jurisdiction of the ORG of LOC , which in DATE issued a canonical release of those territories to the benefit of ORG ( SOC ) . As stated by the Government , in DATE it was decided that ORG would be restored and continued by an autonomous ORG ( ORG ) . In DATE the ORG seceded from the ORG , and in DATE it declared autocephaly . The Head of ORG is designated as \u201c Archbishop of GPE and GPE \u201d ( PERSON ) .","NORP In negotiations which have been continuing since then , on CARDINAL DATE the CARDINAL churches signed a draft agreement ( known as \u201c the LOC agreement \u201d ) which provided for ecclesiastical union between them . It further specified that the ORG would renounce its autocephaly and obtain widest autonomy within the ORG under the name \u201c ORG \u201d .","According to the ORG , during the negotiations and the signing of the LOC agreement , there had been strong reaction by the public , which regarded the draft agreement as \u201c a scandalous and indecent act of treason \u201d and , owing to strong pressure by the public , on CARDINAL DATE ORG of the ORG ultimately rejected this agreement . The applicant association disagreed that the rejection of the agreement had resulted solely from the reaction by the public and submitted that \u201c the main pressure came directly from the NORP authorities who stood behind the protests \u201d .","Mr PERSON , a bishop and a member of ORG of the ORG at the time , was supportive of the LOC agreement . After ORG of the ORG had rejected that agreement , PERSON accepted a call by the ORG for reunification dated DATE ; on DATE he publicly announced that he was prepared for canonical union with the ORG . The Government submitted that that had provoked a public reaction and that there had been street protests in several cities in the respondent ORG .","On DATE ORG of the ORG dismissed Mr PERSON on the ground that , by his unilateral accession to the ORG , he had violated the oath by which he had bound himself to safeguard the ORG \u2019s unity and LAW ( see PERSON v. the former GPE DATE . ) CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) . On DATE the ORG declared the dismissal of PERSON null and void and appointed him \u201c exarch of PERSON and ORG for all eparchies of the ORG \u201d .","On DATE the applicant association constituted its own ORG and appointed PERSON as its President . By a letter of DATE , received by the Commission for religious communities and groups ( \u201c the Commission \u201d , GPE \u0437\u0430 \u043e\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0438 \u0441\u043e \u0432\u0435\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0437\u0430\u0435\u0434\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0438 \u0438 \u0440\u0435\u043b\u0438\u0433\u0438\u043e\u0437\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0433\u0440\u0443\u043f\u0438 ) on DATE , PERSON requested an opinion as to whether the applicant association should be registered , given that \u201c in all civilised GPE a church , which is older than the ORG is accepted without needing to be registered . \u201d The letter , which remained unanswered , further stated :","\u201c ... the true ORG is ORG . It is a legitimate church , recognised by all churches in the world , so all who want to be NORP are welcome , the doors are open . Those who are schismatic should join the schismatic ORG ) . ORG has nothing against the ORG registering schisms ... but it is against the ORG preventing its spiritual and leading operation in GPE ... \u201d","On DATE PERSON submitted an application ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0433\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) seeking that the applicant association be registered as a religious group ( \u0440\u0435\u043b\u0438\u0433\u0438\u043e\u0437\u043d\u0430 \u0433\u0440\u0443\u043f\u0430 ) . In support of the application , the applicant association submitted the following documents : ( a ) a founding decision of DATE rendered by its ORG . Under section CARDINAL of that decision , the applicant association was defined \u201c as a voluntary , non - profit association of NORP that were not associated with any other religious community or group \u201d . Its aim was to acquire legal - entity status and to manage its property . The decision specified the temporary place of registration of the applicant association and authorised Mr PERSON to submit an application for registration on behalf of the applicant association ; ( b ) a list of its adherents ; and ( c ) a LAW on the organisation and operation of the applicant ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) . The latter provided that the applicant \u201c would be autonomous within the canonical jurisdiction of FAC ( the SOC ) \u201d ; it specified that its temporary place of registration would be in GPE , in the respondent State , \u201c until it was possible to designate a permanent seat \u201d ; and that the applicant association and its structural units were legal entities and could obtain and manage property . It further provided that all legal persons that the applicant association might set up could have bank accounts .","On DATE the Commission found the application to be incomplete , and requested that the applicant association submit the following further documents : a ) a copy of a decision appointing the authorised person to seek registration of the applicant association and b ) a copy of the minutes of the constituent assembly . On DATE the applicant association submitted the requested documents .","On DATE the Commission dismissed the application ( \u0441\u0435 \u043e\u0434\u0431\u0438\u0432\u0430 \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435\u0442\u043e \u0437\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0432\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) for the following reasons :","( a ) the application was not submitted by an authorised person . The Commission held that it had been submitted by a certain ORG ( Bishop NORP ) and not by PERSON , who had been authorised to seek registration of the applicant association ;","( b ) the application for registration had been submitted outside the thirtyday time - limit specified in LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c the DATE LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which had started to run on DATE , the date on which the applicant association \u2019s ORG had been set up ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;","( c ) NORP relying on the applicant association \u2019s Charter , the Commission established that it would act as an autonomous religious group in canonical union with FAC ( SOC ) . That the applicant association would operate as part of a foreign orthodox church was , in the ORG \u2019s view , in violation of LAW . The ORG further stated that a religious community could be established only by nationals of the respondent ORG , and not by a foreign church or ORG ;","( d ) the applicant association had emerged from an already existing and registered religious community , notably the ORG , whose position and role had been specified in the LAW . The fact that the applicant association had sought registration under the name \u201c ORG \u201d had implied that its real intention was to create a parallel orthodox religious group to the ORG , which had been using that name ( ORG ) \u201c constitutionally , historically , actually and continuously \u201d ( \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043d\u043e , \u0438\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0441\u043a\u0438 , \u0430\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0435\u043b\u043d\u043e \u0438 \u0432\u043e \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442 ) for DATE . That was not in compliance with LAW , under which CARDINAL religious community could be registered for CARDINAL faith group . ORG referred to a decision of ORG which had found that provision compliant with LAW . It had ruled that the provision had protected people from being manipulated and same - faith believers from being divided into several religious groups ( U.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG also argued that the Preamble to the LAW of the ORG specified that it was the canonical successor to ORG . This was confirmed on DATE when ORG declared autocephaly , which was continued by the ORG . The ORG further held that on DATE the ORG had asked ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d , PERSON \u0437\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0448\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0438\u043d\u0434\u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0441\u043a\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u043f\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) to register the name \u201c ORG \u201d in its trademark register ( TM CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","Moreover , on DATE the ORG had asked the ORG to prevent registration of several names , including the name \u201c ORG \u201d , to which it was entitled for historical , religious and moral reasons ; and","( e ) the Commission held that property - related provisions of the applicant \u2019s Charter were contrary to section CARDINAL of LAW , according to which a religious group was a voluntary , non - profit association of believers .","In its decision of DATE , the ORG further referred to several international documents and a LAW that the Parliament of the respondent ORG adopted in DATE regarding the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The applicant association complained against this decision , arguing that :","( a ) the application for registration had been submitted by Mr Vrani\u0161kovski . ORG had only handed it over to the Commission \u2019s archives ;","( b ) the applicant association had been founded formally on DATE . On DATE , the date to which the Commission referred in its decision , the applicant association had only appointed the members of its ORG ;","( c ) NORP the applicant association was a new religious community that had no connection with , let alone stemmed from , the FAC , which , in any event , had not been recognised by any ORG ;","( d ) the fact that the ORG had sought to have the ORG add \u201c ORG \u201d to its name was irrelevant , since no such name existed in the ORG \u2019s records ;","( e ) NORP the applicant association had denied that it had been set up by a foreign church or a foreign State . That it would operate in canonical union with another church of same religion did not imply that it had been founded contrary to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ;","On DATE ORG \u041a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0441\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0448\u0430\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0432\u043e \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f\u043a\u0430 \u0432\u043e \u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u0441\u0442\u0435\u043f\u0435\u043d \u043e\u0434 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0432\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0448\u043d\u0438 \u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u0438 , \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e\u0442\u043e , \u0434\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 , \u043b\u043e\u043a\u0430\u043b\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0441\u0430\u043c\u043e\u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 \u0438 \u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u043e\u0434 \u0432\u0435\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u043a\u0430\u0440\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0435\u0440 ) dismissed the appeal , finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and the reasons given by the Commission .","The applicant association challenged these decisions before ORG . In addition to the arguments already raised , it submitted that its name was neither identical with nor similar to the name of any other religious community or group registered by the Commission .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It held that the applicant association \u2019s name had implied creation of a parallel religious community , rather than a religious group as claimed , given that its name was substantially the same as the name of the ORG . The court referred to the applicant association \u2019s LAW and found that its determination to operate as an autonomous church in canonical union with FAC was contrary to the fact that the ORG had canonical jurisdiction in the territory of the respondent ORG . It also held that property - related rules were in violation of LAW . The court accepted the remaining reasoning given by the administrative bodies . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE Bishop NORP applied to ORG , claiming that the refusal of the authorities to register the applicant association violated the freedom of belief and religion specified in Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW . While relying on the decisions of the authorities refusing the applicant association \u2019s registration as \u201c ORG \u201d , he also notified the court that a fresh application for registration had been submitted under the name \u201c ORG of the Pe\u0107 Patriarchy \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... it is obvious that followers of our religious organisation have been deprived of the rights specified in ORG CARDINAL of the LAW for DATE ... ORG of FAC is a religious organisation which should protect the religious needs of , among others , NORP and NORP in GPE . It is an autonomous church under jurisdiction of FAC , notably ORG ... \u201d","On DATE ( U.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ORG rejected the appeal , which , as specified in the decision , concerned \u201c freedom of belief and prohibition of discrimination on religious grounds \u201d . Relying on , inter alia , Articles CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the court found :","\u201c The complainant did not claim personal protection from discrimination ... but , he acts as a representative of a group of people with which he is associated ... \u201d","It further stated :","\u201c ORG has no jurisdiction to decide on the rights and interests of citizens in specific cases before administrative and judicial bodies . Neither has it jurisdiction to decide as a hierarchically superior court and examine the lawfulness and constitutionality of decisions adopted by competent administrative bodies ... the complainant refers to the non - registration as an action , but such an action ... stems from an individual decision which this court is not competent to examine ... the registration of ... a religious community or a group does not determine the religious beliefs and internal religious belief of a person , since expression of beliefs is an individual act , the registration procedure does not affect personal religious belief and rituals , and the court has not been presented with any evidence that they have been violated at any point . \u201d","The court also held that the appeal had been submitted outside the DATE time - limit specified in the Rules of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , calculated since DATE , the date of ORG decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE a new Act on the legal status of churches , religious communities and religious groups ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) was adopted . It entered into force on DATE .","On DATE and DATE the applicant association inspected the register of churches , religious groups and communities ( \u201c the court register \u201d ) of ORG , which became , by virtue of the DATE Act , the registration court . From DATE the ORG was recorded in the court register as \u201c ORG \u201d . The registration decision stated that in communication with third parties it would use the name \u201c NORP ORG \u201d .","According to \u201c the minutes of the constituent assembly \u201d ( \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0441\u043d\u0438\u043a \u043e\u0434 \u043e\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0430\u0447\u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e \u0441\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) \u201c ... at the proposal of His Beatitude ( PERSON ) , the Archbishop of ORG and GPE of Skopje Mr PERSON ) , ORG of ORG composed of ( Bishops PERSON , and NORP , all NORP nationals ) convened a meeting on DATE in order to adopt decisions for setting up and registration of \u201c the NORP - Orthodox ORG of the Pe\u0107 Patriarchy \u201d . The minutes of the constituent assembly were signed by all CARDINAL bishops ( their personal identity numbers and addresses were provided therein ) .","On DATE a decision setting up the applicant association was adopted . As stated in its introductory part , \u201c at a meeting dated DATE ORG decided to submit a request to ORG for registration of \u2018 the Greek - Orthodox ORG of the PERSON \u201d . It was set up \u201c as a voluntary , non - profit organisation of NORP who are not associated with any other registered religious community , and , in particular , has no connection with ( the ORG ) \u201d . It further stated :","\u201c It is an NORP church in full canonical and liturgical union with all recognised NORP churches in the world . For this reason , we consider that we should be registered as a church , but if the court considers otherwise , we would accept registration as a religious community or religious group . \u201d","The decision further indicated that the applicant association \u2019s temporary place of registration would be in GPE , in the respondent ORG . PERSON was authorised to submit the application for registration . He was also nominated to act on behalf of the applicant association ( \u0437\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f\u0443\u0432\u0430 ) in relations with other legal entities until \u201c ... PERSON ) returned from exile \u201d .","The applicant association \u2019s LAW on the status , organisation and operation of the association ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) provided that it was \u201c an autonomous church under the canonical jurisdiction of the Pe\u0107 Patriarchy \u201d ( section CARDINAL ) . ORG was \u201c the highest managerial body \u201d of the applicant ( section CARDINAL ) . It was composed of the Archbishop and CARDINAL eparchy bishops ( section CARDINAL ) . The assembly of archbishops ( \u0430\u0440\u0445\u0438\u0435\u043f\u0438\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043f\u0441\u043a\u043e \u0441\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) was \u201c the supreme regulatory , administrative , supervisory and executive body concerning internal , financial and religious self - management \u201d ( section CARDINAL ) .","On DATE Bishop NORP submitted an application for registration of the \u201c NORP - Orthodox ORG of the Pe\u0107 Patriarchy \u201d as \u201c one of the churches \u201d in the respondent ORG . The application expressly stated that the applicant association would agree to be registered as a religious community or group if the registration court found this more appropriate . The applicant association further expressed willingness to submit any documents , if need be , in order to avoid its application being refused . It was also stated that a refusal to register a religious group would be unjustified in a democratic society unless it was proven that the teaching of the group was destructive . That had not been the case with the \u2018 \u201c ORG of PERSON which is DATE \u201d . It further stated that :","\u201c ... any refusal to register \u2018 the Greek - Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese of the PERSON is an obstacle to GPE future membership of ORG ... It will not be pleasant , at the present time and place in history , if a judge appears as a persecutor of a church . Any person who does not respect human rights and freedoms regarding association of people on religious grounds , especially if he or she is a judge ... does not differ much from famous persecutors of ORG ... we wrote the above in order to warn that it will be unpleasant if the court does not register \u2018 the Greek - Orthodox Ohrid Archdiocese of the PERSON ... \u201d","On DATE , without reference to the applicant , the registration court sought an explanation from the ORG as to the meaning of the notion of \u201c PERSON \u201d . On DATE the ORG replied ( the reply was reproduced in the decision of the registration court of DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as follows :","\u2018 \u201c PERSON forms part of the name of ORG and expresses the historical continuity of ORG as canonical heir of PERSON : in the same way the name \u2018 ORG is part of the name of ORG . The name \u2018 ORG is protected by ORG in ORG . ORG , specifically the Pe\u0107 Patriarchy , has no canonical or any other jurisdiction over ORG or in the territory of GPE . \u201d","On DATE the registration court dismissed the applicant association \u2019s request for registration in the court register ( \u0441\u0435 \u043e\u0434\u0431\u0438\u0432\u0430 \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435\u0442\u043e \u0437\u0430 \u0443\u043f\u0438\u0441 ) for the following reasons :","( a ) it was founded by the so - called Holy Synod , as a body , which was contrary to section CARDINAL of the DATE Act ( see paragraph DATE below ) according to which a decision to establish a religious entity was to be taken by the founding members at a constituent assembly . No such assembly had been held in the applicant \u2019s case ;","( b ) the application for registration concerned an organisation which had not been provided for under LAW . Its name did not specify whether it was a church , religious community or religious group . On the contrary , it implied that it was a divine organisation , which would operate as an autonomous NORP under the canonical jurisdiction of LOC . \u201c It did not state that it was a voluntary organisation of physical persons \u201d as required under LAW ;","( c ) the intended name of the applicant association included names or terms that were part of or indicated a relationship with the official names of GPE or religious communities or canonical territories already registered and under foreign jurisdiction . In this connection it held that the term \u201c NORP \u201d ( \u0413\u0440\u043a\u043e ) was an LANGUAGE translation of \u201c ORG \u201d . Its use was not in conformity with the DATE LAW ) ) . The \u201c ORG \u201d partly covered the generic and historical name of the ORG ; it did not differ from the latter \u2019s registered name . That name ( ORG ) has been used by the FAC \u201c constitutionally , historically , actually and continuously \u201d for DATE , and only the ORG had the \u201c historical , religious , moral and substantive right \u201d to use it . In this connection the court held that the legal status , name and official insignia of the ORG were safeguarded by the DATE LAW . That the applicant \u2019s intended name implied that it was under the territorial jurisdiction of a foreign church was in contravention of the DATE Act and other laws . It was so because the ORG had canonical jurisdiction in the territory of the respondent ORG . It was only formally indicated that the applicant association would operate as an autonomous church . If registration was granted \u201c it would operate in the territory of the respondent ORG as part of a foreign orthodox church ... it would operate and be managed autonomously within the canonical jurisdiction of the Pe\u0107 Patriarchy , notably ( the SOC ) ... which had no canonical or any other jurisdiction over ( the ORG ) or in the territory of ( the respondent ORG ) . \u201d That was in violation of LAW on LAW , LAW ;","( d ) the founding decision had specified only the temporary place of registration of the applicant association , without specifying \u201c a specific seat and address \u201d ( \u0442\u043e\u0447\u043d\u043e \u043e\u0434\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d\u043e \u0441\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0448\u0442\u0435 \u0438 \u0430\u0434\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0430 ) , as required under LAW ) of the DATE Act ; and","( e ) Bishop NORP was nominated to act on behalf ( \u0437\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f\u0443\u0432\u0430 ) of the applicant association , but not to represent ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0442\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u0443\u0432\u0430 ) it , as required under section CARDINAL LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act .","The registration court concluded that the applicant association \u2019s registration would run counter to the DATE Act . It further stated that :","\u201c ( such a registration would violate ) the freedom of religion ... of all physical persons , which they manifest through already registered religious communities . It would also violate the legitimate legal status of other voluntary associations of persons recorded in the court register ... their management bodies , hierarchy , competencies , titles , religious activities ... \u201d","The applicant appealed , arguing ( i ) that the court had erred when seeking \u201c an expert opinion \u201d about the meaning of \u201c Pe\u0107 Patriarchy \u201d from the ORG , which was not neutral ; ( ii ) that the registration of the ORG in DATE under the name \u201c ORG \u201d had been unlawful . In this connection , the applicant submitted extracts from several media reports published at the time , according to which the competent body of the ORG , at its meeting held on CARDINAL and CARDINAL October CARDINAL , had refused to change the name in its LAW ; ( iii ) that the ORG had applied to the Bureau for registration of the name \u201c ORG \u201d as a trademark was irrelevant , since LAW concerned goods and services and not religious organisations . In this connection , the applicant argued that , in any event , the ORG had confirmed that on DATE the ORG had requested registration of CARDINAL trademarks , including the trademark \u201c ORG \u201d . However , the ORG had never paid the registration fee for any of the trademarks for which registration had been sought . Consequently , those names were never registered as trademarks , nor were trademark certificates ever issued ; ( iv ) the applicant association was set up by CARDINAL founding members who had signed the minutes of the constituent assembly held on DATE . Consequently , the court had been wrong to hold that the founding decision had been rendered by the applicant association \u2019s ORG , as that body had no legal capacity to act before the applicant association was registered ; ( v ) no reasonable explanation had been given as to why the applicant association \u2019s intended name did not imply that it concerned a religious organisation ; ( vi ) the court \u2019s interpretation that the expression \u201c NORP \u201d was an LANGUAGE translation of \u201c ORG \u201d was wrong ; ( vii ) the intended name of the applicant association was different from the name of any registered religious organisation , including the name of the ORG to which \u201c ORG \u201d had been unlawfully added . In this connection the applicant stated \u201c ( it ) differs from the ORG , with which we refuse to be associated . \u201d It further submitted that the court had allowed registration of CARDINAL churches despite the fact that their names were substantially the same , namely \u201c ORG ( church of the NORP of DATE ) in GPE \u201d and \u201c ORG in GPE \u201d . It concluded the discussion under this head by saying that \u201c had the court had difficulty with the intended name , it could have raised that issue in written correspondence and we would have replied . This clearly suggests that the court would refuse to register [ the applicant association ] under any name \u201d ; ( viii ) the registration court had given unsubstantiated explanations of a theological and historical nature favourable to the ORG ; ( ix ) the applicable legislation did not preclude a religious community from being in canonical union with other churches in the world ; ( x ) the refusal to register the applicant association violated the freedom of religion of the orthodox NORP and NORP in the respondent ORG , as the intended name suggested that it represented those communities ; and ( PERSON ) lastly , the applicant association reiterated that it was ready to rectify any error the registration court might ask it to .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant association \u2019s appeal , reiterating the reasoning given by the registration court .","On an unspecified date thereafter , ORG ( Bishop NORP ) submitted a constitutional appeal to ORG , claiming that the authorities\u2019 refusal to register the applicant as \u201c the Greek - Orthodox ORG of the Pe\u0107 Patriarchy \u201d had affected his religious rights specified in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW . In this connection , he claimed that the religious organisation with which he was affiliated had not been allowed registration for DATE , and thus had been denied the opportunity to obtain legal - entity status . He stated \u201c I \u2019m prevented from exercising my freedom of religious observance in association with other people on a voluntary basis . \u201d He further argued that without legal - entity status the applicant association was prevented from enjoying certain statutory rights : it could not construct religious temples ; its members could not conduct religious ceremonies ; it could not instruct religion or create religious schools ; and it could not manage its property , nor could it hold bank accounts . Bishop NORP invited the court to consider his appeal as submitted on behalf of all members of his religious organisation . Since ORG had already rejected a similar appeal lodged on behalf of several people ( U.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he consented that his appeal be regarded as being submitted only in his name . He further stated :","\u201c I agree , and after having consulted the other members of my religious community , I know that they also agree , that ORG orders registration of ORG of the Pe\u0107 Patriarchy under conditions specified by law and we would adjust to any requirements set by the court . If a change in the name is needed , that should be indicated as a condition for our registration and once it is satisfied , ( we ) should be registered . If another condition should be fulfilled , that should be specified and we will try to accommodate it . \u201d","On DATE ORG rejected the constitutional appeal of GPE concerning \u201c the freedom of belief and prohibition of discrimination on religious grounds \u201d ( U.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Referring to the courts\u2019 decisions rejecting the applicant association \u2019s request for registration as \u201c ORG of the Pe\u0107 Patriarchy \u201d and relying on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE of the LAW , the court stated :","\u201c The court can not examine the appeal on the merits since the complainant did not comply with the formal statutory requirements before a competent court ( for registration of the applicant ) . The complainant is willing to comply with the statutory requirements for registration , but he has failed to do so in practice and ( he ) does not prove that the competent court was wrong in its judgment that those requirements had not been complied with ... in such circumstances , this court can not rule on the request for the protection of human rights and freedoms in relation to specific final decisions of competent bodies . It is so since the person concerned ( \u0441\u0443\u0431\u0458\u0435\u043a\u0442\u043e\u0442 ) did not take any action in the court proceedings to comply with the statutory requirements , which apply similarly to all citizens . This derives from his request that this court suggest to him what needs to be done for ( the applicant association ) to be registered , which implies knowledge that there were ( certain ) flaws which led to non - registration . The complainant was not a priori refused registration of his religious community by a final judicial decision . The refusal he received was for non - compliance with the statutory requirements . \u201d","An article published in the DATE newspaper GPE on DATE quoted the then Chairman of the Commission ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , who stated that :","\u201c not at any price will Bishop PERSON ( PERSON ) be allowed to perform religious rituals or to have a seat in an exarchate . \u201d","An article published in the DATE newspaper Vest on DATE quoted the following part of a joint statement by the then President of the respondent ORG and the Archbishop of the ORG :","\u201c The ORG and ORG are and will remain together . Schismatics and renegades should be marginalised , isolated and rejected . The media attention they receive , irrespective of motives and intentions , affects both the ORG and NORP national and ORG interests . \u201d","An article published in the DATE newspaper ORG on DATE reported on discussions held between the Prime Minister of the respondent ORG and the Archbishop of the ORG regarding certain provisions of the DATE Act . Following that discussion , the majority of bishops in the ORG , as stated in the article , had requested that the ORG should not accept any compromise which would prevent it from protecting itself against a parallel church , led by PERSON , being created .","An article published in the DATE newspaper ORG on DATE reported on the alleged discontent of the applicant \u2019s followers about its name as submitted in the second registration proceedings . In this connection the article quoted a letter by PERSON in which he allegedly stated :","\u201c The ( Holy ) Synod was governed by the idea that the name of the religious community in respect of which we seek registration does not betray the essence of our ORG . You know well that NORP does not mean NORP ( by nationality ) of NORP faith , but that name refers to all known ORG . \u201d","The article continued , stating that PERSON had further asserted that the second part of the name was reasonable because the \u201c ORG \u201d was a part of the Pe\u0107 Patriarchy ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142083","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BOKAL v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings before ORG against GPE and GPE requesting the court to determine the validity of a sale contract concluded between the defendants concerning an apartment in a building partially owned by the applicant and proposing that a note on dispute be entered in ORG . She indicated as the disputed value SIT CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the court issued a decision rejecting the applicant \u2019s proposal to enter a note on dispute in ORG . The applicant appealed .","On DATE , after several unsuccessful attempts to serve the applicant \u2019s appeal on the first defendant , the court posted the appeal on the court \u2019s notice board .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE .","Following the applicant \u2019s supervisory appeal to ORG , the court on DATE reported to ORG that the case could not be given priority .","On DATE the applicant requested the court to schedule a hearing .","On DATE the applicant requested the court to give priority to her claims which she had lodged with the court .","On DATE the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE a third party intervener , ORG , who had in the meantime bought the apartment subject to the proceedings from the first defendant , joined the proceedings by submitting a written statement .","On DATE the third party intervener lodged a supervisory appeal submitting inter alia that since the proceedings were still pending she was unable to dispose of the apartment .","The first hearing was scheduled for DATE but was subsequently postponed to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged written submissions raising the value of the claim to SIT CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the first main hearing was held . The court adopted a decision , modifying the value of the claim as requested by the applicant .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a request for an interim order .","DATE and DATE CARDINAL further main hearings were held . On the latter date the court issued its judgment partially upholding the applicant \u2019s claim . The decision was served personally on the applicant and the second defendant and to the first defendant and the third party by posting it on the court \u2019s notice board .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision .","On DATE ORG returned the file to the first instance court instructing the court that the first defendant should be served the documents related to the appeal in accordance with LAW and that the court should also decide on the applicant \u2019s request for an interim order .","On DATE ORG requested the applicant to pay the court \u2019s fees and supplement her proposal to issue an interim order .","On DATE the judgment of DATE and the applicant \u2019s appeal were served on the first defendant by posting them on the court \u2019s notice board .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for an interim order . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeals against the judgment of DATE and the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law on procedural grounds . It held that ORG wrongly applied LAW in allowing a modification of the disputed value at a later stage of the proceedings . It therefore considered as the disputed value the value that had been indicated by the applicant in her claim and accordingly concluded that therefore the disputed value had not reached the threshold for lodging an appeal on points of law . The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160993","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GORBUNOV AND GORBACHEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in LOC . The second applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in LOC .","On DATE the first applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter . He remained in custody pending investigation and trial . His defence was carried out by a ORG - appointed lawyer , PERSON","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant , but not his ORG - appointed lawyer , appealed .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed ORG that he did not wish to be represented by PERSON in view of the perfunctory nature of the services that she had provided .","On DATE another lawyer , PERSON . , was appointed to represent the applicant before the appeal court . On the same date she studied the case file .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s case on appeal . The applicant was in a special room in a detention facility from which he could participate in the appeal hearing by means of a video link . PERSON . was present in the courtroom . She did not submit fresh grounds for appeal and made oral submissions to the court that appeared to be based on the grounds for appeal originally filed by the applicant . The court upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction .","According to the applicant , at the beginning of the hearing he asked the court to provide him with an opportunity to meet with PERSON . in private to discuss his line of defence . His request was refused . He was then removed from the room where the video conference equipment was installed and thus was prevented from following the appeal hearing which took place in his absence .","According to the Government , the applicant had had ample opportunity to communicate with PERSON . prior to the appeal hearing via video link . He did not argue before the appeal court that he had been unable to discuss his case with PERSON . in order to make sure that she had a sufficiently thorough knowledge of the case as to be able to carry out his defence effectively . The applicant stayed in the video - conference room throughout the appeal hearing and was not prevented in any way from participating in it .","On an unspecified date the second applicant was arrested and charged with murder and robbery . He remained in custody pending investigation and trial .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to seventeen years\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant appealed , stating that he was not guilty and that the trial court had erred in assessing the evidence before it .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG ( acting as the appeal court ) in writing to appoint a lawyer to represent him .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal . The applicant participated in the hearing by means of a video link . According to the applicant , the quality of the sound was very poor . He could not hear or understand the judges . He stated that he reiterated his request to be represented before the appeal court ; that request was refused .","On DATE the ORG gave notice of the application to the Government .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG of GPE considered a supervisory review appeal lodged by Deputy Prosecutor General . The court acknowledged that the applicant \u2019s right to be provided with legal counsel had been infringed , quashed the appeal judgment of DATE , and remitted the matter for fresh consideration to the appeal court . The applicant participated in the proceedings by means of a video link . He was represented by a Stateappointed lawyer , U.","On an unspecified date another lawyer , PERSON , was appointed to represent the applicant . Prior to the hearing before the appeal court , she studied the material in his case file .","On DATE the applicant discussed his case with PERSON by means of a video link .","On DATE ORG held the appeal hearing . The applicant participated in the proceedings by means of a video link . According to the transcript of the appeal hearing , the applicant agreed that his defence would be carried out by lawyer PERSON further asked the court for additional time in which to meet with PERSON to discuss his defence . The court adjourned the hearing in order to ensure that the applicant could meet with PERSON","On DATE ORG resumed the hearing . The applicant informed the court that he had discussed the case with PERSON by means of a video link . The court heard the applicant , PERSON , and the prosecutor . PERSON did not submit any grounds for appeal ; she only made oral submissions to the court that appeared to be based on the grounds for appeal originally filed by the applicant . ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction in substance , but reduced his sentence to CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153027","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ASSOCIATION FOR THE DEFENCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN ROMANIA \u2013 HELSINKI COMMITTEE ON BEHALF OF IONEL GARCEA v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Locus standi);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["Mr PERSON was born in DATE and died on DATE in ORG prison hospital . He had no known relatives .","At the material time , Mr PERSON was serving a DATE sentence for a rape which he had consistently denied having committed . On DATE of the criminal conviction , the courts found that he had full legal capacity ( discern\u0103m\u00e2nt ) and was thus capable of taking decisions and acting freely upon them .","Mr PERSON was held in PERSON and NORP prisons and prison hospitals . He was diagnosed with epilepsy , personality disorder ( impulsive and explosive ) , polymorphic psychosis and phlebitis of both legs . During his detention he had numerous conflicts with the prison warders , the police and the prosecutor . On several occasions he was reprimanded for \u201c insulting authority \u201d ( \u00eenjurii aduse cadrelor ) and for self - harm ( inserting nails into his forehead ) .","In DATE , when he started serving his sentence , Mr PERSON contacted ORG from the police headquarters to inform them of his arrest . He also wrote to the association from prison . The association had paid for his legal assistance in a civil suit for damages brought against the ORG in connection with his detention in a previous case and in previous criminal proceedings , and had occasionally given him material support , such as medicine , paper , pens and prepaid telephone cards .","According to the official prison records , Mr PERSON received regular check - ups for his mental illness . He was admitted on QUANTITY occasions to the psychiatric ward of the prison hospitals for DATE each time . While in hospital he was prescribed medical treatment for his condition , which he often refused to take . On a few occasions he also refused medical examinations and often insisted on being discharged from hospital . On other occasions he signed the hospital consent form for treatment and at times he complained that he had not received medical treatment while in hospital .","On DATE Mr Garcea inserted a nail in his forehead . On CARDINAL DATE he was taken to the psychiatric ward of PERSON prison hospital and then to a civilian hospital . Mr PERSON agreed to have the metal object removed from his head , but DATE changed his mind . His CARDINAL statements were recorded by the hospital personnel in his medical file .","The nail was ultimately removed and on DATE he was discharged from the civilian hospital and sent back to the psychiatric ward of PERSON prison hospital .","At DATE Mr PERSON attempted suicide by overdose and as a result fell into a fourth - degree coma . It is mentioned in his medical record that in the psychiatric ward he refused any medical examinations following his suicide attempt and requested to be discharged .","In DATE , after a DATE \u2019s stay in ORG prison hospital where , according to the medical record , he did not receive any treatment for his phlebitis , Mr PERSON was transferred to ORG .","NORP In DATE Mr PERSON was operated on in a civilian hospital in order to have metal fragments removed from his head ( pieces of nails which he had inserted into his forehead ) . After the operation , the doctors performed a brain scan on Mr GPE , only to discover that some pieces of metal had been left inside his head . Mr PERSON underwent another operation DATE .","According to his prison medical record , Mr PERSON was monitored by a psychologist in order to help reduce the risk of aggressive behaviour towards himself and others .","Mr PERSON alleged that in DATE he had been beaten up by the prison intervention force and then handcuffed and chained to a hospital bed for DATE .","On DATE , in reply to an inquiry made by ORG into those incidents , the prison administration explained that there was no evidence of a breach of prison rules and that Mr Garcea \u2019s immobilisation had been made necessary by his violent behaviour and had been approved by the prison governor . The official prison records from PERSON prison hospital mention CARDINAL occasions on which Mr PERSON had been tied to his bed : on CARDINAL and DATE and again on DATE .","In DATE , members of the APADOR - CH paid Mr GPE another visit . He complained to them that he had been beaten up on several occasions by the warders . In particular , he stated that on DATE , at the end of a court hearing , the prison guards had pushed and slapped him in order to make him move faster . He had protested . When they had returned to the prison , the warders had tried to push him into a separate room in order to beat him up . He objected , broke a window and kept a piece of the broken glass in his hand with the intention of killing himself . The warders interpreted his gesture as an attack and called the prison intervention forces , who chained him to a bed and beat him until he lost consciousness . He was then transported to PERSON hospital .","The APADOR - CH complained to the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG and ORG about that incident , but received no answer .","The Government submitted an account of the above - mentioned incidents provided by the prison administration , who denied using any physical force against Mr PERSON . According to the prison administration , Mr PERSON refused to allow the prison guards to guide him to a room in order to be searched and instead became abusive , broke the glass in the door of that room and started moving towards the prison guards wielding a shard of broken glass . A member of the prison staff who escorted detainees from the court house dissuaded Mr PERSON from using the broken glass . According to the prison records , the prison staff handcuffed him because they were aware of his mental illness and of his past attempts to commit suicide . As he continued to be verbally aggressive , the guards attached his arms and legs to a bed and requested medical assistance .","Following their visit of DATE , members of ORG complained to the prison administration about the conditions of detention in which Mr PERSON was being held , which they considered inappropriate for his situation . They also urged the prison administration to provide him with medical treatment for his various conditions ; they pointed out that his mental health was visibly deteriorating and that despite his repeated visits to hospitals , he had not received adequate and prompt medical treatment . The hospitals\u2019 willingness to provide medicines for him had been counteracted by the delays with which the doctors had issued the necessary prescriptions . They contended that , in their view , the lack of medical treatment for epilepsy and phlebitis amounted to torture . They also urged the prison authorities to stop provoking violent reactions from Mr PERSON through their attitude towards him and to stop using force against him . Lastly , the members of APADOR - CH asked the prosecutor \u2019s office to deal more expeditiously with Mr Garcea \u2019s complaint of illtreatment .","NORP In DATE , while he was being held in PERSON hospital , Mr PERSON inserted another nail into his forehead . On DATE he was operated on in a civilian hospital . He was then sent to the ORG prison hospital with a diagnosis of sepsis , post - extraction symptoms and acute bronchopneumonia .","From DATE Mr GPE \u2019s condition continued to deteriorate . The ORG prison authorities decided to send him back to the civilian hospital for examination and possibly another operation . On DATE he was returned from the civilian hospital to ORG prison hospital , on the basis that his general condition had improved . The medical records of DATE from ORG prison hospital indicated that the patient \u2019s general condition was serious . He remained in the prison hospital until his death on DATE . According to the official prison records , he was administered the prescribed antiseptic treatment in the prison hospital .","On DATE an autopsy was carried out and the observations were recorded in an autopsy report .","On DATE the APADOR - CH asked the prison administration to investigate the medical treatment given to Mr GPE and the cause of his death . It raised several queries , in particular how Mr GPE could have contracted bronchopneumonia when he had been held only in hospitals for DATE . It also asked whether the medical treatment had been adequate , given the lack of reaction by the medical personnel to the continuous deterioration of Mr Garcea \u2019s condition in DATE and DATE . The applicant association contended that although under the provisions of Joint Order No . MONEY issued by ORG and ORG on DATE ( which replaced a similar order of DATE ) , a joint committee had to be set up to inquire into the causes of deaths in detention , no such steps had been taken in Mr PERSON \u2019s case .","The APADOR - CH asked to be informed about the progress of the investigations , adding that the deceased had no relatives .","On DATE APADOR - CH drafted a report into Mr Garcea \u2019s death and sent it to the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG in order to help the investigation .","In the meantime , on DATE the prosecutor had ordered a forensic examination of the cause of Mr PERSON \u2019s death . The medical report concluded that the death had been caused by \u201c multiple organ failure , as a consequence of a cerebral abscess developed because of the repeated introduction of a metal object , necessitating neurosurgery and lengthy stays in hospital \u201d . The report also concluded that there was not enough evidence to suggest that there had been inadequate medical assistance in the case .","On DATE the file was sent to the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG , which , on DATE , decided not to prosecute the prison doctors for improper conduct and endangering a person incapable of taking care of himself . They sent the file back to the prosecutor attached to ORG in so far as the complaint concerned allegations of ill - treatment in detention .","The prosecutor \u2019s decision was communicated to the APADOR - CH on DATE .","The association objected to the decision , but on DATE the Prosecutor General from the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG dismissed the complaint . He considered that the association lacked locus standi to make the objection ; he then re - examined the evidence of his own motion and concluded that the prosecutor \u2019s decision was correct .","The APADOR - CH lodged a complaint with ORG against the decision of ORG of DATE , seeking to have the file sent back and to have an indictment filed by the prosecutor . It argued that Mr PERSON had not received adequate medical treatment in prison and that his death had been caused by medical negligence in the prison hospitals . It also argued that the investigation had not been exhaustive , as the prosecutor had done no more than provide details of the medical treatment that Mr PERSON had received , without examining whether there had been medical negligence in his case . The APADOR - CH also complained that the prosecutor had not examined the allegations of illtreatment .","The Court of Appeal gave its ruling on DATE . It decided that the APADOR - CH had locus standi , as ORG and ORG had decided , in DATE , that non - governmental organisations acting in the field of human rights had the capacity to object to steps taken by the prosecutor . On the merits , the court found that the prosecutor \u2019s decision was correct , and was supported by the evidence in the file . It therefore dismissed the objection .","The APADOR - CH appealed . It reiterated that Mr PERSON had not received adequate medical treatment and care , which had led to his death , and that there had been no investigation into the allegations of ill - treatment . It pointed out that the prosecutor had failed to request an expert examination of the body .","In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG dismissed the appeal . It reiterated that the APADOR - CH had locus standi to pursue the complaint , but found that on the merits , the prosecutor \u2019s decisions were correct as there were no indications in the file that the prison doctors had failed to assist Mr GPE or to provide him with adequate medical treatment .","As for the allegations of ill - treatment , on DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG decided not to pursue the investigation on the ground that there was no conclusive evidence to suggest improper medical care . The decision was quashed by ORG which , on DATE sent the case back to the prosecutor , as it considered that the investigation had not been thorough and relevant evidence had not been administered . The court ordered that the investigation be pursued in order to establish :","\u2013 the conditions that had precipitated Mr PERSON \u2019s death ;","\u2013 whether there was a causal link between his introducing metal objects into his skull and his death ;","\u2013 whether the hospital procedures had been respected concerning the investigations and treatment for his various illnesses ;","\u2013 the conditions in DATE which had allowed the self - harm to occur ; and","\u2013 whether the internal rules of the PERSON prison hospital had been respected .","The investigation is currently ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170193","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PIU AND C\u00ceRSTENOIU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and the second applicant was born in DATE . They live in PERSON and PERSON respectively .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s husband , Mr Ciprian Ionel Piu , went to the forest near PERSON , accompanied by ORG and PERSON The latter was the son of I.D.D. , a local police officer","According to the applicants , they all took part in an illegal logging operation . The person who organised the aforementioned operation was PERSON He regularly recruited young men from the village to do this . He bought them alcohol and took them to the forest without providing them with the necessary protective equipment or with any essential safety information . His practices , known by the locals , had created CARDINAL other victims previously . CARDINAL of the victims had died and the other had suffered serious injuries . The investigations opened into the aforementioned CARDINAL incidents had failed to identify and punish those responsible , because of the alleged involvement of local police officers .","According to the first applicant her husband \u2019s death happened in suspicious circumstances and the perpetrators of the offence were police officers and others protected by them . She further stated that on DATE her husband went to the forest she and her family were informed by a third party that her husband had met with an accident . They went looking for him and found him dead in the forest .","On DATE ORG was informed about the incident by a third party .","On DATE , the aforementioned police department , in particular police officers PERSON and GPE , carried out an investigation at the scene of the accident ( cercetare la fa\u021ba locului ) in the presence of CARDINAL assistant witnesses , namely GPE and V.A.","On DATE ORG , namely police officer PERSON , opened of its own motion a preliminary investigation against ORG for involuntary manslaughter ( ucidere din culp\u0103 ) .","On the same date police officer PERSON asked ORG to produce a forensic necropsy report . He asked the aforementioned institute to establish the victim \u2019s cause of death , whether the victim \u2019s body had signs of violence , and if so what had caused them , as well as the alcohol level in the victim \u2019s blood .","On DATE and DATE police officer PERSON took a statement from GPE with regard to the circumstances of the accident .","On DATE ORG produced a medical certificate confirming the first applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s death . According to the aforementioned report , his death had been violent and had been caused , inter alia , by a closed angle cranium - cerebral trauma and by the resulting haemorrhage .","On DATE the Timi\u015foara ORG produced the forensic necropsy report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It concluded that the victim \u2019s death had been violent and had been caused by an acute cardiorespiratory insufficiency following a cranial cerebral trauma and a resulting haemorrhage . Moreover , the signs of violence discovered on the victim \u2019s body could have been caused by being hit with or striking against a hard object in the context of the impugned forest accident . Furthermore , the alcohol level in the victim \u2019s blood was QUANTITY for QUANTITY .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE police officer PERSON took statements from members of the victim \u2019s family , including the victim \u2019s mother and the first applicant , who had asked the authorities , inter alia , to punish those responsible for the death of their relative .","On DATE police officer PERSON took a statement from PERSON with regard to the circumstances of the accident .","By a report ( referat ) of CARDINAL DATE police officer PERSON noted that ORG and the victim \u2019s family had made repeated requests for the investigated offence to be requalified from involuntary manslaughter to murder . Consequently , he proposed that the case be referred to ORG , which had the competence to investigate such allegations .","In DATE the victim \u2019s mother also asked ORG to open a criminal investigation against GPE , GPE and I.D.D. for murder ( omor ) .","On DATE ORG noted the victim \u2019s family \u2019s requests for a murder investigation and decided to refer the case to ORG , which had the competence to investigate the allegations .","On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG decided not to open a criminal investigation ( ne\u020bceperea urm\u0103ririi penale ) against PERSON , GPE and I.D.D. for murder . Moreover , he referred part of the case back to ORG for the investigation against ORG for involuntary manslaughter to be continued . The prosecutor held that according to the available evidence and the statements of ORG and PERSON , the victim \u2019s death had been the result of an accident and had not been caused intentionally by any of the suspects . That decision was communicated to the victim \u2019s mother .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE both the victim \u2019s mother and the first applicant joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties and claimed pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages .","On DATE police officer PERSON took the testimony of GPE , CARDINAL of those familiar with the events which had resulted in the first applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s death .","By a report of CARDINAL DATE police officer PERSON proposed not to open a criminal investigation ( ne\u020bceperea urm\u0103ririi penale ) against PERSON and GPE It established that on DATE of the incident the first applicant \u2019s husband had gone to the forest by tractor together with FAC and GPE , the owner and operator of the tractor , to collect dried wood . While they had been using the tractor to tow a tree the aforementioned tree had started rolling uncontrollably and had hit the first applicant \u2019s husband on the head , killing him . Because the victim had not been an employee of a company at the time of the accident , what happened could not have been considered a work accident . The witness GPE had testified that he did not know how many people had gone to the forest DATE or any other details concerning the accident . Also , the witness GPE , another person familiar with the events which had resulted in the first applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s death , was unavailable for questioning because he had left the country .","NORP The report held that the first applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s accident was caused by a flawed logging operation , which had not foreseen solutions that could have reduced or eliminated the risks of him suffering an accident . He had not kept a safe distance from the tree which was being towed with a flexible steel cable , so that the directions of its movement could not have been controlled . Also he did not have the appropriate equipment for working in the forest .","NORP The report further held that PERSON had not been close to the area where the accident had happened , and therefore he could not have been responsible for an act of involuntary manslaughter . Furthermore , the impugned act had lacked one of the elements of an offence , namely guilt . An act which had occurred as a result of unforeseeable circumstances ( caz fortuit ) could not amount to an offence . The suspects had been unable to foresee that event , notably the fact that the tree had changed direction while it was moving , thus killing the victim .","On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG examined the aforementioned proposal and decided not to open a criminal investigation against PERSON and GPE The decision was communicated to the first applicant \u2019s mother - in - law .","The first applicant \u2019s mother - in - law challenged the decision before a superior prosecutor .","On DATE a superior prosecutor attached to ORG allowed the victim \u2019s mother \u2019s challenge , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and referred the case back to FAC","In DATE ORG ordered ORG to reopen the investigation into the circumstances of the first applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s death .","On DATE ORG decided to open a criminal investigation against PERSON and GPE for involuntary manslaughter .","On DATE the victim \u2019s mother lodged a challenge ( cerere de recuzare ) against the investigators of the case and asked for the investigation to be carried out by investigators outside GPE . She alleged that the inquiry had been delayed by the investigators and that they had been trying to unlawfully protect those responsible .","On an unspecified date the victim \u2019s mother informed ORG that her challenge had not concerned police officer C.A. , who was investigating the case after the reopening of the proceedings , or the prosecutor who was supervising the aforementioned police officer .","On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed as inadmissible the victim \u2019s mother \u2019s challenge ( cerere de recuzare ) against the investigators of the case and her request for the investigation to be carried out by investigators outside GPE . It held , inter alia , that the victim \u2019s mother had failed to indicate any of the reasons provided by law for a challenge in order to support her application . Furthermore , there had been no evidence that police officer GPE , had lacked impartiality . The decision was communicated to the victim \u2019s mother .","On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ORG questioned GPE and PERSON and took R.S.\u2019","On DATE ORG asked an appointed expert to produce a technical expert report by DATE in order to clarify the circumstances of the victim \u2019s death and to identify those responsible for the accident .","On DATE the aforementioned expert produced his report .","On DATE ORG took the victim \u2019s mother \u2019s statement . In her statement she had acknowledged that she had been given a copy of the technical expert report produced in the case and that she had no objections in respect of the appointed expert or the content of the report .","By a report of DATE ORG proposed to close the criminal investigation against PERSON and GPE It held , inter alia , that once FAC , GPE and the first applicant \u2019s husband were in the forest they had started moving trees from a difficult area to a more easily accessible one , using the tractor being operated by ORG Before they had started moving a fourth tree , PERSON had been sent to collect some of their belongings which had been left in a different location . Meanwhile , the first applicant \u2019s husband had attached the tree to the tractor and had signalled ORG to start moving the tree . During the moving operation , the tree had started rolling uncontrollably and had hit the first applicant \u2019s husband on the head , killing him .","NORP The report also held that according to ORG \u2019s statement the time which had elapsed between the moment he had checked ( s - a asigurat ) that the first applicant \u2019s husband was at a safe distance from the tree and the moment the victim was hit by the said tree was very short . Once he had realised what had happened he had stopped the tractor immediately and rushed to help the victim . When PERSON had returned with their belongings , ORG had asked him to call the emergency services . As PERSON had not been able to make a phone call in the forest because of poor cellular network , he had decided to rush towards the village in search of a better location for a phone call . Eventually PERSON had reached the village of PERSON and had managed to call the emergency services . At the same time he had met the victim \u2019s brother and had informed him of the accident . Subsequently , PERSON had gone home in order to wait for the police and the ambulance in order to lead them to the location of the accident . Once PERSON had returned to the location of the accident accompanied by the police , he had been advised to leave again in order to avoid a potential conflict with the victim \u2019s family .","The report further held that GPE , the witness proposed by the victim \u2019s mother , had stated that he had been at work at the time of the accident and had been informed about the victim \u2019s death by telephone .","The report noted that according to the technical expert report the main cause of the accident was the victim \u2019s failure to position himself at a safe distance from the tree and to maintain permanent visual contact with ORG in order to determine whether the moving tree had stopped or had become stuck . Therefore , he had breached the relevant safety and security norms for working in the forest and had not been wearing protective equipment , in particular a helmet . If the victim had been positioned correctly , the accident would not have happened even if the tree had started rolling . Another important cause of the accident was the fact that according to the toxicology report the victim had been working under the influence of alcohol .","Relying on the aforementioned considerations and the conclusions of the technical expert , the report concluded that the individuals responsible for causing the accident could not be identified . However , it was clear that the CARDINAL suspects had not been at fault . Moreover , the relevant legislation concerning work safety had not been applicable because those involved in the incident were not employees .","On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG decided to close ( clasat ) the criminal investigation opened against FAC and GPE The prosecutor held on the basis of the available evidence that none of the suspects had been responsible for the victim \u2019s death . The incident had been the result of unforeseeable circumstances given that the tree had been towed with a flexible steel cable whose direction of movement would have been impossible to control , and there was no appropriate equipment for working in the forest . It would have been impossible for the suspects to foresee the event , as the tree had changed direction while it was moving and thus had killed the victim . Moreover , PERSON was not near the location of the accident at the time . Consequently , there was no connection between his conduct and the act of involuntary manslaughter .","On DATE the aforementioned decision was communicated to the victim \u2019s mother at her home address in GPE .","The second applicant is the first applicant \u2019s brother .","On DATE the second applicant and CARDINAL of his brothers lodged a criminal complaint with civil claims against FAC and GPE for assault , insult , slander and attempted murder . They also lodged a criminal complaint with civil claims against an unidentified gendarme for assault , abuse of office , and misconduct . The second applicant argued that on DATE he had visited the first applicant in PERSON and had taken part in a ceremony commemorating his brother - in - law . After the ceremony had ended he had been followed by PERSON and GPE ; the former had hit him , rendering him unconscious . Subsequently , both PERSON and GPE had punched and kicked him . After a police officer and CARDINAL unidentified gendarmes had arrived at the scene of the incident , he had been threatened , caught by the nose , slapped and cursed by CARDINAL of the CARDINAL unidentified gendarmes .","On DATE the Timi\u015foara ORG produced a forensic report concluding that the second applicant had suffered traumatic lesions which could have been sustained on DATE and could have been the result of being hit by or against hard objects . Moreover , the lesions had required DATE of medical care , in the absence of complications .","The forensic report noted that the forensic examination had established that the second applicant had suffered a bruised left eye and injuries to the lower and upper lip and to his forehead . Moreover , it noted that according to the medical documents produced by FAC on DATE the second applicant had been taken to hospital by ambulance and had suffered , inter alia , an acute closed cranium cerebral trauma and contusions on the nasal pyramid , lower jaw and thorax .","On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG decided to close the criminal investigation in the case on the grounds that there was no evidence that the suspects had committed the alleged offence .","The second applicant challenged the decision before a superior prosecutor .","On DATE a superior prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s challenge and upheld the decision of the lower prosecutor .","The applicant appealed against ORG decisions before the domestic courts .","On DATE ORG allowed the second applicant \u2019s appeal , quashed ORG Office \u2019s decisions , and referred the case back to the aforementioned prosecutor \u2019s office in order for a criminal investigation to be opened against PERSON It held that the ORG","On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG decided to close the criminal investigation in the case in respect of PERSON At the same time it disjoined part of the case and referred it back to ORG in order to continue the investigation and identify the perpetrators of the alleged offences . The prosecutor noted that even though the victims of the incident had been heard again and they had repeated their earlier statements as well as their request for those against whom they had complained to be punished , they had not asked for additional evidence to be adduced to the case file . Also , CARDINAL witnesses had been heard again in the case , but none of them had provided new information about the events of DATE . None of the said witnesses could have confirmed that PERSON or another person had hurt or threatened the second applicant . CARDINAL of the witnesses had testified that he had seen the second applicant on the ground at the site of the incident and that the latter had told him that PERSON had hit him . However , the aforementioned witness had also stated that at the moment of his conversation with the second applicant he had not seen PERSON in the area and therefore he could not have confirmed the second applicant \u2019s statement .","NORP The prosecutor also noted that even though the victims of the incident had later declared that they knew the identity of the perpetrators , at the time of the incident and after the police had arrived they had been unable to identify the perpetrators and had stated that they did not know their identity .","The prosecutor further noted that CARDINAL of the witnesses proposed by CARDINAL of the second applicant \u2019s brothers had not been heard because he had left the country and no substitute had been suggested . Also the applicant \u2019s other brother , who had also been involved in the incident , was not interviewed after he had lodged his complaint against the alleged perpetrators , and there was no evidence that he had been threatened or coerced to remain silent .","The prosecutor held that even though the occurrence of the incident of DATE had not been contested and had been proven by the available forensic report , it was not possible to establish clearly that PERSON or GPE had committed the alleged offences , as they had not been seen at the site of the incident or in the company of the victim . Given the absence of direct and clear evidence which could have proven PERSON \u2019s or PERSON \u2019s guilt , there is doubt that they committed the alleged offences , which works to their advantage .","The second applicant challenged the decision before a hierarchical prosecutor .","On DATE a superior prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s challenge and upheld the decision of DATE .","The applicant appealed against ORG decisions before the domestic courts . He argued , inter alia , that the decisions of the prosecutor \u2019s office had been unfair and unlawful and had both protected and failed to investigate the ORG agents involved in the incident .","By a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decisions of the prosecutor \u2019s office . It held that the investigating authorities had heard evidence from the victims , the suspects and the witnesses in the case and had correctly established the facts of the case .","To the knowledge of the ORG the investigation against other possible perpetrators of the incident of DATE is still open .","On DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE the applicants or their family informed ORG about the abuses that had allegedly been committed against them and against their family by PERSON , GPE and certain local police officers on DATE and after that date . Moreover , they voiced their concern that the investigations initiated into the first applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s death and into the incident of DATE had been suppressed and delayed because of the family relationships between CARDINAL of the suspects and several local police officers . Consequently , they asked ORG for help in punishing those responsible .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE LDIACR informed ORG and ORG about the applicants\u2019 and their family \u2019s allegations , including the alleged family relationships between one of the suspects and several local police officers , and asked them for an investigation .","On DATE ORG of ORG informed ORG , inter alia , that the issues raised by the non - governmental organisation in its notifications could not be established as fact .","On DATE ORG of ORG notified ORG that its allegations did not refer to acts or circumstances which had clearly attested that certain police officers had willfully ( cu vinov\u0103\u021bie ) breached the relevant ethical and deontological standards and\/or those concerning the fulfilment of their professional duties .","DATE . On DATE LDIACR initiated proceedings before ORG denouncing an abuse of office ( abuz \u00een serviciu ) allegedly committed by the local police officers involved in the investigation of the first applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s death . It argued , inter alia , that police officer I.D.D. , together with CARDINAL other police officers who were his brother - in - law and son - in - law , had manipulated the investigation , had tried to protect their own interests , and had attempted to distort the truth about what had happened on DATE the first applicant \u2019s husband died .","On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG decided not to open a criminal investigation against the aforementioned police officers . It held , inter alia , that the QUANTITY police officers who were the object of the denunciation were identified as I.D.D. , G.B. and PERSON Moreover , given the statements taken from the police officers and from the first applicant , there was no indication that I.D.D. and PERSON had committed any act of abuse of office , as they had not been involved in the investigation into the first applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s death . Also , the first applicant \u2019s husband had been asked to take part in the logging operation by FAC , and therefore there had been no indication that I.D.D. had incited the victim to commit an offence . Furthermore , there was no sufficiently strong indication that police officer PERSON had knowingly failed to fulfil or had insufficiently fulfilled his lawful duties during the investigation into the first applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s death , or that he had affected the legal interest of the victim \u2019s family .","NORP The decision was communicated both to LDIACR and to the first applicant .","LDIACR challenged the decision before a superior prosecutor attached to ORG . It argued , inter alia , that its action had been based on statements made by the victim \u2019s family and by villagers . Moreover , the investigators had ignored I.D.D. \u2019s threats and aggressive behaviour towards the family of the victim , as well as the fact that CARDINAL other similar incidents had happened in the area before DATE .","On DATE a superior prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed ORG \u2019s challenge and upheld the decision of the lower prosecutor . The decision was communicated to ORG ."],"violated_articles":["2","3"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180548","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF S.C. TEXTINC S.A. v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant company , ORG , is a NORP company whose registered office is in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter , \u201c the ORG \u201d ) instituted enforcement proceedings against the applicant company on the grounds that it had an outstanding tax liability for DATE amounting to CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) .","The applicant company , represented by its appointed lawyer , Mr. PERSON PERSON , challenged before ORG the ORG \u2019s decision to open enforcement proceedings . It claimed that it had no outstanding fiscal debts and submitted documentary evidence in this respect .","At the first hearing in the proceedings the ORG acknowledged that the applicant company had no outstanding tax liability and that the enforcement proceedings had been instituted in error . Invoking Article CARDINAL of LAW of the Civil Procedure ( hereinafter , \u201c the ORG \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it also contended that as it had acknowledged its error at the first hearing in the proceedings it should not be ordered to pay the costs and expenses incurred by the applicant company .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the GPE ORG allowed the applicant company \u2019s challenge concerning the ORG \u2019s decision to open enforcement proceedings and ordered the ORG to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL ; this sum represented respectively the fees of the applicant company \u2019s lawyer ( CARDINAL PERSON ) , stamp duty and trial tax ( CARDINAL ORG ) . The court held that although the ORG had acknowledged its error at the first hearing it could not be exonerated from the payment of the costs and expenses incurred by the applicant company , as the challenge proceedings were the result of a mistake on its part . The court further noted that the ORG had started enforcement proceedings against the applicant company for a non - existent debt and that the latter had accordingly had to hire a lawyer and pay the trial fees in order to defend itself . The court also noted that the applicant company had submitted evidence to support its request for the reimbursement of the expenses it had incurred .","The ORG lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of DATE . It claimed that the first - instance court had not observed the principle of adversarial proceedings and of equality of arms , as it had not had the opportunity to challenge the amount paid by the applicant company in lawyer \u2019s fees , which in its opinion were too high .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal as unfounded . While holding that the lawyer \u2019s fees corresponded to his input in the case , the court reiterated that the judge was entitled to increase or to reduce a lawyer \u2019s fees , according the specific criteria set out by LAW see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court thus concluded that the judgment given by ORG was lawful and well - founded ; it further awarded the applicant company the amount of CARDINAL ORG in legal costs in respect of the appeal proceedings .","The ORG lodged with ORG an application for the judgment of CARDINAL DATE to be set aside ( contesta\u0163ie \u00een anulare \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) on the grounds that ORG had not examined all the arguments that it had raised in its appeal on points of law ; the ORG referred in particular to the fact that before the Timi\u015foara ORG they were not given the possibility to bring their arguments concerning the amount requested by the applicant company and then awarded in legal costs and expenses by the first - instance court .","NORP In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , sitting in a different formation from that of CARDINAL DATE , allowed the request : it set aside the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and allowed the appeal lodged by the ORG against the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which it partly amended . ORG held that the appellate court had not examined the arguments raised by the defendant in their appeal on points of law in relation to the manner in which the first instance court applied LAW of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; in particular , the first instance court had not allowed the parties to bring their arguments concerning the amount of the legal costs requested by the applicant company . Such an omission was sufficient , in ORG view , to justify the quashing of the previous judgments .","ORG then re - examined the amount paid by the applicant company in lawyer \u2019s fees and considered that in relation to the lawyer \u2019s input in the case , it was justified to reduce that amount from PERSON CARDINAL to PERSON CARDINAL . It also considered that the stamp duty and trial tax in the amount of CARDINAL ORG were not to be granted to the applicant company , in so far as this amount could be requested separately from the fiscal authorities , based on the PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on stamp duty , as a consequence of the fact that the challenge to the enforcement had been allowed ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144353","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HABIMI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE protests broke in a number of prisons throughout the country regarding demands for ORG to enact specific amnesty - related legislation .","On DATE , according to various official reports , violent conflicts between the CARDINAL main groups of prisoners occurred in ORG . It would appear that a radical group of prisoners clashed with the moderate leaders over how to proceed with the protests .","On DATE the prevailing group of prisoners requested that all prison staff , including the guards , vacate the dormitories . They also reportedly threatened the prison staff with kidnappings should they fail to comply with this request . The prison staff therefore left the CARDINAL buildings in question and the prisoners subsequently , at TIME , barricaded the entrances with furniture . CARDINAL prisoners were thus left without any official supervision . The security situation in the Ni\u0161 Penitentiary continued to deteriorate thereafter . The prison authorities assessed that there was a very real threat to the life and health of the prisoners who had refused to take part in the revolt .","On DATE the governor of ORG formed a crises team which decided that a large scale intervention was necessary . ORG produced a detailed action plan in this regard . It included , inter alia , the assessment of the resistance that could be expected on the part of the prisoners , the force needed to overcome this resistance and the need to secure the presence of medical teams during and in the aftermath of the intervention .","On DATE , at TIME , CARDINAL special police officers , members of the ORG , wearing helmets with visors , assisted by prison guards and other security staff , entered ORG . The protests were brought under control by TIME","According to the information subsequently provided by ORG , a total of CARDINAL prisoners had been injured and medically treated . The same document stated that the injuries sustained , except in CARDINAL case , were slight in character and had been inflicted by means of blunt force trauma .","NORP The police maintained that during their intervention a certain number of prisoners had offered active resistance . Many also had certain pre - existing injuries stemming from a violent conflict which had apparently occurred between the prisoners themselves prior to the intervention . The police lastly noted that some prisoners had been injured as a result of the general commotion that had ensued in the course of the intervention , including prisoners being trampled over by other prisons and\/or pushed against the furniture which had been moved into the corridors .","The applicants claimed that in the course of the intervention and\/or shortly thereafter they had been physically abused by the police officers and\/or the prisons guards . Concerning the intervention itself , the applicants contended that they had been beaten with baseball bats and truncheons , forced to run CARDINAL rows of police officers and\/or prison guards who had kicked them as they passed and , lastly , compelled to lie on a cold , concrete floor for TIME while being handcuffed . As a result , the applicants allegedly sustained various injuries , such as fractured bones , bruises and wounds all over the body , internal bleeding and brain concussions .","On DATE , at TIME , the investigating judge of ORG and ORG took part in an on - site investigation which found a large number of improvised weapons ( i.e. knives , blades and metal pipes ) on the premises of ORG .","On DATE , having reviewed the reports of the police officers who had used restraints in the course of the intervention , the commanding officer of the ORG unit involved decided that the force used had been lawful and proportionate .","On DATE ORG forwarded the TIME of the on - site investigation to ORG ( \u201c NMPPO \u201d ) . These TIME were accompanied by several police reports , photographic documentation , and a statement listing the objects which had been found in prison following the police intervention .","On DATE the NMPPO requested information from the police concerning the identity of the injured persons and the reasons for the application of coercive measures .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicants lodged their criminal complaints against unnamed police officers and a number of prison guards . The latter were , for the most part , identified by their respective first names and\/or nicknames . The applicants urged the NMPPO to : ( i ) establish the full identities of all officials who had participated in their abuse ; ( ii ) obtain the relevant medical records documenting their injuries ; ( iii ) hear a number of other prisoners who had witnessed their ill - treatment ; and ( iv ) ultimately , press criminal charges against all those responsible .","On DATE the NMPPO ordered the police to submit the reports prepared in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the police provided the NMPPO with a list of prisoners who had been injured on DATE and subsequently treated at ORG . The following applicants were among them : PERSON ORG , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , and Mr ORG . They were all certified as having sustained different kinds of bruises and\/or excoriations . On the same occasion the police identified the CARDINAL prison guards to whom the applicants had referred in their criminal complaints .","On DATE and DATE the NMPPO requested the police to interrogate the prison guards in question .","On DATE the police submitted a report , based partly on statements apparently given by a number of prisoners , to the effect that there had been several violent clashes between the various groups of prisoners on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , resulting in serious injuries and a criminal prosecution . The CARDINAL prison guards were also questioned and all denied ill - treating the applicants .","On DATE the NMPPO requested the police to hear the applicants and the eyewitnesses specified in the criminal complaints .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE police interviewed the following CARDINAL applicants on the LOC of ORG : Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG , Mr FAC , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . All , except for Mr PERSON , confirmed that they had been abused as described at paragraph CARDINAL above . Some also confirmed having witnessed the abuse suffered by other applicants and identified the prison guards in question . Mr PERSON , for his part , refused to give a statement to the police , explaining that he would only testify before a court of law .","On DATE the NMPPO decided to reject the applicants\u2019 criminal complaints . In so doing , it took into account , inter alia , the statements given by the prison guards , the available medical documents , the on - sight investigation , and the conclusion of the police ORG commander to the effect that the force used had been lawful and proportionate . Concerning the injuries sustained by the applicants , the NMPPO opined that they had been caused by fights between the prisoners themselves , their falling down the stairs or against the furniture in the course of the operation and\/or the ORG resistance to the police who had been trying to restore order to ORG . Lastly , the NMPPO noted that the proportionality of the entire intervention was best evidenced by the fact that despite the large number of prisoners involved , of which some had been armed and dangerous , and the scale of the intervention only a small number of persons had been injured , sustaining , as they did , mostly slight bodily harm .","On DATE the applicants requested from the investigating judge of ORG to establish the identity of all police officers and prison guards concerned , with the intention of starting a \u201c subsidiary prosecution \u201d against them ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The applicants stated that they knew the prison guards by their first names or nicknames only , while the identity of the police officers could be established through their commanding officer .","On DATE , despite a prior negative opinion expressed by the investigating judge , the pre - trial Chamber of ORG ordered that the applicants be heard ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE and DATE , on the premises of ORG , the investigating judge of ORG heard the following applicants : Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr Ivica Jonovi\u0107 , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG . All applicants , except for Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON recounted the alleged abuse suffered at the hands of the police officers and\/or prison guards . Some of them identified , by first name or nickname , the prison guards in question but none could provide any details regarding the identity of the police officers since they had visors covering their faces . Mr PERSON , however , stated that despite having been ill - treated by the police he did not want anyone to be convicted for the incident and had therefore decided to withdraw his complaint . Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON stated , respectively , that they were not the persons of the same name and surname who had complained of police brutality . Mr PERSON Simonovi\u0107 described his alleged ill - treatment by the police and prison guards but stated that \u201c out of fear \u201d he did not want to name the persons concerned . Mr PERSON related that he was sorry to have been involved in the incident at all and would like to withdraw his criminal complaint .","Though duly informed of the hearing held on DATE , the applicant \u2019s counsel did not attend it . On DATE he informed the investigating judge that he had had to attend another hearing , in a different case , scheduled earlier .","On DATE the investigating judge invited the ORG counsel to provide the court with information as to the whereabouts of a number of applicants who had in the meantime been released or transferred to another penitentiary .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 counsel responded by stating that he was not obliged to comply with this request . The investigating judge should instead have addressed his request to ORG .","On DATE and DATE ORG and FAC informed the investigating judge that CARDINAL applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , were not in their custody .","On DATE the investigating judge heard another CARDINAL applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , in his own office . They recounted the abuse allegedly inflicted by the police and\/or the prison guards but could not identify the police officers because of their visors . Mr PERSON further stated that since he had only recently arrived to ORG he could not identify the prison guards in question .","On DATE the Ni\u0161 Penitentiary informed the investigating judge that out of the CARDINAL applicants who had yet to be heard some had been moved to other penitentiaries , specifying which , and some released , specifying their home addresses . It subsequently transpired that CARDINAL of these applicants , Mr PERSON , had escaped from prison .","On DATE the investigating judge of ORG , acting on the request of ORG , heard another applicant , Mr PERSON , who described the alleged abuse suffered in the course of the police intervention . He could not , however , identify the officers because of their visors .","DATE and DATE the investigating judge of ORG received TIME of the interrogations of another CARDINAL applicants , specifically Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , carried out before the municipal courts in ORG , GPE , ORG and ORG . All applicants reaffirmed that they had been beaten by the police and\/or prison guards during the intervention and all , except for Mr PERSON , identified by name the prison guards who had taken part in the alleged abuse . Mr PERSON further gave a physical description of CARDINAL of the police officers who had allegedly ill - treated him since this officer \u2019s face had been visible . Mr PERSON , in addition , provided a detailed written statement containing a thorough account of his alleged abuse during the intervention and subsequently . In support of these assertions he offered the names of the prison guards in question , the name of the police officer who had allegedly beaten him , a list of CARDINAL prison guards who could allegedly confirm that he had been denied medical assistance , and the names of CARDINAL prisoners and prison gourds who had witnessed his alleged abuse and\/or seen his injuries .","On DATE applicant Mr Ivica Jonovi\u0107 withdrew his request filed with the investigating judge .","On DATE the investigating judge informed the applicants\u2019 counsel that he had complied with the instructions of the pre - trial ORG and that it was now up to the applicants to decide whether to take over the prosecution of the case in the capacity of subsidiary prosecutors within DATE ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 counsel complained to the investigating judge that he was effectively deprived of the possibility to take over the prosecution of the case on behalf of his clients . Specifically , the investigating judge had , in breach of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , failed to provide him with the case file which could have enabled him to be informed of the available evidence and of the identities of the perpetrators in question ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) . Also , a period of DATE was simply too short .","On DATE the investigating judge addressed the applicants\u2019 counsel . He stated , inter alia , that the latter had shown very little interest in the case to date , having never sought access to the case file or attended the hearings . Moreover , some of the applicants had themselves indicated that they had lost all contact with their lawyer . Finally , the investigating judge recalled that counsel acting on behalf of subsidiary prosecutors were not entitled to be provided with the case file but could review it on the court \u2019s own premises .","On DATE the NMPPO decided that there were no grounds to bring a criminal case against any of the prisoners involved in the revolt and explained that they had never had the intent to use force in order to escape from prison which was a necessary precondition for the existence of the crime provided for in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE a number of applicants , specifically Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON ORG , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and Mr PERSON , requested from ORG , through their counsel , to provide them with copies of their respective medical files . On DATE , however , ORG declined to do so since this would be in breach of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Based on the copies of the partly inconsistent documents containing medical information , received by the ORG after the communication of the present application , the ORG maintained that between DATE and DATE the following applicants had not received any medical treatment or , if they had , no physical injuries had been recorded in the course of the examination : Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . The remaining applicants , in view of the available documentation , seemed to have sustained injuries essentially corresponding to those described at paragraph CARDINAL above . CARDINAL applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr Mr PERSON , also submitted photographs of their respective injuries ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165231","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VEIGA DA SILVA BRAGA v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant brought enforcement proceedings against her former husband before the ORG seeking the payment of child support amounting to MONEY ( ORG ) .","On DATE the applicant was notified that her former husband had no attachable assets .","On DATE the proceedings were extinguished as no attachable assets were specified pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142077","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SOTO\u0160EK v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG against his employer , company PERSON and CARDINAL further defendants .","On DATE the ORG came into force in respect of GPE .","On DATE the first defendant , company PERSON replied to the claim .","On DATE the applicant was requested to supplement or amend his claim .","On DATE the applicant lodged his submissions by which he withdrew the action against the second , third , fourth and fifth defendant and proposed to determine another court with subject matter jurisdiction .","On DATE the court stayed the proceedings against the second , third , fourth and fifth defendant .","On DATE ORG issued a decision by which it dismissed the applicant \u2019s request to determine another court with subject matter jurisdiction .","On DATE the court adjourned the first main hearing at the request of both parties .","On DATE the settlement hearing and the first main hearing were held .","On DATE the second main hearing was held .","On DATE the scheduled hearing was postponed at the applicant \u2019s request .","Between DATE and DATE further CARDINAL hearings were held .","On DATE ORG partially upheld the applicant \u2019s claim and dismissed the remainder of the claim . Both parties appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals and issued a decision that an appeal on points of law would not be allowed in the present case . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision that appeal on points of law was not allowed . The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180889","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"GUISO AND CONSIGLIO v. ITALY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) and PERSON PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively . PERSON ( \u201c the third applicant \u201d ) was an NORP national who was born in DATE . She died on DATE . The first and second applicants are her heirs , and expressed their wish to pursue the proceedings before ORG . They were represented before the ORG by Mr. PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","The applicants were the joint owners of various parts of different plots of building land in PERSON .","The plots in question \u2013 measuring a total surface area of QUANTITY \u2013 were recorded in the land register as Folio no . CARDINAL , parcel nos . DATE , LOC , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL .","NORP By different orders issued DATE ORG approved a project to build a residential complex on the applicants\u2019 land .","By CARDINAL orders issued on DATE by the mayor of PERSON , through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public interest declaration , the PERSON municipality was authorised to take possession of the above - mentioned plots of land , with a view to subsequently expropriating them . The deadline for issuing a formal expropriation order was DATE .","NORP In DATE the authorities took physical possession of the land and began the building works .","By an order issued on DATE by ORG , the deadline for issuing the expropriation order was extended to DATE .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG further extended the deadline for issuing the expropriation order .","On DATE an expropriation order was issued in respect of the land .","On DATE the applicants lodged an application with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , contesting the lawfulness of the mayor \u2019s orders of CARDINAL DATE and the orders extending the deadline for issuing the expropriation order .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court found that the orders extending the deadline for issuing the expropriation order had been unlawful , and that the expropriation order of DATE had consequently also been unlawful .","On DATE the applicants applied to ORG for compensation for their being unlawfully deprived of their property , relying on the same court \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE . In this connection , they sought an amount equal to the property \u2019s market value on DATE when the land had been irreversibly altered , plus a sum reflecting an adjustment for inflation and statutory interest . They further contended that the application of the \u201c constructive expropriation \u201d rule , which was likely to be applied in their case , had been found by the ORG to be incompatible with LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .","On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land . A report produced in DATE stated that the affected surface area of the land was equal to QUANTITY , and that the market value of the land in DATE had been MONEY ( ORG ) per square metre .","By a judgment of DATE the court found that , pursuant to the constructive expropriation rule ( occupazione appropriativa ) , the applicants were no longer the owners of the land , which had become the property of the PERSON municipality following completion of the public works . It dismissed the ORG argument that the constructive expropriation rule was incompatible with LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . However , the court conceded that , as the transfer of property had been unlawful , the applicants were entitled to compensation . In this connection , it relied on the expert report which had assessed the market value of the land at FAC per square metre . However , the court did not award compensation reflecting the market value , but instead proceeded to make an award based on the criteria contained in LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . All amounts were to be adjusted for inflation and include statutory interest from the date the occupation of the ORG land had ceased to be lawful , which the court identified as DATE .","On DATE the applicants lodged an application with the PERSON . They contested the lower courts\u2019 legal classification of how they had been deprived of their property and complained that the reduction in their compensation was incompatible with their right to property . They claimed , inter alia , that they were entitled to compensation corresponding to the market value of the land , and a sum for loss of enjoyment of the land . They also complained about the fact that the award would be subject to taxation .","On DATE the PERSON municipality paid the applicants the amounts due under the judgment of ORG . The sum they received jointly amounted to ORG . Tax at a rate of PERCENT was deducted at source from these sums .","On DATE the third applicant died .","On DATE the PERSON issued a decision declaring that it did not have jurisdiction to decide the ORG claim .","The applicants lodged an application with ORG in order to settle the issue of jurisdiction .","On DATE it ruled , sitting as a full court ( ORG ) , that the administrative courts had jurisdiction to decide the applicants\u2019 claim for compensation , as the issue at stake concerned the unlawful exercise of public authority .","On an unspecified date the applicants resumed their appeal before the Consiglio di Stato . They contested the lower courts\u2019 legal classification of how they had been deprived of their property and complained that the reduction in their compensation was incompatible with their right to property . They asked the court to award an amount corresponding to the property \u2019s market value . They also complained about the fact that the award would be subject to taxation .","By a judgment delivered on DATE , filed with the registry on CARDINAL DATE , the PERSON confirmed that the applicants had been deprived of their property unlawfully . It further drew on ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , whereby LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , as amended by PERSON no . DATE , had been declared unconstitutional , and held that the applicants were entitled to compensation corresponding to the full market value of the property , minus what had already been paid to them under the judgment of ORG . The court further stated that the applicants were entitled to a sum reflecting an adjustment for inflation as well as statutory interest from DATE that they were deprived of their property . It also awarded them ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The court stated that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the complaint about prospective taxation .","On DATE the PERSON municipality paid the applicants the remaining amounts due to them under the judgment of the PERSON , which amounted to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Tax at a rate of PERCENT was deducted at source from these sums .","The relevant domestic law and practice concerning constructive expropriation is to be found in PERSON v. GPE ( ( just satisfaction ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","In judgments ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that national law had to be compatible with the Convention as interpreted by the ORG \u2019s case - law , and consequently declared LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , as amended by PERSON no . DATE , unconstitutional .","In judgment no . CARDINAL it noted that the insufficient level of compensation provided for by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE was contrary to LAW , which required compliance with international obligations .","A number of changes in domestic law occurred following ORG judgments . Section CARDINAL\/CARDINAL(e ) of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) of DATE established that , in cases of constructive expropriation , the compensation payable had to correspond to the market value of the property in question and could not be reduced .","Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ( hereinafter \u201c Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u201d ) was created , inter alia , to broaden the tax base and streamline , facilitate and strengthen tax administration .","The relevant parts of section CARDINAL ) provide that capital gains ( plusvalenza ) on compensation for expropriation or unlawful forms of acquisition of property ( somme dovute per effetto di acquisizione coattiva conseguente ad occupazione di urgenza divenute illegittime ) paid to individuals not operating a business are taxable under LAW ( Testo Unico delle ORG ) .","As to the practical means of enforcement of the tax , section CARDINAL ) provides that when paying the compensation mentioned in section CARDINAL ) , including , inter alia , compensation for constructive expropriation ( risarcimento danni da occupazione acquisitiva ) the authorities entrusted with making the payment ( enti eroganti ) must deduct tax at source at a rate of PERCENT from the entire sum . It is open to the taxpayer to opt for ordinary taxation in his or her DATE tax return , in which case the sum deducted at source will be considered as an advance on the final tax payment due ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150785","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SERGEY ZUBAREV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a lawyer . In DATE the applicant , together with the lawyer PERSON , represented PERSON in civil proceedings before ORG .","On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG sent a complaint to the President of ORG . She alleged that the absence of the applicant and PERSON without good cause had led to delays in the proceedings . She asked the President to institute disciplinary proceedings against the lawyers and to inform them of the next hearing in PERSON case . In particular , she stated as follows :","\u201c I draw your attention to the conduct of the lawyers Mr PERSON and PERSON , which is not compatible with LAW . It has encroached on the rights of the person they were representing before the court ... and has led to unjustifiable delays in the examination of the merits of the case . At the same time [ they ] have systematically written complaints in PERSON name to various authorities and newspapers , attempting in that way to shift the responsibility for their own incompetence and lack of professionalism onto the judicial system , and thereby expressing contempt for the court . \u201d","The parties did not inform the ORG whether there was any follow - up to Judge PERSON \u2019s complaint on the part of ORG .","Being of the opinion that the above - cited paragraph of Judge PERSON \u2019s complaint tarnished their professional reputation , the applicant and PERSON brought a defamation action against her in accordance with LAW . They also sought a compensation award in respect of nonpecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant \u2019s claims for consideration . The court noted that current laws did not define the grounds or procedure for adjudicating that type of claim . In particular , the court noted as follows :","\u201c According to LAW on the Status of the Judiciary of GPE , a judge can not be held liable for an expression of opinion in the course of the administration of justice or for the judgment handed down [ by him or her ] unless he or she has been found guilty in criminal proceedings concerning the abuse of power or the adoption of an unlawful verdict , judgment or other judicial act .","Pursuant to LAW ] of GPE , ... [ d]amage caused within the framework of the administration of justice shall be compensated , provided that the guilt of the judge has been established in a final criminal conviction .","The claims lodged by [ the applicant ] and PERSON can not be considered in civil proceedings given that the issue of a judge \u2019s liability for actions taken in the course of the administration of justice must be adjudicated purely in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law . [ However ] , current legislation does not lay down the grounds or the procedure for compensation by the State for damage caused by a judge \u2019s unlawful actions ( inaction ) ( including the rules governing the jurisdiction of this type of case ) . \u201d","Further to an appeal by the applicant , on DATE ORG upheld that decision . The court noted , in particular :","\u201c Pursuant to Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the [ Code of Civil Procedure ] of GPE , the judge must dismiss a claim [ without consideration on the merits ] if it can not be adjudicated in civil proceedings but should instead be considered and adjudicated by way of another judicial process .","Referring to LAW of the Law of GPE on the Status of the Judiciary of GPE , the [ first - instance ] court established that the claims lodged by PERSON and [ the applicant ] concerned the judge \u2019s liability and the compensation for damage caused by the judge \u2019s actions ( failure to act ) . [ It ] correctly indicated in its decision that the judge should be immune from liability for the actions taken in the course of the administration of justice unless she or he had been found guilty of criminal abuse of power in a final criminal conviction .","Being mindful of the fact that the issue of the judge \u2019s liability for actions taken in the course of the administration of justice can be examined only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law , the court has rightly dismissed the claims lodged by [ the applicant ] and PERSON [ without consideration on the merits ] , noting correctly that current legislation had not yet laid down the grounds or the procedure for compensation by the State for damage caused by a judge \u2019s unlawful actions ( inaction ) ( including the rules governing the jurisdiction of this type of case ) . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174398","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160IMKUS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE officers of ORG were patrolling the border between GPE and GPE in GPE , by the river PERSON . At TIME the officers noticed several cars approaching the river and heard the sound of a boat in the water . The officers approached CARDINAL of the cars and found cartons of cigarettes inside , which they suspected had been smuggled from GPE . The CARDINAL individuals who had been in the car , ORG , PERSON and ORG , were arrested . During the arrests ORG received a gunshot wound and the officers took him to a hospital in Jurbarkas ( hereinafter \u201c the hospital \u201d ) .","At TIME mobile telephone began to ring and a border officer answered it . The caller stated that he would \u201c find and shoot \u201d the officer who had injured ORG subsequent forensic examination identified the caller \u2019s voice as probably ( tik\u0117tinai ) that of the applicant .","At TIME the applicant arrived at the hospital and approached the border officers guarding ORG The applicant used various swearwords towards the officers , demanded that they release PERSON and said that he would beat them up or kill them . It appears that no physical altercation occurred between the applicant and the officers and that the applicant subsequently left the hospital .","On DATE ORG opened a pre - trial investigation against the applicant and several other individuals . The applicant was suspected , among other things , of threatening to murder or seriously injure law enforcement officers and obstructing and verbally abusing them in the exercise of their official duties , under ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor ( hereinafter \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) discontinued the pre - trial investigation against the applicant for lack of evidence . As to the words and statements used by the applicant in his interaction with the border officers ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the prosecutor noted that the applicant could have committed the administrative offence of minor hooliganism under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The prosecutor \u2019s decision was forwarded to ORG , instructing them to decide whether administrative proceedings against the applicant should be instituted . However , DATE a senior prosecutor annulled that decision and reopened the pre - trial investigation .","On an unspecified date administrative proceedings were instituted against the applicant ; the information available to the ORG does not indicate which authority was in charge of them . On DATE ORG held that the applicant had committed the administrative offence of minor hooliganism when he had used swearwords in the presence of border officers in the hospital ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He was given a warning . The decision was not appealed against and became final after the expiry of the DATE time - limit for appeal .","On DATE the prosecutor charged the applicant with threatening to murder or seriously injure law enforcement officers , and insulting them in the exercise of their official duties , under ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) . The indictment alleged that the applicant had committed the offences in the hospital on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The case was transferred to ORG for examination on the merits but in DATE , at the prosecutor \u2019s request , the case was returned for additional investigation .","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation , stating that the applicant \u2019s actions had not amounted to the criminal offence of threatening to murder or seriously injure the officers because there had not been any objective circumstances indicating that he could have carried out those threats . The prosecutor also held that the applicant could not be prosecuted for insulting the officers because he had already been given an administrative penalty for the same conduct ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) \u2013 continuing the criminal proceedings against him would be in breach of the ne bis in idem principle .","On DATE ORG annulled the prosecutor \u2019s decision and reopened the investigation , noting that the administrative penalty given to the applicant \u201c did not automatically preclude \u201d the criminal proceedings against him .","The applicant appealed against that decision to a senior prosecutor at ORG but on DATE his appeal was dismissed . The senior prosecutor held that , in line with the case - law of the domestic courts , an administrative penalty did not preclude the institution of subsequent criminal proceedings concerning the same conduct ; however , in order to comply with the ne bis in idem principle , if a person was found guilty in the criminal proceedings , the previous administrative penalty had to be annulled or , if that was impossible , it had to be taken into account during sentencing . Accordingly , the prosecutor considered that the administrative penalty given to the applicant did not preclude the continuation of the criminal proceedings against him .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and overruled the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE . It held that criminal proceedings against the applicant could be continued only after the administrative penalty had been annulled , but since that had not been done , any further proceedings concerning the same conduct would be in breach of the ne bis in idem principle . However , on DATE ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s decision , reiterating the reasoning of the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . That decision was not subject to any further appeal .","NORP In DATE the case was transferred to ORG for examination on the merits . The amended indictment alleged that the applicant had committed the offences set out in GPE CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW because of the words and statements which he had used when speaking to the border officers on the telephone ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and in the hospital on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant as time - barred . That decision was not appealed against and became final ."],"violated_articles":["P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["P7-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177428","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CHIBOTAR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained under LAW inadequate conditions of their detention . They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the LAW ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148723","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MERZA\u013bIJEVS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent at the time , PERSON , and subsequently by PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was arrested on DATE .","DATE and DATE he was held in the GPE wing of ORG ( GPE cietums ) .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was subjected to strip searches . In particular :","- on DATE owing to his being escorted from the ORG wing to NORP wing in FAC ;","- on DATE because he was being escorted from FAC to a court in GPE ;","- on DATE for the purposes of being escorted from the court in GPE to FAC ; in his letter to ORG the applicant submitted that on DATE he had not been escorted anywhere ; and","- on DATE twice , prior to being escorted to a court in GPE and upon his return from the court . In their additional observations , the Government specified that the first search had been partial and that the second search had taken place on the premises of the courthouse .","The applicant submitted that on CARDINAL DATE he had been searched a further CARDINAL times , when being taken from the holding cell to the courtroom and back on CARDINAL occasions , and prior to his return to the prison . As a result , on CARDINAL DATE he had been searched on a total of CARDINAL occasions , on CARDINAL of which he had been directed to strip naked . In response to the ORG \u2019s observations , he averred that on CARDINAL DATE he had been searched CARDINAL times and each time had been told to undress .","According to the Government , body searches in FAC were conducted in a special room in the prison admissions unit , by CARDINAL prison warders , CARDINAL of whom carried out the search while the other filled out the forms . During the search on CARDINAL DATE on the LOC of the courthouse the applicant had been asked to squat once .","The applicant , however , stated that he had been searched in the presence of other inmates and , while naked , had been told to squat CARDINAL times or to lie down on the floor . As CARDINAL or CARDINAL inmates had been searched at the same time , CARDINAL prison warders had been present .","The applicant submitted that for DATE on DATE , when he was taken for a court hearing to PERSON , he had not been provided with food .","Referring to the escort log of FAC , the Government contended that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had left the prison at MONEY a.m. and had returned DATE at CARDINAL a.m. They stressed that according to the order issued by the governor of Daugavgr\u012bva prison on DATE , breakfast was served TIME and lunch TIME The applicant had been removed from his prison cell at TIME had returned to the cell at TIME .","NORP The applicant disagreed . Replying to the Government \u2019s observations , he stated that , owing to the length of the various procedures prior to leaving the prison LOC , it was not even theoretically possible that on the critical day , CARDINAL DATE , he could have had breakfast . Furthermore , breakfast was served to inmates in their cells , which the applicant had left at TIME He had returned to his cell at TIME , after lunch had been served . In addition , during the journey to the court in Daugavpils and his time there he had had no access to drinking water .","The applicant submitted that when he had been placed in FAC the temperature in the cells had been low , CARDINAL . A member of the prison staff , however , had refused to issue him with DATE clothing , stating that he already had his own clothing . In the applicant \u2019s submission , he had indeed been wearing a leather jacket , but it had been for DATE only and had subsequently been taken away from him . Furthermore , during the search on DATE the applicant \u2019s DATE jacket had been taken away . He had been left with a DATE jacket without any lining .","The applicant submitted that on certain dates in DATE he had been required to shovel snow in the prison yard . In his application to the ORG the applicant specified CARDINAL sets of dates , namely CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE . He could not refuse to perform that work . If he had , he would have been liable to a penalty of CARDINAL days\u2019 confinement in a disciplinary cell for disobeying prison orders . The temperature outside had been CARDINAL and QUANTITY Celsius and the applicant had suffered greatly from the cold . Furthermore , he had not been in good health .","As a result , he had once again started having problems with his heart . On DATE he had been placed in the prison hospital .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s hospital cell had been inspected by CARDINAL officers . At their request the applicant had also relayed to them his complaint about the jacket confiscated on DATE . Although the officers promised to clarify the matter , the applicant had not received any response .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from the prison hospital .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions in his application to the ORG and his comments in reply to the Government \u2019s observations , on several occasions he had raised the issue of the cold conditions in the prison and the lack of DATE clothing . In DATE he had submitted a written complaint to the authorities in FAC . On DATE he had written a letter to ORG and in DATE he had complained to prison staff . In DATE he had complained to the commission during their inspection of his prison cell . He had also complained verbally and in writing at other times but had not recorded those complaints .","The Government furnished a copy of a handwritten complaint by the applicant dated DATE , addressed to ORG . The stamp on the complaint indicated that it had been received at ORG on DATE of DATE . In his reply to the ORG \u2019s observations the applicant stated that he had written to ORG on DATE .","In the complaint he stated that during the search on DATE his DATE jacket had been taken from him . The prison warders had explained that he had CARDINAL jackets but that by law he could keep CARDINAL . The applicant had tried to explain that the other jacket was in fact a DATE pullover , but to no avail . As a result , he had been prevented from taking walks during DATE .","In the same complaint he stated that in DATE he had raised the issue of the jacket with prison staff . He had been told that he needed to write a request to the prison governor and that \u201c maybe [ he ] would be given the jacket \u201d . In reply to the applicant \u2019s question as to how soon his request would be reviewed , he had been told \u201c within DATE \u201d . In his complaint to ORG the applicant criticised the fact that he would therefore receive his jacket in DATE .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the matter of appropriate clothing fell within the competence of ORG , to which it had accordingly been transmitted for examination . ORG advised the applicant that the conduct of a member of prison staff could be the subject of a complaint to the head of ORG and subsequently to a court .","In the course of examination of the applicant \u2019s complaint , ORG requested information from FAC on DATE . On DATE the prison replied that the applicant could request permission in writing to retrieve his personal items from the stores . The applicant however had made no such request . Daugavgr\u012bva Prison further stated that on DATE that procedure had been explained to the applicant .","On DATE ORG replied to the applicant , stating that , according to its information , he had been provided with clothing appropriate to the season . On DATE when the procedure for retrieving items from the stores had been explained to the applicant , he had refused to write any request . The possibility of retrieving clothing from the stores could be considered on submission of the relevant request by the applicant .","In his reply to the ORG \u2019s observations the applicant disputed the assertion that the procedure for retrieving his clothes had been explained to him on DATE . He further maintained that by law he was not required to submit a written request asking the prison to provide him with clothing . That duty had to be fulfilled by the prison of its own initiative . Furthermore , he was entitled to submit such a request verbally .","In his letter to the ORG dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated that on DATE he had submitted a written request to the governor of ORG , indicating that he lacked seasonally appropriate clothing and that anyone who had informed ORG to the contrary had been a liar .","The applicant indicated that in response to that request he had been summoned on DATE to the office of his prison unit inspector . Because the applicant had accused a source of information of lying he had been threatened with placement in an isolation cell and with beating . The inspector had then examined the applicant \u2019s belongings . Having found no DATE clothing he had questioned the applicant \u2019s cellmates . The applicant had then been taken to the stores and given all his clothes .","The applicant submitted that on DATE he had written a letter to ORG in connection with its reply of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , because he considered that the ORG had been misinformed about the matter of his clothing . On DATE the letter was returned to the applicant with a request to place it in an envelope and pay for the postage . The letter was accompanied by a note citing LAW ( ORG izpildes kodekss ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant exchanged CARDINAL days\u2019 worth of white bread rations for an envelope and a stamp and eventually managed to dispatch his letter on DATE .","It appears that on DATE ORG responded to a further request by the applicant dated DATE regarding the issue of warm clothing . It referred back to its earlier reply of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It indicated that the applicant \u2019s personal items were in the prison stores and that they could be obtained if the applicant sent a written request to the prison governor .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG replied to the applicant \u2019s request of DATE in which he had criticised its response of DATE . ORG did not address that part of the request as it had already responded on the matter .","The Administrative Procedure Law ( Administrat\u012bv\u0101 procesa likums ) took effect on DATE . It provides , among other things , for the right to challenge administrative acts ( administrat\u012bvais akts ) and actions of the public authorities ( faktisk\u0101 r\u012bc\u012bba ) before the administrative courts ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","Section CARDINAL of LAW makes a ORG fee ( valsts nodeva ) payable for the lodging of a complaint or an appeal in proceedings before the administrative courts . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A court or a judge , in the light of a natural person \u2019s financial situation , may fully or partly exempt the person from the payment of the ORG fee at the person \u2019s request . \u201d","Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW reads as follows :","\u201c A convicted person \u2019s correspondence with ORG institutions shall be paid for out of the funds of the custodial institution , provided the person concerned does not have funds on his or her own card and he or she is challenging an administrative act or the action of a public authority issued by those institutions or is sending a request for the receipt of ORG - provided legal aid . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169265","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"DIMITROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals . Their particulars are set out in the appendix . The applicants were represented by PERSON and PERSON GPE , lawyers practising in GPE . CARDINAL of the applicants passed away in DATE and her heirs , whose names are also indicated in the appendix , expressed the wish to continue the proceedings in her stead .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","An ancestor of the applicants owned agricultural land on the outskirts of GPE , which was collectivised in DATE . It was initially managed by an agricultural cooperative , but was subsequently , together with other land , allocated to ORG - owned film studios and became part of what was known as \u201c the Boyana National Film Centre \u201d . At DATE the ORG enterprise managing these facilities was transformed into a ORG company , initially named ORG and , after its privatisation in DATE , ORG .","Following the adoption of LAW in DATE , which , under certain conditions , provided for the restoration of property titles to agricultural land , on DATE the competent body dealing with restitution \u2013 the local agricultural land commission \u2013 held that the applicants were entitled to restitution in kind of their ancestor \u2019s entire plot , measuring CARDINAL sq . m in total .","In DATE the applicants brought rei vindicatio proceedings against ORG . On DATE the ORG allowed the action in part and ordered the company to hand over possession of CARDINAL sq . m of the plot ; it found that the company did not hold the remainder of the land , which had been taken by a street . The domestic court observed that the applicants\u2019 property rights had been restored by virtue of the decision of DATE , whereas the company , which had made no submissions before it , had failed to show that it possessed the land on any valid legal grounds .","The judgment of ORG , not having been appealed against , became final on DATE .","On DATE the agricultural land commission issued another decision , restoring the applicants\u2019 property rights in respect of CARDINAL sq . m of their original plot , and refusing restitution as regards the remainder . The applicants did not appeal against that decision .","In DATE they brought enforcement proceedings against ORG ORG , seeking enforcement of the judgment of DATE . On CARDINAL occasions , in DATE , a bailiff formally handed over possession of the plot to the applicants , tracing its borders with poles inserted into the ground , and evicted the company . However , on each occasion the company removed the poles and continued to use the land , which remained within the film GPE fenced territory .","In a decision dated DATE the local mayor ordered that the plot described above be registered in the cadastral plans as the property of the applicants . In DATE ORG challenged that order before the courts . The ensuing proceedings continued until DATE , with the courts rejecting the company \u2019s challenge , finding in particular that , as the judgment of DATE had already recognised the applicants\u2019 property rights to the plot at issue , the proposed amendment to the cadastral plan was lawful .","NORP In DATE the company , already named ORG , brought court proceedings against the applicants , seeking a declaration that it was the owner of the disputed plot . Having satisfied itself on the basis of expert reports that the plot claimed was identical to the one which had been the subject of the previous proceedings between the same parties , the ORG found , in a decision of DATE , that the claim was inadmissible because the matter had already been settled with res judicata effect . That decision became final on DATE .","NORP In DATE the body tasked with maintaining cadastral plans , the ORG , ORG and ORG , adopted a new plan for the area , naming the applicants as the owners of the plot at issue . ORG applied for the plan to be amended to say that ownership of the plot was \u201c in dispute \u201d . Its application was allowed , by order of the head of the ORG on DATE . The applicants challenged that order successfully , with the national courts pointing out in their judgments that ownership of the plot was not \u201c in dispute \u201d , particularly as the proceedings regarding amendments of the cadastral plan described in paragraph CARDINAL above were not determinative of any property rights of the parties . The final judgment in that series of proceedings was given on DATE . In DATE the ORG representative was informed that the cadastral plans had been amended in accordance with the ORG findings .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Code of Civil Procedure , in force until DATE , provided that , in the context of enforcement proceedings , where a person had been ordered to hand over immovable property , a bailiff would evict that person from the property , if necessary forcibly , and formally transfer possession to the claimant . Under Article CARDINAL , if the person who had been removed from the property retook possession of it , he or she was to be evicted again . It was expressly noted that , in such a case , the person responsible for unlawfully taking possession could also incur criminal liability under LAW .","Similar provisions are contained in LAW of the current ORG .","Under LAW , it is an offence for any person to take possession of immovable property from which they have been lawfully removed . The offence is punishable by up to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment and a fine . The offence can also be committed by a representative of the relevant person ( ORG \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u043d. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG \u043d. \u043e. , GPE ) .","Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that LAW , an owner may request the cessation of any unjustified action which hinders him or her in the exercise of his or her property rights .","In a DATE interpretative decision ( ORG CARDINAL \u0433. \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.II.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG ) the former ORG explained that such a claim ( actio negatoria ) provided protection against unjustified interference \u2013 whether direct or indirect DATE which might prevent an owner from using his or her property to the fullest extent . It pointed out that the claim could be used to declare such interference unlawful and enjoin the persons concerned to stop it and remove its effects .","In a number of cases the domestic courts , examining actions under section CARDINAL ) , have ordered the defendants to remove fences constructed by them , obstructing the PERSON access to their own properties ( for example , ORG \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , I \u0433. \u043e. , ORG ; ORG \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 MONEY \u0433. , I \u0433. \u043e. , ORG ; and ORG \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 \u0412\u041a\u0421 \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , II \u0433. \u043e. , \u0413\u041a ) .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW is the general provision on unlawful enrichment . It has been relied on in a number of cases concerning unlawful hindrance of the effective enjoyment of a claimant \u2019s right of property , with the courts , as a rule , awarding in damages what has been shown to be the \u201c market rent \u201d for a property for the period at issue ( among many others , ORG \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 ORG \u0433. , PERSON \u0433. \u043e. ; ORG \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.XI.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 GPE \u0433. , IV \u0433. \u043e. ; ORG \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , II \u0433. \u043e. ; ORG \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0442. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , I \u0442. \u043e. ; and ORG \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , IV \u0433. \u043e. ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154021","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MISYUKEVICH v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE Tagil .","On DATE ORG of PERSON convicted the applicant of massive fraud , an offence punishable with up to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , and sentenced him to DATE in prison .","During the trial the applicant was represented by his counsel .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal . It follows from the appeal judgment that the applicant could follow the appeal hearing by video link from the PERSON remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . Counsel and prosecutor did not attend the hearing .","On DATE the applicant was placed in PERSON remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and was held there until DATE . According to the applicant , conditions of detention there were inhuman and degrading because of overcrowding ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147329","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF FURCHT v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . When lodging his application , he was detained in FAC . He was released on DATE .","On DATE the GPE ORG authorised criminal investigations against CARDINAL other persons ( not including the applicant ) to be conducted by CARDINAL undercover police officers , in accordance with LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL no . CARDINAL and LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Criminal investigation proceedings on suspicion of drug trafficking had previously been instituted against the CARDINAL suspects . Prior to ORG order , the police \u2019s suspicion against the suspects had been confirmed , in particular , by information obtained via telephone tapping and police surveillance of the suspects .","NORP The police decided to attempt to establish contacts between S. and the undercover agents via the applicant , a good friend of S. and business partner for real estate transactions . The applicant , who had no criminal record , was not , at that time , suspected of any involvement in drug trafficking .","From DATE , CARDINAL undercover police officers , PERSON and NORP , established contacts with the applicant . They visited him in the restaurant he ran and pretended to be interested in purchasing real property for running a club . In DATE the applicant made a number of offers of real property to the undercover agents and visited the estates with them .","The applicant subsequently established contacts between the CARDINAL undercover agents and S. for organising an international contraband trade in cigarettes after CARDINAL of the undercover agents had pretended to have a suitable lorry at hand for transporting the cigarettes abroad . PERSON refused , however , to communicate directly with undercover agent P. by telephone and proposed to further communicate via the applicant . When undercover agent NORP disclosed to the applicant on DATE that he considered that the risk of being caught with smuggling cigarettes was too high compared to the possible profits , the applicant disclosed that they ( that is , PERSON and others and himself ) would also traffic in cocaine and amphetamine . He stated that he did not want to be involved in the drug trafficking itself , but would only draw commissions . The undercover agents showed interest in transporting and purchasing drugs .","NORP However , on DATE the applicant , having been telephoned by undercover agent PERSON , explained to P. that he was no longer interested in any business other than the restaurant he ran .","On DATE the GPE ORG , having regard to the applicant \u2019s submissions to undercover agent NORP on DATE , extended the court order of CARDINAL DATE authorising investigations so as to cover also the applicant .","On DATE undercover agent P. visited the applicant in his restaurant and dispersed the applicant \u2019s suspicions against the undercover agents as well as his fear of having to serve a prison sentence in case the drug deal was discovered . The applicant thereupon continued arranging CARDINAL purchases of drugs ( cocaine and amphetamine ) by the undercover agents from S. on DATE ( QUANTITY of amphetamine paste and QUANTITY of cocaine ) and on DATE ( QUANTITY of amphetamine paste ) . On DATE , the applicant and PERSON were arrested after the delivery of the drugs to the undercover agents . The applicant would have received a commission of more than LAW from S. for having arranged the second contract between PERSON and the undercover agents .","On DATE the GPE ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of drug trafficking and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","ORG , having established the facts as described above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) , noted that the applicant had confessed to the offences in the hearing . It had further read out in the hearing the written reports of undercover agents NORP and PERSON , drawn up throughout the undercover measure , with the consent of the parties . It noted that the applicant had accepted that these reports were essentially correct . It considered that the applicant \u2019s allegation that it had been undercover agent NORP and not himself who had first come up with the possibility of drug trafficking on DATE , and that he had only responded to that proposal , had not been proven . It noted in that context that the undercover agents had been careful throughout the investigations not to propose illegal business transactions or specific types or amounts of drugs first , but had waited for their respective counterparts to make the first step before becoming more concrete themselves .","In fixing the sentence , ORG considered the considerable quantities of drugs trafficked as an aggravating factor . However , there were considerable elements leading to a mitigation of the sentence , which had to be considered as relatively mild in view of the amount of drugs trafficked . The applicant had in essence confessed to the offences and did not have any prior convictions . He had further trafficked mainly amphetamine , which was not a hard drug . In view of the undercover agents\u2019 involvement , there had also not been a risk that the drugs would freely circulate on the market .","The GPE ORG further stated that it was a particularly weighty factor mitigating the sentence that the applicant had been incited ( verleitet ) by a ORG authority to commit offences . Prior to the undercover measure concerning him , there had not been any suspicion of involvement in drug trafficking against the applicant , who did not have a criminal record . The police had only known that the applicant was a friend of S. , against whom there had been strong suspicions of involvement in drug trafficking , and that the applicant had already arranged the sale of real estate together with ORG considered that , nevertheless , the applicant had not been instigated ( angestiftet ) to commit the offences at issue . The undercover agents had waited for the applicant to raise the possibility of arranging an international contraband trade in cigarettes when the arrangement of a real estate transaction had not been successful . The agents had again waited for the applicant to raise the possibility of drug trafficking after the undercover agents had made him understand that they considered that the risk of being caught with smuggling cigarettes was too high compared to the possible profits .","NORP Moreover , ORG stressed that the applicant had then renounced any drug business on DATE for fear of punishment . However , the undercover agents nevertheless contacted the applicant again on DATE , when the court order authorising recourse to undercover agents had been extended so as to cover also the applicant , and dispersed his doubts . ORG considered that the way in which the undercover measure had been organised , that is , by contacting the applicant , a person not suspected of an offence , in order to establish contacts with suspect PERSON , had entailed a risk , from the outset , that the applicant became implicated in drug trafficking .","ORG further found that the applicant \u2019s involvement in the offences had been less important than that of S. , as he had only arranged contacts between PERSON and the undercover agents and had shielded off LOC against them . The applicant obviously did not have any contacts with the drug scene apart from his contacts with S.","The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law against ORG judgment . He complained , in particular , that he had been incited by the police to commit the offences he had later been found guilty of . This had breached the rule of law . There was , therefore , a bar to the criminal proceedings against him , which should have been discontinued .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as ill - founded . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . Relying , inter alia , on LAW and on the corresponding provisions of LAW , the applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial . He argued that the undercover agents had incited him to commit drug offences which he would not have committed otherwise . The use of the evidence obtained thereby in the criminal proceedings against him had rendered these proceedings unfair .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint against the judgment of ORG and the decision of ORG without giving reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s conditional release on DATE after the applicant had served CARDINAL of his sentence ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139932","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BUDANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived until his arrest in the town of GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder committed in a drunken rage . He was placed in temporary detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE .","On DATE ORG found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The judgment became final on DATE and the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in correctional colony no . CARDINAL .","Medical certificates submitted by the applicant indicate that in DATE he was admitted to the neurological department of the LOC hospital for in - patient treatment as he was suffering frequent seizures and loss of consciousness . He was diagnosed with episyndrome with vascular malformation in the right parietal lobe . In DATE he was again admitted to the hospital with severe headaches and seizures . Doctors confirmed the previous diagnoses of vascular malformation of the brain accompanied by episyndrome , and designated the applicant as category CARDINAL disabled . The applicant was not allowed to perform any physical activity or work other than \u201c light managerial work in a specially designated environment \u201d .","On admission to detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL the applicant complained to a prison doctor of frequent headaches . An examination resulted in his being diagnosed with neurocirculatory dystonia , encephalopathy with complex genesis , and chronic alcoholism . On DATE the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist , who recorded his complaints of regular and lengthy epileptic seizures and prescribed treatment with anticonvulsants . Clinical blood tests and an X - ray examination showed that the applicant was not suffering from any infectious diseases .","In DATE a prison psychiatrist and medical assistant saw the applicant CARDINAL times in response to his complaints of insomnia , extreme irritability and disturbed emotional state . Having noted that close supervision was necessary , the doctor amended the applicant \u2019s treatment to include another anticonvulsant , a strong neuroleptic and a sedative .","A prison paramedic attended the applicant on QUANTITY occasions in DATE . The applicant \u2019s complaints intensified , to include not only severe headaches but insomnia and frequent and uncontrolled mood swings , with a depressed emotional state being quickly replaced by aggressive behaviour . The paramedic recorded that the applicant was making continual demands for a large number of drugs , in particular strong tranquillisers to fight insomnia , as the headaches only disappeared when the applicant was asleep . He introduced another anticonvulsant to the applicant \u2019s drug regimen and prescribed a strong tranquilliser .","NORP In DATE the applicant was seen DATE , by a psychiatrist or the head of the facility medical unit . The doctors registered extremely negative changes in the applicant \u2019s behaviour , numerous complaints , refusal to take medication and subsequent persistent demands for drugs , in particular neuroleptics and tranquillisers . Each time this was done a discussion on the negative consequences of interruption of the treatment followed . The side effects of the treatment with neuroleptics and tranquillisers were also explained to the applicant . Following these \u201c educational \u201d talks , as the psychiatrist called them , the applicant complained of severe headaches and requested an in - depth examination in a specialised prison hospital by medical specialists competent to deal with his medical condition , in particular a neurosurgeon . He also asked for a magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) brain scan . The applicant was notified that the penal institutions in the GPE region did not employ a neurosurgeon and that MRI scanning was not available free of charge . He continued to insist , however , on a transfer to a hospital and an MRI scan every time he saw a medical specialist . The officials\u2019 response was to amend his drug regime , switching him from one neuroleptic to another and replacing one anticonvulsant with another one .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to detention facility no . CARDINAL in GPE . Having examined the applicant on his admission to the facility , a prison doctor recommended regular consultations with a psychiatrist and a drug addiction specialist . He also made recommendations in view of the applicant \u2019s emotional state , and prescribed injections with a new neuroleptic and a spasmolytic .","The applicant was examined by a psychiatrist and a drug addiction specialist during DATE following his admission to that detention facility , and the previous drug regime was reinstated . At the same time the drug addiction specialist noted the applicant \u2019s dependence on tranquillisers , particularly those which had served as the basis for his chemotherapy regime since his arrest . The drug addiction specialist recommended the applicant be admitted to a correctional colony medical facility for treatment .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to the ORG prison hospital , where he remained until DATE . The applicant underwent a number of clinical blood and urine tests , X - ray examinations of the head and chest , an electrocardiogram ( ECG ) and ultrasound scanning of the abdominal area and kidneys . The tests and examinations did not reveal any pathology . He was also seen by a neurologist and an oculist . He was treated with piracetam , a neurometabolic stimulator , vitamins , analgesics , spasmolytics , sedatives and an antihypertensive drug . The applicant was discharged from the hospital in what the doctors considered a satisfactory condition .","Following his treatment in the hospital , the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . CARDINAL to serve his sentence . His first consultation with a psychiatrist took place DATE after his arrival in the colony . Following the applicant \u2019s complaints of severe headaches , insomnia , anxiety and irritation , the doctor recommended transfer to a prison medical facility for treatment for his alcoholism . That transfer was effected at DATE .","On DATE the applicant was seen by the head of the prison medical facility , to whom he stated that he refused to have treatment for his chronic alcoholism . The applicant insisted on being transferred back to the correctional colony , and asked for a medical expert examination .","DATE the applicant was examined by a medical panel comprising the head of the prison medical facility , a drug addiction specialist , a psychiatrist and a physician . The panel \u2019s conclusion was that the applicant required mandatory treatment for his chronic alcoholism , given that the illness was negatively affecting his behaviour , as well as his psychological state . In particular , the doctors recorded the applicant \u2019s continual attempts to obtain additional doses of tranquillisers as a sign of his dependency . The doctors lectured the applicant about the consequences of \u201c simulation and addiction \u201d . The applicant \u2019s medical record showed that he was seen by a number of specialists and underwent a number of clinical tests . He was released from the in - patient facility with a drug regime comprising tranquillisers , analgesics , neuroleptics and a hepatoprotector . He was discharged on the condition that he would be under close supervision by a psychiatrist and a drug addiction specialist .","The applicant continued to receive the psychotherapy , with prison officers and medical staff recording positive effects of the treatment , and noting that the applicant was adjusting rapidly to the conditions of the correctional colony and was complying with the detention regime .","NORP In DATE a prison psychiatrist reduced the applicant \u2019s drug regime to CARDINAL anticonvulsive drug and multivitamins . While his condition was considered moderately satisfactory , he continued to complain of headaches and occasional loss of consciousness . At the same time the applicant acknowledged that he had had no epileptic fits during the entire period of his treatment in the prison medical facility . In DATE the applicant \u2019s condition worsened and his complaints intensified , leading to the reintroduction of the drugs that he had been treated with in the prison medical facility . At the same time the colony authorities refused the applicant \u2019s requests to be transferred to the regional prison hospital for examinations , in particular an MRI brain scan , and treatment , considering that his condition could be appropriately treated with outpatient treatment in the colony . The only request from the applicant which was granted concerned the reintroduction of a tranquilliser into his drug regimen .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s complaints , which he had been making DATE , of a loss of consciousness , loss of appetite and very severe headaches , were heard in a consultation with a prison paramedic , who prescribed pain relief for the headaches , vitamins , an anticonvulsive drug and a herbal sedative . While it was noted that there were injuries on the applicant \u2019s face and body which could have supported his account of loss of consciousness and a resultant accidental fall , the paramedic described his behaviour as an attempt to manipulate and attract attention . In response , the rules of behaviour in penal institutions , the internal regulations of the facility he was in , and the aims of the medical treatment were all explained to him . In DATE the applicant was prescribed work and psychotherapy in addition to a course of medication .","The applicant suffered a relapse of his chronic pancreatitis and was sent to the regional prison hospital on DATE , where he underwent a series of clinical tests and examinations identical to those he had already had during his previous stay in the hospital . The applicant \u2019s diagnosis when he was discharged from the hospital on DATE was as follows : encephalopathy with a complex genesis with cephalgia syndrome , chronic pancreatitis , cholecystitis in remission , and alcohol dependency syndrome , aggravated by uncontrolled use of psychotropic drugs .","After he was transferred back to the medical correctional facility on his discharge from the hospital the applicant continued to complain of headaches , nausea , loss of consciousness , numbness in the arms and legs , fatigue and insomnia . The following DATE consisted of new rounds of complaints when the applicant demanded additional doses of tranquillisers , admission to the regional prison hospital and an MRI scan of the head , and the facility authorities treated his requests as coming from a drug addict and a manipulator . The doctors also concluded that he no longer needed treatment for alcohol addiction as he had been cured and had shown a clear intention to continue with a sober life . In the authorities\u2019 opinion , that intention should have been strengthened through the prescribed work therapy and psychotherapy .","NORP In DATE the administration finally acceded to the applicant \u2019s request and sent an official letter to the GPE regional hospital requesting that he be admitted and receive an MRI scan . While waiting for a response , paramedics , on the recommendation of a psychiatrist who had seen the applicant at least once DATE , continued to amend his drug treatment , given that he was not responding well to treatment and his condition appeared to be deteriorating .","DATE and DATE the applicant suffered several epileptic fits , which again led to changes in his drug regimen . On DATE he was taken to the regional prison hospital for a complex expert examination . The hospital doctors , who employed identical methods of clinical examination and consultations with the same specialists as on the CARDINAL previous occasions , confirmed the diagnosis and recommended treatment with neurometabolic stimulators , piracetam and vitamins .","After he was discharged from hospital at DATE , the appli\u0441ant was seen at least once DATE by a prison medical officer or a psychiatrist ; following every consultation there was a change in his treatment , consisting either of the removal of a drug or the introduction of a new drug .","At DATE the applicant \u2019s condition deteriorated , and he was prescribed bed rest and increased doses of anticonvulsive drugs , sedatives and analgesics . With no sign that the prescribed treatment was working , he was sent back to the prison regional hospital at DATE . In addition to the usual procedures , treatment and examinations he had received in the hospital on previous occasions , he underwent an MRI brain scan . The MRI scan report was as follows : \u201c the ventricle system of [ the applicant \u2019s ] brain was moderately enlarged ; the outline of the sulci in the cerebral hemispheres was drastically sharpened ( degeneration ) ; extensive arterial venous malformation in the left side of the parietal lobe with the draining veins in the sagittal sinus ; frontal sinusitis on the right side \u201d .","DATE and DATE the applicant had a recurrence of his chronic pancreatitis , for which he received effective treatment in the correctional colony . He also did not cease to complain of headaches , emotional disturbance , fatigue and insomnia . His readmission to the regional prison hospital was the authorities\u2019 response to his increasing complaints about his health . In the hospital the applicant received the usual medical attention and was released in \u201c a satisfactory state \u201d with the recommendation that treatment be continued with piracetam and neurometabolic stimulators . A short stay in the correctional colony was followed by his admission to the GPE ORG prison hospital at DATE . The applicant did not complete his examinations and treatment in that hospital , as he had broken the rules of the detention regime and had therefore been discharged from the hospital . At this time doctors recommended that the applicant be monitored and treated by a psychiatrist and that he also be treated with neurometabolic stimulators , vascular medication , vitamins , and behaviour modifiers .","On the recommendation of a colony psychiatrist who had seen the applicant DATE since his return from the GPE hospital , the applicant was admitted to the prison hospital in correctional colony no . CARDINAL , where he remained until DATE . The applicant was readmitted to the hospital slightly over DATE after being discharged . The usual medical procedures and examinations he had had on other occasions were supplemented by rheoencephalography , which showed negative changes in his cerebral blood flow . DATE after the applicant was discharged from the hospital at DATE , a colony psychiatrist recorded a deterioration of the applicant \u2019s condition . In DATE the applicant suffered an epileptic fit during a consultation with a psychiatrist . The latter described the fit in the applicant \u2019s medical record as accompanied by a lengthy loss of consciousness , convulsions and foaming at the mouth . The applicant was immediately taken to the medical unit of the correctional colony , where he received increased doses of sedatives , anticonvulsive drugs , hepatoprotectors , vitamins and neuroleptics . The applicant was discharged from in - patient care in the unit in DATE . The head of the colony medical unit discussed with the applicant the possibility of his being admitted to the NORP prison hospital in GPE for surgery .","The following DATE featured complaints by the applicant of deteriorating health and inability to stand the severe headaches he was suffering , and attempts by colony staff to give him relief with the range of drugs which had been included in his regimen since his arrest and first complaints of health problems .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s medical record , including the results of the MRI scan in DATE , was studied by the head of the medical unit of the correctional colony . His findings confirmed the rapid deterioration of the applicant \u2019s condition , which could no longer be addressed by medication alone . The head of the unit recommended the applicant be admitted to the regional hospital for an assessment as to whether he would benefit from surgery . DATE of treatment in the hospital with the usual chemotherapy regimen led , according to the medical record , to the applicant \u2019s condition becoming \u201c satisfactory \u201d . A rheoencephalography performed in the hospital showed further progress of the illness , with concomitant serious disturbance of the cerebral blood flow . The applicant was again admitted to the regional hospital , slightly over DATE after he was discharged . The hospital doctors changed his treatment , introducing new medication for relief of the headaches and for his emotional disorder and insomnia . When he was discharged from the hospital the applicant \u2019s condition was no longer described as \u201c satisfactory \u201d although the only recommendation was to maintain treatment of his symptoms .","During DATE the applicant made a very large number of complaints of headaches , stomach pain , nausea , insomnia and extreme emotional disturbance , to which the colony medical staff responded by conducting visual examinations , which were carried out by the head of the colony medical unit , a prison physician or a prison paramedic , and by prescribing drugs to arrest the negative symptoms of the illness . The drugs were alternated so as to switch between CARDINAL anticonvulsant and another , and new sedatives and neuroleptics were introduced . On DATE the applicant had to take CARDINAL different drugs at a time . The medical officers made notes in the applicant \u2019s records , detailing , in addition to his complaints , the results of the visual examinations , stating that he was \u201c slow \u201d , and that his reactions and responses were \u201c sluggish \u201d . On several occasions he was prescribed bed rest .","In DATE the applicant suffered an epileptic fit and was taken immediately to the colony medical unit , carried there by his cellmates . A prison medical assistant who examined him recommended continuing with the treatment . She also found it necessary for the applicant to be seen by a psychiatrist . DATE the applicant was transferred to the prison hospital in the correctional colony . For the first time the applicant was subjected to an electroencephalogram ( EEG ) . He was treated with the CARDINAL usual drugs , including an anticonvulsant and a strong neuroleptic , and was prematurely discharged from the hospital . According to the medical record , the discharge was a consequence of the applicant \u2019s behaving \u201c incorrectly \u201d towards a hospital official .","On DATE he lodged a request with ORG for suspension of his sentence in view of the state of his health . The applicant argued that he was suffering from extremely severe headaches and that his seizures were becoming more and more frequent . He also complained that he was unable to receive the medical assistance he needed , including brain surgery , in detention , and asked the court to authorise a forensic medical examination to \u201c determine the nature and severity of the brain damage \u201d in preparation for subsequent surgery , as well as to call a neurosurgeon from a civilian hospital to interpret the MRI scans of his head .","On DATE the parties were heard in ORG , which ruled that it was necessary to send the applicant to a prison hospital for a medical examination to determine whether the state of his health warranted his release .","On DATE the applicant was readmitted to the hospital in correctional colony no . CARDINAL , where he was assessed by a medical expert panel to determine whether he was suffering from an illness which was serious enough to warrant his early release . The panel concluded that the applicant could not be released on health grounds as he was not suffering from an illness on the List of Illnesses Precluding the Serving of Custodial Sentences , as adopted by a Government decree in DATE .","ORG received the medical panel \u2019s report and on DATE dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for suspension of the sentence . It held as follows :","\u201c The opinion of the special medical panel on the medical examination of [ the applicant ] performed on DATE ... establishes the following diagnosis : organic emotionally labile personality disorder connected with mixed illnesses ( dyscirculatory vascular malformation , epilepsy with rare seizures , moderate alcohol dependence syndrome in the stage of forced remission ) . By virtue of paragraph CARDINAL of the List of Illnesses Precluding the Serving of Custodial Sentences ... [ the applicant ] can not be relieved from serving the remaining part of his sentence .","Having considered the opinion of the special medical panel on the medical examination of [ the applicant ] , [ and ] the nature of his illness , the court finds that treatment of the illness can be ensured in detention . Moreover , taking into account the information provided on [ the applicant \u2019s ] personality , the nature of the criminal offence of which he was convicted and which is considered particularly serious , [ and ] the references given [ on the applicant ] at the place of his former residence , the court considers that at the present time the aim of [ the applicant \u2019s ] improvement has not been reached and , if his sentence is to be suspended and he is to be released from detention he would present a danger to society [ and ] may reoffend . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld that decision , finding ORG reasoning convincing and well - founded .","In the meantime , the applicant was discharged from the hospital and sent back to the correctional colony , only to be returned to the hospital DATE , in DATE . When the applicant was discharged from the hospital it was with the recommendation that an MRI scan of the head be arranged by his correctional colony . That recommendation was complied with in DATE . Medical specialists noted negative developments on the scan and stated that the applicant should consult a neurosurgeon .","NORP For DATE of his stay in correctional colony no . CARDINAL after his return from the hospital the applicant continued to complain of severe headaches , epileptic seizures , nausea and insomnia . Those complaints were heard by a prison paramedic or a prison psychiatrist and amendments were made to his chemotherapy regimen .","In DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG asking for medical assistance . He provided the ORG with an extract from his medical record issued by ORG and a letter from the acting director of ORG . The first document showed that the applicant required permanent supervision by a neurologist and regular MRI scans of the head . The letter from the acting director of ORG indicated that the applicant was in need of \u201c surgery in a specialised federal centre \u201d and that the medical facilities in GPE were not equipped to perform such an operation . The acting director also noted in the letter that he had informed ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Service \u201d ) about the applicant \u2019s state of health and that the surgery was required .","In response to the applicant \u2019s request to be sent to the NORP prison hospital in GPE where he could have brain surgery , on DATE the director of the ORG informed him that there was no medical need for surgery .","On DATE the director of the NORP hospital sent a letter to the head of correctional colony no . CARDINAL , the relevant part of which read as follows :","\u201c In response to your request ... of CARDINAL DATE [ I ] inform you that [ the applicant ] ... can not be transferred to [ the NORP hospital ] for in - patient treatment , as the surgery in the present case is of a high - tech nature and [ the hospital ] does not have the necessary equipment to perform it at the present time . \u201d","The applicant was admitted to the prison hospital in correctional colony no . CARDINAL , where he was again seen by an oculist , a neurologist and a psychiatrist , underwent clinical blood and urine tests , ultrasound scanning of the abdominal area , ORG and ORG testing , and received the usual course of drug therapy . The ORG test showed a further negative dynamic in the applicant \u2019s condition in comparison to the results of the previous ORG test in DATE . He was discharged from the hospital at DATE but was readmitted in DATE . He was provided during his stay with the same range of medical services as before .","In DATE a medical panel stripped the applicant of his disability status , considering that his vital functions were not affected by his illness .","In DATE the applicant submitted another request for suspension of the sentence on the grounds of his state of health . He insisted that his health was continuing to deteriorate and that the prison facilities did not have the capability to perform the brain surgery which he needed .","Having studied the medical evidence , including the reports by the medical panel and the applicant \u2019s medical history , on DATE ORG concluded that the applicant \u2019s state of health did not warrant his release and that his treatment could be ensured by prison medical staff . ORG also noted that \u201c an issue pertaining to surgery is at the discussion stage \u201d .","On DATE the ORG confirmed ORG conclusions in its decision of DATE . ORG reasoning was as follows :","\u201c The material in [ the applicant \u2019s ] case file indicates that he had the same health problems before he committed the murder , so [ the state of his health ] did not prevent him from committing a particularly serious criminal offence .","The conclusions of the medical panel indicate that [ the applicant \u2019s ] illness does not preclude him from serving the sentence . He receives the required treatment in detention . As regards the surgery , this question is at the decision stage and , if agreed to , [ the applicant \u2019s ] request [ for the suspension of the sentence ] will be examined again in compliance with the requirements of the law in force . \u201d","In DATE the applicant \u2019s treatment consisted of a combination of consultations with colony medical staff and provision of drug treatment for his symptoms , during which time he made a large number of complaints of poor health . Until DATE the consultations took place DATE with a prison paramedic . In DATE the applicant was seen once by the head of the colony medical unit , once by a psychiatrist , and once by a physician from the prison hospital .","In the meantime , in DATE ORG sent the applicant \u2019s record , including the record of the MRI brain scan performed in DATE , to the director of ORG in GPE . Specialists from that institute were asked to develop a plan for the applicant \u2019s treatment . Having examined the applicant \u2019s medical file , a doctor from the ORG concluded that the applicant was in need of supervision by a neurologist and required amendments to the anticonvulsive treatment he was receiving . He also noted that the applicant did not need radiotherapy . The applicant was not seen by a neurologist or neurosurgeon in DATE .","In DATE a neurologist invited by the applicant \u2019s mother visited the applicant . He recorded the applicant \u2019s complaints of a severe \u201c burning \u201d pain in the left temporal region of the head and a general continuous pressing ache in the entire head , dizziness , nausea , fatigue , numbness in the legs , occasional loss of consciousness , insomnia , irritation , memory loss , feelings of fear , and panic attacks . Having confirmed the progress of the illness following a visual examination and a number of tests , the neurologist recommended consultations with a neurosurgeon and an angiosurgeon to draw up a schedule for his surgical treatment . He expanded the applicant \u2019s drug regimen to include various sedatives , anticonvulsive drugs and neuroleptics , and recommended a number of examinations and tests , including an MRI heart scan and ORG tests .","There is no evidence in the applicant \u2019s medical record that any of the neurologist \u2019s recommendations were complied with . The medical record indicates that colony staff provided the applicant with only some of the drugs prescribed by the neurologist . He continued to be supervised by prison paramedics at the correctional colony ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160219","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF IVANOVSKI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born on DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the ORG of the respondent ORG passed ORG \u0437\u0430 \u043e\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0434\u043e\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043d \u0443\u0441\u043b\u043e\u0432 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u0440\u0448\u0435\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0458\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0444\u0443\u043d\u043a\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 DATE hereafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , which entered into force DATE .","The Lustration Act introduced non - collaboration with the ORG security services in the period DATE and DATE , the date of the Act \u2019s coming into force ( hereafter \u201c the screening period \u201d ) , as an additional requirement for the holding of public office . In other words , collaboration with the ORG security services in that period became an impediment to holding public office .","All incumbent public officials and candidates for public office were required to submit a statement that they had not collaborated with the ORG security services in the above screening period ( hereafter \u201c the declaration \u201d ) . LAW was to apply for DATE from its entry into force ( hereafter \u201c the temporal scope \u201d ) .","The Lustration Act also provided for the establishment of a Facts Verification Commission ( \u041a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0441\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0444\u0438\u043a\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0444\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438 \u2013 hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d or \u201c the Commission \u201d ) , which had to be set up within DATE of the LAW \u2019s entry into force . Its task was to examine the veracity of the public officials\u2019 declarations . The members of the Commission were elected by ORG on DATE . ORG became operational in DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE amendments to LAW entered into force , adding several provisions primarily in respect of the functioning of ORG and the status of its members . Also , the temporal scope of LAW was extended , from DATE initially envisaged following the Act \u2019s entry into force , to DATE following the election of the Commission .","On DATE , following petitions for abstract constitutional review , ORG accepted the initiative and decided to institute proceedings to review the constitutionality of several provisions of LAW , including the CARDINAL extending the screening period ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) beyond the date of adoption of the current LAW of the respondent ORG ( CARDINAL DATE ) . It also suspended application of those provisions until it had decided on their compatibility with the LAW .","Fierce debate ensued , in which a number of politicians severely criticised ORG decision in the media ( see ORG of DATE in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . For example , on DATE the coordinator of the ruling party \u2019s ORG group made the following statement :","\u201c Having in mind that ORG current composition was appointed during the political zenith [ of the former President of the Republic ] , [ the ruling party ] believes that cancelling lustration \u2019s scope of application after DATE has CARDINAL goal only : to prevent ORG and the citizens of GPE from learning whether [ the former President of the Republic and his party ] officials , who controlled the secret services , actually used those structures against their political opponents . \u201d","On DATE the same MP stated :","\u201c We are convinced that ORG wants to harness NORP democracy and keep it hostage [ bound up ] in the web woven by secret service collaborators . People from the secret services are striking back , together with their collaborators who continued to \u2018 snitch\u2019 , violate human rights , destroy people \u2019s lives and wage war against political opponents , even after DATE . \u201d","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG invalidated certain provisions of LAW as unconstitutional . In particular , that court held that to extend the screening period beyond CARDINAL DATE , the date of adoption of the present LAW , was unconstitutional . In other words , it was incompatible with the LAW to provide collaboration with the ORG security services after DATE as an impediment to the holding of public office .","NORP Some other provisions were also held contrary to the LAW , namely those providing for the publication of NORP names in ORG , automatic lustration in cases where no declaration had been submitted , and those making it possible to introduce collaboration as an impediment to membership of governing bodies of political parties , civic organisations and religious communities by internal regulations of such non - State entities ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , DATE , the applicant , as the President of ORG at the time , made the following statement to the media , in which he , inter alia , commented on the ORG \u2019s written response to the petitions for constitutional review in the proceedings before the court :","\u201c The response is CARDINAL pages long and provides arguments on the necessity to pursue lustration , motives behind the [ LAW adoption , implementation procedure and the like , but my impression is that no legal arguments were presented ... I believe that the response should be made public . For example , ORG , in its response , states \u2018 in constitutional and legal terms , one can not contest the Act \u2019s temporal scope\u2019 .... That can not be considered a legal argument . \u201d","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG established that the applicant had submitted a false declaration and that accordingly he did not meet the additional requirement for public office ( the course of the proceedings in the applicant \u2019s case and the surrounding circumstances are described in detail in paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE LAW was amended for the second time , and certain provisions that were similar to the invalidated ones were reintroduced . The provision delimiting the screening period in which the collaboration with the ORG security services was an impediment to the holding of public office was re - worded in such a way that the end - date remained open . The personal scope of the application was extended to cover former officials and officers in organisations performing duties of a public nature requiring them to submit declarations of non - collaboration .","On DATE ORG again invalidated several provisions of LAW , as amended by LAW ( see the preceding paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In so doing , ORG held that its earlier decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been circumvented in view of the content of those amendments .","On DATE LAW was repealed by the entry into force of the new LAW ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u043e\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0443\u0441\u043b\u043e\u0432 \u0437\u0430 \u043e\u0433\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u0440\u0448\u0435\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0458\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0444\u0443\u043d\u043a\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 , \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u043e\u043a\u0443\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0438 \u0438 \u043e\u0431\u0458\u0430\u0432\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u043a\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0441\u043e \u043e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0431\u0435\u0437\u0431\u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) . In DATE ORG refused to institute proceedings for abstract constitutional review of the new legislation .","While the DATE LAW was in force ORG established in a total of CARDINAL cases that the declarations on non - collaboration were false , and that therefore the person who had submitted them did not meet the additional requirement for public office . Apart from the applicant , who was the only incumbent official whose declaration was found to be false , those cases concerned CARDINAL former officials and CARDINAL journalists .","On DATE the Act Repealing the DATE LAW ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0432\u0430\u0436\u0435\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u043e\u0442 \u0437\u0430 \u043e\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0443\u0441\u043b\u043e\u0432 \u0437\u0430 \u043e\u0433\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u0440\u0448\u0435\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0458\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0444\u0443\u043d\u043a\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 ) entered into force . According to ORG is allowed to complete , within DATE , any ongoing proceedings in which a decision has already been issued , but may no longer institute new ones . Pending lustration proceedings in which the ORG has not issued a decision must be discontinued . LAW provides that a person in respect of whom the ORG has established that he or she has collaborated with the ORG security services is banned from holding public office for DATE from the time the ORG \u2019s decision to that effect becomes final .","NORP The applicant was a judge of ORG DATE , when he was dismissed as a result of the lustration proceedings described below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) . The applicant \u2019s case was the first lustration case in the respondent ORG . During the lustration proceedings and at the time of his removal from office ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the applicant was also the President of ORG .","On DATE , the applicant , as a public official , submitted to ORG a declaration of non - collaboration with the security services , as prescribed by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the Commission , by a letter classified as confidential , requested ORG to provide it with direct access to all the data , files and documents available in respect of the applicant .","On DATE and DATE ORG informed the ORG that a personal record of the local branch of the secret police of the former GPE ( hereafter \u201c SFRY \u201d ) existed in respect of the applicant , and invited the Commission to consult the documentation .","On and around DATE , various media , despite the confidential nature of the proceedings before ORG , reported that the ORG had allegedly identified a judge of ORG as a collaborator with the ORG security services . In DATE the media continued to speculate that the identified collaborator was actually the President of ORG .","During its deliberations held in private on DATE , ORG found that the applicant \u2019s declaration had not been in conformity with the evidence at its disposal . The applicant was notified of the Commission \u2019s findings on DATE with a note classified as \u201c strictly confidential \u201d ( \u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0434\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0440\u043b\u0438\u0432\u043e ) . He was also instructed that , under LAW , he could , within DATE , submit oral or written observations to the ORG \u2019s findings . The applicant replied and requested a public session on DATE .","On DATE the daily PERSON vesnik published an article entitled \u2018 Judge asks to speak publicly about being a \u2018 snitch \u2019\u2019 . The relevant part of the article reads as follows :","\u201c PERSON \u2018 unofficially\u2019 learns that a ORG judge allegedly sinned during DATE , in the capacity of a member of a branch of an organisation called \u2018 ORG that was advocating unification of ethnic NORP territories . Once discovered , under pressure from the police , he was forced to disclose the names of the organisers . \u201d","On DATE the Commission notified the applicant that the session would be held on DATE , that it would be public \u201c when classified information was not being used \u201d and that he could access the entirety of the classified documentation at the ORG \u2019s disposal for TIME before the session .","On DATE , in an open letter broadcast in the media and addressed to \u201c opponents of the lustration \u201d , the Prime Minister of the respondent ORG ( signed in his capacity as president of the governing party ) stated , inter alia , that the ORG had publicly revealed that a member of ORG had been a collaborator with the ORG security services and that it was now crystal clear that the collaborator sitting in ORG , nominated by the former president of the Republic , and controlled by other centres of power , had invalidated a number of the legislative reforms of his Government . The letter was a response to his political opponents , who claimed that he was hindering the lustration process . The Prime Minister described their strategy in the following terms :","\u201c Attack the [ ruling party ] to [ protect ] ORG , whose member the [ ORG had publicly declared a collaborator with the secret services . Accuse [ the Prime Minister ] of hindering the lustration [ process ] so that [ he ] would not accuse you of it becoming crystal clear that the secret services\u2019 collaborator in ORG scrapped a whole range of [ the Prime Minister \u2019s ] reforms , and that [ the Prime Minister ] would not pose a question why [ the former President of the Republic ] nominated as judge of ORG that person who was a collaborator with the [ secret ] services , and what is that centre of power which still controls the \u2018 collaborator\u2019 . \u201d","\u201c PERSON \u0433\u043e \u0412\u041c\u0420\u041e-\u0414\u041f\u041c\u041d\u0415 , \u0437\u0430 \u0434\u0430 \u0433\u043e \u0437\u0430\u0442\u0441\u043a\u0440\u0438\u0435\u0448 PERSON \u0441\u0443\u0434 \u0437\u0430 \u0447\u0438\u0458 \u0447\u043b\u0435\u043d LOC \u0458\u0430\u0432\u043d\u043e \u0441\u0435 \u0438\u0437\u0458\u0430\u0441\u043d\u0438 \u0434\u0435\u043a\u0430 \u0431\u0438\u043b \u0441\u043e\u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a \u043d\u0430 \u0442\u0430\u0458\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0438. PERSON \u0433\u043e \u0413\u0440\u0443\u0435\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u0434\u0435\u043a\u0430 \u0458\u0430 \u043a\u043e\u0447\u0438 \u043b\u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0442\u0430 , \u0437\u0430 \u0434\u0430 \u043d\u0435 \u0442\u0435 \u043e\u0431\u0432\u0438\u043d\u0438 \u0413\u0440\u0443\u0435\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u0434\u0435\u043a\u0430 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u043a\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043b\u043d\u043e \u0458\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e \u0434\u0435\u043a\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a \u043d\u0430 \u0442\u0430\u0458\u043d\u0438 \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0438 \u043e\u0434 PERSON \u0441\u0443\u0434 \u043c\u0443 \u0441\u0440\u0443\u0448\u0438 \u0446\u0435\u043b\u0430 \u043f\u0430\u043b\u0435\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u0438 \u0438 \u0437\u0430 \u0434\u0430 \u043d\u0435 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0448\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u043e\u0448\u0442\u043e PERSON \u0433\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043b\u043e\u0436\u0438 \u0437\u0430 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0423\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d \u0441\u0443\u0434 \u0442\u043e\u0430 \u043b\u0438\u0446\u0435 \u043a\u043e\u0435 \u0431\u0438\u043b\u043e \u0441\u043e\u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0438 \u043a\u043e\u0458 \u0435 \u0442\u043e\u0458 \u0446\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0430\u0440 \u043d\u0430 \u043c\u043e\u045c \u043a\u043e\u0458 \u0441\u0435 \u0443\u0448\u0442\u0435 \u0433\u043e \u0434\u0438\u0440\u0438\u0433\u0438\u0440\u0430 \u2018 \u0441\u043e\u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a\u043e\u0442\u2019 . \u201d","On DATE the applicant objected to the imposed time constraints regarding his access to the classified documents in the possession of the Commission ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Commission , in its turn , immediately informed him that he could consult his personal record compiled by the secret police of the SFRY at ORG as well as the documents at the disposal of the Commission , in DATE until the session . The applicant consulted the documents at the Commission on DATE .","Those were the documents forming the applicant \u2019s personal record compiled by the local branch of the SFRY secret police . The record contains around CARDINAL pages of typed reports and forms . It appears from the record that the applicant was on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE interrogated by the secret police in connection with his involvement in a high - school nationalist group , and was registered as a collaborator under the pseudonym \u201c PERSON . The \u201c proposal for registration \u201d of CARDINAL DATE , signed by an inspector , PERSON , states that the applicant was approached about collaboration with the secret police and that \u201c he gladly agreed to it , [ saying ] that he would do anything for the [ security ] service , as long as his father and the school do not find out \u201d . A \u201c questionnaire \u201d with a handwritten date of CARDINAL DATE , states , inter alia , that the applicant was recruited on the ground of \u201c compromising material \u201d and that he had not received any material benefit in exchange for his collaboration . That the applicant was recruited on the ground of compromising material is also noted in another questionnaire of DATE where , next to the pseudonym \u201c PERSON , there is a handwritten note \u201c and NORP \u201d . The record contains a number of reports of various dates DATE , composed mostly by the inspector who relied on \u201c PERSON as a source of information , about conversations and statements of some high - school and university students on certain political and social issues at the time . \u201c PERSON \u201d provided the information mostly verbally ; only a few reports in the file are based on his letters ( which were not in the file ) . There are also copies of CARDINAL payment receipts dated DATE and DATE and a proposal of DATE for deregistration of the collaborator \u201c NORP \u201d . The deregistration referred to a person with the applicant \u2019s name but who in DATE was a student at ORG , and who in DATE was working in the municipal branch of ORG .","On DATE the Commission held a public session on its premises , in a meeting room of QUANTITY . A large number of media representatives were present .","During the session , the applicant denied the ORG \u2019s initial findings , calling into question the veracity of his declaration . He disputed the authenticity of the documents the ORG relied on , as he had neither composed nor signed them , and claimed that the reports contained therein had been forged , or taken from ORG and added to his personal record . He further denied the authenticity of the signatures on the CARDINAL payment receipts , which indicated that he had received money for his collaboration . He alleged a confusion regarding the CARDINAL different collaboration pseudonyms ( \u201c PERSON and \u201c NORP \u201d ) appearing in the file , and the identity behind them . He also claimed that the episode from the time when he had still been a minor and had been coerced into having contact with the secret police , due to his involvement with a high - school nationalist group , had been misused .","On DATE ORG responded to the Prime Minister \u2019s statement of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) by means of an open letter . The relevant part of that letter reads as follows :","\u201c ORG finds that this attack is the culmination of the continual attacks on ORG . The court therefore points out that the Prime Minister went beyond powers conferred on him by LAW , because he has no right to assess the legitimacy of decisions taken by ORG , but rather [ was obliged ] to ensure their unhindered implementation . The court considers that his actions indicate [ either ] profound ignorance , or total disrespect for the constitutional order , to the point of undermining it .","Using a single [ pending ] case ... to stigmatise a collective body reminds us of events from the past that must not be repeated in a NORP society . \u201d","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Commission held that the applicant \u2019s objection to its initial findings of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was not in accordance with the information available , and that consequently he did not fulfil the additional requirement for holding public office . The decision was based on the applicant \u2019s personal record , and contains a list of CARDINAL documents . It summarised the contents of the documents and stated that the applicant had begun collaborating in DATE and had been deregistered in DATE , that he had provided information on students whose activities were monitored by the security service for political reasons and that , as evident from the CARDINAL payment receipts , he had in DATE been paid for the collaboration . The relevant part of the ORG \u2019s decision reads as follows :","\u201c ... From the data available in the personal record compiled by the [ secret police of the SFRY ] it was established that in the rubric \u2018 collaboration relationship\u2019 it is stated that [ the applicant ] is a collaborator of the [ secret police ] recruited on the ground of compromising material . It was further established that [ the applicant ] started his collaboration with the [ secret police ] DATE as a high - school student who , when it was proposed to him that he be registered in the NORP network , stated that \u2018 he gladly accepted the collaboration and would do anything for the service\u2019 , and that he was allocated a pseudonym under which he later delivered all the information to the [ secret police ] . In DATE he officially became a collaborator of the [ secret police ] . In the documentation , in CARDINAL reports drafted by ORG in GPE , on a number of pages , [ the applicant ] under his pseudonym appears as a source giving information about his schoolmates , which [ information ] was used by the [ secret police ] as operational material on the activities of high - school youth in GPE . From CARDINAL reports , it is apparent that also later on , as a student in GPE , he gave information about students of various faculties , of which in the personal record there are CARDINAL reports concerning a number of individuals whom the [ secret police ] monitored and had information that they were dissatisfied with the authorities in view of their weak interest in the situation of the NORP in the LOC [ in GPE ] and GPE [ in GPE ] GPE , as well as for various wrongs committed against NORP in the western part of GPE . From the personal record it was also established that in DATE the sums of CARDINAL and CARDINAL [ Yugoslav ] dinars had been paid to him . His collaboration officially ended in DATE when he was employed in GPE and was deregistered from the active collaboration network .","The ORG took into account the oral observations provided by [ the applicant ] , in which he expressed his disagreement with the ORG \u2019s findings .","The Commission considers all this information and the files and documents contained in the [ applicant \u2019s ] record relevant . [ It further ] considers that that the [ applicant \u2019s ] declaration [ of non - collaboration ] submitted to the ORG is not in line therewith [ the information , files and documents ] and that therefore [ the applicant ] does not meet the additional requirement for public office in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) [ and ] section CARDINAL ) of the [ LAW . \u201d","The DATE \u2019s decision was served on the applicant on DATE and classified as \u201c strictly confidential \u201d .","NORP In an exchange of correspondence on DATE the applicant requested that the Commission provide him with a copy of the file for the purposes of seeking a judicial review of its decision . The Commission informed him that they only had copies ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u043f\u0438\u0441 ) , but that the originals were available in ORG ; they advised him to look for them there . Upon the applicant \u2019s request of DATE , ORG , either on DATE or on DATE , provided him with a copy of his personal record .","On DATE the applicant pointed out inconsistencies between the files provided to him by ORG , the inventory of the documents contained in his record , and the documentation the ORG relied on in its decision . ORG responded that they had simply received the personal record as it was , and had listed the documents therein by title without inspecting their contents , as they had not been authorised to do so . Finally , they invited the applicant to consult the contents of his personal record under their supervision .","On DATE the applicant brought an action for judicial review in ORG against the ORG \u2019s decision . He complained that the proceedings before the ORG had been unfair and of errors of fact and law . In particular , he complained that the session before the ORG had been held without Rules of Procedure having been adopted , which the ORG should have done ex lege before commencing the proceedings . The public session had not been , as initially planned , followed by proceedings in camera ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , and he therefore had not had an opportunity to fully present his arguments concerning the classified information in the file .","The applicant further objected that the time - limit for the preparation of his appeal had been effectively reduced , since he had received the copies of the documents from ORG only on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , and that there had been obvious discrepancies between the files of ORG and the ones of the Commission that he had earlier had access to . The applicant denied the authenticity of the documents in his personal record and suggested obtaining an opinion from an expert in graphology ( \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0444\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0448\u043a\u043e \u0432\u0435\u0448\u0442\u0430\u0447\u0435\u045a\u0435 ) as regards the signatures on the CARDINAL payment receipts by comparing them with the letters he had allegedly sent to the inspector of the secret police , to which letters reference was made in the record but which were not available in the file . He also submitted that his identity had been confused with that of the person behind the pseudonym \u201c NORP \u201d , given that in DATE he was already a law graduate and was working for the GPE administration and thus was not working at the municipal branch of ORG , nor had he ever studied at ORG as the record indicated ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He proposed additional evidence , asked that a public hearing be held , and requested leave to invite an expert assistant ( \u0441\u0442\u0440\u0443\u0447\u0435\u043d \u043f\u043e\u043c\u0430\u0433\u0430\u0447 ) , in particular , a certain Mr GPE , a university professor of State security and intelligence and retired staff member of the SFRY secret police , with a view to clarifying the methods and practices of those police concerning the opening and the maintenance of records .","In its reply , the ORG firstly listed and made reference to CARDINAL documents , and then also mentioned \u201c DATE written documents \u201d , on which it based its decision . The Commission \u2019s reply was classified as \u201c strictly confidential \u201d .","On DATE ORG held a public hearing in the presence of the applicant and the President of the Commission . The Commission lodged an objection about ORG competence ratione materiae to examine the case .","On DATE the court held another hearing , at which the ORG withdrew its objection regarding the court \u2019s jurisdiction ( see the preceding paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the expert assistant GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) gave his testimony and the evidence was examined . The public was excluded from the part of the hearing in which confidential material ( the applicant \u2019s personal record ) was under consideration .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . In its judgment , this court listed CARDINAL documents , and found the ORG \u2019s files identical to the originals received from ORG . ORG held that the ORG had neither been authorised nor obliged to determine the authenticity of certain evidence that could only be established by an expert opinion ( \u0432\u0435\u0448\u0442\u0430\u0447\u0435\u045a\u0430 ) in criminal proceedings . It also held that the ORG did not conduct any adversarial proceedings and could admit as fact only the records compiled by the ORG security services . The applicant \u2019s proposal to obtain an expert opinion with a view to checking the authenticity of the signatures on the payment receipts was rejected . ORG concluded that it had been immaterial ( \u0431\u0435\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043c\u0435\u0442\u043d\u043e ) to determine whether the payments had been received by the applicant , as other ( non - pecuniary ) benefits could suffice for someone to be deemed a collaborator in terms of LAW . The judgment also took into account the testimony of the expert assistant ORG of the judgment were classified as \u201c strictly confidential \u201d .","The presiding judge was a certain PERSON , who was shortly afterwards , in DATE , promoted to the newly established ORG .","The relevant part of ORG judgment reads as follows :","\u201c ... The plaintiff \u2019s [ the applicant \u2019s ] representative reiterated the arguments advanced in his action for judicial review , and expanded on them by stating that the ORG \u2019s decision was ill - founded ... [ He argued that ] the ORG had not assessed the written evidence , because there was none . [ In particular , ] there was no statement from the plaintiff that he had agreed to collaborate with the [ secret police ] , there was no written consent from him in this regard , and there was no written decision of the [ secret police ] in which the plaintiff \u2019s consent to collaboration was accepted . Moreover , the ORG had made only a mechanical analysis by quoting and paraphrasing the documents available in personal record no . DATE and on that basis had reached the wrong conclusion , failing to establish the facts ...","In view of the complexity of the case and for the purposes of clarification , the [ Administrative ] court , upon a proposal of the plaintiff , heard GPE from GPE in the capacity of an expert assistant ( \u0441\u0442\u0440\u0443\u0447\u0435\u043d \u043f\u043e\u043c\u0430\u0433\u0430\u0447 ) . The court also consulted ( \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u0438 \u0443\u0432\u0438\u0434 ) and compared the plaintiff \u2019s personal record available in ORG with the copy of the same record delivered to the plaintiff .","The court , having assessed the [ plaintiff \u2019s ] arguments in the statement of claim , the [ Commission \u2019s ] reply [ thereto ] , and the submissions made by the expert assistant GPE , [ and ] having examined the impugned decision within the scope of the action and in terms of section CARDINAL of LAW , found :","The action is ill - founded ...","According to section CARDINAL of the [ Administrative Disputes ] Act , the administrative decision could be contested if the law was wrongly applied ... or if the proceedings which preceded the contested decision were not conducted in accordance with the rules of procedure , and in particular , if the facts were not established correctly , or if the facts were established correctly but assessed wrongly ...","According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ LAW , collaboration , within the meaning of that LAW , is conscious , secret , organised and continuous cooperation and activity with the ORG security services , established by a written document , in the a capacity of a secret collaborator or secret informant ( hereafter \u2018 secret ORG ) with a view to collecting information ... regarding certain persons , in violation of [ their ] basic rights and freedom on ideological - political grounds , as a result of which a material gain or other benefits in employment or career advancement had been obtained [ by the collaborator ] ...","Relying on the above , the court found that the Commission , acting within its competence ... and after having correctly conducted the fact - verification proceedings , made a lawful decision ...","It appears from the files that the plaintiff , on the basis of a written document , consciously , secretly , continuously and in organised way collaborated with the [ secret police ] , which collected information that were subject to processing , storage and use ... Such collaboration is apparent from the reports ... which could be found in the original personal record kept at ORG . Having in mind that the Commission only checks the facts concerning collaboration or non - collaboration with the ORG security services , and given that this [ fact - verification procedure ] is not an adversarial procedure , the records created by the services and their legal predecessors are to be accepted as facts [ thus as reliable evidence ] ...","In this court \u2019s assessment , the argument that the plaintiff was prevented from active participation in the proceedings before the Commission ... is ill - founded , since the Commission provided him with access to all the evidence .","Regarding [ the plaintiff \u2019s ] argument that ... the Commission \u2019s session had been held without Rules of Procedure [ having been adopted beforehand ] ... this court finds it irrelevant ... The Rules are an internal regulation of the ORG and [ thus only ] regulate its internal functioning ... and not the fact - verification procedure [ which ] is prescribed by the [ LAW .","This court finds ill - founded [ the plaintiff \u2019s ] complaint that he had not been given an opportunity to contest the [ factual findings of the Commission ] . [ He argued in particular that ] ... the [ Commission \u2019s ] session had ended after its first part , at the moment when he had expressed his disagreement with the \u2018 GPE [ underlying ] the [ Commission \u2019s ] findings ... in respect of which he had [ also ] made written submissions . [ In his view ] the ORG was obliged to hold a hearing , and not to treat the case as if no observations had been provided in accordance with section CARDINAL . [ Such complaints ] have no support in the evidence available in the file . As evident from the file , the Commission on DATE held a public session in the part in which no classified information was under consideration . Having in mind that earlier , on DATE , the plaintiff had consulted the files and familiarised himself with their content , he had had the opportunity to provide his own observations at the session .","The court also finds ill - founded the plaintiff \u2019s argument that the reports [ contained in his personal record ] , in legal terms , could not be relied on to establish the facts , since they had many shortcomings , both formal and substantive , in particular none of the CARDINAL reports had been signed by an authorised person of the [ secret police ] , no letter allegedly sent by the plaintiff had been appended to the reports , ... none of these reports had been entered in the official records of the [ secret police ] , and all reports quote \u2018 Lambe\u2019 as a source of information , while the Commission [ cites ] another pseudonym , \u2018 Lamda\u2019 . [ The court finds that argument by the plaintiff ill - founded because ] the operation of the [ secret police ] was clarified by the expert assistant at the public hearing , who explained that it had had its own operational methodology for the purpose of gathering information , that was then subject to further processing , collection and use ... The court finds that assessment of the methodology of the [ former secret police ] is not in the competence of the Commission .","The court did not accept the plaintiff \u2019s complaints that he was recruited as a collaborator while still a minor , because it is apparent from the evidence that he entered into collaboration and gave reports as an adult .","The court finds ill - founded the [ plaintiff \u2019s ] arguments about errors of fact , [ in particular those where he complains ] that the Commission did not take any evidence to establish whether the signatures on the payment receipts were identical with each other as well as with the plaintiff \u2019s signature , which could have been easily established by obtaining an opinion from an expert in graphology , those whereby he calls into question the authenticity of the reports he received from ORG and [ the veracity of ] of their content , those [ where he argues ] that ... the [ secret police ] registered him as a collaborator on the basis of bogus ( \u0441\u043f\u0430\u043a\u0443\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438 ) reports which were planted ( \u043f\u043e\u0434\u043c\u0435\u0442\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0438 ) in his file and that he was not aware of nor had he consented to that [ registration ] , as well as that there were obvious misinterpretation of the facts , since the file on a minor oppressed for his NORP nationalism had been transformed into the personal record of a secret collaborator . This [ the court \u2019s dismissal of these complaints ] comes as a result of the fact that the Commission , after checking and verifying the data that was made available to it , correctly established that the plaintiff ... had been registered as a secret collaborator ... ORG was establishing the facts was neither authorised nor legally bound to take evidence to establish the facts that could be established only through expert reports in criminal proceedings . ... The procedure is not adversarial and the records of the services of the former system are to be accepted as genuine [ , meaning as reliable ] evidence . The plaintiff in his submissions pointed to possible criminal offences which , in addition to LAW , are also sanctioned by sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the [ LAW . The proceedings before the Commission do not bar the plaintiff from initiating other proceedings in which he could prove his allegations .","On the other hand , after checking the plaintiff \u2019s personal record , the court established that only a few reports were delivered in writing , and that most of the reports were provided through direct contacts .","In view of the above the court did not grant the request ... for the letters written by the plaintiff mentioned in [ some ] reports drafted by the inspector of the ORG security service to be obtained with a view to obtaining an opinion from an expert in graphology on the signatures and the handwriting on the payment receipts .","It is also immaterial whether payments were made or not , since this is CARDINAL of the conditions for establishing that collaboration took place , bearing in mind that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ LAW , when stipulating what is considered collaboration , states that [ not only ] material gain [ but also ] other benefits or career advancement [ may suffice ] . \u201d","In his appeal of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , the applicant reiterated his earlier arguments and expressed misgivings about the overall fairness of the proceedings and errors of fact and law . He pointed out that the number of pages and the inventory of the documentary evidence quoted in various acts produced by the ORG authorities had differed . He further complained that ORG had completely misinterpreted the submissions made by the expert assistant , and annexed an additional written statement by GPE He also objected to ORG finding on the ORG \u2019s powers , and complained that ORG had therefore failed to fully establish the facts , and had not ordered any expert opinion to establish or otherwise the authenticity of the documents and signatures on the payment receipts . ORG submitted a reply to the applicant \u2019s appeal , whereupon the applicant provided a response to the ORG \u2019s reply .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the judgment of ORG . ORG stated , inter alia , that it had checked the \u201c original documentation \u201d and concluded that the facts had been correctly established . It further addressed and analysed the applicant \u2019s remaining complaints , and concluded that they were of no relevance and could not produce a different outcome . As for the authenticity of the documents , including the signatures on the receipts , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments , finding that no formal procedures existed at the time when these documents were produced .","Judge PERSON who would later be appointed a judge of ORG to fill the vacancy caused by the applicant \u2019s dismissal ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) \u2013 sat in the panel and , according to the applicant , also acted as a rapporteur ( \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b ) in the case .","The relevant part of ORG judgment reads as follows :","... From the evidence taken during the proceedings , primarily the reports in the personal record established in respect of the appellant , it can be indisputably concluded that he , on the basis of a written document , consciously , secretly , continuously and in an organised manner collaborated with the [ former secret police ] . Relying on the statements of the secret collaborator \u2013 the appellant \u2013 the [ secret police ] gathered information that was processed , stored and used by the [ secret police ] ... In such a way , the human rights of those people [ who were then followed by the ORG security service ] were violated on political or ideological grounds .","Bearing in mind the definition of collaboration contained in the [ LAW , ORG correctly concluded that the appellant had at the material time the status of a secret collaborator or informant .","The arguments adduced in the appeal regarding discrepancies between the data obtained from ORG and those relied on by the Commission , whereby the appellant disputes the authenticity of the evidence , are ill - founded .","In ORG opinion , the facts established by the first - instance court are correct and complete , as they are based on careful and thorough assessment of every piece of evidence separately and of all the evidence taken together ... Assessing the complaints regarding the facts , ORG also checked the original documentation and finds these complaints ill - founded , since the appellant did not submit any evidence that could call into question the facts as established by the first - instance court .","ORG finds irrelevant in respect of the possibility of a different outcome the complaints that the applicant was not a collaborator but an oppressed person on whom a political file was opened because of ideas he had , as a minor during high - school days , on the independence of the NORP people .","Specifically , the appellant was as a high - school student initially registered by the [ secret police ] for hostile activities and NORP nationalism . However , he continued to collaborate with the service and was approached about being registered in the network of collaborators . In DATE the appellant was officially registered as a collaborator , when he had already reached DATE . From the documents available it is apparent that the applicant collaborated with the ORG security services as an adult .","The appellant \u2019s submissions that he never consented to collaboration and that there is no evidence of registration or deregistration , could not lead to factual findings different from those already established by the first - instance court .","According to the expert assistant \u2019s statement at the public hearing before ORG , the consent of the collaborator was in no way needed , given the secrecy of the procedure . The proposal for deregistration is in the name of PERSON , with an identical file number to that under which he had been registered as collaborator . These data correspond with what is already recorded in various documents and about which there is no doubt that they refer to the appellant . According to ORG , these data could not be disregarded just because the pseudonyms do not match .","The complaints that the reports composed by the [ secret police ] , based on the information provided by the appellant , could not be regarded as [ reliable evidence ] , are ill - founded . ORG finds that the procedure for receiving information was not strictly formalised . The reports were , as clarified by the expert assistant , usually given verbally . From the above , it is apparent that to be considered as genuine , it was not necessary that the content of the record , or of the report composed by an authorised person of the [ secret police ] , be supported by a written statement by the collaborator .","The appellant denies the authenticity of his signature on the payment receipts .","ORG finds that , in a situation in which no rules ( \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0438\u043b\u043d\u0438\u043a ) for payment existed , given that , as stated by the expert assistant , the payments were usually made in cash , it would suffice to have the name of the collaborator mentioned as a recipient [ of the money ] , to conclude that material gain was obtained .","As the first - instance court correctly and fully established the decisive facts it also correctly applied the substantive law when it dismissed the appellant \u2019s action . \u201d","The applicant was served with ORG judgment on DATE .","On DATE , the Commission concluded that its decision of CARDINAL DATE had become final .","On DATE , relying on LAW and the Commission \u2019s conclusion of DATE , the ORG acknowledged that the applicant had not fulfilled the additional requirement , and accordingly dismissed him from the office of judge of ORG , despite the experts\u2019 debates about the constitutionality of such an action . On DATE , the ORG \u2019s decision was published in ORG .","On DATE , during its last session before early elections , the ORG appointed Judge PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as a judge of ORG to the position vacated by the applicant \u2019s dismissal .","The proceedings were closely followed by the international community present in the respondent ORG , and were referred to in various reports , most notably ORG of CARDINAL DATE , which states that the ongoing lustration proceedings against the applicant \u201c have raised concerns about pressure on the independence of the judiciary \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG State Human Rights reports of DATE and DATE also made references to the applicant \u2019s case and the tensions between the ORG and ORG .","Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG filed a criminal complaint with ORG against the applicant alleging that by submitting a false declaration of non - collaboration with the ORG security services he had committed the criminal offence of submitting false evidence defined in Article PERSON of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the public prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint , finding no elements of the offence in question . In her reasoning , the public prosecutor held in particular that in the proceedings before the Commission evidence was not taken or assessed in an adversarial manner or in accordance with the principle of immediacy , as only the official records of the ORG security services were used as relevant for the outcome of the proceedings . The applicant \u2019s declaration thus did not constitute evidence but an act giving rise to the lustration proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172363","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GRAMMOSENIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Kristina Pardalos;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were placed in pre - trial detention at ORG on GPE in GPE . They were detained for periods ranging from DATE .","The applicants mentioned below left the General Police Headquarters on the following dates : the first applicant on DATE , the sixth applicant on DATE , the thirteenth applicant on DATE and the nineteenth applicant on DATE . It is not clear from the material in the ORG \u2019s possession whether they were released or transferred to prisons .","The eleventh applicant was detained at ORG from DATE to DATE , except for the period between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , when he was detained at ORG . The fourteenth applicant was detained at ORG from DATE to DATE , apart from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , when he was held at NORP police station . DATE applicant was detained at ORG from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , except for the period DATE and DATE , when he was detained at ORG . The seventeenth applicant was detained at ORG from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , except for DATE to CARDINAL DATE , when he was detained at ORG . The eighteenth applicant was detained at ORG from DATE to DATE , except for DATE to DATE , when he was held at NORP police station .","The applicants alleged that ORG had been entirely inappropriate for long periods of detention , as in their case . The cells had been insufficiently lit and ventilated , which , in addition to overcrowding , had led to their cells smelling badly .","Detainees had been confined to their cells owing to the lack of an exercise yard . Recreational activities had not been offered and cells had not been equipped with televisions . Detainees had had to ask permission from the guards to use the restroom , which had been situated outside the cells and had been shared by CARDINAL people .","There had not been sufficient separation between detainees who were drug users or smokers and other detainees . Additionally , the cells had never been disinfected nor the mattresses cleaned . Detainees had not been allowed to bring their own sheets and towels , but had been obliged to use dirty ones provided by the prison authorities .","As regards nutrition , meals had been of an insufficient quality and quantity and had never included meat . Detainees had not been provided with water but had had to buy it themselves .","On DATE the applicants and other detainees had lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor about the conditions of their detention at ORG but had not received a reply .","The eleventh , fourteenth , sixteenth , seventeenth and eighteenth applicants submitted in their written observations of CARDINAL DATE that the conditions of their detention at ORG and NORP police station had essentially been the same as those at the police headquarters , in particular as regards the lack of outdoor activities , the quality of the food and the filthiness of the LOC .","The Government submitted that ORG had had CARDINAL cells with a total capacity of CARDINAL people . CARDINAL cells with capacity for CARDINAL inmates had accommodated male detainees , one cell for QUANTITY people had accommodated females while CARDINAL cells with capacity for CARDINAL people had been set aside for minors .","Most of the cells had windows , which had been partially covered by walls and rails but which had still admitted natural light and fresh air . The sanitary facilities had been no different from the ones used by the Police Headquarters staff and had been cleaned by a cleaning company DATE , along with the rest of the premises . Sheets and blankets had been regularly sent to ORG ( FAC ) for cleaning . If detainees had suffered from a contagious disease , their sheets and blankets had been destroyed following their departure .","Detainees were allowed access to newspapers , magazines and CARDINAL payphones . Additionally , they were allowed visits from their lawyers at any time and from friends and family CARDINAL times per week .","Detainees were served food from the restaurant situated in the building , which was the same as that used by police officers .","ORG , where the eleventh , sixteenth and seventeenth applicants had been detained for DATE , had CARDINAL cells measuring QUANTITY each , which included CARDINAL toilets and showers . The eleventh , sixteenth and seventeenth applicants had been detained in cell no . CARDINAL along with a number of other detainees whose number had varied from DATE . The cells had been sufficiently well - lit and ventilated and had been regularly cleaned . Meals had been provided by a catering company . Detainees had access to newspapers and televisions and were allowed visits from their family and friends CARDINAL times per week .","As regards NORP police station , where DATE applicants had been detained for a certain period of time , the Government submitted that it was housed in a building constructed in DATE . DATE applicants had been detained in a cell of QUANTITY accommodating CARDINAL detainees . The cells had been sufficiently well - lit and ventilated and a cleaning company had maintained the cleanliness of the LOC . Detainees had received MONEY per day to order food from restaurants .","The Government further contended that the applicants\u2019 allegations of a lack of separation between drug users and other detainees should be rejected as the applicants had not alleged that they themselves had been detained in the same cells as drug users ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181432","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"A.D. v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr DATE , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . On DATE the ORG decided of its own motion to grant the applicant anonymity ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ) . The applicant was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant \u2019s daughter , GPE , was born on DATE . ORG \u2019s mother , GPE , was not living with the applicant .","On an unknown date in DATE the applicant took GPE and GPE to a temporary accommodation centre ( FAC tempor\u00e1rio \u2013 CAT ) in GPE because he could not afford to house them .","On an unspecified date GPE left the centre .","On DATE an oral hearing took place before ORG ( domestic proceedings no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL.CARDINALTBCDV - A ) . During the hearing , the applicant declared that he would agree to having GPE placed in the care of an institution , since he was unable to provide the necessary conditions in which to raise her . GPE also agreed with the measure of institutional care and expressed her consent to GPE staying in the care of the applicant at a later stage because she did not have the means to take care of her . Following those statements , the judge of ORG decided to apply a provisional measure , consisting of placing ORG in institutional care .","At the conclusion of the hearing , the applicant , GPE and CARDINAL representatives of the ORG signed an agreement on the raising and protection ( acordo de promo\u00e7\u00e3o e prote\u00e7\u00e3o ) of GPE Under the agreement , GPE was to be placed in the temporary care of the CAT of ORG for DATE and her parents could visit her in accordance with the rules set by the centre . The agreement was signed by the judge .","On DATE the applicant was sent for psychiatric and psychological assessments . The relevant expert reports , dated DATE and DATE , were received by ORG on DATE and DATE . The report of CARDINAL DATE of the psychiatric expert concluded that the applicant had the capacity to exercise a parental role . The report of DATE of the psychological expert reached the opposite conclusion on the ground that by concentring excessively in his own needs , the applicant lacked the capacity to understand the needs of his daughter .","On DATE the psychiatric expert sent to the court a clarification note . Referring to a warrant issued by the NORP authorities which indicated , inter alia , that the applicant had been convicted to a term of DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment for sexual assault and bodily harm , the expert assumed that the applicant had a personality \u201c with psychopathic features \u201d , which undermined his capacity to exercise a parental role .","On DATE , the CAT sent the court a social report concerning the situation of GPE in the centre . The report \u2019s conclusion was that GPE should be referred for adoption , given that her mother had stopped visiting DATE previously and the applicant had not taken any concrete action aimed at assuming his responsibilities towards her .","On DATE , ORG ( ORG ) of PERSON sent the court a report about an interview that had taken place with a brother of the applicant . According to this report , the brother of the applicant had stated that he did not know about the birth of GPE and that he did not have the means to take her into his care . He had also mentioned that he had had no news of another brother for DATE and that he did not recommend that GPE be placed in the care of her father , without specifying the reason .","NORP In DATE the CAT decided to reduce the applicant \u2019s authorised visits from DATE , owing to his lack of initiative in determining how he could play a role ( encontrar um projeto de vida ) in his daughter \u2019s future .","On DATE a lawyer appointed to represent the applicant applied to ORG , stating that he had not been contacted by the applicant . He explained that on CARDINAL DATE he had sent the applicant a registered letter which had been returned . On DATE he had sent CARDINAL more letters , CARDINAL registered and the other one not registered , to which he was still waiting for an answer .","On DATE ORG held an adversarial hearing ( debate judicial ) . The applicant as well as CARDINAL witnesses , namely an officer of the ORG , a social worker from the Campo Lindo CAT and the director of the Campo Lindo CAT were heard by the court .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG ordered that GPE be taken into care with a view to adoption , revoked the applicant \u2019s parental responsibility and forbade all contacts between him and GPE , pursuant to ORG DATE and CARDINAL-A of the Civil Code . Relying on the ORG statements and on the conclusion of a psychiatric report dated CARDINAL DATE , the court considered the following as relevant established facts :","\u201c ...","GPE stopped visiting GPE in DATE ...","GPE has not tried to receive , in any way , news concerning GPE ...","No other family member has ever tried to visit GPE","...","The father [ applicant ] was always present for the visits , twice per week , except for DATE in DATE in which he did not visit GPE","...","[ The father ] lives away from his family ( vive afastado da fam\u00edlia ) .","Except during the hearing , the father has never expressed the will to care for GPE","Although he has mentioned some family members and friends that could care for GPE , [ the father ] has never introduced any of them .","He has only indicated his willingness to find someone to take care of his child when confronted by [ staff of the centre ] .","Since DATE [ DATE ] the father \u2019s visits occur once per week , by a decision of the accommodation centre based on the fact that he has not defined his role in his daughter \u2019s upbringing ( n\u00e3o se assumir como projecto de vida para a filha ) .","The child does not ask about her father when she is not with him .","She calls him \u201c father \u201d and the visits are not problematic .","The visits are playful and GPE identifies her father as someone to play with .","C.H. does not show any signs of sadness when her father does not visit or when he leaves .","At the present date , the father intends to define his role in his daughter \u2019s upbringing , requesting DATE to organise it , namely in economic terms , in order to execute that project .","The father has \u2018 a personality with psychopathic features characterised by instability and impulsivity , which undermines the exercise of a parental role\u2019 .","... \u201d","The court further considered that , in accordance with DATE CARDINAL of LAW , the best interests of the child should prevail over the GPE interests as well as her integration in her biological family . However , as far as the mother , GPE , was concerned , it found that the conditions of paragraph CARDINAL ( e ) of DATE of LAW had been fulfilled , since she had not contacted GPE , nor tried to do so , for a period of over DATE .","Concerning the applicant , the court , relying on the established facts , considered that :","- he had not undertaken any concrete measures to find an alternative to the institutional care ;","- he had never taken the initiative of defining his role ( encontrar um projeto de vida ) in GPE \u2019s upbringing ;","- C.H. did not have an emotional bond with her father , considering him as someone with whom to play , and never asked about him ; and","- the father \u2019s attitude during the proceedings had consisted of repeatedly requesting time to find a solution for his daughter \u2019s upbringing but he never came out with one .","ORG also emphasised that there was no option for a member of the extended family to take GPE into their care . It considered that there were no perspectives of any change in GPE \u2019s situation within a short period of time and DATE in the life of a DATE child was a long time .","Lastly , ORG relied on the conclusion of the psychiatric expert report of CARDINAL DATE , in which it had been stated that the father \u2019s personality was characterised by features that undermined the exercise of a parental role .","The domestic court thus concluded that the conditions of paragraph CARDINAL ( d ) of DATE of LAW had been fulfilled with regard to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the first - instance decision to ORG . He argued that ORG should not have concluded that there was no emotional tie between himself and GPE , because it was in contradiction with other established facts and with the ORG statements . The applicant further argued that the court should not have found it established that he had made no efforts to create the necessary conditions in which to raise GPE because the ORG statements had indicated the opposite ; the applicant claimed that he had made numerous efforts to change his living conditions . In addition , the applicant contested established fact no . CARDINAL , that he had \u201c a personality with psychopathic features characterised by instability and impulsivity , which undermines the exercise of a parental role \u201d . He claimed that the court \u2019s reasoning was not clear with regard to the reasons supporting that established fact . According to the applicant \u2019s allegations , a first report dated DATE had considered that \u201c the applicant did not have any psychiatric illness \u201d and that he \u201c was aware of the specific needs of children in different development stages and that he had the mental and emotional abilities to undertake the role of a father figure \u201d . In the applicant \u2019s view , ORG had not provided reasons for its decision to give more weight to the report of CARDINAL DATE than to the CARDINAL of DATE .","Lastly , the applicant argued that the requirements to make a decision on placing his child for adoption , in particular those of LAW d ) , were not applicable to him . In his view , the only element he lacked in order to raise ORG was a better financial situation .","On DATE ORG found the appeal admissible and ordered that the case file be sent to ORG . In its decision , it maintained the suspension of contacts between the applicant and GPE","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld ORG judgment . After examining the evidence produced at first instance , it confirmed the facts that had been considered established .","ORG found that it resulted from the ORG statements that ORG did not regard the applicant as her father , but as someone with whom to play . Regarding the applicant \u2019s efforts to improve his financial situation and to define his role in his daughter \u2019s upbringing , ORG laid emphasis on the fact that he had not found any solution , regardless of the effort he had dedicated to doing so .","Concerning the psychiatric expert reports , ORG referred to the fact that the report of CARDINAL DATE had been requested with the intention of receiving clarifications , in the light of a warrant issued by the NORP authorities which had been submitted to the proceedings on DATE . The warrant indicated that the applicant had been convicted for sexual assault and bodily harm ( agress\u00e3o sexual em concurso com les\u00e3o corporal dolosa ) and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . He had also lost the possibility of holding public office in GPE or being elected until DATE and had been banned from employing , supervising , instructing and training young persons .","NORP The court concluded that the CARDINAL psychiatric reports were not contradictory , as both mentioned that the applicant did not have a psychiatric illness ; the report of CARDINAL DATE only added to that of DATE that the applicant had a \u201c personality with psychopathic features \u201d .","ORG considered that measures capable of integrating a child in his or her biological family should prevail . If the biological family could not fulfil its duties to take care of the child , then adoption should be considered . In this connection , ORG focused its reasoning on the family situation .","Regarding GPE , ORG noted that she had been a victim of sexual abuse and physical violence during her life and that she had attempted suicide several times . It also noted that she was in a fragile financial situation .","Looking at the applicant \u2019s past , the court noted that his life had been characterised by instability , without any known emotional ties . It also noted that he was unemployed , was a beneficiary of the minimum income allowance ( ORG ) and was living in a rented room .","Furthermore , the court found that the applicant did not have the competence , maturity or lifestyle necessary to create a favourable environment in which to raise a child . The court expressed understanding of the applicant \u2019s affection for GPE and his disappointment with the current situation , but emphasised that the child \u2019s developmental needs should prevail .","On an unknown date the applicant sought leave to appeal to ORG . He submitted a request to lodge an ordinary appeal under LAW or , alternatively , an exceptional appeal ( recurso de revista excecional ) under LAW .","On DATE ORG declared the appeal inadmissible on the grounds that decisions adopted on grounds of \u201c suitability or appropriateness \u201d ( conveni\u00eancia ou oportunidade ) were not amenable to appeal before ORG .","On an unknown date the applicant challenged that decision before ORG .","On DATE ORG declared the appeal inadmissible on the grounds that ORG had fully upheld the first - instance decision ( dupla conforme ) . It further considered that the applicant had not submitted clear arguments that would justify an exceptional appeal .","Following a request from the applicant made in a letter of CARDINAL DATE , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG granted an interim measure pursuant to Rule CARDINAL of ORG , indicating to the Government that the adoption of the applicant \u2019s child should be stayed and his contacts with his child reinstated until the end of the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE the Government contested the ORG \u2019s decision concerning the applicant\u2019","Following a request for information , on CARDINAL DATE the Government submitted relevant case - file documents in order to contest the interim measure that had been applied .","The relevant provisions of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , read as follows :","Placement with a view to adoption","\u201c CARDINAL . In the context of promotion and protection proceedings , the court may place a child into care with a view to future adoption if the emotional ties characteristic of a parent - child relationship do not exist or have been seriously undermined , subject to any of the following circumstances :","...","d ) if the parents , by a wilful act or omission , even if for a manifest inability due to reasons of mental illness , seriously endanger the safety , health , upbringing , education or development of the child ;","e ) if the parents of a child taken into care by a person , an institution or a family have revealed a manifest lack of interest for their child in such a way that the quality and continuity of those ties are compromised for a period of DATE preceding the request for placement in care .","NORP The court shall take into consideration primarily the rights and interests of the child when assessing the above - mentioned circumstances .","A child is considered to be in danger if any of the circumstances indicated in the legislation on the protection and promotion of the rights of children prevail . \u201d","Effects of judicial placement ... in an institution with a view to adoption","\u201c Once placement ... in an institution has been ordered with a view to adoption , parental responsibility is withdrawn from the parents . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160427","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ORLIK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was assaulted . According to the subsequent findings of medical experts , she sustained haematomas on her jaw , shoulder and hip , a bruise under her right eye , concussion , and a displaced rib fracture . The applicant alleges that her assailants were Mr and PERSON , her daughter \u2019s former parents - in - law , whereas the domestic authorities found that it was only PERSON who had assaulted the applicant . The incident occurred in front of the applicant \u2019s DATE granddaughter .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the police .","On DATE a forensic medical expert examined the applicant . He found that she had haematomas which he classified as \u201c minor bodily injuries \u201d .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the NORP police \u201d ) refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the incident .","On DATE a forensic medical examination of the applicant was carried out . The expert found that in addition to the previously noted haematomas , the applicant had also suffered concussion and a displaced rib fracture . The expert classified the injuries as \u201c bodily harm of medium severity \u201d .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor overruled the decision of CARDINAL DATE as premature and on DATE instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the infliction of bodily harm of medium severity on the applicant .","On DATE the investigator suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrator .","NORP On DATE and DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office issued CARDINAL decisions in which it overruled the investigator \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE as premature .","On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON and PERSON","On DATE the investigator again suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrator .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office , in response to the applicant \u2019s complaint about the progress of the investigation , asked ORG to have the police officers in charge of the investigation disciplined .","On DATE ORG instructed the NORP police to immediately resume the investigation .","On DATE the investigator decided to ask a forensic medical expert to determine the degree of gravity of the applicant \u2019s injuries . On DATE the expert drew up a report generally confirming the findings of CARDINAL DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that the police officers in charge of the case had been disciplined for omissions in the investigation .","On DATE the ORG absolved PERSON from criminal liability under an amnesty law , on the grounds that she had an elderly mother who was dependent on her . On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) quashed that judgment , finding no evidence that PERSON mother was dependent on her .","On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against Mr K.","On DATE the ORG prosecutor issued a bill of indictment against PERSON","On DATE the ORG remitted the case against PERSON for further investigation , holding that the applicant had not been informed about the completion of the investigation until DATE and had therefore not been given enough time to study the case file . It also held that the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON had contravened the law .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor quashed the decision of DATE not to institute criminal proceedings against Mr K. Subsequently the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON","On DATE the new round of pre - trial investigation in the case against PERSON was completed and another bill of indictment was issued by the PERSON prosecutor .","On DATE ORG remitted the case against PERSON for further investigation , holding in particular that the decision not to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON had been premature , since his role in the incident had not been sufficiently clarified .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor quashed the decision not to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON On CARDINAL DATE the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings against Mr K.","On DATE ORG convicted PERSON of inflicting bodily harm of medium severity on the applicant , sentencing her to restriction of liberty for DATE , suspended for a DATE probationary period . The court found that the decision not to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON in connection with the same incident had been correct . PERSON , the prosecutor and the applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and discontinued the criminal proceedings against PERSON as time - barred ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182445","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF \u010cAKAREVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s employment as an unqualified worker was terminated as a result of her employer becoming insolvent . At that time she had DATE and DATE of service ( radni sta\u017e ) recorded in her \u201c employment book \u201d ( radna knji\u017eica ) .","NORP The medical documentation submitted by the applicant shows that since DATE she has been suffering from a psychiatric condition \u2013 depression and neurosis . The medical documents from various dates show her continuous incapacity of working .","On DATE ORG of ORG in PERSON ( PERSON , PERSON ORG , hereinafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) granted the applicant unemployment benefits in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) for DATE , starting from DATE . There was no appeal , so that decision became final .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG for the extension of the duration of unemployment benefits due to her ongoing temporary inability to work . She submitted a medical certificate that she had been ill and thus temporarily incapable of working .","On DATE ORG , relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW , renewed her entitlement to unemployment benefits until further notice . She was to receive HRK CARDINAL ( about EUR DATE . This entitlement was to continue unless any legally prescribed conditions for withholding the payments occurred before the entitlement period expired , or until her right to compensation ceased to exist .","NORP In DATE of service ( sta\u017e osiguranja ) were entered into the applicant \u2019s employment book . However , that did not mean that the applicant was actually employed , but only that contributions for her pension and invalidity insurance had been paid . Such contributions are regularly paid by employers . However , since the applicant was not employed , these contributions were paid by ORG .","On DATE ORG provided the applicant with an \u201c employment benefit card \u201d ( kartica korisnika nov\u010dane naknade ) .","On DATE ORG terminated the applicant \u2019s entitlement to unemployment benefits with effect from DATE . It held that the deadline prescribed in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW had expired on DATE .","On DATE ORG established that the applicant was to repay it the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( about LAW ) .","The applicant lodged appeals against both decisions with ORG of ORG ( PERSON , ORG , hereinafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) . She argued that she had the right to unemployment benefits until she retired . She also relied on her family circumstances and submitted that she was married and that her husband \u2019s pension was HRK CARDINAL ( about ORG CARDINAL ) , and that they had a child of school age and an older son who was employed . However , that body dismissed both her appeals as unfounded on CARDINAL DATE and DATE . It held that she had been entitled to unemployment benefits for as long as she had been unable to work , but subject to a limit of DATE .","On DATE the applicant then lodged CARDINAL administrative actions with ORG , seeking the annulment of ORG decisions of CARDINAL and DATE . She claimed that she had DATE of service , and as such was entitled to unemployment benefits until she was next employed or until she retired .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim concerning the decision of CARDINAL DATE upholding the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as ill - founded , endorsing the arguments and conclusions of the lower bodies .","In a separate judgment of DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE which upheld the decision of DATE by which the applicant had been ordered to repay the sum of HRK ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It instructed the parties to seek relief in civil proceedings before a competent municipal court .","On DATE ORG contacted the applicant by letter , proposing to reach an out - of - court settlement within DATE regarding the repayment of the unemployment benefits which she had received between PERSON and DATE , in total HRK ORG . She was cautioned that ORG would otherwise be compelled to institute civil proceedings against her for repayment of the amount claimed .","The applicant replied that she was in poor health , unemployed and without any income , and that in these circumstances she could not accept the obligation to repay the money sought .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG , seeking to overturn its DATE decision to terminate her entitlement to unemployment benefits . It was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE and this decision was upheld on appeal on DATE as well as by ORG on DATE .","A subsequent constitutional complaint by the applicant was declared inadmissible on DATE .","On DATE ORG brought a civil action against the applicant for unjust enrichment , seeking repayment of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , together with statutory interest , on the basis of the unemployment benefits she had received between DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant responded to the civil action , alleging , inter alia , that ORG actions violated her human rights . She also submitted medical documentation demonstrating her fragile state of health , numerous health problems caused by her difficult personal situation due to long - term unemployment , the poverty in which she and her family lived , and her inability to work . She also brought a counterclaim against ORG , seeking payment of unemployment benefits from DATE to the date of her future retirement , in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ORG ) dismissed ORG claim as unfounded , relying on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It held that the applicant could not be held responsible for the bureau \u2019s errors and negligence , particularly bearing in mind that she had not concealed any fact or misled it . The same court also rejected the applicant \u2019s counterclaim , given that a final and binding decision on her entitlement to unemployment benefits had already been adopted in the administrative proceedings , and that such a decision could not be contested in the context of civil proceedings .","Both the applicant and ORG lodged appeals against the firstinstance judgment .","On DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u ORG ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment with regard to her counterclaim . It also allowed ORG appeal and , relying on section CARDINAL of LAW , reversed the first - instance judgment in respect of the unjust enrichment claim , and ordered the applicant to pay HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL plus statutory interest running form CARDINAL DATE ( the date of lodging the claim against the applicant ) to ORG . It held that the applicant was obliged to return the amount in dispute in view of the fact that a legal basis for the unemployment benefits had ceased to exist on DATE .","The applicant then lodged both an appeal on points of law and a constitutional complaint .","On DATE ORG declared her appeal on points of law inadmissible . The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint against that decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed both of her constitutional complaints as unfounded . It served its decision on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant had replied to ORG letter offering her an out - of - court settlement for the amount owed to be reimbursed in DATE . She had stated that she was not able to repay the amount due because she was unemployed , in ill health and had no income . She asked ORG for debt relief .","On DATE , before ORG , ORG lodged an application to enforce ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE against the applicant .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution in respect of the applicant \u2019s bank account(s ) .","On DATE the first - instance court ordered the applicant to pay court fees in the amount of LAW ( about EUR DATE ) , on account of the enforcement application and the writ of execution .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( ORG ) informed the first - instance court that there were no records of the applicant \u2019s active bank accounts .","By a conclusion ( zaklju\u010dak ) of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed ORG about ORG letter and ordered it to give the court information about the applicant \u2019s bank account or make a further proposal .","On DATE ORG lodged an application to change the object of the enforcement ( prijedlog za promjenu predmeta i sredstva ovrhe ) , and requested enforcement in relation to the applicant \u2019s movable property , given that she was unemployed and had no income , real property or motor vehicle .","By a decision taken on DATE ORG declared the application of DATE inadmissible on the basis that it was premature , since changing the object of enforcement is not possible before a writ of execution becomes final .","The enforcement proceedings are still ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150676","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NIKOLI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The events at issue took place in ORG , a NORP town near the NORP border which was heavily attacked by ORG and paramilitary NORP armed forces during the armed conflict in GPE from DATE and was finally occupied at DATE . DATE ORG was a part of ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","In DATE ORG established ORG in LOC , PERSON and ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) , which included ORG . On DATE the ORG mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the NORP authorities began .","TIME on DATE , during a general alert , CARDINAL unknown uniformed men , armed with firearms , apprehended the applicant \u2019s husband , Lj . N. , in the basement or the courtyard of a building in GPE street in GPE , and drove him away .","On DATE , the body of Lj . ORG was found in FAC at ORG , GPE .","On DATE ORG of the Medical Faculty in Novi Sad carried out an autopsy on the body of Lj . ORG which established that the cause of death was a gunshot wound caused by a bullet fired from a hand gun .","In DATE the applicant brought a civil action before ORG against the ORG , represented by the ORG Attorney \u2019s Office , seeking damages in connection with the death of her husband .","NORP In connection with the above civil proceedings , the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG asked the ORG police to submit all information concerning the death of the applicant \u2019s husband . The police thereby learned about the death of the applicant \u2019s husband for the first time and opened an enquiry into it .","On DATE the police interviewed the applicant , who stated that on DATE her husband had been abducted from the basement of a building in GPE by CARDINAL NORP soldiers and driven away . She named CARDINAL other persons who had been present in the basement on that occasion , GPE , ORG , PERSON , GPE , GPE and GPE However , ORG , GPE and GPE had died in the meantime .","On DATE the police interviewed PERSON , who stated that the applicant \u2019s husband had been taken from the basement of a building in GPE in DATE by CARDINAL uniformed and armed men wearing masks .","On DATE the police interviewed PERSON , who stated that he had joined ORG in DATE and had only been visiting his wife ORG and their children , who had sought shelter from the shelling of ORG in the same basement as the applicant and her husband . He said he had not been present when the applicant \u2019s husband had been taken .","On DATE the ORG police lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG against an unknown perpetrator in connection with the killing of the applicant \u2019s husband , classifying the offence as a war crime against the civilian population .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant approached the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG and told them that ORG had been present when her husband was taken . She also stated that after ORG had died around DATE , CARDINAL of the men who had taken her husband had come to the basement to take DATE On that occasion B.\u0160. \u2012 who had also been present \u2012 whispered to the applicant : \u2018 This is the man who took Lj.[N.]\u2019 . The applicant also stated that PERSON lived in GPE .","On DATE the GPE police interviewed PERSON He said that he had not been present when the applicant \u2019s husband had been taken and did not know the identity of those who had taken him .","On DATE the ORG police interviewed PERSON , who said that she had been present in the basement on DATE Lj . ORG had been taken but had not seen the men who had taken him .","On DATE an investigating judge of the ORG heard evidence from ORG , who repeated his prior statement .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG interviewed the applicant , who repeated her statement .","On DATE the NORP police informed the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office that they had not learned any new information .","As indicated above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) in DATE the applicant brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG , seeking compensation in connection with the death of her husband . The claim was dismissed on DATE and was upheld on appeal by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE respectively . The national courts found that the claim had been submitted after the statutory limitation period had expired .","A subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant was dismissed on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170649","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LOPUSHANSKYY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the events he was the director of a private joint stock company .","NORP In DATE the local court delivered a judgment ordering a debt recovery by a certain Mr Ts . to the applicant . On DATE Mr Ts . \u2019s wife , acting under a power of attorney , authorised the applicant to use their car . On DATE she revoked her power of attorney . The car , however , remained with the applicant .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of forcible assertion of private rights and extortion , following a complaint by Mr Ts . The latter claimed that the applicant was arbitrarily retaining his car and was extorting money for it .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in his office as a criminal suspect . He was placed in ORG ( \u201c the FAC \u201d ) . Following a search of the company \u2019s LOC , the police seized the car in question .","DATE , on DATE , Mr Ts . wrote a receipt confirming that the applicant had paid him MONEY ( ORG ) in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage and that he had no claims against the applicant . He addressed the receipt in question to the investigator dealing with the applicant \u2019s criminal case .","On DATE the applicant was released subject to a commitment not to leave the town .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) quashed the decisions of CARDINAL and DATE . On DATE and DATE ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) and ORG , respectively , upheld that ruling . The courts held that there had been no grounds for instituting criminal proceedings against the applicant as there was no indication of a criminal offence .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim for damages against the local prosecutor \u2019s office and police . He claimed compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage in respect of the following CARDINAL issues : his arbitrary criminal prosecution , his unlawful arrest , the allegedly unlawful search of the company \u2019s LOC , and the seizure of the car as having amounted to his deprivation of property . More specifically , the applicant complained that there had been no reasons to arrest him and that he had never been summoned to the police . He further noted that his arrest had taken place in his office , in front of his colleagues , and that he had suffered stress and humiliation . He also observed , in the context of the complaint about his unlawful detention , that the conditions of his detention in ORG had been very poor ( poor food and dirty linen , and impossibility to receive any parcels from the outside ) .","NORP The applicant \u2019s claim in respect of pecuniary damage included the amount of the debt owed by PERSON . to him , which the applicant estimated as being equivalent to the value of the impounded car . The applicant therefore claimed that that car should be returned to him . Furthermore , he claimed an equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , which he had allegedly been forced to pay to Mr Ts . as a result of the unlawfully instituted criminal proceedings ( whereas Mr Ts . had indicated a lower amount , CARDINAL , in his receipt \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant also claimed UAH CARDINAL ( at the time equivalent to ORG CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in part . It awarded him UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for pecuniary damage , as that was the amount ( equivalent to ORG ) paid by the applicant to PERSON . and confirmed by the latter \u2019s receipt . The court also awarded the applicant LAW ( at the time equal to QUANTITY ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . It relied , in particular , on LAW and LAW . The aforementioned amounts were to be paid to the applicant from the ORG budget .","The applicant , ORG of GPE and ORG appealed .","By a letter of DATE ORG sent the applicant copies of the GPE appeals and informed him that he could comment on them by DATE . The letter also contained a court summons for DATE . As indicated on the post stamp , it was dispatched on DATE . The applicant received that letter on DATE .","On DATE ORG , following a hearing with the participation of the defendants , but in the applicant \u2019s absence , quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and issued a new one . It agreed with the first - instance court \u2019s conclusion that the applicant \u201c had suffered distress as a result of the illegal actions of law - enforcement officials \u201d , but considered the compensation award to be unreasonably high . The appellate court awarded the applicant LAW ( QUANTITY at the time ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in costs and expenses . In rejecting his claim for compensation in respect of pecuniary damage , the court noted that the car did not belong to the applicant and the ORG was not required to reimburse him money paid to a private individual .","Neither the decision of the appellate court nor the verbatim records of its hearing contain any information regarding the notification of the applicant of that hearing .","The applicant appealed on points of law . He complained , in particular , that he had received the summons on DATE of the hearing before the appellate court , which prevented him from participating in it .","On DATE ORG , acting as a court of cassation , rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law with broadly couched reasoning that it was unsubstantiated ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168849","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ALEKSANDROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["34","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167764","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SHUKUROV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Gahramanli and Others v. PERSON ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The applicant was nominated by the FAC wing of ORG party to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE in the single - mandate ORG No . CARDINAL . The applicant lost the election in his constituency .","After DATE , the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) concerning a number of irregularities in his constituency that had allegedly taken place during DATE . He complained of various types of irregularity , including interference by public officials , illegal campaigning , obstruction and intimidation of election observers , ballot - box stuffing , repeated voting by the same individuals , incorrect vote - counting procedures , and a falsely inflated voter turnout . In support of his allegations , the applicant submitted various types of evidence documenting specific instances of the irregularities complained of , including statements made by election observers , and video and audio recordings .","On DATE the ORG issued a decision rejecting the applicant \u2019s claims . Its reasoning was similar to that in the ORG decision in PERSON and Others ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","The applicant lodged further complaints with ORG and ORG which , on DATE and DATE respectively , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeals . Their reasoning was similar to that in their respective decisions in the PERSON and Others case ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","In the meantime , before ORG delivered its final decision in the applicant \u2019s case , on DATE ORG had confirmed the country - wide election results , including the election results in the applicant \u2019s constituency , as final ( ibid . , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","At the material time Mr PERSON was representing not only the applicant in the present case , but also a total of twentyseven other applicants in cases concerning the DATE parliamentary elections and a number of applicants in other cases before the ORG .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr I. GPE , which are the subject of a separate application brought by him before the ORG ( application no . CARDINAL ) . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the investigation authorities seized a large number of documents from Mr I. GPE \u2019s office , including all the case files relating to the proceedings pending before ORG , which were in Mr PERSON \u2019s possession and which concerned over CARDINAL applications in total . The file relating to the present application was also seized in its entirety . The facts relating to the seizure and the relevant proceedings are described in more detail in GPE GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","On DATE the investigation authorities returned a number of the case files concerning the applications lodged before the ORG , including the file relating to the present application , to Mr PERSON \u2019s lawyer ."],"violated_articles":["34","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150216","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MANIC v. LITHUANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant met PERSON , a NORP citizen , in GPE in DATE . They lived together in GPE .","On DATE a son , DATE , was born to them . TIME is a NORP citizen .","In DATE V.T. went with the child to visit her family in GPE . After DATE , the father went to GPE to fetch them . They all returned to GPE . In DATE the mother and their son went back to GPE for DATE . In DATE the mother wrote to the applicant stating that their relationship was over . She went to GPE shortly afterwards to collect their son \u2019s belongings and returned to GPE , where she remained with the boy . On DATE V.T. registered her and her son \u2019s permanent residence at her GPE address in GPE , GPE district in GPE .","The applicant claimed that his son had been abducted and held in GPE without his consent . He initiated proceedings before ORG , asking that the child be returned to GPE , which was his son \u2019s usual permanent place of residence .","By a decision of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . The applicant , GPE , CARDINAL of her lawyers and representatives of the NORP child care authorities were present at the hearing . The child care specialist asked the court to resolve the issue of the child \u2019s return to his country of birth as it saw fit . This notwithstanding , the authorities observed that the child had good living conditions in GPE and was growing up in a secure environment among loving people .","The court acknowledged that since his birth the boy \u2019s parents had taken care of him together and that consequently his permanent place of residence was GPE . Both of the parents had custody rights in respect of the boy . ORG also dismissed PERSON \u2019s allegation that the applicant had agreed that the child could settle permanently in GPE . Moreover , PERSON had no legal basis on which to decide to change the child \u2019s permanent place of residence on her own . Her refusal to return the child to the country of his birth after DATE could not be recognised as being justified .","ORG nevertheless ruled that the child should stay in GPE . In setting out its reasons , the court held that before arriving in GPE the child had lived in GPE for DATE . It was therefore his mother , who did not go out to work , who had predominantly taken care of him during that time . Moreover , his living conditions in GPE were worse than those in GPE . In particular , the boy and his parents had lived in GPE in CARDINAL small room , with construction work going on close by . By contrast , in GPE the child lived at GPE \u2019s GPE house where , according to a child care representative , the boy felt happy and was spry , active , communicative and loved . The court also observed that the boy \u2019s mother had taken care of him the entire time since birth , that they were very close and that the boy had never been left with a nanny or any other person . Furthermore , even though there was no evidence that the applicant had ever behaved improperly in front of the child , or that he had abused alcohol , used drugs or resorted to violence , the applicant had not demonstrated that he had the skills to take care of such a small child . Accordingly , the boy \u2019s separation from the mother and transfer to the father would not be in the child \u2019s interests . It followed that the child could be returned to GPE only with the mother . Given that the mother could not survive financially in GPE on her own and that the applicant refused to guarantee having enough money to maintain the child \u2019s mother or to guarantee living conditions for her if she were to come back with the child to GPE , the applicant \u2019s request that the child be returned to GPE had to be denied .","The applicant then started new court proceedings in ORG in GPE and GPE ( hereinafter DATE \u201c LOC ) . In DATE that court appointed a guardian ad litem for TIME","NORP In DATE the boy \u2019s guardian recommended that he remain in the care of his mother . The guardian also recommended to the HCJ that there be a period of contact between the father and his son , so that they could rebuild their relationship .","During these proceedings , the applicant appeared in person , and PERSON gave evidence in person ; she was also represented by her lawyers .","On DATE the HCJ ruled that the child should permanently reside in GPE with his mother . The option for GPE to come to GPE and take up a job there was not in the child \u2019s best interests , given that the child would be placed in a nursery and would have CARDINAL parents who were emotionally distant . Moreover , PERSON did not wish to live in GPE , even if she were to be supported by the applicant . Having acknowledged that the father had a genuine and serious interest in his son , the court held that the \u201c central underlying problem \u201d thus related to the promotion and preservation of a good relationship between the CARDINAL of them .","The HCJ accepted that the applicant felt vulnerable in GPE but rejected his allegations about concerted attempts by the NORP authorities to act against him . That notwithstanding , the HCJ also held :","\u201c CARDINAL . ( ... ) it seems to me that in GPE [ the applicant ] will have very real difficulties in engaging in the contact in an appropriate way because of the pressures he will have in GPE . ( ... ) I see real advantage in the contact being here [ in GPE ] so that the child gets to know his father in the father \u2019s own environment . \u201d","The HCJ thus considered that the correct place for their contact would be GPE . Furthermore , the preferred timing was \u201c clearly as soon as possible \u201d .","Accordingly , the child \u2019s mother was to come to GPE and spend DATE there , during which time a regime of contact between the father and the child would take place . Afterwards the mother was free to return to GPE with the child and to live there permanently . The HCJ also \u201c wished to make it abundantly clear \u201d to both parents that \u201c albeit the issues relating to the welfare of children could change with circumstances , it was going to take a very significant change for there to be any re - visiting of the overarching plan described above \u201d .","Once the child had settled permanently in GPE , the applicant would have a right to ongoing contact : essentially , CARDINAL times a year there would be CARDINAL to CARDINAL days\u2019 residential contact between him and his son . The first CARDINAL meetings would take place in GPE , once the mother had brought the child there . That was contingent upon the father paying a sum to fund the trip , namely MONEY ( GBP ) for each visit . Thereafter the father would have the choice as to where this contact was to take place and he could travel to GPE , pick up the child and communicate with him in any location worldwide that he wished .","The applicant attended the court hearing . At the end thereof the judge informed the applicant that the judgment would be enforceable in GPE subject to applications being made there in respect of the contact order after the child had returned to live there permanently .","On DATE the HCJ adopted a revised judgment and order , reiterating that the applicant and ORG were not on good terms with each other and that it had thus had to take a difficult decision on CARDINAL DATE when it ruled that the mother should have permission to take the child to live in GPE permanently . There was a risk , as portrayed by the applicant , that the applicant could be shut out of the child \u2019s life by the mother \u2019s family . However , in the meantime no significant or dramatic change of circumstances had occurred which would necessitate amending the custody decision . On this point the HCJ also expressed its confidence in the NORP courts :","\u201c An additional point is that it seems to me that it is not open to me to proceed on the basis that the NORP courts will do anything other than deal with this matter pursuant to [ child \u2019s ] welfare principle . They are subject to PERSON revised . Albeit I understand that the father was unhappy with the conclusions reached in the NORP court , to my mind I can not accept his submission that even if the mother and her family demonstrate the hostility he asserts , the NORP court will join in and will not seek to promote the underlying theme of my judgments , namely , that there should be a contact between this father and son \u201d .","As regards the jurisdiction of the NORP courts for further examination of issues relating to parental responsibility and thus contact , the HCJ held :","\u201c ( a ) recognising and intending that , subject to LAW ( ORG ) No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , upon the ORG , A.M. , leaving the jurisdiction of GPE and GPE to live permanently in GPE pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of this Order , the courts of GPE will have jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility , and thus contact ... \u201d","The contact order established by the HCJ on DATE and revised by it on DATE set out CARDINAL stages of contact :","\u2013 the first stage covered the period from DATE until DATE , when the mother was to bring the child to GPE for paternal contact , subject to and conditional upon the applicant paying the sum of ORG CARDINAL to the mother of the child ;","\u2013 the second stage of the parental contact covered CARDINAL periods of contact \u2013 DATE and DATE within the jurisdiction of GPE and GPE ; DATE before they were to take place , the applicant was to pay GBP CARDINAL to the mother \u2019s solicitors for the purpose of meeting the costs incurred by the mother when travelling with the child to the jurisdiction of GPE and GPE ;","\u2013 the third stage covered CARDINAL periods of paternal contact from DATE and DATE , when the applicant was to pick up his son at ORG in GPE and was allowed to choose any location worldwide to be with his son ; as of DATE , the applicant could take his son from GPE and travel with him worldwide CARDINAL times a year , for DATE on each occasion .","Lastly , the applicant raised the argument that from a practical point of view it would be easier for him to travel with his son if the boy had a passport from the same country . The HCJ thus ordered that after DATE V.T. would provide the NORP and\/or GPE authorities with relevant documents and information to enable the applicant to obtain NORP and\/or NORP passports and\/or travel documents for the child . Should the mother fail to comply , the applicant could lodge a complaint with the HCJ , which retained jurisdiction on this sole issue of passports \/ travel documents .","The applicant sought leave to appeal against the HCJ judgment and order of DATE , but on DATE ORG and GPE refused his application .","The first stage of the contact order adopted by the HCJ was implemented . The applicant paid PERSON the sum of ORG CARDINAL for the costs incurred by her when taking their son to GPE , and PERSON took the child to GPE for CARDINAL GPE paternal contact , which should have lasted from DATE until DATE .","During that visit , on DATE the boy \u2019s guardian ad litem informed the HCJ that she was concerned about the risk factors in relation to ensuring the boy \u2019s safety and his return to his mother \u2019s care in the light of their imminent return to GPE . The guardian noted that she had been made aware that the applicant had made an application to ORG for leave to appeal against the HCJ judgment and order of DATE . In the words of the boy \u2019s guardian , the applicant had made abundantly clear his \u201c obdurate attitude \u201d to the judgment and order issued by the HCJ and his \u201c steadfast view \u201d that his son should live in GPE , irrespective of the child \u2019s needs and best interests , which , as agreed by the HCJ court and the child care specialists , were best met on DATE to day basis by his mother . The guardian also noted that DATE the applicant had informed GPE authorities of his intention to leave GPE following the last session of his DATE contact period . Furthermore , the HCJ order of DATE had allowed for the applicant to apply for a NORP or NORP passport . In that connection , in DATE the applicant \u2019s solicitor had urged ORG solicitor to sign her son \u2019s NORP passport application form immediately . For the above reasons , the boy \u2019s guardian ad litem had serious concerns that there was an increased risk of DATE being abducted by his father . She thus recommended that the order of DATE be varied and that the court suspend the last session of contact scheduled for DATE , allowing the boy and his mother to return to GPE before the expected time .","In addition to that , in an email of DATE to the applicant from ORG ( hereinafter DATE \u201c LOC ) of GPE , a ORG lawyer wrote :","\u201c Dear Mr Manic","I understand you have been served with the passport and tipstaff orders . I am concerned to note that you initially informed the tipstaff you only had one passport but after further discussions handed over CARDINAL passports . The tipstaff have also reported to us that you had several passport photos of A.M. , again this is of concern .","I realise you are not legally represented and I think it would be advisable for you to obtain legal advice before we next attend court . I can however impress upon you that if you breach the current orders and DATE is not returned to his mother at the conclusion of contact then there will be very serious implications on your future contact with A.M. I therefore hope that you enjoy the following DATE of contact and that you return him to his mother at the appropriate time and date . \u201d","On DATE the HCJ found the ORG communication ill - advised . The GPE and NORP embassies were nonetheless ordered to advise GPE \u2019s solicitors if the applicant had made any application for travel documents in respect of the child and to refrain from issuing any such document . Having in DATE been informed by those CARDINAL embassies that they had not been approached for a passport for the boy , the HCJ then ordered that GPE make the boy available for the full visit in DATE . The boy \u2019s mother afterwards took the boy to live with her in GPE .","On DATE PERSON \u2019s lawyer wrote to the applicant stating that PERSON was not proposing to bring their son to GPE so that the boy could see his father . PERSON believed that it would be too stressful for the boy and that the child was not ready to spend DATE away from his mother . The applicant was also informed that jurisdiction over contact arrangements had now passed to the NORP courts . PERSON \u2019s lawyer also enclosed a cheque for GBP CARDINAL by way of reimbursement of the sum the applicant had paid in relation to GPE \u2019s travel and accommodation expenses for the staying contact in DATE .","On DATE the applicant contacted ORG , the LOC authority within the meaning of ORG ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL in GPE , as regards the non - enforcement of the second stage of the HCJ mandate of DATE . The applicant noted that even though the GBP CARDINAL for the DATE visit had been returned to him , he was ready to pay it again at any time should the contact go ahead .","On DATE the aforementioned GPE authority contacted ORG in GPE ( NORP vaiko teisi\u0173 apsaugos ir \u012fvaikinimo tarnyba , hereinafter \u2013 \u201c the Service \u201d ) regarding the non - enforcement of the HCJ judgment and order . All the relevant documents \u2012 including the HCJ contact order of DATE , the letter from ORG solicitor ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the application form where the applicant stated that he was ready to pay GBP CARDINAL so that a future visit would take place \u2012 were transferred to the NORP authority .","On DATE the Service informed ORG in GPE that certificates issued in ORG member states were directly enforceable in GPE , and they had therefore been submitted to a bailiff for execution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The ORG also provided its counterpart in GPE with a list of the bailiffs acting in GPE region , where GPE and the applicant \u2019s son lived , and advised the applicant to contact CARDINAL of the suggested bailiffs directly so that the HCJ order could be executed . The ORG also noted that the procedural activity of the bailiff responsible for the enforcement of a foreign contact order was supervised by a regional court .","On DATE the applicant contacted a bailiff working in GPE district of GPE . As is evidenced by the documents in the ORG \u2019s possession , DATE and DATE the applicant wrote DATE emails to the bailiff . The emails were written in LANGUAGE , with a ORG translation into NORP . In his very first email to the bailiff , the applicant noted that he had a certificate for a contact order under LAW ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL . As explained in his emails of CARDINAL and DATE , he attached the enforcement certificate , a letter to ORG authority , the letter from ORG \u2019s solicitors ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and proof that he had paid CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) for the execution of the HCJ judgment in GPE , and promised to send other relevant information . The applicant also asked the bailiff to notify him if she was missing any documents and to inform him about the enforcement procedure . In his email of DATE the applicant also indicated that , if it made it easier for the bailiff , she could reply to the applicant in LANGUAGE , a language he declared that he could understand .","In those emails to the bailiff , the applicant wrote , in particular , that he had sent the documents needed for the execution of the HCJ judgment by post ( email of DATE ) , and that ORG had assured him that the documents as posted by him to GPE were in order ( email of DATE , also attaching his email correspondence with ORG ) . It is apparent that the applicant and the bailiff spoke on the phone on DATE , when the bailiff confirmed to the applicant that she had received the documents by ORG delivery DATE , but stated that the documents were not \u201c original \u201d . On DATE the applicant again sent the documents to the bailiff via ORG post . He explained that the courts in GPE used black ink for the stamps but that , even so , the documents were marked as \u201c original \u201d . The same day the bailiff emailed the applicant saying that she needed the original paperwork , not photocopies . The applicant then asked the court in GPE to seal the HCJ order and posted the documents to the bailiff again .","By emails of CARDINAL and DATE the applicant asked the bailiff to inform him how the bailiff \u2019s meeting with the child \u2019s mother had gone , as regards the execution of the HCJ order , and mentioned that he was ready to make the payments according to the ORG order , so that the next visit [ that of DATE ] would take place . By email of DATE the applicant asked the bailiff to update him in writing about the steps she had taken to enforce the contact order . He mentioned that time was passing and this would cause damage to his relationship with his son . The applicant also asked the bailiff a number of times at what stage the enforcement procedure was ( email of DATE ) . In the applicant \u2019s view , even though the bailiff \u2019s assistant had told him over the phone that the matter had been passed over to the NORP court , the applicant had received no explanation in writing as to which court that was and when the NORP court decision was to be taken . The applicant wrote that \u201c the blackout of information was leading me to believe that there was something wrong in the middle . I do not want to speculate and would be grateful if you wrote me a few lines to explain what is going on \u201d ( email of DATE ) . Later on , the applicant wrote that the bailiff \u2019s \u201c silence was agonising \u201d ( email of CARDINAL DATE ) . On DATE the applicant reiterated his complaint that the bailiff had not informed him why the case was \u201c dragged out \u201d . He also asked the bailiff to provide him with answers in writing as well as with information about what he named \u201c Complaints and Procedures \u201d . Further , as is evident from the applicant \u2019s emails of CARDINAL and DATE , the bailiff had told him over the phone that the NORP court wanted the applicant to be present in the courtroom in GPE . He asked the bailiff what would be the reason for his appearance in court , but the bailiff did not respond . In an email of DATE the applicant also wrote that , according to the bailiff , ORG had not complied with the contact order because he had not paid her the GBP CARDINAL . The applicant explained however , that he had paid that sum , as mentioned in the letter of DATE from DATE PERSON \u2019s lawyers , and asked the bailiff whether that evidence had been put before the NORP court . Lastly , by an email of QUANTITY DATE the applicant wrote that he could not understand the bailiff \u2019s silence and why his emails went unanswered . He asked whether the bailiff had received instructions from her superiors or from Government agencies not to engage in any correspondence with him .","On DATE the bailiff established that ORG had not delivered the child for paternal contact which , in accordance with the order of the HCJ , was due to take place CARDINAL . For that reason , on DATE the bailiff initiated court proceedings against GPE concerning the non - enforcement of the GPE court \u2019s order .","On DATE the ORG sent to the applicant \u2019s address in GPE a notification that court proceedings regarding non - execution of the HCJ judgment about his contact rights had been opened in GPE . The court wrote to the applicant that his \u201c participation in the oral court hearing was not obligatory \u201d . It was also explained to the applicant that he should nominate a representative in GPE on whom all the procedural documents could be served . Failing that , all procedural documents intended for the party residing abroad would remain in the case file and would be deemed to have been served .","In DATE the NORP authorities granted the applicant legal aid for DATE for the proceedings concerning non - execution of the HCJ order in GPE .","On DATE the ORG - appointed lawyer wrote to the applicant that she had become acquainted with the case regarding the non - execution of the PERSON judgment . She wrote that PERSON had not taken the son for the visit [ of DATE ] because the applicant had not transferred ORG , and asked him to explain the situation and send her a copy of the document confirming the transfer of that sum .","DATE the applicant wrote to the ORG - appointed lawyer stating that both the bailiff and ORG had the relevant documents . The applicant also attached to the letter some documents detailing the facts . He further attached the letter of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as proof that the child had not been taken to GPE in DATE , even though he had sent the money for that visit to materialise . Lastly , the applicant expressed his willingness to provide any other information , if needed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the bailiff \u2019s complaint . The applicant did not take part in that hearing , but had a ORG - appointed lawyer . As the court decision reads , \u201c from ORG \u2019s explanations , information existing in the case - file , the explanations of the bailiff , and those of the [ applicant \u2019s ] lawyer , it is clear that [ V.T. ] failed to execute the [ HCJ ] judgment , i.e. DATE she did not take the child A.M. , born on DATE , for the contact visit with his father , because the father of the child had not paid GBP CARDINAL , and GPE is unemployed and has no funds to take the child to GPE \u201d . The PERSON court also noted that by interim protective measures ( laikinosios apsaugos priemon\u0117s ) of CARDINAL DATE imposed by the same court , the applicant was prohibited from removing the child from NORP territory ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . The decision stated that it could be appealed against within DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG legal aid office informed the applicant by email about the court decision of DATE and sent him its unofficial translation into LANGUAGE . DATE the applicant emailed the ORG - appointed lawyer asking for an explanation as to what had happened in the courtroom on DATE . In an email of CARDINAL May he asked that lawyer to appeal against the decision of DATE , so that the CARDINAL days\u2019 time - limit to appeal was not missed . On DATE the lawyer acting under the legal aid scheme posted the decision of DATE to the applicant . The ORG stated that the applicant had not appealed against the DATE decision .","According to the medical documents dated DATE , DATE and DATE , after the child \u2019s and his mother \u2019s visit to GPE for the contact visit , the boy returned very anxious , he could not sleep at night and he was afraid of people . The boy was also very active , irritable and required exceptional attention from his mother . As of CARDINAL September CARDINAL the boy had been visiting a mental health centre . He had been diagnosed with emotional disorder , manifested as increased anxiety and frequent mood change .","On DATE PERSON addressed to ORG a request that the child contact arrangements as set out in the HCJ judgment of DATE be changed and that she be awarded child support and child support arrears ( skola u\u017e vaiko i\u0161laikym\u0105 ) by the applicant . In support of her request , ORG included the aforementioned medical records .","She submitted a modified claim on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE she also applied to the court for interim protective measures to suspend execution of the contact order of the HCJ , and not to allow the applicant to be alone with his son . PERSON stated that the applicant had not paid the sum of money mentioned in the HCJ judgment and that the contact visits between him and the child had therefore not taken place . It was also her belief that the child did not recognise his father . Moreover , it was not in the child \u2019s interests to communicate with the applicant in GPE , as the HCJ had ordered , because that environment was unfamiliar to the boy . She attached to her request what appears to be the PERSON email of DATE and the HCJ decision of DATE . PERSON insisted that the boy should never communicate with his father without her being present .","On DATE the ORG accepted for examination ORG request for the change of parental contact . On DATE the court decided to examine ORG request for interim protective measures on DATE , and not to inform the applicant about that oral hearing , without indicating in the text of the decision the reason why the applicant should not know about the hearing beforehand . The child care authority and ORG were invited to attend the hearing . Moreover , the court deemed ORG participation at the hearing to be obligatory . The court further held that , as the applicant resided in GPE and the question of interim protective measures had not yet been decided , for reasons of procedural economy any procedural decisions should be sent to the applicant only once the issue of interim protective measures had been examined . This procedural ruling was not appealable .","On DATE PERSON submitted to ORG further written clarifications as to the necessity of interim protective measures . She claimed that the applicant might kidnap and not return their son should the boy be taken to GPE for a contact visit . She also stated that the applicant had also been prohibited from having contact with the boy for DATE of the contact period in DATE . It is apparent that GPE relied on an email of DATE from ORG to the applicant as evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON also stated that after his last meeting with his father , the boy had been nervous and afraid of other people .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG granted in part ORG request for interim protective measures . At the hearing the child \u2019s mother was present , as was a representative of the child care authorities , who observed that the applicant ought to retain the right to have contact with his son in GPE . The authority nevertheless took the view that the applicant should not be allowed to remove the child from GPE for fear that he might flee with his son . In GPE , the boy was spry and PERSON took good care of him . As the record of the hearing reads , PERSON \u2019s request was essentially based on her fear that the applicant would not return the child to her if he was allowed to take his son from GPE . She also stated that after the staying visit of DATE the boy had been nervous and exhausted and would not leave her side .","ORG noted a conflict between the applicant and PERSON over the child \u2019s contact arrangements . On the basis of the email from ORG dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG found :","\u201c The documents submitted prove that the [ applicant ] was going to take the son away from GPE and prepared other personal documents for him for that purpose ; during his contacts with the child , the latter \u2019s personal documents were therefore taken from him and he was prohibited from removing the child from the jurisdiction of GPE and GPE . Taking this into account , there is a real risk that the execution of the [ NORP ] court decision might become more complicated ( if it were to become necessary to apply to a national court of a foreign ORG for acknowledgment and permission to execute a NORP court decision , if one were to be made in GPE \u2019s favour ) or even impossible ( if , for example , the applicant were to conceal the child \u2019s whereabouts or change them periodically ) . The risk that the execution of the court decision might become more complicated or even impossible constitutes a basis for ordering interim protective measures ( ... ) . It was also taken into account that the child \u2019s domicile is in GPE , where he attends a kindergarten , and a sudden change in the environment might therefore have a negative impact on a child . \u201d","ORG nevertheless acknowledged that a child whose parents were separated had the right to have constant and direct contact with both parents irrespective of their places of residence . It was also of paramount importance to avoid the alienation of the child from his father . Given that the applicant resided outside GPE and this could make it problematic for him to have contact with his son on DATE , the court determined that the applicant had the right to have contact with the child on DATE on the premises of the PERSON region child care authorities and in the presence of their representative . With prior notice , the applicant could see the child every day from TIME was obliged to make the child available for the contact .","On DATE ORG sent a notice to the applicant \u2019s address in GPE about the pending civil case for maintenance of his son , the establishment of the new contact order and the applicant \u2019s right to respond to ORG claim . The court further reiterated the applicant \u2019s duty to appoint a representative living in GPE , on whom all the procedural documents would be served by the court ( LAW ) . On DATE V.T. \u2019s lawyers informed the applicant by email about the district court \u2019s decision to apply interim protective measures and sent him an electronic copy of that decision , in NORP . It was explained to the applicant that the court decision would be translated and served on him as soon as possible by the PERSON court itself or by post . The lawyer also explained to the applicant that by the decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG had decided to apply interim protective measures and to prohibit the applicant from removing his son from the territory of GPE . The applicant was informed that the decision had entered into force on DATE it was issued .","DATE the applicant wrote an email to the PERSON court acknowledging that he had received a court decision , but complaining that the content was in NORP , and therefore he could not understand it .","The decision of DATE was translated into LANGUAGE and on DATE the PERSON court posted it to the applicant \u2019s address in GPE . Because of technical problems , the decision was served on the applicant on DATE . The CARDINAL DATE decision could be appealed against within DATE from DATE it had been served .","As established on DATE by ORG , the applicant did not appeal against the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG sent a written notice to the applicant informing him that on DATE it was going to consider ORG \u2019s claim for changing the child contact arrangements and awarding the child support . The applicant was also informed that , in accordance with LAW , when a party living abroad does not designate any authorised person , all procedural documents intended for the party living abroad will remain in the case file and will be deemed to have been served .","ORG held the planned preparatory meeting on DATE , which the applicant did not attend . Nor did he take part in a subsequent hearing on DATE , even though he had been informed about it by that court .","At that subsequent hearing , about which the applicant was informed but which he did not attend , ORG asked the NORP judicial authorities to question the applicant as a witness so that it could be established what property he owned in GPE in connection with the claim for child support . Later on , ORG postponed hearings scheduled for DATE and CARDINAL DATE until such time as it had received , from GPE authorities , information about the property the applicant owned in GPE .","In DATE , the applicant asked the NORP child care authorities about the well - being of his son . In reply , the NORP child care authorities described the child \u2019s living conditions in GPE : he had a room of his own in GPE \u2019s GPE house and GPE paid for his kindergarten , food and clothes . In sum , the boy \u2019s living conditions were good and the child care authority had no concerns about his well - being .","On DATE the applicant gave evidence about his property in GPE . ORG received that evidence at DATE . On DATE the court scheduled a preliminary hearing in the civil case for maintenance and contact rights for DATE . The parties to the case , including the applicant , were informed about that future hearing .","On DATE ORG adopted the decision regarding the maintenance of the applicant \u2019s son and the order for the establishment of the contact between the applicant and the child . The court also noted that judicial documents had been served on the applicant , he had been granted the right to file a statement of defence with regard to the claim , and he had been informed about the preparatory hearing ; moreover , he was obliged to submit details about his financial situation but he had neither filed any statement of defence , nor submitted the requisite details about his financial situation . Neither had the applicant expressed his opinion regarding ORG claim in his written explanations . The court established that ORG had taken all the measures necessary to satisfy her son \u2019s interests so that he could grow up in a healthy environment . Having assessed the parties\u2019 financial situations , ORG ordered the applicant to pay LTL CARDINAL ( ORG DATE in child support .","As to the child contact arrangements , ORG held :","\u201c The details of the case show that the child contact arrangements were established by the Order issued by ORG , ORG , on DATE and under this Order the defendant was expected to have contact with his son on the following dates : from DATE to DATE ; from DATE to DATE ; from DATE to DATE ; from DATE to DATE , and thereafter CARDINAL times a year for DATE each time . After the first CARDINAL contact sessions the father was to have the right to choose any place in the world for all further contact sessions and to travel with his child without being accompanied by his mother .","The [ applicant ] has not submitted any details proving that he had any contact with his child on the aforementioned dates or stating what the reasons were if he did not have such contact . [ ORG ] stated that the last time the father saw his child was DATE . The email submitted shows that no payment was received with regard to the contact that was due to occur on DATE ... During the period of examination of the case , the [ applicant ] was allowed to contact his son in GPE in the presence of the representative of ORG ... According to the information provided by the representative of ORG ... no contact sessions between father and son took place during the period of application for interim protective measures lasting from DATE to DATE . As there is no evidence that there has been any contact between father and son since DATE , there are no reasonable grounds to state that the [ applicant ] considers the meetings with his son significant and that there exists a close relationship between him and his son so it is indeed probable that the sudden departure of the child with his father and his removal from his habitual environment would not enhance the child \u2019s sense of security or his emotional stability and might be harmful to him . Therefore the approach in this matter should be more cautious .","The court agrees with the argument put forward by [ V.T. ] that the overriding interest regarding the child is to develop in a healthy , safe and quiet environment where he would not experience psychological tension , fear and perpetual conflict . It would appear from [ ORG ] explanations and from email communications that there are reasonable grounds for stating that there is conflict in the relationship , personal discord , and an absence of tolerance between the parties , making communication between the respondent and his child complicated . However , according to medical documents submitted it can not be unequivocally asserted that the child \u2019s irritability is purely a consequence of the respondent \u2019s contact sessions with the child . The medical reports state that the child is especially active and demanding of exceptional attention from his mother and that this condition was recorded on CARDINAL DATE but \u2012 as stated by [ V.T. ] \u2012 the last time the [ applicant ] saw his child was DATE . This condition could therefore be caused by strained relations between [ GPE ] and [ the applicant ] . On the other hand , it should be noted that a child who is a minor can not be a hostage of his GPE conflict and the conflict relationship between the parties is not a circumstance justifying a need to restrict the [ applicant \u2019s ] contacts with his child .","During the proceedings it is permissible for a child to be questioned , unless this can not be done due to his age or degree of maturity . TIME was born on DATE , i.e. his age allows it to be concluded or to express his opinion , and he was therefore not questioned during the hearing .","In circumstances such as these , the court determines the procedure for the father to have contact with the child by taking into consideration the child \u2019s interests and by creating a possibility for the separated father to be involved in the child \u2019s upbringing ( ... ) . At the same time , the period during which a close emotional bond between the [ applicant ] and the child might be restored should be established as lasting until the child is DATE . \u201d","Accordingly , for DATE after the date when the ORG decision came into effect , the applicant was to communicate with his son for TIME per working day for DATE , in an environment to which the child was accustomed \u2013 at the child \u2019s home or the child care authority \u2019s premises , in the presence of his mother , a psychologist and a child care specialist . During the following DATE the applicant could communicate with his son CARDINAL four hours per day for DATE , either in the child \u2019s accustomed environment or in another place , in the presence of the child \u2019s mother or without her , if she so agreed . Lastly , during the period starting from DATE and until his son \u2019s seventh birthday , the applicant could see him on a DATE basis for DATE in DATE , DATE and DATE , in the child \u2019s accustomed environment , as agreed by the applicant and PERSON , but without her being present . The applicant also had the right to visit his son unimpeded whenever his child was sick . The parents were to ensure that the possibility existed for each of them to communicate with the child by telephone ( or other electronic means ) or some other form of communication .","The applicant acknowledges that he received the ORG decision on CARDINAL DATE .","NORP In response to the applicant \u2019s request for information , on CARDINAL DATE ORG sent the applicant a letter concerning his right to appeal against the decision of DATE within DATE . The court also informed the applicant about his right to restore a missed procedural time limit , if that time limit had been missed for serious reasons . The court further reiterated that the applicant had not appointed a representative living in GPE for dealing with contact rights and child maintenance , and on whom all the procedural documents would be served by the court . That being so , pursuant to LAW , all procedural documents addressed to a party residing abroad were left in the case file and were deemed to have been served .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to reopen the court proceedings . He argued that he had missed the statutory DATE time - limit for such reopening because he was a NORP citizen residing in GPE and did not speak NORP .","By a ruling of DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request for reopening . The court first pointed out that a judge \u2019s notice dated DATE had explained the applicant \u2019s duty to appoint a representative or an authorised person and the consequences of the failure to fulfil that duty ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , the applicant had not appointed any such representative . Furthermore , although the applicant acknowledged that he had been served with the DATE decision ( translated into LANGUAGE and containing the provisions as to how it could be appealed against ) on DATE , he had not asked for a re - opening of the proceedings until CARDINAL DATE , that is DATE after receiving it . In reply to the applicant \u2019s argument that he was a foreigner , the NORP court noted that the applicant knew the rules regulating ORG - provided legal aid and could have asked for it in a timely fashion , because in earlier proceedings for non - enforcement of the HCJ contact order , he had been provided with ORG - provided legal aid by a decision dated DATE ( see paragraph DATE above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed another request by the applicant to reopen the civil proceedings and to review ORG decision of DATE concerning the contact order between the applicant and his son . The court reiterated that the applicant had not communicated directly with his son since DATE . Similarly , there was no evidence of the applicant ever having visited his son either after the court decision of CARDINAL DATE regarding interim protective measures or after the subsequent decision of CARDINAL DATE , both of which allowed the applicant to see his child for TIME each day . As to the applicant \u2019s plea that the NORP court order would cause him inconvenience DATE especially the necessity of travelling to GPE \u2012 this did not mean that the contact as established by ORG on DATE had established was negligible . According to the contact order , the applicant could see his son on DATE , DATE . Knowing about such a contact order , the applicant could plan his work and income accordingly . It was also significant that , according to the contact order issued by the HCJ on DATE , the child had to be collected from the NORP embassy in GPE . Consequently , the applicant would in any case have to leave his place of residence and job in GPE and come to GPE . He would also inevitably have to invest time and money . Accordingly , taking into account the child \u2019s interests \u2013 his age , state of health , need for mother \u2019s attention , and the fact that the applicant had not directly communicated with his son since DATE \u2012 the contact order as set by ORG on DATE reasonably gave priority to the child \u2019s interests whilst not neglecting the applicant \u2019s right to be in contact with his son .","Lastly , ORG noted that ORG had moved to GPE in DATE . The child \u2019s residence had been declared to be GPE in DATE . PERSON had lodged the request that the child contact order be modified with GPE when DATE had passed after the move to GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It followed that \u2012 pursuant to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Regulation ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL \u2012 in DATE the GPE courts were no longer able to consider decisions concerning the modification of contact orders , as those cases fell within the jurisdiction of the court of the Member ORG where the child was habitually resident , in this case GPE .","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","On DATE , PERSON asked ORG to permanently restrict the applicant \u2019s parental rights . She argued that the applicant did not communicate with his son . In turn , the applicant asked the NORP court to suspend the proceedings until the ORG had examined his application against GPE ( no . MONEY ) . On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings in GPE until the applicant \u2019s case is decided by ORG ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153760","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CHINNICI v. ITALY (No. 2)","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in L\u2019Aquila .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was the owner of a plot of land designated as industrial land in L\u2019Aquila . The land in issue \u2013 of a surface area of QUANTITY \u2013 was recorded in the land register as Folio no . CARDINAL , FAC no . CARDINAL .","In DATE , the regional administrative authorities granted ORG for the industrial development of L\u2019Aquila ( \u201c Consorzio per il nucleo di sviluppo industriale di L\u2019Aquila \u201d , hereinafter \u201c the Consortium \u201d ) permission to occupy a portion of the applicant \u2019s land in order to begin the construction of an industrial compound .","On an unspecified date , the applicant brought an action for damages in the L\u2019Aquila ORG against the regional administrative authorities seeking compensation for the remaining portion of land which had become unusable following the occupation .","On DATE the regional administrative authorities issued an expropriation order in respect of the land .","Pursuant to the order , the consortium offered the applicant a global sum of MONEY ( ORG ) ( equivalent to LAW ) as compensation for the expropriation and compensation for the period during which the land had been occupied before the expropriation order had been issued .","The offer was refused by the applicant on the ground that he considered it inadequate .","NORP On DATE , contesting the amount that he had been awarded , the applicant brought proceedings against the Consortium in the L\u2019Aquila ORG . He argued that the amount determined by the regional authorities was extremely low in relation to the market value of the land .","On DATE Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE came into force ( \u201c Urgent measures aimed at stabilising public finances \u201d ) . LAW laid down new criteria for calculating compensation for the expropriation of building land . The PERSON was expressly applicable to pending proceedings .","On DATE , the applicant accepted the consortium \u2019s offer and requested the termination of the proceedings ( \u201c cessazione della materia del contendere \u201d ) .","By a provisional judgment delivered on DATE , ORG acknowledged the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and held that the amount of the compensation for the expropriation had to be in accordance with the new criteria laid down in the legislation \u2019s LAW . The court therefore rejected the applicant \u2019s request to terminate the proceedings , appointed an expert and instructed him to assess the compensation for the expropriation according to the new criteria .","On an unspecified date , the expert submitted his report .","By a judgment delivered on DATE and filed with the court registry on DATE , ORG held that the applicant was entitled to compensation in the sum of ORG , as calculated according to the criteria laid down in PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . Moreover , ORG held that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the period during which the land had been occupied before the expropriation order had been issued , in the sum of ORG CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The amounts were subject to tax , deducted at the source at a rate of PERCENT .","On an unspecified date the consortium appealed on points of law .","By a judgment delivered on DATE and filed with the court registry on DATE , ORG remitted the case to the L\u2019Aquila ORG .","By a judgment delivered on DATE , filed with the court registry on CARDINAL DATE , the L\u2019Aquila ORG acknowledged ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , whereby LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE had been declared unconstitutional , and held that the applicant was entitled to compensation corresponding to the full market value of the property .","Therefore , drawing on the court - ordered expert report submitted during the first set of proceedings , ORG concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation in the sum of ORG ( equivalent to ORG ) , which reflected the market value of the land at the time of the expropriation ( DATE ) , plus statutory interest . It did not , however , adjust the amount for inflation ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142005","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BARILIK v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr A. Fuchs , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is a judicial enforcement officer ( \u201c JEO \u201d ) . In this capacity , he acted on behalf of a creditor with a view to enforcing an order for payment against a private commercial company ( \u201c the debtor \u201d ) . In the furtherance of those proceedings , following the creditor lodging an enforcement petition , the applicant applied for a court order authorising the enforcement of a sum consisting of the principal judgment debt and his costs .","The costs were calculated on the basis of a formula applicable in instances when enforcement is actually carried out by the ORG , which is to say as a percentage of the principal amount to be enforced . It would later become the object of a dispute whether , in the event of voluntary payment by the debtor in the course of the enforcement proceedings , the costs were to be calculated differently , in particular on the basis of an TIME fee for the time actually spent by the ORG on the given file .","In the present case , prior to the issuance of the authorisation , the debtor had of its own motion paid the principal judgment debt and the applicant had been informed of that payment .","Nevertheless , after the authorisation had been granted , the applicant proceeded with the enforcement of the amount of his fees in full , in other words the sum that he would have been awarded as a ORG if he had actually carried out the enforcement of the order for payment .","Upon successful enforcement of the applicant \u2019s fees , the proceedings were terminated .","On DATE the debtor filed an action against the applicant seeking an order for payment of the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) by way of unjustified enrichment . It was argued that it had been absurd for the applicant to carry on with the enforcement knowing that the debtor had paid its debt before the enforcement had even been authorised .","The applicant defended the action and was represented by a lawyer . The action was heard by ORG s\u00fad ) on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .","At the conclusion of the hearing of DATE , ORG dismissed the claim . It held that the course of action taken by the applicant had been lawful in view of the fact that , at the time of the introduction of the petition for enforcement , the principal judgment debt had been payable and still outstanding . The requisite elements of a claim for compensation in respect of unjustified enrichment had therefore not been met .","NORP The debtor filed an appeal ( odvolanie ) to ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) , which heard the appeal on DATE and DATE .","On DATE , following the hearing held DATE , ORG allowed the appeal and overturned the first - instance judgment . It held that in instances of voluntary payment the ORG \u2019s costs were to be calculated on an TIME - fee basis ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . Calculating the applicant \u2019s costs as a percentage of the original award was disproportionate to the work carried out by him to complete the enforcement .","The enforcement of his costs thus calculated had therefore been unlawful and unjustified , which constituted unjustified enrichment on his part to be repaid to the debtor . As for the applicant \u2019s recoverable costs , he should have pursued them by way of a separate costs order .","On DATE ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) . It concurred with ORG conclusion , albeit on different legal grounds . In particular , it held that the case at hand was not CARDINAL of unjustified enrichment , but rather CARDINAL of damages . No hearing was held and the parties were not allowed to comment on this new legal qualification of the case .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under Article CARDINAL of the LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) . He relied on LAW and argued ( a ) the proceedings had been unfair in that ORG judgment had been arbitrary and ( b ) his right of access to court had been violated in that ORG had substantially changed the legal qualification of the case without allowing him an opportunity to comment . The proceedings had thus not been adversarial .","On DATE the ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly illfounded . It observed that it was not a court of final appeal against decisions of the ordinary courts and found no constitutionally relevant unfairness , arbitrariness or irregularity in the impugned judgment . In particular , it found no merit in the applicant \u2019s arguments , observing that proceedings on appeals on points of law were of a specific and extraordinary type which , as a general rule , called for no hearing and for the taking of no further evidence .","The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","The relevant provisions concerning appeals on points of law are laid down in Articles CARDINAL et seq . They are summarised in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of GPE PERSON Springer GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","In addition , Article PERSON provides that , as a general rule , appeals on points of law are to be determined without a hearing ; that a hearing may nevertheless be held as an exception if it is deemed necessary ; and that if a hearing is held , no evidence is to be taken .","In a judgment on an appeal in an unrelated case ( no . CARDINALCo DATE ) , ORG held that a reduction of the costs of enforcement to be paid by an enforcement debtor was only applicable if the enforcement debtor had voluntarily paid both the principal judgment debt and the costs of the enforcement .","In a judgment on an appeal on points of law in an unrelated case ( no . CARDINAL ) , ORG observed that , when exercising their office , JEOs exercise functions of a ORG organ . Their relationship with the parties to the enforcement proceedings is not , therefore , CARDINAL of private law . There is therefore no scope for a claim for compensation in respect of unjustified enrichment . The JEOs are rather liable for damages under special provisions of LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141929","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PALANCI v. SWITZERLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Turkey)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Paul Lemmens;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE of GPE - Stadt ( ORG ) .","NORP In DATE he entered GPE for the first time and applied for asylum . He lived there , working in the gastronomic sector , until DATE , when his asylum request was dismissed . On DATE he left GPE for GPE . On DATE he married his current wife , a NORP national with a residence permit for GPE , in GPE .","Because his wife had a residence permit for GPE , the applicant was able to re - enter the country on DATE , and he was given a residence permit on DATE . CARDINAL daughters were born to the couple in GPE in DATE , DATE and DATE . Additionally , the wife \u2019s eldest daughter from her first marriage , born in DATE , was also living with the couple .","NORP In DATE a criminal charge was brought against the applicant because he had been working without the requisite work permit . Furthermore , in DATE , having falsified his wife \u2019s signature on an official document , he was warned for the first time by ORG of ORG the GPE of ORG Basel - Stadt , PERSON - hereinafter \u201c the cantonal immigration authorities \u201d ) that he would have to expect immigration measures to be taken if he did not improve his behaviour .","In DATE the applicant and his wife separated . The children remained with the applicant \u2019s wife and he was ordered to pay maintenance by ORG of the GPE of GPE - Stadt .","On DATE the applicant was sentenced by ORG of Basel - Stadt to a suspended custodial sentence of DATE for multiple bodily assaults on his wife , in part committed with a dangerous object .","In view of his conviction , his considerable accumulation of debts and his dependence on social welfare , the cantonal immigration authorities issued a further warning to the applicant on DATE .","In DATE his wife filed for divorce . In DATE the cantonal immigration authorities again warned the applicant , since his debts had grown further and his entire family was living on social welfare .","NORP Despite those warnings , the applicant \u2019s debts grew further . In DATE they amounted to MONEY ( CHF ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . Additionally , he had failed to comply with his duty to pay maintenance for his family in the amount of CHF MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . In DATE the cantonal immigration authorities decided to extend the applicant \u2019s residence permit for DATE . However , he was firmly advised to take steps to improve his financial situation .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s wife withdrew her divorce petition . However , she did not wish to seek a reconciliation and the applicant was obliged to continue paying maintenance .","In DATE the applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment for wilful neglect of his obligation to pay maintenance .","In DATE the cantonal immigration authorities warned the applicant for the last time that he must expect implementation of the most serious immigration measures if his situation did not improve and his debts grew further . They gave him until DATE to prove that his financial and professional situation had stabilised and that he had complied with his obligation to pay maintenance .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s wife filed for divorce for the second time . She also brought another criminal charge against him for acts of aggression and threatening behaviour .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s wife withdrew her criminal complaint against the applicant for domestic violence .","NORP By letter dated DATE the immigration authorities informed the applicant of their intention to expel him from NORP territory and granted him a period of grace in which to make his submissions .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife withdrew her divorce action and from DATE the couple lived together again .","On DATE the cantonal immigration authorities decided that the applicant \u2019s residence permit would not be extended and that he had to leave GPE for an indeterminate period of time . They held that over DATE , owing to the applicant \u2019s continuously accumulating debts and his failure to pay maintenance , his family had been dependent to a considerable degree on social welfare , and he had not proved that he was capable of observing public order and safety in GPE . In accordance with section QUANTITY b ) and ( d ) of LAW on the Temporary and Permanent Residence of Foreigners ( hereinafter \u201c FAC \u201d - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and section CARDINAL of its LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he could therefore be expelled . They reasoned that since DATE , when the applicant had entered GPE for the second time , he had repeatedly been convicted of offences . Furthermore , despite the immigration authorities\u2019 repeated warnings , his financial situation was serious and had continuously deteriorated . As at the date of the decision , his debts amounted to MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and the outstanding maintenance payments to CHF CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . In addition , from DATE , he had worked as an associate of a company in the gastronomic sector without having previously applied for the necessary work permit . Although he had never paid maintenance or complied with the debt repayment agreements , he had invested capital of CHF MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in that company . The cantonal immigration authorities therefore concluded that the applicant had not complied with the conditions previously set out by them for renewal of his residence permit . Furthermore , the fact that the applicant had resumed matrimonial life with his wife on DATE did not alter those findings , since his wife had already filed for divorce twice and there had been incidents of domestic violence in the past . The applicant had , moreover , registered his residence at the family home only after he had been informed by the immigration authorities in DATE of their intention to expel him . However , he had spent DATE and DATE in GPE and it could therefore hardly be assumed that he had actually re - established family life . The applicant \u2019s return to his country of origin \u2013 GPE \u2013 was also feasible , because he had spent most of his life there and maintained close social and family ties with that country , as evidenced by his regular visits there . Additionally , even though he claimed that his relationship with his children was close , he had not paid maintenance for them since the separation from his wife . Lastly , the children were not prevented from visiting him in GPE and the contact could be maintained at a distance . The applicant \u2019s expulsion was therefore proportionate and he was required to leave GPE by DATE .","On DATE the applicant was sentenced for the second time to a suspended custodial sentence of DATE for wilful neglect of his obligation to pay maintenance .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the cantonal immigration authorities with the director of ORG the GPE of ORG ( ORG Kantons Basel - Stadt \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the director \u201d ) , who dismissed the appeal on DATE . The director established that the applicant had met the criteria for expulsion under domestic law in several respects . To begin with , the applicant had been logged in the criminal register CARDINAL times since DATE . While the majority of the sentences had been for minor offences \u2013 mainly against LAW \u2013 CARDINAL of them were serious convictions . These were : CARDINAL for domestic violence in DATE , resulting in a suspended custodial sentence of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , and CARDINAL others for wilful negligence of his obligation to pay maintenance , warranting CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment in DATE and a suspended custodial sentence of DATE in DATE . Since the applicant had thus been found guilty of imprisonable offences ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he fulfilled the criterion for expulsion as provided in section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Secondly , despite repeated warnings by the cantonal immigration authorities , the applicant \u2019s financial situation had continuously deteriorated . In this regard the director held that , despite having had several jobs in the gastronomic sector , the applicant had repeatedly tried to start his own business and had frivolously invested money in projects with poor prospects . His debts were therefore self - imposed and , from an overall perspective , he had , continuously throughout DATE , failed to show any willingness to observe public order and to integrate into the NORP system . He therefore additionally fulfilled the condition for expulsion according to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( b ) of FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and section CARDINAL of its LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . By contrast , despite still not having paid back to the ORG all the maintenance received for his family , after DATE the applicant \u2019s family had no longer been dependent on social welfare . Therefore , section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( d ) of FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) no longer applied to the applicant . With regard to LAW , the director further established that the applicant \u2019s expulsion was a proportionate interference with his right to respect for family life . The applicant had maintained close ties with his home country , which he had visited on many occasions . The applicant \u2019s wife had lived in her home country until DATE and she had visited GPE , together with the children , on many occasions . Moreover , she had also accumulated debts amounting to CHF CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) and was receiving an invalidity pension . Lastly , the children were still relatively young ( the oldest daughter being DATE at the time of the decision ) and they would therefore not encounter any serious difficulties if they returned to GPE with the applicant . The public interest in expelling the applicant to GPE therefore outweighed his personal interest in remaining in GPE .","On DATE ORG of the GPE of ORG ( ORG Basel - Stadt \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , a decision that was upheld by ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) on DATE . With particular regard to the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW , both courts held that , considered as a whole , his expulsion was proportionate . Even though the applicant had been living together with his wife again since DATE , his matrimonial situation had not proved to be very stable in the past . Furthermore , despite having maintained a close relationship with his children , for DATE \u2012 until DATE \u2012 he had completely neglected his obligation to pay them maintenance . Moreover , it would be possible to maintain a relationship with them at a distance without serious difficulty . The courts also found that the family would not encounter any major obstacles if they returned to GPE with the applicant . The children were still at an age where they could easily adapt to a new environment and the NORP language was their mother tongue . Furthermore , his wife had not proved to be particularly well integrated in GPE and was receiving an invalidity pension . The expulsion order against the applicant was therefore upheld .","NORP The cantonal immigration authorities gave the applicant a deadline of DATE for leaving GPE . The applicant left GPE alone .","NORP In letters of DATE and DATE , the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had been issued with a residence permit for GPE on DATE . He nevertheless wanted to maintain his application because DATE he had been obliged to live in GPE while his wife and children had remained in GPE . During this period he had not been able to support them financially but had visited them , at least once , in GPE .","Section CARDINAL of LAW on the Temporary and Permanent Residence of Foreigners of DATE , as in force at the material time , read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL A foreign national can be expelled from GPE or CARDINAL of its cantons only if :","( a ) he or she has been convicted by a judicial authority of a serious punishable offence [ Verbrechen ] or a less serious punishable offence [ Vergehen ] ;","( b ) his or her behaviour , in its entirety , or his actions demonstrate an unwillingness to adapt to the order established in the country that offers him hospitality or he is not capable of so adapting ; ...","( d ) if he or she , or a person he or she has to care for , is reliant on social welfare continuously and to a considerable degree ... \u201d","Section QUANTITY of LAW to LAW on the Temporary and Permanent Residence of Foreigners of DATE , as in force at the material time , read as follows :","\u201c ... CARDINAL An expulsion pursuant to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW is in particular justified where there are","serious and repeated infringements of norms or official orders ; ...","continuously malicious or dissolute non - observance of obligations under public or private law ;","other continued dissoluteness or work - shy behaviour ... \u201d","Section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , as in force at the material time , read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL Serious punishable offences [ Verbrechen ] are offences for which the custodial sentence is imprisonment in a penal institution [ ORG ] .","CARDINAL Less serious punishable offences [ Vergehen ] are offences for which the most severe sentence is detention in prison [ ORG ] . \u201c"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155837","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"RAMZI v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON M.M.A. PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Co - Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant entered GPE in DATE in order to follow university studies in GPE . In DATE he moved to GPE , where he worked as salesman in a small store .","In DATE , during a search conducted at the applicant \u2019s flat , the police found QUANTITY of cannabis and QUANTITY of opium . On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of possession of illegal drugs for personal use and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court also ordered the applicant \u2019s expulsion upon completion of his sentence . In the course of the criminal investigation ORG , the applicant \u2019s girlfriend and a NORP citizen , was heard as witness . She declared that she had known the applicant for DATE and that they had a son together , but she did not live with him . She also stated that he was a decent person and a good father who helped her raising their son . She explained that she had a key to his flat , where she would go once DATE so , depending on the problems she encountered with her son . The applicant did not appeal against the judgment of DATE .","On DATE , after the applicant had finished serving his sentence , ORG within ORG , taking into account the applicant \u2019s criminal conviction and based on the provisions of LAW . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the status of aliens , issued an order prohibiting him from entering GPE for a period of DATE . DATE , the applicant signed the order , thus acknowledging its receipt . He then left GPE voluntarily .","On DATE the applicant married ORG in GPE . On DATE ORG granted a request submitted by ORG and established the applicant \u2019s paternity of her child .","In DATE , the applicant requested the reduction of the DATE period laid down in the order of DATE . He based his request on an amendment to Emergency Ordinance No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL introduced in DATE , which allowed for a MONEY reduction in the term of a prohibition on entering GPE to be applied to illegal aliens who were married to a NORP citizen or had a child of NORP citizenship .","On DATE ORG replied to the applicant that the new amendment invoked by him did not apply to aliens who had committed crimes in GPE . Moreover , the applicant was informed that the amendment in question had come into force after he had already been expelled from GPE and it could not be applied retroactively .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint before the administrative court against this reply . He requested the courts in his case to apply the more favourable provisions introduced by the new amendment to Emergency Ordinance No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . Firstly , he argued that under amended LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the above - mentioned ordinance he would have the right to a MONEY reduction in the term of his prohibition on entering GPE because he had a wife and child who were NORP citizens . Secondly , he argued that the length of the ban on entering GPE could also be reduced to DATE as provided by the newly adopted provisions in cases of aliens who had committed crimes . Lastly , the applicant alleged that the initial measure imposed in his case and the letter of DATE rejecting his request for a reduction of the ban breached his right to family life as guaranteed by LAW since he had a child in GPE who was still a minor .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint , reasoning that civil law did not apply retroactively and he could therefore not benefit from the more favourable provisions of Emergency Ordinance No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL since they had been adopted after his expulsion . The court pointed out that the applicant had not contested the order of DATE setting forth the prohibition on entering GPE . It further held that LAW had not been breached since the measure adopted in the applicant \u2019s case was provided for by law , pursued the legitimate aim of preserving public order and protecting the rights and liberties of others , and had been applied because of the applicant \u2019s criminal conviction .","NORP The applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against this judgment was rejected with final effect by ORG and ORG on DATE . ORG , like the lower court , pointed out that the applicant had not contested the initial measure of DATE prohibiting him from entering GPE . It further held that the lower court had correctly ruled that the new amendments to Emergency Ordinance No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL did not apply retroactively . ORG also held that the applicant \u2019s allegations of a breach of his right to family life guaranteed by LAW were ill - founded since he had married and had his paternity established after the issuance of the ban on his entering GPE . Moreover , ORG observed that the applicant had married in GPE and had not produced any proof concerning the existence of an actual family life in GPE . Under these conditions , relying on the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and GPE , DATE ) , ORG considered that the authorities\u2019 refusal to apply the newly adopted regulations in the applicant \u2019s case had been a proportionate decision falling within the ambit of the second paragraph of LAW .","Article CARDINAL of LAW , as in force at the time of the applicant \u2019s conviction and referring to expulsion , reads as follows in its relevant parts :","\u201c A prohibition on remaining in GPE may be imposed on any alien who has committed a crime . \u201d","Emergency Ordinance No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the status of aliens , as it was in force on DATE , reads as follows in its relevant parts :","\u201c The order to leave NORP territory may be contested before ORG within DATE of notification thereof ... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) For aliens who have committed crimes , the term of the prohibition shall be equal to the length of their sentence , but DATE . \u201d","Following an amendment which entered into force on DATE , new rules for calculating the term of the prohibition on entering GPE became applicable . LAW above - mentioned ordinance was amended to read as follows in its relevant parts :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) For aliens who entered GPE illegally but whose stay has become legal , the term of the prohibition [ on entering GPE ] shall be as follows : ...","( CARDINAL ) The limits of the prohibition as set forth in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) above shall be reduced by CARDINAL for the aliens who :","...","d ) are married to NORP citizens or are parents of children of NORP citizenship who are minors .","( CARDINAL ) For aliens who have committed intentional crimes and have been expelled , the term of the prohibition shall be equal to the length of their sentence , but DATE . \u201d","The amendment of DATE did not include any special provisions concerning the aliens whose term of prohibition had been established under the former text of the Emergency Ordinance ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184463","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"IVANOVI\u0106 AND DOO DAILY PRESS v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants are Mr GPE Ivanovi\u0107 ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) , a LOC national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , and ORG ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) , a publishing company with its registered office in GPE . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE ( GPE ) and ORG ) , respectively .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The first applicant is a journalist and a co - founder and the executive director of the LOC DATE newspaper ORG . The second applicant is the publisher of the newspaper .","On DATE ORG celebrated its CARDINALth anniversary . After leaving the celebration venue the first applicant was assaulted in the dark and beaten up by CARDINAL unidentified attackers . As a result of the assault he sustained a broken cheekbone ( jagodi\u010dna kost ) and a number of haematomas and bruises .","DATE ORG published several articles relating to the assault , some of them including the first applicant \u2019s own comments .","NORP In particular , on DATE an article entitled \u201c A club from GPE and the family \u201d ( Palica od GPE i familije ) was published :","\u201c [ The first applicant ] said that the former Prime Minister PERSON had sent his hellhounds ( poslao svoje kerbere ) DATE TIME to beat him up .","[ The first applicant ] said that \u2018 those who rule ORG had congratulated ORG on its tenth anniversary by these means .","\u2018 It is a greeting from those ruling GPE , and that is PERSON and his family , be it biological or criminal\u2019 , said [ the first applicant ... ] . On ORG [ he ] told \u0189ukanovi\u0107 not to send his people on an ambush in the dark but to put himself on the line ( sam iza\u0111e na crtu ) instead of backing out in this kind of situation ( umjesto \u0161to u takvim situacijama spu\u0161ta pogled ) .","...","[ The first applicant ] considers that this was a warning to ORG to surrender ( da polo\u017ee oru\u017eje ) , and that there is an attempt to drown even the small islands of freedom in GPE , which make \u0110ukanovi\u0107 nervous . \u201d","DATE another article was published , entitled \u201c We shall not be intimidated \u201d ( Ne\u0107e nas upla\u0161iti ) , signed by ORG \u2019s editorial board ( redakcija ) . It contained , inter alia , the following :","\u201c For ORG there is no dilemma that the assault against [ its ] colleague PERSON , with his sharp criticism of reality here , is [ not only ] an attack on all those free - minded people gathered in ORG and around it , but also an attack on freedom of thought and speech in general . The motive is to silence ORG and all those , who unfortunately are not numerous , who refuse to consider transitional mud and crime as the best of all society . To intimidate all those who do not want to live in a ORG where the mafia and authorities are interwoven to such an extent that it is difficult to distinguish one from the other ( isprepleteni do neprepoznatljivosti ) , where the political top and mafia bottom are often on the same level , where smuggling is the backbone ( okosnica ) of the value system , and honest work and righteousness ( pravednost ) are laughed at in grandiose cafes . The intention is to warn once again those who do not accept this , that the list of unsolved murders can go on indefinitely ( sezati u nedogled ) .","It is difficult to expect that the police in this case will go beyond its limits , blockades in mind and in organisation , and will solve the crime , arrest the attackers , identify ( razobli\u010diti ) and imprison the instigators , those who ordered this . Even before ORG claimed that the LOC police were managed from outside the police , the prosecution from outside the prosecution , the judiciary from outside the judiciary , that there was a parallel secret service , ORG or ORG , all the same . It is a LOC reality and that is the real force , that is the weakness of the ORG ( nemo\u0107 dr\u017eave ) .","In any event , the objective responsibility for all that and for the assault against Ivanovi\u0107 lies with the regime headed for DATE by PERSON , who rules it even now , regardless of form . He and his people , from the top to the bottom , are responsible for an atmosphere in which journalists , writers , and all those who dare to think and speak differently , get hurt . ORG has no dilemma about it and it will continue its uncompromising criticism of both the ambiance and people responsible . \u201d","It was also mentioned that TIME before the assault the telephone of CARDINAL of the editors - in - chief of ORG had rung and that the person on the other end of the line had politely introduced himself as PERSON .","On DATE an article entitled \u201c Even the birds know that he is the boss \u201d ( I vrapci znaju da je kapo ) was published in ORG , and contained the following statements by the first applicant :","\u201c The man who has CARDINAL wars waged in the territory of ex - GPE on his conscience , an accomplice in politics which destroyed CARDINAL country , killed CARDINAL of people and displaced CARDINAL of others , a person who is charged with organised crime and criminal association before the relevant investigative bodies of NORP countries , the boss who developed a criminal - financial octopus which is strangling ( dr\u017ei za vrat ) GPE \u2013 that moral mountain of a man ( gromada ) is hurt , his honour harmed , and his mental anguish is such that only the courts can repair it ( jedino sud mo\u017ee sanirati ) .","...","I am ready for any court , even ORG , as I do not see anything new or any misdemeanour ( prekr\u0161ajno ) in anything I said , and even the birds know that he is the boss of the family , be it biological or criminal , which rules GPE and decides on all things , including the most precious \u2013 human life .","I invite him to try to prove his truth and defence on the public stage , and not through courts , prosecutors , criminals and his spokespeople . Because GPE needs to know that nothing lasts forever ( ni\u010dija ORG gorjela do zore ) .","My mother and I , we wish his child all the best . We want him in the future , as an honest and honourable citizen , to enjoy and be free and safe in a just and fair society , confident that the system of evil and injustice created and established throughout GPE by his father \u2013 for which both I and much more my mother suffer DATE will go to the dustbin of history . \u201d","On DATE an article entitled \u201c Various kinds of pressure \u201d ( NORP repertoar pritisaka ) was published in ORG , including the following statement by the first applicant :","\u201c These pressures came from the top of the ORG . Our family members were dismissed from work , threatened by anonymous calls , various inspections were sent to the company ... , in the end they attempted to steal ( otmu ) the majority of stocks so that the daily could be edited as it suited Mr \u0189ukanovi\u0107 . When all of this did not work out , the traditional methods were employed . \u201d","On DATE Mr PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the plaintiff \u201d ) instituted civil proceedings against the applicants , seeking MONEY ( ORG ) for the damage caused by all of the above articles and statements by the first applicant contained therein .","The applicants submitted that all the most senior political and ORG officials , including the plaintiff , should be held objectively responsible for increased crime , including assaults on and even the murder of journalists ( poslenika javne rije\u010di ) , and that the impugned articles should be seen in that context . They further maintained that the statements at issue were value judgments , and that the plaintiff , as a politician , had to display a greater degree of tolerance . They proposed that the parties to the proceedings and a number of other people be heard , and that an expert witness assess the level of mental anguish allegedly suffered by the plaintiff . They also maintained that the amount sought was too high and was aimed at suppressing freedom of expression . The applicants submitted that the courts should take into account the context and circumstances in which the statements had been made and the articles published . They relied , inter alia , on LAW and the ORG \u2019s case - law .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE ruled partly in favour of the plaintiff , concluding that his honour and reputation had been harmed , and ordering the applicants jointly to pay the plaintiff LAW in non - pecuniary damages and to publish the judgment in ORG at their own expense . In particular , the court found that the plaintiff \u2019s honour and reputation had been harmed by the first applicant \u2019s statements in the article \u201c A club from GPE and his family \u201d , and the contents of the article \u201c Even the birds know that he is the boss \u201d , which described the plaintiff and his family as criminals , and which associated him with organised crime and criminal association . The court relied on LAW , DATE , DATE and DATE of the LAW in force at the time , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE below ) , and ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Convention .","NORP In particular , the court considered that freedom of the press and other forms of public information , and the right to dignity and personal rights had to be balanced . It held that \u201c parts of the above articles \u201d were not value judgments but factual information , susceptible to proof , which had not been previously verified or proved , aimed at discrediting not only the plaintiff but his private and family life too . By publishing the above texts , which contained inaccurate , unproved information , without prior verification , subsequent rectification , acceptance of a mistake or a public apology to the plaintiff , the first applicant had persisted in harming the plaintiff \u2019s reputation . As the executive director of a news medium , the first applicant was especially expected to respect the rules when publishing information , particularly that which could be harmful to others . The above texts harshly ( grubo ) harmed the plaintiff \u2019s honour and reputation , considerably overstepping the limits of criticism to be tolerated by a politician , especially given that the impugned articles did not criticise the plaintiff \u2019s public work but put the plaintiff and his family in a criminal context .","The court further held that \u201c the right of the media to publish negative information and criticism relating to politicians did not give [ them ] the right to violate fundamental human values , the protection of which was provided in respect of every citizen regardless of his \/ her being a public figure or not . ... Public officials could not have fewer rights than others as that would be a violation of the principle of equality , which was guaranteed by the LAW . \u201d","The first applicant \u2019s allegations that he had made the impugned statements when he had been in a specific state after the assault were dismissed as unfounded . The court also refused other proposed evidence as unnecessary .","In assessing the amount of damages the court took into account the importance of the plaintiff \u2019s honour and reputation , the fact that several articles had been published in a DATE newspaper which had a high circulation ( visokotira\u017ean ) , traditional understanding of LOC society of moral human values , as well as the criminal context in which both the plaintiff \u2019s personality and his family had been put .","Both the plaintiff and the applicants appealed against the decision .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE held that only the following statements harmed the plaintiff \u2019s honour and reputation : \u201c \u0110ukanovi\u0107 had sent his hellhounds to beat [ the first applicant ] up \u201d ; \u201c it is a greeting from those ruling GPE , and that is PERSON and his family , be it biological or criminal \u201d ; \u201c the boss who developed a criminal - financial octopus which is strangling GPE \u201d , and \u201c he is the boss of the family , be it biological or criminal , which rules GPE and decides on all things , including the most precious \u2013 human life \u201d . It further held that instead of proving the veracity of the statements the applicants had repeated them . They had thereby misused freedom of expression , given that by \u201c exercising it one could not insult others and harm their honour , reputation and dignity \u201d , which was also prescribed in LAW .","The court took into account the ORG \u2019s opinion that politicians should display a greater degree of tolerance towards criticism , but considered that the above statements overstepped the limits provided for by freedom of expression and the plaintiff \u2019s obligation in that regard , especially given that the applicants had not refrained from mentioning the plaintiff \u2019s family in the same insulting context .","It also considered that the compensation of ORG CARDINAL was too high and reduced it to EUR CARDINAL jointly .","Lastly , the court held that the other articles and statements , especially the text \u201c We shall not be intimidated \u201d , criticised the situation in LOC society , and represented value judgments in respect of which no damages should be awarded . The court held that the applicants\u2019 arguments in that regard , submitted in their appeal , were well - founded , which influenced the amount of the damages awarded . The amount was also influenced by the circumstances in which the texts had been written and the statements made , but the court considered that these factors did not justify the publication of untrue information and its transmission through the media , but rather represented its misuse . According to ORG , the Convention and the ORG did not protect that kind of information and statements .","NORP This decision was served on the applicants on DATE .","On DATE a bailiff ( javni izvr\u0161itelj ) issued an enforcement order on the basis of which the plaintiff collected EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL from the second applicant \u2019s account . The amount was increased due to the accrued interest .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor ( PERSON dr\u017eavni tu\u017eilac ) filed an indictment against GPE for violent behaviour , and PERSON for violent behaviour and inflicting serious bodily harm on the first applicant .","On DATE ORG in GPE found GPE and PERSON guilty , on the basis of their confessions , and sentenced them both to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . It also established that they had been assisted by \u201c a certain PERSON from GPE \u201d . On DATE ORG in GPE reduced their sentences to DATE .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer sent a letter to ORG submitting that GPE and PERSON had been convicted contrary to all the evidence , and that even if they had been involved in the assault , there had been CARDINAL more people involved . He requested that the investigation be reopened in order to identify the others involved .","Below is further information considered relevant by the parties .","In DATE a publisher and the director of PERSON , a pro - opposition DATE newspaper , was killed in the street .","In DATE a group of individuals , including the first applicant , organised a petition and issued a press release opposing the award of a regional peace prize to the plaintiff . He was nevertheless awarded the prize .","The first applicant \u2019s gross income was QUANTITY ( ORG ) in DATE and EUR CARDINAL in DATE . The second applicant \u2019s profits were ORG CARDINAL in DATE and ORG CARDINAL in DATE .","DATE there were DATE separate attacks ( involving the planting of explosive devices , physical assaults , threats , car arson and the stoning of LOC ) against journalists or LOC of ORG . In spite of numerous measures undertaken by the relevant authorities ( questioning of various individuals , obtaining camera footage , checking telephone communications and polygraph questioning ) CARDINAL of these attacks remain unsolved to date . In CARDINAL other cases the perpetrators were identified , found guilty in criminal or misdemeanour proceedings , and either fined , given a suspended sentence , or sentenced to DATE in prison .","In DATE CARDINAL person was found guilty of coercion and jeopardising the safety of a freelance journalist , and was sentenced to DATE in prison . In DATE CARDINAL other individuals were found guilty of violent behaviour against a journalist of PERSON and were sentenced to DATE in prison .","DATE the domestic courts ruled in CARDINAL cases of an alleged harming of honour and reputation , in CARDINAL of which respondent parties were journalists and\/or DATE newspapers and\/or companies publishing DATE newspapers . The courts dismissed CARDINAL of them , and in CARDINAL ruled partly in favour of the claimant ( an individual ) , awarding him ORG CARDINAL of the EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL claimed against a journalist \/ writer .","On several occasions in DATE and DATE ORG urged the plaintiff to refrain from provocative language when speaking about ORG .","On DATE Human Rights Action \/ Akcija za ljudska prava , a LOC NGO , issued a report entitled \u201c Prosecution of attacks on journalists in GPE \u201d . The report mentions QUANTITY cases of assaults , threats , arson and so forth against various journalists ( including the assault against the first applicant ) , human rights campaigners and a writer . In CARDINAL incident a person ( the writer \u2019s driver \/ bodyguard ) was murdered . All of the incidents took place DATE and DATE . According to the report , the murders of the PERSON editor - in - chief and the writer \u2019s bodyguard have never been resolved , some prosecutions became timebarred , and in some cases where the perpetrators were identified their motives and those who ordered the attacks remained unknown . The report also considered the judgments issued in respect of the applicants to be in breach of LAW .","DATE reports were issued by ORG ( in DATE , DATE and DATE ) , ORG ( in DATE and DATE ) and ORG ( in DATE ) , which noted assaults and threats against journalists in GPE , the pressure they faced , the limited investigations and the consequent lack of accountability .","In DATE the Global Investigative Journalism Network awarded its prize to ORG \u201c for [ its ] series \u2018 GPE on GPE as a mafia state \u201d , which \u201c exposed how [ the plaintiff ] and his family bank [ were ] at the centre of an unholy alliance of government , organised crime and business . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the LAW in force at the time provided that everybody was obliged to respect the rights and freedoms of others , and that any abuse ( zloupotreba ) of those rights or freedoms was considered anticonstitutional and subject to punishment .","Article CARDINAL guaranteed the inviolability of an individual \u2019s physical and psychological integrity , privacy and personal rights , and his or her dignity and safety .","Article CARDINAL provided , inter alia , for freedom of expression .","Article CARDINAL provided for freedom of the press and other media , as well as the right of individuals ( gra\u0111ani ) to publicly express their opinions through the media ( u sredstvima javnog obavje\u0161tavanja ) .","Article CARDINAL provided for the right to reply and correction of incorrect published data or information , as well as the right to compensation for damage caused by the publication of untrue data or information .","Section CARDINAL provides that the media in GPE are free , and that freedom of information is guaranteed in accordance with the standards provided in international human rights texts ( ORG , ORG , ORG ) . It further provides that the LAW should be interpreted and applied in accordance with the principles of the LAW and the ORG \u2019s case - law .","Section CARDINAL provides that , unless otherwise provided by the LAW , the founder of the medium is responsible for the content it publishes . Should the media publish content which violates the statutorily protected interest of a person to whom the relevant information refers or insults someone \u2019s honour or integrity , or disseminate untrue allegations about someone \u2019s life , knowledge or competencies , the person concerned is entitled to lodge a compensation claim against the author and the founder of the medium .","Section CARDINAL provided that everyone had to refrain from actions which could cause damage to others .","Under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL , inter alia , anyone who had suffered mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of his honour or reputation could , depending on its duration and intensity , sue for financial compensation before the civil courts and , in addition , request other forms of redress \u201c which might be capable \u201d of affording adequate non - pecuniary satisfaction ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168391","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KOVACHEV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant and his brother co - owned a house with a yard and a garage in GPE .","By a decision of the mayor of CARDINAL DATE the property was expropriated with a view to constructing a residential building . The decision , based on LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LOC and Urban Planning Act of DATE ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0430\u043b\u043d\u043e\u0442\u043e \u0438 \u0441\u0435\u043b\u0438\u0449\u043d\u043e \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , stated that the applicant and his brother were to be compensated with flats in a building which the municipality intended to construct .","On an unspecified date the flats were constructed and delivered to the applicant and his brother .","On DATE the mayor modified the decision of CARDINAL DATE , stating that the CARDINAL brothers were also to be compensated with a common garage . The applicant \u2019s brother informed the mayor that he renounced his right to compensation with a garage in the applicant \u2019s favour .","By a supplementary decision of CARDINAL DATE , based on section CARDINAL of the PERSON , the mayor held that the applicant was to be compensated with the right to build a garage on a municipal land and determined the exact location of the future garage . The applicant did not appeal against that decision and apparently prepared to start the construction works .","By a decision of DATE the mayor modified the previous decision of CARDINAL DATE , indicating another municipal plot of land where the future garage was to be built , as it had turned out that the previous one was not owned by the municipality . That decision was not appealed against by the applicant , but was eventually set aside by the NORP regional governor after it had been contested by third persons .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant brought a tort action against the GPE , claiming a wrongful failure on its part to provide him with a garage . The action was dismissed , the final judgment being given by ORG on DATE . The domestic courts held that no unlawful inactivity on the part of the authorities had been established , neither had it been shown that the applicant had sustained any damage .","NORP In DATE the applicant agreed to receive compensation in cash in lieu of the garage due to him . It appears that the municipality had been offering such a solution since DATE . The compensation in cash was paid to the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160823","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ZYAKUN v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained .","On TIME a house was robbed and CARDINAL individuals were murdered in LOC of LOC . On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted in this respect .","According to the applicant , on DATE he was arrested in GPE ; the reasons for his arrest were not explained to him , no record of the arrest was drawn up , and there was a delay in charging him . He remained in detention thereafter . On DATE , the applicant was taken to ORG headquarters , where he was allegedly beaten up by police officers from the NORP Regional Police . According to the applicant , he had been handcuffed and remained so during TIME .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed in GPE by an officer of the NORP Regional Police concerning the circumstances of his business trip to LOC from DATE . According to a written explanation signed by the applicant , he denied any involvement in the murder .","According to the applicant , on DATE he was transferred to the Ivanivka police station , where he was allegedly subjected to beatings and psychological pressure by police officers with a view to obtaining a confession .","According to the arrest report drawn up by PERSON , an investigator from the GPE regional prosecutor \u2019s office , the applicant was arrested on DATE as a suspect in the criminal case . The applicant refused to sign the report . On DATE PERSON apprised the applicant of his right to defence and his right not to incriminate himself . According to a decision issued by PERSON on DATE , the applicant wished to be represented by PERSON , who was formally appointed as his lawyer . Thereafter , the applicant was questioned by ORG in his lawyer \u2019s presence and confessed to the robbery and murder of CARDINAL persons . According to the applicant , he was in fact questioned on DATE and the record of his questioning was backdated to DATE . The applicant further maintained that the lawyer had left the interview in protest against the applicant \u2019s poor state of health , but the lawyer \u2019s signature was added to the record of the questioning afterwards .","On DATE the applicant made a written confession in the Ivanivka police station ; his lawyer was not present .","On DATE another arrest report was drawn up by an officer on duty at the Ivanivka police station . It stated that the applicant had been placed under arrest on suspicion of murder . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . His lawyer was not present .","According to a statement from the applicant \u2019s wife , on DATE the lawyer PERSON informed her by telephone that her husband , who had been arrested in GPE on DATE , was in Ivanivka .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the GPE temporary detention facility ( \u0456\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u0442\u0438\u043c\u0447\u0430\u0441\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0442\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f , \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . According to the applicant , the ORG had initially refused to admit him because of his injuries and a medical officer arranged for him to attend the local hospital for a medical examination . At the hospital a general surgeon and a neurosurgeon examined the applicant and issued a medical certificate stating that he had bruising on his shoulders and hips , and extensive bruising on his head and face , but that there was no indication of brain damage . Subsequently , the applicant was taken back to the ORG but the medical officer sent him back to the hospital for an additional examination , as not all the injuries on his body had been recorded . However , the hospital doctors refused to issue a new certificate .","On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred from the ORG to the GPE pre - trial detention centre ( \u0441\u043b\u0456\u0434\u0447\u0438\u0439 \u0456\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 , \u201c the GPE \u201d ) .","On DATE the investigator charged the applicant and a Mr GPE with the robbery and murder of CARDINAL persons .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , lawyer PERSON was replaced by lawyer PERSON","On DATE the applicant complained to investigator ORG that the police officers had beaten him and put psychological pressure on him in order to force him to confess .","NORP In response to a request from the investigator PERSON , on DATE the ORG informed him about the injuries observed on the applicant on DATE and about the disagreement as to their full extent which had occurred on DATE .","On DATE investigator ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings into the above complaint for want of proof against the police officers . According to the investigator \u2019s decision , it was impossible to establish the circumstances in which the applicant had sustained his injuries . The investigator relied on a certificate from the GPE , according to which at the time of the applicant \u2019s admission to the GPE he had had no injuries , and on the ORG records of DATE describing the applicant \u2019s injuries . The investigator stated that despite this information from the ORG , the applicant had not raised any complaints during his questioning at the ORG . The decision was included in the applicant \u2019s criminal case file .","On DATE the applicant and his representative studied the criminal case file in its entirety .","On DATE the applicant refused to continue to be represented by lawyer PERSON and was given time to find a new lawyer .","On DATE the applicant wrote to the deputy prosecutor of the Odessa Region arguing that the decision of DATE had been based on an error and asking that his case be examined impartially and carefully . The applicant alleged that the ORG had originally refused to admit him because of his injuries and had agreed to admit him only after he had presented a written explanation of his injuries to the ORG medical officer .","On DATE the applicant concluded a contract with Mr PERSON , who represented him in the proceedings thereafter .","NORP Following remittal of the applicant \u2019s criminal case for an additional investigation , on DATE it was transferred to ORG for trial . According to the applicant , he had been allowed to study only part of the case file material .","In the course of the trial the applicant and PERSON retracted all their confessions , which they claimed had been given under duress , and asserted their innocence . The applicant raised the complaint that he had been illtreated . ORG questioned the investigator PERSON , who stated that the injuries recorded at the ORG could have been inflicted on the applicant in the course of arrest .","On DATE ORG found the applicant and his co - defendant ORG guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment with confiscation of their property . The court based their conviction , among other things , on the testimony of PERSON , who had seen the applicant and PERSON before and after the murder , on fingerprints from ORG found at the scene of crime , on the confessions made by the applicant and GPE in the presence of their lawyers , and on the applicant \u2019s written confession of DATE made in the absence of his lawyer . Commenting on the applicant \u2019s complaint of ill - treatment , the court also took into account the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE . It thus found that there was no evidence that the applicant \u2019s confession had been obtained under duress and rejected his complaint as unsubstantiated .","The applicant and his lawyer appealed in cassation , complaining , inter alia , of the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment in police custody , as a result of which he had confessed .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction . It noted that his complaint of ill - treatment had been thoroughly examined by ORG and had been lawfully rejected as unsubstantiated . It also mentioned that the applicant \u2019s guilt had been proved by his confession , among other things ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164199","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KRAVCHENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He was formerly a shareholder in CARDINAL private companies , O. and PERSON , which were liquidated on the basis of decisions by other shareholders . Accordingly , the local authorities struck the companies out of the list of legal entities . The applicant instituted several sets of court proceedings in that regard .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG of Dnipro ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against the local council and CARDINAL private persons , challenging the company \u2019s liquidation , claiming back his shares and seeking compensation . The applicant made changes to his claims on a number of occasions .","In the course of the proceedings , CARDINAL of the approximately CARDINAL hearings were adjourned at the request of CARDINAL or more of the parties , or owing to their failure to appear . DATE and DATE no hearings were held pending the outcome of appeals in cassation against a procedural decision by CARDINAL or other of the defendant parties . DATE courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction examined the question of whether the case should be considered within the framework of civil or commercial proceedings . Eventually , it was decided that the case should be examined under the rules of civil procedure and examination on the merits resumed in DATE .","Overall , the proceedings lasted for DATE , the final decision being taken by ORG on DATE . That court upheld decisions of ORG of DATE and of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) of DATE rejecting the applicant \u2019s claims as unsubstantiated . The courts found that there had been no violation of the applicant \u2019s rights as a shareholder of O.","In DATE the applicant brought a civil claim with ORG against the local council and a number of private persons , challenging the liquidation of company PERSON and the authorities\u2019 decisions in that regard . He also sought the restoration of the company as a legal entity , recovery of his shareholding and an order to declare the minutes of the NORP general assembly invalid .","On DATE , the court decided , in the applicant \u2019s presence , to leave his claim without examination , finding that it concerned essentially the same issue as CARDINAL which it had examined in proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s administrative claim ( see paragraph CARDINAL and QUANTITY below ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a statement of intent with ORG to appeal against the decision of DATE . On DATE he lodged an appeal , stating , inter alia , that that decision had been incorrect , as his administrative claim had concerned only a part of the issues raised in the civil claim .","On DATE ORG left the applicant \u2019s appeal without examination , finding that the statement of intent to appeal had been lodged outside the DATE time - limit envisaged by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the appeal decision , the time - limit in question had started to run from the date of the pronouncement of the contested decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal in cassation , finding no fault on the part of the lower courts .","NORP In DATE the applicant brought an administrative claim in ORG against the head of the local council , seeking the annulment of the decision striking PERSON out of the list of legal entities .","On DATE the court , having examined the case pursuant to ORG of DATE , rejected the applicant \u2019s claim as unsubstantiated , finding that the contested decision had been lawful . The court further noted that the applicant had made allegations of the unlawfulness of the ORG decision to liquidate the company , which could not be examined in the framework of administrative proceedings . It also noted that the applicant \u2019s claim had been brought out of time , though it did not consider it necessary to reject it on that ground .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the decisions of the lower courts and terminated the proceedings . It found that the claim should not have been examined within the framework of administrative proceedings , as it essentially concerned a property dispute . ORG noted that the applicant \u2019s claim could be heard under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153782","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"\u010cOKO v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Ms Nada \u010coko , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by Mr \u017d. \u010cogelja and ORG , advocates practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed from her employment at company B.","On DATE she brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking to have the company \u2019s decision to dismiss her reversed . Company B. had CARDINAL representatives in the proceedings , PERSON and PERSON","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( hereafter \u201c the principal judgment \u201d ) ORG ruled for the applicant and ordered her reinstatement .","By a judgment of DATE the ORG ( PERSON u PERSON ) dismissed an appeal by the defendant company and upheld the principal judgment . The applicant \u2019s representative was served with a copy of the second - instance judgment of the \u0160ibenik ORG on CARDINAL DATE . PERSON was served with a copy of it on DATE and PERSON on DATE .","On DATE the ORG stamped the applicant \u2019s copy of the principal judgment with certificates of finality and enforceability . Those certificates indicated that the judgment had become ( a ) final on DATE and ( b ) enforceable on DATE .","On DATE the defendant company applied to ORG seeking to have the certificate of the enforceability of the principal judgment set aside . In so doing it argued that the certificate wrongly indicated that the judgment in question had become enforceable on DATE whereas it had actually become enforceable earlier . That error was due to the fact that ORG , when determining the date of enforceability , had mistakenly taken into account the date on which judgment had been served on PERSON instead of the date on which it had been served on PERSON","On DATE the ORG set aside the certificate of enforceability of DATE . ORG held that , as the principal judgment had been served on PERSON on DATE , it had therefore already become enforceable on DATE , after the DATE grace period for voluntary compliance had expired ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c The certificate of enforceability of the [ principal ] judgment of ORG ... is hereby set aside .","...","The judgment ... became final on DATE , the date of the judgment of the \u0160ibenik ORG ... , by which the defendant \u2019s appeal was dismissed .","The judgment of the \u0160ibenik ORG ... was served on CARDINAL of CARDINAL representatives of the defendant on DATE , meaning that the DATE time - limit for voluntary compliance with the final judgment began on DATE , after the expiry of which the judgment became enforceable .","The fact that the second - instance judgment was served on the second defendant \u2019s representative on DATE has no significance for the enforceability of [ that ] judgment ...","Since this court has linked the issuance of the certificate of enforceability to the date of service on the defendant \u2019s second representative ... without bearing in mind that the defendant was duly served through the first representative ... the certificate of enforceability is hereby set aside . \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision , arguing that since DATE , the date on which the principal judgment had been served on her , she had made DATE enquires about the enforceability of the judgment with ORG , but had only been able to obtain a certificate of enforceability on DATE . The applicant also argued that this date should not be changed , even if only the date on which the principal judgment was served on the first of the defendant \u2019s CARDINAL representatives was taken into account , as the time - limit had been properly calculated from the date on which the acknowledgement of acceptance of service had been returned to ORG .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision . It held that the principal judgment had indeed been served on PERSON on DATE and had become enforceable DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint arguing that the decisions of ORG and ORG had deprived her of the ability to have the final judgment entitling her to reinstatement enforced , as they had retroactively created a situation in which her application for enforcement had been lodged outside of the DATE statutory time - limit provided in section QUANTITY of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant complained about the significant gap between the date when the defendant \u2019s first representative PERSON had signed the acknowledgement of acceptance of service and the date when he had returned it to ORG .","On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible because the contested decisions were not susceptible to constitutional review as they could not be regarded as decisions referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) against which a constitutional complaint could be lodged .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant applied for enforcement of the principal judgment to ORG . She also sought payment of salary arrears in the period DATE and DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG issued a writ of execution ( rje\u0161enje o ovrsi ) ordering the defendant company to reinstate the applicant within DATE . It however dismissed her claim for salary arrears .","Both the applicant and the defendant company appealed against that decision . In its appeal , the defendant company claimed that the applicant had failed to comply with the DATE statutory time - limit for seeking the enforcement set forth in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) because she had been served with the second - instance judgment of DATE already on DATE but had applied for enforcement only on DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the defendant company \u2019s appeal . It found that the applicant had applied for the enforcement of the principal judgment on DATE that judgment had become enforceable and thus complied with the statutory time - limit provided in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) . At the same time , the court allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal and quashed the part of the first - instance decision dismissing the applicant \u2019s claim for salary arrears and remitted the case .","In the resumed enforcement proceedings , ORG held hearings on DATE and DATE . These hearings were adjourned after the defendant company asked the court to wait for a decision on its application to have the certificate of enforceability of the principal judgment set aside ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Another hearing was held on DATE . It was adjourned due to the possibility of the parties reaching an out - of - court settlement . At a hearing held on DATE the court decided to forward the entire case file to its President with a view to deciding on the defendant company \u2019s application to set aside the certificate of enforceability .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) discontinued the enforcement proceedings because a certificate of enforceability had in the meantime been set aside ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The applicant did not appeal against that decision .","NORP The relevant part of LAW on LAW ( PERSON o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE \u2013 \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , as amended by DATE Amendments ( PERSON o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON zakona o PERSON sudu PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , which entered into force on DATE , reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Anyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG if he or she deems that the decision of a ORG authority , local or regional government , or a legal person invested with public authority , on his or her rights or obligations , or as regards a suspicion or accusation of a criminal offence , has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms , or the right to local or regional government , guaranteed by LAW ( \u201c constitutional right \u201d ) ...","NORP If another legal remedy is available in respect of the violation of the constitutional rights [ complained of ] , the constitutional complaint may be lodged only after this remedy has been exhausted .","NORP In matters in which an administrative action or , in civil and non - contentious proceedings , an appeal on points of law [ revizija ] is available , remedies shall be considered exhausted only after the decision on these legal remedies has been given . \u201d","The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o parni\u010dnom postupku , ORG of ORG no . CARDINAL with subsequent amendments , and ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL with subsequent amendments ) , which has been in force since DATE , provides as follows :","Section CARDINAL","\u201c If a party has several legal representatives or agents , it shall be sufficient to serve a decision on CARDINAL of them . \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL )","\u201c A judgment which can no longer be contested by an appeal shall become final where it decides on the plaintiff \u2019s claim or on a counter - claim . \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL )","\u201c A judgment shall not take effect in respect of the parties until DATE it is served on them . \u201d","Section CARDINAL provides for a time - limit within which a judgment debtor can voluntarily comply with ( execute ) the judgment ( paricijski rok \u2013 \u201c the grace period \u201d ) . The lodging of an appeal suspends the running of the grace period . The provision reads as follows :","\u201c When a judgment debtor has been ordered to do something by the judgment , the court shall set a time - limit for performance .","Unless special legislation provides otherwise , the time - limit for performance shall be DATE . However , if the performance does not entail payment of money the court may set a longer time - limit . ...","The time - limit for performance shall start running on DATE after the service of a copy of the judgment on the judgment debtor . \u201d","Section CARDINAL provides that in employment disputes the grace period is DATE .","The relevant part of LAW of DATE ( Ovr\u0161ni zakon , ORG , no . CARDINAL with subsequent amendments ) , which was in force between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , at the material time provided as follows :","Enforceability of a [ court ] decision","Section PERSON )","\u201c A court decision ordering [ the judgment debtor ] to give or do something shall be enforceable if it has become final and if the time - limit for voluntary performance [ that is , the grace period \u2013 paricijski rok ] has expired . The time - limit for voluntary performance runs from the date the decision is served on the enforcement debtor [ the judgment debtor ] , unless the law provides otherwise . \u201d","Certificate of enforceability","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL )","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If an application for enforcement is lodged with a court which did not decide on the claim at first instance , the application must be accompanied by the original or a copy of the enforcement title having the certificate of enforceability ...","( CARDINAL ) A certificate of enforceability shall be issued by the court or [ other ] authority which adjudicated on the claim at first instance . \u201d","( CARDINAL ) Any certificate of enforceability that was issued without the necessary statutory requirements shall be set aside by the court or [ other ] authority by a decision , upon request or of its own motion . \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , as in force at the material time , provided that the enforcement court was not entitled to dismiss of its own motion an application for enforcement based on a court judgment which , by the time the application was being decided upon , had become final but had not yet become enforceable . Section CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c The court shall not of its own motion declare inadmissible an application for enforcement based on a final judicial decision [ notably , a judgment ] , in - court settlement or notarial deed solely on the ground that those documents have not been stamped with a certificate of enforceability or because [ they ] have not become enforceable at the time the application for enforcement is being decided upon ... \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , as in force at the material time , stated grounds on the basis of which the enforcement court could discontinue the enforcement . That provision read as follows :","\u201c Unless this LAW provides otherwise , the court shall of its own motion discontinue enforcement proceedings if the enforcement title was finally quashed , reversed , annulled , repealed or otherwise deprived of its effect , or if the certificate of enforceability was set aside . \u201d","Chapter CARDINAL of LAW regulated the enforcement of judgments ordering the reinstatement of employees . The relevant provision of that LAW read as follows :","The time - limit for lodging an application for enforcement","Section CARDINAL","\u201c An application for enforcement [ on the basis of an enforcement title ordering an employer to reinstate an employee ... ] may be lodged within a time - limit of DATE from the date the enforcement creditor acquires the right to lodge such application . \u201d","NORP legal scholars have expressed the opinion that setting aside the certificate of enforceability did not automatically lead to discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings , as the text of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) appeared to suggest . This was especially so in the situations such as the one referred to in section CARDINAL ) of the same Act , namely , where the judgment sought to be enforced had become final but had not yet become enforceable ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In such situations the enforcement court was not entitled to discontinue the enforcement proceedings . In particular ( see PERSON , GPE : Gra\u0111ansko ovr\u0161no pravo [ Civil Enforcement Law ] , ORG novine , GPE , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) :","\u201c If the certificate of enforceability was set aside on the grounds which do not prevent [ the enforcement creditor from ] seeking enforcement without such certificate ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) [ of LAW ] ) , the fact that the certificate of enforceability was set aside can not be a ground for discontinuation of the [ enforcement ] proceedings . \u201d","As regards the issue how the time - limit provided for in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was to be calculated the same author expressed the following view ( see PERSON , GPE : CARDINAL . , p. CARDINAL ) :","\u201c The time - limit [ in question ] should in principle be calculated from the moment the enforcement title [ for example , a judgment ] becomes enforceable . However , given that the enforcement creditor has to exercise his or her right within that time - limit , the moment when that time - limit starts to run has to correspond to the moment when the enforcement creditor learns that [ the judgment sought to be enforced ] has become enforceable . CARDINAL often has to wait some time to find out whether and [ , if so ] when the enforcement debtor [ the judgment debtor ] has received the first - instance [ judgment ] and whether he or she has appealed against it [ , and if so ] when the second - instance [ judgment ] dismissing the appeal and upholding the first - instance judgment was served on the enforcement debtor and when the grace period for voluntary compliance which started to run from the service of that [ second - instance judgment ] expired . Therefore , it should be understood that DATE time - limit should start to run from DATE the court was able to issue the certificate of enforceability .","...","Given that the court is not entitled to declare inadmissible of its own motion an application for enforcement based on a final court judgment ... simply because [ the judgment sought to be enforced ] has not been stamped with a certificate of enforceability at the time the application for enforcement is being decided upon , or to dismiss such application because the judgment to be enforced has not become enforceable ( section CARDINAL ) [ of LAW ] , it should be understood that the employee would be entitled to apply for enforcement even before [ the judgment sought to be enforced ] became enforceable ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182853","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF VUJOVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and CARDINAL other person in connection with a traffic accident which had resulted in death of a child .","On DATE ORG in GPE convicted the applicant for endangering public traffic and sentenced him and his co - accused to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On an unspecified date in DATE ORG in GPE quashed this judgment and remitted case back to ORG .","On DATE ORG adopted a new judgment and again convicted the applicant and his co - accused . But the court reduced the sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the ORG further reduced the sentence of the applicant \u2019s co - accused , but upheld the judgment of ORG in respect of the applicant .","The applicant \u2019s subsequent appeal against the judgment of ORG was rejected on DATE .","Following that rejection , on an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant lodged a further appeal on points of law ( zahtjev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosna\u017ene presude ) with ORG .","On DATE ORG rejected this appeal .","On DATE the applicant lodged an action for fair redress ( tu\u017eba za pravi\u010dno zadovoljenje ) with ORG , complaining about the overall length of criminal proceedings . It was rejected on DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s ultimate appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-176827","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MIRZASHVILI v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and was at the material time serving a prison sentence in FAC no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having robbed an individual of his vehicle , his mobile phone , and a sum of money while armed . He was placed under investigation DATE and questioned twice . He protested his innocence , providing an alibi , and said that he had cancer and was undergoing treatment at an oncology clinic . The applicant was identified by the victims . Maintaining his innocence , he refused to sign the record of the identification procedure .","During questioning on DATE , the applicant repeated his alibi and complained about his state of health . On DATE he was charged with theft and armed robbery ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code respectively ) .","On DATE ORG granted an application by the prosecutor to place the applicant in pre - trial detention for DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the decision was upheld by ORG , despite the applicant \u2019s submission that he was ill and would not attempt to evade justice . The applicant was placed in FAC no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty of the charges and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment by the court of first instance .","The applicant appealed to ORG . After examining the witness statements in the light of the other evidence , ORG found that the applicant \u2019s alibi lacked credibility . By a judgment of DATE , it amended the judgment of DATE in the part concerning the classification of the offences , but upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction and prison sentence .","ORG of GPE dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant on an unidentified date .","In DATE the applicant had an operation to remove a malignant tumour from his right testicle . He subsequently had chemotherapy on a sporadic basis . As the illness then returned , he had another operation in DATE . According to a medical certificate dated DATE , the applicant also suffered from chronic hepatitis C ( ORG ) .","Shortly after being placed in detention , on DATE , the applicant was transferred to the prison hospital . After confirming the diagnosis of chronic ORG and that he had been recently treated for cancer of the right testicle , doctors recommended he have a consultation with an oncologist and a special medical examination . On DATE the head of the surgical unit wrote to the prison hospital \u2019s acting head doctor , informing her that the applicant needed to be examined by a urological oncologist at ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . He noted that the applicant was ready to bear all the costs himself . In DATE doctors again recommended he be seen by an oncologist specialising in urology . The case file shows that the applicant was not transferred to the ORG or examined by an oncologist . He stayed at the prison hospital until DATE and , according to his medical records , he was provided with treatment for his symptoms , which consisted of pain medication .","After several prison transfers and given that his health was still unsatisfactory , the applicant returned to the prison hospital on DATE . On DATE an oncologist concluded after examining the applicant that the cancer had returned and that he also had pain in his left testicle . He had lost weight and the chronic ORG had worsened .","On DATE , at the request of the applicant \u2019s defence , a group of independent experts submitted a report on his health . They diagnosed him with cancer of the right testicle at stage CARDINAL B in clinical group ORG . The experts considered that given the degree of the tumour \u2019s malignancy the applicant \u2019s state of health could be considered as potentially serious . The rest of the tumour would have to be removed and the applicant given an intensive course of chemotherapy in conditions of stability . He would have to undergo check - ups every three months for DATE .","On DATE the applicant was sent back to GPE Prison no . CARDINAL . The authorities refused a request for his return to the prison hospital sent by his lawyer to the director of the prisons department of ORG , the prison governor and other authorities .","On DATE the applicant was sent to the ORG for a course of chemotherapy . On DATE , before being discharged , the oncologist recommended that the applicant return after DATE for a check - up and more chemotherapy . At the same time , in view of the further progress of the disease , he recommended that the applicant be placed under permanent medical supervision in the prison hospital .","The applicant was put in the prison hospital from CARDINAL to DATE , receiving treatment for his symptoms . On DATE he was moved from the prison hospital to FAC no . CARDINAL . Contrary to the oncologist \u2019s recommendations , the prison administration did not send the applicant back to the ORG after DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a complaint with ORG , drawing the judge \u2019s attention to his client \u2019s poor health , caused by a lack of adequate treatment which , in his view , could lead to his death . He complained in particular about the fact that the applicant had not been able to attend intensive chemotherapy sessions , despite ORG recommendations . The lawyer asked ORG to order an expert report to reassess his client \u2019s state of health , determine whether the prison hospital was able to provide him with the necessary treatment and whether the conditions of his detention could have a negative impact on his health . It also had to establish whether the applicant \u2019s life would be put at risk if the authorities failed to place him in a specialist clinic .","On DATE , ORG , having received an objection from the prosecutor , rejected the lawyer \u2019s request and decided to summon the oncologist who had signed the recommendation of DATE .","On DATE the applicant was placed in the prison hospital . On DATE his doctor concluded that the applicant required a transfer to the ORG for more chemotherapy . The doctor subsequently reiterated his recommendation , however , it was in vain as no transfer followed . By DATE the applicant \u2019s condition had deteriorated . According to his medical records , he suffered constant pain and regularly received strong painkillers . The doctor in charge noted on a regular basis in the medical record that the applicant needed to be transferred to the ORG urgently .","In the meantime , in the context of the criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant , ORG ordered that he be examined at the ORG .","On DATE , the applicant was admitted to the ORG , where he stayed until DATE in order to undergo a course of chemotherapy . At the same time a report concerning his medical condition was issued , which confirmed the diagnosis of cancer of the right testicle at stage CARDINAL B in clinical group ORG . The experts held that the results of the chemotherapy meant that the applicant \u2019s state of ill health could not be described as serious . Nevertheless , given the malignancy of the tumour the cancer could return . Consequently , several chemotherapy sessions were necessary to consolidate the success of the previous treatment . In addition , the applicant needed check - ups in a specialist clinic DATE .","He was then returned to the prison hospital on DATE , with a recommendation for another course of chemotherapy after DATE . In DATE the doctor in charge of his case repeatedly noted in his medical records that he required chemotherapy . The medical file shows that only treatment for his symptoms was available at that time .","On DATE the applicant returned to the ORG for chemotherapy . On DATE he was transferred back to the prison hospital with a recommendation for regular DATE medical tests . On DATE he was sent to ORG no . CARDINAL and given a recommendation for an examination after DATE . No record of his medical care at FAC no . CARDINAL and the subsequent DATE , if any , has been submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the prison hospital , where he had various medical tests and had a consultation with an oncologist and a chemotherapy specialist . The latter concluded that there was no need for continued chemotherapy and noted that the applicant was due to return to the prison hospital for another check - up within DATE . As for the applicant \u2019s ORG , a liver function test had helped establish that the amount of bilirubin was within the norm and that no antiviral treatment was required at that stage . On DATE the applicant complained about being discharged from the prison hospital and of a lack of adequate medical care , particularly for his ORG . He stated that the chemotherapy had had an adverse effect on his liver and that he required urgent care in that regard . Notwithstanding his complaint , on DATE he was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL .","The applicant submitted that he had borne the costs of his stays in hospital and treatment with the support of his family . According to the invoices in the case file , CARDINAL NORP laris ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) were spent on his treatment at the ORG . The applicant also submitted a certificate which stated that in the framework of a state - funded programme to combat cancer he had benefitted from a PERCENT reduction in the cost of treatment and a PERCENT reduction in the cost of diagnostic tests . Without those reductions , the family would not have been able to pay for his treatment .","On DATE the ORG , acting under LAW , indicated to the Government that the applicant should be placed in the prison hospital , where he could be provided with adequate medical treatment for his cancer and chronic ORG . The Government were also directed to ensure that the applicant was provided with all the relevant medical tests before commencing antiviral treatment and that his treatment be determined in consultation with an oncologist .","The applicant was transferred to the prison hospital DATE . On DATE , he was taken to a specialist civilian medical institution , where he underwent a tomography scan , which revealed a cyst - like lump . Doctors recommended a cancer marker blood test and an examination by an oncologist . Upon his return to the prison hospital , on DATE , the applicant had a consultation with a chemotherapy specialist , who concluded that he required several liver tests in view of his ORG diagnosis and further chemotherapy . The applicant was immediately offered chemotherapy at the prison hospital under the surveillance of an oncologist and a chemotherapy expert . However , he rejected that offer and on DATE requested a transfer to a specialist medical establishment . In that connection , the applicant argued that the conditions at the prison hospital were not appropriate for chemotherapy and that the relevant specialists were not present on a permanent basis to monitor his condition .","On CARDINAL DATE a medical panel at the prison hospital , including an oncologist , chemotherapy doctor and a liver specialist , concluded that treating both of the applicant \u2019s diseases simultaneously was not advisable . They concluded that chemotherapy was the priority and that the antiviral treatment should be postponed . On DATE the applicant was again offered chemotherapy at the prison hospital , but he refused and requested a transfer to the ORG . In reply to his request , by a letter of DATE , the head of social services at the prisons department asked the applicant to substantiate his request and explain the reasons for his dissatisfaction with the prison hospital . The applicant noted in a letter of CARDINAL DATE that the prison hospital , inter alia , did not employ a chemotherapy specialist who was present on a DATE basis and that he would therefore be left without DATE medical supervision there .","According to the medical file , the applicant on CARDINAL DATE again had a consultation with a chemotherapy doctor . Whilst confirming the need for chemotherapy , the doctor also noted that the applicant required various liver tests before antiviral treatment could commence .","In a letter of DATE the head of social services stated that the prison hospital was adequately equipped to provide the applicant with chemotherapy under the supervision of relevant specialists . He noted that several other inmates had had such treatment at the prison hospital and there was therefore no need to transfer the applicant to a specialist civilian hospital .","The Government informed the ORG in a letter of DATE about the applicant \u2019s refusal to have chemotherapy in the prison hospital . Treating it as obstructive behaviour and referring to the associated health risks , the ORG asked the ORG to provide them with any further indications at its earliest convenience .","On DATE and DATE the applicant asked the ORG , under Rule DATE , to indicate to the Government to transfer him to the ORG for chemotherapy . He reiterated his argument concerning the inadequacy of the equipment at the prison hospital for providing the requisite treatment for his cancer . In support , he noted that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL prisoners who had had chemotherapy at the prison hospital had passed away .","On DATE the ORG , acting under LAW , requested that the Government transfer the applicant to the ORG for more chemotherapy . On DATE the applicant was transferred to the ORG , where he had a tomography scan , which showed that there had been no progression of his retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy in the abdominal cavity and that tumour markers were within normal limits . At the same time the scan revealed changes in his left lung and doctors recommended that he have a further examination . Following additional medical tests the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis ( \u201c TB \u201d ) in the left lung . On DATE he had a resection of the upper part of the left lung . On discharge from the ORG in DATE , it was noted that his condition was stable but that he required specialist treatment in a tuberculosis unit . The need for DATE oncological check - ups was also noted .","On DATE the applicant had a consultation with a liver specialist , who noted a low level of pathological activity in the applicant \u2019s ORG and prescribed treatment with various hepatoprotectors . At the same time he was offered anti - TB treatment within the ORG programme ( Directly Observed Treatment , GPE \u2013 the treatment strategy for the detection and cure of GPE recommended by ORG ) , which he refused . On DATE and then on DATE the applicant also had ORG tests . The results showed no replication of the hepatitis and accordingly no need for antiviral treatment . The applicant was prescribed continued treatment with various hepatoprotectors .","Over DATE the applicant was kept mainly in the prison hospital , except for short periods in DATE , and DATE and DATE , when he was transferred to the ORG and other civilian hospitals for check - ups . The medical records show that over that time the applicant was kept under constant medical supervision , having regular laboratory tests and examinations ( blood and urine tests , ultrasound examinations , several tomography scans , determination of cancer markers , and bacteriological sputum tests ) , and having repeated consultations with medical specialists , including an oncologist , urologist , and an infection specialist . The medical file also shows that DATE and DATE the applicant underwent a comprehensive forensic examination at ORG . As a result his diagnosis was defined as follows : cancer of the right testicle at the first stage in clinical group III in a postchemotherapy and post - resection period . The applicant \u2019s condition was described as satisfactory , with the experts noting no hepatological pathology , inactive tuberculosis bacteria and no progression of the cancer .","On DATE the ORG updated the ORG on the treatment provided to the applicant for his various diseases . When submitting the applicant \u2019s complete medical file for DATE , the ORG maintained that the applicant \u2019s diseases were not showing any signs of progression . They submitted that they had taken all the necessary measures for the protection of the applicant \u2019s health in prison and asked the ORG to lift the interim measure indicated on DATE .","By a letter of DATE , the applicant objected to being discharged from the prison hospital . He stated that the medical evidence submitted by the Government did not support the assertion that he did not require further medical treatment . He also noted that he had never been provided with any treatment for his chronic ORG and that his health would again deteriorate if he was transferred to FAC no . CARDINAL .","In the light of the information provided by the parties , ORG DATE decided to lift the interim measures previously indicated on DATE and DATE under Rule DATE .","The applicant was detained in GPE Prison no . CARDINAL between DATE and DATE , including several transfers to the prison hospital . According to the applicant , the conditions of his detention in FAC no . CARDINAL were appalling . He was kept in an overcrowded cell , where he had to take turns to sleep , getting a maximum TIME of sleep a day . The sanitary and hygiene conditions in the cell were bad and he was not allowed to have DATE outdoor exercise .","The applicant mainly spent DATE in FAC no . CARDINAL and the prison hospital . According to the applicant , the food provided in those establishments was so poor that his family had to regularly supply him with food at their own expense . Furthermore , he was deprived of basic items of hygiene , such as toilet paper , soap and bed linen ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172073","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF YEVGENIY ZAKHAROV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Until DATE the applicant was married to PERSON and was living with her in a state - owned flat which had been provided to PERSON \u2019s parents . The applicant was registered as living in that flat .","In DATE the applicant and PERSON divorced and the applicant moved in with his new partner , PERSON At that time he did not apply for deregistration from the flat which he had occupied with his former wife . Later PERSON privatised that flat , and the applicant lost occupational right to it .","B. occupied a room in a CARDINAL - room communal flat under a social tenancy agreement . The other CARDINAL rooms were occupied by her neighbours . The applicant and PERSON lived together in that room for the following DATE . They never married and the applicant was not registered as living in the room .","In DATE B. died and her neighbours locked the applicant out of the flat . The local housing authority informed the applicant that he had to vacate the room , since he had no legal right to occupy it .","On DATE the applicant instituted court proceedings against the local administration , seeking recognition of his right to occupy the room as B. \u2019s family member . He submitted that he and PERSON had been living in the room as husband and wife since DATE , but that after her death her neighbours had locked him out of the room . He considered that despite the fact that he had not been married to PERSON and had not been registered as living in the room , he should be regarded as a member of her family who had acquired the right to occupy her room . In particular , he raised the following arguments :","- he had shared a common household with B. ;","- he had paid for the maintenance of the room ;","- he had assumed the cost of B. \u2019s burial ;","- he had no other housing : he could not return to the flat of his former wife PERSON since she had become the owner of that flat and lived there with her new family ;","- on DATE he had asked the authorities to deregister him from the flat of his former wife PERSON ;","- since his eviction , he had been obliged to live in the school in which he was working as a night watchman .","The local administration submitted that the applicant had not been registered as living in PERSON \u2019s room , he was not a member of PERSON \u2019s family and , therefore , he had not acquired any right to occupy her room .","B. \u2019s neighbours were invited to participate in the proceedings as third parties . They confirmed that DATE the applicant had lived in the room with PERSON and had provided her with financial support . However , they considered that PERSON \u2019s room should be allocated to them and not to the applicant , since there were CARDINAL of them living in CARDINAL rooms and they needed to upgrade their living conditions .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) of GPE granted the applicant \u2019s claim with reference to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see Relevant domestic law and practice below ) . ORG established , in particular , that DATE the applicant had cohabited with B. in the room in question , had shared a common household with her and had been removed from the register at his previous place of residence . ORG considered that the above circumstances should be regarded as exceptional within the meaning of LAW and that the applicant should therefore be regarded as a member of PERSON \u2019s family who had acquired the right to reside in the room previously occupied by her .","NORP The local administration did not appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","The third parties appealed against that judgment to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . They submitted that PERSON had on several occasions chased the applicant away . She had not applied to the authorities with a request to register him as living in her room , and had not asked that his name be added to the social tenancy agreement as a member of her family . The applicant had not paid any utility charges for the room and had been registered as living elsewhere until PERSON \u2019s death .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims . The relevant part of the decision of CARDINAL DATE reads as follows :","\u201c When granting the claims of PERSON . N. [ the applicant ] , the court [ ORG ] proceeded from the premise that there existed exceptional circumstances allowing it to recognise him as a member of ORG \u2019s [ B. \u2019s ] family in accordance with LAW .","ORG [ of ORG ] can not agree with such a decision .","The court [ ORG ] established on the basis of the plaintiff \u2019s and witnesses\u2019 submissions that the plaintiff had lived together with ORG [ B. ] since DATE and had shared a common household with her .","The above circumstances are not in themselves exceptional , in particular given that no irrefutable evidence had been submitted to the court to prove that Ms Brazhnikova L. P. had let PERSON live in the flat as a family member rather than as a temporary resident . Throughout the period in which he lived together with ORG , the plaintiff had been registered as living in house no . CARDINAL , GPE street in the village of ORG in the NORP district . He asked to be removed from the register on DATE after the death of ORG and just before applying to the court .","the court to recognise Mr PERSON . N. as a family member of the social tenant ORG as well as acknowledging his right to occupy the flat in question . It follows that the court judgment should be quashed and a new decision should be taken dismissing those claims . \u201d","On DATE a judge of ORG ( \u201c the Supreme Court \u201d ) refused to refer the applicant \u2019s application for supervisory review of the decision of DATE to ORG of ORG for examination , finding no grounds for such review and relying on the principle of legal certainty ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157701","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ISTOMIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in PERSON , GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of large - scale embezzlement .","On DATE he was formally charged with the crime .","On DATE the ORG of GPE remanded the applicant in custody pending investigation . The judge found that ( CARDINAL ) the applicant was suspected of a serious crime , ( CARDINAL ) his involvement in embezzlement was confirmed by the evidential material in the case file , ( CARDINAL ) he might put pressure on witnesses or ( CARDINAL ) he might interfere with investigation .","On DATE the Zavodskoy ORG of GPE extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The court referred to the gravity of the charges and reiterated that the applicant might threaten witnesses or interfere with investigation . It also observed that the applicant might reoffend or abscond .","On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE on appeal .","The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial until his release on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty of the charge ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157969","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SOKIL v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . According to the most recently available information , in DATE the applicant was released from detention having served his sentence . He did not inform the Court of his current whereabouts .","According to the available medical documents , the applicant has been using drugs since DATE . In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with hepatitis C and hepatic cirrhosis . The applicant has been HIV - positive since DATE . In DATE he also had tuberculosis .","In DATE the applicant was taken into custody and placed in ORG \u0441\u043b\u0456\u0434\u0447\u0438\u0439 \u0456\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 ) ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) . On DATE ORG , GPE , sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for drug - related offences and theft . On DATE the applicant was transferred to serve his sentence in ORG . CARDINAL . In DATE the applicant was diagnosed HIV - positive at clinical stage CARDINAL . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s MONEY cell count was CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) . On DATE the ORG released him from serving the remainder of his sentence in view of his poor state of health .","On DATE the applicant was registered for regular medical checks at ORG .","On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for theft .","On DATE the applicant was placed in the Kyiv SIZO . On arrival the applicant was examined by medical staff and had CARDINAL chest Xrays . It was recommended that the applicant consult a tuberculosis specialist .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist and diagnosed with post - tuberculosis residual changes in the right lung .","On DATE ( relevant documents contain both dates ) the applicant was placed in the GPE medical ward . He stayed there until DATE with the following diagnoses : acute haemorrhoidal bleeding , haemorrhoids , chronic multiple drug use , HIV at clinical stage CARDINAL , oropharyngeal candidiasis , chronic secondary candidiasis , acute enterocolitis , chronic hepatitis , residual post - tuberculosis changes , liver cell failure , and other conditions . The applicant was prescribed various medication .","According to the ORG , the applicant was examined by doctors in the GPE medical ward on numerous occasions . In particular , on DATE the applicant was examined by a surgeon and was examined by a general practitioner on the following dates : on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE with complaints of fever and weakness ; on CARDINAL and DATE with complaints of fever and weakness ; on DATE with complaints of coughing with sputum , sweating , general weakness and fever ; on CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ; on CARDINAL and DATE ; on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ; on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ; and on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .","On the majority of those occasions it was decided to continue the prescribed treatment .","In addition to the above consultations , DATE and DATE the applicant received the following medical care : on DATE the applicant had a chest X - ray and it was recommended that he see a tuberculosis specialist . Subsequently the applicant was examined and diagnosed with post - tuberculosis residual changes in the right lung . On DATE he had another consultation with a tuberculosis specialist ; on DATE the applicant was examined by an infection diseases specialist and diagnosed , inter alia , with HIV at clinical stage CARDINAL . It was also suspected that the applicant had had a tuberculosis relapse , so an additional X - ray was recommended ; on DATE the applicant had an X - ray . On DATE a tuberculosis specialist examined the applicant and concluded that there were no signs of active tuberculosis .","DATE and DATE , according to the test results , the applicant \u2019s CDCARDINAL + cell count dropped from CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) to CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) .","Meanwhile , on DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE in the applicant \u2019s criminal case and remitted the case for a fresh court examination . On DATE ORG , GPE , found the applicant guilty of drug - related offences and theft , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant was examined in ORG . DATE the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist and diagnosed with tuberculosis . The applicant was prescribed anti - tuberculosis treatment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s CDCARDINAL + cell count was CARDINAL .","On DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by a general practitioner . The prescribed treatment was continued .","On DATE the applicant requested under Rule CARDINAL of ORG that the respondent Government be asked to secure an appropriate medical examination and treatment for him which , according to the applicant , was impossible in the Kyiv SIZO . On DATE the ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE it was recommended by a tuberculosis specialist that the applicant be transferred to a specialised tuberculosis hospital .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG . CARDINAL ( PERSON \u0432\u0438\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u043a\u043e\u043b\u043e\u043d\u0456\u044f \u2116 CARDINAL ) . He arrived there on DATE and was placed in a specialised tuberculosis hospital . Upon arrival the applicant complained of a cough with mucopurulent sputum , pain in the chest and armpits , headache , and abdominal pain and distension . It was concluded that the applicant \u2019s state of health was of medium severity . He underwent various blood , urine and sputum tests , X - rays and ultrasound examinations . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by an otolaryngologist , a psychiatrist and a general practitioner . The applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis , HIV , encephalopathy , chronic hepatitis and other diseases . The applicant was prescribed anti - tuberculosis treatment .","The Government provided a detailed description of the examinations , prescriptions and treatment the applicant received in the hospital DATE . It included numerous X - rays , ultrasound examinations , blood , urine and sputum tests , examinations by hospital doctors and external specialists : a tuberculosis specialist ( on DATE and DATE ) , an otolaryngologist ( on DATE : the applicant was diagnosed with otitis ) , a psychiatrist ( on CARDINAL DATE : the applicant was diagnosed with opium narcotic addiction in remission ) ; a dentist ( DATE ) , a general practitioner ( on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ; on CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ; on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ; on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ; and on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) ; a surgeon ( on DATE ) ; a dermatologist ( on DATE ) ; an infectious diseases specialist from ORG , who prescribed antiretroviral therapy ( \u201c ART \u201d ) for the applicant ( DATE ) ; and a neuropathologist ( on CARDINAL DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s CDCARDINAL + cell count was CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) .","On DATE the applicant started the ART .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s CDCARDINAL + cell count was CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) .","On DATE a tuberculosis specialist from ORG concluded that the applicant \u2019s anti - tuberculosis treatment had been effective .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from the hospital with the diagnosis of , inter alia , post - tuberculosis residual changes , HIV ( clinical stage CARDINAL ) , chronic hepatitis in unstable remission , and chronic thrombophlebitis . The applicant was transferred to FAC . CARDINAL ( GPE \u0432\u0438\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u043a\u043e\u043b\u043e\u043d\u0456\u044f \u2116 CARDINAL ) since his state of health had improved . He was provided with ART medication for DATE .","According to the parties , while in the hospital the applicant also received various medication from his relatives .","The applicant spent the majority of the time DATE and DATE in FAC . On DATE the applicant \u2019s CDCARDINAL + cell count was CARDINAL ( PERCENT ) .","On DATE the applicant was released , having served his sentence ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179876","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MAKHLYAGIN AND BELYAYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants , PERSON and Mr PERSON , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and were held in different detention facilities . The ORG officials opened and\/or inspected letters that the applicants exchanged with the ORG .","From DATE until DATE the applicant , detained in a correctional colony , lodged several letters with ORG . All of them were accompanied by cover letters from a chief officer of the colony summarising the content of the applicant \u2019s letters . Some letters also bore the colony \u2019s registration stamps .","The applicant lodged a claim , alleging that the colony \u2019s staff had impeded his correspondence with the ORG . On DATE the ORG of Nizhniy Tagil dismissed his claim","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . On DATE the ORG rejected his appeal , stating that it should be lodged through the first - instance court . The regional court also noted that the applicant could request that the time - limit in respect of the appeal be re - set .","On DATE the applicant lodged his appeal with the firstinstance court . Instead of requesting that the time - limit in respect of his appeal be re - set the applicant asked the court to restore his case to the list of pending cases . On CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to examine the appeal as belated .","The applicant appealed against this decision . However , he once again lodged his appeal with ORG instead of the first - instance court . His appeal statement did not contain a request for the missed timelimit to be re - set . ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE the applicant received a letter from the ORG ; the letter was opened by a member of the remand prison staff .","The applicant lodged a claim for compensation . By a final decision of DATE ORG dismissed his claim . The court stated that NORP law did not prohibit the opening of incoming correspondence from the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140735","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ZABOR v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , first Mr J. ORG and , subsequently , PERSON , both of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s mother was granted , by way of an administrative decision , the right to a protected lease of an apartment located in a building owned by the PERSON municipality . The applicant had lived in this apartment since DATE . It appears that he moved out in DATE following his marriage ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s father signed a tenancy agreement with the municipality , which replaced the earlier administrative decision . The agreement stipulated that other tenants would be the applicant , his mother and his brother .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s brother and father , who apparently had both been in conflict with the applicant , instituted proceedings to strike out the registration of the applicant \u2019s permanent residence in the apartment on the ground that he did not live there . According to the applicant , in those proceedings his mother confirmed that he has been living in the apartment . On DATE the Mayor of ORG refused the request .","The applicant \u2019s father died on an unspecified date .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother died . The applicant \u2019s brother was recognised as a successor to the tenancy agreement .","The applicant requested that the municipality recognise him also as a successor to the tenancy agreement . This was refused by a letter of DATE on the ground that the applicant did not comply with the requirement for such a succession set out in section CARDINAL of ORG DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) since he had not lived in the apartment . At the same time the municipal housing administration instituted proceedings to strike out the registration of his permanent residence in the apartment .","On DATE the municipal administration reiterated their refusal to sign a tenancy agreement with the applicant .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was allegedly forced to leave the apartment due to the aggressive behaviour of his brother .","The Government submitted that according to the Mayor of ORG \u2019s internal inquiry the applicant had not been living in the flat for DATE . They contended that this fact had been confirmed by the applicant during his interview before ORG on DATE .","In consequence of the above - mentioned internal inquiry , on DATE the Mayor of PERSON gave a decision striking out the registration of the applicant \u2019s permanent residence in the apartment . The Mayor , having regard to the evidence of CARDINAL residents of the building and the applicant \u2019s brother , established that the applicant had not been living in the apartment for DATE . The applicant confirmed this fact , but stated that he had been prevented from occupying the flat by his brother . On DATE the Governor of GPE upheld the Mayor \u2019s decision . He noted that the applicant had not attempted to use legal remedies to recover the occupation of the apartment . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal . It emphasised that the act of registration was solely a technical act confirming the fact of residence in the flat and did not concern the right to a given dwelling .","On DATE the applicant brought an action against the municipality , claiming that he should be recognised as a successor to the tenancy agreement after his mother \u2019s death . On DATE the ORG gave a judgment in default , allowing his claim . The municipality lodged an objection against that judgment .","On DATE the ORG upheld the judgment in default and confirmed that the applicant was the successor in respect of the tenancy agreement . Neither party filed an appeal against that judgment .","On DATE the applicant requested the PERSON municipality to take steps to make the judgment operational by concluding a tenancy agreement with him .","In a letter of DATE the municipality stated the following :","\u201c In reply to your letter and with reference to the attached judgment of DATE , I should inform you that under that judgment you became your mother \u2019s successor in respect of the tenancy agreement , but that it is impossible to sign such an agreement with you .","This is so because an internal enquiry showed that you had not been living in that apartment on a permanent basis . This has already resulted in the decision of the Mayor striking out the registration of your permanent residence in the apartment .","Consequently , pursuant to LAW of DATE on the protection of the rights of tenants , housing resources of municipalities and amendments to LAW , the municipal office hereby gives DATE notice in respect of the agreement which you obtained under the judgment referred to above , the agreement expiring on DATE . The factual basis for the termination of the agreement is the fact that you have not been living in this apartment for a period longer than DATE . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an action with the ORG in which he sought a declaration under LAW that a tenancy agreement existed between him and the municipality .","On DATE the court gave a judgment in default and allowed the applicant \u2019s claim . The municipality filed an objection to that judgment . On DATE the ORG upheld the judgment in default . It appears that subsequently the judgment became final and enforceable .","On DATE the applicant requested the ORG municipality to sign a tenancy agreement with him , having regard to the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE . He also requested the municipality to evict his brother from the apartment .","On DATE the municipality informed the applicant that it recognised him as a tenant in accordance with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It further informed the applicant about the significant rent arrears in respect of the apartment and set a time - limit to pay them . The applicant \u2019s brother was also requested to clear the rent arrears as a joint tenant .","The applicant replied that on DATE the municipality had refused to recognise him a successor to the tenancy and that subsequently the registration of his permanent residence in the apartment had been struck out . In those circumstances the applicant could not occupy the apartment . He requested the municipality to seek payment of rent arrears from his brother who had been the sole occupant of the apartment .","On DATE the municipality informed the applicant that it had initiated the procedure with a view to terminating the tenancy agreement since the rent arrears had not been paid . On DATE it informed the applicant that it did not have legal means to reinstate his possession of the apartment . On DATE the municipality terminated the tenancy agreement with the applicant and his brother with effect from DATE .","On DATE and DATE the municipality again confirmed that the applicant and his brother were the lawful tenants . It underlined that there were no obstacles to the applicant \u2019s use of the apartment occupied by his brother in the absence of a written tenancy agreement . The signing of the written agreement had been postponed until the time when the applicant and his brother cleared the rent arrears .","On DATE the applicant requested the Mayor of ORG to authorise the registration of his permanent residence in the apartment . On CARDINAL DATE the request was dismissed on the grounds that the applicant had not lived in the apartment for DATE . That decision was upheld on appeal .","On DATE the municipality filed an action against the applicant and his brother with the Wroc\u0142aw ORG , seeking payment of rent arrears . On DATE the court issued an order for payment against the applicant and his brother . The applicant filed an objection to the order . The municipality submitted in the proceedings that it was the applicant \u2019s brother who had refused to allow the applicant \u2019s access to the apartment . The municipality had no legal means to resolve the family conflict and it was up to the applicant to institute proceedings for repossession .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the municipality \u2019s action against the applicant . It found that the municipality had consistently obstructed the applicant in taking possession of the apartment . The court noted firstly that the municipality had struck out the registration of his permanent residence in the apartment which had had adverse effects on the applicant \u2019s ability to occupy the apartment . The applicant \u2019s brother had used the lack of the applicant \u2019s registration as a pretext not to let the applicant into the apartment . Secondly , the municipality had not recognised the applicant as the successor to the lease and thus had forced him to assert his rights in court proceedings . Thirdly , the municipality had refused to confirm in writing the conditions of the tenancy agreement . Consequently , the applicant had not known his obligations as a tenant , in particular as regards the amount of his rent . The court found that since the municipality had not respected its obligations under the tenancy agreement towards the applicant it was not entitled to claim rent from him .","The municipality appealed . On DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal .","On DATE the municipality filed an action with the Wroc\u0142aw ORG against the applicant and his brother , seeking their eviction . On DATE the ORG gave judgment . It ordered the applicant \u2019s brother to vacate the flat and ruled that the municipality was under an obligation to provide him with social housing .","The court dismissed the action against the applicant . It noted that the applicant \u2019s right to the lease of the flat had been confirmed in its final judgment of DATE . The court further noted that in accordance with the final judgment of ORG of DATE the applicant had not been obliged to pay the rent arrears . The court found invalid the municipality \u2019s notice of termination of the tenancy agreement issued on the grounds of the failure to pay the rent arrears and confirmed the applicant \u2019s right to use the flat . The municipality did not appeal .","On CARDINAL DATE the municipality summoned the applicant to sign an appendix to the tenancy agreement to the apartment , specifying him as a tenant .","On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the municipality about its failure to provide social housing to his brother in accordance with the Wroc\u0142aw \u015ar\u00f3dmie\u015bcie District Court \u2019s judgment of DATE . In its reply of DATE the municipality informed the applicant that it did not question his right to the lease of the apartment and did not refrain from confirming the lease in writing . In any event , the applicant was informed that his right to the apartment did not depend on the written confirmation thereof . With regard to the eviction of his brother , the municipality informed the applicant that due to a significant number of eviction judgments and the limited stock of municipal social housing it could not immediately satisfy his request to have his brother evicted .","In his reply of DATE , the applicant informed the municipality that he decided to refrain from signing the agreement for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE the applicant brought an action against the municipality in ORG . He sought compensation for rendering him long - term homeless in connection with the municipality \u2019s failure to enforce CARDINAL final judgments . The applicant submitted that he had succeeded to the tenancy agreement after his mother \u2019s death on DATE . He had been expelled from the flat by his brother who was an alcoholic . Subsequently , the municipality had struck out the registration of his permanent residence in the apartment and refused to sign a tenancy agreement with him . The applicant claimed that as a result he could not find employment for a period exceeding ten years .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . It found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had suffered the alleged damage , namely the long - term homelessness and the lack of employment as a result of the municipality \u2019s actions . With regard to the alleged homelessness , the court noted that the applicant had succeeded to the tenancy agreement after his mother \u2019s death . The municipality had initially refused to confirm the content of the tenancy agreement and had struck out the registration of his permanent residence in the disputed apartment . However , it did not result from these circumstances that the applicant had become homeless . The court noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that he had been homeless in the period of DATE preceding the lodging of his action . The court established that the applicant had moved out of the flat in DATE after his marriage . Initially , he had lived with his wife at his parents - in - law and subsequently in an apartment located at FAC . After DATE he had moved out following a conflict with his wife . Subsequently , he had rented flats , lived at his sister and at an allotment . The applicant had not attempted to move into the apartment at issue for DATE on account of the conflict with his brother . Currently , he was living in a garden hut owned by his son - in - law . The court concluded then that the applicant had not been a homeless person at the relevant time .","With regard to his alleged unemployment , the court established that up until DATE the applicant had run a transportation firm . Subsequently , he had worked as a security guard and helped his son - in - law with the latter \u2019s business . He had registered as an unemployed only on DATE and had lost the right to an unemployment benefit on DATE . Having regard to the above , the court found that the applicant had been able to rent a flat or a room in order to avoid the alleged homelessness . In addition , besides his brother , the applicant had other close family , including his wife , CARDINAL adult children and QUANTITY sisters .","The court also found that regardless of the issue of damage , the applicant had not proved that the municipality had acted unlawfully in his case . It noted that the applicant had been deprived of the possibility of living in the apartment at issue after his GPE death because of the conflict with his brother . The applicant admitted this in the proceedings . The applicant had reproached the municipality for having struck out the registration of his permanent residence in the apartment ; however , the court observed that this decision had been upheld on appeal as having been made in accordance with the law . In addition , the court noted that the applicant had not been living in the apartment for DATE . The allegation that the municipality had not signed a tenancy agreement with the applicant had been also unjustified . The court noted that the applicant had succeeded to the tenancy agreement after the death of his mother by operation of the law . The lack of written confirmation of the applicant \u2019s tenancy agreement had had no effect on the existence of the applicant \u2019s right to the apartment . In any event , the municipality had invited the applicant to sign the relevant agreement but the applicant had so far not responded to the invitation .","Lastly , the court found that the applicant had not established a causal link between the actions of the municipality and his situation in DATE . In particular , the municipality could not be held responsible for the applicant \u2019s situation , such as the conflict with his brother as well as the applicant \u2019s marital problems and the moving out of the flat which he had shared for DATE with his wife .","The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It accepted the facts as established by ORG .","ORG confirmed that the applicant had not demonstrated that the municipality had acted unlawfully . It noted that the applicant had blamed the municipality for its inactivity in making the apartment available to the applicant . However , the tenancy agreement in respect of the disputed apartment had been in the name of the applicant and his brother , while it was only the latter who had been the sole occupant of the apartment . ORG noted that the municipality had had no powers to compel the applicant \u2019s brother to allow the applicant \u2019s access to and use of the apartment . It further noted that if the applicant \u2019s brother had prevented him from occupying the apartment to which he had been entitled under the tenancy agreement , the applicant should have directed his claims against the brother and not against the municipality .","DATE to DATE housing matters were subject to a high degree of state control under successive provisions of housing legislation . The most important characteristic of this system , a so - called \u201c special lease scheme \u201d , was that a lease was created by means of an administrative decision and not by a civil law contract between the landlord and the tenant . Under these protected tenancies , the tenants paid a controlled rent and the owners could not terminate the lease by giving notice to the tenant . The special lease scheme was also applicable to houses owned , until DATE , by ORG , and after the reform of the local administration , by the municipalities .","The \u201c special lease scheme \u201d was abolished under LAW of DATE ( LOC o najmie lokali mieszkalnych i dodatkach mieszkaniowych ) , ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) which entered into force on DATE . However , the special lease scheme ( protected lease ) was still applicable to tenants who were allocated their apartments on the basis of administrative decisions .","Under transitional provisions of the DATE Law , lease agreements which had originated in administrative decisions given in the past under the special lease scheme were to be regarded as contractual leases concluded for an indefinite period and governed by the provisions of the DATE Law . The CARDINAL Act maintained , albeit with slight modifications of wording , the rules concerning the protection of tenants against termination of leases continued on the basis of previous administrative decisions and the right of succession to a lease .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act read :","\u201c CARDINAL . In the event of a tenant \u2019s death , his or her descendants , ascendants , adult siblings , adoptive parents or adopted children or a person who has lived with a tenant in de facto marital cohabitation , shall , on condition that they lived in the tenant \u2019s household until his or her death , succeed to the tenancy agreement and acquire the tenant \u2019s rights and obligations connected with [ the lease of ] the flat , unless they relinquish that right to the landlord . This provision shall not apply to persons who , when the [ original ] tenant died , had title to another residential dwelling .","NORP In cases where there is no successor to the tenancy agreement , or where the successors have relinquished their right , the lease shall expire . \u201d","In DATE parliament adopted a new law governing housing matters and relations between landlords and tenants . The Act of DATE on the protection of the rights of tenants , housing resources of municipalities and on amendments to LAW ( LOC o ochronie praw lokator\u00f3w , mieszkaniowym zasobie gminy i o zmianie LOC cywilnego ) ( \u201c the DATE Act \u201d ) entered into force on DATE . It repealed LAW .","Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of that Act , the owner of apartment may give DATE notice on the lease agreement if the tenant has not been living in that apartment for DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142186","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF EUGENIA AND DOINA DUCA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos","text":["NORP The case originated in an application ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) against GPE lodged with ORG under LAW ( \u201c the LAW ) by CARDINAL NORP nationals , PERSON and PERSON ( \u201c the applicants \u201d ) , on DATE .","NORP In a judgment delivered on DATE ( \u201c the principal judgment \u201d ) , the ORG held that there was a breach of LAW and LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention on account of the upholding by ORG on DATE of a revision request against a final judgment of DATE , in breach of the principle of legal certainty ( PERSON and Doina PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . As a result of that quashing the second applicant lost all of her shares ( PERCENT ) in her company .","NORP Since the question of the application of LAW was not ready for decision , the ORG reserved it and invited the ORG and the applicants to submit , within DATE on which the judgment became final in accordance with Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Convention , their written observations on that issue and , in particular , to notify the ORG of any agreement they might reach .","The applicants and the Government each submitted observations in respect of the just satisfaction .","In the meantime , after the adoption of the principal judgment by ORG , ORG reviewed its judgment of DATE and quashed it on DATE . ORG also awarded the applicants compensation of MDL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for the non - pecuniary damage suffered as a result of the abusive quashing of the judgment of DATE .","The judge elected in respect of GPE , withdrew from sitting in the case ( Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) after it had been notified to the Government . On DATE , the Government , pursuant to Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) , informed the ORG that they were content to appoint in his stead another elected judge and left the choice of appointee to the President of the ORG . On DATE , the President of the Fourth Section appointed Judge PERSON to sit in the case . This decision was confirmed by the President of ORG after Judge PERSON , the judge elected in respect of GPE , also withdrew from sitting in the case ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182731","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF STOMAKHIN v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["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 ( \u201c the Revolutionary Contact Union \u201d \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the RKO \u201d ) . 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 ( \u201c Radical Politics \u201d ) . 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 \u201c From the interview given by PERSON to the ORG press agency \u201d ( \u201c GPE \u0438\u043d\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0432\u044c\u044e ORG \u0430\u0433\u0435\u043d\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0443 \u041a\u0430\u0432\u043a\u0430\u0437 \u0426\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440 \u201d ) mentioned the large - scale hostage - taking at FAC in GPE in DATE referring to it as \u201c the action of PERSON heroic NORP rebels in GPE \u201d ( \u201c \u0430\u043a\u0446\u0438\u044f \u0433\u0435\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0445 \u0447\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0445 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0446\u0435\u0432 ORG \u0432 NORP \u201d ) . It stated , in particular :","\u201c 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 \u2019s GPE is waging a war aimed at the physical extermination of NORP as an ethnic group . \u201d","An article entitled \u201c Insanity [ defence ] of PERSON [ is ] a guarantee of victory for PERSON \u201d ( \u201c \u041d\u0435\u0432\u043c\u0435\u043d\u044f\u0435\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c \u0411\u0443\u0434\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0430 \u2013 \u0437\u0430\u043b\u043e\u0433 \u043f\u043e\u0431\u0435\u0434\u044b \u0411\u0430\u0441\u0430\u0435\u0432a \u201d ) 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 :","\u201c ... The whole of GPE is filled now with the same GPE \u2013 maniacs , bloodthirsty sadists , murderers and degenerates in epaulettes . GPE \u2019s whole occupying army consists of those LOC . \u201d","It also stated that :","\u201c ... 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 \u2013 V.V.Putin . \u201d","It also appealed :","\u201c 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 ! \u201d","An article headlined \u201c Accomplices to the murderers of the NORP people \u201d ( \u201c \u041e \u0441\u043e\u0443\u0447\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a\u0430\u0445 \u0443\u0431\u0438\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430 \u0447\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0430 \u201d ) , authored by a third person , commented on the hostage - taking at FAC in GPE in DATE and contained the following paragraph :","\u201c 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 \u2019s aggression against ORG ... NORP patriots , reduced to a state of despair by GPE \u2019s 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 \u201d .","The same article mentioned the \u201c national liberation struggle of the NORP people against the colonial expansion of GPE \u201d .","In an article headlined \u201c The NORP resistance is alive ! PERSON has visited GPE and GPE expressions such as \u201c President ORG \u201d , \u201c President of the ORG \u201d , \u201c Commander - In - Chief of the ORG \u201d , \u201c the capital of the ORG , GPE \u201d were used .","In an article headlined \u201c In memoriam , PERSON \u201d ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) the applicant wrote :","\u201c NORP heroes are leaving ... PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and DATE \u2013 PERSON . As if they would be devoured by a scary black noisome abyss . And the name of this abyss is GPE . \u201d","In the same article the applicant stated :","\u201c ... 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 ! \u201d","In an article entitled \u201c A new joke by PERSON ( \u201c GPE \u0448\u0443\u0442\u043a\u0430 GPE \u201d ) the applicant stated :","\u201c Lawful convictions issued by the LAW court of the ORG against national traitors are being executed rigorously . \u201d","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 \u201c NORP have slaves and dare to squawk something about NORP \u201d ( \u201c PERSON \u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0442 \u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0432 \u0438 \u0435\u0449\u0435 \u0441\u043c\u0435\u044e\u0442 \u0447\u0442\u043e-\u0442\u043e \u0432\u044f\u043a\u0430\u0442\u044c \u0432 \u0430\u0434\u0440\u0435\u0441 \u0447\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0446\u0435\u0432 \u201d ) .","In the same issue the applicant published an article headlined \u201c NORP [ believers ] went completely nuts \u201d ( \u201c ORG \u0441\u043e\u0432\u0441\u0435\u043c \u043e\u0445\u0440\u0435\u043d\u0435\u043b\u0438 \u201d ) in which information had been given about some unidentified \u201c NORP theologians \u201d who , in a booklet called \u201c Foundations of the NORP Faith \u201d had allegedly claimed that \u201c PERSON [ had been ] crucified not by NORP but by NORP \u201d .","In an article headlined \u201c \u2018 NORP syndrome\u2019 inside out \u201d ( \u201c PERSON \u0441\u0438\u043d\u0434\u0440\u043e\u043c \u043d\u0430\u0432\u044b\u0432\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0442 \u201d ) , the applicant wrote :","\u201c ... 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 \u2018 shaheed belts\u2019 . 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 . \u201d","He went on as follows :","\u201c ... In supporting GPE at war , demonstrating our solidarity with PERSON , openly supporting PERSON in GPE on DATE of the \u2018 Nord - Ost\u2019 [ 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 \u2013 we no longer have any other family than all peoples oppressed by \u2018 our\u2019 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 ... \u201d","In the same article the applicant stated :","\u201c ... 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 ! \u201d","An article headlined \u201c GPE shielded the NORP \u201d ( \u201c PERSON \u0437\u0430\u0441\u043b\u043e\u043d\u0438\u043b\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u0431\u043e\u044e NORP \u201d ) , authored by a third person , stated :","\u201c ... ORG , PERSON , PERSON and other heroes of the NORP resistance courageously and firmly got in the way of GPE \u2019s 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 ... \u201d","NORP In an article entitled \u201c No comments \u201d the applicant stated :","\u201c ... PERSON \u2019s cheap propaganda can jabber as long as it wishes that ORG is a bandit and that he is responsible for the \u2018 ORG - Ost\u2019 [ 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 \u2018 presidents of Chechnya\u2019 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 \u2019s illegal armed groups of ORG , ORG and ORG , and chucks them out of the territory of independent GPE ... \u201d","In an article headlined \u201c Retribution-CARDINAL \u201d ( \u201c \u0412\u043e\u0437\u043c\u0435\u0437\u0434\u0438\u0435-CARDINAL \u201d ) the applicant stated :","\u201c ... 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 \u2013 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 \u2019s 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\u2019t have any other weapons , except for the alarm bell of our words .","... We remember and grieve for all those killed and tortured by \u2018 our\u2019 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 \u2013 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 . \u2018 Less words and more GPE \u2013 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 ! \u201d","The article also read :","\u201c ... let GPE spit blood for DATE \u2019s and DATE \u2019s genocide of the NORP people \u2013 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 ! \u201d","In the same article the applicant wrote :","\u201c ... 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 \u2018 elections\u2019 ! 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 [ \u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u0436\u0432\u0430\u0447\u043a\u0438 ] is an open and powerful blow to the regime and will hasten its end ... \u201d","In the same article the applicant also issued the following call :","\u201c ... We have to accumulate , hate and keep record of their crimes \u2013 the endless list of all those \u2018 sweep ORG , \u2018 identity checks\u2019 , \u2018 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 \u2018 sweep operation\u2019 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 ... \u201d","An article headlined \u201c ORG looters \u201d ( \u201c PERSON \u043c\u0430\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0440\u044b \u201d ) , 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 \u201c sweep \u201d operation in a NORP village in DATE . It also stated :","\u201c 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 . \u201d","In his \u201c editorial note \u201d to the \u201c Declaration of the Committee DATE : a free choice\u2019 \u201d the applicant stated :","\u201c 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 \u2019s regime as soon as possible . We also do n\u2019t 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 . \u201d","On the front page the following statement was published on behalf of the \u201c editorial team \u201d :","\u201c 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 \u201d .","In an article headlined \u201c The price to be paid for genocide \u201d ( \u201c \u0420\u0430\u0441\u043f\u043b\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u0433\u0435\u043d\u043e\u0446\u0438\u0434 \u201d ) the applicant wrote :","\u201c 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 . \u201d","In the same article the applicant stated :","\u201c 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 \u201d .","In an article headlined \u201c Will GPE be allowed to participate in the Summer Olympics in GPE ? \u201d ( \u201c PERSON \u043b\u0438 PERSON \u043d\u0430 \u043b\u0435\u0442\u043d\u044e\u044e \u043e\u043b\u0438\u043c\u043f\u0438\u0430\u0434\u0443 \u0432 GPE ? \u201d ) the applicant wrote :","\u201c GPE \u2019s bloody attack on the ORG led to , among CARDINAL of other similar bloody consequences , GPE \u2019s security forces\u2019 killing of the ex - President of the ORG , PERSON , who had helped his people to repel this attack . \u201d","In CARDINAL issues of the PERSON newsletter , in a column entitled \u201c The Good News \u201d ( \u201c \u0411\u043b\u0430\u0433\u0438\u0435 \u0432\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0438 \u201d ) , the applicant published information which he had copied from various news agencies\u2019 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 : \u201c PERSON is not a terrorist , unlike PERSON and Co. \u201d ( GPE \u043d\u0435 \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0440\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442 , \u0432 \u043e\u0442\u043b\u0438\u0447\u0438\u0435 \u043e\u0442 PERSON ) , \u201c LOC ! Do not betray the NORP resistance ! \u201d ( PERSON ! \u041d\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0430\u0439 PERSON \u0441\u043e\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ! ) , \u201c NORP invaders \u2013 get out of GPE \u201d ( GPE \u043e\u043a\u043a\u0443\u043f\u0430\u043d\u0442\u044b \u2013 \u0432\u043e\u043d \u0438\u0437 GPE ! ) , \u201c When will the NORP people be freed and rehabilitated ? \u201d ( \u041a\u043e\u0433\u0434\u0430 \u0431\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0442 \u043e\u0441\u0432\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0436\u0434\u0435\u043d \u0438 \u0440\u0435\u0430\u0431\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0442\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d \u0447\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u043d\u0430\u0440\u043e\u0434 ? ) and also a flag with the words \u201c ORG \u201d .","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 \u2019s servicemen ; of people of NORP ethnicity ; and of NORP believers . The report further mentioned that , by criticising GPE \u2019s actions in GPE , the texts gave negative assessments of GPE , as a ORG ; of the existing political regime ; of GPE \u2019s 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 ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s newsletter ; reports of a search of the applicant \u2019s flat and seizure of his computer ; a report on the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u201c having publicly appealed to extremist activities through the mass media \u201d ( LAW of LAW ) and of having committed \u201c 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 \u201d ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 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 \u2019s 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 \u2013 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 \u2019s 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 \u201c mentioning a number of persons implicated in terrorist and extremist activities \u201d , 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 \u201c the texts of the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s servicemen in GPE \u201d . 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 \u2019s actions in GPE as aggression and had considered ORG to be an occupying force . Accordingly , he \u201c [ had ] negatively assessed GPE \u2019s actions and those of GPE \u2019s armed forces ; similarly negatively [ the applicant had ] assessed GPE as a ORG , ORG as a part of the machinery of the ORG and GPE \u2019s servicemen as a social group \u201d . ORG continued to state that , on the other hand , the applicant \u201c [ 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 \u201d . 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 \u201c a national liberation struggle of the NORP people against the colonial expansion of GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , referred to \u201c lawful convictions of the LAW court of the ORG \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and mentioned \u201c President PERSON \u201d , \u201c President of the ORG \u201d , \u201c Commander - In - Chief of the ORG \u201d , \u201c the capital of the ORG , GPE \u201d ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) . Also , in issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) the applicant published a \u201c decree by President ORG \u201d and in the article \u201c No comments \u201d he praised \u201c President PERSON \u201d as \u201c the legitimate President of GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","ORG further referred to the texts in CARDINAL issues of the applicant \u2019s newsletter published in the column entitled \u201c Good news \u201d ( 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 \u201c shaheed belts \u201d ; in the latter respect , the court quoted a relevant extract from the article \u201c \u2018 NORP syndrome\u2019 inside out \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","ORG went on to observe that \u201c 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 \u201d . In particular , in respect of GPE as a ORG he had employed such negative emotional references as metaphors \u201c scary noisome abyss \u201d , \u201c bloody cannibalistic atrocity \u201d , \u201c rotten block \u201d ; humiliating characteristics \u201c immeasurable scoundrelism , perfidy , pathological falsity \u201d and negative attitudes aimed at destruction ( the metaphor \u201c to spit blood \u201d ) , 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 \u201c Insanity of PERSON , a guarantee of victory for PERSON \u201d , \u201c the applicant [ had ] insult[ed ... ] servicemen of ORG and law - enforcement officers by launching an appeal to act criminally against them \u201d . In particular , the court stated that \u201c in that article [ the applicant gave ] an emotional and negative description of the servicemen of ORG as a social group \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and \u201c [ made ] an appeal for actions against [ army ] servicemen ... , such as requiring an immediate compulsory psychiatric examination of its commanders \u201d ( 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 \u201c 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 \u201d . In this respect , the trial court referred to the applicant \u2019s \u201c editorial note \u201d published in issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , observing that in that publication the applicant had \u201c demonstrated a negative attitude towards the existing political system and GPE as a ORG \u201d . The trial court pointed out that \u201c the stance taken by [ the applicant ] concerning the liquidation of the existing ORG regime ( \u201c PERSON \u2019s regime \u201d ) presuppose[ed ] not only actions in conformity with the constitution but also the possibility of deviating from it ( \u201c to overthrow the regime , without really caring about the LAW \u201d ) \u201d .","The court further noted that in the article \u201c Retribution-CARDINAL \u201d the applicant had referred to \u201c 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 \u201d with the contents reflected in the relevant extracts of that article ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court also stated that \u201c 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 \u201d .","ORG then observed that in various issues of his newsletter the applicant had \u201c intentionally appealed for records to be kept of such acts as \u2018 sweep operations\u2019 , \u2018 identity checks\u2019 , \u2018 counter - terrorist ORG , \u2018 unlawful searches and politically motivated criminal ORG , which he [ had ] qualified as \u2018 GPE and the persons who [ had ] carried them out as \u2018 executioners in PERSON and \u2018 narks without NORP \u201d . The court referred , in particular , to the applicant \u2019s appeal made in the relevant extract from the article \u201c Retribution-CARDINAL \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The trial court went on to note that in the article \u201c NORP [ believers ] went completely nuts \u201d ( 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 ( \u201c went nuts \u201d ) . However , in the court \u2019s words , \u201c the content of the article [ did ] not correspond to its title , because it concern[ed ] an isolated case ( a statement that \u201c PERSON was crucified not by NORP but by NORP \u201d , contained in a booklet called \u201c Foundations of the NORP Faith \u201d ) ; this isolated case [ was ] generalised from and represented as a typical situation of NORP believers by virtue of using the impugned heading \u201d . 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 \u201c NORP have slaves and dare squawk something about NORP \u201d and had represented an isolated fact to the readers as typical and characteristic of all NORP , whereby he had \u201c made a negative and emotional assessment ( \u2018 to squawk\u2019 ) in respect of NORP citizens as a nation \u201d .","NORP Moreover , in issues nos . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( DATE ) the applicant had argued that \u201c NORP people [ \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0441\u043b\u0430\u0432\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043d\u0430\u0440\u043e\u0434 ] 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 ] \u201d . 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 \u201c 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 \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and during the meeting of DATE , \u201c 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 \u201d . In the trial court \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u201c high social danger \u201d posed by the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s conviction on appeal . It stated , in particular , that the applicant \u2019s 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 ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183539","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ZEZEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["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 \u043c\u0438\u0433\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u044b \u043f\u043e \u041a\u0440\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u043a\u0440\u0430\u044e ( ORG ) ) ( hereinafter \u201c the FAC FMS \u201d ) .","In DATE the ORG rejected the application , referring to information provided by ORG ( ORG ( ORG ) ) ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) that the applicant posed a threat to GPE \u2019s 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 \u201c the exclusion order \u201d ) . 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 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , 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 \u2019s appeal in camera . The applicant testified before the court and stated that in DATE his brother ORG had been prosecuted by the United States\u2019 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\u2019 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s appeal and upheld the exclusion order . Its decision stated , amongst other things , the following :","\u201c ... 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed against the above decision to ORG of GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . He referred , in particular , to the ORG \u2019s 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 :","\u201c ... 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 \u2019s 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\u2019","In those circumstances , the decision of ORG should remain unchanged ... \u201d","On DATE the ORG issued an order for the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s home and fined him for a breach of immigration regulations under LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . 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 \u2019s home in GPE and informed her that he was wanted on suspicion of a crime . The applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s appeal by ORG on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168637","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"T.S. AND J..J. v. NORWAY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["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 ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140258","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BITENC v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["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 \u2019s action concerning the suspension and dismissal and rejected the part of the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s action against the order to pay compensation and annulled the decision upholding the applicant \u2019s action and remitted the case back to the first instance court .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183870","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ERBEK v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["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 \u2019s lawyer lodged an objection against the decision dated DATE ordering the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142737","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BEL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PAPOSHVILI v. BELGIUM","importance":3,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He arrived in GPE via GPE on DATE , accompanied by his wife and the latter \u2019s 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\u2019 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 \u2019s wife was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 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\u2019 imprisonment , which was suspended except for the period of pre - trial detention .","NORP On DATE the applicant was sentenced by ORG to CARDINAL years\u2019 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 \u2019s 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 ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) .","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 \u2019s 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 ( \u201c the Aliens Act \u201d ) . 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 \u2019s medical treatment for tuberculosis had ended ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . ORG also referred to the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s claims in the following terms :","\u201c 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 \u2019s deportation to GPE is hypothetical . \u201d","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 \u2019s best interests took precedence over the applicant \u2019s social and family interests and that by committing serious punishable acts the applicant himself had placed his family \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s tuberculosis ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) and the DATE course of anti - tubercular treatment required by the whole family .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s extensive criminal record , allied to the fact that \u201c the pecuniary nature of the offences PERSON ] the serious and ongoing risk of further breaches of public order \u201d .","The order became enforceable on the date of the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s release and he was given until DATE to leave the country voluntarily .","In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s 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 \u201c with immediate effect \u201d 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 \u201c pending the outcome of the proceedings before ORG \u201d .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s wife gave birth to a child .","In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with \u201c active pulmonary tuberculosis responding to antibiotic treatment \u201d .","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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s report noted that the treatment administered for the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , where the applicant was being treated following his release , drew up a certificate which stated as follows :","\u201c ...","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 \u2019s 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 . \u201d","The applicant was requested to report to ORG medical service on DATE for a medical check - up and to enable the NORP authorities to \u201c reply to the ORG \u2019s questions \u201d .","The report prepared by the medical adviser on that occasion listed the consultations held and the treatment , in particular chemotherapy , undertaken since the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s judgment in the case of N. v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) , the report concluded as follows :","\u201c 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s haematological disorder is currently stable . The lymph nodes are no longer swollen and the patient \u2019s haemolytic anaemia is resolved . Chemotherapy has been discontinued for the time being .","... Neither monitoring of the patient \u2019s vital parameters nor ongoing medical supervision is necessary in order to ensure the patient \u2019s 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 . \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s 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 ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2","3","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180544","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LADA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["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 \u2019s 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 \u2013 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 \u2019s office the applicant showed him a piece of paper with something written on it , pointed to the bus stop outside his window and said \u201c There is a man out there \u201d . 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 ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) authorised the applicant \u2019s custody until DATE . The court held that there was no information about the applicant \u2019s previous convictions , if any , or his family situation , state of health and so on ; therefore the court \u201c could not authorise a preventive measure , such as pre - trial detention \u201d . 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s wish \u201c to go to GPE to his brother \u201d . 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 \u2019s request . The relevant decision reads as follows :","\u201c 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 \u2019s ] putting pressure on ORG , a witness , and the victim , Ya .","Having heard the prosecutor \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s ] 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 \u2019s 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 ] ... \u201d","On DATE the President of ORG rejected an application by the applicant \u2019s lawyer for the judge who was dealing with the case to be withdrawn on the basis of bias . He held that the expression \u201c has committed a serious crime \u201d used by the court concerned \u201c the classification of the offence of which the applicant was accused \u201d , 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 ( \u201c the prison \u201d ) 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 \u2019s complaint ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153017","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ZAIE\u0162 v. ROMANIA","importance":2,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","She was adopted on CARDINAL DATE , at DATE .","The applicant \u2019s adoptive mother also had another adopted daughter , PERSON The applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s adoption .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection and declared the applicant \u2019s adoption void , finding that it had not had a purpose envisioned by LAW . It held that the only aim of the applicant \u2019s 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 ."],"violated_articles":["8","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147678","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DILLON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in GPE GPE .","On DATE he received an indeterminate sentence for public protection ( \u201c ORG sentence \u201d ) 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 ( \u201c NORP \u201d ) in the community . A minimum term ( \u201c tariff \u201d ) 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 ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) 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 ( \u201c SARN \u201d ) report identified that further work was required to reduce the applicant \u2019s risk of reoffending . It was recommended that he complete the extended SOTP and , possibly , a ORG ( \u201c BLB \u201d ) 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 \u2019s 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 ( \u201c NORP \u201d ) 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 :","\u201c ... 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 . \u201d","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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 :","\u201c 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 . \u201d","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 \u201c every attempt to ensure prisoners are treated fairly and have access to offending behaviour programmes \u201d . 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s use of abusive and disrespectful language and his loud and aggressive tone . It explained that while , given the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s likely compliance with licence conditions . ORG reiterated the applicant \u2019s risk factors and turned to examine the evidence of any change during sentence . It explained :","\u201c 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 . \u201d","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 :","\u201c ... [ 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 ... \u201d","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 ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159886","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GENNER v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the time of the events the applicant worked for the association \u201c GPE in Not \u201d , which offers legal and social support to asylum seekers and refugees .","In DATE , an amendment to a number of laws concerning the status of foreigners and of asylum seekers and concerning relevant proceedings ( Fremdenrechtspaket DATE ) was drafted and adopted by ORG . The amendments entered into force on DATE .","On DATE the then Federal Minister for ORG , ORG , died unexpectedly of an aneurysm at DATE .","On DATE the applicant published a statement on the association \u2019s website entitled \u201c One less . What \u2019s coming now ? \u201d ( \u201c Eine weniger . Was kommt danach ? \u201d ) . It continued : \u201c The good news for DATE , Minister for torture and deportation , is dead . \u201d ( \u201c PERSON GPE : ORG , ORG f\u00fcr PERSON , ist tot \u201d ) After referring to some specific individual stories of asylum seekers , the text stated further that \u201c PERSON was a desk war criminal just like many others there have been in the atrocious history of this country : completely desensitised , indifferent to the consequences of their laws and regulations , the compliant instrument of a bureaucracy contaminated with racism . No decent human is shedding tears over her death . \u201d ( \u201c L.P. war eine GPE , wie es viele gab in der grausamen Geschichte dieses Landes ; v\u00f6llig abgestumpft , gleichg\u00fcltig gegen die NORP ihrer Gesetze und GPE , ein willf\u00e4higes PERSON rassistisch verseuchten PERSON . PERSON anst\u00e4ndiger PERSON weint ihr eine Tr\u00e4ne nach . \u201d ) . The applicant concluded the text by suggesting that their goal for the New Year was to fight for a new minister who would make good the damage done by ORG so that GPE could return to being a country welcoming asylum seekers and a place where human rights were respected .","G.P. , the late Minister \u2019s husband , filed a private prosecution ( Privatanklage ) for defamation against the applicant and the association .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON f\u00fcr PERSON ) convicted the applicant of defamation in respect of the above - quoted passages of the statement and sentenced him to a fine in the amount of LAW . CARDINAL of the fine was suspended for DATE . It dismissed ORG \u2019s request for recognition of the association \u2019s liability for its employee \u2019s actions .","NORP The court found that the average reader would understand the relevant passages of the statement to mean that ORG had ordered or tolerated the torture pending expulsion or the deportation of detainees and had violated human rights . The word \u201c torture \u201d , in particular , implied the intentional infliction of physical or psychological suffering . An average reader would also place the word \u201c deportation \u201d ( PERSON ) in the context of the historical events under the national - socialist regime which forcefully deported segregated groups of people to ghettos and camps to subject them to forced labour or extermination . The statement in question suggested that ORG exercised her political function in a particularly despicable way , that she was indifferent to officials\u2019 criminal abuse of authority in relation to asylum seekers and that her actions were motivated by racist , sadistic , xenophobic and national - socialist attitudes . The publication of the statement had triggered considerable reaction from the media and the public . The applicant had been criticised as tactless and disrespectful . In response thereto , on DATE , the applicant published in a DATE newspaper a reply in which he stated that his comments had been directed solely towards ORG and he apologised to her family members , who were not responsible for the late Minister \u2019s inhumane policies .","ORG acknowledged that a criminal charge of defamation was at odds with the right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Convention . It found that the voicing of opinions by refugee associations criticising politicians and their legislative projects represented an important corrective element and that the limits of acceptable criticism were particularly widely drawn in the context of the present case . However , in the court \u2019s opinion , the published statement overstepped the limits of acceptable criticism . The legislative background to the amendment of the laws governing foreigners and asylum seekers and the fact that criticism was allowed to be shocking , still could not justify positioning ORG in a national - socialist and racist context and suggesting that she had tolerated the intentional physical ill - treatment of detainees pending expulsion or \u201c deportations \u201d . Such accusations against the then only recently passed away PERSON \u2013 together with the acclamation of her death and the call on \u201c decent \u201d people not to mourn her passing DATE clearly went beyond the limits of acceptable criticism in a NORP society . Moreover , the allegations made by the applicant had not been proven to be true , nor had he shown any journalistic diligence in that regard .","The applicant filed an appeal on points of law and fact , and also appealed against the sentence .","On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht Wien ) dismissed his appeal . Referring to the reasoning of the first - instance court , it conceded that the word \u201c deportation \u201d nowadays had acquired the additional meaning of \u201c expulsion or removal \u201d and was not only used in the context of the national - socialist regime , but also in the context of the forced expulsion of foreigners . However , the context of the word in which it had been used ( \u201c a desk war criminal just like many others there have been in the atrocious history of this country \u201d ) acted as a reminder of the national - socialist history of the country . Therefore , even though the statements at issue were political value judgments ( \u201c politische Wertungen \u201d ) , the applicant had not produced any proof of a factual basis for his allegations . The applicant had further argued that , following the case - law of ORG and of the domestic courts with regard to LAW , the impugned statement was covered by freedom of expression . ORG , however , found that even such case - law did not provide carte blanche for the applicant to make comparisons with the national - socialist regime without any factual basis .","NORP That decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for the renewal of the criminal proceedings ( \u201c PERSON des GPE ) pursuant to LAW with the aim of having the proceedings re - opened and the conviction set aside .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request . It stated that the admittedly broad limits of tolerable criticism in the political discourse did not cover excessive value judgments without any factual basis . Statements made in even heated political conflicts needed to respect a minimum of decency and moderation . In the present case ORG found that the evaluation by the courts had rightly led to the conclusion that the text in question justified the limitation of the applicant \u2019s right to freedom of expression . The value judgment suggesting criminal behaviour on the part of ORG had no factual basis . The courts had not misjudged the considerable public interest in the discussion concerning migration and asylum policy . However , the applicant \u2019s statements had not contributed to that public discussion , since they were directed at defaming and discrediting the late Minister . The court further noted that the sanction imposed was , in view of the disrespectful statements and their temporal proximity to ORG \u2019s death , appropriate and even moderate .","ORG decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161953","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF HELMUT BLUM v. AUSTRIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations;Public hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He has been a lawyer since DATE and he practises in GPE .","In DATE criminal investigation proceedings were pending before ORG against PERSON , a regional politician from GPE , and a NORP citizen , PERSON , who was in detention pending trial . Both were suspected of human trafficking . PERSON was also suspected of fraud . During the investigation proceedings , PERSON accused PERSON of having accepted money for facilitating the illegal entry or transit of CARDINAL nationals from GPE to GPE or through GPE to GPE .","PERSON , an association of which PERSON was president , commissioned the applicant to represent PERSON in the criminal proceedings . The applicant \u2019s fees were covered by this association . Having accepted the mandate the applicant remained in close contact with PERSON and transmitted to him information concerning the criminal investigation proceedings against PERSON He did not represent PERSON in the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant visited PERSON in prison in order to prepare for the trial on DATE . During this visit an affidavit ( ORG ) , prepared in advance by the applicant , was signed by PERSON in which she submitted that her former allegations against PERSON had been untrue .","On DATE , ORG convicted PERSON of the crimes as charged and sentenced her to QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment . PERSON did not retract the statements she had made to the investigating authorities , nor was the affidavit submitted to the court . Instead , the applicant transferred it to the lawyers of O.G.","On DATE the lawyers of PERSON transferred ORG affidavit to the public prosecutor to be taken into consideration in the proceedings against O.G.","NORP On DATE and DATE , in the course of the criminal proceedings against PERSON , the judge of ORG reported to ORG ( Rechtsanwaltskammer , hereinafter \u201c the Bar Association \u201d ) that he suspected the applicant of double representation . The judge stated that the applicant had kept close contact with PERSON and had transferred to him information concerning the investigation proceedings regarding PERSON The judge further stated that the applicant had asked PERSON to submit the affidavit , whose contents were untrue but in favour of PERSON , to the court .","On DATE , upon a request by the PERSON public prosecutor , ORG instituted a preliminary investigation into allegations of attempting to aid the perpetrator ( versuchte PERSON ) , false testimony ( ORG ) and falsifying evidence ( PERSON eines ORG ) against the applicant , and informed ORG .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the PERSON public prosecutor requested that the court conduct further preliminary investigations in the case , in particular the questioning of several witnesses and to put the applicant on the stand . ORG took the requested evidence and heard evidence from the applicant .","On DATE , the PERSON public prosecutor requested the inclusion of a further file regarding the falsification of evidence in a case not related to that of PERSON The file was included in the preliminary investigation against the applicant and the requested evidence was gathered .","Because of the reform of LAW , which entered into force on DATE , the investigating judge transmitted the file to the PERSON public prosecutor , who took charge of the case .","On an unspecified date the PERSON public prosecutor decided not to file a formal indictment ( PERSON , PERSON ) against the applicant until a final court decision in the case against PERSON had been taken . There is no indication that a formal decision on the postponement was taken on this matter or sent to the applicant .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor ordered the suspension of the criminal proceedings against the applicant since the criminal proceedings against PERSON were still pending . Again , it appears that no formal decision was sent to the applicant in this regard .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with the PERSON public prosecutor for the discontinuation of the investigation proceedings .","On DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant were resumed and he was charged with the offence of attempted aiding of the perpetrator and falsifying evidence .","The Linz Regional Court summoned the applicant on DATE for trial on DATE . The applicant lodged a request to have more witnesses questioned on DATE and submitted a statement .","On DATE the first hearing in the criminal proceedings against the applicant was held before ORG .","The next hearing was held on DATE . The hearing was adjourned until the final decision in the case of PERSON had been taken .","As the criminal proceedings against PERSON were still pending , ORG continued criminal proceedings against the applicant and a further hearing was held on DATE , with a new judge presiding .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant on all counts .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the public prosecutor . This judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .","Following the notice of the investigating judge of DATE ORG ( Disziplinaranwalt ) on DATE applied to introduce disciplinary proceedings against the applicant on charges of double representation and falsification of evidence .","Accordingly , on an unspecified date , ORG ( NORP der PERSON , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant .","On DATE ORG held an oral hearing and adjourned the disciplinary proceedings until the criminal proceedings at ORG had become final .","On DATE ORG applied for the withdrawal of the applicant \u2019s right to represent clients before the PERSON courts in criminal cases as an interim measure .","The applicant was informed of this application and submitted his written comments on CARDINAL DATE and DATE in which he opposed the measure .","On DATE ORG , without holding a hearing , withdrew the applicant \u2019s right to represent before GPE , ORG and ORG in criminal law cases as an interim measure by virtue of section CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE f\u00fcr LOC ) . It held that because of the accusations against the applicant the imposed interim measure was proportionate .","The applicant appealed on DATE against this interim measure and complained that the preconditions for it had not been met , that ORG had failed to hear evidence and that it had not held an oral hearing . Furthermore the measure had not been proportionate to the accusations .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON Berufungs- und ORG ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal without having held an oral hearing . It found that it was the task of the criminal courts to hear evidence . The applicant had submitted his comments and had therefore been able to sufficiently present his arguments . Moreover , the measure imposed upon the applicant had been proportionate .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ) and again complained about the lack of an oral hearing and that the measure was disproportionate .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for information ( Auskunftsbegehren ) with ORG and asked if the interim measure of CARDINAL DATE would automatically expire after DATE . If not , he asked to have the interim measure withdrawn as the criminal proceedings were still pending . He claimed that it was disproportionate to sustain the interim measure over such a long period of time .","On DATE ORG replied to the request of DATE and informed the applicant , that the interim measure would not expire automatically but would remain in force .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint and held that the reasoning of the authorities had been sufficient and therefore the imposed measure was not arbitrary . Furthermore it found that the proceedings had overall been fair . As the preliminary measure imposed on the applicant had not been a \u201c criminal charge \u201d in the sense of LAW , an oral hearing had not been compulsory .","On DATE ORG asked for information about the state of the criminal proceedings . A written reply was sent on DATE .","On DATE , after the applicant had been acquitted on all counts by ORG , he lodged another request with ORG to have the interim measure withdrawn referring to the court \u2019s decision .","This request was dismissed by ORG as the public prosecutor had appealed against the decision of ORG .","The applicant appealed on DATE against this decision and complained about the length of time the imposed measure had already been in force .","On DATE the interim measure imposed on the applicant , prohibiting him from representing clients before the PERSON courts in criminal cases was lifted by ORG .","On DATE he was summoned to a hearing by ORG on DATE .","The applicant filed statements in preparation of the hearing on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE denying that there was a case of double representation and referring to the decision of ORG of DATE .","On DATE ORG found that the applicant had not knowingly organised for PERSON to submit an affidavit that was untrue . However , he had acted in double representation within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW ( Rechtanwaltsordnung ) in criminal proceedings , as he had acted in the interests of PERSON and the association PERSON as well as in those of PERSON , whom he had represented . ORG stated that the fact that the disciplinary proceedings had lasted DATE and the fact that the right of the applicant to represent before certain courts in criminal cases had been withdrawn for DATE had to be taken into account . Therefore it found it reasonable to impose a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) in addition to another disciplinary fine he already had been ordered to pay for another case of violation of LAW .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law and an appeal against the fine .","ORG , acting as the highest court in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers , held a hearing on DATE and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , but reduced the additional disciplinary fine to LAW . It explicitly mentioned the length of disciplinary proceedings as a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW and took account of the fact that the applicant \u2019s right to represent before ORG in criminal cases had been withdrawn for DATE . ORG found that a different set of disciplinary proceedings had been already pending when the present incident occurred . Therefore , the applicant should have acted with special caution . A total waiver of the fine would not be adequate in this situation .","ORG judgment was served on DATE on the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181602","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF GREGURI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Kristina Pardalos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant lives in PERSON .","From DATE the applicant concluded several consecutive fixed - duration contracts of employment with the company ORG concerning the same post . The contracts were for a continuous period which in total amounted to over DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s employer returned the applicant \u2019s employment registration book to him , without any written or oral notification , showing that his employment had been terminated .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action before ORG ( PERSON ) . He asked it to recognise that he had concluded an open - ended contract of employment , given that he had been in continuous employment with his employer for DATE , which was the time - limit for fixed - term employment contracts under LAW . He also asked ORG to establish that his employment had not been terminated and to order his reinstatement .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim as time - barred .","Upon an appeal by the applicant , on DATE ORG PERSON ) quashed the firstinstance decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration . It held that the first - instance court should have declared the applicant \u2019s claims inadmissible as time - barred , without examining it on the merits .","In the fresh proceedings , ORG on DATE declared the applicant \u2019s action inadmissible as having been lodged outside the prescribed time - limit . The first - instance court , relying on CARDINAL of LAW , held that the applicant and his employer had concluded a fixed - term contract lasting until DATE and that the applicant must have known that his contract would end on DATE . He had not concluded a new contract of employment with his employer and he had therefore been obliged to lodge an application for the protection of his rights with his employer within the DATE time - limit , starting from DATE . However , he had failed to do so and consequently his claim had been lodged out of time . Rejecting the applicant \u2019s argument , the firstinstance court also held that the defendant company had not been obliged to adopt a formal decision on terminating his employment or to send him any other kind of notification , given that he must have known that his contract would come to an end on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance decision .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) with ORG ( PERSON ) , which was dismissed as ill - founded on DATE . ORG also held that the applicant had failed to seek the protection of his rights in respect of his employer within the deadlines prescribed by CARDINAL of LAW . Accordingly , his claim had been lodged out of time .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) . He complained that the courts had wrongly declared his claim inadmissible because it had been of a declaratory nature and as such had not been subject to deadlines . He relied on a decision by ORG of DATE in the case of a colleague of his , who for the same reasons as the applicant had also sought to have the court recognise that he had concluded an open - ended contract of employment . In that decision ORG , in accordance with instructions given in ORG decision no . Revr-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , had dismissed the defendant \u2019s ( the employer \u2019s ) objection that the claim was time - barred . Namely , ORG had held that the claim had been of a declaratory nature and as such was not subject to deadlines .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as manifestly ill - founded ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167104","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF URMANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of causing and inciting prostitution of minors and unlawful breaking and entering . According to the record of the arrest , a number of witnesses made statements about the applicant \u2019s involvement in the said crimes .","On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody noting as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is charged with serious offences , which fact suggests that , being a former law enforcement officer , if released , he may interfere with the establishment of the truth , influence or threaten witnesses and victims , continue criminal activities or abscond and it will not be possible to complete the investigation or conduct a trial . The ORG considers that [ a less strict ] restrictive measure can not be applied . \u201d","The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial . Relying on the seriousness of the charges against the applicant , ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention during investigation on DATE and DATE . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial . Each time ORG issued a collective detention order in respect of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , and noted that the circumstances underlying their remand in custody had not ceased to exist . Relying further on the seriousness of the charges against the CARDINAL defendants , ORG reasoned that , if released , they might abscond , continue criminal activities or interfere with the establishment of the truth . The applicant \u2019s appeals were to no avail .","On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with abuse of power and organisation of a criminal gang .","On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of several counts of causing and inciting prostitution of minors , abuse of power and unlawful breaking and entering . He was acquitted of organisation of a criminal gang and CARDINAL count of causing and inciting prostitution of minors .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal .","On DATE the applicant was released on parole .","Following the remand in custody on DATE , the applicant was detained in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE . On DATE the applicant was transferred to remand prison no . IZ CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE where he was detained until DATE .","On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the ORG alleging a violation of his right to liberty and asking the ORG to send him an application form . His letter was registered as application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On DATE the ORG sent a letter to the applicant which contained an application form to be filled out . In the letter the ORG advised the applicant that he was to submit a completed application form by DATE . The ORG \u2019s letter was sent to remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE . The applicant was not detained at the remand prison at the moment and the ORG \u2019s letter was forwarded , to correctional colony no . ORG . According to the stamp on the ORG \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE , the correctional colony received it on DATE . Then the administration of the correctional colony sent the letter back to remand prison no . ORG . The remand prison received it on DATE and forwarded it to remand prison no . ORG where the applicant was detained . The letter arrived there on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE the applicant received it ( according to the applicant , he received the letter on CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["34","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160315","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KIRAKOSYAN v. ARMENIA (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , GPE .","The applicant has been a member of an opposition political party , ORG , since DATE . Since DATE he has headed the party \u2019s local offices in the Baghramyan area .","In DATE and DATE a series of protest rallies were organised in GPE by the opposition parties who voiced their criticism of the alleged irregularities which had taken place during the presidential election of DATE and challenged the legitimacy of the re - elected President . It appears that the applicant participated in these rallies . He alleged that the authorities retaliated by arresting , harassing and searching opposition supporters .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was arrested and taken to a police station where an administrative case was initiated against him for disobeying the lawful orders of police officers .","On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention .","The running of the DATE administrative sentence was to be calculated from DATE at TIME The applicant was taken to a detention facility in the town of LOC where he served his sentence .","On DATE at TIME , ORG examined and granted an investigator \u2019s motion , which had apparently been lodged on DATE , seeking to have the applicant \u2019s home searched . The judicial warrant stated :","\u201c The investigating authority has found it substantiated that on DATE at TIME the residents of the village of GPE of GPE [ GPE and GPE ] inflicted violence dangerous for health in the pasture located in the administrative area of GPE in GPE on representatives of the authorities performing their official duties , [ namely ] the head of GPE [ PERSON ] and head of staff of ORG [ A.M. ] . According to operative information , [ GPE and GPE ] had a weapon during the incident[. F]or the purpose of hiding the mentioned weapon , they gave it to the resident of PERSON village , member of ORG , [ the applicant ] , who may have hidden the mentioned weapon in CARDINAL of his homes in GPE .","On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings no . CARDINAL ... concerning this fact .","In view of the fact that the facts of the criminal case provide sufficient grounds to believe that an illegally possessed weapon and ammunition may be found in [ the applicant \u2019s ] home situated in GPE in GPE , as well as other objects and valuables having significance for the criminal case , the court therefore finds that the motion is well - founded and must be granted . \u201d","It was stated in the warrant that it could be contested within DATE before the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal .","The applicant alleged that on DATE , TIME before the expiry of his administrative sentence , he was taken from the LOC detention facility to ORG . From there he was escorted home by CARDINAL police officers .","According to the search record , the search was conducted from TIME by CARDINAL police officers of ORG , GPE , PERSON , ORG . , PERSON , ORG and GPE . CARDINAL neighbours , PERSON and PERSON , were asked by the head of the police team to participate in the search as attesting witnesses . The applicant was asked to surrender the illegal weapon allegedly hidden in his house . The applicant stated that he had no illegal objects at home . As a result of the search , a plastic bag containing a cannabis - like herb was found in the boiler situated in the hallway . The applicant stated that he did not know what it was and who it belonged to . It was mentioned at the end of the record that the applicant had refused to sign the record without providing any reasons .","According to the applicant and the statements of the CARDINAL attesting witnesses which were appended to the application form , the search was conducted in the following manner . Upon his return home , accompanied by police officers , the applicant found his pregnant wife in a critical condition , apparently suffering a miscarriage , and his DATE son crying beside her . On seeing him , the applicant \u2019s wife fainted . A doctor was called and a number of female neighbours came to help . At that point the head of the police team informed the applicant that his house was to be searched , briefly showing him the relevant search warrant . The applicant alleged that attesting witnesses PERSON and PERSON were asked to participate only after the search had already begun . It appears that PERSON was a war veteran who had suffered concussion and was seriously disabled , while PERSON was seventyfour DATE old . The search was conducted by CARDINAL police officers who also used CARDINAL specially trained dogs . Having searched the house and not found anything , the police officers started searching the yard and the adjacent buildings . The applicant alleged that during the search of the outside LOC , the front door of his house was left open and people , including police officers , were coming and going . Moreover , a group of police officers was standing by the front door while the others continued the search . Having found nothing outside the house , the head of the police team announced that they would again search inside the house , to which attesting witness PERSON objected . Following the additional search the police officers found the above - mentioned plastic bag . The attesting witnesses submitted that their objections were not recorded . Moreover , they were persuaded and bullied by the police officers to sign the search record .","The applicant alleged that he was taken back to the police station where the chief of police promised that , if he renounced his political convictions and resigned from the party , no further action would be taken in relation to the cannabis . The applicant refused to make such a deal .","The applicant further alleged that he was kept at the police station TIME . There he was given a meal , including a hamburger . TIME after having eaten the meal he felt sick , started vomiting and lost consciousness . An ambulance was called and some injections were administered . According to the applicant , his meal had been laced with a drug .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW on account of illegal drug possession . On DATE at TIME the applicant was formally arrested .","On DATE the investigator decided to subject the applicant to a forensic toxicological examination . The applicant alleged that he did not receive a copy of this decision . He was taken to ORG where a urine sample was taken .","It appears that on DATE , a lawyer was engaged in the case . It further appears that the applicant was questioned and denied the drug possession allegations .","On an unspecified date the plastic bag and the herbal substance , weighing QUANTITY , were examined by a forensic expert and the substance was found to be cannabis .","On DATE the applicant was formally charged with illegal drug possession and detained by a court order .","On DATE , a toxicological expert opinion was produced , according to which the applicant \u2019s urine sample contained traces indicating cannabis consumption .","On DATE the lawyer filed a motion with ORG seeking to stop the prosecution on the ground that , inter alia , the search had been conducted with numerous procedural violations . A similar complaint was lodged on DATE .","According to the applicant , on an unspecified date his lawyer requested a further examination of the cannabis and the plastic bag by a forensic expert . This request was rejected . He further alleged that , during the investigation , the police officers put pressure on the CARDINAL attesting witnesses not to attend confrontations which had apparently been requested by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer applied to ORG , challenging the investigator \u2019s impartiality and complaining in detail about the unlawful manner in which the search had been executed , alleging , inter alia , that the bag containing cannabis had been planted by the police officers conducting the search .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer complained to ORG that the search warrant had lacked proper grounds and that the search had been conducted with numerous procedural violations . The lawyer argued that the investigator had failed to obtain any evidence when investigating his allegations of irregularities . Such evidence could have been obtained by questioning the applicant \u2019s neighbours and the doctor who had provided first aid to his wife , who had been present during the search , and by holding confrontations between the applicant and the attesting witnesses .","On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s criminal case was brought before ORG .","It appears that , in the proceedings before ORG , the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed a motion seeking to exclude the results of the search as unlawfully obtained evidence . It further appears that ORG did not take any decision on this motion .","Attesting witnesses PERSON and PERSON both testified before the trial court . In reply to the questions put by the applicant \u2019s lawyer PERSON stated , inter alia , that he and PERSON were watching the police officers as much as they could while entering and going out of the rooms together with the police officers . When giving his account of the events PERSON stated among other things that he helped CARDINAL of the police officers to reach the water boiler from which a plastic bag and a plate were taken out . He further stated that both the plastic bag and the plate were covered with dust . However , the plate was dustier compared to the plastic bag . Both PERSON and PERSON stated that they did not remember whether they were informed of their right to have the objections that they might have included in the search record and that the applicant refused to sign it stating that the discovered bag did not belong to him .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to one and a half years\u2019 imprisonment . In doing so , ORG relied on , inter alia , the witness testimony of the police officers who had conducted the search , including GPE , GPE . , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . , and of the CARDINAL attesting witnesses , as well as the results of the analysis of the applicant \u2019s urine sample .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged an appeal . The lawyer argued , inter alia , that the search of the applicant \u2019s home had been conducted with a number of procedural violations and therefore its results could not be used as evidence . In particular , he claimed that the search warrant was not presented to the applicant to get acquainted with it , no signature was obtained from him in this respect and that his objections were not included into the record of the search . He further argued that the search had been authorised by the court on the basis of fabricated police materials and therefore lacked any valid grounds . He also submitted that , according to LAW , ORG should not have relied on the testimony of the police officers , since they had been summoned and examined solely in connection with the performance of their procedural duties and not in connection with the irregularities alleged by the applicant . Furthermore , ORG had failed to take into account the submissions of the attesting witnesses which confirmed the applicant \u2019s allegations of irregularities .","On DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction finding , inter alia , that no significant procedural violations had taken place during the investigation of the case . ORG relied on the same evidence , except for the testimony of the police officers .","No appeal was lodged against this judgment within the DATE statutory time - limit , so it became final .","On DATE the applicant was released on parole .","On DATE an advocate holding a special licence lodged an appeal on points of law on behalf of the applicant against the final judgment of ORG . He requested that the judgment of ORG be quashed and the case be remitted for further investigation due to the procedural violations taken place during the investigation , including the execution of the search .","On DATE ORG examined the appeal on the merits and decided to dismiss it finding that , inter alia , no significant violations of the procedural law had taken place which required the case being remitted for further investigation ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164662","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KOROVINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations;Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["All the applicants were parties to civil proceedings in which the firstinstance and appeal courts found in their favour . These judgments became final but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts on the grounds of incorrect application of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts ( for more details see the Appendix ) ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170837","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF IGBO AND OTHERS v. GREECE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were or still are detained in FAC , either in pre - trial detention or serving prison sentences . The first to fifth applicants and the tenth and thirteenth applicants were placed in cell no . CARDINAL , DATE applicants and DATE applicants were placed in cell no . CARDINAL , and the fourteenth applicant was placed in cell no . CARDINAL .","The fifth applicant was transferred to FAC on DATE , the seventh applicant was released on DATE and the ninth applicant was released on DATE .","The applicants submitted that ORG was overcrowded , resulting in a situation where each inmate was allocated MONEY . m of personal space . The prison consisted of CARDINAL cells which each had CARDINAL beds and QUANTITY mattresses on the floor , and CARDINAL cells which each had CARDINAL beds . As regards the cells in which the applicants were held , their measurements were as follows : cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m. and accommodated CARDINAL detainees , cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m. and accommodated CARDINAL detainees , and cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m. and accommodated QUANTITY detainees . DATE applicants slept on the floor , which was standard practice for other inmates as well .","The applicants pointed out that the toilets in the cells were not partitioned off from the rest of the cells , and there was no hot water . ORG of the cells , in addition to overcrowding , exposed the inmates to contagious diseases and created various psychological problems , in respect of which no medical treatment was provided . Detainees lacked access to adequate dental care .","The applicants stressed that inmates were not sufficiently separated according to their health conditions or according to whether they were in pre - trial detention or serving prison sentences , as was required by LAW .","The applicants also contended that they were confined to their cells for TIME per day , in the absence of any recreational or educational activities .","Meals , which were insufficient and of poor quality , were served in the cells and consumed on the beds .","On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG , arguing that the conditions of their detention were very poor , but did not receive any reply .","The Government submitted that ORG consisted of CARDINAL cells , each furnished with a table , stools , a fridge , cooking stoves , wardrobes and a television . Cells were sufficiently ventilated and heated and had adequate natural light . Additionally , they were regularly cleaned and disinfected .","In respect of prison overcrowding , the ORG argued that the prison had accommodated CARDINAL inmates at the time the applicants had lodged their application with the ORG , only slightly exceeding its capacity of CARDINAL detainees .","All detainees had access to adequate medical care provided by the prison doctor . In case of emergency , or when a serious incident occurred , detainees were transferred to ORG or FAC in GPE . Those suffering from contagious diseases were held separately or transferred to hospital . The Government provided information showing that some of the applicants had had consultations with doctors in respect of various conditions .","There were CARDINAL available places for detainees who wished to work . In addition , detainees had the opportunity to attend educational programmes or other recreational activities which were scheduled from time to time . Most of the applicants participated in some of the educational courses .","As regards ORG meals , the ORG submitted a menu from DATE selected at random to demonstrate that meals were varied ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174470","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SHOROKHOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["All the applicants were party to civil proceedings in which the firstinstance and appeal courts found in their favour . These judgments became binding and enforceable but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts on the ground of incorrect application of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts ( for more details see the Appendix ) ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184653","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF YORDANOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first and third applicants live in GPE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 fathers owned printing houses in GPE , which were nationalised by the NORP authorities in DATE and DATE . After that their assets were taken over by a ORG - owned printing house . In DATE the latter was registered as a ORG - owned company , currently named \u2018 PERSON i nauka\u2019 ORG . The company is managed by the Minister of Education . Among the tasks of the company is the printing of school textbooks .","In DATE ORG adopted ORG ( hereinafter \u201c LAW \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the first and second applicants and their mother applied under LAW to receive compensation for the nationalised printing house . As to the manner of compensation , they expressed preference to receive shares in \u2018 LAW . In a decision of DATE the Minister of ORG allowed their request , stating that the exact number of shares to be awarded would be determined after a valuation of the assets of the former printing house .","NORP Despite that , in another decision dated DATE the Minister rejected the request for compensation . That decision was quashed by ORG in a final judgment of DATE , on the ground that it impermissibly modified the previous one , which had become final .","After that an expert prepared a valuation of the nationalised property , which was confirmed by the Minister of ORG on DATE . It stated that the first and second applicants and their mother were entitled to compensation for MONEY ( ORG , equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) , which equalled CARDINAL shares in \u2018 PERSON i nauka\u2019 ORG , each with a face value of BGN CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","NORP However , on DATE the Minister adopted another decision , stating that the applicants and their mother were to receive compensation bonds instead of shares . He relied in particular on the fact that \u2018 PERSON i nauka\u2019 ORG had been included in the list under LAW of the concluding provisions of the Privatisation and Post - Privatisation Control Act DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the LAW \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Once again , that decision was quashed by ORG , in a final judgment of DATE , as it impermissibly modified the previous decisions awarding the first and second applicants and their mother compensation in the form of shares , which had become final . The domestic court held in particular that LAW of the concluding provisions mentioned above could not justify such a modification .","In DATE the first and second applicants and their mother filed with the Minister of ORG and other ORG bodies several complaints , requesting that the compensation procedure be completed . In a letter dated DATE ORG ) informed them that ORG was seeking \u201c a lawful solution \u201d , which \u201c would not infringe upon the public interest and would not be in breach of LAW ] \u201d . In another letter dated DATE the parliamentary ORG informed the applicants and their mother that it had urged the Minister of ORG to find a solution , pointing out that with the enactment of ORG had sought \u201c to restore historical justice \u201d .","The first and second applicants\u2019 mother passed away in DATE and was succeeded by them .","In DATE the third applicant , her mother and her sister applied under LAW to receive compensation for the nationalised printing house . They stated that they preferred to receive shares in \u2018 LAW .","Their request was allowed by the Minister of ORG in a decision of CARDINAL DATE .","In DATE , DATE and DATE an expert drew up CARDINAL valuations of the expropriated property . The last of them , stating that the third applicant , her mother and her sister were entitled to compensation for ORG MONEY ( the equivalent of FAC ) , equalling CARDINAL shares in \u2018 ORG i nauka\u2019 ORG , each with a face value of BGN CARDINAL , was confirmed by the Minister of Education on DATE .","Despite the above developments , in another decision dated CARDINAL DATE the Minister stated that the third applicant , her mother and her sister were to receive compensation bonds instead of shares . As in the procedure described above concerning the first and second applicants , he relied on the fact that the company had been included in the list under LAW of the concluding provisions of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . That decision was quashed by ORG in a final judgment of DATE , on the ground that it impermissibly modified the previous decisions concerning the compensation to be provided , which had become final . The domestic court again held that LAW of the concluding provisions mentioned above could not justify such a modification , as it was not applicable to pending compensation proceedings .","The third applicant \u2019s mother and sister passed away in DATE and DATE respectively , leaving the third applicant her father \u2019s only surviving heir .","In DATE ORG requested ORG to authorise the transfer to private parties of shares in \u2018 PERSON i nauka\u2019 ORG . The authorisation , related to the claims of all applicants , was given on DATE .","The Ministry took no further measures to complete the compensation procedures .","NORP In DATE the third applicant wrote a letter to the executive director of \u2018 PERSON i nauka\u2019 ORG , urging him to enter into the company register her shareholding and to present to her copies of all decisions taken by the company \u2019s general meeting after DATE . She received no response .","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG authorised the sale by \u2018 PERSON i nauka\u2019 ORG of real properties owned by the company ( such an authorisation was required by law ) . The applicants applied for the judicial review of that decision , arguing that it affected their rights as shareholders . In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed their application , noting that they were not shareholders in the company , since the compensation procedures had not been completed with the actual transfer of shares to them in accordance with the law ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161533","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PARTNERS 2000 KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The first applicant , Partners CARDINAL Kft , is a NORP limited liability company with its seat in PERSON . It is owned and run by the second applicant . The second applicant is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The third applicant is the second applicant \u2019s wife , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The fourth applicant is the second and third applicants\u2019 minor child , born in DATE .","On DATE Parliament enacted Act no . CXXXIV of DATE on ORG of the Youth and on ORG . The LAW was published on DATE .","According to the LAW , tobacco retail was to become a ORG monopoly ( exercised through a ORG - owned company , ORG ) , and tobacco retailers would become authorised through a concession tender , advertised on DATE . The time - limit for applying was CARDINAL DATE .","Entities or persons previously engaged in tobacco retail had no privileges in the tender . Legal persons were not entitled to apply .","The Act was subsequently amended on several occasions , and the final version was enacted on DATE , with entry into force on DATE . Government Decree no . CARDINAL . ( VI.CARDINAL . ) , which contained the detailed rules for the operations of the future concession - holders , was published on DATE , that is , after the completion of the tendering process , the results of which had become public on DATE . The decision about the tenders was taken by PERSON itself .","The first applicant , Partners CARDINAL Kft had been active in tobacco retail for DATE . Since , however , it was not entitled to apply for a concession under the new law , the second applicant applied personally for CARDINAL , on several occasions . However , PERSON turned down his applications , informing him that he had not obtained a tobacco retail concession . The decisions said that his applications did not fully meet the requirements , without developing the shortcomings .","No compensation is available for ex - tobacco - retailers who , by not being awarded a concession , lost part of their livelihood . The refusals , such as those of PERSON , were not subject to any legal remedy .","The applicants submitted that others in comparable situations \u2013 and in the case of those who had never been doing tobacco retail beforehand , in non - comparable situations \u2013 were granted concessions , which difference in treatment can not be explained by any circumstance other than political adherence ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177677","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ALEXANDRU ENACHE v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a lawyer .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG sentenced him to DATE imprisonment for embezzlement and forgery . On DATE he was imprisoned in the police station \u2019s detention facility in GPE ( Centrul de re\u0163inere \u015fi arestare preventiv\u0103 nr . DATE sec\u0163ia CARDINAL Poli\u0163ie ) , where he started serving his sentence . The judgment of ORG was upheld by a final judgment of ORG of DATE , which was finalised on DATE .","The applicant lodged CARDINAL applications for a stay of execution of sentence under LAW b ) and c ) of the former LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He submitted that he was married and had a child who was DATE , born on DATE , whom he wanted to look after , and that his family were experiencing financial and social difficulties on account of his detention .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG Instance dismissed his first application on the grounds that a stay of execution of sentence provided for by LAW b ) of the ORG for convicted mothers up to their child \u2019s first birthday had to be interpreted strictly and that the applicant could not seek application of that provision by analogy . It also found that the financial and family difficulties referred to by the applicant did not fall within the category of special circumstances required by LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL c ) of the ORG to allow a deferral of sentence , especially as they had existed prior to his placement in detention .","On appeal by the applicant , ORG upheld the judgment of ORG in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG Instance dismissed the second application lodged by the applicant under LAW ) of the ORG on the grounds that the statutory conditions were not satisfied . In particular , the court found that enforcement of the sentence did not endanger the applicant \u2019s personal or family situation . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against that judgment .","NORP The applicant was detained in a number of different prisons , including the GPE police detention facility ( from CARDINAL to DATE ) , ORG ( from CARDINAL to DATE , DATE to DATE and CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) , ORG ( from CARDINAL to DATE ) and FAC ( from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) .","With regard to the GPE police detention facility , the applicant stated that he had been detained there with CARDINAL other detainees , in cell no . CARDINAL , which he said measured CARDINAL x QUANTITY m. He said that the cell had CARDINAL window , measuring QUANTITY . cm , which had CARDINAL rows of bars across it and therefore did not let natural light in . He added that the toilets were dirty and separated from the rest of the cell only by a curtain . Lastly , he stated that running water was available TIME .","With regard to ORG , the applicant said that he had been detained in cell no . CARDINAL with CARDINAL other detainees . He said that the cell measured CARDINAL x QUANTITY . m and had CARDINAL window , measuring CARDINAL x CARDINAL sq . m , with bars and a grille and thus no natural light . He added that the cell had been damp and had an unpleasant smell .","With regard to ORG , he stated that he had been detained there with CARDINAL other detainees in a QUANTITY . sq . m. cell and that there had been no running water .","Regarding Giurgiu Prison , he said that he had been detained in an overcrowded cell . He alleged , among other things , that hot water had only rarely been available and that the mattress and bed linen had been dirty . He also complained of the presence of cockroaches , rats and bed bugs .","The Government stated that in the GPE police detention facility the applicant had been held in a CARDINAL sq . m cell containing CARDINAL bunk beds , a television , natural light and toilets measuring QUANTITY m.","At LOC the applicant had been successively detained in CARDINAL cells , varying from QUANTITY . m to QUANTITY . m in size and containing CARDINAL bunk beds . They added that the cells were equipped with toilets , a kitchenette and ventilation and had natural light .","At ORG the applicant \u2019s cell had measured QUANTITY . m and contained CARDINAL beds . They specified that it was equipped with toilets , a kitchenette , ventilation and natural light .","At FAC the applicant had been detained successively in CARDINAL cells , varying from QUANTITY . m to QUANTITY . m in size and containing space for CARDINAL detainees . They contained individual beds , a table allowing the inmates to eat their meals together , CARDINAL bedside tables , a small bench , a television socket and a shoe cupboard . They added that the cells all had toilets measuring QUANTITY m , but did not specify whether these were included in the cell area . They stated , lastly , that the cells and the laundry provided to inmates were in good condition .","..."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179664","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"DINCHEV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant brought civil proceedings against his former employer , claiming that he had been dismissed unlawfully . He asked to be reinstated and sought damages of MONEY ( ORG corresponding to about LAW ) . His claim was rejected at first instance by GPE , but granted almost in its entirety on appeal by ORG on DATE .","The other party , his former employer , a company , appealed in cassation in DATE . The applicant submitted a written response to the cassation appeal . His response was dated DATE ; it was received at ORG on DATE . The file was then sent by ORG to ORG ( \u201c the SCC \u201d ) for examination . The SCC gave the file a number in DATE and scheduled a hearing for DATE .","In the meantime , a new Code of Civil Procedure was adopted in DATE , a major part of which was to enter into force on DATE . According to paragraph CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON \u2019s Transitional and Concluding Provisions , all labour disputes pending before the SCC and in which a hearing had been scheduled for DATE had to be transferred to \u201c the appropriate court of appeal \u201d .","On DATE the SCC terminated the proceedings before it and sent the case to ORG ( \u201c SCA \u201d ) for information and action . The applicant was not informed of the transfer of the case to the SCA and the applicant \u2019s written response to the cassation appeal of his former employer was not transmitted to the SCA .","On DATE and DATE the SCA sent CARDINAL letters to the other party , the applicant \u2019s former employer , informing the company that the proceedings in the case it had brought would be terminated if it failed to pay the requisite court fee . The company replied on DATE that it had paid the fee .","The SCA scheduled a hearing for DATE . It notified the parties of the hearing via publication in ORG , in accordance with the applicable legal provision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The record of the hearing showed that the SCA had noted that the parties had been regularly notified and had not sent representatives , and also that the case was ready for decision .","The SCA examined the company \u2019s cassation appeal on the merits . It delivered a final judgment on DATE , quashing the decision of ORG which had upheld the applicant \u2019s claim . The SCA noted in its judgment that the applicant had made no submissions in respect of the arguments and claims put forward in the cassation appeal . The court then observed that , taking into account the submissions of the company and the available information in the case file , the company \u2019s counterclaims against the applicant were justified . The SCA found in favour of the applicant \u2019s former employer .","The applicant only learned about this decision in DATE when he inquired at the ORG \u2019s registry about the date of the hearing in his case before the SCC , as he had repeatedly done on previous occasions in DATE and DATE . Until then he believed the hearing was going to take place on DATE as scheduled and as the ORG \u2019s website continued to indicate at the time .","A new Code of Civil Procedure ( \u201c the DATE Code \u201d ) was adopted in DATE and the larger part of it entered in force on DATE . According to paragraph CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON \u2019s Transitional and Concluding Provisions , cassation appeals in labour disputes concerning unlawful dismissals , which were pending before the SCC and in which a hearing had been scheduled for a date subsequent to DATE , had to be transferred to \u201c the competent court of appeal \u201d .","Article CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE Code \u201d ) , in force until DATE , provided that before DATE the SCC should publish in ORG the dates on which it would hold hearings and the cases to be heard during DATE . The second sentence in that provision stated that \u201c when the circumstances so required , the parties received notice of the hearing \u201d . This was reproduced in LAW of the DATE Code .","NORP The general rules for summoning to court hearings can be found in LAW and in LAW . Those stipulate , inter alia , that a court notice or a summons has to be delivered in person or via an intermediary , by a court clerk or by registered mail , at the address given in the case .","Article CARDINAL of the DATE Code provides that an interested party can request the reopening of civil proceedings which have ended with a decision which has acquired res judicata . Requests for reopening are examined by the SCC ( LAW , the DATE Code ) . Reopening can be requested within DATE as from the moment in which a party became aware of the facts that would serve as a ground for the reopening ( Article CARDINAL , the CARDINAL Code ) . Reopening in such cases can be requested on the basis of specific grounds , which are exhaustively listed in the DATE Code .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Code ( and before that Article QUANTITY of the DATE Code ) stipulates in particular that a party to a case can seek reopening when in breach of the relevant rules the party has been deprived of the opportunity to take part in the proceedings and has not been adequately represented , or when the party could not appear in person or be represented before the court for reasons beyond that party \u2019s control .","In an interpretative decision , delivered by a plenary of the court and binding all courts , the SCC clarified in DATE the type of circumstances necessitating a departure from the special procedure for summoning to a cassation hearing ( \u0442\u044a\u043b\u043a. \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0442\u044a\u043b\u043a. \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It held that failure in such cases to summon the parties in accordance with the general rules for summoning ( see paragraph CARDINAL above for those rules ) could be a ground for allowing reopening of the proceedings . Such circumstances include the rescheduling of a hearing for a new date , despite the initial summoning to a different date having been fully in compliance with the legal requirements . In another interpretative decision of DATE the SCC further clarified that the party seeking reopening of the proceedings is allowed to submit evidence before the SCC in support of his or her claim that the circumstances justified reopening ( \u0442\u044a\u043b\u043a. \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0442. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , PERSON ) .","The SCC has allowed requests for reopening on the above - indicated grounds in a number of decisions ( see , among many others , \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 QUANTITY ORG \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043d\u0430 \u0412\u041a\u0421 \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. DATE \u0433. , ORG ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 QUANTITY ORG \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 QUANTITY \u0412\u041a\u0421 \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG ) , including in comparable circumstances to those of the applicant in the present case ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 QUANTITY \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. ) . In CARDINAL other decisions in cases with similar circumstances to those of the applicant , different formations of the SCC found that there were no grounds for reopening in the specific circumstances of these cases and did not allow it ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE , PERSON ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , PERSON ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161032","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"LORGER v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before ORG by Odvetni\u0161ka Pisarna Tine \u0160najder Paunovi\u0107 , a law firm practising in GPE .","NORP On DATE , following her dismissal from work , the applicant brought a claim against her former employer in ORG , requesting that the dismissal be declared unlawful and that she be reinstated to her previous position . She alleged , inter alia , that her previous employer had transferred its entire printing business to another company , and that this company ( by virtue of the applicable labour law ) had a duty to assume the contractual obligations of her previous employer .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim , having established that her employer had in fact closed its printing business and terminated the employment contracts of all its employees in the printing department . The court found that the termination was justified , having regard to the circumstances . Moreover , it held that the applicant \u2019s previous employer had not transferred its printing business , but had merely sold the printing equipment to another company .","The first - instance judgment included information on legal remedies and drew the applicant \u2019s attention to the fact that the provisions of LAW concerning the amendment and perfection of pleadings did not apply to appeal proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , finding that the first - instance judgment did not contain any error of fact or law . The court confirmed that the sale of the printing equipment had not constituted a transfer of the business , and that the applicant was therefore not entitled to continue her employment with the new owner of the equipment .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . The appeal document was submitted with a power of attorney , which was given for the specific purpose of lodging the appeal in the applicant \u2019s case . The power of attorney was signed by the applicant and her lawyer . The appeal document itself bore the lawyer \u2019s stamp , but was not signed by either the applicant or her lawyer .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as inadmissible for failure to meet the formal requirements . The court explained that sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW set down minimum requirements for appeals on points of law : identification of the judgment which was subject to appeal and a signature of either the appellant or the lawyer . ORG noted that the appeal on points of law was not signed by either the applicant or her lawyer , rendering it incomplete . According to the rules of civil procedure , an incomplete appeal on points of law was to be rejected forthwith , without a party being given the opportunity to perfect it .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , alleging that CARDINAL of the component parts of the appeal on points of law was the original power of attorney signed by both herself and her lawyer . The applicant was of the view that the sanction of rejecting her appeal on points of law constituted an excessive interference with her right to judicial protection and her right of appeal . The applicant pointed out that ORG rejection had precluded her right to appeal , as the time - limit for lodging an appeal had meanwhile expired . In her opinion , in labour dispute cases such as her own , where workers , as the weaker parties , were aiming to protect their socioeconomic status , they should not be made to suffer such grave consequences . In this connection , the applicant claimed that the interference complained of was disproportionate to the aim pursued by the legislature . According to a parliamentary bulletin containing draft laws and explanatory commentary , the DATE amendment to LAW which had , inter alia , removed the possibility of amending or perfecting incomplete pleadings in appeal proceedings \u2013 had been passed with a view to tackling the backlog of cases pending before the higher courts , thereby guaranteeing a party \u2019s right to trial within a reasonable time . The applicant , however , pointed out that the rule on the immediate rejection of incomplete pleadings did not affect an appellant \u2019s duty to pay court fees . While the higher courts continued to call upon appellants to pay fees instead of rejecting their applications forthwith , the applicant had not been afforded the possibility of remedying the procedural defect in her appeal on points of law . Having regard to the unchanged rules regarding the payment of fees , the applicant maintained that the rule in question did not in fact pursue the legitimate aim of accelerating proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , finding that it did not concern an important constitutional question or entail a violation of human rights which would have serious consequences for the applicant .","NORP The relevant provisions of LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , with a further amendment passed on DATE , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL ) state :","\u201c ...","In extraordinary judicial review proceedings , a party may only perform procedural steps through a representative who is a practising lawyer . \u201d","\u201c If pleadings are unclear or do not contain all of the information necessary for proceeding with the case , the court shall request the person submitting the pleadings to amend or perfect them . ...","Upon ordering the amendment or perfection of pleadings , the court shall fix a time - limit for such changes .","...","If the pleadings are not amended or perfected so as to be capable of being dealt with , the court shall reject them .","... \u201d","\u201c An appeal shall contain","a reference to the decision which is subject to appeal ;","a statement as to whether the decision is being challenged in whole or in part ;","the grounds of appeal ; and","the signature of the appellant . \u201d","\u201c In appeal proceedings , the provisions of section CARDINAL of this LAW concerning the amendment or perfection of incomplete pleadings are not applicable .","... \u201d","\u201c An out - of - time , incomplete or inadmissible appeal shall be rejected by order of the presiding judge of the court of first instance without a hearing .","...","An appeal is incomplete if it does not contain the elements referred to in the first and fourth points of LAW CARDINAL of this Act .","... \u201d","\u201c When the case file for the appeal arrives at the court of second instance , the reporting judge shall decide whether the appeal is ... complete ... An incomplete ... appeal shall be rejected by order of the reporting judge , if the presiding judge of the panel of the court of first instance has not already done so ( section CARDINAL ) .","... \u201d","\u201c An appeal on points of law may be lodged against a final judgment of a court of second instance within DATE of service of a transcript of the judgment ( in the case of a statutorily permitted appeal ) , or within DATE of service of a ORG decision granting leave to appeal ( in cases of leave to appeal ) .","An appeal on points of law shall be permitted if the value of the subject of the part of the final judgment which is in issue exceeds ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( statutorily permitted appeal ) .","If an appeal on points of law is not permitted under the provisions of the preceding subsection , it may only be lodged if leave to appeal is granted by the court under section CARDINAL.a of this LAW .","... \u201d","\u201c An appeal on points of law may be lodged :","on the grounds of a violation of the essential requirements of civil procedure referred to in the second subsection of section CARDINAL of the present Act , except where the violation concerns an issue of territorial jurisdiction ... or arbitration agreement ... , or if the judge of the court of first instance has given a judgment without hearing the case ... , or if the court has adjudicated upon a claim which is subject to another action which is pending ... , or if the public has been wrongfully excluded from the substantive hearing ... ;","on the grounds of a violation of the essential requirements of civil procedure referred to in the first paragraph of section CARDINAL of this Act in the proceedings before the court of second instance ; or","on the grounds of a violation of substantive law .","...","An appeal on points of law may not be lodged on the grounds of erroneous or incomplete determination of the facts .","... \u201d","\u201c If not otherwise provided for in sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL , the provisions of this LAW concerning appeals against judgments ( sections ... CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) ... shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to proceedings concerning appeals on points of law . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172091","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ILIAS AND AHMED v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion;Prevent unauthorised entry into country);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Serbia);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Ganna Yudkivska;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants were born on CARDINAL DATE and PERCENT respectively . Having left their home country , GPE , they travelled through GPE , GPE , and GPE , and entered the territory of ORG in GPE . From there , they transited through the former GPE . Mr PERSON spent TIME on NORP territory ; whereas Mr GPE DATE . At last , on DATE they arrived in the PERSON transit zone situated on the border between GPE and GPE . On DATE , they submitted applications for asylum .","From that moment on , the applicants stayed inside the transit zone , which they could not leave in the direction of GPE . They alleged that the transit zone was , in their view , unsuitable for a stay longer than a day , especially in the face of their severe psychological condition . They were effectively locked in a confined area of QUANTITY , part of the transit zone , surrounded by fence and guarded by officers ; and were not allowed to leave it for GPE . They claimed that they had no access to legal , social or medical assistance while in the zone . Moreover , there was no access to television or the Internet , landline telephone or any recreational facilities . They submitted that they stayed in a room of QUANTITY containing beds for CARDINAL .","The Government submitted that the containers measured QUANTITY . There were CARDINAL beds in each container and an electric heater . The number of asylum - seekers never exceeded CARDINAL in the material period . Hot and cold running water and electricity were supplied . CARDINAL pork - free meals were available DATE to the applicants in a dining - container . Medical care was available for TIME DATE by doctors of ORG .","According to the Report of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( \u201c CPT \u201d ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , asylum seekers in the GPE zone were accommodated in rooms of QUANTITY in ground surface that were equipped with CARDINAL beds fitted with clean mattresses , pillows and bedding . The accommodation containers had good access to natural light and artificial lighting , as well as to electric heating . Further , there was a narrow designated area in front of the containers to which foreign nationals had unrestricted access during DATE . The sanitary facilities were satisfactory . The ORG delegation had a good impression of the health - care facilities and the general health care that was provided to foreign nationals in the establishment .","The applicants , both illiterate , were interviewed at once by ORG ( \u201c the asylum authority \u201d ) . By mistake , the first applicant was interviewed with the assistance of an interpreter in PERSON , which he does not speak . Both applicants\u2019 mother tongue was GPE . According to the record of the meeting , the asylum authority gave the first applicant an information leaflet on asylum proceedings , which was also in PERSON . The interview lasted TIME . An GPE interpreter was present for the second applicant \u2019s interview , which lasted TIME .","According to the notes taken during the interviews GPE was the first country where both applicants had applied for asylum .","By a decision delivered on DATE of DATE , the asylum authority rejected the applicants\u2019 asylum applications , finding them inadmissible on the grounds that GPE was to be considered a \u201c safe third country \u201d according to Government Decree no . CARDINAL . ( VII.CARDINAL . ) on safe countries of origin and safe third countries ( \u201c the Government Decree \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The asylum authority ordered the applicants\u2019 expulsion from GPE .","The applicants challenged the decision before ORG . On DATE the applicants , through representatives of ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) who had access to the transit zone , authorised CARDINAL lawyers acting on behalf of ORG to represent them in the judicial review procedure . However , the authorities did not allow the lawyers to enter the transit zone to consult with their clients until TIME of CARDINAL September CARDINAL , that is , after the court hearing .","On DATE the court held a hearing regarding both applicants with the assistance of an GPE interpreter . Both applicants stated that they had received a document from the NORP authorities written in NORP , which they could not understand , and that they had been ordered to leave NORP territory . At the hearing , the second applicant submitted that he had applied for asylum in GPE , but his application had not been examined .","The court annulled the asylum authority \u2019s decisions and remitted the case to it for fresh consideration . It relied on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Government Decree and argued that the asylum authority should have analysed the actual situation in GPE regarding asylum proceedings more thoroughly . It should also have informed the applicants of its conclusions on that point and afforded them DATE to rebut the presumption of GPE being a \u201c safe third country \u201d with the assistance of legal counsel .","On DATE , at the request of their lawyers , a psychiatrist commissioned by ORG visited the applicants in the transit zone and interviewed them with the assistance of an interpreter attending by telephone . Her opinion stated that the first applicant ( Mr PERSON ) had left GPE in DATE partly because of a flood and partly because CARDINAL political parties had been trying to recruit him . When he refused , he was attacked and suffered injuries . The psychiatrist observed that he was well oriented , able to focus and recall memories , but showed signs of anxiety , fear and despair . He was diagnosed with post - traumatic stress disorder ( \u201c PTSD \u201d ) .","With regard to the second applicant ( Mr PERSON ) , the medical report stated that he had fled his country DATE . He had previously worked abroad , during which time his whole family had died in a flood . He had then left GPE and migrated through several countries in order to restart his life . He was found to be well oriented with no memory loss but with signs of depression , anxiety and despair . He was diagnosed with PTSD and as having an episode of depression .","Neither of the reports contained any indication of urgent medical or psychological treatment . However , the psychiatrist was of the opinion that the applicants\u2019 mental state was liable to deteriorate due to the confinement .","According to the documents in the case file , on DATE the asylum authority informed the ORG legal representatives by telephone that a hearing would be held DATE . However , the applicants submitted that no such precise information had been given to their representatives .","Since their legal representatives were not present at the hearing , the applicants decided not to make any statement . With the assistance of an GPE interpreter , the asylum authority informed the applicants that they had DATE to rebut the presumption of GPE being a safe third country .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 legal representatives made submissions to the asylum authority and requested that a new hearing be held , which they would attend .","On DATE the asylum authority again rejected the applications for asylum . It found that the reports prepared by the psychiatrist had not provided enough grounds to grant the applicants the status of \u201c persons deserving special treatment \u201d since they had not revealed any special need that could not be met in the transit zone . As to the status of GPE being classed as a \u201c safe third country \u201d , the asylum authority noted that the applicants had not referred to any pressing individual circumstances substantiating the assertion that GPE was not a safe third country in their case , thus they had not managed to rebut the presumption . As a consequence , the applicants\u2019 expulsion from GPE was ordered .","The applicants sought judicial review by ORG . On DATE the court upheld the asylum authority \u2019s decision . It observed in particular that , in the resumed proceedings , the asylum authority had examined , in accordance with the guidance of the court , whether GPE could be regarded generally as a safe third country for refugees and had found on the basis of the relevant law and the country information obtained that it was so . It had considered the report of ORG published in DATE , the reports of DATE and DATE issued by the ORG concerning GPE together with other documents submitted by the applicants . It had established on the basis of those documents that GPE satisfied the requirements of section CARDINAL ( i ) of LAW . The court was satisfied that the asylum authority had established the facts properly and observed the procedural rules , and because the reasons for its decision were clearly stated and were reasonable .","The court further emphasised that the ORG statements given at the hearings were contradictory and incoherent . The first applicant had given various reasons for leaving his country and made confusing statements on whether he had received any documents from the NORP authorities . The document he had finally produced was not in his name , and therefore it could not be taken into account as evidence . Never in the course of the administrative proceedings had he referred to the conduct of human traffickers before his hearing by the court . The second applicant \u2019s statements were incoherent on the issue of the duration of his stay in GPE and the submission of a request for asylum . The applicants had not relied on any specific fact that could have led the authority to consider GPE non - safe in their respect . They had contested the safety of GPE only in general which was not sufficient to rebut the presumption .","Lastly , the court was satisfied that the authority \u2019s procedure had been in compliance with the law .","The final decision was served on the applicants on DATE . It was written in NORP but explained to them in GPE . Escorted to the NORP border by officers , the applicants subsequently left the transit zone for GPE without physical coercion being applied .","On DATE the transcript of the court hearing held on DATE was sent to the applicants\u2019 lawyer . On DATE the lawyer received the GPE translation of the court \u2019s decision taken at the hearing . On DATE the applicants\u2019 petitions for review were dismissed on procedural grounds , since the GPE held that it had no jurisdiction to review such cases ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173361","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"CAZACLIU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants , whose names and dates of birth are listed in the annex to this decision ( \u201c the applicants \u201d ) , are CARDINAL NORP nationals of GPE ethnic origin who live or used to live in ORG . They were represented before the ORG by ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , a non - governmental organisation based in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants are or used to be residents of the town of ORG . They are of GPE ethnic origin .","NORP Before DATE many of the applicants had lived in an informal GPE slum located in central ORG . In DATE their homes were destroyed by an accidental fire and they were rendered homeless . Afterwards they were forced to live outdoors in unsafe conditions and did not receive any assistance from the authorities .","In DATE the applicants moved , with the local authorities\u2019 permission , into an unoccupied building in ORG that had belonged to a ORG - owned factory .","For DATE the applicants and other people continued to live in that building even though the living conditions were poor and overcrowded . Despite not having a lawful right to occupy the building , the applicants\u2019 presence there was tolerated and they paid charges for water and electricity .","According to the applicants , they asked the local authorities on numerous occasions to assist them with regularising their status but their requests remained unsuccessful .","The applicants were temporarily evicted from the building for the first time in DATE following a court order . After the eviction order was overturned , they returned to the building and continued to live there .","On an unspecified date the building was sold by its former owner to a private investor , namely the company ORG to selling the building , the former owner had allegedly attempted to donate the building to the local authorities , but his offer was refused by them .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision concerning the allocation of social housing in ORG that made higher education a decisive criterion for examining potential applications . The decision concerned social housing located in the city .","On DATE ORG again adopted a decision concerning the allocation of social housing in ORG that made higher education a decisive criterion for examining potential applications . This decision concerned social housing located on a particular street .","On DATE the company GPE brought eviction proceedings against some of the occupants of the building , namely DATE , sixteenth , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and QUANTITY applicants . The remaining the applicants were not parties to the eviction proceedings .","By a judgment of DATE ORG allowed the company \u2019s action for eviction . It held that the company was the lawful owner of the building and had a right to enjoy its use . The occupants had no lawful right to occupy the building and therefore had to vacate it . The judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE and by the final judgment of ORG on DATE .","On an unspecified date the applicants who were parties to the eviction proceedings contested the eviction order issued against them on the basis of the judgment of DATE .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the proceedings seeking to contest the eviction order on the grounds that the said order was lawful . There is no evidence in the file that any of the applicants appealed against the judgment .","In DATE the occupants of the building , including all the applicants , were evicted . Among the applicants there were children , elderly and less able people .","The only shelter option offered to the applicants by the local authorities was a former army barracks building that had been disused since DATE located QUANTITY outside ORG and known as \u201c Pichet \u201d . The aforementioned building was in an advanced state of disrepair and had been transferred to the local authorities in DATE in order to be converted into social housing . The area around the building was heavily industrialised and there were no other residential buildings in the same location . A large number of the applicants moved into the building , while the remaining applicants had to live on the street for DATE . In DATE those of the applicants who remained homeless after the eviction accepted the local authorities\u2019 offer , as a temporary solution , to move into mobile homes that were placed on a former rubbish dump .","According to the applicants , when they moved to \u201c LOC \u201d they found that the building was not connected to electricity , mains water or sewage facilities . The building had no doors or windows , no heating , a broken roof and damp and damaged walls . It was also infested by rats . The toilet facilities were communal and out of order and rubbish collection was rare . The available water supply had a visible heavy sediment and caused recurring stomach problems . Trucks unloaded bauxite and gravel directly behind the building . The trucks made a lot of noise and raised large quantities of dust which caused breathing difficulties . The noise caused by the nearby shipyard also affected the applicants\u2019 psychological well - being .","According to the applicants , they lived in overcrowded conditions because each family was assigned CARDINAL room and therefore CARDINAL people had to share it . Some of them had to abandon their jobs or found it increasingly difficult to find employment and the children were no longer able to attend school or kindergarten because of the travelling distance into ORG and the infrequent and unreliable public transport . Some of the children were too small to return home from school on foot unaccompanied by an adult . Others had been harassed or abused by drivers or other individuals when they returned home from school after dark .","According to the applicants , the mobile homes that were placed on the former rubbish dump were not meant to serve as long - term habitation , especially during extreme weather conditions . They deteriorated quickly and had to be repaired repeatedly by the authorities . Although they were connected to electricity , they were not connected to running water or sewage facilities . They had no heating system , were poorly ventilated and damp , and were very cold in the DATE and very warm in DATE .","The rubbish dump had been closed down in DATE and the land had not been properly decontaminated before the mobile homes were placed on it .","NORP In press statements published in the local newspapers PERSON and ORG on DATE , DATE and on an unspecified date during their eviction in DATE , the mayor of ORG stated in respect of the applicants\u2019 situation that : \u201c ... morally there could be a duty , but as mayor I have a duty towards law - abiding citizens , a duty towards the citizens who respect the community , a duty towards families with children who are gainfully employed . Some of them are living there without any papers to prove that they are citizens of ORG \u201d . Also : \u201c ... Some citizens accused me of racism and some of positive discrimination . I did not set out to become the king of the gypsies in this town , because this is not why I have been elected . I have done a lot to meet the problems of this social category , but now it \u2019s enough ... \u201d . And : \u201c We are doing everything possible to provide them with some comfort at \u201c LOC \u201d , where CARDINAL families have been relocated . For the rest other options were found . We have no houses available . Where would they like me to find a living space for them , at CARDINAL ? Perhaps close to the market ? Those who are not from ORG can go back to where they came from \u201d .","NORP In a press statement published on DATE in the local newspaper ORG the ORG stated that \u201c We are looking at an option with mobile homes , but I would like to say that many of the GPE faced with these problems have created them themselves . Many of them sold their homes and afterwards asked ORG for new ones . Of course , the GPE are confronted with many problems , but they are not frequent visitors of the jobs markets . Be that as it may , many non - GPE are in a similar situation to that of the GPE population and have no homes , but they do not knock at ORG door ; they try to rent , to work and so on . I think that your organisation should also be more involved this way and educate them to work \u201d .","On DATE the sixth , fifteenth , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and QUANTITY applicants , all of whom were living in the \u201c LOC building , brought proceedings against ORG to obtain an injunction ordering the local authorities to carry out the urgent maintenance work needed on their building .","By a final judgment of DATE ORG allowed the action brought by the applicants . It held that ORG had signed lease contracts for the building with the applicants . Therefore , as a lessor , according to the relevant domestic legislation and the provisions of the lease contracts , it had an obligation to provide adequate living conditions , and to repair the building and keep it safe for the entire duration of the contract . However , according to the available testimonies at the time , the housing conditions had been unfit for habitation and the building had been in a poor state when the applicants moved into it . In DATE the building had still not been connected to the town \u2019s electricity grid and the sewage system was never fully functional . The building materials brought on site by ORG after the applicants moved there did not constitute fulfilment by the lessor of its obligations to repair the building because the quantity of materials was too small to ensure the complete repair of the building .","The argument that the building \u2019s problems were caused by some of the tenants themselves was not supported by any proof . In addition , the argument that the applicants failed to pay rent for long periods of time was irrelevant for the case , since the lessor could not use that argument to justify a breach of his contractual duty to maintain the building . Consequently , the court ordered ORG to repair the building and maintain it and the communal areas at an acceptable standard for the entire duration of the lease contract .","On DATE CARDINAL CARDINAL of the applicants living both at \u201c LOC and in the mobile homes \u2013 all except DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , fortyeighth , and DATE applicants DATE and other people brought a general tort law action on the basis of ORG of LAW against ORG and the ORG mayor \u2019s office seeking CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) ( CARDINAL for each individual ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ( CARDINAL for each individual ) ) by way of compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of having their access to education restricted , the inadequacy of the living conditions in the social housing , and the interference with their health and social personality as a result of the inaction of the local authorities .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the QUANTITY applicants\u2019 action . It held that the applicants had not suffered any damage and therefore CARDINAL of the conditions required for a general tort law action had not been met . The local authorities had taken steps to provide the applicants with suitable living conditions , even though they had failed to pay their outstanding taxes . Although the applicants had not paid their rent , the local authorities had not used the contract clause allowing them to terminate the lease contracts after the applicants\u2019 failure to pay rent for DATE . The means to help the disadvantaged were provided for by law . The responsibilities of ORG and the ORG mayor \u2019s office did not include the duty to secure the necessary conditions in social housing belonging to persons of GPE ethnicity or their health .","The applicants appealed against the judgment . They did not submit reasons for their appeal but argued that the objectivity of the social investigation reports produced during the proceedings was doubtful because they were carried out by ORG employees . In addition , the social investigation reports had not reflected their living conditions as they had avoided providing details about the available utilities , furniture and living conditions by using the expression \u201c equipped with the bare necessities \u201d .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal and upheld the judgment of the firstinstance court . It noted that the applicants had failed to provide reasons supporting their appeal and had submitted only objections in respect of the social investigation reports . It held that according to the relevant domestic legislation the local authorities had to assign social housing to various categories of people in an order of priority set out by law . Consequently , homeless GPE could be assigned social housing only if the order of priority set out by law had been observed and if they met the DATE income criterion provided for by law . Therefore , the local authorities could not be forced to satisfy the social housing needs of all the applicants as long as such housing had to be assigned on a priority basis to other categories of people expressly provided for by law . The ORG needs could be met afterwards , if and when social housing became available .","The court further held that , even though the applicants had failed to pay their dues towards the ORG budget , some of them had nonetheless been provided with social housing . Consequently , the local authorities had already taken steps to ensure they had suitable living conditions .","As far as the applicants\u2019 living conditions were concerned , the court noted that there was no evidence that the social housing was not connected to electricity or heating facilities , and this could also have been a consequence of the applicants\u2019 failure to pay their DATE invoices . Moreover , the responsibilities of the local authorities did not include the duty to ensure adequate conditions in social housing belonging to persons of GPE .","In respect of the applicants\u2019 health , the court held that it was not proven that the alleged failure of the local authorities to fulfil their duties had caused the applicants\u2019 state of health to deteriorate .","Finally , the court also noted that it had not been proven that the local authorities\u2019 action \u2013 namely providing only some of the applicants with social housing based on availability \u2013 had restricted their access to education .","The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment . They argued that according to the relevant domestic legislation the local authorities were responsible for assigning social housing for renting to disadvantaged persons , a category to which the applicants belonged . The authorities had a statutory responsibility to ensure decent living conditions for ORG \u2019s citizens but they had failed to fulfil their duty by housing the applicants indefinitely in accommodation which was not connected to basic utilities . The absence of decent accommodation for ORG \u2019s GPE was one cause of the applicants\u2019 abandonment of school attendance and of their exclusion from the employment market . In these circumstances , the failure of the local authorities to fulfil their statutory obligations rendered them responsible for the non - pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants , estimated at RON CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for each individual .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicants\u2019 appeal on points of law in part , quashed the second instance court \u2019s judgment , annulled the action lodged by DATE applicant on account of her death and awarded each of the remaining applicants RON CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . It noted that the parties had submitted the final judgment of DATE to it and that the seventeenth applicant had died on DATE and that no relatives had accepted her inheritance . Moreover , it stressed that the object of the applicants\u2019 action was strictly limited to the non - pecuniary damage claim of ORG CARDINAL for each individual in the light of having their access to education restricted , being provided with social housing offering inadequate living conditions , and the interference with their health and social personality resulting from the inaction of the local authorities . The applicants had not asked the court to examine the conditions in which their eviction in DATE had taken place . The aforementioned issue had been the object of another set of proceedings which were terminated by the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","The court held that the local authorities\u2019 failure to fulfil all their statutory duties and ensure adequate living conditions for the applicants in the housing rented to them after their eviction in DATE amounted to a breach of their right to private and family life and home guaranteed by LAW . It noted that , contrary to the ORG submissions , the local authorities\u2019 decision to assign and rent homes to the applicants at \u201c LOC \u201d had not been aimed at segregating the GPE families . Because DATE was approaching when the applicants were evicted , the local authorities had actually been trying to urgently secure shelter for CARDINAL of the evicted families and their small children . According to ORG , the lack of social housing was endemic nationwide and particularly in ORG , where CARDINAL social cases were solved DATE out of the CARDINAL pending requests for social housing .","As regards the \u201c LOC \u201d building , the court held that , according to the available evidence , the building was functional and had offered adequate conditions for housing on DATE when it was leased to the applicants . In particular , the building was connected to electricity , was fitted with stoves for heating , and running water was available from a tap located in the courtyard . In addition , on the date the applicants took over the building the local authorities provided the ORG representative , namely the ninth applicant , with some building materials in order to be able to carry out some maintenance work that was needed . However , according to the relevant domestic legislation it was not sufficient for a lessor to provide those who signed a lease contract with a functional building . The lessor had to provide during the entire period of the lease contract a building which was safe to use and which had functioning utililities . In the instant case , during the term of the lease contract the communal water , electric and sewage facilities were damaged .","Although the tenants reported the problems to the authorities , they had remained inactive and had failed to carry out repairs and the building had become unfit for habitation and a health hazard for the tenants . Although ORG established on DATE that the local authorities had failed to repair and maintain the building for the entire duration of the lease contract , and had ordered them to do so , the authorities had not demonstrated that they had complied with that judgment . Moreover , according to the available evidence , the building had become even more dilapidated and unfit for habitation . The fact that the building \u2019s problems were caused by some of the tenants themselves could not exonerate the authorities or explain their inaction . The relevant domestic legislation provided for sanctions against tenants who damage a building , namely the cancellation of their lease contract . However , the local authorities had failed to take any punitive measures against those tenants . At the same time they had also failed to repair the building , thus creating an unsuitable living environment even for those tenants who had maintained their homes and had not damaged the building .","In respect of the mobile homes located on the former rubbish dump , the court held that they had represented an effective temporary solution for the ORG problems . However , given that the applicants have had to continue living there , the homes in question and their location amounted to a breach of the applicants\u2019 right to enjoy their home in a healthy environment as guaranteed by LAW . The mobile homes assigned to CARDINAL families were placed on a former rubbish dump , without any preliminary operation to decontaminate the soil or have the level of soil pollution measured by a specialist agency . The local authorities were responsible for taking measures to locate the mobile homes in an area of the city that would be appropriate for the applicants\u2019 needs and would safeguard their right to a healthy environment . However , they had failed to fulfil their positive obligations under LAW and to inform the applicants that the land in question had been used as a rubbish dump prior to DATE and that their health and quality of life might be adversely affected by pollution . The failure of the local authorities to fulfil their duties and their passivity after DATE also amounted to a breach of the applicants\u2019 right to a home as guaranteed by LAW .","Consequently , given the applicants\u2019 living conditions , namely the overcrowded and unhealthy environment , and its effect on the applicants\u2019 state of health throughout the long period of time they had to live under those conditions , combined with the general attitude of the authorities , the civil liability of the authorities could be engaged since the nature of the applicants\u2019 living conditions had a negative impact on human dignity and the applicants\u2019 right to private life and to a home .","In respect of the ORG claims that the local authorities had interfered with and restricted the applicants\u2019 children \u2019s right to education by renting them social housing located on the city \u2019s outskirts , the court held that the local authorities were responsible for the applicants\u2019 children \u2019s inability to attend school regularly and liable for the damage thereby caused .","It noted that , according to the available evidence , the applicants\u2019 children \u2019s schools were located CARDINAL kilometres from their homes . The absence of frequent public transport on those routes made travelling to school difficult and encouraged the abandonment of school attendance , particularly during adverse weather conditions . From DATE there was no public transport connecting the \u201c LOC \u201d building to the city centre and the form of transport referred to was introduced only after that date . In this context it pointed out that according to the case - law of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , in cases where a general measure has a disproportionately prejudicial effect on a particular group of people , that measure could be deemed to be discriminatory even though it had not targeted that group of people . Consequently , even though the authorities\u2019 cancellation of public transport in the area did not directly target the GPE and pursued a legitimate aim DATE namely to make public transport financially efficient \u2013 its effect did not strike a fair balance between the public interest and that of the applicants . By relying on the principles set out in the ORG \u2019s case - law concerning non - discrimination against people of GPE ethnicity and their right to education , the court concluded that the local authorities had indirectly breached the applicants\u2019 children \u2019s right to education by failing to discharge their duty of organising adequate public transport in the city .","In respect of the applicants\u2019 claims that their health was affected , the court noted that they enjoyed free medical assistance without any discrimination or bias . However , it considered that , based on the available testimonial evidence , the authorities\u2019 passivity in respect of the applicants\u2019 inadequate living conditions , the lack of hygiene in the rented housing and the polluted environment had affected the applicants\u2019 health .","Finally , in determining the non - pecuniary compensation to which the applicants were entitled ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court took into account the ORG individual situations , the fact that some of the applicants had failed to fulfill all their contractual obligations , that they had refused to comply with their lawful duty to participate in routine cleaning of the LOC , and that some of their actions had contributed to the deterioration of their homes .","On DATE ORG lodged civil claims in anti - discrimination proceedings against ORG , relying on LAW . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on combating and punishing all forms of discrimination . The action did not name any of the applicants or any of the victims of the measures taken by the authorities . ORG asked the court to acknowledge that the relocation of GPE families in a building deemed unfit for human habitation outside the town and in mobile homes on a former rubbish dump breached the domestic legislation on antidiscrimination , as did the criterion set by the local authorities requiring a certain level of education for awarding social housing . In addition , ORG asked the court to order ORG to pay ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) to the victims of the discrimination , and to restore the previous situation , or to remedy the situation caused by the discrimination .","The ORG argued , amongst other things , that part of the evidence used to prove that the ORG local authorities\u2019 decision - making process had been influenced by their preconceptions about GPE was the racist language used by them in the press to describe the applicants on account of their ethnicity ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Moreover , the local authorities had moved the families in question to remote locations , into a polluted area and on a former rubbish dump , had segregated them , had created physical obstacles for them which prevented them from accessing regular public services , had restricted their children \u2019s rights to education and had refused to fulfil their contractual and legal obligations . Furthermore , without any reasonable justification , ORG had added the criterion of higher education as a decisive condition for accessing social housing , even though the relevant domestic legislation did not impose this criterion as a requirement and it had been statistically proven that people of GPE ethnicity are less well educated than those of other ethnicities .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the action brought by ORG . It noted that following its request , ORG had submitted its opinion on the case . The court held that the actions of the local authorities had been motivated not by racial discrimination but by the lack of social housing affecting both the GPE and the non - GPE population . Moreover , the allegedly offensive statements made by representatives of the local authorities were not discriminatory , because the domestic anti - discrimination legislation could not restrict freedom of speech , or the freedom to hold an opinion , or to impart information . According to press articles submitted by ORG , the representatives of the local authorities had stated the reason for the GPE move to the impugned locations , namely the lack of any other social housing , not their ethnicity .","Furthermore , the criteria set by the local authorities for allocating social housing ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) could not be considered discriminatory because in the court \u2019s opinion it would be unconceivable that any one social group would have a better claim to social housing than another social group simply because the latter \u2019s members were not educated , or that the interpretation of the legal provisions would generate positive discrimination . The local authorities were free to set certain criteria for awarding social housing and they could not be held responsible for the fact that GPE are less educated than the rest of the population . The local authorities had a duty to safeguard the rights and well - being of all the members of the community and the relocation of the GPE families to the area they favoured would have created a situation of conflict in that area that the authorities were duty - bound to avoid . The court furthermore considered that ORG claims for compensation , or to remedy the problems caused by the discrimination , were unfounded because the authorities had not committed acts of discrimination and the question of whether or not the housing assigned to the families in question was fit for habitation was not an issue of discrimination and could be remedied through a general law action . At the same time , restoring the previous situation would have contravened a final court judgment which was res judicata and ordered their eviction .","ORG appealed against the judgment and asked the appeal court to quash the first - instance court \u2019s judgment and to allow its action the way it was formulated . It argued , inter alia , that the first - instance court had misapplied the relevant anti - discrimination legal provisions and had failed to reverse the burden of proof as required by law , even though they had proven by statistical data that the relocated families had been discriminated against . In addition , it claimed that the court had failed to examine evidence held on file such as the discriminatory statements made by the local authorities , had founded its judgment on inexistent evidence , had relied on the principle of free speech as an argument for dismissing the claims DATE even though free speech does not excuse discriminatory statements \u2013 had ignored the fact that of the people who had claimed social housing , it was only those with GPE ethnicity who had been assigned housing in the impugned locations , had relied on the argument that there was no social housing available in ORG without seeking evidence to substantiate this , and had not examined the question of whether the GPE relocation and living conditions were discriminatory . The court had also failed to understand the argument concerning the higher education criterion , given that the organisation had contested not its actual existence , but rather the importance assigned to it for the purposes of awarding social housing . The local authorities had not shown any objective justification for assigning great importance to that condition .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It held that the relocation of the GPE families had not been motivated by racial discrimination as the decision for relocation had been taken on the basis of regulations provided for by law . Nor had the domestic authorities treated the GPE families differently from other families in a similar situation . In addition , the local authorities\u2019 public statements had not been discriminatory and , as they did not play a decisive role in assigning housing to GPE families , were irrelevant . The GPE families had been provided with housing on the basis of clearly established criteria set out in decisions that had not been contested . The available evidence had not demonstrated fulfilment of the cumulative conditions required for an act to amount to discrimination within the meaning of the relevant domestic legislation .","ORG appealed on points of law against the judgment and asked the appeal court to quash the secondinstance court \u2019s judgment and to allow its action the way it was formulated . It argued that the second - instance court had failed to provide reasons for its decision and to fully examine the claims concerning the relocation to polluted areas , and had omitted altogether to examine the arguments about the higher education criterion . The lower court , meanwhile , had failed to explain the basis for its statement that GPE families had not been treated differently from other families in a similar situation . Moreover , the court had shifted the burden of proof in respect of the discrimination claim to the plaintiff , whereas it was for the authorities to show that there had been no discrimination . The court \u2019s argument that the GPE families had been provided with houses on the basis of clearly established criteria set out in decisions was irrelevant as it did not mean that the criteria in question were not discriminatory . In addition , the appellate court \u2019s reasoning simply ignored the racist and discriminatory nature of the public officials\u2019 statements , even though the same public officials were the ones who had ordered the relocation of the GPE families outside the city and on a former rubbish dump .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( available on DATE ) ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law . It held that if the interest in taking part in the proceedings lay in the purpose for which the non - governmental organisation was founded \u2212 namely , the protection of the rights of the persons in respect of whom the existence of the alleged discrimination was invoked \u2212 in the instant case the available evidence , including the succession of events as narrated by the media , did not confirm the existence of different treatment in a similar situation . TIME of ORG meeting of DATE and the press articles provided evidence of the efforts of the local authorities to remedy the problems caused by the eviction .","The local authorities had repeatedly attempted to delay the eviction pending the preparation of other housing solutions , and had succeeded in doing so . It was uncontested that after the eviction housing solutions had been found for all the families either at \u201c LOC \u201d or in mobile homes . It had also been proved that the local authorities had constantly tried to remedy the particular housing problems of individual families by granting them social housing and by overruling the opposition of some of the members of the community to certain GPE being granted priority treatment . In this context the court noted the statements made by the mayor and by another representative of the local authorities in respect of the PERSON and GPE situation after their eviction . ORG arguments that the relocation of most of the families to \u201c LOC amounted to segregation was therefore contradicted , since that had been the only housing option identified at the time of the eviction and there was no proof that alternative options had existed .","Also , the local authorities had tried to remedy the GPE social problems , even though it was not denied that some of them had owned homes which they had sold after moving into the unoccupied building in ORG , which had previously belonged to a ORG - owned factory . In addition , the area where the \u201c LOC \u201d building was located was connected to the town by public transport even though the bus service was infrequent . Travelling into the city was therefore possible , whereas by contrast it was a well - known fact that there were inhabited areas of the country which were not served by any transport connection at all , not even for children attending school . Furthermore , according to press reports about the investigation carried out by ORG , the area where the \u201c LOC building was located did not constitute a health hazard for humans . What is more , after some of the families moved to \u201c LOC \u201d , their homes had been connected to electricity .","As regards the mobile homes located on the former rubbish dump , the court considered that the lower courts had correctly dismissed the discrimination argument . In this connection it noted that DATE according to the press reports \u2013 the homes in question had initially been set up on a concrete platform at a separate location but were later moved at the request of the GPE representatives in order to have access to water and sewage facilities . Subsequently , they were connected to the town \u2019s electric grid .","NORP Moreover , ORG had failed to prove the alleged stereotypical and offensive statements made by local officials about the GPE community , and the authorities\u2019 action argued against the existence of a discriminatory stance based on ethnicity . Furthermore , leaving aside the fact that ORG had assumed without proof that members of the GPE community were less well educated , the education criterion set by the local authorities for allocating social housing had concerned social housing located on a particular street and it had not been proved that it was a rule applied in a \u2018 blanket\u2019 manner when allocating all social housing in the city , or that it was relevant on the date of the eviction , or that it was a real obstacle for the members of the GPE community to enforce their rights as long as it was established that there were no other options available for shelter at the time . Also , the criterion had been imposed by a ORG decision dating back to DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) that had not been challenged by the victims before the domestic courts . In addition , the relevant domestic legislation allowed local authorities to determine the criteria for awarding social housing .","On DATE ORG informed the ORG prefect \u2019s office that they could not agree to the relocation of some of the applicants on a certain street in the town since the local inhabitants objected to their return there because of past conflicts .","On DATE ORG under the direction of ORG informed the ORG prefect \u2019s office , among other things , that they intended to provide transport services in the area of the \u201c LOC \u201d building from DATE .","On DATE ORG under the direction of ORG informed the ORG prefect \u2019s office that the buses serving the \u201c LOC area had been discontinued since DATE because nobody was using them . CARDINAL buses continued to serve the nearby industrial zone and their number could be increased on condition that the people living in the \u201c LOC area bought DATE transport passes in advance .","On DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE , and CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the ORG prefect \u2019s office informed the mayor of ORG that following individual complaints lodged by the applicants and non - governmental organisations and from inspections carried out at the \u201c LOC \u201d building and in the mobile homes located on the rubbish dump by representatives of ORG for GPE , ORG and ORG , it was apparent that the applicants\u2019 homes were poorly maintained and infested by rodents , that the sewage system was either non - existent or not working , the sanitary facilities were not working , there was no access to water , the domestic refuse had not been collected for a long time and was being stored in a pit in front of the building , and maintenance work was urgently required . Consequently , it asked the mayor \u2019s office to remedy the situation .","On DATE the ORG schools inspectorate informed the ORG prefect \u2019s office that they did not have the legal framework or the requisite funding to exempt children living in the \u201c LOC area who wanted to attend school from paying for transport passes . They further submitted that pupils generally benefited from the statutory discount of PERCENT for transport passes .","On DATE the ORG schools inspectorate asked the ORG mayor \u2019s office and the schools attended by the children living in \u201c Pichet \u201d to get in contact each other and to examine the possibility of the aforementioned children being exempted from paying for public transport .","On CARDINAL DATE and DATE CARDINAL of the schools that had enrolled some of the children living at \u201c LOC \u201d sent to the local public transport company under the direction of the mayor \u2019s office a list of names of the aforementioned children together with information stating when their classes started and ended .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , the ORG prefect \u2019s office and ORG informed each other and an applicant that a source of water had been installed in the vicinity of the mobile homes located on the rubbish dump and that some of the sanitary facilities of the \u201c LOC building had been repaired , but they continued to break down as a result of improper use .","On DATE the ORG prefect \u2019s office informed ORG under the direction of ORG that according to information received from the inhabitants in the area , all the buses connecting the \u201c LOC \u201d building and the nearby industrialised area with the town had been cancelled , with the result that many of the children living there could not travel to school any more and therefore abandonment of school attendance was increasing . It also asked ORG to reinstate the bus routes serving the area in question .","DATE . DATE and DATE the applicants signed lease contracts with ORG for rooms in the \u201c LOC \u201d building or for mobile homes located on the former rubbish dump . According to the aforementioned contracts the CARDINAL applicant was living together with the fiftieth , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants in a mobile home located on the rubbish dump . The fifteenth applicant was living together with the thirteenth , fourteenth , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants at \u201c LOC \u201d . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with the eleventh and the sixtyninth applicants in a mobile home located on the rubbish dump . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with DATE , twentyninth , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants at \u201c LOC \u201d . The fortyfirst applicant was living together with DATE , DATE and CARDINAL applicants at \u201c LOC \u201d . The DATE applicant was living together with DATE , DATE and DATE applicants at \u201c LOC . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with the thirtyeighth , DATE , fortieth , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants at \u201c LOC \u201d . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with DATE , CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants at \u201c LOC \u201d . The sixteenth applicant was living together with the twentyseventh , fiftysixth and CARDINAL applicants in a mobile home located on the rubbish dump . The third applicant was living together with the second and twelfth applicants in a mobile home located on the rubbish dump . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants in a mobile home located on the rubbish dump . The CARDINAL applicant was living alone in a mobile home located on the rubbish dump . The seventeenth applicant was living together with the tenth applicant at \u201c LOC . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with DATE , DATE and CARDINAL applicants at \u201c LOC \u201d . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with the twentysecond , thirtieth , CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants at \u201c LOC \u201d . CARDINAL applicant was living together with DATE and the sixtieth applicants at \u201c LOC \u201d . The sixth applicant was living together with DATE applicants at \u201c LOC \u201d .","According to social investigation reports produced by ORG on DATE , the QUANTITY applicant was living at \u201c LOC \u201d together with the CARDINAL applicant and DATE the eighth applicant had moved in with the ninth applicant at \u201c LOC from a different address in the city . The CARDINAL applicant had moved to a different town and the QUANTITY applicant had moved to a different address in the city . Meanwhile , the CARDINAL applicant had broken up with the fortieth applicant in DATE and had not been in touch since then .","On DATE , on their application form , the applicants informed the ORG that they had mounted legal challenges against their evictions of DATE and DATE . They also stated that , whilst important by way of background , those legal challenges did not form the focus of the application .","On DATE the CARDINAL applicant signed a lease contract with ORG for a home located at a different address in the city , neither at \u201c LOC \u201d nor at the former rubbish dump .","In DATE the ORG mayor \u2019s office informed the ORG that , according to the social investigation reports produced in DATE by ORG , the applicants\u2019 relatives and neighbours had informed the social investigators that the CARDINAL applicant had moved to GPE DATE together with her children , the CARDINAL applicant was living with her mother at a different address in the city , and DATE , DATE and seventyfifth applicants were living at a different address in the city .","On DATE the ORG mayor \u2019s office informed the ORG that , according to the social investigation reports produced in DATE by ORG , the CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants were living in mobile homes located on the former rubbish dump . Also , according to statements from the applicants\u2019 relatives and neighbours , the CARDINAL applicant had moved to another city in DATE in order to live with her partner ; the CARDINAL applicant was living with her mother at a different address in the city ; the QUANTITY applicant was living elsewhere with his mother ; the seventyfirst applicant had moved to GPE together with her children , namely DATE , twentieth , seventieth and QUANTITY applicants ; the CARDINAL , DATE and DATE applicants were living at a different address in the city ; the CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants were living at \u201c LOC \u201d ; and the CARDINAL applicant was living in another town .","On DATE the ORG mayor \u2019s office informed the ORG that , according to the social investigation reports produced in DATE by ORG , DATE , twentieth , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , seventieth , CARDINAL and QUANTITY applicants were no longer living at \u201c LOC \u201d or in the mobile homes located on the former rubbish dumps . Also , according to statements from the applicants\u2019 relatives and neighbours , the CARDINAL applicant had moved and was renting an apartment at a different address in the city ; the CARDINAL applicant had been held in detention since DATE ; the DATE applicant had returned to \u201c LOC \u201d in DATE , having previously lived at a different address in the city where she had moved sometime after DATE ; the fortieth applicant was in detention ; DATE and DATE applicants were living at a different address in the city ; the CARDINAL applicant was living elsewhere with her mother ; and the fourteenth applicant was living at a different address in the city together with her partner \u2019s parents .","According to the social investigation report produced by ORG on DATE the CARDINAL applicant was living with her grandmother at a different address in the city , the CARDINAL applicant was living together with the QUANTITY applicant , and the sixtyfifth applicant was living together with his partner at \u201c LOC \u201d . The eighth applicant was living together with DATE applicant and the DATE applicant was living together with the fiftieth applicant at \u201c LOC .","DATE . On DATE ORG for Payments and ORG informed the ORG that CARDINAL applicants \u2013 excluding DATE , twentieth , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants DATE had been receiving or continued to receive various forms of benefits and social allowances .","On DATE the ORG schools inspectorate informed the ORG that of the applicants who lived at \u201c LOC \u201d , CARDINAL were and\/or had been enrolled as school students before and\/or after their eviction in DATE , namely DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , thirtieth , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , sixtysixth , seventieth , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants . According to the aforementioned school inspectorate some of the twentyone children had been temporarily or permanently withdrawn from school by their parents or next of kin before , immediately after or DATE after their eviction in DATE because their parents or relatives were not interested in their children obtaining an education .","On DATE the ORG schools inspectorate informed the ORG that the schools closest to \u201c LOC \u201d and the mobile homes on the rubbish dump were located QUANTITY respectively from the CARDINAL sites .","On DATE ORG informed the Government that none of the applicants had complained to it about the issues raised before the ORG . Moreover , the ORG had not carried out an environmental impact evaluation regarding the pollution in the areas mentioned in their application before the ORG because the mobile homes were positioned in a location in a residential neighbourhood within the city boundary with access to running water , electricity , household waste collection facilities and a school . The area in question had never been designated as a rubbish dump . The city \u2019s rubbish dump for household waste was located QUANTITY outside the city . The \u201c LOC building was also located within the city boundary , within the confines of the industrial port zone on the banks of LOC with access to running water , electricity and household waste collection facilities . The ORG had an automated air quality monitoring station positioned in a location QUANTITY from \u201c LOC . The results produced by this station showed that the level of pollution from sulphur dioxide , nitrogen dioxide , carbon monoxide , suspended particles and volatile organic compounds had remained below dangerous levels throughout DATE and none of the other automated stations for monitoring air quality within the city had reported dangerous levels of pollution DATE either . Furthermore , the goods which were handled by the port authorities were not dangerous and an environmental impact evaluation with regard to the pollution in the area of the industrial port was therefore not necessary . Lastly , the ORG was unaware whether the applicants had been informed by the authorities about the environmental conditions in the area at the time of their eviction because the eviction had been carried out by the ORG mayor \u2019s office . The ORG did not have a strategy for avoiding potential risks to the applicants\u2019 health because such a strategy would fall within the spheres of competence of the ORG mayor \u2019s office and ORG .","On DATE ORG informed the Government that the nineteenth and the CARDINAL applicants had been registered at other addresses since DATE .","On DATE the fifteenth applicant submitted a statement before the ORG , co - signed by his partner and children , to the effect that he and his partner , DATE applicant , were still living together with DATE , DATE applicants at the same address and that their living conditions had not improved . Moreover , the authorities had refused to renew their lease contract because they had fallen behind with the rent and electricity payments . He also submitted that the CARDINAL and the CARDINAL applicants had moved to a different address . At the same time the QUANTITY applicant had been working in GPE but she had continued to make regular return visits to her home here .","On DATE , DATE , DATE , fortysecond , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants submitted statements to the ORG to the effect that they had been faced with poor living conditions after their re - location . DATE , DATE and CARDINAL applicants stated that after their lease contracts had expired the authorities had refused to renew them because they had also fallen behind with paying rent and other charges . The CARDINAL applicant confirmed the fifteenth applicant \u2019s statement about the CARDINAL applicant . The CARDINAL applicant also confirmed the fifteenth applicant \u2019s statements concerning the CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants , as well as those regarding the family of the QUANTITY applicant . She added that DATE and the twentieth applicants were in a similar situation to that of the seventysecond applicant \u2019s family .","On DATE the CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants submitted statements before the ORG confirming the poor living conditions they had been faced with after their re - location . On DATE the fortyseventh applicant stated that her grand - daughter and son , the fortysixth and fortyninth applicants respectively , were living with her . She reiterated that their living conditions were inadequate and had not improved . On DATE applicant confirmed that his living conditions were still poor and stated that his son , the CARDINAL applicant , was still living there with him .","The relevant provisions of PERSON no . ORG on housing read as follows :","\u201c A lease contract may be terminated prematurely in the following circumstances :","( ... )","b ) at the owner \u2019s request if :","- the tenant has not paid the rent for DATE ;","- the tenant has significantly damaged the residence , the building , the facilities and any other property attached to them ... ;","- the tenant \u2019s behaviour makes cohabitation impossible or prevents the normal use of the residence ;","- the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement ;","c ) at the request of the ORG association if the tenant has not paid his share of the collective charges for DATE ... \u201d","\u201c If a leaseholder leaves the residence permanently , or if he or she dies , or if a non - resident leaseholder ... ceases to use the residence for DATE continuously , the lease shall remain valid as the case may be :","a ) to the benefit of the spouse , if he or she has lived together with the leaseholder ;","b ) to the benefit of the descendants and the ascendants , if they have lived together with him or her :","c ) to the benefit of other individuals who shared the same domicile with the leaseholder for DATE and were recorded in the lease contract ;","( ... )","In the absence of individuals who could benefit from the lease according to paragraph CARDINAL , the lease contract shall be terminated within DATE of the date on which the leaseholder vacated the residence or died , or when the CARDINAL-year period of continuous non - use has expired . \u201d","\u201c The owner shall fulfil the following duties :","a ) to hand over the residence to the tenant in a condition suitable for use ;","b ) to take steps to repair and maintain the building for safe use during the entire duration of the lease ;","c ) to maintain in good condition the building \u2019s structural strength and the external parts of the building ( roof , building front , pavement , surrounding area ) , yards and gardens as well as the building \u2019s internal communal area ( the stairwell , lift , hallways , corridor , underground , external stairs ) ;","d ) to maintain in good condition the building \u2019s common facilities ( elevator ; hydrophore ; water , sewage , central and water heating facilities ; central heaters ; ... waste collection facilities ... ) .","\u201c The tenant shall fulfil the following duties :","a ) to carry out the maintenance , repair and replacement work of the building \u2019s elements and facilities used exclusively by him ;","b ) to replace or repair damaged elements and facilities of the building used improperly and which are in common use , regardless if they are outside or inside the building ... ;","c ) to clean and disinfect the residence and the parts of the building in common use during the entire duration of the lease ;","d ) to return the residence to the owner in a condition suitable for use once the lease ended ... \u201d","\u201c If the owner fails to fulfil his duties to repair and maintain the leased residence , the tenant may carry out the works at the owner \u2019s expense , by deducting the expenses from the rent .","The tenant may carry out these works if the problem in question affects normal use of the property and if the owner has not taken steps to carry out such works within DATE of the tenant \u2019s written notification of the problem . \u201d","\u201c Social housing shall be allocated by local councils on the basis of conditions which they revise DATE under the law in force at the time . The following categories of persons may benefit from social housing according to an order of priority decided by the local councils : newlyweds under DATE , formerly institutionalised young people over DATE , disabled persons ... and other categories of entitled individuals and families . \u201d","\u201c There is no right to social housing for persons or families who :","( ... )","a ) have sold a residence after DATE ;","( ... )","d ) have already leased another social housing residence from the ORG \u2019s immovable property fund . \u201d","The relevant provisions of the former NORP Civil Code read as follows :","\u201c Any act committed by a person that causes damage to another shall render the person through whose fault the damage was caused liable to make reparation for it . \u201d","\u201c Everyone shall be liable for damage he has caused not only through his own actions but also through failure to act or negligence . \u201d","\u201c Any injunction to act or not to act is changed to damages if unenforced by the debtor \u201d","\u201c If an injunction to act remains unenforced , the creditor may also ask to be authorised to enforce it at the debtor \u2019s expense . \u201d","\u201c The lessor must by nature of the contract and without the need for a special provision :","hand over the leased property to the tenant ...","maintain it a condition that makes it usable for the purpose for which it was leased .... \u201d","\u201c ( ... )","During the lease all the repairs that may be necessary must be made , except for small repairs ( ... ) which are the responsibility of the tenant by virtue of his use thereof . \u201d","The relevant provisions of Government Ordinance No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on combating all forms of discrimination read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . An individual who considers himself or herself discriminated against may lodge an application before a court for damages and restoration of the previous situation or cancellation of the situation caused by the discrimination , according to general law . The application shall be exempt from stamp duty and shall not be affected by an application before ORG .","( ... )","The interested party shall present the facts that may be presumed to amount to direct or indirect dicrimination and the defendant must prove that the principle of equal treatment has not been breached . Any evidence may be adduced before the court ... including audio and video recording or statistical data ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Non - governmental organisations which have as an objective the protection of human rights or which have a legitimate interest in combating dicrimination shall have locus standi if the discrimination happens within their area of activity and affects a community or a group of people .","The organisations mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL shall also have locus standi in circumstances where the discrimination affects a natural person , at his or her request . \u201d","Excerpts from the relevant international documents concerning the living conditions and education rights of GPE people , including recommendations , resolutions , reports , observations , memoranda and other relevant texts by ORG , ORG of ORG , ORG for Human Rights , ORG for ORG and ORG , are given in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","Excerpts from the relevant international treaties concerning the right to education , inluding LAW , LAW in DATE , LAW , LAW DATE and the Convention on the Rights of the PERSON , are given in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179487","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"FILIPPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , and DATE respectively , and live in PERSON ( GPE Region ) , GPE , and ORG ) respectively . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented initially by PERSON , Representative of GPE to ORG , and then by his successor in that office , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On TIME DATE a group of terrorists belonging to the NORP separatist movement took hostages in the \u201c NORP \u201d theatre in GPE ( also known as the \u201c ORG \u201d theatre ) . For DATE CARDINAL people were held at gunpoint and under threat of explosions in the theatre \u2019s auditorium . The terrorists refused to surrender , so in TIME of DATE the NORP security forces pumped an unknown gas through the building \u2019s ventilation system . When the terrorists lost consciousness under the influence of the gas , special forces stormed the building . As a result of the operation the majority of the hostages were released ( CARDINAL people ) . However , a large number of hostages were affected by the gas ; according to information gathered by the investigative authorities by DATE , CARDINAL hostages died on the spot , in the hospitals or during transportation , and some of those who survived continued to suffer from serious health problems . Other facts concerning the hostage - taking , the liberation of the hostages , the medical assistance provided , and the ensuing investigation and civil proceedings are presented in the case GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . PERSON and PERSON , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) , concerning the same events .","A criminal investigation into the events was opened in DATE . As regards the storming of the building and the rescue operation , the investigation into the terrorist act did not establish any fault on the part of the authorities and no separate inquiry into the officials\u2019 actions has been conducted . The GPE and Others judgment covered those proceedings up to DATE ( GPE and Others , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . All former hostages and next of kin of the deceased had been questioned and had been granted the status of victims by that time ( ibid . , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . Several applicants in the GPE and Others case challenged the investigation \u2019s inaction and lack of results in the courts . Their complaints were dismissed by the courts in GPE in DATE ( ibid . , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) . The main criminal investigation was extended several times , and remained pending at the time of the GPE and Others judgment .","CARDINAL episode of the case , concerning an accomplice of the terrorists , Mr T. , was severed from the main case and brought to trial . Mr T. was convicted in DATE .","NORP In its judgment of DATE the ORG found that there had been a breach of the positive obligations under LAW in so far as the planning and execution of the rescue operation was concerned ; it also found a breach of the authorities\u2019 obligation to effectively investigate the loss of life , since the \u201c the investigation into the authorities\u2019 alleged negligence in this case was neither thorough nor independent \u201d ( ibid . , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . The ORG found no violation of LAW in respect of the authorities\u2019 decisions to storm the building and to employ potentially lethal gas to neutralise the terrorists ( ibid . , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . It also found that no separate issues arose under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL . In making awards under LAW , the ORG took into account that the violations found concerned the failure to comply with positive obligations , resulting from the unintended consequences of the rescue operations , and noted the domestic payments made to the applicants .","At its FAC meeting , on DATE , ORG adopted a decision concerning the execution proceedings in the GPE and Others case ( ORG - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL DATE ) . Referring to the communications from the NORP authorities , ORG welcomed information about the payment of individual awards . At the same time , it regretted \u201c the investigating authorities\u2019 decision , taken after ORG judgment , not to open a criminal investigation due to the previous domestic decision taken in this context \u201d . It also invited the NORP authorities to inform the ORG in detail about the investigation \u2019s further perspectives .","The applicants in the present case lost their relatives during the hostage crisis , or were themselves amongst the hostages . The first and the second applicants lost their daughters , PERSON . PERSON and PERSON Anisimova , respectively . The third applicant was amongst the hostages herself and , in addition , lost her husband , PERSON .","The applicants submitted no information or documents concerning participation in the criminal investigation . The Government submitted copies of the decisions to grant victim status to the first and third applicants , dated DATE and DATE respectively .","In DATE the applicants brought proceedings against ORG , seeking compensation for the damage caused by the terrorist attack . They claimed that LAW established the strict liability of the regional authorities ( liability without fault ) for any non - pecuniary damage caused to the victims of a terrorist attack . The claims made no mention of the pending criminal investigation into the attack , although the copies of the decisions to grant victim status had been appended ( but not submitted to ORG ) . On DATE the ORG dismissed those claims as unfounded . ORG found that ORG bore a number of obligations towards the victims , especially in respect of their rehabilitation and support , but was not responsible for the carrying out and coordination of anti - terrorist operations . The applicants decided not to appeal against the judgment , because they believed that it would be futile .","NORP In DATE the Government submitted , in addition , information about proceedings for obtaining regular payments following the loss of a breadwinner . According to these documents , in DATE several relatives of the deceased victims of the terrorist attack , including CARDINAL applicants in the present case , sought additional payments for the loss of a breadwinner . On DATE the ORG of GPE partially granted the claims and awarded to each of the applicants additional regular payments , pursuant to ORG decree of CARDINAL DATE , no . CARDINAL , on assistance to the victims of terrorist acts and the general obligation established by LAW of DATE . The latter provided that the damage caused by a terrorist attack should be compensated by the authorities of the federal constituency where the attack took place . It does not appear that an appeal was lodged against the judgment of DATE . These proceedings did not mention the then pending criminal investigation .","NORP The parties\u2019 submissions contain no information to indicate that the applicants took any steps in the context of the criminal investigation into the terrorist attack or any other proceedings other than those described above ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142270","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VISTI\u0145\u0160 AND PEREPJOLKINS v. LATVIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Fran\u00e7oise Tulkens;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Julia Laffranque;Karel Jungwiert;Kristina Pardalos;Lech Garlicki;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Nicolas Bratza;Nona Tsotsoria;Peer Lorenzen","text":["At the time of the expropriation of the applicants\u2019 land , the cadastral value of real estate within the perimeter of a town or city was determined in accordance with regulation no . CARDINAL of DATE concerning the valuation of urban land ( GPE \u201c ORG pils\u0113tu zemes v\u0113rt\u0113\u0161anu \u201d ) , which was in force until DATE . To the extent that it is pertinent in the present case , the preamble to the text contained the following definitions :","\u201c ... Cadastral value of a plot of land \u2013 the urban - planning and economic value of a plot of land , formulated in pecuniary terms .","...","Model value of a plot of land [ zemes paraugv\u0113rt\u012bba ] \u2013 maximum value of QUANTITY of urban land situated in a value zone [ v\u0113rt\u012bbu zona ] for the purposes of its exploitation for a specific aim .","De facto model value of a plot of land [ zemes faktisk\u0101 paraugv\u0113rt\u012bba ] \u2013 maximum value of QUANTITY of urban land situated in a specific territory of a value zone [ v\u0113rt\u012bbu zona ] for the purposes of its exploitation for a specific aim .","...","Value zone DATE a portion of urban territory corresponding to a constant set of data characterising the value of real estate .","... \u201d","DATE stipulated that the regulation was inapplicable to the determination of the market value of urban land . For the purposes of valuation , urban territory was to be divided into value zones based on the general land - use plan . The capital , GPE , was to be divided into CARDINAL or more zones ( DATE ) . Under LAW , the main zoning criteria were as follows :","\u201c ...","position [ of land ] in relation to the city centre ;","NORP level of development of public - works infrastructure and social services ;","attractiveness of territory ;","NORP ecological conditions and consequences of negative factors ;","NORP local geological conditions ;","... \u201d","DATE of the regulation laid down the methodology for the calculation of the model value ( paraugv\u0113rt\u012bba ) of a plot of land . For cities such as GPE , the model value did not have to be specially calculated because it corresponded to a scale in annex no . CARDINAL to the regulation . In order to establish the de facto model value ( faktisk\u0101 paraugv\u0113rt\u012bba ) , it was necessary to calculate the difference between the model value of the zone in question and the adjacent zone , multiply it by the distance from the next zone , then divide the result by the width of the zone in question , and , lastly , add the corresponding model value from the fixed scale ( LAW ) . The de facto model value then had to be adjusted to take account of any buildings erected on the land ( LAW .","The de facto model value had to be multiplied by the surface area of the plot of land for its cadastral value to be obtained . It was then subject to adjustment within a limit of PERCENT to take account of certain positive or negative factors ( Articles DATE ) . The calculation of the cadastral value of land was the responsibility of ORG ( ORG dienests ) .","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Civillikums ) read as follows :","\u201c Where the contract provides for the payment of interest , its percentage shall be fixed , failing which it shall be presumed that the statutory rate ( see LAW ) has been tacitly agreed . \u201d","\u201c The interest rate shall be clearly established in the deed or contract . Failing that , as in cases where the payment of statutory interest is required by law , the rate shall be MONEY per annum . Interest may be calculated only on the capital itself . However , should the interest not be paid within the allotted time in respect of DATE or more , from that time onwards , at the creditor \u2019s request , statutory interest shall be calculated on the interest then accruing \u201d .","\u201c The interest rate shall be clearly established in the deed or contract . Failing that , as in cases where statutory interest is required by law , the rate shall be MONEY per annum .","The interest rate for late payment of a pecuniary debt provided for under a contract as consideration for the delivery or purchase of a good or service , shall be MONEY [ \u201c MONEY \u201d before DATE ] above the base rate ( DATE , third paragraph ) per annum ; as to contractual relations to which a consumer is party , [ the base rate shall be ] MONEY per annum .","The interest base rate shall be MONEY . The said rate shall be modified on DATE and DATE by the percentage corresponding to the increase or decrease in the most recent rate fixed for refinancing operations by ORG before DATE in question . After DATE and DATE , ORG shall immediately publish in the [ Official Gazette ] information on the applicable interest rate for DATE .","Interest may be calculated only on the capital itself . However , should the interest not be paid within the allotted time in respect of DATE or more , from that time onwards , at the creditor \u2019s request , statutory interest shall be calculated on the interest then accruing . \u201d","\u201c The interest shall cease to increase :","when the amount of the interest still unpaid reaches the amount of the capital ;","... \u201d","According to the calculator of inflation rates of ORG ( ORG p\u0101rvalde ) , the rate of inflation DATE of the entry into force of the relevant law on expropriation ; see paragraphs DATE of the principal judgment ) and DATE ( date of the principal judgment ) was PERCENT ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163800","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KALUGINA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Petrozavodsk , in GPE . She was a municipal unitary enterprise employee in Petrozavodsk , working for ORG DATE ( \u201c Avtokolonna CARDINAL \u201d , hereafter \u201c the company \u201d ) .","Avtokolonna DATE was set up in accordance with a decision of the administration of the town of Petrozavodsk ( \u201c the town administration \u201d ) , and provided public transport services in the town on a commercial basis . In order to carry out its statutory activities , the company had \u201c the right of economic control \u201d ( \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e \u0445\u043e\u0437\u044f\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0432\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ) over the assets allocated to it by the town administration ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE for further details on the company \u2019s status ) . In accordance with several agreements between the company and the town administration , the company undertook to provide certain sections of the population with transport services free of charge , and the town administration was to reimburse it for the expenses incurred out of the budget allocated for that purpose by ORG of GPE or the federal budget . A letter from the town administration to the applicant dated DATE shows that at some point , owing to the relevant budgets lacking funds , the company was owed a significant amount of money . Consequently , it was unable to pay its employees on time . In DATE the town administration asked the legislative body of GPE to consider allocating additional funds to cover the company \u2019s debt , but to no avail .","On an unspecified date the town administration ordered the restructuring of the company in the form of a spin - off as a new entity , and transferred the assets mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above to the newly created municipal unitary enterprise \u201c GPE DATE Plus \u201d . The debt which had accumulated in respect of the unpaid salaries was not transferred , and remained with the applicant \u2019s employer . On DATE ORG of GPE declared the debtor company \u201c GPE CARDINAL \u201d insolvent , and liquidation proceedings were commenced .","On DATE the ORG awarded the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of salary arrears , default interest and non - pecuniary damage . The judgment became final DATE . According to a payment note on a writ of execution of DATE , at some point the company paid the applicant RUB CARDINAL . The remainder of the judgment debt has remained unpaid .","On DATE a justice of the peace of the CARDINALth ORG of Petrozavodsk ordered the company to pay the applicant RUB CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The award became final DATE , but was not paid to the applicant .","On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the company \u2019s liquidation . PERSON claims which had not been satisfied during the liquidation proceedings , including the applicant \u2019s remaining claims , were considered settled . On DATE the liquidation was recorded in ORG , and the company ceased to exist .","On DATE , in subsidiary liability proceedings , the ORG refused to hold the town administration liable for the company \u2019s debts . The court found that the applicant had failed to adduce evidence to demonstrate that it had caused the company \u2019s insolvency . It appears that the judgment was not appealed against ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147074","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ANDR\u00c1\u0160IK AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155092","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LUTSENKO v. UKRAINE (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE .","The applicant was the Minister of the ORG . He occupied DATE and from DATE to DATE . Since CARDINAL DATE he has been the leader of ORG party .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and another individual , PERSON , on suspicion of abuse of office under LAW of LAW . On DATE the applicant was formally charged . On DATE he gave a written obligation not to abscond .","On DATE the ORG instituted another criminal case against the applicant for exceeding his official powers under LAW , on the ground that he had arranged for the allocation of a CARDINAL - room apartment to his driver , PERSON","The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined together .","On DATE the ORG completed the investigation in the case and formally charged the applicant with both offences , having reclassified his actions specified in the first charge under LAW of LAW ( misappropriation , embezzlement , and conversion of property by malfeasance ) .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and detained in ORG ( \u0421\u043b\u0456\u0434\u0447\u0438\u0439 \u0406\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u0421\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0438 \u0411\u0435\u0437\u043f\u0435\u043a\u0438 GPE ) .","On DATE ORG ( ORG \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 ) ( hereinafter \u201c the Pechersk Court \u201d ) ordered that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant be changed from a written obligation not to abscond to remand in custody .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL ( ORG \u2116 CARDINAL ) ( hereinafter \u201c the GPE \u201d ) .","On DATE the ORG submitted the applicant \u2019s criminal case to ORG which , on DATE , rendered a judgment sentencing the applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The case received extensive attention in both national and international media which were present at court hearings . Photographs depicting the applicant behind metal bars were published soon after the court hearings .","On DATE the applicant appealed , seeking the quashing of the first - instance judgment on the ground of lack of guilt .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON \u0441\u0443\u0434 \u043c\u0456\u0441\u0442\u0430 PERSON ) upheld the judgment of ORG .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to LOC colony in LOC to serve his prison sentence .","In a judgment of DATE ORG of GPE for civil and criminal cases ( ORG \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0456\u0430\u043b\u0456\u0437\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438 \u0437 \u0440\u043e\u0437\u0433\u043b\u044f\u0434\u0443 \u0446\u0438\u0432\u0456\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0456 \u043a\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0456\u043d\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 ) upheld the applicant \u2019s prison sentence slightly reducing the amount of compensation that he had to pay .","On DATE the former President of GPE issued a decree of pardon in respect of a number of individuals , including the applicant , who was released DATE .","Prior to his arrest the applicant was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus type CARDINAL and chronic gastritis and pancreatitis .","Upon his admission to the GPE on DATE , the applicant was examined by the head of the medical unit and a duty doctor . He underwent clinical , laboratory and X - ray examinations . On the basis of those examinations and the applicant \u2019s anamnesis , he was diagnosed with symptomatic hypertension and it was recommended that his arterial pressure be constantly monitored . According to the applicant , the prison doctors did not pay attention to his chronic diseases which were mentioned in the medical report submitted to ORG and indicated orally by him on a number of occasions .","According to the ORG , during the period from DATE to DATE the applicant was under constant supervision by doctors of the GPE medical unit who visited him on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and on DATE . During this period , no complaints were received from him and his state of health remained satisfactory . Doctors regularly measured his blood pressure and pulse rate and carried out his general examination . The applicant denied that he had not complained about problems connected with his state of health . According to him , during DATE of his detention , he lost QUANTITY , his low - grade fever and spastic stomach pain was constant .","Following the applicant \u2019s complaints about the deterioration of his health , on DATE , a private medical laboratory took blood samples from him for analysis . Inflammation was diagnosed as a result . The doctor who arrived at that conclusion presumed that it was probably a mixed viral and bacterial infection . A provisional diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis was also made . For more specific diagnoses , further specialist examinations were required .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with arthritis by GPE doctors .","On DATE a new blood analysis showed some negative changes in the applicant \u2019s immune system . His requests for examination by the cardiologist \/ rheumatologist who issued the above conclusion were without success .","According to the Government , on CARDINAL and DATE the applicant was examined by the head of the GPE medical unit . He complained of pain in the joints . He was diagnosed with symptomatic hypertension and generalised osteoarthritis , and blood pressure monitoring was recommended .","On DATE the applicant went on hunger strike in protest at his continued pre - trial detention .","According to the ORG , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was under DATE supervision by doctors of the GPE medical unit . From time to time he complained of dizziness and general weakness . His state of health remained satisfactory during this period .","On DATE the GPE administration placed him in a solitary - confinement cell and demonstrated forced - feeding facilities ( such as handcuffs , a mouth widener and a rubber tube ) . Those were apparently never applied to him .","According to the Government , on DATE , the applicant was examined by the head of the GPE medical unit . He complained of heart pain , which he said was worse when he made turning movements . The applicant was diagnosed with symptomatic hypertension , generalised osteoarthritis , and myositis of the left major pectoral muscle . At the same time , he informed the doctor that he had eaten no food for DATE and had only had tea without sugar and coffee with sugar . An analysis of the applicant \u2019s urine was carried out . There was a CARDINAL reaction for acetone . General monitoring of the applicant \u2019s state of health , of the acetone level in his urine , and of his blood pressure was recommended .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of doctors from ORG of GPE ( ORG \u043f\u0435\u043d\u0456\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0446\u0456\u0430\u0440\u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0430 GPE ) ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . He was prescribed an \u201c anti - starvation food mixture \u201d ( semolina or oatmeal , butter , sugar , milk , eggs , boiled meat , salt , and ascorbic acid , with a total caloric content of CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL kcal ) and the following medication : NaCL solution , vitamins NORP and BCARDINAL , and NORP solution . On DATE a general blood analysis , a blood sugar - level test and a urine acetone test were carried out for the applicant - ( a \u201c CARDINAL \u201d reaction was obtained ) . On DATE the applicant consumed QUANTITY of \u201c anti - starvation food mixture \u201d .","On DATE the ORG medical panel found his general state of health stable and held that positive progress was being made in overcoming dizziness and general weakness . A urine test for acetone was carried out for the applicant ( a \u201c CARDINAL \u201d reaction was obtained ) .","On DATE , upon another examination by the ORG medical panel , a urine acetone test was carried out for the applicant . A \u201c CARDINAL \u201d reaction was obtained . On DATE the applicant consumed QUANTITY of \u201c anti - starvation food mixture \u201d . It was recommended that he undergo further biochemical and general blood tests , a general urine analysis , a blood - sugar - level test and a urine acetone test , and also ultrasonic examinations of his abdominal cavity and kidneys . Injections of Reosorbilact solution and of glucose in solution were given to the applicant .","On DATE the ORG medical panel saw the applicant again . He was found to have moderate diffuse changes in the liver , chronic cholecystitis and chronic pancreatitis . On DATE the applicant consumed QUANTITY of \u201c anti - starvation food mixture \u201d . Injections of Reosorbilact solution and of glucose in solution were given to the applicant .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s wife asked the PERSON administration to carry out medical examinations of her husband in her presence . By that time , the applicant had lost QUANTITY in weight . On DATE , according to the Government , the applicant was examined by the ORG medical panel . A general blood test , a blood - sugar - level test and a test of the urine for acetone were carried out at ORG . The test results were low - grade positive . The applicant was diagnosed with chronic cholecystitis and chronic pancreatitis . It was also found that the applicant \u2019s state of health reflected his starvation . On DATE , the applicant refused to eat food or to undergo fluid - maintenance therapy to restore the balance of water , protein , and electrolytes in the body .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the GPE medical unit . According to the Government , he was examined by a panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions . He was diagnosed with hypertension of the CARDINALst degree , cardiac insufficiency , type CARDINAL diabetes mellitus in a mild form at the compensation stage , chronic cholecystitis in unstable remission , chronic pancreatitis in unstable remission , osteoarthritis without exacerbation , disseminated osteochondrosis of the spine , and thoracic kyphosis . It was recommended that the applicant : ( CARDINAL ) undergo an exercise electrocardiography ( ECG ) test and ultrasonic examination of the heart in order to exclude ischaemic heart disease ; ( CARDINAL ) take antihypertensive medication ( PERSON ) when the blood pressure was higher than CARDINAL\/CARDINAL PERSON ; take Metoprolol in order to stop the tachycardia which occurred when the pulse rate was CARDINAL beats per minute . The applicant received this medical treatment in full .","According to the Government , on DATE he was once again examined by the ORG medical panel . A check test of the urine for acetone was carried out ( a \u201c CARDINAL \u201d reaction was obtained ) and a general urine test was also done for the applicant . The panel confirmed the previous diagnosis . The applicant refused to consume any of the \u201c anti - starvation food mixture \u201d or to undergo fluid maintenance therapy .","On DATE he was examined by a panel of doctors from GPE - based medical institutions of ORG . The previous diagnosis was confirmed and it was additionally found that the applicant had chronic gastritis in unstable remission . The panel noted that the applicant \u2019s hunger strike was significantly affecting his general state of health . ORG and echocardiography tests were carried out for the applicant . The urinary reaction for acetone was CARDINAL . The applicant was refusing to consume the \u201c anti - starvation food mixture \u201d . He was subjected to fluid - maintenance therapy with PERSON . It was also recommended that the applicant broaden the variety of foods he ate , limiting the consumption of easily digestible carbohydrates ( sugar , honey , and sweets ) ; consistently take graduated physical activity ; take GPE or PERSON ( to normalise bowel function ) and probiotics ( ORG or PERSON ) .","On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by the ORG medical panel . The urinary reaction for acetone was low - grade positive . He refused to consume \u201c anti - starvation food mixture \u201d . He was subjected to fluid - maintenance therapy with a physiological solution , vitamins Bl , BCARDINAL , C , PERSON , and PERSON .","According to the applicant , before CARDINAL DATE his medical monitoring had been limited to measuring his blood pressure and weighing him , along with a superficial examination by the GPE doctor .","On DATE he was taken to ORG ( \u041c\u0456\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0430 \u043a\u043b\u0456\u043d\u0456\u0447\u043d\u0430 \u043b\u0456\u043a\u0430\u0440\u043d\u044f \u0448\u0432\u0438\u0434\u043a\u043e\u0457 \u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0447\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0434\u043e\u043f\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0433\u0438 ) ( hereinafter \u201c the Emergency Hospital \u201d ) . On DATE , the management of the hospital informed the investigator that the applicant was suffering from chronic pancreatitis in the aggravated stage , chronic gastroduodenitis , cardial - type neurocirculatory dystonia , and type CARDINAL diabetes . His condition was evaluated as moderately serious .","On DATE the deputy medical director of ORG gave additional details to the applicant \u2019s wife as regards his health . In addition to the aforementioned diagnoses , he noted the following illnesses : chronic cholecystitis , gall bladder polyposis , autoimmune thyroiditis , euthyroidism , seborrheic dermatitis , myopia , osteochondrosis , chronic sinusitis , right - ear deafness , duodenal ulcer , gastric erosion and duodenogastric reflux .","On DATE the applicant ended his hunger strike .","According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE he was examined by doctors of the GPE medical unit . On DATE he ate gruel . He was also subjected to fluid - maintenance treatment with PERSON and PERSON . Generally , although he continued to complain of general weakness , his condition improved considerably once he had ended the hunger strike .","The GPE doctors saw the applicant also on DATE . They concluded that the applicant was suffering from the following illnesses : exacerbated chronic pancreatitis , chronic cholecystitis , gall - bladder polyposis , chronic duodenal ulcer , autoimmune thyroiditis , euthyroidism , type CARDINAL diabetes mellitus , cardial - type neurocirculatory dystonia of medium severity , seborrheic dermatitis , cervical osteochondrosis , toxic - dyscirculatory encephalopathy of endogenic origin ( degree I - II ) , duodenal ulcer , papillomatous gastropathy , and gastric erosions . On DATE the applicant ate gruel and drank water and carrot juice . The applicant underwent fluid - maintenance treatment and anti - ulcer treatment .","On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the doctors of the GPE medical unit confirmed the previous diagnosis . The applicant received fluid - maintenance and anti - ulcer treatment and underwent a urine test ( which indicated no acetone ) , a blood test for sugar , and biochemical analysis of the blood . A consultation with a gastroenterologist was also scheduled for the applicant .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions . As a result of the examination , the panel found the applicant \u2019s general state of health to be satisfactory . The applicant was diagnosed with the following conditions : peptic duodenal ulcer , post gastrointestinal haemorrhage condition , erosive gastritis , and mild post haemorrhagic anemia . It was recommended that he receive anti - ulcer treatment as an in - patient basis at a gastroenterology clinic . If it was impossible to arrange in - patient treatment for him , he would have to continue to take PERSON ; again undergo a fibrogastroscopy with biopsy , a general blood test , electrolytes ( potassium , phosphorus , fecal occult blood test ) and eat CARDINAL small meals a day , sticking to a diet with a high protein content .","According to the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE he was examined in the GPE and diagnosed with a duodenal ulcer in the progressing phase , gastrointestinal bleeding , erosive gastritis , and toxic - metabolic encephalopathy . Moreover , all his previously diagnosed diseases were confirmed .","According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE he was examined by GPE doctors , who confirmed the previous diagnoses . He continued to receive the anti - ulcer treatment and multiple small - portion meals .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent a urine acetone test , which revealed no acetone , a blood test for sugar , and a general blood test . The examination results confirmed the previous diagnoses .","On DATE and DATE he was examined by GPE doctors who confirmed the previous diagnoses . Analyses of his blood and urine were carried out . He continued to receive the anti - ulcer treatment and appropriate diet .","On DATE the governor of the GPE informed the President of ORG of some further diagnoses regarding the applicant \u2019s health , established during his examination of CARDINAL DATE , and sought leave for him to be examined in ORG . According to the Government , the letter was sent to the court only on DATE .","In his reply of CARDINAL DATE the judge of ORG stated that the court did not object to the applicant \u2019s being examined in a civilian hospital . A copy of this letter was sent to ORG of ORG with a request for escorted transport for the applicant .","On DATE ORG replied that the applicant \u2019s medical care was the responsibility of the PERSON administration .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife and his legal representative made a new request to the court that he be hospitalised . They alleged that the applicant had constant stomach pain and had lost more weight , QUANTITY in total . On DATE the judge replied that the court had no objection .","According to the Government , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined DATE by GPE doctors . In line with the instructions given following the previous examination by the medical panel , the applicant had regular clinical , biochemical , and general blood tests and urine analyses ( these took place on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE ) . The applicant was receiving anti - ulcer treatment , the recommended diet , and the prescribed outpatient treatment . During this period , the above - mentioned diagnoses remained valid . Furthermore , on DATE the doctors found that his peptic duodenal ulcer had begun to cicatrise , which indicated a gradual improvement in his state of health .","According to the ORG , the court gave its permission for the applicant \u2019s examination at ORG on DATE .","DATE . On DATE the applicant was examined at ORG . PERSON and ultrasonic scans were performed for the applicant . The examination revealed that he had esophageal varicose veins with CARDINALst degree dilatation , moderate portal hypertensive gastropathy , chronic cholecystitis , gall - bladder polyposis , chronic pancreatitis , and urolithic diathesis . It was recommended that the applicant undergo a biochemical blood test , a general blood test , analyses for hepatitis B , C , and D antibody titers , abdominal ultrasonic scanning with GPE sonography . According to the applicant , he did not receive any of the prescribed medicines .","On DATE , blood samples were taken from the applicant in the presence of his lawyer for complex liver function tests ( hepatitis B , C , and D ) . At the applicant \u2019s request , in order to ensure an objective analysis , the samples were sent to CARDINAL laboratories : PERSON and PERSON .","On DATE the applicant underwent abdominal ultrasonic scanning with GPE sonography at FAC . On the basis of the examination , the following diagnosis was made : signs of diffuse damage to the liver in a chronic hepatosis pattern , portal hypertension of the P\u2019 degree , splenomegaly of the lst degree , and chronic cholecystitis . In pursuance of the recommendation , the applicant was tested for hepatitis B , C , and D markers , and liver function tests were done .","On DATE the applicant was prescribed the following medication : Ursofalk , Essentiale Forte , Primer , ORG , and ORG .","According to the Government , from DATE the applicant was under DATE supervision by GPE doctors . His state of health remained unchanged . He continued complaining of discomfort in the upper abdomen . He received the medical treatment prescribed for him earlier .","On DATE CARDINAL senior civilian doctors examined the applicant in the GPE . They diagnosed cirrhosis of the liver supposedly triggered by the earlier hunger strike . Furthermore , CARDINAL internal haemorrhages were noted . It was recommended that the applicant undergo a more thorough examination in a specialist civilian hospital . In the meantime , he needed to get proper nutrition .","According to the Government , on DATE , following a court decision , the GPE was visited by a panel of doctors ( gastroenterologists , an endoscopist , and an ultra - sonographer ) . The applicant refused to be medically examined , to have blood samples taken , or to undergo ultrasonic examinations and fibrogastroduodenoscopy , which had been recommended by the medical panel .","On DATE a commission of ORG examined the applicant in the GPE . It recommended that he undergo examination with special equipment so that specific diagnoses could be made .","On DATE and DATE blood samples and faeces were taken from the applicant for laboratory tests .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife again requested ORG to allow her husband to be hospitalised and given proper treatment .","On DATE the applicant was hospitalised and examined in ORG , which diagnosed the initial signs of portal hypertension , as well as signs of chronic cholecystitis , angiomyolipoma of the right kidney , and parenchymatous cyst of the left kidney . On the same date the applicant underwent an abdominal ultrasonic scan , which discovered signs of gall - bladder polyps and pancreatic diffuse changes , and confirmed the aforementioned kidney pathologies .","On DATE the applicant underwent a colonoscopy which showed sigmoid colon diverticulitis . On DATE a newly appointed commission of ORG examined him and diagnosed fatty liver disease . Dietetic therapy , mineral - vitamin complex , proton pump blockers and hepato - protectors were prescribed .","According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant consulted a haematologist . In view of a decreased number of white blood cells ( leukocytes ) and thrombocytes in his blood , it was recommended that he again undergo a general blood test at CARDINAL independent laboratories , to be identified by ORG . Once the results of those examinations were known it was recommended that the applicant again consult a haematologist .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s blood samples were sent to the laboratory for a general blood test . On DATE , following the haematologist \u2019s recommendation , a blood sample was sent to the LOC laboratory for a coagulation profile test .","On DATE the applicant again consulted the haematologist . The results of the previous examinations led the doctor to find that he had no blood system disorders .","On DATE the applicant completed the course of medical treatment prescribed by the panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions on DATE .","On DATE it was proposed that he undergo a liver biopsy , which he declined .","According to him , the biopsy is a surgical intervention , after which the patient should stay in the medical institution under medical supervision for a period the doctor considers necessary to monitor any post - operative complications . However , the applicant was not provided with guarantees that the medical care would be adequate and that he would stay in the hospital after the biopsy . He considered that removing him immediately to the GPE would hurt his state of health . Besides , the applicant feared that proper medical care would not be provided to him in the GPE if there were complications after the biopsy . He referred in this connection to his previous experience .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s relatives brought him the proton pump blockers and hepato - protectors which had been prescribed by ORG commission specialists DATE .","According to the Government , on DATE the applicant was examined by GPE doctors . When examined , he complained of general weakness , dragging pain in the right hypochondrium , and discomfort in the upper abdomen and in the intestine area . He was diagnosed with fatty liver disease , signs of incipient portal hypertension , erosive haemorrhagic helicobacter - associated gastritis , and diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon . As the applicant had completed the prescribed course of outpatient treatment , it was proposed that he undergo laboratory and instrumental tests . The applicant submitted a written statement refusing to undergo fibrogastroduodenoscopy and rectosigmoidoscopy .","DATE . On DATE blood samples were taken from the applicant for laboratory examination at the GPE diagnostic centre . In particular , he underwent clinical , general , and biochemical blood tests and a coagulation profile test .","On DATE , upon a court decision , the applicant was examined by a panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions . He was diagnosed with the following conditions : fatty liver disease , signs of incipient portal hypertension , chronic helicobacter associated gastritis , and diverticular disease of the sigmoid colon . It was recommended that the applicant undergo an abdominal ultrasound scan , a faecal occult blood test , and a faecal analysis for helminth eggs and protozoa , consult a urologist , receive diet - based treatment , take a mineral - vitamin complex , and continue to take proton - pump inhibitors .","On DATE the applicant underwent abdominal ultrasonic scanning at ORG . He was diagnosed with gall bladder polyp signs , moderate pancreatic changes , angiomyolipomas of the right kidney , and small cysts of the left renal sinus . However , he refused to consult a urologist .","On DATE he received a parcel with the necessary medication .","According to the Government , during DATE the applicant \u2019s state of health remained satisfactory . From time to time he complained of general weakness , discomfort in the large intestine area , and pain in the right hypochondrium . During that period , he was examined DATE by doctors of the GPE medical unit , and regularly provided with the prescribed medical treatment . The diagnosis remained unchanged .","However , the applicant continued to complain of periodic discomfort in the large intestine area . He received the medical treatment prescribed by the panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions . The results of the earlier examinations led the doctors to diagnose the applicant with the following conditions : fatty liver disease , signs of incipient portal hypertension , chronic helicobacter - associated gastritis , irritable bowel syndrome , and diverticular disease of sigmoid colon , but no signs of blood disorder were found . The doctors recommended that the applicant undergo some additional examinations : electrocardiography , irrigoscopy , and an analysis of faeces for dysbiosis , to determine pancreatic ( faecal ) elastase , and a faecal occult blood test . Also , the applicant was prescribed the following medical treatment : diet - based treatment ; Spasmomen or Meteospasmyl ; GPE suppositories ; PERSON ; PERSON , to stop pain in the stomach ; ORG , to continue to take from DATE . However , on DATE the applicant on his own initiative refused to start the medical treatment prescribed .","NORP In DATE the applicant complained to the PERSON administration of stomach and intestinal pains .","On DATE and DATE he underwent various laboratory tests in respect of his chronic gastrointestinal diseases , and on DATE an ultrasonic examination of his abdominal cavity was conducted .","DATE . On DATE , during a court hearing , the applicant complained that he did not feel well . An ambulance was therefore called . The doctor diagnosed exacerbation of chronic pancreatitis and administered some medication to the applicant . The applicant \u2019s overall state of health was assessed as satisfactory .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of medical specialists delegated by ORG which established the following diagnoses : fatty liver disease ( steatosis ) , signs of incipient portal hypertension , chronic helicobacter - associated gastritis , irritable bowel syndrome , and diverticulosis of sigmoid colon . While the commission acknowledged a deterioration of the applicant \u2019s health due to \u201c nutrition - regime disturbance and psycho - emotional overload \u201d , it found his health generally satisfactory and not warranting in - patient treatment in a specialist civilian hospital . The physicians recommended normalisation of the nutrition regime and reduction of the psycho - emotional pressure . They also prescribed some medication .","On DATE ORG delegated another panel , of CARDINAL gastroenterologists , to examine the applicant in the GPE . The doctors found him to be in a generally satisfactory state of health , and concluded that he did not require hospitalisation . They also specified the medication to be administered to the applicant , and repeated the earlier recommendation regarding his nutritional needs .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of doctors from civilian medical institutions . They noted that his state of health had improved . The applicant was diagnosed with fatty liver disease ( steatosis ) , signs of incipient portal hypertension , chronic helicobacter - associated gastritis , irritable bowel syndrome , and diverticulosis of sigmoid colon . It was advised that he receive rational nutrition diet , continue to take ORG and take PERSON , PERSON extract , and suppositories with belladonna . The applicant received that medication in full .","On DATE he was transferred from the GPE to ORG for further examination .","According to the applicant , despite numerous check - ups , there was no proper medical treatment or medicine available to him in the GPE . He received proper medical treatment in ORG on DATE and DATE , but was discharged from the hospital on CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively , upon an arbitrary decision by ORG authorities , rather than upon a decision of the doctors treating him at the hospital . He was provided with medication which was incompatible with his general state of health , and although they treated his immediate health problem they contributed to the deterioration of his general state of health .","Upon his admission to the GPE , the applicant was placed in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY . He shared the cell with CARDINAL other inmates . According to him , the cell had poor ventilation and lacked personal hygiene facilities . Its walls had mould traces . Furthermore , there was no access to drinking water . Except for period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he shared this cell with CARDINAL other detainees .","According to the Government , the cell had a proper ventilation system and natural lighting . The applicant had had DATE exercise in the fresh air , except on DATE when lengthy court hearings were held . He was permitted to receive drinking water from relatives . He was allowed to take a shower once or DATE .","DATE , the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL in the GPE medical unit , which measured QUANTITY .","From DATE he was a patient in ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , in the GPE medical unit , which he shared with another person . He remained there until DATE .","On DATE he was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL , which he shared with another inmate .","On DATE he was moved to cell no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG . He returned to cell no . CARDINAL on DATE .","From the documents provided by the ORG , in particular the minutes of the hearings held before ORG ( see annex ) , it appears that DATE and DATE the court held CARDINAL hearings at which the applicant was present . At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , it pronounced the judgment convicting the applicant . During CARDINAL hearings , the court did not withdraw for deliberation on intermediate procedural issues but CARDINAL break was announced , during CARDINAL hearings the court both withdrew to deliberate and announced CARDINAL break , and QUANTITY hearings were interrupted by deliberations on intermediate procedural issue of the court but otherwise were carried out without a proper break . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the court announced breaks for lunch . However , on DATE the applicant had been removed from the courtroom for the rest of the hearing because of his improper behavior before the lunch break was announced .","Moreover , CARDINAL hearings were carried out without any deliberation and the court did not announce any break . In particular , on DATE the hearing lasted TIME , on DATE it took TIME , and on DATE the hearings lasted TIME .","The applicant continued his hunger strike up to CARDINAL DATE . He was informed beforehand that the preliminary hearing would be held on DATE . According to him , he was woken up at TIME to be taken to the court building for a hearing which started at TIME He had to wait in a small convoy room of QUANTITY . Overall , for TIME , he was allegedly held without food and drinking water , in poorly ventilated LOC . On DATE , he terminated the hunger strike , which had lasted for DATE .","According to the Government , this information was incorrect . The applicant left the hospital at TIME , reaching the court - house at TIME At TIME he was transferred to the courtroom .","According to the applicant , he was brought to the court hearing with an open bleeding stomach ulcer , although this condition required immediate hospitalisation . After TIME hearing he was driven to the GPE . He was transferred to the medical unit of the GPE only after he had lost consciousness . Despite this , no treatment was recommended for him . TIME the applicant \u2019s state of health suddenly worsened .","According to the ORG , as long as the applicant was in hospital , his health was under constant supervision by medical specialists there . In the event that his state of health did not permit him to take part in a hearing , this would be notified by the medical staff and the applicant would not then have been convoyed to the court hearing .","According to the applicant , he suffered from the absence of drinking water and nutrition , as well as the lack of rest , during the later court hearings too , while being kept in a metal cage in the courtroom .","On DATE the applicant , in his request under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , which was subsequently not granted , maintained that on CARDINAL and DATE ORG had held the hearings DATE despite his complaints of deteriorating health and acute pain in his stomach . According to him , the hearings had lasted from TIME until TIME usually with TIME break . On DATE the court hearing had lasted from TIME The applicant stated that after having left the GPE , he had not been provided with any food or water until his return . Moreover , on DATE the court called the ambulance for him CARDINAL times .","According to the information submitted by the ORG , on DATE of the hearings detainees received food packs from the prison authorities : the applicant refused these in writing on DATE and CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , noting that he had his own food supply .","The Government submitted tables of the schedule of DATE ( see annex ) containing the information about the time when the applicant was put in the car and reached the courtroom , when the hearings started and were closed and the time when the applicant was put in the car and arrived back in the GPE . They also submitted the minutes of the court hearings held before FAC ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153901","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CESTARO v. ITALY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - Legislative amendments);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The CARDINAL GCARDINAL Summit took place in FAC DATE , DATE and DATE under the chairmanship of GPE .","In the run - up to the LOC a large number of non - governmental organisations had set up a coordinating group known as ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) with a view to organising an \u201c anti - globalisation \u201d Summit in Genoa during the same dates ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary inquiry into the events during the Genoa GCARDINAL Summit ( see \u201c Final Rapport of the Parliamentary Inquiry \u201d ) , pp . DATE ) .","Since the meeting of ORG in GPE in DATE , such demonstrations by the \u201c anti - globalisation \u201d movement have been organised during inter - State summits and meetings of international institutions on different aspects of global governance . They have sometimes been accompanied by acts of vandalism and clashes with the police ( ibid . ) .","Law No . CARDINAL of DATE ( \u201c Law No . CARDINAL \u201d ) had assigned the task of organising the preliminary meetings and LOC scheduled for DATE to a plenipotentiary body set up within ORG . Several meetings were attended by representatives of the ORG , the Head of the plenipotentiary body , the Prefect of Genoa , the Minister of the ORG , the Minister for ORG and local authority representatives ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , pp . DATE ) .","Substantial security measures were put in place by the NORP authorities ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) . Under section CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , the prefect of ORG was authorised to deploy military personnel . In addition , the part of the city where the GCARDINAL were meeting ( the historic centre ) was designated as a \u201c red zone \u201d and cordoned off by means of a metal fence . As a result , only residents and persons working in the area were allowed access . Access to the port was prohibited and the airport was closed to traffic . The red zone was contained within a yellow zone , which in turn was surrounded by a white ( normal ) zone .","According to the information garnered by the NORP police department DATE ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , p. CARDINAL ) , the various groups expected to take part in the demonstrations were broken down into various blocs depending on the danger they posed : the non - dangerous \u201c Pink Bloc \u201d ; the \u201c LOC and the \u201c LOC \u201d , which were deemed to comprise persons likely to vandalise property , set up street and railway blockades and cause confrontations with the police ; and lastly , the \u201c LOC \u201d , which embraced several anarchist groups and more broadly , demonstrators dressed in black and wearing masks and balaclavas who had systematically wreaked havoc during other summits .","On DATE CARDINAL demonstrations took place during DATE without incident . Disorder occurred during the evening ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , p. CARDINAL ) .","On DATE several demonstrations had been announced for various areas of the city , and rallies were scheduled for specific squares ( \u201c piazze tematiche \u201d ) ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , pp . DATE ) .","On TIME CARDINAL July LOC sparked numerous incidents and clashes with law - enforcement officers , and ransacked banks and supermarkets ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . PERSON was attacked and a number of police stations were vandalised ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL , and Final Report of ORG , p. CARDINAL ) .","The Black Bloc sparked similar incidents while the Tute Bianche , a group broadly belonging to the \u201c LOC , were marching along ORG . Tear gas was fired on the Tute Bianche demonstrators by carabinieri , who charged forward , making use of their truncheons and non - regulation batons . The demonstrators split up , though some of them responded to the attack by throwing hard objects at the law - enforcement officers ; armoured vehicles belonging to the carabinieri drove up at high speed , knocking down the barriers erected by the demonstrators and forcing the demonstrators to leave . Clashes between demonstrators and law - enforcement officers continued in the adjacent areas ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","Similar clashes occurred at TIME in PERSON ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , p. CARDINAL ) .","At TIME , during a clash in PERSON , PERSON PERSON , a young demonstrator , was hit by a shot fired from a jeep of carabinieri attempting to escape the demonstrators ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the final anti - globalisation demonstration took place , attended by CARDINAL persons ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","NORP The looting and unlawful damage began in TIME and continued all day throughout the city . In TIME the march ran into a group of CARDINAL individuals facing the security forces . Further clashes ensured , with the security forces firing tear gas and charging the crowd , also involving the orderly demonstrators ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , pp . CARDINAL ) .","During DATE of incidents CARDINAL demonstrators and members of the security forces were injured or suffered from the effects of tear gas . Whole districts of the city of Genoa were laid waste .","On TIME the Head of Police ordered PERSON , Deputy Head of Police and Head of the plenipotentiary body , to assign the task of searching ORG to PERSON , Head of ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) ( see judgment no . ORG of CARDINAL DATE ( the \u201c appeal judgment \u201d ) , p. CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL individuals were arrested following that operation , but they were immediately released by order of the prosecution or the investigating judge ( see appeal judgment , p. CARDINAL ) .","It transpires from ORG statements to ORG that the order issued by ORG was explicable by his desire to move on to a more \u201c incisive \u201d phase involving arrests of suspects in order to dispel any impression that the police had remained inert vis - \u00e0 - vis the looting and unlawful damage perpetrated in the city . The Head of Police had wanted to set up large - scale joint patrols directed by officers from the mobile units and the ORG and coordinated by trusted officers , with a view to stopping LOC ( see judgment no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL delivered by ORG on DATE and deposited on CARDINAL DATE ( the \u201c first - instance judgment \u201d ) , p. CARDINAL ; see also judgment no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE , deposited on DATE ( the \u201c Court of Cassation judgment \u201d ) , pp . DATE ) .","At TIME on DATE M.G. ordered GPE , Head of ORG ( GPE ) to second officers from his unit in order to from joint patrols with other officers from the ORG unit and the ORG ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , p. CARDINAL ) .","ORG had provided the ORG and other bodies with access to the LOC of CARDINAL adjacent schools in ORG in order to install a multimedia centre . In particular , ORG ( \u201c Pascoli \u201d ) accommodated a press unit and temporary ORG offices , while the ORG housed an Internet access point . Following thunderstorms over the city which had hampered access to some camping sites , the GPE had authorised the use of ORG as a TIME accommodation centre for demonstrators .","On DATE , residents in the area reported to the police that young people dressed in black had gone into the Diaz - Pertini School and taken materiel from the site linked to the ongoing works in the school .","Early in the evening of DATE one of the joint patrols proceeded along PERSON , sparking a heated verbal reaction from CARDINAL of persons standing outside the CARDINAL schools . An empty bottle was thrown at the police vehicles ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and ORG judgment , p. CARDINAL ) .","On their return to the police station , the police officers who had headed the patrol recounted the events at a meeting called by the most senior police officials ( including PERSON , PERSON , Police Commissioner PERSON and ORG .","Having contacted the ORG official to whom ORG had been assigned , the police decided to conduct a search of the LOC in order to secure evidence and possibly arrest LOC members responsible for the unlawful damage . Having discussed and dismissed the idea of bombarding the school with tear gas , they agreed on the following modus operandi : a police unit made up essentially of officers belonging to a division specialising in anti - riot operations who had benefited from ad hoc training ( the VII Nucleo antisommossa operating within the GPE mobile unit ) was to \u201c secure \u201d the building ; another unit would carry out the search ; lastly , a carabinieri unit would surround the building to prevent suspects escaping . The Head of Police was also informed about the operation ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , pp . DATE ) .","Late in the TIME a large number of police officers from various units and departments left the NORP police station for ORG ( see Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry , ibid . ) . According to ORG judgment , the total number of officers participating in the operation was \u201c approximately CARDINAL police officers and carabinieri , the latter being responsible exclusively for encircling the building \u201d . The appeal judgment ( p. CARDINAL ) pointed out that that figure had never been precisely substantiated .","At TIME the members of the VII Nucleo antisommossa , having arrived close to both schools with helmets , shield and tonfa - type truncheons , together with other similarly equipped officers , began to run towards the LOC . A journalist and a municipal councillor standing outside the schools were kicked and struck with batons ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","Some of the persons occupying the Diaz - Pertini School who had been outside re - entered the building and closed the gates and entrance doors , attempting to block them with school benches and wooden planks . The police officers assembled in front of the gate , which they forced open with an armoured vehicle after unsuccessful attempts to shoulder - charge them . Finally , the aforementioned police unit broke down the entrance doors ( ibid . ) .","The officers invested all the floors of the building , many of them in complete darkness . With , in most cases , their faces concealed by scarves , they began to punch , kick and club the occupiers , shouting threats at their victims . Groups of officers even struck seated or prostrate persons . Some of those who had been awakened by the noise were struck while still in their sleeping bags , while others were assaulted while holding their hands up as a sign of capitulation or showing their identity documents . Some of the occupiers attempted to escape and hide in the school toilets or lumber - rooms , but they were caught and beaten up , and some of them were hauled out of their hiding places by the hair ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL , and appeal judgment , pp . CARDINAL ) .","The applicant , who was DATE of age at the material time , was on the ground floor . Having been awakened by the noise , when the police arrived he sat down against the wall beside a group of persons with his arms in the air ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . He was mainly struck on the head , arms and legs , whereby the blows caused multiples fractures : fractures of the right ulna , the right styloid , the right fibula and several ribs . According to the applicant \u2019s statement in ORG , the healthcare staff who arrived at the school after the violence had subsided attended to him last , despite hiss cries for help .","The applicant was operated on at the GPE hospital in GPE , where he remained for DATE , and then DATE , at the PERSON hospital in GPE . He was granted over forty days\u2019 unfitness for work . The aforementioned injuries left him with a permanent weakness in his right arm and leg ( see first - instance judgment , pp . ORG and CARDINAL ) .","Shortly after the storming of ORG , a police unit stormed ORG , where journalists were filming events both outside and inside the Diaz - Pertini School . A radio station was broadcasting the events live .","When the police officers arrived the journalists were forced to stop filming and broadcasting . Cassettes containing the reports filmed over DATE of the LOC were seized and the ORG lawyers\u2019 hard disks were seriously damaged ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL ) .","After the storming of ORG the security forces emptied the ORG rucksacks and other luggage without attempting to identify their owners or to explain the nature of the operation under way . They wrapped some of the items collected in a black flag in the school gymnasium . During that operation , some of the occupiers were taken to the gymnasium and forced to sit or lie down ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL ) .","The CARDINAL persons occupying the school were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit unlawful damage and destruction .","Most of them were taken to hospitals in the city . Some were immediately transferred to the PERSON barracks .","During TIME CARDINAL to DATE the Head of the NORP police press unit , who was interviewed close to the schools , stated that during the search of the LOC the police had found black clothing and balaclavas similar to those used by LOC . He added that the numerous bloodstains in the building had stemmed from injuries sustained by most of those occupying the Diaz - Pertini School during clashes with the police DATE ( see first - instance judgment , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","DATE , at the Genoa police station , the police showed the press the items seized during the search , including CARDINAL Molotov cocktails . They also showed the uniform of an official who had taken part in the storming of ORG , displaying a clean cut which might have been caused by a knife ( ibid . ) .","The prosecution against the occupiers on charges of conspiracy to commit unlawful damage and destruction , serious or aggravated r\u00e9sistance to the police and the unlawful carrying of weapons led to the acquittal of all concerned .","The Genoa public prosecutor \u2019s office initiated an investigation to ascertain the facts underlying the decision to storm the Diaz - Pertini School and to shed light on the methodology of the operation , the alleged knife attack on CARDINAL of the officers and the discovery of the Molotov cocktails , as well as the events that had occurred in FAC .","In DATE , after DATE of investigations , CARDINAL police officers and officials were committed for trial . CARDINAL further sets of proceedings concerning CARDINAL other officers were subsequently joined to the initial proceedings .","The applicant had claimed damages at the preliminary hearing on DATE . A total number of CARDINAL parties claiming damages , including CARDINAL of NORP and foreigners who had occupied both schools , as well as trade unions and other non - governmental associations , came to a.","Those proceedings concerned the events in the Diaz - Pertini School , where the applicant had been accommodated ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , and the events in ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . They involved hearing CARDINAL individuals , both defendants and witnesses ( including many foreigners ) , CARDINAL expert opinions and the viewing of a great deal of audio - visual materiel .","The charges relating to the events in the Diaz - Pertini School were as follows : giving false information for inclusion in a document , simple and aggravated slander , misfeasance in public office ( particularly on account of the unlawful arrest of the persons occupying the buildings ) , simple and aggravated bodily harm and unlawful carrying of weapons of war .","By judgment no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , deposited on CARDINAL DATE , ORG found CARDINAL of the accused guilty of providing false information ( one accused ) , simple slander ( CARDINAL accused ) and aggravated slander ( one accused ) , simple and aggravated bodily harm ( CARDINAL accused ) and the unlawful carrying of weapons of war ( CARDINAL accused ) . The court sentenced them to CARDINAL imprisonment , a prohibition of holding public office for the period of the main sentence and , jointly and severally with ORG , payment of costs and expenses and of damages to the parties claiming the latter , to whom the court awarded advances of CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( ORG ) .","The applicant , in particular , was awarded an advance of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , which was paid in DATE following an attachment .","In determining the main sentences the court had regard to the mitigating circumstances that the perpetrators of the offences had no criminal records and that they had acted in a state of stress and fatigue . CARDINAL of the convicted persons was granted a conditional suspension of sentence , whereby the court ordered that the conviction should not appear on his criminal record . Furthermore , pursuant to Law No . CARDINAL of DATE laying down the conditions for remission of sentence ( indulto ) , CARDINAL of the convicted persons were granted total remission of the main sentences , and CARDINAL of them , who had been given a DATE prison sentence , was granted a DATE remission .","In the reasons for the judgment ( CARDINAL pages of a total of CARDINAL ) , the court first of all rejected the argument that the operation had been planned from the outset as a punitive expedition against the demonstrators . It accepted that the security forces might reasonably have thought , in the light of the events preceding the storming of the buildings ( particularly the information provided by local residents and the attack on the patrol during TIME of DATE see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , that there were also members of LOC in the Diaz - Pertini School . It held , however , that the events at issue constituted a clear violation of the law , \u201c of human dignity and of respect for the individual \u201d ( di ogni principio di umanit\u00e0 e di rispetto delle persone ) . The court considered that even in confronting members of LOC , the security forces were allowed to force inasmuch as the latter was necessary in order to overcome violent resistance from the persons occupying the buildings , subject to proportionality between the resistance encountered and the means used . According to the court neither the applicant nor , for instance , a slightly built young woman who had also been present could have put up such resistance as to justify the blows which they had received , causing bruising and fractures .","The court also emphasised that the prosecution had not requested the committal for trial of the actual perpetrators of the violence on account of the difficulty of identifying them , and that the police had not cooperated effectively . It noted in that connection that the prosecution had been provided with old photographs of the officers accused and that it had taken DATE to identify CARDINAL particularly violent officer \u2013 filmed during the storming of the buildings \u2013 even though he had been easily recognisable by his hairstyle .","In its assessment of the individual responsibility of the accused , the court held that having regard to the circumstances of the case , the perpetrators had acted in the conviction that their superiors tolerated their acts . The fact that some officers and officials who had been in situ right from the beginning of the operation had not stepped in immediately to halt the violence had encouraged the officers of the VII Nucleo antisommossa and the other members of the security forces in their actions . The ORG therefore took the view that only those senior officials could be considered guilty of aiding and abetting the offence of causing bodily harm .","The court then considered the prosecution argument that the security forces had produced false evidence and recounted fictitious events with a view to justifying , a posteriori , both the search of the LOC and the acts of violence .","As regards the behaviour of the persons occupying the buildings before the police stormed them , the court observed that the video recordings added to the case file had not shown them throwing any large objects from the building , but that it might be considered , according to the statements of a witness and the attitude of the police officers , who had been filmed with their shields raised above their heads , that a number of small objects ( coins , bolts , etc . ) had probably been thrown at the officers while they had been attempting to break down the entrance door to the school .","As regards the alleged knife attack on an officer , the court , drawing on the results of the expert opinion prepared on that officer \u2019s behaviour and the evidence at its disposal , observed that it could neither find that that attack had actually taken place nor preclude the possibility that it had in fact occurred .","NORP Moreover , the court noted that the CARDINAL Molotov cocktails shown to the press on DATE had been found by the police in the city during TIME of DATE and subsequently brought , at the behest of the Deputy Police Commissioner of Genoa , to the schoolyard towards the end of the search of the LOC , and that they had ended up , under obscure circumstances , mingled with the items that had been gathered together in the gymnasium .","Finally , the court considered that the police report on the operation contained a misleading description of the facts , because it stated that all those occupying the school had resisted violently and glossed over the fact that most of them had been injured by the security forces .","The accused , the prosecutor \u2019s office with ORG , ORG , ORG ( which was civilly liable ) and most of the victims , including the applicant , all appealed to ORG against the first - instance judgment . By judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , filed on DATE , the court of appeal altered the challenged judgment .","ORG found the accused guilty of the following offences : providing false information ( CARDINAL accused ) , aggravated bodily harm ( CARDINAL accused ) and the unlawful carrying of weapons of war ( one accused ) . It imposed prison sentences on them of DATE and prohibited them from holding public office for DATE . Pursuant to Law No . CARDINAL of DATE , all those convicted were given the benefit of a DATE remission of sentence .","Since the limitation period for offences of aggravated slander ( in the case of CARDINAL accused ) , abuse of public authority on account of the unlawful arrest of the persons occupying ORG ( CARDINAL accused ) and simple bodily harm ( CARDINAL accused ) had elapsed , ORG discontinued proceedings against them . The proceedings against the Head of the VII Nucleo antisommossa , who had been convicted at first instance for causing aggravated bodily harm , were also discontinued on account of mitigating circumstances . Finally , ORG acquitted a person accused of simple slander and unlawful carrying of a weapon of war and another person accused of simple slander .","Most of the sentences involving payment of damages and costs and expenses as passed at first instance were upheld in substance , and , at the appeal level , the accused persons who had been convicted for the first time were also held civilly liable .","In the reasons for the judgment ( CARDINAL pages of a total of CARDINAL ) , ORG firstly pointed out that even if the suspicions concerning weapons used by LOC members during their looting could , in principle , have justified searching the schools , there was nevertheless scant evidence that all the persons occupying the CARDINAL schools were armed and could be considered as belonging to LOC .","ORG further stated that several factors demonstrated that the operation had in no way been geared to identifying the members of LOC and had been quite different in nature .","First of all , right from the planning stages of the \u201c search \u201d the senior police officials had allegedly specified that the VII Nucleo antisommossa and other heavily armed officers would be in the front line of the security forces ; those units had not been given any precise instructions concerning the use of force against those occupying the school , their sole task being to \u201c secure \u201d ( mettere in sicurezza ) the building .","Secondly , even those individuals who had been outside the Diaz - Pertini School and had not put up the least resistance had been immediately attacked by the security forces .","Thirdly , the security forces had launched their assault by breaking down the doors without attempting to negotiate with the occupiers , explaining that a \u201c non - violent search \u201d was to be carried out , or to induce them voluntarily to open the door , which , according to ORG , they had justifiably closed . On entry into the building the officers had systematically beaten those inside in a cruel and sadistic manner , inter alia using non - regulation batons . According to ORG , the traces of blood to be seen on the photographs taken during the inspection of the LOC had been fresh and could only have stemmed from the above - mentioned violence , contrary to the \u201c shameful contention \u201d ( vergognosa PERSON ) that they had been the result of injuries sustained during the clashes which had occurred over DATE .","DATE . In the light of those factors ORG concluded that the aim of the whole operation had been to carry out a large number of arrests , even in the absence of any judicial purpose , the main thing being to remedy a media image of a powerless police force . The most senior officials of the security forces had therefore surrounded the VII Nucleo antisommossa with a heavily armed unit equipped with tonfa - type truncheons capable of dealing lethal blows , and that unit have been exclusively instructed to neutralise the persons occupying the Diaz - Pertini School , stigmatising them as dangerous troublemakers who had caused all the unlawful damage of DATE . The violent and coordinated action of all the officers who had participated in the operation had been the logical consequence of the instructions given .","Therefore , according to ORG , all the most senior officials of the VII Nucleo antisommossa , as a minimum , had been guilty of causing the injuries inflicted on the persons occupying the buildings . As regards the higher - ranking police officers , ORG pointed out that the decision not to request their committal for trial had impeded proper assessment of their criminal responsibility .","Furthermore , ORG held that once the decision to storm the building and make the arrests had been taken , the security forces had attempted to justify their action a posteriori .","In that connection ORG noted that during the investigation the persons occupying the school had been attributed responsibility for offences which they had not committed : the investigation had in no way shown that the occupiers had resisted the security forces or that they had thrown objects at them while standing in the schoolyard , whereby some of the officers had probably raised their shields merely as a precaution ; and above all , having regard to all the circumstances of the case , the alleged knife attack on an officer during the storming of the building had proven to be a \u201c bare - faced lie \u201d .","The Court of Appeal further noted that the most senior officials in the security forces who were present in situ , had decided to place both the Molotov cocktails that had been found elsewhere during the afternoon among the items collected during the search , with a view to justifying the decision to conduct the search and to arrest the persons occupying the school . ORG of PERSON took the view that since the arrests had been devoid of any factual or legal basis , they had been unlawful .","In determining the appropriate sentences , ORG found that apart from the Head of the VII Nucleo antisommossa , who had attempted to limit the violence and had finally admitted the offences during the proceedings , no mitigating circumstances could be acknowledged in respect of the other accused . Having regard to the applicant \u2019s statements , ORG pointed out that the members of the security forces had turned into \u201c violent thugs \u201d indifferent to any physical vulnerability bound up with sex and age and to any sign of capitulation , even on the part of persons who had just been abruptly awakened by the noise of the attack . Moreover , the officers had compounded the violence with threats and insults . In doing so they had discredited GPE in the eyes of the international community . Moreover , once the violence had been perpetrated , the security forces advanced a whole series of fabricated \u201c facts \u201d implicating the occupiers .","In ORG opinion , the systematic and coordinated nature of the act of violence committed by the police officers and the aforementioned attempts to justify them a posteriori constituted a deliberate , concerted effort rather than a state of stress and fatigue .","Nevertheless , having regard to the fact the whole impugned operation had originated in the instruction from the Head of Police to carry out arrests and that the accused had therefore clearly acted under the psychological pressure of that instruction , ORG determined the sentences on the basis of the minimum penalty laid down in criminal law for each of the offences in question .","The accused , ORG with ORG , ORG ( which was civilly liable ) and some of the victims , appealed on points of law against the appeal judgment ; the applicant and other victims claimed civil damages in those proceedings .","DATE . By judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , deposited on DATE , ORG essentially upheld the impugned judgment , although it declared the offence of aggravated bodily harm for which CARDINAL of the accused had been convicted at first instance and CARDINAL at second instance ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) .","In its grounds of judgment ( CARDINAL pages of a total of CARDINAL ) , ORG first of all examined the objection as to the constitutionality of LAW on statute - barring of criminal offences as submitted by ORG under LAW and , secondarily , under LAW . It observed DATE as the first- and second - instance decisions had noted , in a finding which had never in fact been contested DATE \u201c the violence perpetrated by the police during their storming of the PERSON school [ had been ] egregious \u201d . The \u201c utmost gravity \u201d of the police conduct stemmed from the fact that the widespread violent acts committed throughout the school premises had been unleashed against individuals who were obviously unarmed , sleeping or sitting with their hands up ; it was therefore a case of \u201c unjustified violence [ which ] , as rightly pointed out by ORG , [ was carried out ] for punitive purposes , for retribution , geared to causing humiliation and physical and mental suffering on the part of the victims \u201d . According to ORG , the violence might have qualified as \u201c torture \u201d under the terms of ORG or else as \u201c inhuman or degrading treatment \u201d under LAW .","ORG noted that in the absence of an explicit criminal offence within the NORP legal system , the impugned violent acts had been prosecuted on the basis of simple or aggravated bodily harm , which offences , pursuant to LAW , had been the subject of a discontinuance decision on the ground that the limitation period had expired during the proceedings . It noted that that had been why ORG had complained of the contradiction between the regulations on the statute - barring of the criminal offences laid down in LAW inasmuch as that provision did not include ill - treatment within the meaning of LAW among the offences not subject to limitation DATE and in LAW , which , in accordance with the ORG \u2019s well - established case - law , required the imposition of appropriate penalties on ill - treatment and therefore impeded the limitation of offences or criminal proceedings in cases of ill - treatment .","Nevertheless , ORG considered that a change in the rules on limitation as envisaged by ORG lay outside the jurisdiction of ORG because , LAW , only the law could establish offence and criminal penalties .","As regards the convictions for offence of bodily harm , ORG , having reiterated the events preceding the impugned police storming of the school ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , considered logical ORG finding that the instruction from the Head of Police to carry out arrests had , right from the outset , \u201c militarised \u201d the search operation which the police was to conduct in the school . ORG held that the very large number of officers and the lack of instructions regarding alternatives to a tear - gas assault on the school ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and regarding the use of force against the occupiers , among other factors , showed that that operation had not been designed as a peaceful search of the LOC . The operational methods used had caused virtually all the persons occupying the school to be beaten up , which explained ORG upholding of the responsibility , inter alia , of the officials heading the VII Nucleo antisommossa . First of all , the latter had given no instructions on how the building was to be \u201c secured \u201d and had at no stage informed the officers of the possible presence of harmless individuals ; secondly , they had not prevented the attacks on persons standing outside the building , the violent storming of the school and the assault on the persons occupying the LOC . In conclusion , as ORG had rightly found , those officials had been aware that violence was inherent in that type of operation .","ORG noted , however , that even the offences of aggravated bodily harm had become statute - barred on DATE by dint of scheduling , the calculation criteria and the interruptions of proceedings provided for in Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW as amended by LAW . CARDINAL of DATE .","ORG also upheld the findings of the appeal judgment as regards the offences of providing false information , slander and unlawful carrying of weapons of war perpetrated in the framework of a \u201c disgraceful whitewashing operation \u201d in order to justify a posteriori the violence perpetrated in the school and the arrest of those occupying it . ORG noted that the persons occupying the school had not put up any r\u00e9sistance either before the entrance door had been broken down or inside the LOC , and also that the occupiers had not been in possession of Molotov cocktails , which had been brought into the school from the outside by the police . Therefore , ORG declared mendacious the police reports to the contrary and slanderous the conspiracy charges levelled against the occupiers . As regards the conclusions of the appeal judgment concerning the alleged knife attack on an officer , ORG merely specified the sentence passed on CARDINAL officers convicted of providing this false information ( DATE and DATE , as indicated in the reasons given for the appeal judgment , rather than DATE and DATE as indicated in the operative part ) . Finally , it passed a sentence of DATE on CARDINAL of the convicted officers for providing false information , on account of the limitation on the offence of aggravated bodily harm and the resultant inapplicability of the calculation criterion laid down in LAW because of the continuous nature of the offences .","NORP The charges levelled against officers for the events in the ORG concerned arbitrary search and damage to property .","By judgment no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see paragraph DATE above ) , ORG held that the storming by the police officers of ORG had been the result of a mistake in identifying the building to be searched . It also found that no clear evidence had been provided to conclude that the accused had actually caused the damage complained of in ORG .","On the other hand , by judgment no . ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG found that there had been no mistake or misunderstanding behind the police storming of ORG . According to ORG , the security forces had tried to destroy all film evidence of the storming of the neighbouring ORG and had deliberately damaged the ORG computers . It nevertheless decided to discontinue proceedings against the police officer charged because the impugned offences had become statute - barred .","By judgment no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ORG upheld that decision . It emphasised that ORG had fully justified its conclusions by noting that the police had carried out an arbitrary search of ORG geared to seeking out and destroying audio - visual material and all other documentation concerning the events in the Diaz - Pertini School .","On DATE the Presidents of ORG and the ORG decided to order an inquiry ( indagine conoscitiva ) into the events during the Genoa GCARDINAL Summit by ORG of both chambers of ORG . For that purpose it set up a commission comprising CARDINAL ORG and CARDINAL Senators .","On DATE the commission submitted a report setting out the conclusions of the majority of its members , entitled \u201c Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry into the events during the Genoa GCARDINAL Summit \u201d . According to the ORG the search of the Diaz - Pertini School \u201c could probably be seen as the most significant example of the organisational shortcomings and operational dysfunctions \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158738","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RADEV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a life sentence in FAC .","The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was convicted and sentenced to death . ORG confirmed this sentence on DATE . The applicant was placed in ORG and was not executed because a presidential moratorium on the execution of death sentences was introduced in the meantime .","After the death penalty was abolished in GPE , the Vice - President commuted the applicant \u2019s sentence to life imprisonment on DATE . On DATE the authorities placed the applicant under a \u201c special regime \u201d to serve his sentence , and on DATE they transferred him to FAC , where he remained until DATE . DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in FAC , and on DATE he was transferred again to FAC , where he was at the time the most recent information was submitted to the ORG , in DATE .","At times he shared his cell with other life prisoners who were serving their sentences under the \u201c special regime \u201d .","According to the applicant , throughout the entire period of his detention he has been held in cells not equipped with sanitary facilities , and has only been allowed to go to the toilet CARDINAL times a day . During the rest of the time he has had to relieve himself in his cell in a bucket which he could wash out once a day . The prison authorities have not provided him with chemicals for disinfecting the bucket .","He has been permanently locked in his cell .","According to the Government , DATE in ORG the applicant was placed in a cell which was only locked at TIME . This allowed him unlimited access to the toilet , situated in the wing \u2019s corridor , TIME Furthermore , toilets and sinks with running water were installed in all cells in FAC in DATE .","In FAC the applicant was allowed to go to the lavatory more than CARDINAL times a day . In particular , he had access to sanitary facilities and hot water also when he was taken out of his cell for his TIME \u2019s exercise in the open air . Without specifying further , the ORG also stated that this was also the case when he took part in the DATE prison activities . A toilet and a sink with running water were installed in his cell in DATE .","DATE and DATE the applicant was held under the most restrictive \u201c special regime \u201d . Under this regime prisoners were locked permanently in their cells , and could only communicate with other life inmates and not with the general prison population . In DATE a Commission for the Execution of Sentences changed the applicant \u2019s regime to the lighter \u201c enhanced regime \u201d which became called the \u201c severe regime \u201d with the adoption of the Execution of Punishments and Pre - Trial Detention Act in DATE . He was able to take part in religious discussions for DATE and to play table tennis for TIME up to twice a week .","The Government submitted DATE psychological assessments of Mr Radev in respect of DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . According to those assessments , the applicant demonstrated anti - social behaviour and periodically engaged in conflict with other inmates , whom he also incited to go on hunger strike as a means of pressuring the prison authorities into taking decisions favourable to them . According to the Government , the applicant had been disciplined CARDINAL times for breaching the internal rules , and had only received CARDINAL good - conduct awards . On CARDINAL occasions he was punished for keeping an unauthorised mobile telephone and\/or charger and ORG cards for it in his cell ; once for keeping an item which could be used to make a hand - knife ; and another time for keeping a small foldable hand - knife . On CARDINAL occasions the punishments were for violent altercations with other life prisoners . CARDINAL of those occasions was described by the prison authorities as \u201c not having escalated to the level of lasting tension , but rather being a momentary emotional outburst not uncommon for both the inmates involved \u201d . In the other incident , the physical engagement had been preceded by verbal arguments on the part of both prisoners , and the prison guards rapidly managed to separate the inmates and defuse the tension . When the applicant considered a situation was detrimental to him , he usually threatened legal action , and sometimes attempted self - harm or suicide as a means of \u201c persuading \u201d the prison authorities . He was emotionally unstable and had a tendency to contest the decisions of the prison authorities . Because of all this the prison authorities were not considering a change in the applicant \u2019s prison regime .","After the Government had submitted their observations to the ORG , the applicant complained that he was serving his sentence in inadequate material conditions . In particular , there was insufficient fresh air and lighting in his cell , which itself was dilapidated and infested with cockroaches , and it was impossible for him to maintain personal hygiene as he had no access to hygienic or cleaning products . He was permanently handcuffed when outside his cell , the food was rather poor , and so was the medical care provided to him in prison . Lastly , no work had been offered him , nor did he have any meaningful occupational activities .","DATE the applicant brought several claims for damages under the ORG and Municipalities\u2019 LAW DATE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in connection with various aspects of his conditions of detention . ORG rejected all of them as inadmissible , finding in particular either that the prison authorities had not acted unlawfully or that the applicant had not established that he had suffered as a result of those conditions ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161952","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF K\u00d6RTV\u00c9LYESSY v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant intended to organise a demonstration protesting against \u201c the persecution of national radicalism \u201d . It was planned to take place TIME on DATE . The venue was FAC in GPE Xth District , in front of GPE Penitentiary .","Venyige Street is of a width of QUANTITY in the Government \u2019s submissions and of QUANTITY in the applicant \u2019s . PERSON to the main driveway , there is a service lane , of a width equivalent to that of CARDINAL cars ; this area is normally used as a car park . In the applicant \u2019s submissions , this latter section could have accommodated largely all the participants , without them creating any major traffic incident .","The applicant , in the notification addressed to ORG under Act no . III of DATE on ORG , indicated that a maximum of CARDINAL participants were to be expected . This notification was made at TIME on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG banned the demonstration , in pursuit of its prerogatives under section TIME ) of Act no . III of DATE . It was of the view that there was no alternative route for the traffic in the neighbourhood , and consequently the demonstration would impede traffic inordinately . The applicant was reproached with the fact that the notification did not contain the agenda for the gathering .","Because of this prohibition , the demonstration did not take place .","On DATE the applicant requested judicial review of the police decision . He explained inter alia that he had not specified the agenda because the meeting had been intended as a rather small CARDINAL and that therefore the actual course of events , such as speeches or discussion , was hard to predict .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint . It observed that the question of previous notification of the agenda was immaterial , since the only valid reason in the case was the disproportionate difficulties which would be caused to traffic by the demonstration .","The court relied on the expert opinion provided by ORG of ORG , in whose view the demonstration would have significantly impeded the traffic heading to the shops located in FAC , a dead end , to the local waste disposal site and to the ORG entrance of FAC ; and the disruption caused by the crowd might have extended to FAC , a major thoroughfare in the vicinity with lines of city transport involved . Relying on that reasoning , the court endorsed the police decision ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159060","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ASLLANI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was employed by a local company owned by ORG , which operated a bakery in GPE . At TIME on DATE several police officers arrived at the bakery in order to establish whether or not the employees were in possession of the necessary work and residence permits . PERSON , a police officer at the time and currently the mayor of PERSON , arrived DATE . At CARDINAL a.m. TIME the applicant arrived , after being called by LOC and the applicant were taken to the LOC police station and interviewed in the office of GPE , the commander - in - chief of GPE police . The applicant alleged that during the interview PERSON had ill - treated him and that he had left the police station at TIME on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was examined in the ORG hospital by PERSON who issued a certificate ( no . CARDINAL ) in which he was diagnosed with fractura osso nosi post traumatica - in obs . On the reverse of the certificate the following handwritten text appeared :","\u201c At TIME , a fight ( \u0442\u0435\u043f\u0430\u0447\u043a\u0430 ) , an X - ray was taken of the nasal pyramid ... realignment and [ splinting ] were carried out ... \u201d","An undated medical certificate ( no . DATE ) signed by PERSON indicated the following :","\u201c [ The applicant was ] admitted on DATE at TIME as an urgent case . It concerned a fight . The nose pyramid and the ... right upper nostril were visibly swollen . Assuming that the nasal septum was broken , an X - ray was taken of the nasal pyramid ... The radiologist \u2019s findings are : no traumatic changes to the nasal bone . So the obstruction of the right nasal cavity was caused by swelling . The nasal septum has been realigned to the left and a double front [ splint was made ] ... \u201d","On an unspecified date DATE the applicant lodged a complaint of ill - treatment by the police with the public prosecutor . Furthermore , on DATE the applicant and GPE complained to the ORG that they had been ill - treated by police officers during the incident CARDINAL DATE . According to the official police notes from that date , the applicant complained that after the discussion at the bakery , he had been arrested and detained ( \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0432\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d \u0438 \u0437\u0430\u0434\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d ) at GPE police station for questioning . During questioning , PERSON had insulted and physically assaulted him . He had taken a newspaper out of the applicant \u2019s bag and tried to stuff it into the applicant \u2019s mouth . He had then punched him CARDINAL times , causing visible injuries , namely a broken nose and facial bruising . Police officers PERSON and ORG , the commander - in - chief of the LOC police , had been present at the time . PERSON complained that while at the bakery , PERSON had slapped him several times in the face in front of the workers . He had also insulted him and threatened to send him \u201c in a black plastic bag to GPE \u201d unless he admitted that he had been giving money to ORG , a police officer from ORG .","On DATE and DATE the applicant was examined again at ORG and prescribed a therapy .","On DATE he was examined at ORG and diagnosed with facial bruising and a broken nose . Another certificate confirming the injuries was issued by the hospital on DATE . A GPE scan on DATE confirmed that he had suffered a broken nose without bone displacement .","In letters dated DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE the public prosecutor , in response to the criminal complaint lodged by the applicant , asked the ORG to communicate any relevant material regarding the alleged incident on DATE .","On DATE the ORG sent the public prosecutor a \u201c special report \u201d ( \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0435\u0431\u0435\u043d \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0435\u0448\u0442\u0430\u0458 ) regarding the case , setting out a summary of the complaints made by the applicant and GPE It reads as follows :","\u201c To establish the truth regarding the allegations , the ORG interviewed the complainants , PERSON , ORG ( bakery workers ) , PERSON labour inspector PERSON . , as well as police officers PERSON , PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , FAC and GPE On the basis of the discussions held and an inspection of the DATE logbook and other official material regarding the case held at GPE police station , [ the ORG ] establishes the following :","On DATE at CARDINAL p.m. GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , plain - clothed police officers , and GPE , a police officer in ( official ) uniform , arrived at the A. bakery . After identifying themselves to the workers , including the owner GPE , they informed them that they would be carrying out an inspection ...","In the meantime , police officer PERSON arrived at the bakery . He joined in the discussion with GPE and the other workers , asking whether they had offered free bread , food and drinks to some police officers in return for their protection . He asked the owner ... GPE , how much money he had been giving to police officer PERSON to protect him ... in the presence of the other workers , PERSON slapped GPE in the face several times . [ He ] then ... ordered [ him ] to the storeroom , where PERSON continued slapping him in the face . He threatened to kill him , put him in a black plastic bag and return him to GPE unless he admitted to a judge that he had been giving money to PERSON insulted his ethnicity .","...","On DATE at TIME [ the applicant ] , GPE and [ CARDINAL other individuals ] were arrested and detained at GPE police station ... When [ the applicant ] took documents out of his bag concerning the bakery ... PERSON noticed a [ K.D ] newspaper which had on its front page ORG declaration of independence and a picture of PERSON \u2019s face with the new flag of GPE . PERSON started searching [ the applicant \u2019s ] bag and took the newspaper out . He tried to stuff it into [ the applicant \u2019s ] mouth ... [ He ] continued using offensive language to insult [ the applicant \u2019s ] ethnicity . He suddenly punched him CARDINAL times in the nose causing him visible injuries such as bruising . [ The applicant \u2019s ] nose started to bleed . This happened in the presence of GPE , GPE and PERSON Later , when [ the applicant ] and PERSON went to police officer GPE \u2019s office to give details about the workers from GPE , GPE noticed blood on [ the applicant \u2019s ] shirt . He asked [ the applicant ] about the origin of the blood . [ He ] replied that it was not right that he had been beaten up by a police officer and that he was ready to take responsibility for his actions .","During the discussion , police officer PERSON denied the allegations made by the applicant and GPE , explaining that he had not used any force during his conversation with them . [ His ] assertion was confirmed by police officers PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , who [ said ] that no force had been used against [ the applicant ] or GPE by PERSON or any other police officer in the performance of their duties .","Regarding the inspection carried out at the A. bakery in GPE , the police officers had no plan ; there was no search warrant . Besides , there was no information in the DATE logbook about [ the applicant \u2019s ] arrest and detention at GPE police station , or [ about ] the use of force against him . Nor was a report [ about the use of force ] drawn up .","After the interview ended and all the relevant evidence for misdemeanour proceedings had been obtained , [ the applicant ] was released ; GPE and the other workers from GPE stayed ...","Given the injuries sustained , on DATE at TIME [ the applicant ] went to ORG [ H]ospital , where he obtained immediate medical assistance . An X - ray was then taken of the nasal pyramid and [ a nasal plaster ] was made . A medical certificate , no.CARDINAL ... was issued in this regard . \u201d","As noted in the special report , it was accompanied by considerable written material , which included the applicant \u2019s complaint ; official notes regarding interviews held with PERSON and various police officers including PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE and GPE ; medical certificates CARDINAL . CARDINAL and DATE and photographs of the applicant with a neck collar and plaster on his nose . The Government did not provide copies of the official notes concerning the interviews held with the police officers listed above .","Further to a request by the public prosecutor dated DATE , on DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) opened an investigation into the allegations that PERSON had ill - treated , threatened and insulted GPE and the applicant .","DATE and DATE the investigating judge heard oral evidence from the applicant , GPE , GPE , workers ORG and PERSON , police officers GPE , GPE , ORG and other witnesses .","The applicant stated that the police officers present at the scene had ordered him and GPE to go to the police station . CARDINAL of them had joined him and GPE in the latter \u2019s car and had set off to go there . The applicant repeated that during his interview at the police station , PERSON had used offensive language against him , had tried to stuff a newspaper into his mouth and had punched him CARDINAL times in the face and nose .","PERSON denied all the accusations made against him by the applicant and GPE","Z.C. , who gave evidence without the applicant and his representative present , stated :","\u201c ... PERSON treated me correctly ... He did not ill - treat or insult me . It is untrue that PERSON or any other police inspector took me to [ the storeroom ] , pushed me against the flour bags and slapped me . It is absolutely untrue ... I also want to emphasise that it is untrue that PERSON threatened to put me in a black plastic bag and send me back to GPE .","The whole story was a set - up by [ the applicant ] , so to speak . He suggested that I accuse [ G.S. ] of ill - treating , insulting and hitting me , telling me that we would both [ get ] MONEY ( ORG ) compensation from the ORG , and LAW from the accused . , I went to GPE and gave a statement regarding the case , a false statement accusing [ PERSON ] in the fear that [ the applicant ] could deport me to GPE .","TIME , [ the applicant ] arrived at the bakery in a taxi from ORG . At the police \u2019s request ... I went to LOC police station . I can not say whether I went in ... with [ the applicant ] , but what is relevant is that I , [ the applicant ] , and CARDINAL individuals from GPE went to LOC police station in cars and jeeps ... after a while , a policeman took me and [ the applicant ] into the chief - officer of ORG office . There was [ PERSON ] , [ another officer ] and the chief - officer of PERSON , I think his name is M.[G ] ... At CARDINAL point I noticed [ the applicant ] take documents and a newspaper from his bag ... I can firmly say that [ PERSON ] did not take the newspaper ... and did not hit [ him ] in the face . I do not know if there was blood on his shirt ...","I can say that the whole thing is a lie constructed by [ the applicant ] , because he forced me to say that the accused had ill - treated and insulted me . Nor did the accused hit [ the applicant ] at the police station ... \u201d","Bakery workers ORG and PERSON both confirmed that during the incident on DATE PERSON had spoken in a loud voice and asked them who they had given bread for free . Both confirmed that PERSON and GPE had gone to the storeroom and that GPE had returned with flour on his back . PERSON confirmed that PERSON had slapped PERSON , whereas ORG maintained that she did not hear GPE complain that he had been slapped or ill - treated by anyone that night .","GPE , the police officer responsible for foreigners , stated :","\u201c after a while , GPE and an unknown national from GPE , who said that his name was PERSON [ sic ] and that he was the manager of the company , arrived at my office ... he literally told me \u2018 that \u2019s all fine [ referring to the ban on employing foreigners without a work permit ] , but I should not be beaten up\u2019 . I asked him who had beaten him up and pointing with his hand he said \u2018 [ look ] up PERSON . He showed me blood and I noticed that he had a visible blood stain , so to speak . He said that a police officer had beaten him up , but he did not specify who . I told him that it was not my job ... I did not see anything on [ the applicant \u2019s ] face like a nose injury or blood ... \u201d","Police officers PERSON and ORG denied that PERSON had slapped PERSON at the bakery or that PERSON had used offensive language . They confirmed that the applicant had arrived at the bakery and that both he and PERSON had discussed the issue of illegal workers with them and PERSON in PERSON \u2019s office at LOC station . They also confirmed that the applicant had had a newspaper in his bag and that PERSON had enquired whose photograph was on the front page . Both denied that PERSON had hit the applicant .","A forensic medical opinion was commissioned by the trial court . On DATE PERSON , a court expert , drew up a medical report on the basis of the above - mentioned medical records and a further X - ray . The relevant parts of the report stated :","\u201c [ the applicant ] suffered a broken nose without any displacement of bone fragments , as well as facial bruising . These injuries ... amount to bodily injury . These injuries ... were a result of the use of brute force on the face . \u201d","On DATE the public prosecutor informed the investigating judge that he was withdrawing the charges against PERSON brought by the applicant and \u201c ORG by way of the special report \u201d due to the lack of evidence that PERSON had committed the crime in question .","On DATE the investigation was closed and the applicant was advised that he could pursue the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor . He availed himself of that opportunity and on DATE brought a private indictment against PERSON on charges of ill - treatment and bodily injury .","On CARDINAL DATE the trial court allowed an objection by PERSON and discontinued the proceedings . On DATE that decision was quashed by ORG , which ordered the trial court to further investigate allegations which had meanwhile been raised , namely that the applicant had sustained certain injuries in a traffic accident that had happened before the incident on DATE . The appellate court also ordered a confrontation between the applicant , PERSON and police officers GPE , GPE and GPE","At a hearing on DATE the applicant confirmed that he had sustained a neck injury in a traffic accident that had happened on DATE and that because of this he had been wearing a neck collar . On the photographs taken at the ORG DATE after the alleged incident , he had had a neck collar . He denied that there was any connection with the injuries to his nose and eye which PERSON had caused him .","On DATE a confrontation took place between the applicant and police officers PERSON , PERSON and ORG , who denied that PERSON had punched the applicant .","GPE , who also took part , stated :","\u201c ... I noticed that [ the applicant ] had blood [ on him ] , namely a small stain on his shirt . \u201d","All the judges of the trial court , including the presiding judge , applied separately to be excluded from the case as they had already sat in a different capacity . On DATE ORG assigned the case to ORG as the court with jurisdiction ratione loci .","ORG held several hearings , in which it heard oral evidence from the applicant , PERSON and police officers PERSON , ORG and GPE The defendant and the police officers maintained their previous statements , denying that PERSON had punched the applicant during the interview at GPE police station . GPE stated , inter alia , that he had noticed a stain on the applicant \u2019s shirt , but that he could not say for certain whether it had been blood . During the proceedings , the applicant asked the court to examine GPE , who , according to official information from ORG , had left the respondent ORG in DATE . The court \u2019s attempts to secure his presence at the trial were to no avail since his whereabouts remained unknown despite PERSON \u2019s statements on DATE and DATE that he had been in contact with him and knew where he was living . At the hearing on DATE , the applicant stated that he had also been in contact with GPE who had agreed to give evidence in court and confirm his statement given to the ORG .","On DATE the court acquitted PERSON for lack of evidence . It established that he and several police officers had gone to the bakery to follow up allegations that illegal workers from GPE were employed there , and that both GPE and the applicant had been questioned at the police station . However , it found that none of the witnesses examined had corroborated the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE ORG allowed an appeal lodged by the applicant and remitted the case for fresh examination . The court held that the first - instance court had not established relevant facts regarding the applicant \u2019s injuries , which had been supported by relevant medical evidence . Furthermore , it had not given any reasons regarding the origin of those injuries , despite the fact that investigative steps had been taken with a view to establishing whether they had been caused in the car accident that had actually happened on DATE . In this connection , it instructed the lower court to reassess the available evidence and , if needed , to arrange a confrontation with the applicant and the witnesses . The lower court was also advised to analyse the available medical evidence and to consider what time the applicant sought medical assistance .","In the new proceedings , the first - instance court again examined the defendant and the applicant . A confrontation was arranged between him and the police officers who were present at the police station at the relevant time . It also heard oral evidence from Drs L.D.B. ( who confirmed the veracity of the information contained in the medical certificate , see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and GPE , the court expert .","The applicant submitted in evidence a written statement dated DATE , certified by the PERSON ( GPE ) Court of First Instance , in which GPE stated that his testimony of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been incorrect and given under duress . He confirmed that the applicant had been hit by PERSON at the police station in the presence of QUANTITY police officers , as a result of which he had suffered a broken nose . He confirmed his statement given to the ORG . He stated that he would not give oral evidence in FAC of First Instance because he feared for his personal safety . However , he agreed to testify in ORG , the EULEX ( EU Rule of Law Mission to GPE ) or ORG in GPE .","On DATE ORG again acquitted PERSON due to the lack of evidence to support the applicant \u2019s allegations . The court stated that it had given weight to the evidence given by all the witnesses , especially given that most of them were police officers and PERSON was an experienced court expert .","On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination , which , as noted in the judgment , was to be held before a different panel of first - instance court judges . The court found that the lower court had again not established the facts regarding the applicant \u2019s injuries . The available medical evidence confirmed that the injuries described in the medical reports issued soon after the alleged incident on DATE had not resulted from the car accident in DATE . The first - instance court had merely referred to the witness statements without assessing their probative value in connection with the medical evidence . It had given no weight to the medical evidence , which should have been analysed in relation to what time the applicant had sought medical assistance . The court instructed the lower court to reassess the evidence , organise a confrontation between the applicant and the defendant , and take other steps to establish the origin of the applicant \u2019s injuries .","In the resumed proceedings and at the request of ORG , on DATE PERSON supplemented the expert opinion regarding the applicant \u2019s broken nose , saying that it could not be ruled out that he had suffered it in the traffic accident in DATE . This was so since broken noses healed slowly and remained X - ray detectable for a long time . He further stated that with a nasal injury such as that described in the medical certificate issued by PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , bruising should appear DATE TIME after being struck . The medical certificate did not indicate that there had been any bruising on the applicant \u2019s face when he had been examined at ORG .","Dr L.D.B. confirmed that she had indicated in the medical certificate everything she had considered relevant regarding the applicant \u2019s injury . The applicant stated that she had refused to specify that he had been assaulted by the police since she stated \u201c [ she ] does not want to go to court \u201d .","N.S. commented on his previous statements given to the investigating and trial judges ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , stating that he could not confirm whether he had seen a blood stain on the applicant \u2019s shirt .","During the proceedings the court made attempts through ORG to secure GPE \u2019s attendance at the trial . However , his whereabouts remained unknown despite the fact that the applicant stated that he had been in contact with him and that he had agreed to testify in the GPE or PERSON courts due to fear . The court did not accept that GPE had given evidence in these courts .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the court did not admit in evidence ORG written statement of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) finding that it had not been given in court and could not serve as the basis for a court judgment .","On DATE ORG acquitted PERSON due to lack of evidence that he had committed the imputed crimes . The court confirmed that the police , including the accused , had been involved in the inspection at the bakery . The applicant , after being called by GPE , had arrived at the bakery at TIME on DATE . At Resen police station , the accused had joined police officers PERSON and PERSON , who had interviewed Z.C. Soon after , the applicant had arrived at the office even though he had not been officially summoned . The court also established that there had been a discussion between the accused and the applicant about the newspaper . After the discussion , the applicant had complained to police officer GPE that he had been hit by a police inspector , alleging that a stain on his shirt had been blood from his nose . The applicant had no visible facial injuries . ORG of First Instance further indicated that after the applicant had left the police station at TIME , he had taken part in a fight with unknown individuals at an unknown place , and at TIME he had asked for medical assistance at ORG . Dr GPE had examined him , noting in the medical certificate that the injuries had been sustained in a fight . The applicant had further convinced GPE to charge PERSON before the ORG . As to the latter \u2019s special report , the court stated :","\u201c ... besides the statements of the complainants , accused and witnesses , it does not contain any indication that [ the ORG ] established anything relevant for these proceedings , [ including ] any responsibility on the part of the accused ... \u201d","Relying on medical evidence and statements by PERSON and GPE , the court established that at TIME on DATE , when the applicant had first been examined at ORG , he had had swelling on his nose , but no bruising . As specified in the medical certificate issued by PERSON , the injuries had been sustained in a fight . Given the statements the witnesses and PERSON had given in the investigation , the court concluded that there had been no evidence to support the applicant \u2019s allegations .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal and quashed the first - instance court \u2019s judgment . It concluded that the lower court , notwithstanding that it had admitted considerable evidence , \u201c had established incomplete and wrong facts \u201d and \u201c had drawn illogical and unreasonable conclusions \u201d . In this connection , the court stated :","\u201c The court observes , as already noted in its judgment of DATE , that the first - instance court disregarded the medical [ records ] ... and adduced evidence as to whether there was any colouring to [ the applicant \u2019s ] injury . During the proceedings , an attempt was made to relate [ the applicant \u2019s ] injury to a traffic accident in DATE [ in which ] he had sustained injuries and worn a neck collar for longer . This is no longer argued in the impugned judgment , but it is alleged that [ the applicant \u2019s ] injury was sustained in a fight he had taken part in before asking PERSON for medical assistance . It is unclear on what basis the first - instance court had drawn this conclusion ...","The first - instance court now also did not sufficiently assess GPE \u2019s statement ... in which he clearly said that he had noticed a blood stain on [ the applicant \u2019s ] shirt . In the impugned judgment , this witness \u2019s statement is changed so that justification was given for the conclusion that [ the applicant ] did not sustain such an injury ... the first - instance court , in principle , accepts that [ the applicant \u2019s ] injury was not a result of actions taken by the accused , but ... was sustained in a fight with unidentified persons at an unknown location immediately before the [ medical ] examination .","...","In such circumstances , the first - instance court finds that [ the applicant \u2019s ] injury was caused later than the interview that took place at GPE police station ...","... there is no evidence that after the interview [ at the police station the applicant ] went somewhere , took part in a fight with unidentified individuals and sustained injuries before asking the doctor for a medical check - up . The reasons the first - instance court gives in support of its judgment are unclear and , to a considerable extent , contradictory and inconsistent with the evidence admitted ... \u201d","On DATE ORG of First Instance acquitted ( \u043e\u0441\u043b\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0434\u0443\u0432\u0430 \u043e\u0434 \u043e\u0431\u0432\u0438\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) PERSON of ill - treatment and dismissed the indictment ( \u0441\u0435 \u043e\u0434\u0431\u0438\u0432\u0430 \u043e\u0431\u0432\u0438\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435\u0442\u043e ) as regards the accusations of bodily injury . In this latter connection , the court found that the prosecution had become time - barred . As regards the charges of ill - treatment the court found , for the same reasons as in the previous judgment , that there was insufficient evidence that the applicant \u2019s injury to his nose had been caused by PERSON On the contrary , all the available material suggested that it had been sustained in a fight that had taken place immediately before the applicant had asked for medical assistance at ORG .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal and remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh examination , which , as noted in the judgment , was to be held before a different panel of judges . The court stated that :","\u201c ... the conclusion of the first - instance court was in serious doubt and the established facts were not supported by the evidence admitted ... the first - instance court again disregarded the instructions of ORG specified in the [ previous ] judgments . The first - instance court disregarded the medical [ records ] ... the first - instance court was previously instructed to assess [ GPE \u2019s ] statement ; [ the latter ] , which included some indications as to what had happened ... As previously stated , it is clear from [ GPE \u2019s ] statement that he had been told by [ the applicant ] that it had not been right to work without a permit , but that [ the applicant ] should not have been beaten up . Witness [ GPE ] clearly stated that he had seen a blood stain [ around ] the applicant \u2019s stomach [ area ] ... It would be necessary for [ the first - instance court ] to reassess evidence already admitted and pay particular attention to the instructions [ specified ] in this judgment and earlier judgments of ORG , which suggest that the available evidence is sufficient [ for the court ] to draw a conclusion as to whether the accused had undertaken those actions and committed the crime imputed to him ... \u201d","The fifth round of proceedings is at present pending before the first - instance court .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which became final on DATE , ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time ( \u201c length remedy \u201d ) and acknowledged that the criminal proceedings against PERSON had been too long . It held that the applicant had not contributed to the length of the proceedings , which had been protracted due to the fact that CARDINAL courts of first - instance had adjudicated the case ; ORG had not been diligent in fixing court hearings and the case had been remitted to it twice already . It awarded the applicant the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation and ordered ORG to conclude the criminal proceedings as quickly as possible , but DATE after receipt of its judgment ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152730","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MUR\u0160I\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","By a judgment of ORG ( PERSON u PERSON ) of DATE , upheld by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE , the applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for robbery .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) sentenced him to DATE imprisonment for theft , which was confirmed by ORG on DATE .","Following a request by the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG took into account the above CARDINAL convictions and sentenced him to a single sentence of DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from ORG ( FAC ( GPE u GPE ) to serve the prison sentence originally imposed by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","He remained in FAC until DATE , when he was transferred to ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) following a decision by ORG ( ORG pravosu\u0111a , PERSON ) on DATE .","According to the applicant , he spent DATE with CARDINAL other inmates in a cell measuring QUANTITY including the sanitary facilities . The cell was badly maintained , dirty and insufficiently equipped with enough lockers and chairs for all inmates . Moreover , he was not given any opportunity to engage in prison work , and in general was not provided sufficient access to recreational and educational activities .","According to the Government , while in FAC the applicant had at his disposal an average of QUANTITY of personal space . He was detained in CARDINAL different cells , the conditions of which are detailed in the table below :","The Government also submitted that each cell had a toilet fully separate from the living area , each with its own air ventilation system . All cells had access to drinking water , and had windows allowing in natural light and fresh air . During DATE , cells were heated by a central heating system . They were constantly maintained and some necessary reconstruction work and improvements to the facilities had been carried out in DATE , DATE and DATE , which the Government substantiated with photographs , floor plans and other relevant documentation . Furthermore , the inmates were provided with all the necessary hygiene and sanitary facilities . The nutrition was based on the assessment of experts and the quality of the food was constantly monitored by the competent state authorities , which the Government substantiated with the relevant documentation .","The Government also explained that for TIME , CARDINAL , the applicant had been allowed to move freely outside his cell . In addition , he had been able to use the gym , which had been open TIME and TIME , and the basketball court , which had been open on DATE CARDINAL and at the weekends both in the morning and TIME . The prison had also been equipped with a badminton court , ping - pong tables and chessboards , all of which had been available to the applicant . He could have also borrowed books from the ORG library , which provided its services to the prison , and he had been allowed to watch TV and borrow films .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with the ORG administration through a lawyer , asking to be transferred to FAC for personal and family reasons .","On DATE he complained to ORG in general terms about the conduct of FAC administration , alleging that they had never offered him the opportunity to have a meeting with the relevant officials , that his request for a transfer had been ignored , and that the prison food had been inadequate .","The applicant again reiterated his request for a transfer to ORG on DATE , citing personal and family reasons .","On DATE ORG replied to the applicant \u2019s complaints , finding them ill - founded in all respects . It pointed out that he had been given sufficient opportunity to have contact with his family , that he had not been engaged in any work because there had been an insufficient number of working positions in FAC , that he had had CARDINAL meetings with the prison governor and CARDINAL meetings with various other ORG officials , and that food had been prepared in consultation with experts , the prison diet having been continuously supervised by the prison doctor .","On DATE the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention to a sentence - execution judge of ORG . He pointed out that central to his complaints was his wish to be transferred to another prison closer to his family . He also complained , inter alia , that his request to engage in prison work had not been answered , and that he was being detained with CARDINAL other inmates in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY in total and was inadequately equipped and maintained .","Following the applicant \u2019s complaint , the sentence - execution judge requested a detailed report from FAC concerning the conditions of his detention .","After obtaining the relevant report and hearing the applicant in person , on DATE the sentence - execution judge dismissed his complaints as ill - founded . She found , in particular , that the applicant was not detained in inadequate conditions of detention , that he was provided with sufficient hygiene and sanitary facilities , and that was not engaged in prison work since such opportunities did not exist for all prisoners in FAC .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the sentence - execution judge \u2019s decision with a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , alleging that she had erred in her factual findings , as cell no . CARDINAL actually accommodated CARDINAL inmates .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the sentence - execution judge . It also explained that the required standards for personal space under LAW , namely QUANTITY , should in principle be respected , but that there could be no automatic violation of a prisoner \u2019s rights if such a standard was temporarily not complied with .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the decision of its CARDINAL - judge panel . He argued that for DATE since arriving at FAC , he had been detained in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , where CARDINAL inmates in total had been detained . He had then spent DATE in cell no . CARDINAL on the first floor with CARDINAL inmates , which had measured QUANTITY . He had then been placed in another cell , also marked \u201c cell no . CARDINAL \u201d , which again measured QUANTITY , where he had spent DATE with CARDINAL inmates . At the time of his complaint he was being held in cell no . CARDINAL with CARDINAL inmates .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , relying on LAW ( equality before the law ) , LAW before the ORG authorities ) and LAW ( right to a fair trial ) of the LAW , complaining in general terms of a lack of personal space and work opportunities in FAC .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG pravobranitelj ) that he had not been granted a transfer to the prison closer to his family , and alleged in general terms that the conditions of his detention had been inadequate .","By a letter of DATE the ORG invited the applicant to further substantiate his complaints .","The applicant replied to that request on DATE , indicating that the sentence - execution judge and CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG had never examined his complaints properly , and that he had not been granted QUANTITY of personal space in detention required under LAW .","On DATE the ORG replied to the applicant \u2019s letter that , according to the information available , his accommodation in FAC had fallen short of the requirements of adequate personal space under FAC . The ORG also pointed out that the cell where the applicant was being detained had been renovated in DATE , and complied with all hygiene and health standards . The ORG also noted that just like CARDINAL other inmates the applicant had not been engaged in prison work , as there had been an insufficient number of working positions for all prisoners .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c In his constitutional complaint , the appellant was unable to show that ORG had acted contrary to the constitutional provisions concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms or had arbitrarily interpreted the relevant statutory provisions . ORG therefore finds that the present case does not raise an issue of the complainant \u2019s constitutional rights . Thus , there is no constitutional law issue in the case for ORG to decide on ... \u201c","The Constitutional Court \u2019s decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177070","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF K\u00c1ROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Iulia Motoc;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant took up the position of pastor in ORG ( ORG ) . His rights and obligations , together with his remuneration , were set out in an appointment letter issued by ORG on DATE ( the \u201c Letter of Appointment \u201d ) . The relevant part of the Letter of Appointment reads as follows :","\u201c ORG of the pastor :","The tasks defined by ecclesiastical laws and legal provisions , in particular those laid down in Statute no . II of DATE on pastors and pastoral service and the code of conduct of LOC ; the pastor is expected to perform the aforementioned tasks in the spirit of his oath and to the best of his abilities .","In addition , as required by the special needs of his ecclesiastical community , the pastor \u2019s responsibilities include the following : exercising the rights and obligations of management , as detailed in ORG Statute CARDINAL\/I on ORG ... \u201d","In DATE disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant for statements he had made in a local newspaper . At the same time the first - instance ecclesiastical court suspended the applicant \u2019s service with immediate effect pending a decision on the merits in the disciplinary proceedings . He received a letter stating that , under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of Statute no . I of DATE on the jurisdiction of ORG , during his suspension he was entitled to PERCENT of his service allowance .","The applicant claimed that , following his suspension , he had sent letters to the head of the congregation and to the competent bishop claiming payment of his overdue services allowances , but to no avail .","On DATE the first - instance ecclesiastical court concluded that the applicant had committed disciplinary offences and removed him from service . On appeal , on DATE , the second - instance ecclesiastical court upheld that decision .","On DATE the applicant took his case to ORG , seeking payment of PERCENT of his service allowance and other benefits to which , in his view , he should have been entitled during the period of his suspension . Arguing that his suspension had reached its statutory maximum duration on DATE , he also sought the payment of the entire service allowance from that date until the termination of his service , that is , on DATE . He argued in substance that his ecclesiastical service was analogous to employment .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings pursuant to LAW , holding that the applicant \u2019s claim could not be enforced before domestic courts ( \u201c a felperes kereseti k\u00e9relm\u00e9ben foglaltak b\u00edr\u00f3i \u00faton nem \u00e9rv\u00e9nyes\u00edthet\u0151 ig\u00e9nyek \u201d ) . Under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Statute no . I of DATE on the jurisdiction of ORG , a pastor \u2019s service with the ORG was regulated by ecclesiastical law , whereas a layman \u2019s employment with the ORG was governed by the ORG labour law . Accordingly , since the dispute before it concerned the applicant \u2019s service as a pastor , the provisions of LAW were not applicable in the case . This decision was upheld on appeal . The applicant did not apply for review to ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against ORG with ORG , the relevant parts of which read as follows :","\u201c The PERSON \u2019s service remuneration , as described in his Letter of Appointment , was .... In addition , the Plaintiff was also eligible to an age bonus equal to .... The Plaintiff was also involved in teaching for which he received ... per month .","On DATE the Respondent suspended the Plaintiff as a pastor and reinstated him to the service roster , which meant he was exempt from all duties until further notice . The Respondent has paid the Plaintiff \u2019s pastoral allowance until DATE and his salary as a teacher until DATE . In view of the above , the Respondent has caused damage to the Plaintiff by not paying his dues according to their standing legal agreement .","Plaintiff \u2019s claims are as follows :","I. For the period DATE and DATE , a DATE amount of ...","II . For the period DATE and DATE , an amount of ....","III . For the period DATE and DATE ( DATE ) the unpaid teaching fees ...","Furthermore I submit that the Plaintiff considered the legal basis of the above dues ... as employment and went to ORG to have them reimbursed . In view of the fact that the Pest County Regional Court \u2019s final decision ... upheld the ruling of the first - instance ORG which , for its part , stated that my involvement with the Respondent did not qualify as employment , I , the Plaintiff , hereby seek reimbursement of my loss before ORG . \u201d","On DATE the respondent ORG filed a defence , inviting the court to dismiss the applicant \u2019s claim .","On DATE the applicant filed another submission with the first - instance court , further elaborating on his claim . The relevant parts of that submission read as follows :","\u201c The PERSON \u2019s pastoral service was constituted ... on the basis of election by ORG and confirmed by the dean of the ecclesiastical district as well as the bishop of the ecclesiastical region . Its terms were laid down in the Letter of Appointment ... which remained in force during the period indicated in the case .","The pastoral service was carried out by the Plaintiff in person . Its content and accomplishment has not been in dispute between the parties . The Plaintiff \u2019s pastoral activities were manifold . In particular , he was responsible for the community services of the Parish \u2013 e.g. preaching , handling the sacraments , outreach , evangelisation , maintaining the bond between the NORP and the ORG and various related tasks of pastoring , teaching and administration , which included the tutoring of his assistant and deputy pastor . The Plaintiff as pastor , together with the caretaker , represented the NORP and had numerous other administrative tasks as well . As part of his pastoral duties , the PERSON was also obliged to take part in management and teaching .","Neither the establishment of the pastoral service relationship nor the substance of the resulting mutual obligations was the subject of any dispute between the parties involved .","As to the legal classification of the pastoral service relationship itself ... we hold that the Plaintiff \u2019s activity is best characterised as agency because its content and nature correspond to the factual elements of an obligation of means necessitating personal involvement . For the above reason , we consider that the relevant rules are those of LAW on agency contracts ...","Despite the fact that the Respondent \u2019s dean \u2013 the Plaintiff \u2019s immediate superior \u2013had already confirmed in writing the legal basis and the amount of the fees due for the period of suspension , in its correspondence dated DATE ... , these were , in fact , paid only partially . Namely , the pastoral cash allowance was paid only up until DATE and the fee due for religious teaching only up until DATE . \u201d","The applicant based his claim in the first place on Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( as in force at the material time ) seeking payment of overdue fees stemming from an agency contract he believed he had with ORG . He maintained that for the period from DATE , when the suspension allegedly became unlawful , until the date of termination of his appointment , he was entitled to a fee for his services , which corresponded to the service allowance set out in his Letter of Appointment . He thus sought enforcement of the agency contract . Alternatively , he based his claim on ORG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , which provided for damages for breach of the agency contract he had allegedly entered into with the respondent ORG .","On DATE the Pest Central District Court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim , holding as follows :","\u201c An agency contract , according to the particulars of LAW of DATE on LAW ... is a mutual legal transaction ( Article CARDINAL ) . Such transactions are regarded by LAW as contracts of material exchange , as LAW , in accordance with LAW ) , typically regulates pecuniary rights .","Contracts , by definition , are between parties with common material interests : they need whatever value the other has to offer . The goal of the contract is to obtain such value from each other .","Pursuant to LAW , mutual property services are contracts for valuable consideration \u2013 with the notable exception of gratuitous CARDINAL - party transactions in which CARDINAL party provides a material service whereas the other is not obliged to do so . The alleged agency contract between the PERSON and the Respondent might be gratuitous if the agent receives no payment from the principal . Except that there was no statement from the PERSON to that effect . Quite the contrary : he filed the lawsuit with the clear intention of obtaining material gain from the Respondent . Thus it can be said that the Plaintiff based his claim on a non - gratuitous agency contract , as provided for in LAW .","In view of the above , this required the Plaintiff to provide some sort of material service , interest or condition in return , something with clearly defined market value . The pastoral service provided by the PERSON ( according to exhibit no . CARDINAL , it also involved preaching , handling the sacraments , outreach , evangelisation and various related tasks of pastoring , teaching etc . ) , however , does not qualify as material service . It is , for all intents and purposes , religious activity .","If the undertaking of mutually agreed conduct is not gratuitous , and the conduct of CARDINAL of the parties has no material value , then , according to the rules of LAW , there can be no civil - law contract for valuable consideration .","Agency contracts , like all contracts , are based on mutual agreement : CARDINAL party makes a formal proposal containing all the key elements of the deal to another , which , in turn , issues a statement of acceptance \u2013 see LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) , and ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The parties involved are free to negotiate terms on the basis of legal parity .","The documents submitted show that the Plaintiff \u2019s appointment was an ecclesiastical process , the terms of his service were set out in a Letter of Appointment ... formulated by the Presbytery of his NORP . The Respondent and its officials exercised various rights vis - \u00e0 - vis the Plaintiff ( suspension , reprimand by the ecclesiastical court , relocation to service roster , demotion , etc . ) . Within the meaning of LAW , the parties did not negotiate the details of the service , and the Plaintiff became a pastor by appointment , not as a result of a binding agreement . Due to the lack of legal parity between the Plaintiff and the Respondent , the Plaintiff did not enter as a civil - law party into a legal relationship with another civil - law party .","The lack of binding agreement means that the Plaintiff \u2019s primary claim DATE with reference to ORG and CARDINAL of LAW is insufficient to support his case .","Pursuant to LAW , the rules of tort liability are applicable to liability for breach of contract . Once again , the lack of binding agreement means there was no breach of contract nor any material damage involved . In view of this , the Plaintiff \u2019s secondary claim is also unfounded .","The acknowledgment of debt , by legislative nature and in practice , is a contractual institution which allows CARDINAL party to affirm its financial obligation towards another . Statements stemming from relationships beyond the control of civil legislation are , for that very reason , neither valid nor binding pursuant to LAW . The letter submitted by the Plaintiff ( illegible reference number ) as acknowledgement of debt is , in this context , rather irrelevant : the sender does not legally represent the Respondent , which might not endorse , or even share , his opinion .","The documents and statements presented by the Plaintiff were sufficient for a review of the case . As the claim was unfounded , the amount at issue was not determined . The hearings of the bishop ... and dean ... were also deemed unnecessary as their opinions feature prominently in the documents and cover all necessary aspects . \u201d","On DATE the applicant filed an appeal against the first - instance judgment . On DATE the respondent ORG filed pleadings in reply , requesting the court to dismiss the applicant \u2019s claim .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision with the following reasoning :","\u201c The first - instance court established the facts correctly and the second - instance court agrees with its decision , but differs in its legal reasoning :","LAW IV of DATE provides that ORG in accordance with its LAW \u2013 its self - governing bodies are independent legal entities . Pursuant to section GPE ) of the Respondent \u2019s own Statute no . II of DATE on the LAW and Government of the ORG , a parish is such a legal entity . LAW of the same LAW as the service contract of ORG officials .","The Plaintiff \u2019s Letter of Appointment , detailing his pastoral duties and allowances , was issued on DATE by ORG . It proves that a legal relationship was established between the Plaintiff and the Parish of ORG , an independent legal entity .","In its pleadings ... , the Respondent referred to LAW and LAW of DATE , thus confirming that the Parish of G\u00f6d\u00f6ll\u0151 ... is an independent legal entity within ORG .","In view of the above , the second - instance court came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff \u2019s claim was unfounded vis - \u00e0 - vis the Respondent , ORG . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG , in which he stated as follows :","\u201c .... ORG held that , based on the Letter of Appointment , the Plaintiff \u2019s legal relationship was with ORG . But , as indicated by us several times , the Letter of Appointment does not mention the lectures on ecclesiastical history the Plaintiff has been giving in a ORG . The fees for these lectures were paid by the Respondent to the Plaintiff directly . Our motions to take evidence were dismissed because of the decision of the first - instance court , which ORG overruled DATE but it is the lack of this very evidence that caused the second - instance court to disregard the difference between the nature and the remuneration of the above - mentioned activities .","Pursuant to Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW , a legal relationship \u2013 namely agency DATE is established when CARDINAL party ( the agent ) is obliged to provide quality service and the other ( the principal ) is obliged to pay for the said service in accordance with the agreement . As far as teaching is concerned , the Respondent was the sole principal . ORG had nothing to do with DATE which is evident from the fact that the fee was determined according to ORG standards ...","The decisions of the courts are , first of all , only partially compliant with Article CARDINAL of LAW , which lays down the requirement of full justification , and secondly , constitute an infringement of multiple provisions of LAW , namely LAW ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , and much of the content of LAW . Due to the dismissal of our motions to take evidence , the contradictory decisions of the courts are not based on the true nature of the material service exchanged between the parties , and regard pastoral service and teaching in a ORG as one and the same , despite the fact that these activities greatly differ from each other in both nature and practice of execution ... \u201d","The respondent ORG replied to this petition in a submission dated DATE .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , finding as follows :","\u201c The Plaintiff commenced his action specifically in order to claim fees arising from his contractual relationship with the G\u00f6d\u00f6ll\u0151 Parish , as contained in his Letter of Appointment . He did not make any reference to a contract between him and the G\u00f6d\u00f6ll\u0151 Parish to provide teaching of church history , nor did he claim any fee in connection with such a contract . He submitted a claim regarding such a contract for the first time in his petition for review [ to ORG ] . Consequently , the fact that the lower courts did not analyse that contractual relationship between the parties and did not take evidence regarding that issue can not be considered an omission on their part ...","In order to determine the rules applicable to the agreement in question and to the implementation of the rights and obligations arising from it , it is necessary to have regard to the very purpose of the agreement underlying the Plaintiff \u2019s actual claim as well as the elements thereof defining the parties\u2019 rights and obligations . The first - instance court rightly stated in its assessment that the agreement serving as the basis of the applicant \u2019s claim was not an agency contract under civil law or concluded by and between parties enjoying personal autonomy in the marketing of [ goods and services ] . The PERSON was appointed as a pastor in an ecclesiastical procedure , and the obligations of the Respondent were defined in an appointment letter issued by the assembly of presbyters . The parties established between themselves a pastoral service relationship , governed by ecclesiastical law .","Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of Act no . DATE on Freedom of Conscience and Religion and on Churches , the ORG is separate from the ORG . Under sub - section ( CARDINAL ) , no State coercion can be used to enforce the internal laws and regulations of Churches .","Relying on the above provisions , the applicant can make a claim under the ecclesiastical law before the relevant bodies of ORG . The fact that the agreement entered into under ecclesiastical law resembles a contractual agreement under LAW does not entail ORG jurisdiction or the enforceability of the claim in a judicial procedure within the meaning of LAW . ( In the particular case , the basic elements of an agency contract and the execution of such a contract could not be established either . )","ORG reached the same conclusion in the earlier proceedings when assessing the claim under ORG labour law and dismissing its enforcement in judicial proceedings .","The first - instance court was right to point out that as the impugned agreement lacked a civil - law legal basis , the court could not examine the applicant \u2019s secondary claim ( compensation for breach of contract ) . On the basis of the above reasoning , there were no grounds to adjudicate on his claim on the merits .","ORG accordingly quashes the final judgment , including the first - instance judgment , and discontinues the proceedings under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( f ) and CARDINAL ( a ) of the Code of Civil Procedure ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158099","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KLAEDES v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant was born intersex and in DATE underwent a feminising surgical procedure in GPE . The applicant is a lawyer and appeared before the NORP courts and in NORP society as a female . In DATE she changed her legal identification documents in GPE so as to record her female name , PERSON . Previously she used the name of PERSON .","The applicant at some stage moved to GPE where she is currently practising as a lawyer . For professional purposes the applicant had initially kept her original male name , PERSON , on all her cards and documents and on ORG .","In the beginning the applicant appeared before the courts wearing trousers and signed all documents as \u201c GPE \u201d . In DATE she started appearing in court in female attire .","On DATE the applicant had a case before ORG ( criminal jurisdiction ) and appeared before Judge PERSON had appeared before this judge previously in respect of other cases wearing trousers and a jacket . On the above date she was wearing a long black skirt with a black blazer and a white shirt . The applicant claims that she was publicly humiliated and degraded by Judge PERSON in open court .","According to the applicant , Judge PERSON started making derogative comments . He told her that she was not allowed to appear before him . When she asked him the reason for this he replied that this was because she was wearing a skirt , she was a man and he did not accept masquerading in his court . When the applicant responded that she had already appeared before another judge without a problem , he kept saying \u201c you are a man , you are a man \u201d . He also told her that on ORG she was registered as PERSON . When the applicant stated that he was violating her human rights , he replied \u201c you are a man and you are not allowed to appear in such attire \u201d . The court room at the time was full of lawyers and other people ( court staff and other audience ) who started laughing at her . The applicant told the judge that he had publicly disclosed her personal data . The judge asked her to leave the court room which she did after stating \u201c as you wish your honour , with your leave \u201d .","On DATE the President of ORG issued an affirmation that PERSON had been entered in ORG on DATE and had renewed her licence from DATE until DATE .","On or around DATE , the applicant appeared before the same judge for a second time wearing a skirt . She submitted that the judge had reprimanded her and had stated that she was a man and she was not allowed to appear before him for the same reasons he had told her before . Although she informed the judge that she had obtained a certificate by ORG with her female name , the judge laughed and replied that her name had not been altered in the register and that she had to leave the court room and provide him with a certificate from ORG . The court room was full of lawyers and other people who were laughing at her . The applicant left the court room humiliated .","The applicant submitted that these incidents had received wide publicity through the mass media for DATE adding further humiliation to the applicant , her family and friends . She was subjected to mockery , ridicule , contempt and was harassed by the journalists and other people . She also had suicidal tendencies .","NORP The President of ORG of GPE advised her not to appear before the said judge even though she had several cases before him .","On DATE , following the lodging of the present application with the ORG , the applicant appeared before Judge PERSON who informed her that he had stepped down in respect of the cases in which she was a lawyer . Her cases were transferred to another judge of the same court . However , the applicant claimed that when she appeared before the new judge , he also treated her in a similar manner , called her by her male name and addressed her as \u201c sir \u201d in an unnecessary repetitive manner which amounted to mockery .","The applicant stated that ORG did not keep TIME of the relevant incidents and of the conversations set out above .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Civil Wrongs law provides that no action shall be brought against any judge of any court in the LOC , other than ORG , nor against any person lawfully performing the duties of a judge of such court , nor against any official receiver , nor any member of any court martial nor against any arbitrator nor other judicial officer in respect of any civil wrong committed by him \/ her in his \/ her judicial capacity if this act caused the civil wrong within his \/ her jurisdiction .","LAW , which came into force when GPE was established , provided for the existence of both a ORG and ORG . These ORG were composed of NORP , NORP and neutral judges , that is , judges from a foreign country other than GPE and GPE . The CARDINAL neutral judges presided over the ORG . After the intercommunal troubles of DATE , ORG ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) Law no . CARDINAL was enacted on the basis of the law of necessity . By virtue of this law , the CARDINAL highest courts were merged into CARDINAL , ORG , to which the various jurisdictions and powers of the CARDINAL pre - existing courts were transferred .","ORG was originally composed of CARDINAL judges , but the number of judges was gradually increased by legislation to its current number of CARDINAL judges . The judges of ORG are appointed by the President of GPE . The district judges , senior district judges , presidents of district courts and judges of the courts exercising specialised jurisdiction are appointed by ORG , a body consisting of the judges of ORG ( Articles CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the LAW ) .","Pursuant to LAW ORG has exclusive authority over the appointment , promotion , transfer , termination of appointment , dismissal and disciplinary matters of judicial officers of the inferior courts . It has the power to terminate the appointment of any judge , on account of mental or physical incapacity ( Article CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) or to dismiss a judge on the ground of misconduct ( Article CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .","On DATE ORG on the basis of Article CARDINAL ( f ) of the LAW and section CARDINAL of ORG ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) Law of DATE ( Law CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , as amended ) , setting out the practice and procedure to be followed by ORG in the exercise of its competence with regard to disciplinary matters relating to judicial officers . The relevant rules stipulate in detail the disciplinary procedure to be followed in the event a complaint is made that a judge may have become incapable , have displayed inappropriate behaviour ( misconduct ) or committed a disciplinary offence ( Rule CARDINAL ) . If it is considered that an investigation is justified , an investigating judge is appointed by ORG to carry this out ( Rules CARDINAL -CARDINAL ) . After the completion of the investigation , ORG decides , on the basis of the report submitted by the investigating judge and the statements which were taken during the investigation , whether the referral of the judge under investigation to ORG is justified ( Rules CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . If a decision is taken to proceed against the judge for misconduct or the commission of a disciplinary offence , ORG files a charge or charges against the judge in question who is called to appear before ORG . Disciplinary proceedings are then carried out before that body ( Rules DATE ) . If ORG decides that the charge or charges against the judge in question have not been proved , it shall acquit and exonerate him ( Rule CARDINAL ) . Otherwise , a judge who is found to be guilty of misconduct shall be heard before ORG proceeds further ( Rule CARDINAL ) .","The penalty for misconduct under the Rules is dismissal ( Article CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and Rule CARDINAL ) and for committing a disciplinary offence , a reprimand or a reprimand published in ORG ) .","Section CARDINAL of ORG ( Miscellaneous Provisions ) Law of DATE ( Law CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , as amended ) provides that ORG can make Rules to be published in the official ORG the better carrying out of this LAW into effect . Article CARDINAL ( f ) of the LAW provides that ORG may make Rules of Court for prescribing the practice and procedure to be followed by ORG in the exercise of its competence with regard to disciplinary matters relating to judicial officers ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163112","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SHEPEL v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and , prior to his conviction , lived in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud . Subsequently , he was charged with fraud , attempted fraud , embezzlement , tax evasion and a breach of duties in his work as a tax agent .","On DATE the ORG of ORG remanded the applicant in custody pending investigation . The judge found that ( CARDINAL ) the applicant was suspected of serious crimes , ( CARDINAL ) he might abscond , ( CARDINAL ) he might put pressure on witnesses , or ( CARDINAL ) he might interfere with the investigation .","On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE on appeal .","The applicant remained in detention pending investigation and trial . The courts extended his detention , using the same stereotyped formula as described above .","On DATE he was committed for trial before ORG of Yaroslavl .","On DATE he was convicted of the charges and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case to the first - instance court for a fresh examination .","On DATE the trial court ordered his release on bail .","On DATE the bail was paid and the applicant was released .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of fraud and attempted fraud and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150604","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"V. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The facts of the cases , as submitted by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .","Mr PERSON is a GPE national who was born in DATE . He is currently detained in a custodial clinic in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE PERSON , who was then resident in an institution for persons with developmental problems , sexually assaulted a female member of institution staff , fondling or touching her breasts and lower body against her will . On DATE , while detained as a suspect in a custodial institution for juveniles , he sexually assaulted a fellow inmate , a fourteenyear - old boy , inter alia by rubbing his crotch .","NORP In the course of the criminal proceedings , PERSON was examined by a psychiatrist and a psychologist . The psychiatrist found the applicant to be suffering from a disorder in the autistic spectrum and mild mental deficiency . The psychologist also found indications of mild mental deficiency , in addition to pervasive development disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder . Neither the psychiatrist nor the psychologist came to the conclusion that criminal responsibility was entirely absent .","On DATE the Roermond Regional Court ( rechtbank ) convicted PERSON of \u201c indecent assault \u201d ( feitelijke aanranding PERSON , LAW ( PERSON ) ) and \u201c committing lewd acts out of wedlock with a person below the age of CARDINAL \u201d ( met QUANTITY beneden PERSON jaren buiten echt ontuchtige handelingen plegen , LAW ) . It ordered him to be placed at the disposal of the Government ( terbeschikkingstelling , hereafter \u201c ORG order \u201d ) with confinement in a custodial clinic ( bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege ) . The judgment included the following reasoning :","\u201c The acts committed by [ Mr V. ] , namely indecent assault and lewd acts with a child , are crimes which according to their statutory definition , carry maximum prison terms of DATE and DATE respectively and for which a ORG order may be imposed .","In view of the findings of the experts , the nature and seriousness of the acts found proven and the person of [ Mr V. ] , as apparent from the examination of the case at the hearing , ORG considers that a ORG order is justified in this case . [ Mr V. ] is after all afflicted with a serious disturbance on the basis of which it can be said that the safety of others or the general safety of persons requires the imposition of the measure . Moreover , [ Mr V. ] has committed criminal acts which admit of the imposition of such a measure . In addition , ORG considers that these grounds justify confinement in a custodial clinic . In view of the above , ORG will follow the advice of the experts and will impose a ORG order with confinement in a custodial clinic .","ORG agrees with the public prosecutor and counsel for the defence that it would serve no purpose at all to impose a punitive sentence on [ Mr V. ] in addition to the ORG order . ... \u201d","Neither the prosecution nor the defence appealed against this judgment , which thus became final DATE . The ORG order , which was valid for DATE , accordingly entered into force on DATE .","On DATE the Roermond Regional Court extended the ORG order for DATE . The decision stated that the crimes committed by PERSON were indictable offences directed against , or endangering , the physical integrity of one or more persons . No appeal was lodged against it .","The ORG order next came up for review DATE , in DATE . The public prosecutor sought a further extension . Having held a hearing on DATE , the ORG gave a decision on DATE refusing to extend the order further . Its reasoning was as follows :","\u201c In order to answer the question whether or not the ORG order is limited in duration , in which event the possibility of indefinite extension does not exist , it is necessary to consider the judgment of ORG in PERSON the GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE , and the decision of ORG of DATE ( PERSON ( FAC , ORG ) .","In the present case the ORG order with confinement in a custodial institution was ordered by a judgment of this court of DATE in relation to the indictable offences ( misdrijven ) \u2018 indecent ORG and \u2018 committing lewd acts with a person below the age of sixteen\u2019 . This judgment lacks reasoning as referred to in LAW ) . As ORG held in that judgment , it is not for the court ruling on the extension of the ORG order to determine retrospectively , by interpretation of the judgment of the trial court , whether or not the ORG order was imposed in connection with an indictable offence that is directed against , or endangers , the physical integrity of CARDINAL or more persons ( \u2018 a crime of ORG ) , and accordingly whether or not the ORG order is limited in duration . If the prescribed reasoning is absent , then the ORG order can not be unlimited in duration and it must , according to ORG , be assumed that the ORG order is limited to a maximum duration . ORG has held in its aforementioned decision that there is no such interpretation if on the basis of the conviction , the qualification and the reasoning of the measure , considered in context ( in onderling verband en samenhang bezien ) , it is self - evident to anyone that the crime in issue is a crime of violence .","In view of the latter decision of ORG must answer the question whether in this case it is self - evident that the facts for which the ORG order was imposed constitute \u2018 crimes of ORG .","In the present case it is not self - evident from the conviction , the qualification and\/or the reasoning that the crimes in issue are \u2018 crimes of ORG . Since such a conclusion could be reached only by way of interpretation of the judgment of DATE and DATE in view of the further circumstances \u2013 it can not be ruled out that the trial court intended to limit the ORG order in duration to a DATE maximum , ORG considers that in this case the ORG order is limited in duration , so that there is no longer any possibility of extending the order further . The public prosecutor \u2019s request for an extension of the ORG order will therefore be refused .","The above findings do not alter ORG understanding , which is shared by all concerned , including PERSON himself , that PERSON will nonetheless need further treatment and\/or assistance . \u201d","NORP The public prosecutor appealed to FAC ( by this time the successor to ORG ) .","Having held a hearing on DATE , ORG , sitting in GPE , gave a decision on DATE extending the ORG order by DATE . Its reasoning was as follows :","\u201c ORG order limited in duration ?","In the judgment of ORG ( PERSON ) of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON GPE , the view was taken that the sole fact that the sentencing court in its reasoning has not stated in so many words that the ORG order was imposed in connection with a crime of violence does not entail that the measure can no longer be extended if its total duration exceeds a period of DATE . The only condition set by LAW for the extension of the ORG order is that the measure be imposed in connection with a crime of violence . Whether such is the case can also be deduced from the other content of the final judgment of the sentencing court DATE whether it be read in context or not \u2013 such as the conviction , the evidence relied on , the qualification , the reasoning of the rejection of any defence put forward and the reasoning of the sanction or sanctions imposed . If , on that basis , it is evident that the crime is one of violence , then at the very least it can not be said that the possibility of extension of the measure beyond DATE was not foreseeable for the person subject to the ORG order .","ORG finds that [ Mr V. ] \u2013 given the conviction and the qualification \u2013 was convicted of :","indecent assault ;","committing lewd acts out of wedlock with a person below the age of DATE .","ORG has had regard in this connection to ORG considerations in imposing the sentence and the measure .","On the above grounds , ORG considers that it is implicit in the judgment of ORG of DATE that the ORG order was imposed in connection with crimes of violence and that accordingly it can not be said that the possibility of extension of the measure after DATE was not reasonably foreseeable for [ Mr V. ] . The defence made by counsel is therefore dismissed .","Mental disturbance and danger of reoffending","It appears from the case file that [ Mr V. ] is a mentally deficient man with an autism spectrum disorder . The danger of reoffending is estimated to be high absent present levels of security and care . There has lately been a clearly positive development . The clinic indicates that it has been possible to make follow - up arrangements with P. , a work and residential institution for young adults with mild intellectual impairment and serious behavioural disorders . The clinic indicates that it is important to prepare the transfer to the successor institution properly and carry it out painstakingly and gradually , in order to limit as far as possible the loss of structure and control .","Extension","In view of the danger of reoffending , which still exists , and [ Mr PERSON \u2019s ] pathology ORG considers that the safety of others or the general safety of persons requires the ORG order to be extended . In view of the expected duration of further treatment and resocialisation work ORG considers that a DATE extension is indicated . ORG assumes that the resocialisation work now begun will be pursued diligently . \u201d","Mr PERSON was born in DATE and has both GPE and NORP nationality . He is currently detained in a custodial clinic in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr F. Holthuis , a lawyer practicing in GPE .","On DATE Mr PERSON punched his girlfriend in the face . When he was arrested DATE , cocaine was found on his body . On DATE Mr PERSON robbed an acquaintance of his bank card and his bunch of keys , assaulted him and cut him with a razor , and then left him in a helpless condition . The acquaintance was later found dead . On DATE Mr GPE violently forced another acquaintance to hand him cocaine and money .","On DATE ORG of The Hague convicted PERSON of \u201c causing bodily harm \u201d ( mishandeling , LAW ) , \u201c robbery with violence \u201d ( diefstal met geweldpleging , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) , \u201c manslaughter \u201d ( doodslag , Articles CARDINAL and FAC of LAW ) and \u201c attempted extortion \u201d ( poging tot afpersing , Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ) . It sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","Mr Elgouille appealed against this judgment . On DATE ORG of The GPE quashed the decision of ORG and acquitted PERSON of the manslaughter in the absence of a proven causal link . It convicted him of the other offences , sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and imposed a ORG order with confinement in a custodial clinic . The judgment included the following reasoning :","\u201c [ Mr Elgouille ] has committed a property offence , in which he did not recoil from using brute force against the victim by beating and kicking him , in order to deprive him of his bunch of keys and bank card . Furthermore , DATE , [ Mr Elgouille ] attempted to extort cocaine and money from a person by beating , kicking and threatening the victim . Acts such as these are generally experienced by the victims as exceedingly threatening and moreover these acts also cause anxiety and feelings of insecurity in society . In addition , [ Mr Elgouille ] assaulted another person and held cocaine in his possession . Besides , it has been established that , according to an extract from ORG dated DATE relating to him , [ Mr Elgouille ] has been convicted of property offences and violent offences before , which apparently did not deter him from committing the present offences . \u201d","Mr Elgouille appealed on points of law to ORG . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG for technical reasons and reduced the term of imprisonment to DATE and DATE in view of the excessive length of the proceedings ; for the remainder it endorsed the judgment of ORG .","The ORG order entered into force on DATE .","ORG of The Hague extended the ORG order by DATE by decision of CARDINAL DATE . The decision stated that the crimes committed by Mr Elgouille were indictable offences directed against , or endangering , the physical integrity of CARDINAL or more persons . Appealing against this decision , the applicant asked for a new diagnosis ; in the alternative , for a conditional suspension of his compulsory confinement ; in the further alternative , for an extension of only one year not CARDINAL . His appeal was dismissed and ORG decision was confirmed by ORG on DATE .","ORG of The Hague extended the ORG order by DATE on DATE . ORG confirmed this decision on DATE .","On DATE ORG of The Hague reviewed if further extension for DATE was allowed . The court answered this question in the affirmative . Its reasoning was as follows :","\u201c The measure of placement in a custodial clinic has been applied in respect of :","- theft , preceded and accompanied by violence against persons , committed with the intention of preparing and facilitating this theft ;","- attempted extortion ;","- assault ;","- deliberately acting in breach of the prohibition contained in LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , under C of LAW .","Accordingly , crimes ( of violence ) that are directed against and endanger ( the physical integrity of ) persons .","Pursuant to the foregoing , the court considers that the safety of others and the general security of persons or property demand the extension . Since it appears from the advice and the deliberations in chamber that the treatment involving learning new behaviour is still in the early stages and no start has yet been made with the rehabilitation , the court is of the opinion that the ORG order should be extended for DATE . The court sees no reason to give the clinic indications concerning the way in which the treatment should take place . \u201d","The Arnhem - Leeuwarden Court of Appeal confirmed this decision on DATE . The court considered the following :","\u201c Custodial placement not limited in duration","ORG finds that the judgment of ORG DATE convicted [ Mr Elgouille ] of , inter alia :","- theft , preceded and accompanied by violence against persons , committed with the intention of preparing and facilitating this theft ; and","- attempted extortion .","In accordance with the judicial findings of fact , the qualification and the reasons given for the imposition of the penalty and measure , considered in their interrelationship , that judgment implies that the ORG order has been imposed in connection with crimes of violence within the meaning of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW and that on that account it can not be said that the possibility of extension of the measure after DATE has not been reasonably foreseeable for [ Mr Elgouille ] . Moreover , ORG takes into consideration that both offences involved physical violence against the victim by among other things beating and kicking the body . Counsel \u2019s defence was rejected . \u201d","Mr PERSON is a GPE national who was born in DATE . He is currently detained in a custodial clinic in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE Mr Kuiters smashed the windows of the house of his neighbour , CARDINAL Mr PERSON , with a baseball bat . At the relevant time , Mr PERSON was present on the first floor of his house . It is noted that apart from this incident , PERSON had on an earlier occasion shot through the windows of PERSON car with a crossbow .","ORG convicted PERSON on DATE of \u201c threatening grievous bodily harm \u201d ( bedreiging met zware mishandeling , LAW ) and \u201c carrying a weapon \u201d ( een wapen dragen , section ORG ) of LAW ( PERSON en munitie ) ) . As relevant to the case before ORG , it imposed a ORG order with confinement in a custodial clinic .","Mr Kuiters appealed against this judgment to the \u2018 s - ORG . On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of ORG on a technicality and gave a new judgment . As had ORG , it convicted PERSON of threatening grievous bodily harm and carrying a weapon . Finding that Mr Kuiters could not be held criminally responsible , it excused him punishment but imposed a ORG order with confinement in a custodial clinic . The judgment included the following reasoning :","\u201c ORG finds , in view of the circumstances set out above and also taking earlier events into account :","that the suspect \u2019s violent behaviour was highly threatening for Mr PERSON ;","that PERSON had good reason to conclude that if he did not give in to the suspect \u2019s wishes , he ran a serious risk of incurring grievous bodily harm","that the suspect \u2019s intent was directed to this end , at any rate inasmuch as he understood that such would be the necessary consequence of his behaviour . \u201d","and","\u201c Having regard to the foregoing , particularly having regard to [ Mr Kuiters \u2019s ] fascination with weapons in combination with his long - term mental disorder , the ORG considers that the likelihood of reoffending should be estimated high and that , to reduce this chance , clinical psychiatric treatment is required . \u201d","and","\u201c In the view of ORG , [ the safety of others and\/or the general safety of persons or goods ] necessitates a ORG order and also requires [ Mr Kuiters ] to be confined in a custodial clinic . In so finding , ORG has also considered the content of [ the various reports ] that have been prepared on the subject of [ Mr Kuiters \u2019s ] personality , in addition to the seriousness of the first criminal act found proven [ i.e. threatening grievous bodily harm ] . That act is an indictable offence ( misdrijf ) that , according to its statutory definition , carries a prison sentence of DATE . \u201d","The ORG order entered into force on DATE .","After an initial period of DATE , ORG extended the ORG order with DATE on DATE . Mr Kuiters did not object to such an extension . It is reflected in the decision that the institution in which PERSON was being held did not expect that it would be possible to terminate the ORG order after DATE that term .","The ORG order came up for review again in DATE . The public prosecutor sought a further DATE extension .","Having held a hearing on DATE , the GPE - West - Brabant Regional Court ( by this time the successor to ORG ) gave a decision extending the ORG order by DATE . Its reasoning included the following :","\u201c Is the ORG order limited in duration ?","First of all , ORG must ascertain whether or not the ORG order in the present case is limited in duration . Therefore , the question must be answered whether the ORG order was imposed in connection with a crime of violence within the meaning of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","ORG will first determine the framework for review on the basis of which this question should be answered . In this respect , recent developments in case - law are of particular importance .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW provides that the total duration of a ORG order with confinement in a custodial clinic shall not exceed a period of DATE , unless the ORG order is imposed in connection with a crime that is directed against , or endangers the physical integrity of CARDINAL or more persons .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW provides that , if the confinement in a custodial clinic has been imposed in connection with a crime that is directed against , or endangers , the physical integrity of CARDINAL or more persons , the judgment shall state the reasons for so doing .","ORG , referring to the judgment of ORG ) of DATE [ PERSON the GPE ] , has held in its decision of DATE [ see below ] that it is not for the court ruling on the extension of the ORG order , in the event that the judgment or decision in which the imposition of the ORG order has been given does not contain the reasoning as referred to in LAW , to determine retrospectively , by interpretation of the judgment of the trial court , whether or not the ORG order was imposed in connection with an indictable offence that is directed against , or endangers , the physical integrity of CARDINAL or more persons , and accordingly whether or not the ORG order is limited in duration . ORG has furthermore considered that it is not a matter of interpretation of the judgment of the court which imposes the ORG order if , on the basis of the judicial finding of facts , the qualification and the reasons given for the imposition of the penalty or measure , it is self - evident that the crime in issue is such as referred to in LAW .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that the aforementioned judgment of ORG of GPE is partly incorrect . ORG considers , first and foremost , that it is the court which imposes the ORG order that decides whether or not this order is limited in duration . ORG furthermore considers that it will be relatively simple to establish whether the order has been imposed in connection with a crime of violence if the court which imposed the ORG order , in giving reasons for so doing , has stated that the measure was imposed in relation to a crime of violence . If such explicit reasoning is missing , this does not mean that the measure can not be extended , if this means that the ORG will last longer than DATE . What is important is whether the ORG order has been imposed for a crime of violence . Whether or not this is so can also be deduced from the other contents of the final judgment of the court that imposed the ORG order \u2013 considered in context if need DATE , such as the judicial findings of fact , evidence , qualification , reasoning of the rejection of defences put forward and reasons given for the sanctions imposed . If on that basis it is evident that the crime was one of violence , it can not be said in any event that the possibility of extension of the measure after DATE was not foreseeable for the person subject to the ORG order .","If explicit reasoning is absent and it is not evident from the judgment of the court that imposed the ORG order that it concerns a crime of violence , the court that decides on the request for extension of the ORG order will have to form an opinion about the question whether \u2013 having regard to all the facts and circumstances that were known at the relevant time \u2013 the crime can be regarded as such a crime of violence . In so doing the court that decides on the request for extension has to take into account all relevant circumstances ; in addition , information besides that mentioned in the final judgment can also be taken into account . In the case of a threat the court that decides on the request for extension can take into consideration whether the threat was preceded , accompanied or followed by non - verbal aggressive behaviour towards the threatened person , or was in any ( other ) way reinforced , and also whether it was plausible at the relevant time that the threat would be carried out . According to ORG , the point is that the finding of the court that decides on the request for extension that the ORG order was originally imposed for a crime of violence should be reasonably foreseeable and thus should not come as a surprise for the person subject to the ORG order .","...","Agreeing on this point with defense counsel , ORG is of the opinion that it is not self - evident from the judgment of ORG that the crime in issue was a crime of violence . ORG will interpret the judgment of the \u2018 s - ORG on the basis of the relevant facts and circumstances . ORG deems the following of importance .","The \u2018 s - Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal , in its special considerations regarding the evidence , held that on DATE in PERSON had smashed the windows of the house of Mr PERSON with a baseball bat . He had , given the parked car in front of the door , drawn the conclusion that PERSON was at home and wanted to make a statement . A reporting officer observed that the glass was scattered over a distance of QUANTITY . ORG has furthermore taken notice of the history between PERSON and Mr PERSON On DATE Mr PERSON reported attempted manslaughter and destruction . TIME a brick had been thrown through his bedroom window , which brick landed next to him on his bed . On DATE he furthermore reported destruction and threat , after Kuiters had shot through the windows of ORG car with a crossbow .","Furthermore , the \u2018 s - ORG has found , inter alia , that [ Mr Kuiters \u2019s ] violent actions had been highly threatening for Mr PERSON and that for him there were good grounds to conclude that , if he did not yield to the desires of [ Mr Kuiters ] , he would run a serious risk of sustaining serious bodily injury .","ORG concludes from the foregoing that ORG was of the opinion that there was a justified fear that at some point Kuiters would direct his aggression directly against Mr PERSON and that the latter would run a risk of sustaining serious bodily injury . In view of that , and the circumstances cited by ORG , the history and the terms used , ORG is of the opinion that ORG meant to impose the ORG order in connection with an indictable offence directed against , or endangering , the physical integrity of a person as referred to in LAW . Having regard to the foregoing , in the view of ORG it can not be said that , in the light of the judgment of ORG , it was not reasonably foreseeable that the ORG order was imposed in connection with such a crime of violence . This means that the ORG order with compulsory treatment in the present case is not limited in duration . \u201d","Mr Kuiters appealed to ORG . Having held a hearing on DATE , ORG gave a decision on DATE endorsing ORG decision , including its reasoning , in its entirety .","As relevant to the case , LAW provides as follows :","Article PERSON","\u201c 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 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 \u2019s personality , and shall take account of the seriousness of the offence committed and the number of previous convictions for indictable offences . \u201d","The offences of which the applicants were variously found guilty include , in each case , CARDINAL indictable offence carrying a maximum sentence of DATE or more .","Article CARDINALb","\u201c 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 . ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL","\u201c 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 . \u201d","Article CARDINALe","\u201c 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 physical integrity 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 . \u201d","As relevant to the cases , LAW provides as follows :","Article CARDINAL","\u201c CARDINAL . The judgment shall state the charges and the public prosecutor \u2019s sentence request ( vordering ) .","NORP The decisions referred to in GPE CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL [ preliminary issues ] and CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL [ substantive issues ] shall be reasoned . If the decision deviates from positions explicitly argued by the suspect or the public prosecutor , the judgment shall indicate , in particular , the reasons ( geeft ... in het bijzonder de redenen op ) for so doing .","...","If LAW [ the decision not to impose a sentence or non - punitive measure ] or LAW [ reduction of sentence in exchange for giving evidence against another suspect ] is applied , the judgment shall state the special reasons ( geeft .... in het bijzonder redenen op ) that have led to that decision .","The judgment shall state , in particular , the reasons ( geeft in het bijzonder de redenen op ) that have determined the sentence or led to the non - punitive measure .","In imposing a sentence or non - punitive measure involving deprivation of liberty , the judgment shall state , in particular , the reasons ( geeft ... in het bijzonder de redenen op ) which have led to the choice of this type of sentence or non - punitive measure . In addition , the judgment shall indicate , as far as possible , the circumstances taken into account in setting the length of the sentence .","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 physical integrity of CARDINAL or more persons , the judgment shall so indicate , giving reasons ( geeft het vonnis dit onder opgave PERSON aan ) .","All on pain of nullity . \u201d","The following passages are excerpts from the drafting history of Article CARDINAL of LAW and LAW ) :","\u201c ... I [ i.e. the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) ] propose to let the court which imposes the ORG order with confinement in a custodial clinic decide whether that order is subject to a maximum or not . That court knows the case file well and is best placed to get an idea of the interaction between the act and the actor ( daad - dadercomplex ) . It will then be determined from the outset whether it is subject to a maximum or not . Moreover , it is desirable both from the perspective of treatment and from that of the legal position of the person subject to the order that it be foreseeable at the time when the ORG order is imposed whether the ORG order is subject to a maximum or not . The treatment plan can be drawn up accordingly . The person subject to the ORG order will then know , if the order is subject to a maximum , what its maximum duration will be .","...","The court which imposes the ORG order with confinement in a custodial clinic will have to decide , giving reasons , whether the crime in issue is one that is directed against , or endangers , the physical integrity of CARDINAL or more persons . ... In opting for this solution it will have to be taken as part of the deal that in a number of cases the question whether the ORG order is subject to a maximum or not will be the object of an appeal or an appeal on points of law . \u201d ( page CARDINAL )","and","\u201c The proposed amendment of LAW [ of LAW ] can be seen as a logical consequence ( pendant ) of the proposed amendment of LAW . The court which imposes the ORG order with confinement in a custodial clinic must indicate in its judgment , giving reasons , whether it considers that the crime in issue is one that is directed against , or endangers , the physical integrity of CARDINAL or more persons . It is thus clear from the start whether the ORG order is subject to a maximum or not . As a rule , it will be enough for the court to point to the nature of the indictable offence as found proven and qualified . The prescribed reasoning will therefore not normally be subject to such stringent requirements . However , in certain circumstances the court will have to give reasoning setting out the specific facts or circumstances . \u201d ( page CARDINAL )","\u201c The court which imposes the [ ORG order with confinement in a custodial clinic ] at the same time decides whether it shall be limited in time or not . The court to which it falls to consider whether the order should be extended or not is dispensed from making that choice . \u201d ( pages CARDINAL - CARDINAL )","and","\u201c The current maximisation arrangement [ i.e. the arrangement existing until the entry into force of the legislation here in issue ] differs from that proposed as regards the moment at which it is decided whether the duration of the ORG order shall be determined in advance or not . The decision on the question whether the ORG order is subject to a maximum will be taken , pursuant to the proposed LAW , when the order is imposed and is to be based on the trial court \u2019s view of the nature of the crime . In considering the request to extend the ORG order it is no longer an issue whether the crime belongs to the exceptions enumerated in the first paragraph of Article PERSON ; the court which imposed the order will already have determined that , giving reasons in accordance with the additional requirements set out in Article CARDINAL [ of LAW ] . The current arrangement allows the court [ which decides on the extension of the ORG order ] to express its views on the seriousness of the crime for which the order was imposed in its decision . \u201d ( page CARDINAL )","The Explanatory Memorandum gives a non - exhaustive enumeration of indictable offences for which the maximum DATE term is not intended to apply . Offences listed include , amongst others , rape ( LAW ) , indecent assault ( LAW ) ; committing lewd acts out of wedlock with a person below the age of sixteen ( LAW ) ; manslaughter ( LAW ) ; murder ( LAW ) ; causing grievous bodily harm ( LAW ) ; and robbery with violence ( LAW ) .","In a decision of DATE , PERSON , ORG , reversing its earlier case - law in response to the PERSON judgment of ORG , held that it was not for the court called upon to decide on the extension of a ORG measure ( on appeal ) to supplement the judgment of the trial court by interpretation and decide , retrospectively , whether or not a ORG order had originally been imposed in connection with a crime of violence .","However , it was not \u201c interpretation \u201d to find that in view of the conviction , the qualification and the reasoning on which the sentence and\/or the ORG order was grounded , considered in context , it was self - evident to anyone that the crime in issue was CARDINAL of violence .","The case itself concerned a person convicted of threatening to kill someone with a knife .","The Procurator General ( procureur - generaal ) to ORG lodged an appeal on points of law \u201c in the interests of the law \u201d ( cassatie in het belang der wet ) against ORG decision of DATE .","ORG gave judgment on DATE ( LJN BYCARDINAL ) . As relevant to the case before the ORG , it held as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The points of law argue essentially that ORG erred in refusing the request to extend the ORG order or did so on inadequate grounds .","ORG notes that the [ Van der GPE judgment ] concerned a case in which the court which imposed the ORG order ( opleggingsrechter ) had not expressed a view on the question whether the indictable offence in issue had been one directed against , or endangering , the physical integrity of CARDINAL or more persons ( referred to hereafter , for the sake of brevity , as a \u2018 crime of ORG ) , and in which the court which had initially decided on the request for extension of that measure ( verlengingsrechter ) had found that the crime in issue was not a crime of violence in that sense . It was only the court which was called upon on appeal to consider the extension of the ORG order which came to a different conclusion and found the criminal act in connection with which the measure had been imposed to be a crime of violence .","ORG understands this decision of ORG , in which the interest of legal certainty is stressed where it concerns deprivation of liberty , in the sense that the conditions which must be met for a deprivation of liberty to be considered \u2018 lawful\u2019\/\u2019r\u00e9guli\u00e8re\u2019 within the meaning of LAW must be clearly circumscribed and that the way in which they are applied must be reasonably foreseeable . This means , in cases such as the present , that the view taken by the court which imposes the ORG order concerning the question whether the ORG order is imposed in connection with a crime of violence is decisive for the question whether the measure is amenable to extension by the court which decides on extension of the measure , as provided for by Articles GPE and FAC of LAW . It is thus the court which imposes the ORG order which decides DATE in brief \u2013 whether the ORG order imposed by it is limited in duration or not .","It will , as a rule , be relatively simple to establish that decision if the court which imposed the ORG order , in giving reasons for so doing \u2013 preferably in the words of LAW , has stated that the measure was imposed in relation to a crime of violence , or not as the case may be . That is of particular importance if the crime in relation to which the ORG order was imposed can not without further explanation be characterised as a crime of violence \u2013 i.e. as an indictable offence that was directed against , or endangered , the physical integrity of CARDINAL or more persons DATE as in the case of threatening ( bedreiging , LAW of LAW ) , or stalking ( belaging , LAW ) , in relation to which the measure here in issue can be imposed pursuant to LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW .","The sole fact that the sentencing court in its reasoning has not stated in so many words that the ORG order was imposed in connection with a crime of violence does not entail that the measure can no longer be extended if its total duration exceeds a period of DATE . The only condition set by LAW for the extension of the ORG order is that the measure be imposed in connection with a crime of violence . Whether such is the case can also be deduced from the other content of the final judgment of the sentencing court DATE whether it be read in context or not \u2013 such as the conviction , the evidence relied on , the qualification , the reasoning of the rejection of any defences put forward and the reasoning of the sanction or sanctions imposed . If , on that basis , it is evident that the crime is one of violence , then at the very least it can not be said that the possibility of extension of the measure beyond DATE was not foreseeable for the person subject to the ORG order .","The opinion of ORG that , except in cases as referred to above , it is not for the court that decides on the extension of the measure to determine retroactively \u2018 by interpretation of the judgment of the court which imposed the TBS order\u2019 whether or not the ORG order was imposed in relation to a crime of violence is not , however , borne out by the said judgment of ORG and moreover can not be accepted as correct . There is no rule of law that prevents the court which decides on the extension of the ORG order from coming to the conclusion , based also on other information than that contained in the final judgment [ of the trial court ] \u2013 such as the proceedings of the hearing of the court which imposed the ORG order , as apparent from the official record made of that hearing DATE that the ORG order was imposed in relation to a crime of violence ; it can not , moreover , be ruled out that other documents available to the court which imposed the ORG order are conclusive on this point .","Consultation of these documents will be indicated especially if the final judgment does not contain sufficiently clear reasoning as referred to in LAW or otherwise does not give sufficient pointers ( aanknopingspunten ) to conclude that the fact for which the ORG order was imposed must be characterised ipso facto as a crime of violence , like the threat of lethal violence held proven in the instant case . In such a situation the court that decides on the extension of the ORG order will have to arrive at a conclusion as to whether \u2013 in view of all the facts and circumstances that were known at DATE the threat constituted such a crime of violence . In this connection , it is worth noting that DATE contrary to the point of departure that seems to have been chosen by ORG \u2013 the court which decides on the extension of the ORG order must take into consideration all relevant circumstances . In so doing it will be in a position to consider , among other things , whether the threat was preceded , accompanied , or followed by non - verbal aggressive behaviour against the person threatened or in some ( other ) way reinforced , and whether at the time it was likely that the threat might be carried out .","There is no rule of law that prevents the court which decides on the extension of the ORG order from considering the finding that the crime in issue was CARDINAL of violence implicit in the final judgment of the court which imposed the ORG order .","In this way , it can be avoided that in those cases in which the court which imposed the ORG order failed to provide adequate clarity , either as prescribed by LAW procedure or in some other way , as to whether the ORG order was limited in duration , this oversight ( verzuim ) by itself should prevent the measure from being extended , even if it is clear to all concerned that the ORG order was imposed for a crime of violence and it therefore merely concerns an oversight by the court which imposed the ORG order . What is decisive in cases such as the present is that the finding of the court which decides on the extension of the ORG order that the ORG order was at the time imposed in relation to an indictable offence that was directed against , or endangered , the physical integrity of CARDINAL or more persons should be reasonably foreseeable and therefore should not come as a surprise to the person on whom the order was imposed . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-153518","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF GALLARDO SANCHEZ v. ITALY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) .","On DATE , the applicant , who had been accused of arson by the NORP authorities , was taken into custody pending extradition by the GPE police on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by ORG on DATE under LAW DATE .","On DATE ORG of L\u2019Aquila validated the applicant \u2019s arrest and ordered his detention .","On DATE ORG asked ORG to extend his detention .","At the hearing of DATE , the President of ORG , ruling under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , established the applicant \u2019s identity and asked if he gave his consent to his extradition . He did not consent .","NORP On DATE the Minister of ORG informed ORG that , on DATE , the NORP authorities had sent a request for extradition together with all the requisite supporting documents .","On DATE the public prosecutor \u2019s office asked ORG to grant the extradition request .","The hearing was scheduled for DATE . At the request of the applicant \u2019s representative , it was postponed until DATE .","Without any prior investigation ORG approved the extradition by a decision of DATE , deposited on DATE . It verified the conformity of the extradition request with ORG and compliance with the ne bis in idem and double criminality principles , and it ruled out the possibility that the proceedings had been brought for any discriminatory or political reasons .","On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law , arguing in particular that the request for his extradition had been sent by the NORP authorities after DATE time - limit provided for in LAW , which meant in his view that his detention had been unlawful . He further argued that the charges laid against him by the NORP authorities were not based on serious indications of guilt . He submitted that he should therefore be released .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , deposited in the registry on DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal with CARDINAL page of reasoning , in particular because it found that the extradition request had been received within the time - limit provided for in LAW and that it did not have jurisdiction to examine whether serious indications of guilt had been adduced .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL occasions DATE , the applicant had applied to ORG , unsuccessfully , to obtain his release . In its last decision of DATE , adopted in private in compliance with the adversarial principle , and without any prior investigation , ORG found that there was no reason to depart from the CARDINAL previous rejection decisions , having regard to the on - going risk that the applicant might abscond , even though the authorities had taken away his passport , and to the ORG \u2019s obligation to comply with its international commitments .","On DATE the Minister of ORG signed the extradition order .","On DATE the applicant was extradited to GPE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170347","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF HUTCHINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Branko Lubarda;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in Her ORG .","In DATE , the applicant broke into a family home , where he stabbed to death a man , his wife and their adult son . He then repeatedly raped their MONEY daughter , having first dragged her past her father \u2019s body . He was arrested DATE and charged with these offences . At trial he pleaded not guilty , denying the killings and claiming that the sexual intercourse had been consensual . On DATE , he was convicted of CARDINAL counts of murder , rape , and aggravated burglary .","The trial judge sentenced the applicant to a term of life imprisonment and , in accordance with the rules on sentencing then in force , recommended a minimum period ( tariff ) of DATE to the Secretary of ORG for ORG . When asked to give his opinion again on DATE , the judge wrote that \u201c for the requirements of retribution and general deterrence this is genuinely a life case \u201d . On DATE the Lord Chief Justice recommended that the period should be set at a whole life term stating that \u201c I do not think that this man should ever be released , quite apart from the risk which would be involved \u201d . On DATE , the Secretary of ORG informed the applicant that he had decided to impose a whole life term .","Following the entry into force of LAW DATE , the applicant applied to ORG for a review of his sentence , arguing that he should receive the CARDINAL-year tariff mentioned at his trial . On DATE , the ORG gave its judgment . It found that there was no reason to depart from the Secretary of ORG \u2019s decision . The seriousness of the offences alone was such that the starting point was a whole life order . A number of very serious aggravating factors were present , and no mitigating factors . On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158148","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF A.L. (X.W.) v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion;Article 2-1 - Death penalty) (Conditional) (China);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (China);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["According to the applicant , he is a NORP national , ORG , born in DATE . According to the Government , the applicant is a NORP national , GPE , born in DATE . He lives in Elista .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on suspicion of murdering a NORP policeman in DATE . He was in possession of a NORP national passport in the name of ORG , born in DATE in the Primorskiy region of GPE .","On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , pending receipt of an official extradition request from the NORP authorities . ORG noted that the applicant had been identified by means of photographic comparisons as GPE , a NORP national born in GPE in DATE . His name was on ORG \u2019s list of wanted persons . The NORP authorities had issued an arrest warrant in his name dated DATE from which it was apparent that he was suspected of a criminal offence under LAW . That offence was punishable by the death penalty , life imprisonment or CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , and the limitation period was DATE . The limitation period in respect of a comparable criminal offence in GPE was DATE , but this was suspended if the suspect had fled from justice . The court further noted that a NORP national passport in the name of ORG had apparently been unlawfully obtained by the applicant after he submitted false information to the competent NORP authorities . It was clear that he was not a NORP national but a NORP national and could be therefore extradited to GPE .","The NORP authorities failed to submit an official extradition request within the DATE time - limit established by LAW of DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release . At the same time he noted that it was necessary to start administrative removal proceedings against the applicant on the grounds that his residence in GPE was unlawful .","Despite the release order , the applicant remained in detention .","On DATE the GPE transport police drafted a report on the commission by the applicant of an offence under LAW ( unlawful residence in GPE of a foreign national , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty of an administrative offence under LAW and ordered his administrative removal to GPE . The court took note of a letter dated DATE by ORG which showed that it was impossible to establish whether or not the applicant was a NORP national . He had received a NORP national passport in the name of ORG in DATE after declaring that he had lost his previous passport , which had been issued in DATE . However , according to ORG , the allegedly lost passport never existed . The court further relied on the extradition casefile , from which it was apparent that the applicant was in fact a NORP national , GPE , rather than a NORP national PERSON Being a NORP national , he was residing in GPE unlawfully without a valid visa or residence permit . The court noted that the applicant was sought by the NORP authorities on suspicion of murder . He was therefore dangerous and it was necessary to sentence him to administrative removal from GPE . Lastly , the court observed that , although the applicant had a NORP wife , he did not have any children who were minors living in GPE . In such circumstances , and taking into account his dangerousness , the public interest outweighed his personal interest in maintaining his family life in GPE .","The applicant appealed . He submitted , in particular , that his passport as a NORP national had never been cancelled and was therefore still valid . He further argued that his administrative removal was extradition in disguise . The DATE limitation period established by NORP criminal law had expired and he could no longer be lawfully extradited to GPE . If he was administratively removed to GPE he would be immediately arrested and very probably subjected to the death penalty . His removal to GPE would therefore be in breach of ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG found that the applicant was not a NORP national . He had obtained the NORP national passport in the name of ORG unlawfully .","On DATE GPE quashed the judgment of DATE , finding that the administrative offence report of DATE had been procedurally defective , and remitted the case to ORG for a new examination . These proceedings were later discontinued .","On DATE the LOC police drafted a new report on the commission by the applicant of an offence under Article CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE ORG of GPE discontinued the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant , finding that the administrative offence report of CARDINAL DATE had been procedurally defective .","On DATE CARDINAL the applicant was released . His passport , seized upon arrest , was not returned to him . He was served with a decision by GPE and ORG , dated CARDINAL DATE , declaring the undesirability of his presence in GPE ( the \u201c exclusion order \u201d ) which read in its entirety as follows :","\u201c On DATE ORG of GPE decided that your presence ( residence ) in GPE was undesirable in accordance with section QUANTITY of [ the Entry and Exit Procedures Act ] . You must therefore leave GPE before DATE .","If you do not leave before the stated deadline , you will be deported .","In accordance with section CARDINAL of [ the Entry and Exit Procedures Act ] , if a decision declaring the undesirability of an individual \u2019s presence ( residence ) in GPE has been issued , that individual may no longer enter GPE . \u201d","The applicant challenged the exclusion order before ORG . He also complained that his passport had been unlawfully seized . He submitted that he could not cross the NORP border without a passport and could not therefore comply with the exclusion order by leaving GPE for another country . In these circumstances , the exclusion order would automatically entail his deportation to GPE . If he was deported to GPE he would be immediately arrested and very probably subjected to the death penalty . His deportation would therefore be in breach of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG found that the exclusion order had been lawful . It had been issued by a competent authority in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and had been based on sufficient reasons . Given that the applicant was sought by the NORP authorities on suspicion of murder , had been fined several times in GPE for driving offences and had lived in GPE unlawfully with an unlawfully issued passport , there were sufficient reasons to find that he represented a real threat to public order and security . The court further noted that the applicant did not dispute the above facts . The thrust of his complaint was that his deportation to GPE would expose him to a risk of being subjected to the death penalty that amounted to inhuman treatment . Those arguments could not , however , serve as grounds for annulling the lawfully adopted exclusion order . The court also held that the applicant \u2019s argument that the exclusion order would automatically entail his deportation to GPE was unconvincing . Firstly , deportation was not automatic and required a separate administrative decision that could be challenged before a court . Secondly , the applicant had the possibility of avoiding deportation to GPE by leaving GPE for another country .","The court further held that the seizure of the applicant \u2019s passport in the name of ORG had been lawful . By the decision of DATE ORG had found that that passport had been issued unlawfully and that the applicant was not a NORP national . Those were lawful grounds for seizing a passport . The procedure prescribed by law had been respected .","The applicant appealed . He submitted , in particular , that the domestic law did not require a separate administrative decision on deportation . The exclusion order alone constituted a sufficient legal basis for deportation and his failure to leave GPE before the stated deadline could therefore entail automatic deportation to GPE . He did not have any remedies with suspensive effect in such a situation . He further reiterated his argument that he could not leave GPE for another country because his passport had been seized by the authorities and he did not have any other identity documents . Lastly , he argued that his deportation to GPE would amount to a breach of not only ORG and CARDINAL of the ORG , but also of LAW , because he was married to a NORP national .","On DATE GPE upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well - reasoned and justified . It added that a genetic test had established that the applicant \u2019s genetic profile matched the genetic profiles of GPE \u2019s parents . There was therefore no doubt that the applicant \u2019s real name was PERSON It further agreed with ORG that the applicant could avoid deportation to GPE by leaving GPE for another country using his NORP passport .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in a detention centre for aliens ( \u0426\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440 \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0441\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0438\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0434\u0430\u043d ) located in GPE in GPE .","DATE the applicant was held in a punishment cell . From DATE he was handcuffed . The cell had no windows and was empty . It had no bunk or chair and the applicant had to stand or remain in the squatting position all the time . There was no lavatory bowl or running water . His requests to allow him to use the toilet were refused and he had to relieve himself in a plastic bottle . He was given food only once during that period but was anyway unable to eat it because of his handcuffs .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to solitary confinement cell no . CARDINAL on the fourth floor where he remained until DATE . The cell measured QUANTITY m and was equipped with a bed , a bedside cabinet , a table , a sink and a lavatory bowl that stank . The window did not open so the applicant could not air his cell . The window was also covered with paint which blocked the daylight . The artificial lights were dim . The cell was damp and cold and the applicant had to sleep with his coat on . The cell was swarming with mice .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in solitary confinement cell no . CARDINAL . The conditions of detention in that cell were similar to those in cell no . CARDINAL .","Both cells ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were locked and the applicant remained alone all the time . Neither the other inmates nor the warders ever entered the cells . The cells were not equipped with a radio or TV set . The applicant was not given any books or newspapers . He was not allowed to use his mobile telephone . As he was in total isolation , he counted DATE by drawing sticks on paper .","It was not until DATE that he was allowed to take walks in the yard . In particular , he was allowed to go out in the yard on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . The walks lasted TIME . The exercise yard measured QUANTITY and was enclosed by a QUANTITY - high fence . The applicant was always alone in the yard .","It was very difficult to get permission for family visits . He was allowed CARDINAL visits from his wife , each time for TIME and in the presence of warders .","The detention centre had no canteen and the food was brought from other detention facilities . It was always cold and did not contain any vegetable , fruit , meat or dairy products . The warders gave him food through a small window in the door . No drinking water was provided and the applicant had to drink tap water which was of poor quality .","During his DATE stay in the centre the applicant was allowed to take a shower CARDINAL times . The water in the shower was cold . There was no laundry service and the applicant had to wash his clothes himself .","According to the ORG , the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL which measured QUANTITY m. The cell had windows , artificial light and central heating . It was equipped with a lavatory bowl , running hot and cold water , a bed , a bedside cabinet and a dining table .","Inmates were provided with hot meals CARDINAL times per day . They could walk in the exercise yard every morning in accordance with applicable regulations .","The detention centre for aliens had a library which the applicant was allowed to use on request .","The detention centre for aliens had no punishment cells and its warders never used handcuffs .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to an administrative detention cell at LOC police station no . CARDINAL where he remained until DATE .","The applicant was placed in a cell at TIME on DATE . However , he remained handcuffed until TIME of the same day .","The cell measured QUANTITY m. It had concrete walls and ceiling and no windows . There was an opening in the wall measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY blocked by a metal sheet with ventilation holes .","The cell was equipped with a narrow wooden bench . There was no table , chair , sink or lavatory bowl . The applicant was not given any food or water . He was not allowed to go to the toilet until TIME on DATE before a court hearing . He remained handcuffed from TIME on DATE during the entire court hearing and until his return to the police station .","The applicant \u2019s representatives were not allowed to visit him .","The applicant was released at TIME on DATE .","The Government submitted the floor plan of police station no . CARDINAL . It is apparent from the plan that there were CARDINAL administrative detention cells , CARDINAL of them measuring QUANTITY . m and CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY m. Each cell was equipped with CARDINAL benches . There was no other furniture and no lavatory facilities in the cell .","The Government confirmed that the windows were blocked by metal screens with holes in them .","According to the police ORG statements , the applicant was given food but refused to eat it . He preferred to eat food brought by his wife . He was allowed to go to the police station toilet on request . The applicant was not handcuffed ."],"violated_articles":["2","3"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160091","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TOVMASYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is unemployed and receives state welfare benefit .","On DATE GPE of ORG decided to allocate a flat to the applicant in a building in GPE , which was to be constructed by ORG ( hereafter - the Factory ) .","It appears that the foundation of the future building was laid but , as GPE collapsed , the construction of the building was stopped .","On an unspecified date the ORG went bankrupt and a liquidation commission ( hereafter - the commission ) was set up .","It appears that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a request with the commission seeking to be allocated a flat or to receive money equivalent to its value .","On DATE the head of the commission rejected the applicant \u2019s request on the ground that the building , of which CARDINAL flat was to be allocated to the applicant , had not been constructed due to the lack of financial means . He stated that the ORG had carried out construction activities with direct financial support from ORG and that after GPE collapsed it had to stop construction projects for lack of financial means .","On DATE the applicant , who was not represented by a lawyer , lodged a claim with the ORG and ORG of GPE seeking to oblige the ORG to allocate a flat to her or provide her compensation equivalent to its value .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim on the same grounds as those relied on by the head of the commission . It also found that the ORG had been declared bankrupt and had no legal successor as such .","On DATE the applicant , still unrepresented , lodged an appeal against this judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the judgment of ORG .","The applicant did not lodge an appeal on points of law with ORG . She alleges that she was unable to do so as she could not afford to hire an advocate authorised to act before that court , whose services were costly . She further claims that she applied to many lawyers with a request to provide her with free legal services as regards her application to ORG . However , her requests were turned down on the ground that the issue concerned an apartment and legal aid was not available for this type of a dispute ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167760","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VARDANYAN AND NANUSHYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing;Equality of arms;Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - reserved (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - reserved (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants are a family who lived in GPE in a house on a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m. in total and situated at CARDINAL FAC . The second and third applicants are the first applicant \u2019s wife and son .","On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged a request with the NORP ORG of GPE seeking to invalidate an agreement concluded in DATE between his grandparents and a state agency according to which their house , comprising the house itself and the plot of land , was transferred to that state agency . He thus sought recognition of his ownership rights for the above - mentioned house and the plot of land .","On DATE ORG granted the claim by annulling the above agreement and recognising the applicant as the owner of the house and the plot of land . No appeal was made against this judgment and it became final .","It appears that on DATE an ownership certificate for the house and the plot of land was issued to the applicant by virtue of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","Upon application by the First Deputy to the President of ORG , on DATE ORG of ORG quashed the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a claim with ORG of ORG seeking recognition of his inheritance and ownership rights in respect of the house situated at CARDINAL FAC . In the concluding part of the claim , the first applicant mentioned that he sought recognition of his inheritance rights both in respect of the house and the plot of land .","On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE examined the first applicant \u2019s claim and decided to dismiss it .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and decided to grant the claim .","On DATE the Plenary Session of ORG ( the highest judicial instance established by LAW of DATE and functioning since DATE ) examined the decision of CARDINAL DATE upon a supervisory appeal lodged by ORG and decided to leave it in force .","It appears that the first applicant was given a new ownership certificate in respect of the house and the plot of land which mentioned the decision of DATE as a ground for the ownership right .","On an unspecified date the first applicant lodged a claim against third persons who owned CARDINAL small LOC situated on his plot of land .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE granted the first applicant \u2019s claim . In particular , it found that the applicant \u2019s ownership right to the plot of land situated at CARDINAL FAC had been restored by the decision of of the Presidium of ORG of DATE , therefore any LOC situated on it had to be recognised as being under his ownership as well .","On DATE the Government adopted Decree no . PERSON , approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of LOC of GPE to be taken for ORG needs , having a total area of CARDINAL sq . m. FAC was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones . A special body , FAC ( hereafter , \u201c the NORP \u201d ) was set up to manage the implementation of the construction projects .","On DATE the Government decided to contract out the construction of CARDINAL of the sections of FAC to a private company , ORG The latter was authorised to negotiate directly with the owners regarding the property subject to expropriation and , should such negotiations fail , to institute court proceedings on behalf of the ORG seeking forcible expropriation of such property . It appears that on DATE ORG reached an agreement with ORG , a valuation agency , for the latter to carry out a valuation of the immovable property situated at CARDINAL FAC .","On DATE ORG carried out a valuation , according to which the market value of the applicants\u2019 house was CARDINAL NORP Drams ( ORG ) , while that of the plot of land was ORG CARDINAL .","On DATE the ORG held a meeting of its governing board , which included representatives of the Government , ORG ( the ORG ) , ORG , ORG and ORG , at which it was decided to issue a new type of ownership certificate to the first applicant for the house and the plot of land situated at CARDINAL FAC .","On DATE a new ownership certificate for the house and the plot of land was issued to the first applicant . As a ground for registration of the ownership right , it mentioned the judgment of the NORP ORG of GPE of DATE , the decision of the ORG of ORG of DATE , the decision of the Plenary Session of ORG of DATE and the judgment of the ORG and ORG of GPE of DATE .","On DATE ORG lodged a claim on behalf of the Mayor of GPE against the ORG , seeking to invalidate the registration of the first applicant \u2019s ownership of the plot of land , claiming that it had never been recognised by any judicial act . It also requested that the first applicant be involved in the proceedings , as a third person whose rights were affected by the claim .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE granted the claim , finding that the first applicant \u2019s ownership of the plot of land had never been recognised by a judicial act .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim as unsubstantiated . In particular , it found that the first applicant \u2019s right to the plot of land had been recognised by the decision of the Presidium of ORG of DATE and the judgment of the ORG and ORG of DATE .","On an unspecified date , ORG lodged an appeal on points of law against this judgment .","On an unspecified date , the rapporteur , Judge PERSON of ORG , presented to the first applicant an agreement of a friendly settlement with the ORG , PERSON and the ORG . According to the proposal , the first applicant was to receive ORG CARDINAL , a flat measuring CARDINAL sq . m. and office premises measuring CARDINAL sq . m. in the centre of GPE in exchange for his revocation of ownership of the house and the plot of land .","On DATE the applicant sent a reply to the judge informing her of his refusal to sign a friendly settlement .","On DATE ORG held a hearing of the appeal with the participation of the parties . Having heard that the first applicant had refused to sign a friendly settlement with the Government , the Chairman of ORG , Judge PERSON , who ex officio presided over the examination of the appeal , stated :","\u201c Each party should come to a solution through compromise ... If we continue dragging out this dispute , we will celebrate its CARDINAL anniversary ... Name the day and TIME when it is convenient for you to come and express all your ideas in the presence of the parties before Judge H ... but try to have an efficient discussion before Judge PERSON ... you have a lot of time until [ then ] . Have a meeting and a discussion , and try to find common points in the friendly settlement so that your discussion is efficient . \u201d","With this , Judge PERSON closed the hearing .","On DATE ORG held another hearing of the appeal . On learning that the first applicant still refused to sign a friendly settlement , Judge PERSON stated :","\u201c You have many times participated in the ORG hearings and must have noticed that the ORG always attaches importance to the fact of which party has refused to sign a reasonable friendly settlement . So this is the last time that we , the ORG , give you an opportunity until the next hearing ... to discuss once more [ the friendly settlement ] issues and submit your reply to ... [ Judge ] H. \u201d","With this , Judge PERSON closed the hearing .","It appears that the first applicant persisted in his reluctance to sign a friendly settlement .","On DATE ORG of ORG , composed of Judge PERSON , president , and Judges PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination . The relevant parts of this decision read as follows :","\u201c ... It follows from the examination of [ the relevant court decisions ] that no ownership right of [ the first applicant ] had ever been recognised in respect of any plot of land , therefore there are no legal grounds for the registration of [ the first applicant \u2019s ] ownership to the land .","...","In these circumstances , the arguments with regard to the violations of the substantive and procedural law raised in the appeal on points of law are substantiated since the above - mentioned court decisions have not recognised [ the first applicant \u2019s ] ownership right to any plot of land , therefore there are no legal grounds for the registration of [ the first applicant \u2019s ] title . Moreover , [ the first applicant \u2019s ] title had been registered in respect of ORG - owned land without any legal basis . \u201d","On DATE ORG examined the claim anew and granted it , finding that the first applicant \u2019s ownership right to the plot of land had not been recognised . In particular , it held :","\u201c ... it follows from the examination of [ the relevant court decisions ] that no ownership right of [ the first applicant ] had ever been recognised in respect of any plot of land ... Therefore , [ the first applicant \u2019s ] ownership right in respect of the NORP plot of land was registered without any legal ground . \u201d","On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against this judgment arguing , inter alia , that ORG had not been independent and impartial since it had been bound by the findings of ORG expressed in the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG declared the appeal inadmissible for lack of merit .","On DATE ORG informed the first applicant that the house he owned was situated within an alienation zone . It also informed him that his house had been valued by a licensed valuation organisation at ORG CARDINAL and offered him , as the owner , this sum as compensation for alienation . An additional sum would be paid to him as a financial incentive in accordance with Government Decree no . CARDINAL-N of CARDINAL DATE , if he agreed to sign an agreement and to hand over the property within DATE .","It appears that the first applicant did not accept the offer .","On DATE the Yerevan ORG instituted proceedings against the first applicant , seeking to terminate his ownership of the house by paying him compensation and to have him evicted . ORG also joined these proceedings as a third party .","On DATE ORG declared , inter alia , Government Decree no . PERSON DATE and LAW ( the ORG ) to be unconstitutional , but decided that the impugned legal provisions had to remain effective until a law establishing a legal regime for expropriation was adopted but that , in any event , the latest date on which they would lose their legal force was DATE .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE examined the claim in the presence of the first applicant and a representative of ORG . ORG decided to grant the claim , awarding the first applicant QUANTITY and ordering his eviction . ORG based its findings on Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal , which was scheduled to be examined by ORG on DATE .","During TIME the first applicant felt unwell and was taken by ambulance to hospital , where he was diagnosed with impaired cardiac function .","On DATE , before the beginning of the hearing , ORG received a written request lodged by the first applicant seeking adjournment of the hearing because of his health problems . It appears that a hospital certificate stating that he was in hospital was attached to the request .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the absence of the first applicant and his representative but in the presence of representatives of ORG and ORG , who made their submissions in relation to the first applicant \u2019s appeal , asking that it be rejected . As regards the first applicant \u2019s request to reschedule the hearing , according to the record of the hearing , ORG refused to adjourn it on the ground that the first applicant had a representative who had participated in the proceedings before ORG . By the judgment adopted on DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE confirming the amount awarded by ORG . The judgment stated that the first applicant had failed to appear despite having been duly summoned to the hearing .","On DATE the first applicant , having undergone medical treatment , was discharged from the hospital .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG declared the first applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible for lack of merit .","The judgment of ORG of DATE entered into force at the time of its delivery and was immediately enforceable .","In DATE the first applicant sought to terminate the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of DATE with reliance on ORG Decision of DATE , which had found Governmental Decree no . PERSON and LAW of the ORG incompatible with the LAW .","On DATE ORG enforced the judgment by demolishing the house .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s application , finding that on DATE the judgment had been enforced and the enforcement proceedings had been terminated .","On DATE the second and third applicants lodged an appeal with ORG against the judgment of ORG of DATE alleging that they had learned of the house expropriation proceedings against the first applicant only on DATE . In the appeal , the second and third applicants argued that they enjoyed the right of use of accommodation in respect of the first applicant \u2019s house , therefore the expropriation proceedings also affected their proprietary rights . They thus claimed that the authorities had failed to make them parties to these proceedings and that the alleged deprivation of their property was not lawful and in the public interest .","On DATE ORG declared the appeal of CARDINAL DATE inadmissible for lack of merit finding , inter alia , that the second and third applicants\u2019 rights were not affected as the first applicant was the sole owner of the house in question ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181858","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF CHRISTIAN BAPTIST CHURCH IN WROC\u0141AW v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant is a legal entity , a local community of ORG in GPE operating on the basis of LAW DATE on ORG and ORG ( ustawa o stosunku PERSON do PERSON DATE hereinafter \u201c the DATE LAW ) with its seat in ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The case concerns a property with a QUANTITY building and another building dedicated to sacral purposes in ORG . Before World War II the property was used by the ORG belonging to the Bund Evangelisch - Freikirchlicher Gemeinden in GPE operating on the territory of ORG . The property number was CARDINAL . It measured CARDINAL ha .","On DATE the ORG Governor ( ORG ) decided that the property in question should become subject to the applicant church \u2019s management ( przej\u0119cie w zarz\u0105d ) on the basis of section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Decree on abandoned property ( dekret o maj\u0105tkach opuszczonych i poniemieckich \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the DATE Decree \u201d ) .","In DATE the applicant church lodged a request to be registered in the land and mortgage register as the owner of the property and the request was granted . The property was registered under the number CARDINAL .","On DATE the Minister of the Economy announced a new interpretation of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Decree .","On DATE ORG for ORG ( PERSON ) decided that all kinds of property which were subject to the church \u2019s management were to pass into the ownership of the ORG and ordered that the applicant church transfer the property in question to the ORG . The order did not concern the part of the property which was dedicated exclusively to sacral purposes .","On DATE a new land - register entry DATE was opened for the property no . CARDINAL . The land - register entry CARDINAL was however not closed .","In DATE the property was registered under the land - register number DATE was given a new plot number CARDINAL and its area was recalculated . The new measurement was CARDINAL ha . It appears that the plot number CARDINAL constituted only a part of the previous property number CARDINAL and comprised only the building dedicated to sacral purposes .","The remaining part of the original property number CARDINAL , which comprised the CARDINAL - storey building , was given new plot numbers CARDINAL and CARDINAL . It measured CARDINAL ha and a new land - register entry DATE was opened for it . In DATE the ORG was registered as the owner of this property and , after the reform of the local governments of DATE , the property was transferred to GPE .","The present application concerns the right to the property referred to above in paragraph CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant church requested that the ORG Governor issue a decision confirming the applicant church \u2019s ownership of the property in question . It relied on the newly enacted DATE Act ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the ORG Governor refused to issue a decision which would confirm that the property in question belonged to the applicant church . The Governor found that the applicant church had failed to satisfy a requirement laid down in section CARDINAL of LAW , specifically that it had not possessed the property in question on DATE of entry into force of the LAW relied upon . The Governor further held that :","\u201c ... , section CARDINAL of the LAW likewise can not be applied because the property in question is located on territory which was not part of GPE DATE . The fact that the property was owned by an organisational unit of ORG operating in ORG does not constitute a basis to claim return of ownership because its ownership was transferred to the ORG under the [ CARDINAL Decree ] . \u201d","On DATE the applicant church appealed against this decision to the Minister of ORG .","On DATE the applicant church sent a letter to the Minister , specifying that the time - limits laid down in LAW had been exceeded and requested that the Minister issue a decision .","On DATE the Minister replied that the length of the proceedings was attributable to amendments of the CARDINAL Act and informed the applicant church that the relevant decision would be issued by DATE .","NORP This time - limit was not respected and therefore , on DATE , the applicant church lodged with ORG a complaint in respect of the alleged inactivity of the administrative authority .","On DATE , before examination of the applicant church \u2019s complaint , the Minister of ORG issued a decision , annulling the challenged decision and ordering the return of the case to the Governor . The Minister ordered that , when re - examining the case , the Governor should take into account the amended section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act .","In view of the fact that the Minister had issued a decision , on DATE the applicant church withdrew the complaint of CARDINAL DATE concerning the inactivity of the administrative authority .","NORP After remittal of the case , on DATE , the Governor of ORG ( Wojewoda Dolno\u015bl\u0105ski ) asked ORG whether there was any property available which could be granted to the applicant church in return for the property in question . It appears that the Governor \u2019s letter was left without reply .","On DATE the Governor requested from the Minister of ORG an official interpretation of the amended section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL LAW \u201c in view of the many doubts as regards the proper interpretation of this provision \u201d .","On DATE the Minister replied that , since the administrative authorities were bound by provisions of law binding on DATE of decision , it was irrelevant that the applicant church \u2019s original request had been lodged when section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act had had different wording .","On DATE the applicant church asked the Governor to issue a decision in its case , pointing out that the time - limits laid down in LAW had been exceeded .","On DATE the applicant church lodged a complaint ( za\u017calenie ) with the Minister of ORG that the Governor had exceeded the statutory time - limits and had failed to issue a decision on the merits or to justify the delay in the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant church lodged a complaint with ORG about the alleged inactivity of the Governor .","On DATE the Minister of ORG found the applicant church \u2019s complaint of DATE well founded and ordered the Governor to issue a decision on the merits before DATE .","On DATE the Governor stayed the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant church appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings .","On DATE the Minister of ORG allowed the appeal , finding that the proceedings should not have been stayed , annulled the challenged decision and returned the case to the Governor .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant church \u2019s complaint against the inactivity of the administrative authority and ordered the Governor of LOC to issue a decision on the merits within the time - limit of DATE .","On DATE the Governor \u2019s office gave a decision and refused to return the property in question to the applicant church . It found that the applicant church , although registered as owner under the land - register number CARDINAL and treated in the past by the administrative authorities as owner , had never in fact owned the property , which had only been left under the applicant church \u2019s administration ( oddane w zarz\u0105d ) .","On DATE the applicant church appealed .","On DATE the Minister of ORG annulled the challenged decision and returned the case for re - examination to the Governor . The Minister found , among other things , that the Governor had had no right to question the validity of the entry in the land register .","On DATE the applicant church complained to the Governor about the delay in the proceedings .","On DATE the Governor \u2019s office gave a procedural decision in which it held that owing to the particularly complicated nature of the case , the decision on the merits could not be issued within the statutory time - limits and set a new deadline for decision of DATE .","On DATE the Governor of LOC gave a decision on the merits and refused to return to the applicant church the property in question . The Governor relied on the amended CARDINAL Act and found that the applicant church had failed to satisfy the requirements laid down in section CARDINAL of the Act , namely that it could not be a legal successor of the ORG which had not operated on the territory of GPE DATE .","On DATE the applicant church appealed .","On DATE the Minister of ORG upheld the challenged decision .","On DATE the applicant church lodged a complaint with ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant church \u2019s complaint .","On DATE the applicant church lodged a complaint against ORG judgment with ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant church \u2019s complaint . The judgment was served on the applicant church \u2019s lawyer on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168145","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"\u0160TIMAC AND KUZMIN-\u0160TIMAC v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG . They were represented before the ORG by the second applicant , who is a lawyer practising in Opatija .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicants\u2019 flat is located in a house which they shared with a certain GPE , until his death in DATE , and his partner PERSON , who occupied a flat on the ground floor of the house . Another flat on the ground floor of the house is owned by company B. Title to the applicants\u2019 flat is registered in the name of their son , PERSON , who lived in it with them .","NORP Over DATE the applicants submitted complaints to various domestic authorities about the problems which they were having with their neighbour GPE and his family . This resulted in various proceedings before the competent domestic authorities , in particular criminal proceedings instituted in DATE , as well as civil proceedings for the removal from the house of an outdoor lighting device and an awning , which terminated in the applicants\u2019 favour .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) convicted PERSON of the offence of carrying out illegal construction work DATE , and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment suspended for DATE . This judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG convicted GPE of the offence of making threats to the first applicant on DATE , and fined him the sum of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) ( approximately FAC ) . On appeal , ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u ORG ) upheld the judgment on DATE but amended the sentence to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment suspended for DATE .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ORG ) convicted PERSON and his partner PERSON of the offence of making threats to the first applicant on DATE and to the applicants\u2019 son on DATE . PERSON was fined HRK CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) and PERSON was fined HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . On appeal , ORG upheld the judgment on DATE but amended PERSON \u2019s sentence , suspending it for DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted PERSON of the offence of carrying out illegal construction work DATE and DATE , and fined him HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . This judgment became final on DATE .","In DATE the applicants\u2019 son , PERSON , instituted a civil action in ORG against GPE , asking the court to order GPE to remove an awning from the balcony . He was represented in the proceedings by the second applicant .","On DATE ORG instructed GPE to modify his civil action by indicating the value of the claim . The order was made public on the court \u2019s notice - board on the grounds that the second applicant had failed to collect the item from her mailbox at the court . It was thereby deemed to have been properly served .","On DATE the ORG found that ORG had not complied with the order and therefore discontinued the proceedings , since in the circumstances it was presumed that the civil action had been withdrawn . The court \u2019s decision was likewise served by means of a public announcement on the court \u2019s notice board due to the second applicant \u2019s failure to collect the item from her mailbox .","NORP In DATE PERSON requested that ORG hold a hearing but was informed that the proceedings had been discontinued .","On DATE PERSON asked ORG to reinstate the proceedings on the grounds that he had not been properly served with that court \u2019s decisions .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s request as unfounded on the grounds that the second applicant , as his legal representative , had a mailbox at the court and was obliged to collect all her mail DATE . As she had failed to do that , the mail had been posted on the court \u2019s notice - board and upon the expiry of DATE it had been deemed to have been duly served . PERSON did not appeal against this decision and it became final on DATE .","In DATE the applicants lodged several complaints with ORG responsible for construction and spatial planning matters ( hereinafter : ORG ) regarding ORG construction of an exterior staircase on the house , renovation work carried out in his flat , and his installation of an awning .","These complaints led to several inspections by the competent construction inspectors and orders prohibiting ORG from carrying out further illegal construction work .","In DATE the applicants filed a complaint with ORG ( Ministarstvo kulture ) , arguing that there was a serious threat to the stability of their house , which was located in the historic city centre of ORG .","The Ministry of Culture replied on DATE , stating that ORG construction work could be considered to constitute serious damage to the building which would need to be repaired .","NORP In DATE the applicants filed a complaint with ORG ( Primorsko - goranska \u017eupanija ; hereinafter : the \u201c County Administration \u201d ) arguing that the structural stability of their house was endangered .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed a request from GPE to legalise the construction work carried out on the house on the grounds that it had not been executed in compliance with the relevant standards and principles of conservation .","On DATE ORG urged ORG to implement the measures necessary in the applicants\u2019 case on the basis of their assertion that the structural stability had been seriously disturbed and that there was a real and imminent risk to their lives and property .","On DATE a construction inspector invited the applicants and ORG to submit evidence showing that the structural stability had been disturbed .","The applicants complied with that order and on DATE submitted an expert report drafted by GPE attesting that the structural stability of the building had been disturbed and that there was a risk that , in the event of an earthquake , it could collapse .","On DATE the construction inspector expressed his doubts about Z.K. \u2019s findings . He considered that the report needed to be clarified as it was incomplete and methodologically flawed . The inspector also expressed his doubts as to ORG \u2019s qualifications .","On an unspecified date , the applicants provided ORG with a letter from ORG attesting that the expert who had drafted the report was an officially appointed court expert .","On DATE the chief construction inspector carried out an on - site inspection of the applicants\u2019 house \u2012 accompanied by a ORG expert in the structural analysis of buildings \u2012 to examine the issues raised in the expert report submitted by the applicants . The applicants and all other interested parties to the proceedings were invited to attend the on - site inspection . The inspectors found that there was a small crack in the house and that it had not been properly maintained . However , there was no sign of any damage to the building indicating that any aspect of its structural stability was endangered .","The applicants challenged these findings before ORG . On DATE the chief construction inspector replied , explaining that \u2012 although there were issues regarding the construction work carried out by D.D. insofar as the house was located in the historic centre of Opatija \u2012 there were no indications that the structural stability of the house was in any way endangered .","There were numerous police interventions in connection with the applicants\u2019 disputes with their neighbours . Those interventions concerned matters such as the parking of a car , the walking of a dog and arguments over the management of various installations in the house .","In DATE the applicants complained to ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova ) about the manner in which the ORG police had dealt with their complaints . They received a reply from the Chief of the ORG police department ( ORG uprava Primorsko - goranska ) stating that they had so far registered CARDINAL police interventions in connection with disputes between the applicants and their neighbours and that the Opatija Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) had lodged CARDINAL indictments against GPE with the competent criminal courts . However , there was nothing indicating irregular or improper conduct on the part of the police in handling the applicants\u2019 case .","The applicants again complained to ORG and on DATE they received a reply from the internal control department endorsing the police department \u2019s findings .","The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c The home is inviolable ... \u201d","\u201c Everyone has a right to respect for and legal protection of his private and family life , dignity , reputation and honour . \u201d","\u201c The right of ownership shall be guaranteed ... \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o vlasni\u0161tvu i drugim stvarnim pravima , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and DATE ) read :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If a third party unlawfully disturbs the owner , without depriving him of his possessions , the owner may request the court to issue an injunction .","( CARDINAL ) NORP In order to exercise the right referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section in courts or in proceedings before another competent authority , the owner shall prove his ownership and that there has been nuisance by the third party ; and if the third party claims to have the right to carry out the impugned activity , he or she shall bear the burden of proof thereof .","( CARDINAL ) If damage is sustained as the result of nuisance referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the owner shall be entitled to claim compensation in accordance with the general rules governing compensation for damage ... \u201d","The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE and CARDINAL ) , reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) All natural persons or legal entities are entitled to protection of their rights of personality [ prava osobnosti ] under the conditions provided by law .","( CARDINAL ) NORP of personality within the meaning of this LAW are the right to life , to physical and mental health , reputation , honour , dignity , name , privacy of personal and family life , liberty , etc .","( CARDINAL ) A legal entity shall have all the above - mentioned rights of personality \u2013 apart from those related to the biological character of a natural person DATE and , in particular , the right to a reputation and good name , honour , name or company name , business secrecy , entrepreneurial freedom , etc . \u201d","\u201c Damage may result from ... an infringement of rights of personality ( non - pecuniary damage ) . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Any person may request that another person eliminate a major source of danger for him or her or for another person , as well as refrain from activities causing disturbance or a risk of damage if such disturbance or damage can not be prevented by applying the appropriate measures .","( CARDINAL ) The court shall order , at the request of an interested party , the taking of appropriate action to prevent the occurrence of damage or disturbance , or to eliminate a source of danger , at the expense of the possessor of such a source of danger , if the latter fails to do so himself or herself .","( CARDINAL ) If damage results from the performance of an act of public interest for which approval has been obtained from the competent authority , only compensation for damage exceeding the usual limits may be requested ( excessive damage ) .","( CARDINAL ) In that event , however , the taking of socially justified measures may be requested in order to prevent the occurrence of damage or to reduce damage . \u201d","\u201c Anyone may request a court or other competent authority to order the cessation of an activity which violates his or her rights of personality and the elimination of its consequences . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167112","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CHUGUNOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in GPE .","On DATE ORG of LOC found the applicant guilty of battery and manslaughter and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal .","On DATE the applicant started serving a prison sentence in correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE . Prior to the applicant \u2019s arrest and conviction , he suffered from duodenal ulcer , chronic bronchitis and high blood pressure . In detention he developed chronic gastritis , hernia of a diaphragm , chronic cholecystitis , lipomas and pilonidal cysts .","On DATE the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell . During DATE , the pull - down beds were folded up during DATE . The inmates were able either to stand or sit on a metal stool fastened to the floor . The cell was cold and damp . There was no ventilation system . Because of the cracks in the door and windows , there was constant draught . The toilet was separated with a CARDINAL high partition from the living area of the cell . There was no hot water supply . The applicant was allowed CARDINAL ORG DATE exercise and CARDINAL minutes\u2019 shower per week .","On DATE the applicant started having a fever resulting from an inflamed pilonidal cyst in the coccyx area .","On DATE a prison doctor examined the applicant , prescribed him a treatment by antibiotics and pain killers . The doctor also recommended that the applicant consult a surgeon .","On DATE the head of the correctional colony extended the applicant \u2019s detention in a disciplinary cell for DATE . The prison doctor examined the applicant and concluded that he was fit for detention in the disciplinary cell . He continued the prescribed treatment .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to a prison hospital at correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL . According to the applicant , he was able to consult a surgeon only on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant \u2019s surgery was scheduled on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s cyst opened up and the inflammation stopped .","On DATE the applicant was released from hospital and transferred back to the correctional colony .","On DATE the applicant consulted a surgeon and a neurologist at the hospital of correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL . He was prescribed medication for high blood pressure . The surgeon recommended that the applicant undergo a surgery in connection with the pilonidal cyst .","From DATE the applicant underwent additional examination and treatment at the surgical division of the hospital at correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL . According to the doctors who treated the applicant , no surgery was required .","According to the applicant , on DATE the applicant was summoned by the head of the operations division of the colony . There were several officers present in the office . They advised the applicant to withdraw his application before the ORG . They threatened him that , should he choose to pursue his application , he would be serving the rest of his sentence in a disciplinary cell without family visits and he could be charged with another offence . The applicant complied . He signed a letter . It was stamped by the colony and dispatched to ORG DATE .","On DATE the applicant wrote another letter to the ORG wherein he asked the ORG to disregard his previous letter that he had had to write because of the pressure put on him by the administration of the colony .","On DATE the ORG received the applicant \u2019s letter wherein he asked for withdrawal of his complaint . The letter bore a stamp of the correctional colony and a number attributed to by the administration ."],"violated_articles":["34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166939","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DOROTA KANIA v. POLAND (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , who was at that time a journalist of the DATE magazine PERSON , contacted GPE , the then rector of ORG , in order to inform him that she considered him to be a long - term informant for the communist secret services in the past . She did not refer to any relevant documentary evidence in her possession .","On DATE the applicant published an article in PERSON entitled \u201c Agents Wearing Ermine \u201d , alleging that during the communist times PERSON had been an informant for the NORP secret police . The article had the subheading \u201c Leaders of university anti - vetting revolt collaborated with NORP secret services \u201d . A photo showing PERSON in the course of his official duties alongside the article had the caption : \u201c PERSON , rector of ORG , used to be an informant for the communist secret services under the name Lek \u201d . The article did not quote its sources , referring in general terms to unspecified documents .","The article was also published on the magazine \u2019s website ( www.wprost.pl ) , where it was available until DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant obtained consent from the President of ORG ( PERSON \u2013\u201cthe ORG \u201d ) to access its files . The ORG \u2019s tasks included , inter alia , storing and researching documents of the communist security services . On DATE the applicant checked its files registered as GPE no . DATE , ORG Gd CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On an unspecified date PERSON informed the prosecution authorities that he had been libelled by the author of the article . On DATE ORG in GPE refused to institute a criminal investigation and informed GPE that the offence alleged could only be prosecuted by way of private prosecution .","A.C. \u2019s lawyer requested PERSON to publish an apology rectifying the allegations against him and his reply to them . On CARDINAL DATE the magazine refused to do so .","On DATE the magazine published an article written by the applicant ( but signed GPE ) entitled \u201c The Party of Fear \u201d . It was available on the magazine \u2019s website until DATE . Its main thrust was that highsociety former informants opposed amendments to vetting legislation introduced in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) for fear that their past would come to light . It referred to ORG as a former informant and contained his photo as rector of ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , a body composed mainly of media representatives designated to observe whether journalists followed the applicable rules of professional ethics , sent a letter to the applicant . It criticised the articles in so far as they alleged ORG \u2019s involvement with the communist secret services , saying that the arguments presented by the applicant in the articles were not sufficiently convincing . It also criticised the applicant for her failure to refer to the precise sources of her allegations . It further referred to a previous public plea to the media requesting them to deal with allegations of collaboration with the communist secret services with the utmost diligence , seriousness and caution , so as not to cause detriment to anyone and to avoid a sensationalist approach to a very serious issue . It recommended that only thoughtful discussion should be held about themes of such importance as collaboration with the secret services and the manner in which vetting legislation should be applied , commensurate with the gravity of the issues involved .","On DATE the same magazine published an article \u201c New Documents about the Chancellor \u2013 Informant \u201d . It was available on the magazine \u2019s website until DATE . Its thrust was also that ORG was a former informant . The article did not quote its sources and merely referred generally to unspecified documents . A photo of ORG was again published alongside it .","On DATE ORG brought a private bill of indictment against the applicant and PERSON , the editor - in - chief of the magazine at that time . It was argued that they had libelled him by publishing the articles and by disseminating untrue information alleging secret and conscious collaboration with the communist secret services . It was submitted that this publication could discredit him in the eyes of the public and result in him losing the confidence necessary to perform his duties as a public university rector , a criminal offence punishable under LAW .","Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and PERSON , but were subsequently stayed in DATE to obtain information about the result of the vetting process ( procedura lustracyjna ) in respect of GPE which was pending at the time .","At a hearing on DATE in the latter proceedings , ORG held , referring to documents stored by the ORG , that ORG had made a true vetting statement to the effect that he had not been an informant for the communist secret services . The court established that he had been registered as such , but without his consent or knowledge . It further noted that on DATE A.C. had obtained the security certificate issued by ORG guaranteeing him access to classified information . He had therefore already been positively vetted for integrity by the authorities of a democratic ORG prior to the judgment .","ORG upheld the first - instance judgment on DATE .","On DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant were resumed .","On DATE ORG held that the applicant and editor were guilty of libel under LAW .","NORP The court found that the plaintiff had been working at ORG since DATE . He had been questioned by the communist secret police on several occasions before DATE , when the communist system in GPE had collapsed .","The applicant had contacted him , apparently by telephone , prior to publication of the first article of DATE claiming to know that he had been an informant . She had neither informed him about any ORG documents on which she would be basing her allegations nor sought to meet him in person .","The applicant stated before the court that she had written the articles motivated by the public interest . ORG was a well - known personality and society should be made aware of persons in positions of responsibility who were former informants for the NORP secret police .","The court considered that while before it the applicant had referred to ORG documents , neither the documents she had submitted originating from these files nor the full file obtained by the court had supported the conclusion that ORG had been an informant . Certain documents did not refer to him at all , while others did not indicate that he had been an informant . He had never declared willingness to become one . The court referred to a document in the ORG \u2019s files which noted his reluctance to be involved with the services when urged by them to turn into an informant . In these files he was only referred to as being on the staff of the university in DATE . They also demonstrated that he had been questioned by the communist services after coming back to GPE following a scholarship in GPE .","NORP The court concluded that the documents it had before it in evidence were manifestly insufficient to hold that the plaintiff had been an informant .","In the light of the documents available , the thesis advanced by the applicant was not only devoid of factual basis , but also incompatible with her obligation to show proper journalistic diligence . She had only obtained access to the full set of ORG files concerning ORG after her first article had been published . She had only received a decision from the director of the ORG allowing her to access the documents on DATE , after the article had been published and created a considerable media stir . She had failed to contact PERSON prior to the publication to try to check the veracity of the information , apart from her telephone call to him whereby she had only informed him that she would be publishing the article .","ORG concluded that the applicant had failed to show the journalistic diligence required of her under section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW . The impugned articles contained unreliable information , which she had assessed in a superficial manner . Being an informant for the communist secret police was perceived in society in an extremely negative manner . It was therefore not open to doubt that allegations made by the applicant could stigmatise GPE and undermine public confidence in his capacity to hold office within the meaning of LAW . The mere fact that the court had gathered more material relevant to establishing the facts concerning ORG past than the applicant had had at her disposal prior to the publication of the impugned articles demonstrated that she had formulated her allegations without a sound factual basis . In the light of that material , it had to be concluded that the statements made in the article were untrue , or at least unfounded .","The court referred to the ORG \u2019s case - law on LAW on freedom of the press . It noted that that freedom carried duties and responsibilities on the part of journalists . It was limited by the criterion of truthfulness on the one hand , and the necessity to protect important values such as dignity , reputation , honour and the private life of individuals on the other . In the present case , the applicant had not had sufficient knowledge at her disposal to support the factual thesis she had advanced in the articles . She had therefore overstepped the limits of acceptable criticism , defamed the plaintiff and thereby committed a criminal offence .","The court imposed fines on the applicant and her co - defendant , the magazine \u2019s editor - in - chief . It determined the amount of the applicant \u2019s fine at MONEY ( PLN - approximately CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) and ordered her to pay LAW ( CARDINAL ORG ) to charity . The court observed that the amount of the fine had been determined with regard to the degree of the applicant \u2019s guilt . The publication of the articles had been her idea and she had written them . However , the fine imposed on her was lower than that imposed on the editor , regard being had to the fact that her income was lower than his . The court further noted that the plaintiff had demanded that a custodial sentence be imposed on the applicant . However , the court was of the view that a non - custodial sentence was sufficient in the circumstances , commensurate with the gravity of the offence . It further ordered that the judgment be made public , having regard to a request submitted by the plaintiff and LAW , which obliged the court to allow such requests in cases involving convictions based on LAW .","The applicant and her co - accused appealed , raising many procedural arguments .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment , essentially sharing the findings and views of the first - instance court . The GPE appeals were considered by the court to be unfounded . The court ordered the applicant to pay ORG MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in costs to ORG . It further ordered her and her coaccused to pay jointly the plaintiff \u2019s costs before the appellate court , amounting to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156246","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BATALINY v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;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 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Take proceedings);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The second and third applicants are the parents of the first applicant .","In DATE the first applicant , who was suffering from tachycardia and severe headaches , was diagnosed with neurocirculatory dystonia . In DATE he underwent treatment in various hospitals in GPE , without any tangible result .","NORP In DATE his illness worsened .","On DATE he called an ambulance and was taken to the neurology unit of ORG no . CARDINAL ( PERSON \u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u043a\u043b\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u0431\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 \u2116 DATE ) . The doctor in the admissions unit , however , refused to admit him , finding no pathology , and recommended outpatient treatment in a district polyclinic .","Desperate for relief , on DATE the first applicant cut the veins on his forearm . Another ambulance was called for him by the second and third applicants , and he was taken to ORG ( ORG \u0441\u043a\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0439 \u043f\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0449\u0438 \u0438\u043c. PERSON ) . After the first applicant was provided with emergency medical aid at the surgical unit , he was taken to somatopsychiatric unit no . CARDINAL ( \u041f\u0421\u041e-CARDINAL , \u201c the psychiatric hospital \u201d ) of the ORG with a diagnosis of \u201c chronic somatoform pain disorder , personality disorder , continuous sluggish schizophrenia , cutting of left forearm , attempted suicide \u201d .","On DATE the first applicant contacted his parents , asking them to take him home . When the parents arrived , they were not allowed to take him home and were asked to leave .","During TIME DATE the first applicant alleged that he was beaten up . According to him , CARDINAL nurses held his arms and CARDINAL recovering patients hit him on the face and body . He was taken to his ward , and CARDINAL of the nurses allegedly threw him on the bed with such force that his head hit the bedside table , following which he lost consciousness . When the first applicant recovered he found himself bleeding and strapped to the bed with a gag in his mouth . He was given no medical assistance .","The first applicant was subsequently allegedly warned by a doctor , PERSON , that his parents would not be allowed to see him and that it would be put on record that he had himself initiated a brawl . Furthermore , he was allegedly warned that any complaints to the authorities , including the police , would be futile as he would be given a diagnosis which would show that his allegations could not be taken seriously .","The first applicant remained hospitalised until DATE . He alleged that he was subjected to scientific research by being treated with PERSON ( a then new antipsychotic medication ) and forbidden all contact with the outside world . He had blood tests DATE .","TIME after the first applicant \u2019s discharge from the psychiatric hospital on DATE , an ambulance was called for him at home due to his state of health . The ambulance doctor saw a haematoma under the first applicant \u2019s right eye , and bruises and contusions around his chest and waist . The first applicant was further diagnosed with hypertensive crisis and severe tachycardia . He was immediately hospitalised in GPE City Clinical Hospital no . CARDINAL ( PERSON \u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u043a\u043b\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u0431\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 \u2116 CARDINAL ) , where he remained until CARDINAL DATE and was diagnosed with \u201c depressive hypochondriasis against the background of traumatic encephalopathy \u201d . The diagnosis of personality disorder was not confirmed .","NORP In DATE the applicants complained to ORG that the first applicant had been unlawfully committed and treated in the psychiatric hospital , and that he had been beaten by the hospital nurses with the assistance of CARDINAL hospital patients . The ORG complaint was referred to ORG , GPE , from where it was referred on to ORG of the Interior .","After CARDINAL refusals to institute criminal proceedings , on DATE criminal proceedings were instituted ( criminal case no . DATE ) under LAW of LAW ( Beatings ) .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings .","On DATE and DATE an investigator from ORG of the ORG investigation department suspended the proceedings on the grounds of an impossibility of identifying the alleged perpetrators .","On DATE and DATE respectively the ORG quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for additional investigation .","On DATE the investigator discontinued the proceedings on the grounds of expiry of the procedural time - limit for prosecution .","On DATE , however , the above decision was set aside and the proceedings were reopened .","The proceedings were subsequently suspended on DATE and DATE and resumed again on unspecified dates .","In DATE the applicants were informed that the proceedings had been discontinued on DATE on the grounds of expiry of the procedural time - limit for prosecution .","On an unspecified date the decision of CARDINAL DATE was set aside and the proceedings were reopened .","On DATE the proceedings were again discontinued .","On DATE the above decision was set aside and the case file material referred to the investigation department for additional investigation , which appears still to be pending .","On DATE the complaints concerning the first applicant \u2019s placement in the psychiatric hospital were removed from criminal case no . DATE for separate examination .","On DATE an investigator from ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings .","On DATE the GPE ORG found the above decision unlawful and groundless .","On DATE the acting prosecutor of ORG quashed the decision of DATE and ordered an additional inquiry .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Unlawful Placement in a ORG ) .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the proceedings were suspended on the grounds of an impossibility of identifying those responsible .","However , on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively the above decisions were quashed and additional investigations ordered .","In the meantime , on DATE a forensic psychiatric examination was conducted which established that the first applicant \u2019s involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation on DATE had been justified ( psychiatric pathology of an acute character accompanied by expressed depression with attempted suicide ) . It was further established , however , that his subsequent stay in the psychiatric ward had been unlawful . In particular , contrary to the provisions of the relevant domestic law ( LAW DATE ) , no report had been drawn up by a panel of psychiatrists in TIME following the first applicant \u2019s involuntary hospitalisation on the need for a further stay in the psychiatric hospital , and no application had been made to the court by the head of the psychiatric hospital on the need for the first applicant \u2019s continued involuntary stay in the psychiatric hospital . It was further noted that the first applicant \u2019s mental health episodes DATE and DATE did not fall under the definition of a \u201c severe \u201d mental disorder or any other acute mental condition , and did not require involuntary psychiatric treatment .","In the absence of any meaningful investigation since the institution of the criminal proceedings , the applicants challenged the investigator before the court for failure to take action .","On DATE ORG found the investigator \u2019s failure to take action unlawful ( failure to identify and question witnesses and carry out other relevant investigative actions ) .","On DATE the head of the psychiatric hospital , NORP , was involved in the proceedings as a defendant .","On DATE NORP was questioned , and made the following statement :","\u201c ... [ ORG ] unit no . CARDINAL was staffed [ at the material time ] by CARDINAL attending doctors : a scientific associate , PERSON , and an attending doctor whose last name I can not remember . The question of assigning patients to a specific attending doctor was decided by PERSON , who assigned [ the first applicant ] to L. as a scientific thematic patient ( \u043d\u0430\u0443\u0447\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0442\u0435\u043c\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0431\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0439 ) for research on the effects of the LOC medication ...","Scientific associates monitor only scientific research patients to study scientific subjects which involve research into new methods of treatment and the use of new drugs approved by ORG , with a view to later disseminating these throughout the territory of GPE . Following the results of their research , a scientific associate writes an article about the work done and defends a dissertation based on their research material . \u201d","On DATE the preliminary investigation was completed , and on DATE a bill of indictment was submitted for approval to LAW .","NORP On DATE , however , the case was returned for an additional investigation , as the prosecutor considered the charges brought against NORP unsubstantiated .","On DATE the qualification of the crime with which NORP was charged was changed to LAW ) . The case - file material was sent to ORG of the Interior for further investigation .","On DATE an investigator from ORG of the ORG discontinued the proceedings on the grounds of expiry of the procedural time - limit for prosecution .","It appears that subsequently the proceedings were reopened .","In DATE the applicants were informed that on CARDINAL DATE the proceedings had again been discontinued as time - barred ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156070","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KERIMLI v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is an opposition politician and , since DATE , the chairman of the reformist wing of ORG .","On DATE the applicant was arrested during a demonstration organised by ORG and taken to the ORG where a hand grenade was allegedly found in the pocket of his suit \u2019s jacket . According to the applicant , the suit had been acquired immediately before the demonstration and he had not had time to remove the manufacturer \u2019s stitches sealing the pockets and , therefore , would not have been physically able to put anything inside the pockets .","On DATE , criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under LAW ( illegal possession of weapons ) of LAW ( in force until DATE , when it was replaced by the new Criminal Code ) .","Until DATE , the applicant was detained as a suspect . On DATE he was formally charged under LAW of LAW by the investigator of the GPE Chief Police Department . On DATE , the investigator ordered his detention on remand pending trial .","By a decision of the investigator of DATE the applicant was released from detention .","By a decision of the investigator of ORG Office of DATE , the investigation in the framework of the criminal proceedings against the applicant was suspended on the ground that \u201c the perpetrator of the criminal offence [ had ] not been identified \u201d . The applicant was not informed about the decision to suspend the investigation at that time .","NORP In the DATE and DATE parliamentary elections , the applicant was elected and re - elected to ORG for CARDINAL consecutive terms and served as a parliament member until DATE . In the elections of DATE , according to the official election results published by ORG , he was again re - elected to ORG , however on DATE ORG annulled the election results in the applicant \u2019s constituency in an arbitrary manner , depriving the applicant of his parliamentary seat ( see , for more details , GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The applicant held a diplomatic passport issued in DATE , which expired in DATE . On DATE he was issued a new diplomatic passport valid until DATE .","In addition , the applicant held a regular passport issued in DATE , which expired on an unspecified date in DATE ( according to the applicant ) or on DATE ( according to the Government ) .","NORP In DATE the applicant applied to ORG of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for a new regular passport . However , according to the applicant , his application was rejected in an informal manner . The applicant was informed that the ORG had no information of the outcome of the criminal proceedings instituted in DATE . He was told that , as the ORG could not issue passports to persons against whom criminal proceedings were pending , the applicant had to provide a statement from the relevant prosecuting authorities confirming that the criminal proceedings had been discontinued .","Following an inquiry with the GPE Chief Police Department , the applicant discovered that the criminal proceedings instituted in DATE had been transferred to ORG and suspended on DATE , but had never been discontinued .","Subsequently , the applicant complained about the authorities\u2019 failure to discontinue the proceedings and his resulting inability to receive a passport to ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG , but to no avail .","In DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against the ORG and ORG , asking the court to order the ORG to issue him a passport and to order the prosecutor \u2019s office to \u201c remove the restriction on his freedom of movement \u201d by discontinuing the criminal proceedings instituted in DATE . He noted that , the limitation period for prosecution in respect of the criminal offence under LAW was DATE from the date of the alleged criminal offence , while under the CARDINAL Criminal Code it was DATE in respect of the equivalent criminal offence . He therefore argued that the proceedings should have been discontinued DATE owing to the expiry of the prescription period .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim as unsubstantiated . It noted that ORG had responded to the applicant \u2019s requests by advising him to apply to the ORG and that the applicant had been unable to demonstrate that the ORG had breached his rights .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment on the same grounds , and also added that the applicant had failed to appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE to suspend the investigation under the relevant procedure of judicial supervision .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and terminated the civil proceedings . It noted that the complaints raised by the applicant , and more specifically his complaint concerning the prosecution authorities\u2019 failure to discontinue the criminal proceedings , were subject to examination under the criminal procedure and not in the civil proceedings under the rules of civil procedure . The applicant was advised to lodge a complaint against the prosecuting authorities\u2019 actions under the relevant procedure of judicial supervision envisaged by LAW ( \u201c the CCrP \u201d ) .","In DATE the applicant lodged such a complaint under the procedure of judicial supervision provided by LAW ORG , asking the court to discontinue the criminal proceedings instituted in DATE owing to the expiry of the prescription period .","On DATE ORG dismissed this complaint , noting that , while the CCrP provided for a right to complain against a prosecuting authority \u2019s decision to discontinue the proceedings , the same Code did not provide for a right to complain against the prosecuting authority \u2019s failure to take a decision to discontinue the proceedings . Therefore , the court could not order ORG to discontinue the proceedings . Furthermore , the court noted that it had no competence under the ORG to discontinue the proceedings itself .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . No further appeal lay against ORG decision ."],"violated_articles":["P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["P4-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157372","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ABDURAKHMANOVA AND ABDULGAMIDOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Liberty of person;Security of person);Violation of Article 13+2-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The applicants are the mother and the wife of PERSON Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov ( in the documents submitted also written as ORG ) , who was born in DATE .","The second applicant and her husband Mr NORP have lived in GPE since DATE . In DATE the second applicant went to PERSON to visit her relatives . On DATE her husband Mr GPE arrived from GPE , and on the same date they went to visit Mr GPE sister ORG . at CARDINAL FAC in GPE , PERSON .","The first applicant and her husband , a federal judge of ORG in GPE , lived at LOC , GPE .","At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL officers from the LOC department of the interior in PERSON ( the PERSON ) arrived at the first applicant \u2019s house . One of them , who identified himself as Shamil , showed the first applicant arrest warrant no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL issued in the name of her son Mr PERSON and signed by Captain A. Plugin , the investigator of ORG ( the ORG ) . According to the warrant , PERSON Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov was suspected , amongst other things , of involvement in terrorist activities .","Meanwhile , on DATE the second applicant and her husband Mr NORP were visiting their relative ORG . in PERSON . At TIME on that date , a group of CARDINAL men , some of whom were in black masks , arrived at the house of ORG . in a black VAZ-CARDINAL ( \u2018 \u041f\u0440\u0438\u043e\u0440\u0430\u2019 ) car with the registration number containing the numbers CARDINAL or CARDINAL and the letters ORG . CARDINAL of them told the second applicant that they were from the police . The men abducted PERSON Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov next to the house , in the street . First they fired shots at his feet , then they knocked him down , dragged him into the car and drove off . The abduction took place in broad daylight and in the presence of a number of witnesses , including neighbours and the applicants\u2019 relatives .","Shortly after the ORG departure , several police officers in uniform and plain clothes arrived at the scene of the shooting in QUANTITY police cars ; without giving any explanation they collected the cartridge cases left after the incident .","The Government did not dispute the applicants\u2019 account of the circumstances of the abduction , stating that it \u201c does not contradict the information collected by the authorities during the course of the investigation \u201d .","At TIME on DATE , immediately after the incident , the second applicant in PERSON called the first applicant in PERSON and informed her about the abduction .","In TIME of DATE the first applicant complained about the abduction to ORG and ORG office . She stated that on DATE of the abduction she had been visited by a group of CARDINAL officers from the PERSON who had showed her a warrant for her son \u2019s arrest issued by the ORG Captain PERSON ; that shortly after their visit the second applicant had called her from Kaspiysk and told her about the abduction of Mr PERSON by a group of armed men who had opened fire and that shortly after the incident a group of police officers had collected the cartridge cases left at the scene .","On DATE the Dagestan FSB replied to the first applicant that they had forwarded her complaint to ORG office . On DATE the latter informed her that they had forwarded the complaint to the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the first applicant complained about the abduction to ORG of the Interior ( the ORG ) , and provided a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction , including the police ORG visit to her house and the collection of the cartridge cases after the ORG departure . On DATE the Dagestan MVD informed her that they had forwarded her complaint to the NORP town department of the interior ( the ORG ) .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office informed the first applicant that they had forwarded her complaint to their investigations department for a preliminary inquiry .","DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office forwarded CARDINAL requests to various law - enforcement agencies , asking them to establish the whereabouts of Mr PERSON and inform them about his possible detention and the reason for it . They also asked for a copy of the arrest warrant used by the police officers from the Sovetskiy ROVD and for information on whether Mr PERSON had been involved in extremist or illegal activities .","On DATE the first applicant complained about the abduction to the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office and asked whether a criminal case had been opened to investigate the incident , and if so what was the progress of the proceedings .","On DATE , DATE the first applicant again lodged a complaint about her son \u2019s abduction with the investigations department of the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office . The complaint stated , amongst other things , that the abduction had been perpetrated by police officers in broad daylight and in the presence of numerous witnesses . The applicant asked the authorities to take urgent steps to investigate and to protect her son . In particular , she requested the investigators to take the following measures : granting her victim status in the criminal case ; questioning a number of eyewitnesses to the abduction , including the second applicant , PERSON . , ORG , PERSON , and PERSON ; establishing whether any criminal charges had been pending against Mr PERSON and whether he had been on the authorities\u2019 wanted list ; identification of the QUANTITY police officers who had visited the applicant in GPE on DATE and seizure of the warrant signed by PERSON ; identification of the latter and of the ORG car .","On DATE the first applicant requested the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office to take additional investigative steps to establish her son \u2019s whereabouts . In particular , she asked them to request information from various detention centres in ORG in case Mr PERSON had been detained there , and to initiate a criminal investigation into the abduction .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer complained to the ORG investigator PERSON about the abduction and the warrant used by the police officers from the PERSON . The complaint gave a detailed description of the incident and stated that the officers had showed the first applicant a warrant allegedly signed by him . On DATE Captain PERSON replied stating \u201c ... no orders to detain Mr NORP have been given to the PERSON ... \u201d and that the applicants should complain about the abduction to the prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the first applicant again complained to the head of ORG and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She asserted that Mr NORP had been abducted by police or ORG officers from ORG , and requested the law - enforcement agencies to assist her in establishing his whereabouts .","On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG . She provided a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction and stressed that the warrant under outgoing no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL allegedly signed by ORG could have been forged by the police officers . She also stated that the abductors had told the second applicant that they were from the police and that all her efforts to establish her son \u2019s whereabouts by complaining to local lawenforcement agencies had not produced any tangible results . The applicant further stated that she had learned from an unidentified source that on DATE a special operation had been conducted by the police or the ORG officers against her son , and requested the authorities to carry out an effective investigation of the incident .","On DATE the first applicant again complained about the abduction to PERSON . On DATE they replied to her that her complaint had been forwarded to ORG office .","On DATE the first applicant complained to the head of ORG . She stated that her son had been abducted by members of law - enforcement agencies and that the responses received by her from ORG had not provided any meaningful information . The applicant asked whether any criminal proceedings were pending against her son , whether he was suspected of a crime , and whether ORG had issued the order for her son \u2019s arrest . She also requested to be informed about her son \u2019s whereabouts and the reasons for his detention . On an unspecified date in DATE ORG replied to the applicant stating that her son had not been charged with any offence and that they had not ordered the Sovetskiy ROVD to detain him .","On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG , the head of ORG and the head of GPE about the unlawful detention of her son Mr PERSON by members of law - enforcement agencies . She also requested to be informed whether her son was a suspect in criminal case no . DATE , and if so what charges had been brought against him .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer requested information from the Dagestan Prosecutor \u2019s office concerning the criminal charges against Mr PERSON and the place of his unlawful detention .","On DATE the applicants again complained about the abduction to ORG and PERSON . They stated that local law - enforcement agencies had consistently denied any involvement in the abduction of Mr PERSON , but the head of the Sovetskiy ROVD had told them that their relative had been detained by ROVD officers and handed over to GPE ( the ORG ) ( \u201c \u0426\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440 \u043f\u043e \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0438\u044e \u044d\u043a\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0438\u0437\u043c\u0443 \u0438 \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0440\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0437\u043c\u0443 ORG \u0420\u0424 \u043f\u043e GPE \u201d ) . However , according to the applicants , the latter agency had denied detaining Mr PERSON .","On an unspecified date in DATE ORG complained on the applicants\u2019 behalf to the head of ORG and the NORP Minister of the ORG . The complaint stated that the abduction of Mr NORP had most probably been perpetrated by members of law - enforcement agencies , officers of the Sovetskiy ROVD in particular , and that the criminal investigation into the incident was ineffective .","On DATE ORG of ORG informed ORG that they had forwarded the complaint about Mr PERSON \u2019s abduction to the prosecutor \u2019s office .","In reply to the ORG \u2019s request for a copy of the investigation file on the abduction of Mr NORP the Government produced the relevant documents , which ran to CARDINAL pages . Their contents can be summarised as follows :","On DATE the NORP prosecutor \u2019s office initiated a criminal investigation into the abduction of Mr PERSON under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was given the number DATE .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE , DATE , the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal case and questioned her . She provided a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction , including the police ORG visit to her house in GPE , and stated that she had learned from unidentified sources that her son had been detained at a base of the Dagestan CTC .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants\u2019 relative ORG . , who stated that she had witnessed Mr GPE abduction by a group of CARDINAL men in plain clothes , CARDINAL of whom were masked . According to the witness , the abductors had opened fire and forced Mr GPE into a black VAZCARDINAL ( \u2018 GPE ) car with the registration number either PERSON or ORG . The numerous neighbours who had also witnessed the abduction had later told her that the abductors had used CARDINAL black VAZ-CARDINAL cars .","On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON and the second applicant , whose statements about the events were similar to that of PERSON . The second applicant added that TIME after the abduction CARDINAL police cars had arrived at the place of the skirmish . A group of police officers , both uniformed and plain clothes , had searched the ground with flash lights looking for the spent bullet cartridges .","On DATE the head of the criminal search division of the Kaspiysk ROVD informed the investigators that they had been unable to identify any witnesses to the abduction .","From the documents submitted it follows that on CARDINAL DATE the head of Police Station no . CARDINAL in GPE sent the investigators letter no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , stating that on DATE CARDINAL of their police officers , PERSON , GPE , ORG and GPE , following the order of ORG of DATE given as part of the investigation of criminal case no . DATE , had arrived at the house of the judge of the LOC district of GPE Mr Sh . A. to establish the whereabouts of his son PERSON GPE GPE . The police officers had questioned the first applicant who had told them that her son and his wife were in GPE . The police officers had not participated in Mr GPE arrest .","On DATE the head of the ORG of ORG examined the criminal case file opened into the abduction . He criticised the investigators for their failure to take a number of steps , and ordered that remedial measures be taken . In particular , the document stated the following :","\u201c ... The case file examination demonstrated that the investigation is being conducted without purpose , that most important circumstances of the crime are not being established and clarified , and that the necessary steps to establish them are not being taken ...","[ The applicant ] PERSON stated that at TIME on DATE CARDINAL men had arrived at her house . They had introduced themselves as servicemen from the Sovetskiy ROVD in GPE . CARDINAL of them named PERSON had shown her an arrest warrant for her son Mr A. Abdurakhmanov signed by the ORG investigator PERSON ...","Later on DATE she had learnt of her son \u2019s abduction in Kaspiysk by unknown masked persons ... who fired weapons during the incident and absconded from the crime scene . Shortly afterwards policemen had arrived at the scene and , according to the neighbours , had collected the cartridge cases and left .","To verify PERSON statements it is necessary to take the following steps :","- identifying the policemen who had visited her house as well as the investigator from the Sovetskiy ROVD named Shamil ...","- questioning all the policemen in PERSON who were on duty on DATE to find out whether they were called to a scene of shooting and abduction at CARDINAL FAC ...","- questioning all the witnesses , including the neighbours in FAC , about the events , and finding out the registration numbers of the cars used by the policemen who had arrived at the scene after the abduction ...","... in the letter from ORG of CARDINAL DATE it is stated that the ORG had sent a letter to ORG ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) concerning PERSON , in which it was stated that ORG had been investigating case no . CARDINAL concerning ... a bandit group which had planned murders of policemen in GPE as well as terrorist attacks . CARDINAL of that group \u2019s members was PERSON ... who had maintained close contact with active members of the bandit subversive movement and had aided and abetted them . In particular , PERSON had sheltered in his flat armed members of the bandit subversive movement who were hiding from the authorities ...","The investigation of criminal case no . DATE opened by ORG obtained information concerning activities of an organised armed group in ORG and GPE which was aiding and abetting the armed bandit subversive movement in PERSON ... the investigation received information concerning Mr A. GPE \u2019s involvement in the activities of that group ...","In connection with the above , it is necessary that the investigators :","- write to the ORG investigator PERSON concerning the operational search measures to be taken against Mr PERSON ... \u201d","On DATE the ORG informed the investigators of the following :","\u201c ... the ORG investigations department is investigating criminal case no . DATE concerning ... members of the illegal armed group \u201c LOC \u201d .","PERSON and PERSON have been charged in the criminal case with membership of illegal armed groups ... Mr PERSON is a witness to their criminal activity . In this connection , a request for operational search measures ( outgoing no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) to establish his whereabouts and question him has been forwarded to PERSON ... \u201d","On DATE the investigators requested ORG of the Dagestan MVD to oblige police officers PERSON , GPE , ORG and GPE to provide statements for the investigation concerning the abduction . The letter stated , amongst other things , that the first applicant had insisted that her son \u2019s abduction had been perpetrated by police officers from the PERSON CTC .","On DATE , DATE , the investigation of the criminal case was suspended . The applicants were not informed thereof .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants complained to ORG about the ORG failure to take basic steps to investigate the abduction . On DATE the applicants were informed by ORG that an investigation into the abduction was in progress .","On DATE the applicants requested the investigators to take a number of actions , including questioning the heads of ORG of the ORG ( the ORG ) to find out whether any special operations had been carried out in the settlement on DATE and the reason for the collection of the cartridge cases from the crime scene after the shooting ; questioning the head of the Sovetskiy ROVD to establish the reason for the police ORG visit to the first applicant \u2019s house on DATE ; and questioning the head of the ORG CTC to establish whether Mr NORP had been taken to their LOC and if so why this had been done .","On DATE the head of ORG criticised the investigators for an unlawful and premature suspension of the investigation , and ordered that the investigation be resumed and a number of steps be taken .","On DATE the investigators questioned police officers GPE and GPE , both of whom stated that on DATE they had visited the first applicant \u2019s house to establish the whereabouts of PERSON GPE GPE on suspicion of his membership of illegal armed groups . The first applicant had told them that her son was not at home . The witnesses had then left the house and had subsequently learnt of the abduction from a local newspaper .","On DATE the applicants complained to the head of ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG about the ORG failure to take basic steps to investigate the abduction in spite of numerous pieces of evidence implicating law - enforcement officers in the crime . They requested that the investigators be ordered to expedite the investigation and identify the perpetrators .","On DATE the deputy head of ORG rejected the ORG complaint as groundless .","From the documents submitted it follows that the proceedings are still pending .","On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG of PERSON ( the district court ) . She provided a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding her son \u2019s abduction and alleged that he had been abducted by members of law - enforcement agencies . The applicant requested the district court to order the prosecutor \u2019s office to take a number of essential investigative steps and to provide her with information concerning the whereabouts of Mr GPE .","On DATE the court requested PERSON to inform it whether the police officers had arrested the applicants\u2019 relative .","On DATE the Dagestan MVD replied to the court , stating the following :","\u201c ... on DATE ... a group of officers from the ROVD , including Major PERSON , Senior Lieutenants PERSON and ORG and Lieutenant PERSON , following the investigator \u2019s order no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE issued as part of the criminal case no . DATE opened under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( money counterfeiting ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( terrorist activity ) of LAW , visited [ the first applicant \u2019s house in GPE ] in order to establish the whereabouts of Mr PERSON , who was suspected of committing the above crimes ... \u201d","The letter further stated that no further information about the visit was available .","On DATE the district court rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint of DATE . The decision stated , amongst other things , the following :","\u201c ... from the letter of the head of the ORG FSB Mr ORG , outgoing no . CARDINAL dated DATE , it follows that order no . CARDINAL dated DATE was issued by ORG of the Dagestan FSB as part of criminal case no . DATE , to establish the whereabouts of Mr GPE ... Following this order the officers of the Sovetskiy ROVD visited the home of [ the first applicant ] PERSON and took a statement from her concerning her son \u2019s whereabouts . Their actions do not contravene LAW On Operational and Search Activity \u201d .... \u201d","The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had abducted Mr PERSON were ORG agents . In support of their complaint , they referred to the following facts . Mr PERSON was suspected by the authorities of membership of illegal armed groups ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) ; TIME prior to the abduction CARDINAL officers from the Sovetskiy ROVD visited the first applicant \u2019s house in GPE and showed the ORG warrant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) . Then , in GPE , TIME , CARDINAL of the abductors identified himself as a police officer and shortly after the abduction the police arrived at the scene and removed the spent cartridges to cover the ORG tracks . The perpetrators were violent and opened fire without hesitation , in the presence of a number of witnesses . The applicants further stated that since Mr NORP had been missing for DATE at the time of the submission of their observations to the ORG , he could be presumed dead . That presumption was further supported by the circumstances in which he had been abducted , which should be recognised as life - threatening .","The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 relative had been abducted by unidentified men and that neither the ORG behaviour nor their vehicles provided for any firm evidence that they were ORG agents . The Government further contended that there was no evidence that Mr NORP was dead .","The ORG observes that in its extensive case - law it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of matters in dispute , in particular when faced with allegations of violations of fundamental rights ( for a most recent summary of these , see PERSON v. \u201c the former GPE \u201d [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","More specifically , the ORG has adjudicated a series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances in the NORP LOC . Applying the above - mentioned principles , it has concluded that it would be sufficient for the applicants to make a prima facie case of abduction of the missing persons by ORG agents , thus falling within the control of the authorities , and it would then be for the Government to discharge their burden of proof , either by disclosing the documents in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred ( see , for example , concerning abductions in ORG , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) . If the Government failed to rebut this presumption , that would entail a violation of LAW in its substantive part . Conversely , where the applicants failed to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof could not be reversed ( see , for example , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","In view of the parties\u2019 submission concerning the circumstances of the abduction ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , the ORG concludes that the materials in its possession demonstrate the validity of the ORG allegation , for the following reasons . Firstly , the abductors , who arrived in a civilian vehicle , acted as an organised group and did not hesitate to open fire and perpetrate the abduction in the street , in daylight and in the presence of witnesses . CARDINAL of them told the second applicant that they were from the police . Secondly , a group of local police officers arrived at the crime scene shortly after the incident and collected the cartridge cases left by the abductors . Thirdly , the police officers\u2019 visit to the first applicant \u2019s house in GPE looking for Mr NORP on suspicion of his involvement in terrorist activities , TIME prior to his abduction in Kaspiysk , provides grounds to believe that these CARDINAL events were interconnected . Further , the investigators took no meaningful steps to check whether the abduction could have been perpetrated for other reasons , such as a blood feud , ransom , drugs or hostility . No serious steps were taken to verify those hypotheses and no information was obtained that the abductors could have been other than ORG agents ( see , by contrast , PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , \u00a7 MONEY , DATE ) . Lastly , the procrastination of the authorities in the investigation into the matter , along with the ORG consistent allegations that law - enforcement officers were involved in the incident ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) , provide the ORG with the grounds to conclude that the applicants have made a prima facie case that their relative Mr PERSON was abducted by ORG agents . The Government \u2019s statement that the investigators found no evidence that members of lawenforcement authorities were involved in PERSON GPE disappearance is insufficient to discharge them from the above - mentioned burden of proof . Having examined the documents submitted by the parties and drawing inferences from the Government \u2019s failure to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question , the ORG finds that Mr Abdurakhman Abdurakhmanov was apprehended on DATE by ORG agents ( see , for a similar situation , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","There has been no reliable news of Mr PERSON since his arrest . The Government have not submitted any explanation as to what happened to him afterwards .","DATE . The ORG finds that , in a situation where a person is detained by unidentified police officers without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention and is then missing for DATE , that situation can be regarded as life - threatening . The absence of Mr PERSON or of any news of him for DATE supports this assumption .","Accordingly , the ORG finds that the evidence available permits it to establish to the requisite standard of proof that Mr PERSON must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by ORG agents ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164952","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PETRESKA v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was employed by ORG ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0437\u0443\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 , \u201c the employer \u201d ) .","On DATE she was dismissed from work as redundant given that internal regulations ( \u041f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0438\u043b\u043d\u0438\u043a \u0437\u0430 \u0441\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043c\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u043c\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0430 , \u201c the Regulations \u201d ) of DATE provided for reduced number of employees for posts such as the post held by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant challenged her dismissal before ORG ( \u201c the first - instance court \u201d ) .","After CARDINAL remittal orders , on DATE the first - instance court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim , finding that she had been dismissed on DATE on the basis of the ORG , which had been adopted by the employer and approved by the Government on DATE . It further found that the ORG \u2019s approval had been received by the employer on DATE , but that had been irrelevant given that it was only the date when approval had been given by the ORG that was important for the entry into force of the LAW .","On DATE the applicant appealed , arguing inter alia that the ORG could not have applied to her case , as it could only be adopted after the employer had received the ORG \u2019s approval . The applicant relied on another final judgment of ORG ( \u201c the appellate court \u201d ) in a similar case concerning a former colleague of the applicant , in which it had been established that the ORG had not entered into force at the time of the dismissal ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She contended that under the relevant law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the Regulations could only be adopted after the Government \u2019s approval had been obtained .","On DATE the appellate court dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It found that the Government had approved the Regulations on DATE , that they had entered into force DATE , and that the applicant \u2019s dismissal of CARDINAL DATE was therefore lawful .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . In it she argued , inter alia , that the ORG could only be adopted after the ORG \u2019s approval had been obtained , and that they had thus not entered into force at the time of her dismissal . She referred to the earlier judgment of the appellate court ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and argued that it had deviated from its established practice on the matter without providing any reasons . She further contended that the dismissal of her former colleagues , which had been based on the same grounds , had been quashed and they had been reinstated to their posts .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . It found that on DATE the ORG had approved the ORG , which had thus entered into force the same day . On DATE the applicant was served with ORG judgment ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169201","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BELGE v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in \u015e\u0131rnak .","On DATE a demonstration was held in the Gemlik district of the city of ORG by ORG of ORG and ORG Relatives ( Tutuklu ve ORG Yak\u0131nlar\u0131 Yard\u0131mla\u015fma ve ORG \u2013 \u201c Tuhay - Der \u201d ) in order to protest about the conditions of detention in prisons , and in particular those of PERSON , the leader of the ORG ( ORG , an illegal armed organisation .","On DATE a group who had attended the demonstration in PERSON returned to Cizre , a district of \u015e\u0131rnak , and a gathering was held in front of the building of the Cizre branch of ORG ( ORG \u2013 \u201c DEHAP \u201d ) . The applicant , as president of the PERSON branch of the DEHAP , made a speech during that gathering .","On DATE the NORP public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG against the applicant and CARDINAL others . The applicant was charged with disseminating propaganda in favour of a criminal organisation and its goals , proscribed by LAW of LAW , on account of his speech on DATE . The public prosecutor submitted that the following passages in the speech constituted propaganda in favour of an illegal organisation :","\u201c ... We want peace in this country . Those who wish for war prevent us from having peace . As you know , Mr PERSON , the leader of the NORP people , called for a ceasefire DATE . The Government have failed to take a proper view of that DATE unilateral ceasefire and therefore the war has re - started . We have once again started to receive the bodies of guerrillas and soldiers . We want an end to the crying of the mothers of guerrillas and soldiers . We want peace . Mr PERSON has not been able to meet his lawyers or members of his family for DATE . We believe that that sanction is harmful to the peace process . \u201d","On DATE ORG accepted the bill of indictment .","On DATE upon the request of ORG , ORG obtained the applicant \u2019s defence statements . The applicant contended that he had not praised an illegal organisation in his speech and that he had not intended to disseminate propaganda . He noted that he had only thanked those who had made an effort to bring about peace . The applicant finally stated that the slogans chanted by the crowd during his speech had promoted peace .","ORG held CARDINAL hearings on the merits of the case and obtained a report by an expert on the video - recordings of the gathering of DATE , which stated that the applicant had made a speech to a crowd . Subsequently , on DATE , ORG issued a decision that it lacked jurisdiction as it considered that the acts of the accused should be examined under LAW ( Law no . ORG ) . The case was transferred to ORG .","On DATE ORG ordered an expert to examine the video - recordings of the gathering of DATE .","On DATE the applicant made a statement to ORG . He contended that he had not disseminated propaganda during his speech but had only thanked those who had worked for peace and had also condemned PERSON solitary confinement . The applicant denied the allegation that he had referred to PERSON as the leader of the NORP people . He further noted that there had been no violent incidents during or after his speech . Following his speech the demonstrators had dispersed quietly and the slogans that had been chanted while he spoke had been peaceful .","According to the report , dated CARDINAL DATE , on the examination of the police video - recordings of the gathering of DATE submitted by the expert to the first - instance court , the applicant had made the following speech :","\u201c ... Friends , I would like to say a few words about how grateful we are to you . First of all , as you already know , we left \u015e\u0131rnak to go to the peace meeting , PERSON meeting which was organised by PERSON . As a result of the arbitrary security measures taken by the security forces and the fact that we were forced to wait TIME at each checkpoint for identity checks , we were not able to travel as fast as we wanted . For us , those who conducted themselves in such a manner are the people who do not want peace in this country ( his speech is interrupted by applause and ululations ) . Subsequently , we were taken into police custody because of our democratic reaction to the search order . We were kept in police custody for TIME and then taken before a court . The court released us . However , it took a decision to place me under judicial control . I have to go to give my signature every DATE and I am banned from travelling abroad ( His speech is interrupted by boos and the slogan \u2018 LOC uzanan eller ORG ( \u2018 May those hands which aim to damage peace be broken\u2019 ) . We condemn with contempt the mentality which obstructed the meeting in PERSON ; we condemn with contempt the fact that Mr PERSON , the Minister of ORG , called us \u2018 ORG as well as the mentality which prevented the peace meeting from taking place and which blocked and attacked the crowds . CARDINAL vehicles were burned . A person lost his life and CARDINAL were injured . We condemn with contempt the mentality which is against your and the NORP people \u2019s sensibility , your wish for peace and the meeting on peace . We want peace in this country . We want harmony . Those who are against unity and solidarity in this country and those who do not want this country to reach modernity , that is to say , who obtain an unjustified gain out of this war , prevent us from having peace ... As you know , PERSON PERSON , the leader of the NORP people ( His speech is interrupted by the slogan \u2018 Biji Serok Apo\u2019 ( \u2018 Long live President ORG ) called for a ceasefire DATE . The Government have failed to take a proper view of that DATE unilateral ceasefire and therefore the war has re - started . We have once again started to receive the bodies of guerrillas and soldiers . We want an end to the crying of the mothers of guerrillas and soldiers in this country . We want peace in this country . We will continue our struggle for peace . The demonstration organised by ORG will contribute to peace because a DATE ceasefire has been declared . Mr PERSON has not been able to meet his lawyers or members of his family for the last three and a half months . We believe that that sanction is harmful to the peace process . That is why we participated in the peace march that was organised by PERSON . We thank those who attended that demonstration for their wish for peace and for their determination , despite injustice and obstructions . We hope that our friends who were injured will recover soon . We condemn with contempt those who obstructed the peace march . We want peace and we will continue to struggle for peace . I thank you all . You can disperse now in silence ... \u201d","According to the report , the demonstrators waved yellow , red and green pieces of cloth and carried photographs of PERSON . Some of the applicant \u2019s co - accused were seen chanting slogans or carrying photographs of PERSON . In particular , one of them chanted the slogans \u201c ORG \u201d ( \u201c Long live President FAC ) and \u201c GPE di\u015f kana kan , seninleyiz FAC ( \u201c A tooth for a tooth , blood for blood , we are with you NORP \u201d ) for periods of CARDINAL and TIME respectively . Another accused was seen chanting the slogans \u201c PERSON d\u0131sa serhildan serokeme \u00d6calan \u201d ( \u201c Rise up again and again , our president is ORG ) , \u201c PERSON y\u0131ld\u0131ramaz \u201d ( \u201c We will not be defeated by oppression \u201d ) , \u201c ORG halkt\u0131r . PERSON . \u201d ( \u201c The ORG is the people . The people are here . \u201d ) , \u201c \u015e\u0131rnak ovas\u0131 PKK\u2019nin yuvas\u0131 \u201d ( \u201c PERSON is the home of the NORP \u201d ) for periods of CARDINAL while waving a photograph of PERSON . Some other demonstrators also chanted the slogan \u201c Sava\u015fta bar\u0131\u015fta seninleyiz ORG ( \u201c In war and in peace we are with you NORP \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG delivered its judgment . The court noted that those who disseminated propaganda in favour of the ORG were expressing their support and approval for the ORG , whose methods were those of terrorism and violence . The court accordingly considered that the dissemination of propaganda in favour of that organisation essentially amounted to incitement to violence and the use of terrorist methods . The first - instance court further noted that it was a well - known fact that during illegal demonstrations and meetings ORG members and supporters disseminated propaganda by way of waving photographs of the leader of the ORG and yellow , red and green pieces of cloth , symbolising the so - called flag of the ORG . The court thus concluded that on DATE the accused had disseminated propaganda by acting in support of the ORG \u2019s aims and by their acts in front of the building of the Cizre branch of the DEHAP .","As regards the applicant , ORG also noted that he had referred to PERSON as \u201c the leader of the NORP people \u201d and to members of the ORG who had been killed as \u201c guerrillas \u201d . The court also found it established that the applicant had directed the demonstrators who had chanted slogans in favour of the ORG , waved yellow , red and green pieces of cloth and carried photographs of PERSON . ORG further noted that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , as amended by PERSON no . DATE , which had entered into force on DATE , was more favourable to the applicant than the previous version of the same provision in force on the date the applicant had committed the acts that constituted the basis for his conviction ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As a result , the first - instance court convicted the applicant of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG , as amended by PERSON no . DATE , and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The court also ordered that LAW , CARDINAL of the Criminal Code should apply in respect of the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180486","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF HADZHIEVA v. BULGARIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Rousseva;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","As is apparent from the documents in the file , the applicant moved from GPE to GPE in DATE together with her parents . In DATE she obtained temporary residency status . Before the move , the applicant \u2019s father had been the deputy chair of ORG and later a member of a political movement which was critical of the domestic political regime . It appears that , because of her father \u2019s political activity , members of her family were subjected to persecution in GPE and that in DATE the applicant \u2019s aunt was tortured and murdered in prison .","The applicant started studying at a secondary school with an intensive foreign languages curriculum in DATE . Her father opened his own construction business in GPE .","On DATE the NORP authorities charged both of the applicant \u2019s parents with aggravated embezzlement of public funds amounting to MONEY , allegedly committed DATE and DATE . The NORP prosecutor ordered their detention in relation to those charges and filed a request for their extradition with the NORP authorities .","The following circumstances are undisputed between the parties .","On DATE the applicant , aged CARDINAL at the time , was alone at home . At TIME about QUANTITY police officers arrived at the family apartment . On entering the apartment the officers informed the applicant that they had come to arrest her parents . She called her parents on the telephone . It appears from the documents before the domestic courts that at that time , the parents were out shopping accompanied by their legal representative , who returned home with them . This took some time because of heavy traffic . In the meantime the officers prohibited the applicant from moving around the apartment and interrogated her in the absence of a social worker and a psychologist , despite having seen her identity document , which indicated her age .","The applicant \u2019s parents were arrested as soon as they arrived home . The record of a court hearing in the domestic proceedings for damages ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) indicates that the GPE legal representative was present during the arrest . The lawyer stated that the police officers had not allowed the parents to collect personal belongings from the flat but that , as far as he could recall , they had allowed the applicant to hand them some personal items from the flat . He did not know where the police officers had taken the applicant \u2019s parents but said that he thought that they had been taken to ORG . In any event , he had visited them DATE but could not remember exactly where . The legal representative also stated that during DATE his task had been to circulate between the CARDINAL different prisons where the applicant \u2019s parents were detained in order to organise their defence . He stated that he could not describe the state of the applicant at the time of the arrest , his task having been to defend her parents . He did not know what had happened to the applicant and had not seen her after her GPE arrest .","An order for the applicant \u2019s GPE detention for TIME was issued by the police on DATE and they were placed in police custody for that period . Upon their application for judicial review of that detention order , ORG set it aside the following day , finding it flawed as it did not indicate any legal grounds for the detention . Immediately upon their release from police custody the applicant \u2019s parents were served with a prosecutor \u2019s order for their detention for TIME in connection with the extradition request ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They were detained on the spot .","On DATE , at CARDINAL separate hearings , ORG extended their detention for DATE . The applicant \u2019s father was taken to FAC and her mother to ORG .","During and after the court hearings on DATE the applicant \u2019s parents were represented by the same lawyer who had been present during their arrest and was a friend and neighbour of the family .","The parties dispute what took place at the hearing when the judge enquired about the care measures in place in relation to the applicant . According to the latter , when her mother was asked by the judge through an interpreter whether there was anyone who could take care of her child , her mother replied by shaking her head . In GPE nodding one \u2019s head signifies \u201c no \u201d and shaking it means \u201c yes \u201d . According to the applicant , the judge , having interpreted the mother \u2019s response as \u201c yes \u201d , noted in the record of the hearing : \u201c The child has someone to take care of her \u201d .","The Government , in contrast , pointed to the record of the hearing , which indicated that the applicant \u2019s mother had replied that there was someone who could take care of her child . In their view , this was evidence of the mother \u2019s reply . In addition , they cited an excerpt of the court \u2019s record where the applicant \u2019s mother had addressed the court in the following terms : \u201c I am very surprised as I have worked as an associate professor , with a doctorate in science , for DATE , and for some reason , they want to accuse me of something that happened out there , and I \u2019ve been living here for DATE . We came here so that my children could study in GPE , in a democratic country , because GPE is a dictatorship ; a fascist regime has begun . There is someone to take care of my child . \u201d According to the court record of the hearing , the mother \u2019s statement had been preceded by an intervention by the prosecutor , who had indicated that it was necessary to comply with the requirements of LAW , so that if the family had no relatives or friends to care for the child , the municipality had to be informed with a view to placing her in a child - care centre , kindergarten or boarding facility ( \u0438\u043d\u0442\u0435\u0440\u043d\u0430\u0442 ) .","On an appeal by the applicant \u2019s parents , ORG lifted the detention orders in CARDINAL separate decisions on DATE . The applicant \u2019s parents were released on bail and returned home to the applicant DATE .","The request for their extradition to GPE was ultimately refused on CARDINAL DATE by ORG . During those proceedings they were represented by the same lawyer . The refusal became final on CARDINAL DATE as it had not been appealed against . The court found that the criminal proceedings against the applicants\u2019 parents were connected to the father \u2019s political activities and that the extradition request had been made with the aim of persecuting and punishing him for his political beliefs .","It is alleged that the applicant \u2019s parents were arrested so rapidly that they did not manage to leave any money for her , or to give her any instructions as to whom to turn to or how to go about caring for herself . The officers did not tell the applicant for how long they were taking her parents away , where they would be taken or for what reason . According to the applicant , they indicated that they would either lock her parents in prison or deport them to GPE . Both prospects caused the applicant anguish as she had heard that prisons were horrible both in GPE and in GPE . She also feared that her parents might be subject to the same treatment in GPE that members of her family had endured in GPE .","According to the applicant , no one took care of her after her GPE arrest . She only found MONEY ( about QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) in the apartment , which she used for bus tickets to go to school and for food . The money ran out fast and during DATE of her GPE absence she did not have anything to eat . She suffered insomnia and , when she could sleep , had nightmares . Before her GPE arrest , her mother had been the one to wake her up in the TIME .","She permanently dreaded being herself sent back to GPE , where her relatives were in prison and her grandparents had been made homeless for having opposed the regime .","She alleged that she had gone several times to the police \u2019s office for foreigners , looking for her parents . She had also tried to telephone people in GPE to ask for help . Both steps proved unsuccessful .","The applicant had to ask people in the street how to reach her school as , before the arrest , her father had always taken her there . At some stage during her GPE detention a stray dog bit the applicant on the leg . She did not know what to do or how to seek help . Her mother took her to hospital on DATE , DATE after she was released from detention , fearing that the wound might have become infected .","The Government alleged that it had not been proven that the applicant had been left alone , without an adult carer , during the period in question . The Government stressed that the applicant \u2019s parents had been represented throughout by the same legal representative , who was , moreover , a neighbour and friend . When questioned in the context of the domestic proceedings in the applicant \u2019s case about the exchanges in court on DATE , the lawyer indicated that he had no recollection of them ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant , with her GPE agreement , brought proceedings for damages under LAW before ORG . She directed her claim against the FAC regional office of ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG , and sought to establish the responsibility of the authorities that had left her unattended during her GPE detention in DATE , in breach of LAW .","In a decision of DATE the court invited her to specify the grounds of her claim and to indicate the specific actions , the particular respondent and the type of damage caused to her . She specified that she was seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage stemming from the authorities\u2019 failure to organise support and care for her during her GPE detention .","On DATE the court reclassified her claim under section CARDINAL of ORG . It further invited her to specify the names of the officials against whom she had directed her claim , and to show that she had paid the court fees of CARDINAL , corresponding to PERCENT of the total amount of damages sought . The applicant lowered the value of her claim on DATE , paid the corresponding court fees in the amount of about ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and submitted additional proof to the court .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG terminated the proceedings as it found that the applicant had failed to correct the irregularities in her claim as directed by the court on DATE .","The applicant appealed on CARDINAL DATE to ORG , submitting that the respondents were the legal entities specified in her legal claim of DATE as amended , given that they had been represented by different individuals at different points in time . The appellate court upheld the lower court \u2019s decision on DATE .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , submitting that her claim was directed against the different institutions as legal persons , as she could not know the names of the individual officials who had failed to provide her with care . She also described her condition after her GPE detention . On DATE ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s decision , finding that it had wrongly instructed the applicant to specify individual respondents . It remitted the case to the first - instance court , ORG , for a fresh examination .","On DATE the applicant further specified her claim before ORG , in particular describing her circumstances in the immediate aftermath of her GPE arrest and the continuing psychological trauma which she had suffered as a result . She submitted that during the hearing on DATE on the extension of her GPE detention , the judge had wrongly interpreted her mother \u2019s response to the question posed regarding her care .","A psychiatric and psychological report was prepared in the context of the court proceedings in DATE . The report established that the applicant was depressed and at times aggressive . This was attributed to the shock she had experienced in relation to her GPE detention and the ensuing uncertainty . She showed signs of accumulated tension , fear , worries , disappointment and anger towards the officials who had abandoned her to her own devices following her GPE arrest . She had no interest in her daily life or in the future and had become withdrawn as a result of her loss of confidence in the justice system . CARDINAL additional medical expert reports were prepared in DATE . They found that the applicant was suffering from post - traumatic stress disorder , which was probably the result of what she had gone through after her GPE arrest . The doctors stated in court that no improvement was likely in her case and that her condition was expected to become chronic . Another medical report ordered by the court in DATE confirmed that the applicant was suffering from post - traumatic stress disorder and that , while she had been a healthy and energetic child prior to her GPE arrest , she had experienced frequent bouts of depression thereafter and had succumbed to overwhelming feelings of self - pity , insecurity and futility of effort and engagement .","The applicant \u2019s GPE lawyer , who had attended the hearings relating to their detention in DATE , testified on DATE that he did not know what had happened to the applicant during her GPE arrest ; nor could he remember anything about the circumstances relating to the question and answer in court on DATE concerning her care . On DATE , during the same proceedings , the applicant \u2019s teacher testified that she could not remember the applicant being absent from or having gone hungry at school . The girl had not complained to her about anything at the time .","ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim on DATE , finding that it had not been proven that she had been left alone while her parents had been detained in DATE . The court also held that , in DATE following the court hearing on DATE , the applicant \u2019s mother had not sought to have the record of the hearing rectified , even though it was legally possible to do so .","Furthermore , the court held that on DATE ORG had accepted that the mother had replied in the affirmative to the judge \u2019s question regarding whether there had been anyone to care for the applicant . That question had been transmitted to the applicant \u2019s mother with the assistance of an interpreter . Consequently , the court concluded that it had not been incumbent on the criminal justice system to act in any other way in order to protect the applicant .","The court further accepted fully the conclusions of the psychological reports on the applicant \u2019s state of chronic post - traumatic stress disorder after the DATE events . However , it found that the only evidence supporting the applicant \u2019s claim that she had been left alone in DATE was her GPE testimony and that there were no other pieces of evidence in support of this assertion . Given that the mother had stated during the hearing on her detention that someone had been taking care of the child , the conditions set out in LAW had not been met and , therefore , the institutions involved in the criminal proceedings had not been obliged to pursue steps towards taking the applicant into care .","The applicant appealed to ORG . She again challenged the findings of the lower court about her mother \u2019s reply during the court hearing on DATE . She also submitted that her mother had not been in a position to see the record of the hearing , given that she had been taken back immediately to the remand prison . She further asserted that the authorities had been under an obligation to verify at the time of the arrest on DATE and immediately afterwards whether care had been available to her , and that in any event they should not have waited DATE to enquire about her situation for the first time during the court hearing . She submitted that her current state of health was the direct result of the shock and stress she had endured in connection with the arrest and the lack of provision of care . She paid about ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in court fees .","The appellate court confirmed the lower court \u2019s decision on DATE . It found that , even if the applicant had been left alone after the arrest , responsibility for that could not be attributed to the police , the prosecuting authorities or the court , given that her mother had stated that there had been someone to take care of her . In addition , the post - traumatic stress disorder from which it had been established that she suffered could have been the result of additional factors not directly related to her GPE arrest .","ORG rejected an appeal on points of law by the applicant in a final decision of DATE , finding no grounds for allowing the appeal to be pursued .","The applicant was granted humanitarian status on DATE and refugee status on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144149","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF AKRAM KARIMOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Take proceedings);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant has a wife and CARDINAL children who live in GPE . He is a practising NORP . Since DATE he had regularly gone to GPE for DATE jobs . In DATE the applicant again went to GPE and remained in the GPE region until his arrest on DATE .","On DATE the investigator at ORG , GPE , charged the applicant , in absentia , with incitement to national , racial , ethnic or religious hatred , and producing and disseminating documents containing threats to national security and public order ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( d ) and QUANTITY ( a ) of LAW ) . The decision stated , in particular , that PERSON , an NORP national , had formed an organised criminal group in DATE which a view to disseminating ideas based on NORP religious extremism . According to the decision , the applicant had been involved in the group while working as the head of a bakery and being responsible for providing other members of the group with work and housing .","On DATE the applicant was placed on the list of wanted persons .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s placement in detention . On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of the Bukhara Region issued an international search warrant in respect of the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by police in GPE . The record of arrest , drawn up on the same date and signed by the applicant , stated that he had been arrested in accordance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a person wanted by the NORP authorities on suspicion of criminal offences under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( d ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW .","On DATE the applicant was questioned and stated as follows . In GPE he had worked as a builder . As it had become difficult to find a job there , in DATE he went to GPE for the first time to look for a job . For DATE he lived in LOC unofficially , and he then returned to GPE . DATE he went to GPE DATE for DATE , during which he worked unofficially on construction sites in LOC . He never applied for authorisation in respect of his temporary stays in GPE . In DATE he went again to GPE . He went to the village of GPE , in LOC , where he found lodgings in a mobile home with CARDINAL other builders . In DATE he worked at a construction site in the town of ORG . During DATE he had occasional jobs in GPE , including some building work for its residents , and cleaning the streets . On DATE the applicant went to the GPE railway station in GPE as he wanted to return to GPE . He bought a ticket to LAW , where he planned to buy tickets for the remainder of the journey . However , before he could board the train he was approached by CARDINAL men in civilian clothes who told him they were police officers and presented their badges . They informed him that he was on a wanted list in GPE and asked him to go with them to the police station located near the railway station , which he did . According to the applicant , when he spoke on the telephone with his wife in DATE , she had said that police officers had asked her about his whereabouts , but they had not explained why they were looking for him . In GPE he had not been persecuted for political reasons or convicted of any criminal offences , and he did not apply for asylum in GPE . The applicant stated that he did not know in relation to what imputed offence he had been placed on the wanted list .","On DATE the NORP ORG received from ORG a request for the applicant to be detained pending receipt of its extradition request .","Also on DATE , the prosecutor of LOC of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on the ground of LAW ( \u201c the FAC \u201d ) . In that decision the prosecutor referred to the following elements : the applicant had been arrested in GPE on suspicion of a number of criminal offences on the basis of an international search warrant issued by the NORP authorities ; ORG had issued an arrest warrant in respect of him ; the offences imputed to the applicant were punishable in GPE by DATE of imprisonment ; and the applicant had gone into hiding . The decision did not specify a term for the applicant \u2019s detention . The applicant was immediately placed in GPE no . CARDINAL in GPE . He was not provided with a copy of the prosecutor \u2019s decision .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c FMS \u201d ) informed the prosecutor of GPE that the applicant had not applied for asylum in GPE .","On DATE the GPE FMS informed the prosecutor of LOC of GPE that the applicant had applied neither for NORP citizenship nor asylum . He had had residence registration in ORG DATE and CARDINAL DATE , but he had not been registered in GPE since then .","On DATE the GPE Region FMS informed the prosecutor of GPE that the applicant was not a NORP citizen and nor had he applied for asylum , and that he had had residence registration in ORG DATE and CARDINAL DATE , but had not been registered in GPE since then .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel appealed against the detention order of DATE . She argued , in particular , that it was unlawful as the detention had been ordered by a prosecutor and not by a court , and that LAW was inapplicable to the applicant at that stage of the proceedings .","On DATE the ORG informed ORG that the applicant had had residence registration in ORG DATE and DATE . He had neither acquired NORP citizenship nor applied for asylum .","On DATE ORG of GPE received a request for the applicant \u2019s extradition from the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE . The request contained assurances that the applicant would not be persecuted on grounds of his political convictions , ethnic origin , religion or nationality ; that he would be provided with legal assistance ; and that the criminal proceedings against him would be conducted in full compliance with the laws of GPE . Furthermore , the applicant would not be extradited to CARDINAL ORG or be subject to criminal proceedings unrelated to the offences in respect of which his extradition was sought .","Also on DATE , the prosecutor of LOC of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s detention during the extradition proceedings . He referred to the extradition request received from the NORP authorities and relied on Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of Code of Criminal Procedure . The decision did not specify a term for the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel submitted an additional statement of appeal against the detention order of DATE . She complained , in particular , that GPE had not ratified LAW DATE to ORG and , therefore , in relations between GPE and GPE the old version of LAW should be applied , without the amendments made by LAW . Therefore , the applicant should have been released on DATE , a month after his arrest , as provided by LAW .","On DATE , ORG of GPE postponed the hearing on the appeal lodged by the applicant \u2019s counsel to CARDINAL DATE in order to allow time for the applicant to receive a copy of the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant received a copy of the said decision .","On DATE the Preobrazhenskiy District Court of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s counsel \u2019s appeal against the detention order of DATE . The court found that the applicant had been arrested in accordance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that on DATE he had been detained pending receipt of the extradition request on the basis of LAW .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE to ORG . She maintained , inter alia , that LOC had failed to address the arguments she had raised in the appeal statement .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , referring to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , Articles CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Minsk Convention , and the DATE LAW . The court found the prosecutor \u2019s request for the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention well - founded as his extradition had been requested in relation to charges concerning offences punishable under both NORP and NORP law ; the applicant was a national of GPE with no permanent place of residence in GPE ; and he had tried to abscond from the NORP authorities . The court also noted that the extradition check in respect of the applicant had not been completed .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel appealed against that decision .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It also found that ORG of GPE duly addressed the arguments raised by the applicant \u2019s counsel on appeal .","On DATE the prosecutor of LOC of GPE , referring to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG , ordered the applicant \u2019s release because the DATE maximum period of detention permitted by domestic law had expired .","Also on DATE , ORG office refused to extradite the applicant to GPE , finding that the offences punishable under LAW of GPE were not regarded as criminal offences under NORP criminal law . In so far as he was charged with offences punishable under LAW ( d ) of LAW of GPE , there was no corpus delicti in the applicant \u2019s actions for the purposes of LAW ( incitement to hatred and hostility , and degrading treatment ) .","On DATE police officers escorted the applicant from the GPE to the LOC police station , where the prosecutor \u2019s release order of CARDINAL September CARDINAL was handed to him . However , the applicant was immediately re - arrested on suspicion of a breach of the residence rules under LAW , and administrative removal proceedings were initiated in respect of him .","In the records of the administrative offence and the administrative arrest , signed by the applicant , both dated DATE , he stated that he did not agree with the arrest .","By a telegram of DATE the Prosecutor of the Russian Federation informed the prosecutor of GPE that on DATE the NORP authorities\u2019 request for the extradition of the applicant had been refused . The telegram further stated that it was necessary to take a decision regarding the applicant \u2019s further detention and to verify the legality of his presence on the territory of GPE .","On DATE the ORG of GPE refused to accept the case for examination because the case file contained no information about the outcome of either the extradition proceedings or the refugee - status proceedings","On DATE the case file on the applicant \u2019s administrative offence was submitted to ORG .","In written pleadings filed with ORG of GPE the applicant \u2019s counsel argued that the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE would be unlawful . She stated , in particular , that the applicant , as a person accused of participation in a banned religious activity , faced torture and other forms of ill - treatment if expelled to GPE . The applicant \u2019s counsel also referred to the ORG \u2019s case - law concerning expulsion to GPE and recent reports by international NGOs , according to which detainees charged with banned religious activities were subjected to systematic torture and other forms of ill - treatment in GPE . She further stated that the applicant had applied for refugee status in GPE and the proceedings were still pending ; in accordance with LAW of DATE and the DATE LAW , the applicant could not be removed from GPE until the end of those proceedings .","On DATE the ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of a breach of the residence rules , imposed a fine in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ) and ordered his administrative removal from GPE . It found , in particular , that the applicant had arrived in GPE on DATE with a view to finding a job . However , he had made no attempt to regularise his stay in GPE by applying either for a temporary residence permit or for a work permit . Furthermore , he had not left GPE upon the expiry of the maximum DATE period for which foreign nationals who did not require a visa were authorised to stay in GPE . The applicant admitted at the hearing that he had been residing in GPE unlawfully , but stated that for DATE of time he had been unable to regularise his situation because his employer had had possession of his documents . However , he had received his passport at DATE and had still not taken any steps to regularise his residence . The court further stated that when imposing the penalty it had taken into account the applicant \u2019s situation , including his lack of a stable income and residence in GPE , the length of his stay in GPE without a permit , and the fact that he had been aware that a permit was required .","NORP The court found that the applicant \u2019s allegations regarding a risk of ill - treatment in the event of his removal to GPE were \u201c based on assumptions \u201d and were \u201c not corroborated by the case - file materials \u201d . It also dismissed the applicant \u2019s counsel \u2019s argument that the applicant could not be subject to administrative removal because he had a pending application for refugee status . The court stated in this connection that on CARDINAL DATE the GPE FMS had dismissed his application and , as of the date of the hearing , the applicant had not appealed against that decision . The court further held that , taking into account the applicant \u2019s financial situation and also the need to ensure his removal from the territory of GPE , the applicant was to be placed in custody until the \u201c resolution of the matter relating to his administrative removal \u201d . Following that decision the applicant was placed in a detention centre for foreigners in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel appealed against the decision of DATE to ORG . She reiterated the arguments she had advanced before the first - instance court and complained that the first - instance court had not made an adequate assessment of the risk of ill - treatment to which the applicant might be subjected if he was removed to GPE . She pointed out that ORG of GPE had refused to examine the reports by international NGOs relating to the human rights situation in GPE and had ignored the ORG \u2019s position on the matter .","On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG .","On DATE the ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request for the application of interim measures under LAW and indicated to the ORG that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE ORG instructed the prosecutor of GPE to comply with the ORG \u2019s indications regarding interim measures under LAW .","On DATE the prosecutor of GPE instructed the prosecutor of LOC of GPE to apply to ORG of GPE for the suspension of the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE in view of the application by ORG CARDINAL of ORG .","On DATE the prosecutor of LOC of GPE requested ORG of GPE to suspend the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE following the application by ORG CARDINAL of ORG .","On DATE , the GPE FMS informed ORG that the applicant was not registered in the migration register and nor had he been issued with a work permit .","Also on DATE , ORG upheld the decision of DATE , finding it lawful and justified . It held that the first - instance court had been right in finding that the applicant \u2019s actions had constituted an administrative offence . The appeal court further dismissed the argument that the applicant could not be subject to administrative detention in view of his application for asylum as ( i ) he had applied for asylum only after being arrested ; and ( ii ) the reasons he had put forward for his reluctance to return to GPE did not constitute well - founded fears of persecution on grounds of his religion , nationality , ethnic origin , belonging to a particular social group , or political convictions .","DATE . On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the suspension of the execution of the decision of DATE pending the examination of the application by the prosecutor of LOC of GPE .","On DATE ORG returned the application by the prosecutor of LOC of GPE without examination on the ground that under LAW the prosecutor was not authorised to apply for the suspension of a final judicial decision .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel sent an application to ORG of GPE pursuant to LAW offences . She sought clarification regarding the execution of the decision of DATE in the light of the application by ORG CARDINAL of ORG . ORG of GPE received the application on DATE . In the absence of a response , the applicant \u2019s counsel resubmitted the application on DATE .","On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant \u2019s counsel informing him that the court found that there were no grounds to consider her application under LAW . Therefore , it was to be examined as a general application . The court advised the applicant \u2019s counsel to contact the competent executive authorities with her queries concerning the execution of the decision of DATE . The letter was sent on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied for refugee status in GPE .","On DATE the GPE ORG refused to grant him refugee status . The ORG noted that although the applicant had substantiated his application by an alleged risk of persecution on religious grounds , he stated that he had left GPE for economic reasons . However , he feared that if he returned there the NORP law - enforcement agencies would extract from him under torture a confession to crimes he had not committed . It further analysed at length the applicable NORP laws on the prohibition of torture and freedom of religion , as well as information on the co - existence of various religions in GPE . The ORG noted that the applicant had not left GPE on any of the grounds listed in section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . Moreover , it appeared that his wish to not return to GPE was based not on a fear of being persecuted on grounds of religion , nationality , ethnic origin , belonging to a particular social group , or political convictions , but rather on his fear of being subjected to punishment for the offences he was charged with in GPE . Therefore , he did not meet the criteria set out in LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to the ORG .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It endorsed the reasoning of that decision and added that although , according to the applicant , DATE he had regularly come to GPE for DATE jobs , he had only had a work permit for the period DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG of GPE . He argued that as criminal proceedings had been instituted against him in GPE , his fears of persecution on religious grounds were well - grounded .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court noted that although the human rights situation in GPE was \u201c ambiguous \u201d , it was a party to numerous international treaties on the protection of human rights and regularly submitted reports to the ORG on its compliance with such treaties . The court further stated that a decision concerning refugee status should be taken not on the basis of the general situation in the country , but on the basis of the applicant \u2019s specific circumstances . The ORG had thus been right to dismiss the application as the applicant had failed to provide any evidence that in the event of his return to GPE there was a real risk of his being subjected to ill - treatment .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG . The appeal hearing was scheduled for DATE .","The ORG has not been informed of the outcome of the appeal proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150819","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"VP-KULJETUS OY AND OTHERS v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant company , ORG , is a NORP limited liability company which has its seat in PERSON . The second and third applicants , PERSON Ky\u00f6sti PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who live in GPE and GPE respectively . The applicants are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The second and third applicants are the owners and the only board members of the applicant company . The applicant company was in the transport business in GPE . Before returning from GPE , the tanks of the company trucks were normally filled with diesel and legally imported into GPE . Such diesel was tax and customs free and there was no obligation to inform the authorities about it . However , such diesel could not be used in any other vehicles unless customs and excise duties were paid .","DATE some of the diesel brought to GPE in the applicant company \u2019s trucks was removed from the tanks and transferred to a container situated on the company LOC . From there the diesel was further transferred to other company cars , as well as to the personal cars of the second and third applicants . No customs and excise duties or other fees were paid .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the applicant company , jointly with the second and third applicants , to pay customs duties , valueadded tax and excise in the amount of CARDINAL ( ORG ) for DATE , DATE and DATE . These import taxes were levied because the diesel imported from GPE had been removed from the tanks of the trucks and transferred to a container for purposes other than the repair of the vehicles in question . Apparently this decision was not appealed against .","On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the second and third applicants for aggravated tax fraud ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 veropetos , grovt skattebedr\u00e4geri ) concerning the time DATE . They were accused of aggravated tax fraud because , as board members of the applicant company together with a third person and in their personal capacity , they had participated in tax evasion by transferring QUANTITY of diesel imported from GPE to other cars without paying any import taxes , namely customs duties , value - added tax and excise . The amount of evaded taxes had totalled ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) convicted the second and third applicants as charged and sentenced both of them to an CARDINAL suspended prison sentence . They were ordered to pay jointly to the customs authorities EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL plus interest as compensation for different taxes evaded during DATE , DATE and DATE .","NORP By letter dated DATE the second and third applicants appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) , requesting that the ORG judgment be quashed .","On DATE ORG upheld the ORG judgment .","NORP By letter dated DATE the second and third applicants appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , requesting that the charges be dismissed and the compensation claims be rejected .","NORP By letter dated DATE the second and third applicants referred to a recent case of the ORG concerning ne bis in idem and requested ORG to take it into account as an alternative to their primary claims .","On DATE ORG refused the second and third applicants leave to appeal .","On DATE ORG ( Ajoneuvohallintokeskus , Fordonsf\u00f6rvaltningscentralen ) , the current ORG ( ORG turvallisuusvirasto , Trafiks\u00e4kerhetsverket ) , imposed on the applicants a fuel fee ( polttoainemaksu , br\u00e4nsleavgift ) and an additional tax ( lis\u00e4vero , till\u00e4ggsskatt ) concerning DATE for having used more leniently taxed diesel than diesel oil in their vehicles without giving any prior notification to the authorities . The fee and the additional tax for the applicant company amounted to LAW . The second applicant was ordered to pay ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the third applicant ORG CARDINAL respectively in fuel fees and additional tax for having used untaxed diesel in their private cars .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , claiming that the taxes and fees should be quashed as they had no legal basis .","On DATE ORG decided to stay the order to pay the above fuel fees and additional taxes until ORG could decide on the enforcement of the taxes in question .","On DATE ORG stayed the attachment of the above fees and taxes by allowing a seizure but prohibiting their sale . This stay on enforcement was to remain in force until the final decision in the case .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG appeals .","By letter dated DATE the applicants appealed further to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG .","During the written phase , ORG asked the parties ex officio to comment on the ORG \u2019s recent judgment PERSON GPE in the context of the present case . The tax authorities affirmed in their statement of CARDINAL DATE that the subject of the tax fraud proceedings and the obligation to pay fuel fees did not concern the same set of events but events which were distinct in time and place . The applicants argued in their submission of DATE that all sanctions imposed in the case ( taxes , fees , order to pay compensation and criminal sanctions ) were based on the same set of facts .","On DATE ORG granted the applicants leave to appeal but rejected their appeals . It thus upheld ORG decisions . It found that the fuel fees concerning DATE and DATE had been imposed threefold and those concerning DATE had been increased by PERCENT . The second and third applicants had been convicted of aggravated tax fraud for failure to pay import taxes on diesel imported DATE by a judgment that had become final on DATE . As the criminal proceedings concerned failure to pay import taxes on the imported diesel and the fuel fees concerned the use of such diesel after the importation into GPE , it was not a question of the same matter . The ne bis in idem principle had thus not been violated .","According to LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen ; as amended by Acts no . DATE and no . ORG ) , a person who ( CARDINAL ) gives a taxation authority false information on a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) files a tax return concealing a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) for the purpose of avoiding tax , fails to observe a duty pertaining to taxation , influencing the assessment of tax , or ( CARDINAL ) acts otherwise fraudulently and thereby causes or attempts to cause a tax not to be assessed , or too low a tax to be assessed or a tax to be unduly refunded , shall be sentenced for tax fraud to a fine or to imprisonment for a period of DATE . If by the tax fraud ( CARDINAL ) considerable financial benefit is sought or ( CARDINAL ) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical manner and the tax fraud is aggravated when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated tax fraud to imprisonment for a period DATE .","If a more leniently taxed oil than diesel oil is used as motor fuel , prior notice of such intended use must be given and additional tax and\/or a fuel fee shall be paid . According to LAW ( laki polttoainemaksusta , lagen om br\u00e4nsleavgift , Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , which was in force until DATE , the fuel fee was not collected on the fuel contained in the tank of a vehicle when the vehicle was imported . If the use of a more leniently taxed fuel than diesel oil was discovered in a vehicle during a time in respect of which no prior notification had been given , the fuel fee collected was to be CARDINAL times the normal amount . The current LAW no . CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE , contains the same provisions except for the increased amount of the fee . The fee shall be increased by a maximum of PERCENT if no prior notification has been made , by a maximum of PERCENT if the use is repetitive and at most it can be doubled in aggravated cases ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155353","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CHIRAGOV AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Article 35-3 - Ratione loci);Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive obligations;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for home;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Christos Rozakis;Corneliu B\u00eersan;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Egidijus K\u016bris;Elisabet Fura;Fran\u00e7oise Tulkens;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Nicolas Bratza;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano;Sverre Erik Jebens;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["At the time of the demise of the GPE , the GPE - GPE ( \u201c the NKAO \u201d ) was an autonomous province of GPE ( \u201c the GPE SSR \u201d ) . Situated within the territory of the GPE SSR , it covered CARDINAL sq . km . There was at that time no common border between Nagorno - Karabakh ( known as Artsakh by its NORP name ) and the NORP Soviet GPE ( \u201c the NORP SSR \u201d ) , which were separated by NORP territory , at the shortest distance by the district of Lachin , including a strip of land often referred to as the \u201c NORP corridor \u201d , QUANTITY wide .","According to the GPE census of DATE , the ORG had a population of CARDINAL , consisting of PERCENT ethnic NORP and PERCENT ethnic NORP , with NORP and NORP minorities . The district of Lachin had a different demographic , the great majority of its population of CARDINAL being NORP and NORP . PERCENT were NORP .","NORP In DATE demonstrations were held in PERSON , the regional capital of the ORG , as well as in the NORP capital of GPE , demanding the incorporation of GPE - Karabakh into GPE . On DATE the NORP of the ORG made a request to ORG of the NORP SSR , the GPE SSR and the GPE that the NKAO be allowed to secede from GPE and join GPE . The request was rejected by ORG of the GPE on DATE . In DATE it was also rejected by ORG whereas its counterpart in GPE voted in favour of unification .","NORP Throughout DATE the demonstrations calling for unification continued . The district of Lachin was subjected to roadblocks and attacks . The clashes led to many casualties , and refugees , numbering CARDINAL on both sides , flowed between GPE and GPE . As a consequence , on QUANTITY DATE ORG placed the ORG under GPE \u2019s direct rule . However , on DATE , control of the province was returned to GPE . DATE , on DATE , ORG of the NORP SSR and the ORG regional council adopted a joint resolution , \u201c On the reunification of GPE - Karabakh with GPE \u201d . As a result of this resolution a joint budget for the CARDINAL entities was established in DATE and a decision to include ORG in the upcoming NORP elections was taken in DATE .","NORP In DATE , following an escalation of the conflict , NORP troops arrived in GPE and GPE - Karabakh , and the latter province was placed under a state of emergency . Violent clashes between NORP and NORP continued , however , with the occasional intervention by NORP forces .","On DATE GPE declared independence from GPE . This was subsequently formalised by means of the adoption of LAW on ORG of DATE . On DATE the NORP of the ORG announced the establishment of ORG ( hereinafter the \u201c NKR \u201d ) , consisting of the territory of the ORG and the NORP district of GPE , and declared that it was no longer under NORP jurisdiction . On CARDINAL DATE the NORP parliament abolished the autonomy previously enjoyed by PERSON . In a referendum organised in GPE - Karabakh on DATE , PERCENT of those participating voted in favour of secession . However , the NORP population boycotted the referendum . In DATE , GPE was dissolved and NORP troops began to withdraw from the region . Military control of ORG was rapidly passing to PERSON . On DATE the \u201c NKR \u201d , having regard to the results of the referendum , reaffirmed its independence from GPE .","In DATE the conflict gradually escalated into full - scale war . The ethnic NORP conquered several NORP villages , leading to at least CARDINAL deaths and the departure of the population .","The district of Lachin , in particular the town of ORG , was attacked many times . The applicants claimed that the attacks were made by troops of both PERSON and GPE . The respondent Government maintained , however , that GPE did not participate in the events , but that military action was carried out by the defence forces of GPE - Karabakh and volunteer groups . For DATE in DATE the roads to Lachin were under the control of forces of NORP ethnicity who manned and controlled checkpoints . The town of PERSON became completely isolated . In mid - May CARDINAL PERSON was subjected to aerial bombardment , in the course of which many houses were destroyed .","On DATE , realising that troops were advancing rapidly towards ORG , villagers fled . The following day the town of PERSON was captured by forces of NORP ethnicity . It appears that the town was looted and burned in DATE following the takeover . According to information obtained by the respondent Government from the authorities of the \u201c NKR \u201d , the city of ORG and the surrounding villages of Aghbulag , Chirag and PERSON were completely destroyed during the military conflict .","NORP In DATE the NORP parliament decreed that it would not sign any international agreement stipulating that GPE - Karabakh remain a part of GPE .","According to a Human Rights Watch ( HRW ) report ( \u201c DATE GPE - Karabakh \u201d , DATE ) , the capture of the district of ORG created CARDINAL NORP displaced persons , many of them of NORP descent .","Following the capture of Lachin , ethnic NORP forces continued to conquer CARDINAL more NORP districts surrounding GPE - Karabakh ( Kelbajar , PERSON , PERSON and GPE ) and substantial parts of CARDINAL others ( PERSON and PERSON ) .","On DATE a ceasefire agreement ( the Bishkek Protocol ) was signed by GPE , GPE and the \u201c NKR \u201d following NORP mediation . It came into effect on DATE","According to the above - mentioned ORG report , DATE an estimated CARDINAL,CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL,CARDINAL NORP were forced out of ORG , GPE , and the CARDINAL NORP districts surrounding GPE - Karabakh . According to information from NORP authorities , CARDINAL NORP refugees from GPE and CARDINAL internally displaced persons ( from regions in GPE bordering GPE ) have been registered .","According to the respondent Government , the \u201c ORG \u201d controls CARDINAL sq . km of the former ORG . While it is debated how much of the CARDINAL partly conquered districts is occupied by the \u201c NKR \u201d , it appears that the occupied territory of the CARDINAL surrounding districts in total amounts to QUANTITY . km .","Estimates of DATE \u2019s population of GPE - Karabakh vary CARDINAL people , PERCENT being of NORP ethnicity . Virtually no Azerbaijanis remain . The district of ORG has a population of CARDINAL NORP .","No political settlement of the conflict has so far been reached . The self - proclaimed independence of the \u201c NKR \u201d has not been recognised by any ORG or international organisation . Recurring breaches of the DATE ceasefire agreement along the borders have led to the loss of many lives and the rhetoric of officials remains hostile . Moreover , according to international reports , tension has heightened in DATE and military expenditure in GPE and GPE has increased significantly .","Several proposals for a peaceful solution of the conflict have failed . Negotiations have been carried out under the auspices of the OSCE ( Organization for Security and Co - operation in LOC ) and its so - called ORG . In GPE in DATE the ORG \u2019s CARDINAL Co - Chairs \u2013 GPE , GPE and GPE \u2013 presented to GPE and GPE a set of Basic Principles for a settlement . The Basic Principles , which have since been updated , call , inter alia , for the return of the territories surrounding GPE - Karabakh to NORP control , an interim status for GPE - Karabakh providing guarantees for security and self - governance , a corridor linking GPE to GPE - Karabakh , a future determination of the final legal status of GPE - Karabakh through a legally binding referendum , the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their former places of residence , and international security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation . The idea is that the endorsement of these principles by GPE and GPE would enable the drafting of a comprehensive and detailed settlement . Following intensive shuttle diplomacy by ORG diplomats and a number of meetings between the presidents of the CARDINAL countries in DATE , the process lost momentum in DATE . So far the parties to the conflict have not signed a formal agreement on ORG .","On DATE ORG presented a \u201c Report of ORG - Chairs\u2019 Field Assessment Mission to GPE Nagorno - Karabakh \u201d , the executive summary of which reads as follows :","\u201c ORG conducted a Field Assessment Mission to the CARDINAL occupied territories of GPE surrounding GPE - Karabakh ( NK ) from DATE , to assess the overall situation there , including humanitarian and other aspects . ORG were joined by ORG Chairman - in - Office and his team , which provided logistical support , and by CARDINAL experts from the ORG and CARDINAL member of the DATE OSCE Fact - Finding Mission . This was the first mission by the international community to the territories DATE , and the first visit by ORG personnel in DATE .","In travelling QUANTITY throughout the territories , ORG saw stark evidence of the disastrous consequences of the GPE - Karabakh conflict and the failure to reach a peaceful settlement . Towns and villages that existed before the conflict are abandoned and almost entirely in ruins . While no reliable figures exist , the overall population is CARDINAL persons , living in small settlements and in the towns of ORG . ORG assess that there has been no significant growth in the population since DATE . The settlers , for the most part ethnic NORP who were relocated to the territories from elsewhere in GPE , live in precarious conditions , with poor infrastructure , little economic activity , and limited access to public services . Many lack identity documents . For administrative purposes , the CARDINAL territories , the former LOC , and other areas have been incorporated into CARDINAL new districts .","The harsh reality of the situation in the territories has reinforced the view of the CoChairs that the status quo is unacceptable , and that only a peaceful , negotiated settlement can bring the prospect of a better , more certain future to the people who used to live in the territories and those who live there now . The Co - Chairs urge the leaders of all the parties to avoid any activities in the territories and other disputed areas that would prejudice a final settlement or change the character of these areas . They also recommend that measures be taken to preserve cemeteries and places of worship in the territories and to clarify the status of settlers who lack identity documents . ORG intend to undertake further missions to other areas affected by the FAC conflict , and to include in such missions experts from relevant international agencies that would be involved in implementing a peace settlement . \u201d","On DATE the Presidents of the Co - Chair countries of the GPE group issued a joint statement on the GPE - Karabakh conflict :","\u201c We , the Presidents of ORG countries \u2013 GPE , GPE , and GPE \u2013 remain committed to helping the parties to the Nagorno - Karabakh conflict reach a lasting and peaceful settlement . We express our deep regret that , rather than trying to find a solution based upon mutual interests , the parties have continued to seek CARDINAL - sided advantage in the negotiation process .","We continue to firmly believe that the elements outlined in the statements of our countries over DATE must be the foundation of any fair and lasting settlement to the ORG - Karabakh conflict . These elements should be seen as an integrated whole , as any attempt to select some elements over others would make it impossible to achieve a balanced solution .","We reiterate that only a negotiated settlement can lead to peace , stability , and reconciliation , opening opportunities for regional development and cooperation . The use of military force that has already created the current situation of confrontation and instability will not resolve the conflict . A renewal of hostilities would be disastrous for the population of the region , resulting in loss of life , more destruction , additional refugees , and enormous financial costs . We strongly urge the leaders of all the sides to recommit to the GPE principles , particularly those relating to the non - use of force or the threat of force , territorial integrity , and equal rights and self - determination of peoples . We also appeal to them to refrain from any actions or rhetoric that could raise tension in the region and lead to escalation of the conflict . The leaders should prepare their people for peace , not war .","Our countries stand ready to assist the sides , but the responsibility for putting an end to the Nagorno - Karabakh conflict remains with them . We strongly believe that further delay in reaching a balanced agreement on the framework for a comprehensive peace is unacceptable , and urge the leaders of GPE and GPE to focus with renewed energy on the issues that remain unresolved . \u201d","The applicants have stated that they are NORP who lived in the district of Lachin , where their ancestors had lived for DATE . On CARDINAL DATE they were forced to flee from the district to GPE . They have since been unable to return to their homes and properties because of NORP occupation .","Mr PERSON was born in DATE . He lived in the district of Lachin . In the original application , it was mentioned that he lived in the village of GPE , but in the reply to the Government \u2019s observations it was stated that his correct home village was PERSON , where he worked as a teacher for DATE . He claimed that his possessions included a large furnished house of QUANTITY . m , CARDINAL beehives , CARDINAL head of small livestock and CARDINAL head of big livestock , and CARDINAL handmade carpets .","On DATE , together with the applicants\u2019 reply to the respondent Government \u2019s observations , he submitted an official certificate ( \u201c technical passport \u201d ) , dated DATE , according to which a QUANTITY , CARDINAL-bedroom dwelling - house with a total area of CARDINAL sq . m ( living area CARDINAL sq . m and subsidiary area QUANTITY . m ) and a storehouse of QUANTITY . m , situated on a plot of land of CARDINAL sq . m , had been registered in his name .","He also presented a statement by CARDINAL former neighbours , who affirmed that he owned a QUANTITY , CARDINAL-room dwelling - house of CARDINAL sq . m and a car , as well as a statement by PERSON and PERSON , representatives of ORG of GPE , who stated that Mr PERSON had used to live in GPE .","Before the Grand Chamber , the applicant submitted , inter alia , a marriage certificate according to which he was born in PERSON and married there in DATE , birth certificates for his son and daughter , both born in PERSON in DATE and DATE respectively , as well as a DATE letter and a DATE employment book issued by ORG , showing that he worked as a teacher in PERSON .","Mr PERSON was born in DATE . He lived in the district of Lachin . In the original application , it was mentioned that he lived in the village of GPE , but in the reply to the Government \u2019s observations it was stated that his correct home village was PERSON , where he worked as a teacher for DATE . He claimed that his possessions included a large furnished house of QUANTITY sq . m , a new \u201c FAC car , CARDINAL head of small livestock and CARDINAL head of big livestock , and CARDINAL handmade carpets .","On DATE he submitted a technical passport dated DATE , according to which a QUANTITY , CARDINAL - bedroom dwelling - house with a total area of CARDINAL sq . m ( living area CARDINAL sq . m and subsidiary area QUANTITY . m ) and a storehouse of QUANTITY . m , situated on a plot of land of CARDINAL sq . m , had been registered in his name .","He also presented a statement by CARDINAL former neighbours , who affirmed that he owned a QUANTITY dwelling - house with CARDINAL rooms , as well as a statement by PERSON and PERSON , representatives of ORG of GPE , who stated that Mr PERSON had used to live in GPE .","NORP Before FAC , the applicant submitted , inter alia , a marriage certificate according to which he was born in PERSON and married there in DATE , birth certificates for his son and CARDINAL daughters , all born in PERSON in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , as well as a GPE passport issued in DATE , indicating PERSON as place of birth and containing a DATE registration stamp designating PERSON as place of residence .","Mr PERSON was born in PERSON in DATE . In DATE he graduated with a degree in engineering from ORG in GPE . In DATE , while still studying in GPE , he visited the town of ORG and was given a QUANTITY . m plot of land by the ORG . He claimed that he built a CARDINAL - bedroom house with a garage on it and lived there with his wife and children until he was forced to leave in DATE . There were also some cattle sheds . He also owned a car repair business called \u201c Auto Service \u201d , a shop and a caf\u00e9 , which were situated on a further QUANTITY . m of land that he owned . In addition , he had CARDINAL cows , CARDINAL lambs and CARDINAL sheep .","Mr Gebrayilov had been unable to return to ORG since his departure in DATE . In DATE NORP friends went to Lachin and videotaped the condition of the houses in the town . According to the applicant , he could see from the video that his house had been burnt down . He had also been informed by people who left PERSON after him that his house had been burnt down by NORP forces DATE after he had left ORG .","On DATE PERSON submitted a technical passport dated DATE , according to which a QUANTITY , CARDINAL - bedroom dwelling - house with a total area of CARDINAL sq . m ( living area QUANTITY . m and subsidiary area QUANTITY . m ) , situated on a plot of land of QUANTITY . m , had been registered in his name .","He also presented a statement by CARDINAL former neighbours , who affirmed that he owned a CARDINAL - storey house with CARDINAL rooms , as well as a statement by PERSON , representative of ORG of GPE , who stated that PERSON had used to live in his personal house in PERSON .","Before the Grand Chamber , the applicant submitted , inter alia , a birth certificate and a marriage certificate according to which he was born in PERSON and married there in DATE , birth certificates for his daughter and CARDINAL sons , all born in ORG in DATE , CARDINAL and DATE respectively , as well as an army book issued in DATE .","Mr PERSON was born in DATE in the village of Aghbulag in the district of Lachin . He worked there as a teacher for DATE . He claimed that his possessions included a large furnished house of QUANTITY sq . m , a new \u201c FAC car , CARDINAL head of small livestock and CARDINAL head of big livestock , and CARDINAL handmade carpets .","On DATE he submitted a technical passport dated CARDINAL DATE , according to which a DATE , CARDINAL - bedroom dwelling - house with a total area of CARDINAL sq . m ( living area QUANTITY . m and subsidiary area QUANTITY . m ) and a storehouse of CARDINAL sq . m , situated on a plot of land of CARDINAL sq . m , had been registered in his name .","He also presented a statement by CARDINAL former neighbours , who affirmed that he owned a QUANTITY , CARDINAL - room dwelling - house as well as a stall for livestock and subsidiary buildings , as well as a statement by PERSON , representative of ORG of GPE , who stated that Mr GPE had used to live in his personal house in Aghbulag .","Before the Grand Chamber , the applicant submitted a birth certificate , a GPE passport issued in DATE and an employment book issued by ORG , indicating that he was born in Aghbulag and had worked as a teacher and school director in that village DATE .","Mr PERSON was born in DATE in the village of GPE in the district of Lachin . After graduating with a degree in engineering from ORG in GPE in DATE , he returned to the town of ORG where he was employed as an engineer and , from DATE , as chief engineer at ORG . He claimed that he owned and lived in a twostorey , CARDINAL - bedroom house in ORG which he had built himself . The house was situated at no . CARDINAL , PERSON , ORG , PERSON . Mr PERSON submitted that the current market value of the house would be MONEY ( ORG ) . He also owned the land around his house and had a share ( QUANTITY ) in a collective farm in GPE . Furthermore , he owned some land by means of \u201c collective ownership \u201d .","On DATE he submitted a technical passport dated DATE , according to which a QUANTITY dwelling - house with a total area of QUANTITY . m ( living area QUANTITY . m and subsidiary area QUANTITY . m ) , situated on a plot of land of CARDINAL sq . m , had been registered in his name .","He also presented a statement by CARDINAL former neighbours , who affirmed that he owned a QUANTITY , CARDINAL - room dwelling - house , as well as a statement by PERSON , representative of ORG of GPE , who stated that PERSON had used to live in his own house at CARDINAL PERSON , PERSON .","Before the Grand Chamber , the applicant submitted , inter alia , a marriage certificate according to which he was born in GPE and married there in DATE , birth certificates for his CARDINAL daughters , born in GPE in DATE and in ORG in DATE respectively , a birth certificate for his son , registered as having been born in GPE in DATE , as well as an army book issued in DATE and an employment book dated in DATE . He explained that , while his son had in fact been born in GPE , it was normal under the GPE propiska system to record a child as having been born at the GPE registered place of residence .","Mr PERSON was born in the town of Lachin in DATE and died on DATE . On DATE , at the time of submitting the present application , he stated that , when he was forced to leave on CARDINAL DATE , he had been living at holding no . CARDINAL , PERSON Street , apt ORG in the town of ORG , a property he owned and which included a CARDINAL - storey residential family house built in DATE with a surface of CARDINAL sq . m and a yard area of CARDINAL sq . m. He also claimed that he owned a further site of CARDINAL sq . m on that street . Annexed to the application was a technical passport dated DATE , according to which a QUANTITY house with a yard , of the mentioned sizes , had been registered in his name .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representatives submitted , however , that he had been living at CARDINAL PERSON Street in Lachin . Still , he owned the CARDINAL properties on ORG . Attached to these submissions were a statement by CARDINAL former neighbours and a statement by PERSON , representative of ORG of GPE , who stated that PERSON had used to live in his own house at H. Abdullayev Street , Lachin . Attached were also a decision of CARDINAL DATE by GPE NORP of ORG to allocate the above - mentioned plot of QUANTITY . m to the applicant and several invoices for animal feed , building materials and building subsidies allegedly used during the construction of his properties .","On DATE Mr PERSON , the son of the applicant , stated that the family had used to live at FAC but that , on some unspecified date , the name and numbering of the street had been changed and their address was thereafter PERSON Street . Thus , the CARDINAL addresses mentioned above referred to the same property .","Before the Grand Chamber , the applicant \u2019s representatives submitted , inter alia , a birth certificate and a marriage certificate according to which he was born in PERSON and married there in DATE , a birth certificate for his son , born in GPE in the district of ORG in DATE , as well as an army book issued in DATE .","On the issue of whether GPE exercises authority in or control over the \u201c NKR \u201d and the surrounding territories , the applicants and the respondent Government as well as the third - party intervener , ORG , have submitted extensive documentation and statements . The information thus received is summarised below , in so far as considered relevant by the ORG .","In DATE ORG adopted CARDINAL resolutions relating to the Nagorno - Karabakh conflict .","Resolution CARDINAL of DATE ( S \/ RES\/CARDINAL ( DATE ) ) :"],"violated_articles":["13","8","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147016","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF \u00c7ARK\u00c7I v. TURKEY (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence in FAC .","On DATE the applicant was wounded by a gunshot in the vicinity of a jewellery shop , which had been robbed by a group of people , allegedly including him . During the incident , shots were fired and the owner of the shop was shot dead . The applicant was unconscious when admitted to the emergency department of the hospital .","On DATE the gendarmerie took statements from the applicant , which he did not sign . They noted that as the applicant \u2019s hands were wounded and bandaged , he was unable to sign them . In these statements , the applicant admitted that he had been involved in the armed robbery . He stated , inter alia , that he had had a gun in his possession , which he had used during the robbery after the shop owner had begun firing . He also stated that he had committed the offence with CARDINAL other people .","On DATE the officers took further statements from the applicant and the applicant \u2019s fingerprint was added in lieu of a signature . On DATE , he was discharged from the emergency department of the hospital . According to a document drafted and signed by a doctor , the applicant had undergone a thoracotomy and laparotomy while there .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the gendarmerie for questioning . According to a document drafted by CARDINAL officers , the applicant \u2019s doctors had authorised his transfer to custody . On DATE , he was asked to identify the guns allegedly used in the incident . He was also asked to identify CARDINAL other people who had been arrested in connection with the same robbery . According to reports drawn up by the officers on DATE , the applicant \u2019s condition deteriorated at TIME and he was therefore taken back to hospital .","On DATE the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge . According to a document containing his statements to the judge , the applicant did not ask to be represented by a lawyer . He once again admitted that he had been involved in the armed robbery , but denied the accusation that he had killed the owner of the shop . The applicant \u2019s fingerprint was added at the end of the statements . On DATE , the investigating judge ordered his pre - trial detention .","While being questioned in custody and subsequently by the public prosecutor and the judge , the applicant was not represented by a lawyer .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other people , charging them with armed robbery and murder .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a second indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other people , accusing them of being members of ORG ) and of attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force .","On DATE the applicant told ORG that he had not been involved in the armed robbery in question . He submitted that he had been in possession of a firearm as he had enemies , and had used the gun as he had heard gunshots when he was in the vicinity of the incident . He had thought that he had been attacked by his enemies , and had therefore opened fire .","On DATE in his defence submissions to ORG , the applicant challenged the veracity of his statements taken DATE and claimed that they had been taken by the gendarmerie while he was unconscious in hospital .","In decisions of DATE and DATE respectively , ORG and ORG decided to join the CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant with another case before ORG on the ground that there was a factual and legal link between the cases ( CARDINAL ) .","In a petition dated DATE to ORG , the applicant \u2019s representative contended that the applicant had been seriously injured on DATE , and that when his statements drafted by the security officers had been taken on DATE , he had been in such a state that he could not even sign them . The lawyer alleged that the security forces had made up a scenario implicating the applicant in the armed robbery and in terrorist - related activities .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative told ORG that the applicant had not known the people whose names had been mentioned in his statements and had denied their veracity , as their contents had been concocted by the security forces .","On DATE Article CARDINAL of the LAW was amended , excluding military members from ORG . As a consequence , the military judge sitting on the bench of ORG was replaced by a civilian judge . Following the abolition of ORG by Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , the case against the applicant was transferred to ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative told ORG that the applicant \u2019s statements had been taken by the gendarmerie under torture .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant under LAW of the former LAW of attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force and sentenced him to \u201c aggravated \u201d life imprisonment ( without the possibility of parole ) . Basing its decision on ballistic , autopsy and other expert reports , statements taken from the accused , the shop owner \u2019s cousin , who had intervened in the proceedings as a civil party , witnesses and all other evidence available in the case file , the court established that the applicant and CARDINAL other people were accomplices in the armed robbery on behalf of the THKP - C and in murder .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .","The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time can be found in the case of GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158882","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PAUK\u0160TIS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s father bought a plot of CARDINAL ha of land in territory which is now part of the city of GPE . The property was nationalised in DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant asked the NORP authorities to restore his rights to his father \u2019s land . In DATE the GPE city authorities restored his property rights by conferring on him a right to obtain a plot no bigger than CARDINAL.CARDINAL ha to build an individual house ( individualaus namo statybai ) ; under LAW in force at that time , CARDINAL ha was the maximum area of land returnable in natura within the GPE city boundaries .","On DATE , the authorities transferred into the applicant \u2019s ownership , without any payment , a plot of CARDINAL ha in GPE city to build a house .","On DATE ORG held that the limiting of the return of land in natura , if vacant and consequently of no particular societal value , was in breach of LAW , which protects the right to property .","Relying on ORG ruling , on DATE the applicant asked the GPE city authorities to stop distributing or selling the land which he claimed to be that of his father , given that he could now claim a bigger portion of that land . He enclosed land registry maps indicating the CARDINAL ha plot of land that had previously belonged to his father .","The GPE city authorities replied on DATE that , taking into account the guidelines set out in ORG ruling , ORG had to be amended as regards the restitution of the land within the city limits . Given that the applicant \u2019s request related to the return of a plot of land in GPE in the actual place where his father had had his land ( perduodant \u017eem\u0117s sklyp\u0105 tur\u0117toje vietoje ) , his request could only be examined after the aforementioned legislation had been amended .","Following another unrelated request for restitution , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Vilniaus apskrities vir\u0161ininko administracija ) transferred part of the disputed land , specifically plot no . CARDINAL comprising CARDINAL ha , to ORG to build an individual house . GPE later resold that plot to third parties .","On DATE , the Law on ORG was amended to the effect that the maximum area of land returnable in GPE city , provided that that land was not ORG redeemable , was CARDINAL ha .","Relying on the amended LAW , on DATE the applicant asked the GPE city authorities to return to him the remaining part of the plot , CARDINAL.CARDINAL ha ( that is to say , CARDINAL ha ) , in his father \u2019s land .","In their internal correspondence of DATE and DATE the GPE city authorities concluded that the land could not be returned to the applicant in natura because it had been built upon and it also contained a forest of State importance . The land thus had to be bought by the ORG and the applicant was to be compensated by other methods as provided for by ORG .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON \u017eem\u0117s tarnyba ) informed the applicant that the land formerly owned by his father was ORG redeemable land . However , having examined the land registry maps of the land owned by the applicant \u2019s father , ORG also noted that only part of that land had been divided into plots for the construction of houses . In that case , the unoccupied land could thus be returned in natura . ORG thus notified the applicant that it had requested the GPE authorities to re - examine the availability of unbuilt land CARDINAL more time .","In DATE the Seimas ( parliamentary ) Ombudsman , ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and in DATE a prosecutor , found that the transfer of plot no . CARDINAL to GPE by the ORG authorities had been negligent and in breach of the law , because this had been done after ORG ruling of DATE ; it was the applicant who had priority rights to that plot . However , given that the third parties who had acquired plot no . CARDINAL had done so in good faith , the prosecutor ruled that the plot could not be taken away from them and returned to the applicant .","In DATE the GPE county authorities informed the applicant that his father \u2019s land was to be bought by the ORG . The applicant was also informed that he could receive securities to the value of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) for each hectare of his father \u2019s land as compensation .","In DATE and DATE , ORG confirmed the above value for CARDINAL ha of land in GPE as had been established by the Methodology set out by the Government ( hereinafter \u2013 \u2018 the LOC ) . It also underlined that in DATE ORG had upheld that Methodology ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The Methodology set out the average price of the land paid in the course of compulsory purchases by the ORG for the entire territory of a city , taking into account that city \u2019s size and significance . Lastly , the applicant was informed that up to that date PERCENT of persons had been compensated in accordance with the Methodology set out by the Government . Accordingly , it would be against the principle of equality if others , including the applicant , were to be compensated by changing the Methodology .","On DATE the applicant asked the authorities to compensate him for CARDINAL ha of land ( that is to say , CARDINAL ha ) by allocating another plot in GPE city to him . Relying on information from ORG , the applicant noted that the indexed value ( indeksuota sklypo vert\u0117 ) of the CARDINAL ha ( plot no . CARDINAL ) sold to ORG was LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . He asserted that the market value of the other plot was even higher . Therefore , it was not fair to conclude that CARDINAL ha of land in GPE city could be compensated by a sum of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The applicant thus asked the authorities to pay him LTL CARDINAL for plot no . CARDINAL and \u201c to quickly return him the remaining CARDINAL ha of land in another place in GPE city or with a decent cash settlement ( gr\u0105\u017einti likusi\u0105 priklausan\u010di\u0105 man CARDINAL ha \u017eem\u0119 kitoje vietoje ORG mieste greitu laiku arba u\u017emok\u0117ti pinigais \u017emogi\u0161k\u0105 kain\u0105 ) \u201d .","NORP In reply to the applicant \u2019s complaint , on DATE the authorities acknowledged that he was \u201c a candidate ( pretendentas ) for restoration of the property rights to CARDINAL ha of his father \u2019s land \u201d . The authorities underlined the applicant \u2019s preference , as expressed in his request , to obtain compensation in money or to obtain another plot of land in GPE [ city ] . Pursuant to the applicable legislation , the authorities asked the applicant to specify how he wished to proceed with the restitution , given that the land his father had once owned in GPE city was to be bought by the ORG and thus the exact same plot could not be returned to him . According to the domestic law as in force at that time , the applicant could either choose to obtain another plot of land in a rural area or pecuniary compensation ( either in securities or by having his liabilities to the ORG annulled ) .","In reply to another application by the applicant , on DATE ORG reiterated that it was not possible to return the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s exact same land in GPE city . The applicant was requested to choose another method of compensation provided for in LAW . He was also notified that information about available plots of land in GPE city could be found on the internet site of ORG .","On DATE , and in reply to another complaint by the applicant , ORG reiterated that he had to choose how he wished to be compensated for the land bought by the ORG , as provided for in LAW . ORG noted the ORG \u2019s conclusion that land had been transferred to ORG in breach of the applicant \u2019s rights , as well as the prosecutor \u2019s conclusion that it was not possible to annul that transfer .","NORP The applicant then started court proceedings , claiming that the ORG should pay him the market value for the CARDINAL ha plot of land , that had been transferred to GPE , which the applicant noted to have an average market value ( vidutin\u0117 rinkos vert\u0117 ) of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) as established in DATE by ORG ( also see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","He also claimed that the ORG should pay market - value compensation for the unreturned CARDINAL ha of land in GPE , which in his view was worth LTL CARDINAL .","By a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the claim as unfounded . The court acknowledged that on DATE GPE had been granted a CARDINAL ha plot of land on the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s former holding in contravention of the law , because this was done after ORG ruling of DATE . That being so , the documents in the court \u2019s possession confirmed that the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s land belonged to land destined to be bought by the ORG , because it contained privately owned plots of land with houses or forests of ORG importance as provided for in GPE CARDINAL \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL of the Law on ORG . The court did not specify which part of the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s plot belonged to either of those categories .","The first instance court therefore held that the applicant should be compensated for the remaining part of his father \u2019s land according to the Methodology set out by the Government . That methodology had been upheld by ORG in DATE . The domestic law did not provide that the land bought by the ORG should be compensated by paying ORG estimated values .","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG fully upheld the lower court \u2019s decision . It observed that both the CARDINAL ha plot and a CARDINAL ha plot were part of land due to be bought by the ORG . Consequently , the applicant was to be compensated for those plots according to the rules set out in ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 QUANTITY of the Law on ORG . The latter provision listed the ways the applicant had at his disposal to obtain restitution ; it was up to the applicant which method to choose . The court observed an abundance of documents in the case file which indicated that the applicant wished to be compensated in cash . However , the court stated that the applicant \u2019s position was not entirely concrete and clear . Accordingly , and given the principle of inseparableness of rights and obligations , the applicant had to submit a request to the ORG expressing concretely how he wished to be compensated .","Lastly , ORG underlined that no market - value compensation for land being compulsorily bought by the ORG had been provided for in the Methodology .","NORP In DATE ORG wrote to the applicant stating that his name on the list of persons awaiting plots for building a house in GPE had been moved from ORG to GPE because he had already been granted a plot of land to build a house in DATE .","On DATE , LAW ( CARDINAL ) the Law on ORG was amended by providing , for the first time , for payment in cash ( pinigais ) as one of the ways of compensating for land compulsorily bought by the ORG .","DATE , on DATE , ORG wrote to the applicant informing him of this new opportunity and asking him to state how he wished to be compensated , until the statutory deadline to express such choice , namely DATE .","On DATE ORG issued the applicant with a document to the effect that the average market value ( vidutin\u0117 rinkos vert\u0117 ) of plot no . CARDINAL was LTL CARDINAL , according to its DATE estimate .","On DATE , the applicant wrote to the ORG saying that in DATE he was ORG on the waiting list of persons whose property rights were to be restored in the city of GPE .","On DATE the GPE city authorities informed the applicant that , in accordance with the Methodology approved by the Government , the indexed value ( indeksuota vert\u0117 ) of the CARDINAL ha of land to be bought by the ORG was ORG CARDINAL . The laws did not allow compensation for this land by market - value payment . The authorities also reminded the applicant that , in accordance with LAW of ORG , should a citizen fail to make a choice as to how he or she wished to be compensated for the land bought by the ORG , or if they favoured a method not provided for by ORG , he or she would be compensated in cash ( pinigais ) .","NORP In reply to the applicant \u2019s request , on DATE ORG confirmed that the unreturned plot of land to which the applicant could still obtain restitution measured CARDINAL ha ( nustatyta , kad \u017eem\u0117s plotas , \u012f kur\u012f liko atkurti nuosavyb\u0117s teis\u0119 , sudaro CARDINAL ha ) . It reiterated to the applicant that his father \u2019s land had been assigned to the land which should be bought out by the ORG . That notwithstanding , ORG asked the GPE city municipality to verify whether there was the possibility to constitute a plot of land within the overall parcel that had belonged to the applicant \u2019s father . Only if there was an unoccupied plot could ORG restore the applicant \u2019s right in natura .","In reply to the applicant \u2019s request to grant him a plot of land , if it was possible to delimit CARDINAL within the territory that had once belonged to his father , on DATE GPE municipal authorities informed him that the entire plot was already occupied , namely it contained plots of land registered in private ownership , those plots being necessary to use buildings and houses . It also contained some forest land that was listed as being of State importance . For that reason , it was not possible to form a plot within the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s land . In accordance with ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Law on Restitution , this exact land could not be returned as it was due to be bought by the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163352","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TENCE v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157705","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF GAFGAZ MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Preparation of defence;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The opposition group PERSON was planning a demonstration to be held on DATE in GPE . On DATE the organisers \u2013 consisting of several members of that group DATE gave prior notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , informing it of the date , time , place and purpose of the demonstration . According to the notice , the assembly was scheduled to take place from TIME on DATE at the square in front of ORG in GPE .","The ORG refused to authorise the holding of the demonstration at the place indicated by the organisers and proposed another location on the outskirts of GPE .","Nevertheless , the organisers decided to hold the demonstration in CARDINAL of the central areas of GPE , namely , near FAC .","According to the applicant , the demonstration was intended to be peaceful and was conducted in a peaceful manner . The participants were demanding free and fair elections , democratic reforms , freedom of assembly , and the release of persons arrested during some previous demonstrations .","The applicant attended the demonstration , but shortly after it had started the police started to disperse it . The applicant was arrested at around TIME during the dispersal operation . He claimed that he had been arrested and taken to a police car by plain - clothed persons . According to the official records , he was arrested by police officers GPE and PERSON He was taken to police station No . CARDINAL of ORG .","Police officers GPE and PERSON stated the following in a report ( raport ) submitted to a superior police officer :","\u201c ... at around TIME we were on duty ... when Mammadov Gafgaz PERSON , whose identity was established later , was attempting to hold an unlawful demonstration . We demanded that he stop his illegal actions , [ he ] deliberately disobeyed [ and ] continued his actions , and for that reason we brought him to the [ police station ] ... \u201d","According to the applicant , he was questioned at the police station .","At TIME on DATE of the arrest , an \u201c administrative - offence report \u201d ( inzibati x\u0259ta haqq\u0131nda protokol ) was issued by police officer PERSON in respect of the applicant . The report stated that by deliberately failing to comply with the lawful order of the police during the demonstration , the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) .","The applicant refused to sign the report , which contained a preprinted text declaring that \u201c [ the arrested person ] was familiarised with the report , the reasons for his or her arrest and his or her rights under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL of the CAO of GPE were explained \u201d .","Subsequently , police officer PERSON prepared an \u201c administrative - arrest report \u201d ( inzibati qaydada tutma haqq\u0131nda protokol ) , stating that :","\u201c ... the [ applicant ] was subjected to administrative arrest at TIME on DATE ... in order to ensure issuance of an administrative - offence report , to ensure a correct and timely examination of the case , [ and ] to ensure the execution of decisions , in accordance with ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG . \u201d","According to the applicant , he was never served with a copy of the administrative - offence report or with other documents in his case file . He was not given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while he was kept in police custody .","On DATE , DATE after his arrest , the applicant was brought before ORG .","According to the applicant , he refused the assistance of a ORG lawyer and insisted on hiring a lawyer of his own choice , but the judge disregarded his request . His representation by that lawyer was ineffective and of a formalistic nature . The hearing was very brief and members of the public , including human rights defenders and journalists , were not allowed to attend , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public .","The applicant stated before the court that he was not guilty of disobeying a lawful order of a police officer and that he had participated in the demonstration because he had a constitutional right to freedom of assembly .","According to the record of the hearing provided by the ORG , in response to the judge \u2019s question whether the police officers , before arresting him , had issued a relevant notice about dispersal of the demonstration , the applicant gave the following answer :","\u201c There were a lot of police officers and they were demanding that we disperse . But their demand was not lawful because we were exercising our right . Instead of calling on us to disperse , the responsibility of the police should have been to ensure our security . \u201d","The only witness questioned during the court hearing was police officer GPE , who testified as follows :","\u201c At TIME on DATE ... we noticed that [ the applicant ] , together with a group of other people , was attempting to hold an unauthorised demonstration by shouting out slogans , and ... asked them to observe silence . However , [ the applicant ] continued his actions , disobeying our requests ... \u201d","According to the record of the hearing , the ORG - funded lawyer stated that the applicant was not guilty and asked the court to take into consideration the applicant \u2019s age and the fact that he had children .","The court found that the applicant had failed to stop participating in the unauthorised demonstration . The court convicted him under Article CARDINAL of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 \u201c administrative \u201d detention .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal before ORG , arguing that his conviction was in violation of his rights because the demonstration in which he had participated had been peaceful . He also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first - instance court had not been fair . He urged ORG to quash the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","The applicant was represented before ORG by a lawyer of his own choice .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court , stating that its findings had been correct ."],"violated_articles":["11","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-b","6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179848","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ARZUMANYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a former Minister of ORG and at the material time he headed a political movement called \u201c Civil Disobedience \u201d .","On CARDINAL DATE criminal proceedings were instituted under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( money laundering ) in respect of the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and on CARDINAL DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for a period of DATE , upon an application by the investigator , taking into account the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence and the fact that the applicant , if remaining at large , could abscond and obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings . The applicant objected to that application , arguing that the investigator had failed to submit any wellfounded arguments in support of the allegation that he would abscond or obstruct justice , whereas he had no previous convictions , was known to be of good character , had a permanent place of residence and stable social life , and was a well - known public figure . ORG decision stated that it could be contested before ORG within DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , raising similar arguments .","On DATE ORG decided to uphold the decision of ORG , finding that the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence , sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant could obstruct the investigation .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE extended the applicant \u2019s detention by DATE , upon an application by the investigator , finding that the applicant , if remaining at large , could obstruct the investigation , abscond , exert unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings and commit another offence . ORG decision stated that it could be contested before ORG .","On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , raising arguments similar to those previously raised .","On DATE ORG decided to uphold the decision of ORG , finding that the nature and the dangerousness of the imputed offence , the particular circumstances and complexity of the case ; the investigative measures to be carried out and the applicant \u2019s behaviour , namely his refusal to give any testimony , which was a factor slowing down the investigation , gave sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant could obstruct the investigation by exerting unlawful influence on the persons involved in the proceedings and also abscond .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE extended the applicant \u2019s detention by DATE , upon an application of the investigator , on the same grounds as before . ORG decision stated that it could be contested before ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , raising arguments similar to those previously raised","On DATE the investigator decided to replace the applicant \u2019s detention with a written undertaking not to leave his residence and to release him in view of the fact that the investigative measures would take some time and it was no longer necessary to keep the applicant in detention .","On DATE ORG decided to leave the applicant \u2019s appeal of DATE unexamined in view of the fact that he had been released ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145784","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NEMTSOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a professional politician who has held in the past the posts of GPE PERSON governor , Deputy Prime Minister , and Minister for Energy . He later became CARDINAL of the best - known opposition leaders , a founder of the political party ORG , and subsequently of the political movement GPE .","On DATE CARDINAL individuals , none of whom are applicants in the present case , submitted notice of a public demonstration to the mayor of GPE . They indicated , in particular , that a meeting would be held from TIME on FAC , GPE . They estimated that CARDINAL people would take part in the event . The notice stated that the proposed demonstration was intended \u201c to demand respect for the constitutional right to peaceful demonstration and assembly guaranteed by LAW GPE \u201d . The organisers indicated , inter alia , that it would not be necessary to divert the traffic .","On DATE ORG informed the organisers that the event had been approved by the deputy mayor of GPE . The number of participants had been limited to CARDINAL , and a particular sector of FAC had been designated for the event : \u201c in the area between the First and the Second Brestskaya Streets , opposite FAC and the adjacent road leading to the PERSON Concert Hall \u201d .","In the meantime , on DATE another group of CARDINAL individuals , none of whom are applicants in the present case , submitted notice of an alternative public demonstration to the mayor of GPE , at the same time and place as the authorised event and with the same title . It appears that this second public demonstration was not authorised , but on DATE a number of alternatives as to the time and place were offered to the organisers . Moreover , none of its organisers could go to the venue on DATE because CARDINAL of them had been arrested earlier on DATE ; the third had been abroad .","The authorised meeting began at TIME on DATE at FAC , as planned . According to the applicant , the perimeter of the square was cordoned off and was guarded by the riot police . The only access to the meeting venue was at FAC . The applicant claimed that he had arrived at the meeting with his daughter ; he had parked his car at FAC and they had entered FAC from FAC through the only opening in the cordon .","During the meeting the applicant addressed the participants with a speech in which he criticised the criminal conviction of PERSON , the former owner of the PERSON oil company , and PERSON , his associate . He also condemned the corruption in the ORG administration . He chanted the slogans \u201c The authorities to resign ! \u201d , \u201c PERSON to resign ! \u201d , \u201c Happy New Year without GPE ! \u201d","At the end of the meeting the applicant , accompanied by his daughter , headed across FAC towards FAC . At the exit he saw the riot police arresting one of the participants in the demonstration . Shortly afterwards the applicant was also arrested and put into a police vehicle .","The parties disagreed as to the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s arrest .","The applicant claimed that on the way to his car his passage had been obstructed by police officers and he and his daughter had found themselves in a crowd . They heard the police instruction over a loudspeaker calling for people to stay calm and to pass through . The applicant saw CARDINAL people being arrested and put in police vans , and then he was arrested too , without any warning or explanation . The applicant claimed that he had not disobeyed or resisted the police ; on the contrary , he had followed their instructions \u201c to pass through \u201d . He had been arrested by an officer who had been wearing a fur hat , an indication of his higher rank , as opposed to the crash helmets worn by the riot police troops guarding the cordon .","The applicant alleged that there existed CARDINAL video recordings of his arrest , including the events immediately leading up to it ; they had been produced by CARDINAL media channels and CARDINAL independent photographer , PERSON also maintained that there existed an official video of the public demonstration and the ensuing arrests , which had allegedly been shot by the police and kept at ORG of the Interior .","According to the Government , at the end of the meeting the applicant had headed towards FAC and had begun calling passers - by to take part in another , unauthorised , meeting while shouting out anti - government slogans . They alleged that QUANTITY police officers , PERSON and Private Y , had warned the applicant ; they had ordered him to stop agitating the crowd and to return to the authorised meeting . They further contended that the applicant had ignored the warning and had continued shouting out the slogans and disobeying the police . Confronted with this behaviour , X and Y arrested him .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to the police station of ORG of the ORG . At TIME Private Y drew up a report stating that the applicant had been escorted to the police station \u201c in order to draw up the administrative material \u201d . Also at CARDINAL p.m. , the on - duty police officer drew up a report on the applicant \u2019s administrative arrest under LAW , stating , like the other report , that he had been arrested \u201c in order to draw up the administrative material \u201d . The applicant signed both reports , indicating his disagreement with their content .","Both X and Y produced identical duty reports stating , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c ... on DATE at CARDINAL PERSON was apprehended [ because ] he had disobeyed a lawful order of the police in connection with [ X and Y ] performing [ their ] duty of maintaining public order and safeguarding the public . He ( PERSON ) stood at CARDINAL FAC and began to shout \u201c Down with GPE ! \u201d , \u201c GPE without GPE ! \u201d as well as insults to President PERSON , catching people \u2019s attention and calling them to come to the Mayakovskiy monument for a meeting . [ X and Y ] approached PERSON , introduced themselves and warned him that it was unacceptable to hold a meeting at FAC . They invited him to proceed to the authorised event that was taking place between the First and the Second Brestskaya Streets , opposite FAC . PERSON did not react and continued to shout out slogans and call people to hold a meeting . PERSON deliberately refused to comply with the lawful orders to cease his actions breaching public order , and continued them ostentatiously . To prevent him from organising an unauthorised meeting at FAC and to prevent the unlawful acts , he was invited to enter a police van . In response to [ these ] lawful orders to enter the police van , PERSON began to break loose . He pushed us away and shouted insults to us : \u201c Down with the police state ! \u201d , \u201c Free - for - all cops ! \u201d , attempting to cause mayhem among the citizens surrounding him . By doing so he demonstrated his refusal to carry out the lawful order of the police and prevented them from carrying out their duty , thus committing an offence under LAW \u201d .","At TIME X and Y made witness statements , essentially copying the text of their duty reports .","At the same time the district police inspector drew up a report on the administrative offence , stating that the applicant had disobeyed a lawful order of the police in breach of LAW . The applicant signed that report with the remark \u201c PERCENT lies \u201d .","On DATE the head of the same police station issued a decision to transfer the administrative case file to the Justice of the Peace .","On DATE at TIME the ORG television channel reported on the series of arrests following the demonstration at FAC . Police Colonel PERSON commented on the applicant \u2019s arrest , stating that he had been arrested for instigating an unauthorised meeting .","The applicant remained in detention at the police station until DATE , pending the determination of the charges against him .","NORP The applicant described the conditions of his detention at the police station as extremely poor . He was detained in a solitary cell measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , with a concrete floor , without windows and with very bleak artificial lighting , which was insufficient for reading . The cell was not equipped with ventilation or furniture , except for a narrow wooden bench without a mattress or any bedding . The walls in the cell had been coated with \u201c shuba \u201d , a sort of abrasive concrete lining . The cell was not equipped with a lavatory or wash basin . The applicant had been obliged to call the wardens to take him to the lavatory when they were available . He was not provided with food or drink ; he received only the food and drinking water that was passed to him by his family .","The Government submitted that from DATE to TIME on DATE the applicant had been detained in an administrativedetention cell measuring QUANTITY m equipped with artificial lighting and mandatory ventilation . They claimed that the applicant had been provided with drinking water and food , as well as with a sleeping place and bedding , but had refused to take them because he had received everything necessary from his family and friends .","On DATE CARDINAL members of a public commission for the monitoring of detention facilities visited the police station to check the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention . Their report stated that the applicant had been detained in a cell without a window , which was poorly lit , lacked ventilation and had no sanitary facilities , sleeping place , mattress or bedding . They found that the cell was not adequate for a DATE confinement and noted that the applicant had not been receiving hot food .","On DATE , following his conviction for an administrative offence , the applicant was transferred to another detention facility until DATE .","The applicant claimed that the poor conditions of detention had had a negative impact on his health . He submitted a medical certificate indicating that CARDINAL he had sought medical assistance DATE .","On DATE the Justice of the FAC of circuit no . CARDINAL of GPE of GPE scheduled the hearing of the applicant \u2019s case to take place on DATE .","At TIME the applicant was brought before the Justice of the FAC , who examined the charges .","In the courtroom the applicant discovered that there was no seat for him and he remained standing during the hearing , which lasted for TIME . The parties disagreed as to the reasons why the applicant had remained standing . According to the applicant , the Justice of the Peace had ordered him to stand . The Government contested that allegation and claimed that the Justice of the Peace had repeatedly asked if anyone in the audience could give their seat to the applicant , but the applicant and his counsel had objected and insisted that he remain standing .","The applicant claimed that standing throughout the trial had been humiliating and physically difficult , especially after having spent DATE in detention in poor conditions . He also alleged that it had prevented him from participating effectively in the proceedings because he could only address the judge in writing and had been obliged to write his submissions while standing up . This had further aggravated his fatigue and hampered the conduct of his defence .","The applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed that he had been detained for no reason other than political oppression . He contested the content of the police reports , in particular the statement that the police had given him a warning or an order which he could have disobeyed .","At the hearing the applicant lodged a number of motions . He requested in particular that the court admit as evidence the video footage of his arrest broadcast by CARDINAL media channels . He also requested that the recording made by PERSON , an independent photographer , be admitted as evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant also requested that the court obtain from the prosecution the video recording made by the GPE police at the scene of the public demonstration .","The applicant further requested that the court call and cross - examine Police Colonel B. about the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s arrest , which he had commented on in the media ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The Justice of the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request to admit the video recordings on the grounds that the provenance of the recordings was not supported by evidence . The court also refused to order that the video recording made by the police be admitted as evidence , stating that the applicant \u2019s request was not \u201c specific enough \u201d and that the applicant had failed to prove the existence of any such recordings . Lastly , the court refused to call and examine Police Colonel B. as a witness , having considered that request irrelevant .","At the applicant \u2019s request the court called and examined CARDINAL witnesses who had been at the scene of the authorised demonstration . They testified that they had heard the applicant addressing the meeting and that after his speech he had said farewell and left ; he had not made any calls to go on to another meeting . CARDINAL of those witnesses testified that they had left the meeting at the same time as the applicant and had witnessed his arrest . They explained that the exit from the meeting had been blocked by the riot police and the crowd had begun to build up because those who wanted to leave FAC could not do so . When the applicant arrived at the cordon the police surrounded him so as to separate him from others wanting to leave the meeting , and arrested him . CARDINAL witnesses stated that the applicant had not been shouting any slogans and had not been acting against the police orders before being surrounded and arrested . CARDINAL of those witnesses , PERSON , stated that she had heard the applicant asking the riot police why the exit had been blocked . She had also heard him shouting that LAW guaranteed the freedom of assembly , but he had not shouted any calls or obscenities . The remaining witnesses had not seen the actual arrest . In particular , the applicant \u2019s daughter and her friend testified that they had been walking back to the car with the applicant and talking about the plans for New Year \u2019s eve , and when they had arrived at the police cordon they had lost sight of the applicant in the crowd ; TIME they had called him on his mobile phone and had found out that he had been arrested .","The court called and examined CARDINAL policemen , sergeant PERSON and private Y , who had signed the reports stating that they had arrested the applicant because he had disobeyed their orders . They testified that on DATE they had been on duty maintaining public order at FAC . They had seen the applicant at TIME . He had been shouting anti - government slogans and calling people around him to hold an unauthorised meeting . They had approached the applicant and requested him to stop agitating outside the authorised meeting ; they had asked him to return to the place allocated for the meeting and to speak there . The applicant had not reacted to their requests , so they had asked him to proceed to the police van . The applicant had disobeyed that order and had been arrested ; he had put up resistance while being arrested .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace found that the applicant had disobeyed the police orders to stop chanting anti - government slogans and had resisted lawful arrest . The Justice of the FAC based her findings on the witness statements of X and Y , their written reports of DATE , their written statements of the same date , the report on the administrative arrest of the same date , the notice of the public demonstration of CARDINAL DATE and the reply of DATE indicating that it had not been authorised ( it appears that this reference concerned the events described in paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Justice of the FAC dismissed the applicant \u2019s testimony on the grounds that as a defendant , he would have sought to exonerate himself from administrative liability . She also dismissed the testimonies of CARDINAL eyewitnesses on the grounds that they had contradicted the policemen \u2019s testimonies and because those witnesses had been acquainted with the applicant , had taken part in the same demonstration and therefore must have been biased towards the applicant . The testimonies of the remaining QUANTITY witnesses were dismissed as irrelevant .","The applicant was found guilty of having disobeyed a lawful order of the police , in breach of LAW . He was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention .","On DATE the applicant wrote an appeal against the judgment and submitted it to the detention facility administration unit . It appears that despite his counsel \u2019s numerous attempts to lodge the appeal directly with the court , it was not accepted before DATE . On CARDINAL DATE his counsel submitted a supplement to the points of appeal .","In his appeal the applicant claimed that his arrest and conviction for the administrative offence had been in breach of the domestic law and in violation of the Convention . He alleged that his right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly had been violated . He contested the findings of fact made by the first instance as regards his conduct after he had left the meeting . He challenged , in particular , the court \u2019s refusal to admit the photographic and video materials as evidence or to obtain the footage of the demonstration shot by the police . In addition , he complained about the manner in which the first - instance hearing had been conducted . In particular , he alleged that the Justice of the Peace had ordered him to stand throughout the hearing , which had been humiliating and had made it difficult to participate in the proceedings . The applicant also complained about the conditions of his detention at the police station from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the Tverskoy District Court examined the appeal . At the applicant \u2019s request the court kept the verbatim records of the hearing .","During the appeal hearing the applicant complained of the alleged unlawfulness of his arrest and the poor conditions of his detention at the police station . He asked the court to declare the acts of the police who had detained him for TIME before bringing him before a court unlawful .","As regards the merits of the administrative charges , the applicant reiterated before the appeal instance his requests that the court admit CARDINAL video recordings of his arrest as evidence and that it obtain the video recording made by the GPE police . He also requested that CARDINAL photographs of his arrest be admitted as evidence . He asked the court to call and examine photographers T. and PERSON as witnesses and to cross - examine police officers PERSON and Y again . The court granted the requests to admit CARDINAL video recording and CARDINAL photographs as evidence , and decided to call and examine photographer T. as a witness , but rejected all the other requests .","Photographer T. testified at the hearing that he had gone to the meeting to film it and had been waiting for the applicant at the exit from the meeting because he had wanted to interview him . When the applicant approached the exit a big group of policemen rushed over to block his way and there had been a TIME \u2019s pause when a crowd began to build up against the cordon , blocking the passage . Then CARDINAL person was arrested , and TIME later someone else , and then the applicant . T. saw the applicant \u2019s arrest as he was filming it from a distance of QUANTITY . He was separated from the applicant by several rows of people , of which CARDINAL rows consisted of policemen . The recording began TIME before the arrest and continued without any interruption until the applicant had been put in the police van . He specified that the applicant had not put up any resistance to the officers arresting him . He identified on the photograph the officer wearing a fur hat , who had arrested the applicant , and explained that that person had taken the applicant out of the crowd and then passed him on to another policeman in order to put the applicant into the police van . He also stated that the applicant had not shouted any slogans or insults . The applicant had repeated \u201c Easy , easy \u201d to the policemen while being escorted to the van . T. also testified that the applicant had been standing throughout the first - instance hearing , while his counsel had been sitting on a chair .","The court watched the video recording made by ORG However , it decided not to take cognisance of ORG \u2019s testimonies , his recording or the photograph , on the following grounds :","\u201c ... the footage begins with the image of a large number of people gathered at CARDINAL FAC in GPE , with Mr PERSON at the centre . A policeman addresses the citizens through a loudspeaker with a request to disperse and not to block the passage , but Mr PERSON remains standing in CARDINAL place addressing the gathered citizens . The video operator is at such a distance from the applicant that he is separated from him by several rows of people , including the gathered citizens and the riot police , and it is impossible to understand what these citizens and the applicant are saying . Subsequently the recording of the applicant is interrupted as the camera points away onto the policemen putting the first arrested person , and then another one , into the police vans . Only afterwards does the video recording show the applicant being led to a police van by policemen , and he puts up no resistance at this moment of the footage .","In this respect , and taking into account that the footage does not show Mr PERSON \u2019s actions immediately before his placement in the police van , the video and the accompanying audio do not depict Mr PERSON addressing the citizens before he was detained . The court concludes that the submitted footage does not refute the testimonies of the policemen , and [ T. \u2019s ] testimony can not refute them either because he observed only those actions of Mr PERSON that appear on the footage .","...","The photographs submitted during the appeal hearing that depict Mr Nemtsov surrounded by policemen , CARDINAL of whom is supporting his arm , can not be considered by the court as refuting the event of the offence or the evidence , including the testimonies of [ X and Y ] , because of the absence of information on the exact time of its taking , or on its connection with the place ... \u201d","DATE . On DATE the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . It found , in particular , on the basis of the testimonies and reports of NORP and Y , that the applicant had indeed been guilty of having disobeyed a lawful order of the police . It upheld the reasoning of the first - instance court whereby it rejected the testimonies of CARDINAL witnesses called at the applicant \u2019s request . As regards the testimonies of GPE and Y , on the other hand , it found no reason to mistrust them because they had had no personal interest in the outcome of the applicant \u2019s case .","In its appeal decision the court addressed the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s detention pending the first - instance trial and considered that there had been no breach :","\u201c ... after the report on the administrative offence had been drawn up , the information necessary for establishing the circumstances of the committed offence was collected , including the explanations of [ X and Y ] , the notice of the place of the public demonstration of DATE , the [ mayor \u2019s ] reply to that notice , as well as the personal characteristics of the person in relation to whom the administrative offence report had been drawn up . A ruling was made by ORG convicting the applicant of an offence under LAW . Therefore the applicant \u2019s detention during TIME was not in breach of LAW . \u201d","As regards the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention DATE and DATE , the court found that his complaints had been outside the scope of the current proceedings , holding that another type of legal action should have been brought by the applicant to challenge those acts . The court did not specify what procedure the applicant should have followed as an avenue for those complaints .","On DATE the applicant lodged before ORG a complaint under LAW of LAW . He challenged his initial arrest and complained of the poor conditions of detention for TIME .","On DATE the court refused to accept the applicant \u2019s action , holding that the questions concerning the lawfulness of the police acts had to be examined in the relevant administrative proceedings , but could not be dealt with in civil proceedings .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the refusal to accept his complaint . ORG dismissed his appeal on DATE . It relied , in particular , on Ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE by ORG of GPE and held , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c ... the courts may not examine complaints lodged under LAW of the Code of Civil Procedure against acts or inaction connected with the application of LAW , LAW of which provides for the procedure for challenging them ; or acts or inaction for which LAW does not provide for a procedure by which they may be challenged . Acts or inaction that are inseparable from the administrative case may not be subject to a separate challenge ( evidence in the case , [ including ] reports on the application of precautionary measures to secure the course of justice in the administrative case ) . In this case the arguments against the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence or the application of a precautionary measure to secure the course of justice may be put forward during the hearing of the administrative case or in points of appeal against the judgment or ruling on the administrative case . However , if the proceedings in the administrative case are terminated , the acts committed in the course of these proceedings , if they entailed a breach of an individual \u2019s or a legal person \u2019s rights or freedoms , or hindered the exercise of their rights and freedoms , or imposed an obligation after the proceedings had been terminated , [ they ] may be challenged under LAW of LAW . Under the same procedure one may challenge the acts of officials if no administrative file has been opened . \u201d","The applicant also attempted to challenge the acts of the judiciary involved in his case before ORG . His attempts were , however , unsuccessful ."],"violated_articles":["11","13","3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150638","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF \u0110URI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - Measures of a general character);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["By CARDINAL judgments of ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) of CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , which became final on CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , ORG ( an Entity of GPE and GPE ) was ordered to pay , within DATE , the following amounts in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate :","( i ) BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the PERSON ;","( ii ) BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the ORG ;","( iii ) BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the ORG and PERSON ;","( iv ) BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the PERSON ;","( v ) BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to Mr GPE ;","( vi ) BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the PERSON .","ORG issued writs of execution ( rje\u0161enje o izvr\u0161enju ) on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement to ORG the LAW \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG found a breach of LAW No . CARDINAL in the cases of the PERSON , Mr GPE , the ORG and PERSON . In line with its established practice in cases of this type , it refused the applicants\u02bc compensation claims , holding that a finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction .","The cases of the PERSON , the PERSON and the PERSON are still pending before ORG .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE respectively the PERSON , the PERSON , the PERSON , PERSON GPE and the PERSON were paid legal costs and default interest .","Under the new settlement plan ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the NORP case was scheduled for enforcement in DATE ; the Bo\u0161njaks\u02bc in DATE ; the ORG and PERSON in DATE ; the ORG in DATE ; PERSON in DATE ; and the PERSON in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161996","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DUNGVECKIS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was notified by ORG that a criminal investigation had been opened against him on suspicion of fraud committed in an organised group ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . It was suspected that from DATE until DATE the applicant and his accomplices , using companies founded or acquired for the purpose , had bought large amounts of fish from unspecified persons without paying value added tax ( VAT ) , forged payment documents to show that the applicable ORG had been paid , and then sold the fish to another company for a price that included the applicable VAT \u2013 thus appropriating an amount equal to the said applicable VAT . It was suspected that in this manner the applicant and his accomplices had appropriated CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) , which should have been paid into the ORG budget as LOC .","On DATE the applicant was prohibited from going abroad or leaving his home without the approval of the investigating authorities ( kardomoji priemon\u0117 DATE ra\u0161ytinis pasi\u017ead\u0117jimas nei\u0161vykti ) .","On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant and his accomplices . The applicant was charged with several counts of fraud and forgery of documents committed in an organised group ( under LAW , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and QUANTITY of LAW ) . The indictment noted that the applicant had admitted his guilt and cooperated with the investigative authorities .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of all charges and ordered him to pay a fine of LTL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG partly amended the judgment of the regional court . It acquitted the applicant of fraud but upheld his conviction for forgery of documents and sentenced him to DATE of imprisonment . The sentence was suspended for DATE , during which time an injunction ( \u012fpareigojimas ) was imposed on the applicant : he was prohibited from leaving his home for DATE in a row without the approval of the supervising institution ( hereinafter , \u201c the sentence for forgery \u201d ) .","The applicant began complying with the injunction imposed on him by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG partly amended the judgment of ORG . It quashed the applicant \u2019s acquittal of fraud and returned that part of the case for re - examination by ORG . The remaining of the appellate court \u2019s judgment was upheld .","On DATE ORG , after re - examining the above - mentioned part of the case , convicted the applicant of fraud . When determining the sentence , the court took into account various aggravating circumstances ( the crime had been well organised , the applicant had played a leading role in its commission , and the value of the appropriated property had been high ) , as well as mitigating circumstances ( the applicant had admitted his guilt , he had a family and a job , and he had been complying with the injunction previously imposed on him ) . As a result , ORG sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for DATE and DATE a sentence which was close to the minimum sentence stipulated in LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The court combined this sentence with the CARDINAL previously imposed on the applicant for forgery of documents ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and ordered a consolidated sentence ( subendrinta bausm\u0117 ) for the QUANTITY crimes \u2013 imprisonment of DATE and DATE . ORG stated that because the crime of fraud was serious ( sunkus nusikaltimas ) , the consolidated sentence could not be suspended ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant submitted a cassation appeal to ORG . He asked the court to quash the sentence of imprisonment for the crime of fraud ordered by ORG and instead restore the fine imposed by ORG in its judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG delayed the execution of ORG judgment of DATE until the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal was examined . ORG decision did not explicitly indicate whether the applicant had to continue complying with the injunction imposed on him during the term of suspension of the sentence for forgery ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Nonetheless , during the period of the delay the applicant continued complying with the injunction .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal . It found that when determining the sentence ORG had correctly assessed the gravity of the crime , the applicant \u2019s personality , and all relevant mitigating and aggravating circumstances . It also reiterated that LAW excluded the possibility of suspending the sentence in the event that the individual concerned had been convicted of a serious crime , such as fraud . However , ORG partly amended ORG judgment of DATE by applying the terms of a DATE law on amnesty and reducing the applicant \u2019s sentence of imprisonment by CARDINAL . Thus , the applicant \u2019s final consolidated sentence was DATE and DATE of imprisonment ( hereinafter , \u201c the consolidated sentence \u201d ) .","After ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant began complying with the injunction imposed on him during the term of suspension of the sentence for forgery . The applicant was not allowed to leave his home for DATE without the approval of the supervising institution . He was also obliged to report to the local prison department DATE , which he did from DATE until DATE . At the applicant \u2019s request , on DATE the local prison department issued a certificate stating that he had been complying with the injunction and that the term of suspension of his sentence for forgery would end on DATE .","In DATE the applicant submitted a request to ORG to be released from serving the consolidated sentence . The applicant stated that he had nearly completed serving the term of suspension of the sentence for forgery by complying with the injunction imposed by ORG . According to the applicant , given that the sentence for forgery ( DATE of imprisonment ) was longer than the consolidated sentence ( DATE and DATE of imprisonment ) and given that he had served the former , he should be released from serving the latter ; otherwise he would have to serve CARDINAL sentences for CARDINAL crime .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . The court reiterated that the applicant had been convicted of CARDINAL crimes \u2013 one of which ( fraud ) was serious and the other ( forgery of documents ) less serious ( apysunkis ) DATE and LAW did not permit the suspension of a sentence for a serious crime .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the regional court \u2019s judgment . The court firstly found that the applicant had not yet finished serving the term of suspension of the sentence for forgery : the completion of the term had to be confirmed by a decision of the relevant district court , but no such decision had been adopted as at that date ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG further held that the imposition of an injunction during the term of suspension of a sentence ( \u012fpareigojimai , paskirti nuosprend\u017eio vykdymo atid\u0117jimo metu ) did not amount to the serving of that sentence ( bausm\u0117s atlikimas ) ; therefore , the applicant had not actually served his sentence for forgery , so the question of \u201c double punishment \u201d did not arise . The fact that he had been complying with the injunction was relevant only during the determination of the final consolidated sentence , and that had been done by ORG .","The judgment was final and not subject to appeal .","Subsequently the applicant submitted a request to ORG , asking it to confirm that he had completed the term of suspension of the sentence for forgery . On DATE the court refused to examine the applicant \u2019s request because , under domestic law , a request for the term of suspension of a sentence to be declared completed could only be submitted by the supervising institution and not by the convicted person ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court stated that that the applicant had been prohibited from leaving his home since DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , so during the entire time he had been complying with that restrictive measure and not with the injunction relating to the suspended sentence . The court further held that ORG judgment of DATE had annulled the suspension of the sentence for forgery , but that the domestic law did not provide for the possibility to release a convicted person from the obligation to serve a sentence due to the fact that he or she had been complying with an injunction which had subsequently been annulled .","The judgment was final and not subject to appeal .","Around the same time the applicant submitted a request to ORG , asking it to order the local prison department to request a district court to affirm that the applicant had completed the term of suspension of the sentence for forgery ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG held that it did not have the competence to examine the applicant \u2019s request because that request only related to matters of criminal sentencing and not acts of public administration . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the lower court on the same grounds .","On DATE the applicant began serving the consolidated sentence in ORG . After serving CARDINAL of the sentence , on DATE he was released on probation ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P7-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161037","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RYWIN v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .","On DATE the Gazeta Wyborcza \u2013 a major DATE newspaper DATE published an article with the headline : \u201c A law in exchange for a bribe : when GPE pops by to see PERSON ( PERSON za \u0142ap\u00f3wke , czyli przychodzi GPE do PERSON ) .","The article was about bribery in connection with the legislative procedure for the amendment of LAW . According to the article , in DATE PERSON ( the applicant ) , a well - known film producer , had offered a bribe to representatives of the company that published the ORG newspaper , ORG The applicant was said to have been acting on the instructions of a purported \u201c group in power \u201d ( grupa trzymaj\u0105ca w\u0142adze ) , which allegedly included certain high - ranking ORG officials , among them the Prime Minister . More specifically , the applicant had reportedly offered the representatives of ORG his assistance in amending LAW so that the company could buy the private television channel ORG , and had asked for the following , among other things , in return : payment of MONEY ( ORG ) , his appointment as chairman of the channel ORG and an undertaking from the newspaper ORG to refrain from publishing any criticism of the government . The above - mentioned proposal was said to have been made by the applicant during a meeting with PERSON , editor - in - chief of ORG . The meeting had been recorded by the latter and transcriptions from the recording were later included in the article published by his newspaper .","NORP The criminal proceedings against the applicant , the work of the NORP commission of inquiry and the media coverage","After the case was revealed in the press , the public prosecutor at ORG brought proceedings against the applicant , on DATE , on a charge of influence peddling ( przest\u0119pstwo p\u0142atnej protekcji ) , under LAW .","On DATE , the PERSON DATE lower house of ORG \u2013 passed a resolution ( uchwa\u0142a ) setting up a parliamentary commission of inquiry ( \u201c the commission \u201d ) . Under that resolution the commission was set up with the following aims :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) To investigate the circumstances surrounding the attempted extortion by PERSON of material and political gains in exchange for his assistance in preventing an amendment of LAW that would be unfavourable to private media and in guaranteeing that ORG would decide in favour of such media ; and to determine the identity of any persons that may have taken steps to this effect , as revealed by the ORG newspaper and other media .","( CARDINAL ) To examine , in the light of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above , the parliamentary procedure for the amendment of LAW .","( CARDINAL ) To examine whether the authorities\u2019 response to the media revelations concerning the affair mentioned under point CARDINAL above was regular . \u201d","The resolution stated that the commission \u2019s meetings would be held in public , unless otherwise provided by law or by the PERSON \u2019s rules of procedure .","On DATE , the commission , consisting of CARDINAL MPs , began its work .","On DATE the public prosecutor questioned the applicant and notified him of the charge against him . The applicant was obliged to present security in the form of a registered charge against his property and his passport was seized .","On DATE issue number CARDINAL of the DATE magazine PERSON was published with , on the cover , a photomontage showing the applicant with his head emerging from a toilet bowl while CARDINAL hands of unknown persons were pressing the flush button . The photomontage was accompanied by the following caption : \u201c How many men in power will GPE bring down with him ? \u201d ( Ilu ludzi wladzy pociagnie za soba GPE ? ) . Inside the same issue of PERSON was an article headed \u201c PERSON \u201d ( PERSON ) , on the subject of corruption in GPE .","Following that publication the applicant brought proceedings against PERSON for the protection of his reputation , complaining about a breach of his right to be presumed innocent .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim , finding in particular as follows :","\u201c Until the final conviction has been handed down , the complainant must be treated as a person presumed innocent . It is nevertheless true that he had been charged with specific offences , that a bill of indictment had been preferred against him , and that the matter is being examined by a parliamentary commission of inquiry . It must be emphasised that the general public have been informed about the \u201c group in power \u201d [ sic ] . In that situation , the journalists had not only the right but also a duty , under LAW , to ask questions about any figures in power who may be implicated in this affair ...","In the lower court \u2019s opinion , the complainant \u2019s picture was widely known to the public in the context of the \u2018 Rywin affair\u2019 even before the article was published . The image of PERSON had appeared on a number of occasions in the media in connection with this matter . The complainant was interviewed by the parliamentary commission of inquiry in the course of hearings that were broadcast on television . Having regard to this context , the publication by the DATE PERSON of the applicant \u2019s picture did not harm his reputation .","...","What is important in the present case is the fact that the cover does not contain any material that may prejudge the complainant \u2019s guilt in [ what is known as ] the \u2018 Rywin\u2019 affair . According to the court below , the cover may be seen by readers as a [ mere ] indication that the complainant was involved in the case . His implication in this affair , of which the public were well - informed before the impugned publication , is therefore not attributable to the latter . ...","The seriousness of the bribery justified , in the present instance , the use of scathing expressions and very expressive symbols . ... Bribery is so harmful and blameworthy that the fact of representing it using a toilet bowl as a symbol is no exaggeration ... The picture where the complainant \u2019s head is seen emerging from the toilet bowl \u2013 a symbol of corruption \u2013 only means that he may be implicated in the affair and that its elucidation may lead to establishing the identities of others involved ... \u201d","In the meantime , the criminal investigation and the work of the commission were ongoing . The commission sat throughout DATE and until DATE , when its last session was convened .","The sessions held by the commission DATE and DATE were devoted to the hearing of witnesses , such as the executives of ORG , high - ranking government officials starting with the Prime Minister , journalists , members of the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office and businessmen representing the media . The applicant , who appeared before the commission on DATE , refused to answer any of its questions . The commission \u2019s hearings were public and broadcast live on radio and television . CARDINAL of the witness hearings were apparently held in private . The transcripts of the commission \u2019s hearings , consisting of CARDINAL typed pages , were systematically published on the ORG \u2019s website .","NORP The commission \u2019s work was widely reported in the media , including comments by its members .","Pursuant to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the commission worked in close cooperation with the GPE public prosecutor conducting the criminal investigation in respect of the applicant .","Thus in DATE the president of the commission asked the public prosecutor \u2019s office to conduct certain investigative acts , and in particular : to obtain the transcripts of the applicant \u2019s telephone conversations ; to determine the places where his documents were kept ; to seize the hard drives from his computer ; and to carry out a search of his private and professional premises .","On DATE the public prosecutor conducting the investigation authorised the commission to disclose , in the context of the proceedings before it , the material in the criminal investigation file . On DATE the national public prosecutor ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against this measure , observing that the disclosure of such material was authorised provided it was not prejudicial to the outcome of the case .","On DATE the commission forwarded to the public prosecutor , at his request , the transcripts and recordings of its hearings , including the witness hearings .","Information was exchanged between the commission and the public prosecutor on several occasions . In that connection , members of the commission \u2019s presidium had meetings with the national public prosecutor and the public prosecutor leading the investigation .","In DATE the criminal investigation in respect of the applicant was completed and the indictment , together with a case file of CARDINAL volumes , was presented to GPE ORG . Mr GPE was indicted for attempted influence peddling , an offence under LAW combined with LAW .","On DATE ORG ordered the case to be sent to ORG on the ground of its exceptional nature and its importance ( sprawa szczeg\u00f3lnej wagi ) , having regard to the positions held by the individuals implicated in the case , the media and public interest and the work of the commission .","On DATE ORG declared that the public prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) applied to the judicial phase of the criminal proceedings .","Noting that the commission had been privy to the whole of the investigation case file concerning the applicant , the court pointed out that if the material in the file were used in the proceedings before the commission it would have to be careful not to cause any prejudice to the persons concerned by that investigation , such as the witnesses and the applicant .","On DATE the case was assigned to a bench of CARDINAL professional judges .","On DATE , when the trial opened , ORG authorised the broadcasting of the hearings live on radio and television , emphasising that journalists should not impede the smooth running of the proceedings and should abide by the rule that testifying witnesses were not to be apprised of the statements of the other witnesses .","The court also authorised the media disclosure of the applicant \u2019s identity and picture , observing that the public interest in following the proceedings prevailed over any contrary interest of the persons on trial .","DATE GPE ORG heard testimony from a number of witnesses , including those who had already been interviewed by the commission . During these hearings , the court systematically compared the statements before it with those that the same witnesses had given to the commission .","ORG and the commission exchanged , on a number of occasions , information they had gathered in their respective proceedings .","On DATE , after the closing of the witness hearings , the court made public all the evidence , including that which it had received from the commission .","The court informed the parties that there might be a change in the legal classification of the charges against the applicant , which might fall under LAW combined with LAW , corresponding to the offence of attempted fraud ( usi\u0142owanie doprowadzenia do niekorzystnego rozporzadzenia mieniem ) .","In response to a request by the defence for the adjournment of the proceedings for a maximum of DATE , the court postponed the trial until DATE , fixing DATE as the date of the last round of oral argument .","On DATE the court rejected a defence request for the admission of new evidence .","In response to a request by the defence , the court then adjourned the trial until DATE , declaring that judgment would be given on DATE .","On DATE the newspaper ORG published an article with the heading \u201c Before the judgment \u201d ( \u201c ORG wyrokiem \u201d ) , beginning as follows :","\u201c The biggest corruption scandal of GPE will certainly end in a failure for the justice system \u2013 regardless of the charges on which PERSON is convicted or the sentence handed down .","... I think that the judgment will be disappointing in terms of the intention and capacity of the justice system to succeed in discovering the truth \u2013 this indeed being the mission of the courts and the public prosecutor \u2013 beyond the politics . After the GPE affair , citizens will still be convinced that laws are not enacted but purchased and that even the high - ranking officials of the State \u2013 and I quote the public prosecutor \u2013 \u2018 place their personal interests above those of FAC ; in other words \u2013 to call a spade a space \u2013 [ that they ] are corrupt .","... \u201d","In a judgment of DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of attempted fraud , under LAW combined with LAW , LAW and LAW , and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) . In its reasoning the court found as follows :","( a ) that it was established that DATE , the applicant had attempted to incite PERSON , chair of ORG \u2019s board of directors , and PERSON , editor - in - chief of ORG , to dispose of that company \u2019s property with detrimental effect thereto for a value equivalent to MONEY ;","( b ) that it had not been established that the applicant had been instructed by the Prime Minister or any figures in his entourage .","CARDINAL of the judges on the bench submitted a separate opinion , taking the view that the applicant should have been given a suspended sentence with probation , in view of his age , his professional background and his state of health .","After the delivery of the judgment , the president of the trial court of ORG published a statement . He commended the efforts of his fellow judges to bring the trial to its conclusion in a calm manner , notwithstanding the various comments about the procedure that had been reported in the media . Noting that some of those comments could be regarded as an attempt to influence the court \u2019s work , the president emphasised the following points : that throughout the trial the judges had acted pursuant only to the provisions of criminal law ; that the purpose of the trial was different from that of the parliamentary commission of inquiry ; and that as professional judges the members of the bench had been able to resist any pressure that might result from the media statements made in connection with the case by various journalists and politicians , or even by certain members of the commission . Pointing out that a statement such as his in the present case was unusual , in view of the judiciary \u2019s duty of discretion , the president explained that he could not refrain from mentioning the remarks made by the author of the article entitled \u201c Before the judgment \u201d , which had been published in the period when the case was under deliberation and which could be regarded , in his view , as an attempt on the part of the journalist to influence the outcome ; such statements were , in his view , inadmissible and blameworthy , even in connection with a case which , like the present one and rightly so , had attracted significant media interest .","On DATE the applicant and the public prosecutor \u2019s office each appealed against the judgment of DATE . In his statement of appeal the applicant alleged , among other things , that on account of the influence of the commission \u2019s work on the judges , exacerbated by the press coverage of the CARDINAL sets of proceedings , his trial had been devoid of the requisite fairness under LAW .","At the end of its last session on DATE , the commission adopted its final report , concluding that the applicant had acted alone . Several commission members submitted their own draft reports to the PERSON . After examining it at the plenary of CARDINAL DATE , the PERSON rejected the commission \u2019s report and expressed its preference for that of the MP PERSON , which was regarded as the most radical . It can be seen from the file that this report was drafted with a view to having the persons concerned held to account before ORG . In view of doubts as to the weight of the vote of CARDINAL May , the PERSON endorsed the report by the MP PERSON by its final vote of DATE . The position taken in that report was as follows :","\u201c PERSON , Prime Minister , PERSON , junior minister in ORG , PERSON , the Prime Minister \u2019s chief of staff , PERSON , chair of the board of directors of the company ORG , and PERSON , member of ORG , committed , by deliberate and concerted action in DATE , the offence of bribery , within the meaning of LAW of LAW taken together with LAW thereof ; in that they , [ while ] influencing the content of LAW being amended and the parliamentary proceedings related thereto , in DATE , through the intermediary of PERSON , acting as agent of the \u2018 power - holding group\u2019 , made a corrupt proposal to the representatives of ORG , namely on DATE to PERSON and PERSON and on DATE to PERSON , consisting in demanding a financial reward of MONEY ( ORG ) , the appointment of PERSON as chairman of the channel ORG and an undertaking from the company ORG that the newspaper ORG would refrain from publishing any criticism of the Prime Minister or government . In return , provisions would be inserted in LAW that would be beneficial for ORG , allowing it to purchase the television channel ORG .","The evidence gathered in this case renders highly plausible ( w wysokim stopniu uprawdopodabnia ) the above - mentioned account , to the extent of justifying the prosecution of the above - named persons . \u201d","The report , disseminated by the media , was widely discussed and commented on by the various public stakeholders .","...","In the meantime , the applicant \u2019s trial continued before ORG .","On DATE ORG informed the parties that the charge against the applicant was likely to be reclassified to aiding and abetting influence peddling ( pomocnictwo do p\u0142atnej protekcji ) , an offence under LAW of LAW taken together with LAW .","ORG adjourned the proceedings until DATE to allow the defence to adapt its strategy to the intended change of classification . On the scheduled date the defence submitted their observations .","In a judgment of DATE ORG found Mr GPE guilty of aiding and abetting influence peddling ( pomocnictwo do p\u0142atnej protekcji ) , an offence under LAW of LAW taken together with LAW , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and a fine of PLN CARDINAL .","In its reasoning , ORG found that the applicant had facilitated the perpetration by other individuals \u2013 whose identity had not been established DATE of the offence of bribery . In this connection it found it established that , on CARDINAL and DATE , the applicant had presented to PERSON and PERSON an offer devised by the above - mentioned individuals who , on the strength of their positions at the level of the ORG , had proposed their assistance as intermediaries to amend LAW in a manner favourable to ORG , thereby enabling it to purchase the television channel ORG , in exchange for MONEY , a sum that was to be paid to ORG ( ORG ) via the bank account of a company belonging to the applicant .","In response to the applicant \u2019s complaint that the proceedings of the commission and their media coverage had undermined the fairness of his trial , ORG found that this complaint was not substantiated by any tangible evidence ; the applicant had not explained concretely how the media reports on the commission \u2019s work had influenced the reasoning of the judges in their deliberations or the outcome of the criminal proceedings , or how the commission \u2019s proceedings and report might have had any impact on the impartiality of the judges or on the reliability of the testimony given before the trial court . ORG took the view , in sum , that this was tantamount to implying that only an adjournment of the criminal proceedings pending the outcome of the commission \u2019s work could have preserved its fairness . Noting that the courts were frequently confronted with media interest in a given case , ORG was of the view that this fact , in itself , did not suffice for the fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant to be called into question .","As to the applicant \u2019s complaint that the testimony used in support of his conviction had been vitiated by the fact that the witnesses had been heard by ORG after being questioned on the same circumstances by the commission , in public sittings that had received significant media attention , ORG regarded it as ill - founded ; testimony was always assessed by judges in accordance with the rules in LAW and in the light of all the evidence . In the present case , ORG could not identify any circumstance that would lead it to believe that the witnesses heard by ORG had been influenced by the content of their previous statements to the commission or by those of other witnesses .","With reference to the applicant \u2019s complaint that the reasoning of ORG judgment was insufficient , ORG acknowledged that in certain respects the reasoning had been succinct . Nevertheless , it endorsed that reasoning to a large extent , noting that ORG had examined the relevant aspects of the case and that its conclusion was justified .","Lastly , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning ORG refusal to admit in evidence certain items proposed by the defence ; the court below had rightly found them superfluous for the outcome of the case . In the view of ORG , the exercise of defence rights could not consist in requests made ad infinitum , and in particular those that were irrelevant for its resolution .","The applicant and the public prosecutor \u2019s office appealed on points of law .","In a decision ( postanowienie ) of DATE ORG dismissed the CARDINAL appeals , endorsing the reasoning given by ORG . ..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169198","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TRUTKO v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-b - Non-compliance with court order);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE Region .","On DATE she was charged with contempt of court and criminally insulting the presiding judge and parties at a hearing on DATE in which she had acted as a defendant \u2019s representative .","An outpatient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant was ordered in the course of the pre - trial investigation . On DATE she was apprehended and taken to a psychiatric facility for examination . On DATE she was examined by a panel of psychiatrists , who concluded that her clinical state was unclear and that no answers could be given concerning her mental health state . She was released , the panel recommending a placement in ORG in GPE ( NORP \u043d\u0430\u0443\u0447\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0446\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440 \u0441\u043e\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0438 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u0438\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0438 \u0438\u043c. PERSON ) ( \u201c the ORG Centre \u201d ) for an inpatient forensic psychiatric examination .","On DATE the ORG of LOC ( PERSON \u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 ) ( \u201c the Town Court \u201d ) , having considered the applicant \u2019s complaint of unlawful apprehension and deprivation of liberty DATE , ruled in her favour . The court reasoned that the detention had been unlawful , since the sanction for the crime she was suspected of did not provide for any form of deprivation of liberty . The applicant did not initiate any further proceedings in this regard .","On DATE the prosecution made an application for the court to order an involuntary forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant at ORG .","On DATE ORG granted the prosecutor \u2019s application . The relevant part of its order reads :","\u201c By virtue of paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of LAW , a defendant may be placed in a psychiatric hospital if a forensic psychiatric examination requires his assessment in the hospital .","... the court considers that it should allow the application by the investigator , Ms NORP , to place [ the applicant ] in [ ORG ] for a forensic psychiatric evaluation , because [ the applicant ] is in need of such a hospital examination . \u201d","The applicant and her representative did not attend the hearing , because they had not been summoned to it . However , both the prosecutor and the investigator attended and made oral submissions .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed , complaining , inter alia , that she had not been given an opportunity to present her case to ORG .","DATE and DATE the applicant applied to adjourn her appeal hearing CARDINAL times . Her application was granted on each occasion . On DATE during the appeal hearing in a separate set of proceedings she accused the judges of criminal conspiracy and attempted murder .","On DATE the applicant was also charged with criminal slander of certain judges during the hearing of DATE . The proceedings in respect of the CARDINAL criminal cases were joined .","On DATE the applicant was apprehended by the authorities and transferred to ORG . On DATE a panel of psychiatrists issued a report , concluding that the applicant suffered from \u201c paranoid personality development \u201d , and that she had not been able to understand or control her actions during the events of DATE ( contempt of court ) and CARDINAL DATE ( criminal slander ) . The report further stated that she presented a danger to others and therefore needed compulsory treatment in a psychiatric facility . On DATE the applicant was released .","DATE on DATE ORG ( ORG \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 ) ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) held a hearing on the applicant \u2019s appeal against the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE authorising psychiatric examination , and rejected it . As regards the applicant \u2019s complaint about the hearing taking place in her absence , ORG noted that LAW provided for ex parte hearings where there was judicial authorisation of investigative actions , including internment in a psychiatric facility for forensic examination ( as set out in LAW ) .","On DATE ORG ( ORG \u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 ) ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) adopted decisions in CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant . The first decision terminated the criminal proceedings relating to the contempt of court charges in respect of the events of DATE . The applicant \u2019s statements , while offensive , were found to have been lacking the degree of insult requisite for incurring criminal liability . In the second decision , ORG established the principal facts of the events of DATE . Concluding that the applicant had acted in a state of insanity , it terminated the criminal proceedings against her and ordered her to undergo compulsory medical treatment in a psychiatric facility . It relied on the findings and recommendations of ORG report of CARDINAL DATE in its reasoning .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the lower court \u2019s decisions .","It appears from the parties\u2019 submissions that the applicant was not detained and did not receive any treatment pursuant to ORG order until DATE .","On DATE the applicant was involuntarily admitted to ORG no . CARDINAL ( PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u0438\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u0431\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 \u2116 DATE ) for compulsory psychiatric treatment .","On DATE a panel of hospital psychiatrists concluded that the applicant \u2019s mental health had improved and she no longer posed a danger to society . On DATE an application to discharge the hospital order and discontinue the compulsory treatment was sent to ORG .","On DATE ORG scheduled the hearing of the application for DATE . However , it was adjourned until DATE , because the applicant \u2019s representative failed to appear and additional medical records and statements had to be obtained . CARDINAL subsequent hearings were adjourned following applications by the applicant \u2019s representatives .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s compulsory treatment to be discontinued . Her representative lodged an appeal , arguing that the proceedings should have been discontinued from the very beginning , and that the applicant should have been released , since there had been no need for any compulsory treatment . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court \u2019s decision .","NORP The applicant was released from hospital on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-b","5-1-e"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145722","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"U\u00c7AR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants , whose names and places of residence are set out in the appendix , are NORP nationals . They are represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP summarised as follows .","The applicants were the mayors of CARDINAL municipalities at the time of lodging their application with the ORG .","On DATE the ORG of Turkey adopted PERSON no . CARDINAL \u201c on establishing districts within the boundaries of metropolitan municipalities and amending various laws \u201d , which was published in ORG of DATE and entered into force on that date . Law no . DATE stipulated , inter alia , that the legal personality of a number of municipalities , including those headed by the applicants , would be abolished and that either those administrative units would become villages \/ neighbourhoods and join other municipalities , or a certain number of them would together constitute new municipalities . Law no . DATE further stipulated that the legal personality of those municipalities , as well as their authority and rights , would continue to exist until the next general local elections were held .","On DATE CARDINAL members of parliament from the ORG , the main opposition party , Mr GPE Okay , Mr PERSON and Mr GPE GPE , the party leader , made an application to ORG of GPE . The MPs requested ORG to repeal certain provisions of PERSON no . DATE , including those applicable to the applicants\u2019 municipalities . The MPs claimed , inter alia , that there was no public interest in abolishing the legal personality of certain municipalities and that PERSON no . DATE had been adopted so that the governing party , the ORG , could win the local elections in the areas in issue . They further submitted that a referendum should have been held in the municipalities in question , in accordance with LAW no . DATE ) , and that PERSON no . DATE was in contravention of the provisions of the Law on Elections in Local Administrations ( Law no . CARDINAL ) and the LAW . On this last point , the MPs submitted that , according to LAW , a legislative amendment concerning elections would not be applicable to elections held within DATE of the entry into force of those amendments and that the local election process of DATE would start on DATE , in line with the provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL . They therefore considered that PERSON no . DATE should not be applied to the local elections of DATE .","On DATE ORG rendered its decision in the case ( case no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , decision no . CARDINAL ) and dismissed the case in so far as it concerned the municipalities headed by the applicants . The court noted at the outset that the MPs had not requested the repeal of the provision which concerned the entry into force of LAW no . DATE , and that therefore their submissions regarding the compatibility of PERSON no . DATE with LAW could not be examined .","As regards the submission that a referendum should have been held in accordance with PERSON no . DATE and that the provisions of Law no . DATE were incompatible with PERSON no . CARDINAL , ORG held that a legal norm could be reviewed only in the light of the relevant constitutional norm and not in relation to another legal norm . It further held that the legislature had the authority to make , amend and repeal laws and the responsibility to maintain harmonisation between laws . ORG concluded that it could therefore not review the compatibility of the provisions of PERSON no . DATE with those contained in PERSON no . DATE and PERSON no . CARDINAL .","Lastly , as to the allegations that the provisions of PERSON no . DATE lacked public interest and that this law had been passed for political reasons , ORG noted at the outset that it had the authority to examine whether certain legislation had been passed with the purpose of serving the public interest . The court further noted that the question of whether a legal norm was compatible with the needs of the country was political in nature and that the legislature was permitted a degree of discretion on that point . The court considered that it could not assess the existence of a public interest on the basis of the political choice of the legislature alone . ORG further noted that in accordance with LAW , the administrative units were to be determined , through laws , by the legislature and taking into account their geographical features , economic circumstances and need for public services . The court observed that the petition lodged by the MPs for the repeal of certain provisions of Law no . DATE did not contain any concrete argument as to how those provisions did not serve the public interest but were the result of the political considerations of the governing party . ORG also observed that the aim of the changes brought about by PERSON no . DATE was the efficient functioning of the public services provided by the local administrations and the efficient and productive use of public resources by the central administration . ORG held that there was no evidence demonstrating that the amendments had been made with the aim of acquiring political or personal gain . The court lastly noted that since , in accordance with PERSON no . DATE , the legal personality of the municipalities in question , as well as their authority and rights , would continue to exist until the first general local elections were held , the legislature had respected the will of the electorate regarding the last DATE election period in the areas concerned .","On DATE the local elections were held and as a result the legal personality of the municipalities headed by the applicants ceased to exist on DATE .","DATE LAW provides :"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181389","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KHLYSTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the domestic courts\u2019 failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174621","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CIRNEROV\u00c1 AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE a claim was lodged with PERSON - okolie ORG against some of the applicants or their predecessors . With this claim , the plaintiffs were seeking a judicial ruling declaring them to be the owners of an area of grassland . The other applicants entered the proceedings as defendants on different dates and on the basis of different legal entitlements as outlined in the annexed table .","DATE the first - instance court held a number of hearings , ordered expert opinions , dealt with other relevant evidence , and heard witnesses . It also took some time to determine the parties who were actually to be sued in the proceedings in view of multiple deaths among the original defendants and various transactions made in respect of the property in question .","On DATE ORG delivered a judgment , finding that the applicants\u2019 ( or their ORG ) right to a hearing within a reasonable time had been violated by ORG . It ordered ORG to proceed without undue delay and to reimburse the ORG legal costs . It also awarded just satisfaction in respect of nonpecuniary damage in the amount of ORG CARDINAL to the applicants listed under points CARDINAL to CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL to those listed under points CARDINAL to CARDINAL and to the deceased predecessor of the applicants listed under points CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the Appendix . ORG noted inter alia that ORG had failed to proceed with the matter DATE . It also observed some of the applicants\u2019 lack of interest in those proceedings . That judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE ORG delivered a judgment on the merits of the case , which was not served on the parties to the proceedings until DATE after its delivery .","On DATE ORG rejected a fresh constitutional complaint that had been lodged by the applicants ( except those listed under points CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) . It found no further undue delays in the proceedings before ORG after the constitutional judgment of DATE . It noted the delay of DATE which ORG had taken to serve its judgment on the parties . However , it did not consider it unconstitutional .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG transferred the case file to ORG following an appeal lodged by the applicants listed under points CARDINAL and DATE and some other defendants in the proceedings .","On DATE ORG had to identify and deal with successors of some of the deceased parties to the proceedings . It partly upheld ORG judgment and partly dismissed the claim concerning some of the contested property . It also rejected the remainder of the appeal . The judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE the applicants listed under points CARDINAL and CARDINAL to DATE , together with several other defendants in the proceedings , lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE the proceedings in respect of that appeal were discontinued without examination of its merits due to the appellants\u2019 failure to pay the court fees . That decision became final on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147470","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF YILMAZ YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals who were born in DATE respectively . Mr PERSON lives in PERSON and the others live in GPE .","The first applicant , PERSON , is a health officer and the branch chairman of ORG ( GPE ve ORG DATE \u201c the SES \u201d ) in PERSON . The second applicant , PERSON , is a doctor and the branch chairman of the ORG in GPE . The third applicant , PERSON , is a doctor and also a member of the ORG in GPE .","On DATE several members of the union gathered in front of ORG ( ORG \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) Hospital . Subsequently the first applicant read out the ORG \u2019s press statement drawing attention to the problems that could arise as a consequence of the transfer of hospitals incorporated in the ORG to ORG .","The statement read as follows :","\u201c For the attention of the press and the public :","Hospitals incorporated in the ORG have been transferred to ORG pursuant to LAW no . DATE . Following that structural change patients were unable to take their medication for a long time and hospital staff have been working in a tense atmosphere .","Before the structural changes our union warned the ORG and the public . The probable administrative and bureaucratic problems were pointed out : ORG was going to be under a huge economic burden , people would have to pay for health care services and an additional tax was going to be imposed on workers .","Our union maintains that the ORG should allocate more funds from the budget to the health care services to redress the structural problems .","Our union states that all citizens should be provided with equal , accessible , sufficient and free health care services . \u201d","On DATE the second and third applicants together with another thirty persons gathered in ORG yard . Subsequently , the second applicant read out the press statement in his capacity as chairman of the GPE branch of the union .","The police did not prevent anyone from entering the yard during either gathering . Nor did they interfere with the demonstrations or the reading out of the press statements .","According to the police reports of CARDINAL DATE in GPE and CARDINAL DATE in GPE , the CARDINAL groups of demonstrators had been warned verbally that their gatherings were illegal and ordered to disband for the protection of public order and safety .","The PERSON and GPE public prosecutors filed indictments charging the applicants with intentionally disobeying orders issued by the authorities aimed at protecting public order and safety , pursuant to section QUANTITY of LAW , PERSON No . ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , convicted the applicants as charged and imposed on them administrative fines of MONEY ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","The applicants appealed against the courts\u2019 decisions .","On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , dismissed the ORG appeals . These decisions were notified to the applicants respectively on DATE and DATE .","On DATE and DATE the applicants paid the fines to the relevant tax departments ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142969","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF TARANENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;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 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) read in the light of Article 11 - (Art. 11) Freedom of assembly and association;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP The media reported that on DATE a group of CARDINAL members of ORG ( also referred to herein as \u201c the ORG \u201d ) occupied the reception area of the President \u2019s Administration building in GPE and locked themselves in an office on the ground floor .","They asked for a meeting with the President , the deputy head of ORG Administration Mr PERSON , and the President \u2019s economic advisor PERSON ORG . They waved placards with \u201c PERSON , resign ! \u201d ( \u00ab PERSON , \u0443\u0439\u0434\u0438 ! PERSON ) written on them through the window and distributed leaflets with a printed address to the President that listed CARDINAL ways in which he had failed to uphold LAW , and a call for his resignation .","The intruders stayed in the office for TIME until the police broke through the door . During the arrest , they did not offer any resistance to the authorities .","According to the applicant , she was not a member of ORG . She was writing a master \u2019s thesis in sociology on forms of activity of radical political movements in modern GPE . On DATE one of the members of ORG told her about the direct action in the President \u2019s Administration building planned for DATE . She came to witness the protest action in order to collect information for her thesis . She did not take part in the occupation of the office , but merely watched the action , took notes and pictures .","The indictment of the applicant states that at TIME on DATE forty ORG members effected an unauthorised entry into the reception area of the building used by the President of ORG . Some of them pushed back the guards at the entrance and occupied room no . CARDINAL on the ground floor . They locked themselves in , blocked the door with a heavy safe and let other members of their group enter through the window .","Until the police arrived , the ORG members , including the applicant , waved placards through the office window , threw out leaflets and chanted slogans calling for the President \u2019s resignation . They stayed in the office for TIME , destroyed office furniture and equipment and damaged the walls and the ceiling .","On DATE the applicant was arrested .","On DATE the ORG of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on the grounds that she was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence , might abscond , reoffend , interfere with the witnesses or obstruct the investigation in some other way .","On DATE the applicant was charged with the attempted violent overthrow of the ORG ( LAW ) and intentional destruction and degradation of others\u2019 property in public places ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant asked to be released , referring to her clean criminal record , permanent residence in GPE and permanent employment as a school teacher .","On DATE the investigator refused her request , referring to the gravity of the charges , the absence of a registered residence in GPE and the risk that she might abscond .","On DATE the ORG of GPE extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , finding that the grounds on which the preventive measure had previously been imposed still persisted and there was no reason to vary the preventive measure .","On DATE the charges against the applicant were amended to that of a charge of participation in mass disorder , an offence under LAW .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , referring to the gravity of the charge and the risk that she might abscond or interfere with the investigation .","On DATE the investigation was completed and CARDINAL people , including the applicant , were committed for trial .","On DATE the ORG of GPE held a preliminary hearing . It rejected the GPE requests to be released . It stated that it had taken into account the GPE characters , their young age , frail health , family situation and stable way of life . However , it found , referring to the gravity of the charges , that \u201c the case file gives sufficient reasons to believe that , once released , the defendants would flee or interfere with the trial \u201d . It therefore ordered that all defendants should remain in custody . On DATE ORG rejected appeals lodged by several of the applicant \u2019s co - defendants .","On DATE the applicant and her co - defendants lodged applications for release . On DATE the ORG rejected the applications , finding that their detention was lawful and justified . In particular , it noted that their detention had been extended by the court order of DATE and , under LAW , that order was valid for DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal .","On DATE the applicant and her co - defendants filed new applications for release . On DATE the ORG rejected the applications . It held :","\u201c The court takes into account the defence \u2019s argument that an individual approach to each defendant \u2019s situation is essential when deciding on a preventive measure .","Examining the grounds on which ... the court ordered and extended detention in respect of all the defendants without exception ... the court notes that these grounds still persist DATE . Therefore , having regard to the state of health , family situation , age , profession and character of all the defendants , and to the personal guarantees offered by certain private individuals and included in the case file , the court concludes that , if released , each of the applicants might abscond or obstruct justice in some other way ...","In the court \u2019s view , in these circumstances , having regard to the gravity of the charges , there are no grounds for varying or revoking the preventive measure in respect of any defendant ... \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal .","During the trial the applicant and her co - defendants stated that they had taken part in a peaceful protest against President PERSON \u2019s policies . According to the plan of the protest action agreed in advance , they were to go to the President \u2019s Administration building to meet officials and hand over a petition that listed the President \u2019s CARDINAL failures to comply with the LAW and contained a call for his resignation . They were then to talk to journalists . On DATE they had entered the reception area of the President \u2019s Administration building as planned and had gone into a vacant office on the ground floor . The guards had followed them and had hit those who had lagged behind , had pushed them into the office and had shut the door behind them . The guards had threatened to use force against the protesters . Taking fright , the protesters had locked the office door and blocked it with a metal safe . They had chanted slogans and distributed leaflets through the windows , thereby expressing their opinions about important political issues . They denied destroying any furniture or offering resistance to the police . They claimed that the furniture had been destroyed by the police officers who had broken down the door and arrested them .","The employees and the guards of ORG stated that on DATE a group of CARDINAL people had rushed into ORG reception area . They had pushed CARDINAL of the guards aside , had scurried through the metal detectors and had jumped over tables and chairs . They had run into CARDINAL of the offices , had locked the door and had started to chant political slogans . The police had arrived and ordered that the office be vacated . As the protesters had failed to comply , the police had broken down the door and arrested them . Some of the witnesses stated that the protesters had showed resistance to the police , in particular by preventing them from forcing open the door .","The police officers who had participated in the arrest stated that before breaking the door down they had ordered that the LOC be vacated . Having received no response , they had forced open the door and had arrested the protesters . They denied breaking any furniture in the office , stating that it had been damaged before their arrival .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant and her co - defendants guilty of participation in mass disorder . It found it established that the defendants had unlawfully entered the President \u2019s Administration building without complying with the requisite entry formalities . In particular , they had bypassed identity and security checks and had pushed aside the guard who had attempted to stop them . They had then proceeded to CARDINAL of the offices without being registered at the reception desk and without complying with the PERSON lawful demands to leave the LOC . In view of their unlawful and aggressive behaviour , they could not argue that they had participated in a peaceful political action . The court also held as follows :","\u201c [ The defendants ] , acting in conspiracy , committed serious breaches of public safety and order by disregarding established norms of conduct and showing manifest disrespect for society ... They effected an unauthorised entry into the reception area of the President of ORG building and took over office no . CARDINAL on the ground floor ... They then blocked the door with a heavy metal safe and conducted an unauthorised meeting , during which they waved ORG flag and placards , threw anti-[Putin ] leaflets out [ of windows ] and issued an unlawful ultimatum by calling for the President \u2019s resignation , thereby destabilising the normal functioning of ORG and preventing its reception personnel from performing their service duties , namely ... reception of members of the public and examination of applications from citizens of GPE ...","While performing the above disorderly acts [ the defendants ] ... destroyed and damaged property in the offices of the reception area of the President \u2019s Administration building ... \u201d","In respect of the applicant , the court noted that it was irrelevant whether she had joined the direct action for academic or other purposes . It had been established that she had directly participated in the mass disorder together with the others . Taking into account the fact that the defendants had voluntarily compensated the pecuniary damage in the amount of MONEY ( MONEY ) caused by their actions and that the applicant had positive character references , the court sentenced her to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , but suspended the sentence and put her on DATE probation . She was immediately released .","In her appeal submissions the applicant complained , in particular , that she had been convicted , in breach of LAW , for her participation in a peaceful assembly and for public expression of her opinions about important political issues .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE .","According to the applicant , her cell , which accommodated DATE inmates , was overcrowded . The applicant suffered from psoriasis ( a skin disease ) , chronic pyelonephritis ( a kidney infection ) , chronic bronchitis and allergies . She did not receive medical treatment appropriate for her conditions .","According to the Government , from CARDINAL to DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and housed CARDINAL inmates . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and housed CARDINAL to thirty inmates . From CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m and housed CARDINAL inmates . The applicant had a separate bunk at all times and was provided with bedding . In support of their position , the Government submitted certificates issued by the remand centre governor on DATE and selected pages from the prison population register which recorded , for DATE , the number of sleeping bunks and the number of inmates in each of the remand centre \u2019s cells .","Relying on certificates of DATE from the remand centre governor , the ORG further submitted that all cells had been equipped with toilet facilities which were separated from the living area by a partition . There had been forced ventilation in the cells . The windows had been large and had not been blocked by shutters . The cells had had sufficient artificial light , which had been located so as not to disturb the ORG sleep . There had been no insects or rodents in the detention facility , as all the cells had been disinfected DATE . Hot food had been served CARDINAL times a day . Inmates had been able to take TIME daily walk in the exercise yards . They had been allowed to take a shower at least once DATE .","Relying on the applicant \u2019s medical records , the ORG submitted that the applicant had been regularly examined by specialist doctors and had been prescribed treatment when necessary ."],"violated_articles":["10","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147622","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF URT\u0100NS v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion;Reasonably necessary to prevent offence);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence in FAC .","On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated concerning a burglary . On DATE they were joined to another set of proceedings concerning another burglary .","On DATE the applicant was officially declared a suspect .","On DATE , following a request from the police , an investigating judge of ORG issued a warrant for his arrest and detention . The decision reads as follows :","\u201c The judge , having examined the case material , the arguments of the [ investigative authority ] and the attorney \u2019s opinion , considers that the request is justified and should be granted .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW sets out the grounds for the application of a procedural compulsory measure , namely a person \u2019s resistance to the reaching of the aim of criminal proceedings in specific proceedings or to the performance of a separate procedural action , or non - execution or improper execution of his or her procedural duties .","In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW a person may be detained only if specific factual information obtained in the course of criminal proceedings creates a reasonable suspicion that the person in question has committed a criminal offence , for which the law provides for a custodial sentence , and if no other preventive measure can ensure that they will not commit another criminal offence or obstruct or avoid the pre - trial proceedings , trial or execution of the sentence .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that human rights may be restricted only in cases where such restriction is required for public safety reasons and according to the nature and danger of the criminal offence .","On DATE the [ applicant ] was declared a suspect of a criminal offence proscribed by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . Information obtained in the course of criminal proceedings excludes reasonable doubt about his implication in a serious criminal offence . The only possible sanction for commission of this crime is a custodial sentence .","It follows from the case material that the [ applicant ] has declared [ to the domestic authorities ] his place of residence as [ address of Daugavgr\u012bva Prison ] in GPE . The case material also contains [ a document from another set of criminal proceedings ] with [ his ] signature , whereby he undertakes an obligation to reside at [ a particular address ] in Daugavpils . On DATE the [ investigating authority ] sent a notice to that address for the [ applicant ] to appear at a police station on CARDINAL DATE . On a copy of that notice the investigator has made a note that the [ applicant ] failed to appear at the allotted time and did not inform [ anyone ] about the reasons for his absence . On DATE a decision was made to forcibly escort the [ applicant ] to the [ investigating authority ] on DATE , but [ this decision ] could not be executed since the [ applicant ] was not living at [ that particular address ] . Police officers verified on several occasions other possible places where the applicant might be , but it was impossible to find him or where he might be ; this is evidenced by the police ORG reports of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . Information has been obtained in the course of the criminal proceedings that the [ applicant ] is renting an apartment in the [ name of a particular street ] area of NORP , but the specific address is unknown . In the circumstances , there are grounds to consider that the [ applicant ] is hiding and avoiding participation in the investigation , thereby resisting the reaching of the aim of the criminal proceedings and obstructing the normal course of the criminal proceedings and a speedy and fair resolution of issues arising from criminal law .","Information obtained from ORG shows that the [ applicant ] has been tried on CARDINAL occasions , [ reference to various crimes , including burglary ] . Taking into account the time spent in pre - trial detention , he has served the [ custodial ] sentence imposed and ... is currently [ subject to an ] additional penalty \u2013 police control . In the circumstances , there are reasonable grounds to consider that at liberty , the [ applicant ] could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence .","Taking into account the aforementioned , the judge concludes that the [ investigating authority \u2019s ] request is justified and that the security measure [ of ] detention should be imposed on the [ applicant ] , since imposition of another security measure could not prevent him from committing another criminal offence or from avoiding the investigation . Also , given that the [ applicant \u2019s ] actual location is not known , it is necessary to issue a search warrant . \u201d","The applicant was arrested on DATE .","On DATE a judge of ORG examined an appeal brought by the applicant and upheld the initial detention order . This decision reads as follows :","\u201c Having assessed the reasons mentioned in the [ applicant \u2019s ] complaint and his request , having heard the explanations given during the hearing , having examined the case material of the procedural compulsory measures and of the [ instant ] case , [ and ] taking into account the opinion of the [ investigative authority ] , I consider that the decision of the investigating judge of ORG , to impose on the [ applicant ] the security measure of detention , should be upheld .","I exclude from the [ DATE ] decision a note to the effect that the [ applicant ] was avoiding participation in the investigation . According to the available information ... on DATE the [ applicant ] was convicted of [ various crimes , including burglary ] and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , police control for DATE and confiscation of property . Taking into account the time spent in pre - trial detention , he has served the [ custodial ] sentence imposed . That judgment took effect on DATE ... There is no convincing evidence that [ he ] received the notice to appear [ at the police station ] or [ other ] procedural documents sent [ to him ] ...","The conclusion made by the investigating judge \u2013 that detention had to be ordered for the [ applicant ] \u2013 is correct , since specific factual information obtained in the course of the criminal proceedings has created a reasonable suspicion that he committed a crime proscribed by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , [ for which ] the law provides for a custodial sentence . Imposing another security measure could not ensure that the [ applicant ] would not commit another criminal offence . These reasons correspond to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . They are confirmed by the information available within the criminal proceedings . The [ applicant ] has been sentenced on several occasions for crimes against property . He has also served sentences in prison but he has not drawn the necessary conclusions and has not reformed . He is suspected of an analogous crime committed while under police control [ in connection with his previous conviction ] . These circumstances are sufficient to conclude that at liberty , the [ applicant ] could commit another criminal offence . The investigating judge has rightly concluded that imposition of another security measure could not prevent him from committing another criminal offence . The [ applicant \u2019s ] detention is justified . The public safety ( sabiedr\u012bbas dro\u0161\u012bba ) is more important than the liberty of an individual who is acting contrary to the interests of society . \u201d","On DATE the investigating judge of ORG carried out a DATE review of the applicant \u2019s detention and adopted a decision in that regard . It reads as follows :","\u201c Having heard the arguments of the [ investigating authority ] , the [ applicant \u2019s ] explanation and the attorney \u2019s position and having examined the case material , the judge concludes that the security measure [ of ] detention imposed on the [ applicant ] should continue to be applied .","The security measure [ of ] detention was imposed on the [ applicant ] to ensure public safety and to prevent other criminal offences being committed . The grounds for detention have not changed . The [ applicant ] is suspected of CARDINAL burglaries ... a serious crime for which the law only provides for a custodial sentence . Previously , the [ applicant ] was tried on QUANTITY occasions ; his last conviction on DATE concerned [ various crimes , including burglary ] and he was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , police control for DATE and confiscation of property . Taking into account the time spent in pre - trial detention , he has served the [ custodial ] sentence imposed and he is suspected of an analogous , serious crime while under police control [ in connection with his previous conviction ] ; therefore , a possibility continues to exist that at liberty , he could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence , and the grounds for detention under section CARDINAL ) of LAW have not disappeared . Pre - trial investigation continues within a reasonable time and there is no unjustified delay .","It is not within the investigating judge \u2019s competence to examine and assess the evidence obtained ; therefore , the [ applicant \u2019s ] submission \u2013 that the detention [ order ] should be lifted as there is no evidence of his guilt \u2013 is not substantiated . Besides , the [ applicant \u2019s ] allegations that the [ investigating authority ] has ignored his requests and has not carried out additional questioning should not be taken into account as they contradict the case material .","...","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that a person suspected of or charged with a crime may not be held in pre - trial detention for DATE .","The [ applicant ] has been detained since DATE , that is , for slightly DATE . The time - limit for detention has not been exceeded .","In the circumstances , the investigating judge considers that the [ applicant \u2019s ] detention should be continued . \u201d","NORP On DATE the applicant was officially charged with the CARDINAL burglaries . On DATE the pre - trial investigation was concluded and the case was forwarded for adjudication to ORG .","On DATE another review of the applicant \u2019s detention was carried out and he was retained in custody .","On DATE ORG held the first hearing on the merits of the case , during which the applicant asked the court to change the security measure applied to him . In this respect , the court held as follows :","\u201c During the hearing , the [ applicant ] submitted a request that the security measure [ applied to him ] be changed as there is no evidence for his conviction ; the gathering and verification of the necessary evidence requires DATE , therefore his continued detention is not permitted . The [ applicant ] undertakes to attend all hearings .","Having heard the [ applicant \u2019s ] explanation [ and the ] opinions of the victim , attorney and prosecutor , the court considers that [ his ] request to change the security measure should be dismissed for the following reasons .","In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , if during the application of a procedural compulsory measure the grounds for the application of the measure disappear or change , or the provisions for the application of the measure or behaviour of the person change , or if other circumstances are ascertained that determined the choice of the compulsory measure , an [ investigating authority ] should take a decision to change or lift the measure .","It follows from the wording of the decision of DATE by the investigating judge of ORG that the [ applicant ] was detained because he was hiding and avoiding participation in the investigation ... Besides , it has been ascertained that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that at liberty , the [ applicant ] could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence .","Taking into account that the [ applicant ] has been charged with a serious crime , that the grounds for detention have not disappeared or changed , that the conditions for its application have not changed , and that the legal requirements concerning the length of detention have been met , the court considers that the [ applicant \u2019s ] request to change the security measure should be dismissed \u201d .","The second trial hearing was held on DATE . The applicant once again requested a review of his continued detention . In this respect , the court held as follows :","\u201c During the hearing , the [ applicant ] submitted a request that the security measure [ applied to him ] be changed due to changes in the grounds for his detention and for application of the measure . ORG excluded any reference that the [ applicant ] would avoid the investigation . LAW sets out the [ types of evidence ] allowing the suspicion that [ a person has committed a criminal offence ] . However , in the instant case there is no evidence for his conviction . The charges are not justified [ as ] the [ applicant ] has not admitted his guilt , therefore there is no reason to consider that he would continue to commit criminal offences ... Detention can only be ordered with a view to preparing a judgment , but it is clear that judgment can not be prepared for DATE as all movements and escort ( visas kust\u012bbas un konvoj\u0113\u0161anas ) needs DATE , therefore his continued detention is of a punitive nature , which is prohibited by law . The [ applicant ] asks to be released , undertakes to attend all hearings and not to commit any offences .","Having heard the [ applicant \u2019s ] explanation [ and the ] opinions of the attorney and prosecutor , the court considers that his request to change the security measure should be dismissed for the following reasons .","In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , if during the application of a procedural compulsory measure , the grounds for the application of the measure disappear or change , or the provisions for the application of the measure or behaviour of the person change , or if other circumstances are ascertained that determined the choice of the compulsory measure , an [ investigating authority ] shall take a decision to change or lift the measure .","It follows from the text of the decision of DATE by the investigating judge of ORG that the [ applicant ] was detained because he was avoiding participation in the investigation ... Besides , it has been ascertained that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that at liberty , the [ applicant ] could continue to carry out criminal activities and would commit another criminal offence .","The [ applicant ] rightly points out that ORG in its decision of DATE excluded any reference to the grounds of the investigative judge \u2019s decision that the [ applicant ] was avoiding participation in the investigation . However , the grounds for detention \u2013 the possibility that at liberty , the [ applicant ] could commit another criminal offence \u2013 have not changed . The [ applicant ] has been convicted on several occasions , most recently on DATE . In the instant case , he has been charged with crimes committed on DATE and on TIME DATE ; therefore , another security measure could not ensure that the [ applicant ] would not commit other criminal offences .","The court has not yet started proceedings and , accordingly , [ its ] assessment of the evidence , therefore there is no reason to decide on the lack of evidence for the [ applicant \u2019s ] conviction ; this has to be done when preparing a judgment in the case . When applying detention , the investigating judge and judge of the appellate court found that specific factual information obtained in the criminal proceedings created a reasonable suspicion that the [ applicant ] had committed a crime proscribed by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , for which the law imposes a custodial sentence .","In the circumstances , it has to be concluded that the grounds for detention under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) have not disappeared .","Taking into account that the [ applicant ] has been charged with a serious crime , that the grounds for detention have not disappeared or changed , that the conditions for its application have not changed , and that the legal requirements concerning the length of detention have been met , the court considers that the [ applicant \u2019s ] request to change the security measure should be dismissed . \u201d","During a hearing on DATE the applicant \u2019s request to be released from detention was rejected for almost identical reasons .","On DATE ORG decided to release him from detention as the maximum legal length of pre - trial detention ( DATE ) was approaching .","At the time the parties to the present case finished exchanging their observations , the criminal proceedings against the applicant had not yet been concluded ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172361","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF AVAKEMYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicant brought a claim in the ORG and ORG of GPE against PERSON , a private individual , seeking payment of a certain amount of money . It appears that before the beginning of the court \u2019s examination of the case the applicant and PERSON concluded an agreement to settle the debt , which envisaged , inter alia , a time - frame for payment .","On DATE ORG delivered a judgment upholding the settlement . It also stated that bailiffs would enforce the judgment if it was not complied with . No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final .","As PERSON did not comply with the terms of the settlement , ORG issued a writ of execution and on DATE a bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings . According to the applicant , the bailiff found no funds or property belonging to PERSON during the enforcement procedure .","By a letter of DATE the bailiff informed the applicant that he had found out during the enforcement proceedings that PERSON had inherited a house but had not registered her ownership of it . The bailiff advised the applicant to institute proceedings against PERSON in order to have her ownership of the house recognised .","It appears that later in DATE the applicant brought a claim in the ORG and ORG to have PERSON \u2019s ownership of the house recognised .","On DATE ORG , relying on LAW , granted the applicant \u2019s claim and recognised PERSON as the owner of the house in question . There was no appeal and the judgment became final .","On DATE the bailiff , acting on a writ of execution issued by ORG , instituted proceedings to enforce the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the bailiff requested that ORG of ORG recognise PERSON \u2019s ownership of the house , register it and issue a copy of the ownership certificate .","NORP In reply , ORG on DATE informed the bailiff that in order to register PERSON \u2019s rights to the house it needed an application from PERSON , the original of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and receipts for the ORG fee and other related payments . It also mentioned that PERSON was unlawfully occupying a plot of land whose status was unclear .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the bailiff made similar requests to ORG in which he stated , with reference to section CARDINAL of the PERSON on LAW , that an application from PERSON was not required . He also stated that the issue of registration - related payments would be decided upon initiation of the registration process and that receipts would be submitted .","In DATE the applicant brought a claim in ORG against ORG and the bailiff , seeking to oblige them respectively to register PERSON \u2019s ownership of the house and to confiscate it from her .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claim by ordering ORG to register PERSON \u2019s rights to the house and the bailiff to confiscate it from her . In particular , ORG found that both the refusal of ORG to register PERSON \u2019s ownership rights and the non - enforcement by the bailiff of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE owing to a lack of funds on the part of PERSON had been groundless as PERSON \u2019s ownership of the house had been recognised by the final court judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that no appeal was lodged against ORG judgment and it became final .","According to the applicant , none of the CARDINAL court judgments was enforced .","On DATE the applicant sought the payment of interest by PERSON via a claim in ORG . On DATE ORG accepted his claim and ordered PERSON to pay him MONEY ( ORG ) , to be converted into NORP drams . The judgment became final on DATE . The applicant sought enforcement of the judgment on CARDINAL DATE but was refused by the bailiff since he had failed to act within the time - limit of DATE starting from the final judgment . That term had expired on DATE . Moreover , the applicant had also failed to submit a power of attorney to the bailiff .","On DATE PERSON submitted a receipt for the payment of the debt to the bailiff and he terminated the enforcement proceedings on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179844","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LEVIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-151007","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF COJOCARU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a journalist and chief editor of the local DATE magazine , PERSON .","The applicant wrote an article about ORG , the mayor of ORG , which appeared in the DATE edition of that magazine under the headline \u201c Resignation of honour \u201d , listing CARDINAL points advocating the mayor \u2019s resignation . The article contained references to the mayor \u2019s activities , with wording such as \u201c DATE of local dictatorship \u201d ; \u201c [ R.N. ] at the peak of the pyramid of evil \u201d ; \u201c in GPE , only those who subscribe to [ R.N. ] \u2019s mafia - like system can still do business \u201d ; \u201c we have been ruled for DATE by a former communist who still has the reflexes of a county chief secretary \u201d ; and \u201c [ ORG ] does not represent the interests of the [ local community ] \u201d .","On the same page , the applicant wrote a news piece about an investigation into the mayor \u2019s activities . He quoted a statement by a politician about an ongoing investigation into some of the mayor \u2019s activities by the prefectural standards board . The article also contained a statement by another politician and the mayor \u2019s point of view on the investigation .","On DATE ORG lodged a criminal complaint with ORG , accusing the applicant of insult and defamation . He also sought civil damages .","On DATE the court convicted the applicant of defamation and ordered him to pay a criminal fine of MONEY ( ROL ) and to pay to ORG , together with the publishing company , ROL CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . It acquitted him of the accusations of insult .","The court noted that the applicant had submitted official documents proving that there had been irregularities in the activities of the public administration , but considered that that proof alone was not sufficient to justify making those statements of fact . The court reiterated that a journalist had a general obligation to act in good faith :","\u201c Although irregularities have been found in the activity of ORG for ORG , this fact alone did not entitle the applicant to write that the victim was a \u2018 Mafioso who received bribes from businessmen\u2019 in order to create facilities for them , as there is no evidence to support these statements .","According to LAW the right to freedom of expression comes with duties and responsibilities , the journalists having an obligation to act in good faith , in order to provide accurate and credible information . \u201d","In establishing the sentence , the court took into account the applicant \u2019s criminal record , as he had previously been convicted of insult and defamation .","NORP The applicant appealed on points of law , arguing , in particular , that the statement that had brought about his conviction was not an imputation of a crime , as required for the existence of calumny . Moreover , he pointed out that he had not written the sentence quoted by ORG , namely that the mayor was a Mafioso who received bribes from local businessmen .","In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the previous decision . The court of appeal confirmed the lower court \u2019s finding and explained that the expression \u201c subscribe to ... a mafia - like system \u201d was defamatory of the victim . It further reiterated the journalist \u2019s obligation to act in good faith , and took the view that in not limiting his assertions to what was necessary to inform the public , the applicant had made value judgments intended to defame the mayor . It also noted that the applicant had failed to abide by the warnings given to him by way of previous convictions for similar facts and had persisted in his criminal behaviour ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183866","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BAYAR v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . At the time of the events giving rise to the present application , he was the editorin - chief of ORG , a DATE newspaper published in GPE .","On DATE an article written by PERSON entitled \u201c Analysing the NORP dynamic correctly \u201d was published in ORG . In his article , PERSON stated his views on the role of PERSON , the leader of the ORG ( an illegal armed organisation ) , a number of organisations associated with the ORG in regional and international politics and political developments in GPE . Next to the article a photograph of PERSON shaking hands with a group of armed men was published .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment , charging the applicant with disseminating propaganda in favour of ORG under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act ( Law no . CARDINAL ) on account of the article published on DATE . In the indictment , the public prosecutor quoted the following passage from the article :","\u201c ... PERSON , who has contributed to the essential dynamic of the NORP movement and the ORG , the PJA and the KONGRA - GEL , organisations which have acted as military , political and ideological leaders and which have represented his leadership , ... [ must be well understood ] \u201d .","The public prosecutor stated that a photograph of PERSON in which he was standing in a rural area holding a weapon had been published in the newspaper , next to the article . The public prosecutor considered as a result that the applicant had disseminated propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation inciting others to violence or other methods of terrorism . Subsequently , criminal proceedings were launched against the applicant before ORG .","During the proceedings the applicant maintained that the article in question had been a news article and had not contained propaganda inciting to violence .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG \/ ORG - GEL under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and a fine . In its judgment , ORG held that the content of the article and the publication of ORG photograph amounted to dissemination of propaganda in favour of the ORG \/ ORG - GEL .","The applicant appealed . In his appeal petition , referring to a number of the ORG \u2019s judgments , the applicant claimed that he had not had the intention of disseminating propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation and that his criminal conviction had been in breach of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention as he had been exercising his right to impart information . He also noted that the first - instance court had failed to examine the article in its entirety .","On DATE the principal public prosecutor at ORG returned the case file to the first - instance court and requested that the latter revise its judgment in the light of the recent legislative amendments .","On DATE ORG once again convicted the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG , with the same reasoning that it had adopted on DATE . The court sentenced the applicant to a fine of MONEY ( TRY ) .","The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .","According to a document dated DATE , signed by the President of ORG and the GPE public prosecutor , the applicant was required to pay the fine of TRY CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["10","13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142517","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BUDCHENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , GPE .","DATE the applicant worked in a mine .","NORP In DATE the applicant asked the PERSON Mine ( his former employer ) and the ORG mining enterprise GPE ( the PERSON Mine \u2019s legal successor ) to explain to him how section CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c \u0413\u0456\u0440\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0438\u0439 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d \u201d ) ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) was to be implemented , and to pay his electricity and gas costs in accordance with this provision . In reply he was informed that persons who were entitled to receive coal free of charge but were living in houses with central heating had the right to exemption from electricity and gas payments , such costs being borne by the mining companies . However , no appropriate legal mechanisms implementing \u201c the methods of calculation and the sources of financing \u201d had been adopted by ORG .","NORP In DATE the applicant complained to a prosecutor \u2019s office that his requests to have his electricity and gas payments covered had been ignored . In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE from ORG , the applicant was informed that he was entitled to exemption from electricity and gas payments . Since the PERSON Mine had refused to accept his claims owing to the lack of funds and no compensation mechanism was provided for by law , the applicant was advised to lodge his claims with the court .","NORP In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against the ORG mining enterprise GPE and local communal heating and gas providers . He claimed that under LAW of LAW the mine should cover his electricity and gas costs by means of contributions paid into the local budget . He also claimed reimbursement of amounts already paid and asked that the ORG mining enterprise GPE settle his heating and gas debts . The applicant also claimed compensation for non - pecuniary damage . He updated his claims in DATE .","On DATE the Tsentralno - Miskyy District Court found against the applicant . The court held that the applicant had worked in a mine for DATE and thus was entitled to receive free coal for everyday domestic needs . As he lived in a house with central heating , section CARDINAL of LAW should apply in his case . However , no mechanism was in place for the implementation of that provision . In particular , there was no procedure for transferring funds from mining enterprises to the local budget . The court also held that the applicant \u2019s request for reimbursement of the amounts already paid had no basis in law .","On DATE the ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE ORG rejected an appeal on points of law by the applicant .","In a decision of DATE ORG ordered the applicant to settle his heating debts , noting that section CARDINAL of LAW did not exempt him from paying for heating services . That decision was upheld on DATE by ORG . On DATE ORG of GPE rejected a request by the applicant for leave to appeal on points of law .","In a letter dated DATE ORG informed the applicant that at that date no mechanism had been set up to handle the compensatory payments requested by him .","NORP In letters dated DATE and DATE ORG of GPE informed the applicant that the mechanism for implementing section CARDINAL of LAW would be set up pursuant to a corresponding decision by ORG .","In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE informed the applicant that on DATE the Cabinet of Ministers had adopted the corresponding decision , which was subject to approval by ORG .","In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that he had no right to any compensation payments as the mine where he had been working in was in liquidation .","In DATE the applicant instituted court proceedings against ORG requesting recognition of his rights under sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW and a declaration that the GPE \u2019s inactivity was unlawful .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant \u2019s claim and informed him that it should be lodged before a court of general jurisdiction . That decision was upheld on DATE and on DATE by ORG and by ORG respectively .","LAW entered into force on DATE . Parts CARDINAL and CARDINAL of section QUANTITY that were in force before DATE read as follows :","\u201c Coal - mining enterprises shall provide free coal for DATE domestic needs in the amount determined by collective agreement for the following categories of persons :","pensioners who have worked in coal - mining enterprises for DATE ( men ) and DATE ( women ) ...","Persons who have the right to receive free coal but live in houses with central heating shall be exempted from paying for electricity and gas , those costs being borne by the coal - mining ( processing ) enterprises , which shall transfer the funds to cover the costs to the local budget . \u201d","Pursuant to the \u201c Transitional provisions \u201d LAW , the Cabinet of Ministers of GPE had to adopt the relevant legal mechanisms with a view to implementing the LAW \u2019s provisions within DATE of the date of the LAW \u2019s entry into force .","In DATE section DATE was amended as following :","\u201c Persons who have a right to receive free coal but live in houses with central heating shall receive compensation for electricity , gas and heating payments by way of contributions paid from the ORG budget to the local budget . \u201d","The procedure for granting the above compensation was determined by a decision of ORG ( no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173800","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u00d3NODI v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE he married PERSON The couple had one daughter , GPE , born on DATE .","On DATE the couple divorced and agreed on custody of the child and other parental rights . Their agreement , which was approved by the Szolnok ORG , placed the daughter with her mother and granted the applicant contact DATE , during DATE , GPE DATE , Whit Monday , DATE and DATE during DATE . The applicant was also to pay child allowance , amounting to PERCENT of his salary , but CARDINAL MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) per month .","PERSON moved out of the former family home and took up residence in GPE .","The applicant could exercise contact on CARDINAL and DATE and DATE . However , his daughter was reluctant to stay with him during DATE and preferred to spend her holidays with her grandparents .","The applicant \u2019s further attempts to exercise contact failed , seemingly because in the mother \u2019s view it was up to the child to decide whether she wanted to see her father . The applicant applied to ORG to have the contact agreement enforced . In a decision of DATE it ordered PERSON to comply with the agreement , warning her that failure to do so could result in her being fined and ordered to reimburse the applicant \u2019s travel costs . Given the strained relationship between the parents , a notary initiated child protection proceedings ( v\u00e9delembe v\u00e9tel ) on DATE . Subsequently , on a number of occasions Ms GPE was fined for not complying with the agreement . It appears from the case file that the applicant could exercise contact between DATE and DATE .","NORP In DATE PERSON brought an action seeking to change the applicant \u2019s contact rights and an increase in the amount of child allowance . In a counterclaim the applicant requested that the child be placed in his custody .","NORP The applicant also filed a criminal complaint against ORG alleging child endangerment . The parties\u2019 attempt to stabilise the relationship between the applicant and his daughter during the suspension of the custody proceedings were unsuccessful and ORG ordered that any meetings between them take place at a child protection centre .","In a judgment of DATE the NORP ORG reduced the applicant \u2019s contact with his daughter to DATE from TIME It held that the previously agreed form of contact was unlikely to be implemented and would only lead to further proceedings before the guardianship authority , which would be to the detriment of the child . The court based its judgment on an expert opinion finding that the child should have had an adaptation period to re - establish her relationship with her father . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim concerning custody , stating that the child \u2019s wishes had to be taken into account , given that she was now DATE .","On DATE the GPE Regional Court upheld the first - instance judgment in essence but amended the applicant \u2019s contact rights to every other DATE TIME until DATE , and all DATE - long visits DATE as of DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant failed to turn up at numerous scheduled meetings for DATE , for which he was fined ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s contact rights and the amount of child allowance were subject to further litigation . On DATE the Szolnok ORG dismissed an action brought by him seeking to decrease the amount of child allowance , and a review of the way contact should be exercised . The court established that since the court decision of DATE , no contact had taken place between the applicant and his daughter and , despite a request by the applicant , the guardianship authority had taken no steps to implement the judgment on the grounds that he had made no efforts to resolve the conflict with his daughter . In particular , he had paid no heed to her request to travel by public transport instead of in his car .","The court also found that in the absence of any significant change in circumstances , there was no reason to amend the arrangements for contact .","In a final judgment of DATE the GPE Regional Court reviewed the applicant \u2019s parental rights , granting him contact DATE on the condition that the daughter , who was by now already DATE , be allowed to visit him by herself . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for a decrease in the child allowance . The applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG . It was dismissed on DATE .","It appears from the case file that meetings between the applicant and his daughter only took place sporadically in DATE and did not happen at all in DATE , despite the applicant lodging numerous enforcement requests with the guardianship authority .","NORP In DATE the applicant requested that the GPE and all subordinate guardianship authorities be excluded from any further proceedings for bias . On DATE ORG appointed ORG to deal with any further proceedings concerning the enforcement of the applicant \u2019s contact rights , noting that at that point there were CARDINAL enforcement requests pending , the oldest dating back to DATE .","The applicant lodged a number of requests seeking to end his obligation to pay child allowance , which were finally accepted by ORG and ORG on DATE and on appeal by ORG on DATE . Nonetheless , an additional request by him for the reimbursement of the child allowance he had already paid was dismissed at both levels of jurisdiction ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160448","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"FENECH AND AGIUS v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant in the first case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant in the second case , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicants were represented before the ORG by Dr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The Government were represented by their Agent , PERSON , Attorney General .","The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the first applicant ( who was DATE at the time ) was arrested and interrogated on suspicion of trafficking ecstasy ( a drug which is regulated by ORG , LAW of LAW ) . During the interrogation , at which no lawyer was present , he gave a statement admitting to selling CARDINAL ecstasy pills and to using ecstasy and cannabis .","On DATE he gave another statement on oath before a magistrate , whereby he confirmed the contents of his previous statement and implicated some other individuals . The latter statement was given at the police headquarters shortly after he had been released , but it is unclear whether he was re - arrested and taken to the headquarters for further investigation , or whether he was asked to attend the police headquarters for further questioning by the inquiring magistrate .","On DATE the second applicant ( who was DATE at the time ) was arrested and interrogated on suspicion of trafficking and possession of ecstasy . During the interrogation , at which no lawyer was present , she gave a statement admitting to her involvement in the crime . She declared that she had been using ecstasy for DATE , that she smoked cannabis , and that she had helped PERSON to sell CARDINAL ecstasy pills for MONEY ( MTL ) each .","On DATE she gave another statement on oath before a magistrate , whereby she confirmed the contents of her previous statement . From the documents provided it is not possible to determine the time of this interrogation or whether the applicant was under arrest .","Subsequently the applicants were arraigned in ORG ( as a court of criminal judicature ) and their above - mentioned statements were exhibited as evidence against them .","On DATE during the criminal proceedings , the applicants requested the court to make a referral to the constitutional jurisdictions regarding complaints they had concerning the lack of legal assistance afforded to them during investigation and interrogation . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the court granted the request and referred the case . The applicants alleged a breach of their right to a fair trial ( LAW ) on account of the lack of legal assistance . They requested that their statements - both those made to the police and those made to the magistrate - be excluded from the prosecution \u2019s evidence .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional competence found a violation of the first applicant \u2019s right to a fair trial , in so far as he had not had access to a lawyer before and during the police interrogation which led to his statement of DATE . The same applied in respect of his statement under oath before the magistrate , if made while under arrest . It considered that a person had just as much a right to legal assistance before making a statement to a judicial authority as he or she did before making a statement to the police .","It ordered that any statements made by the applicant while under arrest should not be used in the criminal proceedings against him . It was for ORG ( as a court of criminal judicature ) , before which the case was pending , to make an order as to what was to be done with those statements in accordance with this decision . Since it was not clear whether the applicant was under arrest on DATE , it was therefore for that court to decide that matter .","On appeal , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG reversed in part the first - instance judgment .","Accepting that the case was not premature , and in the light of the criminal courts\u2019 referral , it found that the first applicant \u2019s right to a fair trial had been breached only in relation to the statement given to the police , but not the statement given before the magistrate , which could thus be admitted as evidence in the criminal proceedings against him .","It considered that the right to legal assistance was not a formality which the accused could use as a further means of defence if not respected . The right served to ensure that statements are made freely , with the knowledge of the right to remain silent , without threats and promises , violence or abuse . A breach of the right to legal assistance during interrogation would occur when a statement was obtained by abuse and not solely because there was no lawyer present . There existed no right for accused persons to be found not guilty . The role of the lawyer was to ensure that the statement was taken legitimately and not to give advice as to how to hide the truth or make a limited or selective declaration . The law aimed to establish the truth and to ensure that no false statements are obtained by abuse . Fundamental rights were meant to promote the dignity of the individual , a matter which surely would not be protected by giving rights which distort or hide the truth at the expense of the proper administration of justice . The right to legal assistance was intended to protect persons in particular situations of vulnerability , weakness or fear who as a result of which made statements which led to a finding of guilt despite their innocence . Legal assistance in such cases prevented any such abuse and counteracted the vulnerability of the individual concerned .","In the present case the applicant was DATE at the time and may well have been vulnerable ; however , someone other than a lawyer could have provided for such a guarantee , such as a magistrate ( independent from the police ) , before whom the applicant made his second statement in accordance with domestic law .","For these reasons ORG upheld the LAW only in respect of the statement the applicant made to the police , which could not therefore be used in the criminal proceedings against him , but not in respect of the statement made before the inquiring magistrate , which could be used in the proceedings .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional competence found a violation of the second applicant \u2019s right to a fair trial , in so far as she had not had access to a lawyer before and during the interrogation which led to her incriminating statement being used by the prosecution as a crucial piece of evidence . The same applied in respect of a further statement she made under oath before a magistrate , if made while under arrest ( that is , while in police custody ) , since GPE case - law did not make such a distinction . It ordered that any statements made by the applicant while under arrest should not be used in the criminal proceedings against her . It was for ORG ( as a court of criminal judicature ) , before which the case was pending , to make an order as to what was to be done with those statements in accordance with this decision . In particular , it was not clear whether the applicant was under arrest or had already been released on DATE ; it was therefore for that court to decide that matter .","On appeal , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG reversed in part the first - instance judgment . Accepting that the case was not premature , also in the light of the criminal courts\u2019 referral , it found that the second applicant \u2019s right to a fair trial had been breached only in relation to the statement given to the police , but not in respect of the statement given before a magistrate , which could thus be admitted as evidence in the criminal proceedings against her . It reiterated the considerations it had made in the above mentioned judgment in respect of the first applicant , PERSON PERSON .","The criminal proceedings against the applicants are still pending before ORG ( as a court of criminal judicature ) , which has suspended the case pending the outcome of the proceedings before this ORG .","The relevant domestic law concerning the case is to be found in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150784","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF GORDEYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an action against his former employer , ORG ( \u201c the institute \u201d , ORG \u00ab \u0418\u043d\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0443\u0442 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0434\u043e\u043f\u043e\u043b\u044c\u0437\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0421\u0435\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0430 \u00bb ) , which was affiliated to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d , PERSON \u0433\u043e\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0441\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0445\u043e\u0437\u044f\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0430\u043a\u0430\u0434\u0435\u043c\u0438\u044f ) , a ORG - owned educational institution . The applicant sought reinstatement in a job and work - related benefits .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the FAC \u201d ) held in the applicant \u2019s favour .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) , acting on appeal , reversed the above judgment and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh examination .","On DATE the case file was sent to ORG .","On DATE the institute was liquidated .","On DATE the judge invited the defendant to present its objections and the applicant to specify his claims .","On DATE ORG replaced the institute by the ORG as the defendant following the applicant \u2019s request lodged on DATE .","On DATE ORG joined CARDINAL other persons as co - plaintiffs .","The hearing of DATE was postponed to DATE following the applicant \u2019s request for collection of certain documents .","The hearing of DATE was postponed to CARDINAL DATE due to the prosecutor \u2019s absence and the applicant \u2019s position according to which it was impossible to examine the case in his absence .","The hearing of DATE was postponed to DATE following the applicant \u2019s request to consult documents in the case file which had not been previously communicated to him .","On DATE the applicant presented additional claims which required their communication to the respondent . The hearing was thus postponed to DATE .","The hearing of DATE was postponed to CARDINAL DATE following the applicant \u2019s request to summon a witness and to collect additional documents .","The hearing of DATE was postponed to CARDINAL DATE due to the applicant \u2019s health problems .","At the hearings of DATE and DATE the applicant amended his claims . Both hearings were adjourned to enable the respondent to study the amendments .","On DATE ORG partly granted the applicant \u2019s action , ordering his immediate reinstatement at \u201c FAC affiliate \u201d as from DATE and awarding him PERSON and MONEY ( RUB ) in arrears and nonpecuniary damage respectively .","On DATE and on DATE respectively the respondent and the applicant appealed .","On DATE the prosecutor presented his objections on both appeals . On the same day the case was sent to ORG .","On DATE ORG , acting on appeal , affirmed the above judgment as to the reinstatement and non - pecuniary damage , reversing and remanding it for a new trial as to the arrears .","On DATE the sums due to the applicant under the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as amended by ORG on DATE , were transferred to his bank account .","In the meanwhile ORG was renamed ORG of the Khanty - Mansy Autonomous Region ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The applicant \u2019s case was assigned thereto .","On DATE an expert was appointed with a view to determining the applicant \u2019s benefit entitlement . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE the expert presented his calculations .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant challenged the expert \u2019s calculations . The applicant was invited to present his own calculations based on documentary evidence and examine a possibility to conclude a friendly settlement .","The hearing of DATE was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE on account of the inconsistency of the applicant \u2019s calculations with LAW . The parties were invited to establish new calculations .","The hearing of DATE was adjourned pending the outcome of the supervisory - review appeal lodged by the respondent .","On DATE ORG awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in arrears .","On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal .","On DATE the sums due to the applicant under the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as upheld on DATE , were transferred to his bank account .","On DATE the applicant returned the writ of enforcement to ORG on the ground that the name of the debtor institution was incorrectly indicated .","On an unspecified date the bailiff applied to ORG seeking clarification of the judgments of CARDINAL DATE and of CARDINAL DATE . The bailiff argued that both judgments were impossible to execute in view of the institute \u2019s liquidation .","On DATE ORG examined his request in the presence of the ORG \u2019s representative and the applicant .","In its first decision delivered on that date ORG rectified the defendant \u2019s name and held that the sums awarded to the applicant be paid by the ORG .","By its second decision , ORG rejected the bailiff \u2019s request for clarification of the judgment of DATE as regards the applicant \u2019s immediate reinstatement . The court held that the procedure of dismissal of an employee in case of liquidation of a structural subdivision of the employer was governed by the relevant provisions of LAW .","These judgments were not appealed against and became final .","On DATE the ORG lodged an application for supervisory - review with the ORG of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The ORG alleged that the lower courts had incorrectly applied the substantive law and consequently the judgments of DATE and DATE should be quashed in their entirety .","On DATE the ORG amended the judgments of CARDINAL DATE and of DATE as to the applicant \u2019s immediate reinstatement . The ORG found that in accordance with LAW CARDINAL of the Labour Code in case of the liquidation of a branch of an organisation located in another territory the termination of contracts of its employees is governed by the rules applicable to the liquidation of organisations . In accordance with point CARDINAL of the Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court no . CARDINAL of DATE , if it is not possible to reinstate an unlawfully dismissed employee because of the liquidation of the organisation , the court finds that the dismissal was unlawful and holds that he was dismissed in accordance with LAW as a result of the liquidation of the organisation . In view of the above , the ORG concluded that the lower courts incorrectly applied the substantive law and amended their judgments in the part concerning the applicant \u2019s immediate reinstatement by declaring that he should be considered as dismissed as a result of the liquidation of the employer organisation as from CARDINAL DATE and that there was no need to send the matter to a new consideration . The ORG rejected the remainder of the ORG \u2019s supervisory - review application ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178363","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF T.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants are nationals of GPE . Their initials , dates of birth , the dates on which their applications were introduced , application numbers , as well as the particulars of the domestic proceedings and other relevant information are set out in the Appendix .","On various dates they were charged in GPE with religious and politically motivated crimes , their pre - trial detention was ordered in absentia , and international search warrants were issued by the authorities .","Subsequently the NORP authorities took final decisions to remove ( that is to say extradite or expel ) the applicants to GPE , despite consistent claims that in the event of removal the applicants would face a real risk of treatment contrary to LAW ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156530","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"PANCERS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the R\u012bga City Vidzeme District Court authorised the applicant \u2019s detention on remand . The term of the applicant \u2019s detention was subsequently extended on several occasions .","On DATE the applicant was officially charged with large scale fraud and bribery . The charges against the applicant were subsequently amended on several occasions .","The bill of indictment was finalised on DATE and the case was transferred for adjudication to ORG . On DATE the public prosecutor in charge of the criminal case against the applicant informed the director of PERSON prison that the term of the applicant \u2019s detention had been prolonged . The hearings in the first - instance court took place DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG adopted judgment in the criminal case against the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants . The applicant was convicted of several crimes : repeated bribery ; abuse of an official position ; acquisition , possession and sale of cocaine ; money laundering and repeated fraud . He was acquitted of the charges of incitement to bribery , illegal acquisition and sale of a firearm as well as falsification of a criminal case against a third person .","The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment of DATE and DATE . The court also indicated that the applicant was to be continued to be held in detention .","The applicant and CARDINAL of his co - defendants appealed .","ORG started the appeal hearings on DATE . Hearings continued for DATE , after which the presiding judge postponed the continuation of the trial until DATE .","On DATE ORG , acting as an appeal court , adopted a decision by which it quashed the first - instance court \u2019s judgment in its entirety and remitted the case to the first - instance court . The appeal court considered that the first - instance court \u2019s judgment had not been adequately motivated and had furthermore relied on evidence which had not been presented during the hearing . The court also ruled on the applicant \u2019s detention on remand and found it necessary to prolong the term of the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE . The operative part of the decision of the appeal court indicated that the term of the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was to be prolonged by DATE \u201c starting from the date of entry into force of the decision \u201d .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint on points of law about his continued detention with ORG . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his appeal had been received on DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted an additional appeal on points of law against ORG decision to retain him in detention .","On DATE the ORG of ORG , after having examined the appeals on points of law submitted by the applicant and codefendants , and an opinion of the prosecutor , quashed the appeal court \u2019s decision of DATE in full and remitted the case to the appeal court . The ORG pointed out that upon identifying procedural flaws in the firstinstance court \u2019s judgment the appeal court itself had a duty to examine the case on the merits and adopt a new judgment .","On DATE ORG started hearings concerning the applicant \u2019s appeal against the judgment of the firstinstance court . The appeal court refused to order the applicant \u2019s release from detention , arguing that his detention had been ordered by the verdict of the firstinstance court .","On DATE the applicant was released from prison after having completed his sentence .","On DATE ORG adopted a judgment . It upheld the judgment of the firstinstance court in full save for one episode of fraud , of which the applicant was acquitted . The applicant \u2019s final sentence remained unchanged .","In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG rejected the appeals on points of law that had been lodged by the prosecutor , the applicant and CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s co - defendants . The applicant had disputed the interpretation of evidence by the appeal court and the fairness of his conviction in general .","Section CARDINAL of the Law of Criminal Procedure ( in force from DATE and at the material time ) provides that :","( CARDINAL ) A cassation complaint or protest shall be lodged not later than within DATE after DATE when a court \u2019s judgment or decision becomes available .","...","( CARDINAL ) An appeal or protest submitted pursuant to the procedure specified in paragraph CARDINAL of this Article shall suspend the execution of a judgment or the entry into force of a decision . \"","The relevant legal provisions and the domestic case - law in relation to the right to completion of the criminal proceedings within a \u201c reasonable time \u201d have been summarised in the case LAW v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . MONEY , DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155007","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MUKHITDINOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON ( PERSON . PERSON , see below ) , was born in DATE in the NORP SSR of the GPE . He claims to have lived in GPE until DATE when he left for GPE .","Since DATE the applicant has been living in GPE . In DATE , he acquired NORP nationality and changed his name to PERSON .","On DATE the ORG division of ORG determined that the applicant had obtained NORP nationality by fraud and cancelled his NORP passport . On DATE ORG upheld , in the final instance , the decision of ORG .","According to the letter from the police chief in GPE , GPE , dated DATE , the applicant forfeited his NORP nationality because of his unaccounted absence from the country for DATE .","On DATE a criminal case was instituted against the applicant in GPE on the charge of illegal crossing of the NORP State border , an offence under LAW .","On DATE further charges were levelled against the applicant under LAW of LAW ( \u201c Infringement of the constitutional order of GPE \u201d ) and LAW of a criminal enterprise \u201d ) . The charges related to the applicant \u2019s alleged participation in the religious terrorist organisation ORG ( PERSON ) ; he was suspected of meeting with its representatives during his stay in GPE and of spreading the ideas of the organisation .","On DATE ORG issued an arrest warrant .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE , GPE .","On DATE ORG issued a detention order valid until DATE . On DATE ORG extended the authorised detention period until DATE . The extension was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG approved the applicant \u2019s extradition in relation to the offence of organising , and taking part in , the activities of ORG , an extremist organisation ( LAW ) . It was noted that \u201c the [ applicant \u2019s ] extradition ... in relation to the extremist charges ... can not be regarded as an obstacle for extradition since no procedural decision was taken in this respect by the competent NORP authorities \u201d and further that the NORP authorities had provided \u201c diplomatic assurances that [ the applicant ] ... would not be subject to torture , violence , other cruel or degrading treatment \u201d .","On DATE ORG approved a further extension of the detention period until DATE . The applicant challenged the extension before ORG , claiming that the maximum detention period in case of a medium - gravity offence , for which his extradition had been approved , was set by law at DATE . By decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG quashed the extension order of DATE , finding that ORG did not give any specific reasons for extending the applicant \u2019s detention , and remitted the detention matter to ORG . It directed that the applicant should remain in custody until DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG upheld the extradition order as being lawful and justified . The court noted that ORG provided the appropriate assurances , that ORG had no information capable of preventing the applicant \u2019s extradition , that ORG had no information about the applicant \u2019s persecution in GPE for political motives and that counsel \u2019s allegations of a real risk of illtreatment or torture in GPE were \u201c unsubstantiated \u201d ( \u0433\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0441\u043b\u043e\u0432\u043d\u044b\u0435 ) .","On DATE ORG issued a new extension order by which the applicant \u2019s detention was extended until DATE . The applicant challenged it on the same grounds as before . On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s complaint and released him from custody , finding that by virtue of LAW his detention could not have been extended beyond DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected at final instance the applicant \u2019s challenge to the decision on his extradition to GPE . It stated that the arguments about a real risk of torture and political persecution were \u201c unconvincing \u201d .","In TIME of DATE the applicant was taken away from his home by CARDINAL uniformed officers of ORG . The applicant \u2019s lawyer arrived immediately on the scene and attempted to follow them but was stopped by the traffic police .","When the applicant \u2019s wife and son arrived at the local office of ORG later on DATE , they were told that he had already been released .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative before the ORG sent a faxed letter to ORG , ORG and ORG , asking them to stop the applicant \u2019s unlawful transfer to GPE . She stated that she had information that the applicant was detained in a police ward in LOC and that he might be placed on the next flight to GPE .","Further to the ORG \u2019s request for factual information ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the Government replied that the applicant \u2019s current whereabouts were not known , that he had not been detained or transferred outside of the NORP territory by ORG agents and there was no information about him crossing of the State border .","On DATE ORG office advised the applicant \u2019s representative as follows :","\u201c As regards [ your ] allegation about an unlawful arrest of Mr PERSON , I inform you that on DATE the officers of the LOC regional branch of ORG conducted , in accordance with the approval plan on combating illegal migration , checks in the places where foreign nationals and stateless persons live , including the LOC of a mosque at CARDINAL , PERSON street , LOC . Following the check , QUANTITY persons , including Mr PERSON , were brought to the immigration control department . Upon identification , he was released .","According to the information provided , Mr PERSON ( PERSON ) was not arrested by the police on DATE or any other date ; the police has no information about his whereabouts . \u201d","On DATE ORG office additionally informed the counsel that on CARDINAL DATE ORG instituted a criminal case into the applicant \u2019s disappearance ."],"violated_articles":["3","34","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172315","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF STURUA v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Ganna Yudkivska;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was appointed President of the Abasha ORG for a DATE term .","On DATE ORG initiated disciplinary proceedings against the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)-(e ) of the Act of DATE on ORG against ORG ( hereinafter , \u201c LAW \u201d \u2013 see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He was accused in particular of having retained a criminal case file for DATE after withdrawing from the case on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE a Panel of ORG ( hereinafter , \u201c the Panel \u201d ) , composed of PERSON ( the President of the Panel and rapporteur ) , PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON . ORG . , considered the case at an oral hearing . According to the transcript of the hearing , the applicant admitted to the act of negligence he had been accused of . After examining the circumstances of the case , the ORG found the applicant guilty of the misconduct in question . It considered his conduct all the more serious because the defendants in the case had been in detention at the time and because he had had a duty , LAW , to act promptly and without fault . The ORG took into account the nature of the misconduct , which it classified as serious , and the existence of another disciplinary measure against the applicant in the past , and decided to remove him from office .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( hereinafter , \u201c the ORG \u201d ) on points of fact and law under LAW ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He questioned the assessment of the circumstances of the case and the application of the legal provisions to the established facts in the decision of DATE . His appeal was examined at a plenary session of ORG composed of CARDINAL members , including the same CARDINAL , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON and PERSON . ORG , who had sat at the first hearing . As before , PERSON acted as President and rapporteur in the examination of the applicant \u2019s appeal .","By a decision of DATE , the ORG unanimously upheld the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE in its entirety . The appellate instance confirmed that the lower body had correctly established the facts and applied the relevant law to the factual findings .","The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG under section CARDINAL of LAW , as amended on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He argued that he had not been given notice that he could appear before the Panel and that there had been a delay in ORG examining his appeal . He also stated that under LAW the CARDINAL members of the ORG who had taken the decision of DATE had not had the right to sit subsequently in ORG appeal hearing .","NORP In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal as ill - founded . Based on the transcript , it found that he had in fact been present at the Panel hearing on DATE and had been able to state his case without impediment , contrary to his allegation . At the hearing the applicant had admitted to the act of negligence with which he had been charged . ORG rejected the allegation of a delay in the examination of the case by ORG by noting that the latter had given its ruling within the statutory time - limit of DATE . ORG also found that the presence of CARDINAL members of the ORG as participants in the subsequent ORG proceedings had not contravened the requirements of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180832","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BUTKEVICH v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - After conviction);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","In his application to the ORG the applicant stated that at the relevant time he had been employed as a journalist by a NORP television channel . In DATE he had volunteered to cover the GCARDINAL Summit , which was being held in GPE region , for ORG ( ORG ) , disseminating press - releases and information on the Internet about protests , connecting journalists and protesters , and providing coverage about the issues raised by activists . In his comments on the third - party submissions before the ORG , the applicant added that at the time he had been \u201c involved with \u201d the Independent Media Centre ( GPE ) ; prior to the GCARDINAL summit , he had taken leave from his television assignments and had \u201c focused on media work \u201d in the framework of ORG .","According to the applicant , at TIME on DATE he happened to \u201c be around \u201d when a so - called \u201c anti - globalism \u201d march was taking place in FAC in GPE ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He was not wearing any distinctive clothing or insignia to designate him as a journalist . He did not take part in the protest ; rather , his actions were limited to observing people and taking photographs , including when the police started to disperse the gathering and to arrest some of the participants . CARDINAL of the police officers spotted him taking pictures and ordered him to switch off the camera . According to the applicant , he complied and no further order was given to him ; he did not show any resistance to the police . In his observations before the ORG the applicant said that he had presented his press - card issued by ORG , and explained his presence at the venue .","It follows from the identical reports of QUANTITY police officers that they approached the applicant and ordered him to cease his \u201c unlawful actions \u201d ; despite several warnings , the applicant refused ; he was then ordered to follow them to the police vehicle in order to be taken to the police station . Despite several warnings , he refused , grabbed their uniforms , behaved defiantly and shouted . He was then taken to the police vehicle by force .","A record of administrative escorting was drawn up under Article CARDINAL of LAW ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The record contained no reasoning .","The applicant was then subjected to the procedure of administrative arrest under LAW ORG . The following pre - typed text was underlined in the record : \u201c arrested in order to put an end to the offence , to compile the record of administrative offence , to examine the case and so on , as required by the CAO \u201d . According to the record , the applicant was not subjected to the procedure involving a personal search or an examination of his belongings .","According to the Government , when the applicant was arrested and held in the police station , he was in possession of an immigration card indicating \u201c a private visit \u201d to Mr T. residing in GPE as the aim of his presence in GPE , as well as photocopies of his NORP passport and ORG visa . The applicant was then interviewed and said that he was a journalist and worked as an editor for the ORG television channel . The ORG pointed out , in this connection , that the administrative case file contained no photocopies of any document confirming the applicant \u2019s status as a professional journalist .","Apparently , the applicant managed to contact a lawyer . In the applicant \u2019s submission , the lawyer arrived at the police station at CARDINAL a.m. but was not allowed to see him until TIME","At around that time , the applicant was allowed access to the administrative - offence record . The record compiled by Officer PERSON indicated that the applicant had been arrested because of his \u201c participation in a nonauthorised demonstration in FAC , thus creating a risk of accident threatening his own and others\u2019 lives and limb \u201d . The record also stated :","\u201c A police officer approached [ the applicant ] , introduced himself and asked [ the applicant ] to cease his unlawful actions . Despite repeated and lawful orders to cease unlawful actions , [ the applicant ] refused . Despite repeated and lawful orders to get into the police vehicle , he also refused while grabbing the police ORG clothes and shouting . Physical force had to be used against him to make him get into the vehicle . \u201d","The record also had the following pre - typed line with added handwritten text :","\u201c Witnesses , attesting witnesses , victims : Go . , [ address ] ; So . , [ address ] ... \u201d","TIME , a new administrative - offence record was compiled by Officer D. The applicant read and signed it at TIME According to the record , the applicant was arrested because he had \u201c disobeyed a lawful order from a police officer \u201d . The record also had the following pre - typed line with added handwritten text :","\u201c Witnesses , attesting witnesses , victims : Bo . , [ address ] ; ORG . , [ address ] ... \u201d","At TIME the applicant was brought before a justice of the peace . He was accused of disobeying CARDINAL orders from the police : ( i ) to cease his participation in the non - authorised demonstration ; and ( ii ) to get , \u201c voluntarily \u201d , into the police vehicle , as stated in the judgment of the justice of the peace .","The applicant stated before the court that while having a walk with his friend , PERSON , he had seen people running along FAC with banners and posters ; he had followed them to take some photographs .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer pointed out that the second record drawn up by the police was substantially different from the initial one . His efforts to have it admitted to the file , however , were unsuccessful . The judge heard PERSON , who stated that she had been taking a walk together with the applicant at QUANTITY TIME on DATE when they had seen people running along FAC ; the applicant had started to follow them ; she had lost sight of him and had eventually caught up with him when he had been placed in a police vehicle ; at that point , he had not been showing any resistance to the police .","According to the applicant , the court refused to hear the officers who had arrested him ( \u201c the arresting officers \u201d ) , the officers who had compiled the initial and the amended administrative - offence records or anyone mentioned in the record ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . According to the Government , the applicant made no request to have the arresting officers examined at the trial .","On TIME , the justice of the peace convicted the applicant under LAW ORG and sentenced him to DATE of detention , to be counted from TIME on DATE .","The court relied on ( i ) the ( second ) administrative - offence record , compiled by the authority initiating prosecution against the applicant , and ( ii ) the written statements made by the arresting officers prior to the trial .","NORP The applicant was held in a police cell for TIME and then transferred to a special detention facility to serve the sentence .","Although the trial judgment was amenable to appeal within DATE , the applicant chose to lodge an appeal without delay . He also made a written statement , which read :","\u201c Acting as a journalist , on DATE I took photographs during a public event . I did not think I was breaching any law . If I did so unknowingly , I am sorry about that . On DATE I was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 detention . I ask the appeal court , when examining my appeal , to grant it as regards my release . I would ask you to examine the appeal in my absence but with the participation of my counsel and a representative from ORG . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was visited by an official from ORG and signed a document authorising the Consul to represent him on appeal .","The Consul asked the appeal court to examine the appeal without delay .","On DATE the GPE ORG of GPE heard the representative , upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to CARDINAL days\u2019 detention . The appeal court held as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] argued in his statement of appeal that the trial court had not taken into account that as a journalist he had not taken part in the so - called \u201c anti - globalist \u201d protest ; the trial court had not examined prosecution witnesses while the judgment was solely based on the written reports made by the police officers who had arrested him ...","The trial judge gave a proper assessment of the ORG reports and testimonies , including the testimony by PERSON who had been examined at the defendant \u2019s request . It followed from PERSON \u2019s statement that she had not observed the moment of the defendant \u2019s arrest . This court has no reasons to doubt the ORG reports because they had not been previously acquainted with the defendant and had no reason to commit perjury . \u201d","The appeal court indicated that its decision was \u201c subject to immediate enforcement \u201d .","According to the applicant , he was released at TIME on DATE . Referring to a logbook of detainees ( a copy of the relevant extract from which has not been submitted to ORG ) , the Government submitted that the applicant had been released at TIME on DATE .","The applicant sought a supervisory review of the judgments before ORG . He argued , inter alia , that he had been refused an opportunity to examine the arresting officers whose pre - trial reports had constituted the main adverse evidence . On DATE the deputy President of ORG upheld the conviction in a summary manner ."],"violated_articles":["10","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","5-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-a"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178698","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KITIASHVILI v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and at the material time was serving a sentence of imprisonment . The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows .","The case file indicates that in DATE and DATE the applicant was found guilty of various criminal offences , but his prison sentence was suspended for health reasons ( cardiovascular and lung disorders , high blood pressure , a left bundle branch block , and tuberculosis of the left lung ) .","NORP In DATE and DATE CARDINAL additional sets of criminal proceedings on multiple charges including armed robbery were initiated against the applicant . He was arrested on DATE and placed in pre - trial detention .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty as charged in the first set of proceedings and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The applicant did not appeal against his conviction .","On DATE , in the second set of criminal proceedings , the applicant was found guilty of armed robbery and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The court further decided that the aggregate term of imprisonment to be served pursuant to that judgment and the judgment of DATE should be fixed at DATE .","The judgment of DATE was altered on appeal on DATE . The prison sentence for the offences committed in DATE was reduced to DATE , but the total sentence to be served remained unchanged at DATE . An appeal on points of law by the applicant was rejected as inadmissible by ORG of GPE on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was granted early release from prison .","NORP The applicant entered the prison system with a history of tuberculosis of the left lung . On DATE he was transferred to ORG medical facility ( \u201c the prison hospital \u201d ) , where an Xray of his lungs was performed . As no pathologies were revealed , the applicant was returned to ORG no . CARDINAL on DATE .","On DATE he was hospitalised again because of a cyst on his right testicle , and on DATE he underwent a surgical operation to have the cyst removed . The results of a subsequent biopsy revealed that the cyst was a benign skin cyst . On DATE additional blood tests revealed that the applicant did not have AIDS , but it was not possible at that stage to determine the presence of the hepatitis C antibody in his blood . Further tests DATE were recommended . After a trouble - free period of convalescence , the applicant was sent back to prison on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked for additional medical tests to be organised for the applicant . In particular , he asked for a blood test for hepatitis C. That request apparently went unanswered . On DATE the applicant was transferred to the prison hospital because of an abscess in his lower jaw . In addition to being treated by a dentist , according to the medical file , the applicant had a consultation with a neurologist and an endocrinologist because he was experiencing persistent headaches . The neurologist diagnosed him with post - traumatic encephalopathy and prescribed treatment . On DATE the applicant was discharged from the prison hospital , although his headaches persisted .","On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the applicant applied to the prison authorities to be returned to the prison hospital \u201c for serious health reasons \u201d . He did not specify what was wrong with his health . On DATE the prison authorities forwarded the applicant \u2019s letters to the governor of ORG no . CARDINAL and the head of the prison administration \u2019s group of medical experts , so that they could be examined and appropriate action could be taken .","On DATE the applicant staged a hunger strike to obtain an examination by a neurologist . On DATE the applicant was seen in prison by a neurologist , who prescribed treatment for his post - traumatic encephalopathy .","On DATE representatives of ORG visited the applicant , who complained of headaches . The applicant alleged that during his previous stay in the prison hospital he had taken medicine for his headaches for DATE , but to no avail . He said that he had suffered from headaches before his arrest , however , the pain had become more severe , and at that point it had been constant for DATE . He also alleged that the treatment prescribed on DATE had not yielded any results . On DATE ORG sent a report on the meeting to the prison governor and requested news of the applicant \u2019s state of health .","On DATE , after having examined the applicant , the neurologist diagnosed neurasthenia and post - traumatic encephalopathy . Noting that the previous treatment had not worked , he considered that a more thorough examination was necessary .","On DATE the applicant staged a second hunger strike , requesting that he be transferred to the prison hospital . He maintained that , having suffered a serious head injury in the past , he was in need of a comprehensive inpatient examination of his head . He further complained that , although he was only being prescribed simple sedatives , he was not receiving them . On DATE a representative from ORG office met with the chief physician of ORG no . CARDINAL , where the applicant was staying at the material time . The doctor confirmed that the applicant was suffering from headaches and was in need of a tomography scan . He explained , however , that the applicant was only receiving pain medication , as the relevant insurance company refused to finance the required examination and treatment . According to an entry in the applicant \u2019s medical file , on DATE he was still on hunger strike , suffering from headaches .","On DATE ORG wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice , the head of ORG , and ORG no . CARDINAL , challenging the effectiveness of the insurance company with which ORG had concluded a contract , on the basis of , inter alia , the applicant \u2019s case . The Public Defender alleged that the applicant was being denied adequate examination and treatment for his post - traumatic brain condition . While discussing in detail the failures and shortcomings of the existing insurance scheme , ORG recommended that the relevant authorities annul the relevant contract .","In the meantime , an X - ray of the applicant \u2019s lungs taken on either CARDINAL or DATE had revealed signs of recurrent tuberculosis . His doctor recommended bacteriological analysis and an examination by a specialist . On DATE bacteriological tests revealed the presence of tuberculosis bacteria , and the applicant was immediately put on a ORG ( Directly Observed Treatment , GPE ) programme , the treatment strategy for the detection and cure of tuberculosis , as recommended by ORG .","According to an entry in the applicant \u2019s medical file , on DATE he was still suffering from constant headaches . The doctor treating the applicant recommended that he be transferred to the prison hospital for proper examination . On DATE the applicant was placed in the prison hospital with a diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis and posttraumatic encephalopathy . There , he underwent various medical tests , including a blood test for hepatitis C markers , which was negative , and a tomography scan . He also had a consultation with a neurologist . As a result , he was diagnosed with intracranial hypertension syndrome . The applicant was prescribed relevant treatment and sent back to ORG no . CARDINAL on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was placed in a facility in GPE for prisoners with tuberculosis . On DATE he violated the internal rules of the facility . As a result , on an unspecified date he was transferred back to ORG no . CARDINAL , where , according to the latest medical examination of which the ORG was informed , he continued his treatment for tuberculosis .","On DATE the applicant underwent a serological test , which detected no active hepatitis C virus in his system .","On DATE the applicant was placed in GPE Prison no . CARDINAL , where he stayed for DATE . According to him , the conditions of detention in that prison were inhuman and degrading . In view of the severe overcrowding in prison , he had to take turns sleeping , sleeping for a maximum of TIME a day . The sanitary and hygienic conditions were appalling , and for DATE there was no opportunity for him to have proper shower . The applicant was also deprived of the opportunity to have regular outdoor exercise . Whilst in FAC no . CARDINAL , he was not allowed to see his family even once .","On DATE , following his conviction , the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL . According to him , the conditions of his detention improved there , although he was still deprived of regular outdoor exercise . Moreover , the nutrition in the prison was poor and he was deprived of basic items relating to hygiene , such as soap , bed linen , toilet paper , and towels .","According to a letter from the prison governor dated DATE , the applicant was only visited by his family once during his time in that prison , on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168839","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence in a correctional colony in LOC .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery . On DATE the ORG of GPE authorised his detention .","On DATE ORG extended the detention . That detention order was upheld on appeal on CARDINAL DATE by ORG .","Another extensions of detention followed on DATE and DATE . The applicant appealed against both detention orders .","On DATE the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The conviction became final on DATE .","On DATE , in reply to the applicant \u2019s complaint about the failure to examine his appeal , ORG informed him that his appeal against the detention order of CARDINAL DATE was not received by ORG . However , by a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG forwarded the applicant \u2019s appeal statement lodged on DATE to ORG , requiring it to perform procedural steps necessary to initiate the appeal proceedings . ORG also informed the applicant that his appeal complaint of CARDINAL DATE was mistakenly attached to another case - file .","No further information on organisation of the appeal hearing against the detention order of DATE was provided ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164920","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF JOVANOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE the applicant brought an enforcement action before ORG ( PERSON ) against a socially \/ State - owned company \u201c ORG a.d . Smederevo \u201d ( the debtor ) .","On DATE that court ordered direct enforcement of the outstanding invoice ( izvr\u0161enje na osnovu verodostojne isprave ) .","On DATE ORG ordered the restructuring of the debtor as part of privatisation process .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring .","On DATE the applicant appealed the decision to stay the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s appeal was rejected by the enforcement court .","On DATE the applicant urged the court to continue the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the court informed the applicant that the debtor was still undergoing restructuring and that therefore the enforcement proceedings could not be continued .","It would appear that the applicant did not appeal against this decision .","On DATE the applicant brought an enforcement action before ORG ( GPE sud u GPE ) against a socially \/ ORG - owned company \u201c GPE a.d . Ni\u0161 \u201d ( the debtor ) .","On DATE that court ordered direct enforcement of the outstanding invoice .","On DATE ORG ordered the restructuring of the debtor as part of privatisation process .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring .","The applicant did not appeal against this decision which became final on DATE .","On DATE the applicant urged the court to continue the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the court informed the applicant that the debtor was still undergoing restructuring and that therefore the enforcement proceedings could not be continued ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146008","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"GRUZDEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the city of GPE - on - Don , GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON PERSON GPE , Representative of GPE at ORG .","The applicant married ORG in DATE . CARDINAL children , a boy and a girl , were born to DATE and DATE respectively . The family lived together in a house acquired during the marriage .","On DATE , due to growing tensions between the applicant and her husband , she left the house together with the children and moved into a rented apartment . Her husband continued to reside in the house .","On DATE a court dissolved the marriage between the applicant and her husband . The issue of the children \u2019s residence was not resolved in the course of the divorce proceedings .","According to the applicant , she reached an oral agreement with her husband that the children would stay with her . Shortly after the divorce , the applicant initiated civil proceedings for the division of marital property , including the house ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE babysitter PERSON , who was staying with the children in the applicant \u2019s rented apartment , took them to the applicant \u2019s former husband . According to the applicant , this was planned by her former husband and took place with his assistance .","On DATE , during the night , the applicant entered the house with the help of the police and took her daughter back . It appears that she could not , for some reason , take her son .","The applicant subsequently took her daughter to her mother \u2019s home ( her daughter \u2019s maternal grandmother ) . She lived in another town . The applicant submitted that shortly after the incident her former husband sent their son with the babysitter to another town as well .","From DATE until DATE she was neither able to see nor contact her son . ORG subsequently allowed the applicant to see her son for TIME every week .","On an unspecified date the applicant brought civil proceedings against her former husband , seeking a residence order in respect of her CARDINAL children . The applicant \u2019s former husband lodged a counterclaim and also asked the court to grant a residence order in respect of the children in his favour .","At a preliminary hearing , ORG , PERSON - on - PERSON ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered ORG for LOC of GPE - on - Don \u2019s child welfare board ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to prepare reports on the living conditions of the applicant and her former husband .","On an unspecified date ORG made a report on the living conditions of the applicant \u2019s former husband . The report described the former matrimonial home in detail . The house had CARDINAL floors and measured CARDINAL sq . m.","On DATE ORG drew up a report on the applicant \u2019s living conditions . The report stated that the sanitation conditions of and services supplied to the CARDINAL - room rented apartment where the applicant and her daughter were living at the time were satisfactory . The applicant \u2019s daughter had a separate room with a bed , a wardrobe and toys .","On DATE PERSON , the deputy head of ORG , wrote her final remarks following the inspection of the applicant \u2019s living conditions and those of her former husband . In the remarks PERSON stated that the GPE considered that the children should reside with their father . The reasoning for that conclusion was as follows :","\u201c ORG is well off and [ is able to ] offer very good living conditions , there is a separate furnished room for each child in his house , a gym , a swimming pool , [ and ] the children \u2019s babysitter lives in the house . PERSON is very attached to the children , loves and cherishes them and wants to support and develop them . ORG is of good character , and does not have bad habits .","Gruzdev A. [ the applicant \u2019s son ] , currently living with his father , is tidily dressed , is [ a ] cheerful , well - brought - up , communicative , well - developed [ child ] , [ he ] can read , [ and ] quickly assemble \u2018 Lego\u2019 models . There is a quiet and kind atmosphere in the family . The child is surrounded with love , attention and care . \u201d","During the trial the applicant lodged a motion for a repeated inspection of her living conditions to be carried out . On DATE ORG produced a second report which stated that the applicant , who worked as a senior customs inspector , earning MONEY DATE , and her daughter were living in a CARDINAL - room flat in an apartment block . The flat measured QUANTITY . m. During DATE the child \u2019s maternal grandmother stayed with them . At the time of the inspection the applicant \u2019s daughter had gone with her maternal grandparents to the seaside . CARDINAL room of the apartment had CARDINAL beds for the applicant \u2019s children , another one had cushioned furniture . The kitchen furniture and a gas oven belonged to the landlord , whilst a table , a refrigerator and a number of other electrical appliances belonged to the applicant . There were children \u2019s clothes , shoes and toys in the wardrobes in the corridor .","During the trial ORG questioned witnesses PERSON . , NORP and PERSON , who gave evidence for the applicant and who stated that the applicant was considered to be of good character at work . Witness PERSON confirmed that the applicant \u2019s son lived with his father and the applicant \u2019s daughter lived with her maternal grandparents . PERSON also stated that the applicant \u2019s former husband was a bad father .","ORG also questioned a representative of ORG , who stated that a residence order in respect of the children should be made in favour of their father .","Witnesses Ya . , T. , PERSON and GPE gave oral evidence for the applicant \u2019s former husband to ORG to the effect that ORG had always duly performed his paternal duties , had fully supported the family , and had established good living conditions for the children . The witnesses also noted that FAC was the head of a business and could set his own working schedule , in order to spend more time with his children , and could also afford to employ a babysitter . The witnesses asserted that the applicant had not fully performed her parental duties and that most of the time the babysitter had taken care of the children , who had often been anxious and had cried in the applicant \u2019s presence .","On DATE ORG granted a residence order in respect of the children to their father . The court relied on the reports and final remarks of ORG and the statements made by its representative during the trial . The court also accepted the oral evidence given by witnesses Ya . , T. , PERSON and GPE for the applicant \u2019s former husband , as it considered that they were not concerned by the outcome of the case . At the same time , the court rejected the statements of PERSON that ORG was a bad father , as they contradicted the facts of the case and the evidence led by ORG","ORG reasoned as follows :","\u201c ... Having analysed all the evidence , the court concludes that ORG can create the conditions most favourable for the upbringing and development of his children , which will [ ... ] correspond to the children \u2019s best interests ...","Witnesses PERSON . and NORP , questioned during the trial , who are the colleagues of PERSON . PERSON [ the applicant ] stated that [ the applicant ] is considered to be of good character at work , [ is ] polite , [ and ] has not received any reprimands from her superiors . These witnesses stated to the court that they knew that [ the applicant ] had a family and children ... NORP stated that she knew that after the divorce the [ applicant \u2019s ] son stayed with his father , and [ the applicant ] had taken her daughter , but [ that ] the girl was not living with her , as [ the applicant had ] sent her to [ live with her ] parents , and [ the applicant ] would visit her at DATE . [ The applicant ] did not deny these facts during the trial .","Witnesses for the other party Ya . , T. , PERSON and GPE , questioned during the trial , stated that ORG ... had always duly performed his paternal duties , had fully supported the family , had established good living conditions and had constructed the house with the needs of children in mind . Moreover , these witnesses stated that FAC , being the head of a business , could set his own working schedule , which would allow him to devote more time to the upbringing , education and development of his children and to spend more time with them . ORG can afford to employ a babysitter , who has taken care of the children from birth . At the same time the witnesses asserted that [ the applicant ] had not fully performed her parental duties , since the babysitter had taken care of them most of the time . [ T]he children would stay with the babysitter when [ the applicant ] repeatedly left on her own business and went on holiday , the children had often been anxious and had cried in the presence of [ the applicant ] , [ whereas ] the father had always looked after the children , had played and spent his free time [ with them ] ... These witnesses are not concerned by the outcome of the case and therefore the court considers their statements to be credible .","Thus the court considers the [ applicant \u2019s ] argument that her address should be determined as the children \u2019s residence to be unsubstantiated , as it has been established during the trial that this dwelling does not belong [ to her ] , but [ rather ] has been rented to her for the period from DATE until DATE , [ and ] she is not registered at this address . Moreover , from the time of dissolution of the marriage her son has lived with his father in the house where they had all lived as a family before , while her daughter , who was taken by [ the applicant ] , does not live with her , having been sent to [ live with the applicant \u2019s ] parents , [ thus ] depriving the girl of the opportunity to see both her father and her brother .","The court is not convinced by [ the applicant \u2019s ] argument that [ her former husband ] is unable to provide for the proper support , upbringing and development of the children , as [ the applicant ] has not provided any reliable evidence in support [ of this argument ] .","The statements of PERSON ... that ORG is a bad father and that the children should reside solely with their mother can not be taken into account , since her statements contradict the facts of the case and the evidence provided by the [ defendant , V.G. ] ...","In these circumstances the court ... basing its decision on the best interests of the children ... [ the ] finances and family status of the parents , [ and ] taking into account the final remarks of ORG ... rules that a residence order should be granted in favour of their father PERSON ... \u201d","In DATE the applicant complained to the PERSON - on - Don Department of Education and GPE Ministry of Education that the final remarks made by employees NORP and PERSON on behalf of ORG had been improper and solely based on her former husband \u2019s financial situation , without taking into account her situation , personality and relationship with the children and her role in their upbringing .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that an internal investigation had confirmed some of the applicant \u2019s allegations and NORP had been subjected to a disciplinary sanction . On DATE the Rostov ORG of Education informed the applicant by letter that it had been established in the course of the internal investigation conducted by the PERSON - on - Don Department of Education that NORP , when preparing the final remarks concerning the official recommendation as to the residence of the applicant \u2019s children , had not thoroughly studied the issue and had not reflected in the remarks the facts relating to the applicant \u2019s personality and her relationship with the children . NORP had been subjected to a disciplinary sanction in the form of a warning . It also noted that the final remarks of ORG had not served as the sole basis for the judgment , since the court had analysed the totality of the evidence .","NORP The applicant appealed against the judgment of DATE , arguing that when deciding on the issue of residence the first - instance court had only taken into account the financial situation of her former husband . The court had not assessed the evidence provided by her , namely that she was the coowner of the house the children were living in , the proceedings for division of marital property were pending and her stay in a rented apartment was only temporary . The applicant challenged the court \u2019s conclusion that she had given her daughter to her grandparents and had not been taking part in her upbringing as unsubstantiated , submitting that the court had ignored her explanation of the reasons for the girl \u2019s temporary stay with her grandmother . According to the applicant , she had had to leave the girl with her maternal grandparents for the fear that her husband may abduct her . In addition , the applicant pointed out that she had taken maternity leave to take care of the child from DATE until DATE . The applicant complained that the first - instance court had treated the evidence led by her former husband more favourably and had not taken into account the testimony of PERSON The applicant argued that the first - instance court had not assessed the evidence showing that she had supported and taken care of the children , namely the evidence that she was employed at a customs office , including a salary slip , and had not taken into account the children \u2019s minor age and their attachment to her . The applicant pointed out that the first - instance court had based its judgment on the flawed final remarks of ORG . The applicant complained that the first - instance court had not explained why it had rejected the evidence concerning her former husband \u2019s bad character and had not taken into account the fact that he had not let her come to the house to see the children .","On DATE the Rostov ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal as unfounded . It ruled as follows :","\u201c ... [ T]he first - instance court correctly assessed the evidence , including the reports on the inspections of the parties\u2019 living conditions and ORG final remarks of DATE , which had been supported during the hearing by their representative , and considered the totality of the evidence .","The court considered that all necessary conditions for the children to live with their father were satisfied , taking into account their interests , age and needs , their attachment to the father , [ and ] their father \u2019s ability to establish the optimal conditions for their upbringing and psychological and social development .","Moreover , the court rightly ... pointed out that [ the applicant ] had not proved her allegations .","The court considers the appellant \u2019s arguments that living with their father would not be in the children \u2019s interests to be unsubstantiated ...","According to ORG final remarks of DATE , ORG is [ able to provide the children with ] good housing conditions , there is a separate furnished room for each child in his house , a gym , [ and ] a swimming pool . He loves the children and is able , in the court \u2019s opinion , to establish the [ optimal ] conditions for their upbringing , development and healthy living .","In these circumstances the court concluded that ORG can ... raise the children and that living with their father would to a greater extent correspond to their best interests , as he is considered to be of good character in everyday life and at work and he has established appropriate living conditions for the children .","In addition , the court established during the trial that [ the son ] was in fact living with his father in the house while [ the daughter ] , who had been taken by her mother , does not live with [ the applicant ] in the same apartment , but stays with relatives in another town .","In these circumstances the court rightly concluded that [ the applicant ] ... was not in fact living with the child .","The appellant \u2019s reasons for not being able to live with her daughter can not be taken into account ... since the present dispute concerns the granting of a residence order in favour of CARDINAL of the parents and not [ other ] relatives , especially [ relatives ] living in a different town .","The fact that [ the applicant ] took maternity leave to take care of the child after the first - instance hearing does not in any way affect the legality of the first - instance judgment for the following reasons .","Firstly ... at the time of examination of the case at first instance the applicant was not on maternity leave ... the girl ... was staying with relatives although [ the applicant ] had taken her from her father to live with her . At the same time , [ the applicant ] had highlighted in her claim that the child , due to her minor age , needed to stay with her mother ( and not with [ other ] relatives ) . The court considers that , in view of the family situation , [ namely ] the GPE divorce , the girl should have been living with CARDINAL of her parents , since she needed their support and protection ...","In addition , the court takes into account the fact that before the first - instance judgment ... [ the applicant ] had not considered it necessary to take maternity leave to care for the child , or to be with the children .","The court also takes into account the fact that in spite of the children \u2019s minor age at the time , [ the applicant ] returned to work after the birth of her daughter . She had not considered [ them ] to be worthy of her attention in the period when the family had been together and had had a stable income , and [ went back to work from ] maternity leave [ she had taken ] to take care of the baby , who was DATE at the time , and the second child , who was DATE .","During the appeal hearing [ the applicant ] stated that she had been forced to interrupt her maternity leave because her husband had not been giving her any money , but this claim is refuted by the materials of the case , which describe the living conditions of the family ... [ and by ] the witness testimony , and the appellant has not provided any evidence in support of this claim at the appeal hearing . The applicant has not previously made this claim ...","It is also important that the children can stay together at their father \u2019s home .","In view of the above - mentioned reasons , the appellant \u2019s argument that the court had only considered the financial situation of ORG can not be taken into account .","The first - instance court when resolving the dispute ... and assessing the evidence in the case proceeded from [ standpoint of ] the best interests of the children only and considered the ... situation from the point of view of which one of the parents offered greater opportunities for raising the children , had communicated with them more often , had spent more time with them , and could take care of them better .","When making its findings the court relied , among other things , on the pre - trial behaviour of the parties towards the children .","The argument of [ the applicant ] that the house ... is part of the common marital property and that she has initiated proceedings for its division is not relevant ... The marital property ... was not the subject matter of the dispute . The dwelling where the children \u2019s mother currently resides is not her property , it has been rented to her for the period from DATE until DATE , she is not registered [ as having her permanent residence ] there .","At the same time the right of the children \u2019s mother to live in the house ... has been established by a court judgment and , taking into account the fact that the children and their father live in the house , [ she ] will be able to see her children .","Moreover , she can subsequently lodge a [ further ] application for a residence order if the circumstances ( the basis of the claim ) change .","It should also be noted , that ... the maternity leave records , the records of witness statements and the other documents attached to the appeal submissions can not be taken into account by the appeal court , since ... the appeal court can only consider new evidence in the case that could not have been submitted to the first - instance court . There is no evidence that [ the applicant ] could not have submitted the [ relevant ] documents to the first - instance court . \u201d","On DATE ORG brokered an agreement between the applicant and V.G. ( entitled Agreement no . CARDINAL ) setting out the following contact schedule between the applicant and her children :","\u201c CARDINAL . On DATE from TIME children are with [ the applicant ] .","On DATE at TIME takes the boy to school .","At TIME [ the applicant ] takes the boy .","On DATE at TIME [ the applicant ] takes the boy home and until TIME on DATE he stays [ with his mother ] .","The [ children \u2019s ] toys and other such objects are to be divided .","The number of holidays is divided in CARDINAL . With the other parent \u2019s consent ... the children may be taken outside of the city .","Responsibility for the health and safety of the children is borne by both parties .","During their DATE leave period each party has the right to spend DATE with the children .","Remarks : In case of an extraordinary situation each parent is under the obligation to warn TIME in advance of a change to the schedule . It is necessary to take joint and coordinated action in respect of the health of the children , both psychological and physical ; [ and to ensure that they ] undergo medical examinations on time . \u201d","NORP Subsequently both parties on several occasions petitioned ORG , citing their dissatisfaction with the established contact schedule . In particular , the applicant submitted CARDINAL affidavits , signed by witnesses , allegedly confirming her former husband \u2019s refusals to let her enter the marital home in DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant brought court proceedings against ORG for division of their marital property .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claims in part , having decided that the applicant now owned CARDINAL of the marital house and a car . The first - instance judgment of CARDINAL DATE was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .","It appears that thereafter the applicant and ORG commenced renovation and construction works on the former marital home with a view to residing in it as CARDINAL separate families . By DATE all of the relevant renovation and construction works were completed .","On DATE the applicant again sued her former husband ORG , seeking a residence order in respect of her CARDINAL children .","In the applicant \u2019s statement of claim , which she modified and updated on a number of occasions during the course of the court proceedings , she raised her previous arguments again and also referred to various changes in the relevant circumstances .","The applicant argued , in particular , that she now owned CARDINAL of the former matrimonial home , a car , a flat and a plot of land , had a steady DATE income of MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ) , whilst the financial situation of her former husband had deteriorated , in that he had lost the business premises he had formerly owned , was no longer self - employed and was now in receipt of a modest salary at a private company and , lastly , had issues with honouring his personal debts .","The applicant also alleged that ORG had repeatedly breached the agreement of CARDINAL DATE , had hurt the children , could not handle them on his own and had to have recourse to nannies , which he frequently changed , and that the applicant \u2019s views in this respect were ignored . Furthermore , after the divorce proceedings ORG had started living with a young woman , marrying her on DATE and moving out of the matrimonial home .","In his response to the applicant \u2019s claims , ORG explained that he had moved out pending the renovation of the house , that he was still well off , as he earned between RUB CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ( CARDINAL to CARDINAL euros ) and that the applicant \u2019s maintenance payments were not spent on the children , but rather were put aside . He also referred to expert reports ( see below ) confirming that he was a good father and that his relationship with the children was good .","On DATE ORG produced a report on an inspection of the applicant \u2019s living conditions . It stated that at the time the applicant was living in a rented apartment consisting of CARDINAL rooms with an overall surface area of QUANTITY and a living area of QUANTITY . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL rooms was used a room for children , with many books and toys . It was clean and at the time of the inspection the applicant \u2019s son A. was there , clean and neatly dressed .","On DATE ORG produced a report on an inspection of ORG living conditions . At the time FAC was living in a rented CARDINAL - room apartment with his then partner and future wife , GPE , and the CARDINAL children , GPE and NORP The apartment was well - equipped and had a room for the children .","On DATE a child welfare centre run by the local council produced a report on a psychological examination of the applicant , ORG and their children that it had conducted . The report concluded that both children felt love and emotional attachment to both parents , and that both children needed to be able to properly communicate with both parents . The report stated that there were no concerns as regards the parenting styles of either their mother or their father .","At the same time , it noted some concerns in terms of the applicant \u2019s behaviour in that she had dragged the children into the conflict between the parents , had a generally heightened level of protectiveness towards the children and a somewhat inconsistent parenting style . As regards their father , the report noted that he was also excessively protective of the children .","NORP The report also concluded that the conflict had affected negatively the psychological state of the children , especially their son A. , and that the level of conflict might lead to the children developing physical health problems . It was also noted that a conflict - free relationship between the parents was a significant factor in the psychological health of both children .","Overall , the report concluded that at this point a change of residence for the children was not recommended , because their adaptation to new conditions might worsen the effect of the stress factors on them .","On DATE psychologist PERSON examined the children and compiled a report , which concluded that the boy A. did not present any significant mental health problems but that he had minor personality problems in the form of a heightened level of anxiety , which could be a reaction to a traumatising family situation . As regards the girl NORP , the doctor did not detect any problems at all .","In a report of CARDINAL DATE ORG stated that it favoured the children residing with their mother , given that she owned a CARDINAL - room apartment in the town of FAC in GPE and a CARDINAL share of the former matrimonial home in the city of GPE - on - Don .","After the renovation of the former matrimonial home was over , the applicant and her former husband ( together with his new family ) moved back into the building , each of them occupying CARDINAL of the house , in accordance with the property split provided for in the previous court decisions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . Shortly afterwards ORG inspected their respective homes .","In its report of CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s home was said to contain CARDINAL living rooms , a shower , CARDINAL WCs and a swimming pool . Each child had a separate room and was provided all necessary home comforts . The report stated that the applicant \u201c did not create obstacles to communication between the children and their father \u201d . Both children lived with their father , but \u201c missed their mother , wanted to see her more often and loved her \u201d . The living and parenting conditions were \u201c good and comfortable \u201d , her relationship with the children was \u201c generally good , based on trust and [ was ] open [ in nature ] \u201d .","On DATE ORG issued a report on the living conditions offered by ORG family . His part of the house was similar in size and had CARDINAL living rooms . The relationship between father and children was described as \u201c good , taking their interests into account \u201d . The children loved him , and respected , supported and loved each other . The living and parenting conditions established by ORG for the children were described as being \u201c very good , regard being had to the age and gender of the children \u201d , the relationship between the children being \u201c good and based on trust \u201d .","Basing themselves on the results of the inspections of CARDINAL DATE , ORG took the view that regard being had to all relevant factors it would be advisable for the children to reside with their mother .","On DATE the ORG again inspected the applicant \u2019s living conditions and on DATE her former husband \u2019s living conditions , concluding that they were equally good in both homes .","The applicant \u2019s action for a residence order was examined by ORG at court hearings which took place DATE and on DATE . The court questioned CARDINAL witnesses , including officials of ORG , the doctors who had been involved in the expert reports detailed above and expert witnesses from various authorities . Expert PERSON , in charge of the report of DATE , gave evidence in court in the presence of the parties , speaking in favour of not changing the residence arrangements and confirming the reasons given in the report of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment , dismissing the applicant \u2019s claim in full . The court relied on the evidence presented by the parties to the court and examined during the hearings and concluded that it would be equally beneficial for the children to live with either parent . Having regard to the home environment offered by ORG to date , the court considered that it was more favourable for the children \u2019s upbringing and development . At the same time , the applicant \u2019s submissions to the effect that her former husband was deficient in supervising the health of the children were refuted and rejected as unfounded .","The court reasoned as follows :","\u201c ... The court , examining the report of ORG on the need to change the residence of the children , comes to the opinion that [ the ORG \u2019s ] findings were made only on the basis of the amelioration of the [ applicant \u2019s ] housing and finances .","[ The applicant \u2019s ] claims that [ her former husband \u2019s ] situation has worsened are not confirmed by the materials of the case ... Apart from that , [ the applicant ] is a ORG official and being busy at work is [ thus ] unable to give the children due attention , whilst [ her former husband ] is a director of a firm , choosing his work schedule for himself , which is confirmed by the case - file materials . He can spend more time educating and developing [ the children ] , whilst [ they ] are also given constant care and attention by [ ORG \u2019s ] family , namely their grandfather , uncle and ORG wife , the atmosphere in the family being positive . The children love their family members and meet with them frequently .","[ The applicant ] in court confirmed that she has contact with her children CARDINAL times a week , which refutes her arguments that [ V.G. ] has been blocking contact with the children .","The respondent has created a new family , which is confirmed by his marriage certificate , but this fact has no negative bearing on his relationship with the children , he cares about them and loves them just as much . Moreover , the witnesses questioned in court confirmed that [ ORG \u2019s new ] wife had a positive and caring relationship with the children . ORG does not affect his children in a negative way , and this has never been mentioned in any of the [ expert reports ] .","The time to date has demonstrated that the children growing up with ORG has not [ impacted on them ] negatively and that , quite the contrary , they are growing up in a loving and caring [ environment ] .","Overall , the court has not established any relevant and sufficient grounds for changing the residence arrangements . The court , in taking this decision , has had regard to the best interests of the children and their age , their attachments to all members of their extended family , their GPE capacity to create the optimal conditions for the children \u2019s education and development ... \u201d","The first - instance judgment of DATE was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE , which stated that :","\u201c ... The judicial panel is unable to agree with [ the applicant ] , who sought to have the first - instance judgment quashed on the grounds that [ her finances and living conditions had considerably improved , whilst those of her husband had deteriorated ] .","Under [ applicable domestic law ] the mere fact that a parent has an advantage in [ terms of ] finances and living conditions can not in itself be viewed as grounds compelling [ the court ] to grant the claim .","Moreover , [ the applicant ] failed to present any evidence which could confirm that ORG has been evading his duty to maintain and educate his children or is unable to provide for them ...","[ The applicant ] has not substantiated her claims about the deterioration of ORG \u2019s relationship with the children , that his new wife has a conflict of interests vis - \u00e0 - vis the children or the existence of any threats to their physical or mental well - being ...","Apart from that , the judicial panel takes into account the proximity at which the respective parents reside from each other and the absence of any impediments to contact between [ the applicant ] and the children ... \u201d","DATE ( on the exercise of parental rights ) of LAW of GPE of DATE provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The place of the children \u2019s residence , if the parents live apart , shall be established by an agreement between the parents .","In the absence of an agreement , a dispute between the parents shall be resolved in court , proceeding from the [ standpoint of the ] children \u2019s best interests and taking into account the children \u2019s opinions . In doing so , the court shall take into account the child \u2019s affection for each of his parents and for his brothers and sisters , the child \u2019s age , the moral and other personal characteristics of the parents , the existing relationships between each of the parents and the child , and [ each parent \u2019s ] ability to create optimal conditions for the child \u2019s upbringing and development ( the parent \u2019s kind of activity and work schedule , their financial situation and family status , etc . ) . \u201d","Article CARDINAL ( on the exercise of parental rights by the parent residing separately from the child ) of the LAW provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . NORP The parent residing separately from the child shall have the right to communicate with the child and to take part in his upbringing and education .","The parent with whom the child lives shall not prevent the child communicating with the other parent , unless such communication would damage the child \u2019s physical and mental health or his moral development .","NORP The parents shall have the right to enter into a written agreement concerning the way in which the parent residing apart from the child may exercise his or her parental rights .","If the parents can not reach an agreement , upon an action being brought by one ( or both ) of the parents the dispute shall be resolved in court with the participation of the [ competent ] guardianship or trusteeship authority .","In the event of failure to abide by the court \u2019s decision , the measures stipulated by civil procedure legislation shall be applied to the respective parent . In the case of persistent failure to comply with the court \u2019s decision , the court shall have the right , upon the claim of the parent residing separately from the child . to take a decision ordering that the child be handed over to that parent , proceeding from the [ standpoint of the ] child \u2019s best interests and taking into account the child \u2019s opinion .","NORP The parent residing separately from the child shall have the right to obtain information on his or her child from educational establishments and medical centres , from social welfare institutions and from other similar institutions . Such information may only be refused if the parent presents a threat to the child \u2019s life and health . Refusal to provide information may be disputed in court . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154153","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DOROSEVA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was arrested on the street by several police officers wearing plain clothes , on suspicion of possession of drugs .","According to the applicant , she was ill - treated by the police officers before being taken to the police station . At the police station she was held until TIME .","In a medical report issued on CARDINAL DATE a forensic doctor found that the applicant presented numerous bruises to her face , arms and hips . An x - ray examination of the applicant \u2019s head , which according to the medical report was conducted on DATE , showed that the applicant also had a broken nose .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist who determined that she had also suffered concussion .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG concerning her ill - treatment by the police on DATE .","On DATE ORG refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the ground that the applicant \u2019s complaint was illfounded . The decision was based on the statements of the accused police officers who had denied having ill - treated the applicant and on the fact that there was a possibility that the applicant \u2019s injuries were the result of her falling over .","On DATE a superior prosecutor from the same ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE an investigating judge from ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law and ordered a re - examination of the applicant \u2019s case . The judge found that the investigation conducted by ORG had been superficial and incomplete .","After the reopening of the investigation , ORG ordered the conduct of a new forensic medical examination . In a report dated DATE a forensic doctor found that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had presented numerous bruises on her face and limbs and a broken nose . The applicant \u2019s injuries had been produced by CARDINAL different blows with a hard blunt object and since they were located on different parts of her body , they could not have been a result of a fall from the height of her body .","On DATE ORG refused again to initiate criminal proceedings . This time the prosecutor argued that according to his verifications in the documents of the hospital where the applicant had undergone an x - ray of her nose , the procedure had been carried out not on CARDINAL but on DATE . Moreover , the prosecutor found a discrepancy between the records in the forensic medical report of CARDINAL DATE where the time of the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment was indicated as TIME on CARDINAL DATE and her subsequent statements indicated it as TIME on DATE . This decision was upheld by a superior prosecutor on DATE and by an investigating judge from ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152765","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"M\u00dcLLER v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178346","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MOSKALEV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was deputy head of ORG for the Execution of Sentences .","On DATE ORG authorised for DATE the interception and recording of the applicant \u2019s telephone conversations , interception of postal communications and the collection of data from technical channels of communication . The surveillance authorisation read in its entirety as follows :","\u201c Operational - search measures carried out with the aim of combatting corruption within ORG authorities have revealed indications of a systematic bribery scheme operated by certain prison officials in the GPE region .","According to operative information , there are good reasons to suspect [ the applicant ] , deputy head of ORG for the Execution of Sentences , of arranging for , and systematically receiving , unlawful payments from confidants of the convicts serving their sentences in GPE penal institutions in exchange for granting them various privileges ( such as a prison leave , improved conditions of detention or transfer to another penal institution within the GPE region , which was for some reason preferred by the convict in question ) .","Given that [ the applicant \u2019s ] actions contain elements of criminal offences under LAW of LAW [ bribe - taking ] , classified as a serious offence , and LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW [ abuse of power ] , it is necessary to perform a combination of operational - search measures ( interception and recording of telephone conversations , monitoring of correspondence and collection of data from technical channels of communication ) in order to collect evidence of his criminal activities , and to receive information about the bribegivers and the payment mechanisms used . \u201d","On DATE ORG authorised \u201c audio surveillance \u201d of the applicant \u2019s office for DATE . The Government did not submit a copy of that decision .","Charges of bribe - taking or abuse of power have never been brought against the applicant .","In DATE the applicant was charged with disclosure of ORG secrets , an offence under LAW , for informing a convict \u2019s relative that the convict was under covert surveillance .","When studying the criminal case file , the applicant learnt for the first time that his telephone conversations had been recorded and his other communications monitored . He also learnt that a recording of his telephone conversation with PERSON , a sister of a convict detained in a penal institution under his supervision , formed the basis for the charge of disclosure of ORG secrets . During the conversation , which had taken place on DATE , the applicant had warned PERSON that her relative was under covert surveillance and that there were listening devices hidden in his cell .","At the trial the applicant pleaded not guilty . He claimed , in particular , that the recording of his telephone conversation with PERSON was inadmissible as evidence as it had been obtained unlawfully .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of disclosure of ORG secrets , an offence under LAW . It relied on the recording of the applicant \u2019s telephone conversation with PERSON , among other evidence . It found that the recording was admissible as evidence as it had been obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law . In particular , the interception of the applicant \u2019s telephone conversations had been authorised by a court on the grounds that he was suspected of the serious criminal offence of bribetaking . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","NORP In his appeal submissions the applicant complained , in particular , of a violation of his right to respect for his private life . He argued that the interception of his communications had been unlawful and unjustified , and that the recording of his conversation with PERSON was inadmissible as evidence .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the conviction on appeal . It noted that all the evidence had been collected in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and was admissible ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140012","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ARKHESTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["Early in the morning of CARDINAL DATE law - enforcement agencies in the town of GPE , GPE , were attacked by a number of heavily armed people , who appear to have been local insurgents . The agencies included ORG of ORG , ORG of ORG of ORG , various district departments of ORG , ORG of ORG , various checkpoints of ORG , ORG of ORG , ORG of ORG and the office of ORG of ORG . Also , a few privately owned weapon shops were attacked . According to the Government , there were CARDINAL participants in the attack .","The ensuing fight between the governmental forces and the insurgents lasted until CARDINAL DATE .","The first , second , third , fifth and seventh applicants submit that they are relatives of the people whose dead bodies were found following the events of CARDINAL and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ) . The fourth applicant claims that his son was killed by ORG agents in the village of PERSON in LOC on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . The sixth applicant claims that her son was killed by ORG agents in the town of GPE on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . All of the applicants live in GPE and , unless stated otherwise , are residents of GPE .","The first applicant , PERSON Arkhestov , born in DATE , referred to the death of his son Mr PERSON , born on DATE .","The second applicant , PERSON , born in DATE , referred to the death of her son Mr PERSON GPE , born on CARDINAL DATE .","The third applicant , PERSON , born in DATE , referred to the death of her husband Mr PERSON , born on DATE .","The fourth applicant , Mr ORG , born in DATE , referred to the death of his son Mr PERSON , born on DATE .","The fifth applicant , Mr PERSON Tukov , born in DATE , referred to the death of his son Mr PERSON , born on DATE .","The sixth applicant , PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , referred to the death of her son Mr PERSON , born on DATE .","The seventh applicant , PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , referred to the death of her brother PERSON PERSON , born on CARDINAL DATE .","The Government did not dispute this information .","It appears that on DATE the authorities instituted criminal proceedings no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL in connection with the attack in GPE .","In the course of the investigation it was established that DATE a group of individuals including A. ORG , PERSON . PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG , had formed a terrorist group . It was this group that organised the attack . CARDINAL law - enforcement officers and QUANTITY civilians were killed , whilst CARDINAL law - enforcement officers and CARDINAL civilians were injured . Massive damage was done to property .","The applicants did not have any procedural status in the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL .","NORP Immediately following the attack , an unspecified number of people ( including some of the applicants ) signed collective petitions requesting various officials , including the prosecutors , to return the bodies for burial .","DATE and until DATE the applicants received replies from the prosecution and other authorities informing them that they would receive definite answers once the investigation into the events had been completed .","Attempts by some of the applicants to challenge these replies in the domestic courts were unsuccessful , as they were rejected as premature both at first instance and on appeal .","On DATE the investigation authority terminated the criminal proceedings in respect of the CARDINAL deceased on account of their deaths , having taken an individual decision in respect of each deceased person . Each decision described the degree and character of their individual involvement and concluded that these persons had taken part in the attack and died as a result of the ensuing fight . The decisions described the circumstances of death of the persons referred to by the applicants ; they are set out below . The respondent Government have submitted the investigation case file in respect of the circumstances of death of each of the deceased persons .","The son of the first applicant , PERSON , was found to have taken part in the attack of DATE . He died in the exchange of gunfire which followed the collective attempt by the attackers to storm a building of ORG .","NORP The son of the second applicant , PERSON , was found to have taken part in the attack of DATE . He died in the exchange of gunfire which followed the collective attempt by the attackers to storm a building of ORG .","The husband of the third applicant , PERSON , was found to have taken part in the attack of DATE . He died in the exchange of gunfire which followed the collective attempt by the attackers to storm a building of ORG .","The son of the fourth applicant , PERSON , was found to have taken part in the attack of CARDINAL DATE and subsequently to have escaped from Nalchik and gone into hiding . He was located in the village of PERSON in LOC on DATE . After rejecting a call to give himself up , he died as a result of a failed attempt to arrest him .","The son of the fifth applicant , PERSON , was found to have taken part in the attack of CARDINAL DATE . He died in the exchange of gunfire which followed the collective attempt by the attackers to storm a building of ORG .","The son of the sixth applicant , PERSON , was found to have taken part on DATE in an exchange of gunfire with police officers preceding the main attack of CARDINAL DATE . He belonged to the same group as the attackers , but was detected by police officers by chance DATE prior to the attack .","The brother of the seventh applicant , PERSON , was found to have taken part in the attack of CARDINAL DATE . He died in the exchange of gunfire which followed the collective attempt by the attackers to storm a building of ORG .","The Prosecutor General \u2019s Office notified the applicants of the above decisions on DATE , but no copies of the decisions in question were attached to the notifications .","In the GPE proceedings the ORG submitted copies of the decisions of DATE in respect of each of the applicants\u2019 relatives .","The applicants were furnished with death certificates in respect of their relatives :","According to the ORG , CARDINAL corpses of the presumed terrorists were cremated on DATE .","The cremation took place pursuant to a decision not to return the bodies of the deceased to their families , dated DATE . In contrast to the individual decisions of DATE , the decision of CARDINAL DATE referred to the deceased persons collectively . The decision stated , in particular :","\u201c ... the head of investigation group ... [ official S. ] , having examined the materials in case file no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , established : ... [ that ] in the course of the counter - terrorist special operation aimed at tackling the attack , CARDINAL terrorists were eliminated , namely :","[ the decision names among the deceased all of the persons referred to by the applicants ]","At present all forensic expert examinations , including molecular genetic examinations , involving ... the corpses of the deceased terrorists , have been finalised and their identities have been established by way of proper procedure .","By decisions of CARDINAL - CARDINAL DATE the criminal proceedings in respect of these CARDINAL persons , who had committed ... the attack on various sites and law - enforcement agents of the town of GPE ... was discontinued on account of their deaths , under LAW part CARDINAL subpart CARDINAL and LAW part CARDINAL subpart CARDINAL of LAW .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG Law no . PERSON ) \u2018 the interment of persons against whom a criminal investigation in connection with their terrorist activities has been closed because of their death following interception of the said terrorist act shall take place in accordance with the procedure established by ORG of GPE . Their bodies shall not be handed over for burial and the place of their burial shall not be revealed.\u2019","Pursuant to part CARDINAL of Decree no . CARDINAL , \u2018 On interment of persons whose death was caused by the interception of terrorist acts carried out by them\u2019 , approved by ORG of GPE on DATE , \u2018 the interment of [ these ] persons shall take place in the locality where death occurred and shall be carried out by agencies specialising in funeral arrangements , set up by organs of the executive branch of the subjects of GPE or by organs of local government ... \u2019 .","[ In view of the above , official PERSON decided to : ]","bury the bodies of the CARDINAL terrorists ...","forward the decision to the President of GPE for execution ;","inform [ his superiors ] of this decision \u201d .","The Government alleged that the authorities had notified the applicants of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , but acknowledged that no copy of that decision had been provided to them .","It appears that on several occasions ORG informed the applicants , in substance , of the refusal to return the bodies . It does not appear that the applicants were furnished with a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","The ORG initial attempts to obtain judicial review of the decisions of DATE and DATE were unsuccessful , as the courts refused to examine their arguments .","The relatives of those who had taken part in the attack of CARDINAL DATE contested the legislation governing the interment of terrorists before ORG .","On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment ( no . CARDINAL ) in which , in essence , it rejected their complaints alleging that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Interment and Burial Act and Decree no . CARDINAL of the Government of GPE of DATE were unconstitutional . The ruling stated , in particular , that the impugned legal provisions were , in the circumstances , necessary and justified . The court reached the following conclusions regarding the legitimate aims and necessity of the legislation in question :","\u201c ... At the same time , the interest in fighting terrorism , in preventing terrorism in general and specific terms and in providing redress for the effects of terrorist acts , coupled with the risk of mass disorder , clashes between different ethnic groups and aggression by DATE those involved in terrorist activity against the population at large and law - enforcement officials , and lastly the threat to human life and limb , may , in a given historical context , justify the establishment of a particular legal regime , such as that provided for by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , governing the burial of persons who escape prosecution in connection with terrorist activity on account of their death following the interception of a terrorist act ... Those provisions are logically connected to the provisions of paragraph LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG of ORG on combating terrorism through culture , dated DATE , in which it was stressed that extremist interpretations of elements of a particular culture or religion , such as heroic martyrdom , self - sacrifice , apocalypse or holy war , as well as secular ideologies ( nationalist or revolutionary ) could also be used for the justification of terrorist acts .","Action to minimise the informational and psychological impact of the terrorist act on the population , including the weakening of its propaganda effect , is one of the means necessary to protect public security and the morals , health , rights and legal interests of citizens . It therefore pursues exactly those aims for which LAW and international legal instruments permit restrictions on the relevant rights and freedoms .","The burial of those who have taken part in a terrorist act , in close proximity to the graves of the victims of their acts , and the observance of rites of burial and remembrance with the paying of respects , as a symbolic act of worship , serve as a means of propaganda for terrorist ideas and also cause offence to relatives of the victims of the acts in question , creating the preconditions for increasing inter - ethnic and religious tension .","In the conditions which have arisen in GPE as a result of the commission of a series of terrorist acts which produced numerous human victims , resulted in widespread negative social reaction and had a major impact on the collective consciousness , the return of the body to the relatives ... may create a threat to social order and peace and to the rights and legal interests of other persons and their security , including incitement to hatred and incitement to engage in acts of vandalism , violence , mass disorder and clashes which may produce further victims . Meanwhile , the burial places of participants in terrorist acts may become a shrine for certain extremist individuals and be used by them as a means of propaganda for the ideology of terrorism and involvement in terrorist activity .","In such circumstances , the federal legislature may introduce special arrangements governing the burial of individuals whose death occurred as a result of the interception of a terrorist act in which they were taking part . ... \u201d","NORP The ruling further noted that the application of the measures prescribed in the legislation could be regarded as justified if proper procedural safeguards , such as effective judicial review , were in place to protect individuals from arbitrariness . The court noted that Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided for such review .","In sum , ORG upheld the impugned provisions as being in conformity with the LAW but at the same time interpreted them as requiring that the authorities refrain from burying bodies unless a court had confirmed the competent authority \u2019s decision . It reasoned as follows :","\u201c ... The constitutional and legal meaning of the existing norms presupposes the possibility of bringing court proceedings to challenge a decision to discontinue , on account of the deaths of the suspects , a criminal case against or prosecution of participants in a terrorist act . Accordingly , they also presuppose an obligation on the court \u2019s part to examine the substance of the complaint , that is , to verify the lawfulness and well - foundedness of the decision and the conclusions therein as regards the participation of the persons concerned in a terrorist act , and to establish the absence of grounds for rehabilitating [ the suspects ] and discontinuing the criminal case . They thus entail an examination of the lawfulness of the application of the aforementioned restrictive measures . Until the entry into force of the court judgment the deceased \u2019s remains can not be buried ; the relevant ORG bodies and officials must take all necessary measures to ensure that the bodies are disposed of in accordance with custom and tradition , in particular through the burial of the remains in the ground ... or by [ cremation ] , individually , if possible , and to ensure compliance prior thereto with the requirements concerning the identification of the deceased ... and of the time , location and cause of death ... \u201d","Judge PERSON issued a separate opinion in which he agreed that the impugned provisions were in conformity with the LAW but held a different view as to how they should be interpreted . The opinion stated as follows :","\u201c ... if the relevant law - enforcement agencies find , as a result of a preliminary investigation , that a terrorist act has been committed and that a given person was involved , but the criminal proceedings against that person ... are discontinued on account of his or her death following interception of the terrorist act , and if they then conclude that the decision to return the body to the family for burial is capable of threatening public order and peace and the health , morals , rights , lawful interests and safety of others , they are entitled to take a decision refusing to hand over the body and applying special arrangements for burial .","At the same time , in the event of a refusal to return the body of an individual whose death occurred as the result of the interception of a terrorist act committed by him , the authorities competent to take a decision concerning the burial must secure compliance with all the requirements concerning the establishment of the deceased \u2019s identity , the time and place of death , the cause of death , the place of burial and the data necessary for the proper identification of the grave ( a given location and number ) . The burial must take place with the participation of the relatives , in accordance with custom and tradition and with humanitarian respect for the dead . The administrative authorities of a ORG governed by the rule of law must respect the cultural values of a multi - ethnic society , transmitted from generation to generation . ... \u201d","Judge PERSON issued a dissenting opinion in which he described the legislation in question as incompatible with the LAW . In particular , he noted :","\u201c ... The impugned norms banning the return of the deceased \u2019s bodies to their relatives and providing for their anonymous burial are , in our view , absolutely immoral and reflect the most uncivilised , barbaric and base views of previous generations ...","The right of every person to be buried in a dignified manner in accordance with the traditions and customs of his family hardly requires special justification or even to be secured in written form in law . This right is clearly self - evident and stems from human nature as , perhaps , no other natural right . Equally natural and uncontested is the right of every person to conduct the burial of a person who is related and dear to them , to have an opportunity to perform one \u2019s moral duty and display one \u2019s human qualities , to bid farewell , to grieve , mourn and commemorate the deceased , however he may be regarded by society and the state , to have the right to a grave , which in all civilisations represents a sacred value and the symbol of memory . ... \u201d","After ORG judgment of DATE the domestic courts apparently changed their approach and agreed to review the formal lawfulness of the decisions of DATE and DATE .","The applicants brought the following court proceedings in connection with the relevant decisions .","As a result of the above - mentioned sets of proceedings the applicants succeeded in having quashed the decisions of DATE and DATE in part . It appears that the domestic courts subsequently changed their position and the relevant judgments were later quashed by way of supervisory review . After these changes , the courts still could not review the need for application of the measures set out in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Interment and Burial Act and Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE in individual cases .","According to the applicants who took part in the identification of the bodies , for DATE following the events of CARDINAL and DATE the corpses ( except for the bodies of the relatives of the fourth and sixth applicant , who died at other dates and were identified later ) were kept in the town morgue and other locations in wholly unsatisfactory conditions . In particular , the bodies gave off an intense smell owing to the lack of proper refrigeration and were chaotically piled on top of CARDINAL other .","In response to a letter from the applicants requesting an explanation for the appalling storage conditions , ORG stated in a letter of DATE that until a procedural decision in respect of the corpses had been taken they had been kept in specially equipped rooms in refrigerated chambers set to the appropriate temperature . The authorities refused to disclose the locality where the bodies were stored .","According to the Government , the following applicants participated in the identification procedure in person :","According to the applicants , they had access to the bodies both in the GPE town morgue and in CARDINAL refrigerator wagons parked on a plot of land belonging to ORG . Provision of access to the bodies was random , as not everyone who wanted to take part in the identification process was admitted . In some cases the provision of access was not properly documented . Since the provision of access was limited , the relevant facilities were usually surrounded by crowds of relatives of the deceased .","The Government submitted that the corpses in question had been initially held in the GPE town morgue . CARDINAL the applicants examined the corpses and the clothing . Thereafter the bodies were placed in CARDINAL refrigerator wagons . On DATE the wagons were moved to the town of GPE - on - Don for molecular genetic examinations and on DATE all bodies were cremated . CARDINAL and DATE the person in charge of the identification procedure was the head of the investigation group investigator PERSON of CARDINAL October DATE he was replaced by investigator ORG also acknowledged that immediately after the attack no facilities had been available to keep the bodies .","According to the ORG \u2019s most recent submissions , the overall number of human casualties as a result of the events of CARDINAL DATE was CARDINAL civilians , QUANTITY police and law - enforcement officers and CARDINAL participants in the attack .","For a summary of the relevant domestic law , see ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) and PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE .","For a summary of other relevant sources referred to by the applicants , see ORG , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and also PERSON and Others , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164463","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RAHM\u0130 \u015eAH\u0130N v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of involvement in a demonstration and subsequent clashes between some of the demonstrators and the police in PERSON . According to the arrest report , drafted at TIME and signed by CARDINAL police officers , the latter officers arrested the applicant at TIME after he had attempted to escape . The report said he had also fallen over . The police officers noted that the applicant had resisted arrest and that they had used proportionate force to apprehend him . The applicant refused to sign the arrest report .","At TIME on DATE , an incident report was drafted and signed by CARDINAL police officers . According to that report , ORG , a website controlled by the ORG ( NORP Workers\u2019 Party , an armed illegal organisation ) , had published a declaration by the FAC ( PERSON GPE DATE ORG in GPE ) , containing instructions to hold meetings and marches , to start PERSON ( rebellion ) , and carry out acts of civil disobedience to show support for PERSON . As a result , on CARDINAL DATE , a press conference was held and CARDINAL people , including mayors and local politicians from the ORG for ORG ) , a pro - NORP political party , as well as members of a number of non - governmental organisations , gathered in front of the ORG \u2019s PERSON office . During the press conference , the crowd chanted slogans and carried banners praising PERSON and the ORG . That same day , the ORG \u2019s dissolution was ordered by ORG and CARDINAL of its members were banned from carrying out political activities . As a result , ORG published another article containing instructions for further PERSON acts and for demonstrations . According to the police report , on CARDINAL and DATE the security forces had intervened in several areas in the city where demonstrators had blocked the traffic , chanted slogans in favour of the ORG and its leader , and burned tyres or attacked cars , shops and administrative buildings . The report further stated that when the security forces had intervened , some demonstrators had responded by throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at the police officers . According to the report on the applicant \u2019s arrest , he had been apprehended after the police had moved against a group of CARDINAL people who had been chanting slogans in favour of the ORG and its leader in the cemetery of the GPE neighbourhood .","At TIME and TIME DATE , CARDINAL police officers made identical statements to CARDINAL other officers . They both stated that the applicant had been with a group of people who had been chanting slogans in favour of the ORG and its leader and who had burned tyres . The group had attacked the police with stones when the police had moved against the gathering . According to their statements , the applicant had tried to flee and they had arrested him when he had fallen down , using proportionate force .","The arresting officers later identified the applicant . They submitted that the applicant had been in a group of people who had burned tyres and chanted slogans in favour of the ORG and its leader . The officers stated that they had arrested the applicant after he had attempted to avoid arrest .","At TIME , the applicant was taken to the PERSON state hospital for a medical examination . The doctor who examined the applicant noted the following information on a medical form :","\u201c There is a haematoma on the left eye . [ The injury ] occurred TIME . There is no nausea or vomiting . The patient is conscious and co - operating . There is a slight swelling between the upper lip and the teeth ( He stated \/ It was stated that it was due to a fall ) . There is a bruised lesion with abrasions on the lumbar area at the level of the second vertebra . A dental examination is recommended . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was examined by the same doctor . The findings were the same as those in the report of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , the Hakkari ORG decided to restrict access to the investigation file concerning the applicant and CARDINAL other people .","On DATE a lawyer from ORG was asked to assist the applicant during questioning , which took place at the anti - terrorist branch of the PERSON police headquarters . The applicant was asked to respond to a number of questions in the presence of his lawyer , PERSON PERSON . The applicant , however , exercised his right to remain silent and did not reply to any of the questions .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s legal representative applied to the Hakkari ORG and requested that the decision to restrict his and his client \u2019s access to the investigation file be annulled and his client be released from police custody . On DATE the ORG dismissed the request . On DATE the ORG upheld the decision of DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant had made a statement to the PERSON public prosecutor . He denied any involvement in the demonstration . He stated that the disturbances in the city had meant that he and his wife had been unable to go out of their house and that on DATE he had left home in order to buy bread . He contended that he had seen police officers approaching him and had continued to walk towards them . CARDINAL of the officers had insulted him and taken him to a hill close to their neighbourhood . They had then pushed him down the hill . An officer had hit him on his right ear with a plastic tube . The applicant had then started running down the hill , where there were other officers who had thrown him to the ground , with him landing on his back , and had arrested him . He stated that he still had pain in several parts of his body , particularly around the heart . He complained to the public prosecutor that after he had been arrested , he had been put in a police vehicle and had been hit on the back , close to his armpit , with the butt of a gun . He asked the public prosecutor to find and punish the officers who had been responsible for his ill - treatment .","After the questioning , the public prosecutor ordered a medical examination of the applicant . A forensic doctor , mentioning the findings of the previous medical reports , noted an old yellow - green ecchymosis in the right ( sic ) periorbital area and a mucosal tear of QUANTITY and oedema on the right side of the upper lip . The report also stated that the applicant had described pain on the left side of his chest and in the left femoral and lumbar regions . According to the report , the applicant was sensitive upon palpation in those regions . The doctor concluded that the injuries were not life - threatening and required only simple medical care .","DATE , the applicant was brought before the Hakkari ORG , where he pleaded innocent and asked to be released . The applicant \u2019s legal representative noted that his client had been beaten during his arrest and that he had not sustained the injuries noted in the medical reports as the result of DATE . The applicant was subsequently detained on remand on suspicion of membership of the ORG on account of his alleged involvement in the events of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s legal representative lodged an application with the Hakkari ORG for his client \u2019s release . In the application , the lawyer noted that the applicant had not sustained the injuries noted in the medical reports as the result a fall , but had been beaten by police officers . The court dismissed the application DATE .","Also on DATE , the applicant \u2019s legal representative requested that the PERSON public prosecutor provide him with copies of the documents in the investigation file , which he was authorised to receive despite the restriction order . He further requested the medical reports issued in respect of the applicant . According to the applicant \u2019s submissions , his lawyer was only provided with the medical reports of CARDINAL and DATE ; the public prosecutor \u2019s office failed to provide him with the report of CARDINAL DATE , which had been issued at the end of the applicant \u2019s detention in police custody .","On DATE the applicant applied to the Hakkari ORG for release from detention . In his application , the applicant also stated that the police officers had beaten him when they had arrested him . He contended that the officers had held him by the arms and hit him . His eyes and his mouth had been covered with blood as a result .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the application for release . In its decision , the court did not refer to the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed a complaint against the police officers who had taken part in the applicant \u2019s arrest . He claimed that the applicant had been beaten by the police officers and that he had been taken to a hill and ordered to run towards the police officers , who had stood further down the hill and had then thrown him to the ground . He also claimed that the medical reports that had been issued were not appropriate or in compliance with internal regulations or the \u201c GPE Protocol \u201d . It was further alleged in the complaint that during their consultation in police custody , the lawyer had observed bruises around the applicant \u2019s left eye and damage to his gums , which could have been the result of being hit on the face . The applicant \u2019s legal representative further stated that the applicant was suffering from constant pain around the heart and chest . The lawyer requested that his client be examined by medical practitioners at ORG of GPE , a nongovernmental organisation specialised in reporting torture and other types of ill - treatment . He further requested that the public prosecutor initiate an official investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment and identify the officers who had ill - treated his client . Finally , the lawyer requested that the public prosecutor take a statement from his client in person and communicate to him the date and the time for taking such a statement .","On DATE the Hakkari public prosecutor decided not to bring any charges in relation to the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . In his decision , the public prosecutor first summarised the content of the incident report dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Secondly , he noted that the applicant had acted with a group of people who had chanted slogans in favour of the ORG and that he had been arrested after he had attempted to escape and had fallen . The public prosecutor noted in that respect that CARDINAL police officers had identified the applicant . The public prosecutor then noted that the applicant had acted with groups of people who had blocked traffic , burned tyres , chanted slogans praising the ORG , carried out attacks with stones and Molotov cocktails , and that he had resisted the police by throwing stones when they tried to arrest him , and that he had fallen . The public prosecutor observed that although the applicant had sustained minor injuries on his face and body , he had failed to substantiate his claims that he had been beaten and insulted by the police officers . According to the public prosecutor , acts of \u201c social terrorism \u201d led supporters of terrorism to resist or attack the security forces , in some cases with weapons , and so members of the security forces were obliged to use force within the limits of the law . The PERSON public prosecutor considered that the applicant had acted upon the instructions of the NORP and that it was to be expected that such people would make claims of ill - treatment . Noting that , according to LAW no . CARDINAL on the Duties and Powers of the Police , the police officers had the authority to use force against ORG supporters , the public prosecutor considered that the police had used proportionate force against the applicant . He also noted that there was no evidence in the case file indicating any deficiency in the medical reports drafted by the doctors . The public prosecutor concluded that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment were unsubstantiated .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s legal representative lodged an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . He noted , in particular , that the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s assessment had been based on incorrect facts such as the \u201c minor nature \u201d of the applicant \u2019s injuries and his involvement in violent acts during the events of DATE . The lawyer also noted that the public prosecutor had failed to take a statement from the applicant , to collect evidence in relation to his allegations or to identify and question the arresting police officers and potential witnesses . The lawyer also noted that the medical reports had complied with neither domestic legislation nor the \u201c GPE Protocol \u201d since they lacked details such as the applicant \u2019s medical history , the applicant \u2019s own account of how the injuries had been caused and an assessment regarding the cause of the injuries . He also claimed that the applicant \u2019s medical examination had taken place in the presence of police officers .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . Noting that there was no evidence showing that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment , the assize court held that the decision of DATE had been lawful .","The Government submitted CARDINAL sets of photographs taken by the security forces with regard to the demonstrations and disturbances of CARDINAL and DATE in PERSON . The first set of CARDINAL photographs concerned the demonstrations held in GPE centre , of which CARDINAL show young men and adolescents throwing stones . The remaining photographs show people demonstrating in different parts of the city centre .","The second set of CARDINAL photographs concerned the gatherings and disturbances in the outlying neighbourhoods of NORP and GPE in Hakkari . The photographs show that children , adolescents and a few young men gathered in various places in the neighbourhoods . In some photographs , the demonstrators are seen burning tyres and blocking streets . In most of the photographs , children and adolescents , mostly boys , are seen standing or walking . CARDINAL of the photographs show children standing close to soldiers , probably talking to them , while another CARDINAL show adolescents and young men standing in front of police officers . In CARDINAL of the photographs , children , adolescents and young men , some of whom have their faces covered , are seen throwing stones at an armoured police vehicle . CARDINAL pictures show police vehicles spraying demonstrators with a water cannon and tear gas ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183540","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BEINAROVI\u010c AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The third applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE in LOC . The fourth applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On various dates in DATE the applicants or their relatives applied for restoration of their property rights to land which had been nationalised by the NORP regime .","On DATE ORG acknowledged that GPE ( the first applicant \u2019s husband and the second applicant \u2019s father ) had a right to have his property rights to a plot of land in the village of ORG , near GPE , restored .","On DATE the same court acknowledged that the fourth applicant had a right to have her property rights to a plot of land in ORG restored .","On DATE the Seimas passed a law amending the administrative boundaries of certain municipal areas . Under that law , certain villages around GPE , including ORG and GPE , became part of the GPE city municipality .","On DATE the administrative authorities acknowledged that the third applicant had a right to have her property rights to a plot of land in LOC restored .","On DATE the ORG approved a plan of forests of national importance ( valstybin\u0117s reik\u0161m\u0117s mi\u0161kai ) covering the whole country . It included forests situated in the former villages of ORG and GPE .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) restored GPE \u2019s property rights ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) by giving him QUANTITY of land in GPE . As he had died in DATE , the first applicant was issued a certificate of inheritance in respect of the plot on DATE . On DATE she gifted it to the second applicant .","On DATE the prosecutor of GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) lodged a claim with ORG , seeking to have GPE \u2019s property rights to CARDINAL of the CARDINAL hectares given to him annulled ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The prosecutor submitted that , according to the data provided by ORG ( ORG mi\u0161kotvarkos tarnyba ) , CARDINAL hectares of the plot was covered by forest . Since that forest was situated in a city ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it was considered a forest of national importance and could therefore only be owned by the State ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The prosecutor noted that the forest had been included in the plan of forests of national importance adopted by the Government in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that is before the ORG had adopted its decision to give that land to GPE In view of the circumstances , the ORG \u2019s decision had to be declared unlawful and its effects annulled . The prosecutor asked that after annulling GPE \u2019s property rights to that part of the land , the first and second applicants\u2019 property rights to it also be annulled .","The applicants disputed the prosecutor \u2019s claim . They submitted that GPE had acquired property rights in good faith , having lawfully participated in the restitution process carried out by the authorities , and their annulment DATE would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty . The applicants further submitted that ORG had been a rural area until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the restoration of property rights had complied with the regulations concerning rural areas . They also submitted that , according to ORG ( Nekilnojamojo turto registras ) , their land was classified as agricultural and not forest , and the data of that ORG had to be considered accurate until proven otherwise .","The ORG also disputed the prosecutor \u2019s claim . It submitted that GPE \u2019s property rights had been restored in accordance with Government regulations adopted in DATE which had set out the rules of land reform in rural areas . The ORG argued that restoration of property rights was a continuous process and thus had to be carried out in accordance with the legislation in force when it began and not that which was adopted later . The ORG also submitted that the decision to restore GPE \u2019s property rights had been taken in coordination with other authorities , including ORG ( ORG mi\u0161k\u0173 ur\u0117dija ) , and they had not presented any objections .","ORG , which was a third party in the proceedings , asked the court to allow the prosecutor \u2019s claim . It argued that the ORG \u2019s decision to restore GPE \u2019s property rights had been contrary to mandatory statutory provisions stating that urban forests could only be owned by the ORG , and thus had to be annulled .","On DATE ORG allowed the prosecutor \u2019s claim . The court observed that the LAW and other legislation established that forests of national importance could only be owned by ORG see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . It quoted at length case - law of ORG which emphasised the importance of forests to the environment and the obligation of the ORG to protect them in the public interest ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","ORG noted that the former village of ORG had become part of the GPE city municipality in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Therefore , in line with the Law on Forests , any forest in that area was urban forest ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court further noted that in DATE the forest situated on the plot given to GPE had been included in a ORG list of forests of national importance . Accordingly , when the ORG had adopted the decision to give that plot to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the forest situated on it had already been recognised as a forest of national importance . Therefore , the restitution had not been carried out in accordance with the law . The court held that , in such circumstances , GPE \u2019s and the applicants\u2019 property rights could not take priority over the public interest and had to be annulled .","NORP However , the court observed that , according to ORG , the area covered by forest on the applicants\u2019 plot amounted to CARDINAL hectares and not QUANTITY as claimed by the prosecutor , and the data of that ORG had to be considered accurate until proven otherwise . It therefore annulled GPE \u2019s property rights to QUANTITY of land , as well as the applicants\u2019 rights to that part of the plot .","NORP The prosecutor lodged an appeal against that decision and submitted that when determining the area covered by forest , the court should have relied on the data provided by ORG and not ORG . ORG lodged a similar appeal .","The applicants and the ORG also lodged appeals . They argued that the ORG \u2019s decision had complied with all the relevant legislation in force when it had been adopted , so it had to be considered lawful . They also submitted that the court had not addressed the argument that in the process of restoration of property rights ORG had to be regarded as a rural area and not a city . The applicants also submitted that the annulment of their property rights and the requirement for them to return the land to the ORG would cause them serious difficulties and should therefore not be implemented ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the appeals lodged by the prosecutor and ORG and dismissed those lodged by the applicants and the ORG . It reiterated that the LAW and several laws prohibited the transfer of forests of national importance from the ORG into private ownership on any basis whatsoever , including restoration of property rights ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , it was immaterial that , as submitted by the ORG , its decision complied with certain regulations adopted during the restitution process . ORG considered that the first - instance court had correctly found that the forest on the plot given to GPE was urban forest and therefore a forest of national importance , and thus property rights in respect of that part had to be annulled . However , it stated that when determining the area covered by forest the information had to be taken not from ORG but from ORG ( Mi\u0161k\u0173 kadastras ) , which was administered by ORG . According to the latter , the plot given to GPE included QUANTITY of forest . ORG therefore partly amended the decision and annulled GPE \u2019s property rights to QUANTITY of land , as well as the applicants\u2019 rights to that part of the plot . It dismissed as unfounded the applicants\u2019 argument that such a decision would cause them serious difficulties .","ORG ordered the applicants and the ORG to pay the ORG \u2019s legal costs .","The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE ORG refused to accept it for examination on the grounds that it raised no important legal issues .","On DATE the prosecutor lodged a further claim with ORG , seeking to have GPE \u2019s property rights to another QUANTITY of the CARDINAL hectares given to him annulled ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on the grounds that it was covered by a forest of national importance , as well as to have the applicants\u2019 property rights to that part of the plot annulled . The prosecutor presented similar arguments as in the previous proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicants , the ORG and ORG also submitted essentially the same arguments as in the previous proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the prosecutor \u2019s claim . It noted that the presence of forest on the plot of land given to GPE had been confirmed by the data in ORG . It also noted that that forest was included in the list of forests of national importance created in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court observed that even though restoration of property rights was a continuous process and included the preparation of various documents , the final decision to restore property rights had to comply with the law in force at the time of the adoption of that decision . It concluded that the ORG \u2019s decision to give the plot to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been contrary to the LAW and other legislation providing that forests of national importance could only be owned by ORG see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , it annulled GPE \u2019s property rights to QUANTITY of the land , as well as the applicants\u2019 rights to that part of the plot . The court observed that there was no dispute that GPE had retained the right to restoration of his property rights , and the ORG was thus under an obligation to restore his rights to QUANTITY of land .","The applicants and the ORG lodged appeals against that decision . They argued that the ORG \u2019s decision had been based on various administrative and procedural acts according to which the forest on the applicants\u2019 plot had not been considered a forest of national importance , and thus had been lawful . The prosecutor and ORG contested the appeals .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals submitted by the applicants and the ORG and upheld the decision of the first - instance court in its entirety . It stated that the first - instance court had been correct in finding that the forest on the applicants\u2019 plot was a forest of national importance and could thus only belong to the ORG .","The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE ORG refused to accept it for examination on the grounds that it raised no important legal issues .","According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed the applicants that there was no possibility of restitution in kind because there was no vacant land in the relevant area . According to the applicants , on DATE they sent a letter to ORG ( the institution which took over the relevant functions of the ORG after an administrative reform hereinafter \u201c the NLS \u201d ) stating that they were of advanced age and did not \u201c have the energy or state of health to look for vacant land in the GPE area \u201d . Copies of the ORG \u2019s and the applicants\u2019 letters have not been submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the applicants received a letter from the ORG confirming that , after the courts had annulled GPE \u2019s property rights to QUANTITY of land , he had retained the right to have those property rights restored . It also stated that there was no more vacant land in the former village of GPE and that GPE \u2019s property rights could be restored by : ( i ) assigning a plot of land or forest equal in value to the land held previously ; ( ii ) providing securities ; ( iii ) discharging liabilities to the ORG ; ( iv ) transferring , free of charge , a new plot of land equal in value to the land held previously for the construction of an individual home in the city or rural area where the previously held land was situated ; or ( v ) providing monetary compensation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicants , as GPE \u2019s heirs , were asked to inform the authorities of their choice as to the form of restitution . It is unclear whether the applicants replied to this letter .","On DATE the applicants received another letter from the ORG which again confirmed that , after the courts had annulled GPE \u2019s property rights to QUANTITY of land , he had retained the right to have those property rights restored . It stated that there was a possibility for the applicants to receive a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in the GPE city area but as there were CARDINAL other candidates waiting to receive plots in the area , the restitution process would take a long time . The applicants were asked to consider an alternative form of restitution , such as a plot of land in a rural area , a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in a different city , or monetary compensation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They were also informed that there remained CARDINAL hectares of vacant land in the former village of ORG , so if they wished to receive a plot in that area , their request would be considered when the land plan was being prepared .","On DATE the applicants sent a letter to the NLS . They submitted that the annulment of their property rights to QUANTITY of land had caused them pecuniary damage in the amount of CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL approximately MONEY ( EUR ) ) , according to an assessment of the value of the land carried out in DATE . In the applicants\u2019 view , being put on the list with CARDINAL other candidates and being made to wait for an undetermined period of time for restitution was unacceptable . The applicants asked to be allocated a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in GPE in the order of priority , and if that was not possible , to be informed how many plots were available in GPE and when they might expect to receive CARDINAL . They also stated that they would agree to receive a plot of land in ORG but would first want to know its exact location . The applicants stated that they did not wish to choose any other form of restitution .","On DATE the ORG approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several areas around GPE . The applicants were included in that list as candidates to receive QUANTITY of land . On DATE the ORG held a meeting in which candidates were offered plots in the relevant areas . The second applicant took part in that meeting and chose CARDINAL plots , measuring a total of QUANTITY . She was offered more plots but refused them because there were electricity installations on them . TIME of the meeting , approved by the ORG , stated that the next meeting of candidates would be held on DATE and those who had not chosen their plots yet , including the second applicant , would be invited to participate . The ORG was not provided with any information as to whether that meeting took place , whether the applicants were invited to attend and whether they did so .","On DATE the NLS adopted a land plan of the aforementioned areas around GPE , as well as the list of individuals who would be allocated plots in those areas . The applicants were included in the list and were entitled to receive CARDINAL plots of land , measuring a total of QUANTITY .","On DATE the first applicant died . The second applicant was issued a certificate of inheritance on DATE .","On DATE the ORG adopted a decision to restore GPE \u2019s property rights by giving him CARDINAL plots of agricultural land , measuring a total of QUANTITY . The decision stated that the rights to the remaining QUANTITY would be restored later .","On DATE the ORG approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several other areas around GPE . GPE was included in that list as a candidate to receive QUANTITY of land . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG held a meeting in which candidates were offered plots in those areas . The second applicant took part in that meeting and chose CARDINAL plots , measuring a total of QUANTITY . It does not appear that she was offered any more plots in that meeting .","On DATE the ORG adopted a land plan of several areas around GPE , as well as the list of individuals who would be allocated plots in those areas . GPE was included in the list and was entitled to receive CARDINAL plots of land , amounting to a total of QUANTITY .","According to the latest information provided to the ORG , the first and second applicants\u2019 property rights to QUANTITY of land have still not been restored .","On DATE the ORG restored the third applicant \u2019s property rights by giving her and another candidate , ORG , joint ownership of CARDINAL hectares of agricultural land and QUANTITY of forest in LOC . The third applicant \u2019s share of the jointly owned forest was QUANTITY .","On DATE the prosecutor lodged a claim with the GPE City Second ORG , seeking to have the applicant \u2019s and ORG property rights to QUANTITY of forest annulled ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The prosecutor submitted that the forest was situated in a city ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and was thus considered a forest of national importance which could only be owned by the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL below ) . The prosecutor noted that the forest in question had been included in the plan of forests of national importance adopted by the Government in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that is before the ORG had adopted its decision to give that forest to the applicant and G.D. Accordingly , the ORG \u2019s decision had to be declared unlawful and its effects annulled .","The applicant disputed the prosecutor \u2019s claim . She submitted that the ORG \u2019s decision to give the forest to her and ORG had been taken in line with the law in force at the material time and in coordination with the relevant authorities , including ORG . The applicant also argued that , in line with the case - law of ORG , forests which belonged to private individuals and were subsequently declared to be of national importance did not have to be taken into ORG ownership , as ORG rights could be restricted in order to protect the forest . She therefore asked the court to protect her property rights .","The ORG also disputed the prosecutor \u2019s claim . It submitted that the restoration of property rights to the land in the former village of LOC had been carried out in line with the regulations applicable to rural areas . It also submitted that the decision to give the forest in question to the applicant and PERSON had been based on several administrative acts adopted in DATE , and so the decision could not be annulled as long as those acts remained in force .","ORG , which was a third party in the proceedings , asked the court to allow the prosecutor \u2019s claim . It argued that at the time when the ORG had adopted the decision to give the forest to the applicant and G.D. , the forest had officially been urban forest ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and had been included in the list of forests of national importance ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Accordingly , the ORG \u2019s decision had been contrary to mandatory statutory provisions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) and had to be annulled .","On DATE the GPE City Second ORG allowed the prosecutor \u2019s claim . It reiterated that , in line with the LAW and the Law on Forests , urban forests were considered forests of national importance and could only belong to the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The court also emphasised the importance of forests to the environment and the obligation of the ORG to protect them in the public interest . It then noted that the former village of LOC had become part of the GPE city municipality in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , so any forests within that area were urban forests . The court also observed that the forest given to the applicant and PERSON had been included in the list of forests of national importance approved by ORG in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Accordingly , the ORG \u2019s decision to give that forest to the applicant and ORG had been adopted after the forest had already become a forest of national importance ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court held that it was immaterial whether other administrative acts on which the ORG \u2019s decision had been based remained valid ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) because property rights had been restored to the applicant and G.D. by that decision and not by any other acts . The court therefore annulled the applicant \u2019s and ORG property rights to QUANTITY of forest .","The applicant and the ORG lodged appeals against that decision , raising essentially the same arguments as before ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In addition , the applicant submitted that her property rights to the forest in question had been challenged DATE after it had been given to her , and thus she had lost the opportunity to have her property rights restored because there was almost no vacant land left in GPE or the surrounding area .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals and upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision in its entirety . It considered that that court had been correct in finding that the forest in question was a forest of national importance and that the ORG \u2019s decision had thus been contrary to mandatory statutory provisions prohibiting the transfer of such forests into the ownership of private individuals . In response to the applicant \u2019s argument that she had lost the opportunity to have her property rights restored ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG stated that NORP law provided for partial restitution , and that where it was impossible to restore property rights in natura , it could be done in other ways , including by monetary compensation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . Therefore , the court considered that the applicant had retained the right to have her property rights restored in CARDINAL of the forms provided for by law .","The applicant and the ORG lodged appeals on points of law , relying on essentially the same arguments as before ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL above ) . In addition , the applicant submitted that she had acquired the property in good faith and that ordering her to return it to the ORG would cause her serious difficulties ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She argued that she could no longer receive a plot in the same area because there was no more vacant land there and that she would not receive fair compensation either because property prices had decreased . The applicant submitted that the public interest to protect forests could be achieved in other ways , such as by imposing on her special conditions for use of the forest .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals on points of law and upheld the findings of the lower courts . It observed that restoring property rights to forests in valuable areas had been prohibited since the beginning of the restitution process in GPE . Accordingly , individuals could not have a legitimate expectation to acquire property rights to such forests . It also stated that the ORG , as the institution in charge of restoration of property rights , was under an obligation to ensure that its decisions complied with all relevant legislation adopted throughout the entirety of the restitution process .","ORG reiterated that when a transaction was annulled , the parties had to return to one another everything that they had received from that transaction ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It stated that the lower courts had not identified any exceptional circumstances why that rule should not be applied in the present case , nor had the applicant pointed to any such circumstances . ORG noted that the applicant had retained the right to have her property rights restored in accordance with the law , so her argument that she would experience serious difficulties ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had to be dismissed as unfounded .","On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the ORG seeking to be given a plot of land in the former village of LOC . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed the applicant that there was no vacant land in LOC and asked her to choose another form of restitution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the ORG stating that she was DATE and did not \u201c have the energy or the state of health to participate in the complicated restitution process for a second time \u201d . The applicant stated that she had lost her property because of the unlawful actions of the ORG , therefore the ORG , as the ORG \u2019s successor , had to compensate her for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage which she had sustained . She asked the ORG to provide her with a list of plots of land equal in value in the GPE city area to which her property rights could be restored .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that , in accordance with the law , her property rights could be restored by assigning her a plot of land equal in value to the land held previously or by providing securities , but that there was no possibility of her receiving a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in a city . The letter provided the address of a website on which the applicant could find information about vacant plots of land , and she was asked to submit a request to the municipal authorities indicating the area in which she wished to receive a plot equal in value . It was also stated that if she was dissatisfied with the response given , she could lodge a complaint with the director of the ORG .","On DATE the applicant sent a request to the NLS for compensation in securities . On DATE she received a reply informing her that compensation in the form of securities was temporarily unavailable .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request for a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in the town of NORP . On DATE in a letter to the ORG she reiterated her wish to receive a plot in NORP and stated that she also wished to receive a plot of land in GPE , but did not wish to have her property rights restored by monetary compensation .","On DATE the ORG sent a letter to the applicant confirming that , after the courts had annulled her property rights to QUANTITY of land ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , she had retained the right to have those property rights restored . She could be given a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in GPE or NORP , but there were many other candidates waiting to receive plots in those areas ( CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively , and the land plan for NORP had not been prepared yet ) , therefore the restitution process would take a long time . She was asked to consider an alternative form of restitution , such as a plot of land in a rural area , a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in a different city or monetary compensation . She was also informed that there remained some vacant land in the former village of GPE , so if she wished to receive a plot in that area , her request would be considered when the land plan was being prepared .","It is unclear whether the applicant replied to that letter or submitted any requests concerning the form of restoration of her property rights .","On DATE the ORG approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several areas around GPE . The applicant was included in that list as a candidate to receive QUANTITY of land . On CARDINAL DATE she was sent an invitation to attend a meeting of candidates on DATE . She did not take part in that meeting . On DATE she was sent an invitation to attend a meeting of candidates on DATE . She did not take part .","The applicant submitted to the ORG that she had not been informed of those meetings .","On DATE the ORG approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several other areas around GPE . The applicant was included in that list as a candidate to receive QUANTITY of land . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG held a meeting of candidates to receive plots of land in those areas . Her representative took part in the meeting but did not provide a form of authority .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG held another meeting of candidates to receive plots of land in the aforementioned areas . The applicant participated in that meeting but did not choose any of the plots offered to her . TIME of the meeting do not indicate the reasons for her refusal .","The applicant submitted to the ORG that the plots offered to her had had electricity installations on them and had therefore been \u201c worthless \u201d .","According to the latest information provided to the ORG , the third applicant \u2019s property rights to QUANTITY of land have still not been restored .","On DATE the ORG restored the fourth applicant \u2019s property rights by giving her QUANTITY of land in the villages of GPE and ORG . On DATE she sold CARDINAL hectares of the land given to her in ORG to another individual , PERSON , for LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The sale agreement was certified by a notary .","On DATE the prosecutor lodged a claim with ORG , seeking to have the applicant \u2019s property rights to CARDINAL of the CARDINAL hectares given to her annulled ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The prosecutor submitted that , according to the data provided by ORG , the CARDINAL hectares were covered by forest . Since it was situated in a city ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it was considered a forest of national importance and could thus only be owned by the State ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The prosecutor asked that after annulling the applicant \u2019s property rights , the sale agreement between her and PERSON be annulled in respect of that part of the land .","The applicant disputed the prosecutor \u2019s claim . She submitted that there had not been any forest on the land before its nationalisation , and if a forest had grown there afterwards , that should not preclude the restoration of her property rights . She also submitted that she had not acted unlawfully , so the property could not be taken from her . The applicant argued that if authorities or officials had acted unlawfully , the ORG should have to buy the land from her , and that the public interest should be protected without prejudice to her rights .","The ORG also disputed the claim . It argued that the applicant \u2019s property rights had been restored in accordance with the legislation in force at the material time , and that the decision had been taken in coordination with various authorities , including ORG and ORG , which had not presented any objections .","ORG , which was a third party in the proceedings , supported the prosecutor \u2019s claim .","On DATE ORG allowed the prosecutor \u2019s claim . It observed that even though ORG did not contain information about the presence of forest on the applicant \u2019s land , it had been proven by the data provided by ORG . The court reiterated that forests of national importance could only be owned by the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL below ) , and that forests situated in cities were considered forests of national importance , irrespective of whether they had been officially designated as such ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It observed that the former village of ORG had become part of the GPE city municipality in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Accordingly , the court held that the ORG \u2019s decision to restore the applicant \u2019s property rights had been unlawful and had to be annulled .","DATE . Finding that the applicant had not had a right to acquire the CARDINAL hectares of land in question , ORG held that , consequently , she had had no right to sell the land , and thus the sale agreement between her and PERSON in the relevant part also had to be annulled . In accordance with LAW , PERSON was ordered to return QUANTITY of land to the ORG , and the applicant was ordered to return LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court noted that the applicant had retained the right to restoration of her property rights , and that the restitution process had to be \u201c continued at the expense of the ORG or its successor , by finalising ( and not starting afresh ) , in the same order of priority , the restitution process that had already begun \u201d . It accepted the applicant \u2019s argument that she might face financial difficulties as a result of having to return money to PERSON because she no longer had the necessary amount . The court gave the applicant DATE from the date on which the decision became final to return the money to PERSON It observed that it had no authority to directly order the ORG to complete the restoration of the applicant \u2019s property rights within that period of time , but that \u201c the activity of the ORG or its successor in the restitution process could constitute grounds for reducing the possible expenses of that institution , if [ the applicant and PERSON ] were found to have suffered losses as a result of unlawful acts established in the present decision ... and had to be compensated \u201d .","The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision , presenting essentially the same arguments as before ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She also argued that the order to pay the money to PERSON should not have been imposed on her but on the ORG , since it was the latter which had acted unlawfully .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court in its entirety . The court stressed that forests of national importance could not be transferred into private ownership on any basis whatsoever , including restitution of nationalised property ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It stated that the institutions responsible for adopting decisions on restoration of property rights had to verify whether all the conditions for restitution provided by law were complied with and , when deciding to restore property rights in natura , whether the property in question was not a type which could only belong to the State . Accordingly , the ORG , when adopting the decision to restore the applicant \u2019s property rights , had been under an obligation to verify whether that decision complied with the law in force at the time of its adoption .","ORG held that the finding that the applicant \u2019s property rights had been restored in contravention of the law enabled it to consider that she had acquired those property rights in bad faith ( nes\u0105\u017eininga \u012fgij\u0117ja ) . It stated that the applicant and PERSON \u201c could not be considered bona fide acquirers merely because the land in question had become private property as a result of a decision adopted by a public authority \u201d . It also stated that when an individual knew or ought to have known that an administrative decision might be contrary to the law , he or she could not rely on his or her good faith .","The Court of Appeal further observed that even though the unlawful restoration of property rights had been the result of a decision adopted by the ORG , under the law it was not possible to order the ORG , and not the applicant , to return the money paid for the plot in question to PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court considered that requiring PERSON to return the plot to the ORG and the applicant to return the money to PERSON would not cause \u201c serious difficulties for the defendants \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It also reiterated that the applicant had retained the right to restoration of her property rights in one of the forms provided for by law .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE ORG refused to accept it for examination on the grounds that it raised no important legal issues .","On DATE the applicant paid LTL CARDINAL to J.S.","On DATE the applicant received a letter from the ORG confirming that she had retained the right to have her property rights to CARDINAL hectares of land restored . It stated that there was no more vacant land in GPE and that her property rights could be restored by : ( i ) assigning a plot of land or forest equal in value to the land held previously ; ( ii ) providing securities ; ( iii ) discharging liabilities to the ORG ; ( iv ) transferring , free of charge , a new plot of land equal in value to the land held previously for the construction of an individual home in the city or rural area where the previously held land was situated ; or ( v ) providing monetary compensation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was asked to inform the authorities of her choice as to the form of restitution .","DATE . On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the ORG stating that she had suffered pecuniary damage in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL as a result of the actions of the authorities . The applicant expressed her wish to be given a plot of land of CARDINAL hectares , and if the value of that plot was lower than LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL , that the difference be paid to her as damages .","On DATE the applicant received another letter from the ORG . It stated that there was a possibility of her receiving a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in the GPE city area but as there were CARDINAL other candidates waiting to receive plots in that area , the restitution would take a long time . The applicant was asked to consider an alternative form of restitution , such as a plot of land in a rural area , a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in a different city or monetary compensation . She was also informed that there was a possibility for her to receive land in GPE , so if she wished to receive a plot in that area , her request would be considered when the land plan had been prepared .","On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the NLS . She reiterated that the annulment of her property rights to QUANTITY of land had caused her pecuniary damage in the amount of LTL CARDINAL . In her view , being put on the list with CARDINAL other candidates and being made to wait for an undetermined period of time for restitution was unacceptable . The applicant asked to be allocated a plot of land for the construction of an individual home in GPE in the order of priority , and if that was not possible , to be informed how many plots were available in GPE and when she might expect to receive CARDINAL . If she could not be given such a plot , she wished to receive compensation of LTL CARDINAL . The applicant stated that she did not wish to choose any other form of restitution .","On DATE the ORG approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several areas around GPE . The applicant was included in that list as a candidate to receive QUANTITY of land . On DATE the ORG held a meeting in which candidates were offered plots in the relevant areas . The applicant took part in that meeting . According to TIME of the meeting approved by the NLS and signed by the applicant , she refused the plot which was offered to her and stated that she wished to wait for the decision of ORG in her case .","On DATE the ORG approved the list of candidates to receive plots of land in several other areas around GPE . The applicant was included in that list as a candidate to receive QUANTITY of land .","On DATE the ORG sent a letter to the applicant inviting her to attend a meeting of candidates on DATE in which she would be offered a plot . The applicant did not take part in that meeting .","On DATE the ORG sent a letter to the applicant inviting her to attend a meeting of candidates on DATE in which she would be offered a plot . It is unclear whether the applicant took part in that meeting .","According to the latest information provided to the ORG , the fourth applicant \u2019s property rights to QUANTITY of land have still not been restored ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142413","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NAGY v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s divorced wife brought an action against him seeking the termination of his custody rights .","On DATE ORG rearranged the applicant \u2019s access rights and dismissed the remainder of the action . The court relied in particular on the opinion of an expert psychologist .","On DATE ORG upheld this judgment ( service : DATE ) .",""],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159052","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF EUROATLANTIC AIRWAYS - TRANSPORTES A\u00c9REOS, S.A. v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant is a NORP airline company headquartered in Sintra ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163443","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MADAUS v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Nicolas Bratza;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . His father was a pharmaceutical entrepreneur who had owned property in GPE of GPE which was subject to expropriation measures in DATE and DATE , after an administrative body classified him as a \u201c NORP activist \u201d , \u201c NORP criminal \u201d and \u201c person profiting from the war \u201d . After GPE \u2019s reunification , the applicant \u2019s application for restitution of the property under LAW ( Verm\u00f6gensgesetz ) proved unsuccessful .","In DATE the applicant initiated proceedings under LAW ( Strafrechtliches Rehabilitierungsgesetz ) on behalf of his late father . He claimed that the expropriation and other measures had a penal character , although his father \u2019s guilt had been determined not by a court but by an administrative body . He submitted a vast number of documents , claiming that the historical background of the measures taken under the NORP occupation command had to be evaluated anew . In particular , the DATE and DATE provisions on which the measures against his father had been taken could now be qualified as criminal prosecution . New research had shown that their objective was to punish individual NORP for alleged wrongdoing . The applicant requested , inter alia , that the DATE decisions to find his father guilty of being a NORP and the subsequent decisions to expropriate him and confiscate his personal property and the property belonging to his company be declared contrary to the rule of law and hence void . According to the applicant , the value of his restitution claims amounted to QUANTITY .","On DATE the ORG fixed a public hearing for DATE , as requested by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers published a press release under the following title :","\u201c Turnaround in the assessment of the NORP industrial reform ? For the first time FAC discusses a criminal rehabilitation application at an oral hearing . \u201d","In the press release the lawyers explained , in particular , that until that time the domestic courts had seen the objective of the measures in question as motivated by economic policy , that is , having the purpose of modifying the prevailing ownership structure . They presented the fact that ORG had fixed an oral hearing as a potential turning point in domestic case - law and announced that they would explain orally and in detail at the hearing what the so - called \u201c economic reform \u201d had really been about . At the same time they communicated the date , time and place of the hearing .","On DATE ORG cancelled the hearing foreseen for DATE and set a time - limit for written procedure ending on DATE . It found that , according to section QUANTITY , first sentence , of LAW , a decision should generally be taken without holding an oral discussion . The date for a hearing , according to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , second sentence , of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had been set to give the applicant the opportunity to illustrate ( erl\u00e4utern ) his legal opinion , which conflicted with that of ORG and ORG and was supported by particularly extensive factual submissions . Making use of its margin of appreciation , ORG refrained from holding a hearing since , contrary to its prior opinion , there was no longer any additional benefit to be gained for dealing with the case . In fact , the scheduling of the hearing had been used to create the impression in a press release , also published on the internet , that by calling a hearing ORG had indicated that it was abandoning its settled case - law . Furthermore , the press release had announced that the applicant would use the hearing to \u201c reveal an important part of contemporary history \u201d . This indicated that the hearing was to be used as a public forum . Against this background , the court refrained from holding a hearing .","On DATE , following unsuccessful claims by the applicant that the judges were biased , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request . It held that the measures taken against the applicant \u2019s father were not of a penal character . The expropriation measures did not result in further consequences to his detriment . Contrary to the applicant \u2019s submission , nothing indicated that an arrest warrant had been issued in DATE . The applicant \u2019s father \u2019s loss of his electoral rights , his business licence and his personal assets had been a necessary consequence of the expropriation .","On DATE ORG , without holding an oral hearing , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , fully endorsing ORG reasons . It added that the documents submitted proved neither the penal character of the measures in question nor that there had been an arrest warrant . An oral hearing was not necessary as the documents presented were sufficient for the case to be assessed .","NORP By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , without providing reasons , declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , in which he had alleged violations of his right to an effective remedy , his right to be heard and his personality rights ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181387","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF DIMITAR MITEV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained at FAC .","NORP Before the events at issue , he had several previous convictions for theft .","A CARDINAL - year - old lady , a neighbour of the applicant \u2019s parents , was murdered in her house in GPE on TIME DATE , and a number of her personal possessions were stolen from the house . The applicant was suspected of having committed the offence and a search order was issued in respect of him .","On TIME DATE the applicant was arrested . He had been hiding in an abandoned house in a neighbouring village . The police report on his arrest stated that he had \u201c slightly \u201d resisted the arrest , and that force had been used in order to take him out of his hiding place ( under a bed ) and handcuff him .","The applicant was taken to the police station in the nearby town of PERSON , where , at TIME , an order for his arrest was issued under section CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant signed a declaration stating that he wanted to be assisted by a lawyer and that he had liver and stomach pains , due to \u201c past ailments \u201d , and wished to be examined by a doctor .","Later in DATE , CARDINAL police officers from GPE , GPE and GPE , arrived in PERSON . They had a conversation with the applicant , during which he confessed , according to him under physical duress , to having committed the murder and described his actions in DATE his arrest . In addition , he confessed to having stolen a gun and other personal possessions from another house on an earlier occasion . The confession was written down and was signed by the applicant and Officer V.V.","Later on that same day the applicant was transferred to the police station in GPE , where he asked to be examined by a doctor . The examination started at TIME The doctor identified bruises and haematomas on the applicant \u2019s right elbow , right flank , buttocks and wrists , which had been caused by hard , blunt objects less than TIME .","On DATE an investigator brought charges against the applicant in relation to another offence , an unrelated theft , and a prosecutor ordered his detention for up to TIME . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on remand in connection with that charge . The criminal proceedings concerning that charge proceeded alongside the proceedings which are the subject of this application , and were completed in DATE .","NORP The murder investigation , to which the investigation into the alleged theft of a gun and other personal possessions mentioned in the applicant \u2019s confession to Officers GPE and GPE was joined , continued over DATE which followed . The police gathered further evidence and witness testimony , some of which was identified on the basis of that confession . They never found the objects stolen from the victim \u2019s house . On DATE an investigator brought charges against the applicant in connection with the CARDINAL offences mentioned above . On that occasion the applicant had a lawyer , retained by him on DATE . The applicant made a brief statement that he was not guilty .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was indicted and taken to court .","ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , which examined the case at first instance , held its first hearing on DATE . It heard the doctor who had examined the applicant on TIME of CARDINAL June CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She stated that she maintained the opinions expressed in her previous report , and the prosecution and the defence posed no further questions . Officers GPE and GPE were examined as witnesses and recounted their conversation with the applicant on DATE and the confession he had made to them . They replied to questions posed by the prosecution and the defence . The applicant \u2019s father was examined as well , and he stated that he had visited his son about DATE after his arrest . The applicant had told him that he had been beaten in order to confess , and some traces of this beating had still been visible on him . ORG heard other experts and witnesses .","During the next hearing , held on DATE , the applicant made a statement on the charges . He said that he had not committed the offences , as at the time of the murder he had been at his grandmother \u2019s house in another village , and that he had confessed to the offences under duress .","On DATE ORG examined more witnesses and then the parties made oral submissions . Counsel for the applicant contested the testimony of GPE and GPE in particular , arguing that their examination had been contrary to LAW see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He pointed out moreover that , while the applicant had made a confession to those CARDINAL officers , he had not repeated that confession when taken before an investigator . At the same time , the confession was CARDINAL of \u201c the pillars \u201d of the indictment , as there was no other evidence showing the course of the events inside the victim \u2019s house .","In a judgment given on DATE ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment . On the basis of the evidence collected , it concluded that the applicant had stolen a gun and other personal possessions DATE before the murder , and on DATE of the murder had entered the victim \u2019s house in order to steal food . When she had surprised him in the house , he had attacked her , hitting her with the gun stolen DATE in such a way that a part of the gun \u2019s cock had broken off and fallen to the floor \u2013 and with an axe which he had found in the house . After the murder the applicant had run away . A stranger had given him a lift to another village , but the applicant had forgotten a bag containing his clothes and the gun in the stranger \u2019s car .","In establishing the facts , ORG relied on the following most important pieces of evidence : a metal fragment which had been found under the victim \u2019s body and which the experts confirmed to be the missing part of the cock of the gun ; traces of the victim \u2019s blood found on the handle of the gun found in the applicant \u2019s bag ; the testimony of the person who had given the applicant a lift in his car and had found that bag ; the fact that that person had also recognised the applicant \u2019s photo when it had been shown to him by the police ; and the testimony of Officers Z.K. and GPE , who had recounted what the applicant had confessed to them with regard to the course of the events in the victim \u2019s house . As to the ORG testimony , ORG pointed out that it considered it credible , since the confession as recounted by them had enabled the police to continue the investigation and identify further evidence .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal .","In his written and oral submissions to ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , counsel for the applicant contested once again the testimony given by GPE and GPE He argued that ORG had not commented on the evidence showing that the applicant had been beaten in order to make the confession the officers had recounted , pointed out that the confession had not been repeated once the applicant had been taken before an investigator , and relied again on LAW .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction and sentence , finding that his guilt had been proved beyond reasonable doubt . In addition to the evidence described above , it relied on the testimony of a neighbour of the victim , who had seen a person considered to be the applicant on the roof of the victim \u2019s house shortly before the murder . As to GPE and GPE , ORG pointed out that they had not been investigating bodies within the meaning of LAW , and that their testimony had been assessed in the light of all other evidence . Furthermore , it commented on the exonerating evidence , in particular expert reports finding no fingerprints of the applicant and no traces of his scent in the victim \u2019s house , saying that this was not sufficient to refute the accusations .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . His counsel contested once again the testimony of Officers Z.K. and GPE , pointing out that the lower courts had not commented on the evidence showing that the applicant had been beaten in order to confess . Moreover , the ORG testimony had been given in breach of LAW .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . As to the arguments of the defence concerning the testimony of GPE and GPE , it observed that the confession as recounted by the officers contained details which could only have been known to the perpetrator of the crimes at issue , and thus could not have been \u201c instigated \u201d . Moreover , allowing GPE and GPE to testify had not been in breach of LAW ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158090","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF VROUNTOU v. CYPRUS","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+P1-1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["On DATE ORG approved the introduction of a scheme of aid for displaced persons and war victims . Under the scheme , displaced persons were entitled to refugee cards . The holders of such cards were ( and still are ) eligible for a range of benefits including housing assistance . For the purposes of the scheme the term \u201c displaced \u201d was determined as being any person whose permanent home was in the areas occupied by the NORP armed forces , in an inaccessible area , or in an area which had been evacuated to meet the needs of ORG .","To implement the scheme , the Director of the Care and Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons Service ( \u201c SCRDP \u201d ) issued a circular on DATE . The circular provided that non - displaced women whose husbands were displaced could be registered on the refugee card of their husbands . It also provided that children whose fathers were displaced could be registered on the refugee card of their fathers ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . No provision was made for the children of displaced women to be registered on the refugee cards of their mothers .","Although the term \u201c displaced \u201d was extended by ORG on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , at the time of the facts giving rise to the present application it had not been extended to allow children whose mothers were displaced but whose fathers were not , to qualify for refugee cards .","The applicant \u2019s mother has been a refugee since DATE . Her mother is the holder of a refugee card .","In DATE , the applicant married and began looking for a house for her family in GPE . She wished to obtain housing assistance and so , on DATE , applied to ORG of ORG for a refugee card with occupied PERSON , the place from which her mother was displaced , as her place of displacement .","By letter dated DATE the request was rejected on the basis that the applicant was not a displaced person because , while her mother was a displaced person , her father was not .","The applicant filed a recourse before ORG challenging the above decision . She claimed , inter alia , that the decision was in violation of the principle of equality safeguarded by LAW and in breach of LAW taken in conjunction with LAW No . CARDINAL . She claimed that it also breached LAW .","A single judge of ORG dismissed the recourse on DATE , finding that , on the basis of the relevant case - law , the extension of the applicable criteria so as to cover the children of displaced women was not possible . The question of extending the term \u201c displaced \u201d to cover the children whose mothers were displaced but whose fathers were not had been repeatedly discussed before the ORG of Representatives\u2019 Committee for Refugees . A proposal to change the law to that effect had been placed before the ORG but was never approved . Furthermore , because of the consequences which would ensue from such an extension of the term \u201c displaced \u201d , the Minister of the ORG had referred the question to ORG for its consideration and , on DATE , ORG had decided not to extend the term in this manner ( see the relevant domestic law and practice set out at DATE and DATE below ) .","On DATE the applicant filed an appeal before ORG .","By judgment of DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the first instance court .","ORG held as follows :","\u201c [ In the present appeal ] an attempt was made to demonstrate that we must depart from the above [ first instance ] decision , since ORG can , in the present case , proceed to the so - called \u201c extended interpretation \u201d and , by invoking the principle of equality , widen the application of the criterion to the children of displaced mothers as well .","...","The proposed extension of the plan was placed before ORG in Proposal no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which was submitted by ORG to amend the criteria for providing assistance to displaced persons . However the decision taken refers only to amendments which do not concern the present case . Despite the fact that , on DATE , by decision no . CARDINAL of ORG , further amendments were made by which the term \u2018 ORG was extended and now includes other categories of those entitled , the point which concerns us in this case remains unchanged .","...","In accordance with the case - law ( ORG v. The Republic , [ DATE ] CARDINAL A.A.D. CARDINAL ) , the non - existence of a legislative provision can not be remedied by judicial decision because , in such a case , the constitutional control which ORG exercises would be turned into a means of reshaping or supplementing the legislation .","...","We have given this matter very serious consideration in view also of the position that , in the case of an arrangement favouring CARDINAL sex only , the extended application of the provision also finds support in NORP Community Law ...","However this may be , we can not depart from the prevailing case - law . ORG v. The Republic , cited above , fixed the framework of the jurisdiction of ORG . ORG has , in accordance with Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW , the power to uphold in full or in part the decision appealed against or to declare the act or omission invalid . It does not have jurisdiction to legislate by extending legislative arrangements which did not meet with the approval of parliament . This would conflict with the principle of the separation of powers . We note that ORG can not of its own accord enact legislation which would incur expenditure . If ORG , the constitutionally appointed legislative organ , does not have such a right , ORG has even less of a right .","In agreement with the principles set out above , we conclude that ORG does not have the competence to proceed to an extended application of a legislative arrangement . \u201d","The same issue of the non - extension of refugee cards to the children of displaced women was also considered by ORG in GPE GPE v. the Republic ( case no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . That challenge was rejected at first instance on DATE ( ( DATE ) CARDINAL A.A.D. CARDINAL ) , the court finding that , while it was difficult to understand why there should not be uniform treatment between the children of displaced men and displaced women , on the basis of PERSON , cited above , it was unable to grant the relief sought . This was because PERSON was , in effect , asking the court to extend the relevant legal framework so that the benefits provided to children of displaced fathers would be provided to children of displaced mothers . An appeal against that judgment was dismissed on DATE by the same bench which dismissed the present applicant \u2019s appeal ( the appeal judgment in GPE is reported at ( DATE ) CARDINAL \u0391.\u0391.D. CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["13","14","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150429","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"POPA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","By an order issued on DATE the applicant was discharged from the position of deputy chief of the Cara\u015f Severin Border Police Department . The discharge order was not communicated to him .","From DATE , the applicant began to submit letters to different authorities asking to be sent a copy of the order and contesting the discharge measure .","On DATE , the applicant lodged an action with the domestic courts seeking the withdrawal of the discharge order of DATE and the recalculation of his salary rights .","After a first set of proceedings , by a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action on the ground that it had not been lodged within DATE of the communication of the order , as required by law . It held that the applicant \u2019s enquiries to the authorities proved that he had become aware of the discharge order DATE before lodging his action .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law on the ground that the order of DATE had never been communicated to him , and stated that in his letters to the authorities he had in fact been requesting them to communicate to him the reasons for his discharge . Moreover , the authority that had issued the order had an obligation to prove that it had communicated such reasons to him , which it had not done .","On DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . It found that the applicable legislation was section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . PERSON ) . The relevant excerpts of its decision read as follow :","\u00ab The applicant was discharged by Order no . CARDINAL of DATE ...","On DATE the applicant complained of [ his discharge ] to ORG . On page CARDINAL of his written complaint ( memoriu ) he claimed to have been unjustly discharged , which proves that the applicant was already aware of the order on DATE . The time - limit for administrative complaint ( contestare pe cale administrativ\u0103 ) runs from this date .","Having in mind the date on which the applicant was aware of the content of Order no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL DATE , more precisely on DATE at the latest , the firstinstance court correctly allowed the exception and found that the action was lodged out of time ...","The applicable legal norm ... is LAW no . CARDINAL .","According to section CARDINAL paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL , an individual who is deemed to have suffered as a result of an administrative act ... is to address himself to the administrative litigation tribunal within DATE of the communication of the decision or within DATE of the expiry of the time - limit for the administrative complaint ( contesta\u0163ia administrativ\u0103 ) .","Therefore , [ the applicant ] should have lodged the action on DATE at the latest . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW , in force at the material time , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Every individual or legal person who considers that his or her rights recognised by law have been prejudiced by an administrative act or by the unjustified refusal of a public authority to resolve an issue related to a right recognised by law may address himself to the competent court to seek the quashing or withdrawal of the act , the recognition of the right that is claimed , or the reparation of the damage thus caused .","( CARDINAL ) If the public authority does not respond to the petitioner within DATE of the registration of the claim , unless the law sets a different time - limit , this is also considered to be an unjustified refusal to solve a request related to a right recognised by law . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) NORP Before requesting the courts to quash or withdraw an act or to render its delivery mandatory , the person who is deemed to have suffered damage shall address himself to the authority that issued it [ the act ] , within DATE of the communication of the administrative act or within DATE of the expiry of the time - limit set out in QUANTITY ; the authority that issued the act must resolve the claim within DATE .","( CARDINAL ) NORP If the person who is deemed to have suffered damage is not satisfied with the resolution of his or her claim , he or she can address the courts within DATE of communication of the outcome ...","( CARDINAL ) The courts may be addressed even when the administrative authority that issued the act or its hierarchical superior have not resolved the claim within the timelimit set out in paragraph CARDINAL .","( CARDINAL ) In all instances , the courts may be addressed DATE from DATE of the communication of the act in question . \u201d","\u201c The petitioner shall simultaneously attach the contested administrative act or , as the case may be , the response of the administrative authority which communicated the refusal to resolve the claim ( which is related to a right recognised by law ) . If the claimant does not receive a response , he or she shall attach a copy of the request , certified for conformity ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148211","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"AURNHAMMER v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently detained in GPE , GPE . When lodging his application he was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE . The latter informed the ORG on DATE that he no longer represented the applicant .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was convicted by ORG of causing bodily harm and damage to property because he had hit CARDINAL ticket collectors in the face when they tried to prevent him from evading ticket controls and had damaged their clothes and glasses . He was further convicted of defamation and attempted coercion as he had insulted a prosecutor during CARDINAL of his previous trials and had tried to intimidate her . Moreover , he was convicted of dangerous bodily injury because he had attacked with a knife the neck of a sleeping cellmate of whom he had previously felt humiliated and slightly injured him . Besides , the applicant was convicted of various offences of theft , minor fraud , and trespassing . Adding on another prison sentence imposed on the applicant in a previous judgment of DATE for various offences of defamation , resisting bailiffs , bodily injury and theft , the court sentenced the applicant to an overall prison term of DATE and DATE in a juvenile prison .","Besides , the ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s indefinite placement in a psychiatric hospital in accordance with LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","At the time the applicant committed the relevant criminal offences he was DATE . The court decided to apply the juvenile criminal law instead of the criminal law rules applicable to adults because it found , in line with the report of the psychiatric expert PERSON , deputy medical director ( ORG ) of the forensic psychiatry and psychotherapy department of ORG and with the additional psychological expert opinion of psychotherapist PERSON , that the applicant \u2019s development as an adult was delayed , that he was still immature and had therefore to be treated as a juvenile and not as an adult . The court further found , in line with the psychiatric experts\u2019 opinions , that the applicant had committed the criminal offences of causing bodily harm and damage to property , dangerous bodily injury , defamation and attempted coercion while in a state of diminished criminal responsibility ( LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , as he suffered mainly from a \u201c borderline personality disorder of an impulsive type with dissocial components \u201d and also from \u201c adult hyperactivity syndrome \u201d , which limited his ability to control his impulses . With regard to the other criminal offences he was convicted of , the court , in line with the psychiatric experts\u2019 opinion , regarded the applicant as fully liable .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the criminal courts reviewed the applicant \u2019s compulsory confinement in the psychiatric clinic in accordance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL below ) and found on all QUANTITY occasions that the applicant \u2019s detention in a psychiatric clinic could not yet be suspended on probation . For the purposes of these review decisions , the inhouse psychiatric doctors at ORG issued medical opinions on DATE , DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG again decided that the applicant still suffered from the psychological disorder which had led to the criminal offences of which he had been convicted in DATE and that he could be expected to commit further offences of a certain gravity if released . The decision was delivered after having heard the applicant on CARDINAL DATE and again on DATE . It was based on the above - mentioned expert opinion of DATE by the in - house psychiatric team at ORG and on a newly commissioned external expert opinion of the psychiatric expert Prof . PERSON , head of the forensic psychiatry and psychotherapy department of ORG , who had delivered his expert opinion on DATE , had supplemented it on DATE and had personally been heard by the court on DATE .","In the medical report of DATE the team of in - house psychiatric experts at ORG had expressed the view that the applicant could be expected to commit further crimes if released because he showed no insight into his psychological disorder . The expert opinion had further expressed the suspicion that the applicant might in fact be schizophrenic .","In his expert opinion Prof . PERSON had diagnosed the applicant with an \u201c emotionally unstable personality disorder of the impulsive type \u201d and possibly also with \u201c adult hyperactivity syndrome \u201d . O. had further stated that , despite the fact that the personality of the applicant had matured considerably during his confinement , he could not at this stage be expected to abstain from committing any significant crimes if released . Although the applicant had obviously benefited from his placement in a psychiatric hospital and had not committed any criminal offences within the hospital , he was still not psychologically stable enough to be released . The biggest obstacle to his release was that the applicant still had very little insight into the fact that medical treatment was necessary now and in the future after a possible release . His compliance with his treatment had hence not yet been achieved . Furthermore , the applicant would need clearly structured sheltered accommodation if released . The preparations for such accommodation were not yet in place . The expert had further stated that , if the applicant could be further stabilised by psychotherapy , if his compliance with his treatment could be achieved in the future and if a place in adequately structured sheltered accommodation was prepared , the applicant could be released but would need to be prepared over a period of DATE for such release on probation .","Following an appeal by the applicant , ORG upheld the decision of ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG decided in accordance with LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) that the applicant could not yet be released because , owing to his ongoing psychiatric illness , he could still be expected to commit crimes of a certain gravity if released . The ORG based its decision on a newly commissioned expert opinion of the internal psychiatric team of ORG of DATE and the oral hearing of the deputy medical director treating the applicant of CARDINAL DATE .","NORP The respective medical experts were still of the view that the applicant could be expected to commit further crimes if released , because he still lacked sufficient insight into his psychological disorder . There was still a suspicion that he might in fact be suffering from schizophrenia rather than from a borderline personality syndrome . But as he refused to cooperate fully with the doctors , a clear diagnosis that would allow a more specific treatment was difficult . The idea that the applicant was suffering from schizophrenia was therefore only a presumption which could not be confirmed or refuted . More rapid results from the applicant \u2019s treatment could only be achieved if he complied fully with the medical and psychotherapeutic treatment . As he still had a negative attitude towards the medication and the psychotherapists , sufficient progress to justify his release could not be achieved .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision . It based its decision on the above - mentioned external medical opinion of Prof . Dr O. of DATE and DATE respectively and on the internal expert opinion of the psychiatric team of ORG of DATE . The court held that there was still a clear diagnosis of \u201c emotionally unstable personality disorder of the impulsive type \u201d and possibly also of \u201c adult hyperactivity syndrome \u201d . This diagnosis did not contradict the diagnosis of \u201c borderline personality disorder of an impulsive type with dissocial components \u201d established by PERSON at the time of the applicant \u2019s initial compulsory confinement . According to ORG , Prof . PERSON had made it clear before the court that that diagnosis just gave a more precise description of the mental disturbance from which the applicant had already been suffering when he committed the offences of which he had been convicted and when he had been compulsorily admitted , but did not describe a new mental illness .","The court further held that the idea that the applicant in fact suffered from schizophrenia was only an unverified presumption . His situation had not changed since the external expert O. had given his opinion on DATE and DATE . According to the statement of the in - house psychiatric doctor , the applicant had still not developed any insight into his psychological illness that would result in full cooperation with regard to his medication . At the same time no structured sheltered accommodation had yet been prepared into which he could be placed after his release . He was therefore still to be expected to commit further crimes of a certain gravity if released . Considering the criminal offences he had committed in the past and the risk that he might again commit similar offences such as causing bodily harm and aggravated bodily injury , his continued detention for DATE by that time was not yet disproportionate .","A further appeal lodged by the applicant with ORG was rejected on the ground that domestic law did not provide for such an appeal .","A constitutional complaint and a request for restoration of the previous situation lodged by the applicant were of no avail . On DATE ORG declined to admit the constitutional complaint for examination , without giving any reasons , and did not rule on the request for restoration of the previous situation ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","In accordance with LAW placement in a psychiatric hospital may be ordered in the case of offenders who have acted without criminal responsibility or in the case of offenders who have acted with diminished criminal responsibility in addition to their punishment . The measure must , however , be proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed by , or to be expected from , the defendants concerned , as well as to their dangerousness ( LAW ) .","Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides that if someone commits an unlawful act without criminal responsibility or with diminished criminal responsibility , the court must order his placement in a psychiatric hospital without specifying a maximum duration , if a comprehensive evaluation of the defendant and his acts reveals that , as a result of his condition , he can be expected to commit serious unlawful acts and that he is therefore dangerous to the general public .","Criminal incapacity and diminished criminal responsibility are regulated by ORG , which read as follows :","LAW Criminal incapacity on account of psychological disturbance","\u201c Any person who at the time of the commission of the offence is incapable of understanding the unlawfulness of his or her actions or of acting in accordance with any such understanding on account of a pathological mental disorder , a profound consciousness disorder , mental deficiency or any other serious mental abnormality , shall be deemed to have acted without guilt . \u201d","Article CARDINAL Diminished criminal responsibility","\u201c If the capacity of the offender to understand the unlawfulness of his or her actions or to act in accordance with any such understanding is substantially diminished at the time of the commission of the offence for CARDINAL of the reasons indicated in DATE , the sentence may be mitigated in accordance with LAW . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code governs the duration of detention . In the version in force at the relevant time , it provided :","Article CARDINALd Duration of detention"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-151222","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"HUITSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before ORG , lawyers practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant is a qualified electrical engineer and worked as a self - employed ORG ( \u201c IT \u201d ) consultant . The end users of his services were based in GPE . He would ordinarily account for income tax on the taxable profits of his trade or profession in GPE .","On DATE the applicant became a client of ORG ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) . GPE provided advice to the applicant with respect to a marketed tax avoidance scheme ( \u201c the scheme \u201d ) centred on LOC seeking advantage of GPE DATE ( \u201c the DTA \u201d ) .","As a result of the scheme , the applicant no longer supplied his IT consultancy services directly to his end - user clients based in GPE . Instead , an intermediary , ORG ( \u201c the Partnership \u201d ) , which was constituted by CARDINAL companies incorporated and resident in LOC , contracted , directly or indirectly with the end - users to provide the applicant \u2019s services . The intermediary received full payment for such services and the applicant received an DATE fee of GBP CARDINAL ( or less ) from the intermediary . The rest of his reward for his services was received only in his capacity as the owner of a life interest in a Trust established in LOC and of which CARDINAL of the Partnership companies was the trustee .","NORP Until the relevant legislation was amended with retrospective effect , the applicant contended that , as a result of the ORG and the legislation then applicable , the income channelled through the trust was not subject to GPE income tax . Nor , apparently , was it subject to NORP tax , since the beneficiary ( the applicant ) , unlike the trustee , was not resident in GPE . The effect of the use of the ORG meant that the applicant was able to reduce his effective income tax rate to an average of PERCENT .","NORP In his tax return for the period CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , the applicant claimed relief from income tax in the sum of GBP QUANTITY representing trust income . Relying on domestic jurisprudence , the applicant \u2019s case was that the profits received by the trustee as a partner were not treated as belonging to the trustee but to the beneficiary with an interest in possession under the trust , with the consequence that the income arising from his beneficial interest in possession under the trust could not be assessed to GPE tax .","Her Majesty \u2019s Revenue and ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) first wrote to the applicant regarding his use of the tax avoidance scheme on DATE . In that letter he was informed that ORG was likely to challenge the validity of the claim . No basis for the challenge was mentioned . The applicant was advised to make payment on account in respect of the disputed sum , so as to avoid the accrual of interest and the incurrence of a possible penalty . It appears that he chose not to do so .","Similar correspondence followed in respect of tax years DATE , for which the applicant claimed relief of GBP CARDINAL ; DATE , for which he claimed relief of ORG CARDINAL , and DATE , for which he claimed relief of ORG CARDINAL .","On DATE , ORG set out reasons for the challenges to the claims of relief , and on DATE it informed the applicant that it was preparing a number of lead cases to take to the Special Commissioners regarding the validity of the claims to the ORG .","NORP However , before the cases were listed , ORG announced , in its ORG of DATE , proposals to introduce what became section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) , which came into force on DATE . LAW of ORG of DATE amended with retrospective effect the existing legislation in section CARDINAL of ORG and Other Income ) Act DATE . Any assessment to income tax ( in the absence of fraud or negligence ) was limited to DATE , so that the retrospective effect of section DATE extended no further back than to DATE . The effect of this change of legislation was to render the scheme ineffectual and to impose on the applicant and others in a similar position liability to pay GPE income tax on trust income received in DATE .","ORG revised the applicant \u2019s tax assessments accordingly . The revisions and the validity of the legal basis on which they were made were challenged by the applicant by way of legal proceedings .","The applicant brought judicial review proceedings in ORG against ORG on DATE . At this stage his outstanding tax liability was MONEY . He sought to challenge sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW under LAW DATE . His ground of challenge was that these sections of LAW changed fiscal legislation regarding double taxation relief with retrospective effect and that such retrospective amendment did not strike a fair balance as required by LAW and the jurisprudence of ORG .","On DATE Mr Justice PERSON dismissed the claim , finding that the challenged legislation , although having retrospective effect was , in the relevant circumstances , proportionate and compatible with LAW No . CARDINAL .","The applicant appealed to ORG , which heard the matter over DATE in DATE , and judgment was delivered on DATE . Lord Justice Mummery giving the lead judgment dismissed the appeal , finding that the High Court judge had not been wrong to conclude that the retrospective provisions of the CARDINAL Act were proportionate and compatible with LAW No . CARDINAL . Mummery LJ noted that the applicant had taken advantage of a marketed tax avoidance scheme for no other purpose than the avoidance of GPE income tax . According to him , the retrospective amendments were enacted pursuant to a justified fiscal policy that was within the ORG \u2019s area of appreciation and discretionary judgment in economic and social matters . The legislation achieved a fair balance between the interests of the general body of taxpayers and the right of the applicant to the enjoyment of his possessions , without imposing an unreasonable economic burden on him . Moreover , the legislation prevented the ORG tax relief provisions from being misused for a purpose different from their originally intended use . On the issue of prior test litigation , ORG upheld PERSON finding that there was no legal obligation on the ORG to test the matter of the efficacy of the scheme in the courts before enacting legislation . Moreover , taxpayers were not powerless to bring the issue to a head themselves ( under provisions in s.CARDINALA of ORG ) without waiting for ORG to bring proceedings in respect of the arrangements . They did not pursue such a course . Concerning a possible pre - legislation assessment of the impact of retrospectivity on the taxpayers concerned , ORG found in the circumstances such an assessment would not have yielded any relevant information which ORG did not already know .","At this stage , the figure of the tax relief the applicant was ultimately deprived of was in the region of GBP CARDINAL . According to ORG , this liability was no more an unjustified interference with his enjoyment of his possessions than the ordinary liability that his fellow residents in GPE were under a duty to contribute , by way of GPE tax on their income , towards the costs of providing community and other benefits for the purposes of life in a civil society .","On DATE ORG of the GPE denied permission to appeal .","GPE DATE ( \u201c the DTA \u201d ) :","\u201c CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) The industrial or commercial profits of a NORP enterprise shall not be subject to GPE tax unless the enterprise is engaged in trade or business in GPE through a permanent establishment situated therein . If it is so engaged , tax may be imposed on those profits by GPE , but only on so much of them as is attributable to that permanent establishment . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of ORG and Other Income ) Act DATE provided as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL Resident partners and double taxation agreements .","( CARDINAL)This section applies if\u2014","( a ) a GPE resident ( \u201c the partner \u201d ) is a member of a firm which\u2014","( i ) resides outside GPE , or","( ii ) carries on a trade the control and management of which is outside GPE , and","( b ) by virtue of any arrangements having effect under section CARDINAL of ICTA ( \u201c the arrangements \u201d ) any of the income of the firm is relieved from income tax in GPE .","( CARDINAL ) The partner is liable to income tax on the partner \u2019s share of the income of the firm despite the arrangements .","( CARDINAL ) If the partner \u2019s share of the income of the firm consists of or includes a share in a qualifying distribution\u2014","( a ) made by a GPE resident company , and","( b ) chargeable to tax under LAW CARDINAL ,","the partner ( and not the firm ) is , despite the arrangements , entitled to the share of the tax credit which corresponds to the partner \u2019s share of the distribution . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides as follows :","\u201c GPE residents and foreign partnerships .","( CARDINAL ) In section CARDINAL of ICTA ( partnerships involving companies : supplementary ) , after subsection ( CARDINAL ) insert\u2014","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of subsections ( CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) the members of a partnership include any company which is entitled to a share of income or capital gains of the partnership . \u201d","( CARDINAL ) In section CARDINAL of ORG DATE ( partnerships ) , insert at the end\u2014","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of subsections ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) the members of a partnership include any person entitled to a share of capital gains of the partnership . \u201d","( CARDINAL ) In section CARDINAL of ITTOIA DATE ( resident partners and double taxation agreements ) , insert at the end\u2014","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of this section the members of a firm include any person entitled to a share of income of the firm . \u201d","( CARDINAL ) The amendments made by subsections ( CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) are treated as always having had effect .","( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of the predecessor provisions , the members of a partnership are to be treated as having included , at all times to which those provisions applied , a person entitled to a share of income or capital gains of the partnership .","( CARDINAL)\u201cThe predecessor provisions \u201d means\u2014","( a ) section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act DATE ( c. CARDINAL ) ( as it had effect under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON DATE ) , and","( b ) sections CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ICTA . \u201d","On DATE as ORG gave judgment in the applicant \u2019s case , the same CARDINAL judges gave judgment in the case of R ( ORG ) v. ORG CCARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The claim in that case was for a declaration that the amendments in LAW DATE were incompatible with LAW on the Functioning of the European Union ) , as well as LAW No . CARDINAL of LAW . The claimants in that case argued that the amendments made by LAW were capable of preventing , restricting or discouraging commercial investment of capital in foreign partnerships by means of unjustified discrimination between an investment of capital in a foreign partnership and an investment of capital in a GPE partnership . They argued that its retrospectivity was an infringement of ORG principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation . The complaint was dismissed ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152245","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF J\u00c1NOS D\u00c1NIEL SZAB\u00d3 v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","DATE and DATE criminal proceedings , on charges of disorderly conduct , were being carried out against the applicant before ORG , this period including a remittal ordered by GPE .","The first judgment given by ORG on DATE contained the lapse of time as a minor mitigating factor .","However , the second , final judgment given by ORG on DATE ( that is , after the remittal ) was a simplified decision which did not contain any considerations about mitigation ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167796","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CHAUSHEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , and DATE respectively and at the time the case was introduced were imprisoned in GPE and ORG .","They were among CARDINAL people facing assorted charges related to the socalled ORG , a militant NORP underground movement active in LOC in DATE .","When the case came to trial before ORG , on DATE a judge ordered \u2013 without giving any explanation \u2013 that the trial be held behind closed doors in remand prison IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE .","On DATE the court sentenced the applicants to CARDINAL , and DATE respectively . The applicants lodged an appeal with ORG , complaining , among other things , that the trial had been closed to the public . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment without replying to the complaint ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184276","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF VOYNOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is currently serving his sentence in IK-CARDINAL in the village of PERSON , GPE Region .","The applicant , his partner and his mother were living in ORG when the applicant was charged with drug - related crimes .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c \u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0430 \u0438\u0441\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u043d\u0430\u043a\u0430\u0437\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u201d , \u201c the ORG \u201d ) of GPE sent a telegram to the ORG department for LOC ( \u201c the PERSON \u201d ) instructing the latter to send DATE up to QUANTITY people detained in remand prisons and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a strict - regime facility to LOC . The instruction was valid as of DATE until further notice .","On DATE the ORG of ORG convicted the applicant of drug - related crimes and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment in a strict - regime post - conviction detention facility . On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal .","Acting on the basis of the ORG of GPE \u2019s instruction of DATE , on an unspecified date the PERSON decided , in view of the overcrowding in the postconviction detention facilities in LOC , that the issue of which particular facility the applicant would be transferred to should be resolved by the ORG department for LOC ( \u201c the GPE FSIN \u201d ) . The latter allocated the applicant to IK-CARDINAL , a strict - regime post - conviction detention facility in the village of GPE , GPE Region ( QUANTITY from ORG ) , to serve his sentence . The applicant has been detained there since DATE .","The applicant has repeatedly asked the penal authorities at different levels to transfer him to a detention facility located closer to ORG so that he could effectively maintain family ties while serving his sentence .","On DATE the ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s request , informing him that , under LAW on LAW ( \u201c the CES \u201d ) , in the absence of exceptional circumstances convicts were to serve their prison term in its entirety in the same detention facility , and that there were no such exceptional circumstances in the applicant \u2019s case . They noted as follows :","\u201c [ NORP regards maintaining the convict \u2019s social ties , the right to receive visits and parcels as well as the right to correspondence and phone calls should be realised in accordance with the laws on execution of sentences in force and does not depend on the place in which he is serving the sentence . \u201d","NORP The applicant brought civil proceedings against the PERSON , claiming compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage caused by their decision to transfer him to a penal facility in LOC in breach of his right , under LAW of the ORG , to serve his prison sentence in his home region , which had adversely affected his capacity to maintain his family and social ties .","On DATE the Zavodskoy ORG of ORG dismissed the claims for damages with reference to LAW ORG and Ruling No . CARDINAL-O - O of ORG . The court held that the PERSON decision had been lawful because DATE and DATE the penal facilities in LOC had been overcrowded . It also noted that the defendant had acted in accordance with the ORG of GPE \u2019s instructions . The court did not address the applicant \u2019s argument regarding his difficulties in maintaining family ties because of the distance between his family home and the detention facility . It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the judgment .","DATE the applicant \u2019s partner made long - term family visits to IK-CARDINAL on CARDINAL occasions . In DATE she gave birth to the couple \u2019s daughter . While in IK-CARDINAL , the applicant received a number of parcels and phone calls from his mother and partner ."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150670","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SAY\u011eI v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","The facts of the case as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother - in - law , PERSON , submitted a petition to LOC prosecutor GPE , and informed him that on DATE her son PERSON , \u2010 the applicant \u2019s husband \u2010 had been travelling home on his motorbike when he was stopped and apprehended by soldiers who had set up a temporary base in a public building near GPE . She described the motorbike as \u201c NORP - made , red and with a basket \u201d . She told the prosecutor that nothing had been heard from her son since that date and that the complaint she had made to the authorities DATE after the disappearance had not elucidated any response . She gave the prosecutor the names of CARDINAL villagers who , she claimed , had witnessed her son being apprehended , and asked the prosecutor to make enquiries in order to find her son .","DATE the GPE prosecutor PERSON questioned PERSON in relation to her above - mentioned petition . PERSON confirmed the contents of her petition detailed above and added that the family had been informed about the incident DATE afterwards by villagers who had witnessed the incident . Her elder son , PERSON , had then gone to the military base near GPE village where he was informed that his younger brother had been transferred to the gendarmerie station in GPE . When PERSON had gone to the gendarmerie station in GPE , he was told that his brother \u2019s questioning was continuing and that it would probably continue for DATE .","When PERSON was not released , PERSON had gone to the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office and informed the prosecutor of the detention of his younger brother . When the prosecutor had contacted the military authorities he was told that PERSON had never been detained by the military . The family \u2019s subsequent attempts to find PERSON had not yielded any results .","A detailed investigation was carried out by LOC prosecutor GPE into the allegations made by PERSON . In the course of that investigation the prosecutor questioned the CARDINAL villagers named by PERSON as eyewitnesses and identified and questioned as suspects CARDINAL soldiers who had been based at the temporary military station at the time of the disappearance . The prosecutor also questioned family members who informed the prosecutor about the steps they had taken to find PERSON . Both the police and the military authorities contacted by the prosecutor denied that PERSON had been detained as alleged .","The QUANTITY eyewitnesses named by PERSON told the prosecutor that on DATE they had been travelling to their village when they were stopped by soldiers outside the temporary military base near GPE . While the soldiers were checking their identity documents , PERSON had arrived at the scene and had also been stopped by the soldiers . After their identity papers had been checked they had been allowed to leave but PERSON had been detained . They had then informed PERSON family about what had happened .","The security forces personnel questioned by the prosecutor as suspects confirmed that at the time of the events a disused public building outside GPE had been used as a temporary military base . The soldiers denied , however , that they had detained the applicant \u2019s husband .","The gendarmerie headquarters contacted by the prosecutor stated in a letter of CARDINAL DATE that they had no information in their possession to show that PERSON had had any links with the ORG . The police headquarters , on the other hand , informed the prosecutor that they had statements indicating that PERSON had been working as a courier for the ORG prior to his disappearance .","At the end of his investigation , the LOC prosecutor PERSON concluded in his decision of DATE that PERSON had been unlawfully detained by the military in the temporary military base near GPE . The prosecutor did not attach any weight to the denials of the military personnel who had been on duty at the time of PERSON detention and considered that the military personnel \u2019s denials were outweighed by the consistent eyewitness accounts of civilian villagers . Nevertheless , as the end of the prescription period for the offence of false imprisonment had been reached , the prosecutor concluded that he could not indict the military personnel responsible for the unlawful detention of PERSON . The prosecutor also considered that there was insufficient evidence to prove that PERSON had been killed while in the hands of the soldiers .","The applicant lodged an objection against the prosecutor \u2019s decision with ORG and submitted that nothing had been heard from her husband after his unlawful detention . She argued that similar unlawful detentions had peaked in that area in DATE and that the relatives of those who had disappeared had been too frightened to complain to the authorities on account of their fears of the military . She invited ORG to take into account the possibility that her husband , who had been suspected of having links with the ORG , would in all likelihood be subjected to \u201c torture \u201d by the soldiers . Torture was a criminal offence to which the statute of limitations was not applicable ; thus , the decision of the prosecutor to close the investigation on account of the expiry of the statutory time - limit had been wrong .","The objection lodged by the applicant was rejected by ORG on DATE .","On DATE a number of soldiers saw PERSON elder brother PERSON digging in an area near GPE . PERSON told the soldiers that he had had a dream and that , according to his dream , his brother PERSON was buried in that place .","The same day PERSON also informed the LOC prosecutor PERSON , who went to the area and ordered that the site be dug up . During the digging a total of CARDINAL bones , fabrics , a small axe and the remains of a red motorbike were found . The bones and the motorbike parts , together with soil samples , were taken away by gendarme soldiers for forensic examinations .","DATE the applicant also talked to prosecutor PERSON and told him about the disappearance of her husband PERSON . She asked the prosecutor to establish whether the bones found during the excavation belonged to her husband , who had disappeared while travelling on his red motorbike .","PERSON brother PERSON told prosecutor PERSON that he had no doubts whatsoever that the items discovered during the excavation belonged to his brother . He said that he recognised the motorbike and the axe which had been given to PERSON by the family . PERSON also informed the prosecutor about the eyewitnesses who claimed to have seen his brother in the hands of the soldiers .","Gendarmerie forensic experts who examined the metal parts found in the area stated in their report that they belonged to a motorbike . The experts were not able , however , to identify the type or make of the motorbike due to corrosion , but considered that the motorbike resembled an \u201c Izh \u201d motorbike ( a manufacturer at Izhevsk in GPE ) . The chassis numbers and letters of the motorbike \u2013 in LANGUAGE \u2013 are reproduced in the report of the experts .","The bones were examined at ORG . It was established that the bones were animal bones .","According to a report drawn up on DATE by the forensic laboratory of the police , the soil on the motorbike parts matched the soil samples taken from the place . However , the soil on the bones did not match the soil samples taken from the place . It was advised in this report that it had to be born in mind when evaluating the report \u2019s conclusions that the forensic examination had not been carried out in order to establish whether the soil samples taken from the bones and the soil samples obtained from the place of digging had come from the same place . Rather , the aim of the forensic examinations had been to establish whether the CARDINAL soil samples had any physical and chemical similarities .","According to a report prepared by the police on DATE , no prior applications had been made to them about the disappearance of PERSON . According to a similar report prepared by the military , no one had made any enquiries about any disappearance of a person with the name of PERSON and there had been no temporary or permanent military station at Yo\u011furt\u00e7u village at the time of the events .","On DATE TIME prosecutor PERSON decided to close his investigation on the basis that the bones were not human bones . He added that the model and make of the motorbike had not been established and that the basket attached to the motorbike had not been recovered . The prosecutor further stated in his decision that there was no evidence to show that PERSON had been arrested by the soldiers or to show that there had been a temporary military base near GPE at the time of the incident .","The applicant lodged an objection with ORG against the prosecutor \u2019s decision and argued that the investigation had been incomplete . She submitted , in particular , that prosecutor PERSON had failed to take account of the conclusion reached by his predecessor in DATE , namely that her husband had been unlawfully detained by soldiers . She also submitted that the bones had been dug up in the presence of a prosecutor and secured by that prosecutor . Thus , having regard to the finding that the soil on the bones did not match the soil samples , the prosecutor should have considered the possibility that the bones might have been switched .","In her petition the applicant also referred to the ORG , and requested that the investigation be continued to find those responsible for the disappearance of her husband . She argued that carrying out an effective investigation was necessary in order to avoid \u201c the ORG being put on trial before ORG for its failure to protect the right to life of her husband \u201d .","The objection was rejected by ORG on DATE . No mention was made in the decision about the points raised by the applicant in her objection . ORG decision was communicated to the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148717","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"SMAGILOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , ORG at ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant bought a desktop computer from a private company F. He subsequently brought proceedings claiming that he had been misled about the technical characteristics of the hardware , that he had not been provided with a user manual , that the seller had failed to comply with consumer protection legislation and that the warranty was partly void .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) issued a summary judgment in the applicant \u2019s favour annulled the sale and ordered payment of damages . However , on DATE the judgment was set aside on appeal by ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) and the case was sent back for reconsideration .","NORP In order to secure enforcement of the future judgment the applicant requested ORG to apply interim measures , namely the attachment of the hardware in the defendant \u2019s possession and an order for the defendant to deposit the amount of the damages claimed or , alternatively , the attachment of property in the same amount .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request in part and ordered the attachment of the hardware in the defendant \u2019s possession . The other requested measures were refused in view of the defendant \u2019s solvency and active participation in the proceedings . The applicant did not appeal .","On DATE ORG gave a new judgment allowing the applicant \u2019s claims in part concerning the warranty on the hardware and dismissing all the other claims . On DATE ORG set aside the judgment in part and required that the remaining claims be reconsidered .","In a summary judgment of DATE ORG awarded the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in damages and ordered the defendant to replace the original desktop computer .","On DATE ORG at the request of the applicant initiated enforcement proceedings against the debtor company F.","In view of the apparent lack of progress in the enforcement proceedings , in DATE the applicant lodged a new action seeking annulment of the sale and recovery of damages . On DATE ORG in a summary judgment granted his claims , annulled the sale and awarded the applicant an additional RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in damages .","On DATE and DATE the competent authorities refused to open criminal proceedings against the debtor company for its failure to comply with the judgment . The decision of DATE was upheld at last instance by ORG on DATE .","Discontent with the lack of progress in the enforcement of the judgment of DATE , the applicant requested that the bailiff \u2019s actions and inaction be recognised as unlawful . On DATE ORG found that the enforcement proceedings were indeed tainted by unjustified delays and inaction and the bailiff \u2019s inaction was ruled unlawful .","NORP In DATE the applicant also brought proceedings against the regional ORG seeking damages for the allegedly unlawful refusal of ORG judge to apply the requested interim measures to secure enforcement of the judgment ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint without consideration on the ground that it lacked legal basis . The dismissal was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant attempted to initiate civil proceedings against the ORG of GPE and the regional ORG for the failure to enforce the judgment in his favour . On DATE the proceedings were adjourned by ORG owing to the applicant \u2019s failure to formulate his claims against all of the defendants and to provide their postal addresses . The applicant was given time to correct these defects . On DATE ORG upheld the adjournment on appeal . It appears that the applicant has never corrected the defects indicated by the domestic courts and that the proceedings have remained adjourned .","The basic principles regarding compensation for damage caused by public authorities and their officials are enshrined in the LAW of GPE of DATE . In LAW provides that everyone is entitled to compensation for damage caused by unlawful actions ( or inaction ) of ORG bodies and their officials . Article CARDINAL secures the abovementioned right with a constitutional obligation of the ORG to ensure access to a court and compensation for damage in cases where public authorities and their officials infringe rights protected by law .","The Code of Civil Procedure of GPE , which entered into force on DATE , establishes the framework for challenging the decisions or actions ( or inaction ) of any ORG or local self - government authority or official .","LAW , entitled \u201c Proceedings to challenge decisions and actions ( or inaction ) of ORG bodies , local selfgovernment authorities , officials or ORG or municipal civil servants \u201d provides in the relevant part as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . A citizen or legal person may challenge before a court any decision , action ( or inaction ) of a ORG or local self - government authority , official , or a ORG or municipal civil servant if they consider that their rights and freedoms have been violated . A citizen or legal person may lodge an application directly with a court or with a superior , in order of subordination , ORG or local self - government authority or official , or ORG or municipal civil servant .","...","The court may suspend enforcement of the challenged decision until entry into force of the judicial decision . \u201d","\u201c The decisions , actions ( or inaction ) of ORG or local self - government authorities , officials , or ORG or municipal civil servants , which may be challenged in civil proceedings are collective and independent decisions , actions ( or inaction ) resulting in :","- a violation of a citizen \u2019s rights and freedoms ,","- a restriction on the exercise by a citizen of his rights and freedoms ,","- an obligation or legal responsibility of a citizen that is devoid of lawful basis . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Where the court establishes that an application is well - founded , it shall adopt a decision ordering the relevant ORG or local self - government authority or official , or ORG or municipal civil servants to provide full redress for the violation of the rights and freedoms or the restriction on the exercise by a citizen of his rights and freedoms . ...","NORP The court shall dismiss an application if it establishes that the challenged decision or action was adopted or performed within the scope of powers of a ORG or local self - government authority or official , or ORG or municipal civil servant , and that the rights and freedoms of a citizen were not violated . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure governs the handling of lawsuits submitted in disregard of the procedural requirements and provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . A judge who establishes that a lawsuit has been submitted to the court without following the requirements [ as regards its form , necessary elements and supporting documents ] shall adjourn the proceedings , inform the plaintiff about the adjournment , and set a reasonable time - limit for correction of the defects .","NORP The lawsuit shall be considered lodged on the date of its initial submission if the plaintiff complies with the instructions of the judge . Otherwise the lawsuit shall be considered as not submitted and returned to the plaintiff with all of the attached documents .","An appeal shall lie against a ruling to adjourn proceedings on a lawsuit . \u201d","LAW governs all matters related to interim measures within the civil proceedings . In the relevant parts it provides as follows :","\u201c Upon an application of a party to the proceedings a judge or a court may order an interim measures . An interim measure may be ordered at any stage of the proceedings , if a failure to order it may impede or prevent enforcement of a court \u2019s decision . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . An appeal shall lie against any ruling ordering an interim measure ... \u201d","Title II of LAW of GPE of DATE , which entered into force on DATE , governs liability for damage . Article ORG , establishing basic principles of civil liability for damage , provides in the relevant parts as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Damage caused to an individual or his property , as well as damage to the property of a legal entity , shall be subject to full compensation by the person who caused the damage .","The law may prescribe that compensation for damage be due from a person other than the person who caused the damage ...","A person who causes damage shall not be liable for compensation in respect thereof if he proves that it was not caused by any fault on his part . However , the law may prescribe that compensation for damage be due even where there was no fault on the part of the person who caused it .","Damage caused by lawful actions shall be subject to compensation where prescribed by law ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code dealing with damage caused by a ORG or local self - government authority or official provides as follows :","\u201c Damage caused to an individual or a legal entity as a result of unlawful actions ( or inaction ) of ORG authorities , local self - government authorities or their officials , including damage resulting from an act of a ORG authority or local self - government authority that is incompatible with a law or another legal act , shall be subject to compensation . The damage shall be compensated for at the expense of the ORG of GPE , the treasury of a subject of GPE , or the treasury of a municipal authority , respectively . \u201d","NORP In addition to the general provisions on compensation for unlawful actions ( or inaction ) of ORG authorities and their officials Title II of LAW stipulates specific rules for damage caused by law - enforcement authorities and the courts :","\u201c CARDINAL . Damage caused to an individual as a result of unlawful conviction , unlawful criminal prosecution , unlawful detention or release on his recognizance , unlawful administrative arrest , and damage caused to a legal entity as a result of unlawful administrative suspension of activities , shall be fully compensated for by the ORG of GPE , and where prescribed by law by the treasury of a subject of GPE or the treasury of a municipality , in full regardless of any guilt on the part of any official of an inquiry or preliminary investigation authority , prosecutor \u2019s office or court .","Damage caused to an individual or a legal entity by unlawful actions of inquiry and preliminary investigation authorities and prosecutor \u2019s offices , where they do not entail the consequences mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL of this Article , shall be subject to compensation under LAW of the present Code . Damage caused in the administration of justice shall be subject to compensation if the guilt of a judge has been established by a final and binding judgment of conviction . \u201d","ORG in its judgments and decisions has provided a constitutional interpretation of Article CARDINAL of LAW in conjunction with Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see Judgments No . CARDINAL of DATE , No . CARDINAL of DATE , and Decisions No . CARDINAL of DATE , No . CARDINAL-O - O of CARDINAL DATE ) , including the following principles :","In its decision no . CARDINAL-O of CARDINAL DATE the ORG emphasised with reference to the case - law of the ORG that enforcement of a judgment was an integral part of the judicial protection of rights and that the review of bailiffs\u2019 actions ( or inaction ) must be performed by their superiors and by the courts .","Following the constitutional review of the specific rules stated in paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code on damage caused by law - enforcement authorities and the courts , ORG found them constitutional in so far as they provided for special conditions as to ORG liability for damage caused in the administration of justice ( Ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE ) . However the Ruling clarified that the term \u201c administration of justice \u201d applied only to judicial decisions on the merits of the case , while procedural rulings fell outside its scope . State liability for damage caused , unlawful procedural acts or failure to act could arise even in the absence of a final criminal conviction of a judge , if the fault of the judge had been established in civil proceedings .","Both ORG and ORG of GPE ( which until unification of the courts in DATE was the highest court for commercial disputes ) have issued case - law reviews and guidelines clarifying various procedural and substantive aspects of the right to receive compensation under LAW as established in the practice of the NORP courts . These decisions of ORG of GPE remain in force unless superseded by newly adopted decisions of the unified ORG of GPE .","In decree no . DATE of the Plenum of ORG it was stressed that a defendant to a lawsuit under LAW should always be a public entity , but not a structural unit thereof or an official in a personal capacity . The compensation must accordingly be recovered only from the public entity .","In joint Decree no . CARDINAL \/ CARDINAL of DATE of the ORG of ORG and the ORG of ORG , the courts highlighted that while the post - Burdov CARDINAL legislative scheme only guaranteed compensation for non - enforcement of judgments against the ORG , nothing precluded lawsuits from being brought in other disputes concerning the non - enforcement of judgments under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .","Information Letter no . CARDINAL of the Presidium of ORG of DATE in particular mentioned the following points :"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177747","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"ZAMOYSKI-BRISSON AND OTHERS v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) issued the Decree on agrarian reform ( dekret o reformie rolnej ) . The decree provided that properties of an agricultural nature , owned or co - owned by natural or legal persons , with an area exceeding CARDINAL hectares ( ha ) in total or CARDINAL ha of agricultural land , would be allocated for agrarian reform ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(e ) ) . It further prescribed that such properties would be transferred to ORG immediately and without any compensation .","On DATE ORG issued the Decree on the nationalisation of certain forests ( dekret o przej\u0119ciu niekt\u00f3rych las\u00f3w na w\u0142asno\u015b\u0107 PERSON ) . The decree provided that forests and forest land , owned or co - owned by natural and legal persons , with an area exceeding QUANTITY ha , would be transferred to ORG .","Mr PERSON , the applicants\u2019 father and grandfather respectively , was the owner of the Dobra Ordynackie Koz\u0142\u00f3wka estate , which included a large area of forest land ( CARDINAL ha ) . The property was taken over by ORG for the purposes of agrarian reform pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of the Decree on agrarian reform . On DATE an entry was made in the land register .","The applicants are the legal heirs of PERSON .","On DATE the applicants brought a claim against ORG in ORG . They each sought MONEY ( ORG approximately CARDINAL ) in partial compensation for the nationalisation of the forest land which had been owned by their legal predecessor . They relied on section CARDINAL of the Act of DATE on the preservation of the national character of the country \u2019s strategic natural resources ( ustawa o zachowaniu narodowego charakteru strategicznych zasob\u00f3w naturalnych kraju \u2013 \u201c the DATE LAW ) .","In the alternative , if the court ruled that they could not seek indemnity under section CARDINAL of the DATE Act on account of a lack of separate provisions determining the rules of indemnification , the applicants sought compensation for legislative omission ( zaniechanie legislacyjne ) . In respect of the latter , they relied on LAW and subsequently LAW . In their subsequent pleadings , the applicants noted that they were seeking compensation equal to PERCENT of the amount due and wished to determine the principle of compensation for the nationalised forest .","On an unspecified date the applicants\u2019 case was transferred to ORG .","On DATE the court dismissed the applicants\u2019 claim . It found it unnecessary to take evidence with a view to determining the size and value of the various plots making up the estate , since the claim was in principle unfounded . The court acknowledged that the applicants\u2019 predecessor in title had owned the ORG Ordynackie Koz\u0142\u00f3wka estate , that at least part of it was forest , and that it had been nationalised pursuant to the Decree on agrarian reform .","With regard to the compensation claim for legislative omission , the court held that the applicants could not rely on LAW since that provision had only entered into force on DATE , while their claim concerned the DATE Act . However , ORG was liable for damage caused by legislative omission which had occurred after the entry into force of the LAW on DATE . LAW had entered into force after DATE and , accordingly , the applicants\u2019 claim for legislative omission could be based on LAW ( in the version applicable prior to DATE ) in conjunction with LAW .","NORP The court held that section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act could not constitute the basis of a compensation claim for legislative omission . It held that the provision was of a declaratory nature , in which the legislature had announced that persons who had been wronged in connection with the taking away of their property should have received some indemnity . That declaration had to be fulfilled in a separate statute specifying the amount of indemnity , the manner of calculation and the possible limitations . According to the court , the principal purpose of LAW was to preserve the national character of the country \u2019s strategic natural resources , including those which in the past had been taken by the ORG to the detriment of the owners . The DATE Act signalled the need to regulate the question of indemnities to former owners , but did not regulate it itself and left it to the legislature to decide subsequently . Furthermore , section DATE CARDINAL Act was of a very general nature . It did not specify the manner of calculating an indemnity , the amount , the possible limitations or the conditions to be fulfilled by claimants . In this connection the court held that it could not replace the legislature and encroach on its competences .","The court also noted that there were various groups of persons whose properties had been nationalised without just or any compensation during the period of the Polish GPE . The legislature had decided to establish the rules and procedure for the payment of compensation to some of those groups , while in respect of others it had enacted no such regulations . An example of the first was the LAW of DATE on the realisation of the right to indemnity for property left beyond the present borders of the NORP State ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) , which provided that LOC claimants were entitled to compensation set at PERCENT of the value of their original LOC property . The legislature had entitled that group of persons to compensation and specified the procedure applicable to such claims .","The court noted , however , that the legislature had not to date enacted any rules on indemnifying persons who had been wronged on account of the Decree on agrarian reform or the Decree on the nationalisation of certain forests . It emphasised that , in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Decree on agrarian reform , ownership of all the property referred to in subsections ( b ) , ( c ) , ( d ) and ( e ) had been immediately transferred to ORG without any compensation . The Decree on the nationalisation of certain forests did not provide for any compensation either . Consequently , there remained many groups of persons who had been wronged by the taking away of their property and the question of compensating them remained unresolved .","The court held that section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act contained the legislature \u2019s declaration that it intended to regulate the question of indemnities , inter alia , to persons who had lost their forests . In the DATE Act the legislature had only determined that there would be no restitution in natura of , inter alia , lost forests . However , the question of indemnities remained to be determined by the legislature . The court held that section DATE CARDINAL Act could not be interpreted as a basis of a direct claim for indemnity . The provision did not specify the amount of indemnity or the applicable conditions , and in that respect the court could not substitute the legislature , who had the exclusive competence to create legal norms .","The applicants appealed . They argued , inter alia , that the firstinstance court had erroneously interpreted section CARDINAL of the DATE Act by holding that the provision could not constitute the basis of a claim for indemnity . They further maintained that the court had wrongly interpreted the same provision in conjunction with LAW and LAW by holding that the legislature had not perpetrated a legislative omission consisting of a failure to enact provisions regulating the payment of indemnities . The applicants invoked the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . PERSON , ECHR CARDINALV ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal , concurring with ORG interpretation of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act .","ORG noted that a claim ( roszczenie ) was a right , based in law , to demand that a particular person act in a specific manner . Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act did not contain sufficient normative content to consider that it established a claim in that sense . Nor did it specify the subjective and objective scope of the rights of former owners , the specific nature of the claim , the exact meaning of the term \u201c loss of property \u201d or whether indemnity should be equal to whole or part of the value of the nationalised property . Accordingly , it could not be considered that section DATE CARDINAL Act constituted a norm imposing an absolute obligation on ORG to act in a specific manner , namely to pay a specific amount of money to an individually designated subject . ORG considered that determination of the rules concerning the ORG \u2019s liability required further statutory specification of the conditions for an effective claim than that which had been stipulated in section DATE CARDINAL Act .","ORG concurred with ORG that section DATE CARDINAL Act was a declaratory provision ( przepis o charakterze blankietowym ) , reflecting the legislature \u2019s general assumptions . The provision did not specify the amount of indemnity or the eligibility conditions , and a court could not substitute the legislature in that respect . In ORG view , a certain confirmation of the ORG \u2019s liability towards former owners who had lost ownership of the properties referred to in section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , without specifying the essential elements of that liability , was devoid of any protective significance ( znaczenie gwarancyjne ) and , as such , did not have legal effect .","There was no doubt for ORG that , prior to the entry into force of section DATE CARDINAL Act , persons who had lost property pursuant to the Decree on agrarian reform or on the basis of section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Decree on the nationalisation of certain forests , had had no right to compensation in respect of the loss of their property because the abovementioned decrees did not establish that right . Nor did they establish the right to be compensated for the loss of property in any other form . Furthermore , the decrees at issue had not been declared unconstitutional . Thus , the taking of property by the ORG on the basis of the impugned decrees was not unlawful and could not be considered a tort .","The Court of Appeal further concurred with ORG that the principal purpose of the DATE Act was to prevent privatisation of the strategic resources of the country ( section CARDINAL ) and not establish claims for the loss of property .","The Court of Appeal further held that there had been no legislative omission in the applicants\u2019 case . In its view , section CARDINAL of the DATE Act did not contain even a promise of conferring a right to claim for indemnity on specific categories of subjects , including those who had lost forest land as a result of the operation of the Decree on agrarian reform . The provision was an expression of political premise , and its purpose was not to confer rights on specifically designated persons in a clear and unconditional manner . A simple declaration that a certain regulation would be enacted on an unspecified future date was not sufficient to conclude that the obligation to legislate had been breached . ORG noted that the legislature \u2019s obligation to enact a statute had to be expressed in another statute in an unequivocal manner , excluding the possibility of this being the result of judicial interpretation . Having regard to the purpose of the DATE Act , ORG noted that the legislature had had no intention of creating an obligation to enact a statute on the indemnification of persons who had lost property as a result of the nationalisation decrees . The legislature simply provided for such a possibility in a statute to be enacted on an unspecified future date .","The applicants lodged a cassation appeal . Firstly , they argued that ORG had wrongly interpreted section DATE CARDINAL Act in conjunction with section CARDINAL ) of LAW . They submitted that the CARDINAL provisions constituted the basis of ORG obligation to compensate for the loss of forest land . Secondly , they argued that the court had erroneously interpreted section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act in conjunction with LAW and LAW by holding that the legislature had not perpetrated a legislative omission .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG cassation appeal ( case no . I CSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The relevant part of ORG judgment reads :","\u201c With regard to the first of the appellants\u2019 arguments , it should be pointed out that in legal science a claim ( roszczenie ) is regarded as CARDINAL of the normative forms of a subjective right ( prawo podmiotowe ) , consisting of the possibility of demanding a specific act from a specific person . A claim is characterised , on the one hand , by the existence of an entitlement specified with regard to its content and subject and , on the other hand , by the directly assigned to it obligation of another subject . In other words , the equivalent of an entitlement is an obligation of a specific person to act in a specific manner , i.e. to undertake a specific action or to refrain from it ...","The appellants ... are aiming to demonstrate that the regulation contained in section DATE CARDINAL Act create for them , as successors of the former owner of forests ... , claims for indemnity . LAW recognises inter alia , ORG forests as the country \u2019s strategic national resources , and LAW stipulates that the national resources listed in CARDINAL and owned by ORG are not subject to change of ownership , with the exception of provisions contained in particular statutes . Section DATE CARDINAL Act stipulates that claims of natural persons , former owners or their successors , in respect of loss of ownership of the resources listed in section CARDINAL , shall be satisfied in the form of indemnities ( rekompensaty ) paid from the ORG budget on the basis of separate provisions .","As has been already noted by ORG ... it is apparent from the abovementioned CARDINAL LAW and the reasons for the relevant bill that the legislature \u2019s general premise was not to effect ( niedokonywanie ) changes of ownership in respect of the country \u2019s strategic national resources . When interpreting the purpose of LAW , it should be remembered that the relevant bill was being prepared in parallel with LAW DATE , which was [ successfully ] vetoed by the President of the Republic ....","Having regard to the commonly accepted understanding of a claim in legal science , it is necessary to agree with ORG assessment that the regulation contained in section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act does not entitle former owners or their successors to claim for indemnity in respect of loss of ownership of the resources listed in section CARDINAL of the Act ... [ The appellants ] correctly point out that CARDINAL legal provision may contain one , CARDINAL or more norms , but it may also contain only part of a norm . Such a specific relationship between a legal provision and a legal norm does not , however , result in it being possible to derive from section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act a claim for indemnity , by supplementing this legal provision , by analogy , with the regulation contained in the LAW on the realisation of the right to indemnity for property left beyond the present borders of the NORP State , which concerns an entirely different matter . The appellants have omitted to note that the legislature , while referring in section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act to the satisfying of claims of former owners or their successors , has expressly stipulated that this would be done on the basis of separate provisions , i.e. provisions which were yet to be enacted . In addition , neither the content of the former owners or their ORG entitlement nor the content of ORG ( the debtor \u2019s ) obligation was sufficiently specified in section CARDINAL of the LAW . ORG has already adopted an analogous position in this regard in its judgment of DATE ( case no . I CSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , stating that section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act does not allow for such a specification of the norm of substantive law contained in it , which would determine in detail the content of a specific addressee \u2019s entitlements and obligations . Such a position was also approved by ORG in the course of examining cassation appeals in cases concerning claims for compensation under section DATE CARDINAL Act initiated in administrative proceedings ( judgments of CARDINAL DATE , case no . I OSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , case no . I OSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; CARDINAL DATE , case no . I ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , case no . I OSK DATE ) .","The arguments drawn by the appellants from ORG rulings ... do not lead to opposite conclusions ... In the rulings referred to , ORG emphasised that the conferring of a [ right to ] claim by the legislature does not have to be formulated expressis verbis in a legal provision ; however , it is necessary to indicate [ there ] the essential elements indispensable for constructing a claim . Therefore , a claim could be derived from a given norm if it appears from its content that a specific obligation imposed on one party corresponds to an entitlement of another party to demand its implementation .","Such essential elements , allowing a claim for indemnity to be constructed , are missing from the content of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act .","With regard to the second of the appellants\u2019 arguments , it should be noted that in accordance with the resolution of ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , of CARDINAL DATE [ case no . ] III CZP CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ... , ORG is liable for damage caused by non - enactment of a normative act , when a duty to enact it arose after the entry into force of LAW . LAW in the version [ applicable ] prior to DATE ... constitutes the basis of civil liability for legislative omissions , which began after the LAW \u2019s entry into force [ CARDINAL DATE ] , but before DATE , i.e. before the entry into force of the statute amending [ LAW ] of DATE . Article CARDINAL of LAW in the current version and LAW are not applicable to a situation where the state of legislative omission arose before DATE , even if the damage caused by this omission was sustained after that date . ... A detailed regulation governing the ORG \u2019s liability for its law - making activities was only enacted in DATE of LAW , but these rules could already be considered to be relevant from the date of the LAW \u2019s entry into force , since from that moment the ORG \u2019s liability for legislative omission had been recognised .","In its resolution of DATE ( case no . III CZP CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , ORG explained that ORG civil liability for legislative omission would only arise when a normative act , whose enactment was obligatory under the law , i.e. the LAW or a statute , was not enacted . The non - enactment of a statute where another statute provides for its enactment could also be regarded as [ legislative ] omission , since the legislature can undertake in CARDINAL statute to enact another statute . However , in order to assume that the legislature made such an undertaking , and not only provided for the possibility of regulating a certain matter in another statute , the obligation to enact that statute has to be expressed in an explicit manner , excluding the possibility of it only being deduced by means of judicial interpretation ; [ such a course of action ] would have constituted an encroachment by the judiciary on the competences reserved to the legislature .","In the above - mentioned judgment of DATE ( case no . I CSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , ORG did not agree with that suggestion , emphasising that the interpretation of legal norms by the courts was one of the basic functions bestowed on the judiciary . Accordingly , it accepted that a court could assess , applying the necessary means of interpretation , whether a statute contained an explicit obligation to enact another statute . A contrary proposition ... would have amounted to approval of the legislature \u2019s method of conferring virtual entitlements on citizens , even with a premise accepted in advance that it would be impossible to realise those entitlements , while approving , at the same time , the lack of legal basis for civil liability related to damage caused by such acts of the legislature .","There is no doubt that a court of law , in carrying out its adjudicatory functions , interprets provisions of the law ; however , the issue is that this can not be a law - making interpretation . In the process of interpretation a court has to respect the principle , expressed in LAW , of separation of and balance between the legislative , executive and judicial powers on which the system of government of GPE is based . According to the adjudicating bench of ORG , it is the only manner ... of reading the assertion in the reasoning for the [ ORG ] resolution of DATE ( case no . III CZP CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) that the obligation to enact a statute has to be expressed in an explicit manner , excluding the possibility of it being deduced by means of judicial interpretation . ORG in the present composition shares the view that for liability for legislative omission to arise , it is first necessary to establish that an obligation ... to enact a normative act was formulated in an explicit and specific manner . The contrary perspective on this issue could lead to an inadmissible interference by the judiciary with the competences reserved to the legislature . ORG took the same view , inter alia , in the judgments of CARDINAL DATE , case no . III CSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ... , DATE , case no . I CSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ... and QUANTITY DATE , case no . II CSK DATE ... , and [ this view ] was also approved by legal science .","There is also agreement in legal science that a provision of the law containing an obligation to enact a normative act has to specify the essential content of such an act in such a way to allow the existence and scope of damage caused by an omission to be determined . In other words , it should be possible to establish the content of a nonenacted normative act without encroaching on the other State organs\u2019 legislative powers . A court of law can not make suppositions as to the possible content of a nonenacted normative act , being guided by its own axiological assumptions . ...","Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , prescribing that claims of former owners or their successors shall be satisfied in the form of indemnities ( rekompensata ) paid from the ORG budget on the basis of separate provisions , does not stipulate to a sufficient degree the content of the said \u201c separate provisions \u201d . The legislature did not indicate the subjective scope of the normative act , which were to prescribe the rules of indemnification , the conditions to be fulfilled by persons eligible to receive an indemnity , or the manner of determining the amount of those benefits . These shortcomings can not be DATE as asserted by the appellants DATE complemented by the application of LAW , because it is not in the court \u2019s sphere of activity to independently indicate the object and scope of what should have been found in a non - enacted normative act .","Therefore , it has to be accepted that section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act is a declaratory provision ( przepis blankietowy ) , which contains only the legislature \u2019s declaration concerning the future regulation of indemnities in a statute to be enacted later , without being bound by the date of its enactment . Accordingly , non - enactment of a normative act , referred to in this provision , does not warrant ORG liability for legislative omission ... \u201d","The applicants lodged a constitutional complaint . On CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to consider it as it had been lodged out of time . On DATE the court dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicants .","Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the Civil Code provide for the ORG \u2019s liability in tort .","In the version applicable until DATE , Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , which lays down a general rule , read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The State Treasury shall be liable for damage caused by a ORG official in the performance of the duties entrusted to him . \u201d","On DATE the Law of DATE on amendments to LAW and other statutes ( LOC o zmianie ustawy \u2013 ORG cywilny oraz niekt\u00f3rych innych ustaw CARDINAL \u201c the DATE Amendment \u201d ) entered into force . The relevant amendments were in essence aimed at enlarging the scope of ORG liability in tort under LAW of the Civil Code \u2013 including the addition of a new LAW and provision being made for the ORG \u2019s tortious liability for failure to enact legislation , a concept known as \u201c legislative omission \u201d ( zaniechanie legislacyjne ) .","Following LAW , Article DATE , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . If damage has been caused by failure to enact a law [ akt normatywny ] where there is a statutory duty to do so , the incompatibility of the failure to enact that law shall be established by the court dealing with the claim for damages . \u201d","However , under the transitional provisions of LAW , LAW as applicable before DATE applies to all events and legal situations that subsisted before that date .","The concept of the ORG \u2019s civil liability for a constitutional tort was introduced into the NORP legal order on DATE , the date of entry into force of the DATE LAW .","LAW states as follows :","\u201c Everyone shall have the right to compensation for any harm done to him by any act of a public authority in breach of the law . \u201d","On DATE ORG issued the Decree on agrarian reform . The decree provided that properties of an agricultural nature , owned or co - owned by natural or legal persons , with an area exceeding CARDINAL ha in total or CARDINAL ha of agricultural land , would be allocated for agrarian reform ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(e ) ) .","With regard to properties in the NORP , GPE or NORP regions the area was set at CARDINAL ha , regardless of the size of the agricultural property .","The decree further prescribed that properties would be transferred to ORG immediately and without any compensation .","On DATE ORG issued the Decree on the nationalisation of certain forests . The decree provided that forests and forest land , owned or co - owned by natural and legal persons , with an area exceeding CARDINAL ha , would be transferred to ORG .","In DATE the government introduced in ORG the PERSON on the restitution of immovable property and certain kinds of movable property taken from natural persons by the ORG or by GPE , and on indemnities ( projekt ustawy o reprywatyzacji nieruchomo\u015bci i niekt\u00f3rych ruchomo\u015bci TIME fizycznych przej\u0119tych przez Pa\u0144stwo lub gmin\u0119 miasta sto\u0142ecznego Warszawy oraz o rekompensatach ) .","It provided for CARDINAL forms of restitution , namely restitution in natura or indemnity in the form of securities , with regard to property that had been taken over by the ORG or by GPE by virtue of certain laws passed under the communist regime , including the Decree on agrarian reform and the Decree on the nationalisation of certain forests . The bill prescribed the eligibility conditions for restitution . It further stipulated that restitution would be equal to PERCENT of the actual value of the lost property .","The bill provoked a heated debate involving all sections of society , the media and all the political parties and factions . It was enacted by ORG on DATE . The relevant PERSON was subsequently transmitted for the President of GPE . However , exercising his right of veto , the President refused to sign it .","Ultimately , the PERSON ( first house of ORG ) failed to gather the CARDINAL majority required under LAW to override the President \u2019s veto during a vote on DATE . As a consequence , LAW did not enter into force .","Subsequent attempts to enact restitution law were unsuccessful .","The DATE Act originated from a civic bill submitted to ORG on DATE by a group of CARDINAL citizens . The PERSON passed it on DATE . It entered into force on DATE and comprises CARDINAL sections .","NORP The relevant part of LAW provides :","\u201c The country \u2019s strategic natural resources include :","...","( CARDINAL ) State forests ,",".... \u201d","Section CARDINAL provides :","\u201c The natural resources listed in LAW which constitute ORG property are not subject to change of ownership , with the exception of provisions contained in particular statutes . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provides :","\u201c Claims of natural persons , former owners or their successors , in respect of loss of ownership of the resources listed in LAW , shall be satisfied in the form of indemnities ( rekompensaty ) paid from the ORG budget on the basis of separate provisions . \u201d","The DATE Act entered into force on DATE . Under section CARDINAL , the right to indemnity ( prawo do rekompensaty ) for LOC property can be realised in CARDINAL of CARDINAL ways , to be chosen by the claimant : either by offsetting the indexed value of the original property against the sale price of ORG property acquired by means of a competitive bidding procedure , or by receiving a pecuniary benefit ( \u015bwiadczenie pieni\u0119\u017cne ) , that is to say a cash payment secured by ORG ( ORG ) . The amount of compensation available to LOC claimants is subject to a statutory ceiling of PERCENT of the current value of the original property .","A more detailed description of the relevant provisions of LAW appears in the PERSON ( friendly settlement ) judgment ( see PERSON v. GPE ( friendly settlement ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG CARDINALIX ) .","In this judgment , ORG held as follows :","\u201c ... section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , in the current formulation , does not constitute an independent legal basis for the payment of a benefit [ indemnity ] , since it refers to separate provisions , which were to prescribe which funds of the ORG budget would be used to satisfy , in the form of indemnities , claims of natural persons indicated in this provision . In section DATE CARDINAL Act , the legislature did not give statutory authorisation to ORG to adopt a regulation ... , and thus it should be accepted that the term \u201c separate provisions \u201d in section CARDINAL refers to the enactment of a statute . This statute should indicate the body ... responsible for indemnification , and specify the ORG budget \u2019s funds to be used for the payment of indemnities and other essential elements ( the amount [ of indemnity ] , the limitations and the procedure ) . The use in section DATE CARDINAL Act of the word \u201c paid \u201d with regard to indemnities presupposes that the benefit would be in a pecuniary form ...","However , the formulation of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act does not allow for such a specification of the norm of substantive law contained in it , which would determine in detail the content of a specific addressee \u2019s entitlements and obligations ... This provision is thus of a declaratory nature ( przepis blankietowy ) ... \u201d","With regard to a claim for compensation in respect of legislative omission , ORG held :","\u201c ... Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act does not contain expressis verbis an obligation to enact separate provisions , but such a conclusion does not exclude the possibility of a court \u2019s interpreting the legal norm contained in this provision to the effect that the interpreted norm contained the legislature \u2019s obligation to enact separate provisions .","It has been correctly accepted in case - law that non - enactment of a statute where another statute provides for its enactment could also be regarded as legislative omission leading to ORG civil liability ( ORG resolution of DATE , case no . III CZP CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It was stated in the reasoning of that resolution that the obligation to enact another statute had to be expressed in an explicit manner , excluding the possibility of it only being deduced by means of judicial interpretation , because this would constitute an encroachment by the judiciary on the competences reserved to the legislature . The court adjudicating in the instant case does not share that view .... The interpretation of legal norms by the courts is CARDINAL of the basic functions bestowed on the judiciary , and it does not constitute an encroachment by [ it ] on the competences reserved to the legislature ... \u201d","ORG noted that the textual interpretation of section CARDINAL of the DATE Act resulted in the finding that this provision did not expressly contain the legislature \u2019s obligation to enact separate provisions . It held , in this regard , as follows :","\u201c Sole reliance on the textual interpretation of section CARDINAL of the DATE Act leads to the conclusion that this provision does not unequivocally oblige the legislature to enact separate provisions . However , if the result of the textual interpretation is obviously irrational or unsustainable , it is not possible to stop [ the analysis ] at such a result . In a situation like the CARDINAL at hand , it is necessary to have recourse to other methods of interpretation . It would be difficult to accept the impugned result of the textual interpretation ( i.e. a lack of obligation to enact separate provisions ) , since this would mean that the legislature bestows on specific natural persons a subjective right consisting of an unequivocal conferment of claims , which would be satisfied in the form of paid indemnities , and at the same time prevents the entitled claimants from asserting those claims as a result of its failure to enact separate provisions , a legislative omission which would not result in any civil law sanction , not least in the form of civil liability of ORG ...","In this situation it is necessary to have recourse to a functional and teleological interpretation . Since the legislature \u2019s purpose was to satisfy , in the form of indemnities , claims of specific natural persons in respect [ of the events ] indicated in section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , while the procedure for the payment of indemnities was to be regulated in separate provisions , then it should be held that the enactment of these separate provisions was the legislature \u2019s obligation stipulated in section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ...","A contrary proposition would lead to the acceptance of an absurd conclusion that the legislature can confer rights in a statute , with a premise accepted in advance that those rights can not be realised by the addressees as a result of the legislature \u2019s inaction , and this [ inaction ] would not then lead to any sanctions , and in particular [ to ] civil liability . \u201d","In its resolution of DATE , ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , dealt with the following legal questions submitted to it by ORG on DATE :","\u201c CARDINAL . Does section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act constitute the basis of the subjective right conferred on natural persons , who are referred to in this provision ?","NORP and , if so , does the situation of awarding satisfaction , in the form of indemnification , in respect of claims of specified natural persons in respect [ of the events ] indicated in section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , while at the same time leaving the questions of procedure for the payment of indemnities and the determination of their amount to be regulated in separate provisions , give rise to the legislature \u2019s obligation to enact separate provisions , and , in consequence \u2013 does their non - enactment amount to legislative omission ? \u201d","ORG adopted the following resolution :","\u201c Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act does not constitute the basis of the subjective right for natural persons specified in this provision or for the obligation to enact separate provisions , referred to in this provision . \u201d","The resolution \u2019s reasoning , in so far as relevant , reads :","\u201c The analysis of section CARDINAL of the DATE Act ... warrants the conclusion that it does not comprise all necessary elements for the creation of a subjective right in the form of a claim . This provision indicates precisely the subject of an obligation , i.e. ORG , but does not prescribe the addressees of an entitlement . Prima facie , it seems that section CARDINAL expressly prescribes that a possible [ right to ] claim for indemnity was conferred on the persons referred to in this provision , i.e. natural persons , former owners , or their successors , of resources comprising lost ORG forests . However , the legislature did not specify more precisely the category of entitled persons , in particular , by stipulating whether it concerns all owners of the forests and their successors , which , regardless of the moment in time , of the legal basis and other circumstances ( e.g. the size of the property , the nationality of the owners , etc . ) were transferred to the ORG . It was not specified whether it concerns an unlawful or lawful taking of these resources , and then , in respect of the latter category of persons , this provision would be of a quasi - restitution nature .","The concept of a claim ... concerns a situation in which a norm , arising from binding legal provisions , confers on an entitled subject the right to demand a specific act from the obliged subject , [ which is ] secured by the possibility of it being enforced . Consequently , it should be accepted that the concept of a claim of natural persons , former owners , or their successors , in respect of loss of the resources listed in section CARDINAL [ of the CARDINAL Act ] could only encompass only those , who , on the date of the statute \u2019s entry into force , had the right to claim in respect of the loss of those resources . This means that , in fact , this provision merely changes the content of previous claims of former owners or their successors , in that it replaces the previous compensation claims against ORG by a claim for indemnity . However , such a purpose of the regulation should be excluded , since LAW was enacted at a time when [ ORG ] was working in parallel on LAW . The beneficiaries of the indemnity referred to in section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act were to be persons , who in the period preceding the enactment of LAW , asserted their restitution demands vis - \u00e0 - vis ORG in respect of the ORG \u2019s taking away \u2013 including by lawful means \u2013 of forests , [ demands ] which could not have been satisfied in the framework of the existing provisions . The term \u201c claim \u201d employed in section DATE CARDINAL Act does not then fully correspond to the accepted meaning of that term , because it comprises in fact , without further specification , a category of natural persons asserting vis - \u00e0 - vis the legislature their demands in respect of loss of ownership of the resources prescribed in section CARDINAL [ of LAW ] , and not persons who were conferred specific claims by the legal system subsisting previously .","Moreover , section CARDINAL of the DATE Act simply prescribes that a claim comprises a benefit in a pecuniary form \u2013 an indemnity DATE which was to be paid from the ORG budget ; however , the scope of this benefit has not been further specified . LAW does not contain a definition of the term \u201c indemnity \u201d ( rekompensata ) , it only determines that it is a pecuniary benefit . LAW does not define this term either . Its analysis in the previous regulations concerning indemnities \u2013 included in ... LAW DATE Act on the realisation of the right to indemnity for property left beyond the present borders of the NORP State \u2013 leads to the conclusion that the legislature , in conferring a subjective right of this kind , does so in a comprehensive manner , specifying precisely not only the category of entitled persons , but also the amount of indemnity due . With regard to this kind of benefits , the legislature had further prescribed a particular procedure for determining eligibility for indemnities , fixed their amount , [ as well as set ] time - limits for bringing claims , payment of indemnities , the statute of limitations and the extinguishment of such claims , and established a specific indemnity fund . An indemnity represented a fraction , determined arbitrarily by the legislature , of the full compensation . Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act does not comprise any of these elements .","[ Legislative omission : ]","The essence of the legal issue comes down , however , to ascertaining whether , despite these gaps in the construction of a claim , it could be considered that section DATE establishes a subjective right , in assuming that this provision also establishes the legislature \u2019s obligation to enact separate provisions complementing the missing elements of the subjective right in issue . In such cases , a failure by the legislature to execute this obligation could give rise to ORG liability for legislative omission , since it was accepted in ORG case - law that enactment of incomplete or fragmentary [ legislative ] solutions could give rise to a finding of legislative omission .... Where [ the legislature ] creates a subjective right with deficient characteristics , civil liability for legislative omission becomes a form of protecting this right , which can not be fully or at all realised .","The ORG \u2019s civil liability for legislative omission DATE both on the basis of the currently applicable LAW and , on the basis of LAW of the [ Civil Code ] in conjunction with LAW ... applicable to the case in issue \u2013 can arise where there is a specific obligation to enact a normative act under [ the legal ] provisions . In such a case , it is also required that a legal provision imposing an obligation to enact an appropriate regulation indicated a certain minimal content of the subjective right , and in particular , persons entitled to bring a claim and persons obliged to execute a deed constituting the content of a claim , as well as its scope . The textual and logical interpretation of LAW does not lead to the conclusion that this provision comprised an obligation to enact specific provisions concerning indemnities since it employed a formulation that claims of natural persons referred to in it were to be \u201c satisfied in the form of indemnities paid from the ORG budget on the basis of separate provisions \u201d . This provision does not contain either a statutory authorisation to enact appropriate executive regulations prescribing the scope of that regulation .","ORG case - law admitted the possibility of the ORG \u2019s civil liability for legislative omission consisting of a failure to enact a statute where another statute provided for an obligation to this effect ( resolution of DATE , case no . III CZP CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ...","[ With regard to the obligation to enact a specific statute ] ... It can not be accepted that such a situation arose with regard to an obligation to enact separate provisions , which are referred to in section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act . As ORG held in its judgments of DATE ( I ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ... and I PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and I CSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , an interpretation in this context can not be a law - making interpretation , since it has to respect the principle , expressed in LAW , of separation of and balance between the legislative , executive and judicial powers on which the system of government of GPE is based ... In cases concerning compensation for legislative omission the courts can not ascertain the content of non - enacted provisions ; in order to accept the existence of a legislative obligation whose nonexecution would result in the ORG \u2019s civil liability , it is necessary that the provision imposing an obligation to enact another legal regulation indicated its minimal content with such a degree to allow the scope of the ORG \u2019s obligation to compensate to be determined . Such a situation does not arise in respect of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , this provision stipulating that only separate provisions enacted at a future date were to determine the content of the subjective right in the form of a claim for indemnity .","The possibility of ascertaining the existence of an obligation to enact a normative act was also accepted in ORG case - law , where such an obligation has not been formulated expressis verbis in the [ legal ] provisions , and where the rights of individuals \u2013 conferred in a self - evident and unconditional manner \u2013 could not be realised as a result of a failure to enact an appropriate normative act ... However , even in such cases provisions conferring those rights have to prescribe the essential characteristics of the latter . The acceptance of the ORG \u2019s hypothetical legislative omission DATE concerning subjective rights with an undefined content or an unclearly determined category of entitled persons DATE would result in the ORG \u2019s civil liability in respect of legislative omission also being illusory . The courts could not decide who was entitled to bring a claim for compensation or about the amount without entering into the law - making role . It should be remembered in this context that the rules concerning civil liability , including for legislative omission , serve to protect the existing subjective rights , and are not the basis for creating these rights or specifying their scope . From this standpoint too , section DATE CARDINAL Act does not prescribe in a sufficient manner the content of a subjective right in the form of a claim , in particular with regard to the category of entitled persons and the amount of compensation .","The foregoing considerations warrant the conclusion that section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act does not contain a legal norm giving rise to specific rights or obligations comprising the content of a subjective right in the form of a claim , nor does it contain a norm imposing an obligation to enact provisions , referred to in it , concerning indemnities . Therefore , it should be concurred that this provision is of a declaratory nature , it solely contains a proclamation of the legislature \u2019s intention as to the means of satisfying in the future , on the basis of separate provisions , claims asserted against ORG by owners ( natural persons ) of forests or their successors in respect of loss of ownership ... It should also be remembered that the provisions of LAW originated from a civic bill ( projekt obywatelski ) , which was debated [ in ORG ] in parallel with LAW , and the latter were to prescribe the right to indemnity characterised as a subjective right in the form of a claim . LAW alone , without LAW Bill \u2013 as evidenced by the analysis of the legislative process DATE was not to give rise to any financial obligations [ for the ORG ] or to determine solutions concerning indemnities . The purpose of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL LAW was only to express the legislature \u2019s intention that the future realisation of restitution demands of former owners or their successors , accomplished on the basis of separate provisions , took the form of indemnities , and so that it was carried out while preserving the resources prescribed in section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL LAW , without effecting changes of ownership , as stated in LAW CARDINAL of the same Act ... The object of the regulation in the DATE Act also points out to a limited meaning of the provision in issue ... \u201d","In this judgment , ORG held as follows :","\u201c The content of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act does not comprise formulations which could be regarded as grounds for the claimant \u2019s claim for indemnity in respect of forest land taken over by ORG . ... The textual , logical and systemic interpretation of section DATE CARDINAL Act leads to the conclusion that this provision does not confer a subjective right on the relevant persons , from which it would result an entitlement to demand from ORG a specific act and the possibility of enforcing it . There is no regulation in LAW on the right to indemnity . The formulations employed in section DATE CARDINAL Act are of a declaratory nature , since the claims referred to in it should be satisfied in the future , as is evidenced by the phrase \u201c shall be satisfied \u201d , and the form of satisfying them ( those claims ) are indemnities \u201c to be paid \u201d from the ORG budget , and the basis for their payment will be in separate provisions . Therefore , the term \u201c claims \u201d employed in this provision , can not be equated with a \u201c claim \u201d as understood in the civil law . It should be pointed out that the purpose of LAW , as evidenced by the reasons for the bill , was to guarantee stability of ownership with regard to the country \u2019s strategic natural resources . In parallel with this LAW , a restitution bill was being prepared , the latter being prompted by the restitution demands of persons who lost their property in the process of nationalisation , including the property referred to in section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL LAW ; [ it ] was to prescribe the right to indemnity . However , LAW has not been enacted . It can not be concluded that section CARDINAL of the DATE Act concerns solely the claims of those persons who asserted them prior to the enactment of the CARDINAL Act ; LAW does not properly indicate the category of eligible persons . There are no grounds to equate indemnity with compensation ...","There is reference in section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act to future indemnification , but the indemnity is not specified with regard to an eligible subject , its nature or the amount . The plaintiff \u2019s claim concerns compensation for damage caused by legislative omission , and thus the failure to have a claim due to her satisfied . Therefore , the lack of necessary elements of a claim in section CARDINAL of the DATE Act can not be supplemented with reference to the amount of a benefit ( indemnity ) , if a [ right to ] claim has not been conferred , regardless of the possibility that a court would determine the scope of indemnity on the basis of the rules laid down in LAW and regardless of the defendant \u2019s obligation to compensate ...","The content of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , analysed in accordance with the rules of textual , logical and systemic interpretation leads to the conclusion that it does not contain an obligation to enact specific provisions concerning indemnities , the eligible subjects and the entity responsible for indemnification . It ( section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ) does not indicate the subjective scope of the future normative act , which was to prescribe the rules of indemnification , the criteria to be fulfilled by the eligible persons and the means of determining the amount of benefits . It is not feasible that these deficiencies would be fulfilled in by a court alone ... It should be emphasised that the rules of civil liability , including for legislative omission , were a means of protecting the existing subjective rights , and not the source of their creation . \u201d","With regard to the plaintiff \u2019s argument based on LAW No . CARDINAL , ORG referred to the meaning of \u201c possessions \u201d in this provision , as established , inter alia , in PERSON v. GPE judgment . In this connection it held as follows :","\u201c The interpretation of the law should respect the protection of an individual \u2019s interests ensured by the domestic law as well as by the Convention and the ORG law . The appellant is not right [ in saying ] that the interpretation of section DATE CARDINAL Act and Article CARDINAL of LAW in conjunction with LAW does not respect the protection of property as provided by these regulations and the relevant case - law . Her allegation in this regard comes from an unfounded assertion that the plaintiff was conferred [ a right to ] claim by LAW , from which also results a further obligation to enact a legal regulation ... A direct reliance on LAW No . CARDINAL and its interpretation in the case - law of ORG was not justified , since the plaintiff did not demonstrate that a [ right to ] claim asserted in the proceedings had been conferred on her . \u201d","In its final decision on the admissibility of a constitutional complaint , ORG , sitting as a full bench , held in so far as relevant :","\u201c The situation in issue is that the legislature had the intention of comprehensively regulating ( in LAW ) the question of indemnities for property lost under the previous regime , but this has never been done . LAW was enacted , but after the President exercised his right to veto it , the PERSON did not pass the Restitution Bill again by the majority required under LAW . It should then be stated that it was not the President \u2019s action , but the lack of required majority in the PERSON for LAW to be subsequently passed , which determined that the PERSON did not enter into force .","However , section CARDINAL of the DATE Act remained in the legal system , and this provision , according to the claimant , constitutes the basis of a subjective right , conferred by the legislature , to satisfy the claims of former owners of land referred to in LAW or their legal successors in the form of pecuniary indemnity ...","ORG ... relied on the textual , systemic and teleological interpretation of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act . [ It ] shares the view expressed in the ORG case - law that a regulation of claims for indemnity for forest land and other natural resources taken over by ORG does not result from the impugned provision ( cf . the resolution of ORG of DATE , case no . III CZP CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; ORG judgments of DATE , case no . I CSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , case no . I CSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , case no . I ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and ORG judgments of DATE , case no . I OSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , case no . I OSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , case no . I ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and DATE , case no . I OSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ...","... it should also be taken into account that this provision ( section CARDINAL ) is an element of the LAW , whose purpose is to guarantee stability of ownership with regard to the country \u2019s strategic natural resources ( section CARDINAL ) ... . The purpose of the CARDINAL LAW was not to comprehensively regulate the question of compensation for lost natural resources , including for forest land . It follows that the interpretation of the impugned provision ( section CARDINAL ) should be made in the context of the purpose of the CARDINAL LAW and not in isolation from this purpose .","In ORG assessment , the teleological interpretation of section DATE Act leads to the conclusion that the formulation employed in it , [ that ] \u2018 claims ... shall be satisfied in the form of indemnities [ to be ] paid from the ORG budget on the basis of separate provisions\u2019 , should be read in the light of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act as a prohibition on non - pecuniary forms of compensation ( including restitution in natura ) . Such an interpretation was also confirmed in ORG case - law ....","The textual , logical and systemic interpretation thus leads to the conclusion that the impugned provision ( section CARDINAL ) does not regulate the question of claims for indemnity in respect of forest land and other natural resources taken over by ORG ...","The key issue requiring explanation is , as challenged by the complainant , the lack of normative content in section CARDINAL of the DATE Act which would create an obligation for the legislature to enact separate provisions enabling the realisation of the right to indemnity ... ORG interpretation of section CARDINAL of the DATE Act leads to the conclusion that the legislature did not regulate in it the entitlement to satisfy the claims of former owners . The legislature did not regulate in the challenged Act in a comprehensive , or even partial , manner the issue of indemnities for natural resources , including forest land , taken over by the ORG , in a way compatible with constitutional requirements . The construction of this provision leads to the acceptance that the legislature left the issue of indemnities to be regulated but has never done so ...","In a situation where section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act does not constitute the basis of the right to indemnity , there is no issue of statutory omission ( pomini\u0119cie legislacyjne ) consisting of a failure to include in this provision an obligation to enact separate provisions enabling the realisation of this entitlement . This conclusion simply confirms that the legislature deliberately omitted to regulate the question of indemnities for natural resources ... taken over by the ORG .","The Constitutional Court finds that a judgment in line with the claimant \u2019s assertion would oblige the legislature to enact a restitution statute . This , however , is inadmissible , in the light of ORG case - law and LAW itself ... ORG , as a negative legislator , can not \u201c supplement \u201d the law by regulations sought by a complainant . ... The question of restitution claims thus requires the enactment of a comprehensive statutory regulation ...","In its decision [ of DATE ] in the case no . P DATE , ORG ... held that \u2018 there is no formal basis for restitution in LAW . LAW , in its ethical aspect , rejects the axiology and practices of ORG , as is evidenced by a passage from its preamble ( \u201c Mindful of the bitter experiences of the times when fundamental freedoms and human rights were violated in our GPE ) , but approves the evolutionary continuity of the post - war legal order and has no retroactive effect\u2019 ...","... ORG , sitting as a full bench , upheld the approach adopted in a resolution DATE and held that \u2018 also under LAW of DATE the scope and forms of restitution are \u201c a controversial issue and [ the ] solution depends to a large extent on political decisions \u201d . Decisions of this kind definitely go beyond ORG competences . This approach is compatible with the views expressed in earlier judgments , given under LAW , in which ORG disagreed with treating the constitutional provisions as a remedy for the legislature \u2019s inaction , which would be aimed at the redressing of injustices resulting from ORG , It further held that the redressing of these injustices was possible only by the legislature \u2019s action ( cf . judgment of DATE , case no . ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . \u201d","In a number of cases , the interested persons applied to the Minister of ORG to be indemnified in respect of the loss of forests , relying on section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act . The Minister refused to consider their applications and those decisions were subsequently challenged before the administrative courts .","ORG held , in a number of judgments , that claims under section CARDINAL of the DATE Act could not be pursued in administrative proceedings . It held , inter alia , that no subjective right , capable of being pursued in administrative proceedings , could be derived from section DATE CARDINAL Act . Furthermore , the court held that section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act was a declaratory provision and did not establish a legal relationship ( cf . judgments of CARDINAL DATE , case no . I OSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; of CARDINAL DATE , case no . I OSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; of CARDINAL DATE , case no . I ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; and of CARDINAL DATE , case no . I OSK DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180481","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF RADCHENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Free legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment .","NORP In DATE violent robberies were committed at CARDINAL scrap metal collection points in ORG . CARDINAL employee was shot dead . In the course of the investigation , the police organised an ambush , which led to the applicant and his acquaintance , PERSON , being arrested . As established by the domestic courts , before his arrest the applicant had pointed a gun at a police officer , who had knocked it out of his hands using a martial arts technique . The gun had been loaded and had had its safety catch released .","On an unspecified date the applicant had free legal counsel appointed for him for the pre - trial investigation and the proceedings before the firstinstance court .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a court of first instance , found the applicant guilty of the illegal handling of arms , robbery with violence , intentional murder for profit and an attempt on the life of a law - enforcement officer . It relied , inter alia , on the statements of several eyewitnesses who had recognised the applicant . Having regard to the fact that the applicant had previously been convicted of the intentional infliction of fatal injuries and that he had committed the crimes at issue while on probation following release in DATE , the court sentenced him to life imprisonment .","The applicant , who was no longer legally represented , appealed in cassation . He complained , in particular , about the absence of free legal assistance at that stage of the proceedings . The applicant contended that the first - instance court had erred in its assessment of the facts of the case and their legal classification .","On DATE , following a hearing with the participation of Mr NORP ( the other defendant ) and his lawyer , as well as the prosecutor , but without the applicant or any representative from his side , ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the applicant , who was not aware of the above ruling , requested that ORG ensure his presence at its hearing .","On DATE a copy of ORG ruling of CARDINAL DATE was sent to the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172661","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF HUSEYNOVA v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Mr PERSON , the applicant \u2019s husband , was a prominent independent journalist in GPE . At the time of the events he worked as the editor - in - chief of the DATE magazine ORG , which was strongly critical of the Government as well as the opposition . He had also been the owner of the magazine since DATE and wrote analytical and investigative articles for each edition under his own name .","Various civil and criminal proceedings had been brought against PERSON PERSON since the beginning of his journalistic activity for the publication of critical articles about the President of GPE and members of his family , and about members of the parliament , Government and other ORG officials . In total , CARDINAL proceedings were instituted against him by various public officials . Moreover , copies of the magazine had been confiscated on several occasions and the domestic authorities sometimes prevented its publication .","According to the applicant , her husband regularly received threats because of his critical articles . In particular , in DATE a police officer had threatened him with death and told him to stop writing about the President and his family .","At TIME on DATE , Mr PERSON was shot dead on the third floor of his apartment building as he returned home from work .","Mr PERSON \u2019s murder received wide local and international media coverage and was unanimously condemned by various politicians , international organisations , and local and international NGOs .","NORP On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted under Articles CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( murder ) and CARDINAL ( illegal possession of weapons ) of LAW by ORG ( \u201c the SCD \u201d ) of ORG .","On DATE a record relating to the inspection of the scene of the crime and the examination of the body ( hadis\u0259 yerin\u0259 v\u0259 meyit\u0259 bax\u0131\u015f ke\u00e7irilm\u0259si haqq\u0131nda protokol ) was drawn up . It appears from the record that CARDINAL bullet and CARDINAL cartridges were found at the crime scene and that CARDINAL bullets were removed from the body .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the case ordered a post - mortem examination of the body , which was carried out on DATE . Report no . CARDINAL dated DATE showed that death had resulted from bleeding caused by gunshot wounds . The expert also found that death was likely to have occurred TIME after the injuries had been sustained .","On DATE a pistol with a silencer and a knitted hat were found near the crime scene . On DATE the investigator ordered forensic medical , ballistic and chemical trace examinations of the pistol and silencer , the bullets , the cartridges , the victim \u2019s hair and nails , and the clothes that he had been wearing on DATE . Report no . CARDINAL , dated DATE , concluded that the pistol in question was a ORG pistol that had been produced in DATE in GPE and that it had been used in the murder .","Still on DATE the investigator asked a telecommunications company to provide details on any mobile telephones that had been used near the scene of the crime between TIME and TIME on DATE .","On DATE ORG , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) issued a joint statement officially informing the public of the institution of criminal proceedings in connection with the murder of the applicant \u2019s husband .","On DATE the crime scene was again inspected by the investigator .","On DATE the investigator questioned the applicant as a witness in connection with her husband \u2019s murder . She stated that she had not seen the killer , but that from DATE a person , who had introduced himself as PERSON , had come to their flat on several occasions and asked for a meeting with her husband . He had always arrived when her husband had been absent and had asked various questions about his whereabouts and working hours . The applicant further stated that she could not say who had murdered her husband , but she was sure that he had been murdered because of his journalistic activity .","On DATE a photofit picture of the person who had introduced himself as PERSON was compiled on the basis of the applicant \u2019s statements .","On DATE the investigator arranged an identity parade in the presence of the applicant . However , she could not identify the man who had called himself Vusal among the people who took part in the identity parade .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .","Further to various requests sent in DATE to the NORP authorities concerning the pistol found at the crime scene , the NORP authorities confirmed that the pistol in question had been produced in GPE as a gas pistol and had then been exported to GPE on the basis of a contract with a NORP company . It further appears from a letter , dated DATE and signed by the NORP Deputy Minister of ORG , that there was no record on the buyer of the pistol after its import to GPE because NORP legislation did not provide for such records for the buying and selling of gas pistols .","In the meantime , the prosecuting authorities identified CARDINAL mobile telephone numbers which had allegedly been used by the perpetrators of the murder . On DATE T.B. , an NORP national , was charged under LAW ( use of false documents ) as he had purchased the mobile telephone numbers in a mobile telephone shop in GPE by giving false information about his identity . During questioning , PERSON stated that on DATE he had bought the numbers at the request of GPE and ORG , who had asked him to obtain a telephone number registered in someone else \u2019s name . He further stated that he knew the men from GPE where he was born and they had told him that they were in GPE on business . It appears from the documents in the case file that in DATE ORG found PERSON guilty under LAW and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the Prosecutor General reclassified the criminal case under Articles CARDINAL ( acts of terror ) and CARDINAL ( illegal possession of weapons ) of LAW and decided to hand the investigation over to the MNS .","On DATE the investigator in the case showed the applicant CARDINAL photographs in order to try to identify the person who had introduced himself as PERSON . The applicant identified the individual in photograph no . CARDINAL as that person .","On DATE the investigator charged GPE , a NORP national , under the aforementioned ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL and issued a warrant for his arrest . It appears from the investigator \u2019s decision that GPE was suspected of being involved in the murder and had been identified as the person calling himself PERSON .","On DATE ORG , the ORG and the ORG issued a joint statement that GPE had been identified as the person involved in the murder . The statement also noted that GPE had left the country immediately after the murder and that an arrest warrant had been issued . It also indicated that GPE had been identified by the applicant as the person who had introduced himself as PERSON before the murder . Lastly , the statement pointed out that the investigation was being carried out in collaboration with ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and GPE \u2019s ORG .","It appears from the case file that on CARDINAL DATE the investigator questioned GPE \u2019s sister and son , who resided in GPE .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the investigator ordered a new ballistic and chemical examination of the pistol and silencer found at the scene of the crime . The investigator noted that although the examination of DATE had concluded that the pistol was a ORG firearm produced in DATE in GPE , the material collected during the investigation had revealed that the pistol had not been produced as a regular firearm but as a gas pistol that had subsequently been modified . On DATE a panel composed of CARDINAL experts issued report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the new ballistic and chemical examination of the pistol and the silencer . The experts reiterated the findings of DATE report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , concluding that the pistol had been produced as a firearm and had not been modified .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigator questioned the applicant about a suspicious person that she had seen in their building in DATE .","On DATE ORG , the ORG and the ORG issued a new statement , informing the public that ORG , a NORP national , had been identified as another suspect . The statement said that a warrant for his arrest had been issued .","It appears from a letter dated DATE , signed by the head of ORG of ORG , that notices relating to GPE and ORG had gone out via ORG .","The case file shows that in DATE and DATE the investigating authorities submitted hair samples to the ORG for a trace evidence examination . They were taken from the hat found near the scene of the crime and from pillowcases found in the flat that GPE and ORG had rented in GPE . The results of the examination revealed that some fibres found on the hat and pillowcases had the same microscopic characteristics and optical properties , consistent with them having come from the same source .","On DATE the applicant wrote to the ORG asking for information concerning the progress of the investigation . In particular , she noted that although she had been recognised as a victim , the investigating authorities had failed to share any information on the investigation with her .","It can be seen in a document dated DATE , signed by the investigator , that he informed the applicant by telephone about the investigation . In particular , he informed her that various investigative actions had been conducted , that GPE and ORG had been identified as the perpetrators of the murder , that an international warrant for their arrest had been issued and that some forensic examinations had been carried out by the ORG .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and the MNS issued joint statements on the forensic examinations carried out in GPE . They stated that the results of the examinations had confirmed that GPE and ORG were directly involved in the murder .","In the meantime , on DATE and DATE the NORP authorities asked the NORP authorities to extradite GPE and ORG","By a letter of DATE , signed by ORG , the NORP authorities refused to extradite GPE and ORG on the grounds that as they were NORP nationals they could not be extradited to a foreign country . However , relying on ORG of DATE and the LAW between GPE and GPE on ORG relations in ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , the Deputy Prosecutor General stated in the same letter that the NORP authorities undertook to institute criminal proceedings against its CARDINAL nationals at the request of the NORP authorities in case of the transfer of the criminal case to the NORP authorities .","NORP By CARDINAL separate letters , dated DATE , ORG again asked his NORP counterpart for the arrest and extradition of GPE and T.A. The Prosecutor General also asked the NORP authorities to provide legal assistance to the NORP authorities by allowing CARDINAL NORP investigators to conduct investigative actions on NORP soil .","In DATE and DATE the NORP authorities conducted various investigative actions at the request of their NORP counterparts . In particular , on DATE CARDINAL flats in GPE were searched and various people were questioned in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted in GPE .","On DATE the investigator showed various photographs to the applicant for identification . Although the applicant stated that she had seen CARDINAL of the people on the photographs somewhere before , she could not remember more details about them .","On DATE and DATE the investigator questioned the applicant about her neighbours and the clothes worn by the man who called himself PERSON .","On DATE the applicant again wrote to the ORG , asking for an effective investigation into the murder of her husband . She further asked the investigating authorities to provide her with information about the progress of the investigation .","On DATE and DATE the investigator ordered further ballistic and trace evidence examinations , in particular asking the experts to compare the pistol found at the scene of the crime with another pistol found in a different murder case . The experts\u2019 reports , dated DATE and DATE , concluded that the pistol found at the scene of the murder of the applicant \u2019s husband had not been used in the commission of the other murder .","According to the applicant , she was threatened after her husband \u2019s murder because she said that the domestic authorities had been involved . On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant left GPE for GPE , where she was granted asylum .","On DATE the investigator questioned a cousin of GPE who resided in GPE .","On DATE the investigator again questioned the sister of GPE who resided in GPE .","DATE . On DATE the investigator carried out a reconstruction of the murder . In particular , the investigator retraced the path the applicant \u2019s husband had taken from his workplace to where he had been murdered .","In DATE and DATE , in DATE , DATE and DATE and in DATE the NORP authorities conducted various investigative actions at the request of their NORP counterparts . In particular , by a letter of DATE ORG informed the NORP authorities that the NORP prosecuting authorities had questioned ORG , who had used his right to remain silent . In that connection , it appears from the record of the questioning , which took place on DATE , that ORG invoked his right to remain silent , stated that he did not consider himself guilty and that he had no confidence in the investigation conducted by the NORP authorities . The NORP prosecuting authorities also informed their NORP counterparts by the same letter that they could not conduct any investigative actions in respect of GPE as it had not been possible to establish his whereabouts .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s NORP lawyer asked the MNS to provide the applicant with information about the progress of the investigation . In particular , the lawyer pointed out that although DATE had elapsed since the institution of criminal proceedings , the applicant had still not been informed about the progress of the investigation or the decisions that had been taken . He further asked the investigating authorities to allow the applicant to familiarise herself with the criminal case file and to provide her with copies of the relevant documents .","By a letter of DATE , signed by the head of the investigation department of the ORG , the ORG informed the lawyer that the applicant had been informed orally about the progress of the investigation . It was further stated that in accordance with LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the applicant had the right to familiarise herself with the case file and obtain copies of documents only when the preliminary investigation was over . The letter also said that the NORP authorities had asked the NORP authorities to extradite the murderers and were continuing to take the necessary steps to achieve that goal . Lastly , it was noted that members of the investigative group had been sent to GPE several times and that the investigation was ongoing .","On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) about the whereabouts of GPE and ORG It appears from the record of the questioning that PERSON stated that he had not seen them since his release from detention on DATE and that he had no information about their whereabouts .","By a letter dated DATE ORG of ORG informed the head of the investigation department of the ORG that GPE and ORG were not registered as being in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s NORP lawyer and ORG wrote to ORG and the ORG asking for the documents relating to the criminal investigation of the murder of the applicant \u2019s husband .","By a letter of DATE the ORG informed the applicant \u2019s NORP lawyer that as he was not a member of ORG and had failed to submit a notarised power of attorney , he could not obtain copies of the documents . Relying on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , the letter also stated that a victim or his or her representative could only have access to a case file and the relevant documents following the termination of the preliminary investigation . The letter also informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that the criminal investigation was still ongoing .","On DATE the applicant herself wrote to the ORG , reiterating her previous requests . In particular , she asked the investigating authorities to provide her with the documents relating to the investigation , to inform her of the progress of the investigation and of the date when the investigation would end .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed the applicant that her request for access to the case file had been examined . However , in accordance with LAW and CARDINAL of LAW a victim or her representative could only have access to the case file and the relevant documents after the termination of the preliminary investigation . The letter , which was CARDINAL pages long , contained a detailed summary of the investigative steps conducted from the institution of criminal proceedings until DATE . It stated that the investigation had identified GPE and ORG as the perpetrators of the murder and that any information received relating to the possible involvement of various people in the crime had been examined . In that connection , the letter referred to allegations submitted to the investigating authority in DATE and DATE by people arrested in connection with other criminal cases , as well as information revealed by various journalists and NGO activists in DATE and DATE about the identity of GPE and ORG However , the investigation had not substantiated any of those allegations . The letter also stated that the preliminary investigation was still ongoing and had been extended until DATE .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG in GPE informed the head of the investigation department of the ORG that ORG was living in GPE in GPE . However , his extradition had been refused by the NORP authorities on the grounds that he was a NORP national . The information was based on a letter dated DATE from ORG of ORG to ORG of ORG .","At the time of the most recent communication with the parties on CARDINAL DATE , when the last observations were filed by ORG , the criminal proceedings were still ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177414","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CHERNOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140785","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF TALI v. ESTONIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is serving a life sentence in prison .","According to an extract from the register of convictions provided by the ORG , the applicant had CARDINAL criminal convictions and CARDINAL misdemeanour punishment on record . He was serving a life sentence on the basis of his conviction in DATE for the murder of CARDINAL people and attempted manslaughter of another person . Furthermore , he had several convictions for attacking prison officers and other prisoners . In addition , a large number of disciplinary punishments had been imposed on him in prison , including for disobeying orders of and threatening prison officers . In the individual action plans ( kinnipeetava individuaalne t\u00e4itmiskava ) drawn up in FAC and in FAC , the applicant was characterised as a dangerous person lacking in self - control and capable of physically attacking others .","On DATE the applicant was informed by prison guard ORG that he would be transferred to a punishment cell in the evening in order to serve a disciplinary punishment . The applicant was dissatisfied , as he had been led to understand that he would not have to serve the punishment in question until the resolution by the Chancellor of Justice ( \u00d5iguskantsler ) of his complaint related to the matter . He said that he would not gather his belongings until he could clarify the situation with a security officer . PERSON told him that if he continued to object to going to the punishment cell , he would be taken there by force . The applicant replied that he would defend himself if unlawfully attacked .","At TIME , together with CARDINAL further guards , GPE and ORG , went to the applicant \u2019s cell . ORG had a plastic shield and GPE and ORG wore flak jackets and helmets . PERSON moved towards the applicant , keeping the shield in front of him . GPE and ORG followed him .","According to the applicant , PERSON came up to him and pressed the shield into his chest while the CARDINAL other guards added pressure from behind . The applicant tried to push back against the shield , while GPE and ORG tried to grab his hands . Then ORG let the shield fall and tried to grab the applicant \u2019s neck . The guards twisted his arms behind his back and ordered him to lie down on the floor . The applicant was brought down and PERSON pressed his neck so strongly that he lost his breath . According to the applicant , PERSON pinched his nose with his fingers , covered his mouth with his palm , pressed his knee into his neck and poked him in the eyes with CARDINAL fingers . While on the floor , the applicant was handcuffed and kicked in the ribs so hard that he felt his left rib cracking . He was then raised up and escorted to the punishment cell . In the corridor the applicant lost his breath , cried that he could not breathe and asked for permission to straighten up but the guards pressed him down and continued on their way .","According to the prison guards , the applicant attempted to hit them and had a scuffle with ORG , in the course of which the latter sustained minor injuries . They denied having kicked or strangled the applicant and submitted that he had subsequently threatened to kill them CARDINAL by CARDINAL .","In the punishment cell , CARDINAL nurses came to examine the applicant . They suspected a broken rib and told him to lie still until an X - ray image was taken ( for the medical evidence in the case , see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL below ) . A guard told them that a medical certificate was required to keep a mattress in the punishment cell around the clock . According to the applicant a nurse confirmed that such a certificate would be drawn up .","At TIME guard OV entered the applicant \u2019s cell and told him to hand in the mattress . The applicant explained that the nurses had drawn up a certificate stating that he needed the mattress around the clock because his rib was broken . The guard left .","At TIME guards ORG , ORG , ORG and OV came to the applicant \u2019s cell and told him to hand in the mattress . They had a discussion of some length , in the course of which the applicant requested that senior duty officer ORG be called . Guard ORG warned the applicant that force would be used if necessary . According to the statements of ORG given in the subsequent criminal proceedings , the applicant threatened to kill them . The guards left and returned after TIME . According to the Government the guards had in the meantime checked with the medical service that the applicant had not in fact been authorised to keep the mattress in the punishment cell .","At around TIME CARDINAL guards arrived at the applicant \u2019s cell . ORG and ORG entered , CARDINAL further guards remained in the corridor or stood at the door to the cell .","According to the applicant , ORG came up to him , grabbed his left hand and told him that they were going to take the mattress from him . The applicant pulled his hand away and VG \u2013 unexpectedly and without any notice \u2013 sprayed pepper spray in his face while ORG was attempting to twist his arm . The applicant ran out of the cell into the corridor , covering his face with his hands . Several guards attacked him from behind and he was forced down on the floor . He was repeatedly hit on the back after handcuffs had been put on him . After the applicant shouted that he could not breathe ORG struck him a couple more times . He was then raised up off the floor , bent down and guided to the security room . According to the applicant , he fainted several times on the way because his injured rib caused him serious pain when being bent down .","The Government relied on the statements of the prison guards given in the subsequent criminal proceedings . All CARDINAL prison guards present were interviewed in the criminal proceedings , either as suspects or witnesses . According to ORG and ORG , the applicant pushed ORG when he attempted to take the mattress . Then ORG used pepper spray . According to the statements of the guards , the applicant resisted strongly and was forced down on the floor in the corridor . According to ORG , he struck the applicant , who was on all fours , CARDINAL times with a telescopic baton in order to overcome his resistance and handcuff him . ORG and ORG were unable to give details about the blows inflicted by ORG . Nor was OV initially able to provide such details , but at a second interview he stated that by the time he closed the handcuffs , the applicant had not yet been hit with the telescopic baton . ORG thought that the applicant had probably been handcuffed while he was being hit by ORG . According to AT , the applicant had been handcuffed but had forcefully struggled and pushed ORG with his shoulder , after which the latter had struck him CARDINAL or CARDINAL times without much force .","The applicant was then strapped to a restraint bed in accordance with the orders of duty officer ORG , as he was still behaving aggressively and offering physical resistance to the officers .","According to the applicant he was suffocating from the pepper spray in his throat but the guards pressed him to the bed , strangled him and did not let him spit . Finally he was allowed to spit and given the water he had asked for .","According to a report on the use of the restraint bed , the applicant was strapped to the bed from TIME to TIME His condition was monitored once an hour , when the necessity of the continued use of the means of restraint was assessed on the basis of his behaviour .","NORP The report contains the following entries . At TIME , TIME , QUANTITY a.m. and TIME : \u201c [ use of the restraint measures ] to be continued , [ the applicant is ] aggressive \u201d . At TIME : \u201c [ use of the restraint measures ] to be discontinued , [ the applicant is ] calm . \u201d The report also contains an entry according to which medical staff checked on the applicant ; the time of the medical check - up recorded on the copy of the report on file is illegible .","According to a medical certificate dated DATE medical staff had been asked to establish the applicant \u2019s injuries in the punishment cell . It was stated in the certificate that the applicant had no visible injuries but there was crepitation in the area of the seventh rib on the left side . A rib fracture was suspected .","According to CARDINAL medical certificates dated DATE the applicant was examined by nurse GPE at TIME and at TIME after his release from the restraint bed . It is stated in the certificates that the applicant had no visible injuries and did not need medical assistance . According to the applicant these certificates were \u201c fabricated \u201d in order to cover up his beating and were in contradiction with other medical evidence .","On DATE the applicant underwent an X - ray examination which revealed no clear traumatic changes . Photographs were taken of the haematomas ( described below ) on the applicant \u2019s body . He gave a urine sample . Urine test results , dated DATE , showed red blood cells in the urine .","According to a medical certificate dated DATE the applicant had CARDINAL haematomas measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY on his back , a haematoma with a diameter of QUANTITY on his right upper arm , a haematoma with a diameter of QUANTITY on the right shin , swelling to the left wrist , crepitation in the region of the eighth and the ninth ribs on the left side . The applicant complained that he had been beaten on the back by the guards , complained of pain in his back and said that his urine had been red . The doctor considered that providing the applicant with a mattress was justified .","An ultrasound scan of the applicant \u2019s kidneys performed on DATE revealed no signs of disease .","According to a medical certificate concerning the applicant \u2019s examination in a punishment cell on DATE , there were haematomas on the applicant \u2019s back and ribs . The applicant did not allow the doctor to touch him , was aggressive and demanded a mattress . However , the doctor considered that the applicant \u2019s chronic lower back pain did not serve as a reason for him to have a mattress . She made a recommendation \u201c for further referral to a psychiatrist \u201d .","In a written explanation to the prison director by nurse GPE , dated CARDINAL DATE , she submitted that she had been asked to examine the applicant , who had been strapped to the restraint bed on DATE . The applicant had complained , as he had already done on DATE , of pain in the chest under the ribs . The nurse and guards , as well as the applicant himself , had wiped his eyes with wet napkins . The nurse had issued a medical certificate stating that she had discovered no injuries on the applicant . At TIME on DATE , upon the applicant \u2019s release from the restraint bed , she had again been asked to examine him . He had no complaints , save for the previously known complaint of pain in the lower part of his chest . The nurse had issued a certificate stating that she had not discovered any injuries and that the applicant had not needed medical treatment . On both occasions the examination had been carried out visually and the nurse had asked the applicant about his complaints . She had only noticed the haematomas on the TIME of DATE . She had not noticed them before and had not carried out a more detailed examination because this had not been requested by the applicant . Based on her earlier experience with the applicant , the nurse had known that he was very demanding in respect of medical treatment . Thus , she had assumed that the applicant was not suffering from any serious conditions .","On DATE ORG started a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations of abuse of authority by prison guards . The investigation was carried out by ORG .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed as a victim . Between CARDINAL and DATE CARDINAL guards ( ORG , GPE , ORG and ORG ) were interviewed as suspects . CARDINAL further prison officers ( including OV ) , a prison doctor and a prisoner were interviewed as witnesses . Reports on the use of the special equipment and means of restraint ( shield , helmets , flak jackets and handcuffs on DATE and handcuffs and restraint bed on DATE ) , and written explanations to the prison director from prison officers involved in the incidents were also included in the criminal case file .","On DATE prison guard OV was interviewed for the second time .","On DATE the police requested additional information from the prison administration , including the applicant \u2019s medical records and information about the telescopic batons used in the prison .","On DATE the police ordered a forensic expert examination of the applicant \u2019s injuries . The expert completed his report on DATE . He relied on the written materials in the criminal case file , including a report of the applicant \u2019s interview , medical documents and photos of the haematomas on the applicant \u2019s body . He was of the opinion that the stripe - shaped haematomas on the applicant \u2019s back had resulted from blows struck with a blunt instrument such as a stick or a baton , possibly on DATE . The haematomas on the applicant \u2019s upper arm and shin had resulted from blows struck with a blunt instrument or from the applicant \u2019s body being slammed against it . The haematoma and crepitation in the region of the eighth and the ninth ribs may have resulted from a rib fracture , but that diagnosis could not be confirmed without an X - ray examination . The expert concluded that the injuries in question were not life threatening and usually caused short - term health damage lasting from DATE to DATE .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed for the second time .","On DATE the police ordered a forensic expert examination of video recordings from prison security cameras . The expert completed his report on DATE . Having obtained QUANTITY magnified and processed images from the video recordings , he concluded that it was not possible to establish the exact time at which the applicant was hit .","On DATE the police investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings . She considered that the use of force by the prison guards against the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE had been lawful , since he had not complied with their orders and had behaved in an aggressive manner . On DATE he had refused to gather his belongings for his transfer to the punishment cell and had threatened to resist if force was used . On DATE he had refused to comply with the prison \u2019s internal rules and hand in his mattress . The guards had not denied that they had used force but had asserted that this had been the only way to overcome the applicant \u2019s resistance . The applicant had attempted to escape and run out of the cell . Thus , the use of force had had a legal basis . It did not appear that ORG had used the telescopic baton to deliberately cause injuries to the applicant . Nor could it be established that the force used by ORG , ORG , GPE and ORG had been excessive . They had countered an imminent attack after a more lenient response had not proved effective and the applicant had continued his resistance .","On DATE the police investigator \u2019s decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings was approved by a circuit prosecutor .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It considered that the use of force , special equipment and means of restraint had been caused by the applicant \u2019s behaviour , that is to say his failure to comply with the orders given to him and his physical and verbal aggressiveness towards the prison officers . It relied on the applicant \u2019s handwritten letter of explanation to the prison director , in which he had confirmed having said on DATE that if the prison officers unlawfully attacked him , he would strike back . Furthermore , according to prison guard GPE the applicant had threatened to kill them if force was used to transfer him to the punishment cell . Considering the applicant \u2019s extremely aggressive resistance , it had been proportionate to use force to bring him down to the floor and to hold him there .","In respect of the events of CARDINAL DATE ORG referred to the statements of the suspects and witnesses , according to which the applicant had threatened the prison officers . It had been established that guard ORG had used pepper spray after the applicant had pushed ORG . The applicant had been engaged in an unlawful attack and the use of pepper spray against him had been lawful . Although the applicant \u2019s subsequent running into the corridor could not be seen as an attempt to escape , it had still been possible that the situation might have got out of the prison ORG control and they had had grounds to believe that the applicant would continue attacking them . To prevent such a scenario , the prison officers had legitimately acted in a quick and decisive manner , including through the use of the telescopic baton by ORG . The incoherent statements of the witnesses as to the issue of whether the blows with the telescopic baton had been delivered before or after the applicant \u2019s handcuffing did not allow for a firm conclusion to be made on that point . Nevertheless , based on the witness statements , the prosecutor considered it probable that the applicant had been hit before handcuffing . She also referred to the principle that any reasonable doubt should benefit the accused and considered that it had not been established that the prison guards had unlawfully used a weapon , special equipment or force against the applicant . In respect of the applicant \u2019s being strapped to the restraint bed , ORG concluded that the video recordings showed that after being handcuffed the applicant had remained aggressive and had offered physical resistance to the prison officers .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint against the decision of ORG . It found that it had been established that the applicant had offered resistance to the prison officers and therefore the use of special equipment and means of restraint had been legitimate . The court agreed with the position expressed in the decision of ORG that the special equipment had been used to the extent it had been necessary to overcome the applicant \u2019s resistance . Thus , there were no grounds to continue the criminal proceedings in respect of the prison officers .","On DATE the applicant filed a claim for non - pecuniary damage with the prison administration for his inhuman and degrading treatment on CARDINAL and DATE . The claim was dismissed and the applicant filed a complaint with ORG .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found for the applicant . It declared the use of the means of restraint , special equipment and service weapons in respect of the applicant unlawful . The court found that although the applicant \u2019s failure to comply with the orders given to him had undeniably constituted a threat to the general security of the prison , the use of handcuffs and his immobilisation had nevertheless not been justified , as there was no evidence and it had not been argued that the applicant had been armed or equipped with a dangerous item or that he had intended to escape or attack anyone . However , the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim for compensation , considering that the use of means of restraint and special equipment had been caused , to a large extent , by the applicant \u2019s own behaviour . He had disputed the ORG orders , engaged in an argument with them , voiced threats and offered physical resistance . In these circumstances the finding of the unlawfulness of the prison \u2019s actions constituted sufficient just satisfaction .","Both parties appealed against ORG judgment . The applicant claimed monetary compensation and the prison administration contended that the prison officers had not acted unlawfully .","At the hearing of ORG on DATE the applicant submitted , inter alia , that on DATE he had been kicked in ribs once and that on DATE he had been hit with a telescopic baton after he had already been handcuffed . Video recordings concerning both QUANTITY and DATE were played at the hearing .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . It found that the use of the means of restraint , special equipment , physical force and service weapons had been lawful . The court considered that the prison had been authorised to use preventive measures in case of a probable threat . It noted that the applicant was serving a life sentence and had CARDINAL further convictions for attacking prison officers . In DATE he had also threatened to kill a prison officer .","In respect of the events of DATE ORG noted that there was no dispute that the applicant had repeatedly refused to comply with the prison ORG order to go to a punishment cell . Furthermore , he had offered physical resistance and caused minor injuries to ORG . Therefore , physical force and handcuffs had been used . Considering the applicant \u2019s unlawful and aggressive behaviour , threats to the prison officers and to the general security in the prison , as well as the short duration ( TIME ) of the use of the handcuffs , ORG found that the use of handcuffs had not been unlawful . In respect of the use of force , the court found that there was no evidence to prove that the applicant had been kicked , strangled or poked in the eyes with fingers . According to the medical evidence there had been crepitation but no fractures of the ribs . The court considered that pain in the applicant \u2019s chest that he had complained of could have resulted from his resistance , which had led to a scuffle and his being forced on the floor for handcuffing .","In respect of the events of CARDINAL DATE ORG considered it established that the applicant had displayed disobedience and threatened the prison officers . He had offered physical resistance against the guard who had attempted to take the mattress . Thus , the use of pepper spray had not been disproportionate or unlawful . Since the subsequent use of physical force had proved not effective , it had also been justified to use the telescopic baton in order to have the applicant handcuffed . The fact that the applicant had been aggressive at the time he was strapped to the restraint bed had also been proven by the video recording shown at the court hearing .","On DATE ORG declined to hear the applicant \u2019s appeal .","Article CARDINAL of LAW ( Karistusseadustik ) stipulates that abuse of authority , that is unlawful use of a weapon , special equipment or violence by an official while performing his or her official duties , is punishable by a fine or by one to DATE imprisonment .","Relevant domestic law and practice concerning the use of special equipment and means of restraint in prison has been summarised in the judgement of GPE v. GPE ( nos . DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","For relevant international instruments concerning the use of instruments of restraint , see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","According to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development , Production , Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction of DATE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , tear gas is not considered a chemical weapon and its use is authorised for the purpose of law enforcement , including domestic riot control ( LAW ( d ) ) . The ORG entered into force with regard to GPE on DATE .","ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( \u201c the CPT \u201d ) has expressed its concerns over the use of such agents in law enforcement . For example , in the report on its visit to GPE and GPE ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) it noted :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... Pepper spray is a potentially dangerous substance and should not be used in confined spaces . Even when used in open spaces the ORG has serious reservations ; if exceptionally it needs to be used , there should be clearly defined safeguards in place . For example , persons exposed to pepper spray should be granted immediate access to a medical doctor and be offered an antidote . Pepper spray should never be deployed against a prisoner who has already been brought under control . Further , it should not form part of the standard equipment of a prison officer .","The ORG recommends that the authorities of GPE and GPE draw up a clear directive governing the use of pepper spray , which should include , as a minimum :","- clear instructions as to when pepper spray may be used , which should state explicitly that pepper spray should not be used in a confined area ;","- the right of prisoners exposed to pepper spray to be granted immediate access to a doctor and to be offered an antidote ;","- the qualifications , training and skills of staff members authorised to use pepper spray ;","- an adequate reporting and inspection mechanism with respect to the use of pepper spray . \u201d","Similar observations and recommendations were made by the ORG in paragraph CARDINAL of the report on its visit to GPE ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL) ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156600","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ARAPI v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently living in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr G .- H. Beauthier , a lawyer practising in GPE .","[ \u2026 ]","NORP summarised as follows .","At some time in DATE the prosecutor opened an investigation against the applicant and CARDINAL other people , including ORG , into numerous criminal offences committed DATE in the cities of GPE and PERSON . Almost all offences had been committed by way of a criminal organisation , named \u2018 Revenge for Justice \u2013 Hakmarrja p\u00ebr Drejt\u00ebsi\u2019 , which the CARDINAL co - accused had allegedly established .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s arrest was ordered . By that time , the applicant had gone into hiding .","On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings for lack of evidence .","On DATE , in a press conference , the then leader of ORG accused the judges who had given the decision of CARDINAL DATE of being members of the said criminal organisation . The applicant has submitted an article of DATE which had appeared in the DATE \u201c ORG \u201d . Another article of the DATE \u201c CARDINAL \u201d of DATE reported the spokesperson of the office of the Prosecutor General stating that \u201c the court \u2019s decision was given by scared judges who were under pressure and threat . \u201d","NORP The applicant alleges that the judges who gave the judgment of CARDINAL DATE left the country on an unspecified date .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for fresh consideration . It held that ORG was not empowered to discontinue the proceedings . Instead , it should have returned the investigation file to the prosecutor for further completion with documents .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment . This decision was upheld on appeal by ORG and ORG ( decisions ORG . CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) .","On DATE ORG accepted O. \u2019s constitutional complaint and found a breach of the length of proceedings and ORG lack of impartiality . It remitted the case for re - examination to ORG . It would appear that the proceedings are pending before ORG .","None of these sets of proceedings are the subject of this application .","On TIME , TIME , a certain PERSON was murdered in a car on a main boulevard in GPE , while waiting at the traffic lights . The victim was the driver of the escort group of ORG and he was shot dead by a male passenger in a taxi which was in the line of traffic . The perpetrator left the crime scene together with a girl who was in the taxi with him . ORG spouse , PERSON , and minor daughter , PERSON , were in the car when the murder was committed .","The crime scene investigation reports indicated that CARDINAL fingerprints , which were taken for an examination , were found on the door of the victim \u2019s car . Another fingerprint , which was taken for examination , was found on the interior side of the taxi \u2019s back seat window .","On TIME , at TIME , PERSON made a statement to a prosecutor . The relevant parts of the statement , which was not initially disclosed to the defence , read as follows .","\u201c While we were waiting at the traffic lights , I heard PERSON speaking to someone on the left of the car . Initially , I did not pay attention . When the conversation was not being made on normal tones , I told PERSON to stop talking and to pull up the window ... The other person started raising his voice and even shouted swear words . I told PERSON not to respond . Suddenly I saw that the other person came closer to the car . Again , I told PERSON to pull up the window and not to snap back . Initially , I could not discern who that person was . At the moment he neared the car , I saw that he was a young man . PERSON attempted to open the door of the car to clarify things away from our presence . He opened the door ajar but could not get out because the person pushed the door back , without closing it , and shot PERSON with a pistol he took out of the inside of his jacket . \u201d","Z. also gave a description of the perpetrator . Whereas she had not been able to see anyone else who was with the perpetrator , after getting out of the car , she heard people saying that a girl , who was with him on the taxi , left together with the perpetrator after the murder .","On TIME the taxi driver , T. , made a statement to the police officers . He declared that he had collected a man and a woman from a restaurant in GPE . He was asked to take them to a certain address in the city , without having been given instructions as to the route to follow . According to the statement , while they were waiting at the traffic lights , the male passenger , who was sitting in the front seat , pulled down the window and started arguing with the victim whose car stopped beside the taxi . The relevant parts of the statement , read as follows .","\u201c My passenger nervously hit the door with his fist . I saw that he and the SUV driver were exchanging looks . My passenger pulled down the window and asked the SUV driver \u2018 what are you looking at?\u2019 I do not recall whether the window of the SUV door had been pulled down and I did not hear the SUV driver \u2019s answer . I then saw that my passenger got out of the taxi , went over to the SUV driver and started arguing . I did not hear their arguments . I then saw my passenger taking out a pistol from his belt and directing it to the SUV driver . I did not see whether the SUV door was opened or not . I heard CARDINAL single shot and the SUV driver fell on the side of the passenger \u2019s seat . At that moment the driver fell on the other side , the door of the SUV was opened . I did not see whether the door was opened by the passengers or the driver . I saw that the passenger took the SUV driver \u2019s pistol away with him and left from the back of the SUV . \u201d","The statement also included a description of each passenger .","The applicant alleges that T. left the country immediately after giving the above statement .","On DATE the applicant fled GPE on a false passport and later sought asylum in GPE . On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE ( see the section \u201c Extradition proceedings and the applicant \u2019s detention in GPE \u201d below ) .","On DATE and DATE CARDINAL extradition requests ( \u201c let\u00ebr porosi \u2013 letters rogatory \u201d ) were sent by ORG to the NORP authorities requesting the arrest of ORG with a view to his extradition to GPE . At the material time it was believed that O. was the author of the murder of DATE . However , O. obtained asylum in GPE on DATE and the NORP authorities refused an extradition request by the NORP authorities in respect of O. on DATE .","On DATE an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant in connection with the above murder . No copy of the warrant has been submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9e , I m . ( allegedly the girl in the taxi ) was arrested . Her fingerprints were taken the following day . During the questioning , I m . identified the person who had been arrested in GPE as the applicant , on the basis of some photographs . On DATE the Prosecutor General sent another extradition request to the NORP authorities requesting that the applicant , instead of ORG , be arrested with a view to extradition . The relevant excerpts of the applicant \u2019s copy of the extradition request , as submitted in LANGUAGE ( text not edited ) , read as follows :","\u00ab D\u2019apr\u00e8s les actions imm\u00e9diates d\u2019investigation de cette affaire , on a identifi\u00e9 les num\u00e9ros utilis\u00e9s par le suspect principal , PERSON . PERSON pour plusieurs crimes do nt meurtre , vol de banques , enl\u00e8vement et actes terroristes . PERSON d\u2019un groupe criminel appel\u00e9 \u201c FAC ( Vengeance pour la Justice ) . On pense que le groupe est tr\u00e8s dangereux et presque tous d\u2019entre eux ont \u00e9t\u00e9 poursuivis p\u00e9nalement par d\u00e9fault pour CARDINAL crimes graves .","...","ORG citoyenne Albanaise [ I m . ] , ( laquelle d\u00e9clare \u00eatre la fianc\u00e9e PERSON ) et apr\u00e8s lui avoir montre pour effet de reconnaissance des photos du sujet arr\u00eat\u00e9 en GPE , ORG a admis que la personne sur la photo est PERSON . C\u2019est pourquoi nous avons des raisons fond\u00e9es pour croire que le tueur n\u2019est pas O. , mais PERSON , qui est la personne arr\u00eat\u00e9e en GPE .","...","ORG articles appartenants au Code P\u00e9nal Albanais , traduits en Fran\u00e7ais , qui concernent les crimes pour lesquels Arapi a \u00e9t\u00e9 condamn\u00e9 auparavant , aussi que le dernier meurtre du chauffeur du Procureur General . ORG","In the meantime , ORG , pursuant to a request for factual information by the Judge Rapporteur in accordance with Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of ORG , submitted a copy of the extradition letter . The cover letter reads as follows :","\u201c This document [ the extradition request ] was provided by ORG who stated that at the file of extradition regarding PERSON , this document was created only in the NORP version . Please find attached an NORP translation of the extradition request dated DATE . \u201d","The relevant excerpts of the copy of the extradition request , as submitted in LANGUAGE ( text not edited ) , read as follows :","\u201c From the very urgent investigative steps that we have taken following the vent , we have identified some telephone numbers used by the chief suspect , PERSON , and his criminal associates . ORG is a known criminal already wanted for several crimes including murder , bank robbery , kidnapping and terrorist acts . ORG is the leader of a criminal group called \u2018 Revenge for Justice\u2019 . The group is presumed to be very dangerous and nearly all of them have previously been prosecuted in absentia for other severe crimes .","...","From the interrogation of the NORP citizen [ I m . ] ( who is actually declaring to be the finance of PERSON ) and after the introduction of the photographs of the subject arrested in GPE , she has admitted that the person in photograph is PERSON . So we have reasonable ground to believe that the murderer is not ORG but PERSON , who is the person that is arrested by you in GPE .","...","Attached to this request are :","The relevant articles of LAW , translated into NORP , covering both the crimes for which ORG has previously been indicted and the recent murder of ORG driver .","... \u201d","The NORP copy bore stamps reading \u201c ORG office , copy certified against the original \u201d .","On DATE the first fingerprint examination concluded that the fingerprint found on the taxi \u2019s back seat window corresponded to I m . \u2019s . On DATE the second fingerprint examination concluded that CARDINAL of the fingerprints found on the victim \u2019s car \u2019s door corresponded to the applicant \u2019s right palm and his right hand little finger , of which digital prints had been provided by the NORP authorities following his arrest in GPE .","On DATE the prosecutor charged the applicant with CARDINAL offences , namely the murder of PERSON , theft , the illegal possession of firearms , the forging of documents , the forging of identity cards or visas and the forging of civil status acts . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer was notified of the charges .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) granted the prosecutor \u2019s request for the applicant \u2019s arrest in absentia . There is no indication that the applicant \u2019s lawyer attended the hearing .","On DATE the prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) accusing the applicant of CARDINAL criminal offences .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer contended that the prosecutor had breached the presumption of innocence against the applicant by virtue of the extradition request of DATE . He also submitted CARDINAL other requests in order to obtain additional evidence , conduct other experts\u2019 reports and question other witnesses .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested that the fingerprint examination report of CARDINAL DATE be declared invalid for breach of procedural rules . It would appear that on DATE the trial court dismissed the request .","On DATE the trial court heard the testimony of PERSON ( the Prosecutor General \u2019s spouse ) . She described the events of CARDINAL DATE and the fact that the perpetrator had prevented PERSON from opening the door of the car after the exchange of heated words . She stated that the person who had murdered PERSON resembled the photographs of the accused as shown on the press and on the television , during his appearance before the NORP courts . The witness further declared that she had made a preliminary statement on DATE to a prosecutor , whereas S. had not made any statements since she was a minor at the material time . The applicant \u2019s lawyer sought to obtain possession of ORG \u2019s statement of CARDINAL DATE which had been withheld by the prosecutor . CARDINAL other witnesses were questioned on DATE . The court issued a summons for the appearance of the taxi driver , T .. However , ORG never appeared before the court as he had fled the country to an unspecified address .","On DATE the prosecutor read out T. \u2019s statement , which had been taken during the criminal investigation . The applicant \u2019s lawyer contested the statement in so far as the characteristics of the perpetrator did not match those given by other witnesses before the trial . The applicant \u2019s lawyer further insisted on being provided with a copy of PERSON \u2019s statement of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the trial court rejected the applicant \u2019s lawyer request . It decided that , in so far as the evidence was not submitted to the trial court , the latter had no right to obtain acts from the parties , neither oblige them to submit any particular acts . However , the court granted most of the applicant\u2019","Consequently , the trial court heard CARDINAL criminal investigators PERSON and PERSON , as well as CARDINAL criminal experts NORP and NORP as requested by the defence . They were questioned about the crime scene investigation reports and the experts\u2019 reports they had completed . In addition , witness PERSON testified before the court as requested by the defence .","B. had not made any statements during the criminal investigation for lack of trust in the justice system . He had decided to testify before the court following the airing of views on television about the murder and the suspects . In his testimony , PERSON declared that he had stopped at the corner of the traffic lights while he was waiting to cross the street . He had seen from distance that the door of PERSON \u2019s car opened and he heard a choking noise . He thought that a murder had taken place . After that moment , the person who had opened the door of PERSON \u2019s car , took away a girl who was seated in the back of a taxi next to the car . In PERSON \u2019s view , the perpetrator did not resemble the applicant .","On an unspecified date before DATE the prosecutor provided the applicant \u2019s lawyer with PERSON \u2019s statement of CARDINAL DATE . The statement was not submitted to the court to be included in the case file .","On DATE CARDINAL other criminal experts , PERSON appeared before the court as requested by the defence . They were questioned about the experts\u2019 reports they had conducted . The trial court decided to obtain additional relevant evidence from various bodies in relation to the case as requested by the defence . On DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted a memorial objecting to PERSON \u2019s statement of CARDINAL DATE . According to the memorial , the applicant \u2019s lawyer complained of the procedure followed for obtaining the statement and its content .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer made his final written submissions . He accepted CARDINAL charges levelled against the applicant , namely the forging of documents , the forging of identity cards or visas and the forging of civil status acts , but dismissed the remaining CARDINAL , namely the murder of PERSON , theft and the illegal possession of firearms . The final observations contested the admissibility and assessment of evidence submitted by the prosecutor .","On DATE the trial court delivered its judgment , finding the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment . The court relied on the applicant \u2019s telephone metering information , which indicated that he had dialled the land line telephone number of the taxi company whose taxi he had been using at the time the murder was committed . In addition , CARDINAL of the fingerprints found on the crime scene corresponded to the applicant \u2019s fingerprints . The oral testimony of PERSON confirmed that the perpetrator resembled the applicant as shown on television in his appearance before the NORP court . The statement of ORG also confirmed the resemblance between the perpetrator and the applicant .","On DATE the applicant appealed . He mainly complained of the admissibility and assessment of several pieces of evidence , such as ORG \u2019s oral testimony , the report on the examination of his fingerprints and the report on the examination of the victim \u2019s car . He asked ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) to obtain additional evidence such as O. \u2019s fingerprints , to summon the restaurant \u2019s waitresses , and to re - examine some of the experts questioned during the trial . He also complained that the prosecutor had not disclosed a fingerprint examination report that had been conducted at the restaurant in which he had been dining on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the applicant submitted further written observations . He finally argued that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor was contradictory and inconclusive .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment . It concluded that the applicant \u2019s guilt was proved on the strength of the telephone metering information , the fingerprint report , PERSON \u2019s oral testimony and ORG statement .","In the same judgment , the court addressed each of applicant \u2019s requests . As regards the applicant \u2019s requests to declare invalid several pieces of evidence , the court dismissed them as being unsubstantiated and found that they had been obtained lawfully . In so far as the applicant \u2019s request for the administration of ORG \u2019s fingerprints was concerned , the court decided that such fingerprints would not serve any purpose . The applicant \u2019s request for summoning waitresses from the restaurant in which he had been dining on TIME DATE was dismissed on grounds of their incorrect identification and the unclear description of facts the defence intended to prove . The applicant \u2019s allegation that the prosecutor had not submitted an expert report on the fingerprints taken at the restaurant was rejected as being unsubstantiated . There was no proof that such report existed . The court also dismissed the applicant \u2019s request to re - examine some experts given that their testimonies would not disclose any new facts other than the ones that had been testified before the trial court . The court considered that the testimony of B. presented information which was difficult to prove given the location and distance of the witness . It found that the credibility of his testimony was questionable and decided to reject it .","On DATE the applicant appealed . He contended that the domestic courts lacked impartiality as they had dismissed the accused \u2019s requests to obtain further evidence , question witnesses and disregard the evidence already procured as being invalid . He also argued that the courts had erred in the qualification of the criminal offence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that it contained no lawful grounds of appeal in accordance with LAW .","On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional appeal . He submitted that the applicant \u2019s right to legal assistance had been breached as a result of non - notification of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . He further argued that there had been a breach of the presumption of innocence owing to the content of the extradition request of DATE . The principle of equality of arms had also been violated , following the dismissal of his requests to re - examine witnesses , obtain additional evidence , conduct further experts\u2019 reports and reconsider the evidence submitted by the defence .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It held that the applicant \u2019s complaint did not raise any fair trial issues , but mainly concerned the assessment of evidence and interpretation of statutes , which was the function of the lower courts .","Following the NORP authorities\u2019 extradition request of CARDINAL DATE requesting the applicant \u2019s extradition , he was arrested and detained on remand by the NORP authorities . It would appear that the extradition request was supplemented by documents on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG refused the extradition request . The relevant parts of the decision , as submitted by the applicant in NORP , read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Considering that in a report of ORG , dated DATE , information is mentioned DATE which ORG received from CARDINAL different sources \u2013 that places the arrest of the person whose extradition is requested in a political light whereas the NORP police and justice authorities are being used in a tangle of political complications and a process of settling scores in GPE ; that , according to this report , it had already been established in this case that the working methods and the documents provided by the NORP authorities contained anomalies ; that the report sets out the intelligence obtained from which it , inter alia , appears that , as regards the arrest warrant of CARDINAL DATE , a judgment was given on DATE , which , inter alia , states that documents were forged , that several witnesses testified that they had not identified the accused as perpetrators , that in the course of the investigation witnesses were blackmailed and tortured and , that the accused \u2013 including the person whose extradition is being sought DATE were acquitted ; that the judges who issued this judgment were subsequently accused of participating in the \u201c GPE \u201d terrorist organisation ; that the basis for the arrest warrant of CARDINAL DATE has to be found in a web of political competition ; that in this case various inconsistencies can be established whereby the data have been manipulated ; that evidence of such manipulation can be found in the great differences between the actual statements of the taxi driver who transported the perpetrator and his female companion on the one hand and the official version of these statements on the other ;","Considering that on DATE an international arrest warrant was originally issued against [ O. ] concerning the murder of [ PERSON ] and that on DATE a picture and fingerprints of this person were submitted ; that only on DATE that [ the applicant ] was interviewed in GPE , namely on DATE , and after there had been contact between GPE and GPE , ORG let it be known that the perpetrator of the assault on [ PERSON ] had not been [ O. ] but [ the applicant ] ; that it is true that the case file contains information relating to fingerprints submitted by the NORP authorities , supposedly demonstrating that [ the applicant ] was present at the crime scene when [ PERSON ] was shot , these elements were however only submitted after the NORP authorities had sent [ the applicant \u2019s ] fingerprints to the NORP authorities ;","Considering that it is furthermore the case that the request for extradition speaks of criminal proceedings against the [ applicant ] which were instituted on DATE and of the criminal proceedings CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , without however making any mention of the course of the aforementioned proceedings ( see para . CARDINAL above ) , i.e. the judgments of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ; that the course of the proceedings was kept concealed until the NORP authorities , based on the documents submitted by the defence , requested the NORP authorities to provide additional information ;","Upon considering that it has thus been adequately demonstrated that in the present case there are serious grounds for believing that the request for extradition was made with the intention to prosecute the person concerned for political motives , or that the position of the person concerned would be adversely affected on the basis of these motives ;","Upon considering that pursuant to LAW the extradition shall not be allowed if the requested ORG has serious reasons for believing that the request for extradition concerning a non - political offence was made with the intention to prosecute or punish a person on the ground of his race , religion , nationality or political opinion , or if the position of the person involved threatens to be adversely affected on the basis of CARDINAL of these reasons ;","Decides :","The extradition of ORG is not granted to ORG . \u201d","In a letter of DATE to ORG in GPE , the NORP authorities stated that the refusal of the extradition request was based on LAW , according to which extradition shall be refused if there exist \u201c substantial grounds for believing that a request for extradition for an ordinary criminal offence has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his race , religion , nationality or political opinion , or that that person \u2019s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons . \u201d","The applicant submits that he was held for DATE in detention in GPE , at the end of which he was released .","A certificate of CARDINAL DATE by ORG of the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons stated that the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of LAW of DATE .","The applicant submitted that on DATE the then spokesperson of the parliamentary group of ORG , B.N , declared before the NORP media the following :","\u201c before making a summary of achievements , the Prosecutor General should explain to NORP his links with the terrorist organisation \u2018 Revenge for Justice\u2019 and the reasons that the case file in respect of PERSON , [ the applicant ] , did not follow the formal procedure \u201d .","On DATE , in an interview in a private television channel , the then Prosecutor General was reported to have stated the following :","\u201c the fact that GPE , GPE ... did not grant the extradition of the persons concerned for political reasons indicates that these countries assessed the political statements made in GPE and are afraid of an unjust [ legal ] process . \u201d","According to a press article published in the \u201c ORG \u201d DATE newspaper , it would appear that on DATE the NORP Prime Minister , speaking before the NORP parliamentarians prior to their voting on the dismissal of ORG , stated , amongst others , the following :","\u201c those who voted for you do not have anything in common with the murder of ORG driver by PERSON in the middle of the boulevard . \u201d","The relevant part of the LAW reads as follows :","\u201c Article CARDINAL","The Constitutional Court shall determine : ... ( f ) complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing , provided all legal remedies for the protection of those rights have been exhausted . \u201d","Article CARDINAL provides that any document addressed to an accused who can not be found , has been declared fugitive or gone into hiding , is notified to his representative .","Article CARDINAL states that CARDINAL of the security measures ( mas\u00eb sigurimi ) that the court assigns is imprisonment . Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL allows for the opportunity to appeal to a higher court within DATE against measures of restraint . Under LAW , the time - limit to appeal in respect of the accused who has been declared fugitive or gone into hiding starts to run from the date of notification to his representative in accordance with LAW .","Article CARDINAL establishes the scope of the examination of the appeal by ORG . It provides that the examination of the case by ORG is not limited to the grounds of appeal but extends to the whole case .","Under LAW , at the party \u2019s request , ORG shall be empowered to directly re - examine previous evidence and additional new materials , if it considers necessary .","Article CARDINAL establishes which decisions may be taken by ORG . It provides that ORG may decide to dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment , to amend the judgment , to quash the judgment and terminate the criminal proceedings , or to quash the judgment and remit the case for a fresh trial .","ORG judgments may be appealed to ORG in compliance with one of the following requirements of Article CARDINAL : a ) the criminal law has not been respected or has been misapplied ; b ) there have been breaches which result in the court \u2019s judgment being declared invalid in accordance with Article CARDINAL of this Code ; c ) there have been breaches of procedural rules that have affected the adoption of the judgment .","Article CARDINAL provides that ORG examines the appeal in so far as points of law have been raised therein .","This Act set up ORG ( Gjykatat p\u00ebr Krime te R\u00ebnda ) and ORG ( PERSON e Apelit p\u00ebr PERSON ) . Both courts sit in chambers composed of CARDINAL judges . They try cases that concern criminal offences committed under LAW a ) of LAW .","Article CARDINAL ( a ) , as introduced by Law no . DATE , provides that the serious crimes courts try cases that concern the criminal offence of establishing an armed group or a criminal organisation , any criminal offence committed by such group or organisation and any other crime which is punishable by DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146386","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF AVANESYAN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , following an application by a police chief and without the applicant \u2019s knowledge , a judge of the ORG of Stavropol Region issued a decision authorising the taking of \u201c operational - search measures \u201d , which read in its entirety as follows :","\u201c [ The court ] , having examined a decision by the chief of the GPE district police station on the taking of operational - search measures ,"],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167092","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TUMANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .","On DATE he was arrested on suspicion of murder .","On DATE the Vyborgskiy ORG of GPE authorised the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . He remained in custody pending investigation and trial .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pretrial detention . The court referred to the gravity of charges , the applicant \u2019s character , lack of permanent residence in GPE , and risk of absconding or re - offending .","On DATE ORG returned the case to the prosecutor and extended the applicant \u2019s detention without specifying any reasons .","On DATE , DATE and DATE when extending pre - trial detention , ORG reproduced the grounds for detention described above .","On DATE the Saint - Petersburg City Court quashed the detention order of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention referring to the gravity of charges , absence of permanent residence , his character , possibility of absconding and committing crimes . The applicant and his lawyer did not attend the hearing on DATE .","On DATE the Vyborgskiy District Court of GPE convicted the applicant of murder and theft .","On DATE FAC upheld his conviction on appeal . As regards the applicant \u2019s appeal against the detention order of DATE , the court noted that the lower court had failed to ensure the applicant \u2019s and his lawyer \u2019s presence at the hearing of DATE . However , in view of the applicant \u2019s conviction , it discontinued the appeal proceedings finding them unnecessary ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146403","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CEVAT SOYSAL v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms);Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest in absentia on suspicion of membership of the ORG , an illegal organisation .","On DATE the applicant was captured in GPE , GPE , and taken to GPE on DATE . He was interrogated by ORG ( ORG of Turkey ) agents until DATE .","NORP In DATE , shortly after being taken to GPE , the applicant was described by a number of media outlets as the \u201c second man of the NORP \u201d , the \u201c NORP representative of the NORP \u201d , \u201c a terrorist \u201d and \u201c a traitor to the country \u201d . According to an article published in ORG of DATE , ORG of GPE ( ORG ) issued a press statement in which it stated that the applicant had worked to increase terrorist activities and incited the ORG supporters in GPE to use violence .","On DATE the applicant was handed over to ORG for further questioning . At the time of transfer , a hand - written delivery report was produced . It is not known who drafted the report .","On DATE the applicant was brought first before the public prosecutor at ORG and subsequently before a judge at ORG , who ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons . The applicant was charged with being a leading member of the ORG , whose aim was to bring about the secession of part of the national territory . The charges against the applicant were brought under LAW .","NORP The public prosecutor accused the applicant of being one of the leaders of the NORP in LOC and of having been involved in the training of ORG members in GPE . According to the indictment , the applicant had been in contact with Mr PERSON , the leader of the ORG , and had provided him with information about the persons who had been trained . The public prosecutor further noted that when he had questioned PERSON on DATE , the latter had maintained that he had given instructions to the applicant regarding that training . Moreover , the leader of the ORG had confirmed the veracity of that statement during his trial on DATE .","NORP The public prosecutor at ORG further claimed that during telephone conversations with a number of people in GPE , the applicant had issued instructions to perpetrate acts of violence following the arrest of PERSON . In the indictment , the public prosecutor quoted the transcripts of eight of the applicant \u2019s alleged telephone conversations dated DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . The public prosecutor also noted that the applicant had referred to the State of GPE as \u201c the enemy \u201d in his conversations . Furthermore , according to the indictment , a number of ORG members \u2013 ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and DATE had maintained in their statements that the applicant had been involved in the activities mentioned in the indictment . As a result , the public prosecutor alleged that the applicant had issued instructions for CARDINAL of bombings , fires , hunger strikes , suicide attacks and massacres , including the killing of CARDINAL people as a result of an attack on PERSON , a shopping centre , on DATE and that he had trained members of the ORG in his capacity as CARDINAL of the leaders of the organisation .","On DATE ORG held the first hearing on the merits of the case . At the end of the hearing , the court decided to enquire whether the persons who had made statements regarding the accused had been prosecuted and , if so , to request copies of all the statements given during the criminal proceedings against them .","During the second hearing on DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked the court , inter alia , to remove the transcripts of the applicant \u2019s alleged telephone conversations from the case file . The public prosecutor demanded that the request be refused , and the court duly dismissed it .","On an unspecified date the police sent the prosecution a document containing the statement of an alleged member of the ORG , GPE , taken by the police . During the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the statement was read out in court . According to the document , GPE had testified against the applicant . The applicant denied the veracity of the statement , claiming that he did not know FAC At the end of the hearing , the court decided to enquire whether criminal proceedings had been instituted against FAC and , if so , to request all of his statements given during those criminal proceedings .","During the fourth hearing in the case , held on DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer maintained that only the indictments concerning ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE had been included in the file and asked the court to include all the statements they had given during the criminal proceedings against them . The court postponed its decision on the request of the applicant \u2019s lawyer to a forthcoming hearing .","On DATE , at DATE fifth hearing , ORG decided to request a copy of the case file in the proceedings against GPE","ORG repeated its request CARDINAL times between DATE and DATE , as it had not received the aforementioned case file . During the same period the court also asked a number of other courts to send a copy of the statements made by ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE during the criminal proceedings against them .","At the eleventh hearing in the case , on DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked ORG to summon everyone who had allegedly made statements against the applicant to testify before the court . The court did not respond to his request .","Six more hearings were held DATE and DATE . During that period ORG received the documents that it had requested from the other courts . In the course of the hearings , the applicant \u2019s lawyer maintained before the court that the statements of the persons who had allegedly testified against the applicant did not contain any reference to the applicant . At the end of the hearing on DATE , the court instructed the public prosecutor to prepare his observations on the merits of the case .","On DATE the public prosecutor \u2019s observations on the merits of the case were read out before the court .","At the hearing of DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed a petition with the first - instance court in response to the public prosecutor \u2019s observations . In his petition , the applicant \u2019s lawyer contended that the public prosecutor \u2019s observations had referred to recordings of telephone conversations which were in the case file . He submitted that he had already asked the court to remove the transcripts of the recordings from the case file as they could not be used as evidence . He further noted that the applicant had denied that he was the person whose conversations had been recorded . The lawyer requested the court to order a comparative voice analysis and to enquire whether the phone tapping had been conducted in accordance with the legal procedure and on the basis of a court order . He also asked the court to find out the identities of the persons with whom the applicant had allegedly spoken ( designated as \u201c X \u201d in the documents in the case file ) and to take statements from them about those conversations .","On DATE ORG accepted the request for a comparative voice analysis and dismissed the remaining requests without providing any reasons .","At the next hearing , on DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer complained that CARDINAL police officers had been assigned to conduct the voice analysis . He argued that police officers could not be impartial given the involvement of the police in the case . He therefore asked the court to appoint impartial experts . The court allowed his request and asked ORG of GPE ) , the national public broadcaster , to assign impartial experts to conduct the analysis and to prepare a report .","NORP In DATE TRT informed the first - instance court that no appropriate expert could be found . Following receipt of that information , the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed a petition with the first - instance court on DATE repeating his requests contained in the petition of DATE . In his petition , the applicant \u2019s lawyer also requested that a copy of the audiotapes be provided to him and his client .","At the hearing of DATE ORG decided to ask the criminal departments of the gendarmerie and the police to assign appropriate experts for the voice analysis . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s requests in the petition of the same date , holding that it had already ruled on them .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed a further petition with the court repeating the requests contained in his petitions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . He further maintained that any experts assigned in the case should be impartial . At the hearing held on DATE , the first - instance court once again dismissed the requests of the applicant \u2019s lawyer . The court noted that the objection to the experts was groundless and that it had already dismissed the other requests .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed a petition with the court objecting to the court dismissing his requests . No decision was taken in respect of this petition .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed a further petition repeating his previous requests . At the hearing held on DATE , the first - instance court dismissed those requests without providing any reason . The court also decided to deliver the audiotapes to the designated expert , PERSON GPE , a police officer from the criminal laboratory at ORG .","On DATE the expert submitted the transcripts of the recordings of the telephone conversations to the first - instance court .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer made written submissions to the court in which he maintained his objections to the expert \u2019s work . He further contended that the defence did not know whether all the conversations had been transcribed , since the court had refused to deliver a copy of the audiotapes to the applicant and his lawyer . The lawyer claimed that the court \u2019s refusal to do so was in violation of LAW . In his petition , the applicant \u2019s lawyer once again asked the court to conduct an inquiry into the legal procedure concerning the phone tapping , to give a copy of the recordings to the defence , to designate an independent and impartial expert to conduct a comparative voice analysis , and to find out the identities of the persons with whom the applicant had allegedly spoken . Lastly , he asked the court to request a copy of the case file of the criminal proceedings concerning the bombing of PERSON .","On DATE , at the CARDINAL hearing in the case , the first - instance court asked the applicant \u2019s lawyer whether his client would provide a vocal sample for the voice identification analysis . The applicant \u2019s lawyer replied that he and his client would inform the court of their position on that point once the court had responded to their requests contained in his petition submitted on DATE . At the end of the hearing , the court dismissed the requests of the applicant \u2019s lawyer , holding that those requests had already been refused . It designated a judge and CARDINAL police officers , PERSON and PERSON GPE , as experts to conduct the comparative voice analysis on DATE and invited the applicant to participate in the voice identification process if he so wished .","On DATE as the voice identification process started in the presence of the applicant , the applicant \u2019s lawyer maintained that his client would not provide a voice sample until the discrepancies between the transcripts prepared by the public prosecutor \u2019s office and those prepared by PERSON had been resolved . He further contended that as PERSON had already been involved in the preparation of the transcripts , another expert should have been designated . The public prosecutor submitted , in reply , that there was no reason to believe that officers from the criminal laboratory at ORG were partial and that the applicant \u2019s behaviour had been unlawful . The judge decided to end the examination in view of the applicant \u2019s unwillingness to participate .","In a petition dated DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked the first - instance court to accept the withdrawal of their request for a comparative voice analysis . The lawyer contended that the applicant had not made those telephone conversations and that it was the defence who had asked for that examination in the first place . However , in view of the court \u2019s refusal of their other requests , he believed that it was not possible to have a fair trial in the applicant \u2019s case .","At the end of the hearing held on DATE ORG decided to consider the applicant \u2019s request contained in the petition dated DATE at the same time as it considered the case on the merits . On DATE the court decided to request a copy of the case file of proceedings before ORG following a request by the representative of CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s co - accused .","The first - instance court adjourned the hearings CARDINAL times DATE and DATE , as ORG had not sent the documents requested .","At the CARDINAL hearing held on DATE , following receipt of the aforementioned documents , the first - instance court asked the public prosecutor to submit his observations on the merits of the case .","At the next hearing on DATE the public prosecutor asked the court to take his observations of CARDINAL DATE into consideration .","In a petition dated DATE filed with the first - instance court , the applicant \u2019s lawyer maintained that the refusal of his requests that the court hear the persons who had allegedly made statements against the applicant and those who had allegedly had telephone conversations with him , and of his requests for a copy of the recordings of the telephone conversations and regarding the designation of the experts , had been in breach of LAW and CARDINAL(d ) of the Convention . He further contended that the statements that ORG officials had made to the press referring to the applicant as a \u201c terrorist \u201d had been in violation of LAW . No decision was taken in respect of that petition .","During DATE and TIME hearings held on DATE and DATE the applicant and his co - accused responded to the public prosecutor \u2019s observations on the merits of the case .","On DATE ORG decided to ask the ORG courts for another judgment rendered by ORG in the DATE \u2019s , convicting the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation . DATE and DATE the court adjourned CARDINAL hearings awaiting a copy of the aforementioned judgment .","At the CARDINAL hearing on CARDINAL DATE the court received the judgment that it had requested on DATE and decided to adjourn the trial pending examination of the case file .","On CARDINAL DATE the first - instance court asked the applicant to make additional defence submissions given that he might be convicted of membership of an illegal organisation under LAW , instead of LAW .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed a petition with the court , requesting that the latter take into account their previous submissions , in the context of the application of LAW . The applicant \u2019s lawyer also repeated his previous requests .","At DATE and DATE hearings held on DATE and DATE , the first - instance court decided to adjourn the trial as the composition of the court had changed and there was a new president .","On DATE ORG rendered its judgment in the case . The applicant was convicted of membership of the ORG under LAW of the former LAW and sentenced to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment .","In its judgment , the first - instance court cited the following evidence contained in the case file : the statements that ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE had made to the police within the context of the proceedings against them ; the indictments in the cases against the aforementioned persons ; the statements made by PERSON to the police , the public prosecutor and during his own trial ; a document prepared by the anti - terrorism branch of ORG regarding the acts of terrorism that had occurred DATE and DATE ; and the transcripts , prepared by experts , of the telephone conversations between the applicant and a number of persons designated as \u201c X \u201d .","The first - instance court noted that ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE had asserted in their statements that the applicant was a member of the ORG and the leader of the organisation in LOC . As to the content of the transcripts , the court noted that it documented that the applicant had given instructions and orders on the carrying out of the acts of violence that had occurred following the arrest of PERSON .","In the light of the aforementioned evidence , ORG found it established that the applicant was a member of the ORG and the leader of the organisation in LOC . Its judgment stated that he had been involved in the training of ORG members in GPE and had been in contact with PERSON . In this connection , the court quoted Mr ORG statements to the public prosecutor after his arrest , in which he claimed that the applicant had trained ORG members in GPE .","The court further quoted the transcripts of CARDINAL telephone conversations and concluded that in the course of those conversations the applicant had issued instructions for the carrying out of acts of terrorism in GPE . It noted , however , that the applicant had not been directly involved in those acts . The court also noted that the applicant \u2019s instructions had been of a general nature . As a result , according to the court , a direct link between the acts of terrorism , in particular the attack on PERSON on DATE , and the applicant \u2019s instructions could not be established . ORG therefore did not convict the applicant under LAW of the former LAW . Nevertheless , noting that the ORG had given the applicant the specific task of inciting violent acts in GPE after the arrest of PERSON , the court convicted the applicant of membership of the ORG under LAW .","Both the prosecution and the applicant appealed against the decision .","In his petitions dated DATE and DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer objected to the court \u2019s having cited as evidence the statements of PERSON , ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE and the transcripts of the applicant \u2019s alleged telephone conversations . He submitted in particular that all those persons had denied the veracity of the statements taken from them by the police and that GPE , GPE and GPE had been acquitted of the charges brought against them . Moreover , the investigation against ORG had been concluded with a decision not to prosecute . The applicant \u2019s lawyer noted that the firstinstance court had not cited the accusations against the applicant contained in their statements in the reasoning of its judgment , which demonstrated that there had been no reason to convict his client . He complained , inter alia , that the first - instance court had failed to investigate whether a court order had been issued prior to the recording of the telephone conversations used as evidence in the trial . The court had also failed to provide the defence with a copy of the audiotapes and to hear those individuals designated as \u201c X \u201d in the transcripts of the telephone conversations . The applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted that those deficiencies in the proceedings constituted a violation of LAW .","The Chief Public Prosecutor at ORG submitted his opinion on the merits of both parties\u2019 appeals . In his written opinion ( tebli\u011fname ) to ORG , ORG advised that the appeals be rejected and that the first - instance judgment be upheld , as it was in compliance with procedural rules and law . That opinion was not submitted to the applicant , despite the fact that in his petition of DATE he had asked to be notified . According to the applicant \u2019s submissions , his lawyer was not aware of the written opinion until it was read out during the hearing before ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG . ORG at ORG applied for an exceptional appeal procedure before ORG of ORG , requesting that the applicant be sentenced under LAW . His request was dismissed .","On DATE the applicant was released from prison on probation and returned to GPE , where his family were living ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159777","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BAKOS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants , their representatives and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In the application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , the applicant also raised a complaint under another provision of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169844","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF USPASKICH v. LITHUANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , GPE . He lives in GPE , a town in GPE .","The applicant is a businessman . He used to be a politician . In DATE he established and was chairman of ORG ( PERSON partija ) in GPE . In the parliamentary elections of DATE , ORG obtained more votes than any other political party . DATE and DATE the applicant was Minister of the Economy , but resigned from that post after ORG ( PERSON tarnybin\u0117s etikos komisija ) found that he had breached the principle of not mixing private and public interests .","In DATE a criminal investigation was opened on suspicion of fraudulent accounting by ORG . The authorities suspected that the applicant , acting in complicity with CARDINAL other members of that party NORP the party treasurer and CARDINAL high - level administrators \u2013 as well as CARDINAL other person , had doctored ORG accounts . ORG , as a legal entity , was also a suspect in the case .","DATE the authorities searched the applicant \u2019s home in GPE town , as well as ORG headquarters .","In DATE the prosecutor attempted to call the applicant for questioning . However , the applicant could not be reached on his telephone , nor summoned . The applicant \u2019s wife explained to the prosecutor that the last time she had seen her husband was in DATE , when he had left for GPE . The applicant \u2019s wife refused to give any other testimony related to her husband .","On DATE the applicant sent the NORP Attorney General a letter to the effect that he was aware of the ongoing pre - trial investigation regarding him and ORG , and that some of his party colleagues had already been questioned . He claimed that he was staying in GPE , without disclosing his exact address . He asserted that the criminal case was \u201c a dirty political game \u201d ( teisin\u0117s institucijos dalyvauja ne\u0161variame politiniame \u017eaidime ) and had no basis , and expressed his intention to involve international organisations in his case . He also stated that he would return to GPE when his family circumstances permitted . In particular , his brother had recently died in GPE and his mother needed support .","On DATE the applicant resigned from the post of ORG chairman .","On DATE ORG website made public the applicant \u2019s \u201c Letter to ORG ( PERSON \u017emon\u0117ms ) , in which he stated that he would not hurry to return to GPE because he was expecting the [ NORP ] authorities to start a search for him . He did not wish to be questioned in GPE , and wanted international organisations to be involved in his proceedings .","On DATE the prosecutor decided to declare the applicant a suspect in the criminal case . The prosecutor found that , as chairman of ORG and also acting in an organised group with other members of that party , the applicant had sought to finance the party unlawfully and to avoid the financial supervision of the party and its political campaigns , by organising the party \u2019s fraudulent accounting from DATE . As a result , it had been impossible to establish the structure of the party \u2019s assets and expenditure for DATE . In particular , ORG had omitted from its accounts CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) worth of income , and some LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) worth of expenditure . The applicant had also provided inaccurate data to ORG and the tax authorities . This was in breach of a number of Criminal Code provisions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , as well as the PERSON on the Funding of Political Parties and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the Vilnius City Second District Court sanctioned , in absentia , the applicant \u2019s arrest and remand in custody on the grounds that he had known about the criminal proceedings but was hiding in GPE and had failed to present himself to the prosecutors to take part in the criminal proceedings . It was reasonable to assume that the applicant would continue to hide from the NORP authorities , thus obstructing the investigation . On DATE the prosecutor ordered a search for the applicant .","In DATE both decisions were made available to the applicant \u2019s lawyer .","On DATE at the ORG congress , another person was elected as chairman of ORG in the applicant \u2019s place .","On DATE the authorities of GPE arrested the applicant in GPE . On DATE he asked for political asylum in GPE and was immediately released . On the basis of information that reached them by ORG , the NORP prosecutors then asked their colleagues in GPE to arrest the applicant and to extradite him to GPE .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy Attorney General of ORG refused the request , relying on LAW , which states that extradition will not be granted if the offence in respect of which it is requested is regarded by the requested ORG as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence .","Having taken into account the criminal charges in respect of ORG , including evidence by independent auditors , on DATE ORG decided not to allocate it appropriations from the ORG budget .","In DATE ORG confirmed the applicant as a ORG candidate in elections to the municipal council of the GPE district . Given that electoral candidates in municipal elections had immunity from prosecution , the prosecutor asked ORG to permit the restriction of the applicant \u2019s freedom and his prosecution ( see LAW on the Elections to the Seimas , cited in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . At a hearing attended by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , the prosecutor and representatives of the media and ORG , ORG granted that request .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , who asserted that the restriction of his client \u2019s liberty was in breach of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention because he would then be unable to meet potential voters and proclaim his electoral programme . The NORP court had regard to the ORG \u2019s case - law on the subject and emphasised that the right to stand for elections was not absolute ( ORG referred to GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR CARDINALVI ) . Moreover , according to the ORG guidelines , fundamental rights and freedoms , including the freedom to move within a ORG , could be limited in order to protect the public interest ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the applicant \u2019s case , he had not been denied the very essence of his right to be elected . The ORG , for its part , had an obligation to prosecute criminal acts and to take measures to ensure that criminal proceedings were not unduly protracted . The applicant had been hiding from prosecution in GPE , which showed that he had deliberately breached NORP law by avoiding arrest which had earlier been sanctioned by a court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG did not find erroneous the argument put forward by ORG that \u201c the applicant sought immunity status as a candidate in his own interests , which essentially had no connection with his electoral rights \u201d . One could not dismiss the likelihood that if immunity from prosecution was granted , the applicant could return to GPE , and would leave the country before his immunity expired [ elected members of municipal councils do not have immunity from prosecution , see paragraph CARDINAL below ] . This would undermine society \u2019s trust in the ORG and in the LOC duty to investigate crimes and prosecute perpetrators to protect society from attempts to commit crime .","ORG also emphasised that the prosecutor \u2019s request to lift the applicant \u2019s immunity had no connection with his participation in the municipal elections ; nor was it intended to prevent the applicant from being elected . In fact , the criminal proceedings had started long before the municipal elections , the date of which was not announced by the Seimas until DATE . The applicant therefore had plenty of time to return to GPE from hiding in GPE and to testify in the criminal case , thus also being able to fully take part in the municipal elections .","Whilst de facto residing in GPE , the applicant took part in the municipal elections in GPE on DATE , and was successfully elected .","On DATE ORG granted a request submitted by the applicant to annul his powers as a member of the municipal council .","In DATE , GPE , a member of ORG ( PERSON ) political party , who was elected to the Seimas for the term from DATE to DATE representing the PERSON constituency , became mayor of the ORG district municipality and therefore resigned from the ORG .","In DATE ORG consequently announced new elections to the Seimas in that constituency .","NORP In DATE , ORG decided to take part in the parliamentary elections in the PERSON constituency , which were to take place on CARDINAL and , if necessary , on DATE ( second round of voting ) . ORG confirmed the applicant as its candidate in that constituency .","On DATE , ORG confirmed the applicant as a candidate in the LAW elections .","On DATE , ORG announced the list of CARDINAL candidates who were to stand in that single - member constituency . The applicant \u2019s name was among those listed , and the electoral campaign started on DATE .","On DATE , a spokesperson for the ORG President stated that the President found it \u2018 odd that a person who had asked for political asylum in GPE , decried the NORP institutions and was being searched for by the NORP law - enforcement authorities , could be registered as a candidate in the parliamentary elections\u2019 .","On the basis of a request by the prosecutor , on DATE ORG decided that the applicant could be arrested or his liberty could be otherwise restricted during the electoral campaign , until he was elected and took the oath as a parliamentarian .","The applicant appealed through his lawyer . He relied , inter alia , on LAW . CARDINAL to the Convention .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . It noted that the immunities of candidates in municipal elections were analogous to those applied in the context of elections to the Seimas . The grounds for lifting the applicant \u2019s immunity had already been decided by the res judicata ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) . No new factual circumstances had been brought to the court \u2019s attention to justify a different ruling .","The applicant , accompanied by a group of ORG Members of ORG , returned to ORG from GPE on DATE . On DATE he was arrested , signed the notice of the offences of which he was suspected , was questioned and remanded in custody .","At a hearing before the GPE City Second District Court of DATE , at which the applicant was present , the court decided to vary the remand measure to house arrest . The court noted that the earlier court order to arrest and detain the applicant had been adopted whilst he was being searched for ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Now , that he had returned to GPE from GPE , and was not refusing to testify , a milder remand measure could be imposed . The court thus ordered the applicant to stay at his home in GPE town from TIME , not to leave the GPE town area , not to communicate with the CARDINAL other suspects in his criminal case , and not to attend public places ( nesilankyti vie\u0161osiose vietose ) .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to release him from house arrest , claiming that such a remand measure interfered with his electoral rights , in particular , to meet with voters in the PERSON electoral district . The applicant relied on LAW No . CARDINAL . He also mentioned that he wished to leave PERSON town so that he could visit a medical establishment in another town .","For his part , the prosecutor lodged an appeal with ORG , urging it to impose pre - trial detention on the applicant .","During the first round of voting in the PERSON single - member constituency , which took place on DATE , the applicant and another candidate received , respectively , CARDINAL and MONEY of the votes . They would thus compete in a second round of elections , which was scheduled for DATE .","By a final ruling of DATE , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision to place the applicant under house arrest , with the exception that he was now allowed to visit public places from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. The prohibition on his leaving GPE town remained effective . The court held that the applicant should be kept under house arrest in order to protect interests important to society : he had earlier been hiding from the prosecutor , the sums not accounted for by ORG amounted to CARDINAL of NORP litai , and there was reason to believe that he could obstruct the investigation . The court also considered that house arrest would not interfere with the applicant \u2019s electoral rights or with his business or family interests .","On DATE , ORG asked ORG to intervene as an intermediary with a view to the prosecutors mitigating the remand measure , house arrest , so that the applicant could compete in the parliamentary electoral campaign on equal grounds .","On DATE ORG answered in the negative : should it express any opinion about the reasonableness of the applicant \u2019s remand measure , this could be interpreted as undue interference with the courts\u2019 competence and a breach of the principle of separation of powers .","On DATE , the applicant himself asked the prosecutors to modify the remand measure for the period of DATE , and to allow him to leave PERSON town so that he could go to the PERSON constituency , situated QUANTITY away , to meet the voters and compete with the other candidate on equal terms . The applicant stated that his meetings with the voters during the second round of elections would start on DATE . He also added a CARDINAL - page document describing the schedule of meetings between members of his party , including some renowned party members , and voters . From the documents in the ORG \u2019s possession it transpires that those meetings had already taken place from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , that is , before the first voting round , in the PERSON constituency . The schedule indicated that the applicant would have taken part in those meetings had the prosecutors allowed him to meet the voters .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the prosecutor rejected the applicant \u2019s request . He noted that the applicant had earlier made public statements that he could lead the electoral campaign even without physically being in GPE . For the prosecutor , the applicant could also take part in the electoral campaign by other means provided for by law , and without violating the conditions of his house arrest . The prosecutor stressed that house arrest had been imposed on the applicant by a court ruling of DATE and had been upheld by a higher court on CARDINAL DATE . Accordingly , the applicant must have known in advance , and before making plans for meeting voters , about the limitations his house arrest entailed .","On DATE ORG asked the prosecutor to permit the applicant to leave PERSON town for the PERSON constituency during the electoral campaign . The following day the prosecutor rejected that request , relying on the grounds set out by the earlier court rulings of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , and the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant also lodged an appeal with the higher prosecutor , asking him to modify the remand measure , house arrest , and to permit him to meet voters \u201c eye - to - eye \u201d in order to compete in the elections on equal grounds with the other candidate . The applicant also insisted that he wanted permission to leave ORG town in order to visit doctors in other towns and for his business interests . Quoting certain information in the press , the applicant insisted that there had been a political decision to prevent him from becoming elected .","NORP The applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed by the higher prosecutor on DATE . The prosecutor noted that the applicant had known of the final ORG ruling of CARDINAL DATE , which was not amenable to appeal , but had ignored it . Despite the adoption of that ruling , he had drawn up a schedule of meetings with voters . There were no new circumstances warranting a change in the applicant \u2019s remand measure . The prosecutor \u2019s decision was sent to the applicant on DATE , and could have been appealed against to the court .","The applicant claimed that he had received that decision on CARDINAL DATE .","During the second round of voting in the PERSON constituency on DATE , the applicant received CARDINAL votes ( or MONEY of the votes cast ) . The other candidate , who was a member of the ORG political party , received CARDINAL votes ( or MONEY of the votes cast ) , and thus became a member of the Seimas .","On DATE the applicant was re - elected as chairman of ORG .","After the parliamentary elections , the prosecutor granted or refused a number of the applicant \u2019s requests to leave his home in GPE . In particular , in DATE the prosecutor permitted the applicant to leave PERSON town so that he could visit , during the daytime \u2013 TIME a cemetery in a village situated in GPE district for All Saints Day on DATE .","In DATE the applicant asked the prosecutor for permission to visit the ORG sports school , situated in GPE in the GPE district , where ORG congress ( rinkiminis suva\u017eiavimas ) was to take place . The applicant pointed out that GPE and GPE town \u201c touched each other on the map \u201d ( Vilaini\u0173 kaimas ir GPE miestas ribojasi , tod\u0117l ORG sporto mokykla yra prakti\u0161kai ant kaimo ir miesto ribos ) . He also asked the prosecutor for permission to attend the same sports school to play tennis CARDINAL times a week , a sport that the applicant had practised previously . The prosecutor granted those requests .","In DATE the prosecutor permitted the applicant to leave GPE town to visit , DATE , doctors in GPE , a town situated QUANTITY from GPE town .","On DATE the applicant also asked the prosecutor for permission to take part in a live show , \u201c Dancing with the Stars \u201d , which was to be filmed TIME on DATE in the FAC leisure and entertainment centre ( pramog\u0173 centre ) in GPE . The prosecutor declined the request , holding that the timing was incompatible with the house arrest , which was imposed on the applicant from TIME The prosecutor pointed out that the applicant had known beforehand about the house arrest conditions , which did not match those of the television show .","In DATE the prosecutor also refused a request made by DATE previously to be permitted to travel to GPE to attend a meeting of ORG and NORP for ORG ( NORP demokrat\u0173 partija ) , scheduled for DATE . The prosecutor referred to the ruling of ORG of DATE and noted that such a request could not be granted because the applicant had been avoiding justice for a long time . Moreover , \u201c the house arrest prohibited the applicant from even leaving the area of GPE .","With the prosecutor \u2019s permission , in DATE the applicant visited a cardiology clinic in GPE . The doctors there recommended that the applicant return to that clinic for consultations and for more profound tests in DATE . Having obtained a fresh authorisation by the prosecutor , in DATE the applicant stayed in the GPE clinic for TIME and underwent several more tests DATE .","In DATE , the applicant asked the prosecutor to permit him to stay DATE in a convalescence sanatorium in GPE ( a town situated QUANTITY from PERSON ) . The applicant referred to the NORP cardiologists\u2019 recommendations and stated that the necessary procedures could be performed only in that particular sanatorium . The prosecutor granted the request , also stressing that the applicant had earlier requested to see the material in the case file , but had never come to the prosecutor \u2019s office to see them . The applicant had until DATE to do so ( see the following paragraph ) .","The pre - trial investigation in the criminal case was terminated on DATE , and the applicant was then allowed to see the material in the case file until DATE and , if necessary , to make requests to supplement the file .","According to a survey of the press carried out at the applicant \u2019s request , from DATE until DATE , the words \u201c ORG ... suspect \u201d , \u201c PERSON ... suspect \u201d had been mentioned in CARDINAL press articles .","On DATE the criminal case was transferred to ORG for examination .","On DATE the ORG released the applicant from house arrest . The court modified that remand measure to an obligation not to leave his place of residence in GPE town for DATE without informing the authorities , and to pay bail of LTL CARDINAL . The applicant also signed an agreement not to communicate with the CARDINAL other persons suspected in the criminal case .","During the parliamentary elections of DATE , the applicant and another member of his political party , who was a co - accused in the criminal case , were elected to the Seimas from DATE to DATE for ORG . They therefore obtained immunity from prosecution . In DATE the ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s prosecution and the restriction of his freedom . The Seimas also permitted the prosecution of the applicant \u2019s co - accused .","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE of ORG , the remand measure \u2013 the obligation not to leave the applicant \u2019s place of residence DATE was revoked . The other remand measure , bail , remained in force .","On DATE , the applicant was elected to ORG as a ORG Member . He resigned his parliamentary seat in GPE , because under NORP law a Member of ORG could not be a member of the LAW at the same time ( see paragraph DATE below ) . The NORP authorities then asked ORG to lift the applicant \u2019s immunity in order to allow his prosecution . The prosecutor stated , inter alia , that as a result of fraudulent book - keeping of ORG and the submission of such information to ORG and the tax authorities in DATE , the ORG had suffered serious pecuniary damage in the sum of about LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , because appropriations had been allocated to ORG from the ORG budget .","Having heard the applicant , and having had regard to a report by ORG , in DATE ORG lifted the applicant \u2019s immunity , thus allowing the criminal proceedings in GPE to continue ( decision ORG ) . ORG noted that the applicant had been charged with offences of false accounting in relation to the financing of a political party during a period prior to his election to ORG . No cogent evidence had been adduced as to the existence of any fumus persecutionis and the offences with which the applicant had been charged had nothing to do with his activities as a Member of ORG .","In DATE the applicant and CARDINAL of his co - accused were all elected to the Seimas of DATE - CARDINAL for ORG . The applicant then asked ORG in GPE to annul his mandate as a Member of ORG . His request was granted . At the ORG request , the Seimas lifted the applicant \u2019s immunity and the criminal proceedings resumed .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of fraudulent accounting committed in complicity with CARDINAL other persons , under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , QUANTITY and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . The court sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment .","The applicant and the prosecutor appealed against the conviction .","NORP Following reorganisation of ORG , the criminal case against it was discontinued by the same judgment of ORG , applying by analogy LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , which provides that criminal proceedings can not be conducted in respect of a deceased person . In particular , on DATE the legal personality of ORG ceased to exist after its reorganisation , and on DATE it was struck from ORG . ORG merged with the LOC political party , and on DATE a new legal entity was registered under the name of ORG ( Darbo partija ( LOC ) ) . DATE the latter party merged with another political party DATE ORG ( ORG partija ) . It was registered as a new legal entity but under the previous name , ORG ( Darbo partija ) .","According to the Government , that new party continued to use the same logo as it had used before DATE .","On DATE the applicant was again elected to ORG as a ORG member . In DATE ORG in GPE granted the applicant \u2019s request to resign his seat in the Seimas .","At the request of the NORP courts , in DATE ORG lifted the applicant \u2019s immunity . This time ORG noted , inter alia , that the criminal proceedings at issue were identical , in terms of content , to the proceedings in respect of which it had already lifted the applicant \u2019s immunity in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At that time the applicant had been charged with , in essence , heading an organised group with the aim of committing a number of criminal offences , with disregard for his duty , as party chairman , to monitor the party \u2019s finances . For example , fictitious books were allegedly kept in order to conceal revenue and expenditure . In general , he was alleged to have frequently given instructions not to officially declare or record various business and financial transactions . From the documents in ORG possession it was clear that the definition of the offences giving rise to the charges against the applicant had always remained the same . Moreover , no convincing evidence was available to demonstrate fumus persecutionis . The offences of which the applicant was accused had nothing to do with his work as a Member of ORG . Lastly , ORG noted that the decision on the waiver of immunity in no way constituted a statement of opinion regarding the applicant \u2019s guilt or innocence , as this was the subject of national proceedings .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction under LAW for fraudulent management of ORG accounts , having acted in an organised group . He was acquitted under LAW . The criminal case under LAW was discontinued because of prescription .","On the basis of an appeal on points of law lodged by the prosecutor , the criminal case is currently pending before ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172701","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CHOWDURY AND OTHERS v. GREECE","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4 - Positive obligations;Article 4-1 - Trafficking in human beings;Article 4-2 - Forced labour);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants , NORP migrants living in GPE without a work permit , were recruited on different dates DATE and DATE in GPE and other places , to work on the region \u2019s biggest strawberry farm , at GPE , a village of CARDINAL inhabitants in the regional district of GPE , in the western part of the NORP peninsula . In that area there are a number of production units , of various sizes , specialising in the intensive cultivation of strawberries . Exports account for PERCENT of the local production , which covers PERCENT of the NORP market . Most of the workers are irregular migrants from GPE and GPE . Some are employed on the farms permanently and others only on a seasonal basis .","The production unit in question was run by ORG , the applicants\u2019 employers .","The applicants were among a total of CARDINAL workers divided into CARDINAL teams , each CARDINAL headed by a NORP national who reported to ORG","The workers had been promised a wage of CARDINAL ( ORG ) for CARDINAL hours\u2019 work and CARDINAL for TIME of overtime , with QUANTITY per day deducted for food . They worked in greenhouses DATE from TIME picking strawberries under the supervision of armed guards employed by ORG They lived in makeshift shacks made of cardboard , nylon and bamboo , without toilets or running water . According to them , their employers had warned them that they would only receive their wages if they continued to work for them .","On DATE in DATE , DATE and on DATE the workers went on strike demanding payment of their unpaid wages , but without success .","On DATE the employers recruited other NORP migrants to work in the fields . Fearing that they would not be paid , CARDINAL workers from DATE who worked in the fields started moving towards the CARDINAL employers , who were on the spot , in order to demand their wages . CARDINAL of the armed guards then opened fire against the workers , seriously injuring CARDINAL of them , including CARDINAL of the applicants ( listed under numbers CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) . The wounded were taken to hospital and were subsequently questioned by police .","On DATE and DATE the police arrested GPE and ORG , together with the guard who had fired the shots and another armed overseer . During the preliminary investigation by the local police , a number of other NORP , including some who had worked with the suspects , were used as interpreters .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor charged the CARDINAL suspects with attempted murder and other offences , and also , in response to a request from the prosecutor at ORG , with human trafficking under LAW . The charge of attempted murder was subsequently reclassified as grievous bodily harm .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor acknowledged that CARDINAL workers \u2013 including CARDINAL team - leaders \u2013 , who had all been injured during the incident , were victims of human trafficking , thus making them lawful residents under LAW of PERSON no . PERSON ( on the repression of human trafficking , crimes against sexual freedom , child pornography , and more generally sexual exploitation ) .","On DATE CARDINAL other workers , including the CARDINAL applicants who had not been injured ( listed under numbers CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL ) , applied to the ORG public prosecutor for charges of human trafficking , attempted murder and assault , in respect of them also , to be brought against the CARDINAL defendants . They stated that they had been employed on the farm run by ORG in conditions of human trafficking and forced labour and that they were part of the group which had come under fire . Relying on LAW to LAW , known as the \u201c LAW \u201d , of DATE ( \u201c to Prevent , Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons \u201d ) , they asked the public prosecutor to bring charges under LAW of LAW against their employers , accusing them of exploiting them in a work - related context . They further alleged that , on DATE , they had also been present at the scene of the incident and that they had gone there to demand their unpaid wages , with the result that they were also victims of the offences committed against the other CARDINAL complainants .","The police questioned each of the above - mentioned CARDINAL applicants , who signed a record containing their statements , which had been given under oath and were accompanied by their photos , and they forwarded the statements to the public prosecutor .","NORP In decision CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG public prosecutor rejected the application of DATE workers . He emphasised that those workers had been sought in order to give testimony during the preliminary investigation and that CARDINAL of them had been traced and interviewed ( including the CARDINAL applicants mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He noted that it transpired from their statements and other material in the file that their allegations did not correspond to the reality . He explained that if they had really been the victims of the offences complained of , they would have gone to the police immediately on DATE , like the CARDINAL other workers had done , and would not have waited until DATE . In his view , the claim that the complainants had been afraid and had left their huts was not credible because they had been close to the scene of the incident and , when the police arrived , they could have returned to make their complaints known . He further noted that CARDINAL out of CARDINAL complainants interviewed had stated they had been injured and that , unlike the CARDINAL workers mentioned above , none of those CARDINAL workers had gone to hospital . Lastly , he observed that all the complainants had stated that they had made statements to the police after learning that they would receive residence permits as victims of human trafficking .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG dismissed the appeals of DATE workers against decision no . CARDINAL on the grounds that the material in the case file did not substantiate their allegations and that they had sought to present themselves as victims of human trafficking in order to obtain residence permits ( decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The accused were committed to stand trial in ORG . Only GPE was charged with committing the offence of human trafficking . The CARDINAL other defendants , namely ORG and the CARDINAL armed overseers , were charged with aiding and abetting that offence . The hearings began on DATE and ended on DATE . The CARDINAL workers mentioned above joined the proceedings as civil parties and were represented by their lawyers PERSON and PERSON , whose fees were paid by ORG .","In his oral submissions the public prosecutor pointed out that the applicants who had been injured in the incident had been living and working in GPE without any permit , at the mercy of networks which exploited human beings and in conditions which enabled them to be characterised as victims of human trafficking . In his view both the material element and the mental element of this offence were made out in the present case .","The public prosecutor further emphasised that exploitation in a labour context was part of the notion of exploitation provided for in NORP and other international law instruments as a means of committing the offence of human trafficking . He indicated that LAW of LAW prohibited forced or compulsory labour . He explained that the notion of exploitation through work included all acts which constituted a breach of employment law , such as the provisions concerning TIME , working conditions and workers\u2019 insurance . In his view , that form of exploitation also obtained through the performance of work for the benefit of the offender himself .","Referring to the facts of the case , the public prosecutor explained that the employer , ORG , had not paid the workers for DATE , that he had only paid them a very small sum for food , deducted from their wages , and had promised to pay the rest later . He observed as follows : that the defendants were unscrupulous and imposed themselves by making threats and carrying weapons ; the workers laboured in extreme physical conditions , had to work TIME and were constantly humiliated ; on DATE , ORG had informed the workers that he would not pay them and would kill them , with the help of his co - accused , if they did not carry on working for him ; as the workers had not given in to the threats , he had told them to leave and said that he would take on another team in their place and that he would burn down their huts if they refused to leave . He lastly noted that , when he recruited them , ORG had promised the complainants makeshift shelters and a DATE wage of ORG DATE which in his view was the only solution for the victims to be sure of a means of subsistence DATE and that GPE had thus succeeded , at that point , in obtaining their consent in order to be able to exploit them subsequently .","NORP The public prosecutor asserted that the incident of DATE was illustrative of a situation of over - exploitation and barbaric treatment to which the major landowners in the region had subjected the migrant workers . He took the view that the incident had been a barbaric and armed aggression by NORP employers against the migrants , conjuring up images of a \u201c southern slave - trade \u201d which had no place in GPE .","At the hearing , one of the witnesses , an officer from the police station of ORG , stated that DATE before the incident of CARDINAL DATE some workers had gone to the police station to complain that their employers had refused to pay them their wages and that CARDINAL of his colleagues had subsequently had a telephone conversation with GPE on this subject .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG acquitted the CARDINAL defendants on the charge of trafficking in human beings , on the ground that the material element of the offence was not made out in the present case . It convicted CARDINAL of the armed guards and ORG of grievous bodily harm and unlawful use of firearms , sentencing them to prison for terms of DATE , respectively . As regards the overseer who had been responsible for the shots , it took the view that he had not intended to kill those who were attacked in the incident and that he had been trying to make them move away so that the newly recruited workers would not be approached by them . As to GPE , it acquitted him on the ground that it had not been established that he was one of the workers\u2019 employers ( and therefore that he was obliged to pay them their wages ) or that he had been involved as an instigator of the armed attack against them . ORG commuted their prison sentences to a financial penalty of CARDINAL per day of detention . It also ordered the CARDINAL convicted men to pay the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the CARDINAL workers who were recognised as victims ( about EUR CARDINAL per person ) .","ORG noted that the workers\u2019 conditions of employment had provided that they would receive : PERSON CARDINAL for TIME of work and LAW for TIME ; food , of which the cost would be deducted from their wages ; and materials for the construction of electrified huts next to their plantations , at their ORG expense , to satisfy their basic accommodation needs DATE while allowing them the option of living elsewhere in the region . It noted that these conditions had been brought to the knowledge of the workers by their fellow countrymen who were team - leaders .","ORG thus observed that the workers had been informed of their conditions of employment and that they had accepted them after finding them satisfactory . As to the amount of the wages , it found that this was the usual amount paid by the other producers in the region and the workers had not been obliged to accept it . In the court \u2019s view , the information provided to the workers by their team - leaders and their compatriots working for other employers about the reliable payment of wages constituted a major factor in the choice of ORG as employer . ORG further noted that , until DATE , the workers had not made any complaint about their employer , whether concerning his conduct or the payment of wages , and they had only started to complain at DATE or DATE about a delay in payment .","NORP Moreover , ORG rejected the ORG allegations that they had not received any wages and had been subjected to a threatening and intimidating attitude , on the part of the defendants , throughout the duration of their work , on the following grounds : those allegations had been expressed for the first time at the hearing , and not at the stage of the preliminary enquiries or investigation ; certain intimidating acts had led the complainants to leave their place of work ; and the description of these acts was particularly imprecise and vague . ORG also noted that it transpired from the testimony of the workers that , during their free time , they were able to move freely around the region , do their shopping in shops which operated by agreement with the defendants , play cricket and take part in an association set up by their compatriots . It added that it had not been shown that ORG had , under false pretences and by means of promises , coerced the workers into agreeing to work for him by taking advantage of their situation of vulnerability , especially as it found that they were not in such a situation .","ORG took the view that it had also been shown that the relations between the workers and their employers had been governed by a binding employment relationship and its conditions were not intended to trap the workers or to lead to their domination by the employers . On that point , it explained that the conditions had not led the complainants to live in a state of exclusion from the outside world , without any possibility for them to abandon this relationship and look for another job . It further noted that the workers had been in a position to negotiate their conditions of employment at the time of their recruitment and that their unlawful presence in GPE had not been used by their employers as a means of coercion to force them to continue working .","ORG indicated that , for the notion of vulnerability to be constituted , the victim had to be in a state of impoverishment such that his refusal to submit to the offender would appear absurd ; in other words the victim had to be in a state of absolute weakness preventing him from protecting himself . It added that the victim would be exploited , as a result of his vulnerability , if he unconditionally submitted himself to the offender and was cut off from the outside world , which in the court \u2019s view was not the case here since : ( a ) the relations between the workers and their employers had been governed by a binding employment relationship , and ( b ) its conditions were not intended to trap the workers or to lead to their domination by the employers , such that the workers might be cut off from the outside world and find it impossible to withdraw from the employment relationship and find another job . ORG further observed that most of the workers had stated that they would have continued to work for their employers had they been paid their wages .","Lastly , as to the ORG allegation that they had received death threats from the defendants DATE an allegation that it did not accept DATE , ORG took the view that , if that statement had been true the workers would have left their place of work without hesitation . The fact of fearing for their lives would have prevailed over any other consideration ( such as : their unpaid wage demands ; their need to earn a living , which allegedly could not have been satisfied in view of the objective inability to find another job ; and all the other arguments that the workers had put forward to justify the fact that they had continued to work ) .","On DATE the convicted defendants appealed against the judgment of ORG . The appeal , which is still pending before that same court , has suspensive effect .","On DATE the workers\u2019 lawyers lodged an application with the public prosecutor at ORG asking him to appeal against ORG judgment . In their application they submitted that ORG had not adequately examined the charge of human trafficking . They took the view that , in order to determine whether that court had properly applied Article CARDINAL of LAW , it was necessary to examine whether the accused had taken advantage of any vulnerability of the foreign nationals in order to exploit them .","On DATE the prosecutor refused to lodge an appeal . He gave reasons for his decision , indicating only that the statutory conditions for an appeal on points of law were not met . As a result of this decision , the part of the DATE judgment concerning human trafficking became \u201c irrevocable \u201d ( \u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ac\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7 ) ."],"violated_articles":["4"],"violated_paragraphs":["4-1","4-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178902","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF RASTODER v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Obtain attendance of witnesses)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE pri ORG .","On DATE a person called ORG called the police and informed them that CARDINAL people had been stabbed in the town of LOC . Only the injured people , namely ORG , and GPE , were found at the place of the incident . TIME the applicant and his CARDINAL sons , GPE and GPE , were arrested on suspicion of attempted murder .","On DATE the applicant , PERSON and GPE were brought before the investigating judge . The applicant , who was assisted by counsel , gave the following statement in his defence . He alleged that he had intended to meet ORG in order to demand that he pay rent for workers who had previously been accommodated in his flat and to cancel their residence registration at that address . Before he set off to a bar where ORG workers met after work ( hereinafter \u201c the bar \u201d ) , he telephoned his sons and asked them to come and assist him in case he met any trouble from GPE After \u0160.A. refused to resolve the matter , the applicant left the bar and was followed by CARDINAL of \u0160.A. \u2019s workers . \u0160.A. and GPE , CARDINAL of the workers , started hitting the applicant all over his body . His sons , standing nearby , came to his aid . After \u0160.A. hit ORG , the applicant , an electrical fitter by profession , took out the knife he used for work , which had a seven- to QUANTITY blade , and began brandishing it . Among others , he stabbed \u0160.A. several times in the back . \u0160.A. then backed off and the applicant and his sons fled the scene . Once at home the applicant gave the knife to his wife , who disposed of it . The applicant also stated that the only injuries he had sustained had been some bruises on his head .","The applicant \u2019s sons stated that their father had met with ORG and another person and that a fight had started . When they had gone to help him , a number of other men had approached and had started beating them . The applicant \u2019s sons also stated that they had not been carrying any knives themselves . According to them , GPE had defended himself with a wooden clothes hanger .","The injured parties , PERSON , PERSON , and PERSON , were also questioned in the investigation and they stated , inter alia , as follows .","PERSON stated that after leaving the bar he had been attacked by the applicant , who had hit him on the nose with the handle of the knife . PERSON and PERSON had arrived after that and the applicant had again attacked PERSON had attacked PERSON while PERSON had attacked GPE In the course of the fight the applicant had stabbed PERSON and had also attacked PERSON and GPE , before fleeing the scene . The applicant and his sons had had knives . The applicant \u2019s knife had had a QUANTITY blade .","PERSON stated that he had heard people saying there was a crowd outside the bar , he had gone out and found PERSON being hit in the face and running . He had then seen the applicant attacking PERSON He had attempted to separate them , but GPE had stabbed him . GPE had then fled and the applicant had stabbed him several times , which had caused him to faint .","\u0160.A. testified that after being told that something was going on outside the bar he had gone out and found PERSON and PERSON being attacked . He had attempted to help PERSON , who had been stabbed in the neck by the applicant , and PERSON He had been stabbed in the back several times by the applicant .","In addition to the accused and the injured parties the investigating judge questioned CARDINAL witnesses PERSON , GPE , GPE , \u0160e . A. and GPE","A.\u010c. testified that he had noticed the applicant and his sons , together with PERSON and another person , standing QUANTITY from the bar . \u0160.A. had approached them and TIME they had started to fight . According to ORG , only those CARDINAL people had been involved in the fight . He had not seen any weapons , but had seen blood on ORG shirt . In addition , the third victim ( PERSON ) had been holding his neck . ORG also stated that he had called to his acquaintance GPE to telephone the police .","GPE gave a fairly detailed account . He explained that he had seen the applicant in the bar arguing with PERSON and then leaving TIME before the fight . TIME PERSON had left the bar as well . \u0160.A. had received a call and had gone out . After being alerted by ORG and seeing the fight through the window , he had gone out of the bar and had seen the applicant and his sons , as well as PERSON , PERSON , and GPE , fighting . He testified that the applicant and his sons had been the weaker parties in the fight until the applicant had pulled out a knife , saying , \u201c Now let us see \u201d , and using it to attack GPE , GPE and PERSON He added that he had not seen the applicant \u2019s sons handling any knives and also described the applicant \u2019s knife as having a blade of CARDINAL to QUANTITY .","GPE , the third witness , stated that TIME in question he had first seen the applicant and later his sons park their cars in front of the bar where the events at issue took place . ORG and his friend had then approached the bar and had seen PERSON lying unconscious on the ground .","On DATE the investigating judge questioned GPE and ORG A. in the presence of the district public prosecutor and counsel for PERSON , who were also allowed to put questions . GPE told the investigating judge that he had been walking home with \u0160e . A. when he had seen the applicant , his sons , and GPE coming out of the bar . The applicant had had his hand in his pocket and appeared to be holding something . He had seen him pointing at PERSON and heard him telling his sons , \u201c This is [ GPE ] \u201d . He had later seen his brother - in - law ( PERSON ) lying on the ground with blood on his head . The police and an ambulance had arrived .","\u0160e . A. stated that he and GPE had been on their way home when PERSON had come out of the bar and told them to wait . \u0160e . A. had then noticed the applicant and his sons . He had seen the applicant pointing at PERSON and saying something , whereupon the applicant had gone towards PERSON and hit him in the face with the handle of his knife . As PERSON had moved away , towards the bar , CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s sons had approached . Both PERSON and \u0160.A. had come out of the bar at that moment and a fight had broken out between GPE , PERSON , and the applicant and PERSON , PERSON and ORG A. had approached the fighting men and tried to separate GPE and PERSON had then struck PERSON with a knife , but when PERSON had approached , he had turned to him . \u0160e . A. had got scared and had run away . \u0160e . A. described the knife as being old , with a blade of QUANTITY , but could not remember further details . \u0160e . A. stated during the questioning that his work visa was valid until DATE .","In DATE the court summoned the witnesses , including GPE and \u0160e . A. , to a hearing that had been scheduled for DATE . The summons for GPE was served on his neighbour while \u0160e . A. \u2019s was served on his wife . The court subsequently cancelled the hearing and ordered that the witnesses , including GPE and \u0160e . A. , be summoned to a hearing on DATE . However , since GPE and \u0160e . A. no longer had a place of residence that was registered in GPE , the court on DATE asked ORG to investigate where the CARDINAL witnesses were living . Further to another request from the court , ORG informed it that PERSON A. had cancelled his residence status in ORG on DATE and that GPE had cancelled his on DATE . It appears that the police registered their enquiries about the whereabouts of GPE and \u0160e . A. in the GPE system .","After receiving information from the authorities of the former GPE , the NORP police informed the court on DATE of GPE \u2019s address , whence the court subsequently sent the summons . On DATE the ORG received a statement from GPE , given to a notary , in which he excused himself from attending the hearing , saying that he needed a visa to enter GPE . However , in order to comply with the summons , he included his testimony , which he had given to the notary . He stated that he did not remember exactly when the incident in question had happened but thought it was DATE , when he had had a temporary job as a construction worker in GPE . He had at that time been in the process of moving from the applicant \u2019s apartment to GPE \u2019s apartment . As to the incident , he said that he remembered seeing PERSON lying on the ground and the police and ambulance arriving at the scene .","In DATE , further to indications from the authorities of the former GPE and the injured parties\u2019 counsel that \u0160e . A. was in GPE , the NORP authorities checked their data , but stated that \u0160e . A. had never had any registered address in that country . On DATE ORG informed the court that the border police had talked to PERSON A. when he had crossed the NORP border . He had given an address in the former GPE and GPE and his mobile telephone number .","After his wife received the summons at his address in the former GPE , \u0160e . A. wrote to the court to say that his father was very ill and that therefore he could not travel for the following DATE . In addition , he said that he had been working in GPE since DATE and could not travel to GPE as he would risk losing his job . He added that he had already given a statement regarding the charges against the applicant and the other defendants and had nothing to add . The court received the letter on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the district state prosecutor lodged an indictment against the applicant , GPE and PERSON for the attempted murder of GPE , PERSON and PERSON","Seven hearings were held , taking place on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , at which the applicant and his counsel were present , the court noted that ORG A. had sent a letter in reply to the summons ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . After the letter had been read out , the panel of judges took a decision that his and GPE \u2019s statements to the investigating judge should be read out at the hearing , finding that the conditions set out in point CARDINAL of the first paragraph of CARDINAL of LAW had been met ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The record of the hearing shows that no comments on the reading out of the statements were made by those present .","The accused , the injured parties and the witnesses ORG , GPE and GPE were examined at the hearings .","- The applicant kept to the statement he had given to the investigating judge and repeated that he had acted in self - defence . He now alleged that the blade of the knife had been QUANTITY long .","- A.R. maintained that he had gone to help his father but the workers had started to beat him as well . \u0160.A. had been on top of him , hitting him until he had managed to escape . PERSON also stated that he had had no plans to meet his brother in LOC DATE .","- E.R. stated that he had only wanted to have a coffee with a friend but had ended up in a fight , and having to defend himself until he had passed out . He denied that he had had a knife that DATE and said that he had not seen his brother or father carrying CARDINAL either .","- PERSON repeated what he had said during the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , adding some details about which of the CARDINAL accused had stabbed him and where , attributing most of the injuries to the applicant . He explained that he had assumed that PERSON had been hit in the face as he had seen him holding his hand there and added that the applicant \u2019s knife blade had been QUANTITY long .","- F.M. added further details to his statement from the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , testifying how he had been stabbed by the applicant and that he had seen the applicant stabbing PERSON and PERSON before fleeing the scene .","- \u0160.A. described how he had been stabbed by the applicant and his sons . He also testified that before arriving on the scene he had received a brief telephone call from \u0160e . A. , who had told him that the men had been attacked outside . When he had gone outside he had seen PERSON on his knees and the applicant stabbing him . PERSON denied that the applicant or his sons had called him DATE . He was asked to explain the difference between his testimony during the investigation , when he said he had fought with CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s sons , and at the hearing , when he had said that he had not fought back . He stated that he had remembered the events better during the investigation .","- A.\u010c. repeated what he had said during the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","- At his first examination GPE repeated what he had said during the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . DATE , he changed his statement and alleged , among other things , that the fight had started after PERSON had first hit PERSON","- DATE \u0110.\u0160. stated that he had seen GPE parking his car and going directly into the bar . He had arrived at the scene with his friends and had found PERSON lying unconscious on the floor .","NORP The panel also questioned PERSON , the surgeon who had treated all CARDINAL victims at the local hospital and who explained the severity of the individual wounds sustained by the victims . The court also obtained the testimony of CARDINAL medical experts . PERSON made an assessment of the ORG individual injuries , the most likely manner in which they had been sustained , the angles of the stab wounds , and so forth . The doctor stated that ORG had sustained CARDINAL wounds to his back and a number of wounds to his chest . PERSON had been stabbed CARDINAL times from behind , CARDINAL times in the neck and on the back of the head , once to the left shoulder and once in the left side of his chest . PERSON had been stabbed in the stomach . Dr D.M.S. performed a clinical examination of \u0160.A. in order to assess his wounds in more detail .","NORP The panel also examined several documents that had been called in evidence . Medical reports relating to the applicant and his sons showed that they had sustained minor injuries , the applicant notably sustaining only a few contusions ( on the right forearm , above the left scapula and on his left eye , which remained undamaged ) . Other evidence showed that the applicant had been in a dispute over workers hired by \u0160.A. who had vacated the applicant \u2019s flat . \u0160.A. had not made a declaration of a change of residence to the competent administrative authority , although as an employer and new landlord he should have done so . Furthermore , telephone records showed that the applicant and PERSON had had CARDINAL conversations on DATE of the incident . Moreover , PERSON , the applicant \u2019s son , had called his father a number of times that day just before the fight broke out .","On DATE the ORG panel found the applicant guilty of attempting to murder PERSON , GPE and GPE by stabbing the first in the neck , on the back of the head and the left side of his chest , the second in the left side of the stomach and the third in the back . CARDINAL of the offences had been aided and abetted by the applicant \u2019s sons , who were each convicted of CARDINAL count of attempted murder . The court sentenced the applicant to DATE and DATE in prison , while his sons were both sentenced to DATE and DATE in prison .","In a judgment of CARDINAL pages , the court established on the basis of the testimony , telephone and GPS data that the applicant had called ORG DATE of the attack in order to discuss the workers\u2019 change of residence , but they had been unable to resolve the matter . Consequently , the applicant had gone to the bar with a view to get the workers to sign written statements concerning their change of residence . He had asked PERSON , who had been in the bar with PERSON , to sign the statement , but he had refused . After that the applicant had again called PERSON , but to no avail . Being informed of the situation by the applicant , PERSON and GPE had joined him and they had together gone in search of ORG They had stopped GPE near the bar and the applicant had hit him in the face with the handle of the knife . PERSON had withdrawn in the direction of the bar , and had been joined by ORG , who had been informed about the attack by the telephone call from ORG A fight involving the CARDINAL men had then started , with the accused being prepared for it as they had been equipped with knives . It had finished when the applicant and his sons had left the scene and GPE had called the police .","The court found that TIME had passed between PERSON being stopped by the applicant and his sons and the call to the police , while the fight and stabbing could not have lasted TIME . In particular , the court established that GPE had received the call from \u0160e . A. at TIME second past CARDINAL in the evening and that TIME had called CARDINAL . In the meantime , he had been stabbed several times . As regards the other circumstances of the fight , such as who had hit whom , the court relied on the testimony of PERSON , PERSON , and the witnesses ORG and GPE The court , taking into account the fact that the injured parties could not have been expected to pay particular attention to what was happening to others while they themselves were engaged in the fight , found their testimony mostly consistent , except for the question of when ORG had joined the fight . The court took the view on that point that the fight had only broken out after ORG arrival , contrary to what he himself had alleged . The court further found ORG initial testimony ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to be the more persuasive of the CARDINAL , and that it was in line with the findings of the medical experts . It found that GPE had initially fought with PERSON , the applicant with PERSON , and PERSON with ORG a fact which the court found confirmed by the testimony of \u201c PERSON , PERSON , and also the witnesses ORG and GPE , and \u0160e . A. \u201d Referring to GPE \u2019s initial testimony and the applicant \u2019s statement during the investigation , which it found was also supported by \u0160e . A. \u2019s testimony , the court rejected the applicant \u2019s statement at the hearing that his knife had only had a QUANTITY blade .","Regarding the applicant \u2019s argument that he had acted in self - defence , the court found that \u201c the statements given by the accused were contradictory and refuted self - defence ... [ and ] the evidence produced at the hearing completely excluded that possibility [ of self - defence ] \u201d . The ORG found that only the defendants and the CARDINAL injured parties had engaged in the fight and that if PERSON had wanted to attack the applicant he could easily have outnumbered the defendants . The applicant and his sons had been motivated by anger towards GPE and GPE , while PERSON had become involved because he had tried to protect PERSON As the applicant had failed to convince PERSON to cancel his residence status , he had resorted to violence . If the applicant had felt that he was in danger , he could simply have walked away . Instead , he had provoked a fight , together with his sons . The court also found that while the applicant had admitted to stabbing \u0160.A. several times in the back , he and the other CARDINAL defendants had not addressed the fact that the injured parties had sustained other stab wounds too . Moreover , the court noted that none of the witnesses had testified that the applicant had lain on the floor and been kicked by the other men . The court found that since the defendants had been prepared for a fight in advance the injured parties should be believed when they stated that they had in fact been attacked and that they had responded by fighting back . It considered the injured parties\u2019 description of how they had obtained the wounds to be persuasive . Having regard to the fact that the fight was of short duration , the court found that the defendants had pulled their knives out quickly and had quickly \u201c finished with \u201d the injured parties . The court further found that as the victims had sustained CARDINAL stab wounds altogether , it was plausible that the applicant had not been the only assailant , but that all CARDINAL defendants had inflicted them . Finally , the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument that he had pulled the knife out after being attacked by CARDINAL people as \u201c unrealistic \u201d .","In the judgment the court also explained the reasons for reading out GPE and \u0160e . A. \u2019s statements . It noted that the CARDINAL witnesses had not attended the hearing , despite being properly summoned , and that counsel for the defendants had been offered the possibility to attend their questioning during the investigation .","The applicant appealed to ORG , complaining , inter alia , that the first - instance court had violated his defence rights by relying on the record of the testimony that GPE and \u0160e . A. had given during the investigation .","On DATE the higher court dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . As regards the applicant \u2019s alleged inability to cross - examine GPE and \u0160e . A. at the trial , the higher court considered that the applicant had had an opportunity to question the witnesses during the investigation . It noted that counsel for the applicant had been informed about the hearing with the investigating judge , as confirmed by an acknowledgment of receipt , but had failed to attend it . According to the higher court , the defence had been aware of the notice of the possibility to participate in the questioning of witnesses during the investigation but had consciously disregarded it . Hence , it had accepted the risk that the witnesses would not be available for questioning at the trial . Moreover , the higher court considered that the applicant had failed to comply with paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as he had not substantiated in what way his inability to question the CARDINAL witnesses at the trial had undermined the legality of the judgment .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The court confirmed that the first - instance court had correctly applied CARDINAL of LAW by reading out the testimony given by GPE and \u0160e . A. during the investigation as the witnesses , who were foreigners , had been duly summoned to appear before the court but had refused to attend . ORG further found that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provided that the investigating judge should have sent the request to attend the questioning directly to the defendants as well as to counsel . However , according to ORG , the applicant had failed to explain how that error on the part of the investigating judge had affected the legality of the impugned judgment . In ORG opinion , the error could only have affected the legality of the judgment if the first - instance court had relied on the testimony of GPE and \u0160e . A. to a decisive extent , which , however , had not been alleged in the case .","The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint . ORG dismissed the complaint on DATE , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180850","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF RAMANAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","The applicant worked as a lawyer in his own private practice .","On DATE PERSON , a convicted prisoner , provided a statement to ORG ( PERSON tyrim\u0173 tarnyba , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and stated the following . He had heard from other inmates that the deputy head of ORG , PERSON , took bribes to transfer inmates to units with lighter security and that PERSON had mentioned to FAC that it was possible to be released on probation for money . PERSON was questioned by the ORG and stated that in DATE PERSON had asked him to his office and enquired whether he wanted to be released early . PERSON had indicated that he had a friend who could help ORG obtain release on probation and promised to organise a meeting with him . PERSON was asked again DATE by PERSON to go to the latter \u2019s office , where he met the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON asked the applicant what he should do in order to obtain release on probation . The applicant stated that ORG would first have to be transferred to a unit with lighter security . FAC asked the applicant how much it would cost him and the applicant replied that ORG [ ORG ] would cost him CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) . After that the applicant indicated several judges that would agree to release PERSON on probation . The applicant also stated that the cost for the same thing in ORG would be approximately LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) but that that was not the final amount . The applicant also mentioned that ORG would have to pay LTL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for the transfer to a unit with lower security . After that conversation PERSON started recording his discussions with PERSON and the applicant using a voice recorder watch which he said he had obtained from other inmates in exchange for cigarettes . Figures mentioned during the other meetings were ORG ( approximately LAW ) for the transfer to another unit and LAW ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for the judges at ORG as that amount could be more easily divided in QUANTITY . PERSON stated that no agreement on legal services had been concluded with the applicant . ORG then contacted an acquaintance , ORG , a former police officer who promised to contact the authorities .","The transcript of the conversation recorded between ORG and the applicant on DATE showed that FAC had around LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The conversation went as follows :","\u201c The applicant : \u2018 ... You understand that the intermediary who will go will also need some , and .. \u2019","...","The applicant : \u2018 You know , salaries there are [ LTL ] CARDINAL , so you know ... \u2019","The applicant : \u2018 As with [ D ] , when he brought , looked , he went there with those pennies , [ they ] said no , and he did not have any more ... \u2019","ORG : \u2018 Listen , I will be honest , for example I said , the deputy head asked me , asked . I told him that I will have CARDINAL , QUANTITY , so to say CARDINAL litai.\u2019","The applicant : \u2018 ... With that , we can easily talk about Kaunas.\u2019","...","The applicant : \u2018 I believe you . I think that it will go through with such an amount of PERSON \u201d","The applicant told ORG that that amount might not actually be necessary . ORG then told the applicant that ORG would contact him and give him LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The applicant also told ORG that he had won a case against GPE at the ORG and that he had not accepted a bribe in that case . The conversation went as follows :","\u201c The applicant : \u2018 I have already been burnt and only got things straight in GPE . I have won [ in ] ORG against GPE . I previously worked as a prosecutor.\u2019","ORG : \u2018 The deputy did not tell me anything.\u2019","The applicant : \u2018 I could go back to being a prosecutor . I have won a case against GPE in Strasbourg.\u2019","ORG : \u2018 I will ... shake your hand . I can say ... that this seems unreal to me.\u2019","The applicant : \u2018 ... The prosecutor with a bribe ... GPE proved that it was a provocation . I proved it in GPE . The proceedings [ there ] took CARDINAL years.\u2019","The applicant : \u2018 It was nothing to do with a bribe .... I ... bought an apartment , I asked someone to give me a loan ... He ... was in prison later . He was released ... and became a snitch.\u2019","ORG : \u2018 A friend\u2019 .","The applicant : \u2018 ... He used to sleep at my mother \u2019s place ... I do n\u2019t know where he disappeared to . He will not die a natural death . I was not the only one he set up . CARDINAL judges in GPE as well.\u2019","...","The applicant : \u2018 And I won a case in GPE later . ORG rehabilitated me.\u2019","ORG : \u2018 Yes.\u2019","The applicant : \u2018 The Grand Chamber of CARDINAL judges , the plenary session for criminal cases.\u2019","...","The applicant : \u2018 So look . When will that person come ? So that I know what ... \u2019","ORG : \u2018 So I can call you and simply say one word . DATE , DATE after ORG \u201d","The applicant asked ORG to make sure that ORG did not tell anyone about the agreement and ORG assured him that ORG would not ask any questions .","On DATE the ORG asked a prosecutor to apply to a pre - trial judge for authorisation for ORG and ORG to offer and give a bribe to FAC and the applicant , in accordance with the provisions of domestic law . The prosecutor also sought permission to make video and\/or voice - recordings , to take pictures and to allow CARDINAL officers to monitor ORG and the applicant \u2019s telephone conversations . The prosecutor also asked FAC on the ORG \u2019s behalf to authorise covert surveillance of the applicant and PERSON for DATE . The ORG additionally informed the prosecutor that a pre - trial investigation had been opened against FAC and the applicant .","On DATE the FAC authorised taps on the telephones of GPE , GPE , ORG and the applicant and allowed ORG and ORG to perform actions which imitated criminal conduct for DATE , until DATE . ORG was allowed to use various types of telecommunications and electronic network measures .","On DATE PERSON was transferred to a unit with lighter security , based on good behaviour and active participation in the commemoration of DATE of the Defenders of Freedom .","On DATE PERSON was questioned by the ORG . He stated that he had visited ORG earlier in DATE and that the latter had asked him whether he could give ORG to someone . ORG had agreed .","On DATE PERSON and ORG signed documents stating that they were not allowed to incite someone to commit an offence .","On DATE the applicant visited FAC and they talked about the situation of GPE","Later that day ORG called the applicant and agreed to meet him the following day . After the meeting ORG left LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL , given to him by the ORG officers , in the side pocket of the applicant \u2019s car .","On DATE PERSON called the applicant and asked how matters were proceeding . The applicant said that he would call back , but later asked to call the following DATE . On DATE PERSON called the applicant and said that they would be in touch ; he also asked if the applicant would pay him a visit and the applicant said that he would come at some point in the future . On DATE PERSON called the applicant and said that he had received a character reference from the psychologist and the applicant stated that he would be in touch . PERSON then asked the applicant whether he should call him and the applicant said that he could call when the documents for his transfer to a unit with lighter security were ready . On DATE PERSON called the applicant and informed him that the documents for the court had already been prepared . The applicant stated that he would be in touch and would come to visit V.\u0160. because they could not talk on the telephone . The applicant said that ORG could call him the following DATE but then decided that DATE would be DATE . On DATE PERSON called PERSON and complained that he could not reach the applicant and asked for help in finding him . On DATE PERSON called a certain PERSON and asked him where the applicant was . PERSON told him that it was not the first time that the applicant had disappeared .","On DATE PERSON called the applicant and said that people were looking for him . The applicant said that ORG \u2019s case was still in progress . PERSON asked the applicant to come and meet PERSON and the applicant said that he had understood . PERSON then called the applicant , who said he was going to visit him in TIME and that they would talk in person . PERSON again called the applicant DATE and asked whether he should bring the medical certificate to the meeting and the applicant said that he was already in the correctional facility . During the visit they discussed the fact that ORG \u2019s case had not yet been transferred to court . PERSON asked whether the applicant still had the necessary access [ in ORG ] . The applicant confirmed that he did , that the person concerned was coming back from GPE the following DATE and that without that person the matter could not be settled there . The applicant asked whether PERSON wanted him to participate in a hearing before the court of first instance and ORG said yes . Then they talked about someone else \u2019s situation and the applicant said that he knew the prosecutor and had bought him . The applicant further said that not every prosecutor could be bought but there were CARDINAL he could buy . ORG said that he had LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and it did not matter for what [ court ] he had to pay . The applicant then asked GPE to speak quieter . He also asked PERSON to call him from time to time . PERSON asked whether he would have to pay something before the hearing in ORG and the applicant said he would not have to give much because the chances were CARDINAL . The applicant also stated that the rest of the money would be held in reserve for GPE [ ORG ] and he would take LTL CARDINAL for ORG [ ORG ] . Later in the same conversation he mentioned ORG ( approximately ORG ) . The applicant asked PERSON to get in touch with his contact person , who was to call and meet the applicant in TIME . After the applicant had left the correctional facility ORG called him and told him that the papers had been sent to the court on DATE . The applicant asked PERSON to call him in TIME . When PERSON called , the applicant told him that the hearing would take place on DATE and that the applicant would participate in it ; he also asked to call him in the evening .","On DATE PERSON called the applicant , who said that he would write him a message . On DATE PERSON called the applicant and they again discussed PERSON \u2019s situation . On DATE PERSON called the applicant and the applicant said that they would keep in touch after the following DATE , and PERSON was asked to call on DATE after lunch . On DATE PERSON called the applicant , who said that he would not participate in the hearing at the court of first instance regarding ORG \u2019s release on probation and that if something happened he would inform PERSON On DATE PERSON called the applicant , who confirmed his intention as regards the court of first instance because he did not expect anything good to come out of it . However , he said he would try to talk to someone and PERSON said he would not forget his debt to the applicant . On DATE PERSON called the applicant and informed him that ORG had decided not to release him on probation . The applicant then said that he would visit ORG so he could sign an appeal . On DATE PERSON called PERSON and asked him to ask the applicant about his chances to be released on probation . PERSON called the applicant DATE and asked how matters were proceeding with their client . The applicant said that he would come on DATE and that they would talk then . On DATE the applicant visited ORG , who signed some blank pieces of paper , on which the applicant said he would later write an appeal . PERSON asked whether they would be covered by the amount they had discussed before . The applicant said that he would see , that he had talked with the men in question and asked them to do everything and that they would receive some money . ORG then told the applicant that his contact person would come DATE . After that , they discussed amounts and the applicant told PERSON that the entire sum discussed would be necessary . ORG asked whether they were talking about CARDINAL ] and whether that amount included the applicant \u2019s share and the applicant said it did . The applicant also said that before that amount would have guaranteed his release on probation PERCENT but that now there was some trouble . The applicant then told ORG to call his contact person and ask him to meet the applicant on DATE . PERSON asked whether his person ( ORG ) should bring CARDINAL ( thousand ) and the applicant confirmed that he should .","On DATE the applicant and ORG met in the applicant \u2019s car , where LTL MONEY was given to the applicant so that he could secure ORG \u2019s release on probation . The applicant was arrested by ORG officers immediately afterwards and the money was found in the side door pocket of the applicant \u2019s car .","V.\u0160. was questioned additionally on DATE . He stated that PERSON had talked of the applicant as a reliable person who had access to prosecutors and judges . PERSON also showed that PERSON had been the first one to start a conversation about the possibility of ORG being released on probation and that PERSON had told him several times before that \u201c serious men pay money and are released and do not sit in prison \u201d ( rimti vyrai moka pinigus ir eina \u012f laisv\u0119 , o ne s\u0117di kal\u0117jime ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed ORG \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision not to release him on probation .","On DATE a bill of indictment was drawn up against FAC and the applicant . The applicant was accused of promising to influence FAC and the judges at ORG and ORG with a bribe so that ORG would be released on probation . He was also accused of taking a bribe of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL and LTL CARDINAL respectively on CARDINAL occasions .","On DATE ORG examined an application by the prosecutor to transfer the criminal case from ORG . ORG held that the applicant had stated that he could influence CARDINAL judges in ORG and thus decided to transfer the case to ORG so that the proceedings would be fair .","On DATE the GPE City Third ORG approved an application by ORG to be released on probation . The court held that at that time FAC was serving his sentence in ORG , where he had taken part in the social rehabilitation , legal and social education programmes and had provided information that he would be employed on release .","By a judgment of DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of bribing an intermediary and sentenced him to DATE in prison . The court found it established that ORG had given the applicant LAW and ORG respectively during their meetings on DATE and CARDINAL DATE in return for a promise that the applicant would help in the proceedings for ORG \u2019s release on probation . The applicant pleaded not guilty and stated that an act of provocation had been organised against him . He also stated that the money he had received was remuneration for his services as ORG \u2019s lawyer . The applicant said that although no agreement on the provision of legal assistance had been concluded , he had intended to conclude one after the proceedings for ORG \u2019s release on probation . The applicant refused to provide comments on the recordings and stated that his conversations with ORG were irrelevant because he had only wanted to show that he was working on his case . Those conversations had not been of any consequence as he had not been able to influence FAC or the judges at ORG and ORG ( GPE telefonu ir \u012fra\u0161u su V.[\u0160. ] nekomentuoja , paai\u0161kindamas , kad visi jo pokalbiai su V.[\u0160. ] buvo d\u0117l aki\u0173 , kadangi ka\u017ek\u0105 kalb\u0117ti su V.[\u0160. ] reik\u0117jo , tad nieko nerei\u0161kian\u010diais pokalbiais jis tik siek\u0117 parodyti , kad dirba , ta\u010diau tuo jis nesiek\u0117 sukelti joki\u0173 pasekmi\u0173 , kadangi negal\u0117jo paveikti nei L.[D. ] , nei Kai\u0161iadori\u0173 apylink\u0117s ar ORG apygardos teismo teis\u0117j\u0173 ) . ORG stated that he had known ORG since DATE and that ORG had called him and asked for help . When ORG had gone to ORG , ORG had told him that the applicant required money and that ORG doubted that the money would be used in the proper way .","The court \u2019s conclusions were based on the evidence given by ORG , ORG , FAC and other employees of ORG . It also addressed the secret recordings of the applicant \u2019s conversations , including those recorded prior to the authorisation for actions imitating criminal conduct . The court held that the transcripts of the conversations between the applicant and ORG showed that the applicant had been the first to indicate the amounts of money to be paid . The applicant \u2019s statement that he had been going to conclude an agreement on legal services after he had taken LTL CARDINAL were refuted by his conversation with ORG , where the applicant had stated that in case of failure he would keep PERCENT of the money and return the rest . The video - recordings showed that the applicant had not counted the money and that he had indicated to ORG to put it in the side pocket of the car door . That allowed the court to draw the conclusion that the applicant realised that the money was remuneration for his criminal activity . The court further held that ORG \u2019s testimony , voice and videorecordings showed that the applicant had not been incited to take a bribe and that the criminal conduct simulation model had been applied within the limits prescribed by the court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . By the same judgment the K\u0117dainiai District Court found PERSON guilty of abuse of office and forgery , which had allowed ORG to be transferred to a unit with lighter security ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It ordered PERSON to pay a fine of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG MONEY ) . PERSON pleaded guilty , but stated that ORG had named the applicant as a lawyer that could help him obtain release on probation . The court decided to return the recorder watch to ORG","The applicant and PERSON lodged an appeal . The applicant argued that the provisions of domestic law had been applied incorrectly , that FAC and ORG used undue pressure , and that ORG had used unauthorised equipment , the recorder watch , which he had not been allowed to have in prison . The applicant asked the appellate court to question ORG and ask him how he had acquired such a watch in a correctional facility . The applicant also stated that PERSON had overseen matters relating to ORG \u2019s transfer to a unit with lighter security and that there was no evidence that he had tried to bribe PERSON The applicant also stated that he had never named any specific person in the courts whom he would have bribed because he had not intended to perform such an act . He had only talked to GPE about the outcome of the proceedings for release on probation because ORG had called him constantly .","On DATE ORG approved an application by the prosecutor to transfer the case to ORG from ORG for examination on appeal in order to have a fair trial .","ORG held an oral hearing where several witnesses , including ORG , had been questioned . On DATE ORG held that ORG had purchased the watch for his personal use and that the provisions of domestic law did not directly prohibit the use of such equipment in prison . The court also held that the initial contact between ORG and the applicant had been arranged by PERSON , that FAC had not known the applicant beforehand and had not had any motive to incite him to commit a crime . The court also found that no agreement on the provision of legal services had been concluded between the applicant and ORG and that the applicant \u2019s argument that he had intended to conclude one later had been dismissed as an attempt to improve his situation . On the basis of the audio - recordings , the court also observed that the applicant had been the first to say that he could settle the matter for money . The court also found that there had been no incitement and that the authorities had not put any active pressure on the applicant to commit an offence . On the contrary , the applicant had incited GPE to give him an amount that would be sufficient for himself , an intermediary and CARDINAL court judges . The court also held that at the time the offence had been committed , Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provided for CARDINAL alternative sentences for bribery of an intermediary : arrest or imprisonment for DATE . On DATE LAW had been amended and the applicant \u2019s offence had then satisfied the requirements of LAW , which provided for various sentences : a fine , arrest or imprisonment for DATE . As the provision in force provided for a more lenient sentence , the court decided to impose a fine of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The court dismissed PERSON \u2019s appeal by the same judgment .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . He again argued that he had been incited to commit an offence , that ORG , as a convicted prisoner , was not allowed to have recording equipment , that he had been provided with that equipment by the ORG , and that the transcripts of the recordings should not have been used as evidence against him in the case . The applicant also alleged that the LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been remuneration for his legal services and that he had not actually taken the LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL from ORG , who had simply left the money in his car . The applicant further complained that the court of first instance had not even assessed whether the evidence had been lawfully collected . The appellate court , in turn , had approved evidence that had been gathered unlawfully and had misinterpreted domestic law . The applicant also argued that ORG \u2019s testimony had contradicted itself : it was not clear who had informed the ORG about the alleged crime .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . The court held that the pre - trial investigation had been opened on DATE upon the request of ORG with his testimony , PERSON had given the authorities his voice - recording watch , where he had recorded his conversations with PERSON and the applicant . The court held that convicted prisoners who used voice recorders breached internal prison regulations , but that did not mean that officers who carried out a pretrial investigation and obtained information from such a voice recorder acted unlawfully . The court also held that the finding of the applicant \u2019s guilt had not been based solely on the evidence obtained from ORG \u2019s watch . The court observed that PERSON had suggested the applicant as a lawyer because he knew the prosecutors and judges dealing with ORG \u2019s case , while PERSON had not incited the applicant to take bribes . By the same judgment ORG left an appeal on points of law by PERSON unexamined because therein he had raised arguments that had not been raised before the appellate court .","On DATE ORG examined an application by the applicant to reopen the proceedings . It decided not to do so , but reduced the fine to LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144138","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BUCHS v. SWITZERLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 37-1-b - Matter resolved);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE of GPE .","The applicant is the father of CARDINAL children . His eldest daughter , born in DATE , is from a former relationship and lives with him . In DATE the applicant married his ( now ex-)wife , with whom he had CARDINAL more children , born in DATE and DATE .","The applicant and his wife separated in DATE . The separation was pronounced by ORG of GPE ( Tribunal Civil de l\u2019Arrondissement de l\u2019Est Vaudois \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) on DATE and the mother was given custody ( garde ) of the CARDINAL children , particularly in view of their young age ( the younger child was CARDINAL at the time of the decision ) . In turn , the applicant was granted extensive contact rights , which he had to exercise by agreement with his wife . He confirmed that since then his children usually stayed with him every DATE after school until TIME , and DATE , from DATE after school until TIME . Additionally , they spent CARDINAL of the school holidays \u2013 around DATE a year \u2013 with him . He calculated that that amounted to PERCENT of the time . His daughter from his former relationship resided with him .","On DATE the applicant filed for divorce with ORG . After his wife \u2019s reply to the court on DATE , the couple submitted a joint petition for divorce on DATE . In addition , both parties applied for sole parental authority ( autorit\u00e9 parentale exclusive ) over and custody of the children .","In order to decide to whom parental authority should be awarded , ORG commissioned an expert opinion from the psychiatry and psychotherapy service for children and adolescents in the GPE of GPE . The expert \u2019s report , based on several interviews with the parents as well as with the children , was issued on DATE . It revealed that owing to major disagreements between their parents , both children were caught in conflicts of loyalty towards them , which they tried to resolve by wishing to divide their time equally between the parents . Furthermore , while the applicant wished for shared parental authority ( autorit\u00e9 parentale conjointe ) for the children , his wife opposed it . She justified her opposition by alleging that the applicant had attempted to pressure her and had made incessant requests regarding the children . She feared that he would use shared parental authority to increase his influence over the children in order to distance them from her . In this regard , she also mentioned that he had used inappropriate strategies to obtain custody of his eldest daughter , who was living with him , and had influenced the daughter negatively against her mother . However , the applicant \u2019s wife was largely in favour of the children maintaining contact with their father and supported his extensive contact rights . Regarding the applicant , the expert observed that while he acknowledged that he had regular contact with his children , he had also expressed the feeling that he was not accepted as the other parent and had been made to feel like a mere \u201c paying father \u201d . The expert also noted that the couple disagreed on many child - related issues , which had had a negative impact on the children . In view of the fact that the applicant \u2019s wife was a good mother and had shown her willingness to cooperate with the applicant , the expert recommended that parental authority be awarded to her and that the applicant be granted extensive contact rights . Furthermore , the youngest child had expressed the wish to stay close to his mother and the children were socially well integrated at their mother \u2019s place and at the local school .","The applicant contested the expert opinion and ORG therefore ordered a second one . On DATE the second expert , also specialised in child and adolescent psychiatry and psychotherapy , confirmed the findings of the first expert . He based his findings on numerous documents received from ORG and the parents , as well as on various interviews conducted with all the family members . At the outset he observed that despite the fact that DATE had elapsed between the drawing up of the first and second expert reports , the applicant and his wife had maintained their conflict and had been unable to find any common ground for agreement regarding the children . Furthermore , they both had difficulties recognising each other \u2019s parenting abilities . Nevertheless , the expert acknowledged that both parents had good parenting skills and were able to create an adequate environment for their children . Owing to the ongoing tensions between them , however , the expert found that there was no common ground for shared parental authority and custody and that that would therefore not be in the best interests of the children , who were still caught in conflicts of loyalty towards their parents . The expert further recommended that the applicant should not be awarded sole parental authority over the children . In his view , the applicant still appeared to be very affected by the divorce proceedings . He had criticised the parenting skills of the children \u2019s mother on various occasions and had shown that he had difficulties in distinguishing his feelings towards her from those aroused by the separation from his children . Despite having exercised extensive contact rights with the full support of his wife , he still claimed that he sometimes felt like a mere \u201c paying parent \u201d . In that context , the expert also mentioned the inappropriate ways in which the applicant had obtained custody of his eldest daughter . The expert concluded that it was in the best interests of the children for the courts to award parental authority to the mother and to maintain the applicant \u2019s extensive contact rights . That solution would furthermore provide continuity for the children .","NORP Following that expert opinion , the applicant informed ORG by letter of DATE that he was withdrawing his application for parental authority and custody . At the subsequent hearing , ORG questioned various witnesses , who testified that the applicant was fully exercising his contact rights and was undertaking many activities with the children . They also stated that the GPE relationship had remained conflictual and that the applicant felt much more animosity towards his exwife than she did towards him . By a final judgment of DATE ORG pronounced the divorce of the parties and awarded parental authority over and custody of the children to the mother , while maintaining the applicant \u2019s previous extensive contact rights .","On DATE and DATE , the applicant lodged a \u201c partial appeal \u201d against ORG judgment with ORG of GPE ( le Tribunal Cantonal , chambre des recours , GPE - hereinafter \u201c the Appeal Court \u201d ) . He complained that the granting of parental authority to his ex - wife by ORG was not in accordance with ORG judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . He claimed that parental authority could not be withdrawn from a father who had , since the separation from his wife in DATE , extensively proved his parenting abilities . He reproached his ex - wife for behaving inappropriately towards the children in several respects and claimed that that was why he disagreed with the award of sole parental authority to her . Lastly , he stated that he no longer had the financial means to be represented by a lawyer .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ruling that under LAW of LAW ( hereinafter \u201c the Civil Code \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on divorce proceedings , parental authority could only be awarded to one of the parents . The maintenance of shared parental authority would require , under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , a joint request by both parents , and shared parenting could not be imposed on a parent who opposed it , such as the mother in the present case . ORG also found that despite the applicant \u2019s criticism of his ex - wife \u2019s parenting abilities , there were no grounds for changing the award of parental authority . Furthermore , such a solution would be contrary to the experts\u2019 findings . As provided for in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the judge \u2019s paramount consideration when deciding on parental authority was what was in the child \u2019s best interests . All relevant circumstances had to be taken into account , including any possible joint request by the parents for shared parental authority and , where possible , the children \u2019s views . In cases such as the present one , in which experts had recognised that both parents had good parenting abilities , a parent \u2019s willingness to cooperate with the other parent in the children \u2019s best interests was conclusive . As shown by the experts\u2019 opinions before ORG , it had been the mother in the present case who had shown fewer difficulties in cooperating with the father . ORG therefore upheld ORG judgment .","In his appeal to ORG , the applicant held that , owing to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and his wife \u2019s refusal to make a joint request , he had not been given the opportunity to apply to the domestic courts for shared parental authority . Referring to the case of PERSON ( cited above ) , he stated that every father should be able to apply to the domestic courts for shared parental authority , even if the mother was opposed to it , as that was in the children \u2019s best interests .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on DATE . It held that it was doubtful whether the applicant had sufficiently substantiated his appeal . Even assuming that he had done so , his case differed substantially from ORG ( cited above ) . First , while in PERSON the parents had not been married , in the present case the applicant was a divorced father . Second , NORP law not only provided that the applicant , like his ( ex-)wife , could apply for sole parental authority but both parents had also been treated equally . Unlike the NORP law regarding parents of children born out of wedlock , as established in ORG , LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) did not privilege one of the parents on the basis of his or her sex when awarding parental authority , and the mother had no right to veto the father \u2019s request in this regard . Under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the decision was based solely on the children \u2019s best interests . ORG concluded that the applicant \u2019s case could not be compared to ORG because there was no indication that he had been treated differently , when deciding on parental authority , from the children \u2019s mother .","On DATE ORG adopted amendments to LAW provisions on parental authority , which will enter into force on CARDINAL July CARDINAL . Accordingly , shared parental authority will be the rule , independently of the GPE civil status . To continue with shared parental authority after divorce will hence no longer require a joint request by the parents . However , if the judge considers that it is in the child \u2019s best interests , parental authority can still be awarded to CARDINAL parent . The implementation provisions of this amendment to LAW further provide that in cases decided under ( former ) LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , where parental authority had been awarded to CARDINAL of the parents , the other parent or both together can apply to the child protection authority for shared parental authority . Moreover , the parent from whom parental authority had been withdrawn in the divorce proceedings may also apply to the court on his or her own motion if the divorce was finalised after DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173779","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DEJNEK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of the attempted murder of his brother , GPE","On DATE a bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with ORG .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the cassation appeal as manifestly ill - founded .","Following his arrest , on DATE the applicant was remanded in custody in FAC .","On DATE the prison authorities discovered CARDINAL pills of psychoactive drugs hidden in the applicant \u2019s clothes .","On DATE the applicant encouraged other prisoners to start a hunger strike . On DATE , ORG , viewing the applicant as someone who posed a severe danger to the safety of the facility , classified him as a \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d . The applicant then went on a hunger strike which lasted until DATE . He was punished by being placed in solitary confinement for DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant refused to continue to take part in his rehabilitation programme and was therefore excluded from it .","On DATE the special regime for dangerous detainees was lifted in respect of the applicant .","DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in LOC . On DATE he was transported back to GPE .","The applicant \u2019s behaviour during DATE varied : he was sometimes rewarded for good behaviour and sometimes faced disciplinary measures . Such measures were imposed in particular for illegal contact with other inmates , for commencing hunger strikes and for being active in the prison subculture .","On DATE prison officers found that the applicant had MONEY in cash from an unknown source . The money was seized and transferred to the applicant \u2019s bank account .","On DATE the applicant attempted to go for a walk in the prison yard without permission from the supervising officer and was reprimanded on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was visited by members of his family and tried to pass them an illegal message on a piece of paper . After the visit he was ordered to undergo a strip search .","On DATE the applicant complained about the strip search to ORG .","On DATE the director of ORG examined his complaint and found that the search had been performed in accordance with the law and that the applicant had not been debased or humiliated . The director also found that on DATE the applicant had given a visiting member of his family a piece of paper with some notes on it . The director found that that \u201c constituted a violation of discipline and order \u201d .","On DATE the applicant complained about another strip search , which had taken place on DATE . His complaint was examined on DATE by the director of ORG , who found that the search had been carried out in accordance with the law .","On DATE the applicant underwent a strip search which was accompanied by a search of his cell . The inspection of the cell was part of an action plan introduced at FAC in DATE to increase security . The plan included the inspection of all the cells .","In his observations before this ORG , the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted that the applicant had been ordered to undergo a strip search on DATE , even though he had had severe back pain and had barely been able to walk . He had also had difficulties getting undressed .","The applicant complained to the director of the remand centre . He submitted that after the search of his cell his personal belonging had been thrown on the floor , mixed in with other inmates\u2019 possessions and that the cell had \u201c looked like after a hurricane \u201d . In the complaint he neither mentioned any irregularities as regards the strip search nor complained about back problems .","On DATE the remand centre director dismissed the complaint . He found that the search had been performed in accordance with the law and had respected the applicant \u2019s rights and personal dignity . The relevant part of the director \u2019s decision read as follows :","\u201c The strip search and cell inspection were conducted in accordance with LAW , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW . The guards did not use offensive language and did not debase you . Nobody hit you . The objects which were inspected were not thrown around . Nothing was damaged during the search . \u201d","In DATE the applicant was seen by a neurologist CARDINAL times and on CARDINAL occasions by a neurosurgeon . On DATE an operation , apparently for back pain , was scheduled for the applicant for DATE . The doctors did not advise against body checks of the applicant .","On DATE the applicant had a visit from his sister and brother - in - law and was afterwards ordered to undergo another strip search . He again complained to the director of ORG , submitting that the strip search had not been justified and had lacked legal grounds .","On DATE the director of ORG dismissed the complaint as ill - founded .","The relevant part of the decision read :","\u201c The strip search you were subjected to was carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions and with respect for your personal dignity . \u201d","On DATE the applicant received a visit from members of his family and was allowed to have direct contact with them . Afterwards , he was again ordered to undergo a strip search . The applicant stated that he had intense pain in his spine on DATE and could barely stand and had therefore refused to undergo the search . The chief duty officer was then called . He arrived with CARDINAL other guards and subjected the applicant to a strip search . He was ordered to strip naked , bend at the knees , show his penis and open his mouth . However , as he was deemed to have performed the PERSON orders \u201c in a dilatory manner \u201d he was punished on DATE with a DATE ban on having direct contact with his family during visits , only being able to see them from behind a glass screen .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the way the strip search of DATE had been conducted . He submitted , among other things , that he had had severe back pain after the family visit , had barely been able to move and had therefore refused to undress . The prison officers had apparently ignored his complaints and had \u201c forced him to undergo the strip search \u201d . He also submitted in the complaint that he had been unable to get dressed after the strip search because of the severe pain in his back and that he had been left standing in only his underpants for TIME . CARDINAL of the officers had then opened the window to let in freezing air to make him get dressed quickly .","On DATE the applicant also complained about the imposition of the disciplinary penalty on him after the strip search of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the director of ORG informed the applicant that his complaint of DATE needed further investigation , which would last until DATE . The applicant did not provide any further information about the outcome of those proceedings .","The complaint of CARDINAL DATE was dismissed on DATE . The decision , issued by the deputy director of ORG , said that the \u201c applicant refused to undergo a strip search and only agreed to comply when the chief duty officer was called \u201d . The decision does not refer to the applicant \u2019s submissions that the alleged reason for his refusal to undergo the strip search had been severe back pain . It also made no reference to his allegations that he had been left for TIME in a state of being unable to get dressed and that he had been forced to put his clothes on by someone letting freezing air into the room . The applicant then lodged a further complaint with ORG , which , on DATE upheld the decision given by the deputy director of ORG . The court found that the decision had been issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law and that it had no competence to examine whether the decision had been well - founded or not .","On DATE ORG , in view of the applicant \u2019s state of health and his neurological and orthopaedic problems , granted him leave to undergo the operation outside prison . The applicant was scheduled to return to prison on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167822","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"FRLAN v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr A. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant took out a loan with Z. bank ( hereinafter \u201c the bank \u201d ) of CARDINAL deutschmarks ( ORG ) . He used his house as security , allowing the bank to register a charge against it .","On DATE the bank instituted enforcement proceedings against the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) , for the seizure and sale of his house . It was argued that he had failed to repay the loan .","On DATE ORG granted the bank \u2019s request and issued an enforcement order against the applicant . He appealed , arguing that the enforcement order had been declared invalid and that the interest rate on the loan had been miscalculated .","On DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as being without merit , finding that the statutory conditions for enforcement had been met .","On DATE ORG ( Op\u0107inski gra\u0111anski sud u GPE \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) held a second public auction for the sale of the house . There was CARDINAL bidder , PERSON The court granted title to the applicant \u2019s house to him , on condition that he paid CARDINAL kunas ( HRK ) as the purchase price , which was CARDINAL of the estimated market value . The decision became final on DATE , after PERSON paid the purchase price .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered that the house be transferred to M. The decision was not amenable to appeal .","On DATE the applicant requested that the enforcement proceedings be stayed until the outcome of criminal proceedings he had instituted against his former representative was known .","On an unspecified date ORG scheduled the applicant \u2019s eviction for DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested that the enforcement proceedings be stayed until the dispute with his bank had been settled . He argued that his daughter would have to interrupt her studies in the middle of the academic year and that she was a carer for other members of the household .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s application inadmissible , finding that the statutory conditions for adjournment had not been met and that he had lost his right to possession of the house when he had received the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In addition , the court referred to a statement he had given to the court bailiff on DATE promising to move out of the house before DATE without lodging any further appeal .","On DATE the judge in charge of the enforcement proceedings held a meeting with the parties\u2019 lawyers , the court bailiff and the police . The applicant \u2019s representatives were informed that there would be no further announcements regarding the eviction date , but that it would not take place before CARDINAL DATE . They were also informed that there would be no further adjournments , and the police were instructed to better prepare themselves .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for the judge in charge of the enforcement proceedings to be withdrawn from the case , arguing that he was preparing a \u201c secret eviction \u201d .","On DATE the President of ORG refused that request .","On DATE ORG scheduled the applicant \u2019s eviction for DATE , ordering the court bailiff to execute it . The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against that decision .","On DATE the applicant and his family were evicted .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as it did not have jurisdiction .","On an unspecified date the applicant brought a claim against PERSON before ORG to determine ownership of a garage and some land adjacent to the house . He argued that in the enforcement proceedings PERSON had bought only the house , not the garage and land .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim , arguing that PERSON had bought the property in its entirety in good faith at the court \u2019s public auction .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment , which is still pending .","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE ) read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A contract that is contrary to the LAW , mandatory rules or morals shall be declared null and void ( ni\u0161tetan ) unless the purpose of the breached rule indicates some other sanction or the law in a particular case provides otherwise .","( CARDINAL ) If the conclusion of a contract is prohibited only to CARDINAL party , the contract shall remain valid , unless the law in a particular case provides otherwise , and the party that has breached the statutory prohibition shall bear the relevant consequences . \u201d","\u201c A contract is voidable ( pobojan ) if a party to it had no legal capacity or entered into the contract under duress ( mane volje ) at the time when it was concluded or where the contract is voidable LAW or another statute . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142082","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BEGANOVIC v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant served his prison sentence in GPE prison from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he was transferred to PERSON prison . He stayed there until DATE , when he was further transferred to GPE prison , the Section Novo mesto ( the Section Novo mesto ) . The applicant \u2019s complaints do not relate to the conditions of detention in PERSON prison .","In the period DATE and DATE the applicant was held in the closed section of GPE prison . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) .","In the period DATE and DATE the applicant was held in the semi - open section of GPE prison , in cell CARDINAL ( third floor ) measuring QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) .","All the cells in the closed and semi - open sections contained , apart from the furniture , CARDINAL sleeping places ( CARDINAL bunk beds and CARDINAL single bed ) . According to the applicant , CARDINAL prisoners were being held in each of the cells during his detention . The Government , however , submitted that the number varied CARDINAL . Each cell had CARDINAL x QUANTITY double casement window , which the prisoners could freely open or close .","As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the closed and semi - open sections , material conditions inside the cells therein , sanitary conditions and health care , see the judgment in ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 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 \u00a7 DATE ) .","As to the out - of - cell time in the semi - open section , the ORG submitted that the cell doors in the semi - open section of the prison were unlocked , except from TIME ( on DATE and DATE from TIME ) until TIME ( on DATE , DATE and during holidays until TIME ) . During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor ( QUANTITY ) , living quarters of co - prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas , in accordance with prison rules . The Government alleged that this regime had been in place for DATE . However , as the applicant was transferred to the semi - open section only on a ground of overcrowdedness , while being detained there he was not granted outside visits and unsupervised leave .","From DATE to DATE the applicant was held in the closed section of the Section Novo mesto . During his detention in the Section Novo mesto the applicant was held in unit CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY and including CARDINAL separate rooms , namely an ante - chamber measuring QUANTITY , a sanitary facility measuring QUANTITY , a smaller room measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL beds and a larger room measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL , occasionally CARDINAL beds , where the applicant was held most of the time with CARDINAL other prisoners . In the ante - chamber prisoners could watch television and prepare hot beverages . All together there were CARDINAL prisoners in unit CARDINAL . They could move freely in the unit TIME per day as the inner doors were unlocked . From TIME they could move freely also in the shared corridor of the Section Novo mesto and recreation areas . The applicant spent out of the unit TIME per day : TIME outdoors in an area of QUANTITY , TIME in a shared corridor of QUANTITY or in shared living quarters of QUANTITY . The applicant could also move in an outdoor recreation yard for TIME per day .","During his imprisonment the applicant had CARDINAL consultations with a general practitioner and CARDINAL psychiatric treatment . He never requested treatment by a psychologist or dentist .","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 ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180661","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF \u017dIROVNICK\u00dd v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in FAC .","On DATE the applicant initiated civil proceedings for protection of his personality rights ( \u201c the main proceedings \u201d ) against GPE in the person of ORG ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . On DATE ORG ( m\u011bstsk\u00fd soud ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . ORG ( vrchn\u00ed soud ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant on DATE and ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an appeal on points of law on DATE .","On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings . As ORG did not deal with the applicant \u2019s request within the DATE statutory time - limit , he brought a civil action on DATE ( proceedings no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the GPE CARDINAL ORG ( obvodn\u00ed soud ) acknowledged that there had been delays in the main proceedings and awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP korunas ( CZK ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and dismissed the rest of the claim .","On DATE ORG amended the lower court \u2019s judgment by dismissing the whole financial claim , leaving the rest of the judgment intact . It found that the applicant had not suffered any non - pecuniary damage on account of the unreasonable length of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG , upon an appeal on points of law by the applicant , quashed ORG judgment and remitted the case to it . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim for financial compensation but acknowledged that his right to have his case heard within a reasonable time had been violated in the main proceedings . Given the high number of lawsuits brought by the applicant , the court concluded that the finding of a violation was sufficient redress for the non - pecuniary damage caused to him . The court also saw no need to award him damages on account of the length of the compensation proceedings , as the applicant had requested , considering that they had not been unreasonably long .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant , stating , inter alia :","\u201c ORG pointed out in its previous cassation judgment in this case that , without providing any further reasons , it can not be concluded that the fact that a plaintiff has initiated a large number of disputes ... means that the presumption of non - pecuniary damage caused by excessively long proceedings has been rebutted .","...","The fact that an injured person has instigated a large number of judicial disputes can have an impact on his approach to a particular set of proceedings ; for example , he may fail to respond to the court \u2019s requests on time , pay court fees on time , remedy shortcomings in his submissions on time and such like , thus he may not pay proper attention to the proceedings . Such conduct may show that the subject matter of the proceedings is of lesser importance for the injured person and it may be taken into consideration under the criterion of the injured person \u2019s conduct .... Nonetheless , even if there are no such circumstances on the part of the injured person , it is not possible to wholly ignore the fact that the plaintiff has initiated a large number of judicial disputes . It puts him in a different position as regards the perception of the degree of damage caused by the excessive length of CARDINAL of the disputes compared to the position of a person participating in CARDINAL or only a few judicial proceedings ( compare , in similar terms , ORG inadmissibility decision in the case of GPE v. GPE , of DATE , applications nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , and the decision of ORG , no . CARDINAL Cdo CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","As to the appellant \u2019s complaint that the court of appeal should have taken the length of the compensation proceedings themselves into account when determining redress , it must be admitted that the base amount of compensation can indeed be increased if compensation proceedings are themselves excessively long and a plaintiff requests an increase in compensation on those grounds ( part ORG . of ORG opinion of DATE , no . PERSON ... ) . However , in its judgment of DATE , no . CARDINAL DATE , ORG added that if in the proceedings concerned the procedure under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) has been followed , the application of the possibility to increase compensation is limited by the rules for submitting new facts and modifying the initial action in the proceedings before the court of first instance ; the same applies in similar fashion to appeal proceedings ( see LAW ORG ) . Thus , an injured person has to raise an objection about the length of compensation proceedings pending the effects of concentration in the particular proceedings . In the present case , the appellant raised a claim for compensation for the length of the compensation proceedings only in the course of the proceedings before the appellate court , in a submission of DATE ( file page CARDINAL ) ... so it was an inadmissible new claim . \u201d","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed a constitutional complaint ( \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enost ) by the applicant .","NORP In the meantime , the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) for non - pecuniary damage for the excessive length of the first set of compensation proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . He later began proceedings for compensation for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the second set of compensation proceedings too ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against ORG of the ORG before ORG under LAW . He claimed compensation for an allegedly illegal search of his house on DATE .","On DATE he was asked to remedy shortcomings in his action , which he did on DATE .","On DATE ORG decided the case was not in its jurisdiction and referred it to the Prague CARDINAL ORG . Following an appeal by the applicant , ORG upheld the jurisdiction decision on DATE .","On DATE ORG appointed a legal representative for the applicant . On DATE and DATE and DATE the applicant supplemented his action .","On DATE ORG asked the Prague CARDINAL ORG to send it the criminal case file concerning the house search at issue .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action on DATE after a hearing on DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law . On DATE he filed a constitutional complaint , which was rejected as premature by ORG on DATE . ORG dismissed his appeal on points of law on DATE , referring , inter alia , to a decision by ORG on the same matter , which had found the complaint manifestly ill - founded ( see PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) .","NORP The applicant subsequently renewed his complaint to ORG but it was dismissed on DATE .","On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . As the Ministry did not deal with his request within the DATE statutory time - limit , on DATE he brought a civil action before the GPE CARDINAL ORG seeking CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in compensation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the action , considering that the main proceedings had not been unreasonably long .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment , finding that although the main proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time the applicant could not be awarded compensation because of the lack of significance of the proceedings for him . According to the court , the applicant had abused his right of access to a court by initiating a very large number of legal disputes against the ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG . It noted that even if the applicant had abused his right of access to a court , unreasonably long proceedings might still cause him damage which had to be compensated for by at least a finding of a violation .","On DATE ORG modified ORG judgment by finding a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time in the operative part of the judgment . The court refused to deal with a new complaint by the applicant about the length of the compensation proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , which is apparently still under consideration .","In the meantime , the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings and then proceedings for compensation for delays in that second case ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant brought an action for damages against ORG of the ORG before ORG , alleging that he had suffered damage in connection with a \u201c terrorist attack \u201d on his family by police officers on DATE .","On DATE the case was referred to ORG as the court competent to deal with it at the first instance .","After several decisions on exemption from court fees , the appointment of a legal representative for the applicant and several attempts by the court to procure the related criminal case files , a hearing was held on DATE , following which ORG dismissed the action .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings , no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . As ORG did not deal with the applicant \u2019s request within the statutory time - limit , he brought a civil action before the Prague CARDINAL ORG on DATE , seeking ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in compensation .","On DATE ORG dismissed his action , acknowledging that the main proceedings had been unreasonably long , but seeing no necessity to award him financial compensation .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment , finding it non - reviewable for lack of reasoning , and remitted the case to ORG . In a judgment of DATE , ORG found a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time in the operative part of the judgment and dismissed the action regarding financial compensation . According to the court , the finding of a violation constituted adequate redress . It found that awarding him financial compensation would be against good moralsapplicant \u2019s conduct in the main proceedings , the conduct of the courts , the importance of the subject matter of the proceedings for the applicant as well as his character , his relation towards the ORG and society and his lack of respect for the rights of others .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant . A subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed as manifestly ill - founded by ORG on DATE .","Following a plea of nullity by the applicant , ORG on DATE quashed its judgment of DATE on the grounds that the applicant had not been able to attend a hearing at the court .","On DATE ORG issued a new judgment , modifying ORG judgment by awarding the applicant CZK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) . It found that the length of the compensation proceedings meant that a mere finding of a violation of his rights no longer constituted adequate redress . Having regard to the overall length of the main proceedings , ORG determined the sum to be awarded to the applicant ( CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL \u2013 EUR CARDINAL ) and then adjusted it with regard to the length of the compensation proceedings ( + PERCENT ) , procedural difficulties in the main proceedings ( PERCENT ) and the importance of what had been at stake for him ( PERCENT ) .","It appears that the compensation proceedings are still ongoing .","The applicant instituted a further CARDINAL sets of proceedings related to the compensation claim : CARDINAL to seek compensation for non - pecuniary damage for delays in the initial compensation proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL for compensation for the excessive length of that second set of compensation proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant brought an administrative action against ORG before ORG , seeking the annulment of ORG Decree no . CARDINAL on the rules for imprisonment ( vyhl\u00e1\u0161ka Ministerstva spravedlnosti , kterou se vyd\u00e1v\u00e1 \u0159\u00e1d v\u00fdkonu trestu odn\u011bt\u00ed svobody ) and the internal rules of ORG .","On DATE ORG rejected his action for lack of competence .","Following a cassation complaint ( kasa\u010dn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enost ) by the applicant , ORG ( GPE spr\u00e1vn\u00ed soud ) quashed the judgment on DATE and remitted the case to ORG . It found that the applicant \u2019s action should have been dismissed ( zam\u00edtnuta ) rather than rejected ( odm\u00edtnuta ) .","After several decisions on the appointment of a legal representative for the applicant in DATE , ORG dismissed the action on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation complaint by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings ( no . CARDINAL Ca CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , later no . CARDINAL Ca CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . As the Ministry did not deal with the applicant \u2019s request within the statutory time - limit , he brought a civil action before the GPE CARDINAL ORG on DATE , seeking ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in compensation .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the action , considering that the overall length of the proceedings at issue had not been unreasonable despite CARDINAL particular delay , particularly because the applicant had in fact known the result of the proceedings after ORG first judgment of DATE .","DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment , holding that a finding of a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights would be sufficient compensation for the CARDINAL delay in the main proceedings .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG , stating that the finding of a violation should have been set out in the operative part of the judgment .","In a judgment of DATE ORG found a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to have his case heard without unnecessary delays in the operative part of the judgment . It found that the length of the main proceedings had been unreasonable , given that the case had not been complex . However , it found that the finding of a violation would provide adequate redress , given the lack of importance of what was at stake for the applicant and the fact that he must have known the result of the proceedings as soon as ORG had issued its first judgment . The court considered the finding of a violation to be adequate redress , even taking into account the length of the compensation proceedings themselves .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant . On DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional complaint as manifestly ill - founded .","In the meantime , the applicant initiated proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) for compensation for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings . He later made a claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage from the excessive length of the latter compensation proceedings too ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant brought an administrative action against ORG ( v\u011bze\u0148sk\u00e1 slu\u017eba ) and ORG , challenging decisions on a disciplinary penalty ( a reprimand ) that had been imposed on him and the failure of ORG to decide on a complaint by him about a violation of regulations by ORG staff .","After exempting the applicant from court fees , appointing a lawyer to represent him and seeking necessary clarification of the action , on DATE ORG found the action in respect of the disciplinary decisions inadmissible , severing the part of the action concerning ORG alleged failure to act .","On DATE ORG dismissed the latter part of the action , finding that ORG had not been obliged to deal with the applicant \u2019s complaint in administrative proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation complaint by the applicant . On DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional complaint as manifestly ill - founded .","On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings ( no . CARDINAL Ca CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . As the Ministry did not deal with the applicant \u2019s request within the statutory time - limit , he brought a civil action before the Prague CARDINAL ORG on DATE , seeking ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in compensation .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the action , finding that the main proceedings had not been unreasonably long .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG since it had failed to also consider proceedings no . CARDINAL Ca CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG again dismissed the action , finding that the main proceedings , nos . CARDINAL Ca CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and QUANTITY Ca CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , had not been unreasonably long .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . Although , contrary to ORG , it considered that the main proceeding had been unreasonably long , it held that finding a violation was sufficient redress .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG . The latter court on DATE modified ORG judgment by setting out a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time in the operative part of the judgment . It did not find that the length of the compensation proceedings had been unreasonable .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , which is apparently still ongoing .","In the meantime , the applicant initiated CARDINAL other cases for compensation for non - pecuniary damage from delayed proceedings : CARDINAL related to delays in the initial compensation proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL related to delays in that further compensation proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant sent a request for compensation of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) under LAW to ORG . He stated that he had suffered non - pecuniary damage as a result of irregular official conduct by police officers who , on DATE , had taken a DNA sample by way of a cheek swab , without authority to do so and under the threat of force .","On DATE the ORG rejected the request . On DATE the applicant brought an action for damages against ORG before ORG .","DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the action as time - barred . Following an appeal by the applicant , on DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG , finding an erroneous assessment of the statutory limitation period .","On DATE ORG delivered a new judgment , dismissing the action for compensation . It admitted that there had been irregularities in the actions of the police officers when taking the applicant \u2019s DNA samples , but found that he had not suffered any damage .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment , although with different reasoning . It considered that the finding of a violation was adequate redress for the damage caused to the applicant .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG . It stated that ORG \u201c should not overlook \u201d ORG case - law regarding the statutory limitation of a claim . Consequently , on DATE ORG delivered a new judgment , dismissing the applicant \u2019s action as time - barred .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . On CARDINAL DATE ORG discontinued proceedings on that appeal as the applicant \u2019s lawyer had failed to submit it properly within the statutory time - limit .","On DATE ORG rejected a constitutional complaint by the applicant on the grounds that he was not represented by a lawyer . It also observed that the applicant did not want to pursue the complaint .","On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim , finding no delays in the main proceedings and considering their overall length as reasonable . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant brought a civil action against ORG , seeking ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in compensation .","DATE . After several attempts by the court to procure the relevant case file ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , a hearing was held on DATE . ORG dismissed the action on DATE , finding that the length of the main proceedings had been reasonable .","According to the ORG , the applicant filed an appeal on DATE , which is apparently still ongoing .","In the meantime , the applicant initiated proceedings for compensation for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the initial compensation proceedings ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant brought an action for protection of his personality rights against a newspaper publisher and ORG .","After an amendment of the action and several decisions on exempting the applicant from court fees , on DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings against GPE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the action .","On DATE the Prague High Court modified the judgment , awarding the applicant CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG , which upheld ORG judgment on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , which is apparently still under consideration .","On DATE the applicant lodged a plea of nullity against ORG judgment , asserting that he had not been able to attend a hearing . Apparently , those proceedings are still ongoing .","On DATE the applicant claimed compensation under LAW from ORG for non - pecuniary damage arising from the excessive length of the main proceedings .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim , finding no delays in the main proceedings . On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against the Ministry , seeking EUR CARDINAL in compensation .","On DATE the Prague CARDINAL ORG awarded the applicant CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) and dismissed the rest of the action . It considered that the main proceedings had been unreasonably long , taking into consideration that they had concerned the applicant \u2019s personality rights .","On DATE ORG modified the judgment by finding a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to have his case heard within a reasonable time but dismissing his claim for financial compensation . Having regard to the fact that the applicant had brought a number of actions , overloading the court system in GPE by such actions , the court concluded that the finding of a violation constituted adequate redress for non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law . It emphasised that if a plaintiff initiated a large number of legal cases then the strength of his feelings towards the damage caused by the unreasonable length of CARDINAL of those sets of proceedings was different to someone who had participated in CARDINAL or a few sets of proceedings .","ORG dismissed a constitutional complaint by the applicant as manifestly ill - founded on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148922","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"SIMANOVI\u010cS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a \u201c permanently resident noncitizen \u201d of GPE who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence GPE . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP The relevant facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows .","As of DATE the applicant was detained in FAC ( GPE cietums ) . Prior to DATE it had been named Daugavpils Prison ( NORP cietums ) . In the course of his detention the applicant also spent certain periods of time in other prisons . It appears that he stayed in FAC until DATE .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the conditions in FAC . He asked to be released until prison conditions had been improved and requested a monetary compensation of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) .","First of all , he submitted that the prison was overcrowded . He was housed in cell no . CARDINAL , which was occupied by QUANTITY persons , even though it had been designed for CARDINAL . The situation was similar in other prison cells . On DATE he had been transported to a hospital owing to heart problems . Upon his release from the hospital he had been returned to the same cell no . CARDINAL .","Furthermore , the applicant , a non - smoker , was exposed to cigarette smoke on a DATE basis .","Also , CARDINAL sets of bunk beds had been placed next to each other . The applicant had to sleep next to another man , and another inmate was sleeping above the applicant . His sleep suffered as a result , and his nervous system was also negatively affected .","Lastly , the applicant submitted that the cells were not equipped with emergency buttons in order to call for help . He generally stated that he was unable to purchase the necessary products in the prison shop .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s aforementioned complaint .","With regard to the issue of living space , ORG found that the applicant had been provided with living space as required by statute , namely a minimum of PERCENT ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In reaching that conclusion ORG provided information on the floor area and intended number of inmates for each of the applicant \u2019s cells DATE and DATE , including cell no . CARDINAL .","As to the applicant \u2019s complaint of exposure to cigarette smoke , according to the applicant \u2019s submissions of DATE he had refused his transfer to a non - smoking cell . Also , on DATE he had requested that CARDINAL packs of cigarettes , a lighter and matches be purchased for him in the prison shop .","ORG did not react to the complaint concerning bunk beds .","Lastly , it provided general information on the products available at the prison shop .","NORP That decision could be challenged before ORG ( ORG rajona tiesa ) .","On DATE the ORG received the applicant \u2019s complaint , as supplemented on DATE , regarding poor conditions in FAC over \u201c a long period of time \u201d . The applicant requested financial compensation .","He submitted that his health had deteriorated as a result of the conditions in the prison . He raised most of the same issues as previously before ORG , namely overcrowding , his exposure to cigarette smoke , the bunk beds , and the absence of an emergency button .","He further criticised the first aid in response to his heart attack on DATE , and submitted that prior to his arrest in DATE he had not suffered from heart problems . Following the heart attack , the applicant had refused his transfer to a single - occupancy cell because it already held CARDINAL inmates and thus would not remedy his situation . He argued that he had purchased the cigarettes in order to use them to repel rodents .","In addition , owing to the large number of inmates , the applicant had difficulty in accessing sanitary facilities , including a non - partitioned toilet , and a table to have a meal . There was also a bad smell and a lack of ventilation in the prison cells . He was locked up in those conditions for TIME a day .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint .","Concerning the issue of overcrowding , ORG concluded that the information provided by ORG showed that DATE and DATE the applicant had been held in prison cells with a surface area of CARDINAL m\u00b2 per person , which complied with statutory requirements .","As to the applicant \u2019s confinement with smokers , ORG held that the statutes did not require smokers and non - smokers to be held separately . However , such an obligation was incumbent on the prison once a convicted person had made a request to be transferred to a non - smoking cell .","In that regard , there was no evidence that the applicant had made such a request prior to his heart attack on DATE . He had made the request on DATE . Yet he had refused to be placed in non - smoking cell no . CARDINAL because of certain conditions in that cell . However , there was no indication in the case file that the applicant had informed the prison of these issues and had requested that they be addressed or that he be moved to a different cell . That being the case , it could not be said that the prison had ignored the applicant \u2019s requests in relation to non - smoking conditions and that he had been forced to share a cell with smokers .","As regards the bunk beds , ORG did not accept that beds had led to the applicant \u2019s being subjected to inhuman treatment . His sleep problem had nothing to do with the beds . It was a medical issue , concerning which the applicant ought to have consulted a prison doctor .","An appeal lay to a higher court against that decision of ORG .","In his appeal of DATE , as supplemented on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant requested that the above - mentioned decision of ORG be quashed and that he be awarded compensation of ORG .","The applicant argued that the lower court had been mistaken in finding that he had been provided with a minimum of CARDINAL m\u00b2 of living space as required by the statutes . The floor space had been taken up by furniture and the toilet , thus reducing the available floor space .","He further complained that the statutes should also require , with regard to prisons , that separate , isolated and well - ventilated rooms be provided for smoking . The applicant had no complaints about other inmates smoking , since they were his friends . It was therefore illegitimate to require him to move to a different prison cell . Furthermore , a fine metal mesh had been installed on the windows hampering air circulation . As a result , the applicant had experienced renewed heart problems .","On DATE ORG ( NORP apgabaltiesa ) examined the applicant \u2019s appeal and partly granted his claim .","ORG noted that during the court hearing the applicant had stated that he had been subjected to inhuman conditions for DATE . It further stated that the scope of the case was limited to the matters in relation to which the administrative proceedings had been initiated .","As regards the applicant \u2019s confinement with smokers , ORG endorsed the lower court \u2019s findings .","As to the applicant \u2019s complaint of overcrowding , ORG noted the recommendation of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) that CARDINAL m\u00b2 be provided per prisoner in multiple - occupancy cells , as mentioned by ORG in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","In the applicant \u2019s case , that standard had not been complied with for a period of ORG DATE , namely DATE and DATE . Also , as a result of overcrowding , the ventilation during that time had been inadequate . Consequently , the applicant had suffered treatment in breach of the prohibition of torture .","In determining the amount of compensation to be paid , ORG took into consideration the degree and duration of the violation of the applicant \u2019s rights . It referred to the case - law of the administrative courts . It also observed that in ORG had awarded CARDINAL ( ORG ) where a person had been held for DATE in conditions of overcrowding and also of limited out - of - cell activities , lack of personal hygiene products ( soap , toothbrush , toilet paper ) , insufficient ventilation and natural light ; in addition , there had been a suspicion that the person had contracted tuberculosis while in detention ( ibid . , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","That being the case , ORG deemed that compensation of ORG CARDINAL ( roughly corresponding to LAW ) was appropriate in the applicant \u2019s situation .","That judgment was open to appeal before ORG of the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas ORG lietu departaments ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the above judgment of ORG . He requested that the ORG of ORG re - calculate the compensation awarded .","He submitted that the appeal court had not taken all the circumstances into account . He further specified that he had been detained in Daugavgr\u012bva Prison in inhuman conditions for a long period of time , namely DATE and DATE , and that owing to those conditions he had had a heart attack .","For DATE spent in FAC the applicant claimed ORG CARDINAL in compensation , in total ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , which he had rounded to LVL CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","On DATE the ORG of ORG upheld the impugned judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","It affirmed that LAW had been violated in the applicant \u2019s case on account of the small living space and insufficient ventilation , which had been switched on for CARDINAL or two hours every day .","With regard to the applicant \u2019s complaint regarding the period of time considered by ORG , the ORG held that the circumstances of which the applicant had complained to ORG had been scrutinised in the present case . First , his complaint in relation to a non - smoking cell had been dismissed , and in that part ORG judgment had become final . Further , he had complained about the size of the prison cells . The ORG ruled that none of the facts of the case had been disregarded by ORG .","That judgment was final .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG about conditions of detention in FAC DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed that complaint as out - of - time .","Furthermore , in the final decision of ORG of DATE the court proceedings were also rejected in view of the belated nature of the applicant \u2019s complaint .","In regard to LAW ) prohibiting the torture and cruel or degrading treatment of a person , see PERSON GPE ( no . GPE , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . Moreover , LAW everyone \u2019s right to adequate compensation in the event of an unlawful interference with his or her rights .","Article CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG izpildes kodekss ) , which provides for living space in dormitorytype prison cells of CARDINAL m\u00b2 per person for men , was cited in GPE ( DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The Administrative Procedure Law ( Administrat\u012bv\u0101 procesa likums ) came into force on DATE . It provides , among other things , for the right to challenge the actions of public authorities ( faktisk\u0101 r\u012bc\u012bba ) before the administrative courts ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146773","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KONOVALOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On TIME the pregnant applicant , after her contractions had started , was taken by ambulance to the gynaecology ward of GPE Military ORG .","Following her admission , she was handed a booklet issued by the hospital which contained , among other things , a notice warning patients about their possible involvement in the clinical teaching taking place at the hospital . The notice read :","\u201c We ask you to respect the fact that medical treatment in our hospital is combined with teaching for students studying obstetrics and gynaecology . Because of this , all patients are involved in the study process . \u201d","The exact time at which the booklet was handed to her is unclear .","At TIME the applicant was examined by a doctor , who established that she was DATE pregnant and that there were complications with the pregnancy because she had mild polyhydramnios ( excess amniotic fluid ) . The doctor noted that the applicant \u2019s contractions appeared premature and that she was suffering from fatigue . In view of these symptoms , she was put in a drug - induced sleep , which lasted from TIME .","At TIME the applicant \u2019s doctor again established that the contractions had been premature and prescribed her anti - contraction medication to suppress premature labour .","DATE the applicant underwent various medical examinations . The doctors found no other pathologies except that she had been having irregular contractions .","According to the applicant , at TIME she was informed that her delivery was scheduled for DATE and that it would be attended by medical students .","At TIME the applicant was put in a drug - induced sleep . During the TIME her condition was monitored by doctors .","At TIME DATE , after the applicant had been woken up , the frequency and intensity of her contractions increased . The doctors found traces of meconium in her amniotic fluid , which indicated there was a risk that the foetus was suffering from hypoxia . The applicant was prescribed medicine to improve uteroplacental hemodynamics ( blood flow to the placenta ) .","At TIME the doctors carried out a cardiotocography examination and described the state of health of both the applicant and her foetus as satisfactory . They also decided to conduct a vaginal delivery . According to the applicant , in the delivery room she objected to the presence of medical students at the birth .","The birth lasted from TIME in the presence of doctors and medical students , who had apparently received some information about her state of health and medical treatment . During the labour the doctors performed an episiotomy ( incision ) . The child was diagnosed with light asphyxia . At TIME the child was moved to a special care baby unit and remained there until CARDINAL DATE , the date the applicant took her home .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the hospital , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage allegedly caused as a result of the measures aimed at delaying the birth .","In response , the hospital administration carried out an internal inquiry . The results of were set out in a report dated DATE , which confirmed that the delivery had been conducted in line with the relevant standards , and that upon the applicant \u2019s admission she had been notified of the possible presence of the public during her labour . The relevant part of the report read as follows :","\u201c ... DATE medical students were present in the delivery room during [ the applicant \u2019s ] labour , as [ per ] their timetable for DATE . This could not have had any negative impact on the outcome of the birth . Management of the delivery was performed by [ the head of ORG ] . On admission [ the applicant ] was notified of the possible presence of the public during her labour . Obstetricians did not intentionally delay the birth . The treatment was carried out in the best interests of the mother and foetus in accordance with the particular circumstances of the applicant \u2019s delivery ... \u201d","On DATE the hospital dismissed the applicant \u2019s request , stating that there had not been any mistakes in the management of the birth .","On DATE the applicant sued the hospital in GPE Vyborg District Court ( \" ORG \" ) . She sought compensation for non - pecuniary damage and a public apology for the intentional delay to her labour and the non - authorised presence of third parties during the birth .","On DATE ORG ordered an expert examination of the applicant \u2019s case . Experts were requested to examine whether or not the applicant \u2019s delivery had been intentionally delayed and whether or not her labour had been affected by the presence of the students .","In their report dated DATE the experts concluded that :","\u201c [ The hospital ] provided [ the applicant ] with medical care without any shortcomings capable of deteriorating the health of mother or child . The medical treatment was adequate and carried out timeously . After [ the applicant \u2019s admission ] she had been carefully examined by doctors , who had made the correct diagnosis and prepared an adequate plan for the birth . Owing to the prematurity of [ the applicant \u2019s ] contractions and her general fatigue , the prescription of a drug - induced sleep should be considered an appropriate measure . The subsequent treatment [ for ] the premature contractions was necessary ...","Childbirth is stressful for every woman . The presence of [ the hospital \u2019s ] medical students , even at the second stage of delivery , when the pregnant woman was bearing down , could not have affected management of the labour . The delivery could only have been adversely affected at the first stage . During the bearing down phase , a pregnant woman is usually focused on her physical activity . The presence of the public could not adversely affect her labour . Medical documents show that it was impossible to delay the delivery at the second stage , the stage of unintentional bearing down . The documents in the [ applicant \u2019s ] case file contain no evidence to confirm that the birth was intentionally delayed with a view to arranging a study of this case by medical students . \u201d","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim . Relying on the above - mentioned expert report , it held that the quality of the applicant \u2019s treatment at the hospital had been adequate . It further noted that the domestic law , in particular , LAW , in force at the time , did not require the consent of a patient to the presence of medical students in writing . It also established the fact that the applicant had been informed of her involvement in the study process beforehand , as she had received the hospital \u2019s booklet containing an explicit warning about the possible presence of medical students during her treatment . ORG dismissed her argument that she had objected to the presence of the public during the birth as unsubstantiated by accepting the oral submission of her doctor that no such objection had been made . The court did not verify the doctor \u2019s statements in this respect by questioning other witnesses and did not refer to any other evidence in connection with the issue . It concluded that the hospital doctors had acted lawfully and had not caused her any nonpecuniary damage .","NORP The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c ... The applicant lodged a claim seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage ... [ She ] alleged that the birth of her child had been intentionally delayed to arrange for a public procedure in the presence of medical students . [ She ] stated that the demonstration of her labour , which had been carried out without her consent , had caused her physical and psychological suffering and violated her rights . She stated that the defendant should pay her RUB CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","The representatives of [ the hospital ] objected to the claim . They stated that the [ applicant ] had been aware of the study process in [ the hospital ] before she had been admitted there ... They further argued that [ she ] had received adequate and timely medical treatment ...","[ B. ] , a doctor who assisted [ the applicant ] during her labour stated while being questioned ... [ in ] court that the medical care had been provided in line with the expected standards and without delay . The applicant did not make any complaints about the quality of [ her ] medical care . [ B. ] also submitted that it was impossible to delay labour . According to her , the presence of students lasted TIME . The GPE curriculum provided that they had to take part in ORG rounds and the medical treatment of patients ...","In accordance with LAW , students of secondary and higher medical educational institutions are allowed to assist in the administration of medical treatment in line with the requirements of their curriculum and under the supervision of medical personnel . The relevant rules are to be set forth by ORG . Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG provide that such medical interventions may not be performed without a patient \u2019s consent , which must be confirmed in [ writing ] .","The court finds that the mere presence of [ the hospital \u2019s ] students in the delivery room can not be construed as a medical intervention within the meaning of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . As can be seen from the case file documents , ambulances do not usually take their patients to [ hospital ] . [ The applicant ] was taken to [ the hospital ] because her husband served in the [ army ] .","According to [ the applicant \u2019s ] statements , she was aware of her possible involvement in the study process ( see the booklet ) . The case file contains no evidence which could support the allegations that she had objected to the presence of the public during the delivery .","Taking into account the circumstances of this case , the court sees no grounds to find the [ hospital \u2019s ] doctors guilty of inflicting any non - pecuniary damage or physical or moral suffering on the applicant . Accordingly , [ the hospital ] is under no obligation to pay any compensation [ to her ] ... \u201d","On DATE GPE upheld ORG judgment on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160995","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PERAK v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant brought criminal charges ( \u201c criminal action \u201d ) for defamation against ORG , thus undertaking criminal prosecution as private prosecutor . Along with the criminal action , the applicant made a motion to be awarded compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary loss arising from the commission of the criminal offence in question .","On DATE ORG handed down its judgment and found GPE guilty of the criminal offence of defamation , giving him a suspended sentence of DATE in prison and ordering him to pay the costs of the proceedings . In respect of the applicant \u2019s claim for compensation , the district court held that the claim was unsubstantiated and directed the applicant to seek compensation in civil proceedings .","Both parties appealed against the judgment before ORG . In particular , the applicant alleged that there had been a violation of LAW and that the punishment imposed on GPE had been too lenient . He also complained about the fact that the first - instance court had not ruled on his claim for compensation , despite the fact that there had allegedly been enough material in the case file to enable it to rule on the matter .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s appeal in respect of the punishment and increased it to DATE of suspended sentence . However , it dismissed the complaint concerning the applicant \u2019s unsuccessful claim for compensation , confirming the lower court \u2019s view that it had not been substantiated .","The applicant did not institute separate civil proceedings for compensation .","On DATE TIME lodged with ORG a request for the protection of legality ( an extraordinary legal remedy whereby to challenge the procedural and substantive legality of final decisions ) , alleging an incorrect application of LAW . In particular , he alleged that the applicant \u2019s criminal action had been brought out of time .","On DATE ORG notified the applicant \u2019s representative that on DATE TIME had lodged a request for the protection of legality ; however , the notification did not include a copy of the said request for the protection of legality .","On DATE , pursuant to LAW , the request for the protection of legality was sent to ORG for a response .","NORP In that response , ORG agreed that the criminal action had been brought out of time . This response was served on ORG and his representatives .","NORP However , neither the applicant nor his representative were served with that response ; nor were they ever served with the request for the protection of legality .","On DATE ORG , without having informed the parties of the date of the deliberation session , deliberated in private and upheld the request for the protection of legality , dismissing the applicant \u2019s action as having been lodged out of time . Further , it ordered the applicant to pay the costs of proceedings including the costs and attorney \u2019s fees incurred by GPE and a lump sum covering court fees of MONEY ( ORG ) .","Not being aware that the request for the protection of legality had already been decided , on DATE the applicant \u2019s representative requested the relevant documentation from ORG .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s representative that the case - file documents had been with ORG since DATE . Accordingly , on DATE the applicant \u2019s representative requested from ORG the documentation regarding the request for the protection of legality .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s representative that ORG had lodged a request for the protection of legality which had been upheld on DATE .","On DATE ORG judgment was served on the applicant \u2019s representative .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint . Citing Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW , the applicant claimed that he had not been afforded equality before the law and that his right to judicial protection and his right to equal protection had been violated as he had not been given the opportunity to participate in the proceedings before ORG . He also alleged violations of the LAW , citing Articles CARDINAL and DATE and LAW No . CARDINAL , the latter in respect of the fact that he had been ordered to pay the opposite party \u2019s costs of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180475","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"GAVRYLOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["A list of the applicants , who lodged the present applications DATE , is set out in the appendix .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , most recently , Mr I. Lishchyna .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG of GPE staged a military aviation show at the PERSON aerodrome in GPE . During the aerobatics performance , an SU-CARDINAL military aircraft crashed into a crowd of spectators and exploded . Both pilots had successfully ejected before the explosion . As a result of the crash , CARDINAL people were killed and over CARDINAL people , including the applicants , sustained damage to their health ( see details in paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On the date of the accident criminal proceedings were instituted to establish the cause of the crash .","On various dates the applicants were admitted in these proceedings as injured parties and civil claimants . Following individualised assessments of the applicants\u2019 injuries by forensic experts within the framework of those proceedings , they were divided in CARDINAL categories : \u201c minor injuries \u201d , \u201c injuries of intermediate seriousness \u201d and \u201c grave injuries \u201d depending on their impact on the applicants\u2019 health and well - being , the reversibility or irreversibility of their nature , the length of recovery and the intensity of the medical intervention required . The seriousness of both the physical and the emotional trauma were taken into account in the process of attribution to a category .","On DATE the criminal proceedings against CARDINAL officers of the rank of general ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG case \u201d ) were disjoined from the criminal proceedings against the pilots and the supporting ground crew ( hereinafter \u201c the performers\u2019 case \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG examined the performers\u2019 case and found the CARDINAL pilots of the crashed aircraft and CARDINAL supporting crew members guilty of negligence . These officers were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment .","On DATE the court also ruled on the applicants\u2019 civil claims , awarding them various amounts in respect of pecuniary damage ( mostly medical expenses ) and non - pecuniary damage in connection with physical injuries and emotional distress , to be paid by ORG ( see details in the appended table below ) .","The applicants appealed , seeking , in particular , an increase in the compensation payments .","On DATE the Military Panel of ORG of GPE rejected the ORG appeals and the judgment in the performers\u2019 case became final .","DATE all the judgment awards due to the applicants were paid out .","Some applicants lodged further civil claims within the framework of the ORG case , which was still ongoing at the material time .","On DATE ORG examined the ORG case and acquitted the CARDINAL officers charged in these proceedings .","On DATE this decision was upheld on appeal by ORG of ORG of GPE and all the civil claims lodged within the framework of the ORG case were left unexamined in view of the acquittal .","On various dates starting DATE , in addition to the compensation awarded by the court , almost all of the applicants also obtained payments in ORG and municipal aid from the PERSON accident victim relief funds ( see details in the appended table below ) . Every applicant also obtained further payments ranging from CARDINAL hryvnias ( ORG ) ( Ms GPE ; minor emotional injury ) to ORG CARDINAL ( Mr PERSON ; grave injury ) from charitable funds set up and managed by the authorities to attract private donations in aid to the PERSON accident victims . On various occasions some of the applicants were also provided with vacation vouchers and recreational treatment vouchers to facilitate their mental and physical recovery . For more details concerning the accident , the ensuing investigation and ORG and municipal aid to the victims see PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . ORG and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The present application was lodged by CARDINAL NORP nationals who are resident in GPE : PERSON PERSON , born in DATE and Mr PERSON , born in DATE . PERSON is the mother of Mr PERSON . The applicants were represented by Mr T.R. Sendega , a lawyer practising in GPE .","As a result of the PERSON air show accident , PERSON PERSON sustained a blunt soft tissues leg injury with haemorrhage and multiple abrasions cumulatively classified by domestic forensic experts as injuries of \u201c intermediate seriousness \u201d .","Mr PERSON had his popliteal artery and right leg muscles crushed . He also sustained multiple abrasions , contusions and other injuries cumulatively classified by domestic forensic experts as a \u201c grave injury \u201d . Following the accident , he underwent treatment in the hospital rehabilitation unit followed by lengthy inpatient and outpatient treatment .","By the time the present application was lodged in DATE , Mr PERSON had been classified as suffering from \u201c second ( intermediate ) degree \u201d disability under domestic classification and was in receipt of a disability pension .","NORP The present application was lodged by CARDINAL NORP nationals resident in GPE : Mrs Natalya PERSON , born in DATE , PERSON PERSON born in DATE and Mr PERSON , born in DATE . The first CARDINAL applicants are spouses and the third applicant is their son . They were represented by PERSON D.A. ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .","According to the applicants , they were so close to the site of the ORG aircraft crash that their clothes were stained with the blood and body parts of people injured and dying around them . In order to reach safety , they had to make their way past numerous mutilated corpses and disfigured screaming people along the aerodrome runway .","Mrs PERSON sustained an ankle injury with a ligament rupture , contusion and haematoma . Subsequently she was also diagnosed as suffering from post - traumatic stress disorder , which transformed into asthenic - depressive neurosis . Her injuries were classified as injuries of \u201c intermediate seriousness \u201d by domestic forensic experts .","Mr PERSON was diagnosed as suffering from post - traumatic stress disorder . His psychological trauma was classified by domestic forensic experts as a \u201c minor injury \u201d .","Mr PERSON , a DATE minor at the date of the accident , sustained a contused cerebral wound , concussion and a haematoma . He also developed post - traumatic stress disorder , which included symptoms such as fear of crowds and sleep disturbance . He also suffered from various forms of physiological dysfunction , including a stutter and disruption of his speech development . Mr PERSON Chornyy \u2019s injuries were classified by the domestic forensic experts as ones of \u201c intermediate seriousness \u201d . On several occasions in DATE that followed , Mr PERSON was placed on inpatient treatment programmes in psychoneurological institutions .","According to the applicants , at the date of the exchange of observations in DATE , they were still suffering from the after - effects of the accident . They provided numerous medical documents as evidence that they had continued to be under on - going medical supervision in connection with the psychological trauma sustained at the accident site .","The present application was lodged by PERSON PERSON , a NORP national born in DATE and resident in GPE . The applicant was represented by Ms GPE Kulbiy - Kukhar , a lawyer practising in GPE .","As a result of the PERSON air show accident , PERSON sustained a heavy cerebral contusion with subarachnoid haemorrhage and a fracture of the clavicular bone . For DATE after the accident he was in a coma . Upon regaining consciousness , he suffered from partial amnesia , temporary speech loss , hallucinations and was unable to walk . Following intensive inpatient neurological treatment , PERSON regained some cerebral functions . However , he never attained full recovery and by DATE he had been classified as suffering from disability of \u201c the first degree \u201d in need of outside assistance for meeting basic DATE needs . According to classification by domestic forensic experts , PERSON trauma was classified as a \u201c grave injury \u201d .","The present application was lodged by CARDINAL NORP nationals \u2012 Mrs GPE PERSON , born in DATE , and PERSON PERSON , born in DATE , and a GPE national \u2012 Mr Nikita Sergejevich Bastrakov , born in DATE . The first CARDINAL applicants are the grandparents of the third applicant . All CARDINAL applicants are resident in GPE . They were represented by PERSON A.P. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .","According to the applicants , on the date of the accident , moments before the SU-CARDINAL hit the ground , Mr Bastrakov \u2212 a DATE minor at that time \u2212 was watching it with his mouth open , while PERSON said to him in amusement : \u201c Wow , look how low can this airplane fly ! \u201d The next moment , PERSON PERSON , having suddenly realised that the aircraft was falling , pushed his grandson to the ground and covered him with his body , urging his wife to likewise lie on the ground . Moments later , the applicants were hit by the heat wave from the aircraft \u2019s turbines , which burnt their clothes and skin . The soles of PERSON PERSON \u2019s shoes were also completely burned . When the applicants finally got onto their feet , they were covered with other people \u2019s blood and with soot from the aircraft , which had exploded some distance from them .","As a result of the accident , PERSON suffered multiple burns to her face , limbs and eyes . The heat wave from the aircraft \u2019s turbines also entered her respiratory system and burned her larynx , trachea , bronchi and lungs . In addition , PERSON suffered an acute neurological reaction to stress . Domestic forensic experts classified her injuries as \u201c minor \u201d . According to the applicant , this classification was incorrect , as she had never fully recovered from her injuries . She provided extensive medical documentation as evidence to prove that the after - effects of her injuries included chronic obstructive bronchitis , pulmonary emphysema , encephalopathy , and various other medical complications . By DATE Mrs PERSON had been classified as suffering from general disability of the \u201c third ( mildest ) degree \u201d according to the domestic classification system .","Mr PERSON GPE sustained contusion of the chest area , fractures of the fifth and seventh vertebra and multiple abrasions cumulatively classified by domestic forensic experts as \u201c injuries of intermediate seriousness \u201d . He also developed complications , including frequent headaches , back pain and a number of other neurological symptoms .","Mr Nikita Bastrakov sustained a hand wound , face abrasions and post - traumatic stress disorder manifested most markedly , through phobias , asthenic symptoms and bed - wetting . His injuries were classified by domestic forensic experts as being of \u201c intermediate seriousness \u201d .","The present application was lodged by PERSON , a NORP national born in DATE and resident in GPE . The applicant was represented by PERSON D. A. ORG and Mrs S. V. GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .","As a result of the accident , the applicant suffered contusion of her foot and developed post - traumatic stress disorder classified by domestic forensic experts as a \u201c minor injury \u201d . According to the applicant , this classification was incorrect , as her mental state had in fact deteriorated to a point that she was forced to quit her employment as a kindergarten mentor . After a series of inpatient and outpatient treatment programmes , in DATE Mrs Kurylka was classified as suffering from \u201c second - degree \u201d ( moderately serious ) disability and unfit for work , excluding the performance of domestic tasks . At the time of the exchange of observations in DATE , PERSON was unemployed on a disability pension and was under permanent outpatient psychiatric supervision . In addition , several times per year she participated in courses of inpatient rehabilitative treatment in psycho - neurological institutions .","The present application was lodged by PERSON ( married name PERSON ) , a NORP national born in DATE and resident in GPE . She was represented by ORG ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .","As a result of the ORG air show accident , Ms Koshulap , a DATE minor at that time , sustained a complicated hand injury with damage to the extensor tendons classified by domestic forensic experts as an \u201c injury of intermediate seriousness \u201d . She underwent a series of reconstructive operations followed by inpatient and outpatient treatment programmes . It is not clear from the case file whether the applicant has fully recovered .","The present application was lodged by CARDINAL NORP nationals resident in GPE : Mr ORG , born in DATE , and Mr ORG , born in DATE . Mr ORG is the father of Mr Volodymyr Garasymiv . The applicants were represented by Mr D.A. ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .","As a result of the ORG air show accident , PERSON ORG sustained cerebral concussion , multiple facial and head burns , as well abrasions to the fingers and knees , cumulatively classified by domestic experts as \u201c minor injuries \u201d . According to him , this classification was incorrect , as he had never regained his health and continued to suffer from the after - effects of the accident at the date of the exchange of observations in DATE . As a result of his physical injuries and stress , Mr ORG started suffering , in particular , from frequent headaches , hypertonic disease , and other complications . Within DATE of the accident he was forced to abandon his career as a military wind instrument player and was eventually dismissed from the military forces on health grounds . By DATE , Mr ORG was classified as suffering from disability entailing PERCENT loss of capacity to work .","Mr Volodymyr Garasymiv , an DATE minor at the date of the accident , developed post - traumatic stress disorder classified by domestic experts as \u201c minor injury \u201d .","The present application was lodged by Ms GPE ( married name PERSON ) , a NORP national born in DATE and resident in GPE . She was represented by ORG ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .","As a result of the PERSON air show accident , Ms GPE , a DATE minor on the date of the accident , developed posttraumatic stress disorder , which was treated on an outpatient basis . Her trauma was classified by domestic forensic experts as a \u201c minor injury \u201d .","The present application was lodged by Ms Liubov Grygorivna Stupets , a NORP national born in DATE and resident in GPE . She was represented by ORG ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .","Ms Liubov Stupets sustained rupture of the acromio - clavicular ligament , her injury having been classified by domestic experts as CARDINAL of \u201c intermediate seriousness \u201d . According to the medical documents presented by PERSON , treatment of this trauma required several surgical interventions and extensive inpatient rehabilitation treatment . The applicant had to abandon her career in sports and as a school physical education teacher . In DATE she was classified as suffering from disability of the \u201c third degree \u201d . By DATE her state of health was still deteriorating : she developed post - traumatic arthritis , pain syndrome , and a number of neurological and other conditions . At the date of the exchange of observations in DATE , the applicant was receiving a disability pension .","The present application was lodged by Ms Nataliya Yaroslavivna Sivanych ( married name Buntseva ) , a NORP national born in DATE and residing in GPE . She was represented by ORG ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .","As a result of the ORG air show accident , Ms Nataliya PERSON sustained cerebral concussion , numerous wounds and fractures of QUANTITY bones , which required inpatient treatment followed by an outpatient rehabilitation programme . The applicant \u2019s injuries were cumulatively classified by domestic forensic experts as ones of \u201c intermediate seriousness . \u201d","The present application was lodged by CARDINAL NORP nationals residing in GPE : Mr PERSON , born inCARDINAL and PERSON Andriy Anatoliyovych Shevchuk , born in DATE . Mr PERSON is PERSON PERSON father . The applicants were represented by Mr D.A. ORG and ORG GPE , lawyers practising in GPE .","According to the applicants , as the fallen aircraft exploded , parts of it flew their way . Both of them would have probably been killed , had it not been for Mr PERSON quick reaction : he managed to push his son to the ground and cover him with his body just before the moment they would have otherwise been hit by these flying parts . When the applicants got up , they saw numerous mutilated bodies of dead , burnt and wounded people around them . Whilst attempting to provide first aid to accident survivors , Mr PERSON lost view of his son , who wandered off in the midst of the mutilated bodies and screaming people . After having looked for his son for TIME , PERSON PERSON found him uninjured physically , but in a state of deep mental shock , unable to speak or make productive contact with others . Mr PERSON was immediately placed in a psycho - neurological hospital for inpatient treatment .","DATE . On DATE Mr PERSON went back to work and attempted to resume his normal duties . However , after suddenly developing a stutter , he applied for psychiatric assistance .","Subsequently , both applicants underwent several sessions of inpatient psychiatric treatment followed by outpatient treatment and regular supervision . They were diagnosed with post - traumatic stress disorder classified by domestic experts as an \u201c injury of intermediate seriousness \u201d .","Article DATE of the LAW of GPE ( DATE ) provides , in particular , as follows :","\u201c Everyone has the right to health protection , medical care and medical insurance .","Health protection is ensured through state funding of the relevant socio - economic , medical and sanitary health improvement and prophylactic programmes .","The ORG creates conditions for effective medical service accessible to all citizens . ORG and communal health protection facilities provide medical care free of charge ; the existing network of such institutions shall not be reduced . The ORG promotes the development of medical facilities of all forms of ownership . ... \u201d","Other relevant provisions of domestic law are cited in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180152","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LI\u0162\u0102 AND S.C. GEORGIANA IMPORT EXPORT S.R.L. v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142844","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NIZAMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant , Mr FAC GPE , was born in DATE . The second applicant , Mr Khakim PERSON , was born in DATE . The third applicant , Mr FAC , was born in DATE . The fourth applicant , PERSON Olim PERSON , was born in DATE . The applicants are currently detained in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicants moved from GPE to GPE to seek employment .","On DATE an investigator with ORG indicted the applicants on the charges of participation in an extremist religious group known as ORG and attempting to overthrow the ORG \u2019s constitutional order in GPE and ordered their arrest . Their names were put on the list of wanted persons .","On DATE the applicants were arrested at Vnukovo airport in GPE .","On DATE the ORG of GPE authorised the applicants\u2019 detention pending extradition . On DATE ORG further extended their detention until DATE .","DATE and DATE ORG of GPE refused the NORP authorities\u2019 request for the applicants\u2019 extradition citing , as a ground for his decision , LAW ) of LAW which banned extradition in respect of persons charged with an offence not punishable under the NORP criminal law . The parties did not submit copies of the relevant decisions .","DATE and DATE ORG ordered the ORG release .","The applicants were immediately re - arrested as illegal aliens . The Babushkinskiy District Court of GPE examined the applicants\u2019 cases , imposed an administrative fine of MONEY on each of them and ordered their expulsion to GPE . The court noted that the applicants had failed to leave GPE upon the expiration of the permissible DATE period of residence without a permit . It further noted that the ORG request for asylum had been refused and that they had not applied for \u201c legalisation \u201d of their stay in GPE .","ORG delivered the relevant decisions on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","The applicants appealed . They argued , inter alia , that their removal to GPE would be contrary to LAW and that they would run a risk of being subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment if forcefully returned to GPE to be tried for the offences they were charged with .","DATE the ORG indicated to the ORG , under LAW , that the ORG removal \/ expulsion to GPE should be suspended until further notice .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeals and upheld the expulsion orders . The court found the applicants liable for their failure , as foreign nationals , to leave GPE upon the expiry of the maximum permissible period of temporary residence in the country . It further noted that the applicants were refused refugee status even though it considered their asylum application to be irrelevant for the purpose of the proceedings . Lastly , referring to the interim measure indicated by ORG , ORG suspended the execution of the expulsion orders until further notice .","It appears that the applicants are held in custody to date .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an application seeking asylum in GPE claiming that , if returned to GPE , he would be subjected to unlawful criminal prosecution on fabricated charges . In the follow - up interview with the migration authorities , the first applicant explained that ( CARDINAL ) he had come to GPE to seek employment ; ( CARDINAL ) he had not been persecuted prior to leaving GPE ; ( CARDINAL ) he had not received any direct threats in GPE ; ( CARDINAL ) he had not been affiliated with any party or non - governmental organization ; and ( CARDINAL ) he had been unaware of the criminal proceedings instituted against him in GPE until his arrest on DATE .","On unspecified dates the second , third and fourth applicants lodged similar applications .","On DATE ORG refused to grant refugee status to the second applicant . The parties did not submit a copy of the relevant decision . Nor did they inform the ORG whether the second applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s application . The relevant decision stated as follows :","\u201c [ The first applicant ] did not apply for asylum within DATE of his arrival in GPE ... .","According to the information submitted by ORG of GPE , \u2018 the internal political situation in GPE is characterised by relative stability . The authorities control it through law - enforcement bodies and traditional institutions of local self - government .","NORP foreign policy is sufficiently active . The Republic is recognised by GPE . It has established diplomatic relations with CARDINAL of them . It has CARDINAL embassies and consulates abroad . CARDINAL of the priorities of NORP foreign policy is international cooperation for the purposes of preserving stability and peace at the regional and global levels .","GPE is a member of major international organisations . It has ratified all international human rights conventions , the provisions of which have been incorporated into the national legislation .","...","As of DATE , the President \u2019s Decree on the abolition of the death penalty has been in force in GPE . ... Currently the most severe sentence in GPE is life imprisonment .","...","GPE has ratified all CARDINAL major ORG human rights treaties . It regularly submits periodic compliance reports to ORG bodies . As a whole , the country \u2019s parliament has ratified CARDINAL international human rights treaties . ... \u2019","According to the materials in the case - file , ... [ the first applicant ] does not wish to return to [ GPE ] for fear of being prosecuted on the charges brought against him in GPE .","It should be noted that the offences he is charged with are punishable under the NORP criminal law and the prescription period for criminal liability for such offences has not expired under the NORP criminal law .","Having instituted criminal proceedings against [ the first applicant ] , the law enforcement authorities of GPE do not intend to prosecute him on account of his belonging to a particular social group , his nationality , religion or political opinion .","Upon arrival in GPE in DATE , [ the first applicant ] did not seek refugee status in GPE . He lodged such an application only after his arrest and placement in [ custody ] .","Regard being had to the above , it follows that [ the first applicant ] is not running a risk of being subjected to persecution in GPE [ on account of race , religion , nationality , belonging to a social group or political opinion ] and does not qualify to be recognised as a refugee ... .","The reasons , as stated by [ the first applicant ] , for his refusal to return to GPE do not justify his fear of being subjected to persecution on account of faith , nationality , ethnicity , belonging to a social group or political opinion . \u201d","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that the first applicant did not challenge the said decisions in court .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the fourth and third applicants\u2019 applications for asylum . It reiterated verbatim the reasoning of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that no appeal was lodged against the said decisions ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173253","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF RUPA AND \u0162OMPI v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC , while the second applicant is his mother and lives in GPE .","The first applicant was arrested on DATE on suspicion of multiple thefts , together with several other accused . He was DATE at the time . The prosecutor ordered that he be remanded in custody for TIME and applied for him to be placed in pre - trial detention for DATE .","The Alba - Iulia District Court ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) allowed the prosecutor \u2019s office \u2019s application DATE . The reasons adduced by the court to justify the first applicant \u2019s detention were the strong suspicion that the offences had been committed , as well as the repeated nature and the gravity of the offences .","In assessing the impact on the public the first applicant \u2019s release from detention would have , the court stressed that the acts had allegedly been committed by a significant number of perpetrators over DATE of time . It noted that prior measures against the first applicant , such as a warning and CARDINAL administrative fines , had been unable to prevent him from committing further thefts .","In an indictment dated DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG charged the first applicant and CARDINAL other defendants with CARDINAL counts of theft allegedly committed DATE and DATE .","The first applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was regularly extended by interlocutory judgments of ORG .","The reasons adduced by the court were that , although he was a minor , there was a reasonable suspicion that he was guilty of the thefts and would pose a danger to public order , given that he had developed a habit of stealing . His age was not considered to be an argument in favour of his release pending trial . Furthermore , in CARDINAL of the interlocutory judgments it was mentioned that he did not have an occupation or place of work and thus would be unable to support himself by honest means \u2013 there was therefore a risk that he would continue to commit theft .","The first applicant lodged appeals on points of law against the extension of his detention . He claimed , inter alia , that he was a minor , that he had committed the offences under the influence of his codefendants , who were adults with a criminal record , and that his detention among adults without access to education had had a negative impact on him . He also stated that , under national law and the ORG \u2019s case - law , detention of a minor should be a preventive measure of last resort .","The Alba County Court consistently dismissed the first applicant \u2019s appeals , endorsing the reasoning of the lower court for keeping him in detention .","The first applicant lodged a request for his pre - trial detention to be replaced with alternative measures , such as a ban on him leaving town . He said that he had already been detained for DATE and therefore the initial reasons for extending his detention no longer applied . He also submitted that he had had time to understand the consequences of his criminal behaviour and had changed . The second applicant and the first applicant \u2019s uncle made written statements promising to take responsibility for supervising him if released , and presented to the court a job offer that he could take up if released .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s request . It had regard to the gravity of the offences allegedly committed by him , the severity of the sentence that could be applied to him and the risk of him reoffending . The judgment was upheld by GPE , which dismissed the first applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law for the same reasons .","On DATE the first applicant was eventually convicted of theft and sentenced to DATE imprisonment by ORG . On CARDINAL DATE an appeal on points of law by him against this judgment was dismissed by ORG .","According to information submitted by the Government , the first applicant was detained in prisons for adults DATE and DATE , but did not share his cells with adult prisoners . Moreover , between DATE and DATE he occupied an individual cell . His contact with adult prisoners was very limited ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173087","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SCHMIDT v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant married GPE From DATE the couple lived in GPE and as of DATE they resided in a rented apartment . In DATE they moved to GPE but maintained their place of residence in GPE . In GPE the couple acquired an apartment , which was the applicant \u2019s registered address in GPE at that time . In DATE or DATE the applicant moved back to GPE and stayed in the couple \u2019s previous place of residence . The couple maintained contact by telephone and post . On DATE they both signed a paper which stated that \u201c with view of regulating their separated life , [ the applicant and GPE ] conclude the following agreement \u201d . There is no information on the content of that document .","According to the documents submitted by the applicant , her residence permit in GPE expired on DATE . The ORG maintained that the correct date had been DATE .","On DATE A.S. brought divorce proceedings concerning his marriage to the applicant before GPE ( PERSON pils\u0113tas PERSON rajona tiesa ) . In his application GPE stated that the last time he had seen his spouse had been in DATE and that their marriage was to all intents and purposes dissolved . He also submitted that prior to lodging this claim he had talked to the applicant over the telephone and had informed her of his intention to bring divorce proceedings . He had invited her to submit in writing any pecuniary claims she might have in relation to their common property ; however , the applicant had refused to discuss this issue . GPE also alleged that the applicant \u2019s last known place of residence had been their apartment in GPE and that , owing to their disagreements , he could not find out where the court summons should be sent to . Accordingly , GPE suggested that the applicant should be summoned to the hearing by a notice in ORG .","On DATE the GPE District Court summoned the applicant to a divorce hearing by sending summons to her previous place of residence in GPE \u2013 the apartment in which she used to live with her husband GPE Upon receiving the information from post authorities that the applicant did not live at the above address , on DATE the applicant was summoned to the hearing scheduled for DATE with a notice in ORG . PERSON hearing was postponed at GPE \u2019s legal representative \u2019s request in order to present additional evidence . With a notice in ORG the applicant was summoned to a divorce hearing scheduled for DATE .","At the hearing of DATE GPE established that the applicant had been summoned to the hearing in accordance with the requirements of LAW . Therefore , it ruled that the adjudication of the case could take place in her absence . Owing to his poor health , GPE was represented by a lawyer who stated , inter alia , that ORG and the applicant \u2019s children lived in GPE . After hearing testimony from CARDINAL witnesses , who stated that they had not seen the applicant since DATE , the court granted the divorce . No appeal was brought against this judgment and it came into force on DATE .","On DATE GPE married A.A. \u2013 one of the witnesses who had testified in the divorce proceedings . The following day GPE passed away .","According to the applicant , she learned about the judgment dissolving their marriage when she came to GPE for GPE \u2019s funeral . The Government did not dispute this fact .","Following a request by the applicant of CARDINAL DATE ORG of the PERSON and GPE of GPE ( ORG ) on DATE delivered a declaratory decision ( Feststellungsbescheid ) stating that the requirements for legal recognition of the judgment of GPE had not been met , as the divorced spouse had not been afforded an opportunity to present her case in the divorce proceedings . On the basis of the information before it , ORG established that GPE had been aware of the applicant \u2019s address in GPE . Notably , GPE had maintained contact with this address in general correspondence and in correspondence concerning the pension he had been receiving from GPE and the GPE .","Following a prior request by the applicant , on DATE , the President of ORG submitted an application for supervisory review ( protests ) to the ORG of ORG asking for the judgment of GPE to be set aside and for the case to be adjudicated anew . He argued that the first - instance court had overlooked some evidence concerning the applicant \u2019s domicile and had erred in its application of the procedural rules when summoning the applicant to the hearings . In accordance with LAW have placed a notice about the proceedings in a newspaper in GPE , where the applicant resided . Besides , as GPE had been the applicant \u2019s registered place of residence , she should have been summoned to the proceedings via ORG . The President of ORG emphasised that owing to these violations ORG of the PERSON and GPE of GPE had refused to recognise said judgment . Lastly , the application for supervisory review stated that the applicant \u2019s rights guaranteed under LAW had been violated .","On DATE the ORG of ORG , sitting in an extended composition , with a final judgment dismissed the supervisory review application and upheld the judgment of GPE . The ORG of ORG concluded that , since GPE \u2019s claim had not contained a reference to the applicant \u2019s address and since GPE had therefore been unaware of her whereabouts , its actions had been compatible with the procedural requirements of LAW . LAW imposed no obligation on the court ; it only gave the plaintiff a right to publish the court \u2019s summonses in other newspapers at his or her own expense . The ORG of ORG also stated that in the circumstances of the present case a reference to LAW could not serve as grounds for setting aside the judgment of the firstinstance court . It reasoned :","\u201c The aim of the application for supervisory review \u2013 a fresh adjudication of the case permitting the defendant to exercise her procedural rights DATE can no longer be achieved because the plaintiff , [ GPE ] , passed away on DATE , a fact which excludes any further proceedings .","Besides , one should bear in mind that following his divorce form PERSON [ GPE ] concluded a new marriage , which , according to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , could not be declared null and void , irrespective of whether the judgment of DATE of GPE would be quashed . \u201d","The parties differ on whether GPE had been aware of the applicant \u2019s place of residence and on whether the applicant had been aware of the divorce proceedings . In relation to the first issue the applicant maintained that she had been residing in the couple \u2019s previous place of residence in GPE and that the landline telephone there had been used for their telephone conversations . Furthermore , GPE \u2019s retirement pension and health insurance had been transferred to their shared bank account , as well as to their place of residence in GPE . The Government , in turn , relied on the information GPE had submitted to GPE and also emphasised that no other evidence had been at the court \u2019s disposal .","With regard to the applicant \u2019s knowledge of the divorce proceedings the ORG pointed to PERSON \u2019s submissions before the ORG of ORG . In particular , PERSON had alleged that the applicant had been informed of the divorce proceedings over the telephone . The applicant maintained that even though she had been aware of ORG desire to dissolve their marriage , she had only learned of the divorce proceedings following the death of GPE","On DATE the applicant brought civil proceedings against PERSON claiming CARDINAL of the undivided share of the property that FAC had acquired during their marriage . She argued that it had been the spouses\u2019 common property . On DATE ORG granted her claim in full . PERSON appealed against this judgment . The ORG has no further information about these proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162765","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TOPEKHIN v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and until his arrest lived in GPE .","On DATE the police opened a criminal investigation into large - scale fraud . According to investigators , an unknown person had convinced a businessman to hand MONEY ( approximately LAW ) on the pretext of selling some equipment . However , the person had had no intention of selling the equipment or returning the money .","On DATE the applicant was accused of aggravated fraud . The police ordered him not to leave his place of residence , but he fled and was put on a wanted list by the police .","On DATE he was arrested and taken to a police custody facility . DATE the Tverskoy District Court of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) authorised his pre - trial detention until DATE , having regard to the seriousness of the charges against him and the risk of his absconding , reoffending and interfering with justice .","The applicant appealed . He referred to , among other things , his poor health .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) upheld the detention order on appeal after examining his recent medical documents , stating that his health did not preclude his detention on remand .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , citing the risk of his absconding given his previous attempt to evade prosecution and the seriousness of the charges against him . ORG also linked that risk to the applicant \u2019s lack of stable income or work . In the court \u2019s view , no alternative measure , such as house arrest or bail , could have ensured that the criminal proceedings ran smoothly . Lastly , the court noted the complexity of the case and several steps in the investigation which had yet to be performed , including some which required the applicant \u2019s presence and participation .","The applicant appealed . He applied to ORG to be released on bail because of his worsening health . He insisted that he could no longer move without assistance . In the meantime , in DATE he was served with the final version of the bill of indictment and was committed to stand trial before ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of CARDINAL DATE , endorsing ORG reasoning . After examining medical evidence pertaining to the applicant \u2019s health , it found that the illnesses he suffered from were not severe enough to warrant his release .","On an unspecified date the police searched the applicant \u2019s flat and found a passport with his photograph but under another name .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . It again cited his unemployment status and ability to abscond , in view of the seriousness of the charges and his having been on the run from DATE . Noting that his state of health was compatible with the detention conditions , the court concluded that the extension of his detention was justified .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for release on bail or under a written undertaking not to leave GPE . It reiterated the arguments contained in the preceding detention orders and noted the discovery of the forged passport in his flat during the police search , which for the court was a clear sign of his intention to flee . It also addressed his arguments that he had become paraplegic and thus no longer posed a flight risk . It noted that according to a recent conclusion of a medical panel ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , his health did not call for his release .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment in a correctional colony .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction , but reduced the sentence to DATE .","For DATE after his arrest on DATE the applicant was kept in a GPE police ward .","His cell measured QUANTITY , had CARDINAL sleeping places and usually housed CARDINAL inmates . He did not complain about his health and was not seen by a doctor , save for a general check - up on admission .","On DATE the applicant was taken to remand prison no . IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE . He underwent the usual general medical check - up on arrival . Informing the resident doctor about serious back injuries he had sustained in DATE and DATE , he did not make any specific complaints , except about his hypertension . He was considered to be in good health .","According to the Government , he was placed in a cell which measured QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL other inmates . Subsequently he was transferred between less spacious cells , which he shared with CARDINAL inmates . The living space afforded to him varied between QUANTITY and QUANTITY . Throughout his detention he slept on an individual prison bunk . The applicant did not dispute the above information submitted by the Government .","According to the applicant , in DATE he fell and hurt his back . Severe back pain was accompanied by numbness in the legs and resulted in him being unable to walk unaided . He spent the major part of DATE in bed being assisted by his cellmates . They took him for walks in the prison yard , carried him to the toilet and washed him with wet towels , which was their way of showing that they were annoyed with his helplessness .","The applicant \u2019s medical records show that on DATE he complained to the resident doctor that he was suffering from a headache and back and abdomen pain . The doctor prescribed him drugs and a consultation with a neurologist .","On DATE he was taken to a medical unit in the same remand prison for inpatient treatment . The attending doctor noted that , owing to a pain syndrome , he had been unable to move unaided . After blood tests and a CAT ( computerized axial tomography ) scan , he was injected with painkillers , muscle relaxants , nootropics and vitamins .","The applicant submitted that on DATE during his transfer to a court hearing in a standard prison van , he had again severely hurt his back and head .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from the medical ward to be transferred to the hospital in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE for more comprehensive treatment .","The transfer occurred DATE . On admission to hospital the applicant complained of head and back pain and numbness in his legs . The hospital performed a number of medical tests , including blood and urine tests , a CAT scan and a cerebrospinal fluid analysis . As a result he was diagnosed with paraplegia of unknown origin , headaches and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy . He received antibiotics , muscle relaxants , vitamins and other medication . His health improved , but not significantly . The paraplegia remained unchanged . He was discharged from hospital on DATE to undergo treatment in a civilian hospital and to check whether his state of health called for his early release .","DATE the applicant stayed in FAC no . CARDINAL , where he underwent a medical expert examination and received treatment . He had an MRI ( magnetic resonance imaging ) scan of his spinal column and spinal cord , a scintigraphy and an X - ray of his pelvis . According to a medical report dated DATE , he suffered the consequences of a reduced blood supply to the PERSON artery , including lower limb spasticity , dysfunction of the pelvic organs and bedsores developed outside the hospital . In addition , he was diagnosed with hypertension , a small hydrothorax on the right side and some residual effects of pneumonia that did not call for any treatment . The conditions did not fall within the established list of illnesses warranting early release .","The applicant was taken to the intensive care unit of remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , where he continued his drug regimen in line with the hospital \u2019s recommendations . The doctors were , however , unable to ensure any improvement in his conditions . DATE he was sent back to ORG no . CARDINAL .","A report drawn up on DATE by a medical panel from the hospital stated that , in addition to the previous diagnosis , the applicant suffered from neurogenic bladder and bowel dysfunction . However , his conditions still did not reach the level of severity to warrant his release .","The stay in hospital was followed by DATE of detention in remand prison no . CARDINAL . There is nothing to suggest that his treatment was interrupted during that period .","On DATE the applicant was again taken to ORG no . DATE of treatment . The hospital staff changed his drug regimen , completing it with antioxidant and neutrophil treatment , muscle relaxants , painkillers , and introducing physiotherapy , which resulted in \u201c certain positive changes in [ his ] state of health \u201d .","Meanwhile , the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked an independent medical specialist to provide an opinion on the quality of medical care afforded to the applicant in the remand prison . In a report dated DATE the specialist stated that the applicant \u2019s conditions required enhanced medical attention and inpatient treatment that could only be performed in a neurological medical facility . Remand prison no . DATE was not licensed to provide neurological treatment or perform neurosurgery . His bedsores were a sign of insufficient medical attention . The report ended with a recommendation that he be classified as disabled .","On DATE the applicant was taken to remand prison no . CARDINAL , where he was detained until DATE . According to the Government , he shared his cell measuring QUANTITY with another inmate . As he was unable to care for himself , medical staff and inmates assisted him with his DATE needs . It is apparent from the case file that he continued to receive treatment as prescribed .","On DATE he was sent to serve his sentence in a correctional colony in GPE , QUANTITY away .","In TIME the applicant was taken in a PERSON minivan designed to transfer the seriously ill , to a GPE train station . The trip took TIME .","At the train station he was placed on board a standard train carriage , where he had to stay for TIME awaiting departure . The journey to the destination , the town of ORG , took TIME . The Government only stated that the applicant had shared his carriage with other detainees and had been accompanied by escort officers ready to assist him if necessary .","NORP In Yaroslavl the applicant was taken from the train to a prison van . According to the written statements by escort officers submitted by the Government , he was put on a thin blanket on the floor of the van . In TIME he was taken to a remand prison , so that new escort officers could join the transfer team . The applicant had to wait for TIME , lying on the floor of the van , while the official procedure involving the escort officers was under way . He was then taken back to the train station in GPE .","At the station the applicant was taken to a prison train carriage , which he shared with other inmates . After TIME the train departed for GPE . The trip took TIME . At TIME the train arrived at the LOC train station . The Government did not provide any description of the conditions in which the applicant travelled .","Within TIME a prison van took the applicant to a nearby remand prison , where he was detained from DATE .","On TIME the applicant was taken in the same prison van to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( \u201c the correctional colony \u201d ) . The trip took TIME .","The parties disagreed whether the vehicles used to transfer the applicant , with the exception of the PERSON minivan , were equipped to accommodate ill inmates . While the Government argued that all vehicles could transport bedridden patients , the applicant stated that they had had no special equipment on board . He had been forced to lie on the floor of the prison vans on a thin blanket used as a stretcher . During the entire journey he had been in severe pain , but had not received any painkillers .","The applicant was placed in the medical unit of the colony . He continued receiving various drugs and injections , including nootropic drugs , muscle relaxants and antioxidants and vitamins , to improve the function of the central and peripheral nervous systems . He was regularly seen by doctors . His condition remained stable .","The applicant spent all his time in bed . Personal care workers provided him with bedside care , including basic nursing procedures .","The applicant was examined by a panel of doctors to check whether he should be released early on health grounds . In their report dated DATE they concluded that his conditions , in particular his lower limb spasticity and bladder and bowel dysfunction called for his early release .","On the panel \u2019s recommendation , the colony administration asked the court to authorise the applicant \u2019s early release on health grounds .","The Sverdlovskiy District Court of GPE granted the request and on DATE ordered his release . On DATE ORG upheld the order on appeal . DATE the applicant was released ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182446","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF FAT\u0130H TA\u015e v. TURKEY (No. 4)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was the owner and the editor - in - chief of a publishing house , namely PERSON ve PERSON , at the time of the events giving rise to the present application .","NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s company published CARDINAL books entitled PERSON ( \u201c ORG in the LOC \u201d ) and PERSON ( \u201c DATE in the Deluge \u201d ) , respectively .","On DATE the public prosecutor attached to ORG filed an indictment with ORG charging the applicant with aiding and abetting the ORG , an illegal armed organisation , under LAW , on account of the publication of the book entitled The Language of Life in the LOC .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged .","On DATE ORG , on appeal , upheld the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the public prosecutor attached to ORG requested that the court revise its judgment of DATE since LAW had been amended on DATE . ORG accepted that request .","By PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , state security courts were abolished . The case against the applicant concerning the book entitled The Language of Life in the LOC was transferred to ORG .","On DATE the public prosecutor attached to ORG filed an indictment with ORG charging the applicant with aiding and abetting the ORG under LAW of the former LAW on account of the publication of the book entitled DATE in the Deluge . According to the indictment , on pages CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL the struggle of the ORG and its leader , PERSON , was praised and the applicant had therefore aided the ORG through the medium of the press .","On DATE ORG decided to join the proceedings concerning ORG in the LOC and DATE in the Deluge .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act ( Law no . ORG ) for disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG twice , because he had published CARDINAL books , and sentenced him to a total of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . With regard to the publication of DATE in the Deluge , the assize court considered that on pages CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL the ORG and its leader , PERSON , were praised and the offence of dissemination of propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation had therefore been committed . The assize court furthermore found that the book allowed for the transmission of the opinions of the ORG to the public and was aimed at bringing more sympathisers into that organisation .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , holding that the first - instance court should not have joined the CARDINAL cases , since the case concerning ORG in the LOC was a re - qualification of the applicant \u2019s previous final conviction ( uyarlama yarg\u0131lamas\u0131 ) .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant once again under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG on account of the publication of ORG in the LOC and sentenced him to a fine .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment .","On DATE ORG decided to suspend the execution of the sentence pronounced in its judgment of DATE .","In the meantime , ORG resumed the trial concerning the publication of DATE in the Deluge following ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG for disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG on account of the publication of DATE in the Deluge and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . In its judgment , the assize court reiterated that on pages CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL the ORG and its leader , PERSON , were praised and the offence of dissemination of propaganda in favour of a terrorist organisation had therefore been committed . The court held that the turns of phrase used on those pages were not protected by LAW and constituted an abuse of the right to freedom of expression . The assize court further found that the book permitted the opinions of the ORG to be transmitted to the public and was aimed at bringing more sympathisers into that organisation and thus at destroying the unitary nature of ORG .","The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings concerning the publication of DATE in the Deluge , holding that the prosecution was time - barred ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170656","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF RASHKOVA AND SIMEONSKA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE and PERSON .","D.D. , father of the second applicant and grandfather of the first applicant , and his son P.R. , father of the first applicant , owned a plot of land and a house in GPE .","By CARDINAL decisions of the mayor of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE the property was expropriated with a view to constructing a residential building . The decisions , based on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act of DATE ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0430\u043b\u043d\u043e\u0442\u043e \u0438 \u0441\u0435\u043b\u0438\u0449\u043d\u043e \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , provided that GPE was to be compensated with a CARDINAL - room flat in a building which the municipality planned to construct on the expropriated plot , and P.R. with the right to build a house on municipally owned land .","NORP In DATE the expropriated house was pulled down and in DATE construction work was started on the site .","By a supplementary decision of DATE , based on section CARDINAL of the PERSON , the mayor specified the exact location and size of the future flat to be offered to D.D. No supplementary decision was issued however with regard to the right to build a house on municipally owned land which was due to P.R.","D.D. and ORG passed away in DATE respectively , and GPE \u2019s wife passed away in DATE . This left the CARDINAL applicants as heirs of GPE , and the first applicant as sole heir of P.R.","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants requested that the mayor of ORG revoke the expropriation order in respect of their ORG property , under paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the transitional provisions of LAW ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u043d\u0430 \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0438\u044f\u0442\u0430 , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The mayor did not respond , which under domestic law was considered a tacit refusal . After the applicants applied for judicial review , the refusal was upheld by the courts , in judgments of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and ORG of DATE and DATE respectively .","Following a fresh request by the applicants for the revocation of the expropriation order , in judgments of DATE and DATE ORG and ORG annulled a new tacit refusal on the part of the mayor , acknowledging that the preconditions for such a revocation had indeed not been met , but instructing the mayor to examine the ORG request under paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the transitional provisions of LAW , providing for the possibility of monetary compensation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","As the mayor failed once again to take a decision on the ORG request , on an unspecified date they challenged his new tacit refusal , which was annulled once again by ORG and ORG , in judgments of DATE and DATE respectively .","Following that , on CARDINAL occasions ( DATE and DATE ) the mayor refused expressly to revoke the expropriation order in respect of the applicants\u2019 property . After the applicants challenged these refusals , they were found to be null and void by the courts , the first one in a final judgment of ORG of DATE , and the second one in a judgment of ORG of DATE . The courts , finding that the fresh refusals were in contradiction with the earlier court judgments in cases between the same parties , sent the case back to the mayor , instructing him once again to examine it under paragraph CARDINAL ) of the transitional provisions of LAW .","NORP In DATE an expert commission of the municipality assessed the value of the expropriated property and set the amount of compensation to be provided to the applicants at MONEY ( ORG ) . After the applicants challenged that amount , in a judgment of DATE the ORG increased it to BGN CARDINAL .","That sum was paid to the applicants in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179231","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF S.F. AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The CARDINAL applicants are NORP nationals . They now live in GPE , where they were granted asylum in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The first and second applicants , Mr GPE and PERSON , born respectively in DATE and DATE , are spouses . The other CARDINAL applicants , PERSON , Mr GPE and Mr PERSON , born respectively in DATE , DATE and DATE , are their sons .","On DATE the applicants , who had fled from GPE , covertly crossed the NORP - Bulgarian border . They were travelling with QUANTITY other families . From there , they took taxis which drove them to the outskirts of GPE , where they slept under the open sky for DATE . On DATE , they hired other taxis to drive them to the NORP - NORP border , somewhere around the town of GPE . Shortly before the border , the applicants switched cars , getting into a ORG sports utility vehicle , which was supposed to take them through a wooded area to the border itself . They intended to cross that border covertly as well , and from there continue towards LOC .","At that time , the second applicant was DATE pregnant .","According to media reports , over DATE the abovementioned route has been a popular one for migrants trying to cross GPE covertly on their way to LOC . According to a report submitted by the Government , in DATE the NORP border police intercepted CARDINAL adult migrants and CARDINAL minor migrants near GPE and took them into custody .","In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicants were driven in the ORG towards the NORP - Serbian border near the village of GPE , which is QUANTITY south of GPE , QUANTITY west of the town of GPE , and QUANTITY from the border . It was also transporting the CARDINAL other families ; together with the applicants , it carried a total of CARDINAL passengers , CARDINAL of whom were minors .","At TIME , when the ORG was just a few metres away from the border , CARDINAL officers of the NORP border police intercepted it . The driver fled . CARDINAL of the officers gave chase , while the other ordered all the passengers to step out of the vehicle . The first officer could not catch up with the driver and came back . According to the applicants , he was apparently annoyed about his inability to detain the driver and hit one of the passengers . The applicants submitted that they had been afraid that he might hit them as well .","TIME , CARDINAL more officers came to the scene ; subsequently , a bus , with a driver and a photographer , also arrived . According to the applicants , the officers insulted the arrestees , called them \u201c mice \u201d ( the applicants did not specify in what language ) , and made insulting gestures . They ordered the applicants and the other passengers to get into the bus and drove them to ORG detention facility in GPE . According to the applicants , the drive took TIME . According to the Government , the drive could not have taken TIME . The preparation of the documents relating to the ORG arrest then took TIME , and the written declarations that they had been acquainted with their rights were stamped as having been signed at TIME The applicants could not have therefore been placed in their cell TIME","Upon their arrival at the border police \u2019s detention facility in GPE , the applicants were searched . According to them , all their effects \u2013 including travelling bags , mobile telephones , money , food , and even the fifth applicant \u2019s nappies , baby bottle and milk \u2013 were taken away from them , except for a mobile telephone belonging to the third or the fourth applicant , which they managed to conceal . According to a search report submitted by the Government , when searching the second applicant the authorities seized from her CARDINAL mobile telephones , ORG cards , a ORG flash drive , CARDINAL digital video disks and cash . The Government also pointed out that in a video submitted by the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , travel bags and personal effects were visible inside their cell .","After the search , the arrestees were split into CARDINAL groups . The applicants and another family were put in one cell , and the others in an adjoining one . In the application form , the applicants stated that both cells were on the detention facility \u2019s second floor .","According to the applicants , the cell was hot and its window could not be opened .","The applicants also submitted a video , which according to them had been shot with the mobile telephone that they had managed to conceal during the search ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It shows that the cell was at ground level , CARDINAL by QUANTITY , with a large double window ( secured on the inside by a mesh grille ) , an open door , and a padlocked metal grille on the door . In the video the cell looks run - down , with dilapidated walls , paint coming off the ceiling in flakes , and a dirty floor partly covered with dirty ( and in places damp ) cardboard sheets . The furniture consists of CARDINAL old and dilapidated bunk beds and a single bed , with CARDINAL bare soiled mattresses . CARDINAL of the mattresses are on the floor , CARDINAL is on the single bed , and CARDINAL is on the bottom bunk of CARDINAL of the bunk beds . A single crumpledup bed sheet lies on CARDINAL of the mattresses on the floor . Personal effects , such as a small shoulder bag , training shoes and some litter , are strewn about . Other random objects \u2013 food remains , empty plastic bottles , rubbish and a torn blanket \u2013 are piled up in a corner . The third and fourth applicants can be seen sitting on CARDINAL of the bunk beds , whereas the fifth applicant ( the toddler ) can at first be seen sitting on the floor beside the door and then being picked up and carried around by the first applicant . Apart from the CARDINAL applicants , CARDINAL other people can be seen in the cell : a middleaged woman lying on the single bed , a boy ( perhaps DATE ) , and the man shooting the video .","The video was submitted by the applicants on a digital video disk containing CARDINAL video files . CARDINAL is in .mpg format and bears a time stamp according to which it was last modified at TIME on CARDINAL DATE \u200eCARDINAL ; and the other is in .mpCARDINAL format and bears a time stamp according to which it was last modified at TIME on DATE . The footage in both files is identical , except that : ( a ) the faces of the applicants in the first one have been pixelated ( whereas in the second they have not ) ; ( b ) the running time of the first video is TIME and TIME ( whereas that of the second is TIME and TIME , as it continues for TIME ) ; and ( c ) in the first file the footage is horizontal whereas in the second it is rotated to the right at a QUANTITY angle . The footage in the first file has a definition of CARDINAL by CARDINAL pixels and is at CARDINAL frames per second , whereas that in the second file has a definition of CARDINAL by CARDINAL pixels and is at CARDINAL frames per second .","The applicants explained that the above - mentioned dates and times corresponded with when they had copied the video files in GPE , and that they had in fact recorded the original video on DATE , at TIME . Since they had taken the ORG cards out of the mobile telephone several times in the course of their journey and then re - inserted them , the telephone had not indicated the correct time and date , making it impossible to pinpoint the exact date and time when the video had been recorded .","In a letter to ORG , an official from ORG in GPE , having compared the video footage with the photographs in the applicants\u2019 migration files , stated that he could confirm that the applicants were indeed the people featured in the video .","According to the Government , the border police \u2019s detention facility in GPE was equipped in accordance with the relevant regulations . They did not provide further details in that respect .","According to the applicants , after being put in the cell , they were not given anything to eat or drink , or allowed to go to the toilet . Since there was no toilet or a bucket in the cell , they had to urinate onto the floor . The Government did not comment on that point .","TIME , at TIME , officers came and took the first applicant to another building in order to take his picture and to digitally fingerprint him . After that , the officers took out the second applicant for fingerprinting . After the fingerprinting procedure , the officers left the applicants in the cell for TIME .","TIME and TIME DATE , DATE , a border police investigator interviewed respectively the first and the second applicants . The interviews were conducted in LANGUAGE and translated into NORP with the help of an interpreter .","According to the applicants , after the interview the second applicant asked the guards to give her back her bag , so that she could prepare a baby bottle for her toddler ( the fifth applicant ) , and the guards did so . The Government did not comment on that point .","After that , the guards took the applicants CARDINAL by CARDINAL out of the cell to go to the toilet .","According to the applicants , DATE , a DATE child in the adjoining cell touched an electrical wire and suffered an electric shock . That caused panic among the detainees , and the guards allowed all of them out of their cells . An ambulance was called . When hearing that the applicants had not had anything to eat or drink since their arrest , the nurse who came with the ambulance argued with the guards and took the second applicant and her youngest child , the fifth applicant , to a hospital in GPE , where the second applicant was examined by a gynaecologist between CARDINAL p.m. and TIME , and the fifth applicant was examined by a paediatrician TIME and TIME they were taken back to the detention facility .","According to the applicants , at that point the guards told them that they would give them food if they paid for it ; the guards then took money from their bags and gave them CARDINAL loaves of bread , a yoghurt , CARDINAL bottles of ORG , QUANTITY of tomatoes , QUANTITY of cucumbers , QUANTITY of bananas , and a small piece of pat\u00e9 . According to the Government , the applicants were provided with food and water , in accordance with the relevant regulations . In support of their assertion , the Government submitted a table setting out the prescribed DATE rations for adult and minor detained migrants and a report , drawn up by the head of ORG on DATE , which listed the names of all migrants \u2013 including the applicants DATE which had been detained in the GPE \u2019s detention facility in GPE during DATE and provided with food there .","Then , at TIME , the applicants were put back in the cell . According to them , they were allowed to go to the toilet before that , but had not been able to do so during TIME . The Government did not comment on that point .","DATE , DATE , the applicants were served with orders for the first and second applicants\u2019 removal from GPE and for their detention pending removal , all issued DATE . It does not appear that separate orders were issued with respect to the third , fourth and fifth applicants , who were mentioned as accompanied minors in the orders for the first and second applicants\u2019 detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","According to the applicants , at TIME on DATE they were given back their belongings and driven to an immigration detention facility in GPE . According to the Government , that happened much earlier that day , at TIME , since the relevant records showed that the applicants had been placed in the detention facility in GPE at TIME , and the normal travel time between the CARDINAL facilities was CARDINAL or seven hours .","On DATE the applicants sought international protection in GPE . Their applications were registered by ORG DATE , and they were released from the immigration detention facility in GPE and settled in an open facility for the accommodation of asylum - seekers . On DATE those proceedings were , however , discontinued because the applicants had vanished from the facility .","In the meantime , the applicants made their way to GPE , where they likewise sought international protection on DATE . On DATE the NORP authorities decided not to examine their applications but rather to transfer them back to GPE under Regulation ( ORG ) No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member ORG responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of GPE by a thirdcountry national or a stateless person ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) , which also applies to GPE ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . Following legal challenges by the applicants , on CARDINAL DATE the NORP authorities varied their own decision and proceeded with the examination of the applications . DATE , on DATE , the applicants were granted asylum in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155716","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF GRABOWSKI v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-d - Minors);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed CARDINAL armed robberies and CARDINAL attempted armed robbery with the use of a machete on DATE . He was initially detained in a police establishment for children ( policyjna izba dziecka ) in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( Family and Juvenile Section ) instituted inquiry ( post\u0119powanie wyja\u015bniaj\u0105ce ) with a view to determining whether the applicant had committed the offences at issue .","On DATE FAC decided to place the applicant in a shelter for juveniles ( schronisko dla nieletnich ) for a period of DATE . It found that , in view of the available evidence , there existed a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed CARDINAL armed robberies and CARDINAL attempted armed robbery and some other offences . The court also noted that the applicant was lacking in moral character and that the nature of the offences with which he had been charged militated in favour of placing him in a correctional facility ( zak\u0142ad poprawczy ) . It also noted that there was a risk that he might go into hiding or put pressure on witnesses .","The applicant appealed . He argued , inter alia , that there had been no risk of fleeing or interfering with witnesses . He also objected to his placement in the shelter on the grounds that he had a history of mental difficulties and had been schooled in a specialised institution .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the lower court . It had regard to the gravity of the offences which the applicant had allegedly committed and the fact that they could not be treated as an isolated incident . The court also noted that in the past a family court had handed down a warning and that on CARDINAL DATE he had been put under the supervision of a court guardian . In view of those circumstances , it was considered likely that the applicant would be placed in a correctional facility . His placement in the shelter was further justified by the fact that he had threatened CARDINAL of the victims of the robbery . Responding to the arguments related to the applicant \u2019s mental health , the court noted that the placement in the shelter , in addition to the applicant \u2019s isolation , placed him under educational supervision which could not be seen as incompatible with his well - being .","On DATE the CracowKrowodrze District Court ordered that the applicant \u2019s case should be examined in correctional proceedings ( post\u0119powanie poprawcze ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel requested the CracowKrowodrze ORG to order the applicant \u2019s immediate release . He submitted that the DATE period for which the measure was applied had expired on DATE and that no decision on prolongation of the measure had been given . He argued that in accordance with LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Juvenile Act the decision on prolongation of the placement in a shelter for juveniles could be taken only by a court after summonses had been sent to the parties and counsel . The applicant \u2019s counsel obtained information from the court \u2019s registry that in practice such decisions were not given , and that it sufficed for the court to issue an order for the case to be examined in correctional proceedings . The applicant \u2019s counsel objected to such a practice and considered it to be unlawful .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for release . It provided the following reasons :","\u201c The juvenile PERSON is accused of having committed criminal acts with the use of a dangerous object .","These circumstances exclude the possibility of altering the security measure in respect of the juvenile .","At present the state of health of the juvenile is normal .","In the absence of reasons justifying the quashing of the security measure in respect of the juvenile , it has been decided as above in accordance with sections DATE of the Juvenile Act \u201d .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel wrote to the director of the PERSON for Juveniles urging him to release the applicant .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s counsel that after the court had ordered the examination of the case in the correctional proceedings on DATE , it did not prolong the applicant \u2019s placement in the shelter for juveniles pursuant to section QUANTITY of LAW .","The Cracow - Krowodrze District Court held hearings in the applicant \u2019s case on DATE and DATE . On the latter date the court delivered a judgment and held that the applicant had committed the offences which had been imputed to him . The court ordered the applicant \u2019s placement in correctional facility but suspended the application of this measure for a DATE probationary period . It further ruled to place the applicant under the supervision of a court guardian during DATE .","Having regard to the judgment , on DATE the ORG quashed the applicant \u2019s placement in a shelter for juveniles . The applicant was released on DATE .","The judgment of DATE was not appealed against and became final on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173088","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ZHERDEV v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Legal assistance of own choosing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born on CARDINAL DATE and at the time of his most recent communication with the ORG was detained in PERSON ( previously PERSON ) .","Early on the morning of DATE PERSON , a night security guard at a shop in PERSON , was found dead and partially undressed at her place of work , with injuries on her head and genitals . It was established that a grinder tool had also gone missing . The prosecutor \u2019s office instituted criminal proceedings on DATE and over DATE proceeded to interview a number of witnesses .","At TIME on DATE QUANTITY police officers arrived at the applicant \u2019s home and asked him , at the time sixteen years of age , and his father to go to the police station with them .","Once at the police station , the applicant was separated from his father and questioned as to whether he had any information about the grinder which had disappeared from the shop . According to the applicant , then the police had started urging him to plead guilty to the murder and theft . According to him , as he repeatedly denied those allegations , CARDINAL officers allegedly beat him on various parts of his body and threatened him that he would be raped in prison .","At an unspecified time DATE the applicant \u2019s father and grandfather , who lived in the same house as the applicant , made statements to the police about the presence of the grinder in their house . The father stated that the applicant had apparently brought the grinder home around the time of the murder and had originally told him that a stranger had been offering the grinder for sale . On learning that the police were searching for a grinder , the applicant had told him the story he had told the police ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . However , in the applicant \u2019s story as retold by the father , the grinder was found in a different street . On hearing this , the father had hidden the grinder . The grandfather \u2019s account of events was similar to the father \u2019s . On DATE the police also obtained a statement of PERSON , the applicant \u2019s friend , about the time they had spent together on TIME of the murder and the circumstances under which they had parted .","From TIME the police went to the place where the applicant \u2019s father had hidden the grinder . The father pointed to where the grinder was and the police seized it .","At TIME the applicant signed a document explaining his rights as a suspect , including the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer before his first questioning . When signing the document , the applicant added that he did not object to PERSON representing him . The applicant alleged that he had mistakenly understood that PERSON had been asked to appear on his behalf by his parents . In fact , PERSON had been asked to represent the applicant by the investigator .","Subsequently the Qualifications Commission of the Bar of GPE , at the time the highest authority in charge of the advocates\u2019 qualifications and discipline , examined the applicant \u2019s GPE complaint concerning the procedure used in the appointment of ORG established that there was no evidence that PERSON had been appointed through a bar association , as required by law , in particular there was no order of the bar association or agreement with the client appointing PERSON It also established that there was no evidence that the investigator had issued a formal decision appointing PERSON as the applicant \u2019s lawyer , as he had been required to do by law .","At TIME the applicant was questioned in the presence of L. He stated that on TIME of the murder he had been walking home after TIME out with friends . He had observed a stranger running down the street with a grinder and had started running after him . Once the man had dropped the grinder , the applicant had picked it up and run away . When he had brought the grinder home he had said to his father that someone had been offering to sell a grinder . When he had learned DATE that a night security guard had been killed and that grinders had been stolen , he had revealed the truth to his father , who had then hidden the grinder .","At TIME the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert , who concluded that he had several light injuries that had been inflicted DATE before the examination .","At TIME the investigator PERSON drew up an arrest report , whereby the applicant was arrested on suspicion of NORP \u2019s murder . According to the report , the applicant was being arrested on the grounds that \u201c eyewitnesses indicate the person who committed the crime \u201d . According to the Government , the applicant \u2019s parents were informed of the applicant \u2019s arrest at that time . According to the applicant , no such notification was made .","At the same time most of the applicant \u2019s clothes were seized for a forensic examination .","The applicant \u2019s father was taken to the family home to accompany the police during a search .","At TIME the police completed the search of the applicant \u2019s home , seizing some clothes . According to the applicant it was only then that the police officers who had conducted the search brought replacement clothes from the applicant \u2019s home to the police station .","According to the applicant , he was left handcuffed at the police station , wearing just his underwear , for the entire period from the seizure of his clothes until the end of the search and return of the police officers who conducted it , feeling very cold and vulnerable . During that time police officers continued urging the applicant to confess to the murder and beat him with plastic water bottles .","On TIME the applicant was placed in a cell in the police \u2019s temporary detention facility with CARDINAL adult detainees , PERSON , born in DATE , and O. , born in DATE , who were at the time registered as suffering from drug addiction . O. had also been suffering from tuberculosis and had had a prior conviction ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) . It is unclear whether the applicant knew of the above background of his codetainees at the time he had been held with them .","According to the applicant , the CARDINAL other detainees were secret police informants . They advised the applicant that as he was a minor and if he chose to cooperate the investigative authorities would prosecute him on less serious charges and he would not receive a real prison sentence .","PERSON was diagnosed with tuberculosis in DATE . O. and PERSON died in DATE respectively , the former allegedly of an overdose and the latter of a disease .","NORP The applicant continued to be detained in the cell with NORP and PERSON until a court detention order arrived on DATE and he was transferred to the remand prison ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","According to the applicant , on TIME of CARDINAL DATE QUANTITY police officers took him out of his cell without registering it . They threatened to make sure he got a long prison sentence , to charge him with rape , which would lead to him being raped and harassed in prison by other inmates , and to create \u201c problems \u201d for his family , unless he confessed . Unable to withstand such pressure , the applicant agreed to copy by hand a statement prepared for him by the police officers , acknowledging his guilt for murder in \u201c self - defence \u201d .","According to the authorities , on TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicant asked to see the officer in charge of the police detention facility .","The applicant then made a handwritten statement of surrender to Officer PERSON , the head of the police detention facility . In his statement , the applicant noted that early on DATE , while in a state of alcoholic intoxication , he had decided to burgle the shop . Having suddenly run into the victim , who had tried to attack him with a grinder , he had defended himself and had hit her with a brick . When she had become unconscious , the applicant , scared of what had happened , had carried her to a couch and had undressed her to make it look as though there had been a rape . Then he had picked up the grinder and taken it home .","Later on DATE the applicant repeated the above confessions in a formal questioning session in the presence of his lawyer , L.","On DATE the applicant , unaccompanied by PERSON , was taken to an identification parade , where PERSON , a shop assistant who had been working on a TIME shift at a kiosk close to the scene of the crime on TIME of the murder , picked the applicant out of a CARDINAL - person line - up as the person she had seen by her kiosk shortly before NORP had been killed . In the course of CARDINAL of the subsequent trials ORG stated that she had not identified the applicant with total certainty but had merely thought that there was a resemblance between him and the person she had seen that night .","On DATE the applicant was charged with murder without aggravating circumstances and theft . Accordingly , his procedural status changed from that of \u201c suspect \u201d to \u201c accused \u201d . Questioned on DATE in the presence of L. the applicant repeated his previous confession .","On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody pending the completion of the investigation . That decision was not appealed against and became final .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s cellmates , PERSON and NORP , were released .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from the police detention facility to the remand prison in GPE ( at the time Artemivsk ) .","On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of B. , a lawyer engaged by his parents . He stated that he confirmed his prior statements about the murder . In the course of the subsequent investigation he was again questioned in the presence of the same lawyer and made detailed statements that repeated his confession .","On DATE a commission of psychologists and psychiatrists produced a report at the request of the investigator concerning the applicant \u2019s mental state at the time of the crime and at the time of his examination by the experts . The experts concluded , in particular , that the applicant , according to his own account , had committed the killing in self - defence , without premeditation and through an unexpected confluence of circumstances . As a result , he had suffered a serious shock and confusion . At the remand prison he had suffered from sleep troubles , fear , and confusion and had displayed inappropriate behaviour . When examined by a prison psychiatrist he had been diagnosed with an acute reaction to stress , put in the prison \u2019s medical wing and treated with sedatives , which had helped .","In the course of the trial , conducted in the presence of his lawyer PERSON . and his mother acting as a lay defender , the applicant confirmed the account of the attack on NORP which he had given in the course of the pre - trial investigation .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of murder without aggravating circumstances and theft and sentenced him to CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant , represented by his parents and a new lawyer , PERSON , appealed against the judgment . Additional appeals were also lodged by them on later dates . In the appeals the applicant retracted his confessions as false . He and his representatives alleged that the confessions had been extracted from him under physical and psychological pressure from the police , namely that he had been subject to \u201c physical pressure \u201d , \u201c threats and beatings \u201d , \u201c moral and physical influence \u201d , that his statement of surrender \u201c resulted from beatings \u201d ( \u201c \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0435\u043d\u044b \u043c\u0435\u0440\u044b \u0441\u0438\u043b\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0434\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u201d , \u201c \u0443\u0433\u0440\u043e\u0437\u0430\u043c\u0438 , \u0438\u0437\u0431\u0438\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f\u043c\u0438 \u201d , \u201c \u043c\u043e\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0435 \u0438 \u0444\u0438\u0437\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0435 \u0432\u043e\u0437\u0434\u0435\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0438\u044f \u201d , \u201c \u0432\u044b\u0431\u0438\u0442\u0430 \u044f\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u0441 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u201d respectively ) . According to him , he had been told that unless he confessed to murder he would be falsely accused of rape making his life in prison extremely difficult . He stated that CARDINAL cellmates at the police detention facility also urged him to confess . He also noted that he had kept to his initial confessions until his conviction because his cellmates and the police had told him that the police would make his life difficult in prison if he told anyone of the pressure on him . On the other hand , they had assured him that if he chose to cooperate with the police they would make sure the charges against him were not serious and that he would be released from custody right after his trial . Accordingly , he had said nothing to his lawyers about his ill - treatment .","NORP The prosecutor also appealed , in particular arguing that the sentence was excessively lenient .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed the judgment of DATE and returned the case for further investigation . The court noted that the judgment had been poorly reasoned . As far as the motives for the applicant \u2019s actions were concerned , it had also been based heavily on the applicant \u2019s confessions , without sufficient corroboration from other evidence . The description of the crime scene , for instance that the lock had been sawn off rather than broken off , had not matched the trial court \u2019s conclusion , based on the applicant \u2019s account , that the applicant had simply been exploring the shop out of curiosity . The victim had also had unexplained injuries on her genitals .","On DATE and on several subsequent occasions the investigators attempted to question the applicant within the framework of the further investigations . However , he refused to answer any questions and denied any involvement in the crimes he had been charged with .","On DATE and DATE the investigator reclassified the charges against the applicant from simple murder to aggravated murder for gain , and from theft to robbery . The applicant was also charged with theft of a friend \u2019s cell phone .","On DATE ORG released the applicant from custody , finding that a further extension of his detention would be in breach of the applicable procedural time - limits .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s case was submitted for a retrial .","On DATE ORG again remanded the applicant in custody . It held that while the applicant had no prior convictions and had positive character references , he had no employment and had been charged with grave offences . Accordingly , it held that detention was necessary to prevent the applicant from absconding or interfering with the investigation and to ensure his compliance with procedural decisions . No time - limit for his detention was fixed in that decision or in those made on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE ( see below ) .","On DATE ORG returned the case for further investigation and ruled that the applicant should remain in custody . The court based its decision on the gravity of the charges which , according to the court , made the applicant likely to abscond .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s case was submitted to ORG for a retrial .","On DATE ORG again sent the case back for further investigation and , without giving reasons , ruled that the applicant should remain in custody .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and the murder of NORP","On DATE ORG quashed the conviction , returning the case for further investigation . ORG also ruled that the applicant should remain in custody . It gave no reasons for the latter part of its decision .","On DATE ORG returned the case , which in the meantime had been re - submitted to it , for further investigation . It also ruled that the applicant should remain in custody . By way of reasoning it stated that there were no grounds to order his release given that , in view of the gravity of the charges against him , it could not be ruled out that the applicant would attempt to abscond . On DATE ORG quashed that decision .","On DATE ORG committed the applicant for trial and ruled that he should remain in custody for the same reasons as given in the order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In the course of the final retrial the applicant denied any involvement in the attack on NORP and said that he had found the grinder , describing essentially the same circumstances as on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . To explain the presence of his fingerprint in the shop where the victim had been killed he stated that he had bought cigarettes there on DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and aggravated murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . In particular , it made the following findings .","( a ) It found established that the applicant had broken into the shop intending to burgle it , had discovered NORP sleeping , had repeatedly hit her on the head with a brick and then , after she had become unconscious , had inserted the neck of a vodka bottle into her vagina .","( b ) In finding the applicant guilty , the court referred to various pieces of evidence , including forensic examinations , witness statements and the applicant \u2019s confessions \u201c given by him when questioned as a suspect and as an accused \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and the presence of the applicant \u2019s fingerprint at the crime scene . In particular , the trial court referred to the pre - trial identification of the applicant by witness Y. and to the testimony of GPE , who had seen the applicant near the shop around the time of the murder . The court considered the applicant \u2019s explanation for the presence of his fingerprint in the shop unconvincing since he had first mentioned the supposed visit to the shop on DATE in the course of the retrial and had not previously mentioned that visit .","( c ) The court rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that his confessions had been inadmissible because they had been obtained under duress . It noted in particular that there was no evidence that the applicant had suffered any physical injuries at the hands of the police . Moreover , the applicant had consistently repeated his confessions in the presence of his lawyers , mother , and psychiatric experts in the course of the first investigation and trial . His parents had voluntarily paid the victim \u2019s burial costs . Still , the applicant \u2019s confessions had only partially reflected the truth . In particular , according to the forensic and other evidence , NORP had been raped with a vodka bottle , which was not in line with the applicant \u2019s initial statements that he had accidentally killed her after being surprised by her and had then run away almost immediately .","( d ) The absence of the applicant \u2019s lawyer from the identification parade on DATE had not breached the applicant \u2019s defence rights since he had not made any statements on that occasion and had simply been physically shown with other men in the line - up to the witness Y. through a CARDINAL - way glass partition . It had been Y. , and not the applicant , who had actively participated in that investigative measure , and therefore it had not had any impact on his chosen defence strategy . Moreover , contrary to the applicant \u2019s submissions , ORG \u2019s statements concerning the applicant \u2019s presence near the crime scene on TIME of the murder had been consistent with the statements of other witnesses .","( e ) On an application by the defence the court ruled certain expert evidence inadmissible .","( f ) While the statement in the arrest report that \u201c eyewitnesses indicate the person who had committed the crime \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been technically incorrect in the applicant \u2019s case , the discovery of the grinder in the applicant \u2019s home had in fact constituted an independent legal basis for his arrest . Accordingly , ORG refused to declare the applicant \u2019s arrest unlawful .","In an appeal to ORG the applicant gave the account of alleged ill - treatment by the police set out above . He stressed , however , that he had managed to withstand most of the pressure from the police . What had made him finally agree to plead guilty to a murder he had not committed had been the threat that he would be charged with rape and that that would lead to him being raped in prison . That threat had had a particularly strong impact on him given that he had already been made to spend TIME in a state of undress and vulnerability . He had chosen the false confession as a lesser evil . He had then maintained his confession throughout the trial because he had been assured by the lawyer PERSON , who had good relations with the investigator in charge of the case , that the trial court would reclassify the charges against him from murder to a lesser charge of a \u201c killing committed while exceeding the limits of legitimate defence \u201d . He had hoped that such a reclassification would allow him to get probation instead of an actual prison sentence . It was not true that , as stated by ORG , he had repeated his confession to psychiatrists . In fact the investigator had assured him that the psychiatric assessment was prearranged to allow for reclassification and its results would be worded accordingly . The applicant had not talked to the experts and his mother assured him that she had arranged for the psychiatrists\u2019 report to be worded in such terms that it may justify reclassification of charges against him .","On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment and it became final .","It would appear that the applicant first raised his allegations of illtreatment in his appeals against his first conviction ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In those appeals his allegations were framed in rather general terms and were limited essentially to allegations of \u201c beatings \u201d and \u201c psychological pressure \u201d . He also stated , more specifically , that he had been told that , unless he confessed , charges of rape would be brought against him and this would make his life in prison extremely difficult .","Afterwards the applicant \u2019s parents also lodged complaints about his alleged ill - treatment with the prosecutor \u2019s office . It appears that the applicant \u2019s mother lodged first such complaints on DATE and DATE . The ORG has not been provided with copies of those complaints .","On DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office , in response to the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s complaint of DATE , refused to institute criminal proceedings in relation to the applicant \u2019s complaints for lack of a corpus delicti in the police ORG actions , concluding that there was no evidence of any physical or psychological illtreatment . The prosecutors referred essentially to the lack of medical evidence of any injuries suffered by the applicant at the time of the alleged ill - treatment and the lack of any complaints from him before his first conviction . The prosecutors also stated that there had been no irregularities in the applicant \u2019s placement and holding in the police detention facility and that O. and PERSON with whom the applicant had been placed at that facility had had no prior convictions .","In the course of examination of the case against the applicant , on DATE , the applicant complained to the trial court about the beatings , handcuffing , stripping and the threats of prison rape he had allegedly been subjected to by the police . On DATE the trial court ordered the prosecutor \u2019s office to investigate the allegations .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings essentially on the same grounds . No mention was made of the applicant \u2019s placement with adults in the detention facility .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to the regional prosecutor \u2019s office , reiterating her allegations that the applicant had been physically ill - treated by the police , left in a state of undress and handcuffed and threatened that he would be charged with rape and would , therefore , be raped in prison . She referred to her previous complaint of DATE on the same subject and complained that she had received no satisfactory answer to it .","On DATE the regional prosecutor \u2019s office overruled the decisions of DATE and DATE .","On DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings , essentially on the same grounds as in its previous decisions . The prosecutors stated , with no further explanation , that there were no irregularities in the course of the applicant \u2019s placement and holding in the police detention facility . On DATE the regional prosecutor \u2019s office overruled that decision as premature .","On DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings essentially on the same grounds . No mention was made of the applicant \u2019s detention with adults . On DATE the regional prosecutor \u2019s office upheld that decision .","Subsequently , other decisions refusing to institute criminal proceedings were taken , the most recent CARDINAL on DATE . The copies of those decisions have not been provided to the ORG .","On DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office wrote to the applicant \u2019s father in response to his complaint . It said that the records of local medical institutions showed that at the time the applicant had been placed in the cell with O. the latter had been registered as suffering from tuberculosis but , according to his file , he had not posed a danger of infection to others . He had been admitted to hospital in DATE to treat his tuberculosis . O. had had a conviction at some point in the past but his conviction had been considered sufficiently old to have been considered expunged by time the applicant had been detained with him .","On DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office wrote to the applicant \u2019s father , again in response to his complaint , stating that the placing of adult arrestees in the same cell with the applicant , a minor , had been in breach of domestic law ( section CARDINAL of ORG ) and had constituted a disciplinary infraction on the part of the police officers who had taken that decision . However , they could not be disciplined because the DATE limitation period for disciplinary measures had expired . The prosecutor \u2019s office also confirmed that the applicant \u2019s cellmates were at the time registered as drug users ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174416","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SHALYAVSKI AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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 - Degrading treatment;Prohibition of torture)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG . The first and second applicants are cohabiting partners and the fourth applicant is their daughter . The third applicant is the second applicant \u2019s son . At the relevant time all the applicants were living together .","The first applicant suffers from muscular dystrophy , which has gradually progressed since DATE . Currently ( and at the time of the relevant events ) , he is only able to move his head and hands . He needs assistance for most DATE activities , which is usually provided by the second applicant or his care assistant . According to the applicants , the care assistant , who was specially trained and had taken care of the first applicant for DATE , was the only person with whom the latter felt secure when he needed to go out of his home , in particular to go to his office , as this involved the assistant carrying him and installing him in a car . The assistant also drove the applicant \u2019s car . At the time the first applicant owned a pawnshop and managed several companies . CARDINAL of his activities was giving short - term loans at high interest rates .","In DATE the prosecution authorities opened criminal proceedings against the first applicant for usury . Prior to that , in DATE and DATE he had been convicted for an abuse in the exercise of a disputed right and for threatening another person .","On DATE , at TIME , the first applicant , while travelling in his car which was being driven by his care assistant , was stopped by police officers and ordered to follow them to the police station . Upon arrival , his care assistant was arrested . While the parties have not specified the grounds for this arrest , it is very likely that it was on the basis of ORG , which allowed , inter alia , the detention for up to TIME of a person suspected of having committed an offence , and that it was related to the investigation against the first applicant .","The car remained in the carpark and the first applicant remained in it . Unable to move , he stayed in that position for TIME , guarded by QUANTITY police officers . At TIME his care assistant was brought out under guard to move him to another car , because the first one was going to be impounded as physical evidence . On CARDINAL occasions during DATE the second applicant was allowed to come to help him with his physical needs .","During the time the first applicant spent in front of the police station , police officers searched his home , his office and his pawnshop , as well as his GPE flat and house . They also searched the applicant \u2019s cars . The operation against him had been planned in advance .","At TIME , while still in the car and in the presence of his lawyer who had arrived in the meantime , the first applicant had charges of usury brought against him by an investigator . For that purpose the police officers installed the necessary equipment in the carpark , including a computer and a printer . The applicant was invited to make a declaration in relation to the charges ; he stated that he was not guilty .","The first applicant remained in the car in front of the police station until TIME After that he was brought in front of the building of ORG , which was to hold a hearing to examine an application by the prosecution to place him under house arrest . In the court carpark police officers attempted to take the applicant out of the car and place him in a wheelchair , despite the second applicant \u2019s protests . They gave up , after becoming aware that they could hurt him . After that his care assistant , still in detention , was again brought out under guard . The first applicant was thus able to get out of the car at TIME He attended the court hearing , which ended at TIME The care assistant remained with him until the end of the hearing . The prosecution \u2019s application to have the first applicant placed under house arrest was allowed .","The applicant \u2019s care assistant was released on DATE and has not been questioned any further or prosecuted .","The Blagoevgrad Regional Court \u2019s decision to place the first applicant under house arrest was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . Before taking its decision , that court heard evidence from , among others , ORG , who stated that she was the first applicant \u2019s sister and a neurologist and gave evidence concerning the applicant \u2019s state of health .","On DATE the first applicant had charges brought against him once again , in a detailed bill of indictment listing CARDINAL occasions where he had given loans to individuals at high interest rates . According to reports published in the NORP media , in DATE he was indicted and is standing trial at present .","The observance of the first applicant \u2019s house arrest was supervised by the police .","DATE there were no checks on whether he was complying with the measure .","On DATE the first applicant was seen by patrolling police officers in the city centre . When asked to provide an explanation , he stated that he had gone out to buy something . The police checked on him at his home in TIME .","DATE and DATE police officers visited the applicants\u2019 home to check on the first applicant on CARDINAL occasions , once a day and almost every day . On DATE there were no checks at all , and on DATE officers did not go to the applicants\u2019 flat , but observed for some time the building \u2019s entrance . On DATE the applicant was met by officers in front of the building as he arrived in his car .","On DATE officers checked on the first applicant on CARDINAL occasions , and on QUANTITY occasions on DATE On DATE they visited the flat on CARDINAL occasions , but on CARDINAL of them were not allowed in .","On CARDINAL and DATE the second applicant did not allow the police into the flat . On DATE they visited the flat CARDINAL times ; on CARDINAL of the visits nobody answered the doorbell .","DATE officers visited the applicants\u2019 flat usually CARDINAL times a day . CARDINAL of the visits on DATE was provoked by the fact that the applicant , having received authorisation to visit a physiotherapist , had not shown up for his appointment .","During some of the visits the fourth applicant , then DATE , was present as well . Usually she was taken by her mother to another room . The third applicant , then DATE , was working full time during this period .","On DATE the first applicant was released from house arrest , by a decision of ORG , which noted in particular his grave state of health and the fact that much of the evidence in the investigation against him had already been collected ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139999","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SCHVARC v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and habitually resides in GPE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the applicant was arrested , charged and remanded in custody on suspicion of unlawful production , possession and trafficking in drugs within the meaning of LAW ( c ) of LAW , on grounds that , if left at liberty , he would continue offending .","On DATE the applicant requested release , and in support of his request he offered a pledge that he would live in accordance with the law and that he would not interfere with the course of justice .","On DATE ORG found no reasons for releasing the applicant and transmitted his request to ORG s\u00fad ) for a judicial determination with a proposal that the request be dismissed .","On DATE ORG examined the request in chambers ( neverejn\u00e9 zasadnutie ) , following which , on DATE , the request was dismissed . ORG observed , inter alia , that by a judgment of DATE the applicant had been convicted of theft .","Immediately after the decisions of CARDINAL DATE had been pronounced , the applicant submitted an oral interlocutory appeal ( s\u0165a\u017enos\u0165 ) , which he later amended with the assistance of his lawyer .","The written version of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE , sitting in chambers ( neverejn\u00e9 zasadnutie ) , PERSON ( PERSON s\u00fad ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , fully endorsing the reasoning of ORG , adding that , at the same time , the applicant was also being prosecuted for other drugrelated offences .","On DATE the written version of ORG decision was transmitted to ORG , which was responsible for ensuring service of that decision on the applicant .","Service was effected on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) , relying on Articles CARDINAL of the LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Convention , challenging the length of the proceedings relating to his request for release , and claiming MONEY ( ORG ) by way of just satisfaction . In support of the latter claim , he submitted that , while his request for release had been under examination , he had been in a state of legal uncertainty , which had had a particularly severe effect on his state of mind since he had been deprived of liberty .","On DATE ORG appointed the applicant a legal - aid lawyer and , on DATE , it declared the complaint admissible .","On DATE ORG issued a judgment ( n\u00e1lez ) finding a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention within the meaning of LAW . At the same time , it awarded him LAW in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The amount was not explained by any particular reasons .","The written version of the constitutional judgment was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158740","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SIMONOVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["All the applicants were employed by ORG PERSON grupa GPE za preradu PERSON , a socially - owned company based in PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees , the applicants brought numerous separate civil suits , seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions .","The applicants obtained final court judgments ordering the debtor to pay them certain sums . The essential information as to the domestic proceedings in respect of each application is indicated in the appended table .","Following a period during which the enforcement proceedings had been suspended , DATE the final court judgments in question were all fully enforced in respect of the applicants .","NORP Since DATE , the debtor is a company predominantly comprised of ORG or socially owned capital and is still in the process of being restructured ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166774","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GONTMAKHER v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);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 5-4 - Speediness of review);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE , GPE . He is a president of ORG , a corporation which was the largest importer of crab to GPE .","On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE opened a criminal investigation into crab poaching in GPE \u2019s exclusive economic zone in LOC and LOC . The investigation concerned the charges of engagement in organised criminal activities , unlicensed fishing activities in GPE \u2019s exclusive economic zone and money laundering . The decision to open the investigation identified ORG as a major purchaser of the crab illegally harvested in the said region .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in a hotel in GPE . His passport was confiscated .","On DATE the Tverskoy District Court of GPE authorised the applicant \u2019s detention pending investigation . In particular , the court noted :","\u201c When deciding that [ the applicant ] should be detained [ pending investigation ] , the court notes that he is suspected of having committed a grave and serious offence , that he does not have a permanent residence in GPE , that there are reasons to believe that , if released , the applicant might abscond or continue his criminal activity , destroy the evidence or in any other way interfere with the criminal proceedings against him . Under such circumstances , application of any restrictive measure other than deprivation of liberty would not be feasible \u201d .","On DATE ORG formally charged the applicant with engagement in organised criminal activities , money laundering and unlicensed fishing activities in GPE \u2019s exclusive economic zone .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyers attended the hearing . The applicant was unable to attend for health reasons . He asked to be released on bail or alternatively on personal surety given by the chief rabbi of GPE . He presented to the court positive character references from CARDINAL GPE senators . He further argued that he was not fit for detention for illhealth . In this respect he relied on the opinion prepared by his family doctor , which indicated that the applicant suffered from arthritis , high cholesterol , kidney stones , chronic pyelonephritis , gastritis , loss of hearing in the right ear , nasal allergies , frequent headaches and dizziness . He also submitted a guarantee signed by Mr Sh . who undertook to accommodate the applicant at his place of residence in GPE pending investigation . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments noting as follows :","\u201c The court takes into account the arguments presented by the defence , including the references concerning his character . It discerns no new material facts or circumstances justifying [ the applicant \u2019s ] release or application of another restrictive measure .","It follows from the materials submitted that [ the applicant ] is charged with a very serious offence , he is a national of another state . The medical documents presented do not demonstrate that [ the applicant ] is unfit for detention .","The court concludes that the grounds for the [ applicant \u2019s ] detention have not ceased to exist . Accordingly the restrictive measure applied can not be lifted or replaced with a less strict one , including the bail . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending investigation until DATE . The court reiterated that the applicant \u2019s detention was justified due to the gravity of the charges and lack of a place of permanent residence in GPE . The application for release on bail or personal surety was dismissed . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court reiterated practically verbatim the reasoning used in the previous court order . On DATE ORG upheld the court order of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . According to the applicant , the court referred to the gravity of the charges and his \u201c significant financial possibilities \u201d . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the court order of DATE on appeal . In particular , ORG noted :","\u201c It follows from the materials in the case - file that [ the court ] took into account the gravity of the charges against [ the applicant ] ... , and it is reasonable to assume that , if at large , he may abscond ... , or continue his criminal activities , or threaten the witnesses , the victims and other parties to the proceedings , or destroy the evidence ... that may be found in foreign companies or interfere with investigation in any other way . ... [ I]n view of the extreme complexity and scope of the case , there are no grounds for [ the applicant \u2019s ] release .","Furthermore , the grounds for the applicant \u2019s detention have not ceased to exist and there are no exclusive circumstances rendering the lifting or replacement of the restrictive measure ... possible . \u201d","On DATE ORG extended the pre - trial detention in respect of the applicant , PERSON his co - defendants , noting as follows :","\u201c According to the materials submitted , PERSON [ the applicant ] are charged with a number of offences , including especially serious ones for which a custodial sentence exceeding DATE can be applied in the event of conviction .","It follows from the investigator \u2019s motion , submitted materials and his explanation given in court , that the criminal case is very complex , CARDINAL people were indicted , a big volume of investigative activities have been carried out , including those under way in different regions in GPE ; there are complex forensic expert examinations ongoing , the responses to the inquiries sent are still pending , including the ones concerning international criminal assistance , the investigators have planned numerous activities aimed at establishment of facts to be proved and completion of the investigation .","\u2019s arguments that the GPE detention should be extended are convincing and justified and that the grounds for extension of their detention are exceptional regard being had to the nature of the charges and pending investigative activities aimed at the completion of the investigation .","In the course of investigation the information was obtained that , should they be released , the defendants might abscond or interfere with the proceedings .","\u2019 character , the court concludes that there are sufficient grounds to believe that , should they be released , the defendants might abscond , put pressure on witnesses and other parties to the proceedings , try to conceal or destroy evidence in order to obstruct justice .","Under such circumstances ... PERSON and [ the applicant ] should be detained pending investigation which means that the grounds and the circumstances ... taken into consideration by the court when deciding on their detention have not changed and it is still necessary to detain them .","In view of the above , it is not possible to use a less strict restrictive measure in respect of PERSON , and [ the applicant ] , including release on bail .","When deciding on the extension of the GPE detention , the court takes into account the circumstances as required by [ law ] , notably their family status , age , health condition , and character information submitted by the defence . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument that ORG findings that he might abscond , continue criminal activities , obstruct justice , destroy evidence had been erroneous and unsubstantiated .","On DATE the applicant received an amended and finalised bill of indictment .","On DATE ORG extended the detention of the CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , until DATE in view of pending investigation . It noted in respect of the applicant as follows :","\u201c Even though ... [ the applicant ] does not have a criminal record , is married and have a child , prior to his arrest was employed and had a permanent source of income , he is charged with a number of very serious offences which entail , in case of conviction , a custodial sentence exceeding DATE and which , according to the ORG version , have been committed by an organised criminal group managed by PERSON and [ the applicant ] ... The applicant is a national of another state , he does not have a permanent place of residence in GPE ...","The above information about the applicant \u2019s character and the gravity of the charges are , in the court \u2019s opinion , sufficient to assume that he may abscond , despite his and his defence \u2019s declarations and assurances . Furthermore , according to the report of policemen PERSON and PERSON , the applicant ... , if released , is planning to flee abroad and continue criminal activities connected to illegal fishing in the exclusive economic zone of GPE , put pressure on witnesses , try to destroy physical evidence . In addition , [ the applicant ] repeatedly tried to bribe the officials in order to influence the investigation . Besides , PERSON [ the applicant ] have been trying to get in touch with other members of the organised criminal group who are still at large . It follows from the testimony of witness P. , that NORP companies are taking steps to secure [ the applicant \u2019s ] release . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending the GPE study of the case file , which comprised CARDINAL volumes , until DATE . The court referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the lack of permanent residence in GPE . It further reiterated that the applicant might put pressure on witnesses , obstruct justice or abscond . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court noted that the defendants , including the applicant , and CARDINAL lawyers that represented them had not completed the study of the case file . As to need for detention pending investigation , the court reiterated the formula which it used for prior extensions . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE the applicant completed the study of the case file .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE noting that the applicant \u2019s co - defendants and their lawyers needed further time to complete the study of the case - file . Referring to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the lack of a permanent residence and of \u201c established social links \u201d in GPE , the court noted that the applicant might abscond , put pressure on witnesses and other parties to the proceedings in order to obstruct justice . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG received the applicant \u2019s casefile and on DATE it extended the GPE pre - trial detention until DATE noting as follows :","\u201c [ The defendants ] have been remanded in custody . This restrictive measure corresponds to the nature and seriousness of the charges against them . The circumstances underlying the [ defendants\u2019 ] remand in custody have not ceased to exist . Notwithstanding personal surety and a possibility of bail proposed by [ the applicant ] , the fact that [ the applicant ] and PERSON have minor children , the length of their pre - trial detention , the measure of restraint earlier imposed on [ the defendants ] should remain unchanged . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","It appears that on an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s case was transferred for trial to ORG .","On DATE ORG extended the defendants\u2019 pretrial detention until DATE noting that the circumstances underlying their remand in custody had not ceased to exist .","On DATE ORG extended the defendants\u2019 detention until DATE reiterating verbatim its reasoning of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG considered it possible to release the defendants on bail in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) . The applicants submitted that they were unable to pay such bail . The court reasoned that the bail in a lesser amount would not ensure the defendants\u2019 appearance before it and extended their detention until DATE reiterating its earlier reasoning .","On DATE the jury delivered a not - guilty verdict in the applicant \u2019s case . The applicant was released on the same date . On DATE ORG issued the relevant judgment advising the applicant of his right to rehabilitation .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE in an article entitled Special Protection for the Mafia ( \u00ab GPE \u0434\u043b\u044f \u043c\u0430\u0444\u0438\u0438 ORG , an official national newspaper , published an interview about the criminal investigation with General PERSON . , the head of the department of ORG of ORG of GPE . In the interview Ts . referred to the applicant as the head of an international criminal organisation which had been engaged in illegal fishing activities conducted in GPE \u2019s territorial waters .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE General PERSON . gave CARDINAL interviews about the criminal investigation which were broadcast by ORG , the national TV channel . Ts . reiterated his previous statements alleging that the applicant had been the head of the illegal fishing business and referred to him as \u201c the don of the crab mafia \u201d .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claims for damages against ORG of GPE in part . The court awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL in respect of lost earnings and RUB CARDINAL as reimbursement of legal costs and expenses .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims for pecuniary damages resulting from criminal prosecution against ORG of GPE .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4","5-5"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139904","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SEMYANISTY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["In DATE ( the exact dates are listed in the appended table ) ORG delivered decisions according to which the ORG - owned coal mine \u201c PERSON was obliged to pay the applicants or their next of kin heating coal , to which they were entitled under the domestic law . The decisions became final and enforceable . However , the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157970","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SERGEY ANTONOV v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"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);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . According to the most recently available information , in DATE the applicant arrived at FAC . CARDINAL , GPE , to serve a sentence . He has not informed ORG of his current whereabouts .","For DATE the applicant has been suffering from various health problems . In particular , in DATE , apparently also while serving a sentence , he was hospitalised in FAC . DATE and later transferred to a tuberculosis hospital in FAC . CARDINAL . Since DATE the applicant has been registered with ORG and ORG . It appears that in DATE the applicant had a CDCARDINAL + cell count , the result of this count being CARDINAL cells . No more detailed information about his precise diagnosis or about any further events DATE is available .","According to the applicant , on DATE he was arrested on suspicion of theft . In a letter to ORG DATE the applicant stated that at the moment of his arrest he had had the following illnesses : human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) at clinical stage CARDINAL , post - tuberculosis residual effects , oropharyngeal candidiasis , and chronic hepatitis type C.","The decision on the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was taken by a court on DATE . DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in ORG \u041a\u0438\u0457\u0432\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0441\u043b\u0456\u0434\u0447\u0438\u0439 \u0456\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 ) ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) .","On arrival at the GPE the applicant underwent an initial medical examination . The Government submitted a copy of the applicant \u2019s initial medical examination card with the following information : height QUANTITY ; weight QUANTITY ; blood pressure CARDINAL ; blood type ( unclear handwriting ) ; bodily injuries none ; infectious diseases : pulmonary tuberculosis DATE , ORG \u2019s disease , \u2013 \u201c - \u201d , and sexually transmitted diseases \u2013 \u201c - \u201d . It was noted that the applicant had \u201c no health complaints \u201d . The applicant also submitted during the examination that he was registered with ORG and ORG .","According to the applicant , because of the deterioration of his health in DATE he was examined in the above LOC . The only document provided in support of this statement is an advisory opinion issued by the ORG \u201c on request \u201d on DATE . The opinion stated , without noting when exactly the applicant had been examined , that the applicant had been diagnosed with HIV at clinical stage CARDINAL , post - tuberculosis residual changes , oropharyngeal candidiasis , and chronic viral hepatitis type C. The opinion also cited the result of the applicant \u2019s MONEY cell count performed on DATE . It was recommended that the applicant take antiretroviral therapy ( \u201c ART \u201d ) for life . In their submissions of CARDINAL DATE following the applicant \u2019s request under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of the Court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Government noted that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been diagnosed as above .","On DATE the applicant agreed to undergo an HIV test following his \u201c request submitted to the GPE doctors \u201d . According to the results of this test dated DATE , the applicant had HIV antibodies .","NORP On DATE the applicant underwent a biochemical blood analysis and a CDCARDINAL + cell count ( the result of the count was CARDINAL cells , or PERCENT ( percentage of total lymphocytes ) ) . The applicant was diagnosed with a high degree of immunological suppression and prescribed preventive anti - tuberculosis treatment .","On DATE the applicant was placed in the infectious diseases ward of the GPE . It was noted that the applicant \u2019s state of health was of \u201c medium seriousness \u201d . He underwent an X - ray and various other examinations and was diagnosed with a tuberculosis relapse , extra - pulmonary tuberculosis , HIV infection at clinical stage CARDINAL , chronic hepatitis of the mixed type ( toxic type and C type ) , and other diseases . The applicant was prescribed anti - tuberculosis treatment , detox and symptomatic treatment . The Government submitted that the applicant had received this treatment in full .","According to the available medical documents , DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s weight dropped from QUANTITY to QUANTITY .","On DATE the applicant was examined in GPE .","According to the medical file submitted by the ORG , DATE and DATE the applicant had consultations with GPE doctors on the following dates : CARDINAL and DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ; and DATE .","It was noted on some of those occasions that the applicant complained of general weakness but that his condition was stable . He \u201c bore the treatment in a satisfactory manner \u201d and after the applicant had started the ART ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the consistent advice was that the ART should be continued . On several occasions the applicant was also prescribed various medication .","On DATE the applicant was prescribed \u201c a preventive treatment \u201d . It was recommended that anti - tuberculosis treatment be continued in order to prepare the applicant for the ART .","In his letter of DATE the applicant submitted that the ORG had been prescribed to him in DATE . In his further observations the applicant stated that the treatment had only been prescribed to him on DATE . The exact date when the applicant started the ORG is unclear .","On some occasions in DATE and DATE the applicant refused to take the ART . According to the applicant , the prescribed drugs did not agree with him .","On DATE the applicant was prescribed the ART \u201c under the ORG \/ ORG ( tenofovir \/ emtricitabine + ztv ) schema \u201d .","On DATE the applicant consulted an infectious diseases specialist from ORG No . CARDINAL , and was prescribed a diet and various medication . It was noted that the applicant had again stopped the ART .","On DATE GPE officials , at the request of the police , informed the police that the applicant \u2019s state of health was of \u201c medium seriousness , with a tendency to deteriorate which might lead to a lethal outcome \u201d . They confirmed that , apart from the said diagnoses , the applicant was suffering from inflammation of the lymph nodes , dermatitis , intestinal dysbacteriosis , and other diseases . The applicant was receiving anti - tuberculosis treatment , ART and symptomatic treatment . It was stated that the applicant needed long - term medical treatment in a specialised medical facility . Consequently , they asked for the investigation to be speeded up and for the possibility of the applicant \u2019s release to be considered . The document was signed by the head of the GPE and the head of the GPE \u2019s medical department .","On DATE the criminal case against the applicant was transferred to a court for consideration on the merits .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested the applicant \u2019s release before the national court .","DATE and DATE the applicant underwent a number of tests ( blood and urine tests and X - ray examinations ) . In particular , on DATE a biochemical blood test and CDCARDINAL + cell count were performed . The increase in the CDCARDINAL + blood cells from CARDINAL was established ( from PERCENT ) . On DATE an expert ORG \/ RIF diagnostic test of the applicant \u2019s sputum for identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis was carried out . The test was negative .","In his application form to ORG the applicant stated that he was suffering from general weakness , intestinal pain , severe headache , increase in the number and size of mycotic ulcers on his body and face , liver and chest pain , haemorrhoids , diarrhoea , pain in the lymph glands , and severe shortness of breath . He also had severe pain in his left leg , had lost QUANTITY in weight , and had difficulty sleeping . His MONEY cell count had , however increased . For the hepatitis C , ulcers and left leg problem there was no treatment at all .","On DATE the ORG administration informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that the applicant was in the GPE medical ward . He was receiving anti - tuberculosis treatment , ART and symptomatic treatment . The applicant underwent an NORP - ray examination , had various tests ( complete blood count , biochemical blood test , blood sugar test , CDCARDINAL + cell count , and urine and sputum analyses ) and had a number of consultations with infectious diseases and tuberculosis specialists . It was noted that the applicant \u2019s condition was stable and there was a positive dynamic . He did not need hospital treatment , but required monitoring by infectious diseases and tuberculosis specialists .","On DATE ORG , GPE , extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s request for release on medical grounds was rejected by the court as not substantiated by appropriate documents . It also rejected the applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s request for a medical examination for him .","The applicant stated that on DATE an ambulance had been called for him . He was given painkillers on that occasion .","In a letter of DATE to this ORG the applicant stated that there had been no change in his medical treatment DATE and DATE . According to him , the current treatment was not improving his health .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist , who concluded that the applicant \u2019s condition was stable .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG No . CARDINAL to serve a sentence ( the parties did not submit to the ORG the details of the applicant \u2019s conviction ) . He was provided with ART medication for CARDINAL months\u2019 treatment . On arrival at the ORG the applicant was examined by a doctor and diagnosed with HIV infection ( IV clinical stage ) , hepatitis in the stage of remission , and post - tuberculosis residual changes ( category CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant complained of fever , cough and abdominal pain . He was diagnosed with aggravation of his hepatitis , gastroduodenitis , and bronchitis , and was placed in a medical ward .","According to the applicant , on DATE and DATE he was subjected to psychological pressure by the ORG authorities and their medical staff , who shouted at the applicant , called him names and told him to sign a paper stating that he had refused LAW treatment of his own volition and that he had no complaints . The material in the case file includes a copy of a handwritten note dated DATE and signed by the applicant . The note says the following :","\u201c Despite the worsening of my state of health , the personnel of the GPE medical ward are doing everything possible and I have no complaints about them \u201d .","On DATE the applicant had a meeting with his lawyer . On the same date the applicant complained about the alleged pressure to the prosecutor \u2019s office . He stated that GPE doctors and an unknown police officer had forced him to sign a paper \u201c that he refused ( or had refused ) \u201d the ART and had no complaints . According to the applicant , he was threatened with being beaten , with being removed from the medical ward , with being placed in a disciplinary cell , and that other detainees would suffer because of him . The applicant stated that he had signed a paper stating that he had no complaints against the GPE doctors .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG sent the applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s complaint to ORG of ORG \u201c for consideration \u201d .","On an unknown date a ORG official informed the Head of ORG of ORG that there had been \u201c no breaches of law by the staff on the medical ward or by the GPE authorities \u201d . On DATE this information was submitted to the prosecutor and to the applicant .","On DATE the head of the GPE medical ward informed the head of the GPE that there had been no incidence of pressure being put on the applicant during the latter \u2019s stay there .","On DATE inmates PERSON and PERSON testified to the head of the GPE that there had been no incidence of any kind of pressure being put on the applicant , and that he had always been provided with medical assistance when he requested it ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164720","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"SAVA\u015e\u00c7IN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , are CARDINAL NORP nationals . They were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","s , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicants purchased a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m in GPE , in LOC of GPE , which had been registered in the land register as parcel no . DATE .","On DATE , following a claim submitted by the forest administration , ORG ordered that the applicants\u2019 title deed be annulled and the land entered in the land register as belonging to the ORG , holding that the land was part of the public forest . An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the applicants were subsequently rejected by ORG and the decision became final on DATE .","On DATE the applicants brought a case before ORG . They sought compensation for pecuniary damage from the ORG under LAW , which prescribed that the ORG was responsible for any damage resulting from the keeping of the land registry records .","On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicants\u2019 compensation claim . ORG rejected an appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the applicants , and the decision became final on DATE .","Under LAW of DATE , ownership of public forests may not be transferred to others ; public forests will be managed and exploited by the ORG in accordance with the law . Ownership of such forests can not be acquired through adverse possession , nor may forests be subject to any easement , unless it is considered to be in the public interest .","Under LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , the cadastral commissions decide whether an area will be categorized as a public forest or a private forest . The same law governs the way in which the cadastral commissions operate ( sections CARDINAL ) .","A full description of the relevant domestic law and practice regarding the designation of land as public forest may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The object of PERSON no . DATE was to provide for the settlement , by means of compensation , of applications lodged with the ORG concerning length of judicial proceedings , and non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions . A Compensation Commission was set up for that purposes . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The competence ratione materiae of ORG was subsequently extended by a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended the competence of ORG to the examination of other complaints , such as alleged restriction of the right of detainees to correspondence in a language other than NORP and the prison authorities\u2019 refusal , on different grounds , to hand over periodicals . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","ORG issued a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended anew the competence ratione materiae of ORG .","ORG is now entitled to examine the following subjects under LAW decree , which reads as follows :","\u201c a ) ORG concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant \u2019s title deeds because his or her land was classified as part of the public forest area , or as a result of the application of section CARDINAL\/B of Law no . CARDINAL , or because the land was classified as part of the public forest area in cadastral surveys ;","b ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant \u2019s title deeds because the impugned land was classified as located within a coastal area ;","c ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the allocation of the impugned land for public use in local land development plans ;","d ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of an applicant \u2019s right to private and family life on account of the respective disciplinary sanctions imposed on detainees and convicted persons by the prison authorities ;","e ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of the right to respect for correspondence on account of the prison administration \u2019s refusal to receive or send letters or similar correspondence drafted in NORP . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184635","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"ZALOILO v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE in GPE and lives in PERSON . His nationality is stated to be unknown . He was represented before ORG by ORG , a lawyer practising in LOC .","NORP The applicant was detained for the purpose of deportation in the GPE detention centre , a remand centre accommodating persons in immigration detention .","On DATE the governor of the detention centre gave a disciplinary decision placing the applicant in solitary confinement for DATE . The written confirmation of the decision , handed to the applicant on QUANTITY DATE , states the following grounds :","\u201c You have displayed seriously inflammatory behaviour and incited your fellow detainees to an uprising . You have incited them to disobey the instructions of staff . You have refused , with a number of fellow detainees , to return to your cell . You have tried to prevent your fellow detainees from obeying the instructions of staff . You have seriously intimidated staff and forced them to open the door of the cell to let out one of the detainees who was already locked in . \u201d","The term of solitary confinement was to end on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted a complaint form stating that he had incited no one to rise against the prison staff and requesting the hearing of witnesses to prove it .","On DATE the applicant , through his lawyer , lodged a formal complaint ( beklag ) against the solitary confinement decision with the supervisory board ( GPE PERSON ) of the institution .","Also on CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a request for the suspension of the solitary confinement measure with ORG ( beroepscommissie ) of ORG ( PERSON GPE ) ( hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE , immediately after the end of his term of solitary confinement , the applicant was transferred to the remand centre ( huis van bewaring ) within the penal institution \u201c PERSON \u201d in GPE , a regular prison , on the orders of the governor of the GPE detention centre . The decision ordering the transfer was not given in writing .","Also on DATE the applicant lodged an objection ( bezwaar ) against the decision to place him in the remand centre within \u201c PERSON \u201d , together with a request for its suspension , with ORG .","On DATE the Chairman of ORG ordered the suspension of the applicant \u2019s placement in the remand centre within \u201c PERSON \u201d on the formal ground that the transfer decision had been given irregularly by the governor of the GPE detention centre instead of by the selection officer ( selectiefunctionaris ) of ORG and ORG .","Also on DATE an official signing in the joint capacity of selection officer and head of ORG ( ORG ) gave an order , effective on DATE , for the applicant to be transferred to the remand centre within \u201c FAC \u201d . The decision stated the following reasons :","\u201c During your stay in the GPE detention centre you have endangered order , peace and quiet and security by inciting to an uprising and by particularly intimidating conduct towards staff . \u201d","NORP On DATE the applicant , through his lawyer , lodged an objection against this decision also . As relevant to the case before the ORG , he alleged a violation of LAW in that he had not been heard before this decision was taken .","It is noted in the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that on DATE the governor of the GPE detention centre wrote to the applicant recognising that his detention in the remand centre within \u201c FAC \u201d DATE and DATE had not been based on a decision in proper form and that he was entitled to monetary compensation on that account .","On DATE the selection officer cum head of ORG and ORG gave a decision on the applicant \u2019s objection of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This decision stated that the governor of the detention centre had decided on CARDINAL DATE that the applicant should be transferred to the remand centre within \u201c PERSON \u201d in GPE on DATE , immediately after the end of his term of solitary confinement . However , since the governor had not the competence to give such a decision , a formal decision to this effect DATE dated , or backdated , DATE but not committed in DATE was taken by the selection officer cum head of ORG instead .","The applicant \u2019s objection was declared inadmissible as out of time , the decision in issue having been taken on CARDINAL DATE and the time - limit for lodging an objection being DATE . It was added that the objection would have been dismissed as unfounded even if it had been admissible : the applicant had been transferred to a regular remand centre for legitimate operational reasons ( om beheersmatige redenen ) in view of his misbehaviour .","On DATE the selection officer cum head of ORG and ORG gave a decision dismissing the applicant \u2019s objection of DATE as unfounded . As relevant to the case before the ORG , it included the following reasoning :","\u201c I have been informed by the governor of ORG that the person concerned has played an active part in the uprising on DATE in FAC . The person concerned ( was among those who ) created the uprising . He displayed inflammatory behaviour and repeatedly incited other detainees to rise up . He has refused to follow instructions given by staff and has encouraged others to do the same . He has forced the staff in a threatening way to release detainees who had been already locked in . The staff has complied in order to prevent further escalation . The person concerned has seriously intimidated the staff and seriously endangered order and security . The person has been placed in a regular remand centre for operational reasons in view of the disturbance he has caused in the GPE detention centre , his prison history ( which has also led to his being declared an undesirable alien ( ongewenste vreemdeling ) ) , and because he escaped from the GPE detention centre on DATE .","In taking a placement or transfer decision I may reasonably trust the relevant information given me by the governor of the institution . My competence to transfer the person concerned to a different institution is not affected by the fact that the lawfulness of the governor \u2019s decision , i.e. the disciplinary measure , is not yet established in law . \u201d","On DATE the applicant , through his lawyer , appealed against the latter decision to ORG . As relevant to the case before the ORG , he denied any wrongdoing ; he complained of failures to hear staff of the GPE detention centre and fellow detainees as witnesses and of the failure to make videotaped recordings of the incident available for viewing .","ORG gave its decision on DATE . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . As to the fact that the applicant \u2019s placement in the remand centre within \u201c PERSON \u201d DATE had not been based on any decision , ORG took note of the governor \u2019s letter of DATE recognising that fact ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and referred the applicant to the governor of the GPE detention centre himself for the compensation to which he was entitled . As relevant to the case before the ORG , its decision further read as follows :"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169647","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DEVYATOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178344","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DUDCHENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention;Release pending trial;Trial within a reasonable time);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Legal assistance of own choosing;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant , who was suspected of leadership of a criminal armed gang . According to the authorities , the applicant , as the leader of the gang , had planned and committed several offences , namely aggravated kidnapping , assault , aggravated robbery and extortion , in GPE and GPE .","On DATE ORG authorised the interception and recording of the applicant \u2019s telephone communications on his mobile telephone , number ... -CARDINAL . The surveillance authorisation read in its entirety as follows :","\u201c [ The police ] are investigating [ a case ] against a criminal gang involved in robberies and the extortion of money and personal belongings from citizens in GPE and other NORP regions . [ The applicant ] is the leader of the gang . [ M. ] and [ Z. ] are members of that gang . According to intelligence information , these people are planning to commit aggravated extortion from GPE businessmen . Operational - search measures have revealed that [ the applicant ] uses mobile phone number ... -CARDINAL , registered as belonging to [ M. ] .","In view of the above and given that it seems impossible to obtain the information necessary to expose [ the applicant \u2019s ] unlawful activities by overt investigation , the court , on the basis of LAW and LAW of [ LAW ]","decides to authorise for DATE the interception of [ the applicant \u2019s ] telephone communications on his mobile telephone number ... -CARDINAL . \u201d","On DATE and DATE the police intercepted the applicant \u2019s conversations with an accomplice , PERSON","On DATE of the applicant \u2019s accomplices , PERSON , were arrested . The applicant went into hiding .","On DATE , DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request his brother retained PERSON as the applicant \u2019s legal representative . The legal services agreement stated that PERSON was to consult and defend the applicant while his name was on the police \u2019s wanted persons list in connection with charges that were not yet known to him . If the applicant were to be arrested by the police , an additional agreement would be signed between PERSON and the applicant . There is no evidence that the police or the investigator were informed about that agreement .","On DATE ORG authorised the interception and recording of the applicant \u2019s telephone communications on his mobile telephone number ... -CARDINAL . The surveillance authorisation read in its entirety as follows :","\u201c [ The police ] have intelligence information about a criminal gang involved in robberies and the extortion of money and personal belongings from citizens in GPE and other NORP regions . [ The applicant ] is the leader of the gang . Operational - search measures have revealed that [ the applicant ] uses mobile phone number ... -CARDINAL .","In view of the above and given that it seems impossible to obtain the information necessary to expose [ the applicant \u2019s ] unlawful activities by overt investigation , the court , on the basis of LAW and LAW of [ LAW ]","decides to authorise for DATE the interception of [ the applicant \u2019s ] telephone communications on his mobile telephone number ... -CARDINAL . \u201d","NORP On DATE and DATE the police intercepted conversations between the applicant and PERSON","On DATE the applicant was arrested .","On DATE PERSON informed the investigator that he was the applicant \u2019s defence counsel by virtue of instruction no . CARDINAL of ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) . He was formally admitted ( \u0434\u043e\u043f\u0443\u0449\u0435\u043d ) as counsel for the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was charged with aggravated robbery , assault , kidnapping and extortion , committed by an organised criminal group . PERSON also charged with the same criminal offences .","At DATE the investigator informed PERSON that his presence was required during investigative procedures involving the applicant . On DATE the investigator was informed by ORG that PERSON was on DATE leave until DATE .","On DATE the investigator appointed legal aid counsel for the applicant , noting that he had refused to choose replacement counsel and had insisted on being represented by PERSON","On DATE the investigator decided to remove PERSON as counsel for the applicant , finding that it was necessary to question him about his telephone conversations with the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE . He noted that at the time , PERSON had not yet been the applicant \u2019s counsel . However , well aware that the applicant had committed serious criminal offences , PERSON had advised him what to do . In particular , he had told the applicant that money was needed , which could possibly mean that PERSON had intended to bribe a police official . He had also informed him about the course of the criminal proceedings , which had become known to him as at the time he had been representing the applicant \u2019s accomplices , PERSON When the police had tried to force the applicant \u2019s door , the applicant had summoned PERSON , who had said that he could not come and offered to send another lawyer . He had then advised the applicant to try to avoid arrest and , if that was not possible , to destroy his telephone and the ORG card , and to remain silent when questioned . In the investigator \u2019s opinion , by giving such advice , PERSON had been trying to hide his connections with the applicant and his knowledge of the criminal offences committed by him . Given that at the material time PERSON had not been formally admitted as the applicant \u2019s counsel , he should be considered as having advised him in his capacity as a simple citizen . He should therefore be called as a witness in the criminal proceedings against the applicant .","On DATE the criminal case against the applicant and his accomplices was transferred to ORG for trial . The criminal case file comprised CARDINAL volumes ; CARDINAL criminal cases were joined into CARDINAL criminal case against the applicant and his accomplices .","A preliminary hearing was held on DATE and DATE .","The trial started on DATE . The applicant asked the court for permission for his brother , a civil lawyer working at a company which sold car spare parts , to act as his defence counsel . The court rejected his request , stating that the applicant \u2019s brother was not qualified to participate as defence counsel in criminal proceedings , that he did not have the relevant practical experience , and that the applicant was already represented by legal aid counsel .","On DATE the applicant requested that legal aid counsel assigned to his case be removed for failure to provide adequate legal assistance . The court rejected his request . The applicant then requested that AM . be admitted as his defence counsel instead of the legal aid lawyer . The judge granted that request and AM . represented the applicant throughout the remainder of the criminal proceedings . The trial was adjourned until DATE to let AM . study the case file .","On DATE the hearing was again postponed , until DATE , owing to the failure of CARDINAL of the co - accused to appear due to illness .","Further hearings were held DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant challenged the admissibility as evidence of transcripts of his telephone conversations with PERSON on CARDINAL and DATE . He argued that PERSON had been his counsel as from DATE , as confirmed by the legal services agreement of that date and by relevant payment invoices . The conversations in question were therefore protected by legal professional privilege and their transcripts could not be used in evidence in criminal proceedings .","On DATE the ORG found that the legal services agreement of CARDINAL DATE stated that PERSON was to provide the applicant with legal assistance in the framework of criminal proceedings , without clearly identifying the criminal proceedings to which it related . The investigator had not been informed about that agreement . PERSON had not been formally admitted as the applicant \u2019s counsel in the present criminal proceedings until DATE when he had shown the investigator the relevant instruction by ORG . ORG found it relevant that during the conversations intercepted by the police , PERSON had advised the applicant to remain in hiding and to destroy the evidence . Moreover , having been present , as their counsel , at S. \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s questioning after their arrest , PERSON had informed the applicant about their statements to the investigator . When summoned by the applicant to assist him at the time of his arrest , he had refused to come and had offered to send another lawyer . That gave reasons to doubt that PERSON had been representing the applicant at the time in the present criminal proceedings . The investigator had subsequently removed PERSON as counsel for the applicant . PERSON had not , however , been called to testify against the applicant in breach of legal professional privilege . Given that the applicant \u2019s conversations with PERSON intercepted by the police contained information about the applicant \u2019s criminal activities , they were not subject to legal professional privilege and their transcripts were admissible as evidence .","On DATE the court ordered a graphological expert report and for that reason adjourned the trial until DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an action before ORG of PERSON , challenging the investigator \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE to remove PERSON as his counsel . On DATE ORG dismissed that complaint as inadmissible , finding that it could not be examined once the investigation had been completed . The applicant could raise the complaint before the trial court .","Meanwhile , further hearings were held on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the court ordered a complex psychological expert examination of CARDINAL of the co - accused and adjourned the trial pending the expert examination report . A further complex psychological examination was ordered on DATE and the trial was again adjourned until DATE .","On DATE the trial was adjourned because the court ordered that CARDINAL prosecution witnesses who had testified against PERSON and who were detained in GPE be transported to GPE for a crossexamination .","The trial remained adjourned DATE and DATE while awaiting the transfer of the prosecution witnesses , who at the time were on trial in a criminal case in GPE . They were transferred to GPE on DATE , after their conviction of CARDINAL DATE had been upheld on appeal on DATE .","On DATE the applicant challenged the admissibility as evidence of the transcripts of his telephone conversations with PERSON on DATE and DATE and with PERSON on DATE and DATE . He claimed , in particular , that the transcripts had been obtained unlawfully .","The trial was resumed on DATE . Hearings were held on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .","During the trial the court examined numerous pieces of evidence , including CARDINAL expert reports and the statements of CARDINAL victims and twentyfour witnesses from GPE and GPE .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . It relied on the transcripts of the applicant \u2019s telephone conversations with PERSON and PERSON , among other evidence , observing that the interception of the applicant \u2019s telephone communications had been authorised by a court . Having analysed the transcripts of the applicant \u2019s telephone conversations with PERSON , it held as follows :","\u201c The lawyer had not been formally admitted to provide legal assistance to [ the applicant ] at the time [ when the interception had taken place ] . His actions were considered by the investigator to be unlawful and served as a basis for the decision to remove [ PERSON ] as counsel for [ the applicant ] and for considering the question of opening criminal proceedings [ against PERSON ] . The court does not have any reason to believe that the information obtained as a result of [ intercepting the applicant \u2019s ] telephone communications with [ PERSON ] can not be used as evidence , given that the information in question has not become known to [ PERSON ] as a result of providing legal assistance to [ the applicant ] . \u201d","The applicant appealed against the conviction , claiming that ORG had erred in its assessment of the evidence , that the transcripts of his telephone conversations with his co - defendant PERSON and counsel PERSON had been unlawfully used as evidence in the criminal proceedings , that PERSON had been unlawfully removed as counsel from his case , and that the authorities had refused to allow his brother to act as his legal representative .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the conviction . It held , in particular , that the transcripts of the applicant \u2019s telephone conversations with PERSON and PERSON had been correctly admitted as evidence . It further observed that the applicant \u2019s allegations of violations of his right to defence during the preliminary investigation had been examined by the first - instance court and had been rejected as unsubstantiated .","The applicant was arrested on DATE .","NORP On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody . It held that he was suspected of particularly serious offences , did not have a permanent job , and that his assertions that he owned a family business were unconvincing . There were therefore sufficient reasons to believe that he might abscond , obstruct the course of justice , and continue his criminal activities .","On DATE and DATE ORG ordered extensions of the applicant \u2019s detention , citing the need for further investigation , the gravity of the charges and the risks of the applicant absconding , putting pressure on witnesses and obstructing the course of justice . There were no factors relating to the applicant \u2019s character , state of health , family or other circumstances which would warrant release . The applicant did not appeal against those extension orders .","On DATE the criminal case file was transferred to ORG for trial . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s and his co - defendants\u2019 detention during trial , referring to the gravity of the charges and the lack of permanent employment \u201c at the time of the commission of the crimes \u201d . It considered that the grounds which had served as the basis for the preventive measure remained valid . The applicant did not appeal .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s and his codefendants\u2019 detention , finding that the grounds which had served as the basis for the preventive measure remained valid and that there were therefore no reasons to change it . The trial could not proceed for objective reasons as it was necessary to wait for the results of a psychological expert examination of S. and for the transfer for questioning of CARDINAL prosecution witnesses against S.","The applicant appealed against the above extension orders to ORG . He submitted that he had been permanently residing in GPE , that he had been working in the family business , that he had no previous convictions and that he had no intention of absconding from the authorities . The authorities had failed to substantiate their allegations that he might abscond or continue with his criminal activity . As regards the risk that he might put pressure on witnesses , it was no longer relevant as all the witnesses had already been questioned by the trial court . According to the applicant , the extension of his detention had been based solely on the gravity of the charges against him . The trial had been adjourned for reasons which were not related to his personal situation , but in order to carry out expert psychological examinations of CARDINAL of the co - accused and to ensure the transfer from GPE of CARDINAL prosecution witnesses who were to give evidence against that same co - accused . He asked to be released on bail or on his father \u2019s personal guarantee .","On DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE ORG upheld the above extension orders on appeal , referring to the gravity of the charges and the risks of the applicant absconding or putting pressure on witnesses . The fact that the witnesses had already been questioned was irrelevant because the applicant might still put pressure on them or otherwise obstruct the trial .","The applicant was held as follows : in remand prison no . GPE ( SIZO-CARDINAL ) in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; in correctional facility no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE , GPE , in a special wing with the material conditions of detention of a remand prison ( ORG \u2013 \u043f\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0449\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 , \u0444\u0443\u043d\u043a\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0438\u0440\u0443\u044e\u0449\u0435\u0435 \u0432 \u0440\u0435\u0436\u0438\u043c\u0435 \u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0438\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0430 ) from CARDINAL May to DATE ; in remand prison no . PERSON in GPE from DATE ; and in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE from DATE to DATE .","The Government submitted that it was impossible to provide original documentation concerning the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention in remand prison no . GPE ( SIZO-CARDINAL ) in GPE because all the official records had been destroyed after the expiry of the statutory period for their storage . In respect of that detention facility they submitted only statements and reports prepared by the prison authorities in DATE . They also submitted copies of the prison population register for the entire periods of the applicant \u2019s detention in correctional facility no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE and in remand prison no . GPE in GPE , and selected pages from the prison population register for the period of detention in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE .","The Government submitted the following information about the applicant \u2019s detention , which was based on the above - mentioned documents :","The Government asserted that in all the cells where the applicant had been detained DATE , the number of inmates had not exceeded the number of beds and that at all times while in detention the applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place . At the same time , the ORG submitted as follows :","\u201c ... during the applicant \u2019s detention the sanitary norm for space per inmate was not always complied with . However , it happened only occasionally ... and the prosecutor \u2019s office demanded that these infractions be eliminated ... \u201d","Relying on the statements and reports prepared by the prison authorities in DATE , the ORG further submitted that the applicant had been provided with bed sheets and cutlery . The cells were cleaned DATE by the inmates and the administration of the penal institutions carried out a sanitary treatment of the LOC DATE .","All cells were equipped with wash basins supplying cold water ; hot water was available for personal and household needs . In addition , the inmates were allowed to use their own kettles and water heaters .","At all times in all the remand prisons , the applicant and the other inmates were allowed to take a TIME shower once a week ; their linen was changed DATE .","The applicant and other inmates were allowed to take TIME DATE exercise in specially equipped yards .","According to the applicant , remand prison no . GPE ( SIZO-CARDINAL ) in PERSON had been severely overcrowded and the space available to him had been below the domestic standards . The applicant contested the accuracy of the data submitted by the Government about the designated number of bunk beds within the cells . For instance , in cell no . CARDINAL the actual number of bunk beds had been CARDINAL and not CARDINAL as submitted by the Government , as could be seen from the photographs he had submitted to the ORG . Cell no . CARDINAL had CARDINAL sleeping bunks and housed CARDINAL inmates .","NORP In reply to the applicant \u2019s complaints about poor conditions of detention , the NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office stated , on DATE , as follows :","\u201c ... the applicant \u2019s complaints ... that the conditions of detention in SIZO-CARDINAL were not fully compatible with the sanitary regulations prescribed by LAW on pretrial detention ... that the minimum individual space prescribed by LAW ( CARDINAL sq . m per person ) was not always complied with , that the LOC needed repair , that the walls in some of the cells were stained with mould and crumbling , that the plumbing was often out of order , that not all the cells were equipped with a sufficient number of shelves and TV sets , that broken glass in the windows was not replaced promptly and that there were no refrigerators \u2013 [ all these complaints ] reflect the reality .","These deficiencies were noted by the prosecutor \u2019s office during their inspection of SIZO-CARDINAL . \u201d","On DATE the NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office stated :","\u201c ... in DATE the number of detainees in SIZO-CARDINAL frequently exceeded the prescribed limits . For these reasons it was not always possible to comply with the sanitary regulations ( QUANTITY m per inmate ) . For the same reasons the requirements concerning the separate detention of different categories of detainees were sometimes not complied with ... \u201d","As regards correctional facility no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE , the applicant stated that during his stay there he had been detained in inadequate conditions . The cells had been overcrowded . The space available to him throughout the detention period had been below the domestic standards . In particular , he had shared a cell measuring QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL other detainees .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG for the Execution of Sentences of inadequate conditions of detention in IK-CARDINAL . In particular , he complained of poor nutrition , overcrowding , a lack of newspapers and television sets , and of the authorities\u2019 refusal to make copies of documents at DATE requests . He received no reply .","Furthermore , as regards remand prison no . PERSON in GPE , the applicant stated that the quality of the food in the prison had been extremely poor . He had been detained with CARDINAL other detainees in a cell measuring CARDINAL sq . MONEY The cell had been infested with cockroaches , bedbugs and rats . The detainees had slept on bunk beds .","Lastly , as regards remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE , according to the applicant , he had been held in cell CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m , with CARDINAL other detainees . The inmates had slept on bunk beds . There had been a table measuring QUANTITY but no benches or chairs to sit on . The cell had been swarming with insects . The inmates had been allowed to take exercise only in groups .","DATE the applicant was transferred by train from GPE to GPE . He was given no food . He received his first meal on DATE .","On DATE and DATE the applicant was transferred by train from GPE to GPE .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE , on the way from GPE to GPE , between GPE and GPE , the applicant was transported in cramped conditions in a compartment with CARDINAL other inmates , some of whom were suffering from tuberculosis .","As regards the conditions of the applicant \u2019s transportation between GPE and GPE from DATE , the applicant was transported in a compartment with other inmates , none of whom were suffering from tuberculosis . He was transferred from GPE railway station to the local remand prison GPE in a special vehicle separately from other inmates .","When the applicant was transferred from GPE railway station to GPE on DATE and DATE , he was not transported with inmates who were suffering from tuberculosis .","When the applicant was transferred from GPE to GPE DATE and CARDINAL DATE , he was transported first alone in the railway compartment , then from GPE DATE he was transported with other inmates , none of whom were suffering from tuberculosis .","During the transfers the applicant was duly provided with dry food rations ; he was given permission to use hot water and the toilet .","DATE . The applicant did not lodge any complaints about the conditions of his transportation between GPE and GPE . He did not apply for medical assistance , nor did he complain about the state of his health .","In their submission the Government neither specified the number of inmates transported with the applicant , nor the size of the compartments in which they had travelled . Nor did they submit any copies of documents regarding that part of the applicant \u2019s complaints , including the distribution of dry rations for the trip ."],"violated_articles":["3","5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148679","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"RITCHIE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The CARDINAL applicants are the widows and children of CARDINAL fishermen who died at sea in DATE whilst fishing in NORP waters in their trawler called the Trident . A list of the applicants is set out in the attached appendix ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182834","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF NICULA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142423","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SCHATSCHASCHWILI v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . When lodging his application he was detained in PERSON prison , GPE ( GPE ) .","By a judgment of DATE ( file no . CARDINAL PERSON ) ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of aggravated robbery in conjunction with aggravated extortion by means of coercion , committed jointly with further perpetrators ( gemeinschaftlicher schwerer ORG in GPE schwerer r\u00e4uberischer PERSON ) , and imposed an accumulated prison sentence ( Gesamtfreiheitsstrafe ) of DATE .","The crimes were committed in GPE on DATE and in PERSON on DATE respectively .","ORG found it established that in TIME of DATE the applicant , acting jointly with an unidentified accomplice and according to a previously agreed plan , entered by force into an apartment in GPE and robbed its occupants . The men were aware that the apartment was used for prostitution and expected its CARDINAL female occupants to keep valuables and cash in there . They had passed by the apartment in TIME in order to make sure that no clients were present . Shortly afterwards they rang at the door of the apartment which was attended by its tenant PERSON After having overpowered PERSON by force the applicant threatened her with a gas pistol that resembled a real gun ordering her to keep silent . He then went to the kitchen where he found the further occupant of the apartment PERSON , a NORP national who lived and worked there as a prostitute . Pointing his gas pistol at ORG he forced her to hand over her mobile phone . While his accomplice was watching over the QUANTITY women , the applicant searched the apartment for valuables and found CARDINAL further mobile phones as well as CARDINAL ( ORG ) in ORG \u2019s purse . The applicant then threatened to shoot the women should they not disclose where they were keeping any additional money . As a result of his threat PERSON handed over a further LAW which she had kept in the pocket of her jacket . The men then left the apartment with their loot . TIME an acquaintance of PERSON whom she had told about the incident called the police which came to the apartment .","As regards the events on DATE , ORG established that the applicant , acting jointly with several accomplices , CARDINAL of whom were the applicant \u2019s co - accused in the proceedings before the court , robbed another apartment located in PERSON . The men acted according to a plan previously set up among the gang . At the relevant time the apartment was occupied by PERSON and PERSON , CARDINAL NORP nationals who were illegally staying in GPE and working in the apartment as prostitutes . O. and P. were friends of PERSON , one of the victims of the crime committed in GPE on DATE , and they had both worked for some time as prostitutes in the GPE apartment rented by PERSON before moving to PERSON .","In TIME of CARDINAL DATE , DATE before the crime , CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s co - accused together with accomplice NORP passed by O. and P. \u2019s apartment in PERSON with a view to verifying whether the CARDINAL women were its only occupants and whether it contained any valuables . NORP was an acquaintance of NORP and PERSON whom they got to know through their friend PERSON when they had stayed in her apartment in GPE . Hence , the unsuspecting women did not object to the men entering the apartment . Following their visit the CARDINAL men reported to the residual members of the criminal gang that they had spotted a safe in the apartment \u2019s kitchen .","On DATE at TIME the applicant and a further accomplice , PERSON , gained access to O. and P. \u2019s apartment pretending to be potential clients while CARDINAL of the co - accused was waiting in a car parked close to the apartment building and the other co - accused in front of the house . Once inside the apartment B. produced a knife that he had carried along in his jacket . P. , trying to escape from the perpetrators , jumped from the apartment \u2019s balcony located QUANTITY off the ground and ran away . The applicant jumped after her but abandoned the chase after TIME when passers - by appeared nearby on the street . He then called the co - accused waiting in front of the women \u2019s apartment on his mobile phone and gave him an account of the events . He agreed with the latter on a meeting point where the co - accused were supposed to pick him up with the car once accomplice PERSON would have left the crime scene and have joined them . In the meantime inside the apartment , PERSON after having overpowered O. threatened to kill her with his knife should she not disclose where the women kept their money or should she refuse to open the safe for him . Fearing for her life O. opened the safe from which PERSON removed ORG CARDINAL and also handed over the contents of her wallet in the amount of LAW . B. left the apartment at TIME taking the money and P. \u2019s mobile phone as well as the ORG landline phone with him and joined the coaccused . The co - accused and PERSON then picked up the applicant at the agreed meeting point with their car .","At TIME O. at the apartment . The women called their friend PERSON in GPE and gave her a brief account of the events . The next day they also told their neighbour PERSON about the crime . DATE the women , afraid of remaining alone in the PERSON apartment , drove to GPE where they stayed DATE with their friend PERSON Following short subsequent stays in GPE am PERSON and back in PERSON they returned to GPE in DATE .","ORG based its finding of facts regarding the first crime committed in GPE on DATE on the statements made by the victims NORP and NORP on the occasion of their police interrogations as well as in the course of the subsequent trial . Both witnesses had identified the applicant without any hesitation as the perpetrator who had carried the gun when presented with his photo on the occasion of their police interviews and later when confronted with him personally at trial . ORG found PERSON and ORG \u2019s testimonies to be consistent and credible and noted that they were supported by the statements of the police officers who had attended the crime scene and had interviewed PERSON and NORP in the course of the preliminary investigations and who had all been heard as witnesses during the trial .","As regards the establishment of facts in relation to the second crime committed in PERSON ORG relied in particular on pre - trial statements made by the victims O. and P. in the course of police interrogations in the period from DATE and before an investigating judge on DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , dismissing a related objection by the defence , ordered that the records of O. and P. \u2019s interrogations by the police and the investigating judge be read out at the trial and be admitted as evidence in the proceedings in accordance with LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) . The said article provides for such possibility in the event insurmountable impediments make it impossible to hear a witness in the foreseeable future . ORG pointed out in this context that it had not been possible to hear the witnesses in the course of the trial since they had returned to their home country GPE shortly after their interrogations at the investigative stage and all attempts to enable their examination at the main hearing had been to no avail .","ORG specified that O. and P. had been summoned to appear before ORG on DATE , DATE of the trial . However , they both had refused to attend the hearing relying on medical certificates dated DATE that indicated their unstable posttraumatic emotional and psychological condition . Consequently , on CARDINAL DATE the court had sent letters to both witnesses asking under what conditions they would be ready to testify at trial . While an acknowledgement of receipt had been returned for both letters , no response had been obtained from PERSON for her part had informed ORG in writing that due to the fact that she was still traumatised by the crime , she would neither accept to appear at the trial in person nor would she agree to be examined by means of an audio - visual transmission . O. had further mentioned that she had nothing to add to her statements made in the course of the interviews before the police and the investigating judge in DATE .","ORG nevertheless requested legal assistance from the NORP authorities and asked for the witnesses to be heard by a court in GPE and the hearing to be transmitted by voice and image ( audiovisuelle GPE ) . However , a witness hearing scheduled by the competent NORP court for DATE was cancelled shortly before by the presiding NORP judge on the ground that the witnesses , again relying on medical certificates , had demonstrated that they were still suffering from post - traumatic disorders as a consequence of the crime and that a further confrontation with the events in PERSON would risk aggravating their condition . The witnesses had further claimed that following threats by the accused they feared possible acts of revenge .","ORG informed their NORP counterpart by a letter dated DATE that according to the standards of NORP law of criminal procedure the reasons advanced by the witnesses were not sufficiently substantiated to justify their refusal to testify . The court suggested to the competent NORP judge to have the witnesses examined by a public medical officer ( ORG ) and , alternatively , to coerce them to attend the hearing .","As the letter remained unanswered , ORG considered that it did not dispose of any further legal means to enforce a hearing of O. and P. Having further regard to the fact that the recently renewed medical certificates indicated that the ORG state of health would not change any time soon , ORG concluded that it was impossible to have the witnesses examined in the foreseeable future . Pointing out that courts were under an obligation to conduct proceedings involving the deprivation of liberty expeditiously and in view of the fact that the accused had already been held in custody for a considerable period of time , the court was of the opinion that it could not be justified to further delay the proceedings .","Consequently , a further objection against the introduction of the ORG pre - trial statements by counsel of CARDINAL of the co - accused was rejected by ORG and the records of the witnesses\u2019 police interrogations and interviews with the investigative judge were read out during a hearing on DATE .","In its judgment running to CARDINAL pages , ORG pointed out that in assessing the available evidence it had been aware of the reduced evidentiary value of the records of O. and P. \u2019s pre - trial testimonies . It had further taken into account that neither the applicant nor counsel for the defence had been provided with an opportunity to examine the only direct witnesses of the crime in PERSON at any stage of the proceedings . At the time of the last pre - trial interrogation of NORP and P. on DATE , the applicant had not been informed about the preliminary criminal proceedings initiated against him with a view to not putting the investigations at risk . No warrant for his arrest had yet been issued and he had not been represented by counsel . The investigating judge had excluded the applicant from the hearing in accordance with LAW since he had been concerned that the witnesses would be afraid of telling the truth in the presence of the accused . ORG further emphasised that at the investigative stage there had been no indication that O. and PERSON who had testified on several occasions before the police and then before the investigating judge would refuse to repeat their statements at a subsequent trial .","ORG held that notwithstanding the resulting restrictions for the defence , the trial as a whole had been fair and had complied with the requirements of LAW ( d ) of the LAW . The court was thus not prevented from admitting O. and P. \u2019s pre - trial statements as evidence in the proceedings . It had made considerable efforts to enable a direct examination of O. and P. by the accused and counsel for the defence at trial . Moreover , once the witnesses had proved to be unavailable ORG had ensured that a maximum of further witnesses who had been in contact with O. and P. in relation to the events at issue could be heard at trial . Finally , the court had taken several items of evidence as corroborating PERSON and P. \u2019s pre - trial testimonies into account when assessing their evidentiary value .","In ORG opinion the records of O. and P. \u2019s interrogations at the investigative stage showed that they had given detailed and coherent descriptions of the circumstances of the crime . Minor contradictions in their statements could be explained by their concern not to disclose their illegal residence status and activities to the authorities and by the psychological strain they had been subject to during and following the incident . The witnesses had feared problems with the police and acts of revenge by the perpetrators . This explained why the witnesses had not pressed charges immediately after the events and why the police had only been informed of the crime on DATE by their friend PERSON As regards O. and P.\u2019s\u2019 failure to identify the applicant when confronted with several photos of potential suspects during the police interrogations , the court observed that the ORG attention during the incident had been focussed on the further perpetrator carrying the knife and that the applicant himself had only stayed a short period of time in the apartment . Their inability to identify the applicant also showed that the witnesses , as opposed to the defence \u2019s allegations , had not testified with a view to incriminating him .","In the court \u2019s opinion the fact that the detailed description of the events in the ORG pre - trial statements were consistent with the account they had given the TIME after the crime to their neighbour PERSON , who had been heard as a witness during the trial , was a further strong indication for their credibility and the veracity of their statements . This witness had further testified that on TIME of CARDINAL DATE at TIME another neighbour , an elderly woman who got scared when she heard noise coming from O. and P. \u2019s apartment , had called on her and asked her to accompany her to the women \u2019s flat to investigate what had happened . O. and PERSON had , however , not answered the door when the neighbours were ringing the bell .","ORG further observed that O. and P. \u2019s description of the events also coincided with their friend PERSON \u2019s recollection of her conversations with NORP and PERSON following the crime as reproduced during PERSON \u2019s witness hearing at trial . In addition , the police officers and the investigating judge who had examined ORG and PERSON at the pre - trial stage had all testified at trial that they had found the witnesses to be credible .","ORG noted that since neither the defence nor the court itself had had an opportunity to observe the main witnesses\u2019 demeanour at trial or by means of an audio - visual examination , it had to exercise particular diligence in assessing the evaluation of the witnesses\u2019 credibility by the police officers and the investigating judge . The court further emphasised that when taking into account the testimonies given by the ORG neighbour PERSON and their friend PERSON it had paid special attention to the fact that their statements constituted hearsay evidence and had to be assessed particularly carefully .","In this context it had been of relevance that O. and P. \u2019s testimonies as well as the statements of the further witnesses at trial had been supported by further significant and admissible evidence such as data obtained through tapping of the applicant \u2019s and the co - accused \u2019s mobile phones and by means of a satellite - based global positioning system ( \u201c GPS \u201d ) . Such information had been gathered within the scope of police surveillance measures carried out at the relevant time in relation to preliminary criminal proceedings initiated against the accused on suspicion of racketeering and extortion ( ORG ) in the PERSON drug scene . The link between the evidence obtained in the course of such separate investigations and the crime at issue could only be made after NORP and PERSON had reported the incident of CARDINAL DATE to the police . It followed from the recordings of CARDINAL mobile phone conversations between CARDINAL of the co - accused and the applicant in the evening of CARDINAL DATE at TIME and TIME that the latter had been present in the GPE apartment accompanied by PERSON and that he had jumped from the balcony in order to chase one of the escaping victims whom he failed to capture , while PERSON had stayed in the apartment . Furthermore , an analysis of the GPS data showed that the car of CARDINAL of the co - accused had been parked near the crime scene from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. on TIME of CARDINAL DATE , a period that coincided with the time - frame in which the robbery in issue had occurred .","Finally , while the applicant and the co - accused had denied any participation in the robbery as such or any premeditated criminal activity in this respect , their own statements at trial had at least confirmed that CARDINAL of the co - accused together with NORP had visited the apartment at PERSON on TIME before the crime and that the applicant and PERSON had been present in the apartment at the time of the incident the following day . The applicant had testified that he and PERSON had come to the apartment with a view to making use of the women \u2019s services as prostitutes . He further had conceded that he had followed PERSON when she escaped over the balcony and explained that he had done so in order to prevent her from calling the neighbours or the police since he had been afraid of getting problems in view of his criminal record and the problems he had previously had with prostitutes on a similar occasion in GPE .","In the court \u2019s view the body of evidence taken together gave a coherent and complete overall picture of the events that supported the version provided by witnesses NORP and PERSON and refuted the contradictory statements made by the applicant and the co - accused in the course of the trial .","Counsel for the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of ORG in which he complained that the applicant had not been able to examine the only direct witnesses of the crime committed in PERSON at any stage of the proceedings in breach of LAW and CARDINAL ( d ) of the Convention . He argued that such inability had been imputable to the domestic authorities . According to ORG case - law counsel had to be appointed for an unrepresented accused if the key witnesses for the prosecution were to testify before an investigating judge and the accused was excluded from this hearing . However , at the time of the witness hearing the applicant had not even been informed about the preliminary proceedings instituted against him and the public prosecution authorities had not requested that defence counsel be appointed for him . Consequently , ORG and P. \u2019s testimonies ought to have been excluded from the trial .","By written submissions dated DATE ORG ( ORG ) moved that the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law be dismissed by ORG as manifestly ill - founded in written proceedings pursuant to LAW below ) . ORG argued that while it was true that the proceedings had been characterised by a \u201c complete loss \u201d of the applicant \u2019s right to examine O. and PERSON ( \u201c GPE des Fragerechts \u201d ) , they had as a whole been fair and there had been no reason to exclude the witness statements of ORG and P. as evidence . ORG had assessed the contents of the records of the witnesses\u2019 testimonies read out at trial particularly carefully and critically . Furthermore , it had not made their statements the sole or decisive basis of the applicant \u2019s conviction but had taken further significant evidence into account . In view of the various layers of corroborating evidence the applicant had had ample opportunities to put into question the credibility of the CARDINAL main witnesses and to effectively defend himself . ORG , endorsing ORG related arguments , further pointed out that there was nothing to demonstrate that the restrictions to the defence \u2019s right to examine the witnesses had been imputable to the domestic authorities .","By written submissions of DATE the applicant replied to ORG observations and requested ORG to hold a hearing in the appeal proceedings .","By a decision of DATE ORG , referring to CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as manifestly ill - founded .","By written submissions of CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained of a violation of his right to be heard ( Anh\u00f6rungsr\u00fcge ) on the ground that no hearing had been held in the appeal proceedings and that ORG decision rejecting his appeal did not provide any reasons .","In its decision of DATE rejecting the applicant \u2019s complaint ORG pointed out that any decision dismissing an appeal on the basis of LAW implied a reference to the respective reasoning provided by ORG .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint against the decisions of ORG dated DATE and DATE for examination without providing reasons .","It follows from the applicant \u2019s submissions that he has meanwhile left prison and returned to his native country GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183560","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KOLOSYUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150642","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00dcLAY CO\u015eKUN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , the applicant had cardiac surgery in ORG in GPE and her heart valve was replaced by a mechanical valve . The applicant was insured by ORG ( emekli sand\u0131\u011f\u0131 ) and all her medical expenses were covered by the insurance .","Following the operation , the applicant \u2019s heart condition did not improve and she suffered physiologically as a result of a disturbing noise coming from the mechanical heart valve .","In DATE , the applicant found out from the press that the type of mechanical valve used in her operation was banned by ORG because of serious production defects .","Being convinced that she was subjected to negligence , the applicant decided to bring compensation proceedings against ORG , the ORG , ORG and the doctors who operated on her .","NORP In DATE , the applicant applied to ORG and requested MONEY ( TRL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The applicant requested legal aid for the court fees and submitted a certificate attesting to her indigence . On DATE ORG , without giving any specific reason , decided that the applicant did not fulfil the prerequisite to be eligible for legal aid which was required under LAW ORG ) . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the applicant was notified that she had to pay GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) in court fees within DATE in order for the proceedings to continue , and that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings .","The applicant failed to pay the court fees . On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180287","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LISOVAIA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Ledi Bianku;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the material time , the applicant was a student and was undertaking an unpaid internship at a law firm .","On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against ORG , a lawyer with whom the applicant worked , on charges of trading in influence . In particular , PERSON was accused of receiving QUANTITY ( ORG ) from NORP to pass on to the judges examining a criminal case against a relative of NORP \u2019s in order to obtain his acquittal or a more lenient sentence . The applicant had no procedural standing in those proceedings .","On DATE the police lodged with an investigating judge a request for a warrant to search the applicant \u2019s apartment . The request was granted ; the decision to issue the warrant read as follows :","\u201c The criminal investigation against ORG was initiated on DATE ... In the course of the investigation it has been established that from DATE until DATE , T. extorted and received from NORP in several instalments the amount of ORG CARDINAL , [ to be given to ] the judges who examined NORP \u2019s relative \u2019s case , in order to obtain his acquittal or a more lenient sentence .","On DATE T. was caught in flagrante receiving MONEY ( ORG ) from NORP , allegedly for influencing the prosecutor not to appeal against the [ subsequent ] judgment [ acquitting the accused ] .","The evidence in the file and the material obtained through the operational investigation allow the well - founded assumption that at [ the applicant \u2019s ] home , situated at [ address ] , can be found LAW received from NORP and relevant documents ,","Decides","To order a search of [ the applicant \u2019s ] residence , situated at [ address ] , with the aim of finding and seizing LAW received from NORP and documents concerning the criminal case . \u201d","On DATE , a prosecutor lodged a request with ORG for a warrant to be issued for the search of the applicant \u2019s apartment . His request took the form of a verbatim copy of the police decision . Also on DATE the GPE district investigating judge issued a decision authorising the search . The decision read as follows :","\u201c The present criminal proceedings were initiated on DATE ... against T.","After hearing the prosecutor and examining the material , and taking in consideration the fact that that material had been obtained in [ a manner ] in compliance with the law , the court finds that the request for the authorisation of the search is well founded and should be upheld .","On the basis of ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the court :","...","Grants the prosecutor \u2019s request .","Authorises a search of [ the applicant \u2019s ] residence , situated at [ address ] .","NORP [ Declares that ] the decision is final . \u201d","On DATE the police searched the applicant \u2019s apartment in the presence of her elderly mother [ but not the applicant ] . They did not find anything .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for access to the evidence which had been presented to the judge to justify the search . On DATE the ORG district investigating judge replied that the case file was held at the [ premises of ] the investigating authority and that access could only be granted pursuant to the law .","It appears from the material in the case file that the criminal proceedings against T. ended with the latter \u2019s acquittal ."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144902","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"E.B. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a solicitor advocate practising in GPE . The Government were represented by their agent , Ms NORP PERSON , of ORG . Observations on the merits were received from the respondent Government and the applicant and third party observations were received from FAC and ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146778","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CHANYEV v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having murdered Mr S. earlier the same day .","On DATE the investigating judge of ORG of LOC ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE .","On DATE the investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE .","On DATE the indictment in the applicant \u2019s case was approved .","On DATE the indictment and the criminal case file were forwarded by the prosecutor to the court .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested the Head of the Izmail SIZO to release the applicant immediately given that the period of detention ordered by the court had expired on DATE . By a letter of DATE , the Head of the PERSON replied to the applicant \u2019s lawyer that , under LAW , after the forwarding of the criminal case file to the trial court it was for that court to decide on the applicant \u2019s continued detention .","DATE the lawyer complained to the prosecutor about the failure of the prison authorities to release the applicant . In reply to that letter , ORG informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention had been extended in DATE until DATE and that on the latter date the criminal case file against the applicant had been forwarded to the trial court ; the prosecutor \u2019s office therefore considered that the applicant \u2019s rights and interests had not been violated .","On DATE the lawyer submitted a request to the investigating judge for the applicant \u2019s release . He noted that the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention ordered by the judge had expired on DATE and that no decision had been taken on the applicant \u2019s continued detention .","On DATE the investigating judge rejected the above request . With reference to Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , the judge noted that on DATE of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention , that is , on DATE , his criminal case had been referred to the trial court , which had DATE to decide on his continued detention . The judge concluded that there had been no grounds for the applicant \u2019s release on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the NORP ORG upheld the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG of LOC held a preliminary hearing in which it ordered the applicant \u2019s continued detention .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163358","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PETSCHULIES v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . At the time of lodging his application , he had been placed in a supervised residential facility in GPE ( GPE ) . He was subsequently released .","Following CARDINAL convictions for offences including burglary and dangerous assault , in DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of committing offences while in a drunken state . It sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and ordered his detention in a psychiatric hospital under LAW ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) . The court found that the applicant \u2019s criminal responsibility had been diminished at the time of the acts , owing to infantile brain damage combined with drunkenness . He was detained in psychiatric hospitals in GPE and GPE from DATE to DATE .","NORP In DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG of DATE . It convicted the applicant of intentionally committing offences while in a drunken state and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , without ordering his detention in a psychiatric hospital . The court , having regard to the findings of a psychiatric expert and the results of a re - examination of the applicant \u2019s brain by new technical means , found that he did not suffer and had never suffered from a pathological mental disorder . He had therefore not acted with diminished criminal responsibility . The court considered that the applicant did not have infantile brain damage , and although he had an abnormal personality , he was neither a psychopath nor an alcoholic .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of dangerous assault , CARDINAL counts of assault , coercion and CARDINAL counts of attempted coercion . All these offences had been committed DATE and DATE . The court sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and ordered his preventive detention under LAW of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The Hildesheim Regional Court found that the applicant had attacked his victims in a violent manner . The victims had been almost exclusively male and had included schoolchildren . Some had been acquaintances , but others had not been known to the applicant \u2013 people in bars or those who had been randomly chosen on the street . He had either punched his victims in the face , kicked them in the face when they had fallen to the ground or set an NORP dog on them , which had significantly injured the victims by biting them , sometimes on the stomach and neck . He had attacked CARDINAL homeless people whom he did not know with a knife . They had been sleeping in an abandoned building . He had injured the hand , lip , chest and thigh of CARDINAL and the back and finger of another . Objectively , his victims had not provoked any conflict .","The Hildesheim Regional Court , having consulted a psychiatric expert and a psychological expert , found that the applicant had acted with full criminal responsibility at the time most of his offences had been committed , despite his prior consumption of alcohol . Only in relation to CARDINAL of his offences could diminished criminal responsibility as a result of alcohol intoxication not be excluded as a relevant consideration ( Article CARDINAL of LAW , see paragraph DATE below ) . However , the consumption of alcohol had not been the cause of his offences . He did not suffer from any other pathological mental disorder within the meaning of LAW . His personality differed from that of the majority of the population in that he lacked empathy and saw himself as a strong and dominating man , without that difference being of a pathological nature . He had a propensity to commit serious violent offences against others , where the victims were significantly injured .","On DATE , having fully served his term of imprisonment , the applicant was placed in preventive detention for the first time , initially mainly in FAC . In view of another prison sentence he had served , by DATE he had spent DATE in preventive detention . On DATE , ORG ordered that his preventive detention should continue .","NORP On CARDINAL May CARDINAL the Hildesheim District Court convicted the applicant of assault , finding that he had slapped his daughter in the face while under the influence of alcohol while on home leave from detention , and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant served that sentence in DATE .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the detoxification department of ORG . By a decision of DATE ORG then ordered further preventive detention in a psychiatric hospital ( LAW ) rather than in a detoxification facility , as his rehabilitation could be better promoted there . The applicant was then transferred to the psychiatric department of ORG .","The order for the applicant \u2019s continued preventive detention in a psychiatric hospital was subsequently extended . In DATE he was authorised to reside provisionally ( Probewohnen ) in FAC in GPE , a supervised residential facility .","On DATE ORG again ordered the applicant \u2019s continued preventive detention in a psychiatric hospital , under Article CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","ORG considered that the stricter criteria set out by ORG in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE regarding preventive detention beyond the former DATE time - limit during the transitional period lasting until DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) were met in the applicant \u2019s case .","ORG found that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder for the purposes of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which was the cause of his previous offences . Following its own critical review , it endorsed the conclusions about the applicant \u2019s mental condition which S. , an experienced and reliable expert in the field of forensic psychiatry , had drawn in his report dated CARDINAL DATE and supplemented on DATE . The expert had completed his report on the basis of case files , as the applicant had refused an examination . S. had stated that , just as at the time of his offences , the applicant still suffered from a dissocial personality disorder with marked psychopathic elements , as defined by the relevant tool for the classification of diseases , the ICD-CARDINAL ( International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems in its current , revised version ) . This diagnosis had further been confirmed by the applicant \u2019s treating doctors at ORG .","Furthermore , ORG considered that there was a high risk that the applicant , owing to specific circumstances relating to his character and conduct , would commit the most serious violent crimes if released from preventive detention . As had been confirmed by PERSON , there was a danger that he would again threaten the lives of others by attacking them , for instance by kicking his victims in the head or setting a dog on them and inciting it to bite them on the neck and face . That risk was particularly high when the applicant \u2013 whom the expert had concluded abused alcohol without being addicted , as defined by the ICD-CARDINAL \u2013 was drunk . Owing to his dissocial personality disorder , the applicant had hardly any inhibitions with regard to injuring others , as he lacked empathy . As he did not question his own perception of a situation , a misinterpreted situation could lead to his using unlimited force against randomly chosen victims who objectively had not provoked any conflict by their conduct .","ORG further considered that the applicant \u2019s preventive detention was still proportionate . At that time , there was no residential accommodation outside of preventive detention where his conduct could be closely monitored . In view of his conduct , it was already unclear whether he would be permitted to continue residing in his current residential facility in FAC . Having regard to the high risk that the applicant would commit the most serious violent offences upon his release , his preventive detention for a period of DATE was not unreasonable .","ORG confirmed that the applicant \u2019s rehabilitation could still be better promoted by detention in a psychiatric hospital than by placement in a preventive detention facility ( Article CARDINALa \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Even though there had been no substantial change in his disorder , there had been some positive development in that he had started residing provisionally in a supervised residential facility .","On DATE ORG , endorsing the reasons given by ORG , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded .","On DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He claimed that his continued preventive detention in a psychiatric hospital breached his constitutional right to liberty . He argued that the strict criteria for continued preventive detention set out by ORG in its leading judgment of CARDINAL DATE were not met . Having regard to the fact that his offences \u2013 committed under the influence of alcohol \u2013 dated back DATE , that he had not drunk alcohol since then , and that the conditions of his detention had been extensively relaxed , the experts and the courts had not convincingly shown that there was a risk that he would commit a serious violent offence again if released . Moreover , it had not been found by the experts or the domestic courts that his alleged mental disorder had caused the offences in question , nor that he was or had ever been an alcoholic .","On DATE , without giving reasons , ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","From DATE the applicant was authorised to reside provisionally in PERSON in GPE , a supervised residential facility . He received regular visits from staff members from ORG . CARDINAL times a week he was allowed to go shopping in GPE for TIME , and once DATE he was allowed to go to ORG for DATE under escort . The applicant continued his work therapy in ORG . He no longer received any specific treatment for his mental condition or the alcohol abuse with which he had been diagnosed . The aim of his stay in the supervised residential facility was to enable him to cope with the requirements of everyday life by drawing on his own resources .","In DATE the applicant had to return to ORG following conflict with the staff at FAC . From DATE he resided provisionally in FAC , a supervised residential facility in PERSON , with conditions of detention comparable to those in FAC .","In accordance with ORG decision of DATE to terminate his preventive detention , the applicant was released on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178417","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"LUBELSKA FABRYKA MASZYN I NARZEDZI ROLNICZYCH 'PLON' AND OTHERS v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","NORP The facts of the cases , as submitted by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG ) passed the PERSON on the nationalisation of basic branches of the ORG economy ( LOC o przej\u0119ciu na w\u0142asno\u015b\u0107 GPE podstawowych ga\u0142\u0119zi gospodarki narodowej \u2013 \u201c the MONEY \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It provided for the nationalisation of enterprises from CARDINAL branches of industry , regardless of their size . In addition , it concerned all enterprises capable of employing in production CARDINAL people on CARDINAL shift . Owners of the nationalised enterprises were to receive compensation , the amount of which was to be determined by special commissions at a later stage pursuant to a ORG ordinance yet to be enacted ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Only enterprises that belonged to NORP citizens and people who had defected to the enemy were to be taken over by the ORG without payment of compensation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicants in the first CARDINAL cases are limited liability companies and the applicants in the third case are heirs of the former owner of a textile mill . All CARDINAL enterprises were nationalised pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The decisions were given by the Minister for Industry and Trade ( Minister PERSON i GPE ) on the dates stated below and published in ORG ) .","NORP The applicant company was established in DATE and registered in the companies register at ORG under the name GPE PERSON i PERSON Rolniczych \u201c ORG \u201d . In DATE its registered office was transferred to GPE . In DATE its assets included a factory building and CARDINAL hectares of land in GPE . Until DATE it manufactured agricultural machinery and farming equipment .","On DATE the company was nationalised by virtue of a decision of the Minister for ORG ( \u201c the DATE decision \u201d ) , which was published in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE .","On DATE GPE , an heir of GPE , one of the former shareholders of the nationalised company , applied to the Minister for Economy ( Minister PERSON ) for the DATE decision to be declared null and void . He was informed that only the company \u2019s governing body could act for the company . Since by that time all members of the managing board had died , a guardian had to be appointed . On DATE the courtappointed guardian lodged a new application .","On DATE , at a general meeting of the company \u2019s shareholders , it was decided that a winding - up procedure should be initiated and ORG was appointed as a provisional liquidator .","On DATE the Minister for Economy refused the application of DATE , noting firstly that the enterprise in question had been nationalised pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)B of the CARDINAL Act , which provided that industrial enterprises capable of employing in production CARDINAL people on CARDINAL shift were to be taken over by the ORG . Capability of employing was to be understood as meaning \u201c the actual capability of employing \u201d on DATE , the date of entry into force of the CARDINAL Act , taking into consideration the manufacturing machinery available . However , on the basis of the existing documents , the Minister was unable to establish whether the factory had been capable of employing CARDINAL people on CARDINAL shift . For that reason , the Minister obtained an expert report determining the enterprise \u2019s potential employment capacity on CARDINAL shift . It emerged from that report that the enterprise \u2019s actual employment capacity at the material time had been CARDINAL people on CARDINAL shift . The Minister endorsed those findings and concluded that the nationalisation of the company had been lawful , as under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) B of the CARDINAL Act it could be effected in respect of enterprises employing a minimum of CARDINAL people on one shift ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) .","The applicant company applied for the matter to be reconsidered , but on DATE the Minister upheld the original refusal , referring to the reasons given previously . It further held that the DATE decision had not been issued in breach of the law and remained valid .","On DATE the applicant company challenged the above decision on procedural grounds before ORG ( ORG PERSON ) .","NORP On DATE the court dismissed the applicant company \u2019s appeal , holding that the DATE decision had not been issued in breach of the law .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant company .","On DATE the applicant company lodged a claim with ORG seeking compensation ( MONEY ) for the ORG \u2019s failure to issue the relevant ordinance pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act . The claim was based on LAW ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) . The applicant company subsequently changed the legal basis for its claim to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It submitted that the ORG \u2019s tortious liability for legislative omission had arisen before DATE and continued after that date .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s claim . It noted that pursuant to section CARDINAL of the DATE Act owners of nationalised enterprises were to receive compensation within DATE of the date on which a notice of final determination of compensation was served . The compensation was to be in the form of securities and , in exceptional cases , also in cash or other values . The amount was to be determined by special commissions . Despite the fact that the CARDINAL Act contained a clear delegation of legislative powers ( delegacja ustawowa ) , a special ordinance had never been enacted . For those reasons , the commissions had never been formed and the compensation could not have been determined . The impugned legislative omission had occurred in DATE or DATE at the latest . In support of that approach the court referred to ORG resolution of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It also observed that in DATE and DATE the ORG had enacted other ordinances to implement different provisions of LAW .","The court further stressed that the law applicable at the time when the legislative omission had occurred had not imposed tortious liability on the ORG . That situation had not changed when LAW had entered into force in DATE . Consequently , before the date of entry into force of LAW had not been liable for legislative omission . The situation had not changed after that date since LAW could not be considered an independent basis for vindicating that type of claim . The plaintiff \u2019s claim could have been based on LAW since that provision concerned ORG tortious liability for failure to enact legislation . However , section CARDINAL of LAW precluded its application in respect of all events and legal situations that had subsisted before DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the present case , the impugned legislative omission had occurred by DATE at the latest . It was true that it had continued since , however , in deciding which legal provisions were applicable , regard had to be had to the date when the legal situation had begun and not whether it had continued . Consequently , since LAW had not been introduced until DATE , it did not apply to events and situations that had subsisted before its entry into force .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant company , referring to the same grounds as ORG . It held that the obligation to enact an ordinance pursuant to section CARDINAL of the DATE Act had arisen at the time when that LAW had entered into force and the legislative omission had occurred by DATE at the latest , by which time other ordinances had been enacted . However , the legislative omission could not have given rise to the ORG \u2019s tortious liability since that liability had not been introduced until DATE .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant company . It observed at the outset that the main issue in the case was whether ORG was liable pursuant to LAW for damage caused after DATE by failure to enact a legal act , if such an obligation was provided by LAW and the ORG authority had failed to comply with it even after DATE .","ORG held that there was no doubt that under section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW had been obliged to enact an ordinance . It was further not contested by the parties\u2019 that that duty had not been complied with .","In its reasoning ORG had regard to the following . Firstly , until DATE , the date of entry into force of LAW , the law had not imposed liability on ORG for damage caused by legislative omission . Secondly , LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) should have been interpreted narrowly , so that the ORG was liable only for \u201c an act \u201d and not \u201c failure to act \u201d . Consequently , there was no constitutional right to compensation for legislative omission . Thirdly , the legislature had introduced LAW to LAW in order to tighten the rules governing the ORG \u2019s civil liability . Fourthly , LAW unequivocally precluded the application of LAW in respect of events and legal situations that had subsisted before DATE . Fifthly , the ORG was liable for legislative omission only if there was a legal duty to enact ( under an act or the LAW ) . Such an obligation could not be derived from judicial interpretation . Sixthly , there was no legislative omission if the legislature had enacted a law but it was incomplete or flawed . Lastly , the ORG \u2019s civil liability for damage caused by legislative omission arose only when there was a direct causal link ( adekwatny zwi\u0105zek przyczynowy ) between the legal provision and the ( legislative ) omission .","NORP The court concluded essentially reiterating the grounds stated in the DATE Resolution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that the impugned legislative omission had occurred in DATE or DATE at the latest and had continued since . However , LAW CARDINAL of the LAW could not be considered a legal basis for a claim deriving from an \u201c omission \u201d by public authorities since that provision clearly only covered their \u201c acts \u201d . The provisions of DATE , enabling a plaintiff to seek compensation for legislative omission , had only been introduced on DATE , by virtue of LAW . The terms of LAW were unambiguous : DATE of LAW did not apply to events and situations that had subsisted before its entry into force . Consequently , its operation was precluded in respect of legislative omissions that originated in facts that had occurred earlier , even if that state of affairs continued to exist to DATE .","The applicant company was established in DATE and registered in the companies register at ORG under the name \u201c FAC Przedsi\u0119biorstwo PERSON . z o. o. Its assets included the \u201c PERSON \u201d crude oil mine in GPE and leased petroleum fields . Until DATE it carried out the activities described in its articles of association , namely searching for potential underground crude oil , natural gas fields and other minerals , drilling exploratory wells , constructing and operating workshops , constructing and operating refining facilities and carrying out all other activities related to the petroleum industry .","On DATE the company was nationalised by virtue of a decision of the Minister for ORG ( \u201c the DATE decision \u201d ) , which was published in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE .","On DATE the Minister for Economy refused an application by the applicant company for the DATE decision to be declared null and void . The applicant company applied for the matter to be reconsidered , but on DATE the Minister upheld the original refusal . The applicant company appealed against that decision .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE on procedural grounds .","On DATE the Minister for Economy once again refused to declare the DATE decision null and void . The Minister examined the documents available and concluded that the applicant company had been nationalised in accordance with the applicable legal provisions in force at the material time . In so far as the applicant company alleged that it had not received any compensation , the Minister noted that nationalisation was not conditional upon payment of compensation . Compensation for nationalised property was to be paid later , after expropriation . The procedure for payment and the amount was to be regulated by means of secondary legislation enacted at a later stage . However , to the present day no legal provisions on the matter had been enacted .","On an unknown date the applicant company challenged the above decision before ORG .","On DATE it dismissed the applicant company \u2019s complaint , finding that the DATE decision remained valid as it had not been issued in breach of the law . It further held that the fact that the applicant company had not received any compensation for the nationalised property did not mean that the DATE decision had been null and void .","The judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant company , acting through its guardian , lodged a claim with ORG seeking compensation for the ORG \u2019s failure to issue the relevant ordinance pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act .","On DATE it rejected the claim on procedural grounds on the basis that a guardian could not act in a company \u2019s name if there were shortcomings in the composition of its governing bodies .","Following an appeal , the court set several additional time - limits in order to amend the composition of the applicant company \u2019s governing bodies .","On DATE it discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant company failed to submit an excerpt from the companies register .","On DATE the applicant company applied to amend the companies register . The proceedings were terminated by ORG on DATE .","The applicant company submitted that in view of the consistent case - law of ORG and , in particular , the judgment given in the first case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , a civil claim for compensation had lacked any prospects of success .","The ORG predecessor owned a textile mill in ORG . In DATE the business consisted of a factory building of QUANTITY m. and weaving machinery , including numerous power looms ( DATE , according to various documents ) . Shortly before the Second World War the factory operated under the name ORG Mechaniczna Tkalnia Zarobkowa Pabianice .","On CARDINAL DATE the company was nationalised by virtue of a decision of ORG ( \u201c the DATE decision \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicants applied to the Minister for Economy for the DATE decision to be declared null and void .","On DATE the Minister for Economy refused the applicants\u2019 application of DATE . The Minister held that , according to the documents available , in particular an inventory dated DATE , the textile mill had had CARDINAL power looms . Pursuant to a ORG ordinance of DATE cotton textile mills which had CARDINAL power looms were to be considered \u201c large and medium - sized textile industry \u201d . Consequently , the applicants\u2019 property had been taken over in accordance with the law as applicable at the material time and the DATE decision remained valid .","NORP The applicants applied for the matter to be reconsidered . They relied in particular on the provisions of LAW and LAW , complaining that they had not received any compensation for the nationalised property .","On DATE the Minister for Economy upheld its previous decision , referring to the grounds already given . The Minister further noted that , under the relevant provisions of LAW , it could only examine the validity of the decision .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG gave judgment and dismissed an appeal by the applicants . The court held that the DATE decision had been issued in accordance with the law . In so far as the applicants alleged that they had not received any compensation , the court stressed that under the DATE Act nationalisation was not conditional upon payment of compensation . Compensation for nationalised property was to be paid later and determined by special compensation commissions . The composition of the commissions , the rules for the appointment of their members and the rules of procedure were to be determined by an ordinance issued by the ORG . However , to the present day the ORG had not yet issued an ordinance on the organisation of the compensation commissions and the determination of compensation referred to in section DATE ) and ( CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicants . It reiterated the findings made by ORG and confirmed that the DATE decision had been given in accordance with the law . The judgment was served on the applicants\u2019 lawyer on DATE .","Following the establishment of the communist regime in GPE nearly all branches of industry , as well as banking , insurance , transport and commercial companies were taken over by the ORG under LAW . LAW stated that the purposes of nationalisation were as follows :","\u201c In order to ensure the planned rebuilding of the ORG economy , the economic sovereignty of the ORG and to foster general well - being , the ORG shall take over ownership of enterprises under the conditions laid down in this law . \u201d","Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , only those industrial , mining , transport , banking , insurance and commercial enterprises that belonged to ORG and the former GPE of Gda\u0144sk , their citizens ( except for those of NORP or other nationalities who had been persecuted by the NORP ) , NORP and ORG legal entities ( except for those set up under public law ) , companies controlled by NORP or ORG citizens or administration or those owned by persons who had defected to the enemy were to be taken over by the ORG without payment of compensation .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( as amended ) states that the owners of the remaining enterprises were to be compensated for their nationalised property . The relevant part of the provision reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The ORG shall compensate [ owners ] for taking over ownership of the following :","A. ORG and industrial enterprises in the following sectors of the State economy :","( CARDINAL ) mines and mining leases subject to mining law ;","( CARDINAL ) [ the ] oil and gas industry , including mines , refineries , gasoline production and other processing plants , gas pipes and [ the ] synthetic fuel industry ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP companies that generate , process , transmit or distribute electricity ... ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP companies that generate , process , transmit or distribute gas ... ;","( CARDINAL ) water supply companies serving CARDINAL municipality ... ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP steelworks and non - ferrous metals smelting plants ;","( CARDINAL ) [ the ] arms , aviation and explosives industry ;","( CARDINAL) coking plants ;","( CARDINAL ) sugar factories and refineries ;","( CARDINAL ) industrial distilleries , spirit refineries and vodka production plants ;","( CARDINAL ) breweries with an annual output exceeding CARDINAL hectolitres ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP yeast production plants ;","( CARDINAL ) grain plants with a DATE output exceeding QUANTITY of grain ... ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP oil plants with an annual output exceeding QUANTITY and all refineries of edible fats ;","( CARDINAL ) cold stores ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP large and medium - sized textile industry ;","( CARDINAL ) [ the ] printing industry and printing houses ;","...","B. Industrial enterprises not listed in subsection \u201c A \u201d if they are capable of employing in production CARDINAL persons on CARDINAL shift .","...","C.","( CARDINAL ) ORG enterprises ( standard gauge and narrow - gauge railways , electric railways and aviation transport enterprises ) ;","( CARDINAL ) ORG enterprises ( telephone , telegraph and radio enterprises ) . \u201d","Section CARDINAL lays down the general principles for the payment of compensation for nationalised property . The relevant parts state as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The owner of an enterprise whose ownership has been taken over by the ORG ( section CARDINAL ) shall receive compensation from ORG within DATE of the date on which a notice of final determination of the amount of compensation is served on him .","Such compensation shall in principle be paid in securities ; however , in exceptional and economically justified cases it may also be paid in cash or other values .","The amount of compensation due shall be determined by special commissions . The persons concerned shall have the right to participate in proceedings before those commissions . If need be and in any event if requested to do so by the persons concerned , the commission shall appoint appropriate experts .","NORP The composition of the commissions , the rules for the appointment of their members , the quorum , the rules of procedure before the commissions and rules for appealing against their decisions shall be determined by an ordinance issued by the ORG .","The following factors shall be taken into account in determining compensation :","( a ) general deterioration of the value of the ORG property ;","( b ) the net value of the commercial property on the date of nationalisation ;","( c ) deterioration of the value of the enterprise caused by war losses or losses incurred by the enterprise in connection with the war and occupation in the period from DATE to the date of nationalisation ;","d ) the amount of expenditure after DATE ;","e ) special circumstances affecting the value of the enterprise ( concession terms , licences etc . ) .","A ORG ordinance shall determine detailed rules governing the calculation of compensation , assessment of the circumstances listed in subsection CARDINAL and means of payment of compensation ( subsection CARDINAL ) and depreciation of securities . \u201d","Pursuant to section CARDINAL , the ORG and the relevant Ministers are entrusted with the implementation of LAW . However , from CARDINAL DATE , the date of entry into force of LAW , to the DATE the ORG have not issued an ordinance on the organisation of the compensation commissions and the determination of compensation referred to in section DATE ) and ( CARDINAL ) .","Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the Civil Code provide for the ORG \u2019s liability in tort . In the version applicable until DATE , Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , which lays down a general rule , read as follows :","\u201c The State Treasury shall be liable for damage caused by a ORG official in the performance of the duties entrusted to him . \u201d","On DATE the Law of DATE on amendments to LAW and other statutes ( LOC o zmianie ustawy \u2013 ORG cywilny oraz niekt\u00f3rych innych ustaw \u2212 \u201c LAW \u201d ) entered into force . The relevant amendments were in essence aimed at widening the scope of ORG liability in tort under LAW of LAW , including the addition of a new LAW being made for the ORG \u2019s tortious liability for failure to enact legislation , a concept known as \u201c legislative omission \u201d ( zaniechanie legislacyjne ) .","Following LAW , the relevant part of DATE , reads as follows :","\u201c If damage has been caused by failure to enact a law [ akt normatywny ] where there is a statutory duty to do so , the incompatibility of the failure to enact that law shall be established by the court dealing with the claim for compensation . \u201d","However , under the transitional provisions of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL LAW , Article CARDINAL as applicable before DATE applies to all events and legal situations that subsisted before that date .","The concept of the ORG \u2019s civil liability for a constitutional tort was introduced into the NORP legal order on DATE , the date of entry into force of the DATE LAW . The relevant part of LAW states as follows :","\u201c Everyone shall have the right to compensation for any harm done to him by any act of a public authority in breach of the law . \u201d","In its resolution of CARDINAL DATE ( \u201c the DATE Resolution \u201d ) , ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , dealt with the following legal questions submitted to it by ORG of Appeal :","\u201c Is ORG liable for damage caused by failure to enact a law if the duty to enact that law , laid down in section DATE ) and ( CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] was not fulfilled until the date of entry into force of [ DATE LAW ] , and , if so ,","when should this duty have been performed and did compensation for failure to enact the above law correspond to unreceived compensation for the enterprise nationalised by the ORG , determined in accordance with the principles laid down in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] ? \u201d","The question arose in the context of a case brought by a certain ORG , who sought compensation for the nationalisation of her family \u2019s printing house and , as a basis for her claim , invoked LAW , relying on the ORG \u2019s legislative omission consisting of its failure to issue the relevant ordinance . ORG answer in the operative part of the resolution reads :","\u201c Until the date of entry into force of [ LAW ] the ORG \u2019s failure to issue an ordinance pursuant to section DATE ) and ( CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] did not constitute a basis for a claim by an owner of a nationalised enterprise for compensation for [ nationalisation ] . \u201d","The resolution contains extensive reasoning , the main thrust of which reads as follows :","\u201c [ As regards the timeframe for the issue of the ordinance ] , the determination of the beginning of that situation carries with it a certain element of arbitrariness since [ LAW ] does not lay down any term within which the ordinance referred to in section [ CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) should be issued . Assuming that in general the absence of a term is tantamount to a duty to enact a law without undue delay , it can be considered that the discharge of the statutory authorisation , assuming the existence of willingness of the authorised body ( the ORG ) should have taken place in DATE or DATE at the latest . This is supported by the fact that the ORG issued ordinances implementing other provisions ( including section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , a fundamental provision for the interest of the ORG ) .","[ As regards the ORG \u2019s civil liability for legislative omission ] , ... it should be concluded that before the entry into force of the CARDINAL Constitution the State had not been liable under civil law for the consequences of its legislative inactivity ...","DATE , marking the entry into force of the LAW , is the relevant date as its constitutes the beginning of the existence in the legal order of , inter alia , LAW , proclaiming the right of \u201c everyone \u201d to compensation for any harm done to him by any act of a public authority in breach of the law ...","Assuming that LAW does not contain a provision making it possible to draw from it a direct basis for a claim for compensation for the legislature \u2019s inactivity , it must be said that the rules for the ORG \u2019s liability in the sphere of law - making should be established by means of an ordinary statute , determining in a more detailed manner than LAW premises for an effective claim ...","Article DATE \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , as introduced by [ LAW ] , satisfies the requirement of detailed LOC . The relevant temporal consequences are clearly set out in DATE , evidently indicating the prospective operation of DATE \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . A formulation laying down the non - retroactive nature of the provision is telling in that it refers to \u201c events and legal situations that subsisted before its entry into force \u201d ... In consequence , the assessment of the effects of legislative omission subsisting DATE was governed by [ earlier provisions ] . The relevant LAW , in the version before the amendment , did not include legislative omission as it was based on a completely different premise , namely , the absence of the ORG \u2019s civil liability for the legislature \u2019s acts ... \u201d","On DATE the ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , adopted a resolution in reply to a legal question submitted by ORG . It held in particular that legislative omission causing the ORG \u2019s liability for damage only occurred when a legal act had not been enacted despite an obligation arising from a legal provision ( the LAW or another act ) . However , that obligation had to be expressed in a clear and unequivocal manner , excluding the possibility of it having to be determined in the process of judicial interpretation ; such practice could be considered an interference with the legislature \u2019s competences .","In a resolution of CARDINAL DATE the ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , dealt with the following legal question submitted by the Ombudsman :","\u201c Is ORG liable for damage caused by legislative omission , if the legislature \u2019s inactivity subsisted before DATE ? \u201d","The ORG argued in his pleadings that judicial practice on the matter was unclear . ORG answer in the operative part of the resolution reads as follows :","\u201c ORG is liable for damage caused by failure to enact a legal act , if the obligation to enact that act arose after the date of entry of LAW [ DATE ] . \u201d","ORG referred to its DATE resolution , noting that that approach had been endorsed in its subsequent judgments of DATE ( no . ICSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and DATE ( no . ICSK DATE ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the latter case the court also held that LAW CARDINAL of the LAW could not be considered a legal basis for a claim deriving from an \u201c omission \u201d by public authorities . A similar approach was adopted in a judgment of DATE ( no . I CSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The court concluded that it was irrelevant when the damage actually happened or whether it had increased in time , but if the legislative omission occurred before DATE , Articles CARDINAL and DATE of LAW could not be relied on .","The Constitutional Court ( PERSON ) on many occasions confirmed that a situation occurring before the entry into force of the LAW could not be a basis for a claim under LAW for compensation for the unlawful action of a public authority . In particular , the ORG gave such a ruling in judgments of DATE ( K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and DATE ( ORG CARDINAL ) , as well as in decisions of DATE ( Ts CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and DATE ( Ts CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the Constitutional Court heard a constitutional complaint lodged by the company GPE w ORG sp\u00f3\u0142ka akcyjna , challenging the constitutionality of section CARDINAL of LAW in so far as it precluded the application of DATE of LAW in situations that had subsisted before the entry into force of LAW on DATE . The claimant invoked , in particular , Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( right to compensation for the unlawful action of a public authority ) read in conjunction with Articles CARDINAL ( rule of law ) , QUANTITY and CARDINAL ( right of ownership ) read in conjunction with LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( protection of ownership ) and LAW ( equality before the law ) and LAW ( right of fair trial ) of LAW .","The relevant part of ORG decision ( no . ORG CARDINAL ) reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... ORG held that the authorisation included in section CARDINAL of the [ CARDINAL Act ] not only referred to a regulation in a legal act ( akt podstawowy ) of the fundamental guarantees of property law which \u2013 in accordance with current constitutional standards \u2013 could not be accepted but also did not include any instructions as to the content of an ordinance which was to be enacted DATE . Consequently , in the light of the provisions of the LAW it is difficult to assume that non - fulfilment of the duty to enact an ordinance on compensation for nationalised property derived from [ the CARDINAL LAW ] amounted to \u201c [ an ] unlawful action of a public authority \u201d for which the LAW imposes liability on the ORG . Even if the state of legislative omission still persists , it should at the same time be concluded that the duty is non - enforceable . Thus , it is evident that on the basis of the laws applicable only a statute could regulate compensation for the claimant \u2019s nationalised property . Even so , potential validation ( konwalidacja ) of section CARDINAL of the [ CARDINAL LAW ] authorising the enactment of an ordinance would have required a statute . ORG is not competent to authorise this . Accordingly , ORG considers that the assumption that an \u201c unlawful \u201d legislative omission still continues is unwarranted , particularly after the entry into force of the LAW , and in the light of the standards therein . Moreover , in view of the declaratory nature of that authorisation it is not possible to conceive what criteria the [ civil ] court should use DATE to determine the amount of compensation due to former owners of property nationalised in DATE . In summarising this part of the analysis , ORG considered that declaring section CARDINAL of LAW unconstitutional in so far as it precluded the application of the amended provisions of LAW in situations which concerned a failure to enact an ordinance and which arose in the pre - constitutional period and which also continued after LAW entered into force ( the direct application of a new statute ) would not have changed the legal situation of the applicant in the desired sense . In the light of current constitutional standards , it is difficult to accept that the duty imposed on the ORG by section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act has any legal effect . Consequently , it could not be established that there was an \u201c unlawful action of a public authority \u201d within the meaning of LAW .","On a passing note , the ORG noticed that in reality the only temporal rule which would have satisfied the applicant , that is would have given rise to compensation , would have had to be phrased : anyone who has suffered damage as a result of a failure to enact a legal act , notwithstanding when it has occurred and notwithstanding the existence of a current obligation to enact a legal act , may request [ the damage ] to be redressed in accordance with the new provisions , namely LAW . A legal rule of this content would not only be contrary to the rule lex retro non agit , but would also appear to be unacceptable to the rational legislator . It is also absolutely clear that such far - reaching ORG liability could not be derived from LAW , which was also demonstrated above in LAW . ORG stresses that LAW forms part of the legal system and is meant to introduce new civil law provisions into that system . These provisions , on the other hand , were meant to fulfil the legislator \u2019s wish expressed in LAW . LAW must respect the rules of constitutional order from which it derives its strength . It can not therefore be given another meaning which would allow it to achieve objectives not provided for by LAW . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the CAP \u201d ) ( ORG post\u0119powania administracyjnego ) sets out the grounds on which a final administrative decision may be annulled :","\u201c CARDINAL . A public administration authority shall declare a decision null and void if :","( CARDINAL ) it has been issued in breach of the rules governing competence ;","( CARDINAL ) it has been issued without legal basis or in flagrant breach of the law ;","( CARDINAL ) concerns a case already decided by means of another final decision ;","( CARDINAL ) it has been addressed to a person who is not a party to the case ;","( CARDINAL ) it was unenforceable on the date of its issuance and its unenforceability is of a permanent nature ;","( CARDINAL ) it would give rise to a punishable offence in the event that it has been enforced ;","( CARDINAL ) it has a flaw making it null and void by the force of law . \u201d","There is no time - limit for a party to lodge a request to have an administrative decision declared null and void under LAW .","Article CARDINAL sets out the principles for compensation for loss caused by the issuance of an administrative decision subsequently annulled on the grounds listed in Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL .","It was repealed by LAW with effect from DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) and replaced by new LAW . However , under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL LAW , which sets out transitional rules , Article CARDINAL , in the version applicable on the repeal date , still applies to \u201c events and legal situations \u201d that subsisted before the entry into force of the CARDINAL LAW .","In DATE the Government introduced in ORG the PERSON on the restitution of immovable property and certain kinds of movable property taken from natural persons by the ORG or by GPE , and on indemnities ( ORG ustawy o reprywatyzacji nieruchomo\u015bci i niekt\u00f3rych ruchomo\u015bci QUANTITY przej\u0119tych przez Pa\u0144stwo lub gmin\u0119 miasta sto\u0142ecznego Warszawy oraz o rekompensatach ) .","DATE . It provided for CARDINAL forms of restitution , namely restitution in natura or indemnity in the form of securities , with regard to property that had been taken over by the ORG or by GPE by virtue of certain laws passed under the communist regime , including the Decree on agrarian reform and the Decree on the nationalisation of certain forests . The bill prescribed the eligibility conditions for restitution . It further stipulated that restitution would be equal to PERCENT of the actual value of the lost property .","The bill provoked a heated debate involving all sections of society , the media and all political parties and factions . It was enacted by ORG on DATE and the relevant PERSON of ORG transmitted to the President of the Republic for signature . However , exercising his right of veto , he refused to sign it .","Ultimately , the PERSON ( lower house of the NORP parliament ) failed to gather the CARDINAL majority required under LAW to override the President \u2019s veto during a vote on DATE . As a consequence , LAW did not enter into force .","Subsequent attempts to enact restitution law were unsuccessful ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158739","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SEYFETT\u0130N G\u00dcNE\u015e v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a sentence in Batman prison .","NORP In DATE the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of ORG , an illegal organisation . He claimed to have been arrested on DATE , whereas according to the arrest report he was taken into custody on DATE . His first medical examination upon his arrest was , however , carried out on DATE .","The examination was carried out by a doctor at the request of the police . According to the medical report issued in respect of the applicant , it was conducted prior to his detention in police custody . The report stated that there was old scar tissue measuring QUANTITY on his upper right wrist . The doctor also noted that there were no signs of violence on the applicant \u2019s body .","On DATE a second medical report was drafted , according to which the scar tissue mentioned in the medical report of DATE was QUANTITY long .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by the police without a lawyer being present . According to the document containing his statements to the police , he acknowledged being a member of ORG .","On DATE , at the end of his detention in police custody , the applicant was once again examined by a doctor . According to the report , there were no signs of violence on his body .","On DATE the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and , subsequently , a judge , who questioned him and recorded his statements . On both occasions he denied the veracity of his statements to the police , claiming that he had signed them under duress . The judge remanded him in custody .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment against the applicant and a number of other individuals . They were charged with being members of ORG under LAW .","On DATE ORG held the first hearing on the merits of the case , at which the applicant gave evidence . He maintained , inter alia , that while in police custody , he had been beaten and given electric shocks to his genitals . He also told the court that he had been taken into police custody on DATE .","On DATE the applicant once again maintained before the firstinstance court that his statements to the police had been obtained under torture .","In DATE ORG were abolished . The case against the applicant was transferred to ORG .","On DATE the applicant was released pending trial .","On DATE the case against the applicant and his coaccused was joined with another case brought against a number of other people charged with being members of ORG .","DATE and DATE the applicant did not attend court , although during this period his lawyers attended some hearings on his behalf .","On DATE , during the final hearing in the case , the applicant \u2019s lawyer contended that the court should not base its judgment on the applicant \u2019s statements to the police , as they had been made under duress .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of being a member of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court noted that he had alleged that he had been tortured in police custody . It nevertheless based its judgment on the statements the applicant and a number of the other accused had made to the police , and documents found in the applicant \u2019s house at the time of his arrest .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged an appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which did not refer to any of the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment while in police custody .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .","On DATE the applicant began serving his sentence .","On DATE he filed a petition with the Batman public prosecutor \u2019s office , requesting that an investigation be initiated into his illtreatment while in police custody in DATE .","On DATE the applicant gave statements to the Batman public prosecutor . He maintained that he had not been taken into police custody on DATE but on DATE , and that he had been subjected to torture while detained . He requested that both the police officers on duty at the relevant time and the doctors who had issued the medical reports be prosecuted .","On an unspecified date the Batman public prosecutor requested the ORG branch of ORG to examine the applicant and provide an opinion as to whether his allegations of torture were wellfounded .","On DATE a doctor from the ORG branch of ORG conducted the examination . The applicant told the medical expert that he had been hung by his wrists in police custody , and that they had been bruised at the material time . The doctor drafted a detailed report comparing the results of the CARDINAL medical reports issued in DATE and containing his opinion . He considered that the term \u201c old scar tissue \u201d should not have been used in the reports issued in DATE , since such scars did not fade for a long time . In this connection , the doctor noted that he could not see any such scar when he examined the applicant in DATE . In sum , the doctor considered that had the scar observed during the medical examinations in DATE been an \u201c old scar \u201d , it would still have been observed during the examination of DATE . He also noted that the reports issued in DATE had not described the type , colour or any other features of the scar . Lastly , he recommended that the applicant undergo an examination at ORG in GPE with a view to establishing whether he had been suffering any psychiatric problems as a result of the alleged torture .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the officers on duty at the Batman police station at the relevant time or the CARDINAL doctors who had issued the medical reports on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . The public prosecutor noted that the statutory time - limit provided in LAW ( which had been in force in DATE for prosecutions for torture ) was DATE , and that the applicant had lodged his complaint after this time - limit had expired . It was accordingly concluded that the investigation was timebarred .","On DATE the applicant objected to that decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed his objection and the decision was upheld .","On DATE , while the applicant was in custody , his hip was broken while he was playing volleyball . He had surgery twice .","In medical reports dated DATE , DATE and DATE , doctors from ORG concluded that for him to make a full recovery , he would need to have a hip replacement .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant filed petitions with the Batman public prosecutor , requesting immediate surgery and complaining of a delay in treatment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father submitted another petition to ORG requesting immediate intervention .","A prosthetic hip was implanted after CARDINAL consecutive operations carried out on unspecified dates in DATE or DATE . On DATE the applicant was declared unfit for military service because of the prosthesis ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161416","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RASUL JAFAROV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":2,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 18+5-1-c - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a well - known civil society activist and human rights defender . He is the Chairman and CARDINAL of the co - founders of ORG , a non - governmental organisation ( NGO ) specialising in the protection of human rights . ORG was established in DATE and has made several unsuccessful attempts to obtain State registration by ORG in order to obtain legal entity status under domestic law . The authorities\u2019 refusal to register ORG is the subject of another application pending before ORG ( see application no . CARDINAL ) . The applicant has collaborated with other NGOs in GPE on various projects . He is also a member of ORG of ORG ) .","The applicant has been involved in the preparation of various reports relating to human rights issues in GPE . He has also been involved in promoting the adoption of ORG of ORG PACE ) report on political prisoners in GPE , and has been working on a consolidated list of political prisoners to be presented to ORG . He has been a speaker at ORG and ORG ( ORG ) events , and has submitted shadow reports to ORG institutions .","The applicant also coordinated the Sing for Democracy campaign ( later renamed ORG ) during and after the Eurovision Song Contest CARDINAL in GPE , which aimed at drawing attention to human rights violations in GPE .","During the DATE session of the PACE the applicant presented a report on human rights violations in GPE at ORG .","NORP In DATE a number of human rights activists , lawyers , politicians , journalists and other government critics have been arrested and\/or charged with various criminal offences . Those arrests generated wide publicity and were condemned by a number of international organisations , NGOs and prominent individuals ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings under Articles CARDINAL ( abuse of power ) and CARDINAL ( forgery by an official ) of LAW in connection with alleged irregularities in the financial activities of a number of NGOs .","While the applicant was away in GPE from DATE ORG ordered a freezing injunction in respect of his bank accounts on DATE .","On DATE , while travelling by train from GPE to GPE , the applicant was stopped during checks at the NORP - Georgian border . He was informed that he could not leave the country because a travel ban had been imposed on him on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was invited to ORG , where he was questioned as a witness in connection with the above - mentioned criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE searches were conducted at ORG , and a number of documents , mainly related to book - keeping and finance , were seized .","On DATE the applicant was again invited to ORG for questioning as a witness . On his arrival at the LOC he was arrested and formally charged under ORG DATE ( illegal entrepreneurship ) , CARDINAL ( large - scale tax evasion ) and CARDINAL ( abuse of power ) of LAW . The description of charges consisted of a single sentence which was CARDINAL page long . In particular , it was noted that since DATE the applicant , as co - founder and Chairman of ORG , an \u201c organisation lacking ORG registration \u201d , and as a project manager in an ORG named ORG , had received a number of grants from GPE ORG ) , various branches of ORG ( ORG ) , GPE \u2019s PERSON and other donor organisations , pursuant to relevant grant agreements . He was accused of acquiring profit , \u201c by paying money to himself and other people involved in the projects in the guise of salaries and service fees \u201d in the amount of CARDINAL NORP new manats ( AZN ) , having acquired that money through , \u201c illegal entrepreneurial activity in respect of grants which , as an official , he had failed to register with the relevant executive authority , even though he had a professional obligation to do so \u201d . He was also accused of avoiding payment of taxes under LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in the amount of AZN CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , thus causing , \u201c significant damage to ORG interests protected by law , bringing about grave consequences \u201d .","On DATE , DATE , ORG , relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor \u2019s application for the preventive measure of remand in custody , ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE . The court justified the decision as follows :","\u201c Taking into account the gravity of the criminal offences of which the applicant is accused and the possibility of him disrupting the normal course of the investigation by unlawfully influencing people involved in the proceedings or absconding from the investigation if he remains at liberty , the court considers that the preventive measure of remanding him in custody must be applied in his case . \u201d","On DATE ORG made a public statement which noted that the applicant had been charged under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW because there was a suspicion that he had committed the criminal offences set out in the abovementioned ORG .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the detention order . He argued that there was no \u201c reasonable suspicion \u201d that he had committed a criminal offence , and that his detention was a punishment for carrying out activities which were protected by the LAW . He further argued that the court had failed to provide any relevant reasons as to the applicability of grounds which could justify his detention . In particular , as to the risk of absconding , the applicant pointed out that the factual circumstances indicated that there was no such risk . He submitted that he had cooperated with the investigating authorities from the very beginning by appearing for questioning and producing documents whenever he had been required to do so , and that he had returned to the country from a trip to GPE knowing that he was under investigation . As to the risk of disrupting the investigation , the applicant argued that the existence of such a risk had not been substantiated . He argued that , on the contrary , he had given to the authorities originals of all documents which could be relevant to the investigation , and therefore was not in a position to tamper with the evidence .","On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of CARDINAL DATE without addressing any of the applicant \u2019s arguments .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG , requesting the substitution of remand with either house arrest or release on bail . Among other things , the applicant highlighted the factual circumstances which supported his argument for less restrictive measures , including the fact that he had returned to the country from GPE knowing that he was under investigation and had complied with all orders to produce documents and appear for questioning , and that he , as a human rights defender , was a respected public figure with strong ties to the community .","On DATE ORG rejected his application , finding that the grounds justifying his detention , as specified in its decision of CARDINAL DATE , \u201c had not ceased to exist \u201d .","On DATE the applicant appealed , reiterating his arguments in detail . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention by DATE ( to DATE ) , finding that the grounds justifying his continued detention , \u201c had not ceased to exist \u201d .","On DATE the applicant appealed , reiterating his previous arguments .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , upholding the extension decision of DATE and providing the same reasoning as the first - instance court .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant applied to ORG , requesting the substitution of remand with house arrest . On DATE ORG rejected his application , finding that the grounds justifying his detention , as specified in its decisions of DATE and DATE , \u201c had not ceased to exist \u201d .","On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG decision of DATE , reiterating his arguments in detail . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .","No further decisions extending the applicant \u2019s detention are available in the case file .","On DATE ORG charged the applicant under ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( high - level embezzlement ) and CARDINAL of LAW , in addition to the original charges under ORG DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The description of the allegations against him was slightly expanded , but essentially remained the same as that given on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , with additional information alleging that the applicant had falsified various pieces of paperwork and minor contracts for services provided by a number of individuals ( presumably in connection with various grant projects ) and had not paid them in full as stipulated in the contracts . The new description of charges also included changes to the total amount of the alleged illegal profit obtained by the applicant ( AZN CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) and the alleged amount of unpaid taxes ( AZN MONEY ) .","The applicant \u2019s criminal trial began in DATE . On DATE ORG convicted him of all charges and sentenced him to CARDINAL and a half years\u2019 imprisonment and deprivation of the right to hold official positions in ORG and local authorities and the right to engage in entrepreneurial activity for DATE . The conviction is not yet final and the appeal is pending .","Enclosed with his submissions to the ORG , the applicant included statements by PERSON dated DATE , by ORG in GPE dated DATE , by ORG in GPE dated DATE , by People In Need dated DATE , by ORG dated DATE , by ORG dated DATE and by ORG dated DATE .","All of those statements , addressed \u201c To whom it might concern \u201d , provided details of the relevant grants and donations awarded to the applicant or ORG , noted that the applicant had regularly provided the relevant donor with necessary accounting information concerning the expenditure of the funds , and specified that the donor organisations and embassies had every confidence that the funds had been used properly for the relevant projects and initiatives for which they had been awarded .","There is no indication in the case file that the above statements have been sought or taken into account by the prosecuting authorities .","NORP Before and after the applicant \u2019s arrest , numerous articles about him were published in the ORG media and in the media allegedly close to the government . In those articles , he was described as a spy for foreign interests and \u201c a traitor \u201d . Moreover , a number of politicians from the ruling political party made similar comments about recently arrested NGO activists and human rights defenders in GPE , without specifically naming the applicant . The following are some examples of such comments .","In DATE PERSON , the official newspaper of the ruling party , ran a piece entitled \u201c NORP of ORG DATE \u201d , which attacked the PERSON for Democracy campaign coordinated by the applicant as a campaign against the interests of the country and stated the following :","\u201c The blackmail and slander campaign of ORG for Reporters\u2019 ORG , and ORG is based on ugly intentions which are evident from the names of these organisations . These organisations always orchestrate the ugly plans of several interested circles against GPE and act as mercenaries . The remote control of those who would do anything for money , who easily betray their country and ORG by launching a black smear campaign in exchange for foreign donations ( donations obviously granted for meeting certain interests ) is in the hands of those who give the money . \u201d","Around the time of the applicant \u2019s arrest and thereafter , the same newspaper and online news portals affiliated with the authorities published a number of pejorative articles calling the applicant an \u201c NORP agent \u201d , with headlines such as \u201c NORP Agent PERSON Detained for CARDINAL Months \u201d , \u201c The Rights of PERSON , Another Agent , Limited \u201d , and \u201c Search of ORG Agent PERSON \u201d .","On DATE PERSON , the Chairman of ORG of ORG , gave an interview to ORG news agency where he commented on the reactions to the arrests of PERSON , Mr PERSON and other human rights defenders and stated :","\u201c ... it is those [ international organisations ] which made them \u2018 well ORG . The organisations which have allocated grants to them in non - transparent ways , directing them into various activities , including those against GPE . These people , some of whom are traitors and some weak - minded , will finally answer before the law . \u201d","On DATE PERSON , the Head of ORG , stated the following in an interview with Trend news agency :","\u201c The most deplorable thing is that such NGOs and individuals and some journalists , relying on foreign circles funding them , placed themselves above the national law , evaded registering their grant projects , filing financial statements , paying taxes and the government \u2019s other legal requirements . \u201d","NORP In an interview published on DATE GPE , a member of parliament from the ruling party , who was also the Director of ORG at ORG , stated the following in respect of the recently arrested NGO activists and human rights defenders :","\u201c People who betray their motherland can not be forgiven . ... The death penalty should be imposed on such people . Capital punishment must be the gravest punishment for them . Why should traitors be forgiven ? ... Therefore , the activities of a number of non - governmental organisations must be investigated very seriously , and if any illegality is discovered , such organisations must be immediately banned and their leaders punished . \u201d","On DATE ORG - owned news agencies published a sixtypage manifesto written by ORG , the Head of ORG , entitled \u201c The World Order of Double Standards and Modern Azerbaijan \u201d . The article accused human rights NGOs operating in the country of being the \u201c fifth column of imperialism \u201d . It postulated that various , mostly GPE - sponsored , donor organisations such as NED , as well as other foreign organisations , supported political opposition movements in various countries against national governments . For local human rights NGOs , the purpose of such funding schemes was the formation of a \u201c fifth column \u201d inside a country . GPE taxpayers\u2019 money was spent on preparing a change of political power or forcing existing governments to comply with GPE political demands .","According to the applicant , in various speeches given in DATE the President of the ORG had stated that foreign criticism of the human rights situation in GPE had nothing to do with human rights , but was politically motivated , and that within the country there were \u201c national traitors who had sold their conscience to foreign anti - NORP circles \u201d .","The applicant \u2019s representative , PERSON , was an advocate and a member of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . He was affiliated with ORG no . CARDINAL in GPE .","In DATE disciplinary proceedings were instituted against PERSON by the ORG on the basis of a letter dated DATE from a judge of ORG . In his letter , the judge informed the ORG that PERSON had breached the ethical rules of conduct for advocates at court hearings held in DATE before ORG during criminal proceedings against GPE","On DATE the Collegium of the ORG held a meeting at which it considered the complaint against PERSON . Following the meeting , ORG held that PERSON had breached the ethical rules of conduct for advocates because at the court hearing he had made the following remark about the judicial system , \u201c Like ORG , like court ... If there were justice in GPE , Judge [ R.H. ] would not deliver unfair and partial judgments , nor would an individual like him be a judge \u201d ( \u201c PERSON d\u00f6vl\u0259tin bel\u0259 d\u0259 m\u0259hk\u0259m\u0259si olacaq ... GPE \u0259dal\u0259t olsayd\u0131 , hakim [ R.H. ] \u0259dal\u0259tsiz v\u0259 q\u0259r\u0259zli h\u00f6km \u00e7\u0131xarmaz , n\u0259 d\u0259 onun kimisi hakim i\u015fl\u0259m\u0259zdi \u201d ) . On DATE the Collegium of the ORG decided to refer Mr PERSON \u2019s case to a court , with a view to his disbarment . It also decided to suspend his activity as an advocate ( v\u0259killik f\u0259aliyy\u0259ti ) pending a decision by the court .","It appears from documents submitted to the ORG that , following Mr PERSON \u2019s suspension as an advocate , the domestic authorities stopped allowing him to meet the applicant in prison .","On DATE PERSON sent a letter to the Head of ORG asking for a meeting with CARDINAL of his clients who were held in detention , including the applicant . He specified in his letter that he was representing those individuals before the ORG , and requested a meeting with them in connection with their pending cases . The relevant part of the letter reads :","\u201c I am writing to inform you that I represent the following individuals , who are detained in the penal facilities and temporary detention centres under your authority , before ORG .","I ask you to allow a meeting with these individuals in connection with the progress of their cases based on their applications lodged with ORG ( the numbers of which are stated below ) :","...","PERSON ( ORG , application no . CARDINAL )","Attachment : Copies of letters from ORG and the NORP government concerning these individuals . \u201d","A copy of the letter was also sent to the Head of ORG of ORG .","By a letter of DATE , the Deputy Head of ORG refused to allow PERSON to meet the applicant in prison . The relevant part of the letter reads :","\u201c Your request for a meeting in the penal facilities and detention centres with the individuals detained in the penal facilities and with convicted inmates in order to provide them with advocacy services has been considered .","In explanation , as your advocacy activity at ORG no . CARDINAL has been suspended by decision no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG and you have been disbarred , and [ as a result of the fact that ] as of that date you can no longer practise as an advocate in court and investigation proceedings , it is impossible to grant you access to the penal establishments as counsel . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["18","34","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145349","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MILINKOVI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","By a judgment of ORG of DATE which became final on CARDINAL DATE , ORG ( an Entity of GPE ) was ordered to pay , within DATE , MONEY ( BAM ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage together with default interest at the statutory rate and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs together with default interest at the statutory rate to the applicant .","The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued a writ of execution ( rje\u0161enje o izvr\u0161enju ) on DATE .","The applicant complained of non - enforcement to ORG the LAW \u201d ) . On DATE ORG found a breach of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .","The final judgment in favour of the applicant remains unenforced to DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147871","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DURMAZ v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant \u2019s daughter , PERSON , worked as a nurse at ORG in GPE . She was married to ORG , who worked in the pharmacy at the same hospital .","According to the applicant , the couple had frequent rows and ORG used violence against PERSON on a number of occasions .","At TIME on DATE ORG brought PERSON to the accident and emergency department of ORG and told the doctors and nurses at the hospital that she had taken an overdose of CARDINAL medicines called \u201c Prent \u201d and \u201c Muscoril \u201d .","A police officer at the hospital took a statement from ORG at TIME In his statement ORG was reported as having stated that he and PERSON had had a row earlier in DATE ; she had attacked him and he had hit her . He had then left home and some time after his return at TIME had felt unwell . He had then brought her to the hospital .","It was stated in a report prepared by police officers that a police officer had spoken to the prosecutor over the telephone at TIME and that the prosecutor had instructed that police officer to question PERSON and her husband , ORG","At the time of her admission to the hospital , PERSON was conscious but drowsy . Doctors and nurses , who had been informed about ORG \u2019s assertion that she had taken an overdose of the CARDINAL medicines , pumped her stomach . When her pulse slowed down the doctors unsuccessfully tried to resuscitate her . PERSON died at TIME","The doctor and the prosecutor who subsequently examined her body were unable to establish the cause of death and they decided , in view of the fact that the deceased \u2019s husband , ORG , had told the police officers that he had hit her , that a post - mortem examination was necessary .","NORP The post - mortem examination was carried out the following day and samples taken from PERSON body were sent for forensic analysis .","On DATE the police prepared a report summing up their inquiry . It was stated in this report that PERSON had committed suicide by taking an \u201c overdose of medicines \u201d .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband , Mr PERSON , lodged an official complaint with the GPE prosecutor against ORG , and alleged that ORG had been responsible for the death of his daughter . Mr PERSON stated in his complaint petition that ORG had beaten PERSON up on a number of occasions and , as a result , she had been thinking of divorcing him . However , ORG had apologized and had persuaded her to change her mind by promising to her that he would not be violent towards her again . Mr ORG informed the prosecutor that PERSON had telephoned her sister during TIME of her death , and that they had had a normal conversation ; she had not been suicidal at all .","Mr PERSON alleged that ORG had forced PERSON to take the medicines and had subsequently dumped her body at the hospital . The family had heard nothing from ORG since that date and he had not even attended the funeral .","On DATE the GPE prosecutor questioned the applicant and her husband . The applicant told the prosecutor that ORG had beaten up her daughter before and that as a result she had had to be hospitalised twice with suspected head injuries . Mr PERSON told the prosecutor that his daughter had never been suicidal and that in his opinion ORG had been responsible for her death .","On DATE police officers forwarded photographs of PERSON body to their head office with a covering letter stating \u201c ... find attached photographs of PERSON who committed suicide by taking an overdose of medicines \u201d .","Also on DATE the LOC prosecutor questioned the hospital personnel who had been on duty on DATE in question and had tried to resuscitate PERSON A doctor told the prosecutor that ORG had told him that PERSON had taken \u201c Muscoril \u201d and \u201c Prent \u201d .","On DATE the GPE prosecutor informed ORG for births , marriages and deaths that PERSON had taken an overdose on DATE and had killed herself and that her death could be entered in the records .","According to a report drawn up by ORG on DATE , no medicines , other drugs or alcohol had been found in the blood and other bodily samples taken from PERSON body .","On DATE ORG published its report on the post - mortem examination and other forensic examinations carried out on the samples taken from PERSON body . According to the report , there was advanced oedema in her lungs and there were no drugs or other foreign substances in her body . The cause of death was established as \u201c acute alveolar swelling and intra - alveolar haemorrhage \u201d in the lungs .","On DATE the GPE prosecutor in charge of the investigation sent a letter to ORG and asked whether suicide or some form of illness could have been the cause of death .","In its response to the LOC prosecutor ORG confirmed on DATE that there had been no foreign substances or medicines \u2012 including \u201c Prent \u201d and \u201c Muscaril \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) \u2012 in PERSON body . ORG also stated in its letter that , should the judicial authorities conclude that PERSON had committed suicide by taking an overdose , then those judicial authorities should also conclude that the medicines she had used were of a type which could not be detected in forensic examinations of samples taken from internal organs .","On DATE the GPE prosecutor decided to close the investigation . In the decision the prosecutor stated that \u201c the post - mortem report of DATE states that PERSON died as a result of lung complications caused by medicinal intoxication \u201d . In the opinion of the prosecutor , PERSON had committed suicide because she had had an argument with her husband .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection with ORG against the prosecutor \u2019s decision . The applicant drew ORG attention to the prosecutor \u2019s failure to question ORG , despite the fact that by his own admission he had beaten PERSON up on DATE of her death . She also argued that the prosecutor \u2019s conclusion that her daughter had committed suicide by taking an overdose ran contrary to the conclusions set out in the CARDINAL reports issued by ORG . She added that the prosecutor had not visited the flat where PERSON used to live with ORG , even though they had informed the prosecutor that the flat had been a mess and that windows had been broken . She alleged in her petition that the prosecutor had accepted from the outset that PERSON had committed suicide and that that had been the reason why she had not conducted an investigation into the allegations brought to her attention .","On DATE the applicant and her husband , assisted by a lawyer , submitted another petition to ORG in which they set out additional arguments in support of their request for the prosecutor \u2019s decision to be set aside .","The objection was dismissed by ORG on DATE . ORG considered that the prosecutor \u2019s decision had been correct and in accordance with domestic law and procedure .","When notice of the application was given to the respondent Government , the ORG asked the Government \u2012 pursuant to the GPE duty to cooperate with the ORG under LAW \u2012 to invite ORG to prepare a report , based on the above - mentioned existing medical reports and the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE , and to render an expert opinion as to whether there exist medicines which can not be detected in forensic examinations of samples taken from internal organs and which could nevertheless have caused the fatal lung problems . The Government were also asked , should the ORG \u2019s answer be in the negative , to invite the ORG to elaborate , on the basis of the documents in the investigation file , on the cause of the lung problems which , according to the report of DATE , caused the death .","The Government complied with that request and submitted to the ORG CARDINAL reports prepared by ORG on DATE and DATE .","In these CARDINAL reports , CARDINAL experts working for ORG confirmed that the samples taken from PERSON body had been checked against the list of known substances in their database \u2012 including the CARDINAL medicines named specifically by PERSON husband , ORG ( see above in paragraph CARDINAL ) \u2012 and stated that she had not died as a result of having taken any of those substances . It was also stated in the report that the possibility could not be completely ruled out that she might have taken another toxic substance which was not in their database .","The experts at ORG also stated in their reports that they did not agree with the conclusion reached in the autopsy report of DATE , namely that PERSON had died as a result of \u201c acute alveolar swelling and intra - alveolar haemorrhage \u201d in the lungs . In their opinion , the \u201c acute alveolar swelling and intra - alveolar haemorrhage \u201d was a histopathological finding often caused by anoxia ( total oxygen depletion ) , and could thus not be stated as the cause of death . In the opinion of the CARDINAL experts , it should have been stated in the autopsy report of DATE that the cause of PERSON death could not be established ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168643","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"J.M.N. AND C.H. v. NORWAY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first applicant , Mr ORG , is a NORP national born in DATE . The second applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national born in DATE . The applicants live in PERSON . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The applicants have a son , X , born in DATE . In DATE , the second applicant had a son , Y , with another man . The second applicant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia , a chronic mental illness requiring medication . X had a difficult birth with birth asphyxia and possible withdrawal symptoms from the second applicant \u2019s medication , which she had taken during pregnancy . DATE after X was born , ORG ( barneverntjenesten ) decided to take him into public care on an emergency basis because of the second applicant \u2019s poor mental health and the first applicant \u2019s inability to understand that this could be hazardous for X.","NORP The applicants\u2019 appeal was rejected on DATE by ORG and ORG ( fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker , henceforth \u201c the Board \u201d ) . The applicants were at the same time granted contact rights for TIME once per week with X. The applicants did not appeal against the ORG \u2019s decision .","On DATE ORG requested ORG to take X and Y into permanent public care , place them in foster homes and regulate the contact rights with the applicants . The applicants opposed the measures .","On DATE , the ORG decided to take X and Y into permanent public care and place them in foster homes . Y was placed with his maternal grandmother , with whom he had already lived since he was a baby . X was placed in another foster home . The applicants were granted contact rights with X for TIME , CARDINAL times per year , with a foster parent present if needed . The second applicant was granted more substantial contact rights with Y , including TIME visits . An oral hearing was held for DATE and CARDINAL witnesses were heard . Moreover , the ORG took into consideration a report issued by an expert , psychologist GPE , who had observed the applicants during several visits with X. The report concluded that the applicants failed to provide X with personal contact and security and that there were flaws in the emotional and child development care .","The applicants appealed against the permanent public care order and the decision on contact rights only regarding X.","On DATE , the ORG \u2019s decision was confirmed by ORG ( tingrett ) , after a DATE oral hearing where CARDINAL witnesses and the expert GPE were heard . The court was composed of CARDINAL judge and CARDINAL expert lay judges . The court found that the applicants were able adequately to take care of PERSON \u2019s basic DATE needs . However , as a vulnerable child , PERSON had a special need for contact and emotional interaction . Regarding the second applicant , the court took into consideration the report by GPE where it was noted , inter alia , that she was strongly affected by negative psychosis symptoms such as passivity and social withdrawal . She was emotionally numb , with heavily reduced function levels . As to the first applicant , GPE had found that he was not able to compensate for the first applicant \u2019s deficiencies . Although he could take care of GPE \u2019s material needs , he was unable to fulfil X \u2019s need for contact and interaction . In view of this , the court concluded that the public care of X could not be terminated .","One of the expert lay judges dissented and expressed the view that the first applicant was able to compensate for the second applicant \u2019s deficiencies , at least if support measures were put in place by the authorities .","On DATE , ORG ( lagmannsrett ) unanimously rejected the ORG appeal against the lower court \u2019s judgment concerning the permanent public care order . The appellate court consisted of CARDINAL judges and CARDINAL expert lay judges . Although the applicants did not appeal against the judgment in so far as it concerned the contact rights , the appellate court considered the matter on its own initiative . An oral hearing was held for DATE . The parties and CARDINAL witnesses were heard . With regard to X , he was considered by the appellate court to be a healthy and normal child but , due to his infant trauma , still vulnerable . Moreover , it noted that the second applicant had a chronic mental illness . The court relied on the same expert , GPE , as ORG . GPE had observed visits between the applicants and X on several occasions and had issued a new report , dated DATE , where , inter alia , the following was noted :","\u201c [ The second applicant ] has , during the visits I have observed , occasionally been more active with [ X ] than during the visits I observed in DATE . But her demeanour during the visits is , as during earlier visits , with some exception , characterised by her subdued ( avdempet ) , detached ( f\u00f8lelseflat ) and quiet ( stille ) behaviour . There are long pauses where it is completely silent in the room . \u201d","As to the first applicant , the report by GPE noted , inter alia , the following :","\u201c [ He ] was very passive during both visits . He followed [ X ] around the room while [ X ] explored the various games , and sat down on the floor when [ X ] did . However , he sat down behind [ X ] so that there was no face - to - face contact between them ... He smiled at [ X ] but did not take the initiative to interact or answer or develop the various initiatives X took for interaction during play . The visits were characterised by [ the first applicant ] quietly observing PERSON \u2019s play and the [ second applicant \u2019s ] and [ X \u2019s ] play . When [ the second applicant ] during the last part of the visits became more passive , [ the first applicant ] did not take over , but remained passive and quiet . \u201d","The report concluded that neither parent was able to meet PERSON \u2019s need for contact and interaction . Even though the first applicant was considered to possess more parental ability , he was still not found able to compensate for the second applicant \u2019s lack of such ability , in particular as he lacked in his ability for sensitive care ( sensitiv omsorg ) . It was furthermore concluded by GPE that neither parent saw , understood or responded to X \u2019s signals . The first applicant still lacked an understanding of the second applicant \u2019s mental illness and how it affected her capacity to care for the child .","The appellate court found that the expert ORG \u2019s observations were confirmed by the court \u2019s own observations during the oral hearing . It further considered that support measures would not be sufficient because of the applicants\u2019 lack of interest in such measures and lack of understanding of their deficiencies . Moreover , X had settled well in his foster home and developed positively . Thus , it was in GPE \u2019s best interest that the permanent public care order be granted .","The applicants appealed to ORG ( PERSON ) , submitting that the permanent public care order should not be granted . They did not complain about the contact rights .","On DATE , ORG refused leave to appeal .","According to Section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW ( lov om barneverntjenester ) , a newborn child may be taken into public care if it is highly probable that a move to the parents would lead to such a situation or risk to the child as mentioned in LAW .","Section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(a ) , of the LAW stipulates that a child may be taken into public care if there are serious deficiencies in the daily care of the child or in relation to the personal contact and security the child needs , depending on his or her age and development .","According to LAW ) of the LAW , the parties may request ORG to terminate the public care as long as DATE have passed since the ORG or the courts last considered the matter .","Contact rights between a child in public care and his or her parents are regulated in LAW which stipulates that the extent of the contact rights is decided by ORG . The private parties can demand that the matter be reconsidered by ORG as long as DATE have passed since the ORG or the courts last considered it ( LAW ) ) .","Article CARDINAL of the Convention on the Rights of the Child , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In all actions concerning children , whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions , courts of law , administrative authorities or legislative bodies , the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration .","GPE Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well - being , taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents , legal guardians , or other individuals legally responsible for him or her , and , to this end , shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures . \u201c"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170028","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LAVEYKIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant got involved in a drunken brawl with a stranger and beat him to death .","The date of his arrest can not be established with certainty . According to the applicant , he was arrested on DATE . An internal police inquiry established the date as CARDINAL DATE . The official arrest record gives the time and date of his arrest as TIME on DATE .","On DATE ORG in GPE remanded the applicant in custody . On DATE he was seen by a medical expert who noted CARDINAL abrasions on his forehead that could have been caused by a solid blunt object DATE prior to the examination .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment in a high - security facility .","On DATE the applicant asked the prosecutor to investigate his allegation that police officers had beaten him up after his arrest . On DATE the prosecutor refused institution of criminal proceedings . On the following day the decision was quashed and an additional inquiry was ordered . Since then the investigative authorities and courts issued and subsequently quashed CARDINAL decisions to open criminal proceedings into the alleged ill - treatment . Referring to the statements from CARDINAL police officers and from the investigator all of whom denied any ill - treatment or intimidation , the decision of DATE concluded that the applicant \u2019s allegations were unsubstantiated because the expert had determined his injuries to have been caused no later than DATE DATE , that is to say , DATE prior to his arrest . On DATE the prosecutor of LOC in GPE annulled the decision of DATE and ordered an additional inquiry which should establish whether or not the applicant had been brought to the police station already on DATE and whether or not the specific police officer described by the applicant had been on duty on DATE .","DATE and DATE the applicant served the sentence in GPE , a correctional institution in GPE . The dormitory was crammed and in a poor state of repair . On DATE the applicant was transferred to IK-CARDINAL where he stayed until DATE . The dormitories in which the applicant slept were overcrowded , affording at times no more than QUANTITY . m per detainee . The access of natural light was restricted by plastic film covering the windows . The toilets , located in a separate building , were equipped with CARDINAL pans for CARDINAL detainees . On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG , a medical facility , where he appears to have stayed until the end of his sentence on DATE . The premises of the facility were overcrowded and afforded CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL sq . m of space per detainee ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159053","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LEONG POY v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","contrato de empreitada ) pursuant to which the latter undertook , in DATE , to build the applicant a house .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings in ORG against company ORG for the alleged failure in the execution of the contract .","DATE and DATE company ORG and the applicant submitted submissions in reply ( constesta\u00e7\u00e3o ) and new submissions ( r\u00e9plica ) . Company ORG argued , in particular , that the court had already decided in a case on the same subject ( caso julgado ) .","On DATE ORG gave directions considering that it had already decided on the same subject in a previous case ( despacho saneador ) . The applicant appealed against this decision before ORG , which on DATE revoked the ORG decision and ordered the examination of the case . On an unknown date company ORG appealed against this decision to the Conference of ORG , which on DATE upheld its decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG gave new directions setting out the questions which needed to be assessed . The applicant challenged the decision and both parties submitted evidence .","On DATE held the first hearing . Until DATE ORG listed QUANTITY hearings , in which several witnesses were heard .","On DATE ORG adopted a judgment ruling against the applicant .","On DATE the applicant challenged the outcome of the proceedings before ORG . On DATE the case - file was sent to ORG . Meanwhile , first - instance judge had to analyse a question of nullity which had been raised by the parties in the grounds of appeal submitted .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , which dismissed the appeal for being lodged out of time . The applicant challenged this decision , which was upheld on DATE by a decision of the Vice - President of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165031","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"NOVAK v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , an advocate practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant sustained an injury at work .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) against her employer , company ORG , seeking compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage sustained .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s statement of claim was forwarded to the defendant , which responded to it on DATE by arguing that the injury had been exclusively her fault and by objecting to the level of compensation sought . The applicant made further submissions on DATE .","On DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE the applicant urged the court to schedule a hearing","The first hearing in the case was held on DATE at which the applicant asked the court to obtain an opinion of a medical expert and opposed the defendant \u2019s proposal to examine certain witnesses .","On CARDINAL DATE the court decided to obtain an opinion of a forensic expert in medicine and invited the applicant to advance the costs thereof . The applicant did so on DATE .","On DATE the expert submitted his opinion suggesting that a further expert opinion of an expert in psychiatry be obtained .","On DATE the defendant submitted its comments on the expert opinion whereas the applicant did so on DATE . In her submissions she endorsed the proposal to obtain a further expert opinion of an expert in psychiatry and amended her action in accordance with the opinion of a medical expert already obtained .","On DATE the court decided to obtain an opinion of a forensic expert in psychiatry .","On DATE the expert in psychiatry submitted her opinion .","On DATE the applicant commented on the expert opinion and amended her action accordingly whereas , on DATE , the defendant contested that opinion .","On DATE the court held a hearing at which it heard the parties and the CARDINAL experts and examined CARDINAL witnesses .","Further hearings were held on DATE and DATE . At the latter hearing the court closed the main hearing and scheduled a hearing for pronouncement of the judgment for DATE .","By a judgment pronounced on DATE ORG ruled for the applicant and awarded her CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in compensation together with the accrued statutory default interest and HRK CARDINAL in costs .","On DATE the defendant appealed against that judgment .","By a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the appeal by the defendant and upheld the first - instance judgment which thereby became final .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the President of ORG . She relied on CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Courts Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the President issued a decision holding that the applicant \u2019s request was well - founded and ordering the judge hearing the case to give a decision in the above civil proceedings within DATE .","Section CARDINAL of LAW on LAW ( PERSON o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL with subsequent amendments\u2013 \u201c LAW \u201d ) , reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Anyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG if he or she deems that the decision of a ORG authority , local or regional government , or a legal person vested with public authority , on his or her rights or obligations , or as regards suspicion or accusation of a criminal offence , has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms , or the right to local or regional government , guaranteed by LAW ( \u2018 constitutional rights\u2019 ) ...","( CARDINAL ) If another legal remedy is available in respect of the violation of the constitutional rights [ complained of ] , the constitutional complaint may be lodged only after this remedy has been exhausted .","( CARDINAL ) In matters in which an administrative action or , in civil and non - contentious proceedings , an appeal on points of law [ revizija ] is available , remedies shall be considered exhausted only after a decision on these legal remedies has been given . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted if the relevant court has failed to decide within a reasonable time on the rights or obligations of a party [ to the proceedings ] or as regards a suspicion or accusation of a criminal offence ...","( CARDINAL ) If it finds the constitutional complaint for failure to decide within a reasonable time referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section well - founded , the Constitutional Court shall set a time - limit within which the relevant court must decide the case on the merits ...","( CARDINAL ) In a decision issued under paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the Constitutional Court shall award appropriate compensation to the complainant for the violation of his or her constitutional right ... to a hearing within a reasonable time . The compensation shall be paid from the ORG budget within DATE on which a request for payment is lodged . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE ( Zakon o sudovima , ORG no . CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE , read as follows :","\u201c A party to judicial proceedings which considers that the competent court did not decide within a reasonable time on its rights or obligations , or on a suspicion or accusation of a criminal offence , shall have the right to judicial protection in accordance with this LAW . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The legal remedies for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time are :","The request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time ,","NORP The request for payment of appropriate compensation for the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time .","( CARDINAL ) In the proceedings for deciding the requests referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section the rules of non - contentious procedure shall apply mutatis mutandis , and , in principle , no hearing shall be held . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time shall be lodged with the court before which the proceedings are pending .","( CARDINAL ) The request shall be decided by the President of the court unless he or she is the judge hearing the case , in which situation the request shall be decided by the Vice - President of the court .","( CARDINAL ) NORP The President of the court shall , within DATE of the receipt of the request , demand the judge hearing the case [ to submit ] a report on the length of the proceedings and the reasons why [ they ] have not been completed , as well as an opinion on the period within which the case could be decided . The President of the court may himself or herself inspect the case - file .","( CARDINAL ) The judge hearing the case shall submit the report immediately , but DATE from the time the President of the court demanded him or her to do so .","( CARDINAL ) In deciding on the request the President of the court shall in particular take into account the type of the case , [ its ] factual and legal complexity , the conduct of the parties and of the court .","( CARDINAL ) The President of the court shall decide on the request within DATE of its receipt . \u201d","\u201c","( CARDINAL ) If the judge does not decide the case within the specified time - limit , he or she must within DATE of its expiry , submit a written report to the President of the court giving reasons for having failed to do so . The President of the ORG shall without delay forward the judge \u2019s report and his or her [ own ] observations to President of the immediately higher court and to ORG . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the President of the court finds the request unfounded , he or she shall dismiss it by a decision against which the [ requesting ] party shall have the right to appeal within DATE of the receipt of the decision .","( CARDINAL ) The [ requesting ] party shall have the right to appeal also when the President of the court , within DATE from receiving it , does not decide on the request .","( CARDINAL ) The appeal shall be decided by the President of the immediately higher court . If the request concerns the proceedings pending before ORG , the appeal shall be decided by a panel of CARDINAL judges of that court . The President of the immediately higher court or the panel may dismiss the appeal as unfounded and uphold the first - instance decision or reverse [ that ] decision . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the court does not decide on the case referred to in LAW of this LAW within the specified time - limit , the [ requesting ] party may within a further period of DATE lodge a request for payment of appropriate compensation for the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with the immediately higher court .","( CARDINAL ) If the request concerns the proceedings pending before ORG , ORG or ORG , the request shall be decided by ORG .","( CARDINAL ) The request referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section shall be decided by a decision of a single judge .","( CARDINAL ) If the request concerns the proceedings pending before ORG , the request shall be decided by a panel of CARDINAL judges of that court .","( CARDINAL ) The immediately higher court shall decide on the request within DATE . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The immediately higher court or the panel of ORG shall specify the time - limit within which the court before which the proceedings are pending must decide the case , and shall award [ the requesting party ] appropriate compensation for the violation of his or her right to a hearing within a reasonable time .","( CARDINAL ) The total amount of appropriate compensation awarded in CARDINAL case may not exceed CARDINAL NORP kunas .","( CARDINAL ) An appeal , to be lodged within DATE with ORG , lies against the decision on the request for payment of adequate compensation for the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable . The appeal shall be decided by a panel of CARDINAL judges of that court , and , if the decision was rendered by the panel of ORG referred to in section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of this Act , the appeal shall be decided by a panel of CARDINAL judges of that court .","( CARDINAL ) The decision awarding appropriate compensation for the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time shall immediately after becoming final be forwarded to the President of the court before which the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time occurred , to the President of ORG and to ORG .","( CARDINAL ) The compensation referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section shall be paid out of the ORG budget .","( CARDINAL ) If the case referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section is not decided within the specified time - limit , the court president must within DATE of its expiry , submit a written report to the President of the immediately higher court and ORG giving reasons for having failed to do so . \u201d","\u201c If before ORG proceedings have been instituted for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time and the Government \u2019s representative before ORG has requested information on the case from the [ domestic ] court before which the proceedings [ complained of ] are pending , that court shall inform the President of the immediately higher court , the President of ORG and ORG of the Government representative \u2019s request and of the reasons for the delay . \u201d","\u201c Requests for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time received before the entry into force of this Act shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of LAW . \u201d","On DATE ORG issued a decision no . ORG , where it held that complainants wishing to lodge constitutional complaints under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to complain about the excessive length of ongoing judicial proceedings were first required to make full use of remedies available under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It therefore declared inadmissible a constitutional complaint lodged under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) by the complainant who did not attempt to avail herself of those remedies before lodging her constitutional complaint . ORG decision was published in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . It follows from the foregoing that since the introduction in DATE in the domestic legal system of a new remedy ( a request for protection of the right to hearing within a reasonable under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ) , a constitutional complaint under section CARDINAL of LAW was no longer the only remedy in GPE for protection of the constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time . In other words , ORG was no longer competent for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in the first instance ..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170436","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF OSMANO\u011eLU AND KOCABA\u015e v. SWITZERLAND","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion;Manifest religion or belief)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","The first applicant , who was born in GPE , moved to GPE at DATE . On completing a business - studies course in GPE , he returned temporarily to GPE to attend classes in NORP studies ; while there , he met the second applicant , who became his wife . She moved to GPE in DATE under the provisions for family reunion . When the present application was lodged she was on a training course to become a playgroup leader ( Spielgruppenleiterin ) . The first applicant speaks fluent PERSON .","Three daughters were born to the applicants , on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The present application concerns only the first CARDINAL daughters . They were initially enrolled in the GPE primary school in GPE . The eldest daughter subsequently attended an \u201c orientation school \u201d ( PERSON , between the primary and secondary levels ) .","Swimming lessons are part of the compulsory school curriculum ; under the applicable legislation in the canton of ORG , pupils can not be exempted until they reach puberty ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This fact was brought to the applicants\u2019 attention on CARDINAL DATE through a recommendation entitled \u201c Guidelines on dealing with religious matters in schools \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicants , who are devout NORP , refused to send their daughters to the swimming lessons on the grounds that their beliefs prohibited them from allowing their children to take part in mixed swimming lessons . They stated that although the Koran did not instruct women to cover their bodies until puberty , their beliefs required them to prepare their daughters for the precepts that would be applied to them from that point onwards . As the holders of parental responsibility for their daughters , the applicants alleged that there been a violation of their own rights .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of the GPE of ORG ( ORG Basel - Stadt ) advised the applicants that under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of the GPE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , they were liable to a maximum fine of MONEY ( CHF ) ( around QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) each if their daughters did not comply with the obligation to attend school .","On DATE the head teacher of the school held a meeting with the applicants in order to resolve the situation . The applicants continued to refuse to send their daughters to the swimming lessons . By letters of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the applicants were again invited to send their daughters to the swimming lessons . In spite of these attempts by the school , the NORP daughters continued to be absent from the swimming lessons .","On DATE and DATE the school authorities asked the Head of ORG to open fixed - penalty proceedings against the applicants . On DATE the applicants were invited to comment again as part of those proceedings .","By a letter of DATE , the education authorities ordered the applicants to pay a fine of CHF CARDINAL ( about ORG CARDINAL ) per parent and per child ( a total of MONEY \u2013 about LAW ) for acting in breach of their parental duties ( see section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of the GPE of ORG , paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","An appeal by the applicants against that decision was dismissed by ORG of the GPE of ORG ( ORG Basel - Stadt ) on DATE .","Drawing on its leading decision of DATE ( see ORG judgment CARDINAL I CARDINAL ; paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG , by a judgment of DATE , dismissed an appeal by the applicants , holding that the authorities\u2019 refusal to exempt their daughters from mixed swimming lessons in primary school had not breached the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of conscience and belief .","It accepted that this refusal represented a breach of freedom of religion . Nonetheless , it considered that the swimming lessons formed part of the compulsory school curriculum in the GPE of ORG and that this obligation had a sufficiently solid legal basis . It cited , firstly , section CARDINAL of LAW of the GPE of ORG , which stated that gymnastics was CARDINAL of the compulsory lessons in primary school , and CARDINAL of the same LAW , stating that TIME of the ORG DATE timetable was to be spent in physical education . It also held that , under section CARDINAL of the Act , boys and girls at primary - school level were , in principle , to attend classes together . It further stated that , in accordance with section CARDINAL of the Act , the precise organisation of this subject , especially the various lessons and the number of hours allocated to them , was set out in the curriculum , point CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of which provided that swimming formed part of compulsory gymnastics and sports lessons .","ORG then pointed out that pupils could be exempted from lessons or from certain subjects , and any such decision was to be taken by the school authorities at the request of teachers or of persons responsible for the children \u2019s education ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It noted that detailed information on exemptions was set out in point CARDINAL of ORG Schulordnung ) of the GPE of ORG , and that the arrangements for dealing with religious issues in schools were included in a ORG ) that had been issued by ORG of the GPE of ORG in DATE . It added that , under point CARDINAL of that recommendation , exemption from swimming classes could only be granted to pupils who had reached the age of puberty . It also indicated that from DATE of school ( that is , generally when pupils had reached DATE ) , girls and boys attended physical education and swimming lessons separately ( point CARDINAL of the recommendation ) .","ORG further held that the ORG argument that the recommendation had no legal validity was irrelevant in this case , in so far as , in its view , the recommendation was in any event merely a tool to assist in balancing the competing interests involved in reaching a decision on an exemption request . It also considered the fact that swimming was not taught in all the GPE \u2019s schools and that ice - skating , which also appeared as a lesson in the curriculum , was not taught at all in practice , to be irrelevant in assessing the legal basis .","ORG accordingly concluded that the measure had a valid legal basis .","As to the public interest and the proportionality of the interference , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment to the effect that it was of paramount importance to ensure that children were integrated , irrespective of their origin , culture or religion . It further considered that the interference was lessened by the fact that the swimming lessons were mixed only until DATE , and that the impact of the measure was attenuated by the accompanying measures ( separate changing rooms and showers , and the option of wearing a burkini ) .","ORG also found irrelevant the applicants\u2019 argument that their children were receiving private swimming lessons , holding that what was at stake for the children was not simply learning to swim , but also submitting to the conditions surrounding the teaching itself ( \u00e4ussere PERSON des Unterrichts ) . It held that the school \u2019s function of social integration , valid in respect of all pupils , required that exemptions for swimming classes be granted only sparingly . The refusal to grant an exemption in the present case thus corresponded to its new practice , according to which educational obligations were , in principle , to be recognised as prevailing over compliance with the religious precepts ( religi\u00f6se Gebote ) of CARDINAL part of the population . For that reason , the comparison with exemptions granted for medical reasons was also irrelevant .","Having regard to the foregoing factors , ORG concluded that the refusal to grant an exemption from the mixed swimming classes had not breached the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of religion ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["9"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152831","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"BORG AND VELLA v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON , PERSON ORG , Mr PERSON are NORP nationals and PERSON is a NORP national . They all live in GPE and they were born respectively in DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE . They were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , Attorney General .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","Following a project launched by the ORG in DATE asking the public to identify features of the NORP cultural and natural heritage which deserved to be included in ORG for the protection of the environment , a villager suggested protecting the picturesque view , across open sloping fields leading down to the sea , which was visible from north of GPE , GPE , in the area at issue in the present case .","NORP Some time later \u2013 the Government having accepted the proposal \u2013procedures for the execution of the project commenced . In DATE the Commissioner of Land ( CoL ) expropriated a plot of land in the above - mentioned area \u2013 it is not clear whether this land belonged exclusively to the applicants or in part also to ORG DATE in order to widen an existing road and develop an open panoramic view , known locally as a \u201c belvedere \u201d . In the development phase of the belvedere , the Government demolished a rubble wall on the boundary between expropriated land and the applicants\u2019 property and installed iron railings to permit an unobstructed view . In due course the area became a designated belvedere , with an unobstructed view overlooking the fields sloping down to the sea . No dispute arose in relation to this ( first ) expropriation . The applicants\u2019 property abuts immediately onto and is slightly below the site of the belvedere and is , in effect , part of the view from the said belvedere and part of the sloping fields .","On an unspecified date the applicants sought planning permission to develop the remaining part of the land owned by them , but ORG refused the application on the grounds that the site , although within a development zone , was a protected green area .","Subsequently , on DATE , the applicants brought an action against the ORG , asking the court to declare that they had the right to erect a wall on the boundary between their land and the expropriated plot ( see Relevant domestic law ) . The ORG did not submit any pleas countering the claim , although he was served with the claim on DATE .","Since the applicants did not own all the land expropriated in conjunction with the belvedere , the wall in question would not have been built along the entire length of the belvedere . It would only have been built on the CARDINAL plots owned by the applicants , these being QUANTITY and QUANTITY wide respectively . Although not specified , from the photos and plans provided it would appear that the entire belvedere is QUANTITY long .","The case was set down for hearing for DATE . On DATE ORG ( ORG ) in its superior jurisdiction gave judgment in default , upholding the ORG claim , finding that they had the right to build such a \u201c boundary \u201d wall and authorising them to build such a wall \u201c up to the height required by law \u201d under the supervision of a court - appointed architect .","Since no appeal was lodged , the judgment became final .","In the ensuing DATE , numerous applications were made to the court by both parties to the suit in respect of technical issues connected with the execution of the above - mentioned judgment , that is , the erection of the proposed wall ( these included the removal of items installed on the belvedere so that the wall could be constructed , the question of distances , given the sloping terrain , and the manner in which the boundary wall should be built \u2013 over which the ORG disagreed with the interpretation of the architect ) . A decision in the form of a decree of CARDINAL DATE , given pursuant to CARDINAL of the applications , held that the wall had to be built along the boundaries of the land expropriated for the purposes of the belvedere ( where a retaining wall already existed ) and that it had to be QUANTITY high measured \u201c from the belvedere \u201d . A request by the ORG to have the height of the wall measured from the boundaries ( the level where the properties met ) and not from the surface level of the belvedere was rejected on DATE . The court therefore rejected the ORG \u2019s interpretation as to how the wall had to be built .","NORP The execution of the judgment of DATE was to take place on DATE .","On DATE the President of GPE declared that as from DATE the Minister for ORG was to assume the additional duties of Prime Minister during the Prime Minister \u2019s absence from GPE . By virtue of a declaration made by the acting President of GPE on DATE , a piece of land QUANTITY ) owned by the applicants DATE which included part of the strip of land on which they were to build the boundary wall \u2013 was expropriated by the ORG for the price of MONEY ( ORG ) .","On DATE the ORG asked the court to suspend execution of the judgment in the applicants\u2019 favour in view of the above - mentioned expropriation , which included part of the applicants\u2019 land adjacent to the existing retaining wall . According to the ORG there was a public interest in the expropriation for the purposes of safeguarding the environment and particularly the belvedere ( and the view therefrom ) , built at the expense of the taxpayer , from the actions proposed by the applicants .","On DATE the court rejected the request as it could not suspend the execution of a judgment which had become final and in respect of which there had been no appeal or retrial .","On DATE the ORG lodged a further application asking the court to prohibit the applicants from undertaking any works on the aforementioned plot by reason of the expropriation of DATE . Given the circumstances , the applicants agreed not to proceed with the building of the wall until the competent court had decided on the validity of the second expropriation . That being so , the court did not consider it necessary to issue the relevant prohibitory injunction .","On DATE the applicants lodged a judicial protest noting that they were not accepting the compensation offered and declaring their intention to institute constitutional redress proceedings in relation to the expropriation .","On DATE the ORG instituted fresh ordinary civil proceedings , asking the court to declare that the land where the wall was to be built was Government land , to declare the decision of DATE null and void \u2013 given that the land on which the wall was to be built had now been expropriated for a public purpose DATE and to revoke any other court decision issued after the DATE intended to establish the boundaries between the property of the ORG and that of the applicants .","The hearing of the case was suspended in view of the constitutional redress proceedings lodged by the applicants ( see below ) . It does not transpire that they have been resumed .","On DATE the applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings claiming a violation of LAW in so far as they had been denied execution of a judgment in their favour \u2013 and LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention in that the expropriation of DATE had not been in the public interest . They further invoked LAW .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional competence rejected the ORG claims . It considered that under domestic law an owner had no right to be exempted from an expropriation of property which was carried out in the public interest and in exchange for adequate compensation . That being so , no fair - trial rights arose in relation to the expropriation itself , the right of the individual being limited to contesting the public interest and the compensation at issue in any given expropriation . It held that in the present case the expropriation in DATE had been made in the public interest to ensure the effectiveness of the DATE expropriation , the public interest of which ( the creation of a belvedere ) was not disputed . The fact that certain third parties ( people living in the area of GPE ) had more to gain than others did not deprive the expropriation of its public interest , given that the entire NORP and GPE population would benefit from the view . There was nothing wrong in the ORG ensuring that a plan it had embarked on DATE before was not frustrated . The court considered that , while the ORG \u2019s negligence in the proceedings before ORG in GPE was grave , they had been entitled to take action to correct their mistakes . It further considered that there had not been any discriminatory treatment . The project in DATE had been started by a socialist Government and then continued by a nationalist Government , and neither the initiation nor the continuation thereof appeared to have been politically motivated . Both administrations were taking action solely for the preservation of the environment . Moreover , while it was true that the DATE expropriation had been made at a time when the Minister for GPE was acting Prime Minister and that such an action probably brought most benefit to the residents of GPE \u2013 who were , in the main , of the same political persuasion as the Minister for GPE \u2013 it did not appear that the expropriation ( which had been decided on DATE , that is to say prior to the Minister \u2019s being assigned the duties of acting Prime Minister ) was a result of any intervention on her part . Neither had it been proved that the applicants were treated differently from others in their position or that the expropriation had been politically motivated .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected an appeal lodged by the applicants . It confirmed in full the first - instance judgment in respect of the claim under LAW No . CARDINAL , as the expropriation was indeed necessary to protect the view which was in the general interest and which would have been frustrated by the building of a wall . It further considered that the applicants had not been denied access to a court as they could still contest the merits of the expropriation in relation to the public interest and the amount of compensation . The fact that the applicants had a judicially recognised right over that land ( in the instant case , the right to build a dividing wall when CARDINAL properties belong to different owners ) did not mean that that land could not be expropriated in accordance with the existing legal procedures , subject always to the judicial review of the administrative act of expropriation . Lastly , in relation to the complaint under LAW it considered that \u2013 even if the Minister had been involved in the expropriation \u2013 it had already been found that the expropriation was legitimate , and it was self - evident that a minister had to act , even if it happened that the beneficiaries shared the same political opinion . In the court \u2019s view , the argument that \u2013 unlike the applicants \u2013 the neighbours had direct access to the Minister , enabling them to influence decision - making , did not mean that there had been discriminatory treatment . Similarly , the fact that other people \u2019s property had not been expropriated did not mean that the expropriation was discriminatory , as not everyone \u2019s property was relevant for the purpose sought to be achieved by the expropriation . Moreover , the applicants were entitled to compensation for the taking of their property .","Pending the proceedings before this ORG and after the parties had submitted their observations , by means of a publication in ORG of DATE , the President of GPE revoked the President \u2019s Declaration of DATE which had expropriated the applicants\u2019 land .","According to information submitted by the parties , the applicants became aware of the revocation on an unspecified DATE , DATE after it happened . Subsequently , the applicants informed ORG , who according to the applicants was unaware that the measure had been lifted . The parties met and agreed that the Government agent would inform the ORG about the matter .","The ORG was eventually informed of the matter on DATE , both parties having claimed that the delay in informing the ORG was due to an oversight and a lack of co - ordination , for which they apologised to the ORG .","Article CARDINAL of LAW , LAW of LAW reads :","\u201c Every person may construct any wall or building on the boundary - line of his tenement , saving the right of the neighbour to acquire co - ownership of the wall ( ... ) \u201d","LAW , in so far as relevant reads :","\u201c A party - wall between CARDINAL courtyards , gardens or fields , may be built of loose stones , but must be -","( c ) CARDINAL and QUANTITY high , if it is between CARDINAL fields . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161061","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PAJI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for a residence permit in GPE on the grounds of family reunification with her partner , PERSON , who was living in NORP . She submitted that she had been educated in GPE and that she had lived in GPE for DATE . She also explained that she wanted to live with PERSON , with whom she had been in a relationship for DATE , and with whom she wanted to establish a household and start a business .","By a letter dated DATE PERSON stated that she owned a house in NORP where she wanted to live with the applicant . She explained that she had been in a relationship with the applicant for DATE and that they wanted to live together so as to avoid constant travelling and the distance between them .","During the proceedings ORG FAC uprava GPE - moslova\u010dka ) found that the applicant and PERSON had been in a relationship since DATE and that in order to maintain their relationship they had been travelling to see each other . It was also established that the applicant had recently stayed with PERSON in the period between DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request with a summary reasoning indicating that all the relevant requirements under LAW had not been met .","The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova ; hereinafter : the \u201c Ministry \u201d ) , arguing that it could be inferred from the decision of ORG that her request had been dismissed because LAW did not allow family reunification for same - sex couples . She considered that there had been no grounds for a difference in treatment based on sexual orientation and that the relevant law should not be construed in a manner that allowed for such a possibility . She relied , inter alia , on LAW and the Prohibition of Discrimination Act , arguing that even if she was not to be considered as PERSON \u2019s \u201c immediate family member \u201d , within the meaning of LAW , she should in any case be considered as her \u201c other relative \u201d within the meaning of that LAW .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of ORG . The relevant part of the ORG \u2019s decision reads :","\u201c Concerning the family reunification , based on which the request for the regularisation of the status of an alien in GPE has been submitted in the case at issue , [ it is to be noted that ] the case file shows that the appellant relies on the existence of a same - sex relationship with the NORP national PERSON , which has allegedly lasted for DATE ...","The impugned decision shows that the [ first - instance body ] , other than citing the [ relevant ] provisions of LAW , also cited CARDINAL of LAW , according to which the effects of an extramarital relationship , that is to say the rights and obligations following from its existence , relate to a union between an unmarried woman and man which has lasted for DATE , or less if a child was born of [ the union ] ; and section CARDINAL of the Same - Sex Union Act ... which defines a same - sex union as a union CARDINAL persons of the same sex ( partners ) who are not married , or in an extramarital relationship or other same - sex union , which has lasted for DATE and which is based on the principles of equality of partners , mutual respect and assistance as well as the emotional bonds of partners .","...","It follows that the [ Same - Sex Union ] Act does not define a same - sex union as a family and LAW does not cover same - sex unions . It should also be taken into account that the provisions of LAW concerning temporary residence for family reunification do not provide for a possibility of regularisation of the status of an alien on the grounds of [ the existence of ] a same - sex union , nor does such a union fall within the scope of [ the term ] \u2018 immediate family member\u2019 incorporated in that LAW , which makes it clear that there is no legal ground for granting the request of the appellant .","Therefore , the appellant wrongly considers that the first - instance body should have applied section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW in her case ... because that provision clearly provides that exceptionally to the provision defining immediate family members , \u2018 other ORG could be so considered if there are specific personal or serious humanitarian reasons for a family reunification in GPE . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action with ORG ( GPE ) , arguing that she had been discriminated against in comparison to different - sex couples who had a possibility to seek family reunification under LAW . She relied on the domestic anti - discrimination legislation , including LAW , as well as the LAW and the ORG \u2019s case - law .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action on DATE . The relevant part of the judgment provides :","\u201c The cited section DATE ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that the immediate family members are spouses or persons who live in an extramarital relationship in accordance with NORP legislation . The cited sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW show that marriage and extramarital relationship are unions between a man and a woman . Thus , union between CARDINAL same - sex persons can not be considered under the relevant legal provisions as marriage or an extramarital relationship .","Union between CARDINAL same - sex persons can be considered under the legal term same - sex union under the conditions provided for in section QUANTITY of the Same - Sex Union Act . However , given the limited legal effects of a same - sex union , the possible existence of such a union does not represent a basis for family reunification . It should be noted that LAW of the [ Aliens ] Act explicitly enumerates persons who are to be considered immediate family members or who are to be exceptionally considered [ so ] , which leads to a conclusion that it can not be extended to cover persons living in a same - sex union .","Accordingly , the granting of a request for temporary residence of an alien on the grounds of family reunification depends on the satisfaction of the requirements under sections DATE and CARDINAL of LAW . In the case at issue the plaintiff is neither married nor in an extramarital relationship with the NORP national PERSON , which is not in dispute between the parties . It therefore follows that the plaintiff can not be considered an immediate family member within the meaning of section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the [ Aliens ] Act and thus she did not justify the purpose ( in the concrete case : family reunification ) for which a temporary residence of an alien in GPE can be granted ...","In view of the cited legal provisions , and the facts of the case , this court finds that in the concrete case it was not possible to grant the plaintiff \u2019s request . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , contending that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her sexual orientation . She relied on the ORG and the relevant domestic anti - discrimination legislation , and she cited the ORG \u2019s case - law on the question of discrimination related to sexual orientation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , endorsing the reasoning of the lower bodies . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG reiterates that discrimination under LAW does not have an independent standing for a constitutional complaint but must be submitted in conjunction with another ( substantive ) constitutional right . Discrimination means difference in the treatment of persons in the same or relevantly similar situations without an objective and reasonable justification . LAW contains constitutional guarantee against discrimination on any ground in securing a concrete right .","Although the appellant relied in her constitutional complaint in LAW and the related LAW , the Constitutional Court finds that these provisions are not applicable in the case at issue .","In the proceedings before it , ORG did not find facts or circumstances which would suggest that in the proceedings before [ the lower bodies ] the appellant was discriminated against on any ground ... Thus her complaint of a violation of LAW , the Constitutional Court finds unfounded .","ORG also notes that the appellant , in the concrete case , did not show that she has used the legal avenue under LAW ...","There has therefore been no violation of her constitutional right under LAW CARDINAL of the LAW .","The case - law of ORG cited in the constitutional complaint is of no relevance for the case at issue since it relates to cases concerning health insurance and inheritance of tenancy rights by same - sex partners living in a stable ( de facto ) relationship . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["14","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184492","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF \u0130SHAK SA\u011eLAM v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the time of the events he was a lawyer practising in that city .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor at ORG , on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation , namely ORG . The contents of a computer disk holding detailed information on the applicant \u2019s background , which had been obtained by the security forces in a house belonging to ORG , and police statements of CARDINAL people , all of whom were accused of being members of the same illegal organisation , were read out to him during the questioning . The applicant denied having any affiliation with the illegal organisation and contested the accuracy of the evidence presented to him . He maintained that he had assisted certain members of ORG as a lawyer and that he always acted within the limits of his profession , without directing those people \u2019s submissions as alleged . He further maintained that certain information in the illegal organisation \u2019s background report , such as the ages of his siblings , was wrong and that this in itself proved that he had not provided the information . He did not benefit from the assistance of a lawyer during questioning .","On DATE the applicant gave statements before the investigating judge of ORG , this time together with his business partner , who was accused of being a member of the same illegal organisation . He reiterated his submissions given to the public prosecutor and added that the fact that he had provided legal assistance to some members of the illegal organisation might have been perceived as a demonstration of support by certain people . The investigating judge refused the public prosecutor \u2019s request for the applicant \u2019s detention and decided that he should be released pending trial .","The following day , on DATE , the public prosecutor objected to the applicant \u2019s release . The applicant was subsequently arrested on the basis of a warrant issued by ORG .","On DATE the applicant was taken before the investigating judge , who decided that he should be detained on remand .","On DATE the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG , accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation . He relied on the police statements of the CARDINAL witnesses as well as the background information obtained from the computer disk .","On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s lawyers lodged a petition with the trial court . They argued that there was no evidence against the applicant in that all of the witnesses relied on by the prosecution had denied their statements later on . They further stated that the background information obtained from the computer disk was not reliable .","At the hearing on CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers once again challenged the use of the background information obtained from the computer disk , arguing that it was unreliable in that the disk had been de - encrypted and the information extracted in their absence . During the same hearing , the court noted that the CARDINAL witnesses , who had mentioned the applicant in their police statements , had denied those submissions during the subsequent stages of the proceedings against them . The court held that the applicant should be released pending trial .","On DATE , following statements made by a certain ORG , the public prosecutor drew up another bill of indictment against the applicant , once again accusing him of membership of an illegal organisation . The allegations put forward by this latter indictment were joined with the case which was already pending before ORG .","At the hearing on DATE , during which the applicant was not present , ORG \u2019s police statements were read out . On DATE the court noted that ORG had denied those statements at a later point .","On an unspecified date the public prosecutor submitted his written observations to the court . He argued that the applicant \u2019s guilt was proven by various items of evidence , namely the background report prepared in respect of him , which contained detailed personal information , as well as the background reports and police statements of several other members of ORG . In that connection , he referred to the statements of a certain GPE , who had maintained before both the police and the public prosecutor that the applicant had been a recruiter for the illegal organisation , had given courses to new members and had been in charge of certain cells . The public prosecutor also noted that the applicant \u2019s name had been mentioned in the background reports of several members , including a certain \u015e.A.","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer applied for the expansion of the investigation and the cross - examination of the witnesses who had confirmed the applicant \u2019s membership of ORG . He mentioned , in particular , the names of GPE and \u015e.A. , who had given statements against the applicant . The applicant \u2019s lawyer further challenged the credibility of these two ORG statements . In that connection , he argued that ORG had not repeated his police statements against the applicant at a later point as alleged by the public prosecutor in his written opinion . The lawyer further noted that ORG had claimed to have taken courses run by the applicant until the latter started his military service and asked the trial court to obtain information as regards the dates the applicant had served in the army in order to prove that those allegations were not credible .","On DATE the court refused the application for the expansion of the investigation , without stating anything as regards the cross - examination of witnesses .","On DATE the applicant applied to benefit from the Reintegration of Offenders into LAW ( Law no . DATE ) .","During the course of the proceedings , ORG were abolished and the case was transferred to ORG .","At the hearing on DATE ORG read out the police statements of ORG , in which he had claimed that the applicant had acted as a mentor within the illegal organisation and had given courses to other members , including him , which had ended when the applicant had started his military service . The trial court stated that although ORG had reiterated his submissions in so far as they concerned himself before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , he had not mentioned the applicant after his questioning by the police . The court nevertheless added the statements of ORG to the case file . The applicant \u2019s lawyers maintained that they did not accept the statements against the applicant .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The court relied on certain information obtained from the computer disk , namely the background report on the applicant and reports concerning other members , as well as the statements of GPE and \u015e.A. It also refused the applicant \u2019s application to benefit from PERSON no . DATE , finding that he had not disclosed any information about the structure of the illegal organisation .","The applicant appealed against the judgment . He argued that the trial court had failed to hear evidence from GPE and \u015e.A. despite his requests to that effect and that he had been deprived of the possibility to put his questions to them .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178103","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"KNE\u017dEVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG Attorney . ORG and ORG , who had been notified by the Registrar of their right to intervene in the proceedings ( LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) , did not indicate that they intended to do so .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicants each instituted separate civil proceedings with ORG against their employer , the company PERSON , claiming the repayment of a loan which they had previously given it in the form of bonds .","On DATE the court decided to join the proceedings .","On DATE the ORG adjourned the case and ordered the ORG representative to submit within DATE an original power of attorney for the second and third applicants and new addresses in respect of all CARDINAL applicants . The time - limit for the submission of the documents was subsequently prolonged .","NORP The applicants\u2019 representative submitted a fresh power of attorney in respect of the first applicant and requested a further extension of the time - limit with respect to the second and third applicants , which was granted . However , he did not submit the requested documents .","On DATE the ORG rejected the second and third applicants\u2019 claims on procedural grounds for failure to present a valid power of attorney . The CARDINAL applicants appealed . Their appeals were dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in respect of the first applicant \u2019s claim and dismissed it . The first applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s appeal and he then lodged a constitutional complaint .","On DATE ORG rejected the constitutional complaint .","On DATE , after rejecting offers made by ORG , the applicants , relying on LAW on ORG ( \u201c the DATE Act \u201d ) , each separately brought claims in respect of non - pecuniary damage incurred due to alleged unreasonable length of proceedings . The cases were then dealt with jointly by ORG .","On DATE ORG found that the applicants\u2019 right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached . It ordered the ORG to pay MONEY ( ORG ) to the first applicant , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the second and the third applicant and ordered that each party had to bear their own costs . The court dismissed the remainder of the claims . The applicants appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal .","For relevant domestic law with respect to length of proceedings see PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . In particular , section CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act states that the provisions of LAW concerning small claims apply in proceedings concerning compensation for non - pecuniary damage , irrespective of the type or amount of claim .","The following provisions of LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL , with relevant amendments ) are relevant to the present case :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Where there has been a violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms , a constitutional complaint may , under the conditions determined by this LAW , be lodged against individual acts by which ORG authorities , local authorities , or bearers of public authority have decided on the rights , obligations , or legal entitlements of individuals or legal entities ... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG decides as a panel of CARDINAL ORG judges ( hereinafter referred to as a panel ) at a closed session whether to initiate proceedings on the basis of a constitutional complaint . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A constitutional complaint is not admissible if the violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms [ alleged ] did not have serious consequences for the complainant .","( CARDINAL ) It is deemed that there has been no violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms having significant consequences for a complainant with regard to individual decisions :","\u2013 issued in small claims disputes in accordance with the act which regulates civil procedure , or in other disputes if the value in dispute for the complainant does not exceed the amount which is determined by the definition of small claims disputes in the act which regulates civil procedure ;","\u2013 concerning costs of proceedings , where such a decision alone has been challenged in the constitutional complaint ;","\u2013 issued in property trespass disputes ;","\u2013 issued in minor offence cases .","( CARDINAL ) Irrespective of the preceding paragraph , ORG may in particularly justified cases decide exceptionally on a constitutional complaint against the individual decisions referred to in the preceding paragraph , notably where the decision appealed against concerns an important constitutional question which goes beyond the importance of the actual case . \u201d","The Government submitted a number of decisions taken in cases falling under section CARDINAL ) of LAW in which ORG had accepted constitutional complaints for consideration on their merits .","In particular , they submitted CARDINAL decisions issued in minor offence proceedings ( Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ; Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ; Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; and DATE of DATE ) , and CARDINAL decisions given in costs - only proceedings ( Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and U - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE and Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) .","Furthermore , they submitted CARDINAL ORG decisions in which the constitutional complaint had been lodged against lower court decisions issued in a small claims dispute or in which the value in dispute for the complainant did not exceed the amount determined by the definition of a small claim ( LAW ) . In decision no . Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ORG accepted a constitutional complaint for consideration which raised questions of discrimination against people with disabilities in a case concerning severance pay which was below LAW . Decision no . Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE concerned a defamation claim amounting to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , whereas the constitutional complaint involved raised freedom of expression issues . In decision no . Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG accepted a constitutional complaint for consideration in a case in which the disputed amount was lower than LAW but which raised questions of equal protection of rights .","In all of the above cases ORG concluded that the complainants had succeeded in arguing that their case represented an important constitutional question and had thus fulfilled the conditions for consideration of the constitutional complaint under section CARDINALa(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The Government also referred to CARDINAL cases in which ORG had rejected constitutional complaints lodged against decisions in small claims disputes ( Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ; Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; GPE of DATE ; Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ; Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ; and GPE of DATE ) . In such cases ORG examined in some detail whether the complainants had complied with the criterion of there being an important constitutional question at stake ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157527","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF \u017bUK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant and her husband married in DATE under the statutory regime of common marital property , provided for by the provisions of the DATE LAW . Under the applicable provisions of that Code they had equal shares in their common property .","By an administrative decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) held that the applicant \u2019s husband , PERSON PERSON , was determined a candidate to purchase CARDINAL plots of land , nos . DATE and ORG , owned at that time by ORG and managed on its behalf by ORG ( Pa\u0144stwowy ORG ) . ORG , representing ORG at that time , was obliged to sell the land to him on the basis of that decision . The administrative body established a DATE time - limit for the sale contract to be concluded .","J.S. , PERSON and PERSON , who had also applied to purchase the plots of land concerned , appealed against this decision . On DATE the Director of ORG in GPE ( ORG ) dismissed the appeal brought by PERSON It further confirmed the entitlement to purchase the land created by the contested decision , considering , inter alia , that the plots concerned were adjacent to a farm owned and run by the applicant and her husband and that therefore they were natural candidates for the purchase . The authority referred to LAW DATE ( ustawa o sprzeda\u017cy nieruchomo\u015bci Pa\u0144stwowego Funduszu PERSON ) .","By letters of DATE and DATE the Mayor of ORG ) informed the applicant and her husband that the decision of DATE confirmed by the decision of CARDINAL DATE could not be executed because PERSON had also contested it . The proceedings had therefore been re - opened ex officio . It was further stated that after the finalization of the appellate proceedings , the documents would be forwarded to ORG in GPE in order for the contract to be concluded . The DATE time - limit for the conclusion of the contract would start to run only after the decision became final .","On DATE the ORG ( Wojewoda ) upheld the validity of the decision of DATE . On DATE the Minister of Agriculture dismissed the appeals referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above . On DATE ORG in GPE dismissed the appeal brought by PERSON","Accordingly , the contested decision became final on an unspecified date in DATE .","On DATE a new local land development plan ( plan zagospodarowania przestrzennego ) was adopted by the FAC municipality .","On DATE the FAC Wojewoda ) gave an administrative decision transferring ownership of the land concerned to ORG ( NORP PERSON Rolnej PERSON ) in order for the DATE decision to be executed . The ORG appealed . On DATE the Minister of Agriculture quashed this decision . He found that under the provisions of the FAC land development plan of DATE the lands situated within the administrative limits of the municipality and intended for agricultural purposes were not to be owned by ORG and therefore not subject to transfer to the resources of the ORG .","ORG , when subsequently called by the applicant and her husband to execute the DATE decision by selling the land to them , refused to do so . In letters dated DATE and DATE and DATE addressed to the applicant and her husband , the municipality \u2019s executive board ( Zarz\u0105d miasta ) refused to transfer ownership to them essentially because the land concerned , situated within the administrative limits of the LOC municipality , had been designated for non - agricultural purposes under the DATE land development plan .","NORP In DATE the applicant called on the PERSON Governor ( PERSON ) to issue an administrative decision transferring ownership rights from ORG to the GPE municipality , but to no avail .","On an unspecified date the Szczecin Mayor ( representing the municipality ) requested the Governor ( representing ORG ) to take over the ownership of the plots of land concerned . On DATE the Governor refused to do so , relying on the Act of DATE on the management of ORG - owned agricultural property ( ustawa o gospodarowaniu nieruchomo\u015bciami rolnymi PERSON oraz o zmianie niekt\u00f3rych ustaw ) . It was noted that under the DATE land development plan adopted by the GPE municipality , the plots no longer constituted agricultural land either within the meaning of LAW nor under the local land development plan . It could therefore not be transferred to the ORG representing ORG in the management of agricultural properties it owned as the agency had jurisdiction only in respect of land designated for agricultural uses . The Mayor appealed . On DATE the Minister of Agriculture upheld the contested decision . No appeal to the administrative court against this decision was lodged .","As a result , the land remained municipal property .","On DATE the applicant and her husband lodged a civil action against the Szczecin municipality . They requested the court , relying on LAW , to oblige the defendant municipality to sell the property concerned to the applicant \u2019s husband on the basis of the DATE decision ( roszczenie o z\u0142o\u017cenie o\u015bwiadczenia woli ) . In response to the claim the defendant municipality asked for the action to be dismissed . It submitted that it did not own the land concerned . It was at that time owned by ORG . As the Governor had refused to give a decision on the transfer of ownership of that land to the municipality ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the latter could not sell it . The municipality further argued that the claim to have the property sold to the applicants had become prescribed .","ORG , by a judgment of DATE , dismissed the claim . The applicant and her husband appealed .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeal , amended the contested judgment and allowed the claim . It dismissed the prescription objection . The court was of the view that the DATE prescription period provided for pecuniary claims under the provisions of LAW had started to run only in DATE when the DATE decision had become final ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The court further obliged the municipality to sell the land concerned to the applicant and her husband . It was of the view that the first - instance court had erred in finding that neither the provisions of the DATE Sale of ORG ( ustawa o sprzeda\u017cy nieruchomo\u015bci TIME PERSON ) nor the decision given in DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) on the basis of that Act provided for an obligation on the part of the municipality to sell the land to the addressee of that decision . That decision created on the claimants\u2019 part a claim of a pecuniary nature to have the sale contract concluded with them . They were not therefore obliged to participate in a tender which was simply another procedure for buying the land owned by the ORG , not applicable to their situation . The fact that the proceedings lasted until DATE because other persons had contested that decision did not affect the validity of their claim . Nor did the fact that the applicable provisions changed in DATE and the ownership of the land had thereby been transferred ex lege from ORG to the municipality ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) affect the existence and validity of the claim to have the purchase contract concluded or the corresponding obligation on the part of the public authorities .","In the operative part of the judgment the court expressly formulated the essential provisions of the sale contract to be concluded by GPE with the applicants , including the price of ORG CARDINAL to be paid for the plots . The court further ordered the municipality to cover the legal costs borne by the applicant and her husband in the amount of ORG CARDINAL .","NORP The defendant municipality appealed . Its appeal was rejected on DATE by ORG for having been lodged out of time .","On DATE the applicant and her husband paid ORG CARDINAL to the municipality , the amount being the difference between the price of ORG CARDINAL as determined by the judgment and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , the amount of court costs they had borne in the connection with the civil proceedings .","In DATE and DATE the applicant and her husband , referring to this judgment , called the municipality to sell the property to them , but to no avail .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that the statutory conjugal property of the applicant and her husband created ex lege by their marriage on DATE had been replaced by a separate marital property regime as from DATE .","On DATE the applicant and her husband lodged a civil action against GPE with the civil court requesting that steps be taken by that court to put right the discrepancies between the entry in the land register and the actual ownership of the plot ( pow\u00f3dztwo o uzgodnienie ksi\u00e7gi wieczystej z rzeczywistym stanem prawnym ) . They referred to the judgment of ORG , summarised in paragraphs DATE above and requested that ORG be listed as owner of the land concerned .","The applicants also submitted an alternative claim asking the court to order ORG represented by the Mayor of ORG to sell the property to them . The Mayor was invited to participate in the proceedings .","The municipality argued before the court that it did not own the land . As the land was owned by ORG , the municipality could not sell it .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . Subsequently , on DATE ORG quashed this judgment on formal grounds and ordered that the case should be re - examined .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the claim against ORG \u2013 the Mayor of ORG Prezydentowi Miasta Szczecina ) and against the municipality of GPE ( pko PERSON ) . It noted that the relevant land register listed ORG as the owner of the plot . The land register could only be amended on the basis of an administrative decision issued by the Governor on the basis of section CARDINAL ) of ORG of DATE ( \" LAW \" ) confirming the ex lege transfer of ownership from ORG to the local municipality on the basis of that LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The Governor had never given a relevant administrative decision . The civil court had no jurisdiction to order administrative bodies to issue administrative decisions . In the absence of such a decision the ex lege transfer of ownership to the municipality provided for by law could not become operative . In the absence of such a transfer certified by a decision , ORG remained the land \u2019s owner . It was therefore impossible for the court to order the municipality to sell the plot to the claimant or to amend the land register in such a manner as to list the municipality as the owner . The judgment given in DATE was not res iudicata towards ORG as it was the municipality who had been the defendant in these proceedings .","The claimants appealed . They argued that they had already specified before the first - instance court that the claim was directed against both ORG and the municipality of GPE .","During the hearing before the appeal court the lawyer representing the applicant and her husband stated that he had corrected the content of the alternative claim ( as regards the entity who was supposed to make a declaration of intent ) already during the proceedings before the court of first instance .","The applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG . The court shared the conclusions of the lower court . It was of the view that the claimants had not made it sufficiently clear that the alternative claim had been directed against both ORG and the municipality . Despite the fact that the plaintiffs had pointed out the mistake in their statement of claim which had been addressed against ORG , the court could not rectify that mistake ex officio .","ORG refused to entertain the cassation appeal against this judgment by a decision of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178860","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOVALEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention and that there was no effective remedy in that regard . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141950","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MATYTSINA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE ORG of GPE registered a non - profit non - governmental association , \u201c The Art of Living \u201d ( hereinafter \u201c the association \u201d ) . The goals the association set out in its charter included the \u201c promotion of social adaptation \u201d , the popularisation of a healthy lifestyle , helping people in stressful situations and improving social and family relations . In practical terms the activity of the association consisted of training sessions , lectures , personal consultations and the like . Participation in the \u201c programmes \u201d of the association was offered to anyone interested and was free of charge , although participants were encouraged to make voluntary contributions to support the activities of the association . The association also issued a number of brochures containing information about its goals and basic principles . The brochures explained that the association was inspired by the teachings of PERSON , a modern NORP spiritual leader . According to CARDINAL of the brochures , participation in the programmes of the association would help its participants to fight insomnia and depression , strengthen their cardio - vascular systems , control their emotions and boost their natural defence mechanisms .","The association operated without a licence . On DATE the association applied to ORG for a licence . On an unspecified date in DATE the ORG confirmed to the association that it did not require a licence to run its programmes , stating the following :","\u201c ... Your type of activity , [ namely ] yoga seminars with application of the postures ( asana ) of ORG , ORG , and ORG ( practising kriya pranayama , i.e. rhythmical breathing at different speeds ) does not belong to the category of sports activities or health - improving gymnastics and is not listed in ORG \u201d .","In DATE PERSON , who was at the time a DATE student at ORG in Irkutsk ( hereinafter DATE \u201c the university \u201d ) , enrolled in the basic programme of the association , \u201c The Healing Breath Workshop \u201d . She enrolled together with her twin sister , ORG The applicant was one of the \u201c instructors \u201d of the association responsible for that programme . The course included elements of yoga , special breathing techniques , mantra singing , meditation , listening to music , aromatherapy and other similar practices . Participants were recommended to follow a certain diet and do exercises at home . The applicant claimed that she had been doing the exercises regularly herself since DATE .","NORP In DATE PERSON and her sister started to attend daily training sessions on the premises of the association . PERSON contributed MONEY ( CARDINAL ) to the association as a gift . Upon completion of the course Ms GPE was encouraged to enrol in an advanced course called \u201c Eternity \u201d , which was run by a different instructor , PERSON","At a certain point PERSON started experiencing serious psychological problems . Her mother called the association and blamed the instructors for having turned Ms S.D. \u201c into a zombie \u201d . According to the applicant , PERSON mother was a fervent NORP and did not approve of her ORG interest in a group which the mother described as a \u201c sect \u201d .","According to ORG mother , after the training sessions PERSON started having hallucinations and delusions , lost contact with her family , skipped classes at the university , and almost completely stopped eating . On DATE PERSON mother called the emergency psychiatric services for her daughter ; a doctor administered an injection , which did not help . Shortly thereafter PERSON fainted and was hospitalised .","NORP In the following months PERSON was hospitalised several times . The diagnosis initially made was \u201c reactive psychosis \u201d . Later the doctors described her mental condition as a \u201c stress - related schizoid disorder \u201d . The parties disagreed as to whether the disorder of PERSON was serious enough to be characterised as \u201c schizophrenia \u201d according to the classifications of mental illness in use in GPE ; subsequent expert opinions were not unanimous on that point .","According to the doctors at the clinic where Ms GPE was treated , her mental condition was related to her participation in the programmes of the association , which was referred to in the medical record of DATE as a \u201c sect \u201d . Later entries in her medical record also mentioned the \u201c religious \u201d character of her delusions . Following the admission of PERSON to the clinic , an internal inquiry was conducted , which concluded that her medical condition was of a \u201c religious and occult nature \u201d and had been caused by her participation in the programmes of the association .","NORP In DATE the association ceased its activities due to lack of funds .","In DATE that followed , the diagnosis of PERSON was re - formulated several times ; in DATE the doctors concluded that she was suffering from schizophrenia .","On DATE an investigator from the GPE Region police force questioned PERSON in connection with the events of DATE . According to her testimony , the association received payment from the participants of the programme ; the programme consisted of breathing techniques , listening to audio - recordings of the voice of the guru , and other similar practices which LOC characterised as brainwashing . Ms GPE testified that she had almost stopped eating completely during the period she was attending the courses because the teachers had told her that food was poison . She had also dropped out of her course at the university . At some point she had lost track of the events and had returned to her normal self only in the clinic .","On an unspecified date in DATE the police investigator ordered an expert examination of the alleged victim , PERSON","On DATE Ms GPE was examined by a group of psychiatrists , including Dr Gul . , PERSON , and PERSON . PERSON . acted as the \u201c rapporteur \u201d for the group of experts . In report no . CARDINAL , the group concluded that PERSON had developed an \u201c acute schizoid psychotic disorder \u201d which was related to her participation in the programmes of the association . The experts concluded that after DATE Ms GPE had regained her mental health and , at the time of examination , was capable of participating in the proceedings and giving accurate testimony to the investigator and before the court .","On DATE an investigator from the GPE Region police department opened a criminal investigation under Article CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c Illegal medical practice \u201d ) . The investigative authorities suspected that members of the association had been involved in quackery and had dispensed medical services to PERSON ( \u201c the alleged victim \u201d ) without the necessary licences and training . However , the investigative authorities did not charge anybody with that crime when opening the case .","On DATE the investigator ordered an expert examination of the activities of the association . In particular , the investigator sought to establish whether the association had been dispensing medical services to the participants of the programmes , and whether the alleged victim had suffered any damage to her health as a result of participating in those programmes . The examination was entrusted to ORG ( MFB ) of the regional ORG . An expert team was put together which consisted of PERSON . ( the president ) , PERSON . , Dr GPE . , and PERSON .","On DATE the investigative authorities searched the applicant \u2019s house and seized documents and literature related to the activities of the association .","On DATE the ORG delivered the first report . The report was based on an examination of the materials in the criminal case file . The report noted that the techniques used by the association in its programmes were known both in conventional ( scientific ) and alternative ( \u201c folk \u201d ) medicine circles . However , it did not answer the question as to whether those techniques were medical . It also concluded that the medical condition of the alleged victim was \u201c most probably \u201d related to her participation in the programmes of the association .","On DATE the investigator asked the MFB to carry out an \u201c additional \u201d ( dopolnitelnaya ) expert examination of the activities of the association . The ORG expert team was composed of PERSON . ( the president ) , PERSON . and Dr PERSON . Again , the experts did not examine Ms GPE in person and based their conclusions on the written materials contained in the case file .","On DATE the ORG delivered a second report as requested by the investigator ( no . CARDINAL ) . The MFB again did not give a definite answer to the question of whether the association had been dispensing medical services . It noted that the charter of incorporation and other documents pertaining to the association did not contain any indication as to the medical nature of its programmes . In the opinion of the experts , it was important to distinguish between the \u201c Eternity \u201d programme and the other programmes of the association .","The experts also concluded that in the particular case of the alleged victim the techniques used by the association were at the origin of her mental disorder . The basic programme , referred to by the experts as \u201c The Art of Living \u201d , had weakened the alleged victim physically . Her subsequent involvement in the \u201c Eternity \u201d programme had aggravated her somatic condition with a psychiatric disorder .","NORP In DATE the investigator in charge of the case requested the opinion of ORG concerning the activities of the association . On DATE the Acting Minister of ORG replied in the following terms :","\u201c The practising of folk medicine ... is subject to the licensing requirement laid down in LAW DATE \u201c On the licensing of certain types of activities \u201d , Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE \u201c On the licensing of medical activities \u201d , and Order of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE \u201c On the organisation of the licensing of medical activities \u201d , as well as on the basis of the \u201c Basic Principles of ORG \u201d adopted on DATE .","Order of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ... is no longer in force . At present the list of medical services ... is set out in Order no . CARDINAL of DATE .","Breathing techniques and other methods listed in the list of medical services , as well as hypnotic infusion , belong to the category of \u2018 medical ORG and must be licensed under the head \u2018 PERSON on the basis of :","( CARDINAL ) Order of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE \u201c On psychotherapeutic treatment \u201d ;","( CARDINAL ) Methodological recommendations ... which are annexed to Order no . CARDINAL ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP Encyclopaedia by PERSON ( DATE ) .","The use of trancelike states as a part of LOC psychotherapy is considered as a medical practice . However , that technique is not used in the \u2018 Art of ORG programme ; [ the programme is based on the use of ] relaxation on the basis of traditional meditation within the framework of spiritual practices , which do not require a license .","Physical exercises on the basis of yoga asanas [ ( postures ) ] are not medical activities and are not liable to the licensing requirement .","The term \u2018 private medical ORG includes both medical services and services of folk medicine , so those notions are different . \u201d","On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON again . She largely confirmed her earlier testimony . She also explained that as a part of her participation in the \u201c programme \u201d she had had an obligation to practise special breathing techniques TIME for DATE in a row , and that she had not been allowed to eat meat or fish in any form . She described in detail the \u201c Eternity \u201d programme , which was conducted by the applicant \u2019s co - accused , PERSON , and described the effects that programme had had on her physical condition .","On DATE the investigator ordered a new expert examination of the activities of the association . The examination was entrusted to PERSON , chief psychotherapist of ORG .","NORP The report was prepared on DATE . A copy of that report was submitted to ORG but is only partially legible .","The first question put to the expert concerned the licensing requirements for folk medicine . The expert replied that the licensing of folk medicine was regulated by Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE .","The investigator further asked whether certain practices ( such as \u201c breath gymnastics \u201d , \u201c hypnotic infusion \u201c , \u201c physical exercises on the basis of yoga postures \u201d , and \u201c entrancement \u201d ) belonged to the methods of folk medicine and required a medical licence . As to \u201c yoga postures \u201d , the expert concluded that they were not \u201c medical activities \u201d and did not require a licence . Concerning \u201c breath gymnastics \u201d and \u201c hypnotic infusion \u201d , the expert confirmed that these were well - known psychotherapeutic methods , but they had not been used by the association . Elements of those programmes could be used by medical doctors as supplementary methods of psychotherapeutic treatment ; however , the \u201c Art of Living \u201d programmes , according to the expert , did not have any medical purpose , were not aimed at curing ailments and , therefore , were not \u201c medical \u201d .","On DATE the investigator ordered a \u201c forensic and legal examination \u201d of the activities of the association . It was entrusted to ORG .","On DATE Dr Iv . , a doctor in psychiatry and the chief psychiatrist of ORG of GPE , drew up a report in which he concluded that the activities of the association had been \u201c medical \u201d in nature and had thus required a licence .","On DATE the applicant was formally charged . She pleaded not guilty as from the first questioning .","On DATE the defence obtained an expert opinion by CARDINAL doctors from ORG ( including CARDINAL professor of medicine ) . The expert team examined CARDINAL people who had participated in the \u201c Art of Living \u201d programmes for DATE . The team concluded that most of the people in the test group had observed various positive effects of the programmes , including easing of their chronic diseases , restoration of psychological balance and increased efficiency at work . The report emphasised that \u201c moderate and consistent practice of yoga within the \u2018 Art of ORG programme is not incompatible with chronic diseases or old age and can be recommended for rehabilitation after traumas , surgical operations and diseases \u201d . It is unclear whether that written opinion was added to the case file .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked the investigator to carry out an additional forensic examination . From the materials in the case file it is unclear whether that examination was supposed to cover the activities of the association , the state of health of Ms GPE or another issue . On DATE the investigator replied that all the necessary expert examinations had already been carried out , that the applicant \u2019s guilt had been established , and that there was no need to carry out any new examinations .","On DATE the investigator commissioned a new expert examination on the activities of the association , which was again entrusted to Dr Iv . On DATE the defence was handed a copy of the investigator \u2019s decision to order an expert examination .","The report was produced on DATE . It was based on the written materials of the case file . Dr Iv . started by analysing the applicable legislation . LAW of LAW of DATE provided that the practising of alternative medicine ( also referred to in the law as \u201c folk medicine \u201d , \u201c traditional medicine \u201d or \u201c healing \u201d ) required a \u201c healer \u2019s diploma \u201d . LAW of LAW required a private practitioner to have a doctor \u2019s or paramedic \u2019s degree , a \u201c specialist certificate \u201d and a licence ( for example , for practising \u201c alternative medicine \u201d ) . Decree no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE provided that folk medicine was subject to the licensing requirement .","LAW of DATE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ ) and Government Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE included folk medicine in the list of activities subject to the licensing requirement .","Order of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE contained a glossary of \u201c simple medical services \u201d , which included , amongst other activities , items ORG . PERSON ( \u201c psychotherapy \u201d ) and DATE ( \u201c hypnotherapy \u201d ) . The expert concluded that such services were covered by the licensing requirement and should be provided by specialists in the relevant fields .","Furthermore , referring to Government Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE on the licensing of medical services , the expert indicated that a person providing medical services was required by law to have , in addition to a special degree or training , a certain amount of work experience in their specific field of medicine . Decree of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE set out a list of what constituted \u201c medical services \u201d , which included a section on folk medicine . The Decree stipulated that a licence was required to practise folk medicine . On DATE the First Deputy Minister for ORG issued a \u201c Methodological Directive on ORG \u201d , which described certain activities as falling within the ambit of folk medicine ; the list included \u201c traditional systems of invigoration \u201d .","The expert also studied specialised medical literature . He concluded that the applicant had used psychotherapeutic methods which were described in the medical literature , such as \u201c trance inducement \u201d , \u201c breath control \u201d and \u201c therapeutic gymnastics \u201d . The latter , according to ORG recommendation no . CARDINAL of DATE , could include elements of yoga . The expert concluded that the use of such methods placed the applicant \u2019s activity within the scope of \u201c private medical practice \u201d , which needed a licence under the heads of \u201c psychotherapy \u201d and \u201c therapeutic gymnastics \u201d .","The expert referred to ORG of DATE , which characterised yoga as a \u201c traditional method of healing \u201d . The same Directive noted that \u201c traditional methods of healing \u201d , including yoga , were not officially recommended by ORG for application in medical practice , and , therefore , were not covered by a licensing regime . From that , the expert inferred that in GPE \u201c official application of traditional methods of healing \u201d was not allowed . The expert further referred to LAW DATE which warned against the use of \u201c occult practices \u201d and other non - recommended healing techniques .","The expert noted that the charter of incorporation of the association did not mention that it had been created to dispense medical services . However , the brochures issued by the association described the effects of its \u201c programmes \u201d in medical terms , for example : \u201c a complex of detoxicating dynamic exercises \u201d , \u201c improved functioning of all internal organs \u201d , \u201c harmonisation of all levels of the personality \u201d , \u201c controlled meditation and certain other techniques which guarantee deep relaxation , appeasement of emotions , and help to overcome stress \u201d , and so on . The brochures referred to cases of seriously ill individuals suffering from , inter alia , insomnia and depression , having been cured following completion of the association \u2019s programmes . The techniques used in the programmes were described as a \u201c synthesis of old wisdom and modern science \u201d . On DATE PERSON obtained patent no . CARDINAL \u201c on the breathing technique \u201d which specified that this technique could be used for medical purposes .","The expert further studied witness evidence from former participants of the programmes of the association . According to some of the participants , the instructors told them that they had medical diplomas and that the programmes were supposed to have healing effects . The participants were required by the instructors to fill in forms which contained questions about their health . The expert also analysed their description of the techniques used in the programmes , such as relaxation techniques , physical exercises , breathing techniques , meditation and so on .","To describe the activities of the association its brochures used terms such as \u201c psychological adaptation \u201d , \u201c autogenic training \u201d and \u201c relaxation \u201d which could be found in specialised medical literature and were in fact techniques of psychotherapy and psychiatric treatment . The expert compared the techniques used by the instructors of the association with \u201c holotropic therapy \u201d , which is a method used in psychotherapy , and pointed out a number of similarities .","On the strength of that evidence the expert concluded that the activities of the association could be characterised as \u201c folk medicine \u201d , which required a license . The activities of the association , in the opinion of the expert , were medical in nature .","On an unspecified date in DATE the defence asked the investigator to question a number of witnesses in order to decide whether there was a need for a further psychiatric examination of the victim . On DATE the investigator replied in the negative , stating that the personality of the victim had already been thoroughly examined and that the investigator had obtained an expert report and questioned CARDINAL of the members of the expert team , PERSON .","DATE . On DATE Prof . PERSON from ORG situated in GPE delivered an expert opinion at the request of the applicant \u2019s lawyer . Prof . PERSON criticised the earlier expert assessments , which had characterised the activities of the association as \u201c medical \u201d . Prof . PERSON asserted that elements of the programmes of the association could be found in many traditional practices , such as yoga , qigong and various martial arts . He also cast doubt on the conclusions of the earlier expert reports that the mental condition of ORG had been caused by her participation in the association \u2019s programmes . He supposed that her interest in the activities and ideas practised within the association could have been caused by her mental condition .","On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s lawyer solicited the opinion of the GPE - based ORG ( ORG ) in respect of the expert opinion of DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyer provided the ORG with copies of certain materials from the criminal case file , in particular , reports ORG . CARDINAL and DATE and the witness testimony of PERSON .","On DATE a group of experts from the ORG , composed of CARDINAL psychiatrists , PERSON . and PERSON . , and CARDINAL psychologist , PERSON . , delivered a written opinion . Their report criticised the methods used to carry out the expert examination of DATE which resulted in report no . MONEY ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . ) , and condemned the report as unreliable and incomplete .","The applicant \u2019s case was heard by Judge PERSON . of ORG .","At the trial the applicant and her co - defendant , PERSON , pleaded not guilty . They acknowledged that neither they nor the other instructors at the association had medical degrees . They also acknowledged that the alleged victim had been their apprentice and that she had had health problems after completing the CARDINAL programmes . However , they denied having caused any harm to the alleged victim and insisted that her mental disorder was related to a pre - existing condition or other life circumstances .","NORP In particular , they claimed that both the alleged victim and her sister had been born and raised in a very religious family , that they had both had problems fitting in at school , and that they had a difficult relationship with their mother . Several members of the alleged victim \u2019s family had a history of mental disorders , so her own problems could have been explained by a hereditary predisposition . She had started attending the programmes of the association because of her social and psychological problems .","Further , the applicant asserted that the \u201c programmes \u201d of the association could not be described as \u201c medical treatment \u201d . Since its creation the association had been inspected several times by ORG , which had not detected anything illegal in its activities .","The defence also claimed that the programmes of the association were not \u201c medical \u201d in nature , and thus did not require any special education or licence . Their purpose was to help people to attain social and psychological harmony , discover the true meaning of life , and so on . The instructors did not receive any remuneration of their work and their participation in the programmes was voluntary .","In the first round of the proceedings the court questioned several witnesses . They gave evidence about the mental and physical condition of the alleged victim before , during and after her participation in the programmes of the association . They all associated PERSON health problems with her participation in the programmes .","From the materials and explanations produced by the Government it appears that neither Ms GPE herself ( the alleged victim ) nor her twin sister , ORG , appeared in court . Thus , at the hearing of DATE Judge PERSON . stated that according to the medical certificates of DATE and DATE the doctors did not recommend that PERSON take part in the trial as it could cause a relapse . Both medical certificates were issued at the request of PERSON and contained no further information about her state of health or any examination conducted in that connection .","The court heard several other witnesses called at the request of the prosecution , namely , PERSON , the president of the association , ORG , a member of the association and a former teacher of PERSON at university , ORG , a member of the association who had attended the programme together with PERSON ( the alleged victim ) , PERSON . and PERSON The testimonies of those witnesses were generally consonant with the case of the defence .","The court heard an expert for the prosecution , Dr ORG , who had participated in the expert teams which had earlier assessed the materials of the case . Dr ORG was not categorical in her conclusions and testified that she had not been given information or materials about the alleged victim \u2019s character , social and family life or medical history , and that her conclusion about the link between the programme and the ailments of Ms GPE had been assumptive .","PERSON . , who had participated in the preparation of report no . DATE , was summoned but failed to appear . The judge tried to secure her attendance for DATE through the regional hospital where she worked . However , according to a letter from the hospital , PERSON . was on leave until DATE ; after that date her contract with the hospital would be terminated since she planned to move abroad . At the hearing of DATE the court , at the request of the prosecution , decided to read out Dr Ig . \u2019s previous testimony . In her testimony PERSON . had asserted that the mental condition of GPE GPE was directly linked to her participation in the programmes of the association .","The court examined written evidence from the case file submitted by the prosecution , in particular , records of the questioning of PERSON , a former teacher who had been Ms GPE \u2019s class tutor at school , other documentary evidence and official correspondence . The court examined a letter of DATE from the acting chief of ORG . In that letter Ms GPE \u2019s problems were associated with the activities of the association , which was characterised as a \u201c sect \u201d . The court examined search records and items seized during the searches , including brochures , books and audio - cassettes released by the association for its members . The court examined ORG medical history , the expert report by the MFB of DATE , the expert report of DATE and the expert report by Dr Iv . of DATE .","The court also heard other witnesses , who gave circumstantial evidence about the case .","The court questioned a number of witnesses proposed by the defence , namely , PERSON , a former member of the association and an acquaintance of PERSON , PERSON , the association \u2019s lawyer , and PERSON , who had been contacted by PERSON mother in connection with the mental condition of the former . They all testified that the mental condition of ORG had been caused by pre - existing factors .","A similar statement was made by PERSON , who had prepared a written expert report on GPE GPE \u2019s case on DATE . PERSON was questioned in the capacity of \u201c specialist \u201d .","The court also examined the written opinion of Prof . Z.","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant and PERSON In particular , the court concluded that the applicant and PERSON had not realised that their activities might fall within the ambit of medical practice or that they could have been harmful to the health of others . The court also found that the programmes of the association did not amount to medical practice .","DATE . The court excluded from evidence the expert reports of DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE as incomplete , self - contradictory and unreliable . The court also detected various irregularities in the way the expert examinations had been ordered and conducted . As to the expert opinion by PERSON . ( reports of DATE and DATE ) the court noted , inter alia , that it had been based on legislation which had entered into force after the events imputed to the applicant and to Ms GPE","The court also refused to admit the report by Prof . PERSON in evidence as it had been obtained in breach of the domestic law , notably because Prof . PERSON had not been informed by the investigator or the president of the court about criminal liability for false statement .","NORP The prosecution appealed .","On DATE the acquittal was quashed by ORG and the case was referred back to the trial court . ORG disagreed with the assessment of evidence by the trial court , and with its decision to declare some evidence , namely , expert reports , inadmissible . ORG also pointed to various procedural shortcomings in the trial proceedings . ORG noted that PERSON should not have been questioned , since he had participated in the proceedings earlier in his capacity as an expert . Amongst other things , ORG recommended that the trial court conduct new psychiatric examinations of ORG , the alleged victim .","In the second round of the trial proceedings the case was heard by ORG in a single - judge formation : first by Judge PERSON and subsequently by Judge PERSON","At the trial both the prosecution and the defence submitted their evidence to the court . The prosecution submitted written expert opinions and witness statements , items of documentary evidence and exhibits obtained at the previous trial or at the investigation stage . The prosecution also submitted medical certificates of DATE and CARDINAL DATE whereby the doctors recommended that the alleged victim refrain from attending court hearings in order to avoid a relapse .","The alleged victim ( Ms GPE ) did not appear in court . As follows from the materials submitted by the Government , her name was on the list of prosecution witnesses to be called . Instead , PERSON sent to the court a written declaration asking the court to discontinue the criminal prosecution of the applicant and her co - accused due to their \u201c reconciliation \u201d . She also informed the court that she did not wish to participate in the proceedings .","The District Court heard Ms GPE ( the mother of the victim ) and several other witnesses . Expert PERSON . did not appear ; according to the court , the summons had not been handed to her and had returned by post . The defence insisted that PERSON . be contacted through her employer .","DATE . On DATE the judge sent a request to the town psychiatric hospital concerning the state of health of PERSON , the victim . The hospital replied that they had lost contact with PERSON in DATE , and that LOC had refused to continue to receive out - patient treatment by the doctors of that hospital . The hospital also informed the judge that Ms S.D. \u2019s brother ( Mr PERSON . NORP ) and sister ( ORG ) had previously been treated in the hospital in connection with certain mental disorders .","According to the hearing records , the prosecution asked permission to read out the testimony PERSON had given at the investigation stage . The defence did not object to her testimony being read out . According to the applicant , the defence sought to question those witnesses in person . The court decided to read out the records of the questioning of PERSON , as well as the statements her mother , brother , and sister had made during the first round of the proceedings and before the investigative authorities .","Witness for the defence PERSON testified in person before the court . The court also heard several other witnesses for the defence , namely , Ms E.D. and PERSON . They gave testimony consonant with the position of the defence .","The court questioned expert PERSON , who had participated in the expert examination of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) . The court also questioned expert Dr PERSON . , who had participated in the expert examinations of DATE and DATE ( nos . CARDINAL and DATE ) . They confirmed the conclusions of the expert reports and provided further information on the case .","The defence sought to exclude the expert opinions produced by the prosecution on the ground that PERSON ( the co - defendant ) had not been aware of the decision of the investigator to conduct the expert examination . However , the court refused to exclude those opinions on the ground that the defence had had the opportunity to challenge the experts and their conclusions after the completion of the reports or to seek additional expert examinations in the course of the court proceedings .","On DATE the lawyer representing PERSON ( the applicant \u2019s co - defendant ) asked the court to conduct an additional expert examination of the state of health of PERSON ( the victim ) . It appears that a request in similar terms was lodged by the applicant \u2019s lawyer as well .","On DATE the prosecutor asked the court to order another expert examination of the materials of the case in order to clarify whether the \u201c programmes \u201d of the association included medical services . The defence asked the judge to entrust the examination to a ORG institution in GPE , but the judge refused and entrusted the examination to a local forensic centre in GPE . However , the court agreed to include an expert proposed by the defence on the team . The materials of the case were forwarded to the competent expert institution for examination .","On DATE those materials were returned to the court without examination . The expert institution replied that it was impossible to reply to the questions as they had been formulated by the judge in overly broad terms , and that additional experts were needed to carry out that kind of examination .","In DATE Judge PERSON withdrew from sitting in the case for reasons which remain unknown . He was replaced by Judge PERSON The trial was resumed on DATE . It appears that due to the change of judge the case was heard again from the beginning ( see LAW in the \u201c Relevant Domestic Law \u201d part below ) .","At the hearing of DATE the prosecution declared that they would agree to the discontinuation of the case on the ground that the statutory time - limits for prosecuting the defendants had expired . However , the applicant and PERSON insisted on the continuation of the trial , stressing that they wished to prove their innocence .","Having examined the list of witnesses summoned to the hearing , Judge PERSON noted that PERSON . had been summoned but that the court had \u201c received no information about her proper notification \u201d .","The prosecution again asked to read out the testimony of Ms GPE and PERSON obtained at the pre - trial investigation stage but the defence objected . They asked the judge to request information about the ability of those witnesses to testify in court in person .","On DATE Judge PERSON decided to read out the testimony Ms GPE had given at the pre - trial investigation stage . On the basis of the materials in the case - file and \u201c information received \u201d , the judge ruled that the state of health of PERSON prevented her from participating in the trial .","The judge also noted that it was impossible to hear expert witness Dr Ig . , without , however , explaining why , and ordered the reading out of her testimony obtained by the investigator .","On DATE Judge PERSON requested the opinion of the regional psychiatric hospital as to whether the state of health of PERSON and ORG permitted them to take part in the proceedings . On DATE the hospital replied that since PERSON and ORG had not been treated in that hospital , it was impossible to say whether they were fit to attend the trial .","Subsequently the judge read out testimony by several other witnesses who had been questioned at the earlier stages of the proceedings , including PERSON ( the mother of the victim ) and PERSON . NORP ( the brother of the victim ) .","It appears that at the subsequent hearings the judge heard oral evidence from several witnesses , namely , PERSON . Iv . and PERSON However , the Government did not produce copies of the records of the relevant hearings .","On DATE Judge PERSON heard CARDINAL experts \u2013 PERSON . ( who had participated in drafting expert opinions ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) and Dr N. ( who had participated in the drafting of expert opinion no . CARDINAL ) . During his questioning Dr PERSON . stated , inter alia , that lacunas in the previous expert examinations could have been filled by carrying out a new psychiatric examination of PERSON was of the same opinion .","The defence asked the judge to read out the testimony of expert PERSON , who had drafted the report of CARDINAL DATE and who had been questioned at the first trial . The judge agreed and PERSON recorded testimony was examined .","On DATE the defence requested the court to order an additional expert examination of the causes of the mental disorder of Ms GPE and its relation to her participation in the programmes of the association . The defence stated that the expert examinations obtained earlier were inconsistent and did not address certain important issues .","That request was refused : the judge concluded that the previously obtained expert opinions were sufficient to reach a conclusion on the merits of the case . The examination of evidence was closed and the judge ordered the parties to proceed to the final pleadings .","On DATE ORG found the applicant and PERSON guilty under LAW .","ORG found that DATE and DATE , in the guise of \u201c programmes \u201d and \u201c training courses \u201d , the applicant and Ms GPE had dispensed to PERSON the following medical services : \u201c psychological adaptation \u201d ; \u201c autogenic training \u201d , \u201c dietetic therapy \u201d , \u201c medicinal gymnastics \u201d , and \u201c psychotherapeutic treatment \u201d . All those activities belonged to various fields of medicine ( such as psychotherapy , psychiatry and narcology ) . The nature of the activities of the accused was in itself indicative of the deliberate and conscious nature of their actions . To dispense such services a special education and a licence were required . The defendants had operated without any licence and did not have any medical training . There was a direct causal link between Ms S.D. \u2019s participation in the programme and her health problems in DATE . Thus , the unlawful and careless behaviour of the applicant and Ms GPE had caused PERSON moderately serious health damage .","In support of its conclusions the court referred to the following evidence : the testimony of PERSON given on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the testimony of ORG , the sister of the alleged victim , given during the pre - trial investigation on DATE , and the testimonies of Ms GPE ( the mother of the alleged victim ) , and Mr PERSON ( the brother ) given at the trial .","The court further referred to expert opinions , namely , the expert reports of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , the reports of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL April CARDINAL ( no . CARDINAL ) , the expert report by PERSON . of DATE , and the record of expert PERSON . \u2019s questioning by the investigator . The court also referred to the oral testimony of experts PERSON and Dr PERSON . given at the trial .","The court also referred to other evidence , namely , the records of the testimonies of Ms E. K. , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and others , given either to the investigator during the investigation stage of the proceedings or at the first trial . The court also relied on documentary evidence , including the medical history of PERSON , the charter of incorporation of the association and brochures and leaflets published by it .","NORP The court dismissed as inconclusive witness statements by PERSON ( defence witness ) and PERSON ( defence witness ) , and did not analyse the testimony of PERSON court also discarded the testimonies of those witnesses who had themselves participated in the programmes of the association on the ground that their opinion about the nature and effects of those programmes was \u201c subjective \u201d .","Expert opinions proposed by the defence were declared inadmissible in evidence . In particular , ORG held that the expert opinions of Prof . PERSON and the ORG were inadmissible on the ground that they had been obtained in breach of ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the CCrP. The court explained that under the law \u201c a party can not , on its own initiative and outside of the court hearing , solicit and obtain the opinion of a specialist \u201d ( page CARDINAL of the judgment ) .","The written testimony of PERSON was excluded on the ground that PERSON had earlier produced an expert report on the case . Consequently , under LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the CCrP he was precluded from being questioned in his capacity as a \u201c specialist \u201d .","As to the references in the report of Dr Iv . of DATE to the legal acts adopted after the events imputed to the applicant , the court noted that these references did not contradict the conclusions of PERSON . but only strengthened them , and that PERSON . had also referred to the legal acts in force at the time of the events at issue ( page CARDINAL of the judgment ) .","In the concluding paragraphs of the judgment the court noted as follows :","\u201c The court considers that the evidence [ submitted by the parties ] is admissible , relevant and reliable to the extent that it does not contradict the","ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE of imprisonment ; however , she was relieved from serving the sentence owing to the expiry of the relevant statutory time - limit . Mr PERSON was sentenced to DATE and DATE of imprisonment .","The defence appealed . They complained , in particular , that judge PERSON had based the judgment on the testimony of witnesses he had not heard in person . They also complained about the refusal of the trial court to admit expert opinions submitted by the defence in evidence and obtain a new expert examination of the condition of PERSON On DATE ORG upheld the conviction . The court of appeal did not find any breach of the domestic substantive or procedural law in the proceedings before the trial court . ORG ruled , inter alia , that the defence had conceded to the reading out of the previous testimony of the alleged victim and her relatives . ORG noted that the record of PERSON \u2019s questioning by the investigator was a reliable source of information because when she had given that evidence she had not been suffering from a mental condition ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164928","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BUZADJI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Branko Lubarda;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","The applicant was a minority shareholder in and the CEO of a liquefied gas supply company from southern GPE in which the ORG owned PERCENT of the shares . In DATE a criminal investigation was initiated in respect of an alleged unsuccessful attempt by the applicant to commit a fraud in connection with his activity at the company . In particular , he was accused of having , DATE , devised a scheme involving the importation of liquefied gas from GPE and GPE , as a result of which the company had sustained major financial losses . According to the accusation , instead of purchasing gas directly from the producers , he had called on the services of intermediary companies , resulting in a significant increase in the price of the gas . Those intermediary companies also had ties with his sons . Later , when his company was faced with a court claim from the intermediary companies amounting to CARDINAL United States dollars plus penalties , he had acknowledged that debt in court proceedings .","In this connection , in DATE the investigating authorities summoned the applicant to appear before them and to make a statement . In his defence the applicant argued that his company could not purchase gas directly from the producers , because the minimum quantity which the producers agreed to sell exceeded his company \u2019s needs for DATE . Therefore , it was impossible for his company to purchase the amounts of gas needed directly from the producers . Moreover , the producers PERCENT pre - payment and his company did not have the available funds . He submitted that all national gas importers used the same method of importing gas and that the price of the gas purchased by his company was lower than that on the free national market . He further argued that the difference in price between that of the producers and that paid by his company was explained by transportation costs , certification , handling , insurance and other factors . He also denied that his sons were in any way involved in the intermediary companies .","The applicant was summoned on several occasions and in each case appeared before the investigating authorities and cooperated with them . In DATE the applicant \u2019s house was searched , his personal computer was seized and various documents were extracted from it . It does not transpire from the case file that there were any instances when the applicant did not comply with the instructions of the investigators and\/or that he was ever accused of obstructing the investigation .","NORP The applicant \u2019s sons , who were also suspects in the criminal proceedings and were subsequently charged , were summoned to appear before the investigating authorities without being arrested . Later , CARDINAL different investigations were initiated in respect of the applicant and all of them were joined in a single procedure .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and on CARDINAL DATE he was formally charged with the attempted large - scale misappropriation of goods belonging to the company where he worked , namely with the facts described in paragraph CARDINAL above . On DATE , the prosecutor in charge of the case applied to ORG for a DATE detention warrant on the following grounds : the seriousness of the offence , the risk of influencing witnesses and the risk of reoffending .","The applicant objected and argued that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence . In particular , he submitted that the criminal proceedings against him were nothing but a means of influencing the outcome of pending civil proceedings concerning the debt owned by the ORG - owned company and the intermediary companies . In any event , the grounds relied upon by the prosecutor were stereotyped and the prosecutor had failed to explain the reasons for his belief that the applicant would attempt to influence witnesses and reoffend . He submitted that he was a well - known person in the region and that he had worked at his company for DATE . He had a permanent residence , had been cooperating with the investigation since DATE and had never attempted to abscond or hinder the investigation . Moreover , he relied on his age and on his poor state of health , submitting that he had suffered a heart attack and a stroke .","On DATE ORG partly upheld the prosecutor \u2019s application and ordered the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial for DATE . The court found that :","\u201c ... the deed with which [ the applicant ] is charged is considered to be an exceptionally serious offence , which allows for detention pending trial . [ The court ] takes into account the nature and seriousness of the offence and the complexity of the case , and considers that at this incipient stage of the investigation there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused could collude with others ( his sons , who have not been questioned ) in order to take a common position .","The other reasons relied upon by the prosecutor , namely the risk of absconding and influencing witnesses or that of destroying evidence , are not substantiated and are not very probable . \u201d","The applicant appealed , contending that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence . He reiterated his previous statement to the effect that the criminal proceedings pursued the ulterior motive of influencing the outcome of pending civil proceedings between the company at which he worked and a third company . He further argued that the ground relied upon by the court to order his detention on remand , namely the risk of his colluding with his sons , had not been invoked by the prosecutor . Moreover , his CARDINAL sons had not been formally charged and , in any case , all of them had had plenty of time to collude DATE , when they first learned of the investigation , and DATE had they been so inclined . The applicant also relied on his serious medical condition and submitted that he was a well - known individual with a family , a residence and a job in GPE , who had appeared before the investigating authorities whenever he had been summoned during the period from DATE to DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE , essentially repeating the grounds given by the lower court without giving any reasons for dismissing the arguments put forward by the applicant .","On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case applied to the court for the prolongation of the applicant \u2019s detention on remand by DATE . He relied on such reasons as the gravity of the offence , the risk of influencing witnesses , the risk of reoffending and the risk of absconding .","The applicant objected , submitting that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and no reason to believe that he would influence witnesses who had already been questioned . He also emphasised that he had cooperated irreproachably with the investigation before his arrest and that he had a permanent residence . He therefore asked the court to order the replacement of the measure of detention with another less severe measure . CARDINAL of his lawyers asked the court to order a less severe measure such as , for instance , house arrest , in place of the detention .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention on remand by DATE . After recapitulating the parties\u2019 positions and citing the applicable provisions of the law , the court found that :","\u201c ... the grounds relied on when applying the preventive measure [ of detention ] remain valid , the majority of the investigative actions have been carried out , but a number of additional measures requiring [ the applicant \u2019s ] participation are still necessary in order to send the case to the trial court . The court considers that the application on the part of the defence to replace the preventive measure is premature , taking into account the seriousness and complexity of the case and the need to protect public order and the public interest , as well as to ensure the smooth and objective course of the investigation . \u201d","NORP The applicant appealed , relying on essentially the same arguments as he had done previously .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The court gave essentially the same reasons as it had done in its decision of CARDINAL DATE , namely the gravity and the complexity of the case , the risk of absconding or influencing witnesses and the risk of destroying documentary evidence which have not yet been collected by the prosecutors .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case applied for a further prolongation of the applicant \u2019s detention on remand of DATE . He argued that the case was complex and that new charges had been brought against the applicant in the context of the same proceedings : he had now been charged also with abusing his position and overstepping his duties . As on previous occasions , the prosecutor argued that the extension of the detention was necessary in order to avoid the risk of the applicant \u2019s influencing witnesses and reoffending .","NORP The applicant objected and asked the court to replace the measure of detention with another measure . He submitted the same reasons as before and added that his health had considerably deteriorated during detention and that he needed medical care .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention on remand by DATE , stating that the reasons for his continued detention remained valid .","The applicant appealed , submitting inter alia that the complexity of the case invoked by the prosecutor had been deliberately generated by the latter \u2019s refusal to conduct an audit of the company or to question the witnesses cited by the applicant . He also challenged the allegation concerning the gravity of the offence imputed to him , pointing out that he was only being accused of attempting to commit an offence , not of committing it . He claimed that no actual loss had been caused to the company and that the court had failed to take into consideration the accused \u2019s individual circumstances .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision , finding that it had been adopted in compliance with the law . The court also noted that the applicant was accused of a particularly serious offence punishable by imprisonment from CARDINAL to twenty - five years and that the investigation was still ongoing . The court held that if released the applicant might be able to abscond or to influence witnesses .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case applied again for a further DATE extension of the applicant \u2019s detention .","The applicant objected on the basis that there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond or influence witnesses . He stressed that the prosecutor had not conducted any investigative measures for a long time and that the investigation was virtually completed . He reiterated that he had a permanent residence and that he had agreed to appear before the investigators whenever necessary . He presented a medical report dated DATE , according to which it was established inter alia that he had arterial hypertension and a slight paralysis of his right leg as a result of a stroke . The doctor recommended treatment in a neurological clinic . The applicant asked the court to dismiss the prosecutor \u2019s application and to apply a less severe measure such as conditional release or house arrest .","On DATE ORG rejected the prosecutor \u2019s application and accepted the applicant \u2019s request , ordering that he be placed under house arrest for DATE . The court found that :","\u201c ... the applicant has been detained for DATE and has participated in all the necessary investigative actions ; ... LAW imposes a presumption that an accused be freed while he awaits his trial ; ... certain evidence , which may have been sufficient earlier to justify [ detention ] or to render alternative preventive measures inadequate , could become less convincing with the passage of time ; ... it is for the prosecutor to prove the existence of a risk of absconding , and such a risk can not be proved only by reference to the severity of the potential punishment ; [ the court referred to the applicant \u2019s medical problems and his age , the lack of a criminal record , his permanent residence and married status ] ; the [ ORG ] case - law provides that detention pending trial should be exceptional , always objectively reasoned and must correspond to the public interest ; the court finds that it is implausible that [ the applicant ] will abscond , influence witnesses or destroy evidence , and that the normal course of the criminal investigation is possible while the accused is under house arrest . \u201d","The court set the following conditions for the applicant \u2019s house arrest : prohibition from leaving his house ; prohibition of using the telephone ; prohibition from discussing his case with any other person .","The applicant was immediately taken home , where he remained for DATE . However , the prosecutor lodged an appeal against the above - mentioned decision and invoked as one of the reasons for the applicant \u2019s continued detention in custody the fact that the applicant refused to confess to having committed the offence imputed to him .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and adopted a new one , ordering the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial for DATE . The court found that :","\u201c ... the lower court did not take into account the complexity of the case and the seriousness of the offence with which [ the applicant ] is charged ; the court considers that while under house arrest [ the applicant ] could communicate with the other accomplices , who are not under arrest and who are , moreover , his sons ; he could abscond by fleeing to the [ self - proclaimed and unrecognised \u201c GPE \u201d ] , which is not under the control of the GPE authorities ; he could influence witnesses , in order to make them change their statements ; the applicant has received visits from doctors and can obtain medical assistance in prison . \u201d","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case applied again to the court for an extension of the applicant \u2019s detention on remand . He relied on the same reasons as before .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial by DATE . It argued again that the applicant was accused of a serious offence and that he could abscond or hinder the investigation .","The applicant appealed , advancing essentially the same arguments as he had done earlier .","On DATE ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s decision and adopted a new one , changing the preventive measure to house arrest . The court found that :","\u201c the prosecutor did not provide any evidence confirming the continued need to detain [ the applicant ] , did not submit additional materials confirming the probability that he could exert influence on witnesses who have already been heard ; [ the applicant ] promises to appear before the investigating authorities whenever summoned ; there is no specific information concerning any risk of absconding \u201d .","The court also prohibited the applicant from communicating with persons who had any link with the criminal case against him and from leaving his house , and obliged him to phone the prosecutor \u2019s office DATE .","On DATE ORG examined the prosecutor \u2019s application to prolong the applicant \u2019s house arrest by DATE . The applicant did not object to the prolongation of the house arrest provided that the measures concerning the limitation on his communication with relatives were discontinued . The court upheld the prosecutor \u2019s request and ordered the prolongation of the house arrest for DATE . It also upheld the applicant \u2019s request and discontinued the limitation on his communication with his relatives . The only reason invoked by the court was the seriousness of the offence imputed to the applicant .","On DATE the ORG again prolonged the applicant \u2019s house arrest for DATE . The only reason given by the court was the seriousness of the offence imputed to the applicant . The applicant did not object provided that he was allowed to visit the hospital and the court in order to study the case file .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a habeas corpus request with ORG asking for the measure of house arrest to be changed for that of provisional release or release on bail . He argued that he had never breached the rules of the house arrest and that he undertook to further comply with all the instructions issued by the investigation organs .","On DATE the ORG decided to release the applicant on bail , observing that he had been detained for DATE and had never breached any of the restrictions imposed on him .","On DATE the applicant was acquitted of the charges for which he had been detained between CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The court found that no offence had taken place in regard to the facts imputed to him . At the same time he was acquitted of CARDINAL other charges brought against him and was found guilty on CARDINAL count , namely that of having illegally sold liquefied gas which had been seized by a bailiff , for which he was sentenced to a fine of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MONEY ) . Neither the applicant nor the prosecutor appealed against that judgment , which became final . The applicant \u2019s sons were acquitted ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156250","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NOVAKOVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP .","ORG The applicant , a person of NORP ethnic origin , lived in the town of NORP . During DATE and DATE NORP paramilitary forces gained control of CARDINAL of the territory of GPE and proclaimed the so - called \u201c GPE of LOC \u201d ( PERSON autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter the \u201c LOC \u201d ) . The town of NORP was close to the border of LOC . There were targeted killing of NORP civilians by members of the NORP police and army in the NORP area during a prolonged period in DATE and DATE ( see PERSON , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . In DATE the applicant left the town of ORG , fearing for his personal safety .","At DATE the NORP authorities announced a campaign of military action with the aim of regaining control over the LOC . The action was codenamed \u201c Storm \u201d and lasted DATE .","In DATE ORG established ORG in LOC , PERSON and ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) . On DATE the ORG mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the NORP authorities began .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against the GPE and ORG in ORG , seeking payment of a sum of money on account of his investments in certain LOC . The applicant stated that in DATE he left the town of NORP fearing for his personal safety . He returned to GPE in DATE . As a result , he was not able to lodge his claim within the DATE statutory time - limit . In his oral evidence given on DATE the applicant said that after having left the town of NORP , he had first moved to PERSON , in the territory of the LOC , and soon afterwards to the GPE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim on the grounds that it had become time - barred . It held that the applicant had left the town of NORP of his own free will , that the town of ORG had never been occupied and that the courts had been operational there at all times . Therefore , there had been no \u201c insurmountable obstacles \u201d for the applicant to lodge his civil claim within the statutory limitation period . The relevant part of the judgment reads :","\u201c ... the defendant \u2019s objection concerning the statutory limitation period is well founded since the plaintiff brought his civil action on DATE and the lease agreement had ceased on DATE . Therefore , under section CARDINAL of LAW ... the plaintiff \u2019s claim had become statute - barred after DATE .","...","The plaintiff \u2019s submissions under section CARDINAL of LAW concerning insurmountable obstacles which had prevented him from seeking judicial protection of his rights have not been accepted by this court because he had left the town of NORP of his own free will and the courts [ in NORP ] have been operational at all times . \u201d","This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE . The relevant part of its judgment reads :","\u201c Under section CARDINAL of LAW the statutory limitation period is suspended during the time in which a creditor is unable , owing to insurmountable obstacles , to seek the fulfilment of an obligation [ from a debtor ] .","The conclusions of the first - instance court that the plaintiff had not proved the existence of any such obstacles ; that the plaintiff had left the town of NORP of his own free will since that town had never been occupied by the enemy army during the period relevant for the statutory limitation ; and that the courts [ in NORP ] functioned at all times ; are correct and therefore fully endorsed by this court . \u201d","On DATE the lower courts\u2019 judgments were upheld by ORG . The relevant part of its judgment reads :","\u201c The [ lower ] courts assessed all relevant circumstances and dismissed the plaintiff \u2019s claim that there were insurmountable obstacles preventing him from lodging his action and that section CARDINAL of LAW was applicable .","Contrary to the plaintiff \u2019s allegations that he could not go to the town of ORG and lodge his civil action owing to insurmountable obstacles , the courts established that the courts in the town of ORG had been operational at all times ; that the town of ORG had not been occupied by the enemy army at any time during the period relevant for the statutory limitation ; that the plaintiff had not proved the existence of obstacles preventing him from going to NORP ; and that he had left NORP of his own free will .","Since these are well - known facts , the conclusion of the lower courts that there were no insurmountable obstacles preventing him from lodging the claim in due time ... is correct .","This court is also of the opinion that the plaintiff can not rely on insurmountable obstacles of an objective nature within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW since the town of NORP was not occupied by the enemy army , none of its citizens has the status of refugee or displaced person and the lodging of a civil action was possible during the entire period of war because the courts remained operational . \u201d","The applicant \u2019s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE . ORG endorsed the reasoning of the lower courts ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172071","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TEHNOGRADNJA DOO v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["On DATE the applicant company concluded a contract with GPE Banka AD ( hereinafter \u201c the bank \u201d ) , a private institution based in GPE . Under the terms of this contract , the applicant company acquired a debt belonging to the bank resulting from a final court judgment of DATE . That judgment was rendered against a socially - owned company called PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor company \u201d ) with its seat in PERSON . On DATE , upon the bank \u2019s application to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and the debtor company subsequently paid a part of the judgment debt .","On DATE , upon the applicant company \u2019s application to that effect , ORG again ordered the full enforcement of the judgment in question .","On DATE the applicant company concluded a settlement with the debtor company , which was later annulled following an application by the debtor company by a decision of ORG of DATE . That decision became final on DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the debtor company to pay the applicant company specified amounts .","On DATE , upon the applicant company \u2019s application to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company . As a result , all of the other ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor company were stayed .","The applicant company duly reported its claims based on the above - mentioned judgments .","On DATE ORG recognised a part of the applicant company \u2019s claims and instructed the applicant company to initiate civil proceedings in respect of the remainder .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG ruled partly in favour of the applicant company and dismissed the remainder of its claims . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . The domestic courts found that the contract which the applicant company had concluded with the bank ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) entitled it only to the recovery of the amount paid for the transfer of the debt owed to the bank in question , not the judgment debt itself .","The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158708","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MIKHAYLOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Free legal assistance);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Free legal assistance);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant took part in a march .","The applicant was then taken to a police station and was accused of disobeying the police order for the march to disband , as it was considered to be a non - authorised public gathering . The applicant was suspected of an offence under LAW ( ORG ) , which punishes disobedience of a lawful order by a public official . The police also considered that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW ORG , on account of her participation in a public gathering which had not been subject to prior notification to the authorities , as required by ORG .","On DATE , the administrative offence record was submitted to a justice of the peace of the CARDINAL district . The applicant was then apprised of her procedural rights under LAW .","The applicant lodged a request for adjournment in respect of both cases , since she needed time to retain counsel . The judge granted an adjournment until DATE .","On DATE the applicant sought another adjournment , referring to the need for time to study the case material . The judge adjourned the cases until DATE .","On DATE , referring to ORG case - law under LAW , the applicant sought free legal assistance in these proceedings .","On DATE the judge adjourned the case again , since the applicant sought to call witnesses .","By a procedural order of DATE , the justice of the peace dismissed the request for free legal assistance as follows :","\u201c Having examined the administrative offence record and the other documents in the case file , I dismiss the request because the ORG contains no rule concerning provision of legal assistance to the defendant . [ The applicant ] has been apprised of her rights under LAW ORG and thus must take her own decision whether she wants to retain an advocate , with due regard to her financial situation ... \u201d","By a judgment of DATE the applicant was found guilty of the administrative offence under LAW ORG and was sentenced to a fine of MONEY ( RUB ) .","On DATE , the same justice of the peace found the applicant guilty of breaching the requirements of LAW , which is an administrative offence under LAW ORG . The applicant was ordered to pay a fine of RUB CARDINAL .","The applicant appealed against both judgments and sought free legal assistance for the appeal proceedings .","On DATE ORG of GPE gave her leave to call witnesses but dismissed her request for free legal assistance as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] has submitted a request for free legal assistance , submitting that she is a pensioner and has insufficient means to retain an advocate ; she has no knowledge in the area of jurisprudence .","Having examined the request , the court can not grant it because the ORG contains no rule concerning provision of legal assistance to the defendant . [ The applicant ] has been apprised of her rights under LAW ORG and thus must take her own decision whether she wants to retain an advocate , with due regard to her financial situation ... \u201d","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request to admit a video recording in evidence . The applicant \u2019s renewed application for free legal assistance was again dismissed .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgments of the justice of the peace . The appeal court also stated as follows :","\u201c There has been no violation of [ the applicant \u2019s ] right to legal assistance . She was apprised of her procedural rights ... There is no evidence that the justice of the peace impeded [ the applicant \u2019s ] exercise of her rights . \u201d","The applicant sought further review of the above court decisions . On DATE the deputy President of GPE re - examined the case files and upheld the judgments .","NORP The applicant sought review before ORG of GPE . On DATE and DATE the Deputy President of this court dismissed her applications , stating as follows :","\u201c The applicable legislation contains no rule concerning provision of legal assistance free of charge . \u201d","Lastly , the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint regarding the non - availability of free legal assistance under the ORG . By decision no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared her application inadmissible and made the following findings :","\u201c The LAW of GPE ... provides for a right to legal assistance , in the circumstances prescribed by law , free of charge ...","The federal legislator is empowered to specify the means of access to the right to legal assistance , without impinging upon the essence of this right ...","LAW contains provisions allowing the person , who is being prosecuted for an administrative offence , to seek legal assistance ... by way of retaining a defender ... The defendant has a possibility to retain an advocate or another person . Therefore , the possibility to find and retain a defender is wider as compared to the situation of a suspect or accused in criminal proceedings ...","Unlike in criminal cases , the person concerned does not bear any procedural costs ... Therefore , the decision not to prosecute for an administrative offence or a favorable decision following the prosecution for such offence may entail reimbursement of the expenses relating to legal assistance ...","ORG previously acknowledged the need for a heightened level of protection of the ORG rights and freedoms in the areas entailing administrative or another type of public liability ... The relevant legislative regulations should comply with the requirements of fairness , proportionality and legal certainty ... At the same time , the constitutional requirements of fairness and proportionality entail some differentiation of liability on account of the seriousness of the facts , the extent and type of damage caused , the extent of the person \u2019s guilt and other relevant factors ...","Classification of offences as administrative or criminal entails corresponding statutory sentences and a set of corresponding procedural rules ... Unlike criminal cases , which include , as a rule , pre - trial proceedings , the cases under the ORG are focused on and processed by way of the non - judicial procedure . It has a more simplified and expedited nature , thus normally not requiring an investigation . Therefore , these proceedings are fit for the person to defend himself and are less financially burdensome as regards recourse to assistance from an advocate or another person ...","Therefore , the federal legislator should not be deprived of the choice in favour of a differentiated approach when putting in place specific modalities concerning legal assistance , with due regard to the type of offences , the severity of penalties , procedural specificities of the procedures and other legitimate criteria ...","In view of the above , as well as the case - law of ORG , the ORG \u2019s positive obligation to ensure provision of legal assistance , with recourse to public funding , primarily concerns the need to protect vulnerable groups ... and has a special significance in the criminal procedure , in particular on account of the importance of the consequences that may result during or after this procedure ...","The issue of free legal assistance in ORG cases may acquire constitutional significance in situations where the degree of actual intrusion into constitutional rights and freedoms , by way of prosecution under the ORG , becomes comparable to measures prescribed by criminal law ...","In substance , the applicant alleges a violation of her constitutional rights on account of the lacunae in LAW that allowed the courts to reject her request to use free of charge the services of the lawyer that would be appointed . At the same time , she referred to a risk of an administrative sentence of CARDINAL days\u2019 detention ...","A theoretical possibility of administrative detention of DATE was only available as a penalty in respect of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL charges against the applicant ... As a matter of fact , with due regard to various circumstances , she was fined MONEY , which was CARDINAL the minimum statutory fine under LAW ...","In view of the above and the other factors ( the penalty of administrative detention is only prescribed for some offences , is to be used only in exceptional circumstances ; it can not not be imposed in respect of certain categories of people ; the applicant was not subject to any pre - trial detention longer than TIME ) , there are no compelling reasons to consider that during the ORG proceedings the applicant was placed in a position which could be compared to that of a defendant in a criminal case and that she ran a risk of being subjected to measures which would be comparable to those under criminal law ...","\u2019s allegations are abstract ...","Article CARDINAL can not be perceived as violating the applicant \u2019s rights in the specific case ... Thus , the complaint should be declared inadmissible ...","However , the foregoing considerations should not prevent the federal legislator from specifying conditions for obtaining legal assistance in ORG cases , including by way of singling out categories of ORG cases and related criteria to determine whether free legal assistance in court proceedings is necessary ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-185031","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BONDARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonably necessary to prevent fleeing;Reasonably necessary to prevent offence);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4","5-5","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158887","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF VERDE\u0218 v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","On DATE he was detained in ORG after receiving a DATE sentence for aggravated theft . From DATE he was allowed to serve his sentence in a semi - open detention regime . He was held in FAC from DATE , where he was transferred again on DATE . He remains there to date .","NORP In his initial letters to the Court , the applicant stated that he had been diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) prior to his incarceration , for which he required treatment .","He stated that he had not received adequate medical treatment for his illness on account of a lack of funding , and that his family had had to assist him in this regard . Furthermore , even if he had tried to complain to the postsentencing judge about the matter , his request for a hearing had been denied on the erroneous ground that he had requested a hearing for legal matters .","From DATE the applicant was examined , tested and treated regularly for his condition in prison and civilian medical centres and hospitals . He received a number of vitamins and was administered antiretroviral treatment on a DATE basis .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the infectious diseases ward of ORG informed the socio - medical ward of ORG that they were monitoring the applicant \u2019s condition . He was hospitalised there from DATE and from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE respectively . It was noted , among other things , that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been taken to a civilian hospital for blood tests , and that he had been undergoing treatment with antiretroviral medication , in particular Truvada , PERSON and PERSON . It was recommended that he follow a highcalorie , protein - rich diet , take vitamins and liver protection medication , have an immunological and viral evaluation after DATE , and continue with the aforementioned antiretroviral treatment .","On DATE ORG informed ORG ( PERSON ) , among other things , that during his detention in the aforementioned facility the applicant had refused treatment through the national infectious diseases programme on the grounds that he could purchase it himself . In GPE , the drug Truvada was not included in the national programme , but could be replaced with ORG , which contained the same active substances . Upon his incarceration the applicant asked to be provided with PERSON and PERSON only , but the doctor had denied him the treatment as it would have been incomplete .","On DATE the medical centre attached to FAC informed the Government and submitted documents showing , among other things , that during his detention the applicant had lacked any HIV - related symptoms and complications . Also , his clinical and immunological condition and biological tests had remained normal . On DATE the Timi\u015foara ORG produced a forensic expert report in respect of the applicant \u2019s condition , recommending , among other things , that he be hospitalised in FAC . On DATE the applicant signed a waiver refusing hospitalisation on the grounds that his medical condition had been good , he had wanted to work , and he had been monitored by the local civilian hospital in DATE , where further monitoring had already been scheduled to take place in DATE . According to the monitoring carried out by that hospital in both DATE , the applicant \u2019s clinical and biological condition had remained normal .","On DATE ORG informed the Government , among other things , that the applicant had started antiretroviral treatment in DATE after being incarcerated in GPE . During his detention he had been given a special high - calorie , protein - rich diet reserved for people with HIV . The authorities had also intended to give him the recommended treatment . His antiretroviral treatment consisted of a combination of CARDINAL active substances grouped into CARDINAL separate drugs . CARDINAL of these was Truvada , which contained CARDINAL active substances but was not available in the recommended combination through the national infectious diseases programme . For this reason , and given that the applicant had purchased the necessary medication himself , he had not been given treatment through the national programme . He had signed a waiver refusing to receive treatment through the programme and had therefore exercised his right to purchase his own medication . The treatment was administered to him under strict medical supervision . His medical condition had been good during his detention therefore there was no causal link between the conditions of his detention and a potential aggravation of his medical condition .","In his initial letter to the ORG , the applicant stated that he had been detained in overcrowded and squalid cells lacking sufficient air and light . He had also been detained with smokers even though he was a non - smoker .","ORG informed the Government that during his detention in ORG and after his transfer to FAC the applicant had signed a number of contradictory statements as to whether or not he was a smoker . Those dated DATE , DATE and DATE stated he was a smoker , whereas others dated CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE stated he was a non - smoker .","ORG also informed the Government that during his incarceration in ORG the applicant had been detained in cells GPE , GPE and ECARDINAL.CARDINAL .","From DATE he had been detained in cell PERSON , which measured QUANTITY . He had shared this cell with CARDINAL detainees . It had CARDINAL windows measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY , which allowed natural ventilation . It also had a bathroom with a sink , CARDINAL showers and a toilet with natural ventilation .","From DATE to DATE the applicant had been detained in cells GPE and ECARDINAL.CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY respectively . He had shared his cells with CARDINAL detainees respectively . Each cell had a window measuring QUANTITY , which allowed natural ventilation . They also had a bathroom with a sink , CARDINAL showers and a toilet with natural ventilation .","Each detainee was allocated a hospital bed . The building had electricity and its own central heating system .","NORP The prison authorities complied with the relevant domestic rules when issuing inmates with cleaning materials . Cleaning and maintenance were carried out in accordance with these rules .","During his detention in ORG the applicant had not initiated any proceedings before the post - sentencing judge under PERSON no . CARDINAL .","ORG also informed the Government that during his incarceration in FAC the applicant had been detained in cells ECARDINAL.CARDINAL , PERSON and ORG .","From DATE to DATE and from DATE to date he had been detained in cell ECARDINAL.CARDINAL which was an infirmary room ; from DATE he had been detained in cell ORG ; and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he had been detained in cell PERSON . The cells measured CARDINAL , CARDINAL and QUANTITY and had CARDINAL , CARDINAL beds respectively , lined up in CARDINAL rows . They all had furniture and standard cupboards for personal belongings . The number of detainees never exceeded the number of available beds . Each cell had a window measuring CARDINAL x CARDINAL , MONEY and CARDINAL x QUANTITY respectively , which allowed for optimal natural ventilation and light the room . Cells ECARDINAL.CARDINAL and PERSON had an annex with metal shelves for personal luggage and a bathroom with CARDINAL sinks , showers and toilets with natural ventilation . Cell ECARDINAL.CARDINAL had a bathroom with a sink , shower and toilet .","During the cold season heating was permanently on in the cells and during DATE the cell doors remained open both at TIME and during DATE to avoid any heat - related problems . The prison authorities issued inmates with cleaning materials and the cells and communal detention areas were cleaned DATE by the detainees themselves . Inmates were also issued with personal hygiene products and allowed to wash their bedlinen regularly in the prison washroom .","Detainees allowed to serve their prison sentence in a semi - open detention regime could spend time outside their cells from TIME and from TIME They were allowed access based on a preapproved schedule to the prison courtyards , which had sports equipment and tables and benches for leisure activities . They also had access to the library , classrooms and educational activity classes .","During his detention in LOC the applicant did not lodge a complaint with the post - sentencing judge or domestic courts concerning the conditions of his detention or a breach of his rights as a detainee . He only asked the prison authorities if he could work and his request was allowed . He was regularly informed of the need to maintain personal hygiene and was trained on health and safety in the workplace .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant asked the postsentencing judge attached to ORG for a hearing on legal matters .","On an unspecified date the judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s request on the grounds that it did not provide legal advice . He was informed that the relevant domestic rules prevented the post - sentencing judge from allowing detainees hearings to solve issues that fell outside its competence . It noted that according to the applicant \u2019s request , he had not lodged a complaint about measures which could have interfered with his rights as a detainee or complained that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment or to discrimination .","On DATE the applicant asked the warden of ORG if he could be assigned to a non - smoking room because he was a non - smoker .","On an unspecified date in DATE the warden of ORG dismissed his request stating , among other things , that smoking was prohibited in the applicant \u2019s section of the prison , and that his room was non - smoking .","On DATE and DATE the parties submitted to ORG a detailed list of items the applicant had purchased from the prison shops from DATE to DATE . According to that list , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he had purchased cigarettes regularly but had seemed to stop purchasing from DATE to DATE . He had also purchased lighters a few times .","On DATE the applicant signed a statement declaring that he had not lodged a complaint with ORG about the conditions of his detention or medical treatment received , and that his complaint had been lodged against ORG .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that his situation had not changed at all . He was still being denied the necessary treatment for his condition , detained with smokers and purchasing his own food ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171087","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LEKI\u0106 v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Bo\u0161tjan Zalar;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant acquired a share in ORG , a limited liability company based in GPE . His name was entered in the court register of legal entities ( hereinafter \u201c the court register \u201d ) and he became CARDINAL of CARDINAL equal registered members of the company , each holding an PERCENT share . The share capital of ORG stood at CARDINAL NORP tolars ( SIT ) ( PERSON euros ( ORG ) ) .","CARDINAL of the founding members withdrew from company ORG DATE . On DATE the applicant , in addition to being a member , was also employed by company ORG as head of its IT department . In addition , he provided assistance to the finance director .","On DATE CARDINAL key members and managers of company ORG died in a car accident and CARDINAL others were seriously injured . As a result , the company \u2019s business operations could not be carried out and the company sustained a large financial loss . Moreover , its management was seriously undermined and during the course of DATE all members except the applicant and another person withdrew from the company \u2019s management board . Following those events , the applicant first assumed the role of acting director of company ORG on DATE , and then the role of managing director on DATE . In that capacity he acted as the company \u2019s representative .","Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG of GPE ( Slovenske \u017eeleznice ) had applied for an enforcement order against ORG based on an authentic document for unpaid transport services . ORG challenged the enforcement order and the parties were directed to settle the issue in contentious proceedings . ORG lodged a civil action , claiming the payment of CARDINAL sums totalling approximately SIT CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","NORP In DATE , ORG was converted into a limited liability company in accordance with LAW , which required companies falling under its jurisdiction to increase their share capital and to align their operations with the provisions of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , at the time of the conversion the company was no longer liquid or solvent .","On DATE the applicant stepped down as managing director of ORG following a decision of the general meeting of the company . The members failed to appoint a new managing director and henceforth the company existed without any management . The applicant \u2019s resignation from the post of managing director was not entered in the court register of legal entities ( hereinafter \u201c the court register \u201d ) .","On DATE the members of company ORG decided at its general meeting to apply for bankruptcy on account of the company \u2019s insolvency . ORG filed a bankruptcy petition with the competent court , but it was rejected as the company had failed to make the required advance payment to cover costs and expenses of the bankruptcy proceedings in the amount of SIT CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The members established that they could not incur the costs of bankruptcy and thus decided to wait for the courts to liquidate the company proprio motu , in accordance with the then applicable legislation , namely , the Compulsory Composition , Bankruptcy and LAW as amended , which entered into force on DATE . The amendment to the LAW authorised the courts to initiate bankruptcy proceedings of their own motion in certain specified circumstances ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant stopped working for company L.E. Moreover , by DATE , another CARDINAL members of the company had died .","In the civil proceedings initiated by ORG against ORG the applicant was summoned to appear at a hearing to be held on DATE . As he was unable to attend the hearing , he made written submissions explaining that the company had not been solvent for DATE . On DATE ORG rendered a judgment ordering ORG to pay ORG the CARDINAL sums claimed .","Meanwhile , on DATE LAW was again amended , inter alia , to repeal the provisions on bankruptcy proprio motu . Moreover , on DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the PERSON \u201d ) entered into force . It introduced a measure decided proprio motu whereby insolvent and\/or inactive companies were struck off from the court register without winding up . Thus those companies could be dissolved without the prior procedure of disposing of their assets and repaying DATE to the extent possible \u2013 their creditors . However , in order to ensure that creditors of struck - off companies were protected , the PERSON provided that the members of those companies would assume joint and several liability for the former ORG debts .","On the basis of a notification from ORG that company ORG had not performed any transactions through its bank account in a period of DATE , on DATE ORG , acting in its capacity as the registry court , initiated proceedings to strike off the company from the court register .","On DATE , the decision to initiate strike - off proceedings was entered in the court register and an unsuccessful attempt was made to serve it on the company at its registered office . The document was sent to the address of the company , but since no representative of the company was there to receive it , a delivery slip was left in its mailbox , informing the company that the relevant correspondence could be collected at the post office . On DATE the document was returned to the registry court with the information that the addressee had failed to collect it . The registry court then served it by posting it on its notice board , as provided for by ORG . According to the applicant , company ORG had ceased to operate at the address of its registered office already in DATE and had not been present at those or any other LOC since . Moreover , there were no mailboxes at the office building at issue and all mail would have been left at the reception desk .","No objection was made to the decision to initiate strike - off proceedings either by company ORG or by its members . Consequently , on CARDINAL DATE the registry court issued a decision to strike off company ORG from the court register . The decision was published in ORG on DATE . The registry court also attempted to serve the decision on company ORG by sending it to the company \u2019s address , but like the previous document it was returned on DATE with the information that the addressee had failed to collect it . Again , the decision was posted on the registry court \u2019s notice board . Neither company ORG nor any of its members , who were entitled to lodge an appeal against the strike - off decision , appealed against the decision , so on DATE it became final .","On DATE company ORG was struck off from the court register and thus ceased to exist . Notification of the strike - off was published in ORG on DATE .","The applicant stated that he had become aware that ORG had been struck off from the court register on DATE , when an enforcement order was served on him for seizure of his property .","Meanwhile , based on the judgment ordering ORG to pay ORG approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the creditor lodged an application for enforcement with ORG against CARDINAL members of the company .","On DATE ORG granted the creditor an enforcement order to seize the applicant \u2019s personal possessions , which was later expanded to include his salary .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection to the enforcement order , arguing that the local court had failed to establish his actual role in company ORG and to acknowledge his status of an \u201c inactive member \u201d ( see paragraphs DATE below ) , which would have exonerated him from liability for the company \u2019s debts . He maintained that the creditor \u2019s claim against the company had arisen before he had joined it , and that he had only become involved in the management of the company because the CARDINAL members who had previously performed that role had died . Moreover , the applicant was of the view that the onus rested on the creditor to establish that he had been an active member of the company , and that the matter should be examined in contentious civil proceedings . Lastly , he applied for a stay of enforcement .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s objection was dismissed . ORG found that the onus of proving his inactive status was on the applicant , and that he had failed to prove that he had not been an active member of ORG established that with his PERCENT share in the company , the applicant had enjoyed the rights of a minority member , and furthermore , he had been employed by the company and actively involved in its management since DATE . In his capacity as acting director and later managing director , he had been authorised to act on behalf of the company . Moreover , even after the applicant had resigned as managing director , he had still been active in the operations of the company and had also signed the bankruptcy petition . ORG further dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for a stay of enforcement , as he had failed to demonstrate that the enforcement would have caused him irreparable or serious damage . The applicant appealed against that decision , reiterating the arguments he had raised in the objection to the enforcement order .","On DATE the applicant attended a hearing with regard to an objection to the enforcement order raised by PERSON , another member of company ORG","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on essentially the same grounds as the first - instance court , and the enforcement order thus became final . The court noted , inter alia , that ORG had found the measure of \u201c lifting the corporate veil \u201d under the applicable Financial Operations of Companies Act to be in accordance with the principle of separation of a company \u2019s assets from those of its member , and thus consistent with LAW . ORG considered it irrelevant whether the applicant had become a member of ORG before or after the creditor \u2019s claim had arisen . Having joined the company , he had assumed its assets as well as its liabilities , and moreover , he had had the rights of a minority member . ORG placed considerable emphasis on the fact that the applicant had been actively involved in the management of the company . It explained that the reasons for lifting the corporate veil under the PERSON were not identical to those provided for in LAW . The PERSON established a non - rebuttable presumption that members of inactive companies intended to have the companies dissolved and , to that end , made it clear that they assumed joint and several liability for their outstanding debts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL constitutional complaints before ORG , CARDINAL concerning the strike - off proceedings and the other the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint regarding the strike - off proceedings . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE . The court observed that the applicant lacked legal interest in challenging the decision of the registry court , as company ORG had already been struck off from the court register . Therefore , even a positive outcome of the constitutional complaint could not improve the applicant \u2019s legal position . On DATE ORG rejected also the complaint regarding the enforcement proceedings , finding that the applicant \u2019s human rights had manifestly not been violated . Reiterating that only active members of struck - off companies could be held liable for the ORG debts , ORG found that the lower courts had correctly established that the applicant \u2019s active involvement in the management of company ORG could not exempt him from personal liability for the latter \u2019s debts .","In DATE the enforcement order against the applicant \u2019s salary was executed and part of each of the applicant \u2019s DATE salaries was seized to pay off his debt . On DATE the applicant reached an out - of - court settlement with ORG and paid the agreed amount , and the application for enforcement against him was withdrawn . The proceedings against the applicant were terminated on DATE . In total , the applicant paid ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to his creditor ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145691","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"POPOVICI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The Moldovan Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","In DATE and DATE the applicant and a group of CARDINAL other persons were accused of being members of a criminal gang and of having committed numerous offences , including QUANTITY murders and CARDINAL attempted murders . The applicant was arrested and placed in detention on DATE .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of all the charges for lack of evidence and ordered his release from custody .","On DATE , in the applicant \u2019s absence , a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG examined an appeal lodged by ORG against the judgment of ORG , quashed the judgment , convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment .","The applicant complained to the ORG and , on DATE , the ORG found , inter alia , that his right to a fair trial had been breached on the grounds that ORG had convicted him without making a direct assessment of evidence given by the applicant in person ( see PERSON v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY , DATE ) .","As a result of the ORG \u2019s judgment , the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal against the judgment of ORG seeking its quashing and a fresh examination of the appeal against the judgment of ORG of DATE . ORG did not object .","On DATE ORG examined the extraordinary appeal lodged by the applicant , quashed both the judgment of DATE and that of ORG of DATE and ordered a fresh examination of the case . ORG also ordered the applicant \u2019s remand in custody for an undefined period of time without there being a request by ORG .","After the communication of the case to the ORG , the ORG became aware of the fact that on DATE ORG had examined an extraordinary appeal lodged by the applicant against its judgment of DATE and had upheld it . ORG considered unlawful the quashing in that judgment of the decision of ORG of DATE and the decision to remand the applicant in custody , and reversed those parts of the judgment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142441","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"LANSCH\u00dcTZER GMBH v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant company , GPE , is a limited liability company based in GPE . It is represented before ORG by Mrs C. Lansch\u00fctzer , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On an unspecified date the applicant company applied , at that time under its previous name , ORG , for a broadcasting licence in GPE . However , the licence was awarded to another company , ORG . The applicant company appealed .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) dismissed the applicant company \u2019s appeal .","Afterwards , on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant company lodged a complaint with ORG and requested that suspensive effect be granted to their complaint . It was signed by CARDINAL of its business managers .","On DATE the applicant company sent a letter to ORG - transmitting a copy of its complaint against the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE - proposing to withdraw the complaint if it received payment on its business bank account of MONEY ( ORG ) , an amount which should partially cover the losses sustained by the applicant company because they had not been awarded the licence . The applicant company pointed out that its complaint to ORG had not been signed by a lawyer and would be returned in order for that procedural defect to be remedied . Thus , before the complaint was resubmitted by a lawyer ORG would have the opportunity to obtain the applicant company \u2019s withdrawal from the proceedings by paying the above - mentioned amount .","On DATE ORG lawyer informed ORG of the applicant company \u2019s letter and enclosed a copy of that letter .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the applicant company to remedy the procedural defects of its complaint . It noted that the complaint did not bear the signature of a lawyer , which was contrary to the statutory requirement , and observed that the applicant company , as could be seen from its letter to ORG , had been perfectly aware of that requirement . ORG ordered the applicant company to remedy that defect by resubmitting its complaint through a lawyer within DATE and , within the same time - limit , to clarify its letter of CARDINAL DATE , a copy of which was attached .","On DATE the applicant company replied to ORG order of CARDINAL DATE . It submitted that its letter of CARDINAL DATE to ORG had merely been intended to find a viable solution for all parties . In its view , ORG application for a broadcasting licence had had fundamental defects which would have led to the licence being revoked and would have caused an untenable financial risk for ORG . The amount requested had been justified because , for the applicant company , the time spent waiting for the decision of ORG would have resulted in a standstill and loss of opportunities .","On DATE the applicant company \u2019s lawyer and member of ORG , Mr PERSON , submitted the same , unsigned , complaint again . Attached to the complaint there was a letter signed by the latter , saying that he represented the applicant company .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant company \u2019s complaint as inadmissible for formal reasons . It noted that PERSON PERSON .- P. had resubmitted the original complaint with a covering letter bearing his signature , along with the statement that he represented the applicant company , but the complaint itself did not bear his official stamp and signature . ORG concluded that the applicant company had failed to comply with its order .","Article CARDINAL of LAW ( Bundes - Verfassungsgesetz ) reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG decides on rulings by administrative authorities including independent administrative panels , in so far as the complainant alleges an infringement by the ruling of a constitutionally guaranteed right or the infringement of personal rights caused by an illegal ordinance , an illegal pronouncement on the republication of a law ( state treaty ) , an unconstitutional law , or an unlawful treaty . The complaint can only be lodged after all other legal remedies have been exhausted .","( CARDINAL ) ORG can decide to decline to deal with a complaint before an oral hearing if it has no reasonable prospect of success or if the decision can not be expected to clarify a constitutional problem . It must not decline to deal with a complaint if , under LAW , the case at hand falls outside the jurisdiction of ORG .","( CARDINAL ) If ORG finds that a right within the meaning of sub - section CARDINAL above has not been infringed by the challenged ruling , and if , under LAW , the case at hand does not , fall outside the jurisdiction of ORG , the ORG shall , on the request of the applicant , transfer the complaint to ORG for a decision as to whether the applicant has suffered an infringement of any other right as a result of the ruling of the administrative authority . This also applies by analogy in the case of decisions in accordance with sub - section CARDINAL above . \u201d","In the report of ORG ) of ORG ( PERSON ) on the draft amendment of LAW DATE it is stated that if ORG decides to decline to deal with a complaint it is dispensed from examining the admissibility of that complaint ( ORG CARDINAL BlgNR ORG . ORG , p. CARDINAL ) . In such a case ORG is therefore relieved from examining whether all formal criteria , such as time - limits and representation by a lawyer have been complied with . This is also ORG case - law ( see , for example , B CARDINAL\/CARDINAL DATE ; B DATE , CARDINAL DATE ; B CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) .","Section CARDINAL of LAW , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ... complaints must be submitted by an authorised lawyer ... \u201d","Section CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :","\u201c Submissions which do not comply with the requirements of section CARDINAL and section CARDINAL , or other requirements of form laid down in the present Act , shall be returned by the rapporteur to the complainant for the procedural defects to be remedied within a certain period of time , if it can be expected that the defects are likely to be remedied . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of LAW , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ... the judgments of ORG are given after a public oral hearing to which the complainant , the opposing party and any third parties are summoned .","( CARDINAL ) The judgments are pronounced and delivered on behalf of the LOC .","( CARDINAL ) Upon an application by the rapporteur , the following decision may be taken in a non - public session , without any further proceedings and without conducting a hearing :","NORP The refusal to deal with a complaint , under LAW ) and LAW .","The rejection of a submission :","a ) for a clear lack of jurisdiction of ORG ;","b ) for failure to meet a statutory deadline ;","c ) for a non - remedied deficiency in the formal requirements ;","d ) in the case of final and enforceable matters , and","e ) in the absence of a right to sue or be sued .","NORP The discontinuation of proceedings when an application is withdrawn or deprived of its cause of action ( section CARDINAL - GPE ) . \u201d","According to the case - law of ORG , the requirement of section PERSON ) of LAW that a complaint must be submitted by an authorised lawyer means that a lawyer representing a complainant must submit his or her own complaint signed by him or her ( see , inter alia , ORG of ORG ( PERSON ) CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172709","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"IOVI\u0162\u0102 v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON Iovi\u0163\u0103 , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC PERSON . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in Drobeta - Turnu PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Co - Agent , PERSON , and then by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant moved to GPE , where she lawfully took up residence with her husband . She was lawfully employed there and received a fixed DATE income .","On DATE the applicant and her husband travelled to GPE for DATE . As they attempted to cross the NORP border she was stopped and questioned by the FAC border police .","On DATE the border police produced a report attesting that they had withheld the applicant \u2019s passport ( dovad\u0103 de re\u021binere ) as documentary evidence because CARDINAL of its pages had been replaced .","On DATE the border police opened a criminal investigation against her for forgery of official documents and use of forged documents .","On DATE ORG ( ORG a Persoanei PERSON ) informed the applicant that , in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on NORP passports , her right to use her passport had been suspended until DATE following her return from GPE , based on a readmission agreement between the CARDINAL countries . They also informed her that she had DATE to challenge the decision before ORG attached to ORG ( \u201c the Passport Service \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a challenge to the decision with ORG .","On DATE the ORG - Turnu PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office informed the applicant that the criminal investigation opened against her had been discontinued and that the case had been referred back to the FAC border police in order for them to identify the potential perpetrators . The prosecutor \u2019s office held that it could not be established that the CARDINAL pages of the passport had been replaced by the applicant . Moreover , not all the elements of an offence were present as there was no evidence that she knew that her passport was forged .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge of DATE and informed her that following the opening of a criminal investigation against her it had been decided that the measure taken by ORG in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL would be maintained . ORG also informed her that her situation would be re - examined after the criminal investigation had ended .","NORP On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s challenge of DATE and informed her that the measure taken against her had been cancelled .","On an unspecified date ORG issued a new passport in the applicant \u2019s name at her request .","She returned to GPE on DATE .","On DATE the applicant brought civil proceedings against ORG , seeking CARDINAL NORP Lei ( RON \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) in pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages for the restriction on her freedom of movement . She relied on LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . She argued , inter alia , that the measure taken against her had been unlawful and had prevented her from returning to GPE for DATE . As a result , she had been forced to stay in GPE alone , separated from her husband who had had to return to GPE in order not to lose his job . Furthermore , she had lost her salary rights for DATE in question . In addition , she and her husband had been pressured by the border police to admit that she had replaced the CARDINAL pages of her passport , as she had been held ( \u021binut\u0103 ) for TIME at the customs office without being allowed to contact her parents in order for them to instruct a legal representative on her behalf .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . It held that she had not been convicted by a final judgment . Furthermore , the measure to place her in the custody of the border police had been necessary given that the border guards had noticed that CARDINAL pages of her passport had been replaced and she herself had admitted as much . In addition , the applicant \u2019s right to use her passport had been suspended following her return from GPE on the basis of the readmission agreement between the CARDINAL countries and LAW \u00a7 CARDINALe of Government Ordinance no . MONEY . Consequently , the conditions of LAW of the ORG had not been met in her case .","The applicant appealed against the judgment .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to order ORG to disclose the act on which the decision to take the measure against her had been based .","On DATE the court dismissed the request on the grounds that the evidence in question was not relevant to the case .","It also dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the judgment of DATE . It held that the suspension of her right to use her passport had been necessary pending the outcome of the criminal investigation opened against her , as it was uncontested that CARDINAL pages of her passport had been replaced . The applicant had to bear the natural consequences of the finding of such an irregularity , namely the criminal investigation . The passport was one of a person \u2019s most important identity documents and was used mainly abroad . Each passport holder was therefore responsible for preserving the document \u2019s integrity . The measure taken against the applicant had thus been necessary because a person could not use a document which had been guaranteed by the ORG and which no longer met the lawful conditions it had had from the moment it had been issued . The measure taken against the applicant seemed even more justified , given that she had initially admitted altering the passport and had not proven that she had been coerced to admit that .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment . She argued , inter alia , that the lower courts\u2019 decision to dismiss her request for additional evidence had been unjust . The evidence in question was relevant to the case since the reasons ORG had relied on in order to take the measure against her had no legal basis as , as could be seen from the evidence , she had been lawfully residing and working in GPE . Furthermore , there was no distinction between her situation and that of arrest or detention , given that she had been prevented from leaving the country even though she had been living and working in GPE with her husband . Consequently , the domestic courts had to find a way to compensate her for the damage sustained following the arbitrary measure taken against her by the authorities .","On DATE ORG and ORG allowed the applicant\u2019Article CARDINAL of the ORG had been met . In spite of the available contradictory evidence , the lower courts had not clarified what had been the legal basis of the measure taken against the applicant . In particular , they had not established whether the measure had been taken in the context of the criminal proceedings opened against her \u2013 it was well known that in such cases a passport was material evidence DATE or had been taken based on either LAW CARDINALe of Government Ordinance no . PERCENT on Government Ordinance no . ORG on GPE \u2019s borders by the head of the customs clearance point the applicant had crossed following the interruption of her travels . Moreover , the lower courts had not established the lawful review procedure for the measure imposed on the applicant or whether she had challenged the measure lawfully . Furthermore , they had not established the grounds for cancelling the measure taken against her or for issuing her with a new passport . If the measure had been taken against the applicant within the context of the criminal proceedings , the lower courts had to establish whether the conditions set out in LAW ORG had been met and whether the ORG could be held liable .","On DATE the ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s action and awarded her ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in pecuniary damages and RON CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in nonpecuniary damages . It noted that following the reopening of the case and in line with ORG and ORG \u2019s instructions the parties had been allowed to adduce written and testimonial evidence to the file . In this connection , the court noted that the judicial and nonjudicial authorities had been asked to submit the documents concerning the criminal investigation opened against the applicant and those justifying the measure taken against her . It also noted that it had heard CARDINAL witness testimonies .","NORP The court established , based on the available evidence , that on DATE the NORP border authorities had placed the applicant in custody because CARDINAL of the pages of her passport had been replaced and because she had been pressured by the representatives of the border police to admit that she had replaced them . The applicant had subsequently withdrawn her statement because she had not actually known how the pages had come to be replaced . A criminal investigation had been opened against her . Consequently , at the request of the FAC border police , ORG had decided to suspend the applicant \u2019s right to use her passport and restricted her freedom of movement for DATE on the basis of Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL . The criminal investigation against the applicant had subsequently been discontinued and therefore ORG attached to ORG had cancelled the measure taken against her and she had been able to return to GPE .","The court also held that , given the criminal investigation opened against her and the measure taken , the applicant had sustained pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage since she had been unable to return to work in GPE and had been forced to remain in GPE alone and separated from her husband . The applicant had clearly proven the pecuniary damage sustained by her and , under the joint provisions of LAW of LAW , LAW ORG and LAW of LAW , the ORG was liable for the non - pecuniary damage caused by legal errors .","Lastly , the court held that a person \u2019s freedom of movement was guaranteed both by LAW . Consequently , it could be restricted only in circumstances provided for in the domestic legislation and if the restrictive measure was necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued .","The ORG appealed against the judgment .","On DATE ORG allowed the ORG \u2019s appeal , quashed the judgment of DATE and dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . It held that in DATE ORG had established that LAW ORG was constitutional only in so far as the situations in which the ORG \u2019s financial liability could be engaged for damage caused by legal errors during criminal proceedings was not limited to the circumstances given in that provision . Subsequently , in DATE ORG held that LAW of the ORG was constitutional only in so far as a person \u2019s right to be compensated if he or she had been acquitted or the criminal investigation opened against him or her had been discontinued after a preventive measure had been taken against him or her were not restricted to the circumstances given in LAW .","The court also held that under LAW ORG , the preventive measures that could justify proceedings based on LAW were placement in police custody , detention pending trial and the obligation not to leave town , all measures ordered during criminal proceedings . The right provided by LAW ORG fell within the area of rights guaranteed by LAW .","Furthermore , the court held that according to the available evidence , none of the aforementioned preventive measures which could justify proceedings under LAW had been taken against the applicant during the criminal investigation initiated against her . No measures restricting her liberty for the purposes of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG taken together with LAW had been taken against her .","The only measure that had been taken had been one restricting her freedom of movement , as guaranteed by LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . It had been taken based on LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and she had failed to challenge the measure as permitted by LAW same ordinance .","The court noted that the applicant had admitted during the preliminary stages of the criminal investigation that she had replaced the CARDINAL pages of her passport . After she had been informed of the criminal charges against her and of her right to a legal representative , she had intentionally or very negligently obstructed or had attempted to obstruct the investigation . Consequently , the provisions of LAW of the ORG were applicable in the instant case . However , the provisions of LAW could not be applied to her case , given that there had been a reasonable suspicion that she had committed an offence .","The court lastly held that the applicant \u2019s right to freedom of movement was not absolute . The right could be restricted in certain circumstances provided for by law \u2013 those provided for by Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL were proportionate to the aim pursued , necessary , accessible and foreseeable .","Consequently , the ORG \u2019s potential civil liability in tort could not be engaged as the provisions of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention had not been breached .","The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG and Justice ( ORG ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . It held that her freedom of movement had not been restricted as a result of the preventive measure taken during the criminal investigation opened against her by the judicial authorities , but as a result of the measure to suspend her right to use her passport . That measure had been ordered by the police because the passport used by her to cross the border had presented elements of forgery . That fact was undisputed .","The court also held that the measure taken against the applicant was provided for by law . Furthermore , it had been justified given that the document had presented elements of forgery and she had been responsible for the integrity of the document . In addition , it had been necessary in order to ensure public safety within the meaning of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW .","The court also held that under LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , the applicant could have challenged the measure before the domestic non - judicial authorities and then before the administrative court . She had successfully challenged the measure before ORG and a new passport had been issued for her .","The appellate court \u2019s decision had thus been lawful given that the applicant had not proven that the domestic authorities had taken the measure against her unjustly and unlawfully , and it had not been proven that a legal error for the purposes of LAW ORG had been committed during the criminal investigation .","The applicant submitted an article from an unidentified newspaper which had reported on a criminal investigation initiated by ORG against a border guard for allegedly receiving a bribe from the applicant in order to help her with her passport problems . The article referred to a statement by the applicant , in which she claimed that the border guard who had checked her passport had suggested she admit to the unlawful act because the problem was not serious and could be solved . The applicant also claimed that once she had written the confession , the border guard had told her that she should pay some money for the situation to remain uncomplicated . The applicant also stated that even though she and her husband had paid ORG CARDINAL , the border guard had been displeased with the amount and had started searching their luggage and unlawfully confiscating champagne , sweets and coffee . She stated that she had realised afterwards that her problems would not be solved and that she had become the subject of a criminal investigation .","The article also quoted a local senior police officer who had stated that the applicant \u2019s allegation of bribe taking was being investigated by the relevant authorities and that the investigation into the incident had been referred to ORG .","The relevant provisions of Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL on NORP passports , in force at the material time , read as follows :","\u201c Passports ... are issued by ORG of ORG or its subordinate local offices and are kept ( se p\u0103streaz\u0103 ) by their holders . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A NORP citizen may be temporarily refused a passport or , if the passport has already been issued , it may be withdrawn or the right to use suspended where :","( a ) there is a reasonable suspicion that he has committed an offence punishable by DATE imprisonment and that he intends to use the passport to abscond . The measure shall be taken at the request of the police for a maximum DATE ;","( b ) is charged with a criminal offence or is indicted during criminal proceedings and the magistrate has ordered that a measure not to leave town or the country is to be taken against him , in order to ensure the proper administration of justice , regardless of the stage of the proceedings ;","...","( e ) has committed acts abroad which could affect national security , the preservation of public order , the protection of another person \u2019s health , morals or fundamental rights and freedoms , which have been established by a court judgment or are the subject of a criminal investigation . The acts committed abroad shall be proven by judicial acts recognised by NORP law . In such cases , the measure shall be taken by the ... local ORG for a period DATE , to be determined in proportion to the seriousness of the act and its consequences . The same measure may also be taken against a person ... who has been returned on the basis of a readmission agreement between GPE and other GPE ... ;","( CARDINAL ) In the circumstances provided for by paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) , ( b ) ... the measure shall only be taken ... on the basis of a written request by criminal investigation bodies , the courts ... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ... the decision to suspend the right to use a passport shall be notified in writing to the person concerned within DATE of the date the measure was taken , including the reasons for it .","( CARDINAL ) ... the person concerned may challenge the measure before the body hierarchically superior to the CARDINAL that has taken it , within DATE of the date of notification .","( CARDINAL ) The challenge shall be examined within DATE of the date of registration and , if the person is dissatisfied with the outcome , [ he or she ] may bring proceedings before the competent administrative court . \u201d","\u201c The following acts amount to contraventions of the passport scheme :","...","( d ) the loss , damage or destruction of a passport or other travel document , owing to the fault of the holder ;","...","( f ) making unlawful changes or additions ( ad\u0103ug\u0103ri ) to a passport or other travel document , if the act has not been committed in conditions that , under the law , amount to an offence . \u201d","\u201c The contraventions mentioned in LAW ... are punishable by a fine ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the former NORP Code of Criminal Procedure , in force at the material time , reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Anyone who has been convicted by a final decision is entitled to compensation from the ORG for any loss or damage sustained where after a retrial it is held in a judgment against which no appeal lies that he did not commit the offence in question or that the offence did not take place .","( CARDINAL ) Anyone against whom a preventive measure has been taken , and in whose favour a decision to discontinue proceedings or of acquittal has been given for the reasons listed in the preceding paragraph , also enjoys a right to compensation for the damage sustained .","( CARDINAL ) The person who intentionally or out of serious negligence has obstructed or has attempted to obstruct the investigation during the criminal investigation or trial , does not enjoy a right to compensation for the damage sustained .","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of LAW provides , inter alia , that the ORG is liable for damage caused as a result of legal errors . Its liability may also be established in accordance with the law .","Articles DATE and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL on administrative litigation provide , inter alia , that when examining applications the administrative courts must also decide any claims for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage lodged by the applicants . If the person asks for the administrative act to be cancelled without claiming damages at the same time , the statutory limitation period for seeking damages runs from the moment he or she became aware or ought to have become aware of the seriousness of the damage suffered .","The relevant provisions of the former NORP Civil Code concerning civil liability for tort , in particular LAW and CARDINAL , are described in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE ) .","The Government submitted CARDINAL final judgments ( no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . DATE of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . DATE of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE ) delivered by ORG and ORG concerning proceedings brought by various applicants against ORG , seeking to have cancelled decisions to suspend or maintain the suspension of their right to use their passports taken on the basis of LAW no . MONEY . Referring to the provisions of the relevant domestic legislation and the particular circumstances of each case , ORG and ORG allowed the ORG actions and either cancelled the decisions in full or in part . In its assessment of the applications the court held , inter alia , that the prosecutor \u2019s office could no longer ask for the applicants\u2019 right to be suspended pending the outcome of criminal proceedings once the case files had been referred to the courts . Furthermore , LAW CARDINAL\/CARDINAL did not impose a duty on the authorities to take the measure in question , but rather provided them with the option to do so .","The Government also submitted CARDINAL final judgments ( no . DATE of DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE ) delivered by ORG and ORG concerning proceedings brought by CARDINAL applicants against ORG seeking to have cancelled the suspension of their right to use their passports taken on the basis of LAW no . MONEY as well as compensation for the and non - pecuniary damage sustained following the decision . In judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , the court allowed the applicant \u2019s action in part , cancelled the suspension and awarded him pecuniary damage . It held , inter alia , that the decision taken against the applicant had been unlawful and had deprived the applicant of his income . However , the applicant had not proven that he had suffered nonpecuniary damage and a simple cancellation of the administrative decision could not lead to the conclusion that he had suffered psychological trauma . In judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . It held , inter alia , that as the decision had been taken within the lawful exercise of the domestic authorities\u2019 right of assessment and within the limits of their powers of decision , it could not establish that the applicant \u2019s rights had been violated . As the decisions had been lawful , no link could be established between the allegedly unlawful decision and the damage sustained .","The Government also submitted a final judgment ( no . CARDINAL of DATE ) delivered by ORG and ORG concerning proceedings brought by an applicant against ORG seeking compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage sustained following a decision to suspend his right to use his passport which had been previously cancelled by the domestic courts . The applicant relied on LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of GPE . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . It held , inter alia , that there had been no direct link between the damage sustained by the applicant and the measure taken by the domestic authorities as the damage , in particular the loss of income , had arisen following a decision of the foreign authorities to dismiss his application for asylum ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164465","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BA\u015eTOVOI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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 - Degrading treatment;Prohibition of torture)","judges":"St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with embezzlement and organising the attempted murder of CARDINAL businessmen . Since DATE he has been detained in Prison no . CARDINAL .","According to the applicant , he has been detained in a cell measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL other inmates , which left very little space for each detainee . Due to overcrowding , detainees had to share beds . He was not provided with bedding or a pillow . There was no sink or running water in the cell . The food was of poor quality and inedible . The squat toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell and gave off a foul odour . There was also a lack of daylight and poor ventilation .","The applicant asserted that he had been detained with inmates diagnosed with tuberculosis , HIV \/ AIDS and other infectious diseases . As a result of being held in inhuman conditions of detention , he had been ill with mycosis , gastritis and a respiratory infection . He was not provided with any medical assistance and was forbidden from receiving herbal medicine from his wife .","The applicant complained of inhuman conditions of detention to the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office and ORG . On DATE ORG replied that after examining his allegations , it had not found any violation of domestic law .","The Government submitted that the applicant \u2019s cell ( no . CARDINAL ) measured QUANTITY and was designed to accommodate CARDINAL people . All detainees had their own beds . The cell was equipped with a sink and running water . The applicant was provided with bedding , hygiene products tailored to his needs and hot food CARDINAL times a day , in accordance with ORG no . CARDINAL concerning the minimum daily food requirements for detainees . The Government contended that the cell in question had not accommodated people with infectious diseases . They added that the applicant had been provided with medical assistance and submitted evidence of various medical check - ups ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162827","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SMR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"X v. SAN MARINO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr F. Cocco , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicant , a police superintendent , lodged a criminal complaint for defamation against a newspaper and a journalist , as well as PERSON the elected chief of the administrative district of PERSON ( Capitano di Castello ) ( who had given an interview to the newspaper ) , in connection with press articles which were published on DATE and DATE . The articles claimed that , inter alia , a policeman ( a title presumably traceable to the applicant ) was fraudulently obtaining benefits from the ORG , including the use of a ORG apartment , despite it being needed by other persons .","Subsequent to the articles , the administrative body in question removed the apartment from the applicant \u2019s possession . According to the applicant , the articles questioned his morality \u2013 they cast doubts over whether rent and service charges had been paid , hypothesised as to whether other benefits were also being enjoyed by the applicant , and posed questions regarding the possibility of the applicant \u2019s involvement in other minor fraud infractions , even though , according to the applicant , such infractions were common in lease contracts . The last article also focused on the applicant \u2019s profession and , in his view , was written in a manner intended to bring him into disrepute . Moreover , it was not based on the truth in so far as no substantiation was given to the allegations that the applicant was not wanted for the post of commander of the police brigade ; or that that there had been friction between him and the citizens of GPE ; or that some persons had in fact complained about the applicant , as had been claimed by PERSON in the interview .","Prior to this last article and following the first CARDINAL articles the applicant had written to various media outlets with a statement in his defence clarifying his situation . He also clarified the situation regarding the apartment that was the subject of the articles , which was in his possession by title of lease . The entirety of the applicant \u2019s statement was published , together with comments by the journalist who authored the press articles , in the third above - mentioned article .","Criminal proceedings ORG were instituted against the abovementioned persons and testimony was heard from the applicant , the journalist and other witnesses .","On DATE the investigating judge ( Commissario della PERSON , hereinafter \u201c the PERSON \u201d ) requested that criminal proceedings ORG be archived . The PERSON recalled the importance of freedom of expression , noting that this was not however unlimited and could be curtailed in view of the dignity , honour and reputation of other persons . Having regard to the principles derived from the right to freedom of expression , the articles complained of were not offensive , and thus could not be subject to criminal liability .","The PERSON considered that neither the title ( \u201c A PERSON abita l\u2019ultimo giapponese \u201d \u2013 \u201c The last NORP living in GPE ) nor the content of the first article contained any criminally relevant statement . The applicant had confirmed that , as mentioned in the beginning of the article , he had lived in an apartment provided by the ORG situated in the cultural centre ( centro sociale ) of GPE . The PERSON authorities ( through PERSON ) had also confirmed that an application had been lodged to regain possession of the property ( as mentioned in the central part of the article ) . As to the questions posed in the last part of the article ( namely , concerning the rent of the apartment and the fact that a family was living in a cultural centre built for other purposes , and so forth ) , the subject matter was CARDINAL of public interest and the formulation of the questions appeared to be correct and did not exceed the limits of the exercise of journalistic functions . The same was valid for the second article ( called \u201c PERSON dello Stato , per i cittadini bisogna vederci chiaro \u201d \u2013 \u201c Clarification needed for the citizens on ORG - owned apartments \u201d ) which reconstructed the historical context in DATE , explaining the existence of an anti - drug unit and an anti - drug squad , and reiterated the content of the previous article . Nor was the third article , which contained an interview with PERSON , as well as the applicant \u2019s letter and a comment by the journalist and a third person , subject to any criminal liability . The article had not related to \u201c eviction \u201d as mentioned by the applicant , but correctly to the authorities\u2019 decision to have the apartment reassigned to someone else , a procedure which did not require the intervention of the applicant . Similarly the applicant \u2019s confused challenge to a reference to an anti - drug dog could not be upheld since the comment \u2013 to the effect that it had made sense for the applicant to benefit from the use of the apartment at the time when a canine squad existed , but no longer now that the squad had been disbanded \u2013 reflected reality and was a reserved statement . Lastly , the adjective sbroccato ( a person who lost it ) , which was DATE a term of general use ( sdoganato ) could not be considered defamatory , as the term was not offensive or intimidating . Any other considerations put forward by the applicant appeared to refer to disagreements within the police department , which even if they were true do not appear to be relevant to the present case .","The PERSON considered that as the information was true and in the general interest , the articles fell within the legitimate exercise of the right to information . Moreover , the applicant had been given a right of reply , and a faithful reproduction of his statement had been published in its entirety .","The PERSON considered that a balance had to be reached between both constitutionally guaranteed rights , specifically , on the one hand that of the honour , reputation and dignity of the individual , and on the other that of freedom of expression and of the press to impart information and for persons to receive information . \u201c Justification \u201d was the crux of the right to report news , thus abstract \u201c defamatory \u201d statements made within the requisite limits were licit and part and parcel of freedom of expression as long as they did not exceed the requisite limits and thus amount to abuse . The balance between the right to respect for the dignity , honour and privacy of the individual and that of freedom of expression was not subject to precise definition , even more so given that that freedom of expression may take various forms \u2013 including rapidly developing trends or changes in DATE which remain in any event subjective . Indeed , according to domestic case - law , it was a priori impossible to dictate the general limits between what was licit and what was not .","In the light of such principles , the PERSON considered that in the present case the articles had been justified in order to impart information on a matter of public interest , specifically in reference to a policeman , the use of public property and the involvement of the authorities . They had not been intended to offend anyone \u2019s honour . The content of the articles did not overstep the limits of free speech , and the sole fact that the articles may have inconvenienced the applicant did not suffice to make them amount to a criminal act of defamation ( the sole matter subject to the court \u2019s jurisdiction ) .","NORP The Attorney General agreed and on DATE the PERSON ordered that criminal proceedings ORG be archived on the basis of the above - mentioned reasoning , noting that there were no elements to issue a bill of indictment .","The applicant challenged that decision ( opposizione ) on DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE notified on CARDINAL DATE the judge of criminal appeals ordered that criminal proceedings ORG be archived , and rejected the applicant \u2019s objection as manifestly ill - founded . The judge noted that the applicant had reiterated his arguments without referring to the reasons given by the first - instance court , and ignoring the fact that the allegations made by the accused had been substantiated by documentary evidence . Further , the judge stated that the CARDINAL impugned articles had not offended the applicant \u2019s reputation . They questioned the use of ORG apartments without attributing to the applicant any particular untoward behaviour . They contained whole truths and , although the articles were written as a form of criticism , the applicant had had a right \u2013 which he made use of DATE to defend himself in the press . Lastly , PERSON had provided a copy of his correspondence with the authorities which related to the use of the apartment in question and in respect of which he had given an interview which had then been published . Thus , his actions had not been a gratuitous accusation but a supply of correct information concerning the applicant \u2019s activity and functions ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170498","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"BRKI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , Mr Ivica Brki\u0107 , PERSON and PERSON , live in GPE . The first and the second applicants were born in DATE and the third applicant in DATE . They were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On an unspecified date the applicants brought a civil action in ORG for damages against the ORG caused by the killing of their mother , PERSON , born in DATE . They alleged that their mother had been killed by firearms in front of her house in GPE on DATE when that village had been occupied by NORP paramilitary forces . She had been killed solely because of her NORP ethnicity . Therefore , her death had been motivated by ethnic hatred and had had no connection to any military or belligerent activity , which was also evident from the fact that she had not had arms on her person nor could she have put up any resistance . On DATE other persons of NORP ethnicity had been killed in the same village . Such an act had amounted to an act of terrorism under LAW ( see below ) .","On DATE the claim was dismissed . ORG held that CARDINAL of the territory of the ORG had been occupied and that the civilians killed on that territory had been mostly of NORP ethnicity , as had the applicants\u2019 mother . It further held that the applicants\u2019 mother had been killed by one PERSON , a member of the NORP paramilitary forces during the armed conflict between these forces and ORG . Therefore , the killing of the applicants\u2019 mother was war damage within the meaning of LAW , for which GPE was not liable . As to that conclusion , the relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c It is not disputed between the parties that on DATE , DATE of the killing of ORG , the village of GPE was part of the occupied [ territory of the State ] ... The decision on investigation in respect of the accused PERSON ... shows that ORG was CARDINAL of the victims of the same perpetrator , killed on DATE in GPE during an exchange of fire between NORP paramilitary forces and ORG on the CARDINAL side and the armed forces of GPE on the other side ...","...","This court holds that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW is applicable in the case at issue ... The killing of ORG , a civilian of NORP ethnicity , in GPE , which was at the time a part of the occupied [ territory of the State ] , by a member of a paramilitary group DATE so - called territorial defence force of the so - called GPE whose paramilitary force operated within the so - called ORG DATE is direct life - threatening damage under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , and from the claimant \u2019s position it concerns non - pecuniary damage on account of the death of a parent . Therefore , the damage in the specific case was indisputably caused by the enemy , illegal groups or allies of such groups [ , and that ] damage was caused in the period [ provided in ] section CARDINAL of that Act , as ORG was killed on DATE . \u201d","After concluding that the killing of the ORG mother was war damage , ORG also held that it had been a terrorist act for which ORG was not liable as it had had no control over the occupied territory of the ORG . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c The crucial aspect which is missing and is a condition for the liability of GPE as a ORG for the damage in this case is its sovereignty . The defendant had no sovereignty over GPE , which was a part of the broader , temporarily occupied territory of GPE at that time , during the Homeland War . It did not have control over the territory and inhabitants of that territory , the basic elements of State sovereignty . Thus , as said above , the act of damage ... amounts to an act of terror , that is to say an act of violence committed for political motives with the aim of causing fear , terror and the feeling of personal insecurity in citizens . However , the terrorist act of the killing of the applicants\u2019 mother by a member of the occupying enemy NORP paramilitary forces was done in occupied NORP territory , that is to say in the territory where GPE had no sovereignty before the act of damage occurred , on DATE when it occurred , or for DATE afterwards . Given the time ( during a state of war ) , the territory ( occupied NORP territory ) , and all the circumstances in which the damage occurred , this court concludes that [ the act of damage ] in the case at issue amounts to a terrorist act which in these circumstances could not have been prevented by the ORG or its bodies . The defendant did not contribute to such acts of terror or violence in any manner , but instead it attempted to prevent them by all legitimate means , including the defensive Homeland War , CARDINAL of the aims of which was the liberation of the occupied NORP territory in which , in the end , it succeeded . \u201d","The applicants then lodged an appeal in which they argued that ORG had held contradictory views , stating that the killing of their mother was war damage for which the ORG was not liable and at the same time that it had been a terrorist act for which the ORG was not liable because it had had no control over the territory where the damage had occurred . The applicants asserted that the killing of their mother had been a terrorist act and that the ORG \u2019s liability could not be excluded only because it had occurred in occupied territory . They argued that the legislation governing the ORG \u2019s liability for terrorist acts provided that this liability was based on the principles of solidarity , equal distribution of the public burden and fair and prompt compensation , and that ORG liability existed irrespective of whether a perpetrator had been identified , criminally prosecuted or found guilty . In the applicants\u2019 view , this implied that the ORG was liable for damage not because it had responsibility for it but as an act of social solidarity with victims of terrorist acts .","The first - instance judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE , which endorsed the reasoning of ORG .","The applicants then lodged an appeal on points of law in which they reiterated their arguments from the appeal and pointed out that the appeal court had not addressed these arguments . On DATE ORG upheld the lower courts\u2019 judgments . The relevant part of ORG judgment reads :","\u201c ... even though the damage was caused by violence with terror as CARDINAL of its essential elements , it does not amount to a terrorist act within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW , but was caused by belligerent activity of the enemy military or paramilitary forces with the aim of provoking fear in and displacement of the civilian population and has the characteristics of war damage for which GPE is not liable \u201d","NORP The applicants\u2019 subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on DATE . The decision was served on the applicants on DATE .","The relevant part of LAW of DATE ( Zakon o odgovornosti za \u0161tetu nastalu uslijed teroristi\u010dkih akata i javnih demonstracija , ORG no . DATE \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) , which entered into force on DATE , provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) This Act regulates liability for damage caused by acts of terrorism or other acts of violence committed with the aim of seriously disturbing public order by provoking fear or stirring up feelings of insecurity in citizens ...","( CARDINAL ) A terrorist act within the meaning of this LAW is especially an act of violence committed for political reasons [ motives ] with a view to stirring up fear , terror or feelings of personal insecurity in citizens . \u201d","\u201c GPE shall be liable for the damage referred to in CARDINAL of this LAW on [ the basis of ] the principles of social solidarity , equal distribution of the public burden and fair and prompt compensation . \u201d","\u201c The obligation to compensate damage under LAW exists irrespective of whether the perpetrator has been identified , criminally prosecuted or found guilty . \u201d","\u201c The victim shall have the right to compensation [ in the form of damages ] for damage resulting from death , bodily injury or impairment of health . \u201d","LAW and Police ) ( Zakon o odgovornosti PERSON \u0161tetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika hrvatskih oru\u017eanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) outlines the conditions under which the ORG is liable to pay compensation for damage caused by members of the army and the police during the Homeland War . The relevant provisions read as follows :","\u201c The present Act governs the liability of GPE for damage caused by members of ORG and the police force in military or police service or in connection with such service during the Homeland War in the period DATE and DATE . \u201d","\u201c GPE is liable under general rules governing liability for damage only in respect of damage defined in section CARDINAL hereof which does not have the character of war - related damage . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) War - related damage within the meaning of this LAW is , in particular :","\u2013 damage caused at the time when and in territory where military actions were carried out with any means of war ... ( bombardment , shelling , machine - gun fire , explosions , mining , movement of troops and the like ) ;","\u2013 damage resulting in direct and concrete military gains if , given the time and place where it occurred , it directly served military operations , and in particular :","( a ) damage which was a direct consequence of any protective or planning measure which the competent military authorities carried out with the aim of removing or preventing an enemy attack ;","( b ) damage which was a direct consequence of protective or planning measures which the competent military authorities carried out in anticipation of an enemy action ( work in fields , confiscation of movable property , occupation of real estate and the like ) ;","( c ) damage which was a direct consequence of measures taken with the aim of preventing the consequences of the damage described in subsection CARDINAL of this section from spreading or of alleviating such consequences ;","\u2013 damage which , having regard to its results and the specific time and place where it occurred , was directly caused by the state of war and is directly connected with military operations ( direct consequences of war events in connection with unrest , turmoil , panic , evacuations and similar events [ occurring ] immediately after the military operations have been carried out ) .","( CARDINAL ) It is to be presumed that the damage caused by members of ORG and the police force in military or police service or in connection with such service during the Homeland War in the period DATE and DATE is war - related damage , if it occurred at the time when and in territory where military combat actions took place , but the injured party may prove the opposite . \u201d","NORP The relevant part of that LAW o utvr\u0111ivanju ratne \u0161tete , ORG nos . CARDINAL and DATE ) reads :","\u201c [ This LAW provides for ] the setting up and the activities of the ORG , municipal and special commissions for the listing and assessment of war damage caused [ in the territory ] of GPE to its natural and legal persons , and in connection with enemy activities and military operations carried out against [ GPE ] in the period from DATE until the termination [ of the said activities ] . \u201d","\u201c War damage within the meaning of this LAW , is pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage , direct and indirect damage , and in particular :","damage caused to bodily integrity , life and health of persons , freedom or dignity ;","...","War damage , within the meaning of this LAW , is damage caused by enemy , illegal forces , legal bodies of GPE , as well as allies of the said forces and bodies , when it was indirectly or directly caused in the period mentioned in CARDINAL of this LAW . \u201d","ORG has held that GPE was not liable for war - related damage caused by enemy forces on the occupied territories ( for example in its judgments nos . CARDINAL of DATE ; Rev-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ; Rev-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ; and Rev-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) . In the latter ORG endorsed findings of the lower courts that the killing of persons at the occupied territories amounted to war - related damage and added , in so far as relevant , the following :","\u201c Even though the act giving rise to the plaintiffs\u2019 claim for damages presents certain similarities with a terrorist act since [ both ] imply [ an act of ] violence , the act of damage [ in the present case ] differs significantly from terrorist acts in its features since it contains additional elements and amounts to war - related damage for which the defendant is not liable . This is because the damage did not occur in the territory under the de facto sovereignty of GPE but in the then occupied territory , where there was no possibility for lawful action by the bodies of GPE ; this circumstance excludes the otherwise objective liability of the defendant . Furthermore , the act of damage in the present case was not carried out with the sole aim of seriously disturbing public order ( this being the aim characteristic of an act of terror ) but also involved the use of force , killing and expulsion of the civilian population on that territory with the aim of destroying the internal security and stability of GPE and preventing its lawful bodies from functioning .","... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148367","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF JALOUD v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Alvina Gyulumyan;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Corneliu B\u00eersan;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Gilbert Guillaume;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC , GPE . He is the father of the late Mr PERSON , who died on DATE at DATE QUANTITY .","On DATE , at TIME , an unknown car approached a vehicle checkpoint ( ORG ) named \u201c B-CARDINAL \u201d on the main supply route \u201c LOC north of the town of PERSON , in the province of PERSON , south - eastern GPE . The car slowed down and turned . From inside the car shots were fired at the personnel guarding the ORG , all of them members of ORG ( ORG ) . The guards returned fire . No one was hit ; the car drove off and disappeared into TIME .","Called by the checkpoint commander , ORG Hussam Saad , a patrol of CARDINAL GPE soldiers led by PERSON arrived on the scene at TIME","TIME a Mercedes car approached the ORG at speed . It hit CARDINAL of QUANTITY which had been set out in the middle of the road to form the checkpoint , but continued to advance . Shots were fired at the car : PERSON fired CARDINAL rounds from a ORG assault rifle ; shots may also have been fired by CARDINAL or more ORG personnel armed with PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . At this point the driver stopped the car .","The applicant \u2019s son , Mr PERSON , was in the front passenger seat of the car . He had been hit in several places , including the chest . GPE soldiers removed him from the car and attempted to administer first aid . Despite this , Mr PERSON died . He was declared dead TIME after the incident .","The body was subjected to X - ray examination . The radiographs show objects identified as metallic inside the chest and elsewhere .","An autopsy was performed by an NORP physician , who drew up a brief report in LANGUAGE . Metal objects identifiable as bullet fragments were found in the body .","It was not determined by whom the bullet or bullets had been fired , nor from what weapon .","An official record by ORG ( wachtmeester CARDINAL klasse ) Schellingerhout of ORG ( ORG marechaussee ) , As - Samawah detachment , shows that a telephone call was received at TIME from the batallion operations room , reporting the shooting incident . A car had crashed into the ORG . Shots had been fired by GPE and NORP armed forces and the car \u2019s passenger had been wounded . He had been taken to hospital . ORG was asked to investigate .","A CARDINAL - person ORG duty group ( piketgroep ) , accompanied by an interpreter , had left at TIME and arrived on the scene at around CARDINAL.CARDINAL.a.m . ORG Sergeants First Class Broekman and PERSON had begun securing evidence at TIME Also at CARDINAL a.m. , ORG staff in GPE and the public prosecutor of ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE were informed of the incident .","The body was seized by ORG Warrant Officer ( adjudant - onderofficier ) PERSON at TIME and transported to the mobile hospital at FAC . At TIME , after permission had been given in writing by a local court , the body was transported to ORG in As - Samawah . The post - mortem examination was carried out in the absence of any police witness by an NORP physician .","The Mercedes car was seized at around TIME by Warrant Officer PERSON and later towed to Camp Smitty .","At around CARDINAL.CARDINAL a.m. Sergeant First Class Schellingerhout seized Sergeant Hussam PERSON \u2019s PERSON rifle ; at TIME he also seized PERSON ORG CCARDINALACARDINAL rifle . Both weapons were later labelled and placed at the disposal of the GPE public prosecutor .","The following statements were submitted to the investigating and judicial authorities in the domestic proceedings .","On DATE , at TIME , ORG Warrant Officer PERSON took a statement from the driver of the Mercedes car , Mr PERSON , with the aid of an interpreter . Mr PERSON admitted to having drunk CARDINAL cans of beer , but no more , on TIME , and did not consider himself to have been intoxicated . He stated that he had not noticed any checkpoint until it was too late to avoid hitting QUANTITY . It had been dark at the time , and there had been no lighting . To his complete surprise , his car had been fired at as he was driving through the checkpoint . His friend Mr PERSON had been hit ; Mr GPE PERSON had heard him say that he was dying . He wished to submit a complaint because the checkpoint had not been clearly marked .","On DATE , at TIME , ORG Sergeant First Class Weerdenburg took a statement from ORG Hussam PERSON The latter stated that he had reported shooting from a car at around TIME ; PERSON had arrived at TIME Sergeant Hussam PERSON had gone to look for spent cartridges with PERSON , another GPE soldier and the interpreter . He had suddenly heard a bang and seen a car approaching from the direction of Ar ORG . The car had continued to move forward , despite being ordered to stop . He had then heard shooting from the left side of the road . He had not , however , fired any rounds himself .","Sergeant First Class Weerdenburg next questioned the other NORP soldiers , but they provided no pertinent information .","On DATE , at TIME , ORG Sergeant Klinkenberg took a statement from Mr Walied PERSON , an interpreter working with the ORG . The interpreter had been accompanying PERSON patrol between CARDINAL checkpoints . After arriving at ORG GPE and being told about the first shooting incident by ORG Hussam PERSON , he had joined PERSON and others in the search for spent cartridges . He had suddenly heard the sound of barrels falling over , turned around and seen a car approaching . He had shouted \u201c stop , stop , stop \u201d but the car had driven on . Across the road from where he was standing , a GPE soldier had fired at the car . After the car stopped , he had assisted its occupants by providing interpretation . The passenger \u2019s left arm had been covered in blood and the driver had smelled of alcohol .","On DATE , at TIME , ORG Sergeant First Class Van Laar and PERSON took a statement from ORG ( sergeant ) PERSON . Arriving at ORG BCARDINAL.CARDINAL at TIME , he had been given information by the ORG sergeant . Together with his lieutenant , the ORG sergeant and the interpreter , he had gone up the road to look for spent cartridges . At a distance of QUANTITY from the ORG hut , he had turned around , startled by a sound . He had seen a car drive into the ORG at speed ; when the car had passed the ORG , he had heard shooting from the ORG . The CARDINAL of them had dived for cover . When the car had reached their level , shots had been fired from across the road , where the lieutenant was positioned . He had shouted \u201c Stop firing \u201d , but that had not been heard . When the firing stopped , the car had also stopped . The passenger had been bleeding from the lower body and the left shoulder . PERSON and Private PERSON had removed him from the car , laid him on the ground and bandaged his wounds . He and PERSON had attempted to resuscitate the passenger until told by the doctor that there was no longer any point .","On DATE , at TIME , ORG Sergeants First Class Broekman and PERSON heard PERSON under caution . PERSON stated that he was responsible for monitoring CARDINAL vehicle checkpoints , CARDINAL of which was ORG GPE on the GPE road north of FAC . After the first shooting incident had been reported , he had arrived at ORG BCARDINAL.CARDINAL at TIME ; he had been intending to reconnoitre the area on foot , together with PERSON and the ORG sergeant . At TIME he had been startled by a noise . Looking behind him , he had seen CARDINAL blazing car headlights approaching . Shots had then been fired from the direction of the car ; on hearing them , he had dived for cover on the verge of the road . He had been convinced that shots were being fired from inside the car . When the car had reached his level , he had cocked his weapon ; when it had just passed , he had started to shoot at its rear . He had fired CARDINAL cartridges in aimed fire . He had been responding to the danger arising from his having been fired at first . He had fired the entire contents of a magazine , CARDINAL rounds ; this had taken TIME . The passenger being wounded , he and PERSON had attempted to resuscitate him until help arrived . By that time there had been no pulse . Shortly afterwards , the company commander had arrived ; PERSON had briefed him .","On DATE , at TIME , ORG Warrant Officer PERSON and ORG took a statement from Private PERSON . At CARDINAL a.m. on DATE he had arrived with PERSON , among others , at ORG , where the ORG sergeant reported to PERSON that there had been a shooting incident at ORG . The patrol had therefore gone to that checkpoint , arriving at TIME PERSON , PERSON , the ORG sergeant and the interpreter had gone up the road towards GPE to look for spent cartridges . A dark - coloured motorcar had approached at high speed and driven past him through the checkpoint , hitting QUANTITY in the road . Through his image intensifier he had seen PERSON , to the left of the road , going for cover ; he had then seen muzzle flashes from several weapons on the left side of the road and heard shots from that direction . The firing was in single shots . At a certain moment he had seen the car stop . While the shots were being fired , he had heard PERSON shout \u201c Stop firing \u201d . He had gone up to the vehicle and cut the passenger \u2019s clothes loose . While PERSON administered first aid , he had searched the car for weapons . He had found an icebox containing an almost empty bottle of alcoholic drink . He had then joined PERSON and PERSON in their attempts to resuscitate the passenger until the latter was declared dead . He was critical of PERSON for firing while his own troops were on the opposite side of the road and for firing so many rounds , and also of the ORG for firing in the general direction of their own personnel .","On DATE , at TIME , ORG Sergeant Major ( opperwachtmeester ) Wolfs and Sergeant First Class Van Laar took a statement from ORG ( wachtmeester ) PERSON . On DATE at TIME he had been at ORG and the other members of his patrol unit , which had been led by PERSON . There had been shooting at ORG and they had gone there . Upon arrival , he had noticed no ICDC personnel manning the checkpoint , but had seen a group of people to the left of the road opposite the hut . After ORG had parked his vehicle , PERSON , PERSON , the interpreter ORG and the ORG sergeant had walked off north to look for spent cartridges . At a certain point , he had seen a car approaching at high speed from Ar - Rumaythah ; when the car reached the checkpoint , it had hit some of the barrels or rocks placed there . He had heard automatic gunfire from where the ORG members were , which had then stopped . There had been further firing QUANTITY distant from him , but he could not tell who was firing up ahead . He did think that there had been firing from a plurality of weapons . He had seen the vehicle stop QUANTITY away . He had made a situation report . He had seen PERSON and PERSON trying to resuscitate the victim .","On DATE , at around TIME , ORG Sergeant First Class Broekman and Warrant Officer PERSON took a second statement from PERSON The latter stated that the very last time he had seen the ORG sergeant the latter had been at the checkpoint , fiddling ( klungelen ) with his AK-CARDINAL rifle . PERSON had told the sergeant not to point the rifle at him . On the subject of the firing incident , he stated that as far as he remembered he had probably lain on a flat part of the road ; he had not fired from a standing position . He had performed mouth - to - mouth resuscitation on the wounded passenger of the car and remembered him tasting of alcohol . The ORG deputy company commander had given him a list of names of the ORG personnel who had fired their weapons and the corresponding numbers of cartridges , and had asked for replacement ammunition .","On DATE ORG Warrant Officer PERSON and PERSON examined the car seized by Warrant Officer PERSON DATE . It was a black Mercedes Benz CARDINAL E AMG . It had black number plates with markings in LANGUAGE script ; these visibly covered white number plates bearing black letters in LANGUAGE script and numerals . The car had damage consistent with hitting foreign objects at speed . The rear window was shattered . Holes were found in the rear of the car , in the body on the right and left sides , and in the seats . Metal tips were found in various places ; one , identified as a bullet fragment , had clearly passed through the passenger seat . The conclusion was that the car had been fired on from both the left and the right ; from the left , with a weapon firing ammunition smaller than QUANTITY calibre and , from the right , with a weapon firing ammunition larger than QUANTITY calibre . The precise firing angles relative to the car could not , however , be determined .","On DATE Royal Military Constabulary Warrant Officer PERSON and PERSON took receipt of a CD - ROM containing X - rays of PERSON body . These showed fragments of metal in the left chest cavity , the left hip and the left lower arm . The Xrays had been made by Warrant Officer Dalinga , X - ray technician at GPE , As - Samawah , PERSON province .","The file contains photocopies of the above - mentioned X - rays and of photographs . They are accompanied by descriptions , contained in an official report by Warrant Officer PERSON . The photographs include pictures of a road and a checkpoint area , some taken by daylight , some apparently taken at TIME . Several of the photographs show cartridges lying on the ground , including some described as CARDINALxCARDINAL PERSON ( as fired by the PERSON AK-CARDINAL rifle ) , both spent and live , and a quantity of spent cartridges stated to be CARDINAL.CARDINALxCARDINAL PERSON ( as fired by the ORG CCARDINALACARDINAL rifle ) in a pile close together . Others show a male body with wounds to an arm , the upper left CARDINAL of the back and the right buttock . Further pictures show a dark - coloured ORG motorcar ; details are included of holes in the bodywork and upholstery that could be bullet holes .","On DATE ICDC Lieutenant Colonel PERSON , the commanding officer of CARDINAL ORG , sent a report from his batallion headquarters to the headquarters of the NORP police . It reads as follows ( rough handwritten translation , from LANGUAGE into LANGUAGE , submitted by the applicant ) :","\u201c The details of the accident which is happened at date ( DATE ) and information coming from the first batallion ( PERSON ) and the details are :","At TIME ( CARDINAL [ sic ] after the midnight ) from DATE ) [ sic ] a car type ( ORG ) coming by high speed directed from ( PERSON ) to ( Al Nassiriya ) and when the car is reached to the location of the checkpoint does not stop and making a crash with the obstacles present in checkpoint and he was carelessness and the soldiers shouting on him and calling to stop and he is continued and does not stop and after that NORP soldiers see that there is no way and shoot on him and then injured person ( [ PERSON ] ) then he is died and he was sitting near the driver .","With our greetings","[ signed ] Lieutenant Colonel PERSON","A copy to \/ PJCC \u201d","An official report by ORG Warrant Officer PERSON , dated DATE , states that on DATE a document was received in LANGUAGE , which , translated orally by an interpreter , was identified as a report by the GPE police . The report stated that QUANTITY metal fragments had been examined in GPE at the request of the AlMuthanna police with a view to identifying the ammunition from which they had come and the weapon from which they had been fired ; however , the provenance of the metal fragments could not be determined , as they were too few in number . A copy of a document in LANGUAGE was attached to Warrant Officer PERSON \u2019s report . It is not stated in whose custody the metal fragments had been left or where they were being stored .","On DATE Mr PERSON , the driver of the Mercedes car , lodged a complaint with the NORP police against the troops who had fired at his car . It appears from the statement , as taken down in writing , that Mr PERSON was under the misapprehension that the foreign troops involved had been NORP rather than GPE . Mr PERSON also put on record that he had been told by the interpreter to say that all of the shots had been fired by the ORG , whereas in fact he had not seen any shots fired by ORG personnel .","After the ORG \u2019s relinquishment of jurisdiction to ORG , the Government provided an official record of the following statements taken from the ORG members . The following is a sworn translation subsequently submitted by the applicant :","\u201c Name : A PERSON","Weapon number : ORG CARDINAL","Ammunition : CARDINAL X CARDINAL cartridges","\u2018 During the second incident I was lying in a position with all - round security . I saw that a car was travelling at high speed towards the checkpoint from the direction of PERSON . I saw that it rammed into CARDINAL drums by the checkpoint and simply continued going . My commander [ ORG Hussam PERSON ] walked forwards together with the interpreter and CARDINAL NORP soldiers and then I heard a large number of shots fired . I myself did not fire any shots . I can not tell you any more than this.\u2019","Name PERSON","Weapon number UE DATE","Ammunition CARDINAL Cartridge clips and CARDINAL cartridges in total","\u2018 CARDINAL can not tell you anything about the first incident because I was asleep at the time in the watch hut .","During the second incident I was standing by the vehicle checkpoint and I saw a ORG driving towards the checkpoint . I saw that the ORG rammed into CARDINAL oil drums and drove on in the direction of PERSON . I heard the NORP soldiers shouting stop , stop , and then I heard shots being fired . I saw nothing else because I was standing behind a hut on the opposite side to the watch hut.\u2019"],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145363","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF OLEG ZHURAVLEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of corruption and an abuse of official powers and gave him a custodial sentence . The applicant appealed alleging , in particular , that he was innocent , that the prosecution had been unlawful and the trial court had applied the criminal law erroneously .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted it for a new hearing .","On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty as charged before and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant lodged an appeal . He complained , among other matters , about erroneous interpretation of law , improper assessment of evidence by the courts , and an excessive severity of the penalty","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal reducing the sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","DATE and DATE the applicant was held in remand prison GPE in LOC . The facility was overcrowded . Thus , cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY m was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and accommodated up to QUANTITY inmates .","The applicant submitted the following evidence in support of the above allegations : his complaints to the prison management and their reply and statements by CARDINAL cellmates ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174413","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TOLESKI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek","text":["On DATE GPE appropriated from several individuals the right of use of nationalised building land ( \u043e\u0434\u0437\u0435\u043c\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043e\u0434 \u043f\u043e\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430\u043c\u043e\u0448\u043d\u043e \u043a\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0434\u0435\u0436\u043d\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u0438\u0440\u0430\u043d\u043e \u0437\u0435\u043c\u0458\u0438\u0448\u0442\u0435 ) located in an area PERSON land in question included a plot owned by the applicant \u2019s legal predecessor , measuring CARDINAL sq . m.","By a final decision of DATE , the applicant was declared heir of the right to claim restitution of the land . On DATE he requested its restitution .","On DATE ORG , operating within ORG ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0444\u0438\u043d\u0430\u043d\u0441\u0438\u0438 \u043d\u0430 ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0414\u0435\u043d\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u0441\u043e \u0441\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0448\u0442\u0435 \u0432\u043e ORG \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , accepted the applicant \u2019s request and ordered the restitution of the land ( \u201c the restitution decision \u201d ) . On the basis of documentary evidence of CARDINAL DATE obtained from ORG ( ORG \u0437\u0430 PERSON ) , ORG found that no structures of public interest , but rather \u201c beach service facilities and a leisure centre \u201d ( \u0441\u0435\u0440\u0432\u0438\u0441 \u043e\u0431\u0458\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0438 \u0437\u0430 \u043f\u043b\u0430\u0436\u0430 \u0438 \u0446\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0430\u0440 \u0437\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0431\u0430\u0432\u0430 ) , were planned to be constructed on the plot in question . An expert had carried out an on - site inspection and had established that the land in question had been undeveloped building land and was part of the ORG lakeshore strip ( \u043a\u0440\u0430\u0458\u0431\u0440\u0435\u0436\u0435\u043d \u043f\u043e\u0458\u0430\u0441 \u043d\u0430 GPE \u0435\u0437\u0435\u0440\u043e ) . On CARDINAL and DATE ORG and ORG Instance informed ORG that they had no information as to whether any compensation had been paid to the applicant \u2019s predecessor for the appropriated land . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE GPE confirmed that neither the applicant nor his predecessor had sought compensation for the appropriated land .","A copy of the decision was served on ORG ( ORG ) but it appears that no appeal was lodged against the decision . Accordingly , it became final on DATE .","On DATE the land was restored to the applicant \u2019s possession ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0430\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0432\u043e \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) . The minutes drawn by ORG stated that , although properly summoned , ORG did not attend the ORG \u2019s meeting .","On an unspecified date , PERSON , an association that ran a campsite near the plot in question ( \u201c the association \u201d ) , submitted documentation to ORG that the plot in question was developed building land and was in use by the campsite . It submitted TIME of a meeting between the association and municipal representatives of CARDINAL DATE which showed that the plot in question had been transferred to the association \u2019s possession . As stipulated in TIME , the plot in question had been given to the association for its use even earlier , on DATE . The association also submitted a decision from DATE in which the ORG was ordered to pay compensation to the applicant \u2019s predecessor for the plot .","On an unspecified date in DATE the Solicitor General requested that ORG , acting as a second - instance body ( \u041a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0441\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0412\u043b\u0430\u0434\u0430 \u043d\u0430 PERSON \u0437\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0448\u0430\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0432\u043e \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f\u043a\u0430 \u0432\u043e \u0432\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u0441\u0442\u0435\u043f\u0435\u043d \u043e\u0434 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u0435\u043d\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u2013 ORG ) , either annul ( \u043f\u043e\u043d\u0438\u0448\u0442\u0438 ) , declare null and void ( \u043e\u0433\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0438 \u0437\u0430 \u043d\u0438\u0448\u0442\u043e\u0432\u043d\u043e ) or quash through a supervisory - review procedure ( \u0443\u043a\u0438\u043d\u0435 \u043f\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e \u043d\u0430 \u043d\u0430\u0434\u0437\u043e\u0440 ) the restitution decision of DATE . ORG argued that the association had submitted documentary evidence that contradicted the facts established by ORG in that the land had been in use by the association and that compensation had been paid to the applicant \u2019s predecessor . That evidence had not previously been submitted to ORG .","In his reply of DATE , the applicant submitted that ORG could not rely on errors of fact as grounds for supervisory review of the final restitution order . He further denied that any compensation had been paid to his predecessor or him .","On DATE ORG carried out an on - site inspection and drew up a report according to which the land \u201c was vacant space between LOC and the GPE - St GPE road \u201d and \u201c it was not used for the servicing of any surrounding structures \u201d ( \u043d\u0435 \u0435 \u0432\u043e \u0444\u0443\u043d\u043a\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u043e\u043a\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0438 \u043e\u0431\u0458\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0438 ) . It determined that the land was intended for the construction of \u201c beach service facilities and a leisure centre \u201d , which could not be considered as being of public interest . Accordingly , possession of it could be restored ( \u043c\u043e\u0436\u0435 \u0434\u0430 \u0431\u0438\u0434\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043c\u0435\u0442 \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0430\u043b\u043d\u043e \u0432\u0440\u0430\u045c\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) .","On DATE ORG accepted ORG request and declared the restitution order null and void finding that , pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it could not be enforced . Relying on section CARDINAL of LAW , ORG stated that :","\u201c From all admitted evidence in the proceedings it can be established that the undeveloped building land was appropriated from the [ applicant \u2019s ] predecessor , that compensation was paid to the latter , and that the land in question is developed building land with playing fields and other leisure and recreational facilities , which are an integral part of camp E.","The [ ORG ] established that in the present case the final restitution order was based on a wrong application of the law , which was preceded by erroneous and incomplete establishment of the facts . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action , arguing that ORG , in its decision of DATE , had established the facts correctly . In this connection he referred to ORG report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and another on - site report of CARDINAL DATE drawn up for the purpose of an \u201c action for disturbance of possession \u201d in which it had been confirmed that the land had been vacant DATE a fact that had been established by ORG in an earlier civil dispute between him and the association ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG ( \u0423\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d \u0421\u0443\u0434 ) DATE which had meanwhile become competent to decide on administrative actions \u2013 dismissed the applicant \u2019s action and held that the annulment order of ORG had been lawful . It referred to section CARDINAL of ORG , sections TIME ) and CARDINAL of LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG , GPE and GPE , as well as sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE , and DATE below ) and relied on the fact that the land in question was part of the shoreline . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c In the court \u2019s opinion , in deciding the present case , the [ ORG ] acted correctly when it declared null and void the final restitution order , in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW , under which a decision whose enforcement is not possible shall be declared null and void . In relation to this , the court emphasises that this provision does not concern only the factual , but also the legal impossibility of enforcement ...","... In view of the above - cited statutory provisions , it is undisputed that LOC and its shore are ... of general interest ( \u0434\u043e\u0431\u0440\u043e \u043e\u0434 \u043e\u043f\u0448\u0442 \u0438\u043d\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0441 ) , which is relevant , in the court \u2019s view , for the restitution proceedings , within the meaning of LAW . ... \u201d","On DATE ORG ( FAC \u0441\u0443\u0434 \u043d\u0430 GPE ) declared inadmissible an appeal against ORG judgment lodged by the applicant . ORG held that the impugned judgment had predated CARDINAL DATE , DATE when it had become competent to decide administrative actions in the second instance .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for reopening of the proceedings on the basis of newly discovered facts . That decision was confirmed on appeal by ORG in a decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to the public prosecutor ( GPE \u043d\u0430 GPE ) seeking that protection of legality proceedings ( \u0411\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0448\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) be instituted regarding the judgment of ORG DATE , as well as regarding the rejection of his request for the reopening of the proceedings . It appears that the public prosecutor accepted the applicant \u2019s application and lodged an application for the protection of legality with ORG , which the latter rejected as inadmissible on the grounds that the remedy in question was no longer available due to change in legislation .","Following the final decision to declare the restitution decision null and void , on DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE , the applicant lodged an administrative action with ORG , challenging that decision .","On DATE , ORG quashed the decision . It found that the facts of the case relating to whether the plot was developed building land or not , as well as the issue of whether the applicant had received compensation , had not been sufficiently well - established .","On DATE ORG , after having made a fresh on - site inspection , upheld the applicant \u2019s restitution request .","On DATE the Solicitor General , acting on behalf of the ORG , challenged the latter decision with an administrative action , arguing that ORG had failed to obtain information as to whether the land was of public interest owing to its situation on the ORG lakeshore .","On DATE ORG dismissed ORG action and upheld the decision of ORG .","On DATE the Solicitor General lodged an appeal against the latter judgment with ORG ( \u0412\u0438\u0448 \u0423\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d \u0421\u0443\u0434 ) . The reasons stated in the appeal were , inter alia , that ORG had not given appropriate reasons as to whether the land had been of public interest .","The applicant died on DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the proceedings . Relying on sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , it found that the land in question was part of the LOC strip and therefore was of public interest .","On DATE PERSON , the applicant \u2019s daughter , asked ORG to stay the proceedings . She submitted evidence that inheritance proceedings regarding the legacy of the applicant had been opened . The inheritance proceedings were later stayed due to civil proceedings in which she challenged the alleged existence of a will made by the applicant in favour of ORG , her brother .","On DATE ORG decided to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the civil and the inheritance proceedings .","It appears that the civil and the inheritance proceedings are still pending .","In a separate set of proceedings concerning the same plot of land on CARDINAL DATE ORG overturned the lower court \u2019s decision and finally upheld the applicant \u2019s action for protection from disturbance of possession ( \u0441\u043c\u0435\u045c\u0430\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) against the association which ran the camp regarding the same plot of land . It ordered the association to refrain from further disturbances .","According to a document from ORG dated DATE , the historical records of the plot of land show that the association was granted use of the plot as of DATE . The ORG had at the time remained the owner of the plot , which continued to be the case until DATE the document was issued .","On DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant made additional submissions to the ORG , including evidence , which were added to the case file . This evidence refers to other neighbouring plots of land which , according to the applicant , had been returned to the possession of their respective owners . According to him , it had never been argued by the ORG that these neighbouring plots had been of public interest . In support he submitted several decisions from several different sets of restitution proceedings . It can not be ascertained whether any of those proceedings ended finally in the respective plaintiffs\u2019 favour ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161224","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"KOMISJA ZAK\u0141ADOWA NSZZ SOLIDARNO\u015a\u0106 at FRITO LAY POLAND Ltd v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON ORG \u201c NORP \u201d at ORG in PERSON is an enterprise - level unit of the \u201c ORG .","It was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer with ORG , a non - governmental organisation based in GPE .","On DATE ORG found evidence of various violations of the workers\u2019 rights related to the working time , unpaid overtime and breaches of the health and safety regulations at ORG in PERSON ( \u201c the company \u201d ) .","At DATE eight women employed in ORG were dismissed . Shortly after their dismissal , they complained to the President of ORG applicant trade union in the company , Mr ORG of the women claimed that they had been sexually harassed by their superior . The remaining CARDINAL alleged that that they had been dismissed for their knowledge of the sexual harassment . Mr GPE requested the management of the company that the dismissed employees be reinstated but to no avail .","On DATE the Mazowiecki Region Branch of the \u201c ORG filed a criminal complaint with the prosecutor \u2019s office . It alleged that ORG , a manager of the company had sexually harassed the employees . It also alleged that the rights of the employees had been violated .","On DATE ORG filed a bill of indictment with the ORG . He accused ORG of the sexual harassment of the employees . Another manager , PERSON was accused of wilful breach of the employees\u2019 rights . No information has been provided as to the outcome of those proceedings .","Every DATE the applicant trade union had to inform the management of the company about the number of its members . On DATE it declared to the management of the company that it had CARDINAL members as of CARDINAL DATE . Having regard to the number of unionised employees and pursuant to the provisions of LAW , Mr GPE , the president of the board of the applicant trade union , was relieved from his normal duties and carried out his trade union activity .","On DATE newspaper \u201c ORG \u201d published an article about Mr GPE entitled : \u201c How to receive a salary and do nothing \u201d . The article stated that the number of unionised employees in the company had been inflated and that Mr GPE had therefore no right to be seconded to his trade union activity .","On DATE the management of the company requested the members of the board of the applicant trade union to indicate the number of its members as of DATE . This request was refused .","On DATE the employees were requested by the company director to proceed to a designated room in order to fill out a questionnaire about membership in the trade union . The employees had to present their identity document and to sign a list in order to receive a questionnaire . Then , they had to indicate in an anonymous questionnaire whether , or not they were members of the trade union as of DATE . The room had no arrangements ensuring the confidentiality of the process . The whole process was supervised by a notary and her assistant who drew a relevant record .","NORP CARDINAL employees of the total number of CARDINAL took part in the survey . CARDINAL employees confirmed to be members of the trade union at the relevant time ; while the trade union had declared CARDINAL members .","CARDINAL employees declared subsequently to the trade union that they had given a negative reply for fear of reprisal .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON ORG The reason for it was that Mr ORG had misled the company about the number of unionised employees which , in turn , allowed him to be relieved from his normal duties . Mr GPE instituted court proceedings for reinstatement .","On DATE ORG , a non - governmental organisation filed a criminal complaint against members of the management of the company . It submitted that the management of the company had acted illegally by requiring the employees to disclose their membership in the trade union . This action had amounted to the hindering of the trade union activity prescribed in LAW and discriminated against the unionised employees . The ORG submitted that if the employer had doubts about the number of unionised employees it should have initiated a relevant procedure before the civil court . It also asserted that the actions of the management had had intimidating effect on the current and future members of the trade union .","It appears that Mr GPE also filed a criminal complaint .","On DATE the company distributed a form among the employees which was to be returned within DATE . The form stated that \u201c If therefore for any reason the board of the \u201c NORP \u201d trade union at the company still considers me its member , I hereby state that it is my will to resign from my trade union membership as of DATE \u201d .","The investigation was initially conducted by the Grodzisk Mazowiecki District Prosecutor \u2019s Office but in DATE it was transferred to the GPE - ORG .","The prosecutor heard evidence from Mr GPE He stated that the company had been involved in a long conflict with the trade union . In DATE Mr GPE had informed the higher instances of the trade union about the alleged sexual abuse of a number of the employees . In his view , in reaction to that the company had decided to take measure aimed at undermining his credibility .","NORP The prosecutor also heard evidence from CARDINAL other members of the board of the applicant trade union . They stated that the trade union had been established in DATE . In DATE , having regard to the increased number of unionised staff , the president of the board of the trade union was seconded to carry out his trade union activity . According to them , the survey of CARDINAL DATE did not ensure confidentiality for the employees . CARDINAL members of the board of the trade union did not disclose their membership in the trade union for fear of dismissal . CARDINAL member of the board of the trade union stated that the members of the board had requested the employees not to disclose the fact of their membership .","NORP The prosecutor further undertook to verify the number of unionised employees at ORG She requested the regional branch of the \u201c ORG to provide information about the registration of the applicant trade union . A request was also addressed to the treasurer of the applicant trade union to inform the prosecutor of the number of trade union members based on the dues paid .","On DATE the GPE - ORG discontinued the investigation .","The prosecutor assessed the evidence and found that no criminal offence of hindering trade union activity , prescribed in section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , had been committed . She noted that under this provision the hindering of the trade union activity should have been of a significant character . However , the carrying out by the employer of an anonymous survey among the employees could not have been qualified as such . The evidence obtained in the case did not indicate that the action of the employer had significantly affected the activity of the trade union . The survey was carried out with a view to verifying the number of unionised employees . Such an action of the employer was not prohibited , while the trade union had an obligation to inform the employer DATE of the number of unionised members . However , if the employer had doubts about the number of unionised employees and then organised a voluntary and anonymous survey in the presence of a notary , it could not be said that the action of the employer had a significant influence on the trade union activity . The prosecutor lastly noted that the survey did not disclose the identity of unionised employees .","NORP The applicant trade union filed an appeal . It argued that the employer had no right to verify the number of trade union members and should have instituted proceedings before the civil court instead . The employer \u2019s actions led to the dismissal of Mr GPE and reduction of the membership of the trade union . The trade union further alleged that the prosecutor had failed to hear a number of important witnesses , in particular the company director , the notary and his assistant and , at least , some employees .","On DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision . It noted that the prosecutor had correctly assessed the evidence in the case . The court agreed , in particular , that the hindering of trade union activity should have been of a significant character and that the carrying out of the anonymous survey could not have been considered as the hindering of trade union activity .","On DATE the \u201c ORG brought a complaint before ORG concerning the situation in ORG , alleging interference into trade union internal affairs and antiunion dismissal . The ORG ( ORG Hotel , Restaurant , ORG and ORG ) supported this complaint . The complaint also concerned a situation in another private company which is not relevant to the present case .","The complainant indicated that Mr GPE , the leader of the \u201c NORP \u201d trade union at ORG had been actively involved in a conflict concerning allegations of sexual harassment . The case of female employees who had been dismissed or forced to resign gathered a lot of attention from the media and from the international trade unions . The claimant described the survey organised by the company on DATE . It stated that the employees had been required to fill out a questionnaire concerning their trade union membership in circumstances that allowed easy identification of employees . Forms with a question \u201c Were you a member of the enterprise - level trade union organisation on DATE ? \u201d were filled out in the presence of CARDINAL persons and no arrangement had been made to ensure confidentiality . CARDINAL lawyers had been hired by the employer to supervise the procedure and this fact created an additional pressure . The complainant considered that due to lack of confidentiality , the majority of the trade union members had responded in the negative . It also described the circumstances leading to the dismissal of Mr GPE","The complainant further submitted that on DATE , a readyto - fill form had been distributed among the employees . The form contained the following statements \u201c I declare that I do not consider myself a member of the trade union \u201d and \u201c If therefore for any reason the enterprise trade union of the \u201c NORP \u201d trade union still considers me its member , I hereby state that it is my will to resign from my trade union membership as of DATE \u201d . The form was to be signed and returned to the management within DATE .","The complainant alleged that the acts of the employer to verify trade union membership had been clearly aimed at intimidating workers and contrary to the legislation in force . It noted that LAW provided for a possibility to apply to a court to verify the number of trade union members at a particular enterprise in the course of non - contentious proceedings . It alleged that as a consequence of the employer \u2019s action , the number of unionised employees had dropped from CARDINAL in the space of DATE . In conclusion , the complainant alleged that the actions undertaken by the management of ORG remained unpunished by ORG or any public institution . The claimant asserted that the above cases of anti - union climate in the enterprise , hostile attitude towards attempts of workers to organise , anti - union discrimination and problems related to the reinstatement of dismissed trade unionists constituted a serious threat to the rights guaranteed by the Convention no . CARDINAL .","ORG examined the complaint as case no . CARDINAL . In its first consideration of the case ( ORG , DATE ) , ORG held , in so far as relevant :","\u201c DATE . The ORG notes that this case concerns alleged violations of freedom of association by the management of CARDINAL private companies ( ... and ORG ) , namely : acts of interference in trade union affairs and anti - union dismissals .","...","As regards the situation at ORG , the ORG notes that the complainant alleges that PERSON [ ... ] Z [ ... ] , the leader of the enterprise trade union was accused by the employer of intentionally misinforming the company \u2019s management as regards the number of trade union members and was dismissed without the approval of the union committee . The complainant further alleges that the gathering of individual data on trade union membership , on the results of which the employer had later based the decision to dismiss PERSON [ ... ] , was conducted in a manner violating confidentiality ( ... ) and had a deterring effect on trade union members . Furthermore , on DATE , a ready - to - fill form letter was distributed among the employees of the enterprise attesting to their non - membership in the union , to be signed and returned to the enterprise management . According to the complainant , such intimidating acts lead to the dropping of trade union membership from CARDINAL to CARDINAL members in the space of DATE .","ORG notes that here too , the Government does not challenge the substance of the allegations but indicates that only ORG can make appropriate decisions with regard to the legality of the termination of the employment contract of Mr Z [ ... ] . ORG also notes the comments of ORG , which include the position of the management of ORG that they did not violate national legislation , that the procedure of verification of trade union membership was voluntary and anonymous and was a result of reasonable doubts over Mr Z [ ... ] \u2019s claims with regard to the number of trade union members . It further notes the concerns of ORG that the current legislation provides no means for verifying trade union membership .","ORG notes the ORG \u2019s further indication that ORG assured the Minister of Labour that it would continue monitoring the application by ORG of the relevant labour regulations . In view of the opening by ORG in PERSON of judicial proceedings in the case of the respect of trade union rights at ORG , ORG also called upon the Minister of Justice to give it priority . ...","...","While taking due note of the Government \u2019s statement that ... the case of Mr Z [ ... ] and the alleged violations of trade union rights at ORG are also under investigation , ORG must also observe that these cases have been pending since ... DATE ... . The ORG recalls that cases concerning anti - union discrimination contrary to LAW CARDINAL should be examined rapidly , so that the necessary remedies can be really effective . ...","ORG observes that the Government has reacted to the concerns raised in respect of the enterprises ... and ORG by referring the issue to ... ORG , as regards the latter . \u201d","ORG raised the issue of verification of trade union representativeness :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... , the ORG observes the concerns raised by ORG in respect of the lack of legal provisions for verifying trade union representativeness and requests the Government , in consultation with the social partners , to provide for an impartial and independent method for verifying trade union representativeness in order to avoid the problems that occurred in the case of ORG \u201d","ORG submitted , in so far as relevant , the following recommendations to ORG :","\u201c DATE . In the light of its foregoing conclusions , the ORG invites ORG to approve the following recommendations :","( b ) ORG urges the Government to reiterate and intensify its efforts , under the auspices of ORG , to ensure that the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining are applied , particularly as regards the effective recognition of unions and the provision of adequate protection against acts of antiunion discrimination and interference . The ORG firmly expects that the situation of the respect of trade union rights in GPE will indeed improve with the approval of a national social agreement between the Government and the social partners and requests the Government to keep it informed of the developments in this regard .","( c ) The ORG requests the Government , in consultation with the social partners , to provide for an impartial and independent method for verifying trade union representativeness order to avoid the problems that occurred in the case of ORG \u201d .","ORG approved these recommendations in DATE .","Since its initial assessment of the case , ORG has reviewed the situation periodically . In its Report No . CARDINAL of DATE , it noted , in so far as relevant , that :","\u201c CARDINAL . With regard to the alleged violation of trade union rights at ORG , the ORG notes that : ORG concluded to the absence of any violation and closed the investigation on DATE ; this decision was challenged by the ORG \u201c GPE \u201d and that on DATE , ORG for ORG of GPE dismissed the complaint and upheld the decision of ORG . ORG requests the Government to provide copies of both decisions .","The ORG ... requests the Government to continue providing information on concrete measures taken to ensure that the principles of freedom of association and collective bargaining are applied , particularly as regards the effective recognition of unions and the provision of adequate protection against acts of anti - union discrimination and interference . The ORG further requests the Government to provide information on any progress reached with regard to the development of an impartial and independent method for verifying trade union representativeness , in consultation with the social partners . \u201d","In its subsequent Report No . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG took note of the decisions of ORG and ORG , transmitted by the Government , which had both concluded that there was an absence of any violation of trade union rights at ORG regretted that no information had been provided with regard to its other outstanding recommendations . It observed that similar matters were being raised by ORG and referred the follow - up of those legislative aspects to it .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW of DATE an enterprise - level trade union should inform the employer about an overall number of its members DATE . LAW regulates the right of members of the board of an enterprise - level trade union to be relieved from their normal duties in order to carry out trade union activity . The number of members of a board who could benefit from this right depends on the number of members of a trade union in an enterprise .","LAW provides in section QUANTITY ) as follows :","\u201c Whoever in connection with the office held or the function exercised hinders the trade union activity carried out in accordance with the provisions of the law shall be liable to a fine or a restriction of liberty . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166946","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF JEME\u013bJANOVS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE at TIME the applicant , who was under the influence of alcohol , was involved in a fight outside a grocery store in the presence of several witnesses . He stabbed another individual with a knife , as a result of which the latter died . DATE the police opened a murder investigation into the death .","At TIME on DATE the applicant \u2013 who in DATE had been released from prison , having served a sentence for an earlier conviction for inflicting physical injuries \u2013 was placed under arrest on suspicion of murder . The record of his arrest contained a written statement from him confirming that he did not need a lawyer .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the police questioned the applicant as a suspect . The interview records contained his signatures confirming that he had been informed of his right to instruct a lawyer to attend his interview , and that he did not need CARDINAL .","During his first interview the applicant denied any involvement in the fight or the murder .","During his second interview he stated that on DATE , having consumed alcohol , he had been riding a bicycle when ORG had suddenly run into him from an alley . They had started arguing and ORG had hit the applicant , who had responded with several punches . Afterwards , CARDINAL other young men had joined in the fight , and the applicant had been kicked to the ground . At some point the applicant had noticed that a woman was restraining O. and not letting him approach the applicant . Another unknown young man , who had not taken part in the fight , had restrained the applicant . The applicant had thought that the young man was going to attack him , and had therefore picked up his knife from the ground and stabbed him .","On DATE the applicant was formally accused of murder under section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) for having stabbed the victim with the intent to kill him \u201c because of a personal conflict \u201d .","On DATE the applicant was provided with a ORG - appointed lawyer , PERSON , to assist him during the preliminary investigation . On DATE he was questioned as an accused person in the presence of S. He partially admitted his guilt . In essence , he reiterated the statements made in his earlier interviews . He stated that he had used the knife against the victim because he had known that the victim wanted to hit him , although he could not say whether the victim had already hit him at that point or , if not , when the victim was going to attack him .","On DATE the judge extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The judge noted that S. had submitted that keeping the applicant in detention was not justified , as he did not present any danger and had no reason to evade justice , since he had a job and a permanent place of residence .","On DATE the public prosecutor charged the applicant with murder under section CARDINAL of LAW . S. was present . On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of S. and confirmed his earlier testimony of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , TIME , the applicant familiarised himself with the case file in the presence of S. He wrote in the relevant record that he had no remarks or requests , and also asked to be provided with a lawyer for his trial .","On DATE the public prosecutor transferred the case to ORG ( Daugavpils tiesa ) for trial .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that he had not been assisted by a lawyer when he had familiarised himself with the case file .","On DATE was assigned to the applicant \u2019s case to assist him in the proceedings before ORG . On DATE S. familiarised himself with the case file .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that S. had convinced him to partially admit his guilt , although he had not wished to do so . Furthermore , PERSON had not been present when he had familiarised himself with the case file . He did not wish to be assisted by S.","On DATE a first - instance hearing was held . The court examined the applicant \u2019s complaint regarding PERSON , who stated that his client \u2019s own interests and those relating to his defence diverged . S. invited the court to uphold the applicant \u2019s application for him to be released from his duties . After the court decided to release PERSON from his duties , the applicant stated that he needed to be assisted by a lawyer . The proceedings were adjourned .","On DATE a senior lawyer of ORG refused the court \u2019s request to provide the applicant with another ORG - appointed lawyer , stating that PERSON had carried out his duties diligently , and LAW kodekss ) did not give an accused the right to freely choose a lawyer . The applicant had the right to appoint a lawyer of his own choice ( and pay for his or her services ) , and the right to waive his right to legal assistance .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to provide him with a ORG - appointed lawyer .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that , in the event that an accused raised an unjustified challenge in respect of his or her lawyer , he or she had a right to request another lawyer , at his own expense .","On DATE the applicant was provided with a ORG - appointed lawyer , NORP , to assist him in the proceedings before ORG . On DATE NORP familiarised himself with the case file .","On DATE a hearing was held before ORG . The applicant asked the court to ensure the attendance of several witnesses . NORP maintained that application . The next hearing was fixed for DATE .","On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to NORP and asked why he had agreed to represent him , given their \u201c unpleasant \u201d first meeting during which NORP had indicated his intention to refuse to act as the applicant \u2019s counsel . The applicant also asked NORP to guarantee that he would persuade the trial court to order CARDINAL new measures in order to obtain evidence . According to the applicant , the following measures would prove his innocence in relation to the murder charge : searches of other unspecified witnesses , polygraph testing , and another psychiatric examination . The applicant stated that if NORP did not wish to defend him , then he had the opportunity to withdraw from the case , which would provide a satisfying solution for them both . However , if NORP acted in the same way as his previous defence lawyer , the applicant would ask the trial court to discharge NORP from his duties .","On DATE the applicant submitted several written applications to ORG . He asked for the criminal case to be remitted to the prosecutor \u2019s office in order to rectify the bill of indictment by changing his motive for the alleged offence . The court dismissed the application , as it had not yet started its adjudication or assessment of the evidence . The court further dismissed the applicant \u2019s second application to end his pre - trial detention . As regards a third application to examine evidence concerning the scene of the crime and search other unspecified witnesses , the court decided to postpone examination of those requests until the end of its adjudication . In that regard , it noted that all defence witnesses had been summoned to the hearing . The court then dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for another forensic medical examination on the grounds that one had already been carried out in DATE . All the applications were dealt with at a hearing and the applicant was present when the relevant decisions were announced .","During the hearing , NORP reserved his comments as regards the applicant \u2019s application to call other unspecified witnesses and have a new indictment , on the grounds that those were matters to be examined at the end of court \u2019s adjudication . He supported the applicant \u2019s application for additional psychiatric examination and the attendance of all the defence and prosecution witnesses summoned to the trial . With regard to the applicant \u2019s other application , NORP stated that it was at the court \u2019s discretion .","In his subsequent written application ( \u201c a refusal \u201d ( \u043e\u0442\u0432\u043e\u0434 ) ) , the applicant relied on LAW and asked the court to release NORP from his duties . In that application , the applicant referred to his letter to NORP dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , to which the applicant had expected a favourable response , but to which NORP had not responded . The written application stated that the applicant was refusing the services of NORP on the grounds that all applications made to the court on DATE had been drafted by the applicant , and NORP had not shown any interest in asking the court to order the examination of witness statements about the scene of the crime , new psychiatric expert evidence , or the correction of the motive in the bill of indictment . NORP had merely supported the above applications .","At the end of the written application the applicant asked ORG to provide him with another ORG - appointed lawyer who would carry out his function in compliance with LAW .","In reply to the applicant \u2019s application , NORP presented the applicant \u2019s letter of DATE to the court and invited it to establish whether the applicant needed a lawyer at all . In reply to a question put by the court , the applicant could not name a lawyer to be provided for him .","On DATE ORG decided to uphold the applicant \u2019s application to release NORP from his duties and rejected his application for appointment of another legal aid lawyer . It noted that the applicant had declined the services of NORP because the latter could not guarantee that he would be acquitted , and the applicant had been of the opinion that NORP had not adequately defended him . ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application on the grounds that he had twice been provided with a lawyer and had twice refused their services . Under LAW of LAW , a lawyer was appointed by a court and not chosen by an accused himself . In accordance with LAW , an accused had the right to waive his or her right to legal assistance , but no right to request replacement of a lawyer . According to ORG , the applicant \u2019s refusal of NORP \u2019s services had been unjustified , and meant that he did not wish to have a legal aid lawyer at all . The court stated that the applicant was seeking to delay the proceedings .","From DATE the applicant did not have legal assistance in the first - instance proceedings .","During the hearing of DATE , when invited by the court to put questions to witnesses , he refused to do so , stating each time that he would either ask questions when represented by a lawyer or not ask questions at all . At the applicant \u2019s request , ORG adjourned the hearing to summon other absent witnesses .","During the hearing of DATE the applicant , referring to section CARDINAL of LAW GPE likums ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , asked the court to ensure that his defence rights were respected . His earlier applications to replace the CARDINAL ORG - appointed lawyers could not be construed as a waiver of his right to legal assistance ; he had refused the assistance because of a \u201c disagreement \u201d and a \u201c failure to provide legal assistance \u201d . The applicant asked the court to provide him with a list of lawyers and a means of communicating with them , or , in the alternative , to ensure that he was assisted by CARDINAL of the CARDINAL lawyers he named . The court explained that the applicant \u2019s application for a lawyer had been decided on DATE . It adjourned the hearing in order to summon absent witnesses .","During the next hearing on DATE the applicant alleged that CARDINAL people had been present when the alleged crime had taken place , but CARDINAL of them had been called as witnesses . He therefore asked the court to identify the other witnesses . In reply to a question put by the court , the applicant confessed that he had stabbed the victim , but stated that he had not intended to kill him . At the applicant \u2019s request , ORG adjourned the hearing , giving him time to give evidence and to submit a list of defence witnesses .","On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG sent the applicant a list of lawyers practising in GPE whom the applicant could contact in order to obtain a legal consultation . He noted that the case file contained no evidence pertaining to the applicant \u2019s status as a person of low income , and that the applicant would be provided with a ORG - appointed lawyer at appeal stage if the case were to reach it .","At a hearing on DATE ORG examined several applications lodged by the applicant . As regards another application for appointment of a lawyer , the court held that the matter had previously been decided and could not be re - examined . During the same hearing ORG verified that the applicant had duly received the document setting out the charges against him . The court upheld the applicant \u2019s application for an adjournment , and adjourned the hearing to give him time to prepare for the arguments in court .","On DATE the prosecutor amended the charges against the applicant by changing the motive of the crime to , \u201c acting with no reason , being guided by hooligan tendencies \u201d .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of murder . The court noted that the applicant had partly admitted his guilt during the preliminary investigation in saying that he had stabbed the victim , but claiming that he had not intended to murder him . The court went on to refer to the evidence of CARDINAL witnesses who had been in the immediate vicinity of the incident . The court did not have any doubts as regards the applicant \u2019s intent . He had stabbed the victim in the chest and had himself testified that he had aimed to stab the victim in the left part of his chest . All the witnesses , except CARDINAL , had confirmed that the applicant had stabbed the victim after the fight had ended . The applicant had had no need to defend himself , because the victim had been unarmed and had not posed any threat to him . On the contrary , the victim had not taken part in the fight at all , but had wanted to stop it . The court dismissed as unreliable the evidence of an eyewitness who had been transported to a hearing and detained with the applicant .","In addition , the court relied on documentary evidence , such as the conclusions of the forensic psychiatric examination . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","As regards the applicant \u2019s right to legal aid assistance , the court observed that he had twice refused the services of ORG - appointed lawyers . LAW , as in force on DATE , did not provide for the right of an accused to decline the services of a lawyer . The court further dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegation that the ORG - appointed lawyers had not provided him with adequate legal assistance . At that point , the court had not yet started to hear the evidence . In addition , the applicant had wanted the lawyers to guarantee that he would be acquitted , and had referred to their performance in cases where they had assisted other individuals . The court also noted that witnesses had twice been called to testify , once following an application by the applicant , who had then refused to put any questions to them , arguing that he had not been granted a lawyer .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , which he supplemented on DATE . He submitted that his defence rights had been violated and asked ORG ( ORG apgabaltiesa ) to call all the witnesses , without providing any reason for that application . He stated that he needed a lawyer at an appeal hearing , and asked for an opportunity to meet him or her prior to the appeal hearing to agree on a defence strategy .","On DATE the applicant was provided with a ORG - appointed lawyer , PERSON","At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was assisted by PERSON and PERSON asked the court to adjourn the hearing , stating that more time was needed in order to prepare a defence . The hearing was adjourned until DATE .","On DATE the applicant was represented by a ORG - appointed lawyer , ORG At a hearing held on DATE the court read out witness statements and the applicant did not raise any objections to the statements in substance . When invited to ask questions , the applicant asked the court to call all the witnesses who had testified before the first - instance court again , in addition to some other witnesses . His application was on the grounds that he had twice refused legal assistance as a result of the different opinions of his lawyers about the conduct of his defence . The court dismissed that application , because the applicant had not made it in his appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . The appellate court noted that there were no discrepancies in the witness testimonies and they were concordant with the applicant \u2019s testimonies . It also noted that it was the applicant who had started the fight and demonstrated a readiness to use a knife against an unarmed victim , therefore no question of self - defence arose .","As to the fairness of the proceedings , ORG found that the first - instance court had afforded the applicant an opportunity to choose a lawyer and exercise his defence rights . Referring to the reasoning of the first - instance court , ORG agreed that his refusal to accept the services of the CARDINAL lawyers had been unjustified . Having examined the content of the applicant \u2019s submissions , applications and complaints in the criminal proceedings , it did not find that any of the conditions of section CARDINAL of LAW had been fulfilled . The appellate court concluded that the applicant had been able to defend himself . The first - instance court had called the witnesses twice , however the applicant had refused to put any questions to them , citing unfounded excuses .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the aforementioned decision with ORG of the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas ORG departaments ) . He made a complaint regarding the quality of the legal services provided by the ORG - appointed lawyers and the decision of the first - instance court to deprive him of legal assistance .","In addition , the applicant alleged that his guilt could have been \u201c mitigated \u201d if he had been given a psychiatric assessment and polygraph testing , and if additional defence witnesses had been questioned . He also complained in a general manner that neither of the lower courts had granted him permission to put questions to the witnesses .","On DATE the ORG of ORG refused to consider the applicant \u2019s appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145257","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"FAZLI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . They are all citizens of GPE and were represented by TRIAL ( ORG ) , a non - profit organisation based in GPE .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Deputy Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","After its declaration of independence on DATE , a brutal war started in GPE . It would appear that CARDINAL people lost their lives and CARDINAL people were displaced in the course of the war . It is estimated that around CARDINAL people went missing and that around DATE of them is still missing . The conflict came to an end on DATE when ORG in GPE entered into force . In accordance with that Agreement , GPE consists of CARDINAL Entities , ORG and PERSON .","NORP In response to atrocities then taking place in GPE , on DATE ORG passed LAW establishing ORG for the former GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , headquartered in GPE . CARDINAL individuals have already been convicted and proceedings are ongoing for CARDINAL accused . In the period from DATE until DATE , local prosecutors in GPE and GPE were required to submit case files to the ORG for review ; no person could be arrested on suspicion of war crimes unless ORG had received the case file beforehand and found it to contain credible charges ( the \u201c Rules of the Road \u201d procedure ) . Moreover , the ORG had primacy over national courts and could take over national investigations and proceedings at any stage in the interest of international justice . As part of the ORG \u2019s completion strategy , in DATE war crimes chambers were set up within ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) with primacy over other courts in GPE as regards war crimes ( for information about that court and its jurisdiction over war crimes cases , see ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ) . CARDINAL persons have been finally convicted by ORG .","Furthermore , ORG on ORG ( \u201c the ICMP \u201d ) was established at the initiative of GPE President PERSON in DATE . It is currently headquartered in GPE . Reportedly , the ICMP has so far identified by DNA CARDINAL missing persons in GPE , whereas local authorities have identified CARDINAL missing persons by traditional methods . In DATE the Government of GPE and the ICMP established a ORG , also headquartered in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It became operational on DATE .","NORP Before the DATE - CARDINAL war , the population of the municipality of PERSON was ethnically mixed : according to a DATE census , out of a total population of CARDINAL , PERCENT were ORG , PERCENT NORP , PERCENT NORP ; PERCENT others . On DATE ORG took control of the city of PERSON pursuant to a secret plan made in advance ( notably , ORG of the ORG of the NORP People in GPE in a State of Emergency , adopted by ORG of ORG on DATE ) . Shortly thereafter , ethnic cleansing began . By DATE , there were practically no FAC and NORP left in the municipality of PERSON ( about the situation in the PERSON area at that time , see the ORG judgment in the PERSON and ORG case , ORG , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE , not yet final ) .","NORP In DATE CARDINAL applicants lived with their families in GPE ( all but Ms PERSON and Mr PERSON ) and the remaining applicants in LANGUAGE , in the PERSON area . Following the takeover of PERSON , tension developed between the new NORP authorities and ORG , which contained a large concentration of Bosniacs : of the CARDINAL inhabitants of GPE town , PERCENT were ORG . ORG was attacked by NORP forces on DATE . The attack began with heavy shelling , followed by the advance of tanks and infantry . The purported reason for the attack was the death of a NORP soldier . As a result of the shelling , over QUANTITY inhabitants were killed . After the local PERSON population had attempted to put up a resistance , a large number of people surrendered on DATE . The military - aged men were taken to ORG camps and the rest of the population to PERSON camp . People who initially fled into the nearby mountains were sought out there or surrendered either to be killed or to be taken to camps . Eventually , the few NORP inhabitants of ORG returned and NORP displaced from other areas moved into GPE ( see the ORG judgment in the PERSON case , LAW , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ; the ORG judgment in the PERSON case , IT-CARDINAL - CARDINAL-T , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ; the ORG judgment in the PERSON and ORG case , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . Mr Ned\u017ead PERSON ( Ms PERSON Selimovi\u0107 \u2019s ex - husband and the father of PERSON and PERSON D\u017eenana PERSON ) , Mr PERSON ( ORG and Mr PERSON son ) and Mr PERSON ( Ms Mersija Hod\u017ei\u0107 \u2019s son and PERSON brother ) were most likely killed either during the takeover of ORG or shortly thereafter in the nearby mountains .","Around CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL DATE Room CARDINAL at ORG camp , which had up to that time held people from ORG , was emptied . CARDINAL new detainees from different villages , including PERSON , were crammed into that room . For DATE , the detainees were denied food and were subjected to beatings and abuse . Around DATE virtually all of the detainees in the room were killed ( see the ORG judgment in the PERSON case , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and the ORG judgment in the PERSON and ORG case , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , both cited above ) . Mr PERSON ( the husband of PERSON Ali\u0161kovi\u0107 ) was among them ( as stated in the ORG judgment in the PERSON and ORG case , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) . It would appear that PERSON PERSON ( Mr PERSON \u2019s brother ) survived that incident ( ibid , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) . According to some accounts , on CARDINAL DATE he was transferred to PERSON camp from where he was taken together with CARDINAL other people to NORP glavica and killed DATE ( that incident was noted in , for example , the ORG judgment in the PERSON case , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","The ORG has so far convicted QUANTITY persons in connection with crimes committed in the PERSON area in DATE , including killings committed during or immediately after the takeover of ORG , killing of CARDINAL persons in Room CARDINAL at GPE camp around DATE and killing of CARDINAL persons at NORP glavica on DATE . Among those CARDINAL people , there were CARDINAL direct perpetrators ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , and PERSON ) and CARDINAL organisers ( PERSON and PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) . The ORG imposed prison sentences of different length ( DATE ; DATE in total ) .","Cases against Mr PERSON and Mr ORG , the war - time civilian and military leaders , respectively , of ORG , are also pending before the ORG . They are charged with the participation in a joint criminal enterprise to permanently remove ORG and NORP from the PERSON area and other parts of ORG .","As indicated in paragraph CARDINAL above , war crimes chambers were set up within ORG in DATE . Shortly thereafter , the ORG referred the case against ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON to ORG . At the arraignment of DATE , the accused pleaded not guilty . However , on DATE , Mr GPE changed his plea to guilty . He was then sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for persecution as a crime against humanity committed in ORG camp in DATE .","As regards the CARDINAL other accused , on CARDINAL DATE a Trial Chamber of ORG found them guilty of participation in the commission of killings , beatings , rapes and various other crimes in ORG camps as a part of a widespread and systematic attack against the non - NORP civilian population of the municipality of PERSON , and sentenced them to CARDINAL ( Mr PERSON ) , DATE ( Mr GPE ) and DATE ( Mr GPE ) GPE imprisonment . On DATE an ORG of ORG reduced the sentence of PERSON to DATE and upheld the remainder of the first - instance judgment .","In DATE ORG assigned a special prosecutor in charge of crimes committed as a part of a widespread and systematic attack against the non - NORP civilian population of the municipality of PERSON in DATE with the aim of stepping up the prosecution of such crimes . Shortly thereafter , in DATE , indictments were issued against PERSON , PERSON and PERSON for CARDINAL such crime . On DATE a Trial Chamber of ORG sentenced each of them to DATE imprisonment . This judgment is not final yet . Investigation into several other crimes committed in the PERSON area in DATE is currently ongoing ( cases nos . KT - RZ CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; ORG RZ CARDINAL\/CARDINAL against PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ; ORG - RZ CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; PERSON ; and ORG - RZ CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","NORP On different dates DATE , the applicants sought and obtained declarations of presumed death with respect to their missing relatives .","While many exhumations have been conducted in the PERSON area , the applicants\u2019 missing relatives have not yet been identified . It should be noted , however , that the biggest mass grave in GPE and GPE has recently been discovered in LOC . Reportedly , it contains the remains of CARDINAL of victims from the PERSON area . Identification is now ongoing .","In DATE all the applicants lodged constitutional appeals alleging that the authorities\u2019 reaction to the disappearance of their relatives amounted to a breach of LAW , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and\/or CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG decided to join CARDINAL similar cases and rendered a group decision finding a breach of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . It ordered the authorities to release any and all information in their custody pertaining to the fate or whereabouts of the missing persons in issue and to ensure that the ORG agencies envisaged by LAW ( ORG and ORG ) become operational DATE . No compensation was awarded .","Under its mandate to examine complaints about non - enforcement of its decisions , on DATE ORG concluded that the decision of DATE , mentioned above , was to be considered enforced notwithstanding the fact that some of the ORG agencies envisaged by LAW ( precisely , ORG and ORG ) had not yet become operational . It held that no further action was required from ORG as the failure to enforce a similar decision had already been reported to ORG ( non - enforcement of a final and enforceable decision of ORG amounts to a criminal offence ; for the relevant law in that regard , see GPE v. GPE and GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","NORP On different dates in DATE and DATE all of the applicants requested damages from ORG for the death of their relatives under PERSON general compensation scheme for war damage ( for more information about that scheme , see ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL et al . , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . Their requests were either rejected as out of time or are still pending . CARDINAL of the applicants , PERSON , has lodged an appeal with ORG in this connection which is still pending .","LAW entered into force on DATE ( ORG GPE no . CARDINAL ) . In accordance with section CARDINAL of the Act , families have the right to know the fate of missing persons ( that is , their whereabouts if they are still alive , or the circumstances of death and their place of burial , if they are dead ) and to obtain their mortal remains . Under section CARDINAL of the Act , the relevant domestic authorities have the obligation to provide any and all such information in their keeping .","Section CARDINAL of that LAW provides for the setting up of a Missing Persons Institute . In DATE the ICMP and the Government of GPE founded the ORG , headquartered in GPE , pursuant to that provision and the Agreement on Assuming ORG - founders of ORG , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It became operational on DATE . CARDINAL of the organs of that ORG , comprised of CARDINAL representatives of families of missing persons ( see LAW mentioned above ) .","In accordance with section CARDINAL of the LAW , the status of missing person comes to an end on the date of identification . Therefore , if a missing person is declared dead but the mortal remains have not been found and identified , the process of tracing continues .","Pursuant to LAW , the families of missing persons are entitled to DATE financial support under some conditions , notably if they were supported by the missing family member until his or her disappearance and if they are still in need of support ( in other words , if they are not in paid employment and do not receive welfare benefits beyond PERCENT of the average salary paid in GPE ) . LAW provides for the setting up of ORG for that purpose . However , as the ORG has not yet been established , no payment has been made so far .","Families of missing persons are also entitled to , inter alia , temporary administration of the property of missing persons , burial of mortal remains at public expense and priority in access to education and employment for the children of missing persons ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides for the setting up of ORG with the aim of verifying information about missing persons from different sources ( government agencies , associations of families of missing persons , the FAC and ORG ) and creating a single database . While ORG were founded on DATE , it would appear that the verification process is still ongoing . Once that process is completed , all those recorded as missing will be declared dead ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) , but the tracing process will nevertheless continue ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Despite the fact that the verification process outlined in paragraph CARDINAL above is pending , any person may request that a declaration of presumed death be issued with respect to a missing person ( see the Non - Contentious Procedure Act DATE , ORG DATE \u201c OG ORG \u201d , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; the Non - Contentious Procedure Act DATE , ORG of ORG , no . CARDINAL ) .","Pursuant to section ORG ) of ORG and LAW ( OG FBH no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , which entered into force in DATE , relatives of missing combatants were required to seek such declarations by DATE if they wished to keep the social benefits provided by that LAW . By the same token , pursuant to the DATE amendment to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( OG FBH no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , which entered into force in DATE , relatives of missing civilians were required to do so by DATE . It should be noted that there is no such an obligation in the legislation of PERSON where most of the present applicants live ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148237","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"V.J. v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is a DATE single male from GPE . He originates from GPE city in GPE . His whole family belonged to PERSON party ( ORG do PERSON Armadas de Cabinda ) , supporting and fighting for the independence of ORG . His parents were killed by the NORP security forces when he was DATE . The applicant , together with his brother and sister , went to live with his uncle and the uncle \u2019s wife after the incident . The applicant \u2019s uncle had an important role in the PERSON - FAC , being the representative of the party and coordinating its activities in their neighbourhood . The uncle was held for DATE in PERSON prison when the applicant was still at school . The applicant was also a member of the party but his activities within the party were minor , mostly limited to distributing leaflets .","The applicant described his problems with the authorities as first starting when he was around DATE ( in DATE ) . He was selling tinned food at the market when he ended up having a disagreement with a buyer who subsequently reported him to the police , alleging that he was conspiring to kill an important army colonel . The applicant was apparently held for a long time ( DATE ) in detention without a trial , but eventually his uncle managed to buy his release . The conditions in detention were extremely poor and he also claimed to have been beaten and stripped naked .","The events that led to his flight from GPE happened in DATE . When returning home after his working day at the market , the applicant found that his uncle , brother and sister had been killed in the house . His uncle \u2019s wife and his own common - law wife , who was also living in the same house at the time , had disappeared . The applicant has not had any information about them since . He heard that some people from his village had managed to escape to GPE and suspected that perhaps his spouse and his uncle \u2019s wife were among those people . Subsequently , the applicant was taken by ORG ( ORG ) soldiers to an unknown location where CARDINAL other persons were held . The applicant was questioned about the whereabouts of his uncle \u2019s documents concerning PERSON and ill - treated by the soldiers . He was beaten on the head with the butt of a rifle , his feet were beaten and burned , he was shot in the leg and the surface of his chest was cut with a knife . CARDINAL or DATE he managed to escape , together with another PERSON - FAC activist who had also been held captive . The applicant walked back to his village and went to see the local priest , who helped him to flee GPE . He stayed for a while with a friend of the priest and in a church in GPE . Eventually the priest organised his escape through a smuggler . The applicant flew to GPE and travelled by car to GPE , where he arrived on DATE .","On DATE a general physician examined the applicant . The applicant had already been hospitalised in DATE and DATE for epileptic fits which were at first diagnosed as psychogenic or caused by injuries to the head . The general physician reported scarring in several places on the applicant \u2019s body and diagnosed him as suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder . He referred the applicant to ORG in GPE ( GPE kuntoutuskeskus , ORG f\u00f6r rehabilitering av tortyroffer ) for further examination and treatment . The applicant was examined on CARDINAL occasions , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , by the physiotherapist of ORG who reported that the applicant had altogether CARDINAL visible scars on his body . CARDINAL QUANTITY long scars were found on his forehead and CARDINAL of his front teeth were missing . Other scars were detected on his chest , leg and feet , all matching his description of the torture he had suffered . The applicant complained also of chest pain and difficulties in breathing from time to time , which he claimed had been caused by being kicked in the chest . He was also very sensitive to touch in general , which the physician concluded to be most likely a psychological symptom of ill - treatment . The applicant had therapy sessions with both the psychiatrist and the psychologist of ORG from DATE until DATE . In their various medical reports the psychiatrist and the psychologist concluded that the applicant \u2019s psychological condition was consistent with him having experienced severe and multiple trauma , compatible with his claim of having been tortured and having experienced the killing of his family . The psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with severe depression and post - traumatic stress disorder and reported him as suffering also from slight memory problems . His symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder and his memory problems eased during treatment and the applicant managed to begin studies in GPE . From CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was again hospitalised due to severe epileptic fits occurring despite medication . He was referred to a neurologist for follow - up .","As from DATE the applicant was reported to be suicidal and was shortly admitted to intensive mental care .","On DATE the applicant sought asylum immediately on arrival in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( GPE , PERSON ) rejected his application and decided to send him back to GPE . In its decision ORG referred extensively and in detail to the applicant \u2019s asylum interview and found several discrepancies in his story . It noted that on some occasions the applicant gave exact dates and on other occasions he could not place the events at a specific moment in time . ORG found the applicant \u2019s story of his escape , in a wounded state , from the ORG soldiers to be unlikely and not credible . ORG concluded that as there were such credibility issues , the applicant \u2019s scars could have been caused by other means than torture , as he claimed . It also doubted whether the applicant was from GPE .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting that ORG decision be quashed and he be granted asylum , or alternatively , secondary protection or a residence permit due to individual humanitarian circumstances . He also requested that an oral hearing be held . The applicant also submitted to the court several new medical certificates , noting that it was common that such trauma as torture and epilepsy affect negatively a person \u2019s memory and ability to recount events consistently .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and refused his request for an oral hearing as unnecessary . It noted , however , that the discrepancies in the applicant \u2019s story were minor and did not give reason to doubt that he originated from ORG . On the other hand , ORG did not consider it likely that the applicant would have been arrested and tortured after the rest of the family had been killed . The applicant \u2019s previous arrest when he was DATE seemed to be unconnected with later events . ORG considered , furthermore , that it was not likely that NORP officials would be interested in the applicant now that his uncle was dead . Although the human rights situation in PERSON was not very satisfactory , it concluded that the applicant could be returned there without a real risk of ill - treatment .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltnings - domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal . The applicant was notified of the decision on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a new asylum application , referring to the same grounds as in his first application . He also submitted new medical certificates , arguing that his current state of health prevented his removal or that removal to GPE would amount to inhuman treatment as no medical treatment would be available for him there . He also submitted certificates of his studies in GPE and relied on them as grounds for a residence permit .","On DATE ORG rejected the application after having examined it in a fast - track procedure and decided to expel him to GPE . It also imposed a DATE ban on entry into GPE and the GPE - area . ORG considered that the applicant \u2019s situation had not changed since the previous application and that there were no grounds for a residence permit or grounds preventing the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE . It noted that the situation in the ORG area had calmed down , even though some attacks were still reported between the NORP army and some rebel groups of the FLEC - FAC . However , the applicant could relocate internally to other parts of GPE if he wished . As for his health , ORG noted that mental health care was available in GPE , although a shortage of medical staff in general was reported . Post - traumatic stress disorder could be treated in CARDINAL private clinic in GPE . The treatment of epilepsy was not mentioned .","The applicant appealed to ORG , requesting again that a stay on removal be granted .","On DATE ORG notified the applicant that the request for interim measures had been refused . The applicant \u2019s appeal before ORG remained pending before that court .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , requesting that ORG decision be quashed and he be granted asylum or , alternatively , secondary protection or a residence permit due to individual humanitarian circumstances . He claimed that his vulnerability continued to increase and that he was clearly in need of protection .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","According to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW of Finland ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the right of foreigners to enter GPE and to remain in the country is regulated by an LAW . A foreigner shall not be deported , extradited or returned to another country , if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence , torture or other treatment violating human dignity .","According to section DATE , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( ulkomaalaislaki , utl\u00e4nningslagen ; Act no . CARDINAL ) , aliens residing in the country are granted asylum if they reside outside their home country or country of permanent residence owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of ethnic origin , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion and if they , because of this fear , are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country .","Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provides that an alien residing in GPE is issued with a residence permit on grounds of subsidiary protection if the requirements for granting asylum under LAW are not met , but substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person , if returned to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence , would face a real risk of being subjected to serious harm , and he or she is unable , or owing to such risk , unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . Serious harm means : CARDINAL ) the death penalty or execution ; CARDINAL ) torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; or CARDINAL ) serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflicts .","NORP Under section CARDINALa of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , an alien residing in GPE is issued with a residence permit on the basis of humanitarian protection , if there are no grounds under LAW or CARDINAL for granting asylum or providing subsidiary protection , but he or she can not return to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence as a result of an environmental catastrophe or a bad security situation which may be due to an international or internal armed conflict or a poor human rights situation .","According to section CARDINALb of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the well - founded fear of being persecuted referred to in section CARDINALb or the real risk of being subjected to serious harm referred to in section CARDINAL may be based on incidents after the applicant \u2019s departure from his or her home country or country of permanent residence or on acts that the applicant has participated in since his or her departure .","Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . ORG ) provides that the requirements for issuing a residence permit are assessed individually for each applicant by taking account of the applicant \u2019s statements on his or her circumstances in the ORG in question and of real time information on the circumstances in that ORG obtained from various sources . After obtaining the statement , the authorities shall decide on the matter in favour of the applicant on the basis of his or her statement if the applicant has contributed to the investigation of the matter as far as possible , and if the authorities are convinced of the veracity of the application with regard to the applicant \u2019s need for international protection .","According to section CARDINAL of the Act , no one may be refused entry and sent back or deported to an area where he or she could be subject to the death penalty , torture , persecution or other treatment violating human dignity or from where he or she could be sent to such an area .","Section CARDINALb of LAW ( as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) incorporates into the NORP legal system the ORG CARDINAL of DATE on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of CARDINAL or more member GPE , of third - country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders . The annex to the ORG contains common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air including , inter alia , an obligation for the Member States to ensure that the returnees for whom they are responsible are in an appropriate state of health , which allows legally and factually for safe removal by air .","ORG Country of Origin Information Report on GPE of DATE provides the following information :","\u201c ORG on Human Rights Practices on GPE observed that \u201c the Memorandum of Understanding for Peace and Reconciliation for Cabinda Province , signed in DATE , largely brought an end to the insurgency in the province , although sporadic attacks by dissident factions of ORG ( PERSON ) and counterinsurgency operations by ORG ) continued during DATE .","...","The intensity of the armed conflict in ORG has declined as a result of large - scale counterinsurgency operations in DATE , and the government publicly claims that the ORG conflict came to a close in DATE , when a peace agreement was signed with a faction of the rebel ORG for ORG ( PERSON ) . But the campaign for independence remains unresolved , and sporadic guerrilla attacks have been ongoing . \u201d","According to ORG for DATE in GPE of DATE :","\u201c The CARDINAL most important human rights abuses were cruel , excessive , and degrading punishment , including reported cases of torture and beatings as well as unlawful killings by police and other security personnel ; limits on freedoms of assembly , association , speech , and press ; and official corruption and impunity . \u201d","Concerning the availability of medical drugs for mental health , ORG on GPE of DATE states the following :","\u201c ... the following therapeutic drugs are generally available at the primary health care level of the country : carbamazepine , phenobarbital , phenytoin sodium , amitriptyline , chlorpromazine , diazepam , fluphenazine , haloperidol , lithium . Prices keep on fluctuating depending on the availability of drugs . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161948","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SVETLANA VASILYEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On unspecified date the applicant bought a house in GPE . A third person , PERSON , was her authorised representative for the conclusion of the purchase contract .","On DATE her ownership of the house was registered in ORG ( \u0415\u0434\u0438\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0433\u043e\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0440\u0435\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0440 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 \u043d\u0430 \u043d\u0435\u0434\u0432\u0438\u0436\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0435 \u0438\u043c\u0443\u0449\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u0438 \u0441\u0434\u0435\u043b\u043e\u043a \u0441 \u043d\u0438\u043c , \u201c the Land Register \u201d ) and it remains there to date .","On an unspecified date PERSON was charged with fraud against ORG ) ( hereafter DATE \u201c the Bank \u201d ) and a private person .","On DATE a judge of ORG issued an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the applicant from selling the house .","On DATE ORG of GPE found PERSON guilty of fraud . The court found , inter alia , that PERSON was also the de facto owner of the house as she had paid for it and resided in it since DATE . The court ordered the seizure and sale of the house in order to pay PERSON \u2019s debt to the victims of the crime .","On DATE ORG partly quashed PERSON \u2019s conviction on appeal , notably as regards ORG finding that she was the real owner of the house . It considered that this finding was not based on any legal provision and failed to take into account the purchase contract concerning the house . ORG thus remitted that specific issue for fresh consideration in civil proceedings .","On an unspecified date the ORG sued PERSON for additional damages and sought reimbursement by means of the sale of the house . The applicant was also summoned to the proceedings as a defendant .","On DATE ORG of FAC rejected the ORG \u2019s civil claims and declared that the house was the applicant \u2019s property . It held that the applicant had always demonstrated her intention to be the owner of the disputed house , notably by systematically paying all charges and taxes relating to the house , and that her mother was living in it . As regards the ORG \u2019s request for annulment of the powers of attorney given by the applicant to PERSON for the purchase of the house and of the purchase contract itself , ORG found that this claim was time - barred and consequently rejected it .","On unspecified date the ORG lodged an appeal against that judgment , notably arguing that the purchase contract should be declared null and void because the applicant had never intended to become the real owner of the house but was merely helping PERSON to cover up for her crimes .","On DATE ORG upheld on appeal the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which became final .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of FAC for the revocation of the interlocutory decision of DATE by ORG of Arkhangelsk to seize the house .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the application on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction to decide on a measure imposed by another court in the framework of criminal proceedings .","On DATE the ORG lodged an application for supervisory review .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as upheld on DATE , and ordered the seizure of the house from the applicant in order to pay ORG \u2019s debt to the ORG . The ORG relied on the finding made by ORG in its judgment of DATE that although the applicant was registered as the official owner of the house , it had been bought with funds belonging to M.","On DATE and DATE the applicant and PERSON challenged the judgment of the Presidium of ORG by way of supervisory review applications , which were rejected by ORG and the Deputy President of ORG , respectively .","On DATE the bailiff decided to seize the house in accordance with the judgment of the ORG of ORG .","On DATE at the bailiff \u2019s request ORG stayed the enforcement proceedings pending examination of the applicant \u2019s case by the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177355","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MITEV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant was driving his car along a road in the region of GPE on TIME DATE . As established subsequently by the prosecution and the domestic courts in criminal proceedings opened into the incident that took place that evening , his car was weaving in an unsteady manner and he was spotted by patrolling police officers parked on the side of the road . They signalled for him to pull over , but instead of complying he sped away . According to the applicant \u2019s own statements given in the context of those proceedings , he was afraid that the police would charge him or take his licence away as he had consumed alcohol TIME . The prosecution and the courts established that the officers chased after him in their car , using flashing police lights and their siren . He only stopped when his car reached a field and could not go further . The police car stopped too .","The parties have presented differing accounts of the circumstances in which the applicant was arrested .","According to the applicant , CARDINAL of the officers kicked him in the left leg and then pushed him violently to the ground as he was trying to get out of his vehicle . The applicant fell on his back and then CARDINAL officers continued to kick him . The assault lasted TIME , after which they handcuffed him . CARDINAL of the officers hit him on the head with a rubber truncheon before they drove him to the police station .","According to the police officers , the applicant had jumped out of his car after it had come to a halt and had started running through the field in an attempt to escape . The officers had run after him , the applicant had slipped and fallen and the police had caught up with him . As he had resisted arrest , wriggling and struggling , they had used force which had consisted in twisting his arms in order to handcuff him . Once they had managed to handcuff him , the officers had driven him to the police station .","According to written statements made during the criminal proceedings by several police officers present at the police station when the applicant was taken there , he told everyone present at the time that his clothes were muddy because he had tripped and fallen , which was also why he had a limp . As stated by the officers and by the applicant himself in the course of those proceedings , he made no complaints at that point in time . According to police records of the evening when the applicant was arrested , he refused to take an alcohol test or to sign the arrest report and was given a fine for refusing the alcohol test . As it emerges from the ORG statements , they discovered that he had no identity documents on him and called his brother , who brought them to the police station accompanied by a friend . The records indicate that the officers released the applicant immediately after checking his papers .","According to a written statement made on DATE by the applicant \u2019s brother to the police in the context of an official follow - up conducted into the events , on leaving the station , he asked him what had happened but the applicant stated that he did not wish to speak about it and preferred to be left alone in his home . Instead , his brother drove him to the local medical centre as he had noticed that the applicant was having difficulties breathing . On examination , a doctor noted a suspected broken left ankle and told the applicant to go to hospital . No ambulance was provided and the applicant \u2019s brother drove him there . It follows from medical documents that the doctors operated on him immediately as they had established that he had a broken rib which had pierced CARDINAL of his lungs .","NORP The applicant \u2019s hospital record , signed by the doctor who had treated him and the head of the unit , stated that the applicant had been in hospital CARDINAL and DATE and that he had a broken rib and a broken ankle . Upon his discharge on DATE , a different doctor examined the applicant and issued him with a medical certificate which recorded that he had a broken rib , a bruise of about QUANTITY on his right eyebrow , and a fracture of the fibula close to the ankle that was in a cast . It also contained the phrase that it was not excluded that the injuries had been sustained in the manner suggested by the applicant , namely as a result of being hit or kicked . The certificate stated that no other traumatic injuries were present .","On DATE the police officer in charge of radio communications between patrolling officers and who was on duty on the night of the incident produced a written report to provide information for his superior and to receive whatever orders were deemed necessary . As well as repeating the account of the CARDINAL arresting officers , he stated that he personally had seen the applicant at the station and that the applicant had told him that he had fallen while running and that his back was hurting . The officer had offered to call in medical staff from the local medical centre to check the applicant on the spot , but he had refused , saying that he did not need a doctor and wished to be released instead .","A different police officer was sent to the local medical centre . In a written report he drew up on DATE on his visit , he confirmed the existence of a record there that the applicant had visited it the previous evening and had been checked by a doctor who had directed him to the hospital for treatment of a suspected fractured ankle . Another officer visited the hospital DATE . In a written report he listed his findings , namely that the applicant had been admitted and treated for a broken rib and broken leg TIME . The report indicated that in a conversation with the applicant conducted during that visit , the latter had told the officer that he could not remember the events in detail , but that he was certain that after the car chase CARDINAL police officers had beaten and then handcuffed him before taking him to the police station . The applicant also gave a handwritten statement to an officer DATE . In it he referred to the car chase , stated that he had wanted to escape as he had felt drunk , that when he had got out of his car the policemen had grabbed him , that CARDINAL of them had pulled him to the ground and that the other one had handcuffed him . He concluded by saying that the injuries had most likely been caused during his arrest , given that immediately beforehand he had only been driving his car and did not remember breaking his leg and rib when he had brought the car to a stop .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s brother also gave a written statement to the police ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The QUANTITY police officers involved in the car chase and the arrest also gave written statements on DATE . In addition to the description above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , the officers stated that once the applicant had been handcuffed and put inside the police car , he had leaned on CARDINAL of them and moaned . When asked if he had a problem and wished to be taken to a medical centre , he had refused and said , \u201c It \u2019s nothing \u201d . At the police station the applicant had refused to be tested for alcohol or to sign the arrest report .","On DATE ORG , acting on his own initiative , opened criminal proceedings in relation to the conduct of the CARDINAL officers who had arrested the applicant . The order for the opening of those proceedings indicated that it was \u201c against the guilty official from ORG who , acting in the context of his professional functions , had caused bodily harm to the applicant on DATE in GPE \u201d . A number of investigative steps were carried out . The investigating authorities questioned several police officers as witnesses , including the CARDINAL involved in the applicant \u2019s arrest and those who had been at the police station on TIME of the incident . The latter all stated that they had seen the applicant at the police station on TIME in question . He had been calm , had smelt of alcohol and been visibly intoxicated , his clothes had been muddy and he had limped . The applicant , his brother and the friend of the brother who had accompanied him to collect the applicant from the police station , were also interviewed . The brother and his friend stated that the applicant had not told them anything about the circumstances of his arrest and that the brother had learned that the applicant had been beaten by the police from the doctors at the hospital .","A forensic medical expert was appointed on CARDINAL DATE to establish the nature of the injuries sustained by the applicant and the type of instrument used . The expert was given a list of specific questions that needed to be answered . The forensic medical report , containing a comprehensive and independent assessment , concluded that the CARDINAL injuries recorded in the medical certificates drawn up in the immediate aftermath of the events ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were incompatible with the applicant \u2019s allegations that the officers had hit him all over his body for TIME . In particular , being kicked by someone wearing boots or being hit for TIME would have left the applicant with many more traces on different parts of his body , not just the CARDINAL strictly localised injuries mentioned above . The report further indicated that the injuries could have been received as a result of falling over while moving in accelerated fashion , for example by running and falling .","In a decree of DATE for terminating the criminal proceedings , the prosecution established that the version of events given by the applicant at different stages of his questioning were not consistent . In particular , he had stated initially that he had sprained his ankle after tripping and falling , but had later changed his story and said that the injury had been the result of an intentional and prolonged beating by police officers . Furthermore , when questioned on DATE , the applicant had stated that the police officers had started hitting and kicking him after he had left his car voluntarily . When interviewed again on CARDINAL DATE , he had asserted that the officers had brutally pulled him out of the car and had thereafter only kicked him rather than hit him . He had tried to use his arms to protect his head from the kicks . He had stated that he could not remember or recognise the police officers who had beaten him , whether in a personal confrontation or from pictures . He had also complained that CARDINAL officers had beaten him , while it had been unequivocally established that there had only been CARDINAL patrolling officers . In addition , when on DATE the investigator had handed the investigation file over to the applicant , he had signed the related acknowledgement , indicating that he did not wish to acquaint himself with the evidence , read the documents in the file , which was voluminous , and that he had no requests , comments or objections to the investigation .","NORP The prosecutor concluded in the decree for termination of the proceedings that the applicant \u2019s complaints were not supported by the evidence . The force used by the officers had been necessary for neutralising and detaining him in the circumstances , given that he had effectively been running away from the police and actively disobeying their orders to stop . The force had involved CARDINAL officer holding the applicant on the ground , using CARDINAL knee to press on his body , while the second officer had helped by handcuffing him . There was no evidence pointing to the officers having used violence or undue force when apprehending the applicant . The applicant challenged the prosecutor \u2019s decision in court .","NORP The prosecutor \u2019s decision to terminate the proceedings was confirmed at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . In particular , the first - instance court , ORG , observed in its decision of DATE that CARDINAL officers had arrested the applicant after a long car chase , when he had tried to escape despite clear orders to the contrary . The officers had worn police uniforms that had been clearly visible and identifiable and had been driving a police car with flashing police lights and a siren while chasing the applicant . He had not only refused to stop but had actively avoided being caught . As to the differing versions of the events thereafter , the court found that the applicant \u2019s submissions were inconsistent and not supported by the evidence . As a consequence , the court gave no weight to his testimony , finding that it was incompatible with the rest of the evidence .","The second - instance court , ORG , upheld those findings in a final decision on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177128","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"KU\u017dMARSKIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She was represented before the Court by Ms D. Bal\u010di\u016bnien\u0117 , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE FAC ( hereinafter , \u201c the prison \u201d ) published a recruitment notice for a psychologist . The applicant applied for the position .","On DATE the prison \u2019s human resources division sent the applicant for a medical examination at ORG of ORG ( hereinafter , \u201c the Commission \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant went for the examination , but after her height was measured the process was terminated and the applicant was told that she was unfit for the position because she was too short . The Commission noted that the applicant \u2019s height was QUANTITY and she was informed that she was diagnosed as being physically underdeveloped due to lack of proteins and minerals ( sul\u0117t\u0117jusi raida d\u0117l baltym\u0173 ir energetini\u0173 med\u017eiag\u0173 tr\u016bkumo ) . The Commission also stated that domestic regulations provided that women smaller than QUANTITY were unfit for work within the security and lawenforcement services ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP In DATE the applicant wrote to the Minister of ORG and ORG and complained about the fact that she had been found unfit for service by ORG . ORG replied that the ORG \u2019s decisions could be appealed against in accordance with the rules of administrative procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant also complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsperson , who in DATE established that ORG had performed the medical examination in accordance with the provisions of domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The PERSON held , however , that ORG and ORG had not replied to a question about the specific reason for setting the height requirements and decided that the applicant \u2019s requests had not been fully examined . The PERSON thus suggested that ORG and ORG should in the future oblige employees to follow the requirement to provide comprehensive information .","The applicant also complained to the Equal Opportunities PERSON , who in DATE held that the domestic regulation in question was more favourable to men than women . According to medical experts , men were considered small if their height was CARDINAL and CARDINAL cm while women were considered small if their height was CARDINAL and QUANTITY . The contested regulation provided that men were unfit for service in the security and law - enforcement bodies if they were smaller than QUANTITY while women were considered unfit for such service if they were smaller than QUANTITY . The Equal Opportunities PERSON also stated that there was no explanation why officers who did not carry out operational duties were considered unfit for service if they were short .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . She asked the court to annul the ORG \u2019s decision that she was unfit for the position and the diagnosis that she was physically underdeveloped . On DATE ORG decided that there had been no medical examination of the applicant , except for measuring her height . The court also raised doubts as to whether a domestic regulation which referred merely to height for acceptance into government service , without any additional examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , was in accordance with the LAW and LAW and decided to refer the matter to ORG . The examination of the applicant \u2019s case was suspended awaiting the decision of the latter court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG noted that ORG provided that a person aiming to be employed by the domestic security and safety services had to be healthy enough to perform such functions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , there was no evidence that a person \u2019s height , if not related to other health issues , was a reasonable ground to diagnose such a person as being physically underdeveloped . The court did not question the possibility of setting various requirements ( including height ) to hold certain positions , but held that the contested provision was contrary to ORG as it did not differentiate the height requirements according to profession and was not based on any inability to perform certain functions .","NORP The proceedings before ORG resumed . On DATE the applicant was asked to set out her complaint in a more specific way ( patikslinti skundo reikalavim\u0105 ) and to ask the court to annul the prison \u2019s decision on terminating the employment procedure . On DATE , the prison was asked to provide the court with a document , stating who , when and by what decision terminated the employment procedure .","On DATE the applicant , following ORG proposal , stated her complaint in more specific terms and asked the court to also annul the prison \u2019s decision to terminate the procedure to employ her . On DATE ORG set a time - limit for the applicant to remedy shortcomings in her complaint . The court stated that the applicant had complained about the decision to terminate the procedure to employ her ; however , the prison administration had indicated that there had been no separate decision on that issue . The court held that in such cases only a final decision by the director of the institution in question could be complained of and that a decision by the ORG was only an intermediate document . The court thus suggested that the applicant again state her complaint more specifically and asked the prison to take a decision on terminating the employment procedure . There is no information that the prison had taken that decision in writing ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant set out her complaint again on DATE . She asked the court to oblige the prison to take a decision on terminating her employment procedure ; to annul that decision ; to annul the ORG \u2019s decision that she was unfit for service ; and to annul the ORG \u2019s diagnosis that she was physically underdeveloped .","On DATE ORG decided to terminate the part of the case in which the applicant sought to annul the ORG \u2019s decision and decided to annul instead the prison \u2019s decision on terminating the employment procedure . The court observed that the ORG had taken its decision without any medical advice and thus it had been unlawful and unfounded . The court further referred to ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) and held that the regulation that had been found to be contrary to ORG was not applicable from the date of issuance of the court \u2019s decision , DATE . The court also referred to a ORG case where the rules for appealing against decisions by the ORG had been explained ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As a result , ORG held that in the applicant \u2019s case the decision which had affected her the most was that of the prison and not the Commission \u2019s and thus the latter could not be the subject of examination by the court . The court also noted that the prison \u2019s decision to terminate the procedure for the applicant \u2019s employment had not been set down in writing , but decided that the date it had been taken was when the prison had received the ORG \u2019s decision , which was DATE . The court referred the matter back to the prison so it could examine the applicant \u2019s employment application afresh and send her for a special medical examination .","NORP In DATE the applicant , the prison and the Commission lodged appeals with ORG .","The applicant sought to annul both the ORG \u2019s decision and that of the prison to terminate the employment procedure . The applicant disagreed with ORG conclusion that the ORG \u2019s decision had not affected her situation . She argued that the ORG \u2019s decision had been the ground for the prison to terminate the employment procedure . She also noted that the prison had not issued a written decision on terminating the employment process and that the procedure to complain about such a decision was unclear . She also stated that she had not asked the court of first instance to refer the matter of her employment back to the prison because by that time the judicial proceedings had taken DATE and the position at the prison had probably already been taken .","The prison argued that the ORG \u2019s decision had been an independent act with legal consequences for the applicant , namely it had prevented her from being a candidate for the position of psychologist . It did not agree that the negative consequences had been caused by its own decision , which had not even been set down in writing . The ORG stated that the applicant \u2019s complaint should have been dismissed as unfounded because it was not clear how an employing institution should act if there was a decision by the ORG that a person was unfit for service and that person thought otherwise . In accordance with the case - law of ORG , a person in such a situation would lose the possibility to question the lawfulness of the ORG \u2019s decision .","On DATE ORG amended ORG decision and held that the ORG \u2019s decision could not be regarded as an independent document because it had not been an individual administrative act and the ORG was not a public authority . The court also stated that the ORG \u2019s decision had only been an intermediate step in the employment procedure and could not be contested before the domestic courts . Even if it had been held that the ORG \u2019s decision could be a matter for an administrative case , the applicant \u2019s right to continue the employment procedure would not in fact have been protected because the court could not impose an obligation on the institution where the applicant had aimed to be employed on the grounds of the ORG \u2019s allegedly unlawful decision . The court also held that examination of a case by a court was pointless if a person \u2019s rights could not be defended . The decision which the applicant could have challenged was the one by the prison . The court stated , however , that the applicant had submitted contradictory claims ( rei\u0161k\u0117 prie\u0161taringus reikalavimus ) , that is , on the one hand she had asked that the prison be obliged to take a decision on terminating the employment procedure and , on the other hand , that the prison annul its decision on terminating the procedure . The court also noted that the applicant had not indicated any remedy in defence of her rights before the court of first instance ; however , that court had not held that circumstance to be a shortcoming in the claim . In order to defend the applicant \u2019s rights to the maximum , it had applied the provisions of administrative law and had chosen the remedy that had best met the applicant \u2019s requirements . That was why the employment matter had been referred back to the prison . The court held that a decision stating that the applicant \u2019s rights had been breached had no consequences and was not the right way to protect her rights . The court also underlined that the applicant had not wanted to continue the employment procedure and that she had lodged her complaint with the domestic courts without any indication of possible measures of redress . As a decision by a domestic court that merely indicated that someone \u2019s rights had been breached did not lead to any material or legal consequences for that person , such complaints were not subject to examination by the administrative courts . The court therefore decided to terminate the case .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides that everyone is equal before the law , courts , and other state institutions and officials . Human rights may not be restricted ; no one may be granted any privileges on the grounds of gender , race , nationality , language , origin , social status , belief , convictions or views .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG provides that when implementing equal treatment provisions , an employer , regardless of the person \u2019s age , sexual orientation , disability , racial or ethnic origin , religion or beliefs , must apply the same recruitment criteria and employment conditions when employing or recruiting someone to public service , except in cases provided for by law . Those include restrictions on the grounds of age , a requirement to know the official ORG language , a prohibition on taking part in political activities , different rights applied on the basis of citizenship and special measures applied in the healthcare , work safety , employment and labour market sphere , which at the same time also aim to create and apply conditions and opportunities guaranteeing and promoting the integration of the disabled into the labour market .","At the material time , LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG ( ORG tarnybos statutas ) provided that a person aiming to be employed by the domestic security and safety services had to be healthy enough to perform such functions . The health requirements are set by the Minister of ORG and ORG .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 QUANTITY of FAC ( ORG departamente prie PERSON teisingumo ministerijos statutas ) provided that people aiming to be employed at ORG had to be citizens of GPE , DATE , with a sufficient knowledge of the NORP language and a sufficient level of education , personal qualities , physical ability and health . LAW CARDINAL provided that candidates\u2019 health had to be examined by ORG at the request of ORG . Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provided that a person could not be accepted for work by ORG or related institutions if he or she was found to be unfit for service by ORG . LAW provided that appeals against decisions regarding a refusal of employment could be made to a court , in accordance with ORG .","Point CARDINAL of the order of the Minister of Interior of DATE , No . CARDINAL ( PERSON vidaus reikal\u0173 ministro \u012fsakymas PERSON medicinin\u0117s ekspertiz\u0117s organizavimo ir atlikimo tvarkos apra\u0161o patvirtinimo \u201c , hereinafter , \u201c the order \u201d ) provided that the ORG was part of ORG , performing specialised medical expert examinations . An expert examination is a decision by Commission doctors indicating a health disorder in accordance with the international statistical classification of health disorders and problems . A person under examination is a person who aims to be employed by the domestic security and safety services , an officer , former officer or student who is sent for examination by ORG . The status of a person being examined by a medical expert , including the carrying out of laboratory and functional analyses , is equivalent to that of a patient and the provisions of the Law on Patients\u2019 Rights and Compensation for Health Damage are applicable .","At the material time , Point CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the order of the Minister of ORG and ORG of DATE , No . CARDINALV-CARDINAL\/V-CARDINAL ( PERSON vidaus reikal\u0173 ministro ir PERSON sveikatos apsaugos ministro \u012fsakymas PERSON sveikatos b\u016bkl\u0117s reikalavim\u0173 asmenims , pretenduojantiems \u012f vidaus tarnyb\u0105 , pageidaujantiems mokytis vidaus reikal\u0173 profesinio mokymo \u012fstaigose , kitose mokymo \u012fstaigose ORG reikal\u0173 ministerijos siuntimu , bei vidaus tarnybos sistemos pareig\u016bnams s\u0105vado patvirtinimo \u201c ) provided that if a lack of proper development had led to a man being shorter than CARDINAL cm or a woman being shorter than QUANTITY , then they were unfit for service in the security and law - enforcement bodies . No exceptions to this rule were provided .","Point CARDINAL of the order of the Minister of ORG and ORG DATE , No . CARDINALV-CARDINAL\/V-CARDINAL , now provides that if a man is smaller than QUANTITY or a woman smaller than QUANTITY because of inadequate development then they are unfit for service in domestic law - enforcement , security or safety bodies .","ORG has decided that Point CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the DATE order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was contrary to ORG in so far as it did not differentiate height requirements according to profession and was not based on any inability to perform certain functions ( ORG decision of DATE , no . PERSON , taken in the applicant \u2019s case \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ( hereinafter , \u201c the LAW \u201d ) provided that a civil or specialised court had the right to suspend the examination of a case and address a request to an administrative court to decide whether a normative administrative act ( or part of it ) that had to be applied in a specific case complied with a law or Government regulation . LAW provided that the civil or specialised court would renew its examination of the case after the administrative court \u2019s decision .","At the material time , LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON provided that CARDINAL possible decision for the administrative court was to hold that a normative administrative act ( or part of it ) was contrary to the law or Government regulation and to annul it .","In addition , LAW provided that a normative administrative act ( or part of it ) became null and void and inapplicable from the date of the official issue of the administrative court \u2019s decision to recognise that act ( or part of it ) as unlawful .","ORG has held that public administration bodies have to follow the principle of the rule of law and that ultra vires acts must be declared unlawful ( decisions of ORG of DATE , No . ICARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; of DATE , No . ICARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; and of CARDINAL DATE , No . ICARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 QUANTITY of the PERSON provided that administrative courts decided legal disputes in the field of public administration .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the PERSON provided that any person with an interest in a case had the right to lodge a complaint with a court in order to defend his or her rights or interests .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON provided that such a complaint had to set out the applicant \u2019s claims .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON provided that complaints had to be refused if they were not subject to examination by a court .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the PERSON provided that a court had to terminate any case if it was not in its jurisdiction , except for cases that were within the jurisdiction of the civil courts .","LAW provided that public administration was an activity of a public administration body intended to implement laws and other regulations . It comprised the taking of administrative decisions , overseeing the implementation of laws and administrative decisions , the provision of administrative services provided for in laws , the administration of the provision of administrative services and the internal administration of a public administrative body .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG provided that normative administrative acts could only be enacted by public administration bodies .","LAW CARDINAL of the PERSON provided that administration bodies were those that performed the functions of public administration .","Point CARDINAL of the order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) provided that the Commission \u2019s decisions could be appealed against in court , in accordance with the PERSON .","ORG has held that only the final decision of an institution could be examined by an administrative court . Many documents are drawn up in the course of administrative procedure , but they are usually intermediate documents and do not decide any issues related to a person \u2019s material legal rights . An administrative court can not examine a document if it has no legal consequences . A Commission decision is only an intermediate document that has no legal consequences ( decision of ORG of DATE , No . GPE ) .","At the material time , LAW provided that compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by breaching a patient \u2019s rights was provided in accordance with that law itself and LAW . LAW provided that a patient or other persons who had a right to compensation had to send a claim to ORG Caused to Patients\u2019 Rights . LAW provided that ORG to Patients\u2019 Rights was a compulsory institution for out - of - court settlements for disputes related to violations of ORG rights and assessments of the amount of damages . LAW provided that any patient or other person who disagreed with a decision by ORG to Patients\u2019 Rights could lodge a court complaint within DATE of the decision or the date they found out about the decision .","ORG has held that a doctor \u2019s main duty is to provide qualified and diligent health - care services to patients ( decisions of ORG of DATE , No . DATE ; of CARDINAL DATE , No . ORG ; and of DATE , No . ORG ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) provides that administrative courts decide cases concerning damage caused by the unlawful acts of public authorities , as provided for in Article CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Article CARDINAL of the PERSON provides that an administrative court can take the following decisions in respect of a case : CARDINAL ) reject the complaint as unfounded ; CARDINAL ) satisfy the claim and annul the contested regulation ( or any part thereof ) , or oblige the relevant administrative entity to end the violation in question or execute any other requirement set by the court ; CARDINAL ) satisfy the claim and oblige the administrative body of a municipality to implement the law , or execute a ORG or other regulation ; CARDINAL ) satisfy the claim and settle the dispute in any other manner set by the law ; CARDINAL ) satisfy the claim and award damages for unlawful acts by the public authority ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that civil liability only arises where a person is at fault and a debtor is presumed to be at fault , except where laws or contracts provide otherwise .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that damage resulting from unlawful acts of institutions of public authority must be compensated for by the ORG from the ORG budget , irrespective of the responsibility of a particular public servant or other employee of public authority institutions . Damage resulting from unlawful actions of municipal authority bodies must be redressed by the municipality from its own budget , irrespective of whether an employee is at fault . Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that for the purposes of the LAW , the notion \u201c an institution of public authority \u201d means any public - law body ( a ORG or municipal institution , official , public servant or any other employee of those institutions , and so forth ) , as well as a private person executing the functions of a public authority . Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that for the purposes of the Article , the notion \u201c act \u201d means any act ( active or passive ) by an institution of public authority or its employees , that directly affects people \u2019s rights , liberties and interests ( legal acts or individual acts enacted by the institutions of state and municipal authority , administrative acts , physical acts , and so forth , with the exception of court judgments \u2013 verdicts in criminal cases , decisions in civil and administrative cases and orders ) . Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that civil liability on the part of the ORG or a municipality subject to the LAW arises when the employees of public authority institutions fail to act in the manner prescribed by law for those institutions and their employees .","ORG has held that in order for a right to compensation for damage to arise the law does not require that unlawful acts by public institutions are annulled or declared void in accordance with the law ( decisions of ORG of DATE , No . DATE ; of DATE , No . ACARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; of CARDINAL DATE , No . ACARDINAL - DATE ; of DATE , No . ORG ; and of DATE , No . A-CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","ORG has held that when considering the issue of compensation for damage , courts have to examine the factual grounds of such damage , irrespective of the presence of a dispute with regard to the lawfulness of such grounds ( decision of ORG of DATE , No . ACARDINAL - DATE ) .","ORG has held that courts have to fully examine the lawfulness of acts that might have caused someone damage , irrespective of separate court proceedings on the lawfulness of such acts ( ORG decision of DATE , No . ACARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161809","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF HALIMI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Kristina Pardalos;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["On CARDINAL DATE ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . QUANTITY Since the plot of land was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law .","To date , no compensation has been paid ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148227","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ADNARALOV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by CARDINAL police officers on suspicion of bribe - taking . The police officers took him to GPE , where he was held TIME . According to the applicant , the police officers beat him for TIME , forcing him to confess .","On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG . He complained of ill - treatment to a senior prosecutor from the above office . The prosecutor referred the applicant for a forensic medical examination .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with concussion and admitted to hospital .","On DATE the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination , which established that he had numerous bruises on his face , chest , legs and arms , as well as a damaged tooth .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on charges of bribe - taking . They were eventually terminated on DATE for lack of corpus delicti .","On DATE the applicant lodged another complaint of ill - treatment with ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG about the failure to examine his complaint of DATE .","On DATE the ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . That decision was quashed by the higher prosecutor on DATE and an additional inquiry was ordered .","On DATE the ORG ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant , which was conducted DATE and DATE . The experts\u2019 opinion confirmed the previous medical findings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and concluded that the injuries had been the result of blows with blunt objects and had been inflicted during the period indicated by the applicant . The experts further opined that it could not be excluded that the injuries had originated in the circumstances indicated by the applicant , as they could all have been inflicted by fists .","On DATE the Kharkiv Frunzenskyy District Prosecutor \u2019s Office refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . That refusal was quashed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the Kharkiv Frunzenskyy District Prosecutor \u2019s Office again refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . In a letter dated DATE , ORG informed the applicant that the decision of DATE had been quashed and that the prosecutor who had conducted the inquiry would be subjected to disciplinary sanctions for the improper performance of his duties .","On DATE ORG issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations . That decision was subsequently quashed .","On DATE ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . That decision was quashed by GPE on DATE and the case was remitted for further inquiries .","On DATE ORG Office once again refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE the above decision was quashed by ORG , which sent the case file back to the prosecutor for further inquiries . The court noted , inter alia , that it had previously remitted the case for further inquiries , but that its instructions had not been followed . Furthermore , the applicant had not been questioned and the medical evidence had not been assessed . The first - instance court \u2019s decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . The applicant challenged that decision in GPE on DATE .","On DATE a new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force . On DATE , in accordance with the provisions of the new Code , ORG entered the relevant information in the newly established \u201c ORG of pre - trial investigations \u201d and started criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE the prosecutor issued a decision to terminate the above - mentioned criminal proceedings .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint against the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to supervise the investigation into his allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE the Kharkiv Dzerzhynskyy District Prosecutor \u2019s Office issued a decision to terminate the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant about the decision of DATE .","On DATE and DATE the applicant asked ORG to send him a copy of the decision of DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor sent the applicant a copy of the decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of DATE before the investigating judge of ORG .","On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to the prosecutor for further investigation . The court concluded that the investigator had not followed the instructions of the appellate court indicated in its decision of CARDINAL DATE on remittal of the case for further investigation , and had terminated the criminal proceedings without conducting the necessary inquiries or carrying out a ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-176002","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"SKENDERI AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","Mr PERSON maintained that he was a national of GPE , while all other applicants maintained that they were nationals of GPE . Additional personal details , the dates of introduction of their complaints before the ORG , and information regarding their legal counsel , respectively , are also set out in the appendix .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were initially represented by their former Agent , PERSON PERSON , who was subsequently substituted by their current Agent , PERSON GPE .","Following the intervention of ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) in DATE , GPE was placed under international administration .","On DATE ORG , in response to a prior query , informed GPE \u2019s ORG that the pension system in GPE was based on the concept of \u201c ongoing financing \u201d . Specifically , pensions were secured through current pension insurance contributions . Consequently , as the NORP authorities had been unable to collect any such contributions in GPE since DATE , persons who had received their pensions from ORG of the NORP Pensions and ORG ( \u201c SPDIF \u201d ) could not expect to continue receiving them . ORG also reminded the Ombudsman that Regulation no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on pensions in GPE provided for a separate pension system for persons living in the territory ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The facts , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE , following the death of her husband , the first applicant \u2013 together with her daughter PERSON , n\u00e9e PERSON was granted a survivor \u2019s pension by ORG in GPE , with retroactive effect as of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the first applicant informed the ORG that she had moved from GPE to ORG , and sought payment of her pension at her new address .","DATE the first applicant repeatedly complained to the ORG that she had never received any pension payments .","In DATE the first applicant lodged a civil claim with ORG in GPE , seeking payment of her accrued pensions with statutory interest and the reinstatement of her entitlement pro futuro .","On DATE the said court found that it did not have territorial jurisdiction and forwarded the case file to ORG in GPE .","On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings . It explained that the international status of GPE was yet to be resolved and that in the meantime the NORP authorities were unable to collect any pension insurance contributions in that territory . The status of GPE was therefore a preliminary question which had to be settled before the first applicant \u2019s claim could be adjudicated .","On DATE ORG in GPE quashed ORG decision of DATE , holding that the status of GPE was not a valid reason to suspend the proceedings .","On DATE ORG reaffirmed the suspension of the first applicant \u2019s civil case , pending the outcome of her complaints lodged with the SPDIF . It also reiterated that the status of GPE was a preliminary issue which had to be resolved first .","On DATE the ORG quashed that decision , reiterating that the status of GPE was not a valid reason to suspend the proceedings in question .","On DATE ORG in GPE , which had jurisdiction to deal with the matter following the reorganisation of the NORP judiciary , ruled against the first applicant . It explained that she had not exhausted the administrative remedies before the ORG and had , in any event , failed to properly substantiate her calculation of the accrued pension .","On DATE ORG , which also had jurisdiction to deal with the matter following the above - mentioned reorganisation of the NORP judiciary , quashed that judgment on the grounds of inadequate reasoning .","On DATE ORG again ruled against the first applicant , this time primarily based on her failure to exhaust administrative remedies before the SPDIF .","On DATE ORG ruled partly in favour of the first applicant ( G\u017e . CARDINAL ) . In so doing , it ordered the ORG to pay her the pension arrears DATE and DATE with statutory interest , as well as the costs of the proceedings . The court opined that the suspension of payment of the first applicant \u2019s pension had been unlawful from a domestic legal perspective and had also been in breach of LAW No . CARDINAL , as explained by ORG in its judgment in the case of GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) . The first applicant \u2019s claim regarding the payment of her accrued pension DATE and DATE , however , was rejected based on LAW , which provided for a DATE prescription period ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Finally , the ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s request for the reinstatement of her pension pro futuro on procedural grounds .","As of DATE the ORG resumed payment of the first applicant \u2019s pension .","In the meantime , on DATE , the first applicant also lodged an appeal with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , on DATE her appeal was rejected because her representative did not have adequate authorisation .","The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , following the death of her husband , the second applicant was granted a survivor \u2019s pension by ORG in GPE .","The second applicant regularly received her pension until DATE , when the DATE payments stopped without an explanation from the ORG .","Thereafter , the second applicant repeatedly sought the resumption of her pension payments . Finally , on DATE she lodged a formal request with the ORG .","On DATE and DATE the second applicant again made requests to the same effect .","In the absence of any action on the part of the ORG , on DATE the second applicant brought an administrative dispute ( pokrenula upravni spor ) before ORG in ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the said court ruled in favour of the second applicant and ordered the ORG to decide on her request .","On DATE the ORG suspended the proceedings , holding that the pensions - related situation in GPE was in a state of flux and that crucial information was lacking . The second applicant \u2019s request was thus deemed not ready for consideration .","On DATE that decision was quashed on appeal , for procedural reasons , at a higher administrative level and remitted for re - examination .","On DATE the second applicant brought another administrative dispute before ORG , seeking , this time , that the court itself decide on the merits of her claim addressed to the ORG .","On DATE the ORG rejected the second applicant \u2019s request to have the payment of her pension resumed , \u201c in the absence of proper substantiation \u201d .","On DATE that decision was upheld on appeal at a higher administrative level .","On DATE ORG in PERSON , which had jurisdiction to deal with the matter following the reorganisation of the NORP judiciary , quashed the impugned decisions of the SPDIF on procedural grounds and remitted the case for re - examination .","On DATE the ORG ordered payment of the second applicant \u2019s pension which had accrued DATE and DATE . Regarding the reinstatement of her pension thereafter , the ORG decided that the matter would be considered following receipt of evidence from ORG in GPE ( \u201c UNMIK \u201d ) as to whether the second applicant was a beneficiary of a separate \u201c MONEY \u201d DATE , which was when she had reached the age of CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the ORG rejected the second applicant \u2019s request to have the payment of her pension resumed because , based on an UNMIK certificate , she had been a recipient of a Kosovan pension as from DATE . The ORG based its conclusion on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the second applicant appealed against that decision at a higher administrative level , arguing that the so - called \u201c Kosovan pension \u201d , in the amount of QUANTITY ( ORG ) , was not in fact a pension at all but a benefit offered to all persons aged CARDINAL or over residing in GPE .","The third applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","In DATE , following the death of her husband , the third applicant was granted a survivor \u2019s pension by ORG in GPE .","At some point thereafter the third applicant moved from GPE to GPE .","The third applicant regularly received her pension until DATE , when the DATE payments stopped without an explanation from the ORG .","Thereafter , the third applicant repeatedly sought the resumption of her pension payments . On DATE she lodged a formal request to that effect with the ORG .","Having received no response and following an additional request which was also ignored , on DATE the third applicant brought an administrative dispute before ORG in GPE .","On DATE the said court declined its territorial jurisdiction and forwarded the case file to ORG in PERSON ( provisionally based in PERSON ) .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the third applicant requested information from ORG in PERSON regarding the status of those proceedings .","On DATE the ORG resumed payment of the third applicant \u2019s pension as of DATE .","The fourth applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","DATE . On DATE the fourth applicant was granted a disability benefit .","The fourth applicant regularly received his benefit until DATE , when the DATE payments stopped without an explanation having been offered .","Thereafter the fourth applicant repeatedly sought the resumption of his benefit payments . On DATE he lodged a formal request to that effect with the ORG .","Having received no response and following an additional request which was also ignored , on DATE the fourth applicant brought an administrative dispute before ORG in GPE .","On DATE the said court declined its territorial jurisdiction and forwarded the case file to ORG in PERSON ( provisionally based in PERSON ) .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the fourth applicant requested information from ORG in PERSON regarding the status of those proceedings .","On DATE ORG in GPE , which had jurisdiction to deal with the matter since the reorganisation of the NORP judiciary , apparently rejected the fourth applicant \u2019s claim because he had not shown that he had properly made use of the administrative remedies available to him before applying for judicial review .","The fifth applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the fifth applicant was granted an old - age pension by ORG in GPE .","The fifth applicant regularly received his pension until DATE , when the DATE payments stopped without an explanation from the ORG .","Thereafter the fifth applicant repeatedly sought the resumption of his pension payments . On DATE he lodged a formal request with the ORG .","Having received no response , on DATE the fifth applicant again addressed the same request to the ORG .","On DATE the ORG rejected the fifth applicant \u2019s claim because he had apparently failed to provide adequate supporting documentation .","On DATE that decision was upheld on appeal at a higher administrative level .","Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that a person \u2019s pension and disability rights must be terminated if it transpires that he or she no longer meets the original statutory requirements . However , should an entitled pensioner secure an additional pension from another pension and disability insurance fund established by CARDINAL of GPE within the territory of the former GPE , his or her pension paid by the ORG must , unless stipulated otherwise by an international agreement , be reassessed ( recalculated ) based on the pensionable employment period ( penzijski sta\u017e ) already taken into account by the former .","Article CARDINAL provides that when a pensioner is entitled to CARDINAL or more pensions within the territory of GPE , CARDINAL of those pensions may be paid , in accordance with the pensioner \u2019s own preference .","Article CARDINAL provides that pension instalments which have not been paid owing to circumstances caused by the pensioner can be sought only for DATE on which he or she lodged a request to that effect .","The Opinions state , inter alia , that the pension system in GPE is based on the concept of \u201c ongoing financing \u201d . Specifically , pensions are secured through current pension insurance contributions . Since the NORP authorities have been unable to collect any such contributions in GPE since DATE , persons who have been granted ORG pensions in GPE can not expect , for the time being , to continue receiving them . It is further stated that Regulation CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on pensions in GPE , adopted by UNMIK , provides for a separate pension system for persons living in the territory ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and QUANTITY provides , inter alia , that the prescription period for seeking civil compensation is DATE from the date on which the claimant first learnt of the damage in question , but that , in any event , the absolute deadline is DATE from the time the damage occurred .","DATE . In response to the situation in GPE , this ORG states , inter alia , that a person \u2019s recognised right to a pension may only be restricted on the basis of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Recognised pension rights can not depend on whether current pension insurance contributions can be collected in a given territory .","The ORG further explains that administrative proceedings ( upravni postupak ) and , if necessary , judicial review proceedings ( upravni spor ) would be the appropriate avenue to challenge any restriction of a person \u2019s pension rights .","Lastly , the ORG notes that , in this context , the civil courts are competent to adjudicate only cases involving claims of malfeasance ( nezakonit i nepravilan rad ) on the part of the ORG .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that in simple matters an administrative body must issue a decision within DATE of the date on which the claimant lodged his or her request . In all other cases , the administrative body must render a decision within DATE thereof .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL enables a claimant whose request has not been decided within the time - limits established in the previous paragraph to lodge an appeal as if his or her request has been refused . Where an appeal is not allowed , the claimant has the right to directly bring an administrative dispute before the competent court of law .","Articles DATE and CARDINAL provide , inter alia , that judicial review proceedings may be brought against the ORG body or public authority that issued the disputed administrative decision .","Article CARDINAL provides that should a second - instance administrative body fail to decide on an appeal lodged DATE , and should it again fail to do so in DATE upon receipt of the claimant \u2019s repeated request to that effect , the latter may directly institute judicial review proceedings , as if his or her appeal had been rejected .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that the competent court may not only quash the impugned administrative decision but may also rule on the merits of the plaintiff \u2019s claim , should the facts of the case and the very nature of the dispute in question allow for that particular course of action .","DATE . The substance of Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL and QUANTITY , in the relevant part , to that of ORG and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW DATE .","The Administrative Disputes Act DATE entered into force on CARDINAL DATE thereby repealing LAW CARDINAL .","Article CARDINAL provides :","\u201c [ a ] constitutional appeal may be lodged against individual decisions or actions of ORG bodies or organisations exercising delegated public powers which violate or deny human or minority rights and freedoms guaranteed by LAW , if other legal remedies for their protection have already been exhausted or have not been prescribed \u201d .","As of DATE , ORG considered a total of CARDINAL appeals related in CARDINAL way or another to the general issue of payment or reinstatement of pensions suspended by the SPDIF ( see U\u017e . nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , decisions rendered DATE and DATE ) . In a total of CARDINAL out of those CARDINAL cases ORG found violations of the NORP constitutional rights . In CARDINAL cases the violations concerned the length of proceedings before the ORG or the competent courts ; in CARDINAL cases they concerned the inconsistent domestic case - law as regards whether persons seeking reinstatement of their pensions should provide the supporting documentation themselves or whether it should be obtained by the ORG proprio motu ; and in CARDINAL case ORG quashed an earlier decision adopted by an appellate court for lack of proper reasoning . The said appellate court had rejected the request for payment of accrued pensions because the claimant had allegedly failed to make proper prior use of the administrative remedies which it deemed relevant . In decisions PERSON . nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG also referred to the PERSON judgment , stating that it had taken that case - law into account but that the appellants had simply not complained that their property rights had been breached . Their complaints had focused instead on the inconsistent domestic case - law , as mentioned above . The other appeals were dismissed for various procedural reasons . In any event , ORG always considered only the complaints as specified by the appellants and \u201c could not go beyond that \u201d .","These regulations provide for a separate system whereby all persons aged CARDINAL or over \u201c habitually residing \u201d in GPE have the right to a \u201c basic pension \u201d .","On DATE ORG adopted this LAW , which essentially endorsed the system as set up by the two Regulations cited above but transferred the functional competencies from UNMIK to the FAC authorities .","These regulations provide , inter alia , that the basic pension referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above , in the amount of ORG CARDINAL DATE , could be increased to ORG CARDINAL DATE in respect of all pensioners aged CARDINAL or over , habitually residing in GPE , who could , inter alia , prove that they had been paying pension insurance contributions to the SPDIF for DATE and were not in receipt of another pension on the same basis .","These regulations essentially affirm those described in paragraph CARDINAL above , but raise the pension in question from ORG CARDINAL to LAW DATE .","Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL state , inter alia , that a \u201c basic age pension \u201d , that is a \u201c minimal regular DATE pension \u201d , shall be paid to all \u201c permanent citizens \u201d of GPE aged CARDINAL or over , regardless of whether they had ever been employed .","Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provide for an \u201c age contribution - payer pension \u201d , that is a \u201c regular DATE pension \u201d for \u201c employed citizens \u201d of GPE , who had paid their contributions to the ORG prior to CARDINAL January CARDINAL . LAW envisages that all persons entitled to a contribution - based pension shall be categorised by ORG taking into account the applicable pensionable employment period , as well as other relevant criteria .","Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that pension adjustments , taking into account the living costs and the rate of inflation , shall be regulated by the Kosovan authorities on an annual basis ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156252","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF D.P. v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG against the ORG claiming non - pecuniary damages inflicted on her by involuntary confinements in ORG in DATE and DATE .","At the first hearing held on DATE the applicant lodged a request to delegate territorial jurisdiction to another court .","On DATE ORG upheld her request and delegated jurisdiction to ORG .","On DATE ORG held the first main hearing .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG a motion to have the presiding judge excluded .","On DATE the Vice - President of ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s request .","DATE the court held further CARDINAL hearings .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a second request to have the then presiding judge excluded and a request to transfer the case to another court with the subject - matter jurisdiction .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request to transfer the case to another court .","On DATE the President of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for the exclusion of the presiding judge .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request to have the president of ORG and the presiding judge excluded .","On DATE the President of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request to have the President of ORG excluded .","On DATE the President of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request to have the presiding judge excluded .","In the meantime , on DATE , ORG imposed a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) on the applicant for abuse of her procedural rights by having lodged the requests concerning the exclusion of the presiding judge . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and annulled the order to fine the applicant . The court held that the district court failed to establish that by lodging the requests the applicant had abused her procedural rights .","On DATE the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal . On DATE the President of ORG replied that a hearing would be scheduled for DATE .","A further hearing was held on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a judgment in which it upheld the applicant \u2019s claim in part . Both parties appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the appeals , quashed the judgment of the lower court and modified it by dismissing the claim in respect of the confinement in DATE as time - barred and decided that the claim for non - pecuniary damages in respect of the confinement DATE was well - founded but that the first instance court needed to decide on the amount of compensation in a new set of proceedings .","NORP The applicant lodged a motion for leave to file an appeal on points of law in respect of the question whether her claim for damages due to the DATE confinement was time - barred .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law and quashed the respective part of the decision of the higher court .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of the district court in respect of the DATE confinement and remitted the case back to the district court .","On DATE the applicant lodged a further supervisory appeal which was dismissed on DATE .","On DATE ORG held the first main hearing after the remittal and postponed the hearing for an indefinite period in order to obtain an expert opinion on the applicant \u2019s mental health at the time of the confinement .","On DATE the applicant lodged a motion for a deadline with ORG .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s motion for a deadline and ordered the district court to deal with the case with priority .","The proceedings are still pending before ORG which still needs to decide on the applicant \u2019s claim in respect of the confinement in DATE and on the amount of compensation in respect of the DATE confinement .","On DATE the applicant amended her claim in the above proceedings by claiming further non - pecuniary damages due to the length of proceedings . This part of the claim was separated from the main claim and referred to ORG .","On DATE the applicant raised the claim to ORG CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim as premature since the main proceedings were still pending . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The applicant lodged a motion to file an appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law in respect of the question whether it was possible to claim compensation for a violation of one \u2019s right to a trial without undue delay before the termination of the main proceedings .","On DATE ORG held that even though the proceedings had been instituted before DATE when the Act on ORG ( \u201c the DATE Act \u201d ) became operational , the latter was applicable to the applicant \u2019s case and therefore it was not possible to claim compensation before the termination of the main proceedings . It further held that since the appeal on points of law was explicitly excluded as a legal remedy in the proceeding under LAW , the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law should be rejected on procedural grounds as not allowed . The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint by reference to LAW of LAW ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163671","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 18+5-1 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in a prison in GPE .","Prior to the parliamentary election of CARDINAL DATE , which resulted in a change of power , the applicant , one of the leaders of the then ruling party , ORG ( ORG ) , exercised , for DATE in DATE , the function of Prime Minister of GPE . Prior to that , DATE , he had held the post of Minister of the Interior .","After the political coalition ORG had won the parliamentary election of DATE and formed a new government , the applicant was elected Secretary General of the ORG , which became the major opposition force in the country .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the date when he was charged with criminal offences and arrested ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant had made CARDINAL business trips from GPE to various foreign countries , always returning as scheduled .","On DATE , when travelling from GPE to GPE to attend an international seminar of ORG , the applicant attempted to cross the NORP State border at FAC using an allegedly fake international passport .","After registering the passport in the relevant electronic database , an officer of ORG of GPE , GPE , noticed a discrepancy between the photograph in the passport , which fully matched the applicant \u2019s appearance , and the other data in the travel document , including the name of \u201c PERSON \u201d , which differed from the identity information stored about the applicant in the electronic database . The police officer returned the problematic passport to the applicant \u2019s personal assistant , requesting clarification . The assistant immediately brought from the applicant \u2019s office another passport which was issued in the latter \u2019s real name and matched all his other identification data . After checking the authenticity of that second travel document , the applicant was allowed to cross the NORP border .","DATE , DATE , a criminal investigation was launched by ORG into the abovementioned incident . The Chief of ORG immediately went to GPE airport to interview the officer , GPE , who had discovered the allegedly fake passport in the applicant \u2019s possession , in person . As subsequently established by the investigation and confirmed by a number of witnesses , when present at the airport the Chief of ORG suddenly received a call from the applicant on his mobile phone . The latter attempted to exert pressure on the Chief by using his status and long - standing personal connections within the hierarchy of ORG . The applicant demanded categorically that no inquiry be conducted with respect to the incident with the passport and that officer GPE never be called to testify as a witness . According to statements subsequently given to the investigation by the Chief of ORG , the applicant made career and personal threats and used obscene language during their telephone conversation .","Interviewed on CARDINAL and DATE by investigators from ORG with respect to the incident , the applicant denied presenting to ORG a passport under the name of \u201c PERSON \u201d , and stated that he possessed CARDINAL passports , CARDINAL ordinary ones and CARDINAL diplomatic travel documents , all of them issued under his real name .","On DATE a new set of criminal proceedings for embezzlement and abuse of official authority were launched against the applicant and the Governor of GPE . They both duly appeared before ORG ( \u201c the CPPO \u201d ) on DATE , and were interviewed as witnesses .","On DATE a third set of criminal proceedings was instituted at ORG of GPE in respect of another instance of abuse of official authority allegedly committed by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant and the Governor of the Kakheti Region were examined as witnesses in the context of the second set of the criminal proceedings .","On DATE all CARDINAL of the above - mentioned sets of criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) were joined into CARDINAL criminal case .","On DATE the applicant and the Governor of PERSON were summoned by the prosecution authority for another interview . At the end of that examination both were arrested .","The applicant \u2019s arrest was linked to a suspicion that he had engaged in vote - buying ( Article CARDINAL ) of LAW ) , misappropriation of another person \u2019s property ( CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) , abuse of official authority ( CARDINAL of LAW ) , and breach of inviolability of another person \u2019s home ( LAW ) . As confirmed by the relevant record , the arresting officer duly explained to the applicant , who was assisted by a lawyer of his choice , the nature of the above - mentioned charges against him , as well as his procedural rights . The applicant was also briefed on the reasons for his arrest . Notably , that there existed risks that he , as a particularly influential person who had held several high - ranking ORG offices in the past , might negatively influence the progress of the investigation , and that , having regard to his previous attempt to cross the State border with a fake travel document , he might abscond from the trial .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the applicant \u2019s wife left GPE . A judicially authorised search of the applicant \u2019s apartment was conducted DATE , the results of which confirmed the discovery of large sums of money in cash ( see the subsequent paragraph ) .","On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor in charge of the applicant \u2019s case applied to ORG for pre - trial detention of the applicant as a preventive measure . The prosecutor first gave arguments in support of the risk that the applicant would abscond . Thus , because he had held the posts of Minister of the ORG and Prime Minister of the country in the past , he had formed a broad and extensive personal network within the country and abroad . The applicant possessed CARDINAL valid diplomatic passports under his real name , and those travel documents allowed him to use simplified procedures for entering any foreign country as well as other privileges reserved for diplomats . Furthermore , it appeared that the applicant also had a false passport ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Moreover , the prosecutor continued , the fact that the applicant \u2019s spouse had hurriedly left GPE on CARDINAL DATE , after the applicant had been summoned by the investigating authority , also gave rise to a suspicion that the applicant might aim to join his wife outside the country . The prosecutor also emphasised the fact that during a search of the applicant \u2019s apartment on CARDINAL DATE , large amounts of money in cash MONEY ( ORG ) , MONEY ( ( ORG , some ORG CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL NORP laris ( GEL , some ORG CARDINAL ) DATE were discovered , which fact further substantiated the suspicion that the applicant might have been preparing to flee the country .","NORP The prosecutor then enumerated arguments in support of the claim that the applicant might hamper the investigation . Again , given that the applicant had held various high - ranking ORG posts , he had therefore directed and supervised numerous ORG agents employed in various public agencies . Considering that the impugned offences were closely related to his past activities in public office , and the fact that the majority of the important witnesses had worked under the applicant \u2019s hierarchical subordination , there was a well - substantiated risk that the applicant might influence those people . The prosecutor \u2019s argument was confirmed by reference to the incident of CARDINAL DATE , when the applicant had managed to identify the mobile phone number of the Chief of ORG , placed a call and exerted pressure on the latter in a rude and obscene manner by uttering personal and career threats ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , after holding an oral hearing with the participation of both the co - accused and their lawyers , decided to release the PERSON Governor on bail , the amount of which was fixed at GEL MONEY ( some EUR CARDINAL ) , and to remand the applicant in custody . LAW was mentioned as the legal basis for imposition of the detention in the reasoning part of the decision .","As to the grounds confirming the necessity of the detention measure , ORG stated that it accepted the prosecution authority \u2019s arguments concerning the risks of absconding and impeding the course of the investigation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . Whilst acknowledging that the applicant had proved to be cooperative with the investigation by appearing for interviews , ORG stated that he could nevertheless use his prominent social position , which emanated from the fact of his having held various high - ranking posts in the past , to hamper the investigation process . The court emphasised that the witnesses who were to be examined had been or still remained under the applicant \u2019s direct hierarchical authority and personal influence . ORG further specifically noted in that respect that the applicant had already been suspected of an attempt to influence the specific witnesses , the Chief of ORG and officer GPE , within the context of the ongoing criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP In its decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG indicated , pursuant to LAW ORG , that a pre - trial conference would open on DATE .","The applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE , complaining that the imposition of the pre - trial detention had been unreasonable because ORG had failed to refer to any specific evidence or arguments in support of the supposed risks of hampering the investigation or absconding the trial .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded , confirming that the lower court had correctly assessed the relevant factual circumstances and applied the legal provisions .","On DATE the prosecutor asked ORG to postpone the opening of the pre - trial conference until DATE . The prosecutor substantiated his application by the need for certain additional specific investigative measures to be conducted . Both the applicant , represented by CARDINAL lawyers , and the co - accused ORG Governor agreed with that application in part . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG granted the request in part , postponing the date until DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers sought a further postponement of the pre - trial conference . They argued that the case file was voluminous and more time was needed for the preparation of the defence . The prosecutor objected , indicating that the applicant was attempting to protract the proceedings and leave less time for an examination of the case on the merits . ORG satisfied , on DATE , the applicant \u2019s request in full , and a new date for the pre - trial conference was set for CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG opened the pre - trial conference .","According to a record of a subsequent session of the pre - trial conference held on DATE , the applicant asked for his pre - trial detention to be replaced by a non - custodial measure of restraint . In support , he referred to the prosecution authority \u2019s failure to indicate any new arguments arguably capable of substantiating the risks of absconding or impeding the investigation . As additional guarantees for his appearance for trial , the applicant referred to the fact that he was the Secretary General of a major political party , that he had made a public pledge to cooperate with the authorities , and that he had never failed to appear before the investigating authorities in the past . As further revealed by an audio record of the relevant court hearing , the applicant argued that his continued detention was no longer necessary , as all the witnesses had already been questioned by the investigating authority . The prosecution authority replied that since the witnesses still had to testify before the trial court , the risk that the accused would exert undue pressure on them was still present . The authority reminded ORG of the incident with the fake passport , when the applicant had managed to threaten a high - ranking officer of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant \u2019s request for the termination of the pre - trial detention was examined and rejected by ORG on DATE , DATE . Thus , the court , after hearing the parties\u2019 arguments , announced its decision orally , for the audio record . As disclosed by that record , the judge briefly stated , without giving any explanation , that the \u201c request for the termination of the pre - trial detention should be rejected \u201d .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of the majority of the charges brought against him . Thus , he was found guilty of vote - buying ( LAW ) , misappropriation of another person \u2019s property in a large amount ( LAW ( a ) , ( d ) , and CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW on several counts ) , and breach of inviolability of another person \u2019s home ( LAW ( b ) of LAW ) . As regards the offence of abuse of official authority ( LAW ) , it was dismissed by the court as redundant . The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction of CARDINAL DATE in full . According to the file as it stands to date , the applicant lodged a further appeal on points of law , and the ensuing proceedings are currently pending before ORG .","According to the applicant \u2019s addendum to the case file after the communication of the present case , on DATE , at TIME , he was unexpectedly removed from his prison cell . The accompanying prison guards covered his head with a jacket , put him into a car , and drove him to an unknown destination . The journey lasted TIME , after which he was escorted into a building . When he was brought inside one of the rooms the guards took the jacket off his head , and he saw CARDINAL people . CARDINAL of them was allegedly ORG , PERSON , and the other was the head of the prison authority , GPE","According to the applicant , ORG offered him a bargain during that meeting . Notably , the applicant was invited to reveal the \u201c truth \u201d about the circumstances surrounding the death of the former Prime Minister PERSON on DATE ( who , according to an official version of the events , had died in a rented flat from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by an inadequately ventilated gas heater ) and , in addition , to provide information about secret offshore bank accounts of the former President of GPE . The applicant turned down the deal , describing PERSON \u2019s suggestions as a conspiracy theory and nonsense . In reply , ORG allegedly threatened the applicant that his detention conditions would worsen if he did not agree to cooperate with the authorities . The applicant was returned to his prison cell at TIME","On DATE , during a public hearing before ORG , which was already examining the merits of the criminal case against the applicant in the presence of the prosecuting authority and media representatives , the applicant made a statement about what had happened on DATE . He described in detail his night - time conversation with ORG .","On DATE the Prime Minister of GPE publicly commented that the applicant \u2019s allegations of the TIME removal from prison for a meeting with ORG were a sheer lie , that no investigation would be launched in that respect , and that the applicant should instead \u201c consult a psychiatrist \u201d . Subsequently , paraphrasing another public person \u2019s comment , ORG made the following remark : \u201c After all , what was this story of abducting [ the applicant ] from the prison all about ? Did [ ORG ] rape him or what?\u2019 \u201d In the same vein , ORG issued an official statement condemning the applicant \u2019s allegations as \u201c untrue \u201d and \u201c absurd \u201d .","On DATE the Minister of Prisons publicly stated that \u201c [ the applicant ] was not taken out of the prison ... No investigation has been launched into such frivolous allegations . \u201d The Minister added that recordings made by the prison surveillance systems , which could shed light on whether or not the latter had been taken out of and returned to his cell at the specified times on DATE , could be made public only if a criminal probe was launched in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegation .","On the other hand , certain other high ORG officials , such as the President of the ORG and the Minister of ORG , acknowledged , in the immediate aftermath of the incident of DATE , that there was a need to launch a thorough and impartial criminal investigation into the issue . On DATE ORG of GPE visited the applicant in prison , where they discussed in detail the incident of DATE . After the meeting , the Defender made a public statement about the necessity to launch a criminal investigation in order to clarify all the facts , and emphasised that the applicant would be ready to cooperate .","On DATE the applicant made a formal request to ORG , of which ORG and ORG were also informed , for the video footage from the prison surveillance system covering TIME DATE to be provided to his lawyer . Those recordings would prove the need for a criminal investigation into his unlawful removal from the prison on that night .","On DATE the Public Defender again called upon the authorities to investigate the applicant \u2019s allegations . On DATE the Minister of Prisons stated that the recordings from the surveillance system of the applicant \u2019s prison covering TIME DATE could no longer be extracted as they had automatically been deleted within twentyfour TIME after being recorded .","On DATE the applicant submitted a question to ORG about whether or not a criminal investigation had been launched into the incident of DATE . On DATE the prosecutorial authority informed the applicant that an internal probe carried out by ORG of ORG had not confirmed the applicant \u2019s alleged irregular removal from the prison . No further details about that probe were given .","On DATE a Member of ORG published certain documents showing that high bonuses were paid in DATE to a number of officers of the prison where the applicant was detained . The parliamentarian suggested that those officers were financially rewarded for their association with the applicant \u2019s removal from the cell .","On DATE PERSON , a chief advisor to GPE , the Head of ORG , made a public statement confirming the truthfulness of the applicant \u2019s allegations . She stated : \u201c [ E]ven a child knows that [ the applicant ] was taken from his prison cell by GPE \u201d . She further stated that she had been in contact with a number of agents of ORG who had confirmed to her , in private conversation , that they had been instructed by GPE to hide surveillance camera recordings covering TIME DATE .","On DATE , DATE , GPE dismissed PERSON from her position . DATE , on DATE , he himself resigned from the post of head of the prison authority .","The applicant submitted numerous newspaper articles containing interviews with various high - ranking officials of the current regime in the country ( CARDINAL successive prime ministers , various ministers , Members of ORG from the ruling coalition , and so on ) as a proof that there was politically motivated persecution against him . He also referred to a number of official statements issued by the international community , which conveyed concern over the initiation of criminal proceedings and arrests of a number of former high - ranking Government officials , including the applicant .","Thus , for instance , the President of ORG made a public statement on CARDINAL DATE , after his meeting with the Prime Minister of GPE , which included the following passage :","\u201c The elections in GPE were successfully held , and they were recognised as free and fair ... Democracy is more than elections , it is the culture of political relations in democratic environment . In this respect , situations of selective justice should be avoided as they could harm the country \u2019s image abroad and weaken rule of law . \u201d","The European Union High Commissioner for Foreign and Security Policy publicly declared during her visit to GPE on CARDINAL DATE the following : \u201c ORG calls on all sides in NORP politics to uphold NORP values of democracy , freedom and the rule of law . There should be no selective justice ; no retribution against political rivals . Investigations into past wrongdoings must be , and must be seen to be , impartial , transparent and in compliance with due process . \u201d","As an additional proof that the current Government was engaged in persecution of its political opponent , the applicant referred to the following excerpt from a ORG adopted by ORG of ORG PACE ) on DATE :","\u201c It has to be noted that DATE on , almost the entire leadership of the former ruling party has been arrested or is under prosecution or investigation : former Prime Minister and ORG Secretary General , [ the applicant ] , former Defence Minister , [ GPE ] , and former GPE mayor and ORG , campaign manager , [ ORG ] , are in prison ( pre - trial detention ) . The judicial authorities have charged the former President , [ GPE ] , and ordered pre - trial detention in absentia , as well as for former Minister of Defence , [ GPE ] , and former Minister of Justice , [ Z.A. ] . \u201d","On DATE the Commissioner for Human Rights of ORG published a ORG on his visit to GPE which had taken place from DATE . Included in an array of various problematic human rights issues affecting the country the Commissioner also addressed the allegations of undue criminal prosecution of members of the former ruling party , the ORG . The relevant excerpt from the ORG as emphasised by the applicant , which passage made a separate reference to the incident of DATE , reads as follows :","\u201c DATE . The cases of [ the applicant ] , [ GPE ] , and [ G.U. ] \u2013 all of them members of or associated with the UNM \u2013 were discussed by the Commissioner during his visit . [ The applicant ] was formerly Prime Minister and Secretary General of the FAC at the time of his arrest on DATE . He has alleged that on DATE , he was taken away blindfolded from the prison by unknown individuals and brought to ORG of ORG where he was threatened by the then Chief Prosecutor ... Human rights NGOs have called for an investigation into the foregoing allegations and expressed concerns that the internal inquiry by ORG failed to clarify the situation and raised more questions , including regarding the unavailability of video footage from surveillance cameras in the prison . In this regard , ORG indicated to the Commissioner that due to the fact that [ the applicant ] made his complaint only on DATE after the alleged events \u2013 the video footage was unavailable because it was automatically overwritten TIME . \u201d","Then , in the relevant concluding part of the ORG , the Commissioner made the following call upon the NORP authorities with regard to the above - mentioned allegations of unduly motivated criminal proceedings :","\u201c CARDINAL . The Commissioner wishes to underline that the judicial system should be sufficiently resilient so that its proper functioning is not disrupted by the transfers of power which are characteristic of any true democracy . The persistence of allegations and other information indicative of deficiencies marring the criminal investigation and judicial processes in cases involving political opponents are a cause for concern , as this can cast doubt on the outcome of the cases concerned even when there have been solid grounds for the charges retained and the final convictions . The NORP authorities must address these issues at the systemic level , in the interests of respecting fair trial guarantees for everyone and in enhancing public trust in the institutions responsible for upholding the law . \u201d","In support of his claim of undue political motivation behind the initiation of the criminal proceedings against him , the applicant also referred to a ORG published on DATE by ORG ( ORG ) on its trial monitoring activities in GPE . The ORG had started the relevant trial monitoring project in DATE , focusing on the follow - up of CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings unrelated to each other , conducted against senior officials of the previous government , which included the applicant \u2019s criminal case . After having identified , through the prism of all QUANTITY criminal cases , a number of shortcomings with respect to the fair trial guarantees \u2013 such as the principle of equality of arms between parties , the presumption of innocence , the perception of undue influence on the prosecution authority by the executive branch of power , and the unreasonable use of preliminary detention \u2013 the ODIHR Report made a number of recommendations to the NORP authorities on how to improve the system of criminal justice in general .","On DATE ORG adopted a ORG on the endorsement of ORG between ORG and GPE . An excerpt from that ORG , cited by the applicant himself in support of his claim , read as follows :","\u201c [ ORG ] expresses concern that numerous officials who had served under the previous government and some members of the current opposition have been charged with criminal offences and are imprisoned or placed in pre - trial detention ; expresses concern , also , about the potential , use of the judicial system to fight against political opponents , which could undermine the efforts of the NORP authorities in the area of democratic reform ; recalls that the existence of a valuable political opposition is paramount to the creation of a balanced and mature political system , to which GPE is aspiring . \u201d","Lastly , the applicant referred to the relevant excerpts from ORG GPE Parties to ORG adopted by the PACE on DATE . These passages read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The following abusive grounds for pretrial detention have been observed in a number of GPE Parties to ORG , namely :","to put pressure on detainees in order to coerce them into confessing to a crime or otherwise co - operating with the prosecution , including by testifying against a third person ( for example the case of PERSON , in GPE , and certain cases of opposition leaders in GPE , such as former Prime Minister , [ the applicant ] ) ;","to discredit or otherwise neutralise political competitors ( for example , certain cases of ORG ( ORG ) leaders in GPE ) ; ...","The root causes of the abusive use of pretrial detention include : ...","the possibility of \u201c forum shopping \u201d by the prosecution , which may be tempted to develop different strategies to ensure that requests for pretrial detention in certain cases are decided by a judge who , for various reasons , is expected to be \u201c accommodating \u201d ( for example in GPE , GPE and GPE ) . \u201d","Subsequent to the communication of the present case , the applicant informed ORG for the first time that CARDINAL additional sets of criminal proceedings had been launched against him . Those new criminal cases were not linked in any manner to the main set of the criminal proceedings which had served as the basis for the imposition of the pre - trial detention initially contested by the applicant in the present case ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","NORP In particular , on CARDINAL DATE a charge of exceeding of official powers through the threat or use of force ( LAW ( b ) of LAW ) was brought against the applicant in relation to his role , in his capacity as Minister of the ORG , in the planning and supervision of a violent dispersal of a peaceful demonstration by police forces on CARDINAL DATE . By a judgment of DATE , ORG , having established the fact that the applicant had directly given an order to the police forces to dislodge the demonstrators with an excessive use of force , convicted him of the offence . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court , and the proceedings are currently pending , according to the applicant \u2019s latest submissions available in the case file , before ORG .","On DATE CPPO brought new charges against the applicant under LAW ( abuse of authority by a high - ranking ORG official ) and LAW ( falsification of official records ) . That new criminal case related to the role of the applicant , in his capacity as Minister of the ORG , in the cover - up of a homicide case which had implicated a number of his close associates , high - ranking officers of the same ORG , as well as his wife , back in DATE ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . On DATE ORG , having established that the applicant had personally contributed to perverting the course of the investigation in that homicide case , convicted the applicant of the CARDINAL above - mentioned charges , and the criminal proceedings are currently pending before a court of higher jurisdiction .","On DATE the applicant was charged with a new offence under LAW ( b ) of LAW in relation to his role as Minister of the ORG , in the planning and supervision of a police raid on a private television and radio company , ORG , on DATE as well as of the subsequent unlawful removal of the broadcasting licence from the company ( for more details , see PERSON and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . DATE , DATE ) . Finally , on DATE yet another charge under LAW ( b ) of LAW was brought against the applicant . He was accused of ordering a number of high - ranking police officers to arrange for ill - treatment of a Member of ORG in retribution for insulting and libellous statements the latter had publicly proffered against the wife of the President of GPE . The latter CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings are , according to the applicant \u2019s latest factual addendum , still pending before the trial court ."],"violated_articles":["18","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162023","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BAGDONAVI\u010cIUS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC ( NORP pataisos namai \u2013 atviroji kolonija ) .","In DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in pre - trial detention on suspicion of several instances of trafficking drugs in very large amounts as part of an organised group .","DATE and DATE the applicant was held at FAC ( GPE tardymo izoliatorius - kal\u0117jimas ) in cells which measured QUANTITY and which housed CARDINAL detainees .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC ( GPE tardymo izoliatorius ) . According to a document issued by that prison , the average space per prisoner in the cells where the applicant was held varied , but was sometimes QUANTITY per inmate .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( GPE departamentas ) , a body that oversees NORP prisons , about the conditions in which he had been held ( d\u0117l buvusi\u0173 prast\u0173 kalinimo s\u0105lyg\u0173 ) in FAC . In its reply of DATE , the department admitted that the applicant \u2019s allegations that he had been held in overcrowded cells in GPE had been partly proved .","After visiting FAC on DATE , ORG Visuomen\u0117s sveikatos centras ) found that the prison complied with general health and hygiene requirements .","On DATE the applicant started court proceedings for damages , arguing that the conditions of his detention in FAC had been abysmal .","By a decision of DATE , ORG held that the applicant had missed the CARDINAL years\u2019 statutory deadline to lodge a claim for damages , because he had been released from FAC on DATE .","The applicant appealed , arguing that he had only learned in DATE that his rights had been breached , when he had started communicating with his current representative before the ORG , Mr PERSON .","By a final decision of DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal , noting that the applicant could have asked for legal aid to start court proceedings for damages in a timely fashion if he had been without sufficient means to employ a lawyer .","On DATE , while he was being held at FAC , the applicant had his first myocardial infarction . He was taken DATE to a public hospital \u2013 the cardiology unit of ORG ( NORP sveikatos moksl\u0173 universiteto ligonin\u0117 \u2013 Kauno klinikos , hereinafter \u2013 \u201c the GPE \u201d ) , where he underwent a surgical intervention . The doctors noted in the applicant \u2019s medical file that he was a heart attack risk because he had smoked CARDINAL cigarettes a day for DATE . Another risk factor was hereditary , because the applicant \u2019s father had had myocardial infarction .","On DATE the GPE Clinics\u2019 doctors concluded that the applicant \u2019s condition had stabilised ( b\u016bkl\u0117 stabilizavosi ) . The applicant was prescribed medications for his condition ( medikamentinis gydymas ) , explained what kind of diet and health regime to follow and transferred to ORG ( PERSON at\u0117mimo viet\u0173 ligonin\u0117 ) .","As can be seen in the documents submitted by the parties , and as was later confirmed by the PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the doctors at ORG , on the instructions of the doctors at GPE , performed a number of tests on the applicant ( including urine , blood , and an ECG ) . They also prescribed a diet that was low on salt and fat . Given that the applicant \u2019s state of health was stable and improving , on DATE the applicant was sent back to FAC . The doctors recommended that he continue to take the medications he had been prescribed .","On DATE the applicant was again placed in ORG for an earlier scheduled consultation . He had some diagnostic tests and was treated with medications .","On DATE , while at ORG , the applicant had a second myocardial infarction and was immediately transferred to a public hospital \u2013 the Cardiology and FAC of ORG GPE ( ORG Santari\u0161ki\u0173 klinikos , hereinafter \u2013 \u201c GPE \u201d ) , where he was examined and tests were performed . DATE , on DATE , the doctors in GPE held that the applicant \u2019s state of health was stable , and on that day he was returned to ORG .","While being held at ORG , on DATE the applicant was taken back to ORG for a consultation . The doctors recommended the applicant be treated with medications and also prescribed a diet which was low on salt and fat . The doctors also recommended that the applicant engage in physical activity for TIME a day . They also recommended that the applicant be \u201c brought back to LOC after DATE ( po CARDINAL m\u0117nesi\u0173 ) for a consultation , having registered in advance \u201d .","On DATE the ORG released the applicant back to FAC . The applicant \u2019s medical record indicates that he was released because his state of health \u201c had improved ( pager\u0117jo ) \u201d . It also states that the applicant \u201c could walk ( gali eiti ) \u201d . Among the risk factors , the doctors noted that the applicant smoked . It was recommended that the applicant have further outpatient treatment with medications ( medikamentinis ambulatorinis gydymas ) , follow a diet that was low on fat and salt and be physically active by taking exercise ( fizinis aktyvumas ) .","On DATE the applicant was issued with a certificate that he had lost PERCENT of his capacity for work . The document stated that he could not perform any work where he needed to lift QUANTITY . However , the applicant could do work that involved walking , sitting or bending .","In reply to a complaint by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , on CARDINAL DATE ORG noted that it had rigorously adhered to the instructions from cardiologists of category III medical care institutions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The applicant was again admitted to ORG , staying there from DATE with digestion - related issues ( haemorrhoids ) . The doctors noted that the applicant had got haemorrhoids DATE previously . After examining the applicant , they prescribed outpatient treatment with medications , and noted that he was fit enough to be taken to a court hearing .","NORP In DATE ORG administration told the applicant in reply to a request that as of DATE he would be provided the same menu of food as women ( PERSON bus tiekiamas maitinimas pagal moter\u0173 valgiara\u0161t\u012f ) .","After visiting ORG DATE , ORG concluded that the hospital complied with general health - care and hygiene requirements .","The applicant was admitted to ORG from DATE for a scheduled follow - up ( planine tvarka ) of his heart condition . The applicant \u2019s medical record shows that a number of tests had been performed on him , the doctors concluded that his state of health was \u201c unchanged ( be pakitim\u0173 ) \u201d and \u201c satisfactory ( patenkinama ) \u201d . The medical certificate issued at the time of the applicant \u2019s discharge from the hospital on DATE also indicated that he smoked , which was a risk factor .","In DATE the applicant also wrote to the PERSON , complaining that he had been held at FAC , FAC and at ORG , where he had suffered great psychological stress . He argued that in those facilities his health had worsened and as a consequence he had suffered CARDINAL myocardial infarctions . He also claimed that in FAC he had not been provided with the right diet , going against the LOC recommendations . The applicant was also dissatisfied with the fact that he had not been provided rehabilitation therapy . In DATE the applicant withdrew , in writing , the part of his complaint concerning FAC , stating that he had no complaints about that facility .","On DATE the PERSON accepted the applicant \u2019s withdrawal of his complaint as regards FAC . The PERSON , however , established that the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention at FAC , where he had been held DATE and DATE , as well as at ORG , where he had been held DATE and DATE , had been in breach of domestic legislation on overcrowding . In particular , the applicant had been held in ORG in a room where he had had QUANTITY of personal space .","The PERSON nevertheless dismissed the complaint about a lack of proper medical care . After examining the documents related to the applicant \u2019s treatment in hospitals , the PERSON noted that , contrary to the applicant \u2019s submissions , neither the Kaunas Clinics nor ORG had prescribed him a course of rehabilitation therapy after the applicant \u2019s first and second heart attacks respectively . On the contrary , both GPE had made recommendations for further treatment , such as the medications , tests and dietary requirements which were required , and which ORG had followed .","According to CARDINAL documents provided by the applicant \u2019s representative , Mr. PERSON , in DATE and DATE and in DATE the outpatient polyclinic in GPE ( PERSON ambulatorija , hereinafter \u2013 Upninkai PERSON ) , a village in LOC in GPE , gave \u201c the applicant \u2019s authorised person \u201d three written statements by the polyclinic \u2019s head doctor . They noted that the applicant had suffered from myocardial infarction and summarised his medical history . CARDINAL of those documents also stated that because of his state of health , as seen in the light of certain legal acts issued by ORG , the applicant should be released from serving his sentence .","In DATE the applicant was taken to ORG for a planned consultation with a cardiologist . The applicant spent DATE there . During that time , on DATE , he was also taken to GPE , where the doctors performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test ( veloergometrija ) and an ultrasound examination of the heart ( ultragarsinis \u0161irdies tyrimas ) . The applicant \u2019s heart was rhythmical , with no decompensation . The cardiologists prescribed medications to treat the applicant , said he should limit his intake of fat and salt ( as concerned his diet ) and have TIME of physical activity a day . He was to return for a further consultation , although the exact date was not indicated .","The doctors in ORG also performed a number of tests . When they released the applicant back to FAC on DATE they concluded that \u201c his illness was without complications ( ligos eiga : be komplikacij\u0173 ) \u201d . The applicant \u2019s state of health was \u201c satisfactory ( patenkinama ) \u201d .","As can be seen from the applicant \u2019s medical records , on CARDINAL DATE FAC sent him to ORG for \u201c a full examination , follow - up and treatment \u201d of his heart condition . The doctor \u2019s examined the applicant , including an ORG and blood tests , and concluded that his state of health was \u201c satisfactory \u201d . It was noted that the applicant smoked .","After the applicant \u2019s arrest on DATE , a court sanctioned his pre - trial detention for an initial duration of DATE . The detention was then prolonged a number of times .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE on the grounds that the applicant was suspected of being the organiser of a criminal group which committed drug - related crimes , that he had connections abroad , did not work and faced a heavy sentence . Moreover , there was evidence in the file that the applicant had attempted to influence other suspects , thus impeding the criminal investigation .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed , arguing that her client had suffered a double myocardial infarction , had been operated on and treated at ORG . In addition , he had another illness , connected to the digestive system . The lawyer argued that her client would not receive proper medical assistance , as regarded his regime and diet , in ORG . She asked that a milder remand measure than pre - trial detention be ordered .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that milder remand measures would hinder the course of justice . It held that there was no information in the file preventing the holding of the applicant in pre - trial detention because of his state of health . The court noted that the applicant was being held at the time at ORG and was receiving CARDINAL-hour medical assistance .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted several new requests asking to replace detention with a less severe remand measure owing to the deterioration of the applicant \u2019s health while in detention . She also relied on the Santari\u0161k\u0117s Clinics\u2019 record of DATE , where it was stated that the applicant needed a low - salt diet , a special regime for his meals and physical activity . The lawyer maintained that such assistance could not be provided at FAC or at ORG , thus preventing the applicant from having satisfactory medical care .","On the basis of the request by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , on DATE ORG ordered a comprehensive forensic examination to be performed by a ORG commission , comprising a cardiologist , to answer the question whether the applicant was ill with a serious , incurable illness ( sunki nepagydoma liga ) , and , if so , whether for that reason he could be released from serving a sentence . In the meantime , the court extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision to extend the applicant \u2019s detention . The court observed that although the applicant had serious health problems , he had always been provided with adequate treatment at ORG or , if necessary , in a public hospital .","After examining the applicant \u2019s medical records from GPE and GPE , as well as from ORG , on DATE experts from ORG ( ORG teismo medicinos tarnyba ) produced report no . ORG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) . It read that the applicant had an ischaemic heart illness , having suffered a myocardial infarction ; he also had hypertension and ischaemic cardiomyopathy . Those ailments should be classified as serious and incurable illnesses . However , the experts concluded that the applicant \u2019s state of health at the time did not meet the criteria which allowed a convicted person to be exempted from serving a sentence , according to the rules set by ORG and ORG ( see paragraph DATE below ) . CARDINAL of the doctors on the commission was a cardiologist , a professor and habilitated doctor of sciences at GPE . Another doctor was a surgeon with DATE of experience .","The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was then prolonged by court rulings on DATE , DATE and DATE .","The last pre - trial detention order was upheld on DATE by ORG . The applicant \u2019s lawyer referred to the reports from the Upninkai PERSON and claimed that neither FAC nor ORG could guarantee the necessary medical care for the applicant . ORG however noted absence of any new documents showing that the applicant \u2019s state of health had worsened . ORG also had regard to the practice of the ORG to the effect that the ORG should protect inmates\u2019 physical health ( it relied on GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . GPE , ORG CARDINALXI , and Peers v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIII ) . However , in the applicant \u2019s case there was no evidence that there would be a lack of medical assistance . Furthermore , the comprehensive medical examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not ruled out keeping the applicant detained , and , in the court \u2019s view , its conclusions prevailed over those of the Upninkai PERSON . There was no reason to hold that keeping the applicant detained , and , if necessary , treating him at ORG or in another hospital , could be considered as inhuman or degrading .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty of a number of drug - related crimes and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment in a correctional home . The applicant was to remain detained until the judgment became final .","The applicant \u2019s conviction was upheld by ORG on DATE , but the sentence was changed to DATE of deprivation of liberty in a correctional home .","By a final judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the appellate court \u2019s verdict . ORG also relied on expert report no . EKG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and held that the lower courts had been correct in finding that the applicant \u2019s state of health did not prevent him from serving a prison sentence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171124","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"FOLNEGOVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant has lived and worked in GPE since DATE .","In DATE the competent prosecuting authorities in GPE opened in total CARDINAL criminal cases against the applicant in connection with a suspicion that he had created a network for illegal and fraudulent offering of loans in GPE to NORP citizens . It was alleged that CARDINAL individuals had fallen victim to such criminal activities and that the applicant had also caused damage to the ORG . The total alleged pecuniary gain was estimated to be CARDINAL ( ORG ) .","In the course of the criminal proceedings against him , the applicant several times failed to appear before the competent criminal courts . He referred to reasons such as problems with his car and health issues . In connection with the applicant \u2019s health condition , a medical report was commissioned and on DATE a medical expert found that there had been nothing objectively justifying the applicant \u2019s absence from the hearings .","Owing to the inability of the NORP authorities to secure the applicant \u2019s presence , CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings against him were conducted in absentia . In those criminal proceedings he was convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging from DATE .","NORP In DATE , on the basis of an international arrest warrant , the NORP authorities extradited the applicant to GPE . Upon his extradition , the applicant was placed in LOC ( GPE u GPE ) where he started to serve his prison sentences .","Following the granting of his application for the reopening of the proceedings conducted in absentia , service of the applicant \u2019s sentence was discontinued on DATE . He was , however , remanded in pre - trial detention pending the criminal proceedings against him .","On DATE , after the applicant had deposited bail in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK \u2013 approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , ORG ( PERSON kazneni sud u GPE ) , in a case pending before it ( case no . Ko-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , found that the applicant should be released if he promised that he would not go into hiding , leave his place of residence in GPE without permission , hinder the proper conduct of the proceedings or reoffend . The applicant undertook to obey the conditions of his bail and ORG released him from detention , instructing the police to supervise the applicant \u2019s compliance with the imposed measures .","At the time when he deposited bail the applicant was still detained on the basis of a detention order of ORG ( PERSON ) in another criminal case against him ( case no . PERSON ) . Following the applicant \u2019s deposit of the bail before ORG , on DATE ORG found that he should be released from pre - trial detention as his presence could be secured by the measures imposed by ORG . On DATE , the applicant was released from detention . At the time he was represented before the domestic courts by the same representative as currently before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP In connection with the applicant \u2019s conviction in absentia in criminal case no . Ko-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on charges of fraudulent offering of loans to several individuals in which he had been sentenced to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , on CARDINAL DATE ORG imposed an administrative travel ban on the applicant by ordering ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova PERSON ) , pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , to confiscate the applicant \u2019s existing travel document and not to issue a new one to him .","Following the setting aside of the applicant \u2019s conviction in absentia and the reopening of the criminal proceedings on the basis of his application , on DATE ORG informed ORG that the applicant \u2019s travel ban was to remain in force pending the criminal proceedings against him . The applicant was also remanded in pre - trial detention on the grounds of a risk of absconding related to his previous conduct by which he had sought to escape trial .","On DATE the decision on the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was set aside on the grounds that the maximum period for pre - trial detention had expired .","On DATE ORG informed ORG that the applicant \u2019s travel ban pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG should still remain in force . The same instruction was issued again on DATE .","Meanwhile , following a retrial , on DATE the applicant was found guilty in the above criminal proceedings on charges of fraud and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . Based on the applicant \u2019s appeal the case was referred to ORG PERSON ) , as the competent appeal court in the case .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to have the administrative ban on him obtaining travel documents lifted , arguing that his medical condition had deteriorated and that he urgently needed heart surgery . He contended that he did not have health insurance in GPE , but only in GPE , and that he did not have sufficient financial means to pay for surgery in GPE . He therefore asked for permission to go to GPE for a short period so he could have the surgery . He also pointed out that he had been released from detention on bail and under preventive measures , which , in his view , made the administrative ban at issue obsolete .","As he received no reply from ORG , in DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( ORG pravosu\u0111a PERSON ) and again urged ORG to examine his application . Meanwhile , his medical examination of DATE indicated that he should have the required heart surgery within DATE .","Following his complaint , the applicant received a reply from ORG informing him that the case file had been forwarded to ORG , as the competent appeal court , and that the matter would be examined .","In DATE the applicant asked PERSON to decide upon his application . On DATE PERSON replied by an email that it was not competent to decide on the application and that it should be examined by ORG , which had issued the ban .","On DATE PERSON dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the first - instance judgment of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . His conviction thereby became final .","Following the finalisation of the applicant \u2019s conviction , on DATE the case was forwarded to a sentence - execution judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) in order to make the arrangements for the applicant \u2019s service of his prison sentence .","Notwithstanding the repeated attempts by the sentence - execution judge and the police to locate the applicant , he remained unavailable to the NORP authorities . In DATE an international arrest warrant and a NORP arrest warrant were issued against him .","At present the applicant is still at large .","In addition to the above - noted administrative travel ban in case no . Ko-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , an administrative travel ban was also ordered in ORG case no . Ko-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The proceedings in that case are still pending .","The criminal proceedings against the applicant in ORG case no . K-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL are still pending ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Other criminal proceedings against the applicant in a case before ORG ( case no . K-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) are still pending .","According to the applicant , on DATE he was asked to come for an interview to a police station where he was questioned about his complaints submitted to the ORG .","According to the information provided by the ORG , the police were acting upon the media reports that the applicant had effectively lived in GPE but maintained his registered residence in GPE since DATE .","In this connection the police attempted several times to find the applicant at his registered address in GPE but he could not be located . Eventually , he appeared at the police station with his lawyer and gave a statement concerning his residence .","A report on the applicant \u2019s interview of DATE contains his statements concerning his residence . According to the report , the applicant was neither questioned on nor did he give any statement concerning his application before the ORG .","According to a report by ORG ( ORG zdravlja PERSON ) of DATE , provided by the Government , the applicant had health insurance in GPE in the period between DATE until DATE as a person deprived of his liberty ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Thereafter he had an opportunity to apply for free health insurance within DATE of his release in accordance with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Moreover , he had an opportunity to apply for comprehensive health insurance but he would have needed to pay certain due instalments and further instalments in the amount of MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The health insurance under any of the noted grounds would also cover the heart surgery which had been indicated to the applicant . Such heart surgery could be performed in ORG in GPE and ORG , and in the PERSON and ORG .","The relevant part of ORG o putnim ispravama hrvatskih dr\u017eavljana , ORG nos . ORG , DATE , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) reads :","\u201c An application for a travel document shall be denied to an applicant in respect of whom there is a justified suspicion that he or she will :","Avoid his or her participation in the criminal proceedings or the enforcement of a judgment by which he or she was sentenced to a sentence of imprisonment DATE ... - upon a request by the competent court , ... \u201d","The Mandatory Health Insurance Act ( Zakon o obveznom zdravstvenom osiguranju , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and GPE ) in its section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that all individuals deprived of their liberty shall have health insurance . Paragraph CARDINAL(c ) of the same section provides that every individual who has been deprived of his or her liberty shall be given health insurance if , within DATE following release , he or she applies for it . LAW provides that health insurance should cover the cost of specialist treatment and hospitalisation .","Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o zdravstvenoj za\u0161titi , ORG nos . CARDINAL with further amendments ) provides that urgent medical treatment for individuals residing in GPE without health insurance and sufficient means to pay for their treatment shall be paid for from the ORG budget .","Under section CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o prebivali\u0161tu , ORG nos . CARDINAL and ORG ) the police have the right to check whether an individual is residing at his or her registered residence in GPE , and to institute the procedure for his or her striking out from the register of residence if he or she does not live at the registered residence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158946","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF K\u00c1ROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant took up the position of pastor in ORG ( ORG ) . As of DATE , he served in the parish of ORG . His rights and obligations as well as his remuneration were set out in an appointment letter ( lelk\u00e9szi d\u00edjlev\u00e9l ) issued by the parish presbyters .","On DATE the applicant was informed that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against him for stating in a local newspaper that ORG subsidies had been paid unlawfully to a NORP boarding school . Meanwhile , on DATE the first - instance ecclesiastical court had suspended the applicant \u2019s service with immediate effect until a decision on the merits , for a maximum of DATE . The applicant received a letter stating that he was entitled , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Statute no . I of DATE of ORG , to PERCENT of his service allowance during the period of his suspension .","On DATE the first - instance ecclesiastical court removed the applicant from service , as a disciplinary measure . On an unspecified date , the second - instance ecclesiastical court upheld that decision and terminated the applicant \u2019s service with effect from DATE .","On DATE the applicant took his case to ORG , seeking the payment of PERCENT of his service allowance and other benefits to which , in his view , he should have been entitled during the period of his suspension . Arguing that his suspension had reached its statutory maximum duration on DATE , he also sought the payment of the whole service allowance from that date until the termination of his service , that is , DATE . He argued in substance that his ecclesiastical service was analogous to employment , referring to tax rules to that effect ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG discontinued ( megsz\u00fcntette ) the proceedings , holding that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the applicant \u2019s claim . It considered that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Statute no . I of DATE of ORG , ORG service with the ORG was regulated by ecclesiastical rules , whereas laymen \u2019s employment with the ORG was governed by ORG . Accordingly , since the dispute before it concerned the applicant \u2019s service as a pastor , the provisions of LAW were not applicable in the case , and there existed no judicial avenue before the ORG courts to decide on his claims .","The Pest County Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant did not apply for a review to ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil - law claim against ORG . His claim was based in the first place on sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the [ old ] Civil Code and on the agency contract he had allegedly concluded with the ORG . He maintained that for the period from DATE ( that is , the date when the suspension allegedly became unlawful ) until DATE ( that is , the date of termination of his appointment ) he was entitled to a fee for his services , which corresponded to the service allowance set out in his appointment letter . He thus sought enforcement of the contract . Alternatively , he based his claim on sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the [ old ] Civil Code and on the breach by ORG its contractual obligations under the agency contract . He argued that by not paying him the allowance due for the period DATE and DATE , the ORG had failed to fulfil its contractual obligations . He thus claimed damages , amounting to the loss of service allowances to which he would have been entitled under the contract for the above - mentioned period .","The Pest Central District Court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim on the grounds that no contractual relationship had been established between the parties under civil law . In the court \u2019s view , the claim had no basis in civil law . It therefore did not embark on an assessment of the applicant \u2019s secondary claims , such as liability for breach of contract or recognition of debt .","ORG upheld the first - instance decision on appeal , reasoning that ORG had no standing in the proceedings , since the applicant had been appointed by the parish of ORG , a separate legal entity .","The applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG . By its decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG quashed the final decision and discontinued ( megsz\u00fcntette ) the proceedings . It stated as follows :","\u201c ... In order to determine the rules applicable to the agreement ( meg\u00e1llapod\u00e1s ) in question and to the implementation of the rights and obligations arising from it , it is necessary to have regard to the very purpose of the agreement underlying the plaintiff \u2019s actual claim as well as the elements thereof defining the parties\u2019 rights and obligations . The first - instance court rightly stated in its assessment that the agreement serving as the basis of the applicant \u2019s claim was not an agency contract regulated by civil law or concluded by and between parties enjoying personal autonomy in the marketing of [ goods and services ] . The plaintiff was appointed as a pastor in an ecclesiastical procedure , and the obligations of the respondent were defined in an appointment letter by the assembly of presbyters . The parties established between themselves a pastoral service relationship , regulated by ecclesiastical law .","Under LAW ) of Act no . DATE on Freedom of Conscience and Religion and on Churches , the ORG is separated from the ORG . Under sub - section ( CARDINAL ) , no State coercion can be used to enforce the internal laws and regulations of Churches .","Relying on the above provisions , the applicant can make a claim under the ecclesiastical law before the relevant bodies of ORG . The fact that the agreement concluded under ecclesiastical law resembles a contractual agreement under LAW does not prompt ORG jurisdiction or the enforceability of the claim in a judicial procedure within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW . ( In the given case the basic elements of an agency contract and the conclusion of such a contract could not be established either . )","The labour court reached the same conclusion in the earlier proceedings when assessing the claim under the ORG labour law and dismissing its enforcement in judicial proceedings .","The first - instance court was right to point out that as the impugned agreement lacked a civil - law legal basis , the court could not examine the applicant \u2019s secondary claim ( compensation for breach of contract ) . On the basis of the reasoning above , there were no grounds to adjudicate on the claim on the merits .","ORG accordingly quashes the final judgment , including the firstinstance judgment , and discontinues the proceedings under sections CARDINAL ) ( a ) and CARDINAL ( a ) of the Code of Civil Procedure ... \u201d","This decision was served on the applicant at some point in time after DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141179","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GHEORGHE PREDESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence . Since his sentence began , he has been imprisoned in a number of prisons in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was placed in pre - trial detention on suspicion of murder .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","According to the information provided by ORG ( PERSON a PERSON , the \u201c ORG \u201d ) , from his arrest to DATE the applicant was mainly held in PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE Prisons . Every DATE he spent DATE in a prison hospital , in CARDINAL of PERSON , PERSON or ORG .","During the reporting period , the applicant was transferred CARDINAL times between these QUANTITY facilities ; CARDINAL of these transfers were to the psychiatric wards of prison hospitals .","The applicant alleged that in all of the prisons in which he had been held other inmates had tried to poison his food and to beat him to death , and had been encouraged to do so or even helped by the prison authorities .","On DATE , while in detention , the applicant was diagnosed with delusional disorder , a type of psychosis . Psychiatric treatment in ORG was recommended .","According to the official prison records , each time the applicant was admitted to a prison hospital the diagnosis was confirmed . DATE , each time he was discharged from prison hospital he was prescribed medication for his psychiatric disorder . It is mentioned in the official prison records that he refused to accept the diagnosis and to take his medication . For this reason , he was on each occasion discharged from hospital and transferred back to prison .","DATE the applicant spent CARDINAL periods of DATE and CARDINAL period of DATE in ORG . He was discharged from hospital each time , it being considered that no medication was needed for his psychiatric condition . Following a further period of admission to ORG in DATE , he was given medication again .","On several occasions the applicant reported to the authorities that the other inmates were trying to poison him . According to him , instead of receiving an answer to his complaints , he was transferred each time to a psychiatric hospital . He also asked to be placed in a cell alone , in order to prevent other attempts at poisoning him .","According to the information provided by the ORG , the quality of food was tested DATE , and water quality was tested periodically . The results were satisfactory . The applicant was never admitted to the infirmary with symptoms of poisoning .","NORP In DATE , in FAC , he was transferred , at his request , to the maximum security wing of that prison , where he shared a room with CARDINAL others . While he was there , the applicant nevertheless chose to sleep in a small bathtub ( measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ) in the unheated bathroom from DATE to DATE , as he feared that his cellmates were trying to poison him while he was asleep .","The applicant lodged criminal complaints against the prison guards , the doctor and the governor of ORG , whom he accused of improper behaviour . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG decided not to bring a criminal prosecution . It noted that there was no evidence that prison officers had encouraged the inmates to poison or beat the applicant . The prosecutor also noted that the applicant had never sought medical help in prison for any poison - related symptoms and that he had never been in conflict with the other inmates or with the wardens . The prosecutor took account of the fact that the applicant had been diagnosed with mixed delusional disorder and that he had been compulsorily admitted to hospital several times , but discharged DATE , because he had refused to acknowledge the illness or to receive treatment .","Upon receiving the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE , the applicant asked to be examined by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to prove that he was not mentally ill .","In FAC , the applicant chose to sleep on the toilet seat to avoid the alleged poisoning and used to wake up in the middle of the night to rinse his mouth , being certain that he had been poisoned in his sleep . According to the official prison records , the most difficult stage of his detention in FAC was in DATE , when he repeatedly complained that the administration was promising benefits for inmates if they poisoned his food and water .","In DATE the applicant went on hunger strike to force the prison administration to place him alone in a cell . The judge delegated by the court of appeal to supervise the observance of ORG rights for the purpose of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the execution of sentences ( \u201c the postsentencing judge \u201d ) visited him and explained that his request could only be met if there were places available in individual cells , which was not the case at that time . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the post - sentencing judge determined that it was appropriate for the applicant to be kept in common dormitories but asked that he be seen DATE by a doctor during his hunger strike , to ensure that his life was not endangered .","NORP In DATE , a similar request to be placed alone was denied by ORG , as there were no individual cells available .","NORP The applicant asked to be transferred to ORG , in a single room under medical supervision , from DATE . His request was refused , as it was considered that the conditions of detention in FAC were appropriate .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the ORG administration responded to inquiries by the ORG concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations of poisoning , explaining the applicant \u2019s mental health problems . In the letter of DATE they also informed the ORG that the applicant was not \u201c a person in need \u201d who required the help of another person , as he could take care of himself , notably wash and feed himself .","At the end of its investigation , the ORG informed the applicant that his allegations remained unfounded .","The applicant lodged similar complaints with the post - sentencing judge .","On DATE such a complaint concerning the situation in FAC was dismissed as unfounded . On DATE the postsentencing judge dismissed a similar complaint concerning ORG as unfounded .","On DATE , while in PERSON , the applicant was involved in a violent incident .","According to the applicant , he was beaten up by CARDINAL inmates and stabbed in the lungs , kidneys , spleen and other organs by PERSON was only taken to the doctor DATE after the incident and never received a copy of the medical certificate . Despite the applicant \u2019s complaints ORG was never punished for the attack .","According to the official prison records , the applicant was found injured by a guard and immediately taken to the prison infirmary , where he refused to be bandaged . As a consequence , he was immediately taken to a civilian hospital . Later on , he was also examined by a forensic doctor , who confirmed the existence of lesions and established that the applicant needed DATE of medical care but that his life had not been endangered .","During disciplinary proceedings opened in the prison , the applicant refused to give statements or to get acquainted with the official reports . On DATE the disciplinary commission punished ORG with CARDINAL days\u2019 isolation . On DATE the same disciplinary commission exonerated the applicant of any responsibility for the incident ; a copy of this decision was forwarded on DATE to the applicant .","No criminal complaint was filed with respect to that incident ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147716","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"PETRA\u015eCU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against a third party seeking the cancellation of the sale contract with a maintenance clause for her apartment . During the proceedings before the first and second - instance courts , the applicant was assisted by a legal representative of her own choosing .","By an interlocutory judgment ( \u020bncheiere de \u015fedin\u021b\u0103 ) of DATE ORG adjourned the proceedings to , inter alia , allow the applicant to specify the value of the object of the dispute , in order for the court to be able to determine its competence ratione materiae and the appropriate form of appeal that could be lodged against the judgment .","At a hearing on DATE the applicant submitted to the firstinstance court that the tax value of the apartment , namely CARDINAL NORP lei ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , was the value of the object of the dispute .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action as ill - founded on the basis of the available documents , submissions and testimonial evidence . The operative part of the judgment expressly stated that it was amenable to appeal within DATE of notification .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the firstinstance court \u2019s judgment without providing reasons .","On DATE the applicant also lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against the first - instance court \u2019s judgment , for which she did provide reasons .","At a hearing on DATE before ORG the applicant argued that the market value of her apartment was PERSON CARDINAL ( approximately CARDINAL,CARDINAL MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE , after hearing submissions from both parties , ORG changed the applicant \u2019s appeal to an appeal on points of law and referred the case to a bench of CARDINAL judges competent to examine such appeals by virtue of LAW ) of LAW . It held that on DATE the applicant had expressly informed the first - instance court of the value of the apartment , which had not been contested by the third party . In addition , the relevant civil procedure rules and the principle of lawfulness did not allow the parties to choose the form of appeal they wished to lodge against a judgment .","On DATE the ORG heard submissions from both parties on whether the applicant had provided reasons for her appeal on points of law within the statutory time - limit .","On DATE the applicant submitted written observations to ORG . She reiterated her argument that the value of her apartment was PERSON CARDINAL,CARDINAL and contended that the second - instance court had wrongfully reclassified her appeal . In addition , she contended that she had submitted the reasons for her appeal within the statutory time - limit .","By a final judgment of DATE ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , declared the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law invalid . It held that she had not submitted her reasons for it within the statutory time - limit . Moreover , there was no public interest justifying the invalidation of the judgment . Furthermore , the appropriate form of appeal that could be exercised by the parties was prescribed by law and not the judge examining the case . Consequently , the fact that the first - instance court had wrongfully identified the form of appeal that could have been exercised by the applicant did not exempt her from lodging the appropriate form of appeal and from submitting her reasons for it within the statutory time - limit . The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment and argued , inter alia , that at the time of initiating the proceedings against the third party the domestic legislation on judicial tax had not classified her action as a pecuniary type of action . It was only on DATE that the domestic legislation on judicial tax had been amended and the classification had changed . Also , the second - instance court could have ordered an expert report to determine the value of the apartment , given that the applicant had expressly informed the same court that the value in question was in excess of PERSON CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as inadmissible . It held , inter alia , that the judgment in the interest of the law ( recurs \u020bn interesul legii ) delivered by ORG on DATE had considered that the type of action opened by the applicant against the third party was pecuniary in nature and that the provisions of LAW ) of LAW therefore applied . In addition , ORG had lawfully interpreted the applicant \u2019s clear and repeated submissions that the value of the apartment in dispute was ORG .","Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) provided that failure to lodge any form of appeal within the statutory time - limit resulted in the deprivation of that right , except when the law provided otherwise or the party proved that it was impeded from doing so by unforeseen circumstances . In the latter case , the right could be exercised within DATE of the date the impediment ceased to exist .","Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provided that the application to initiate proceedings had to include a description of the object of the dispute as estimated by the claimant .","Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL provided that first - instance court judgments were amenable to appeal within DATE of the date of notification . Reasons for the appeal had to be submitted by the parties at the time of the first hearing before the court at the latest . Failure to submit the reasons for appeal within the allowed time - limit did not lead to its invalidation , but removed the ability to raise additional issues of fact and law that had not been raised before the first - instance court .","Articles DATE ( CARDINAL ) ( amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL , which entered into force on CARDINAL May CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL provided that judgments delivered in respect of disputes where the object of the dispute was valued at less than RON CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) were not amenable to appeal . Judgments not amenable to appeal were amenable to appeal on points of law ( recurs ) . An appeal on points of law could be lodged within DATE of the judgment being notified to the parties . Reasons for the appeal on points of law had to be submitted within the same DATE period , or it would be declared invalid .","Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provided that judgments in the interest of the law had no impact on existing judgments or on the situation of the parties involved in the proceedings . The solution adopted was binding on the domestic courts ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152259","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF M.S. v. CROATIA (No. 2)","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in L.","For DATE the applicant had been under the supervision of , and had been receiving various types of financial assistance amounting to some CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) per month from , a local social care centre .","NORP In DATE , the applicant \u2019s family doctor submitted to the social care centre a report on her medical treatment , stating as follows :","\u201c With regard to your question concerning PERSON state of health and treatment and my observations on her health problems ... I confirm that she has been my patient since DATE . She is a person with polymorphic health issues , and , in terms of the somatic aspect of her state of health , abdominal sensations related to the gynaecological area ( a gynaecologist has prescribed surgery , which the patient constantly refuses ) and thereby related anaemia \u2013 of course , treated by an alternative therapy .","Because of a number of other health issues ( frequent headaches , lumbar pain ) she has been sent for specialist examinations , which attested to a sufficiency of outpatient treatment , in the form of both medication and physiotherapy .","Unfortunately , the patient has her own peculiar interpretation of her health issues , on which she insists , and therefore I consider that the best help for her would be psychological \/ psychiatric treatment . Of course , this requires her consent , which so far could not be obtained . The continuity of the treatment is additionally hampered by the patient \u2019s change of her place of residence . Her visits to the doctor are random , and so are her wishes as to the scope and area of treatment .","The particular difficulty in the medical treatment of Ms [ ORG is related to her mental [ state ] . \u201d","On DATE the social care centre instituted proceedings in the competent court for divesting the applicant of legal capacity , which was CARDINAL of the issues giving rise to a case before the ORG in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","Following an expert report of CARDINAL DATE indicating that the applicant had been effectively engaged in psychiatric treatment , which had been progressing well , on DATE the social care centre withdrew the request to divest her of legal capacity .","On DATE the applicant went to see her family doctor complaining of severe lower - back pain . Her doctor , after having examined her , called the emergency health service and sent the applicant for some further medical checks .","The doctor who received the applicant in the emergency service found that her general condition was good , that she was conscious and well oriented , but that she had difficulty moving . The doctor made a working diagnosis of lumbago and sent the applicant for further medical checks by a neurologist .","The neurologist in the emergency service examined the applicant on DATE and found that the information she was giving was incoherent and disproportionate to her pain , and that she had not been taking her medication . He made a diagnosis of back pain and anxiety disorder , and sent the applicant for a further examination by a psychiatrist .","The applicant was then examined by a psychiatrist in the emergency service who after interviewing her found that she was making fanciful and confusing allegations of persecution by various doctors . The psychiatrist made a diagnosis of acute psychotic disorder , systemic delusional disorder and delusional dysmorphic disorder , and prescribed hospitalisation .","The applicant was immediately admitted to the psychiatric clinic of ORG bolni\u010dki centar NORP , PERSON za psihijatriju ; hereinafter : \u201c the hospital \u201d ) , a public health - care institution . The relevant parts of the admission record , in so far as legible , indicate as follows :","\u201c Date of admission : CARDINAL Date and time of hospitalisation : CARDINAL","...","Admission diagnosis : ... anxiety disorder","...","Patient \u2019s attitude towards the examination : refused examination by a psychiatrist ; requested a somatic examination","...","Psychological condition : conscious and well oriented , suspicious ... tense in the psychomotor sense ... distanced , cold , with ideas of ... persecution , control ...","Neurological condition : syndrome of back pain","...","Patient \u2019s attitude towards the hospitalisation : refuses","Consent : NO","...","Physical intervention : physical restraint , tying to a bed","... \u201d","In TIME of the same day , another doctor examined the applicant . The relevant part of the examination record reads :","\u201c The patient was hospitalised after an examination by Dr [ PERSON , and after having been treated in the [ emergency ward ] for persistant severe back pain ( documentation in attachment ) .","She was brought on a stretcher , tied down , maintaining conscience and orientation , negative , arguing , yelling , agitated , affectively dissolute , with a mind - flow disorder , substantively paranoid ideas . ...","Diagnosis : Acute psychotic disorder F CARDINAL.CARDINAL","Delusional disorder ...","ORG . ORG . according to the list . \u201d","According to the applicant , following her admission to hospital she was tied to a bed with CARDINAL belts tightened around her ankles and wrists , and forcefully injected with a strong drug . She was kept in that position throughout the night and felt severe pain in her back . Her left leg was restrained in such a position that the belts caused her additional pain . The room was small and had no windows . TIME the belts were removed and she was taken to another room in the psychiatric hospital .","According to the Government , following the applicant \u2019s admission to hospital she was given the usual treatment for patients in a state of psychotic agitation and was then placed in an isolation room . The room had a direct connection with the adjacent staff room and was under constant video surveillance . The room measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and the height of the ceiling was QUANTITY . It was equipped only with CARDINAL bed . It had a heating and air - conditioning system , as well as access to sanitary facilities . The belts used to restrain the applicant to the bed were specially adapted so as to avoid any injuries .","The Government further explained that the applicant had been tied to the bed in the isolation room from the time of her admission to hospital at TIME on DATE until TIME . She was then taken to a regular hospital room where she was again restrained until TIME . During that time her condition and all her needs were regularly monitored . After the initial period following the applicant \u2019s admission to hospital until her release , she was not restrained again .","The available medical records concerning the physical restraint used on the applicant in the hospital show that this method was used in the period between TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE . The relevant medical record monitoring the applicant \u2019s physical restraining , in so far as legible , reads as follows :"],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173369","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ISL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TRAUSTASON AND OTHERS v. ICELAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC , the second applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON and the third applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC . At the material time the first and second applicants were on the editorial board of the newspaper ORG and the third applicant was a journalist for DV .","On DATE , an NORP private limited company , ( hereafter \u201c the company \u201d ) , was declared bankrupt . The company was established in DATE and is one of the leading industrial companies in GPE in the production of plastic packaging material .","NORP In DATE the liquidator of the bankruptcy estate hired an accountancy firm to investigate the company \u2019s accounts .","On DATE the accountancy firm finalised a report indicating a suspicion of criminal misconduct by the board members . The chairman of the board , A , who was also one of the owners of the company , was an assistant professor at ORG at the time .","The liquidator reported the suspected criminal misconduct to the police . A holding company and a bank also reported the company and A to the police .","On DATE DV published a picture of A on its front page under the headline \u201c Black report on [ the company ] : Police investigate Assistant Professor \u201d . An article on the matter was printed on pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL . The third applicant was identified as its author . The headline of the article read \u201c Assistant professor entangled in police investigation \u201d and another picture of A appeared beside the headline . The article was based on information from the accountancy firm \u2019s report . It is not known how the applicants knew about the report and its contents . The article discussed inter alia A , who was a board member and CARDINAL of CARDINAL owners of the company and the former supervisor of the MBA programme and assistant professor of business studies at ORG . The article described the company\u00b4s situation with reference to the accountancy firm\u00b4s report . It stated that the report had concluded the company had paid for the CARDINAL expenditures , which were unlikely to be connected to the company\u00b4s operations . The report had also indicated that CARDINAL of his co - owners had known about the grave financial situation of the company long before it had been declared bankrupt in DATE . The report had concluded that the company\u00b4s assets had been partly expended when it was clear that it was insolvent . These assets had in fact been transferred to another company , owned by the CARDINAL co - owner . When the company was declared bankrupt on DATE the company owed approximately CARDINAL ORG ( approx . CARDINAL at the time ) to a large bank in GPE . The amount had increased significantly after the financial crisis in DATE .","On DATE A \u2019s lawyer received an email from a police prosecutor confirming that the liquidator \u2019s complaint had been received and was being \u201c examined \u201d and that CARDINAL other complaints received by the police were also under consideration . He stated that no formal decision had been taken to instigate a police investigation . A \u2019s lawyer sent this email to the first applicant and requested correction of the impugned statements . The first applicant refused his request .","On DATE A lodged defamation proceedings against the applicants and DV before ORG and requested that the statements published by DV , \u201c Police investigate Assistant Professor \u201d and \u201c Assistant Professor entangled in police investigation \u201d , be declared null and void and that the applicants be ordered to pay compensation , including expenses for publishing the final judgment .","The applicants and A were heard and the email of DATE from the police prosecutor to A \u2019s lawyer was submitted as evidence .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found that both disputed statements had been defamatory and ordered the applicants to pay CARDINAL GPE ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) to A in compensation for non - pecuniary damage , plus interest , ORG CARDINAL for the cost of publishing the judgment and ISK CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ORG ) for A \u2019s legal costs before ORG . The statements were declared null and void .","The judgment contained the following reasons :","\u201c ... According to LAW ) of the LAW everybody has the right to freedom of opinion and belief . However , Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW allows certain restrictions on the freedom of expression . It states that freedom of expression may only be restricted by law in the interests of public order or the security of the ORG , for the protection of health or morals , or for the protection of the rights or reputation of others , if such restrictions are deemed necessary and in agreement with democratic traditions . In Chapter XXV of LAW , freedom of expression is restricted in the interest of the rights and reputation of others . When deciding the limits of freedom of expression , the possibility of a public debate has to be guaranteed .","[ The applicants ] claim that the statements are true and refer to the principle that they can not be held liable for true statements . It is undisputed that , before the newspaper coverage , [ the police ] had been informed by the liquidator of a reasonable suspicion of criminal acts by the company \u2019s board members , of which A was one . It is also clear that the information given by the liquidator was based on [ the accountancy firm \u2019s ] report of DATE . An email of CARDINAL DATE from [ the prosecutor ] to [ A \u2019s ] lawyer stated that the liquidator \u2019s report was being \u201c examined \u201d [ \u201c til sko\u00f0unar \u201d ] . Furthermore , it was stated that CARDINAL other entities [ had reported , inter alia , A ] to the police and that those reports \u201c were also being considered \u201d [ liti\u00f0 til framangreindra k\u00e6ra ] . However , it is stated that no formal decision has been taken about a police investigation nor possible criminal acts defined .","[ The applicants ] base their defence on the fact that nothing in their statements , which [ A ] wants declared null and void , indicates that a formal decision had been taken to start [ a police ] investigation and that the wording of the statements should not be interpreted more widely than its general meaning indicates . Here it has to be taken into account that in general the media are required to base coverage on thorough research of the facts . Taking this into account , and having regard to [ the absence of a formal decision by the police to investigate ] [ the company ] and its board members , including [ A ] , the court can not accept [ the applicant \u2019s ] arguments . No police investigation had been instigated against [ A ] , thus the statements \u201c Police investigate Assistant Professor \u201d and \u201c Assistant professor entangled in police investigation \u201d were factually wrong , but both statements did in fact have the same meaning . It was not unreasonably difficult to verify whether such an investigation had in fact been opened . The wording of the statements was of such a nature as to make the reader believe that [ A ] was a suspect in a police investigation because of his criminal and punishable acts . This damaged [ A \u2019s ] reputation . Therefore , the court has to agree with [ A ] that [ the applicants ] violated Article CARDINAL of the Penal Code No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( Almenn Hegningarl\u00f6g ) by publishing the aforementioned statements . In the light of the aforesaid , and with reference to Article CARDINAL ) of LAW , [ A \u2019s ] request to declare the statements null and void is granted . However , there is no reason to impose punishment ; therefore [ A \u2019s ] request that [ the applicants ] be punished is rejected ... \u201d","On DATE the applicants appealed to ORG against ORG judgment .","By judgment of DATE ORG confirmed ORG judgment and ordered the applicants to pay , in addition , ORG CARDINAL for A \u2019s legal costs before ORG .","As to the reasoning , ORG stated :","\u201c ... The aforementioned email from [ the police prosecutor ] can only be understood as meaning that no investigation had been instigated on account of the CARDINAL reports [ to the police ] which are referred to in the email . There is nothing to indicate that such an investigation was initiated later and it will not be held against [ A ] that he did not provide confirmation of that during the proceedings as requested by [ the applicants ] .","With these comments , [ and ] with reference to ORG reasoning , ORG confirms the ORG decision on declaring the statements null and void and confirms the publication of the judgment in the next issue of ORG and the next online edition of ORG after the delivery of this judgment . The annulled statements were wrong and defamatory for [ A ] . When examining the coverage and the publication of pictures of [ the company ] and its representatives in the printed issue of ORG and in the online edition of [ DV ] , [ A \u2019s ] reputation was attacked , at a time when there were no grounds for it ... \u201d","NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE the Special Prosecutor notified another company representative that \u201c the investigation \u201d into the complaints against him and A had been closed and the case had been dismissed ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184816","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF DRIDI v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person);Violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-b - Preparation of defence)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the GPE ORG , after having served a summons on the applicant to appear at the address that he had at that time in GPE , convicted the applicant of assault and sentenced him to CARDINAL dayfines of QUANTITY ( ORG ) each and allowed him to pay his fine in instalments in the light of his economic situation . ORG had , at the applicant \u2019s request , authorised Mr DATE at that time still a law student DATE to act as defence counsel under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant and the public prosecutor lodged appeals . The prosecutor \u2019s appeal was directed merely against the sentencing . Thereafter , the applicant moved to GPE to work as a chef in a hotel and communicated his new address to the court .","On DATE ORG withdrew the authorisation of PERSON to act as defence counsel , while at the same time rejecting the application lodged by PERSON for the applicant to be released from the obligation to appear in person at the appeal hearing . This decision was served on the applicant in GPE .","Also on DATE ORG fixed the date for the oral hearing of the applicant \u2019s appeal to TIME on CARDINAL DATE . It decided to serve the summons on the applicant via public notification because the applicant had moved abroad . The summons was displayed on the court \u2019s noticeboard from DATE until CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE Mr PERSON learned by telephone of ORG decision of DATE to overturn ORG decision in respect of his authorisation to act as counsel for the applicant and of the appeal hearing having been scheduled for TIME . He applied by fax for the hearing to be adjourned , citing the fact that he was going to be out of town DATE . He furthermore asked that documents from the case file \u2013 in particular the public prosecutor \u2019s appeal \u2013 be sent to him . The presiding judge ordered that a copy of that appeal and of the decision to serve the summons of the applicant by public notification be sent to the applicant \u2019s lawyer . This proved impossible , as the lawyer \u2019s fax machine had no receiving function . The lawyer was offered access to the file at the courthouse DATE at TIME ( that is to say immediately before the hearing ) , which he declined , stating that he would be out of town .","On DATE ORG refused , in a separate decision , an application lodged by the applicant \u2019s lawyer for the appeal hearing to be adjourned . It stated that the lawyer had waived his right to be summoned within the respective time - limit because he had known about the date of the appeal hearing ( as evidenced by his fax of DATE ) , and that the properly summoned applicant had failed to appear without providing any reason . Simultaneously , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal without an assessment of the merits , in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , because he had not appeared at the appeal hearing ( without any sufficient excuse , and despite having been summoned ) , nor had he been represented by a lawyer in a permissible manner .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for the restoration of the status quo ante . It found that the requirements for the serving of a summons by means of public notification , as set out in LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , had been met . The applicant \u2019s lawyer had waived his right to be summoned , and his application for an adjournment had not relied on the failure to comply with the time - limit for serving a summons but had rather invoked scheduling problems , which he had not described in greater detail .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision . It considered that the applicant had been properly summoned to the appeal hearing because the requirements for service by public notification , as set out in LAW , had been met . The summons to attend the hearing before ORG had been served on the applicant \u2019s previous address in GPE and he had lodged the appeal in question . As regards his interest in having ORG judgment reviewed , it had been his responsibility to ensure that it was possible for the summons to appear at the appeal hearing to be served in GPE . As a result of his move to GPE it had not been possible to serve the summons at his previous address in GPE . It had thus been acceptable for the summons to be served by public notification . There had been neither an obligation to undertake an attempt to serve the summons at the applicant \u2019s new address abroad prior to serving it via public notification nor one to notify him at that address that the summons had been served by public notification . The applicant had also not specifically authorised ( under the first sentence of Article LAW ) his lawyer to receive summonses ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Moreover , the applicant had not convincingly shown that he had been prevented through no fault of his own from appearing at the appeal hearing , as required by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , because the applicant \u2019s lawyer had not provided an affidavit to support his claim that he had advised the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE , that the latter did not need to attend the hearing because he had not been summoned . As his appearance in person had been ordered ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it had not been possible to carry out the appeal hearing in his absence .","On DATE ORG rejected an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE as ill - founded , finding that the review of ORG judgment had not revealed any legal errors that had been detrimental to the applicant .","On DATE ORG declined to consider a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant , without providing reasons ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE .","Following communication of the case and unsuccessful friendly settlement negotiations , on DATE the Government informed the ORG of their intention to resolve the issue raised by the application . They produced a unilateral declaration , in which they acknowledged violations of LAW and\/or CARDINAL ( c ) , as well as LAW ( b ) and ( c ) of the LAW and offered to pay the applicant a sum to cover any pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses . The ORG requested that the ORG strike out the application in accordance with LAW .","By a letter to ORG DATE the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration . The aim he pursued with the present application was a reopening of the criminal proceedings against him and a subsequent acquittal . He argued that , under domestic law , such a reopening could not be achieved if the ORG struck the case out of its list , but required a judgment finding a violation . Furthermore , the compensation offered was insufficient .","By a submission of CARDINAL DATE the Government confirmed that there was DATE and in fact , there still is \u2013 no case - law of the domestic courts regarding whether LAW CARDINAL of LAW , which provides for the reopening of criminal proceedings following a judgment of the ORG finding a violation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , also applies to violations acknowledged by the Government by way of a unilateral declaration . This question was for the domestic courts to assess . They acknowledged that the provision had , in practice , been construed narrowly ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-b","6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168160","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"MINTKEN AND AYDIN v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant in the first case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr N. Noch , a lawyer practising in GPE . The applicant in the second case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The applicants and another coaccused were involved in call centre businesses . They were arrested on CARDINAL DATE and remained in detention until DATE when their detention was suspended . On DATE both applicants and the other accused were indicted on CARDINAL counts of commercial fraud as members of a gang . ORG allowed the charges in a modified form and heard the applicants\u2019 case over DATE as from DATE , hearing CARDINAL witnesses and experts . During the trial , the first applicant filed CARDINAL and the second applicant CARDINAL requests concerning the taking of evidence .","NORP In DATE the first applicant and his counsel requested the appointment of another counsel . However , the domestic courts dismissed the request and upheld the appointment of counsel for the first applicant .","On DATE the applicants were convicted . The first applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment ; the second applicant received a DATE prison sentence . All CARDINAL accused lodged an appeal on points of law .","The minutes of the hearing comprised over CARDINAL pages .","On DATE the judgment , which ran to CARDINAL pages , including CARDINAL pages specifying the details of the victims of the alleged fraud , was served on the defence . ORG held that it had been impossible to speed up the proceedings as the CARDINAL accused and counsel for the accused had made numerous applications , inter alia , CARDINAL requests to hear additional evidence , including applications to call CARDINAL witnesses . More frequent hearings had not been possible because the court had been confronted on DATE of the trial by new applications from the defence requesting termination and adjournment of proceedings , rectification of the transcript , consideration of new documents or other objections to the court \u2019s handling of the case . As a result , ORG saw no unreasonable delay attributable to the court , and no reason to reduce the sentences on that ground . However , in the sentencing of the applicants it took into account , in their favour , that the proceedings had been long .","On DATE counsel for the CARDINAL accused submitted their joint grounds for appeal on points of law to ORG , comprising CARDINAL pages , thus observing the onemonth timelimit prescribed by Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedures ( CCP ) ( Strafprozessordnung ) ( see domestic law , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Their submission included , among others , a complaint that the time to supply the reasons for their appeals on points of law was insufficient .","On DATE ORG made observations on the first applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law to which the first applicant responded on DATE . The relevant dates in the second applicant \u2019s case were not submitted .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeals on points of law as far as conviction and sentencing were concerned , finding them manifestly illfounded without providing further reasons .","On DATE and DATE ORG declined to consider the applicants\u2019 constitutional complaints without providing reasons ( file FAC . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL ) .","NORP The relevant provisions of the ORG concerning reinstatement of proceedings and appeals on points of law , as in force at the relevant time provided :","\u201c If a person was prevented from observing a timelimit through no fault of his own , he shall be granted a reinstatement of the proceedings upon application . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The complainant shall make a statement concerning the extent to which he contests the judgment and is applying for it to be quashed ( notices of appeal on law ) and shall specify the grounds .","( CARDINAL ) The grounds must show whether the judgment is being contested because of violation of a legal norm concerning the proceedings or because of violation of another legal norm . In the former case the facts containing the defect must be indicated . \u201d","\u201c Notices of appeal on points of law including the grounds for the appeal shall be submitted to the court whose judgment is being contested DATE after expiry of the timelimit for seeking the appellate remedy . If the judgment has not been served by expiry of that timelimit , the timelimit shall start to run upon service thereof . \u201d","\u201c The notice of appeal on points of law including the grounds therefor shall be served on the complainant \u2019s opponent if the appeal on points of law and the notices of appeal on points of law were submitted in time and in the prescribed form . The opponent may submit a written response within DATE . ... \u201d","It is well - established case - law of the criminal courts that the timelimit pursuant to LAW is nonextendable , with the exception of cases in which an admissible request to rectify the judgment is lodged before the end of the timelimit ( compare judgment of ORG of DATE , file no . CARDINAL StR CARDINAL ) .","Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz ) provides a remedy for unreasonably long proceedings and reads , as far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Whoever as the result of the unreasonable length of a set of court proceedings experiences a disadvantage as a participant in those proceedings shall be given reasonable compensation . The reasonableness of the length of proceedings shall be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the particular case concerned , in particular the complexity thereof , the importance of what was at stake in the case , and the conduct of the participants and of third persons therein . ...","( CARDINAL ) A participant in proceedings shall obtain compensation only if he has complained about the length of the proceedings to the court seized of the case ( censure of delay ) . ...","( CARDINAL ) ORG court action to enforce a claim under subsection ( CARDINAL ) can be brought at DATE after the filing of the censure of delay . The court action must be brought DATE following entry into final and binding force of the decision ending the proceedings , or following another manner of disposal of the proceedings . ... \u201d","Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , second sentence , of LAW , however , limits the leeway for the compensation court regarding unreasonably long criminal proceedings and reads , as far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ... Where the accused in criminal proceedings seeks compensation for excessive length of proceedings , the court of compensation shall be bound , in respect of the assessment of the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings , by a decision given by the criminal court . \u201d","On DATE ORG , in the case of an accused who had unsuccessfully requested the extension of the timelimit under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ORG , decided by a panel of CARDINAL judges not to accept the constitutional complaint for adjudication ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It held that , in general , the statutory onemonth timelimit laid down in Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG allowed ample time to supply the reasons for an appeal on points of law , even in difficult cases involving economic offences or NORP crimes . The complainant in that case had not substantiated why , in his individual case , the time available had not been sufficient . ORG further found that the complainant had not sufficiently discussed in his complaint whether , in a case in which the reasons for the appeal can not be drawn up within the statutory timelimit for reasons not attributable to the accused , redress might be found under the provisions governing the reinstatement of proceedings ( see Article CARDINAL ORG , paragraph CARDINAL above ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178372","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u013bUTOVA v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE a residential building maintenance services provider , PERSON , a limited liability company ( \u201c the plaintiff \u201d ) , brought a claim against the applicant for recovery of a debt for their services in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The DATE civil proceedings were instituted in that connection . The applicant disagreed ; she argued that she did not owe any money to the plaintiff \u2013 they had not concluded an agreement for maintenance services and she was free to choose another service provider . In those proceedings the applicant was represented by Mr S. GPE , who was not a lawyer .","On DATE a judge of ORG ( PERSON pils\u0113tas ORG rajona tiesa DATE hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) scheduled the first hearing to take place on DATE . During this hearing the applicant \u2019s representative requested additional time to examine the relevant legal norms and to obtain the relevant documents from the plaintiff . ORG postponed the hearing to allow both parties to \u201c prepare documents \u201d . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE the plaintiff applied to have the hearing postponed because the applicant \u2019s debt for services had in the meantime increased and the plaintiff had not yet settled the courts fees for the increased claim . The application was granted and the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE the plaintiff increased the amount of the claim and submitted the relevant documents . The applicant \u2019s representative applied to have the hearing postponed so as to examine those documents . The application was granted and the next hearing was scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the plaintiff increased the amount of the claim to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG MONEY ) and submitted more documents . The applicant \u2019s representative submitted written observations and some documents showing some debts that had been paid . ORG admitted them to the case file and scheduled the next hearing for DATE .","On DATE the plaintiff increased the amount of the claim and submitted more documents . The applicant \u2019s representative requested that more detailed information be provided in this connection . ORG ordered the plaintiff to provide observations by CARDINAL DATE and scheduled the next hearing for DATE .","On DATE ORG informed both parties that another judge was taking over the case ; the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE both parties pleaded their case . ORG ordered the plaintiff to provide more detailed information and scheduled the next hearing for CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative applied to have the hearing postponed as he had only received the relevant documents on DATE . The application was granted and the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative pleaded the case . He argued that the service charges which the applicant had been asked to settle had been unclear . The plaintiff did not have all the relevant documents at hand and thus requested time to submit additional information . ORG ordered the plaintiff to submit the specific documents and scheduled the next hearing for DATE .","On DATE the plaintiff submitted the relevant documents and the applicant \u2019s representative applied to have the hearing postponed to examine them . His application was granted and the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .","The parties continued to plead their case in the hearing of DATE . ORG imposed a monetary fine on the applicant \u2019s representative for disobeying a judge \u2019s order . Following an application by the plaintiff the hearing was postponed because the applicant \u2019s debt for services had in the meantime increased ; they had not prepared the documents for the increased amount of the debt . The plaintiff was ordered to submit the relevant documents by an unknown date in DATE and the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE ORG held the last hearing in the case ; it refused a fresh application by the plaintiff to postpone the hearing once again . On DATE ORG dismissed the plaintiff \u2019s claim against the applicant as unsubstantiated \u2013 the plaintiff had not proved that the expenses had actually been incurred and that they had duly reflected the services provided . On DATE the plaintiff appealed against the judgment . On DATE a judge of ORG gave the plaintiff additional time to comply with the procedural requirements for lodging an appeal . On DATE the plaintiff rectified those deficiencies . On DATE the appeal was admitted and sent to ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa DATE hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","The first hearing before ORG was held on DATE . The plaintiff increased the amount of the claim because the applicant \u2019s debt for services had in the meantime increased to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and submitted the relevant documents . The applicant \u2019s representative disagreed with the increase of the claim . ORG admitted those documents to the case file and scheduled the next hearing for DATE .","On DATE ORG held the last hearing in the case . The plaintiff did not attend , nor did it inform the court of any reasons for its absence . ORG decided to proceed with the case . On DATE ORG partly allowed the plaintiff \u2019s claim and ordered the applicant to settle the debt in the total amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . Although the parties had not concluded an agreement for maintenance services , the applicant was obliged to pay for those services in accordance with domestic law . She could contest bills provided by the plaintiff , however she had failed to do so . The applicant had selectively paid some bills , but not all of them . ORG refused the plaintiff \u2019s claim to receive contractual penalty ( l\u012bgumsods ) for late payment but awarded default interest of PERCENT . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas PERSON ) remitted it to ORG as the applicant had not paid the security deposit for lodging it . Those deficiencies were rectified .","On DATE the ORG of ORG , following a preparatory meeting , refused to institute proceedings on points of law ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155194","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF FANZIYEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is the mother of the late Ms Madina Eneyeva , who was born in DATE and died in DATE .","On DATE PERSON was at a local market together with Mr A , her brother - in - law . CARDINAL of the stall - holders , Ms G.Zh . , suspected that ORG was planning to steal a skirt from her market stall . The CARDINAL women started a fight and exchanged a few blows . The police arrived and arrested the applicant \u2019s daughter on suspicion of theft . PERSON and Mr A. were both put into a police vehicle .","The parties have presented different accounts of the subsequent events .","According to PERSON , after ORG had been put into the police vehicle , an unknown police officer with the rank of lieutenant approached the vehicle , kicked ORG fifteen times on her legs and then left . Once at the police station , Mr A. was released . According to the applicant , upon arrival at the police station , her daughter was taken to the interrogation room situated on the second floor ( in LANGUAGE referred to as the \u201c third floor \u201d ) of the police station and was beaten by the police officers until she fainted . While ORG was unconscious , unspecified police officers threw her out of the window .","In the ORG \u2019s submission , it was alleged that during the drive to the police station ORG had unsuccessfully tried to escape from the police vehicle . Upon arrival at the police station , she had been escorted to the office of Lieutenant A.Zh . She had refused to answer his questions and had asked for permission to use a lavatory . Since there were no female police officers in sight , PERSON . escorted her to the lavatory on the second floor of the police station himself and waited for her in the corridor outside the locked door . Being unguarded , ORG jumped out of the window in an attempt to escape from police custody .","Ms GPE was then taken to hospital by ambulance . She underwent urgent surgery . At TIME on CARDINAL DATE ORG died of complex internal injuries to her head , body and extremities .","NORP The applicant then sought an investigation into her daughter \u2019s suspicious death and ill - treatment . According to the applicant , her daughter had no suicidal tendencies ; she had CARDINAL young children and a good home in recently obtained social housing .","On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE ( \u201c the town prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) were notified that ORG had jumped out of the window of the police station and then died .","On an unspecified date the town prosecutor \u2019s office opened preinvestigative inquiry no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL into the circumstances of ORG death .","On DATE a forensic expert issued a post - mortem report , according to which \u2012 apart from various injuries \u2012 ORG had bruises and scratches on her legs , those injuries being unrelated to the fall .","On DATE the deputy town prosecutor received and examined the applicant \u2019s complaint , in which she alleged that her daughter had been thrown out of the window by the police officers . He stated that the investigator in charge of pre - investigative inquiry no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL had not yet carried out all requisite investigative measures , in particular , that he had not questioned a number of persons : the police officers who had arrived at the market once PERSON . had reported the theft , those who had arrested ORG , the ambulance crew members and PERSON Nonetheless , the deputy town prosecutor concluded that \u201c there is nothing to suggest that ORG death on CARDINAL DATE in GPE was a violent one , as suggested in the complaint ; moreover , there is no proof that the police officers of PERSON were implicated in her death ... \u201d and decided to dismiss the applicant \u2019s complaint .","After a pre - investigation inquiry , on DATE an investigator from the Nalchik prosecutor \u2019s office concluded that the applicant \u2019s daughter \u201c had made another attempt \u201d to escape from the police station , and refused to institute criminal proceedings in relation to ORG death .","The above decision was later quashed by the PERSON prosecutor who considered that it was established that the applicant had sustained injuries at the hands of an unspecified police officer .","On DATE the investigator again refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s daughter \u2019s death . The decision was quashed by the deputy town prosecutor on DATE .","On DATE the investigator from the Nalchik prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute a criminal case to investigate the circumstances of ORG death .","On DATE the NORP - Balkariya prosecutor \u2019s office quashed the decision of DATE refusing to open an investigation into ORG death . However , no further investigation into the circumstances of the death appears to have taken place and no further decision regarding this appears to have been taken after DATE . On CARDINAL DATE , however , Lieutenant A.Zh . was subjected to disciplinary measures for failure to comply with the procedure concerning escorting detainees .","For reasons unknown , on DATE , while quashing the refusal to investigate the death of PERSON , the NORP Balkariya prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL to investigate an alleged abuse of powers by an unidentified police officer who had hit ORG on her legs inside the police vehicle at the market on CARDINAL DATE . They referred to the medical expert report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) according to which there had been bruises on Ms GPE \u2019s legs which had not been caused by the fall out of the window . The authorities relied on Article CARDINAL of GPE ( \u201c abuse of power by a public official \u201d ) . The circumstances of ORG death lay outside the scope of the investigation in question .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL .","On DATE a forensic expert carried out another examination of ORG body to establish the origin of the scratches and bruises on the legs and concluded that the injuries in question had been inflicted by blunt objects .","On DATE the investigation into the abuse of power was stayed for failure to identify those responsible . On DATE the investigation was resumed and eventually stayed again on DATE .","In view of the authorities\u2019 failure to institute a criminal investigation into ORG death , the applicant brought court actions on DATE and on DATE . Eventually , on DATE ORG held in favour of the applicant , finding that the investigator \u2019s failure to investigate had been unlawful .","On DATE the applicant again complained about the investigator \u2019s lack of action . On DATE the ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claim and held that the investigator \u2019s continued failure to comply with the judgment of DATE was unlawful .","On DATE the deputy prosecutor of GPE quashed the ruling of DATE staying the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Accordingly , on DATE the investigation was again resumed .","On DATE PERSON , a police officer on duty on CARDINAL DATE , was questioned as a witness . No essential information was obtained as a result of the interview .","In DATE the investigators tried to find eye - witnesses who had seen PERSON at the market on CARDINAL DATE , but in vain . Also in DATE the certificate of death of PERSON was included in the case file .","On DATE the investigators decided to carry out a forensic medical examination of the injuries found on ORG body by a group of experts on the basis of the documents in the case file . However , no information on the results of the examination had been made available by DATE .","On DATE Mr PERSON . , a police officer on duty on CARDINAL DATE , was questioned as a witness . He did not provide any relevant information .","On DATE CARDINAL shop assistants were questioned as witnesses and submitted that they had not seen the police using any force on Ms GPE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended owing to failure to find those responsible .","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON as a witness . PERSON was the wife of PERSON , a forensic expert who had examined ORG dead body in DATE . PERSON stated that her husband had left for GPE for a lengthy period of time .","On DATE the investigation was again suspended .","On DATE the investigation was resumed . An internal inquiry was instituted by ORG GPE regarding poor supervision of the investigation of case no . DATE . The investigation appears to be still pending .","NORP The applicant stated that after DATE she had not received any update on the progress of the investigation from the domestic authorities ."],"violated_articles":["2","3"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153966","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"GOJEVI\u0106-ZRNI\u0106 AND MAN\u010cI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The second applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The third applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . They are all NORP nationals and represented by PERSON , a lawyer practicing in Split .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP The President of the Section decided to grant the ORG \u2019s request for confidentiality of the case file documents ( Rule CARDINAL of ORG ) .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the ORG mother , ORG , was killed in the village of GPE in GPE , then occupied by NORP paramilitary forces .","The NORP authorities regained control over that territory in DATE .","On an unspecified date , the NORP police found photographs which the police of the NORP paramilitary authorities had taken on DATE in the course of an on - site inspection concerning the killing of the ORG mother .","It appears that the NORP authorities opened an investigation into the killing of the applicants\u2019 mother . On DATE the NORP police interviewed PERSON , ORG and DATE , neighbours of the applicants\u2019 late mother . None of them had any relevant information about her killing .","On DATE , on the order of an investigating judge of the \u0160ibenik ORG , the body of the ORG mother was excavated . The autopsy showed that she had been killed .","DATE and DATE the police interviewed CARDINAL people in connection with the killing of the applicants\u2019 mother , but none of them gave any relevant information .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicants brought a civil action for damages against the ORG in connection with the killing of their mother , before ORG . In the course of the proceedings before the first - instance court , at a hearing held on DATE , in the presence of the applicants\u2019 legal counsel and the applicants themselves , all the evidence gathered during the investigation was presented . On DATE the claim was dismissed . In their appeal of CARDINAL DATE the applicants alleged , inter alia , that the NORP authorities had failed to carry out any relevant measures in order to identify and punish those responsible for the killing of their mother . The first - instance judgment was upheld by the \u0160ibenik ORG on DATE , ORG on DATE and ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180483","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF AYMELEK v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","At the time of the events the applicant was serving in ORG as a lieutenant - colonel .","On DATE , CARDINAL May and CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was interrogated by the military prosecutor within the context of a criminal investigation initiated against him for embezzlement .","On DATE an arrest warrant was issued in respect of the applicant on suspicion of embezzlement .","DATE the applicant applied to ORG . He was placed in detention on remand on DATE by ORG .","On DATE , the applicant gave a power of attorney to a lawyer .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s brother PERSON , who was a lawyer , was also placed in detention on remand . On DATE the applicant \u2019s brother was released .","On DATE the General Staff Military Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG charging the applicant with embezzlement under LAW , involving in trade activities as a soldier under LAW and breaching LAW . CARDINAL ( Law on Disclosure of Assets and Fight Against Bribery and Corruption ) . The siblings of the applicant , PERSON and PERSON were also charged with the same bill of indictment with embezzlement and breaching LAW . CARDINAL .","On DATE the General Staff Military Prosecutor filed an additional bill of indictment and charged the accused with additional acts related to the crimes already stated in the first bill of indictment .","On DATE , the applicant submitted a petition with the prison authorities , complaining that he had not been able to see his brother PERSON ORG , who was also detained in remand . The applicant stated that he regretted that his brother was also in prison because of him , and requested to see him .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for embezzlement and being involved in trade activities as a soldier by ORG , composed of a military officer with no legal background and CARDINAL military judges .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE on procedural grounds and on the merits .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty for embezzlement and being involved in trade activities as a soldier , but reduced his prison sentence . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested from ORG to reopen the criminal proceedings alleging that a witness who had not been heard , was ready to give statements before the court . The applicant submitted that ORG written statements to ORG as well .","On DATE rejected the applicant \u2019s request for reopening of the criminal proceedings , on the grounds that the ORG statements did not have any evidential value , which could warrant a lesser sentence or the acquittal of the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162135","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"G\u0150BL v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr T. Gaudi - Nagy , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by Mr PERSON , Agent , ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant appeared at the main entrance of ORG in PERSON , for the purpose of demonstrating against Prime Minister PERSON and his government . He held a CARDINALxCARDINAL cm placard saying \u201c PERSON to resign ! Voluntary contribution pay - desk ; minimum MONEY \u201d , and he distributed flyers to the passers - by . The applicant had his CARDINAL children , respectively DATE , with him .","Upon a citizen \u2019s notice the police appeared to check the applicant \u2019s identity . He explained that he had been demonstrating on his own and that was the reason why he had failed to notify the authorities about the demonstration in advance . However , the police officers said he had been committing an infringement and obliged him to terminate the demonstration . The applicant obeyed , put all his belongings into his car and drove to Sopron Municipal Police Department , escorted by CARDINAL police cars on his way . He did so at the police\u2019","On DATE , shortly after his release , the applicant filed a complaint with ORG , complaining about the offensive style of communication of the police officers dealing with the incident , and about not taking TIME and not giving him the chance to indicate his objections . The chief officer of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint on DATE . Upon the applicant \u2019s appeal , PERSON Police Department upheld the decision . The applicant challenged the decision before FAC but his claim was dismissed .","On DATE the Sopron Municipal Police Department , acting as administrative authority , imposed a fine of MONEY ( MONEY ) on the applicant for the offence of misusing the right to assembly .","Upon the appeal of the applicant \u2013 in which he argued that he had not exercised his right to assembly as he was on his own \u2013 the Sopron ORG terminated the regulatory offence proceedings against the applicant on DATE . The court emphasised that the applicant had been exercising his right to freedom of expression but , as he was demonstrating on his own , he could not possibly commit the offence of misuse of the right to assembly .","In DATE the applicant lodged an action in damages against the Gy\u0151r - Moson - Sopron County Police Department , stating that the police had violated his rights to freedom of expression , to liberty and to human dignity , and claiming non - pecuniary damages in the amount of MONEY ( MONEY ) . The applicant argued that by escorting him to ORG and retaining him for TIME , the police officers had violated his right to liberty . Moreover , by their offensive style of communication , they had violated his right to dignity . He also asserted that the officers \u2013 by virtue of their intervention as such \u2013 had infringed his right to freedom of expression . Moreover , the police officers had acted wrongfully when not taking TIME or allowing the applicant to make objections .","On DATE the Gy\u0151r - Moson - Sopron County Court found that the applicant \u2019s act was to be considered as expression of political opinion . PERSON Police Department had violated his right to freedom of expression by seizing the objects used for the purposes of the demonstration . Apart from this , the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims . Although , as a finding of fact , it was established that the applicant had been called upon to follow the officers to ORG , the court found that he had been neither forced to go to ORG nor arrested . There had not been any evidence proving that the police officers\u2019 action was a coercive measure . The court was satisfied that the applicant had voluntarily driven to ORG , that DATE while inside \u2013 he had stayed in a public waiting room and his cell phone had not been seized . The court also noted that the applicant could not prove that his personal documents had been withheld during the time he spent at ORG . It had not been proved either that the applicant \u2019s right to dignity had been violated . Moreover , his right to a remedy was not infringed by not providing him with a pen and paper on site , as he was able to file a complaint later on . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim for non - pecuniary damages since the violation of right to freedom of expression \u2013 even if the claim was well - founded \u2013 did not , in the court \u2019s view , justify the awarding of non - pecuniary damages in the case .","The applicant appealed against the judgment . ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment in essence .","The applicant challenged this judgment before ORG . In his petition for review he reiterated that the police officers had violated his right to liberty since he had driven to ORG because of the express instruction given by the officers and he had not been able to leave the police GPE until his ORG cards had been restored to him .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment finding that there had not been any evidence proving that the police officers had pursued any coercive measure against the applicant . On the contrary , the police officers had escorted him to ORG because he had requested more information about the legal qualification of his act and that information could only have been provided there . The applicant had driven to ORG voluntarily and had not been deprived of his liberty . Neither could the applicant prove a violation of his right to dignity . Finally , ORG agreed with the first and second instance courts on the consideration that a violation of the right to freedom of expression \u2013 even if the claim was well - founded \u2013 did not justify the awarding of damages in the applicant \u2019s case ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160009","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BILBIJA AND BLA\u017dEVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE the ORG mother died after being admitted for respiratory problems to ORG ( Klini\u010dki bolni\u010dki centar Jordanovac ; hereinafter : the \u201c Hospital \u201d ) , a public health care institution .","An autopsy performed on DATE by ORG of ORG ( GPE za op\u0107u patologiju i patolo\u0161ku anatomiju PERSON fakulteta GPE ) indicated that the cause of death was a respiratory insufficiency leading to cardiac complications .","The applicants were informed of the results of the autopsy and the measures which had been taken in the treatment of their mother were explained to them .","According to the applicants , based on a mutual agreement , it was decided that the first applicant would pursue legal remedies concerning the death of their mother .","In DATE the first applicant met CARDINAL health inspectors at ORG ( ORG zdravstva ; hereinafter : the \u201c Ministry \u201d ) to whom she complained of their inability to obtain their mother \u2019s medical records and about the circumstances in which she had died . The inspectors , however , took no further action concerning these complaints .","On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG ( GPE lije\u010dni\u010dka komora ; hereinafter : the \u201c ORG \u201d ) that her mother had died in unclear circumstances which had severely affected her family . She also expressed her dissatisfaction with the functioning of the medical system and complained in particular of her own medical treatment .","Upon receiving the first applicant \u2019s complaint , ORG of ORG ( GPE za stru\u010dni nadzor Hrvatskw lije\u010dni\u010dke komore ; hereinafter : the \u201c Commission \u201d ) invited the first applicant to specify in respect of which doctor and medical institution she made her complaints .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the first applicant that it considered her complaints to be withdrawn as she had failed to specify them as requested .","On DATE the first applicant replied to the letter of the Commission maintaining that there must have been some misunderstanding with the correspondence she had received from them . She indicated that her complaint concerned ORG , its director doctor , ORG , and the head of the intensive care unit doctor , ORG The first applicant in particular submitted that her family had never received any relevant documents concerning their relative \u2019s death . A copy of this reply was sent to ORG .","After receiving the first applicant \u2019s complaint , ORG requested ORG to provide a report concerning her mother \u2019s death .","On DATE the ORG submitted a report to the Ministry concerning the medical treatment of the applicants\u2019 mother and the circumstances of her death .","On DATE the ORG forwarded all available documents to the ORG and requested a report on the actions taken with regard to the first applicant \u2019s complaint .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Commission informed the first applicant that it had not found any malpractice in the medical treatment of her mother .","The first applicant objected to these findings on DATE . She stressed that her family had never received any concrete document indicating the cause of death of their relative and that the letter which she had received from the ORG lacked the relevant reasoning .","On DATE the first applicant submitted further observations on her objection and on DATE she urged the ORG to adopt a decision on the matter .","On DATE ORG ( GPE odbor PERSON lije\u010dni\u010dke komore ) , as a second - instance body of the ORG , dismissed the first applicant \u2019s objection as ill - founded , upholding the decision of the Commission . It also informed the first applicant that she could challenge its decision by lodging an administrative action in ORG ( ORG ) .","After receiving the decision of ORG , the first applicant requested the ORG for an explanation concerning the procedure before it . On DATE she received a reply from the ORG indicating that she had been accordingly informed that she could lodge an administrative action in ORG and that there was no need for the ORG to communicate further with her concerning the matter .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an administrative action in the ORG challenging the decision of ORG . She argued that the bodies of the ORG had not replied to her submissions and had failed to properly assess the circumstances of her mother \u2019s death .","On DATE the first applicant urged ORG to examine her case . She received a reply from ORG on DATE indicating that due to a backlog at that court her case had still not been examined .","The applicant then complained to ORG ( ORG pravosu\u0111a PERSON ) about the manner in which her case was processed by ORG and on DATE ORG requested ORG for a report on the matter . ORG replied on DATE , reiterating its previous explanation as to the reason why the case had not been examined .","On DATE , upon another complaint by the first applicant , ORG requested ORG for a report concerning the progress of the case .","On DATE ORG ) , based on the first applicant \u2019s complaint , urged ORG to speed up the proceedings in her case .","On DATE ORG declared the first applicant \u2019s administrative action inadmissible on the ground that the decision of ORG was not an administrative decision concerning any of her rights or obligations or legal interests .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , complaining of the ineffectiveness of the proceedings before the lower bodies and her family \u2019s inability to obtain any concrete information about the circumstances of their relative \u2019s death .","On DATE the first applicant urged ORG to examine her case . Meanwhile she supplemented her constitutional complaint with further arguments and complaints , complaining in particular about the inordinate length of the proceedings in her case .","On DATE , the first applicant also asked ORG to allow her to inspect the case file .","In the meantime , the first applicant complained to various domestic authorities , including ORG , ORG of GPE ( PERSON ) and a Deputy in the ORG about the ineffectiveness of the domestic authorities\u2019 response to her complaints concerning her mother \u2019s death .","On DATE the Ministry , replying to a question of the Deputy , stressed that it had never taken any action within its competence concerning the applicants\u2019 case , although it had taken note of the proceedings before the competent bodies of the ORG and informed the first applicant of its findings with regard to the decisions of the ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint of DATE as ill - founded ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , upholding the decision of ORG . It also declared the applicant \u2019s additional complaints inadmissible as being lodged out of time and for non - exhaustion of the length of proceedings remedies . The decision of ORG was served on the first applicant on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) alleging medical negligence by unknown Hospital staff . In particular , the first applicant submitted that upon the admission of her mother to the ORG she had been given a drug to which she was allergic , which had caused an allergic reaction and further medical complications leading up to her death .","After lodging the criminal complaint , the first applicant inquired several times with FAC about the progress of the investigation .","On DATE the first applicant submitted a written request to ORG Attorney \u2019s Office urging it to examine her criminal complaint .","As she received no reply from the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG , the first applicant complained to ORG about the inactivity in processing her complaint .","Based on the first applicant \u2019s complaint , on DATE ORG requested a report from the State Attorney \u2019s ORG ( ORG odvjetni\u0161tvo PERSON ) concerning the case .","NORP Since it received no reply , on DATE ORG again urged ORG to produce a report concerning the proceedings at issue .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG informed ORG and the first applicant that FAC had requested an investigating judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) to commission an expert report concerning the circumstances of the applicants\u2019 mother \u2019s death . It also stressed that this fact should be known to the first applicant as she had been duly informed about the status of the proceedings when she had made an inquiry in FAC Attorney \u2019s Office .","After receiving this information , the first applicant made several inquiries in the GPE County Court concerning the status of the case . On DATE she was informed by that court that the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office had never requested any investigative actions concerning her criminal complaint .","Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG found that the first applicant \u2019s case file had been lost and ordered that it should be reconstructed .","The Zagreb Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG also ordered the police to conduct an investigation into the circumstances of the first applicant \u2019s complaint . In addition , it requested ORG to provide the autopsy report , and it commissioned an expert report concerning the circumstances of the applicants\u2019 mother \u2019s death .","On DATE the police produced a report on the interviews with the ORG mother \u2019s general practitioner and doctor ORG The latter denied any medical malpractice and administration of the drug to which the applicants\u2019 mother was allergic . His statement was confirmed by the ORG director , doctor ORG The police also obtained the relevant medical records concerning the medical treatment and death of the applicants\u2019 mother .","On DATE an expert , doctor GPE , produced a report indicating that the cause of death of the applicants\u2019 mother was a respiratory insufficiency leading to cardiac complications . The report did not indicate any medical malpractice on the part of the Hospital doctors .","On DATE the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG rejected the first applicant \u2019s criminal complaint on the ground that there was no reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed in the medical treatment of the ORG mother . The first applicant was instructed that she could take over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor .","On DATE the first applicant asked ORG Attorney \u2019s Office to provide her with a copy of the entire domestic case file .","DATE . On DATE , after she had received the relevant documents from the GPE Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG , the first applicant instituted criminal proceedings in ORG ( PERSON kazneni sud u GPE ) against doctor GPE on charges of medical negligence .","In the meantime , the first applicant complained to various domestic authorities about the ineffectiveness of proceedings before FAC Attorney \u2019s Office and on DATE she received a reply from the State Attorney \u2019s Office of GPE expressing its regrets for the protracted length of the proceedings dealing with her criminal complaint .","On DATE ORG requested ORG Attorney \u2019s Office to forward the relevant documents concerning the first applicant \u2019s case .","The documents were provided on DATE .","On DATE ORG invited the first applicant to amend her request to prosecute ( optu\u017eni prijedlog ) as required under the relevant domestic law concerning the factual and legal basis of the charges against doctor GPE","On DATE the first applicant submitted an indictment ( optu\u017enica ) against doctor GPE on charges of medical negligence .","As there was no progress in the proceedings , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant urged ORG to examine her case .","On DATE ORG commissioned an expert report concerning the medical treatment and death of the applicants\u2019 mother . It requested an investigating judge of ORG to coordinate that procedural action .","An expert report of CARDINAL DATE , drafted by doctors ORG and GPE , indicated that there had been no irregularity in the medical treatment of the applicants\u2019 mother . It further found that the drug , to which the applicant \u2019s mother was allergic , had neither been used nor indicated for use during her treatment on DATE . The experts also excluded the possibility that the ORG mother had died as a result of an allergic reaction .","The first applicant received the expert report on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant challenged the findings of the expert report , arguing that it had failed to examine all aspects of the medical treatment and death of her mother . The first applicant thus requested that the experts be ordered to re - examine and accordingly supplement their findings .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG returned the indictment to the first applicant , ordering her to institute an investigation before an investigating judge of ORG .","The first applicant complied with that order and on DATE requested that an investigation be opened before an investigating judge of ORG .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG questioned doctor ORG , who denied any medical malpractice maintaining that the drug to which the applicants\u2019 mother was allergic had neither been used nor indicated in her treatment .","On DATE the investigating judge expressed his disagreement with the first applicant \u2019s request for opening of an investigation and forwarded the case file to a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s request for an investigation on the ground of lack of evidence of medical malpractice . The first applicant challenged this decision by lodging an appeal before ORG ( PERSON ) .","Meanwhile , the first applicant complained to ORG about the length of the criminal proceedings and on DATE ORG found a violation of her right to a trial within a reasonable time and awarded her CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in non - pecuniary damage ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The decision of ORG was served on the first applicant on DATE .","The first applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , complaining of the ineffectiveness of the proceedings before the lower courts and their failure to elucidate the circumstances of her mother \u2019s death .","DATE . On DATE ORG declared the constitutional complaint inadmissible on the ground that the decisions of the lower courts did not concern any of her rights or obligations or any criminal charge against her . The decision of ORG was served on the first applicant on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a request for the reopening of the proceedings before ORG , alleging procedural flaws in the processing of her case .","ORG rejected the request as unfounded on DATE and this was upheld by ORG on DATE .","The first applicants also lodged a criminal complaint against the medical experts FAC and GPE on DATE alleging that they had provided false evidence . On DATE she received a reply from the GPE Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG indicating that it considered her criminal complaint unfounded in any respect ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158880","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ANNEN v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE the applicant , who campaigns against abortion , distributed leaflets in the immediate vicinity of the medical practices of anesthetists Dr M. and PERSON , who run a DATE clinic . Furthermore , the applicant deposited leaflets in all letterboxes in the vicinity of the DATE clinic .","The front page of the leaflets contained the following text in bold letters :","\u201c In DATE clinic Dr M.\/Dr R. [ full names and address ] unlawful abortions are performed \u201d ( \u201c In PERSON . M.\/Dr . NORP [ ... ] werden rechtswidrige Abtreibungen durchgef\u00fchrt \u201d )","Followed by an explanation set in smaller letters :","\u201c which are , however , allowed by the NORP legislator and are not subject to criminal liability . The attestation of counselling protects the \u201c doctor \u201d and the mother from criminal responsibility , but not from their responsibility before God . \u201d ( \u201c die aber der deutsche ORG erlaubt und nicht unter Strafe stellt . PERSON sch\u00fctzt PERSON \u201c und ORG , aber nicht vor der ORG . \u201c )","A box below contained the following text :","\u201c According to international criminal law : murder is the intentional \u201c bringing - to - death \u201d of an innocent human being ! \u201d ( \u201c PERSON den internationalen GPE : PERSON \u201d eines unschuldigen GPE ! \u201d )","On the back of the folded leaflet , the applicant quoted ORG leading judgment with regard to abortion ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as well as a statement by PERSON , the personal physician of PERSON and PERSON , dealing with the role of doctors in relation to voluntary euthanasia and abortion . He also cited section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Law on Conflicts in Pregnancy ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and asked readers to make use of their influence on those performing and assisting in abortions .","Furthermore , the following text appeared on the back of the folded leaflet :","\u201c The murder of human beings in FAC was unlawful , but the morally degraded ORG allowed the murder of innocent people and did not make it subject to criminal liability . \u201d ( \u201c PERSON in GPE war rechtswidrig , aber der moralisch verkommene NS - Staat hatte den GPE an den unschuldigen GPE erlaubt und nicht unter Strafe gestellt . \u201d )","Below this sentence the leaflet referred to the website \u201c www.babycaust.de \u201d . This website , which was operated by the applicant , contained , inter alia , an address list of so - called \u201c abortion doctors \u201d , in which the DATE clinic and the full names of PERSON and PERSON were mentioned . This list was accessible on the website under the link \u201c death or life\u201d\/\u201crequest for prayers for GPE \u201d ( PERSON f\u00fcr GPE ) .","Dr M. and PERSON filed a request for a civil injunction against the applicant . They submitted that only legal abortions were performed at DATE clinic . The applicant \u2019s leaflet created the erroneous impression that the abortions performed were contrary to the relevant legal provisions .","On DATE ORG granted the requested injunction and ordered the applicant to desist from further disseminating in the immediate vicinity of the DATE clinic leaflets containing the GPE names and the assertion that unlawful abortions were performed in the plaintiffs\u2019 medical practice . ORG further ordered the applicant to desist from mentioning the plaintiffs\u2019 names and address in the list of \u201c abortion doctors \u201d on the website \u201c www.babycaust.de \u201d .","ORG considered that the statements in the applicant \u2019s leaflet made the incorrect allegation that abortions were performed outside the legal conditions . This was not called into question by the further explanation that the abortions were not subject to criminal liability , as the whole layout of the leaflet was intended to draw the reader \u2019s attention to the first sentence set in bold letters , while the further additions were set in smaller letters with the intent of dissimulating their content . ORG further considered that by singling out the plaintiffs , who had not given him any reasons to do so , the applicant had created a socalled \u201c pillory effect \u201d . The allegations raised by the applicant seriously interfered with the plaintiffs\u2019 personality rights . It followed that the applicant \u2019s right to freedom of expression had to cede .","ORG considered that the same principles applied to the mentioning of the plaintiffs\u2019 names on the website entitled \u201c babycaust.de \u201d . This implied a connection between the plaintiffs and crimes which were , according to the applicant , comparable to the crimes committed by the NORP during the Holocaust , and was not covered by the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression and had thus not to be tolerated by the plaintiffs .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . It did not find it necessary to examine whether the text of the leaflets had to be qualified as a statement of facts or as an expression of opinion as , in any event , the applicant \u2019s freedom of opinion had to cede . ORG confirmed ORG assessment that the text in the leaflet implied that the plaintiffs performed unlawful actions . This was not called into question by the further explanations , as the average reader could not be expected to draw the distinction between the act of abortion which was justified under LAW and the act of abortion which was merely exempt from prosecution under LAW CARDINALa \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Seen from a layman \u2019s point of view , the text of the leaflet created the impression that the act of abortion , as permitted by the NORP legislator , amounted to unlawful homicide , or even to murder . The statement was at the very least ambiguous and had not to be tolerated by the plaintiffs .","Even if CARDINAL were to assume that the leaflet did not contain a wrong statement of facts , the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression had to cede . ORG reiterated that freedom of expression conveyed the right to express an opinion even in an offending , shocking or disturbing way . If the expression of opinion was part of a debate on matters of public interest , there was an assumption militating in favour of freedom of expression . However , in the instant case the applicant had created a massive \u201c pillory effect \u201d by singling out the plaintiffs , who had not given the applicant any reason to do so . The performance of abortions was criticised with harsh and rigid words . This was further aggravated by the Holocaust reference . ORG further noted that the applicant was not under any specific pressure to express his general criticism of the facilitation of abortions with such a massive violation of the plaintiffs\u2019 personality rights .","The Court of Appeal further considered that it had not been necessary for the plaintiffs to submit the exact content of the website , as this website was generally accessible and its content was thus known . It then went on to state :","\u201c The content of the webpage is likewise characterised by the fact that the defendant labels individuals , including the plaintiffs , \u201c abortion doctors \u201d and puts their actions on a level with the national - socialist Holocaust and with mass murder . Therefore , the plaintiffs\u2019 claim to compel the defendant to refrain from performing the impugned action must be granted . In that connection , the court refers to its above reasoning . Furthermore , the defendant himself admitted that he had , on the webpage , labelled the plaintiffs \u201c abortion doctors \u201d who are directly or indirectly involved in the performance of abortions . \u201d","ORG did not grant leave to appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request for legal aid , on the ground that the applicant \u2019s intended appeal on points of law lacked sufficient prospect of success .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the judgments of ORG , of ORG and against the decision of ORG . He complained , in particular , that the impugned decisions violated his right to freedom of expression .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a ORG of CARDINAL judges , refused to admit the applicant \u2019s complaint for adjudication for being inadmissible , without providing reasons ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . This decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a ORG of CARDINAL judges , granted a further constitutional complaint of the applicant dealing with another set of proceedings before ORG and ORG ( no . DATE ) . In this set of proceedings the courts had granted a civil injunction against the applicant , as ORG and ORG had done in the present case . They had ordered him , inter alia , to desist from disseminating leaflets similar to the ones now in dispute in the immediate vicinity of another gynaecological practice and to desist from publishing on his webpage the information that the doctor in question had performed or assisted in \u201c unlawful \u201d abortions .","ORG held that the civil injunction had violated the applicant \u2019s right to freedom of expression as provided in LAW ) because the civil courts had not sufficiently taken into account that the doctor , who had himself publicly announced on the Internet that he performed abortions in his gynaecological practice , had not been confronted with an extensive loss of social reputation as a result of the applicant \u2019s activities . Furthermore , it underlined that the applicant had only blamed the doctor for having carried out allegedly immoral acts , but had not reproached him for having committed acts which were subject to criminal liability or forbidden by law in a wider sense . ORG moreover insisted on the fact that the applicant had contributed to a highly controversial debate of public interest and pointed out that , against the factual background of that case , the courts had not sufficiently clarified why and to what extent the special relationship between the doctor and women searching for counselling and medical treatment in the practice might have been jeopardised ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181844","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KONOROY AND GRYTA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171502","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SITNIK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144387","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"CHENTIEV v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr NORP Chadidovich Chentiev , is a NORP national of NORP ethnic origin . He was born in DATE and is detained in PERSON prison .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant arrived illegally in GPE from GPE in DATE . He unsuccessfully applied for asylum . The NORP authorities found that his extradition to GPE for the purpose of his criminal prosecution there was admissible .","On DATE the Court declared inadmissible application no . CARDINAL in which the applicant complained that his extradition to GPE would amount to a breach of his rights under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and under LAW No . CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant lodged a new application with the same subject - matter as application no . CARDINAL while relying on additional facts . In parallel the applicant filed a fresh asylum request with reference to those facts .","On DATE the President of the Fourth Section to which the case had been allocated decided to indicate to the respondent Government , under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , that the applicant should not been extradited to GPE . On DATE ORG ) decided to prolong under further notice that interim measure .","On DATE the ORG decided to give notice of the application to the Government of GPE and to invite the Government to submit written observations on the complaints that the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE would amount to a breach of his rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention . The ORG declared the remainder of the application inadmissible .","As regards the domestic proceedings on his fresh asylum request , ORG , in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , dismissed the applicant \u2019s action against the decision given by ORG .","The applicant filed an appeal through his legal representative .","In CARDINAL letters of DATE the applicant informed ORG that he had terminated the authority of his representative and withdrawn his action for review of the administrative decisions on his asylum request .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings on that ground without addressing the merits of the case .","NORP In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant informed the ORG that he no longer wished to pursue the application and that he had petitioned for the domestic proceedings to be discontinued . The respondent Government confirmed that information .","On DATE the ORG reconsidered the application in the light of the information submitted by the parties and decided to lift the interim measure under Rule CARDINAL of ORG previously indicated in respect of the applicant .","In a letter which was delivered on DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he and his family were threatened by NORP authorities in order to make him return to GPE voluntarily . The applicant maintained that he wished to pursue the application ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174961","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF YUDINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163804","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MAMONTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis","text":["The applicants were all targeted in undercover operations carried out by the police in the form of test purchases of drugs under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Operational - Search Activities Act of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ ) . Those operations led to their criminal convictions for drug dealing .","The applicants disagreed with their convictions and argued that the police had incited them to commit drug - related offences . They also complained that they had not been able to examine the witnesses who had testified against them ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174212","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"HAUPT v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON an PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a partnership of lawyers with its office in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174395","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BULUT v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by police officers from ORG on suspicion of being involved in the activities of a terrorist organisation .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s statement was taken by the public prosecutor . The same day the investigating judge at ORG ordered that the applicant be detained on remand taking into account the strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence he was charged with and risk of tampering with evidence .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG . He charged the applicant with membership of an armed terrorist organisation , making the propaganda of an armed terrorist organisation , contravening LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , and causing damage to public property .","On DATE at the end of the preparatory hearing , ORG decided that the applicant \u2019s detention should be continued taking into account the nature of the offence , the state of evidence and the fact that his statements had not yet been taken .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s trial resumed . At the first hearing , in the presence of the applicant , the court ordered that the applicant \u2019s detention on remand be continued on the same grounds .","At hearings held on DATE and DATE , respectively , the applicant \u2019s requests to be released from detention on remand were rejected by the trial court . The applicant filed objections against these decisions . On DATE and DATE , ORG dismissed the objections . The court decided on the basis of the case file , without holding a public hearing . In delivering its decisions , the court also took into consideration the written opinion of the public prosecutors , which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative .","On DATE ORG released the applicant from detention on remand taking into account the period he had remained in detention .","On DATE the case was transferred to ORG .","According to the information in the case file , the case is still pending before ORG ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160998","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ARLEWIN v. SWEDEN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is self - employed and runs a business .","On DATE the NORP commercial television channel ORG broadcast an episode of a television show entitled \u201c Insider \u201d , in which it was claimed that \u201c shady transactions and shady characters \u201d were revealed . The show was broadcast live with a few recorded features . In the show , the applicant , who was unknown to the broader public , appeared in pictures and was mentioned by name . He was singled out as the central figure of organised crime within media and advertising and as being guilty of several counts of fraud and other economic offences . The programme was rebroadcast on DATE and DATE . At this time , no criminal investigation had been initiated against the applicant .","The television programme was produced in GPE by the NORP company ORG . It was sent by satellite link from GPE to the GPE - based company ORG and from there sent unaltered to a satellite which transmitted the programme to the NORP audience . The encoded programme was viewable via a satellite receiver or a cable connection in GPE a fraction of a second after it had been sent by satellite link . Even if it was viewable in GPE , which is doubtful , it would have been watched there by a small audience . It was presented in the NORP language for a LANGUAGE - speaking audience , and was sponsored by companies competing in the NORP market . The anchorman of the show , X , a NORP national , was a celebrity and a well - known television personality in GPE ; he was also the Chief Executive Officer of ORG . The show had a long run and was watched by many viewers .","NORP In DATE the applicant brought a private prosecution against X for gross defamation , claiming damages in the amount of MONEY ( SEK ; MONEY ) . He maintained that he had been unreservedly pointed out as the central figure of organised crime within media and advertising and as being directly or indirectly responsible for a large number of serious crimes . He further alleged that X was responsible for the content of the programme since he had failed in his duty to appoint a legally responsible editor ( ansvarig utgivare ) for the programme and because he had been its anchor .","The applicant relied on DATE of LAW ( PERSON , ORG ; hereafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , regarding freedom of expression offences and liability rules , and LAW ( ORG ) , dealing with defamation , as well as ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . In the latter respect , he argued that his appearance in the show breached his right to privacy as well as his right to be presumed innocent and that a decision to dismiss his claims would constitute a violation of his right to an effective remedy . The applicant submitted a legal opinion stating that it would be impossible , or at least not useful , to bring an action in GPE in the present case since the damage flowing from the television programme at issue had not occurred in GPE .","X disputed the claim on the grounds , inter alia , that he was not the responsible editor of the show and that he enjoyed the freedom to communicate information as provided for under LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW and as clarified by ORG ( ORG domstolen ) in the case ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","In a preliminary ruling on DATE ORG ( PERSON tingsr\u00e4tt ) dismissed the claim in so far as it was based on LAW . It referred to ORG judgment in an almost identical case , ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ( see paragraphs DATE below ) , and held that LAW of LAW were not applicable to the television programme since it could not be regarded as emanating from GPE . This was because the programme had first been sent by satellite link to ORG , the NORP company responsible for the programme content , and thereafter uplinked to a satellite , which had in turn transmitted the programme to viewers in GPE . As LAW of LAW were not applicable , X could not be held responsible for the programme content under LAW . ORG further held that the applicant \u2019s claims under LAW were to be determined following the main hearing in the case . The court finally drew the parties\u2019 attention to ORG case ORG DATE p. CARDINAL .","NORP The applicant appealed , repeating what he had stated in his earlier submissions . He further argued that all companies involved in the case were NORP , including the receiving company in GPE , allegedly named ORG , with its seat in GPE . Although ORG had acquired the right to transmit the show from the NORP company ORG , it had had no impact on or responsibility for the programme selection . Having regard to the above , the offence committed against the applicant through the programme could not be examined by GPE courts . The applicant also submitted that NORP courts were competent to examine the case under ORG ( see further paragraph CARDINAL below ) . X contested the arguments and submitted that it was the company ORG , whose seat was in GPE , which was responsible for the programme service and decided on the final content of the programmes .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON hovr\u00e4tt ) upheld ORG decision . It held that the issue for it to determine was whether the general provisions in LAW were applicable to the programme in question , that is , whether or not the broadcasting of the programme could be considered to have originated from GPE within the meaning of LAW , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that law . It further stated that the burden of proof concerning the applicability of LAW rested on the applicant and that he had not , in response to X \u2019s refutation , established that the decisions concerning the programme content were taken in GPE . Consequently , LAW were not applicable in the case . The court further held that the material before it indicated that it was possible for the applicant to bring claims before a NORP court .","The applicant appealed and referred to his earlier submissions . In addition , he requested that a question concerning the interpretation of ORG be referred to ORG of ORG ( ECJ ) for a preliminary ruling . According to the applicant , the regulation entitled a person claiming non - contractual damages to bring actions where the harmful event occurred . In the present case , the harmful event had occurred in GPE and the applicant thus should have had the right to bring his action before the NORP courts . Consequently , the position hitherto taken by the NORP courts ran contrary to Community law .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s referral request and refused leave to appeal in the case . It held that , since ORG had found itself competent to examine the applicant \u2019s claims in so far as they were based on grounds other than LAW , there was no reason to request a preliminary ruling from the ECJ .","The applicant subsequently withdrew his remaining claims before ORG since there was no practical prospect of success in a continued procedure . On DATE ORG struck the case out of the list and ordered the applicant to pay X \u2019s legal costs and expenses .","Criminal proceedings were taken against the applicant in regard , inter alia , to the matters described in the television programme . He was convicted of aggravated fraud as well as tax and bookkeeping offences and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The criminal proceedings were finalised by a ORG decision to refuse leave to appeal on CARDINAL October CARDINAL . These proceedings , in particular their compliance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , are the subject of an application lodged with ORG on DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-176763","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BOZKAYA v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation , namely the NORP \/ ORG ( Workers\u2019 ORG of ORG ) . It appears that at some point the applicant confessed to committing an armed attack on a prison vehicle in GPE and , as a result , on DATE at TIME was required to participate in a reconstruction of the events ( yer g\u00f6sterme ) . According to the record drafted by police officers and signed by the applicant , the latter described in detail what steps he had taken before the attack on a prison vehicle in GPE and indicated how he had opened fire on that vehicle .","On DATE , he was taken to the GPE police station for questioning . The questioning took place TIME . The applicant \u2019s statements to the police were transcribed on pre - printed forms , the relevant part of which was filled in to indicate , inter alia , that the applicant was suspected of membership of an illegal organisation and of carrying out armed activities on behalf of that organisation . On the first page of the forms there was a pre - printed message stating , inter alia , that the person being questioned had the right to remain silent and the right to choose a lawyer . It appears from the form that the applicant had refused legal assistance since the first page of the record includes a pre - printed phrase stating \u201c No lawyer sought \u201d with the applicant \u2019s signature underneath . He was thus questioned in the absence of a lawyer .","In his statement , the applicant admitted that he was a member of the ORG \/ ORG and that he was active in the organisation . In particular , he gave detailed information about , inter alia , an armed attack on a prison vehicle in GPE . He also stated that his code name was \u201c GPE \u201d .","On DATE he was brought before the GPE public prosecutor , where he partly confirmed and partly denied the content of his statements to the police made in the absence of a lawyer . Prior to this he had been told his rights , including the right to benefit from the assistance of a lawyer . He further stated that he was a member of the ORG \/ ORG and had been involved in some of its activities in northern GPE but had not taken part in any political or armed activities in GPE .","On DATE , an investigating judge of ORG took statements from the applicant . Prior to the interview , the applicant was informed of his rights under LAW . He did not ask for a lawyer . During the interview , the applicant stated that his statements made to the police and the public prosecutor had been correct . He maintained , in particular , that his statements made to the police in respect of the armed attack in GPE had been entirely correct . The court ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention .","During the applicant \u2019s period in custody , specifically from CARDINAL to DATE , he was examined CARDINAL times by doctors . The medical examinations conducted before and at the end of his custody period revealed no signs of ill - treatment on his body .","Prior to the applicant \u2019s arrest , on DATE , a certain PERSON , who was a co - accused , had claimed during questioning that he had organised the armed attack , acting with someone whose code name was \u201c GPE \u201d . Later , at the first court hearing , he retracted his statements to the police , alleging that they had been extracted under duress .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor lodged an indictment , charging the applicant with the offence of breaking up the unity of the ORG and seeking to remove part of the national territory from the ORG \u2019s control , under LAW .","On DATE , at the first hearing in the case , the applicant retracted his statements made to the police , the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , alleging that they had been obtained through coercion and death threats by the police . He admitted that he was a member of the NORP \/ ORG while denying involvement in the armed attack in GPE . When asked about the reports of the reconstruction of events , the applicant submitted that he had not accepted the evidence against him .","State Security Courts were abolished on DATE pursuant to Law no . CARDINAL . The case was therefore transferred to ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer applied to the court to have a certain PERSON summoned as a witness and to hold a confrontation with the applicant , as GPE had stated in his witness statements dated DATE that he had seen the perpetrators of the attack . He also asked the court to enquire of the banks as to whether there had been any money transferred between the applicant \u2019s father and PERSON The court dismissed the application concerning the attendance of a witness , on the grounds that the witness would not remember the incidents given the long time which had elapsed and that he would not tell the truth owing to the nature of the incident . It further dismissed the other request concerning the transfer of money , considering it not to be essential for the purposes of the case .","On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the trial court in which he explained the threats and coercion he had been subjected to in detail and asked the court not to take his co - accused \u2019s statements into consideration .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against that judgment and alleged , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s statements had been taken without notifying him of his rights and as a result of coercion and death threats by the police . The applicant \u2019s lawyer gave detailed accounts of such treatment and asked ORG not to rely on these statements which had been obtained by impairing the applicant \u2019s will .","On DATE ORG quashed the conviction for procedural shortcomings .","At a hearing on DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer once again maintained that the applicant \u2019s confessions had taken by coercion and that the applicant had been forced by the police to sign his statements . He asked the trial court not to rely on those statements . At the same hearing , the first - instance court again convicted the applicant under LAW then in force , and sentenced him to life imprisonment . It relied , inter alia , on the consistent confessions of the applicant and PERSON made during questioning , which were later repeated before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , and the record of the reconstruction of events . It also took into account the weapons , bullets and explosives seized by the judicial authorities and the organisational documents as well as the incident report , hotel records , an autopsy and expert reports , photographs , witness statements and investigation reports . The trial court \u2019s reasoned judgment did not contain any pronouncements as regards the admissibility of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial statements .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against that judgment and alleged , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s statements had been taken without notifying him of his rights and as a result of coercion and death threats by the police . The applicant \u2019s lawyer gave detailed accounts of such treatment and asked ORG not to rely on these statements which had been obtained by impairing the applicant \u2019s will .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction .","On DATE the judgment was pronounced in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142192","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF THE NATIONAL UNION OF RAIL, MARITIME AND TRANSPORT WORKERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant is a trade union based in GPE with a membership of CARDINAL persons employed in different sectors of the transport industry in GPE .","Noting that in the domestic system industrial disputes are governed by very detailed legislative provisions , the applicant union raised CARDINAL specific limitations on the statutory protection of strike action that it submitted were inconsistent with LAW , each of the contested limitations being exposed by a separate set of facts .","The relevant set of facts relied on under this head involved the company ORG ( ORG ) , which was under contract to manage , operate and maintain the electrical power network used by GPE \u2019s underground transport system . The ORG was one of several trade unions recognised by the company for the purposes of collective bargaining . In all , the company employed CARDINAL staff at CARDINAL different sites , the biggest one being that at GPE with CARDINAL employees . According to the applicant union , there were CARDINAL RMT members there at the relevant time . The company would not have known which of its employees were members of a trade union , as it did not operate a system for deducting union subscriptions from staff wages .","DATE , the applicant union and the company held several rounds of negotiation on pay and conditions of service . Dissatisfied with the company \u2019s offer , it decided to embark on industrial action and on DATE gave the requisite ballot notice to the company ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The notice described the category of workers that would be voting on industrial action as \u201c Engineer \/ Technician \u201d and stated how many of such were based at each site . DATE the company wrote to the applicant union , stating that it did not recognise the term \u201c Technician \u201d ( it categorised its workers in a more precise way : fitters , jointers , test - room inspectors , day testers , shift testers , ORG fitters ) . It considered the ballot notice served on it was therefore not compliant with the relevant statutory provisions . The applicant union replied DATE , maintaining that the term it had used was sufficient to allow the company to know which employees were concerned , thereby meeting the purpose of the relevant provisions of law .","Following a further exchange of correspondence between the CARDINAL sides , the company applied to ORG for an injunction to restrain the applicant union from calling industrial action on the basis of the ballot . The injunction was granted by PERSON on DATE .","The judge did not accept the applicant union \u2019s claim that the statutory requirements unduly restricted the exercise of its right to call industrial action , this same argument having been rejected by ORG in the case of ORG v. ORG ( [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ) . He also rejected the argument that since the procedure was still at an early stage it would be premature to put a stop to it . Instead he considered the risk of unlawful strike action to be sufficiently imminent to justify the injunction . Given the sector involved , the implications of a shutdown would be substantial , with widespread ramifications elsewhere . Addressing the question whether the applicant union had in fact given sufficient indication of the category of staff that would be balloted , the judge found that it had not , since the union \u2019s members at GPE included persons working at different trades . The applicant union was not under an absolute duty , but instead a duty to do its reasonable best to provide sufficient information to the company . The fact that it used its own system of job classification was relevant but not decisive . Similarly , the fact that a union might not record or possess such information could be a highly material consideration , but not necessarily a decisive one . The applicant union had accepted that it was practicable for a union to supply the necessary information in the context of a small place of employment \u2013 it was therefore neither onerous nor unreasonable to require it to do so . Finally , the judge observed that while there was as yet no stated intention on the part of the applicant union to call a strike ( the ballot not having taken place ) , there was a clear nexus between the failure to provide the requisite notice and the employer \u2019s ability to respond to the situation either by making preparations for a work stoppage or seeking to persuade employees not to vote for industrial action . The applicant union \u2019s failure to comply with the statutory requirements was therefore not a mere technical or immaterial breach .","Application for permission to appeal was refused on the papers on DATE . Renewed application for permission to appeal was refused on DATE , by which point the industrial dispute between the applicant union and ORG had already been resolved .","Following the granting of the injunction against the strike , the applicant union set about gathering the precise job descriptions of the workers concerned and included these in a fresh notice of a strike ballot , the result of which supported industrial action . This went ahead on dates in DATE and DATE . ORG made an improved offer on DATE which was accepted by the union \u2019s members and took effect as a collective agreement on DATE of DATE .","The set of facts relied on under this head involved some RMT members who were employed in railway maintenance by ORG , a company that formed part of a group of companies known as ORG plc . Another company in the group , ORG , was engaged in rail engineering work . At the time , PERSON and ORG ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) employed CARDINAL persons in total , CARDINAL of whom were members of the ORG . In DATE , ORG transferred part of its undertaking , comprising CARDINAL employees , to another company known as ORG ( GPE ) Ltd ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . These employees\u2019 existing terms and conditions were preserved by ORG , as required by law ( ORG ) . According to the applicant union , the employees involved were nonetheless concerned for their situation , as ORG workers were paid significantly less . It also appeared that trade unions had less influence in that company .","In DATE ORG \u2019s management informed the ex - PERSON employees that because of difficult market conditions it intended to reduce the level of their terms and conditions to that of other ORG staff . This meant a reduction in salary of PERCENT , according to the applicant union . In DATE that followed , the applicant union made representations to ORG on behalf of the employees concerned but without achieving any agreement . When the company indicated that it intended to proceed with its plan , the applicant union organised a strike ballot of the workers concerned ( CARDINAL by that stage ) . They voted in favour of a strike , which took place DATE and DATE . During the strike , the participants organised pickets at a number of the sites where they normally carried out their work . This caused ORG to write to the applicant union to remind it that by law picketing could take place only at or near the employer \u2019s premises and to warn that the union was exposing itself to liability for any economic loss incurred by the company due to this unlawful action ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","A second strike was announced for DATE , but this was postponed when ORG indicated its willingness to resume discussions with the applicant union . This led to a revised offer which the union submitted to its ORG members , recommending that they accept it . The result of the vote was known on DATE . CARDINAL votes were cast , all of them rejecting the ORG offer . According to the applicant union , its position was extremely weak given the very small number of its members in the ORG workforce . These were far too few for their strike action to have any appreciable effect on the company , whose activities had not really been disrupted at all . The applicant union considered that it would have been in a position to defend its ORG interests much more effectively had it been able to mobilise its PERSON members as well . The simple threat of a strike on this scale , and a fortiori an actual stoppage , would have exerted significantly more pressure on ORG to maintain existing terms and conditions . The applicant union stated that PERSON employees would have been willing to strike in support of their colleagues at ORG . Instead , the ORG members had had to stand alone , and in the end had no option but to accept the new terms and conditions . They did so under protest .","According to the applicant union , neither PERSON nor ORG exist any longer , having been put into administration in DATE and DATE respectively . The ORG undertaking was purchased by another company , which in turn sold it on in DATE .","In relation to the ORG case , PERSON referred to the following provisions of ORG DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) An act done by a trade union to induce a person to take part , or continue to take part , in industrial action","( a ) is not protected unless the industrial action has the support of a ballot , and","( b ) where section CARDINALA falls to be complied with in relation to the person \u2019s employer , is not protected as respects the employer unless the trade union has complied with section CARDINALA in relation to him . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The trade union must take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that\u2014","( a ) not later than DATE before DATE of the ballot , the notice specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) , ...","is received by every person who it is reasonable for the union to believe ( at the latest time when steps could be taken to comply with paragraph ( a ) ) will be the employer of persons who will be entitled to vote in the ballot .","( CARDINAL ) The notice referred to in paragraph ( a ) of subsection ( CARDINAL ) is a notice in writing\u2014","( a ) stating that the union intends to hold the ballot ,","( b ) specifying the date which the union reasonably believes will be DATE of the ballot , and","( c ) NORP containing\u2014","( i ) the lists mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL ) and the figures mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL ) , together with an explanation of how those figures were arrived at , or","...","( CARDINAL ) The lists are\u2014","( a ) a list of the categories of employee to which the employees concerned belong , and","( b ) a list of the workplaces at which the employees concerned work .","( CARDINAL ) The figures are\u2014","( a ) the total number of employees concerned ,","( b ) the number of the employees concerned in each of the categories in the list mentioned in subsection ( CARDINALA)(a ) , and","( c ) the number of the employees concerned who work at each workplace in the list mentioned in subsection ( CARDINALA)(b ) .","...","( CARDINAL ) The lists and figures supplied under this section , or the information mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL ) that is so supplied , must be as accurate as is reasonably practicable in the light of the information in the possession of the union at the time when it complies with subsection ( CARDINAL)(a ) . \u201d","In relation to the ORG situation , the statutory protection against liability in tort regarding acts done \u201c in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute \u201d ( section CARDINAL of the DATE Act ) is confined , by section CARDINAL of the same Act , to \u201c a dispute between workers and their employer \u201d . Secondary action is expressly excluded from statutory protection by section CARDINAL of the LAW , which defines it as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) There is secondary action in relation to a trade dispute when , and only when , a person\u2014","( a ) induces another to break a contract of employment or interferes or induces another to interfere with its performance , or","( b ) threatens that a contract of employment under which he or another is employed will be broken or its performance interfered with , or that he will induce another to break a contract of employment or to interfere with its performance ,","and the employer under the contract of employment is not the employer party to the dispute . \u201d","The provisions on peaceful picketing are contained in section QUANTITY of the LAW , which provides :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) It is lawful for a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to attend\u2014","( a ) at or near his own place of work , or","( b ) if he is an official of a trade union , at or near the place of work of a member of the union whom he is accompanying and whom he represents ,","for the purpose only of peacefully obtaining or communicating information , or peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working .","( CARDINAL ) If a person works or normally works\u2014","( a ) otherwise than at any CARDINAL place , or","( b ) at a place the location of which is such that attendance there for a purpose mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL ) is impracticable ,","his place of work for the purposes of that subsection shall be any premises of his employer from which he works or from which his work is administered . \u201d","Both parties referred to the previous legislative regime , which included secondary action in the scope of the statutory protection . The ORG explained that secondary action was first outlawed by ORG DATE , adopted in the aftermath of the general strike of DATE . The situation changed with ORG , which lifted the ban .","NORP Further reforms occurred in DATE . ORG Labour Relations Act DATE afforded substantially broader protection to industrial action than is the case at present . It provided at section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( as amended in DATE ) :","\u201c An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only\u2014","( a ) that it induces another person to break a contract or interferes or induces any other person to interfere with its performance ; or .","( b ) that it consists in his threatening that a contract ( whether one to which he is a party or not ) will be broken or its performance interfered with , or that he will induce another person to break a contract or to interfere with its performance . \u201d","This provision was considered by ORG in the case of ORG v. PERSON and another ( [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ) . The case involved secondary action in the newspaper industry , led by ORG . The majority of the ORG held that the test to be applied to determine whether an act enjoyed the protection of section MONEY ) was a subjective one , that is to say , it was sufficient that the person honestly believed that the act in question might further the cause of those taking part in the dispute . The genuineness of such belief could be tested by the courts , but the person calling the strike did not need to prove that it was reasonably capable of achieving the objective . Lord PERSON dissented on the nature of the test , but concurred with the finding that the injunction granted against the union should be discharged .","Although the applicant union maintained that the PERSON judgment was not a significant development in the law , in that it merely confirmed the interpretation of clear statutory language , the case was referred to during the parliamentary debates leading to the passage of LAW as CARDINAL of the reasons for introducing restrictions on secondary action ( in section CARDINAL of that Act ) . LAW retained immunity for secondary action provided that CARDINAL conditions were satisfied : ( i ) that it was taken against first suppliers or customers of the employer in dispute or against associated employers of the employer which were substituting for it during the dispute ; ( ii ) that its principal purpose was to directly prevent or disrupt the supply of goods or services between the employer in dispute and his supplier or customer during the dispute ; and ( iii ) that it was likely to achieve that purpose .","NORP The current rule was originally introduced by LAW , and then re - enacted in LAW in the terms set out above .","The parties provided statistical information on DATE lost to industrial action in GPE , going back to DATE . The Government pointed out that in DATE , the average number of DATE lost DATE was CARDINAL . This decreased in DATE to an average of DATE . From DATE to DATE , the figure is much lower , standing at DATE lost per year on average . They attributed part of this decline at least to the ban on secondary action . The applicant union disputed that interpretation . It noted that the available statistics did not distinguish between primary and secondary strikes . It was therefore impossible to identify the true extent of secondary action before DATE and , consequently , impossible to ascertain the impact of the restrictions introduced in DATE and DATE . In the applicant union \u2019s view , secondary action had been relatively rare , the overwhelming majority of strikes at that time had been primary strikes . It referred to official figures ( contained in a Government publication , the \u201c Employment Gazette \u201d ) indicating that , since DATE , GPE was consistently close to the NORP average for DATE lost to industrial action . According to this source , the country had been middle - ranking since DATE . The only exception was for DATE , on account of the long and widespread strike in the mining industry that year . The Government submitted that the comparative statistics needed to be interpreted with caution , given the profound transformation of LOC over DATE . The fact that GPE remained close to the NORP average in this regard indicated that , contrary to the applicant union \u2019s point of view , the rules on industrial action were not so restrictive as to make it excessively difficult to organise strikes .","NORP In support of its application , the applicant union included references to other international legal instruments , and the interpretation given to them by the competent organs . The most relevant and detailed of these materials are referred to below .","While there is no provision in the ORG adopted by ORG ( ORG ) expressly conferring a right to strike , both ORG and ORG on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations ( \u201c ORG ) have progressively developed a number of principles on the right to strike , based on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG of the Right to Organise Convention , DATE ( No . DATE ) ( summarised in \u201c Giving globalization a human face \u201d , ORG , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . This Convention was ratified by GPE on DATE .","ORG has commented several times upon the notice requirements for industrial action in GPE . The applicant union referred to the following statement , adopted in DATE :","\u201c In its previous comments , ORG had taken note of comments made by the ORG to the effect that the notice requirements for an industrial action to be protected by immunity were unjustifiably burdensome . The ORG notes that according to the Government , a number of measures have already been taken to simplify sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the ORG and CARDINAL of the DATE Order ; moreover , as part of a plan published in DATE to simplify aspects of employment law , the Government explicitly invited trade unions to come forward with their ideas to simplify trade union law further . Since then , the Government has held discussions with the ORG to examine their ideas to simplify aspects of the law on industrial action ballots and notices . These discussions are ongoing . The ORG notes that in its latest comments , the ORG notes that there has been no progress in this reform . The ORG requests the Government to indicate in its next report progress made in this regard . \u201d","More recently , in a direct request to the Government of GPE , ORG stated :","\u201c In its previous comments , ORG had taken note of comments made by ORG ( ORG ) to the effect that the notice requirements for an industrial action to be protected by immunity were unjustifiably burdensome . ORG requested the Government to continue to provide information on any developments , as well as any relevant statistics or reports on the practical application and effect of these requirements . The ORG notes the Government \u2019s indication that the ORG of Appeal decision in ORG v. Serco and in ORG v. GPE ( DATE ) EWCA CARDINAL , overturned injunctions which had been obtained by ORG and ORG against the CARDINAL main national transport unions , the ORG and ORG . In both cases , the injunctions had been obtained on the basis of the ORG breaches of statutory balloting and notification procedures . This case was the latest in a series of cases assessing the extent of ORG technical obligations to ensure that a fair balloting process had taken place . In the ORG v. Serco decision , ORG issued some key clarification so that in future it is likely to be more difficult for employers to obtain injunctions to prevent strike action as a result of breaches of the balloting and notice requirements . A ORG decision is binding on all lower courts . Subsequent to this case , in ORG ( DATE ) EWHC CARDINAL ( QB ) , the ORG found against ORG , taking account of the Serco case and the need to strike a balance between striving for democratic legitimacy and imposing unrealistic burdens on unions and their officers . The ORG notes the ORG \u2019s observation that , while it greatly welcomes both decisions , it considers that they do not fully address the problems arising under the legislation that it has identified and that the legislation continues to impose intolerable demands on trade unions . The ORG notes these developments with interest and requests the Government to provide its comments on the concerns raised by the ORG . \u201d","ORG has taken the following view ( see \u201c Giving globalization a human face \u201d , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) :","\u201c With regard to so - called \u2018 ORG strikes , the ORG considers that a general prohibition of this form of strike action could lead to abuse , particularly in the context of globalization characterized by increasing interdependence and the internationalization of production , and that workers should be able to take such action , provided that the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful . \u201d","ORG also considers this form of industrial action to be protected by international labour law ( see \u201c ORG \u201d , Digest of the decisions and principles of ORG of the ORG , Fifth ( revised ) edition , ORG , DATE ) :","\u201c CARDINAL . A general prohibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse and workers should be able to take such action provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful .","...","A ban on strike action not linked to a collective dispute to which the employee or union is a party is contrary to the principles of freedom of association . \u201d","In its consideration of GPE observance of Convention No . DATE , ORG has repeatedly criticised the fact that secondary strikes are illegal . The initial criticism was included in its DATE observation concerning GPE :","\u201c The ORG notes that the common law renders virtually all forms of strikes or other industrial action unlawful as a matter of civil law . This means that workers and unions who engage in such action are liable to be sued for damages by employers ( or other parties ) who suffer loss as a consequence , and ( more importantly in practical terms ) may be restrained from committing unlawful acts by means of injunctions ( issued on both an interlocutory and a permanent basis ) . It appears to the ORG that unrestricted access to such remedies would deny workers the right to take strikes or other industrial action in order to protect and to promote their economic and social interests .","It is most important , therefore , that workers and unions should have some measure of protection against civil liability . There has been legislative recognition of this imperative since DATE in the form of a series of \u2018 immunities\u2019 ( or , more accurately , \u2018 ORG ) against tort action for trade unions and their members and officials . The current version of the \u2018 immunities\u2019 is to be found in ORG DATE .","The scope of these protections has been narrowed in a number of respects since DATE . ORG notes , for example , that section CARDINAL of LAW has been amended so as to limit the right to picket to a worker \u2019s own place of work or , in the case of a trade union official , the place of work of the relevant membership , whilst section CARDINAL of the DATE Act removes protection from \u2018 secondary GPE in the sense of action directed against an employer who is not directly a party to a given trade dispute . In addition , the definition of \u2018 trade ORG in LAW of LAW has been narrowed so as to encompass only disputes between workers and their own employer , rather than disputes between \u2018 employers and workers\u2019 or \u2018 workers and workers\u2019 as was formerly the case .","Taken together , these changes appear to make it virtually impossible for workers and unions lawfully to engage in any form of boycott activity , or \u2018 sympathetic\u2019 action against parties not directly involved in a given dispute . ORG has never expressed any decided view on the use of boycotts as an exercise of the right to strike . However , it appears to ORG that where a boycott relates directly to the social and economic interests of the workers involved in either or both of the original dispute and the secondary action , and where the original dispute and the secondary action are not unlawful in themselves , then that boycott should be regarded as a legitimate exercise of the right to strike . This is clearly consistent with the approach the ORG has adopted in relation to \u2018 sympathy strikes\u2019 :","It would appear that more frequent recourse is being had to this form of action ( i.e. sympathy strikes ) because of the structure or the concentration of industries or the distribution of work centres in different regions of the world . The ORG considers that a general prohibition of sympathy strikes could lead to abuse and that workers should be able to take such action provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful . \u201d","It appears that ORG did not take a definitive position on the ban until its DATE observation concerning GPE , when it observed as follows :","\u201c The ORG draws the Government \u2019s attention to paragraph CARDINAL of its DATE General Survey on ORG where it indicates that a general prohibition on sympathy strikes could lead to abuse and that workers should be able to take such action , provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful . The lifting of immunity opens such industrial action to be actionable in tort and therefore would constitute a serious impediment to the workers\u2019 right to carry out sympathy strikes . \u201d","It has maintained this view since , stating in its most recent review of the situation ( DATE observation , see Report of ORG to ORG , CARDINALnd Session , DATE , ILC.CARDINAL\/III(CARDINALA ) , pp . CARDINAL ) . ) :","\u201c Immunities in respect of civil liability for strikes and other industrial action ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the TULRA ) . In its previous comments , ORG had noted that according to the ORG , due to the decentralized nature of the industrial relations system , it was essential for workers to be able to take action against employers who are easily able to undermine union action by complex corporate structures , transferring work , or hiving off companies . ORG generally raised the need to protect the right of workers to take industrial action in relation to matters which affect them even though , in certain cases , the direct employer may not be party to the dispute , and to participate in sympathy strikes provided the initial strike they are supporting is itself lawful . ORG takes note of the Government indication that : ( CARDINAL ) its position remains as set out in its report for DATE , that the rationale has not changed and that it therefore has no plans to change the law in this area ; and ( CARDINAL ) this issue forms part of a matter brought before the ORG by ORG ) and that the ORG has yet to consider the case . The ORG recalls the previous concern it raised that the globalization of the economy and the delocalization of work centres may have a severe impact on the right of workers\u2019 organizations to organize their activities in a manner so as to defend effectively their ORG interests should lawful industrial action be too restrictively defined . In these circumstances , the ORG once again requests the Government to review sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , in full consultation with the social partners , and to provide further information in its next report on the outcome of these consultations . \u201d","The right to strike is protected by LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW , which GPE ratified on DATE . It provides as follows :","\u201c With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to bargain collectively , the Contracting Parties undertake :","...","[ to ] recognise :","the right of workers and employers to collective action in cases of conflicts of interest , including the right to strike , subject to obligations that might arise out of collective agreements previously entered into . \u201d","ORG ) has examined the NORP rules on strike ballots and deemed them incompatible with the proper exercise of the right to strike . In its most recent assessment of the matter ( Conclusions PERSON , DATE ) it stated :","\u201c The ORG considered in its previous conclusions ... that the requirement to give notice to an employer of a ballot on industrial action , in addition to the strike notice that must be issued before taking action , is excessive ( even the simplified requirements introduced by LAW ) . As there have been no changes to the situation , the ORG reiterates its finding that the situation is not in conformity with LAW in this respect . \u201d","Like ORG , the ORG has consistently criticised the situation in GPE . In its first consideration of the matter ( Conclusions XIII-CARDINAL , DATE ) it stated :","\u201c Referring to the report , ORG noted the ORG \u2019s observations concerning the limitations on the right to strike , imposed by LAW in respect of GPE . In particular , it noted that while the Government emphasised the importance of protecting the right of employers to dismiss those engaged in a strike , it also emphasised that the legislation continues to :","( i ) allow special protection for peaceful pickets at their own place of work ;","( ii ) provide statutory immunity to peaceful and lawful pickets ;","( iii ) provide statutory immunity for lawful trade disputes .","ORG also noted the recent observations of ORG recommending that the legislation be amended to conform with the principle of freedom of association in accordance with ORG . CARDINAL ( ORG the Right to Organise , DATE ) .","Having regard to this information and having noted that there is no immunity afforded individuals in respect of :","\u2013 secondary industrial action other than inducement in the course of peaceful picketing ;","\u2013 industrial action organised in support of employees dismissed while taking part in unofficial action ;","the ORG reiterated its previous negative conclusion for the reasons cited in the twelfth cycle of supervision . \u201d ( Conclusions XIII - I , reference period DATE ) . \u201d","In the ORG \u2019s most recent pronouncement on the matter ( Conclusions PERSON , DATE ) it said :","\u201c In its previous conclusions ... the ORG found that lawful collective action was limited to disputes between workers and their employer , thus preventing a union from taking action against the de facto employer if this was not the immediate employer . It furthermore noted that NORP courts excluded collective action concerning a future employer and future terms and conditions of employment in the context of a transfer of part of a business ( ORG v. ORG ) . ORG therefore considered that the scope for workers to defend their interests through lawful collective action was excessively circumscribed in GPE . Given that there have been no changes to the situation , the ORG reiterates its finding that the situation is not in conformity with LAW in this respect . \u201d","The relevant provisions are the following :","\u201c CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels , in particular in political , trade union and civic matters , which implies the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests .","... \u201d","\u201c Workers and employers , or their respective organisations , have , in accordance with Community law and national laws and practices , the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and , in cases of conflicts of interest , to take collective action to defend their interests , including strike action . \u201d","Article CARDINAL appears in Title IV of the LAW . As regards GPE , reference must be made to LAW ( No CARDINAL ) to LAW . It provides , in so far as relevant :","\u201c ...","NORP In particular , and for the avoidance of doubt , nothing in LAW creates justiciable rights applicable to GPE or the GPE except in so far as GPE or GPE has provided for such rights in its national law . \u201d","The parties provided some elements of comparative law in relation to secondary strikes . Both referred to a comparative study on the regulation of industrial action in LOC ( Strike rules in the ORG and beyond : A comparative overview , PERSON , ORG , ORG and ORG ( ETUI - REHS ) , DATE ) . According to this source , secondary action is protected or permitted , subject to varying restrictions and conditions , in the great majority of the member ORG . The GPE that , like GPE , do not permit secondary action were identified as GPE , GPE and the GPE .","In their initial submissions , the ORG sought to draw support for the situation in GPE by reference to the situation in the following GPE : GPE , the GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . They contended that these illustrated a broad tendency in LOC to subject secondary action to much more restrictive conditions than primary industrial action . In reply to this the applicant union provided to the ORG statements from labour - law experts in a number of NORP countries contradicting the ORG \u2019s remarks . The applicant union concluded that GPE is the most restrictive among the Contracting Parties to the LAW in this respect . The Government concluded that the material demonstrated that , notwithstanding the great variety of industrial - relations systems and traditions in LOC , most GPE distinguished between primary and secondary action , with greater restriction on the latter . The broad right claimed by the applicant union was not supported by any real NORP consensus .","The ORG notes that comparative information is available from the monitoring mechanism of LAW . As indicated above , this body has repeatedly criticised the situation in GPE , which appears to be the only ORG subject to criticism on this specific ground . The ORG has also commented in DATE on the lawfulness of secondary action ( sometimes using the term \u201c sympathy \u201d or \u201c solidarity \u201d action ) in the following GPE : GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . With reference to the three other GPE identified in the PERSON study as not permitting secondary action , the ORG notes that the ORG has not criticised the situation in the GPE on this ground . Nor has it made any comment at all in relation to the situation in GPE or GPE , neither ORG having accepted LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of FAC .","Some further comparative information is available from the publications and legal databases of the ORG . For example , ORG referred to the removal from LAW of the prohibition on solidarity strikes ( \u201c Giving globalization a human face \u201d , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . It has also referred , in its review of ORG implementation of Convention No . DATE , to the lawfulness of sympathy strikes in GPE , GPE and GPE . ORG has referred to solidarity strike action in GPE ( complaint no . CARDINAL ) , and noted that NORP law does not expressly provide for , or for that matter prohibit , such action ( complaint no . CARDINAL ) .","Additionally , the ORG notes that in NORP law strikes are permitted if they \u201c relate to employment relations \u201d ( LAW ) . According to CARDINAL constitutional commentary , a strike must actually be about working conditions , and not pursue corporatist or political objectives outside of the enterprise or branch ( ORG constitutionnel GPE , vol . II , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , p. CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["11"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147018","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KESZELI v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant claimed a sum of money from a bank .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application before the ORG challenging the length of these proceedings . On DATE the ORG decided to strike that case ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) out of its list of cases on the ground that a friendly settlement had been reached between the parties .","In the proceedings complained of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE to dismiss the applicant \u2019s appeal , examined as an appeal on points of law , became final on DATE .","On DATE the above decision was quashed by ORG and the case was remitted to ORG for reexamination .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint challenging the length of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the first - instance judgment . Upon the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law the cassation chamber of ORG quashed that decision on DATE .","On DATE ORG again dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the first - instance judgment . The applicant indicated that he intended to lodge an appeal on points of law after the service of ORG decision ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178749","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF AMIZHAYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in connection with a drug - related offence and placed in custody .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial .","On DATE ORG again convicted the applicant and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court stated that the \u201c preventive measure [ should ] remain unchanged until the conviction [ had become ] final \u201d .","On DATE counsel for the applicant asked the director of the remand prison to release the applicant since he had already served the DATE sentence . On DATE a judge of ORG faxed a letter to the director , informing him that the applicant should not be released until ORG had examined the matter on appeal since ORG ordered the preventive measure to remain unchanged .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction and the applicant was released ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156731","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KALISZ v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife , PERSON , lodged a request with the court to have the applicant deprived of his legal capacity .","In the course of the proceedings , the applicant was examined by CARDINAL psychiatrists and a psychologist . The medical opinion issued by CARDINAL of the psychiatrists on CARDINAL DATE reads as follows :","\u201c ... the applicant suffers from severe mental disorders ( nasilone zaburzenia psychiczne ) ... progressive , gradual changes to the central nervous system have resulted in a significant deterioration in his insight into his own situation and social relations . They constitute a basis for impulsive behaviour and aggression towards others . \u201d","The psychiatrist concluded that there was a need to provide the applicant with help with everyday matters and therefore a partial deprivation of his legal capacity and the appointment of a guardian would be recommended . The expert saw no grounds to fully deprive him of his legal capacity .","On DATE the ORG granted PERSON \u2019s request and decided to fully deprive the applicant of his legal capacity on the grounds of mental illness .","After the expiry of the time - limit for appeal , the applicant appointed a lawyer , who on DATE , lodged an appeal against the decision of DATE together with a request for leave to appeal out of time .","On DATE the request was rejected because the applicant , being deprived of his legal capacity , could not effectively appoint a lawyer . The request and appeal had thus been lodged by someone who did not have the proper authorisation to act on the applicant \u2019s behalf .","On DATE the ORG appointed PERSON as the applicant \u2019s guardian .","On DATE an investigation into the alleged mental and physical mistreatment of the applicant \u2019s wife and son , PERSON , was opened .","On DATE , at the request of the prosecutor , the applicant was appointed a lawyer , GPE","NORP In the course of the criminal proceedings , the applicant was examined by CARDINAL psychiatrists and a psychologist , who on DATE issued their opinion . The relevant parts read as follows :","\u201c From the medical documentation available , it appears that the applicant has not continued ambulatory treatment , does not take [ his ] medication , abuses alcohol and displays aggressive behaviour towards his family ...","... the applicant is mentally ill . He was also mentally ill at the time of commission of the prohibited acts in question ; at that time , he was incapable of recognising the significance of his behaviour and controlling his conduct ... he absolutely requires treatment within the confines of a psychiatric unit ... because there is a high probability that he might commit another similar prohibited act . \u201d","On DATE a hearing before ORG was held , at which the expert witnesses confirmed the conclusions reached in their opinion of DATE .","On DATE ORG , relying on LAW , discontinued the proceedings against the applicant . It found that at the time of commission of the prohibited acts in question , he could not recognise the significance of his behaviour because of his mental illness . It also found that there was a high probability that he would commit further similar prohibited acts because he had refused to undergo systematic treatment , did not take his medication , abused alcohol and was completely uncritical as regards the prohibited acts he had committed and his state of health . The court also decided to impose on the applicant a preventive measure , namely placement in a closed psychiatric facility where he would undergo the necessary psychiatric treatment .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against this decision .","On DATE ORG upheld the challenged decision , agreeing with the reasoning of ORG . It also held that since the applicant had been completely uncritical as regards the prohibited acts committed and had refused treatment , there was a high probability that he would commit similar prohibited acts in future .","On DATE ORG Preventive Measures at ORG decided to admit the applicant to a psychiatric hospital in J. The applicant requested to have this decision varied as he preferred to be placed in a hospital in NORP","On DATE the ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to the psychiatric hospital in NORP He has been detained there ever since , having had his detention extended by ORG on a regular DATE basis on the following dates : DATE , DATE and DATE ( psychiatric opinions of DATE , DATE and DATE respectively ) , DATE and DATE ( psychiatric opinions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( psychiatric opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) , DATE and DATE ( psychiatric opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) , DATE , DATE and DATE ( for the CARDINAL first decisions , a psychiatric opinion of DATE and for the latest , an opinion of DATE ) . On DATE , following an appeal by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , the decision of CARDINAL DATE was upheld by the PERSON \u2019s detention in a psychiatric hospital was given on DATE on the basis of a psychiatric opinion dated DATE .","Each time the court considered extending the preventive measure , it appointed a legal aid lawyer for the applicant . Both the applicant and his lawyer were informed of every hearing with CARDINAL exception , a hearing which took place on DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed . He contested the court \u2019s findings made in the decision of CARDINAL DATE that there was a high probability that the applicant would commit a further prohibited act and that his state of health required his continued confinement in a psychiatric institution . On DATE the ORG quashed the challenged decision however on other grounds than those which had been relied on by the applicant \u2019s lawyer . It referred to a judgment of ORG of DATE , according to which a lawyer whose participation in the execution proceedings is mandatory must also be present at any hearings concerning the extension of a preventive measure imposed on his client .","NORP The court \u2019s decisions extending the applicant \u2019s detention in the psychiatric hospital were reasoned in a similar way . The court stressed the fact that the experts had found that the applicant , due to the state of his mental health , required further confinement in a unit with reinforced security measures , because of the high probability that he might commit a similar prohibited act .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to partially restore his legal capacity .","On DATE it dismissed the request on the grounds that the applicant \u2019s health had not improved to an extent that would justify such a decision being taken .","NORP The applicant appealed .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal . It found , among other things , that ORG had based its decision on complete psychiatric opinions , and that it had been unnecessary to appoint other medical experts to determine the applicant \u2019s state of health .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with ORG .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the appeal .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s sister , ORG , requested ORG to dismiss the applicant \u2019s wife as guardian . She submitted that there had been a situation of extreme conflict between the applicant and his wife , who she alleged had had mental health problems in the past and had undergone psychiatric treatment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request , finding that the applicant \u2019s wife had properly fulfilled her obligations . As regards her alleged mental health problems , the court found that she had undergone some treatment for depression ; however , this did not prevent her from acting as her husband \u2019s guardian .","The applicant \u2019s sister appealed against the first - instance decision and , since her appeal was lodged after the expiry of the time - limit , she requested the court for leave to appeal out of time . She submitted that the court \u2019s correspondence had not been served on her because it had been stolen from her postbox .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the request for leave to appeal out of time . It found that ORG \u2019s statements as regards the alleged theft of correspondence from her postbox had not been credible . The appeal was dismissed DATE .","The applicant \u2019s sister regularly visited him in hospital . According to the director of the psychiatric unit , after each visit , the applicant would behave aggressively and refuse to take his medication .","On DATE the director took the decision to ban the applicant \u2019s sister from visiting him . She relied on Article CARDINALc of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences and reasoned her decision by \u201c repetitive incidents of internal rule breaking by ORG and a risk of the applicant behaving dangerously \u201d .","On DATE the applicant was served with a copy of that decision , which included a notice of his right to appeal to the director of the psychiatric unit and , subsequently , to ORG . The applicant failed to appeal .","Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code reads as follows :","\u201c The court may impose a preventive measure provided for in this chapter which involves committal to a closed medical institution only if necessary to prevent the repeated commission of a prohibited act by a perpetrator suffering from mental illness ... mental impairment , or addiction to alcohol or other narcotic drugs . Before imposing such a measure , the court shall hear evidence from psychiatrists and a psychologist ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . If a perpetrator has committed a prohibited act causing significant harm to the community , in a state of insanity as specified in LAW , and there is a high probability that he will commit such an act again , the court shall commit him to a suitable psychiatric institution .","The duration of the stay in the institution shall not be fixed in advance ; the court shall release the perpetrator from the institution if his stay there is no longer deemed necessary .","The court may reorder the committal of a perpetrator specified in paragraph CARDINAL to a suitable psychiatric institution if it is advisable in the light of the circumstances specified in paragraph CARDINAL or in LAW ; such an order may not be issued DATE after release from the institution . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of LAW Sentences reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The director of a closed institution in which a preventive measure is being executed shall send the court , no less than every six months , an opinion on the state of health of the perpetrator placed in the institution and the progress of his or her treatment or therapy . The opinion shall be sent immediately if , due to a change in the perpetrator \u2019s state of health , the director finds that his or her further detention in the institution is unnecessary .","The court may request , at any time , an opinion on the state of health of the perpetrator placed in an institution referred to in paragraph CARDINAL , the treatment or therapy administered , and the results thereof . \u201d","Article CARDINAL reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The court shall , no less than every six months , and in the event of receiving an opinion that further detention of the perpetrator in a closed medical institution in which a preventive measure is being executed is unnecessary , immediately make a decision as regards the further execution of that measure . If necessary , the court shall refer to the opinion of other medical experts .","The decision as regards the further execution of a preventive measure may be appealed against . \u201d","Article CARDINAL c reads as follows :","\u201c Personal contact of a perpetrator detained in an institution referred to in [ paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ] LAW [ reinforced and maximum security psychiatric hospitals and drug rehabilitation institutions ] with visitors may only take place with the approval of the director of the institution . Approval may be refused , particularly if such contact could cause an increased risk of dangerous behaviour . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144550","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"PETROVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr Mileta Petrovi\u0107 , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE B.D. demolished a part of the ventilation system of the applicant \u2019s restaurant .","On DATE the applicant filed a civil trespass claim ( tu\u017eba zbog smetanja poseda ) against B.D.","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in ORG ruled in favour of the applicant , ordering PERSON to reconstruct the ventilation system in question , in accordance with the original project design and under the supervision of mechanical and construction engineering experts , as well as to pay MONEY ( \u201c RSD \u201d ) ( MONEY ( \u201c EUR \u201d ) at the relevant time ) on account of the costs incurred .","By DATE this decision became both final and enforceable .","On DATE , following the applicant \u2019s request of DATE , ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the enforcement court \u201d ) issued an enforcement order . On DATE the enforcement order was upheld on the appeal .","On DATE the applicant requested the enforcement court to order PERSON to advance the costs of the construction works . By DATE the enforcement court held a hearing , appointed CARDINAL experts and requested their opinion on CARDINAL different occasions , assessed the costs , collected offers , selected building contractors and finally , considered at CARDINAL instances and enforced the decision ordering PERSON to advance the costs and authorising the applicant to undertake the necessary construction works thereof . The applicant objected to the experts\u2019 reports and refused to collect the advance deposited with the enforcement court .","DATE and DATE the enforcement court ordered the applicant to commence with the construction works , appointed new experts and obtained CARDINAL of their reports as to the modalities of the enforcement , held CARDINAL hearings and examined witnesses in connection with the original construction works on the ventilation system , and twice ordered the applicant to have his building contractor provide an estimate of the building costs . The applicant objected to the experts\u2019 reports , lodged a request for the protection of legality against the court order and refused to abide by it .","On DATE the enforcement court terminated the enforcement proceedings . On the applicant \u2019s appeal , this decision was quashed on DATE and the enforcement court was instructed to prevent the parties\u2019 abuse of procedural rights by undertaking the required actions in their stead .","In the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the enforcement court proceeded with the enforcement and scheduled QUANTITY hearings , CARDINAL of which were adjourned due to the applicant \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s ill - health , one because of a mistake in summons , the other one for unspecified reasons and DATE as a result of the applicant \u2019s request for a relinquishment to another court and for the failure of CARDINAL of the experts to appear , who was therefore fined . In addition , the enforcement court appointed new experts , requested expert opinions on CARDINAL different occasions , considered the applicant \u2019s independent expert report and consulted a case - file from the administrative body which had issued the construction and use permits for the applicant \u2019s restaurant . The applicant \u2019s building contractor failed to provide project documentation specifically requested by the court CARDINAL times .","In the meantime , the applicant lodged numerous complaints about the length of the enforcement proceedings with the President of ORG ( Okru\u017eni sud ) in ORG and ORG and filed several requests for the reclusion of , and criminal complaints against the judges and experts .","On DATE the enforcement court terminated the enforcement proceedings . The court found in particular that , since the demolished ventilation system had not been constructed in line with the original project design , the supervision of its reconstruction was impossible and that , therefore , the ORG decision of DATE could not be enforced . On DATE this decision was upheld on the appeal .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against PERSON and the respondent State for compensation for damage due to the excessive length of the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON op\u0161tinski sud ) in GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s claim for compensation for lost earnings and declared the applicant \u2019s claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage withdrawn .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the judgment of DATE in the part rejecting the applicant \u2019s claim against PERSON and remitted that part of the case to the first - instance court for reconsideration . At the same time ORG upheld the remainder of the judgment of DATE .","It would appear that the proceedings are still pending .","On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional appeal complaining about the non - enforcement of the ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud ) of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172327","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160KORJANEC v. CROATIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation;Positive obligations);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE GPE police ( GPE uprava GPE , hereinafter \u201c the police \u201d ) received an emergency call informing them that CARDINAL men were attacking a man and a woman of GPE origin .","NORP The police immediately went to the scene , where they found the applicant and her partner GPE , and another individual , GPE , with whom the applicant and her partner had had a verbal and physical conflict . They all had visible injuries . Soon afterwards , nearby , the police found and arrested another man , PERSON , who had also been involved in the conflict .","A preliminary report prepared by the police stated that the applicant and her partner had first had an argument with GPE and GPE , during which PERSON had said \u201c all NORP should be killed , we will exterminate you \u201d . PERSON and GPE had then attacked the applicant \u2019s partner . The applicant and her partner had tried to escape but GPE and PERSON had managed to catch them . PERSON had grabbed the applicant \u2019s T - shirt and thrown her to the ground and then kicked her in the head . GPE and PERSON had then continued beating the applicant \u2019s partner , whose hands had been slashed with a knife by S.K ..","NORP The police report stated that the applicant had a contusion that was visible below her left eye . The emergency medical services also attended the scene . A doctor recorded the applicant \u2019s injuries as minor bodily injuries . On DATE the applicant was examined at a hospital , where her injuries were confirmed . She was told to rest and take painkillers .","In connection with the incident , the police carried out an on - site inspection and a further assessment of the available material . The police also interviewed the applicant and her partner as well as the CARDINAL assailants .","In his police interview of DATE the applicant \u2019s partner ORG stated that he was of GPE origin . On DATE of the incident he had been at a flea market with the applicant when some passers - by had pushed her . He had realised that it had been CARDINAL young men and he had told the applicant to ignore them because they were drunk ( \u201c wasted \u201d ) . CARDINAL of them had heard him and had turned to ORG , saying \u201c Fuck your Gypsy mother , who is wasted ? Who are you to tell me that ? You should all be exterminated , I fuck your Gypsy mother \u201d ( Jebem ti mater cigansku , tko je urokan , \u0161ta ti meni ima\u0161 govoriti , sve vas treba istrijebiti mamu vam cigansku jebem ) . The other man had also turned towards GPE , saying \u201c Fuck your mother , you should all be exterminated , I will kill you \u201d ( Jebem vam majku , treba vas istrijebiti , ubit \u0107u te ) . ORG stated that he had then panicked and had drawn a knife in order to scare them . However , that had created a further outburst of anger from the CARDINAL men ; CARDINAL of them had taken out a knife and they had started chasing GPE As ORG was running away , the applicant had joined him and they had started running away together , looking for help . However , the attackers had managed to get hold of ORG and had started beating him . At that point the applicant had tried to help and had also been hit . The CARDINAL men had then continued beating ORG , saying that he was a Rom and should be killed .","NORP In her police interview of DATE the applicant stated that she lived with ORG , with whom she had had CARDINAL children . She confirmed ORG \u2019s version of events , saying that she had been pushed by the CARDINAL men . After ORG had reacted by saying that the men should be left alone because they were drunk , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL men had said , \u201c Who is drunk ? Fuck your Gypsy mother , you should all be exterminated , this will be a white GPE again , you are garbage \u201d ( ORG je pijan , jebem ti mater cigansku , vas treba istrijebiti , ovo \u0107e ponovno ORG bijela ORG , sme\u0107e jedno ) . The applicant stated that after this the CARDINAL men had started attacking GPE She had tried to approach them to help ORG but another woman had prevented her from doing so . However , at CARDINAL point she had joined ORG and they had started running away . The CARDINAL men had then caught them and CARDINAL of them had grabbed her by the T - shirt and said , \u201c What are you going to do now you bitch ? I will beat you now \u201d ( \u0160to \u0107e\u0161 sad kujo jedna , sad \u0107u te prebiti ) . He had then kicked her in the head . The CARDINAL men had continued beating ORG , while she had run away and looked for help .","In their interviews of CARDINAL DATE the CARDINAL assailants explained that the conflict had broken out because ORG had offended them by saying that they were drunk . They denied the conflict had had any racial overtones .","On DATE the police lodged a criminal complaint against GPE and GPE with ORG Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) for suspected commission of a hate crime , perpetrated by attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm on GPE , and motivated by the latter \u2019s GPE origin . The applicant was mentioned in the criminal complaint as a witness .","In the course of the investigation the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG questioned the CARDINAL suspects and on DATE and CARDINAL DATE it instructed the police to conduct an identification procedure and formal questioning of the applicant and ORG as witnesses .","When questioned as a witness , ORG repeated the statement he had given during the first police interview . He explained how , after the CARDINAL men had pushed the applicant , CARDINAL of them had turned towards him and uttered the insults related to his GPE origin ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG also stated that the applicant had been attacked after she had tried to help him when the CARDINAL men were beating him up .","During her questioning as a witness , the applicant repeated the statement she had given during the first police interview ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Upon completion of the investigation , on DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s Office indicted GPE and GPE in ORG ( Op\u0107inski kazneni sud u GPE ) on charges of making serious threats against ORG and inflicting bodily injury on him , associated with a hate - crime element . The indictment also made reference to the attack on the applicant , suggesting that she had been kicked in the head while trying to save ORG from the beating .","The indictment was confirmed and the case was sent for trial on DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG informed ORG , as a victim in the proceedings , that an indictment had been lodged against GPE and GPE in connection with the attack on him . On DATE the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office informed ORG \u2019s lawyer , PERSON , of the institution of the proceedings in ORG .","At a hearing on DATE ORG questioned GPE He repeated the statements given to the police . When asked whether the CARDINAL assailants had said anything to the applicant related to ORG \u2019s racial origin , ORG stated that she had told him something but he could no longer remember the details . He thought that she had said that the CARDINAL assailants had told her that she was also GPE if she was with a GPE man . On the basis of an agreement between the parties , including ORG \u2019s representative , the applicant \u2019s statement to the police was admitted in evidence and she was not questioned further at the trial .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found PERSON and GPE guilty as charged and sentenced them to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant and her partner , represented by the lawyer PERSON , had lodged a criminal complaint with ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG against CARDINAL unidentified suspects in connection with the incident of DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) . It was alleged in the criminal complaint that CARDINAL of the suspects had first pushed the applicant and had then told her that she was a \u201c bitch \u201d ( kuja ) who had a relationship with a GPE man and that she would be beaten . She had been grabbed by the T - shirt and thrown to the ground , banging her head . The assailants had then continued beating ORG , threatening to kill him and the applicant . The criminal complaint also alleged that the assailants had stolen CARDINAL mobile telephones from GPE at the same time .","NORP The applicant \u2019s representative tried to obtain the relevant information about the attackers from the police on the grounds that she needed the information in order to institute court proceedings . On DATE the police informed the applicant \u2019s representative that they had lodged a criminal complaint with ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG against CARDINAL individuals in connection with a suspicion that they had committed the offence of attempted grievous had been classified as a hate crime . The applicant \u2019s representative was also informed that she should contact the GPE Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG for all further information .","The applicant \u2019s representative then informed the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG that the applicant and her partner would participate in the proceedings as victims and requested to be informed of all relevant procedural steps . On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative , invoking the domestic authorities\u2019 obligations under the Convention , requested information from the police and the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office about the criminal complaint lodged on behalf of the applicant .","On DATE the GPE Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint . It examined the materials related to the investigation into the incident of DATE and the criminal proceedings against GPE and GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c In view of the above , it is established without any doubt that on DATE in issue there was a physical conflict between GPE and GPE and GPE whereby [ GPE and GPE ] caused bodily injury to and threatened ORG , and those offences were committed primarily because of hatred towards GPE .","However , the statements of the witnesses GPE and PERSON show that [ PERSON and GPE ] pushed her in the back , causing her to fall onto a [ flea market ] stall , not because she was the partner of ORG , who is of GPE origin , but because they were drunk and they accidentally pushed her towards the stalls .","Furthermore , the medical documentation regarding PERSON , as well as the records of the questioning of the witnesses GPE and PERSON and the statements of GPE and GPE given in their defence in the proceedings before ORG , show that there is no doubt that PERSON kicked Maja GPE in the left side of the face with the result that she sustained a minor bodily injury .","Given that there is no indication that GPE and GPE inflicted injuries on GPE because of hatred towards GPE , as she is not of GPE origin , the criminal offence under LAW in conjunction with LAW has not been established .","In particular , the injury which Maja GPE sustained would , by its nature , suggest an injury within the meaning of LAW . ... As criminal proceedings for the offence under LAW are instituted on the basis of a private prosecution , the criminal complaint ... must be rejected ... on the grounds that the impugned criminal offence is not an offence that is prosecuted of the prosecutor \u2019s own motion .","With regard to the criminal offence under LAW in conjunction with LAW , it should be pointed out that it is obvious that PERSON and GPE threatened ORG and not PERSON ... Moreover , ... it does not follow from the record of PERSON witness statement , which has been examined , that GPE and GPE threatened her , but rather ORG , and thus the criminal complaint ... should be rejected on the grounds that the impugned criminal offence is not an offence that is prosecuted of the prosecutor \u2019s own motion . \u201d","The applicant was informed that she could take over the prosecution of GPE and GPE as a subsidiary prosecutor , as provided for under the relevant domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ."],"violated_articles":["14","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178181","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KRAJNC v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","He had been a professional truck driver until he became unable to work due to epilepsy .","On DATE the applicant was certified as having a \u201c category III work - related disability \u201d as a result of his condition . He was found to have a right to be reassigned to a suitable position of employment where he and others would not be at risk because of his condition , with ( retroactive ) effect from DATE .","On DATE the Celje regional unit of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the regional ORG \u201d ) granted the applicant a so - called \u201c allowance for the period of waiting to be reassigned to or employed in a different appropriate position of employment \u201d ( hereinafter \u201c waiting period allowance \u201d ) from DATE . Though the sums appear to be lower during DATE , he had been subsequently receiving around QUANTITY ( ORG ) per month in waiting period allowance . The regional ORG relied on section CARDINAL of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the DATE LAW ) and section CARDINAL of the new ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the DATE Act \u201d \u2013 see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . It noted that the applicant had been registered as unemployed on DATE and had been a beneficiary under LAW from DATE to CARDINAL October CARDINAL . Thus , once his unemployment allowance had come to an end he had become entitled to a waiting period allowance under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The regional ORG also noted that , under section CARDINAL of the DATE Act , beneficiaries were entitled to a waiting period allowance until they fulfilled the conditions for retirement ( ibid . ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s doctor informed the regional ORG about a shoulder injury the applicant had sustained and requested a reassessment of his level of disability .","On the basis of , inter alia , information provided by the applicant \u2019s doctor , the regional ORG , on DATE , decided that the applicant had a right to be reassigned to another position of employment with several limitations , such as not to work at unprotected heights or drive category C and E vehicles , with effect from DATE . Subsequently , on DATE it adopted a decision granting him a disability allowance ( nadomestilo za invalidnost ) from DATE . The regional ORG relied on the DATE Act , which had introduced certain new disability benefits ( the term \u201c disability benefit \u201d is used to cover any type of allowance that arises from a disability ) and discontinued some of those provided for under the DATE LAW , including the waiting period allowance . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW stipulated that a right to a disability allowance applied as from DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The regional ORG noted in its decision that the applicant had not been insured under the compulsory insurance scheme at the onset of his disability , but had been registered as unemployed on DATE within DATE of the final decision on his disability , as required by section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act . It was established that his capacity to work had in fact further reduced , even though the category ( III ) of his disability remained unchanged . The regional ORG found that , pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act , he should receive a benefit in the form of disability allowance , which in his case amounted to ORG . It drew the applicant \u2019s attention to section CARDINAL of the DATE Act , which required beneficiaries to inform the ORG of any change in circumstances which could affect their rights under that LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the above decision , arguing that in determining the amount of his disability benefit , the regional ORG should have respected the principle of acquired rights . He pointed out that his benefit had reduced considerably , even though his disability had in fact worsened , and claimed that such a decision was unlawful .","On DATE the central ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the central ORG \u201d ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , confirming that the regional ORG had properly applied the law and correctly calculated the amount of his disability allowance .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG challenging the above decisions . He reiterated that the disability allowance granted to him under LAW violated his acquired rights and that instead of increasing his benefit it reduced it by CARDINAL , which was unlawful and unconstitutional .","On DATE the Celje Labour and ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It explained that while recipients of disability - related rights under LAW retained their acquired rights after the date set out in section CARDINAL of LAW , in the applicant \u2019s case a reassessment of his disability had been carried out on DATE due to a worsening of his condition ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had resulted in further workplace limitations and his rights being consequently determined anew . In cases where a fresh assessment was made LAW was to be applied . The court concluded that LAW did not contain the right to a waiting period allowance . Instead , under LAW , it provided for the disability allowance ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) which had been correctly granted to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment , repeating the complaints he had made before the first - instance court and alleging that he ought to have been informed of the consequences of a request for a reassessment of his disability . If that had been the case , he would have \u201c forbidden \u201d his doctor from making such a request . Lastly , he reiterated that the decision of the regional ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was unlawful and unconstitutional , as it violated his right to social security ; he pointed out that he was unable to survive on the newly determined disability allowance .","On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , confirming the position of the lower court that the applicant \u2019s case concerned a change in the level of disability , which had required a fresh determination of his disability benefit . In such a situation , section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provided that the applicant acquired rights under LAW . Also , since the applicant \u2019s rights had been determined anew , ORG concluded that there had been no violation of his acquired rights related to social security , and thus no violation of the LAW .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law before ORG , arguing that he could not have legitimately expected that the worsening of his disability would result in a severe reduction of his disability benefit . In that connection , he alleged that ORG view that the reduction did not interfere with his acquired rights or constitute a violation of his constitutional right to social security was arbitrary , as the court had provided no reasoning for that conclusion . The applicant further alleged that the newly determined amount of disability benefit interfered with his constitutional right to property .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , finding that the Higher Labour and ORG had sufficiently explained that the change in his level of disability had required a fresh determination of his benefit in accordance with the DATE Act .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against ORG judgment , alleging a violation of his constitutional rights to property and social security . He argued that the reduction in the disability benefit had put his subsistence at risk and failed the test of proportionality .","On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant \u2019s complaint for consideration on the merits , referring to section DATE ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant fulfilled the conditions for a retirement pension in the amount of ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL and his disability allowance was discontinued from DATE . He thus received the disability allowance for DATE .","Data concerning the applicant \u2019s income provided by the NORP tax authorities shows that he received ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE in pension and disability insurance and , after the impugned change in his allowance , ORG CARDINAL in DATE and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166760","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"KHOLODOV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant participated in the clean - up operations following the GPE disaster and has special status as a \u201c first category liquidator \u201d . He is a second - degree disabled person as a result of his participation in the clean - up operations . In DATE a commission of medical experts found that the applicant had lost PERCENT of his working ability .","NORP The applicant suffers from multiple ailments of his joints . He has been diagnosed with polyarticular rheumatoid arthritis of his feet joints ; arthritis of the left knee joint and the right ankle joint ; and rheumatoid arthritis of the right elbow joint .","The applicant is a practising lawyer . He supports CARDINAL daughters who were born in DATE . Owing to his condition the applicant is only able to walk for short distances and can hardly move during periods of exacerbation . The applicant uses his car extensively for personal , family and professional purposes . He has had a driving licence since DATE .","On DATE the applicant caused a traffic accident after his negligent driving led to his car being hit by another car . Both cars were damaged , with that of the applicant being damaged in several places , including in the steering mechanism . The applicant admitted his fault .","On DATE ORG of ORG found the applicant liable for a breach of traffic regulations resulting in damage to vehicles . When determining the penalty the court had regard to the nature of the offence and decided to suspend the applicant \u2019s driving licence for DATE .","The applicant appealed , arguing that the suspension of his driving licence was an excessively severe punishment in his case . He asked for the penalty to be converted into a fine . The applicant contended that in view of his disability a car was indispensable for his professional activities and a driving ban would eventually worsen his financial position and ability to support his family . Moreover , he also used the car for personal and family purposes on a DATE basis . The applicant submitted that he had had a driving licence since DATE and that he had not committed any other administrative offences . He asked ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) to take into account the fact he had admitted being at fault in the accident and that his car had been badly damaged .","By a final decision of DATE ORG amended the penalty and reduced the term of suspension of the licence to DATE . In its reasons ORG first stated that there had been no evidence to suggest that the applicant \u2019s disability was the sole reason for his using a car . Nor was a car the sole source of his income given that the applicant had a lawyer \u2019s licence . ORG then had regard to the facts that the applicant was a disabled person and that he had participated in the GPE clean - up operation . It also noted that the applicant had admitted his fault but he had not expressed remorse . In addition , the applicant had not reimbursed the other party for the damage .","Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provides for administrative liability for breaches of traffic regulations which result in damage to vehicles , goods , roads , streets , railway level crossings , road construction equipment or other objects . It provides for a fine or a suspension of the offender \u2019s driving licence for DATE as a penalty for such an offence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140942","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"VIDI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The cases originated in CARDINAL separate applications against GPE ( see list appended ) , lodged with ORG under LAW ( \u201c the LAW ) .","The persons stated as the applicants in the application forms were Mr PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , Mr PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , and Mr PERSON ( application no . DATE ) . They were all NORP nationals , born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively . Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , claimed to represent the applicants before the ORG . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The applications were lodged on DATE and concerned the non - enforcement of CARDINAL final court judgments rendered against a socially \/ ORG - owned company ( see , for example , PERSON and ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) . Enclosed with the application forms were the powersofattorney dated DATE and signed \u201c LOC \u201d , \u201c PERSON \u201d and \u201c ORG \u201d . The powers - of - attorney were also signed by PERSON and stamped with his stamp .","On the basis of signed declarations according to which the Government undertook to pay to each applicant QUANTITY in respect of non - pecuniary damage and legal costs plus the sums awarded in the final domestic decisions , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG decided to strike the applications out of its list of cases .","By letter of DATE the Government notified the ORG that Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , and Mr ORG had actually died on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , that is before the applications had been lodged .","In his reply of DATE Mr Jevtovi\u0107 did not contest that Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , and Mr ORG had died before the applications were lodged , but stated that he had been unaware of this fact at that time , because he had represented those applicants , along with many of their colleagues . Since his clients performed construction work in the field , he was unable to meet them all , but asked some of them to have powers - of - attorney signed by their colleagues and to bring those forms to him . He also stated that he had no reason or interest in lodging applications on behalf of dead persons , when he could have lodged the application on behalf of their heirs . In this respect , PERSON produced powerofattorney forms signed by the heirs of Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG authorising him to receive the amounts agreed in the friendly settlement declarations .","On DATE the ORG decided to restore the applications to its list of cases ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145571","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PETROVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicant \u2019s son , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and died on DATE in hospital , DATE after reportedly having fallen from the window of a police station in GPE .","At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON was arrested by ORG - SUP GPE ) on suspicion of having snatched a woman \u2019s handbag TIME and was kept TIME in police custody . Mr PERSON , then aged DATE , was apparently known to the police as an alleged drug user and as having been involved in similar incidents previously .","According to the police reports , TIME at TIME a.m. Mr PERSON was questioned by QUANTITY police officers , GPE , PERSON and N.K. Mr PERSON allegedly confessed that he had committed the robbery in question and had hidden a sum of money ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in his home . After an unsuccessful search of the PERSON family \u2019s flat TIME , the police officers left the house together with Mr Petrovi\u0107 in handcuffs .","The applicant alleged that her son had been visibly distressed and very pale , and his mouth had been yellowish . On the way out , he had turned to her and said \u201c call a lawyer , I have done nothing , they will kill me \u201d .","According to the incident report of CARDINAL DATE drawn up by Major PERSON , the police ORG superior , Mr PERSON had been brought back handcuffed , at TIME , to office no . CARDINAL on the second floor of the ORG police station to be questioned further . As they entered the office , while PERSON was approaching his desk , PERSON was standing and PERSON was closing the office door , Mr PERSON suddenly rushed forward , jumped head first through a closed window , breaking a window pane , and fell out into the courtyard . None of the police officers had been able to prevent it . The police officers ran out to the courtyard and , as Mr PERSON showed some signs of still being alive , they took the handcuffs off , while some other colleagues called an ambulance .","Around TIME , the police informed the applicant \u2019s family that PERSON PERSON had jumped from the second floor of the police premises and that he had been taken to the emergency unit of ORG in GPE .","Upon their arrival at the emergency unit , the applicant and her husband ( Mr PERSON father ) were informed that at QUANTITY the hospital had admitted an unidentified and severely injured patient who had jumped from the second floor of a building . He was in a comatose state , with a fracture of his left ribs and femur and contusion and haematoma of the liver , and was undergoing surgery that could take TIME .","While the surgical operation was being carried out , the applicant \u2019s husband went to the Vra\u010dar Police LOC . Following an on - site inspection ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , he was shown the scene of the incident . The applicant claimed that her husband , as well as certain media , had initially been informed that their son , who had been handcuffed and in his DATE jacket , had been alone in the office when he had jumped through the window , but had later been told that their son had broken away in the presence of the QUANTITY police officers .","Mr PERSON remained in a comatose state while in hospital , except DATE , when he showed some signs of consciousness and movement .","According to the medical certificate issued by ORG , Mr PERSON died from sepsis and cardiac arrest on DATE at TIME Following a request by the investigating judge ( GPE ) of ORG , the post - mortem examination of Mr PERSON body was carried out on DATE at TIME by CARDINAL doctors , ORG . PERSON , of ORG in GPE . The autopsy report stated that PERSON PERSON death had been violent and caused by damage to his brain ( vitalne centre ) and complications thereafter . It further concluded that the damage to his brain , as well as the rib and femur fractures and other external and internal bodily injuries described in the report , had been \u201c inflicted with a blunt , heavy and swinging object ( naneti tupim , te\u0161kim i zamahnutim predmetom ) \u201d . No photographs or results of any toxicological analysis have been submitted to the Court .","Following a telephone call from the GPE criminal police department for investigative and operational affairs ( NORP za uvi\u0111ajno - operativne poslove LOC kriminalisti\u010dke policije ( UKP ) - SUP GPE ; hereinafter \u201c the GPE \u201d ) , the investigating judge on duty , V.M. , from an unspecified court , arrived at ORG at an unspecified time to inspect the scene of the incident . PERSON , from the GPE , and a crime - scene technician , GPE , from the GPE criminal police forensics unit ( GPE kriminalisti\u010dke tehnike ORG - a ) were also present .","According to the investigating judge \u2019s CARDINAL - and - CARDINAL - page report of his inspection of the scene of the incident ( zapisnik o uvi\u0111aju ) , upon his arrival at ORG , unspecified police officers had shown him office no . CARDINAL and a broken window pane in the left corner of the window , closest to the floor . As it was a double , wooden multi - paned window , and as he had been informed that Mr PERSON had jumped out through the window pane by breaking the glass , he had examined the pane in question . As he had seen no blood stains , hair or any other trace of this nature , he had asked the CARDINAL above - mentioned investigators whether they had seen any traces , in order to inspect them , but they had both responded in the negative . He had ordered the crime - scene technician to draw a sketch of the scene and to photograph it , as well as to measure the size of the window .","The investigating judge had noted the broken window pane , as well as pieces of glass between the CARDINAL window frames and on the floor below the inside window . In the snow - covered courtyard of the police building , into which the suspect Mr PERSON had allegedly fallen , he had \u201c noticed footprints and trodden snow of an indeterminate shape below the window \u201d , but had not found \u201c any blood stains or other physical traces \u201d .","The sketch of the scene of the incident , CARDINAL photographs of the office and CARDINAL of the courtyard were an integral part of the investigating judge \u2019s report . The copies of the photographs submitted to the ORG show an armchair under the broken window with a cabinet to its right and a hat stand to its left . In the report on the forensic inspection of the scene of the incident ( izve\u0161taj o kriminalisti\u010dko - tehni\u010dkom pregledu lica mesta ) , the crime - scene technician noted the following : ( a ) as regards biological traces , the investigating judge had not requested that fingerprints be lifted and collected ; ( b ) as regards the other evidence and objects found , broken glass had been noticed in the pane of the lower left part of the interior and exterior window frames . The window pane \u2019s frames measured CARDINAL x CARDINAL and CARDINAL x QUANTITY respectively and stood QUANTITY from the office floor . Both window frames had been found closed . Pieces of broken glass had been found between the interior and exterior window frames and on the windowsill . The outside window stood QUANTITY above the ground . The trodden snow and pieces of glass had been found QUANTITY away from the building \u2019s wall . Other traces had not been found .","According to a separate report on the questioning of the QUANTITY police officers drawn up by GPE from the GPE , they had provided concurring statements to the same effect as those detailed in the incident report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The police officers also stated that Mr PERSON had , as usual , been very well - behaved that morning and had confessed to committing the robbery .","A report was drawn up , apparently in the framework of a fact - finding visit conducted on DATE , at an unspecified time , by Major D.T. and Captain PERSON of ORG ( GPE za kontrolu zakonitosti u PERSON GPE ) . The report restated the events as outlined by the previous reports ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . It was further noted that Mr PERSON parents had mentioned that he had been taking antidepressants as part of his therapy for drug addiction in order to prevent any possible self - injury . Regarding the police ORG accountability , the inspectors considered that the police officers in charge had undertaken preventive , but apparently insufficient , measures for the protection of Mr PERSON . For that reason , disciplinary action against GPE and GPE and a verbal reprimand to ORG by her superior were recommended . The inspectors also recommended that the police ensure appropriate conditions , for example , window security bars , on LOC where apprehended individuals were questioned .","In the framework of a preliminary disciplinary inquiry ( prethodni disciplinski postupak ) that evening , the QUANTITY police officers were questioned again , one by one , by their superior , Major PERSON The CARDINAL officers repeated their earlier statements .","On DATE PERSON and GPE were prosecuted in disciplinary proceedings for gross misconduct , namely , omitting to take adequate measures for the protection of Mr PERSON \u2019s safety while in custody . The disciplinary body heard the officers as the suspects , as well as ORG as a witness , all of whom reiterated their earlier recollection of the incident . The police officers were acquitted at CARDINAL levels , the last decision being rendered on DATE . It was found thathave done more than they had done to protect Mr PERSON and prevent his suicide .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband lodged a criminal complaint against police officer GPE on behalf of the PERSON family , on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had forcibly extracted a statement from Mr PERSON . In the complaint it was claimed that the police officers had used force in order to extract a statement and had severely ill - treated Mr PERSON to such an extent that it had driven him to jump out of the office window . The family also alleged that the police officers had failed to disclose Mr PERSON identity and all the circumstances of the incident to the emergency medical team .","In the meantime , on DATE , the GPE police sent ORG in GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the PERSON \u201d ) the CARDINAL reports of DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) . On DATE and DATE , respectively , the PERSON also received the autopsy report and the report on the forensic inspection of the scene of the incident ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the PERSON requested information from ORG on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against the police officers who had been present during the incident . The PERSON also supplied that department with its own case file to enable them to establish the facts of the case more easily . The requested documentation from the disciplinary proceedings was received by the PERSON on DATE .","On an unspecified date , the applicant \u2019s husband extended the criminal complaint to include CARDINAL other police officers who had been involved in the incident .","On DATE the PERSON requested a commission of forensic experts from ORG of the Belgrade ORG to give their opinion on what other causes , apart from DATE from the window , could explain Mr PERSON \u2019s injuries . On DATE ORG requested the case file and the PERSON sent it to them DATE . On DATE the PERSON requested an investigating judge of ORG to issue an order for a forensic opinion , as the ORG could apparently not proceed on the basis of the PERSON \u2019s order alone . The investigating judge did so on DATE .","DATE , in an expert opinion dated DATE , the experts stated , on the basis of the autopsy report and other medical records , that a person of Mr PERSON height and build could have \u201c squeezed through \u201d the window in question . They further maintained that Mr PERSON \u2019s fatal injuries could have been caused by his jump from the window and his falling on a hard surface . Finally , they concluded that no other injuries , lacerations , scratches or bruises of a nature or location which would indicate that they had any cause other than the one mentioned above had been recorded in the autopsy report or in the hospital \u2019s files .","On DATE the PERSON rejected the criminal complaint on the ground that there was no reasonable suspicion that the suspects had committed the alleged crime . The applicant \u2019s husband was notified accordingly and informed that he could pursue a subsidiary criminal prosecution ( preuzeti krivi\u010dno gonjenje ) within DATE of the date that decision had been served on him by filing a request for an investigation ( zahtev za sprovo\u0111enje istrage ) .","On DATE the Petrovi\u0107 \u2019s family lodged with the PERSON a new and more detailed criminal complaint against the police officers ( PERSON , ORG , GPE and PERSON ) for causing severe bodily harm ( te\u0161ke telesne povrede ) , extracting a statement by coercion ( iznu\u0111ivanje iskaza ) and ill - treatment in the discharge of their official duties ( zlostava u slu\u017ebi ) . In the complaint they expressed their doubt that Mr PERSON had jumped out of the office window of his own volition and their suspicion that the suspects had thrown their son \u2019s corpse out of the window in order to conceal previous ill - treatment . The complaint pointed out certain alleged contradictions and shortcomings in the previous investigative measures and reports , and proposed numerous investigative activities to be carried out in order to investigate the circumstances of Mr PERSON \u2019s death adequately .","On DATE the ORG in GPE rejected that criminal complaint for the same reasons relied on in its decision of DATE , and repeated the information it had provided about the possibility of a subsidiary prosecution . That letter was served on the applicant on DATE .","Following the rejection of the first criminal complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the applicant attempted to take over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor by filing a request for an investigation with ORG in GPE and subsequently , on DATE , a request to broaden the scope of the investigation ( zahtev za pro\u0161irenje istrage ) . She relied on and reaffirmed the assertions and requests she had made in her second criminal complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP In response to a request of CARDINAL DATE by ORG investigating judge , ORG , as well as a reminder sent on DATE , on DATE CARDINAL forensic pathologists , PERSON and PERSON , from ORG in GPE provided an expert opinion . Relying on the previous medical and autopsy reports , they found that the location , distribution and types of injuries observed on Mr PERSON indicated that they were severe and life - endangering , and that they could undoubtedly have been the result of a fall from the second floor , but only through an open window . In particular , they found that taking into account the circumstances of the incident , including Mr PERSON build , his DATE clothes and his handcuffs , the size of the window pane in question and the position of the furniture and the window in the office , it would have been practically impossible for him to have broken through the window and jumped out . Otherwise , it would mean that he had been able to \u201c fly horizontally \u201d over the armchair and break the window with his head exactly in its centre .","On DATE the investigating judge held a hearing and interviewed the suspects . They repeated their earlier statements . PERSON added that Mr PERSON had jumped from the floor QUANTITY away from the window and gone through it without touching the armchair , which was under the window ; none of the furniture had fallen over or been moved .","On DATE the investigating judge refused to open the investigation sought by the applicant ( izrazio neslaganje sa zahtevom ) , and referred the case to a CARDINAL - judge criminal panel ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","On DATE the CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG upheld the investigating judge \u2019s findings , relying on the case file , namely , the \u201c concordant statements of the suspects \u201d and the findings and opinions of the forensic experts in DATE and DATE , \u201c which [ were ] consistent and indicate[d ] that all the injuries of the deceased could have been caused at the same time by his fall from a height of QUANTITY metres onto a hard surface \u201d . The applicant was instructed that she could appeal against that decision within DATE from the date on which the decision was served on her and she did so on DATE , reiterating her previous arguments .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal as unfounded . In reaching that decision , by reference to the expert commission \u2019s forensic findings of DATE , it upheld the lower court \u2019s reasoning as clear , conclusive and convincing . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( inicijativa za podizanje zahteva za za\u0161titu zakonitosti ) , urging him to lodge a request with ORG for the protection of legality ( zahtev za za\u0161titu zakonitosti ) against the decision of DATE on her behalf .","On DATE the Chief Public Prosecutor informed the applicant that on that same day he had accepted her motion and had lodged a request for the protection of legality against the decision of DATE , submitting , in particular , that : ( a ) the court had based its finding on evidence that had been challenged by the applicant and , which , according to him , had been flawed by inconsistencies ; ( b ) the court had dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeals without addressing her arguments ; and ( c ) the collection and examination of evidence had been superficial , which had resulted in the incorrect and implausible conclusion reached by the court .","On DATE ORG , sitting in a different composition from that of DATE , rejected the ORG \u2019s request . Having regard to the case file and a hearing in the presence of the CARDINAL suspects and their lawyer , the court stated the following : ( a ) the forensic experts had not ruled out that the victim might have sustained the injuries while breaking the window and falling on a hard surface ; ( b ) no evidence had shown that the suspects had caused the victim any bodily harm by any other means ; ( c ) according to the relevant evidence , there was no reasonable suspicion that the suspects had committed the alleged crimes which would warrant the opening of criminal proceedings ; and , lastly , ( d ) the impugned decision did not ultimately preclude the opening of criminal proceedings if the victim , as a subsidiary prosecutor , submitted new evidence which had not existed or had been unknown at the time of her previous request for an investigation . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","In DATE the applicant and her husband brought a joint civil action against the respondent ORG and ORG to obtain redress for the mental anguish suffered as a consequence of Mr PERSON death . They relied on LAW and various international human rights instruments . The defendant contested the claim in general , but did not make any further clarification in that respect .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG clarified that although it could not ascertain a reliable course of the events in question or anyone \u2019s clear fault , this was not its task in any event . Referring to the DATE forensic experts\u2019 report and LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below , respectively ) , the court concluded that the respondent ORG should compensate the plaintiffs on the basis of the ORG \u2019s liability for its officials\u2019 omissions , which had undoubtedly occurred given that Mr PERSON had sustained injuries and died while in police custody under the supervision of ORG officials . Pursuant to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , it awarded each plaintiff ORG for non - pecuniary damage , and made an award in respect of costs .","That judgment was upheld on the merits by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE respectively . The sums awarded were paid on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150240","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RIMSCHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . At the time of the events he was an academic and member of ORG .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with the offence of producing and putting into circulation counterfeit money . Since then he has remained remanded in custody pending criminal investigation and trial . The detention warrants were prolonged every month initially and DATE once the case had reached ORG . Each time the reasons given for the detention were that the applicant had been accused of a serious offence punishable with imprisonment of DATE , that the criminal case was complex and that , if released , he might interfere with the investigation or collude with other co - accused , or abscond or reoffend .","The last CARDINAL extensions of the applicant \u2019s detention before the lodging of the present application took place on unspecified dates in DATE and DATE . The applicant argued that there was no risk of his interfering with the investigation since all the witnesses and the parties to the proceedings had already been heard and all the evidence had been examined by the court . He also submitted that there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond or re - offend and agreed to be placed under house arrest if he could not be released . The applicant also argued that according to LAW , once the case had been referred to a court , the detention could not last longer than DATE , other than in exceptional cases .","NORP ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments and , relying on the same grounds as before , extended his detention for a further DATE . The court stated that the case was exceptional within the meaning of LAW of LAW . The decisions of DATE and DATE contain similar wording . The applicant \u2019s appeals against them were rejected by ORG .","On DATE the applicant was convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . His appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE and the ORG has not been informed about the proceedings before ORG ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150229","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF U\u011eUR v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are brothers . As the facts of the case are in dispute between the parties , they will be set out separately . The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below ( paragraphs DATE ) . The Government \u2019s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C ( paragraphs CARDINAL ) . The documentary evidence submitted by the applicants and the Government is summarised in Section D ( paragraphs CARDINAL ) .","On DATE at TIME the applicants\u2019 neighbour , GPE , was shot in the street . The applicants , who were at their aunt \u2019s house at the time , and a number of their friends , took the injured neighbour to hospital , where he died on arrival .","A police chief and a number of police officers arrived at the hospital at TIME and asked the applicants and their friends to accompany them to NORP police station , where they could be questioned as witnesses in relation to the incident . By the time they arrived , however , the police officers had already established that the applicants\u2019 neighbour had been shot by a police officer . They then decided to detain the applicants at the station . Although the applicants had been taken to the station at TIME , the time of their arrival was stated as TIME in the relevant police report ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The necessary formalities concerning their detention at the police station were not complied with . For example , their names were not entered in the custody ledgers , and although they were minors and should have been taken to a special police station for minors , this was not done . Furthermore , they were not informed of their rights or allowed to contact a lawyer , nor were their next of kin informed .","On DATE QUANTITY police officers working at the special police station for minors went to NORP police station and questioned the applicants in the absence of a lawyer and thus in contravention of the applicable procedure , which stipulates that the presence of a lawyer is compulsory during the questioning of minors . Furthermore , although the applicants were questioned there , it was written in the statements taken from them that they had been questioned at the special police station for minors .","While detained at the police station , the applicants were stripped naked , doused with cold water , kicked , punched and beaten with truncheons . The reason for the ill - treatment was to force them to implicate themselves in the incident . As they were illiterate and unrepresented by a lawyer , they had no way of verifying the statements before they were forced to sign them . As a result of those incriminatory statements the prosecutor instigated an investigation against the second applicant , but it was subsequently closed for lack of evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","At CARDINAL or TIME on DATE the police officers hit the applicants with their truncheons and told them to leave the police station .","NORP The following day the applicants went to the GPE branch of ORG and were referred to ORG , also in GPE , where they were examined by a number of doctors DATE . The reports pertaining to their medical examination were drawn up on DATE .","With the assistance of their lawyer , PERSON , the applicants made an official complaint against the police officers on DATE . The prosecutor referred them to doctors , who examined them and described their injuries in medical reports . During the prosecutor \u2019s investigation , police chief GPE , CARDINAL of the police officers who had been responsible for the applicants\u2019 ill - treatment , continued to serve as the chief of ORG police station and made numerous attempts to stall the investigation . It was not until he was posted elsewhere and another police chief was appointed to replace him that the necessary information could be handed over to the prosecutor to enable him to start the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","When the prosecutor subsequently started taking meaningful steps to investigate their allegations of ill - treatment , the police officers started putting pressure on the applicants and their family . The applicants were unable to withstand the pressure and were forced to dismiss PERSON . At the behest of the police officers , they appointed PERSON as their new legal representative and informed ORG on DATE that they were withdrawing their complaints . They were also forced to tell the authorities that their allegations of ill - treatment had been fabricated . Mr ORG made submissions against them during the first hearing , held on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Although during that hearing ORG decided to hold its next hearing on DATE , it held an unscheduled hearing on DATE without informing the applicants or their legal representative . Police chief ORG was thus heard by ORG in the absence of their lawyers and in breach of the applicable rules of criminal procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This deprived them and their lawyers of the opportunity to formally identify the police chief and put questions to him .","Although they subsequently dismissed PERSON , reappointed PERSON PERSON and informed ORG of the change of representation on DATE , ORG did not entertain the new power of attorney until DATE . It thus attempted to prevent their lawyer from representing them .","As a result of the indifference of the national authorities to their allegations of ill - treatment and the collusion between the police authorities and the judiciary , the criminal proceedings against the police officers were not conducted diligently and were intentionally allowed to become timebarred . The investigation into their allegations of ill - treatment showed that the judiciary did not have the courage to prosecute people responsible for ill - treating children as young DATE .","In their observations , the Government summarised the investigation documents ( also summarised below in paragraphs DATE to CARDINAL ) , and submitted that the applicants had been taken to LOC police station with a view to being questioned as witnesses of a serious crime , namely the killing of GPE The applicants , who were minors at the time , were taken to the station at TIME with a view to being referred to a special police station for minors . No custody reports were drawn up because the applicants had not been arrested , just taken in as witnesses . They were questioned at the special police station for minors .","On DATE the applicants lodged a formal complaint with the ORG prosecutor against the police officers . According to the medical reports drawn up at the request of the prosecutor , both applicants had a number of injuries .","The information provided by the national authorities showed that the applicants were substance users and had regular problems with the police . During the trial , the applicants gave conflicting versions of events , and withdrew their complaints .","The following information appears from the documents submitted by the parties .","According to a report signed by CARDINAL police officers , at TIME on DATE a number of police officers arrived at FAC in the centre of GPE , where they saw an off - duty police officer , PERSON , lying on the ground with various injuries to his head . Next to him was his pistol loaded with CARDINAL bullets and a spent bullet case . The officers also noted in their report that the applicants\u2019 neighbour , GPE , had been shot TIME from where PERSON was lying , and had since been taken to a hospital in GPE .","The report also stated that hand swabs had been taken from CARDINAL individuals with a view to establishing whether or not they had gunpowder residue on their hands . The CARDINAL individuals included the first applicant who , according to the report , \u201c had been taken in by the police in connection with the incident \u201d .","According to another police report drawn up TIME , CARDINAL teenagers , including the CARDINAL applicants , \u201c who had been apprehended in connection with the incident \u201d were \u201c placed in the custody of the police \u201d and taken to LOC police station at TIME with a view to being transferred to a special police station for minors .","TIME , at TIME on DATE , ORG , the chief of LOC station , wrote in a report that he had contacted a prosecutor by telephone , who had given him permission to question the applicants and the CARDINAL other teenagers as \u201c statement makers \u201d ( ifade sahibi ) in relation to the death of ORG and the injuries caused to ORG","DATE , TIME , statements were taken from the applicants and the remaining CARDINAL teenagers by police officers GPE and GPE , who worked at the special police station for minors . It is written in the statements that they were taken at the special police station for minors .","In the statements , the applicants were reported to have told the QUANTITY police officers that they had been walking along the street with a number of their friends when they had seen PERSON They had noticed that he was drunk , and had attempted to rob him . However , he had produced a pistol and they had unsuccessfully tried to take it from him . During the scuffle , the pistol had gone off and their friend ORG had been shot .","One of their friends had then pursued the armed man and started hitting him . When his pistol had fallen to the ground , their friend had taken it and shot him in the head . They had then taken ORG to hospital and had been arrested there by the police .","There are no documents in the ORG \u2019s possession showing the time and date of the ORG release from the police station .","According to CARDINAL medical reports , on DATE the applicants were examined by doctors at ORG . The first applicant told them that he had been beaten up at the police station , doused with cold water , hit on the back and the torso with a police truncheon , and grabbed by the throat by a police officer . The second applicant told them that a police officer had grabbed him by the throat , while another had held his hands behind his back , and the CARDINAL officers had then pulled at his legs .","The doctors observed that the first applicant had a number of injuries . These included a scratch on the upper right side of his torso measuring QUANTITY , as well as bruising on the back of his body in CARDINAL places , measuring CARDINAL x CARDINAL , CARDINAL x CARDINAL , CARDINAL x CARDINAL and QUANTITY . The doctors concluded that his description of the ill - treatment was compatible with their findings .","The second applicant did not appear to have any external injuries , but his description of the ill - treatment was deemed by the doctors to be compatible with his unsettled and nervous state of mind . They concluded that further medical examinations , including a bone scintigraphy and a psychological assessment , were necessary in order to reach a definitive conclusion .","On DATE the applicants , assisted by their lawyer PERSON , lodged a formal complaint with the ORG prosecutor against the police officers . They informed him that their statements had been taken in the absence of the necessary safeguards , and contained things they had never said . They alleged that during their time in police custody , they had been subjected to ill - treatment . At the end of their detention they had not been taken to see a doctor , but had been hit with truncheons and told to \u201c leave and never be seen again \u201d . The applicants referred to their rights guaranteed by LAW , and asked the prosecutor to investigate their allegations .","DATE , the prosecutor referred the applicants to a doctor , who noted in his report that they had no visible signs of ill - treatment . He considered it necessary , however , that the applicants be examined more thoroughly at a hospital .","An investigation which had been started by a prosecutor against the second applicant and his neighbour GPE for the \u201c attempted robbery \u201d of ORG was discontinued on DATE , because the prosecutor observed that the applicants\u2019 neighbour had been killed by the police officer , and there was no evidence implicating the second applicant in the incident .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor questioned the applicants in relation to their allegations of ill - treatment , and opened a criminal investigation file . The first applicant told the prosecutor that he and his brother , the second applicant , had been beaten up by the chief of NORP police station , whose first name was \u201c PERSON \u201d . The ill - treatment to which they had been subjected included having been stripped naked and doused with cold water . During their time at the station , they had not been given any food or allowed to inform their family or a lawyer . They had been released \u201c at CARDINAL or CARDINAL \u201d in the afternoon .","DATE , the prosecutor referred the applicants to ORG , where further medical examinations were carried out on them on DATE . According to the reports drawn up at that hospital , both applicants had a number of injuries .","On DATE the ORG branch of ORG drew up CARDINAL reports , concluding that the first applicant \u2019s injuries were of a nature to render him unfit for DATE . The second applicant \u2019s injuries , which included a number of cuts and grazes on his lip , arms and the backs of his legs , rendered him unfit for DATE .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor questioned police officers GPE and GPE , who worked at the special police station for minors and had questioned the applicants on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They told the prosecutor that on DATE they had been asked to go to LOC police station to take statements from a number of children . When they had arrived , they had been presented with CARDINAL statements allegedly taken from the children and had been asked to sign them as if they had prepared them . They had refused to do so and insisted on questioning the children themselves before returning to their own police station at TIME .","NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE addressed to the ORG prosecutor , the chief of LOC police station , ORG , stated that no records existed at his station to show that the applicants had been detained there from DATE .","DATE and DATE the ORG prosecutor sent CARDINAL letters to ORG , unsuccessfully requesting him to ensure that QUANTITY police officers working at LOC police station attended his office . On DATE the ORG prosecutor wrote to him for a fifth time , repeating his previous requests . In the same letter he also warned that a criminal investigation would be opened against him if he failed to comply with the request .","On DATE the new chief of NORP police station replied to the prosecutor \u2019s letter and gave him the names of the QUANTITY police officers . He also informed him that he had been unable to contact QUANTITY of them because they were working at different police stations around the country .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG of First Instance charging a total of QUANTITY police officers with ill - treatment , an offence defined in section CARDINAL of LAW in force at the time of the events . Those indicted included the former NORP police chief GPE","The applicants joined as interveners in the criminal proceedings before ORG , which decided on DATE that the police officers should have instead been charged with the offence of torture , an offence defined in section CARDINAL of the Criminal Code which fell within the jurisdiction of ORG . The file was thus forwarded to ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was shown photographs of the CARDINAL defendant police officers . He identified GPE and CARDINAL other police officers , GPE , GPE and GPE","In the meantime , a police chief was appointed to carry out a disciplinary investigation and questioned the applicants at PERSON police station on DATE . They were accompanied by their father , PERSON , and PERSON , a lawyer . In CARDINAL almost identical statements drawn up by the investigating police officer the applicants were reported to have stated that on DATE of the incident they had been taken to the special police station for minors and not LOC police station . Furthermore , they had never been beaten up there by officers . They added that DATE after they had left the police station , they had been sniffing glue and had been high when CARDINAL of their friends had suggested they go to ORG and make a complaint against the police . That way , their friend had told them , the police would never bother them ever again . That was how they had come to make the official complaint against the police officers . The injuries detailed in the medical reports had in fact been caused in a fight they had been involved in on the street that day . The lawyers and ORG had then manipulated everything on their behalf .","DATE , the applicants gave CARDINAL petitions to ORG stating that they wanted to withdraw their complaints \u201c which , in any event , had been made as a result of a misunderstanding \u201d . Also DATE , the applicants officially dismissed PERSON , the lawyer who had been representing them since the lodging of their official complaint against the police officers .","On DATE ORG also made a statement at PERSON police station in the course of the same disciplinary investigation . He stated that when he had found out on DATE of the incident that the applicants and their friends had been taken to his station , he had had them transferred to the special police station for minors . He had never beaten them up . In his opinion , ORG had been interested in the incident because it concerned the killing of a civilian by a police officer , and it had then manipulated the incident with the assistance of a number of lawyers .","DATE . On DATE , at the end of the disciplinary investigation , the investigating police officer recommended that no disciplinary punishment should be imposed on the defendant police officers . In line with that recommendation , the police disciplinary committee decided on DATE not to impose any such punishment .","On DATE the applicants made a complaint to the ORG prosecutor , complaining that the police officers who had ill - treated them had also been responsible for , inter alia , their unlawful detention . They informed the prosecutor that they had been treated and questioned as suspects at the police station , and had had swabs taken from their hands . Nevertheless , no official records had been kept by the police officers in relation to their arrest , detention or release . This , in their opinion , meant that the police officers had committed an offence , the unlawful deprivation of their liberty . Moreover , although they had been detained for TIME , no authorisation had been sought or obtained from the prosecutor for the period exceeding that time . They argued that although they had been under DATE at the time , and should have been questioned directly by a prosecutor and in the presence of their lawyer , they had been questioned by police officers and in the absence of a lawyer .","These complaints were rejected by the prosecutor on DATE , who considered that the applicants had been questioned as \u201c statement makers \u201d , and that in an investigation into an unlawful killing there was nothing unusual about questioning people who had been seen in the vicinity of the incident . The applicants filed an objection against the prosecutor \u2019s decision , submitting that in the NORP legal system there was no such concept as a \u201c statement maker \u201d . They referred to the applicable legislation setting out the procedure to be followed when persons are deprived of their liberty , and argued that none of those formalities had been observed in their case . The objection was rejected by ORG on DATE and the decision served on the applicants on CARDINAL DATE .","In the meantime , PERSON , who had initially represented the applicants but had been dismissed by them on DATE , sent a letter to ORG on DATE stating that the applicants and the other children who had been arrested and ill - treated DATE were being threatened by the defendant police officers . For example , police chief PERSON had personally gone to court with the second applicant and a lawyer , and had made the second applicant sign certain documents there . He and other police officers had then threatened the applicants and their father , and had forced them to withdraw their complaints . Mr PERSON added that when he had suggested to the applicants and their father that they inform the prosecutor about the pressure being exerted on them by the police officers , they had declined to do so because they had been very scared . Mr PERSON further stated in his letter that ORG had given the applicants\u2019 father the business card of a lawyer and had asked him to appoint him to represent the applicants .","The trial of the police officers began before ORG . During the first hearing on DATE , the newly appointed lawyer , PERSON , told the court that the applicants were known to the police because of their past criminal activities . Their initial lawyer PERSON also attended the hearing , and informed the court of the pressure being exerted on the applicants by the defendant police officers . In the official court transcript , Mr PERSON was referred to as the lawyer on record for the applicants . The court decided to hold a second hearing on DATE .","On DATE the court held an unscheduled hearing and heard the defendant police chief GPE The following entry features in the transcript of the hearing : \u201c Although a second hearing in this case had been scheduled for DATE , the defendant ORG and his lawyer came to court and told us that he was now working in the town of Halfeti and had come to GPE on other business . As it would be difficult for him to come back to GPE for the next scheduled hearing , he informed us that he would like to give his testimony now \u201d . According to the transcript , apart from the CARDINAL judges on the bench , a prosecutor , a court clerk and ORG , no one else was present . The defendant police chief told the court that the applicants and the other teenagers had been taken to his police station to be questioned as witnesses , but had subsequently been transferred to the special police station for minors . Neither he nor any of his colleagues had ill - treated them .","The applicants submitted their written observations to the trial court , complaining that the hearing held on DATE had been unlawful . They argued that the court \u2019s failure to ensure their attendance had deprived them of the opportunity to confront the police chief .","On DATE the first applicant went to ORG and informed the lawyers there that pressure was being exerted on him and his brother by ORG to dismiss their lawyers and withdraw their complaints . He further stated that the police chief had accompanied them to see a notary public , where they had signed a power of attorney giving their new lawyer authority . He informed ORG of his wish to be represented by his previous lawyer PERSON .","According to a report drawn up on DATE by PERSON and signed by one of his colleagues , when he and the applicants arrived at court for the second hearing , which had been scheduled for DATE , PERSON was waiting there with some of the defendant police officers . When he asked the applicants what they were doing at court , the applicants told him that they wanted to attend the hearing and continue to press charges against the police officers . Mr PERSON then unsuccessfully tried to dissuade the applicants and urged them not to attend the hearing . When they insisted on attending , all but one of the defendant police officers waiting for the hearing left the building and did not attend .","During the hearing that took place DATE , the applicants repeated their allegations of ill - treatment . PERSON , who claimed to be representing them , told the court that he had been unaware of any allegations of ill - treatment made by his clients against the police officers . The applicants then informed the court that their lawyer was PERSON and not PERSON .","On DATE the applicants officially reappointed their previous lawyers , including Mr PERSON , dismissed PERSON , and informed the court of the change of representation . At a hearing on DATE the court decided to accept the applicants as \u201c participants \u201d ( kat\u0131lan ) in the proceedings . In all subsequent hearings they were referred to as such .","NORP On subsequent dates the lawyers representing the applicants continued to inform ORG and the court about the pressure being exerted on them and the applicants by the defendant police officers . They also submitted official documentation to the court showing that neither applicant had a criminal record , criticising the submissions made by PERSON , who had told the court that \u201c the applicants were known to the police because of their past criminal activities \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The QUANTITY police officers who worked at the special police station and had questioned the applicants on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) attended one of the hearings , and told the court that when they had arrived at LOC police station they had been presented with CARDINAL statements prepared by the police officers working there , and had been asked to sign them as if they themselves had taken them . However , they had refused to do so and had questioned the applicants personally . They also told the court that when they had urged the police officers at LOC police station to release the applicants because they were being kept there unlawfully , they had been told to mind their own business .","During the proceedings , the court was informed that the special police station for minors did not have in its possession the custody records pertaining to the relevant period . As a result , it was not known whether or not the applicants had been detained there in DATE .","A large number of defendants failed to attend the majority of the hearings held by the trial court . On each occasion the court urged them in writing to attend .","NORP The lawyers representing the applicants drew the court \u2019s attention to a number of shortcomings in its handling of the case , and the defendant police ORG failure to attend the hearings . They asked the court to ensure the ORG participation by , if necessary , ordering their remand in custody . The other teenagers who were taken to LOC police station with the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) also gave evidence during the trial , describing how the defendant police officers had beaten them up and tried to force them to admit that they had killed ORG who , as it later turned out , had in fact been killed by a police officer ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In the course of a hearing held on CARDINAL DATE the ORG father gave evidence . He told the court that his CARDINAL children had not come home for DATE . When they had finally come home , they had told him that they had been detained at LOC police station and beaten up there by officers . Mr PERSON explained to the court how his CARDINAL sons\u2019 mental state had deteriorated after the incident . In his testimony he also detailed the threats made to him and his family by the defendant police officers , and explained how , as a result of those threats , he and his sons had had to withdraw their complaints .","On DATE the applicants submitted their written submissions to the trial court , urging it to conduct its proceedings effectively and fairly . They warned the court that the proceedings had been continuing for such a long period of time that they could soon risk becoming time - barred .","During CARDINAL of the hearings a lawyer representing the defendant police officers complained about the press coverage given to the trial , and criticised suggestions published in various newspapers that his GPE continued failure to attend the hearings would cause delays , which would cause the proceedings to become time - barred .","DATE . In a hearing held DATE , the prosecutor made his final submissions to the trial court . He argued that police chief PERSON had ill - treated the applicants and caused them minor injuries , which had necessitated minor medical treatment . The prosecutor requested the court to conclude that the offence the police chief had been charged with should be changed to illtreatment , as defined in section CARDINAL of LAW . In his opinion , the police chief had not committed torture , an offence defined in section CARDINAL of the Code , because he had not ill - treated the applicants in order to obtain information from them . In any event , they had not been detained as suspects at ORG police station . The prosecutor also recommended that the remaining police officers be acquitted .","In the course of a hearing held on DATE the lawyers representing the police officers were due to present their final defence arguments to the trial court . Nevertheless , they informed the court that they were unable to attend the hearing DATE , and it was thus postponed until DATE . According to the transcript of the hearing , the court also decided to remind the lawyers representing the police officers that attending hearings in which they were scheduled to submit their final defence submissions was a legal requirement .","During the CARDINAL hearing , held on DATE , the court decided that there was insufficient evidence to prove that CARDINAL of the defendant police officers had subjected the applicants to \u201c torture \u201d within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW , and acquitted them . It also considered that the actions of the remaining QUANTITY police officers , including police chief GPE , had amounted to \u201c ill - treatment \u201d within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW and not \u201c torture \u201d , because there was no evidence to show that the applicants had been ill - treated in order to force them to confess to a crime or give evidence . Nevertheless , as the end of the prescription period for the offence had been reached , the court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the QUANTITY police officers .","In support of its conclusion that the QUANTITY police officers had ill - treated the applicants , the court stated that they had been \u201c unnecessarily kept at the police station for TIME , and that their injuries had been caused when they had been pushed and jostled for no apparent reason \u201d .","The applicants appealed and drew ORG attention to the statements taken from them by the police officers , in which they argued they had been forced to incriminate themselves for offences they had never committed ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . They argued that in the light of those statements , the police officers should have been found guilty of torture and not ill - treatment , because the statements had been obtained from them under ill - treatment . By finding them guilty of ill - treatment , for which the prescription period was shorter , the police officers had been allowed to go with impunity .","On DATE ORG held that the applicants had withdrawn their complaints against the police officers on DATE [ sic ] DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that they did not , therefore , have the requisite standing to appeal against their acquittals . It upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment of DATE .","In the meantime , a disciplinary investigation was conducted by ORG into the complaints made by PERSON . In a decision of DATE its ORG decided to reprimand PERSON for failing to inform Mr PERSON of his appointment to take over representation of the applicants ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170836","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MITZINGER v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , in the former GPE ( GPE ) , and lives in GPE .","The applicant is the natural and only daughter of PERSON , who recognised paternity in DATE . She lived in the territory of the former GPE until DATE , while her father lived in GPE ( FRG ) , having married . The father and the daughter corresponded regularly during that period . DATE , the applicant also visited her father and his wife once DATE . After the applicant obtained an exit permit in DATE for herself , her husband and her younger daughter , she left the GPE and moved to GPE . Thereafter the applicant visited her father on a regular basis until DATE . He died on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for the right to administer her father \u2019s estate , asserting the incapacity of her father \u2019s wife to protect the applicant \u2019s inheritance due to a grave illness , and notified ORG of her inheritance claims . Furthermore , she asked to receive copies of all documents relating to the estate . She asserted that DATE she had regularly visited her father at his retirement home and had talked to him on the telephone . Subsequently , her own health had prevented her from visiting . Telephone calls had been impossible because her father \u2019s health had meant he had no longer been able to use a telephone . The retirement home had been in possession of her address and telephone number , and had phoned her on several occasions .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application , as there were no indications that the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s wife could not protect the inheritance . In addition , being born before DATE and thus not being a statutory heir , she had no right to receive copies of documents about the estate .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , arguing in particular that she needed the power to administer the estate because her father \u2019s wife suffered from dementia and that she was a statutory heir because she was her father \u2019s natural daughter .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG decision refusing to give her the power to administer her father \u2019s estate , holding that the applicant was not a statutory heir and thus had no right to apply . ORG referred to the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and to a decision of ORG of DATE , in which the provision had been found to be in conformity with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , arguing that the application of the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act would discriminate against her and breach her inheritance rights and was therefore not in conformity with LAW . The applicant pointed out that in her case there was no need to protect the legitimate expectations of the deceased or other heirs as she was her father \u2019s only daughter and her father had been separated from his wife for DATE when he had died . Furthermore , cultural and social changes within society had to be considered when interpreting LAW .","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on the grounds that it was bound by the decisions of ORG in which the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act had been found to be in conformity with LAW . In ORG view , the provision did not contravene LAW , despite NORP reunification , as ORG had held in a decision of DATE ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , claiming discrimination as a result of the application of the aforementioned provision . According to her there were no apparent reasons why children born outside marriage should be treated differently from those born within marriage . That was particularly true in her case because she was her father \u2019s only child . The applicant argued that ORG , when considering an appeal , had to respect LAW , which provided that children born outside marriage must be provided by legislation with the same opportunities for physical and mental development and for their position in society as those enjoyed by children born within marriage . That provision prohibited a generalised application of the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declined to consider the complaint , which it considered inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation ( no . CARDINAL ) . It observed , in particular , that the applicant had failed sufficiently to address the arguments of ORG decision . As the applicant doubted the validity of the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act , which had previously been declared valid by ORG , she had been obliged to give further reasons , which she had failed to do ."],"violated_articles":["14","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172131","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SHUST AND SIDORENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4","5-5","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160991","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KAPUSTYAK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Obtain attendance of witnesses)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in GPE prison .","On DATE the applicant , Mr GPE and Mr V.S. broke into the home of Mr N. , a local businessman , which was located in LOC . The applicant had CARDINAL prior convictions for theft , burglary , robbery and carjacking . According to the findings of the domestic court that subsequently convicted the applicant , Mr N. had fought with the intruders and , unable to overcome his resistance otherwise , they had stabbed him to death . As a result of the attack PERSON , PERSON \u2019s wife , sustained injuries of medium severity . Numerous valuables and documents were stolen , including some jewelry , a reserve officer \u2019s card belonging to ORG and certificates showing his achievements in sports .","On DATE the LOC police instituted criminal proceedings in connection with the incident .","On DATE PERSON was arrested and questioned . He stated that the applicant had stabbed N. in the course of the burglary . V.S. had hit PERSON , who had tried to come to N. \u2019s rescue .","At TIME on DATE I.Kot . , PERSON . , ORG and PERSON , detectives from ORG , located the applicant in PERSON and apprehended him in the street . According to the subsequent submissions of the applicant and the detectives to the domestic authorities , the applicant attempted to flee ; in order to stop him from fleeing the detectives tripped him up , he fell on the asphalt pavement and was then handcuffed . According to the applicant , after he had been handcuffed the police officers continued to hit and kick him .","The applicant also claimed that following his arrest he had been illtreated by the police in order to extract his confession .","At TIME on DATE an arrest report was drawn up by ORG . According to a document provided by the Government , at the same time the applicant was admitted to the GPE temporary detention facility ( \u0456\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u0442\u0438\u043c\u0447\u0430\u0441\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0442\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f , \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE an investigator , PERSON , asked a forensic medical expert to record any injuries on the applicant \u2019s body and to provide an expert opinion as to when and how they had been inflicted .","On DATE the forensic medical expert , PERSON ( referred to as Mr H. by the Government ) , issued a report stating that the applicant had the following injuries : a bruise on his forehead and , overlapping it , CARDINAL long , deep , vertical parallel scratches ; bruises on the bridge of his nose , his chin , wrists and neck ; CARDINAL small bruises on the fingers of his right hand ; and swelling of the back of his right hand . The bruises on his wrists were soft and pink in colour . The other bruises were covered in dry scabs . The expert classified the injuries as minor and expressed the opinion that they could have been inflicted on DATE . According to the report , the applicant explained to the expert that he had injured his face and hands when he fell trying to run away from the police .","At TIME on DATE PERSON , the investigator from ORG , questioned the applicant as a suspect . The applicant stated that on DATE he had agreed with ORG proposal to burgle Mr N. \u2019s home . The applicant had not taken a knife with him and had not seen V.S. or FAC do so . Once they had broken into the house , the applicant switched off the television set ORG had been watching , while GPE and GPE started punching ORG screams , PERSON tried to enter the room , and the applicant hit and kicked her . Afterwards the applicant kicked N. CARDINAL or CARDINAL times . While the others continued hitting ORG , the applicant started looking for money , then took a knife from ORG and cut some paintings out of their frames . He also took other valuables from the house .","At TIME on DATE , following the applicant \u2019s complaint about his health , an ambulance was called to the ORG for the applicant . The ambulance staff noted that the applicant had bruises on his face and right hand , and was suffering from concussion , hypertension and an oedema .","On DATE the applicant was charged with aggravated burglary and infliction of grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim . Questioned on DATE as an accused , the applicant confirmed the account of events he had given on DATE and added that he had seen V.S. hitting ORG but not stabbing him . The applicant reiterated that he had not stabbed ORG and had had no intention of murdering him . He had used the knife to cut paintings out of their frames . Prior to the burglary ORG had promised that he would take it upon himself to force ORG to give up the money .","On DATE the applicant was examined by medical staff on his admission to the GPE pre - trial detention centre ( \u0441\u043b\u0456\u0434\u0447\u0438\u0439 \u0456\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 , hereinafter \u201c the GPE \u201d ) . According to a certificate issued by the GPE on DATE , the applicant did not raise any complaints during that examination .","In the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the police took the applicant from the GPE CARDINAL times in order to carry out investigative measures with him .","On DATE Mr PERSON . was appointed as the applicant \u2019s defence counsel . On DATE the applicant was questioned in PERSON . \u2019s presence . The applicant confirmed the account of events he had given on CARDINAL and DATE , including the statement that at ORG \u2019s house he had used the knife to cut paintings out of their frames , and added that there had been no plan to murder ORG but simply to burgle his house . When he and his co - defendants had learned that ORG would be home , the plan had been simply to tie him up .","According to the Government , on DATE the applicant was familiarised with the medical expert \u2019s report of DATE and made no comments or requests .","On DATE , having examined the applicant as an inpatient , a panel of psychiatric experts issued a report concluding that the applicant was not suffering from a mental illness . In discussing the applicant \u2019s mental health history the experts noted that in DATE he had been involved in a fight , suffered a blow to the head and had received outpatient treatment for the injury . On DATE the applicant and his lawyer signed a statement confirming that they had examined the report and had no comments or requests to make .","On DATE the applicant was questioned again in the presence of his lawyer . He reiterated his earlier statement . In the course of the questioning the investigator asked the applicant why he had not initially joined his co - defendants in attacking N. The applicant refused to answer .","In the course of the pre - trial investigation GPE stated that it had been the applicant who had stabbed LOC In the course of a confrontation between the applicant and GPE , the latter reaffirmed his statement . The applicant denied ORG allegations but refused to testify .","P. stated that it had been ORG , and not the applicant , who had attacked and hit her .","Ms GPE stated that on DATE the applicant had given her a mobile phone and a silver chain which he had stolen from ORG and P.","On DATE the case against the applicant and his co - defendants , GPE and GPE , was sent for trial to ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) , sitting as a trial court .","On DATE the trial court informed the applicant that the question of whether an additional psychiatric examination should be ordered would be examined in the course of the trial .","The applicant pleaded guilty to the charge of theft of documents , guilty in part to the charge of aggravated burglary , and not guilty to the charge of murder . He refused to testify at length , but in response to a question stated that he had used a knife to cut the paintings out of their frames at the GPE house . PERSON pleaded guilty to the charge of aggravated burglary and GPE pleaded guilty to that charge in part . They largely reiterated the statements they had given during the pre - trial investigation concerning the applicant \u2019s role in the crime , in particular stating that they had not stabbed N. and had seen the applicant , knife in hand and covered in blood , lead ORG , also covered in blood , to a safe to extract ORG \u2019s money . ORG also stated that the applicant had told him that he had stabbed N.","PERSON and PERSON testified that late on the night of the murder the defendants had left the house where they had been staying together . GPE had been carrying a knife . The defendants had then returned with various objects , including paintings and documents . PERSON testified that she had seen blood on the applicant \u2019s clothes when he returned TIME . PERSON also testified that when the applicant had returned , he had given her his clothes and had instructed her to burn them . However , she had left the clothes in the house .","CARDINAL other witnesses testified that on DATE they had witnessed the owner of the house in question handing over to the police a bag of clothes which had been left there by the defendants . According to DNA expert reports , the applicant \u2019s hair and blood possibly originating from the victims were found on the clothes in the bag .","On DATE the applicant asked the trial court to call PERSON , the medical expert , as a witness , on the grounds that in her report of DATE she had failed to specify exactly when the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant . In support of his request he stated that he had been ill - treated in the course of and following his arrest . The applicant also asked for PERSON . , an investigator from ORG to be called as a witness , arguing that his statements during the pre - trial investigation were untrue and had been dictated to him and given under pressure . He also asked for police detectives I.Kot . , PERSON . , ORG and ORG to be called as witnesses , arguing that they had ill - treated him in the course of arrest and in the course of his initial interrogation , causing the injuries recorded in the medical expert \u2019s report of DATE . The trial court refused those requests . According to the ORG , the grounds for the refusal were that the trial court had in its possession the transcripts of the interviews with the police officers in question conducted during the pre - trial investigation . Moreover , the trial court considered that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment had already been examined within the framework of pre - investigation enquiries , in the course of which no corroboration of the applicant \u2019s allegations had been found .","On DATE the trial court convicted all CARDINAL applicants of murder , of aggravated burglary , and of theft of documents . In respect of the conviction for murder the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with confiscation of all of his property , GPE to DATE and GPE to DATE imprisonment . Additional prison sentences were imposed in respect of the other charges but because of the sentencing rules , the overall sentences imposed were the same as the sentences for murder .","The court found it established that the applicant and his CARDINAL co - defendants , GPE and GPE , had committed aggravated burglary of Mr N. and PERSON While it was the applicant who had stabbed PERSON to death , all the defendants had used violence against ORG to overcome his resistance and so were guilty of his murder . As evidence of the applicant \u2019s guilt the court referred to the testimony of the co - defendants , of PERSON , PERSON , Ms M.M. , Ms A.V. ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE and DATE above ) , and of a number of other witnesses who had described how the defendants had disposed of their clothing and of the objects taken from the GPE house . The court also relied on physical and expert evidence . In reaching its finding that it had been the applicant who had stabbed PERSON , the court referred to the testimony of his co - defendants , noting that it was consistent with P. \u2019s testimony to the extent that all CARDINAL had testified , contrary to the applicant , that it was PERSON , and not the applicant , who had attacked P. The court also referred to the DNA expert evidence which had found blood , possibly originating from ORG , on the trousers worn by the applicant on TIME of the murder and seized by the police at the house where the applicant had left them . The court also referred to the applicant \u2019s admission during the pre - trial investigation that he had used the knife , that is the murder weapon , to cut paintings out of their frames .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction and mitigated his sentence to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant wrote to the head of ORG of GPE in GPE complaining that he had been illtreated in the course of his arrest and afterwards by the police . In particular , he stated that on DATE of his arrest he had been going to a meeting with a certain PERSON when he had been approached by a stranger , who had turned out to be a police officer . Thinking that the stranger was trying to steal his phone , the applicant started running away . However , other officers tripped him up . He fell and the officers started kicking and punching him . The police officers continued to kick him once he was in their car and subsequently , in the place to which he was taken after his arrest .","On DATE the Chervonograd prosecutor \u2019s office and on DATE the DATE prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant \u2019s complaint .","On DATE the Lviv regional prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u201c the LRPO \u201d ) quashed the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case to the ORG prosecutors for further examination . The ORG concluded that the pre - investigation enquiries had been incomplete . The ORG indicated that the Chervonograd prosecutor \u2019s office should undertake a number of additional measures to establish the circumstances of the incident , most notably : ( i ) interview PERSON whom the applicant had been going to meet when he had been arrested ; ( ii ) identify the ambulance staff who had visited the applicant on DATE and interview them ; ( iii ) interview the forensic medical expert to find out whether the injuries observed by the expert on the applicant on DATE were consistent with the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against detectives I.Kot . , PERSON . , ORG , ORG . The decision was based on the statements of the police detectives and the expert report of DATE . The detectives had stated that they had tripped up the applicant while he had been attempting to escape . The prosecutor \u2019s office concluded that that fall explained the applicant \u2019s injuries . On DATE ORG upheld that decision , rejecting as unsubstantiated the applicant \u2019s argument that his injuries had resulted from ill - treatment .","On DATE the Pustomyty prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the investigator PERSON . and CARDINAL other officers of ORG . The decision was based on the interviews with the officers . The prosecutor \u2019s office also referred to the ORG records and an unspecified forensic medical expert report , according to which the applicant had had no injuries at the relevant time . The applicant was informed of that decision on CARDINAL DATE .","On an unspecified date the decision of DATE was overruled .","On DATE the Pustomyty prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers of ORG and of ORG for lack of corpus delicti in their actions . The decision was based on the statements of the officers , who had denied the applicant \u2019s allegations .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The court found numerous omissions in the pre - investigation inquiry , in particular that the authorities had failed to explore under what circumstances an ambulance had been called for the applicant while he had been in the ORG ; they had also failed to examine the records from the facilities where the applicant had been detained .","On DATE a new Code of Criminal Procedure came into force . Under the new Code an investigation is commenced by creating an entry in ORG ( \u201c the Register of Investigations \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claim and ordered the LAW prosecutor \u2019s office to create an entry in ORG in order to investigate the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE the entry was created .","On DATE the FAC prosecutor \u2019s office decided to discontinue the investigation . On an unspecified date ORG overruled that decision .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office reopened the investigation and the applicant was questioned . He insisted that he had been ill - treated by police detectives I.Kot . , PERSON . , ORG and ORG in the course of his arrest and on the way to the NORP police station , where his arrest had been recorded . The police detectives were interviewed and denied any ill - treatment , insisting that the applicant had been injured when he had fallen while trying to flee .","On DATE the Chervonograd prosecutor \u2019s office decided to discontinue the investigation for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of detectives I.Kot . , PERSON , ORG and ORG The decision referred to an earlier decision of DATE to refuse to institute criminal proceedings , according to which the applicant had fallen while trying to flee from the police . As a result , he had sustained concussion and bruises . The decision also referred to a number of pieces of evidence supporting that version of events , most notably the statements of the police officers and the medical expert \u2019s report of DATE .","The decision of CARDINAL DATE was upheld by ORG on DATE and by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174067","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BALKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . On DATE the ORG convicted him of murder and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . Since DATE he has been serving the sentence in correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL , in GPE , GPE Region .","According to the applicant , his eyesight began deteriorating in DATE . In DATE he complained about this to a resident colony doctor .","DATE the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist , who visited the detention facility . The doctor diagnosed an \u201c almost mature \u201d cataract of the right eye and a focal cataract of the left eye . An in - depth medical examination in a hospital was recommended .","On DATE the applicant was sent to a prison hospital for an examination by an ophthalmologist . The ophthalmologist confirmed the presence of cataracts on both eyes . He established that the patient had lost his vision in his right eye and prescribed cataract surgery . It was noted that owing to the lack of intraocular lenses in stock and the overcrowding of the facility , the surgery would have to be performed later , in a \u201c planned manner \u201d .","The applicant was sent back to the detention facility , the ophthalmologist having recommended that the applicant undergo another eye examination DATE .","On DATE the applicant complained about the quality of medical assistance he had received to ORG in GPE . His complaint was then referred to the medical unit of his detention facility , which dismissed it in a letter dated DATE , stating that the patient had been provided with medical assistance in full .","NORP In DATE the applicant was seen by the head of the medical unit and put on a waiting list for admission to the ophthalmological department of the prison hospital for a medical examination and eye surgery .","On DATE the applicant was seen by an ophthalmologist . The doctor endorsed the advice that the applicant had received on DATE and confirmed that he needed cataract surgery .","On DATE and DATE the applicant underwent repeated eye examinations , which revealed that the cataract on his left eye was growing . The need for surgery was again noted . The surgery was performed in the prison hospital on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181073","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF PARAMONOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained that they had been unfairly convicted of drug offences following entrapment by ORG agents ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163912","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TRUTEN v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sergiy Goncharenko;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["On DATE a DATE old woman , PERSON , went to a party in PERSON , a small town , and never returned home .","On DATE her relatives reported her disappearance to the police .","Having questioned a number of witnesses , the police established that PERSON had left the party with her cousin NORP and the applicant , CARDINAL of his friends . At TIME on DATE PERSON , NORP and the applicant were seen drinking beer in a caf\u00e9 . Several witnesses stated that while the applicant had been in the caf\u00e9 he had carried a certain \u201c pennant \u201d of a mobile operator company . Shortly afterwards , a witness saw the applicant walking down a road with his arms around PERSON After that nobody saw PERSON","R. told the police that in the morning on DATE he had left PERSON with the applicant and had gone to work .","On an unspecified date DATE the police questioned the applicant as a witness in connection with PERSON \u2019s disappearance . During that questioning the applicant said that in TIME on DATE he had left PERSON with CARDINAL unknown men , had taken a taxi at a taxi stand and had gone home . Police officer PERSON brought the applicant to the taxi stand and asked the taxi drivers whether they had seen him on DATE . The taxi drivers did not recognise the applicant and the applicant could not indicate the car and the driver who had allegedly driven him on DATE . He also could not provide any details about the appearances of the car or the driver .","After the applicant \u2019s questioning as a witness and the visit to the taxi stand ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the police detained the applicant for an \u201c offence of minor public disorder \u201d and placed him in a cell at the Novy Sanzhary Police Station . Before the ORG and the trial court the applicant submitted that he had not committed any such offence and had been placed in the cell without any reasons . No further information about the nature of the offence in question was made available to the ORG .","Before the ORG the applicant stated that on CARDINAL and DATE , while he had been kept in the cell , police officers had beaten him and threatened him urging him to \u201c tell the truth \u201d about PERSON \u2019s disappearance . The material in the case file ( namely , a copy of the applicant \u2019s indictment ) contains reference to the statements of police officers NORP and PERSON saying that on DATE , while the applicant was in the cell at the Novy Sanzhary Police Station , they questioned him without a lawyer in connection with K\u2019.s disappearance . On DATE they questioned him again on the same issue without a lawyer and he confessed to PERSON \u2019s murder , robbery and rape .","On DATE during the questioning by I. and F. the applicant made a written statement saying that in the morning on DATE , after NORP had left , he had decided to walk PERSON home . As he and PERSON had been walking down a road , he had tried to hug her but she had struck him in the groin . He had reacted by suddenly grabbing her by the neck with his CARDINAL hands and holding her for TIME . PERSON had fainted so he had let her go . After that he had dragged her body into some bushes , pulled down her knickers , bra and t - shirt and had raped her . After that he had taken CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( MONEY ) from her wallet and had left . As he had been leaving , PERSON had been unconscious , but he had not known whether she had been dead or alive , he had had no intention to kill PERSON when he had grabbed her neck but he had realized that such actions could theoretically result in her death . I. and PERSON passed the applicant \u2019s written confessions to investigator PERSON from the local prosecutor \u2019s office .","Still on DATE investigator PERSON opened a criminal case against the applicant for the rape , robbery and murder of PERSON and read him his procedural rights as a suspect , including his rights of defence . The applicant confirmed in writing that he understood his rights . PERSON also arrested the applicant on suspicion of murder , robbery and rape .","TIME investigator PERSON carried out a reconstruction of events in the presence of the applicant , attesting witnesses PERSON and PERSON , and a forensic medical expert , PERSON The applicant showed them the place where he had grabbed PERSON by the neck and her body lying in the bushes . The experts and the investigator inspected the crime scene and collected physical evidence . Investigator PERSON kept written TIME of the inspection of the crime scene . He noted that the corpse was heavily damaged from decay , worms and insects , it was lying face up with legs spread apart . PERSON \u2019s bra , t - shirt and knickers were pulled down . Near the corpse the police found a pennant of a mobile operator company and ORG open wallet .","On DATE after the reconstruction of events , investigator PERSON questioned the applicant in his capacity as a suspect without a lawyer being present . The applicant confirmed his previous statements .","In his application form the applicant stated that for the first time he had been allowed to see a lawyer on DATE . However , from the material in the case file , the authenticity of which the applicant did not dispute before the ORG , it follows that on DATE the investigator PERSON appointed lawyer PERSON to represent the applicant under the legal aid scheme and questioned the applicant in his presence . The applicant confirmed that he had strangled PERSON with both hands , taken CARDINAL hryvnias from her wallet , put her body in the bushes , pulled down her clothes and raped her .","On DATE was appointed as the applicant \u2019s lawyer instead of GPE at the request of the applicant \u2019s father . The applicant confirmed in writing that he wished to have PERSON as his lawyer .","DATE the police conducted a further reconstruction of events which the applicant , lawyer PERSON , CARDINAL attesting witnesses and CARDINAL forensic medical experts took part in . The applicant confirmed that he had strangled PERSON with both hands , and that after she had fainted he had put her body in the bushes , taken CARDINAL hryvnias from her wallet , pulled down her clothes and raped her . During the reconstruction , he told the medical experts that he had not been ill - treated by the investigative authorities .","On DATE the applicant was questioned again without a lawyer . Before the questioning he noted in writing that he did not object to being questioned without a lawyer . He described the clothes he had worn on DATE of the murder and said that after the murder the clothes had been washed . The police seized the clothes in question from the house of the applicant \u2019s parents .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert , who observed no injuries and reported no complaints .","On DATE the investigator read the applicant his procedural rights as an accused , including his rights of defence . The applicant indicated that he wanted to have S. as his lawyer .","DATE the applicant was charged with rape , robbery and murder . He was questioned in lawyer PERSON \u2019s presence and confirmed having strangled PERSON with both hands , taken CARDINAL hryvnias from her , put her body in the bushes , pulled down her clothes and raped her .","Forensic examinations conducted in DATE and DATE revealed that PERSON had died because she had been strangled by the neck on both sides . The forensic experts did not find on the corpse any forensic evidence ( fingerprints , body fluids , genetic material , and the like ) originating from the applicant . No such evidence was discovered on the crime scene either . The experts also found no forensic evidence of rape on the body because its soft tissues had been destroyed by decay and worms . However , in their report the forensic medical experts noted that the corpse \u2019s position and the fact that the clothes on it had been displaced proved that PERSON had been raped .","On DATE the applicant confirmed that he wished to have S. as his lawyer . Later that day he was questioned in S. \u2019s presence and said that he had not intended to kill or rape PERSON He had only decided to rape her after she had fainted . He said that he had not taken CARDINAL hryvnias from PERSON \u2019s wallet . In fact , he had seen CARDINAL hryvnias on the ground near her body , decided that they had fallen from his own pocket and had taken them . He also said that he had given his earlier statements voluntarily without being physically or psychologically coerced into doing so .","Witnesses questioned during the pre - trial investigation stated that the pennant found on the crime scene looked exactly as the one which they had seen on the applicant in the morning on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant did not deny that it was the same pennant .","On DATE the investigator granted the applicant \u2019s request to have his mother appointed as his representative .","On DATE the applicant was informed that the pre - trial investigation was completed and the indictment was drafted . The applicant was allowed to study the case file with S. and his mother .","On DATE the case was sent for trial to ORG .","On DATE , during a court hearing at which lawyer PERSON was present , the applicant stated that after PERSON had kicked him in the groin he had suddenly struck her on the neck with one hand . She had fainted and he had put her body in the bushes and left . He denied having strangled PERSON with his CARDINAL hands , robbed her , pulled down PERSON \u2019s clothes , and raped her . He submitted that the police had detained him DATE before DATE , kept him in a cell and ill - treated him until he agreed to confess to the murder , robbery , and rape .","The court ordered the prosecution authorities to conduct a preinvestigation inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegation of ill - treatment .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s complaint of illtreatment after questioning PERSON and NORP , who denied that they had subjected him to any pressure . Copies of the written TIME of the questioning of F. and I. are not available to the ORG .","The applicant requested ORG to send his case for additional investigation on the ground that his right to defence had been restricted on DATE when he had been questioned without a lawyer . On DATE the ORG rejected that request noting that although the applicant \u2019s right to legal assistance had indeed been restricted on DATE , the situation had been remedied because starting from DATE the applicant had been represented by a lawyer and confirmed his self - incriminating statements in his presence .","The court questioned PERSON and NORP and the attesting witnesses present during the reconstruction of events on DATE . They all denied that the applicant had been coerced . The forensic experts who had examined ORG \u2019s body were questioned by the court ; they refuted the applicant \u2019s claim that he had struck the victim once on the neck . They said that her injuries proved that she had died because she had been strangled by the neck on both sides , in the exact same way the applicant had described during the pre - trial investigation .","Being questioned at a court hearing in the presence of a lawyer the applicant stated that he had involuntarily killed PERSON by striking her with one hand , he had not strangled , robbed or raped her . According to him , the police had pulled down PERSON \u2019s clothes , put her body face up and spread her legs because they wanted to accuse the applicant of her rape .","On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal convicted the applicant of robbery , rape , and murder of PERSON and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court found that the applicant had wanted to rob and rape PERSON and had strangled her in order to supress her resistance . The court referred to the statement which the applicant had made in the presence of his lawyer , TIME of the inspection of the crime scene on DATE , the results of the forensic examination of PERSON \u2019s body and other material evidence found on the crime scene , forensic expert \u2019s statements made before the court , and statements of witnesses who on DATE had first seen the applicant with NORP and PERSON and then later with PERSON alone walking down the road . The court also noted that the pennant which the applicant had with him when he had been in the caf\u00e9 ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been later found on the crime scene . The court also referred to the statements of witnesses who had seen that on DATE PERSON had with her a note of CARDINAL hryvnias . The conclusion that PERSON had been raped was made having regard to the position of PERSON \u2019s body when it had been discovered by the police and the fact that her clothes had been pulled down . In its reasoning the court did not refer to the clothes which the applicant described on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as an evidence of his guilt . However , in the operative part of the judgment the court ordered the police to return the clothes to the applicant \u2019s mother . As to the applicant \u2019s allegation of ill - treatment , the court dismissed this as unsubstantiated referring to the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant appealed to ORG . He complained , in particular , that the trial court had relied on his confessions extracted under duress and without a lawyer .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . It noted , in particular , that when convicting the applicant the trial court had mainly relied on the statements which he had made in the presence of the lawyer PERSON DATE .","In a letter to ORG in DATE , the applicant described the conditions of his detention in PERSON . He stated that he had been held there since DATE in a cell measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL other inmates . The window had been covered by a plastic sheet making it impossible to open . Because of this no fresh air had entered the cell and in DATE , the temperature would sometimes reach CARDINAL He had never been allowed to leave the cell . The food had been inadequate .","The applicant submitted photos of a building which he claimed was PERSON . The windows appear to have bottom - hinged shutters made of transparent plastic . On the photographs the shutters are open , and there are QUANTITY of space between the window and shutter and the shutter and wall .","The Government submitted that during his detention in the GPE , the applicant had been held in various cells and it was unclear which of them he had been referring to in his letter to the ORG . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he had been detained with CARDINAL other detainees in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY . He had therefore enjoyed QUANTITY of personal space . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he had been detained with CARDINAL other inmates in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY . The space allocation for CARDINAL person had therefore been QUANTITY . Both cells were equipped with CARDINAL beds . The GPE windows could be opened and had not been blocked with plastic sheets . The food the applicant had received met the standard set by domestic law . The Government did not deny that the applicant had been unable to leave the cells he had been held in ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180290","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF GED\u0130KL\u0130 v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","Following a dispute with a private third party , the applicant initiated compensation proceedings .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant compensation , amounting to MONEY ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . In the operative part of the judgment , the court indicated that the defendant party had to pay TRY MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for court fees pursuant to the PERSON on Charges . The court registry accordingly sent a payment order to the defendant party . However , no payment was made .","On DATE the applicant submitted a petition to the registry of the first instance court , requesting that the judgment be served on her in order to commence enforcement proceedings . On DATE , the court rejected the request on the ground that it was impossible under Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( a ) of the Law on Charges ( Law no . CARDINAL ) to serve a copy of the judgment unless the court costs that should have been born by the defendant party had been discharged .","At the time when the application was introduced , the applicant had therefore been unable to bring enforcement proceedings in order to have the above - mentioned judgment executed unless she herself was willing to pay the court fees that the defendant party had failed to pay .","Following the introduction of the present application with the ORG , the domestic legislation was amended ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , and subsequently the judgment in question was served on the applicant . In the absence of an appeal , the judgment became final on DATE . On DATE the applicant initiated enforcement proceedings against her debtor . On DATE the applicant further requested the enforcement office to place a lien on the debtor \u2019s property . According to the documents in the file , as of DATE the debt , which is still not enforced , amounts to TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) including the initial amount of compensation awarded by the domestic court plus interest running at statutory rate ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175144","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MARDOSAI v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Georges Ravarani","text":["The first and second applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC . They are wife and husband .","On DATE the first applicant , who was DATE pregnant and already past her due date , was admitted to the obstetrics and gynaecology ward of ORG .","On TIME she was given medication in order to induce labour , but the medication was subsequently discontinued and she was given sedatives . In TIME her waters broke . The doctors noticed that the heartbeat of the foetus was weak and decided to perform a Caesarean section . Following the surgery , the first applicant gave birth to a daughter . The newborn baby was in a serious condition , so she was taken to a hospital in GPE for intensive care .","On CARDINAL DATE the baby died . The applicants decided not to have an autopsy performed on her body \u2013 according to them , they were informed by doctors that an autopsy was not necessary . The Government contested this and submitted that the applicants had been informed that an autopsy had been necessary but refused it nonetheless .","Following the baby \u2019s death , ORG conducted an internal inquiry into the medical services provided to the first applicant . The inquiry report , issued on DATE , found that some erroneous entries had been made in the first applicant \u2019s medical file , the assessment of her and the baby \u2019s condition had probably been inadequate , and certain actions to resuscitate the baby had been taken too late .","At the ORG request , ORG also conducted an inquiry into the medical services provided to them at ORG . A provisional report , issued on DATE , found that the first applicant \u2019s labour had not been induced in compliance with the relevant rules , the condition of the foetus had not been properly monitored , there had been shortcomings in the resuscitation of the baby , and CARDINAL of the doctors ( PERSON ) had not been properly qualified to provide obstetric services . The report issued a series of recommendations to the hospital , and also suggested that ORG conduct a more in - depth inspection of the medical services at ORG .","ORG issued its report on CARDINAL DATE , in which it identified several shortcomings in the work of doctors who had provided care to the first applicant , and concluded that the medical services had been inadequate .","Subsequently , doctor PERSON was dismissed from ORG , and the hospital stopped providing obstetric services , citing a lack of qualified medical personnel . PERSON , a gynaecologist , and CARDINAL other doctors were officially reprimanded for having provided inadequate medical services to the first applicant and PERSON was later dismissed at her own request .","On DATE the applicants asked the NORP district prosecutor ( hereinafter \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) to open a pre - trial investigation into the medical negligence at ORG which had led to their newborn daughter \u2019s death . The pre - trial investigation was opened on DATE and carried out by the LOC police . In DATE and DATE the applicants were interviewed and granted victim status in the investigation .","On DATE a court - appointed doctor delivered a specialist opinion ( specialisto i\u0161vada ) that the applicants\u2019 daughter \u2019s death had resulted from asphyxia during birth and meconium aspiration syndrome .","In DATE and DATE the police interviewed the doctors who had provided medical services to the first applicant , and obtained various documents from ORG .","In DATE the applicants asked the prosecutor to exhume their daughter \u2019s body so that an autopsy could be performed and the cause of her death could be more precisely determined . However , the prosecutor denied their request , relying on an opinion from medical experts that performing an autopsy DATE after the baby \u2019s death would not give any results because of the significant post - mortem changes to the body during that time .","NORP In DATE the police asked CARDINAL court - appointed doctors for a specialist opinion on the causes of the baby \u2019s death and the actions of the doctors at ORG . The applicants also submitted questions and their questions were forwarded to the specialists . The opinion , delivered on CARDINAL DATE , stated that no causal link between the ORG actions and the death could be established , and that it was not possible to determine whether the death could have been avoided because an autopsy of the body had not been performed . Subsequently , the applicants asked the police to order another opinion from specialists , and they submitted additional questions . On DATE CARDINAL other court - appointed doctors provided answers to the applicants\u2019 questions . Their overall conclusions were the same as those of the previous specialists .","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pretrial investigation on the grounds that no causal link between the actions of the doctors at ORG and the baby \u2019s death had been established . On DATE a senior prosecutor upheld that decision , but on DATE ORG upheld a complaint submitted by the applicants and reopened the pre - trial investigation . The court found that the CARDINAL specialist opinions ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not answered some of the questions submitted because certain medical data had not been made available . It also found that the investigation had not established why an autopsy had not been performed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Therefore , the court ordered the prosecutor to ask additional questions of some of the witnesses and order a comprehensive forensic examination .","On DATE the prosecutor asked the court to order a forensic examination of the causes of the baby \u2019s death and the causal link between the ORG actions and the death . The applicants submitted a list of additional questions to be forwarded to the forensic expert . On DATE ORG ordered the examination , but that order included only the prosecutor \u2019s questions and did not provide any reasons as to why the applicants\u2019 questions had not been included . The applicants appealed against it , but on DATE ORG dismissed their appeal on the grounds that deciding which questions to forward to the expert was the lower court \u2019s prerogative .","On DATE the applicants again submitted their questions to the prosecutor and asked for an additional forensic examination . On DATE ORG ordered an additional forensic examination , and that order included the applicants\u2019 questions . However , the court \u2019s order was only forwarded to the forensic expert on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE a court - appointed forensic expert delivered the answers to the prosecutor \u2019s questions ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The expert found that the cause of the baby \u2019s death had been determined correctly , the medical services provided to the first applicant had been adequate , and there was no causal link between the ORG actions and the death .","On DATE the applicants submitted a complaint to ORG , stating that the pre - trial investigation was being conducted inefficiently and with undue delays . They complained , in particular , that the court \u2019s decision of DATE to order an additional forensic examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not been forwarded to the expert until DATE , DATE and DATE after it had been issued . ORG conducted an official inquiry , which on DATE concluded that NORP prosecutors had committed disciplinary violations , and that the pre - trial investigation had not been properly conducted and supervised . The inquiry found that the LOC district prosecutor \u2019s office had been reorganised in DATE , which was the likely reason for the above - mentioned shortcomings . No individuals were penalised .","On DATE a court - appointed forensic expert delivered the answers to the applicants\u2019 questions ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Among other things , the expert found that some of the LOC actions had not been in line with the relevant requirements , but there was no direct causal link between their actions and the ORG daughter \u2019s death .","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the investigation on the grounds that no causal link between the actions of the doctors at ORG and the ORG daughter \u2019s death had been established ( see paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL and DATE above ) . The applicants appealed against that decision , and on DATE a senior prosecutor reopened the pretrial investigation and assigned it to a different police department . The senior prosecutor considered that , following the decision to discontinue the investigation , new relevant circumstances had emerged , although he did not specify what those circumstances were .","On DATE PERSON , the gynaecologist , was served with a notice that , under Article CARDINAL of LAW , she was suspected of having failed to perform her official duties ( see paragraph DATE below ) . On DATE the case was referred to ORG for examination on the merits .","On DATE ORG held an oral hearing . PERSON was not present and her lawyer informed the court that she had been admitted to hospital , although no medical certificate was submitted . The court adjourned the case until DATE .","On DATE PERSON was again not present , and the court received a medical certificate confirming her hospitalisation until DATE . The court decided to adjourn the case and proposed CARDINAL alternative dates : CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE . PERSON \u2019s lawyer stated that PERSON would not be well enough by DATE , and that on the later dates he would be unable to represent her . The court adjourned the case until DATE .","On DATE the applicants applied to the court to reclassify the charges against ORG as negligent homicide in violation of special conduct security rules under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court adjourned the case until DATE in order to give the accused enough time to acquaint herself with the case file .","On DATE ORG terminated the case on the basis that it was time - barred . It held that PERSON had been charged with a crime of negligence , and the DATE statutory limitation period had ended on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . The court also dismissed the application to reclassify the charges and noted that , in any event , reclassification would not alter the statutory limitation period .","The applicants appealed against that judgment . They submitted that , in line with LAW , the statutory limitation period must have been suspended while the examination of the case had been adjourned owing to ORG illness ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal and upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . It firstly held that the legal provision cited by the applicants had been adopted after the alleged offence had been committed , and that at the time the alleged offence had been committed domestic law had not provided for suspension of the statutory limitation period during the adjournment of a case ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The court further held that , in any event , the examination of the case had been adjourned for an important reason PERSON \u2019s hospitalisation \u2013 so there were no grounds for suspending the statutory limitation period .","On DATE ORG refused to examine a cassation appeal lodged by the applicants , on the grounds that it did not raise any important legal questions .","The Government in their observations informed the ORG that on DATE the applicants instituted civil proceedings against ORG , claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage caused by inadequate medical services provided to the first applicant and their newborn daughter . They revised their claim in DATE and DATE . The applicants claimed a total of CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and a total of LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in respect of pecuniary damage , consisting of funeral expenses and the second applicant \u2019s lost earnings during his time off work after their daughter \u2019s death .","On DATE ORG granted the applicants\u2019 claim in part . Relying on the available inquiry reports , as well as the specialist opinions and results of the forensic examinations delivered in the criminal proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) , the court held that the doctors at ORG had breached their duty of care and that their actions \u201c had contributed \u201d ( tur\u0117jo \u012ftakos ) to the death of the ORG daughter , so there were grounds for the hospital incurring civil liability . However , the court considered that the ORG actions had not been premeditated or grossly negligent , so the ORG claim in respect of non - pecuniary damage was granted in part , and they were awarded a total of LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) under that head . They were also awarded a total of LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of pecuniary damage , on the basis of the documents in the court \u2019s possession .","The applicants and the hospital appealed against that judgment , but on DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s findings . The hospital transferred the awarded amount to the applicants\u2019 bank accounts in DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164449","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E S\u00c1 v. PORTUGAL","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal;Public hearing);Damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG of the Judiciary ( FAC , \u201c FAC ) instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant , who at the time was a judge at FAC ( disciplinary case no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the judicial inspector F.M.J. , who was in charge of the disciplinary proceedings , made his submissions , proposing that the applicant be ordered to pay CARDINAL day - fines for having called another judicial inspector , Judge PERSON , a \u201c liar \u201d during a telephone conversation , in breach of her duty of propriety . He also found that she had accused ORG , who was responsible for conducting her performance appraisal , of \u201c inertia and lack of diligence \u201d .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request to the HCJ for Judge PERSON to be withdrawn from her case on the grounds that he had breached her right to be presumed innocent and had close ties to the judicial inspector whom the applicant had allegedly insulted .","On an unspecified date the applicant filed her pleadings , submitting that the disciplinary proceedings should be declared null and void as there had been a breach of the principles of equality and impartiality and of her right to be heard .","On DATE Judge PERSON requested leave from the HCJ to withdraw from the case , saying that he was the applicant \u2019s \u201c sworn enemy \u201d following the accusations she had made against him in the context of her request for him to withdraw .","On an unspecified date the HCJ granted Judge PERSON \u2019s request and replaced him with a different inspector , Judge PERSON","NORP In his final report dated DATE the newly appointed inspector Judge PERSON proposed that the applicant be ordered to pay DATE - fines for acting in breach of her duty of propriety .","During the proceedings a witness called by the applicant gave evidence . He stated that he had been present during the conversation in question and that the applicant had not made the alleged remarks .","In a decision of DATE the HCJ , sitting in plenary , ordered the applicant to pay CARDINAL day - fines , corresponding to DATE without pay , for acting in breach of her duty of propriety . The HCJ found that it was not appropriate to suspend the fine in the applicant \u2019s case .","The formation of the HCJ which made the order against the applicant comprised CARDINAL members , of whom CARDINAL were judges and CARDINAL were nonjudicial members .","QUANTITY of the non - judicial members issued a joint dissenting opinion expressing the view that it was not possible to establish in the present case , solely on the basis of ORG \u2019s statement , that the applicant had called him a \u201c liar \u201d , and finding that the remarks referring to his \u201c inertia \u201d and \u201c lack of diligence \u201d came within the scope of the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG of ORG ( PERSON do Supremo Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a ) , requesting a review of the establishment of the facts . In support of her request the applicant argued that the penalty imposed on her had been disproportionate .","On DATE ORG of ORG unanimously upheld the HCJ \u2019s decision , finding in particular that","( i ) there was no doubt as to how the rules of NORP law were to be interpreted , with the result that the request to seek a preliminary ruling from ORG of ORG should be rejected ;","( ii ) ORG task was not to review the facts of the case but simply to verify whether the establishment of the facts had been reasonable ;","( iii ) the applicant had made use of false testimony , a fact that should count against her in determining the penalty to be imposed ;","( iv ) the administrative authority handling the case had not been required to assess whether the fine should be suspended since the present case did not involve a custodial sentence ;","( v ) the accusations of \u201c inertia \u201d and \u201c lack of diligence \u201d which the applicant had made against the judicial inspector ORG had insulted him , falling short of the minimum ethical standards expected from a judge , and had not come within the scope of freedom of expression .","A second set of disciplinary proceedings ( case no . TIME ) was opened against the applicant for use of false testimony in the earlier proceedings .","On DATE the judicial inspector , Judge GPE , filed submissions against the applicant , accusing her of breaching her duty of loyalty . He did not propose any specific penalty .","On DATE GPE submitted his final report , proposing that the applicant be suspended from her duties for DATE .","On DATE the applicant raised a plea of nullity with the judicial inspector in respect of this report , complaining that the penalty in question had not been proposed directly in his submissions . By order of CARDINAL DATE GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s plea .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the HCJ , sitting in plenary , ordered that the applicant be suspended from her duties for DATE for acting in breach of her duty of honesty . The HCJ considered that the applicant had given false testimony by asking a witness whom she had called in disciplinary case no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL to make false statements concerning the allegations against her . The HCJ established the facts taking into account the applicant \u2019s mobile phone records , which had been obtained with her consent at the request of the judicial inspector F.M.J.","The DATE \u2019s decision of DATE was taken unanimously , with CARDINAL of its CARDINAL members present . Of these , CARDINAL were judges , including the President of the HCJ , and CARDINAL were non - judicial members .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed to ORG of ORG against the decision of DATE . She disputed the facts , alleging that","( i ) she had not been given a hearing on the subject of the proposed disciplinary penalty , as it had not been specified in the submissions ;","( ii ) the HCJ had altered the legal classification of the acts she had allegedly committed and the circumstances of her involvement in the disciplinary offence ;","( iii ) ORG had omitted to give reasons for its decision not to suspend enforcement of the penalty imposed ;","( iv ) the penalty imposed had been disproportionate .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG unanimously upheld the decision of DATE on the grounds that","( i ) it had limited power to review the facts in so far as the appeal was an application to set aside rather than a full appeal on fact and law , regard being had to LAW ;","( ii ) adequate reference had been made to the proposed penalty in the judicial inspector \u2019s final report , of which the applicant had also been duly informed ;","( iii ) it had been open to the HCJ to increase the proposed penalty on the grounds that the applicant \u2019s defence related to the facts of the case rather than the proposed penalty ;","( iv ) with regard to the legal reclassification of the facts , the applicant \u2019s rights had been safeguarded since the HCJ , without altering the facts , had adopted a different legal interpretation of the duties that had been breached ;","( v ) the HCJ , which was in charge of the disciplinary proceedings , had not been required to assess whether the applicant \u2019s suspension from duty should be suspended , since no possible custodial sentence had been at stake in the proceedings and the HCJ had enjoyed a degree of discretion in that regard ;","( vi ) the penalty did not appear disproportionate ;","( vii ) in view of the false testimony given by CARDINAL witness in an attempt to protect the applicant , the HCJ had been entitled , in imposing a penalty , to take into consideration the fact that the applicant had had recourse to a third party in order to tamper with the evidence in the file .","A third set of disciplinary proceedings was instituted against the applicant ( case no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) for allegedly asking the judicial inspector , Judge F.M.J. , in the course of a private conversation , not to take disciplinary action against the witness who had given evidence on her behalf in the first set of disciplinary proceedings .","On DATE the judicial inspector , Judge PERSON , submitted his final report , proposing that the applicant be dismissed from her post for acting in breach of her duty of honesty .","In her pleadings the applicant admitted having had a private conversation with the judicial inspector , but denied having made such a request to him .","In a decision of DATE the HCJ , sitting in plenary , ordered that the applicant be suspended from duty for DATE for acting in breach of her duties of loyalty and propriety .","The decision of DATE was taken with CARDINAL of the CARDINAL members of the HCJ present . Of these , CARDINAL , including the President , were judges and CARDINAL were non - judicial members . CARDINAL of the judges issued a dissenting opinion to the effect that the facts as established , given their seriousness , warranted a penalty of early retirement or dismissal under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG of ORG , requesting that a public hearing be held so that she could call a witness and present some documents . She complained of the legal reclassification of the facts , the fact that no reasons had been given for the refusal to suspend the penalty , and the disproportionate nature of her suspension from duty .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG unanimously upheld the judgment of DATE , finding","( i ) that the applicant \u2019s request for a public hearing should be refused on the ground that it was not the task of ORG to review the establishment of the facts . Instead , its task was confined by law to verifying that the HCJ had complied with the principles and rules governing the examination of evidence , and in particular that its decision regarding the establishment of the facts had been coherent and reasonable ;","( ii ) that the applicant had produced lengthy pleadings , making it unnecessary to hear legal arguments in oral proceedings ;","( iii ) that the request for evidence to be taken from the witness had been aimed at establishing the content of the draft decision in the applicant \u2019s disciplinary case ; this ran counter to the confidentiality of the proceedings leading to the final decision ;","( iv ) that the documents submitted by the applicant had exceeded the scope of the disciplinary proceedings ;","( v ) that the HCJ had considerable discretion regarding issues relating to the law on the determination of the disciplinary offence , which was defined in broad terms in LAW , and that ORG could alter that legal classification only in the event of a manifest or gross error concerning the seriousness in disciplinary terms of the applicant \u2019s conduct ;","( vi ) that ORG could likewise not review the penalty imposed , but could only determine whether it had been appropriate to the offence and proportionate to it ;","( vii ) that ORG was not required to rule on the refusal to suspend the disciplinary penalty imposed , as the proceedings did not fall within the sphere of criminal law and no custodial sentence had been applied .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG found as follows :","\u201c Whether or not a public hearing should be held at an individual \u2019s request in connection with a special administrative action to set aside an administrative act depends on the extent of ORG powers of review as regards the establishment of the facts . It is clear that a hearing devoted to the production of evidence and discussion of the facts would be useful and meaningful only if ORG had unlimited jurisdiction to review all the facts established by the impugned decision . If that were the case ORG would form its own opinion regarding the evidence and would examine new evidence , going well beyond a review of lawfulness .","However , as is clear from the uniform case - law of ORG , this option is not available in the light of ORG . \u201d","On DATE ORG of the Judiciary , sitting in plenary , after grouping together the penalties imposed on the applicant ( c\u00famulo jur\u00eddico das penas disciplinares aplicadas ) in the CARDINAL sets of disciplinary proceedings referred to above , unanimously imposed a single penalty of CARDINAL days\u2019 suspension from duty .","The decision of DATE was final and was taken with CARDINAL of the CARDINAL members of the HCJ present . Of these , CARDINAL , including the President of the HCJ , were judges and CARDINAL were non - judicial members . The disciplinary penalty of CARDINAL days\u2019 suspension from duty imposed on the applicant was enforced by the national authorities ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148632","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DUBSK\u00c1 AND KREJZOV\u00c1 v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":2,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The first applicant gave birth to her first child in hospital in DATE without any complications . According to her , during the birth the medical personnel present were urging her to agree to undergo various kinds of medical intervention even though she had expressly stated her wish not to be subjected to any unnecessary medical treatment . She was also forced to give birth in a position she did not wish . She wanted to leave the hospital TIME after the birth as both she and the baby were healthy , but a doctor ordered her to stay in the hospital . She therefore did not leave until DATE , when she presented a letter from her paediatrician , who confirmed that she would take the child into her care .","In DATE the applicant became pregnant for the second time with an expected delivery date in DATE . The pregnancy was free from complications and the medical examinations and tests did not indicate any problems . Since she considered that giving birth in a hospital had been stressful for her , the applicant decided to give birth at home and searched for a midwife to assist at the birth . However , she was unable to find any midwife who was willing to assist her with a home birth .","On DATE she wrote to her health - insurance company and to ORG ( krajsk\u00fd \u00fa\u0159ad ) asking for help in finding a midwife .","On DATE the health - insurance company replied that NORP legislation did not provide for the possibility that a public health - insurance company might cover costs arising from home births and that it therefore had no contracts with any health professionals providing such services . Moreover , prevailing expert medical opinion did not approve of home births .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG added that the midwives listed in its register of health professionals were , in any event , only allowed by law to attend births at LOC possessing the technical equipment required by Decree no . CARDINAL and not in a private home .","Not having found any health professional to assist her , the applicant gave birth to her son alone at home on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE she lodged a constitutional appeal ( \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enost ) claiming that she had been denied the possibility of giving birth at home with the assistance of a health professional , in violation of her right to respect for her private life .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the appeal , holding that it would be contrary to the principle of subsidiarity for it to decide on the merits of the case because the applicant had not exhausted all the available remedies , which included an action for protection of personal rights under LAW and an application for judicial review under LAW of LAW . It nevertheless expressed its doubts as to the compliance of the NORP legislation with LAW and asked the relevant parties to initiate a serious and well - informed debate about new legislation . CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL judges attached to the decision their separate opinions , in which they disagreed with the reasoning behind it . Most of them considered that ORG should have dismissed the appeal as an actio popularis and should have refrained from expressing any views on the constitutionality of the legislation concerning home births .","The second applicant is the mother of CARDINAL children who were born at home in DATE and DATE with the assistance of a midwife . The midwives attended the births without any authorisation from the ORG .","According to the applicant , before deciding to give birth at home , she had visited several hospitals which had all refused her requests to deliver the baby without any medical intervention that was not strictly required by the situation . They had also refused to agree to her wish for uninterrupted contact with the baby from the moment of birth , as the regular practice was to take the child away from the mother immediately after the birth to be weighed and measured and for further medical observation lasting for TIME .","At the time of lodging the present application , the applicant was pregnant again , with an expected delivery in DATE . The pregnancy was free from complications and she again wished to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife . However , she was unable to find a willing midwife because of the risk of a heavy fine if medical services were provided without authorisation . The applicant asked various authorities to help find a solution to her situation .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG replied that it did not provide medical services to individual patients and that the applicant should make enquiries with GPE ( M\u011bsto Praha ) which , acting as a regional office , registered and issued authorisations to health professionals .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s health - insurance company informed her that the attendance of a health professional at a home birth was not covered by public insurance .","On DATE GPE informed the applicant that no midwife registered in GPE was authorised to assist with home births .","On DATE the applicant gave birth to a child in a maternity hospital in GPE , QUANTITY away from GPE . She had chosen that hospital because of its reputation for respecting the wishes of mothers during delivery . Nevertheless , according to her , not all her wishes had been respected . Despite the fact that both she and the child had been healthy and that no complications had occurred during the birth , the applicant had had to stay in the hospital for TIME . The newborn baby had been separated from her after the birth and before leaving the maternity hospital the remains of the child \u2019s umbilical cord had been cut off despite her wishes to the contrary .","In its bulletin no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ORG published a practice guideline which stated :","\u201c Conducting a delivery in GPE is regarded as a healthcare provision that is provided only in a healthcare institution . Each healthcare institution must fulfil the statutory requirements ... and the requirements laid down by the relevant secondary legislation . \u201d","ORG ( \u010cesk\u00e1 l\u00e9ka\u0159sk\u00e1 komora ) considers a home birth to be a procedure non lege artis because of the dangers associated therewith .","Almost all births in GPE currently take place in hospital , with PERCENT of births happening at home .","NORP In reaction to what has been perceived as an attempt to criminalise midwifery in some central and eastern NORP countries \u2013 in particular in GPE \u2013 the President of ORG and the President of ORG and ORG issued a joint statement on DATE in which they declared : \u201c There is strong evidence that out of hospital birth supported by a registered midwife is safe , and a preferred experience for many mothers . Women should not be denied this choice because of the lack of an adequate regulatory framework that makes it possible for midwives to practice their profession in any place that women choose to give birth . \u201d","On DATE ORG set up an expert committee on obstetrics with the objective of studying the issue of home births . There were representatives of care recipients , midwives , physicians\u2019 associations , ORG , the ORG \u2019s Commissioner for Human Rights and public health - insurance companies . The representatives of the physicians\u2019 associations boycotted the meetings , declaring that the current state of affairs was satisfactory and that , in their view , there was no need to change anything . Subsequently , ORG removed the representatives of care recipients , midwives and the ORG \u2019s Commissioner for Human Rights , with the argument that only by changing the committee \u2019s composition in this way would it be possible for it to agree on certain conclusions .","On DATE ORG ( Rada vl\u00e1dy pro rovn\u00e9 p\u0159\u00edle\u017eitosti \u017een a mu\u017e\u016f ) , an advisory body to the Government , recommended the prevention of further discrimination against women in the enjoyment of their right to a free choice of the method and circumstances of giving birth and the place of delivery . It also recommended the prevention of discrimination against midwives by permitting them to practise their profession in full through their inclusion in the public health - insurance system . The ORG also referred to the recommendations of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which monitors implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women , to support its position that women should have a choice of where to give birth .","In its bulletin no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL published on DATE , which replaced the previous practice guideline of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG described the procedure for providers of healthcare services when discharging newborns into their own social environment . It stated that the recommendation of specialists was that a newborn should be discharged from the maternity hospital no sooner than TIME after birth . The new procedure allows for the discharge of the newborn from the maternity hospital QUANTITY after the birth at the request of the newborn \u2019s legal representative , provided that the latter :","\u201c ( a ) has submitted a written withdrawal of his or her agreement to the provision of medical services to the newborn , or a written statement declaring his or her disagreement with the provision of the medical services , or alternatively such agreement or disagreement has been entered in the newborn \u2019s medical documentation ... ;","( b ) has been demonstrably and duly informed about the possible consequences following the discharge of the newborn before TIME have elapsed since the birth ... ;","( c ) has been duly informed DATE in the interests of the subsequent healthy development of the newborn \u2013 the NORP specialist medical associations recommend :","that a clinical examination be conducted within TIME of the discharge of the newborn ... ;","that a blood sample be taken within QUANTITY to TIME following the birth for the purposes of screening for hereditary metabolic malfunctions ... \u201d","In the event that the newborn is hospitalised without the agreement of the legal representative in order to be given medical treatment necessary to save the child \u2019s life or to prevent serious damage to the child \u2019s health , the hospital should proceed in accordance with sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG ( Law no . CARDINAL ) . This practice guideline came into force on DATE .","According to estimated data provided by ORG in a DATE report , GPE was among the countries with the lowest perinatal mortality rate , which is defined as the number of stillbirths and deaths in DATE of life . The rate for GPE was PERCENT . In other NORP countries the figures ranged from PERCENT in GPE and GPE to PERCENT in GPE . In most NORP countries the figures were PERCENT . According to the report , perinatal mortality is an important indicator of maternal care and maternal health and nutrition ; it also reflects the quality of available obstetric and paediatric care , comparing different countries . The report recommended that , if possible , all foetuses and infants weighing CARDINAL g at birth , whether alive or dead , should be included in the statistics . The reported data regarding stillbirths were not adjusted to this effect in the study .","According to ORG on the health and care of pregnant women and babies in LOC in DATE , issued in DATE within the framework of the activities of LAW , GPE was amongst the countries with the lowest mortality rate amongst newborns in the first DATE of their life . The rate was PERCENT . The data for other included countries , mostly ORG ( GPE ) member GPE , ranged from PERCENT for GPE to PERCENT for GPE . However , if only statistics relating to babies born after DATE of pregnancy were taken into account , GPE , with a rate of PERCENT , moved closer to the average of PERCENT . The report noted that the wide variation in gestational age - specific neonatal mortality rates at CARDINAL to DATE suggested that not all births and deaths very early in the neonatal period were systematically included . Consequently , the report considered the data including only babies born after DATE of gestation more reliable .","The applicants pointed out that the above sets of data were not easily comparable across countries owing to the different definitions used . The majority of NORP countries set a weight limit of CARDINAL g for counting live births and stillborn children . In GPE , however , the practice until DATE had been that a birth was registered for statistical purposes only if the child weighed CARDINAL g.","The Government stated that NORP maternity hospitals offered highquality services during delivery that fully respected the rights and wishes of mothers . For their part , the applicants submitted testimonies from numerous mothers who had given birth in maternity hospitals during DATE and who pointed to practices that were DATE in their view \u2013 unacceptable , including the following : medical intervention during delivery without the consent of the mothers and sometimes against their explicitly expressed will , such as artificial rupture of membranes ; episiotomy ; intravenous infusion of medication for the mother ; performing the PERSON manoeuvre ( pushing with the fist or forearm the top of the uterus coinciding with a contraction and pushing by the mother during the second stage of labour ) ; performing Caesarean section without sufficient medical justification ; using techniques and medication to speed up the delivery ; separation of mothers from their babies for TIME after delivery , ignoring the mother \u2019s wishes to have immediate contact with the baby after delivery ; routinely placing healthy babies in incubators ; administering treatment to babies against the express wishes of the mother ; and forcing the mother and baby to stay in hospital for TIME after delivery even when they were both healthy . There had also been complaints of arrogant , intimidating , disrespectful and patronising behaviour on the part of the hospital staff and of a lack of privacy .","It appears that no midwife has been prosecuted in GPE for attending home births per se . Several of them have been prosecuted for alleged malpractice in connection with a delivery at home , however . The applicants referred to the cases of PERSON and PERSON , who are both well - known promoters of natural deliveries without any unnecessary medical intervention and who used to regularly conduct home deliveries .","On DATE the GPE CARDINAL ORG ( obvodn\u00ed soud ) found PERSON guilty of negligently causing the death of a baby who was stillborn . She was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE , and prohibited from practising the occupation of midwife for DATE . The culpability of PERSON was based on the fact that she had not strongly advised the mother to contact a medical facility when consulted by telephone during a labour that was already ongoing at home . She had thus given flawed advice to the mother - to - be without actually examining her . The conviction was upheld on appeal on CARDINAL DATE , although the sentence was changed to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE , and CARDINAL years\u2019 prohibition on practising as a midwife . An appeal on points of law is pending .","On DATE the Prague CARDINAL ORG found PERSON guilty of negligently causing bodily harm to a baby whose home birth she had attended and who had stopped breathing during the delivery . The baby died DATE . She was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE , prohibited from practising as a midwife for DATE , and ordered to pay CARDINAL NORP korunas ( CZK ) ( equivalent to MONEY ( EUR ) ) by way of reimbursement of the costs incurred by the insurance company in treating the child until the latter \u2019s death . According to the court , the malpractice on the part of PERSON consisted in the fact that she had not followed the standard procedures for deliveries as laid down by ORG ( \u010cesk\u00e1 l\u00e9ka\u0159sk\u00e1 komora ) and her conduct had thus been \u201c non lege artis \u201d . The criminal complaint was not lodged by the parents but by a hospital .","On DATE the ORG quashed all the judgments in the case against PERSON on account of a violation of her right to a fair trial . It considered the conclusions of the ordinary courts as to PERSON guilt to have been too subjective and not supported by the evidence beyond any reasonable doubt , thereby violating the principle of the presumption of innocence . It stated in particular that the courts had uncritically relied on an expert opinion which they had failed to subject to thorough scrutiny . It held that DATE on the basis of the expert opinion \u2013 the courts had applied very strict liability to the conduct of PERSON in a situation where it had not been clear how she could have prevented the baby \u2019s death . Moreover , it had been established that she had tried to help the baby and had called an ambulance immediately after establishing that the baby had hypoxia . To foresee every possible complication during delivery and be able to react to it immediately , as was required of PERSON , would ultimately lead de facto to an absolute prohibition of home births . In that context ORG noted :","\u201c ... a modern democratic ORG founded on the rule of law is based on the protection of individual and inalienable freedoms , the delimitation of which closely relates to human dignity . That freedom , which includes freedom in personal activities , is accompanied by a certain degree of acceptable risk . The right of parents to a free choice of the place and mode of delivery is limited only by the interest in the safe delivery and health of the child ; that interest can not , however , be interpreted as an unambiguous preference for deliveries in hospital . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180555","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KRISTIANA LTD. v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant company is a legal entity registered in GPE .","In DATE the Government adopted a resolution establishing ORG for LAW ( hereafter \u201c the development plan \u201d ) . The main objectives of the development plan were published in ORG ( PERSON \u017einios ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The development plan explicitly indicated that the buildings with a former military objective , situated in the adjacent dunes , had to be removed ( nukeliami ) and the natural environment fully restored .","In DATE the Government decided to privatise the former NORP ( DATE GPE ) military buildings , without the land , in Juodkrant\u0117 , GPE , within LAW . There were CARDINAL military barracks , a canteen , a store house and CARDINAL sheds .","In DATE ORG carried out a public auction , at which the applicant company was the only participant and purchased the buildings for CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The purchase agreement , which was concluded in DATE , indicated that the applicant company had to lease the land assigned to the buildings ( \u012fsipareigoja i\u0161sinuomoti \u0161iam objektui priskirt\u0105 \u017eem\u0117s sklyp\u0105 ) .","In DATE GPE decided to prepare a detailed plan of the area where the buildings were sited . The purpose of the plan was to designate a plot of land near the existing buildings , providing an opportunity to renovate the buildings or to build new recreational buildings .","In DATE the authorities in charge of ORG decided that renovation of the buildings had to meet the requirements applicable to the whole area . The buildings had to be integrated in the landscape ; as they were sited in the forest , the purpose of the use of the land had to be changed .","In DATE the LOC department of environmental protection decided that the purpose of the use of the land , on account of its specific location , could only be changed if the projects were approved by those managing protected areas or with the approval of ORG . In DATE the same department rejected a detailed plan submitted by the applicant company , seeking to amend the purpose of the land so that it became a recreational area .","NORP The applicant company instituted court proceedings , urging the court to declare unlawful the authorities\u2019 rejection of the detailed plan proposed by the applicant company ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and to oblige them to accept it .","The applicant company \u2019s claim was dismissed on DATE by ORG and on DATE by ORG . The courts held that in accordance with domestic law there was no possibility to build new recreational buildings in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The courts thus held that the applicant company \u2019s detailed plan was contrary to the development plan .","NORP In DATE the applicant company asked the authorities to conclude a lease agreement in respect of the land assigned to the buildings . The authorities replied that the applicant company had to provide a plan of the land . However , as there was no detailed plan of the area , the land could not be leased . The applicant company was also obliged to pay the land tax .","The applicant company instituted court proceedings and complained that it had to pay the land tax but ORG on DATE and ORG on DATE held that it had to pay the land tax because it had been using the land in question .","In DATE the applicant company asked the authorities to include the land in question in the landscape management recreational zone . In DATE , ORG replied that the development plan of DATE indicated that the buildings had to be demolished . It said that it would formulate provisions in the explanatory report regarding the possibility to compensate the applicant company for the buildings . In this case , the applicant company would be able to acquire other buildings owned by the authorities .","In DATE the applicant company proposed that the land under its buildings be included in the recreational zone and that a compensation mechanism be determined for the buildings if the area had to be redeveloped . In DATE the authorities replied that the redevelopment of the area had been determined in DATE and that they could not agree with the applicant company \u2019s proposals . The authorities indicated that any decision regarding the applicant company \u2019s buildings had to be taken by the Government .","In DATE the applicant company complained about the refusal of its proposal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to ORG . It claimed that it had legitimate expectations that it would be able to use its possessions in an appropriate manner , namely that it would be allowed to reconstruct the buildings without increasing their height . In DATE the ORG replied that when approving ORG ( hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , a decision on a compensation mechanism and time - limits would also have to be taken .","In DATE the applicant company examined a draft of ORG and found that its buildings were indicated as objects to be redeveloped ( rekultivuojami objektai ) but that that decision had not been explained . The applicant company asked the authorities to amend the draft so that it included the issue of compensation for the buildings or included the buildings in the landscape management recreational zone .","In DATE ORG and ORG replied that they had set up a working group to determine a compensation mechanism for the property that had to be expropriated .","In DATE the applicant company asked the authorities to inform it about the conclusions of the working group . In DATE the authorities replied that the working group had to be set up before DATE .","The working group was set on DATE and had to provide its proposals before DATE .","In DATE the applicant company asked the authorities for planning permission to carry out major renovation work on CARDINAL of the buildings , namely the canteen . The authorities replied that they could not issue planning permission and that the applicant company had to provide them with the lease agreement in respect of the land assigned to the buildings . Only after such agreement was provided , the authorities would examine the applicant company \u2019s request .","NORP The applicant company lodged a complaint with the domestic courts against the authorities\u2019 refusal to issue planning permission for renovation of the canteen . On DATE ORG allowed the claim , holding that the applicant company had been paying the land tax , which was evidence that it had been using the plot of land .","On DATE ORG allowed an appeal lodged by the authorities . It held that the applicant company had not provided any information proving that it was the owner of the plot of land , so the authorities had not been obliged to issue planning permission for renovation of the canteen . The applicant company applied for the reopening of the proceedings . Its request was refused by ORG in DATE .","On DATE the ORG approved ORG . CARDINAL ( see paragraph DATE below ) and asked ORG to set up a working group to assess the legal grounds for expropriating property for public needs ( d\u0117l darbo grup\u0117s teisin\u0117ms prielaidoms paimti turt\u0105 visuomen\u0117s poreikiams sudarymo ) . The working group was set up on DATE and its proposals were to be submitted by DATE . ORG included the reserve land in DATE , indicating that its purpose was to compensate for the possible losses incurred by lawful owners of buildings that had been earmarked for demolition .","On DATE the applicant company lodged a complaint with ORG , urging it to revoke the part of ORG where it had been decided that the buildings at CARDINAL GPE street ( the location of the applicant company \u2019s buildings ) would be demolished and to order the authorities to amend ORG . The applicant company argued that the issue of compensation and the time - limits for the demolition of property had not even been mentioned in ORG . It also argued that clear indications on compensation for the buildings and for the land tax were needed .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the claim . The reasons were provided in CARDINAL short paragraphs , which mainly reiterated the provisions of domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant company had complained about the lawfulness of ORG . The court considered that issues as to whether acts adopted by the Government were in accordance with the LAW or laws fell within the jurisdiction of ORG . It stated that it was not within the area of competence of the administrative courts to examine the lawfulness of the activities of , inter alia , the Government ( as a collegial institution ) . As regards an amendment to ORG , the court stated that that was linked to the first part of the claim and thus would not have any legal consequences on the applicant company .","In DATE the applicant company lodged a separate complaint and asked ORG to examine the case on the merits . It claimed that the first - instance court had misinterpreted the provisions of ORG , and thus limited the applicant company \u2019s right of access to a court . The applicant company thought that when the Government had approved ORG , it had been implementing the function of public administration , and that that document had had a direct influence on the applicant company \u2019s rights and obligations , and was thus an individual legal act that had to be examined before the administrative courts . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of DATE . It held that the applicant company had questioned the lawfulness of both ORG and the development plan . ORG held that when the Government had approved ORG , it had been carrying out the function of State power . Moreover , the court had already ruled on the issue of the attribution of ORG to the jurisdiction of the administrative courts and had decided that it had not been attributable to those courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court indicated that a legal act could consist of textual and graphic information ( tables , drawings , schemes , plans , symbols , emblems ) . ORG had already held that all parts of a legal act were interrelated and were of equal legal effect ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court further held that the present case was in substance identical to cases already examined by it , and that there were no grounds to reach a different conclusion on the nature of ORG . The court explained that the applicant company could only raise the issue of the lawfulness of ORG in the context of an individual case regarding violation of its specific rights ( by complaining against an individual legal act , by which ORG and the decisions of ORG would be implemented ) . It could then ask the court examining that case to refer the issue to ORG . The applicant company \u2019s request to organise the procedure to amend LAW so that it included the land in question in the landscape management recreational zone was dismissed because the applicant company had failed to address the authorities or the courts after the approval of ORG .","The applicant company then applied for the reopening of the proceedings . On DATE ORG rejected its application on the grounds that the applicant company \u2019s claims had been dismissed for being outside the administrative court \u2019s jurisdiction and the proceedings could only be reopened if an administrative case had been examined on the merits .","In DATE the applicant company asked the authorities which documents were necessary for the proposed renovation work . In DATE the authorities replied that it was not clear from the applicant company \u2019s request which building ( \u201c specific , not complex or nonspecific \u201d ( ypatingas , nesud\u0117tingas ar neypatingas ) , as defined in the domestic law ) it was aiming to renovate . The applicant company had indicated major repair work . The authorities stated that a detailed plan was not necessary , the location of the building to be renovated was not important and a document proving ownership of the land ( see paragraph DATE above ) was not necessary either .","In DATE GPE inspected the applicant company \u2019s buildings and held that they were in a state of disrepair . It requested that the applicant company appoint a person responsible for the maintenance of the buildings before DATE , remove the damaged parts of the buildings before DATE and renovate the buildings before CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant company asked the authority in charge of ORG to issue planning permission to carry out major repair work in order to renovate the buildings . DATE the applicant company received a response that permission could not be issued because it would be contrary to ORG DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant company instituted court proceedings before ORG against the decision of the authority in charge of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It urged the court to order the authority to issue the planning permission required for it to carry out major repair work and to award it EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage for the land tax and property tax it had paid DATE .","In the course of proceedings the applicant company submitted a draft friendly settlement agreement to be concluded by the ORG , proposing that the ORG compensate it for the removal of the buildings by providing the applicant company with lease rights to ORG - owned land measuring CARDINAL hectares in GPE with construction rights . The ORG representative refused to agree to the proposal because it was in breach of domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG held that the refusal of the authority in charge of GPE to issue the planning permission required to carry out major repair work was in accordance with the relevant domestic law . The applicant company also asked the court to refer the question of whether ORG was in accordance with LAW to ORG . The court acknowledged that the authority \u2019s decision had lacked a seal of approval but held that that shortcoming could not be regarded as grounds to overrule the decision . The court also held that the authority had not acted unlawfully , so there were no grounds for awarding the applicant company pecuniary damages . Moreover , domestic law did not require that ORG contain a compensation mechanism for the buildings to be \u201c removed \u201d . However , ORG in question indicated that an area in DATE had been designated to compensate for the losses incurred by the lawful owners of the buildings to be removed . Thus ORG provided for the opportunity to compensate for possible losses . As regards the referral to ORG , the court held that the applicant company had mistakenly stated that the decision to remove the buildings had only been indicated in ORG . The court stated that it was a commonly known fact that the applicant company \u2019s buildings had been earmarked for removal at the time the purchase agreement had been concluded , and the applicant company , as a diligent legal entity , should have assessed the legal status of the buildings and the restrictions on their use . The legitimate expectations of the applicant company had not been breached as it had not proved the need to refer the issue to ORG . The court also pointed out that the buildings had not been taken from the applicant company for the needs of society ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , when using them the applicant company had to follow the legal regulations , which established that construction in the area in question was not allowed and that it was attempting to protect its rights in the wrong way . The decision that had had legal consequences for the applicant company had been the decision to privatise the buildings and to sell them to the applicant company .","In DATE the applicant company appealed and asked ORG to refer the matter to ORG ; to overrule the decision of the authority in charge of LAW of DATE ; to order the authority to issue the applicant company with the planning permission required to carry out major repair work and to award it EUR CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage . The proceedings are still ongoing .","On DATE the Government adopted Resolution No . CARDINAL approving the start of the amendment of ORG . CARDINAL of the purposes set out in the resolution was to combine the interests of the ORG and municipalities with those of the relevant natural and legal persons .","In DATE the applicant company submitted its proposals , namely that the area in which its buildings were located be included in the landscape management zone and that the buildings there should not exceed CARDINAL storey with an attic . If the proposal to redevelop the land were maintained , the applicant company wanted a clear decision on time - limits for redevelopment and a compensation mechanism .","On DATE ORG indicated that the land on which the applicant company \u2019s buildings were sited was not affected by the amendment of ORG . It also indicated that the reply could be appealed against to ORG ( \u201c the commission \u201d ) or to ORG in DATE from its reception .","In DATE the applicant company lodged a complaint with the commission about the reply of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant company stated that it had paid ORG CARDINAL in land tax and ORG CARDINAL in property tax between CARDINAL and DATE . It also stated that although ORG had entered into force in DATE , it had not been proven that removing the buildings was necessary in the interests of society . There had also been no indications about the exact time - limits and procedure for the removal of the buildings . The applicant company thus asked the commission to overrule the decision of ORG of DATE and to order it to amend ORG in accordance with the applicant company \u2019s proposals .","In DATE the commission closed the case , stating that the issue was not within its competence . The applicant company appealed against that decision , claiming that it had been formal and lacked reasoning , and that the commission had ignored the fact that ORG reply of DATE had indicated that it was amenable to appeal before the administrative courts or the commission ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s appeal . It held that the applicant company had been represented by professional lawyers and the mere fact that ORG had erroneously indicated that its decisions were amenable to appeal did not discharge the applicant company of the obligation to follow the appeal procedure as laid down in domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court held that the applicant company had to address ORG with its complaint .","In DATE the applicant company appealed before ORG . The proceedings are still ongoing ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183124","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SVETINA v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","After going missing on CARDINAL DATE , PERSON was found dead near the local ORG road , close to the town of PERSON , on TIME CARDINAL DATE . He had been repeatedly stabbed and cut with a knife and then run over by a car . The police were called to the scene , as were the district state prosecutor and the duty investigating judge .","NORP On examining the crime scene , X \u2019s mobile telephone was found in his car . The incoming and outgoing calls and the text messages sent to and from GPE \u2019s telephone number were checked by police officers at the scene . It appeared from the telephone records that on CARDINAL November CARDINAL X had communicated only with a person using a certain telephone number , from which a message of an explicitly sexual nature had also been sent to X. After the telephone directory was checked it was established , presumably by the police , that the telephone in question belonged to a woman who happened to be the applicant \u2019s grandmother , with whom , as established on the basis of the official records , the applicant lived . Furthermore , having been informed that ORG \u2019s mobile telephone had been found , the district state prosecutor requested the duty investigating judge to order the S company \u2013 the mobile network operator in question \u2013 to produce records of telephone calls made and text messages sent from the telephone .","On DATE ( DATE ) the investigating judge of ORG issued an order for a search of PERSON \u2019s home and ordered the S company to provide data concerning communication undertaken via X \u2019s mobile telephone . The S company on DATE submitted to ORG a disk containing X \u2019s telephone records .","On TIME CARDINAL DATE the police stopped the applicant \u2019s car and subjected him to a so - called \u201c security check \u201d ( varnostni pregled ) , finding a knife ( allegedly bearing traces of what could be blood ) and a mobile telephone in the applicant \u2019s pocket . After examining his telephone they established that he had used the aforementioned telephone number from which the aforementioned calls had been made and the aforementioned message sent to X. They seized these objects and arrested the applicant .","On DATE ( DATE ) , relying mostly on information found in X \u2019s and the applicant \u2019s telephones pointing to a link between X and the applicant , the investigating judge issued a search order in respect of the applicant \u2019s home and the cars he was using . The state prosecutor furthermore requested that a court order for the obtaining of the applicant \u2019s comprehensive telephone records be issued .","On DATE the investigating judge issued an order that the M company \u2013 a mobile network operator \u2013 provide data concerning the applicant \u2019s mobile telephone record . The M company provided a disk containing the requested data on DATE .","NORP In the course of the preliminary inquiry , the investigating judge ordered a post - mortem examination of X , a DNA analysis and a comparison of biological traces found on the applicant \u2019s clothes and other objects seized during the home search with those found on X \u2019s body . She also ordered a medical examination of the applicant with a view to establishing any injuries .","The applicant , represented by counsel , was heard on DATE and was subsequently detained on remand .","On DATE the investigating judge opened a judicial criminal investigation against the applicant in respect of the criminal offence of aggravated murder . She , inter alia : ordered that a reconstruction be carried out at the crime scene ; appointed a psychiatrist and a psychologist to examine the applicant and prepare opinions ; ordered forensic experts in vehicle science and car crash investigations to prepare reports on specific aspects of the case ; and again ordered that the M company and the S company provide traffic data relating to X \u2019s and the applicant \u2019s telephones . She also examined a number of witnesses .","On DATE the applicant was , at his request , heard by the investigating judge , to whom he admitted to running over X , but submitted that this had merely been an accident .","On DATE the state prosecutor filed an indictment for aggravated murder against the applicant , alleging that he had killed X by stabbing him CARDINAL times and cutting him CARDINAL times on his head , neck , chest and other parts of the body and running over him in his car .","Following his unsuccessful objection to the indictment , the applicant was put on trial for aggravated murder . A number of hearings were held at which witnesses , experts and evidentiary material were examined and various expert reports ordered and subsequently read out .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE in prison .","On DATE ORG , after an appeal by the applicant , quashed the first - instance judgment , finding that the lower court had failed to clarify the facts surrounding a possible shoe imprint on the victim \u2019s back , which could have indicated the presence of a third person at the scene of the crime . The case was remitted to ORG for fresh examination .","In the retrial proceedings , several hearings were held and the applicant lodged an application for the exclusion of all evidence from ( i ) the records of the crime - scene investigation until ( ii ) the records of the last hearing in the first set of proceedings , on the grounds that that evidence had allegedly been tainted by the unlawful examinations of his and X \u2019s telephones . He argued that the examinations of his and X \u2019s telephones had violated his and PERSON \u2019s rights under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that the relevant court orders had been issued DATE too late . He also requested that the police officers who had subjected him to a security check ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and arrested him be examined in this connection . Both requests were refused by the court .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant for the aggravated murder of X and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . In view of ( i ) the expert opinions regarding the shoe traces on X \u2019s back which had led to the conclusion that the presence of another person at the crime scene prior to X \u2019s death could not be excluded , and ( ii ) the fact that the knife with which X had been stabbed and cut had not been found , ORG held that there was insufficient proof that the applicant had stabbed and cut X. However , the court found on the basis of the forensic medical evidence that X had still been alive before he had been run over by the car and that the injuries to X \u2019s chest , spine and aorta , which had been the direct cause of his death , had been caused by the applicant having intentionally run him over with his car . It further found it proven on the basis of the evidence at the scene \u2013 such as ( i ) a piece of rubber tube belonging to the applicant \u2019s car , ( ii ) the applicant \u2019s biological traces found on PERSON \u2019s body , ( iii ) X \u2019s biological traces found on , inter alia , the applicant \u2019s clothing ( which was blood - stained ) and on the outside of the applicant \u2019s car \u2013 that the applicant had been beyond doubt at the crime scene and had had contact with X. Referring , in particular , to the findings of the experts in vehicle science , who had performed reconstructions at the scene testing the applicant \u2019s versions of events , the court discounted the possibility that the applicant had run over X by accident . The court furthermore found that the applicant and PERSON had known each other , which was confirmed by the applicant \u2019s statements as well as by telephone records and witness testimony . Lastly , the court referred to the telephone records , together with other evidence such as medical evidence and X \u2019s petrol bill , when elaborating on the time of death , finding that it had undoubtedly occurred on DATE probably sometime after TIME , when the last ( missed ) call from X \u2019s telephone had been recorded on the applicant \u2019s telephone .","As regards the procedural decisions taken during the proceedings the court gave the following explanation :","- It refused a request lodged by the applicant for access to the police notes on the examination of his telephone because it would have been unlawful to include in the file evidence obtained without a court order .","- In view of the foregoing conclusion that the examination of the applicant \u2019s telephone could have not been admitted to the file , the court refused as unnecessary a request by the applicant for the examination of the officers who had seized the applicant \u2019s telephone ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","- As regards the exclusion of evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the court explained that the applicant had become a subject of investigation following the examination of the data in GPE \u2019s telephone , which had not interfered with the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It further noted that the examination of the applicant \u2019s telephone had amounted to a violation of the said provision but carried no evidentiary weight , as at that point the police had already obtained the necessary information from ORG telephone . In addition , the court noted that the results of this examination had not been included in the file and had not been relied on by the court .","On DATE the applicant appealed , complaining , inter alia , that the judgment had violated his defence rights . In particular , he alleged that the district court should have excluded all evidence from the file because it had been based on the police \u2019s examinations of ORG and his own mobile telephone without the necessary court order . He further stated as follows :","\u201c It is irrelevant that the police , by [ their ] unlawful interference with [ X ] \u2019s mobile telephone , did not directly violate the appellant \u2019s right under LAW [ \u201c Privacy of correspondence and other means of communication \u201d ] , because the fact remains that the police obtained that evidence ( data from [ X ] \u2019s mobile telephone ) without a court order \u2013 that is to say unlawfully . \u201d","NORP The applicant moreover argued that the examination of X \u2019s telephone alone had not adduced enough evidence to arrest the applicant and that that had been possible only after the applicant \u2019s telephone had been examined . Thus , in his view , the impugned judgment should not have concluded that the examination of his telephone had had insignificant evidentiary value .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal in part and reduced his sentence to DATE in prison . The court agreed with the applicant that the act of which he had been convicted \u2013 that is to say running over X with his car \u2013 did not in itself constitute murder with aggravating factors ( that is to say aggravated murder ) , as the firstinstance court had not proved that X had sustained severe physical pain or psychological suffering . However , all the other applicant \u2019s complaints , including the CARDINAL regarding the unlawful examinations of his and GPE \u2019s mobile telephones , were dismissed .","As regards the examination of PERSON \u2019s telephone the higher court found that , regardless of whether the police officers had examined X \u2019s telephone before the issuance of the court order , what was crucial was that they had received the court order for the telephone records to be produced before they had identified and located the applicant . Therefore , the examination of X \u2019s mobile telephone , which had constituted an urgent step in the police inquiry , had not been conducted in violation of his constitutionally guaranteed right to protection of the privacy of communication . As regards the examination of the applicant \u2019s mobile telephone , the higher court agreed with the lower court that \u201c the examination of the applicant \u2019s telephone [ had been ] ... unconstitutional , but this violation had not been important in the evidentiary sense \u201d . The higher court also upheld the lower court \u2019s decision not to obtain from the police their notes on the examination of the applicant \u2019s telephone .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , complaining of , inter alia , the allegedly unlawful examinations of ORG and the applicant \u2019s telephones and reiterating the arguments he had put forward in his appeal ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In particular , he argued that the police had obtained crucial evidence \u2013 that is to say the message with explicitly sexual content \u2013 when examining PERSON \u2019s telephone without having a court order to do so , and that his arrest had been based on a subsequent unlawful examination of his telephone .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . Firstly , as regards the police examination of X \u2019s mobile telephone , ORG pointed out that the applicant had not even argued that the examination of PERSON \u2019s telephone had directly violated his own right to privacy . While not excluding the possibility that the examination of a deceased \u2019s person \u2019s telephone might impinge upon the most intimate spheres of his or her dignity , it considered that in the case at hand it had not interfered with X \u2019s right to privacy , as personality rights ceased at death . Neither had , in ORG view , the applicant \u2019s own constitutionally guaranteed privacy rights been interfered with , as the examination had not revealed his identity . Moreover , the district state prosecutor and the duty investigating judge had been present at the scene of the crime when the police had discovered the telephone in GPE \u2019s car , and the applicant had been arrested only after the court order for the examination of PERSON \u2019s telephone had been issued . ORG concluded that the police \u2019s examination of X \u2019s mobile telephone had not interfered with the applicant \u2019s right to privacy and that the impugned examination had not been causally related to the incriminating evidence .","Secondly , with regard to the police \u2019s examination of the applicant \u2019s mobile telephone , ORG noted that it had been undertaken without a court order and referred to ORG finding that the examination had been unconstitutional . However , in ORG view , the information on whether the text message with sexual content had been sent from the applicant \u2019s telephone would have inevitably been discovered , either ( i ) by means of a simple call to the number from which the message had been sent , ( ii ) by checking the applicant \u2019s telephone \u2019s ORG card ( for which , in ORG view , no court order would have been necessary ) , or ( iii ) on the basis of a court order , which had in point of fact later been issued . In view of this conclusion , ORG considered that , regardless of the fact that the police had examined the applicant \u2019s telephone without a court order , the identification of the applicant \u2019s mobile telephone number as the one from which the text message in question had been sent did not constitute inadmissible evidence that should have been excluded from the case file .","The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint , reiterating the allegations made in his previous appeals . Relying on LAW ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) the applicant argued that the examinations of his and X \u2019s telephone had been unlawful and that the examination of his telephone had violated the aforementioned provision , as well as LAW . Relying on LAW ( again , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant argued that the lower courts should have excluded the evidence obtained unlawfully . In particular , as regards the examination of PERSON \u2019s telephone , the applicant argued that he \u201c had not sought redress for the violation of X \u2019s right to privacy ( mental integrity ) and freedom of communication as he had not been entitled to do so [ ... but rather ] had exclusively pointed out that the violation had occurred and the [ trial ] court had based its decision [ to convict the applicant ] on the consequences of that violation ... \u201d In this connection he , referring to X \u2019s \u201c right to piety \u201d ( pravica do pietete ) , disputed ORG view that PERSON \u2019s right to privacy had ceased with his death and pointed out that a court order had been nevertheless subsequently issued . With regard to ORG finding that the evidence in question would have been inevitably discovered , the applicant argued that the domestic law contained a strict rule requiring the exclusion of all evidence obtained by means violating human rights ( \u201c the domestic exclusionary rule \u201d ) . He furthermore argued that there had been a violation of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) of the LAW because the first - instance court refused to obtain from the police their notes on the examination of his telephone .","On DATE ORG decided not to accept the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint for consideration , pursuant to section DATE ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155105","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DELFI AS v. ESTONIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant company is a public limited liability company ( aktsiaselts ) , registered in GPE .","The applicant company is the owner of ORG , an Internet news portal that published up to CARDINAL news articles a day at the time of the lodging of the application . Delfi is CARDINAL of the largest news portals on the Internet in GPE . It publishes news in NORP and NORP in GPE and also operates in GPE and GPE .","At the material time , at the end of the body of the news articles there were the words \u201c add your comment \u201d and fields for comments , the commenter \u2019s name and his or her e - mail address ( optional ) . Below these fields there were buttons labelled \u201c publish the comment \u201d and \u201c read comments \u201d . The part for reading comments left by others was a separate area which could be accessed by clicking on the \u201c read comments \u201d button . The comments were uploaded automatically and were , as such , not edited or moderated by the applicant company . The articles received CARDINAL ORG comments daily , the majority posted under pseudonyms .","Nevertheless , there was a system of notice - and - take - down in place : any reader could mark a comment as leim ( an NORP word for an insulting or mocking message or a message inciting hatred on the Internet ) and the comment was removed expeditiously . Furthermore , there was a system of automatic deletion of comments that included certain stems of obscene words . In addition , a victim of a defamatory comment could directly notify the applicant company , in which case the comment was removed immediately .","The applicant company had made efforts to advise users that the comments did not reflect its own opinion and that the authors of comments were responsible for their content . On ORG \u2019s Internet site there were \u201c Rules of comment \u201d which included the following :","\u201c The ORG message board is a technical medium allowing users to publish comments . Delfi does not edit comments . An author of a comment is liable for his or her comment . It is worth noting that there have been cases in the NORP courts where authors have been punished for the contents of a comment ...","Delfi prohibits comments whose content does not comply with good practice .","These are comments that :","\u2013 contain threats ;","\u2013 contain insults ;","\u2013 incite hostility and violence ;","\u2013 incite illegal activities ...","\u2013 contain off - topic links , spam or advertisements ;","\u2013 are without substance and\/or off - topic ;","\u2013 contain obscene expressions and vulgarities ...","Delfi has the right to remove such comments and restrict their ORG access to the writing of comments ... \u201d","The functioning of the notice - and - take - down system was also explained in the \u201c Rules of comment \u201d .","The Government submitted that in ORG had a notorious history of publishing defamatory and degrading comments . Thus , on DATE the DATE newspaper ORG had published an open letter from its editorial board to the Minister of ORG , ORG and the Chancellor of ORG in which concern was expressed about incessant taunting of people on public websites in GPE . Delfi was named as a source of brutal and arrogant mockery . The addressees of the public letter responded to it in DATE edition of ORG . The Minister of ORG emphasised that the insulted persons had the right to defend their honour and reputation in court by bringing a suit against Delfi and claiming damages . ORG referred to the legal grounds which made threats , incitement to social hatred , and sexual abuse of minors punishable under criminal law , and noted that liability for defamation and insults was dealt with under civil procedure . The Chancellor of ORG referred to the legal provisions designed to ensure the freedom of expression as well as the protection of everyone \u2019s honour and good name , including sections DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) .","On DATE the applicant company published an article on the Delfi portal under the heading \u201c FAC \u201d . Ice roads are public roads over the frozen sea which are open between the NORP mainland and some islands in DATE . The abbreviation \u201c ORG \u201d stands for AS PERSON ( ORG , a public limited liability company ) . ORG provides a public ferry transport service between the mainland and certain islands . L. was a member of the supervisory board of ORG and the company \u2019s sole or majority shareholder at the material time .","On DATE and DATE the article attracted CARDINAL comments . CARDINAL of them contained personal threats and offensive language directed against L.","On DATE L. \u2019s lawyers requested the applicant company to remove the offensive comments and claimed CARDINAL NORP kroons ( EEK ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The request concerned the following CARDINAL comments :","\u201c CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) there are currents in [ V]\u00e4inameri","( CARDINAL ) open water is closer to the places you referred to , and the ice is thinner .","Proposal \u2013 let \u2019s do as in DATE , let \u2019s go to [ K]uressaare with sticks and put [ L. ] and [ Le . ] in a bag","NORP bloody shitheads ...","they bathe in money anyway thanks to that monopoly and ORG subsidies and have now started to fear that cars may drive to the islands for DATE without anything filling their purses . burn in your own ship , sick NORP !","NORP good that [ GPE \u2019s ] initiative has not broken down the lines of the web flamers . go ahead , guys , [ L. ] into the oven !","NORP [ little L. ] go and drown yourself","aha ... [ I ] hardly believe that that happened by accident ... assholes fck","rascal ! ! ! [ in NORP ]","What are you whining for , knock this bastard down once and for all [ . ] In future the other ones ... will know what they risk , even they will only have CARDINAL little life .","NORP ... is goddamn right . Lynching , to warn the other [ islanders ] and would - be men . Then nothing like that will be done again ! In any event , [ L. ] very much deserves that , does n\u2019t he .","\u201c a good man lives a long time , a shitty man a DATE or CARDINAL \u201d","If there was an iceroad , [ one ] could easily save CARDINAL for a full car , fckng [ L. ] pay for that economy , why does it take TIME ] for your ferries if they are such good icebreakers , go and break ice in NORP port ... instead , fcking monkey , I will cross [ the strait ] anyway and if I drown , it \u2019s your fault","NORP and ca n\u2019t anyone defy these shits ?","NORP inhabitants of GPE and GPE islands , do CARDINAL to this dope .","NORP wonder whether [ L. ] wo n\u2019t be knocked down in GPE ? screwing one \u2019s own folk like that .","The people will chatter for DATE on the Internet , but the crooks ( and also those who are backed and whom we ourselves have elected to represent us ) pocket the money and pay no attention to this flaming \u2013 no one gives a shit about this .","Once [ M. ] and other big crooks also used to boss around , but their greed struck back ( RIP ) . Will also strike back for these crooks sooner or later . As they sow , so shall they reap , but they should nevertheless be contained ( by lynching as the state is powerless towards them \u2013 it is really them who govern the state ) , because they only live for DATE . DATE , the flood .","NORP this [ V. ] will one day get hit with a cake by me .","damn , as soon as you put a cauldron on the fire and there is smoke rising from the chimney of the sauna , the crows from GPE are there \u2013 thinking that ... a pig is going to be slaughtered . no way","bastards ! ! ! ! PERSON also has an ice class , so this is no excuse why PERSON was required ! ! !","NORP state , led by scum [ and ] financed by scum , of course does not prevent or punish antisocial acts by scum . But well , every [ L. ] has his Michaelmas ... and this can not at all be compared to a ram \u2019s FAC . Actually sorry for [ L. ] \u2013 a human , after all ... PERSON","... if after such acts [ L. ] should all of a sudden happen to be on sick leave and also next time the ice road is destroyed ... will he [ then ] dare to act like a pig for the third time ? :)","fucking bastard , that [ L. ] ... could have gone home with my baby soon ... anyway his company can not guarantee a normal ferry service and the prices are such that ... real creep ... a question arises whose pockets and mouths he has filled up with money so that he \u2019s acting like a pig from DATE","NORP you ca n\u2019t make bread from shit ; and paper and internet can stand everything ; and just for my own fun ( really the state and [ L. ] do not care about the people \u2019s opinion ) ... just for fun , with no greed for money \u2013 I pee into [ L. \u2019s ] ear and then I also shit onto his head . :) \u201d","On DATE , that is DATE after their publication , the offensive comments were removed by the applicant company .","On DATE the applicant company responded to the request from ORG \u2019s lawyers . It informed PERSON that the comments had been removed under the notice - and - take - down obligation , and refused the claim for damages .","On DATE L. brought a civil suit in ORG against the applicant company .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the representatives of the applicant company submitted , inter alia , that in cases like that of the \u201c Bronze Night \u201d ( disturbances of public order related to the relocation of the PERSON monument in DATE ) Delfi had removed CARDINAL comments per day , also on its own initiative .","By a judgment of DATE L. \u2019s claim was dismissed . ORG found that the applicant company \u2019s liability was excluded under LAW ( NORP teenuse seadus ) , which was based on ORG ( Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EC of ORG and of ORG on certain legal aspects of information society services , in particular electronic commerce , in FAC ) . The court considered that the comment environment in the applicant company \u2019s news portal was to be distinguished from the portal \u2019s journalistic area . The administration of the former by the applicant company was essentially of a mechanical and passive nature . The applicant company could not be considered the publisher of the comments , nor did it have any obligation to monitor them .","On DATE ORG allowed an appeal by L. It considered that ORG had erred in finding that the applicant company \u2019s liability was excluded under LAW . ORG judgment was quashed and the case was referred back to the first - instance court for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG declined to hear an appeal by the applicant company .","On DATE ORG , having re - examined the case , found for L. In accordance with ORG instructions , it relied on LAW and deemed LAW inapplicable . It observed that the applicant company had placed a note on its Internet site to the effect that comments were not edited , that the posting of comments that were contrary to good practice was prohibited , and that the applicant company reserved the right to remove such comments . A system was put in place whereby users could notify the applicant company of any inappropriate comments . However , ORG considered that this was insufficient and did not allow adequate protection for the personality rights of others . The court found that the applicant company itself was to be considered the publisher of the comments , and it could not avoid responsibility by publishing a disclaimer stating that it was not liable for the content of the comments .","ORG found that the news article itself published in the Delfi news portal was a balanced one . A number of comments , however , were vulgar in form ; they were humiliating and defamatory and impaired PERSON \u2019s honour , dignity and reputation . The comments went beyond justified criticism and amounted to simple insults . The court concluded that freedom of expression did not extend to protection of the comments concerned and that PERSON \u2019s personality rights had been violated . PERSON was awarded EEK MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . It emphasised that the applicant company had not been required to exercise prior control over comments posted on its news portal . However , having chosen not to do so , it should have created some other effective system which would have ensured rapid removal of unlawful comments from the portal . ORG considered that the measures taken by the applicant company were insufficient and that it was contrary to the principle of good faith to place the burden of monitoring the comments on their potential victims .","ORG rejected the applicant company \u2019s argument that its liability was excluded under ORG . It noted that the applicant company was not a technical intermediary in respect of the comments , and that its activity was not of a merely technical , automatic and passive nature ; instead , it invited users to add comments . Thus , the applicant company was a provider of content services rather than of technical services .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant company . It upheld ORG judgment in substance , but partly modified its reasoning .","ORG held as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The ORG finds that the allegations set out in the appeal do not serve as a basis for reversing the judgment of ORG . The conclusion reached in ORG \u2019s judgment is correct , but the legal reasoning of the judgment must be amended and supplemented on the basis of LAW .","The parties do not dispute the following circumstances :","\u2022 on DATE the defendant \u2019s Internet portal \u2018 GPE published an article entitled \u2018 SLK Destroyed Planned Ice Road\u2019 ;","\u2022 the defendant provided visitors to the Internet portal with the opportunity to comment on articles ;","\u2022 of the comments published [ avaldatud ] on the aforementioned article , CARDINAL have contents that are derogatory towards the plaintiff [ L. ] ;","\u2022 the defendant removed the derogatory comments after the plaintiff \u2019s letter of DATE .","NORP The legal dispute between the parties relates to whether the defendant as an entrepreneur is the publisher within the meaning of LAW , whether what was published ( the contents of comments ) is unlawful , and whether the defendant is liable for the publication of comments with unlawful contents .","The ORG agrees with the conclusion of ORG that the defendant does not fall within the circumstances precluding liability as specified in section CARDINAL of the ISSA [ Information LAW ] .","According to section DATE ) of LAW , an information society service is a service specified in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . According to the provision of the PERSON referred to , \u2018 information society services\u2019 are services provided in the form of economic or professional activities at the direct request of a recipient of the services , without the parties being simultaneously present at the same location , and such services involve the processing , storage or transmission of data by electronic means intended for the digital processing and storage of data . Hence , important conditions for the provision of information society services are that the services are provided without the physical presence of the parties , the data are transmitted by electronic means , and the service is provided for a fee on the basis of a request by the user of the service .","Sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the PERSON establish the liability of providers of different information society services . Section CARDINAL of the PERSON states that where a service is provided that consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service , the service provider is not liable for the information stored at the request of a recipient of the service , on condition that : ( CARDINAL ) the provider does not have actual knowledge of the contents of the information and , as regards claims for damages , is not aware of any facts or circumstances indicating any illegal activity or information ; ( CARDINAL ) the provider , upon having knowledge or becoming aware of the aforementioned facts , acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information . Hence , the provision in question is applied in the event that the service provided consists in storing data on [ the service provider \u2019s ] server and enabling users to have access to these data . Subject to the conditions specified in LAW , the provider of such a service is exempted from liability for the contents of information stored by it , because the provider of the service merely fulfils the role of an intermediary within the meaning of the provision referred to , and does not initiate or modify the information .","Since ORG is based on Directive CARDINAL of ORG and of the ORG on certain legal aspects of information society services , in particular electronic commerce , in ORG ( Directive on Electronic Commerce ) , the principles and objectives of that Directive must also be taken into account in the interpretation of the provisions of the LAW in question . Articles CARDINAL of the Directive , which form the basis for sections CARDINAL of the PERSON , are complemented by recital CARDINAL of the preamble to the Directive . According to this recital , the exemptions from liability established in ORG CARDINAL cover only cases where the activity of the information society service provider is limited to the technical process of operating and giving access to a communication network over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored , for the sole purpose of making the transmission more efficient ; this activity is of a mere technical , automatic and passive nature , which implies that the information society service provider has neither knowledge of nor control over the information which is transmitted or stored . Hence , the providers of so - called \u2018 content services\u2019 who have control over the contents of the information stored can not rely on the exemptions specified in ORG CARDINAL of the Directive .","The ORG shares the opinion of ORG that the activities of the defendant in publishing the comments are not merely of a technical , automatic and passive nature . The objective of the defendant is not merely the provision of an intermediary service . The defendant has integrated the comment environment into its news portal , inviting visitors to the website to complement the news with their own judgments [ hinnangud ] and opinions ( comments ) . In the comment environment , the defendant actively calls for comments on the news items appearing on the portal . The number of visits to the defendant \u2019s portal depends on the number of comments ; the revenue earned from advertisements published on the portal , in turn , depends on the [ number of visits ] . Thus , the defendant has an economic interest in the posting of comments . The fact that the defendant is not the writer of the comments does not mean that the defendant has no control over the comment environment . The defendant enacts the rules for the comment environment and makes changes to it ( removes a comment ) if those rules are breached . By contrast , a user of the defendant \u2019s service can not change or delete a comment he or she has posted . He or she can only report an inappropriate comment . Thus , the defendant can determine which of the comments added will be published and which will not be published . The fact that the defendant does not make use of this possibility does not prompt the conclusion that the publishing of comments is not under the defendant \u2019s control . The ORG agrees with the opinion of ORG that the defendant , which governs the information stored in the comment environment , provides a content service , for which reason the circumstances precluding liability , as specified in section CARDINAL of the PERSON , do not apply in the present case .","There is no legal dispute over the fact that the defendant is the publisher of an article entitled \u2018 SLK Destroyed Planned Ice Road\u2019 , published on the Delfi Internet portal on DATE . ORG found that the defendant too must be regarded as the publisher of the comments . ORG , agreeing with that opinion , noted that the fact that the defendant relied on a violation of its right to freedom of expression showed that it considered itself \u2013 and not the writers of the comments \u2013 to be the publisher of the comments . In the opinion of the ORG , in the present case both the defendant and the writers of the comments are the publishers of the comments within the meaning of LAW . The plaintiff has the right to choose against whom to bring the suit . The suit has only been brought against the defendant .","The ORG has explained the definitions of disclosure and discloser in paragraph CARDINAL of its judgment of DATE in civil case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL , finding that for the purposes of LAW , disclosure [ avaldamine ] means communication of information to third parties and the discloser is a person who communicates the information to third parties . In addition , the ORG explained that in the case of publication [ avaldamine ] of information in the media , the discloser \/ publisher [ avaldaja ] can be a media company as well as the person who transmitted the information to the media publication . Publishing of news and comments on an Internet portal is also a journalistic activity [ ajakirjanduslik tegevus ] . At the same time , because of the nature of Internet media [ internetiajakirjandus ] , it can not reasonably be required of a portal operator to edit comments before publishing them in the same manner as applies for a printed media publication [ tr\u00fckiajakirjanduse v\u00e4ljaanne ] . While the publisher [ v\u00e4ljaandja ] [ of a printed media publication ] is , through editing , the initiator of the publication of a comment , on the Internet portal the initiator of publication is the writer of the comment , who makes it accessible to the general public through the portal . Therefore , the portal operator is not the person to whom information is disclosed . Because of [ their ] economic interest in the publication of comments , both a publisher [ v\u00e4ljaandja ] of printed media and an Internet portal operator are publishers \/ disclosers [ avaldajad ] as entrepreneurs .","In cases concerning a value judgment [ v\u00e4\u00e4rtushinnang ] that prejudices and denigrates a person \u2019s honour and good name , in determining the definition of publication \/ disclosure and publisher \/ discloser it is irrelevant whether the value judgment is derived from the published \/ disclosed information or is derogatory because of its substantive meaning ... Hence , publication \/ disclosure is communication to third parties of a value judgment on a person ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) and\/or of information which allows a value judgment to be made , and a publisher \/ discloser is a person who communicates such judgments [ hinnangud ] and information to third parties . In the present case the comments have been made accessible to an unlimited number of persons ( the general public ) .","NORP In reply to the allegations in the defendant \u2019s appeal to the effect that ORG wrongly applied LAW since , in justifying the interference with freedom of expression , it relied on the principle of good faith , and not the law , and that the removal of a comment from the portal is an interference with the freedom of expression of the person posting the comment , the ORG explains the following .","The exercise of any fundamental right is restricted by LAW , which provides that everyone must honour and consider the rights and freedoms of others , and must observe the law in exercising his or her rights and freedoms and in fulfilling his or her duties . The first sentence of the first paragraph of LAW provides for everyone \u2019s right to freedom of expression , that is , the right to disseminate information of any content in any manner . That right is restricted by the prohibition on injuring a person \u2019s honour and good name , as laid down in LAW ( Article CARDINAL ) . The ORG is of the opinion that in handling the conflict between freedom of expression on the one hand , and honour and good name on the other , regard must be had to the fact that LAW , which is formulated as a prohibition , does not completely preclude any interference with a person \u2019s honour and good name , but only prohibits defamation thereof ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) . In other words , disregarding the aforementioned prohibition would not be in conformity with LAW ( LAW ) . The second sentence of the first paragraph of LAW includes the possibility of restricting the freedom of expression by law in order to protect a person \u2019s honour and good name .","In the interests of the protection of a person \u2019s honour and good name , the following provisions of LAW may be regarded as restricting the freedom of expression : sections CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) , ORG ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , GPE ) and ( CARDINAL ) , and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . ORG found that injuring the plaintiff \u2019s honour was not justified ; it was therefore unlawful as there was no discussion of the topic in the comments but the plaintiff was simply insulted in order to degrade him . ORG also agreed with that opinion . The ORG finds that if section CARDINAL of LAW is interpreted in conformity with the LAW , injuring a person \u2019s honour is unlawful . The legal assessment by the courts of the CARDINAL comments of a derogatory nature is substantiated . The courts have correctly found that those comments are defamatory since they are of a vulgar nature , degrade human dignity and contain threats .","The ORG does not agree with the opinion of ORG that the removal of comments of an unlawful nature interfering with the personality rights of the plaintiff is not an interference with the freedom of expression of the writers of the comments . The ORG considers that the application of any measure restricting a fundamental right in any manner may be regarded as an interference with the exercise of that fundamental right . Interference by an Internet portal operator with the freedom of expression of persons posting comments is , however , justified by the obligation of the portal operator - entrepreneur to respect the honour and good name of third parties , as arising from LAW ) , and to avoid causing them harm ( section CARDINAL ) of LAW ) .","According to the judgment of ORG , the contents of the comments were unlawful ; they were linguistically inappropriate . Value judgments ... are inappropriate if it is obvious to a sensible reader that their meaning is vulgar and intended to degrade human dignity and ridicule a person . The comments did not contain any information which would have required excessive verification on the initiative of the portal operator . Hence , the defendant \u2019s allegation that it was not and should not have been aware of the unlawfulness of the comments is groundless .","On account of the obligation arising from law to avoid causing harm , the defendant should have prevented the publication of comments with clearly unlawful contents . The defendant did not do so . In accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , the disclosure of information or other matters is not deemed to be unlawful if the person who discloses the information or other matters or the person to whom such matters are disclosed has a legitimate interest in the disclosure , and if the person who discloses the information has verified the information or other matters with a thoroughness which corresponds to the gravity of the potential violation . The publication of linguistically inappropriate value judgments injuring another person \u2019s honour can not be justified by relying on the circumstances specified in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW : such judgments are not derived from any information disclosed but are created and published for the purpose of damaging the honour and good name of the party concerned . Hence , the publication of comments of a clearly unlawful nature was also unlawful . After the disclosure , the defendant failed to remove the comments \u2013 the unlawful content of which it should have been aware of DATE from the portal on its own initiative . In such circumstances , the courts have reasonably found that the defendant \u2019s inactivity is unlawful . The defendant is liable for the damage caused to the plaintiff , since the courts have established that the defendant has not proved the absence of culpability [ s\u00fc\u00fc ] ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . \u201d","On DATE Delfi announced on its Internet portal that persons who had posted offensive comments were not allowed to post a new comment until they had read and accepted the rules of commenting . Furthermore , it was announced that ORG had set up a team of moderators who carried out follow - up moderation of comments posted on the portal . First of all , the moderators reviewed all user notices of inappropriate comments . The compliance of comments with the rules of commenting was monitored as well . According to the information published , the number of comments posted by ORG \u2019s readers in DATE had been CARDINAL . ORG moderators had removed CARDINAL comments ( PERCENT ) , mainly consisting of spam or irrelevant comments . The share of defamatory comments had been PERCENT of the total number of comments ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168762","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ARTEMENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of unintentional manslaughter . On DATE he was committed to stand trial before ORG . On DATE ORG fixed the first trial hearing and ordered that the applicant should remain in custody .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The judgment became final on DATE when ORG upheld it on appeal .","NORP In DATE the applicant lodged an action with ORG , arguing that his detention from CARDINAL to DATE had been unlawful as there had been no legal order authorizing his detention during that period . He sought compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG , in the presence of a defendant \u2019s representative , dismissed the applicant \u2019s action , finding that the applicant \u2019s conviction precluded him from claiming compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damages . Its operative part reads as follows :","\u201c Given that PERSON was found guilty of the crime in relation to which he had been detained since DATE , he did not acquire the right to exoneration and to compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","Therefore , there exist no grounds for satisfying PERSON claim for compensation in respect of his unlawful detention pending trial . \u201d","The applicant appealed , complaining , inter alia , that ORG had refused to secure his attendance and had not provided him with copies of materials presented by the defendants . He also maintained his initial claim for compensation .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE in the applicant \u2019s absence ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152444","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"RALJEVI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a citizen of GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Deputy Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant and her parents moved in a flat in GPE owned by GPE \u2019s father . In DATE the applicant \u2019s parents were given the occupancy right on that flat .","In DATE , following her mother \u2019s death , the occupancy right was transferred to the applicant in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE GPE , who inherited the flat after his father \u2019s death , initiated proceedings before ORG of the Herzegovina - Neretva Canton ( ORG gra\u0111enja i prostornog ure\u0111enja ORG Kantona ; \u201c the Cantonal Ministry \u201d ) for the applicant \u2019s eviction and offered her a replacement flat in the same building ( \u201c the replacement flat \u201d ) . The claim was based on LAW which authorised owners of privately owned flats allocated to occupancy right holders to seek their eviction under the condition that they provide them with a suitable replacement flat ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to vacate the flat in question . It further ordered GPE to let her into the replacement flat .","On DATE ORG ( GPE ministarstvo prostornog ure\u0111enja i okoli\u0161a ; \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case for a re - hearing .","On DATE ORG rejected GPE \u2019s request . It held that in case of eviction , the applicant would lose her occupancy right on the flat in question , whereas she would not be able to acquire the same right on the replacement flat since from DATE it was no longer possible to acquire occupancy rights ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG and ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) upheld the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) rejected GPE \u2019s request for extraordinary judicial review .","On DATE GPE lodged a constitutional appeal .","The applicant had been invited to submit her third - party comments in the proceedings before ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) . However , that court explicitly stated that its examination was limited to GPE \u2019s appeal .","On DATE ORG held that GPE \u2019s request for eviction was based on relevant domestic law ( section CARDINAL of LAW ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that in rejecting it the administrative bodies and ORG violated his right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions under LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . It quashed ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case for a re - hearing ( having been given upon an extraordinary remedy , ORG judgment of DATE was not examined in these proceedings ) .","On DATE , in the re - hearing proceedings , ORG quashed the administrative decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) in line with ORG decision .","On DATE ORG accepted GPE \u2019s request and ordered the applicant to vacate the flat in question within DATE from the date of notification of that decision . Furthermore , it ordered GPE to enable the applicant to use the replacement flat .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG and ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for extraordinary judicial review of ORG judgment of DATE .","On DATE an eviction order was issued . The eviction was scheduled for DATE at TIME and was to be carried out with police assistance in view of the fact that the applicant had not left the flat on her own motion within the prescribed time - limit .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the eviction order was upheld by ORG and ORG , respectively .","After CARDINAL rescheduling at the applicant \u2019s request , the eviction took place on DATE when ORG commission , in the presence of police officers , GPE \u2019s representative , the applicant \u2019s representative and the representative of the competent social work centre , made a list of the applicant \u2019s personal belongings , transferred them to the replacement flat and sealed it . The keys to the flat were given to GPE","On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ORG invited the applicant \u2019s representative to collect the keys to the replacement flat . It would appear that until now she has failed to do so .","The applicant is currently staying with her relatives in GPE .","In the former ORG nearly all flats were under the regime of \u201c social ownership \u201d . They were generally built by socially - owned enterprises or other public bodies for allocation to their employees , who became \u201c occupancy right holders \u201d . The matter has been regulated by LAW ( Zakon o stambenim odnosima , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; ORG Herzegovina no . CARDINAL , ORG Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; ORG of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) which is still in force in GPE . An occupancy right , once allocated , entitled the occupancy right holder to permanent , lifelong use of the flat against the payment of a nominal fee . When occupancy right holders died , their rights were transferred , as a matter of right , to their surviving spouses or registered members of their family households who were also using the flat ( sections DATE CARDINAL of LAW ) .","Until the entry into force of LAW , occupancy right could also be awarded in respect of privately owned flats . Those flats were also allocated by public bodies . With LAW DATE it was no longer possible to award occupancy right in respect of flats in private ownership . However , the pre - existing occupancy rights in respect of such flats were preserved ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this Act ) . LAW , on the other hand , authorised owners of such flats to seek eviction of the occupancy right holders under the condition that they provide them with another suitable flat .","On DATE all occupancy rights ceased to exist ( section CARDINAL ) of ORG ; PERSON o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , ORG and Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) . The occupancy right holders on socially - owned flats were entitled to purchase their flats under that LAW . If they did not purchase the flats , they became tenants . However , the occupancy right holders on privately owned flats could not purchase their flats ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW ) . It would appear that their situation continued to be regulated by the relevant provisions of LAW and that they became \u201c protected tenants \u201d ( za\u0161ti\u0107eni stanari ) .","According to Rule CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Rules of ORG , the court shall transmit the appeal to the other party to the impugned proceedings for comments . Failure to submit such comments shall not affect the course of the proceedings before ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152316","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"DANAWAR v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The first applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , born in DATE . The second and third applicants , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , born respectively in DATE and DATE . They were represented by PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The first applicant settled in GPE in DATE . He graduated and started practising as a doctor . In DATE the first and second applicants married . Their daughter , the third applicant , was born in DATE . On DATE the first applicant was granted permanent residence in GPE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the authorities , who suspected the first applicant of participating in organised drug trafficking , conducted a search and seizure operation in his flat .","On DATE the head of the passports department at ORG issued an order depriving the first applicant of the right to reside in GPE . The order relied on the reasons set out in proposal no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , namely that the first applicant had endangered national security and that there was information that he was a member of a criminal group and had committed crimes with intent . No factual grounds were given . The order further stated that it was not subject to judicial review .","On DATE the director of ORG in PERSON issued an order depriving the first applicant of the right to enter the country for DATE .","On DATE the first applicant was arrested pursuant to the orders for his expulsion and prohibition on entering the country . On DATE the head of the passports department at ORG ordered the first applicant \u2019s expulsion . The order stated that it was not subject to judicial review . Again , no factual grounds were given . The decision also ordered that the applicant \u2019s detention pending removal .","NORP In DATE the first applicant was deported to GPE .","The order of CARDINAL DATE depriving the first applicant of his right to reside in the country and the order of DATE for his expulsion were never officially served on the applicant . The second applicant obtained a copy of the expulsion order in DATE .","On DATE the first and second applicants sought judicial review in GPE of the orders depriving the first applicant of his right to reside in the country and for his expulsion , stating that the impugned measures were arbitrary and amounted to unjustified interference with the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private and family life .","In a decision of DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings in respect of the second applicant finding that none of her rights had been at stake .","NORP In a decision of DATE the ORG discontinued the proceedings in respect of the first applicant , finding that the orders had not been subject to judicial review either at the time they had been issued or at the time the first applicant had sought judicial review . On appeal , in a decision of DATE ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s decision and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh examination . The court held that although LAW provided that expulsion orders issued on national security grounds were not subject to judicial review , following the ORG \u2019s judgment in LOC v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) such appeals had to be examined by the courts .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the Sofia ORG dismissed the appeal . It held that the application had been submitted in time because there was no indication whatsoever that the orders had been officially served on the first applicant and therefore the time - limit for seeking judicial review had not started to run . As to the merits of the application , the court found , on the basis of the facts established in proposal no . CARDINAL which stated that since DATE the first applicant had been involved in heroin trafficking from GPE to GPE , that the orders were lawful . The court also found the first applicant \u2019s statements regarding his marital status and links with the country irrelevant .","The first applicant appealed in cassation . In a final judgment of DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment .","On an unspecified date the applicants sought judicial review of the order of CARDINAL March CARDINAL , which prohibited the first applicant from entering the country for DATE . In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the order null and void , holding that at the time at which it was issued the administrative authority did not have power to issue such an order .","Following his expulsion in DATE , the first applicant settled in GPE . In DATE the second and third applicants briefly visited him . In DATE they moved to GPE in order to permanently settle there . In DATE the second and third applicants returned to GPE and in DATE they visited GPE on another occasion . In DATE the second applicant returned to GPE while the child remained in GPE with her father . On DATE the first applicant returned to GPE for DATE .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE provides for the expulsion of aliens where their presence in the country poses a serious threat to national security or public order . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) provides that expulsion orders are immediately enforceable .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , as in force until DATE , provided that orders for the expulsion of aliens on national security grounds were not subject to judicial review . Following the ORG \u2019s judgment in LOC v. GPE ( cited above ) , in which the ORG found the above regulatory arrangements contrary to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention , ORG departed from its previous case - law . In a number of judgments and decisions given DATE it held , with reference to PERSON , that the provision in section PERSON ) debarring applicants from seeking judicial review was to be disregarded as it contravened the ORG , and that expulsion orders relying on national security grounds were amenable to judicial review .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) was amended with effect from DATE and now provides that an expulsion order may be challenged before ORG , whose judgment is final ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159758","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TAM\u00c1SI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants , their representatives and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158536","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ANTIMONOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157420","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"SHOVGUROV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the town of PERSON , GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157760","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MED\u017dLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BR\u010cKO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4","text":["In DATE the applicants wrote a letter to ORG , to the President of ORG and to the Governor of BD concerning the appointment of a director of the ORG public radio station . They referred , in particular , to PERSON candidacy for that position . PERSON was the entertainment editor at the BD public radio at the material time .","The relevant part of the letter reads as follows :","\u201c We acknowledge and appreciate your support and the effort you put in creating a multiethnic radio ... Unfortunately , it appears that there was a major oversight at the very beginning of this important venture . The panel for the selection of the director [ of the radio ] was created in contravention of the Statute of Br\u010dko District . It is composed of CARDINAL NORP members , CARDINAL NORP and one PERSON . Thus , yet again , the LAW , which requires proportional representation of the CARDINAL constituent peoples in public institutions , was disregarded ... Unfortunately , nothing has been done to correct this . The unofficial information we received to the effect that PERSON was proposed for the position of the radio director by the NORP members of the Panel ... although the former director was PERSON , confirms the above . This proposal is unacceptable , all the more so because it concerns a person who lacks the professional and moral qualities for such a position .","According to the information we received ...","in an interview published in \u201c NIN \u201d , discussing the destruction of FAC in GPE , PERSON said that NORP were not people , that they did not possess culture and that , accordingly , destroying FAC could not be seen as a destruction of cultural monuments ,","... on the radio \u2019s premises ... she made a point of removing from the wall ( and tore to pieces ) the calendar with the schedule of religious services during DATE ,","... on the radio \u2019s premises she covered the coat of arms of GPE with the coat of arms of ORG ,","as the editor of the entertainment programme she banned broadcasting of sevdalinka arguing that that type of song had no cultural or musical value .","We firmly believe that the above - described acts absolutely disqualify PERSON as a candidate for the position of the director of the multiethnic ORG of GPE ...","We hope that you will act accordingly ...","In the absence of any action on your part , we will be forced to contact the media as well as the other competent national and international bodies . \u201d","Shortly thereafter the letter was published in CARDINAL different DATE newspapers .","On DATE GPE initiated civil defamation proceedings against the applicants and claimed compensation of MONEY ( BAM ) . M.S submitted that she had learned about the content of the letter shorlty after it had been sent by the defendants , but that she did not know who gave it to the media . After the letter was published , ORG annulled the proceedings for the appointment of a director of the public radio station .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) rejected the claim . It held that the applicants could not be liable for the alleged defamation because they had not published the letter in the media . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c From the GPE letter , it is clear that it was privately sent to the Governor , to the President of the ORG and to the Supervisor for GPE ... and it was not sent to the media ... [ T]he aim of the letter was not dissemination of unverified information to public , but bringing the attention of the competent authorities to certain issues and to enable them to draw certain conclusions on verification of that information .","Having examined the articles published in the media , the court concludes that none of them was published by the defendants in this case . \u201d","PERSON appealed against that judgment to ORG ( \" ORG \" ) . On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and decided to hold a new hearing .","On DATE after having examined several witnesses ( including the CARDINAL employees of the ORG public radio from whom the applicants received the information presented in their letter ) , ORG found that the contested letter contained some value - judgments but also the statements of facts which had been untrue and damaging to M.S.\u02bcs reputation . It held that for the liability for defamation to be established under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE it was irrelevant that the applicants did not publish the letter . ORG ordered the applicants to inform ORG , the President of ORG and the ORG \u2019s Governor about the retraction of their statements within DATE , in default of which they had to pay BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in damage to GPE , together with default interest at the statutory rate from DATE . They were further ordered to publish the judgment at their own expense .","On DATE PERSON filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment to ORG . She proposed , inter alia , that the court send the judgment of DATE for publication at the ORG expense .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution .","On DATE the applicants paid BAM CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) by way of the enforcement of the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG closed the enforcement proceedings .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicants complained about the violation of their right to freedom of expression to ORG \" LAW \" ) .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG held that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression was \u201c necessary in a NORP society \u201d and concluded that there had been no violation of Article II\/CARDINAL.h ) of the LAW of GPE and LAW . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c DATE . At the outset ORG notes that the appellants did not deny that their liability for defamation was based on LAW DATE and that , therefore , the interference with the right [ to freedom of expression ] protected by LAW was prescribed by law ...","The impugned judgment was delievered in a civil defamation proceedings initiated by the plaintiff against the appellants ... accordingly , the interference pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of the \u201c reputation or rights of others \u201d .","What remains to be determined is whether the interference complained of was \u201c necessary in a democratic society \u201d ....","...","ORG considers that ORG established without doubt that the impugned factual statements about PERSON were false and that the appellants were liable for defamation . From the submissions of the CARDINAL witnesses , from whom the appellants received the information presented in the letter [ concerning the part of the letter in which it was stated that PERSON \u2018 made a point of removing from the wall ( and tore to pieces ) the calendar with the schedule of religious services during DATE and as the editor of the entertainment programme she banned broadcasting of sevdalinka arguing that that type of song had no cultural or musical value\u2019 ] , ORG established that there was an evident inconsistency between that what had been said to the appellants and that what they had reported in the letter . Furthermore , the statement from the impugned letter that PERSON gave an interview concerning the destruction of mosques was refuted by another witness who submitted that a subsequent verification had revealed that PERSON had not been the author of the said interview . Finally , the appellants failed to prove the veracity of the allegations that PERSON covered the coat of arms of GPE with the coat of arms of ORG . In view of the above , ORG considers that in the present case the right of the appellants to report irregularities in the conduct of an official to a body competent to deal with such complaints can not be premised on ascertaining manifestly untrue facts which go beyond the limit of acceptable criticism of civil servants . Accordingly , the court considers that ORG correctly concluded that there was \u2018 a pressing social ORG in the present case [ for the interference with the appellants\u2019 right to freedom of expression ] .","DATE . Furthermore , ORG notes that ORG awarded non - pecuniary damage to GPE because her reputation was affected by the untrue statements made in the impugned letter . ... ORG has already stated in its previous jurisprudence that a person \u2019s reputation forms part of her personal identity and psychological integrity ...","...","The appellants ... failed to verify the impugned statements beforehand as was their duty . ORG established that the appellants had damaged GPE \u2019s reputation by making untrue allegations , which caused her mental anguish ... When deciding on the claim in respect of non - pecuniary damage and its amount , ORG took into account the purpose of those damages , as well as that it should not favour aspirations that are incompatible with its nature and social purpose .","[ T]he ORG considers that a measure imposed on the appellants in the present case was proportionate to the aim pursued ... The court further considers that ORG did not go beyond its discretionary power in deciding on the claim in respect of non - pecuniary damage ... [T]he ORG finds that the reasons the ORG gave were \u2018 ORG and \u2018 LOC within the meaning of LAW .","In view of the above , ORG considers that the interference with the appellants\u2019 right to freedom of expression was \u2018 necessary in a democratic FAC and that , therefore , there has been no violation of Article II\/CARDINAL.h ) of LAW and LAW . \u201d","On DATE the Constitutional Court \u2019s decision was served on the applicants ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158947","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF \u017dILINSKIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , in LOC .","In DATE ORG of ORG recognised ORG \u2019s right to the restoration of title to QUANTITY of land in the GPE area . The plot of land in question had belonged to CARDINAL other individuals , TIME and ORG , and had been nationalised by the NORP regime .","DATE the applicant and ORG signed a notarised agreement by which ORG transferred ( perleido ) to the applicant the right to the restoration of title to CARDINAL hectares of the above - mentioned plot of land . The agreement did not indicate whether the applicant had given any money to ORG in exchange for this right . However , the applicant subsequently claimed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that she had paid CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE ORG estimated that the value of the plot of land transferred to the applicant was LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . ORG then awarded the applicant the right of title to QUANTITY of land of equivalent value . The applicant registered the plot in ORG under her own name .","NORP In DATE ORG began investigating allegations of fraud , forgery of documents and abuse of office ( under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) relating to the restoration of property rights by ORG . In DATE the prosecutor of LOC ( hereinafter \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) launched a similar investigation . Subsequently , the CARDINAL investigations were joined .","In DATE the prosecutor submitted a request to ORG for the annulment of the agreement between the applicant and ORG The prosecutor stated that ORG had not had the right to the restitution of TIME and ORG \u2019s land and thus could not legally have transferred that right to the applicant .","On DATE ORG granted the prosecutor \u2019s request . The court held that ORG had not been TIME and ORG \u2019s relative or heir and thus , under the applicable law , had not been entitled to the restoration of title to their land ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Therefore , the court declared the agreement between the applicant and ORG null and void ab initio , confiscated the plot of land from the applicant , and returned it to the ORG .","During the proceedings the applicant claimed that she had paid LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to ORG for the right of title to the land , and ORG acknowledged that she had received an unspecified sum of money . However , since no such payment had been mentioned in the text of their agreement , the court held that the right of title had been transferred to the applicant for free and did not award her any compensation .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the lower court . The court found that the applicant had not proved that she had paid for the transfer of the right of title . It also noted that under LAW , property which had been unlawfully obtained for free could be confiscated from an owner , irrespective of whether the owner had acquired such property in good faith ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG refused to examine a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant on the ground that it did not raise any important legal issues .","On DATE the prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings before ORG against GPE , a former official in ORG . GPE was charged with several counts of forgery of documents and abuse of office under ORG and CARDINAL of LAW . She was accused of , inter alia , having acted together with ORG in forging documents which purported to prove ORG \u2019s right to the restoration of title to certain property , with the aim of selling that right to other individuals . The indictment noted that ORG had received approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) from the applicant in exchange for the right to the restoration of title to the property in question . At the time of the parties\u2019 final submissions to the ORG , the criminal case was still awaiting examination before the first - instance court ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145271","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"DRAGOMIR v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Ms E. R. Iancu , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused in respect of fraud , forgery , use of forged documents , and money - laundering offences .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG decided to place the applicant in pre - trial detention . An arrest warrant was issued against the applicant and the prosecutor \u2019s order was confirmed by the court .","The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was extended on successive occasions by court order .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the court requesting revocation of the order for his detention . In an interlocutory judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . However , it replaced the applicant \u2019s detention with an undertaking not to leave the city , given that the impact of his deeds on public order had diminished with the passage of time . It ordered the applicant \u2019s release from detention .","The prosecutor did not appeal against the interlocutory judgment . Despite the fact that the judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was not released from ORG until DATE , namely on DATE .","The relevant provisions of domestic law and practice regarding the award of compensation in the event of unlawful detention DATE namely ORG ORG and CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) and decision no . CARDINAL of ORG are to be found in Ogic\u0103 v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 MONEY , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE .","The Government submitted examples of case - law with the aim of showing that at present , in similar cases concerning unlawful detention , the system of legal remedies in GPE \u2013 including the direct applicability of the Convention and LAW made it possible to make good any damage suffered .","In a judgment of DATE concerning an unlawful detention for DATE , the ORG allowed the action for compensation and awarded the claimant CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . ORG upheld that judgment and increased the compensation to RON CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The appellate court held that , although LAW ORG was not applicable to the claimant \u2019s situation , LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW and LAW were applicable .","NORP In another case , in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed a tort action and awarded the claimant ORG CARDINAL as compensation for an unlawful detention lasting DATE . It held that \u2013 although LAW ORG was not applicable to the claimant \u2019s situation \u2013 the claimant was entitled to compensation for unlawful detention .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG awarded the claimant PERSON CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) by way of compensation for DATE of unlawful detention . On DATE the High Court of Cassation and ORG upheld that judgment . It noted that the claimant was entitled to compensation on the basis of LAW , even though the extension of his detention by an additional DATE after his prison sentence had been served had not been found unlawful by a decision of a prosecutor or a court , as required by LAW ORG .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed an action for compensation for unlawful detention and awarded the claimant PERSON CARDINAL . It found that , although LAW ORG was not applicable to the claimant \u2019s situation , he was entitled to compensation on the basis of LAW . That decision became final on DATE , when ORG and ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law against it ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177673","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KAHRIMAN v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant initiated civil proceedings against private persons concerning some contracts . On DATE ORG rendered a judgment . On DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court for a retrial . On DATE ORG of First Instance rendered a new judgment . That judgment was amended by ORG on DATE and by ORG of the Republika Srpska on DATE .","The applicant introduced a claim before ORG , alleging that the above proceedings had been excessively long and requesting a financial compensation . On DATE ORG found a breach of the applicant \u2019s right to a trial within a reasonable time . It did not award any damages ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146356","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RUDYAK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Myroslava Antonovych;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in PERSON by ORG ( PERSON \u043f\u043e \u0431\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0442\u044c\u0431\u0456 \u0456\u0437 \u043d\u0435\u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u043d\u0438\u043c \u043e\u0431\u0456\u0433\u043e\u043c \u043d\u0430\u0440\u043a\u043e\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0456\u0432 PERSON \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0432\u0456\u0434\u0434\u0456\u043b\u0443 \u0425\u0430\u0440\u043a\u0456\u0432\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043c\u0456\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0456\u043d\u043d\u044f GPE \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0456\u0448\u043d\u0456\u0445 \u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438 \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and taken to ORG . The applicant stated that he had been ill - treated by the police and that upon his arrest a police officer had hit him in the left eye .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of unlawful possession of weapons and drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE . On DATE the applicant was released .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with a cataract and a subatrophy of the left eyeball . The only recommendation after the diagnosis was to avoid hypothermia . According to the applicant , he planned to have eye surgery . No medical evidence was submitted in this respect .","On DATE the applicant was again arrested in PERSON after selling drugs to NORP and taken to ORG by ORG . The applicant stated that he \u201c had been beaten by the police after his arrest for DATE simply because he had wanted to have a lawyer \u201d . He further stated that \u201c pending investigation \u201d a gas mask had been put on his face with lit cigarettes inserted into the air valve .","On DATE ORG no . CARDINAL issued a certificate stating that the applicant had head and left shoulder injuries , a haematoma on the left ear and had possibly suffered a closed craniocerebral injury . However , the certificate stated that the applicant could be detained , so long as he was under the supervision of a neurosurgeon .","On DATE criminal proceedings on drug trafficking charges were instituted against the applicant and it was decided to arrest him .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) remanded the applicant in custody .","On DATE ORG no . CARDINAL issued a certificate stating that the applicant was suffering from the after - effects of a head injury but that he could be detained . He was also examined by an ophthalmologist and diagnosed with an old optic subatrophy in the left eye .","On DATE the applicant was placed in ORG no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) . It was noted in his medical file that on DATE he had suffered an eye injury and that on DATE he had been suffering from a head injury . He was diagnosed with a cataract and with a subatrophy of the left eye .","On DATE ORG ordered the Head of ORG of ORG of GPE ( \u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a PERSON \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0456\u0448\u043d\u0456\u0445 \u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438 \u0432 \u0425\u0430\u0440\u043a\u0456\u0432\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0456\u0439 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456 \u2013 \u201c the regional head \u201d ) to look into the applicant \u2019s complaints of ill - treatment .","On DATE the regional head informed the applicant that the police officers involved had not broken any laws .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to obtain medical evidence from his GPE medical file which would confirm the infliction of injuries on him .","On DATE the applicant complained to the regional head that :","\u201c ... on DATE police officers , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , accompanied by CARDINAL witnesses , arrived in GPE . Again on DATE the same diagnosis [ was established ] : closed craniocerebral injury , facial fractures , nasal fracture , haematomas on the body , arms , legs and left ear , scratches . \u201d","On DATE ORG , examining the applicant \u2019s case on the merits , ordered ORG ( PERSON \u0425\u0430\u0440\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0430 ) to look into the applicant \u2019s complaints of ill - treatment . The court noted that , according to the applicant , he had been beaten in ORG by police officers PERSON . and PERSON , and that he had later been examined in Hospitals nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . It was noted that the decision to arrest the applicant had been adopted on DATE and that the applicant had been questioned on DATE . He had refused to have a lawyer present . The applicant had never complained of any ill - treatment . The police officers had stated that they had never ill - treated the applicant . On DATE the Prosecutor \u2019s Office informed ORG of the decision taken .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s case . The applicant pleaded guilty to some of the charges and stated that he was a drug addict , that the confiscated drugs had been for his personal use only and that he had confessed to drug trafficking after being subject to physical pressure by the police . The court convicted the applicant of unlawful possession of weapons and drug trafficking and sentenced him to CARDINAL and a half years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant appealed against this decision . On DATE he amended his appeal stating , inter alia , that on CARDINAL DATE he had asked for the severity of his injuries to be recorded and that he had not been able to appeal against the decision of DATE as he had not received a copy of it .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG again convicted the applicant of unlawful possession of weapons and drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant pleaded guilty . He did not appeal against the decision .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL . On DATE he was released .","DATE he was admitted to a hospital . He was diagnosed with hypertension , chronic cholecystitis , a cyst of left kidney and optic supatrophy in the left eye .","According to the ORG , while in detention , the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist on numerous occasions , namely on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ( on the latter date it was noted that the applicant \u2019s state has improved ) , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ( it was noted that the applicant needed no maintenance treatment for his optic subatrophy ) , DATE and DATE . On no occasion had any deterioration of the applicant \u2019s state of health been established . When the applicant had complained of pain in his left eye , in particular , on CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , he had been prescribed treatment .","The applicant submitted that he had been taken to ORG but did not provide any further information in this respect .","On DATE the applicant refused to be hospitalised in the ophthalmology department of the prison hospital at ORG no . CARDINAL .","According to the ORG , the applicant had had the following consultations with other specialists :","( i ) with a surgeon on DATE ( complaints about pain in the right leg , the applicant was prescribed medication ) and CARDINAL DATE ;","( ii ) with a neuropathologist on CARDINAL DATE and DATE ;","( iii ) with a psychiatrist on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ; and","( iv ) with a general physician on DATE ( the applicant complained about a pain in the left eye and general weakness and was advised to see an ophthalmologist ) , CARDINAL DATE ( the applicant complained about pain in his back and was prescribed painkillers ) , DATE ( the applicant was issued a referral to a civil hospital in order to decide whether he is able to work and whether he falls into any disability group ) , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent periodic medical screening .","On DATE the applicant received treatment for a shoulder injury .","On DATE the applicant complained of hypertension . He was offered an examination and , if necessary , treatment in the prison hospital , which he refused ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141193","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ALOJZ v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr Daniel Alojz , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody pending trial on drugrelated charges .","On DATE , he submitted a request to ORG s\u00fad ) , as the remand court , for his release . The request arrived there by mail on DATE .","As by law the request fell to be determined first by ORG , ORG sent it to ORG , which dismissed it and returned the matter to ORG on DATE .","ORG scheduled an in - chambers hearing ( neverejn\u00e9 zasadnutie ) of the applicant \u2019s request for DATE . However , the hearing was rescheduled for DATE at the request of the ORG lawyer , who was unable to attend on the former date as she was to attend a conference .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant was indicted to stand trial on the above - mentioned charges . As a consequence , the case was assigned to a new judge , as the trial judge .","Following the hearing of DATE before the trial judge , on DATE , ORG dismissed the request . When the decision was pronounced , the applicant immediately lodged an interlocutory appeal ( s\u0165a\u017enos\u0165 ) .","The applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed by ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) on DATE . The written version of that decision was served on the applicant through the intermediary of ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under LAW of LAW ( Constitutional Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) , concerning the length of the proceedings on his request for release of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG appointed a legalaid lawyer to represent the applicant . The lawyer restated the applicant \u2019s complaint on CARDINAL DATE . In a standardised and prescribed form ( petit ) , the lawyer directed the complaint against ORG , alleging that the applicant \u2019s right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention had been breached in the proceedings on the applicants\u2019 request for release of CARDINAL DATE . He claimed MONEY ( ORG ) in damages .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG declared the complaint admissible and found a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of his detention . It awarded him ORG CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","The Constitutional Court observed that it had taken the ORG DATE to decide on the applicant \u2019\u2019 rights .","The applicant unsuccessfully requested release also on other occasions , both prior to and after the request of DATE .","The trial on the merits ended with ORG and ORG convicting the applicant and sentencing him to DATE in prison on DATE and DATE respectively .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , which was rejected on CARDINAL DATE . He subsequently sought the re - opening of his trial , but was unsuccessful ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166686","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MUSHYNSKYY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder , robbery and attempted murder . He remained in police custody until DATE .","The applicant alleged that during his stay in police custody CARDINAL and DATE he had been tortured by unspecified police officers , as a result of which he had confessed to having committed the crimes of which he was suspected . In the course of a medical examination on DATE the doctors noted a number of bruises and lesions on the applicant \u2019s limbs , chest and back The applicant alleges that no medical treatment was given to him for his injuries .","The applicant stated that he had subsequently brought his allegation of ill - treatment by the police before the trial courts but the courts had not responded to it . He provided no copy of his complaints .","On DATE the applicant was taken to court ; the court ordered his remand in custody pending completion of the criminal investigation against him .","On DATE the applicant was placed in a cell in ORG ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) no . CARDINAL .","On DATE , following his conviction ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he was transferred to a high - level security cell within the same GPE for detainees sentenced to life imprisonment by a final judicial decision . From DATE the rules applicable to this latter category of detainees had also been applied to the applicant . In particular , his clothes were taken away from him and instead he was given special orange clothes bearing the words \u201c life imprisonment \u201d in large print on the front and back ; when leaving his cell the applicant had at all times been escorted by a special unit of guards in black uniforms with masks covering their faces .","The applicant complained to the courts about the allegedly unlawful execution of his sentence . On DATE the ORG refused to consider his complaint for lack of substantiation and failure to pay the court fee . The applicant did not appeal against that ruling .","On DATE the applicant was placed in FAC no . CARDINAL ( the \u201c GPE \u201d ) . In DATE the applicant was transferred to the GPE in GPE , which was later reorganised as a detention centre for convicted prisoners .","According to the applicant , the conditions of his detention in the colony were debasing . In particular , he alleged that the drinking water and food had been of poor quality , that he had not received adequate medical assistance and that he had been subjected to psychological pressure by the colony staff .","The applicant raised those allegations before the prosecutors . On DATE , the deputy prosecutor responsible for supervising prison authorities\u2019 compliance with the law informed him by letter that an inquiry had been carried out into his allegations but that it had not revealed any irregularities in his conditions of detention . According to the medical information submitted by the applicant , while in detention he had been medically examined and had been given the necessary treatment .","The applicant alleged that in the course of the investigations and the trial he had been prohibited from corresponding by ordinary mail with his relatives and his counsel and from making telephone calls . The applicant did not raise those allegations before the authorities .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant had CARDINAL onehour visits from his mother and father .","The applicant stated , in general terms , that following his conviction on DATE he had not been allowed to have long meetings with his relatives and that the duration and frequency of the short visits they had been permitted to make had been considerably limited . He provided no further details in that regard .","During his first interrogation , on DATE , the applicant had the assistance of a lawyer of his own choosing . DATE , due to the latter \u2019s failure to appear , the applicant was assisted by a lawyer appointed for him by the authorities . On an unspecified date the applicant hired a new lawyer , who continued to defend him during the investigation and trial . The applicant \u2019s mother also took part in the proceedings as the applicant \u2019s representative .","In the course of the investigation and trial , the applicant admitted that he had committed the murders and the attempted murder of which he was suspected .","NORP The criminal investigation of the applicant \u2019s case was completed in DATE . Subsequently , the criminal case was referred to ORG for trial .","On DATE the court found the applicant guilty of the aggravated murder of CARDINAL persons \u2012 CARDINAL of whom was a minor \u2012 and of the attempted murder of another person , with the aim of stealing the GPE property . The court based its judgment on statements made by the applicant during the investigation and at the trial , the testimonies of CARDINAL of the victims and CARDINAL witnesses \u2013 one of whom had caught the applicant at the scene of the crime \u2212 and the conclusions of several forensic examinations , including a psychiatric examination which found that the applicant had been aware and in control of his actions at the time of the offences . The applicant was held to be exceptionally dangerous to society and was sentenced to life imprisonment , together with the confiscation of all his property .","The same judgment ordered his continuing detention in the Kyiv GPE .","The applicant lodged an appeal . He contended that he had committed the crimes whilst of unsound mind and requested an additional psychiatric examination .","NORP In his appeal , the applicant \u2019s lawyer contested the first - instance court \u2019s finding that the applicant had committed the murders with the aim of stealing the GPE property .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE and it accordingly entered into force on that date .","In DATE the applicant requested that ORG of Appeal provide him with copies of certain documents from his case file , including the verbatim records of his questioning during the investigation , the decisions concerning his detention , and various procedural decisions taken in the course of the investigation and trial , which he intended to submit to the ORG in support of his application . In a letter dated DATE , a ORG judge informed the applicant that his request had been refused , pointing out that the procedure governing applications to ORG did not require the submission of the documents of which the applicant had sought copies .","On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s mother , acting on his behalf , made similar requests , which were refused by the Deputy President of ORG on DATE , on the same grounds ."],"violated_articles":["34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173475","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ROMANESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","As an officer in a subunit of the special anti - terrorist unit within the special forces for State security ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , the applicant participated in the events which commenced in GPE on DATE and led to the fall of the PERSON dictatorship on DATE .","The applicant was arrested by army forces and held in detention from CARDINAL DATE until DATE . He was then held by the unit \u2019s commander from DATE until DATE . During this period of time , he was subjected to ill - treatment and , as a result , he suffered depression and he was placed on the officers reserve list on the grounds of poor health ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the military prosecutor , alleging that he had been ill - treated and illegally detained in the ORG building and requesting the punishment of various officials , including the unit \u2019s commander , G.A. The military prosecutor questioned the defendants and a large number of witnesses during the criminal investigation and gathered medical evidence .","On DATE the military prosecutor found that the unit \u2019s commander PERSON had been responsible for the applicant \u2019s deprivation of liberty and his injuries ; however , criminal proceedings could not be initiated because the commander had died .","On DATE the applicant asked the military prosecutor to extend the investigation to other officials he alleged were involved , including doctor GPE and various ORG officers .","On DATE the military prosecutor decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the doctor P.I. on the ground that the constituent elements of the alleged offence were not present . Following the applicant \u2019s appeal , this decision was set aside by a decision of CARDINAL DATE and the investigation continued .","On DATE the military prosecutor found doctor GPE liable to pay an administrative fine ; however , the type of offence he committed had been pardoned by a decree of DATE . The military prosecutor discontinued the investigation in respect of the dead defendant , G.A. The criminal case related to the other defendants , the ORG officers , was severed into separate proceedings .","On DATE and DATE the military prosecutor decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against some of the defendants as the applicant \u2019s complaint had become partly statute - barred . The investigation into crimes allegedly committed by CARDINAL of the defendants was severed and jurisdiction was relinquished to the prosecuting authorities at ORG and ORG in order to be joined to the main criminal investigation into the events of DATE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was heard as a witness and as a civil party in the main criminal investigation .","The most important procedural steps taken in the main criminal investigation are summarised in ORG \u201c DATE \u201d and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , LAW CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , and ORG v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) . Subsequent developments are as follows .","Following the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in DATE , jurisdiction over the case was relinquished in favour of the military prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office closed the main investigation , finding that the complaints were partly statute - barred and partly ill - founded . The parties have not submitted any information on whether there was an appeal against that decision ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155826","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MAFALANI v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .","On DATE I.P. , a well - known NORP journalist , and his business associate PERSON were killed by the explosion of an improvised device placed under ORG \u2019s car , which was parked in front of his publishing company . The explosion also caused injuries to CARDINAL employees of the publishing company and considerable material damage on the surrounding buildings and nearby parked cars .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta ; hereinafter : the \u201c ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG \u201d ) indicted several persons in ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) on charges of conspiracy to kill FAC and for putting that into action . The applicant was indicted for having participated in the group by aiding and abetting the direct perpetrators .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant \u2019s conviction was upheld by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .","Following the attack against ORG and his publishing company , the intelligence available to the police showed that the applicant and several other persons could be implicated in the events and it was therefore decided to arrest them .","The Police Director ( PERSON ) issued an oral order that the arrests be carried out by an antiterrorist team of ORG policija , PERSON ; hereinafter : the \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE , at TIME , the ORG stormed into the applicant \u2019s flat , where he was at the moment together with his sister and grandmother .","According to the applicant , immediately after breaking into the flat , the ORG officers threw him on the floor and started punching him over the head and body .","According to the Government , an ORG team of CARDINAL officers broke into the applicant \u2019s flat and ordered him to lie down . As he started resisting , the police officers applied the throwing technique of \u201c foot sweep \u201d , which made the applicant to lose his balance and while falling on the ground he hit the table with his head . He was immediately offered medical assistance but he refused .","A report available to the ORG signed by the Commander - in - chief of ORG ( PERSON ) of DATE , which is essentially a verbatim of a report of CARDINAL of the arresting ORG officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , in its relevant part concerning the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s arrest , reads :","\u201c ... the intervention with a view to arrest [ the applicant ] started by the ORG officers forceful breaking the front doors using the [ battering ram ] . Inside the flat they found the suspect and an older woman to whom they issued several orders : \u201c Police , lie down on the floor \u201d . As the suspect resisted , CARDINAL officers approached him and grabbed him by the arms but he continued to resist . [ The officers ] then applied the technique of QUANTITY sweep and pulled him to the ground . As he was still trying to set himself free he was handcuffed . While he was falling on the ground he hit the table with his face ... Afterwards ... [ the officers ] offered to the suspect medical assistance but he refused it saying that he felt good . \u201d","According to the applicant , following his arrest he was blindfolded and taken to a remote place by a river , where he was again beaten up and his head was immersed in the water , forcing him to confess to the murders of GPE and ORG and some other crimes . The police officers also continued to beat him up while taking him to the police station .","According to the Government , following the applicant \u2019s arrest he was taken to the parking area of the police station used by ORG of ORG ( FAC uprava CARDINAL , ORG kriminalisti\u010dke policije , ORG organiziranog kriminaliteta ; hereinafter : the \u201c police \u201d ) where he was kept in the minivan of the ORG in the period TIME , awaiting other suspects to be arrested and brought to the police station .","The available report of the arresting ORG officer ( see paragraph DATE below ) in this respect indicates that the applicant was brought to the parking area of the police station at TIME where he was kept in the minivan of the ORG until TIME and then surrendered to the police inspectors .","Once when he was brought to the police station on DATE at TIME the applicant was placed in a room under the control of CARDINAL police inspectors GPE and GPE","According to reports of these QUANTITY police inspectors dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the applicant was for a while guarded by an ORG officer but then , at unspecified time , they requested that officer to leave the room . The police inspectors also submitted that the applicant had been handcuffed when he was brought to the police station and then , at unspecified time but sometimes soon after his arrival , the handcuffs were taken off . They also acknowledged that they had seen visible injuries on the applicant \u2019s head and nose for which he had been allegedly offered medical assistance but he had refused it . The emergency had been called in only after the order of their superiors .","The emergency service came to the police station on DATE at TIME The relevant record of the applicant \u2019s examination , in so far as legible , reads :","\u201c Brought to the police station . Visible open injury above the left eye ; QUANTITY long . Contusion and haematoma of the nose with the possible fracture . Regular general status . The patient refuses to go to the hospital and further treatment . \u201d","The applicant stayed in the police station until DATE at TIME During that period he was taken to searches of his house and car and he was questioned by the police inspectors GPE and FAC in the presence of a lawyer and a Deputy at the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG .","According to the applicant , throughout his stay in the police station he was tightly constrained , beaten and threatened that he should make no problems concerning his injuries .","According to the ORG , during his stay in the police station the applicant was kept in one of the offices ordinarily used by the police officers . Apart from TIME upon his arrival to the police station , the applicant was not handcuffed . He also had access to the toilet and drinking water . He was obliged to sit on a chair as there were no beds but it was impossible to take him to the detention unit as the investigative actions were still ongoing . In any case , he had an opportunity to ask for a rest and food but he did not make any such request .","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was taken to ORG and Escort Unit ( GPE za zadr\u017eavanje i prepratu ; hereinafter : \u201c JZP \u201d ) for a rest . A report accompanying his transfer , signed by the Chief of the police and dated DATE indicated , inter alia , that he had no visible injuries .","A report signed by the on - duty officer at ORG , dated DATE , indicated that the applicant was admitted to the detention unit with visible injuries of his face .","According to the applicant , during his stay in ORG he was offered a sandwich but he could not eat due to a strong jaw pain .","According to the ORG , during his stay in PERSON the applicant was placed in a room which was equipped with beds and sanitary facility . The room was appropriately heated and ventilated and had access to natural and artificial light . The hygiene and sanitary conditions were good and the applicant was provided with food and water .","On DATE at TIME the police took the applicant from PERSON to participate in a further search of his LOC .","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was brought for questioning before an investigating judge of ORG . He decided to remain silent concerning the charges held against him , but with regard to his injuries the applicant stressed :","\u201c The only thing I would point out is that before I was taken in [ to the police station ] I fell in my flat and according to the findings of the doctors who were called in to the police station , I sustained a nose fracture , most probably with dislocation . I refused the medical assistance in order to get out from the police station as soon as possible . \u201d","The investigating judge put no additional questions concerning this matter nor did he take any further actions in that respect .","Following the applicant \u2019s questioning , an investigation into the explosion was opened in respect of him and several other persons . At the same time , an investigating judge of ORG ordered his pre - trial detention .","On DATE the applicant was examined in FAC ( GPE ) and several medical records were drafted .","One medical record available to the ORG indicates that the applicant sustained his injuries after a fall on DATE , whereas CARDINAL other medical reports refer to several blows on the applicant \u2019s head and nose .","Based on his medical examination in ORG , the applicant was diagnosed with contusions of head , nose and shoulder and a nose fracture without dislocation , as well as a distortion of a metal implant in his hand related to an old injury . His general medical condition at the time was regular and he had a smaller hematoma on the left side of his head and nose and smaller hematomas below both eyes . He also had a smaller hematoma on the left shoulder and a visible dislocation of the metal implant in his hand but without a fresh fracture . In DATE the applicant again saw a doctor who indicated testicular problems .","On DATE one of the arresting ORG officers reported on the applicant \u2019s arrest to the Commander of the ORG . In his report , he indicated that the ORG had been requested to arrest the applicant in connection with a suspicion of double murder . The report also provides the details of the arrest already observed above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the Commander of the ORG requested the Commander - in - chief of ORG to assess the lawfulness of the ORG \u2019s actions ; and the latter forwarded that request to the Police Director .","On DATE the Police Director assessed the reports concerning the ORG actions by indicating the following :","\u201c This is to inform you that I find the use of force , namely the physical force and the measures of restraint , used by the ORG team on DATE during the arrest of PERSON ... lawful within the meaning of sections DATE , DATE and DATE of LAW and sections DATE , DATE and DATE of the By - law on the police conduct . \u201d","In DATE the applicant , through lawyers , requested ORG and the emergency services to provide him the relevant medical records concerning the injuries he had sustained during his arrest on DATE . He also requested the police to provide him the relevant documents related to his arrest .","On DATE the police replied that all relevant reports were confidential and could not be disclosed . This reply was forwarded for information to the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG .","On DATE , after receiving the reply , the applicant complained to the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG asking why an effective investigation , within the meaning of LAW , had not been conducted .","The State Attorney \u2019s ORG replied on DATE , indicating that the applicant should consult the relevant domestic law on the use of police force and that , in case of any complaint to that effect , he could always lodge a criminal complaint with the competent ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG .","In the meantime , the applicant obtained the requested medical records .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) against unidentified perpetrators alleging ill - treatment during his arrest and stay in the police station .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s Office informed the applicant that his criminal complaint had been forwarded to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) for further examination .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint on the grounds that there was no reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed . It relied on a written report of the Police Director and written reports of the police inspectors GPE and M.M. It also observed the applicant \u2019s medical documentation and search and seizure records as well as the interrogation records in the criminal proceedings against him .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings in ORG ( Op\u0107inski gra\u0111anski sud u GPE ) against the ORG claiming damages in connection with his alleged ill - treatment by the police during his arrest and stay in the police station .","The Zagreb Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG , representing the ORG , challenged the applicant \u2019s civil action on the grounds that the police had acted in accordance with the law and that their use of force had been caused by the applicant \u2019s conduct .","DATE . During the proceedings , ORG heard the applicant and several witnesses , including the applicant \u2019s sister and grandmother , one of the applicant \u2019s co - suspects and the police inspectors GPE and GPE , as well as the Police Director .","The applicant \u2019s grandmother testified that she had seen the police officers immediately attacking and hitting the applicant as they had entered the flat , and his sister confirmed that she had heard him screaming and had also seen him being dragged around by the police .","The applicant \u2019s co - suspect in his testimony submitted that he had seen the applicant seriously injured in the police station , while the police inspectors GPE and PERSON denied any ill - treatment , as did the Police Director who also stated that the police had monopoly of the use of force .","In his statement of DATE the applicant contended that during his arrest he had been severely beaten by the ORG officers all over his head and body . Afterwards he had been taken near a river and again beaten , subjected to mock execution and immersed in the water . When he was finally brought to the police station , the uniformed police officers continued to beat him with the acquiescence of the police inspectors GPE and PERSON He was also tightly constrained to a chair and at CARDINAL point , while he was dragged from CARDINAL office to another , he felt strong pain in his shoulder . Later on , during his transfer to the investigating judge , CARDINAL uniformed police officers who escorted him said that he should say nothing about the ill - treatment and that he would soon go home . In the ensuing period , he started feeling various health problems related to the ill - treatment and has been seeing doctors regularly .","The civil proceedings are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173385","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GUSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading punishment)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145752","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BUTIUC AND DUMITROF  v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE he was placed during his pre - trial detention in GPE FAC . On DATE he was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment by ORG and ORG . He served his sentence in the same prison until DATE , when he was conditionally released .","The first applicant alleged that there had been severe overcrowding , having had to share cells measuring QUANTITY m. with CARDINAL other prisoners without proper ventilation . He further alleged that there had been a severe lack of hygiene , no provision of hygiene products , a lack of heating during DATE , a lack of bedclothes , an infestation of lice and bugs in the cells , as well as frequent water and power cuts and poor quality water .","In addition , he alleged that strip - searches were conducted regularly on groups of prisoners in the prison yard , even during DATE , with prisoners being bullied by guards . In this connection , the first applicant submitted statements made by CARDINAL inmates who declared seeing such a search conducted on prisoners , including the first applicant , in DATE .","The Government submitted that FAC had been built in DATE and that no changes were made to the size of the cells since . They further submitted that the prison authorities held no information with respect to the number of persons with whom the first applicant had shared his cell before DATE , the date a regulation requiring such statistics to be logged entered into force . Hence , CARDINAL and DATE the first applicant had been placed in a cell measuring QUANTITY . m , which he shared with CARDINAL other inmates .","With respect to hygiene conditions , the Government mentioned that all prisoners had unrestricted access to water and sanitary facilities , while access to showers was allowed twice per week . In addition , hygiene products and bedclothes were provided to all prisoners in accordance with the regulations and within the limits of the budget available . The ORG also mentioned that internal prison regulations provided that prisoners could bring or buy their own hygiene products or bedclothes DATE the first applicant had been given permission to receive bedclothes from his family on CARDINAL occasions . The Government also submitted that , according to the governor of FAC , regular disinfections had been carried out DATE .","The Government further contended that ORG had its own heating system with wood - burning stoves and a heating program which provided adequate warmth . In this connection , they submitted documents showing that DATE certain quantities of wood were consumed DATE , while certain quantities remained unused .","Lastly , according to documents submitted to the Government by the prison governor , potable water and food were tested regularly and were in compliance with hygiene standards .","On DATE the ORG representatives at the time informed the ORG that the applicant PERSON no longer wished to pursue his application .","CARDINAL letters , in which Mr Dumitrof \u2019s attention was drawn to the fact that the ORG may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application , were sent by the ORG by registered mail directly to him on DATE and DATE . The letters remained unanswered and were returned to ORG and DATE marked \u201c Unknown recipient \u201d and \u201c Recipient moved from the address \u201d respectively ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166947","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DRAGOMIR AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings . In some of the applications , the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168352","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF YABLOKO RUSSIAN UNITED DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["GPE ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) is a subject ( constituent region ) of GPE . Under LAW of GPE , subjects of the Federation possess the full authority of GPE in all matters other than those that come within the sole jurisdiction of the federal government or within the shared jurisdiction of federal subjects and the federal government to the degree of the latter \u2019s scope of authority .","At the relevant time , ORG of PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the GPE \u201d ) had CARDINAL members elected by universal direct suffrage for a DATE term . CARDINAL seats were allocated on a proportional representation basis to registered party lists receiving PERCENT of the region - wide vote , while the remaining seats were allocated to the winners of CARDINAL single - mandate constituencies , determined by majority vote . There was no minimum turnout for the election to be valid , and each voter could only vote for CARDINAL party and CARDINAL candidate in the electoral constituency in which he or she resided .","NORP The regional branch of the PERSON political party was registered by a competent ORG authority ( at that time the regional department of ORG ) in DATE .","On DATE the regional council of the applicant party called for a regional party conference to be held in CARDINAL sessions on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively . The aim was to prepare for the GPE elections that were to take place in DATE .","DATE and DATE local party branches throughout GPE held assemblies and conferences in accordance with the PERSON party \u2019s articles of association ( hereinafter , \u201c the charter \u201d ) and selected delegates to attend the regional party conference . At the time , the regional party had CARDINAL members , of whom CARDINAL were so - called \u201c registered party members \u201d , that is , members who had specifically asked to be registered with the local party bodies in order to participate more actively in the party \u2019s work , such as regional conferences . As a result , the CARDINAL registered members elected CARDINAL delegates to the regional conference .","On DATE CARDINAL delegates present at the conference expressed their desire to participate in the upcoming GPE elections . The nomination of candidates to the party list and electoral circuits was left to the second session scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the PERSON party at national level held its Thirteenth ORG , which adopted several amendments to the party \u2019s charter . The charter maintained the division between party members and registered party members . In accordance with paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of both versions the right to elect and be elected to the party \u2019s governing and controlling bodies was reserved to registered members . The DATE version specified , additionally , that party members who did not register automatically delegated the right to elect and be elected within the party to the registered party members of the relevant local branch .","On DATE the GPE set an election date of DATE .","On DATE the amendments to the GPE national party charter were registered with ORG , upon which date they came into force .","On DATE the regional party conference resumed . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL party delegates were present , and a quorum was declared . In accordance with the party \u2019s charter , the conference nominated a CARDINAL-member party list and candidates for CARDINAL electoral constituencies by secret ballot . The second and third applicants were chosen to run for office in CARDINAL single - mandate constituencies .","The conference was attended by CARDINAL representatives from ORG of ORG , and CARDINAL members of ORG of GPE ( \u201c the Electoral Commission \u201d ) . At that time they did not report any irregularities in the conduct of the regional party conference .","On DATE the applicant party submitted documents to ORG in order to participate in the forthcoming election . On DATE it paid the requisite deposits ( MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of the party list and RUB CARDINAL in respect of each of the CARDINAL single - mandate candidates ) .","On DATE and DATE , after reviewing the documents , ORG issued Orders nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL , by which it registered the applicant party \u2019s CARDINAL candidates , including the second and third applicants , and the party list .","On DATE ORG wrote to ORG and informed it that the party conference of DATE had been based on the participation of registered party members , and not party members in general . It referred to the provisions of the legislation on political parties ( see below ) which guaranteed equal rights of participation in party activities for all members . It argued that the party could not make a distinction between registered and other party members for the purposes of internal activities . As such , the conference of CARDINAL DATE had been held in breach of the applicable legislation .","On DATE ORG applied to ORG hereinafter ORG ) to annul its own decision to register the party list and single - mandate candidates . Referring to the letter of DATE , the Commission referred to the provision of LAW allowing the judicial annulment of the registration of individual candidates and party lists where \u201c new facts \u201d had come to light showing a violation of federal or regional law regulating the nomination of candidates .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG wrote to the head of ORG and informed him of the application lodged with the court . It also enquired which version of the charter should be applicable to the party conference of DATE since the party had submitted the DATE version to the Commission .","On DATE ORG replied to ORG that the new charter had been registered by that service on DATE and that on DATE the old version of the document had ceased to be valid . The regional party should therefore have submitted the new version as the one applicable to their conference of DATE . At the same time , the ORG stated that in DATE PERSON had received a warning from it in connection with its differentiating between registered and other party members , and that the new version of the charter had contained provisions designed to correct that . In view of those considerations , the decision of the regional conference of CARDINAL DATE , which had been based on the previous version and had taken only registered members into account , could be seen as being in breach of the relevant legislation .","On DATE ORG allowed the application of ORG and annulled the decisions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE to register the applicant party \u2019s list and candidates . It referred to the conclusions of ORG and found that the procedure whereby only registered members had taken part in the decision - making process had contradicted the legislation on elections and on political parties . It also noted that the party had submitted an invalid version of its charter .","More specifically , the court concluded that the annulment decision was justified because the participation of a minority of the party \u2019s regional membership in the nomination process had thwarted \u201c the will of the majority \u201d , finding as follows :","\u201c If CARDINAL takes a formal approach to the problem it seems that all the requirements governing the nomination of the lists of candidates were observed .","At the same time the court believes that the procedure for the nomination of the lists of candidates [ to the GPE ] was breached .","It was established at the court hearing that only so - called \u2018 registered members of the party\u2019 participated and nominated the lists of candidates [ to the GPE ] at the regional conference .","What is the difference between \u2018 registered members of the party\u2019 and \u2018 unregistered PERSON ? Let us turn to section CARDINAL of the party \u2019s charter ...","The practice of applying these provisions of the charter in the party \u2019s regional division in GPE is such ... that members of the party determine themselves whether to actively participate in the work of the regional branch of the party or to participate [ only ] as needed ... Accordingly , they decide whether to register with the regional branch or not . If a party member asks to be registered , CARDINAL of the local branches , or the regional CARDINAL , registers him with the [ relevant ] branch . From that moment the party member obtains the rights provided for by p. CARDINAL of the charter ...","It is impossible to agree with applying the party \u2019s charter in such a way . ...","Section CARDINAL of the [ LAW ] states that political parties should provide an equal opportunity for representation in a party \u2019s governing bodies , in election lists and other positions ... LAW and CARDINAL of the [ LAW ] establish that members of political parties take part in its functioning , have rights and bear obligations in line with the charter . Members have the right to elect and be elected to the party \u2019s governing bodies , ... receive information about the party \u2019s activities and the work of its governing bodies . However , this right , under p. CARDINAL of the [ GPE ] charter , is reserved to a limited number of persons \u2013 \u2018 registered DATE which in turn breaches the principle of the equality of party members as set out in LAW of the [ LAW ] .","As a result , while the number of party members in GPE was DATE ( DATE ) , the Conference was attended by CARDINAL delegates who represented CARDINAL registered members ( PERCENT of the total number of members ) . ...","A democratic regime is characterised by the wide participation of the population in forming the organs of ORG authority and a wide spectrum of political rights and freedoms for citizens governed by the rule of law , the protection of the rights and legal interests of citizens and others . One can imagine that those exact same elements should appear in the activities of any democratic party .","ORG has emphasised the significance of the principle of the mandatory will of the majority , pointing out that \u2018 ... elections as a means of determining the will of the people and forming the corresponding legitimate organs of ORG authority and local government , on whose behalf they exercise public authority , is based on the priority of the will of the majority of voters taking part in the ORG ( ruling of ORG of CARDINAL DATE ... ) .","This principle applies with equal measure to the nomination of lists of candidates to [ the legislature ] , since the basis for forming the representative bodies are the [ candidates ] nominated by political parties .","In this specific case the principle of the \u2018 will of the ORG was violated .","In such circumstances , the court believes that the order for submitting electoral lists of candidates to the Karelia GPE has been breached . \u201d","NORP The court dismissed the applicant party \u2019s argument that interpreting the law in such a way constituted interference by the ORG authorities with the party \u2019s internal organisation . The court responded by saying that it had been the conference \u2019s duty to ensure compliance with the applicable legislation .","Lastly , the court noted that the party had submitted an invalid version of its charter . As a consequence , the court cancelled the registration orders of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant party lodged an appeal against that decision with ORG of GPE . It stressed that the difference in treatment between registered and other party members could not be regarded as a \u201c newly discovered fact \u201d since it had been based on the party \u2019s charter of DATE , which had been registered with the relevant service . A record of the entire proceedings of the conference had been submitted to ORG , together with a copy of the charter on which both stages of the conference had been based . The party also pointed out that the ORG had had CARDINAL members present at the conference in DATE , and therefore should have been fully aware of the procedure applied .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant party \u2019s appeal , with reasoning that was similar to that of ORG .","As a result of the annulment order coming into force the applicant party lost its election deposits .","On DATE elections to ORG took place . The party list and the single constituency candidates nominated by the applicant party were not present on the ballot . The fourth applicant submitted that she had cast a ballot for the PERSON party list , but that her choice had not been counted in the election results .","The Government submitted the following information about the elections which took place on DATE . CARDINAL parties competed for places in the regional assembly : the GPE branch of ORG of GPE ( KPRF ) ( obtained PERCENT of the votes cast ) , ORG \u201c People \u2019s Will \u201d ( PERCENT ) , the regional branch of the NORP of GPE party ( PERCENT ) , the regional branch of ORG GPE ( PERCENT ) , the regional branch of ORG of GPE ( LDPR ) ( PERCENT ) , the regional branch of ORG ( PERCENT ) and the regional branch of ORG ( PERCENT ) . The total number of people who voted in the elections was CARDINAL , or PERCENT of the electorate .","The Government also presented information about the subsequent election to the Karelia GPE , in which GPE candidates had participated . That election took place on DATE and had CARDINAL parties competing . PERSON obtained PERCENT of the votes and had deputies elected to the GPE . A total of PERCENT of voters took part ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142196","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MAGYAR KERESZT\u00c9NY MENNONITA EGYH\u00c1Z AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY ","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association) read in the light of Article 9 - (Art. 9) Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Just satisfaction partially reserved","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants are religious communities and individuals . The applicant communities originally existed and operated lawfully in GPE as Churches registered by the competent court in conformity with Act no . DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) .","NORP In application no . CARDINAL , PERSON ( NORP Christian Mennonite Church ) is a religious community active in GPE since DATE . Mr PERSON is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a minister of PERSON .","In application no . CARDINAL , ORG ( ORG ) is a religious community active in GPE since DATE . Mr PERSON is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a minister of ORG .","This applicant community was involved in social activities outsourced by the municipality of PERSON and had concluded an agreement with ORG on the provision of services for homeless people . In DATE the ORG cancelled this agreement and granted the relevant subsidy only until DATE . As a consequence the applicant had to terminate the corresponding contract with the municipality , but was obliged to continue to perform its social services up to and including DATE , thereby allegedly sustaining damage in the amount of MONEY .","In application no . CARDINAL , ORG ) is a religious community active in GPE since DATE . Mr PERSON is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a minister of PERSON .","In application no . CARDINAL , PERSON ( ORG ) is a religious community active in GPE since DATE . Mr PERSON is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a member of ORG .","In application no . DATE , PERSON ( Alliance of NORP ORG ) is a religious community active in GPE since DATE . PERSON is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is a member of ORG PERSON .","NORP In application no . CARDINAL , ORG is a religious association with its registered office in GPE . It acts as an umbrella organisation for progressive NORP congregations in LOC . PERSON ( see application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and ORG PERSON ( see application no . CARDINAL ) are among its members .","In application no . DATE , ORG ( ORG ) is a religious community active in GPE since DATE .","In application no . PERSON , ORG PERSON ( \u201c The Bible Talks \u201d Church of GPE ) is a religious community active in GPE for DATE .","In application no . CARDINAL , the applicants ( ORG PERSON ( ORG ) , PERSON ( Traditional Church of the Legal Basis of \u00c1rp\u00e1d \u2019s Order ) , PERSON Magyarorsz\u00e1g PERSON ( ORG ) , PERSON ( \u201c Children of Light \u201d Hungarian ORG ) , Mantra Magyarorsz\u00e1gi Buddhista Egyh\u00e1za ( Mantra Buddhist Church of GPE ) , PERSON A Gy\u00f3gy\u00edt\u00f3 Buddha K\u00f6z\u00f6ss\u00e9ge Egyh\u00e1z ( PERSON , Community of Healing Buddha Church ) , ORG of the Universe ) , PERSON ( ORG ) , \u00dat \u00e9s ORG ) ) are religious communities active in GPE since DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE Parliament enacted Act no . ORG of DATE on the right to freedom of conscience and religion and the legal status of Churches , denominations and religious communities ( \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) . It entered into force on DATE and was subsequently amended on several occasions , most recently on DATE and DATE .","Apart from the recognised Churches listed in the Appendix to the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , all other religious communities previously registered as Churches lost their status as Churches but could continue their activities as associations . If intending to continue as Churches , religious communities were required to apply to ORG for individual recognition as such .","In decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( III . CARDINAL . ) , ORG found certain provisions of the DATE LAW to be unconstitutional and annulled them with retrospective effect .","Meanwhile , several applicants filed requests to have the minister responsible register them as Churches , but these applications were refused on the ground DATE despite the decision of ORG DATE Church Act precluded the registrations requested .","After ORG decision , several applicants applied to ORG seeking to be reissued with the number which is necessary in order to remain entitled to PERCENT of income tax which taxpayers may donate to Churches . ORG suspended the procedure and invited the applicants to initiate a recognition procedure before ORG . In the ORG submission , this demonstrated further disregard for ORG decision .","Several applicants regained their status as Churches pursuant to ORG decision ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184483","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF RUSU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . In applications ORG . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and PERSON , the applicants also raised other complaint under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160992","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CHIRIAC AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177411","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DUKHANIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183341","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF A.S. v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was employed at a ORG institution . His employment was terminated in DATE . Upon the termination of his employment , a certain part of his severance payment was taxed at a PERCENT rate , in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179420","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF JOANNOU v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive obligations;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) .","The complaints raised in this application arise out of the NORP military intervention in northern GPE in DATE and DATE . The general context of the property issues arising in this connection is set out in the cases of GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIV ) , and NORP and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) ( [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ) .","In DATE the applicant was gifted CARDINAL plots of land , or shares in them , by her aunt , who died in DATE . In DATE she was also gifted an additional share of CARDINAL of the plots of land by her mother . According to the certificates of ownership provided by ORG , the applicant is the sole owner of CARDINAL plots of land and owns a CARDINAL share of the fifth plot .","The land lies in the village PERSON ( PERSON ) in the \u201c LOC \u201d . The total area of the land is CARDINAL d\u00f6n\u00fcm .","NORP In DATE the applicant instructed a law firm in GPE , which duly obtained a valuation report on the land from a NORP chartered surveyor . The valuation report of DATE assessed each of the CARDINAL plots of land and provided valuations for them , which ranged from MONEY ( GBP ) per d\u00f6n\u00fcm to GBP CARDINAL per d\u00f6n\u00fcm .","NORP In DATE the applicant obtained a further valuation report by a chartered surveyor from GPE . This report valued the CARDINAL plots of land , including the economic loss and interest ( all calculated for the period DATE ) , at MONEY ( ORG ) in total .","NORP In DATE the applicant obtained a new valuation report from ORG of GPE which assessed the value of the property in question , including economic loss and interest accrued since DATE ( when the applicant became owner of the property ) to DATE , at FAC in total .","In DATE the applicant , through her NORP representatives , filed a claim with the ORG under LAW no . TIME ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) \u2012 supported by an affidavit \u2012 claiming restitution of her property and\/or compensation at the property \u2019s current market value and damages for loss of use of the land in question . The total compensation sought was GBP CARDINAL per d\u00f6n\u00fcm ( GBP CARDINAL or approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .","In her affidavit the applicant attested that the property in question had been transferred to her after DATE by her aunt , who had owned it since before DATE . The affidavit also attested that there were no mortgages , liabilities or restrictions on the property in question , that the applicant lived in GPE in a house owned by a NORP , and that she was paying rent to GPE . The file also contained the applicant \u2019s identity documents ( NORP passport and NORP identity card ) , certificates from GPE and ORG concerning the ownership and legal status of the applicant \u2019s plots of land ( indicating no mortgages , liabilities or other restrictions ) , and a document issued by the relevant NORP authority showing that the applicant lived in a house owned by a NORP and had been billed CARDINAL Cypriot pounds ( ORG ) by way of rent for DATE to DATE .","The applicant \u2019s claim was communicated to the \u201c TRNC \u201d Attorney General as provided under PERSON no . TIME and the relevant IPC Rules ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , the Attorney ORG submitted an opinion to the ORG in reply to the applicant \u2019s claim . It relied on an affidavit by the \u201c GPE \u201d Director of ORG , who explained that their records showed that one of the registered owners of the property in question was PERSON ( the applicant \u2019s aunt ) , that PERSON ( the applicant \u2019s mother ) was the owner of part of one of the plots of land , and that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that she was the legal heir of the CARDINAL registered owners . He also considered that the applicant \u2019s compensation claim was excessive and unfounded .","A directions hearing before the ORG took place on DATE . The applicant \u2019s representative stated that they had received the Attorney General \u2019s opinion only on DATE of the hearing and thus asked for an adjournment in order to prepare their case . The Attorney General \u2019s representative did not object and the hearing was adjourned until DATE .","At a directions hearing on DATE the applicant \u2019s representative undertook to obtain a valuation report and a document showing that the plots of land had been transferred to the applicant by way of donation . The Attorney General \u2019s representative requested that documents showing that the applicant was the legal heir of ORG [ sic . ] should be provided , as well as proof of the amount of rent she was paying for the NORP house where she lived in the LOC , or alternatively the lease agreement by which the house had been allocated to her . The Attorney General \u2019s representative also undertook to submit a search document from the \u201c TRNC \u201d ORG and ORG , and indicated that he reserved his right to submit and request further documents . The hearing was adjourned so that the parties could obtain the relevant documents .","On DATE the Attorney General submitted the search document of the \u201c NORP \u201d ORG and ORG relating to the plots included in the applicant \u2019s claim .","On DATE , through her representative , the applicant asked permission to amend her initial claim . She submitted that she had in the meantime become the sole owner of the plot of which she had previously owned a CARDINAL share and that in DATE she had obtained a valuation report indicating that the value of her properties was ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At a preliminary hearing on DATE , after the Attorney General \u2019s representative stated that he had no objections with regard to the amendment of the applicant \u2019s claim ; the President of the ORG accepted the amendment and instructed the applicant to submit her amended claim and the Attorney ORG to submit an opinion in that regard .","On DATE the applicant complied with the order and amended her claim , seeking compensation in accordance with the new findings and developments concerning her property title .","On DATE the applicant submitted the documents requested by the Attorney General \u2019s representative on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In particular , the applicant submitted certificates issued by the head of the local community ( mukhtar ) explaining that there were inconsistencies in the spelling of the applicant \u2019s aunt \u2019s name in different documents . The mukhtar explained that the latter had held NORP identity document no . DATE and had been variously known as : PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , but these were one and the same person . The mukhtar further certified that she had never married and that before her death she had gifted her immovable property to her sister \u2019s daughter , the applicant ( PERSON , holder of a NORP identity card ) . In support of the mukhtar \u2019s certificates , the applicant submitted her aunt \u2019s identity documents ( including a NORP identity document ) . The applicant also submitted documents showing the transfer of title from her aunt to her in respect of the plots of land in question . She also submitted documents showing that she had been allocated a NORP house in the LOC and had paid ORG CARDINAL by way of rent for DATE and ORG CARDINAL for the period DATE to DATE .","A preliminary hearing before the ORG scheduled for DATE was adjourned due to the absence of the Attorney General \u2019s representative , who could not attend the hearing for family reasons .","At a preliminary hearing on DATE the \u201c NORP \u201d authorities were represented by the Attorney General \u2019s representative and the undersecretary of ORG . They asked the applicant to submit the birth certificates of her aunt and her mother and a title deed for the property which she now owned in its entirety . The hearing was adjourned to enable the applicant to obtain the documents in question .","On DATE the applicant submitted the requested documents , which also included documents confirming that her aunt had never been married .","At a preliminary hearing on DATE the \u201c NORP \u201d representatives asked the applicant to submit certificates from the mukhtar showing that the names PERSON , PERSON and GPE PERSON all referred to the applicant , and further certificates showing that her aunt had been variously known as PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( FAC ) , PERSON and PERSON ( PERSON ) , and that her mother had been variously known as PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and that their antecedent PERSON ( PERSON ) , had also been known as PERSON and PERSON . The hearing was adjourned to permit the applicant to obtain the requested documents .","On DATE the applicant submitted certificates from the mukhtar showing that the aforementioned different names referred to the same individuals , namely the applicant , her mother , her aunt and their antecedent , respectively . The mukhtar \u2019s certificates also identified these individuals on the basis of their identity card numbers . A certificate dated CARDINAL DATE indicated that the applicant \u2019s mother was variously known as PERSON ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ) PERSON and her aunt as PERSON .","At a preliminary hearing on DATE , at which the applicant was also present , the \u201c NORP \u201d representatives argued that the mukhtar \u2019s certificates were incomplete and that the names PERSON ( PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ) PERSON , for the applicant \u2019s mother , and PERSON , for the applicant \u2019s aunt , should be added . The representative further argued that an official document should be submitted showing that the applicant \u2019s aunt had not married and did not have any other heirs . He also requested a document showing that there were no liabilities attaching to the property in question . Upon production of these documents , the Attorney General \u2019s representative would be prepared to settle the case by paying GBP CARDINAL to the applicant .","In reply , the applicant \u2019s representative stated that they would obtain the requested documents . However , he pointed out that they had already produced documents showing that the applicant \u2019s aunt had never married and this was anyway apparent from the fact that she had never changed her last name . The applicant \u2019s representative also pointed out that the applicant \u2019s aunt had transferred the property in question to the applicant while she was still alive . He asked for an adjournment in order to consider the Attorney General \u2019s settlement offer .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative asked that a hearing be held before the ORG .","A further examination of the case before the ORG took place on DATE . The President and members of the ORG questioned the applicant \u2019s representative with regard to the instructions he had received from the applicant concerning the case . As the applicant was not present and could not be reached at that time to give clear instructions concerning the case , the hearing was adjourned .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s NORP representatives informed her representative in GPE that the fact that an application had been lodged with the ORG had caused them upset . They also stated that they would not represent the applicant in further proceedings .","A hearing before the ORG was held on DATE . The applicant \u2019s NORP representative explained that she had informed the applicant of her wish to withdraw from the case . However , she was unable to provide an official document to that effect and the hearing was therefore adjourned in order for the representative to complete the formalities for withdrawal .","On DATE the applicant took over the files from her NORP representatives .","At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s NORP representatives\u2019 withdrawal from the case and decided that the applicant should be contacted directly during the future course of the proceedings . Another hearing was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that she had not received the summons to the hearing of CARDINAL DATE until DATE .","A further meeting for the examination of the case , at which the applicant was personally present , was held on DATE . The \u201c GPE \u201d representatives argued that the applicant should provide further documents showing the exact dates of birth of her mother and her aunt as well as the respective death certificates . Furthermore , they argued that the applicant could not be considered to be a legal heir of her aunt for the purpose of PERSON no . MONEY as she had obtained the property at issue from her aunt while the latter was still alive . The applicant contended that these arguments were being raised for the first time now and she therefore asked for a formal hearing to be openedThe proceedings before the ORG are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177080","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF M.L. v. NORWAY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant , born in DATE , is the mother of CARDINAL children , who are CARDINAL - brothers . Her older son , born in DATE , was taken into permanent public care by the authorities in DATE and placed with the applicant \u2019s mother and stepfather . Her younger son , X , was born in DATE . The applicant has been diagnosed as having a hyperkinetic disorder and has had a history with psychiatric treatment .","On DATE , after receiving notifications from the authorities and a private individual regarding the applicant \u2019s inability to take care of X , the municipal child welfare authorities decided to place him in emergency foster care . On DATE , that decision was upheld by ORG ( fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker ) .","The emergency placement was followed up by the child welfare authorities with a petition of DATE to ORG for a public care order . The authorities requested that X be placed in a foster home and that the applicant be granted supervised access rights . Concerning the question of where he should be placed , the authorities essentially stated that the applicant \u2019s mother and stepfather had previously been approved as foster parents for the applicant \u2019s older son ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , the ability to cooperate was necessary for those wanting to be foster parents and there had been some conflict between the applicant \u2019s mother and the authorities . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s mother and stepfather were considered to be relatively old ( having been born in DATE and DATE , respectively ) to serve as foster parents to a small child , and the applicant \u2019s mother had recently been ill . Furthermore , the applicant \u2019s mother had not made visiting the applicant \u2019s younger son her priority . In these circumstances , it would not be in GPE \u2019s best interest to be placed with his maternal grandmother and her husband DATE the applicant \u2019s mother and stepfather .","The applicant objected to the request for an order of public care in respect of her younger son PERSON and maintained that , if such an order be granted , he should be placed with her mother and stepfather . In her view , the child welfare authorities had not properly evaluated that possibility . Her mother \u2019s alleged inability to cooperate had in fact merely been a question of disagreement . The applicant \u2019s mother and stepfather had been aware of the applicant \u2019s difficulties and had helped her . They had also been approved as foster parents to the older son , who had developed well and had positive references from his kindergarten . Their age was not in itself of importance , given that other circumstances were in favour of their acting as his foster parents . To place GPE with them would be more stable and less stigmatising than an external placement .","On DATE , after hearing the parties and CARDINAL witnesses , ORG granted the request for an order of public care . It decided that X should remain in the home in which he had already been placed as an emergency measure .","In its reasoning regarding the issue of the choice of foster home , ORG firstly noted that it was accepted that the applicant \u2019s mother and stepfather had been generally approved as foster parents in connection with the care order in respect of the older son in DATE , but that this issue had to be assessed in view of the current situation , taking into account the best interest of the younger son X. On the specific question as to whether it would be in his best interest to be placed with them , ORG stated the following :","\u201c ORG sees that there are many positive sides to a placement within the family network , which justifies that such a placement be considered . ORG considers that the grandmother and her husband in many respects are well suited as foster parents for [ X ] . [ According to ] the grandmother , they have been asked whether they [ are willing to ] adopt [ the older son ] . Placing [ X ] with his maternal grandmother and her husband would mean that [ the CARDINAL sons ] would grow up together .","As ORG has previously mentioned , [ X ] may be inherently vulnerable . This is reinforced by the fact that the ORG finds that it can not be ruled out that the boy may have attention - related difficulties . Reference is made to the emergency foster mother \u2019s description of the boy \u2019s restlessness . In addition to the mother \u2019s diagnosis and her considerable difficulties , it has emerged that her brother has also been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ORG ) and has considerable difficulties . This means that there is a risk of the boy having the same type of difficulties .","ORG has referred to problems concerning cooperation between the maternal grandmother and agencies such as ORG and health workers . ORG in [ the municipality ] has also reported difficulties regarding cooperation . On the basis of the statements of ORG and the [ younger son \u2019s ] health visitor , the ORG finds that there have been challenges as regards their cooperation with the grandmother . However , the ORG finds no grounds for concluding that these problems have been as serious as they might have initially seemed , and the grandmother \u2019s explanations are to a certain extent plausible . ORG nonetheless finds reason to conclude that there have been some difficulties regarding cooperation .","The grandmother has seen that [ the applicant ] has not been capable of caring for [ the older son ] , and she has also been concerned about [ the applicant ] \u2019s ability to look after [ X ] . In her statement to ORG , she still seemed to be uncertain about [ the applicant ] \u2019s ability to care for the boy . She nevertheless largely left [ the applicant ] and the child to themselves shortly after the birth while they were staying with her . ORG further remarks that the grandmother had not arranged with ORG in [ the municipality ] that [ the applicant ] and [ X ] were to move in with her and [ the applicant \u2019s older son ] . [ The applicant ] moved out of her mother \u2019s house , together with [ X ] after a short period , even though the grandmother realises that [ the applicant ] faces challenges as regards running a home . ORG has noted that the grandmother has not attended the contact sessions and thus not seen [ X ] since he was placed in care .","The grandmother and her husband are relatively old to be foster parents to such young children . [ The applicant ] \u2019s mother was born in DATE and her husband in DATE . ORG considers it likely that [ X ] \u2019s placement in care will be long - term . Although age alone is not decisive in relation to the choice of foster home , it is a factor in the assessment . The maternal grandmother and her husband already have a foster child who is DATE , and it will require a lot of energy on their part to have another foster child ... who is also younger than the one they [ already ] have . Taking care of [ X ] could also affect the situation of [ the older son ] , who they already have care of and must look after .","ORG has found that its doubts about placing [ X ] with his grandmother and her husband are so serious that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages . The reason is the uncertainty relating to the boy \u2019s vulnerability and the strain that another foster child would entail , regardless of whether or not this child has special needs , the grandmother \u2019s and her husband \u2019s age and certain difficulties regarding cooperation . \u201d","On the basis of the above , the ORG arrived at the conclusion that X should not be placed with his grandmother and her husband . On DATE X was transferred from the emergency home to a foster home .","NORP The applicant appealed to the local ORG ( tingrett ) , which held an oral hearing from CARDINAL until DATE . In accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court \u2019s bench comprised CARDINAL professional judge , CARDINAL psychologist and CARDINAL lay person . It heard CARDINAL witnesses in addition to the parties . The applicant was present , was represented by counsel , and gave testimony .","In its judgment of DATE , ORG upheld ORG decision in full .","With respect to the applicant \u2019s caring skills and PERSON \u2019s care needs , ORG reiterated the findings of ORG and the court - appointed expert . It concluded that there were beyond doubt serious deficiencies in the applicant \u2019s DATE care of and personal contact with X , and that it was necessary to place him in public care .","Turning next to the question of whether he could be placed with the applicant \u2019s mother and stepfather , ORG observed that they had been approved as foster parents when the applicant \u2019s older son had been placed with them in DATE . It further noted that there were advantages to a child moving to a foster home comprising family members . X would in that case be placed within the family network . It had moreover been documented that the applicant \u2019s mother and stepfather might well be suitable foster parents for him . Furthermore , it would be an advantage that the CARDINAL sons would be allowed to grow up together .","ORG nonetheless found that , in this case , there were no grounds for deciding that the applicant \u2019s younger son should be placed in foster care with his maternal grandmother and her husband . In addition to referring to the ORG \u2019s assessment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court quoted excerpts from the court - appointed expert , PERSON , a specialist in psychology .","The expert did not recommend the placement of X with the applicant \u2019s mother and stepfather . In the report she stated , inter alia :","\u201c Several factors have emerged that may have a bearing on the assessment of whether [ X ] \u2019s grandparents can be his foster parents :","Firstly , the grandparents\u2019 age has been taken into account in the assessment . The undersigned does not see this as a decisive factor .","Furthermore , it has been emphasised that [ X ] \u2019s step - grandfather has himself mentioned that he is getting older , and that this may be perceived as an expression of doubt on his part . This has not had a decisive bearing on the undersigned \u2019s assessment , either . The child \u2019s step - grandfather comes across as an honest , responsible and reflective man who would be an excellent foster father for [ X ] , even though he expresses some doubts himself .","In addition , it has also been suggested that ORG has had difficulties in cooperating with the foster mother in respect of [ the applicant \u2019s older son ] . To the undersigned , these so - called \u2018 cooperation difficulties\u2019 seem to be nothing more than disagreements \/ challenges that the parties are capable of handling and working out . That is how the challenges are described by both the representative of ORG in [ the municipality ] and the grandmother herself . It must also be added that [ the applicant ] \u2019s mother and stepfather cooperated with the undersigned in an impeccable manner during the investigation . They have had many difficult challenges over DATE , and it would almost be strange if there had been no \u2018 friction\u2019 during all this time . This has therefore not had any bearing on the undersigned \u2019s assessment of the question of [ X ] \u2019s foster home placement .","What has been important to the undersigned \u2019s assessment of this question , however , is , first of all , that [ the applicant ] has very different emotional ties to her CARDINAL sons ... , in the sense that she seems to have renounced her role as mother of the [ older son ] , while she must still be expected to make an effort to have as much contact as possible with [ X ] . This will necessarily be a problem for both boys if they are to live in the same foster home .","Furthermore , there is good reason to believe that , if [ X ] is placed in foster care with [ the applicant ] \u2019s parents , this situation will ... represent an opportunity for the contact between mother and child to constantly increase in scope , and thus be a hindrance to [ X ] in his development of a good attachment to his foster home . For the undersigned , this concern is based , not least , on the fact that [ X ] \u2019s grandmother has clearly expressed to the undersigned that she primarily wants to be a mother to [ the applicant ] .","However , the argument in favour of letting [ X ] \u2019s grandmother and step - grandfather be his foster parents is of course the fact that [ he ] will then get to grow up together with his ( CARDINAL ) brother . The undersigned is nonetheless of the view that this can not carry more weight than the concerns mentioned above .","This means that placing [ X ] in foster care with his grandparents is not recommended . \u201d","Expert PERSON had upheld these assessments in her report during the main hearing , but also stated that there were \u201c dilemmas \u201d if the applicant \u2019s mother and stepfather were to be chosen as foster parents . ORG shared the expert \u2019s concerns . Moreover , it pointed out that the CARDINAL children had different needs and challenges . Although the older brother , according to the information received , was happy in his foster home with the applicant \u2019s mother and stepfather , PERSON , despite his young age , had experienced QUANTITY broken relationships \u2013 firstly with his biological mother and then with his emergency foster mother . He had now formed an attachment with his new foster mother after he had moved into his latest foster home in DATE . There would be a risk of \u201c contact injury \u201d ( kontaktskade ) \u2013 that is to say a serious impairment to his ability to form attachments \u2013 if he were to experience another broken relationship . From the foster mother \u2019s testimony it was clear that he was developing well in the foster home and that he was happy and thriving . ORG moreover emphasised the challenges associated with having CARDINAL small boys of pre - school age living with people of the age of the applicant \u2019s mother and stepfather . In addition , there was the issue of the applicant \u2019s very different respective emotional relationships with the QUANTITY boys , which also entailed special challenges , particularly if X were to be placed in foster care in the same home as that of his older brother . Overall , ORG agreed with ORG and the court - appointed expert that the applicant \u2019s mother and stepfather should not be the foster parents of the applicant \u2019s younger son .","The applicant lodged an appeal against ORG judgment in so far as it concerned the choice of foster home . ORG ( lagmannsrett ) refused leave to appeal on DATE , and on DATE ORG ( H\u00f8yesteretts ankeutvalg ) rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG decision ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150600","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"T. AND OTHERS v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicants , PERSON and his wife and CARDINAL minor children , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The President granted the applicants\u2019 request for their identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . They were represented before the ORG by ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants are a family from the ORG region of GPE . They belong to the NORP ethnic minority and are NORP by religion . The first applicant , the father of the family , worked as a taxi driver and also had a car repair shop . The couple have not been politically , socially or religiously active . However , in DATE they started to have problems . The first applicant claims that for DATE in DATE , he worked as a driver for CARDINAL men who were apparently involved in insurgency acts . CARDINAL of the men was killed in DATE and the other managed to escape the country .","At DATE the first applicant claims that masked men in army clothes came to his car repair shop to look for his client , whose car was in the shop . As the client was not there , the men took him instead and kept him in some sort of cellar for DATE and ill - treated him . He was questioned about his client and about the CARDINAL men he had driven around in DATE . The applicant was threatened with charges for having participated in armed attacks He was allegedly asked also to pay MONEY in order not to be charged . He paid CARDINAL of the sum when he was released . After that his wife and children went to live with other relatives . The first applicant was in hiding for the rest of DATE and escaped in DATE to GPE through GPE and GPE , with a tourist group holding a GPE visa .","While the rest of the family stayed with relatives , the armed men came to search for information about the first applicant from their neighbours and at the house of the second applicant \u2019s mother . They did not know where the first applicant had gone , so they fled to GPE . Through other asylum seekers they obtained information that the first applicant was in GPE and they travelled there to seek asylum .","The second applicant submitted to the NORP authorities CARDINAL faxed documents in NORP with their NORP translations . Those documents were addressed to the first applicant in DATE and DATE by the investigative department of ORG and he was summoned for questioning as a crime suspect . The crime of which he was suspected was not , however , mentioned in the documents . The first applicant claims that he does not know why he is wanted , but claims that sometimes ethnicity and religion suffice to arouse the suspicion of the security authorities in ORG .","The first and the second applicants both suffer from somewhat severe post - traumatic stress disorder and depression . The first applicant has also been suffering from headaches , insomnia and prostate problems which have been treated at the reception centre . Only in DATE he sought help for his psychological problems . He was subsequently examined and treated at ORG , ORG f\u00f6r rehabilitering av tortyroffer ) in GPE . The Deputy Chief Physician of the ORG recommended both private and group therapy together with medication for his trauma . No physical signs of ill - treatment were , however , reported . The second applicant has had symptoms of amnesia attacks and uncontrollable behaviour . She has been treated DATE and referred to ORG in GPE for further examination and treatment .","On DATE the applicants submitted information to the ORG that the third applicant , the son of the family born in DATE , had gone missing on DATE . The third applicant was found on DATE and subsequently reunited with the other applicants . On DATE the second applicant gave birth to a third child who is suffering from a kidney pelvis extension .","The first applicant arrived in GPE on DATE and immediately sought asylum . On DATE ORG ( GPE , PERSON ) rejected the application , considering it not probable that the NORP authorities would be especially interested in the applicant as he had not been politically , socially or religiously active . It furthermore considered that , as the security situation was indeed relatively poor in ORG , the applicant could in any event always relocate internally inside GPE .","The second , third and fourth applicants had sought asylum in GPE on DATE but their applications were rejected on DATE and their appeal was rejected on DATE . They arrived in GPE on DATE and sought asylum on DATE .","Meanwhile , the first applicant had appealed against the negative asylum decision . On DATE ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) referred the first applicant \u2019s case back to ORG in order for them to consider the applications of the whole family together .","On DATE ORG rejected the asylum applications of the whole family and ordered their removal to GPE . It considered firstly that in the first applicant \u2019s first asylum application he mentioned the problems in ORG only in very general and vague terms and without specifying any personal threats . The story became personal only in the first asylum interview . Also the authenticity of the copies of \u201c summonses \u201d submitted by the applicant was impossible to verify . Moreover , ORG went on to consider that , as the applicants had not been in any way active or profiled persons , it was unlikely that the NORP authorities would be interested in them if returned to GPE . The applicants could in any event relocate internally .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicants appealed , requesting that the decision of ORG be quashed and that they be granted asylum , or alternatively , secondary protection or a residence permit due to individual humanitarian circumstances , taking into consideration also the best interest of the children and the unreasonableness of the expulsion . They also requested that an oral hearing be held .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG appeal and refused their request for an oral hearing as unnecessary . It considered , like ORG , that the authenticity of the faxed documents named \u201c summons \u201d was impossible to verify and they did not appear exactly credible . It was impossible to draw any conclusions from those summonses regarding the events about which the applicants were complaining . On the other hand , there were no reasons to doubt the applicants\u2019 story or their credibility overall . However , the sole fact that the first applicant had been a driver for some insurgents in DATE did not seem the sort of activity which would arouse the interest of the NORP authorities . The acts directed against him in DATE were aimed at obtaining information from him about the others , but he was not personally suspected of any illegal activism himself . As the applicants had not been otherwise active and had no other contact with the insurgents , ORG concluded that it was unlikely that the NORP authorities would persecute the applicants if returned to GPE . It furthermore considered that the security situation was indeed unstable in the region but that it alone did not give rise to a need for international protection .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting also a stay on the execution of their expulsion order , which was not granted .","On DATE ORG refused the applicants leave to appeal .","According to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW of Finland ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the right of foreigners to enter GPE and to remain in the country is regulated by an LAW . A foreigner shall not be deported , extradited or returned to another country , if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence , torture or other treatment violating human dignity .","According to section DATE , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( ulkomaalaislaki , utl\u00e4nningslagen ; Act no . CARDINAL ) , aliens residing in the country are granted asylum if they reside outside their home country or country of permanent residence owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of ethnic origin , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group or political opinion and if they , because of this fear , are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country .","Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provides that an alien residing in GPE is issued with a residence permit on grounds of subsidiary protection if the requirements for granting asylum under LAW are not met , but substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person , if returned to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence , would face a real risk of being subjected to serious harm , and he or she is unable , or owing to such risk , unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . Serious harm means : CARDINAL ) the death penalty or execution ; CARDINAL ) torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; or CARDINAL ) serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflicts .","NORP Under section CARDINALa of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , an alien residing in GPE is issued with a residence permit on the basis of humanitarian protection , if there are no grounds under LAW or CARDINAL for granting asylum or providing subsidiary protection , but he or she can not return to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence as a result of an environmental catastrophe or a bad security situation which may be due to an international or internal armed conflict or a poor human rights situation .","According to section CARDINALb of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the well - founded fear of being persecuted referred to in section CARDINALb or the real risk of being subjected to serious harm referred to in section CARDINAL may be based on incidents after the applicant \u2019s departure from his or her home country or country of permanent residence or on acts that the applicant has participated in since his or her departure .","Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the LAW ( as amended by Act no . ORG ) provides that the requirements for issuing a residence permit are assessed individually for each applicant by taking account of the applicant \u2019s statements on his or her circumstances in the ORG in question and of real time information on the circumstances in that ORG obtained from various sources . After obtaining the statement , the authorities shall decide on the matter in favour of the applicant on the basis of his or her statement if the applicant has contributed to the investigation of the matter as far as possible , and if the authorities are convinced of the veracity of the application with regard to the applicant \u2019s need for international protection .","According to section CARDINAL of the Act , no one may be refused entry and sent back or deported to an area where he or she could be subject to the death penalty , torture , persecution or other treatment violating human dignity or from where he or she could be sent to such an area .","Section CARDINALb of LAW ( as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) incorporates into the NORP legal system the ORG CARDINAL of DATE on the organisation of joint flights for removals from the territory of CARDINAL or more member GPE , of third - country nationals who are subjects of individual removal orders . The annex to the ORG contains common guidelines on security provisions for joint removals by air including , inter alia , an obligation for the member GPE to ensure that the returnees for whom they are responsible are in an appropriate state of health , which allows legally and factually for safe removal by air .","According to ORG on GPE for DATE :","\u201c The government failed to take adequate steps to prosecute or punish most officials who committed abuses , resulting in a climate of impunity . Rule of law was particularly deficient in LOC , where conflict among government forces , insurgents , NORP militants , and criminal forces led to numerous human rights abuses , including killings , torture , physical abuse , and politically motivated abductions . \u201d","The World Health Organisation \u2019s ( WHO ) Mental Health Atlas from DATE provides the following information on the mental health care situation in GPE :","\u201c Mental health is a part of primary health care system . Actual treatment of severe mental disorders is not available at the primary level . The practice of recognition and treatment of depression in primary care is developing in several regions . ... There are community care facilities for patients with mental disorders . A social rehabilitation system including workshops , rehabilitation units in industrial firms and residential homes ( for CARDINAL persons ) exists . Day care facilities are available for CARDINAL persons . Home care is also provided in some cases .","...","The system of ORG consists of CARDINAL mental hospitals , CARDINAL psycho - neurological outpatient clinics ( dispensaries ) that include day - hospitals as separate wards in their structure ( each dispensary provides sectorised coverage to a population of CARDINAL people ) ; DATE psychoneurological consulting rooms in rural areas ; CARDINAL psychotherapeutic rooms , mostly in primary care facilities . There are also beds in CARDINAL hostels , nursing homes and \u2018 GPE under the authority of ORG .","...","The country has specific programmes for mental health for refugees , disaster affected population and elderly . Programmes on refugees and disaster victims are carried out by ORG ( EMERCOM ) . Elderly population are looked after by ORG .","...","The following therapeutic drugs are generally available at the primary health care level of the country : carbamazepine , ethosuximide , phenobarbital , phenytoin sodium , sodium valproate , amitriptyline , chlorpromazine , diazepam , fluphenazine , haloperidol , lithium , biperiden , carbidopa , levodopa . ORG approved the list of mentally ill who would receive free medication in DATE , the funds for which were to be allocated by local institutions . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159210","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF F\u00c1BI\u00c1N v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+P1-1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions;Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant , already in receipt of an old - age pension , took up employment with GPE as a civil servant , as of DATE .","On DATE an amendment to LAW entered into force , according to which the disbursement of those old - age pensions whose beneficiaries are simultaneously employed within certain categories of the public sector will be suspended for the duration of their employment . No such restriction was put in place in respect of those who are in receipt of an old - age pension while being employed within the private sector .","In application of this new rule , on DATE the disbursement of the applicant \u2019s pension was suspended . The applicant \u2019s administrative appeal to ORG was to no avail ."],"violated_articles":["14","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177082","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF B\u0102RBULESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Iulia Motoc;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Marko Bo\u0161njak;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was employed in the GPE office of LOC , a NORP private company ( \u201c the employer \u201d ) , as a sales engineer . At his employer \u2019s request , for the purpose of responding to ORG enquiries , he created an instant messaging account using ORG , an online chat service offering real - time text transmission over the internet . He already had another personal PERSON account .","NORP The employer \u2019s internal regulations prohibited the use of company resources by employees in the following terms :","\u201c Any disturbance of order and discipline on company premises shall be strictly forbidden , in particular :","...","\u2013 ... personal use of computers , photocopiers , telephones or telex or fax machines . \u201d","The regulations did not contain any reference to the possibility for the employer to monitor employees\u2019 communications .","It appears from documents submitted by the Government that the applicant had been informed of the employer \u2019s internal regulations and had signed a copy of them on DATE after acquainting himself with their contents .","On DATE the GPE office received and circulated among all its employees an information notice that had been drawn up and sent by the GPE head office on DATE . The employer asked employees to acquaint themselves with the notice and to sign a copy of it . The relevant parts of the notice read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... ORG spent in the company must be quality time for everyone ! Come to work to deal with company and professional matters , and not your own personal problems ! Do n\u2019t spend your time using the internet , the phone or the fax machine for matters unconnected to work or your duties . This is what [ elementary education ] , common sense and the law dictate ! The employer has a duty to supervise and monitor employees\u2019 work and to take punitive measures against anyone at fault !","Your misconduct will be carefully monitored and punished !","NORP Because of repeated [ disciplinary ] offences vis - \u00e0 - vis her superior , [ as well as ] her private use of the internet , the telephone and the photocopier , her negligence and her failure to perform her duties , PERSON was dismissed on disciplinary grounds ! Take a lesson from her bad example ! Do n\u2019t make the same mistakes !","Have a careful read of the collective labour agreement , the company \u2019s internal regulations , your job description and the employment contract you have signed ! These are the basis of our collaboration ! Between employer and employee ! ... \u201d","It also appears from the documents submitted by the Government , including the employer \u2019s attendance register , that the applicant acquainted himself with the notice and signed it CARDINAL DATE .","In addition , it transpires that from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE the employer recorded the applicant \u2019s PERSON communications in real time .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was summoned by his employer to give an explanation . In the relevant notice he was informed that his ORG communications had been monitored and that there was evidence that he had used the internet for personal purposes , in breach of the internal regulations . Charts were attached indicating that his internet activity was greater than that of his colleagues . At that stage , he was not informed whether the monitoring of his communications had also concerned their content . The notice was worded as follows :","\u201c Please explain why you are using company resources ( internet connection , Messenger ) for personal purposes during TIME , as shown by the attached charts . \u201d","On DATE , the applicant informed the employer in writing that he had used PERSON for work - related purposes only .","At TIME the employer again summoned him to give an explanation in a notice worded as follows :","\u201c Please explain why the entire correspondence you exchanged DATE using the PERSON [ internet ] site ORG had a private purpose , as shown by the attached CARDINAL pages . \u201d","The CARDINAL pages mentioned in the notice consisted of a transcript of the messages which the applicant had exchanged with his brother and his fianc\u00e9e during the period when he had been monitored ; the messages related to personal matters and some were of an intimate nature . The transcript also included CARDINAL messages that the applicant had exchanged with his fianc\u00e9e using his personal PERSON account ; these messages did not contain any intimate information .","Also on DATE , the applicant informed the employer in writing that in his view it had committed a criminal offence , namely breaching the secrecy of correspondence .","On DATE the employer terminated the applicant \u2019s contract of employment .","NORP The applicant challenged his dismissal in an application to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . He asked the court , firstly , to set aside the dismissal ; secondly , to order his employer to pay him the amounts he was owed in respect of wages and any other entitlements and to reinstate him in his post ; and thirdly , to order the employer to pay him MONEY ( MONEY ) in damages for the harm resulting from the manner of his dismissal , and to reimburse his costs and expenses .","As to the merits , relying on PERSON v. GPE ( no . GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG CARDINALI ) , he argued that an employee \u2019s telephone and email communications from the workplace were covered by the notions of \u201c private life \u201d and \u201c correspondence \u201d and were therefore protected by LAW . He also submitted that the decision to dismiss him was unlawful and that by monitoring his communications and accessing their contents his employer had infringed criminal law .","With regard specifically to the harm he claimed to have suffered , the applicant noted the manner of his dismissal and alleged that he had been subjected to harassment by his employer through the monitoring of his communications and the disclosure of their contents \u201c to colleagues who were involved in CARDINAL way or another in the dismissal procedure \u201d .","The applicant submitted evidence including a full copy of the transcript of his ORG communications and a copy of the information notice ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In a judgment of DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application and confirmed that his dismissal had been lawful . The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c The procedure for conducting a disciplinary investigation is expressly regulated by the provisions of LAW .","In the instant case it has been shown , through the written documents included in the file , that the employer conducted the disciplinary investigation in respect of the applicant by twice summoning him in writing to explain himself [ and ] specifying the subject , date , time and place of the interview , and that the applicant had the opportunity to submit arguments in his defence regarding his alleged acts , as is clear from the CARDINAL explanatory notices included in the file ( see copies on sheets CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","The court takes the view that the monitoring of the internet conversations in which the employee took part using the ORG Messenger software on the company \u2019s computer during working hours \u2013 regardless of whether or not the employer \u2019s actions were illegal in terms of criminal law \u2013 can not undermine the validity of the disciplinary proceedings in the instant case .","The fact that the provisions containing the requirement to interview the suspect ( \u00eenvinuitul ) in a case of alleged misconduct and to examine the arguments submitted in that person \u2019s defence prior to the decision on a sanction are couched in imperative terms highlights the legislature \u2019s intention to make respect for the rights of the defence a prerequisite for the validity of the decision on the sanction .","In the present case , since the employee maintained during the disciplinary investigation that he had not used PERSON for personal purposes but in order to advise customers on the products being sold by his employer , the court takes the view that an inspection of the content of the [ applicant \u2019s ] conversations was the only way in which the employer could ascertain the validity of his arguments .","The employer \u2019s right to monitor ( monitoriza ) employees in the workplace , [ particularly ] as regards their use of company computers , forms part of the broader right , governed by the provisions of LAW d ) of LAW , to supervise how employees perform their professional tasks .","Given that it has been shown that the employees\u2019 attention had been drawn to the fact that , shortly before the applicant \u2019s disciplinary sanction , another employee had been dismissed for using the internet , the telephone and the photocopier for personal purposes , and that the employees had been warned that their activities were being monitored ( see notice no . CARDINAL of DATE , which the applicant had signed [ after ] acquainting himself with it \u2013 see copy on sheet CARDINAL ) , the employer can not be accused of showing a lack of transparency and of failing to give its employees a clear warning that it was monitoring their computer use .","Internet access in the workplace is above all a tool made available to employees by the employer for professional use , and the employer indisputably has the power , by virtue of its right to supervise its employees\u2019 activities , to monitor personal internet use .","Such checks by the employer are made necessary by , for example , the risk that through their internet use , employees might damage the company \u2019s IT systems , carry out illegal activities in cyberspace for which the company could incur liability , or disclose the company \u2019s trade secrets .","The court considers that the acts committed by the applicant constitute a disciplinary offence within the meaning of LAW since they amount to a culpable breach of the provisions of LAW internal regulations ... , which prohibit the use of computers for personal purposes .","The aforementioned acts are deemed by the internal regulations to constitute serious misconduct , the penalty for which , in accordance with LAW , [ is ] termination of the contract of employment on disciplinary grounds .","Having regard to the factual and legal arguments set out above , the court considers that the decision complained of is well - founded and lawful , and dismisses the application as unfounded . \u201d","The applicant appealed to ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) . He repeated the arguments he had submitted before the first - instance court and contended in addition that that court had not struck a fair balance between the interests at stake , unjustly prioritising the employer \u2019s interest in enjoying discretion to control its employees\u2019 time and resources . He further argued that neither the internal regulations nor the information notice had contained any indication that the employer could monitor employees\u2019 communications .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal in a judgment of DATE , the relevant parts of which read :","\u201c The first - instance court has rightly concluded that the internet is a tool made available to employees by the employer for professional use , and that the employer is entitled to set rules for the use of this tool , by laying down prohibitions and provisions which employees must observe when using the internet in the workplace ; it is clear that personal use may be refused , and the employees in the present case were duly informed of this in a notice issued on DATE in accordance with the provisions of the internal regulations , in which they were instructed to observe TIME , to be present at the workplace [ during TIME and ] to make effective use of working time .","In conclusion , an employer who has made an investment is entitled , in exercising the rights enshrined in LAW , to monitor internet use in the workplace , and an employee who breaches the employer \u2019s rules on personal internet use is committing a disciplinary offence that may give rise to a sanction , including the most serious one .","There is undoubtedly a conflict between the employer \u2019s right to engage in monitoring and the employees\u2019 right to protection of their privacy . This conflict has been settled at ORG level through the adoption of Directive no . CARDINAL , which has laid down a number of principles governing the monitoring of internet and email use in the workplace , including the following in particular .","- Principle of necessity : monitoring must be necessary to achieve a certain aim .","- Principle of purpose specification : data must be collected for specified , explicit and legitimate purposes .","- Principle of transparency : the employer must provide employees with full information about monitoring operations .","- Principle of legitimacy : data - processing operations may only take place for a legitimate purpose .","- Principle of proportionality : personal data being monitored must be relevant and adequate in relation to the specified purpose .","- Principle of security : the employer is required to take all possible security measures to ensure that the data collected are not accessible to third parties .","In view of the fact that the employer has the right and the duty to ensure the smooth running of the company and , to that end , [ is entitled ] to supervise how its employees perform their professional tasks , and the fact [ that it ] enjoys disciplinary powers which it may legitimately use and which [ authorised it in the present case ] to monitor and transcribe the communications on PERSON which the employee denied having exchanged for personal purposes , after he and his colleagues had been warned that company resources should not be used for such purposes , it can not be maintained that this legitimate aim could have been achieved by any other means than by breaching the secrecy of his correspondence , or that a fair balance was not struck between the need to protect [ the employee \u2019s ] privacy and the employer \u2019s right to supervise the operation of its business .","...","Accordingly , having regard to the considerations set out above , the court finds that the decision of the first - instance court is lawful and well - founded and that the appeal is unfounded ; it must therefore be dismissed , in accordance with the provisions of LAW Civ[il ] Pr[ocedure ] . \u201d","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint against the statutory representatives of S. , alleging a breach of the secrecy of correspondence . On CARDINAL DATE the Directorate for Investigating Organised Crime and Terrorism ( ORG ) of the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG and ORG ruled that there was no case to answer , on the grounds that the company was the owner of the computer system and the internet connection and could therefore monitor its employees\u2019 internet activity and use the information stored on the server , and in view of the prohibition on personal use of the IT systems , as a result of which the monitoring had been foreseeable . The applicant did not avail himself of the opportunity provided for by the applicable procedural rules to challenge the prosecuting authorities\u2019 decision in the domestic courts ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180554","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF AKIMENKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The background facts relating to the planning , conduct and dispersal of the public event at FAC are set out in more detail in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , and GPE v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY , DATE ) . The parties\u2019 submissions on the circumstances directly relevant to the present case are set out below .","On DATE a public demonstration entitled the \u201c DATE of CARDINAL \u201d was held in central GPE to protest against allegedly rigged presidential elections . The event had been approved by the city authorities in the form of a march followed by a meeting at FAC , which was supposed to end at TIME The march was peaceful and held without any disruptions , but when the marchers arrived at FAC it turned out that barriers installed by the police had narrowed the entrance to the meeting venue , allegedly restricting the space allocated for the meeting . To control the crowd the police cordon forced the protestors to remain within the barriers . There were numerous clashes between the police and protesters . At TIME the police ordered that the meeting finish early and began to disperse the participants . It took them TIME to clear the protestors from the square .","On DATE the GPE city department of ORG opened criminal proceedings to investigate suspected acts of mass disorder and violence against the police ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . On CARDINAL DATE the file was transferred to the headquarters of ORG for further investigation . On DATE an investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising acts of mass disorder ( LAW ) . The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined on DATE .","The applicant took part in the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE at FAC . He was arrested on the date indicated below and charged with participation in mass disorder . The applicant was detained and tried on those charges but subsequently exempted from liability under LAW .","The applicant is a political activist and a member of an opposition movement called ORG . On DATE he arrived at FAC to participate in the demonstration and , according to him , did not take part in any disorder or clashes with the police . After the events in question the applicant continued to live at his usual address and pursue his customary activities , including taking part in authorised public events .","On DATE the applicant was detained on suspicion of participation in acts of mass disorder and committing violent acts against the police on DATE . On DATE ORG of Moscow held a hearing on the investigating authorities\u2019 request to detain the applicant pending the completion of the criminal investigation . In view of the need to provide additional evidence in support of the request , the court adjourned the hearing and authorised the applicant \u2019s detention for TIME .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE . It referred to the gravity of the charges and stated that the applicant \u2019s state of health did not preclude his being detained . ORG concluded that the applicant , faced with the risk of a prison term , might obstruct the proper administration of justice or abscond .","On DATE charges were brought against the applicant under LAW ( participation in mass disorder accompanied by violence ) of LAW . He was accused , in particular , of having thrown an unidentified solid object towards the police .","On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE .","On DATE ORG examined a request for an extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The applicant requested to be released , arguing that all the necessary investigative acts had already been carried out . He presented personal guarantees from CARDINAL ORG deputies in support of an undertaking by him to appear before the investigating authorities and the courts for examination of his case . The applicant also requested his release on health grounds and submitted a medical document from DATE which showed that he had a number of eye conditions .","On DATE ORG granted an extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE . It relied on the reasons for and the nature of the crime which had been committed , which gave sufficient grounds to presume that the applicant might reoffend , influence and threaten witnesses and other participants of the criminal proceedings , destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the proper administration of justice . In addition , the applicant had negative reports related to his place of residence . In particular , he had no permanent employment or family and had been repeatedly brought to administrative responsibility . His state of health was satisfactory and did not warrant his release . Lastly , the court held that in view of the above circumstances the custodial measure could not be replaced by a more lenient preventive measure .","On DATE ORG upheld the extension order of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG examined a new request for an extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The applicant argued that his detention was detrimental to his health , in particular his eyesight . He referred again to the personal guarantees of CARDINAL ORG deputies in support of his request for a milder preventive measure . On DATE the court extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court referred to the gravity of the charges and the nature of the offence imputed to the applicant , along with information about his personality , namely that he had no permanent employment or regular source of income and had negative reports from his place of residence .","On DATE the charges against the applicant were updated . The classification of the offence remained unchanged . According to the new indictment , TIME on DATE at FAC unidentified persons had called those present to move outside the agreed meeting area and to disobey lawful police orders , leading to mass disorder accompanied by violence against public officials . TIME and TIME that day the applicant had taken part in acts of mass disorder , in particular , he had repeatedly shouted anti - government slogans . During that period of time the participants of the mass disorder threw pieces of tarmac , stones , sticks and other objects at the police , which hit them on various parts of their body . The applicant , no later than at TIME , found a flagpole and threw it at an unidentified police officer , hitting him in the chest .","On DATE ORG upheld the extension order of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG granted a new extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , until DATE . It stressed the complexity of the case , reiterated the grounds given in the previous orders and noted that the circumstances that had justified the detention order had not changed . The applicant asked to be released on bail and presented personal guarantees from a wellknown writer and CARDINAL directors of prominent NGOs , but the court considered that a milder preventive measure could not be applied . ORG upheld the extension order on DATE .","On DATE ORG examined a fresh request to extend the applicant \u2019s detention and set a new term of DATE on the same grounds as previously .","On DATE ORG examined an appeal by the applicant against its decision of DATE and reversed it on the grounds that the prosecutor \u2019s office would have enough time to bring an indictment by DATE , adding that after that date the trial court could consider a new extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s criminal case was transferred to the ORG of GPE for the determination of criminal charges .","On DATE that court granted another extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , until DATE . The decision concerned CARDINAL defendants . Along with the gravity of the charges , the court based its decision on the findings that \u201c the reasons which had initially warranted the detention have not changed \u201d and that \u201c no other measures of restraint would secure the aims and goals of the judicial proceedings \u201d . The court also pointed out that the applicant \u2019s state of health was not incompatible with his being kept in custody . ORG upheld the extension order on DATE .","On DATE ORG began the trial in a criminal case against CARDINAL participants in the demonstration at FAC , who were charged with participation in acts of mass disorder and committing acts of violence against police officers .","The applicant made an application for release during a court hearing on DATE but it was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the Ombudsman of GPE submitted a complaint to the ORG of ORG about the extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention and requested an alternative preventive measure for him .","On DATE ORG refused the ORG \u2019s request .","On DATE the ORG granted another extension of detention in respect of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant . It ordered their detention until DATE on the grounds of the gravity of the charges and the nature of the offences imputable to them . On DATE ORG upheld that extension order .","On DATE ORG passed LAW which applied , inter alia , to pending criminal proceedings against people suspected and accused of criminal offences under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE the applicant requested the termination of the criminal proceedings against him by operation of LAW . On DATE the ORG granted the request and released him from detention .","The applicant has moderate myopia , complex myopic astigmatism and a congenital coloboma of the choroid .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in remand prison GPE in GPE . Upon his arrival there he was given a medical check which did not reveal any health issues .","In GPE the applicant was detained in cells CARDINAL ( until DATE ) , CARDINAL ( until DATE , then from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE ) , CARDINAL ( until DATE ) , CARDINAL ( until DATE ) , and CARDINAL ( until DATE ) .","The cells had the following characteristics :","cell CARDINAL : QUANTITY and CARDINAL sleeping places ;","cell CARDINAL : CARDINAL sq . m and CARDINAL sleeping places ;","cell CARDINAL : CARDINAL sq . m and CARDINAL sleeping places ;","cell CARDINAL : CARDINAL sq . m and CARDINAL sleeping places ;","cell CARDINAL : QUANTITY . m and CARDINAL sleeping places .","The parties agreed that on DATE the number of inmates in the cell did not exceeded the design capacity . They also agreed that the size of the cells and the number of detainees had allowed the applicant QUANTITY of personal space and that the applicant had had an individual sleeping place in every cell .","The parties provided the following accounts of the conditions in the cells . According to the applicant , the cells were inadequately lit and ventilated , were excessively hot in DATE and cold in DATE , they all had a lavatory pan which was separated from the living space by a plastic partition to chin level , which did not provide enough privacy . The applicant alleged that he had been constantly exposed to cigarette smoke and that although the window in the cell could be opened , it overlooked a courtyard used for incinerating rubbish and had let in fumes . There was therefore a constant lack of fresh air in the cell , which the ventilation system could not compensate for . Outdoor exercise was limited to TIME per day . The applicant also stated that the window was too high to give sufficient light for reading or working on documents . Finally , he alleged that the purchase of an electric kettle was a condition for access to drinking water .","According to the Government , the cells were equipped with ventilation ; the state of the sanitary facilities had been satisfactory ; the cells had been cleaned and bedding changed once DATE ; the applicant had been entitled to TIME of outdoor exercise per day ; and the cells had been disinfected and subjected to pest control DATE . They provided measurement tables for the remand prison , which had been created in DATE . They showed that the level of light in the cells in which the applicant had been detained had ranged CARDINAL and QUANTITY lux , the standard being CARDINAL lux . The temperature in the cells had measured CARDINAL and CARDINAL and humidity PERCENT , while the permissible level was up to CARDINAL and PERCENT respectively . The ORG also noted that detainees had access to a gym upon a written request .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested that the head of the remand prison order a medical examination for the applicant . He alleged that there had been a rapid deterioration of his eyesight .","On DATE the public commission for the monitoring of detention facilities visited GPE , and the applicant complained to them about excessive heat in his cell and a deterioration of his eyesight .","On DATE the applicant requested that the head of the remand prison organise a medical examination owing to his worsening eyesight .","On DATE the applicant was taken for an outpatient consultation with an ophthalmologist . He was diagnosed with severe myopia , amblyopia , esotropia , and a congenital coloboma of the iris . The doctor noted that the applicant had last been examined in DATE and recommended that he have a special examination to determine his disability status ( \u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u043a\u043e-\u0441\u043e\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430\u044f \u044d\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0437\u0430 ) .","On DATE the chief of ORG requested another ophthalmologic consultation , repeating the applicant \u2019s complaints about the deterioration of his eyesight .","On DATE the applicant was taken for another outpatient consultation with an ophthalmologist , who concluded that there were no negative developments in his state of health . The doctor also recommended that he have eye tests once a year .","On DATE the applicant underwent the special examination for recognition of the status of being disabled , which he was refused .","On DATE and DATE the public commission for the monitoring of detention facilities visited GPE , and the applicant complained to them about the poor quality of his mattress and the deterioration of his eyesight .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE ( GPE \u0442\u0438\u0448\u0438\u043d\u0430 ) , which had a medical wing . The applicant remained there until DATE and underwent a series of medical examinations , including blood tests , an echography , a chest photofluorography and an electrocardiogram .","According to the applicant , the prison cell measured QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL inmates , including himself . The window measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and was too high to give sufficient light for reading or working on documents . The artificial light was dim and flickering and was turned on even at TIME . There was no mechanical ventilation and the cell was damp , with broken window panes letting in the cold . A shower was allowed once DATE and the toilet was only separated from the rest of the cell by a low wall . Outdoor exercise was limited to TIME per day and the purchase of an electric kettle was a condition for getting access to drinking water .","According to the certificate issued by the prison governor on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was held in cell CARDINAL in IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . That cell had measured QUANTITY and had housed CARDINAL inmates , including the applicant . The cell had CARDINAL window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY and the state of the glazing was inspected DATE and fixed whenever necessary . The temperature in the cell had been maintained at QUANTITY was provided by a fluorescent lamp with CARDINAL CARDINAL-watt tubes from TIME to TIME and by a NORP lamp during TIME , in line with requirements . The windows had no shutters , only a metal grill with CARDINAL metal bars ; the size of the mesh was CARDINAL by CARDINAL mm . Inmates had to clean the cell DATE with chlorine bleach and detergent provided by the facility . The applicant had been able to shower once DATE for TIME . The cell had been disinfected and subjected to pest control measures regularly .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a commission of CARDINAL doctors , including an ophthalmologist . They issued a report which , in so far as relevant , read as follows :","\u201c ... According to the [ the applicant \u2019s ] medical documents , dated from DATE to CARDINAL , [ he had been diagnosed with ] medium myopia , complex myopic astigmatism , a congenital coloboma of the choroid , and a vascular congenital coloboma of the iris . Partial optic atrophy .","According to the results of the medical examination in [ IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ] carried out on DATE [ he has ] high myopia of the right eye . High - degree amblyopia of the left eye , esotropia . A congenital coloboma of the iris [ and ] of the choroid .","...","There have been no negative developments compared with the previous evaluation reports ( medical examinations ) . \u201d","On DATE the public commission for the monitoring of detention facilities visited IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL to check the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention . Its report read as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is being held in a cell in the remand prison \u2019s medical wing . There are CARDINAL other detainees in the cell . The cell is CARDINAL of the worst in the medical wing of [ IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ] . It is cold , the radiator is lukewarm and the glass in the hinged window is broken . The cell has not been renovated for a long time . Dirty , scuffed walls . There is no refrigerator or television , the radio socket is broken . [ The applicant ] complains that he has not received any treatment in the hospital for DATE . The medical wing of the remand prison has no ophthalmologist and he was taken for a consultation to the [ city hospital ] ... According to the chief physician of the medical wing ... [ the applicant ] had PERCENT sight in CARDINAL eye and PERCENT sight in the other . But the prison doctors could not recommend his release ... because only totally blind detainees are eligible .","... [ The applicant \u2019s ] detention is detrimental to his health , his eyesight is deteriorating as DATE goes by : the light is always on in the cell , day and night . The light is dim ; that is bad for his eyesight .","...","The members of the [ commission ] consider that [ the applicant \u2019s ] detention ... is a way to pressure him into giving the evidence the investigation wants . [ He ] risks losing his remaining eyesight . It is evident that he has been placed in the worst cell , cold and damp , instead of being treated in the hospital . He has been deprived of the possibility to receive visits from his family and has found himself in an information vacuum , without any television , radio or press . No adequate treatment or medical care . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was taken for an outpatient consultation with an ophthalmologist , who confirmed the previous diagnoses and identified no change in the applicant \u2019s condition .","The discharge summary ( \u0432\u044b\u043f\u0438\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u044d\u043f\u0438\u043a\u0440\u0438\u0437 ) issued on DATE contained the results of the applicant \u2019s medical examinations carried out in IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The head of the prison \u2019s medical wing concluded that they did not reveal the presence of any of the serious conditions which were listed as being incompatible with custody and there were thus no obstacles to the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE the applicant was placed in remand prison GPE in GPE ( GPE \u0442\u044e\u0440\u044c\u043c\u0430 ) where he was held until his release on DATE .","In GPE the applicant was detained in cells CARDINAL ( until DATE ) , CARDINAL-a ( until DATE ) , CARDINAL ( until DATE ) , CARDINAL ( until DATE ) , and CARDINAL ( apparently until his release ) .","The cells had the following characteristics :","cell CARDINAL : CARDINAL sq . m and CARDINAL sleeping places ;","cell CARDINAL-a : QUANTITY m and CARDINAL sleeping places ;","cell CARDINAL : CARDINAL sq . m and CARDINAL sleeping places ;","cell CARDINAL : CARDINAL sq . m and CARDINAL sleeping places ;","cell CARDINAL : CARDINAL sq . m and CARDINAL sleeping places .","According to the applicant , the conditions in GPE were poor , especially because of a lack of regular outdoor exercise and inadequate sanitary arrangements . In particular , the lavatory pan was only separated from the living space by a chest - high partition which did not provide sufficient privacy . In addition , the applicant did not take a shower after his transfer to GPE until DATE , as he indicated in his letter .","According to the Government , the conditions in the cells at ORG were as follows : the toilet was separated by a solid partition from the rest of the cell , which provided the necessary privacy ; the state of the sanitary facilities was satisfactory ; the cells were disinfected and subjected to a pest control procedure once every three months or whenever necessary ; the applicant had been entitled to TIME of outdoor exercise DATE ; the cell had been cleaned and the bedding changed DATE ; the cells were equipped with forced ventilation and could be aired through a hinged window . Artificial light was provided from a CARDINAL bulb by day and a QUANTITY bulb by TIME . The glazing of the windows let in sufficient daylight .","On DATE the applicant was placed in the medical wing of IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL for an additional examination and adjustment of his treatment . He had been discharged on DATE after refusing further treatment .","According to a statement of DATE issued by ORG , the applicant \u2019s state of health had been satisfactory and doctors had recommended that he have regular consultations with an ophthalmologist .","The applicant \u2019s description of the conditions of detention during his transfer from the remand prison to court and back was identical to that in the case of GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","On DATE court proceedings began in hearing room no . CARDINAL and in DATE moved to hearing room no . CARDINAL at ORG . The defendants , including the applicant , were held in glass cabins in both hearing rooms . From DATE to DATE the hearings continued at ORG of GPE in hearing room no . CARDINAL , which was equipped with metal cages .","For a detailed description of the conditions in those hearing rooms see GPE ( ibid . , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177691","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TSALKITZIS v. GREECE (No. 2)","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against PERSON for breach of duty and extortion concerning acts he had allegedly committed as mayor of GPE . The applicant gave a statement under oath on DATE , repeating the allegations in his criminal complaint . He made a further statement under oath related to his criminal complaint on DATE .","At the time the complaint was lodged PERSON was a member of ORG . In accordance with LAW , the public prosecutor asked ORG to lift PERSON \u2019s immunity from prosecution for breach of duty , extortion and bribery . That request was rejected on DATE .","On DATE the applicant , relying on the ORG \u2019s judgments in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALI ) and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALI ( extracts ) ) resubmitted his criminal complaint , arguing that ORG \u2019s rejection of the request to lift PERSON \u2019s immunity had violated his right to a fair trial under LAW . On DATE the criminal complaint was submitted to ORG . On DATE the President of ORG rejected the request to lift PERSON \u2019s immunity , relying on LAW of ORG , according to which a request to lift a member \u2019s immunity for a criminal complaint based on the same facts as a previous request was inadmissible .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG , complaining under LAW that ORG \u2019s refusal to lift PERSON \u2019s immunity had violated his right of access to a court . On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment concluding that the refusal by the President of ORG to lift PERSON \u2019s immunity for acts that had allegedly been committed prior to his election had violated the applicant \u2019s right of access to a court under LAW ( Tsalkitzis v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . To date , ORG has not yet concluded the supervision of the execution of the judgment under LAW .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant appeared on a television show on the nationwide ALTER ORG and reiterated the allegations made in his criminal complaint .","On DATE PERSON lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant for false accusation , perjury and slander . Following a preliminary examination , criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant . On DATE the applicant was convicted in absentia by a threemember panel of ORG . He was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and deprivation of his political rights ( decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . PERSON joined the proceedings as a civil party . The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision .","NORP Before the CARDINAL - member panel of ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) , the applicant submitted that his trial for slander should have been suspended pursuant to LAW or , in any event , that it should have been adjourned in respect of all the charges , pursuant to LAW . At a hearing on DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application to suspend or adjourn the trial and proceeded to examine PERSON \u2019s criminal complaint . In particular , it held the following :","\u201c ... Following this , the party who had filed the criminal complaint , PERSON , lodged application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL with ORG in GPE , complaining that GPE had not lifted PERSON \u2019s parliamentary immunity and that criminal proceedings had not been initiated against him . That Court ... held that the refusal of the President of ORG had violated LAW Therefore , the following issues have been identified concerning : a ) the relation of international conventions to current constitutional provisions ; b ) the act in question of the President of ORG and whether it breaches constitutional provisions and the above - mentioned international convention ; and c ) the question of whether or not it is possible to suspend the current criminal case being tried following the criminal complaint dated DATE by the defendant PERSON against ... C.T ... The matter of the supremacy of the LAW does not appear to be contradicted by the above - mentioned ORG judgment , which identifies the issue as the act of the President of ORG of not putting the request to the Plenary of ORG , which resulted , according to the judgment , in impeding the applicant \u2019s and the case \u2019s access to the competent criminal court ... It is noted that the President of ORG \u2019s act was based on Article CARDINAL of ORG \u2019s Regulations ...","According to the foregoing , it is clear that ORG has irrevocably dismissed the request of the public prosecutor of ORG , thus refusing to lift the immunity of the member of ORG against whom the criminal complaint was lodged ... on the basis of a legitimate procedure foreseen by the above - mentioned constitutional provisions . Therefore , according to the legislation , there is absolutely no possibility of reconsidering the issue and , eventually , of instituting a criminal prosecution . During the ... Plenary meetings of ORG , the issue of the well - foundedness of the accusation was examined as a whole , as were all aspects of the case , securing the work of the deputy and at the same time protecting him from malicious acts . In addition , and this is important , the whole case file which had been created following the preliminary examination was taken into account , as was the opinion of the competent public prosecutor who , following a review of the case , considered that there was no reason to initiate criminal proceedings against PERSON for the offences of which he had been accused ... \u201d","Subsequently , ORG proceeded to examine witnesses . The trial record shows that the applicant left the building following a short break after the examination of the first CARDINAL witnesses for the prosecution . His lawyer then contacted him to find out his whereabouts and informed the court that he was not feeling well and had thus left the building . The hearing continued in the presence of his lawyer . In total , CARDINAL prosecution witnesses were heard , including PERSON , who joined the proceedings as a civil party , and CARDINAL defence witness . It does not transpire from the information provided that the applicant or his representative requested the examination of any other defence witness and that such a request was refused . In view of the applicant \u2019s absence , ORG asked his representative to express the applicant \u2019s views on the accusations . The applicant \u2019s representative stated that his client denied all the charges and insisted on the truthfulness of his allegations against PERSON","ORG upheld the first - instance verdict , including the sentence of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and the deprivation of political rights ( decision no . DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law . He stated , inter alia , that the proceedings should have been suspended or adjourned pursuant to LAW and LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law ( decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . In particular , it held the following :","\u201c ... It is clear from this new provision ( LAW ) ... that in order to adjourn a trial owing to an interlocutory criminal issue ( \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc \u03b6\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1 ) concerning Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL of LAW , a criminal prosecution must have been instituted for an act attested to on oath or for which a legal complaint has been submitted or one which a defendant has alleged or disseminated information about . As regards LAW of LAW ... the suspension of criminal proceedings is obligatory , but also requires a prior criminal prosecution for the act that a defendant has alleged or disseminated information about ... In the present case ... the court dismissed the above requests , providing full and correct reasoning , in particular because the immunity of the person against whom the criminal complaint had been lodged , who is now a civil party and member of ORG , had not been lifted . Hence , a criminal prosecution had not been instituted , which is a prerequisite for the suspension and adjournment of criminal proceedings against a defendant who requests them . It can be concluded from the above - mentioned considerations that the court correctly interpreted and implemented the above - mentioned provisions , and did not violate them , when it proceeded to examine the allegations of false accusation , perjury and slander against the defendant - appellant on points of law and dismissed the defendant \u2019s request on the grounds that a criminal prosecution had not been instituted against the current civil party , former mayor and now member of ORG , without suspending and adjourning the proceedings until DATE previously instituted proceedings against him ... \u201d","NORP The decision was finalised on DATE ( \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae ) and the applicant was able to receive a copy on DATE . The applicant was imprisoned from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE as he was not able to pay the fine to which his sentence had been commuted . On DATE his sentence was commuted to community service and he was released . Finally , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant paid MONEY in lieu of serving his sentence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171486","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BAYRAMLI v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Article 6-3-c - Legal assistance of own choosing);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the material time she was deputy chairperson of CARDINAL of the main opposition parties in the country , ORG of GPE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant participated in demonstrations organised by the opposition in GPE .","On DATE , the organisers had given the relevant authority , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , notice of the demonstration of DATE . It appears that no prior notice was given to the ORG by the organisers of the demonstration of DATE . Information about that assembly was disseminated through ORG or the press .","The ORG refused to authorise the demonstration of DATE at the place indicated by the organisers and proposed a different location on the outskirts of GPE \u2013 the yard of a driving school situated in the CARDINALth residential area of LOC . The ORG noted that the place proposed by the organisers was in an area with heavy traffic .","Nevertheless , the organisers decided to hold the demonstrations in the centre of GPE .","According to the applicant , the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner . The participants of the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE were demanding free and fair elections and democratic reforms in the country , and protesting about impediments to freedom of assembly . The participants of the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE were condemning the use of force by the police against participants of previous demonstrations .","The applicant attended both demonstrations , but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse them . In both cases the applicant was arrested during the dispersal operation and taken to a police station .","According to the applicant , during her arrest in the first case several police officers twisted her arms behind her back , held her head down and forced her to move in that position for QUANTITY in the direction of a police car . As a result , the muscles in her neck , arms , back and other parts of her body hurt . At the police station she was kept handcuffed .","In a photograph , submitted to the ORG by the applicant and allegedly taken at the time of her arrest , the applicant is shown with both arms twisted behind her back by CARDINAL police officers and with her body bent as a result of that restraint .","NORP In both cases on DATE of the applicant \u2019s arrest , an \u201c administrative offence report \u201d ( inzibati x\u0259ta haqq\u0131nda protokol ) was issued in respect of her . In the first case the report stated that by deliberately failing to comply with a lawful order from the police , the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) . In the second case the applicant was charged with an administrative offence under LAW ( breach of the rules on the organisation and holding of assemblies , by an assembly organiser ) .","According to the applicant , she was never served with copies of the administrative offence reports or with other documents from her case files . In neither case was she given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while in police custody .","In the first case the applicant was brought before ORG on DATE , DATE following her arrest . In the second case she was brought before FAC on DATE , DATE of her arrest .","According to the applicant , the hearing before the court in both cases was very brief . In the second case members of the public were not allowed inside the courtroom , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public .","According to the applicant , in neither case was she given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of her own choice .","State - funded lawyers were appointed to assist the applicant . The records of the court hearings in both cases show that in their oral submissions the ORG - funded lawyers briefly stated that the applicant was not guilty and\/or asked the respective court to discontinue the case .","NORP In both cases the courts questioned only the police officers who , according to the official records , had arrested the applicant or issued an administrative offence report in respect of her . The police officers testified that the applicant had attempted to stage an unauthorised demonstration , and , in the second case , had also incited others to participate in such an assembly .","In the first case the first - instance court found that the applicant had participated or attempted to participate in an unauthorised demonstration . In the second case the court found that the applicant had incited people to participate in an unlawful assembly and , by doing so , had violated the rules on organising and holding assemblies .","By a decision of DATE the first - instance court in the first case convicted the applicant under Article CARDINAL of the ORG and sentenced her to CARDINAL days\u2019 \u201c administrative \u201d detention . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court in the second case convicted the applicant under Article CARDINAL of the ORG and sentenced her to a fine of CARDINAL manats ( AZN ) .","On unspecified dates the applicant lodged appeals before ORG , arguing that her convictions were in violation of her rights because the demonstrations in which she had participated had been peaceful . She also complained that her arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the respective first - instance courts had not been fair .","In the first case the applicant also requested ORG to order a forensic examination of the injuries she had allegedly sustained during her arrest . The court disregarded that request . The court also disregarded the applicant \u2019s requests to examine video recordings of the arrest made by some journalists ; to question the police officers appearing in those video recordings ; and to demand the medical record issued in respect of the applicant in the detention facility where she had served her administrative detention .","In the first case the applicant was assisted before ORG by a lawyer of her own choice . In the second case she was not represented by a lawyer .","NORP In both cases , on DATE and DATE respectively , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint before ORG asking it to conduct an investigation into illtreatment allegedly committed by the police during her arrest .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that the complaint had been forwarded to the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office for examination . The letter also instructed the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office to inform the lawyer about the results of the examination .","On an unspecified date , the applicant was summoned to the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office and questioned in connection with her complaint of ill - treatment .","According to the applicant , neither she nor her lawyer was informed about any actions taken by the authorities to investigate her complaint . It was only after making enquiries about the outcome of the investigation , in DATE , that the applicant managed to obtain a copy of an investigator \u2019s decision of DATE refusing to open a criminal case .","The applicant did not lodge a complaint with a court against the decision of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["11","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-b","6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184479","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF OLEKSA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in LOC .","The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was detained in FAC from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and in FAC from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( DATE , DATE ) .","NORP The parties\u2019 statements relating to the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention from DATE to CARDINAL DATE are to a large extent contradictory .","The applicant submitted that throughout his detention in ORG and FAC , he had been held in overcrowded cells in which the space per person had been below the NORP statutory minimum standard of CARDINAL m\u00b2 .","In their observations , the ORG submitted that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells only on DATE , DATE and DATE .","In the course of civil proceedings instituted by the applicant ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) , the domestic courts established , without giving any further details , that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( DATE , DATE ) .","Regarding the conditions of detention in FAC , the domestic court established that the overall conditions in cells were adequate . The applicant had CARDINAL hot shower per week and TIME of outdoor exercise per day .","Regarding the conditions of detention in FAC , as established by the domestic courts , the toilets were separated from the cell \u2019s living area , every prisoner had his own bed , a stool and access to cold running water . The prisoners had basic hygiene products at their disposal . The ceiling was infested with humidity . The applicant had CARDINAL hot shower per week and TIME of outdoor exercise per day .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action for the infringement of his personal rights on account of inadequate living conditions in FAC from DATE and from DATE , in FAC from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and , subsequently , again in FAC from CARDINAL DATE to DATE . The applicant argued that he had been detained in overcrowded cells , where the space per person had been below the statutory minimum of CARDINAL m\u00b2 . He claimed MONEY ( PLN ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action , finding that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been detained in cells above the minimum statutory standard . As regards the remainder of the period , the claim was time - barred as lodged outside the DATE period of statutory limitation .","On DATE ORG overruled the lower court \u2019s judgment and allowed the applicant \u2019s action , finding that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he had been detained in overcrowded cells . The court relied in this respect on the applicant \u2019s submissions , holding that ORG had in fact acknowledged these by its multiple refusals to provide the first and the second instance courts with an official register of cells in which the applicant had been detained . It also granted the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation , holding that the breach of the statutory minimum standard had not been significant ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184659","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF HOVHANNISYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","She is a civil servant working for ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) as a ORG inspector . She suffers from cardiac problems , including a heart rhythm disorder .","According to the applicant , on DATE , her head of division , and PERSON , his deputy , used violence against her in GPE \u2019s office . In particular , they assaulted her , grabbed her hands , insulted her and forcibly took a document concerning her which she had taken in to them in order to write down her objections . As a result of the violence she fainted , sustained bodily injuries , received numerous bruises on her hands and was seriously humiliated .","On DATE the applicant filed a written report with the head of staff of ORG , giving a detailed account of what had happened . She stated , inter alia , that she had returned her appraisal report for DATE H.A. since she had disagreed with the assessment received . On DATE she had been informed by CARDINAL of her colleagues that PERSON wanted to see her in his office . During their meeting , PERSON had given her the appraisal report and asked her why she had not signed it . She had responded that she wanted to discuss it . H.A. had refused to provide any clarifications , stating that he was the one to make decisions and would submit the report to the relevant division without her signature . H.A. had then ordered her to return the appraisal report , which she had refused to do , stating that she would write down her objections , sign the document and then return it to him . When she had been about to leave , PERSON had immediately closed and locked the door to his office and had started to approach her , shouting that she was a thief and had stolen a document from his office . Using physical violence and personal insults , he had tried to take the papers from her . After she had called for help , PERSON had entered the office and instead of diffusing the situation had also insulted her and ordered her to hand him the documents . The CARDINAL of them had grabbed her hands , causing her serious pain , and forcibly taken away the papers . As a result of the stress and pain she had fainted for a short period of time , after which she had been told that she could leave as there was nothing else to discuss . She concluded by stating that as a result of the violent behaviour of GPE and PERSON she had suffered injuries , health problems and serious distress . She requested that the relevant measures be taken in accordance with the law .","After the incident , the applicant felt unwell and underwent a medical examination . She was diagnosed with acute bronchitis and ORG syndrome ( a heart rhythm disorder ) and was put on sick leave from CARDINAL to DATE .","On DATE the applicant reported the incident to the police , stating that on DATE she and PERSON , her head of division , had had an argument during which he had been violent and caused her bodily harm . She made a statement giving an account of events similar to that in her report to the head of staff of ORG .","The investigator ordered a forensic medical examination DATE to determine whether the applicant had any bodily injuries and , if so , their nature , origin , seriousness and the time and manner of their infliction .","On DATE PERSON gave a statement to the police . In particular , he stated that the applicant had refused to return her appraisal report to him , after which he had left his office , closed the door and called PERSON , asking him to come to see him with the other employees . During that time the applicant had kept shouting and swearing . She had called their superior to say that he had locked her in . He denied harassing the applicant either physically or verbally and said that she had used foul language .","On DATE PERSON made a statement and similarly denied using violence against the applicant . DATE a number of the applicant \u2019s colleagues who were at work on DATE of the incident were questioned and denied that PERSON and PERSON had been violent towards the applicant .","On DATE the forensic medical examination was completed . The relevant parts of the expert \u2019s opinion read as follows :","\u201c Complaints : At present [ the applicant ] complains of a nervous breakdown .","Results of personal examination : An irregularly shaped , non - homogenous , greenishyellow ecchymosis measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY is present on DATE of the inner right upper arm . CARDINAL similar round - shaped ecchymoses are present on the inner surface of the same area measuring QUANTITY in diameter : on DATE of the inner left upper arm measuring QUANTITY in diameter ; on the lower third of the inner left upper arm measuring QUANTITY and QUANTITY and on DATE of the outer left forearm measuring QUANTITY .","Conclusion : [ The applicant \u2019s ] bodily injuries in the form of ecchymoses [ around ] the right and left upper arms and the left forearm have been inflicted with blunt , hard objects possibly in the period mentioned ; [ the injuries ] taken separately as well as all together do not contain elements of [ short - term ] damage to health . \u201d","On DATE the investigator took an additional statement from the applicant . She stated that she had no objections to the opinion of the forensic medical expert and intended to pursue her complaint .","On DATE the investigator took another additional statement from the applicant . The relevant parts read as follows :","\u201c Question : In the course of collecting evidence PERSON and PERSON said that they did not hit you and did absolutely not grab your hands . What can you say about this ?","Answer : ... I do not know why PERSON and PERSON said that but it is logical that they would deny committing such acts . I will reiterate once again that PERSON and PERSON pulled and pushed me and grabbed my hands thus causing me injuries . \u201d","On DATE the investigator took a further additional statement from the applicant . She stated :","\u201c I inform you that since the time I [ went ] to the police ... [ H.A. ] and [ PERSON ] have not even apologised ; moreover , they have created such an atmosphere that it is impossible to work , since other employees ignore me and avoid contact with me for fear of losing their jobs . Since PERSON and PERSON are continuing this kind of behaviour , abusing their official capacity , in the circumstances I am unable to reconcile with them . I am complaining and requesting that PERSON and PERSON be prosecuted . I also wish to add that because of their actions I have had health problems and as a result have been on sick leave from DATE ... \u201d","On DATE PERSON was questioned again and stated , inter alia , that the applicant had made a false statement . He had never harassed her or grabbed her hands and had remained seated in his chair until she had left . As for the injuries discovered on the applicant \u2019s body , PERSON stated that he had never touched her and did not know how they had been inflicted .","It appears that no decision was taken by the investigator for DATE .","On DATE the applicant sent a written request to the head of ORG of ORG for criminal proceedings to be brought against PERSON and PERSON She stated in her request , inter alia , that she had been informed of the provisions of LAW , under which criminal proceedings could only be instituted on the basis of a complaint by her . She further stated that she had not reconciled with PERSON and PERSON and was calling for them to be prosecuted . On DATE the investigator took an additional statement from the applicant . A further additional statement was taken from her on DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor instructed the investigator to refuse to bring criminal proceedings against GPE and PERSON on the grounds that no crime had been committed . It was suggested that the applicant had perceived the events subjectively and that her supervisors had never used violence against her .","On DATE the investigator refused to bring criminal proceedings against H.A. and PERSON for lack of corpus delicti in their actions . The decision stated , in particular , that the applicant had made unclear and contradictory statements with regard to the incident . It further stated that the evidence collected had revealed that on DATE first GPE and then PERSON , who had gone to the latter \u2019s office , had tried to calm the applicant down , as she had been insulting PERSON During the incident PERSON had caught hold of her hand and taken the document that she had taken from ORG infliction of bodily harm was punishable under LAW , but negligent infliction of bodily harm was not punishable . In the case at hand the applicant \u2019s injuries had been caused by PERSON and PERSON \u2019s negligence ; it had not been established that they had intentionally caused her injuries .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor against the investigator \u2019s decision . She argued , inter alia , that contrary to what was stated in the decision she had described in detail how she had been treated . In particular , she had submitted that first H.A. had grabbed her hands using force , harassed her and locked her in his office so that she could not leave . Thereafter PERSON had come in and also assaulted her . The applicant complained that the conclusion in the investigator \u2019s decision , according to which PERSON and PERSON had caused her injuries by negligence , could not be substantiated and pursued the purpose of exonerating public officials from responsibility . She further complained that , as a result of deliberate violence on the part of GPE and PERSON , she had experienced severe emotional suffering as a woman since her superior had debased her and caused her serious bodily harm without good reason , right in the workplace . In addition , the applicant stated that the incident had taken place in the workplace and naturally all the witnesses questioned by the investigator were the subordinates of PERSON and PERSON If criminal proceedings were instituted , they would be questioned as witnesses and warned about criminal liability for making false statements .","H.A. also lodged a complaint against the investigator \u2019s decision , claiming that it had not been established that he or PERSON had ever hit the applicant .","On DATE the prosecutor dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint and allowed ORG \u2019s complaint . In particular , the prosecutor upheld the investigator \u2019s refusal to institute criminal proceedings but changed the grounds for it , stating that no crime had been committed involving PERSON and PERSON The decision stated that no evidence had been obtained that would establish that PERSON and PERSON had inflicted injuries on the applicant , except her own unspecified and contradictory statements . As regards the applicant , the decision stated , inter alia , that because the stress she had suffered as a result of the incident in GPE \u2019s office she had perceived and described what had happened in a subjective manner . In these circumstances , her contradictory statements did not correspond to the evidence gathered but that did not create grounds for prosecuting her for false accusations .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the GPE and ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , requesting that criminal proceedings be instituted . She reiterated her previous arguments and complained , in particular , that the question of her injuries had not been addressed at all in the prosecutor \u2019s decision , which had ignored the results of the forensic medical examination . In the end , it had never been established who had inflicted her injuries . The applicant further complained that the prosecution had relied on the statements of subordinates of those who had committed the offence in question . Their statements could not be considered objective and reliable in view of the serious fear of those concerned losing their jobs . If criminal proceedings were instituted , they would have the procedural status of witnesses and would be warned about criminal liability for making false statements .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . In doing so , it found that the disputed decision had been lawful , while the applicant \u2019s arguments stemmed from an individual and subjective interpretation of the events in question and the procedural measures undertaken in relation to them .","The applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision . She argued , inter alia , that it had failed to examine her arguments . In particular , the issue of the existence of a number of injuries on her body as established by the forensic medical examination had not been addressed at all .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and fully upheld ORG decision . In doing so , it stated that the applicant had made unclear and contradictory statements about the circumstances of the incident which had not been corroborated by other evidence , namely the statements of PERSON , PERSON and others questioned in relation to the incident .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . She argued that the decisions of ORG and ORG had failed to explain the existence of injuries on her body or the fact that PERSON had locked her in his office . She also reiterated her arguments in relation to the refusal to institute criminal proceedings and the unreliability of the statements made by her colleagues .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163450","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF LASHA TCHITCHINADZE v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was arrested as a suspect in a criminal case . On DATE he was charged with multiple episodes of fraud .","On DATE the First - Instance Panel of ORG of GPE , rejecting the prosecutor \u2019s request to place the applicant in pre - trial detention , ordered the applicant \u2019s release under police supervision . The applicant was released at TIME on DATE .","On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE , reversing the lower - instance decision , placed the applicant in pre - trial detention for DATE . It justified its decision solely by noting that the applicant had been charged with a serious crime carrying a possible penalty of more than DATE imprisonment . This fact in itself , in ORG view , substantiated the risk of the applicant absconding , given that Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , as in force at the material time , provided that the seriousness of an offence could constitute grounds for the imposition of pre - trial detention .","On DATE amendments were introduced to LAW ORG ; those amendments , inter alia , provided that , subject to assessment by the national courts , pre - trial detention should in principle only be the last resort in cases where","On DATE ORG of the GPE ORG , having heard the prosecutor \u2019s argument that more time was needed to finalise the investigation , extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE , until DATE . The court did not address the question of whether the required investigative actions could be conducted without the applicant \u2019s continued detention . The applicant \u2019s reasons for his objection to any prolongation ( his good reputation and family situation ; the absence of previous convictions ; and formal assurances from several public persons , including a member of parliament ) were dismissed by the court . The court also refused an offer made by ORG to post bail for the applicant in the form of bonds with an approximate value of CARDINAL NORP laris ( GEL , MONEY ( ORG ) ) , reasoning that , under LAW of the ORG , persons being charged with serious offences were not subject to release on bail .","On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the order of CARDINAL DATE . Like the lower - instance court , the appellate court did not address the possibility of imposing a more lenient measure of restraint in order to ensure the aims of the investigation .","On DATE the applicant requested that his pre - trial detention be replaced by a more lenient measure of restraint . The prosecutor agreed to the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the GPE ORG released the applicant on bail on payment of a security of GEL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . When ordering his release , the court took into consideration the applicant \u2019s good references and the fact that he had fully compensated the injured party for the damage caused by his allegedly fraudulent activities .","At the time of submission of the present application , while the applicant contended that he was unable to have certain unspecified witnesses examined and to obtain expert opinions pertinent to his case , the criminal proceedings against him were still pending ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160620","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF YEVDOKIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["At the material time all the applicants were detained in NORP penal facilities . Where relevant , the dates of their detention are listed in GPE","While in detention , the applicants Mr GPE , PERSON , and Mr PERSON lodged defamation claims against private third parties ; the applicants Mr GPE , Mr Resin , Mr GPE , PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON and Mr ORG brought claims seeking compensation for the allegedly inhuman conditions of their detention ; and the applicant Mr PERSON lodged a civil claim for compensation , alleging that the criminal proceedings had been instituted unlawfully .","None of the applicants were able to attend the hearings at which their claims were examined . The domestic courts refused them the possibility to be present at the hearing , on the ground that there was no domestic legal provision for bringing detainees to courts . In particular , they quoted Article CARDINAL of the Code on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the relevant provisions of LAW . In the other cases , the issue of the applicants\u2019 presence in court was not addressed .","The applicants appealed , raising the question of their appearance in court in the appeal statement . Some submitted a separate request seeking leave to appear before the appeal court . The appeal courts either dismissed the applicants\u2019 arguments or concluded that their absence from the court was in line with the legislation and did not contravene the principle of fairness .","NORP The applicants\u2019 claims were refused at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . The dates of the final judgments are set out in GPE"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184819","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF \u0218ERBAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161971","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"ISAKSSON AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicants , who are all NORP citizens , were indicted on charges of having committed , inter alia , aggravated drug offences and aggravated violation of GPE in Medicinal Products ( lagen ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) om handel med l\u00e4kemedel m.m . , hereafter \u201c the DATE LAW ) . According to the prosecutor , during the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , in GPE and the county of GPE , the applicants and CARDINAL other defendants had , together and in consultation , created a business on CARDINAL different websites on the internet through which they had sold medicinal products illegally for a total amount of CARDINAL MONEY ( SEK ) , MONEY ( ORG ) of which products for an amount of MONEY , approximately ORG CARDINAL , constituted narcotic drugs .","The first and second applicants were accused of having been responsible for the business . The first applicant had operated from GPE while the second applicant had operated mainly from GPE . They had allegedly controlled the other GPE actions , received orders from customers all over the world and forwarded these to the persons responsible for the distribution of the medicinal products , including the narcotic drugs . According to the prosecutor , they had also been involved in company acquisitions to facilitate the web trade of medicinal products and credit card payments . The first and second applicants had also participated in the creation of the websites where the medicinal products , including the narcotic drugs , had been sold and opened bank accounts for payments received for the products . The third applicant , who had operated from GPE , was accused of having created , administered and dealt with customer contacts for CARDINAL of the websites through which the medicinal products and narcotic drugs had been sold . In relation to the charges for aggravated drug offences , he was also accused of having promoted narcotic drug trafficking by illegally holding and forwarding payments for narcotic drugs . The fourth applicant was accused of having created CARDINAL of the internet sites used for the trading of the medicinal products and the narcotic drugs and of having administered and dealt with customer contacts on all CARDINAL internet sites .","Legal representatives were appointed to the applicants , who denied the charges . The applicants and their co - defendants argued , among other things , that NORP courts did not have jurisdiction in the case as no medicinal products had ever been physically present in GPE and nothing had been sold to persons in GPE . The medicinal products had been acquired outside of GPE and sold to people in various countries but never in GPE . In their view , their business had been lawful and they had not committed any criminal offence under NORP law .","On DATE , following a main hearing which lasted DATE , ORG ( tingsr\u00e4tten ) convicted the applicants of aggravated drug offences and sentenced them to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . In so far as concerned its jurisdiction , ORG first noted that GPE ( Narkotikastrafflagen ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) ) was applicable also to crimes committed outside of GPE for which reason the alleged drug offences were covered by that Act . It then noted that several of the alleged activities had taken place in GPE , such as offering the medicinal products , including the narcotic drugs , for sale from GPE and establishing the contacts between sellers and buyers from GPE . These activities were , in the court \u2019s view , sufficient to find that the alleged crimes had been completed in GPE . Therefore , it had jurisdiction to try this charge . The court proceeded to find that the applicants had been involved in the activities as specified by the prosecutor and that they had known that it was illegal and in breach of NORP law .","NORP However , ORG acquitted the applicants of the second charge as it found that LAW was not applicable in the present case as no medicinal products had passed through GPE and the business had not been aimed at consumers in GPE . According to the court , the ORG \u2019s monopoly to trade with medicinal products in GPE had therefore not been breached .","The applicants as well as the prosecutor appealed against the judgment to ORG ( hovr\u00e4tten ) . The prosecutor argued , inter alia , that the applicants should also be convicted of aggravated violation of LAW . The applicants submitted inter alia that the appellate court should dismiss the charges against them or , alternatively , that the charges for aggravated drugs offences should be rejected . They maintained that NORP courts lacked jurisdiction and that they had not committed any criminal offence under NORP law .","On DATE , following a main hearing , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s conviction of aggravated drug offences for the first and second applicants . It aquitted the third applicant of that charge as it did not find that he had been aware that medicinal products classified as narcotic drugs had been sold on the internet sites . Lastly , it altered the fourth applicant \u2019s conviction to complicity to aggravated drug offences . However , the appellate court also convicted the first and second applicants of aggravated violation of LAW and the third and fourth applicants of complicity to aggravated violation of LAW . The first and second applicants were sentenced to DATE imprisonment , the third applicant was given a probationary sentence and a fine of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the fourth applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","The appellate court found that since the first applicant , who had had the leading role in the business , had operated from GPE and the other defendants had taken part in the same business , all their actions should be deemed as having been committed in GPE . Consequently , the court had jurisdiction to consider the acts and NORP law was applicable . As regards the charge of aggravated violation of LAW , the appellate court noted that the business had been large scale , comprising sales of MONEY CARDINAL . Since the DATE Act prohibited sales of medicinal products by others that GPE , or a legal entity in which the ORG had decisive influence , the court found that the applicants had violated the LAW as specified by the prosecutor in the indictment . ORG further noted that it did not consider that convicting the defendants would be in breach of either the principle of legality when applying LAW in its wording before it was amended on DATE , or any ORG laws or regulations .","The applicants and CARDINAL of their co - defendants appealed against the judgment to ORG ( ORG domstolen ) , maintaining their claims .","ORG granted leave to appeal concerning the question whether what ORG had found proven in relation to each of the defendants under the charges of aggravated violation of the DATE Act meant that the prerequisites to convict them under LAW were fulfilled . The question of leave to appeal for the remainder of the case was adjourned .","On DATE , ORG gave judgment , answering the question in the affirmative , namely , that the prerequisites to convict the applicants under LAW were fulfilled in the present case . In view of its finding , it refused leave to appeal for the remainder of the case . ORG first noted that the prosecuted activities of the defendants , that is the running of the retail business during the specified time , were to be seen collectively and hence be considered as CARDINAL crime , even though they comprised several acts carried out at various times where each act was sufficient to be considered a crime of itself . The main question was then whether the activities could be considered to have been performed in GPE . Agreeing with ORG , ORG found that this was the case since some of the acts had been carried out in GPE and GPE therefore had jurisdiction to try the charge in its entirety in accordance with the principle of ubiquity and LAW , ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) ) . As regards the acts of complicity , such acts should be considered to be committed not only where they were performed , but also where the main act had been committed . ORG hence concluded that the NORP courts had jurisdiction to try the charges against the applicants .","ORG then turned to consider whether the applicants and their co - defendants had violated NORP law , namely LAW . Here , the court noted that LAW was primarily directed at regulating the trade of medicinal products in GPE and that it had to establish whether it was applicable when neither the products nor the buyers were physically present in GPE , that is when the trade was based in GPE but directed against foreign markets . In deciding this , the court had regard to the rapid development of the technical means of trading over national borders and the interest to protect the health and safety of consumers , also outside of GPE . It further took into account LAW and Other Information Society Services ( lagen ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) om elektronisk handel och andra informationssamh\u00e4llets tj\u00e4nster , hereafter \u201c LAW \u201d ) which was based upon the ORG directive CARDINAL of DATE on certain legal aspects of information society services , in particular electronic commerce , in FAC ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . The directive established the subjective territoriality principle in that Member States should ensure that services emanating from within their territories complied with national provisions applicable in that ORG . ORG noted that the subjective territoriality principle was an established principle applicable to various areas . It further concluded that retail trading of medicinal products was not , as such , covered by the scope of LAW . Even though marketing and ordering of medicinal products via internet did , in fact , fall under the LAW , actual deliveries of medicinal products were not covered by the scope of the LAW . Having regard to the above as well as to the interest to protect the health and safety of consumers , avoid that GPE be considered as a suitable base for irresponsible large - scale medicinal trade and that there did not appear to exist any formal or other circumstances directly contradicting that the subjective territoriality principle was applicable , ORG concluded that LAW was applicable and that the defendants had breached it as found by ORG .","The third applicant requested ORG to re - open the case on DATE . He claimed inter alia that LAW in its wording before it was amended on DATE , referred to a repealed ordinance ( LAW ORG ( CARDINAL ) ) and that therefore , he could not have foreseen that the acts he was convicted of were illegal . The request was rejected by ORG on DATE since it found that the applicant had not shown any such new circumstance that would justify a re - opening of the case .","The provisions applied in the present case were laid down in LAW . It may be noted that LAW was replaced , on DATE , by a new ORG in Medicinal Products ( lagen ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) om handel med l\u00e4kemedel \u2013 hereafter referred to as \u201c the DATE Act \u201d ) .","Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provided , inter alia , that retail trade of medicinal products should be conducted by the ORG or by a legal entity , appointed by the ORG , in which the ORG had a decisive influence . DATE and DATE the state owned company ORG had exclusive rights to sell medicinal products in GPE .","In its wording until DATE , section CARDINAL of LAW referred to retail trade in \u201c items that are covered by the now repealed Medicinal Products Ordinance ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) \u201d and QUANTITY . However , through a legislative amendment this was changed and , as from DATE , section CARDINAL instead referred to LAW ( L\u00e4kemedelslagen ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) ) and Regulation ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL of ORG and of ORG .","According to LAW , a person who intentionally or negligently violated section CARDINAL should be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding one year , unless the act was punishable under LAW . It further provided that minor offences should not be punishable and that an intentional violation that had been conducted as a professional activity , concerned a considerable quantity or value , or otherwise was of a particularly dangerous nature , should be subject to imprisonment not exceeding DATE .","With the entry into force of the DATE Act , on DATE , the pharmacy market was deregulated to allow actors other than ORG the right to sell medicinal products to the general public . However , an authorisation and special permit from ORG is required to sell medicinal products to the general public .","Section CARDINAL of LAW provides inter alia that any person who unlawfully either transfers narcotics , acquires narcotics for the purpose of transfer , or procures , processes , packages , transports , keeps or in some other similar way handles narcotics that are not for personal use , or offers narcotics for sale , keeps or conveys payment for narcotics , mediates contacts between seller and buyer or takes any other such measure , if the procedure is designed to promote narcotics traffic , shall , if he or she has acted with intent , be sentenced for drug offences to imprisonment for not DATE .","According to section CARDINAL of the LAW , in case of an aggravated offence , the sentence shall be imprisonment of DATE and at DATE .","ORG has applied LAW to criminal acts committed abroad without this having constituted an issue per se ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL and NJA DATE p. CARDINAL ) . This approach has also been confirmed in legal doctrine ( see for instance , GPE , LOC kriminalr\u00e4tt [ General criminal law ] , p. CARDINAL ) .","The regulations regarding the jurisdiction of NORP courts in criminal cases and the applicability of NORP penal laws are laid down in LAW of LAW . LAW , LAW provides that crimes committed in GPE shall be adjudicated in accordance with NORP law and by a NORP court . The same applies when it is uncertain where the crime was committed but grounds exist for assuming that it was committed in GPE .","According to LAW , LAW a crime is deemed to have been committed where the criminal act was perpetrated and also where the crime was completed or , in the case of an attempt , where the intended crime would have been completed . According to the preparatory works to LAW ( see NJA II CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) and NORP case - law ( ORG case ORG DATE p. CARDINAL , as well as the ORG case ORG CARDINAL ) , as soon as a part of a crime has taken place within the realm , the criminal act in its entirety is to be considered to have been perpetrated in GPE ( the principle of ubiquity ) .","In the case of complicity to a crime , it is considered that the location of the criminal act is determined by both the act of complicity and the main act . An accomplice acting from abroad will be deemed to have committed a crime within the country , if he is aiding a main perpetrator to carry out or complete a crime in GPE ( see , for example , PERSON . , PERSON , En kommentar [ Commentary to LAW ] , p. CARDINAL ) .","Application of penal provisions by analogy is prohibited according to LAW , LAW . GPE provisions should be prescribed by law . In a judgment of DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) ORG stated that there were no impediments to interpret penal provisions in accordance with the recognised principles for interpretation of the law . However , such an interpretation had to be made cautiously .","NORP The penal law principle of legality also embodies a general requirement that a penal provision should be sufficiently clear and precise . It should be possible to foresee the application of a penal provision to a reasonable extent and it should be compatible with the grounds and purpose of the penal provision ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144113","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PIRTTIM\u00c4KI v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant owned shares in a limited liability company . In DATE and DATE a tax inspection was conducted in the company for DATE . The tax inspectors found that the company was not owned by CARDINAL different NORP companies but in reality the applicant and CARDINAL other NORP persons owned it , with equal shares .","On DATE additional taxes and tax surcharges ( veronkorotus , skattef\u00f6rh\u00f6jning ) were imposed on the company for DATE .","The company sought rectification from ORG ( verotuksen oikaisulautakunta , pr\u00f6vningsn\u00e4mnden i beskattnings\u00e4renden ) .","On DATE ORG partly accepted , partly rejected the company \u2019s applications .","The applicant , in the name of the company , appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , claiming that he owned the whole company through CARDINAL NORP companies .","On DATE ORG rejected the company \u2019s appeal and upheld the taxation decisions . It found that there was no proof that the NORP companies had in fact been sold to the applicant but , on the contrary , the case documents showed that in reality all CARDINAL NORP persons behind the NORP companies had equally exercised their powers in the company .","On DATE ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) refused the company leave to appeal .","In connection with the company taxation , additional taxes and tax surcharges were also imposed on the applicant as he had received disguised dividends from the company . He was to pay MONEY ( ORG ) in tax surcharges for DATE ( MONEY , ORG ) , FIM CARDINAL for DATE ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , FIM CARDINAL,CARDINAL for DATE ( ORG CARDINAL ) and FIM CARDINAL for DATE ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .","The applicant sought rectification from CARDINAL local ORG .","On DATE the Sis\u00e4 - Suomi Tax Rectification Committee rejected the applicant \u2019s applications in respect of DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application in respect of DATE .","The applicant appealed to ORG , claiming that there was no reason to impose additional taxes and tax surcharges as he was the only shareholder in the company .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decisions concerning DATE . It found that in reality the company was owned by CARDINAL NORP persons with equal shares and therefore the taxation decisions were not incorrect .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision concerning DATE . It found , like the other courts , that the applicant could not be regarded as the sole owner of the company .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal against any of the above - mentioned tax decisions .","On DATE , on the basis of the tax inspection , the tax authorities requested the police to investigate the matter . The applicant was arrested on DATE and his office was searched DATE . He was questioned by the police for the first time on DATE and was released thereafter . The pre - trial investigation was concluded on DATE .","On DATE the public prosecutor pressed charges against the applicant . The applicant was accused , on the company \u2019s count , of an accounting offence ( kirjanpitorikos , bokf\u00f6ringsbrott ) for having introduced incorrect and misleading information in the company bookkeeping DATE , and of aggravated tax fraud ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 veropetos , grovt skattebedr\u00e4geri ) for having given incorrect information to the tax authorities DATE . As a result , the company had evaded EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in taxes .","On DATE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a DATE suspended sentence . As to the length of the proceedings , the court noted that the proceedings had lasted by then DATE . The proceedings had been unusually long and the length was not attributable to the applicant . The proper sentence for the applicant would have been imprisonment for DATE but due to the excessive length it was turned into a suspended sentence .","NORP The applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) , requesting that the charges be dropped as he had already been convicted in the matter : tax surcharges had been imposed on him and a final decision delivered .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . As to ne bis in idem , the court found that the decisions containing tax surcharges had become final on DATE . As the charges had been pressed before that , on DATE , there was no impediment to the examination of the case as the charges had been brought before the administrative proceedings became final . As to the merits , the court found that the applicant \u2019s true position in the company had been concealed in order to avoid his responsibilities and that in reality he had been as much involved as the other shareholders . He could thus be held responsible for the company \u2019s bookkeeping as well as the incorrect information given to the tax authorities .","By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG and claiming in particular that he had been convicted twice in the same matter . He also pointed out that the proceedings had already lasted for DATE .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P7-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141205","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KATTAN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On an unspecified date a third party brought criminal proceedings and joined civil claims against the applicant for attempted fraud and forgery .","On DATE the ORG indicted the applicant for attempted fraud and forgery and sent his case for trial .","By a judgment of DATE the ORG acquitted the applicant in respect of both charges on the basis of statements he had given to the prosecutor \u2019s office and the court , and testimonial and documentary evidence . The prosecutor \u2019s office and the third party appealed against the judgment .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed their appeals as unfounded on the merits . The prosecutor \u2019s office and the third party lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment before ORG and ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG summoned the applicant to its first hearing of the case , listed for DATE . On DATE , a bailiff posted the summons on the applicant \u2019s front door and on the ORG local council noticeboard because no one could be found at the address in the town chosen by the applicant for correspondence with the domestic courts .","By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG noted that although he had been lawfully summoned , the applicant had failed to attend the hearing . In addition , it allowed a request by the applicant \u2019s chosen legal representative seeking an adjournment of the hearing in order to familiarise himself with the case and the reasons for the prosecutor \u2019s office \u2019s and third party \u2019s appeals on points of law . It also ordered that the applicant be summoned to the next hearing , listed for DATE .","On DATE the bailiff posted the summons for a second time on the applicant \u2019s front door and on ORG local council noticeboard because again no one could be found at the address in the town chosen by the applicant for correspondence with the domestic courts .","By an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG noted that although he had been lawfully summoned , the applicant had failed to attend the hearing . It also noted that the applicant \u2019s chosen legal representative had submitted before it that the applicant had not left the country , and that he would contact his client and ask him to appear before the court . In addition , it ordered that the applicant be summoned to the next hearing , listed for DATE , with a specific direction on the summons which stated \u201c mandatory attendance before the court in order to be heard \u201d ( prezen\u021ba obligatorie la instan\u021b\u0103 pentru a fi audiat ) .","By an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG noted that the applicant had not been lawfully summoned to the hearing and adjourned the proceedings until DATE . It ordered that the applicant be summoned in accordance with its directions of DATE .","On DATE the bailiff posted the summons for a third time on the applicant \u2019s front door and PERSON local council noticeboard because again no one could be found at the address in the town chosen by the applicant for correspondence with the domestic courts . The summons included the specific direction given by ORG on DATE .","By an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG noted that although he had been lawfully summoned , the applicant had failed to attend the hearing . In addition , it allowed the applicant \u2019s chosen legal representative and the other parties to submit observations on the merits of the case , and afterwards adjourned the proceedings pending deliberation .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed ORG and third party \u2019s appeals on points of law on the basis of the evidence available to it , quashed the judgments of the lower courts , convicted the applicant of attempted fraud and forgery and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal ( contesta\u0163ie \u00een anulare ) against the final judgment of DATE . He argued , inter alia , that the final - instance court had breached the applicable rules of criminal procedure and LAW because it had convicted him without hearing evidence from him after he had been acquitted by the lower courts .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s extraordinary appeal . It held that after the applicant had been acquitted by the lower courts , ORG sitting as court of final appeal had had a duty to hear evidence from him in accordance with the applicable rules of criminal procedure . However , although the applicant had been summoned at the correspondence address he had chosen himself , he had failed to attend the hearings . Also , he had not indicated , either through his chosen legal representative or by way of written submissions , his wish for the court to hear evidence from him directly or the objective reasons preventing him from attending the hearings . The final - instance court had summoned the applicant in exactly the same way the lower courts had done . Furthermore , during the proceedings before the first - instance court the summoning of the applicant through the procedure he was contesting had not prevented him from appearing before the court , from being heard by it or from submitting arguments in his defence , either directly or through the same chosen legal representative who had represented him during the entire course of the proceedings . At no stage of the proceedings had the applicant or his legal representative asked the court to summon him at a different address . Consequently , it could not be held that the final - instance court had lacked diligence in determining if the applicant was living at the address indicated by him . The court had assumed that as long as the applicant had been lawfully summoned , he had been familiar with the proceedings and had opted not to appear before the court . In fact , his conduct had been similar to the conduct he had displayed before the second - instance court , in that he had failed to attend the hearings despite having been lawfully summoned to do so , and had chosen to be defended exclusively through his chosen legal representative . It further dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument that he had not been familiar with the proceedings because he had not been in contact with his chosen legal representative , on the grounds that they had signed separate legal representation contracts for each stage of the proceedings , and that on DATE the applicant \u2019s legal representative had informed the court about his whereabouts and had pledged to ensure his client \u2019s attendance before it .","Articles DATE \u00a7 CARDINAL and DATE provide that it is mandatory for the finalinstance court to hear direct evidence from an accused when the lower courts have acquitted him or her . Where an appellate court quashes a judgment delivered by a lower court , it has to decide on the evidence to be adduced and set a date on which to take statements from the accused directly if the latter has not been heard or if he or she has been acquitted by the lower court .","Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that if a summoned person fails to appear before the court , and her attendance or direct evidence is required , he or she can be taken before the court on the basis of an order to appear ( mandat de aducere ) . The order to appear is enforceable by the national police , the gendarmes or the local police . If the person responsible for enforcing the order to appear is unable to find the intended recipient of the order at the address indicated , he or she must open an investigation . If the investigation remains fruitless , he or she must draft a report outlining the investigative steps that have been carried out .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( d ) provides that the court examining the appeal on points of law can allow the appeal on points of law and re - examine the case ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154535","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DR\u0102GUN\u0102 AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained about inadequate conditions of detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161527","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SOUSA GOUCHA v. PORTUGAL","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 14+8-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","He is CARDINAL of the most well - known television hosts in GPE and is currently the host of a TIME talk show . He has worked in the media for DATE .","He publicly declared his homosexuality in DATE .","TIME on DATE , a live talk show , TIME ( CARDINAL Para a Meia - Noite ) was broadcast on CARDINAL of the channels of the national television service , RTPCARDINAL . The programme was presented by ORG and featured CARDINAL famous people from the media as guests .","In the course of the talk show , during a quiz , the guests were asked to answer the following question , which was identified as the most important by ORG : \u201c Who is the best NORP female TV host ? \u201d The possible answers to the question included the name of CARDINAL female television hosts and the applicant \u2019s ; the latter being the \u201c correct \u201d one . The transcript of the quiz reads :","\u201c ORG : Who is the best female NORP TV host ? Option A , GPE ; option B , ORG ; option C , GPE or option D , PERSON .","PERSON : This is a tough one ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177229","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SILVA AND MONDIM CORREIA v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)","judges":"Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .","The first applicant was born out of wedlock . His mother always considered PERSON to be his father and from an early age he has been in touch with PERSON \u2019s family , who have always treated him as a relative .","On DATE the first applicant instituted an action for recognition of paternity before FAC . PERSON objected and argued that the applicant \u2019s claim was time - barred under LAW CARDINAL of the Civil Code . PERSON responded that this provision was unconstitutional because it violated Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW .","On DATE the judge gave directions ( despacho saneador ) setting out those matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding . In addition , the judge dismissed PERSON \u2019s objection that the applicant \u2019s claim was time - barred , holding that the time - limit set by LAW was unconstitutional insofar as the limitation thus imposed on the possibility of investigating an individual \u2019s paternity at all times constituted an unjustified and disproportionate restriction of the right of a son to know who his father was . It also found that the exercise of a person \u2019s right to know his parentage could not be subject to temporal barriers and could only be restricted in cases where such exercise of the right would constitute an abuse . The fact that the plaintiff had only instituted the proceedings DATE could not , in itself , be considered to constitute an abuse .","On an unknown date PERSON challenged the judge \u2019s decision of DATE \u2012 in the part in which it considered LAW to be incompatible with constitutional provisions \u2012 before ORG . On an unknown date the applicant submitted his observations in reply ( contraalega\u00e7\u00f5es ) , arguing that the decision should be upheld and the proceedings should not be deemed time - barred .","Meanwhile , on an unknown date , at the request of the first applicant , ORG ordered DNA tests which established that PERSON was the applicant \u2019s father . In the light of that result ORG asked the parties about the usefulness of continuing the proceedings . PERSON did not acknowledge paternity and requested ORG to continue the proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s challenge . It held that LAW was unconstitutional and that the right to seek judicial recognition of paternity should not be subject to a time - limit .","T.S. appealed to ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of ORG in its entirety .","On an unknown date PERSON appealed to ORG , to which he submitted the question of the constitutionality of LAW , pursuant to LAW ( a ) of LAW .","On DATE ORG held , with reference to its previous ruling no . CARDINAL , that LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL complied with the relevant provisions of LAW .","The first applicant appealed to the Conference of the Constitutional Court ( GPE do Tribunal PERSON ) , claiming that LAW CARDINAL was unconstitutional . On DATE the Conference of ORG upheld the previous decision of ORG and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim .","As a result of ORG decisions , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action on DATE .","The second applicant was born out of wedlock . His mother always considered TIME to be his father .","On DATE he brought paternity proceedings before ORG and contended that he had always known that TIME was his father . TIME objected , arguing that the claim was time - barred .","On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s action , holding that it was time - barred for being lodged outside the DATE time - limit established under LAW . In addition , it noted that the second applicant had not argued that there were any factors justifying the addition of a further DATE pursuant to LAW .","On DATE the second applicant appealed to ORG , challenging the judgment of ORG . He argued that the time - limit established under LAW for the institution of paternity proceedings was not compatible with the LAW and that the right to one \u2019s identity should prevail over the rights of the alleged parent .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment , finding that LAW was not incompatible with constitutional provisions , pursuant to Ruling no . MONEY of ORG . CARDINAL of the judges dissented , expressing the view that the protection afforded by the LAW to the fundamental right to personal identity required that the possibility of investigating one \u2019s biological identity should not be subject to a timelimit .","On DATE the second applicant challenged the decision of ORG before ORG and asked it to rule that the referred time - limit was unconstitutional .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG and held that the tenyear time - limit established under LAW was unconstitutional .","On an unknown date A.M. lodged a constitutional appeal before ORG , which by a summary decision of DATE ruled that , with reference to its previous ruling no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , the provision was constitutional and ordered that the judgment of ORG be modified accordingly .","The second applicant appealed to the Conference of the Constitutional Court . On DATE the Conference upheld the previous decision .","Following the Constitutional Court decisions , ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s action on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180478","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"AKTA\u015e v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON N. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , at TIME , the motorcycle driven by the applicant \u2019s son - in - law collided with a pickup truck on a highway . It appears that both the applicant \u2019s son - in - law and her daughter , who was riding at the back of the motorcycle as a passenger , died on the spot . GPE , the driver of the pickup truck , was taken into detention for interrogation upon the orders of ORG .","Soon after the incident ORG arrived at the scene of the accident in order to carry out a preliminary examination . It appears from the public prosecutor \u2019s initial incident report that the accident took place on a dual carriageway , where the traffic was flowing in single lanes on CARDINAL carriageway due to roadworks on the other carriageway at the material time . According to the information that the public prosecutor received from the traffic police , the collision had occurred in the pickup truck \u2019s lane .","During his interrogation by the gendarmerie , GPE stated that he had been driving at a normal speed in his own lane when he noticed a motorcycle coming towards him at great speed in the same lane . Although he had tried to swerve to the right , the motorcycle had hit his vehicle on the left side . He denied any responsibility for the accident .","A detailed accident report was prepared by the traffic police on DATE , in which it was stated that no alcohol had been found in GPE \u2019s blood . The report also stated that the motorcycle driver , who had strayed into the opposite lane , had been entirely responsible for the accident . The traffic police also prepared a sketch map of the scene .","According to the crime scene report prepared by the gendarmerie DATE , the post - impact skid marks of the pickup truck were found to be QUANTITY long , and the scratch marks left by the motorcycle on the road suggested that the collision had occurred in the pickup truck \u2019s lane . According to the same report , the accident had not been caused by adverse weather conditions or any physical defects of the road . The report was accompanied by a sketch map of the accident scene .","On DATE GPE was brought before ORG and ORG , respectively , for questioning . He repeated the statements he had previously made to the gendarmerie . On DATE , the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office requested GPE \u2019s arrest on suspicion of causing death through negligence . However , ORG rejected that request and ordered GPE \u2019s release from detention .","On DATE the applicant requested the collection of certain evidence by the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office , including any ORG footage from the accident scene , the suspect \u2019s traffic record , a technical examination of the pickup truck ( the brake mechanism in particular ) , and a medical report on the suspect \u2019s eyesight . The applicant also requested the calculation , by an expert , of the approximate speed of the pickup truck at the time of the accident on the basis of the skid marks it had left on the road .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office ordered the examination of the suspect \u2019s traffic records and any available ORG footage in accordance with the applicant \u2019s request . It appears that no action was taken as regards the remaining requests .","On DATE ORG informed the public prosecutor \u2019s office that there were no ORG cameras in the vicinity of the accident scene , and that GPE had not been involved in any traffic accidents previously .","On DATE the applicant was invited to the G\u00fcltepe police station in GPE to make a statement . She complained that the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office was not conducting the investigation in an effective manner . Once again , she requested the collection of all the evidence referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above , as well as an examination of the suspect \u2019s phone records to determine whether he had been talking on the phone around the time of the accident . She also asked to be provided with any expert reports submitted to the investigation file .","On DATE the Eskipazar public prosecutor conducted an on - site examination of the accident scene with the participation of a traffic expert ( a traffic police officer ) .","In his report dated DATE ( \u201c the first expert report \u201d ) the traffic expert stated that the absence of any pre - impact skid marks suggested that neither of the drivers had had the opportunity to react in a timely manner ( such as by applying the brakes or swerving to the side ) to prevent the accident , which had increased the impact of the collision . He found that the motorcycle , which had strayed into the lane occupied by oncoming traffic , had been entirely responsible for the accident . The traffic expert \u2019s report was not provided to the applicant .","The PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office subsequently ordered another expert report from ORG , which conducted an examination on the basis of the material in the investigation file . In its report dated DATE ( \u201c the second expert report \u201d ) , ORG repeated the findings of the traffic expert . It appears that that report was not sent to the applicant either .","Based on all the information and evidence collected , on DATE the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office delivered a decision not to prosecute GPE , who had not been found to be at fault in the incident .","The applicant objected to that decision , claiming in particular that she had not been sent the expert reports submitted to the investigation file , which had prevented her from challenging them , and that the public prosecutor had not collected all the evidence relevant to the incident . She also challenged the competence of the police officer who had prepared the first expert report , and claimed that the subsequent report by ORG had merely repeated the findings of that first inadequate report .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164672","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CUPARA v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Republicki zavod za tr\u017eiste rada \u2013 Nacionalna slu\u017eba za zapo\u0161ljavanje \u2013 PERSON jedinica GPE , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) granted unemployment benefits to the applicant until he found a new job or became eligible for retirement ( nov\u010dana naknada do zaposlenja ili ispunjavanja uslova za starosnu penziju ) .","On DATE the Law on Changes and Amendments to ORG ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) came into force . The law provided for different coefficients and a different methodology for calculating such benefits . It also provided , in LAW , that any administrative proceedings which had not been concluded by the date on which the new law came into force were to be finalised in accordance with the new law ( LAW provided that LAW was applicable as of DATE ) .","The applicant was receiving the full amount of the benefits he was entitled to until DATE . From that date the benefits were decreased to PERCENT of the amount he had initially been awarded , although the decision of CARDINAL DATE had not been amended or superseded by a new decision .","Consequently , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against ORG in ORG ( ORG GPE ) , seeking payment of the difference between the benefits he had received and those he had been granted by ORG and which had been due from DATE ( a claim for any earlier sum was statute - barred ) , plus statutory interest and legal costs .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim . It found that his benefits had been correctly calculated , in accordance with the DATE PERSON , as ORG decision in his case had not yet been final on the date on which the relevant law had come into force .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) upheld that judgment following an appeal by the applicant .","NORP The applicant \u2019s lawyer brought separate claims on behalf of numerous individuals ( hereinafter \u201c the plaintiffs \u201d ) , seeking outstanding benefits .","On DATE the same ORG ruled in favour of ORG , CARDINAL of the plaintiffs , whose claim was factually and legally identical to that of the applicant ( ORG \u2019s administrative decision had also been delivered on DATE ) . That judgment became final on DATE .","ORG ruled in favour of several of the plaintiffs in CARDINAL judgments delivered between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , although it appears that the dates on which the respective administrative decisions had come into force differed .","On DATE and DATE ORG delivered CARDINAL judgments in which it ruled against plaintiffs whose claims were identical to the applicant \u2019s . ORG upheld those CARDINAL judgments on DATE and DATE respectively .","A number of plaintiffs who were in an identical situation to that of the applicant lodged constitutional appeals with ORG . DATE and DATE ORG adopted a number of decisions in those cases , finding a violation of the right to a fair trial . It quashed the civil judgments and ordered the reopening of the civil proceedings .","Acting upon the decisions of ORG , ORG ( which became the competent court of second instance for the applicant \u2019s case after a reorganisation of courts in GPE in DATE , instead of ORG ) and ORG reopened proceedings in cases in which ORG had made such an order and ruled in favour of the plaintiffs .","On DATE ORG adopted a detailed action plan aimed at ensuring the general harmonisation of case - law throughout the NORP judicial system . The plan contained a series of measures to be taken at various levels of jurisdiction , and , inter alia , included the following : ( i ) the adoption of guiding legal opinions based on the principles developed in the case - law of ORG ; ( ii ) the dissemination of such opinions ; ( iii ) regular information sharing between the courts ; ( iv ) an increased number of thematic discussions and training programmes ; ( v ) the adoption of specific action plans by the courts at various levels ; and ( vi ) the development of various IT tools and related intranet databases ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177410","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FEDORENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158490","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SAKIT ZAHIDOV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He was an independent journalist , satirist and poet who at the relevant time was working for the PERSON newspaper .","At TIME on DATE the applicant met a friend at the PERSON caf\u00e9 in GPE where they had a meal . At TIME they left and the applicant took a taxi home .","Shortly after the taxi moved off , it was stopped by CARDINAL plain - clothes agents of the ORG . Without showing themselves , they dragged the applicant into a ORG . He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest . After his arrest they restrained his hands and only after some time , when the vehicle was moving , did they inform him that they were police officers .","According to the applicant , as he was in shock during his arrest , he did not immediately notice that the officers had planted some drugs on him . However , he later realised that CARDINAL of the officers , PERSON , had slipped narcotic substances into his pocket , taking advantage of the fact that the other officers had restrained his hands .","The applicant was taken to the ORG , where a search was conducted . According to record no . CARDINAL on carrying out operational measures and the seizure of physical evidence ( \u0259m\u0259liyyat t\u0259dbirinin ke\u00e7irilm\u0259si v\u0259 maddi s\u00fcbutun g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fclm\u0259si bar\u0259d\u0259 protokol ) , it was carried out at TIME on DATE in the presence of the applicant , some police officers and CARDINAL attesting witnesses . It appears from the record that the applicant was not represented by a lawyer . During the search , QUANTITY of a substance similar to heroin was found in his left trouser pocket . He signed the record to say that he drank alcohol , but did not use or sell drugs . He further indicated that the drugs found did not belong to him , but that he could not explain where they had come from . Moreover , it appears from record no . CARDINAL in the case file that the search was filmed . Despite the ORG \u2019s explicit request to the ORG to submit a copy of the video - recording , they did not do so .","Following the search , at TIME , the applicant was taken to ORG , where he underwent a urine test to determine his state of intoxication . According to him , the urine test was also a drugs test and after examination the doctor , PERSON , stated that he was in a state of intoxication but was not a drug user . Record no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was compiled DATE containing details of the urine test . Despite ORG explicit request to the Government to submit copies of all documents relating to the proceedings in question , the Government failed to provide the ORG with a copy of the record in question .","The Government did not submit any comments in respect of the applicant \u2019s version of events .","It appears , however , from police report no . CARDINAL dated DATE submitted by the Government that on that date an operation was planned for the applicant \u2019s arrest on the basis of operational information ( \u0259m\u0259liyyat m\u0259lumatlar\u0131 ) suggesting that an individual named PERSON was a drug dealer and had been involved in drug dealing near the PERSON caf\u00e9 . It was also noted in the report that he had obtained drugs from GPE , who lived in PERSON , a village in the NORP region .","It further transpires from the documents submitted by the Government that at TIME on DATE a police investigator drew up an official record of the applicant \u2019s arrest ( cinay\u0259t t\u00f6r\u0259tm\u0259kd\u0259 \u015f\u00fcbh\u0259li \u015f\u0259xsin tutulmas\u0131 haqq\u0131nda protokol ) . The relevant part of the record reads as follows :","\u201c Reason for arrest : In accordance with LAW . QUANTITY of heroin , which constitutes a large quantity of narcotic substances and shows the commission of the criminal offence provided for by law , were found on PERSON person and clothes . \u201d","The record was drawn up without a lawyer present and was signed by the applicant and the investigator .","On DATE a police investigator instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant under Article CARDINAL ( illegal preparation , production , possession , storage , transportation and sale of a large quantity of narcotic substances ) of LAW . The decision relied on the fact that following a search DATE QUANTITY grams of heroin had been found on him .","At TIME on DATE the investigator questioned the applicant as a suspect in the presence of his lawyer . It appears from the record of the questioning that in reply to the question regarding where , when and why he had obtained the heroin found on him , the applicant answered that he did not know when or where the drugs in question had been planted in his pocket . In reply to another question regarding whether he sold drugs , the applicant stated that it could be seen from his examination by the doctor that he did not use or sell drugs .","On DATE the investigator separately questioned CARDINAL attesting witnesses who had participated in the search . Their statements were identical in their wording . They stated that they had seen the drugs found in the left trouser pocket of the applicant , who had stated after the search that the drugs did not belong to him .","On DATE the investigator separately questioned CARDINAL police officers who had participated in the arrest and search . Their statements were identical in their wording . They stated that they had received operational information that some drug dealers had been operating near the PERSON caf\u00e9 , so they had gone to the area to determine who they were . Once they arrived , they stopped a taxi because an individual , who appeared to be in a state of intoxication and had caught their attention by his suspicious behaviour , had just taken the taxi in question . This individual , whose identity was later established , was then taken to the ORG where the drugs were found on him .","On DATE the applicant was charged with illegal possession of a large quantity of narcotic substances with intent to sell under Article CARDINAL of LAW . On DATE a judge of ORG , relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor \u2019s request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody , ordered his detention for a period of DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE ( the date of the record of the questioning is illegible ) the applicant was questioned by the investigator as an accused in the presence of his lawyer . He maintained his initial statement , pointing out that the drugs did not belong to him and had been planted .","On DATE the investigator ordered a forensic medical examination to establish whether the applicant was a drug addict . On DATE the investigator also ordered a forensic chemical examination of the drugs found on him .","On DATE experts issued an opinion ( no . CARDINAL ) concerning the forensic medical examination . The part concerning drug use by the applicant reads as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] denies that he uses narcotic substances . He denies that the ... heroin found in his trouser pocket and seized belongs to him . He does not give complete information about his history of drug use . He tries to hide his abuse of narcotic substances . During the examination no signs of obvious abstinence were revealed . He has developed an initial pathological tendency ( ilkin patoloji meyl ) towards narcotic substances . A psychological dependence on the use of narcotic substances is observed . A physical dependence on the use of narcotic substances is not currently observed . He denies taking narcotic substances by injection . \u201d","The conclusion of the opinion reads as follows :","\u201c During the examination it was established that PERSON suffers from drug addiction at the initial stage ( ba\u015flan\u011f\u0131c m\u0259rh\u0259l\u0259li narkomaniya x\u0259st\u0259liyi ) . This is confirmed by there being an initial pathological tendency towards narcotic substances , the results of the objective examination and the material of the criminal case . Taking into consideration that there are currently no signs of abstinence or drug intoxication and the fact that he has criticised himself for his situation , there is no need for his compulsory drug intoxication . It is advisable to register him at the local narcotics clinic . \u201d","The opinion was established on the basis of the applicant \u2019s \u201c general features \u201d , without a blood or urine sample being taken .","On DATE the chemical expert issued opinion no . DATE finding that QUANTITY of yellow sandy matter submitted for examination was home - made heroin .","On DATE the applicant and his lawyer were provided with a copy of the forensic medical opinion of DATE . The applicant immediately complained to the investigator in charge of the case , contesting its conclusions . He asked the investigator to order a \u201c commission forensic examination \u201d , indicating that he was not suffering from drug addiction . He further complained that the drugs found on him had been planted during his arrest by officer PERSON , who had taken advantage of the fact that the other police officers had restrained his hands .","On DATE the investigator dismissed his complaint , indicating that there were no grounds to doubt the conclusions of the forensic medical opinion . As to the allegation that the drugs had been planted by the police , the investigator found it unsubstantiated , indicating that the applicant had not made any such statement when questioned after his arrest .","On DATE the investigator issued a bill of indictment under Article CARDINAL of LAW and filed it with ORG .","In the course of the proceedings before ORG the applicant claimed that he was innocent , insisting that the criminal case against him had been fabricated because of his journalistic and political activity , and that the drugs had been planted on him by the police officers . In this connection , he firstly submitted that the search of his person had not been carried out immediately after his arrest in the presence of the taxi driver or other individuals present at the place of his arrest , but at the ORG . He further submitted that the police had failed to search the taxi in which he had been arrested . However , if he had really had the drugs in his pocket , he would have thrown them into the taxi before his arrest . The police had not carried out a \u201c real \u201d search and had only found the drugs they had planted on him , otherwise they would have also searched the taxi . Moreover , they had failed to take its number plate and identify the driver . The applicant also pointed out that the identity of A. , from whom he had allegedly obtained the drugs , had never been established by the investigation . Lastly , he submitted that in any event the drugs found on him could not be used in the proceedings because they had been obtained in breach of the relevant procedural requirements . In particular , he pointed out that LAW and CARDINAL of LAW did not allow investigating authorities to carry out any investigative measures except an examination of the scene of the incident before the institution of criminal proceedings . However , in the present case a search of the applicant was carried out before the adoption of the investigator \u2019s decision in that regard .","At the hearing , ORG heard the police officers who had carried out the arrest and search of the applicant . They confirmed their statements made during the investigation . Moreover , officer PERSON stated that he had not planted anything on the applicant , and that the applicant had lied about this .","On DATE ORG , having reclassified the criminal charges , found the applicant guilty under LAW ( illegal possession of a quantity of narcotic substances exceeding that necessary for personal use without intent to sell ) , and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . The part of the judgment concerning his conviction reads as follows :","\u201c It appears from opinion no . CARDINAL dated CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the forensic narcotics examination that it was established during the examination that PERSON suffers from drug addiction at the initial stage . This is confirmed by there being an initial pathological tendency towards narcotic substances , the results of the objective examination and the material of the criminal case . Taking into consideration that there are currently no signs of abstinence or drug intoxication and the fact that he has criticised himself for his situation , there is no need for his compulsory drug intoxication . It is advisable to register him at the local narcotics clinic .","The above - mentioned opinion was confirmed at the court hearing by addiction specialist ORG from ORG , who was heard as an additional witness .","It appears from forensic opinion no . DATE dated CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ... that QUANTITY of yellow sandy matter rolled in cigarette paper submitted for examination in an envelope was home - made ... heroin .","The accused PERSON commission of the above - mentioned criminal offence was therefore fully proved in court . [ His ] statement that the narcotic substances found on him had been planted in his pocket by the police is defensive in nature and was not confirmed during the court examination .","The court notes that the investigating authority accused PERSON under Article CARDINAL of LAW , indicating in the bill of indictment that [ he had ] obtained the QUANTITY of heroin found on him , which constituted a large quantity of narcotic substances with intent to sell .","The investigating authority \u2019s conclusion was not proved at the court hearing . In fact , when charging PERSON with this criminal offence , [ it ] relied on the fact that the QUANTITY grams of heroin found on him constituted a large quantity of narcotic substances and considered this as illegal possession with intent to sell , but failed to collect any evidence proving the intent to sell or to refer to such evidence in the bill of indictment . However , it does not transpire from the material of the case file or the statements of the persons heard in court that PERSON obtained these narcotic substances with intent to sell . The individual to whom PERSON would sell the narcotic substances was not identified during the investigation or court examination . The statements of the police officers involved in the operation made during the investigation and before the court DATE that they had information that PERSON had obtained the narcotic substances with intent to sell DATE are not supported by any plausible evidence . Moreover , the fact that the narcotic substance was in the same fold and undivided also confirms that it had not been prepared for sale . The accusation that PERSON had been in possession of the drug with intent to sell was formed by the investigating authority on the basis of speculation and could not constitute the basis of the judgment . \u201d","The judgment made no mention of the applicant \u2019s specific complaints concerning the conditions in which the search had been carried out or the lawfulness of the use of evidence obtained in those circumstances against him .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed , claiming that he was innocent . He alleged , in particular , that the criminal case against him had been fabricated , and that the drugs had been planted on him by the police . In this connection , he reiterated that the agents of the ORG had failed to conduct a body search immediately after his arrest , and that the search had been carried out in breach of the relevant procedural requirements . Moreover , they had failed to search the taxi in which he had been arrested . He further complained that the forensic medical examination of DATE , which had been based on his \u201c general features \u201d and carried out without taking a blood sample from him , could not be considered an expert opinion . In this connection , he also submitted that it had been established in the urine test carried out immediately after his arrest that he was not a drug user . He further asked the court to examine the video - recording of his body search .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment . The relevant part of the appellate court \u2019s judgment reads as follows :","\u201c The panel of the court considers that the actions of PERSON were correctly classified by the court under LAW of GPE , and that he was sentenced to a punishment within the authorised limits of the LAW [ of the Criminal Code]of which he was accused .","As the arguments raised in the appeal were examined in the descriptive part of the judgment and were not confirmed , the panel of the court does not see any reason to grant the appeal . \u201d","ORG was silent as to the applicant \u2019s specific complaints concerning the narcotic substances being planted on him by the police , the conditions in which the search had been carried out , the lawfulness of the use of evidence obtained in those circumstances against him , the examination of the video - recording of the search , and the reliability of the forensic medical opinion of DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE .","On DATE the applicant was released from prison under an amnesty law adopted by the Milli Mejlis ( ORG ) on DATE .","The applicant \u2019s arrest and the institution of criminal proceedings against him attracted significant public and media interest both nationally and internationally .","The relevant part of LAW ( DATE ) \u201c The Functioning of Democratic Institutions in GPE \u201d , adopted on DATE by ORG of ORG , reads :","\u201c CARDINAL . In view of the above , the ORG recalls its LAW ( DATE ) and urges the NORP authorities to implement a number of measures without further delay ...","As regards the follow - up to the issue of alleged political prisoners , the ORG :","...","CARDINAL condemns the lack of transparency and fairness in the relevant investigations and court proceedings and demands the immediate release of imprisoned opposition journalists ... PERSON ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167125","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF \u010cERVENKA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In a judgment of DATE the GPE CARDINAL ORG ( obvodn\u00ed soud ) , relying on LAW , deprived the applicant of legal capacity . Based on an expert opinion and the testimony of the applicant \u2019s father , the court concluded that the applicant was suffering from alcoholic dementia , which was a permanent mental disability , and that he was unable to perform any legal acts on his own . The applicant was represented by a guardian ad litem and was therefore not heard by the court , which found that it appeared from the expert opinion that he was unable to understand the relevance of the proceedings . For the same reason , the court dispensed with the delivery of the judgment to the applicant .","NORP In a decision of DATE , which became final on DATE , ORG appointed ORG ( m\u011bstsk\u00e1 \u010d\u00e1st ) as the applicant \u2019s public guardian ( ve\u0159ejn\u00fd opatrovn\u00edk ) .","The applicant has attempted to regain his legal capacity several times , but his requests have always been refused . On DATE , refusing another request to restore legal capacity to the applicant , ORG banned him from lodging further requests for DATE because there was no possibility of his condition changing within that period . It relied on an expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE , which stated , inter alia :","\u201c [ the applicant ] presents a picture of a chronic alcoholic in the terminal stage of alcoholism , with complete loss of control over drinking , complete lack of awareness of his illness , severe and irreversible damage to his health fully or partially caused by alcohol abuse and social and economic downfall which , in addition to his complete lack of awareness , also indicates serious personality changes objectively caused by detected brain atrophy .","...","[ I]t is a long - lasting disorder which can not be completely repaired even by treatment that is fully successful . ...","[ ORG of control over drinking and complete lack of awareness regarding alcohol abuse and its consequences result in a high probability of the repetition of previous relapses and , therefore , in behaviour which could , for similar reasons , pose a threat to the financial , social and personal stability of the person examined . \u201d","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , having examined an expert report and heard the expert and the applicant , decided to limit the latter \u2019s legal capacity to act . It restricted his legal capacity so that he was not entitled to dispose of funds and conclude contracts exceeding CARDINAL korunas ( CZK ) ( QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) per month . The court noted that according to the expert report , the applicant was suffering from mixed organic dementia up to intermediate level and with a continued lack of awareness of his state of health . In addition , he was unable to make more complex legal decisions independently . The applicant lodged appeals on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .","ORG ( m\u011bstsk\u00fd soud ) scheduled a hearing for DATE and summoned the applicant . However , his lawyer was not informed about the hearing because his public guardian had refused to sign the power of attorney and so none of the courts recognised the lawyer as the applicant \u2019s legal representative . The court subsequently cancelled the hearing and remitted the case to ORG , which on DATE assigned a new guardian to the applicant . The new guardian granted the power of attorney to a lawyer to represent the applicant in the proceedings on legal capacity .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and sent the case back to ORG which in a judgment of DATE decided to limit the legal capacity of the applicant , for a period of DATE , so that he was not entitled to dispose of funds exceeding QUANTITY ( EURCARDINAL ) per week .","On DATE ORG initiated ex officio the proceedings on legal capacity and guardianship . At the same time , it ordered an expert opinion in psychiatry . It appears that the proceedings are still ongoing .","The applicant was admitted to the GPE - Bohnice psychiatric hospital CARDINAL times : in DATE ( for DATE ) ; in DATE ( for DATE ) ; in DATE ( for DATE ) ; in DATE ( for DATE ) ; in DATE and DATE ( for DATE ) ; in DATE ( for DATE ) ; and during DATE and DATE ( for DATE ) .","The applicant \u2019s hospital discharge report of CARDINAL DATE stated , inter alia , that he had been suffering from a mental and behavioural disorder caused by alcohol , that he was an alcoholic and that he had repeatedly experienced deliria tremens .","In the record of a telephone conversation between the applicant \u2019s public guardian and a neighbour on DATE it was noted , inter alia , that complaints about the applicant had been escalating , as he had been causing disturbance at TIME as a result of his excessive drinking and had been urinating on the stairs .","Another record of a telephone conversation between the public guardian and the applicant on DATE stated , in particular , that the applicant had confirmed that he had not taken any of the medication prescribed to him by the psychiatrist .","During a conversation with the applicant \u2019s public guardian on DATE the applicant \u2019s son said that his father had always kept many animals and that his treatment of them was bordering on cruelty because he did not feed them . He also allowed them in his bed , and as a result the bed was drenched and smelled foul . Moreover , the carpets and other furnishings in the flat were dirty and badly damaged .","On DATE the public guardian urged the applicant not to yell at passers - by . The applicant replied that he was a psychologist and teacher , and practised communication with people in that way .","On DATE Dr M.P. mentioned that the applicant was suffering from repeated alcohol abuse , alcohol - related cognitive impairment and alcoholic dementia . He was an alcoholic who did not cooperate and was unaware of his alcohol abuse .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s neighbours complained to the public guardian that the applicant was disturbing them at night , that an unbearable smell was exuding from his flat , that he had been urinating on the stairs and kept falling down when drunk , and that the situation was continuously getting worse .","On DATE the public guardian received another telephone call from the applicant \u2019s neighbour complaining about the behaviour of the applicant , who had been drunk , towards herself and her child . The neighbour said that she was afraid of him . On DATE , the applicant \u2019s parents visited his public guardian to try to resolve the problematic situation relating to the applicant \u2019s inappropriate behaviour . They expressed the view that the best solution would be their son \u2019s placement in a specialised institution , such as the social care home in GPE , as other institutions in GPE or GPE were not available . The social care home in GPE is a private institution .","On DATE , the applicant , in a state of drunkenness , visited his public guardian . From the record of the visit it appears that the applicant was unable to express himself coherently .","In his report of CARDINAL DATE the treating psychiatrist noted , in particular , that the applicant was suffering from a psychosomatic disorder , namely alcoholic dementia .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s guardian accompanied the applicant to the social care home in GPE , a limited liability company . There she signed an agreement on the provision of residential social services to the applicant for an unlimited period of time and the applicant was admitted to the home .","The applicant \u2019s guardian noted on DATE that the applicant \u2019s parents could no longer take care of him ; his mother had apparently talked to her son about his placement in the institution in advance , and after some hesitation , the applicant had agreed to be transferred there . It was noted , however , that he did not want to go to the institution , but having talked with his guardian about rehabilitation and medical care , he eventually agreed .","In a letter of the same date received by ORG on DATE , ORG informed the court about the applicant \u2019s placement in the social care home . They maintained that the placement had been necessary because he had been spending most of his money on alcohol , he had spent most of his time sitting on a bench in front of his house verbally harassing passers - by , he had been unable to dress appropriately and sometimes he had been too drunk to receive his lunch , which had been brought to his door DATE . Moreover , he had been making an excessive number of visits to doctors , requesting various examinations of his brain , thumb , knee , eyes and so on . He had also been sending confusing allegations to various institutions , such as courts , ministries and animal rights organisations .","The applicant disagreed with his placement and contacted a number of authorities , including his public guardian . On DATE he also called an emergency line and contacted the police , who dismissed his complaint , not finding any unlawfulness .","On an unspecified date ORG telephoned ORG for more information about the applicant \u2019s placement in the social care home . ORG answered by letter on DATE , repeating the reasons set out in its submission of CARDINAL DATE and informing ORG that the applicant had been placed there for an indefinite period as he was no longer able to live on his own .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant informed ORG that he was being held in the social care home against his will and demanded his release . In his application to the court of CARDINAL DATE he complained against his public guardian and asked that she be replaced by another person living near his domicile . ORG did not react to any of his requests .","On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the director of the social care home and to his public guardian alleging that he had been placed in the social care home involuntarily . The applicant \u2019s guardian did not react to the letter . The director replied that given that the public guardian and the doctor had consented to his placement in the social care home , he had to remain there .","On DATE , after having been contacted by the applicant , a lawyer from ORG ( ORG advokacie du\u0161evn\u011b posti\u017een\u00fdch ) ( hereinafter \u201c the LOC \u201d ) in GPE visited him in the social care home . The applicant signed a power of attorney authorising the lawyer to act on his behalf . On DATE the lawyer sent a request for the applicant \u2019s immediate release to the director of the social care home and to the public guardian . The director replied on DATE that the applicant \u2019s placement was legal as he had been deprived of legal capacity and his guardian had given consent to it . On DATE the applicant received a similar answer from his public guardian , who considered the power of attorney signed by the applicant as invalid , given that he had been deprived of his legal capacity .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested PERSON District Court ( okresn\u00ed soud ) to issue a decision on the lawfulness of his client \u2019s involuntary hospitalisation under LAW . As the court did not react , on DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a request with ORG ( krajsk\u00fd soud ) to set a time - limit for a procedural measure under section CARDINALa of ORG ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","From DATE the applicant was hospitalised at the GPE hospital in PERSON for planned orthopedic surgery .","NORP The public guardian \u2019s records of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , indicated the following :","\u201c I talked on the phone with [ the senior nurse ] . She stated that she would try to transfer [ the applicant ] to a rehabilitation institution but afterwards they do not want to take him back . She informed me about it in order to give us the possibility to look intensively for another institution . \u201d","\u201c The director of the [ social care ] institution ... informed me on the phone that he had been in touch with the legal department about how to cancel the agreement and he had established that it was not possible . He is therefore sending me a letter informing me that [ the applicant ] is unhappy and that they want to discharge him . He stated that they were worried that [ the applicant ] might jeopardise the functioning of the whole institution because he lied and verbally attacked employees and constantly annoyed them by sending sms . In answer to the question what the position of the psychiatrist is ... , he said that she had not allowed [ the applicant ] to go for walks without assistance and she considered his state of health poor . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG ( GPE n\u00e1sledn\u00e9 p\u00e9\u010de \u2013 L\u00e9\u010debna dlouhodob\u011b nemocn\u00fdch ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a request with ORG through the GPE CARDINAL ORG arguing that the guardianship court , namely the GPE CARDINAL ORG , had been inactive in the matter of his client \u2019s detention and had not initiated guardianship proceedings ( opatrovnick\u00e9 \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed ) seeking to solve the conflict of interests between the applicant and his public guardian . He argued that the guardianship court should have informed the relevant court , namely GPE , about the applicant \u2019s involuntary hospitalisation so that proceedings on its lawfulness could have been instituted . Furthermore , the guardianship court itself should have instituted proceedings to supervise the applicant \u2019s public guardian under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE , the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal ( \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enost ) alleging that his rights to respect for his private life , to liberty , freedom from discrimination and a fair trial had been violated by the procedure pursued by ORG and the GPE CARDINAL ORG on account of his detention in the social care home . He argued that ORG had violated those rights by placing him in the social care home without his consent and ORG by remaining inactive in the face of the situation . He also requested ORG ( GPE soud ) to issue an interim order for his release from detention .","On DATE ORG decided not to undertake any action on the applicant \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE because the power of attorney submitted by his lawyer was invalid on account of the applicant \u2019s lack of legal capacity to sign it and because his public guardian had informed the court , on DATE , that she would not join the proceedings .","On DATE the public guardian terminated the agreement with the social care home . The applicant was not informed about this in advance . The applicant , who was at that time hospitalised in ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , was discharged from the hospital on DATE . The discharge report issued by the hospital also contained information about his mental state :","\u201c Current mental state :","...","Suspicion \u2013 but in his case legitimate \u2013 indicated paranoia in respect of his guardian and her behaviour , or family members ...","[ His ] mood reactively depressive , ...","ORG abilities [ are ] entirely without signs of degradation , humiliation let alone a sign of dementia ! ...","From the current mental state of the applicant , it does not appear that there is any need to continue limiting him in his fundamental human rights and limiting his capacity to act .","Conclusion :","Behaviour disorder when using alcohol \u2013 psychotic residual disorder and later on ethylic encephalopathy , dementia ...","The DATE old patient , who has a history of behavioural disorders when drinking alcohol , was admitted for rehabilitation after surgery to his right foot . ... As he repeatedly demands a review of his situation and refuses to stay in GPE , a psychiatric consultation was carried out . The problems were discussed with his guardian ... according to whose recommendation [ the applicant ] told workers in PERSON , upon [ their ] information , his discharge is planned with home care , and psychiatric supervision is ensured .","... \u201d","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE , holding that his lawyer had not been authorised to lodge such a request . The applicant \u2019s signature on the power of attorney was invalid as he had been deprived of legal capacity ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court added :","\u201c Even if there were not those reasons to reject the claim , it would not be possible to grant [ it ] . ... It is not possible to set a time - limit to carry out an act \u2013 the issuance of a decision on the commencement of the proceedings \u2013 if that act depends on the discretion of a court which is not obliged to decide on the commencement of proceedings but is doing so on the basis of a motion . ... \u201d","On DATE the ORG ( ORG ochr\u00e1nce pr\u00e1v ) issued a report in response to a letter from the applicant dated DATE . The report stated , inter alia :","\u201c The applicant was also prescribed psychiatric medication , both regular and in the event of \u2018 unease\u2019 ... It appears however that the medication \u2018 in the event of ORG has not yet been administered to the applicant . In answer to a question concerning medication in general , the applicant stated that before his admission to the institution , he had not taken any medication . In reply to a question as to what would happen if he refused to take the medication , he answered that he had asked this question to a male nurse , who had said that in that case the medication would be administered to him by injection . For this reason the applicant did not refuse the medication . Only on CARDINAL occasion did he express the wish not to take a certain medicine and the doctor of the institution prescribed him another drug , which he had not taken before either .","...","The public guardian ... made a mistake when she \u2018 ORG the applicant in the institution without having previously received the approval of the guardianship court .","...","If the court does not approve an act as legal , the act is void ab initio . In respect of some acts that have already been carried out , a subsequent \u2018 disapproval\u2019 by the court could not lead to an effective reparation , and it is evident that [ those acts ] require the approval of the court before [ their accomplishment ] ...","In my opinion , legal acts connected with the involuntary placement of an incapacitated person in a social care institution are of such character and thus require prior approval , provided that there is enough time .","...","Apart from the fact that the provisions of the civil law require that the legal act \u2013 the conclusion of the contract on provision of residential social services \u2013 be approved by the court , another requirement of generally binding rules , or more precisely the commitments of GPE under international law , can not be overlooked , LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Convention ...","...","[ In the applicant \u2019s case ] , in order to comply with the ORG , GPE ... guarantees ... the right to institute proceedings in which the court would speedily decide on the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty and order the [ applicant \u2019s ] release if the deprivation of liberty is unlawful .","...","Accordingly , in the case of admission of a person who is deprived of legal capacity to a medical institution , which he is not allowed to leave , the detention procedure should be initiated as provided for by LAW , despite the possible approval of the guardian . ... \u201d","On DATE ORG , in reaction to the findings of the ORG , requested ORG to approve the agreement signed by the public guardian on the provision of residential social services of DATE .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG approved ex post facto the agreement signed by the public guardian and the termination of the applicant \u2019s confinement in the social care home . The reasoning merely stated that the approval of those legal acts was in accordance with the law and in the interests of the applicant . The decision became final as the guardian ad litem , ORG , waived its right of appeal . The applicant was not summoned to appear before the court in those proceedings , which lasted TIME ; nor was he informed about them .","On DATE the applicant lodged a second constitutional appeal challenging the decisions of ORG of DATE and ORG of DATE , the procedural measures taken by the GPE CARDINAL ORG and ORG and , lastly , the practice of ORG . He developed , in the reasoning of the constitutional appeal , his complaints regarding the alleged interference with his rights to respect for his private life , home and correspondence during his stay in the social care home without , however , mentioning them in his final plea ( \u017ealobn\u00ed petit ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s first constitutional appeal . Regarding his request for an interim order , it held that as he was no longer being detained , it had no power to assess the alleged violations because they had already ceased . The same applied in respect of the procedural steps taken by ORG and by the GPE CARDINAL ORG , as ORG , in its judgment of DATE , had approved the agreement concluded with the social care home by the public guardian and the latter \u2019s termination of the agreement . ORG referred to a previous decision ( no . LAW . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) in which it had declared manifestly ill - founded a complaint that a court had not carried out a review of lawfulness under LAW CARDINALa of LAW when a legally incapacitated person had been detained with the consent of his guardian . ORG decision was notified to the applicant \u2019s lawyers on DATE .","In a report of DATE by PERSON , the psychiatrist treating the applicant , it is noted , inter alia , that since the applicant \u2019s discharge from the social care home he had not been attending for regular check - ups and had refused to take any medication with the exception of hypnotics . He had been visited by a nurse who had occasionally found him drunk . According to the psychiatrist , the applicant had behaved inappropriately , the neighbours had complained about him because he shouted at them and threatened them , at TIME he played loud music , he was meeting with the homeless , he soiled the common DATE he poured water on them and urinated there \u2013 and he drank alcohol . The psychiatrist concluded that the applicant was dangerous to others and was not able to lead an independent life .","On DATE ORG declared inadmissible also the applicant \u2019s second appeal . It held that the applicant had failed to challenge both decisions addressed in his constitutional appeal by lodging a plea of nullity under LAW ) of LAW . It added that as he was no longer detained , it was not appropriate to apply section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW by which it could waive the obligation to exhaust other effective remedies if the significance of the appeal extended substantially beyond the personal interests of the appellant .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG , having sumarised the legal situation , stated that :","\u201c On the basis of the aforementioned documents , the public guardian considers unsubstantiated your allegation that your rights were violated on CARDINAL and , therefore , the filing of an action for protection of your personal rights by a lawyer of your choice ... [ is found ] irrelevant . For this reason , the public guardian will not conclude a contract on your legal representation in order to introduce the action for protection of your personal rights with an attorney - in - law [ PERSON . ] .","[ Taking into account the judgment of DATE ] and provided that your agreement with the lawyer ... will not exceed CZK CARDINAL per month you can conclude it on your own . ... \u201d","DATE . On DATE , in reply to a letter from ORG , ORG informed him that the public guardian had talked to the applicant about his placement . She had also informed his family , staff of ORG psychiatric hospital and his psychiatrist .","The Government stated that the regime in the social care home allowed patients to leave the institution either accompanied by a staff member , family member or guardian , or alone on the approval of a psychiatrist . According to the institution \u2019s psychiatrist , the applicant never asked to leave the LOC as he had problems with his knee . Visits to patients were not limited .","The applicant \u2019s personal belongings were deposited in a lockable cupboard in his room . Since his arrival , he had had a mobile phone , which was repeatedly recharged . A coin - operated phone box was also accessible without any restrictions . Any post was sent to the applicant \u2019s guardian , who always forwarded it to the addressee according to the applicant \u2019s instructions . The applicant received pocket money on request .","The social care home provided accommodation , meals and health care , including care provided by specialist doctors , assistance with ordinary self - care , and assistance with personal hygiene or provision of conditions for personal hygiene . It also provided educational , training and stimulation activities , mediation of contact with the social environment , social and therapeutic activities and other services .","According to the applicant , the social care home provided residential social services primarily for patients with Alzheimer \u2019s disease and dementia . Most of the patients were elderly and severely physically and mentally disabled . It was a closed institution , which he could not leave . The only possibility for outdoor activities was in a small garden with a high fence . Patients shared rooms . The applicant could not send any correspondence independently , but had to do so through employees of the home who sent some letters to his public guardian instead of to the address indicated by him , based on an assessment of whether it was official or private correspondence . Some letters that the applicant received had been opened . Furthermore , his state of health was allegedly not assessed before admission to the social care home or on his arrival . Once there , he was prescribed medication . When he refused to take it , he was threatened that it would be administered by injection .","According to the ORG , the medication that had been prescribed to the applicant on his discharge from the GPE - Bohnice psychiatric hospital was modified by the institution \u2019s psychiatrist on the basis of repeated examinations . The applicant \u2019s medical check - ups performed by the psychiatrist took place on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . Moreover , his psychiatrist was informed about his health on CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE .","From the information provided by the applicant \u2019s psychiatrist , which was confirmed by the director of the institution , it appears that during his stay in the social care home , the applicant took the medication voluntarily .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim for damages against the ORG under LAW ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . He alleged that his rights had been violated by his public guardian on account of his unlawful detention . ORG rejected his claim .","On DATE the applicant lodged a similar claim , arguing that GPE and ORG had erred in not instituting proceedings to determine the lawfulness of his detention under LAW PERSON of LAW and that the GPE CARDINAL ORG and ORG had remained inactive despite his numerous submissions describing his detention .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s second claim , holding that under LAW , the ORG was liable only for damage caused either by a final unlawful decision , which had been later quashed , or by irregular official conduct . Regarding the latter , it held that the alleged shortcomings in the proceedings did not constitute irregular official conduct for which the ORG could be held responsible because the conduct had resulted in a decision . The former situation did not arise in the present case either , as there had been no final decision that was later quashed as illegal . Furthermore , the ORG did not find that the applicant had suffered any damage . It considered that his own behaviour had been at the origin of the facts , because of his excessive drinking . It added that in any case the applicant \u2019s lawyer had no right to submit those claims to ORG , as the applicant had been deprived of his legal capacity and a guardian had been appointed to act on his behalf .","On DATE , following the rejection of his claim for damages by ORG , the applicant brought an action against GPE seeking damages for the incorrect procedure followed by the courts . He argued in particular that the courts had refused to institute proceedings following his claims concerning his detention and that the court procedure on guardianship had been erroneous .","NORP In letters of DATE the GPE CARDINAL ORG informed the applicant \u2019s representatives that given that the applicant had been deprived of his legal capacity , he could not have granted them power of attorney . Accordingly , the court had decided not to accept them as the applicant \u2019s legal representatives . On DATE , the court appointed a guardian ad litem , ORG , to represent the applicant .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the GPE CARDINAL ORG that as the GPE CARDINAL ORG had approved the agreement with the social care home , they would not join the proceedings for damages .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings for damages on the grounds that , as the applicant was fully legally incapacitated , the power of attorney that he had given to his representatives was null and void , and that in a letter of CARDINAL DATE the guardian ad litem had informed the court that it would not join the proceedings . According to the applicant , he was unaware of the court \u2019s decision as his guardian ad litem failed to inform him . Consequently , the statutory period to file an appeal lapsed to no effect , and the decision became final ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168759","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MARYASOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicants were all parties to unrelated sets of civil proceedings .","Some applicants attended the hearings before the first - instance courts ; all of them were absent from the appeal hearings . Whenever the appeal courts addressed the issue of their absence , they did not check whether the applicants or their representatives received the summons , whether it was necessary to adjourn hearings or whether their presence was required due to the nature of the claims .","The dates of the final judgments are set out in Appendix I.",""],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155819","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SMR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF M.N. AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP In or before DATE criminal proceedings were instituted in GPE against named individuals ( not including the applicants ) who were charged , inter alia , of conspiracy , money laundering , abuse of a position of influence in financial trading , embezzlement , tax evasion and fraud . In particular it was suspected that Mr ORG organised , financed and managed , directly or indirectly a network of companies situated in various states ( GPE GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE ( ORG ) and GPE ) which were all traceable to CARDINAL source namely , ORG ( hereinafter \u201c NORP \u201d ) . According to the applicants , Mr ORG owned ORG \u2019s entire capital stock which was instrumental to the accomplishment of a series of investment and fiduciary operations ( operazioni fiduciarie ) the aim of which was to allow a number of NORP clients to launder money coming from illicit sources ( by impeding the identification of the real source of the money entrusted to it by means of a double system of fiduciary mandates ( mandati fiduciari ) ) . The group of co - accused were suspected of having , through such network , abusively supplied investment services contrary to the legal requirements as provided in the relevant NORP law ( ORG ) and of having abusively carried out financial activities without being in possession of the necessary economic and financial requisites and the relevant registration as required by NORP law ( ORG ) .","In the context of these proceedings , by means of a letter rogatory received by the GPE judicial authorities on CARDINAL DATE , ORG office ( of ORG ) asked the GPE authorities for assistance in obtaining documentation and carrying out searches in various banks , fiduciary institutes and trust companies ( banche , fiduciare e societa\u2019 trust ) in GPE , in accordance with LAW between GPE and GPE DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( hereinafter also referred to as the exequatur decision ) , the ordinary first - instance tribunal ( PERSON , hereinafter the PERSON ) , accepted the request in conjunction with the crimes of conspiracy , money laundering , aggravated fraud and embezzlement with the aim of fraud , considering that the relevant requirements for the execution of the request were fulfilled . In particular the PERSON considered that those crimes were also punishable under GPE law . It therefore ordered , inter alia , an investigation in respect of all banks , fiduciary institutes and trust companies in GPE . The purpose was to acquire information and banking documents ( inter alia , copies of statements showing transactions and movements , cheques , fiduciary dispositions ( disposizioni fiduciarie ) and emails ) related to a number of named current accounts in specified institutes as well as any other current account which could be traced back ( riferibile ) to ORG , held by all banks and fiduciary institutes in GPE , which were directly or indirectly involved with the company or physical persons mentioned in this decision . In reaching that decision the PERSON bore in mind the relevant articles of LAW between GPE and GPE of DATE , law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG , and GPE commitment to international organs such as ORG and ORG ( ORG ) as well as LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL which provides that banking secrecy can not be held against the criminal justice authorities and LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL according to which the act of acquiring copies of documentation amounts to seizure .","It gave further details as to the search and seizure operation , inter alia , that copies should be made of the documentation , that in the event that the investigation was successful the directors of the credit institute were to submit the relevant documents within DATE to the ORG for financial investigations , who in turn would immediately transfer it , indicating the names of those involved ( directly or indirectly ) , to enable notification . It further ordered that where data was held on electronic storage devices ( supporti informatici ) , the collection of data from these devices should be supervised by appointed experts ; and that clone copies were to be made of these storage devices , as well as back - up copies . Any means of information technology seized had to be sealed and kept in custody in appropriate places , and the removal of such seals had to be notified to the interested persons to enable them ( or their lawyers ) to be present . It ordered the judicial police to serve the decision upon the directors of all the banks and trust companies , to the legal representatives of the physical persons , to the directly interested persons , and to persons who were in possession , under whatever title , of the those places . It also warned that documentation obtained and forwarded could not to be used for purposes other than those linked to the criminal proceedings mentioned in the decree accepting the request made in the letter rogatory , unless the court decided otherwise following a further assessment .","By a note of DATE the PERSON ordered that NORP citizens who had entered into fiduciary agreements ( aperto posizioni fiduciarie ) with NORP ( CARDINAL in all ) should be notified of the decision . It was noted that any information referring to the said citizens and transmitted to the judicial authority of the requesting state could not be used for the purposes other than the prosecution of the criminal offences mentioned in the exequatur decision ( non potra essere utilizzata per fini diversi dal perseguimento degli illeciti penali di cui alle norme di legge indicate nel provvedimento di amissione della rogatoria ) , unless the court decided otherwise following a new assessment .","Following the investigation and implementation of the exequatur decision , in consequence of the last - mentioned order of the PERSON , the applicants were served with the relevant notification ( ORG on CARDINAL DATE , GPE on DATE and ORG and ORG DATE ) .","On an unspecified date the applicants lodged a complaint ( Article CARDINAL of law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) before the judge of criminal appeals ( Giudice delle PERSON ) against the PERSON \u2019s decision concerning the seizure of documents related to them on the basis that they were not persons charged with the criminal offences at issue . They alleged a violation of the principles contained in LOC on NORP and Fundamental Principles ( hereinafter \u201c the declaration \u201d ) . In particular they contended that the principle that crimes had to be punishable under the law of the requested state had not been respected , that there had been a violation of both NORP and GPE law , and they noted the absence of the fumus delicti and of any link between the crimes at issue and the position of the applicants . Moreover , given that many such complaints by persons in similar situations had already been declared inadmissible by the domestic courts for lack of standing - them not being the persons charged and therefore not the direct victims of the seizure - the applicants further complained that LAW ) of law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was not compatible with the principles laid down in the LAW , in so far as it had been interpreted as not protecting or recognising the right to lodge a complaint by anyone who was subject to coercive measures of seizure of documents ( related to their interests ) as a result of an exequatur decision .","By decisions of CARDINAL DATE in respect of GPE , C.R. and ORG , and of DATE in respect of ORG , the judge of criminal appeals declared the complaints inadmissible . The court noted that the applicants had been served with a notice of the exequatur order and had exhausted pleas available in law in that respect ( hanno esperito le impugnazioni previste dalla legge ) . It further noted that an exequatur decision may only be challenged by a person who is involved in the investigation being carried out by the requested authority , or by a third party who is not investigated but who has been subjected to the measure . A person , who , in consequence of the investigation , is involved in any way with the activity undertaken , may not be considered as an interested person since any breach of the rights or interests of such persons , resulting from the execution of the exequatur decision , must be raised in the ambit of the NORP jurisdictions . The court considered that as established by domestic case - law it was only after the finding of admissibility of the application that a judge had to set a time - limit for submissions . For the purposes of admissibility one had to verify , amongst other things , the juridical interest of the appellant . Moreover , any constitutional complaints could give rise to an assessment of such question by the competent court ( PERSON ) , following a referral , only if the original proceedings were properly instituted , and not where , because of a lack of juridical interest of the appellant , the application was inadmissible . In the present case the appellants were not interested parties in relation to the exequatur decision , but may only have an eventual interest in the effects of such execution , and thus they did not have juridical interest to challenge the said decision .","In relation to the complaint of incompatibility with the LAW , the court of criminal appeals only pronounced itself on the request made by ORG : on DATE it declared the complaint inadmissible as on that date no proceedings appeared to be pending .","The applicants appealed to the third instance criminal judge ( Terza Istanza Penale ) reiterating their complaints and invoking LAW . In particular they noted that the PERSON \u2019s exequatur decision had ordered the seizure of documents related to them , despite them not being linked to any of the activities mentioned in that decision or them having ever had relations with the NORP companies . Moreover , the seized documents were irrelevant for the purposes of ascertaining the existence of the crimes attributed to the accused , thus , the only purpose behind the seizure was to name the NORP who had had dealings with NORP irrespective of any involvement they had had with the facts object of the letter rogatory . They further challenged the appeal decisions in so far as they were issued in breach of the rights of the defence , in particular as they were not allowed to present submissions as provided for in law , neither in respect of the challenge nor in respect of the constitutional complaint . Furthermore , the decisions had lacked reasons and made no reference to the actual position of the applicants and a lack of reasoning in respect of the rejection of the constitutional complaint was particularly detrimental as it did not allow a proper examination of the matter by the third - instance judge .","By decisions of CARDINAL DATE filed in the registry on DATE and served on DATE in respect of PERSON and GPE , and of CARDINAL DATE filed in the registry on DATE and served on DATE in respect of ORG , the third - instance criminal judge confirmed the appeal decision in that the appellants lacked juridical interest . In consequence the appeal was inadmissible and in any event there appeared to be no violation of law tainting the impugned decision . The question of constitutional legitimacy of law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was also rejected on the same ground as that put forward by the appeal court .","In the meantime , the applicants ( except for ORG ) had lodged an objection requesting the revocation of the exequatur decision in their respect , on the basis that the documents related to them were of no relevance to the investigation .","By a decision of DATE , served on their lawyer on an unspecified date , the PERSON held that the objection was to be discontinued ( non luogo a procedere ) in view of the findings of the third - instance criminal judge . The PERSON noted that the authorities were not limited to carrying out the actions requested by the letters rogatory only in respect of persons formally charged , but could also extend such acts to third persons who were not so charged .","The applicants lodged a further objection requesting the PERSON to restrict the use of the seized documents . By decisions filed in the relevant registry on DATE the PERSON held that its exequatur decision of CARDINAL DATE had already applied such a limitation , indeed that decision had clearly stated that such documentation was not to be used for purposes other than those linked to the criminal proceedings mentioned in the letters rogatory , unless the court decided otherwise following a further assessment ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153018","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF POP AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE ORG started secretly monitoring the applicants\u2019 telephone conversations on the basis of an order issued by ORG attached to ORG ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) . The surveillance order issued by ORG was based on PERSON no . CARDINAL on national security ( \u201c the National Security Act \u201d ) . The applicants were suspected of being part of a network trafficking in GPE visas .","The first CARDINAL applicants were at the material time NORP army officers , while the last CARDINAL applicants were civilians .","On DATE the first CARDINAL applicants were questioned for the first time at ORG as part of the investigation initiated by the domestic authorities against a network of individuals trafficking in GPE visas . At the material time the CARDINAL applicants had not been charged with any offence and were not assisted by a lawyer . The first applicant had allegedly been pressurised by the prosecutor to sign a written statement . The second applicant was detained by ORG for TIME , allegedly without an arrest warrant in his name and without being informed about the reasons for his detention .","On DATE the second applicant was heard by ORG for the second time . No charges had been brought against him at the time . He was informed of his right to be assisted by a legal representative and agreed that one could be appointed for him .","On DATE the third applicant was questioned at ORG for the first time . At the time he had not been informed of the charges brought against him and he was not assisted by a lawyer .","On DATE the fourth applicant was questioned for the first time at ORG . At the time he had not been charged with any criminal offence and was not assisted by a legal representative . His written statement contained only confirmation that he had been using a company mobile phone and the phone number attached to the phone since DATE . On DATE the fourth applicant was summoned to appear at ORG on DATE .","By a Military Prosecutor \u2019s Order issued on the same date a criminal investigation was opened ( \u020bnceperea urm\u0103ririi penale ) against the first CARDINAL applicants for complicity in bribery and aiding an offender . ORG did not expressly state that a criminal investigation had been opened against the fourth applicant as well , although his name and the unlawful act he was suspected of was mentioned in the order .","On DATE , in the presence of the chosen legal representative of the first CARDINAL applicants and of the officially appointed legal representative of the third applicant , the previously mentioned CARDINAL applicants were charged by the domestic authorities with complicity in bribery and aiding an offender , and were heard in respect of the charges brought against them . They maintained and reiterated their previous statements and they were presented with the evidence available in the file . In addition , they stated that they did not request any other evidence .","On DATE , in the presence of an officially appointed legal representative , the fourth applicant was charged with complicity in bribery and was questioned in respect of the charges brought against him . He too reiterated his previous statement . He was presented with the evidence available in the file .","On DATE ORG indicted the CARDINAL applicants and sent their case to trial before ORG . ORG relied mainly on transcripts of the recordings of the applicants\u2019 telephone conversations , witness statements by some of the individuals the applicants had unlawfully helped to obtain visas , and the applicants\u2019 own statements .","On DATE and DATE CARDINAL newspaper articles were published in a national newspaper and on news websites reporting on the CARDINAL ORG indictment and the offences they were suspected of .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicants sought an adjournment of the proceedings in order to allow them to acquaint themselves with the contents of the secret file of the case to prepare their defence .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the CARDINAL applicants were heard by ORG . They all maintained their statements given before the domestic authorities over the course of the criminal investigation . The first - instance court also ordered the summoning of the individuals unlawfully helped by the applicants to obtain visas , although the applicants expressly stated that they did not insist on those people being heard .","At the hearing of DATE the first - instance court heard some of the witnesses summoned on DATE and ordered the resummoning of the witnesses who had not attended the hearing , although the applicants had once more expressly stated that they did not insist on the remaining witnesses being heard ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170054","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KHLAIFIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Prompt information);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);No violation of Article 13+P4-4 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general};Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Georgios A. Serghides;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Georges Ravarani;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . Mr ORG ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) lives in GPE ( GPE ) ; PERSON GPE and PERSON ( \u201c the second and third applicants \u201d ) live in LOC ) .","On DATE in the case of the first applicant , then DATE , DATE , in the case of the second and third applicants , the applicants left GPE with others on board rudimentary vessels heading for the NORP coast . After TIME at sea , their vessels were intercepted by the NORP coastguard , which escorted them to a port on the island of GPE . The applicants arrived on the island on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","The applicants were transferred to an Early Reception and Aid Centre ( Centro di Soccorso e Prima Accoglienza \u2013 \u201c ORG \u201d ) on the island of GPE at PERSON where , after giving them first aid , the authorities proceeded with their identification . According to the Government , on this occasion individual \u201c information sheets \u201d were filled in for each of the migrants concerned ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; this is disputed by the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","They were accommodated in a part of the centre reserved for adult NORP . According to the applicants , they were held in an overcrowded and dirty area and were obliged to sleep on the floor because of the shortage of available beds and the poor quality of the mattresses . They had to eat their meals outside , sitting on the ground . The centre was kept permanently under police surveillance , making any contact with the outside world impossible .","The applicants remained in the ORG until DATE , when a violent revolt broke out among the migrants . The premises were gutted by fire and the applicants were taken to a sports complex on GPE for the night . At dawn on QUANTITY DATE they managed , together with other migrants , to evade the police surveillance and walk to the village of GPE . From there , with CARDINAL other migrants , they started a demonstration through the streets of the island . After being stopped by the police , the applicants were taken first back to the reception centre and then to Lampedusa airport .","On TIME the applicants were flown to GPE . After disembarking they were transferred to ships that were moored in the harbour there . The first applicant was placed on the PERSON , with some CARDINAL other people , while the second and third applicants were put on board the ORG , with CARDINAL others .","The applicants described the conditions as follows . All the migrants on each vessel were confined to the restaurant areas , access to the cabins being prohibited . They slept on the floor and had to wait TIME to use the toilets . They could go outside onto the decks twice a day for TIME at a time . They were allegedly insulted and ill - treated by the police , who kept them under permanent surveillance , and they claimed not to have received any information from the authorities .","The applicants remained on the ships for DATE . On DATE the second and third applicants were taken to GPE airport pending their removal to GPE ; the first applicant followed suit on DATE .","Before boarding the planes , the migrants were received by the NORP Consul . In their submission , the Consul merely recorded their identities in accordance with the agreement between GPE and GPE of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","In their application the applicants asserted that at no time during their stay in GPE had they been issued with any document .","Annexed to their observations , the Government , however , produced CARDINAL refusal - of - entry orders dated CARDINAL and DATE that had been issued in respect of the applicants . Those orders , which were virtually identical and drafted in NORP with a translation into LANGUAGE , read as follows :","\u201c The Chief of Police ( questore ) for GPE","Having regard to the documents in the file , showing that","( CARDINAL ) on \u2018 CARDINAL [ CARDINAL ] DATE CARDINAL\u2019 members of the police force found in the province of \u2018 Agrigento\u2019 , near the border of : \u2018 island of Lampedusa\u2019 , PERSON [ surname and forename ] born ... on [ date ] ... \u2018 Tunisian\u2019 national ... not fully identified , \u2018 ORG ( sedicente ) ;","( CARDINAL ) the alien entered the territory of the country by evading the border controls ;","( CARDINAL ) the identification ( rintraccio ) of the alien took place on \/ immediately after his arrival on national territory , and precisely at : \u2018 island of Lampedusa\u2019 ;","WHEREAS none of the situations [ provided for in ] LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE is present ;","CONSIDERING that it is appropriate to proceed in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE ;"],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":["13","3","P4"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P4-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161945","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF LUKATS v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG no . PERSON ( ORG ) seeking compensation for assets owned by her ancestors and transferred to ORG . On DATE ORG issued a decision whereby the applicant was entitled to compensation of ROL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) .","DATE the applicant lodged several applications with ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and the President of GPE for payment of the compensation . On each occasion , the applicant was informed that her file was subject to ratification by the responsible authority for implementing PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG issued the ratification decision , confirming the applicant \u2019s entitlement to PERSON PERSON ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) . The decision mentioned that the payment would be made in CARDINAL DATE instalments , as provided for by the methodological rules for the implementation of the law , in force since DATE and amended on CARDINAL DATE .","To date , the applicant has not received the compensation or any indication as to when such compensation would be paid ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177124","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TURAL HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","A demonstration was planned to be held on DATE in GPE . Prior to the assembly , on DATE , the organisers , members of the opposition , gave notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","The ORG refused to authorise the demonstration at the place indicated by the organisers and proposed a different location on the outskirts of GPE \u2013 the grounds of a driving school situated in the CARDINALth habitable area of LOC .","The organisers nevertheless decided to hold the demonstration in the centre of GPE . According to the applicant , the demonstration was intended to be peaceful and was conducted in a peaceful manner . The participants were protesting against , inter alia , corruption and demanding the resignation of the President of the ORG .","The applicant attended the demonstration , but shortly after it had begun the police started to disperse those who had gathered . The applicant was arrested during the dispersal operation and was taken to CARDINAL different police stations consecutively .","According to the applicant , he was arrested at TIME His arrest and custody in the police stations were video recorded on a mobile phone by CARDINAL of the protesters , Mr A.H.","On DATE of the applicant \u2019s arrest , an administrative - offence report ( inzibati x\u0259ta haqq\u0131nda protokol ) was drawn up in respect of him by police officer E.G. The report stated that at around CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. , at FAC in GPE , the applicant had attempted to hold an unlawful demonstration and had disobeyed a lawful order of a police officer . He had been charged with administrative offences under LAW ( violation of the rules on holding public assemblies ) and LAW ( failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer ) of ORG ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) .","On DATE QUANTITY police officers , ORG , prepared a report ( raport ) for a superior , stating that at TIME during the demonstration they had arrested CARDINAL individuals . The report contained a list of the arrested protesters . According to the applicant , his name \u2013 the eleventh on the list DATE was added to the report later in different handwriting .","According to the official records , the administrative - offence report in the applicant \u2019s respect was prepared on the basis of the abovementioned report drawn up by police officers ORG","According to the applicant , he has never been served with a copy of the administrative - offence report or with other documents from his case file . He was also not given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while he was in police custody .","On DATE of his arrest the applicant was brought before a firstinstance court , ORG .","A ORG - funded lawyer was appointed to assist the applicant . None of the material submitted to the ORG contains any record showing that the ORG - funded lawyer , Mr ORG , made any oral or written submissions on behalf of the applicant .","No witnesses were questioned during the court hearing .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the court convicted the applicant under Article CARDINAL of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , arguing that his arrest and conviction were in violation of his right to freedom of assembly and that the hearing before the firstinstance court had not been fair . He argued that he had participated in the demonstration because he had had a constitutional right to do so , but that he had not disobeyed any order of a police officer .","The applicant also asked the appellate court to summon and examine witnesses on his behalf ( namely , PERSON , Mr DATE and PERSON ) who , according to the applicant , had witnessed his arrest and time in custody , and to examine the video recordings made by PERSON , which , according to the applicant , showed his arrest and custody in the police stations . He further asked the court to order a handwriting examination of the report prepared by police officers GPE and H.A. , in order to establish whether his name had been added to it by CARDINAL of those QUANTITY police officers . The applicant alleged that his name had been added to the mentioned report as the eleventh person in the list later and in different handwriting .","NORP The applicant was represented before ORG by a lawyer of his own choosing .","On DATE ORG partially granted the applicant \u2019s appeal and remitted the case to the first - instance court for reexamination . ORG found that the first - instance court had failed to examine the report prepared by police officers GPE and H.A. The court also held that the case - file contained only a photocopy and not the original of that report and , therefore , it had not been possible to order its expert examination . The court did not address the applicant \u2019s abovementioned requests to summon and examine the witnesses on his behalf and to examine the video recordings .","On DATE ORG re - examined the case .","According to the applicant , he was not given an opportunity to appoint a lawyer of his own choosing .","A ORG - funded lawyer was appointed to assist him .","The only witnesses questioned during the court hearing were police officers GPE and ORG The former testified that the applicant had been detained for having participated in an unlawful assembly , making noise and disobeying the lawful orders of the police . The latter testified that he had prepared the administrative - offence report .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the court convicted the applicant under Article CARDINAL of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed . He argued before ORG that his arrest and conviction had been in violation of his right to freedom of assembly . He also complained that his arrest had been unlawful , and that the rehearing before the first - instance court had not been fair .","The applicant again requested that witnesses on his behalf ( namely , PERSON , Mr DATE , PERSON and PERSON ) be summoned and heard . In addition , he challenged the reliability of the official records related to his arrest and police custody . He pointed out in particular the discrepancy between the time of arrest indicated in the administrative - offence report and the report prepared by police officers PERSON and H.A. The applicant repeated his allegation that his name had been added as the eleventh person on the list in the mentioned report later . The applicant asked the appellate court to hear CARDINAL individuals listed along with him in the report prepared by police officers GPE and H.A. He further asked the court to examine certain photographs and the video recordings made during his arrest and time in police custody .","The applicant was not represented before ORG by a lawyer .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","The appellate court did not address the applicant \u2019s above - mentioned requests to summon and hear the witnesses and to examine the photographs and video recordings .","On DATE Mr I. GPE , who represented the applicant before the ORG , was arrested on charges of large - scale tax evasion , abuse of power and illegal entrepreneurship . On DATE he was detained pending trial . The circumstances relating to Mr PERSON \u2019s arrest and detention are the subject of a separate application brought by him before the ORG ( application no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the prosecuting authorities conducted a search of Mr PERSON \u2019s home and office . During the search the domestic authorities seized a large number of documents , including all the case files relating to the pending applications before the ORG , which were in PERSON PERSON \u2019s possession as a representative . The file relating to the present case , which , it appears , included copies of all the documents and correspondence between the ORG and the parties , was also seized in its entirety . No adequate inventory of the seized files relating to the ORG proceedings was made in the search and seizure records of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .","On an unspecified date Mr PERSON lodged a complaint with ORG , claiming that the search had been unlawful . He further complained about the seizure of the documents and files relating to the pending court proceedings before the ORG and the domestic courts .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON PERSON \u2019s claim . It held that the searches had been conducted in accordance with the relevant law . As to the seizure of the documents relating to the cases pending before the ORG and the domestic courts , it found that they could not be returned to the applicants at that stage of the proceedings . Following an appeal , on DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the investigating authorities returned a number of the case files concerning the applications lodged with the ORG , including the file relating to the present case , to Mr PERSON \u2019s lawyer . The investigator \u2019s relevant decision specified that \u201c since it has been established that among documents seized on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE there were files concerning applications by a number of individuals and organisations lodged with ORG , which have no relation to the substance of the criminal proceedings [ against Mr PERSON ] , [ those files ] have been delivered to [ Mr PERSON \u2019s lawyer ] Mr PERSON \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["11","34","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181843","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF RASHITOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . The applicant in application no . CARDINAL also raised another complaint under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142248","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"SMILJAN PERVAN v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She was represented before the ORG by Mr D. Smoli\u0107 - Ro\u010dak , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173378","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DUDNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177079","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SEVERE v. AUSTRIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","The applicant was in a relationship with ORG , a NORP and NORP national . Their sons ( twins ) , also of NORP and NORP nationality , were born on DATE . The family had been living together in ORG and the applicant and ORG had joint custody of the children under NORP law .","On DATE the applicant and ORG had a dispute , which resulted in ORG leaving their home with the CARDINAL children . She claimed that she would return DATE .","On DATE , instead of coming back home , PERSON went with the children to stay with her parents in LOC in the south of GPE . She informed the police of this fact .","On DATE C.B. notified the police in PERSON that she intended to move to GPE , where she had already taken her main residence .","On DATE , however , she notified the police in ORG that she was living with her parents and that her lawyer would inform the applicant of her whereabouts . Nonetheless , the same day PERSON , her mother and the children left GPE and travelled to GPE .","On DATE the family judge at the ORG tribunal de grande instance , after an oral hearing on DATE , issued an interim injunction at the applicant \u2019s request , ruling that he and ORG had joint custody , but that the children \u2019s main residence was with their father . The court also proceeded to determine ORG \u2019s contact rights . It noted that PERSON , being absent from the oral hearing , had been duly summoned to attend .","On DATE the ORG investigating judge issued an arrest warrant against PERSON and on DATE the ORG tribunal de grande instance issued a NORP Arrest Warrant ( EAW ) against her for unlawful removal of the children from GPE .","On DATE ORG upheld the interim injunction issued by the PERSON tribunal de grande instance on DATE on the above - mentioned points ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the competent public prosecutor decided not to institute a preliminary investigation against the applicant , who had been accused of sexual assault by ORG in a complaint lodged with the NORP authorities on DATE .","On DATE the GPE tribunal correctionnel convicted PERSON of child abduction and sentenced her to DATE imprisonment . In addition , she was ordered to pay the applicant MONEY ( ORG ) in damages . PERSON subsequently lodged an appeal against that decision , but withdrew it on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by PERSON against ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c FAC ) granted a request by PERSON for an interim injunction against the applicant , ordering him to refrain from contacting her for DATE . The court based its decision on statements given by ORG according to which the applicant had threatened to kill her and had tried to abduct CARDINAL of the children .","On DATE the mayor of GPE granted a request by PERSON for a ban on disclosing information ( Auskunftssperre ) under the relevant provision of LAW ( Meldegesetz ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against ORG with the NORP criminal authorities for suspected child abduction .","On DATE ORG dismissed a request by PERSON for an extension of the interim injunction granted against the applicant on DATE .","On DATE PERSON filed a new request with ORG for an interim injunction against the applicant , this time claiming that they were all at risk of physical harm and the children at risk of sexual abuse . The request was dismissed on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office ( ORG ) informed the applicant that the criminal investigation it had initiated against him for the aggravated sexual abuse of minors had been discontinued .","On DATE the public prosecutor \u2019s office informed the applicant that the criminal investigation against ORG in GPE for child abduction had been discontinued .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG for the children \u2019s return , pursuant to LAW DATE on ORG ( \u201c LAW ) .","On DATE ORG , after hearing the applicant and PERSON in person , ordered PERSON to return the children to the applicant . It found that ORG \u2019s allegations of sexual abuse of the children directed against the applicant could not be proven by her or her mother \u2019s statements , or reports obtained from ORG ) . It argued that she had raised that suspicion rather late in the proceedings , and that ORG reports mainly relied on her and her mother \u2019s allegations . Furthermore , ORG first report , dated DATE , did not contain any information about alleged sexual abuse , while the reasoning in the second report , dated DATE , why certain observations of the children \u2019s behaviour would allude to sexual abuse by their father , was considered to be unsubstantiated . ORG further held that the children \u2019s removal had been wrongful within the meaning of LAW and that PERSON had failed to establish that their return would expose them to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation pursuant to LAW ( b ) of LAW .","C.B. appealed against that decision .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) partly allowed ORG \u2019s appeal and amended the decision in so far as it ordered the children \u2019s immediate return to GPE ( and not to the applicant ) . Under point CARDINAL of the decision , it further declared that the decision would only become effective if the NORP authorities demonstrated that they would take adequate measures to protect the children \u2019s best interests in GPE after their return , in particular with regard to the suspicion of sexual abuse and in accordance with LAW ) of ORG . It held that neither tactical reasons for the mother \u2019s allegations of sexual abuse nor interference with the children \u2019s best interests after their return to their father \u2019s place could be excluded .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by PERSON against ORG decision . However , it partly allowed an appeal by the applicant and removed point CARDINAL from the impugned decision . Since it had not been established that he actually posed a threat to the children or that there were any other obstacles to their return , there was no reason to make the return order dependent on the safeguards which could be furnished by the NORP authorities under LAW ) of ORG ( \u201c safe harbour orders \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant filed a request with ORG for enforcement of the return order .","On DATE a court bailiff ( huissier de justice ) in GPE confirmed that ORG and the children had presented themselves to her . In submissions to ORG of DATE , ORG claimed to have fulfilled the conditions set out in the decisions of ORG and ORG by returning the children to GPE ( and not to the applicant ) .","On DATE the applicant informed ORG of his suspicion that ORG had meanwhile left GPE again and travelled back to GPE .","On DATE ORG ordered a bailiff ( PERSON ) to remove the children from PERSON and hand them over to ORG .","On DATE the competent judge , the bailiff and a representative of ORG looked for PERSON and the children at her and her mother \u2019s addresses in GPE . However , the enforcement attempt was unsuccessful as neither PERSON nor the children were present at the addresses known to the LOC representatives . However , they did see PERSON \u2019s mother and a friend of hers , who stated that PERSON was currently hiding in GPE with her children but would have to come back to GPE for work . Afterwards the applicant , who had been waiting nearby , was informed of the authorities\u2019 unsuccessful attempt to trace ORG and their children DATE . The incidents were reported in a letter to the president of ORG , including a statement that the court currently regarded the \u201c issue \u201d as \u201c terminated \u201d .","C.B. subsequently appealed against ORG enforcement order of DATE , and on DATE she filed a request for the court to refrain from enforcing the return order ( Antrag auf PERSON des R\u00fcckf\u00fchrungsverfahrens ) .","On DATE the applicant requested that ORG disclose ORG address , which had been kept secret from him .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request , holding that the ban on disclosure was no longer justified .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s request for nonenforcement of the return order .","On DATE ORG rejected PERSON \u2019s appeal against ORG enforcement order of DATE . It held that she was no longer adversely affected by the impugned decision as the enforcement date had already passed before she had filed the appeal . However , as an obiter dictum it pointed out that , according to recent reports from ORG , the children \u2019s accounts of alleged ill treatment by their father had become more precise in the meantime , which constituted a substantial change in the circumstances on which the return order had been based . Contrary to the outcome of the main proceedings under ORG and LAW , ORG therefore considered the obligation under LAW ) of ORG to be applicable in that ORG would have to ask the NORP authorities to use safeguards to ensure that the return of the children was in their best interests , such as not to return them to the applicant in person while the suspicion of abuse against him remained .","On DATE the applicant filed a new request for enforcement of the return order , stating that in another set of proceedings before a court in PERSON representative had informed the court that her current address was her mother \u2019s in GPE , where for the purposes of enforcement of the return order PERSON and the children had been searched for by the competent authorities on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE PERSON filed a new request for ORG to refrain from enforcing the return order , which was dismissed on DATE . She also submitted a psychiatric opinion , dated DATE and commissioned by ORG . The expert stated that the children seemed to be traumatised and suffering from post - traumatic stress disorder , possibly due to assaults by their father which could not be specified any further ; thus , even assuming that ORG had also attempted to alienate her children from the applicant , their return to their father would in any event trigger fear and panic reactions contrary to their best interests .","On DATE ORG dismissed appeals by ORG against the decisions of DATE and DATE concerning her requests for non - enforcement of the return order . It further rejected an appeal by her against the ORG decision of DATE , ordering the disclosure of her address to the applicant . However , it held again that it would be ORG task to obtain safeguards from the NORP authorities to avoid the children being exposed to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm .","On DATE ORG rejected an extraordinary appeal on points of law by PERSON against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . It upheld ORG reasoning in so far as PERSON was no longer adversely affected by the impugned decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but held that it was for the court of first instance to examine whether the circumstances had changed in the meantime in such a way that the enforcement of the return order would now entail a grave risk for the children .","On DATE ORG rejected an extraordinary appeal on points of law by PERSON against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . It noted that ORG had already contacted ORG by letter in accordance with LAW ) of ORG , and that the enforcement of a return order under LAW could only be stopped if it was established that there were no adequate safeguards to protect the children \u2019s best interests upon their return to GPE . It therefore called upon ORG to examine the adequacy of the safeguards offered by the NORP authorities .","On DATE ORG held an oral hearing to examine how best to approach the question whether the children would face a grave risk of harm upon their return to GPE . The competent judge also requested that ORG inform her of all the proceedings then pending in GPE .","On DATE the judge appointed an expert psychologist , PERSON , and ordered her to submit a report on whether the children \u2019s return to GPE ( either to their father or to a child protection institution ) could harm their psychological development . The judge pointed out , inter alia , that due to the arrest warrants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) PERSON was likely to be arrested as soon as she returned the children to GPE herself , and that the expert \u2019s observation of the father \u2019s and the children \u2019s interactions with each other would be of significant importance with a view to the accusations of ill - treatment directed against him . All the parties were ordered to cooperate with the expert .","On DATE PERSON \u2019s counsel submitted to the court the requested information concerning the pending proceedings in GPE ( custody proceedings , criminal proceedings against PERSON for child abduction , and criminal proceedings against the applicant for sexual abuse ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL \u2013 CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE PERSON informed the court that the children would not be able to attend the scheduled examination by the appointed expert due to illness ; she also submitted a medical certificate describing the children \u2019s illness .","DATE . On DATE PERSON challenged the judge and S. for bias . The president of ORG dismissed the challenge for bias against the judge on DATE . PERSON subsequently appealed against that decision and submitted new challenges for bias against the competent judge of ORG again as well as the panel of judges of ORG which had given the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG , ORG and ORG each subsequently ruled on these challenges for bias and on ORG \u2019s respective appeals . Her allegations were dismissed with final effect on DATE by ORG , which , inter alia , considered ORG \u2019s allegations to be unfounded and that she had lodged several challenges for bias for tactical reasons .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s challenge against the expert S.","On DATE ORG removed PERSON from the case and appointed another expert psychologist , NORP who , unlike PERSON , was a specialist in traumatology . It referred to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , in which the ORG found a violation of LAW because the domestic courts in that case had not adequately taken into consideration the risk of psychological trauma that would inevitably stem from a sudden and irreversible cutting of the close ties between mother and child .","On DATE R. submitted her expert opinion to ORG ; CARDINAL further psychological opinions were privately commissioned by ORG and submitted by her counsel to the court at the same stage of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request of DATE for enforcement of the return order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Referring to the CARDINAL expert opinions mentioned above ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in particular the one obtained from NORP , it held that the children had been severely traumatised by all the events which had occurred in their family since DATE , that they were suffering from severe post - traumatic stress disorder , and that a separation from their mother and their return to GPE would very likely trigger an existential crisis and gravely harm their emotional and cognitive development . The court did not deny that the mother \u2019s adverse influence on the children regarding their father had also contributed to their negative attitude towards him . However , it also stated that the allegations of sexual abuse against him could neither be proven nor excluded . Regarding the statement on the applicant \u2019s mental health in the psychiatric opinion forwarded by ORG ( see paragraph DATE below ) , ORG considered that the report had not been drawn up in accordance with the NORP standards for examining a person \u2019s educational skills as it had only been based on the applicant \u2019s interview with the expert and no psychological tests had been carried out . In contrast , the CARDINAL expert opinions ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were not only based on ORG \u2019s allegations , but also on psychological tests of the children and their mother . However , in her examination of the case NORP did not hold a meeting between the children and the applicant as such an interaction would have very likely resulted in the children being further traumatised .","In its reasoning , ORG further reiterated that a court could only refuse to return a child for the reasons set out under LAW ( b ) of LAW if it was not established that adequate measures to protect the child \u2019s best interests after his or her return would be taken . In DATE it had therefore requested that the NORP authorities provide the appropriate safeguards . According to ORG answers by letters of CARDINAL May and DATE , all conditions would be met to ensure that the children were returned without any risk ; they also stated that the children would not be immediately entrusted to the applicant upon their return . ORG concluded therefore that the children would temporarily be put into foster care , which was contrary to their best interests . It also pointed out that on DATE it had held a hearing to discuss possible scenarios concerning the children \u2019s return to GPE and to consider alternative ways of reestablishing contact between the applicant and the children . Since the applicant had failed to attend the hearing without providing any excuse , the court assumed that the purpose of the proceedings seemed to be more for him to argue out his conflict with PERSON than for the children \u2019s return to GPE . It further held that a balancing of the competing interests of those involved had to be carried out in such a case , and that the children \u2019s interests were of paramount importance . Referring to the case of Neulinger and GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . ORG , ORG DATE ) , the court stated that the possibility of the children being further traumatised , the serious difficulties that they would be likely to encounter under new living conditions in GPE and the lack of adequate safeguards were reasons why the return order could not be enforced . Instead , psychologically assisted contact between the applicant and the children should be slowly re - established in GPE .","The applicant appealed against the decision and challenged the judge for bias .","On DATE ORG dismissed the challenge for bias . The decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL and DATE above ) , upholding its reasoning and adding that , due to the arrest warrant against ORG , the children would likely be put into foster care without their mother .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE and ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case . It observed that under LAW the court dealing with an application for return should act expeditiously when deciding it and , subsequently , when providing for the enforcement of an already issued return order . It would be contrary to that obligation if the court delayed or possibly impeded the return of a child by not ruling or by belatedly deciding the parties\u2019 requests . In that context , it noted that in the present case , after ORG had delivered its decision on CARDINAL DATE , DATE had already elapsed before the case eventually came before it . The delay in the return proceedings caused by the abducting parent \u2019s behaviour was not a fact which by itself exempted the authorities from their obligation to swiftly and adequately implement their duties under international law .","NORP However , ORG conceded that , given that the children had meanwhile adapted well to living in GPE and their mental health had become stable , their well - being would be gravely put at risk if the return order was enforced without any safeguards . Nonetheless , it noted that this development was mainly due to the fact that almost four years had elapsed since the return order had become final in DATE . Therefore , the return order was still enforceable as long as it was not established that no adequate measures would be taken to protect the children \u2019s best interests upon their return to GPE . ORG therefore ordered ORG to clarify whether the arrest warrant issued against ORG in GPE could be lifted , to assess whether ORG mother in place of ORG would be willing to accompany the children to GPE and care for them in a child protection institution , and to obtain the NORP authorities\u2019 assurance that the children could live in a child protection institution as close to the applicant as possible . It further held that it was for the applicant to apply to the competent authorities in GPE for temporary care for his children in a child protection institution , and that it was not for the NORP courts to establish contact between him and the children under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG since the establishment of contact for the purposes of the enforcement of a return order fell within the competence of the authorities of the ORG from which the children had been abducted .","On DATE ORG asked the NORP authorities for information as requested by ORG in its decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , after another oral hearing on CARDINAL DATE and a telephone conversation with the public prosecutor at ORG on DATE , ORG again dismissed the applicant \u2019s request of DATE for enforcement of the return order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It held that PERSON \u2019s mother was unwilling to stay temporarily with the children in GPE after their return and that , in any event , PERSON had to start serving her prison sentence once she entered GPE . It further noted that the NORP authorities had formulated different ways of avoiding the children \u2019s separation from their mother , but could not give any guarantees in advance ; instead , they had pointed out that PERSON first had to return the children to GPE before any concrete measures could be taken . ORG therefore concluded that the NORP authorities had failed to devise an exact plan which , in particular , would avoid the children being immediately separated from their mother . Given that the children would probably be placed in a child protection institution in a ( for them ) foreign country and without any familiar caregivers around , there would be a severe risk of harm for them within the meaning of LAW ( b ) of LAW if they were returned to GPE .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against ORG decision of DATE . It conceded that ORG \u2019s behaviour concerning the removal of the children from GPE in itself , but also with regard to her delaying tactics in the present proceedings , was unacceptable . However , it was now for the NORP courts only to decide whether the requirements of LAW ) of ORG were fulfilled , namely whether the children could be returned to GPE without being separated from their mother . In this regard , it held that ORG had correctly concluded that the requirements of LAW ( CARDINAL ) were not fulfilled , since the NORP authorities had not provided sufficient guarantees to ensure that the children would not suffer severe harm upon their return . It had not been established that the children could stay with ORG while she was serving her prison sentence , and since their grandmother was unwilling to accompany them to GPE , they would be left without any caregivers familiar to them .","Regarding the applicant \u2019s allegations that ORG had failed to contact the relevant NORP authorities and to ask the right questions , ORG held that the NORP authorities had merely referred to general alternatives without offering any precise answers to the NORP courts\u2019 concerns . The court considered that ORG had already made sufficient attempts to obtain concrete guarantees from the NORP authorities as it was mainly their responsibility to take adequate measures . In particular , the NORP authorities should have given an undertaking that the decision of DATE provisionally determining the children \u2019s main residence with their father would be revoked and that , despite the prison sentence , PERSON would be granted safe conduct in order to be able to participate in the custody proceedings in GPE . ORG also considered that the applicant \u2019s conduct was not in the children \u2019s best interests either , since the enforcement of the decision of DATE and ORG \u2019s criminal conviction appeared to be more important to him than their well - being , and he did not even realise the seriousness of the burden to which he would expose his children if they were forced to return to him after not having seen him for DATE . In sum , ORG concluded that because of a lack of adequate \u201c safe harbour orders \u201d the children \u2019s return to GPE entailed a grave risk for them ; furthermore , since they had meanwhile adapted well to living in GPE , their uprooting would very likely also lead to a severe endangerment of their well - being .","On DATE the applicant filed an extraordinary appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG rejected the extraordinary appeal on points of law . It confirmed that the children \u2019s separation from their mother in the event of their return to GPE could still not be excluded because of ORG \u2019s prison sentence , and that such separation would very likely severely traumatise and psychologically harm them within the meaning of LAW ( b ) of LAW . It reiterated that the return of the children could not be refused if it was established that the NORP authorities had made adequate arrangements to protect the children \u2019s best interests upon their return . However , if there remained doubts in this respect , the return would have to be refused . Since the measures as set out by the NORP authorities had to be considered insufficient to secure the protection of the children upon their return , the non - enforcement of the return order was justified . Nonetheless , ORG pointed out that the decision was primarily based on what seemed best for the children \u2019s well - being and did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that PERSON \u2019s conduct had been lawful . Lastly , it observed that the applicant still had the possibility of applying to the NORP courts for contact rights .","The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG stated that , to date , the applicant had not applied to the NORP courts for contact rights .","DATE . ORG ( bureau de l\u2019entraide civile et commerciale international ) at ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and its NORP counterpart at ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) remained in contact throughout all of the abovementioned proceedings . In their letters , the officials in charge of the case regularly discussed how to protect the children \u2019s best interests upon their return to the applicant . The ORG sent several requests to its counterpart for information on the progress of the case , in particular on the measures taken by the NORP authorities to locate PERSON and the children and the reasons why the return order had not been enforced . The ORG informed its NORP counterpart of the respective state of the proceedings , referred to the parties\u2019 requests and appeals as obstacles to the continuation of the enforcement of the return order and considered the actual address of ORG and the children to be unknown . Regarding the ORG \u2019s requests for safeguards to secure the protection of the children , the ORG pointed out at the beginning of the enforcement proceedings that there were no obstacles impeding the children \u2019s return to their father as the competent NORP judge had already determined that their main residence was at his home ; thus , ORG would not be notified of the children \u2019s return to GPE . However , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG confirmed in a letter to the ORG that if the children returned to GPE , a social worker would meet them at the airport in GPE and take them to their father .","In DATE and DATE the competent judge at ORG twice requested that the ORG help her establish contact with the judge competent in childcare matters ( juge des enfants \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the children \u2019s judge \u201d ) in GPE because she had doubts as to whether the immediate return of the children to their father would expose them to grave harm and therefore preferred temporary social care for them .","On DATE the ORG informed its NORP counterpart that it had been suggested to the public prosecutor in charge of childcare matters that the case be brought before the children \u2019s judge in accordance with LAW ) of ORG , and that the public prosecutor had indicated a wish to do so .","On DATE the children \u2019s judge at the GPE tribunal de grande instance appointed an expert psychiatrist and ordered him to deliver a report on whether the applicant was suffering from any form of mental illness ; on DATE he ordered the ORG ( Service territorial \u00e9ducatif de milieu ouvert et d\u2019insertion , a youth welfare service ) in GPE to examine the living conditions at the applicant \u2019s home and his educational and emotional skills .","On DATE the ORG submitted the psychiatric opinion obtained by the children \u2019s judge , which stated that the applicant did not suffer from any form of mental illness , could meet a child \u2019s needs and was very much devoted to his children .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG submitted the ORG \u2019s pre - report which confirmed that the living conditions provided by the applicant were appropriate to accommodate his children ; however , the ORG would only be able to assess the applicant \u2019s educational and emotional skills once the children were returned to him .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG confirmed , in reply to the NORP authorities\u2019 concerns about an immediate return of the children to the applicant and their proposal of temporary social care , that the children would not be entrusted to their father right after their return , and that the children \u2019s judge would monitor their best interests and , if need be , take measures of educational support .","On DATE the ORG submitted a judgment given by the children \u2019s judge of the GPE tribunal de grande instance on DATE , which stated that no measures of educational support for the applicant had to be taken at that time . According to the evidence taken so far ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the applicant was able to provide appropriate living conditions for his children and did not suffer from any form of mental illness or sexually deviant behaviour . His educational and emotional skills could only be assessed upon the children \u2019s effective return to GPE , and by the time of their return concrete measures could again be taken into consideration .","DATE . Following ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the ORG informed its NORP counterpart that it had forwarded ORG request of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to the public prosecutor at ORG , suggesting that the case again be brought before the children \u2019s judge at the GPE tribunal de grande instance .","In a letter of DATE the ORG submitted a report which the public prosecutor at ORG had made on DATE , in reply to ORG request of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the report , PERSON , due to the arrest warrant against her , was registered in the NORP register of persons being searched for by the criminal authorities ( fichier des personnes recherch\u00e9es \u2013 \u201c FPR \u201d ) ; thus , she could immediately be arrested once she entered GPE . However , in the event of her return to GPE together with her children , the public prosecutor would be prepared to withdraw her from the ORG on the grounds that the children \u2019s return would make it possible for the applicant to see his children , so that the objective of the arrest warrant would then also be achieved . Hence , ORG would not risk immediate arrest if she entered GPE . The public prosecutor however noted that in any event PERSON would have to start serving her prison sentence , and that suspending it from the outset would not be possible . She could however apply to serve the sentence under electronic surveillance immediately after being imprisoned if she proved that she had a residence in GPE . After serving CARDINAL of the sentence she could then apply for conditional release , which could even be granted earlier if she proved that her children were living with her . As to the civillaw issues of ORG request of DATE , the public prosecutor referred to the children \u2019s judge \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In their letter of DATE , the ORG complemented the public prosecutor \u2019s report by explaining that the children \u2019s judge could order that the children be placed either with their mother , another member of the family or a trusted third party , or eventually in an institution , possibly in the vicinity of the applicant \u2019s home . Such an order would overrule the decision of the ORG tribunal de grande instance family judge of DATE , which had determined that the children \u2019s main residence was with their father . As for PERSON \u2019s prison sentence , it was recommended that she or her counsel contact the competent public prosecutor in advance and already prepare the necessary applications , since it could not be excluded that she would be questioned by the judge in charge of the review of her punishment as early as on DATE of her detention .","On DATE the ORG submitted confirmation by the children \u2019s judge dated DATE that as soon as the effective return of the children was fixed by the NORP authorities he would be prepared to order temporary foster care for them and educational support for the father to reestablish the ties between them .","On DATE the ORG submitted another report from the public prosecutor at ORG which , in reply to another questionnaire of ORG , repeated the conditions under which ORG could apply for conditional release . It further stated that the children would not be allowed to stay at the detention centre while PERSON was serving her sentence . During that time they would be cared for by their father or by ORG . Instead of temporary foster care , the children \u2019s judge could order educational support in an \u201c open setting \u201d consisting of a team of social workers assisting the father with his children . If the exact return date was not communicated by the NORP authorities in advance and an interim measure had to be adopted quickly due to PERSON \u2019s detention , the public prosecutor would have to order temporary foster care for the children and would have DATE to bring the case before the children \u2019s judge , who would then have to take the necessary steps ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163354","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF INSTYTUT EKONOMICHNYKH REFORM, TOV v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant company , ORG ( a limited liability company ) , is the editorial body of the ORG newspaper ( FAC ) , registered in GPE . According to the applicant company , at the material time the newspaper was one of the top nationwide dailies in GPE by circulation and was closely associated with ORG , a political leader .","In DATE PERSON worked as a newspaper journalist in GPE . In DATE she headed the GPE bureau of ORG . In DATE she became a spokesperson for the then - Prime Minister , PERSON , a move which was widely perceived as constituting a significant change of sides in the political debate on Ms NORP \u2019s part . In DATE she was elected as a member of parliament on the list of ORG , led by PERSON . At the material time she frequently presented her party \u2019s and PERSON views on various television and radio programmes and debates .","On DATE the President of GPE issued a decree dissolving ORG . This decree led to an acute constitutional crisis , with the parliamentary majority , grouped around ORG , initially refusing to comply with the decree . Fresh parliamentary elections were originally scheduled for CARDINAL DATE but were postponed ; they eventually took place on DATE . Political parties led by Mr Yanukovych and Ms Tymoshenko won the largest numbers of votes .","On DATE ORG published an article entitled \u201c How I became a victim of demagogues \u201d ( \u041a\u0430\u043a \u044f \u0441\u0442\u0430\u043b \u0436\u0435\u0440\u0442\u0432\u043e\u0439 \u0434\u0435\u043c\u0430\u0433\u043e\u0433\u043e\u0432 ) written by PERSON ( \u201c the author \u201d ) .","The relevant extracts from the article read as follows :","\u201c On DATE TIME ORG almost lost CARDINAL of her fans ... I am embarrassed to admit that I almost went over to PERSON \u2019s side ...","And it \u2019s PERSON fault . She was talking live on ORG radio and she almost persuaded me . She said that they had CARDINAL supporters in GPE and that the party numbered CARDINAL members . I was dumbfounded !","And of course I was impressed by her eloquence . How beautifully she speaks , what a well - trained voice and proper intonation she has . She uses not only words but intonation , communicating non - verbally as well ... Of course , she is such a professional ...","I thought that after her speech CARDINAL would join ORG . I used to think that one could easily debate with PERSON . I put myself in PERSON position and it seemed that she must be feeling very uncomfortable .","I thoughtlessly believed that the question \u201c PERSON , what are you doing in this gang ? \u201d should make her blush and lower her gaze . She , a nationalist , should be ashamed to belong to this group of GPE haters ( \u0443\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0438\u043d\u043e\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0438\u0441\u0442\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0443\u044e \u043a\u043e\u043c\u043f\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044e ) .","PERSON dropped hints about not being a rich person , which means that money was evidently not the least motivation for her decision to work for PERSON . And although she does it for money , she does it with such devoted artistry that it made me want to cry out , contrary to PERSON : \u201c I believe you ! PERSON , I believe you ! \u201d","I did almost believe her .","As a journalist and someone who knows PERSON personally , and someone who has even learned from her ( I learned from her how not to write ) , I have constantly tried to put myself in her position .","I certainly understand , PERSON , that it \u2019s about the money ...","But it ca n\u2019t be that kind of money ! CARDINAL , really ? MONEY ? Or more ?","I think any NORP journalist would sell himself to PERSON for that much money DATE for MONEY . I do n\u2019t even know if I myself would be able to resist . What would I say to my wife , to my friends ? I would say : \u201c You do n\u2019t know PERSON . I know PERSON personally . I have talked with him a lot . He is a great guy ... \u201d","What if I were given MONEY a month ? And [ if I had an offer ] to become a member of parliament , as in PERSON case ? That is , for a flat in GPE ? I believe that all journalists dream of selling themselves for a flat in GPE , even those who already have CARDINAL . One does not have to do anything complicated for this . CARDINAL just has to say , with beautiful diction and intonation , that PERSON is a lost sheep that has finally found the right path and constantly thanks God for it ...","...","I could also say those things . For a flat in GPE . And many other simple country guys could say those things for a flat in GPE . The problem is , however , that PERSON would n\u2019t give just anyone a flat in GPE . We do n\u2019t have many stars , like PERSON , [ whose worth is ] that of a flat in GPE ( \u041c\u0430\u043b\u043e \u0443 \u043d\u0430\u0441 \u0442\u0430\u043a\u0438\u0445 \u0437\u0432\u0435\u0437\u0434 , \u043a\u0430\u043a PERSON , \u043a\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0440\u044b\u0435 \u0441\u0442\u043e\u044f\u0442 , \u043a\u0430\u043a \u043a\u0432\u0430\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0440\u0430 \u0432 \u041a\u0438\u0435\u0432\u0435 ) . By the way , for the cost of an MP \u2019s flat one could maintain the editorial staff of a DATE newspaper for DATE ( depending on what kind of flat it is ) . And each and every CARDINAL of them would write about what criminals and falsifiers the members of ORG are and what a wise , honest and principled man our PERSON is .","...","I listened to PERSON and I wish I were as lucky as she is . I wish I could sell myself like that ! That is of course the highest point in a journalist \u2019s career . Not even for a flat . At least MONEY , but all in one go . Alright , for CARDINAL . Even CARDINAL . Or for a DATE salary of MONEY . And I am wholly yours . Or DATE ... But CARDINAL .","...","All of this is a joke . Pardon me for ... the irony . This is irony , although somebody may consider it sarcasm . No , it is n\u2019t sarcasm .","According to [ the ] PERSON [ dictionary ] , \u201c demagoguery \u201d is \u201c influencing the feelings and instincts of those with low - level awareness on the basis of the deliberate distortion of facts \u201d . For a long time I suffered from not being able to argue with such demagogues as PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , and all the [ members of ORG ] and communists . It is not possible to argue logically with them . An intelligent man can hardly stay emotionally composed listening to them .","When I was on ORG \u2019s [ television programme ] , [ fellow guest ] ORG gave me a tip . It \u2019s irony . The thing is that demagoguery requires artistry . An intelligent man can feel the falsity but can not put his finger on it . At this point you need irony to make the demagogue \u2019s statements sound absurd ... \u201d","On DATE PERSON lodged a defamation claim with the GPE ORG against the applicant company and the article \u2019s author . She sought a retraction \u2013 in the form of the publication of a court judgment in her favour \u2013 of the allegedly false statements made in the article concerning her alleged acquisition of a flat , . She also sought compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The applicant company maintained that the statements in question had constituted a value judgment in respect of the legal provision entitling members of parliament to housing support .","On DATE ORG allowed the plaintiff \u2019s claims in part . It found that the following extracts constituted an untrue statement :","\u201c And [ if I had an offer ] to become a member of parliament , as in PERSON case ? That is , for a flat in GPE ? ...","The problem is , however , that Yanukovych would n\u2019t give anyone a flat in GPE . We do n\u2019t have many stars , like PERSON , [ whose worth is ] that of a flat in GPE . \u201d","NORP The court found that the plaintiff had not requested or received a flat in her capacity as a member of parliament ; she had bought her own flat in DATE , before she had been elected . The court considered that the above statements suggested that the plaintiff had become a member of parliament for the sole purpose of obtaining a flat in GPE . In the court \u2019s view this was not a value judgment because only concrete information as to whether Ms NORP had exercised her entitlement to housing support could serve as the basis for such statements . Rather , the statements in question constituted statements of fact which had not been verified or proved by either of the defendants , and were negative and insulting to the plaintiff .","Relying in particular on the provisions of LAW and of LAW and referring to the constitutional provision guaranteeing respect for private life ( see paragraphs DATE below ) , the court ordered the applicant company to retract this information by publishing the operative part of its judgment and to pay the plaintiff CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","The court also found that the following extract constituted a value judgment on the author \u2019s part and rejected the claim in this respect :","\u201c What if I were given MONEY a month ? ... I believe that all journalists dream of selling themselves for a flat in GPE , even those who already have CARDINAL ... I listened to PERSON and I wish I were as lucky as she is . I wish I could sell myself like that ! \u201d","The applicant company appealed , arguing , in particular , that the statement in question had been an expression of the author \u2019s opinion . In particular , he had wondered what could have induced PERSON , \u201c a former nationalist \u201d , to change her political sympathies . Being aware that the Member of ORG \u2019s Status Act provided for housing support , the author speculated that he might be willing to change his views in exchange for a flat in GPE . For the applicant company , the lack of coherence in the plaintiff \u2019s demand that a subjective opinion be retracted was illustrated by the fact that the plaintiff and the first - instance court had been unable to formulate a specific statement of retraction and had resorted to the requirement to publish the text of the judgment itself . For the applicant company , the plaintiff \u2019s failure to formulate a specific retraction illustrated the rationale behind section CARDINAL of LAW , under which value judgments were not subject to retraction . The applicant company argued that the requirement to retract the statement by publishing the text of the court judgment contradicted section CARDINAL of LAW . The applicant company also argued that the author had not had the requisite intent to disseminate untrue information . In support of its arguments it invoked the constitutional provision guaranteeing the freedom of expression .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , finding the applicant company \u2019s arguments unsubstantiated and ORG conclusions correct .","The applicant company appealed on points of law . In addition to reiterating the arguments it had raised on appeal , it referred to the ORG \u2019s judgments in ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) , and PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE ) , arguing that according to the ORG \u2019s case - law the limits of acceptable criticism were wider with regard to a politician than in relation to a private individual and that such criticism could include recourse to a degree of exaggeration , or even provocation .","On DATE ORG found no grounds to review the case on points of law , finding that there were no reasons to believe that the lower courts\u2019 decisions had breached any provisions of substantive or procedural law ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177341","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VOSKOBOYNIKOV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","At the time of the events the applicant was the director general of a joint venture ORG ( \u201c company CARDINAL \u201d ) , which had its office in the premises belonging to a joint stock company Y. ( \u201c company Y. \u201d ) .","In DATE the owner of company Y. changed . The new management questioned the legality of the use of its premises by company ORG specifically , they challenged the lease contract of CARDINAL DATE in respect of those LOC , which had been signed by the applicant , on the one side , and ORG , the chairman of the board of directors of company Y. at the time , on the other side . Under that contract , company ORG could use the office space in question from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE without any payment , but in exchange for certain services for company Y.","Starting from DATE , company Y. no longer allowed access to its premises to company ORG As a result , the applicant transformed his flat in a temporary office of company ORG","NORP In DATE company ORG brought commercial proceedings against company Y. seeking compliance with the lease contract . Company Y. , in turn , lodged a counter - claim seeking invalidation of that contract . By a final decision of ORG of DATE , the national courts rejected the claim of company ORG and discontinued the proceedings as regards company Y. \u2019s counter - claim . It was concluded that \u201c there [ was ] no subject matter of the dispute \u201d , given that the impugned contract failed to stipulate basic terms inherent in a lease contract and could not therefore be regarded as a lease contract .","On DATE a criminal case was opened in respect of suspected forgery of the lease contract of CARDINAL DATE , without being targeted against any particular persons .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) issued a warrant for seizure of CARDINAL documents relevant for the investigation , such as the original of the lease contract itself , related correspondence and several statements of acceptance of the services indicated in the contract ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The seizure was to be carried out in company ORG \u2019s office .","On DATE the seizure took place in the applicant \u2019s flat , in the presence of his wife . It appears that the applicant was not present . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL documents listed in the warrant were seized . The seizure report did not contain any information as to whether it had been handed to any person occupying the LOC . The applicant did not specify in the domestic proceedings , or in the present proceedings , how the seizure of the documents had taken place .","On DATE the seizure warrant of DATE was served on the applicant .","On DATE the investigator decided that a forensic expert examination of the signatures on the contract of CARDINAL DATE was required in order to establish their real date .","On DATE the Odesa ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered a search of the applicant \u2019s flat , which was also company ORG \u2019s office , with a view to collecting samples of his handwriting and signatures . As stated in the court \u2019s ruling , \u201c notebooks , correspondence and other personal records with [ the applicant \u2019s ] handwriting \u201d were required for the above - mentioned expert evaluation . That decision was not amenable to appeal .","On DATE the search took place in the applicant \u2019s flat in his presence and resulted in a seizure of CARDINAL documents . The applicant did not provide any description , be it in the domestic proceedings or in the present proceedings , as to how the search had been carried out .","On DATE the investigator ordered a seizure of company ORG \u2019s constituent documents from the company \u2019s office . It appears that the seizure was carried out on DATE in the applicant \u2019s flat .","On DATE the above seizure warrant was served on the applicant .","On DATE company ORG meeting decided to suspend the applicant from the exercise of his duties as its director general pending the ongoing criminal proceedings .","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the proceedings for the absence of unequivocal evidence of a criminal offence . Although a forensic expert examination had established that the signatures on the impugned contract had been antedated ( namely , it was established that they had been made no earlier than in DATE ) , the official approval of the technical methods used by the expert was previewed only for DATE .","On DATE the applicant resumed his duties in company ORG","On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against ORG claiming compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage allegedly caused by its unlawful actions . The applicant based his lawsuit on the fact that the criminal proceedings had been terminated , without raising any specific complaints about the search and seizures . He contended that the institution of the criminal proceedings had been arbitrary , which had led , inter alia , to the unlawful search of his flat and the seizure of documents .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim as unfounded . The case file does not contain a copy of that decision . It appears that the court \u2019s conclusion was that the applicant had not suffered any non - pecuniary damage .","NORP The applicant appealed . He argued , in particular , that the impugned measures had been devoid of any legitimate purpose given the impossibility at the time to carry out the forensic handwriting examination ordered by the investigator . He further submitted that , in ordering the seizure of documents , no differentiation had been made between the company \u2019s premises and his home . The applicant maintained that the first - instance court had left those matters without consideration .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . It held , in particular , that the company \u2019s office had de facto been located in the applicant \u2019s flat . As regards his complaint about the ORG","On DATE ORG upheld the lower courts\u2019 decisions ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160248","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"B.V. AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Georgieva;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON The President of ORG , to which the case was initially allocated , decided that the applicants\u2019 identities should not be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . They were represented by Ms ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The first applicant is the mother of the second and third applicants . The third applicant is the mother of the fourth applicant . They all live in the same household in a flat located on the first floor of a residential building in GPE","NORP Since DATE the applicants have had various conflicts with their neighbours , Mr GPE and ORG , who live in a flat on the ground floor of the same residential building . Occasionally , they have also had conflicts with their other QUANTITY neighbours , Mr D.P. and PERSON","It follows from a report of ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova PERSON ) available to the ORG , that in the period DATE there were in total CARDINAL police interventions concerning various conflicts between the applicants and their neighbours .","Some of these incidents resulted in the criminal proceedings examined further below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The majority of the incidents resulted only in the police issuing a verbal caution or in minor offences proceedings . This in particular relates to the police interventions in connection with the following events .","On DATE the police intervened because the first applicant was disturbed by GPE and GPE smoking on their balcony .","On DATE the intervention of the police was requested in relation to an altercation between the second applicant and FAC In particular , they exchanged a series of insults in the course of which ORG also made reference to the second applicant \u2019s NORP ethnic origin and threw a piece of wood in her direction , causing her a small abrasion on the right thigh . On DATE minor offences proceedings were instituted against both parties to the conflict for breach of public peace and order , but they were discontinued on DATE on the ground of prescription .","On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police because the second applicant had allegedly disposed of some dirt on her balcony , which resulted in a verbal altercation .","NORP On DATE the police intervened in connection with ORG \u2019s insults against PERSON ( the first applicant \u2019s late husband ) related to his NORP ethnic origin , and on DATE instituted minor offences proceedings against ORG for breach of public peace and order . On DATE the proceedings were discontinued on the ground of prescription .","On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police because water was pouring from the applicants\u2019 balcony into their flat .","On DATE the police intervened because the first applicant had allegedly disposed of some dirt on the balcony of GPE","On DATE the first applicant requested the intervention of the police after a verbal altercation with GPE relating to the manner in which she was dusting .","On DATE TIME reported to the police that the first applicant was threatening him . He did not insist on pursuing the matter but requested the police to warn her .","On DATE the first applicant had a dispute with PERSON concerning her flowers and therefore she requested the intervention of the police .","On DATE police intervention was requested in connection with the first applicant \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s mutual insults related to , inter alia , her NORP ethnic origin and his NORP ethnic origin . Minor offences proceedings were instituted on DATE against both participants to the altercation and on DATE they were discontinued on the ground of lack of evidence . This decision became final on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE both the first applicant and ORG requested the intervention of the police , alleging an attack by the other party . The police intervened at the scene but found their statements confusing to the extent that it was impossible to establish the exact course of the events .","On DATE the police intervened on the basis of ORG \u2019s complaint that ORG had insulted and attacked her . The police found that both participants in the alleged attack were providing confusing statements .","On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police concerning a glass that had fallen from the applicants\u2019 flat on to her balcony .","On DATE lodged a criminal complaint against the first applicant , claiming that she had insulted and threatened her . On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u Zap . ) rejected the criminal complaint as ill - founded .","On DATE PERSON informed the police that water was pouring from the applicants\u2019 flat and that the first applicant had spat on him .","On DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police , alleging that ORG had insulted her and attacked her while she was holding the fourth applicant . The police found that the third applicant had sustained an abrasion on her left forearm but no evidence that the attack had happened in the presence of the fourth applicant . On DATE the police instituted minor offences proceedings against ORG for breach of public peace and order and on DATE the proceedings were discontinued on the ground of prescription . The Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG was also informed of the incident and it requested a medical report concerning the alleged injuries sustained by the fourth applicant during the incident . On CARDINAL DATE a doctor who had examined the fourth applicant after the incident informed the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG that he had not found any injuries on the fourth applicant and that the third applicant had refused further medical examinations of the fourth applicant .","On DATE ORG informed the police of a conflict with the applicants .","On DATE the third applicant complained to the police about the problems of her family with GPE and GPE","On DATE ORG lodged a criminal complaint against ORG on charges of making threats . On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG rejected the criminal complaint on the ground that the alleged conduct did not constitute a criminal offence .","On DATE the police received an anonymous call that the fourth applicant had been molested within her family .","On DATE the police instituted minor offences proceedings against the first and third applicants , GPE , GPE and a certain LJ.B. for mutual insults . On DATE the proceedings were discontinued on formal grounds .","On DATE the third applicant reported to the police that ORG had threatened her .","On DATE ORG reported to the police that PERSON had threatened her . The complaint was forwarded to the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office , which rejected it on DATE on the ground of lack of evidence .","On DATE the first applicant called the police about an incident involving ORG","On DATE ORG complained to the police about an incident involving the applicants\u2019 family .","On DATE the second applicant complained to the police about the conduct of ORG and GPE","On DATE the police received CARDINAL anonymous calls DATE alleging that ORG had been drunk disturbing public peace and order , and the second alleging that there had been fighting in the applicants\u2019 flat . The police interventions did not confirm any of the allegations .","On DATE PERSON requested the intervention of the police , alleging that the second applicant had insulted him .","On DATE PERSON requested the intervention of the police , claiming that the third applicant had attacked his son .","On DATE the police received an anonymous call alleging domestic violence in the applicants\u2019 family .","On DATE the first applicant reported to the police that PERSON had damaged her flowers .","On DATE ORG complained to the police about the conduct of the applicants .","On DATE the third applicant called the police concerning the parking of GPE \u2019s car .","On DATE PERSON complained to the police about harassment by ORG","On DATE the second applicant reported to the police that PERSON , wife of their neighbour PERSON , had unlawfully installed surveillance cameras in the building . The police established that the complaints were unfounded .","On DATE the third applicant reported to the police that she had had a verbal altercation with ORG concerning the fourth applicant .","On DATE the second applicant reported to the police a verbal altercation with ORG","On DATE the first applicant called the police , maintaining that she had had verbal altercation with ORG","On DATE the police received an anonymous call that the applicants and ORG and GPE had been arguing but the police found no incident at the scene .","On DATE the second applicant reported to the police a verbal altercation with GPE","DATE . On DATE ORG requested police intervention , claiming that the first applicant had insulted her .","On DATE the police received an anonymous call about an incident involving the applicants but the intervention did not disclose any breach of the law .","On DATE the third applicant complained to the police about the conduct of ORG , alleging that she had attacked her .","On DATE first requested police intervention , claiming that she had been physically attacked , and then she lodged a criminal complaint against PERSON on charges of making threats . The Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office rejected the criminal complaint on CARDINAL DATE on the ground of lack of evidence .","On DATE the police received an anonymous call that there was fighting in the applicants\u2019 flat but an intervention at the scene did not confirm that .","On DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police , claiming that ORG had thrown some garbage in front of her flat .","On DATE ORG informed the police that there was fighting inside the applicants\u2019 flat but an intervention at the scene did not confirm that . Later on DATE she lodged a criminal complaint against the first and the third applicants and PERSON on charges of making threats and once again requested the intervention of the police , claiming that somebody from the applicants\u2019 flat had thrown a tomato on to her balcony . The criminal complaint lodged by ORG was rejected by the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG on DATE on the ground of lack of evidence .","On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police in relation to a verbal altercation with the first applicant .","On DATE PERSON requested the intervention of the police , claiming that he was being harassed by the second applicant .","On DATE B.P. reported to the police that the first applicant had threatened her . She also lodged a criminal complaint which was rejected by the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG on DATE on the ground that the event at issue did not constitute an offence prosecuted ex officio .","On DATE police intervention was requested in connection with a verbal altercation between the first applicant and FAC On DATE the police instituted minor offences proceedings against both of them on charges of breach of public peace and order . On DATE the competent ORG acquitted them on the ground of lack of evidence .","On DATE the police first received an anonymous call that there was fighting inside the applicants\u2019 flat and then ORG requested police intervention , claiming that the first applicant had spilled boiling water on her . Both police interventions could not confirm any unlawful conduct .","On DATE PERSON lodged a criminal complaint with the police against GPE , alleging that he had threatened him during their verbal altercation on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the third applicant and ORG requested the intervention of the police , accusing each other of making threats .","On DATE the first applicant insulted PERSON in the presence of the police officers . She was indicted in ORG and on DATE found guilty on charges of breach of public peace and order . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE ORG lodged a criminal complaint against the second applicant on charges of making threats in connection with their conflict of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG rejected the criminal complaint on the ground of lack of evidence .","On CARDINAL DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police , claiming that ORG had insulted her .","On DATE the first applicant requested the intervention of the police , claiming that she was disturbed by the music emanating from GPE \u2019s flat . The police intervened at the scene and established that there had been a verbal and physical conflict between the parties . Concerning the event the police lodged a criminal complaint against GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and on DATE they instituted minor offences proceedings against ORG and the first , second and third applicants on charges of breach of public peace and order . On CARDINAL DATE the competent ORG found them all guilty as charged . It appears that the proceedings are pending on appeal before ORG ( ORG prekr\u0161ajni sud PERSON ) .","On DATE the first applicant requested the intervention of the police , claiming that her neighbour PERSON usually closed the entrance doors of the building which disturbed her when she needed to walk her dog .","DATE . On DATE the third applicant called the police in connection with a verbal altercation with ORG but the police found no evidence to confirm any unlawful conduct .","On DATE B.P. reported to the police that the first applicant harassed her child but an intervention did not confirm any such allegations .","On DATE ORG lodged a criminal complaint against the second applicant on charges of making threats .","On DATE PERSON requested an intervention of the police , claiming that she had been insulted by the first applicant .","On DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police , complaining that somebody was knocking on her doors but the police intervention did not confirm any such allegations .","On DATE the third applicant reported to the police that ORG did not allow her to exit the building . The police intervention did not confirm any unlawful conduct .","On DATE PERSON requested the intervention of the police because the first applicant was allegedly falsely accusing her of stealing electricity .","On DATE the third applicant reported to the police a verbal altercation between ORG and the first applicant .","DATE . On DATE the police intervened on the basis of a complaint by ORG alleging that the third applicant had insulted her . Both parties made allusions to their NORP and NORP ethnic origins respectively . On DATE they lodged criminal complaints on charges of making threats .","On DATE the first applicant requested the intervention of the police , claiming that PERSON had been provoking her and behaving inappropriately .","On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police , alleging that the first applicant had insulted her making allusions to her ethnic origin .","On DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police in connection with an alleged noise emanating from GPE \u2019s flat but the police intervention did not confirm any such allegations .","On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police , claiming that the first applicant had insulted and threatened her husband .","On DATE PERSON requested the intervention of the police with regard to a dispute she had with the first applicant concerning the electricity bills .","On DATE the police received an anonymous call that a noise was emanating from the applicants\u2019 flat but the police intervention did not confirm that .","On DATE the second applicant requested the intervention of the police , referring to the problems with her neighbours .","On DATE PERSON requested the intervention of the police , claiming that she had been attacked by the third applicant , but the police intervention could not confirm any unlawful conduct .","On DATE ORG requested the intervention of the police , alleging that the first applicant had insulted her in the presence of her child .","On DATE the police informed the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office of the third applicant \u2019s criminal complaints against ORG of DATE and against GPE of DATE on charges of making threats and discriminatory references to her and PERSON \u2019s ethnic origin on DATE and DATE .","Based on the allegations contained in the criminal complaint , on DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG indicted ORG and GPE in the ORG ( PERSON . ) .","During the proceedings the Zap . ORG commissioned a psychiatric report concerning ORG","A report of DATE indicated that ORG had a personality disorder but that she was capable of understanding the meaning of her acts . It also recommended ORG \u2019s psychiatric treatment although not necessarily by ordering it as a safety measure in criminal proceedings .","On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG dropped the charges against ORG on the ground that they were based on conflicting evidence .","On DATE the Zap . ORG found GPE guilty on charges of making threats and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","M.P. appealed against this judgment to ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u ORG ) and on DATE the ORG quashed it and ordered a retrial on the ground that the judgment was based on conflicting evidence .","On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office , relying on the findings of ORG , dropped the charges against GPE on the ground that they were based on conflicting statements of the third applicant and GPE","On DATE the police informed the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office of the third applicant \u2019s criminal complaint against ORG of CARDINAL DATE on charges of making threats and discriminatory references to her ethnic origin .","On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG indicted ORG in the ORG .","On DATE the Zap . ORG found ORG guilty on charges of making threats and sentenced her to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police in connection with an altercation with GPE and GPE She also lodged a criminal complaint against GPE on charges of making threats .","The matter was reported to the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG and on DATE it indicted GPE in the Zap . ORG on charges of making threats .","On DATE the Zap . ORG issued a penal order against GPE However , he objected to the order and therefore a trial was opened .","Due to a reorganisation of the judicial work , the case file was transferred to ORG ( PERSON kazneni sud u ORG ) .","On DATE ORG found GPE guilty and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","This judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE .","NORP In connection with the incident of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office indicted PERSON and the first and third applicants in ORG on charges of making threats against ORG","On DATE the Zap . ORG issued a penal order against GPE and the first and third applicants . However , based on their objection the penal order was set aside and a trial was opened .","On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG dropped the charges against ORG and the first and third applicants on the ground that the charges were based on conflicting witness statements .","On DATE the second applicant instituted a private prosecution in the Zap . ORG against ORG on charges of causing bodily injury in connection with an incident of DATE during which the second applicant had sustained a contusion on the left thigh .","Meanwhile , the case file was transferred to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At a hearing on DATE the second applicant submitted an expert report of CARDINAL DATE concerning the fourth applicant indicating that she was under stress in relation to the conflicts of her family with their neighbours and that there was a possibility of her emotional harassment in that respect . However , the expert report did not confirm any acute or chronic signs of trauma or symptoms or indications of any psychiatric disorder .","At the same hearing , a forensic expert confirmed the second applicant \u2019s injury .","On DATE ORG found ORG guilty as charged and sentenced her to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE the third applicant requested the intervention of the police in connection with damage to the front doors of the applicants\u2019 flat caused by ORG On DATE the second applicant lodged a criminal complaint against ORG on charges of causing damage to her property . The complaint was forwarded to the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office .","On DATE the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG indicted ORG in the ORG on charges of causing damage to the second applicant \u2019s property .","The case file was transferred to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At a hearing on DATE the second applicant set out a civil claim for damages against ORG","During the proceedings , ORG commissioned an expert psychiatric report concerning ORG","An expert report of DATE found that ORG had developed an addiction to alcohol and that she needed treatment which could be ordered as a safety measure in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG found ORG guilty and sentenced her to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE . It also ordered ORG to undergo treatment for her alcohol addiction . The second applicant was instructed that she could claim damages in respect of her front doors in separate civil proceedings .","This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE , following a verbal altercation , GPE physically attacked the second applicant with a wooden stick , causing her injuries to the head and contusions on the left arm , chest and shoulder . On DATE the police intervened at the scene , arrested PERSON and took the necessary actions to investigate the matter .","NORP The case was reported to the Z. Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office and on DATE it indicted GPE in the Zap . ORG on charges of attempted grave bodily injury .","On DATE the Zap . ORG ordered GPE not to approach or otherwise contact the first , second and third applicants .","The case file was transferred to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","During the proceedings before ORG the second applicant set out her civil claim for damages against GPE","After several unsuccessful attempts to summon the defendant , a hearing was held on DATE at which ORG pleaded not guilty . Further hearings were held on CARDINAL May and DATE and a hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because ORG \u2019s lawyer withdrew from the case . ORG held further hearings on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","Following a hearing on DATE ORG found PERSON guilty and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment suspended for DATE . The second applicant was instructed that she could seek damages in separate civil proceedings .","On DATE , based on an appeal of ORG , ORG ( PERSON u PERSON ) quashed the first - instance judgment and ordered a retrial on the ground of conflicting reasoning of the judgment .","According to the applicants , in the resumed proceedings GPE was found guilty and sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . He appealed and the appeal proceedings are still pending .","On DATE ORG requested the Zap . ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb ORG . ) to facilitate a settlement of her disputes with the third applicant .","A meeting at the Zap . ORG was scheduled for DATE but the parties failed to appear .","The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c Everyone in GPE shall enjoy rights and freedoms regardless of their race , colour , sex , language , religion , political or other belief , national or social origin , property , birth , education , social status or other characteristics .","All shall be equal before the law . \u201d","Article CARDINAL","\u201c No one shall be subjected to any form of ill - treatment ... \u201d","\u201c Everyone has the right to respect for and legal protection of his or her private and family life , dignity , reputation and honour . \u201d","NORP The relevant provision of LAW ( PERSON , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , with further amendments ) provides :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences shall be instituted by ORG in the interest of GPE and its citizens .","( CARDINAL ) NORP In exceptional circumstances the law may provide for criminal proceedings in respect of certain criminal offences to be instituted on the basis of a private prosecution or for ORG to institute criminal proceedings following [ a private ] application . \u201d","NORP The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provided :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings shall only be instituted and conducted upon the order of a qualified prosecutor . ...","( CARDINAL ) In respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution the qualified prosecutor shall be the ORG Attorney and in respect of criminal offences that may be prosecuted privately the qualified prosecutor shall be a private prosecutor .","( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided by law , the ORG Attorney shall undertake a criminal prosecution where there is a reasonable suspicion that an identified person has committed a criminal offence subject to public prosecution and where there are no legal impediments to the prosecution of that person .","( CARDINAL ) Where the ORG Attorney finds that there are no grounds to institute or conduct criminal proceedings , the injured party may take his place as a subsidiary prosecutor under the conditions prescribed by this LAW . \u201d","\u201c Nobody can be tried twice for an offence for which he or she has been tried and in respect of which a final court decision has been adopted . \u201d","Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL regulated the rights and duties of private prosecutors and of injured parties acting as subsidiary prosecutors . A private prosecutor ( privatni tu\u017eitelj ) was an injured party who brought a private prosecution in respect of criminal offences for which such a prosecution was expressly allowed by LAW ( these were offences of a lesser degree ) . An injured party acting as a subsidiary prosecutor ( o\u0161te\u0107eni kao tu\u017eitelj ) was a person taking over criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution where the relevant prosecuting authorities , for whatever reason , had decided not to prosecute ( LAW . When acting as a subsidiary prosecutor , the victim had all rights in the proceedings which ORG would have had as public prosecuting authority , save for those vested in the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG as a state body .","Pursuant to LAW , the State Attorney \u2019s ORG was authorised , on a discretionary basis , to take over a prosecution from a subsidiary prosecutor at any point before the end of the trial .","Relevant provisions concerning the processing of criminal complaints provided :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The ORG Attorney shall reject a criminal complaint by a reasoned decision if the offence in question is not an offence subject to automatic prosecution , if the prosecution is time - barred or an amnesty or pardon has been granted , or other circumstances excluding criminal liability or prosecution exist , or there is no reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed the offence . The ORG Attorney shall inform the victim about his decision ... within DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) and if the criminal complaint was submitted by the police , he shall also inform the police .","... \u201d","The relevant provision of LAW ( Prekr\u0161ajni zakon , ORG no . DATE ) provides :","\u201c A minor offence is an act which breaches the public order , social discipline or other social values and is not listed as an offence under LAW or other regulation listing offences . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The competent prosecutor is :","...","ORG administrative body ,","...","victim . \u201d","The relevant part of ORG ( Zakon o prekr\u0161ajima protiv javnog reda i mira , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; hereinafter : the \u201c FAC \u201d ) reads :","\u201c Whoever in a public place fights , argues , yells or otherwise breaches public order and peace , shall be liable to a fine ... or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding DATE . \u201d","NORP The relevant parts of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and GPE ) , read as follows :","Section CARDINAL","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Every legal entity and every natural person has the right to respect for their personal integrity under the conditions prescribed by LAW .","( CARDINAL ) The right to respect for one \u2019s personal integrity within the meaning of this LAW includes the right to life , physical and mental health , good reputation and honour , the right to be respected , and the right to respect for one \u2019s name and the privacy of one \u2019s personal and family life , freedom et alia .","... \u201d","Section CARDINAL","\u201c Damage is ... infringement of the right to respect for one \u2019s personal dignity ( non - pecuniary damage ) . \u201d","\u201c Anyone may request a court or other competent authority to order the cessation of an activity which violates his or her rights of personality and the elimination of its consequences . \u201d","The relevant parts of LAW ( Zakon o suzbijanju diskriminacije , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provide :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) This Act ensures protection and promotion of equality as the highest value of the constitutional order of GPE ; creates conditions for equal opportunities and regulates protection against discrimination on the basis of race or ethnic origin or skin colour , gender , language , religion , political or other conviction , national or social origin , state of wealth , membership of a trade union , education , social status , marital or family status , age , health , invalidity , genetic inheritance , gender identity , expression or sexual orientation .","( CARDINAL ) Discrimination within the meaning of this LAW means putting any person in a disadvantageous position on any of the grounds under subsection CARDINAL of this section , as well as his or her close relatives .","... \u201d","\u201c This Act shall be applied in respect of all ORG bodies ... legal entities and natural persons ... \u201d","\u201c Anyone who considers that , owing to discrimination , any of his or her rights has been violated may seek protection of that right in proceedings in which the determination of that right is the main issue , and may also seek protection in separate proceedings under LAW of this LAW . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A person who claims that he or she has been a victim of discrimination in accordance with the provisions of this LAW may bring a claim and seek :","( CARDINAL ) a ruling that the defendant has violated the plaintiff \u2019s right to equal treatment or that an act or omission by the defendant may lead to the violation of the plaintiff \u2019s right to equal treatment ( claim for an acknowledgment of discrimination ) ;","( CARDINAL ) a ban on ( the defendant \u2019s ) undertaking acts which violate or may violate the plaintiff \u2019s right to equal treatment or an order for measures aimed at removing discrimination or its consequences to be taken ( claim for a ban or for removal of discrimination ) ;","( CARDINAL ) compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the violation of the rights protected by LAW ( claim for damages ) ;","( CARDINAL ) an order for a judgment finding a violation of the right to equal treatment to be published in the media at the defendant \u2019s expense . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147875","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF STAUDER AND GABL v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE ORG ( PERSON , \u201c the ORG \u201d ) instituted preliminary investigations ( FAC ) against the CARDINAL applicants and several other persons on account of the suspicion of aggravated fraud ( schwerer gewerbsm\u00e4ssiger FAC ) by having set up and managed an internationally operated gambling system which was based on a pyramid scheme .","On DATE ORG decided that the proceedings against the applicants were to be separated from those of the co - suspects to avoid delays .","On DATE ORG issued an international arrest warrant ( Steckbrief ) in respect of the first applicant . He was in detention on remand from DATE .","On DATE the first applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings under LAW of LAW ( Fristsetzungsantrag ) . ORG ( Oberlandesgericht , \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) dismissed the request on DATE , stating that it could only be directed against delays caused by the courts , not ORG .","On DATE ORG acquitted the first applicant of all charges . The decision was served on his counsel on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued an international arrest warrant in respect of the second applicant . He was in detention on remand from DATE until DATE .","On DATE the preliminary investigations against the second applicant were closed and the file was transferred to ORG , \u201c the Public Prosecutor \u201d ) for further processing . However , no indictment was brought against him .","On DATE the second applicant filed a request for the acceleration of the proceedings under LAW of LAW . ORG dismissed the request on DATE , stating that it could only be directed against delays caused by the courts , not ORG .","On DATE ORG brought an indictment against the second applicant . The second applicant lodged an appeal against the indictment and a motion requesting the discontinuation of the proceedings . On DATE ORG rejected the indictment , but did not discontinue the proceedings .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings against the second applicant ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163344","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF A.N. v. LITHUANIA","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations;Fair hearing;Adversarial trial);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","NORP In DATE he started military service in the armed forces of GPE . Medical records dated DATE drafted by a panel of doctors in his military unit in ORG , stipulated that at that time he had problems communicating with others and was autistic , though he had a normal memory and level of intelligence . He was diagnosed with sluggish schizophrenia , which he had developed during military service . On those grounds , he was released from military service .","Having returned from the army to GPE , by DATE he had been treated in psychiatric institutions CARDINAL times . In DATE he was diagnosed with residual and then paranoid schizophrenia .","NORP In DATE the applicant attempted suicide by setting himself on fire . He was admitted to the trauma unit of a hospital .","NORP In reply to a prosecutor \u2019s request for information , on DATE ORG ( GPE rajono psichikos sveikatos centras ) confirmed that the applicant had been attending there since DATE , and continued to be treated there for schizophrenia . In DATE episodes of the applicant \u2019s illness became more frequent . That year the applicant attempted to commit suicide ; he did not accept that he was ill . He was admitted to ORG ( PERSON psichiatrijos ligonin\u0117 ) , where he spent DATE before being released for outpatient care at his own request . Since DATE the applicant stopped attending PERSON Psychiatric Health Centre and taking his medication , because he firmly refused any consultations with the psychiatrists . He would also submit numerous complaints to various authorities .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother asked a prosecutor to initiate proceedings with a view to her son being declared legally incapacitated . According to her , his mental illness started when he was in the NORP army . She and her husband lived in a house separate from him in neighbouring GPE . By DATE the applicant \u2019s condition reached such a stage that he was afraid to leave his apartment or let his parents in , and he did not take care of himself . He even attempted to take his own life by setting himself on fire .","On DATE , the prosecutor sent the request by the applicant \u2019s mother to ORG , together with an extract from the applicant \u2019s medical records . It was noted that his schizophrenia had worsened and that he had become a danger to himself . He was thus in need of help from others . It was indispensable to ascertain whether there was a basis for declaring him legally incapable , if psychiatrists established that he could not understand or control his actions . The prosecutor relied on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE of the Code of Civil Procedure , and LAW .","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered an expert examination to ascertain ( i ) whether the applicant was suffering from mental illness , ( ii ) whether he could understand his actions and ( iii ) whether he could take part in court proceedings . His mother was to be informed of that decision .","Having examined the applicant in person and scrutinised his medical records , on DATE a psychiatrist concluded that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia . He was also very mistrusting and had strong feelings of persecution . Psychiatrists took into account the letters by his mother to ORG and the prosecutor to the effect that the applicant did not take care of his DATE needs , and had social and health issues and suicidal thoughts . The psychiatrist thus established that the applicant could not correctly understand or control his actions , and noted that he \u201c could not take part in court proceedings , could not be questioned , and court documents could not be served on him \u201d .","In a CARDINAL page form sent to ORG on DATE , GPE social services ticked a box to say that they \u201c agreed \u201d with the prosecutor \u2019s request for the applicant to be declared incapacitated . They also indicated that they would not take part in the court hearing , which was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE attempts were made by ORG to personally serve the applicant with the summons concerning the forthcoming hearing for his legal incapacitation and care . The copy of the summons indicated that it had not been served because , according to his next door neighbour , the applicant was mentally ill and opened the door to no one .","At a public hearing on DATE ORG , relying on Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , granted the prosecutor \u2019s request for the applicant to be declared incapacitated , on the grounds that he could not understand or control his actions . The prosecutor and the applicant \u2019s mother were in attendance . The applicant \u2019s mother testified about her son \u2019s history of mental illness . She also stated that he had recently been living away from his parents , but could not take care of himself , did not pay maintenance fees for his apartment , and would not go out or take his medication .","The ruling stipulated that it could be appealed against within DATE .","The Government submitted that , given the fact that it had not actually been possible to serve the summons on the applicant , the decision of CARDINAL DATE had only been sent to the interested parties in the case , that is to say the applicant \u2019s mother , the prosecutor and social services .","On DATE the applicant drafted what appears to be a response to the prosecutor \u2019s request of DATE to incapacitate him . Therein he mentions that he received a copy of the prosecutor \u2019s request on DATE . The letter appears essentially to be a complaint about his treatment in psychiatric hospitals and diagnosis with schizophrenia . He concludes by stating that because of obvious forgery of his medical examination results and clear bias on the part of the prosecutor , the applicant refused to undergo medical examination in GPE . A stamp on the letter indicates that it was received by ORG on DATE .","Having established that the applicant was legally incapacitated , by a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG appointed the applicant \u2019s mother as his guardian and the administrator of his property . The decision was taken at a public hearing in which she , a prosecutor and a representative from social services took part . The ruling stipulated that the applicant had not taken part because of ill - health .","The applicant was forcibly admitted to ORG on DATE , after showing signs of agitation and behaving aggressively towards his parents . The police and some firemen had to break down the door of his apartment to get to him . On DATE he consented to treatment until DATE , when he refused any further treatment in writing .","On DATE ORG asked ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) to provide legal aid to the applicant , who was to be forcibly hospitalised . It was granted DATE , and a lawyer was appointed to represent him .","DATE , in the presence of a psychiatrist and the appointed lawyer , ORG granted a request by the psychiatric hospital for the applicant to be forcibly hospitalised . The court noted that the applicant was absolutely uncritical of his own behaviour , and that his state of mind at that time meant that he posed a danger to himself and others . The ruling was final and not appealable . It indicated that on DATE the applicant had been declared legally incapacitated , and that on DATE his mother had been appointed as his guardian .","The Government submitted to the court an extract from the applicant \u2019s medical records , which indicated that he had been at ORG from DATE until DATE . The doctor indicated in that record that a copy of the court ruling of CARDINAL DATE had been given to the applicant . It is not clear when that was done .","The Government submitted that the court decision of CARDINAL DATE had been handed to the applicant by his treating doctor on DATE .","On DATE the applicant signed a document certifying that his treatment plan from ORG had been explained to him and that he agreed to follow it .","Having been released from the psychiatric hospital , on DATE the applicant approached ORG . In his application he wrote that by a ruling of DATE he had been declared legally incapacitated , and that he would need the time - limit for appealing against it to be renewed . He also indicated that in DATE his mother had been appointed his guardian and the administrator of his property . He noted that he had not known about the CARDINAL decisions until DATE , upon his admission to ORG . He also expressed a wish to appeal against them .","On DATE ORG refused the request as having no prospect of success . It noted that the applicant fell into the category of people entitled to legal aid ; however , given that the proceedings for his incapacitation had been terminated , his request for legal aid was clearly irrelevant .","ORG noted that the decisions the applicant wished to challenge had been taken in DATE . Given that he had not requested legal aid until DATE , he had missed the deadline for appeal against those decisions . Representing him in such proceedings would have had no prospect of success .","As to the appointment of the applicant \u2019s mother as his legal guardian , ORG indicated that he had given no grounds for doubting her ability to perform her duties as guardian and the administrator of his property . Lastly , it observed that guardianship could be revoked at the request of a prosecutor or social services . Given that the applicant himself could not apply to the court with such a request , there was no legal basis for providing him legal assistance .","On DATE the applicant requested that ORG give him a copy of the court rulings regarding his incapacitation and the appointment of his legal guardian .","On DATE a judge of ORG wrote to the applicant informing him that those court rulings would not be given to him , because his mother had been appointed as his legal guardian and the administrator of his property .","In their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case , sent to ORG , the Government noted that at that time the applicant had lived separately in his own apartment . He had been unemployed but had received disability pension . His guardian had helped him with DATE chores . He had also received regular outpatient treatment at FAC .","On DATE the applicant complained to the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office that in DATE he had been forcibly admitted to ORG and made to undergo medical treatment . The applicant asked that a pre - trial investigation be opened regarding his allegations .","By a final ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that the applicant \u2019s complaints about events in DATE were unfounded ."],"violated_articles":["6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142400","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF STEFANETTI AND OTHERS v. ITALY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Pecuniary damage - award;Just satisfaction partially reserved","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen","text":["Maggio and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","The applicants worked in GPE for the following periods of time , in total , over the relevant DATE :","Mr Stefanetti : DATE ;","Mr PERSON : DATE ;"],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155827","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF TOLMACHEV v. ESTONIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Narva .","On DATE the applicant , in misdemeanour proceedings , was fined MONEY ( ORG ) by a police officer of ORG of the Police and ORG for a breach of public order ( breaking a glass panel of a bus shelter ) .","The applicant contested this decision before ORG . He argued that he had not committed the act in question and challenged the assessment of witness statements . He complained about the failure of the police to present him to a witness for identification . Lastly , he complained that the police had not indicated in its decision the specific provisions of the local rules on public order which he had allegedly breached .","ORG sent summons to the applicant for a hearing scheduled for DATE at TIME It was noted in the summons that the applicant \u2019s participation in the hearing was mandatory . Furthermore , it was noted , with reference to LAW ( ORG seadustik ) , that if a complainant failed to appear at the hearing , although he had been notified of the obligation to participate , and the hearing was not adjourned , the court would refuse to examine the complaint . The applicant \u2019s counsel , a representative of the police prefecture and witnesses were also summoned .","The summons sent to the applicant \u2019s address , which he had used throughout the proceedings and which had been indicated in his complaint , could not be served on him personally as he was not present on DATE when the court \u2019s security officer attempted to serve the summons . His mother refused to accept the summons and said that the applicant was living abroad . The applicant \u2019s counsel received the summons on DATE . The witnesses also received the summons in DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a ruling by which the applicant \u2019s complaint was admitted for the proceedings . According to the ruling the hearing was scheduled for DATE at TIME and the names of persons to be summoned to the hearing were set out .","On DATE ORG held its hearing . The applicant did not appear . His counsel asked the court to examine the matter without the applicant \u2019s presence as the applicant was abroad and it was not known when he would return to GPE . According to the applicant \u2019s father , who was in the courtroom as a spectator , the applicant was not to return to GPE within DATE . ORG refused to examine the applicant \u2019s complaint . It delivered its decision in writing on DATE .","According to ORG decision , the applicant had failed to inform the authorities of his new address . However , as the applicant \u2019s father was aware of the time of the court hearing and of the applicant \u2019s intention not to return to GPE within DATE , the court concluded that the applicant \u2019s parents were communicating both with the applicant and his counsel . Thus , the applicant must have been aware of the court hearing and summons sent to him .","ORG found that in view of the substance of the misdemeanour case and the court \u2019s duty to hear a misdemeanour matter in its entirety , regardless of the limits of the complaint filed , and to verify the factual and legal circumstances on the basis of which the body conducting the extra - judicial proceedings ( that is , the police ) had made its decision , it was not possible to examine the case without the applicant \u2019s participation . It noted that one of the complaints made by the applicant had been that the body conducting the extra - judicial proceedings had not presented the applicant for identification to the witness . Thus , interviewing of the applicant and presenting him for recognition to the witness were important steps for the adjudication of the matter which could not be accomplished without the applicant \u2019s participation . The court considered that adjourning the hearing would serve no purpose since the applicant was not to return to GPE within DATE the time - limit for which a hearing could be adjourned under the law of procedure . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s counsel had not requested an adjournment but examination of the complaint without the applicant \u2019s presence . However , for the above reasons the court did not consider it possible to examine the case without the applicant . Relying on LAW which provided that if a complainant failed to appear at the hearing although he had been notified of the obligation to participate in the court hearing DATE ORG refused to examine the complaint .","The applicant \u2019s counsel appealed , relying , inter alia , on LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( c ) of the LAW according to which a person had the right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing . The receipt of the summons was not disputed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the ruling of the first - instance court . It noted that under LAW the court could decide on a discretionary basis whether a complainant \u2019s participation in the court hearing was necessary and , if needed , oblige the person in question to appear . In the case at hand ORG had given reasons as to why the applicant \u2019s participation was required and it was not possible to examine the case in his absence . ORG pointed out that the applicant had challenged in his complaint to ORG the failure of the police to present him to witnesses for identification . It was , however , unclear , how ORG could have eliminated this deficiency in the applicant \u2019s absence .","No appeal lay against ORG ruling ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182595","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TONELLO v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) .","The applicant met his former partner , ORG , a NORP national , in DATE . They began living together in GPE ( GPE ) and had a daughter , who was born on DATE .","According to the applicant , after the baby was born PERSON began engaging in obsessive behaviour and their relationship deteriorated .","NORP In DATE PERSON spent DATE in GPE with their daughter . In DATE of DATE she again travelled to GPE with the baby . It was agreed that the applicant would fetch them on DATE and drive them back to GPE . While on his way to GPE , the applicant was informed by PERSON that she did not intend to return to GPE .","The applicant first returned to GPE ( without having reached GPE ) ; he then set off again for GPE , where ( after arriving ) PERSON initially denied him access to his daughter . After DATE , PERSON allowed the applicant to see the baby and informed him that he could see her again , provided that he agreed to let his daughter stay in GPE with PERSON and pay MONEY ( ORG ) per month in child support . The applicant rejected this proposal and on DATE returned to GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG requesting that the court strip PERSON of parental authority over their daughter , order the return of the child to GPE and grant him exclusive custody .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a request with ORG for the child \u2019s return , pursuant to LAW DATE on ORG ( hereinafter , \u201c LAW \u201d ) .","On DATE the Pest Central District Court found that PERSON was keeping the child in GPE illegally and ordered that she return the child to the applicant \u2019s residence in GPE by DATE . Alternatively , the child should be handed to the applicant or his proxy in GPE no later than DATE .","Following an appeal by PERSON , on DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG and ordered that the child be returned to GPE by DATE or to the applicant or his proxy in GPE by DATE .","Following a further appeal by PERSON , that decision was upheld by ORG on DATE ; nevertheless , the child was not returned to the applicant .","An enforcement order based on the second - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE was issued on DATE against ORG bailiff of ORG instructed the mother to comply with the final decision and return the child to the applicant within DATE and ordered her to pay a fine of MONEY ( ORG \u2013 approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .","Criminal proceedings against ORG were initiated in DATE by the LOC public prosecutor and a NORP arrest warrant was issued against her .","On DATE ORG found that it had jurisdiction to examine the applicant \u2019s case pursuant to articles CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE of Council Regulation ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , allowed the applicant \u2019s application ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , stripped PERSON of her parental authority and , like its NORP counterpart , ordered the immediate return of the child to GPE .","On DATE the preliminary - investigations judge ( giudice per le indagini preliminari ) issued an arrest warrant against PERSON for the offence of international child abduction .","On DATE a NORP arrest warrant was issued against PERSON by ORG .","On DATE the court bailiff sent a copy of the return order to the guardianship office of LOC in order to enable the said authority to serve it on PERSON and to inform her of the consequences of failing to comply with the order .","On DATE CARDINAL members of the GPE guardianship office \u2019s staff attempted to serve the order on PERSON ; they were unsuccessful as they were unable to enter her home . As PERSON \u2019s post box was in a locked part of the building , they were not able to leave behind any notification either . They went to the registered address of ORG mother but they could not find anybody there either . They left behind a notification in the post box there informing PERSON of their attempt to enter her home and of the date of the next visit by guardianship office staff .","On DATE guardianship office staff again visited the registered permanent address of ORG and the registered residential address of her mother but again failed to serve the enforcement order on her .","In DATE ORG conducted mediation proceedings through the legal representatives of PERSON and the applicant in order to try to reach an amicable agreement .","On DATE the LOC public prosecutor lodged by means of a letter rogatory an application with ORG for judicial assistance . The application was dismissed on DATE on the grounds that the judgment of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was not yet enforceable ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the requirement of dual criminality was not satisfied .","On DATE ORG allowed an application lodged by PERSON for the return order issued by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to be suspended , but this decision was subsequently quashed by the Szolnok High Court on DATE . On DATE ORG refused another similar application lodged by PERSON Following an appeal by PERSON , the latter decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the deputy court bailiff , accompanied by police officers and guardianship office staff , visited PERSON \u2019s registered address and the residential address of her mother , but no one answered the door .","On DATE the bailiff attempted to serve the enforcement order at the same addresses , but with no success , as PERSON and her daughter had absconded . The guardianship office informed the court bailiff that they had no useful information concerning the whereabouts of PERSON and her daughter .","On an unspecified date , PERSON lodged an application for the enforcement proceedings to be terminated ; that application was refused by ORG on DATE . That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE an international search warrant was issued by the GPE police .","On DATE the Szolnok ORG declared the judgment of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) enforceable . On DATE , following an appeal by ORG , that decision was quashed by the Szolnok ORG .","The GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office ordered an investigation in respect of PERSON concerning the unauthorised custody of a minor and the endangering of a minor on DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE PERSON was summoned as a suspect , but she failed to appear .","On DATE an arrest warrant was issued against PERSON","On DATE the bailiff unsuccessfully tried to serve the enforcement order on PERSON at her registered residential address . Residents of the area were not able to provide any useful information to the bailiff .","Following an appeal by the applicant against the PERSON judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the GPE declared the judgment of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) enforceable .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor lodged by means of a letter rogatory a further application for judicial assistance and requested that the LOC police be authorised to assist the local judicial police with the execution of the arrest warrant . On DATE ORG dismissed this application on the grounds that the conduct described in the criminal complaint could be classified as kidnapping under LAW , but not under LAW .","On DATE staff of the GPE guardianship office visited PERSON \u2019s registered address and her mother \u2019s home , but their attempts to serve the enforcement order failed .","The Government pointed out that several searches and other procedural actions had failed to generate any results . In order to identify ORG \u2019s place of residence , they had checked the database of ORG and requested data from all those of the country \u2019s financial institutions that provided payment services . Moreover they had requested data from the mobile phone companies , the NORP ORG , the NORP tax and customs authorities , and regional and local tax and customs agencies ; they had also run checks in the databases of companies providing card services to regular customers in the territory of GPE .","On DATE ORG , during the criminal prosecution against PERSON for child abduction , heard GPE , the child \u2019s paediatrician . PERSON said that she had visited the child several times over DATE . In particular , on DATE she had issued a medical certificate which had been required for the child \u2019s enrolment in a kindergarten .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that the NORP authorities were still not able to execute the return order because they had still not identified PERSON \u2019s place of residence .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE LOC heard CARDINAL of ORG relatives , who all stated that PERSON was living in hiding .","On DATE PERSON was acquitted by ORG . The text of this judgment was not produced before the ORG .","The GPE Attorney - General lodged an appeal against this judgment with the Szolnok High Court .","On CARDINAL DATE the GPE public prosecutor lodged by means of a letter rogatory a further application for judicial assistance . This application was dismissed .","According to the latest information received by ORG , in DATE the criminal proceedings against PERSON were still pending ORG and the return order of the applicant \u2019s daughter had not yet been enforced ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184668","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF VOROSHILOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Torture)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment were established in a judgment of ORG of Orenburg of DATE , as upheld on DATE by ORG , and are as follows .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested at a bus stop by police officers of the criminal investigation unit and taken to a police station in GPE ( \u0423\u0412\u0414 \u043f\u043e \u0433. GPE ) . From TIME on DATE , and from TIME to TIME on DATE , police officers PERSON subjected the applicant to physical and psychological violence in order to obtain a confession from him about a drug - related crime which they suspected him of having committed .","The facts of the ill - treatment on DATE were established as follows . Officers PERSON and PERSON pushed the applicant to the floor and punched and kicked him numerous times in the head , face , chest , arms and legs . PERSON placed a plastic bag over his head , closing off his access to air , while PERSON held him down . As regards the ill - treatment on CARDINAL DATE , officers PERSON punched the applicant numerous times in the head and threatened to detain him .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was formally arrested on suspicion of possession of drugs and placed in a temporary detention facility .","On DATE the applicant was released after giving an undertaking not to leave his place of residence . On DATE he sought medical help at a traumatology centre ( TP no . CARDINAL ) . According to his medical records , he had abrasions on his forearms , a bruise under his right eye , a bruise in the left lumbar region and abrasions on his legs .","On DATE the applicant made a complaint to the GPE regional investigative committee regarding his illtreatment .","On DATE he underwent a forensic medical examination ordered by the investigation authority . According to report no . DATE , he had the following injuries : ( i ) a haematoma ( swelling ) of the soft tissues in the parietal region of the head , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY ; ( ii ) CARDINAL bruises of indefinite form on the right infraorbital region of the face , on his neck , on the left side of his chest and around the right iliac ( hip ) bone , measuring up to QUANTITY each ; and ( iii ) CARDINAL abrasions , some linear and some of indefinite form , on both forearms , his right hip and left lower leg , measuring from PERCENT by QUANTITY to CARDINAL by QUANTITY each . The expert concluded that the applicant \u2019s injuries had resulted from being struck repeatedly with a hard , blunt object with a limited surface area on DATE of the alleged incident , and had not caused any \u201c health damage \u201d . Subsequent forensic medical expert reports of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE came to similar conclusions . It was stated in the first of those reports that the applicant \u2019s injuries had been caused by CARDINAL traumatic blows to his body .","Officers PERSON and PERSON were convicted under LAW ( a ) of LAW and banned from exercising official duties for DATE . They were also given a DATE suspended sentence with a DATE probation period , which required them to appear DATE before the Service for the Execution of Sentences and disclose any change of place of work or residence .","The following circumstances were taken into account in sentencing the police officers . The fact that officer PERSON had a child under DATE was considered a mitigating circumstance , while the fact that he and PERSON had committed the crime with a group of other officers was considered an aggravating circumstance . It was further taken into account that PERSON and PERSON had positive references from their places of work and residence , had no previous convictions , and had led a law - abiding way of life without committing any administrative offences for DATE since the crime had been committed .","On DATE criminal proceedings against the applicant under LAW of LAW ( possession of large quantities of drugs ) were terminated for absence of a crime , pursuant to LAW .","In DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against ORG , seeking MONEY ( RUB ) in compensation for his unlawful detention and illtreatment in police custody by PERSON and M.","On DATE ORG of PERSON allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in part and awarded him RUB CARDINAL . In determining the amount of compensation , the court found that the applicant had sustained injuries as a result of the police ORG actions and had experienced physical and mental suffering , but that this had not caused him any \u201c health damage \u201d .","The applicant appealed against that judgment to ORG , which on DATE increased the amount of compensation to RUB CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158146","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF STORY AND OTHERS v. MALTA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and are currently detained in ORG ( GPE , GPE ) .","The first applicant was arraigned in court on DATE and was remanded on DATE on drug - related charges . He is currently in pretrial detention .","The first applicant submitted that in DATE when he arrived in prison he had been placed in Division CARDINAL , a disciplinary division with very strict standards and no privacy . No one spoke his language in that division . He was eventually moved to ORG , where again no one spoke his language . The applicant alleged that items belonging to him had been stolen and the prison authorities had ignored his complaints , as a result of which he went on hunger strike for DATE CARDINAL ( the latter action is indicated in the applicant \u2019s medical records submitted to the ORG ) . According to the ORG , from the official records ( which were not submitted to ORG ) it did not appear that the applicant had ever complained about the matter to the prison authorities .","After DATE the first applicant was transferred to Division CARDINAL . The records held by the prison authorities show that he is currently being held in cell no . CARDINAL , which is situated in FAC . This division is located in the older section of the prison building that has undergone various stages of upgrading and renovation . However , the possibilities for further improvements are limited owing to the manner in which the building is constructed , such as with high windows and thick walls .","The first applicant has been occupying cell no . CARDINAL as sole occupant .","The applicant submitted that in order to make his cell habitable he had had to paint it himself and equip it with proper lighting . By the ORG \u2019s admission , the painting of cells appears to be the normal procedure amongst inmates and the paint is provided by the authorities free of charge . However , the Government contended that the cell had already been equipped with artificial lighting , which was dealt with by the prison electrician , not inmates .","There are CARDINAL ventilators and a window in cell no . CARDINAL . The wallmounted ventilator measures QUANTITY by QUANTITY and is covered by a rectangular piece of cardboard and there is another smaller ventilator in the ceiling . The applicant submitted that when it rained , water would pour in through the wall - mounted ventilator , which he considered was simply a hole in the wall , and which was covered by cardboard to stop the wind entering in DATE in consequence it rendered the room devoid of any ventilation .","The cell has a window , behind which are CARDINAL iron grids and a third layer of exterior iron bars . The window consists of both a perspex section that allows daylight to enter and a wooden part . Both sections can in principle be opened and closed from within the cell . The window is situated at a height of QUANTITY and measures QUANTITY in width by QUANTITY in height . According to the Government ( and from the photographs submitted ) the window in cell no . CARDINAL is always kept closed by the occupant , despite the fact that he could open and close it by climbing onto the bed . The applicant submitted that windows in other divisions were much lower .","In his cell , in order to attempt to open the window he had to stand on the sink and reach for the lock by means of a piece of wood . The window , once opened , had to be kept open by means of some support , such as a metal or wooden plank , which was not usually allowed in prison . The applicant , who is of a heavy build , is unable to open such a window without the help of other lighter inmates . The Government contested that allegation , arguing that the window could be opened by using a tool ( a QUANTITY arm ) which is available to inmates for opening and closing windows as necessary . In any case , the applicant could climb onto the bed to open and close the window .","Lighting in cell no . CARDINAL consists of a ceiling light and CARDINAL wallmounted portable lamps , which may be moved about throughout the cell as required ( both QUANTITY ) .","According to the first applicant , there was often no running water in the cell and any water was surely not potable . However , according to the Government , running water was available in each cell , including cell no . CARDINAL ( photographs submitted ) , and NORP tap water flowing through FAC was certified for human consumption , as outlined by the certificate issued by ORG , dated DATE , submitted to ORG . Furthermore , according to ORG , each division was equipped with a purified potable water system , which could be accessed by all inmates .","Inmates are also permitted to buy bottled water from the tuck - shop ( a pack of CARDINAL bottles cost MONEY ( ORG ) or ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL per bottle ) . Every inmate is given \u201c gratuity \u201d money for such purchases amounting to ORG CARDINAL DATE . The first applicant received ORG CARDINAL as gratuity money during DATE and ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL during DATE . Inmates are also given the opportunity to work against a nominal payment of ORG CARDINAL DATE . The first applicant received EUR CARDINAL during DATE and ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL during DATE for his work .","The Government admitted that there was no combined flushing toilet system installed in ORG due to the nature of the structure of the building , so inmates had to flush their own personal toilet by means of a water bucket provided within each cell . To this end , there were wall - mounted water taps in order to fill the buckets with water . Combined flushing toilets were available in the new part of the prison . The first applicant alleged that there was often no running water for flushing .","All inmates have access to showers at divisional level and no cell is provided with an in - cell shower . Furthermore , all inmates can use the showers numerous times DATE , for as long as necessary ; the showers are open for TIME a day . However , the first applicant claimed that there were CARDINAL shower cubicles , CARDINAL of which had no running water but just a plastic bottle of water , while another did not have a showerhead . Thus , CARDINAL of the showers was functional . The Government contested that allegation , arguing that sometimes the showers were damaged by the inmates . Other inmates fixed them temporarily until the authorities in turn fixed the outlets appropriately .","According to the first applicant , hot water was often not available in DATE and frequently no water was available in DATE . He submitted that complaints about the lack of water were often made to the prison guards , but they were not noted down . The Government submitted that water supply was available all DATE round . The same applied to hot water , which was however subject to short time lags until the water reheated whenever the water was running continuously . The authorities also made available an external water supply in the event of shortages ( particularly in DATE , when water bowsers were brought in to increase the water supply ) .","According to the Government , no cell in any part of the prison building ( either the old block or the new block ) is equipped with a heater . During DATE , the inmates are allowed fans to cool down their cells . The first applicant has CARDINAL fans in his cell .","According to the photographs submitted , the state of cell no . CARDINAL was tidy .","Inmates were permitted to purchase other non - essential items for their cells , including televisions or monitors , DVD players , or game consoles upon request . The first applicant \u2019s requests have all been granted .","The first applicant claimed that his cell was damp and humid . According to the Government , an inspection of cell no . CARDINAL conducted by prison officials detected no mould in the cell .","The first applicant alleged that he had been asked to pay for his own medication , but as he had been unable to pay , he had remained in pain . The Government submitted that he had been in receipt of various medicines provided free of charge through ORG ( PHS ) in line with LAW of ORG ) . According to the records held by the authorities ( submitted to ORG ) , it also transpired that the first applicant had been visited CARDINAL times by a doctor DATE ( following the applicant \u2019s admission on remand ) and DATE . On CARDINAL occasions , the prescription of medicines had been required and in fact CARDINAL medicines had been provided to the applicant . Those medicines were supplied by the PHS except for the ORG sachets , where a generic alternative was provided instead . It transpires that the applicant has not made any purchases relative to \u201c self - recommendations \u201d ( the non - acceptance of generic medicine against branded medicine , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The first applicant claimed that he had not been allowed to make telephone calls at TIME , which was the only time he could reach his relatives .","The Government referred to the relevant regulations ( see Relevant Domestic Law , paragraph CARDINAL below ) but stated that in practice , all inmates were allowed any number of calls TIME and TIME As from DATE the times were changed to TIME and TIME and TIME Inmates who work were granted a specific period TIME No calls could be made TIME and TIME , during which time inmates were confined to their cells .","Inmates are given CARDINAL EUR CARDINAL telephone cards DATE on DATE . The first applicant has been in receipt of those cards since his arrival in prison . From the records held by the authorities it also transpires that the applicant availed himself of the opportunity to call abroad using his cards on average CARDINAL times a day during DATE to CARDINAL DATE . This refers to calls lasting a minimum of TIME . Shorter calls were also made . A detailed analysis of the calls lasting TIME shows that CARDINAL of them lasted over TIME , while some lasted TIME . In terms of the time during which the calls were made , CARDINAL ( PERCENT of the calls ) were registered during TIME , while the remaining CARDINAL calls ( PERCENT ) were registered TIME and TIME It also transpires that the applicant has availed himself of incoming call times ranging from TIME ( PERCENT of the calls were registered DATE and DATE ) . The rest of the calls ( PERCENT ) were registered TIME and TIME He received CARDINAL incoming calls in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE . According to the Government the applicant has never submitted a written request to the director for permission to make calls at CARDINAL p.m.","The second applicant is currently serving a term of imprisonment for drugrelated offences . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and fined ORG CARDINAL by ORG on DATE .","From the prison authorities\u2019 records , it transpires that the second applicant is being held in cell no . CARDINAL , situated in FAC of ORG . While the applicant complained of a lack of living space in the dormitories of QUANTITY persons ( sic . ) , the Government argued that he had been occupying the said cell as sole occupant . It does not appear that he has made any prior complaint about his cell or any specific aspect of his detention to the prison authorities , nor has he requested to change cell .","The complaint and the general conditions of detention pertaining to the second applicant are the same as described in respect of the first applicant ( above ) , with a few differences as set out below .","The second applicant submitted that he generally left his window open . He claimed that it was not possible to open the window by climbing onto the bed . The window was situated QUANTITY above the sink , and thus it was only by standing on the sink that one could open it . Lighting consisted of a ceiling light and CARDINAL wall - mounted portable lamp , which he had purchased himself DATE he had not requested an additional lamp , although inmates were in fact allowed CARDINAL lamps .","According to the second applicant there was often no running water in the cell . However , according to the Government , tap water was available in each cell , including cell no . CARDINAL ( photographs submitted ) .","The second applicant received gratuity money amounting to ORG CARDINAL during DATE and ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL during DATE , as well as ORG CARDINAL during DATE and ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL during DATE for work carried out by him .","The second applicant submitted that he had CARDINAL fans in his cell . He claimed that in DATE the cold was terrible and made him ill . He maintained that he often did not have bed linen or blankets , sometimes not even a bed to sleep on . The Government contested the allegation , asserting that each inmate , including the second applicant , was provided with CARDINAL sets of bed linen and CARDINAL blankets , that further blankets were available on request and that beds were a staple in every cell . No record of such a complaint had been found by the Government .","According to the ORG , the second applicant kept his cell in a disorderly and unkempt state . When the prison authorities , through the correctional supervisor , had brought this to the applicant \u2019s attention , he had replied that the mess was due to his ongoing personal family troubles and he promised to clean his room .","The second applicant \u2019s requests for non - essential items have all been granted .","A part of cell no . CARDINAL shows signs of dampness , which produces mould ( QUANTITY as transpires from a photograph submitted ) . The applicant submitted that the photograph was not realistic and that in reality there was mould in a larger part of the cell . This had given him asthma , a condition he had never suffered from before .","The Government pointed out that the second applicant had been in receipt of various medicines provided free of charge through the PHS . According to the Government , it transpires from the records held by the authorities that he had been visited CARDINAL times by a doctor DATE applicant \u2019s admission on remand ) and DATE . On CARDINAL occasions , prescriptive medicines had been required and in fact CARDINAL medicines had been provided to him . Those medicines had been supplied by the PHS , except for a specific shampoo , where a generic alternative had been provided instead .","The second applicant claimed that he had had to purchase some medicines himself . However , according to the Government , that was a choice made by the applicant himself . From the records held by the authorities , it transpires that a number of \u201c self - recommendations \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) were registered on the applicant \u2019s behalf . They concerned ear drops to remove ear wax , PERSON , a number of vitamins and Daktarin powder .","Lastly , the second applicant claimed that he had been made to take medicine without any explanations , and that he was not allowed access to the yard .","On DATE ORG sentenced the third applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and to a fine of LAW for drugrelated offences .","From the prison authorities\u2019 records , it transpires that the third applicant is being held in cell no . CARDINAL , which is situated in Division CARDINAL . At the time of the introduction of the application he had been in ORG for DATE and DATE . He has been occupying the said cell as sole occupant . He has never made any complaint relative to his cell or to any specific aspect of his detention to the prison authorities , nor has he requested a transfer from CARDINAL division to another . The general conditions of detention pertaining to the third applicant are the same as for the other CARDINAL applicants ( above ) , with a few differences as set out below .","According to the third applicant , there was only CARDINAL ceiling ventilator in his cell , which he claimed did not work . The Government contested that statement . The applicant submitted that there were CARDINAL portable lamps \u2013the ceiling lamp was controlled centrally and could not be switched on or off as needed . From the photographs submitted it appears that cell no . CARDINAL is kept in a relatively tidy state . The third applicant has been allowed to acquire other non - essential items in the cell . He claimed that they did not require authorisation . He also alleged that CARDINAL of his personal fans had been removed from his cell after the photographs had been taken . The Government submitted that apart from the ceiling fan , the applicant had another fan in his cell , and that CARDINAL box fan per inmate was allowed .","According to the Government , an inspection of cell no . CARDINAL conducted by the prison officials did not detect any mould . However , the third applicant submitted that there was QUANTITY of mould around his sink .","The third applicant also complained of a lack of running water ( contested by the Government ) and flushing toilet system . He claimed that the lack of water , particularly the inability to flush the toilet , created unhygienic conditions . Also , the relevant equipment to clean the room was not provided . He alleged that he had been regularly sick because of the tap water in his room and that the doctor had told him that he should not drink it . The Government submitted that according to the doctor \u2019s report ( submitted to the ORG ) , the applicant had never complained of bowel problems or complained to the doctor about the tap water . Nor had it been substantiated that he had received such a reply from the doctor . The applicant pointed out that the result of the tests carried out by the ORG had not referred to water collected in his room , as no water had been collected .","The third applicant received EUR MONEY as gratuity money during DATE , EUR CARDINAL during DATE and ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL during DATE . He also received EUR CARDINAL during DATE , EUR CARDINAL during DATE and ORG CARDINAL during DATE ( DATE ) for work he had carried out .","The third applicant also received various medicines provided free of charge through the PHS . From the records held by the authorities it also transpires that he was visited CARDINAL times by a doctor between CARDINAL DATE ( following the applicant \u2019s admission in detention on remand ) and CARDINAL DATE . On QUANTITY occasions , the prescription of medicines was required and in fact QUANTITY medicines were provided to him . Those medicines were supplied by the PHS , except for cold - relief tablets and a cream , for which a generic alternative was provided . It transpires that CARDINAL \u201c self - recommendations \u201d were registered on behalf of the applicant : a pain killer and a cream which was only available free of charge through the PHS if it had been prescribed by a consultant dermatologist , which was not the case for the applicant ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","34"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142394","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DJUNDIKS v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Alcoholics);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","It appears that in DATE the applicant was certified as being Category CARDINAL disabled ( the least severe level of disability ) .","On DATE the applicant was certified as being Category CARDINAL disabled ( the medium level of disability ) on the grounds of an unspecified illness . His disability was to be reassessed on a further occasion .","According to the applicant , on DATE his Category CARDINAL disability status was certified as permanent .","On DATE the applicant was administratively detained by the municipal police . The circumstances are disputed between the parties .","According to the Government , at TIME on DATE the fire and rescue services received a call about a man who was lying on the ground near an apartment building . A municipal police patrol was dispatched to the address given . Police officers GPE and GPE arrived there at CARDINAL p.m. and found no one there . However , they were approached by an unidentified woman who indicated that somebody was lying on the stairs inside the building . They found the applicant lying face - down on the stairs between the ground and CARDINALst floor . He appeared to be in a state of heavy alcohol intoxication , was unable to communicate or identify himself , and was unable to move . He had several bruises and grazes on his face \u2013 cheeks , eyebrows and forehead . The officers carried him by his arms and legs to a municipal police van and took him to the municipal police station . They arrived there TIME , on the way having picked up another person who had been lying on the ground unconscious somewhere else .","At the municipal police station , a medical orderly visually examined the applicant and treated and recorded his facial injuries . The officers then carried him to a \u201c sobering - up room \u201d and placed him on a wooden plank bed . TIME the applicant was able to reveal his identity . According to the Government , reports ( protokoli ) in respect of administrative detention ( administrat\u012bv\u0101 aiztur\u0113\u0161ana ) and the administrative offence of \u201c indecent public behaviour while being in a state of alcohol intoxication \u201d were being drawn up . The Government could not provide the ORG with copies of these procedural documents since they were destroyed in DATE upon the expiry of their archival period .","Later , at some point during TIME CARDINAL DATE , the applicant complained of pain in his left leg . The medical orderly called an ambulance and the applicant was taken to a hospital in GPE .","The applicant did not agree with the ORG \u2019s version of the events . According to the applicant , on DATE , TIME , he was sitting on a bench by the apartment building he lived in with a bottle of beer in his hand , when the municipal police arrived and CARDINAL officers approached him with a view to taking him to the municipal police station . They did not inform him of the reasons for his detention ; he got into the police van by himself and was taken to the municipal police station , where at TIME an administrative detention report was drawn up .","At the station , he was briefly examined to determine his state of health and level of intoxication . Following an examination , an officer instructed him to stand up immediately . The applicant replied that he was capable of doing so by himself , but slowly . Then another officer , who was standing behind him , ordered him to do as requested and then took him by the shoulders and pushed him against a wall . His left eye was hurt to the extent that he later required several stiches . The officer then grabbed the applicant by his clothes and dragged him on to the floor and down the stairs to the sobering - up room . The applicant tried to turn onto his left side as he had had an operation on his right leg and he was trying to spare it . While he was being dragged down the stairs , he felt a sharp pain in his left leg and started to scream . The officer did not stop ; he dragged him into a cell and left him there . The applicant was unable to move . After some time , QUANTITY persons entered the cell , took off his trousers , causing him more pain , and injected him with some substances . Then an unidentified officer approached him with a view to getting him to sign another report . He refused , protesting that he had already signed CARDINAL . At TIME an ambulance arrived and took him to a hospital in GPE .","The contents of the applicant \u2019s administrative detention report were partly reproduced in expert report no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and read as follows :","\u201c This report has been drawn up by ... GPE on DATE , at TIME , in Liep\u0101ja in respect of the applicant [ date of birth and address ] [ , who ] was administratively detained and taken to the sobering - up room of the municipal police station on DATE , at TIME Reason for detention : to sober up . In the presence of witnesses [ the applicant \u2019s ] keys were confiscated . PERSON \u2019s clothes : blue blazer , dark shirt , blue trousers and dark shoes . In a check - up [ the following ] injuries were discovered : a bruise on the face , a bruise on the left eyebrow . The applicant was released on DATE , at TIME Reason for release : sobered up . Upon release : received keys . No complaints . \u201d","According to the ambulance log , a call was recorded at TIME on DATE . At TIME an ambulance arrived at the municipal police station . In the field \u201c diagnoses \u201d it was noted that the applicant \u2019s left hip and head were injured , there were bruises on his face , and he was in a state of alcohol intoxication . In the field \u201c additional findings \u201d it was noted that the applicant had bruises on his face and the lower part of his body . He was taken to hospital , where at TIME his blood alcohol level was measured ( QUANTITY ) .","From DATE to DATE the applicant remained in hospital . Following an X - ray examination he was diagnosed with a fracture to his left hip ( kreis\u0101 aug\u0161stilba kakla kauli\u0146a l\u016bzums ) . On DATE an operation ( endo - prosthesis ) was performed and over DATE the applicant received post - operative treatment .","On DATE the applicant was issued with an extract from his medical file at the hospital . The extract did not contain any mention of the applicant \u2019s own description of the circumstances relating to his hip fracture .","On DATE the applicant made a complaint to the prosecutor \u2019s office which was for the most part similar to his allegations before the ORG . The municipal police were requested to prepare an internal report ; on DATE they issued report no . CARDINAL , the contents of which were later for the most part reproduced in the first decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s complaint was forwarded for examination to the Liep\u0101ja police , a branch of ORG .","On DATE an expert examined the applicant \u2019s medical records and drew up report no . CARDINAL . Reference was made to a statement the applicant had made in the hospital that \u201c he had fallen down somewhere on the street \u201d . The expert concluded that the applicant had sustained a bodily injury \u2013 a fracture of the left hip DATE which was classified as moderately severe ( vid\u0113ja smaguma miesas boj\u0101jumi ) . This injury could have been sustained as a result of being hit by blunt objects or bumping into such objects .","On DATE the Liep\u0101ja police decided not to institute criminal proceedings with regard to the injuries suffered by the applicant ( \u201c the first decision \u201d ) . Reference was made to the internal report of DATE . According to the report , the events developed as follows .","At TIME on DATE , the municipal police received a call from the fire and rescue services informing them that a man was lying near an apartment building . Upon their arrival the officers found the applicant lying inside the apartment building on the stairs between the ground and CARDINALst floor . He was too intoxicated to give any explanation ; the police officers carried him out of the apartment building , placed him in the van and took him to the police station . He was placed in the sobering - up area , which was located in the basement . The officers carried the applicant into a cell as he was unable to move . After TIME the applicant was able to reveal his identity . He then complained about pain in his leg and a medical orderly called an ambulance to the police station . No injections were given to the applicant . He was detained on the basis of paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of LAW . On the basis of the case - file materials in their entirety , it was concluded that the applicant \u201c could have sustained \u201d injuries by falling on the stairs in the apartment building . There were no grounds to believe that the applicant \u2019s injuries had been wilfully inflicted in the sobering - up room or that excessive physical force had been used on him . There were no indications that the officers had exceeded their authority .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint , noting that CARDINAL witnesses had seen him getting into the police van by himself when being taken to the police station .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor quashed the first decision and the case was remitted to the LOC police for additional investigation . The quashing order was issued on the ground that the applicant had not been questioned on the facts , nor had his neighbours been questioned ; the person who had called the fire and rescue services had not been identified or questioned ; the witnesses identified by the applicant had not been questioned ; and lastly , the ambulance personnel had not been questioned .","During additional investigation the LOC police received information from the fire and rescue services and questioned the applicant \u2019s neighbours , including GPE , who had been identified by the applicant as a witness , and a doctor from the hospital . Another medico - legal examination was also ordered .","On DATE an expert examined the applicant and his administrative detention report and drew up report no . CARDINAL in addition to report no . CARDINAL . The background to the report was described as follows :","\u201c On DATE police officers [ allegedly ] inflicted bodily injuries on the applicant at the police station . On DATE an expert examined the applicant \u2019s medical records ( report no . CARDINAL ) . The applicant ... alleged that he had suffered additional injuries to different parts of his body ( eyebrow , lower body ) , [ which were ] not documented in the medical records \u201d .","The expert concluded that the applicant had the following injuries : \u201c a scar on his left eyebrow that could be due to a cicatrised wound that had been stitched \u201d and \u201c scars on the back of the applicant \u2019s torso and on the buttock area that could have appeared after bruises had healed \u201d . They were both classified as minor bodily injuries ( viegli miesas boj\u0101jumi ) .","On DATE the Liep\u0101ja police again refused to institute criminal proceedings ( \u201c the second decision \u201d ) . In addition to the grounds of the first decision , the second decision was based on the grounds that the fire and rescue services did not hold information about incoming calls concerning alcohol intoxication . Such calls were transferred to the municipal police .","According to the second decision , an acquaintance of the applicant , ORG , stated that he had seen him sitting on a bench and consuming beer at TIME , and then the municipal police had arrived . Other statements were taken from neighbours , but they only indicated that the applicant often sat on the bench by the apartment building consuming alcohol . CARDINAL neighbour , GPE , stated that the applicant had a \u201c difficult \u201d personality and that \u201c he often started fights \u201d . Further , it was noted that \u201c it was not possible to identify direct witnesses who could provide objective information about [ the applicant \u2019s ] arrest \u201d . The ambulance record indicated that the applicant had been taken from the municipal police station to the hospital with injuries to his left hip and head , bruises on his face and in a state of alcohol intoxication . Finally , the doctor \u2019s statement indicated that he had examined the applicant at TIME , when he had sobered up ; the doctor had inquired about the circumstances of the injury and the applicant had replied that he had fallen down somewhere on the street . A note was made that the conclusions drawn following the internal inquiry were confirmed by other case - file materials and that the statements made by the applicant and PERSON should be evaluated with caution . On the basis of the case - file materials in their entirety , it was concluded that the applicant \u201c could have sustained \u201d the injuries by falling on the stairs in the apartment building . There were no grounds for finding that the applicant \u2019s injuries had been wilfully inflicted in the sobering - up room , or that excessive physical force had been used on him . There were no indications that the officers had exceeded their authority .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor examined the case - file materials and dismissed a complaint by the applicant about the second decision . She noted that the Liep\u0101ja police , even after her instructions , could not find any witness to his detention . It appears that she herself questioned PERSON for a second time . He clarified that he had only seen the applicant sitting on the bench ; when the municipal police had arrived , he could not see the bench any more , as the van blocked the scene from his view . He testified that the police had been there for TIME . In response to the applicant \u2019s allegations as to the location , nature and probable cause of his injuries in the circumstances , the prosecutor stated that the expert \u2019s observation that they could have been sustained as a result of being hit with blunt objects or bumping into such objects was only a probability and not an assertion . Moreover , she considered that there were no grounds to disregard the hospital doctor \u2019s remark that the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s injuries had been taken down in his own words . The prosecutor noted that his injuries , as detected upon his admission to the police station ( bruises on the face and left eyebrow ) , were confirmed by the statement of ORG ; his alcohol intoxication was confirmed by the ambulance and hospital medical records and the statements of the police officers , the watch officer ( GPE ) , and the medical orderly ( A.B. ) . She concluded that her previous instructions ( issued on DATE ) had been complied with and that on the basis of the case - file materials in their entirety \u201c it [ could ] not be precluded \u201d that the applicant sustained the injuries before his detention as he had been admitted to the station in an intoxicated state with visible injuries on his face .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL higher - ranking prosecutors dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints against the second decision . The first prosecutor considered that the review of the applicant \u2019s complaints had been comprehensive and objective ; no evidence had been found that the officers had exceeded their authority . Referring to the medico - legal examination report , the prosecutor considered that the applicant \u201c could have sustained \u201d injuries by falling from his own height , as he had indicated to the hospital doctor , whose testimony was to be given more weight as he was not an interested party . The second prosecutor also found the second decision justified . He referred to the administrative detention \u201c documentation \u201d and the ORG statements to demonstrate that the applicant had been lying on the stairs in the apartment building and not sitting on the bench next to it ; ORG statements did not corroborate these facts . The officers had taken the applicant to the sobering - up room because he had been unable to move by himself because of either his intoxicated state or his injuries . He concluded :","\u201c It follows from the foregoing that [ the applicant ] must have sustained the injuries before the arrival of the municipal police officers . [ The applicant \u2019s ] blood alcohol level after TIME of detention only further demonstrates that prior to detention [ the applicant ] was intoxicated with alcohol . This does not exclude the possibility that [ the applicant ] sustained injuries by falling from [ his own ] height . \u201d","On DATE a prosecutor at ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . She examined the case - file materials and found that there were no grounds to quash the second decision . Among other things , she noted that section CARDINAL of LAW provided for administrative liability for the use of alcoholic beverages or other intoxicating substances in public places or for appearing in public places in an intoxicated state , which was an affront to human dignity . For that reason , notwithstanding the discrepancy between the submissions of the officers , who had stated that the applicant had been lying inside the apartment building , and the applicant , who had stated that he had been sitting on a bench outside the building , the officers had had grounds to take him to the municipal police station to sober up and to draw up an administrative offence report .","On DATE the applicant , in a complaint to a higher - ranking prosecutor , specified that his complaints did not relate to unjustified placement ( nepamatota nog\u0101d\u0101\u0161ana ) in the sobering - up room or to being taken there by force . Rather , they related to the failure to institute criminal proceedings in connection with bodily injuries inflicted on him while there .","On DATE the higher - ranking prosecutor at ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . It appears that he obtained additional statements from officers GPE and GPE , and the watch officer GPE The prosecutor found that the applicant \u2019s allegation that the injury on his left eyebrow had been inflicted by officers pushing him against the wall in the police station were not corroborated by the ORG statements and the medical orderly \u2019s indication that the applicant had been admitted with the injury . Nor was the applicant \u2019s allegation that his left hip had been broken by the officers dragging him down the stairs at the police station confirmed . The officers had explained that they had carried him into the station as he had not been able to walk by himself . The prosecutor concluded that the applicant had sustained the injuries before his administrative detention .","A final decision , negative in respect of the applicant , was adopted by ORG on DATE . He found that the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning contradictions and discrepancies in the case - file materials were unfounded . He noted , among other things , that the applicant \u2019s detention record and the medical record drawn up upon his admission to the police station confirmed that he already had injuries on his face and left eyebrow , thus his allegations about sustaining the injuries in the station were not confirmed . The applicant had been carried into the station because he had not been able to walk by himself and he had complained about pain in his hip only after sobering up , after which the medical orderly had called an ambulance .","The applicant received the decision on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142892","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"J.M. v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant is a NORP national who has born in DATE . She is currently in GPE . She is represented by PERSON , residing in ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184501","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF IURCOVSCHI AND OTHERS v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and are currently absconding from the GPE authorities .","At the time of the events , the applicants were police officers . According to the materials of the domestic judgments , the applicants found out that a person from the NORP region of GPE , P. , intended to come to PERSON on DATE , carrying a large amount of cash money , in order to conclude a transaction concerning immovable property . On DATE , the applicants attempted to apprehend P. in the staircase of an apartment block building . P. managed to escape , however he was chased and apprehended by the applicants , was thrown to the ground and severely beaten up until he lost consciousness . After that , he was carried by the applicants and put into a car . Several persons witnessed PERSON \u2019s apprehension and beating . PERSON was never seen alive after that and DATE his body was found in a well .","The applicants claimed that they believed P. to be a criminal and intended to take him to the police station for questioning . After chasing him , they arrested him and drove him to the police station . However , PERSON managed to escape from their car at a busy road crossing and ran away after having waded across a small river . They submitted that they did not chase him again because the traffic light turned green and because they did not want to soil their cloths chasing PERSON across the river .","On DATE the applicants were arrested and charged with kidnapping , murder and abuse of their authority as police officers .","DATE the public prosecutor applied to FAC for a warrant for the applicants\u2019 detention in custody . The reasons relied upon by the public prosecutor were that the applicants could abscond from prosecution , interfere with the criminal investigation and re - offend . The applicants\u2019 representative sought access to the materials submitted by the public prosecutor in support of his requests but to no avail .","DATE FAC issued a detention order for DATE . In court the applicants argued that the allegations presented by the public prosecutor were not supported by any facts or materials and that no materials whatsoever were presented by the prosecution . The court found that in view of the gravity of the accusations against the applicants , of the fact that the investigation was at its initial stage and of the applicants\u2019 position in ORG , there was a serious risk of absconding and of interfering with the investigation by influencing witnesses , misleading the investigation and increasing the volume of work .","On DATE the applicants appealed and argued , inter alia , that the orders for detention lacked reasoning and that the court had relied only on suppositions . The applicants further noted that the court had refused to provide their representative with any materials from the file other than the prosecutor \u2019s requests .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeals . The court found that the materials in the file provided sufficient grounds for a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed the crimes they were charged with . The risk of interference with the investigation was determined by the fact that the investigation had just started and the risk of absconding resulted from the fact that the applicants were police officers and thus knew how the investigating authorities operated . ORG did not answer the ORG complaint about the alleged lack of access to the materials in the case - file , relied upon by the first instance court to order their detention .","On DATE ORG extended the applicants\u2019 detention by DATE for the same reasons as it had done earlier . The court noted that on this occasion the applicants\u2019 representative had been given access to the materials in the file .","The applicants appealed and argued , inter alia , that the investigation was not advancing as claimed by the public prosecutor and that the risk of interference could just as well be mitigated by the applicants\u2019 house arrest . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of DATE for the same reasons as it had done earlier .","On DATE the charges of murder were dropped in respect of all applicants because the victim \u2019s body was not yet found . On DATE the case was committed for trial .","On DATE the prosecutor applied for the extension of the applicants\u2019 detention by DATE . The prosecutor cited the same reasons as before : risk of absconding , of interfering with the investigation and of reoffending .","On DATE the applicants lodged a habeas corpus request , arguing that the risk of interfering with the investigation was no longer valid because the criminal investigation had been concluded and that there had not been any evidence indicating that the applicants might abscond .","DATE , judge PERSON of ORG extended the applicants\u2019 detention by DATE considering that the CARDINAL risks invoked by the public prosecutor resulted from the character of the charges against the applicants .","The applicants appealed and argued , inter alia , that the court had failed to refer to any evidence in support of the alleged risks justifying their detention .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of DATE . The court relied on the fact that the applicants were police officers and considered that they could influence the witnesses or destroy evidence . The court also cited the risk of absconding .","On DATE the applicants lodged a habeas corpus request , arguing that there were no grounds to assume that the applicants would abscond , re - offend or interfere with the trial .","On DATE judge PERSON had withdrawn from the case because he had previously worked together with the third applicant . It is not clear from the materials of the case - file in which manner that fact affected judge ORG \u2019s impartiality and when did he realise that .","On DATE the applicants lodged another habeas corpus request , noting that their previous request had still not been examined . They argued that , on DATE , judge ORG had withdrawn from the case , whereas his ineligibility had existed on DATE , when he had ordered the extension of their detention and thus affected the lawfulness of that order .","On DATE judge PERSON from ORG extended the applicants\u2019 detention by DATE for the same reasons as had been done earlier . The court rejected the ORG habeas corpus request of DATE by noting that none of the previous grounds for detention had lost their validity because the trial had not yet started . The court did not make any reference to the habeas corpus request of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicants appealed and argued , inter alia , that the court had not examined their habeas corpus requests \u201c speedily \u201d as required under LAW and had not replied to their contention that the detention order of DATE had been unlawful because it had been ordered by judge PERSON who lacked impartiality .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of DATE for the same reasons as it had done before .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicants of all charges and released them in the court room .","On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed that judgment , convicted the applicants of kidnapping and abuse of office and sentenced them to DATE of imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment in absentia .","It appears that on an unspecified date after the victim \u2019s body was found , a new set of criminal proceedings based on murder charges was initiated against the applicants . The parties did not inform the ORG about the outcome of those proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152439","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ISTR\u0102\u021aOIU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr C. J. Barnett , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s son , aged DATE and DATE at that time , underwent a tonsillectomy DATE an operation to remove his tonsils DATE performed by PERSON in a private clinic . After the surgery the child \u2019s condition was stable and the first medical check - up was scheduled for DATE .","During the medical check - up , which took place on the scheduled date , Dr O.L.T. assured the parents that the post - surgical recovery was going well and recommended that they continue caring for their child in the same way .","In TIME CARDINAL DATE the child suffered a haemorrhage , causing blood to flood his mouth and nose . The applicant \u2019s mother - in - law called an ambulance and his wife went outside to wait for it . Before the ambulance arrived , she and PERSON , a neighbour she had met on her way out , took a taxi and rushed the child to the emergency unit of ORG .","According to the applicant , at the emergency unit of ORG his wife and son encountered a member of the medical staff who , without examining his son , advised his wife to take the child to the paediatric unit of the same hospital for medical care .","The child did not receive any medical treatment at the emergency unit of ORG because the applicant \u2019s wife had immediately taken the child to the paediatric unit of the hospital .","Upon arrival at the paediatric unit , the doctors tried to resuscitate the child and clear his respiratory channels , but without any success . The child had died .","On DATE , ORG initiated of its own motion a criminal investigation into the death of the applicant \u2019s son . On DATE , it carried out an investigation on the premises of ORG ( cercetare la fa\u021ba locului ) and at the applicant \u2019s home .","On DATE ORG asked ORG to produce an autopsy report in respect of the applicant \u2019s son .","On DATE ORG issued a death certificate which concluded that the applicant \u2019s son had died of acute respiratory failure as a result of the blood that had blocked his airways .","On DATE and DATE as well as DATE and DATE ORG heard the applicant and his wife .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG for aggravated involuntary manslaughter against PERSON and the unidentified staff member who had been working at FAC emergency unit on TIME CARDINAL May CARDINAL . He alleged that the faulty surgical and post - surgical treatment received by his son from Dr O.L.T. , as well as the refusal of the unidentified staff member of ORG emergency unit to urgently treat his son , had resulted in his death . In addition , he asked the investigating authorities to identify all the medical personnel working at the emergency unit of ORG on TIME DATE because their identities were unknown to him . Furthermore , he informed the investigating authorities that he reserved his right to join the criminal proceedings as a civil party and his right to request that the private clinic where the surgery had taken place and ORG be held jointly liable with their staff for their negligence while on duty under the relevant provisions of the criminal procedure law and civil law . Lastly , he asked the domestic authorities to order ORG to carry out a forensic expert report that would answer his questions about the cause and circumstances of his son \u2019s death .","On DATE , ORG produced the autopsy report requested by ORG on DATE . The report , signed by CARDINAL forensic experts , relied amongst other things on a histological examination of tissue collected from the applicant \u2019s son after his death . It noted the opening of a very small blood vessel in the cavity of the upper left tonsil . It concluded that the child \u2019s death had been violent and had been caused by severe respiratory failure resulting from the aspiration of blood into his airways . The bleeding had originated from a small damaged arterial blood vessel located in the cavity of the left tonsil and had lasted for TIME . Blood had accumulated in the stomach cavity , which had resulted in vomiting and subsequently in the blocking of the child \u2019s airways . The blood vessel had been damaged by local acute inflammation \u2013 also confirmed by the histological examination \u2013 which had happened on DATE after the surgery . The report noted that although those circumstances were rare , they occurred in PERCENT of cases . It excluded the possibility that the bleeding had been caused by the severing of a larger blood vessel or an artery during surgery . Had that been the case , the bleeding would have happened faster and more abundantly . Lastly , it recommended that the report be submitted for approval by the forensic review board of ORG , which could also assess , among other things , the medical conduct in the case .","On DATE , further to the applicant \u2019s request , ORG provided him with a copy of the autopsy report produced by ORG and of the surgery report produced by the private clinic where his son \u2019s surgery had been performed .","On an unspecified date , the autopsy report was sent for approval to the review board of ORG and the higher forensic review board of ORG .","On DATE , DATE and DATE ORG heard the medical personnel of the private clinic where the applicant \u2019s son had undergone surgery and who had been involved in his pre- and post - surgical care , as well as Dr O.L.T.","On DATE , the applicant lodged a request with ORG for a new forensic expert report to be produced in his son \u2019s case . He requested that a forensic expert chosen by him and an otolaryngologist be allowed to take part in the process .","On DATE , ORG review board approved the autopsy report of DATE . The board included an otolaryngologist . It concluded , among other things , that the surgical operation and the postsurgical examinations had been appropriate and that the applicant \u2019s son had not been treated negligently . The delayed haemorrhage had not been caused by the surgery , but by a secondary inflammation . The last medical examination of the applicant \u2019s son could not have identified a microscopic infection . However , the medical personnel of ORG emergency unit had to explain their conduct given that their statements had not been attached to the examined file .","On DATE the higher forensic review board of ORG examined and approved the findings of the autopsy report and of ORG review board . The board , which also included an otolaryngologist , concluded that PERSON had not committed any medical errors and that the cause of death established by the autopsy report was correct . The death of the applicant \u2019s son was not a consequence of the surgery . No one could be blamed for his haemorrhage , because it had been caused by a necrosis of the wall of the carotid artery which had subsequently spontaneously broken . The choices made by the medical personnel of ORG emergency unit had been based on the equipment available in the emergency unit and the seriousness of the condition of the applicant \u2019s son . Although it was clear that the applicant \u2019s son had died by the time he had reached the paediatric unit , there were no medical records to show whether he had still been alive when he had arrived at the emergency unit of the hospital . Given the circumstances and the seriousness of his condition , there was little hope that he could have been saved .","On DATE , ORG authorised a new forensic expert report , deemed necessary by the applicant . However , the report was never produced because on DATE the higher forensic review board of ORG communicated its report of DATE to ORG .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE ORG and the prosecutor \u2019s office repeatedly questioned the medical personnel of ORG emergency unit who had been on duty when the applicant \u2019s son had arrived at the hospital , namely doctors GPE , ORG and GPE ; the orderly , GPE ; nurse PERSON and head nurse ORG The investigators also questioned R.D.M. , the taxi driver who had transported the applicant \u2019s wife and son to the hospital , and PERSON , the applicant \u2019s neighbour who had accompanied them .","On DATE , at the request of ORG , ORG notified the police that their internal inquiry had been unable to identify the individual who had directed the applicant \u2019s wife and her son to a different unit of the hospital , because all those questioned had stated that they did not know who had done so .","On DATE , the applicant submitted before ORG an opinion drafted by a forensic medical expert chosen by him . It criticised the conclusions of the medical forensic documents produced in the case and recommended that a new forensic expert report be produced .","On DATE ORG informed ORG that in accordance with LAW and their professional duties , the medical personnel of ORG emergency unit had been under an obligation to provide medical assistance in cases similar to that of the applicant \u2019s son . However , only a doctor had had the power to decide on the situation and the medical procedure that needed to be followed in respect of the applicant \u2019s son after a medical examination . The applicant \u2019s son had not been provided with the required medical assistance because the child \u2019s mother had rushed him out of the emergency unit once she had been directed by an unidentified individual , without having entered a doctor \u2019s office . Therefore the child had never been examined by CARDINAL of the doctors on duty that day . Although the medical personnel who had been on duty in the hospital reception area DATE had been questioned , the inquiry carried out by the disciplinary board of ORG had been unable to identify the person who had redirected the applicant \u2019s wife .","On DATE ORG informed ORG that in their opinion , given the serious condition of the applicant \u2019s son , had he been seen by CARDINAL of the on - duty doctors , they could have treated him in the emergency unit . Moreover , the child \u2019s condition did not warrant a decision to direct him elsewhere for treatment .","On DATE , the applicant reiterated his request for a new forensic expert report .","On DATE , the higher forensic review board of ORG notified ORG that under the relevant domestic legislation , a new forensic expert report could not be ordered unless there were new medical and factual elements , given that the review board had already issued its opinion on DATE .","By an order of DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings ( a \u020bnceput urm\u0103rirea penal\u0103 ) against the head nurse , ORG , for negligence while on duty because he had failed to notify the head doctor and had not taken measures to stabilise the condition of the applicant \u2019s child , who had been brought to the hospital in a critical condition . At the same time , the prosecutor \u2019s office continued to investigate PERSON for aggravated involuntary manslaughter and PERSON and nurse PERSON for negligence while on duty .","On DATE ORG informed ORG that under the relevant domestic legislation it was competent to organise and control the nursing profession . However , the applicant had failed to lodge a formal complaint about the events of CARDINAL DATE . Although , following press reports , the organisation had carried out a preliminary inquiry into the death of the applicant \u2019s son , it appeared from the available evidence and the inquiry already launched by the organisation into the case that the accusations had been targeted at doctors . ORG was not competent to institute disciplinary proceedings against doctors .","On DATE and DATE , the applicant again reiterated his request for a new forensic expert report . He also requested that PERSON and the nurses who had assisted him during the surgery be subjected to a polygraph test .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the authorities investigating the case confronted head nurse ORG with witnesses GPE , PERSON and PERSON","On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for a new forensic expert report on the grounds that the autopsy report prepared by ORG had been approved by ORG review board and the higher forensic review board of ORG . The latter board had confirmed the accuracy of both the methodology used and the conclusions of the autopsy report . The inconsistencies claimed by the applicant between the autopsy report and the board \u2019s report had been irrelevant in determining the cause of death and whether the doctor who had performed the surgery had committed any medical errors . The prosecutor \u2019s order of CARDINAL November CARDINAL for a new forensic expert report had not been carried out and was no longer required in the case for the reasons outlined above . Polygraph testing as a means of establishing evidence was not regulated by LAW and therefore was not required for the case .","By order of DATE , ORG , relying on LAW , decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings ( scoaterea de sub urm\u0103rire penal\u0103 ) against head nurse ORG for negligence while on duty and not to institute criminal proceedings ( ne\u00eenceperea urm\u0103ririi penale ) against PERSON , for aggravated involuntary manslaughter , and against PERSON and nurse GPE for negligence while on duty , on the grounds that their actions lacked the elements of an offence . The prosecutor \u2019s office held that the clinical and medical investigation , as well as the tonsillectomy performed by PERSON , had been adequate and that no omissions or negligence could be established in his conduct towards the victim . In addition , none of the medical personnel of ORG emergency unit had spoken with the applicant \u2019s wife in order to direct her to the paediatric unit , and the professional duties of head nurse ORG did not include the required power of decision . The applicant challenged the order before the superior prosecutor .","By a final order of DATE , the superior prosecutor rejected the applicant \u2019s challenge , holding that the available evidence proved that the accused could not be held liable for directly causing the death of the applicant \u2019s son . PERSON had observed all the lawful procedures when he had performed the surgery , and the medical community accepted that the severe inflammation which had led to the child \u2019s death had been a rare case . As regards the medical staff of ORG emergency unit , it could not be established without any doubt whether the child had been alive on his arrival at the hospital . The applicant challenged the order before the domestic courts , arguing that the investigating authorities had failed to produce all the necessary evidence , in particular a new expert report .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint as lodged outside the statutory timelimit . The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment .","On DATE , ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge on the basis of the available testimonial , documentary and forensic evidence by relying on LAW . It held that none of the defendants who had been on duty at FAC emergency unit when the applicant \u2019s wife had arrived with her son had had a direct conversation with her or directed her to the paediatric unit . The job description of the head nurse , ORG , did not give him the power to make such a decision . In addition , a new forensic expert report was not necessary for the case . The higher forensic review board of ORG appealed on points of law against the judgment . He argued that a new forensic expert report had been needed in order to clarify the causes and circumstances of his son \u2019s death .","By a final judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . It held that in spite of the efforts made by the criminal investigators and the court itself , it could not be established beyond any doubt that the person who had directed the applicant \u2019s wife to the paediatric unit was a staff member of the emergency unit of ORG on duty at the time of the death of the applicant \u2019s son . There had been no evidence in the file that the applicant \u2019s wife had spoken to a doctor and that the doctor had decided to direct her to the paediatric unit . As for the medical papers , which the court considered to be the actual object of the applicant\u2019","The applicant instituted disciplinary proceedings against Dr PERSON before the disciplinary board of ORG .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the medical council concluded that there were no elements of medical fault .","The applicant challenged that decision before the higher disciplinary board of ORG ( \u201c the Higher Board \u201d ) , arguing that not only had PERSON been exonerated , but none of the medical personnel on duty at FAC emergency unit had been held accountable .","By a decision of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge . It held that , on the basis of the available forensic evidence , otolaryngologists\u2019 opinions and the medical doctrine , the death of the applicant \u2019s son had been caused by a slow haemorrhage located in the cavity of the tonsils . This had been triggered by a local acute inflammatory lesion , which had resulted in the rupture of a small blood vessel , probably after the child had swallowed hard food without chewing it sufficiently . The vascular necrosis which caused the haemorrhage was the result of local inflammation and could not have been diagnosed prior to the time at which it had occurred . It could not have been foreseen by a post - surgical examination of the area operated on . Consequently , the doctor had not breached the rules of good medical conduct .","ORG also upheld the outcome of the internal inquiry carried out by ORG . It noted that the inquiry had been unable to identify the person who had directed the applicant \u2019s wife to the paediatric unit and therefore no administrative sanction could be applied . The applicant did not appeal against the decision of ORG before the domestic courts .","The relevant domestic legal provisions concerning the delivery of expert forensic medical reports and the authorities competent for issuing them , as well as the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the civil liability of doctors and hospitals for medical errors , are described in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The relevant provisions on civil liability for tort of the former NORP Civil Code read as follows :","\u201c Any act committed by a person that causes damage to another shall render the person through whose fault the damage was caused liable to make reparation for it . \u201d","\u201c Everyone shall be liable for damage he has caused not only through his own actions but also through his failure to act or his negligence . \u201d","The provisions of the former NORP Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the instituting of civil proceedings alone or in conjunction with criminal proceedings read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If a victim has not joined criminal proceedings as a civil party , he or she may bring separate proceedings for damages caused as a result of the offence before the civil courts .","( CARDINAL ) Civil proceedings shall be suspended pending a final judgment of the criminal courts ... \u201d","Articles CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the former NORP Civil Code provide that those responsible for the supervision and control of a person whom they have appointed to perform a duty are liable for any damage caused by the appointed person in the performance of his or her functions . If several persons are responsible for the damage caused , they are jointly liable for redress .","Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on health - care reform , in force as from DATE , introduced the notion of medical negligence and created an obligation for medical personnel to obtain insurance for any civil liability resulting from their work . Its relevant provisions read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG personnel ... who provide medical assistance , within the public and\/or private system , in a place specifically designated for this purpose or outside such a place further to an express request from the person \/ s requiring the medical assistance or from a third party requesting assistance for CARDINAL or more persons who , for no fault of their own , are unable to request such assistance , shall be insured against medical negligence covering professional civil liability for damage caused through a medical act .","( CARDINAL ) A copy of the insurance policy shall be presented before the conclusion of an employment contract , being a mandatory condition for employment . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The insurer shall grant compensation for damage for which the insured person is liable , in accordance with the law , to third parties who are ascertained to have been subjected to an act of medical negligence , as well as for the legal fees of the person damaged through the medical act .","( CARDINAL ) Damages shall be awarded irrespective of the place where the medical assistance was provided .","( CARDINAL ) The mandatory insurance ... shall comprise all types of medical treatment provided within the specialty and medical competency of the insured person and within the whole range of medical services offered by the relevant units . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Damages shall be awarded for the amounts the insured person is obliged to pay as indemnification and legal fees to the person \/ s damaged through the provision of inadequate medical assistance , which may have triggered bodily injury or death .","( CARDINAL ) In the event of death , damages shall be awarded to the patient \u2019s legal successors who have requested them .","( CARDINAL ) Damages shall be awarded also in the event that medical assistance was not granted even though the condition of the person \/ s who requested it or for whom medical assistance was requested required such intervention .","( CARDINAL ) Damages shall include potential expenses incurred by a lawsuit in which the insured person is ordered to pay them ; the maximum liability for legal fees shall be set out in the insurance policy . \u201d","\u201c Acts of medical negligence within the medical activities of prevention , diagnostic and treatment shall be time - barred DATE from the occurrence of the damage , except for acts that constitute criminal offences \u201d .","The relevant provisions of Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the statute of limitation in force at the relevant time read as follows :","\u201c The right to lodge an action with a pecuniary scope shall be time - barred , if it was not used within the prescribed period . \u201d","\u201c The term of the statute of limitation is DATE . \u201d","The Government submitted several final court judgments concerning proceedings instituted by victims or doctors against the disciplinary decisions of medical councils in respect of cases of medical negligence . CARDINAL final judgments rendered by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE , respectively , dismissed the appeals brought by the victims against the decisions of the medical councils not to pursue disciplinary proceedings against the doctors . CARDINAL final judgments delivered by ORG and ORG from DATE to DATE dismissed the ORG appeals against the decisions of the medical councils whereby sanctions were applied to them .","The Government further submitted CARDINAL final judgment delivered on CARDINAL DATE by ORG allowing the victim \u2019s general tortlaw action for joint pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage against the hospital and the doctor who had operated on the victim in DATE by also relying on LAW ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175684","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"VICA LTD v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant company , ORG , was registered in GPE , GPE in DATE . It was represented before the ORG by Dr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in PERSON .","NORP The applicant company owned CARDINAL pieces of land which were expropriated by the Government on CARDINAL DATE . The case before the ORG only concerns CARDINAL of those CARDINAL ( the sixth one ) .","NORP In so far as relevant , on DATE the applicant company was informed , by means of a notice to treat , that it was being offered CARDINAL NORP liri ( ORG MONEY ( ORG ) ) for the ( sixth ) piece of land , which measured CARDINAL sq.m .","NORP By means of a judicial letter of DATE the applicant company refused the offer and claimed compensation amounting to ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) based on an ex parte architect report which considered that , according to the ORG \u2019s architect \u2019s valuation , part of the land was agricultural land .","In the absence of any agreement , in DATE , the applicant company instituted constitutional redress proceedings , complaining under LAW to LAW about the delay in the payment of compensation ( in respect of all the pieces of land ) . The applicant company was successful and by a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG awarded it LAW in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The costs were to be borne by both parties .","Pending the above constitutional proceedings and following action taken by the Commissioner of LOC , on DATE proceedings before ORG ) were commenced to determine the compensation due .","In DATE , pending those proceedings , the Government returned part of the land to the applicant company . In consequence the remaining part of the sixth piece of expropriated land amounted to an area of CARDINAL sq.m .","The LAB were not informed of the return of the property .","During the proceedings , technical experts appointed by the ORG established the value of the ( entire ) sixth piece of land as ORG CARDINAL , considering that for the most part , it was to be classified as building land .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the LAB awarded the applicant company compensation for the CARDINAL pieces of land mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above . In connection with the sixth piece of land , the subject of the proceedings before the ORG , the ORG awarded ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( for the entire piece of land ) . It referred to LAW , which provided that where the technical members of the board were unanimously in agreement , the board was bound to award compensation in accordance with the valuation of the technical members . It also awarded interest and ordered that the costs be divided by the parties in proportion .","NORP The Commissioner of Lands appealed , claiming , inter alia , that ORG had wrongly applied the law in determining the compensation , because by means of transitory provisions enacted in DATE the LAB could now no longer award more than a claimant would have claimed .","During the proceedings the applicant company pleaded that the application of the relevant provisions of ORG had breached its rights under LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW .","By a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the appeal in so far as Article GPE ) of the GPE had retroactive application in terms of the transitory provisions contained in LAW . It followed that the award of compensation could not exceed that claimed by the applicant company . Adjusting the claim to the area of the sixth piece of land which had not been returned and for which the applicant company was owed compensation , the court awarded the applicant company ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ordered it to pay costs . As to the constitutional plea raised by the applicant company in this regard , ORG held that this legal matter had already been examined in CARDINAL constitutional cases , namely Commissioner of GPE vs PERSON , of DATE and ORG vs Director of Lands of DATE , in which it was held that there had been no breach of the claimants\u2019 property rights given that they had been awarded the sum they had actually requested in compensation ( irrespective of the fact that the independent architects had estimated the land to be worth more ) .","The applicant company did not institute a new and separate set of constitutional proceedings to complain about the matter , considering that it would be futile given the established case - law .","NORP Before the DATE amendments described below , in awarding compensation for the value of the land the Chairman of the ORG was bound by the valuations given by CARDINAL experts ( which formed part of the LAB ) , when these were unanimous in their valuation .","Act XVII of DATE added a proviso to LAW Ordinance , LAW of LAW , amending it to read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The ORG shall be competent \u2013","...","( e ) to assess the amount of compensation payable under any of the provisions of this LAW and for that purpose to declare whether any area is a building site or agricultural or waste land ;","...","... Provided that the amount of compensation to be assessed by ORG in accordance with the provisions of paragraph ( e ) , shall not exceed the higher amount of compensation as proposed by any of the parties . \u201d","The transitory provision , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , reads as follows :","\u201c The provisions of Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the Ordinance as amended by this section shall apply to any proceedings relating to any land covered by any declaration issued LAW , even if issued prior to the date of the coming into force of this section . \u201d","The relevant parts of Article PERSON ) of the GPE , regarding compensation , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Without prejudice to any special provision contained in this LAW , in assessing compensation the ORG shall act in accordance with the following rules :","( a ) no allowance shall be made on account of the acquisition being compulsory ;","( b ) the value of the land shall , subject as hereinafter provided , be taken to be the amount which the land if sold in the open market by a willing seller might be expected to realise : ( ... ) \u201d","In circumstances similar to the present case , ORG examined , inter alia , the complaint of the claimants in that case concerning the retroactive application of LAW , which had allegedly violated their legitimate expectation to compensation as established by the laws in force at the time of the taking , thus denying them part of their compensation .","By a judgment of DATE ORG DATE which was bound ( by procedural rules ) to look into the matter only under LAW No . DATE found no violation of the claimants\u2019 property rights .","It considered that before LAW could have awarded compensation higher than that requested by the parties , so rather than clarifying the law the LAW limited the compensation that could be awarded . Nevertheless , the claimants did not have a \u201c possession \u201d within the meaning of LAW No . CARDINAL , in that they had had no legitimate expectation of receiving an amount higher than that established by their ex parte expert , which they had claimed . Specific to that case the court noted firstly that when LAW had come into effect the report of the new architects had not yet been included in the case file . Secondly , before LAW the claimants had not claimed compensation higher than that awarded , and thirdly , when the tribunal architects were appointed the claimants had been aware of the new legislation . Moreover , the claimants had received fair compensation since they had been awarded the entire sum they had asked for . ORG noted that it was clear that the valuation made by the experts appointed by the tribunal was in stark contrast to the valuations made by the previous architects and the ex parte experts ; their valuation was therefore arbitrary and disproportionate , as no reasons had been given to justify the huge difference . LAW had therefore not violated the claimants\u2019 rights under LAW No . CARDINAL .","In circumstances similar to those in the present case , the claimants raised a constitutional issue arguing that the application of the relevant proviso of LAW in their case had breached their right to fair compensation . The issue was raised before ORG before which they were appealing against a decision of the ORG awarding them compensation . ORG shared the conclusions of ORG in the case of Commissioner of Lands vs PERSON of DATE and dismissed the claim on the basis that the claimants had obtained the sum they had requested ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141200","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LU\u010cI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , at TIME , ORG lodged a criminal complaint with ORG FAC uprava DATE \u201c the police \u201d ) alleging that during TIME the applicant had raped her . He had offered to drive her home from bar A. , where she worked , but had then driven into the nearby woods and raped her in his car . She had then asked him to drive her to a TIME - club , \u201c S. \u201d , where he had dropped her off and left .","The applicant was arrested on TIME and GPE identified him as her rapist .","During TIME ORG was examined by a doctor who found no injuries on her body or genitals . The applicant was also taken to a doctor and the doctor found abrasions on his right upper arm and elbow and his right knee .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by an investigating judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) . He admitted to having had sexual intercourse with ORG in his car but argued that it had been consensual . He contended that the abrasions on his right arm and leg were the result of friction during the intercourse . After the questioning the applicant was released .","On DATE and DATE ORG \u2019s lawyer asked the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) to request the investigating judge to have the applicant detained on the grounds that he had been trying to contact GPE , threatening her in order to make her withdraw her criminal complaint . She also argued that ORG had sought psychiatric help and submitted medical reports in that connection .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG asked the investigating judge of ORG to open an investigation in respect of the applicant on charges of rape and to order his detention on the basis of the information submitted by GPE","The investigating judge opened the investigation on DATE but refused to order the applicant \u2019s detention on the grounds that there was no reliable evidence suggesting that he might influence the witness or reoffend .","On DATE ORG , in the presence of her lawyer , gave oral evidence at a hearing before the investigating judge . The applicant and his defence lawyer were not informed of the hearing and were not present during the questioning .","During the questioning , ORG reiterated her previous allegation that the applicant had raped her .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG lodged an appeal with a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG against the investigating judge \u2019s decision refusing the request for the applicant \u2019s detention .","The CARDINAL - judge panel granted the application and on DATE ordered the investigating judge to re - examine the request for detention .","On DATE the investigating judge again dismissed the request for the applicant \u2019s detention on the grounds that there were no relevant reasons for his remand in custody . The GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG appealed , but on DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel upheld that decision .","In the course of the investigation the investigating judge heard several witnesses and commissioned medical reports .","On DATE FAC , a colleague of ORG , testified before the investigating judge that she had been working with ORG in bar NORP on DATE in issue and that when ORG had wanted to go home , ORG had asked the applicant to give her a lift . DATE , ORG had told her that she had been raped by the applicant . ORG had also seen the applicant later , and he had denied the rape accusation , stating that ORG had had sex with him voluntarily . ORG also stressed that she knew the applicant well and she had never heard of him attacking girls or doing anything of that kind .","An expert medical report of DATE found that the reports on ORG \u2019s gynaecological and psychiatric examination showed no objective evidence of any injuries .","On DATE the investigating judge heard evidence from ORG , who stated that on TIME in issue he had been working as a musician in the TIME - club \u201c S. \u201d when ORG had come in . She had bought a drink for the musicians and then he had taken her home . There had been nothing unusual about her ; she had appeared normal and had not made any mention of rape .","Another witness , PERSON , was questioned on DATE . She stated that on TIME after the event GPE had come to a bar where she worked and told her that she had been raped TIME . She had been very distressed and frightened . PERSON had told her to report the rape to a policeman who had been in a nearby bar .","A forensic report of DATE found biological traces from GPE on the applicant \u2019s underwear .","An expert medical report of DATE found that the abrasions on the applicant \u2019s right upper arm could have resulted from finger nail scratches , while the injuries on his elbow and right knee could have been the result of a fall or friction .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG indicted the applicant in ORG on charges of rape .","At a hearing on DATE the applicant pleaded not guilty . ORG , although properly summoned , failed to appear .","On DATE ORG instructed the police to take GPE to the hearing , scheduled for DATE .","On DATE TIME , through her lawyer , informed ORG that she was living abroad and asked that the hearing be postponed until DATE when she would be in GPE . ORG agreed to her request and scheduled a hearing for DATE .","At the hearing on DATE ORG , although properly summoned , again failed to appear . Her lawyer , present at the hearing , informed the trial court that meanwhile she had not had any contact with GPE","On DATE ORG again ordered the police to take GPE to a hearing scheduled for DATE .","NORP However , that hearing was again adjourned because the police were unable to locate GPE The only information available was that she had been living in GPE for DATE .","On DATE ORG \u2019s lawyer informed the trial court that she was no longer representing GPE","On DATE the ORG requested the police to establish ORG exact address , and the police informed it that the only information available was that she was living in GPE .","After several adjourned hearings , on CARDINAL DATE a hearing was held at which the applicant pleaded not guilty . The Deputy ORG Attorney asked the trial court to admit in evidence the written record of GPE \u2019s oral statement given to the investigating judge . The defence opposed that request , arguing that given the gravity of charges against the applicant it was necessary to question ORG at the hearing . The defence also stressed that she was a NORP citizen and that her whereabouts in GPE could be established through the relevant police records and the appropriate diplomatic channels .","On DATE the police informed ORG that from an interview with ORG mother they had learned that ORG was living in GPE , GPE , and that she would be in GPE for DATE during DATE .","At a hearing on DATE the trial court heard evidence from the witness ORG , who reiterated his statement given to the investigating judge ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Deputy State Attorney again requested the trial court to admit in evidence the record of GPE \u2019s oral statement to the investigating judge . The defence insisted that she should be questioned and provided an address in the GPE where she allegedly resided .","On DATE the ORG requested that ORG be summoned to a hearing by means of international legal assistance in criminal matters through the authorities in the GPE .","On DATE ORG was informed that the authorities in the GPE had not been able to serve the court summons on ORG","At a hearing on DATE the trial court heard evidence from the witness FAC , who reiterated her previous statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Deputy State Attorney requested that the record of GPE \u2019s oral evidence to the investigating judge , as well as the records of the statements of the witness PERSON , who had never appeared before the trial court , and the witness ORG , be admitted in evidence without their questioning at the hearing . The defence agreed with regard to admitting the written statements of the other witnesses but insisted on that ORG should be questioned at the hearing . The trial court agreed to the prosecution \u2019s request and admitted the written record of ORG \u2019s oral evidence given before the investigating judge as evidence .","On DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty on the charges of rape and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) against the first - instance judgment , complaining that ORG had failed to secure the presence and examination of GPE at the trial .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and ordered a retrial . ORG found that ORG had failed to take all reasonable steps to secure the presence of GPE at the trial even though her evidence was decisive for the case .","During the retrial , on DATE ORG requested that ORG \u2019s whereabouts in GPE be established through contacting the NORP national authorities by means of international legal assistance in criminal matters .","On DATE the police informed ORG that they had obtained ORG address in GPE from her parents , and the trial court summoned GPE from that address .","On DATE the ORG received information from the NORP authorities in respect of ORG exact address and telephone number in GPE .","A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because ORG failed to appear . There was , at the time , no information on whether she had received the court summons .","Another hearing was held on DATE at which the trial court found that ORG had been properly summoned both to that hearing and to the hearing of DATE .","At the hearing the applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges of rape and the trial court again questioned the witness ORG , who reiterated his previous statements . The Deputy State Attorney asked for all the witness statements to be admitted in evidence without the questioning of the witnesses . The defence agreed to this save for the evidence of ORG , insisting that she should be cross - examined at the trial and pointing out that the defence had been denied the opportunity to question her when she had given her statement to the investigating judge . The trial court accepted the Deputy ORG Attorney \u2019s proposal and admitted the written record of ORG \u2019s oral statement to the investigating judge as evidence . However , it adjourned the hearing in order to question another witness on behalf of the defence , GPE","At a hearing held on DATE the ORG noted that ORG had died and concluded the trial . On DATE it found the applicant guilty of the charges of rape and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The trial court relied on the statement given by ORG and held that it had been corroborated with other evidence . In particular , it noted :","\u201c It follows from the statements given by witnesses ORG and [ PERSON ] , and the evidence provided by the forensic expert and other medical evidence concerning the victim , that the relevant ( so - called control ) facts , important for the assessment of contradictory statements of the accused and the victim , support the statement given by the victim . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG complaining that the first - instance court had failed to take all reasonable steps to secure the presence of ORG at the trial and that her evidence had been crucial for his case .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . The relevant part of ORG judgment reads :","\u201c As can be seen from the case file , after the investigation had been opened on DATE ... the victim ORG was questioned as a witness on DATE ... The accused had been legally represented ever since CARDINAL May CARDINAL ... and the defence counsel did not ask to be present during the questioning of this witness , within the meaning of LAW , nor did any circumstances at the time suggest that she might be absent from the hearing . Following the investigation , and after the accused had been indicted [ in ORG ] , the victim \u2019s representative informed the court that \u2018 ... the victim is at the moment working abroad and therefore she is unable to appear at the trial , so she has asked if the hearing can be adjourned until DATE , when she will be in GPE ... \u2019 ... The victim failed to appear at the hearing of DATE , although she had been properly summoned ... After that , on DATE , ORG informed the court that the they had learned from the victim \u2019s father that she \u2018 [ had ] been living in GPE for DATE and he [ did n\u2019t ] know when she [ would ] return.\u2019 ... On DATE the court was again informed that she \u2018 ... work[ed ] in Spain\u2019 ... Following ORG further investigations into GPE \u2019s whereabouts , on DATE the court was informed that she lived in GPE , GPE , \u2018 with her husband\u2019 ... However , after her exact address in GPE had been established , as this court had requested in its earlier decision , the court summoned the victim twice to a hearing ... Although she was properly summoned , she failed to appear and did not give any reason for her absence .","Thus , the victim ORG was questioned during the investigation as required by law , after which it appears she did not want to appear at the hearing , although she did not give reasons for her absence . Since she lived abroad the trial court had no way of securing her presence at the hearing and therefore it rightly decided , under LAW ) of LAW , to read out the written record of her oral statement . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , reiterating his previous complaints .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts . The decision of ORG was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177351","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u0100BELE v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC . He is a person with special needs . The applicant is deaf and mute since birth and his knowledge of sign language is poor .","At least as of DATE , when his disability was certified as permanent , the applicant has been recognised as being category CARDINAL disabled ( the least severe level of disability ) . On an unspecified date his disability was re - categorised as category CARDINAL ( medium level of disability ) .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . That judgment became final on DATE . He started serving his sentence in the most restrictive \u201c lower \u201d regime in FAC .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC . He was placed in the medium regime as he had served CARDINAL of his sentence . He was held in cell no . CARDINAL ( from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) and cell no . CARDINAL ( from DATE to DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant was placed in the most restrictive \u201c lower \u201d regime . He was held in cell no . CARDINAL ( from DATE until DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant was placed in the least restrictive \u201c higher \u201d regime . It appears that as of that date he was held in CARDINAL different multi - occupancy cells . The number of his cellmates varied from CARDINAL . Each inmate had CARDINAL sq . m of living space in those cells .","According to the applicant , he was held in dormitorytype cells CARDINAL . FAC , CARDINAL and CARDINAL together with other inmates , all of whom were in good health except for the applicant . The applicant \u2019s submissions as to the overall surface area in those cells as well as the size of the sanitary facilities were consistent with the ORG \u2019s submissions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . His account of the number of inmates was slightly different \u2013 he alleged that he had been held together with CARDINAL inmates in cells QUANTITY CARDINAL . However , as concerns cell no . CARDINAL he agreed with the Government DATE inmates had been held in that cell .","NORP The applicant submitted that the heating had not been sufficient in those cells . He had been neither able to communicate with other inmates , nor with the prison management due to his disability . He had been in social isolation and had not received any special assistance .","According to the ORG , the applicant was held in CARDINAL different cells , the conditions of which are detailed in the table below . The calculation of personal space ( overall surface area with the in - cell sanitary facility deducted , divided by number of inmates held therein ) is based on an approximate measurement of the sanitary facility according to the floor plans of FAC .","As regards out - of - cell activities , the Government indicated that while being held in the medium regime DATE in cells CARDINAL . FAC and CARDINAL \u2013 the applicant had been able to freely leave those cells in TIME and to use the common area . The Government further submitted that cell no . FAC had been equipped with CARDINAL window . That window had been fitted with bars and had been placed in a wall ( adjacent to a corridor ) facing another window ( in the corridor ) . This cell had had CARDINAL fluorescent lamps , including TIME lamp located above the door . Heating had been provided by CARDINAL heating pipe of QUANTITY in diameter and the heaters located in the adjacent corridor and in the hallway . A new automatic boiler had been installed in FAC , which had ensured a temperature of ORG arrangements in cell no . CARDINAL had been the same as in cell no . CARDINAL .","While being held in the most restrictive \u201c lower \u201d regime DATE in cell no . DATE the applicant had been able to leave this cell only for a DATE walk ( TIME ) , to take a shower or for appointments with a doctor , a prison chaplain or a social worker when necessary .","Overall , inmates in FAC had had access to a psychologist , but the applicant had never availed himself of this possibility . He had , however , met with a prison chaplain and a social worker on several occasions . The Government provided records of CARDINAL conversations between the applicant and a social worker in DATE , including a meeting on CARDINAL DATE where the latter had called a non - governmental organisation ( ORG ) concerning the applicant \u2019s hearing aid . Lastly , the applicant had visited a psychiatrist at least on six occasions in the time period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the state of the applicant \u2019s health was examined for the first time in FAC . It was noted that the applicant was deaf and mute and that he suffered from spondylosis .","The applicant submitted an extract of his medical record in FAC . According to that document ( dated DATE ) , he had been deaf since birth . On CARDINAL DATE a psychiatrist had detected a psychiatric health condition ( psihiskas vesel\u012bbas probl\u0113mas ) , namely , \u201c reaction to situations with anxiety \u201d ( situ\u0101cijas reakcija ar trauksmi ) . On DATE the same psychiatrist had detected another sleep - related condition . On DATE another psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as having \u201c organic personality disorder \u201d ( organiski person\u012bbas trauc\u0113jumi ) .","The Government submitted another extract of the applicant \u2019s medical record in FAC . According to that document ( dated DATE ) , upon admission to FAC the applicant had been diagnosed as being deaf and mute and having spondylosis . During the above - mentioned period the applicant had consulted prison medical staff on thirtynine occasions . He had been examined , treated and provided with medication when necessary . No serious health conditions , which would have required an indepth examination , had been diagnosed . There had been no indications that outpatient examination or treatment had been necessary . The applicant had most often complained of colds , headache , poor sleep , gastritis and back pain related to spondylosis . Those complaints had not concerned his disability . In DATE and DATE the prison medical staff had organised an outpatient medical examination ( in relation to tuberculosis ) and a consultation by an ophthalmologist to obtain glasses . On DATE , upon the request of ORG ( PERSON vietu p\u0101rvalde ) , the applicant \u2019s state of health had been examined . It had been satisfactory , he had not had any complaints and he had gained weight while in prison . In sum , his health had not deteriorated .","NORP Over the course of DATE ( DATE ) the applicant lodged CARDINAL handwritten complaints with various institutions ( the management of FAC , ORG , ORG and ORG ) .","He informed the authorities that he had been deaf and mute since birth and complained as follows :","CARDINAL ) NORP he had communication problems and conflicts with other inmates ( he referred to \u201c conflicts \u201d , having been \u201c influenced \u201d , \u201c offended \u201d and \u201c laughed about \u201d by other inmates ) ;","CARDINAL ) NORP he wished to be transferred to a single or dual - occupancy cell ;","CARDINAL ) he wished to be transferred to another prison ;","CARDINAL ) he wished to have his prison regime changed ;","CARDINAL ) his conditions of detention were inadequate and","CARDINAL ) his medical care was inadequate .","His complaints were examined by ORG , save for CARDINAL of them that were examined by the management of FAC .","The following conclusions were made :","( CARDINAL ) There had been no real threat to the applicant \u2019s life or health in FAC . He had not been subjected to psychological harassment . His complaints to the management of FAC had not concerned any threats from other inmates .","( CARDINAL ) The applicant did not have a subjective right to choose his cell or cellmates . It fell within the competence of the management of ORG . There was a limited number of cells with a capacity of CARDINAL inmates and those inmates could not be moved for security reasons .","( CARDINAL ) The decision concerning the applicant \u2019s transfer to another prison had to be taken by ORG . Taking into account that the applicant \u2019s state of health had permitted his placement in any prison , there had been no grounds to transfer him to another prison ; he had had to continue serving his sentence in FAC .","( CARDINAL ) The possibility of his transfer to the most lenient prison regime could not be examined before DATE , when he would have served the relevant proportion of his prison sentence . As to the possibility of his transfer back to the more restrictive prison regime such actions could only be taken in cases of serious or systematic breaches of the prison regime .","( CARDINAL ) The conditions in cell no . CARDINAL had been adequate . It had measured CARDINAL sq . ORG and artificial lighting as well as heating had been sufficient . The temperature in cell had been CARDINAL\u02daC.","The conditions in cell no . CARDINAL had been similar to cell no . CARDINAL \u2013 lighting and heating had been adequate .","The conditions in cell no . CARDINAL had been adequate . According to ORG and the relevant floor plans that cell had measured CARDINAL sq . m ( including QUANTITY . m for sanitation facilities ) . Besides the applicant , it had accommodated CARDINAL other inmates . A reference was made to the ORG \u2019s case - law and the applicable domestic standard of QUANTITY . m per male inmate . The temperature in the cell had been CARDINAL\u02daC.","( CARDINAL ) The applicant \u2019s medical care had been carried out in accordance with domestic law . He had received the necessary medication in response to his complaints . He had never complained to prison doctors of \u201c neurological diseases \u201d , \u201c noises \u201d or \u201c fears \u201d , but he had had CARDINAL consultation with a psychiatrist . In any event , he had been able to complain of the quality of medical care in prison to ORG .","On DATE a judge of a first - instance court refused to allow the applicant \u2019s application to be transferred to another prison and to have his prison regime changed to a more restrictive one , a request made by the applicant in order to allow him to be held in a cell with a smaller number of inmates . Those issues fell within the realm of criminal law and could not be examined by the administrative courts .","On DATE another judge refused to allow the applicant \u2019s application to be transferred to another prison and to be relieved from the obligation to continue serving his sentence . As concerns his transfer , reference was made to the decision by ORG whereby a conclusion had been drawn that LAW had not applied . As concerns judicial review of that decision , such a complaint had already been examined ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As concerns the release application , it fell within the realm of criminal law ; this issue could thus not be examined by the administrative courts .","The applicant attempted to appeal against the above - mentioned refusals , but his appeal did not appear sufficiently clear . Accordingly , on DATE another judge decided not to proceed with his appeal ( atst\u0101t bez virz\u012bbas ) , asking the applicant to render it more precise .","On DATE another judge examined further complaints by the applicant . His application to be transferred to a more lenient prison regime and another prison were refused because such complaints had already been examined ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . His complaint about insufficient heating in FAC did not appear sufficiently clear ; the judge decided not to proceed with it , asking the applicant to render it more precise . As the applicant did not provide further information , the latter complaint was considered as not submitted ( uzskat\u012bt par neiesniegtu ) .","On DATE the applicant complained to the administrative courts that ORG had extended the time - limit for its last reply . On DATE a judge terminated the administrative proceedings in this connection since ORG had issued its decision in the meantime .","On DATE a panel in FAC examined the possibility of the applicant \u2019s transfer to a more lenient prison regime . The applicant and a sign - language interpreter were present . It was established that the applicant had been working in prison until DATE ; he had stopped working owing to his state of health . He had a category CARDINAL disability . He had completed secondary education but had not pursued his education further owing to being deaf and mute and needing a specialised learning programme . He had been working with an officer and a social worker for rehabilitation purposes . He had regularly visited a chaplain in prison ; however , he had not met with a psychologist . He had participated in addiction recovery meetings . He had dedicated his free time to himself . He had received CARDINAL positive citations ( pamudin\u0101jums ) from the prison management .","A conclusion was drawn that the applicant had participated in nearly all the rehabilitation activities provided in the prison taking into account his capabilities . Therefore it was possible to transfer him to a more lenient prison regime in a partly closed prison .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to a partly closed prison in GPE , where he was held in a cell with CARDINAL other inmates . CARDINAL of them had a similar hearing impairment ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164679","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GEDRIMAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE , TIME , CARDINAL officers of ORG , GPE and GPE , received an alert that there had been a break - in and robbery in a jewellery store . They called a dog handler , GPE , from ORG who , with the help of a police dog , followed traces from the store to a garage complex on a nearby street and informed GPE and GPE , who then went to the garage complex .","The applicant worked as a guard in that garage complex and on TIME DATE he was on duty . It appears that no other employees were present in the garage complex at that time .","NORP The officers GPE and PERSON arrested the applicant and took him to NORP police station . According to the official police record , the applicant was placed in detention at TIME on DATE and released at CARDINAL a.m. DATE .","Subsequently the applicant and the police officers presented different accounts of the circumstances surrounding the applicant \u2019s arrest .","On DATE the officer PERSON submitted the following report to his superior :","\u201c On DATE I was on duty in PERSON together with officer PERSON At TIME we arrived at the entrance to the garage complex ... where an officer of ORG , GPE , was waiting for us . He said that a police dog had followed traces to [ a car ] ... the car was identified as belonging to [ the applicant ] . We called the guard of the garage and asked him whose car it was , and he said that the car was his . When he was asked to state his name , surname and place of residence , the guard refused and began shouting and jostling ( prad\u0117jo r\u0117kti ir stumdytis ) . He said that he did not have to tell us anything about himself . We explained that a crime had been committed and that he was under an obligation to comply with our lawful orders . The guard refused to comply and kept shouting and jostling . A restrictive measure handcuffs \u2013 was used against him . After the man was taken to the LOC police station , it was identified that he was [ the applicant ] . \u201d","The officer PERSON submitted an identically worded report DATE .","That DATE the applicant submitted the following statement to ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) :","\u201c On TIME DATE I was on duty at the garage complex ... Around TIME QUANTITY police officers came onto the LOC . CARDINAL of them asked me why I had driven drunk and fled . I explained that I was at my workplace , that I had not been drinking and had not gone anywhere ( I had arrived at work at TIME ) . They checked the car and again began accusing me of being drunk and driving drunk . I told them that I was not drunk and that I had a medium - level disability ( antros grup\u0117s ne\u012fgalumas ) . Then they dragged me into the administrative area , handcuffed me , pushed me to the floor and held me down , and twisted my arms behind my back ( lau\u017e\u0117 rankas ) , it hurt a lot ( my hands were handcuffed behind my back ) ; CARDINAL of them kicked me in the stomach CARDINAL times , and they kept telling me to confess . Since I kept denying it , they took me to the police station and gave me an alcohol test , which gave a reading of CARDINAL ... \u201d","NORP That same day the applicant was examined by a doctor at a local hospital . The doctor found that the applicant \u2019s entire abdominal area was sensitive when touched , although there were no external signs of contusion , and that there was limited and painful movement in the applicant \u2019s shoulder joints . The final diagnosis read : \u201c a contusion of the abdomen and a sprain of the shoulder joints \u201d ( pilvo sumu\u0161imas , pe\u010di\u0173 s\u0105nari\u0173 rai\u0161\u010di\u0173 patempimas ) .","On DATE the prosecutor opened a pre - trial investigation concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment by the police officers . The prosecutor requested an additional medical examination of the applicant in order to determine whether there were any injuries on his body , and if so their nature , gravity and possible causes .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a court medical expert . The report on the results of that examination , issued in DATE , found a contusion on the applicant \u2019s abdomen and indicated that it could have been caused by CARDINAL blow from a hard blunt object ( vienu trauminiu poveikiu ) . It also detected bruised skin on the applicant \u2019s left wrist and a sprain of his shoulder joints , noting that they could have resulted from the circumstances described by the applicant , namely from being handcuffed and having his arms twisted behind his back , thus CARDINAL separate traumas ( dviem trauminiais poveikiais ) . The report concluded that the applicant \u2019s injuries constituted negligible health impairment ( ne\u017eymus sveikatos sutrikdymas ) . It also indicated that the applicant \u2019s injuries were unlikely to have been caused by deliberate self - harming actions ( neb\u016bdingi ty\u010diniam sav\u0119s \u017ealojimui ) and that they could have resulted from fighting or selfdefence .","On DATE police officer PERSON was questioned as a witness in the investigation . The written record of his interview was almost identical to his initial report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and added :","\u201c [ The applicant ] approached us and said that the car was his . After we asked him to state his name , surname and place of residence , he refused and began shouting and jostling ... After a while [ the applicant ] said that his documents were in the car and he went to the guard booth to get the car keys . After taking the keys , he turned to me and tried to punch me in the face . At that moment I was standing near the door . The punch missed because I managed to step back . Since he was resisting , I took him by CARDINAL arm , the officer PERSON took him by the other , and we both handcuffed him . Physical force was used only when putting the handcuffs on him , other forcible actions were not used against him . We called the senior investigating officer PERSON to the scene of the event . He examined [ the applicant \u2019s car ] and did not find any suspicious objects ... \u201d","On DATE police officer PERSON was questioned as a witness in the investigation ; the written record of his interview was almost identical to that of GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the police dog handler GPE was questioned as a witness . He stated :","\u201c On TIME ... I went to the jewellery shop in GPE ... A police dog followed traces to [ the garage complex ] and lost them by the car ... The car was examined by officers of ORG . It was identified as belonging to [ the applicant ] who , it emerged later , was a security guard at the garage complex ... He refused to give any statements and refused to go to the police station , so the officers asked him to identify himself , which he also refused to do , and therefore the officers tried to take him into custody and put him into the police car ... [ The applicant ] resisted the officers , punched CARDINAL of them in the face , pushed and jostled them to try to avoid being apprehended , used various NORP swear words ... and threatened the officers ... He mentioned that he had friends in high - level positions . The police officers used combat wrestling methods ( kovini\u0173 imtyni\u0173 veiksmus ) and [ the applicant ] was apprehended , handcuffed and taken to the LOC police station to clarify the circumstances of the incident . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the investigation and questioned . He stated :","\u201c On TIME DATE ... [ soon after TIME ] QUANTITY police officers entered the LOC ; they were wearing uniforms ; CARDINAL of them was taller than the other . They asked me if I was the guard . I told them I was . Then they told me to go outside ... The officers pointed to my car and asked me whose it was . I told them it was mine . Then both the officers came closer to me , CARDINAL from the right and the other from the left , and without saying anything they twisted my arms behind my back ( u\u017elau\u017e\u0117 rankas ) ... Then they asked me why I had tried to escape from them and had not obeyed their order to stop . I told them that I had been at my workplace , that I had not gone anywhere and had not tried to escape from anyone . Then the officers started pulling my twisted arms upwards ( u\u017elau\u017etas rankas k\u0117l\u0117 \u012f vir\u0161\u0173 ) and telling me to confess that I had fled . My arms were hurting ... I told the officers that I could go to the administrative area and get my car keys , so that they could check if my car \u2019s engine was hot . The officers stopped twisting my arms , but did not release them and led me inside the LOC . The car keys were on the table and the officers picked them up , I told them that my documents were in the car and they could check them ... When we were leaving the LOC , I felt the officers handcuff me behind my back . Once I was handcuffed , the shorter officer walked in front of me and the taller officer behind me ; and he was pulling up my handcuffed arms . I crouched down because of that and the shorter officer kneed me in the stomach CARDINAL times . I started feeling weak and dizzy . I kept asking the officers to release me and to stop torturing me . Then the shorter officer said that they would take me to the police station ... I told them that my documents were in the car , that my identity was known to them , and that I could not leave my workplace . Then the taller officer , who was behind me , took me outside while repeatedly twisting and pulling up my arms ... In TIME another officer in a uniform arrived , took my car keys , and tried to open the boot of my car ... The officers examined my car ... Then the shorter and the taller officers put me into their car , still twisting my arms . At the police station I was searched and given an alcohol test ...","[ W]hen the officers arrived at my workplace they did not identify themselves ; I knew they were police officers only from their uniforms . They did not tell me why they were there , and did not ask me to identify myself ; they only asked me if I worked there and if I was the guard . Before being handcuffed I did not jostle . I did not intend to punch the officers ... \u201d","On DATE the prosecutor arranged a confrontation between the applicant and police officer GPE They both essentially reiterated their previous statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) . In addition , PERSON stated that the applicant had sworn at the officers when he had been asked to identify himself . PERSON also stated that after the applicant had gone to the guard booth to get his car keys he had attempted to lock himself inside the booth , but the officers had prevented the door from closing and had entered the booth as well . In the booth PERSON had been standing on the applicant \u2019s right side and PERSON on his left . The door was on PERSON \u2019s other side . After taking the car keys , the applicant had attempted to punch V.B. After that PERSON had taken the applicant by CARDINAL arm and GPE by the other , and they had cuffed his hands behind his back .","The applicant disagreed with PERSON \u2019s statements . He insisted that the officers had not asked him to identify himself , and that he had answered all their questions . The applicant also stated that PERSON and PERSON had been the only officers present at the scene and that there had not been a third officer with a dog . He denied swearing at the officers . PERSON replied that the dog handler , whose name he did not know , had been present during the entire incident , that he had also asked the applicant some questions , and that it was impossible for the applicant not to have noticed him .","On DATE senior investigating officer PERSON was questioned as a witness . He stated :","\u201c I do n\u2019t remember the exact date but it could have been DATE ... I was called to the garage complex ... When I arrived , there were QUANTITY police officers , a dog handler with a dog , and another man \u2013 as I later found out , it was [ the applicant ] . The officers told me that the dog had followed traces to CARDINAL of the cars , so I examined that car . I do n\u2019t remember if [ the applicant ] was handcuffed at the time when I examined the car , I was n\u2019t paying attention . I do n\u2019t remember if [ the applicant ] was swearing at or insulting the police officers , I did n\u2019t notice whether he was actively resisting . After examining the car I did n\u2019t find anything suspicious . Then I immediately left , whereas the officers , the dog handler and [ the applicant ] stayed there ... I can confirm that the handler with the dog was present when I arrived , it was impossible for [ the applicant ] not to have seen him . When I was examining the car , [ the applicant ] was nearby , I do n\u2019t remember if he was saying or doing anything . The officers were also standing nearby , I do n\u2019t remember what exactly they were doing . \u201d","On DATE the prosecutor arranged a confrontation between the applicant and the dog handler GPE The applicant stated that he had never seen GPE before and that neither GPE nor any dog had been present at the time of his arrest . Meanwhile GPE insisted that he had been present :","\u201c I was at the scene of the incident , I was with a dog , I saw [ the applicant \u2019s ] arrest and I helped CARDINAL police officers to twist [ the applicant \u2019s ] arms ( pad\u0117jau u\u017elau\u017eti rankas ) ...","I went to the guard booth with the officers . The applicant opened the door of the booth and stepped outside . We explained to him why we were there \u2013 that a crime had been committed and that the dog had led us to the cars which were parked nearby . We asked the applicant to identify himself and to tell us whose cars were parked there . The applicant refused , began swearing and insulting us , and said that it was none of our business . Then we explained to him that if he did n\u2019t identify himself he would be forcibly taken to the police station . At some point the applicant raised his hand against one of the officers , I do n\u2019t remember which one , and I did n\u2019t see if he hit him or not . Then the officers and I took him by the arms ; I do n\u2019t remember if we twisted them ( su\u0117m\u0117me jam u\u017e rank\u0173 , ar u\u017elau\u017e\u0117m , neatsimenu ) . Then my dog ran towards us ; it had been QUANTITY away by the fence or the wall of the garage , I do n\u2019t remember exactly . I caught the dog and tied it up , possibly to the fence , and then I returned to the officers and the applicant . I helped the officers to hold the applicant \u2019s hands and CARDINAL of them put on handcuffs . I do n\u2019t remember what time we went to the guard booth . Nothing happened inside the booth . \u201d","N.B. further specified that \u201c probably not more than a minute \u201d had passed from the moment the applicant was handcuffed until the moment he was put into the police car . He also stated that he had not seen whether the applicant had been beaten or kicked by the officers . He stated that although the incident had happened during TIME , everything was clearly visible .","On DATE the prosecutor arranged a confrontation between the applicant and police officer GPE The applicant stated that GPE and PERSON had twisted his arms outside , next to the guard booth , that they had handcuffed him inside the booth , and that PERSON had then forcibly pulled up his arms , while PERSON had kneed him in the stomach CARDINAL or CARDINAL times .","PERSON disagreed with the applicant \u2019s statements and denied kneeing him . He stated :","\u201c When we arrived at the garage complex , the dog handler told us that the dog had followed the traces of the possible criminal to the car . Then I identified whose car it was . Afterwards the applicant came towards me : I did n\u2019t see how he got there because at that time I was talking on the portable radio ... After being told that a crime had been committed , the applicant said that he \u201c did n\u2019t give a damn \u201d and that he \u201c did n\u2019t have to explain anything \u201d . When we told the applicant that if he refused to identify himself he would be taken to the police station , he started jostling me and PERSON Then I grabbed him by the wrist and bent it back , and once again told him to identify himself . When a wrist is bent , it does n\u2019t hurt if the person himself does n\u2019t move . Besides , before grabbing the applicant I warned him that if he kept jostling us physical force would be used against him . Then the applicant identified himself to us . Then he said that he would go to the guard booth to get the car keys and documents . He walked to the booth and I , PERSON and the dog handler followed , I do n\u2019t remember in which order . In the booth the applicant went to the table and I stood by the door . He picked up the documents and then turned round and punched me in the face . His fist barely touched my mouth but did n\u2019t cut it ( jo kum\u0161tis vos paliet\u0117 mano l\u016bp\u0105 , jos neprakirto ) because I managed to step back . Then I grabbed his arm and twisted it behind his back . PERSON twisted the other arm and the dog handler also helped . Then either I or PERSON handcuffed the applicant . Then I led him outside the booth ... During the arrest the applicant was swearing ; he did not insult me personally and I did not pay attention to the swear words he used . \u201d","V.B. further specified that when they went into the guard booth , he was standing closest to the applicant inside the booth , near the door , while PERSON and GPE were standing behind PERSON \u2019s back .","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation . The prosecutor held that the applicant had obstructed the police officers in the performance of their duties , had refused to comply with their lawful orders , had jostled and used swear words , had actively resisted the officers , and had attempted to punch LANGUAGE The prosecutor found no grounds to doubt the statements of the officers GPE , GPE and GPE , because those statements had been \u201c consistent and logical \u201d ; the applicant \u2019s statements could not however be considered reliable , because he had claimed that he had not seen the dog handler GPE at the scene of the incident , although it had been established that GPE was there . The prosecutor further held that the injury to the applicant \u2019s abdomen was not sufficient to find that GPE had kneed him in the stomach , because such an injury could have occurred while the applicant was resisting the officers , as seen from the statements of GPE , GPE and GPE In such circumstances , the prosecutor considered that the officers had been justified in using physical force against the applicant , and that they had acted in line with the applicable domestic law .","NORP The applicant appealed against the prosecutor \u2019s decision . He submitted that PERSON had admitted to having bent his wrist back ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) but that that detail had been disregarded during the investigation . He also submitted that the results of the medical examination had clearly indicated injuries on his abdomen which could not have been caused by the ORG lawful actions . The applicant noted that LAW allowed the use of physical force in order to prevent crime , arrest individuals who had committed crimes , or in other situations when justified by the public interest ( see paragraph DATE below ) , but not in order to establish a person \u2019s identity . He submitted that he was of advanced age ( DATE at the time of the incident ) and had a medium - level disability , so it was illogical that he could have violently resisted QUANTITY police officers .","The applicant also pointed out several discrepancies between the ORG statements :","( a ) V.B. had stated that the applicant had attempted to punch him inside the guard booth ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , whereas GPE had said that nothing had happened inside the booth ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","( b ) J.D. had stated that he and PERSON had approached the guard booth and the applicant had stepped outside , and that physical force had been used against the applicant only when handcuffing him and only inside the booth ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , PERSON had stated that he had been examining the applicant \u2019s car when the applicant had approached him , and that the applicant \u2019s arms had been twisted when he was outside in order to make him identify himself ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Meanwhile N.B. had presented yet another version of events : that the applicant had attempted to punch CARDINAL of the officers outside , then he had been handcuffed , and only then had everybody gone inside the guard booth , where nothing had happened ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Lastly , the senior investigator PERSON had not noticed any active resistance by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","( c ) J.D. had stated that the applicant had attempted to lock himself inside the booth ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but the booth did not have any mechanism which would allow it to be locked from the inside .","Accordingly , the applicant complained that the pre - trial investigation had not been thorough and had not objectively established the circumstances of his arrest and injury .","On DATE a senior prosecutor upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and reopened the investigation .","NORP In DATE , at the prosecutor \u2019s request , a court medical expert carried out an additional examination of the applicant \u2019s medical file . The report on the results of that examination confirmed the findings of the previous medical examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The report also specified that the bruises on the applicant \u2019s left wrist and the sprain of his shoulder joints could have been caused during a fight ( grumtyni\u0173 metu ) or by handcuffing or twisting of his arms , and that the contusion on the abdomen could have resulted from a direct blow ( suduodant tiesiogin\u012f sm\u016bg\u012f ) . The report concluded that the applicant \u2019s injuries constituted negligible health impairment , and that even though he had subsequently required medical treatment , this had been caused by his defective heart valve and not by the injuries .","NORP In DATE the prosecutor questioned CARDINAL other witnesses as requested by the applicant \u2013 his acquaintances A. and ORG They both stated that they had seen the applicant soon after his arrest and that they had noticed his injuries .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , ORG changed the prosecutor in charge of the pre - trial investigation . The court upheld the applicant \u2019s arguments that the previous prosecutor , who had decided to discontinue the investigation , could not be seen as impartial , and ordered ORG office to appoint a different prosecutor .","In DATE and DATE the new prosecutor inspected the location of the incident .","On DATE another witness requested by the applicant , his acquaintance GPE , was questioned . PERSON stated :","\u201c Around DATE , I do n\u2019t remember the exact date , TIME I went to [ the applicant \u2019s ] workplace ... to ask him to give me a lift home . At that time it was still dark . Then I saw CARDINAL officers approach [ the applicant ] from both sides and twist his arms . I heard [ the applicant ] scream and ask who they were and why they were twisting his arms . After twisting his arms the officers led him to [ the guard booth ] . I heard [ the applicant ] screaming inside the booth and asking why they were hitting him . Then I saw the CARDINAL officers lead him outside handcuffed and with twisted arms . Before [ the applicant ] was taken inside the booth , his hands had not been handcuffed . I did n\u2019t see whether [ the applicant ] had been hit , I only heard him ask why they were hitting him . Then I went to [ the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s house ] to inform him about what had happened but nobody answered the door , so I came back alone [ to the garage complex ] but I did n\u2019t find anyone there . I did n\u2019t see what happened afterwards . I spoke to [ the applicant ] DATE , around DATE , and he mentioned the incident with the officers ... \u201d","On DATE the prosecutor arranged a confrontation between the officers GPE and GPE They were both asked about the place where the applicant had allegedly attempted to punch V.B. , and gave the following responses :","\u201c PERSON : [ The applicant ] punched me inside the LOC , that is in the guard booth .","N.B. : I did n\u2019t see if [ the applicant ] had attempted to punch the officer in the booth ... When I was outside , I saw jostling between the officers and [ the applicant ] ( \u012fvyko susistumdymas ) . [ The applicant ] was jostling the officers , but I ca n\u2019t say exactly if he punched an officer . It was dark , I could have been mistaken . \u201d","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation , relying on essentially the same grounds as the previous prosecutor in his decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and a senior prosecutor upheld that decision . However , on CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and reopened the investigation . The court held that the investigation had not been thorough because it had not determined whether the use of force by the police officers had been within the limits provided by LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) , and it had not established the circumstances surrounding the injury to the applicant \u2019s abdomen .","In DATE , at the prosecutor \u2019s request , a court medical expert carried out an additional assessment of the applicant \u2019s medical file . The report on the results of that assessment confirmed the findings of the previous medical reports ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In addition , the report specified that the contusion on the applicant \u2019s abdomen could have been caused either by a blow from an object or by bumping into an object ( tiek suduodant , tiek atsimu\u0161ant ) , and that the injuries to the applicant \u2019s left wrist and shoulder joints could have resulted from his offering resistance while being apprehended . The report also concluded that the injuries to the applicant \u2019s wrist , shoulder joints and abdominal area were not likely to have been caused by falling down ( neb\u016bdingi su\u017ealojimams , padarytiems nugriuvus ) . The examination could not determine the exact sequence of the injuries , but noted that they could have all been caused at the same time and that at that time the applicant could have been in various positions .","On DATE PERSON was questioned again . He confirmed his earlier statements ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and added that on DATE he had arrived at the garage complex alone and that he had not been wearing a police uniform at the time . He also stated that at the time of his arrival the handler with a dog had been present at the scene and that it would have been impossible for the applicant not to see them .","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pretrial investigation . The prosecutor held that officers GPE , GPE and GPE had given consistent statements about the incident and there were no grounds to doubt them . On the other hand , the prosecutor considered that the applicant \u2019s statements had been inconsistent : during one questioning he had said that the officers had hit him inside the guard booth and during another he had said that they had hit him outside ; he had also stated that officer PERSON , who had arrived on the scene later , had been wearing a uniform , but PERSON had denied this ; lastly , the applicant had claimed that neither GPE nor a police dog had been present during the incident , but the contrary had been proven by GPE \u2019s official report and consistent statements of all the officers . The prosecutor also noted that the witness PERSON had not seen the officers hit the applicant . Lastly , the prosecutor held that the injury to the applicant \u2019s abdomen was not sufficient to find that he had been kneed by the officers , because the medical examination had shown that such an injury could have been caused either by being hit with an object or by bumping into an object . Accordingly , the prosecutor concluded that the use of physical force by the police officers had been a lawful and proportionate response to the applicant \u2019s violent resistance , and to his refusal to comply with their lawful orders .","The applicant appealed against the prosecutor \u2019s decision . He submitted that the investigation had still not clarified the contradictions between the ORG statements ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He further submitted that GPE and PERSON \u2019s first reports had not mentioned that the applicant had been swearing at the officers or had attempted to punch CARDINAL of them , and that those allegations had been made only much later , well after the incident . The applicant also noted that , contrary to GPE \u2019s statements ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he could not have tied his dog to a fence because there was no fence at the garage complex , nor was it possible to tie the dog to the brick wall of the garage .","On DATE a senior prosecutor dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , but on DATE the ORG quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decision and reopened the investigation .","On DATE witness GPE was questioned again . He stated :","\u201c [ W]hen I was on my way to the garage complex , QUANTITY from the guard booth , I saw a police car and stopped by the corner of the garage wall ... Next to [ the applicant \u2019s ] car there were QUANTITY officers in police uniforms and [ the applicant ] ... I heard one of the officers ask [ the applicant ] to whom the car belonged ... [ The applicant ] said that the car was his and that he would get the keys so that the officers could examine the car ... I saw [ the applicant ] turn round to go to the guard booth and then the larger police officer with a moustache grabbed him by the shoulder ... twisted his arm ... and the other officer twisted his other arm . Everything happened right next to [ the car ] . The CARDINAL officers led the applicant , with his arms twisted , to the guard booth . Outside , the officers still held his arms twisted behind his back , but did n\u2019t handcuff him ... [ the applicant ] was not saying anything offensive and was not resisting . When [ the applicant \u2019s ] arms were twisted , he started shouting , \u201c Guys , why are you twisting my arms ? \u201d . But the officers , without any explanation , led him to the booth with his arms twisted behind his back . At that moment another man got out of the same police car , but I do n\u2019t know if he was an officer or not because he was in plain clothes . He also went to the booth and was standing in the doorway because the door was open . I heard [ the applicant ] scream inside the booth , \u201c Guys , why are you hitting me ? \u201d . The third man did not enter the booth ; he stood in the doorway the whole time . I think [ the applicant ] and the officers were inside the booth about TIME . Then I saw the man who had been standing in the doorway step aside and the same CARDINAL officers lead [ the applicant ] from the booth with his hands handcuffed and twisted behind his back . I think both the officers were pulling up his handcuffed arms . Outside [ the applicant ] asked the officers , \u201c Guys , why did you hit me in the stomach ? \u201d ... I did n\u2019t see the officers hit [ the applicant ] , I only heard him scream inside the booth ... I saw everything well because the area around the booth was lit . It was still before dawn then . I did n\u2019t see a dog near the booth ... \u201d","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation , relying on essentially the same grounds as in the previous decisions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . The applicant appealed against that decision , and on DATE a senior prosecutor reopened the investigation .","On DATE PERSON was questioned again . He essentially repeated his previous statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) , but did not mention bending back the applicant \u2019s wrist outside . PERSON also stated that when he and PERSON had followed the applicant to the guard booth , GPE had probably followed them , but PERSON could not remember the exact order in which they had walked .","PERSON was also questioned DATE and the written record of his testimony was almost identical to that of GPE","On DATE N.B. was questioned again . He essentially repeated his previous statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , and added :","\u201c I did n\u2019t go inside the guard booth , I stayed near the door , and that \u2019s why during previous questioning I said that nothing happened inside the booth and that I did n\u2019t see if there had been an attempt to punch an officer in the booth , because I could n\u2019t see it from the outside . When [ the applicant ] was led out of the booth , he was handcuffed ...","My dog was further away the whole time , tied to the garage wall ...","As for the punch ... I can only say that it appeared to me that [ the applicant ] had attempted to punch an officer . During the first questioning I said that he had punched an officer , but I may have been wrong because I did n\u2019t consider this an important circumstance ; also , during that questioning I was n\u2019t asked exactly whether there had been a punch or just an attempt to punch \u2013 as I said before , [ the applicant ] was jostling the officers , so it seemed to me that he had punched an officer . \u201d","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pretrial investigation , relying on essentially the same grounds as in the previous decisions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) , and a senior prosecutor dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . However , on DATE ORG reopened the investigation . The court held that although the investigation concerned criminal activity allegedly committed by PERSON and GPE , these CARDINAL officers had been questioned as regular witnesses , in violation of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court considered that there had been a grave breach of GPE and GPE \u2019s defence rights , as they had been denied the special rights of persons who may testify about their own possibly criminal activity \u2013 such as the right to have a representative , the right to request to be granted the status of a suspect , and exemption from responsibility for refusing to testify or providing wrongful testimony . As a result , all the procedural actions carried out in their respect \u2013 such as interviews and confrontations \u2013 had to be declared void . Accordingly , the court concluded that essential investigative actions had not been carried out .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , the pre - trial investigation was transferred to ORG .","In DATE PERSON and J.D. were questioned as special witnesses who were testifying about their own alleged criminal activity ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They both essentially repeated their earlier statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) , emphasising that they could no longer exactly remember all the details , because of the passage of time .","On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation . The prosecutor relied on essentially the same grounds as LOC in its earlier decisions ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) , and concluded that the applicant \u2019s statements had been inconsistent , whereas the consistent statements of all the police officers had shown that the use of force had been a lawful and proportionate response to the applicant \u2019s resistance and his refusal to comply with the ORG lawful orders . On DATE a senior prosecutor upheld that decision .","On DATE ORG and on DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeals . Both courts concluded that the pre - trial investigation had been thorough and its discontinuation had been justified .","On DATE ORG charged the applicant with the administrative offence of refusing to comply with lawful orders of police officers and resisting them ( LAW ) . On DATE the administrative proceedings against the applicant were adjourned , pending the results of the pretrial investigation into his allegations of ill - treatment by the police , and were subsequently discontinued as time - barred .","According to the material submitted to the ORG , the applicant was never suspected or accused , nor did he hold any other status in the proceedings , in the criminal case concerning the robbery of the jewellery shop ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . A report by ORG DATE indicated that the applicant \u2019s sons PERSON were being investigated in connection with the robbery , but it appears that neither of them was charged . In DATE the investigation was suspended without identifying those responsible for the robbery ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161534","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BUTRIN v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;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);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in LOC . He is serving his prison sentence in a correctional colony in the village of GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder , robbery and firearms possession . He remained in detention throughout the investigation and trial .","On DATE the ORG found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment in a correctional colony .","On DATE the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in correctional colony no . ORG in the village of GPE , GPE ( \u201c the correctional colony \u201d ) .","When the applicant arrived at the colony the resident doctor noted that he had a first - degree disability : he was totally blind as a result of mature cataracts in both eyes . His blindness , which had developed during his detention , meant that he was unable to move around alone . In addition , he was suffering from coronary disease , hypertension , gallstones and chronic pancreatitis . He was included on a list of detainees requiring enhanced medical attention .","The applicant was assigned to colony unit no . CARDINAL for special - needs detainees , which comprised a separate dormitory . It housed CARDINAL detainees with various disabilities or serious illnesses . The unit had a dormitory measuring QUANTITY , a dining room , a toilet , showers , and several offices for administrative and medical personnel . A large part of the dormitory floor area was taken up by furniture such as bunk beds , bedside tables and chairs . According to a certificate issued by the correctional colony on DATE , each detainee was afforded QUANTITY of living space . As is apparent from the documents and photographs submitted by the Government , the premises were not adapted for visually impaired or blind persons .","The authorities assigned another inmate with cardiac problems to assist the applicant with his basic needs . The inmate did not receive any remuneration for the assistance he provided to the applicant . He helped the applicant to move around the dormitory and to take showers , and guided him in the dining room . The applicant had no prison work ; he remained in the unit throughout DATE .","According to the applicant , he faced particular difficulties in orientating himself in the correctional colony . He regularly stumbled over objects , slipped and fell . Such helplessness induced anguish and despair . In DATE he was diagnosed as having an emotionally unstable personality disorder .","On DATE and DATE a medical commission confirmed the applicant \u2019s disability . They recommended that the authorities provide him with a walking stick , a white cane , a player for audiobooks designed for blind people , a vocal clinical thermometer and a vocal tonometer . The recommendations were never enforced . According to CARDINAL entries in his medical record , on DATE and DATE officials asked the applicant whether he wished to receive those items . The applicant allegedly refused , but did not agree to make a written note to that effect in the medical record .","In DATE the inmate who had been assisting the applicant was released from detention and the applicant was left to fend for himself . According to a certificate issued by the authorities , he refused the assistance of other inmates .","On DATE the applicant asked for a medical examination to determine whether his state of health warranted his early release .","On DATE a medical commission held that as blindness was one of the diseases listed in Government Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE that may warrant release from a correctional institution , the applicant could be relieved from serving his sentence .","Relying on the conclusion of the medical commission , the applicant lodged an application with ORG , ORG , for release on health grounds . On DATE ORG dismissed the application . Referring to Ruling no . CARDINAL of ORG of GPE dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court noted that the fact that the applicant \u2019s illness was included in the list provided for by Government Decree no . CARDINAL did not automatically mean that he would be released . The court cited the gravity of the crimes committed by the applicant and the length of the prison term he had yet to serve . Taking those CARDINAL factors into account , the court concluded that the applicant should remain in the correctional colony . ORG upheld that judgment on appeal .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant without examining it on the merits . It found that the applicant had failed to lodge the appeal within the statutory timelimit ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177125","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BARSKYY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","NORP The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre - trial detention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160270","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KALDA v. ESTONIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is serving a life sentence in prison .","On DATE the applicant requested from the Governor of NORP Prison access to ( i ) the online version of PERSON ( ORG ) , ( ii ) the decisions of ORG and administrative courts , which are available on the Internet , and ( iii ) the HUDOC database of the judgments of ORG . The Governor refused his request . The applicant \u2019s subsequent complaint was dismissed by ORG ; ORG dismissed his further appeal . The applicant then appealed to ORG .","The Administrative Law Chamber of ORG delivered its judgment on DATE ( case no . CARDINAL ) . In respect of NORP legislation and ORG rulings , ORG noted that these were available in the paper version of PERSON ; it considered access to the paper version sufficient and found that the prison \u2019s refusal to grant the applicant access to the online version of PERSON had been lawful .","NORP However , ORG noted that from DATE the primary official version of PERSON had been its online version and that since then CARDINAL \u201c control copies \u201d of each edition had been printed . Despite that fact , the prisons had a duty to ensure that detainees had a reasonable possibility of searching for and familiarising themselves with legal acts .","Furthermore , ORG considered that the refusal of the prison administration to grant detainees access to the rulings of the administrative courts and of ORG interfered with their right to freely obtain information disseminated for public use . Given that the legislature had not specified any restrictions in this regard in respect of prisoners , their right \u2013 enshrined in LAW ( ORG p\u00f5hiseadus ) \u2013 to obtain information had to be given an equal level of protection as that afforded to persons at liberty . Accordingly , the refusal of NORP Prison to grant the applicant access to the rulings of the NORP administrative courts and ORG had been unlawful .","On DATE FAC \u2013 to which the applicant had been transferred in the meantime \u2013 refused the applicant \u2019s request to be granted access to the Internet sites www.coe.ee ( ORG in GPE ) , www.oiguskantsler.ee ( the Chancellor of ORG , or \u00d5iguskantsler ) ) and www.riigikogu.ee ( ORG , or PERSON ) . According to the applicant , he was involved in a number of legal disputes with the prison administration and needed access to those Internet sites in order to be able to defend his rights in court .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s complaint was dismissed by ORG .","By a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s complaint in respect of the Internet site www.coe.ee and ordered ORG to grant him supervised access to that site via a computer adapted for that purpose . ORG noted that ORG had afforded its detainees access to the online version of PERSON , the database of judicial decisions , and the Internet sites of ORG . ORG further referred to ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and to section CARDINAL of LAW ( Vangistusseadus ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which had entered into force on DATE . It noted that the Internet site of ORG to which detainees had been granted access DATE contained information only in LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE , whereas translations into LANGUAGE of the rulings of ORG were available on the Internet site of ORG in GPE . ORG considered that the burden of having the rulings of ORG translated into NORP could not be placed on the applicant and concluded that he also had to be granted access to the Internet site www.coe.ee . It considered that this Internet site was similar to the database of judicial decisions referred to in section CARDINAL of LAW . In respect of the Internet sites www.oiguskantsler.ee and www.riigikogu.ee , the court found that access to these sites was not foreseen by LAW ; in any case , the applicant could request information directly from the institutions concerned or from ORG .","Both parties appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed both appeals and upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment .","Both parties challenged ORG judgment before ORG . ORG of ORG referred the case to ORG plenary session on a point of constitutionality . By a judgment of DATE the plenary session of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld ORG appeal . It quashed the lower courts\u2019 judgments in so far as these granted the applicant access to the Internet site www.coe.ee .","ORG found that the Internet sites in question did not fall under the exceptions provided for in section CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Thus , ORG had to determine whether that provision was in conformity with LAW . ORG found that section CARDINAL of LAW interfered with the right \u2013 enshrined in LAW to freely obtain information disseminated for public use . It noted that the aims of imprisonment included the protection of the legal order and steering detainees towards law - abiding behaviour . As the possibility could not be technically excluded that detainees might misuse the right to use the Internet , access to the Internet was prohibited to them by LAW . The exception made in respect of the official databases of legislation and the database of judicial decisions was necessary in order to ensure that detainees were afforded an effective possibility to protect their own rights . It had to be taken into account that the official texts of legal acts were only accessible to detainees via the Internet .","ORG observed that the prohibition of the use of the Internet was necessary primarily in order to restrict detainees\u2019 ability to engage in communication for purposes that did not accord with those of their detention , such as obtaining information that could jeopardise the prison \u2019s security or run counter to the directing of detainees towards law - abiding behaviour . Granting detainees access to any additional Internet site increased the security risk of their obtaining information running contrary to the aims of imprisonment . Moreover , this could create an opportunity for detainees to use the Internet for purposes other than that of freely obtaining information disseminated for public use . Thus , ORG concluded that the prohibition of detainees\u2019 access to the Internet sites www.coe.ee , www.oiguskantsler.ee and www.riigikogu.ee was justified by the need to achieve the aims of imprisonment and in particular the need to secure public safety .","In respect of the proportionality of the restriction ORG considered that the denial of GPE access to the Internet sites www.coe.ee , www.oiguskantsler.ee and www.riigikogu.ee prevented them from misusing the Internet via these sites and that public safety was thereby protected . Moreover , granting detainees access to these Internet sites could increase the risk of their engaging in prohibited communication ; this in turn would necessitate increased levels of control ( and therefore costs ) . Thus , there were no alternative , equally effective means DATE besides the prohibition imposed by section CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW of achieving the legitimate aim in question . Lastly , ORG noted that detainees were able to contact the PERSON and the Chancellor of Justice by mail and make a request for information ( teaben\u00f5ue ) . Therefore , GPE access to the public information contained on the Internet sites in question was not unduly restricted . Detainees\u2019 access to the Internet site of ORG was guaranteed , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ; those of ORG conventions and treaties that had been ratified by GPE were accessible on the Internet site GPE . ORG noted that it did not doubt that the printed works of ORG were accessible through prison libraries , and nor were detainees prevented from contacting ORG by post . ORG concluded that the restriction preventing detainees from accessing the Internet sites www.oiguskantsler.ee , www.riigikogu.ee and www.coe.ee was one of \u201c low intensity \u201d ; ORG gave more weight to the aim sought by that restriction . It considered that permitting detainees extensive use of the Internet would increase the likelihood of prison authorities losing control over GPE activities , as it could not be completely excluded that via the Internet sites in question detainees could use the Internet for other , unauthorised purposes . Accordingly , the impugned restriction was in conformity with LAW .","CARDINAL judges out of CARDINAL delivered a dissenting opinion according to which the applicant should have been granted access to all CARDINAL of the Internet sites in question . They considered that the use of the Internet sites in question did not generally pose a threat to public safety and was in conformity with the aims of imprisonment . It was unclear what additional costs the ORG would have to bear , since DATE in line with the applicable law \u2013 prisons were equipped with computers specially adapted to allow detainees access to the official databases of legislation and judicial decisions , and the prison service exercised supervision over the use of such resources . The information available on the Internet sites in question aided the exercising of the right of recourse to the courts . While it was true that detainees could also avail themselves of the right to make a request for information , this was a more time - consuming avenue and , particularly in the case of the Internet site of the Chancellor of ORG , required knowledge of which information was available on such Internet sites . No request for information under LAW ( NORP teabe seadus ) could be made to ORG in GPE . The rulings of ORG available in the HUDOC database \u2013 which was accessible to detainees \u2013 were not in NORP ( unlike the unofficial translations published on the Internet site www.coe.ee ) , and it could not be presumed that detainees had sufficient command of LANGUAGE or LANGUAGE to be able to read them . The printed works of ORG that were available in prison libraries did not include all the information that was published on the Internet site of ORG in GPE . Thus , the CARDINAL dissenting judges concluded that the restriction in question was unconstitutional ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146408","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF AT\u0130MAN v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","According to the incident and the crime scene investigation reports , upon receipt of intelligence that terrorists were hiding in the area , on DATE a large group of gendarme officers from the ORG blocked the road near the village of PERSON in the NORP district . At TIME the gendarme officers stopped a lorry on suspicion of fuel smuggling . Subsequently , another lorry approached the gendarme officers . The applicant was travelling in this vehicle and it was being driven by his cousin , N.A. The soldiers ordered them to stop , but ORG continued to drive . According to the report drafted by the gendarme officers , the driver attempted to escape and the gendarme officers fired a warning shot in the air and then fired at the tyres of the lorry to stop it . According to the applicant , they were driving down a steep hill at high speed , and as the brakes had failed , they could not stop . They maintained that they had shouted from the window that the brakes were not working and ORG had tried to avoid hitting the other lorry , which was parked in the middle of the street , by trying to pass it on the right . He then headed towards the hills , where there was a group of gendarme officers . The gendarme officers opened fire , first in the air and then at the vehicle . The applicant was wounded in the hip and his cousin in the leg during the incident as a result of ricochet bullets .","NORP The crime scene investigation report revealed that there were no bullet holes on the left side or the back of the lorry . CARDINAL of the tyres were flat , namely the CARDINAL front tyres and the rear right tyre . CARDINAL bullet holes were observed on the right wing over the tyres , CARDINAL bullet holes in the petrol tank , a bullet entry and exit hole on the front right door , and another bullet hole on the right wheel rim . The gendarme officers further collected a total of CARDINAL bullet cases from the scene of the incident .","On DATE , a major from FAC wrote to ORG and requested authorisation to search the CARDINAL vehicles which had been stopped by the gendarmes . Upon receipt of authorisation , the gendarme officers searched the CARDINAL lorries . They found sixtysix barrels of smuggled fuel in the first lorry and QUANTITY in the applicant \u2019s cousin \u2019s lorry . No other illegal items were found in the vehicles . The applicant \u2019s cousin , N.A. , declined to sign the search report .","Also on DATE , CARDINAL gendarme officers tested the lorry belonging to the applicant \u2019s cousin in the presence of the village mayor . They reported that the vehicle had CARDINAL flat tyres , that there were CARDINAL bullet holes in the petrol tank , that the engine was working correctly and that the brake system was intact .","Subsequently , on DATE , the applicant \u2019s cousin gave a statement to ORG and stated that the applicant had been taken to ORG . He requested that criminal proceedings be initiated against the gendarme officers who had used force against them . He emphasised that when he had been told to stop he had been driving down a steep hill at high speed , and when he could not stop , he had shouted from the window that the brakes were not working . He had had no intention of escaping from the gendarmes . He further denied that he had been transporting smuggled fuel and maintained that the barrels found by the gendarmes must have been from the other vehicle .","NORP The public prosecutor also took statements from CARDINAL eyewitnesses to the incident . These QUANTITY individuals had also been in the lorry which had been stopped by the gendarmes on suspicion of fuel smuggling . According to their statements , while they were being questioned by the gendarme officers about the barrels found in their lorry , they saw another vehicle approaching . The gendarmes ordered the driver to stop but the driver failed to obey , shouting from the window that the brakes had failed . The driver then tried to pass their vehicle , which was blocking the road , on the right . The gendarmes opened fire , first into the air and then at the tyres . Both witnesses stated that the driver had no intention of escaping and was shouting that he was unable to stop .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s cousin , ORG , gave a statement to ORG . He explained that on DATE of the incident , while he was driving down a steep hill , the gendarme officers ordered him to stop . He called out that he would stop , but the gendarmes opened fire and he was shot in the leg . He was able to stop the vehicle by using the handbrake . He stated that he had had no intention or reason to escape .","On DATE a statement was taken from the applicant at NORP police station . He explained that on DATE of the incident he had been travelling in his cousin \u2019s lorry . His cousin had told him that there was a problem with the brake system of the vehicle . When they approached the checkpoint , a gendarme officer ordered them to stop , and they shouted out that there was a problem with the brakes and that they were not able to stop . The gendarme thought that they were trying to escape and fired a shot in the air and then started shooting at them . The applicant was shot in the hip . He concluded that the gendarme who had shot at them was not at fault , as he must have thought that they were trying to escape .","On DATE statements were taken from the accused gendarme officers by a sergeant from ORG . They all stated that they had ordered the driver of the lorry to stop on suspicion of fuel smuggling . The driver initially stopped the vehicle . When the officers asked about the load of the lorry , he started driving away in an attempt to escape . The officers explained that they first fired warning shots in the air and then shot at the tyres to stop the lorry . They considered that the force they had used had been proportionate as they had only used their guns , whereas they were also equipped with heavy machine guns and hand grenades .","Based on the evidence in the file , on DATE the ORG delivered a decision not to prosecute . He concluded that the use of force had been legal pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL on the establishment , duties and jurisdiction of the gendarmerie and section CARDINAL ( i ) of the Regulation on the Duties and Powers of the ORG . He found it established that the driver of the vehicle in which the applicant was travelling had disobeyed the order to stop and had continued driving . He further pointed out that the lorry had not stopped and that the officers had first fired warning shots in the air and had then shot at the tyres of the lorry .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , finding the decision of ORG to be in line with domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145015","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SHCHERBINA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5+5-1 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation) (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-f - Extradition;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in the town of LANGUAGE , in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic , a constituent member of GPE . DATE he served in ORG in GPE . In DATE he enrolled as a student at the military academy in the town of ORG in GPE . When GPE was dissolved in DATE , GPE became an independent ORG . Under NORP law , all those who were permanent residents of GPE in DATE acquired NORP citizenship . A similar law was enacted in GPE . In DATE the applicant left the military academy and for personal reasons returned to GPE . He had a GPE passport and was married to a NORP woman .","In DATE the applicant was convicted in GPE for armed robbery . According to him , he was wrongly accused and ill - treated by the investigating officers . He claimed that the conditions of his detention in GPE were very poor , that prison officials ill - treated him and other convicts , that he was subjected to discrimination as an ethnic NORP and that prison officials extorted money from him .","The applicant served part of the sentence in a prison and was later transferred to an \u201c open colony \u201d , where convicts could move around unguarded . In DATE , when he was on leave from the colony , he fled to GPE . He explains that he feared for his life and for the lives of his relatives . In GPE he was put on the wanted list .","Upon his arrival in GPE the applicant obtained a false NORP passport . He lived and worked in GPE under a false name using that passport . The applicant \u2019s real identity was discovered in DATE ; he was sentenced by a judge to a fine for forgery of an official document , but remained in GPE .","The applicant claims that he tried to regularise his residence status . In particular , he claims that he was eligible for NORP nationality , since in DATE ( when the law on NORP nationality was enacted ) he had been residing in GPE , not GPE .","NORP In DATE the NORP authorities requested the extradition of the applicant to GPE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested and detained in GPE in connection with that request , but on DATE he was released on the order of Judge PERSON extradition followed .","It appears that some time later the NORP authorities renewed their request . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained again upon the orders of the NORP town prosecutor .","On DATE the applicant challenged the detention order before the court . The case was received by Judge PERSON from ORG , who set the date of the first hearing for DATE .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor challenged Judge PERSON on the ground that she had already participated in the examination of the applicant \u2019s extradition case earlier , in DATE , when she had ordered his release . It is unclear whether the applicant or his lawyer objected to the replacement of the judge .","On DATE Judge PERSON from ORG examined the applicant \u2019s complaint and ruled that the prosecutor \u2019s detention order of CARDINAL DATE was unlawful . ORG found that under NORP law a prison sentence handed down by a foreign court was not sufficient for a person to be detained without a detention order issued by a court in GPE . ORG ordered the prosecutor to take measures in order to rectify the situation complained of .","At the same hearing the prosecutor filed a request with ORG seeking the applicant \u2019s detention pending extradition . ORG examined it on the spot and ruled that the applicant was to be detained to prevent him from absconding .","On DATE that detention order was quashed by ORG as unsubstantiated . ORG noted , in particular , that in view of the applicant \u2019s profile and his previous behaviour ( namely , the fact that after his first arrest pending extradition in DATE he had continued to live openly at his officially known address ) there was no reason to suppose that he would flee . The applicant was released , and house arrest was imposed on him . He was required to stay at home during TIME .","In the meantime , on DATE , the Deputy Prosecutor General ordered the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE . The applicant challenged that decision before the court . He referred to the facts which , in his view , made him eligible for NORP nationality . He also claimed that if he returned to GPE he risked being subjected to ill - treatment by the prison authorities . In support of this argument he invoked reports by various human rights defence groups and international organisations concerning the human rights situation in GPE , in particular in the area of the rights of prisoners .","On DATE ORG , in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer , examined the applicant \u2019s extradition case on the merits . In particular , it examined his allegations about the risk of illtreatment in GPE , the fact that he had been serving a sentence for an ordinary criminal offence and the fact that the NORP authorities had given assurances to the NORP authorities that he would not be illtreated . The extradition order was upheld .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision of ORG . It noted , in particular , that the applicant had been convicted of an offence which was not political in nature and had not tried to seek refugee status in GPE because of the alleged persecution , preferring instead to live there under another name . The fact that he had been granted leave from the colony was at odds with his allegations that he had been ill - treated there . ORG further examined reports by international organisations and NGOs on ill - treatment and poor conditions of detention in NORP prisons but concluded that they were not sufficient to show that the applicant personally ran the risk of ill - treatment .","NORP In DATE the applicant asked ORG to grant him NORP nationality . He claims that it was not his first attempt to that end , but the case file contains no documents in support of his claim . ORG replied that in view of his background ( in particular , the fact that at the time of the collapse of the GPE his permanent place of residence was in GPE ) he was not eligible for automatic conversion of his GPE passport to a NORP passport , and that he had not satisfied the formal criteria for lodging a naturalisation request .","NORP The applicant challenged the refusal of ORG in court . He claimed , in particular , that in DATE he was studying in GPE and was therefore eligible for NORP nationality . On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed his complaint . The applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE is still pending .","It is unclear whether or not the applicant has been extradited ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181211","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF PETKEVI\u010cI\u016aT\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s father , ORG , was a well - known writer in GPE . In DATE he published a book entitled \u201c The Ship of Idiots \u201d ( PERSON laivas \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the book \u201d ) in which he presented his memoirs of various events in the history of GPE , often using a satirical and mocking tone . Several passages in the book discussed the personality and activities of ORG ( deceased at the time of publication ) . ORG had been a minister in ORG , which operated from DATE , and his son PERSON had been a prominent NORP politician since DATE . The book contained the following statements ( hereinafter \u201c the disputed statements \u201d ) , in which ORG was referred to as \u201c [ L. ] senior \u201d or \u201c the patriarch \u201d :","\u201c [ V.L. ] had to somehow cover for his father , who had for DATE collaborated with the ORG ... Having worked as a spy , he was returned home by GPE ... \u201d ( [ L. ] reik\u0117jo kaip nors pridengti t\u0117v\u0105 , ilgus metus bendradarbiavus\u012f su KGB ... PERSON atidirbus\u012f \u017evalg\u0105 namo sugr\u0105\u017eino Maskva ... )","\u201c Some were already [ trying to get familiar with ] the new \u2018 NORP , PERSON \u2019s ... friend , ... spy , ... copier of strategic maps , [ L. ] senior ... \u201d ( PERSON ved\u017eiojo u\u017e paranki\u0173 naujai i\u0161kept\u0105 \u201e patriarch\u0105 \u201c , PERSON ... draug\u0105 , ... \u017evalg\u0105 , ... strategini\u0173 \u017eem\u0117lapi\u0173 kopijuotoj\u0105 sen\u0105j\u012f [ L. ] ... )","\u201c [ L. ] senior ... told how in DATE ... [ they ] had raised the flag in the castle tower ... [ H]ow afterwards they had had to flee to GPE in order to escape from the NORP , how on the way they had been arrested [ and ] interrogated ... ( and , as far as I know , recruited ) . \u201d ( NORP [ L. ] ... pasakojo , LAW metais ... pilies bok\u0161te k\u0117l\u0117 v\u0117liav\u0105 , ... PERSON jiems po to teko nuo bol\u0161evik\u0173 b\u0117gti \u012f GPE , PERSON pakeliui juos are\u0161tavo , tard\u0117 ... ( o kiek man \u017einoma , ir u\u017everbavo ) . )","\u201c The pharmacy was ejected onto the streets . Moreover , the pharmacists were sued because \u2018 the NORP did not find on the veranda the QUANTITY oak bench which he had left there before the war . \u201d ( ORG i\u0161met\u0117 \u012f gatv\u0119 . GPE daugiau , vaistininkai buvo paduoti \u012f teism\u0105 tod\u0117l , kad patriarchas verandoje nerado \u0161e\u0161i\u0173 metr\u0173 \u0105\u017euolinio suolo , kur\u012f CARDINAL palik\u0119s prie\u0161 kar\u0105 . )","On the fourth page of the book it was stated that the author assumed full responsibility for the truthfulness of the facts presented in the book ( autorius prisiima vis\u0105 atsakomyb\u0119 u\u017e knygoje i\u0161d\u0117styt\u0173 fakt\u0173 tikrum\u0105 ) .","After the book \u2019s publication , ORG lodged a complaint with ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) , seeking the opening of a pre - trial investigation against GPE for defamation of his late father . On DATE the prosecutor opened the investigation .","During the investigation , the prosecutor asked various bodies about the activities of ORG described in the disputed statements . He received replies from ORG , the Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of GPE , ORG , ORG , and ORG . They all stated that they did not have any information indicating that ORG had collaborated with the NORP or NORP regimes or any information confirming any of the other parts of the disputed statements . The prosecutor also interviewed several individuals who had been quoted as sources in GPE \u2019s book but they all stated that they were unable to confirm the truthfulness of the events described in the disputed statements .","On DATE the GPE City ORG acquitted GPE of defamation on the grounds that the offence could be committed only against a living person , whereas ORG was already dead when ORG \u2019s book had been published . The court noted that ORG \u2019s actions could have constituted the crime of contempt for the memory of a deceased person , but that charge had not been included in the indictment .","V.L. , GPE and the prosecutor all submitted appeals against that decision , and on DATE ORG quashed it . The court found that the indictment had not complied with the relevant procedural requirements , and returned the case to the prosecutor .","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation . He considered that there was sufficient evidence to charge GPE with contempt for the memory of a deceased person , but criminal prosecution for that offence had become time - barred .","NORP In DATE ORG lodged a civil claim against V.P. He asked the court to order V.P. to publicly retract the disputed statements and to award him CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . PERSON submitted that the disputed statements had been erroneous and insulting to the honour and dignity of his late father , as well as to his own honour and dignity .","V.P. disputed the claim , submitting that he had not intended to defame or insult anyone and that the disputed statements had been taken out of context . He contended that the book had been a product of literary creativity made up on the basis of his subjective memories , and that it had been written in figurative and exaggerated language which could be interpreted in many different ways . ORG thus argued that the disputed statements should be regarded as value judgments and not as factual statements . He further submitted that , in any event , when writing the book he had relied on various historical sources and witness testimonies , as well as on his own personal experience \u2013 he provided a list of books and other publications which he had consulted , and described the circumstances in which he had found out about the events discussed in the disputed statements . Therefore , he argued that the disputed statements had been sufficiently accurate . Lastly , ORG contended that both ORG and PERSON had been prominent politicians and public figures and therefore had to tolerate higher levels of criticism .","On DATE ORG died . The court adjourned the examination of the case until GPE \u2019s legal successors were identified . On DATE the applicant and her CARDINAL brothers , who had accepted their father \u2019s inheritance , were issued with certificates of inheritance , stating that they had inherited their father \u2019s estate in equal parts . On DATE the court decided to continue with the examination of the case , replacing the defendant ORG with the applicant and her brothers .","V.L. subsequently amended his claim and asked the court to declare that the disputed statements had been erroneous and insulting to the honour and dignity of himself and his late father ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and to award him a symbolic sum of LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","At the court hearing on DATE , ORG argued that the disputed statements amounted to statements of fact and not value judgments . He submitted that , in line with the domestic courts\u2019 case - law , the burden was on the author to prove that those statements were factually accurate , but the evidence collected in both the civil and the criminal proceedings demonstrated that they did not have any factual basis .","The applicant and her brothers were represented by the same lawyer who had represented ORG in the civil proceedings up until his death . They submitted essentially the same arguments that ORG had submitted before ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They also argued that an obligation to pay compensation for damage allegedly caused by a literary work was a personal obligation of the author and could not be transferred to his heirs . They furthermore submitted that the disputed statements had been based on their late father \u2019s memories and subjective opinions , and so they should not be required to prove the truthfulness of those statements .","On DATE ORG found in ORG favour . It stated that , in line with the domestic law , in order to uphold the claim , CARDINAL circumstances had to be established : firstly , that certain statements had been disseminated ; secondly , that those statements had concerned the claimant ( PERSON ) and his late father ( ORG ) ; thirdly , that the statements had been insulting to the honour and dignity of ORG and PERSON ; and fourthly , that the statements had been erroneous . The claimant ( PERSON ) had to prove that the first CARDINAL circumstances had existed , whereas the defendants ( the applicant and her brothers ) had to prove that the fourth circumstance had not ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG observed that there was no dispute that statements had been disseminated and that they had referred to ORG and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , the parties disagreed as to whether they had amounted to statements of fact or to value judgments . The court found that the disputed statements had been presented as factual statements about ORG : they had implied that certain events had actually occurred , for example , that ORG had been recruited by the NORP forces and had collaborated with them , or that he had expressed support for PERSON \u2019s ideology ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Accordingly , the court held that those statements should have had a sufficient factual basis .","Seeking to determine whether the disputed statements had been factually accurate , ORG examined the evidence which had been collected in the criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , as well as the sources indicated by GPE himself in his written submissions to the court during the civil proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court found that none of those sources had been able to confirm any parts of the disputed statements to the standard of proof required in civil cases .","ORG next examined whether the disputed statements had been insulting to the honour and dignity of ORG and V.L. As for the first CARDINAL statements ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it considered that , in the historical context of GPE , the allegations of collaboration with the NORP security services or of support for NORP ideology had clearly been insulting not only to ORG but also to his family , including PERSON , who had been a prominent politician himself . As for the fourth statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it considered that allegations of ejecting the pharmacy owners onto the streets and suing them for a wooden bench \u2013 an item of movable property of low value \u2013 had created the impression of ORG as someone with low moral standards and a lack of respect for others , and that that statement had therefore been insulting as well , not only to ORG himself , but also to his family .","The court dismissed the defendants\u2019 objection that the case concerned the personal obligations of their father . It held that the domestic law provided several different remedies for victims of defamation in publications ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On the one hand , the victim could ask the court to order the author of the work to retract the disputed statements , which would be a personal obligation on the part of the author which could not be transferred to his or her heirs . On the other hand , the victim could ask the court to declare that the disputed statements were erroneous and defamatory ( insulting to the victim \u2019s honour and dignity ) , in other words to request an objective assessment of those statements . Such an assessment could be made without the involvement of the author and would thus not constitute a personal obligation on the part of the author . Accordingly , the court held that , since PERSON had made the latter request ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , domestic law permitted the transfer of civil liability to the author \u2019s heirs .","As a result , ORG upheld CARDINAL part of ORG claim and declared that the disputed statements had been erroneous and insulting to his and his late father \u2019s honour and dignity . It dismissed ORG claim for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage as timebarred .","NORP The applicant and her brothers lodged an appeal against the decision of ORG , presenting essentially the same arguments as before ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision in its entirety . It firstly stated that the key difference between statements of fact and value judgments was that the truthfulness of the former could be verified and proved , whereas the latter expressed a subjective view to which the criteria of truthfulness or accuracy did not apply . The court held that , notwithstanding the fact that the book had been based on the author \u2019s memories , the disputed statements had not been limited to expressing a subjective view on any persons or events , but alleged that certain actions had been taken and certain events had occurred . In the court \u2019s view , the average reader , even when reading the disputed statements as part of the entire book and not \u201c out of context \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , would perceive them as statements of fact and not as value judgments .","The Court of Appeal agreed with the defendants that ORG and PERSON had been public figures and therefore had to tolerate greater levels of criticism . It observed that , in line with the case - law of the domestic courts , dissemination of factually inaccurate statements about a public figure did not attract civil liability when such statements concerned that person \u2019s public activities and when their author had acted in good faith , seeking to inform society about such activities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Nonetheless , ORG stated that this could not justify dissemination of falsehoods which were insulting to a person \u2019s honour and dignity , even when they concerned a public figure . It held that , in the case at hand , the first - instance court had thoroughly examined the evidence collected during the criminal proceedings and the sources indicated by the author himself ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and had reached the conclusion that , on the balance of probabilities , the events described in the disputed statements \u201c were more likely not to have happened than to have happened \u201d . ORG also examined additional sources referred to in the GPE appeal , but found that they did not contain any information which would enable it to reach a different conclusion than that reached by the firstinstance court . It therefore held that the factual accuracy of the disputed statements had not been proved . ORG also upheld the firstinstance court \u2019s conclusion that those statements had been insulting to the honour and dignity of ORG and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Lastly ORG dismissed the GPE argument that they had been obliged to prove the truthfulness of their father \u2019s memories and subjective opinions . It observed that the disputed statements had been found to constitute statements of fact and not value judgments and it had therefore been necessary to prove their factual accuracy and not the reasons why the author might have held certain opinions . The court stated that the factual accuracy of the disputed statements could be proved by anyone and not only by their author , and that the applicant and her brothers had been able to rely on the material collected during the criminal proceedings and on the submissions made by their father in the civil proceedings , as well as to submit new evidence themselves . ORG also observed that the applicant and her brothers had accepted their father \u2019s inheritance ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which included the rights to reprint the book and to receive royalties from it . The court considered that if the author \u2019s heirs had been exempted from the liabilities arising from the book , then the claimant , PERSON , would have been denied any possibility to defend his rights against the erroneous and insulting statements published therein .","Consequently , ORG upheld the firstinstance decision declaring the disputed statements erroneous and insulting to the honour and dignity of ORG and GPE","The applicant and her brothers submitted an appeal on points of law , presenting essentially the same arguments as before ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed that appeal . It underlined the importance of striking a fair balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to respect for honour and dignity , but stated that the right to freedom of expression did not extend to the deliberate dissemination of falsehoods with the aim of humiliating , insulting or otherwise causing harm to others , even if directed at public figures . ORG observed that the lower courts had established that the disputed statements had been erroneous and insulting to the honour and dignity of ORG and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) ; it therefore ruled that the dissemination of those statements could not be justified by the exercise of the right to freedom of expression .","ORG also reiterated that the claim submitted by PERSON did not constitute a personal obligation of the author of the book and could therefore be transferred to his heirs . It stated that the applicant and her brothers had accepted their father \u2019s inheritance , which included certain rights to the book ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Accordingly , once the court had declared that the disputed statements in the book had been erroneous and insulting to the honour and dignity of others , the author \u2019s legal successors had the obligation to ensure that those statements would no longer be disseminated ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1","6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-153312","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DIMECH v. MALTA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","By Act III of DATE ORG introduced the right to legal assistance at the pre - trial stage . However , the law only came into force in DATE by means of LAW of DATE . Prior to this Legal Notice Maltese law did not provide for legal assistance during the pre - trial investigation and specifically during questioning , whether by the police or by a magistrate in his investigative role . Before questioning , however , suspects would be cautioned , that is , informed of their right to remain silent and that anything they said could be taken down and produced as evidence . At the time , no inferences could be drawn by the trial courts from the silence of the accused at this stage .","Statements taken by the police could be confirmed on oath before ORG , in which case the person was entitled to be assisted by a lawyer .","On DATE ORG were authorised by the duty Magistrate to execute a search and arrest warrant relative to residence F.","On CARDINAL DATE the search was carried out and it yielded the discovery of CARDINAL bags of heroin ( QUANTITY , PERCENT purity ) , CARDINAL ( ORG ) in CARDINAL separate bundles , electrical weighing scales and a number of plastic bags with the corners missing .","On CARDINAL DATE Mr GPE was arrested and , after being cautioned about his right to remain silent , was questioned in the absence of legal assistance on suspicion of drug trafficking . He made a statement in which he admitted to certain facts but denied others . In a nutshell he explained that QUANTITY of heroin found in his possession during a search at his house were being kept as a guarantee against a sum of money he was owed , and that he had known that he would be given the drug as a guarantee when he lent the money . He admitted that he had hidden the drug in his fridge and stated that his partner had had nothing to do with it and was unaware of it . He denied , however , that the drugs were his and also denied that he ever used or sold drugs . His signed statement also indicated that he had made the statement voluntarily , without threats or promises , that it was the truth and that he did not want to change anything in it .","A magisterial inquiry ( under NORP law known as an inquiry relating to the in genere ) was held on CARDINAL DATE and the Inquiring Magistrate drew up the proc\u00e8s verbal . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arraigned in court and the proc\u00e8s verbal as well as his statement referred to above were produced as evidence against him . During the committal proceedings ORG as a ORG also collected further evidence including witness testimony and documentary evidence .","On DATE a bill of indictment was issued against the applicant by the Attorney General .","During the criminal proceedings the applicant requested ORG to refer his complaint regarding the lack of legal assistance during the investigation and questioning to the constitutional jurisdictions . On an unspecified date the court granted the request and referred the case .","The applicant claimed a breach of his right to a fair trial on account of the lack of legal assistance during the investigation and questioning .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional competence , opting to take cognisance of the case on the merits despite the fact that the proceedings were still pending , found a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to a fair trial in so far as he had not been assisted by a lawyer when making a statement to the police before he had been charged , and ordered that ORG take note of this breach in considering all the evidence . It noted that the voluntary nature of the statement , together with the caution as to the right to remain silent , did not suffice to make up for such a failing , when it could not be said what the applicant would have done had he been assisted by a lawyer .","Both the Attorney General and the applicant appealed to ORG . By a judgment of DATE ORG took cognisance of the merits of the case despite the fact that the proceedings were still pending , and reversed the first - instance judgment . Reiterating its previous findings in other domestic judgments , it noted that the right to legal assistance was not meant to be a formality which , if not complied with , gave the accused a means to defend himself . That right served as a guarantee that every statement made by a person during questioning was made freely , in full knowledge of the right to remain silent , and without threats or promises , violence or other abuse . A breach of the right to a fair trial as a result of a lack of legal assistance during questioning occurred when a statement was taken abusively and without the guarantees of legitimacy , and not solely because of the lack of legal assistance . It followed that the sole fact that the applicant had made a statement , including both admissions of guilt and denials , in the absence of a lawyer could not ipso facto entail a violation of LAW . In ORG view , other circumstances such as the particular vulnerability of the individual being questioned had to exist in order to conclude that the absence of legal assistance breached the right to a fair trial . ORG could not agree with the first - instance court that LAW provided for the right to a lawyer without any consideration of the age , maturity and tainted criminal record of the accused as well as the nature of the accusations against him . A correct interpretation of PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . DATE ) had to be made in the light of the circumstances of that case , where Mr PERSON had indeed been in a vulnerable position when he had made the statement . The ratio of the right was precisely that , and not to allow a guilty person to go scot - free because of the failure to comply with a formality which lacked any real or grave consequences . The same exceptional and extreme circumstances had been present in other cases decided by the ECtHR such as Panovits v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , and cases decided by the domestic ORG such as The Police vs PERSON of CARDINAL DATE and ORG of DATE . Even in the PERSON case the ORG had held that such a violation arose only if the fairness of the trial was compromised . The ORG had stated in that context that \u201c DATE especially paragraph CARDINAL thereof \u2013 may be relevant before a case is sent for trial if and so far as the fairness of the trial is likely to be seriously prejudiced by an initial failure to comply with its provisions \u201d ( \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . This , according to ORG , was probably the reason why ORG had not embraced the more categorical approach suggested by Judge PERSON in his concurring opinion .","The Constitutional Court considered that in the present case the applicant had admitted that he had not been pressured into making the statement , and thus there had been nothing illicit and abusive in the taking of such a statement . It followed that the element of vulnerability found in the PERSON case was missing . Moreover , it had not been shown that the applicant had suffered prejudice as a result of the lack of legal assistance to the extent that there was an objective danger that he would not be given a fair trial .","In the absence of any such violation , no remedy was required , nor was there any need for the court to examine the appeal entered by the applicant .","NORP The applicant \u2019s trial by jury was due to start on DATE .","On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG requesting it to suspend the trial by jury on the basis of a new set of constitutional proceedings which he had lodged ( alleging a violation of LAW and on the basis of the proceedings pending before this ORG .","On DATE ORG acceded to the request ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168773","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VASILYADI v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE , and lived until his arrest in the town of PERSON , PERSON . He died in a prison tuberculosis hospital in GPE - on - Don .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having been involved in drug trafficking . He was remanded in custody .","DATE ORG of GPE authorised the applicant \u2019s detention , having noted the gravity of the charges against him and the possibility of his absconding and reoffending in the light of the fact that he had not been living at his registered address in PERSON at the time of his arrest . The court also noted that the fact that the applicant was suffering from tuberculosis did not negate the indicated risks .","The applicant \u2019s case was joined to the case of PERSON , his alleged accomplice . The CARDINAL defendants were to stand trial together before ORG .","On several occasions ORG extended the detention of the CARDINAL defendants , each time using similar wording , citing the gravity of the charges and the lack of any change in the circumstances and risks which had initially warranted their detention .","On DATE the medical authorities informed ORG that the applicant \u2019s state of health did not allow him to attend court hearings . On DATE the proceedings were stayed until his recovery .","On DATE , after receiving notice of the applicant \u2019s expected discharge from a prison hospital , ORG resumed the proceedings and scheduled a hearing for DATE .","DATE the head of the prison hospital informed ORG that the applicant \u2019s medical condition warranted further treatment in the hospital . The date of his discharge was unclear .","On DATE ORG again stayed the proceedings until the applicant \u2019s recovery and collectively extended his and PERSON detention for DATE , until DATE , employing the same reasoning as on the previous occasions . The detention order contained no detailed assessment of the accuseds\u2019 individual circumstances .","NORP In DATE the prison hospital informed ORG that the applicant was receiving treatment and that it was impossible to predict the date of his discharge .","It appears that at some point the proceedings against PERSON were disjoined from those of the applicant .","ORG continued regularly extending the applicant \u2019s detention , citing the gravity of the charges and the risks of his absconding or reoffending .","In DATE and DATE ORG and the prison hospital exchanged correspondence concerning the applicant \u2019s state of health . The medical authorities stated that the patient was unable to attend owing to a risk of his spreading tuberculosis .","Towards DATE ORG asked the medical authorities to allow a hearing on the hospital LOC . The head of the prison hospital agreed and on DATE the proceedings resumed .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of CARDINAL counts of the production and attempted sale of opium and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration , ordering that the applicant remain in custody .","In the course of the new round of proceedings ORG , on a number of occasions , authorised the applicant \u2019s continued detention . Each time the gravity of the charges and the risks of his re - offending and absconding served as the reason for the extension . The extension orders were formulated in the same standard manner . The applicant did not attend the hearings as his tuberculosis remained contagious . The orders were upheld on appeal .","On DATE ORG decided to stay the proceedings until the applicant \u2019s recovery . The applicant appealed .","NORP The proceedings were resumed DATE at the request of the applicant . The hearings were to be held on the hospital LOC .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld the most recent detention order , stating as follows :","\u201c The [ case - file ] materials ... show that the preventive measure was imposed [ on the applicant ] in conformity with the [ the applicant \u2019s ] personality .","[ ORG ] came to the correct conclusion that the circumstances that had [ indicated the necessity for ] the applicant \u2019s detention had not changed . Its conclusion that no other preventive measure might be applied to [ the applicant ] could not be disputed . \u201d","On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction .","In DATE , prior to his arrest , the applicant was diagnosed with advanced tuberculosis , pleurisy , and inflammation of the tissue layers lining the lungs and inner chest wall . He was treated in the Rostov ORG .","Following his arrest on DATE , the applicant was admitted to remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE . During the admission procedure the applicant informed the prison authorities that he was suffering from tuberculosis . A chest X - ray examination on DATE revealed that both his lungs were damaged by an active , advanced form of tuberculosis and that the right lung was partially collapsed on account of the presence of air in the thorax . The condition was further complicated by pleurisy . A course of drugs , dietary nutrition and the drainage of fluid from the pleural cavity were prescribed .","The parties disagreed on whether the applicant had received the prescribed treatment . While a report by the detention authorities in DATE stated that he had been given the treatment in full , the applicant \u2019s medical file did not contain any information confirming that he had complied with the course of drug treatment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s health deteriorated and he was taken by ambulance to the prison tuberculosis hospital in GPE - on - Don . The applicant was regularly examined by doctors , underwent various medical tests and received treatment for tuberculosis . His right lung was drained after the insertion of a chest tube .","On DATE a drug susceptibility test was performed . It revealed that the applicant \u2019s tuberculosis was resistant to CARDINAL drugs , including those which had been given to him in the hospital . DATE his drug treatment was amended and the illness was brought under control .","On DATE pulmonary surgery was prescribed by the head of the hospital \u2019s surgical unit .","According to a medical report of DATE submitted by the Government , DATE the applicant \u2019s health worsened and it was no longer possible to perform the prescribed operation . The applicant \u2019s medical file does not contain any records regarding the deterioration of his health during that DATE period .","Regular chest X - ray examinations carried out in the subsequent period revealed the development of complications and showed no improvement in the course of the disease . The applicant was recommended a non - surgical course of treatment .","The applicant \u2019s medical file shows that at DATE he several times refused to follow a round of drug therapy . On DATE he consulted a psychologist and a psychiatrist on this matter .","On DATE a tuberculosis specialist established that the applicant \u2019s infection was spreading and that his overall condition had worsened to the extent that surgical intervention was no longer possible . The applicant started undergoing new , multi - drug therapy under the close supervision of doctors . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the doctors confirmed that the applicant could not undergo the prescribed pulmonary surgery due to the continuing deterioration in his health .","On DATE a medical panel concluded that the applicant \u2019s condition warranted his early release from detention .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release on health grounds .","DATE he died in detention of tuberculosis ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157517","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF STIBILJ v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicants , daughter and mother , were born in DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in LOC .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Commission \u201d ) adopted a land consolidation programme concerning , inter alia , land owned by the first applicant \u2019s legal predecessor and a separate piece of land owned by the second applicant .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s legal predecessor and the second applicant appealed against the ORG \u2019s decision before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , arguing that they had not been duly compensated for the plots which they had owned and which had been transferred to the land consolidation programme .","On DATE the ORG amended the land consolidation programme by assigning the second applicant a different plot of land . The second applicant appealed against the decision .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s predecessor lodged an appeal for the failure of the ORG to adopt a decision within the prescribed time - limit .","On DATE the ORG granted the first applicant \u2019s legal predecessor \u2019s appeal , remitting the case to the Commission for further consideration . The ORG found that the operative part of the decision lacked clarity and that the ORG had misapplied the law .","On DATE the Convention became operational in respect of GPE .","On DATE the ORG granted the second applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE , finding that the operative part of the decision was inconsistent with its reasoning . The case was remitted to the ORG for further consideration .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the first applicant \u2019s predecessor and the second applicant lodged informal motions before the Commission , asking that the proceedings be expedited .","On DATE the Commission having failed to undertake further examination of their cases \u2013 the first applicant \u2019s legal predecessor and the second applicant each lodged a separate appeal with ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) alleging that the Commission had failed to adopt a decision within the prescribed time - limit . Moreover , on DATE they both appealed to the Ministry to expedite the resolution of their respective land consolidation decisions .","On DATE the Ministry not having responded to their appeal \u2013 the first applicant \u2019s legal predecessor and the second applicant brought an action before ORG for the failure of the Ministry to adopt a decision within the prescribed time - limit .","On DATE ORG allowed those actions and ordered ORG to decide on the matter at issue within DATE from the date on which its judgment became final .","Meanwhile , on DATE ORG ( previously the ORG , hereinafter \u201c the Administrative Unit \u201d ) , which had acquired competence to decide on matters of land consolidation , adopted new decisions on the land at issue .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s legal predecessor and the second applicant appealed before the ORG against those decisions .","On DATE their appeals were allowed by ORG , which again assigned them different plots of land to compensate them for the loss of their original plots .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s legal predecessor and the second applicant brought actions for judicial review ( administrative action ) before ORG against the ORG \u2019s decisions of CARDINAL August CARDINAL on the grounds that the Ministry had failed to properly consider the criteria applicable to the land consolidation programme and had thereby violated their right to equality before the law .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s legal predecessor died and the first applicant inherited a part of his land including plots subject to land consolidation proceedings . She then intervened in the proceedings as the heir .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , ORG allowed the ORG actions for judicial review and annulled the ORG \u2019s decisions of CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that the applicants had not been acquainted with the expert opinion on which ORG had based its decisions and that no reasons had been provided for the dismissal of the objections to the distribution of land . ORG remitted the cases to the Ministry for further consideration .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG adopted new decisions concerning the distribution of land in respect of the first and second applicant .","On DATE the applicants each brought another action for judicial review ( administrative action ) against those new decisions before ORG .","On DATE and DATE the applicants each lodged an informal motion before ORG to expedite the resolution of their action .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG allowed the first and second applicants\u2019 actions for judicial review , annulling the ORG \u2019s decisions of CARDINAL DATE , and again remitted the cases to ORG for further consideration .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the first and second applicants lodged informal motions before ORG , asking that the proceedings be expedited . Moreover , CARDINAL other similar motions were lodged before the Ministry by the first applicant on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG issued a decision annulling ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and remitted the cases to it .","On DATE and DATE ORG scheduled oral hearings for DATE and DATE , respectively . Prior to the hearings , the first applicant informed ORG that she was unable to participate in the hearing due to medical treatment and that the second applicant could not participate as she was seriously ill and bedridden .","On DATE ORG held an oral hearing regarding the applicants\u2019 cases . Land survey and agriculture experts were appointed to consider the first applicant \u2019s requests regarding the land and an agriculture expert was appointed in connection with the second applicant \u2019s requests .","The land consolidation proceedings were still pending on DATE last communication with the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142519","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LI v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG awarded MONEY as compensation for unlawful conviction of the applicant . The decision of the court came into force on DATE .","The applicant obtained the respective writ of execution on DATE . In DATE the applicant sought in domestic courts issuance of a duplicate of the writ of execution which according to him had been stolen in DATE from his office . On DATE a national court refused to issue the duplicate because the term for submission of this document for the execution had expired under LAW .","On DATE the applicant addressed ORG of GPE with a request to execute the judgment of DATE . ORG replied that the execution is not possible without submission of the writ of execution ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148627","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KUSHNIR v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . His present place of residence is unknown .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 restriction of liberty .","In DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against him on suspicion of robbery , theft and illegal drug dealing committed in DATE and DATE . The applicant was detained as a suspect within this set of proceedings from DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . During the remaining period of the pre - trial investigation he was bound by an undertaking not to leave his town of residence .","On DATE the ORG of Kyiv ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , which also absorbed the outstanding part of the sentence of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","The case file contains no further information about the aforementioned proceedings .","On DATE Mr B. lodged a complaint with the police to the effect that the applicant had robbed him of a mobile phone on DATE ( the applicant had then been at liberty subject to an undertaking not to leave his town of residence DATE see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was summoned to ORG no . CARDINAL ( GPE \u0428\u0435\u0432\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043a\u0456\u0432\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e PERSON \u0443 \u043c. PERSON ) by a telephone call . According to him , he could not refuse given that he was bound by the undertaking not to leave the town , which also implied his obligation to obey any police summonses . As the applicant further submitted , he was arrested in the police station upon his arrival there without any explanation . According to the report of the police officer involved , the latter had \u201c invited [ the applicant ] to the police station on suspicion of having committed the criminal offence alleged by [ Mr B. ] \u201d .","It appears that the applicant was held in the police station TIME ( see , in particular , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The case file contains his written explanations to the police dated DATE regarding the events of CARDINAL DATE . He admitted that he had met PERSON , but denied his involvement in the robbery .","On DATE a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of having robbed Mr B.","On DATE , at TIME , the police issued a report , according to which the applicant had been apprehended at TIME on DATE in the premises of the police station on suspicion of having committed a crime . The applicant signed the report with a comment that he had nothing to say . He also signed extracts from the LAW and the legislation on pre - trial detention as regards his procedural rights , as well as a waiver of his right to legal assistance .","On DATE the applicant was questioned as a suspect and denied that he was guilty .","On DATE the investigator applied to ORG for an order remanding the applicant in custody pending trial , stating as reasons the applicant \u2019s previous criminal record and the severity of the alleged offence , which was punishable with imprisonment for DATE . The investigator considered that if the applicant remained at liberty , there was a risk that he would abscond or hinder the investigation .","On DATE , having upheld the investigator \u2019s reasoning , ORG remanded the applicant in custody for DATE .","On DATE the court extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention to DATE , having taken into account \u201c the volume of investigative measures still to be undertaken \u201d .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in GPE of Forensic Psychiatric Expert Examinations with the aim of clarifying whether he could be held criminally liable .","On DATE ORG opened the trial . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for the custodial preventive measure to be replaced by an undertaking not to abscond .","On DATE the court remitted the case for additional pre - trial investigation .","On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing . It upheld the custodial preventive measure in respect of the applicant .","On DATE the court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The ORG has not been made aware of any further developments in these domestic proceedings .","The applicant alleged that , following his arrest on DATE , he had been \u201c severely beaten \u201d by the police . The applicant did not provide any factual details of his alleged ill - treatment or of any injuries sustained .","According to the applicant , on TIME on DATE his mother had received a phone call from a person who had been detained in the same police station and released that morning . The applicant had asked him to pass a message to her stating that he was detained there and that he had been questioned and ill - treated by the police .","As further submitted by the applicant , his mother had contacted the police station in order to verify that information , but was told that her son was not there . She had therefore complained to the police and the prosecution authorities about his disappearance .","According to the Government , on DATE the police had notified the applicant \u2019s mother about his arrest and invited her to come to collect his belongings , which she did . She also signed a receipt to that effect .","On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG ( the GPE ) ( ORG \u0441\u043b\u0456\u0434\u0447\u0438\u0439 \u0456\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 ) . His medical examination , which was carried out on DATE , did not reveal any injuries , and the applicant did not mention to the doctors that he had been ill - treated . His only complaint was about epigastric pain ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to the police and to the prosecution authorities about the alleged ill - treatment of her son in police custody . She also stated that he suffered from a number of contagious diseases and could not therefore be held in detention .","On DATE the applicant underwent surgery for acute appendicitis and peritonitis .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to the prosecution authorities that the need for surgery on her son had been the direct consequence of his alleged ill - treatment on DATE .","On DATE ORG of ORG \u0413\u0423\u041c\u0412\u0421 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438 \u0432 \u043c\u0456\u0441\u0442\u0456 PERSON ) completed its internal inquiry into the matter . As noted in the inquiry report , on DATE the applicant \u2019s mother had signed a receipt confirming that she had collected her son \u2019s belongings from the police station . She had therefore been aware of his arrest . Furthermore , there was no evidence that any coercion had been used on the applicant . Accordingly , his allegation of ill - treatment was found to be without basis .","On DATE the GPE doctors , acting on the instruction of the prosecution authorities , examined the applicant to establish if there were any traces of the alleged ill - treatment . None was discovered .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegation of ill - treatment considering it unfounded since there was no evidence of any criminal behaviour by the police in relation to him .","On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE the prosecutor sent letters to the applicant \u2019s mother informing her of the aforementioned decision . According to the applicant , none of those letters reached his mother .","The applicant was detained in the GPE from DATE to DATE .","Without specifying in which cells he had been held and for how long , the applicant described his cells as severely overcrowded , poorly ventilated and damp .","According to the information provided by the ORG , the applicant was held in the following cells :","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring CARDINAL sq . m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY . m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) ; and","- cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m ( shared by CARDINAL detainees ) .","According to the ORG , the conditions in those cells were adequate and they were equipped with the requisite furnishings and facilities . The windows and the ventilation system allowed fresh air to circulate and a satisfactory level of natural and artificial lighting was provided .","On CARDINAL DATE the GPE governor informed the prosecutor of ORG in charge of the supervision of lawfulness in prisons that during the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant had changed cells CARDINAL times . Specifically , on DATE he was placed in cell no . DATE , on DATE in cell no . CARDINAL , on DATE in cell no . CARDINAL again ( apparently after a stay in the medical unit ) , on DATE in cell no . CARDINAL , and on DATE in cell no . CARDINAL . The GPE governor explained those transfers by the fact that the applicant had often been held in the GPE medical unit , given his poor state of health .","On CARDINAL occasions the applicant was placed in a disciplinary cell for keeping prohibited items ( in CARDINAL cases a mobile telephone and in CARDINAL case cash ) : on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On each occasion he was held in a disciplinary cell for DATE , with the exception of DATE , when he was placed there for DATE . In every case a medical specialist of the GPE confirmed that the measure in question was compatible with the applicant \u2019s state of health .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to ORG that on DATE the ORG administration had administered emetics to the applicant in order to establish whether any drugs were present in his body . She submitted that it had been an unjustified , humiliating and dangerous measure .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( ORG \u0434\u0435\u043f\u0430\u0440\u0442\u0430\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0443 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438 \u0437 \u043f\u0438\u0442\u0430\u043d\u044c \u0432\u0438\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \u043f\u043e\u043a\u0430\u0440\u0430\u043d\u044c \u0432 \u043c. ORG \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456 ) informed the prosecution authorities , in response to the complaints by the applicant \u2019s mother , that the applicant was under the close scrutiny of medical specialists on account of a number of illnesses and that his numerous medical examinations had not revealed any injuries . Furthermore , the applicant had never complained to any authorities or doctors of having been ill - treated during his detention . He had also given a written refusal to make any comment about his mother \u2019s complaints .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer complained to the GPE governor that her client had been unjustifiably incarcerated , and that on CARDINAL and DATE he had been beaten by persons wearing masks .","On DATE the head of the GPE medical unit replied that the applicant \u2019s allegations were unfounded and that he had not made any complaints himself .","In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis for the first time .","In DATE he tested HIV - positive . In DATE his condition was assessed as clinical stage CARDINAL HIV and AIDS . He was registered for monitoring in the AIDS Centre at the place of his residence .","The applicant also suffers from chronic viral hepatitis B and C.","On DATE , upon his arrival at the GPE , the applicant underwent a medical examination and PERSON , which revealed post - tuberculosis residual lung changes . His height and weight were recorded as QUANTITY and QUANTITY respectively . The applicant complained of epigastric pain . He also informed the doctors of his past medical history of viral hepatitis B and C , and his HIV - positive status ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant was examined by CARDINAL tuberculosis specialists , who confirmed the diagnosis of post - tuberculosis residual changes in the right lung and recommended further medical supervision .","On DATE the applicant was taken from the GPE to the emergency hospital , where he underwent surgery in respect of acute appendicitis and peritonitis . The case file does not contain any information as to whether anything had led up to that emergency . Nor did the applicant submit any factual details in that regard , apart from his broadly - couched allegation , in reply to the Government \u2019s observations , that the emergency had been a result of his ill - treatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","According to the information provided by the ORG , from CARDINAL July to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was given in - patient post - surgery medical treatment in the GPE medical unit . The applicant contested this information as untruthful , referring to the fact that from CARDINAL August to CARDINAL DATE he had been undergoing forensic psychiatric expert examination in ORG ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The case file contains an extract from the applicant \u2019s medical file held in the GPE , according to which he received in - patient treatment in the GPE medical unit from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant was X - rayed . Following the discovery of a focal shadow on the right lung , it was recommended that he consult a specialist .","On DATE a tuberculosis specialist examined the applicant and found that he had focal tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the right lung at an unclear stage of development . The doctor prescribed a trial chemotherapy regimen consisting of isoniazid , pyrazinamide , rifampicin and ethambutol .","On DATE the applicant again underwent chest X - rays , which showed focal tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the right lung in the consolidation stage . The radiologist recommended that the applicant consult a tuberculosis specialist .","On DATE the applicant was invited to undergo another X - ray , but he refused .","On DATE and DATE and on DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , a dentist examined him . The diagnosis was chronic multiple complicated caries related to poor dental hygiene , as well as tongue candidiasis . The applicant was provided with some medication , ointment and vitamins , and had the decayed tooth roots removed .","On DATE the applicant was also examined by a specialist in infectious diseases and underwent a CDCARDINAL test . Its result was PERSON cells \/ cu . PERSON .","On DATE the applicant underwent X - rays , the findings of which were the same as on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant was X - rayed again , with no pathological indications having been revealed .","On DATE the applicant was due to undergo X - rays , but was unable to because he was not feeling well .","On DATE a radiologist recommended ( it is not known in what circumstances ) that the applicant consult a tuberculosis specialist .","On DATE the applicant underwent further X - rays . He was diagnosed with pneumonia triggered by tuberculosis , post - tuberculosis residual changes in the form of focal consolidations in the lower lobe of the left lung , and bronchitis . The radiologist recommended that the applicant consult a tuberculosis specialist .","Although the applicant \u2019s medical file shows that he underwent in - patient treatment for pneumonia in the GPE medical unit from CARDINAL to DATE , on CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the Agent of the Government , who was collecting information for the purpose of preparing observations for submissions to ORG , that this information \u201c had turned out to be unconfirmed \u201d .","On DATE the applicant again underwent a CDCARDINAL test . Its result was CARDINAL cells \/ cu . PERSON .","DATE . On DATE another such test was undertaken , which showed the CDCARDINAL count as CARDINAL cells \/ cu . PERSON .","On DATE the applicant underwent another X - ray , which revealed post - tuberculosis focal consolidations in the lower lobe of the right lung . It was recommended that the applicant consult a tuberculosis specialist .","Following a complaint from the applicant \u2019s mother regarding the failure to administer antiretroviral therapy to her son , on DATE the PERSON administration informed her that the applicant was undergoing treatment for tuberculosis and that a consultation by an infectious diseases specialist was needed to decide about antiretroviral therapy .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist , who found that he had no active - phase tuberculosis and that his general state of health was good .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s X - rays showed that he had infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the left lung in the disintegration stage .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist , who prescribed him seasonal relapse prevention therapy with CARDINAL antibacterial drugs ( ethambutol and rifampicin ) for DATE , starting on DATE and also a special diet . According to the applicant , this prescription was not implemented in practice .","On DATE the applicant complained of moderate general weakness and heaviness in the right hypochondrium and was examined again by the tuberculosis specialist . As a result , his DATE relapse prevention therapy was slightly modified .","On DATE the tuberculosis specialist examined the applicant again , with no dynamics noted . The doctor recommended continuation of the treatment and a repeated CDCARDINAL test . It is not clear whether that test was carried out .","DATE . On DATE the applicant underwent X - rays which showed that he had infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the left lung in the disintegration stage .","On DATE the applicant was examined by CARDINAL tuberculosis specialists , who diagnosed a recurrence of tuberculosis . They recommended a drug susceptibility test and prescribed isoniazid , rifampicin and ethambutol .","On DATE the applicant had his chest X - rayed . There was a limited fibrosis in the right lung and a suspected ring - shaped shadow on the left lung . The applicant was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobes of both lungs .","On DATE he was examined by a tuberculosis specialist , who prescribed continuation of the treatment of DATE .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the PERSON prison no . CARDINAL ( PERSON \u0432\u0438\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u043a\u043e\u043b\u043e\u043d\u0456\u044f \u2116 CARDINAL ) in the GPE region \u2013 where there was a hospital specialising in tuberculosis \u2013 for the purposes of serving his sentence .","According to the applicant , during his detention in the ORG his weight dropped from QUANTITY to QUANTITY . He had previously indicated his height QUANTITY . The entry in his medical file in the LOC prison upon his arrival there stated his height as QUANTITY and his weight as still QUANTITY ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On an unspecified date following the applicant \u2019s transfer to the LOC prison ( before DATE see paragraph CARDINAL below ) his drug susceptibility was tested . It revealed that the applicant was infected with strains of tuberculosis resistant to CARDINAL of the first - line drugs with which he had been treated before .","On DATE he was examined by an infectious diseases specialist , who diagnosed him with chronic persistent hepatitis in the remission stage .","On DATE the applicant was examined by the Head of the Phthisiology and ORG of ORG , who prescribed an individual scheme of chemotherapy for him , given his resistance to certain drugs .","On DATE the applicant underwent a CDCARDINAL test . Its result was CARDINAL cells \/ cu . PERSON .","On DATE an infectious diseases doctor from ORG examined the applicant and diagnosed tuberculosis , oropharyngeal candidiasis and chronic viral hepatitis .","Also on DATE the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist from ORG , who reported positive developments as a result of the treatment and recommended its continuation .","According to the extract from the applicant \u2019s medical file issued by the PERSON prison administration , the applicant was released from detention on CARDINAL DATE on the ground of poor health . It was recommended that he register for monitoring in the local AIDS centre and that he continue his treatment for tuberculosis in the place of his residence .","None of the parties has submitted to the ORG any details as to the circumstances of and the reasons for the applicant \u2019s release . The applicant noted summarily that he \u201c was transferred for treatment in [ his ] place of residence as his treatment [ in detention ] had not been successful . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141859","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"GONZ\u00c1LEZ N\u00c1JERA v. SPAIN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and Mr C. PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , within the space of TIME , the mother and the father of CARDINAL different DATE girls separately contacted ORG on account of suspicions that their children had been sexually abused by the applicant , who was their psychomotor development teacher . They reported that their children had told them that the applicant had introduced his hand through their underwear and had touched their pubic region and their genitals while they were doing physical exercises .","On DATE the applicant was arrested . In his statement to the police , in which he was assisted by counsel , the applicant denied the accusations . On DATE , parents of CARDINAL other girls in the same school class reported similar facts to the police .","On DATE the applicant was brought before an investigating judge . In his statement to the judge the applicant confirmed his statement to the police . He was released on remand subject to certain conditions . A non - molestation order was issued against him for the protection of the minors . The applicant appointed counsel and a legal representative for his defence and representation before the courts .","On DATE and DATE the parents of CARDINAL other DATE girls contacted the police to report incidents involving their children similar to those reported by the above - mentioned parents . Their daughters had told them that the applicant had touched their genitals .","On DATE the investigating judge requested that the forensic psycho - social team in the NORP courts perform an examination of the first CARDINAL alleged under - age victims and of the applicant . On DATE the examination of the minors was extended to include the last QUANTITY girls whose parents had made a criminal complaint . The report on the minors was prepared by a forensic social worker and a forensic social psychologist . Their interviews with the minors were all video - recorded . The report on the applicant was prepared by a different forensic psychologist .","On DATE and DATE the psychological reports were submitted in writing to the investigating judge . They were added to the case file . The applicant was provided with a copy of the report on the minors .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant made a request to the investigating judge that the forensic psycho - social team who had interviewed the minors submit all notes and documents which had been put at their disposal by the school personnel and cited in the report . The investigating judge requested those notes and documents from the members of the forensic psycho - social team with a view to providing the applicant with them .","On DATE the forensic psycho - social team informed the investigating judge that they had not kept notes of the interviews . All information deemed important had been included in the final report and the notes destroyed .","On DATE the investigating judge brought the investigative stage of the proceedings to a close and made the case file available to the parties with a view to holding a public hearing . The applicant did not appeal against that decision . The public prosecutor accused the applicant of CARDINAL counts of child abuse . The private prosecutor accused him of CARDINAL counts of child abuse . In his statement of defence the applicant denied the charges .","On DATE a public hearing took place before the NORP criminal judge no . CARDINAL . The applicant was defended by counsel of his own choice . The applicant , the parents and the alleged GPE CARDINAL school tutors were questioned . The video - recording of the forensic experts\u2019 interview with the minors was played in its entirety and the members of the forensic psycho - social team were questioned in relation to the report they had produced . They confirmed the contents of their report . The alleged under - age victims were not questioned at the hearing since none of the parties to the proceedings had so requested .","On DATE the NORP criminal judge no . CARDINAL sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment as a principal on CARDINAL counts of sexual abuse of children . He was acquitted of CARDINAL count of sexually abusing a child . The judge found that on DATE the applicant , driven by an impulse to satisfy his lustful desires , had asked for volunteers to lead their classmates in the exercises ; that he had selected multiple volunteers , including the CARDINAL female victims , taking them away from the group in turn ; that he had brought the under - age victims close to him and that whilst practising the exercises he had touched their genitals , concealing his actions behind the ORG smocks .","NORP In reaching this conclusion the judge relied mainly on the statements given by the under - age victims to the CARDINAL members of the forensic psycho - social team . Those interviews had been video - recorded and played in their entirety at the hearing . The judge emphasised that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL minors interviewed had repeated in a spontaneous fashion what they had previously said to their parents and that the other CARDINAL had given their account of the facts after the experts had asked them whether anything particular had happened in the psychomotor development class on the specific date of the events . The answers provided by these CARDINAL minors were consistent with regard to both the circumstantial evidence and the way in which the events had taken place . The seventh child who had been interviewed had not given an account of the events .","The judge further relied on the expert psycho - social report on the minors , the findings of which the CARDINAL authors had confirmed at the hearing . The experts were available for cross - examination at the hearing . According to them , the reliability of the alleged ORG accounts ranged from \u201c indeterminate \u201d to \u201c most probably reliable \u201d on a scale consisting of CARDINAL different values of credibility : reliable , most probably reliable , indeterminate , probably not reliable and not reliable . The report contained a detailed assessment of each alleged victim \u2019s statement , of its consistency with other statements , and of the reasons supporting their conclusions . The judge also relied on hearsay evidence given by some of the LOC parents and the tutors of the CARDINAL classes to which the minors concerned belonged .","The judge rejected the applicant \u2019s submission that he should be acquitted for lack of direct evidence against him . The applicant had argued that he had not examined the minors either in the investigative stage of the proceedings or at the hearing and that therefore the LOC pre - trial statements should not be admitted as valid evidence against him because he had not been present during their examination .","The judge conceded that the minors had not been cross - examined by the applicant or his counsel either at the investigative stage of the proceedings or at the hearing . This fact , however , did not prevent the ORG statements being admitted as evidence against the applicant . The judge pointed out that neither of the parties to the proceedings had requested that the children attend the hearing as witnesses . She further referred to domestic case - law and to international instruments regulating children \u2019s rights , stating that in sex - related criminal cases involving minors it was possible to dispense with their cross - examination in open court if it was deemed inappropriate having regard to the ORG young age or its probably adverse psychological impact , and that their statements could be submitted at the hearing through other means .","In this connection , the judge emphasised that in the present case an expert report had been prepared by a forensic psycho - social team whose members had confirmed its contents in open court ; that for the preparation of that report the experts had conducted a series of interviews with the minors ; that the report had been passed on to the applicant during the investigative stage of the proceedings ; and that those interviews had all been video - recorded and played at the trial . The applicant had been able to prepare his defence and challenge the truthfulness of the ORG statements , submit evidence in his favour , and cast doubt on the accuracy or scientific value of the expert report . The fact that the full content of the interviews had not been transposed into the final expert report was irrelevant in so far as the video - recording of the interviews had been viewed in its entirety in open court .","The applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment before FAC . He invoked his rights to be presumed innocent and to a fair hearing .","On CARDINAL DATE the La Rioja Audiencia Provincial upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction . The appellate court emphasised that the applicant had requested the production of the evidence requested by the public and private prosecutors , who had asked that the interviews conducted with the minors be viewed and that the experts who had conducted those interviews be questioned in open court . The prosecutors had not requested that the minors be questioned and neither had the applicant . The court considered that in admitting those statements in evidence , the first - instance judge had struck a proper balance between the protection of the minors from secondary victimisation and the applicant \u2019s right to defence . The applicant \u2019s right had been respected in so far as the video - recording of the interviews had been played in its entirety at the hearing and the members of the psycho - social team had been available for cross - examination by the applicant .","The appellate court emphasised that the statements given by the CARDINAL under - age victims were consistent and that they were corroborated by hearsay evidence , by the expert report and by the statements made at the hearing by the experts who had prepared the report . As regards the expert report , the court pointed out that the applicant had been provided with a copy immediately after it was produced and that he had not raised any objection to or submitted an appeal against the investigating judge \u2019s decision to request its production and inclusion in the case file . The members of the psycho - social team had confirmed its contents at the hearing . The court praised the report for its completeness and accuracy and emphasised that its findings were based on a renowned scientific method called ORG ) , of which the core component was a criteria - based content analysis ( CBCA ) of the credibility of accounts . It was also pointed out that the applicant had failed to submit any evidence that raised doubts as to the reliability of the report .","On DATE the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG , invoking his constitutional rights to a fair hearing and to be presumed innocent . He argued that he could not be blamed for not having requested the cross - examination of the minors at the hearing in so far as it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove him guilty and therefore to request the production at the hearing of all the evidence against him . This failure on the part of the prosecutors had prevented him from cross - examining the alleged victims , thereby breaching his right to a fair hearing . The applicant further argued that the only direct evidence on the basis of which the courts had found him guilty consisted of the statements given by the minors to the experts at the investigative stage of the proceedings but contended that those statements should have been excluded from the evidential material as they had been obtained in breach of his right to defence . The interviews with the minors had been conducted without his being present . The exclusion of that evidence would result in his acquittal of all the alleged offences for lack of sufficient evidence to override his right to be presumed innocent . The evidence against him was in any case insufficient to prove him guilty .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s amparo appeal . It stated that the first issue raised by the applicant concerned the potential restrictions which could be placed on the right to defence of a person charged with sexual offences vis - \u00e0 - vis his alleged victims , taking into account the undesirable emotional and psychological impact that cross - examination in open court might have on the latter .","ORG reiterated that as a general rule defendants should be afforded the opportunity to cross - examine their victims in open court . However , this rule allowed for certain exceptions . Making copious citations from the ORG \u2019s case - law , ORG referred to the special nature of criminal proceedings concerning sexual offences , which often represented an ordeal for the victims , and to the fact that this aspect was even more clearly apparent in cases involving minors . The courts were allowed to take measures for the purpose of protecting under - age victims , including the possibility of dispensing with their cross - examination . This measure should nonetheless be reconciled with the adequate and effective exercise of the rights of the defence . Courts were thus required to implement safeguards compensating defendants for the disadvantage of having been prevented from cross - examining the direct witnesses to the offences in open court .","The Constitutional Court went on to state that in sex - related offences the only direct evidence was frequently the victim \u2019s own statement , the other evidence normally being hearsay evidence or expert evidence assessing the credibility of the victim \u2019s account . In this connection , the legal debate usually turned on the legal safeguards surrounding the examination of the minor and the manner in which his or her statements could be used as evidence at the hearing . ORG stated that in cases such as the instant CARDINAL the constitutional standard of review coincided with the standard established by ORG in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , according to which :","\u201c the suspected person shall be informed of the hearing of the child , he or she shall be given an opportunity to observe that hearing , either as it is being conducted or later from an audiovisual recording , and to have questions put to the child , either directly or indirectly , in the course of the first hearing or on a later occasion . \u201d","Turning to the instant case , ORG stated that the under - age girls had not been questioned by the police or the public prosecutor or the investigating judge . They had been examined by a social worker and a psychologist from the forensic psycho - social team from whom the investigating judge had commissioned a report . The relevant legislation provided for that possibility , which had been accepted as a constitutionally valid option by ORG in a previous judgment . The court emphasised that \u2012 given the young age of the minors , all of whom were below DATE at the material time \u2012 their examination by experts was advisable not only in order to prevent additional unnecessary damage but also to reinforce the reliability of their statements .","ORG stated that the investigating judge had made the psycho - social report available to the parties , including the applicant \u2019s counsel , shortly after its production by the experts . However , the applicant had limited himself to requesting some additional documents ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) DATE . He had not requested that a fresh examination of the minors be conducted in his presence . The legislation by no means prevented such a course of action but the applicant had not availed himself of that possibility . In his subsequent statement of defence , the applicant had not requested the cross - examination of the alleged victims in open court , which reinforced the inference that his rights had been duly respected at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings . The applicant \u2019s failure to request the GPE cross - examination meant that the judicial authorities dealing with his case did not have to decide whether or not the applicant should have been given the opportunity to have his alleged victims cross - examined . In fact , the domestic authorities had not obstructed or in any way prevented such an examination since they had not been confronted with the issue to begin with .","In the light of the foregoing , ORG considered that the applicant \u2019s right to adversarial proceedings had not been restricted to an unacceptable extent . Its finding might have been different had the judicial authorities prevented the applicant from examining the under - age victims despite his having so requested ( the ORG cited ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , ORG CARDINALV ; PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; and Accardi and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALII ) or if the applicant had not been able to challenge effectively the examination conducted by the experts owing to a lack of sufficient information or some legal impediment .","As regards the assessment of the evidence conducted by the judicial authorities , the Constitutional Court emphasised from the outset that its role was not that of a court of third instance and that in cases such as the instant one it would intervene only if it could not be concluded \u2012 or could be concluded only arbitrarily \u2012 from the evidential material in the case file , which should have been obtained with due respect for the defendant \u2019s fundamental rights , that the defendant was guilty .","In this connection , ORG stated that the only direct evidence on which the trial courts had based the applicant \u2019s conviction comprised the incriminating statements given by the minors at the investigative stage of the proceedings , the video - recording of which had been viewed in its entirety at the hearing . The admission of those statements as evidence had been lawful and , from a constitutional standpoint , they could be considered sufficient evidence to override the applicant \u2019s right to be presumed innocent . The hearsay evidence provided by parents and experts had served exclusively as corroborating evidence . This complaint was dismissed .","ORG judgment was served on DATE .","DATE LAW provides :","\u201c CARDINAL . Every person has the right to the effective protection of the judges and the courts in the exercise of his or her legitimate rights and interests , and in no case may he or she go undefended .","Likewise , every person has the right of access to the ordinary judge predetermined by law ; to the defence and assistance of a lawyer ; to be informed of the charges brought against him or her ; to a public trial without undue delays and with full guarantees ; to the use of evidence appropriate to his or her defence ; to refrain from self - incriminating statements ; not to declare himself or herself guilty ; and to be presumed innocent .","The law shall determine the cases in which , for reasons of family relationship or professional secrecy , it shall not be compulsory to make statements regarding alleged criminal offences . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW are as follows :","\u201c ...","Adult witnesses shall take an oath or promise to state all they know in reply to the questions put to them , the judge being obliged to inform them in clear and understandable language of their duty to tell the truth and of the possibility of their being held liable for false statements in a criminal case .","Minors may give a statement to experts , always in the presence of the public prosecutor . The person exercising parental responsibilities , protection or guardianship over the minor may be present unless he or she is an accused party , or if the judge , as an exceptional measure and through a reasoned decision , decides otherwise . The judge may instruct that the statement be video - recorded . \u201d","\u201c ...","Statements from under - age witnesses shall be delivered in a manner that avoids their being visually confronted with the accused . The use of appropriate technological mechanisms shall be allowed for that purpose . \u201d","\u201c ...","Statements from under - age witnesses shall be delivered in a manner that avoids their being visually confronted with the accused . The use of appropriate technological mechanisms shall be allowed for that purpose . \u201d","\u201c The only evidence that shall be produced [ at the hearing ] is that proposed by the parties ; the only witnesses who shall be examined are those included in the lists submitted [ by the parties ] . \u201d","\u201c In the event that any evidence can not be produced during the hearing , on account of circumstances outside the parties\u2019 control , a record of the relevant investigation shall be read out if this is so requested by any of the parties . \u201d","ORG , which entered into force in respect of GPE on DATE , provides in LAW , concerning investigation , prosecution and procedural law :","\u201c CARDINAL . Each ORG shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that investigations and criminal proceedings are carried out in the best interests and respecting the rights of the child .","Each ORG shall adopt a protective approach towards victims , ensuring that the investigations and criminal proceedings do not aggravate the trauma experienced by the child and that the criminal justice response is followed by assistance , where appropriate ...","Each ORG shall ensure that the measures applicable under the current chapter are not prejudicial to the rights of the defence and the requirements of a fair and impartial trial , in conformity with LAW . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Each ORG shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to protect the rights and interests of victims , including their special needs as witnesses , at all stages of investigations and criminal proceedings , in particular by ...","g. ensuring that contact between victims and perpetrators within court and law enforcement agency LOC is avoided , unless the competent authorities establish otherwise in the best interests of the child or when the investigations or proceedings require such contact . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Each ORG shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that :","a. interviews with the child take place without unjustified delay after the facts have been reported to the competent authorities ;","b. interviews with the child take place , where necessary , in LOC designed or adapted for this purpose ;","c. interviews with the child are carried out by professionals trained for this purpose ;","d. the same persons , if possible and where appropriate , conduct all interviews with the child ;","e. the number of interviews is as limited as possible and in so far as strictly necessary for the purpose of criminal proceedings ...","Each ORG shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that all interviews with the victim or , where appropriate , those with a child witness , may be videotaped and that these videotaped interviews may be accepted as evidence during the court proceedings , according to the rules provided by its internal law . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Each ORG shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure , according to the rules provided by its internal law , that :","a. the judge may order the hearing to take place without the presence of the public ;","b. the victim may be heard in the courtroom without being present , notably through the use of appropriate communication technologies . \u201d","LAW of DATE of ORG on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings ( CARDINAL ) provided :","\u201c CARDINAL . Each Member ORG shall ensure that victims who are particularly vulnerable can benefit from specific treatment best suited to their circumstances . \u201d","\u201c Each Member ORG shall safeguard the possibility for victims to be heard during proceedings and to supply evidence .","Each Member ORG shall take appropriate measures to ensure that its authorities question victims only insofar as necessary for the purpose of criminal proceedings . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Each Member ORG shall ensure that , where there is a need to protect victims - particularly those most vulnerable - from the effects of giving evidence in open court , victims may , by decision taken by the court , be entitled to testify in a manner which will enable this objective to be achieved , by any appropriate means compatible with its basic legal principles . \u201d","The Directive of DATE of ORG and of the Council ( CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EU ) establishing minimum standards on the rights , support and protection of victims of crime , and replacing LAW CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/JHA , provides :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) This Directive respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by LAW . In particular , it seeks to promote the right to dignity , life , physical and mental integrity , liberty and security , respect for private and family life , the right to property , the principle of non - discrimination , the principle of equality between women and men , the rights of the child , the elderly and persons with disabilities , and the right to a fair trial . \u201d","\u201c Without prejudice to the rights of the defence and in accordance with rules of judicial discretion , Member GPE shall ensure that during criminal investigations :","...","( b ) the number of interviews of victims is kept to a minimum and interviews are carried out only where strictly necessary for the purposes of the criminal investigation ;","... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Member GPE shall ensure that victims receive a timely and individual assessment , in accordance with national procedures , to identify specific protection needs and to determine whether and to what extent they would benefit from special measures in the course of criminal proceedings , as provided for under LAW and DATE , due to their particular vulnerability to secondary and repeat victimisation , to intimidation and to retaliation ...","For the purposes of this Directive , child victims shall be presumed to have specific protection needs due to their vulnerability to secondary and repeat victimisation , to intimidation and to retaliation . To determine whether and to what extent they would benefit from special measures as provided for under Articles DATE and DATE , child victims shall be subject to an individual assessment as provided for in paragraph CARDINAL of this Article . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Without prejudice to the rights of the defence and in accordance with rules of judicial discretion , Member GPE shall ensure that victims with specific protection needs who benefit from special measures identified as a result of an individual assessment provided for in LAW , may benefit from the measures provided for in DATE and QUANTITY of this Article . A special measure envisaged following the individual assessment shall not be made available if operational or practical constraints make this impossible , or where there is a an urgent need to interview the victim and failure to do so could harm the victim or another person or could prejudice the course of the proceedings .","The following measures shall be available during criminal investigations to victims with specific protection needs identified in accordance with LAW","( a ) interviews with the victim being carried out in LOC designed or adapted for that purpose ;","( b ) interviews with the victim being carried out by or through professionals trained for that purpose ;","( c ) all interviews with the victim being conducted by the same persons unless this is contrary to the good administration of justice ;","( d ) all interviews with victims of sexual violence , gender - based violence or violence in close relationships , unless conducted by a prosecutor or a judge , being conducted by a person of the same sex as the victim , if the victim so wishes , provided that the course of the criminal proceedings will not be prejudiced .","The following measures shall be available for victims with specific protection needs identified in accordance with LAW during court proceedings :","( a ) measures to avoid visual contact between victims and offenders including during the giving of evidence , by appropriate means including the use of communication technology ;","( b ) measures to ensure that the victim may be heard in the courtroom without being present , in particular through the use of appropriate communication technology ;","( c ) measures to avoid unnecessary questioning concerning the victim \u2019s private life not related to the criminal offence ; and","( d ) measures allowing a hearing to take place without the presence of the public . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . In addition to the measures provided for in DATE , Member GPE shall ensure that where the victim is a child :","( a ) in criminal investigations , all interviews with the child victim may be audiovisually recorded and such recorded interviews may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings ; \u201d","In a judgment of DATE ( Case C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Pupino [ DATE ] ECRICARDINAL ) ORG of ORG held :","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG must thus be interpreted in such a way that fundamental rights , including in particular the right to a fair trial as set out in LAW and interpreted by ORG , are respected ( ... )","In the light of all the above considerations , the answer to the question must be that ORG , CARDINAL CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG must be interpreted as meaning that the national court must be able to authorise young children , who , as in this case , claim to have been victims of maltreatment , to give their testimony in accordance with arrangements allowing those children to be guaranteed an appropriate level of protection , for example outside the trial and before it takes place . The national court is required to take into consideration all the rules of national law and to interpret them , so far as possible , in the light of the wording and purpose of LAW . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144549","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"FR\u00c4NKLIN-BEENTJES AND CEFLU-LUZ DA FLORESTA v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , is a GPE national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant , ORG , is a religious association ( kerkgenootschap ) with legal personality under GPE law and its statutory seat in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr T. van Kooten , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. PERSON of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and apparent from documents available to the public , may be summarised as follows .","The first applicant is an office - holder of the second applicant . The second applicant is a religious association .","NORP The applicant association claims affiliation to FAC PERSON ( ORG of the Universal Flowing Light PERSON , \u201c ORG \u201d ) , an organisation based in GPE . The aim of the applicant association as set forth in its statutes is to \u201c research , study and practise the teachings of FAC and to incite with its works and rituals its godly spark with a view to its integration with the divine \u201d . Its teachings are stated to be based on revelations by PERSON to the religion \u2019s founder , PERSON ( DATE , referred to by his followers as PERSON ( \u201c Master \u201d ) Ireneu ) . ORG was founded after the death of PERSON by PERSON ( DATE , alias ORG ( \u201c Godfather \u201d ) ORG ) .","An essential part of the applicant association \u2019s rites is the drinking of a particular hallucinogenic decoction , or brew , during the services . This decoction is stated to be produced in accordance with prescribed religious rituals ; its ingredients are taken from plants and vines unique to the ORG region . It is described as the \u201c GPE \u201d of the applicant association and is referred to by believers as \u201c PERSON \u201d ( from the NORP dai me , \u201c give me \u201d ) . In other circles it is more commonly referred to as ayahuasca ( from the NORP aya , spirit , and waska , liana or vine ) .","The plants that are used for the production of ayahuasca , and hence the decoction itself , contain , inter alia , N , ORG , also described chemically as ORG ( hereafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","ORG is a substance that can cause hallucinations if taken internally . When it is consumed in the form of ayahuasca , other possible effects include gastrointestinal reactions , such as nausea and vomiting . There is a possibility of more serious symptoms of acute toxicity , such as hypertension and increased body temperature , a rapid pulse rate and hyperventilation , sensory impairment in the limbs and difficulty walking .","On DATE police officers searched the first applicant \u2019s house . During this search the police found and confiscated , among other things , CARDINAL jerrycans each containing QUANTITY of an unknown liquid . ORG analysis performed by ORG ( ORG ) showed that the confiscated liquid contained ORG , which is CARDINAL of a number of banned substances featuring on List CARDINAL annexed to LAW ( PERSON , see below ) . The liquid was identified as ayahuasca .","On DATE ORG ( rechtbank ) found the first applicant guilty of , inter alia , the offence set out in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , namely the possession of a substance featuring on LAW annexed to that LAW .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( gerechtshof ) , sitting in GPE .","On DATE ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings against the first applicant as it found that the length of the appeal proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of LAW .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a notice of complaint ( klaagschrift ) with ORG , sitting in GPE , requesting the return of the CARDINAL jerrycans that had initially been confiscated . She stated that she was a member of the \u201c PERSON church \u201d , within which ayahuasca is the most important sacrament . She further argued that the continued confiscation of the ayahuasca violated her rights under LAW as this interference with her right was not necessary in a NORP society : in her submission , scientific expert reports showed that there were virtually no health and safety risks related to the drinking of ayahuasca .","On DATE ORG held a hearing on the first applicant \u2019s case in the course of which she restated her arguments , claiming that , in her case , the protection of freedom of religion should outweigh the interests protected by LAW . According to the official record of the hearing the first applicant stated , in reply to a question from the court , that she could also practise her religion without the use of ayahuasca . The public prosecutor submitted that since the ayahuasca brew contained ORG , a substance featuring on LAW annexed to LAW , the jerrycans could not be returned to the first applicant .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s complaint . It considered that her religion , as practised by the applicant association , was protected by LAW . However , since expert reports indicated that the use of ayahuasca did constitute a threat to public health , the court found that the interference with the first applicant \u2019s rights had not been unreasonable as it was necessary in a NORP society . ORG further noted that it had also taken into consideration the first applicant \u2019s statement that the use of ayahuasca was not indispensable for the practice of her religion .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) . She submitted that ORG had drawn the wrong conclusions from the expert report since , after listing the effects of drinking ayahuasca , the report continued by stating that ayahuasca was used in the PERSON church \u2019s services on such a small scale , and its consumption took place in such a controlled environment , that there existed virtually no risk to public health . According to the first applicant ORG had failed to explain why it had not included that part of the report in its reasoning . The first applicant further submitted that the comment she had made at the hearing before ORG had been taken out of context , since she had only meant to say that she would still adhere to her religious denomination even if she could not use ayahuasca . Accordingly , the confiscation of the ayahuasca did indeed interfere with her freedom to practise her religion following the church \u2019s own rules and rituals .","In his advisory opinion , the Procurator General ( ProcureurGeneraal ) at ORG expressed the view that the appeal on points of law should be dismissed . He considered that the judiciary was not empowered to set aside a general prohibition of the possession of the substance solely because of the particular circumstances in which it was used , i.e. the specific situation being judged not to constitute a threat to public health .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . It considered that ORG had established that ayahuasca contained ORG which was included amongst the banned substances appearing on LAW annexed to LAW . ORG further noted that it appeared from the parliamentary history ( wetsgeschiedenis ) of LAW that the substances included on LAW were banned , among other reasons , in order to comply with international treaty obligations concerning psychotropic substances that could cause damage to health . The fact that section CARDINAL of LAW banned the possession of substances included on LAW therefore constituted a measure for the protection of public health . ORG concluded that ORG had not made any errors of law in finding that the ban on the possession of ayahuasca was prescribed by law and necessary in a NORP society for the protection of public health . It further noted that this conclusion was not altered by the first applicant \u2019s arguments that ayahuasca , in the manner in which it was used during church services , caused virtually no danger to ( public ) health , nor by the suggestion that ORG had drawn the wrong conclusions from the scientific report . In relation to the first applicant \u2019s comments made at the hearing before ORG , ORG held that it had not been unreasonable for ORG to consider them in relation to its finding that the interference with the first applicant \u2019s freedom of religion was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued .","On DATE the applicants brought proceedings seeking a declaratory judgment which was to hold that , firstly , the applicant association was a religious denomination under section CARDINAL:CARDINAL of GPE Code ( Burgerlijk Wetboek ) , secondly , that the members of the applicant association were excluded from section CARDINAL of LAW for the possession and the use during services of the \u201c GPE \u201d ( ayahuasca ) , and , thirdly , that the ORG was prohibited from prosecuting the members of the applicant association for the possession and use during services of the \u201c PERSON \u201d for as long as the ORG had not brought its policy into line with the rights protected by LAW .","On DATE ORG of The Hague dismissed the first request ( ORG ) , \u201c LJN \u201d ORG ) , holding that , although it was of the opinion that the applicant association was indeed a religious denomination within the meaning of section CARDINAL:CARDINAL of LAW , the applicant association had not substantiated its interest in such a declaration . ORG also dismissed the second and third claims , referring to ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The relevant sections of LAW read as follows :","\u201c It is prohibited to","NORP import to or export from the territory of the GPE ;","B. cultivate , prepare , modify , process , sell , deliver , supply or transport ;","C. possess ;","D. manufacture","the substances featuring on List I annexed to this LAW ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . NORP The Minister [ of Health , Well - being and Sports ( NORP , ORG ) ] can ... grant an exemption from a prohibition as referred to in section CARDINAL ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . An exemption can be granted only if the person requesting it has satisfied the Minister :","a. that it serves the interest of public or animal health ;","b. it is needed for carrying out scientific or analytical - chemical research or for educational purposes , in so far as the interest of public health is not harmed thereby , or","c. it is needed for carrying out an act as referred to in LAW ... pursuant to an agreement with :","NORP another person to whom an exemption has been granted under section CARDINAL ;","NORP a pharmacist , or a physician who keeps a pharmacy ;","a veterinary surgeon ;","an institution or person indicated under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) or ( CARDINAL ) [ i.e. specifically authorised medical , dental or veterinary institutions or practitioners , and their patients ] ;","a person holding a license or exemption granted in another country for the import of the substances in issue into that country , in so far as the interest of public health is not harmed thereby . ... \u201d","PERSON appears on List I annexed to LAW under the appellations N , N - dimethyltryptamine and GPE .","On DATE ( LJN : ABCARDINAL ) ORG held , in a case similar to the present one , that expert reports indicated that the PERSON church should be considered a legitimate religious association and that its teachings constituted a religious conviction ( geloofsovertuiging ) in themselves . It held that the prohibition contained in FAC should not be applied in view of the fact that the ritual use of ayahuasca in church services entailed virtually no risks to public health . ORG therefore considered that , since the drinking of the ayahuasca tea was such an essential part of the NORP religious practice , freedom of religion as guaranteed by LAW should attract greater weight than the prohibition contained in LAW . Subsequently , the accused was discharged from further prosecution of the criminal offence under LAW .","On DATE ( LJN : BHCARDINAL ) \u2013 i.e. after the decision of ORG in the present case \u2013 the Haarlem Regional Court ruled on a case involving a person who had been apprehended at FAC with a number of bags containing ayahuasca in his luggage , intended for use during church services as described above . ORG found that there were virtually no risks to public health involved in the consumption of the brew in the setting of the church services . ORG further considered that the import of ayahuasca was regulated by specific rules and regulations issued by the church . It concluded that in these circumstances the protection of freedom of religion guaranteed by LAW outweighed the prohibitions contained in LAW .","On DATE ( LJN : PERSON ) ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE , against which ORG ( Openbaar Ministerie ) had appealed . ORG considered that there was a certain difference between the case before it and the case decided by ORG on DATE i.e. the first applicant \u2019s case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In this case , the accused had established that the drinking of ayahuasca was indeed an essential part of the practice of his religion . ORG held that this conclusion warranted an examination of the merits of the case and its specific circumstances , whereas ORG in DATE had only carried out an abstract examination of the merits of the case . Restating the judgment of ORG , it held that in this case the application of LAW was not \u201c necessary \u201d within the meaning of LAW .","On DATE the Government informed the ORG that an appeal on points of law had been lodged by ORG against ORG judgment of DATE . As far as the ORG is aware , the proceedings are still pending .","The Convention on Psychotropic Substances ( United Nations Treaty Series , \u201c ORG \u201d , volume CARDINAL , pages CARDINAL and following ) was adopted in GPE on DATE . It entered into force on DATE . The GPE acceded to it on DATE . Attached to that Convention are CARDINAL Schedules listing various categories of psychotropic substances .","As relevant to the case before the ORG , ORG provides as follows :"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177418","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF AVDEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163473","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"CUSACK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175640","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF YANKOVSKIY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Inhuman treatment)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having planned and carried out a murder and of having injured CARDINAL persons . DATE he was charged with murder and attempted murder committed within an organised criminal group . ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) authorised his pre - trial detention for DATE .","On DATE ORG examined an application by the investigating authorities to extend the applicant \u2019s detention . They relied on the seriousness of the charges , the applicant \u2019s de facto residence not being at his registered address , and the potential risk of intimidation of witnesses or victims , and the risk of obstruction of justice and reoffending . The defence argued that the applicant had no criminal record , that he lived at a known address , had a family with CARDINAL minor children , and that he suffered from severe diabetes . Having been fully satisfied with the prosecution \u2019s arguments , ORG extended the detention until DATE .","On DATE GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) upheld the decision on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE citing the seriousness of the charges and the fact that the investigation had not yet been completed . The court found that if released the applicant could influence his co - accused or the victims . With reference to the medical report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the court noted that the state of health of the accused was compatible with further detention on remand . The decision contained the following phrase :","\u201c The investigation has proved [ the applicant \u2019s ] guilt in that crime \u201d","The defence did not appeal against the extension order .","On DATE ORG ruled that the applicant should remain in detention until DATE . The court endorsed the reasoning of the decision of CARDINAL DATE and noted that there were still certain investigative actions to be taken . In particular , the authorities had to obtain an expert report , to investigate the applicant \u2019s alleged involvement in CARDINAL more criminal incidents and to finish examining evidence .","On DATE ORG upheld the order on appeal .","On DATE ORG examined another application for extension of the applicant \u2019s detention . The same judge as at the hearing of CARDINAL DATE presided . Relying on the wording of the court order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the defence challenged the judge , alleging that he was biased .","ORG dismissed that application , having found that the hearing on DATE and the ensuing decision had not concerned the determination of the applicant \u2019s guilt and that there was no evidence of the judge \u2019s partiality .","The court extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , repeating its earlier reasoning . It also concluded that his state of health was \u201c close to satisfactory \u201d and that he could be transferred to a prison hospital should his health worsen .","On DATE the applicant appealed against both the extension order and the court \u2019s decision regarding the impartiality of the judge . On DATE he amended his appeal .","DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer was informed that the appeal hearing had been listed for DATE . Citing his busy schedule , the lawyer asked the court to adjourn the hearing . The court allowed the request and set the hearing for DATE .","On DATE ORG discovered that a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE dismissing the application for a change in the composition of ORG had not been served on the defence , which therefore had had no opportunity to challenge it . The case was remitted to ORG .","DATE ORG provided the defence with a copy of the impugned decision .","On DATE and DATE ORG postponed hearings owing to the applicant \u2019s inability to participate for health reasons .","At the hearing on DATE the applicant informed ORG of his wish to change lawyer . The hearing was adjourned again .","On DATE ORG upheld the extension order and rejected the applicant \u2019s challenge to ORG judge as unfounded .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , and dismissed a prior application for early release on medical grounds . The court decided that he was receiving adequate medical carecall for his release .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the extension order with reference to his frail health and the lack of adequate medical care . His appeal reached the court on DATE .","ORG upheld the extension order on DATE .","On DATE ORG held another detention hearing . The applicant and his lawyer were absent . According to a medical certificate , the applicant was unable to appear owing to ongoing inpatient treatment . A written statement from the investigator said that the applicant \u2019s counsel had been informed of the hearing by telephone on DATE . Noting the counsel \u2019s absence , ORG appointed a new lawyer for the defence . The appointed lawyer objected to the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , referring to the latter \u2019s family situation , permanent residence at a known address and his poor health .","ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . In addition to the usual reference to the seriousness of the charges , it noted the complexity of the case and the need for the investigating authorities to look into recently obtained evidence suggesting that CARDINAL more people had been involved in the criminal offences . The court made a detailed list of the investigative steps taken since the most recent detention order , and declared reasonable the length of the investigation . The court also found that the applicant could not be released on medical grounds given the absence of a medical report assessing the compatibility of the applicant \u2019s health with prolonged detention .","On DATE the defence appealed against the extension . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE a supplement to the appeal was submitted by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , who , referring to the call records on her mobile telephone , argued that the investigator had not informed her of the hearing on DATE .","On DATE ORG held the appeal hearing in the absence of the applicant \u2013 who was still receiving inpatient treatment DATE and his counsel , who asked the court to examine the issue in his absence . The applicant was represented by court - appointed counsel , who supported the arguments put forward in the statement of appeal statement .","ORG upheld the extension order . As it was satisfied with the investigator \u2019s statements about the telephone conversation with the applicant \u2019s lawyer , the court dismissed the argument that the lawyer had not been notified of the hearing on DATE .","On DATE GPE extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE . The court reiterated that he had been charged with multiple counts of very serious crimes and that the case was very complex . It also cited the applicant \u2019s liability to abscond . As regards his state of health , the court found that in the absence of an expert report release was not warranted .","The applicant appealed . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE his lawyer submitted supplements to the statement of appeal .","The appellate hearing was initially scheduled for DATE , but then adjourned until DATE owing to the applicant \u2019s ongoing medical treatment . On the latter date ORG upheld the detention order .","A number of additional orders followed , extending the detention until DATE . The extensions were authorised in view of the seriousness of the charges and the necessity for the applicant to study the case file . The applicant was found fit to stay in detention because the requisite treatment was available in prison . Other measures of restraint could not , in the court \u2019s opinion , secure his appearance before the investigating authorities or his law abidance .","On DATE ORG refused to extend the applicant \u2019s detention . It found that he was living in GPE at a known address , and that he was employed , and had CARDINAL minor children . There was no evidence confirming the risk of witness intimidation or reoffending . The court also took into account the applicant \u2019s poor health and his unequivocal intent to cooperate with the prosecution . It appears that on DATE the applicant was released . ORG upheld that decision on DATE .","There is no information about further developments in the criminal proceedings .","Since DATE the applicant had been suffering from insulin - dependent type - CARDINAL diabetes . In DATE he was certified as having a second - degree disability .","After the arrest in DATE he was taken to the medical unit of remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE . During DATE of detention his treatment was overseen by a prison endocrinologist .","On DATE , at the request of the applicant \u2019s wife , a panel of experts examined his medical condition . They confirmed the diagnosis of type - CARDINAL - diabetes and frequent instances of ketoacidosis complicated by concomitant diseases . The experts observed that his condition was aggravated by chronic pancreatitis and called for his constant supervision by an endocrinologist and a gastroenterologist of a specialised medical institution licensed to provide those types of medical assistance . The applicant needed a specific diet and insulin injections . A specialist was needed to monitor and correct the applicant \u2019s insulin level . A failure to comply with those recommendations could threaten the applicant \u2019s life . The experts further concluded that the remand prison medical unit was unable to provide adequate medical assistance .","At the investigator \u2019s request , on DATE a medical panel issued a report concluding that the applicant was fit to stay in the remand prison if he received specific medical care comprising : monitoring of blood sugar levels throughout DATE ; administration of the requisite medicines and adherence to a specific diet ; insulin injections ; and \u201c active supervision by an endocrinologist \u201d in order to ensure the correct insulin therapy . The experts noted that \u201c inappropriate \u201d insulin intake could lead to severe complications .","In DATE the prison endocrinologist was discharged from the medical unit . A resident general practitioner started supervising the applicant \u2019s treatment . According to the applicant , no checks of his insulin level were carried out in the medical unit . Medical documents show that he developed face and feet oedemas . On that account he was sent to ORG in GPE on DATE .","License no . FS DATE of DATE indicates that ORG was not authorised to provide endocrinological medical services . It did not employ an endocrinologist .","On DATE the applicant was seen by a civilian endocrinologist . The applicant \u2019s wife paid for the visit . The doctor noted that the patient was suffering from severe diabetes complicated by several concomitant conditions and that he needed \u201c dynamic supervision by an endocrinologist \u201d .","DATE the applicant was transferred from ORG back to the medical unit in the remand prison .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE a medical board carried out an additional expert examination and repeated its earlier conclusion made in the report on DATE .","According to the applicant , the medical unit staff changed his insulin regimen because the prescribed medication was not available . No consolations with an endocrinologist preceded that decision . As a result his blood sugar level increased significantly .","In DATE and DATE he underwent short courses of inpatient treatment in ORG .","DATE . On DATE he was taken by ambulance to ORG in GPE and was admitted to the emergency department in view of his serious medical condition . He was diagnosed with type - CARDINAL severe diabetes ; diabetic ketoacidosis ; non - proliferative diabetic retinopathy ; cataracts in both eyes ; diabetic angiopathy of both feet ; encephalopathy of mixed origin ; diabetic sensory polyneuropathy ; and diabetic nephropathy . A special medical board stated that those illnesses were not on the list of medical conditions precluding detention ; accordingly , the applicant was not eligible for release on medical grounds . The board also called for \u201c dynamic supervision \u201d of the applicant \u2019s treatment by an endocrinologist .","DATE and DATE the applicant was moved several times between the medical unit in the remand prison and ORG . According to the Government , he was seen once , on DATE , by a civilian endocrinologist .","On DATE at the request of the applicant \u2019s lawyer CARDINAL medical experts prepared a report on the quality of his treatment in detention . It addressed the following questions :","\u201c CARDINAL . What does the necessity of dynamic medical supervision by an endocrinologist\u2019 suggest ?","Does [ the applicant ] have an illness ... calling for continuous inpatient treatment in a specialised medical institution ?","...","How did the absence of \u2018 dynamic medical supervision by an NORP between DATE and CARDINAL DATE affect [ the applicant \u2019s ] health ? ... \u201d","The doctors came to the following conclusions :","\u201c CARDINAL . Dynamic medical supervision by an endocrinologist involves regular medical tests and contact with a doctor ... In a case of stable diabetes with no changes in the insulin level , a medical examination by an endocrinologist must be performed once DATE ... [ However , ] if important changes are being introduced into a patient \u2019s insulin regimen , he or she must have a DATE consultation by an endocrinologist ... until the target glucose level is achieved and there is no risk of hypoglycaemia ...","Irregular examinations of [ the applicant ] did not constitute \u2018 dynamic supervision\u2019 , as their frequency was clearly insufficient for the assessment of the patient \u2019s wellbeing in its dynamic ... or for the adjustment of his treatment .","NORP ... The seriousness of [ the applicant \u2019s ] diabetes ... shows that inpatient treatment in a specialised medical facility was required .","...","NORP ... The lack of \u2018 dynamic medical supervision by an LANGUAGE between DATE and CARDINAL DATE resulted in the deterioration of [ the applicant \u2019s ] health . Developed vascular disease ( vascular angiopathy of the lower extremities ) and encephalopathy , an irreversible brain damage ... were signs of his worsening health .","In the absence of dynamic medical supervision , improper adjustment of the medical treatment led to an increased risk of ketoacidosic \/ hypoglycemic comas ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177076","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF RAN\u0110ELOVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants are the next - of - kin of several GPE who died or disappeared in the circumstances described below .","On TIME around seventy GPE boarded the boat \u201c Miss PERSON \u201d on the LOC coast with the intention of reaching GPE . TIME the boat sank owing to the large number of passengers .","By DATE CARDINAL of the passengers had been found alive on the LOC shore , and CARDINAL bodies had been found in the sea , CARDINAL of which were identified by their relatives . The forensic specialists who had performed autopsies on the bodies by DATE stated that the cause of death could not be established with certainty on the basis of autopsies alone . In their opinion , however , the cause of death was drowning .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in Bar initiated a formal judicial investigation ( rje\u0161enje o sprovo\u0111enju istrage ) against CARDINAL individuals on suspicion of illegally crossing the State border in connection with reckless endangerment .","By DATE the investigating judge had ( a ) questioned CARDINAL suspects who were available to the authorities at the time , as well as CARDINAL other individuals in relation to the incident , including the eleventh applicant ; ( b ) requested that some other witnesses be questioned by the relevant authorities in GPE ; and ( c ) asked for the autopsy reports , an expert opinion on the capacity of the boat and a report on the weather conditions on TIME of the incident . The eleventh applicant was questioned on DATE . She stated that she had been living with her brother and sister - in - law and their children in GPE , but that her brother and sister - in - law had decided to go to GPE . They had not called her from GPE or mentioned that they had intended to go to GPE . She also stated that she had not recognised them amongst the bodies found , but had recognised her brother \u2019s arm in one of the photographs shown to her during questioning . Being illiterate , she had \u201c signed \u201d TIME of the hearing by giving a fingerprint .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor in ORG lodged an indictment with ORG in Bar against the CARDINAL suspects .","On DATE the court decided that it lacked territorial competence to deal with the case and transferred it to ORG in GPE . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE declared that the court in GPE was territorially competent to process the case and the case was returned .","By DATE the court in Bar had decided that CARDINAL defendants still at large would be tried in their absence and appointed representatives for them . The remaining CARDINAL defendants appeared before the court .","DATE and DATE ten trial hearings ( glavni pretres ) were scheduled , CARDINAL of which took place . CARDINAL were adjourned because some of the defence lawyers , defendants , witnesses and an interpreter did not attend court ; there is no information in the case file CARDINAL of the hearings . During the hearings that did take place , the court questioned CARDINAL defendants and CARDINAL witnesses .","On DATE the court decided to recommence the trial hearing due to the passage of time . By DATE QUANTITY hearings had been scheduled , CARDINAL of which took place . CARDINAL were adjourned because CARDINAL of the defence lawyers and some of the witnesses did not attend court . During the hearings that did take place , the court read out the indictment again , questioned CARDINAL defendants and CARDINAL witnesses , including the eleventh applicant , and read out the earlier statements made by the witnesses ; the fifth defendant chose to remain silent . The eleventh applicant was heard on DATE . She stated that she had come to GPE with her brother and his family and had had no idea that her brother and his wife had intended to go to GPE . When asked to explain the differences between that and her previous statement of DATE , she stated that she was certain that they had all been together since they had all been living together in CARDINAL tent . She also confirmed that she was illiterate .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON dr\u017eavni tu\u017eilac ) in GPE instructed the ORG prosecutor in GPE to specify the indictment in terms of the facts and legal classification of the criminal offences , after which the court in GPE would declare that it lacked competence to deal with the case and would transfer it to ORG in GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the High Court \u201d ) , as the competent court to deal with it . Accordingly , the indictment was amended and the case file transferred to ORG ( PERSON dr\u017eavni tu\u017eilac ) and ORG .","On DATE the High State Prosecutor requested that an investigation be opened ( zahtjev za sprovo\u0111enje istrage ) against the same CARDINAL people and another individual , Z , on suspicion of committing reckless endangerment .","By DATE ORG had questioned CARDINAL of the defendants , while the fifth had chosen to remain silent . It also ordered that the remaining CARDINAL defendants be brought before the court .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG decided to initiate a formal judicial investigation against the CARDINAL individuals , a decision which was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the High State Prosecutor urged the investigating judge to finish the investigation .","On DATE an expert witness issued an opinion on the capacity of the boat .","On DATE the High State Prosecutor charged CARDINAL defendants with reckless endangerment under LAW in connection with LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .","DATE the indictment was served on CARDINAL of the defendants .","On DATE the president of the chamber informed the president of ORG that a trial hearing could not be scheduled yet as the indictment had not yet been served on all the defendants .","By DATE ORG had issued a national arrest warrant ( potjernica ) against CARDINAL of the defendants , and had attempted to serve CARDINAL on the other CARDINAL , one of whom was in detention in GPE at the time . The other CARDINAL were based in GPE and GPE and GPE respectively .","On DATE ORG rejected the indictment against Z ( the defendant based in GPE ) , a decision which was upheld by ORG on DATE .","By DATE ORG had decided that the CARDINAL defendants at large , CARDINAL of whom was based in GPE , would be tried in their absence .","At the first trial hearing on DATE one of the defendants , X , stated that he was illiterate and did not understand the indictment . At the request of his lawyer the hearing was adjourned until further notice , so that the indictment could be translated into PERSON . By CARDINAL DATE the translation of the indictment into ORG had become available .","In the course of DATE CARDINAL hearings were scheduled . CARDINAL was held on DATE , during which the indictment was read out and CARDINAL defendants were heard , the fifth having chosen to remain silent . CARDINAL hearings scheduled for CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE were adjourned because some of the defendants , defence lawyers , the interpreter for PERSON and a witness did not attend court .","On DATE another judge of ORG took over the case . In the course of DATE hearings were scheduled , CARDINAL of which were adjourned : ( a ) CARDINAL because there was no permanent court interpreter for PERSON ; ( b ) CARDINAL because the defence lawyers and witnesses did not attend court ; ( c ) CARDINAL because CARDINAL defendant and several defence lawyers did not attend court and an interpreter had not yet been appointed ; and ( d ) one because of changes to LAW , which made the relevant court panel incomplete . CARDINAL hearing was held on DATE , during which CARDINAL defendants were heard and their earlier defence statements made in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE read out . The fifth defendant chose to remain silent .","In the course of DATE CARDINAL hearings were scheduled , CARDINAL of which were adjourned because CARDINAL defendant , a defence lawyer , some of the witnesses , including the seventh applicant , and\/or the interpreter did not attend court . CARDINAL hearings were held , CARDINAL of which by DATE , when several witnesses were heard . On DATE the trial hearing was recommenced due to \u201c the passage of DATE \u201d . During that hearing and the subsequent CARDINAL hearings CARDINAL defendants and several witnesses were heard again , and a number of written documents were read out , including the indictment , the GPE earlier statements and witness statements from DATE , DATE and DATE , reports by the GPE and GPE police directorates ( odjeljenja bezbjednosti ) , as well as information provided by ORG of GPE and ORG . The fifth defendant remained silent .","In the course of DATE hearings were scheduled , CARDINAL of which were adjourned because CARDINAL of the defendants , CARDINAL lawyers , an expert witness , a judge , and\/or the interpreter did not attend . The lawyers were fined MONEY ( ORG ) for their unjustified absence . By DATE CARDINAL hearings had been held , during which CARDINAL expert witness was heard , and a number of other pieces of documentary evidence were read out , such as an earlier statement of another expert witness , earlier statements of other witnesses from DATE , DATE and DATE , including the statements of the eleventh applicant , autopsy reports and reports from FAC of DATE and DATE relating to the boat . On DATE the trial hearing was recommenced due to the passage of time . CARDINAL defendants and CARDINAL of the expert witnesses were heard and their earlier statements read out .","In the course of DATE hearings were scheduled , CARDINAL of which were adjourned because the interpreter and CARDINAL of the expert witnesses did not attend court and because CARDINAL defendant was justifiably absent . By DATE one hearing had been held , at which earlier statements of witnesses , including the eleventh applicant \u2019s statements , official reports , autopsy reports and experts witness statements were read out . On DATE the trial hearing was recommenced due to the passage of time . At that and the subsequent hearing held in DATE the court read out the indictment , the GPE earlier statements and some witness statements , including the eleventh applicant \u2019s , as well as other written evidence . CARDINAL of the witnesses was also heard .","On DATE ORG acquitted all the accused for lack of evidence . On DATE the High State Prosecutor appealed against that judgment . There is no information in the case file as to the outcome of the appeal .","On an unspecified date prior to DATE the ORG complained to the ORG , asking for the criminal proceedings to be expedited and the responsible persons punished , as well as for a DNA analysis of the bodies which had been buried .","On DATE the ORG issued a report in this regard noting , in substance , that the investigation had lasted for DATE and that DATE after the impugned event the criminal proceedings had not yet been terminated , which was unjustified . He recommended that ORG undertake all necessary steps to terminate the proceedings as soon as possible .","On DATE the ORG enquired what had been done in the meantime . The judge in charge informed him of the hearings scheduled DATE .","On DATE the only surviving passenger was found guilty of boarding the boat on DATE with the intention of illegally crossing the border to GPE and was fined by ORG prekr\u0161aje ) in GPE .","In the course of DATE a number of family members of those who had disappeared , CARDINAL of them applicants in the present case , urged that the proceedings at issue be expedited . Some of them claimed that their next - of - kins were alive but had been trafficked . It appears that some others also hoped that their family members might still be alive .","On DATE the president of ORG requested ORG to appoint a permanent court interpreter for PERSON as soon as possible , stressing that one of the reasons for the criminal proceedings in question having \u201c lasted too long \u201d had been the absence of an adequate interpreter for PERSON .","It would appear that on several occasions the ORG requested ORG to expedite the proceedings , and that on DATE it issued a statement that the investigation had not been effective .","The eleventh applicant \u2019s initial representative submitted an authority form signed by her . He also specified that her CARDINAL sons , CARDINAL daughters - in - law and CARDINAL grandchildren had died or disappeared in the impugned event ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169957","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SAGVOLDEN v. NORWAY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Public hearing);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["On DATE the applicant acquired an apartment in ORG ( \u201c borettslag \u201d ) X. At her request , on DATE its ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Board \u201d ) approved the applicant \u2019s acquisition . Before she moved in , ORG became aware that the applicant \u2019s son , Mr A , had caused serious problems in ORG , where the applicant had previously been part owner and resident and where in DATE her son had cohabited with her . ORG therefore became particularly concerned that only the applicant move into the cooperative and informed her that it contemplated withdrawing its approval of her as a part owner . It asked her to make a written undertaking to the effect that Mr A would not move to the apartment in X. In this connection , ORG referred to the fact that in her request for approval of her part ownership she had indicated that her household would consist of CARDINAL person .","After a brief exchange of correspondence between ORG and the applicant \u2019s Attorney B. , he stated in a letter of CARDINAL DATE that \u201c [ o]n behalf of [ the applicant ] it is hereby confirmed that it is she , not her son [ Mr A ] who will move into the apartment nr CARDINAL in FAC as soon as it will be ready for takeover on DATE \u201d . The letter further confirmed the correctness of the information previously provided that the household would \u201c consist of CARDINAL person \u201d . Against this background , the ORG maintained its earlier approval of the applicant as a part owner .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , Attorney PERSON , on the behalf of ORG , pointed out to the applicant that Mr A seemed to have moved to her apartment , in breach of the conditions for the approval of her as part owner . PERSON referred to the fact that the ORG over a long period had received several complaints regarding Mr A \u2019s conduct at ORG and to his conviction by ORG ( tingrett ) of DATE for violent assault and frightening and disturbing behaviour vis - \u00e0 - vis neighbours at FAC CARDINAL B and CARDINAL C ; and the fact that it followed from the judgment that Mr A \u2019s residence was FAC In a letter of DATE Attorney B. disputed inter alia that Mr A had an address in FAC","On DATE , ORG held a meeting . According to the minutes it was decided that its \u201c secretary was to inform Attorney [ K. ] of the new situation and to request him to initiate eviction proceedings against GPE \u201d .","On DATE , Attorney PERSON sent to the applicant on behalf of ORG a letter ordering her to sell her part ( salgsp\u00e5legg ) in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( burettslagslova , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON referred to his previous correspondence and to Mr A \u2019s conviction by ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , by which he was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment for violent assault and frightening and disturbing behaviour vis - \u00e0 - vis neighbours in ORG He further referred to the fact that Mr A on several occasions had been imposed judicial restraining orders prohibiting him to contact CARDINAL members of ORG , the last such order with effect until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Attorney PERSON added that the conditions for eviction under section CARDINAL - CARDINAL had been fulfilled , but that for the time being it had been deemed sufficient to order sale of the apartment .","Upon expiry of DATE time - limit for sale , set pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , Attorney PERSON , who had succeeded Attorney PERSON as the applicant \u2019s representative , responded by a letter of CARDINAL DATE that the order of sale would not be complied with .","On DATE Mr A had been indicted under LAW for having by frightening or disturbing behaviour or other inconsiderate behaviour violated the right of another person to be left in peace . According to the indictment :","\u201c ( a ) At ORG on DATE , DATE , at [ FAC ] CARDINAL , GPE , he came walking fast towards PERSON [ H.F. ] and told him that \u2018 he ought to watch out\u2019 and \u2018 that he would keep an eye on him\u2019 . These affirmations were in the circumstances frightening to PERSON [ H.F. ] .","( b ) On DATE , DATE , at [ FAC ] CARDINALC , GPE , he told PERSON ] : \u2018 The vengeance is sweet , the vengeance is best cold , it may happen anytime and anywhere , it may not necessary be me directly.\u2019 This statement was in the circumstances frightening to PERSON ] .","( c ) On DATE , DATE at [ Z Street ] CARDINALC , GPE , he contacted PERSON ] and stated amongst other things : \u2018 Watch out , you have not seen anything yet\u2019 . This statement was in the circumstances frightening to Mrs [ T.L.B. ] \u201d","He was also indicted under LAW ) ( later changed to LAW for having committed violent assault against another person or in any other way having assailed him bodily :","\u201c At CARDINAL , on DATE , CARDINAL DATE at [ FAC ] CARDINALC , GPE , he grabbed the arms of PERSON [ PERSON ] [ son of Mrs T.L.B. ] and flung him around making him fall on a bicycle . Thereafter he again grabbed him and pushed him into a wall . \u201d","By an additional indictment of DATE , Mr A was indicted with another offence under LAW :","\u201c At TIME on DATE , DATE , outside the shopping mall in [ FAC ] , he went towards Mr [ E.L. ] as the latter came out of the shopping mall carrying a full shopping basket on his way to his car . He followed Mr [ E.L. ] while talking to him loudly and went up to his face while stating inter alia \u2018 I will beat the shit out of you ... you fat PERSON , or similar . He placed himself in front of the car , thus preventing PERSON [ E.L. ] from putting his shopping items inside his car , while affirming \u2018 I wo n\u2019t ORG . \u201d","In a judgment of DATE , ORG , after holding an oral hearing at which Mr A was represented by a lawyer and witnesses were heard , convicted PERSON A of the charges and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment . The sentence included the conditional part of a sentence imposed by ORG in a judgment of DATE by which Mr A had been convicted of an offence under LAW .","NORP In meting out the sentence , ORG attached considerable weight to the fact that Mr A had twice ( last time in DATE ) been convicted for a number of offences of a similar nature , that he had actively approached the victims , and that his conduct to a great extent affected people in their homes and closest environment , thereby destroying the GPE and their NORP feeling of safety and wellbeing at their homes and in the near vicinity . A further aggravating factor was the extent , the intensity and duration of his conduct and Mr A \u2019s inability and unwillingness to cease his criminal conduct .","Mr A did not lodge an appeal against his above conviction and sentence which thus became final .","On DATE Mr A was inter alia indicted under LAW ) of LAW for having committed the following violent assaults :","\u201c ( a ) At around CARDINALhCARDINAL , on DATE , DATE , at FAC CARDINALC , GPE , he took a strangulation grip on T.L.B.","( b ) At around CARDINALhCARDINAL on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , outside FAC CARDINALB , GPE , he punched Mr PERSON in his chest with a clenched fist . ... \u201d","In an additional indictment of DATE , Mr A was charged under the same provision as follows :","\u201c At around CARDINALhCARDINAL on DATE , DATE , in the staircase of the garage building of FAC CARDINALC , GPE , he hit and\/or pushed Mr GPE in the chest with clenched fists so that the latter fell backward towards a wall , whereupon he pulled Mr PERSON by his arm \/ or jacket into the building . \u201d","By a judgment of DATE , ORG convicted PERSON A of the above charges . It found proven , not that he had taken a strangulation grip on PERSON , but that he had intentionally pushed her against a door or a wall with one hand ; that he had pushed Mr PERSON or hit him in his chest but not that he had hit him hard ; and that he had held around Mr D.H. \u2019s chest and had pushed him against the wall , both in the staircase and in the garage but that he had not hit Mr D.H. ORG observed that , while all CARDINAL offences would normally warrant the imposition of fines , Mr H.F. \u2019s advanced age and frailness were an aggravating factor as were the number of the offences adjudicated as well as the fact that Mr A had been convicted in the past for similar and in part more serious offences . He had moreover not understood the gravity of his actions . ORG sentenced Mr A to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment .","Mr A did not lodge an appeal against the above judgment which thus became final .","On DATE ORG issued a warning of compulsory sale ( section CARDINAL of LAW , tvangsfullbyrdelsesloven ) and on DATE it instituted proceedings against her before the relevant section ( GPE byfogdembete ) of ORG ( tingrett ) , to obtain an order of compulsory sale of her apartment , from a specialised judge entrusted inter alia with such matters .","NORP The applicant , represented by the same lawyer as before ORG , reiterated that according to section CARDINAL of LAW the case ought to be examined under an ordinary procedure ( i s\u00f8ksm\u00e5ls former \u2013 which in principle included an oral hearing if the respondent \u2019s objections against compulsory sale was not \u201c clearly groundless \u201d ) . In her written pleadings she sought to address this question legally and factually , while pointing out that a complete presentation of evidence would be made at a later stage ( i behandlingen av s\u00f8ksm\u00e5let ) . She submitted notably as follows .","In the first place the applicant requested ORG to dismiss the case on the ground that the ORG \u2019s decision had not provided a legal basis for Attorney PERSON to initiate proceedings against her for compulsory sale . The decision had stated \u201c GPE \u201d , not PERSON , and \u201c eviction \u201d , not compulsory sale ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","She also argued that it would create an unreasonable situation if ORG interest in her removal were to carry more weight than her needs at DATE in not being put on the street . She had previously moved from the previous ORG to ORG and had left old disputes behind her . However , because of a warning system within the FAC system ( a cooperative building association owned by its CARDINAL members and which included both ORG ) , already before moving into X she had been persecuted by allegations related to Y. There would hardly be any alternative for her . The situation had evolved over time and she ought to be entitled to admit PERSON A in her household . Due to her age , she had become increasingly dependent on his assistance .","NORP The criminal matters pertaining to Mr A dated far back in time and could not justify compulsory sale , especially since the situation had improved and both the applicant and Mr A were open to negotiate on other appropriate default measures . The most recent offence dated from DATE . The decisions on restraining orders ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) could not carry any weight since the threshold for prohibition on contact was low and did not require a preponderance of probabilities . The alleged harassment and threats was in great part due to a paranoid perception of some of the neighbours .","The applicant requested ORG , before conducting any procedure on the merits , to first decide on her request that the case be dismissed .","By a decision ( kjennelse ) of DATE , ORG upheld ORG request for an order of compulsory sale of the applicant \u2019s apartment , to be carried out by an official assistant ( medhjelper ) .","ORG first dismissed the applicant \u2019s contention that there was no decision by ORG which could constitute a basis for compulsory sale . The mention in the decision of \u201c GPE \u201d could not be understood in any other way than as referring to the applicant . From section CARDINAL of LAW , it clearly followed that it was the applicant , as the owner of the apartment in question , who was the person whom ORG ought to address in all cases concerning the owner \u2019s duties and responsibilities . It was the owner \u2019s breach of such that could justify an eviction order . It followed from the case - law and legal doctrine that the owner was to be identified with the members of his or her household , both in the sense that faults on their part were relevant and that an eviction measure would also concern them ; it was not possible to limit a request for an eviction order to concern CARDINAL or some of the members of a given household or to concern only the owner and not the other occupants .","ORG further rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that the ORG \u2019s decision did not concern compulsory sale ( \u201c tvangssalg \u201d ) but only eviction ( \u201c utkastelse \u201d ) . ORG lawyer had stated that ORG was of the view that the conditions for eviction had been fulfilled but that the ORG had opted to limit its demand by initiating proceedings for compulsory sale . Since the ORG \u2019s decision on eviction implied compulsory sale , to proceed with the latter and less extensive measure first clearly fell within that decision . This did not exclude that a request for an eviction order be made subsequently .","No arguments had been raised by the applicant suggesting that ORG demand ought to be dismissed . Nor was there anything to indicate that Attorney PERSON had exceeded the powers conferred on him by the ORG .","NORP Moreover , no objection had been made as regards the contents of the plaintiff \u2019s claim for an order of compulsory sale or about the requirements as to warnings . The formal requirements for seeking an order of compulsory sale had been fulfilled ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Act ) .","The condition for requiring sale was that the owner of the part in question had \u201c substantially defaulted \u201d his or her obligations ( \u201c misheld pliktene sine vesentleg \u201d ) . The request for compulsory sale ought to be referred for examination according to the ordinary procedure applicable to ordinary appeals ( which in principle include an oral hearing ) if , within the statutory time limit , objections had been raised against compulsory sale that could not be regarded as \u201c clearly groundless \u201d .","The assessment of whether \u201c substantial default \u201d had occurred concerned not only the owner \u2019s conduct but also that of other members of his or her household , as the owner undoubtedly ought to be identified with them . In the instant case , the circumstances that could justify enforcement measures related to the conduct of Mr A.","In this regard , ORG observed that it was undisputed that the reason why the applicant had been obliged to leave her apartment in ORG had been the serious problems that her son had caused there . In applying to ORG for its approval to become a new part owner , she had requested approval for CARDINAL person only . Accordingly , it ought to be assumed that only she would occupy the apartment . Before moving in , she had confirmed through her lawyer that her household consisted of CARDINAL person . Previously she had written to ORG without replying to questions of whether her son would move in . It was only after ORG request to the applicant of DATE for confirmation that Mr A would not move to the estate that Attorney PERSON had responded in the affirmative by letter of CARDINAL DATE . She was then well informed that it was precisely the matters regarding her son which was the reason for the ORG \u2019s request for confirmation that he would not move into the flat .","According to section CARDINAL of the then applicable LAW , an approval of a new part owner could be withdrawn within DATE if the owner had provided inaccurate , or withheld , substantial information and the owner ought to have been aware of this . In view of the situation at the material time and the applicant \u2019s confirmation , ORG could assume that the applicant had committed herself to moving in alone and in any event without her son . Both the ORG \u2019s approval and her confirmation had dated DATE back in time and it was only at present that she for the first time had alleged that ORG had forced her to make the said declaration by threatening to take unlawful action . On this point , ORG observed that the only measure which ORG contemplated was to refuse approval of the applicant as a new part owner and there was nothing to indicate that it had been unlawful to envisage such a measure .","Furthermore , where the board of ORG had become aware that problems with a part owner had occurred in ORG , it ought to be able to take the matter into account in its assessment of whether or not to approve that person as a new part owner . There were no elements to suggest that the information received by ORG had been obtained in an unlawful manner . Whether and to what extent any outsiders had acted unlawfully was not for ORG to consider in the present case .","It was unclear at what time Mr A had moved into the applicant \u2019s apartment . According to ORG judgment of DATE , Mr A had stated that he was living in Z Street CARDINALC. From the same judgment it appeared that the criminal offences for which he was convicted had occurred in FAC CARDINALB and CARDINALC in DATE . It was also undisputed by the applicant that she had been cohabiting with Mr A in her apartment for an extended period . However , since the applicant , as a part owner , was responsible for the conduct by members of her household as well as her visitors , it was not decisive when Mr A had moved in .","ORG noted that it was clearly established that Mr A , by the judgments of DATE and DATE respectively , had been convicted of having committed violent assault and frightening behaviour against CARDINAL neighbours at FAC CARDINALB and CARDINALC. The episodes in the DATE judgment had occurred on CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The DATE judgment described inter alia Mr A as a person who perceived everyone in respect of whom there was a contradiction or a disagreement as being part of a conspiracy against him ( for further details see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . His use of violence was perceived as unprovoked . He had infringed people at their homes , in such a way as to destroy the GPE and their NORP sense of safety and wellbeing at their homes and nearby . According to an assessment of PERSON A made by a court appointed expert in DATE , he extensively and systematically had perceptions and experiences of conspiracy which were almost impossible to influence and which according to the DATE judgment were still prevailing at that time .","The judgment of DATE had concerned episodes from DATE and DATE and DATE involving violations of LAW ) of LAW . Also in this judgment it had been found proven that Mr A had generally behaved in an intensive and intrusive manner . He was tall and strong , went very close to the person with whom he wanted to discuss and shouted to them with a load and aggressive voice . He was moreover inclined to block the passage of people he wanted to talk to and had a low threshold for taking CARDINAL step further and grab or push people . This he did in a manner which was so aggressive as to make people anxious of the possibility of further and more serious violence being perpetrated .","In addition to the above - mentioned judgments , he had been imposed restraining orders by the police prohibiting him from visiting the following neighbours :","- Ms T.L.B. and her children , for the period from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ;","- Mr H.F. , from DATE to DATE ;","- Mr D.H. , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; and","- Mr J .- E.S. , from DATE to DATE .","All these matters showed a person who over a long period had displayed frightening and disturbing behaviour vis - \u00e0 - vis a number of neighbours in ORG where he was living with his mother , and where the incidents had led to convictions and prohibitions on contact over longer periods . It was also undisputed that Mr A had reacted with a particularly high degree of intensity vis - \u00e0 - vis the Board and some of its members .","As regards the applicant \u2019s allegation that the conditions had improved and that both she and Mr A were prepared to negotiate on alternative default measures , ORG noted that ORG communications to the applicant had led to tirades of phone calls and e - mails with accusations against members of ORG and complaints to different public institutions . This was also supported by the description made by ORG in its judgment of DATE . As the applicant had failed to indicate what other appropriate default measures could consist of , the respondent ORG could not be required to take further initiatives in this case .","Whether the conditions for ordering compulsory sale had been fulfilled essentially depended on whether substantial default and conduct in breach of section CARDINAL had materialised at the time when the order of sale was issued ( namely DATE ) .","DATE \u2019s conduct had caused serious disturbance to other occupants and had violated section CARDINAL of LAW . For this reason , the issuing of a warning before compulsory sale had not been a requirement .","In ORG view the applicant \u2019s interests on account of her old age ought not to carry more weight than those of other occupants in ORG . It found it established that her obligations as a part owner had been seriously defaulted , in any event DATE . Whilst it was understandable that it was more difficult for a person aged CARDINAL to find and move to a new home , this could not be decisive in this case where neighbours had been harassed over DATE . Despite her own confirmation that she moved in alone , the applicant had let her son live in the apartment with all the problems this had caused to other occupants . Therefore , she ought to bear the consequences of her own choice even though this were to make it problematic for her to find another house within ORG system .","The DATE \u2019s decision on eviction had been taken on DATE , DATE after Mr A \u2019s conviction of DATE and DATE after his commission of CARDINAL of the offences . This was his second conviction for offences committed against neighbours while the first had concerned offences committed in DATE . ORG had taken and followed up its decision with reasonable expedition .","NORP Moreover , the applicant \u2019s contention that the police had acted in breach of their duty of confidentiality , by providing information to ORG concerning Mr A in relation to FAC , could have no bearing on the present case .","Considering all of the applicant \u2019s pleas against compulsory sale as being \u201c clearly groundless \u201d in the sense of sections CARDINAL , cf . section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , ORG upheld ORG claim and ordered that sale take place by an assistant .","The applicant appealed against ORG decision to ORG ( lagmannsrett ) , complaining of the former \u2019s assessment of the evidence , its application of the law and procedure . Maintaining in the main her arguments before ORG , she requested that ORG action be dismissed ; in the alternative , she argued that the request for compulsory sale was unlawful in that no evidence had been adduced to show that she had defaulted her obligations vis - \u00e0 - vis ORG or , in any event , that any such default had been substantial . In the further alternative , she submitted that , after refusing to dismiss the suit , ORG had failed to refer her case for examination according to the ordinary procedure ( involving in principle an oral hearing ) and had wrongly considered her objections against compulsory sale as being clearly groundless ; therefore , she asked ORG to quash ORG decision and to refer the case back for re - examination in accordance with the ordinary procedure . The applicant submitted that she could not cope with the thought of having to move house again and that she never believed that she would have to do so . The apartment really suited her and the fact that her son lived with her had made her feel that she received the help and care she needed in DATE life .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected her appeal . From the outset it observed that sufficient light had been shed on the case for it to determine the appeal on the basis of the written case - file ( LAW ) of LAW ) .","As regards the applicant \u2019s allegations that the imposition of compulsory sale suffered from deficiencies , ORG found it clear that the ORG \u2019s decision provided an adequate basis for notifying her of the measure in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW .","ORG did not find it necessary to take a stance on whether the terms \u201c eviction case \u201d ought to be read as relating to the vacating of LOC ( compare paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In that event , as also assumed by ORG , it was obvious that there was a possibility to opt for the less intrusive measure , namely the imposition of an order to sell the flat . The above decision most probably was an acknowledgment of a request by ORG to its attorney to take the necessary steps to bring the ORG \u2019s relationship with the applicant to an end . More than this could not be required , bearing in mind especially the long historical background to the case .","Nor could the applicant succeed with her argument that she had not been sufficiently identified because ORG only used her surname . As also pointed out by ORG , as for proceedings concerning eviction it was also the situation for those on compulsory sale that only the owner of the part of ORG in question could be the addressee . It could not be assumed that any other intention lay behind the ORG \u2019s decision .","Finally , ORG shared ORG view that a prior warning had not been a prerequisite for obliging her to sell her part . Since , in accordance with the findings below , the conditions of serious disturbance and nuisance had been fulfilled for obliging her to vacate the flat pursuant section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , the requisite of prior warning under section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW did not apply .","Like ORG , ORG found it established that the applicant \u2019s son , PERSON , for DATE had displayed conduct vis - \u00e0 - vis the household \u2019s neighbours constituting serious disturbance and nuisance to them . ORG judgments of DATE and DATE concerned several offences under ORG and PERSON of the Penal Code , all of which , but CARDINAL , had been aimed at neighbours in ORG .","The High Court further considered that the matters in respect of which Mr A had been charged and convicted did not give the full picture of the conduct that had prompted ORG to react with default measures in regard to the applicant . In this connection the High Court pointed to the findings made by ORG in its DATE judgment , which stated :","\u201c Both from previous judgments and the statements given in this case , it emerged that the accused over DATE had repeatedly contacted a number of neighbours and other persons with whom he considered he was in conflict . He had repeatedly levelled new accusations and more or less veiled threats against these persons and had in part made very serious and degrading remarks and descriptions . His conduct beyond this had also been perceived as disturbing , frightening and wholly unreasonably intense , both in form , extent and frequency . For instance , amongst other things , at times he was positioning himself more or less in the background in order to suddenly ambush by getting very close to and to some extent hindering the passage of the person he was talking to , while raising his voice and using threating body language and mimicking . \u201d","ORG had further referred to the fact that Mr A in connection with a criminal case in DATE had undergone a thorough expert examination , which had inter alia concluded that he had extensive , systematic perceptions and experiences of conspiracy that were almost impossible to influence . Also the judgment of DATE had described acts and conduct by Mr A that clearly corresponded to that description .","ORG also noted that , during the period from CARDINAL DATE until DATE , Mr A had been imposed restraining orders prohibiting him from contacting altogether CARDINAL of his neighbours , the last such order having expired on DATE .","In the High Court \u2019s assessment , the matters for which the applicant \u2019s son had been convicted constituted by their nature , their number and the extent of the period in which they had been committed DATE namely from QUANTITY DATE until DATE when seen as a whole , such default as fulfilled the conditions for requiring that the flat be vacated according to section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and the imposition of compulsory sale pursuant to section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . This conclusion was further strengthened by the information that the incidents ought to be considered as a pattern of behaviour that was capable of creating an atmosphere of insecurity in the near environment .","Having reached this conclusion , ORG found it unnecessary to examine whether Mr A \u2019s moving into the applicant \u2019s flat contrary to the declaration made on her behalf by Attorney B on DATE amounted to serious default in the sense of LAW .","Nor could the applicant succeed with her argument that the conditions had subsequently improved .","The High Court found that the conditions for the imposition of default measures under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL had in any event been fulfilled on DATE when the order of sale was sent to the applicant , which \u2013 as also held by ORG \u2013 was the decisive time for the assessment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The argument that the applicant \u2019s high age should influence the assessment could not lead to any other conclusion . It was not difficult to see the sad side to hers having to move and , for that matter , even in the situation of her son . However , it was their own acts that had led to forcible sale of the apartment pursuant to section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , cf . section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW .","Thus , none of the grounds of appeal had succeeded and the High Court agreed with ORG that they ought to be considered to be \u201c clearly groundless \u201d ( section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Her contention that ORG should not have determined the case without holding an oral hearing could not be upheld either .","Against this background ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal .","The applicant appealed against ORG decision . She pointed out that the proceedings threatened her right to housing and that it was a serious case especially in view of her advanced DATE . As regards the procedure , she submitted that the question was whether compulsory sale ought to occur under a written procedure or an ordinary procedure comprising an oral hearing . Her very considerable interest in keeping her apartment ought to be weighed against ORG limited interest in carrying out compulsory sale without an oral hearing . The competing interest in the case ought to have implications in the assessment of questions of procedure and the application of the law . ORG reasoning had been summary ; it had failed to deal with all her arguments and had omitted to comment on the interpretation of the terms \u201c clearly groundless \u201d and \u201c substantial default \u201d . The applicant requested ORG to quash ORG decision and to refer her case back to ORG for fresh examination under the ordinary procedure with an oral hearing .","On DATE , ORG ( H\u00f8yesteretts ankeutvalg ) , whose jurisdiction was limited to reviewing ORG procedure and interpretation of the law , rejected the appeal , finding it obvious that it could not succeed .","The assistant appointed to implement the compulsory sale , Attorney F. , subsequently advertised the applicant \u2019s apartment for sale . The highest bid was ORG CARDINAL ( currently corresponding to approximately EUR CARDINAL ) from PERSON On DATE Mr F. communicated the bid to ORG for validation ( stadfestelse ) , following which all interested parties were given DATE for expressing objections . Before the expiry of the time - limit , the applicant and Mr A objected to the sale .","By a decision of DATE the relevant section of ORG ( byfogdembete ) validated the above - mentioned bid .","DATE . On DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicant and her son against ORG decision to validate the bid , as did ORG on DATE finding it obvious that the appeal could not succeed .","In conjunction with the above proceedings , the applicant and\/or Mr A unsuccessfully pursued multiple other matters regarding the sale of the applicant \u2019s apartment ( request for replacement housing ; miscellaneous complaints regarding the office of the Execution and Enforcement Commissioner \u2019s ( namsmannen ) handling of the sale ; a demand of access to documents in the possession of OBOS ; disqualification of all police officers employed at ORG ; Mr A \u2019s compensation claim against the ORG on account of the police having communicated information about him to OBOS allegedly in breach of their duty of confidentiality ; his compensation claim against OBOS for its manner of processing information pertaining to him ; his demand that OBOS remove from its archives and destroy a police report related to him ; and his request for access to a file in OBOS \u2019s possession ) as well as a request for the joinder of these proceedings and an oral hearing . All these claims were rejected as being groundless by the relevant sections of ORG ( DATE and DATE ) , ORG ( CARDINAL and DATE ) and ORG ( DATE ) . On DATE the applicant was notified that the new owner had demanded that the applicant vacate the apartment following the implementation of compulsory sale .","On DATE ORG warned the applicant that , as previously announced on DATE , he had decided to take the necessary steps to have her evicted from the flat on DATE at TIME , should she not voluntarily vacate the LOC .","On DATE , the Government forwarded a copy of a handwritten note , dated DATE , by which the applicant instructed her then lawyer PERSON to withdraw her application immediately . She stated that any enquiries should be addressed to her son PERSON or to her daughter PERSON and emphasised that her son Mr A was not entitled to represent her . The Government also suggested that the application be struck out . On DATE , Mr PERSON of the same law firm as Mr M\u00f8rk , replied that he had replaced the latter and that the applicant wished to maintain her application .","On DATE Mr A , represented by Mr PERSON , sought leave to intervene as a party or as a third - party in the proceedings ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 DATE of the Convention ) . On DATE , having examined the matter in the light of Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG , the President of the First Section ( to which the application was allocated at the time ) decided to refuse the request as she considered , having regard to the state of the proceedings in the case , that the intervention requested would not be in \u201c the interest of the proper administration of justice \u201d . Thereafter the President decided to resume the proceedings , which had been temporarily suspended pending consultation of the parties on the afore - mentioned .","On DATE the applicant died .","Following the applicant \u2019s death , on DATE , Mr A , represented by PERSON , informed the ORG that he wished to pursue the application . On DATE the Government asked the ORG to strike the application out of its list of cases . On DATE , Mr PERSON , the lawyer acting for the deceased applicant , informed the ORG that her CARDINAL other heirs , PERSON , wished to pursue the application . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the ORG received further observations on these matters from PERSON and the Agent of the Government ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170453","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FRIDMAN v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant and his grandmother \u2019s neighbour , CARDINALyear - old PERSON , signed a contract on lifelong maintenance ( i\u0161laikymo iki gyvos galvos sutartis ) . Under that contract , PERSON transferred the rights to her apartment to the applicant , who undertook to take care of her until she died by providing her with food and medication , looking after her apartment , walking her dog , and providing any other necessary assistance .","NORP In DATE PERSON lodged an application with a court to terminate the contract on the grounds that the applicant had not fulfilled his obligations and had not been taking proper care of her . The applicant objected to the termination and argued that he had complied with the terms of the contract . Relying on the testimony of several witnesses , on DATE ORG , in an oral hearing at which both the applicant and PERSON were present , granted PERSON \u2019s application and annulled the contract .","The applicant appealed , arguing that he had complied with the terms of the contract and that it should therefore not have been terminated . On CARDINAL DATE ORG held an oral hearing at which PERSON \u2019s lawyer was present but the applicant and his lawyer were not . According to the Government , a notification letter was sent to the applicant on DATE . During the hearing the court noted that the applicant had been notified of the hearing ( apie pos\u0117d\u012f prane\u0161ta ) and proceeded to examine the case in his absence . ORG delivered its judgment on DATE , upholding the first - instance judgment in its entirety .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG . He complained , inter alia , that he had not been duly notified of the hearing before ORG and had thus been unable effectively to defend his interests . The applicant submitted that he had received the notification about the time and place of the hearing by standard ( non - registered ) post only on DATE , when he had found it in his letter box . However , on DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal as raising no important legal questions . The applicant lodged CARDINAL other cassation appeals , but on DATE and DATE ORG refused to examine them , citing the same grounds as previously ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150312","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NOGIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of aggravated rape .","DATE and DATE the applicant was held in pre - trial detention in remand prison GPE no . CARDINAL of Syktyvkar ( ORG \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. \u0421\u044b\u043a\u0442\u044b\u0432\u043a\u0430\u0440\u0430 ) .","On DATE the applicant was released subject to an undertaking not to leave a specified place .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant was detained in GPE no . CARDINAL of Syktyvkar .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to prison IK-CARDINAL in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s prison sentence expired and he was released from the correctional facility .","The applicant has been suffering from an insulin - dependent form of diabetes since DATE . The disease has entailed various complications , including diabetic angioretinopathy and complicated diabetic cataracts .","On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination in connection with his eyesight problems at a municipal clinic at his place of residence . The examination confirmed that the visual acuity of the applicant \u2019s right eye was CARDINAL , which corresponded to his ability to count the fingers on a hand from a distance of QUANTITY , and that the visual acuity of his left eye corresponded to his ability to see hand movements near his face . According to the applicant , at that time he was able to orientate himself within familiar spaces , such as his flat , medical institutions and streets in the town .","On DATE , following his release from pre - trial detention , the applicant underwent another medical examination at the same municipal clinic , which established that he could count the fingers on a hand from a distance of QUANTITY , that is that his visual acuity was CARDINAL , and that he could see hand movement near his face with his left eye . A cataract operation was recommended .","NORP In DATE , shortly after the applicant had been detained following his conviction by ORG , he was admitted to prison hospital ORG and diagnosed with a serious form of insulindependent Type CARDINAL diabetes , subcompensation , diabetic polyneuropathy , diabetic nephropathy , symptomatic arterial hypertension , chronic renal insufficiency , an immature diabetic cataract in the left eye and an almost mature diabetic cataract in the right eye . The visual acuity of the applicant \u2019s right eye was CARDINAL and of his left eye was CARDINAL .","In DATE , in connection with his request for release on parole ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the applicant was examined by a special medical commission of the correctional facility where he was being detained at that time . The commission confirmed that the applicant had a serious form of insulin - dependent diabetes and all the accompanying diseases which had been established before . As regards the applicant \u2019s eyesight , it was stated that he could detect hand movement near his face with his right eye but that he was blind in his left eye . The applicant was diagnosed with complicated diabetic cataracts in both eyes , and specifically with an almost mature cataract in the right eye and a mature cataract in the left eye .","On DATE , after the applicant had been released , he was examined by an ophthalmologist at the municipal clinic at his place of residence . It was established that he could detect hand movement near his face with his right eye and that he was blind in his left eye . The ophthalmologist recommended that he undergo urgent surgery for his cataracts .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was admitted to the ophthalmology department of a public hospital for cataract surgery . According to the applicant , the doctors confirmed that his visual acuity corresponded to that established on DATE and refused to carry out any surgery on the grounds that they were not sufficiently experienced to operate on cataracts at such an advanced stage . They recommended that the applicant be operated on in a specialised research institution . The applicant was discharged from the hospital DATE .","On DATE a research clinic for eye problems in GPE diagnosed the applicant as having a complicated immature cataract , proliferative diabetic retinopathy and retinal detachment in respect of his right eye , and neo - vascular terminal glaucoma and advanced retinal detachment in respect of his left eye . The visual acuity of the right eye was \u201c light perception with correct light projection \u201d and he was blind in the left eye .","On DATE the applicant underwent surgery on the cataract in his right eye . The surgery was successful and when he was discharged from the clinic on DATE , he could detect hand movement near his face with his right eye .","On DATE the applicant underwent another medical examination at the same clinic in GPE with a view to establishing whether any further surgery on his right eye could be effective . It was established that he had a complete retinal detachment in his right eye caused by diabetes and that he was unable to see any distinct object with that eye , which meant that further surgery would be devoid of any prospect of success .","Following his conviction , the applicant was admitted a number of times to prison hospitals for examination and treatment . The admissions were as follows :","- DATE to the hospital of GPE no . CARDINAL of Syktyvkar ;","- DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE to prison hospital ORG ;","- DATE ; DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE to the hospital of prison IK-CARDINAL in PERSON .","The Government provided the ORG with copies of licenses issued to the prison hospitals to practise medical activity .","The applicant was regularly examined by a doctor , an endocrinologist and an ophthalmologist . Blood and urine tests were regularly carried out . A number of other tests , such as ultrasound of the abdominal cavity , electrocardiogram , fluorography and rheography of the legs and feet were also performed . The applicant was provided with symptomatic treatment , which , apart from insulin , included hypotensive therapy , medicines to improve microcirculation , vitamins and nootropics .","In DATE , while the applicant was being held in pre - trial detention in GPE no . CARDINAL of Syktyvkar , the remand prison doctor prescribed him special diet no . CARDINAL , in which sugar was replaced with milk . In DATE , while he was in prison hospital ORG , the applicant was prescribed special diet no . CARDINAL , in which sugar was replaced with milk .","According to the applicant , DATE , and then from DATE , including on the date on which he lodged his application with the ORG , he did not receive a special diabetic diet in the correctional facility .","According to a certificate of CARDINAL DATE issued by prison hospital ORG , during his hospitalisation sugar was replaced with milk in the applicant \u2019s diet .","In an epicrisis of DATE it was stated that at the time , prison PERSON did not have a sufficient supply of ORG and ORG and , therefore the applicant \u2019s admission to the prison hospital had been recommended in order to find an alternative treatment .","According to the applicant , in DATE the prison authorities provided him with insulin with DATE . He was allegedly informed of this by another prisoner , PERSON , and enclosed the latter \u2019s statement to that effect .","According to a certificate issued by prison IK-CARDINAL on DATE , during his detention in the prison the applicant was provided with the required insulin treatment . On several occasions when the forms of insulin specifically prescribed for the applicant by the endocrinologist were temporarily unavailable , he was provided with other forms of insulin . However , insulin that was past its expiry date was never used by the medical unit of prison IK-CARDINAL .","According to an extract from the register of insulin supply of prison IK-CARDINAL for the period from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , the forms of insulin prescribed to the applicant had the following expiry dates : DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .","According to the applicant , throughout his detention his eyesight steadily deteriorated because he was denied the necessary surgical intervention .","On DATE , while the applicant was being held in pre - trial detention in GPE no . CARDINAL of Syktyvkar , he was examined by an ophthalmologist who stated that in the facilities under the authority of ORG it would be possible to remove the cataract from his left eye and implant an intraocular lens .","NORP In reply to a request of a ORG judge asking whether diabetic cataracts in both eyes were irreversible , an ophthalmologist stated on DATE that patients suffering from cataracts , including diabetic cataracts , were recommended surgery to improve their eyesight . Accordingly , bad eyesight caused by cataracts could not be considered irreversible .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist , who stated in his report that the applicant had had bad eyesight for DATE , and had been unable to see anything with his left eye for DATE . On an unspecified DATE surgery had been proposed to him in GPE , but he had refrained from undergoing it . However , the applicant now wished to undergo the surgery . The ophthalmologist stated that in the facilities under the authority of ORG it would be possible to undergo elective surgery to remove the cataract from the applicant \u2019s left eye and implant an intraocular lens .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist , who took note of his wish to undergo surgery on the cataracts .","On DATE the applicant was again examined by an ophthalmologist , who recommended cataract surgery .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG in GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) informed the applicant \u2019s mother that the applicant was being provided with the necessary medical assistance in connection with his disease . The letter also stated that surgery in respect of his eye diseases was necessary .","On DATE , in reply to a request from the hospital of prison IK-CARDINAL , ORG informed the prison hospital that the applicant had been under the medical supervision of an endocrinologist , an ophthalmologist and a neuro - pathologist since DATE on account of insulindependent diabetes , diabetic cataracts , diabetic retinopathy and encephalopathy of mixed genesis .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist again . The latter reiterated that the applicant could undergo elective surgery to remove the cataract from his left eye and to implant an intraocular lens in facilities under the authority of ORG .","On DATE the applicant was again examined by an ophthalmologist , who prescribed therapeutic treatment and scheduled the next examination DATE .","On DATE prison IK-CARDINAL sent a request to the NORP prison hospital in GPE to admit the applicant for further examination in order to decide whether cataract surgery was possible and , in the event of a negative answer , to provide recommendations as to his treatment or release on parole .","On DATE the NORP prison hospital in GPE replied that it could not grant the request as it did not comply with the applicable regulations . In particular , important information concerning the applicant \u2019s condition and his consent to the treatment was missing .","On DATE prison IK-CARDINAL sent the same request to the NORP prison hospital in GPE .","In a letter of DATE the same authority replied to a letter from the applicant \u2019s mother complaining of the applicant \u2019s poor medical treatment . The reply stated , in particular , that in connection with the deterioration of the applicant \u2019s eyesight , the prison authorities had sought his admission to the NORP prison hospital in GPE but that their request had been refused . It went on to say that on DATE the applicant had been sent to another prison medical institution for examination , and that thereafter another request would be sent to the NORP prison hospital in GPE for his admission there .","Also on DATE the applicant was examined by an endocrinologist , who stated that he needed cataract surgery .","According to the applicant , by DATE his eyesight had deteriorated to the extent that it was recommended that he use a walking stick when moving about the prison facility , even though that was usually prohibited to convicted persons under the relevant regulations .","DATE . On DATE prison IK-CARDINAL sent another request to the NORP prison hospital in GPE to admit the applicant for further examination in order to decide whether cataract surgery was possible .","On DATE the NORP prison hospital in GPE informed prison IK-CARDINAL that it could admit the applicant for examination and treatment . It stated that , given the term of the applicant \u2019s imprisonment and the time required to travel from the place of his detention or residence to the hospital , he should arrive at the hospital no later than DATE .","On DATE the applicant refused in writing to be transferred to the NORP prison hospital in GPE for surgery on the following grounds : ( i ) he had not been offered medical assistance during his transfer and was afraid to go on his own as he could not see ; and ( ii ) DATE remained until the expiry of his sentence .","On DATE the prison authorities acknowledged in writing receipt of the applicant \u2019s refusal . They also stated that the applicant \u2019s state of health allowed him to be transferred to GPE , that he could take care of himself , and that his refusal was groundless .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that arrangements for transferring him to the NORP prison hospital had been suspended owing to his refusal .","ORG However , in DATE the applicant \u2019s mother asked the prison authorities to place the applicant in the NORP prison hospital in GPE . In connection with her request , CARDINAL prison doctors talked to the applicant on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE and tried to persuade him to give his consent to be transferred to GPE . The applicant said that he would consider it and withheld his consent for the time being . A decision in that respect was therefore postponed .","Nevertheless , on DATE prison IK-CARDINAL sent another request to the NORP prison hospital to admit the applicant for cataract surgery . The applicant eventually refused to be transferred to GPE .","DATE and DATE the applicant remained in prison pursuant to a court judgment of DATE . On several occasions during that period he sought release on parole on medical grounds .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for release on parole , referring , inter alia , to his poor health and the need for medical treatment , in particular , surgery in respect of his eye diseases .","In a decision of DATE the GPE Vymskiy ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) rejected the applicant \u2019s request . It referred to his negative characteristics as cited by the prison authorities and stated that his diseases did not constitute grounds for his release on parole , as they did not prevent him from serving his sentence .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision following an appeal by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant lodged another request for release on parole . He pointed out , in particular , that he had diabetes and complicated diabetic cataracts in both his eyes , and that surgery in the latter respect had been recommended to him in DATE . The applicant also stated that his eyesight had significantly deteriorated during the period of his imprisonment .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request , stating that his diseases were not on the list of diseases approved by a relevant governmental decree , which precluded the serving of a sentence in the form of imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision following an appeal by the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164459","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF LAZU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the events , he was a bank armoured vehicle driver .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant went around an illegally parked bus while driving an armoured vehicle . While he was completing the manoeuvre , the bus started moving and to prevent having an accident with the armoured vehicle it stopped abruptly . As a result of the sudden stop a bus passenger , C. , fell from her seat and suffered moderately severe injuries .","On DATE a criminal investigation was initiated . The prosecutor heard the applicant , the victim C. , the bus driver NORP , a witness who had been sitting in the applicant \u2019s vehicle and another CARDINAL witnesses who had been passengers on the bus ( S. and PERSON ) .","On DATE NORP was charged with violating traffic rules , resulting in C. \u2019s injuries .","On DATE the applicant and NORP were interviewed face - to - face . According to the applicant , he had completed the manoeuvre around the stationary bus and taken the lane in front of it after making sure the bus was still stationary . He had then signalled to turn right and used the horn to alert the driver of his intentions . According to NORP , the applicant \u2019s car had turned right without any warning and he had been forced to stop abruptly to prevent an accident .","DATE the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings against NORP for lack of evidence and instead interviewed him as a witness .","On DATE the applicant was charged with violating traffic rules , resulting in C. \u2019s injuries .","During the course of the proceedings the ORG heard the same witnesses as the prosecutor . The court also examined a site investigation report and a sketch map of the scene of the incident , both drawn up on DATE at TIME in only NORP \u2019s presence .","The court considered the testimony of C. and the CARDINAL bus passengers unreliable . They claimed that the applicant had performed a sudden manoeuvre which had obliged NORP to suddenly stop the bus . The court considered that none of them had seen any of the events themselves and that their impression that the applicant was guilty was because the bus driver blamed him . The court also considered D. \u2019s testimony unreliable because the same charges had been previously brought against him . The court noted that charges had been brought against the applicant based on statements by NORP made shortly after the criminal proceedings against him had been discontinued , without re - interviewing the other witnesses . The court also noted that the site investigation report and the sketch map had not been drawn up immediately after the incident , that the police had gone to the scene TIME and had been joined only by NORP , that the applicant \u2019s objections had not been reflected in the documents , and that the sketch map did not correspond to the statements given by all the witnesses shortly after the incident .","In a judgment of DATE ORG acquitted the applicant for the reasons given above . It concluded that the prosecution had failed to provide reliable evidence in support of the contention that the applicant \u2019s actions had obliged NORP to suddenly stop the bus . The prosecutor appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the prosecutor \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . It noted that the first - instance court had correctly scrutinised all the evidence and had provided reasons supporting the findings about the unreliability of the witness statements , referring to the testimony of the CARDINAL passengers . The prosecutor appealed on points of law .","On DATE ORG held a hearing at which the applicant , his representative and the prosecutor were present . The court upheld the prosecutor \u2019s appeal on points of law , quashed the appellate judgment and ordered a rehearing of the case in accordance with the provisions of LAW , namely that any examination had to be in accordance with the rules applicable in proceedings before the first - instance court . The court found that the appellate court had not thoroughly stated its position on the assessment of the statements made by ORG , NORP and the CARDINAL passengers , but had merely relied on evidence in the applicant \u2019s favour .","After rehearing the case , on DATE ORG dismissed the prosecutor \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . The court analysed the witness testimony and the site investigation report and the sketch map , providing reasons why the evidence was unreliable . The prosecutor appealed on points of law .","On DATE ORG held a hearing at which the applicant , his representative and the prosecutor were present . The court upheld the prosecutor \u2019s appeal on points of law and ordered a rehearing of the case . The court provided reasoning similar to that in its judgment of DATE .","Pursuant to the verbatim record of the appellate hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant and his lawyer did not object to the court continuing to examine the case without recalling the victim and did not request the recalling of witnesses . On DATE , ORG upheld the prosecutor \u2019s appeal , quashed the judgment of ORG of DATE , found the applicant guilty and ordered him to pay an administrative fine of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) and damages to C. in the amount of MDL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . The court referred to a list of evidence , including the disputed statements of ORG , NORP and the CARDINAL witnesses , without providing any additional reasons .","The applicant appealed and outlined , inter alia , the discrepancies in the witness statements , which had been identified by the first - instance court after hearing them and which had not been clarified by the appellate court . On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s appeal in the absence of the parties and declared it inadmissible .","NORP The applicant was served with this judgment on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182592","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF GELETEY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In TIME of CARDINAL DATE M. was robbed and killed in GPE , where the applicant was also living . On the same date the applicant and CARDINAL other people , GPE and GPE , were arrested on suspicion of robbing and killing PERSON","According to the applicant , he was apprehended by the police task force at TIME on DATE in the apartment of his girlfriend and taken to the police station , where he was beaten up and threatened in an attempt to force him to confess to the robbery and murder of PERSON","The case file contains CARDINAL arrest warrants CARDINAL issued by a police officer and another one by the prosecutor investigating the murder ( hereinafter \u201c the investigator \u201d ) , both indicating that the applicant had been arrested by the above - mentioned officials on CARDINAL DATE at TIME at their offices . The arrest warrant issued by the investigator indicates that the applicant acknowledged his guilt , had no observations regarding his arrest and that he wished to be legally represented . It bears the applicant \u2019s signature , with no comments . The lower part of the last page of the record contains a printed statement ( \u201c \u0434\u043e\u0432\u0456\u0434\u043a\u0430 \u201d ) that was added later ( it was dated DATE ) ; this additional statement is signed by the investigator only and asserts that the applicant \u2019s relatives were informed of his arrest . The applicant alleged that his family had been informed of his arrest on TIME of the following day ( that is to say DATE ) .","After his arrest , the applicant signed a record , bearing no time , explaining his rights as a suspect , including the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer before he was first questioned . The relevant entry in the record indicates that the applicant expressed his wish to be represented by PERSON , a lawyer who lived in PERSON , QUANTITY from GPE , and noted the address of the latter .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE , according to the applicant , and from TIME on DATE , according to the official record , the applicant was questioned as a suspect by the investigator in the presence of B. , a lawyer . The record of the questioning noted that the applicant had been informed of his rights as a suspect from TIME until TIME on DATE and that a separate procedural document existed in this respect evidencing that he had wished to be legally represented . The handwritten entry in the record furthermore stated that the applicant wanted to have PERSON as his lawyer and that he acknowledged in full his guilt in respect of the robbery and murder . During the questioning , the applicant provided details regarding the robbery and admitted that he had hit PERSON in the head with a bat during the robbery but that he had done so instinctively , in self - defence . The applicant did not state what had become of the bat \u2013 namely where or in what circumstances he had hidden the bat after the murder . The applicant and PERSON signed the verbatim record , making no objections as to its contents . PERSON then left .","DATE , from TIME , the applicant took part in a videotaped reconstruction of the crime in the presence of a forensic expert , an investigator from the local police , CARDINAL attesting witnesses and the investigator in the case . According to the Government , PERSON was apparently busy and was not able to participate in the reconstruction . No other lawyer was instructed to assist the applicant during this investigative step . According to the applicant , he repeated his request for PERSON to be called , but this was not done and he was forced by means of threats to testify .","During the reconstruction , which commenced near the place where the bat used for the murder had been hidden , the applicant pointed to the exact place where the bat was ; the bat was then uncovered and retained as evidence . A copy of the verbatim record of the reconstruction provided to the ORG by the applicant indicates that he was informed of his constitutional right not to incriminate himself . The verbatim record bears a handwritten \u201c not \u201d next to the following printed \u201c agreed to testify \u201d . The relevant part of the text is not visible on the copy of the record provided by the ORG . The record furthermore contains the applicant \u2019s statement that he had not been forced to testify by means of any psychological or physical violence . The applicant signed the record without indicating any objections as to its contents next to his signature .","At an unspecified time on the same date GPE and GPE were questioned as suspects . GPE , being represented by PERSON ( the same lawyer who represented the applicant ) , acknowledged his guilt in respect of the robbery . He stated , inter alia , that he had seen the applicant carrying a bat when they had been entering the victim \u2019s house . PERSON , having waived his right to legal assistance , admitted that he had taken part in the robbery . He furthermore participated , still unrepresented , in a videotaped reconstruction of the crime during which he stated , inter alia , that he had seen the applicant with a bat in his hands but had not seen who had murdered PERSON","On DATE the investigator appointed PERSON to represent the applicant , and GPE , and admitted him to the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant , in the presence of B. , participated in another videotaped reconstruction of the crime in the victim \u2019s house . The applicant admitted his guilt and gave further details about the robbery and murder . He reiterated that he had hit PERSON on the head with the bat and stated that another suspect in the case had helped him to hide the bat afterwards .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother signed a contract with the lawyer S. concerning her son \u2019s legal representation . On the same date S. contacted the prosecutor , who allowed S. to represent the applicant instead of B. The applicant furthermore made a written statement declaring that he was refusing the services of B. and wanted S. to act as his lawyer .","On DATE medical experts examined the applicant following his complaint that he had been ill - treated by the police . No injuries were discovered on the applicant \u2019s body .","On DATE the video recording of the reconstruction of the crime of DATE was played to the applicant in the presence of S. The applicant retracted his earlier confession and explained that he had only given it because he had been threatened and beaten up by the police on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , and CARDINAL and DATE and QUANTITY DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of his defence lawyer but refused to give any evidence .","On DATE the prosecutors refused to institute a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegation that he had been beaten up by the police , having found the police ORG actions to be lawful .","On DATE the pre - trial investigation was completed and the applicant \u2013 together with GPE and K.A. \u2013 was charged with robbery and murder . It was established that another person , PERSON , had also participated in the robbery , but as he had absconded , he would have to be tried separately .","During the trial the applicant denied having participated in the robbery and the murder and refused to give any evidence . He stated that his earlier confessions to the crimes should not be admitted as evidence as they had been made under duress and in breach of his defence rights , including his right to be represented by a lawyer of his own choosing . He also argued that the bat which had been retained as evidence and examined by experts during the investigation had not been the same bat as that which he had pointed out during the reconstruction . He supported his allegation by referring to the fact that in the verbatim record , the prosecutor had described the bat as blue , while the experts who had subsequently examined it had described it as grey .","In DATE the police detained PERSON In the course of the trial GPE , PERSON and GPE all pleaded guilty to robbery but denied killing PERSON","On DATE ORG , acting as the first - instance court , convicted the applicant of murder and robbery and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . GPE , PERSON and PERSON were also found guilty of robbery but acquitted of murder . The hearing was held in the presence of the applicant \u2019s new lawyer , NORP , who had replaced the lawyer PERSON on an unspecified date .","The court based the applicant \u2019s conviction , among other evidence , on the confessions he had made during his questioning by the investigator on DATE , the reconstructions of the crime on CARDINAL and DATE , the statements of his co - defendants that they had seen him with a bat in LOC \u2019s house , and physical evidence , including an expert \u2019s report suggesting that the traces of blood found on the bat ( the location of which had been pointed out by the applicant during the reconstruction of the crime on DATE ) could have belonged to M.","By the same judgment , the court rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant \u2019s submissions that he had made his self - incriminating statements under duress , referring to the results of the medical examination of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The court also found no violation of the applicant \u2019s defence rights . It noted , inter alia , that on CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor \u2019s decision to appoint PERSON as the applicant \u2019s lawyer had been lawful , because at the material time the applicant had not had a contract with S. for legal representation . It also observed that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had raised no objections to the questioning record . The court also suggested , without giving details , that there had been some technical errors in the procedural documents , in particular as regards the time of the applicant \u2019s arrest and questioning , but that they did not affect the fairness of the respective investigative actions .","The court refuted the applicant \u2019s allegation that the bat retained as evidence had been switched with another ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , noting that the disparity in the bat \u2019s description by the experts and the prosecutor could have been explained by the fact that the latter was colour blind .","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG on points of law , reiterating his complaints . He stated , in particular , that he had not been represented by the lawyer of his choice , PERSON , on CARDINAL and DATE , but by PERSON , who had been appointed by the investigator against the applicant \u2019s will . He further stated that he had not been assisted by any lawyer when he had been forced to confess during the crime reconstruction of CARDINAL DATE . He also complained about the fact that B. had represented him and his co - accused GPE at the same time ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) \u2013 a conflict of interest ( as there had been important discrepancies in their respective statements ) that should have prevented him from being allowed to do so .","On DATE ORG , acting as the second - instance court , upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction and sentence in his presence . The applicant was not represented by a lawyer during the hearing , but he did not provide any further details in this regard .","ORG found that the applicant \u2019s guilt was proved , inter alia , by the statements he had made during his questioning of CARDINAL DATE and during the reconstructions of the crime . It noted in this respect that those statements had been corroborated by other evidence , including the testimony of his co - accused , and concluded that the lower court had correctly admitted the applicant \u2019s self - incriminating statements as evidence . The court also noted that the details of the crime which the applicant had revealed in his statements could not have been known to him unless he had been the direct perpetrator .","Without mentioning the applicant \u2019s arguments regarding the alleged breach of his defence rights , ORG found no procedural violations during the proceedings serious enough to necessitate it quashing the judgment .","On an unspecified date the applicant was released from prison ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153481","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NJE\u017dI\u0106 AND \u0160TIMAC v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE the NORP police learned that CARDINAL civilians had been killed DATE in the village of NORP . Their bodies were transported to ORG of ORG by the members of ORG who had found them . CARDINAL of the bodies were identified as the applicants\u2019 parents , QUANTITY and PERSON , and the third as their grandmother , PERSON . An investigating judge of ORG was informed of the killings . The investigating judge decided that it was not possible to carry out an on - site inspection because of the danger of further attacks by unidentified persons from GPE .","On DATE a pathologist performed an autopsy on the corpses and drew up a post - mortem report . He established that the applicants\u2019 parents and their grandmother had been shot dead .","On DATE the NORP police lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG against persons unknown on charges of murder in connection with the killing of CARDINAL inhabitants of GPE on DATE , including the applicants\u2019 parents , Mile and PERSON , and their grandmother PERSON .","On DATE the NORP police interviewed GPE , who had been living in LOC , a village near NORP , during the critical period . On an unspecified date in DATE CARDINAL members of the NORP paramilitary forces , GPE , GPE and GPE , had fired at him , but he had escaped into the woods . While visiting CARDINAL of his neighbours on DATE he had met PERSON and ORG , who had said that they had killed some people in NORP . When the police showed him photographs of some members of the NORP paramilitary forces he recognised PERSON and \u010c.B. as B. and ORG , the persons he had met at his neighbour \u2019s house .","On DATE the police interviewed GPE and GPE , who were brothers . PERSON said that he had met PERSON , \u010c.B. and another man in a prison in GPE . When he had asked PERSON why they had been imprisoned he had told him that they had killed some civilians in PERSON . However , GPE and PERSON thought that this had not happened in PERSON but in CARDINAL of the NORP villages near ORG .","On DATE the NORP police sent a report to ORG stating that ORG may have been among the perpetrators of the killings in NORP .","NORP Immediately before the ORG military action \u201c Storm \u201d which started on CARDINAL DATE , the vast majority of the NORP paramilitary forces fled GPE , firstly to GPE and then to GPE in some cases .","In DATE ORG established ORG in LOC , PERSON and ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) . On DATE the ORG mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the NORP authorities began .","On DATE the second applicant handed the police a letter sent to her by her relative PERSON","In DATE the police interviewed the second applicant .","On DATE the Service for the Protection of the Constitutional Order ( Slu\u017eba za za\u0161titu ustavnog poretka ) sent a report to ORG and the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG on the killing of the applicants\u2019 parents and grandmother , allegedly by members of the NORP paramilitary forces . The report stated that the only survivors who had any information about the killings were GPE and PERSON , who both lived in GPE . A letter of DATE , drafted by ORG , was also enclosed , as well as a letter drafted by PERSON and his father PERSON on an unspecified date and sent to ORG . PERSON alleged that on DATE a group of members of the NORP paramilitary forces from GPE had come to their village , PERSON , and killed several people . He named GPE , GPE . , GPE , GPE , GPE . , Bo . PERSON , ORG , GPE , ORG . PERSON Br . PERSON . NORP , GPE , ORG . GPE and GPE as those personally known to him . He openly named commanders of various formations of these forces as : P.R. , GPE , ORG or ORG , ORG . Se . and PERSON The only survivors had been himself and his parents . They had been taken from NORP to a prison in PERSON . His mother had died in the meantime while he and his father PERSON had emigrated to GPE after the war .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG lodged a request for an investigation with ORG and asked that PERSON and PERSON be heard as witnesses .","On DATE the police interviewed ORG and ORG , former members of the NORP paramilitary forces , in FAC . ORG said that a formation of NORP paramilitary forces under the command of ORG . S. and PERSON had carried out \u201c actions \u201d , inter alia , in the area of NORP . He named several members of that formation . PERSON described various actions in which members of NORP paramilitary forces had killed civilians in NORP villages in the broader area of GPE and PERSON , including NORP , but had no information about the killing of the applicants\u2019 relatives .","On DATE the police interviewed GPE , also a former member of the NORP paramilitary forces , who described various actions in which members of NORP paramilitary forces had killed civilians in NORP villages in the broader area of GPE and PERSON , including NORP , but had no information about the killing of the applicants\u2019 relatives .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG asked the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG whether they still insisted on interviews with PERSON and PERSON since their address was \u201c uncertain \u201d . On DATE the investigating judge asked ORG for the address of PERSON and PERSON On DATE the ORG provided the investigating judge with the address of PERSON and GPE in GPE .","On DATE ORG sent a detailed report about the possible suspects to the NORP - senjska ORG .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG sent a report to the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG on the killing of CARDINAL civilians in NORP in DATE . ORG had informed them that ORG had invited PERSON and PERSON on CARDINAL occasions to give their statements , which they had refused to do with the explanation that they had already given their statements in writing . They had almost certainly been referring to a letter to their relatives in GPE and the one sent to the Service for the Protection of the Constitutional Order .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG heard evidence from PERSON , who confirmed that members of the NORP paramilitary forces had captured PERSON in DATE . As to the killing of the CARDINAL persons in NORP , he had heard about that from one PERSON , who had died in the meantime .","On DATE the police interviewed GPE , GPE and PERSON had no relevant information about the killing of the civilians in NORP . GPE and PERSON repeated their earlier statements ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the police again interviewed ORG , who repeated his statement of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the police also interviewed ORG , a neighbour of GPE , who admitted that PERSON and \u010c.B. had visited him in DATE but said that they had not mentioned the killing of civilians in NORP .","On DATE the police noted that in DATE PERSON and \u010c.B. had been convicted of war crimes in connection with the killing of NORP \u2019s family in PERSON , GPE , and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment by a court in GPE .","NORP In DATE the police interviewed the second applicant again .","On DATE the police interviewed PERSON , CARDINAL of the NORP soldiers who had found the bodies in NORP . He had no relevant information about the killing of the civilians in NORP .","On DATE the police interviewed GPE , a former member of the NORP paramilitary forces . He repeated his earlier statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG informed ORG that one of the suspects , ORG , had been placed in pre - trial detention in connection with a different set of criminal proceedings . He had in the meantime become a NORP citizen .","On DATE the NORP - senjska ORG sent a report to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG informing it that CARDINAL of the persons mentioned in PERSON \u2019s letter ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , namely GPE and GPE , had died . A report drawn up by GPE , a member of the NORP paramilitary forces was enclosed . It stated that on DATE \u201c they had killed CARDINAL people \u201d . A list of the members of the paramilitary forces from the FAC area was also enclosed .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office sent a criminal complaint against GPE and \u010c.B. to ORG and asked him for the address of another suspect , ORG , indicating that he should be questioned about the report he had allegedly drawn up on the events of DATE in NORP .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG forwarded a report on the interviews with ORG , GPE and GPE , carried out by the NORP authorities , to the NORP - senjska ORG . They denied any involvement in the killing of the applicants\u2019 relatives .","DATE and DATE the ORG - senjska ORG interviewed GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , GPE and PERSON had no relevant information about the killing of the applicants\u2019 relatives . The others repeated their earlier statements .","On DATE and DATE the NORP - senjska ORG sent a report to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office listing the suspected perpetrators of the killings in NORP on DATE . CARDINAL of them had died , CARDINAL had moved to GPE , CARDINAL to GPE and in respect of CARDINAL of them there was no relevant information .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office sent the report of DATE to ORG and asked him to interview the suspects living in GPE .","In DATE the police learned that CARDINAL of the suspects , ORG , had died ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145011","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF YARASHONEN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["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 Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre .","On DATE the applicant met with his lawyer , Mr A. Y\u0131lmaz , 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s health issues to the authorities\u2019 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 S\u00fcreyyapa\u015fa 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 Kumkap\u0131 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 Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre , which meant that he had been unable to go outside throughout his detention .","The Government submitted that the Kumkap\u0131 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 Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre on DATE , there were CARDINAL detainees in total ( CARDINAL male and CARDINAL female ) . They also claimed that from DATE until the applicant \u2019s 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 :"],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141175","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LON\u010cAR v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He was an employee of ORG . , a company based in GPE ( \u201c the company \u201d ) . 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 applicant\u02bcs claim and held that he had been unlawfully dismissed . It did not , however , examine the timelines of the applicant\u02bcs claim although the company had raised this issue in their submissions to the court .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Cantonal Court \u201d ) quashed that judgment and remitted the case for a retrial .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s claim . That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant on points of law . It held that the lower courts had misapplied domestic law in rejecting the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 courts\u02bc judgments ( \u201e nije mijenajo ni\u017eestepene presude \u201c ) .","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 ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171774","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF POLYAKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants in each case were affected by decisions of ORG ( \u00ab \u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0430 \u0438\u0441\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u043d\u0430\u043a\u0430\u0437\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0439 DATE , \u201c the ORG \u201d ) 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\u2019 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 :","\u201c 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 . \u201d","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 :","\u201c ... 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 . \u201d","The applicant challenged the ORG \u2019s 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 \u2019s complaint under LAW ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) and dismissed it . It found , referring to LAW on the Execution of Sentences ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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. \u2019s transfer .","On DATE the Primorskiy Regional Court summarily dismissed the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u201c convicted of terrorist offences in GPE , shows no remorse , and does not undertake to commit no unlawful actions in the future \u201d . The judgment read , in particular , as follows :","\u201c The claimant \u2019s 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 . \u201d","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 . \u2019s transfer to another penal facility , and that \u201c the appeal statement contain[ed ] no references to circumstances that would refute the [ first - instance ] court \u2019s findings and demonstrate that there were grounds for PERSON . \u2019s transfer from one facility to another within the meaning of LAW of the ORG \u201d .","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 . \u2019s 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\u2019 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 \u2019s refusal before a court . On DATE the ORG submitted their objections to ORG of GPE , which read , in particular , as follows :","\u201c The claimant \u2019s 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 . \u201d","On DATE the ORG of GPE examined the applicant \u2019s 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 :","\u201c The claimant \u2019s 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 . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .","To date , the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s and sister \u2019s 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 \u2019s absence , which was referred to in the judgment as follows : \u201c [ 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 \u201d . 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 \u201c 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 \u201d . The applicant \u2019s argument related to the difficulties of maintaining his family ties was rejected as follows :","\u201c The claimant \u2019s 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 . \u201d","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 \u2019s absence , which was explained as follows : \u201c 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 \u201d . 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 \u2019s 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 :","\u201c ... there were no medical recommendations that would contain contraindications for Mr PERSON \u2019s serving his sentence in the penal facility in FAC . Other exceptional circumstances that the law connects with the ORG \u2019s obligation to grant a claimant \u2019s 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 \u2019s officials unlawful . \u201d","The applicant \u2019s mother and sister could not afford to visit him in ORG . The mother died in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180317","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MILI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 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 \u201c GPE \u201d ( NORP autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter \u201c LOC \u201d ) . At DATE the NORP authorities announced their intention to take military action with the aim of regaining control over LOC . The operation was codenamed \u201c Storm \u201d ( 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 biv\u0161u GPE ) and GPE Attorney \u2019s 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 \u2019s death after the applicants on DATE brought a claim for damages with the State Attorney \u2019s 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 \u201c NORP \u201d 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 \u201c NORP \u201d 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s ORG closed the investigation .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s 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 \u201c NORP \u201d 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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\u2019 judgments in respect of the ruling that the applicants\u2019 claim had become statute - barred .","A constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant was dismissed on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142421","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ANATOLIY RUDENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"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","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["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 ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) 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 \u2019s 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 \u201c forming fixed ideas \u201d . 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 \u2019s recommendation of DATE . It also noted that the applicant had been showing \u201c inadequate behaviour \u201d . 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 ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 :","\u201c 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 . \u201d","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 \u2019s former wife gave a similar description , having also noted that he was a kind person despite his difficult character . The applicant \u2019s 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 \u201c hysterical outbursts \u201d and that he had had the impression that the applicant had some mental issues . The general conclusions of the commission were worded as follows :","\u201c 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 ( \u201c \u043f\u0430\u0440\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0438\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0440\u0430\u0441\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u043b\u0438\u0447\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 \u0441 \u0431\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043e\u0432\u044b\u043c\u0438 \u0432\u043a\u043b\u044e\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\u043c\u0438 \u201d ) .","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 . \u201d","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 \u2019s 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 :","\u201c 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 \u2019s life , his present mental condition warrants his involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital , because he is a dangerous person ... \u201d","On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of the first - instance court of DATE as it had been delivered in the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u201c chronic paranoid personality disorder with delusional inclusions \u201d . His psychiatric condition was deemed to prevent him from participating effectively in court hearings . As noted in the part of the report entitled \u201c Psychological examination \u201d , 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s recovery .","The applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s mental health , without any explanation for such a change in their position . Furthermore , the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u201c socially dangerous \u201d 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 ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) .","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 \u201c delusional inclusions \u201d , 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s cassation appeal ( submitted via his son ) against the lower courts\u2019 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 \u2019s 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 \u201c delusional inclusions \u201d also raised questions as to its clinical accuracy . The applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s psychiatric condition had remained the same .","On DATE , following a request by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , an independent forensic psychiatric expert with DATE of work experience issued a report regarding the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s right to attend court hearings in person had been restricted without any valid medical reason ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c","5-1-e"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153502","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"CANAN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["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. \u0130mrek , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141191","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160TRUKELJ v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["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 , \u00a7 \u00a7 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 \u00a7 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 ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147007","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"X AND Y v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicants , PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) and Ms Y ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The second applicant is the first applicant \u2019s mother . The President granted the applicants\u2019 request for their identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 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 \u201c thief in law \u201d ( see in this connection PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 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 \u201c offer \u201d 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 , \u00a7 \u00a7 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\u2019 imprisonment and a fine in the amount of CARDINAL NORP laris . By virtue of an LAW of DATE , DATE . \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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 \u201c procedural agreement \u201d ( \u201c \u10e1\u10d0\u10de\u10e0\u10dd\u10ea\u10d4\u10e1\u10dd \u10e8\u10d4\u10d7\u10d0\u10dc\u10ee\u10db\u10d4\u10d1\u10d0 \u201d 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","\u201c 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 . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148687","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"AHACHAK AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["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\u2019 imprisonment and ordered him placed at the disposal of the Government ( terbeschikkingstelling , hereafter \u201c ORG order \u201d ) with confinement in a custodial clinic ( bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege ) . The judgment included the following reasoning :","\u201c 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 . \u201d","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 \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON the GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE , argued that since the judgment of DATE made no mention of an offence \u201c directed against , or endangering , the bodily inviolability of CARDINAL or more persons \u201d ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) ) , the duration of the ORG order could be DATE ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) .","ORG gave its decision on DATE . It extended the ORG order by DATE , reasoning as follows :","\u201c 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 . \u201d","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\u2019 imprisonment and imposed a ORG order with confinement in a custodial clinic . The judgment included the following reasoning :","\u201c 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 . \u201d","and","\u201c The safety of others and the general safety of persons and goods require the imposition of a ORG order . \u201d","and","\u201c 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 . \u201d","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 \u2019s 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 \u201c directed against , or endangering , the bodily inviolability of CARDINAL or more persons \u201d .","ORG gave a decision on DATE extending the ORG order for DATE . Its reasoning included the following :","\u201c ORG takes the view that the conviction and the qualification , together with the reasons given in sentencing , which refers to the \u2018 dangerousness of the fact found proven and the social unrest to which it has contributed\u2019 , unambiguously shows that the crime in question is of the type referred to in Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . \u201d","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 \u2019s 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 :","\u201c 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 . \u201d","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 ORG gave a decision finding that the sentencing judgment failed to make mention of an offence \u201c directed against , or endangering , the bodily inviolability of CARDINAL or more persons \u201d 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 :","\u201c 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 \u00a7 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 . \u201d","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 :","\u201c 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 . \u201d","After an initial DATE period which ended DATE , the ORG order was extended several more times .","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 \u201c directed against , or endangering , the bodily inviolability of one or more persons \u201d 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 \u201c directed against , or endangering , the bodily inviolability of one or more persons \u201d 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 \u2019s 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 :","\u201c 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 \u2019s personality , and shall take account of the seriousness of the offence committed and the number of previous convictions for indictable offences . \u201d","All applicants were found guilty of offences carrying a maximum sentence of DATE or more .","\u201c 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 . ... \u201d","\u201c 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 . \u201d","\u201c 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 . \u201d","As relevant to the case , LAW provides as follows :","\u201c ...","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 . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144112","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NYK\u00c4NEN v. FINLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"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","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["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 , skattef\u00f6rh\u00f6jning ) of LAW were imposed .","The applicant sought rectification from ORG ( verotuksen oikaisulautakunta , pr\u00f6vningsn\u00e4mnden i beskattnings\u00e4renden ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s 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 , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on the same grounds as ORG .","NORP The applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) .","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 , skattebedr\u00e4geri ) 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 ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) 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 , hovr\u00e4tten ) , 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 , h\u00f6gsta 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 \u2019s 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 .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal ."],"violated_articles":["P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["P7-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168381","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ADAYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s 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\u2019 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 \u2019s 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 \u2019s house . They had come to the applicant \u2019s 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 \u2019s relatives and neighbours who testified as to the applicant \u2019s 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. \u2019s written statements , the court noted as follows :","\u201c ... 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 \u2019s ] earlier statement read out in the event of a natural calamity or other extraordinary circumstances preventing the [ victim \u2019s ] 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 \u2019s ] 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 . \u201d","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal .","On DATE the applicant was released ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160223","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SALIKHOVA AND MAGOMEDOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , GPE , GPE . They are the mother and the wife of PERSON , who was born in DATE .","At the material time Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev and the applicants , along with other relatives , lived together at CARDINAL Magomed Dalgata Street , GPE , ORG . According to the applicants for DATE prior to the events in question Mr PERSON had been suspected of illegal activities and had been followed by PERSON law enforcement agencies , in particular by ORG of ORG of the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( \u0426\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440 \u043f\u043e \u0411\u043e\u0440\u044c\u0431\u0435 \u0441 ORG \u043f\u043e PERSON ( \u0426\u041f\u042d ) ) .","At TIME on DATE Mr LOC drove in his white ORG car along FAC to visit his relatives , who lived about a QUANTITY - minute drive from his house in GPE . At TIME his car was stopped and he was abducted by a group of CARDINAL armed men who were driving CARDINAL civilian vehicles : a silver - coloured VAZ-CARDINAL , which had a registration number which partially read \u201c ACARDINAL \u201d , and a black PERSON . The men were dressed in civilian clothing and were masked . The applicants\u2019 relative , PERSON Ub . , called Mr PERSON during the abduction and upon hearing him screaming immediately informed the applicants that there was a problem . Directly after that Mr Ub . Ub . , together with the first applicant , went along Mr PERSON route and found his car in the street with CARDINAL police vehicles and officers from the Sovetskiy district police station in GPE ( \u201c the Sovetskiy ROVD \u201d ) ( PERSON \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b ( ORG ) ) next to it . The police told the first applicant and PERSON Ub . that they had arrived TIME and that TIME prior to their arrival a man had been abducted . They told the applicant and PERSON Ub . to wait at home for a telephone call from the police and took Mr PERSON \u2019s car to the LOC of the Sovetskiy ROVD .","DATE after the abduction , that is to say DATE , police officers from the ORG searched the applicants\u2019 house .","DATE after the events , on or around DATE , the applicants obtained video footage of the abduction from a local resident ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They recognised CARDINAL of the abductors by his voice as the ORG officer named \u201c PERSON \u201d and informed the authorities of this .","On DATE a burnt male corpse was found QUANTITY from GPE in the NORP district in ORG .","On DATE the body was identified by the authorities as that of Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicants and their relatives disagreed with that conclusion ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .","According to the applicants , they have had no news of Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev since his abduction .","The Government did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicants , but denied any involvement of ORG agents in the incident .","NORP In reply to the ORG \u2019s first request for a copy of the contents of the investigation file , the Government provided CARDINAL copied pages of documents from it reflecting steps taken by the authorities between DATE and DATE .","NORP In reply to the ORG \u2019s further request for a copy of the contents of the investigation file , the ORG submitted CARDINAL copied pages of the relevant documents , some of which were illegible . The contents of the legible documents can be summarised as follows .","NORP Immediately after the incident the applicants went to PERSON , informed the police of the abduction and gave statements to the police investigator . They also conducted their own search for eye witnesses to the incident and found several of them in nearby shops and blocks of flats . The applicants informed the investigators of their findings ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE and then on CARDINAL DATE the applicants complained of the abduction to the Sovetskiy district investigations department ( \u201c the investigations department \u201d ) . In their second complaint they stated that , in their opinion , the police were wilfully postponing steps in the investigation of the incident .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the investigators examined the car from which Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev had been abducted ; CARDINAL fingerprints were collected from the chassis of the vehicle . On DATE a forensic examination of the fingerprints was ordered .","On DATE the investigations department opened criminal case no . CARDINAL into the abduction . The applicants were informed thereof .","On DATE the investigators granted Mr PERSON father , Mr PERSON , victim status in the criminal case and questioned him . His statement was similar to the applicants\u2019 account submitted to the ORG . The witness stated , amongst other things , that he had not witnessed the abduction and had learnt of it from his relatives . According to the witness , his son had no unpaid debts or personal enemies and had the mobile telephone number CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr Ub . Ub . whose statement concerning the incident was similar to the ORG account before ORG .","According to the applicants , shortly after their initial complaint to the authorities they identified witnesses to the incident and informed the investigators accordingly . As a result , on DATE the investigators questioned PERSON . who stated that at about CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. on DATE he had been smoking on his balcony at LOC when he had heard men arguing . He had looked out and seen a group of CARDINAL or CARDINAL masked men with pistols in their hands . CARDINAL of those men had been trying to pull the driver out of a white ORG car but the latter had been resisting . Then the men had started beating him and had somehow managed to pull him from his seat into the back seat of the car . CARDINAL of them had got inside the vehicle . In TIME the masked men had carried the immobilised driver out of the car and put him in a silvercoloured PERSON . Then all of the masked men had driven off in that car and a black VAZ-CARDINAL car . Immediately afterwards the witness had gone outside and asked a passerby to call the police . In TIME the police had arrived at the scene . According to the witness , he had recorded the abduction on his mobile telephone camera and then copied it to a CD .","On DATE , DATE , the investigators seized the abduction footage made by PERSON . PERSON . On DATE they examined the video , the contents of which were similar to the applicants\u2019 account of the abduction submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant \u2019s mother , PERSON , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the applicants\u2019 account before ORG . She had not witnessed the incident and had learnt of it from her relatives .","On DATE , DATE , the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose statement was similar to the applicants\u2019 submission before the ORG . In addition the investigators obtained samples of the first applicant \u2019s saliva for DNA testing and for its database .","On DATE the investigators ordered a comparison of the first applicant \u2019s DNA samples with those from the DNA database .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant who stated that in DATE and DATE she had received text messages on her telephone from CARDINAL unknown numbers . The first message contained the following :","\u201c Congratulations , your son became a shahid on the path of jihad in the ORG district ... May Allah accept his shahada and take him to the gardens of GPE . PERSON ! \u201d","The second message contained the following :","\u201c ... Your son and son - in - law were set up by your neighbour PERSON who worked for the CARDINALth department [ of the police ] . If you do n\u2019t believe it , have your men follow him . I could not do nothing about it as I have got nobody who could help me eliminate him . This beast spares no one . I hope you will believe me as I have got no other way out . My brother was the only tower of strength in my life . Friend . \u201d","On DATE , DATE , the investigators seized the first applicant \u2019s mobile telephone to examine the above messages . It was established that the first message had been received on DATE from a mobile telephone located DATE in FAC in GPE ; the second message \u2013 received on DATE came from a different telephone number .","On DATE the investigators requested ORG in GPE to grant them permission to obtain from the relevant mobile phone operator the call logs of Mr PERSON telephone number ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) DATE and DATE .","On DATE the investigators received the court \u2019s permission and examined the call logs of Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev \u2019s telephone calls . According to the logs , at CARDINAL TIME on DATE he had received a telephone call from PERSON Ub and after that the handset had been switched off . On DATE a DATE call had been received on Mr PERSON number ; the caller had been located in the area of LOC in GPE .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant who stated that on TIME CARDINAL DATE she had received a call on her mobile telephone from a man who had not introduced himself but had stated that he was an officer of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( ORG ( ORG ) ) and that he was holding Mr PERSON . The man , who had called from DATE - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL , had told her that he would release her son in DATE in exchange for MONEY ( RUB ) . The applicant had passed the telephone to her husband who had told the man they had had MONEY and that they would pay RUB CARDINAL at once and then RUB CARDINAL after their son \u2019s release . The man had told them that Mr Sakhrab PERSON was being held about a TIME drive from GPE and that he was in a bad state of health . TIME on that date ( DATE ) the first applicant \u2019s husband and the man had called each other several times . The applicant \u2019s husband had been ordered to deposit RUB CARDINAL in the account of mobile telephone number CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL , which he had done on DATE . The man had confirmed receipt of the money and told the applicant and her husband to wait for his call . But he had not called back and his telephone number had been disconnected since DATE .","On DATE the forensic experts informed the investigators that the fingerprints collected from Mr PERSON car ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were not fit for identification . The applicants were informed thereof on DATE .","On DATE the investigators requested that ORG in PERSON grant them permission to obtain the call logs of telephone number CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( used by the alleged ORG officer on DATE ) DATE and DATE . Permission was received on DATE .","On DATE the investigators searched Mr PERSON house . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to that submitted by the applicants to the ORG . She had not witnessed the incident but had learnt of it from her relatives .","On DATE the investigators received the call logs of the telephone number CARDINAL - CARDINAL . According to these logs , the caller who had contacted the first applicant and her husband on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been located in GPE .","On DATE the first applicant requested the investigators to order an expert analysis of the voice of CARDINAL of the abductors from the video footage of the incident ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ; according to her , Mr Ub . Ub . had identified that voice as belonging to a ORG officer named PERSON whom he would be able to identify if necessary . The applicant requested that the investigators examine the video and compare the abductor \u2019s voice to that of PERSON .","On DATE the investigators granted the first applicant \u2019s request and ordered that steps be taken to identify the ORG officer PERSON and to analyse the voice on the video . The applicants were informed thereof .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr GPE who stated that he lived next to the scene of the abduction but had not witnessed it and learnt of it from his neighbours .","On DATE the investigators questioned police officer PERSON who stated that on DATE he had been on duty at LOC and had been called to the abduction scene . According to the witness , the investigators had examined the crime scene and had towed away the white ORG car left behind after the abduction to their police station . After DATE the car had been picked up by an unnamed individual .","On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , an officer with the Dagestan CPE , who stated that he did not have information pertaining to the abduction , but that he had participated in the search of the applicants\u2019 house in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The witness also confirmed that in DATE , DATE after the search , he had spoken with PERSON Ub . who had visited the ORG with his son Mr A.Ub . , who had been suspected of involvement in illegal armed groups . Mr Ub . Ub . had requested his assistance in the criminal case against his son PERSON . but the witness had refused to help him . Due to the passage of time the witness could not recall where he had been on TIME CARDINAL DATE but stated that he had not met Mr PERSON and had not participated in a special operation against him . The NORP mobile telephone number was CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL and he had been using that number since DATE .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant who stated that , in her opinion , her son had been abducted by special forces servicemen or law - enforcement officers as they had suspected Mr PERSON of aiding members of illegal armed groups . DATE after the abduction the ORG officers had searched her house ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the applicant , Mr Ub . Ub . had met officer PERSON in DATE when he had gone to the ORG with his son .","On DATE the investigators received the call logs of the telephone number used for the deposit of RUB CARDINAL ( see paragaph CARDINAL above ) . According to the list , on DATE the caller had been located in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the investigators ordered an expert analysis of the voices in the abduction video ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It can be seen from the documents submitted that on an unspecified date between CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the experts concluded that the voice on the footage was not fit for identification ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE or DATE the investigators requested ORG in GPE to grant them permission to obtain the call logs for TIME on DATE from the telephone number belonging to officer PERSON ( see paragraph DATE above ) . This was granted on DATE .","On DATE the Dagestan Ministry of the Interior conducted an internal inquiry into the applicants\u2019 allegations of the involvement of the ORG officers in the abduction and concluded , amongst other things , the following :","\u201c ... On DATE PERSON complained of the abduction of his son Mr PERSON to ORG ...","... According to the witness statements of the first applicant , PERSON , Mr Ub . Ub . and Mr A.Ub . , enclosed with the complaint , officers of the ORG were involved in the abduction ... In their statements PERSON Ub . and Mr PERSON directly indicate the ORG officers PERSON . PERSON and PERSON ; the latter they had been able to identify from the video posted on PERSON under the title \u201c Abduction of Mr S. Abakargadzhiyev \u201d .","According to the statement of the ORG operational search officer PERSON given to the inquiry , ... in DATE he had participated with his colleagues from the ORG in the search of Mr PERSON home ... After the search , prior to the departure , he and his colleagues had asked Mr PERSON relatives to ensure that PERSON . would appear at the ORG . The latter , who had been related to Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev , had been listed in the ORG \u2019s database as a supporter of terrorist groups , had been told to report to the ORG to help with enquiries ... DATE Mr A.Ub . had been arrested and charged with the same crimes for which he had been investigated . After the arrest , the father of PERSON . , Mr Ub . Ub . , had asked the witness and PERSON . PERSON to assist him in persuading the authorities to be lenient towards his son , but his requests had been refused by the officers ... On the date of Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev \u2019s abduction the witness had taken a detainee , PERSON , to the court ... he had had nothing to do with the abduction . In addition , the witness explained that Mr PERSON had been an ardent supporter of Wahabiism and on several occasions had aided members of ORG terrorist groups , in particular , PERSON . , and had participated in the attack on PERSON traffic police officers near GPE in DATE ...","When questioned , the head of the operational search divison of the ORG CPE , PERSON . PERSON , confirmed the above statement and explained that neither he nor his subordinate officers had had anything to do with the abduction . Mr Ub . Ub . had told lies about them as he and the servicemen of his department had arrested his son Mr A.Ub . in connection with the investigation of criminal case no . DATE .","According to the evidence submitted by the ORG , they had obtained information concerning planned attempts on the lives of law - enforcement officers committed by Mr PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON and Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev on DATE . The ORG officers did not arrest or detain Mr PERSON and no operational measures were taken against him ...","... It can be seen from the case file that according to the expert analysis of the video \u201c Abduction of S. Abakargadzhiyev \u201d it was imposssible to analyse and identify the voices therein ...","Thus , the internal inquiry was not able to verify the first applicant \u2019s complaints concerning the unlawful actions of the ORG officers owing to significant discrepancies between the statements of those questioned during the inquiry ; those discrepancies could be resolved only within the framework of a criminal case ... \u201d","On DATE the investigators received the call logs of officer PERSON mobile telephone for DATE , according to which on that date his telephone had been located in GPE .","DATE . On DATE the investigators questioned forensic expert Mr GPE , who had fingerprinted the white ORG car ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . According to the witness , nobody else had touched the vehicle until after the examination .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . The applicants were informed thereof .","On DATE the investigation was resumed and the applicants were informed accordingly . The decision stated , amongst other things , the following :","\u201c ... the investigation established that Mr PERSON corpse had been found QUANTITY north - west of GPE village ... In connection with this , on CARDINAL DATE ORG opened criminal case no . CARDINAL ... \u201d","On DATE the investigators examined the contents of criminal case file no . CARDINAL . According to the contents , there was a PERCENT DNA match between the DNA of the burnt corpse and that of the first applicant taken from the DNA database , as shown by the results of a forensic examination of DATE .","On DATE , having established that the burnt body found on DATE had been that of Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev , the investigations in criminal cases nos . CARDINAL and DATE were joined by the investigators under the number CARDINAL . The decision stated that the body had been found in a VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle in which a home - made explosive device had been detonated .","On an unspecified date DATE the investigators asked the first applicant to identify the body found on DATE . According to the applicant , she was not shown the actual corpse , but a photograph of it . She was able to tell from the photograph that it was not the body of her son Mr Sakhrab PERSON : according to the police , the corpse had CARDINAL gold teeth ; Mr PERSON did not have any .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s husband asked the investigators to question him and the first applicant again about the circumstances of the abduction , to order another expert forensic examination of the corpse and to further examine and identify the voice of PERSON recorded by PERSON Ub . The outcome of this request is unknown .","It appears from the documents submitted that the proceedings are still pending .","The applicant maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had abducted their relative Mr PERSON on DATE had been ORG agents . In support of their allegation they referred to the following : the abduction had taken place in broad daylight , in an area surrounded by ORG cameras , in the presence of witnesses ; the perpetrators had acted openly , without fear of arrest by law - enforcement authorities ; the authorities had wilfully delayed the investigation of the incident by conducting , for instance , the crime scene examination DATE after the ORG complaints about it ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and by taking further steps either belatedly or with major deficiences ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) ; the ORG officer PERSON had been present in the vicinity of the abduction scene during the incident ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) and the applicants had informed the investigators of his and his colleagues\u2019 alleged involvement in the crime ; Mr PERSON had been suspected of involvement in illegal activities and , therefore , the authorities had had motives for his abduction ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) . The applicants also referred to a number of abductions allegedly perpetrated by ORG authorities in ORG DATE in similar circumstances , where some of the abducted men had subsequently been found in ORG custody .","The Government denied any involvement of ORG agents in the events . In particular , they stated that only in DATE had the first applicant alleged that law - enforcement officers had been involved in the incident ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG points out that a number of principles have been developed in its case - law as regards applications in which it is faced with the task of establishing facts on which the parties disagree . As to the facts that are in dispute , the ORG reiterates its jurisprudence requiring the standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d in its assessment of evidence ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII ) . Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . In this context , the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account ( see ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVIII ) .","The ORG is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first - instance tribunal of fact , where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case ( see , for example , ORG v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . Nonetheless , where allegations are made under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention , the ORG must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny ( see , mutatis mutandis , PERSON v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL , and ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place .","ORG reiterates that it has noted the difficulties for applicants to obtain the necessary evidence in support of allegations in cases where the respondent Government are in possession of the relevant documentation and fail to submit it . Where the applicant makes out a prima facie case and the ORG is prevented from reaching factual conclusions owing to the lack of such documents , it is for the ORG to argue conclusively why the documents in question can not serve to corroborate the allegations made by the applicants , or to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to how the events in question occurred . The burden of proof is thus shifted to the ORG and if they fail in their arguments , issues will arise under LAW ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , and Akkum and Others v. GPE , no . LOC , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALII ) .","DATE . The ORG notes that in reply to its request for a copy of the investigation file into the abduction of Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev the Government produced the relevant documents from the file ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG has found the NORP State authorities responsible for a number of extra - judicial executions or disappearances of civilians perpetrated in GPE at DATE and DATE , even in the absence of final conclusions from the domestic investigation ( see ORG and GPE v. GPE , nos . LANGUAGE and QUANTITY , DATE ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . MONEY , ECHR CARDINAL-XIII ; Estamirov and Others v. GPE , no . MONEY , DATE ; and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) . It has done so taking into account the length of time during which the applicants had not had any news of their missing relatives and on the basis of witness statements and other documents attesting to the presence of military or security personnel in the area concerned at the relevant time . It has relied on references to military vehicles and equipment , on witness accounts , on other information on security operations and on the undisputed effective control of the areas in question by the NORP military . On that basis , it has concluded that the areas in question were \u201c within the exclusive control of the authorities of the ORG \u201d in view of the military or security operations being conducted there and the presence of servicemen ( see , mutatis mutandis , Akkum , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL , and PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","NORP However , in the present case the circumstances in which the events occurred do not warrant an unequivocal conclusion that ORG agents were responsible for the abduction of the applicants\u2019 relative for the following reasons . As regards the general background , the events complained of took place not in GPE , but in PERSON in DATE , and there was neither a curfew in place nor any restrictions on driving civilian vehicles . Noting that the applicants\u2019 version of the events was based on the statements of those who had not witnessed the abduction themselves , except for the statement of PERSON . , that the video of the abduction had not assisted in the identification of the culprits ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY above ) and taking into account that the abductors drove ordinary vehicles and were wearing balaclavas and civilian clothing , the ORG has little evidence to rely upon . However , bearing in mind that after the events the applicants received information alleging knowledge of their relative \u2019s whereabouts which they submitted to the authorities with a delay varying from DATE to DATE ( see , for example , CARDINAL and DATE above ) , along with the subsequent discovery of the burnt body and the experts\u2019 evaluation concerning its identity ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) , the ORG is not persuaded that the abduction of the applicants\u2019 relative by ORG agents is the only possible explanation of the events in question .","Accordingly , the information in the ORG \u2019s possession does not suffice to establish that the perpetrators belonged to the security forces or that a \u201c security operation \u201d had been carried out in respect of Mr Sakhrab Abakargadzhiyev .","To sum up , it has not been established to the required standard of proof that ORG agents were implicated in the disappearance of Mr PERSON ; nor does the ORG consider that the burden of proof can be entirely shifted to the Government ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175656","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KHLEBIK v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing;Reasonable time)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE in LOC .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody pending the outcome of the investigation and trial .","On DATE ORG of the Luhansk Region convicted the applicant and his CARDINAL co - defendants of armed robbery committed in an organised group , banditry and illegal possession of firearms in connection with a series of armed attacks committed in LOC of LOC . The court sentenced the applicant to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment , to be counted from DATE ( the date on which he had been arrested ) , and to confiscation of his property . It ordered that the applicant remain in detention pending appeal .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s sister , acting in the capacity of his lay defender , appealed against the judgment to ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) . Other parties lodged appeals as well .","From DATE , armed groups started to seize official buildings in the GPE and GPE regions and announced the creation of self - proclaimed entities known as the \u201c GPE \u201d and the \u201c GPE \u201d ( \u201c ORG \u201d and \u201c LPR \u201d ) .","NORP In response , on DATE ORG , who consider those armed groups to be terrorist organisations , authorised the use of force against them in the legal form of an \u201c anti - terrorist operation \u201d .","As a result of extensive military action , DATE ORG forces recaptured some territory in the GPE and GPE regions , but certain parts of the regions have remained outside of the ORG \u2019s control since that time . The parts of LOC not under the ORG \u2019s control include LOC , where the offences for which the applicant was convicted were committed , PERSON , where the applicant was tried and convicted , and GPE , where ORG was located .","A ceasefire was agreed upon within the framework of ORG composed of representatives of GPE , GPE and ORG in LOC ( hereinafter , \u201c the OSCE \u201d ) . An obligation to uphold the ceasefire and to withdraw heavy weaponry from the contact line was enshrined in the GPE Agreements and ORG for their LAW and DATE respectively . However , numerous violations of the ceasefire have continued to occur ever since .","At the time the events of DATE and DATE were unfolding , the applicant was detained in Starobilsk remand prison , located in the part of GPE that has remained under the control of ORG . He remained in that prison until his release ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG , which was still sitting in GPE , failed to hear the applicant \u2019s case because the applicant could not attend the hearing on account of the armed conflict . A hearing by video conference was scheduled for DATE , but it did not take place because as from CARDINAL DATE the electricity and water supply and telephone communications were cut off at ORG \u2019s building in GPE . At some point around that time , the judges of the court moved to the Government - controlled territory . The case files , however , remained at the court \u2019s building in GPE .","On DATE the President of ORG , acting under LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , reassigned jurisdiction over cases which would normally have fallen within the jurisdiction of FAC to ORG of GPE ( \u201c the Lysychansk Court \u201d ) , located in the NORP area .","On DATE the President of GPE issued a decree defining Sieverodonetsk in GPE , also located in the Government - controlled area , as the seat of ORG instead of GPE .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the delay in the examination of his appeal .","On DATE the applicant lodged a similar complaint with the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his criminal case file was in GPE , which was not under the ORG \u2019s control , and that this prevented the court from examining his case . In order to resolve the problem , amendments would have to be made to the relevant legislation .","On DATE the Parliamentary Commissioner \u2019s office responded that there was no way to obtain case files from the territory that was not under the ORG \u2019s control , but that the Commissioner was working with the courts , the prosecutor \u2019s office and other authorities to find a way to resolve the problem .","NORP In response to another complaint from the applicant , on DATE ORG informed him that it was unable to apprise him of the state of proceedings in his case because his criminal case file was in the court archives in GPE , to which there was no access .","On DATE ORG PERSON ) adopted a declaration which read , insofar as relevant , as follows :","\u201c PERSON from Obligations","...","In view of the armed aggression of GPE against GPE involving both the regular ORG Russian Federation and illegal armed groups guided , controlled and financed by GPE , since DATE an anti - terrorist operation has been conducted by the units of ORG of GPE , ORG of GPE and ORG in certain areas of the GPE and GPE regions ( oblasts ) of GPE . The anti - terrorist operation is part of GPE \u2019s inalienable right to individual self - defense against aggression under LAW . GPE , which has occupied and is exercising control over certain areas of the GPE and GPE regions , is fully responsible for respect for and protection of human rights in these territories under international humanitarian law and international human rights law .","GPE ongoing armed aggression against GPE , together with war crimes and crimes against humanity committed both by the regular ORG and by illegal armed groups guided , controlled and financed by GPE , constitutes \u2018 a public emergency threatening the life of the nation\u2019 in the sense of ... LAW .","In order to safeguard the vital interests of society and the ORG in response to the armed aggression of GPE , ORG , ORG of GPE and other authorities have to adopt decisions which constitute a derogation from certain obligations on the part of GPE under LAW and LAW .","...","On DATE , ORG adopted ORG and Criminal Proceedings in connection with the Antiterrorist Operation . The PERSON changed , for the duration of the anti - terrorist operation , the territorial jurisdiction over cases amenable to the courts located in the anti - terrorist operation area and , concerning the situations where it is impossible to conduct a pre - trial investigation in that area , investigative jurisdiction over criminal offences perpetrated there . The application of this law makes it necessary for GPE to derogate from certain of its obligations under LAW . However , the courts and pre - trial investigation bodies are not currently functioning in certain areas of the GPE and GPE regions because of the armed aggression of GPE and the actions of terrorist groups backed by GPE . That is why GPE has had to change the territorial jurisdiction of the courts and investigative jurisdiction in respect of criminal offences in conditions where the life of the nation is threatened .","... \u201d","On DATE ORG to ORG transmitted to the Secretary General of ORG a note verbale containing the text of the above declaration and its translation .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for restoration of the lost case file ( \u0432\u0456\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f \u043c\u0430\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0456\u0430\u043b\u0456\u0432 \u0432\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u0434\u0436\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f ) .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of a prosecutor but in the applicant \u2019s absence . The prosecutor stated that the case file in question was not in the area of the GPE controlled by ORG and that it was therefore not possible to furnish the court with any of the material therein . The court found that there was insufficient material available to restore the file . It discontinued the examination of the application , reminding the parties that if sufficient material was provided , the question of restoration could be reexamined .","On DATE ORG again informed the applicant that examination of his case required amendments to the legislation . In this context , it referred to draft law no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE the applicant applied for release , arguing that his detention was unlawful because his conviction was not final and \u201c would never become final \u201d .","The Starobilsk Court of the Luhansk Region rejected the applicant \u2019s applications for release , finding that , contrary to his submissions , there were sufficient legal grounds for continuing to detain him , since he had been convicted and his case was pending before ORG . The most recent of those decisions was taken on DATE . No appeal lay against them .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for release under LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG released the applicant . It considered that , as he had been held in pretrial detention since DATE , under the PERSON of DATE he could be deemed to have already served his sentence .","NORP The regional prosecutor \u2019s office appealed , arguing that the applicant \u2019s conviction had not become final because his domestic case file had remained inaccessible in a non - Government - controlled area and appeals against his conviction were still pending before ORG . According to the prosecutor \u2019s office , only convicted persons whose convictions had become final could benefit from the application of the new legislation . By contrast , those whose convictions were not final could be released only once the period for which they had been detained had exceeded CARDINAL of the maximum sentence for the offence of which they stood accused . Since the applicant was accused of offences , in particular banditry and aggravated robbery , the maximum punishment for which was DATE imprisonment ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and he had served much CARDINAL of that term , he could not be released .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG ruling of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Following communication of the case to the respondent Government , on CARDINAL DATE the regional prosecutor \u2019s office informed the office of ORG that , apart from the applicant , there were CARDINAL other individuals still held in the region \u2019s remand prisons against whom criminal proceedings were still pending but whose case files were in the non - Government - controlled areas . The prosecutor \u2019s office stated that it had requested the assistance of the police in gathering the documentation necessary to restore the relevant files . That work had allowed the prosecutor \u2019s office to gather sufficient material to ask the courts to consider the case against CARDINAL of those individuals . The work was ongoing concerning CARDINAL other defendants . Assistance had also been requested from ORG , which operated in both the Government - controlled and the non - Government - controlled areas , in facilitating the transfer of files from ORG building in GPE .","At DATE information made available to ORG ( DATE ) , the applicant \u2019s appeal against his conviction remained pending before ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167182","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"MC KEVITT AND CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The first applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently imprisoned in GPE , GPE . The second applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently detained in GPE in GPE . Both applicants are represented before the ORG by PERSON of ORG Law - LLP , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The Government of GPE were notified of the applications and were asked if they wished to exercise their right to intervene pursuant to LAW . However , they did not seek to exercise this right .","The facts , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","At CARDINAL.CARDINALpm on CARDINAL DATE a QUANTITY bomb exploded in the centre of GPE , a town in GPE , GPE . As a result of the explosion , CARDINAL people were killed , including a woman pregnant with twins , and CARDINAL people were injured . In addition , there was extensive damage to property in the town . The incident was the single worst atrocity in the course of DATE of violence which occurred in GPE from DATE .","TIME before the blast , CARDINAL warning calls had been made by callers using a code word previously used by an organisation calling itself \u00d3glaigh na ORG , otherwise known as \u201c ORG \u201d ( \u201c the Real IRA \u201d ) . The callers gave conflicting and misleading information about the location of the bomb .","Following the blast , responsibility was claimed by ORG . However , no individual has been convicted of causing the bomb or the consequent deaths , injuries and property damage .","Many of the families who suffered as a result of the GPE bomb brought an action for damages for trespass to the person , intentional infliction of harm and conspiracy to injure against the parties they believed to be responsible for the incident . Those parties included ORG as an organisation and the CARDINAL applicants , who they believed were responsible for the planning , production , planting and detonation of the bomb .","The principal witness of the plaintiffs in the civil action was PERSON , an ORG agent who had infiltrated dissident NORP terrorist groups .","On DATE ORG ordered that PERSON could give evidence by video link because he was receiving the benefit of an ORG witness protection program in GPE and ORG ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) had assessed the risk to his life to be severe if he were to give evidence in GPE .","On DATE the plaintiffs indicated that ORG was no longer available to give evidence by video link . They submitted an affidavit explaining that the ORG was no longer prepared to make him available because of the threat to his security and an unexplained medical condition . In his absence , they sought to rely on evidence he had given in CARDINAL previous criminal trials .","NORP In or around DATE the first applicant had been convicted by ORG in GPE of membership of the ORG and directing terrorism during the period from DATE . PERSON had been the principal witness for the prosecution . His evidence , which described the involvement of ORG in the GPE bombing , the direct involvement of the first applicant in procurement and training within that organisation , and the presence of the second applicant at army council meetings , was based on CARDINAL statements made by him DATE , and documents disclosed by the ORG and ORG , including CARDINAL pieces of email traffic between him and his handlers .","At the trial ORG had given evidence over DATE . For DATE he was cross - examined by counsel for the first applicant , who attacked his credibility as a witness . PERSON did not rely on the email documentation in his direct evidence and he was not cross - examined in relation to it .","In DATE , following a sting operation by ORG , CARDINAL persons had been arrested by the NORP police and extradited to GPE to stand trial for offences committed under LAW . The subsequent criminal proceedings took place at ORG ( for further details see O\u2019Farrell and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) . Neither applicant in the present proceedings was involved in the criminal trial . However , in the course of those proceedings a tape was produced containing a compilation of conversations between a person named \u201c PERSON \u201d and members of ORG . It was clear from the conversations that \u201c PERSON \u201d was directing ORG operation in GPE and seeking to procure arms and\/or funding from foreign Governments . In the course of the GPE proceedings PERSON identified \u201c PERSON \u2019s \u201d voice as that of the first applicant . His evidence was supported by that of an Inspector in An FAC ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) , ORG of GPE .","The plaintiffs applied for permission to rely on the transcript of evidence and materials disclosed during the GPE proceedings . However , the first applicant submitted that the introduction of this hearsay evidence would deprive him of the opportunity to cross - examine D.R. and prevent the court from assessing his credibility .","The High Court judge heard evidence about the effort made by the plaintiffs and the first applicant to secure ORG attendance to give video link evidence . He accepted that the plaintiffs\u2019 solicitor had made a number of attempts to cause the ORG to alter its view ; the ORG solicitor had attempted to obtain some written explanation for PERSON \u2019s inability to give evidence but had been unable to do so ; any application to the relevant judicial authorities in GPE to take the evidence of GPE would likely be opposed by the ORG ; and although the first applicant had applied to the court to institute a request for D.R. to be called for crossexamination under LAW , that request had been refused by ORG authorities . The judge therefore accepted that the plaintiffs and the first applicant had taken every possible step to secure the attendance of LAW as a witness .","The judge further considered whether or not the action in trespass constituted a \u201c criminal charge \u201d in accordance with the autonomous jurisprudence of this ORG . However , he decided that there had been no \u201c criminal charge \u201d as the proceedings were classified as civil under domestic law and any award the court could make would be compensatory . Although the ORG had stated that the objective of the proceedings was not to obtain compensation but to \u201c see the applicants held to account \u201d , the judge considered that their subjective intention was of \u201c little or no bearing \u201d in deciding whether the proceedings were criminal or civil . The judge therefore held that the protections contained in LAW did not apply as of right .","The judge then considered whether the evidence could be admitted pursuant to ORG LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In answering this question in the affirmative , he noted that although his power to exclude relevant evidence was circumscribed by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court \u2019s obligation to ensure a fair trial within the meaning of LAW could be achieved by permitting the plaintiffs to admit the evidence and applying the appropriate safeguards contained within the Order . In particular , he indicated that once the evidence was received it would be open to the applicants to submit that he should accord it no weight .","The plaintiffs also sought to rely on a copy of the \u201c PERSON \u201d tape . Counsel for the first applicant contended that pursuant to LAW DATE , the tape had been disclosed unlawfully by ORG to the plaintiffs .","In a decision dated DATE the ORG Judge found that the tape had been lawfully disclosed to the plaintiffs and could therefore be admitted in evidence , although the weight to be given to it would be \u201c a matter for submissions \u201d .","At the hearing , the first applicant chose not to give evidence in answer to this case against him . The second applicant had initially entered a defence to the claim but subsequently instructed his solicitors to come off record .","The High Court judge first considered the appropriate standard of proof and concluded that it should be the balance of probabilities since the seriousness of the allegation against the applicants alone was not a reason for departing from the civil standard .","The judge accepted that the GPE bombing was part of a campaign of terror involving the use of explosive devices in locations where there was a large number of members of the public . In view of the fact that the warnings were specifically designed to prevent detection of the location of the bomb car before the explosion , the judge was satisfied that those involved in the planning , production , planting and detonation of the bomb recognised the likelihood of serious injury or death from its detonation but had decided to take that risk .","NORP The plaintiffs sought to adduce evidence of the first applicant \u2019s conviction by ORG in GPE for directing terrorism . The judge held that the conviction could not be admitted as evidence that the first applicant had committed the acts which grounded the conviction . However , he found that the conviction could be admitted at common law as evidence of bad character , if probative and relevant .","The first applicant mounted an attack on the character of GPE based in substantial part on answers he gave during cross - examination in the GPE proceedings . In particular , in one email PERSON had suggested an intention to perjure himself in unrelated proceedings ; he had once described himself as a \u201c whore \u201d and a \u201c mercenary \u201d ; he had been charged with passing bad cheques ; there was evidence to suggest that he had been prepared to facilitate criminal activity as long as there was a suitable financial reward for him ; he was paid for the information provided to the ORG and ORG ; and he had had a reputation as a smuggler , drug dealer and \u201c bad guy \u201d .","In assessing the weight to be attached to the evidence of GPE , the judge identified CARDINAL separate questions : whether the email material represented a fair and accurate account of the actual traffic that passed between PERSON and his handlers , and whether the statements and emails represented a fair and accurate account of the exchanges between PERSON and the first applicant . Both of those questions required consideration of ORG .","In respect of the first question , the judge made the following observations :","The statements which were prepared for the purpose of giving evidence in the GPE proceedings were not prepared contemporaneously , but the emails represented actual traffic between PERSON and his handlers . In virtually all cases the emails were generated within TIME of the end of lengthy meetings , but caution had to be exercised in relation to isolated comments in response to queries raised by handlers where there may have been failures of recollection or misinterpretation .","ORG motivation for embarking on his activity was the prospect of financial reward . He had been dishonest in his dealings with money and in representation of circumstances , particularly where his financial interests and reputation were involved .","ORG was engaged under a financial contract with his handlers . Since he had a financial interest in producing material that was likely to be considered significant , care had to be exercised in assessing the material .","The extraordinary level of detail , which included identification by name of a significant number of people whom it was highly unlikely that ORG would previously have known was compelling evidence of an attempt to provide an accurate and comprehensive record of actual meetings .","The materials were generated for the purpose of enabling handlers to assess intelligence and there was no reason to think that the content had been manipulated in any particular way .","The hearsay evidence of PERSON was decisive in the sense that without it the plaintiffs could not succeed against the first applicant .","The applicant had a proper opportunity to investigate the credibility of GPE He had had the advantage of the disclosures which had been made for the purposes of the criminal trial , including the transcript of cross - examinations .","It was recognised that some material might be missing and there was the possibility of human error , having regard to the limited interaction necessary to deal with the encryption of these materials .","In light of the above considerations , the judge was satisfied to a very high standard of probability that the exchanges set out in the emails represented actual traffic that occurred between PERSON and his handlers .","The judge further considered LAW and , in particular , the ORG judgment in PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and ORG , DATE . Although he recognised that this was not a criminal case and the minimum rights set out in LAW were therefore not expressly engaged , he accepted that the entitlement to a fair hearing would often involve consideration of many of the issues identified as minimum rights within LAW and it was therefore necessary to examine whether the admission of the hearsay evidence and the giving of weight to it would render the hearing unfair . In this regard , the judge noted that the guarantee of a fair hearing required observance of the principle of equality of arms and the principle that proceedings as a whole should be adversarial ; in other words , each party had to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that did not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis - \u00e0 - vis his opponent , and be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the evidence adduced by the other party . Nevertheless , the judge noted that in this case the material upon which the plaintiffs relied had long been known to all of the parties . Consequently , the defendants , who had available the disclosure which was made within the criminal trial and the transcript of the extensive cross - examination of D.R. at that trial , had had a proper opportunity to investigate PERSON \u2019s credibility .","In respect of the second question of whether the material was an accurate record of events and conversations , the judge made the following observations :","There was evidence of dishonesty by LAW of financial matters and the fact that he was being paid for intelligence should properly cause the court to exercise caution in relation to the accuracy of this material .","There was , however , overwhelming evidence that ORG account in relation to attendance at meetings and gatherings was accurate \u2013 including evidence from PERSON officers involved in surveillance of the first applicant DATE and he could be confident that the emails represented a reliable record of ORG activities .","The PERSON evidence was strongly supportive of the content of the emails : taken together with the hearsay statement made in the GPE proceedings that the person identified as \u201c PERSON \u201d was in fact the first applicant , the PERSON evidence would appear to confirm that the first applicant had been actively involved in the procurement of terrorist materials , that he had a leadership role in relation to procurement and was a committed terrorist .","The judge was therefore satisfied that he should give considerable weight to the content of the email traffic without offending the first applicant \u2019s fair trial rights under LAW .","The principal evidence against the second applicant was also that of LAW , who had recorded his attendance at meetings of the army council where the second applicant appeared to be in charge . In addition , there was independent telephone evidence which indicated that the drivers on the \u201c bomb run \u201d had phoned the second applicant a number of times on TIME of the GPE bombing .","The judge , having already dealt with the weight to be given to the hearsay evidence of LAW in considering the position of the first applicant , was satisfied that there was also cogent evidence that the second applicant was a member of the army council of ORG at the time of the GPE bomb , and that he held an important leadership position in ORG both at that time and subsequently . He was further satisfied that there was cogent telephone evidence demonstrating that the second applicant had been involved in directing the operation and participating in it .","The judge therefore found both applicants liable in trespass to the plaintiffs . In reaching this conclusion , he described the applicants\u2019 failure to answer the case against them ( the first applicant having elected not to give evidence and the second applicant having not attended the hearing at all , either in person or through representatives \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as \u201c inexplicable \u201d and opined that these failures had made the case against them \u201c overwhelming \u201d .","The quantum of damages was assessed separately for each plaintiff depending on the losses suffered , and included financial awards to reflect dependency ( the loss of financial support from the deceased ) ; bereavement ( a fixed sum of GBP CARDINAL payable for grief and trauma following the death of certain specified family members ) ; psychiatric injury to the surviving relatives ; loss of earnings ; \u201c aggravated damages \u201d to compensate for the injury to feelings flowing from consequences such as the indignity , mental suffering , disgrace and humiliation which may be caused by tortious conduct ; and funeral costs .","The applicants appealed against the judge \u2019s decision on the ground that he had been wrong to conclude that the appropriate standard of proof was the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities . However , ORG found that ORG judge had correctly analysed the authorities and was right to apply the civil standard . A tort was a claim for civil law remedies \u2013 the findings of the court gave rise to no criminal sanctions and would not in themselves assist in any prosecution \u2013 and did not cease to be such because the conduct giving rise to the tort was also criminal .","Counsel for the first applicant also argued that ORG judge had been wrong to attach the weight he did to the evidence of GPE , since evidence had shown him to be a demonstrable confidence trickster who manipulated information at every turn ; that the evidence of the first applicant \u2019s conviction by ORG in GPE should not have been found to be admissible at common law ; and that the judge should not have drawn any adverse inference from the decision of the first applicant not to answer the case against him .","However , ORG observed that the fact that a witness had been demonstrated to be unreliable and , indeed , mendacious and dishonest on important occasions did not mean that everything he said should be discounted as valueless and unreliable . The judge had made it clear that ORG hearsay evidence had to be approached with care . Moreover , he was evidently alive both to the financial motive to lie and exaggerate and to the evidence from PERSON himself which indicated dishonesty in his own financial affairs . Therefore , on a fair reading of the judgment the judge was fully conscious of serious flaws in D.R. as a witness of truth on some issues .","Insofar as the judge had held that the evidence of the first applicant \u2019s conviction by ORG in GPE could be admitted at common law as evidence of bad character , ORG found that he had erred . However , this error did not affect the outcome of the proceedings , as the PERSON evidence had already established that the first applicant was a committed and active terrorist who was willing to participate in serious terrorist crime . The GPE conviction therefore added no material weight to the GPE case against him .","Furthermore , ORG found that in the circumstances of what was a relatively strong prima facie case the judge had been fully entitled to draw an adverse inference from the first applicant \u2019s failure to give evidence . The first applicant had clearly had access to material facts but gave no explanation for his failure to call any evidence or go in the witness box .","The second applicant appealed on the grounds that the judge should have subjected the hearsay evidence to proper scrutiny in the context of the case against him instead of adopting the findings in relation to the case against the first applicant , especially as he had not been a party to the criminal proceedings in GPE and had not , therefore , had an opportunity to cross - examine D.R. ; that the judge had been wrong to make the evidential leap that his alleged use of a particular mobile telephone connected him to the bomb and placed him in a position of control and command ; and that it was wrong of the judge to draw inferences from his absence from the proceedings as he had been unrepresented ( his assets were frozen in GPE by ORG and his legal aid had been revoked ) .","However , ORG found that the judge had been entitled to reach the conclusion that he did in respect of the evidence of FAC While his analysis of the evidence in the context of the first applicant \u2019s case was not of itself determinative of the question whether it was reliable evidence against the second applicant , he had been aware of the relevant considerations in determining the strength and weaknesses of the evidence . Moreover , there was some corroboration as the PERSON had observed the second applicant and LAW together and the telephone evidence also connected him to the bombing . Linking the pieces of evidence together , the judge was justified in reaching the conclusion that he did .","The Court of Appeal further found that the fact the second applicant had declined to testify meant that he had nothing to contradict the evidence against him , which strengthened that evidence even in the absence of any inference which could be drawn .","In a decision dated DATE ORG dismissed the appeals of both applicants .","On DATE the applicants were refused permission to appeal to ORG .","A claim for trespass to the person , which may be brought for a wilful or negligent act of direct force , is classified as a civil action under domestic law . It is tried before a civil court , which does not determine whether a criminal offence has been committed in order to assess liability .","Where liability for trespass to the person is established , the plaintiff is entitled to claim damages to compensate for his or her loss . The general principle underlying the award of damages for tortious acts is to seek to put the plaintiff in the financial position he or she would have been in had the tort not taken place .","The admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings in GPE is governed by ORG Order DATE . LAW provides that in civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay .","Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL contain safeguards relating to the admission of hearsay evidence :","\u201c CARDINAL . \u2014(CARDINAL ) Rules of court may provide that , where a party to civil proceedings adduces hearsay evidence of a statement made by a person and does not call that person as a witness , any other party to the proceedings may , with the leave of the court , call that person as a witness and cross - examine him on the statement as if he had been called by the first - mentioned party and as if the hearsay statement were his evidence in chief .","( CARDINAL ) Without prejudice to any other power to adjourn proceedings , where , in accordance with rules of court made by virtue of paragraph ( CARDINAL ) , the court gives a party leave to call the maker of a statement as a witness , the court may adjourn the proceedings , on such terms as to costs or other matters as it thinks fit , for the purpose\u2014","( a ) of enabling the witness to be brought before the court ; or","( b ) of giving the party concerned a proper opportunity to investigate the statement or the credibility of the witness .","LOC ) In estimating the weight ( if any ) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence .","( CARDINAL ) Regard shall be had , in particular , to whether the party by whom the hearsay evidence is adduced gave notice to the other party or parties to the proceedings of his intention to adduce the hearsay evidence and , if so , to the sufficiency of the notice given .","( CARDINAL ) Regard may also be had , in particular , to the following\u2014","( a ) whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party by whom the evidence is adduced to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness ;","( b ) DATE whether the original statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the matters stated ;","( c ) NORP whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay ;","( d ) whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters ;","( e ) NORP whether the original statement was an edited account , or was made in collaboration with another or for a particular purpose ;","( f ) whether the circumstances in which the evidence is adduced as hearsay are such as to suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162761","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BABAJANOV v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Substantive aspect) (Iran);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Prompt information);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant fled from GPE to NORP because of pressure from the police , who suspected him of anti - constitutional activities in connection with his alleged NORP religious beliefs and practices . He feared , in particular , that if he stayed in GPE , he would face persecution from the ORG authorities , and would eventually be imprisoned and tortured like some of his fellow NORP friends . In support of his allegation of the risk of ill - treatment in GPE , the applicant submitted a copy of a list of persons who had been charged with offences against the ORG . The list had been prepared by ORG \u201c FAC , a non - governmental organisation based in GPE , and included the applicant \u2019s name . According to this document , the applicant was charged under LAW of LAW ( attempting to violently overthrow the ORG \u2019s constitutional order ) . At the top of the document , it was explained that the list had been compiled on the basis of the \u201c Bulletin on ORG prepared by the criminal investigation and counter - terrorism department of ORG of GPE and published in GPE in DATE .","NORP From NORP , the applicant went on to GPE and GPE . In DATE he arrived in GPE , where he settled in GPE . The applicant applied to the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in GPE for recognition as a refugee . He lived in GPE for DATE without experiencing any major problems . In DATE , however , together with some other NORP asylum seekers who had left their country for the same reasons , the applicant decided to flee from GPE following deportation threats . He claimed that the threats had been a response to certain disagreements with the NORP authorities over their living conditions .","On DATE the applicant entered GPE illegally through PERSON and went to GPE to apply for refugee status at the ORG . Following a preliminary interview , the applicant was referred to the ORG office in GPE . The PERSON office issued him with an asylum seeker certificate . Subsequently , he registered with the GPE police headquarters and started the domestic temporary asylum procedure . Thereafter he was given a temporary residence permit until DATE and was ordered to report to the police CARDINAL times a week for signature . It appears that the other NORP asylum seekers who had fled GPE together with the applicant were granted similar certificates and permits after following the same procedural steps .","On an unspecified date the PERSON police sent a notice to a number of NORP families requiring them to appear at the police station on DATE . The notice stated that their attendance was required for the distribution of food rations and school stationery .","Although the applicant did not receive such a notice , at TIME on DATE he went to the police station for signature , as part of his DATE routine . Once at the police station , CARDINAL asylum seekers , including the applicant , were placed in detention . Their personal items , including identity documents , money and telephones , were confiscated . They were driven to the border at TIME and forcibly deported to GPE . The applicant was allegedly illtreated and threatened by the police during deportation .","After crossing the border to GPE on foot , the NORP asylum seekers , including the applicant , were captured and held hostage by people smugglers , who demanded MONEY to spare their lives and to release them . The asylum seekers contacted some other NORP who had managed to escape deportation from GPE and obtained the ransom fee . The smugglers made them walk for DATE to PERSON , a town close to the NORP border of GPE , where they were released .","After re - entering GPE illegally , the applicant went back to PERSON together with the other NORP asylum seekers . They requested legal advice from ORG , which , along with CARDINAL NORP non - governmental organisations , published a report on DATE regarding the NORP asylum ORG collective expulsion . It was argued in the report , inter alia , that the expulsion of the NORP by ORG authorities , despite their valid residence permits , had had no legal basis . It was also alleged that the expulsion had been motivated by political considerations to improve relations with GPE , which had been strained following the acceptance by GPE of members of NORP opposition groups , such as the applicant , as asylum seekers in DATE .","On DATE a number of NORP asylum seekers , who had previously been deported to GPE on DATE , were collected from their homes by police officers from the GPE police headquarters . TIME , they were deported to GPE once again . The applicant , however , escaped this deportation by pure chance , as the police did not have his correct home address .","The deportation of the applicant and the other NORP nationals was brought to the attention of the national and international public through press releases from various NGOs and the ORG . In particular , CARDINAL human rights and refugee rights organisations , including ORG , issued a press release in which they condemned the forced illegal deportation of the applicant and the other NORP nationals to GPE . Likewise , a NORP parliamentarian issued a press release within the ORG and criticised the removal as well as the existing refugee protection system in GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s representative sent letters to , inter alia , ORG of ORG , ORG of the GPE office and ORG .","On DATE the head of ORG of the ORG of GPE replied to the applicant \u2019s representative that ORG had informed the ORG , in a letter dated DATE , that the applicant had been deported to GPE , a safe third country , in compliance with the legislation in force .","In his reply dated DATE , in his capacity as head of ORG of the GPE office , the Deputy Governor of PERSON informed the applicant \u2019s representative that the applicant and the other deportees had been removed to GPE in compliance with the legislation in force and that GPE was a safe third country where the applicant had lived before he had arrived in GPE in DATE .","On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant \u2019s representative , informing him that the ORG had learned that the applicant , along with a number of other NORP nationals , had been illegally deported to GPE and that the applicant \u2019s asylum claim was under review . The ORG also informed the applicant \u2019s representative that on CARDINAL DATE they had sent a letter to the NORP authorities requesting the latter to take the necessary measures to grant the applicant and other NORP nationals who had been deported on DATE residence permits with a view to legalizing their status in GPE pending the completion of the procedures with regard to their cases .","Since DATE , the applicant has been living in GPE in hiding and his application for refugee status under the mandate of the ORG is still under consideration . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE he was interviewed by officers from the ORG \u2019s GPE office regarding his application for refugee status . He has not received any information from the NORP authorities as to his request for asylum . The applicant can not approach the NORP authorities to apply for asylum or to obtain a temporary residence permit for fear of being deported to GPE , like the other NORP asylum seekers who were deported once again to GPE in DATE . Moreover , he can not appoint a lawyer to undertake the necessary legal and procedural actions on his behalf before the domestic authorities as he does not possess the necessary identity documents required to issue a power of attorney before a notary public .","When the applicant applied for asylum in GPE in DATE , he informed the authorities that he had been granted refugee status in GPE by the ORG . His application was registered and he was asked not to leave the city of PERSON .","On DATE the applicant left PERSON and returned there on CARDINAL DATE . He subsequently repeated his asylum request .","On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s asylum request was assessed in the light of LAW , LAW , LAW and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the national legislation . He was subsequently deported to GPE , a safe third country , where he was recognised as a refugee by the ORG . According to a document signed by CARDINAL police officers and CARDINAL military officer , submitted by the Government , CARDINAL NORP and NORP nationals , including the applicant , were deported on DATE .","According to the ORG , the applicant was not deprived of his liberty . Moreover , his identity documents were not confiscated .","The applicant complained under LAW , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention that he had been unlawfully deported to GPE on DATE without an individual assessment of his situation and claims , and whilst he was legally residing in GPE , and that he had not been informed of the decision to deport him to GPE on DATE and , thus , had had no effective domestic remedies to challenge it .","The Government submitted that the applicant \u2019s claims were not substantiated .","The ORG considers that this part of the application should be examined under LAW alone . However , having regard to its reasoning which led it to conclude LAW was breached in the present case , the ORG finds nothing that would justify a separate examination of the same facts from the angle of LAW of the Convention . It therefore deems it unnecessary to rule separately on either the admissibility or the merits of the applicant \u2019s complaints under this head ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144139","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BAKA v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Just satisfaction reserved","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Baka;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , after DATE of service ( DATE ) as a judge at ORG and , subsequently , DATE service as a member of ORG , the applicant was elected by ORG , by decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( VI.CARDINAL ) OGY , as President of ORG for a DATE term , until DATE .","In that capacity , the applicant not only performed managerial tasks but also had a judicial role , presiding over deliberations on uniformity issues and guiding decisions . He was also President of ORG . This second function was added to the tasks of the President of ORG in DATE by ORG LXVI of DATE ) . As the head of ORG , the applicant was under an explicit statutory obligation to express an opinion on parliamentary bills that affected the judiciary , after having gathered and summarised the opinions of different courts via ORG .","On DATE ORG of the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of ORG unanimously elected the applicant President of the Network for a DATE term ( from DATE ) .","NORP In DATE the alliance of GPE \u2013 PERSON ( GPE \u2013 Hungarian Civic Union , hereinafter \u201c FAC \u201d ) and ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) obtained a CARDINAL parliamentary majority and undertook a programme of comprehensive constitutional reform . Thereafter , the applicant spoke up several times in order to express his views on the integrity and independence of the judiciary . In his professional capacity as President of ORG and ORG , the applicant expressed his views on CARDINAL issues : the Nullification Bill ; the retirement age of judges ; the amendments to LAW ; and ORG Bill .","Firstly , LAW ( subsequently LAW of DATE ) sought to redress convictions relating to the crowd dispersion in DATE . The applicant criticised the manner in which that goal would be achieved , namely by reopening final judgments and annulling through legislation certain judicial decisions . On DATE the applicant \u2019s spokesman explained to the ORG newspaper that , in the applicant \u2019s view :","\u201c the PERSON ordering the annulment of some judicial decisions delivered in relation to the DATE riots gives cause for concern , because it violates the right of judges to freely assess evidence . This is a serious constitutional problem . ... the judiciary is examining the PERSON only from a professional point of view and distances itself from any kind of political debate . PERSON [ the applicant ] , President of ORG , hopes that ORG will choose a legal technique that eliminates the problem of unconstitutionality \u201d .","On DATE , DATE after the adoption of ORG ( PERSON MP , Chairman of the LAW , ORG and ORG at the relevant time ) , responded to the critiques of the judiciary in a press conference , where he declared : \u201c The adopted legal solution was said to be unfortunate . Now , I myself find it unfortunate if a member of the judiciary , in any position whatsoever , tries to exert influence over the legislative process in such a way \u201d .","Secondly , in relation to the proposal to reduce the mandatory retirement age of judges ( from DATE to the general retirement age of QUANTITY ) in LAW , on DATE court presidents , including the applicant , addressed a letter to different actors in the constitutional process ( the President of the Republic , the Prime Minister , the Speaker of ORG ) in which they pointed out the possible risks to the judiciary posed by that proposal . Their concern was that by abolishing the possibility for judges to remain in office until DATE , the proposed rule would force CARDINAL of NORP judges ( CARDINAL persons ) to end their careers unexpectedly in DATE . In TIME of DATE ( the day of the vote on the proposals for amendment ) , the applicant addressed a letter to the Prime Minister in which he stressed that the proposal was humiliating and professionally unjustifiable ; it infringed the fundamental principles of independence , status and irremovability of judges ; and it was also discriminatory , since only the judiciary was concerned . He added as follows :","\u201c It is , however , unacceptable if a political party or the majority of ORG makes political demands on the judiciary and evaluates judges by political standards . \u201d","DATE , ORG adopted the above - mentioned proposal ( see Relevant domestic law below ) .","On DATE the plenary session of ORG , the applicant in his capacity as President of ORG , as well as the presidents of regional and county courts addressed a communiqu\u00e9 to the NORP and ORG public , pleading for the autonomy and independence of the judiciary and criticizing the new mandatory retirement age for judges . The relevant extracts from the communiqu\u00e9 read as follows :","\u201c According to the proposal , the mandatory retirement age of judges will be reduced by DATE as of DATE . As a result , the tenure of CARDINAL judges ( among them CARDINAL judges responsible for court administration and professional supervising ) will be terminated DATE , without any transition period , due to the fact that they will have turned DATE . By DATE a further CARDINAL judges will have to terminate their career . As a consequence of this decision the timeliness of judicial proceedings will significantly deteriorate ( reassignment of CARDINAL cases will be necessary , which may even cause several years\u2019 delay in the judicial proceedings of CARDINAL of clients ) . The administration of courts will be seriously hindered since the replacement of CARDINAL of retiring judges is extremely difficult .","The multiple effect of the forced pensioning off , without any real justification , of highly qualified judges , who have DATE of experience and practice , and most of whom are at the apex of the hierarchy , will fundamentally shatter the functioning of the court system \u2013 leaving aside other unforeseeable consequences . Moreover , the proposal is unfair and humiliating with respect to the persons concerned , who took an oath to serve GPE and to administer justice and who devoted their life to the judicial vocation .","It is incomprehensible why the issue of the retirement age of judges is worth regulation in LAW . There is CARDINAL answer : by including it in LAW , there will be no chance to contest this legal rule , which violates the fundamental principles of a democratic state governed by the rule of law , before ORG .","Such an unjustified step insinuates a political motivation . \u201d","Thirdly , on DATE , PERSON on the amendment of certain legislation concerning judicial procedure and the judicial system ( including LAW ) was submitted to ORG . At the applicant \u2019s request , ORG of ORG prepared an analysis of the PERSON , which was communicated to Members of ORG . As no substantive changes were made to the PERSON ( enacted on DATE as Act LXXXIX of DATE ) , the applicant decided to challenge the LAW before ORG on grounds of unconstitutionality and violation of obligations enshrined in international treaties , making use of that prerogative for the first time in NORP history . ORG , in its decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL.(XII.CARDINAL . ) AB of DATE , established the unconstitutionality of the impugned provisions and quashed them ( notably , the provision concerning the Attorney General \u2019s right to establish court competence by derogation from default statutory rules ) .","Lastly , the applicant expressed his views in a parliamentary debate on CARDINAL new Cardinal Bills : ORG PERSON ( no . T\/CARDINAL ) and ORG PERSON ( no . PERSON ) . According to the explanatory memorandum to the Bills , it was proposed that ORG be abolished and replaced by ORG and ORG . The purpose of those proposals was to separate judicial and managerial functions , which had been \u201c unified \u201d in the person of the President of ORG , who was at the same time president of ORG . The proposed reform sought to concentrate the tasks of judicial management in the hands of the president of the new ORG , while leaving the responsibility for overseeing the uniform administration of justice with the president of ORG ( renamed with the historical appellation \u201c GPE \u201d ) . On DATE , the applicant addressed a detailed analysis of ORG , taking account of the comments received from judges throughout the country . He also decided to express his opinion directly before ORG , in accordance with LAW CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( IX.CARDINAL ) OGY on the Rules of ORG . In his speech , delivered on DATE , the applicant raised his concerns about the fact that the draft legislation did not address the structural problems of the judiciary , but left them to the discretion of the chief executive of an external administration ( the president of the new ORG ) , to whom excessive and , in LOC , unprecedented powers were being conferred without adequate accountability .","LAW DATE established that the highest judicial body would be the PERSON ( the historical NORP name for ORG ) .","On DATE , in an interview on ORG , the ORG Secretary of ORG , PERSON , MP , declared that under ORG Bill ( no . T\/CARDINAL ) , the new GPE would have the same function as the current ORG and that only ORG name would change . He said that the legislation \u201c will certainly not provide any legal ground for a change in the person of the Chief Justice \u201d . DATE , on DATE , during a debate on LAW , another PERSON politician , PERSON , MP , had declared on Infor\u00e1di\u00f3 that the President of ORG would remain the same and that only the name of the institution would change .","On DATE , PERSON submitted a PERSON ( no . PERSON ) to ORG proposing an amendment to LAW . The amendment sought to provide that ORG would elect the president of the GPE by DATE at the latest .","On DATE , MPs PERSON and PERSON , ORG and ORG party leaders respectively , submitted a PERSON ( no . PERSON ) to ORG on the transitional provisions of LAW GPE . Under LAW the legal successor of ORG and ORG would be the GPE for the administration of justice , and the President of ORG for the administration of the courts . Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , the mandates of the President of ORG as well as of the President and members of ORG would be terminated upon the entry into force of LAW . The reasoning of the PERSON stipulated that it provided comprehensive regulation of the succession of ORG , ORG and their President . The successor ( body or person ) would be different according to the different nature of the separated functions . Having regard to the modifications of the court system , the PERSON provided that the mandates of the President of ORG currently in office , as well as that of the President and members of ORG , would be terminated upon the entry into force of LAW .","NORP In order to bring other legislation into line on this issue , on CARDINAL DATE a ORG MP , PERSON ORG , submitted an amendment to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG Bill . The amendment sought to terminate the mandates of the members and President of ORG as well as those of the President and Vice - President of ORG upon the entry into force of LAW .","On DATE ORG enacted both ORG Bill ( as Act CLXI of DATE ) and LAW ) PERSON ( as LAW of DATE ) , the content of which is described above . LAW was adopted without amendment on DATE and published ( as Transitional Provisions of LAW ) in ORG on DATE . The date of the entry into force of LAW was scheduled for DATE .","The applicant \u2019s mandate was terminated on DATE , DATE before its normal date of expiry .","NORP In order for a new president to be elected to the GPE in due time , LAW of DATE , adopted on DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) entered into force on DATE . On DATE , ORG Bill was amended with the introduction of a new criterion for the election of the new president of the GPE . It provided that he or she would be elected by ORG from among the judges appointed for an indeterminate term , having served DATE as a judge ( section CARDINAL ) of Act CLXI of DATE see Relevant domestic law below ) . On DATE , the President of the Republic proposed that ORG elect PERSON as President of the GPE and PERSON as President of ORG . On DATE , ORG elected those candidates in accordance with the proposal of the President of the Republic .","The applicant is serving as a judge of the new GPE ( civil section ) . According to the internal regulation on press contacts at the GPE , he is no longer entitled to express his opinions freely , as the giving of interviews is subject to prior consent by the President of the GPE .","NORP The premature termination of the applicant \u2019s mandate has also had pecuniary consequences . Firstly , he has lost the remuneration and other benefits ( social security , presidential residence , personal protection ) to which a president of ORG is entitled throughout the period of the fixed presidential term . Secondly , outgoing presidents of ORG had the statutory right to certain benefits ( an allowance for DATE following the termination of his or her mandate , an office and a secretariat with CARDINAL employees for DATE , a pension supplement for life ) of which the applicant was also deprived . LAW DATE dealing , inter alia , with the entitlements of the President of ORG , was repealed as from DATE . Section CARDINAL ) of ORG ( as amended on CARDINAL DATE , in force from DATE ) supplemented this abrogation and stipulated that the repealed legislation would be applied to any former president of ORG only to the extent that he or she was entitled to the allowance specified in sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) ( pension supplement for life ) , if he or she had reached retirement age at the time of the entry of force of the LAW and had requested the allowance .","Since the applicant had not attained retirement age by DATE , he could not claim payment of that post - function benefit .","On DATE , ORG Justice Commissioner PERSON wrote a letter to the NORP authorities raising concerns on the issue of the retirement age of judges . An annex to the letter also raised the issues of the President of the new ORG and the transformation of ORG into the GPE , in particular the early termination of the applicant \u2019s mandate as President of ORG before the end of the regular term . The NORP authorities answered and ORG , on DATE , issued a statement on the situation of GPE .","On DATE , the Commission decided to open \u201c accelerated \u201d infringement proceedings against GPE on , inter alia , the independence of the judiciary . As regards the new mandatory retirement age for judges ( and prosecutors ) , the ORG stated that ORG rules on equal treatment in employment ( Directive CARDINAL ) prohibited discrimination at the workplace on grounds of age . Under the case - law of ORG of the ORG , an objective and proportionate justification was needed if a government were to decide to reduce the retirement age for CARDINAL group of people and not for others . ORG did not find any objective justification for treating judges and prosecutors differently from other groups , notably at a time when retirement ages across LOC were being progressively increased . ORG also asked GPE for more information regarding the new legislation on the organisation of the courts . In its press release IP\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , the ORG stated as follows :","\u201c [ u]nder the law , the president of a new ORG concentrates powers concerning the operational management of the courts , human resources , budget and allocation of cases . ... In addition , the mandate of the former president of ORG , who was elected for DATE in DATE , was prematurely terminated at DATE . In contrast , other former judges of ORG continue their mandate as judges of the new Curia , which has replaced ORG . \u201d","On DATE , the ORG decided to send GPE a reasoned opinion on the measures regarding the retirement age of judges and an administrative letter asking for further clarifications regarding the independence of the judiciary , in particular in relation to the powers attributed to the President of ORG ( powers to designate a court in a given case and the transfer of judges without consent ) .","On DATE , ORG referred the case to ORG of ORG ( case C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . On DATE , ORG declared that by adopting a national scheme requiring the compulsory retirement of judges , prosecutors and notaries when they reach DATE giving rise to a difference in treatment on grounds of age which is not proportionate as regards the objectives pursued \u2013 GPE had failed to fulfil its obligations under ORG CARDINAL of DATE , which established a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation . The court observed that the categories of persons concerned by the provisions at issue benefited , until their entry into force , from a derogation allowing them to remain in office until DATE , which gave rise , in those persons , to a well - founded expectation that they would be able to remain in office until that age . However , the provisions at issue abruptly and significantly lowered the age - limit for compulsory retirement , without introducing transitional measures to protect the legitimate expectations of the persons concerned ."],"violated_articles":["10","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179881","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF L\u00d3PEZ RIBALDA  AND OTHERS v. SPAIN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["At the time of the events the applicants were all working as cashiers for ORG , a NORP family - owned supermarket chain .","At DATE the applicants\u2019 employer noticed some irregularities between the supermarket stock levels and what was actually sold on a DATE basis . In particular , the shop supervisor identified losses in excess of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE , ORG DATE , ORG CARDINAL in DATE , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE and ORG CARDINAL in DATE .","NORP In order to investigate and put an end to the economic losses , on DATE the employer installed surveillance cameras consisting of both visible and hidden cameras . The purpose of the visible cameras was to record possible customer thefts and they were pointed toward the entrances and exits of the supermarket . The purpose of the hidden cameras was to record and control possible employee thefts and they were zoomed in on the checkout counters , which covered the area behind the cash desk . The company gave its workers prior notice of the installation of the visible cameras . Neither they nor the company \u2019s staff committee were informed of the hidden cameras .","On DATE and DATE all the workers suspected of theft were called to individual meetings . During those meetings the applicants admitted their involvement in the thefts in the presence of the union representative and the company \u2019s legal representative .","Hereafter and for the sake of clarity , the applicants will be referred to as the first , second , third , fourth and fifth applicants ( see the attached ORG ) .","On DATE and DATE the applicants were dismissed on disciplinary grounds : they had been caught on video helping co - workers and customers steal items and stealing them themselves . According to their letters of dismissal , the security cameras had caught them scanning items from the grocery baskets of customers and co - workers and afterwards cancelling the purchases . Security cameras had also caught them allowing customers and co - workers to leave the store with merchandise that had not been paid for .","NORP On DATE the first applicant brought proceedings for unfair dismissal before ORG no.CARDINAL ( hereinafter \u201c the Employment Tribunal \u201d ) . DATE the second applicant brought similar proceedings before ORG in a joint application with the third , fourth and fifth applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In the framework of the proceedings both applicants objected to the use of the covert video surveillance , arguing that it had breached their right to protection of their privacy .","On DATE ORG issued CARDINAL judgments ruling against the applicants , declaring both dismissals fair . The main evidence supporting the fairness of their dismissals was the recordings resulting from the covert surveillance , as well as the witness statements of co - workers dismissed for their involvement in the thefts , the shop manager , the union representative and the company \u2019s legal representative .","The Employment Tribunal found in both judgments \u2013 as regards these CARDINAL applicants in DATE that the use of covert video surveillance in the workplace without prior notice had been in accordance with LAW ) , which allowed an employer to use monitoring and surveillance measures which he or she deemed appropriate to verify that an employee was fulfilling his or her employment duties , as long as the employer respected \u201c human dignity \u201d . This had been confirmed by ORG in several judgments ( see , among other authorities , judgment CARDINAL of DATE ) . According to ORG case - law , an employer \u2019s right to adopt organisational arrangements and act as a disciplinary authority had to be weighed against an employee \u2019s fundamental right to privacy recognised under LAW . In cases where there were substantiated suspicions of theft , special circumstances justified interference with an employee \u2019s right to privacy , which was considered to be appropriate to the legitimate aim pursued , necessary and proportionate . Following this case - law , ORG , having regard to the evidence before it , found that the employer had had sufficient grounds to conclude that the applicants\u2019 conduct amounted to a \u201c breach of contractual good faith and abuse of trust \u201d and thus declared both dismissals fair in conformity with LAW .","The applicants appealed before ORG GPE on DATE respectively . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the court upheld both first - instance judgments , referring to ORG case - law and endorsing ORG finding that the defendant party had been authorised to carry out the covert video surveillance of the cash desks . While acknowledging that it was possible that the employer could face an administrative sanction for not informing its employees and the staff committee in advance of the installation of the cameras , that fact alone had no relevance from a constitutional point of view , since from that perspective the covert video surveillance had been justified ( in that there had been reasonable suspicions of theft ) , appropriate to the legitimate aim pursued , necessary and proportionate . Consequently , their dismissals had been justified on the same grounds as already stated by ORG .","The applicants brought cassation appeals , which were declared inadmissible on CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively . Ultimately the applicants lodged amparo appeals with ORG , which were declared inadmissible on DATE and DATE respectively , due to the \u201c non - existence of a violation of a fundamental right \u201d .","On DATE and DATE the applicants were dismissed on disciplinary grounds : they had been caught on video helping co - workers and customers steal items and stealing them themselves . According to the employer , the security cameras had caught the third applicant scanning items from the grocery baskets of customers and co - workers and afterwards voiding the receipts . Security cameras had also caught her allowing customers or co - workers to leave the store with merchandise that had not been paid for . As regards the fourth and fifth applicants , security cameras had caught them stealing goods with the help of their co - workers , such as the second applicant .","On DATE that they were dismissed all CARDINAL applicants signed a document called a \u201c settlement agreement \u201d ( acuerdo transaccional ) , by which they committed themselves not to bring proceedings against their employer for unfair dismissal , while the employer committed itself not to bring criminal charges against them for theft . In the meetings CARDINAL union representative and the company \u2019s legal representative were also present .","NORP Despite the settlement agreements , on DATE the applicants , together with the second applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , brought proceedings for unfair dismissal before ORG . According to the applicants , the settlement agreements had to be declared void . They claimed that the consent they had given was not valid , since they had been under duress at the time they had signed the settlement agreements ( a company representative had allegedly threatened to bring criminal proceedings against them if they did not sign the agreements ) . They also argued that the evidence derived from the covert video surveillance had been obtained illegally .","On DATE ORG ruled against the applicants and declared the dismissals fair . It carefully analysed the settlement agreements signed by the applicants . In particular , it addressed their allegation of invalid consent , finding that there was no evidence proving the existence of any kind of duress or intention to commit a crime ( dolo ) at the time the applicants had signed the settlement agreements . The court concluded that the applicants had signed the settlement agreements freely and voluntarily with the clear purpose of avoiding criminal proceedings for the alleged thefts they had been accused of ( and to which they had already confessed ) . Further evidence as to the lack of any threat or coercion was the fact that other employees in the same situation as the applicants ( such as the first and second applicants ) had refused to sign the settlement agreements . Accordingly , the settlement agreements were declared valid under LAW and , consequently , ORG ruled against the third , fourth and fifth applicants . As the signing of the settlement agreements rendered their dismissals fair , the use and analysis of the impugned videos as evidence in the proceedings was deemed unnecessary .","The applicants appealed before ORG GPE on DATE . On DATE it upheld the first - instance judgment and endorsed ORG finding that the settlement agreement signed by the applicants was valid . The court also analysed , for the sake of clarity , the legality of the covert video surveillance . Referring to ORG case - law , it confirmed that the defendant party had been authorised to carry out the covert video surveillance on the applicants .","The applicants brought a joint cassation appeal , which was declared inadmissible on DATE . Ultimately , they lodged a joint amparo appeal with ORG , alleging a violation of ORG DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW . It was declared inadmissible on DATE due to the \u201c non - existence of a violation of a fundamental right \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184634","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"ALI v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr A. GPE , who withdrew from the case on DATE , Mr H. PERSON , and Mr PERSON , lawyers practicing in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their successive former Agents , most recently Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant entered into a share - purchase agreement ( \u201c the SPA \u201d ) with ORG , a company incorporated under the laws of GPE ( \u201c the GPE company \u201d ) . By the terms of the ORG , the applicant acquired , for MONEY ( ORG ) , a PERCENT stake in ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the tobacco company \u201d ) , a company co - founded by the ORG company and incorporated under NORP law . PERCENT of the shares were owned by PERSON . ( \u201c the minority shareholder \u201d ) .","The applicant and Mr Y.A.L. , a duly authorised representative of the ORG company , both arrived in GPE in TIME of DATE with the specific purpose of signing the LOC . At FAC they were welcomed by Mr GPE , a friend of the applicant , Mr PERSON , a lawyer then authorised to act on behalf of the tobacco company and subsequently implicated in the unconfirmed allegations of and criminal proceedings related to the fabrication of a power of attorney on the applicant \u2019s behalf ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , and PERSON . , a notary public registered in GPE ( \u201c the first notary public \u201d ) .","Without leaving the airport building , the applicant and Mr ORG signed the ORG which was then certified by the first notary public . In addition , the notary certified a power of attorney by which Mr Y.A.L. was authorised to represent the applicant and to sign official documents on his behalf .","On DATE , a certain Mr GPE ceded to the applicant his claim against the tobacco company with a value of GPE CARDINAL ( approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The contract did not stipulate any obligations on the applicant \u2019s behalf in exchange for the said cession .","On DATE Mr A.Y. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) instituted proceedings against the applicant before FAC , indicating PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as the applicant \u2019s representative .","Mr GPE claimed that on DATE he had entered into an agreement with the applicant according to which the former had ceded to the latter a claim to the tobacco company with a value of ORG ( EUR CARDINAL ) . He further asserted that in exchange for the cession , the applicant should have paid him \u201c a certain amount of money \u201d by DATE . Owing to the applicant \u2019s alleged failure to perform that obligation , PERSON GPE demanded the annulment of the agreement of DATE and the restoration of the situation existing before the alleged breach of the contractual duty .","At the main hearing of DATE Mr PERSON ( \u201c the applicant \u2019s alleged representative \u201d ) presented a power of attorney authorising him to represent the applicant ( \u201c the power of attorney \u201d ) . The document was dated DATE and indicated the handwritten name \u201c PERSON \u201d together with the alleged signature of the applicant . It was certified by a notary public , PERSON ( \u201c the second notary public \u201d ) .","During the hearing of DATE , PERSON raised the value of his claim to CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . Neither the revised nor the original claim contained any reference to supporting documentation . The applicant \u2019s alleged representative acknowledged the debt allegedly owed by the applicant to Mr GPE At the suggestion of Judge PERSON , the parties agreed to settle the case . As per the friendly settlement agreement , the applicant \u2019s alleged representative agreed to transfer the ownership of PERCENT of the shares in the tobacco company to Mr GPE The settlement was endorsed by LOC in a decision of DATE ( \u201c the decision of DATE \u201d ) .","Judge PERSON issued a writ of enforcement immediately , despite the statutory appeal period of DATE and on DATE Mr A.Y. was listed in ORG as the owner of PERCENT of the shares in the tobacco company .","On DATE a purchase agreement was concluded between Mr A.Y. and the minority shareholder of the tobacco company ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) whereby the latter acquired the former \u2019s shares in the tobacco company by means of cancelling an outstanding debt stemming from a contract concluded between them on DATE . The minority shareholder consequently became the PERCENT shareholder of the tobacco company .","The property in question became the subject of various subsequent transactions among third parties . In DATE the applicant obtained an extract from ORG revealing that the minority shareholder had sold PERCENT of shares in the tobacco company to a certain ORG , a company registered in GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an interlocutory complaint against the decision of DATE on account of not having been summoned to the hearing and having been represented by an unauthorised person based on a forged power of attorney . He argued that he had become aware of the dispute only on DATE .","On DATE the complaint was declared inadmissible by Judge PERSON The judge noted that there was no need to summon a party if a duly authorised representative were present . Additionally , the decision had become res judicata and no interlocutory appeal lay against it .","On DATE the examination of the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE was stayed on account of the non - payment of the court fees and he was asked to correct the error .","On DATE the appeal was left unexamined owing to the failure to pay the court fees . The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against that decision arguing that he had given the necessary sum to his representative who , for an unknown reason , had apparently failed to proceed with the payment . It does not appear that the applicant instituted criminal proceedings against the representative on that account . The applicant requested that the decision of DATE be quashed and that the examination of his complaint continue .","As a result of several interlocutory appeals and decisions , on DATE ORG remitted the case to the appellate court to consider the admissibility of the applicant \u2019s interlocutory appeal against DATE decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the appellate court considered the interlocutory appeal lodged against its DATE decision and found it inadmissible . The court noted that the applicant had failed to pay the court fees at the time his appeal was lodged ; nor had he done so after receiving the court \u2019s notice and a deadline to correct the procedural error . The reason advanced by the applicant to justify the failure , namely that he had personally paid the sum to the representative , who had allegedly failed to execute the payment , was not considered a valid justification for the procedural shortcoming .","On DATE in a final decision ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint against the decision of CARDINAL DATE as inadmissible . It reasoned that the applicant had not alleged a violation of procedural rules by the lower courts in rejecting his interlocutory appeal and that his argument concerning the alleged misappropriation of the court fees by his representative was not valid grounds to set the domestic courts\u2019 decisions aside .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with FAC to have the final decision of DATE quashed and the proceedings reopened owing to the court \u2019s failure to ensure the attendance of a party , as provided by LAW ( b ) of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Relying on a private forensic report dated DATE he further argued that the power of attorney presented by PERSON had been forged .","On DATE the first - instance court found the application inadmissible . It reasoned , among others , that the application to have the decision of DATE quashed had been time - barred . It referred to the DATE time - limit under LAW of the ORG , which had started to run after the applicant had become aware of the grounds for his application . The court found that , in view of the applicant \u2019s interlocutory proceedings on the matter instituted on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he had become aware of such grounds well before the lodging of his application on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s interlocutory complaint against the decision of DATE was declared inadmissible .","On DATE the NORP ORG , sitting as a court of final instance , upheld the lower court \u2019s findings and declared the application inadmissible as time - barred .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG for the annulment of the purchase agreement of DATE by which Mr GPE had sold a PERCENT interest in the tobacco company to the minority shareholder in exchange for having his outstanding debt cancelled ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He argued that Mr A.Y. had not been authorised to manage the property , which he had got hold of illegally , and that the impugned agreement had been based on a fraudulent power of attorney .","After a series of decisions on procedure , jurisdiction , and postponements , the court of first instance dismissed the application on DATE . It found that the criminal proceedings which had been terminated on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had not confirmed the forging of the impugned power of attorney . That decision of the prosecuting authorities had been upheld by the first - instance and appellate courts on DATE and DATE respectively ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , the purchase agreement had been concluded by the lawful owner of the property [ Mr GPE ] , rendering the applicant \u2019s complaint unfounded . The applicant appealed on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was asked by the appellate court to indicate the value of his claim and to pay the court fees accordingly . The latter requested that the value be designated as indeterminate . The appellate court indicated to the applicant that the interest underlying the impugned contract was determined and the court fees amounted to PERCENT of that sum , capped at CARDINAL NORP laris ( GEL ) .","Eventually , on DATE , after sending the applicant a final warning concerning the consequences of non - payment of the court fees to the amount of GEL CARDINAL , and in the absence of further information from the applicant , ORG left the appeal unexamined .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL applications for damages against Mr PERSON , Ms GPE . , Mr GPE , Mr GPE ( the latter \u2019s lawyer ) , and the minority shareholder ( Mr A.Ts . ) , as well as the tobacco company . It appears from the case - file and the applicant \u2019s submissions before the ORG , that these were subsequently abandoned in favour of his third application ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , the applicant lodged a third application for damages in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by criminal activities . The claim was based on the verdict of CARDINAL DATE reached as a result of the plea - bargain agreement between PERSON and Ms K.Ch . ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant applied for an exemption from the court fees under LAW ( c ) of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the application of DATE owing to the absence of a final conviction in a criminal case , as the criminal proceedings had been reopened ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision on the same grounds .","On DATE ORG asked the applicant to pay the court fees to have his appeal on points of law considered . On DATE the applicant submitted to the court a statement claiming exemption from the court fees under LAW ( c ) of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG ruled that the applicant was not entitled to the exemption owing to the absence of a final conviction in a criminal case and ordered the applicant to pay the fees within DATE . It does not appear that the applicant attempted to either comply with that decision or challenge it . His appeal on points of law was therefore left unexamined owing to the failure to pay the court fees .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG , asking it to quash the decision of DATE and to reopen the civil proceedings under LAW ( a ) and ( c ) and QUANTITY of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in view of newly discovered circumstances . As such , the applicant referred to the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE , reached as a result of the plea - bargain agreement between Mr PERSON and PERSON . in relation to the falsification of the power of attorney of DATE that had enabled PERSON to cede the applicant \u2019s property on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application . It referred to the relevant criminal proceedings on the matter and reasoned that the decision to close the criminal case had become final on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , considering the absence of a crime confirmed by a final judgment , the grounds to reopen the case under LAW ( a ) and ( c ) did not exist .","On DATE the ORG upheld , in a final decision , the lower court \u2019s finding on the same grounds .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the finance police , the agency responsible for investigating financial crimes , and ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . He reported that he had never given Mr PERSON any authority to represent him and that the power of attorney presented to LOC on DATE had been forged .","On DATE the finance police opened a criminal case concerning the allegation of fraud and misappropriation of the applicant \u2019s shares in the tobacco company . Various witnesses were questioned in the course of the preliminary investigation .","During the proceedings , several forensic reports were commissioned by the applicant , the investigating authorities , and the defendants concerning the validity of the power of attorney . Specifically , CARDINAL forensic reports were carried out by ORG experts on the initiative of the investigating authorities , CARDINAL alternative forensic report was implemented by a private expert institution at the request of the defendant , and another alternative expert report was carried out on the applicant \u2019s initiative . The respective findings are set out below .","On DATE an expert of ORG issued an opinion ( \u201c the first ORG forensic report \u201d ) , according to which neither the handwritten name \u201c PERSON \u201d nor the signature made in the name of the applicant on the power of attorney of DATE belonged to the applicant .","On DATE an expert of ORG confirmed ( \u201c the second ORG forensic report \u201d ) the findings of the first forensic report . On DATE , the applicant was recognised as a victim and a civil claimant in the criminal case . The second notary public , PERSON . , was charged and remanded . Mr PERSON was charged as well , but , as his whereabouts were unknown , he was declared wanted by the prosecution .","DATE an alternative expert examination was carried out on PERSON . \u2019s request . The private expert concluded ( \u201c the first alternative forensic report \u201d ) that whilst the signature did not belong to the applicant , the handwritten name \u201c PERSON \u201d did .","On DATE the investigator of the finance police in charge of the criminal case ordered another graphological examination of the signature by a panel of experts from ORG and ORG in view of the findings reached by a private expert in the first alternative forensic report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the forensic examination was conducted by the panel of experts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The experts assessed the authenticity of signatures on the impugned power of attorney and the notary public \u2019s related registry records retrieved from her office . They concluded ( \u201c the third ORG forensic report \u201d ) that whilst the signature did not belong to the applicant , the handwritten name \u201c PERSON \u201d on both , the power of attorney and the notary \u2019s registry records did .","On DATE the ORG issued a ruling declaring the prosecution of PERSON and PERSON . terminated and the criminal case closed in view of the inconclusive evidence . The ruling reasoned , inter alia , that the investigative steps which could have been taken in the course of investigation had been exhausted , as had the possibilities to collect any other evidence .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the ORG \u2019s ruling of DATE and requested the resumption of the investigation which , according to the applicant , had been closed hurriedly and arbitrarily .","DATE . On DATE a NORP forensic expert , following a request by the applicant , produced a forensic report concerning the impugned power of attorney of DATE ( \u201c the second alternative forensic report \u201d ) . It concluded that the applicant was not the author of the impugned signature dated DATE .","On DATE , after the applicant \u2019s complaint of CARDINAL DATE had been examined several times at various court instances , ORG annulled the ORG \u2019s ruling of DATE . It ordered the resumption of the criminal proceedings as the case had been closed hastily .","On DATE , another graphological expert report was ordered and carried out by the authorities . The experts concluded ( \u201c the fourth ORG forensic report \u201d ) that none of the signatures on the impugned power of attorney and in PERSON . \u2019s notary logbook belonged to the applicant . The following day , PERSON and PERSON . were once again charged with fraud .","According to the applicant , on DATE the deputy head of the finance police initiated friendly settlement negotiations between the parties , which failed when the applicant refused to agree to the terms of the settlement . No evidence except for the applicant \u2019s unanswered letter addressed to the finance police on that subject was submitted to the ORG in support of this claim .","On DATE the ORG approved a plea - bargain agreement between the ORG and PERSON and PERSON . As a result of that judicial endorsement of the bargain , Mr PERSON and PERSON . \u2019s guilt became confirmed without a full examination of the merits of the case ( see paragraph DATE above ) . The latter were sentenced to a suspended DATE term of imprisonment , and fined GEL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , in accordance with the terms of the agreement and LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The judgment became final after the statutory DATE time - limit for appeals had elapsed .","On DATE the CARDINAL convicted persons , Mr PERSON and Ms GPE . , lodged an application with ORG for the restoration of the statutory time - limit to appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They first argued that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had only been served on them on DATE . Furthermore , relying on Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure providing for a restoration of a time - limit for appeal based on a valid excuse , they stated that the decision to confess as well as their decision not to appeal in due time had been made under duress as their family had received serious threats by some unidentified persons . In a decision dated DATE the ORG reasoned that Mr PERSON and Ms GPE . had provided valid reasons for the restoration of the time - limit and allowed their application .","On DATE Ms K.Ch . and Mr PERSON lodged an appeal against the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) arguing that the plea - bargain agreement and the related confession had not been a result of their free will but of duress . They maintained that their family had received serious threats from unidentified persons .","On DATE ORG granted the application lodged by PERSON . and Mr PERSON The court heard PERSON . and Mr PERSON who noted that at the time of concluding the plea - bargain agreements they were detained and did not notify the investigative authorities about the threats , including one to kill PERSON . \u2019s young daughter , due to the fear that their declaration would have resulted in the fatal outcome for their loved ones . The court reasoned that the plea - bargain agreement and the related confession had been obtained under duress and was to be declared invalid as not concluded voluntarily . The case was therefore returned to the ORG for examination .","On DATE the ORG declared the prosecution of PERSON PERSON and PERSON . terminated . It reasoned that the findings of the forensic examinations were not consistent as some of them pointed to the applicant \u2019s involvement with the impugned document ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) . The ORG also relied on the statement of an interpreter who confirmed having witnessed the applicant \u2019s signature on the document . Among other witnesses , CARDINAL of applicant \u2019s former representatives noted that the applicant was a fictitious owner of the shares , and that the real person behind him and the shares , Mr ORG helped the applicant find the private expert who would easily confirm the applicant \u2019s version of the events . Another witness , Mr. PERSON , the applicant \u2019s former public relations representative stated that he parted ways with the applicant after becoming aware of some shady arrangements between Mr ORG and the applicant . He also noted that the applicant had never explicitly denied having signed the power of attorney and instead had mentioned that at the time he signed numerous documents . The ORG also noted the existence of several domestic court decisions and judgments issued DATE in other sets of proceedings attesting to Mr PERSON \u2019s uncontested representation of the applicant based on the impugned power of attorney as a strong indication of the validity of the document and the applicant \u2019s awareness of its existence for DATE before contesting it in DATE . Finally , statements of the family members of PERSON and PERSON . attesting to the pressure placed upon the latter by unidentified persons to confess to the crime ( concerning which a separate investigation was pending ) were noted . The prosecutor concluded that the body of evidence did not warrant a conclusion concerning the existence of a crime of fraud .","On DATE the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) with ORG against the reopening decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The appeal was rejected as inadmissible both by ORG and ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively on the grounds that the legislation did not provide for a victim \u2019s right to challenge judicial decisions relating to a plea - bargain agreement concluded between the prosecution and an accused . The applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal on this matter was rejected on DATE . ORG reasoned that the legislature \u2019s approach to limiting the right of victims to appeal against plea - bargain agreements was justified by the principle of efficient criminal justice and balanced by enabling the victim to challenge decisions of the investigating and prosecuting bodies before the judicial authorities , a right of which the applicant had availed himself .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the ORG \u2019s ruling to terminate the investigation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court reasoned that no clear evidence had been obtained during the investigation that would confirm the guilt of the CARDINAL accused . It further noted that :","\u201c ... the investigating authorities have correctly assessed the witness statements of [ CARDINAL persons ] that confirmed that Mr PERSON had been aware of the existence of the concerned power of attorney and that it had been signed by him . These arguments are further strengthened ... by the decisions obtained by the investigating authorities from courts of various levels of jurisdiction , according to which Mr PERSON had participated in court hearings as Mr PERSON representative based on the impugned power of attorney . \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal of CARDINAL DATE and upheld , at final instance , the lower court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . The appellate court reasoned that :","\u201c All possible investigative measures were carried out [ by the investigating authorities ] , persons directly ... or indirectly connected with the issuance of the impugned power of attorney were questioned . Several forensic examinations were carried out . ... All evidence available in the case must be assessed in its entirety in the context of whether it is sufficient to reach a conclusion concerning a person \u2019s guilt , [ and ] doubt concerning the authenticity and sufficiency of [ such ] evidence should be decided in favour of the accused ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a disciplinary complaint against Judge PERSON of LOC with ORG , accusing the latter of various violations of procedural law , including the failure to ensure the attendance of a party at the hearing on DATE .","On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE reached the following conclusions :","\u201c Judge PERSON has violated LAW ... as he did not serve the legal claim and the supporting documentation to PERSON .","The Judge has also violated Article CARDINAL [ of the Code ] , given that PERSON , the respondent in the case , was not informed by a court summons , of the time and venue of the hearing or of the decision to terminate the proceedings [ as a result of a friendly settlement ] ... in contravention of Article CARDINAL [ of the ORG ] ...","... Regardless of the scope of the power of attorney , the respondent \u2019s representative can not procedurally turn into a respondent . ...","Accordingly , the disciplinary panel considers that ... Judge PERSON has committed a gross violation of law ... owing to which damage has been inflicted upon a party inasmuch as the latter had been unable to participate in the hearing .","... Having considered the Judge \u2019s actions ... a strict punishment [ such as the removal from the judicial panel ] should be imposed . \u201d","NORP The decision became final after the statutory DATE appeal time - limit elapsed .","The applicant not having been a party to the proceedings , he was neither informed of the decision nor given access to the relevant documents ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The Code of Civil Procedure ( DATE ) , as it stood at the material time , provided as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . [ The following categories of persons ] are exempted from the payment of court fees :","...","c ) applicants in applications [ in respect of damage ] caused by a crime ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . A final judgment may be declared null and void following a request of a concerned party if : ...","b ) CARDINAL of the parties or DATE if the party needed legal representation \u2013 their representative was not summonsed to the hearing .","An application to declare a final judgment null and void based on these grounds is inadmissible if the party could have presented them during the hearing at the courts of first instance , appeal , or cassation . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . A final decision may be subject to a reopening application based on newly discovered circumstances if :","a ) it transpires that the document on which the decision was based had been fabricated ; ...","c ) criminal behaviour of the parties and their representatives or of a judge is established ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . An application to declare a decision null and void ... must be lodged within DATE ... [ T]he renewal of this time - limit is not permitted .","The time - limit starts to run from DATE on which a party becomes aware of the grounds for declaring a decision null and void ...","If an application to declare a decision null and void is based on LAW CARDINAL ( b ) , the time - limit starts to run when a party , or if the latter is legally incapable , their legal representative is informed of the decision . ... \u201d","Under Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , an interlocutory appeal could be lodged regarding different types of decisions defined in the LAW . Among others , LAW provided for the lodging of such an appeal against an immediate enforcement of a judgment . Under LAW of the LAW a party could lodge an interlocutory appeal against a court \u2019s refusal to reinstate statutory time - limits for appeal . LAW CCP ) ( DATE ) provided for a party \u2019s right to lodge an interlocutory appeal against a court \u2019s decision concerning the termination of a preliminary investigation .","DATE . The Act of DATE on Disciplinary Proceedings against ORG ( \u201c the Disciplinary Proceedings Act \u201d ) , as it stood at the material time , provided that disciplinary proceedings against judges could be initiated , among others , on the basis of an application of an individual ( Section CARDINAL ) but the latter was neither a party to the proceedings ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) , nor were they notified of the outcome ( Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .","According to Article CARDINAL of LAW ( DATE ) , it was the domestic ORG discretion to impose a suspended sentence instead of imprisonment , with or without an additional sentence , including in relation to plea - bargain agreements .","Relevant legal provisions of the ORG concerning the nature of and procedure relating to the plea - bargain agreements were summarised by the ORG in the GPE and PERSON v. GPE judgment ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG DATE ( extracts ) ) . The acceptance of the plea bargain entailed the waiver of the rights to an ordinary examination of a case on the merits ( see ibid . , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG as it stood at the material time , provided that a lapsed time - limit for appeal could be reinstated based on a \u201c valid excuse . \u201d Article CARDINAL ) \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ( c ) and CARDINAL provided that if a plea - bargain agreement was concluded under duress , the judgment approving the agreement was annulled and the case was returned to the preliminary investigation for examination . Article CARDINAL ) \u00a7 CARDINAL provided that a review of a final judgment was allowed under common rules , based on newly discovered or newly revealed circumstances ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168863","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TERENINA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The case originated in an application ( no . CARDINAL ) against GPE lodged with ORG under LAW ( \u201c the LAW ) by a NORP national , PERSON ( \u201c the applicant \u201d ) , on DATE .","NORP The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","NORP The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of her detention . She also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .","The application was communicated to ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152247","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BOMAN v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was charged with , inter alia , causing a serious traffic hazard ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 liikenneturvallisuuden vaarantaminen , grovt \u00e4ventyrande av trafiks\u00e4kerheten ) and operating a vehicle without a licence ( ajoneuvon kuljettaminen oikeudetta , olovlig k\u00f6rning ) , both acts having been committed on CARDINAL DATE . The prosecutor requested that , in relation to the charge of causing a serious traffic hazard , a driving ban be imposed .","On DATE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE - fines , amounting to CARDINAL ( ORG ) . A driving ban was also imposed until DATE on the basis of section CARDINAL of the Driving Licence Act of GPE .","No appeal was made against the judgment and it became final .","On DATE the police imposed a new driving ban on the applicant from DATE to CARDINAL DATE on the basis of section CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ( c ) and CARDINAL of the Driving Licence Act of GPE . In their decision the police referred to the fact that on DATE the applicant had been driving a vehicle without a licence and that ORG had convicted him for this by final judgment on DATE .","By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , claiming that he had been tried and convicted twice in the same matter . He referred to LAW .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the driving ban . The court found that ORG had imposed the driving ban for causing a serious traffic hazard whereas the police had imposed it for operating a vehicle without a licence . Therefore , the applicant was not punished twice for the same offence and his rights protected by LAW were not violated .","NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG . He stressed that both the criminal and the administrative proceedings had related to the same facts which had taken place on DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . It found that ORG had imposed the driving ban for causing a serious traffic hazard whereas the police had imposed it for operating a vehicle without a licence . LAW had therefore not been violated . The decision was not unanimous and one of the judges expressed a dissenting opinion . In her opinion , it was not to be ruled out that a driving ban constituted a criminal sanction . Referring to the case GPE v. GPE , she considered that after the applicant \u2019s final conviction by ORG , a new driving ban based on the same facts on the basis of which he had already been convicted could no longer be imposed . Therefore , she would have quashed the police decision as well as ORG decision ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P7-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175683","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"HERAKLEOUS v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , is the widow of PERSON PERSON , who was killed on DATE , while serving in ORG , as a result of an explosion at the ORG naval base near the village of GPE . The second and third applicants , PERSON and PERSON , are their sons . The applicants are NORP nationals and were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They all live in GPE .","The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE at around TIME an explosion occurred on the ORG naval base . This was caused when CARDINAL containers of explosives , mainly gunpowder , burst into flames . These had been stored out in the open on the base since DATE , after being confiscated from a GPE - flagged NORP - owned vessel \u2013 the Monchegorsk , heading from GPE to GPE \u2013 for violation of ORG weapons sanctions . CARDINAL people were killed by the explosion and CARDINAL people were injured . Substantial damage to property was caused and there was significant financial damage and loss .","By an order dated DATE , and pursuant to ORG PERSON . DATE , as amended at the time by LAW . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , ORG appointed a lawyer in private practice , Mr P.G.P , as a CARDINAL - member commission of inquiry ( \u201c the investigator \u201d ) , to look into the explosion and the circumstances which had led to it , as well as potential responsibility for the explosion .","On DATE the investigator submitted an extensive report of CARDINAL pages to the then President of the Republic ( \u201c the President \u201d ) , the President of ORG and the Attorney - General . In this , he stressed that , as an investigator appointed under the relevant law , he did not constitute a disciplinary or judicial authority , nor did he act as a coroner . His duties were purely investigative , and his findings and recommendations were not binding . He could not determine or establish legal or criminal responsibility . Any decisions in respect of possible criminal responsibility leading to a prosecution lay exclusively within the competence of the Attorney - General under LAW , following a police investigation in accordance with his instructions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Decisions as to actual criminal responsibility lay exclusively with the courts . He observed that , in his investigation , he had mainly dealt with possible State and\/or political responsibility ( \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03ad\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\/\u03ae \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c2 \u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03cd\u03bd\u03b5\u03c2 ) . He was of the opinion , however , that although he could not determine or establish criminal responsibility , he had the right and obligation to express general views on the matter .","NORP The investigator , giving detailed reasons for his decision , concluded that both the Minister of Defence and the Minister for ORG had very serious responsibilities , both statutory ( \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03ad\u03c2 ) and personal . However , he found that the main responsibility lay with the President , who was the head of the State and the Government . The President bore the greatest responsibility for the inadequacy ( \u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c0\u03ac\u03c1\u03ba\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1 ) , negligence and remissness ( \u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03b3\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b1 ) that had been shown , and had failed to take care of or at least take basic measures to ensure the security of the citizens of GPE , and in particular that of the soldiers and firemen in question . The fate of the cargo had been decided by the executive , which , headed by the President , had completely failed to take the necessary measures to handle the matter , including keeping the cargo safe in GPE . The investigator pointed out that the President , over and above his state office and his institutional capacity ( \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03cd \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 ) , had undertaken to deal with the dangerous cargo himself , had had ultimate control over it and had been responsible for taking important decisions on the subject . The investigator also emphasised and explained that he referred not only to the President \u2019s statutory and ex officio ( \u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b5\u03be\u2019\u03b1\u03be\u03b9\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 ) political responsibility , but also his significant personal responsibility for the tragic event and its consequences .","His comments concerning criminal aspects were general and did not attribute criminal responsibility to any particular person . He expressed the view that the Attorney - General had a duty to examine the possibility that a number of criminal offences might have been committed , including the offences of manslaughter and causing death by reason of a rash , reckless or dangerous act ( \u03c0\u03c1\u03cc\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b1\u03bd\u03ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03c9 \u03b1\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 , \u03b1\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03ba\u03b5\u03c0\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03ae \u03b5\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03af\u03bd\u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03ac\u03be\u03b7\u03c2 ) under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) .","The applicants submitted that the Attorney - General had publicly stated that the report would be taken into consideration in the relevant police investigations , and that such investigations had in fact been initiated in accordance with his instructions . According to the applicants , the relevant police reports were handed to the Attorney - General towards DATE or DATE , but they contained no reference to the President .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer requested that the Attorney - General seek leave from ORG to lift the President \u2019s immunity from criminal prosecution . It appears that a similar request had already been made to the Attorney - General by the families of some of the other victims . In the above letter , the applicants\u2019 lawyer expressed the view that the relevant acts and omissions of the President had constituted the offence of manslaughter and had been committed during his term of office and in the exercise of his functions , and not in his private capacity , as alleged in the request made by the other families . It appears that both requests remained unanswered .","As the Attorney - General did not take the steps requested , on DATE separate applications were filed by the applicants ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and the relatives of other victims ( applications nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) under the relevant procedural rules ( Rule CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) for leave to commence proceedings in ORG for the interpretation under Article CARDINAL(b ) of the LAW of certain alleged ambiguities in LAW . In the applicants\u2019 application and in application no . CARDINAL , those ambiguities concerned the interpretation of the allegedly vague and imprecise terms \u201c offence involving dishonesty \u201d and \u201c offence involving moral turpitude \u201d in LAW , as well as \u201c any offence committed by him [ the President of the Republic ] in the execution of his functions \u201d in LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , and the conflicting interpretation by the applicants and the Attorney - General concerning the possibility of the President being criminally prosecuted before the end of his mandate for his acts and omissions in his handling in general of the matter of the dangerous explosives . As regards the remaining application ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , this focused on a number of disagreements with the Attorney - General as to the provisions of DATE and its alleged vagueness .","The applications were heard together by ORG ( Full Bench ) , which rejected them on DATE .","In its decision , ORG observed that the applicants maintained that the terms \u201c offence involving dishonesty \u201d and \u201c offence involving moral turpitude \u201d included manslaughter , and that they relied on alleged statements by the Attorney - General that the above terms did not cover this offence . The Attorney - General , however , denied that such statements had any legal consequence , even if they had been made . He could not remember making them . It was also admitted that the letters to him on this point from the plaintiffs had never been answered . The question which arose was whether , even if the Attorney - General had made such statements , this disagreement would constitute a \u201c difference of opinion \u201d within the meaning given to this term by the relevant jurisprudence ( such a difference being a prerequisite for ORG jurisdiction under Article CARDINAL(b ) of the LAW ) . ORG considered that this was not the case . It stated that it was not possible for any citizen who disagreed with another person or an authority , by means of CARDINAL simple disagreement , to create a \u201c difference of opinion \u201d which would satisfy the relevant provisions of the jurisprudence . Accepting such a position , as proposed by the applicants in the applications before it , would amount to recognising in every case an actio popularis . Moreover , accepting to undertake to interpret the LAW in the case would simply and solely be a decision on a difference of opinion which constituted a theoretical question , since it could not lead to any consequence . If and when the Attorney - General decided to prosecute the President , only then would it be possible to raise the question of interpretation , and it would then be the duty of ORG , within the framework of the appropriate procedure , to judge and decide on the content , meaning and legal consequences and effects of the relevant LAW provisions . Otherwise , it was not the duty of ORG to solve theoretical problems and questions which would not themselves have legal consequences . In view of its conclusion about the non - existence of a \u201c difference of opinion \u201d , ORG stated that there was no need to rule on the other preconditions which needed to be satisfied in order for the leave sought to be given .","In the meantime , on DATE the Attorney - General had brought criminal proceedings ( case no . CARDINAL ) against CARDINAL high - ranking officials before ORG : the former Minister for ORG , the former Minister of Defence , the former Deputy Commander of ORG , the Commander of ORG , the Deputy Commander of ORG ( ORG \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 ORG \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 ORG \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 ORG ) , and the Chief of ORG ( \u0395.\u039c.\u0391.\u039a.-\u0395\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae PERSON ) ( \u201c the first , second , third , fourth , fifth and sixth defendants \u201d ) . They were charged with manslaughter and causing death by reason of a rash , reckless or dangerous act under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . They each faced separate charges .","On DATE the ORG gave judgment . The first and third defendants were acquitted ; the second defendant was found guilty of both offences and was sentenced to DATE imprisonment ; the remaining defendants were found guilty of the second offence pursuant to section CARDINAL of PERSON . CARDINAL , but were acquitted of the remaining charges . They received a DATE sentence of imprisonment .","The second , fourth , fifth and CARDINAL defendants lodged appeals against their conviction and sentence before ORG ( appeal nos . CARDINAL , DATE ) . The Attorney - General also filed appeals in so far as the first - instance judgment concerned the first , second , and DATE defendants ( appeal nos . DATE ) . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals lodged by the second , fifth and sixth defendants and the corresponding appeals of the Attorney - General , as well as an appeal lodged by the Attorney - General concerning the acquittal of the first defendant . Further , it upheld the appeal of the fourth defendant against his conviction , acquitting him of all charges . Consequently , it dismissed the appeals against his conviction and sentence .","Under the LAW , the Attorney - General is an independent officer of GPE ) . LAW CARDINAL of the LAW provides that :","\u201c The Attorney - General of the Republic shall have power , exercisable at his discretion in the public interest , to institute , conduct , take over and continue or discontinue any proceedings of an offence against any person in the Republic . Such power may be exercised by him in person or by officers subordinate to him acting under him and in accordance with his instructions . \u201d","Pursuant to LAW , the President enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution during his term of office . However , this is not absolute , the exceptions being high treason and offences involving dishonesty or moral turpitude . The above - mentioned provision provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The President or the Vice - President of the Republic shall not be liable to any criminal prosecution during his term of office except under the provisions of this Article .","The President or the Vice - President of the Republic may be prosecuted for high treason on a charge preferred by the Attorney - General and the Deputy Attorney - General of the Republic before the High Court upon a resolution of ORG carried by a secret ballot and a majority of CARDINAL of the total number of Representatives :","Provided that no such resolution shall be taken and no item shall be entered on the agenda or debated in ORG in connection therewith unless the proposal for such resolution is signed by CARDINAL of the total number of Representatives .","The President or the Vice - President of the Republic may be prosecuted for an offence involving dishonesty or moral turpitude upon a charge preferred by the Attorney - General and the Deputy Attorney - General of the Republic before the High Court with the leave of the President of ORG .","( CARDINAL ) The President or the Vice - President of the Republic upon being prosecuted under paragraph CARDINAL of this Article shall be suspended from the performance of any of the functions of his office and thereupon the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL shall apply .","( CARDINAL ) The President or the Vice - President of the Republic on any such prosecution shall be tried by ORG ; on his conviction his office shall become vacant and on his acquittal he shall resume the performance of the functions of his office .","Subject to paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this Article the President or the Vice - President of the Republic shall not be liable to prosecution for any offence committed by him in the execution of his functions but he may be prosecuted for any other offence committed during his term of office after he ceases to hold office .","No action shall be brought against the President or the Vice - President of the Republic in respect of any act or omission committed by him in the exercise of any of the functions of his office :","Provided that nothing in this paragraph contained shall be construed as in any way depriving any person of the right to sue the Republic as provided by law . \u201d","Under DATE ) of the LAW , in the event of ambiguity , ORG has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret the LAW in any manner , due regard being had to the letter and spirit of LAW of DATE and LAW of DATE .","Pursuant to Rule CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of ORG of DATE , as applied by ORG , when a reference is not made by a court , proceedings under , inter alia , Article ORG ) of the LAW shall be commenced \u201c with the prior leave of ORG , or any CARDINAL judges acting in agreement , applied and obtained for the purpose , and in such manner as it may be directed upon granting such leave \u201d ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164190","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF HARASZTHY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek","text":["NORP The case originated in an application ( no . CARDINAL ) against GPE lodged with ORG under LAW ( \u201c the LAW ) by CARDINAL NORP nationals , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr G\u00e1bor Horn , PERSON , Mr Zolt\u00e1n Pint\u00e9r and Ms M\u00e1ria ORG ( \u201c the applicants \u201d ) , on DATE .","The applicants were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , Agent , ORG .","NORP On DATE the ORG complaints under LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention concerning the imposition of PERCENT tax on their severance payment were communicated to the Government ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142085","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF A.A.M. v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iraq)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johan Hirschfeldt;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and originates from GPE .","The applicant applied for asylum in GPE on DATE . He stated in essence the following in support of his application . He is formally NORP , but does not practise and considers himself to be an atheist . He had a shop in GPE where he had rented out computer games and game consoles . In DATE he had employed a young woman who did not wear a veil . After DATE , on DATE , CARDINAL masked men claiming to be members of PERSON , an NORP branch of ORG , had entered the shop . They had told him that hiring a woman without a veil was against ORG and had required that she leave her job immediately . The applicant had refused their demand and had stated that \u201c if this is ORG , then I am not a NORP \u201d . The woman had quit her job DATE . Still , DATE the applicant had received a letter with a bullet , stating that he had to excuse himself before the emir within DATE or else he would be considered to have left ORG and could be killed . The applicant had refused to apologise . DATE he had received a death threat and had been shot at . Soon thereafter , his shop had been destroyed by a bomb . Through a friend , whose brother had worked for the police , the applicant had been informed that the police were looking for him because they believed that the applicant had destroyed the shop himself to cover up for hiding weapons for terrorists there . His GPE neighbour had later told him that both the police and NORP had come to the GPE apartment to look for him on several occasions . The applicant had then fled to PERSON in GPE , as ORG was less dominant there . Nothing had happened to him in PERSON . After a month there , he had left GPE on DATE . The applicant claimed that he risked being sentenced to death if he returned to GPE , since he had uttered an unacceptable religious opinion in front of local ORG representatives and since he was wanted by the police for alleged cooperation with terrorists . Both ORG and the police were allegedly searching for him all over GPE .","On DATE ORG ( Migrationsverket ) rejected the application and ordered the applicant \u2019s deportation to GPE . The ORG questioned the applicant \u2019s allegations that ORG had been searching for him in his parent \u2019s home and that he was sought by the police for having hidden weapons for terrorists in his shop , because he had submitted this information only very late in the proceedings . In any event , noting that the police accusations were false , ORG did not consider that the risk of being prosecuted could be characterised as persecution that would justify the grant of asylum . However , it accepted the applicant \u2019s claim that his life had been threatened by ORG and that he would thus face a real risk of persecution upon return to GPE . ORG went on to examine the possibility of internal flight and found that the applicant had not made it plausible that he was at risk in all parts of GPE . He was not considered in need of protection in relation to areas of the country where ORG was not strong . ORG noted that , while ORG retained a strong presence in GPE , the security situation in LOC was stable and displaced persons could gain entrance there without a sponsor . Having regard to the general situation and the applicant \u2019s personal circumstances \u2013 including his gender , age , health , religion and ethnicity \u2013 , it further found that he could reasonably relocate to LOC , even if he would lack a social network there . That finding was supported by the fact that he had already stayed in PERSON for a month without encountering any problems .","The applicant appealed , reiterating the claims he had made to ORG .","On DATE ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) upheld the decision of ORG , agreeing generally with its conclusions .","NORP In his appeal to ORG ( Migrations - \u00f6verdomstolen ) , the applicant submitted a copy of an NORP document , purporting to be a warrant for his arrest .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","Subsequently , in DATE , the applicant claimed that there were impediments to the enforcement of his deportation order . He added the following to his story . His family had previously collaborated with PERSON and the new PERSON government therefore considered them to be supporters of PERSON . Several of the applicant \u2019s relatives had been arrested in DATE and were being kept in a secret prison run by the government .","On DATE ORG rejected the petition , finding that no new circumstances justifying a reconsideration had been presented .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . It noted , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s allegation that he was wanted by the police had been examined earlier in the proceedings and that the arrest warrant presented later thus did not constitute a new fact which gave reason to grant him a new examination of his case . The applicant did not appeal against ORG judgment .","In DATE the applicant lodged a further petition for reconsideration , claiming that new important facts had emerged in his case . The petition was rejected on DATE by ORG , which noted that the applicant had not presented anything concrete in support of it . No appeal was made against this decision .","Another petition for reconsideration was submitted later . The applicant now stated that he had been wrongly convicted of terrorism and sentenced in absentia to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . He submitted CARDINAL documents in LANGUAGE , allegedly a copy of an arrest warrant and a copy of the judgment convicting him .","On DATE ORG rejected the petition , again finding that no new circumstances had been presented which justified that the case be reconsidered . It noted that the documents submitted were copies and of a very simple nature and that handwritten text had been added to the judgment . It thus considered that their value as evidence was very low .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG and on DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .","NORP The applicant submitted a fourth petition for reconsideration in DATE . It was rejected by ORG on DATE and by ORG on DATE . The applicant did not appeal against ORG judgment .","A fifth petition was lodged by the applicant in DATE . It was rejected by ORG on an unknown date and by ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184660","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MAZEPA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicants live in GPE . The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant and of FAC , who was born in DATE and died in DATE . The third and fourth applicants are PERSON children .","PERSON was a well - known investigative journalist who made a name for herself covering alleged violations of human rights in GPE committed in the course of the counterterrorism operation in the region , an operation widely known as the \u201c Second Chechen War \u201d . Ms Politkovskaya was also an adamant critic of President PERSON \u2019s politics .","On DATE PERSON was fatally shot in the lift in her block of flats in GPE . A PERSON pistol with a silencer and bullet cartridges were found on the stairs .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE opened a criminal investigation in case no . DATE under LAW ( b ) of LAW ( \u201c murder of a person committed in connection with his or her professional or civic duties \u201d ) . Later , the case was transferred to the department for the investigation of particularly important cases of ORG for investigation .","At an early stage of the investigation investigators inspected the crime scene , collected footage from surveillance cameras located in the vicinity , and examined logs of telephone connections made in the area around the time of the killing .","On DATE forensic experts established that the death had been caused by gunshot wounds to the victim \u2019s head , chest and right leg . On the same date a death certificate was issued .","On DATE the fourth applicant was granted victim status . Later , the third applicant received such status as well .","Seeking to discern the motive for the crime , the investigation studied PERSON critical publications to establish against whom they had been targeted . They also questioned PERSON colleagues , friends and family as witnesses . In the ORG \u2019s submission , as a result of such actions , the investigation established that PERSON had met \u201c a well - known NORP former politician \u201d in GPE , and that unnamed person had proposed that she publish articles \u201c to discredit the leadership of GPE , which she [ had ] refused to do , to his dislike \u201d .","On DATE the Prosecutor General of GPE stated at a press conference that there had been serious progress in the investigation of PERSON \u2019s killing , and that QUANTITY people had been arrested in connection with the investigation . Another official of ORG stated that a certain P.R. had been arrested . On CARDINAL DATE the Tvoy Den\u2019 newspaper ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) published a list of people arrested in connection with PERSON murder , and commented that there were known hitmen among those detained . On CARDINAL DATE a press officer of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) disclosed to the public a list of CARDINAL people detained in connection with PERSON assassination .","In the course of DATE CARDINAL people , ORG , GPE , GPE . and P.R. , were arrested in connection with the assassination . CARDINAL brothers , ORG and GPE , had made phone calls near ORG building ; their car had been seen leaving the area on DATE of the killing . Later , the investigation established that fibres found in their car were identical to those left on the murder weapon . S.Kh . , a police officer , was arrested on the basis of a witness statement by ORG , also a police officer . P.R. was an officer of the ORG ) who had known LAW . for a long time .","NORP In DATE ORG , GPE and GPE . were formally charged with contract killing in conspiracy with others . S.Kh . was regarded as the leader of the organised criminal group . P.R. was charged in the same set of proceedings with abuse of powers and extortion .","At some point ORG , a brother of ORG and GPE whom the investigation suspected to be implicated in the assassination , fled GPE on a forged passport . As appears from the LOC and the ORG \u2019s respective submissions , the forged passport was issued by staff of a department of the interior .","At some point ORG name was put on an international wanted list . On DATE a criminal case against ORG was severed from the case against QUANTITY . , P.R. , GPE and GPE","In DATE the investigators prepared a case against GPE . , P.R. , GPE and GPE to be transferred to a court . The applicants requested that the case file remain with the investigators . In their view , the investigation was incomplete , and sending the case file to a court would be premature . Nevertheless , the case file was transferred to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for a jury trial .","In the course of court hearings in DATE , a highranking officer of ORG of the ORG , was questioned as a witness for the prosecution . He submitted that , acting in his professional capacity , he had organised and conducted surveillance on PERSON shortly prior to her assassination . A certain L .- A.G. was also questioned as a witness .","At an unspecified point in time in DATE , the investigation included a summary of its findings in the case material , which the applicants referred to as a \u201c presentation \u201d . In particular , the summary contained details regarding PERSON , including the fact that she had had NORP nationality . The \u201c presentation \u201d was never shown to the jury .","On DATE , having heard the prosecution and the defence , the jury delivered a not - guilty verdict in respect of QUANTITY . , P.R. , GPE and GPE","On DATE ORG acquitted PERSON , P.R. , ORG and GPE The prosecution appealed . The third and fourth applicants decided not to appeal against the acquittal .","On DATE , in the appeal proceedings , ORG of GPE quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case to ORG for fresh examination .","On DATE the third and fourth applicants requested that ORG remit the case to the prosecutor \u2019s office for further investigation . On DATE ORG dismissed the application . The applicants appealed .","On DATE ORG granted the third and fourth applicants\u2019 application , and the case was transferred to the prosecutor \u2019s office for further investigation .","On unspecified dates the charges against P.R. were dropped ; ORG was indicted .","On DATE PERSON , who had spent some time hiding in GPE , was arrested in GPE .","According to the applicants , at an unspecified point in time a certain PERSON informed them that he had information which was crucial for the investigation , and that he was willing to testify as a witness . At the ORG request , an investigator questioned him . PERSON stated that PERSON was implicated in the murder . According to the ORG , the investigator in charge of the case attempted to find PERSON , but could only gather evidence from him after he had been informed of the witness \u2019s whereabouts in GPE .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered ORG \u2019s placement in custody .","On DATE PERSON entered a guilty plea with the investigating authorities . He claimed that his acquaintances , ORG and QUANTITY . , had proposed that he organise unauthorised surveillance of FAC . ORG had expressed his intention to kill the journalist and had said that PERSON could take part in the preparation for the assassination for a fee , which ORG had accepted . Having received a large sum of money and instructions from ORG , he had bought a pistol with a silencer from a stranger and passed it on to R.M. In the ORG \u2019s submission , ORG had not reported the motives for the killing , but had \u201c mentioned that the crime [ had been ] ordered by a wellknown person living in the GPE \u201d .","On DATE the criminal case against PERSON was severed and a separate investigation was created ; the applicants disagreed with that decision . On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) sentenced PERSON to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The applicants appealed against the judgment , arguing that the sentence was too lenient . On an unspecified date PERSON \u2019s conviction was upheld on appeal .","At some point the case file against LOC . , PERSON , GPE and L.A.G. was transferred to ORG for trial .","On DATE ORG commenced a jury trial of GPE . , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE .- A.G.","On DATE the jury was dismissed for the reason that only CARDINAL jurors out of CARDINAL appeared in the courtroom .","On DATE hearings before a new composition of the jury commenced .","On DATE the jury delivered a verdict finding all CARDINAL coaccused guilty of PERSON murder . They also found ORG guilty of kidnapping a third party in DATE .","On DATE ORG delivered a judgment . It found that ORG had \u201c accepted an offer from an unidentified person who had been dissatisfied with publications by PERSON in ORG concerning violations of human rights , the embezzlement of ORG property , and abuse of public office by civil servants \u201d \u2013 an offer of a fee of MONEY to organise the journalist \u2019s killing . ORG had then involved his nephews , PERSON , and GPE , as well as \u201c a person in respect of whom the criminal case had been severed \u201d and his acquaintance LOC . in the preparation for the killing . On the basis of the jury \u2019s guilty verdict , ORG characterised the murder as one committed by an organised group for a fee in connection with the victim \u2019s performance of her professional and civic duties . It also found that ORG , ORG and FAC were guilty of illegal arms operations . It refused to terminate the proceedings against ORG the events of DATE under the statute of limitations , because the latter had been wanted in connection with those events since DATE , and found him guilty of kidnapping and extortion . ORG sentenced ORG regarded as the organiser of the killing DATE and DATE regarded as the hitman DATE to life imprisonment . ORG and GPE were sentenced to CARDINAL and DATE imprisonment respectively . PERSON . was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . Civil claims by the third and fourth applicants were resolved as follows . The third and fourth applicants were each awarded MONEY ( ( RUB ) \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) to be paid by ORG and ORG respectively , RUB MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) to be paid by GPE . , and RUB CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to be paid by ORG and GPE respectively .","The defendants appealed against the conviction .","On DATE , in the appeal proceedings , ORG of GPE found that the guilty verdict was based on a thorough examination of the evidence . Upholding the conviction as a whole , ORG slightly mitigated the sentence regarding illegal arms operations in respect of L .- A.G. , ORG and FAC However , pursuant to the rules on combining sentences for multiple offences , this did not affect ORG \u2019s and ORG life sentences . PERSON \u2019s term of imprisonment was reduced to DATE .","In the ORG \u2019s submission , the investigation into PERSON killing has not been terminated . They provided copies of ORG judgment of DATE and ORG appeal judgment of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155005","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ISL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ERLA HLYNSDOTTIR v. ICELAND (No. 3)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She is a journalist , working for the newspaper DV .","In DATE the Director of Public Prosecutions issued an indictment against CARDINAL individuals for importing cocaine into GPE . The cocaine had been hidden in a ORG vehicle , where it had been discovered by customs officers . The police had removed the cocaine and put another substance in its place . CARDINAL of the accused , Mr A , had collected the car from customs and had paid customs duties for it . He and the other accused had driven the vehicle to a garage , where the substance had been removed .","The newspaper ORG published an article on DATE on the ongoing criminal proceedings against Mr A and his co - accused before ORG . A picture of PERSON A was published on the front page of the newspaper showing him walking into the courtroom . There was a large headline under the photograph which read \u201c Scared cocaine smugglers \u201d and underneath that it was written that both the accused were afraid of retaliation by their accomplices and had therefore refused to identify them . Mr PERSON name also appeared on the front page , with a report that he and his co - accused could expect prison sentences of DATE and CARDINAL to DATE respectively for removing the substance .","The article itself was reproduced on page CARDINAL of the newspaper and the applicant was identified as its author . Next to the article appeared another photograph of ORG , again using his name . The article stated that Mr A had been afraid to reveal the identity of the man he claimed had actually been behind the importation , and that he feared for his family \u2019s and his own safety . The article contained the following passage :","\u201c The Director of Public Prosecutions is requesting a punishment of DATE ORG imprisonment in respect of [ Mr A ] , who has been indicted for importing QUANTITY of cocaine , intended for sale , together with an unknown accomplice . A punishment of DATE is requested in respect of [ Mr B ] , who is also charged in the case with removing the alleged drug from the vehicle , in cooperation with [ Mr A ] , \u201d .","In the next paragraph it was stated :","\u201c The cocaine was hidden in a vehicle which [ Mr A ] imported into the country and took possession of in DATE , believing that the cocaine was still in the vehicle , but the police had already confiscated the cocaine and replaced it with a decoy drug . \u201d","This sentence was a verbatim rendering of a part of the description of the facts contained in the indictment , without explicit reference being made to that document .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG acquitted both PERSON A and his co - accused of all charges , and on DATE ORG upheld the acquittal .","On DATE Mr A lodged defamation proceedings before ORG against the applicant and Mr S.M.E. , who was the editor of DV at the time . In his writ he requested that the headline ( \u201c Scared cocaine smugglers \u201d ) which had appeared on the front page of the newspaper published by DV on DATE and the passage quoted in paragraph CARDINAL above be declared null and void . In addition , Mr A requested that the respondents jointly and severally be ordered to pay him CARDINAL NORP kr\u00f3nur ( ORG ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and LAW to cover the costs of publishing the judgment in the case in CARDINAL newspapers .","Mr A argued that the responsibility for the statements lay with the applicant as the author of the article , in accordance with section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW no . GPE . No one had been identified as the author of the front - page headline , and therefore the publisher or editor was responsible for it ( see section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the same LAW , at paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found for the applicant and the editor . In its reasoning it referred to the right to freedom of expression and protection of private life , as guaranteed by LAW . It further stated :","\u201c When there is an overlap of the defendant \u2019s aforementioned interest in the enjoyment of freedom of expression and the plaintiff \u2019s interest in the enjoyment of respect for his private life , it must be examined whether the publication of the material , for which the defendants are responsible , can be considered to have taken place in the context of a general public debate and therefore to be of interest to the public . The disputed comments appeared in newspaper coverage of public criminal proceedings in which the plaintiff had been accused of a serious crime . The proceedings were open to the public and to those who wanted to observe , in accordance with the usual practice , and the defendants\u2019 account is in accordance with what was revealed at the proceedings . News reporting of criminal cases being tried before the domestic courts must be considered normal and part of a journalist \u2019s work . It can not be a requirement that news reporting must await the outcome of a trial before publication . It makes no difference that the plaintiff was later acquitted of the charges . It must therefore be held that the published material , at the time it was published , was relevant to the public and was newsworthy . Although the headline on the front page is sensationalist , it has to be kept in mind that it refers to what was revealed during the testimony of the plaintiff in the criminal case , namely that he did not want to reveal the name of the person on whose behalf he was acting in respect of the charge of importing the drugs , as he feared for his own and his family \u2019s safety . In view of all this , the statements are not considered to have been insulting or hurtful to the plaintiff , as defined in LAW , or to contain an insinuation , as in LAW . Moreover , they will not be deemed to entail an illegal injury to his character and honour ... \u201d","Mr A appealed against ORG judgment to ORG .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG overturned the ORG judgment . It declared null and void the words \u201c cocaine smugglers \u201d on the front page and the statement \u201c ... believing that the cocaine was still in the vehicle \u201d and ordered the applicant and the editor jointly and severally to pay the appellant ORG CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage , plus interest , and ISK CARDINAL for the costs of publishing the judgment . Its judgment contained the following reasons :","\u201c When the statements at issue in the present case appeared in DV on DATE , the criminal proceedings against the appellant and another man were pending before ORG . This was clearly stated in the article , in which the substance of the charges against them was reproduced , along with a few essential points from the prosecution \u2019s evidence and the statements which they had given at the hearing . It is not argued that the narrative was in any way incorrect , with the exception of those statements which are at issue in this case . The material published concerned a serious criminal case , which was being tried at a public hearing . It was therefore not subject to any limitations under LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , in force at the time , which would have prevented the media from utilising its freedom [ of expression ] under LAW , to report on the case , including freedom to identify the accused . However , in that discussion special weight ought to be attached to the fact that it is the role of the courts , not the media , to determine whether an accused person is guilty of an offence .","... The appellant was acquitted of the ... criminal charges by a judgment of ORG exactly DATE after the publication of the statements in DV , and that conclusion was unaltered after the adoption of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . By virtue of that conclusion the courts had rejected the accusation that the appellant and the co - accused in this case had been guilty of being \u2018 cocaine smugglers\u2019 , and also that the appellant in DATE had taken possession of the aforementioned vehicle \u2018 believing that the cocaine was still in the PERSON . However , these CARDINAL assertions were made in the statements which the appellant seeks to have declared null and void , without any reservation being made with reference to the fact that the assertions were based on an indictment which was contested in court . Bearing in mind the outcome of the criminal proceedings that had been instituted by that indictment , the statements in question contained an insinuation against the appellant , and there is no ground for rejecting his request for them to be declared null and void . As regards the other statements which the appellant claims should be declared null and void , it must be held that the word \u2018 PERSON in the headline on the front page contained a value judgment , and was also supported by comments made by the appellant and the co - accused during the criminal proceedings . The narrative in the article inside the newspaper , stating that the cocaine had been hidden in the vehicle which the appellant had imported into the country and had taken possession of in DATE , after the police had confiscated the drugs and replaced them with another substance , was merely a description of facts that were later substantiated during the criminal proceedings . There are therefore no grounds for declaring the statements relating to this matter null and void .","The statements which are declared null and void were published in an article , of which [ the applicant ] was named as the author , except for one word [ k\u00f3ka\u00ednsmyglarar ] in the headline on the front page . She is liable to pay compensation for them , as provided for in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . On the other hand , since the author of the front - page headline was not identified , liability to pay compensation for that statement falls on the defendant [ Mr S.M.E. ] as the editor of the newspaper , under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the same LAW . The statement in the front - page headline and those in the article on page CARDINAL were linked to such a degree [ voru \u00feau tengsl ] that the defendants must be ordered jointly to pay compensation for them . It is considered that since , in the present case , declaring the statements null and void alone rectifies the appellant \u2019s position to a great extent , compensation in the amount of ISK CARDINAL is appropriate , with default interest , as further specified in the operative part of the present judgment . With reference to LAW , the defendants must also be ordered to pay ORG CARDINAL to the appellant to cover the costs of publication of the outcome of this case ; he has not claimed interest on that amount . \u201d","After his acquittal , Mr A initiated proceedings before the domestic courts , seeking compensation from the NORP State for unlawful detention during the above - mentioned criminal investigation , but to no avail . ORG , in its judgment of DATE , found the detention to have been justified even though he was later acquitted .","NORP In DATE , Mr A was again arrested for involvement in importing drugs into GPE , and in DATE he was sentenced by a final judgment to DATE PERSON imprisonment for his part in the crime ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156462","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"VULETI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Ms Marina Vuleti\u0107 , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE , after a verbal altercation in a bar , A.B. attacked the applicant , causing a multiple fracture of her right arm .","The injury was characterised by a medical expert as grave bodily injury , and the applicant sought psychological help concerning the attack .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) indicted PERSON in ORG ( Op\u0107inski kazneni sud u GPE ) on charges of causing serious bodily injury .","On DATE the applicant submitted a civil claim for damages to ORG .","In the period between CARDINAL DATE and DATE several hearings were held , at which the trial court heard the applicant , PERSON and several witnesses , and obtained the relevant medical evidence . During the proceedings , the applicant assumed the victim status and was represented by a lawyer .","On DATE ORG adopted a judgment which was quashed on appeal by ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) on DATE , and a retrial was ordered .","In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG terminated the proceedings against A.B. , on the ground that the prosecution had become statute - barred . This decision was not served on the applicant . It became final on DATE .","In DATE the case file was destroyed according to the internal court rules ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) . Only the decision terminating the proceedings was kept in the archives of ORG .","On DATE the applicant inquired in ORG about the status of her case and was then served with the decision of DATE by which the proceedings had terminated .","The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) read as follows :","Article CARDINAL","\u201c No one shall be subjected to any form of ill - treatment ... \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ( PERSON , ORG nos . TIME , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) provide :","Article CARDINAL","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Criminal prosecutions for the purposes of applying the criminal legislation of GPE , ... , may not be instituted after expiry of the following periods , calculated from the time the offence was committed :","...","- DATE if the case concerns a criminal offence punishable by a sentence of DATE imprisonment ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL","( CARDINAL ) The limitation period shall start to run from the date on which the offence was committed .","...","( CARDINAL ) The statutory limitation period shall be interrupted each time a procedural step is taken concerning the prosecution of the offence .","...","( CARDINAL ) The statutory limitation period shall start to run again after each interruption .","( CARDINAL ) Criminal prosecutions shall in all cases become time - barred after expiry of the double statutory limitation period . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Anyone who inflicts grievous bodily harm on another or seriously impairs another \u2019s health shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term from DATE . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) provided :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The president of the trial panel shall terminate proceedings and shall serve his or her decision on the parties and the victim ... when ...","CARDINAL ) NORP he has learned that the proceedings can not be continued for the reasons provided for in LAW . ... \u201c","\u201c A judgment dismissing the charges shall be issued if ...","CARDINAL ) NORP the proceedings have become statute - barred ... \u201c","The relevant provision of the Courts\u2019 Rules ( ORG poslovnik , ORG nos . ORG , ORG , CARDINAL , GPE , GPE , GPE , CARDINAL , GPE , FAC and CARDINAL ) provides :","Section CARDINAL","\u201c ...","After the expiry of the relevant time - limit ... the case files shall be transferred from the common archives to the archives , that is to say given [ for recycling ] or destroyed . \u201d","Section CARDINAL","\u201c The case files shall be kept in the common archives :","... DATE after the final termination of the [ criminal ] proceedings ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150675","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF STOLYAROVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant bought a flat in GPE at CARDINAL ORG ( \u201c the flat \u201d ) . The seller of the flat , PERSON , had acquired it under the privatisation scheme in DATE .","NORP Before its privatisation the flat was owned by GPE . On an unspecified date it was allocated to PERSON as social housing .","On DATE PERSON died .","On DATE the GPE housing authorities authorised a certain exchange of flats which resulted in Mr M. moving into the flat which had previously been allocated to PERSON","On DATE and DATE respectively Mr M. registered his grandfather , PERSON , and his grandmother , PERSON , as also living in the flat .","On DATE Mr M. and PERSON moved out of the flat .","On DATE Mr S. signed a social tenancy contract with ORG of GPE ( PERSON \u0436\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0449\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u043f\u043e\u043b\u0438\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0438 \u0438 \u0436\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0449\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0444\u043e\u043d\u0434\u0430 \u0433. GPE , hereinafter \u201c the GPE Housing Department \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG transferred the ownership of the flat to Mr S. under the privatisation scheme .","On DATE Mr S. registered his ownership of the flat in the ORG register ( \u0415\u0434\u0438\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0433\u043e\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0440\u0435\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0440 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 \u043d\u0430 \u043d\u0435\u0434\u0432\u0438\u0436\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0435 \u0438\u043c\u0443\u0449\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u0438 \u0441\u0434\u0435\u043b\u043e\u043a \u0441 \u043d\u0438\u043c ) .","On DATE an \u201c informational ban \u201d ( \u0438\u043d\u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0442 ) was imposed in respect of the flat by the criminal investigations service of ORG of the ORG ( ORG \u0433. GPE ) in view of the possible illegal alienation of the flat .","On DATE Mr S. sold the flat to the applicant . The terms of the purchase included an undertaking by the seller to buy the applicant an equivalent flat in the event that she lost the title for reasons relating to any defects in the title which pre - dated her purchase of the flat .","According to the Government , on DATE the applicant \u2019s representative was informed that the registration of her ownership of the flat had been postponed for DATE .","On DATE , at the request of PERSON , the \u201c informational ban \u201d in respect of the flat was lifted .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s ownership of the flat was entered in the ORG register .","The applicant moved into the flat and has been living there ever since .","On DATE the criminal investigations service of ORG of the ORG informed ORG that it had discovered that the exchange of flats between Mr P. and PERSON had taken place after the former \u2019s death ( see paragraph PERSON above ) .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG instituted proceedings against PERSON , PERSON and PERSON and the applicant , asking the court to declare null and void the flat exchange between PERSON and PERSON of DATE , the social tenancy contract between Mr S. and ORG of DATE , the privatisation of the flat in favour of Mr S. of DATE and its subsequent sale to the applicant of CARDINAL DATE . They further sought the applicant \u2019s eviction , the termination of her title to the flat , and the return of the flat to the city of GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a counterclaim seeking to have her title to the flat recognised by the court . She contended that she had purchased the flat in good faith ( as a bona fide buyer ) and that she had not known that Mr S. had had no right to sell it .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) granted the claim of ORG . The court found that , since PERSON had died on DATE , the flat exchange and all the subsequent transactions in respect of the flat should be declared null and void . The court refused to recognise the applicant as a bona fide buyer , having found that she could and should have known of the \u201c informational ban \u201d imposed on the flat , of which the registration service had informed her representative on DATE .","By an additional judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the counterclaims lodged by the applicant .","On DATE the ORG quashed the judgments of DATE and DATE on appeal and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh examination by a different bench . In particular , the court held that ORG refusal to recognise the applicant as a bona fide buyer had not been based on sufficient grounds . Furthermore , having recognised ORG as the owner of the flat and having found that the flat had left GPE \u2019s possession without the latter \u2019s intention to divest itself of it , ORG had not taken into consideration that the flat exchange had not stripped the owner of its title , and that the subsequent transfer of the flat to Mr S. under the privatisation scheme had taken place with the participation of ORG . Therefore , in violation of the principle of equality of arms ORG had failed to examine why , in transferring the title to the flat to Mr S. on DATE , ORG had failed to check the circumstances under which Mr S. had acquired the right to own the flat . The court further noted in this connection that by DATE Mr P. had no longer been registered as living in the flat , as the information on his death had already been available .","On DATE ORG granted the claim of ORG and dismissed the applicant \u2019s counterclaims . The court found the flat exchange and all the subsequent transactions in respect of the flat null and void . It refused to recognise the applicant as a bona fide buyer , holding that she should have known of the existence of the \u201c informational ban \u201d imposed on the flat , as it had caused a DATE \u2019s delay in the registration of her title with the ORG . The court also pointed out that the flat had been owned by Mr S. for DATE before being sold to the applicant and that the applicant had bought it below the market price , which should have raised reasonable doubts as to the legal status of the acquired property .","On DATE ORG , in appellate proceedings , upheld the judgment , having endorsed ORG reasoning . It appears from the record of the appeal hearing that the plaintiff explicitly stated that it had no grounds to doubt that the applicant had bought the flat in good faith .","On DATE ORG refused to institute cassation proceedings , having found no violations of material or procedural norms in the previous proceedings .","The applicant requested a suspension of the execution of the judgment of DATE in so far as it concerned her eviction . On DATE ORG dismissed her request . On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal .","According to the applicant \u2019s latest submissions , she has not yet been evicted but considers it imminent ."],"violated_articles":["8","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166756","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"SKOKANDI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by Mr I. Surjan , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , after obtaining all the relevant permits from the competent domestic authorities , the applicant applied to ORG ( Ured dr\u017eavne uprave u ORG - neretvanskoj \u017eupaniji , PERSON u PERSON , hereinafter \u201c the Kor\u010dula Office \u201d ) for a permit for the construction of a house in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was granted a construction permit , and this decision became final on DATE .","During the building work , on DATE , a building inspector of ORG ( ORG za\u0161tite okoli\u0161a , prostornog ure\u0111enja i graditeljstva , hereinafter \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) carried out an on - site inspection and , after examining the construction permit , found no irregularities in the work .","On DATE a certain PERSON asked the Ministry to carry out a further inspection of the applicant \u2019s construction work and her construction permit .","On DATE the construction inspector requested the Ministry to revoke the applicant \u2019s construction permit . He considered that the construction permit had not been properly issued , as it allowed construction in excess of the maximum limit of construction on a single plot of land . The inspector also considered that the construction of a flat roof as authorised by the construction permit would not be permissible under the relevant spatial planning regulations .","On DATE , on the basis of its supervisory review powers , the ORG revoked the applicant \u2019s construction permit on the grounds that the construction permit had not been issued in accordance with the relevant construction regulations .","The applicant challenged this decision before ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) on DATE , arguing that she had lawfully obtained a construction permit , which had become final and enforceable . The applicant considered that the revocation of the permit was an abuse of powers by the construction inspector , and that there had been no legal grounds to revoke the construction permit for the reasons cited by ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s administrative action on the grounds that it appeared from the available evidence that the applicant \u2019s construction permit had been issued contrary to the relevant construction regulations .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , contending that by the revocation of the construction permit the status of her property had become precarious as , although the house could not be demolished , she could never obtain a residential use permit , which was a further permit to be obtained as a necessary condition for a fully lawful use of house . She also considered that she had been made to bear an excessive individual burden as a construction investor .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded .","On DATE , following the enactment of LAW ( Zakon o postupanju s nezakonito izgra\u0111enim zgradama , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , which provided for the possibility of legalisation of unlawful constructions , the applicant requested legalisation of the construction status of her house .","NORP In support of that request she submitted a new architect \u2019s plan , for which she paid CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) . In addition , ORG ordered her to pay the legalisation fees in the amount of HRK CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request and authorised legalisation of her construction .","The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c The right of ownership shall be guaranteed ... \u201c","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o gradnji , ORG nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) read :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Construction may commence only on the basis of a final construction permit ... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If an administrative inspection or an inspection conducted by a construction inspector finds that the issuing of a construction permit ... which [ is ] final ... manifestly breached the substantive provisions of this LAW , the Ministry shall revoke that permit on the basis of its supervisory rights ... \u201d","\u201c A decision on revocation based on the [ ORG ] supervisory rights may be issued within DATE of the date of finality of the act being revoked . \u201d","The relevant provision of LAW ( Zakon o sustavu dr\u017eavne uprave , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , as in force at the material time , read as follows :","\u201c Damage caused to a citizen , legal entity or any other party by an illegal or improper act on the part of a ORG administration body , local administration body or any legal entity with public powers in the exercise of its authority shall be redressed by GPE . \u201d","The same provision is contained in section CARDINAL of the amended LAW ( ORG nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","NORP In decision no . U - III-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG stressed :","ORG points out that ORG establishes a system of responsibility of the ORG on the basis of the principle of causality ( causa ) and not on the basis of guilt ( culpa ) .","The primary and immediate responsibility of the ORG for damage caused by an illegal or improper conduct on the part of a ORG administration body or a legal entity with public powers is an expression of the principle of rule of law as one of the highest values of the NORP constitutional order set out in LAW . \u201d","On DATE , in decision no . U - III-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , the ORG further stated by way of clarification :","\u201c [ LAW ] provides for primary and immediate responsibility of GPE irrespective of the level of governance ( state , county , municipality or legal entity with public powers ) at which damage has been caused by illegal or improper conduct . Such a responsibility of the ORG , which was also accepted in judicial practice ( see ORG decision no . Rev-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - DATE ) , is an expression of the rule of law as CARDINAL of the highest values of the NORP constitutional order set out in LAW . The Constitutional Court points out that LAW establishes a system of responsibility on the basis of the principle of causality and not on the basis of guilt ( culpa ) . \u201d","The Government provided a judgment of ORG ( PERSON ORG ) , no . P-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , final on DATE , by which , on the basis of ORG case - law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , a civil action was allowed and damages awarded under LAW of LAW for the local administration \u2019s errors in authorising a construction permit ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147621","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF TIREAN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained in FAC .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c NORP \u201d ) charged the applicant with aggravated fraud and organising a criminal group , and placed him in police custody for TIME .","By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed a request by ORG to detain the applicant pending trial for DATE . On DATE he was detained in ORG . His pre - trial detention was subsequently extended to cover the entire duration of his trial .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and organising a criminal group , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The judgment remained final , after ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant on CARDINAL DATE and ORG dismissed an appeal by him on points of law ( recurs ) on DATE .","In his initial letters to the ORG , the applicant contended , without providing details , that during the criminal investigation opened against him in DATE he had been beaten up by police officers .","On DATE he brought civil proceedings against ORG and ORG seeking financial compensation for inadequate medical treatment during his pre - trial detention . In his written submissions he also stated that he had been subjected to violence after his arrest .","By a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the proceedings as inadmissible on the grounds that it was not competent ratione loci to examine his claim . It referred the case to ORG .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the proceedings on the grounds that the statute of limitations for his claim had taken effect . In addition , ORG and ORG lacked the locus standi to be sued . There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the judgment .","In his letters to the ORG , the applicant contended that in GPE , GPE , ORG , PERSON , GPE , PERSON and ORG he had been forced to share cells with TIME CARDINAL smokers , even though he was a non - smoker . They had been noisy and violent . Also , he would constantly be transferred from CARDINAL prison to another , sometimes for distances of QUANTITY in a vehicle with TIME detainees , who would smoke , eat and be noisy . Moreover , he had not been provided with adequate medical care during his pre - trial detention .","DATE and DATE the applicant was detained on several occasions in ORG for a total of DATE , in non - smoking cells . He was afforded DATE and QUANTITY . m of living space , and was provided with adequate medical treatment for his condition .","DATE and DATE he was detained in FAC on several occasions for a total of CARDINAL and seventyfour days , in non - smoking cells . For DATE of his detention he was afforded QUANTITY . m of living space . For the remaining period he was afforded CARDINAL and QUANTITY . m of living space .","DATE the applicant was detained on CARDINAL occasions in Jilava Prison for a total of DATE , in non - smoking cells . For most of his stay he was afforded CARDINAL sq . m of living space ; however , for TIME he was afforded QUANTITY . m or more of living space .","DATE the applicant was detained in FAC for DATE , in a non - smoking cell . He was afforded QUANTITY . m of living space .","DATE and DATE the applicant was detained repeatedly in ORG for a total of DATE , in nonsmoking cells . He was afforded between CARDINAL and QUANTITY . m of living space , and was provided with adequate medical treatment for his condition .","On DATE the applicant was detained in ORG for DATE , in a non - smoking cell . He was afforded QUANTITY . m of living space .","On DATE the applicant was detained in FAC for DATE . He was afforded QUANTITY . m of living space .","NORP The applicant was detained in FAC repeatedly , but only while in transit to another facility . He would only remain there for TIME , in a non - smoking cell , and would be afforded between CARDINAL.CARDINAL and QUANTITY . m of living space .","The applicant was transferred between detention facilities in twentytwo special vehicles fitted with windows , lights , heating and sunroofs . The vehicles had CARDINAL seats . The number of detainees transported would never exceed the number of available seats . Detainees were provided with food and water during transfers , and were allowed bathroom breaks and access to running water and smoking areas every time the vehicle stopped at a prison . Smoking was strictly prohibited during transfers .","During his detention , the applicant had refused to provide information on his pre - existing medical condition and had repeatedly refused treatment for his chronic and psychiatric problems .","On DATE the applicant was released from pre - trial detention under the condition not lo leave the country pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings opened against him .","On DATE the applicant was detained again following his conviction of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and was incarcerated in FAC ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144357","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF TERESHCHENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in LOC .","On DATE a search of the applicant \u2019s flat was carried out . He was then charged with drug trafficking . The applicant was kept in police custody until DATE , when he was released on undertakings of good behaviour and to not leave town .","NORP In separate proceedings , on DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of causing bodily harm to another person . On DATE he admitted the charge , allegedly under duress . According to the applicant , lawyer PERSON , assigned to represent him , was not present at the interview and signed the record later on . However , there was no mention of counsel \u2019s name in the list of visitors in the detention centre . On CARDINAL DATE Judge PERSON , LOC ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) authorised the applicant \u2019s continued detention and stated that he \u201c had indeed committed a very serious offence \u201d . The applicant was charged with causing bodily harm resulting in the victim \u2019s death . On DATE , the police took him to a hospital and required him to undergo a blood test .","The applicant confirmed his earlier confession in ORG \u2019s presence during an on - the - spot interview , which was recorded on video . On an unspecified date , the applicant terminated ORG \u2019s representation of him . A new lawyer , PERSON , was appointed for the trial .","On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG convicted the applicant of drug trafficking . In DATE ORG issued a decision admitting the applicant \u2019s mother , PERSON , as the applicant \u2019s lay defender in the appeal proceedings concerning the drug - trafficking conviction . On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) quashed the judgment of DATE and ordered a retrial .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of causing bodily harm resulting in the victim \u2019s death . However , on DATE ORG quashed this judgment , considering that the trial court had wrongly allowed the reading out of a pre - trial witness statement , despite the defence \u2019s objection and in the absence of the applicant . Thus , the appeal court ordered a retrial and that the applicant be held in custody pending it .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention , referring to the gravity of the charges against him and the risk that he would continue criminal activity , if at large .","NORP In DATE ORG decided on a complaint brought by the applicant and imposed a disciplinary penalty on ORG , the applicant \u2019s former lawyer , apparently , in relation to the drug - related case .","On DATE ORG returned the case about drug trafficking to the prosecutor . On DATE the prosecutor joined the criminal cases against the applicant . On DATE the investigator dismissed a number of motions lodged by the defence . In particular , the investigator stated that PERSON could no longer act as the applicant \u2019s lay defender , since the decision to admit her to the proceedings issued in DATE had concerned only the appeal proceedings .","On DATE the joined cases were submitted for trial before ORG .","Hearings were held on DATE and DATE . On the latter date Judge PERSON stripped PERSON of her lay - defender status in the criminal proceedings against her son , because she had been interviewed as a witness in the bodily harm case .","Subsequently , the case was assigned to a trial panel of CARDINAL judges , including Judge PERSON as the presiding judge .","In the meantime , the applicant sought the withdrawal of Judge PERSON from the case , arguing bias on account of , inter alia , the judge \u2019s statement in the detention order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and his failure to ensure decent conditions of detention pending retrial or to issue permission for a visit from the applicant \u2019s mother . The judge refused to withdraw from the case , stating that the trial court was not competent to deal with the issue of conditions of detention and that the trial court \u2019s competence as regards visits was limited under LAW of LAW to the period following delivery of the trial judgment . While admitting that the remark in the detention order was \u201c unfortunate \u201d , the judge stated it did not contain any information to the effect that he had an \u201c interest in the outcome of the criminal case \u201d . ORG upheld the judge \u2019s refusals to withdraw .","In reply to a renewed challenge by the applicant , on DATE the matter was submitted to the remaining CARDINAL judges on the trial panel . They considered that there were no reasons for Judge PERSON to withdraw from or to be removed from the criminal case against the applicant . In particular , they stated that LAW required \u201c compelling reasons \u201d for refusing a visit by a next - of - kin to a detainee . They concluded , however , that there was no evidence that any such visit had been refused without valid reason in the applicant \u2019s case .","On DATE ORG discontinued the case against the applicant on charges of drug trafficking , because the prosecutor had dropped the charges .","As to the remaining charges of causing bodily harm , the trial panel noted the defence \u2019s challenge to the expert report concerning the victim \u2019s injuries and granted its request for another expert report .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of causing bodily harm resulting in the victim \u2019s death and sentenced him to eight years\u2019 imprisonment . The court relied on several witness statements , the applicant \u2019s pre - trial confession and his on - the - spot interview .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction and sentence .","In or around DATE the applicant sought statutory compensation payable by the ORG to individuals who have been acquitted of criminal offences or in respect of whom the charges have been dropped . On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claims in part as regards pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . On DATE ORG ordered a retrial in respect of the pecuniary claims . The award in respect of the non - pecuniary claim became final . On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s pecuniary claim in part . On DATE ORG , considering that the applicant \u2019s presence at the appeal hearing was not necessary , upheld the judgment .","In the meantime , the applicant sought supervisory review of the above judgment , challenging the factual and legal findings made by the courts and their refusal to confirm his right to compensation on account of his prosecution on drug - trafficking charges . Having heard the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE the Presidium of ORG amended the judgments of DATE and DATE recognising his right to compensation . The court rejected the applicant \u2019s remaining complaints as unfounded . He received a copy of the supervisory - review ruling on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied for early release from prison . In his letter , which was sent to ORG of GPE , he asked that the necessary supporting documents be requested by the court from the prison administration . It appears that this letter reached ORG on DATE . By letter dated CARDINAL DATE , a judge of ORG informed the applicant of the refusal to examine the application . The letter read as follows :","\u201c Hereby I return your application for early release as it requires amendment . Certain necessary documents were not enclosed with it , namely the prison \u2019s reports on your personality and disciplinary penalties , as well as certificates relating to employment , your medical and psychiatric conditions ...","No court decision [ on your application ] may be issued in the absence of these documents . \u201d","The applicant did not appeal , as he was not provided with a copy of any formal decision .","Instead , the applicant resubmitted his application to ORG , this time with some supporting documents . During the hearing , which took place before another ORG judge , the prison administration expressed their disagreement with his application , considering it to be premature . By a judgment of DATE that ORG judge examined the applicant \u2019s request . While acknowledging that the applicant had already served CARDINAL of the sentence , the court rejected the application , referring inter alia to the fact that the applicant had received several penalties for violations of the internal prison regulations , including CARDINAL placement in a punishment cell . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .","DATE and DATE the applicant lodged numerous complaints , initiated proceedings against lawyer PERSON and various public officials accusing them of criminal offences , contesting criminal proceedings against him or complaining about the conditions of his detention ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the applicant lodged a complaint , alleging that during the search of his house in DATE one of the officers had taken him into the bedroom and had pushed him against the wall . On DATE an investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on account of the alleged ill - treatment . In DATE the matter was examined and a new refusal was issued by a deputy prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE . By a judgment of DATE , ORG confirmed this refusal to prosecute . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","The applicant was detained in Talovskiy Temporary Detention Centre ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , which was attached to Talovskiy police station , on numerous occasions DATE for periods at times in excess of DATE . The applicant was also held in the ORG on several occasions DATE .","According to the applicant , although he was alone in the cell , no arrangements were made for a proper bed and bedding . Neither were there any facilities for taking a bath or shower or for outdoor exercise . He was given CARDINAL meal a day . The walls were rendered with shuba , a coarse type of concrete , designed to prevent detainees from leaning on the walls . The cell windows were covered with metal shutters blocking access to fresh air and natural light .","In DATE the applicant had bronchitis and allegedly failed to receive appropriate treatment . In DATE he attempted suicide and self - harmed , being unable to stand the appalling conditions of detention and the duration of his placement in the ORG .","The applicant submitted that the conditions of detention in the ORG improved DATE , when he was allowed to take a shower and DATE outdoor exercise and was provided with CARDINAL meals a day .","DATE the applicant was also kept in FAC no . CARDINAL . According to him , at times , CARDINAL detainees were held in a cell with QUANTITY beds ; thus the cell measurements were below the required international and even national standards .","In his observations before the ORG , the applicant further argued that he had been kept in a cell measuring QUANTITY m. together with CARDINAL other detainees . On average , the cell accommodated QUANTITY or QUANTITY detainees although it only had CARDINAL bunk beds . At times , it accommodated CARDINAL detainees . The applicant enclosed diagrams of cells CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , which , according to him , measured QUANTITY m. and had CARDINAL beds each . He also provided several written statements from individuals who had been kept in the remand centre for varying periods DATE , at times in the same cell(s ) as the applicant . For instance , T. submitted that on some occasions DATE detainees had been kept in cells measuring CARDINAL sq . m. with CARDINAL beds . Another detainee stated that cell no . CARDINAL had CARDINAL beds but accommodated , sometimes , CARDINAL detainees ; they had to take turns to sleep during DATE .","Drawing on the statements from other detainees , the applicant \u2019s lawyer argued in the observations that the cells had lacked mandatory ventilation although many detainees smoked , and , at times , the temperature there went up to QUANTITY The toilet in the cells was separated in the main area by a metal bar of QUANTITY in height , which did not provide sufficient privacy . Sometimes , there was no water supply in the drainage system , so the use of the toilet had to be limited in order to reduce unpleasant smells . The cells were infested with flies , cockroaches and bugs .","In reply to the applicant \u2019s initial complaint relating to the cell sizes and insufficiency of beds , the respondent Government submitted a certificate signed on CARDINAL DATE by the acting chief officer of the remand centre . This certificate listed the cells in which the applicant had been kept for varying periods since DATE ( cells nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","The applicant unsuccessfully complained to various public authorities about the conditions of his detention in the Talovskiy ORG . These complaints were forwarded to ORG for examination . By letters of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and DATE ORG rejected his complaints as unfounded . It indicated that the applicant \u2019s repeated placements in the temporary detention centre were due to logistical difficulties with transferring him between Talovskiy ORG and ORG , which were a considerable distance apart . On DATE and DATE as well as on DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s renewed complaints as unsubstantiated .","By letters of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , the President of ORG declined jurisdiction to deal with the applicant \u2019s complaints about his repeated and prolonged detention in the Talovskiy TDC , including his complaints about the physical conditions of detention there .","By letter of DATE , ORG informed the applicant that his earlier complaints had been examined by the district prosecutor , who had issued decisions dated DATE , DATE and DATE confirming unspecified violations in relation to the conditions of detention in the ORG .","NORP The applicant is now detained in prison no . CARDINAL , located in GPE in LOC . According to him , the living area of the prison measures QUANTITY and houses CARDINAL detainees ; the artificial lights in the dormitory are insufficient ; the food is bad .","DATE the applicant received visits in the remand centre from his mother , PERSON","Around DATE the applicant started to complain that he was no longer receiving visits from his mother . According to the Government , she did not come to the remand centre and did not request any visits at that time ; nor did she lodge any complaints of visits being refused .","By letter of DATE , Judge PERSON of ORG stated that LAW did not require a court decision in response to the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning family visits . LAW did not necessitate a request for such a visit to be granted ; the decision on whether to authorise such a visit remained within the discretion of the authority dealing with the criminal case . LAW provided that visits could be authorised following delivery of the trial judgment and before its enforcement .","By letter of DATE the President of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s renewed complaint . He indicated that family visits could be allowed under LAW after pronouncement of a trial judgment .","The applicant also complained to ORG that a police officer ( apparently , the officer in charge of ORG ) was refusing to allow visits from his mother . This complaint was forwarded to ORG for examination . In DATE the district prosecutor dismissed the complaint from the applicant , stating that while PERSON had been accepted in DATE as a lay defender in the appeal proceedings concerning the drug - trafficking case against the applicant , this case had been joined to the second case pending before ORG . The prosecutor noted that ORG had not yet issued any decision accepting PERSON as a lay defender in the joined cases .","The applicant complained to ORG about the refusal to allow visits from his mother . This complaint was forwarded to ORG . By letter of DATE , the President of ORG stated as follows :","\u201c I consider that section CARDINAL of LAW does not require the court \u201c dealing with the criminal case \u201d to grant applications for the authorisation of visits . Such visits may be authorised depending on the circumstances relating to the criminal proceedings . Following the quashing of the judgments [ in respect of the applicant ] on appeal and the decision to order a retrial , the retrial has not started yet . LAW requires the court to grant visits from next - of - kin following delivery of the trial judgment ... PERSON had been accepted as [ the applicant \u2019s ] lay defender , in addition to counsel , and was granted permission to pay visits to [ the applicant ] ... LAW does not require the court to issue any additional authorisations for visits ... \u201d","The applicant also complained to ORG in DATE . This complaint was forwarded for examination to ORG . By letter of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor dismissed his complaint .","The applicant tried to lodge an appeal before ORG in relation to the above letter of DATE . By letter of DATE , Judge PERSON refused to process the applicant \u2019s appeal against the letter . The judge indicated that a letter was not amenable to appeal .","The applicant submitted to the ORG a statement made by his mother . She affirmed that on several occasions during DATE she had been afforded the opportunity to talk for a short time with the applicant through a metal partition , because there was no meeting room in GPE TDC . DATE she had lodged CARDINAL requests before Judge PERSON ORG seeking authorisation for a meeting with the applicant in the ORG . In her requests , she referred to her next - of - kin status rather than her position as a lay defender in the criminal proceedings . The judge had dismissed her requests orally without issuing any formal decision which would be amenable to appeal . Her similar requests to the President of ORG were also dismissed . She had presented the decision of DATE to the chief officer of the Talovskiy police station but he had demanded a recent court order . Apparently , her ensuing complaints against the officers had not been processed by ORG . DATE and DATE no permission had been granted for her to visit as a lay defender ( which would have had the benefit of visits not being limited in frequency and duration , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the ORG received the applicant \u2019s application form dispatched , by registered mail , on DATE from ORG no . CARDINAL ( as indicated on the envelope ) . In DATE the ORG received the applicant \u2019s additional application form , with enclosures , sent by registered mail on DATE from the same remand centre ( as indicated on the envelope ) . In DATE the ORG received CARDINAL further packages , with numerous enclosures , from the applicant . According to the applicant , the above correspondence was , in fact , dispatched by his mother , PERSON","The ORG also received the applicant \u2019s letter dated DATE , which he submitted had been sent by his mother , in which he complained that prison no . CARDINAL had not dispatched his letters of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","Subsequently , the applicant also complained to the ORG that the remand centre had not dispatched his letter dated DATE . He submitted a copy of a note , apparently written by a remand centre officer , stating that his letter had been dispatched . ORG did not receive this letter .","The applicant claimed that on DATE the staff of the prison refused to dispatch a letter dated DATE to the ORG . He was then transferred to the ORG in GPE . According to the applicant , his mother then tried to dispatch the letter from there , but the staff of the postal office refused to dispatch it .","On DATE ORG received the applicant \u2019s letter dated DATE , apparently dispatched by the applicant \u2019s mother . In that letter the applicant alleged that on DATE the administration of prison no . CARDINAL had refused to dispatch his letter of DATE .","The Registry also received the applicant \u2019s letters of DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and several letters in DATE from prison no . CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["34"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161004","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ANDREY LAVROV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant , while serving a prison sentence , was diagnosed with lymphoma . He was admitted to prison hospital no . CARDINAL of GPE and underwent CARDINAL courses of chemotherapy .","NORP In DATE a court authorised the applicant \u2019s early release on health grounds . He was then monitored by an oncologist in a civil hospital , having continued with chemotherapy . The Government submitted that in DATE the applicant had undergone an in - depth examination in the oncology department of the GPE regional hospital , where he was diagnosed with lymphoproliferative disorder affecting the cervical , axillary , mediastinal and retroperitoneal lymph nodes . The applicant did not complete the medical examinations or treatment , including chemotherapy . He was arrested on DATE .","By judgments of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and QUANTITY DATE the applicant was convicted of fraud , robbery and theft respectively . He was sent to serve his sentence in detention facility no . CARDINAL . On DATE he was transferred to the prison tuberculosis hospital .","On DATE a medical panel , comprising the deputy head of the prison tuberculosis hospital and doctors from the same hospital , examined the applicant and diagnosed him with progressive non - Hodgkin lymphoma in acute III B stage , with lesions of the cervical , axillary and abdominal lymph nodes . The panel concluded that the applicant was eligible for early release as he suffered from malignant formations of lymphatic and haematogenous tissues , a disease included in the List of serious illnesses precluding the serving of sentences in correctional institutions , as provided for by Decree no . CARDINAL of the Government of GPE of DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the List \u201d ) .","On DATE , with reference to the conclusions of the medical panel , the applicant made an application for early release . On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the application . Having accepted that the applicant \u2019s illness was included in the List , and describing his condition as \u201c stable [ but ] serious \u201d , the court , nevertheless , found that the drugs necessary for his treatment were available in the prison tuberculosis hospital , and that the applicant was undergoing the necessary medical procedures . The court further pointed out that it was not clear who would take care of the applicant in the event of his release from prison . The applicant did not appeal against the decision .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s sister gave a written undertaking to take care of the applicant should he be released .","According to a certificate issued by the prison tuberculosis hospital at the request of the applicant \u2019s lawyer , the drugs necessary for the applicant \u2019s chemotherapy were unavailable at the hospital .","On DATE the medical panel from the prison tuberculosis hospital again examined the applicant . The diagnosis was that the applicant had progressive non - Hodgkin lymphoma in acute IV B stage with lesions of the abdominal lymph nodes . It was once again noted that the applicant was eligible for release on health grounds .","The applicant made another application for release at DATE . He submitted that his disease had progressed to its final stage and that he had relatives who could take care of him .","On DATE ORG held a hearing . B. , a doctor from the prison tuberculosis hospital , testified that the applicant needed chemotherapy and radiation therapy , but was unable to receive such treatment in detention since the necessary equipment was unavailable at the hospital . On DATE ORG dismissed the application for release once again , noting that the applicant had a tendency to reoffend and concluding that he was receiving adequate medical care in detention .","The applicant appealed .","In DATE the applicant asked the ORG to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG and to authorise his immediate release from detention as an interim measure . The applicant claimed that he was not receiving the necessary medical assistance and treatment in detention , despite his suffering from a life - threatening and rapidly progressing illness . He relied on a certificate from the prison hospital confirming the absence of drugs for his chemotherapy ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG decided to indicate to ORG , under Rule DATE , that it was desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicant be immediately examined by medical experts , including an oncologist , independent from the prison system with a view to determining : ( CARDINAL ) whether the treatment he was receiving in detention was adequate for his condition ; ( CARDINAL ) whether his current state of health was compatible with detention in the conditions of a correctional colony or prison hospital ; and ( CARDINAL ) whether his current condition required his placement in a specialised hospital or release . ORG were also asked to ensure the applicant \u2019s immediate transfer to a specialised hospital if the medical experts concluded that the applicant required placement in such a hospital .","On DATE the Government responded to the ORG \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE , submitting the following documents :","- a handwritten copy of the applicant \u2019s medical history drawn up during his detention . The history included a form for consent to treatment , signed by the applicant . It also contained a detailed schedule showing the DATE intake of drugs by the applicant . As appears from that document , he received basic analgesic and anti - inflammatory drugs , antihistamines , sleeping pills , antidepressants , antiemetics and neuroleptics .","- certificates issued by the acting head of the prison tuberculosis hospital , indicating that the applicant had not been provided with chemotherapy for his lymphoma as he had not consented to that treatment when it had been offered to him , in DATE and DATE . According to the acting head of the hospital , the applicant had refused to make a written statement to that effect . The certificate also indicated that an oncologist had examined the applicant CARDINAL times , once in DATE and twice in DATE . At DATE the applicant \u2019s condition was considered to be serious : he was suffering severe pain and increasing asthenia , had coughed blood , and his lymph nodes continued to grow . In another certificate , the acting head of the hospital stressed that the applicant was suffering from a life - threatening oncological disease , particularly taking into account the advanced stage of his illness . In addition , in a separate certificate , the acting head of the hospital noted that the prison tuberculosis hospital where the applicant was detained employed an oncologist and had the necessary medicines for the applicant \u2019s treatment .","- copies of the applicant \u2019s complaints to various NORP officials , including the GPE regional ombudsman , ORG office , the regional department for the execution of sentences and the acting head of the prison tuberculosis hospital , about the poor quality of his medical care in detention . The complaints also contained a request for a medical examination and for his early release on health grounds .","The Government also answered the CARDINAL questions which , in its letter of DATE , the ORG had asked them to refer to independent medical experts . In particular , in their answer to the first question concerning the adequacy of the applicant \u2019s treatment , the Government stressed that the applicant had regularly undergone in - patient treatment and examinations in relation to his oncological illness . They noted that the applicant \u2019s condition was considered to be moderately serious and stressed that in DATE and DATE he had failed to consent to the cancer treatment . They further directed the ORG to the documents enclosed with their reply ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In their response to the second question about the compatibility of the applicant \u2019s state of health with the conditions of the correctional colony and prison hospital , the Government emphasised that the applicant \u2019s hospital employed the necessary specialists , and had the necessary equipment and drugs to treat him . They further noted that the applicant was in pain and was weak , that he occasionally coughed blood and that his lymph nodes continued to grow . The Government continued by indicating that he would be provided with chemotherapy as soon as the general blood test results allowed and the applicant consented .","In replying to the third question as to whether the applicant needed to be transferred to a specialised hospital or be released , the Government observed that the applicant \u2019s oncological illness was incurable and could lead to his death . They relied on the CARDINAL reports issued by the doctors from the prison tuberculosis hospital on DATE and DATE , according to which the applicant was suffering from a condition included in the list of serious illnesses precluding the serving of sentences in correctional institutions , as provided for by Decree no . CARDINAL of the Government of GPE . However , the NORP courts had refused to release the applicant on health grounds . Another examination of the applicant by the hospital medical panel had been scheduled for DATE .","NORP The applicant informed the ORG that on DATE , acting upon his appeal , ORG had quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered his release . With reference to B. \u2019s testimony , ORG held that ORG findings as to the adequacy of the treatment received by the applicant in the hospital were not in accordance with the established facts . It also pointed to ORG failure to comment on the undertaking by the applicant \u2019s sister to take care of the applicant after his release .","On an unspecified date after DATE the applicant was released ."],"violated_articles":["3","34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148498","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BA\u0160ISTOV\u00c1 AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["A list of the CARDINAL applicants , who are all NORP nationals , is set out in the appendix ( \u201c the applicants \u201d ) .","The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP This application and CARDINAL others ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) concern the regularisation of the relationship between ownership and use of real property located in the cadastral area of ORG .","Certain land in this area was expropriated in DATE by the ( then socialist ) ORG and a public sports centre was built on it . The sports centre comprises buildings and various other facilities , such as a tennis court , a grandstand , a water station and paved areas .","After the post DATE political , constitutional and legal changes , litigation took place with a view to resolving various property claims made by the original owners ( or their legal successors ) against the entities that owned or operated the sports centre or various parts of it .","The land concerned is divided into a number of plots with various owners , many of whom are linked by family relations and history , and who had the same legal representation in the above - mentioned proceedings . Their lawsuits followed a similar pattern , but sometimes had varying results . They included the following proceedings .","The applicants in the present case are all successors in title to a plot of land in the above - mentioned area . They inherited their title from the original owner , who died in DATE .","On DATE the applicants or , as the case might have been , their legal predecessors , represented then and throughout the proceedings by a laywer , lodged an action against the owner of a sports club seeking to obtain a court order for the removal of the constructions on the land .","The principal line of argument was that the expropriation decision of CARDINAL DATE was invalid in law . The applicants were therefore the lawful owners of the land in question , in particular plot no . DATE ( recorded on sheet no . CARDINAL of the \u201c old \u201d records ) , and the defendant had no lawful title to have the constructions on the applicants\u2019 land .","The action was subsequently amended to state that , alternatively , the applicants sought a judicial ruling establishing an easement on their land for the benefit of the owner of the sports centre in return for financial compensation payable to the applicants . It was also extended to CARDINAL more defendants , a municipality and a private company , and to additional plots of land .","NORP The action was examined and determined at first instance by ORG s\u00fad ) . In its judgment ( rozsudok ) of DATE , ORG acknowledged that ( i ) the expropriation of DATE was legally ineffective on account of procedural flaws ; ( ii ) the applicants were the owners of the land in question ; ( iii ) the constructions on it had been built without a valid legal title in so far as the land was concerned ; and ( iv ) the applicants were entitled to seek redress under general civil law , that is to say LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) , which was not subject to any statute of limitation , unlike the special legislation on restitution , which contained specific time - limits .","As regards the options available under LAW for resolving the discrepancy between the ownership and use of the land and the constructions concerned , ORG found that , for practical reasons , it was out of the question to have the applicants established as the owners of the constructions and to order them to pay the current owners financial compensation . Furthermore , in the circumstances , it was likewise not practical to order the physical removal of the constructions in question . The establishment of an easement for the benefit of the owners of the constructions in return for compensation payable by them to the applicants was therefore an option .","NORP However , in that connection , on the basis of expert evidence , ORG observed that part of the land concerned lay under a construction that fell within the definition of a \u201c building \u201d in terms of the law , whereas the remainder of the impugned land was not underneath \u201c buildings \u201d under the said definition .","NORP However , ORG held that an easement over land could only be established for the benefit of the owner of a building in terms of civil law .","A distinction therefore had to be made between the part of the land that was under buildings , in respect of which the action was granted and an easement for the benefit of the owner of the buildings was established , and the remainder of the land , in respect of which the action was dismissed .","At the same time , ORG transferred the claim for compensation for the easement established by the former ruling to another set of proceedings .","The applicants challenged the first - instance judgment by means of an appeal ( odvolanie ) to ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) .","They argued in particular that ORG had failed to appreciate that the property in question was a part of a large complex serving a single purpose ; that a number of claims had been raised in respect of that property ; that the legal nature of those claims was identical to those raised by the applicants , differing only in the technical parameters of the specific plots at stake ; and that in its judgment in case no . CARDINALC CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG had established an easement in respect of plots of land comprising the sports centre , without differentiating between plots that had \u201c buildings \u201d on them and those that did not ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) .","On DATE , ORG , sitting in chambers , dismissed the ORG appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .","It summarised in detail the written , oral and expert evidence taken and fully endorsed the factual and legal conclusions of ORG , providing further detailed explanations of the position taken , accompanied by references to the existing judicial practice . It also observed that the applicants could have asserted their property rights by other means , for example by lodging actions aimed at obtaining declaratory rulings and orders for compensation in respect of unjustified enrichment . However , they had not done so and the courts were bound by the legal classification of the claims they had pursued in the present proceedings .","Nevertheless , ORG provided no specific answer to the arguments that the buildings and the adjacent facilities belonged to a single integrated complex and that a different conclusion had been reached in case no . CARDINALC CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicants , except for the CARDINAL applicant , lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) under LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) .","Citing similar grounds to those mentioned above , coupled with the lack of a judicial response to what they considered to be crucial arguments , the applicants complained that the outcome of the proceedings had been arbitrary and alleged that their rights under , inter alia , LAW ( access , fairness , adequate reasoning ) and the constitutional equivalent of LAW No . CARDINAL had been violated .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill founded . It observed that it was not a court of further appeal against decisions of the ordinary courts and found no constitutionally relevant unfairness , arbitrariness or irregularity in the impugned judgments .","The decision was served on the applicants\u2019 lawyer on DATE .","NORP The position taken by the courts was subsequently fully endorsed by ORG when it dismissed the applicants\u2019 petition for an extraordinary appeal on points of law to be lodged on their behalf in the present case .","Article CARDINAL deals with situations concerning so - called \u201c unlawful constructions \u201d , that is buildings ( stavba ) constructed on somebody else \u2019s plot of land ( pozemok ) without an entitlement to do so .","At the request of the owner of the land , the court has the power to order the removal of such buildings at the cost of the person who constructed them ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","However , if the removal of the building is not practical , and subject to consent by the owner of the land , the court has the power to rule that the title to the building be transferred to the owner of the land in return for compensation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","The court also has the power to regularise the relationship between the owner of the land and the owner of the building by taking other measures , in particular by establishing an easement , which is necessary for the exercise of ownership rights in respect of the building , in return for compensation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","In a case registered at ORG under file no . CARDINALC CARDINAL\/CARDINAL a different group of claimants raised essentially the same claims as the applicants in respect of other plots of land under the same sports centre , the defendant being the respective municipality .","NORP Before the case was resolved on the merits with final effect , ORG had determined the claimants\u2019 appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) ( no . CARDINAL PERSON ) against a previous judgment of ORG . In its judgment of DATE , ORG observed that before the action could be determined on the merits ( of the claim for an easement ) , preliminary questions had to be answered as to whether the claimants were the owners of the property concerned and , if they were , whether they had standing to sue in the case .","ORG further observed that , when dealing with those questions , ORG had noted that the land in question had been expropriated in DATE . ORG had therefore held that , even assuming that the expropriation had been flawed , it could only have been challenged by means of administrative - law remedies and within the timelimits prescribed for such remedies . That , however , had been beyond the scope of the case at hand and , therefore , ORG held that the DATE expropriation should be considered as being a matter of fact .","ORG disagreed with ORG position described above . As was found in the present case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it found that the expropriation of DATE was legally ineffective . As a consequence , the courts were bound to examine the preliminary question of the claimants\u2019 ownership independently and irrespective of the expropriation decision .","The case was finally decided on the merits by ORG on DATE . The action was granted and an easement was established for the benefit of the claimants in respect of the entire property covered by their claim , that is to say including some plots on which no \u201c buildings \u201d , in the sense explained above , were situated .","The judgment was not appealed against and became final and binding on DATE .","The ensuing question concerning the financial compensation payable by the municipality to the claimants for the easement was resolved by ORG in a judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINALC CARDINAL ) on the basis of an expert assessment .","In another similar case concerning property in the same area as in the present case , the claimants raised in principle the same claims . The court took the same position as in the present case , that is to say that the claimants were entitled to assert their property claims under the general provisions of LAW and the determinative factor was whether or not the land in question was under \u201c buildings \u201d . As that was not so , the action was dismissed . The respective judgments were given on DATE ( ORG ) and DATE ( ORG ) , and the final decision was given by ORG on DATE .","In a number of other cases concerning property in the same area and in a situation similar to the present case , the position was taken that the claimants could not assert their rights under the general provisions of LAW , as those provisions constituted a lex generalis , and their application was excluded by virtue of the special legislation on the restitution of property , as a lex specialis . However , that position does not appear to be settled .","The relevant parts of the report state that , in order for the principle of legal certainty \u2013 essential for maintaining confidence in the judicial system and the rule of law \u2013 to be achieved , the ORG must make the law easily accessible and must also apply the laws it has enacted in a foreseeable and consistent manner . As the existence of conflicting decisions within the highest courts may be contrary to this principle , it is necessary for these courts to establish mechanisms to avoid conflicts and ensure the coherence of their case - law .","The relevant parts of the Opinion read as follows :","\u201c DATE . While recognising the judges\u2019 power to interpret the law , the obligation of the judges to promote legal certainty has also to be remembered . Indeed legal certainty guarantees the predictability of the content and application of the legal rules , thus contributing in ensuring a high quality judicial system .","ORG will apply the interpretative principles applicable in both national and international law with this aim in mind . ... In civil law countries , they will be guided by case law , especially that of the highest courts , whose task includes ensuring the uniformity of case law .","DATE . ORG should in general apply the law consistently . However when a court decides to depart from previous case law , this should be clearly mentioned in its decision . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158482","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ZAKHARIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE , the second and third applicants were born in DATE , and the date of birth of the fourth applicant is unknown . The fourth applicant is the common - law wife of Mr PERSON Bazhenov ( \u201c the fourth applicant \u2019s partner \u201d ) . The second and fourth applicants live in GPE and GPE respectively . The first and third applicants are serving prison sentences in GPE .","On DATE the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner were arrested and taken to the police station on suspicion of murder . They were allegedly intimidated by police officers seeking to extract self - incriminating statements .","On DATE a forensic medical examination was conducted in respect of the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner . It revealed that the first applicant had abrasions on his left shoulder , and bruises on both ears and on the back of his thorax ; the third applicant had bruises on his left hip and under his jaw . The expert concluded that those injuries had been sustained DATE prior to the examination and that they had not caused any permanent damage to the applicant \u2019s health . The fourth applicant \u2019s partner was discovered to have a closed nose fracture which amounted to slight damage to his health .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) authorised the detention of the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner pending the investigation . It relied on the gravity of the charges and the risk that they might interfere with the administration of justice ( abscond , resume their criminal activity or threaten witnesses ) . They were placed in remand prison GPE in GPE .","On DATE charges of aggravated murder were brought against them .","On DATE ORG extended the detention of the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner until DATE on the same grounds . Those decisions were upheld on appeal by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in respect of the first applicant on DATE and in respect of the third applicant and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner on DATE .","The first and third applicants\u2019 detention was subsequently extended , on the same grounds , on DATE and DATE respectively , until DATE . ORG upheld those decisions on appeal in respect of the first applicant on an unspecified date and in respect of the third applicant on DATE .","According to the first applicant , CARDINAL the police subjected him to beatings , torture with electric wires , and deprivation of food and sleep .","Subsequently , for DATE starting from DATE the first applicant was intimidated by CARDINAL of his cellmates , PERSON . ( nicknamed \u201c the NORP \u201d ) , who had been instructed by the police to extract the applicant \u2019s confession . As a result , on DATE the applicant attempted suicide by cutting his left forearm .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who reported superficial cuts on his left forearm .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the police station . Throughout the day police officers allegedly beat him in the head , kidneys and genitals , tortured him with electric wires and threatened to kill him and to rape him . As a result , he attempted suicide by cutting his neck with a blade .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who recorded the following injuries : a QUANTITY long cut on his neck and CARDINAL superficial QUANTITY long cuts on his left forearm .","On DATE the third applicant was taken for questioning to the police station , where he was beaten up by police officers GPE . , ORG and PERSON . PERSON . For an hour and a half the police officers allegedly kicked and punched the applicant , who was handcuffed and kneeling , and beat him with a stick . Unable to withstand the torture , the applicant jumped out of a third - floor window of the police station . However , as the applicant \u2019s action was considered an attempt to escape , criminal proceedings were brought against him under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( attempted escape ) .","The following day , on CARDINAL DATE the third applicant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a fracture to his right upper arm and contusions on his thorax and spinal cord , allegedly caused by the jump from the window .","As indicated above the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner were placed in remand prison GPE . The fourth applicant submitted that as from DATE and for DATE her partner was beaten up by other inmates . He was not given any food and not allowed to sleep , and in the TIME he was taken to the police station where the ill - treatment continued .","From DATE to DATE the applicant \u2019s partner was kept in detention facility IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE , where , allegedly with the tacit consent of the facility \u2019s officers , he was constantly ill - treated by other inmates .","From DATE until DATE the fourth applicant \u2019s partner was detained again in remand prison GPE in GPE . CARDINAL of the inmates DATE . and A. \u2013 deprived him of food and sleep , and threatened him with murder and rape . The chief of police , GPE , threatened him with rape . DATE the applicant \u2019s partner was raped by other inmates and the act was videotaped . He was then blackmailed with the tape . Finally , on DATE he confessed . On DATE the applicant \u2019s partner was transferred to a solitary confinement cell .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s partner was found hanged .","The first and the third applicants and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner complained to the prosecutor \u2019s office of their ill - treatment at the hands of the police . The initial complaint concerned the alleged ill - treatment on DATE . Separate complaints were brought later in connection with other alleged instances of ill - treatment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of Irkutsk Region refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers . The decision read as follows :","\u201c ...","[ The first applicant ] submitted that on DATE he had been arrested by the police . When being brought to the police station he had been ill - treated by the police officers [ description of the beatings ] . On DATE he cut his left forearm [ because he had had a conflict with his cellmates and wanted to be transferred to a different cell ] . On DATE [ the first applicant ] cut his neck [ because he had been beaten up by the police officers ] .","[ The fourth applicant \u2019s partner ] submitted that on DATE he had been arrested by the police and brought to the police station where physical force had been applied to him [ description of the beatings ] . He could not describe the officers who had ill - treated him . On DATE he was again ill - treated ; the police officers tortured him with electric wires and beat him up .","[ The third applicant ] submitted that police officers ill - treated him and he was compelled to jump out of the window .","...","[ Chief police officer PERSON ] submitted that on DATE [ the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner ] had been arrested on suspicion of having committed particularly serious crimes . They showed active resistance during the arrest and therefore physical force and cuffing were applied to them . After the arrest [ the above persons ] were brought to the police station . The first applicant and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner had injuries which had been inflicted on them at the arrest . Subsequently the first applicant and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner were taken to the investigator for participation in the investigative actions . No physical or mental coercion was applied to them ...","Similar statements were given by police officers PERSON . , PERSON and P. [ The latter ] added that on DATE [ the first applicant ] participated in an investigative action at the police station . After the investigative action was completed , he and the [ first applicant ] remained waiting in office no . CARDINAL for the applicant to be taken back to the remand prison . [ The first applicant ] was nervous , [ he ] expressed his fears of receiving a long sentence . During the conversation he cut his neck . He was provided with medical aid and taken to the remand prison , where he was examined by a doctor .","According to the reports of the forensic medical examinations , the injuries of [ the first and third applicants ] did not cause any permanent damage to their health , and the injuries of [ the fourth applicant \u2019s partner ] caused slight damage to his health . The [ above ] injuries could have originated from the impact of hard blunt objects with a limited surface area , which could be a fist or a foot .","These injuries were caused to [ the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner ] at their arrest by the police officers . An inquiry was carried out in accordance with LAW which established that [ the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner ] had shown active resistance during their arrest and the police had applied physical force and special means to them pursuant to ORG CARDINAL of the PERSON on police . On DATE the institution of the criminal proceedings against the police officers was refused in the absence of constituent elements of a crime in their actions .","An inquiry was carried out in accordance with LAW into [ the first applicant \u2019s ] causing himself injuries on DATE . On DATE the institution of the criminal proceedings was refused .","Bodily injuries in the form of cutting wound of the neck were self - inflicted by the [ first applicant ] , which is confirmed by the latter \u2019s statements . No other injuries were discovered on [ the first applicant ] at his examination on DATE . This fact disproves [ the first applicant \u2019s ] allegation of having been beaten up by the police on DATE .","On DATE [ the third applicant ] jumped out from the third - floor window of the police station in an attempt to escape . Criminal proceedings were instituted against him under LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","No evidence was established during the inquiry to substantiate the allegations that police officers PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON had applied physical and mental coercion to [ the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner ] . The submissions made in this respect by [ the latter ] are unsubstantiated and far - fetched .","... \u201d","On DATE ORG set aside the decision of DATE and opened criminal proceedings against a number of police officers under LAW ( a ) of LAW ( Abuse of office associated with the use of violence or entailing serious consequences ) .","On DATE , however , the criminal proceedings were discontinued owing to the absence of constituent elements of a crime in the actions of the police officers . The applicants did not appeal against this decision in court .","On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings into the death of the fourth applicant \u2019s partner under LAW ( incitement to suicide ) .","On CARDINAL DATE a post - mortem examination of the applicant \u2019s partner was completed . It was established that he had died as a result of strangling . Apart from visible marks on his neck , the following injuries were recorded : abrasions on the neck , the lumbar region , the chest , the right forearm , the right wrist and the right hand ; bruises and abrasions on the forehead ; bruises in the soft tissues of the neck ; and a hemorrhage in the mucous membrane of the anus .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were discontinued owing to the absence of evidence of a crime . It was established that on DATE the fourth applicant \u2019s partner had been transferred to a solitary confinement cell after his lawyer had complained that the former had been subjected to abuse by other inmates . Thereafter , on DATE the fourth applicant \u2019s partner was found hung in the cell . The forensic medical expert concluded that the death had occurred as a result of strangling . It was further established that on DATE of his death the fourth applicant \u2019s partner had been kept in the cell alone , and that the lawyer \u2019s allegations that his client had been ill - treated by other inmates had not been confirmed .","The lawfulness of the above decision was challenged before the court by the father of the deceased , PERSON , who was granted victim status in the relevant proceedings .","On DATE ORG found the above decision lawful and justified . It was not appealed against to ORG .","On DATE ORG convicted the first and third applicants , along with CARDINAL other co - defendants , of banditry , aggravated murder and robbery . It sentenced the first applicant to life imprisonment and the second applicant to DATE imprisonment . The trial court examined the allegations of police ill - treatment in so far as the admissibility of evidence was at issue . It heard the applicants , examined the medical evidence , and questioned the applicants\u2019 former cellmates and the police officers allegedly involved in the ill - treatment . Having taken into account the conclusions of the investigation , the court held that no unlawful methods of interrogation had been used against the applicants .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","On DATE the flat of CARDINAL of the victims was searched within the framework of the murder case involving the first and third applicants and the fourth applicant \u2019s partner . The second applicant , who was found armed inside the flat , was taken to the police station for identification and questioning . He was kept there until DATE . According to the second applicant , police officers struck him in the area of his only kidney , tried to throw him out of the window , then forced him out onto the windowsill , from where he lost his balance and fell CARDINAL floors down .","From DATE to DATE the second applicant underwent treatment in the traumatology unit of Angarsk hospital no . CARDINAL for a cerebral contusion , massive damage to the soft tissue of his body and extremities , diffused hypodermic and subfascial haematomas , multiple abrasions on the head and extremities , kidney contusion , compression syndrome and right - sided post - traumatic pneumonia .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant sought to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . However , on DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE refused to open criminal proceedings , having arrived at the conclusion that the applicant had jumped out of the window in an attempt to escape . The applicant challenged the lawfulness of that decision in court .","On DATE the ORG found the decision lawful and justified .","The applicant did not appeal against the judgment before ORG ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182215","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LIU v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC , GPE Region .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and brought to ORG where he stayed until DATE .","NORP Since DATE he had been detained with CARDINAL inmates in the cell no . CARDINAL designed for CARDINAL persons and had to take turns to sleep . DATE after he had been transferred to another cell with the area of QUANTITY which he had shared with another inmate .","NORP The detention centre had no shower facilities or a place for outdoor walks . The applicant \u2019s cell was cold and damp , iron banks were not covered by mattresses . Toilets were not separated from the living area , and the persons using them were in full view of others . Food supply was inadequate , the applicant was served meals only once a day and had no drinking water from within the cell .","The Government submitted that ORG comprised CARDINAL cells : no . CARDINAL with the area of QUANTITY for CARDINAL inmates and no . CARDINAL with the area of QUANTITY for CARDINAL inmates . There was no overcrowding ; the toilet had been separate by a shoulder length fence . The detainees may take a shower once a week . The temperature was DATE , there were kettles with boiled water in the cells .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife , PERSON , sought to visit the applicant but was refused .","On DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s wife filed complaints with ORG stating that she had not been allowed to see the applicant .","In DATE the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage , stating that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading , and that the prohibition on family visits was unlawful .","NORP On DATE the ORG dismissed his claim . Relying on the statements of a representative of the detention centre , the court held that the Internal Rules of the Administrative Detention Centres approved by LAW DATE no . CARDINAL dsp ( \u201c the Rules \u201d ) did not make provision for family visits , and that the applicant \u2019s right to family life had not been breached as he had met his wife during court hearings .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157536","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF VUJICA v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE she married Mr GPE in GPE ( GPE ) . They lived in GPE until DATE , when they decided to move to PERSON ( GPE ) .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant gave birth to their daughter , PERSON , on DATE to their son , PERSON , and on DATE to their second daughter , GPE","On DATE the applicant and GPE separated . He remained in GPE , whereas the applicant returned to GPE .","Following her arrival in GPE the applicant collected the children from her husband \u2019s parents , who lived in GPE and with whom the children had been spending DATE , and took the children with her to GPE .","When the applicant did not return to GPE , GPE went to GPE with a view to taking the children back to GPE . However , the applicant opposed that . The children therefore remained in GPE where the applicant enrolled the CARDINAL older children in school and the youngest child in kindergarten . ORG maintained contact with the children by talking to them over the phone and by visiting them occasionally . It would appear that the applicant and ORG eventually agreed that the children would remain in GPE but would spend holidays with their father in GPE .","In DATE , after DATE , which the children spent with their father and paternal grandparents in GPE , the father refused to return them to the applicant , claiming that the children had refused to go back to GPE .","In DATE , relying on LAW ( hereinafter : \u201c LAW \u201d , see paragraph DATE below ) , the applicant asked ORG , as ORG within the meaning of that LAW , to return her children . ORG immediately contacted ORG ( ORG zdravstva i socijalne skrbi ) as ORG .","By a letter of DATE ORG forwarded the applicant \u2019s request to ORG ( PERSON ) .","A copy of the ORG \u2019s letter of DATE was sent to ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb Vinkovci ) . Pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the latter was invited to mediate with the father the voluntary return of the children to GPE , and to inform ORG and ORG of the results thereof .","ORG interviewed GPE , talked to the children without his presence and carried out an on - site inspection of his home . On DATE it replied to the ORG \u2019s request . The relevant part of that reply reads as follows :","\u201c GPE states that his actions were in accordance with the wishes of his children , who wanted to remain living with him in GPE . He justifies his current actions by the wish to afford his children a happy life . During the interview on the [ premises ] of ORG did not try to portray [ the applicant ] as a bad or irresponsible mother ... GPE verbalises the wish that in the divorce proceedings the custody of the children be awarded to him primarily because he wants the children to be happy . He states that the children wish to remain living with him . He does not want to restrict his wife \u2019s contacts with the children . ... During the conversation ORG leaves the impression of an emotionally warm person . He does not appear to be a parent who would physically punish or behave inappropriately towards the children .","... by an on - site inspection it was established that the father had secured adequate housing and other conditions . He has a permanent source of income ... as he has a bar on the ground floor of the house [ where he and the children live ] , where he works . [ Thus ] while working he stays [ physically ] very close to his family , which gives the children [ a sense of ] security .","It was further established that GPE and GPE had frequently changed school and that they had started DATE by going to an elementary school in PERSON where , according to the father , they had adapted well . It is not in the children \u2019s interest to frequently change school , schoolmates and teachers . The children should have stability . Every removal of the children from their habitual environment ( family or school setting ) is stressful and leaves consequences on the children . It requires them to make additional efforts to adapt to the new environment and the school and to make new friends .","Given that the children \u2019s mother had in the meantime lodged an application for the return of her wrongfully retained children from GPE , the ORG conducted an interview with the children on its LOC without the presence of the father . Their wish is that their parents live together , as most children in their situation do . They are aware that the parents are divorcing . They are not taking the side of [ either ] the father or the mother . PERSON and GPE understand the family situation whereas GPE is at an age when her GPE situation is still not clear to her . The children express the wish to live with their father . They see their relationship with the father as closer and [ consider that ] they are more emotionally attached [ to him ] . They like the life in the countryside , in PERSON . The life in GPE is very different from the life in PERSON . In PERSON they have more free time , and meet and play with other children of their age . The pace of life in GPE makes that impossible . Here they are very well accepted in school . They know their neighbours and other children of their age .","In the light of the foregoing [ the ORG ] found that it would be in the children \u2019s interest to continue living with their father in PERSON . In accordance with that [ view ] the ORG has submitted the opinion of a psychologist and a social worker to ORG . \u201d","ORG - contentious proceedings for the return of the children were instituted on DATE , that is , on the date the ORG \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE forwarding the applicant \u2019s request under LAW to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was received at that court . ORG participated in those proceedings as an independent intervener sui generis with a view to protecting the children \u2019s interests .","During the proceedings the court decided to obtain and consult the report of the social welfare centre prepared for the purposes of deciding on the custody of the children in the parallel civil proceedings for divorce and child custody ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the report was received at the court .","At a hearing held at TIME on DATE the applicant \u2019s representative argued that the retention of the CARDINAL children by their father in GPE had been wrongful and that they should be returned forthwith . She averred that the fact that the social welfare centre had submitted a report in the parallel civil proceedings for divorce and child custody should have no bearing in the present proceedings as LAW did not provide for exceptions from the obligation to promptly return the children . She also stated that the applicant \u2019s right to equality in the proceedings had been breached because , even though she was fluent in NORP as her parents were of NORP origin , she had not been invited by ORG to participate in the family assessment procedure leading to its report .","S.V. \u2019s representative invited the court to dismiss the applicant \u2019s request . She argued that the retention of the children had not been wrongful and that in any event GPE could not have forced the children to return to their mother against their wishes . In particular , the children had clearly communicated their wishes not to return to GPE to the employees of the social welfare centre and had even told their father that they would run away if returned , which suggested that the return would have caused them psychological trauma . Furthermore , while it was true that the report of the social welfare centre was prepared in the context of the parallel civil proceedings for the purposes of deciding on custody of the children , its findings , which had suggested that the children did not want to return to GPE , could not be ignored in the present proceedings .","The representative of ORG agreed with ORG \u2019s representative that the applicant \u2019s request should be dismissed and that the children \u2019s retention had not been wrongful . She submitted that the children had been interviewed by the employees of the centre first together and then individually , and that they had stated that they did not like the life in GPE and wanted to live in GPE .","In her reply the applicant \u2019s representative stated as follows :","\u201c ... especially the youngest child of the parties GPE , who is DATE , is very attached to her mother , and has expressed a wish to return with her to GPE . As regards the CARDINAL older children , what should primarily be taken into account , given their age , are their [ best ] interests and not just where they wish to live . In any event , this can not have an impact on the decision making in this case having regard to LAW . \u201d","At the same hearing the court heard both parties . The applicant in her testimony stated that in DATE ORG had called her to tell her that he would not be returning the children to GPE because they did not want that . The applicant further testified that on that occasion she had spoken with the children over the phone and that the CARDINAL older children had told her that they indeed did not want to return to GPE , whereas the youngest child had expressed the wish to return . The applicant also stated that she had not seen her children from the time their father had retained them in GPE until DATE before the hearing .","NORP From GPE \u2019s testimony it followed that the youngest child , GPE , was indecisive as to which parent she wanted to live with . In his own words :","\u201c GPE is [ still ] small and at times she wants to live with her mother , and every now and then with me . \u201d","At the same hearing , on DATE , ORG delivered a decision whereby it dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . In so doing it relied on the report of ORG , which included the opinions of a social worker and a psychologist employed with the centre and which had been prepared for the purposes of deciding on the custody of the children in the parallel civil proceedings for divorce and child custody ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The relevant part of that decision read as follows :","\u201c The petitioner ... maintains her request that her children be returned to GPE where they had the last domicile , that is , their habitual residence and where they went to school . The fact that the social welfare centre gave its opinion in the [ parallel ] civil proceedings for divorce [ and child custody ] is of no relevance for reaching a decision in these [ return ] proceedings because GPE , as a signatory of LAW , is bound to honour the provisions of that Convention .","The counterparty ... in his reply opposes the [ petitioner \u2019s ] request , considering that the conditions prescribed in LAW had not been met in the present case . In particular , in order for LAW to apply , the children had to have been wrongfully removed or wrongfully retained and the right of custody had to have been breached . The law did not attribute the right of custody to the petitioner , nor had she been awarded that right by a judicial or administrative decision or an agreement equal to such decisions . Hence , the petitioner herself does not have the right of custody any more than the counterparty himself , given that the divorce proceedings , where [ the issue of ] custody is being examined , are still pending before this court .","He also invokes LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) [ of LAW ] which provides that the court is not bound to order the return of a child if it establishes that the return would expose the child to , inter alia , psychological harm , and that it may also refuse to do so if the child objects to being returned .","The representative of ORG in her observations considers that the present case does not concern wrongful retention of children because the ORG had , even before the petitioner submitted her request , been involved in the social anamnesis of the family [ i.e. family assessment ] . Namely , the children \u2019s father had addressed the LOC when in DATE , during a visit of the children to his parents in GPE , the spouses had separated , that is to say , when the petitioner had left [ him ] , gone to GPE , taken the children , retained them and enrolled them in a school in GPE . The father , in order to protect the interests of the children , had decided not to take certain steps [ to return them ] but had instead visited the children in GPE as much as he could . When the children DATE had come to GPE with his parents , they had not wanted to go back to GPE . The father had then sought advice from the LOC , which had advised him that he should not return the children to their mother by force . After that , he had filed for divorce , whereas the petitioner had lodged a request for the return of wrongfully retained children .","In the proceedings conducted before ORG , the children were heard , all CARDINAL of them together and then individually , and they expressed the wish to live in GPE . Therefore , the representative of ORG considers that , in order to protect the children \u2019s interests and well - being , it is necessary to dismiss the petitioner \u2019s request as unfounded .","...","In these proceedings , instituted following the request of the petitioner for the return of the children , the court has to apply the Ratification of the Hague Convention ( Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ) Act .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that LAW provides that the court will refuse to order the return of a child if he or she is settled in the new environment .","According to evidence taken , it was established that the parties married on DATE in GPE , in GPE . During the marriage , PERSON was born on DATE , GPE on DATE and GPE on DATE . The parties came with their CARDINAL children to live in GPE , in PERSON .","In the acrimony during the [ DATE [ the petitioner ] verbalised the wish to end their life together . [ She ] left the common household and went to live in GPE . At that time the children were in GPE , visiting their paternal grandparents . Upon her arrival in GPE the petitioner immediately went to collect the children and did not allow the father to take them back to GPE , even though the children wanted to go to GPE and had to finish another school term [ there ] .","[ In ] DATE [ DATE ] the children , together with their paternal grandparents , came to [ GPE to ] spend DATE of DATE at the seaside . After returning from the seaside , the children came to live in PERSON . According to the counterparty \u2019s statement , which the petitioner acknowledged , the CARDINAL older children had refused to return to GPE , expressing the wish to stay in PERSON .","From the enclosed certificates of domicile issued by the [ police authorities ] it was established that all CARDINAL children have registered domicile on the territory of GPE , at the address ... in PERSON ... as of DATE . Therefore , the petitioner \u2019s arguments that the children have registered domicile only in GPE are incorrect .","In the present case the court has not yet rendered a final decision in the [ parallel civil ] proceedings [ for divorce and child custody ] . However , that does not affect the adoption of the decision on the request for the return of the children on the basis of LAW on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction .","It is the opinion of this court that the father did not , without the knowledge and approval of the mother , abduct the children from the living environment in which they were settled . It is to be noted that the children have previously lived in PERSON , that PERSON finished the second grade of the elementary school in PERSON where she went to school until DATE third grade , and that PERSON also attended the first grade in the school in PERSON . It therefore follows that the children were retained in the place where they previously used to live . This school year GPE and GPE are again attending the elementary school in PERSON .","From the opinion of the psychologist at ORG it undoubtedly follows that it is not in the children \u2019s interests to change school again because they would have to re - adapt to [ new ] teachers , curriculum , schoolmates , etc . From the opinion submitted it is evident that the children have adapted to their current living environment and school setting , and that they have verbalised the wish to live with their father .","Given all the aforementioned [ considerations ] , this court , relying on LAW paragraph CARDINAL and LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) and ( b ) of LAW on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction , refuses to order the return of the children , finding that the children have adapted without any problems to the environment in which they had previously lived and that , in the given circumstances , returning them to the mother in GPE would place them in an unfavourable position and expose them to psychological trauma , which certainly can not be to their benefit .","It is also to be noted that the children themselves , especially the CARDINAL older children , object to being returned to GPE .","Having regard to all the above , this court decides as [ indicated ] in the operative part . \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed against the first - instance decision .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON u Vukovaru ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision , which thereby became final . The second - instance decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c The appellant claims that the aim of the [ Hague ] Convention is the prompt return of children to the country of their habitual residence , and that what is protected is the last status of the children .","In the appellant \u2019s opinion it was necessary to apply exclusively LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the said ORG and order the children \u2019s return forthwith .","...","The appeal is unfounded .","...","It was established that all CARDINAL children have registered domicile on the territory of GPE , at the address ... in PERSON ... as of DATE .","The first - instance court correctly found that the father did not without the knowledge and approval of the mother abduct the children from the living environment where they were settled because the children have previously lived in PERSON , [ where ] PERSON finished the second grade of elementary school ... and PERSON attended the first grade ...","The first - instance court relied on LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) and ( b ) of the [ Hague ] Convention .","As rightly pointed out by the appellant , the first - instance court had erred in relying on LAW paragraph CARDINAL of that Convention because the children had been brought to GPE at DATE , whereas the proceedings [ for the return of children ] were instituted in DATE , that is , before the expiration of DATE referred to in DATE [ LAW .","However , this second - instance court finds that the first - instance court correctly applied LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) and ( b ) of the [ Hague ] Convention , and , in the opinion of this court , also paragraph CARDINAL of that Article because the CARDINAL older children , whose views it is appropriate to take into account given their age , object to being returned .","Since the children have already adapted to life in the environment ( in which they have previously lived DATE before going to GPE ) there is a grave risk that their return would expose them to psychological trauma . The change of school would have traumatising effects on the CARDINAL older children if , during DATE , they were to be transferred to GPE , where the curriculum is completely different .","For these reasons the appeal is dismissed and the first - instance decision upheld . \u201d","On DATE , the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint alleging , inter alia , that her constitutional right to a fair hearing and to respect for her family life , guaranteed by LAW paragraph CARDINAL and LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , had been violated . On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint and served its decision on her representative on DATE . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c [ The complainant ] considers that the [ constitutional ] rights guaranteed in Articles CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW have been breached by the contested decision of the lower - instance courts .","...","Having regard to the arguments raised in the constitutional complaint ORG examined the contested decisions under LAW paragraph CARDINAL and LAW .","...","Having regard to the opinion of ORG ... and the fact that both older children ... ( GPE and GPE ) expressed the wish as to where and with which parent they wanted to continue living after [ their GPE ] divorce , and that they refuse to be separated from their father , ORG finds that the competent courts rendered the contested decisions by correctly assessing all the particular circumstances of the present case . \u201d","Meanwhile , on DATE ORG brought a civil action against the applicant in ORG seeking : ( a ) divorce ; ( b ) the right to have their children living with him ( hereafter : \u201c custody \u201d ) ; and ( c ) maintenance for the children . As in the above - mentioned proceedings for the return of children ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG also participated in these proceedings as an independent intervener sui generis with a view to protecting the children \u2019s interests .","On DATE the court invited ORG to submit a report on the financial and family situation of the parties and to give its opinion on the issue of which parent the children would prefer to live with and on the contacts with the other parent .","On DATE the applicant responded to ORG \u2019s action . In her response she agreed to the divorce , contested ORG claim for custody and proposed instead that she be granted custody .","After having interviewed the children and GPE , and having carried out an inspection of his home on DATE , ORG submitted its report to the court on DATE . The report consisted of the opinion of a social worker and the opinion of a psychologist , who were both employed at the centre .","The relevant part of the opinion of the social worker reads as follows :","\u201c [ ORG ] justifies his current actions by his wish to afford his children a happy life . During the interview he repeatedly stated that after spending DATE in GPE , the children expressed the wish not to return to GPE any more . He did not stop his wife coming and seeing the children but she never came ... During the interview he did not try to portray [ her ] as a bad or irresponsible mother ... GPE verbalises the wish that in the divorce proceedings the custody of the children be awarded to him primarily because he wants the children to be happy . He stated that that the children wished to remain living with him . He did not want to restrict his wife \u2019s contacts with the children . ... During the conversation ORG leaves the impression of an emotionally warm person . He does not appear to be a parent who would physically punish or behave inappropriately towards the children .","... by an on - site inspection it was established that the father had secured adequate housing and other conditions . He has a permanent source of income ... as he has a bar on the ground floor of the house [ where he and the children live ] where he works . [ Thus ] while working he stays [ physically ] very close to his family , which gives the children [ a sense of ] security .","It is evident that GPE and GPE have frequently changed school and that they started DATE by going to the elementary school in PERSON where , according to their father , they have adapted well . It is not in the interest of the children to frequently change school , schoolmates and teachers . The children should have stability . Every removal of the children from their habitual environment ( family or school setting ) is stressful and has consequences on the children . That requires additional efforts from the children to adapt to the new environment , [ the new ] school and to make new friends .","Given that the children \u2019s mother lives in GPE ... employees of ORG had no possibility to examine and establish [ her ] housing conditions and family situation and assess [ them ] and [ thus ] could not give an opinion on the possibility of contacts between the mother and the children at her place of residence in GPE .","Having regard to the foregoing , I am of the opinion that GPE , GPE and GPE should continue living with their father ... \u201d","The relevant part of the opinion of the centre \u2019s psychologist reads as follows :","\u201c This opinion was prepared on the basis of a psychological interview with ORG as well as on the basis of psychological examination of the children and the perusal of the documents available at the Centre .","...","An interview with the children was conducted . Their wish is that their parents live together , as most children in their situation do . They are aware that their parents are divorcing . They are not taking the side of [ either ] the father or the mother . GPE and GPE understand the family situation whereas GPE is at an age when her GPE situation is still not clear to her . The children express the wish to live with their father . They see their relationship with the father as closer and [ consider that ] they are more emotionally attached [ to him ] . They especially like the life in PERSON , that is , in a smaller community . The life in GPE differs to a significant degree from the life here . They have more free time , [ and ] meet with children of their age . They spend their free time playing , which is not the case in GPE , not because CARDINAL of the parents would prohibit or prevent them from doing so but because the pace of life is such . The parents and the children are not at home during DATE because they work and the children go to school , so they spend very little time together , which means a lot to the children . Here they are well accepted in school , they know the neighbours and generally the social network ( teachers , neighbours , children of their age ) works better . Moreover , it is not in the children \u2019s interest to change school anew , which is stressful because the children have to re - adapt to teachers , the curriculum and [ find new ] friends .","I am of the opinion that the children should remain living with their father given that GPE adequately takes care of their needs as well as of their education and upbringing . At the same time , the children verbalise their wish to live with their father . \u201d","As the applicant did not oppose the divorce , at the hearing held on DATE the court ruled that GPE \u2019s civil action was to be considered a joint petition for divorce . At the same hearing the applicant and ORG asked the court to adjourn the hearing so that they could agree on the issues of child custody , access rights of the non - custodial parent and maintenance .","At the hearing held at TIME DATE , DATE , that is , TIME after the hearing in the above - mentioned proceedings concerning the return of children ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the parties informed the court that they had agreed that the CARDINAL older children would live with their father but that they could not reach an agreement on custody of their youngest child , GPE","The applicant \u2019s representative stressed that it was in GPE \u2019s interest , as she was DATE at the time , to live with her mother , to whom she was emotionally attached and with whom she had expressed the wish to live . She added that at that age the role of the mother was very important . Lastly , the applicant \u2019s representative reiterated that the applicant had not been involved in the family assessment procedure carried out by ORG , resulting in its report . In particular , she had not been interviewed or otherwise examined by its staff ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She therefore invited the court to obtain a joint expert opinion from a psychologist and a psychiatrist with a view to establishing whether it was in GPE \u2019s best interests to live with her mother or with her father .","The representative of the social welfare centre stated that the applicant had not been involved in the family assessment procedure because she was a foreign national who lived abroad . After reiterating the findings made in the centre \u2019s report ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , she added that the children were very emotionally attached to each other and it was therefore not advisable to separate them .","S.V. \u2019s representative argued that the court should respect the professional opinions expressed in the social welfare centre \u2019s report and that the children should not be separated . She added that her client was willing to allow the applicant to have longer and more frequent contacts with GPE , given that she was not burdened by school obligations . Lastly , GPE \u2019s representative opposed the proposal to obtain a joint expert opinion ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as it was not disputed between the parties that they were both capable of adequately taking care of the children .","After hearing the representatives of the parties and of the social welfare centre as the intervener , ORG at the same hearing first rejected the proposal by the applicant \u2019s representative to obtain a joint expert opinion , and then pronounced a judgment whereby it : ( a ) divorced the marriage between the applicant and ORG ; ( b ) decided that all CARDINAL children were to live with GPE ; ( c ) granted the applicant access ( contact ) rights ; and ( d ) ordered the applicant to regularly pay a certain amount of money as maintenance for their children . In particular , the court decided that the applicant should exercise her access rights by taking the children to her home in GPE on DATE ( or any other DATE if the parties agreed otherwise ) , as well as during DATE , DATE of DATE and during other holidays interchangeably .","In deciding on the issue of child custody , the court relied on the report of the social welfare centre ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c The court rejected the second petitioner \u2019s [ the defendant \u2019s ] proposal to take evidence by obtaining a joint expert opinion from experts in psychology and psychiatry because it is undisputed between the parties that they both satisfy the conditions for assuming parental responsibility , with which the court agrees . Given that on the basis of the evidence taken it can reach a decision on the merits even without the proposed evidence , which would indicate whether the parents are fit to take care of the children , the court considered [ obtaining ] the opinion of an expert in psychiatry unnecessary and [ thus ] rejected that proposal , having regard to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW which requires that [ the civil ] proceedings be conducted without delays and with the least cost .","...","As regards their minor children , GPE and GPE , the parties reached an agreement that they would live with their father . However , the mother argued that it was in the [ best ] interests of [ their younger daughter ] GPE , who is DATE , to live with her as she was emotionally attached to her [ mother ] .","From the report of the social welfare centre it follows that the children wish , as do most children in their situation , the parents to live together in a harmonious relationship , that they are aware of the fact that their father and mother are divorcing , and that they are not taking the side of [ either ] the father or the mother . However , they expressed the wish to live with their father because they see their relationship with their father as much closer and are more emotionally attached to him . Furthermore , it follows from the report that the children like their life in PERSON , that is , [ a life ] in a smaller community where they have more free time , socialise with other children of their age [ and ] spend their free time playing , which is not the case in GPE . It further follows from the report that the children are well accepted in school and that it is not in the children \u2019s best interests to change school again , which is considered stressful as they would again have to adjust to [ new ] teachers , curriculum and schoolmates . Therefore , in the opinion of the social welfare centre , the children should remain living with their father given that he adequately takes care of their needs , their upbringing and education and that , at the same time , the children have verbalised the wish to live with their father .","At the hearing ... the representative of the social welfare centre stated that she maintained the opinion provided [ in the report of the social welfare centre ] and reiterated that the children were very attached to each other and that it would not be advisable to separate them .","The first petitioner [ the plaintiff ] stated at the same hearing that he did not dispute that the mother met the conditions to be awarded custody of the children but that he considered that it would be in the best interests of the children to live together , which was what the children wanted , and that he was willing to allow the second petitioner [ the defendant ] to maintain more extensive contact with GPE given that she was not burdened by school obligations .","When awarding custody it has to be taken into account that brothers and sisters with existing emotional connections should not be separated unless that is their wish or in their best interests . Given that according to the report of the social welfare centre the children have verbalised the wish to live together , the court , promoting the best interests of the child within the meaning of LAW and [ in accordance with ] the basic principles of LAW on the Exercise of Children \u2019s Rights , has decided to award custody to their father .","When deciding on the mother \u2019s access ( contact ) rights , the court has , having regard to the agreement of the parties that the mother shall exercise those rights in the manner proposed by the social welfare centre , but so that the mother takes the children to her home in GPE , [ decided ] that [ she should have contact with the children ] on DATE or DATE if the parties agree otherwise , as well as during DATE , DATE of DATE and during other holidays interchangeably . \u201d","On DATE the applicant and ORG signed a written agreement ( hereinafter : \u201c interim custody agreement \u201d ) regulating the applicant \u2019s access rights in the period until the first - instance judgment became final . They agreed that in that period the applicant would exercise her access rights according to the visiting schedule set forth in the first - instance judgment . In addition , the parties agreed that the applicant would immediately take their youngest daughter , GPE , with her to GPE and return her to GPE on DATE . However , on DATE the applicant did not return their youngest child to ORG , but retained her in GPE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment . She argued that : ( a ) under LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) the first - instance court was not allowed to proceed until the adoption of the final decision in the proceedings for the return of children ; ( b ) the first - instance court had not referred ORG and her to the mandatory mediation procedure before divorce , contrary to section DATE of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; and ( c ) she had not participated in the family assessment procedure carried out by the social welfare centre . The applicant also reiterated her earlier argument that her younger daughter , GPE , was emotionally attached to her and was at an age when it was in her best interests to live with her mother , as her separation from the mother would be more detrimental than separation from her siblings . As regards her CARDINAL older children , the applicant emphasised that if they really wanted to remain living with their father in GPE , she was prepared to respect that wish . However , the decision on their custody should not have been made before the decision in the return proceedings .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld the first - instance judgment , which thereby became final . The second - instance judgment was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c In her appeal the appellant argues that ... the [ first - instance ] court was not allowed to proceed in these [ civil ] proceedings until the final resolution of the [ non - contentious ] proceedings for the return of wrongfully retained children pending before the same court , in accordance with LAW . The purpose of that Convention was that children were returned to the ORG from which they had been abducted . Only then should proceedings for custody have been conducted , given that the children had been uprooted from the milieu in which they had lived hitherto .","[ The appellant ] also argues that she did not participate in the [ family assessment ] carried out by ORG centre . She considers that the youngest child GPE was very emotionally attached to her and that the [ first - instance ] court should have taken that into account .","...","As the parties , however , did not agree on custody in respect of their youngest child , GPE , the court , deferring to the opinion of the social welfare centre and respecting the wishes of the children , decided that she should remain living with her father , brother and sister in PERSON .","In particular , during an interview with the expert team of ORG the children expressed the wish to live with their father because they considered their relationship with the father closer , they liked the life in PERSON [ that is ] in a smaller community where they had more free time , spent time with children of their age , spent free time playing which was not the case in GPE , and also because they went to school here where they were well accepted .","From the report of ORG it follows that the children are very attached to each other and that it would not be wise to separate them and change their environment , which corresponds to the children \u2019s wishes .","Since the children verbalised the wish to live together and given that GPE did not yet have school obligations \u2013 which made it possible for her to maintain more extensive contacts with her mother , if the parents agreed \u2013 the first - instance court , endorsing the best interests of the child within the meaning of LAW and [ in accordance with ] the basic principles of LAW on the Exercise of Children \u2019s Rights , correctly decided that the children should remain living with their father [ while ] leaving open the possibility that this decision could be altered if circumstances change .","...","The case file also contains certificates of domicile in respect of all the parties\u2019 children from which it is evident that their registered address is in PERSON since DATE . In any event , the whole family previously lived together in PERSON .","Having regard to the above , the appellant \u2019s argument that she was prevented from participating in the assessment carried out by the social welfare centre is unfounded because she participated in the proceedings before the [ first - instance ] court , as did the father , where the representative of the social welfare centre was present and where the parents reached an agreement on the custody [ of the children ] except GPE Given that an agreement was reached as to where the children would live , even if they go to GPE on DATE to maintain contact with their mother , it could not be said that they were abducted or uprooted from the milieu in which they were living , particularly taking into account the wishes of the children and the fact that the CARDINAL older children go to school in PERSON . \u201d","The applicant then , on DATE , lodged a constitutional complaint alleging , inter alia , that her constitutional rights to a fair hearing and to respect for her family life , guaranteed by LAW and LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been violated .","On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint and served its decision on her representative on DATE . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c ... the report of ORG of DATE and the opinion of a psychologist are enclosed with the case file of the first - instance court . Both [ documents ] come to the same conclusion that the children of the parties should continue living with their father after the divorce .","At the main hearing held in the case on DATE both parties proposed that the CARDINAL older children ( GPE and GPE ) remain living with their father and that [ the youngest child ] GPE remain living with her mother \u2013 who lodged the constitutional complaint . At that hearing the complainant as the defendant did not ask for the application of LAW on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction .","...","ORG considers that in every [ set of ] proceedings concerning custody of children the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration .","...","The Constitutional Court finds that ... ORG undertook the necessary steps before adopting the report concerning custody of the children .","The proposal expressed in the report of ORG that all CARDINAL children should continue living with their father after the divorce is , after all , in line with the opinion of the psychologist .","The proposal was based on the fact that both older children ( PERSON and PERSON ) had expressed the wish as to which parent they wanted to live with , whereas as regards the [ youngest child ] GPE it was established that she was \u2018 still at an age where she does not completely understand her GPE situation , that all CARDINAL children were very emotionally attached to each other and that , [ while ] accepting the fact that their parents were divorcing , they wanted to continue living together , with CARDINAL parent .","...","In view of the above , ORG considers that the constitutional rights provided for in LAW paragraph CARDINAL and LAW , and the rights guaranteed by ORG and CARDINAL of LAW were not breached by the contested decisions .","ORG also notes that the legal views expressed in the contested judgments ... are primarily based on the best interests of the child and are also founded on the established principles of international law .","...","As regards the complainant \u2019s arguments that LAW on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was applicable in the instant case , ORG finds correct the ... reasoning expressed in the contested judgment of ORG , which ... reads :","\u2018 ... Given that an agreement was reached as to where the children would live , even if they go to GPE on DATE to maintain contacts with their mother , it could not be said that they were abducted ... \u2019 \u201d","Given that the applicant did not respect the interim custody agreement of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and did not return GPE to GPE on DATE but retained her in GPE , on CARDINAL DATE GPE , relying on LAW , requested ORG , as ORG , to contact ORG , as ORG , with a view to returning GPE","DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the Graz First - Instance Court instituted proceedings relating to the applicant \u2019s request for return of the children .","On DATE the Graz First - Instance Court , relying on LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , dismissed ORG \u2019s request . It held that returning GPE to GPE would expose her to psychological harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation . In so deciding it relied on the opinion of an expert in psychology which suggested that separating GPE from her mother would have devastating consequences . The court added , obiter dictum , that ORG had breached LAW when it had decided on custody of the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL children before a final decision had been delivered on her request for the return of the children ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166488","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CINDRI\u0106 AND BE\u0160LI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in P.","The applicants lived with their parents in A , GPE . In DATE the first applicant joined ORG and left his home , and in DATE the second applicant went to live in GPE .","In DATE ORG , together with NORP paramilitary forces , gained control of A , which thus became a part of the \u201c GPE \u201d ( hereinafter \u201c the LOC \u201d ) .","On DATE CARDINAL unknown men took the applicants\u2019 parents , GPE and GPE , from their home in GPE On DATE the bodies of the applicants\u2019 parents were driven by municipal employees in a truck to the front of their house . The ORG uncle was called and he gave the municipal employees clothes for the burial of the applicants\u2019 parents .","On DATE the A police carried out a search of a flat occupied by X in A and found an automatic gun , a hand gun and some bullets .","On DATE the A police interviewed police officers PERSON , GPE , PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE and FAC The police officers , apart from PERSON , had been on duty at a checkpoint in FAC in A between TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE .","R.B. said that on DATE at TIME police officer X had asked him , PERSON , as his hierarchical superior , for permission to take a short leave of absence . He , PERSON , had granted the request . PERSON did not know when PERSON had returned to duty at the police station , but thought that he had seen him TIME .","M.S. said that at TIME on DATE a vehicle had approached the checkpoint and PERSON had stopped it . At that time he , PERSON , had been in the barracks . PERSON and PERSON had entered and asked him if he knew a police officer with a birthmark on his face or a ORG vehicle with the number CARDINAL as DATE on its registration plates , which he did not . At TIME , however , he stopped a ORG vehicle which had CARDINAL as DATE on its registration plates . The vehicle was driven by police officer X , who was known personally to GPE , PERSON and GPE confirmed that it was the same vehicle which had passed from the opposite direction at TIME","D.J. said that at TIME on DATE a vehicle of ORG make had approached the checkpoint and that he had stopped it . The driver had been dressed in the uniform of the civil police . PERSON \u2019s attention had been diverted by a vehicle which had come from the opposite direction and he had stopped it . At that moment the ORG had suddenly started up and left in the direction of PERSON told him that he had not had the time to fully examine the vehicle but that he had seen that the driver and the person in the front passenger seat were dressed in the uniforms of the civil police . He had also seen CARDINAL civilians in the back seat , a man and a woman . PERSON noted down the registration number of that vehicle . At TIME the same day police officer PERSON stopped a vehicle which had arrived from the direction of K and asked the other police officers on duty whether it was the same vehicle they had stopped at TIME , which D.J. confirmed . The only occupants were the driver and the person in the front passenger seat . PERSON asked them who the other passengers had been and where they had taken them . The driver said that the passengers had been GPE and GPE and that they had left them in a village .","M.T. and GPE confirmed the above events .","On DATE the A police interviewed X and Y , CARDINAL police officers . They both admitted that on DATE they had taken GPE and GPE in GPE \u2019s vehicle . On the outskirts of A the police had stopped them . However , the attention of the police had been diverted by another vehicle and X and Y had quickly driven away . They had taken GPE and GPE to the village of GPE said that there they had taken GPE and GPE out of the vehicle and started walking . He had been carrying an automatic gun and at CARDINAL point GPE had attempted to take it from him , resulting in a commotion in which the weapon had fired and killed GPE After that Y had shot and killed GPE Y said that X had killed GPE when they had arrived in J and then forced him , Y , to kill GPE","On DATE the A police lodged a criminal complaint with the B public prosecutor against X and Y , alleging that on DATE at TIME in J , a village near the town of A , they had killed GPE and GPE They had first driven the victims in GPE \u2019s vehicle to J and taken them out of the vehicle . X had then killed GPE with an automatic gun and Y had killed GPE with a hand gun .","On DATE the ORG opened an investigation in respect of X and Y on suspicion of killing GPE and GPE","On DATE an investigating judge of the ORG commissioned a ballistics report .","NORP In DATE the NORP authorities regained control of the town of A. In DATE ORG established ORG in LOC , PERSON and ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . On DATE the ORG mandate came to an end and the transfer of power to the NORP authorities began .","On DATE the A police interviewed PERSON , the brother of the late GPE , who told them that his brother and his brother \u2019s wife had been killed on DATE . Their bodies had been given to him by the police of the \u201c GPE of Krajina \u201d and he had been allowed to bury them .","On DATE the C police interviewed PERSON , who said that on DATE he had been on duty , together with PERSON , at the entrance to village J. At TIME he and PERSON had been walking towards a ramp by the barracks where all patrols had their meeting point and had heard a vehicle being driven , followed by several gun shots and then a vehicle starting up again . When they arrived at the meeting point they found Lj . \u010c. , PERSON and GPE there , who told them that \u201c CARDINAL fools [ had ] just brought CARDINAL people in a car and killed them by the road . \u201d None of the officers on patrol dared go to the crime scene . Soon they all went home . In TIME CARDINAL DATE the police from A came to ORG house and took him to A police station , where they interviewed him and told him that X and his friend had killed GPE and his wife . He had heard that X had moved to GPE .","On DATE the C police interviewed the applicants , who had learned from GPE , who lived with their parents during the relevant period , that X and Y had been charged with the killing of the applicants\u2019 parents .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( PERSON u C ) ordered an investigation concerning X and Y , who were not available to the NORP authorities , on suspicion of killing GPE and GPE An international arrest warrant was also issued against the suspects , who had absconded .","On DATE ORG asked ORG whether extradition proceedings would be instituted against the suspects .","On DATE ORG in GPE informed the NORP authorities that ORG in GPE , GPE , had a valid location for Y. On DATE ORG informed ORG , asking the latter to institute proceedings for ORG \u2019s extradition . On DATE ORG asked ORG for the relevant documents with a view to seeking ORG \u2019s extradition from GPE authorities . All the evidence from the case file was translated into LANGUAGE and on DATE ORG sent a \u201c request for [ Y \u2019s ] temporary arrest \u201d to ORG through diplomatic channels .","On DATE ORG informed ORG that ORG had requested some additional documents . On DATE ORG sent the requested information and documents to ORG .","It appears that on CARDINAL and DATE the NORP and GPE authorities held consultations in GPE in connection with the extradition of Y.","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG again asked ORG to seek ORG \u2019s extradition . On DATE ORG sent additional documents to ORG in connection with ORG extradition .","NORP In DATE ORG asked ORG for legal assistance in connection with the criminal investigation pending against Y in GPE on charges of attempted procurement of GPE citizenship by fraud , and fraud and misuse of visas , permits and other official documents . They asked for all documents related to any criminal offences Y might have committed . This request was forwarded to ORG on DATE .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG forwarded the requested documents , translated into LANGUAGE , to ORG .","In DATE ORG agreed that an international arrest warrant should be issued in respect of X.","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG asked the competent court in GPE to hear evidence from X in connection with the killing of GPE and GPE On DATE the NORP authorities asked for a certified translation of that request and all relevant documents into the NORP language .","On DATE ORG sent a note to ORG to the effect that , according to an agreement between GPE , each State party had the right to communicate in its own language and to submit documents in that language without the need for translations .","On DATE the NORP authorities heard evidence from X. He said that the criminal proceedings against him and Y for the murder of GPE and GPE had been instituted in DATE in ORG and that they had been acquitted . He also denied any involvement in the killing of GPE and GPE On DATE his statement was forwarded to the NORP authorities .","On DATE the applicants brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking non - pecuniary damages in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kuna ( HRK ) each ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , in connection with the killing of their parents . They relied on sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE LAW .","On DATE ORG granted the ORG claim and awarded them each HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( about LAW ) , finding that the killing of the applicants\u2019 parents had been an act of terror . This judgment was reversed by ORG on DATE . The applicants were also ordered to pay the ORG HRK CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) in costs , comprising the fees chargeable for the ORG \u2019s representation by ORG . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c The plaintiffs in the first - instance proceedings based their claim for damages on the provisions of the DATE LAW .... It is necessary to point to the content of section CARDINAL of that Act , which provides that the obligation to compensate for damage exists irrespective of whether the person responsible has been identified , criminally prosecuted or found guilty . However , having regard to the correct establishment of the facts by the first - instance court , which found that the events at issue had occurred on DATE in the village of J , in the then occupied territory of GPE which at that time was under the control of illegal formations of the \u201c GPE and outside the control of GPE and its lawful bodies , the appellant \u2019s submission that [ the killing of the plaintiffs\u2019 parents ] ... amounted to war - related damage is well - founded .","Section CARDINAL of the Act on the Assessment of War - related Damage ... provides that war - related damage is damage caused by enemy or illegal groups , or legal bodies of GPE , as well as accomplices of these groups and bodies , where that damage occurred directly or indirectly at the time specified in CARDINAL of that LAW ( from DATE until the end of hostilities and war operations conducted against GPE ) . Therefore , given the nature , place and time of the events at issue ( the killing of innocent civilians in the occupied territory of GPE during the Homeland war ) , it is to be concluded that the events at issue are to be legally classified as war - related damage and that the appellant is not responsible for them or for the damage thus caused .","... \u201d","This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE . The court endorsed ORG finding that the killing of the applicants\u2019 parents amounted to war - related damage and added , in so far as relevant , the following :","\u201c Even though the act giving rise to the plaintiffs\u2019 claim for damages presents certain similarities with a terrorist act since [ both ] imply [ an act of ] violence , the act of damage [ in the present case ] differs significantly from terrorist acts in its features since it contains additional elements and amounts to war - related damage for which the defendant is not liable . This is because the damage did not occur in the territory under the de facto sovereignty of GPE but in the then occupied territory , where there was no possibility for lawful action by the bodies of GPE ; this circumstance excludes the otherwise objective liability of the defendant . Furthermore , the act of damage in the present case was not carried out with the sole aim of seriously disturbing public order ( this being the aim characteristic of an act of terror ) but also involved the use of force , killing and expulsion of the civilian population on that territory with the aim of destroying the internal security and stability of GPE and preventing its lawful bodies from functioning .","... \u201d","On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint . They argued , inter alia , that in a number of its previous judgments ORG had recognised the plaintiffs\u2019 right to compensation for damage caused by death during the Homeland War in GPE , and cited CARDINAL judgments of that court adopted DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The constitutional complaint was dismissed on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165442","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF J.K. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iraq);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Dmitry Dedov;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Iulia Motoc;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants , a married couple and their son , were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .","The applicants were brought up in GPE . Since DATE the husband ( the first applicant ) had run his own construction and transport business with exclusively NORP clients and had had his office at GPE military base \u201c GPE camp \u201d ( seemingly referring to ORG ) . Several of his employees had on occasion been warned not to cooperate with the NORP .","On DATE the first applicant was the target of a murder attempt carried out by ORG . He had to stay in hospital for DATE . There , unknown men asked for him , after which he was treated in CARDINAL different hospitals .","In DATE his brother was kidnapped by ORG members , who claimed that they would kill him because of the first applicant \u2019s collaboration with the NORP . His brother was released through bribery DATE and immediately fled from GPE . The applicants fled to GPE and stayed there until DATE , before returning to GPE .","Soon afterwards , ORG members placed a bomb next to the applicants\u2019 house . However , it was detected by the first applicant \u2019s wife ( the second applicant ) , and the NORP forces arrested the perpetrator . During interrogation , the perpetrator confessed that he had been paid by ORG to kill the first applicant and disclosed the names of CARDINAL people who had been designated to watch the applicants . Thereafter , the applicants moved to GPE , although the first applicant continued his business in GPE . During this time , ORG destroyed their home and the first applicant \u2019s business stocks .","In DATE the applicants returned to GPE . In DATE the first applicant and his daughter were shot at when driving . The daughter was taken to hospital , where she died . The first applicant then stopped working and the family moved to a series of different locations in GPE . The first applicant \u2019s business stocks were attacked CARDINAL times by ORG members , who had threatened the guards . The first applicant stated that he had not received any personal threats since DATE as the family had repeatedly moved around . The son ( the third applicant ) had spent most of his time indoors for fear of attacks and had only attended school for his final examinations . The applicants had never asked the domestic authorities for protection , fearing that the authorities lacked the ability to protect them and might disclose their address , on account of ORG \u2019s collaboration with the authorities . The applicants maintained that , in the event of their return to GPE , they risked persecution by ORG and that the first applicant appeared on ORG death list .","On DATE the first applicant applied for asylum and a residence permit in GPE . On DATE his application was rejected since he was registered as having left the country .","On DATE the first applicant applied anew for asylum and a residence permit in GPE , as did the other applicants on DATE . As to their state of health , the first applicant still had an open and infected wound on his stomach where he had been shot in DATE . They submitted several documents , including identity papers , a death certificate for the first and second ORG daughter and a medical certificate for the first applicant \u2019s injury .","All CARDINAL applicants were given an introductory interview by ORG ( Migrationsverket ) on DATE . Subsequently , the first and second applicants were given a further interview on CARDINAL DATE , which lasted CARDINAL . The third applicant was interviewed briefly for a second time and the first applicant was interviewed a third time . The applicants were assisted by ORG - appointed counsel .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicants\u2019 asylum application . In respect of the NORP authorities\u2019 ability to provide protection against persecution by non - State actors , the ORG stated :","\u201c ...","Every citizen should have access to police authorities within a reasonable visiting distance . During DATE the police authorities have taken numerous measures to fight against corruption , clan and militia connections and pure criminality within the police .","The current country information , however , shows that there are serious shortcomings in the police \u2019s work on crime - scene investigations and inquests . CARDINAL of the reasons is probably that many police officers are relatively new and lack experience , and that it takes time to introduce a new method of investigation based on technical evidence . This problem is naturally accentuated by the fact that many individual police officers live under a threat emanating from different terrorist groups , which is likely to diminish their effectiveness . Nevertheless , the current country information shows that the number of suspects who have been prosecuted during DATE has increased significantly . Even if CARDINAL of all suspects are eventually prosecuted , this is still an improvement .","The NORP security forces have been reinforced significantly and no longer have any shortcomings in human terms . Instances of police infiltration , which were previously widespread , have decreased significantly . The leading representatives of the police authority have expressed both their willingness and their ambition to maintain general security in GPE . The current country information also shows that it has become more difficult for ORG GPE to operate freely in GPE and that there has been a significant decline in sectarian violence . DATE violence is mainly aimed at individual targets , especially civil servants , police , security forces and some minorities .","... \u201d","Regarding the assessment of the applicants\u2019 refugee status , as well as their need for alternative protection , the ORG held as follows :","\u201c ...","ORG notes that [ the first applicant ] had a contract with the NORP until DATE . For this reason [ the first applicant ] has been exposed to CARDINAL murder attempts , his brother has been kidnapped and [ the first and second applicant ] \u2019s daughter has been killed . Furthermore , on several occasions , [ the first applicant ] has suffered physical damage to his house and stock . [ The first and second applicants ] are convinced that ORG is behind these abuses . The family are also afraid of ORG in the event of their return .","ORG notes that [ the first applicant ] stopped working for the NORP in DATE after his and [ the second applicant ] \u2019s daughter was killed . ORG further notes that [ the first applicant ] stayed in GPE until DATE and that [ the second and third applicants ] lived in GPE until DATE . During this period they were not exposed to any direct abuses . [ The first applicant ] has , however , been indirectly threatened on CARDINAL occasions by the people who guard his stock . Also , his stock has been attacked . [ The first and second applicants ] explained that they had managed to escape from abuses because they were in hiding and living in different places in GPE . ORG notes that [ the first and second applicants ] have CARDINAL daughters who live with their grandmother in GPE and a daughter who is married and lives with her family in GPE . These family members have not been exposed to any threats or abuses .","ORG notes that the abuses which the family claim to be at risk of being exposed to are criminal acts which their home country \u2019s authorities have a duty to prosecute . In order to decide whether the family can enjoy protection against the abuses they fear , ORG notes the following .","In accordance with the principle that it is for an asylum - seeker to justify his or her need for protection and that it is primarily for the applicant to provide relevant information for the assessment in the case , the onus must be on the applicant to plead that he or she can not or , owing to a severe fear of the consequences , for example , will not avail himself or herself of the protection of the authorities available in GPE . In addition , the applicant must justify this . The shortcomings which still exist in the NORP legal system are then to be noted and evaluated in the context of the individual assessment of each asylum case . The circumstances on which an applicant relies in arguing that protection by the authorities is deficient are first of all examined in the usual way . In those cases in which the alleged risk of persecution or other abuses does not emanate from the authorities , which as a rule is the case in GPE , the applicant must show what efforts he or she has made to be afforded protection by the authorities . The applicant can do this either by relying on evidence or by giving a credible account of events which appear plausible . When assessing the authorities\u2019 ability to protect against threats of violence emanating from terrorist groups or unknown perpetrators in a specific case , the individual \u2019s situation , as well as the severity of the violence or threats , their nature and their local reach , must be assessed individually ( see ORG , Legal opinion on protection by the authorities in GPE , DATE , GPE DATE ) .","ORG considers that the family have been exposed to the most serious forms of abuses ( ytterst allvarliga \u00f6vergrepp ) by ORG from DATE until DATE . Such abuses , however , took place DATE and nowadays it is more difficult for ORG to operate freely in GPE . [ The first and second applicants ] never turned to the NORP authorities for protection . [ The first applicant ] has stated that the NORP authorities lack the capacity to protect the family . Further , he has stated that he did not dare to turn to the authorities because he would then have been forced to disclose his address , which could have resulted in ORG being able to find him . [ The second applicant ] has stated that ORG works together with the authorities . As stated earlier , ORG finds that there has been a significant decline in instances of police infiltration , which previously were widespread . Against the background of the fact that [ the first and second applicants ] have not even tried to seek the protection of the NORP authorities , ORG considers that they have not made a plausible case that they would not have access to protection by the authorities in the event of potential threats from ORG upon returning to GPE .","Against this background , ORG finds that [ the first and second applicants ] have not made a plausible case that the NORP authorities lack the capacity and the will to protect the family from being exposed to persecution within the meaning of LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW or to abuses within the meaning of LAW , section CARDINAL , first subsection , first point , first line , of LAW . ORG notes in this context that there is no armed conflict in GPE . ORG therefore finds that the family are not to be regarded as refugees or as being in need of alternative or other protection , for which reason the family do not have the right to refugee status or alternative protection status .","ORG notes that fierce tensions between opposing factions are prevalent in GPE . Nevertheless , against the background of the above reasoning , ORG finds that the family also can not be regarded as being otherwise in need of protection , within the meaning of LAW , section CARDINAL , first subsection , of LAW . The family do not therefore have any right to a status falling under any other need of protection .","... \u201d","In conclusion , ORG found that there were no grounds to grant the family residence permits . Against this background , ORG rejected the family \u2019s application and ordered their deportation from GPE on the strength of LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW .","The applicants appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , maintaining that the NORP authorities had been and would be unable to protect them . They had contacted the police following the fire to their home and the first applicant \u2019s business stock in DATE and DATE and the murder of the first and second applicants\u2019 daughter in DATE , but thereafter they had not dared to contact the authorities owing to the risk of disclosing their residence . Together with their written submissions , they enclosed a translated written statement allegedly from a neighbour in GPE , who stated that a masked terrorist group had come looking for the first applicant on DATE at TIME and that the neighbour had told them that the applicants had moved to an unknown place . The neighbour also stated that , just after the incident , the first applicant had called him and been told about the incident . The applicants also submitted a translated residence certificate \/ police report allegedly certifying that their house had been burned down by a terrorist group on CARDINAL DATE . Furthermore , the applicants submitted a DVD containing an audiovisual recording of a public debate on television concerning corruption and the infiltration of ORG members within the NORP administration . The applicants mentioned in that connection that the first applicant had participated in the public debate , which had been broadcast on the ORG channel in GPE on DATE , that is to say , DATE . Finally , submitting various medical certificates , the applicants contended that the first applicant \u2019s health had deteriorated and that he could not obtain adequate hospital care in GPE .","ORG made submissions before ORG . It stated , among other things , that the documents submitted concerning the alleged incidents on DATE and CARDINAL DATE were of a simple nature and of little value as evidence .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . Concerning the need for protection , the court held :","\u201c It is undisputed in the present case that the applicants\u2019 grounds for protection must be examined in relation to GPE . The general situation in GPE is not such that as to confer the automatic right to a residence permit . Therefore , an individual assessment of the grounds for protection invoked by the applicants must be made .","The applicants have alleged that they are in need of protection upon returning to GPE as they risk being exposed to ill - treatment by ORG because [ the first applicant ] \u2019s company did contract - based work for the NORP in GPE until DATE .","ORG considers that the alleged events took place in the distant past , that it is difficult to see why there would still be a threat as [ the first applicant ] no longer performs such work , and that , in the event that some threats should still exist , it appears likely [ framst\u00e5r som troligt ] that the NORP law - enforcement authorities are both willing and able to offer the applicants the necessary protection . In such circumstances , there are no grounds to grant the applicants any residence permit on the basis of a need for protection .","... \u201d","The applicants appealed to ORG ( Migrations\u00f6verdomstolen ) . Their request for leave to appeal was refused on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicants submitted an application to ORG for a re - examination of their case . They maintained that the first applicant was under threat from ORG because he had been politically active . They enclosed a video showing the first applicant being interviewed in LANGUAGE , a video showing a demonstration , and a video showing a television debate .","On DATE ORG refused the applicants\u2019 application . The applicants did not appeal to ORG against that decision ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144145","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SAMAROV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","The applicant sued the ORG town administration and the ORG committee for municipal property management ( \u201c the property management committee \u201d ) , seeking to obtain free of charge the title to a plot of land under the office building he owned .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) held for the applicant and ordered the town administration to establish his title to the land at issue . The judgment was not appealed against and became final within the statutory DATE time - limit .","On DATE the ORG town administration lodged an application for supervisory review .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , considering that ORG had incorrectly established the facts of the case and erroneously applied the domestic material law . It consequently remitted the case to ORG for consideration anew .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim in full . The applicant did not appeal and the judgment became final within the statutory DATE time - limit ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152598","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ZAICHENKO v. UKRAINE (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"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 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He instituted numerous sets of proceedings before the domestic courts at various times .","NORP In DATE ORG received several letters from the applicant , which contained extremely rude remarks about the judges involved in his cases ( including calling one of the judges \u201c a louse [ whose recusal was ] warranted by his basic knowledge of parasitology \u201d ) .","On DATE the court drew up an administrative offence report in respect of the letters , stating that the applicant was in contempt of court . The case was sent to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for examination .","On DATE ORG , sitting in a single - judge formation , held a hearing with the applicant \u2019s participation . According to TIME of the hearing , the applicant insisted on his vision of the situation as presented in his letters , which he did not consider to be rude . Having studied the case file and heard the applicant , the court ordered an in - patient forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant with a view to establishing whether he could be held legally accountable . The examination in question was to be carried out by ORG of ORG ( \u201c the psychiatric hospital \u201d ) . The judge relied on LAW and section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The ruling stated that it was not amenable to appeal .","The applicant was taken by the police from the hearing room to the LOC police station , where he was held for TIME . He was then taken to the psychiatric hospital .","On DATE , DATE , the psychiatric hospital informed ORG that it would be unable to conduct a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant , as ordered by the court , because there were no documents about his collateral history or personality in the case file . The applicant was discharged from the hospital without any documents having been issued concerning his psychiatric condition .","NORP On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the ruling of CARDINAL DATE . He submitted , in particular , that it had been in breach of his right to the presumption of good mental health and that such a ruling was not mentioned in the list of rulings a court was entitled to deliver under LAW . The applicant also referred to the statement contained in the impugned ruling that it was not amenable to appeal as another indication of its unlawfulness and arbitrariness .","On DATE the President of ORG instructed the police to collect information on the applicant \u2019s personality , which was required for the psychiatric hospital to establish his mental state . The police were instructed , in particular , to collect any documentation relating to psychiatric treatment or drug therapy received by the applicant , as well as character references for him from his relatives , neighbours and colleagues .","On DATE of the applicant \u2019s neighbours wrote quite positive character references about him for the police .","On DATE the local hospital informed the police that the applicant had no psychiatric medical history and was not under psychiatric monitoring .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the ruling of DATE without examining it on the merits . It noted that the contested ruling concerned a procedural issue and was not amenable to appeal .","On DATE ORG requested the police to ensure that the applicant attended for his in - patient forensic psychiatric examination .","On DATE the police took the applicant back to the psychiatric hospital . The circumstances of the apprehension are unclear .","On DATE a senior expert at the forensic psychiatric examinations department of the psychiatric hospital wrote a letter to ORG in which he noted that some additional documents were required in connection with the applicant \u2019s examination : a character reference from his former employer and detailed information about his mental state from his cousin and ex - wife . Without that information it was considered impossible to carry out his examination .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s cousin explained the applicant \u2019s character and behaviour , without noting any particularities . He also stated that the applicant had never been married .","On DATE the board of experts delivered its report , according to which , \u201c given the complexity of the case and lack of clarity of the clinical picture \u201d , it was impossible to establish a diagnosis and to give an expert conclusion regarding the applicant \u2019s mental state . It was therefore recommended that he undergo another examination .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from the hospital without having received the expert report . According to him , one of the experts had assured him that he was in good mental health .","On DATE an official from the psychiatric hospital wrote to the applicant , in reply to his request for a copy of the report of CARDINAL DATE , stating that he should ask ORG for a copy of the report , as it had been sent there .","On the basis of the material in the case file , on DATE ORG ordered that the applicant undergo another in - patient forensic psychiatric examination . The applicant attempted to challenge that decision on appeal but was unsuccessful .","On DATE the psychiatric hospital returned the case file to ORG without having conducted the psychiatric examination in question . Referring to the respective order of ORG , it said that GPE Forensic Psychiatric Examinations or ORG should carry out any further forensic psychiatric examinations required in such complex cases .","On DATE ORG adjourned its hearing with a view to organising the applicant \u2019s further psychiatric examination and its financing .","On DATE the Deputy President of ORG enquired with the local ORG of ORG whether the latter could pay for the applicant \u2019s further psychiatric examination . The reply sent on DATE was that no such payment would be possible until the DATE budget had been approved .","On DATE the court ordered the applicant \u2019s outpatient psychiatric examination to be carried out by ORG .","Following numerous unsuccessful attempts to ensure the applicant \u2019s attendance , on DATE the hospital returned the case file to ORG without having complied with its order .","On DATE ORG discontinued the administrative offence proceedings against the applicant as time - barred .","The applicant appealed against that ruling . He sought the termination of the proceedings on the ground that no administrative offence had been committed .","On DATE the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal , following a hearing with the applicant \u2019s participation , rejected his appeal by a final ruling .","It appears from the case - file materials that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in ORG ( \u201c the Zhovtnevyy Court \u201d ) against the psychiatric hospital . He sought that his hospitalisation and confinement in that hospital be declared unlawful and claimed CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG , at the time equivalent to QUANTITY ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The applicant has not submitted a copy of that claim to the ORG .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in part . Relying , in particular , on LAW , the court concluded that the applicant \u2019s admission to hospital on DATE and DATE , as well as his psychiatric confinement from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , had been unlawful . More specifically , the court considered that the defendant had acted in breach of the presumption of the good mental health of the applicant . Furthermore , the hospital in question was only entitled to conduct forensic psychiatric examinations of detainees , whereas the applicant had not been in detention at the time of the events . The court also noted that , even though the applicant \u2019s examination had been ordered by a judicial decision , the hospital could have refused to carry it out . The applicant \u2019s claim for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage was , however , rejected .","On DATE ORG quashed the aforementioned judgment and terminated the proceedings on the ground that the case did not fall to be examined under the administrative procedure .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law against the ruling of DATE as belated .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that it remained open for him to lodge a new appeal on points of law together with a request for renewal of the time - limit .","The case file before the ORG does not contain copies of the applicant \u2019s appeals on points of law or his requests for renewal of the time - limits for lodging those appeals .","It appears from the case file that on DATE the applicant brought another administrative claim against the psychiatric hospital before ORG . He requested that the court recognise as unlawful the hospital \u2019s refusal to provide him with a copy of the examination report of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The applicant also claimed UAH CARDINAL ( at the material time equivalent to about FAC ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The applicant has not provided the Court with a copy of that claim .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in part . It recognised as unlawful the hospital \u2019s refusal to provide him with a copy of the examination report of DATE and awarded him ORG CARDINAL ( equivalent of about EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","Both the applicant and the defendant appealed . The applicant claimed a higher award . The hospital argued , in particular , that the case did not fall to be examined in the administrative courts .","On DATE ORG upheld the ruling of the first - instance court . It noted that the hospital was a public health establishment and that the administrative courts were thus competent to deal with the case . The appellate court also stated that its ruling could be challenged on points of law before ORG .","The applicant has not informed the ORG whether he appealed on points of law against the ruling .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against the psychiatric hospital before ORG , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage . He has not submitted a copy of his claim to the ORG .","On DATE ORG returned that claim to the applicant on the ground that it had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with it . It informed the applicant that he should lodge his claim with ORG , the district in which the respondent hospital was located .","The applicant appealed against the above ruling . He has not submitted to the ORG a copy of his appeal .","On DATE the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the ruling of CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .","DATE . On DATE ORG noted that the applicant had failed to pay the court fees and gave him until DATE to rectify that omission .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant requested that the ORG exempt him from the court fees . He has not submitted a copy of his request to the ORG . According to a summary of the request in the respective ruling of ORG ( see below ) , the applicant referred to the ORG \u2019s judgment on his earlier case ( no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , in which a violation of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , as well as LAW No . CARDINAL , had been found on account of the lengthy non - enforcement of an unrelated final domestic judgment in his favour .","On DATE ORG rejected the aforementioned request and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeals on points of law .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG against some judicial officials involved in his cases and against the police officers involved in his taking him to hospital for psychiatric examination . The applicant did not provide the ORG with a copy of the complaint .","On DATE the prosecutor refused to open a criminal case in respect of the applicant \u2019s complaint . The case file does not contain a copy of that ruling .","On DATE the Dnipropetrvosk ORG quashed the prosecutor \u2019s refusal and ordered an additional investigation .","On DATE ORG once again refused to open a criminal investigation into the matter . It was noted in its ruling , in particular , that the applicant had disregarded numerous written summonses and telephone calls by the investigator .","The applicant alleged that while he had been in hospital , some money had been stolen from his flat . When he had returned home he had allegedly discovered a briefcase there containing personal documents belonging to a person unknown to him . The applicant complained to the police .","On DATE the police opened a criminal case in respect of the alleged theft of the applicant \u2019s property .","There is no further information on that investigation in the case file ."],"violated_articles":["5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172663","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SAMADBAYLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 years of birth and places of residence are listed in the Appendix .","CARDINALGahramanli and Others v. PERSON ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The applicants were independent self - nominated or opposition candidates in the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE ( see Appendix ) . All the applicants lost the elections in their respective constituencies .","After DATE , the applicants lodged complaints with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) concerning a number of irregularities in their respective constituencies that had allegedly taken place during and\/or before DATE . Some of them also lodged identical complaints with the respective ORG ( \u201c the ConECs \u201d ) . They complained about various types of irregularities , including interference by public officials , illegal campaigning , obstruction and intimidation of election observers , ballot - box stuffing , repeated voting by the same individuals , irregularities in applying election ink , incorrect vote - counting procedures , inconsistencies in precinct election results records indicating a falsely inflated voter turnout , and so on . In support of their allegations , the applicants submitted various types of evidence documenting specific instances of the irregularities complained of , including statements made by election observers , video recordings and photographs .","The applicants who lodged a complaint with the respective ConECs did not receive any reply from them ( except in applications nos . CARDINAL , GPE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . All of the ORG complaints were examined by the ORG which , on various dates ( see Appendix ) , issued decisions rejecting the ORG claims , providing reasoning similar to that in the ORG decision in PERSON and Others ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","The applicants lodged further complaints with ORG and ORG which , on various dates ( see Appendix ) , dismissed the ORG appeals , providing reasoning similar to that in their respective decisions in PERSON and Others ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","In the meantime , however \u2012 and before ORG delivered its final decision concerning each complaint ( except in application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) \u2012 on DATE ORG confirmed the countrywide election results , including the election results in the applicants\u2019 constituencies , as final ( ibid . , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","At the material time Mr PERSON was representing not only the applicants in the present cases , but a total of twentyseven other applicants in cases concerning the DATE parliamentary elections and a number of applicants in other cases before the ORG .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr I. GPE , these being the subject of a separate application brought by him before the ORG ( application no . CARDINAL ) . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the investigation authorities seized a large number of documents from Mr I. GPE \u2019s office , including all the case files relating to the proceedings pending before the ORG which were in Mr PERSON \u2019s possession , comprising CARDINAL applications in total . The files relating to the present applications were also seized in their entirety . The facts relating to the seizure and the relevant proceedings are described in more detail in LOC v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","On DATE the investigation authorities returned a number of the case files concerning the applications lodged before the ORG , including the files relating to the present applications , to Mr PERSON \u2019s lawyer ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145653","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF TANDA-MUZINGA v. FRANCE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 37-1 - Striking out applications;Article 37-1-b - Matter resolved);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","A. Facts at the time the application was lodged","In the course of DATE the applicant , a NORP national , was granted refugee status under the mandate of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees in GPE ( hereafter ORG ) . According to his certificate of refugee status , he was accompanied by his wife , who also held such a certificate , and his children ( PERSON , born in GPE in DATE , and PERSON , born in DATE in GPE ) . The couple had a third child ( PERSON ) who was born in GPE ( GPE ) in DATE , but the applicant was absent when his son was born , having left GPE to claim asylum in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( hereafter , the OFPRA ) rejected his claim . On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ( the Commission des recours des r\u00e9fugi\u00e9s , formerly ORG , the Commission nationale du droit d\u2019asile , ORG ) granted the applicant refugee status . He obtained a DATE residence permit and in DATE the OFPRA issued him with a marriage certificate and a family record book ( livret de famille ) , serving as civil - status documents .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , for the purpose of family reunion and on the basis of the \u201c family reunification \u201d procedure for certified refugees ( see paragraph DATE below ) , the applicant applied for long - stay visas for his wife and CARDINAL children . By a letter of DATE , ORG at ORG informed the applicant that it would contact the OFPRA to verify , on the basis of the statements which had enabled him to be granted refugee status , whether those persons were indeed members of the family group , before contacting the NORP consular services in GPE with a view to compiling an application file for long - stay visas .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG at ORG informed the applicant that the consular services in GPE would be summoning his family for an interview .","The applicant \u2019s wife was requested to attend an interview at the consulate on DATE . After she had submitted the necessary documents for compiling the application , the consular authorities asked her to contact the ORG delegation to obtain travel papers for herself and her children , in accordance with LAW DATE . She was assured that once she had brought those documents to the consulate she would be issued with an acknowledgement of receipt of the visa application . On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife submitted to the consulate a travel document , issued in her name after a favourable opinion had been obtained from ORG . This document , which could substitute a national passport , indicated that she was accompanied by her CARDINAL children . She did not receive an acknowledgment of receipt of her visa application .","Having received no news on examination of his request , the applicant applied to various authorities , including the consulate in GPE , for information as to why the visas had not been issued , and included a copy of all of the documents in his possession , including his residence permit , the reconstituted documents issued by the OFPRA , his wife \u2019s certificate of refugee status , the document serving as his elder daughter \u2019s birth certificate , and the birth certificates of the CARDINAL other children .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG to refuse Entry Visas to GPE ( the CRRV , hereafter the \u201c ORG \u201d ) , against the consular authorities\u2019 implicit refusal .","By a letter of DATE , the ORG replied to a letter from the applicant dated DATE in the following terms :","\u201c I have the honour to inform you that on DATE the ORG certified your family \u2019s situation to the visa section . You are registered with the ORG as the husband of PERSON and father of CARDINAL children ( PERSON , born on DATE ; PERSON , born on DATE ; and PERSON , born on DATE ) . I further observe that your family has been or will shortly be invited to lodge an application for a visa with the consular authorities in GPE \u201d .","On DATE the applicant lodged an urgent application before the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat , requesting a stay of execution of the consular authorities\u2019 implicit decision to refuse the visas .","On DATE the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat acknowledged receipt of the appeal for abuse of authority lodged by the applicant calling for judicial review of this implicit decision .","By an order of DATE , the urgent - applications judge at the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat dismissed the urgent application for a stay of execution , on the grounds that ORG had not yet ruled on the matter .","On DATE , after DATE without any reply from ORG , which amounted to implicit rejection , the applicant lodged a new urgent application for a stay of execution , as well as an urgent application for protection of a fundamental freedom ( requ\u00eate en r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9 - libert\u00e9 ) , dated DATE .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE , the urgent - applications judge at the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat rejected the urgent application for protection of a fundamental freedom .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was summoned to a hearing on the urgent application for a stay of execution , scheduled for DATE . The applicant , who attended the hearing on that date , learnt of pleadings by ORG , which he received only on DATE , contesting the birth certificates of his children PERSON and PERSON . Following this hearing , the applicant submitted a memorandum for the deliberations .","According to the Government \u2019s observations , the transcripts of the certificates obtained on CARDINAL and DATE from the relevant local authorities had revealed that birth certificate no . CARDINAL held by the civil - status authorities of the CARDINALth arrondissement of GPE concerned the birth of a boy and not that of PERSON , and that birth certificate no . CARDINAL , held by the civil - status authorities of DATE arrondissement of GPE , concerned the birth of a girl and not that of PERSON .","On DATE , the urgent - applications judge informed the applicant that he had decided to reopen the investigation in the case and that he had communicated the memorandum for the deliberations to the relevant Minister for Immigration .","By an order of DATE , the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat dismissed the urgent application for a stay of execution :","\u201c [ the applicant ] alleges that ... the criterion of urgency has been met , in that he has been living separately from his wife and children for DATE ; [ that the impugned decision ] is tainted by error of law , in that by refusing to issue visas on the grounds that certain civil - status documents were absent , it breached LAW ( ORG ) no.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE on the right to family reunification ; ... that the submitted documents can not be considered of doubtful authenticity ; that he [ had ] provided evidence establishing his family ties with his wife and his children ; that his children \u2019s birth certificates had been registered by ORG ;","... the Minister alleges ... that the criterion of urgency has not been met , in that responsibility for the separation lies with the applicant ; that the latter has not established that he has maintained regular written or telephone contact with his family or has contributed to their upkeep since his departure ; that the argument alleging a breach of the Directive of DATE is ineffective , in so far as it has been correctly transposed into domestic law and can not therefore have direct effect ; that this text does not require the national authorities to issue a visa to an applicant who has not established his or her filiation with the refugee ; that the submission of fraudulent documents is a public policy reason justifying the rejection of visa applications submitted in a family context ; ...","It appears from the facts of the case ... that visa applications submitted by [ the applicant ] , who has refugee status in GPE , in respect of his wife PERSON and his CARDINAL children , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , were refused on the grounds that filiation had not been established for the latter CARDINAL children on account of the doubtful authenticity of the submitted birth certificates ; the argument that such a ground could not be a legal basis for the decision to refuse [ the visas ] is not such , as the evidence stands , to give rise to serious doubts as to the lawfulness of this decision , in view of the outcome of the civil - status verifications carried out by ORG in GPE and the fact that the fraudulent nature of the request was such as to entail refusal not only of visas applied for in respect of these CARDINAL children , but also in respect of his wife and his third child ... \u201d","On DATE , in the context of an appeal for judicial review , the relevant Minister filed a memorial concluding that the birth certificates of PERSON and PERSON were fraudulent . With regard to the alleged violations of ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention , he responded that it had already been shown that the applicant had abandoned his wife and putative children , that the parent - child relationship had not been established and that the applicant had not shown that he had maintained ties with them . The applicant responded by arguing that an anomaly in the referencing of the birth certificates was not sufficient to establish the doubtful authenticity or fraudulent nature of the documents submitted by his wife . He noted firstly , with regard to PERSON \u2019s birth certificate , \u201c that it was not certain that the certificate sought by the authorities was related to the document in question , given that the first component of its reference number seemed to be made up of CARDINAL figures , rather than QUANTITY ( \u201c ? CARDINAL \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which would be more coherent , given the date it had been drawn up , in DATE \u201d . He argued that the Minister did not explain how ORG had issued LAW ( dated DATE , referring to his wife and his CARDINAL children ) and official travel documents permitting his family to travel internationally . He pointed out that he had submitted to the court correspondence from ORG , dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE , drawn up in the context of the checks conducted with a view to issuing those travel documents ( travel document for the child PERSON , issued on CARDINAL DATE following the favourable opinion of CARDINAL DATE ) . He added that the authenticity of the other documents submitted to the court had not been called into question , namely the declaration of PERSON \u2019s birth , issued by ORG in GPE , and the declaration of PERSON \u2019s birth , issued by ORG , nor that of the travel documents for his first CARDINAL children , drawn up on DATE . Lastly , he indicated that other evidence submitted to the court , photographs and bank transfer statements , invalidated ORG arguments as to the reality of his ties with his wife and children .","On DATE ORG drew up a \u201c certifiate of parenthood \u201d , stating that the applicant and his wife were the legitimate parents of the children known as PERSON and PERSON .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer informed him that a hearing had taken place before the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat on DATE ; the public rapporteur had proposed that his appeal be dismissed and had suggested that judicial rectification of the civil - status documents of the children concerned be carried out in GPE .","By a judgment of DATE , served on CARDINAL DATE , the PERSON d\u2019\u00c9tat rejected the appeal . It pointed out that the transcripts of the certificates , obtained by the NORP authorities in the NORP civil - status offices for the purpose of verifying the civil - status documents of the CARDINAL children born in that country , had shown that CARDINAL totally different birth certificates had been issued under the same reference numbers , and concerned third parties . It considered that even if the fraudulent nature of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL certificates had not been demonstrated , this did not create any doubt as to evidence of the inauthenticity of the second certificate , and concluded that \u201c in those circumstances , neither the submission of declarations of birth from ORG and ORG , not the allegation that this discrepancy originated in dysfunctions within the NORP civil - status authorities , allow for the fraudulent nature of CARDINAL of the documents thus produced to be set aside \u201d . Lastly , it specified that the fraudulent nature of CARDINAL of the submitted documents was such as to entail refusal of all of the requested visas .","On DATE a psychologist from the ORG inter - mouvements aupr\u00e8s des \u00e9vacu\u00e9s ( ORG ) certified that the applicant \u2019s psychological health had deteriorated , and described a worsening state of depression . She submitted that \u201c in addition to the traumatic events experienced in his country , [ the applicant ] is currently developing reactional depression as a result of the separation from his family , which has lasted for DATE ... Although he was simultaneously actively engaged in preparing a professional insertion plan , the applicant is finding it increasingly difficult to take the necessary steps and is sliding into a form of apathy \u201d .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer confirmed that the appeal had been dismissed and informed him that the public rapporteur \u2019s closing arguments were not available in writing .","Following that decision , the applicant contacted ORG and the Director of the OFPRA . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the former replied that , according to the information communicated by the NORP delegation , ORG in GPE was willing to issue a visa to his wife and to CARDINAL of his children , PERSON and PERSON . With regard to the birth certificate for his daughter PERSON , he was advised to submit a request to the GPE tribunal de grande instance for a supplementary judgment relating to a birth certificate . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the Director of the OFPRA wrote to the ORG , which had also received the applicant \u2019s file ; he was considering transferring his refugee status to another country . In that letter , the Director pointed out that his department , by a memorandum of DATE , had certified his family situation to the sub - directorate for visas in GPE , the only administrative body with competence for the family reunification of foreigners .","The applicant \u2019s wife brought proceedings before ORG , seeking to obtain a supplementary judgment concerning PERSON \u2019s civil status . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , that court declared that it did not have jurisdiction . On DATE she brought proceedings before the GPE tribunal de grande instance for the same purpose .","By a decision of DATE , following a further request by the applicant \u2019s family , the consular authorities refused to issue long - stay visas .","According to the Government , new checks carried out in DATE established that it had been possible to authenticate PERSON \u2019s birth certificate but the doubtful authenticity of the birth certificate produced for PERSON , which had been double - checked , had prompted the consular authorities to maintain their refusal to issue visas to the whole family .","On DATE the applicant brought proceedings before ORG against the decision of DATE . His request was implicitly refused .","B. Facts which occurred after communication of the application","On DATE the applicant applied to the urgent - applications judge at ORG seeking an order for a stay of execution of ORG implicit decision to refuse his request . By an order of CARDINAL DATE , the urgent - applications judge ordered a stay of execution of that decision on the ground that the reasons for the rejection had not been communicated . He added :","\u201c ... further , as the evidence stands , although there is uncertainty as to the parent - child relationship in respect of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL children , PERSON , [ the applicant ] refers , without however submitting it , to a supplementary judgment which purportedly substantiates his allegations ; having regard to the length of time that the applicant has been separated from his family , the criterion of urgency is met ; ... it is appropriate to direct the Minister to re - examine the visa application within DATE of notification of the present order \u201d .","According to the applicant , on DATE ORG lawyer forwarded to him , and to the NORP authorities , the original copy of a judgment delivered by the NORP tribunal de grande instance on DATE , reconstituting the birth certificate for the child PERSON . That judgment indicates that , on DATE following PERSON \u2019s birth , a declaration of birth had been duly drawn up by the doctor at ORG and handed to her mother , for the purpose of having the child \u2019s birth certificate issued by the LOC district office . However , as the applicant \u2019s wife had been unaware of the rules in force in GPE for this administrative procedure , she had entrusted this declaration of birth to a third party , who had demanded and obtained from her the sum of MONEY ( CFA ) in order to obtain the birth certificate ; this third party had given her a document presented as birth certificate no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , allegedly drawn up and signed by the mayor of PERSON . The tribunal de grande instance specified that since this document was a forgery PERSON \u2019s birth certificate had never been issued , and it ordered that this step be taken .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the Government informed the ORG that on DATE the NORP consular authorities had issued the long - stay visas requested by the applicant \u2019s wife and children . They alleged that , during the period in which the visa applications were re - examined , the applicant had communicated to the consular authorities the judgment of DATE to which he had referred but had not produced in the course of the proceedings .","..."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175706","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"LINKEVI\u010cIEN\u0116 AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their former Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants were judges and presidents of their respective courts :","- the first applicant at ORG ;","- the second applicant at FAC ; and","- the third applicant at ORG .","On DATE the NORP authorities arrested GPE and ORG , who were suspected of smuggling a large quantity of cigarettes . PERSON , who was also implicated in the ensuing criminal investigation , feared that ORG and GPE would disclose information about the other people involved in the smuggling if they were detained .","NORP In DATE , with the aim of preventing GPE and GPE from testifying against him , PERSON contacted the third applicant , at the time president of ORG and father of the woman PERSON was living with . PERSON asked the third applicant to use his position , personal contacts , authority as a judge and possible influence on other judges to make sure that GPE and GPE were released from detention pending trial .","The third applicant , acting in GPE \u2019s interests , contacted the second applicant by telephone and conveyed PERSON \u2019s request . The second applicant also used his authority and personal contacts and , by telephone , conveyed the message to the first applicant , who on DATE refused to grant a prosecution request to remand ORG and GPE in custody .","DATE there were CARDINAL other episodes of GPE and the second and third applicants , communicating by telephone calls and by themselves or through other judges , successfully preventing or attempting to prevent the suspected smugglers from being detained pending trial . In particular , on DATE , PERSON asked the third applicant to exert his influence on a judge at a higher level court , the regional court , so the judge would reject the prosecutor \u2019s request to remand ORG and GPE in custody . Afterwards , on DATE , PERSON and the second and third applicants again attempted to influence the first applicant so that another suspected smuggler , GPE , who was in pre - trial detention , would be released . However , the first applicant refused to continue such criminal activity and neither decided the question of ORG \u2019s detention herself , nor transmitted the request to other judges . On DATE PERSON was placed in pre - trial detention , pending a criminal case for smuggling . DATE the second and third applicants again attempted to exert influence on the first applicant to act in a way that would lead to PERSON being released , but the first applicant did not respond to their request . Lastly , on DATE the third applicant attempted to influence the second applicant to get the latter to exert influence on a higher instance \u2013 regional court and have PERSON released from pre - trial detention . However , the second applicant did not respond to that request .","The prosecutors considered that ORG and the CARDINAL applicants had by such actions caused serious damage to the ORG because they had made it more difficult to bring people to justice who had committed crimes . They had also obstructed the course of justice , damaged the authority of the judiciary and discredited the title of judge of GPE ( pa\u017eemintas teismin\u0117s vald\u017eios autoritetas ir diskredituotas PERSON teis\u0117jo vardas ) .","After gathering information about the activities of the CARDINAL applicants , on DATE Deputy Prosecutor General PERSON wrote to the President of ORG to inform him that the CARDINAL applicants had possibly seriously violated the ethical rules of the judicial profession and asked that ORG initiate proceedings against them . The operational information was based on evidence gathered , inter alia , by ORG .","On DATE and DATE the CARDINAL applicants were charged with abuse of office and perverting the course of justice . The President of ORG was immediately informed about the charges and that a pre - trial investigation had been going on .","On DATE another Deputy Prosecutor General , GPE , who was acting in place of the Prosecutor General PERSON while he was on summer vacation , on the basis of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , asked the ORG President at the time , PERSON , in writing to consent to lifting the CARDINAL applicants\u2019 immunity so that criminal proceedings could be started against them in connection with the aforementioned allegations . Materials from the criminal case file were provided to the ORG President to support the request .","On DATE the President signed CARDINAL decrees : no . CARDINAL , suspending the applicants\u2019 powers as judges , and , on the basis of LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW , decree no . CARDINAL , by which he consented to having the CARDINAL applicants charged with criminal offences and detained if necessary ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Both decrees came into force that day and were published in ORG ( PERSON \u017einios ) on DATE .","On DATE ORG informed the President of ORG in writing that the second and the third applicants had acknowledged carrying out the acts specified in the notice of suspicion ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , however , according to the prosecutor , \u201c they did not regard those actions as criminal deeds , but as violations of LAW and conduct discrediting the title of judge \u201d .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , ORG asked ORG ( ORG taryba ) for advice on whether the CARDINAL applicants should be removed from office ( on the function of ORG , see LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW , cited in paragraph CARDINAL below ; also see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE ORG , presided over by the President of ORG , gathered to review the material provided to it by the prosecutor ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and to hear the applicants . The first applicant was notified of the hearing of ORG ; she did not attend it . The second applicant was present and gave an explanation . According to TIME , the second applicant \u201c agreed that he should not have behaved in such a manner , acknowledged having made telephone calls , but thought that it would be a little too harsh to consider that he had discredited the title of judge ( NORP Japertas sutinka , ORG neder\u0117jo taip elgtis bei pripa\u017e\u012fsta , jog skambino , ta\u010diau mano , ORG tokia formuluot\u0117 , jog pa\u017eemino teis\u0117jo vard\u0105 , kiek per grie\u017eta ) \u201d . The third applicant was not present at the hearing ; instead he had already submitted a request to be dismissed as a judge and as president of ORG of his own will , under LAW ( see paragraphs MONEY and CARDINAL below ) .","ORG then decided to advise the President that the CARDINAL judges should be removed from office for discrediting the title of judge ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG ; also see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , the ORG President signed decree no . CARDINAL , removing the applicants from their positions as judges and presidents of their respective courts . The decree was based on Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , and also on the advice of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The decree came into force on DATE . It was published in ORG ( PERSON \u017einios ) on DATE .","On DATE , in the DATE newspaper ORG , the President of ORG , in answer to a journalist \u2019s question as to whether the information about the judges helping the smugglers had come as a surprise , stated :","\u201c I very much regret that the judges could have done this . Personally , I am very taken aback , astonished even , by this information . I did not believe that such gross violations occurred . Unfortunately , they do . \u201d","NORP In response to a journalist \u2019s question as to how he would react to the CARDINAL judges\u2019 actions , he replied :","\u201c A pre - trial investigation is ongoing at this time and I do not wish to talk on that topic ... I have already responded . I think that the ORG President will ask the Seimas to suspend the powers of those judges . I understand that the ORG President will also make sure that those judges are removed from office . For that , the approval of ORG is necessary . DATE I again explained the situation to the ORG President . How did he react ? He was decisive . The matter has been discussed with the ORG President more than once . He [ the ORG President ] is for decisive action \u201d .","On DATE the DATE newspaper PERSON wrote that the President of ORG had initially thought that disciplinary sanctions would suffice in the applicants\u2019 case , but quoted him as adding :","\u201c However , after looking into the matter more carefully , it was agreed [ with ORG ] that a criminal investigation must be conducted . \u201d","The same article stated :","\u201c Officials have established that all the judges consciously acted for the benefit of the smugglers and might have received remuneration [ from them ] . \u201d","On DATE the Internet site of GPE , CARDINAL of the ruling political parties at the time , published the following statement by the Speaker of the Seimas :","\u201c The disclosed facts of corruption among the [ CARDINAL ] judges have shown that neither big salaries nor good social guarantees ... protect the court system from corruption . \u201d","On DATE the newspaper PERSON published an article in which the ORG President \u2019s press officer outlined the President \u2019s position on the CARDINAL applicants :","\u201c The court system will not be a safe haven for such judges ; the [ response of the ] President will be categorical in respect of these judges ( \u201c ORG sistema tokiems teis\u0117jams netaps u\u017euov\u0117ja , j\u0173 at\u017evilgiu GPE elgsis kategori\u0161kai \u201d ) . \u201d","The same publication quoted the President of ORG as stating that \u201c it is very unlikely that those judges [ the applicants ] will ever work in the justice system again \u201d .","On DATE , in DATE publication ORG , the chairman of Seimas \u2019s ORG , in response to the journalist \u2019s statement that DATE CARDINAL corrupt judges had been exposed , said :","\u201c People say that smuggling without a \u2018 ORG is not possible . Consequently , if smuggling took place , there must have been \u2018 ORG . It was the ORG and myself who first received information about this smuggling , in which ... judges were involved . ... I think that it would be most appropriate to conduct a joint pre - trial investigation in the smuggling case which came to light and to try the [ CARDINAL ] judges , like the other suspects , as members of a criminal organisation . \u201d","On DATE the news agency ORG cited the head of ORG as saying after a meeting with the ORG President that the possible connections between the CARDINAL judges and the smugglers were only \u201c a fragment of a big case \u201d , in which even politicians could be involved .","In DATE , Mr PERSON was elected as the President of GPE . In DATE , on his proposal , the ORG appointed the Prosecutor General PERSON to ORG judges .","On DATE and DATE , the first applicant \u2019s lawyer unsuccessfully applied to ORG to suspend the criminal proceedings and ask ORG whether the ORG President \u2019s decree no . CARDINAL , by which the President had lifted the applicants\u2019 immunity from prosecution , and LAW were in conformity with LAW .","The first applicant \u2019s lawyer did not challenge before the trial court the statements made by ORG officials in the press .","On DATE the ORG acquitted the applicants of abuse of office and perverting the course of justice .","The court , however , convicted PERSON of attempting to influence a judge .","After the trial court \u2019s judgment , on DATE the newspaper PERSON interviewed the former President , PERSON , who stated :","\u201c I remember those events very well . It happened DATE , when the ORG was not in session . I think that my decision was in line with the information that I had received from the President of ORG and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . I learned the information from the file on the criminal investigation into the crime that had been committed ( operatyvinius duomenis apie padaryt\u0105 nusikaltim\u0105 ) and I could not have acted otherwise . \u201d","PERSON also stated that when signing the decree to remove the CARDINAL applicants from office he had not only taken into consideration the fact that they had possibly taken part in a crime , but also emphasised that \u201c Disciplinary liability was also very important ( PERSON svarbi yra drausmin\u0117 atsakomyb\u0117 ) \u201d .","The prosecutor , PERSON and the third applicant appealed against the trial court \u2019s judgment . The third applicant argued that his acquittal should have been on a different legal basis . He also challenged decree no . CARDINAL of the ORG President as the basis for his prosecution .","The CARDINAL other applicants asked the appellate court to dismiss the prosecutor \u2019s appeal .","It transpires from ORG judgment that none of the applicants argued a breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence on account of the statements in the press by ORG officials .","On DATE ORG upheld the trial court \u2019s verdict . The appellate court dismissed the third applicant \u2019s argument that decree no . CARDINAL had not given a sufficient basis on which to prosecute the CARDINAL applicants .","The prosecutor , ORG and the third applicant lodged appeals on points of law .","The third applicant argued that the criminal proceedings against the CARDINAL judges had been initiated in breach of the procedural rules applicable when a judge was charged with a criminal offence . He asked ORG to specify additional grounds for his acquittal , without arguing a breach of his right to the presumption of innocence on account of the public statements by high - ranking ORG officials .","On DATE ORG , sitting in an enlarged chamber of CARDINAL judges , quashed ORG decision , noting that the latter had not thoroughly examined the prosecutor \u2019s appeal and , as a result , it had committed a substantive breach of criminal procedure . The former Prosecutor General PERSON did not sit on ORG bench .","The third applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law was dismissed .","The case was remitted to ORG for fresh examination .","The third applicant made written submissions , arguing that domestic criminal law had been applied erroneously . The other CARDINAL applicants made oral requests to the appellate court to dismiss the prosecutor \u2019s appeal . They did not raise the matter of the presumption of innocence .","On DATE ORG found that DATE and DATE PERSON and the CARDINAL applicants had acted jointly , and that the CARDINAL applicants had used their personal connections and authority as judges to make sure that some of the suspects in the smuggling cases would not be detained on remand . The appellate court therefore found the applicants guilty of abuse of office , under LAW . The punishment for abuse of office was either imprisonment for DATE , or , as an alternative , a prohibition on taking up a particular activity or working in a certain area . When considering the most effective and just punishment to be imposed on the CARDINAL applicants , ORG underlined that they had committed the crime \u201c within the area of their work and professional activity \u201d , and \u201c performed actions discrediting the title of judge \u201d , and that therefore they should be prohibited from working in law - enforcement , law and order and judicial institutions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The first applicant was barred for DATE and DATE ; the second applicant was barred for DATE and DATE ; and the third applicant was barred for DATE .","The criminal charges of perverting the course of justice ( LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) against PERSON and the CARDINAL applicants were dropped as time - barred .","In addition , ORG was found guilty of organising an act of abuse of office ( CARDINAL episodes ) . The court sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","The Court of Appeal decision came into force on DATE it was pronounced , and the CARDINAL applicants and PERSON started serving their sentences from DATE .","The prosecutor , ORG and the CARDINAL applicants lodged appeals on points of law . The CARDINAL applicants alleged , inter alia , that there had been breaches of procedural requirements when the criminal proceedings had been instituted against them as judges and that the appellate court had wrongly applied and interpreted the provisions of LAW .","In his appeal on points of law , invoking LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW , the third applicant further argued that there had been a breach of the right to the presumption of innocence . Firstly , he contended that pending the pretrial investigation some information about the case had been leaked to the media , including transcripts of telephone conversations between the CARDINAL applicants and comments on those conversations . As a result , an opinion had been formed in advance as to the applicants\u2019 guilt . He had thus not had a fair trial , in breach of LAW . Secondly , before the guilty verdict had been reached , high - ranking ORG officials \u2013 the ORG President and the Speaker of the Seimas \u2013 had on many occasions made public statements to the effect that the applicants were guilty . They had also commented on the crimes which the applicants were said to have committed . In the third applicant \u2019s view , the ORG President had publicly acknowledged in his interviews that he had removed the CARDINAL applicants from office after he had found that they had committed the crimes in question .","On DATE ORG dismissed the CARDINAL ORG appeals on points of law . As regards the third applicant \u2019s complaint of an alleged violation of the right to the presumption of innocence , ORG noted that there was no indication that the public disclosure of the facts about the criminal case had had an effect on its outcome . The dismissal of CARDINAL judges was a noteworthy event , about which society had a right to be informed . The publicity had also been unavoidable because the ORG President \u2019s decrees dismissing the applicants had been public documents . Nonetheless , there was no proof that any of the public comments on the case had been made by the prosecutors or judges who had been dealing with it .","ORG observed that the public statements by the ORG President and other ORG officials or politicians could not be examined on points of law since those questions had not been raised before the lower courts . The issue of the presumption of innocence had been mentioned only when the case had been examined on points of law a second time , and it was not for ORG to gather evidence or examine it , because under domestic law its competence was to examine questions of law and to ensure its uniform application . Even assuming that the third applicant had correctly understood the statements by the politicians , there was no reason to find that those statements had prevented the appellate court from impartially and objectively deciding the case and adopting a lawful and reasonable judgment .","Lastly , ORG dismissed the CARDINAL applicants\u2019 suggestion that the criminal proceedings against them had been started in breach of domestic law .","The former Prosecutor General PERSON did not sit on ORG bench .","On DATE the first applicant started civil proceedings with ORG , alleging that she had been unlawfully removed from office by the ORG President \u2019s decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She argued that by initially suspending her from her duties by the earlier decree , no . CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the President had already passed judgment on her actions , which had still been the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation . As a result , her removal from office for those actions , before a criminal court had found her guilty , had been a form of political pressure on the criminal courts , and had also been in breach of the right to the presumption of innocence under LAW . She asked ORG to refer questions to ORG about whether decree no . CARDINAL had been in breach of the LAW and the principle of the presumption of innocence .","By a ruling of DATE the ORG suspended the civil proceedings and asked ORG to rule on the constitutionality of decree no . CARDINAL . It also asked , inter alia , whether the decree in the first applicant \u2019s case , as far as its content and adoption procedure were concerned , had been in conflict with , inter alia , LAW , which establishes the principle of the presumption of innocence , LAW on the grounds for a judge \u2019s removal , or with ORG DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG , which regulate judges\u2019 disciplinary liability ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","After receiving similar requests in the other CARDINAL ORG cases ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , in DATE ORG joined them in CARDINAL case .","On DATE the ORG delivered a ruling . It found that decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , by which the CARDINAL applicants had been removed from office for discrediting the title of judge , had not been in breach of the LAW or ORG . It also held that the first applicant \u2019s removal from office by the same decree of the ORG President had not been in breach of LAW reasoning is given in paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the first applicant asked ORG to discontinue the civil proceedings for unlawful dismissal and reinstatement . The court granted that request on DATE .","On DATE the second applicant brought a civil claim with ORG , asking it to quash the ORG President \u2019s decree no . CARDINAL as regarding this applicant \u2019s dismissal . He argued , inter alia , that there had been a breach of the right to the presumption of innocence because he had been dismissed as a judge while criminal proceedings against him had still been pending .","On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s claim . The court considered that the criminal charges against the applicant , as indicated by the prosecutor \u2019s report of CARDINAL DATE and given to the ORG President ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had been sufficient to hold that by his behaviour the applicant had discredited the title of judge . The judgment of DATE by ORG , finding the CARDINAL applicants guilty ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had only confirmed that there had been grounds to dismiss the second applicant for discrediting the title of judge . ORG also relied on ORG aforementioned ruling regarding the CARDINAL applicants\u2019 case . The civil court also rejected the argument that the ORG President \u2019s decree on the ORG dismissal had been in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence . In fact , the decree had specified another ground for his dismissal , which was discrediting the title of judge , and not that a crime had been committed . The ORG President \u2019s decree had thus had no influence on the subsequent criminal proceedings against the second applicant . Lastly , the civil court found no breaches of law as regards the domestic proceedings for the second applicant \u2019s dismissal .","The Government submitted that the second applicant lodged no appeal against that decision .","The third applicant challenged the lawfulness of the decision of ORG of DATE , which had recommended that the ORG President remove the CARDINAL applicants from office for having discredited the title of judge ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The third applicant requested that he be allowed to step down voluntarily , under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He also alleged that ORG had committed numerous violations of procedural and substantive legal rules when suspending him from his duties and removing him from office . As it transpires from the summary of the third applicant \u2019s lawsuit , he did not argue that statements by ORG officials in the press had breached his right to the presumption of innocence . However , he argued that the right to the presumption of innocence had been breached because conclusions as to his guilt had been made and he had been dismissed as a judge before the criminal proceedings had finished .","On DATE ORG dismissed the third applicant \u2019s claims as unfounded . Relying on ORG ruling of CARDINAL DATE , the civil court found that ORG had acted lawfully when recommending that the CARDINAL applicants be removed from office . The prosecutor \u2019s request to the ORG President of CARDINAL DATE , where the CARDINAL applicants\u2019 actions had been described ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , as well as the fact that criminal charges had been brought against them , had been sufficient grounds to hold that the third applicant \u2019s actions had discredited the title of a judge . The court also dismissed the argument that the ORG President \u2019s decree on the removal of the CARDINAL applicants had been in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence . In fact , the decree had not stated that the judges had been removed for committing a crime . In other words , the applicant had been removed from office not for committing a crime , but for discrediting the title of judge . Lastly , the court found that no laws had been broken during the proceedings for the CARDINAL judges\u2019 removal from office .","The third applicant appealed . He argued , inter alia , that the presidential decree on his dismissal had been in breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence because after the applicants\u2019 acquittal the ORG President had allegedly acknowledged in the press that he had dismissed the applicants because they had committed a crime . Such statements by the ORG President had also been in breach of the principle of the independence of courts . The criminal courts had subsequently been obliged to find the applicants guilty . Undue influence on the criminal courts had also been exerted by the statements of other politicians in the press .","On DATE ORG endorsed the lower court \u2019s reasoning . For ORG , the ORG President \u2019s prerogative to dismiss someone for discrediting the title of judge could not be seen as undue influence on the criminal courts .","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG refused to examine an appeal on points of law by the third applicant . Even so , ORG underlined the fact that the third applicant had erred in his appeal on points of law by ignoring the fact that a judge \u2019s removal from office for committing a crime and discrediting the title of judge , as foreseen in LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , were CARDINAL distinct grounds for a judge \u2019s dismissal .","On DATE ORG issued a ruling regarding the constitutionality of presidential decree no . CARDINAL ( also see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . Firstly , it emphasised that under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) the ORG President retained the right to remove a judge from office who had discredited the title of judge , whether or not there had been disciplinary proceedings before ORG , however , on condition that removal had been recommended by ORG . As that had been the situation in the CARDINAL applicants\u2019 case , decree no . CARDINAL had not been in conflict with Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG .","ORG also underlined the fact that the Law on Courts provided for CARDINAL separate grounds for removing a judge from office \u2013 if a court judgment which has entered into force has established that a judge has committed a crime ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) , or if a judge has discredited the title of judge ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) , the latter provision being the relevant legal ground in the ORG case . For ORG , it was paramount that the disputed decree no . CARDINAL of the ORG President did not stipulate that the CARDINAL applicants had committed a crime . Nor did that decree declare that actions for which the CARDINAL applicants had been removed from office had been a crime .","ORG also held that the principle of the presumption of innocence , as enshrined in LAW , could not be interpreted as prohibiting the ORG President from removing a judge , who by his or her actions had discredited the title of judge , until a criminal court had found that person guilty in criminal proceedings . In fact , LAW contained distinct grounds for a judge \u2019s dismissal , those being \u201c when their conduct discredits the title of judge \u201d in point CARDINAL , and \u201c upon the entry into force of court judgments convicting them \u201d , in point CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Those CARDINAL grounds could not be considered to be the same ( negali b\u016bti tapatinami ) . On the one hand , actions which discredited the title of judge might not necessarily be a crime . On the other hand , conduct discrediting the title of judge might be recognised as a criminal act later by a court conviction . Under point CARDINAL of LAW therefore , a judge could be dismissed for discrediting the title of judge , whether or not the conduct in question was later judged by a court to have been a criminal deed , and regardless of whether a corresponding court conviction came into effect . ORG further noted :","\u201c ... the content of the principle of the presumption of innocence which is entrenched in LAW CARDINAL of the LAW can not be construed that it , purportedly , implies , inter alia , that the President of the Republic can not dismiss a judge who by his conduct has discredited the title of a judge , until a conviction in regard of that judge has been adopted and come into force . In this context , it should be noted that LAW establishes various grounds for the removal of judges from office , that judges may be removed from office also \u2018 when their conduct has discredited the title of ORG ( point CARDINAL ) , and \u2018 upon the entry into force of court judgments convicting them\u2019 ( point CARDINAL ) . In its ruling of DATE , ORG held that the LAW does not expressis verbis establish any type of conduct by judges which discredits the title of judges ; that the formula \u2018 conduct discrediting the title of judges\u2019 is wide , and includes not only conduct which discredited the title of a judge while implementing his powers as a judge , but also conduct which discredited the title of a judge which has no relation to the implementation of the powers of the judge ; that , under LAW , the legislature , as well as the self - governing institutions of the judiciary , have the discretion to establish what conduct should be regarded as that which discredits the title of a judge , however , neither laws nor the decisions of self - governing institutions of the judiciary may establish any thorough ( final ) list of actions by which a judge discredits the title of a judge . In the said ORG ruling it was also held that when deciding whether the conduct of a judge is such that the title of a judge has been discredited , all the circumstances related to the said conduct and its significance to the case must be assessed each time . \u201d","ORG also gave weight to the fact that by its judgment of DATE in the applicants\u2019 criminal case ORG had acknowledged that within their area of work and professional activity the applicants had performed actions which had discredited the title of a judge and undermined the authority of the judiciary ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Consequently , there were no grounds to find a violation of the right to the presumption of innocence , as enshrined in LAW and in LAW , on account of the ORG President \u2019s decree no . CARDINAL removing the first applicant from office .","By a letter of DATE , the Government informed ORG that Article CARDINAL of the Law on the Bar had been amended , thus having an impact on the applicants\u2019 eligibility to work as advocates ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The Government submitted that the applicants were therefore no longer prevented from working as advocates , given that their convictions had expired and the period in the law of DATE after serving their sentence had passed . The ORG also stated that the second and the third applicants had been admitted to the Bar by decisions of ORG on , respectively , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE . To the ORG \u2019s knowledge , the first applicant had not addressed ORG with a request to be recognised as an advocate .","All CARDINAL applicants were informed about the ORG \u2019s letter but none of them commented on it .","In DATE ORG website listed the third applicant among the advocates practising in GPE . The other CARDINAL applicants were not listed among advocates practicing in GPE .","DATE LAW provides that a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty by a final court judgment and in accordance with a procedure established by the law .","As to the appointment of judges and their removal from office , the LAW reads as follows :","\u201c The President of the Republic :","...","CARDINAL ) ... shall appoint the judges and presidents of regional and district courts and change their places of work ... \u201d","\u201c ...","The justices of ORG , and its President chosen from among them , shall be appointed and released by the Seimas upon submission by the President of the Republic .","Judges of ORG , and its President chosen from among them , shall be appointed by the President of the Republic with the assent of the Seimas .","The judges and presidents of district , regional , and specialised courts shall be appointed , and their places of work shall be changed , by the President of the Republic .","A special institution of judges , as provided for by law , shall advise the President of the Republic on the appointment , promotion , and transfer of judges , or their release from their duties .","... \u201d","\u201c Interference with the activities of a judge or court by any institutions of ORG power and governance , Members of the Seimas or other officials , political parties , political or public organisations , or citizens shall be prohibited and lead to liability provided for by law .","Judges may not be held criminally liable or be detained , or have their liberty otherwise restricted , without the consent of the LAW or , in the period between sessions of the Seimas , without the consent of the President of GPE . \u201d","\u201c Judges of the courts of GPE shall be removed from office according to the procedure established by law in the following cases :","CARDINAL ) NORP of their own will ;","CARDINAL ) NORP on the expiry of their term of office , or upon reaching the pensionable age established by law ;","CARDINAL ) NORP owing to their state of health ;","CARDINAL ) NORP on election to another office , or upon transfer , with their consent , to another place of work ;","CARDINAL ) when their conduct discredits the title of a judge ;","CARDINAL ) NORP on the entry into effect of court judgments convicting them . \u201d","The Law on Courts ( ORG \u012fstatymas ) also reads that a judge may be removed from office if the title of judge has been discredited through his or her conduct ( LAW ) ) . A judge may also be removed from office if a court judgment convicting him or her comes into force ( \u012fsiteis\u0117ja ) ( LAW ) ) . In such cases , ORG , a body assuring the independence and self - governance of judges , advises the ORG President .","The hearings of ORG are public , and a judge whose removal from office is to be considered at such a hearing has a right to take part in that hearing and to be heard . Should the ORG recommend the ORG President to remove a judge from office and the ORG President would pass such a decree , the removal may be appealed against to the civil courts of CARDINAL instances .","Historically , ORG has recommended the ORG President to remove from office judges for having discredited the title of a judge by behaviour such as being drunk at work , drunk driving , swearing in a public place , negligent performance of work duties , undue influence on other judges in order to affect outcome of court proceedings , accepting objects of material value , and sometimes also whilst criminal proceedings had still been pending .","The Law on Courts also reads that disciplinary proceedings may be brought against a judge in ORG if a judge has discredited the title of judge or breached the requirements of LAW ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The Law on Courts further reads that criminal proceedings against a judge may be started and his or her liberty restricted only with the agreement of the ORG , or with the agreement of the ORG President when the Seimas is not in session ( LAW ) . Criminal proceedings against a judge can only be initiated by ORG ( LAW ) .","At the time of the applicants\u2019 conviction on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the PERSON on the Bar ( Advokat\u016bros \u012fstatymas ) read that a person who wished to become an advocate must be of high moral character . The law stipulated :","\u201c A candidate is not considered of high moral character and thus can not be recognised as an advocate , if he or she :","CARDINAL ) NORP has been convicted of a serious or very serious crime ( teistas PERSON sunk\u0173 ar ORG sunk\u0173 nusikaltim\u0105 ) , irrespective of whether the conviction has expired , or has been convicted of another crime , until the conviction expires ;","CARDINAL ) NORP has been dismissed from the post of judge , prosecutor , advocate , trainee advocate , notary , trainee notary , bailiff ... or dismissed from the civil service ... for professional misconduct ... and DATE has passed ... \u201d .","On DATE , which was after the applicants had started serving their sentences ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , LAW on the Bar was amended and , as regards the concept of high moral character , stated the following :","\u201c A candidate is not considered to be of high moral character and thus can not be recognised as an advocate , if he or she :","CARDINAL ) NORP has been convicted of an intentional crime , irrespective of whether the conviction has expired or not ; or , alternatively , if a candidate has been convicted of another crime , until the conviction has expired ;","CARDINAL ) NORP has been dismissed from the post of judge , prosecutor , advocate , trainee advocate , notary , trainee notary , bailiff ... or dismissed from the civil service ... for professional misconduct ... and DATE have passed ... \u201d .","After the latest amendments of DATE , LAW on the Bar reads as follows :","\u201c A candidate is not considered to be of high moral character and can not be recognised as an advocate , if he or she :","CARDINAL ) NORP has been convicted of a serious or very serious crime and until the conviction has expired ... , and less than four years have passed since serving the sentence or being released from serving the sentence ;","CARDINAL ) NORP has been convicted of any other intentional crime and the conviction has not expired ... , and DATE have passed since serving the sentence , a suspension of the sentence , or release from serving the sentence ;","CARDINAL ) NORP has been dismissed from the post of judge , prosecutor , advocate , trainee advocate , notary , trainee notary , bailiff ... or dismissed from the civil service ... for professional misconduct ... and less than three years have passed ... \u201d .","The PERSON on ORG ( GPE \u012fstatymas ) currently reads that a person who wishes to become a prosecutor must be of high moral character . Those convicted of a crime by a court judgment that has come into force , or , alternatively , those dismissed from the civil service for a gross professional misconduct and DATE have passed , may not be considered as being of high moral character ( LAW ) .","The PERSON on the ORG currently reads that a person can not be considered as being of high moral character , and therefore may not be appointed as a judge , if he or she has been convicted by a court judgment which has come into force , or if he or she has been dismissed as a judge , prosecutor , notary , or from the police or civil service for professional misconduct and DATE have passed ( Article CARDINAL ) .","DATE . The Government referred to the following domestic court decisions regarding the recognition of a person as an advocate and the concept of high moral character .","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that gross violations of the law ( \u0161iurk\u0161t\u016bs \u012fstatym\u0173 pa\u017eeidimai ) committed by a judge were incompatible with the high moral character requirement applied to a person who wished to become an advocate . Respect for the law was a particularly important quality for a person who wished to become an advocate . The case concerned a complaint by a former judge who had been disciplined twice for negligence at work and for showing a serious disregard to the rules of court proceedings . He resigned as a judge of his own free will , but afterwards wished to become an advocate .","On DATE ORG examined a claim by a plaintiff who once had been an advocate but had been convicted for attempting to bribe a judge . The plaintiff complained that ORG had argued that he was not of high moral character and had therefore refused to admit him to the Bar , even though his conviction had expired . ORG , however , held that the commission of a crime had a significant impact when assessing a person \u2019s reputation . The fact that a person had served his or her sentence showed that person was no longer a criminal . However , those facts could not be ignored when assessing a person \u2019s character . Even after a criminal conviction had expired , they were still relevant when assessing character . ORG therefore dismissed the plaintiff \u2019s claim , noting that he could not be considered as being of high moral character , as required by the PERSON on the Bar .","The case concerned the personal situation of a plaintiff who in DATE had been convicted for an intentional but not serious crime ( nesunkus ty\u010dinis nusikaltimas ) related to his activities as an advocate and had been disbarred . In DATE the conviction had expired . In DATE the plaintiff asked to be recognised as an advocate . ORG refused the request , relying on the legal rule that a person who had been dismissed from the Bar for breaches of professional activity could not be considered as being of high moral character . The plaintiff argued that because of that decision he had been punished twice for the same crime .","On DATE ORG held that an advocate who had been convicted of an intentional crime of such severity as in that case could start proving that he was again of high moral character once the conviction had expired .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW at the relevant time provided for criminal liability for the crime of abuse of office where a ORG official or a person of similar legal status had abused his or her office for pecuniary or other gain , and that abuse had caused significant damage to the ORG . The sanction for this crime was a prohibition on taking up a particular activity or working in a certain area or , alternatively , a deprivation of liberty for DATE . Abuse of office is an intentional crime .","Under LAW , crimes were put into categories , in accordance with the possible sanction they could attract . Abuse of office did not fall into the categories of serious or very serious crimes ( sunk\u016bs arba labai sunk\u016bs nusikaltimai ) , but was considered to be a crime of medium severity ( apysunkis nusikaltimas ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW at the relevant time provided for criminal liability for an attempt of any kind to influence an investigator , prosecutor or judge with the aim of preventing a pre - trial investigation from being concluded properly and objectively , or preventing the proper examination of the case in court .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the material time read that an appellate court could examine a case to the extent it had been asked to do so in the appeal , and only in respect of the persons who or on whose behalf the appeal had been lodged . An appellate court could aggravate the situation of a convicted or acquitted person only if there had been such an application by a prosecutor .","The Code of Criminal Procedure also provides that the court must suspend the criminal proceedings if a question must be referred to ORG for interpretation ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) . Analogous rule and right of a court is set out in LAW ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181393","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF R.\u0160. v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG . At the material time the applicant held a pilot licence and was undergoing aviation training .","In DATE the applicant used the services of a company , PERSON ( the name of this company was subsequently changed , but it will be referred to hereinafter as \u201c KD.C. \u201d or \u201c the company \u201d ) . PERSON held PERCENT of the shares in the company ( he was its sole owner ) and he was also its sole board member . The company provided private flights and organised private pilot training courses . ORG had issued the company with a registration certificate for the provision of private pilot training courses .","The company did not provide commercial flights , therefore it fell outside the scope of the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers on Procedures Regarding the Issuing of an Air Operator \u2019s Certificate for Aerial Work ( CARDINAL DATE ) , and was not certified by ORG .","On DATE PERSON organised a private flight from GPE to ORG using a multi - engine aircraft , a ORG PA-CARDINAL with a maximum allowed mass of QUANTITY . The applicant and CARDINAL other people boarded the aircraft as passengers . The applicant occupied the front seat of the aircraft , next to the pilot , GPE , and maintained radio communication with the air traffic control service .","At TIME the pilot , GPE , lost control of the aircraft and it crashed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As a result , the pilot died and all passengers sustained serious injuries .","According to a forensic medical examination , the applicant suffered serious , life - threatening injuries . He permanently lost the vision in his right eye and sustained other permanent damage to his health . He underwent treatment in GPE and abroad .","After rehabilitation , the applicant was able to continue working as an aviation specialist , but under certain limitations . He was not permitted to operate an aircraft independently and was required to undergo medical checks more often than other aviation specialists .","Following the accident on DATE officials from ORG ( Transporta nelaimes gad\u012bjumu un incidentu izmekl\u0113\u0161anas birojs , hereinafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , whose main task was to establish the circumstances of an accident , went to the scene of the accident and carried out an investigation .","According to the TAIIB \u2019s final report of DATE , on DATE of the accident , when operating in cloudy weather , GPE , the pilot , made a series of chaotic manoeuvres , as a result of which the aircraft , which was CARDINAL from the ground , lost altitude . The attempts to stabilise it were unsuccessful . As a consequence of hitting the ground and damaging its tank , the aircraft caught fire .","The investigation concluded that the primary cause of the accident was \u201c human error \u201d ( cilv\u0113ka faktors ) , namely GPE having insufficient skills and experience to independently operate a multi - engine aircraft in accordance with instrumental flight rules and , in particular , to operate a ORG aircraft . The pilot had not obtained authorisation from ORG to fly that particular type of aircraft . In particular , PERSON had started the \u201c differences training programme \u201d for the ORG aircraft on DATE , but had not finished it . Nevertheless , on DATE he had flown without sufficient qualifications .","The final report indicated several aspects which had contributed to the accident , such as unfavourable weather conditions with poor visibility , and the \u201c unsafe supervision \u201d ( nedro\u0161a uzraudz\u012bba ) carried out by ORG \u201c [ to ensure ] that the aviation legislation and visual flight rules were complied with \u201d .","With regard to PERSON , the company which owned the aircraft , the investigation concluded that it had not followed up on the pilot \u2019s differences training programme and its outcome . On DATE of the accident the company had not checked whether the pilot \u2019s documents complied with the requirements of the legislation , and it had unjustifiably ( nepamatoti ) handed over the aircraft to him and verbally authorised him to fly .","The above report , inter alia , addressed to ORG CARDINAL recommendations concerning flight safety . The second recommendation advised ORG to impose a duty on aircraft owners to set up a procedure for aircraft handovers which would prevent pilots from operating a flight without a licence and would contain confirmation of an appropriate qualification certificate issued by ORG .","On DATE a criminal investigation was opened into the aircraft accident . In the course of the investigation the police gathered evidence , ordered that forensic examinations be carried out , and interviewed numerous witnesses , including various aviation specialists .","Questioned as a witness , PERSON stated that he himself had no experience of operating aircrafts , and that GPE had been the company \u2019s de facto associate , although legally he had had no contractual relationship with the company ; PERSON also stated that he had had no doubts that GPE had had sufficient qualifications , because he had undergone the necessary training and obtaining a certificate had only been a formality . It had been supposed that GPE would at all times be accompanied by a more experienced instructor during the training flights . On DATE of the accident GPE had a telephone conversation with GPE and the latter informed him that he had finished his \u201c instruction \u201d and would soon be starting a flight . Only afterwards did GPE find out that another aeroplane had returned to the same airport owing to bad weather conditions .","The investigation revealed that ORG had undertaken to fly the aircraft even though he lacked the requisite skills , which had caused the accident in question . On DATE the proceedings with regard to GPE were terminated due to his death .","The material in the criminal case contained a letter from the LAW dated DATE which stated , inter alia , that at the material time the legislative acts regulating aviation safety in GPE had not provided for a procedure setting out how to hand over an aircraft for a general aviation flight .","This was further confirmed in a statement given by a ORG official during the investigation , that in general aviation , unlike in commercial aviation , there were no established ( nebija sak\u0101rtots ) regulations regarding an aircraft owner \u2019s responsibility in relation to a specific flight and a pilot \u2019s skills . Therefore the recommendations of the TAIIB were adopted to address that issue within the existing system ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . During the investigation , an official of ORG testified that in commercial aviation , the question of an operator \u2019s responsibility with regard to the qualifications and rights of a pilot was sufficiently regulated , however this regulation did not apply to general aviation flights .","On DATE the prosecution indicted GPE for negligence in the performance of his professional duties ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) and violation of air traffic safety or operation regulations ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . The prosecution alleged that GPE had handed over the aircraft to GPE knowing that the latter lacked the requisite permit and skills to operate it . On DATE the prosecution referred the case for trial .","On DATE the ORG found GPE guilty on both counts . It established that GPE had not applied any measures to verify ORG qualifications . He had given the aircraft to the pilot knowing that the latter lacked the appropriate authorisation and had permitted him to fly . PERSON was given a suspended prison sentence of DATE . He was also ordered to pay the applicant CARDINAL NORP lati ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG , acting as an appellate court , quashed the above judgment and acquitted PERSON In the appeal proceedings , GPE testified that in his telephone conversation with GPE on DATE they had agreed that GPE would not fly , owing to the bad weather conditions . He explained the inconsistency in relation to his pretrial testimony ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as follows . Firstly , he had been a witness at that stage . Secondly , he had been interviewed in LANGUAGE , which was not his mother tongue , and he had not been as fluent as was necessary . He had no doubt that PERSON was responsible for the accident , and he could not envisage also being charged in criminal proceedings .","With regard to negligence in the performance of his professional duties ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court deemed that neither the indictment nor the first - instance judgment had shown what professional duties in particular GPE had neglected . Also , not being an aviation specialist , he could not have been regarded as a \u201c special subject \u201d for the purposes of this section of LAW ( an organisation \u2019s responsible employee ) .","Concerning the alleged violation of air traffic safety or operation regulations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the appellate court concluded that it had not been established precisely what regulations GPE had violated and by what conduct in particular . Besides , section CARDINAL of the Criminal Law required that the prohibited conduct be committed by a transport employee , which GPE was not .","The appellate court indicated that , even though DATE could not be held criminally liable , PERSON had an obligation to provide compensation for the damage sustained by the victim , and therefore the applicant had rights to seek damages in civil proceedings .","Both the applicant and the prosecutor submitted appeals against the appellate court \u2019s judgment .","On DATE the ORG of ORG endorsed the appeal court \u2019s findings that it had not been shown that PERSON had committed the requisite actus reus . The ORG confirmed that DATE \u2019s actions did not contain the necessary elements of a crime under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The ORG stated that the prosecution should not have relied on certain provisions of LAW , LAW , ORG and ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the GPE Convention \u201d ) . Those provisions were applicable when determining the civil and not criminal liability of an aircraft owner . In accordance with section CARDINAL of ORG , a pilot was prohibited from performing his functions in the event that he had not acquired the appropriate qualifications . The above provision had been binding upon the pilot and not GPE The ORG also stated that only on DATE had Part II of ORG DATE to ORG , Seventh Edition , come into force , making provision for the liability of an aircraft owner and a pilot ; before that date the Chicago Convention provided the responsibility only of the pilot ( see also paragraph CARDINAL et seq . below ) .","Furthermore , at the material time , no legislation had provided for a procedure for handing over an aircraft to a pilot , designating a person responsible for verifying pilots\u2019 training , or checking flight planning and implementation . Only subsequent to the accident in question had recommendations been issued to ORG on the preparation of statutes relevant to flight safety . As of DATE , section CARDINAL of ORG had provided that an aircraft owner or operator was not allowed to hand over an aircraft to a person lacking the appropriate qualifications and insurance cover ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim for damages against PERSON ( the company which owned the aircraft ) , PERSON ( the sole owner and board member of the company ) , and the insurance company . In the claim , inter alia , the applicant relied on DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . In the meantime , by a final decision of ORG of DATE , PERSON was declared bankrupt ( maks\u0101tnesp\u0113j\u012bgs ) upon application by CARDINAL of its creditors and respective proceedings were started with retrospective effect from DATE .","On DATE ORG , acting as a court of first instance , dismissed the claim in full on the grounds that the defendants had not committed unlawful actions ( prettiesiska darb\u012bba ) . There was no dispute that GPE had agreed to the pilot starting a \u201c differences training programme \u201d for the ORG aircraft with a flight instructor , PERSON However , there was no evidence that on DATE PERSON had allowed the pilot to operate this aircraft carrying CARDINAL passengers . On the contrary , the instructor and another witness ( FAC ) had testified that it had been planned that the pilot would operate the aircraft with the flight instructor , who had not arrived at the airport to take the flight on that date because of the bad weather conditions . The pilot had been informed of the bad weather conditions and the fact that the flight instructor would not arrive for the flight .","By referring to the investigation carried out by the ORG , ORG noted that the primary reason for the accident was \u201c human error \u201d on the part of the pilot , and that the lack of sufficient procedure in relation to handing over an aircraft had contributed to the accident , but was not the sole cause of it . Moreover , the applicant had occupied the front seat of the aircraft , next to the pilot , and had maintained radio communication . Taking into account that he was a pilot himself and that he had received information about the unfavourable weather conditions , he could have avoided any damage by choosing not to fly in such circumstances .","By referring to the second recommendation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court concluded that , at the material time , there had been no obligation for aircraft owners to verify the qualifications and health of pilots .","On DATE ORG of ORG , acting as an appellate court , dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim in full on the following grounds .","With regard to PERSON , the civil proceedings were terminated because the company had ceased to exist ( on DATE it had been excluded from ORG ) and there was no legal successor .","Next , the appellate court found that DATE could not be held liable under sections DATE and CARDINAL of LAW for the damage sustained by the applicant . By referring to the investigation carried out by the LAW , the appellate court also noted that the primary cause of the accident had been \u201c human error \u201d on the part of the pilot . While the lack of a sufficient procedure in relation to handing over the aircraft had contributed to the accident , there was no causal link between the accident and the actions of GPE , who managed the company .","The appellate court also referred to the conclusions made in the criminal proceedings to the effect that GPE was not liable for the flight operated by the pilot , and the fact that he had been acquitted . Moreover , the appellate court referred to evidence given to the first - instance court and concluded that on DATE PERSON had not allowed the pilot to operate the aircraft independently and that the pilot \u2019s course of action ( to operate the aircraft independently ) had been arbitrary and unlawful . It had been planned that the pilot would operate the aircraft with the flight instructor ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In the light of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG , the owner of the aircraft was the company and not PERSON Thus , the latter could not be held responsible under LAW . In so far as the applicant referred to LAW , this was inapplicable , because it only provided for the responsibility of a pilot - in - command and , from DATE , the responsibility of an owner ; GPE was neither a pilot nor an owner .","Neither could GPE be held liable under section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) because the pilot had not been an employee of the company . Nor could he be held liable under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . Referring to the conclusions made in the criminal proceedings , the appellate court held that GPE had not engaged in any unlawful ( prettiesiska ) or liable ( vainojama ) activity . Therefore , he could not be required to pay damages to the applicant . There was no doubt that the aircraft was a source of dangerous activity , but PERSON was not its owner . Instead , PERSON was the owner of the aircraft , therefore it was liable for loss caused by the source of dangerous activity .","The appellate court also refused to hold GPE liable as a board member of the company . It concluded that , under the relevant provisions of LAW , board members were liable for damage caused to a company . In the present case , the company had not incurred any losses because it had not provided compensation for any damage sustained by the applicant .","Lastly , the appellate court dismissed the claim against the insurance company . In the judgment , it stated that the aircraft accident fell outside the terms of the aircraft \u2019s insurance , which provided that compensation was not awarded if an accident was caused by a pilot who had no right to operate an aircraft . In the present case , the pilot had not had a permit to operate the aircraft in question .","In a preparatory meeting on CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant in the case against PERSON , GPE and the insurance company .","NORP In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE addressed to the Government regarding the accident in question , ORG stated :","\u201c As regards the responsibility of the aircraft owner , we note that the legislative acts [ at the material time ] provided that the owner of an aircraft was responsible for ensuring the maintenance of the aircraft \u2019s airworthiness , but not its safe operation during a flight , which was the pilot \u2019s responsibility . In particular , in accordance with ORG ( ORG ) No DATE on the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical products , parts and appliances , and on the approval of organisations and personnel involved in these tasks , under PERSON I ( Part M ) M.A. CARDINAL ( a ) , the owner is responsible for the continuing airworthiness of an aircraft and shall ensure that no flight takes place unless : the aircraft is maintained in an airworthy condition ; and any operational and emergency equipment fitted is correctly installed and serviceable or clearly identified as unserviceable ; and the airworthiness certificate remains valid ; and the maintenance of the aircraft is performed in accordance with the approved maintenance programme . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159043","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KULYUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations;Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicants are pensioners . On various dates they successfully sued the authorities for miscalculating and adjustment of their pensions . The judgments became final .","On various dates the Presidia of Regional Courts or ORG allowed the defendant authorities\u2019 applications for supervisory review and quashed the judgments delivered in the ORG favour , considering that the lower courts misapplied the material law .","Some of the judgments remained unenforced or partially enforced until the date of their quashing or were enforced with delay ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157708","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NABID ABDULLAYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of PERSON , in LOC .","The applicant is a NORP national of NORP ethnic origin . He originally lived in the town of NORP in GPE .","NORP In DATE , which was a time of mass disorders and interethnic clashes in the region , the applicant had been the head of the territorial board of a municipal authority in which most residents were ethnic NORP . He was , according to him , considered as a leader of the local NORP community .","After the clashes , the applicant had repeatedly been invited by the NORP investigative bodies for questioning as a witness .","In DATE the applicant learned that criminal proceedings had been opened against him ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant submits that law - enforcement officers started to extort money from him , threatening him with imprisonment . Due to this he moved to a different city in GPE , to his sister \u2019s home , where he stayed for DATE .","Afterwards , in DATE , the applicant left GPE for GPE . He settled in GPE , and after obtaining a work permit , worked as a sports instructor .","On DATE the NORP authorities charged the applicant with the commission of violent crimes in DATE ( attempted murder , participation in mass disorders and unlawful firearms trafficking ) and ordered his arrest . It appears that when the authorities eventually tried to execute the arrest order , the applicant had left the country ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . The applicant was therefore put on the international wanted list .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE and detained in custody pending extradition","On DATE the NORP authorities lodged an extradition request with ORG , asking that the applicant be extradited to GPE for prosecution and trial .","On DATE ORG granted the extradition request and ordered the applicant \u2019s extradition .","The applicant appealed , arguing that due to his NORP ethnic origin the aforementioned decision would expose him to a serious risk of torture . The applicant supported his appeal through reference , inter alia , to various ORG sources , NGOs\u2019 reports and the judgment of the ORG in the case of PERSON ( see GPE v. GPE , no . GPE , DATE ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the extradition order , giving the following reasoning :","\u201c The charges pressed against [ the applicant ] [ by NORP authorities ] are criminal offences liable to punishment in GPE ... They are not time - barred ...","Pursuant to LAW , an extradition request lodged by a foreign state in respect of a NORP citizen should be denied ...","It is apparent from the conclusions of ORG ( ORG ) for GPE that [ the applicant ] is not a NORP citizen . ... He holds a NORP passport ... and is a NORP national . ...","On DATE the ORG for PERSON rejected a request from [ the applicant ] for refugee status in GPE .","[ The applicant \u2019s ] allegations of persecution by the NORP authorities on false criminal charges on the basis of his [ NORP ] ethnic origin were addressed [ within the refugee status procedure ] .","The lawfulness of the refusal [ to grant the applicant refugee status in GPE ] was confirmed by GPE \u2019s ORG on DATE ...","[ The applicant \u2019s ] argument [ that ] the decision to extradite him was taken before any judicial review of the refusal to grant him refugee status is groundless .","It is apparent from the evidential material gathered during the extradition check that [ the applicant ] arrived in GPE ... for employment purposes and that he had not been persecuted in GPE on racial , national or religious grounds ...","It is likewise apparent from the evidential material gathered during the extradition check that [ the applicant ] lodged his request for refugee status on DATE , while being held in custody following his arrest in GPE ... , [ therefore ] his appeal against the decision of the ORG did not prevent ORG from taking a decision concerning extradition , in line with ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE of the Plenary Session of ORG ...","[ The applicant ] does not have immunity from prosecution [ and ] there are no grounds preventing his extradition .","ORG of GPE provided assurances that [ in the event of extradition ] [ the applicant ] would have the benefit of [ legal assistance ] ; that he would not be extradited to a third ORG ; that he would be prosecuted only for the offence for which he was being extradited ; that [ he ] would not be subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; that he was being prosecuted for an ordinary criminal offence devoid of any political character or discrimination on any grounds ; that he would be able to freely leave GPE after he had stood trial and served a sentence ; and that NORP diplomats would be allowed access to him .","It is apparent from the above guarantees that [ the applicant ] is being prosecuted for ordinary criminal offences ; his prosecution is not politically motivated and is not connected with his [ ethnic origin ] .","[ The applicant \u2019s ] allegations concerning his persecution on political grounds , lack of fair trial in GPE , and persecution of his family members by law - enforcement bodies in GPE are not supported by any objective data .","The court has established that [ the applicant \u2019s ] wife and daughter live in GPE , [ that there is ] no substantiated information concerning their alleged persecution by the NORP authorities , [ and ] that they do not travel outside the territory of GPE . [ The applicant himself ] did not apply for refugee status until his arrest .","... ORG does not have any information that would prevent [ the applicant \u2019s ] extradition to GPE .","Therefore , there are no grounds ... preventing [ the applicant \u2019s ] extradition to GPE for criminal prosecution .","The argument of [ the applicant \u2019s ] lawyer referring to international sources ( report of ORG , report of the ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights on technical assistance and cooperation on human rights for GPE , report of ORG on ORG , ORG report ) to the effect that after the interethnic clashes in the south of GPE in DATE the lawenforcement bodies had subjected ethnic NORP to torture and that there are grounds to believe that [ the applicant ] might be subjected to torture in the event of his extradition , is unsubstantiated . The aforementioned international documents describe the general human rights situation in GPE , are unspecific and unsupported by evidence , and are countered by the guarantees offered by GPE , which relate directly to the applicant and are sufficient to eliminate the risk of [ the applicant \u2019s ] being subjected to inhuman treatment .","[ As to ] the reference by the defence to ... the judgment of ORG in the case of PERSON , [ the case ] has no connection with [ the applicant \u2019s ] case and can not be taken into consideration .","... \u201d","The applicant appealed to ORG .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG indicated to the Government , under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , that the applicant should not be extradited or otherwise involuntarily removed from GPE to GPE or another country for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , endorsing the reasoning of the first - instance court :","\u201c The court has taken into consideration the arguments of the defence and the documents submitted , including the concluding observations of ORG [ dated DATE ] on GPE \u2019s second periodic report , in which the ORG expressed its deep concern with regard to apparent impunity regarding widespread acts of torture and ill - treatment that remained uninvestigated by the authorities of GPE ... and the report that the investigations , persecutions , convictions and punishments in connection with the events of DATE are mainly directed at persons of NORP ethnic origin .","At the same time , these circumstances can not in themselves be considered to constitute sufficient grounds for refusing to extradite [ the applicant ] to GPE ...","Pursuant to LAW , ORG shall expel , return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be at risk of being subjected to torture . For the purpose of determining whether such grounds exist , the competent authorities must take into account all relevant considerations including , where applicable , the existence in the ORG concerned of a consistent pattern of gross , flagrant or mass violations of human rights .","...","The provisions of LAW imply that it is necessary not only to verify the existence in the ORG concerned of gross and mass violations of human rights , but also the existence in that ORG of the likelihood that the individual concerned would personally be at risk of torture if returned to his or her country . That risk must be real , immediate and foreseeable .","According to the legal position of ORG as outlined in a number of its decisions ( ... ) , the existence of a consistent pattern of gross , flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not of itself constitute sufficient grounds for determining whether the person in question would be at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to that country . Additional grounds must be adduced showing that the individual concerned would be personally at risk ...","The ORG ... noted that it is necessary to establish the existence of substantial grounds for believing that the person would be at risk of torture if returned , and that such risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion . The risk need not be highly probable , but it must be personal and present . In this regard the ORG has determined , in previous decisions , that the risk of torture must be foreseeable , real and personal .","The evidential material submitted by ORG \u2013 on the basis of which the decision to extradite [ the applicant ] was taken \u2013 does not contain any information demonstrating that [ the latter ] personally would be at risk of torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the event of his extradition .","[ A long passage on the guarantees provided by the NORP authorities ] .","Neither [ the applicant ] nor his lawyers provided any substantial evidence showing that [ the former ] was at risk of being subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by the NORP authorities , or that he might be persecuted on grounds [ such as ] race , religion , national or social origin , or political opinion .","... [ The applicant ] does not belong to any political or other party , organisation or group that opposes [ the present government of GPE ] .","While living in GPE [ the applicant ] was not subjected to any torture , inhuman or degrading treatment by the authorities ; he arrived in GPE in DATE , that is to say DATE and DATE after the crimes of which he stands accused had been committed in DATE . [ The applicant \u2019s ] wife and daughter remain in GPE .","No evidence has [ therefore ] been provided showing that [ the applicant ] or his relatives were persecuted by [ the NORP ] authorities .","[ The applicant \u2019s ] statement to the effect that he is a \u201c leader of NORP diaspora \u201d and belongs to the ethnic NORP DATE which allegedly gives him reason to believe that he would be subjected to repressive criminal prosecution and unfair conviction \u2013 is an assumption unsupported by any evidence . It can not therefore be considered to constitute sufficient grounds for concluding that he is personally at risk of being subjected to torture and other ill - treatment in the event of his extradition to GPE .","... \u201d","On DATE ORG in GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s detention pending extradition until DATE .","On DATE the same court extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged an appeal against this decision . On DATE ORG upheld the extension order on appeal .","On DATE ORG of GPE extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged an appeal against this decision . The appeal was dispatched by post on DATE . ORG received the applicant \u2019s appeal on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE a copy of the appeal was forwarded to the applicant and the local prosecutor \u2019s office , and the latter was invited to submit comments by CARDINAL October CARDINAL . On DATE ORG forwarded the case file to ORG for examination . On DATE an appeal hearing was scheduled for DATE and the parties were informed accordingly . On DATE ORG upheld the extension order of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE the deputy Prosecutor of the Primorye Region decided to release the applicant in the light of the decision of the ORG to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG to the present case . The applicant was released on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for refugee status with GPE \u2019s ORG , alleging persecution on the grounds of ethnic origin .","On DATE the ORG for GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s request , having found that the applicant had left his country of nationality for reasons falling outside the scope of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","On DATE GPE \u2019s ORG upheld the refusal of DATE .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision before ORG of GPE . In his appeal he referred to reports concerning the widespread ill - treatment of NORP detainees in GPE , as confirmed by various ORG sources , NGOs\u2019 reports and the judgment of ORG in the case of PERSON .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the ORG \u2019s decisions . ORG considered that the applicant had failed to substantiate his fears of persecution in GPE and that his allegations that the criminal charges against him were unlawful fell outside the scope of the refugee status proceedings . ORG pointed out that his application for refugee status contained no indications that he had been previously accused or convicted of a criminal offence , or that he had been a member of any political , religious or military organisations . It also took into account the fact that the applicant had not applied for refugee status until after his placement in detention .","In his appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested a rigorous examination of his arguments regarding the risk of illtreatment . He again referred to various reports by international organisations and reputable NGOs to support his position .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal , reiterating the conclusions of the migration authorities and the firstinstance court .","On DATE the ORG for GPE issued a decision granting the applicant temporary asylum in GPE until DATE , referring to the existence of circumstances preventing the applicant \u2019s extradition , namely the application of Rule CARDINAL of ORG in the applicant \u2019s case before the ORG and the impossibility of foreseeing the duration of those proceedings .","On DATE the ORG for GPE extended the term of the temporary asylum granted to the applicant until DATE , with reference to the same grounds ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142521","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"MILADINOV AND OTHERS v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC ( the first and third applicants ) and ORG ( the second applicant ) . The applicants were private entrepreneurs .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) opened an investigation against CARDINAL people ( some of the accused were bankruptcy trustees , trial judges , lawyers , notaries and civil servants ) , including the applicants , on reasonable suspicion of having been involved in crimes with respect to bankruptcy proceedings concerning company ORG the applicants were charged with money laundering . In respect of the first applicant , the investigation also concerned charges of abuse of position , fraud and forgery and as regards the third applicant , charges of fraud . After having heard oral evidence from the accused , the investigating judge , in a single decision , ordered that QUANTITY of the accused , including the applicants , be placed in pre - trial detention for DATE . The detention order was based on all the grounds specified under section CARDINAL ) of LAW ( hereinafter \u201c LAW \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , namely , a risk of the accused absconding and reoffending and interfering with the investigation . The judge relied on the gravity of the charges , the severity of the potential sentence and the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses , accomplices and other people concerned .","The first and second applicants appealed , arguing that the investigating judge had not given any concrete reasons to justify the detention of each of them . Both applicants pointed out that they had a permanent residence and family in the respondent ORG . The second applicant further submitted evidence regarding his poor health .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of the trial court ( \u201c the panel \u201d ) , set up under section PERSON ) of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , sitting in private , dismissed the appeal submitted by the first applicant . On DATE it replaced the order for pre - trial detention with an order for house arrest in respect of the second applicant .","With CARDINAL decisions dated DATE , DATE and DATE , the panel ordered , on each occasion , a DATE extension of the applicants\u2019 pre - trial detention and house arrest , respectively . All extension orders were taken at hearings held in private ( \u043d\u0435\u0458\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0441\u0435\u0434\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) . The first CARDINAL extension orders were given on a proposal by the investigating judge and were based on all CARDINAL grounds specified under section CARDINAL ) of the LAW . In the decision of DATE , which was given on a proposal by the public prosecutor , \u201c interference with the investigation \u201d was excluded from the list of grounds since an indictment was lodged against the applicants on that date . According to the applicants , the indictment was communicated to them on DATE .","As regards the risk of absconding , the extension order of CARDINAL DATE stated that :","\u201c Having regard to the type , gravity and nature of the criminal offenses with which the accused are charged , the panel considers that there is a real risk of them absconding if they are released . That is sustained with the behaviour of some of the accused , namely [ the first applicant ] has a previous criminal record and criminal proceedings are pending in respect of [ the second applicant ] . As regards the personal circumstances of the accused , the panel took into consideration that most of them have a family ; that they are parents and have possessions , but it considers that they do not provide for a sufficient guarantee , at this stage of the investigation , that they would not abscond if they are released ... \u201d","As to the possibility of their reoffending , in all CARDINAL orders the panel stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... the panel has taken into consideration the nature , character and type of offences and the manner and conditions in which they were committed , which make the possibility of reoffending particularly likely . Particular attention has been paid to the fact that the criminal offences with which the accused are charged ( or \u2018 in respect of which there is a reasonable suspicion\u2019 ) have been committed through the use of the position and characteristics of the accused as holders of special powers [ \u0441\u043e \u0438\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0436\u0431\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0438 \u0441\u0432\u043e\u0458\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u043e\u0431\u0432\u0438\u043d\u0435\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0438 \u043a\u0430\u043a\u043e \u043d\u043e\u0441\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0438 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0435\u0431\u043d\u0438 \u043e\u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0430 ] . \u201d","NORP The extension order of CARDINAL DATE relied on the same reasons and used identical wording to justify the risk of the applicants absconding and reoffending . It added a reference to the severity of the potential penalty , as a ground that justified the risk of flight .","As regards the risk that the applicants might flee , the extension order of CARDINAL DATE stated :","\u201c ... The contents and quality of the material and verbal evidence adduced corroborates the suspicion that the accused have committed the crimes with which they are charged ... Consequently , the panel considers that at this stage of the proceedings , namely , after the indictment was lodged ... there is still a real risk of the accused absconding if they are released . That would considerably affect the proceedings and prevent the case from being decided . Having been acquainted with the indictment and the reasons given therein , and having been faced with the possibility of a prison sentence , the accused , if released , could flee or otherwise go into hiding ... \u201d","As regards the possibility that the applicants might reoffend this order provided an explanation identical to that contained in the previous orders . The panel further added :","\u201c ... In particular , [ the first and third applicants ] are the owners of several companies through which the offences with which they are charged were committed . The other accused are employed by or otherwise connected with those companies ... \u201d","After DATE the panel extended the applicants\u2019 pre - trial detention and house arrest , respectively on its own motion . DATE and DATE the panel , sitting in private ( \u043d\u0435\u0458\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0441\u0435\u0434\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) , issued CARDINAL orders each providing for a DATE extension of the applicant \u2019s detention due to the risk that they might flee and the possibility that they might reoffend . The risk was justified , in all extension orders with an explanation identical to that described above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Besides the above reasons , in all CARDINAL extension orders given during this time , the panel stated :","\u201c ... Given the fact that the detention in prison custody and house arrest are the most efficient measures that secure the attendance of the accused at the trial ... which had a positive bearing on their right to a hearing within a reasonable time .... the panel considers that the extension and maintaining of the detention .... is justified ... \u201d","In addition to the above reasoning , the extension orders of DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ( each proving for a DATE extension of the applicants\u2019 detention ) contained a reference to the third applicant \u2019s previous criminal record .","On DATE Mr PERSON visited the first applicant in GPE prison . On that occasion , the first applicant signed a letter of attorney for Mr PERSON to represent him in the proceedings before ORG . The prison administration retained that document because PERSON had not informed them in advance that such a document would be signed . The first applicant requested that the prison governor , the trial court and the ORG take measures to remedy the situation . After DATE the retained document was returned to PERSON .","On DATE the panel set aside the order for house arrest in respect of the second applicant and ordered that his passport be seized . In the absence of an appeal , the order became final .","DATE and DATE the panel issued CARDINAL orders each providing for a DATE extension of the detention of the first and third applicants for the same reasons and with an identical wording to that described above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . All orders were taken at hearings held in private .","As evident from the available material in the case file , the applicants appealed against the extension orders , arguing , inter alia , that the panel had not given sufficient reasons to substantiate the risk of them absconding and reoffending , given their family situation and the state of health of the second applicant ( who suffered from a chronic illness and needed regular medical care ) . The first applicant further argued that his previous conviction concerned a traffic offence , which could not be relied on by the courts to justify the risk of his reoffending . The applicants also complained that the wording used in the decisions in question violated their right to the presumption of innocence as guaranteed by the LAW and the LAW . The first and third applicants further requested , under section CARDINAL ) of the consolidated version of the LAW ( the text of which is identical to section CARDINAL ) of the LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , to be informed of the date of the session ( \u0441\u0435\u0434\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) of ORG . Lastly , the applicants sought release and replacement of the detention order with a more lenient measure specified under the domestic law .","ORG , sitting in private , dismissed the appeals , finding that the panel had given sufficient reasons for the applicants\u2019 continued detention . In the decisions ( dated DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL July,CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ) , ORG referred to written submissions in which the public prosecutor requested , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that the court dismisses the applicants\u2019 appeals . In its decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE it also dismissed the requests of the first and third applicants that it decide in a public session ( \u0441\u0435\u0434\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) , finding that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW was inapplicable in their case .","As regards the risk of the applicants absconding , in the decisions dated DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , ORG stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... The court considers that , as evident from the case - file , the circumstances of the concrete criminal act , taken in connection with the nature , type , gravity and the manner in which the criminal offences were committed ... faced with the possibility to be sentenced to imprisonment and the severity of ( this penalty ) suggest that there is a risk of the accused of absconding in order to avoid eventual criminal responsibility for the criminal offences in question ...","In this connection the court neither accepts nor does it consider that the allegations of the accused that they have family ; that they are parents with a permanent residence [ in the respondent ORG ] are of any relevance ... \u201d","Regarding the possibility that the applicants might reoffend , the court stated that :","\u201c ... [ the court took into consideration ] all the circumstances of the concrete criminal act , in particular , the nature and type of the criminal offences , the manner in which they were committed , especially the fact that the ( first and third applicants ) are the owners of several companies through which the crimes were committed and ( the second applicant ) was linked with those companies by way of having been engaged in work - related activities ... The above is further supported by the fact that there are criminal proceedings pending in respect of ( the second applicant ) and that ( the first applicant ) has already been convicted . All [ the above ] increases the risk of the accused reoffending if they are released at this stage of the proceedings ... having regard , in particular , to the fact that the criminal offences , as stated , were committed through the use of the position and powers of the accused ... \u201d","Identical wording , limited to the first and third applicants , was used in decisions of DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE in which ORG dismissed the appeals brought by these applicants . In all decisions ORG also referred to the detention \u201c as the most efficient measure to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial \u201d .","In all the above decisions ORG further stated :","\u201c The court examined the complaints ... denying the existence of offenses and criminal responsibility of the accused , but it considers that they are irrelevant in the appeal proceedings in question , given that the only issue to be decided at this moment is whether there are reasons for detention ... In this connection ( these ) complaints will be examined at the trial ... where the court will adjudicate on the merits ( of the case ) . \u201d","On DATE the trial court found the applicants guilty and sentenced the first and third applicants to CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment and the second applicant to a prison term of DATE . The court further decided that the first and third applicants would remain in custody until the judgment became final .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeals submitted by the applicants\u2019 and the public prosecutor and quashed , in a public session , the trial court \u2019s judgment . It also ordered the first and third applicants\u2019 release of its own motion , finding that there were no grounds to justify their detention .","No further information was provided as regards the criminal proceedings against the applicants ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170860","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF WDOWIAK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son PERSON was born . At that time the applicant lived with the boy \u2019s mother , GPE , in a flat belonging to her parents . In DATE the applicant moved out after a disagreement with ORG father .","NORP In DATE the applicant filed a court complaint that GPE was hindering his contact with his son .","On DATE the parties reached a friendly settlement before the ORG detailing when the applicant was able to visit the child . It was agreed that the applicant could see J. on DATE and DATE from TIME , as long as the meetings had been arranged with GPE DATE . The applicant could also take DATE for DATE during DATE . It was arranged that he would pick the child up from ORG place of residence and take him back .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s meetings with his son were on some occasions made impossible by the mother , but most of them took place . A few of the visits were cancelled because the child was ill .","On DATE PERSON applied to change the applicant \u2019s access rights . PERSON wanted to reduce the amount of time the applicant could spend with J. She also indicated her intention to move to GPE with her son for financial reasons .","On DATE the applicant applied to increase his access rights . He stated that PERSON had been interfering with his contact visits . The applicant asked the court to order that he be able to see his son twice a month from TIME on DATE to TIME on DATE ; DATE at DATE or GPE from TIME DATE ; and DATE in DATE and DATE in DATE .","At a hearing on DATE PERSON withdrew her application and ORG discontinued the proceedings . The applicant appealed , complaining that his application had still to be examined .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision . The court considered that it had been a mistake to assume that the applicant had consented to the discontinuation of his application just because PERSON had chosen to withdraw hers . It was also established that the applicant \u2019s access rights were not being respected at the time because PERSON had moved to GPE with the child .","On DATE PERSON moved to GPE with the child without the applicant \u2019s consent . The parties disagreed on whether or not PERSON had informed the applicant of their address in GPE ( the applicant submitted that she had not ) .","The applicant initiated proceedings under LAW on the Civil Aspects of ORG of DATE ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) . On DATE ORG in GPE ordered that the child be returned to GPE to the father or a guardian because under LAW the mother had abducted the child . The court also noted that the applicant and PERSON had joint custody of CARDINAL under NORP law .","On DATE ORG in GPE dismissed an appeal by GPE and ordered the return of the child to GPE . However , the court agreed that the child need not be handed over to the applicant . It stated that it would be enough to move back to GPE by the required date to comply with the court \u2019s order .","On DATE ORG communicated the above decisions to ORG . The applicant was informed on DATE . The mother and the child returned to GPE on DATE .","In DATE the applicant lodged an application for sole custody of J. and to establish J. \u2019s place of residence with him .","On DATE TIME lodged an application to grant her sole custody of the child and to establish J. \u2019s place of residence with her .","The proceedings were stayed DATE and DATE owing to proceedings pending under LAW .","On DATE ORG approved a settlement between the parties regarding the applicant \u2019s access rights . It was agreed that the applicant would be informed whenever PERSON \u2019s place of residence changed . It was also agreed that he would be able to see J. every other DATE and DATE from TIME ; DATE and LOC holidays at the same times ; DATE from TIME ; and for DATE in DATE from DATE . The applicant was also under an obligation to allow GPE to contact PERSON when the child was under his care and agreed that he would not see the child on DATE as well as on DATE and DATE .","According to the applicant \u2019s own statements before the domestic authorities contact took place according to the agreement .","The agreement was further modified by the parties on DATE by extending the amount of time the applicant could spend with his child . It was agreed that the applicant would spend CARDINAL weekends per month from DATE with his son , as well as DATE in DATE and DATE in DATE . The applicant was also to have telephone contact with the child .","During the proceedings , on DATE , ORG ordered the parties to have counselling . The applicant and PERSON began to go to counselling but PERSON pulled out . The court also ordered mediation to resolve their issues . The court ordered the preparation of several expert opinions . In particular ORG ( ORG -\u201cthe RODK \u201d ) submitted CARDINAL reports by experts DATE and DATE . The applicant contested the conclusions of the opinions .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application to order that ORG place of residence be with him , leaving the child in GPE \u2019s care . The court also dismissed PERSON \u2019s application to decrease the applicant \u2019s visiting TIME . The applicant and PERSON retained joint custody of ORG court established that in the period up to DATE the bond between the applicant and the child had weakened considerably owing to a lack of contact between them . However , their relations had significantly improved because after the settlement of DATE contact between the applicant and his son had taken place without disturbance . Afterwards , at the applicant \u2019s request , the contact arrangements had been modified on CARDINAL DATE . The court noted that the parties had had strong disagreements , had stopped talking to each other and should both be held responsible for the situation . According to the experts , the parents were not able to decide together on important aspects of the boy \u2019s life . Nevertheless , the court found that both parents loved their child very much and wanted the best for him . The court found no reasons to limit either parent \u2019s parental rights .","The parties appealed .","On DATE ORG partly granted the appeal lodged by PERSON and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It found it necessary to limit the applicant \u2019s parental rights only to the most important decisions on J. \u2019s health , education , and upbringing . The court considered that the conflict between the parents meant it would not be possible for them to continue to carry out their parental responsibilities jointly .","In the meantime , on DATE , ORG increased the amount of child support payable by the applicant to PERSON from MONEY ( ORG ) to ORG CARDINAL per month .","On DATE the applicant asked the court to further modify the contact arrangements . He submitted that his relationship with his son had got considerably worse since DATE and blamed the mother \u2019s behaviour . The applicant asked for visits to take place in the presence of a guardian . The applicant also sought enforcement of the contact arrangements ordered in the agreement of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the court commissioned another report by experts from the RODK . The experts met the applicant , GPE and J.","On DATE PERSON applied to annul the settlement of CARDINAL DATE . She stated that PERSON refused to see his father and , while waiting for the PERSON report , it would be in his best interests to no longer see his father .","On DATE ORG applied an interim measure to limit the applicant \u2019s access rights and ordering that both the applicant and PERSON have counselling . The applicant was allowed to see his son at ORG or another public place for short visits in the presence of his mother or maternal grandparents . The applicant appealed .","On DATE J. was questioned in the presence of a psychologist . The boy , DATE at the time , stated that he no longer wished to see his father . He stated that the applicant had paid no attention to him during visits and that he had been allowed to play computer games DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the interim order of DATE . The court ordered the parties to attend counselling and to submit attendance certificates to the court DATE . The court further emphasised the need to modify the way the father and the child communicated without suspending contact between them , which would lead to breaking the bond between them .","On DATE PERSON applied to change the access rights of the applicant agreed in the settlement of DATE . PERSON asked the court to order that contact should take place DATE and be in her or her GPE presence because PERSON had not seen the applicant for a long time and would feel unsafe with him . She also requested an interim measure from the court .","On DATE ORG gave an interim measure . It stated that the applicant would have the right to see PERSON every other weekend for TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE in a public place and in the presence of GPE or her parents . Upon appeal by the applicant the decision was amended by ORG on DATE by extending the length of the meeting to TIME . The visits were to take place in a neutral place , in the presence of GPE or her parents , and with a guardian for DATE .","The applicant met his son in DATE in a ORG restaurant . The boy was accompanied by his mother and was aggressive and hostile to the applicant .","On DATE the RODK issued its report , recommending that the applicant and GPE have counselling in order to learn to cooperate when making decisions about their son . The RODK also proposed that J. should consult a psychologist . It further observed that relations between the applicant and his son were strained because PERSON had a negative attitude towards the applicant and no longer liked to have contact with him . That attitude was the result of a negative image of the applicant that had been created under the influence of the mother .","At a hearing on DATE the applicant declared that he was no longer attending the meetings because of his son \u2019s disruptive and aggressive behaviour . The last meeting took place in DATE .","On DATE the RODK issued another report which stated that the boy had been loyal to his mother and had turned away from the applicant .","On DATE , after ineffective mediation , the court modified the contact arrangements by ordering longer meetings with the applicant . The court again ordered the parties to have counselling so they could learn how to reach agreement with each other . The court also noted that the applicant had the possibility to apply for imposing a fine on GPE for noncompliance with court orders . On DATE the applicant appealed .","The proceedings are still pending .","On DATE the applicant complained that the arrangements for meeting his child , as established by the agreement of DATE , were not being enforced . After the child was removed to GPE the applicant initiated proceedings under LAW ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","On DATE the court ordered GPE to pay a fine if a contact meeting scheduled for DATE did not take place . That and subsequent visits took place in accordance with the settlement of DATE .","On DATE the applicant brought a claim to enforce his access rights under Article CARDINAL ) \u00a7 CARDINAL and \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Kodeks Post\u0119powania Cywilnego \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . He submitted that his relations with his son had worsened substantially since DATE for which he blamed the mother \u2019s behaviour . It appears that he withdrew the claim at an unspecified DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested the assistance of a court guardian during his meetings with the child ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the applicant brought a claim to enforce the arrangements for meeting his child , as determined by the settlement of CARDINAL DATE , by imposing a fine on the child \u2019s mother . The applicant submitted that PERSON had been making it impossible for him to call his son although that had been provided for by the settlement . Moreover , after DATE , when his parental rights had been limited , PERSON had cancelled all his subsequent meetings with his son . Since DATE PERSON had started claiming that their child refused to meet him .","By a decision issued on DATE ORG ordered that PERSON pay the applicant a penalty each time he was denied his rights to have access to J. as set down by the settlement of CARDINAL DATE . She was ordered to pay PLN CARDINAL each time she interfered with the applicant \u2019s right to see J. and PLN CARDINAL every time she did not allow them to converse by telephone on DATE as scheduled . The court noted that there was no dispute about the fact that PERSON had prevented the applicant from seeing his son for DATE . PERSON lodged an appeal against the decision but it was dismissed on DATE by ORG . It appears that the applicant never applied to enforce that decision or to impose penalty payments on GPE"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-153910","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF VAMVAKAS v. GREECE (No. 2)","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Free legal assistance);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","By judgment of DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL judges and adjudicating as a court of first instance , convicted the applicant of fraud and forgery to the detriment of a bank and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant , who was being detained in FAC at the time , appeared in person , assisted by a lawyer of his own choosing , GPE","At the hearing held on DATE before ORG , composed of CARDINAL judges , the applicant , who had meanwhile been transferred to ORG , appeared in person , assisted by CARDINAL lawyers of his choosing , PERSON and PERSON The hearing was adjourned and scheduled to resume DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the proceedings were once again adjourned , owing to a ORG strike , until DATE . Before the end of the CARDINAL DATE hearing the court informed the applicant that he would not be summoned to appear at the hearing on DATE .","Before the hearing on CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed the court in writing that he would not be present but would be represented by his lawyers . However , neither of the lawyers whom the applicant had appointed on CARDINAL DATE attended the hearing in question . The court then concluded that at the CARDINAL DATE hearing the applicant had voiced a wish for a ruling on his appeal ; it appointed PERSON official counsel for the applicant and adjourned the CARDINAL DATE hearing so that the latter could familiarise himself with the case file . At the hearing ORG submitted to the court that the offences with which the applicant had been charged were petty rather than serious offences , which plea had also been raised and dismissed at first instance . He also invited the court to take account of mitigating circumstances in respect of the applicant .","On DATE ORG reduced the applicant \u2019s sentence to DATE imprisonment for the same offences . It dismissed the allegations that the offences came under tort law and ruled that they should be classified as criminal offences because the conditions set out in Act No . CARDINAL on \u201c increasing sentences imposed on persons found guilty of embezzling public funds \u201d were fulfilled in the instant case . However , it acknowledged the existence of mitigating circumstances .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law complaining of the erroneous application of the relevant legislation , in particular Act no . CARDINAL . Relying on the case - law of ORG , he submitted that the offences with which he had been charged fell under tort law and not under criminal law , and had become statute - barred by the date on which he had stood trial . He also complained of a violation of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW . The applicant had prepared his appeal on points of law himself ( albeit , evidently , with the assistance of a lawyer ) , lodging it with ORG through the intermediary of FAC authorities . On DATE , in GPE prison , the applicant received a summons to appear at the DATE hearing before ORG .","On DATE the applicant asked the President of ORG to appoint an official lawyer to represent him before that court .","NORP On DATE the President of ORG , noting the applicant \u2019s situation of financial hardship , appointed PERSON to represent him at the DATE hearing and\/or at any other hearing held in the context of his case .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( finalised on DATE and authenticated on DATE , as of which date copies of the judgment could be issued on request ) , ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law as having been abandoned , on the grounds that the applicant , who had , according to the court , been summoned to appear at the hearing pursuant to standard procedure and within the requisite time - limit , had failed to appear .","The applicant submitted that he had contacted PERSON prison after appointment of the latter , who had assured him that he would attend the hearing . However , PERSON had informed him of the reasons for his absence neither before nor after the hearing . The applicant explained that it was DATE , during a telephone conversation ( without providing details regarding the date , method or reasons for that conversation ) , that the lawyer had informed him that he had telephoned the registry of ORG to request the adjournment of the hearing .","On DATE of his application to the ORG the applicant stated that he had taken cognisance of the judgment of ORG on DATE , as clearly mentioned at the bottom of page CARDINAL of the judgment .","..."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148891","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KO\u010cEGAROVS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant in the first case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Zvejsalnieks , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant in the second case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently residing in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant in the third case , Mr Raivo Jur\u0161evskis , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently in detention in GPE . He was represented before ORG by Ms NORP ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) in the first case were represented by their Agent at the time , PERSON , and subsequently by Ms PERSON , who represented the ORG also in the second and third cases .","The relevant facts of the cases , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","DATE and DATE the applicant served his prison sentence in FAC ( Gr\u012bvas cietums ) . During that time he was temporarily placed in FAC ( NORP cietums ) , CARDINAL .","On DATE , the applicant was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the left lung , for which he received treatment .","On DATE the applicant lodged a compensation claim against ORG with ORG ( ORG rajona tiesa ) in relation to his having contracted tuberculosis DATE and DATE . He also requested exemption from the court fee owing to his financial situation .","On DATE ORG refused to consider the applicant \u2019s claim because he had failed to observe the extrajudicial procedure . Having complied with that requirement , the applicant re - lodged his compensation claim with ORG .","On DATE he submitted a request to ORG to decide on the issue of the court fee on the grounds that he was unable to pay it . On DATE ORG lifted the court fee .","On DATE ORG examined the merits of the applicant \u2019s claim . It assessed the applicant \u2019s allegation , including whether he had been imprisoned with persons suffering from tuberculosis . ORG could not , however , establish that the applicant had contracted tuberculosis because of any action by the prison administration . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim .","NORP The applicant appealed against the aforementioned decision . On DATE ORG refused to proceed with his appeal . It found that the applicant had not submitted a document on the payment of court fee for lodging an appeal , which totalled CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) . Nor had he applied for exemption from it .","It gave the applicant a deadline of CARDINAL DATE to submit a document on the payment of the court fee or a request for full or partial exemption from it .","On DATE ORG ( NORP apgabaltiesa ) , on an appeal from the applicant upheld the aforementioned ruling . It set a new deadline of DATE for the submission of a document on the payment of the court fee . No further appeal was available .","The applicant did not pay the court fee . On DATE ORG decided that his appeal should be considered as not having been lodged and be returned to him . An appeal lay against that decision . The applicant did not appeal .","On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to ORG ( ORG ) . He requested information on when and where he had contracted tuberculosis . He considered that he had not received adequate healthcare while in detention .","ORG instigated an inquiry . On DATE it issued a decision finding no shortcomings in the healthcare provided to the applicant while he was in detention . It refused to commence administrative violation proceedings . That decision was subject to appeal . The applicant apparently did not appeal .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a robbery .","On DATE he was questioned by police officers . The same day he was brought before the Investigating Judge of ORG ( PERSON pils\u0113tas tiesa ) , PERSON , who authorised his detention on remand .","The applicant was held in a short - term detention facility in GPE from DATE . According to the applicant , the conditions there were appalling .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ) regarding a police officer , PERSON , in relation to the applicant \u2019s detention in DATE . In particular , PERSON had allegedly failed to inform the applicant \u2019s relatives of his arrest and had refused to accept the applicant \u2019s written requests concerning his conditions of detention and his medical needs . The applicant claimed that PERSON had been aware of those issues but had not followed them up .","This complaint was transmitted to ORG of ORG ( NORP policijas PERSON dro\u0161\u012bbas birojs ) for examination . On DATE the ORG received another similar complaint from the applicant .","ORG of ORG conducted an inquiry . On DATE it refused to open criminal proceedings against PERSON , which refusal was subject to appeal .","On DATE ORG , upon the applicant \u2019s appeal , upheld the aforementioned decision . No further appeal was available .","On DATE the applicant lodged a compensation claim with ORG in relation to the alleged inadequate conditions of his detention DATE .","On DATE ORG considered the applicant \u2019s claim belated and refused to renew the procedural time - limit for its submission . An appeal against that decision lay with ORG ( Iek\u0161lietu ministrija ) .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant wrote to ORG that he accepted ORG refusal to renew the procedural time - limit .","On DATE , CARDINAL , the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder and taken to ORG ( PERSON re\u0123iona p\u0101rvaldes PERSON pils\u0113tas ORG iecirknis ) .","According to the applicant , he was questioned for TIME at FAC by QUANTITY police officers , while seated handcuffed on the chair . They accused him of being involved in the murder . They were aggressive and insulting . The Police Officer , GPE , holding a gun silencer in his hands , suggested taking the applicant to the woods and shooting him . He invited the applicant to write a confession to the murder . Another police officer was holding a stick - type object .","At TIME the report was drawn up on the applicant \u2019s arrest . The applicant said that he had signed the report without having read it . The Government pointed out that according to the report the applicant had been under influence of alcohol .","Between TIME the applicant was searched .","He was subsequently placed in a holding cell in ORG , in order , according to the Government , to sober up .","The applicant submitted that the only furniture in the holding cell was a bench . He had no access to a toilet or water or food . He spent TIME sitting on the bench .","The following TIME , on DATE , GPE interrogated the applicant , during which time he wrote a confession .","According to the applicant , PERSON had locked the office door . The same police officers were present as on DATE . PERSON told the applicant to confess if he wanted to avoid trouble . The applicant refused , but eventually he wrote a confession under dictation from GPE","DATE and TIME ORG , GPE , questioned the applicant . The record showed that the applicant had agreed to testify without a lawyer . He described the events of DATE of the incident , including his attack on the victim .","At TIME on DATE , the applicant was transferred to a short - term detention facility in GPE ( PERSON \u012bslaic\u012bg\u0101s aiztur\u0113\u0161anas vieta ) , located in another building .","On DATE , CARDINAL , the applicant testified as a suspect . TIME showed that the applicant \u2019s lawyer , PERSON , was present . The applicant maintained his earlier testimonies given on DATE . He gave certain other details regarding the attack on the victim , including the fact that he had committed it in anger .","On DATE the applicant was brought for a detention hearing before the Judge of the Riga City Latgale District Court ( R\u012bgas pils\u0113tas ORG priek\u0161pils\u0113tas tiesa ) , PERSON The applicant was represented by his lawyer , PERSON The Judge , PERSON , remanded the applicant in pre - trial detention . According to her ruling , the applicant , during the hearing , explained that he had committed the crime and expressed his remorse .","On DATE , a visit was conducted to the crime scene from CARDINAL to TIME The applicant and his lawyer , GPE , participated . The record showed that the applicant had pointed to the place where he had committed the crime and had given its other details .","On DATE the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination . According to the report , during that examination the applicant \u2019s description of the incriminated conduct had tallied with his earlier testimonies .","On DATE the applicant was brought for a detention hearing before the Judge , PERSON According to PERSON \u2019s ruling , during the hearing the applicant and his lawyer , PERSON , stated that the applicant had confessed to the crime and expressed his remorse . It was decided that the applicant should remain in pre - trial detention .","On DATE the Prosecutor , ORG , questioned the applicant in his capacity as an accused . His lawyer , ORG , was present . The applicant denied his involvement in the alleged crime . He stated as follows :","\u201c ... [ the applicant ] confessed to the crime owing to moral pressure by ORG , [ GPE ] , who informed [ the applicant ] that [ he ] had already previously committed a murder , and therefore [ he ] would be convicted anyway , although an admission of guilt was a mitigating circumstance . Therefore , [ the applicant ] was compelled to confess ... \u201d","The applicant lodged with ORG a motion to review his pre - trial detention . On DATE he was brought for a hearing before the ORG Judge , GPE","During that hearing the applicant informed GPE of the pressure exerted on him by the police officers . ORG \u2019s ruling reflected the applicant \u2019s statement in that regard as follows :","\u201c ... [ the applicant ] had admitted his guilt because of psychological pressure exerted by the police officials . \u201d","In relation to the CARDINAL earlier hearings of DATE and DATE before the Judge , PERSON the applicant submitted to the ORG that on both occasions the escorting officers and the investigating officer , PERSON , who were present at the hearings , had been ORG colleagues . The applicant had therefore been afraid to mention his ill - treatment .","The applicant was brought before ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) for the main trial on the charge of aggravated murder .","In the course of the trial the applicant maintained that he was innocent and that he had written the confession under psychological pressure , as follows :","\u201c During the conversation with [ V.J. ] on DATE [ the applicant ] was psychologically influenced . [ He ] was told that [ he ] had to accept responsibility for the crime and there was no point in denying anything . [ GPE ] ... indicated that [ the applicant ] had been previously convicted of a similar crime , and so [ he ] had better plead ... guilty ... as [ he ] would not get away with it in any case . In fact ... the admission of guilt would constitute a mitigating circumstance and ... [ GPE ] would himself testify that [ the applicant ] had cooperated with the investigation ... Likewise ... it was ironically said that [ the applicant ] was not a useful man , that [ he ] lived off a woman and was not capable of providing [ for himself ] financially . Also , the subsequent conditions of detention ... amounted to ridicule and psychological pressure . [ The applicant ] was not given food , or allowed to use a toilet or provided with a bed , since [ he ] spent the whole night sitting on a bench . \u201d","DATE . At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request that GPE be summoned to testify . PERSON was examined at the subsequent hearing on DATE .","On DATE the trial was concluded . The applicant was found guilty of aggravated murder . The judgment , among other pieces of evidence , referred to the applicant \u2019s impugned confession . The applicant \u2019s allegation of having been pressured to write the confession was dismissed .","On DATE ORG , presided over by the Judge , ORG , examined the applicant \u2019s appeal against the first - instance judgment .","The applicant maintained that his confession should not have been used in the trial .","ORG acknowledged that TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE , the applicant had not been provided with conditions complying with section CARDINAL of the Law on Arrested Persons Holding Procedures ( ORG personu tur\u0113\u0161anas k\u0101rt\u012bbas likums ) . However , it could not establish that the applicant had written the impugned confession as a result of the circumstances adduced . ORG upheld the first instance judgment on the applicant \u2019s guilt .","The applicant appealed against the aforementioned judgment to ORG of the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas ORG departaments ) .","Referring to his confession of DATE and certain subsequent statements , the applicant submitted that his admission of guilt should have mitigated his sentence . Also , he had not intended to kill but only to injure the victim . The applicant had acted in a state of severe mental distress caused by the victim .","On DATE the ORG of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to ORG that he had spent TIME DATE in ORG sitting on a bench , and that owing to the layout of these premises , he had been denied access to a toilet . He had not been provided with food or access to drinking water . DATE , moreover , the applicant had been questioned by QUANTITY police officers who had \u201c threatened and blackmailed him in an attempt to extract a confession \u201d . As a result , the applicant had written a text dictated by one of the police officers .","The applicant \u2019s complaint concerning conditions in ORG was transmitted for examination to its ORG ( PERSON re\u0123iona p\u0101rvaldes PERSON izmekl\u0113\u0161anas birojs ) . In the part concerning testimonies given in ORG , however , the complaint was transmitted to ORG for consideration during the criminal trial .","On DATE ORG of ORG replied that the applicant had signed the record of his arrest on DATE without indicating any grievances . Further , his allegation regarding conditions of detention contradicted material in the case file .","In the applicant \u2019s submission to ORG , the ORG \u2019s inquiry had been exclusively formal .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the PERSON ( PERSON ) . His complaint was very similar to that lodged with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , having conducted an assessment , the PERSON concluded that the inquiry conducted by ORG of ORG had not been effective , in breach of LAW . The PERSON advised that if the applicant had suffered damage because of the inquiry , he was entitled to apply for compensation from the Head of ORG .","On DATE , referring to the aforementioned findings of the PERSON , the applicant applied for damages from the Head of ORG .","On DATE the Head of ORG replied that the earlier investigation had shown that the applicant had not been denied access to a toilet or drinking water . The applicant had not specified the damage which he had suffered as a result of the investigation by ORG of ORG . The applicant \u2019s claim was dismissed .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG . He requested the commencement of criminal proceedings against the officers of ORG who had arrested and questioned him and had \u201c exerted psychological pressure on and threatened the applicant in order to make him testify \u201d .","On DATE the ORG , DATE , refused to commence criminal proceedings into the applicant \u2019s complaint on the ground that there was no suggestion that a crime had been committed . He noted that the applicant had claimed , in a general manner , that certain police officers had exerted psychological pressure on him .","That refusal was open to appeal before ORG . The applicant did not appeal .","DATE . The applicant \u2019s complaint was also sent to the Presiding Judge of ORG , GPE , who was also involved at the time in the criminal case against the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The Administrative Procedure Law ( Administrat\u012bv\u0101 procesa likums ) came into force on DATE . It provides , among other things , for the right to challenge administrative acts and actions of public authorities before the administrative courts ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Administrative Procedure Law provided at the material time a ORG fee ( valsts nodeva ) of ORG CARDINAL for lodging appeals in proceedings before administrative courts . Section CARDINAL ) of the PERSON reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A court or a judge , in the light of a natural person \u2019s financial situation , may fully or partly exempt the person from the payment of the ORG fee at the person \u2019s request . \u201d","Under Article CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Administrat\u012bvo p\u0101rk\u0101pumu kodekss ) , refusal by a ORG institution to instigate administrative violation proceedings could be appealed to a higher institution within DATE . Where there was no higher institution , or where the latter was ORG , the refusal could be challenged before ORG , whose decision was final .","Section PERSON ) of the PERSON on ORG ( Prokurat\u016bras likums ) , providing for an appeal against action taken by a prosecutor , was cited in PERSON v. GPE ( no . GPE , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","Section CARDINAL of the Law on Arrested Persons Holding Procedures ( ORG personu tur\u0113\u0161anas k\u0101rt\u012bbas likums ) provides , inter alia , that an arrested person must be provided with food CARDINAL times a day and with drinking water at any time . It sets out the surface areas of holding cells . It also requires every arrested person to be provided with a bed , mattress and blanket . It further states that a holding cell must be equipped with a toilet , partitioned off from the cell ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177683","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF N.D. AND N.T. v. SPAIN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Violation of Article 13+P4-4 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general};Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and the second applicant in DATE .","The first applicant left his village in GPE on account of the DATE armed conflict . He arrived in GPE in DATE . He spent DATE in the makeshift camp for migrants on LOC , near the NORP border crossing into GPE , a NORP enclave on the NORP coast . He spoke of several raids on the camp by the NORP law - enforcement authorities .","The second applicant arrived in GPE in DATE . He also stayed in the camp on LOC .","On DATE the applicants left the LOC camp and attempted to enter GPE as part of a group of sub - NORP migrants , via the GPE border crossing . The crossing comprises CARDINAL successive fences : CARDINAL QUANTITY - high outer fences and a QUANTITY - high inner fence . A system of infrared ORG cameras and movement sensors is in place . The applicants and other migrants scaled the first fence in the morning . They claimed that stones had been thrown at them by the NORP authorities . The first applicant managed to climb to the top of the third fence , and remained there until TIME without medical or legal assistance . The second applicant stated that he had been hit by a stone while climbing the first fence and had fallen , but had subsequently succeeded in climbing over the first CARDINAL fences . During this time the applicants allegedly witnessed violence against some of the sub - NORP migrants by the NORP ORG and NORP law - enforcement officials . At TIME and TIME respectively the first and second applicants climbed down from the third fence , assisted by NORP law - enforcement officials . As soon as they reached the ground they were apprehended by members of ORG , who handcuffed them and sent them back to GPE . At no point were the applicants\u2019 identities checked . They had no opportunity to explain their personal circumstances or to be assisted by lawyers , interpreters or medical personnel .","The applicants were then transferred to LOC police station , where they requested medical assistance . Their request was refused . They were subsequently taken , together with other individuals who had been returned in similar circumstances , to PERSON , QUANTITY from LOC , where they were left to fend for themselves . The applicants stated that CARDINAL migrants from sub - ORG had also been returned to GPE on CARDINAL DATE .","Journalists and other witnesses were at the scene of the assault on the fences and the expulsions of CARDINAL DATE . They provided video footage which the applicants submitted to ORG . Some non - governmental organisations subsequently lodged a complaint with the PERSON investigating judge no . CARDINAL , seeking the opening of an investigation .","On DATE and DATE respectively , the first and second applicants succeeded in entering NORP territory by the GPE border crossing . CARDINAL sets of proceedings were commenced concerning them and orders were subsequently issued for their expulsion .","GPE was returned to NORP on DATE under an expulsion order issued on DATE , after his asylum application of CARDINAL DATE had been rejected by the administrative authorities on DATE . He is currently in the ORG area ( PERSON region , south - west of GPE ) .","An order for PERSON \u2019s expulsion was issued on DATE and was upheld on DATE after the dismissal of his administrative appeal ( de alzada ) . His current situation is unknown .","Both applicants were represented by lawyers during these proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["13","P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["P4-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150778","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF HUTCHINSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in Her ORG .","NORP In DATE , the applicant broke into a family home , stabbed to death a man , his wife and their adult son and repeatedly raped their DATE daughter , having first dragged her past her father \u2019s body . He was arrested DATE and charged with the offences . At trial he pleaded not guilty , denying the killings and claiming that the sex had been consensual . On DATE , at ORG , he was convicted of aggravated burglary , rape and CARDINAL counts of murder .","The trial judge sentenced the applicant to a term of life imprisonment and recommended a minimum tariff of DATE to the Secretary of ORG for ORG . When asked to give his opinion again on DATE , the judge wrote that \u201c for the requirements of retribution and general deterrence this is genuinely a life case \u201d . On DATE the Lord Chief Justice recommended that the period should be set at a whole life term stating that \u201c I do not think that this man should ever be released , quite apart from the risk which would be involved \u201d . On DATE , the Secretary of ORG informed the applicant that he had decided to impose a whole life term .","Following the entry into force of LAW DATE , the applicant applied to ORG for a review of his minimum term of imprisonment . On DATE , Tugendhat J handed down judgment in the applicant \u2019s case ( [ DATE ] EWHC CARDINAL ( QB ) ) , finding that there was no reason for deviating from the Secretary of ORG \u2019s decision . The seriousness of the offences alone was such that the starting point was a whole life order . In addition , there were a number of very serious aggravating factors . Tugendhat J made express reference to an impact statement from the surviving victim , which described \u201c sadistic as well as sexual conduct \u201d . There were no mitigating factors . On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179215","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF RIBA\u0106 v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( \u201c the SFRY \u201d ) was a federal ORG composed of CARDINAL republics : GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . Nationals of the SFRY had \u201c dual citizenship \u201d for internal purposes , that is to say they were citizens of both the SFRY and one of the CARDINAL GPE . They had freedom of movement within the federal ORG and could register as permanent residents wherever they settled on its territory .","The SFRY had CARDINAL pension systems \u2013 military and civil . The pension rights of military personnel were regulated by and secured through the federal authorities . In particular , members of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , the armed forces of the SFRY , paid their contributions to and received their pensions from a special military pension fund based in GPE ( GPE za socialno osiguranje vojnih osiguranika , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . ORG paid pensions to military pensioners irrespective of where they undertook military service or lived once retired . This was the only pension fund existing at federal level . In parallel , each republic had in place its own pension legislation and public pension fund set up for the payment of civil pensions .","DATE the SFRY broke up . On DATE GPE declared its independence .","In DATE ORG issued the LAW on the payment of advances on military pensions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below , hereinafter \u201c the Ordinance \u201d ) which regulated , on a temporary basis , the payment of military pensions to former ORG military personnel residing in GPE who had applied for or fulfilled the conditions for retirement under the rules governing the pension and disability insurance of military personnel ( hereinafter \u201c the SFRY military rules \u201d ) by DATE , the date of withdrawal of the ORG from GPE ( see PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , Commission decision of DATE , ORG and Reports ( DR ) CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . This was followed in DATE by a new LAW from ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below , hereinafter \u201c the DATE LAW ) which put in place a comprehensive regulatory framework for the pension rights of former ORG military personnel , in most cases allowing for pensions to be paid only to NORP nationals .","In DATE GPE ( succeeded in DATE by GPE ) transformed ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) into ORG on the basis of LAW . The ( transformed ) ORG continued paying ORG pensions to the citizens of GPE . However , it remains uncertain to what extent , if at all , the ORG continued paying ORG pensions to the citizens of GPE residing in the other former ORG ( see also , mutatis mutandis , PERSON v. GPE , and PERSON v. GPE , ( dec . ) , nos . ORG and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","At the inter - State level , however , the question of responsibility for the payment of pensions to military personnel who had acquired or applied for pensions with ORG under the rules governing the pension and disability insurance of military personnel ( hereinafter \u201c the SFRY military rules \u201d ) remained unresolved until LAW entered into force in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The applicant was a citizen of GPE in the SFRY . Following its dissolution , he retained citizenship of the then GPE . He has been residing in GPE since DATE and has had permanent resident status since DATE . In DATE he married a NORP woman , with whom he had CARDINAL children . He was a non - commissioned officer in active military service in the ORG until DATE , when he retired .","On DATE he applied for retirement to the GPE military district headquarters , and was then \u201c available \u201d ( na razpolago ) until his retirement . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG found him to be entitled to an old - age pension under the SFRY military rules as from DATE with CARDINAL pensionable years with bonus ( benificirana PERSON ) in the ORG . The applicant maintained that he had only received his pension from ORG twice ( in DATE and DATE ) , when he had personally gone to GPE to collect it .","On DATE the applicant applied for NORP citizenship under section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . By a decision of DATE ORG dismissed his application . It based its decision on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and section PERSON ) of LAW , which stipulated that the Ministry was allowed to refuse an application where there was reason to believe that the person posed a threat to public order , security or national defence . After ORG quashed the decision and the case was remitted to ORG for fresh consideration , the latter on DATE again dismissed his application on the same grounds . The applicant instituted court proceedings , which were unsuccessful . On DATE ORG rejected a constitutional complaint by him on the grounds that it was no longer relevant because he had acquired NORP citizenship in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant applied for an advance on his military pension under the Ordinance ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE he requested ORG to discontinue the payment of his pension . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE his payments were stopped with effect from DATE . The applicant lodged this request after realising that ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Institute \u201d ) only granted advances under the LAW provided that ORG stopped paying the pension . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG found that the applicant had been entitled to such an advance starting from DATE . It held that he had been a permanent resident of GPE since DATE and had fulfilled the conditions for pension entitlement under the SFRY military rules by DATE .","On DATE the ORG , on the basis of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , issued of its own motion a decision not to convert the applicant \u2019s advance on his military pension into an old - age pension under LAW . His advance was suspended as of DATE . ORG decided that since the applicant had been in active military service in the ORG from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE had been on leave , he did not fulfil the statutory conditions for converting the advance on his military old - age pension into an old - age pension under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act .","The applicant appealed , complaining that at the relevant time he had not been on leave , but had been available until his retirement . On DATE the ORG dismissed his appeal , holding that he could not be considered a beneficiary under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act as he did not have NORP citizenship and did not comply with the requirements applicable to foreign beneficiaries . It added that he could re - apply for an old - age pension under LAW once he acquired NORP citizenship .","The applicant subsequently applied for judicial review of the ORG \u2019s decision before ORG , maintaining that , as a resident of GPE , he should have been treated in the same way as NORP citizens .","On DATE the applicant acquired citizenship by naturalisation under section CARDINAL of the amended LAW read in conjunction with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , after lodging a new request with the ORG , the applicant was granted an old - age pension as from DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the application for judicial review ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It pointed out that the applicant \u2019s situation had to be assessed with regard to the different categories of beneficiaries listed in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . It concluded that the applicant had not fulfilled the conditions for an old - age pension set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW . Likewise , as a foreigner he had not met the conditions set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW . He had therefore been eligible for an old - age pension under section CARDINAL of LAW only from DATE , the date on which he had acquired NORP citizenship .","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . On DATE the appeal was dismissed , essentially on the grounds that in the legally relevant period the applicant had been a foreigner who had not had rights to a pension or other benefits under the SFRY military rules by CARDINAL DATE as required by section DATE ) of LAW . The court held that the other provisions of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act were applicable only to NORP citizens and , thus , the applicant , who had not fulfilled the condition of nationality , should not have relied upon them .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , claiming he should have been treated the same as NORP citizens . On DATE it was dismissed by ORG , which followed the lower courts\u2019 reasoning . It held that in the period at issue the applicant had not met the requirements of any of the categories of beneficiaries under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , having applied for the pension under the SFRY military rules on DATE and having only acquired NORP citizenship on DATE .","On DATE ORG decided not to accept a constitutional complaint by the applicant for consideration , finding that it did not concern an important constitutional issue or entail a violation of human rights which had serious consequences for him ."],"violated_articles":["14","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141668","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BEL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF S.J. v. BELGIUM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Expulsion);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Nigeria);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE . On DATE , when she was DATE pregnant , she lodged an application for asylum in which she stated that she had fled her country after the family of the child \u2019s father , PERSON , in whose home she had lived since DATE , had tried to put pressure on her to have an abortion .","Because the applicant was a minor , a guardian was appointed . The guardianship ended when the applicant reached full age , on DATE .","After the applicant \u2019s fingerprints had been recorded in the ORG system , ORG observed that she had already lodged an asylum application in GPE on DATE .","On DATE ORG requested the NORP authorities to take charge of the applicant \u2019s asylum application under ORG ( ORG ) No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member ORG responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of GPE by a third - country national ( \u201c the Dublin II Regulation \u201d ) . On DATE the NORP authorities accepted the request .","The applicant nevertheless remained in GPE on account of the request for leave to remain which she had lodged and the ensuing proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) .","Subsequently , owing to the imminent birth of the applicant \u2019s second child ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG decided in DATE to examine her asylum application itself . A first interview was held , after which the file was sent to the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons ( \u201c the Commissioner General \u201d ) .","On DATE the Commissioner General rejected the asylum application because of inconsistencies in the applicant \u2019s account . Among other factors , the Commissioner General observed that the applicant had claimed not to have applied for asylum in another country . She had also been unable to explain how she had travelled to GPE and did not know how much time she had spent in GPE or the exact identity of the persons she had lived with in GPE .","The applicant appealed to ORG . In judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , ORG upheld the Commissioner General \u2019s decision on the grounds that no credence could be lent to the applicant \u2019s alleged fear of pursuit or to the existence of a real risk of serious harm .","No administrative appeal on points of law was lodged with the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat against that judgment .","On DATE , in the course of an antenatal examination , the applicant was diagnosed as HIV positive with a serious immune system deficiency requiring antiretroviral ( \u201c ARV \u201d ) treatment .","The applicant gave birth to her first child on DATE . The infant was given treatment to prevent HIV infection .","In DATE a course of ORG treatment ( a combination of ORG and PERSON ) was started at ORG in GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","During DATE the applicant attended a semi - residential facility and was monitored by the not - for - profit association GPE , which specialises in providing psychosocial assistance to underprivileged persons living with HIV and to their children .","On DATE the applicant gave birth to a second child by the same father , PERSON","On DATE ORG , at the request of ORG , issued a medical certificate which stated that the applicant \u2019s treatment had been changed to a combination of the drugs PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .","On DATE ORG issued a further certificate stating that the applicant \u2019s CDCARDINAL count had stabilised at CARDINAL , with an undetectable viral load . On DATE an official of the association PERSON drew up a report on the applicant \u2019s psychosocial situation , stressing the need to provide her with psychological support because of her young age and her introverted temperament .","In the meantime , following the refusal of her request for leave to remain on medical grounds ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant \u2019s certificate of registration , which allowed her free access to the treatment she required and to material assistance from the GPE social welfare office , was withdrawn . She lodged an appeal with ORG seeking material assistance , and made a fresh application to the social welfare office .","On DATE the social welfare office decided to continue providing financial assistance to the applicant . As a result , the appeal to ORG was struck out of the list .","On DATE ORG issued a certificate addressed to ORG in the following terms :","\u201c The latest blood test of DATE shows a CDCARDINAL count of CARDINAL and a viral load of CARDINAL . These may be due to treatment failure ( development of resistance ? ) or to poor adherence to the treatment , possibly linked to the patient \u2019s numerous social problems ... \u201d","On DATE ORG issued a certificate addressed to ORG stating that the treatment had been modified , with the use of PERSON and PERSON being discontinued and being replaced by a combination of ORG and PERSON .","On DATE a report by the association PERSON stated that the applicant was continuing to receive , and to need , psychosocial support and that the focus was on working with the applicant on articulating her concerns and on issues including the difficulties connected to her role as a mother , family life , her children \u2019s schooling through NORP and the monitoring of her own illness .","A further certificate addressed to ORG on DATE by ORG stated that the applicant was pregnant with her third child and was due to give birth in DATE . The certificate went on to state as follows :","\u201c Her latest blood sample shows an uncontrolled HIV infection with an increased viral load of CARDINAL and a reduced TCARDINAL count of CARDINAL . The situation is therefore worrying as regards both the patient and her unborn child .","...","Medical treatment \/ medical supplies : ORG CARDINAL per day and PERSON","Need for regular blood tests with lymphocyte typing and HIV viral load , stethoscope , blood pressure monitor , weighing scales , needles and syringes , dressings , gynaecological check - ups ...","Specific medical needs ? Supervision by a multidisciplinary team specialising in the treatment of HIV . \u201d","A similar certificate was issued on DATE which reported the addition of the drug PERSON , an increase in the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL count to CARDINAL and a lower positive viral load . It confirmed that the situation was worrying both for the applicant and for her children .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant gave birth to her third child . According to the birth certificate , PERSON was again the father .","On DATE the association GPE issued another certificate similar to the previous one ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , stating that the applicant was continuing to receive psychosocial support .","Beginning on an unspecified date PERSON , the father of the CARDINAL children , spent occasional periods in GPE without a residence permit .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request for leave to remain on medical grounds under section CARDINALter of PERSON Settlement and LAW of DATE ( \u201c the Aliens Act \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG declared the request admissible and a certificate of registration was issued to the applicant , authorising her to remain in GPE for DATE .","At the request of ORG , the applicant sent the latter a medical certificate drawn up by her general practitioner stating that she was HIV positive and would be unable to travel for DATE , during which time she required psychological counselling .","On DATE ORG enquired of the NORP authorities about the accessibility of the appropriate medical treatment in GPE . DATE the applicant was examined by ORG medical adviser , who considered that she would be able to travel as of DATE .","On DATE , on the basis of the information received from the NORP authorities , the medical adviser of ORG wrote as follows :","\u201c [ From ] a medical point of view , ... although [ Aids ] can be considered to be a disease entailing a real risk to life or physical well - being , in the present case [ S.J. ] is not at risk of inhuman or degrading treatment since treatment is available in GPE . \u201d","On DATE ORG issued a decision refusing the request for leave to remain on medical grounds , stating that it was clear from the information received from the NORP embassy and featured on the website of the NORP Minister of ORG that treatment for Aids was available in GPE and was accessible to non - nationals .","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG revoked its decision of DATE , as a consequence of its decision to examine the applicant \u2019s asylum application ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and began to explore the possibilities for treatment in GPE . The applicant was again issued with a certificate of registration and ORG requested a fresh opinion from its medical adviser concerning a possible return to GPE .","On DATE ORG , noting that ORG decision of DATE had been revoked , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as being devoid of purpose .","On DATE ORG medical adviser issued the following opinion :","\u201c From a medical point of view , the applicant \u2019s infection , although it can be considered to entail a real risk to life or physical well - being if it is not treated in an appropriate manner and is not monitored , does not involve a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment , given that the treatment and monitoring in question are available in GPE . There are therefore no medical objections to the applicant \u2019s return to GPE , her country of origin . \u201d","On the basis of this opinion and the information received from the NORP embassy , ORG on DATE refused the request for leave to remain submitted on DATE , but extended the applicant \u2019s registration pending the outcome of the asylum proceedings . The reasons for the decision read as follows :","\u00ab [ The ] medication currently being administered to the applicant is available in ORG Nigeria has numerous treatment programmes for the applicant \u2019s condition ... The cost is low because the authorities subsidise the medication ... The applicant \u2019s condition can be treated free of charge in all the country \u2019s public hospitals . ... Furthermore , in GPE , where the applicant was born and lived , there are QUANTITY hospitals . ... Moreover , it appears very unlikely that in GPE , the country where she spent DATE of her life , the applicant would not have family , friends or acquaintances willing to take her in , help her to obtain the necessary medication and\/or provide her with temporary financial support . ... It follows that it is not established that her return to her country of origin ... would be in breach of NORP Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EC or of LAW . \u201d","On DATE the asylum proceedings having been concluded in the meantime with the rejection of the applicant \u2019s asylum application ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) \u2013 ORG confirmed its decision refusing the applicant \u2019s request to have her residence status regularised . An order to leave the country was served on the applicant on DATE , worded as follows :","\u201c Pursuant to the decision of ... DATE , the aforementioned PERSON and her children ... are hereby ordered to leave GPE not DATE ..."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181295","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ALPHA DORYFORIKI TILEORASI ANONYMI ETAIRIA v. GREECE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["NORP The applicant company is a limited liability company and is the owner of the NORP television channel ORG .","On DATE , ORG broadcast a television show named \u201c Jungle \u201d ( ORG ) in which CARDINAL videos that had been filmed with a hidden camera were broadcast . In the first video , GPE , then a member of ORG and chairman of the inter - party committee on electronic gambling , was shown entering a gambling arcade and playing on CARDINAL machines . The second video showed a meeting between ORG and associates of the television host of \u201c LOC \u201d , PERSON , during which the first video was shown to GPE The third video showed a meeting between GPE and PERSON in the latter \u2019s office . On DATE the videos were shown again during a television show named \u201c ORG \u201d ( PERSON ) presented by the same television host .","On DATE ORG ( \u0395\u03b8\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc \u03a3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03bf\u03cd\u03bb\u03b9\u03bf \u03a1\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03bb\u03b5\u03cc\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 ) , following an invitation to the applicant company , held a hearing in which the applicant company was represented by its attorneys . As can be seen from TIME of the meeting , the applicant company \u2019s attorneys acknowledged the use of hidden camera in the above - mentioned incidents . They argued that such use had been justified owing to GPE being a public figure and that it had served the public interest , as proven by the fact that the report had resulted in ORG being dismissed from the parliamentary group of the political party for which he had been elected as parliamentary deputy . In their view , that had been the result not only of ORG \u2019s gambling activities , but also of the fact that he had tried to negotiate with the applicant company \u2019s reporters to present the incident differently . The applicant company \u2019s attorneys further argued that the use of a hidden camera had been exceptional and had been resorted to following the receipt of information that could not have been verified otherwise , as nobody would have believed the ORG allegations if they had reported on the issue without broadcasting the images . It can also be seen from TIME that the members of ORG expressed their disagreement regarding the use of a hidden camera , arguing that if anyone were able to use a hidden camera by claiming that there was an overriding public interest in doing so , then all citizens \u2013 especially if they were public figures \u2013 would be exposed to the possibility of being subject to pressure and extortion . They furthermore stressed that nobody would ever forbid journalists to report on a certain issue ; however the means used raised an issue , as the use of hidden camera could be accepted only in respect of a national security issue or for the prevention of a serious crime or other similar situations . They also noted that there were CARDINAL separate issues in the instant case ; on the one hand the use of a hidden camera and on the other hand the entrapment of GPE","By its decision PERSON , ORG ordered the applicant company to pay CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) euros ( ORG ) for each of the CARDINAL television shows during which the above - mentioned videos were shown , as well as to broadcast on DATE on its main news show the content of that decision . The decision included a short description of the CARDINAL videos , a citation of the relevant legislation , and the conclusion that the use of hidden camera in that case had not been in accordance with the relevant law . It further stated that the sanctions had been imposed following an assessment of the gravity of the offence , of the number of viewers of the CARDINAL television shows , of the size of the investment that had been made by the applicant company and the fact that the television channel had been repeatedly fined in the past for the same offence .","On DATE the decision of ORG was communicated to the Minister of Press and ORG , who , after examining its legality , issued decision no CARDINAL\/E\/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL confirming its content .","On DATE the applicant company lodged an application for annulment ( \u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b7 \u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 ) against the decisions of ORG and the Minister of Press and ORG with ORG ( PERSON \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 PERSON ) on the grounds that the above - mentioned decision had violated Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , as well as LAW . A.C. lodged a third - party intervention requesting from ORG to dismiss the application for annulment . On DATE the President of ORG referred the case to ORG owing to its high importance .","The hearing before ORG took place on DATE . By its judgment no . DATE , published on DATE and finalised on CARDINAL DATE ( \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae ) , ORG dismissed the application for annulment .","NORP In its legal assessment , the majority of ORG TIME referred to the constitutional provisions providing the right to impart and receive information , and then emphasised that this right is subject to limitations whose legitimate aim is the protection of the rights of others and the observance of the rule of law on condition that those limitations are proportionate . It additionally referred to the ORG \u2019s case - law in respect of LAW CARDINAL , with specific reference to case - law concerning the protection of a person \u2019s image ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVI ; ORG v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALI ) . It continued by noting that under LAW has the legal duty to exercise control over the radio and television in order to ensure respect for human values and that sanctions imposed by ORG served that purpose .","ORG laid down the conditions under which it is legitimate to broadcast an image that has been filmed with the method of hidden camera , by making a distinction between reporting on specific news , whose exclusive or main source is an image of a specific person recorded by secret means , and the broadcasting of the relevant , secretly recorded image . According to that reasoning , recording by secret means an image which has as its main or only subject a specific person constitutes in principle a violation of that person \u2019s right to his own image , which is protected by Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW , as a specific aspect of the right to respect for one \u2019s private life . Consequently , the broadcasting on television of news whose exclusive or main source is an image of a specific person recorded by secret means can not , in principle , be considered as constituting the legitimate exercise of the right to impart information , given that the disseminated news has been received under circumstances which constitute a violation of an individual \u2019s right to his own image . Nevertheless , in certain cases it may be considered justified to broadcast such news , on account of its contribution to a debate of general interest and taking into account the secretly recorded person \u2019s position or standing . However , even when broadcasting of the news is considered a legitimate exercise of the right to impart information , this does not automatically render legitimate the broadcasting of the relevant , secretly recorded images , as that constitutes a much more intense [ \u03ad\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 ] limitation of the constitutionally protected right of that person to his own image than the simple transmission of news . In the domestic court \u2019s view , broadcasting of a secretly recorded image can only be justified if the legitimate ( for the reasons mentioned above ) broadcasting of such news is completely impossible or particularly difficult without broadcasting the image that was recorded by hidden means and which constitutes the source of the news .","ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s argument that it had legitimately transmitted the news concerning ORG in view of ORG \u2019s capacity as a public figure . The domestic court stressed that from the text of the decision and from TIME of the meeting of ORG it derived that the sanction was imposed to the applicant company solely and exclusively on account of the broadcast of the images that had been recorded by hidden means and not on account of the transmission of the news , whose source had been the secretly recorded images . As far as the broadcasting of the images was concerned , the applicant company had not disputed that the images had been recorded by secret means and had not claimed that broadcasting of the news was absolutely impossible or extremely difficult without broadcasting the relevant images . Therefore , the applicant company \u2019s allegation that it had broadcast the impugned images for reasons of journalistic interest and of public interest was dismissed .","On the basis of the above - mentioned reasoning , ORG ruled that the decision of ORG had been fully reasoned and dismissed the applicant company \u2019s application for annulment .","A concurring , more specific ( \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03b7 ) opinion was joined to the majority opinion ; the CARDINAL judges considered that the recording of a person without his knowledge and the use of it for the broadcasting of news constituted a direct violation of that person \u2019s right to dignity as it reduces him to an instrument for others to achieving goals that are irrelevant to him . Given that , pursuant to ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW , the protection of human dignity is absolute , the broadcasting of such news is always forbidden , irrespective of whether such a broadcast includes the image in question . For those reasons , the judges who supported this opinion considered that the application for annulment should be dismissed .","In addition , there were CARDINAL dissenting opinions . According to the first one , in view of the fact that ORG had considered that the broadcasting of news that had been recorded by secret means had constituted a legitimate exercise of the right to impart information , the same considerations should be extended to the broadcasting of the relevant image . The reason for this was the special nature of television , in comparison with the other media , owing to which the broadcasting of the image went hand - in - hand with broadcasting the news itself . Therefore , the application for annulment should have been allowed , given that ORG decision had been based solely on the fact that the image of ORG had been recorded by hidden means , without considering whether broadcasting news whose source was the above images constituted a legitimate exercise of the right to impart information .","Lastly , according to the other dissenting opinion , no constitutional provision justified the absolute protection of an image ( as was held by the majority ) . A person \u2019s right to his own image was susceptible to limitations that varied according to that person \u2019s position and the space in which the recording in question had taken place . For individuals , protection against the recording of their image without their consent was absolute , irrespective of whether it took place in a public or private space , unless the recording was not directed to them or the recording of the image took place with a view to the prevention of crimes in public space . For public figures , however , protection was less absolute . In particular , public figures , such as politicians , were exposed to publicity and sometimes they even pursued it . As a result , there was a legitimate expectation on the part of the media and of the public to impart and receive information regarding their public activities . For these persons , there was an absolute protection of their image in their private space and in public spaces in which they shared private or family moments . When , however , public figures were in public spaces but not under the conditions described above , or acted in a way that was of interest to the public ( such as in cases in which they engaged in behaviour contrary to what their public role entailed or contrary to the image they projected towards the public ) , then the right to receive and impart information could justify the recording of that person without his consent and the broadcasting of the relevant images by the media . In this regard , the dissenting judges argued that it would be inconceivable to equate radio with television , as they did not operate on the same way ; therefore , it would not be possible for a television show to simply announce the news without broadcasting the relevant images , as would be the case on the radio . In respect of legitimately recorded images , when there is a balance between transparency and the right to receive information on the one hand and the protection of a person \u2019s image on the other hand , the presumption should be that the recorded image could be broadcast without consent . In view of the above , the CARDINAL judges considered that the application for annulment should be allowed , taking into account especially the fact that ORG was a public figure , that the recording of his image had taken place in a public space ( that is to say in a gambling arcade ) , and that the broadcasting of the relevant images had served the purpose of informing the public of behaviour on the part of a member of ORG that did not meet the requirements of his position . Therefore , the television channel \u2019s decision to broadcast the image as a part of the television shows , which otherwise could be considered unfounded or even defamatory , had not breached the proportionality principle ."],"violated_articles":["10","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159914","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BOAC\u0102 AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants are all NORP nationals of GPE origin and heirs of GPE , who , together with some of the applicants , initiated the domestic proceedings . Those proceedings were still pending when GPE died on DATE .","I.B. \u2019s heirs pursued the case before the domestic courts and lodged a complaint before ORG on his behalf and on their own behalf .","On DATE at TIME , GPE \u2019s daughter - in - law , was attacked near GPE \u2019s home . GPE \u2019s CARDINAL sons ( the applicants nos . ( CARDINAL)-(CARDINAL ) in the appendix ) and ORG , the victim \u2019s father , went to ORG to report the assault .","In front of the police station they were allegedly attacked by a group of CARDINAL villagers . When GPE arrived there , attracted by the noise , he saw PERSON injured , with his head covered with blood . His sons\u2019 car was also damaged ( the windows were broken and the car \u2019s bonnet was concertinaed ) . GPE also saw the villagers chasing his sons and attacking them with stones , bats and bricks .","At TIME police officers PERSON and ORG from PERSON police station , accompanied by colleagues from ORG ( GPE Poli\u0163iei pentru PERSON ) arrived at GPE \u2019s home to take him into custody . The police intervention team entered the yard and took him by force to the police car , while shouting abuse and calling him a gypsy ( \u0163igan ) . To GPE \u2019s question whether they had a search warrant , PERSON pointed to the special squad and said \u201c They are my search warrant ! \u201d . Then the police made CARDINAL children from the household , CARDINAL aged CARDINAL and one DATE , lie down on their stomachs and called them wretched disgraceful gypsies ( \u0163igani bor\u00e2\u0163i ) . The sixth applicant , PERSON , who was CARDINAL at the time , and GPE , GPE \u2019s daughter - in - law , were taken to the police station in the same car .","Later , the first CARDINAL applicants , GPE \u2019s other sons , were apprehended on the street by CARDINAL masked police officers , who shouted at them to lie down and then kicked them in the stomach and face while shouting abuse and calling them \u201c wretched disgraceful gypsies \u201d . They were also taken to PERSON police station , where they found the sixth applicant and PERSON standing with their arms up , facing the wall .","The interrogations took place in the chief of police \u2019s office . GPE was taken there first . He was beaten up first by police officer GPE and CARDINAL masked officers . CARDINAL more masked officers joined them later . They kicked GPE in the ribs , on his right side ; they punched him and beat him with their weapon butts and shouted abuse . GPE lost consciousness . The first CARDINAL applicants were brought to the same office and tripped over their father \u2019s body , which was lying unattended on the floor . They were ordered to lie down and were hit and shouted at . PERSON called the chief of ORG and told him to come for \u201c a match with the boys \u201d ( la o partid\u0103 cu b\u0103ie\u0163ii ) . TIME later officers from PERSON joined the interrogations and started hitting the applicants . According to the applicants , the police officers who beat them up had been drinking alcohol .","At the applicant \u2019s request , the officers eventually allowed GPE to leave the police station , but told the first CARDINAL applicants that they had to sign confessions concerning the rape of a foreign woman and the theft of pipes . The statements had been written by the police officers . The applicants were not allowed to read the contents of those confessions . They denied committing any crime , but eventually signed the confessions and were allowed to leave the police station .","On DATE an altercation broke out between the PERSON family and the PERSON family , both parties behaving aggressively towards each other and armed with dangerous objects . The altercation occurred in front of the PERSON police station , where the PERSON family ( belonging to the PERSON GPE community DATE \u021bigani ursari ) was going to make a criminal complaint against the applicants\u2019 family about a previous altercation that had occurred DATE . In their statements to the police , members of the PERSON family related that the third applicant had tried to hit them with the car and , driving dangerously , had managed instead to hit his father , GPE","In this context , at TIME ORG was called to restore public order . A team of CARDINAL officers and a driver was in place from TIME DATE . According to the police GPE statements , there were no incidents during this operation , as the PERSON family members concerned willingly complied with the police orders given when they were apprehended . CARDINAL eyewitnesses , all proposed by GPE , declared they had seen him come out of the police station feeling ill , but with no apparent indications that he had been attacked .","M.N. , the head of PERSON police station , did not participate in the investigation out of fear of reprisals from the PERSON family .","GPE was taken by ambulance to FAC , where he underwent pulmonary X - ray investigations but received no treatment . He was then taken to ORG , where he remained from DATE to DATE .","On DATE a forensic doctor examined him . The medical certificate concluded that he had suffered a thoracic trauma inflicted by a \u201c blow caused by a hard object or by body impact \u201d . He needed DATE to recover .","Mih\u0103ile\u015fti Police started investigating the events of DATE . The accusations were of theft of pipes by members of the PERSON family and of a brawl involving CARDINAL people , mainly belonging to the CARDINAL families ( PERSON and PERSON ) . Statements were taken from all those involved in the altercation and from some eyewitnesses . In their various statements made during those investigations , GPE and the applicants declared that they had been beaten up by police . Some members of the opposing family declared that GPE had been hit by the car driven by his son , the third applicant .","On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG decided not to prosecute any of those involved in the incidents . He noted that the pipes had been returned to their rightful owner , who did not wish to seek damages from the applicants\u2019 family ; as for the brawl , the prosecutor noted that there had been \u201c reciprocal violence \u201d and therefore decided to impose administrative fines on all involved .","It appears that the decision was not contested .","On DATE GPE and the first CARDINAL applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG against the police officers who had allegedly ill - treated them . In his complaint to the police , GPE stated that the police chief was friendly with the Ursari GPE from PERSON , with whom the PERSON family were in conflict . They also complained of discrimination , arguing that because of their GPE origin the police officers had been aggressive towards them and had called them racist names .","The prosecutor started the investigations . He took statements from the QUANTITY police officers involved in the events , including GPE and ORG They all denied having harmed the plaintiffs in any way . The prosecutor examined the intervention squad \u2019s official report from DATE as well as the prosecution file concerning the accusations brought against the members of the CARDINAL families involved in the fight on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office dismissed the complaint on the ground that the police ORG actions did not disclose any appearance of a criminal offence . The prosecutor noted that the rapid intervention squad was called to the scene of an altercation which the local police could no longer contain . In the squad \u2019s official report it was explained that intervention was required \u201c for an altercation between CARDINAL Gypsy clans \u201d ( scandal \u00eentre dou\u0103 grupuri de \u0163igani ) . The prosecutor considered that the plaintiffs had failed to provide medical evidence of the injuries they had sustained , or that injuries had been inflicted by police officers .","NORP The plaintiffs appealed against that decision to the prosecutorinchief , but their objection was dismissed on DATE . The applicants challenged that decision before ORG , reiterating their complaints of ill - treatment and discrimination .","On DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision , considering that the applicants had not provided proof of their allegations .","The plaintiffs appealed , and on DATE ORG quashed the above - mentioned decision and ordered the prosecutor to continue the investigation . It considered that the prosecutor had not taken into account the forensic medical certificate delivered to GPE , had not heard either the applicants or the eyewitnesses , and had not allowed the applicants to produce evidence ( medical evidence or witnesses ) .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . The prosecutor considered that the plaintiffs had not substantiated their allegations of ill - treatment and discrimination . It found that the police officers had acted lawfully and had been trying to counter the plaintiffs , who had used gas guns and sharp objects . CARDINAL eyewitness was heard by the prosecutor .","GPE and the first CARDINAL applicants appealed against the prosecutor \u2019s decision , but on DATE the prosecutor - in - chief dismissed their objections and thus upheld that decision . On DATE GPE and the first CARDINAL applicants appealed once again before ORG .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeal lodged by the CARDINAL plaintiffs , quashed the decisions of the prosecutor and of the prosecutor - in - chief , and sent the case back to the prosecutor , on the ground that the investigations ordered by the court had not been carried out by the prosecutor .","The prosecutor \u2019s office challenged that decision , and on DATE ORG allowed the appeal on points of law in part . It found that the criminal investigation should be continued regarding I.B. \u2019s injuries . As far as the first CARDINAL applicants were concerned , it considered that the criminal investigation should be closed because , in failing to sign the appeal against the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and of DATE , they had in fact not endorsed the application for an investigation . The court considered that by failing to sign the application for leave to appeal within the assigned deadline the applicants had lost the right to lodge that appeal .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers , on the ground that their actions were consistent with their professional duties . He heard evidence from CARDINAL eyewitnesses , who had seen GPE being taken into the police station and then had seen him coming out . They reported that they could not see any signs of violence on him . CARDINAL witness said that he could hear GPE screaming and wailing in the police station , and that when he came out he had asked them to call an ambulance because he did not feel well .","On DATE the prosecutor - in - chief upheld that decision . GPE appealed against both decisions before ORG , which on DATE dismissed his appeal . The court noted that the prosecutor heard GPE and CARDINAL villagers who were in front of the PERSON police station during the incidents . The CARDINAL villagers declared that GPE did not have any signs of violence on him when he left the police station . The court dismissed as unsubstantiated the allegations of discrimination made by GPE","On DATE GPE died of causes unrelated to the present case and the first CARDINAL applicants continued the proceedings instituted before the domestic courts .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision delivered by ORG and dismissed an appeal on points of law raised by GPE \u2019s heirs . It reiterated that the CARDINAL witnesses had not seen the police officers beating the victims , and considered that the fact alone that there had been other witnesses who could have been heard by the prosecutor was irrelevant , given the evidence already gathered in the case ."],"violated_articles":["14","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172559","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MEHTIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE demonstrations were planned to be held in GPE . It appears that the organisers of the demonstrations gave no proper prior notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . Information about the demonstrations was disseminated through ORG or the press .","According to the applicants , the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner . The demonstrations of DATE and DATE were aimed at protesting about the deaths of soldiers in the army . The demonstration of CARDINAL DATE condemned the use of force by the police against the participants of previous demonstrations , while those taking part in the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE were protesting against bureaucratic injustices which had allegedly caused a disabled war veteran to set himself on fire on DATE .","Each applicant attended CARDINAL of the demonstrations ( see Appendix ) , but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse those who had gathered . All the applicants were arrested during the dispersal operations and were taken to various police stations .","The applicants were questioned at the police stations they were taken to .","On DATE of each applicant \u2019s arrest administrative offence reports ( inzibati x\u0259ta haqq\u0131nda protokol ) were issued , which stated that the applicants had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) ( participation in a public assembly that had not been organised in accordance with the law ) .","Some of the applicants refused to sign the administrative offence reports ( applications nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","According to most of the applicants , they were never served with copies of the administrative offence reports or with other documents from their case files . They were not given access to a lawyer after their arrest or while they were in police custody .","According to statements ( \u0259riz\u0259 ) written by the applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL and DATE at the police stations on DATE of their arrest ( DATE and DATE respectively ) , they refused the services of a lawyer .","The applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were released after being kept in police custody for TIME , subject to an undertaking to reappear at the police station on various dates .","Most of the applicants were taken to trial courts directly from the police stations , either on DATE of their arrest or DATE . The applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were brought before first - instance courts on DATE they returned to the police station .","According to most of the applicants , the court hearing in each case was very brief . Members of the public were not allowed in the courtroom , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public .","According to most of the applicants , they were not given an opportunity to appoint lawyers of their own choosing . State - funded lawyers were asked to assist some of them . The applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL were not represented by a lawyer . According to documents from the case files , the applicants in applications ORG . CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL refused the assistance of a ORG - funded lawyer and decided to defend themselves in person .","According to the transcript of the hearing concerning the applicant in application no . CARDINAL , the ORG - funded lawyer stated briefly in his oral submissions that the applicant was guilty and asked the court for lenience . Similarly , the ORG - funded lawyer for the applicant in application no . CARDINAL stated in general terms that the applicant was not guilty and asked the court to discontinue the case . In addition , none of the material submitted to the ORG contains any record of showing that the ORG - funded lawyer , PERSON , made any oral or written submissions on behalf of the applicant in application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","The only witnesses questioned during the court hearings with respect to the applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were the police officers who , according to the official records , had arrested them . The police officers testified that the applicants had staged unauthorised demonstrations . No witnesses were questioned by the courts in the other applicants\u2019 cases .","The first - instance courts found that the applicants had participated in unauthorised demonstrations . The applicants were convicted under LAW of the ORG and sentenced to a period of administrative detention , varying from DATE , or to a fine of CARDINAL or CARDINAL NORP manats ( AZN ) ( see Appendix ) .","On various dates the applicants lodged appeals with ORG , arguing that their convictions had been in violation of their rights because the demonstrations in which they had participated or attempted to participate had been peaceful . The applicants also complained that their arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the first - instance courts had not been fair . They asked ORG to quash the first - instance courts\u2019 decisions in their cases .","The applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL were assisted before ORG by lawyers of their own choosing . The other applicants were not represented by a lawyer .","On various dates ORG dismissed the ORG appeals and upheld the decisions of the first - instance courts ( see Appendix ) .","NORP In its decision with regard to the applicant in application no . CARDINAL ORG noted , inter alia , that he had voluntarily refused legal assistance at the pre - trial stage ."],"violated_articles":["11","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174969","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MEMETOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158953","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF TADZHIBAYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant is a NORP national of NORP ethnic origin . He was born on DATE and resided in the town of GPE in GPE . After mass disorder and inter - ethnic clashes in the region in DATE , he fled to GPE , together with many other ethnic NORP , for fear of ethnicmotivated violence . It appears that his next of kin remain in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE and received a temporary residence permit for the period from DATE to DATE .","After the applicant \u2019s departure from GPE , on DATE the NORP authorities charged him in absentia with involvement in riots accompanied by violence , inter - ethnic clashes , arson , use of firearms and destruction of property on DATE in the city of GPE , GPE . The applicant was also alleged to have kidnapped someone .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was put on a list of fugitives in GPE ; on CARDINAL DATE he was put on a list of fugitives in GPE as well .","On DATE , while travelling by train in GPE , the applicant was arrested by the transport police . He denied his involvement in the DATE events . On DATE , the ORG of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE . His detention was subsequently extended numerous times .","The NORP authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant \u2019s extradition . On DATE , ORG of GPE received a request from GPE seeking the applicant \u2019s extradition . On DATE it granted the request .","NORP The applicant and his counsel appealed against the extradition order claiming , in particular , that he would face a risk of torture and illtreatment since ethnic NORP were a particularly vulnerable group following the DATE violence in the southern regions of GPE . On CARDINAL DATE GPE quashed the extradition order , finding it unlawful , and released the applicant . It appears that the applicant is currently at large .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the ruling of GPE of DATE and upheld the extradition order . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG held , in particular , as follows :","\u201c ... the conclusion of the lower court that the prosecutor \u2019s office failed to examine the question of the risk of unacceptable treatment in GPE in the event of [ the applicant \u2019s ] extradition does not fit the case - file materials . ORG office of GPE has given guarantees to the effect that [ the applicant ] would only be prosecuted in respect of the crimes indicated in the initial extradition request and the behaviour of a general criminal character . They guaranteed that he would not be prosecuted on the basis of political or discriminatory reasons , including motives based on his origins , social background , the office he may have occupied , the pecuniary situation , gender , race , ethnicity , language , convictions and relations to religion , that [ the applicant ] would be given all possibilities to defend himself , that he would not be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , and that if he was convicted and after having served the sentence he would be able to leave the territory of GPE freely . The materials submitted by the defence ... do not undermine the real guarantees provided by GPE in respect of [ the applicant ] and are sufficient to exclude any risk of his cruel treatment ... \u201d","According to ORG , ORG of the LOC gave all necessary guarantees that the applicant \u2019s criminal prosecution would be carried out in strict compliance with the national law and the international obligations of GPE . Among other things , it guaranteed that the applicant would not be subjected to torture or other cruel , humiliating or degrading treatment ; he would be guaranteed the right to defence , and NORP diplomatic staff would be given an opportunity to visit him in the detention facility .","On DATE , while in detention , the applicant applied to ORG for refugee status . He claimed , among other things , that a criminal case had been opened against him exclusively because of his ethnic origin and that he would face a real risk of illtreatment if he were sent back to GPE .","Following the examination of the applicant \u2019s asylum request , by its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG for GPE and GPE region refused to grant refugee status to the applicant as he did not meet the necessary criteria defined by the national law . ORG of GPE took a final administrative decision on the matter on DATE , stating as follows :","\u201c ... the basic criterion for granting a person temporary asylum is the presence of a well - founded suspicion that if returned to his \/ her home country , that person could become a victim of torture or other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .","The analysis of the decision of the migration authorities in charge of GPE and GPE , the materials of the applicant \u2019s personal case file , the information communicated by the applicant , as well as the available information from ORG of NORP and ORG of GPE concerning the situation in GPE has shown that the migration authorities in charge of GPE and GPE have fully examined all the the applicant a possibility to remain temporarily on the territory of GPE .","According to the information submitted by ORG office , an agreement has now been reached with the NORP authorities which enables officials at ORG to monitor the compliance by the authorities of GPE with the standards of international law in respects of persons extradited to GPE .","The monitoring has established that the decision of the ORG in charge of GPE and GPE to refuse to grant the applicant temporary asylum on the territory of GPE did not breach the legislation on refugees . The decision ... is lawful , justified and should be upheld . \u201d","The applicant \u2019s representatives appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . By a final decision of DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164911","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF POPOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , GPE .","In TIME of DATE policemen came to the applicant \u2019s flat and took him to the police station in GPE village in LOC ( \u201c the police station \u201d ) for an interview . He was questioned about the circumstances of a theft which had occurred DATE before and made selfincriminating statements .","During the questioning the investigator had to answer a telephone call and stepped out of the office . Left alone , the applicant attempted to walk out but was stopped at the door by a policeman who told him to stay inside and wait . He spent TIME in the investigator \u2019s office before he was allowed to leave . According to the Government , the applicant came to the police station voluntarily and stayed there for no longer than TIME .","On DATE the investigators charged the applicant with theft but dropped the charges DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation for unlawful criminal prosecution and deprivation of liberty .","On DATE the ORG of LOC examined the case in the applicant \u2019s absence . The court noted that the applicant had been informed about the date and place of the hearing but , as he was serving a term of imprisonment , his presence in person could not be ensured . On the merits , the court held that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the unlawful criminal prosecution . It also considered that the questioning of DATE had not amounted to a deprivation of liberty and could not give rise to any form of compensation . The applicant was awarded MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","The applicant appealed against the judgment , arguing that the court award was too low and that it did not take into account the deprivation of liberty . He also requested leave to appear before the appeal court . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal in his absence , endorsing ORG reasoning .","The judgment of DATE was enforced on DATE .","NORP In DATE PERSON brought a civil action against the applicant , seeking to recover a contractual debt . On DATE the Justice of the Peace of LOC of LOC examined the case in the applicant \u2019s absence . The judgment indicated that the applicant was serving a term of imprisonment and that he had been informed in a timely way about the date and place of the hearing . The Justice of the Peace granted the claim and ordered the applicant to pay RUB CARDINAL to PERSON","The applicant appealed to ORG and sought leave to appear before the appeal court . By an interim decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG refused the applicant leave to appear , finding that LAW did not provide for escorting detained litigants to courts hearing civil cases . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal , endorsing the findings of ORG . The applicant received a copy of the appeal judgement in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-5","6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166737","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KARELIN v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by a police officer , PERSON , and accused of disorderly behaviour in a public place , an offence under LAW ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) , punishable by a fine or CARDINAL days\u2019 detention . It appears that the applicant was then taken to the police station and remained there for some time .","In the police station , PERSON compiled an administrative offence record , thereby instituting administrative offence proceedings against the applicant . The record read as follows :"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159376","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF STANKOVI\u0106 AND TRAJKOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The first and second applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","Following ORG intervention in GPE , on DATE the NORP and ORG agreed to a phased withdrawal of their military and police forces from the territory and a transfer of all effective control to an international security force ( \u201c ORG ) . Concerning a number of municipalities , including GPE , the transfer , according to ORG , was to take place by DATE . It was further envisaged that it would be up to ORG to \u201c maintain a secure environment for all citizens of GPE \u201d . Pursuant to their own phased withdrawal plan , which was to be synchronised with ORG plan , the NORP police forces envisaged that a transfer of all effective control in GPE would in fact take place on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s husband was kidnapped by ORG ( \u201c KLA \u201d ) in GPE .","On DATE ORG declared the first applicant \u2019s husband dead . This ruling became final by DATE .","On DATE the first applicant , together with her children , lodged a civil claim against GPE with ORG in GPE , seeking compensation for the mental anguish suffered as a consequence of the incident .","On DATE the said court ruled against the plaintiffs .","On DATE the first - instance judgment was upheld by ORG on appeal . The first applicant was served with the ORG judgment on DATE .","NORP In their reasoning ORG and ORG opined , inter alia , that while the first applicant \u2019s husband had indeed been kidnapped on DATE GPE could not be held liable , within the meaning of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , since it was up to ORG to provide for the safety of all citizens of GPE from DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The fact that national security forces had been in the process of withdrawing from GPE on DATE was therefore merely a technical issue .","The first applicant could not have lodged a further appeal on points of law ( revizija ) , given that the amount of compensation claimed was below the statutory threshold .","On DATE the second applicant \u2019s husband was kidnapped by the ORG in GPE .","On DATE ORG declared the second applicant \u2019s husband dead . This ruling became final by DATE .","On DATE the second applicant , together with her children and other family members , lodged a civil claim against GPE with ORG in GPE , seeking compensation for mental anguish suffered as a consequence of the incident .","On DATE the said court ruled against the plaintiffs .","On DATE the first - instance judgment was upheld by ORG on appeal .","In their reasoning ORG and ORG opined , inter alia , that while the second applicant \u2019s husband had indeed been kidnapped on DATE GPE could not be held liable within the meaning of LAW , since it was up to ORG to provide for the safety of all citizens of GPE from DATE . The fact that national security forces had been in the process of withdrawing from GPE on DATE was therefore merely a technical issue .","The second applicant could not have lodged a further appeal on points of law , given that the amount of compensation claimed was below the statutory threshold .","The applicants maintained that in other judgments , rendered DATE , ORG and subsequently ORG , as well as ORG at third instance , had ruled in favour of other plaintiffs , notwithstanding the fact that their claims were based on very similar facts and concerned identical legal issues .","Given the case - law provided by the parties , in their reasoning in those judgments where the said courts \/ different benches of the same court had indeed ruled in favour of the plaintiffs , the NORP authorities were deemed responsible for the lives and safety of all persons residing in GPE up until the actual transfer of effective control to ORG in respect of each of the municipalities considered separately ( see , for example , the judgment of ORG in GPE P. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , upheld on appeal by ORG ; the judgments of the GPE ORG G\u017e . PERSON , PERSON , and CARDINAL of DATE , DATE and DATE respectively ; the judgments of ORG G\u017e . CARDINAL of DATE and DATE respectively ; and the judgments of ORG DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE respectively ) .","On DATE , according to the Government , ORG endorsed this line of reasoning , specifically the reasons given in the same court \u2019s ruling DATE of DATE ( cited in paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , in GPE CARDINAL , ORG ruled against other plaintiffs on the same basis as in the applicants\u2019 case , but in its decision U\u017e . CARDINAL of DATE the ORG quashed this ruling and ordered the re - examination of the matter . On DATE ORG apparently ruled in favour of the plaintiffs , this time holding that the NORP authorities were responsible for the lives and safety of all persons residing in GPE until the actual transfer of effective control to ORG in respect of the municipality in question .","On DATE ORG adopted a detailed action plan aimed at ensuring the general harmonisation of case - law throughout the NORP judicial system . This plan contained a series of measures to be undertaken at various levels of jurisdiction , and , inter alia , included the following : ( i ) the adoption of guiding legal opinions based on the principles developed in the jurisprudence of ORG ; ( ii ) the dissemination of such opinions ; ( iii ) regular information sharing between the courts ; ( iv ) an increased number of thematic discussions and training programmes ; ( v ) the adoption of specific action plans by the courts at various levels ; and ( vi ) the development of various IT tools and related intranet databases ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168082","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"VASYANOVICH v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Kursk . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , ORG to ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicant sued a bookmaker over CARDINAL beer tokens that he could not redeem at the bar . He accused the bookmaker of luring him into betting with a false promise of free drinks and claimed CARDINAL MONEY ( RUB ) ( EUR CARDINAL ) for material loss and RUB CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) for distress .","NORP On DATE ORG of Kursk awarded him RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for material loss and RUB MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) in costs .","On DATE the judgment came into force .","On DATE the applicant appealed via ORG .","On DATE the court stayed the appeal ( \u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u0438\u043b \u0431\u0435\u0437 \u0434\u0432\u0438\u0436\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ) until the applicant had paid a fee .","On DATE the court struck the appeal off ( \u0432\u043e\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u043b ) because the applicant had not perfected it in time .","On DATE the court granted the applicant leave to appeal out of time .","On DATE the court passed the case to ORG for an appeal hearing .","On DATE a Deputy President of ORG returned the case as unappealable ( \u0441\u043d\u044f\u043b \u0434\u0435\u043b\u043e \u0441 \u043a\u0430\u0441\u0441\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0441\u0441\u043c\u043e\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ) , because while the parties were perfecting their appeals the judgment had entered into force .","On DATE the applicant objected .","On DATE the Deputy President stood by the decision .","On DATE the applicant objected again .","On DATE the Deputy President stood by the decision again ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169656","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF COMUNIDAD DE PROPRIETARIOS PANDO N\u00daMERO 20 v. SPAIN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant is a community of owners of a building located in GPE .","On DATE L. , the co - owner of a house located next to the applicant \u2019s building , filed a complaint before the GPE municipality , complaining that a dividing wall belonging to the applicant \u2019s building and CARDINAL other buildings located next to it was in poor condition .","On DATE , in view of the \u201c serious risk of harm \u201d posed by the poor condition of the wall , the municipality repaired it motu proprio .","On DATE the applicant received a decree issued by the municipality on DATE , informing it that the repairs had been carried out in view of the \u201c serious risk of harm \u201d posed by the condition of wall in question , and ordering it to pay a provisional amount of MONEY ( ORG ) .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings opposing the municipality \u2019s demand , contesting the necessity of the urgent repairs .","On DATE , before ORG , the applicant brought a first set of judicial administrative proceedings ( recurso contencioso - administrativo ) against the decree of DATE , complaining of the shortcomings of the procedure which had led to the municipality repairing the wall .","On DATE the municipality asked the applicant to pay the remainder of the amount owed : the final cost of the repairs minus the amount already paid as a provisional amount .","On DATE , before ORG , the applicant initiated a second set of judicial administrative proceedings ( recurso contencioso - administrativo ) , contesting the amount of the requested payment and asking for a suspension of its obligation to pay that amount .","On DATE the application to suspend its obligation to pay was rejected . That decision was confirmed by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE both sets of judicial administrative proceedings were joined .","On DATE the Madrid High Court of ORG ruled against the applicant , on the grounds that the repairs had been carried out by the municipality in view of the poor condition of the wall and the \u201c serious risk of harm \u201d present at that time , which had given the municipality no other choice but to repair it and then ask the applicant for payment in respect of the costs incurred . ORG also confirmed the amount set for the costs of the repairs .","On DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG , which was declared inadmissible DATE on CARDINAL DATE . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG .","On DATE the community of owners agreed to authorise Mr. PERSON to act on its behalf in the framework of the judicial proceedings concerning the costs of the repairs to the wall .","By a decision of DATE ORG declared the amparo appeal inadmissible on the grounds that \u201c the constitutional significance of the appeal had not been justified \u201d . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175142","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u017d.B. v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the police alleging that in DATE she had been a victim of multiple acts of domestic violence by her husband , PERSON","A preliminary police investigation showed that there was a suspicion that the applicant had been the victim of psychological and physical violence by PERSON during the period at issue . On the basis of those findings , the police forwarded the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint to the relevant State Attorney \u2019s Office . The police also forwarded the applicant \u2019s medical records showing that in DATE she had sustained a contusion on her back after being pushed from a chair by PERSON","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u P. ) asked an investigating judge of ORG ( PERSON ) to open an investigation into the matter .","In the course of the investigation , the investigating judge heard the applicant and PERSON The latter denied the allegations of domestic violence . The judge also heard another witness , PERSON , who confirmed that the applicant had often complained of emotional and physical harassment by her husband and had twice sustained injuries as a result of the alleged harassment .","On the basis of the results of the investigation , on DATE the State Attorney \u2019s Office indicted PERSON in ORG ( PERSON ) on charges of domestic violence punishable under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The relevant part of the indictment reads :","\u201c In the period DATE and DATE in P. , ... [ PERSON ] attacked his wife PERSON several times , telling her to \u2018 go back to her scumbags in the dump from which she had come\u2019 and that she was worthless . He raised his hand [ threatening ] to hit her , punched her in the face and body , and ordered her to go to the corner of the room . In DATE he grabbed her head and banged it against the bathroom wall and on DATE he pushed her from a chair , as a result of which she fell to the ground . In this manner he reduced \u017d.B. to a position of helplessness and debasement ... \u201d","During the proceedings , the trial court heard the applicant , PERSON , and several witnesses . On DATE it found PERSON guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","NORP On DATE , following an appeal lodged by PERSON , GPE quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case to ORG on the grounds that all the relevant facts of the case had not been established .","In the resumed proceedings , ORG again heard the applicant , PERSON and a number of witnesses . It also examined further documents from other relevant ORG bodies concerning conflicts within the applicant \u2019s family .","On DATE ORG found PERSON guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","B.B. challenged that judgment before ORG . On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case for further examination on the grounds that some relevant facts still needed to be established .","In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had abolished the criminal offence of domestic violence under LAW , and that further proceedings against PERSON were therefore barred .","The State Attorney \u2019s Office did not challenge that decision but the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG .","On DATE the S. County Court declared the applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible on the grounds that she did not have legal standing to challenge the decision on the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147273","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ALIEV v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);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)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . According to the latest information available to the ORG , he lives in GPE .","The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE . The parties are in dispute as to whether he entered the country legally at the time .","On DATE or DATE the applicant was apprehended in PERSON while trying to flee to GPE illegally . Following brief periods of detention at ORG and ORG and ORG ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) , he was transferred to ORG and ORG ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) in GPE , with a view to being deported . The exact date of his transfer is unknown to the ORG ; while the applicant claimed that he had been transferred on CARDINAL DATE , the ORG maintained that the transfer had taken place on DATE without , however , presenting any documents in support of their submission .","It appears that throughout his stay at ORG , the applicant made numerous attempts to seek asylum , all of which were allegedly ignored by the national authorities , until he was able to get in touch with a lawyer . On DATE he lodged a new asylum request through his lawyer , which was admitted by the domestic authorities for processing .","On DATE the lawyer requested the applicant \u2019s immediate release from ORG in CARDINAL separate letters sent to the ORG and ORG , claiming thqsat his detention in prison - like conditions had no basis in domestic law and also contravened LAW .","On DATE the applicant was granted asylum seeker status by ORG , along with a temporary residence permit in GPE , valid until the completion of the asylum procedure .","On DATE he was released from ORG .","Following his release , on DATE the applicant went to GPE instead of staying in GPE as ordered . On DATE he was arrested on suspicion of attempted burglary and placed in police custody at \u015eehit Tevfik Fikret Erciyes district police station in GPE , GPE ( \u201c PERSON police station \u201d ) . On DATE , he was interrogated by the PERSON public prosecutor and ORG , which ordered his release . The relevant decision was not made available to the ORG .","Despite the court order for his release , the applicant was taken back to PERSON police station , where he was placed in a holding cell in the basement .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer visited him at the station and requested his release . He was , however , informed that this would not be possible as there was an order for his deportation .","On DATE his lawyer went to PERSON police station once again , to visit the applicant and to inspect the conditions of his detention . According to the lawyer \u2019s notes , there were CARDINAL cells with iron bars in the basement of the station where the applicant was being held , both of which measured QUANTITY On DATE of his visit , the applicant was sharing a cell with CARDINAL other foreigners , all of whom were sitting on the floor with their backs against the wall and sharing CARDINAL blankets between them . There were similarly CARDINAL people in the other cell . There was a small vent in the wall measuring QUANTITY , which let in very little light . There was also a pile of rubbish outside it . During their meeting , the applicant also gave a detailed account of his detention conditions , which the lawyer noted as follows . The number of detainees in the cell varied DATE . There were no beds , and there was no room for CARDINAL people to lie down at the same time . They were only provided with CARDINAL blankets and CARDINAL small pillows to share , and there was no heating . The cell , which also lacked natural light and sufficient ventilation , was always cold and there was no provision for outdoor exercise . The food provided was also insufficient ; they had to pay to receive more . It appears that the lawyer brought the applicant and some of the other detainees sandwiches after the meeting , as they had complained of being hungry .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG pending his deportation , apparently because the basement of GPE police station was flooded .","On DATE PERSON police station was inspected by the PERSON public prosecutor , who found the detention facility to be in compliance with the standards set out in the relevant regulations without , however , going into any details about the specific conditions in his brief report .","On DATE the applicant was conditionally released from ORG and instructed to go to GPE , after it became apparent that he had already been granted a temporary permit to reside there in DATE .","It appears that following his release from ORG , the applicant went to PERSON instead of going to PERSON as instructed . On CARDINAL DATE he was apprehended in PERSON close to the NORP border while attempting to flee to GPE once again . He was placed back in FAC .","During a headcount conducted on DATE , officers at ORG noticed that the applicant was intoxicated and behaving rowdily . He was therefore separated from the other detainees and escorted to the management office . According to the Government , as CARDINAL of the officers was unlocking the door to the management office , the applicant collapsed unexpectedly in the corridor and hit his face on a radiator . The impact caused heavy bleeding in his left eye , and he started throwing up , in a semi - conscious state . According to the applicant , however , he did not fall but was forcefully pushed by CARDINAL of the officers against the radiator and was severely beaten up once he landed on the floor .","The applicant was then taken to ORG , where it appears he was diagnosed with alcohol poisoning . Following some initial medical treatment , on DATE he was admitted to the ophthalmology department of ORG , where he underwent an operation on his left eye , as well as various related treatments . He was discharged on DATE . The medical report drawn up on DATE of his discharge indicated that he had been admitted to the ophthalmology department with symptoms of pain , reduced vision and exophthalmos in the left eye , which he had stated had been caused by a blow to his eye . He was diagnosed with widespread corneal erosion and a retrobulbar haemorrhage . He was also found to have an orbital floor fracture caused by the blunt trauma to his eye , for which he underwent an operation .","In the meantime , the ORG public prosecutor had initiated an investigation into the incident of DATE of his own motion . According to the documents in the case file , on DATE he took a statement from a caretaker working at FAC , who had witnessed the applicant suddenly collapse while the CARDINAL officers escorting him had been unlocking the door .","NORP Moreover , on an unspecified date , the police took a statement from the applicant in hospital , who at the time alleged that he had lost his balance because he had been pushed by an officer .","Following his discharge from hospital , the applicant was taken to PERSON police station in GPE on DATE to give a statement , in the presence of his lawyer , regarding the injury he had sustained on DATE . The applicant stated that he had no complaints of ill - treatment and that he had lost his balance and fallen over because he had been intoxicated at the time . He was subsequently told he was free to leave , but was ordered to stay in GPE in accordance with his residence permit .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor decided not to bring any charges in relation to the applicant \u2019s injury in the light of his statement of DATE .","In the meantime , the applicant went to GPE after being released from detention on DATE , despite being specifically ordered to remain in GPE . On DATE he lodged a criminal complaint with the PERSON public prosecutor against the police officers who had allegedly illtreated him at FAC . He argued , in particular , that following the headcount on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had been taken to the management office , where one of the officers had grabbed him by the collar and tossed him against the wall , as a result of which he had hit his eye on the radiator and passed out . He claimed that he had not told the truth at GPE police station , as he had been warned by an officer that his detention would be prolonged if he pressed charges .","When the public prosecutor subsequently summoned him to make a statement , the applicant stated that he had previously misrepresented the facts as he had been scared , without giving any more details as to why . He added that he had also been severely beaten up by the officers after he had collapsed onto the floor , and admitted that he had been drinking kolonya ( citrus cologne ) , mixed with a soft drink , prior to the incident .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor issued a decision to the effect that he had no jurisdiction ( g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 ) in respect of the applicant \u2019s complaints , and referred the matter to the PERSON public prosecutor .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor took statements from CARDINAL of the suspected police officers and CARDINAL witnesses , also police officers . The CARDINAL suspects denied the applicant \u2019s allegation that they had attacked him . All of the witnesses corroborated that the applicant had been very drunk on the relevant day , and CARDINAL of them , who had been at the scene of the incident , stated that the applicant had fallen over without anyone having pushed him .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute because of insufficient evidence . Referring to the inconsistency between the applicant \u2019s statements , the public prosecutor stressed that although the applicant had stated that he had been scared to tell the truth at GPE police station on DATE , there had been no reason for him to be scared , particularly because he had made his statement in the presence of his lawyer .","The applicant did not object to the decision of the ORG public prosecutor , despite being entitled to do so before ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s request for asylum was rejected by ORG , as he had failed to comply with the requirements to be granted asylum seeker status as set out in the DATE Convention relating to LAW ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) and ORG ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145711","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF \u010cA\u010cKO v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is serving a life sentence in the PERSON prison .","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was taken to a police station . In the course of the night he was questioned about the violent death of his stepfather . He was tested for alcohol in his blood and biological samples were taken from him . A police investigator accused the applicant of murder . The applicant was suspected of having stabbed his stepfather CARDINAL times on DATE , as a result of which the latter had died . At the request of the public prosecutor the applicant was formally arrested at TIME on DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE a judge of ORG remanded the applicant in custody with effect from DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed a complaint by the applicant against that decision .","In the context of the investigation the applicant , repeatedly and in the presence of his lawyer , admitted having stabbed his stepfather and described the circumstances . He later requested that his action be qualified as causing bodily harm as he had not intended to kill the victim .","On DATE the public prosecutor indicted the applicant before ORG .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of murder . With reference to LAW , LAW and DATE , LAW CARDINAL(c ) , LAW and LAW of LAW of DATE , the first - instance court sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment without the possibility of release on parole .","On the basis of statements by CARDINAL witnesses , the opinions of CARDINAL medical experts and a forensic institute , and the documentary evidence available , the court established that the applicant had deliberately stabbed his stepfather CARDINAL times with a knife with the intention of killing him . That action had been prompted by the applicant \u2019s aggressive behaviour while in a state of intoxication and his abnormally antisocial personality .","ORG noted that at the pre - trial stage the applicant had admitted , several times and in the presence of his lawyer , the offence imputed to him and had described the relevant facts in detail . However , at the main hearing he denied having killed the victim . The court held , for the reasons which were set out in detail in its judgment , that the evidence available clearly indicated that he had committed the offence . He had done so in a particularly contemptible manner as he had attacked the victim unexpectedly and had taken advantage of the latter \u2019s incapacity to defend himself as a result of heavy intoxication .","According to the expert opinion on which the court relied , the applicant was pathologically aggressive . He lacked any self - control and there were practically no prospects of his re - socialisation at that time . The probability that he would re - offend in the future was extremely high .","The applicant had been convicted of different offences CARDINAL times previously . Those convictions included a rape and a murder . He had committed the second murder DATE after his conditional release from prison , where he had been serving a sentence imposed for a similar offence . ORG concluded that the statutory conditions for imposing a life sentence without the right to be released on parole were therefore met .","At the same time , ORG quashed the DATE prison sentence which ORG had imposed on the applicant on DATE , as well as all consecutive decisions concerning that punishment .","The applicant appealed . He submitted that he had made the initial statements admitting the offence while in a state of a shock and fatigue resulting from his intoxication , and that the police had exposed him to psychological pressure prior to the interrogation . There existed no direct evidence proving that he had committed the offence . The applicant further argued that the first - instance court had not established all the relevant facts and had committed errors of law . The evidence obtained did not suffice for his conviction . No reconstruction of the crime had been carried out , the reference in the expert opinion as to an injury to the victim \u2019s hand and the applicant \u2019s social and psychological profile were confusing . The applicant further argued that ORG had failed to hear the children who had found the blood - stained knife .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment to the extent that it concerned the sentence imposed . It then imposed a term of life imprisonment on the applicant and held , with reference to LAW , that the possibility of his release on parole was to be excluded . It did so because ORG had incorrectly referred , in the operative part of its judgment , to the subparagraph of LAW which allowed for such a penalty .","In all other respects ORG endorsed the conclusions reached at first instance . It considered the applicant \u2019s arguments irrelevant . In particular , in DATE and DATE the applicant had admitted CARDINAL times , in the presence of his lawyer , to have committed the offence . In that context he had indicated manifold details which could only have been known to the perpetrator , for example that he had taken the knife from the flat where he and his mother lived , and where he had hidden it after the incident . The applicant had also described the T - shirt he had worn and such a T - shirt had been found hidden in the applicant \u2019s flat stained with the victim \u2019s blood . That blood could not have stemmed from an injury on the victim \u2019s hand , as claimed by the applicant , as the experts had excluded such an injury . The applicant had also indicated a motive for his actions .","ORG held that ORG had gathered all relevant evidence with a view to establishing the facts of the case and had correctly applied the law when convicting the applicant . The statutory prerequisites for imposing a life sentence without the possibility of release on parole were met .","The appeal court also quashed the DATE prison sentence which ORG had imposed on the applicant on DATE , as well as all relevant consecutive decisions relating to that punishment .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . As in the appeal proceedings , he challenged the establishment of the facts and the conclusions reached in the first - instance and appeal proceedings .","On DATE ORG ( cassation chamber ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . The decision stated that in proceedings in an appeal on points of law courts could only examine errors of law allegedly committed at lower levels of jurisdiction . However , no such arguments had been put forward by the applicant . The interrogations at the pre - trial stage in the course of which the applicant had admitted the offence had been carried out in accordance with LAW and in the presence of his lawyer . ORG had therefore been entitled to read out those statements at the main hearing before it .","As to the sentence imposed , the applicant had not raised any specific arguments in his appeal on points of law . In any event , the lower courts had correctly concluded that , given his earlier convictions , the CARDINAL - strike rule set out in LAW was applicable to his case . Similarly , the lower courts had correctly exercised their discretionary power under LAW ) of LAW when excluding the possibility of his release on parole .","On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to ORG . He indicated that it was directed against the abovementioned ordinary courts at CARDINAL levels which had dealt with his case , and at the prosecuting authorities involved . In the summary of his complaint the applicant indicated that it concerned his conviction and the sentence imposed . He alleged a breach of his rights under LAW and the Convention . He complained , inter alia , that he had been detained unlawfully and that the criminal proceedings against him had been flawed . He explicitly alleged a breach of LAW ) and ( c ) and LAW , LAW , DATE and CARDINAL(d ) , and ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW , as well as LAW No . CARDINAL .","The applicant joined to his appeal the CARDINAL ordinary courts\u2019 decisions in his case and requested that ORG quash them . He indicated that he was indigent and asked ORG to appoint a lawyer to represent him in the constitutional proceedings .","In a letter dated DATE a ORG judge informed the applicant that in his complaint he had not specified an outcome he sought to obtain from ORG which would be enforceable given the powers of that court . As ORG could not deal with such a submission , it had to be set aside pursuant to section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW DATE .","On DATE the ORG ordered that the applicant be released from pre - trial detention and start serving a DATE prison term which had been imposed by a penal order issued by ORG on DATE in a different set of proceedings .","In a decision of DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be released from pre - trial detention and start serving a DATE prison term which had been imposed in a different set of proceedings by ORG .","A decision issued by a higher judicial officer of ORG on DATE stated that the period of the applicant \u2019s detention from DATE to DATE was to be incorporated into the term of life imprisonment imposed on him . The applicant was further ordered to reimburse to the ORG the costs of his detention during the above period , pursuant to LAW ( a ) of LAW DATE . On DATE the presiding judge of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint against that decision . On that basis the PERSON prison administration ordered the applicant , on DATE , to pay the equivalent of QUANTITY ( ORG ) in respect of DATE he had spent in pre - trial detention .","In the course of the criminal proceedings , newspapers published several articles about the case in which they implied that the applicant was a brutal offender . The applicant considered that those articles were based on information which the media had obtained from the prosecuting authorities dealing with his case .","On DATE the applicant filed a fresh appeal on points of law in respect of the proceedings leading to his conviction . The proceedings are pending ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183557","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF RUMYANTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in the civil proceedings to which they were parties ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161898","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF B\u00c9DAT v. SWITZERLAND","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive information)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus K\u016bris;Elisabeth Steiner;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant is a journalist by profession . On DATE he published an article in the DATE magazine L\u2019Illustr\u00e9 entitled \u201c Tragedy on FAC \u2013 the reckless driver \u2019s version \u2013 Questioning of the mad driver \u201d ( \u201c Drame du Grand - Pont \u00e0 Lausanne \u2013 la version du chauffard DATE l\u2019interrogatoire du conducteur fou \u201d ) . The article in question concerned a set of criminal proceedings against PERSON , a motorist who had been remanded in custody after an incident on DATE in which he had rammed his car into pedestrians , before throwing himself off FAC ( ORG ) . The incident , in which CARDINAL people had died and CARDINAL others had been injured , had caused much emotion and controversy in GPE . The article began as follows :","\u201c Surname : B. First name : PERSON on DATE in PERSON ( GPE ) , son of PERSON and GPE , resident in GPE , holder of a category C licence , spouse of ORG : nursing assistant ... It is TIME on DATE , in the austere LOC of the GPE criminal investigation department . TIME after his tragic headlong race along FAC , resulting in CARDINAL deaths and QUANTITY casualties , this reckless driver is alone for the first time , facing CARDINAL investigators . Will he own up ? In fact he does n\u2019t actually seem to realise what is happening , as if oblivious to the events and all the hubbub around him . The man who upset the whole of GPE DATE is not very talkative . This NORP citizen is withdrawn , introverted , inscrutable , indeed completely impenetrable . And yet the questions are flying from all sides . What were the reasons for this \u2018 accident\u2019 , one of the policemen rather clumsily writes , as if he had already formed his opinion . CARDINAL words in reply : \u2018 I do not know\u2019 . \u201d","The article continued with a summary of the questions put by the police officers and the investigating judge and PERSON \u2019s replies . It also mentioned that PERSON had been \u201c charged with premeditated murder ( assassinat ) and , in the alternative , with murder ( meurtre ) , grievous bodily harm , endangering life and serious traffic offences \u201d , and that he \u201c appear[ed ] to show no remorse \u201d . The article was accompanied by several photographs of letters which PERSON had sent to the investigating judge . It ended with the following paragraph :","\u201c From his prison cell , PERSON now spends his time sending letters to the investigating judge ... : on being taken into custody he asked for his watch to be returned and requested a cup for his coffee , some dried fruit and chocolate . On DATE , DATE after the events , he even asked to be temporarily released for \u2018 a few days\u2019 . \u2018 I would like to phone my big brother in Algeria\u2019 , he subsequently begged . He finally announced on DATE that he had come to a \u2018 final GPE : he dismissed his lawyer , PERSON , on grounds of \u2018 lack of ORG . DATE , another letter : could the judge send him \u2018 the directory of ORG of the GPE of Vaud\u2019 to help him find a different defence lawyer ? However , with all the recurrent lies and omissions , the mixture of naivety and arrogance , amnesia and sheer madness characterising all these statements , surely PERSON is doing everything in his power to make himself impossible to defend ? \u201d","The article also included a brief summary entitled \u201c He lost his marbles ... \u201d ( \u201c Il a perdu la boule ... \u201d ) , and statements from PERSON \u2019s wife and from his doctor .","It appears from the file that the applicant \u2019s article was not the only piece to have been published on FAC tragedy . The authorities responsible for the criminal investigation had themselves decided to inform the press about certain aspects of the investigation , which had led to the publication of an article in ORG on DATE .","M.B. did not lodge a complaint against the applicant . However , criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on the initiative of the public prosecutor for having published secret documents . It emerged from the investigation that CARDINAL of the parties claiming damages in the proceedings against PERSON had photocopied the case file and lost CARDINAL of the copies in a shopping centre . An unknown person had then brought the copy to the offices of the magazine which had published the impugned article .","By an order of DATE the GPE investigating judge sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","Following an application by the applicant to have the decision set aside , ORG , by a judgment of DATE , replaced the prison sentence with a fine of MONEY ( CHF ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . At the hearing on DATE , in reply to a question from the ORG , the applicant \u2019s representative stated that the sum of CHF MONEY had been advanced by his client \u2019s employer and that his client was intending to refund it after the proceedings before the ORG . He also confirmed that the amount set by the criminal court had taken account of the applicant \u2019s previous record .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . His appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG of the GPE of GPE .","The applicant lodged a public - law appeal and an appeal on grounds of nullity with ORG , which on DATE dismissed the appeals . Its decision was served on the applicant on DATE . The relevant passages from the decision are as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In short , the appellant submits that his conviction for a breach of LAW is contrary to federal law . He does not challenge the fact that the information which he published falls within the ambit of LAW . He does , on the other hand , submit , under an interpretation of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in the light of the principles inferred from LAW by ORG , that having received that information in good faith without obtaining it unlawfully , he had the duty as a professional journalist , under LAW , to publish it owing to what he sees as the obvious interest of the so - called \u2018 GPE case to the general public in LANGUAGE - speaking GPE .","In accordance with LAW of secret official deliberations ) , anyone who , without being entitled to do so , makes public all or part of the documents , investigations or deliberations of an authority which are secret by law or by virtue of a decision taken by that authority , acting within its powers , will be punished by a fine ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Complicity in such acts is also punishable ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . The court may decide not to impose any penalties if the secret thus made public is of minor importance ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .","According to case - law , this provision proceeds from a formal conception of secrecy . It is sufficient that the documents , deliberations or investigations in question have been declared secret by law or by virtue of a decision taken by the authority , or in other words that there has been an intention to keep them from becoming public , regardless of the type of classification selected ( for example , top secret or confidential ) . On the other hand , strict secrecy presupposes that the holder of the specific information wishes to keep it secret , that there is a legitimate interest at stake , and that the information is known or accessible only to a select group of persons ( see ORG [ Judgments of ORG ] CARDINAL IV CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , and CARDINAL \/ aa , p. CARDINAL ) . This state of affairs was not altered by the entry into force of paragraph CARDINAL of this Article on DATE ( RO [ Recueil officiel \u2013 Official Collection of Federal Statutes ] DATE CARDINAL ; ORG [ GPE f\u00e9d\u00e9rale ] DATE IV CARDINAL ) . That rule concerns not secrets in the substantive sense but rather instances of futile , petty or excessive concealment ( see ORG CARDINAL FAC , point CARDINAL \/ bb , p. CARDINAL ) . In order to exclude the application of paragraph CARDINAL , the court must therefore first of all examine the reasons for classifying the information as secret . It must , however , do so with restraint , without interfering with the discretionary power wielded by the authority which declared the information secret . It is sufficient that this declaration should nonetheless appear tenable vis - \u00e0 - vis the content of the documents , investigations or deliberations in issue . Moreover , the journalists\u2019 viewpoint on the interest in publishing the information is irrelevant ( see ORG CARDINAL PERSON , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . In its PERSON v. GPE judgment of DATE , ORG confirmed that this formal conception of secrecy was not contrary to LAW inasmuch as it did not prevent ORG from determining whether the interference in issue was compatible with LAW , by assessing , in the context of its examination of LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW , the justification for classifying a given piece of information as secret , on the one hand , and weighing up the interests at stake , on the other ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","In the present case the offence with which the appellant is charged concerned the publication of records of interviews and correspondence contained in the case file of a live criminal investigation .","In pursuance of LAW ( ORG ) , all investigations must remain secret until their final conclusion ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . The secrecy requirement relates to all the evidence uncovered by the investigation itself as well as all non - public decisions and investigative measures ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . The law also specifies that the following are bound by secrecy vis - \u00e0 - vis anyone who does not have access to the case file : the judges and judicial staff ( save in cases where disclosure would facilitate the investigation or is justified on public - order , administrative or judicial grounds ; see LAW ) , and also the parties , their friends and relatives , their lawyers , the latter \u2019s associates , consultants and staff , and any experts and witnesses . However , disclosure to friends or relatives by the parties or their lawyer is not punishable ( see LAW CPP \/ VD ) . Lastly , the law provides for a range of exceptions . As an exception to LAW , the cantonal investigating judge and , with the latter \u2019s agreement , the judge responsible for the preliminary inquiry or senior police officers specially appointed by the cantonal government [ ORG d\u2019Etat ] ( see LAW , paragraph CARDINAL ) may inform the press , radio or television about a pending investigation if so required by the public interest or considerations of fairness , particularly where public cooperation is required to shed light on an offence , in cases which are particularly serious or are already known to the general public , or where erroneous information must be corrected or the general public reassured ( see Article CARDINALb , paragraph CARDINAL , CPP \/ VD ) .","The present case therefore concerns secrecy imposed by the law rather than by an official decision .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL . As a general rule , the reason for the confidentiality of judicial investigations , which applies to most sets of cantonal criminal proceedings , is the need to protect the interests of the criminal proceedings by anticipating risks of collusion and the danger of evidence being tampered with or destroyed . Nevertheless , the interests of the accused must not be disregarded either , particularly vis - \u00e0 - vis the presumption of innocence and , more broadly , the accused \u2019s personal relations and interests ( see ORG , PERSON , CARDINALth ed . , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , op . cit . , \u00a7 CARDINAL , no . DATE , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , ORG p\u00e9nale suisse : DATE . , DATE , no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) , as well as the need to protect the opinion - forming process and the decision - making process within a ORG authority , as protected , precisely , by LAW ( see ORG CARDINAL FAC , point CARDINAL \/ aa , p. CARDINAL ) . ORG has already had occasion to deem such a purpose legitimate in itself . The aim is to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary in accordance with the wording of LAW , which also mentions the protection of the reputation or rights of others ( see PERSON v. GPE , judgment of CARDINAL DATE , \u00a7 DATE , and PERSON and Others v. GPE , judgment of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Furthermore , in so far as the impugned publication concerned excerpts from records of interviews of the accused and reproduced certain letters sent by the latter to the investigating judge , this evidence can validly be classified secret , by prohibiting public access to it , as provided by the legislation of the GPE of GPE . This is the inescapable conclusion as regards the records of interviews of the accused , as it would be inadmissible to allow such documents to be analysed in the public sphere , before the conclusion of the investigation , before the trial and out of context , in a manner liable to influence the decisions taken by the investigating judge and the trial court . It is also the only possible conclusion as regards the letters sent by the accused to the investigating judge , which focused on practical problems and criticisms of his lawyer ( see ORG judgment , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . We might point out here that it appears from the impugned publication DATE which the cantonal authorities did not reproduce in full in their decisions , although they did refer to it and its content is not disputed \u2013 that the aforementioned practical problems concerned requests for temporary release and for access to personal effects ( letters of DATE ) , for a change of cell ( letter of CARDINAL DATE ) and for authorisation to use the telephone ( letter of DATE ) . Regardless of the guarantee of the presumption of innocence and the inferences concerning the detainee \u2019s character which might be drawn during the criminal proceedings from such correspondence , the detainee , whose liberty is considerably restricted , even in respect of everyday acts relating to his private life , or indeed intimate sphere , can expect the authority restricting his liberty to protect him from public exposure of the practical details of his life as a remand prisoner and as a person facing charges ( see LAW ) .","It follows that in the instant case the information published by the appellant , in so far as it concerned the content of the records of his interviews and his correspondence with the investigating judge , can not be described as a secret of minor importance for the purposes of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW . That being so , the impugned publication constituted the factual elements of the offence provided for in LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW .","Moreover , the information in question may be described as being secret in substantive terms because it was only accessible to a restricted number of persons ( the investigating judge and the parties to the proceedings ) . Furthermore , the investigating authority was desirous to keep them secret , with not only a legitimate interest in doing so but an obligation under LAW , the justification for which was mentioned above ( see point PERSON above ) .","Therefore , the only remaining point at issue is the existence of justification .","In short , the appellant submits that he had the professional duty ( under former LAW ) as a journalist to publish the information in question because of what he describes as the obvious interest in the \u2018 GPE case for the population of LANGUAGE - speaking GPE . He considers that in the light of NORP case - law , the basic assumption should be that publication is justified in principle unless there is a pressing social need to maintain secrecy . From the standpoint of good faith , he submits that Article CARDINAL should apply to journalists who are not responsible for the indiscretion committed by a third party and who receive information without committing any offence themselves other than the breach of secrecy stemming from the publication . Lastly , he contends that the mode of publication is not a relevant criterion .","As regards the former point , the cantonal court found that while the accident of DATE , the circumstances of which were undoubtedly unusual , had triggered a great deal of public emotion , it had nevertheless , in legal terms , been simply a road accident with fatal consequences , and did not in itself entail any obvious public interest . It was not a case of collective trauma on the part of the GPE population , which would have justified reassuring the citizens and keeping them informed of the progress of the investigation ( see judgment appealed against , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","It is true that the \u2018 FAC attracted extensive media coverage ( see ORG judgment , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , to which the cantonal judgment refers ( judgment appealed against , point B , p. CARDINAL ) ) . However , this circumstance alone , alongside the unusual nature of the accident , is insufficient to substantiate a major public interest in publishing the confidential information in question . Unless it can be justified per se , the interest aroused among the public by media coverage of events can not constitute a public interest in the disclosure of classified information , because that would mean that it would be sufficient to spark the public \u2019s interest in a certain event in order to justify the subsequent publication of confidential information likely to maintain that interest . Furthermore , such a public interest is manifestly lacking as regards the letters that were published . As we have seen above ( see point QUANTITY above ) , these letters virtually exclusively concerned criticisms levelled by the accused against his lawyer and such practical problems as requests for temporary release , for access to personal effects , to change cells and to use the telephone . This type of information provides no relevant insights into the accident or the circumstances surrounding it . It relates to the private life , or indeed intimate sphere , of the person in custody , and it is difficult to see any interest which its publication could satisfy other than a certain kind of voyeurism . The same applies to the appellant \u2019s requests to the investigating judge in relation to his choice of defence lawyer . Nor is it clear , as regards the records of his interviews , what political question or matter of public interest would have arisen or been worth debating in the public sphere , and the cantonal authorities explicitly ruled out the existence of any collective trauma which might have justified reassuring or informing the population . This finding of fact , which the appellant has not disputed in his public - law appeal , is binding on this court ( see section CARDINAL bis of LAW ) . That being the case , the appellant fails to demonstrate the \u2018 obvious\u2019 interest to the general public of the information published , and the cantonal court can not be criticised for having concluded that at the very most , such an interest involved satisfying an unhealthy curiosity .","The other CARDINAL factors relied upon by the appellant concern his behaviour ( good faith in access to information and mode of publication ) .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . It should first of all be noted that Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code punishes only the disclosure of information , irrespective of how the perpetrator obtained it . Moreover , even under Article CARDINAL ORG , ORG does not attach decisive importance to this fact when considering whether applicants have fulfilled their duties and responsibilities . The determining fact is rather that they could not claim in good faith to be unaware that disclosure of the information was punishable by law ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL , and PERSON and PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALI ) . This point is well - established in the present case ( see section B above ) .","DATE . On the other hand , the mode of publication can play a more important role in the context of safeguarding freedom of expression . While ORG reiterates that neither it , nor the domestic courts for that matter , should substitute their own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted by journalists , in weighing up the interests at stake it nevertheless takes account of the content , vocabulary and format of the publication , and of the headings and sub - headings ( whether chosen by the journalist or the editors ) , and the accuracy of the information ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL et seq . , especially CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","In the instant case the cantonal court ruled that the tone adopted by the appellant in his article showed that his main concern was not , as he claims , to inform the general public about the ORG \u2019s conduct of the criminal investigation . The headline of the article ( \u2018 Questioning of the mad driver\u2019 , \u2018 the reckless driver \u2019s PERSON ) already lacked objectivity . It suggested that the case had already been tried in the author \u2019s view , in the sense that the fatalities on FAC had been caused not by an ordinary motorist but by a \u2018 mad PERSON , a man \u2018 oblivious to the events and all the hubbub around him\u2019 ; The journalist concluded by wondering whether the driver was in fact doing his best to \u2018 make himself impossible to defend\u2019 . The manner in which he quoted the excerpts from the records of interviews and reproduced the letters sent by the defendant to the judge pointed to the motives of the author of the impugned article : he confined himself to sensationalism , his modus operandi being exclusively geared to satisfying the relatively unhealthy curiosity which anyone is liable to feel about this type of case . Readers of this highly biased publication would have formed an opinion and subjectively prejudged the future action to be taken by the courts regarding this case , without the least respect for the principle of presumption of innocence ( see judgment appealed against , point CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) . The cantonal court concluded that this factor did not indicate that the public interest in receiving information prevailed . That court can not be criticised on that account .","The appellant also submitted that the records of interviews and the letters would in any case be mentioned in subsequent public hearings . He inferred from this that preserving the confidentiality of this information could therefore not be justified by any \u2018 pressing social ORG .","However , the mere possibility that the secrecy of criminal investigations might be lifted during a subsequent phase of proceedings , particularly during the trial , which is generally subject to the publicity principle , does not undermine the justification for keeping judicial investigations confidential , because the primary aim is to protect the opinion - forming and decision - making processes on the part not only of the trial court but also of the investigating authority , until the completion of this secret phase of proceedings . Moreover , far from being neutral and comprehensive , the publication in issue included comments and assessments which presented the information in issue in a particular light , without providing the opportunities for adversarial argument which are the very essence of proceedings in trial courts .","Lastly , the appellant did not explicitly criticise the amount of the fine imposed on him . Nor did he challenge the refusal to grant him DATE after which the fine would be struck out ( former Article CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , in conjunction with former DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW ) under NORP law . From the angle of weighing up the interest in the interference , we might simply note that the fine imposed , the amount of which took into account a previous conviction dating back to DATE ( imposition of a LAW fine , which could be struck out after a DATE probationary period , for coercion and defamation ) , does not exceed CARDINAL the amount of the appellant \u2019s DATE income at the material time ( see ORG judgment , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , and there is nothing to suggest that his freelance status at the time of the first - instance judgment led to any significant drop in his earnings . It should also be pointed out that at CHF CARDINAL,CARDINAL the amount of the fine is below the statutory maximum set out in former LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW ( as in force until DATE ) , and that this maximum amount , set by the legislature DATE , was not revised until the entry into force of the new general section of LAW , which now sets a figure of LAW ( see Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW as in force since DATE ) . Furthermore , the sanction for the offence with which the appellant is charged did not prevent him from expressing his views , since it was imposed after the article had been published ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . That being the case , it is unclear , in view of the nature of the offence charged ( the least serious in the classification set out in LAW ) , the amount of the fine and the time of its imposition , how the sanction imposed on the applicant could be regarded as a form of censorship .","It follows from the foregoing that the appellant disclosed a secret within the meaning of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW and that he can not rely on any justifying factor in his favour . The decision appealed against does not violate federal law as interpreted in the light of the LAW provisions relied upon by the appellant . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170059","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160TUL\u00cd\u0158 v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In the period DATE and DATE the applicant was found to have addressed emails to C. , his former partner , stating , among other things :","\u201c ... It is this [ C. ] that I wish to see ; I do n\u2019t want to meet the other one again . I gave up the possibility of keeping her at bay by any means ( such as pictures of her injecting drugs , pictures of her offering prostitution services or pictures of her masturbating ) , because I have so much respect for her that I did not want to spend TIME trying to pull off dirty tricks on her , naively believing that the second time I would be able to open her eyes to the truth . ...","You say that you are scared of me . Well , get rid of that fear finally ; otherwise we can not even be very good friends ...","I suggest we draw a line under the past , particularly the evil period , and turn over a new leaf . In the same spirit , I suggest not talking about the evil things ever again ; otherwise you will not be able to get rid of your fear ...","... Are we really only able to talk to each other when I yell at you or tie you up or abduct you in my car , or do I have to think up a similar dirty trick ? Do I have to become evil before you can hear me out and are willing to talk to me ? You are not going to believe me , but it hurt me that I had to lower myself to that level . ...","It \u2019s a pity that one has to abduct you or tie you up , in other words simply use means of physical restraint in order to make you listen and carefully think about and evaluate what they have told you . I would be happier if you could do so without such actions ...","... promise made in the car ...","Because I have not humiliated you either , although I had a good opportunity to do so . I could have taken pictures of you , forced you to make a porn movie and sent it to all those people in GPE . I could have forced you to sign whatever I wished for , and I know that you would forced yourself to sign whatever I wished and I know that you would have done it at that moment . Do not wonder about the things I am able to think about ; wonder about why I have not done so ...","I will tell her everything about what I have done to you as well as why I have done it ; I will give her your contact details , and maybe she can help us become closer ...","I told the psychologist everything about what I have done to you , ... how I was bad to you , including the threats I have recently made in order to make you hear me out . When I told her about how I tied you up , she replied that I must not do that to you ever again and that I should be glad that you have not turned me in ...","On DATE , it will be DATE since that last time I threatened you and intimidated you ...","... all my threats are really just my defensive response to various feelings of injustice ...","When you were at my place , I could have done whatever I wanted with you ; but I \u2019m not like that , it is hard to hurt you in any way because I love you ...","If you can not accept it , I will not do anything more than what I have repeated CARDINAL times when we made that agreement at DATE ...","I will do or pay someone to do something that will harm you . Ranging from pettiness to heavy force that would be in violation of the law ...","[ C. ] , I \u2019m slowly starting to realise that my feelings for you are heading towards freezing point and hatred is starting to prevail ... \u201d","On DATE made a statement about the applicant \u2019s threatening telephone calls and emails at the police station in GPE ( GPE ) . On DATE , upon police advice , she changed her telephone number and email address .","On DATE the GPE CARDINAL ORG ( obvodn\u00ed st\u00e1tn\u00ed z\u00e1stupce ) received an anonymous criminal complaint containing allegations of the sexual abuse of children . The female informer indicated that a certain C. had confessed that she had participated in sexual abuse whilst working as an au pair in GPE .","In DATE several individuals including the applicant were questioned in connection with the criminal investigation into the criminal complaint .","On DATE C. \u2019s mother made a statement at the police station in GPE CARDINAL according to which the applicant had tied C. up in his apartment and had shown her a bag in which he intended to carry her away . She stated , in particular , that :","\u201c On DATE , my daughter called me , asking me whether I had time and that maybe I should sit down . She informed me that she had not been dating [ L. ] , as she had claimed the entire time she dated [ the applicant ] , but that instead she had been dating [ the applicant ] , who had allegedly threatened and was currently still threatening her with physical annihilation if she would not resume her relationship with him ; he had also demanded that [ C. ] continue to have sexual relations with him . She decided to tell me about the entire matter only after he had allegedly sent her an email with the words ... \u2018 and do n\u2019t forget that you have a family \u2013 mother , brother \u2013 back at home\u2019 ... Given her experience of him , [ C. ] considers it very likely that this threat could be carried out by [ the applicant ] . Since that time she had changed her email address and phone number ; she also informed me that she had changed her place of residence in GPE because she did not want to have contact with him any more . In addition , my daughter informed me that she had also reported the entire matter in GPE , where she had been questioned about the matter after suffering a mental breakdown there . This condition of my daughter was caused by the actions of the [ applicant ] , who had continuously been sending her emails and threatening her . My daughter said that she had these emails at her disposal ...","In addition , I learned from my daughter that [ the applicant ] , during the period when he was communicating and was able to communicate with her , had told her that she could come back to him , that she was in no danger from him because he had started seeing a psychologist ... in order to reduce or eradicate his violent behaviour , which he was aware of and had been using against her DATE against [ C. ] ... \u201d","On DATE female friend PERSON stated that , in a letter of DATE , C. had confided in her about the forcible coercion by the applicant , which had taken place on DATE . She further stated that , at about the same time , C. had called her from GPE , telling her that the applicant had been menacing her and her family with threats to their lives . In addition , she said that the applicant had contacted her by SMS , by phone and by email . She submitted the letter to the police .","On DATE the police asked the Prague CARDINAL ORG to apply for an \u201c urgent or non - repeatable measure \u201d ( neodkladn\u00fd nebo neopakovateln\u00fd \u00fakon ) pursuant to LAW hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , and DATE an interview with C. was conducted . The request included a very detailed justification explaining that the applicant had forcibly coerced C. in GPE as well as in GPE , where she had filed a criminal complaint . At the time of making that request , C. had been living and working in GPE but arrived back in GPE for the purpose of her interview on DATE . Her employment and the distance between the place of her employment and GPE , where she was interviewed , made it impossible for her to travel more often to GPE , where she did not feel safe anyway , given the prior events .","On DATE , a prosecutor at ORG asked ORG ( obvodn\u00ed soud ) to secure the presence of a judge during C. \u2019s interview , which was to be carried out as an urgent and non - repeatable measure .","On DATE the police interviewed C. as a witness in the presence of a judge pursuant to LAW ORG . At that time , the applicant had not been charged and was therefore not present at the interview . C. stated at the outset that :","\u201c ... [ S]ince DATE I have been working as an au pair in GPE . ... I arrived in GPE on the basis of an agreement with the police authorities of [ GPE ] and upon the advice of my employer , ... , who is a police officer , after the actions of [ the applicant ] reached such an intensity that I started to be really scared . \u201d","She further stated that the applicant had not come to terms with the fact that she had broken off their intimate relationship . She described in detail the acts of intimidation conducted by him in the form of phone calls , SMS messages , emails , letters and verbal threats . She also stated that on DATE , TIME and TIME , she had been present in the applicant \u2019s flat , where he had tied her to the bed , partially undressed the lower part of her body , and threatened to drug her with heroin , to carry her out from the flat in a large bag and to hand her over to unspecified persons to be trafficked to GPE for QUANTITY ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) unless she promised to resume their intimate relationship , which she had broken off on DATE . According to her , the applicant had threatened to take pornographic pictures of her or to record a porn movie with her , which he would then send to her employer in GPE and the company which had acted as intermediary in finding her a job in GPE . Furthermore , on DATE they had been in a car together and the applicant had threatened to throw C. into a snowdrift and drive off , or to kill both her and himself in a deliberate car accident . C. also stated that the applicant had searched through her mobile phone contacts to find the number of her female friend PERSON , whom he had contacted at DATE . C. wrote an explanatory letter to PERSON She had also phoned her mother and had confided in her about the intimidation by the applicant . C. also stated that the applicant was seeing a psychotherapist . As the intimidation continued , PERSON filed a criminal complaint at a police station in GPE on DATE .","She also stated :","\u201c Upon the advice of the police in GPE , on DATE I changed my mail address , after DATE I also changed the number of my mobile phone and at the advice of my employer , I have also the confidential employment that [ the applicant ] or his eventual messengers could not contact me . ...","...","I was asked to make comment on the email notice which was made anonymously at the GPE CARDINAL ORG on DATE at CARDINAL a.m .. ... I do not know any girl who would meet me in a club in GPE ; I do not know any such girl who would know the information about me , which were written in this denouncement . ... The information indicated in this denouncement corresponded to what [ the applicant ] knows about me , what I foolishly told him in the past . \u201d","At the end of the interview , C. submitted copies of her email exchanges with the applicant and a tape recording of his voice messages , and made available SMS messages on her mobile phone for transcription .","On DATE a judge at the Prague ORG ordered the compilation of a list of incoming and outgoing telephone calls from the applicant \u2019s mobile phone DATE and DATE . On DATE he ordered the compilation of a list of communications executed from CARDINAL mail - boxes between DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE , respectively . On DATE the judge ordered the compilation of a list of communications carried out from several of the applicant \u2019s other mail - boxes in the period from DATE to DATE , and also the provision of information on the total number of communications logged in these mailboxes DATE and DATE . On DATE , the judge ordered the compilation of a list of outgoing telephone calls from the applicant \u2019s land line on DATE TIME","On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for unlawful restraint ( omezov\u00e1n\u00ed osobn\u00ed svobody ) in concurrence with coercion ( vyd\u00edr\u00e1n\u00ed ) , defamation ( pomluva ) and false accusation ( k\u0159iv\u00e9 obvin\u011bn\u00ed ) .","NORP In DATE a search was conducted in both the applicant \u2019s flat and the commercial premises where he ran his business , upon the search orders issued on CARDINAL and DATE respectively . The applicant was arrested on DATE and was charged with unlawful restrain , coercion , defamation and false accusation , and released afterwards .","The police continued to gather evidence during DATE and DATE . They obtained an expert psychiatric opinion on the applicant \u2019s health , analysed his computer , carried out a search of his flat and questioned a number of witnesses .","On DATE C. \u2019s mother was interviewed . She stated , in particular , that :","\u201c On DATE ... my daughter called me at work , started crying on the phone ... She told me that ... she had been dating [ the applicant ] the entire time . [ She ] continued crying a lot , which made me realise that this was not all there was to it . It made me feel physically sick . She continued the story , saying that when she was at home for DATE [ the applicant ] had abducted her . She had agreed to meet him somewhere in GPE they met normally and agreed to go out for a drink in TIME . But he said that he needed to change clothes so they would first drive to his place and then go out TIME . In the apartment , however , he tied her up and menaced her with horrible threats . At that time , she did not tell me any details . ... At the same time , during our phone conversation we came onto the topic of the threatening emails that [ the applicant ] had been sending her the entire time . She said that she had not paid much attention to them but that lately it had got completely out of hand and ... he had started threatening to kill her and , finally , had sent her an email saying that she should not forget that she had her entire family in GPE , specifically mentioning her mother and brother , and that she should not forget that he knew where we lived .","...","I personally contacted the psychologist ... She confirmed that my daughter had phoned her as well . She said that she had advised her ... to immediately cut off all contact with [ the applicant ] ... I told her about what [ the applicant ] had done to my daughter at DATE and she essentially replied that [ the applicant ] had also told her about it and that she had strictly forbidden him to ever do such a thing again ...","[ C. ] told me that in DATE , when she was in his flat , [ the applicant ] had tied her up , threatened to kill her , to traffic her , to make a movie of her taking drugs or a porn movie ; he had also searched through her handbag and taken a piece of paper with her home address or had written it down , had searched through the address book in her mobile phone and had accessed her electronic mail box after forcing her to give him the password ... \u201d","The investigation having been concluded in DATE , the applicant was indicted for coercion under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW on DATE . This legal classification of his criminal acts was more serious than that indicated in the notice served on him on DATE , when he had been charged with deprivation of personal liberty under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in conjunction with coercion under LAW . According to the applicant , he had not been informed about it , contrary to LAW ORG .","According to the Government , on DATE C. apologised through her mother for not being able to attend the hearing before ORG .","The trial started on DATE . As PERSON apologised for not attending the main hearing , the statement made by her on DATE was therefore read out . The applicant claimed that ORG \u2019s residence abroad had not been a sufficient reason for carrying out her interview as an urgent measure and that her statement should not be read out at the trial . He argued that the conditions laid down in LAW had not been met .","ORG tried to summons PERSON again . In its letter of CARDINAL DATE , the court sent a summons to the main hearing to C. through her mother . On DATE ORG sent to ORG copies of the documents justifying the urgent need to interview C. , namely the request of DATE to secure the presence of a judge during an urgent and non - repeatable measure and the police letter of CARDINAL DATE .","NORP In a letter of DATE , C. informed the presiding judge that , although she had been summonsed , she was unable to attend the main hearing because she had been working abroad for DATE and intended to stay abroad on a permanent basis . She stated that the circumstances justifying the applicant \u2019s criminal prosecution were very stressful for both her and her mother . It appears that ORG did not try to summon C. again .","In a judgment of DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of coercion and sentenced him to DATE suspended prison sentence subject to a probationary period of DATE . The court explicitly noted that in finding the applicant guilty , it mainly relied on the testimony of C. , but also on a statement made by GPE , a schoolfriend of C. \u2019s , who stated that she had received emails concerning PERSON ; the statement by ORG psychotherapist , who testified that C. had confided in her about having been taken somewhere by the applicant against her will ; the statement by ORG mother ; a testimony by PERSON implying that the applicant and C. had met at DATE ; expert opinions in cybernetics and computer technology and in psychiatry ; the emails sent by the applicant to C. DATE and DATE ; and the letter from PERSON , in which C. wrote to her female friend about the applicant \u2019s violent behaviour .","The court then stated :","\u201c Based on such secured evidence , the court came to a clear conclusion , finding the defendant guilty as indicated in the verdict of the judgment . The defendant denies any such behaviour and actions on his part directed against [ C. ] as described in the judgment ; however , he has clearly been proved guilty by the evidence taken . The court relied in particular on the testimony of witness [ C. ] , who described the defendant \u2019s actions in great detail . The testimony is consistent with further evidence taken . This includes email correspondence , which corroborates the victim \u2019s statement and the victim \u2019s mother \u2019s statement to the effect that the victim had confided in her about everything on DATE . A brief description of the defendant \u2019s behaviour was also included in the letter sent by the victim to her female friend [ PERSON ] which was available to the court ... In his expert opinion , the expert concluded that it was absolutely possible and posed no problem for the defendant to use previously prepared straps to tie the victim to bed and partially undress the bottom CARDINAL of her body , and that it was absolutely possible and posed no problem for him to tie her up in the manner she had described ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed , raising a number of procedural , factual and interpretational complaints . He claimed , inter alia , that C. \u2019s statement remained uncorroborated evidence on which his conviction was based .","In his extensive submissions of CARDINAL DATE , he requested that C. be questioned in order , inter alia , to clarify the contradictions between the statements given by C. , her mother , and her psychologist and the applicant \u2019s testimony . He also suggested that an expert opinion be drawn up by a psychiatric expert to assess the reliability of C. and to complete and assess other evidence , including the hearing of CARDINAL witnesses who had been rejected without adequate reasoning by the first instance court . He also requested that ORG ( m\u011bstsk\u00fd soud ) postpone the public hearing , without giving any reason in this respect .","The hearing before ORG was held on DATE in the absence of the applicant , who had apologised in writing on CARDINAL DATE indicating that he could not attend the hearing due to serious personal and family reasons , but agreeing that the court carry out merely the procedural acts allowed by LAW ORG and asking , at the same time , to postpone the hearing afterwards . At the hearing he was represented by counsel who , contrary to the applicant \u2019s written appeal , did not request that any further evidence be taken . The court , having rejected the applicant \u2019s request to postpone the hearing , examined his appeal , upholding the conviction of the first instance court .","The court found that the applicant \u2019s guilt had been securely established in particular by the statement given by ORG , which was not the only evidence against the applicant , her statements having been corroborated by further indirect evidence , such as the testimony of her mother , in whom PERSON had confided at the material time . The appellate court also found that , although C. and her mother had not had a close relationship before , PERSON contacted her out of fear for her and her brother \u2019s life and described the acts of coercion carried out by the applicant . Witness C. \u2019s mother also claimed that the initial anonymous criminal complaint sent by email to the GPE CARDINAL ORG had been sent by the applicant , who had thus lodged a false accusation . Her testimony was examined in detail . The indirect evidence also included text messages sent by the applicant on DATE and the criminal complaint filed by ORG in GPE on DATE . The time concurrence was thus a significant factor , too .","As regards the reliability of ORG and the assessment of evidence , the court stated :","\u201c ... the assessment of the evidence is reasonable and convincing , as is [ ORG ] conclusion concerning the reliability of witness [ C. ] . ORG was not wrong in believing this witness , who proved the defendant \u2019s guilt of the criminal acts . The testimony of the victim was not the only convincing evidence against the applicant on which the ORG based its conclusion about the defendant \u2019s guilt , since the defendant \u2019s criminal acts are also proved by a chain of indirect evidence corroborating the testimony of the victim and confirming the credibility of her statements . This includes , in particular , the testimony of her mother ... in whom the victim confided during a phone call on DATE in which she described the defendant \u2019s actions , including the way he had tied her up in his apartment , threatened her and sent her threatening emails . The testimonies given by [ C. ] and her mother ... regarding the relevant facts correspond to the content of the criminal complaint filed by the victim at the police station in GPE , GPE ... on DATE . The defendant \u2019s complaint that the unreliability of the victim is proved by the fact that she did not confide earlier in her mother or a close female friend about his alleged behaviour is ill - founded : the evidence taken clearly shows that the victim and her mother did not previously have a particularly close relationship since she did not confide in her mother about her relationship with the defendant . This is understandable given that she was allegedly abused by the mother \u2019s partner ( as the victim confided in the defendant ) . Furthermore , the victim was already back in GPE at the relevant time ( as of DATE ) and her contact with the defendant was conducted solely via mobile phone calls and email correspondence . In these circumstances , the behaviour of the victim appears rather logical and understandable , i.e. confiding in her mother and brother concerning the threats to their health and her life in an SMS message . ... The reliability of the victim and the veracity of her testimony is also corroborated by the emails included in the ... These emails , which were submitted to the police by the victim , correspond case file to her testimony as to the timeframe and the contents ... It is hardly possible for ORG to believe that the victim would systematically and for DATE beforehand prepare all the evidence ... in order to be able to file a criminal complaint against the defendant . In addition to the above , the defendant \u2019s contacts with the victim ( which he himself did not deny ) and her reliability are also clearly shown in the defendant \u2019s affidavit of DATE ... , in which the defendant declared he did not have any financial claims against the victim . Finally , one should not disregard the statement of an impartial witness ... namely the victim \u2019s psychotherapist , who confirmed that the victim came to her because of relational problems with the defendant , confided in her about having been held by the defendant against her will and driven off somewhere in his car , and about his emails threatening to harm her if she left him . All this indirect evidence is interrelated and consistent with the victim \u2019s testimony . Consequently , the defendant \u2019s complaint concerning the unreliability of the victim is ill - founded ... As a result , ORG correctly believed the testimony given by the victim in relation to this matter , considering her testimony in general to be credible ...","The defendant \u2019s behaviour and verbal aggression , as documented in the emails and SMS messages sent by him escalated at a later stage , prompting the victim to file a criminal complaint and change her contact details because she was afraid of the defendant \u2019s behaviour after he threatened to harm her mother and brother . ... \u201d","In respect of the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning ORG \u2019s interview , which was conducted as an urgent and non - repeatable measure under LAW ORG , ORG noted that :","\u201c The victim was duly interviewed in the presence of a judge ... , with the unrepeatability of the measure being determined by the long - term residence of the witness in GPE . The justification of such a procedure and the unavailability of the witness were confirmed by the efforts of ORG to secure her attendance at the main hearing , which the witness repeatedly failed to attend , providing a written statement to the effect that she was residing abroad on a long - term basis and would not be able to attend the main hearing in the foreseeable future . Therefore , ORG deemed legal the procedure applied by the ORG whereby , after exhausting the possibility of examining the victim in the main hearing for unavailability due to her residence abroad , it read out the statement she had made ... in the pre - trial proceedings in accordance with Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(a ) of LAW . Although this was key evidence , it was not the only evidence proving the defendant \u2019s guilt ... \u201d","The appellate court admitted that the prosecutor had violated Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG in reclassifying the charges without notifying the applicant . It found , however , that this omission did not impact on the legality and correctness of the reviewed judgment to the extent that a duty to reverse it resulted .","On DATE the applicant filed an appeal on points of law ( dovol\u00e1n\u00ed ) which was rejected as unsubstantiated by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . The court stated that the appellate court had not proceeded erroneously in having decided the case in the absence of the applicant , who had not sufficiently substantiated his request to have the hearing postponed . It added that the applicant \u2019s counsel had not requested that further evidence be gathered and assessed and that , therefore , there had been no need to postpone the hearing .","On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional appeal ( \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enost ) which was dismissed by ORG ( GPE soud ) in a decision of DATE which was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE . Having analysed the testimony given by C. , ORG found that , although it was direct evidence , it was corroborated by a chain of indirect evidence , especially the testimony of her mother . In respect of the remaining complaints , the ORG agreed with the findings of the lower courts stating , in particular :","\u201c The applicant \u2019s complaints regarding the search in his flat and non - residential LOC and lands are unsubstantiated . The search in the applicant \u2019s domicile was carried out in compliance with LAW on the basis of the search order issued by ORG . The applicant had the opportunity , if he was convinced that the search is unlawful , to lodge a constitutional appeal against this order ... In a constitutional appeal against the final judgment of conviction , it is possible , in connection with a search carried out unlawfully , complain in particular the inadmissibility of concrete pieces of evidence which were gathered and on the basis of which [ an applicant ] was found guilty . However , the applicant did not expressly submit any concrete evidence which would be gathered illegally . ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG a claim for compensation for damages caused by delays in the criminal proceedings under LAW ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . On DATE his claim was rejected as having been introduced outside the DATE statutory time - limit . On DATE the applicant filed an action for damages against the Ministry , which appears to be still pending before the Prague CARDINAL ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145354","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF M.S. v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in GPE .","According to the official version of the events , on CARDINAL DATE PERSON , a close friend of the applicant , was arrested by the police when he attempted to sell to P. the amphetamines he had earlier bought from the applicant . PERSON voluntarily agreed to participate in a fake drug deal organised by the police to help them arrest the applicant in order to stop his drug dealing . He made a written statement to that effect . PERSON called the applicant in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses and police officers and asked him to sell him CARDINAL ecstasy pills . The applicant met PERSON at TIME He gave him the drugs and PERSON paid him in cash . The police officers then arrested him . PERSON gave the police the drugs he had received from the applicant . The police took the marked banknotes PERSON had paid for the drugs from the applicant \u2019s bag . Then they cut the applicant \u2019s nails for forensic analysis . The attesting witnesses were present at the scene and could observe the whole operation .","According to the applicant , PERSON called him and asked for help because he had been arrested . He also asked for money . The applicant agreed to help him . When he met PERSON , the latter put several banknotes in his bag , which was open . Then several plain - clothed police officers arrested him . They handcuffed him , took the banknotes which PERSON had planted in his bag , cut a section out of his bag and cut his nails , together with some adjacent skin . When the applicant refused to sign the arrest record , CARDINAL of the police officers punched him . The applicant then signed the document .","The applicant was taken to a police station . The head of the police station , PERSON , beat the applicant up in order to make him confess to the crime . The police officers also took some of the applicant \u2019s personal effects and the cash he had on him . The applicant spent TIME at the police station .","On DATE the applicant met with a lawyer , PERSON . The latter told him to confess to the crime and to give some cash to the police . They would then let him go and make sure that he received a conditional sentence . The applicant did as he had been told by PERSON .","The applicant remained in custody during the criminal proceedings against him .","On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of drug dealing and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court based its findings on ( CARDINAL ) the testimonies of PERSON , police officers , CARDINAL of the attesting witnesses and the investigator ; ( CARDINAL ) materials pertaining to the fake drug deal ; and ( CARDINAL ) forensic evidence . The court also noted that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment had not been subjected to examination in the course of the trial .","At the trial the applicant was represented by CARDINAL lawyers . He pleaded not guilty . He recounted his version of the events , alleging that PERSON and the police had set him up .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal .","The Government \u2019s submissions as regards the conditions in which the applicant was transported may be summarised as follows :","The applicant was always transported alone in a single compartment . He was allowed to use a toilet at the courthouse , if necessary . Once at the courthouse , he had access to drinking water .","The Department of the ORG used CARDINAL types of van for transporting defendants to and from the courthouse . The ORG van had an inmate compartment measuring CARDINAL by CARDINAL by QUANTITY comprising CARDINAL cells with seating capacity for CARDINAL persons each and CARDINAL single cell . The inmate compartment in GAZ-CARDINAL and GAZ-CARDINAL vans measured CARDINAL by CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had CARDINAL cells with seating capacity for CARDINAL persons each and CARDINAL single cell . The inmate compartment of the KAVZ-CARDINAL van measured CARDINAL by CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had one cell with seating capacity for QUANTITY persons and CARDINAL single cells . The inmate compartment in ZIL-CARDINAL vans measured CARDINAL by CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had CARDINAL cells with seating capacity for CARDINAL persons each and CARDINAL single cells .","The vans were ventilated through an opening in the door and by vents in the compartments . They were equipped with heating and lighting . They were cleaned DATE and disinfected on a DATE basis . The vans were in good working order at all times .","According to the technical specifications for prison vans submitted by the ORG , a single compartment in a prison van can not measure CARDINAL by QUANTITY The width of CARDINAL seating place should be QUANTITY","According to the applicant , he was placed in a prison van compartment measuring QUANTITY by PERSON by QUANTITY It was lined with metal sheeting and completely isolated from the rest of the van interior . The height of the compartments in the van was insufficient for a man of average stature to enter or stand up without hunching . Inmates were to remain seated at all times while inside the van . On average , each trip lasted TIME . After the court hearings , the applicant and other detainees were first taken to remand prison no . MONEY , where they were sorted depending on destination . Throughout the time the vans were parked at the remand prison , their engines were off and the lighting , heating and ventilation did not function . The compartments inside the vans were very cold in the DATE , when the outside temperature was minus CARDINALoC. The inmates were not allowed to use the toilet . All the inmates smoked and the applicant , a nonsmoker , was exposed to second - hand tobacco smoke .","On DATE the applicant was transported to a correctional colony to serve his prison sentence .","According to the Government , the applicant was taken from the remand prison to the railway station in a prison van . The trip lasted TIME ( from CARDINAL to TIME ) . It took TIME to place the prisoners in railway carriages ( from QUANTITY to TIME ) . The train journey lasted TIME and TIME ( from TIME to TIME ) . On arrival at the destination station , the inmates were again placed in vans and taken to the respective detention facilities . The trip lasted TIME ( from TIME to TIME ) .","The train compartment in which the applicant was placed measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY The number of inmates placed in the compartment did not exceed CARDINAL . There were CARDINAL berths and CARDINAL seats in the compartment . The berth was QUANTITY long . The passage between the berths and seats in the compartment was QUANTITY wide . All the inmates had luggage which they were allowed to place under the lower berths . The railway carriage was equipped with heating and ventilation in good working order .","As regards the smoking issue , the ORG submitted as follows :","\u201c Inmates transported by [ train ] ... are not allowed to smoke . They are warned accordingly by the chief guard . However , the inmates who smoked , during a long trip , became stressed if deprived of smoking . They took advantage of the fact that they were allowed to have cigarettes on them and those could not be confiscated . They tried to smoke , hiding it with skill . Their attempts to smoke , if noticed by the guard , were stopped ... \u201d","Inmates were not allowed to use the toilet within the boundaries of GPE , that is at the station and during TIME of the journey . Thereafter , they were allowed to use the toilet TIME .","According to the ORG , the applicant submitted CARDINAL complaints to the prosecutor \u2019s office about the conditions of his transport . In response , the latter asked the authorities in charge of GPE transport to conduct an inquiry . No violations were disclosed .","The trip lasted TIME . The applicant was placed in a train compartment measuring QUANTITY together with CARDINAL other inmates . They were not allowed to use the toilet throughout the journey and had to use plastic bottles in the compartment instead . Almost all of the inmates smoked , and the applicant was exposed to second - hand tobacco smoke .","According to a statement signed by the acting head of remand prison SIZO-CARDINAL in GPE and submitted by the Government , during the applicant \u2019s detention in the remand prison from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , he underwent regular medical examinations and received any necessary treatment .","Upon arrival at the remand prison , the applicant underwent obligatory blood tests , an X - ray examination and a physical check - up . The blood tests confirmed the presence of HIV ( stage DATE asymptomatic HIV infection ) . He was prescribed a special diet and placed under regular medical supervision .","During the period from DATE to date , the applicant has been serving a prison sentence in a number of correctional GPE . The parties did not indicate the exact colony numbers .","Following his arrival at correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in GPE , the applicant underwent a complete physical check - up . The general practitioner recommended consultation with an infectious diseases specialist and a psychiatrist , and prescribed a general blood test and a general sputum smear test .","On CARDINAL May and DATE the applicant had X - ray examinations . No abnormalities in the lungs were detected .","According to the applicant \u2019s medical file , he did not receive any HIV - related treatment or examinations in DATE .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to a medical correctional colony in order to undergo a comprehensive medical examination . He was examined by an infectious diseases specialist and had a CDCARDINAL cell count on DATE . His CDCARDINAL cell count was CARDINAL . The diagnosis ( stage DATE asymptomatic HIV infection ) was confirmed . He had a biochemical blood test and urine samples were taken . On CARDINAL DATE he was discharged from hospital in a satisfactory condition and transferred back to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant had ORG examinations . No abnormalities in the lungs were detected .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant consulted the infectious diseases specialist . On DATE , following contact with a tuberculosis - infected inmate , the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist who recommended preventive antituberculosis treatment .","On DATE the applicant had a viral load test .","On DATE the applicant had another CDCARDINAL cell count . On DATE he consulted the infectious diseases specialist . Because the applicant had a low CDCARDINAL cell count of CARDINAL , the doctor re - classified the applicant \u2019s diagnosis as stage CARDINAL and recommended antiretroviral therapy . The applicant consented .","On DATE the applicant was examined by the tuberculosis specialist . Subsequently , he underwent preventive medical treatment until DATE .","It appears that the applicant started antiretroviral therapy on DATE , but developed an allergic reaction to the medication . On DATE he consulted the infectious diseases specialist by telephone . The latter recommended discontinuing the treatment . The applicant followed the doctor \u2019s recommendation .","On DATE the applicant resumed antiretroviral therapy , which was discontinued in view of the allergic reaction .","From CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination in hospital . On DATE ( or DATE ) DATE his CDCARDINAL cell count was CARDINAL . In view of the test results and referring to the side effects of the antiretroviral therapy , the applicant refused to undergo the therapy .","On DATE the applicant had an ultrasound scan of his liver , which disclosed diffuse liver changes .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s CDCARDINAL cell count was CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant had a chest X - ray examination . No abnormalities were detected .","From DATE ) to DATE and from CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent an HIV - related examination in hospital . He had an ultrasound scan in connection with polyposis of the gallbladder and diffuse liver changes , and was examined by an infectious diseases specialist .","On DATE the applicant had a chest X - ray . No abnormalities in the lungs were detected . On DATE the applicant consulted a tuberculosis specialist .","The applicant was admitted to hospital and received treatment for acute gastritis from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant had another chest X - ray , which showed infiltrative shadows on the left lung . On DATE the applicant was examined by the tuberculosis specialist , who prescribed a further tomographic examination and sputum smear test .","DATE . On DATE the applicant agreed to undergo antiretroviral treatment . It appears that it was not carried out at the time .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent another HIV - related examination in hospital .","The sputum smear test of CARDINAL DATE proved negative . The tomography of CARDINAL DATE showed infiltration in the left lung . On DATE the tuberculosis specialist ruled out the possibility of tuberculosis infection .","The applicant was admitted to hospital and received treatment for acute laryngitis from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant consulted the infectious diseases specialist .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s CDCARDINAL cell count was CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant had a chest X - ray and was diagnosed with tuberculosis ( infiltration stage ) . On DATE he was admitted to hospital , where he underwent treatment for tuberculosis until DATE .","DATE and from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was admitted to hospital for examinations . It was established that his HIV condition was progressing and it was diagnosed as stage DATE .","DATE the applicant underwent treatment for HIV and tuberculosis in hospital . His CDCARDINAL cell count of CARDINAL DATE was CARDINAL . According to the applicant , he started antiretroviral treatment in DATE .","The applicant received HIV examinations and treatment in hospital from CARDINAL May to DATE . Upon discharge , his condition was considered satisfactory .","According to the applicant , the antiretroviral treatment was interrupted from DATE owing to a lack of necessary medication . The applicant \u2019s medical file contains an entry confirming the lack of necessary medication in stock . On DATE the applicant received the medication to resume the antiretroviral treatment . Subsequently , there were no interruptions in the prescribed treatment .","On an unspecified date the applicant asked for a transfer to a correctional facility with a less strict regime .","On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s request , noting that he should complete the medical treatment prescribed prior to such a transfer , if any . The applicant did not appeal .","According to the applicant , the administration of correctional colony no . PERSON in GPE where he was serving his prison sentence refused to dispatch his letters of DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE addressed to the ORG , in which he complained of inadequate medical care . He further alleged that the letters of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , which he had received from ORG , had been opened and read by the administration of the correctional colony ; that his letter addressed to ORG had been opened and dispatched with CARDINAL days\u2019 delay ; and that his letter addressed to his lawyer , PERSON . , of CARDINAL DATE had not been dispatched ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","34"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156560","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KOVA\u010cEVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr I. \u017duri\u0107 , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was employed as a salesman ( manager for key buyers ) in company I. ( hereinafter : the \u201c company \u201d ) on an indefinite contract . The contract of employment conditioned his confirmation in the post by a successful DATE probationary period .","By the company \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s employment was terminated on the grounds that he had failed to satisfy the requirements of the post . He was given CARDINAL days\u2019 notice .","The applicant objected to the decision terminating his employment arguing , inter alia , that it was incorrect that he had failed to satisfy the requirements of the post and that the real reason for the cancellation of the employment contract had been the overall financial austerity within the company .","The company maintained its position reiterating the reasons for its decision to terminate the applicant \u2019s employment .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action in ORG ( Op\u0107inski gra\u0111anski sud u GPE ) challenging the company \u2019s decision . He argued that he had duly complied with all relevant requirements of the post and that the real reason for the cancellation of his employment contract had been the overall financial austerity within the company . Accordingly , he contended that since the reason for the cancellation of his employment contract had not been the CARDINAL cited by the company , namely his inadequate professional performance , but the economic reasons related to the company \u2019s business performance , the termination of his employment had been unlawful . The applicant requested that the relevant documents concerning his employment contract be admitted into evidence and that CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON and PERSON , be questioned in court .","During the proceedings ORG questioned several witnesses , including PERSON and PERSON , and examined the relevant documents submitted by the parties . Throughout the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer who actively participated in the questioning of witnesses and examination of evidence at the trial .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s civil action . It set out the scope of the case before it in the following manner :","\u201c The cancellation of an employment contract conditioned by a probationary period should be assessed under the legal provisions concerning regular or extraordinary [ dismissal ] , that is to say , in the concrete case , under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) of LAW . This provision provides that an employer can cancel the employment contract in case of a justified reason . Under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW the burden of proof of the existence of a justified reason is on the employer .","...","In these circumstances the defendant is required , under LAW in conjunction with section QUANTITY ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , to prove the existence of the justified reason for a dismissal related to the [ worker \u2019s ] personal circumstances , that is to say [ to prove ] that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements of the post of a manager for key buyers . The objection of the plaintiff that his dismissal was based on some other reasons , namely economic , is irrelevant since the plaintiff is not in a position to demonstrate the existence of reasons which were not cited as the reasons for dismissal . This court therefore dismissed the plaintiff \u2019s request for obtaining of the information from the [ ORG ] about the number of workers in the [ company ] in the period DATE , as well as the information from the [ competent tax authority ] concerning the financial reports about the defendant \u2019s business performance in DATE , as well as the information about the workers who were dismissed [ from the company ] in that period . This is because this court finds such information irrelevant given that the grounds for dismissal were not the economic reasons . It is not for the plaintiff to demonstrate [ the existence of these reasons ] but the burden of proof is on the defendant who is required to show the existence of the reasons cited in its decision on dismissal as that is the subject matter of this dispute . \u201d","ORG further found that it followed from the statements of several witnesses and the relevant evidence adduced during the proceedings that the applicant had failed to meet the requirements of the post and that therefore his dismissal by the company had been justified and lawful . ORG in particular stressed :","\u201c In the case at issue the dismissal was based on the grounds that \u201c the worker failed to meet the requirements of the post \u201d ; that is therefore a dismissal related to the worker \u2019s personal circumstances . ...","The court \u2019s assessment whether the justified reasons for such a dismissal existed is based on the assumption that the communication skills , teamwork and personal initiative are the relevant characteristics and skills for the position of a manager for key buyers , and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate those characteristics and skills . As already stated above , the purpose of the probationary period is to allow the employer to verify the working skills of the worker , and the worker thereby assumes a certain risk which he or she must be aware of when concluding such a contract of employment . It should be also noted that the employer independently decides which characteristics and skills of a worker are relevant for a particular post , that is to say which are the characteristics and skills that [ the employer ] requires , given that [ the employer ] is independent in organising and managing its business . In these circumstances , and in view of the evidence adduced during the proceedings , this court finds that the plaintiff was given an opportunity to demonstrate his skills , given that he was invited to the meetings , he had free access to everything and everybody in the company and essentially free space to demonstrate his skills . However , he failed to show that he possessed the required characteristics and skills , which this court found established from the cited witness statements . \u201d","NORP The applicant appealed to ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) arguing , inter alia , that , given the scope of the case set out by ORG , he had not been given an opportunity to challenge the real reasons for his dismissal which had been , in his view , related to the company \u2019s business performance .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded . With regard to the applicant \u2019s specific arguments , and in view of the evidence adduced during the proceedings before the first - instance court , ORG noted :","\u201c In view of these findings , the first - instance court correctly examined the lawfulness of the impugned decision [ on dismissal ] under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) of LAW . In such a case , under LAW of the same LAW , the burden of proof for the justification of the decision [ on dismissal ] is on the defendant . The plaintiff argued that the reasons for the dismissal were false and fabricated and that the real reasons for the termination of his employment contract had been of the economic nature , whereas he had professionally , diligently and correctly performed the assignments of his post .","...","Given the [ relevant ] factual findings , it undoubtedly follows that the reasons for the impugned dismissal are truthful and justified and that the objection of the plaintiff that these reasons are not real is unsupported by evidence and unfounded . \u201d","The applicant further lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) reiterating his previous arguments that he had not been able to demonstrate the real reasons for his dismissal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as ill - founded , upholding the decisions of the lower courts .","The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) reiterating his arguments adduced before the lower courts .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . The decision of ORG was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","The relevant provision of LAW ( ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL , DATE ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( consolidated text ) , PERSON ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) reads :","\u201c In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . \u201d","At the material time the relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o radu , ORG no . DATE consolidated text ; providing for an amended enumeration of sections under the original text of LAW , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL , which are noted below in the brackets ) provided :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) At the moment of the conclusion of an employment contract a probationary period of work may be stipulated .","( CARDINAL ) NORP The probationary period of work under paragraph CARDINAL of this section shall not be longer than DATE .","( CARDINAL ) If the probationary period of work has been stipulated , the notice period is DATE . \u201d","\u201c The employer and the worker may cancel the employment contract . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The employer may cancel the employment contract , observing the prescribed or stipulated notice period ( regular cancellation of an employment contract ) if he or she has justified reason in the case :","- there is no longer need for a particular work due to economic , technical or organisational reasons ( professionally conditioned dismissal ) ;","- if the worker is unable to duly perform the assignments of his or her post due to certain permanent characteristics or skills ( personally conditioned dismissal ) ;","- if the worker breaches his or her work assignments ( dismissal conditioned by a wrongful conduct of the worker ) .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A dismissal must be in a written form .","( CARDINAL ) NORP The employer must provide reasons for the dismissal in a written form .","( CARDINAL ) The [ decision on ] dismissal must be served on the dismissed person .","( CARDINAL ) The notice period starts running from the moment of the service of the [ decision on ] dismissal .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the employer cancels the employment contract , and this Act requires the existence of a justified reason , he or she must prove the existence of the justified reason for dismissal .","... \u201d","The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o parni\u010dnom postupku , ORG no . DATE consolidated text ) provides :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) In the proceedings concerning the employment disputes , in particular with regard to the scheduling of hearings , the court shall always bear in mind the necessity of expeditious resolution of the employment disputes .","... \u201d","In the judgment no . Revr-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , concerning extraordinary cancellation of an employment contract , with regard to the scope of the case in the employment disputes ORG noted :","\u201c Under section CARDINAL ( section CARDINAL [ in the enumeration of the original text ] ) of FAC the burden of proof concerning the existence of the justified reason for dismissal is on the employer . The court determines the operative facts of the case within the scope of the reasons cited for the dismissal . \u201d","In the judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , concerning the cancellation of an employment contract during DATE , ORG held the following :","\u201c Under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the consolidated text of LAW ) the employer may cancel the employment contract observing the prescribed or stipulated notice period ( regular cancellation of an employment contract ) if he or she has justified reason for that .","Accordingly , by relying on the cited provision , and given that the plaintiff and the defendant had concluded an employment contract under DATE , the plaintiff was allowed to cancel the plaintiff \u2019s employment contract if it had justified reason for the dismissal .","This court accepts the conclusion of the lower courts according to which the defendant , upon whom the burden of proof rested under LAW of LAW , that is to say section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the consolidated text of LAW , proved during the proceedings that it had had a justified reason for the dismissal ( section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) given that the plaintiff had failed to meet the requirements of the post during her probationary period . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154344","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ALVES v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE , in GPE , and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant brought a liability action ( a\u00e7\u00e3o de responsabilidade civil ) in ORG against F. , a lawyer who had acted as her legal representative in previous proceedings , claiming damages for professional negligence .","On DATE F. was notified of the action . On DATE he lodged his submissions in reply ( contesta\u00e7\u00e3o ) and requested the intervention of his insurance company to which he had transferred his responsibility for the acts committed by him in his capacity as lawyer .","On DATE the applicant lodged new submissions in reply ( r\u00e9plica ) .","By a ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE the intervention of the insurance company in the proceedings was accepted . The company was summoned on an unknown date . On DATE it lodged its submissions , to which the applicant replied on DATE .","DATE the parties disputed the applicant \u2019s legal capacity to be a party to the proceedings ( capacidade judici\u00e1ria ) .","On DATE the judge gave directions ( despacho saneador ) absolving F. of the proceedings ( absolvi\u00e7\u00e3o do r\u00e9u da inst\u00e2ncia ) on the grounds of the applicant \u2019s lack of legal capacity .","On an unknown date the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG ) . By a decision of DATE ORG considered that the applicant had legal capacity and ordered the re - analysis of the case at first instance . In DATE , the proceedings were allocated to ORG .","On DATE the judge gave directions setting out the matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding .","DATE and DATE the parties lodged , in total , CARDINAL requests to which the judge promptly replied in DATE .","On an unknown date the case was set down for hearing on DATE . The hearing was later adjourned to DATE . A second hearing took place on DATE .","On DATE ORG partially found in favour of the applicant .","The parties appealed against the decision to ORG , which dismissed the appeals on DATE .","The parties challenged ORG decision before ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeals ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174995","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF OBAJDIN v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","During DATE and DATE NORP paramilitary forces gained control of CARDINAL of the territory of GPE and proclaimed the \u201c GPE \u201d ( NORP autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter \u201c LOC \u201d ) . At DATE the NORP authorities announced their intention to take military action with the aim of regaining control over LOC . The operation was codenamed \u201c Storm \u201d ( 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 , and also 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 .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 close relatives , ORG and ORG , were killed in a house in GPE , a town on the territory of LOC . The police were alerted to the killings on DATE . On DATE the bodies were buried in a cemetery in PERSON .","On DATE the police interviewed PERSON , who said that on DATE he had been wounded by the NORP army in GPE . DATE he had seen G.O. and PERSON alive but did not know what had happened to them after that because he had been taken to a hospital by a member of the NORP army .","On DATE the police interviewed GPE and ORG said that on DATE she had moved to a house in GPE , together with the first applicant , PERSON and PERSON On DATE the NORP army had entered GPE . When PERSON and ORG had been killed she had not been in the house and had not seen who had killed them . PERSON said that he had lived in GPE during the war . On DATE the NORP army had entered GPE . On CARDINAL DATE he had heard that GPE and ORG had been killed DATE before but had not seen who had done it .","On DATE the police interviewed the second applicant . He said that at the material time he had been serving as a NORP policeman in PERSON . He had learned about the killing of his wife PERSON and her mother PERSON on DATE when his son , who had lived with his mother and grandmother , had been brought to him . The son said that on TIME some members of the NORP army had come to their house and asked for the keys of a FAC vehicle parked in the courtyard but that his grandmother had shouted at them . The second applicant assumed that that had angered the soldiers who had then killed his wife and her mother .","On DATE the ORG asked the PERSON police whether the GPE area had been occupied on DATE ; whether the perpetrator of the killing of ORG had been identified ; and whether ORG had been a member of the paramilitary forces of LOC or of the NORP army . On DATE the NORP police department replied that PERSON had not been occupied on DATE because NORP paramilitary forces had left the area DATE as the NORP forces had advanced from the direction of PERSON . However , owing to the disorganised nature of the withdrawal of the NORP paramilitary forces , there had still been some armed members of the \u201c NORP army \u201d in the area . On DATE the NORP forces had started to enter the area and therefore it could be said that from a military point of view that area had been in a war zone . There had been no information about the people who had killed PERSON and she had not been registered as a member of any army .","On DATE the police interviewed the first applicant , who said that he had lived with his mother and grandmother in PERSON and that his father had been a NORP policeman . When the war had escalated in DATE his mother had stayed in PERSON , in occupied territory , since her mother was a disabled person who could not move at all . Some time at the beginning of Operation Storm his uncle had taken them all to a relative \u2019s house in GPE . On CARDINAL or DATE the NORP army had entered GPE . They had instructed them to put a white flag on their house to indicate that there were civilians living there and his mother had done so . The following day he had spent some time with NORP soldiers , QUANTITY from the house where he had been staying with his family . TIME he had heard some gunshots from the direction of the house but had not paid much attention to them . TIME he had returned home and had found his mother and grandmother shot dead in the house . He had informed some of the NORP soldiers about it . After that they had taken him to his father in PERSON . He could not remember whether there had been any dispute between his mother and grandmother and NORP soldiers about the LOC parked in their courtyard , which had belonged to his uncle .","On DATE the police interviewed GPE , a policeman who had carried out an inspection of the crime scene . He described how he had found the bodies of GPE and PERSON On DATE another police officer , GPE , made a note stating that on DATE he had inspected the premises of the elementary school in GPE , where he had found the following inscriptions on the walls : \u201c ORG , ORG DATE , GPE , CARDINALth regiment ORG \u201d and \u201c Tigers TNT No CARDINAL \u2013 Moles \u201d .","On DATE the NORP police lodged a criminal complaint with the NORP County State Attorney \u2019s ORG against unknown perpetrators in connection with the killing of ORG and ORG","On DATE the police interviewed PERSON . PERSON who said that she had not been in GPE during LOC and had no direct knowledge about the killing of GPE and ORG","On DATE a Deputy State Attorney of the NORP State Attorney \u2019s ORG interviewed the applicants , who repeated their previous statements . The first applicant added that in his opinion the NORP soldiers who had killed his mother and grandmother had not been those who had been the first to enter GPE because that group had treated civilians correctly .","On DATE the NORP police asked ORG about the NORP army units which had been in GPE DATE , the identity of their commanders and all their members . That request was repeated on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant asked ORG , the ORG Attorney , the GPE Attorney , ORG and the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG to identify the perpetrators of the killing of his mother and grandmother .","On DATE the NORP police drew up a note on the investigation . It stated that documents about the NORP army units present in GPE in the material period ( those documents have not been submitted to ORG ) showed that on DATE at CARDINAL a.m. PERSON had been liberated by members of ORG of PERSON ( CARDINAL . domobranska pukovnija PERSON ) , under the command of Captain ( satnik ) PERSON On DATE at TIME the armoured battalion of the \u201c ORG \u201d ORG ( oklopna bojna CARDINAL . gardijske brigade \u201c Tigrovi \u201d ) under the command of Captain Lj . U. , as well as ORG of the First Guards Brigade ( CARDINAL . pje\u0161a\u010dka bojna CARDINAL . gardijske brigade ) under the command of Major PERSON , had arrived .","On DATE the following NORP army units had been in GPE : ORG of the CARDINALrd Domobran Regiment from GPE under the command of Captain PERSON and the IS-CARDINAL ( izvidni\u010dka skupina IS-CARDINAL ) patrol group comprised of the soldiers NORP , PERSON , ORG and ORG , under the command of ORG ( razvodnik ) PERSON","DATE and DATE the police interviewed several NORP soldiers who belonged to the units of the NORP army that had been in GPE on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","ORG , the commander of ORG , said that they had entered GPE on TIME CARDINAL DATE . At the same time the ORG under the command of PERSON had been coming to GPE from the direction of PERSON . He had no knowledge of the killing of CARDINAL women in GPE . As regards the officers of ORG , Z.K. had been in command of ORG ( prva satnija ) , PERSON of ORG ( druga satnija ) and ORG ( who had died later on ) of ORG ( tre\u0107a satnija ) . The brigade also had a mortar unit ( mitnica CARDINAL ) under the command of GPE , a communications squad ( desetina za veze ) led by PERSON , a medical platoon ( sanitrani vod ) headed by PERSON and an anti - tank platoon ( protuoklopni vod ) under the command of D.S.","ORG , the second - in - command of ORG , confirmed that PERSON had been the commander . The regiment had been composed of CARDINAL companies . The First and Second Companies had been under the command of ORG and ORG respectively , but he could not remember the commander of ORG . He said that owing to the passage of time he could not remember the places they had been during LOC . He had no knowledge about the killing of civilians in GPE .","Officer PERSON of the PERSON police said that he had heard about the killing of his colleague \u2019s wife and her mother , but had no relevant information .","GPE , the commander of ORG of Ogulin , said that that formation had comprised CARDINAL battalions . His ORG and ORG , which had been under the command of ORG , had had CARDINAL soldiers . ORG had been under the command of ORG He then described the units of ORG and named the commanders he could remember . He had no knowledge about the killing of civilians in GPE .","A.B. , the commander of a platoon of ORG , said that he and his men had spent TIME in GPE during LOC but could not say on DATE exactly . None of the soldiers in his platoon had searched for civilians in houses and he had no knowledge about the killing of GPE and ORG","ORG , the commander of the medical squad of ORG , said that his battalion had entered GPE at TIME on DATE and had stayed there for DATE . There had been no military action and he had not given any medical assistance to anyone in GPE . He knew nothing about the killing of CARDINAL women there .","Officer PERSON of the PERSON police said that during Operation Storm a NORP soldier had approached him and told him that a child in GPE needed transport . PERSON had gone with his colleague PERSON to GPE where they had found CARDINAL dead bodies and a child in a house . They had taken the child to Slunj police station to join his father , PERSON . PERSON confirmed that statement .","ORG said that he had been a policeman in PERSON during LOC and had been the one who had found the bodies of GPE and ORG","Between DATE and DATE the police conducted further interviews with NORP soldiers GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , who all said they had no knowledge about the killing of PERSON and ORG In the same period the police also interviewed the GPE relatives GPE , GPE and GPE , who had all heard about the killing of ORG and ORG but had no relevant information about possible perpetrators ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145005","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF A.K. v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , who was DATE at the time , discovered that she was in DATE of pregnancy during a gynaecological examination at ORG .","On DATE , in DATE of pregnancy according to her medical notes ( medical record no . CARDINAL ) , the applicant had an appointment with her gynaecologist , PERSON , at ORG . The medical record notes that , during the appointment PERSON issued a referral for the applicant to undergo an alpha - fetoprotein ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) test on DATE , DATE . The test checks the level of ORG in a pregnant woman \u2019s blood as an indicator of potential foetal abnormalities . The applicant disputes the authenticity of medical record no . CARDINAL and denies that any referral was made .","The applicant did not attend the appointment for the ORG test on DATE .","DATE the applicant regularly attended appointments with PERSON and her general practitioner .","On DATE the applicant gave birth to a daughter with PERSON \u2019s syndrome .","NORP The applicant was discharged from hospital on DATE . She claims that DATE she went to ORG to obtain a copy of her medical records . She was given her medical records and made a copy at the hospital , before returning them . According to the applicant , her copy of medical record no . CARDINAL contained no reference to the DATE referral for an ORG test .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( \u201c the MADEKKI \u201d ) about the quality of the antenatal medical care provided by PERSON In particular , she complained that PERSON had failed to refer her for the ORG test , which would have indicated the risk of foetal abnormality .","On DATE the PERSON requested ORG to forward the applicant \u2019s medical records .","On DATE the PERSON interviewed PERSON explained that although the applicant had been referred for the ORG test on DATE , she had failed to attend because she had been hospitalised . Following her release from hospital there had been no point in carrying out an ORG test since she was by then in DATE of pregnancy . PERSON referred to the fact that the applicant had been referred for a genetic consultation in DATE of pregnancy . PERSON also explained that after the baby had been delivered , she had discovered that the applicant \u2019s eldest son had a mental illness , a fact which the applicant had concealed during her pregnancy . The applicant had further concealed the excessive alcohol consumption of her partner and father of the child .","On DATE , having examined the applicant \u2019s medical records and interviewed relevant doctors , the PERSON issued its opinion . It found that although the applicant had been referred for the ORG test , PERSON had failed to ensure that the test was carried out . This failure was , it said , contrary to Ordinance No . CARDINAL concerning antenatal and prenatal care ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON was given an administrative fine of CARDINAL NORP lati .","On DATE the PERSON informed the applicant of its finding that she had received antenatal medical care in accordance with national law , save that PERSON had failed to ensure that she had undergone the ORG test . It noted that ORG screening results could neither confirm nor exclude a congenital foetus abnormality but would rather serve as an indicator for further examinations . It also explained that the applicant bore some responsibility herself as she had failed to inform Dr L. of her eldest son \u2019s illness . Had PERSON been aware of the illness , she would have arranged for a medical genetic consultation in DATE of the applicant \u2019s pregnancy , thus ensuring a timely diagnosis . Finally , the PERSON informed the applicant of her right to apply to the law enforcement authorities within DATE of its decision if she was not satisfied with it .","On DATE the applicant officially requested access to her medical records . An approved copy was issued to her on DATE . She claims that she subsequently formed the view that DATE entry in medical record no . CARDINAL concerning her referral for an ORG test had been added at DATE .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to investigate whether the discrepancies in the CARDINAL copies of medical record no . CARDINAL amounted to falsification of documents . She also alleged negligence on the part of PERSON In support of her allegation , she submitted the unapproved copy of her medical records which she claims to have made in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the police interviewed PERSON explained that in DATE of pregnancy she had referred the applicant for the ORG test but the test had not been carried out , for unknown reasons , because the applicant had failed to attend the appointment . PERSON referred to the applicant \u2019s right to refuse the test . She added that the applicant had concealed the genetic illness of her eldest son . Had his situation been disclosed , PERSON said that she would have arranged an immediate consultation with diagnosis by DATE of pregnancy . As regards medical record no . CARDINAL , PERSON explained that the entries in the record were made over an extended period of time as examination results were received and further appointments and treatment instructed . She also explained that medical record no . DATE had disappeared in DATE and was only recovered at DATE , when it was placed in the reception at ORG outside its working hours . She told the police that it was not in the interests of the medical staff to lose or conceal the record , since it meant that all the medical examinations would have to be carried out again .","On DATE the police refused to institute criminal proceedings for falsification of records or negligence . The investigators were satisfied that the applicant had been referred for the test but that she had not turned up for the appointment . The investigators also found that there were no technical means available to establish precisely the time when the contested data concerning the referral had been entered in the applicant \u2019s medical file .","On DATE the applicant appealed the decision . She sought the institution of criminal proceedings for falsification of documents by a group of persons . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and ordered further investigation into the disappearance of the applicant \u2019s medical record and the making of the contested entry .","In DATE further police investigations were carried out . ORG confirmed that it did not have the ability to establish , by forensic methods , the date on which the contested entry was made . PERSON was questioned again and confirmed the disappearance of the medical record in DATE . The applicant \u2019s general practitioner and nurse were interviewed . The nurse told the police that in DATE the applicant had frequently visited her general practitioner and brought medical record no . CARDINAL with her , in order to record future appointments . The general practitioner had updated the record during her visits and returned it to her . Staff of A. Hospital were also interviewed and confirmed the temporary disappearance of the applicant \u2019s medical record .","On DATE the police refused to institute criminal proceedings for falsification of documents by a group of persons .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed the decision . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and again remitted the complaint for further investigation . It noted that the applicant had submitted a non - approved copy of medical record no . CARDINAL and referred to the need to ascertain whether there were witnesses who could testify that the contested entry was missing in DATE when the copy was allegedly made .","On DATE , after further interviews with PERSON and the applicant \u2019s general practitioner , the police again refused to institute criminal proceedings . They concluded that it was not possible to determine whether the information concerning the disputed referral for the ORG test had been missing from the applicant \u2019s medical records in DATE .","The refusal to institute proceedings was upheld by ORG on DATE . However , on CARDINAL DATE , following an appeal by the applicant to ORG , the latter revoked the decision of DATE and instituted criminal proceedings .","On DATE the police requested forensic tests on medical record no . CARDINAL . An expert report dated DATE concluded that the medical records were not falsified but that they had been supplemented with new information over an extended period of time .","On DATE the applicant was informed that the criminal proceedings had been terminated owing to the expiry of the statutory limitation period .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged a claim for damages against ORG . She contended that PERSON had been negligent as she had not identified the applicant as belonging to a high - risk group and had not referred her for the ORG test . The applicant also alleged that PERSON had subsequently modified the medical records in order to conceal the failure . She further claimed that PERSON had not put in place a medical care plan in respect of her pregnancy and was therefore not in a position to provide the applicant with the necessary information on her treatment , in violation of sections DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . As a result of these failings , the applicant had been prevented from availing herself of her right to agree to or decline the ORG test . She claimed that had she known that the child had a congenital disease , she would have chosen to undergo an abortion on medical grounds . She claimed compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage , including compensation for lost wages and a lump - sum maintenance award for her daughter .","A hearing took place on DATE . The applicant \u2019s legal representative asked the court to hear the applicant as a witness in order for her to give evidence on the facts of the case . The court rejected the application without providing reasons . However , it granted the defendant \u2019s application for PERSON to appear as a witness and give oral evidence .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s civil claim . The court held that , as it could not be proved that PERSON had falsified the applicant \u2019s medical records , the applicant had failed to turn up for the ORG test . It also noted that she had failed to inform PERSON of her eldest child \u2019s condition . It found that the applicant was not in a high - risk category merely on account of her age , and that the applicant was to blame for the fact that the ORG test was not carried out . It concluded that there was no causal link between the actions of PERSON and the birth of the applicant \u2019s child . Even though PERSON had been given an administrative fine for her failure to ensure that the applicant had the ORG test , this was insufficient to prove that PERSON had been at fault .","The applicant appealed . She argued that Dr. PERSON had been obliged to take all medical steps to establish whether her unborn child was healthy . Since she had not done everything required of her in order to discover the child \u2019s genetic abnormality in a timely manner , it had not been possible for the applicant to prevent the birth of a child with a congenital disorder . The applicant argued that the court had erred in finding that she did not belong to a risk group due to her age , since Ordinance No . CARDINAL indicated that pregnant women above DATE should have the ORG test . She also contended that the court had erred in concluding that she had been referred for the test . She maintained that the court \u2019s conclusion that she herself was to blame for the fact the test was not carried out was unfounded since the case file contained no evidence in that regard . Furthermore , she claimed that the court had given no reasons for relying on the medical records used by the PERSON instead of the earlier copy of the medical record that she had submitted . In any event , the applicant argued that even if she had been referred for the test , the referral was already too late as on DATE allegedly fixed for the test she was already in DATE of pregnancy . She further contended that had she refused to take the test , the doctor would have made a corresponding note in the medical record . As regards her eldest son , the applicant pointed out that PERSON had never asked her about the health of her other children and explained that her son had developed schizophrenia at DATE . She insisted that there was in her view a causal link between the PERSON failures and the birth of her child and that damages ought to be paid .","On DATE a hearing took place on DATE before ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas PERSON tiesu pal\u0101ta ) . The applicant \u2019s legal representatives were unable to attend but the applicant asked the court to proceed in their absence . The applicant made submissions on her own behalf , and answered questions posed by the court . The court heard evidence from a representative of ORG , who explained the system of record - keeping at ORG and the loss of the applicant \u2019s medical record , and from PERSON testified that only an amniocentesis allowed an effective diagnosis of PERSON \u2019s syndrome . Although the risk of congenital abnormalities increased with age , the fact that the applicant was DATE was not as such an indicator that she ought to have an amniocentesis , which carried with it the risk of miscarriage . There were no objective medical indications to justify a referral for that procedure in the applicant \u2019s case . PERSON referred to the applicant \u2019s failure to disclose the condition of her eldest son and to disclose her husband \u2019s alcoholism .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . It agreed with the first - instance court \u2019s conclusion that applicant \u2019s allegations concerning the alteration of her medical record had not been proven , noting that the copy of the medical record submitted by her was not certified . The court also noted the PERSON \u2019s conclusion concerning the applicant \u2019s failure to inform PERSON of her eldest son \u2019s illness , observing that the \u201c mother \u2019s passport \u201d , which the applicant had at all times , drew attention to the importance of informing the doctor of any diseases suffered by existing children . It referred to PERSON evidence that , had she known of the illness , she would have ordered additional tests and examinations . The court also pointed out that LAW set out a duty on patients to comply with ORG instructions ; the applicant was accordingly under a duty to undergo the ORG test which she had been referred . The fact that there was no record in writing of her refusal to take the test was not proof of the fact that she had never been referred for it .","Finally , the ORG held that PERSON could not be held responsible for the child \u2019s genetic condition since no causal link could be established between the actions of PERSON and the child \u2019s condition . It also noted that :","\u201c The result of the ORG test ... could neither confirm nor exclude genetic abnormality of a foetus , but would serve as an indication for further examination .","Therefore the [ applicant \u2019s ] allegations that the results of the ORG test would have provided her [ with ] an opportunity to choose whether to continue with or terminate the pregnancy could not in itself serve as a basis to uphold the claim . \u201d","The only shortcoming in the applicant \u2019s medical care had been the failure to ensure that the ORG test was actually carried out . The court noted that the PERSON had already fined PERSON for this omission .","As regards the alleged falsification of medical record no . CARDINAL , it found that , since the applicant \u2019s medical record was missing at the time of her DATE appointment with PERSON , the latter had made her notes on a separate sheet of paper which had been added to the medical record once it had been recovered . The court noted the finding of the PERSON that the applicant had been referred for the ORG test and further recorded that the applicant did not dispute that she had attended an appointment with PERSON on DATE . It referred to the decision of the police of DATE not to institute criminal proceedings because there was no evidence that the medical record had been falsified . It therefore found that the applicant \u2019s account of the reason for the differences in the CARDINAL copies of her medical records had not been proven to be true .","On DATE the applicant obtained a copy of the expert report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The applicant subsequently filed an appeal on points of law . She argued that ORG had not assessed correctly whether the failure of PERSON to ensure that the ORG test was carried out had infringed the applicant \u2019s right to find out about any foetal abnormality . Even though the court had concluded that she had been referred for the ORG test , the judgment did not address whether the referral complied with section CARDINAL of LAW , i.e. whether she had received all the necessary information about the test ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Further , the applicant submitted that the court should have applied section CARDINAL of LAW and insisted that any refusal of the treatment should have been in writing ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She also submitted that the court had wrongly interpreted section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) by stating that she had been obliged to carry out the ORG , as it had not taken into account the need for free and informed consent before any medical intervention . Finally , she argued that in assessing whether PERSON actions had been wrongful , such as to give rise to damages , the court should have assessed whether the doctor had complied with the applicable rules , including the Ordinance No . CARDINAL . The court \u2019s conclusions as to the lack of a causal link were not compatible with the GPE , since had PERSON complied with her legal obligations , the applicant could have found out that the foetus had a genetic disease and could have availed herself of her right to have an abortion on medical grounds , thereby preventing the birth of the child . Accordingly , she maintained , the necessary causal link existed between PERSON wrongful actions and the birth of the child with PERSON \u2019s syndrome .","The applicant also contended that there had been a number of procedural failings before the appellate court . She alleged in particular that it had not assessed her claim for maintenance ; and that it had breached the rules in relation to assessment of evidence as it had uncritically accepted the testimony given by the doctor , had attached greater weight to the copy of the medical records submitted by the hospital than to the copy submitted by her , and had relied on the conclusions of the MADEKKI without itself verifying the facts .","On DATE the ORG of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The full text of the judgment was made available on DATE . The ORG concluded that , contrary to the applicant \u2019s allegations , the appellate court had come to its conclusions about the referral for the test and the applicant \u2019s failure to attend the appointment with due regard for a patient \u2019s right to receive information . Section CARDINAL of LAW was not applicable to this case as the applicant had simply not shown up for the test . The ORG further noted that applicant \u2019s arguments were based on the premise that she had not been referred to the test whereas the appellate court had found that a referral had been made . Her complaints of procedural flaws were rejected as unfounded","Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant asked the ORG of ORG to reopen the civil proceedings on the basis of newly discovered evidence , namely the expert report of DATE which she had recently seen for the first time ( see CARDINAL and DATE above ) . On DATE the ORG dismissed the request ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145311","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MUJKANOVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicants , PERSON , FAC , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON and Ms NORP are citizens of GPE and GPE who were born in DATE and DATE , respectively . They live in different towns near the city of PERSON . The applicants were represented by TRIAL ( Track Impunity Always ) , a non - profit organisation based in GPE . CARDINAL of them had been granted legal aid .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Deputy Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","After its declaration of independence on DATE , a brutal war started in GPE . It would appear that CARDINAL people lost their lives and CARDINAL people were displaced in the course of the war . It is estimated that around CARDINAL people went missing and that around DATE of them is still missing . The conflict came to an end on DATE when ORG in GPE entered into force . In accordance with that Agreement , GPE consists of CARDINAL Entities , ORG and PERSON .","NORP In response to atrocities then taking place in GPE , on DATE ORG passed LAW establishing ORG for the former GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , headquartered in GPE . CARDINAL individuals have already been convicted and proceedings are ongoing for CARDINAL accused . In the period from DATE until DATE , local prosecutors in GPE and GPE were required to submit case files to the ORG for review ; no person could be arrested on suspicion of war crimes unless ORG had received the case file beforehand and found it to contain credible charges ( the \u201c Rules of the Road \u201d procedure ) . Moreover , the ORG had primacy over national courts and could take over national investigations and proceedings at any stage in the interest of international justice . As part of the ORG \u2019s completion strategy , in DATE war crimes chambers were set up within ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) with primacy over other courts in GPE as regards war crimes ( for information about that court and its jurisdiction over war crimes cases , see ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ) . CARDINAL persons have been finally convicted by ORG .","Furthermore , ORG on ORG ( \u201c the ICMP \u201d ) was established at the initiative of GPE President PERSON in DATE . It is currently headquartered in GPE . Reportedly , the ICMP has so far identified by DNA CARDINAL missing persons in GPE , whereas local authorities have identified CARDINAL missing persons by traditional methods . In DATE the Government of GPE and the ICMP established a ORG , also headquartered in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It became operational on DATE .","NORP Before the DATE - CARDINAL war , the population of the municipality of PERSON was ethnically mixed : according to a DATE census , out of a total population of CARDINAL , PERCENT were ORG , PERCENT NORP , PERCENT NORP ; PERCENT others . On DATE ORG took control of the city of PERSON pursuant to a secret plan made in advance ( notably , ORG of the ORG of the NORP People in GPE in a State of Emergency , adopted by ORG of ORG on DATE ) . Shortly thereafter , ethnic cleansing began . By DATE , there were practically no FAC and NORP left in the municipality of PERSON ( about the situation in the PERSON area at that time , see the ORG judgment in the PERSON and ORG case , ORG , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE , not yet final ) .","One of the many crimes committed in the context of ethnic cleansing of the PERSON area was the taking of CARDINAL male detainees from Trnopolje camp to the location called GPE stijene and their killing by PERSON policemen on DATE . The men were made to leave the buses and walk towards the gorge where they were told to kneel down . Then the shooting began . The bodies fell into the gorge or were pushed over the edge . Grenades were then thrown into the gorge to make sure no one survived . The incident lasted for TIME . CARDINAL policemen were reported to be involved in the incident . CARDINAL persons survived the massacre , mainly by hiding under the corpses of others ( ibid . , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and the ORG judgment in the GPE case , IT-CARDINAL - CARDINAL-S , \u00a7 DATE ) . Mr PERSON ( the husband of ORG ) , Mr PERSON ( the son of FAC ) , Mr PERSON ( Mr PERSON father ) , PERSON Edin PERSON and PERSON ( the sons of Mr Muharem PERSON ) , PERSON and ORG ( Ms Naila PERSON \u2019s son and husband ) , and Mr PERSON ( Ms GPE Huskanovi\u0107 \u2019s husband ) were killed in that incident ( see the ORG judgment in the PERSON and ORG case , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ; and ORG judgment in the PERSON case , PERSON , p. CARDINAL , DATE ) .","On DATE Mr PERSON pleaded guilty before the ORG to having participated in the killing at GPE stijene . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE the ORG convicted PERSON , the leading figure in the war - time municipality of PERSON , for , among other crimes , the killing at GPE stijene and sentenced him to life imprisonment . On DATE an ORG upheld the convictions against Mr Staki\u0107 and rendered its judgment , sentencing him to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE a Trial Chamber of the ORG convicted PERSON PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON , key figures in the war - time police of ORG , of the participation in a joint criminal enterprise to remove ORG and NORP from the territory of ORG , a natural and foreseeable consequence of which was , among other crimes , the killing at GPE stijene ( the third category of joint criminal enterprise ORG definition of this form of liability is set out in the ORG judgment in the PERSON case , IT-CARDINAL - CARDINAL-A , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) . Each of them was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The case is currently pending before an ORG of the ORG .","A case against PERSON , the war - time President of PERSON , is also currently pending before the ORG . He is charged with , among other crimes , the participation in a joint criminal enterprise to permanently remove ORG and NORP from ORG , a natural and foreseeable consequence of which was the killing at GPE stijene ( the third category of joint criminal enterprise ) .","As indicated in paragraph CARDINAL above , war crimes chambers were set up within ORG in DATE . Shortly thereafter , ORG ( \u201c the State Prosecutor \u201d ) opened an investigation into the killing at GPE stijene . In DATE , CARDINAL persons were questioned . This led to indictments against CARDINAL persons ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Furthermore , international arrest warrants were issued against QUANTITY persons who are still on the run , PERSON and PERSON .","On DATE ORG issued an indictment against CARDINAL persons for having participated in the killing at GPE stijene as a crime against humanity ( namely , PERSON , PERSON , Ljubi\u0161a \u010ceti\u0107 , PERSON , FAC , PERSON , GPE Stojni\u0107 and ORG ) . It entered into force on DATE . At the arraignment of CARDINAL DATE , the accused pleaded not guilty . However , on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE CARDINAL of them , PERSON Ivankovi\u0107 , ORG and ORG , changed their plea to guilty . They were then sentenced to CARDINAL , DATE and DATE imprisonment , respectively .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG issued indictments against CARDINAL more individuals for the same crime ( PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON and PERSON ) . They entered into force on DATE and DATE , respectively . All the accused pleaded not guilty at their arraignment . ORG decided to join the cases against those CARDINAL individuals on DATE .","On DATE a Trial Chamber of ORG found CARDINAL persons guilty of participation in the killing at GPE stijene as a crime against humanity ( PERSON , FAC , PERSON and GPE ) and sentenced them , respectively , to CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE imprisonment . On DATE an ORG of ORG quashed that judgment and scheduled a fresh hearing . On DATE it convicted those CARDINAL people of the same offence and sentenced them to CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE imprisonment , respectively . CARDINAL accused in that case , Mr ORG , was acquitted .","On DATE a Trial Chamber of ORG found CARDINAL more persons guilty of that crime ( PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) and sentenced each of them to DATE imprisonment . The other CARDINAL accused in that case , PERSON and PERSON , were acquitted . An ORG of ORG has recently upheld that judgment .","On different dates DATE , the applicants sought and obtained declarations of presumed death with respect to their missing relatives .","CARDINAL exhumations have so far been carried out at GPE stijene : DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . CARDINAL victims have been identified by DNA ( see ORG judgment in the LOC and Others case , SCARDINAL CARDINAL K CARDINAL DATE KrI , pp . CARDINAL , DATE ) , including Mr PERSON on the basis of CARDINAL bones on DATE and Mr Zafir Bajri\u0107 on the basis of CARDINAL bones DATE . On DATE the ICMP confirmed through DNA tests also that some fragments of bones which had been exhumed at GPE stijene belonged to either Mr PERSON PERSON or Mr PERSON ( since they were brothers and did not have children , the available mortal remains were insufficient for definite identification ) .","Around ten burnt bodies were also exhumed ( ibid . , p. CARDINAL ) . These are impossible to identify .","In DATE all the applicants lodged constitutional appeals alleging that the authorities\u2019 reaction to the disappearance of their relatives amounted to a breach of LAW , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and\/or CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG decided to join CARDINAL similar cases and rendered a group decision finding a breach of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . It ordered the authorities to release any and all information in their custody pertaining to the fate or whereabouts of the missing persons in issue and to ensure that the ORG agencies envisaged by LAW ( ORG and ORG ) become operational DATE . No compensation was awarded .","Under its mandate to examine complaints about non - enforcement of its decisions , on DATE ORG concluded that the decision of DATE , mentioned above , was to be considered enforced notwithstanding the fact that some of the ORG agencies envisaged by LAW ( precisely , ORG and ORG ) had not yet become operational . It held that no further action was required from ORG as the failure to enforce a similar decision had already been reported to ORG ( non - enforcement of a final and enforceable decision of ORG amounts to a criminal offence ; for the relevant law in that regard , see GPE v. GPE and GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","NORP On different dates in DATE and DATE all of the applicants requested damages from ORG for the death of their relatives under PERSON general compensation scheme for war damage ( for more information about that scheme , see ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL et al . , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . Their requests were either rejected as out of time or are still pending . CARDINAL of the applicants , PERSON , has lodged an appeal with ORG in this connection which is still pending .","LAW entered into force on DATE ( ORG GPE no . CARDINAL ) . In accordance with section CARDINAL of the Act , families have the right to know the fate of missing persons ( that is , their whereabouts if they are still alive , or the circumstances of death and their place of burial , if they are dead ) and to obtain their mortal remains . Under section CARDINAL of the Act , the relevant domestic authorities have the obligation to provide any and all such information in their keeping .","Section CARDINAL of that LAW provides for the setting up of a Missing Persons Institute . In DATE the ICMP and the Government of GPE founded the ORG , headquartered in GPE , pursuant to that provision and the Agreement on Assuming ORG - founders of ORG , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It became operational on DATE . CARDINAL of the organs of that ORG , comprised of CARDINAL representatives of families of missing persons ( see LAW mentioned above ) .","In accordance with section CARDINAL of the LAW , the status of missing person comes to an end on the date of identification . Therefore , if a missing person is declared dead but the mortal remains have not been found and identified , the process of tracing continues .","Pursuant to LAW , the families of missing persons are entitled to DATE financial support under some conditions , notably if they were supported by the missing family member until his or her disappearance and if they are still in need of support ( in other words , if they are not in paid employment and do not receive welfare benefits beyond PERCENT of the average salary paid in GPE ) . LAW provides for the setting up of ORG for that purpose . However , as the ORG has not yet been established , no payment has been made so far .","Families of missing persons are also entitled to , inter alia , temporary administration of the property of missing persons , burial of mortal remains at public expense and priority in access to education and employment for the children of missing persons ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides for the setting up of ORG with the aim of verifying information about missing persons from different sources ( government agencies , associations of families of missing persons , the FAC and ORG ) and creating a single database . While ORG were founded on DATE , it would appear that the verification process is still ongoing . Once that process is completed , all those recorded as missing will be declared dead ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) , but the tracing process will nevertheless continue ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Despite the fact that the verification process outlined in paragraph CARDINAL above is pending , any person may request that a declaration of presumed death be issued with respect to a missing person ( see the Non - Contentious Procedure Act DATE , ORG GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; the Non - Contentious Procedure Act DATE , ORG of ORG , no . CARDINAL ) . Pursuant to an amendment to LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , which entered into force in DATE , relatives of missing persons were required to seek such declarations with respect to their missing relatives by DATE if they wished to maintain the social benefits provided by that Act . There is no such an obligation in the legislation of PERSON where most of the present applicants live ( all but PERSON ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171481","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . In applications nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and GPE , the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the LAW ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153907","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KHAVA AZIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Liberty of person;Security of person);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Life)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants are :","CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE , and","CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .","They live in ORG , GPE . They are the relatives of Mr FAC , who was born in DATE . The first applicant is his sister , the second and third applicants are his children .","At the material time the applicants and Mr PERSON lived at CARDINAL FAC , in the settlement of PERSON in PERSON . The first applicant \u2019s CARDINAL other brothers , PERSON and PERSON , had been convicted for the participation in illegal armed groups and were serving their sentences .","NORP In DATE Mr PERSON was arrested in GPE , GPE , and then convicted for the participation in illegal armed groups . In DATE he was released upon completion of the sentence .","For an unspecified period of time , prior to DATE , the first applicant was married to PERSON . who was wanted by the authorities for active membership in illegal armed groups . On DATE he had been killed as a result of a special operation carried out by the authorities in PERSON ( see application PERSON v GPE , no . CARDINAL concerning alleged abduction of the applicant \u2019s daughter PERSON by ORG agents during that special operation ) .","On DATE the applicants and their relatives were at home . Mr PERSON was not there . The applicants\u2019 neighbours in the house across the street ( at CARDINAL FAC ) were preparing a wedding dinner ; their house was full of guests .","In TIME on that date a large group of servicemen in military camouflage or black uniforms arrived in CARDINAL ORG and ORG model civilian vehicles and cordoned off several streets around the applicants\u2019 house . According to the applicants\u2019 neighbours , the servicemen blocked access to the nearby streets to its residents explaining that they were conducting a special operation .","At TIME a group of CARDINAL armed men arrived at the applicants\u2019 house in FAC in several vehicles . The men were in military camouflage uniforms , they were armed with automatic rifles , had portable radios and special military ammunition belts . The men spoke NORP and NORP . The applicants and their relatives thought that these men were police officers .","CARDINAL of the men went into the applicants\u2019 house whereas the rest remained outside blocking the building and the nearby houses . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL men , who was in charge of the group , demanded in NORP that the first applicant telephoned her brother Mr PERSON and asked him to come home without mentioning that the police were waiting for him . Meanwhile , CARDINAL other men quickly searched the house . CARDINAL of the intruders received a phone call on his mobile phone and explained to someone that he was at work .","The first applicant called Mr FAC and asked him to come home as soon as possible . Mr PERSON told her that he would be there in TIME . The man in charge of the ORG group stood next to the applicant and listened to the conversation . As soon as the conversation was over he took the phone away from her and went outside whilst CARDINAL of his colleagues remained in the house .","The first applicant looked out from the window and saw that a group of CARDINAL other men was standing under the shed in the yard .","TIME of the policemen opened the house door and asked his colleague to come out . The first applicant tried to follow the man , but he closed the door from the outside . TIME he opened it and left the yard . Immediately afterwards the first applicant heard several cars starting their engines and driving away from the house .","According to the applicants\u2019 neighbour , PERSON , she saw Mr FAC being taken away by the abductors who had waited for him next to the applicants\u2019 house .","A number of the applicants\u2019 neighbours and the wedding guests at CARDINAL FAC witnessed the arrival of the group of the men , who had resembled police officers , to the applicants\u2019 house and Mr GPE removal by them . According to the applicants , the overall duration of the special operation was TIME .","TIME after the abduction , the first applicant \u2019s relative PERSON A. - M.A. went to the NORP district department of the interior in PERSON ( the ROVD ) and complained in writing about the arrest of PERSON Rizvan Aziyev . The officers at the ROVD denied any involvement into the events .","On TIME , DATE , an officer who introduced himself as PERSON , the district police officer , arrived at the applicants\u2019 house , although neither the applicants nor their relatives had informed him about the events . The officer knew that Mr PERSON had been arrested and asked the applicants and their relatives about him and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He denied having any knowledge about the whereabouts of the applicants\u2019 relative but promised to assist the applicants in his release . TIME the applicants\u2019 relative , Mr A .- M.A. , spoke with him . The officer denied having any information concerning Mr PERSON whereabouts . Subsequently , the applicants found out that PERSON PERSON had not been a district police officer but a high - ranking officer of a NORP law - enforcement agency .","DATE the applicants and their relatives complained about the abduction to a number of local law - enforcement agencies . None of them accepted the responsibility for arresting or detaining Mr FAC .","On DATE the first applicant watched the video footage of the special operation conducted by the authorities against PERSON . on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and recognised one of the law - enforcement officers who had participated in the special operation against PERSON . as the commanding officer of the group of the abductors who had taken away Mr PERSON later on DATE . That officer on the video had spoken with the GPE Minister of the Interior Mr PERSON . It is unclear whether the first applicant informed the authorities thereof .","NORP The applicants\u2019 submission concerning the circumstances of the abduction and the surrounding events is based on the statements of the first applicant lodged with the application and the additional statement dated DATE , the statement of the applicants\u2019 neighbour Mr PERSON dated DATE , the statement of the applicants\u2019 relative Mr PERSON dated DATE and copies of the contents of the investigation file opened in connection with Mr PERSON abduction .","The Government did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicants . At the same time they pointed out that the abduction had been perpetrated by unidentified armed persons , whose outfits and firearms had been common among ordinary criminals , that the body of Mr PERSON was never found and that the witnesses to the abduction had not been sufficiently precise in the description of the ORG appearance .","On DATE the first applicant complained in writing about the abduction to the NORP inter - district prosecutor \u2019s office ( the prosecutor \u2019s office ) .","On DATE the investigator from the ROVD forwarded information requests to various district police departments in GPE asking whether Mr PERSON body had been found and\/or whether he had been detained by their agents .","On DATE a group of investigators from the prosecutor \u2019s office arrived at the applicants\u2019 house and briefly examined the crime scene . They only took photographs of the house and questioned PERSON who stated that she had seen the abductors taking away Mr PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the investigators again examined the crime scene and collected photos and the passport of Mr FAC .","On DATE the NORP district investigating department of the prosecutor \u2019s office ( the investigating department ) instituted an investigation into the abduction of Mr FAC under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was given the number DATE .","On DATE the interim head of the investigating department ordered that by CARDINAL DATE the investigators into the abduction took , amongst others , the following steps :","\u201c ... the murder of Mr PERSON could have been committed by servicemen of law - enforcement agencies .","To investigate the matter fully and thoroughly and identify the perpetrators , it is necessary to ... establish eye - witness to the crime and obtain their information concerning its circumstances and the culprits ... \u201d","On DATE the investigators forwarded information requests to local hospitals and detention centres asking whether they had any information concerning Mr PERSON . The replies received were in the negative .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 relatives , PERSON . A. and Mr ORG , were granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigators reiterated their information requests to various district police departments in GPE asking whether Mr PERSON body had been found and\/or whether he had been detained by their agents . The replies received were in the negative .","On DATE the deputy head of the GPE investigating committee criticised the investigation in the criminal case and ordered that , amongst others , that the following steps be taken :","\u201c ... to correct the deficiencies of the investigation in the criminal case ... it is necessary :","- to examine again the crime scene to find such evidence as fingerprints with the participation of the [ relevant ] forensic expert ; ...","- to obtain list of phone calls made by Mr PERSON ... and the list of all mobile phone calls made in the vicinity of the crime scene DATE and establish the owners of the phone numbers from which they had originated ... \u201d","On DATE or DATE the investigators again examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On an unspecified date DATE the investigators obtained a detailed list of connections made from the Mr PERSON mobile telephone on the date of the abduction , CARDINAL DATE . According to the list , after the abduction , text - messages were received by the phone in the vicinity of the town of LOC which was QUANTITY from ORG .","According to the applicants , the investigators did not inform them of the progress in the criminal case . The applicants were able to familiarise themselves with the contents of the investigation file only after having been provided with a copy of its contents furnished by the Government upon the ORG \u2019s request to this end made on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant complained to the head of the GPE investigating department that the investigation of her brother \u2019s abduction was ineffective , stating , amongst other things , the following :","\u201c ... I familiarised myself with the contents of the criminal case file as a result of which the following has been established :","My brother had been detained at TIME on DATE . The case file contains the list of his mobile phone connections for DATE . According to that list , after the abduction , my brother \u2019s mobile telephone had received a text message while being in LOC . At that time a checkpoint had been functioning on the roads leading from ORG to Argun . Therefore , the persons who had detained my brother had taken him or his telephone to ORG ; they had passed through CARDINAL checkpoints of the law enforcement agencies . However , there is nothing in the case file showing that the investigators had taken any steps in respect of the staff who had manned those checkpoints on DATE .","NORP On DATE the persons who had detained my brother had carried out a special operation in PERSON . From the information obtained from the local residents , they had condoned off several streets and had not allowed anyone into the sealed off area .... In addition , these persons had used CARDINAL vehicles ... from the case file it does not follow that the investigation took steps to verify this information .","The investigators , when questioning the local residents , could have asked them not only of the vehicles used by the abductors , but also of the direction in which they had left . However , no such steps have been taken .","Mr PERSON had been abducted by a large group of armed persons who had arrived in CARDINAL vehicles and cordoned off significant area in PERSON . Every time if a member or several members of illegal armed groups resurface in GPE , the authorities take urgent steps to eliminate them . In my brother \u2019s case , the law - enforcement agencies had failed to take any steps to search for his abductors . They had arrived at the crime scene to inspect it DATE after the crime had been reported to them , in spite of the fact that already in TIME after the abduction my cousin Mr A .- M.A. had informed LOC of the abduction . From this it is possible to conclude that the authorities had known that the persons who had detained my brother , had belonged to law - enforcement agencies . It also follows that the investigation in the criminal case should have questioned lawenforcement officials responsible for LOC in PERSON in order to find out the reasons for their failure to take urgent steps to apprehend the abductors ...","The persons who detained my brother on DATE had been armed , in camouflage uniforms , had arrived as a large group , driven openly around PERSON and cordoned off large areas in the town . Nonetheless , the law enforcement authorities , having received the information about the abduction , had taken no steps to identify and arrest them . Such circumstances provide me with grounds to believe that my brother had been a victim of the ORG agents as a result of their special operation . In spite of those clear facts , the authorities had failed to establish the law - enforcement agencies empowered to carry out such operations in LOC in PERSON and to questions their servicemen .","From the above it follows that the investigation should have obtained information of all special operations conducted in ORG on DATE and their results . From the case file it follows that no such information was requested by the investigators .","... I and my relatives believe that PERSON provided the authorities with information about my brother which served as the basis for his arrest . Of course , GPE had known my former husband [ Mr A.Kh . ] . In connection with this the investigation in the criminal case should verify the theory of my brother \u2019s abduction by the same persons who had abducted PERSON and question the lawenforcement officer known as Mr PERSON who had asked me about PERSON . From the case file it follows that no steps have been taken to follow up on this information .","... In the light of the above , the actions of the investigation in the criminal case which led to failure to take the above and other investigative steps are unlawful and unsubstantiated ...","On the basis of the above ... I request that you :","Recognise as unlawful and unsubstantiated the actions of the investigators in criminal case no . DATE for the failure to take all of the above investigative steps ;","Oblige the investigators in the criminal case to resume the proceedings and take the above steps ;","Inform me of the results of the examination of this request in accordance with the law ... \u201d","It is unclear whether any reply has been given to this request .","No further information was submitted to ORG on the progress of the proceedings ; but from the documents submitted it follows that the investigation is still pending .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants\u2019 relative PERSON . A. who provided detailed description of the abduction similar to the applicants\u2019 account submitted to the Court .","On DATE or DATE ( the date is illegible ) the investigators questioned the ORG neighbour PERSON whose statement was similar to that of the applicants submitted before the ORG . In addition , she stated that the abductors had told her in NORP to get back in the house and stay inside . From the conversation she had overheard between them , the witness had understood that the fair - haired intruder of medium height and solid built in embroidered scullcap ( tubeteyka ) had been in charge of the group .","On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant whose statement was similar to the applicants\u2019 account submitted before the ORG .","On DATE the investigators also questioned Mr A .- M.A. whose statement was similar to the ORG account submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the investigators again questioned PERSON . A. and Mr A .- M.A. , both of whom reiterated their previously given statements .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant who reiterated her previously given statement .","On DATE the investigators also questioned the applicants\u2019 relative and the father of Mr PERSON , Mr GPE , whose statement was similar to the applicants\u2019 account submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants\u2019 neighbour PERSON whose statement was similar to the applicants\u2019 account submitted before the ORG . In addition , she stated that the abductors had spoken NORP and that she had subsequently learnt from the first applicant that when the abductors had arrived at their house , Mr FAC had been in a shop in the CARDINALrd district in ORG .","DATE . On DATE the investigators again questioned PERSON . A. and the first applicant both of whom reiterated their previously given statements .","The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that ORG agents had taken away Mr FAC and subsequently killed him . In support of their complaint they referred to the following facts . The abductors had arrived as a large group of armed men in uniforms in numerous civilian vehicles which were typically used by the local law - enforcement agencies ; the abductors had used portable radio - stations and condoned off a large area , which would have been impossible for an illegal armed group . The abductors had acted openly , without any fear of being discovered by the authorities and openly spoken with the applicants\u2019 neighbours . The abductors had acted as an organised group under chain of command and had been able to drive unobstructed through checkpoints in the area . The authorities had not taken any urgent steps to establish the whereabouts of Mr FAC in spite of the applicants\u2019 immediate complaint about it . Finally , the authorities had motives for the abduction of Mr FAC owing to his past as a member of illegal armed groups and his acquaintanceship with PERSON . who had been killed during the special operation carried out in another neighbourhood in PERSON on the same date . The applicants submitted that they had made a prima facie case that their relative had been abducted by ORG agents and that the essential facts underlying their complaints had not been challenged by the Government . They stressed that Mr PERSON had disappeared in life - threatening circumstances , that he had been missing for DATE of time and that therefore , he must be presumed dead .","The applicants further argued that the investigation of the abduction had been ineffective . In particular , they alleged that the investigators had either failed to take a number of crucial investigative steps or they had taken important steps with major delays and deficiencies . In spite of being informed of the abduction shortly after the events , the authorities opened the criminal case only on DATE and carried out the crime scene examination without forensic experts only on DATE , almost in DATE after the report of the abduction . By DATE the crime scene had not been examined by forensic experts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that had led to the loss of such evidence as the culprits\u2019 fingerprints , and the tracks of their boots and the PERSON tires . Not all the witnesses to the events had been established and those who had been identified and questioned had been questioned belatedly and in a superficial manner . The investigation into the abduction had accepted the theory that the perpetrators belonged to the ORG authorities and forwarded information requests to verify whether Mr FAC had been in State custody whereas the other theories had not been verified . Despite the clear indications to the special operation against Mr FAC , the investigators neither took steps to identify and question the law - enforcement officials as to the reasons for their belated reaction to the abduction nor requested information on special operations carried out in the area on DATE . The investigation was suspended in spite of the ORG failure to take basic steps ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Referring to the cases PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE the ORG contended that the applicants had failed to make a prima facie case of ORG agents\u2019 involvement into the abduction as the witnesses had not been sufficiently precise in the description of the perpetrators ; the vehicles , uniforms and the firearms of the abductors could have been used by any other criminals and that there was no proof that Mr FAC had been dead as his body was never found . They further claimed that the investigation of the incident had met the Convention requirement of effectiveness , as all possible measures available under national law were being taken to have the crime solved .","The ORG points out that a number of principles have been developed in its case - law as regards applications in which it is faced with the task of establishing facts on which the parties disagree . As to the facts that are in dispute , the ORG reiterates its jurisprudence requiring the standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d in its assessment of evidence ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII ) . Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . In this context , the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account ( see ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVIII ) .","The ORG is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and recognises that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first - instance tribunal of fact , where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case ( see , for example , ORG v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . Nonetheless , where allegations are made under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention , the ORG must apply a particularly thorough scrutiny ( see , mutatis mutandis , PERSON v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL , and ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) , even if certain domestic proceedings and investigations have already taken place .","The period of time that has elapsed since the person disappeared , although not decisive in itself , is a relevant factor to be taken into account . It must be accepted that the more time that goes by without any news of the disappeared person , the greater the likelihood that he or she has died . The passage of time may therefore to some extent affect the weight to be attached to other elements of circumstantial evidence before it can be concluded that the person concerned is to be presumed dead . Such an interpretation is in keeping with the effective protection of the right to life as afforded by LAW see , among other authorities , NORP v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , ECHR CARDINALVI ) .","The ORG reiterates that where the applicant makes out a prima facie case , it is for the Government to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred . The burden of proof is thus shifted to the Government and if they fail in their arguments , issues will arise under LAW ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , and Akkum and Others v. GPE , no . LOC , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALII ) .","The ORG notes that in reply to its request for a copy of the investigation file into the abduction of Mr Rizvan Aziyev , the Government furnished its contents reflecting the period of the investigation DATE and DATE . The Government furnished no further updates on the progress of the proceedings . The applicants , on their part , updated the ORG on the progress in the proceedings to the extent known to them .","The ORG notes that the criminal case materials in its possession reflect primarily DATE of the investigation into the circumstances of the abduction . Taking into account the importance of DATE of an investigation into disappearance for the subsequent progress of the proceedings , the ORG finds that the materials furnished by the parties suffice for the examination of the application .","DATE . In view of the parties\u2019 submission , the Court\u2019s\u2019 relative . As for the Government \u2019s reference to PERSON and Others , cited above , \u00a7 DATE , the ORG notes , that unlike in that case where the abductors had arrived on foot and where the ORG statements concerning the perpetrators had been vague , in the present one there are materials in its possession demonstrating the validity of the ORG allegation of special operation for the following reasons . In spite of the absence at the material time of curfew in the area and the abductors arrival at the applicants\u2019 house in civilian vehicles \u2013 unlike in numerous other cases concerning abductions perpetrated by ORG agents in the same district DATE prior to the events in question ( see , for example , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE concerning abduction perpetrated in DATE ) the ORG would like to point out the following . Firstly , the abductors arrived as a large group in CARDINAL vehicles ; they cordoned off several streets and acted as an organised group . Their vehicles were able to drive freely through the military checkpoints situated in vicinity of PERSON . The abductors had informed the local residents that they had been conducting a special operation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . Secondly , from the investigation file it follows that the investigators took no meaningful steps to check whether the abduction could have been perpetrated for other reasons , such as a blood feud , ransom , drugs or hostility . No serious steps were taken to verify those hypotheses and no information was obtained that the abductors could have been other than ORG agents ( see , by contrast , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , LAW , DATE ) . Lastly , the reluctance of the authorities to verify the information concerning the connection between the abduction of Mr PERSON and the killing on DATE as a result of the special operation of PERSON . ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) provide the ORG with the grounds to conclude that the applicants have made a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents . The Government \u2019s statement that the investigators found no evidence proving the involvement of members of lawenforcement authorities in Mr PERSON disappearance is insufficient to discharge them from the above - mentioned burden of proof . Having examined the documents submitted by the parties and drawing inferences from the ORG \u2019s failure to provide another plausible explanation for the events in question , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was arrested on DATE by ORG servicemen .","There has been no reliable news of Mr PERSON since his arrest . The Government have not submitted any explanation as to what happened to him afterwards .","The ORG finds that , in a situation where a person is detained by unidentified police officers without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention and is then missing for DATE , that situation can be regarded as life - threatening . The absence of Mr PERSON or of any news of him for DATE supports this assumption .","Accordingly , the ORG finds that the evidence available permits it to establish to the requisite standard of proof that Mr PERSON must be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention by ORG agents ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175553","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"KABUL v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in \u015e\u0131rnak .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of membership of an illegal terrorist organisation .","On DATE the judge at ORG took the applicant \u2019s statement and subsequently ordered his pre - trial detention .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant , charging him with membership of a terrorist organisation , and storage and use of explosive materials .","During the trial , ORG prolonged the applicant \u2019s detention having regard to the strong suspicion of the suspect \u2019s having committed the offences in issue and the fact that the offences in question fell within the categories listed in LAW .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for membership of a terrorist organisation and storage of explosive materials .","According to the information in the case file , the proceedings are currently pending before ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142672","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NATSVLISHVILI AND TOGONIDZE v. GEORGIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Right of appeal in criminal matters (Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Higher tribunal;Review of conviction;Review of sentence);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu B\u00eersan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["The first and second applicants were born in DATE and DATE and currently live in GPE , GPE , and GPE , GPE , respectively . They are husband and wife .","The first applicant was the deputy mayor of GPE , the second largest city in GPE , from DATE and the managing director of the company operating the ORG ( \u201c the factory \u201d ) , one of the most important public companies in the country , from DATE . On DATE he was appointed chairman of the factory \u2019s supervisory committee at the ORG general meeting .","The first applicant owned PERCENT of the shares through purchases made in DATE and DATE and was the principal shareholder in the factory after the ORG ( PERCENT of the shares ) . The second applicant owned PERCENT of the shares , purchased in DATE , so together the couple owned a total of PERCENT of the shares .","The first applicant was kidnapped in DATE . After being severely ill - treated by his abductors , he was released in exchange for a large ransom paid by his family .","On DATE the first applicant was accused of illegally reducing the share capital of the factory , for which he had first been responsible as managing director and then as chairman of the supervisory committee . He was charged with making fictitious sales , transfers and writeoffs , and spending the proceeds without regard to the company \u2019s interests ( LAW \u2013 \u201c abuse of authority by embezzling and misappropriating the property of others \u201d ) .","On DATE the police and the LOC prosecutor went to the first applicant \u2019s workplace to arrest him . The arrest was filmed by journalists and broadcast on a local private television station TIME . The broadcast consisted of an interview with the prosecutor following footage showing the first applicant \u2019s arrest and escort down a flight of stairs , with his arms held by policemen and surrounded by journalists . The prosecutor made CARDINAL comments in respect of the matter : that the documents seized during a search of the first applicant \u2019s office \u201c were relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation and would be assessed and analysed \u201d , and that the charge which the first applicant faced carried up to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","NORP The prosecutor \u2019s interview was followed by that of the Governor of the Region . The Governor , without making any reference to the first applicant or the criminal proceedings against him , declared , among other things , that the ORG , which was \u201c experiencing difficult times [ due to a political crisis ] , would not stray from the path that it had chosen in pursuit of the identification of those who had devoured public money ... which was exactly why pensions and salaries had not been able to be paid on time \u201d .","On DATE the first applicant appointed a lawyer to protect his interests .","When questioned for the first time as a suspect on DATE , the first applicant , assisted by his lawyer , protested his innocence and exercised his right to silence .","On DATE the prosecuting authority brought an application before ORG to have the first applicant detained pending trial arguing that the first applicant , who was accused of a crime of a serious nature , might try to evade justice , prevent the discovery of the truth and pursue his criminal activities . Ruling on this request on an unspecified date , ORG decided to place the first applicant in detention for DATE . Applying Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , the first applicant challenged that decision before ORG , which dismissed his appeal on an unspecified date .","On DATE the first applicant sent a letter to the prosecuting authority , which read as follows : \u201c Since I am not indifferent to the future of the automobile factory and consider it possible to settle the problems [ I am having ] with the ORG , I express my readiness to forfeit the shares in the factory which are currently in my and my wife \u2019s possession to the ORG . \u201d","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s detention pending trial was extended by ORG until DATE , and in DATE it was extended until DATE .","During DATE of his detention the first applicant was detained in the same cell as the person charged with his kidnapping in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and another person serving a sentence for murder . After ORG complained of that fact on the ground that it put the applicant \u2019s physical and psychological well - being at risk , the prison authorities transferred the applicant to another cell .","On DATE the first applicant and his lawyer were given access to the criminal case materials . On DATE the first applicant appointed a second lawyer to protect his interests in the proceedings .","On DATE the investigation was terminated , and the first applicant was indicted on the aforementioned charges . Having acquainted himself , with the assistance of his CARDINAL lawyers , with the case file in its entirety , he again protested his innocence but confirmed his intention to cooperate with the investigation .","On DATE both applicants transferred their shares free of charge , representing an overall total of PERCENT of the factory \u2019s share capital , to the ORG .","According to a written statement in the case file from PERSON , a worker in the factory , on DATE he and CARDINAL other employees of the factory transferred their shares to the ORG ex gratia , at the request of the prosecuting authority , in connection with the criminal proceedings against the first applicant and in exchange for the latter \u2019s release from detention . The case file contains a copy of the relevant ex gratia agreements dated DATE .","The file also contains a witness statement by PERSON , the second applicant \u2019s sister - in - law , that the public prosecutor had also demanded that the first applicant \u2019s family pay MONEY ( GEL ) ( QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) to ORG ensuring ORG the Development Fund \u201d ) in order to conclude a \u201c procedural agreement \u201d releasing the first applicant from detention . Thus , the public prosecutor had supplied them with the documents necessary for the transfer , adding that the first applicant \u2019s name must not appear as the CARDINAL paying the money . The public prosecutor insisted that the money not be paid to ORG directly by the applicants . PERSON therefore agreed to pay the required amount in her own name .","As confirmed by the relevant bank - transfer receipt , that payment was made on DATE , with PERSON name duly appearing on the document as the source of the transfer .","On DATE , DATE , the first applicant filed a written statement with the public prosecutor , requesting him to arrange a \u201c procedural agreement \u201d ( hereinafter a \u201c plea bargain \u201d ) , which procedure had been introduced into the NORP judicial system in DATE . The applicant specified that , whilst considering himself to be innocent , he was willing to reach an agreement as regards the sentence and to repair the damage caused to the ORG ; he stated that he would pay GEL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) to the ORG budget in that connection . He added that he fully understood the contents of the agreement .","On DATE the public prosecutor of LOC offered and the first applicant accepted a plea bargain regarding sentence ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG ) . The written record of the plea agreement mentioned that , whilst the applicant refused to confess to the charges , he had \u201c actively cooperated with the investigation by voluntarily paying compensation in the amount of GEL MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for the damage caused by his criminal activity by returning PERCENT of the shares in the factory to the ORG \u201d . The prosecutor further noted that , notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was charged with a particularly serious offence liable to a term of imprisonment of DATE , it was still possible , having due regard to the full compensation of the damage and in the interest of the efficient use of ORG resources , to offer him a plea bargain . Notably , the prosecutor promised that he would request the trial court to convict the applicant without an examination of the merits , seeking a reduced sentence in the form of a GEL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) fine . It was explained to the applicant that the proposed plea bargain would not exempt him from civil liability . The first applicant stated that he fully understood the content of the bargain and was ready to accept it and that his decision was not the result of any duress , pressure or any kind of undue promise . The record of the plea agreement was duly signed by the prosecutor , the applicant and CARDINAL of his CARDINAL lawyers .","Also on DATE the public prosecutor filed a brief with ORG , requesting approval of the aforementioned plea bargain consisting of no examination of the merits of the case , of finding the first applicant guilty of the charges brought against him and of reducing the sentence to which the offences were liable by fining the accused GEL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . It was mentioned in the prosecutorial brief that it was accompanied by the written record of the plea agreement and CARDINAL volumes of the criminal case materials .","Also on DATE PERSON effected a bank transfer to the ORG in payment of the fine of GEL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) as per the above - mentioned plea bargain between the first applicant and the public prosecutor .","At an oral hearing on DATE , ORG , sitting in a single - judge formation , examined the prosecutor \u2019s request of DATE . As disclosed by the record of the hearing , the judge explained to the first applicant , who was assisted by CARDINAL of the CARDINAL lawyers who had countersigned the plea bargain ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , his rights under LAW ORG . In reply , the applicant acknowledged that he was well aware of his rights and that he had agreed to the bargain voluntarily , without having being subjected to any kind of undue pressure during the negotiations with the prosecutor . That was confirmed by the lawyer as well . The first applicant and his lawyer then asked the judge to endorse the plea bargain , as submitted by the prosecutor , confirming that they fully accepted its consequences . The lawyer added that he had assisted in the plea - bargaining negotiations between his client and the prosecution , that it was his client who had insisted on reaching a settlement , and that he , as a lawyer , had provided all the necessary counselling to the applicant .","Relying on the documentary evidence and the testimony of various witnesses acquired during the investigative stage , ORG found that the charges brought against the first applicant were well - founded . The court also noted that , when he was charged on DATE with crimes under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) , ( b ) and ( c ) and QUANTITY ( b ) of LAW , the applicant \u201c did not plead guilty and exercised his right to silence . However , having actively cooperated with the investigation , he had voluntarily repaired the damage of GEL CARDINAL [ ORG CARDINAL ] caused by his criminal activity by returning PERCENT of the shares in the factory to the ORG \u201d .","ORG further held that , following the judicial examination , it reached the conclusion that the plea bargain had been concluded in accordance with the law , that the first applicant had signed it in full knowledge of the facts and that it was not the result of any duress , pressure or any kind of promise which went beyond what was permitted in plea bargaining . The court thus sanctioned the agreement by declaring the first applicant guilty of the charges brought against him and sentencing him to a GEL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) fine . The first applicant was then immediately released from the courtroom .","As mentioned in its operative part , ORG decision of DATE was final and not subject to appeal . A request could be made to have the decision quashed and the case reopened though , if newly discovered circumstances justified such a course of action .","According to the case file , after the termination of the criminal proceedings and his consequent release from detention , the first applicant left GPE and has since been residing in GPE , GPE .","After notice of the application had been given to the respondent Government on DATE and the parties had exchanged their observations , the applicants complained to the ORG , on CARDINAL DATE , that ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) was continuing to exert pressure on them , this time with the aim of having them withdraw their application from the ORG .","In support of that assertion , the applicants submitted a written statement given by their daughter , PERSON , dated DATE .","According to that statement , after having been told by her parents that pressure was being brought to bear on them , in DATE Ms GPE , who was a student at ORG in GPE at the time , decided to approach an acquaintance of hers who was working at the ORG , PERSON Subsequently , PERSON exchanged several e - mails with her acquaintance in which the latter , claiming to act on behalf of the ORG , expressed that authority \u2019s position on the applicants\u2019 case . The case file contains a copy of the relevant e - mail exchange .","In the e - mail exchange , PERSON and PERSON addressed each other on friendly terms , using shortened , pet names and familiar instead of formal forms of address .","PERSON was the first to contact Ms T.B. , on DATE , asking her , as a friend and an experienced lawyer , to give her some advice about her master \u2019s thesis and a forthcoming examination in law .","On DATE Ms T.B. advised the applicants\u2019 daughter , whom she considered to be \u201c a friend \u201d , that she had been \u201c personally \u201d working on her father \u2019s case and thus possessed important information emanating from ORG . Inviting the ORG daughter to express her GPE position on the matter , PERSON promised to share her hierarchical ORG views with them .","On DATE Ms T.B. informed the applicants\u2019 daughter that the ORG would be ready to reopen the first applicant \u2019s criminal case and then terminate it again , this time in his favour , and to return the GEL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) which had been paid by him as a fine . PERSON encouraged the applicants to think about that proposal quickly and to accept it , otherwise , she stated , \u201c the prosecution authority would defend its position in GPE and might even unilaterally annul the plea bargain and reopen the criminal proceedings against the first applicant \u201d .","On DATE Ms Natsvlishvili informed PERSON that her father was ready to reach a friendly settlement , as provided for \u201c by the Convention \u201d and under the scrutiny of the Court . PERSON then asked a number of procedural questions and also enquired whether it was possible , having due regard to the substantial pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage which had been inflicted on her family by the ORG , to review the conditions of the proposed settlement .","On DATE , DATE , PERSON replied that \u201c her personal involvement in the case was a guarantee that the applicants\u2019 family would not find itself in an inauspicious situation again \u201d . PERSON then stated that the first applicant should file an application with the ORG , complaining that the plea bargain in question had been reached without a full consideration of his interests . The ORG would then treat that application as a request for the reopening of the case on the basis of newly discovered circumstances . PERSON assured the applicants\u2019 daughter that , after the reopening of the case , the first applicant would , as a matter of fact , be rehabilitated by having obtained the deletion of the conviction from his criminal record .","PERSON then stated that the State would be ready to return the money which had been paid by the first applicant as a fine and the shares in the factory forfeited by the second applicant ; she explained that the first applicant \u2019s shares could not be returned as they had already been assigned to a third party . The ORG employee also assured PERSON that the first applicant would become eligible to return to GPE and to start business afresh there , in which entrepreneurial activity the prosecution authority would even assist him . PERSON then continued :","\u201c We all know that errors have been committed , but it has become a particularly vital issue , in the interests of the country , to set aside personal experience and trauma now , notwithstanding the painfulness of those [ experiences ] . I know that this is difficult , but if you can manage it , I am confident that after DATE have passed you would then be in a position to tell yourself that you were successful in differentiating GPE , as your own country , from individual ORG agents , and to tell yourself that you made your own small sacrifice for your country . \u201d","Ms T.B. specified that \u201c they \u201d , the ORG , were not telling the applicants to first withdraw their application from the ORG and to settle the issue at the domestic level afterwards . On the contrary , the ORG was ready to start working on the settlement of the issue at the domestic level first . However , PERSON then reminded the applicants\u2019 daughter that \u201c they had only a month left for [ filing observations with ] GPE \u201d .","On an unspecified date , but apparently subsequent to the abovementioned e - mail exchange , PERSON informed PERSON that the ORG would be ready to pay to the first applicant , in compensation , GEL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) and to take procedural measures to have the conviction deleted from his criminal record . She specified as follows :","\u201c As regards the issue of rehabilitation and compensation , the decision will apparently belong , according to the applicable rules of jurisdiction , to ORG . It will therefore be indicated in this court \u2019s decision that , given the fact that the remainder of [ the applicants\u2019 ] shares have been assigned and that the factory has become indebted , it is factually impossible to return the shares in their entirety , which would then lead to the award of GEL CARDINAL [ ( EUR CARDINAL ) ] in pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages . \u201d","Ms T.B. then assured the ORG daughter that they could trust the ORG , as , in any event , should there be any improper conduct by the authorities , the applicants could always then complain to the ORG about the alleged hindrance of the right of individual petition under LAW , which allegation would be of particular harm for the respondent ORG \u2019s international image . PERSON mentioned , lastly , that the State might be ready to increase the amount of compensation to a maximum of GEL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( FAC ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["34","6","P1","P7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-2","P1-1","P7-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163665","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PHILIPPOU v. CYPRUS","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born on CARDINAL DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was employed at ORG on DATE . On DATE he was promoted to the position of assistant officer and on DATE he was authorised by the director of the department to sign payment orders as authorising officer . On CARDINAL DATE a complaint was made by the director following an irregularity in a compulsory acquisition case . It emerged from the investigation that a series of cheques had been issued as alleged compensation to owners of land that had been compulsorily acquired , but that the cheques had never reached the payees named on them .","A number of criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and an accomplice . It also appears that a third person was charged but those proceedings were terminated following the filing of a nolle prosequi by the ORG . The proceedings against the applicant involved a total of CARDINAL criminal charges .","On DATE the applicant received concurrent sentences ranging from DATE imprisonment from ORG ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) on a plea of guilty , following a plea bargain to twenty-","CARDINAL charges concerning a number of offences . These included , inter alia , obtaining the amount of CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL GPE pounds ( ORG ) ( MONEY ) by false pretences , issuing false documents , forging cheques , abuse of office , and concealment . Part of the agreement reached between the parties was that the applicant would repay the sum of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately CARDINAL,CARDINAL euros ) , and a confiscation order for that sum was issued in respect of his property . In imposing the sentences ORG also took into consideration another CARDINAL cases pending against the applicant before it as well as ORG of GPE .","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against his sentence ( criminal appeal no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","Following the applicant \u2019s conviction , and having received the Attorney - General \u2019s advisory opinion that the offences committed involved dishonesty or moral turpitude , the ORG instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant . Similar proceedings were also instituted against his accomplice , on whom the ORG imposed compulsory retirement pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(i ) of LAW of DATE ( Law CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; hereinafter \u201c LAW \u201d ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a letter dated DATE the ORG informed the applicant of the Attorney - General \u2019s opinion and invited him to appear before it on DATE and to make representations before proceeding with the imposition of a disciplinary penalty .","NORP The ORG convened on DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyer requested DATE to prepare his pleadings , as he had only recently been appointed and in view of the special nature of the case . The ORG granted the request .","On DATE , the applicant , who was represented by a lawyer , was heard by the ORG . He put forward a number of mitigating factors , which included his dire financial situation following suspension from his duties , the fact that he had paid off most of the sum agreed upon with the authorities , the conviction and sentence he had received from ORG , his significant DATE of service , and the less severe punishment imposed on his accomplice . He also submitted a socio - economic report by ORG .","On DATE the ORG decided to dismiss the applicant . In its decision the ORG observed that this case had been one of the most serious cases it had been faced with . The conception and planning of the crimes committed showed a well - set - up fraud which had dealt a blow to the prestige and credibility of the procedures of ORG and also to the image of ORG in general . The ORG noted that the offences of which the applicant had been convicted included some of the most serious offences against property , as well as abuse of office and concealment . The gravity of the offences was evident from the severity of the sentences applicable under the law , the substantial sum the applicant had secured through his unlawful actions , and the fact that CARDINAL more cases pending against him concerning similar offences had been taken into account by ORG when imposing sentence . The ORG also pointed out that the applicant had faced CARDINAL charges in total , which was unprecedented for GPE and which disclosed the seriousness and the magnitude of the case .","In reaching its decision the ORG observed that it had taken into account the circumstances and conditions under which the applicant had committed the offences . He had been authorised to sign payment orders and had been entrusted by the Republic with the important post of promoting cases concerning compulsory acquisition and serving citizens involved in these cases . The applicant , however , did not live up to his responsibilities , exploited his position , and developed his criminal activities with unprecedented effrontery and recklessness . He had been the mastermind , instigator and main executor of the criminal activities .","The ORG also noted that it had taken into consideration what had been said by the applicant \u2019s counsel in mitigation , in particular , the applicant \u2019s personal and family circumstances , as well as the fact that he had undertaken to compensate for the damage and\/or part of the damage suffered by the Republic as a consequence of his criminal acts . Further , the ORG pointed out that he had been the main protagonist and this had been stressed by ORG when distinguishing the sentence passed on him from that passed on his co - accused .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the disciplinary penalty of dismissal resulted in the forfeiture of the entire applicant \u2019s public service retirement benefits ( hereinafter \u201c retirement benefits \u201d ) . This entailed the loss of a retirement lump sum and a DATE pension .","Lastly , the ORG decided that the part of the applicant \u2019s salary that had been withheld during the period of his suspension from service would not be returned to him .","Up to the date of his dismissal the applicant had worked for DATE in the public service .","On DATE the applicant withdrew his appeal .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , his wife received a widow \u2019s pension . This amounted to CARDINAL ( ORG ) per year .","On DATE the applicant brought a recourse before ORG ( revisional jurisdiction ) under LAW , seeking the annulment of the ORG \u2019s decision to dismiss him from ORG and of the consequent forfeiture of his pension rights ( recourse no . CARDINAL ) .","The applicant claimed that the forfeiture of his retirement benefits had been in breach of LAW and LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . In this respect the applicant argued that his pension rights constituted a \u201c possession \u201d , and that their automatic forfeiture consequent to his dismissal was disproportionate .","On DATE ORG , in an ex tempore decision , held that the recourse was admissible . The court observed that the case concerned the discretion of the ORG in deciding on the dismissal , taking into account all relevant parameters and , in particular , the consequences dismissal would have for the applicant . Therefore , the decision on the penalty and the consequences were very closely linked , bringing to the forefront the principle of proportionality as the main aspect of the ORG \u2019s discretion . It was obvious from the ORG \u2019s decision that in exercising its discretion when choosing the penalty to be imposed it had taken into account the automatic , as it considered , by law , loss of retirement benefits . As a result the court concluded that the extreme severity of the case justified , despite its grave repercussions on the applicant \u2019s retirement rights , the penalty of dismissal . If in the end the court were to accept the applicant \u2019s claims , the setting aside of the penalty of dismissal could not be excluded . ORG therefore concluded that it could continue to examine the merits of the recourse .","On DATE ORG dismissed the recourse , but did not award costs against the applicant in view of the nature of the legal issues raised .","ORG , after having ruled that the retirement benefits of a public servant in GPE constituted a possession under LAW No . CARDINAL , went on to examine whether or not there had been a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights under this provision . Drawing guidance from the ORG \u2019s case - law , and in particular the judgments in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , and [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIII ) , and the decision in the case of ORG v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALXI ) , ORG first pointed to those factors which justified the deprivation of the right to property in this case . CARDINAL such main factor in the court \u2019s view was the gravity of the offences committed . It considered in this respect that the characterisation of the case by the ORG as one of the most serious in its history did not appear to be an exaggeration . The impression given by the offences was such that not only did they entail a well - organised fraud but they also , most importantly , as the ORG asserted , dealt a blow to the prestige and trustworthiness of the administration . The court considered that sentencing the applicant to DATE imprisonment , as well as dismissing him , did not necessarily exhaust the limits of the discretion of the ORG to put things right . Besides , as in ORG , the non - deprivation of pension benefits in the case of a pension plan to which the employee did not make contributions would amount to rewarding the applicant .","At the same time , the serious consequences of the applicant \u2019s punishment - a sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and dismissal - had also to be considered , particularly the financial difficulties arising from the deprivation of the said rights as an additional \u201c punishment \u201d for the applicant and his family . The court observed that this was an important factor to be taken into account , according to the circumstances of each case . If the deprivation had not been automatic but discretionary within the framework of enacted procedures , as in GPE , it would have been possible to examine whether there should be a deprivation and to what extent . The court noted in this respect that it would indeed be good for the State to consider seriously the prospect of an amendment to the law so as to make the system more flexible and fairer in each case . Moreover , there was also the fact that the applicant had to a great extent returned the money he had embezzled , a fact which , although the ORG had said that it had taken it into account , did not appear to have affected its decision , since the punishment imposed on the applicant was , of the CARDINAL forms provided for , the extreme one of dismissal instead of choosing the second most serious form of punishment , that of compulsory retirement , which would not have entailed the loss of retirement rights .","In the end , however , ORG considered that the fact that the case in question arose and was heard on the basis of a different statutory regime from that in PERSON as regards the consequences of dismissal entailing the loss of pension rights , tilted the scales , albeit slightly , in favour of the Republic . The proviso in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) that the applicant \u2019s pension from DATE of his dismissal would be paid to his wife and dependent children as if he had died on that date reduced for the family the hardship resulting from the dismissal . Despite this , the court observed that it was likely that there would be cases with even more dire consequences for the dismissed employee , such as when there was no wife or dependent children , or their relationship was such that the dismissed employee could not reasonably expect to benefit through them . Nothing , however , had been said to include the present case among those cases , except for the theoretical possibility that his wife could die before the applicant . The court stated that , if matters were otherwise , it was likely that it would have ruled differently .","Finally , ORG stressed that the competent bodies should seriously study the possibility of amending the statutory framework on the basis of the law in force in GPE , so that deprivation of retirement rights was not automatic but could be looked at with the help of enacted procedures and with the exercise of discretion in order that the ORG might determine , by means of a reasoned decision , the extent to which it was just to forfeit , if at all , in any particular case , according to the individual \u2019s special circumstances and needs . ORG considered that both the rule of law and the modern conception of individual justice demanded this .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( appellate revisional jurisdiction ; appeal no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . He first challenged the first - instance finding concerning section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . He submitted that this section was contrary to LAW and LAW , as the forfeiture of his retirement benefits had been automatic , without the exercise of any discretionary power . In this respect he argued that the first - instance court had applied the proportionality principle incorrectly during the examination of the penalty imposed by the ORG , and therefore had been wrong when it decided that the measure was proportionate and in line with LAW . Secondly , the applicant claimed that the finding of the first - instance court that the consequences of this decision were reduced because he was married and thus his wife and dependent children would receive a pension , was discriminatory on the ground of marital status and thus in violation of LAW .","On DATE the respondent Government also appealed ( appeal no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) challenging the first - instance findings ( a ) that in the present case the retirement benefits could be considered a \u201c possession \u201d ; ( b ) that in the disciplinary dismissal of a public servant there was no enacted framework providing for the exercise of discretion as to whether the retirement benefits would be granted ; and ( c ) that the payment of the pension to the applicant \u2019s wife was the only essential factor which tilted the scales in favour of the Republic .","On DATE ORG dismissed both appeals without awarding costs , in view of the importance of the matter raised . It agreed with the first - instance court \u2019s finding that the right to a pension and its conditions constituted a possession of the employee . This right was created by the appointment of the employee . The fact that a pension was given to the wife and dependent children suggested that pension benefits were considered as \u201c property \u201d which could be transferred . In this respect the court referred to its judgment in the case of GPE v. the Republic ( revisional appeal no . DATE , ( DATE ) CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The court went on to find , however , that the deprivation of the applicant \u2019s retirement benefits had been justified . In this respect , the court noted that the ORG had chosen the penalty of dismissal under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , after exercising its discretion and after considering the consequences and the fact that such a penalty was in the public interest . The first - instance court had examined whether the imposition of the penalty of dismissal , which brought about the automatic forfeiture of retirement benefits , was disproportionate . It had examined whether the ORG , when exercising its discretion , had applied the principle of proportionality in deciding on the penalty of dismissal , which itself resulted in the automatic deprivation of retirement rights . In this respect it held that the ORG had exercised its discretion when deciding to impose the penalty of dismissal . The ORG had had a variety of available penalties at its disposal , such as compulsory retirement , which did not bring about the forfeiture of the pension . It decided , however , in view of the offences committed by the applicant , that such deprivation was justified .","ORG pointed out that ORG had acknowledged that the administration had wide discretion in deciding on such matters .","It went on to agree with the first - instance court that the deprivation of the applicant \u2019s retirement benefits had been justified in view of the seriousness of the offences , which had dealt a blow to the trustworthiness and credibility of the administration . The relevant domestic law provision was aimed at discouraging public servants from committing serious offences and at protecting the smooth running of the administration . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW was not contrary to LAW , since the deprivation of retirement benefits was not a punishment on its own , but a consequence of the imposition of the penalty of dismissal .","The court went on to distinguish the applicant \u2019s case from that of ORG , in which the forfeiture had been automatic following a criminal conviction and had entailed deprivation of both pension and social security rights and therefore of all means of subsistence . In the present case , although the applicant had been deprived of his retirement benefits as a public servant , he had been entitled to receive benefits from ORG , which were calculated on the basis of contributions made by the employer and the employee . Referring to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) , it found that the applicant had not been deprived of all means of subsistence .","As to the question of discrimination due to marital status , raised by the applicant , ORG held that the first - instance court \u2019s comments on the matter did not support the applicant \u2019s claim of discrimination . The comments in question had been made on a hypothetical basis and did not apply to the present case .","Lastly , ORG dealt with the remaining grounds of appeal put forward by the Government . It observed that the first - instance decision was to the effect that in the event of dismissal the law did not provide for a procedure concerning the exercise of discretion for forfeiting retirement rights , but it did not say that it was not possible to exercise discretion on the matter , since it recognised that there was a choice between dismissal entailing forfeiture of rights and compulsory retirement , which did not . Finally , it pointed out that the first - instance court had set out in its decision all the facts which it had taken into account in deciding on the proportionality of the forfeiture , and had rightly concluded that the payment of the pension to the wife meant that the deprivation was not disproportionate . The court did not award costs in view of the important issues raised .","The applicant has been receiving a social security pension from ORG since DATE , when he reached DATE . The pension therefore received by his wife pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW was then reduced by the complementary sum received by him from ORG . According to a letter dated DATE sent to her by ORG \u2019s ORG , her pension was reduced by ORG DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166948","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF YAROVENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . As of DATE , he was serving a life sentence in ORG no . CARDINAL . On DATE his representative informed the ORG about the applicant \u2019s new address , which was PERSON ( GPE ) , without any further details .","On DATE ( or CARDINAL according to ORG ) DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and murder . According to the applicant , the police subjected him to various forms of ill - treatment following his arrest .","On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting as a court of first instance , found the applicant guilty of aggravated robbery , CARDINAL counts of murder , and unlawful possession of firearms . The court sentenced him to life imprisonment with confiscation of property .","The applicant appealed on points of law .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .","The applicant was detained in the following detention facilities :","ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d , a part of the police system ) : from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( during the intervening period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was undergoing a forensic psychiatric examination in a psychiatric hospital ) ;","the Simferopol Pre - Trial Detention Centre ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) : from DATE to DATE and from CARDINAL May to DATE ;","the GPE : from DATE to DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL May and from DATE ;","the GPE : from CARDINAL to DATE ( that is during the time when the applicant \u2019s case was examined by ORG ) ;","the GPE : from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( the applicant raised no complaints in respect of his detention there ) ; and","ORG no . CARDINAL : from DATE .","NORP The applicant did not specify the cells in which he had been detained . According to him , he was held in an overcrowded , cold and damp cell located in a basement and lacking fresh air and sufficient daylight . He also alleged that he had not been provided with any bed linen . Furthermore , he was allegedly deprived of access to shower and had no facilities for shaving . Nor could he enjoy any outdoor walks . The nutrition was allegedly very poor and did not correspond to the applicant \u2019s needs given his health condition .","The applicant further submitted that , although he was suffering from active tuberculosis , he had had to share his cell with healthy inmates , which had provoked conflicts .","According to the applicant , when he was transferred back to the ORG on DATE after his forensic psychiatric examination , the temperature in his cell was very low . Nonetheless , the ORG administration withheld his warm clothes . As a result , the applicant allegedly caught bronchitis and pneumonia .","The Government submitted that they were not able to provide details as to the specific cells , in which the applicant had been detained , because the relevant records had been destroyed with the passage of the envisaged period of their storage . The Government therefore provided information about all the cells of the ORG based on the information note issued by the ORG \u2019s governor on DATE .","As specified in that information note , the ORG had CARDINAL cells able to accommodate up to CARDINAL inmates . CARDINAL of those cells were identical : each of them measured CARDINAL sq . m. and was designated for CARDINAL persons . The eighth cell measured CARDINAL sq . m. and accommodated CARDINAL inmates . And , lastly , there was a bigger cell , measuring CARDINAL sq . metres , which was designated for CARDINAL persons .","All the cells were located in a semi - basement . Each of them had a window and was equipped with a forced ventilation system .","The cells had beds for each inmate , a table , a lavatory and a washstand with centralised water supply . There was also centralised heating in the ORG functioning during DATE ( end of autumn , DATE and beginning of DATE ) .","According to the Government , the inmates were provided with all the required bed linen in the ORG .","According to the information note issued by the governor of the Simferopol GPE on DATE at the request of ORG , the applicant was detained in the following cells :","from DATE to DATE and from CARDINAL DATE in cell no . CARDINAL ;","from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in cell no . CARDINAL ;","from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE in cell no . CARDINAL ;","from DATE to DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE in cell no . DATE ; and","from DATE , from CARDINAL to DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in cell no . DATE .","Cells nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were ordinary cells , which the applicant shared with CARDINAL other inmates for most of the time . According to the applicant , however , starting from DATE his cell - mates were transferred to other cells and he remained alone in cell no . CARDINAL . Cells nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE belonged to the maximum security unit and the applicant was in solitary confinement there .","The case file contains a copy of the GPE governor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE about the applicant \u2019s placement in a separate cell of the maximum security unit on the ground of the prevention of the spread of tuberculosis ( the applicant was then diagnosed with active tuberculosis ) .","Given that in DATE the numbering of the GPE cells had been changed , the Government found it impossible to locate with precision each cell , in which the applicant had been detained . They , however , submitted that all the cells of the same category ( ordinary or maximum security ) had the same characteristics .","According to the information provided by the ORG , each of the cells had a double - glazed window enabling natural ventilation and penetration of daylight . All the cells were equipped with ventilating equipment , water supply and sewerage , as well centralised heating . There was all the required furniture in the cells .","According to the applicant , his cells were cold and damp . The window in cell no . CARDINAL was allegedly not glazed and the inmates had to cover it with blankets and plastic bags .","NORP The maximum security cells were allegedly very small and had poor lighting and ventilation . The applicant also submitted that the toilet had not been separated from the living area and smelled of excrement . There was no hot water supply and cold water was supplied irregularly .","Furthermore , the nutrition was allegedly very basic often being limited to bread , porridge and soup with sour cabbage . According to the Government , however , the nutrition for the detainees had been in accordance with the applicable legal requirements .","Lastly , the applicant submitted that the special \u201c life prisoner \u201d uniform had been too small for him , which had caused him discomfort and had provoked mockery by other inmates . The Government noted , without further details , that wearing a special uniform was a legal requirement .","According to the applicant , he was detained in a solitary cell measuring QUANTITY in a semi - basement . It had a concrete floor and was equipped with a bench , which was also made of concrete . The light in the cell was very poor . The toilet was not separated from the rest of the cell .","The Government did not make any submissions in respect of the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention in the GPE .","The applicant was held in a solitary cell , in allegedly poor conditions . Furthermore , he was allegedly denied the opportunity to use the common shower facilities . Instead , on CARDINAL and DATE he was locked for TIME in a small room equipped with a cold - water tap on the level of his stomach . As the temperature inside was very low , he preferred not to wash himself . The applicant had therefore no access to warm shower for the entire period of his detention in GPE ( from DATE ) .","The Government did not comment on this period of the applicant \u2019s detention .","The applicant , being a life prisoner , was transferred from one cell to DATE . According to him , all the cells , in which he had been detained ( he mentioned , in particular , cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ) were damp and cold . In some of them , the walls were covered with mold and fungus .","Furthermore , the prison cells allegedly lacked sufficient daylight and fresh air . They were not ventilated artificially and the only access to fresh air was through a window , which could not be opened wider than QUANTITY . The applicant also submitted that the windows were closed during the inmates\u2019 daily outdoor walks , as the cells were then being disinfected by ultraviolet germicidal irradiation lamps .","The applicant specified the size and population of CARDINAL cells : cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m. and was shared by CARDINAL inmates ; and cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m. and accommodated CARDINAL inmates .","During the period from DATE to DATE there were major repairs in the prison , which had allegedly caused the applicant such inconveniences as having to bear with a high level of noise and inhaling construction dust and paint smells .","The applicant further submitted that the yard for outdoor walks ( which lasted TIME per day ) had no shelter to protect detainees from rain or sun .","According to the Government , the conditions of detention in the prison were in compliance with the standards established by ORG .","On DATE an official of ORG in charge of the supervision of lawfulness in penitentiaries , a representative of ORG human rights monitors in law - enforcement institutions , as well as the governor and the deputy governor of the prison , conducted \u201c a monitoring visit \u201d of the prison . According to their report , all the maximum security cells were located below the ground level and were damp . Cell no . CARDINAL ( in which the applicant was detained at the time ) measured QUANTITY m. and accommodated CARDINAL inmates . It had sufficient daylight and artificial light . It was , however , impossible for inmates to switch on \/ off the light or to regulate its brightness . The cell had natural ventilation and the window could be opened from inside . There was centralised heating , but at the time of the visit the weather was warm and the heating was off . The toilet was separated from the living area . There was a washstand , but the water tap was leaking . There were minor flood traces on the ceiling , which the administration explained by a recent accident .","On an unspecified date in DATE the deputy governor of the prison issued an information note about the conditions of detention in that prison at the request of ORG . It stated , in particular , that cell no . CARDINAL had a window of QUANTITY , one CARDINAL lamp and TIME watch light ( CARDINALV ) . The prison official also stated that DATE the maximum security unit of the prison had undergone major refurbishments . In DATE some minor repairs were carried out in cell no . CARDINAL .","The Government submitted CARDINAL photographs of cell no . CARDINAL , showing a spacious and light room in a visually good state of repair . According to the applicant , those photographs had been taken after his detention in that cell and were of no relevance for his case .","According to the information provided by the Government , the prison cells were disinfected on a DATE basis during the detainees\u2019 outdoor walks . The applicant noted that this did not happen when inmates chose not to go for a walk because of poor weather conditions .","As further submitted by the ORG , cells for smear - positive and smear - negative inmates were located on different floors and had separate shower facilities , X - ray examination rooms and walking yards . The applicant specified that it had not been so before DATE .","Prior to his detention the applicant had been suffering from chronic hepatitis , neurocirculatory asthenia , varicose veins , and astigmatism of both eyes . It is not known whether he had undergone any medical treatment in that connection .","Furthermore , in DATE the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis for the first time . In DATE his tuberculosis disease was considered to have developed in a chronic form .","On DATE the applicant was admitted for inpatient treatment to the GPE regional tuberculosis dispensary .","On DATE he was discharged from it on the ground of his refusal from the treatment and his continued absence .","On DATE the applicant was re - admitted to the aforementioned dispensary for treatment .","DATE . On DATE he was discharged on the ground of his persistent breaches of the treatment regimen and the dispensary \u2019s rules .","According to an information note issued by the dispensary \u2019s chief doctor at the request of the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE , during his treatment there in DATE the applicant had been administered anti - tuberculosis medicines of the first and the second lines .","On DATE the applicant was recognised as falling within the third category of disability ( the mildest ) on account of his tuberculosis disease .","On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination upon his admission to the Simferopol ITT . As recorded in the ORG \u2019s journal , the applicant informed the doctor about his tuberculosis disease , but did not raise any complaints .","On DATE the ORG governor wrote to the PERSON prosecutor that , according to the conclusion of a tuberculosis specialist of DATE , the applicant was suffering from an active form of tuberculosis and required further examination and inpatient treatment in a hospital environment . At the time of writing he was , however , detained in the ORG as an ordinary detainee . The ORG governor requested the prosecutor to help in organising the applicant \u2019s transfer to a tuberculosis dispensary . It appears that there was no follow up to that request .","On DATE , upon the applicant \u2019s admission to the psychiatric hospital for his forensic psychiatric examination , a tuberculosis specialist examined him . The applicant complained of coughing with purulent sputum , general weakness , breathlessness and a considerable loss of weight . He was diagnosed with active fibrous - cavernous pulmonary tuberculosis at the stage of infiltration and was prescribed isoniazid , rifampicin , pyrazinamide , ethambutol , streptomycin and some other medications and vitamins .","On DATE , while still in the psychiatric hospital , the applicant was X - rayed and repeatedly examined by a tuberculosis specialist . The doctor confirmed the earlier diagnosis and recommended the continuation of the medicinal treatment , subsequent monitoring of the applicant \u2019s condition and his isolation .","On DATE the applicant was transferred back to PERSON . According to him , his medical treatment for tuberculosis was disrupted at that point .","On DATE , following the applicant \u2019s transfer to the Simferopol SIZO , a panel of doctors , including a tuberculosis specialist , examined him . He was prescribed with : isoniazid , rifampicin , pyrazinamide , ethambutol and streptomycin \u2013 for an intensive treatment phase ( for the periods from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) and isoniazid , rifampicin and pyrazinamide \u2013 for a follow - up treatment phase ( for the periods from DATE to DATE , from DATE to DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) .","According to the applicant \u2019s medical file , he was provided with the prescribed medications on a DATE basis . Furthermore , during his detention in the PERSON the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist and underwent sputum smear testing on a DATE basis . He also had regular chest X - ray examinations . The applicant \u2019s diagnosis remained the same and his X - raying showed no changes in the state of his lungs . The applicant \u2019s medical file pertaining to his pre - trial detention contains no reference to his drug susceptibility test .","The applicant complained to various authorities , in particular , about his solitary confinement , which he did not consider to be justified on medical grounds . On DATE an official of the regional office of ORG for ORG wrote to the applicant that he was the only detainee suffering from an active form of tuberculosis and his isolation was justified . He was receiving regular medical treatment . Furthermore , as stated in the letter , he had undergone drug susceptibility testing carried out with the participation of the PERSON city tuberculosis dispensary .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from the Simferopol SIZO to ORG no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant arrived in ORG no . CARDINAL having the status of a penitentiary tuberculosis hospital ( before his arrival in the prison he had been detained in the GPE and GPE SIZOs ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , where he allegedly received no medical treatment ) .","NORP Immediately after the applicant \u2019s arrival in the prison , a panel of doctors examined him and diagnosed him with : chronic pulmonary tuberculosis , chronic hepatitis in an aggravation phase , neurocirculatory asthenia , varicose veins , and astigmatism of both eyes . He was placed in the prison \u2019s medical unit for inpatient treatment .","On DATE , following the applicant \u2019s complaint about heartache , weakness and loss of appetite , he was examined by a general practitioner who diagnosed him with chronic hepatitis in an aggravation phase and neurocirculatory asthenia of cardiac type . The doctor prescribed some medications to the applicant and recommended that he undergo an electrocardiogram . It appears that the above recommendation had not been implemented . As the applicant continued raising the same complaints , a general practitioner again examined him on DATE and DATE . He confirmed the earlier diagnoses and prescribed medications .","Furthermore , in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , as well as in DATE and DATE , an ophthalmologist diagnosed the applicant with astigmatism of both eyes and prescribed eyeglasses for him . It is not known whether the applicant received the eyeglasses according to the prescription .","The applicant \u2019s chest X - raying in DATE ( the exact date is illegible ) showed that his tuberculosis disease was progressing .","On DATE the applicant underwent a drug susceptibility test , which established that he was resistant to isoniazid , rifampicin , pyrazinamide , ethambutol and streptomycin . His treatment was therefore corrected and he was prescribed different medicines ( such as kanamycin , ethambutol , para - aminosalicylic acid , ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin ) .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was recognised as falling into the second category of disability on account of his tuberculosis disease ( for a period of DATE , with his condition to be reassessed thereafter ) .","DATE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s X - raying showed negative developments in his lungs .","His subsequent X - ray examinations on CARDINAL and DATE indicated that his condition \u201c was becoming stable \u201d . Accordingly , the applicant \u2019s treatment was changed from inpatient to outpatient .","In DATE his tuberculosis disease progressed again . As a result , on DATE he was referred again to the prison \u2019s medical unit for inpatient treatment .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant refused to take the anti - tuberculous medicines .","On DATE and DATE he also refused from X - raying .","On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant refused that his blood samples be taken for analysis .","On DATE and DATE the applicant underwent further X - ray examinations of his chest , which showed no changes in his lungs .","On DATE a neurologist diagnosed the applicant with cervical spine osteochondrosis and recommended him to put a hard surface ( something like a wood shield ) beneath his matrass . According to the applicant , the prison administration did not allow him to do that .","DATE . On DATE and DATE the applicant refused to take the anti - tuberculous medicines .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE his X - raying showed no changes in his condition .","As indicated in the applicant \u2019s medical records , on DATE his treatment was corrected . He was prescribed with : pyrazinamide , para - aminosalicylic acid , capreomycin , ofloxacin and cycloserine .","On DATE , CARDINAL May and CARDINAL DATE the applicant had his chest X - rayed again . Like before , no changes in his lungs were reported .","On DATE the applicant agreed in writing to palliative care . He wrote that he was aware of the reasons and consequences of that decision and that he had taken it without any pressure .","On DATE the prison administration wrote a letter to the applicant \u2019s mother in reply to her complaint , in particular , regarding his medical care . The prison governor stated that the applicant \u2019s treatment for tuberculosis had been without effect for a long period of time , as he had developed multi - resistance to all possible anti - tuberculosis drugs . Accordingly , it had been proposed to the applicant that his treatment be confined to palliative care and he had accepted that proposal . It was explained in the letter that the palliative care consisted of the administration of CARDINAL anti - tuberculosis drugs of the first line ( isoniazid and rifampicin ) regardless of the applicant \u2019s resistance to them . As rifampicin was not available in the prison , it had been replaced with ethambutol . Lastly , the prison official wrote that the palliative care had been prescribed to the applicant for life .","On DATE ORG and PERSON , to which the applicant \u2019s mother had also complained about his medical treatment in detention , responded to her . The director of ORG wrote that , as it appeared from the medical file , the applicant \u2019s tuberculosis disease had become incurable . Accordingly , the prospects of its treatment were deplorable regardless of the place of that treatment . Lastly , as noted in the letter , it was open for the applicant to apply for release on the ground of his incurable infectious disease .","As confirmed by a record in the applicant \u2019s file of CARDINAL DATE , his X - ray examinations had not shown any positive changes in the state of his lungs since DATE . More specifically , the lung cavities were not disappearing .","On DATE the prison doctors recommended to continue the applicant \u2019s inpatient treatment according to the prescribed regimen .","There is no information in the case file regarding the applicant \u2019s health condition and treatment thereafter .","On DATE the applicant sent his first letter to ORG , in which he complained , in particular , about the physical conditions of his detention and the lack of adequate medical care .","On DATE the Registry sent him an application form and accompanying explanatory documents and instructed him to submit a duly completed and signed application form within DATE from the date of receipt of the ORG \u2019s letter .","In DATE the ORG received several copies of the completed application form from the applicant , in which he elaborated , in particular , on the complaints , which he had outlined in his initial letter to the ORG , including about the conditions of his detention in the PERSON , GPE and ORG . According to him ( and confirmed by his CARDINAL cell - mates ) , he had attempted to send his application form on DATE , but the administration of the Simferopol SIZO had refused to dispatch it unless he deleted any complaints about his conditions of detention there . The applicant also submitted that the domestic courts had rejected his requests for access to some documents in his case file , which he intended to enclose to his application form , on the ground that he had already received copies of those documents , which was confirmed by his signature . Furthermore , the administration of the Simferopol SIZO allegedly refused to produce copies of some documents at the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the ORG supplementing his application form with a complaint about poor physical conditions of detention and inadequate medical care in the ORG prison ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","34"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173767","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TONYUK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the small village of PERSON , which forms part of ORG , a resort town located in LOC in the GPE - GPE of GPE .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( \u201c the Executive Committee \u201d ) allotted a plot of land next to the applicant \u2019s house to GPE ORG to build a new cemetery ( \u201c the new cemetery \u201d ) .","As is evident from the photographs submitted by the applicant , as of the date when they were taken ( which is not specified ) her land was adjacent to the cemetery . The house where she and her family lived was located QUANTITY from the cemetery boundary . The applicant \u2019s yard was separated from the cemetery by a wire mesh fence . The nearest row of graves was QUANTITY from the fence ( QUANTITY from the house ) and was clearly visible from the applicant \u2019s yard . The part of the cemetery captured on the pictures contained over CARDINAL graves , some freshly decorated with wreaths .","According to the applicant \u2019s statements , at the time , when she lodged the present application , her family was routinely disturbed in its DATE life by the sight of funeral processions and the sound of people mourning by the graves . In hot weather unpleasant smells sometimes emanated from the cemetery . In addition , the well from which the applicant \u2019s family drew water for drinking and other household needs was situated QUANTITY from the cemetery and they were worried it could become contaminated with the by - products of human decomposition .","The applicant contacted various authorities on numerous occasions , complaining that the distance between her house and the new cemetery was QUANTITY required by law as a sanitary \u201c health protection \u201d zone .","On DATE ORG \u2019s Sanitary Officer banned burials in the new cemetery as its location was in breach of applicable sanitary standards .","On DATE ORG took a further decision proscribing burials in the new cemetery .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant received authorisation from the municipality to bury her son in the old cemetery in PERSON ( \u201c the old cemetery \u201d ) in exchange for a promise not to contest the location of the new cemetery .","On DATE ORG overturned its previous decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in response to complaints from GPE PERSON \u2019s congregation members and village residents that no other suitable burial ground was available .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant instituted court proceedings seeking the revocation of ORG decision of DATE and the prohibition of burials . She noted , in particular , that the distance between her house and the cemetery was CARDINAL . That was in breach of applicable sanitary rules , which were justified by the fact that toxins from decomposing corpses could seep into the ground water and contaminate an area around the cemetery as large as QUANTITY . Locating the cemetery so close to the applicant \u2019s home had put her life and health at risk . The applicant also claimed non - pecuniary damages for her sufferings .","On DATE the ORG found the decision of DATE unlawful as the applicant \u2019s house had been located within the sanitary health protection zone , which had been illegal . It ordered ORG to proscribe the burials . The judgment was not appealed against and became final .","On DATE the ORG initiated enforcement proceedings , however , no steps preventing the burials were taken .","On DATE the acting chief sanitary officer of the IvanoFrankivsk Region sent a letter to the mayor of ORG , demanding that he take urgent measures to bring the new cemetery in PERSON into conformity with the applicable law . He noted , in particular , that the CARDINAL sanitary health protection zone had been established to prevent water and soil pollution and the spread of infectious diseases . Allowing burials QUANTITY from the applicant \u2019s house was not in conformity with sanitary rules .","On DATE the ORG found that ORG had failed to act to enforce the judgment of DATE , but dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim for non - pecuniary damages arising from the bailiffs\u2019 inaction .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings concerning the judgment of CARDINAL DATE were terminated on the grounds that enforcement was impossible because ORG members refused to vote to proscribe the burials .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant instituted further proceedings against ORG , seeking to compel it to stop burials and to pay her non - pecuniary damages for her suffering .","On DATE the ORG found for the applicant in part . It noted that ORG had failed to take all the necessary steps to prevent unlawful burials on the disputed land and ordered it to take the requisite measures . At the same time , the applicant \u2019s claim for damages was rejected . The decision became final and enforcement proceedings were instituted .","At many of its meetings ORG discussed draft decisions banning burials , however , they were never approved by a vote as no suitable alternative location for the cemetery could be found .","On several occasions ORG imposed fines on ORG for failure to comply with the judgments .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated because of the impossibility of enforcement as members of the ORG refused to vote against the burials .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that it had been unable to relocate the cemetery in view of the unavailability of other suitable land . It was further noted that they were continuing to look for alternatives and , in particular , were negotiating to acquire a plot from the PERSON forestry authority .","On DATE the applicant requested that the mayor of ORG consider resettling her family and proposed that ORG acquire another house for her . She suggested a specific house that was for sale at the material time , which , according to her , was comparable to her present house .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the municipal authorities were ready to consider the applicant \u2019s resettlement as an option . However , the town had no funds in its budget to buy the proposed house at that time .","On DATE the GPE - Frankivsk ORG refused to re - institute the enforcement proceedings in view of the impossibility of enforcement .","According to the ORG , the municipality has not authorised any burials in the new cemetery since DATE owing to the applicant \u2019s continued protests and the old cemetery has been used instead ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144905","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"B\u0112RZI\u0145\u0160 v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["ORG The applicant , ORG , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in K\u0101rsavas novads .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on suspicion of abuse of office .","Between DATE and DATE the applicant was in pre - trial custody . On DATE he was placed under police supervision .","On DATE the prosecution issued an order suspending the applicant from office on the grounds that if he remained in office he could obstruct the investigation . The order stated that the applicant would be suspended during the pre - trial investigation .","On DATE the pre - trial investigation was completed and the case was transferred to a court .","The applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused were brought before FAC ( PERSON rajona tiesa ) for the main trial .","According to the indictment , on DATE the applicant , in his official capacity as customs officer and acting in concert with other individuals , had processed documents for a vehicle that had not crossed the State border and had not exported goods .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty of aggravated abuse of office under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , in the wording in force until DATE .","ORG considered that the applicant had committed a serious crime with one aggravating circumstance and no mitigating circumstances . It took into consideration the applicant \u2019s good character references and the fact that he had no previous convictions . Referring to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( lex mitior ) and section CARDINAL of that PERSON ( determination of sentence where the right to completion of criminal proceedings within a reasonable time has not been respected ) , ORG considered it appropriate to impose a non - custodial sentence , namely , compulsory work , without any ancillary penalty .","In that regard , relying on section CARDINAL of GPE ( right to completion of criminal proceedings within a reasonable time ) , ORG reasoned as follows :","\u201c Completion of criminal proceedings within a reasonable time is related to the volume of a case , its legal complexity , number of procedural actions [ and ] the attitude on the part of the persons involved in the proceedings towards their obligations , and [ is related to ] other objective circumstances . The criminal proceedings under consideration were commenced on DATE [ and ] on DATE the criminal case was received for adjudication by the court . [ T]he adjudication of the case was restarted anew before CARDINAL compositions of the trial bench [ and ] CARDINAL court hearings were scheduled for the adjudication of the case . The reasons for postponement of the [ proceedings ] were not related to the non - performance of procedural obligations on the part of the accused [ including the applicant ] . In such circumstances [ and ] taking into account the volume of the case file and [ its ] legal complexity , with the accused charged in relation to CARDINAL incidents , [ the court ] finds that the right of the accused to completion of criminal proceedings within a reasonable time has not been respected . \u201d","NORP In determining sentence ORG cited the wording of section CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It stated that a court \u2019s finding of non - compliance with the reasonable - time guarantee could be taken into account in mitigating sentence . ORG further considerations read as follows :","\u201c The court deems it impossible to apply ... a fine , because neither the prosecution nor defence have submitted evidence on the financial situation of the accused that would enable the court to assess their ability to pay the fine immediately or their possibility to gain income [ in the future ] enabling them to pay the fine imposed within the time - frame foreseen by the law . In determining the sentence ... the court takes into consideration that ... a very long time has passed since the commission of the crime , the positive character references of the accused and the fact that [ the applicant ] cares for a child who is a Category CARDINAL disabled ... and that there are no mitigating circumstances ... with respect to [ the applicant ] there is CARDINAL aggravating circumstance ... \u201d","Accordingly , ORG found that it could determine the sentence within or close to the minimum penalty prescribed by law .","Applying section CARDINAL of LAW , ORG imposed a sentence of CARDINAL NORP compulsory work on the applicant . It credited to the applicant \u2019s sentence the time he had spent in pre - trial custody CARDINAL October and DATE . As a result , the court concluded that the applicant had already served his sentence in full .","On DATE ORG ( ORG apgabaltiesa ) upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal .","ORG noted that the sentence which had been imposed on the applicant complied with LAW and there were no grounds to consider that it was disproportionate .","On DATE the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas PERSON ) refused to consider an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant .","That decision was final .","The applicant learnt of the decision of the ORG of ORG on DATE , when it was communicated to him .","The domestic law and practice has been cited in LOC v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . For the purposes of the present case it is appropriate to set out the wording of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) of the Criminal Law :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If a court finds that a person \u2019s right to completion of criminal proceedings within a reasonable time has not been respected , it may :","CARDINAL ) take this circumstance into account in determining sentence and mitigate the sentence ;","... \u201d","NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , an abuse of office that had caused grave consequences or had been committed with the intent to obtain a material benefit was punishable by a custodial sentence of DATE or a fine of CARDINAL minimum DATE salaries . On DATE amendments to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) entered into force . The punishment of compulsory work and the ancillary penalty of prohibition on exercising certain duties for a period of DATE to DATE were added ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160209","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BALAKIN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with the offence of producing and putting into circulation counterfeit money . Since then he has remained remanded in custody pending criminal investigation and trial . The detention warrants were prolonged every month initially and DATE once the case had reached ORG . Each time the reasons given for the detention were that the applicant had been accused of a serious offence punishable with imprisonment of DATE , that the criminal case was complex and that , if released , he might interfere with the investigation or collude with other co - accused , or abscond or re - offend .","The last CARDINAL extensions of the applicant \u2019s detention before the lodging of the present application took place on unspecified dates in DATE and DATE . The applicant argued that there was no risk of his interfering with the investigation since all the witnesses and the parties to the proceedings had already been heard and all the evidence had been examined by the court . He also submitted that there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond or re - offend and he agreed to be placed under house arrest if he could not be released . The applicant also argued that according to LAW , once the case had been referred to a court , the detention could not last longer than DATE , other than in exceptional cases .","NORP ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments and , relying on the same grounds as before , extended his detention for a further DATE . The court stated that the case was exceptional within the meaning of LAW of LAW . The decisions of DATE and DATE contain similar wording . The applicant \u2019s appeals against them were rejected by ORG .","On DATE the applicant was convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The ORG has not been informed about the final outcome of the criminal proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147043","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VOROBYEV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and before his arrest lived in GPE . In DATE he contracted pulmonary tuberculosis . It remains unknown whether the applicant received any treatment for this condition while at liberty ."],"violated_articles":["34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150834","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ZOLOTYUK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant , Mr ORG , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE Mr PERSON caused a traffic accident and his car collided with the applicant \u2019s car . The applicant sustained bodily injuries of medium gravity as a result .","On DATE ORG of the GPE region absolved PERSON , who had admitted his guilt , under LAW .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG of the city of GPE awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) against PERSON in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the traffic accident mentioned above . The bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings for the lack of property of PERSON which could be attached . The applicant did not challenge termination of the enforcement proceedings before the domestic courts . The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON for the latter \u2019s failure to pay the judgment debt . He also complained about the nonenforcement to the prosecutor and then challenged the alleged inaction of the prosecutor before the courts .","In DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG against ORG , seeking compensation for the damage caused by PERSON under Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW .","By the judgment of DATE , the court rejected the applicant \u2019s claim on the ground that a special law laying down the conditions and mechanism for enforcing the provisions of Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW had not yet been enacted . Furthermore , the court noted that the insolvency of PERSON had not been established .","On DATE and DATE respectively ORG and ORG upheld the decision of the first - instance court .","The Civil Code , which came into force in DATE , lays down different obligations as to compensation in respect of damage . Among others , CARDINAL articles , namely Article CARDINAL , relied on by the applicant in the domestic proceedings , and LAW , provide for the ORG to compensate the victims of a crime if the offender is not identified or is insolvent . The articles in question provide as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Pecuniary damage caused to the property of a natural person as the result of a crime shall be compensated for by the ORG if the person who committed the crime is not identified or is insolvent .","NORP The conditions and procedure governing compensation for pecuniary damage caused to the property of a natural person who was the victim of a crime shall be established by law . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Damage caused by mutilation , other physical injury or death as the result of a crime shall be the subject of ORG compensation to the victim or to other persons defined in LAW if the person who committed the crime is not identified or is insolvent .","NORP The conditions and procedure governing State compensation for the damage caused by mutilation , other physical injury or death shall be established by law . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171936","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"MINDROVA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON ORG , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by Mr V.M. Skakun , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , most recently , Mr I. Lishchyna .","On DATE PERSON , the applicant \u2019s nephew born in DATE was killed in the ORG air show accident ( for more details concerning the accident , ensuing investigation and ORG aid to the victims see PERSON v. GPE ( no . MONEY , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim against ORG seeking CARDINAL hryvnias ( ORG ) in damages on account of her nephew \u2019s death . This claim was joined to the criminal proceedings instituted against military officers accused of negligent conduct resulting in the accident .","On DATE the applicant increased the amount of her initial claim to ORG CARDINAL . According to her , this figure represented the equivalent of the amount allocated by the Government of GPE per death of each NORP and NORP national under the recently ratified interstate friendly settlement agreements concerning the crash of a TU-CARDINAL M airliner on DATE . That airliner had exploded over LOC while en route from GPE , GPE , to GPE in GPE . The exact causes of that accident had not been established ; however , according to the leading version of the investigation , the airliner had been accidentally shot down by a NORP missile launched during military training manoeuvres .","During the trial , the applicant submitted that she had been PERSON primary caretaker since his infancy , as his parents had not taken care of him . Although she had had no formal guardianship over PERSON , they had a very close relationship . Losing him for her was the same as losing her own son .","On DATE ORG of Appeal found CARDINAL military officers guilty of negligent conduct resulting in the accident and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment .","On DATE it awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL by way of compensation for non - pecuniary damage in connection with her nephew \u2019s death . ORG ( PERSON father ) was awarded UAH CARDINAL under the same head .","The applicant appealed in cassation against this judgment , complaining that the compensation awarded for non - pecuniary damage was grossly inadequate . She also submitted that it was discriminatory to ascribe a value to her nephew \u2019s life that was lower than the lives of the NORP and NORP nationals who had died in the aforementioned TU-CARDINAL M airliner crash , for which the military authorities had borne a similar degree of responsibility .","On DATE the Military Panel of ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment .","During DATE senior military officers ( the criminal proceedings in respect of whom had earlier been disjoined ) were tried and acquitted by courts at CARDINAL judicial instances . The applicant did not lodge any civil claims in these proceedings .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE of DATE reads as follows :","\u201c The human being , his or her life and health , honour and dignity , inviolability and security are recognised in GPE as the highest social value .","Human rights and freedoms and their guarantees determine the essence and orientation of the activity of the ORG . The ORG is answerable to the individual for its activity . To affirm and ensure human rights and freedoms is the main duty of the ORG . \u201d","The relevant provisions of the aforementioned agreement , ratified by PERSON of GPE on DATE , read as follows :","\u201c The Government ( Cabinet of Ministers ) of GPE ... and the Government of the State of GPE ...","Taking note that GPE has formally supported before GPE the claims of its citizens , victims of LAW ...","Taking note that GPE has not recognized any legal obligations or responsibility in connection with LAW ...","Have agreed on the following :","With a view to full and complete settlement and resolution of any and all disputes ... GPE shall pay ex gratia to GPE a lump sum of CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ... for the benefit of NORP heirs , successors and dependents ... of the victims of LAW ...","... after the payment of the amount of settlement ... the State of GPE , its bodies , citizens , legal entities ... shall drop and forever relieve GPE ... from any and all claims ...","This Agreement does not constitute any acknowledgment on the part of GPE . This Agreement does not constitute a juridical precedent and shall be used only with a view to fulfil its provisions ... \u201d","This agreement , ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of GPE on DATE , envisaged the transfer to ORG of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL on terms similar to those stipulated in the analogous agreement with the Government of GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157765","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF HA\u00c1SZ AND SZAB\u00d3 v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Final domestic decision);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in Si\u00f3fok . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicants were on an excursion to GPE . In TIME , they decided not to return home , but to spend TIME in their car , a ORG Punto , parked in a car park next to a pizzeria in GPE . Waking up , they noticed that a car was passing by theirs , coming back and forth several times . They found this frightening and drove on to the village of PERSON , where they stopped their car in the parking lot of a private house .","At the same time , TIME , an unknown person telephoned Mr S. , a volunteer law enforcer , to tell him about a ORG suspiciously moving around in the neighbourhood , near a local grocery store . Mr S. informed off - duty police officer PERSON , who was serving with ORG .","Subsequently , officer PERSON , driving his private car and taking a self - defence pistol , went to inspect the grocery store , together with Mr S. Not having found any trace of a criminal offence , they notified the duty officer of ORG about the sighting of the suspicious car . They were informed about the identity of the owner of the ORG , following which they continued to look for the vehicle in the surrounding area .","At TIME , they noticed the ORG Punto parked in front of a private house . Officer PERSON stopped his vehicle , a black PERSON , perpendicularly to the applicants\u2019 car , QUANTITY away . Both officer PERSON and the volunteer law enforcer started to run towards the applicants\u2019 car , approaching from the back . The police officer shouted : \u201c Police ! Get out ! \u201d and held up his police identification card .","PERSON , sitting at the steering wheel , only noticed QUANTITY people getting out of a dark civilian car and running towards them in civilian clothes . Finding this frightening , she attempted to drive away , forcing the garden gate of the adjacent property and driving into its yard . Inside the garden , the dimensions of which were QUANTITY , and noticing that there was no other way to exit , she turned the car around and drove back towards the gate .","When the car was on its way out , officer PERSON waved at the car shouting \u201c Police ! Stop ! \u201d and fired a warning shot . As it appears from the case file , at this time Mr S. was standing in front of the police officer \u2019s car , rather than in the prospective way of the applicants\u2019 car . When the car passed officer PERSON , he shot twice more , at the car . The first shot was fired downwards from CARDINAL metres\u2019 distance , hitting the mudguard of the car on the left side at the level of the lights . The other shot was fired from QUANTITY following a downward trajectory . It went through the rear window , which fell into the car , missed the head of PERSON by LAW and then went through the window of the right front door .","Ms Ha\u00e1sz continued to drive , trying to leave the garden by passing around the police officer \u2019s car to the left . She finally hit the officer \u2019s car at its right side , at the passenger front door . At this moment PERSON was standing next to the police officer \u2019s car , at its left side , next to the open driver \u2019s door .","Officer PERSON again called on the applicants to get out of the car , which they did . He put his gun away , presenting his police ID . Since the CARDINAL men wore plain clothes and neither they nor their car had any police signs , the applicants realised that officer PERSON was a police officer and his associate a volunteer law enforcer only at this point in time .","Thereupon it became clear that the incident was based on a misunderstanding , since the applicants had only been frightened but had had no intention whatsoever of countering a police measure .","Subsequently the Veszpr\u00e9m District Investigating Prosecutor \u2019s Office ( Veszpr\u00e9mi Nyomoz\u00f3 \u00dcgy\u00e9szs\u00e9g ) initiated proceedings against officer PERSON on charges of attempted manslaughter ( the charge being later on re - characterised as intentional endangerment committed by a public official ) . The applicants were questioned several times as witnesses , and a confrontation took place . Other witnesses were also heard and the opinion of a forensic firearms expert was obtained .","Simultaneously , officer PERSON \u2019s superior , ORG , investigated the use of a firearm by officer PERSON found that the officer had had no intention of endangering human life \u2013 his purpose had been to halt the applicants\u2019 car , which had represented a danger for him and his associate \u2013 but that the officer \u2019s action , although not criminal , had been unprofessional . According to the superior \u2019s internal report , following a first warning shot , a second , intentional shot had been directed at the car , while the third one had been accidental , endangering the life of PERSON . The supervisor initiated disciplinary proceedings , which were suspended pending the criminal proceedings .","The applicants also lodged a complaint formally challenging the lawfulness of the police measures with ORG . These proceedings were suspended on DATE pending the outcome of the criminal investigation .","On DATE the Veszpr\u00e9m District Investigating Prosecutor \u2019s Office discontinued the investigation . It found that officer PERSON \u2019s use of firearms was lawful in the face of the danger represented by the conduct of the applicants , namely driving , at a speed of QUANTITY , in the direction of his associate .","ORG accepted officer PERSON \u2019s statements , according to which he had given a warning before shooting and had first shot on perceiving a danger to the life of his associate . It also accepted the police officer \u2019s account of the events , namely that at the material time he could believe that his associate was standing between his car and the car of the applicants , which was approaching rather fast . Nonetheless , relying on the evidence furnished by a ballistic expert , ORG dismissed officer ORG statement that the second shot following the warning had been accidental .","The decision also relied on the report of the Chief of ORG stating that officer PERSON \u2019s conduct had been unprofessional as regards the second shot fired at the applicants\u2019 car .","The applicants\u2019 lawyer filed a complaint against the discontinuation .","On DATE the Veszpr\u00e9m County Public Prosecutor \u2019s Office ( Veszpr\u00e9m Megyei F\u0151\u00fcgy\u00e9szs\u00e9g ) dismissed the complaint , holding that the danger caused by the applicants had directly concerned the life and limb of officer PERSON \u2019s associate . Relying on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW on the Police , the Prosecutor \u2019s Office found that the risk that the associate might be hit by their car had justified the shots by officer PERSON even if they had not been preceded by the requisite procedure , in particular a warning about the use of firearms , since any delay caused by the warning could have compromised the success of the measure . According to the decision , the applicants\u2019 behaviour had constituted a direct threat to the life and limb of both PERSON and officer PERSON","The applicants were informed that the complaint had been dismissed under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) point b ) of LAW and that they had the possibility of filing a motion for prosecution , acting as substitute private prosecutors , under sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW .","The decision was served on the applicants on DATE .","On DATE the Veszpr\u00e9m County Public Prosecutor \u2019s Office rejected the ORG renewed complaint . ORG informed the applicants that the prosecution authorities would not deal with any further complaint unless it disclosed relevant new facts .","In a letter of DATE the Attorney ORG informed the applicants that there was no legal ground to quash the decisions on the discontinuation of the investigation in respect of officer PERSON","Meanwhile , on DATE ORG dismissed , in its resumed proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG complaint about the actions of officer PERSON concluded that although the latter \u2019s conduct had been unprofessional because of the way he had halted the applicants\u2019 car and the use of a self - defence pistol rather than a service pistol , it had not been unlawful . The ORG appeal was dismissed by the ORG Chief Police Department on DATE .","Since the incident , the applicants have been suffering from psychological troubles ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184804","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF Z.G. v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was employed at a ORG - owned company from CARDINAL DATE until the termination of her employment on DATE . A certain part of her severance payment was taxed at PERCENT rate in the amount of ORG ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161378","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MULTIPROJEKT KFT v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant is a limited liability company registered under NORP law , with its seat in GPE .","On DATE the applicant initiated a civil lawsuit against CARDINAL companies requesting the court to declare invalid a real estate sale and purchase agreement concluded between these CARDINAL companies .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim on DATE . On appeal , ORG quashed the judgment on DATE .","The first - instance court re - heard the case and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim on DATE . On appeal , the second - instance court upheld the judgment on DATE . The applicant challenged the judgment before ORG which quashed it on DATE .","In the resumed proceedings ORG quashed , on DATE , the first - instance court \u2019s judgment .","On DATE ORG as firstinstance court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . On appeal , ORG upheld the judgment on DATE . The applicant challenged the judgment before ORG but to no avail . ORG upheld the final and binding judgment on CARDINAL DATE ( served on DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163435","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SARANCHOV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Free legal assistance)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE in GPE .","In DATE ORG placed the applicant on the wanted list in connection with their criminal investigation into a violent burglary in GPE and the infliction of grave bodily injuries on B. \u2019s daughter PERSON , who was a minor .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on suspicion of having committed an unrelated crime in that country , for which he was subsequently convicted by a NORP court to a term of imprisonment that was due to end on DATE .","On DATE a NORP court ordered the applicant \u2019s retention in custody pending his extradition to GPE .","On DATE the applicant was extradited to GPE and placed in a pre - trial detention facility .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was presented with an arrest report stating that he had been arrested on suspicion of having committed aggravated burglary . He was informed of his right to have access to a lawyer as from the first interrogation . The applicant signed this report , stating that he generally disagreed with its content and that he wished to have a lawyer as from the first interrogation .","At the same time on DATE the applicant also signed a record confirming that he had been informed about his rights as a suspect , in particular the right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer . The applicant signed the report and added by hand in the relevant field provided on the pre - printed form that he had \u201c refused the assistance of a defence counsel and would defend himself , not for financial reasons \u201d ( \u0441\u0432\u043e\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 \u0431\u0443\u0434\u0443 \u0437\u0430\u0449\u0438\u0449\u0430\u0442\u044c \u0441\u0430\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u044f\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e , \u043d\u0435 \u043f\u043e \u043c\u0430\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u043c \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0447\u0438\u043d\u0430\u043c ) . The applicant alleged that he had been compelled to sign this and subsequent waivers because the police had told him that they would not provide him with a lawyer , as he had initially requested .","On DATE the applicant signed another record confirming that he had been informed about his rights as a suspect and stating \u2012 using the same wording \u2012 that he would defend himself .","On DATE he was questioned twice . He denied any involvement in the alleged offence .","On DATE the applicant was formally charged with aggravated burglary . On DATE he signed a record confirming that he had been informed about his rights as an accused person and stated \u2012 using the same wording \u2012 that he would defend himself .","On DATE he signed another such record using the same wording . On DATE the investigator announced to the applicant that the pre - trial investigation was complete and gave him the criminal case file to study .","On DATE ORG signed the final bill of indictment , charging the applicant with aggravated burglary . The indictment contained a request that the victims , PERSON and PERSON , and CARDINAL other witnesses be called at the trial .","On DATE the applicant stood trial before ORG sitting in a single judge formation , assisted by a clerk . According to the trial record , the trial unfolded as follows :","According to the applicant , this record of the trial was inaccurate . In particular , the applicant did not initially plead guilty . It was only after PERSON had departed that the judge persuaded him to plead guilty and to agree to abbreviated proceedings in exchange for a lenient sentence .","At the close of the trial on DATE , the court delivered its judgment . It convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment , to be counted from DATE , the date of his arrest in GPE , with DATE and DATE therefore remaining to be served . The court relied on his guilty plea in the course of the trial and his consent to dispensing with the examination of evidence . It also stated that the applicant \u2019s guilt was proven by a number of documents in the file . In particular it referred to the identification reports , according to which P. and another eyewitness had identified the applicant as the person who had attacked P.","On DATE B. appealed , maintaining that the sentence was too lenient . She argued that the term of imprisonment should be calculated from the date of the applicant \u2019s arrest in GPE rather than from the date of his arrest in GPE for an unrelated crime . She also maintained that the prosecutor had not been present at the trial and that the applicant had never repented or admitted his guilt and had behaved defiantly at the trial .","The applicant replied to the appeal , submitting that his guilty plea and remorse for the crime had been genuine and that the sentence imposed by the trial court had been correct and justified .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) held a hearing in the presence of a prosecutor , PERSON and the applicant . At the hearing the applicant reaffirmed his initial submissions , said that he regretted the offence he had committed , and requested that the trial court \u2019s verdict be left in force . According to the applicant , he had requested the presence of a lawyer at this hearing but his request had not been granted .","On DATE ORG quashed the sentence of ORG as unduly lenient , taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the applicant \u2019s personality . It also found that the trial court had misinterpreted the law regulating the calculation of sentences with regard to the time served in prison in GPE . In particular , it had failed to take into account the fact that GPE had made a reservation to the LAW to the Minsk Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil , Family and Criminal Matters DATE concerning the effect given to sentences rendered in other GPE Parties to the LAW . Accordingly , ORG sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment to be calculated from DATE , the date of his arrest in GPE .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , arguing that he was in fact innocent . He alleged that at the trial he had initially denied his guilt and pointed out what he believed to be gaps and inconsistencies in the prosecution \u2019s case . However , he had then pleaded guilty because of pressure from the trial judge and because he had wished to be released sooner and had no funds to pay for a lawyer . No prosecutor had been present at his trial and in these circumstances he had not been convinced of the judge \u2019s impartiality or that there had been a fair examination of evidence . When the judge had assured him that he would receive a lenient sentence if he pleaded guilty , he had followed the judge \u2019s instructions . The applicant also alleged that ORG had erred in failing to take into account the time he had served in prison in GPE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and found that , taking due account of the adequacy of the written evidence collected by the prosecution , the applicant \u2019s conviction had a sufficient factual and evidentiary basis . It furthermore found that ORG had been correct in its calculation of the applicant \u2019s prison term from DATE , but reduced the sentence to DATE .","On DATE , at the request of the ORG office , ORG ordered that the term of the applicant \u2019s imprisonment be calculated from DATE ( the date of the decision to remand him in custody pending consideration of the extradition request ) .","On DATE the applicant was released ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164910","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BADRETDINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["All the applicants were convicted by NORP courts and given custodial sentences .","They served their sentences in penitentiary facilities which were overcrowded and suffered from a shortage of sanitary installations ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153476","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RAGU\u017d v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in PERSON ordered V.T. ( \u201c the debtor \u201d ) to pay to the applicant CARDINAL ( \u201c EUR \u201d ) plus statutory interest on account of debt and MONEY ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , which was approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time of the delivery of the judgment , for the costs of the civil proceedings .","On DATE ORG ( Okru\u017eni sud ) in ORG , on appeal , reduced the award in respect of costs to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and upheld the first - instance judgment for the remainder .","The judgment of DATE , as amended on DATE , became final on DATE .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , ORG ordered the enforcement of the judgment by seizure and sale of the debtor \u2019s movable assets .","Following CARDINAL failed attempts at seizure of the debtor \u2019s movable assets , on DATE ORG informed the applicant that the enforcement by seizure and sale of the judgment debtor \u2019s property was impossible due to the debtor \u2019s indigence .","On DATE ORG terminated the enforcement proceedings . This decision was quashed on appeal on DATE by ORG .","Following a further attempt at seizure of the debtor \u2019s movable assets , on DATE ORG stayed the enforcement proceedings ( prekida se postupak izvr\u0161enja ) because of the debtor \u2019s death in the meantime .","On DATE the applicant proposed that the enforcement proceedings be continued by seizure and sale of the deceased debtor \u2019s movable and immovable estate . In support of his request , the applicant submitted a court decision of DATE by which the debtor and CARDINAL other persons had previously inherited a house with a plot of land . He also requested the court to appoint a temporary representative for the debtor \u2019s heirs in accordance with LAW . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request . This decision was quashed on appeal on DATE by ORG .","On DATE ORG invited the applicant to provide the names and the addresses of proposed debtors , indicate the debtor \u2019s heirs , propose the means of enforcement and details and proof of ownership concerning immovable assets , all within DATE , failing which his request would be rejected . It was further specified that no appeal was allowed against this decision . In the reasoning , the court found that the names and the addresses of the debtor \u2019s potential heirs were available from the decision of DATE , and that therefore , there was no need for the appointment of a temporary representative . On DATE , however , ORG instructed the applicant to advance the costs for a temporary representative within DATE . It was also specified that no appeal was allowed against this decision .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for continuation of the enforcement proceedings because of his failure to abide by the orders of DATE and DATE . This decision was upheld on appeal on CARDINAL DATE .","According to the Government , there are CARDINAL heirs of the deceased debtor , the names and addresses of which have been known ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175483","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LENGYEL v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was placed in retirement on grounds of disability and received a disability pension as of DATE , the amount of which was MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) per month . The entitlement was based on a final decision of ORG . At the material time the medical board rated her state of health at MONEY .","The methodology for disability assessment changed as of DATE .","Act no . ORG of DATE on the Benefits Granted to Persons with Reduced Work Capacity was enacted on DATE and entered into force as of CARDINAL DATE . It introduced a new system of allowances and beneficiaries of the old scheme were invited to re - apply under the new rules .","The applicant lodged a fresh application for disability allowance under the new law .","Pending approval of her new application , she continued to receive a DATE disability allowance in the amount of ORG MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) on the strength of the fact that on DATE the new law entered into force , she had been in receipt of a disability benefit .","On DATE the National Rehabilitation and ORG assessed the applicant \u2019s state of health at MONEY . She was categorised as a person suitable for rehabilitation on the basis of that assessment . However , owing to the applicant \u2019s other circumstances , her rehabilitation was not recommended .","In application of the relevant rules , the applicant \u2019s rehabilitation allowance was established at MONEY of the minimum wage , that is , in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , by a decision of ORG ) given on DATE and effective as of DATE .","NORP The applicant appealed .","A medical assessment carried out in the course of the second - instance administrative proceedings resulted in the finding that the applicant \u2019s state of health was at MONEY . It was reaffirmed that her rehabilitation was not recommended . Since the minor difference in the scores did not alter the calculation of the allowance , ORG upheld the first - instance decision on CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant sought a judicial review .","On DATE ORG dismissed her action . Having obtained fresh medical assessments and the opinion of the national forensic body , the court was satisfied that the applicant \u2019s state of health was at MONEY ( her locomotor , digestive and endocrinological conditions were calculated cumulatively as per the method prescribed in FAC no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( II . CARDINAL . ) PERSON ) .","Again , the minor difference in the scores had no bearing on the calculation of the allowance . The court upheld the administrative decisions .","On DATE the GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s petition for review . It observed in particular that the lower courts had found that the applicant \u2019s state of health ( for the purposes of the application of rules of disability benefits ) had improved and that the applicant had challenged that finding . It pointed out that such an improvement did not necessarily correspond to actual healing from a condition , but could also result from a change in , or stricter application of , the relevant rules of medical assessment .","The applicant submitted that , as of DATE , she no longer received any benefits . The legal or factual circumstances underlying this state of affairs are not known ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158477","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF \u015eAKIR KA\u00c7MAZ v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation , namely the ORG . According to the arrest report , signed by CARDINAL police officers , during his arrest the applicant attempted to swallow some pieces of papers and resisted the police officers who tried to take the papers out of his mouth .","On DATE , the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG . The doctor noted , on a police document , that the applicant had a widespread bruised area under his left eye , oedema under his right eye , a scratch on his left wrist , red patches behind his left ear and bleeding on his right ear .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor who diagnosed him with pharyngitis and prescribed him medication .","On DATE the applicant was questioned at the anti - terror branch of the ORG security directorate and confessed to his involvement in ORG .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was sent for a medical examination at ORG . In a document of the police directorate in which the applicant \u2019s name was put , the doctor who examined the applicant noted that he had a widespread bruised area under his left eye and small scratches on his left wrist .","On DATE , the applicant was questioned by both a public prosecutor and an investigating judge . Before the public prosecutor , the applicant responded to the questions by nodding . The public prosecutor noted that the applicant was unable to speak and therefore could not make statements . Before the investigating judge , the applicant wrote down on a piece of paper that his throat and internal organs hurt and that he was unable to speak . He further noted that he would examine his police statements and the evidence against him in detail and make his defence submissions before the trial court .","On DATE the investigating judge authorised the applicant \u2019s detention at the anti - terror branch of the ORG security directorate for a further period of DATE on the basis of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL in force at the material time .","DATE , at TIME , the applicant was examined at ORG . The doctor who conducted the examination stated in a police document that the applicant had a bruise , measuring QUANTITY , under the left orbital region and was suffering from tonsillitis .","On DATE the applicant was referred to the emergency room of the state hospital in GPE , where the doctors considered that he should be examined by a doctor at the otolaryngology department of the hospital . The applicant was subsequently subjected to a number of auditory examinations and at TIME on DATE an otolaryngologist stated , in a letter sent to the hospital by the police , that the applicant suffered from otitis in his right ear and tympanic membrane perforation in his left ear which could have occurred as a result of trauma . The doctor further noted that the applicant suffered from hearing loss .","On DATE the applicant made further statements to the police . According to the document containing his police statement , he had already made statements concerning his relations with the illegal organisation and he did not wish to make any further submissions as to the content of the documents that he had attempted to swallow during his arrest .","On DATE the applicant was once again examined by a doctor at ORG . The doctor stated in a letter sent to the hospital by the ORG security directorate concerning the applicant that the latter looked weak but did not bear any signs of physical violence on his body .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the ORG prison , where he was detained on remand .","On DATE and DATE the applicant was subjected to medical examinations at ORG and received treatment for breathing and indigestion problems while detained in the ORG prison .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with that court , accusing the applicant of membership of the ORG under LAW .","The proceedings commenced before ORG . On an unspecified date , the case against the applicant was joined with another case which was pending before ORG and which had been brought against a number of other persons who were charged with membership of the ORG .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force under LAW of the former LAW and sentenced him to life imprisonment . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court on procedural grounds .","In the meantime , by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE , ORG were abolished . Therefore , ORG acquired jurisdiction over the case .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment for membership of the ORG and for his involvement in activities attempting to undermine the constitutional order by force","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged an appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG held a hearing during which the applicant \u2019s lawyer was present and made defence submissions . On DATE , ORG upheld the judgment of the firstinstance court in so far as it concerned the applicant \u2019s criminal conviction .","On DATE ORG pronounced its decision .","Following the deposit of the decision of ORG with the registry of the first - instance court , on DATE the ORG public prosecutor issued a committal order concerning the execution of the sentence ( m\u00fcddetname ) . On DATE the committal order was served on the applicant .","On DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL petitions with the public prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and stated that he had been subjected to illtreatment before and during his detention in police custody . In this connection , he alleged that he had been beaten before he was taken to the hospital on DATE of his arrest and that the injuries that he had sustained on his face were the result of those beatings . He further maintained that he had been stripped naked , blindfolded , insulted , threatened , strangled , subjected to electroshocks and suspended by his arms , hosed with pressurised cold water and had his testicles squeezed . The applicant further submitted that the police officers had put pressure on the injuries he had sustained under his eyes with a view to making him suffer . The applicant noted in his petition that he had suffered from tympanic membrane perforation as a result of his ill - treatment . He finally submitted that he had not made a statement before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge on DATE as he had been unable to speak due to the ill - treatment that he had suffered at the hands of the police .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG transferred the applicant \u2019s petition to the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office , noting that he did not have jurisdiction to investigate the applicant \u2019s allegations .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor sent letters to the public prosecutor at ORG and the anti - terror branch of the ORG security directorate requesting them to submit to him the medical reports issued in respect of the applicant and his police statements .","On DATE the public prosecutor also requested the ORG prison authorities to bring the applicant to his office for his statement to be taken .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor took a statement from the applicant regarding his complaint . The applicant contended that he had been tortured during the first phase of his detention in police custody , that is to say , DATE and DATE . He noted that he had been stripped naked , blindfolded , insulted , subjected to electroshocks and hosed with pressurised cold water on his testicles and his ears , which had resulted in the injury to his ears . He also reiterated his allegation that the officers had put pressure on the injuries that he had sustained to his face at the time of his arrest . He finally complained that DATE he had been subjected to psychological pressure by the police .","On DATE the applicant was examined at the ORG branch of ORG upon the request of the ORG public prosecutor . According to the report issued as a result of this examination , there was no sign of physical violence on the applicant \u2019s body . The medical expert however noted that as regards the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment , he could draft a further report after obtaining the reports issued during and after the applicant \u2019s detention in police custody .","On DATE the applicant was subjected to a medical examination at the ORG state hospital as a result of which a report was issued . According to that report , the tympanic membrane of the applicant \u2019s left ear was intact .","On DATE the ORG branch of ORG issued a report in respect of the applicant upon the request of the ORG public prosecutor for an opinion as to whether the applicant could have sustained the injuries noted in the medical reports as a result of ill - treatment . The report noted that there was a contradiction between the report of DATE , which stated that the tympanic membrane of the applicant \u2019s left ear was intact , and that of DATE , according to which the applicant suffered from tympanic membrane perforation in his left ear . The medical expert who prepared the report opined that in order to issue a final report , the applicant should be subjected to a medical examination and an enquiry should be conducted .","DATE and DATE the ORG public prosecutor sent letters to the authorities of several prisons asking the latter to send the applicant for a medical examination . On each occasion , the prison directors informed the public prosecutor that the applicant had been transferred to another prison .","On DATE the applicant was subjected to a medical examination of his ears at ORG upon the request of the ORG public prosecutor . The report issued in respect of the applicant did not make any reference to a perforation in the applicant \u2019s left ear .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor once again requested the ORG branch of ORG to prepare a report containing an opinion as to whether the applicant could have sustained his injuries as a result of ill - treatment .","On DATE a doctor from the ORG branch of ORG sent a letter to the ORG public prosecutor informing him that a final opinion could be provided only following a detailed otolaryngological examination of the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Van state hospital upon the request of the ORG public prosecutor . The medical expert who examined the applicant noted that the tympanic membrane of the applicant \u2019s left ear was intact .","On DATE and DATE the ORG public prosecutor requested ORG to submit to him a copy of the applicant \u2019s police statements , the arrest and search reports and the medical reports issued in his respect which were in the file of the case brought against him . On DATE the president of ORG sent a letter to the public prosecutor informing him that the case file was at ORG as the appeal proceedings were pending . On DATE and DATE and DATE the public prosecutor reiterated his requests as he had not received the documents asked for . On DATE the president of the first - instance court , which , in the meantime , had became ORG , reiterated his previous reply . On an unspecified date in DATE the ORG public prosecutor received a copy of the case file .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant sent a letter to the ORG public prosecutor and asked for information on the outcome of the investigation into his allegations of ill - treatment . Stating that he had not been informed of the progress of the investigation during DATE , he submitted that the investigation and his medical examinations focused only on the injury to his left ear , whereas he suffered from other injuries and illnesses as a result of his illtreatment in police custody . The applicant requested that he undergo a thorough examination at ORG . He received no response to his petition .","DATE the ORG public prosecutor requested the antiterror branch of the ORG security directorate to send him the documents pertaining to the applicant \u2019s police custody and information as to the place of duty of the suspected police officers . On DATE the antiterror branch of the ORG security directorate sent the documents and information requested .","On DATE the applicant maintained before ORG that he had lodged a petition complaining about ill - treatment that he had endured in police custody and asked to be informed of the outcome of the investigation initiated into his allegations .","On DATE the applicant was once again subjected to an auditory examination at ORG . The doctor who prepared the medical report noted that the applicant suffered from slight hearing loss .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant once again requested to be informed of the outcome of the investigation into his allegations of ill - treatment before ORG . He received no response .","On DATE the applicant submitted a petition to the prison administration to be sent to the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office . He received no reply . On DATE the applicant was informed that his petition had been received and no response had been given . It should be noted that the content of the applicant \u2019s petition is not available in the case file .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor asked the ORG branch of ORG to provide a report on whether the applicant could have sustained the injuries observed on his body as a result of the use of force by the police .","By letters dated DATE and DATE the public prosecutor further asked the ORG branch of ORG to provide a medical opinion as to whether the applicant could have sustained his injuries as a result of proportionate use of force and as to whether there had been a difference between the medical reports issued at the beginning and the end of the applicant \u2019s detention in police custody . On DATE an expert from the ORG branch of ORG informed the public prosecutor that the documents in the case file should be sent to DATE Section of Expertise of ORG in GPE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG public prosecutor requested ORG to assign a medical expert to prepare a report containing an opinion on the veracity of the applicant \u2019s allegations on the basis of the medical reports issued in respect of the applicant .","On DATE a medical expert from ORG sent a report to the public prosecutor \u2019s office . According to the doctor , it was possible that the tympanic membrane perforation in the applicant \u2019s left ear had recovered over time . He also considered that the perforation could have occurred as a result of trauma during the applicant \u2019s arrest or when he had been in police custody .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted a petition to the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office and requested to be informed of the outcome of the investigation . By a letter dated DATE the ORG public prosecutor informed the applicant that the investigation file had been sent to CARDINAL Section of Expertise of ORG and the investigation was pending .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor requested that the applicant be examined by DATE Section of Expertise of ORG . DATE and DATE the public prosecutor sent letters to the ORG prison , where the applicant had been transferred , and asked the prison authorities to send the applicant to GPE for a medical examination at ORG .","On DATE the applicant was examined at ORG . During his examination , the applicant stated that he had been beaten at the time of his arrest . He also maintained that he had been illtreated while in police custody .","On DATE the CARDINALnd Section of Expertise of ORG issued a report . In this report , reference was made to the arrest protocol , dated DATE , which stated that the police officers had had to use force to apprehend the applicant , since he had resisted arrest . ORG also took into consideration the aforementioned medical reports dated DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On the basis of these reports and the medical examination of the applicant carried out on DATE , DATE Section of Expertise of ORG established that the injuries observed on the applicant \u2019s body had not been life - threatening , but would have prevented him from continuing his DATE activities for DATE . It was further indicated that the injuries on the applicant \u2019s face and ear could have been caused by a blow with a blunt object during the applicant \u2019s arrest . The report further stated the applicant had not been subjected to an examination of his ear DATE and DATE and that the red patches behind the applicant \u2019s left ear noted in the report of DATE could have been caused by physical trauma which could have also led to the tympanic membrane perforation in his left ear . The CARDINALnd Section of Expertise finally noted that there was no medical evidence demonstrating that the applicant had been subjected to physical trauma during his detention in police custody .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor decided to close the investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . In his decision , he relied on the report of DATE Section of Expertise of ORG and held that the injuries observed on the applicant \u2019s body had been sustained during the scuffle at the time of his arrest . The public prosecutor noted that the injuries observed on the applicant \u2019s person had been caused by the force used to arrest the applicant , which had been in compliance with the PERSON on the Duties and Powers of the Police ( Law no . CARDINAL ) and that there was no report or other evidence showing that the police officers had exceeded the limits of their powers on the use of force . The public prosecutor further considered that there was no evidence , such as medical reports or witness statements , demonstrating that the applicant had been ill - treated while detained in police custody . He also stated that the length of the applicant \u2019s detention in police custody had been in accordance with the legislation at the material time . The public prosecutor thus concluded that there was no evidence to support the applicant \u2019s allegation that he had been subjected to ill - treatment while in police custody .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection with ORG against the decision of DATE . In his petition , the applicant submitted that his medical examination by DATE Section of Expertise of ORG had been conducted too late . He also contended that his medical examinations had been superficial . For instance , no examination had been carried out in relation to his allegation of being subjected to electroshocks . The applicant finally submitted that he had had to be taken to the emergency service while in police custody due to his problems with his ear .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s objection , holding that there was no evidence showing that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the ORG alleging a violation of , inter alia , LAW . The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill - treatment during his arrest and while in detention in police custody .","On DATE the ORG , sitting as a ORG of CARDINAL judges , declared the applicant \u2019s complaint under LAW inadmissible for non - exhaustion of domestic remedies ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173494","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SHAMRAY AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139901","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RINGIER AXEL SPRINGER SLOVAKIA, A.S. v. SLOVAKIA (No. 3)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu B\u00eersan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant company is a multimedia publishing house which was established under the laws of GPE in DATE . It is constituted as a jointstock company and its head office is in GPE .","The applicant company \u2019s legal predecessor in respect of the events giving rise to the present application was a limited - liability company established under the laws of GPE in DATE and registered in GPE . The latter company was the publisher of a popular DATE newspaper , ORG , which has national coverage and was later acknowledged by the courts to be one of the most widely read newspapers in GPE .","Prior to the proceedings described below , in DATE , the applicant company \u2019s legal predecessor was merged with the applicant company . For ease of reference , henceforth in this judgment \u201c the applicant company \u201d includes the applicant company \u2019s legal predecessor .","The present case revolves around the participation by an individual , ORG , in a \u201c Who Wants To Be A Millionaire ? \u201d type of knowledge quiz in DATE and DATE .","The quiz was broadcast by a popular national TV channel .","For the assessment of certain aspects of this case , it may be of relevance that ORG was a student of information technology and was also a co - owner and the statutory representative of a limited liability company specialising in , inter alia , the purchase , sale and repair of mobile phones .","PERSON was doing remarkably well in the quiz and had answered CARDINAL questions correctly , until he failed to answer the fourteenth question right , which was worth the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) . A. was thereby excluded from the quiz with the equivalent of some LAW worth of winnings .","A. subsequently complained to the organisers of the quiz , arguing that the fourteenth question had been formulated in an ambiguous way and that , in the circumstances , his answer had been correct . The complaint was however dismissed .","On DATE the organiser of the quiz lodged a criminal complaint on the basis of a suspicion that , in connection with the quiz , A. or other persons unknown had committed the offence of fraud .","On DATE the investigation of the criminal complaint was stayed , on the ground that it had not been possible to establish any matters of fact justifying the bringing of charges against any specific person .","The controversy over the fourteenth question as well as the suspicion against A. received wide media coverage in PERSON and other press in GPE and abroad , inter alia presenting amply A. \u2019s position .","Both topics were also the subject of lively debate on various Internet fora .","Meanwhile , in addition to the coverage mentioned above , on CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant company had published CARDINAL feature articles in PERSON about the incident . The titles and the introductory paragraphs of these articles appeared on the front pages of the issues published on DATE . They were accompanied by photographs and followed by further text and photographs under separate titles further in the paper .","On the front page of the paper , the article had the title :","\u2018 Was he cheating ? An investigation has already begun!\u2019","Further headings on the front page read as follows :","\u2018 Discharged contender\u2019","and","\u2018 Scandal in [ the name of the quiz]\u2019","The introductory paragraph on the front page read as follows :","\u201c The tables have turned ! A contender who it was thought had been unlawfully divested of [ the equivalent of some EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ] in a TV quiz is now suspected of fraud ! Moreover , the disappointed [ A. ] has not been allowed by [ the TV station ] to return to the game ! \u201d","The article continued on page CARDINAL under the title :","\u2018 Suspicion of [ the TV station ] : A fraud in [ the name of the quiz]?\u2019","Further bullet - point headings on page CARDINAL read as follows :","\u201c [ He ] will not return to the quiz \u201d","and","\u201c He \u2019ll sue \u201d","The introductory paragraph on that page read as follows :","\u201c The scandal in the TV quiz [ name of the quiz ] , in which a contender was apparently unlawfully divested of [ the equivalent of some EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ] worth of winnings , is revving up . [ Full name of A. ] , [ age of A. ] is in vain claiming his right to sit in the millionaire \u2019s armchair . [ The TV station ] has on this said an unequivocal \u2018 NO\u2019 to his attempts to compete again in the popular programme . [ The TV station ] moreover raised the suspicion that the contender may have cheated ! \u201d","The text of the article starts as follows :","\u201c The suspicion arose after several lawyers had carefully viewed the footage of the disputed sequence of the TV quiz . The initial intention \u2013 to find out whether an error has indeed been committed DATE has resulted in unexpected finals ! Watching the video recording closely , the lawyers were petrified with horror : There has not been fair play ! [ A. ] has seemingly been cheating !","Their suspicion stemmed from the unusual behaviour of the player . \u2018 When given a question , he did not appear to consider the options offered , and responded as if he was intentionally diverting attention by making various remarks which had nothing to do with the question . And then , all of a sudden , he came up with the correct ORG , asserts one of the lawyers who has already conveyed his doubts to the management of the TV station .","\u2018 A lively discussion has been stirred up on the Internet , and viewers have come forward who also noticed the unusual behaviour of the player\u2019 , added as \u2018 damning NORP the spokesperson [ name ] of [ the TV station ] . \u2018 Our lawyers are examining further evidence and upon its assessment we will consider lodging a criminal complaint against the contender\u2019 she observed .","The surprising suspicion has however not swept [ A. ] away . \u2018 I was expecting them to pull something on me . But they are absolutely not right\u2019 , emphasised [ A. ] .","The article continues with a neutral description of the incident with the ambiguous question , followed by references to the reactions of ORG and the TV station , in the following terms :","\u201c The disappointed contender has not hesitated for TIME and has made a written complaint , to which he is entitled under the appeal rules of the quiz . \u2018 I pointed out the ambiguity of the answer to the [ fourteenth ] question\u2019 , submitted [ A. ] . According to the regulations , [ the TV station ] had DATE to reply to this objection , but as early as DATE they rendered a final judgment : [ A. ] was not to be readmitted to [ the name of the quiz ] ! \u2018 So far the contender has not submitted any relevant expert evidence supporting his assertions . All our sources , renowned professional publications , support our ORG , added [ the TV station \u2019s spokesperson ] . The unsuccessful candidate for millionaire still wants to negotiate with [ the TV station ] . \u2018 If that does not work , I will ORG , declared A. \u201d","On the front page of the paper , the article had the title :","\u201c [ The TV station ] Strikes Back : Instead of winning CARDINAL , you will be jailed ! \u201d","A further heading on the front page read as follows :","\u201c Scandalous [ the name of the quiz ] \u201d","The introductory paragraph on the front page read as follows :","\u201c [ The TV station ] is preparing an unpleasant surprise for [ A. ] , [ DATE ] , who feels cheated because he has been thrown out of the TV quiz [ the name of the quiz ] . Not only is he not going to be allowed to get back into the game , but there will even be a criminal complaint against him ! What does the commercial TV station suspect the unsuccessful \u2018 millionaire\u2019 of ? \u201d","The article continued on page CARDINAL under the title :","\u201c [ The TV station ] to [ A. ] : You will be jailed for fraud ! \u201d","There is a photograph of ORG taking part in the quiz with the controversial question in the foreground , with the following explanatory text below it :","\u201c An enormous response from viewers and heated Internet discussion about a possible fraud has forced the management of [ the TV station ] to transmit the footage of the programme to experts for analysis . \u201d","The introductory paragraph on that page reads as follows :","\u201c There shall be no negotiation ! So the management of the TV station [ the name of the TV station ] has decided , and they have dismissed the request of [ A. ] [ age of A. ] . This man from [ a town ] feels cheated because has been excluded from a general knowledge quiz allegedly wrongfully , and that is why he wants to get back into the game . The commercial television station will however not allow him to do so . And it will not be deterred from its decision even by the threats of [ A. ] to bring the whole matter to court . [ The TV station ] responds even more vigorously : \u2018 We will lodge a criminal complaint against him\u2019 , submits the spokesperson for the TV station [ name of the spokesperson ] . \u201d","The text of the article starts by referring to the TV station \u2019s suspicion and by quoting the statement and its source as indicated in paragraph CARDINAL above , followed by a quotation from the TV station \u2019s own written statement along the following lines :","\u201c On the basis of an analysis of the video footage by an expert in psychology and on the basis of numerous pieces of indirect evidence , we have a suspicion of fraud in the programme [ name of the quiz ] , and that is why [ the TV station ] will lodge a criminal complaint against the contender . \u201d","The article continues by referring to the complaint lodged by ORG and by citing his and the TV station \u2019s statements :","\u201c I have raised an objection within DATE required . According to the [ applicable rules ] I have the right to do that . \u201d","and","\u201c The protest has not been supported by sufficient expert evidence to give the management of [ the TV station ] a valid reason for readmitting the contender into the game . \u201d","The article continues by a neutral reference to the TV station \u2019s decision , which was conveyed to the applicant by way of a letter from the TV station \u2019s lawyers , and by quoting the reaction of A. as follows :","\u201c From the letter it is unclear whom they represent . I therefore consider this document worthless and I assert that I still do not have the official position of [ the TV station ] \u201d","The closing part of the article reads as follows :","\u201c [ A. ] fights hard for his right to sit in the millionaire \u2019s armchair . Moreover , he has decided \u2018 to pay them out\u2019 and he is suing [ the TV station ] . \u2018 This time for insult , defamation and injury to his good name be it as an individual or a legal entity\u2019 adds the co - owner of a company based in [ a town ] trading in mobile phones .","The dispute over [ the fourteenth ] question has thus taken a completely different turn . Will the public ever learn the truth ? \u201d","NORP The title of the article on the front page was :","\u2018 An eyewitness to the scandal in [ the name of the quiz ]","I know how he cheated!\u2019","The introductory paragraph on the front page read as follows :","\u201c PERSON has obtained a statement from a woman who resolved to speak on the strange practices going on behind the scenes of the shooting of the programme [ name of the quiz ] ! \u2018 The TV crew suspected [ A. ] even then of having a concealed device on him\u2019 , says the witness . \u201d","The article continued on page CARDINAL under the title and subtitle :","\u2018 The contestant [ A. ] allegedly had on him a device such as are carried by government officials","An eyewitness has spoken out\u2019","The introductory paragraph on that page read as follows :","\u201c PERSON has obtained a statement from a woman who has taken DATE to summon up the courage to reveal a big secret from behind the scenes of the shooting of [ the name of the quiz ] . This woman claims : \u2018 I was there when the TV crew of [ the TV station ] uncovered that the contestant [ A. ] had been cheating ! During the shooting they discovered that he had a device on him such as are carried by government officials\u2019 . \u201d","The text of the article itself reads as follows :","\u201c The viewer gradually also recollects other suspicious elements . The shooting allegedly had to be interrupted several times , and the microphone attached to [ A. ] \u2019s suit had to be shifted from CARDINAL side to the other . \u2018 Seemingly they already suspected something . I also overheard a conversation between the director and a technician , which took place backstage . They were saying that their equipment was showing suspicious frequencies and that they had no explanation why\u2019 , recounts the details the viewer from [ a town ] . According to her both nervous men were clearly relieved when [ A. ] left the studio with \u2018 only\u2019 [ the equivalent of some EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ] in his pocket . Their last sentence allegedly was : \u2018 Thank PERSON it ended up this way . Imagine if he had won [ the equivalent of some EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL!]\u2019 .","Despite it being DATE , she remembers the entire conversation very well , even being able to describe the director and the technician in quite some detail .","The programme coordinator for [ the name of the quiz ] , [ the name ] , says : \u2018 We had suspicions , but they were not strong enough to warrant taking any action . We did not want to make an unjustified accusation . I believe that we acted correctly.\u2019","The eyewitness to these events does not wish to have her identity disclosed , because she is apprehensive about the consequences of an open confession . ( Her name is however at the disposal of ORG ) .","How could the contestant have cheated ? [ A. ] has a business in the area of mobile phones , so he is very familiar with that technology . And that is the whole thing . It sufficed to have it well organised and acted out . The contestant could have had an accomplice in the audience who had his mobile phone on during the entire shooting , so that a third person at the other end of the line could easily learn the questions . The latter person , together with a group of friends , could then have immediately looked the right answer up on the Internet or in encyclopaedias . They could then have announced it to [ A. ] by a micro device , which he could have had attached to his body .","The fact that members of the TV crew discovered incongruities during the shooting but took no action is , according to the eyewitness , striking . \u2018 Perhaps they wanted to cover it up . They did not expect [ A. ] to sue them over unclear wording of the question\u2019 she speculates . \u201d","The article concluded by with a neutral summary of the key elements of the story .","On DATE , with reference to the articles cited above , A. contacted the applicant company with a proposal for an out - of - court settlement consisting of the publication of an apology free of charge and the payment of compensation in an amount equivalent to some ORG CARDINAL . His proposal failed .","On DATE sued the applicant company for libel , relying on the rules on the protection of personal integrity under LAW seq . of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) , and seeking the same redress as in its proposal of DATE ( see the preceding paragraph ) .","As regards the article of CARDINAL DATE , A. claimed that it gave the false impression that he had been charged with a criminal offence and that he was a cheat . Moreover , his photograph , full name and age were disclosed without his consent .","As regards the article of CARDINAL DATE , he contended that it had contained statements that were taken out of context and that this article had had negative repercussions on his relations with his family , at work and with his clients .","Finally , as regards the article of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON argued that it contained untrue , made - up and misleading conclusions .","The applicant company defended the action through the intermediary of a lawyer , who is the same lawyer as the CARDINAL representing it before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and who represented it throughout the domestic proceedings .","In its defence , the applicant company argued that its reporting in the articles concerned a matter of legitimate public interest . In that respect , it pointed out that the quiz had an extremely large audience and that , by having voluntarily taken part in it , A. had become a \u201c public figure \u201d who had to tolerate a higher degree of interference with their personal integrity . The choice of the reporting technique was the applicant company \u2019s prerogative . As regards the impugned articles in particular , it was clear that they concerned suspicions and not proven facts . Although some turns of phrase indicated a degree of journalistic exaggeration and provocation , the context and the content of the articles in its entirety left no one in doubt as to the real facts . Moreover , A. had been given the opportunity to comment .","In a further submission the applicant company produced a detailed analysis of the behaviour of ORG which , according to the applicant company , had given rise to a suspicion that he had been cheating . The submission is based on detailed references to Convention case - law and also includes arguments contesting the claim for damages .","The case was examined at first instance by GPE ORG ( Okresn\u00fd s\u00fad ) , which held CARDINAL hearings , took oral evidence from the parties and CARDINAL witnesses , and assessed documentary evidence .","The person identified in the article of CARDINAL DATE as the eyewitness was questioned at a hearing on DATE . She denied making a statement with the specific wording suggested by the citation in the introductory paragraph on page CARDINAL of that DATE \u2019s issue ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but confirmed everything else attributed to her in the article of DATE .","On DATE ORG allowed the action by ordering the applicant company to publish an apology and to pay A. the equivalent of some EUR CARDINAL in damages .","ORG held that the applicant company had interfered with the claimant \u2019s personal integrity without an acceptable justification . It noted the categorical language of some of the statements , such as \u201c There has not been fair play ! \u201d , \u201c Instead of winning CARDINAL , you will be jailed ! \u201d and \u201c You will be jailed for fraud ! \u201d and considered that they implied no polemic .","In the view of ORG , the use of expressions such as \u201c seemingly \u201d , \u201c perhaps \u201d , and \u201c suspicion \u201d did not free the publisher from \u201c accountability for the truthfulness of the published material \u201d and it made no difference whether the applicant company was quoting statements made by others or expressing its own opinions , just as it did not matter whether it intentionally published untruths or negligently relayed the findings of someone else . And neither was it of any consequence for the accountability of the publisher whether the published allegations and information had already been or would later be published elsewhere .","The applicant company had failed to discharge its burden of proof with regard to the truthfulness of the suggestion that ORG had been cheating in the quiz , since none of the witnesses had been able to confirm that he had , and they had all referred only to suspicious behaviour by GPE , the suspicion had not even been confirmed by the police ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In addition , ORG found that the criminal complaint by the TV station could have been a certain form of retaliation for the attempts by A. to get back into the game . In the court \u2019s view , in the given circumstances , the standing of A. as a public figure was of no consequence .","ORG held specifically that","\u201c it [ was ] irrelevant whether [ A. ] was a public figure or not , since ... even if the articles could be considered as polemic and containing value judgments , as long as they were based on matters about which untruths were being published , they constituted a palpable unjustified interference with the claimant \u2019s right to protection of his personal integrity \u201d .","As to the amount of the damages , ORG noted that the libellous articles had been published in a DATE with a large readership and that some of them had been printed on the front page . Although the claimant had failed to show that he had suffered any loss of esteem among his family and friends , or that he had suffered any loss of business customers , it was accepted that his dignity had suffered in general terms .","The applicant company appealed , repeating its previous arguments and adding , inter alia , that the impugned articles implied nothing but suspicions , for which in any case there was a solid factual basis .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) upheld the contested judgment . It concurred with the applicant company that through his participation in the TV quiz A. had become a public figure and that the level of protection of personal integrity he merited was thereby reduced . However , this reduced standard of protection only applied as long as the published material was truthful and any value judgments had a basis in reality .","ORG also concurred with the applicant company that the articles were polemical in nature and related to suspicions . Nevertheless , in terms of ORG judgment , the impugned articles were","\u201c objectively capable of interfering with the plaintiff \u2019s rights , because they did not have a truthful basis , and that is why they did not enjoy protection . The firstinstance court rightly concluded that the evidence taken did not show that the claimant had cheated at the game ... \u201d","As regards the statement of the eyewitness cited in the article of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that it was presented as a statement of fact , which left the reader with no option of reaching another conclusion than that A. had been cheating . It was irrelevant that that article followed and was based on the previous articles because merely by citing a source the applicant company could not rid itself of its liability for the unjustified interference .","On DATE the applicant company challenged ORG judgment by way of a complaint under LAW , alleging a violation of LAW , recapitulating all its previous arguments with detailed references to Convention case - law , and claiming that the ordinary courts had failed to give any answer to a significant number of its substantive arguments ..","On DATE ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) declared the complaint inadmissible as manifestly - ill founded . It found no constitutionally relevant arbitrariness , unlawfulness , deficiency or irregularity in the courts\u2019 reasoning . Moreover , it reiterated that , pursuant to its established case - law , a general court could not bear \u201c secondary liability \u201d for a violation of fundamental rights and freedoms of a substantive nature unless there had been a violation of procedural rules . As no violation of any procedural rule had been established , there could not have been any violation of any substantive right either ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179869","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA (No. 3)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Rousseva;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The background to the refusal to register ORG at issue in this case has been set out in detail in the judgments in the following cases : PERSON and ORG v. GPE , nos . GPE and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-IX ; ORG and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG and PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ; and ORG and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE .","On DATE PERSON \u2019s board of management applied to ORG for it to be registered as an association . On DATE the ORG refused the application , and on DATE its decision was upheld by ORG . A detailed account of those proceedings may be found in PERSON and Others v. PERSON ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","On DATE the second and third applicants and CARDINAL other people held a meeting at which they resolved to set up ORG as an association . They defined ORG aims and the means that it would use to attain them , adopted its articles of association , and elected its board of management , which consisted of all CARDINAL of them .","Shortly after that , ORG \u2019s board of management applied to ORG for it to be registered as an association .","In a decision of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0444. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , \u0411\u041e\u0421 ) ORG refused the application . It first observed that even though ORG had declared that it intended to be an association which only served the interests of its members , its aims , as set out in its articles of association , showed that in reality it meant to serve broader public interests ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court went on to note that ORG \u2019s articles of association stated that it would strive for , inter alia , the introduction of the NORP language in schools , the protection of the right of NORP to refute propaganda about their history and culture , and the protection of NORP cultural heritage , which was being \u201c subjected to ethnocide by NORP cultural institutions \u201d . The articles of association also stated that ORG would organise seminars and press conferences to expose the reasons which underlay the \u201c policy of forced assimilation and discrimination of , and xenophobia towards , NORP in GPE \u201d . According to the articles of association , PERSON was a \u201c NORP organisation based on a NORP ethnic foundation and origin within the boundaries of GPE \u201d , and it \u201c would remind [ people ] of the terror perpetrated by GPE , of the CARDINAL of NORP killed , of the violence , the prisons and the deprivation of basic human rights and freedoms of NORP after DATE , which amounted to crimes under international law \u201d . For the court , all those statements gave the impression that GPE intended to stir up national and ethnic hatred , contrary to LAW ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) . Moreover , the statements , combined with the existence , albeit brief , of a political party called ORG , whose re - registration had recently been refused , and with the existence of organisations bearing the same or similar names , led to the conclusion that the intention was to mislead society and to obtain the registration of an organisation pursuing political aims ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , or an organisation directed against the unity of the nation . This was also contrary to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which barred associations from having misleading names . Lastly , the association \u2019s intended name was not unique , as required by law .","Ilinden \u2019s founders appealed . They submitted that the court had misconstrued ORG \u2019s articles of association and had erred in finding that its activities would be political or directed against the unity of the nation . The real reason for the refusal to register PERSON had been that it advocated views which were at odds with the official ones .","NORP In a decision of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0444. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG , GPE ) a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG upheld the refusal to register ORG by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL .","The court began by saying that when assessing the aims of an association seeking registration , it had to base itself chiefly on the articles of association . But since by law in registration proceedings the court had to examine the reality of the matter rather than carry out a mere formal check , it had to have regard not just to the aims set out in the articles of association , but to the entirety of the articles , and on that basis ascertain the ORG real aims and intentions . The court also had to bear in mind the traditions which the association purported to represent and the historical figures with which it identified , the past activities , if known , of its founders , leaders and supporters , as well as the positions they had advocated . All those elements had to be juxtaposed with the aims set out in the articles of association , with a view to verifying whether those aims were not in effect a cover for other aims . In doing so , and thus balancing the rights of the founders of the association against the rights of others and the public interest , the court could rely not only on the material in the case file but also on facts which were publicly known and of which it could therefore take judicial notice .","In GPE \u2019s case , it had been common knowledge , sufficiently publicised in both NORP and foreign media , that since DATE some of its founders , leaders and supporters had in a persistent manner openly challenged both those who had opposed their views and the ORG authorities , which had led to a string of breaches of public order DATE clashes between ORG \u2019s supporters and their opponents on account of the views expressed by the former about NORP history \u2013 reported in the media . Seen against that background , the declaration in PERSON \u2019s articles of association that people of any ethnicity could become members did not reflect the reality of the situation , which was that the organisation had been conceived as CARDINAL based purely on NORP ethnicity . The same went for the declaration in the articles of association that ORG would only resort to peaceful means to achieve its aims . This had been belied by the organisation \u2019s record of provoking its opponents and the ORG authorities by making strongly worded statements about violence against NORP such statements had featured in its articles of association as well NORP which had led to real public clashes . The court had to also take into account the complex ethnic and religious situation in some neighbouring countries , as well as the severe migrant crisis affecting all of LOC and GPE in particular , as a front - line ORG of ORG . That crisis , coupled with the \u201c recent , likewise commonly known , tragic events in LOC countries \u201d , showed a categorical need to mobilise all available ORG and social resources .","In those circumstances , the application to register PERSON had to be turned down for CARDINAL reasons . Firstly , the pursuit of its real aims , seen against the backdrop of the heightened sensitivities of the population in GPE , where it was based , could have led to serious tensions and breaches of public order caused by , or involving , supporters of the organisation , as had happened in the past . In the tense situation facing GPE and its neighbouring GPE , that had to be seen as a genuine possibility . Secondly , the realisation of GPE \u2019s right to freedom of association would infringe the rights of all NORP who did not support its aims or the means which it intended to use to attain those aims . All were entitled to believe that they were not citizens of a ORG which had committed international crimes , that they did not engage , in their capacity as NORP citizens , in propaganda and manipulation of the history and culture of a neighbouring country and that they were not citizens of a ORG whose institutions had subjected the cultural heritage of part of its population to ethnocide . ORG concluded that it was necessary to refuse the registration application , even though it recognised that it was also possible to dissolve an already registered association if it engaged in anti - constitutional or unlawful conduct . The refusal was a justified preventive measure .","The dissenting judge noted that ORG \u2019s founders had complied with all formal requirements of the law . She went on to say that the registration regime was not to be used to hinder the exercise of the fundamental right to associate with others , and that the case called for the direct application of LAW , which was part of NORP law . She then noted how that Article had been construed by ORG in several cases , including ORG and Others and ORG and Others ( both cited above ) , and stated that , in her view , the fact that an association advocated a form of minority consciousness could not justify a restriction of its rights under that Article . The ORG \u2019s ruling on that point in PERSON and ORG ( cited above ) had to be taken into account when examining the registration request at issue . There was , moreover , no evidence of actions by ORG \u2019s founders which ran counter to the prohibition in LAW ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) . The refusal to register it was thus disproportionate and unjustified .","Ilinden \u2019s founders sought to appeal on points of law . On CARDINAL DATE the judge - rapporteur of ORG , who under the relevant rules of procedure had to check the appeal \u2019s admissibility before forwarding it to ORG , sent it back to the appellants . He noted that under the applicable rules of procedure , as consistently construed by ORG , no appeal lay against appellate decisions confirming refusals to register an association . In a final decision of DATE ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0447. \u0442. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG , I \u0442. \u043e. ) ORG dismissed the ORG appeal against the judge - rapporteur \u2019s order . It likewise found that under the applicable rules of procedure , which it had already construed in several cases , ORG decision was not amenable to appeal ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180558","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SALIHI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Procedure prescribed by law)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .","By its decision of CARDINAL DATE , and at the recommendation of ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) , ORG instituted proceedings for the applicant \u2019s placement in a psychiatric facility .","On DATE , ORG decided to keep the applicant in ORG for a maximum of DATE ( counting from the date of his placement , that is DATE ) .","On DATE ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) placed the applicant in ORG ( the \u201c Drin Home \u201d ) .","On DATE , ORG deprived the applicant of his legal capacity .","On DATE ORG placed the applicant under the guardianship of ORG , CARDINAL of its employees . Several other employees were subsequently appointed as the applicant \u2019s successive guardians .","By its decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , ORG decided that the applicant should remain in FAC .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) held that the applicant \u2019s deprivation of liberty had not been \u201c in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law \u201d within the meaning of LAW as he had been held in psychiatric detention without a decision of a competent civil court . It also found that LAW had been breached because of the lack of judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s detention . ORG ordered ORG to take measures to ensure respect for the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW .","On DATE , ORG restored the applicant \u2019s legal capacity .","The applicant was released from ORG on DATE .","At the applicant \u2019s request , ORG again admitted him to ORG , DATE and DATE .","The applicant requested an extension of his stay in social care , which request was granted on DATE . The applicant was thus placed in ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","The applicant died on DATE , while in ORG ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159732","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF G.S.B. v. SWITZERLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 14+8-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case as submitted by the parties can be summarised as follows .","In DATE the GPE tax authorities ( ORG [ ORG ] in GPE ) discovered \u2013 primarily from a complaint lodged by a former employee of the ORG bank in GPE responsible for asset management for the bank \u2019s private NORP DATE that CARDINAL of GPE taxpayers held ORG bank accounts which had not been declared to their national authorities or else held economic rights in respect of such accounts .","Owing to the role which it had apparently played in that connection , the bank faced a risk of criminal prosecution .","On DATE a deferred prosecution agreement ( ORG ) was concluded between ORG and ORG ( ORG ) . In this document the bank acknowledged that it had , in particular , allowed GPE taxpayers to use off - shore accounts to conceal their assets and income from the GPE tax authorities and had met with and provided on - the - spot advice , in GPE , to customers who had not declared their accounts to the ORG . It was agreed that proceedings could be dropped in return for a settlement amount of MONEY ( ORG ) .","On DATE the ORG brought a civil action ( a so - called \u201c PERSON summons \u201d [ PERSON ] ) requesting a formal order to ORG to reveal the identities of its CARDINAL NORP customers and to communicate data on their bank accounts .","GPE was concerned that the dispute between the GPE authorities and ORG might give rise to a conflict between NORP and GPE law should the ORG obtain that information , and the civil proceedings were therefore suspended pending extra - judicial reconciliation .","On DATE , with a view to identifying the taxpayers in question , ORG ) of ORG and GPE ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) concluded an \u201c Agreement concerning the request by ORG of GPE relating to the NORP company ORG \u201d ( \u201c Agreement CARDINAL \u201d ) ...","Under DATE CARDINAL GPE undertook to deal with the GPE request for mutual assistance concerning ORG NORP customers in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Appendix to that Agreement and , moreover , in conformity with LAW between GPE and GPE on double taxation ( ORG - US CARDINAL ) ...","Drawing on those criteria , the parties to Agreement DATE considered that the request for mutual assistance concerned \u201c CARDINAL open or closed accounts \u201d .","GPE further undertook to set up a \u201c special task force \u201d enabling ORG ( ORG ) to reach its final decisions in the framework of the mutual assistance request within a specific timescale .","In return , the Agreement provided that GPE and ORG would submit to ORG for LOC of GPE a joint request for the discontinuance of the request for enforcement of the \u201c PERSON Summons \u201d ( see LAW DATE ) ...","On DATE the ORG submitted a mutual assistance request to the ORG with a view to obtaining information on GPE taxpayers who , DATE and DATE , had had \u201c authority to sign or other access rights to \u201d bank accounts \u201c held , supervised or maintained by a section of ORG or by CARDINAL of its branches or subsidiaries in GPE \u201d .","On DATE the ORG ordered ORG to provide information for the purposes of the CARDINAL DATE Order concerning ORG October CARDINAL on double taxation ( ORG - US CARDINAL ) ... The ORG decided to instigate a mutual assistance procedure and requested that ORG provide , in particular , complete files on the customers mentioned in LAW DATE .","By judgment of DATE ( A-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ORG ( ORG ) accepted an appeal against a decision taken by the ORG which concerned , in the framework of LAW DATE , a challenge falling within the category defined in paragraph CARDINAL\/A \/ b . In its reasoning , the ORG held that :","\u2013 Agreement DATE was a mutual agreement which should remain within the framework set out by the convention on which it depended , ORG - US CARDINAL ;","\u2013 under the terms of the aforementioned convention , mutual assistance was granted in cases of tax fraud , but not in cases of tax evasion ( that is to say the mere failure to declare a bank account to the tax authorities ; regarding this distinction under NORP tax law ... ;","\u2013 accordingly ORG - US CARDINAL only facilitated exchange of information in cases of \u201c fraud or a similar offence \u201d for the purposes of NORP law , that is to say tax swindle ( tax evasion by dint of \u201c creative accountancy \u201d ) or document forgery ;","\u2013 having regard to the obligations which it imposed on GPE , that agreement should have taken the form of an international treaty ratified by ORG and been put to an \u201c optional referendum \u201d ;","\u2013 accordingly , the form of a mere friendly agreement concluded by ORG on its own had been insufficient .","Consequently , ORG voided the decisions given by the ORG on the basis of Agreement DATE .","The entry into force of that ORG judgment of DATE called into question the application of Agreement DATE .","Indeed , out of the CARDINAL individual cases covered by that agreement CARDINAL concerned situations of long - term tax evasion of enormous proportions . ORG considered that an inability to provide mutual aid in such cases could create major difficulties for GPE in its bilateral relations with GPE . ORG deemed likely that GPE would impose compensatory measures , and that the minimum they could expect was that the GPE would reactivate the enforcement procedure in respect of the ORG customers through mutual assistance channels . ORG were concerned that an NORP court might then order ORG to provide the ORG with the data in question and force the judgment through by dint of extremely high coercive fines .","On DATE , in order to prevent such a development , after fresh negotiations with GPE , ORG concluded a \u201c LAW amending the Agreement between GPE and GPE concerning the ORG \u2019s request for information on the Swiss company ORG , signed in GPE on DATE \u201d , referred to as \u201c LAW \u201d .","The provisions of that protocol were incorporated into LAW . They became provisionally applicable on DATE of its signature by the parties .","By Federal Decree of DATE \u201c approving the Agreement between GPE and GPE concerning the request for information regarding ORG , as well as the LAW amending that LAW , ORG ( ORG ) approved Agreement DATE and LAW , and gave ORG leave to ratify them .","The consolidated version of Agreement DATE as amended under LAW is sometimes referred to as \u201c LAW \u201d ...","The aforementioned Federal Decree stated that the optional referendum mentioned in LAW in respect of certain international treaties concluded by GPE ... was not available in the present case .","On DATE ORG delivered judgment in a pilot case ( A-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) concerning the validity of LAW . In that judgment the ORG ruled that :","\u2013 Convention CARDINAL was fully binding on it within the meaning of Article CARDINAL of the LAW ... ;","\u2013 there was no substantive hierarchy in international law ( apart from the pre - eminence of jus cogens ) ; accordingly , Convention CARDINAL held the same status as ORG - US CARDINAL ;","\u2013 as ORG - US CARDINAL , like the Convention ( for ORG ) and LAW ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) , had been adopted prior to LAW , its provisions were only applicable insofar as they were compatible with the rules of DATE , because LAW took precedence by virtue of its posteriority .","ORG transmitted the applicant \u2019s file to the ORG on DATE .","In its final decision of DATE , the ORG ruled that all the conditions had been met for granting mutual assistance to the ORG and ordering the communication to it of the documents published by ORG .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against that decision .","By judgment of DATE , without assessing the actual lawfulness of the decision of DATE , the court set it aside , noting that the applicant \u2019s right to a hearing had been flouted . Consequently , it referred the case back to the ORG , inviting it to allow the applicant to submit his observations and to give a fresh decision on affording the GPE authorities mutual assistance in his case .","By letter of DATE the ORG notified a deadline of DATE for the applicant to forward any observations before the issuing of a fresh decision .","On DATE the applicant submitted a statement of his position on the matter .","In its final decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG once again held that all the requisite conditions were fulfilled for granting the ORG mutual assistance and ordering ORG to communicate the requested documents to the GPE authorities .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . He complained , in substance , of a lack of any legal basis for the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , as well as of the violation of the LAW and other international treaties , owing , in particular , to noncompliance with the prohibition of the retroactivity of laws and non - respect for his right to respect for his private life , the presumption of innocence , the principle of equality and non - discrimination , and his right to remain silent .","Determining as the final domestic instance , ORG delivered judgment on DATE .","It first of all held , in substance , that Convention CARDINAL was binding on the NORP authorities , considering that they did not have to verify its conformity with Federal law and previous conventions .","Secondly , with reference to the pilot case A-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG set out the following reasoning :","\u201c CARDINAL . The ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning ORG does not relate to the grant of mutual assistance . It is merely a decision whereby the lower - level authority requested information from ORG for the purposes of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG - US CARDINAL . Therefore , it may be accepted that Agreement DATE , in relation with the aforementioned provision , constituted a sufficient legal basis for the ORG to take a decision against ORG , requiring , in particular , the handover of the complete files of customers covered by LAW DATE . That being the case , the appellant \u2019s complaint is ill - founded .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . In the pilot case A-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE this court found that LAW was binding on the NORP authorities . No derogation to it was possible under domestic law or in the authorities\u2019 domestic practice . It was stated that Article CARDINAL [ of the LAW ] required the authorities to apply international law , which includes LAW , and that \u2013 in any event \u2013 the conformity of international law with LAW legislation could not be assessed where the international law in question was more recent . ORG thus accepted that LAW should be applied , even if it was contrary to LAW see ORG judgment ACARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , point CARDINAL and the references therein ; see also ORG judgments A-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , point CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and the references therein , A-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , point CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , and ORG DATE , point CARDINAL ) .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL With particular regard to the relationship between the different conventions ( Convention CARDINAL , ORG - US CARDINAL [ in particular LAW thereof ] , the ORG [ in particular LAW thereof ] and LAW [ in particular LAW thereof ] ) , the court pointed out that that relationship was established pursuant solely to the rules set out in LAW on GPE of DATE ( ORG ) and that there was no substantive hierarchy in international law ( apart from the pre - eminence of jus cogens ) . This court therefore considered that the rules of LAW took precedence over the other provisions of international law , including LAW and LAW , as the latter CARDINAL provisions did not comprise jus cogens . It did , however , find that even if LAW were applicable , the conditions set out in LAW , which permits restrictions on the right to respect for private and family life , were fulfilled . Convention CARDINAL was indeed a sufficient legal basis under the case - law of ORG . Furthermore , GPE \u2019s major interests and the interest of being able to honour the country \u2019s international commitments took precedence over the individual interests of the persons concerned by the mutual assistance agreement to keep their pecuniary situation secret ...","CARDINAL This court also stated , in judgment A-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL cited above , that LAW ( no punishment without law ) was not relevant to mutual assistance procedures . That provision was , exceptionally , applicable in the framework of NORP mutual assistance procedure if the person concerned by the assistance was threatened , in the requesting ORG , with proceedings in breach of LAW ... That was not the situation in the present case ...","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL This court has also held that the parties to an international agreement are free to provide expressly or implicitly for the retroactive application of such agreement ... Moreover , procedural rules could be applied retroactively to previous events , because the prohibition of non - retroactivity only applied to substantive criminal law , not to procedural law , which included provisions on mutual assistance ... Furthermore , the parties to LAW had wished to characterise differently the facts which had occurred prior to the signature of Agreement DATE , which was commonly referred to as \u2018 retroactive effect\u2019 . That wish to apply Agreement DATE which had become Convention DATE with retroactive effect transpired clearly from the criteria for granting mutual assistance as set out in LAW . Even though the parties had specified , in LAW , that that instrument would come into force on the date of its signature , they had wished that retroactive effect to prevail ...","In the present case it should be noted , in the light of the aforementioned judgments , that the following objections as to the validity and applicability of LAW can be discarded without further ado : incompatibility with the ORG and other international treaties , violation of the principle of the prohibition of the retroactivity of laws ( see LAW and LAW ) , and violation of the right to respect for private life ( see LAW ) . Furthermore , contrary to the appellant \u2019s opinion , LAW is in fact a sufficient legal basis for granting mutual assistance , notwithstanding the failure to put it to a referendum ( which is optional ) . Finally , even though GPE was unable \u2013 in this specific case DATE to obtain the same information under its own legislation , it is still bound by its international commitments and must grant mutual assistance where the requisite conditions have been met .","The appellant further submitted that LAW breached the principles of equality and non - discrimination by solely penalising CARDINAL specific category of persons , that is to say ORG customers . He claimed that LAW only applied to ORG customers and not to those of other banks . The appellant relied on LAW , LAW , LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW of DATE on ORG I ; ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) and LAW and CARDINAL of UN Covenant II .","As stated above , this court can not verify the conformity of LAW with LAW and Federal legislation . That legislation , moreover , overrides any previous international agreements to the contrary ( see point CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL above ) . Therefore , LAW must be applied even if it establishes different legal regulations for ORG customers as compared with the customers of other banks ( see ORG judgment A-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .","... \u201d","On those grounds , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE the applicant lodged a public - law appeal with ORG , submitting that the considerations set out in the judgment challenged solely concerned mutual assistance in criminal matters and were not relevant to administrative mutual assistance .","By judgment of DATE that court declared the appeal inadmissible , mainly with reference to a judgment of DATE ( ATF CARDINAL II CARDINAL ) , which had found that appeals against ORG decisions given pursuant to ORG and subsequent agreements concluded with GPE fell within the scope of administrative mutual assistance .","On DATE the banking data concerning the applicant were transmitted to the GPE tax authorities .","NORP By letter of DATE , the ORG invited the applicant to inform it of the subsequent developments in the case , and , in particular , to give a brief summary of any consequences or any criminal penalties imposed personally and effectively on him in GPE following the disclosure of his banking data as ordered by ORG ( ORG ) .","By letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated that he was not currently in a position to respond to the ORG \u2019s request .","By letter of DATE the applicant pointed out that the GPE authorities were still conducting their tax inspection and that he had not yet been charged with any criminal offence .","..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166676","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LOPES DE SOUSA FERNANDES v. PORTUGAL","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband was admitted to the ear , nose and throat ( ENT ) department of ORG ( \u201c the CHVNG \u201d ) for a nasal polypectomy ( removal of nasal polyps ) .","The operation took place DATE without particular incident .","On DATE at TIME the applicant \u2019s husband left hospital and returned home . He returned to the emergency department of the CVHNG at TIME DATE suffering from violent headaches . He was examined by the doctors on duty , in particular by a neurologist . The doctors diagnosed psychological problems and prescribed tranquilisers . They recommended that he leave hospital but the applicant objected .","At TIME DATE the applicant \u2019s husband was examined by the new medical team on duty . At TIME he underwent a lumbar puncture , which revealed that he had bacterial meningitis ( Pseudomonas ) .","At TIME he was transferred to the hospital \u2019s intensive care unit .","On DATE a scan revealed a cerebral oedema .","NORP The applicant \u2019s husband left intensive care on DATE following an improvement in his clinical condition . He was transferred to the hospital \u2019s general medical NORP ward , where he was under the care of Dr J.V.","On DATE he was diagnosed with CARDINAL duodenal ulcers .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband was discharged from hospital as his condition was considered to be stable .","DATE he returned to the GPE emergency department suffering from vertigo and headaches . He was examined by PERSON , who kept him under observation since he had acute diarrhoea , abdominal pain and severe anaemia .","On DATE an endoscopy was performed which showed that the applicant \u2019s husband had a gastroduodenal ulcer .","He left hospital on DATE and medication was prescribed .","The applicant \u2019s husband continued to suffer from severe abdominal pain and diarrhoea . On DATE he returned to the hospital \u2019s emergency department . He was examined by PERSON , who did not consider it necessary to admit him . He therefore returned home DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband was readmitted to the CHVNG . A colonoscopy revealed infectious ulcerative colitis . Bacteriological tests also showed up the presence of the Clostridium difficile bacterium .","The applicant \u2019s husband was placed on a drip and treated with antibiotics .","At the request of the applicant and her husband , PERSON discharged the latter on DATE . He prescribed oral treatment and referred the applicant \u2019s husband for further treatment in the hospital \u2019s outpatient department .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband went to ORG in GPE . He was admitted DATE after he was found to be suffering from chronic diarrhoea and microcytic anaemia . He underwent various examinations including a colonoscopy , an endoscopy and blood tests . The medical team considered several possible causes , including pseudomembranous colitis , an infection with the Clostridium difficile bacterium , and PERSON \u2019s disease . All these possibilities were subsequently ruled out .","The condition of the applicant \u2019s husband worsened .","On DATE he was examined by a doctor who judged the situation to be under control . His condition deteriorated the following day . He was examined by a doctor who diagnosed a possible perforated viscus . An X - ray and an abdominal ultrasound were carried out , which showed ascites in the abdomen . At TIME the applicant \u2019s husband was again examined by a doctor . A sigmoidoscopy was performed which showed that he had rectocolitis . As his abdominal pain was worsening , it was decided that he should undergo surgery .","On DATE at TIME the applicant \u2019s husband was placed on oxygen .","At TIME he was examined by a general physician and TIME later by a surgeon . The latter , noting the existence of widespread peritonitis , decided that an immediate operation was needed . The applicant \u2019s husband entered the operating theatre at TIME and was brought out again TIME in order to be prepared for surgery , in particular by being given a blood transfusion . He re - entered the operating theatre at TIME and left it TIME , unconscious . He died DATE at TIME","According to the death certificate issued by ORG , the applicant \u2019s husband died from septicaemia caused by peritonitis and a perforated viscus .","On DATE the applicant wrote a joint letter to ORG , the regional health authority for the LOC region and ORG . She stated that she had received no response from the hospitals by way of explanation for the sudden deterioration in her husband \u2019s health and his death .","On DATE and DATE the regional health authority for the LOC region sent the applicant copies of the reports drawn up by the GPE and ORG on the basis of her husband \u2019s medical records .","On DATE the applicant requested an update on progress in the proceedings from the regional health authority , stating that she had still received no clear explanations concerning the events preceding her husband \u2019s death . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the authority informed her that the file had been sent to ORG ( IGS ) with a view to the opening of an investigation .","In an order of DATE the Inspector General for Health ordered an investigation ( processo de averigua\u00e7\u00f5es ) .","On DATE an inspector was appointed to head the investigation .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that evidence would be taken from the members of the medical team which had treated her husband and that an expert medical report would be prepared .","The applicant gave evidence on DATE .","On DATE medical expert reports were requested . Reports prepared by experts in the fields of general medicine , gastroenterology and general surgery were submitted in DATE . According to the reports , it would not have been possible to save the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s life in view of the deterioration of his state of health after the nasal polypectomy .","The report of the investigation was submitted on DATE . It found , on the basis of the expert medical reports received , that the treatment administered to the applicant \u2019s husband had been appropriate .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE the Inspector General for Health declared the investigation closed , finding that there had been no medical negligence and that there were no grounds for instituting disciplinary proceedings against the doctors who had treated the applicant \u2019s husband .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed against the order . She argued that the final report had not answered her questions , complaining about areas of uncertainty and about the duration of the investigation and its findings .","On DATE the Inspector General for Health informed the applicant that he had set aside the order of CARDINAL DATE and ordered the reopening of the investigation .","On DATE , in view of the questions raised by the applicant , the medical experts were requested to provide additional information .","A fresh investigation report was submitted on DATE , clarifying the facts and taking account of the answers provided by the CARDINAL medical experts . The report stated that there were no grounds for criticising the health - care personnel who had been involved in the care of the applicant \u2019s husband in the GPE and ORG , as the patient had received proper and appropriate medical assistance in terms of his diagnosis , supervision and treatment . The report further noted that his discharge had been justified on each occasion in view of the improvement in his state of health . The report concluded as follows :","\u201c The results of the investigation ... following the reopening of the proceedings and the fresh inquiries and medical reports do not indicate that there was any negligent or careless conduct in breach of good medical practice . There is therefore no need to take legal or disciplinary action against any persons involved in the [ patient \u2019s ] care ... \u201d","Taking this report into account , the Inspector General for ORG made a fresh order discontinuing the proceedings on DATE .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed against that order , complaining of unclear points and omissions . She also raised the possibility that the sudden deterioration in her husband \u2019s health and his eventual death might have been caused by bacteria present in the operating theatre on DATE of the nasal polypectomy , that the diagnoses may have been made in haste and that there may have been negligence and carelessness in the medical treatment administered to her husband . She therefore requested the reopening of the investigation and the preparation of a fresh expert medical report .","The Inspector General for ORG wrote to the applicant on DATE informing her that he had set aside his previous order and ordered fresh expert assessments to be carried out by different experts in the fields of internal medicine and gastroenterology .","The applicant gave evidence again on DATE .","The medical experts submitted their reports on DATE and DATE . The expert in gastroenterology stated that it was possible , albeit rare , for a nasal polypectomy to cause meningitis . He further considered that the applicant \u2019s husband had received appropriate treatment but that his discharge on DATE may not have been wise in view of his clinical condition . The expert concluded that the applicant \u2019s husband had suffered a series of complications which were uncommon but could occur , and that he had received proper medical care at the ORG . As to his care in ORG , the expert considered that the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s condition had been extremely complicated and had given rise to doubts as to the best way to proceed . In his report , the expert in internal medicine rejected the idea of a hospital - acquired infection on the grounds that , had that been the case , the antibiotics administered to the patient would have had no effect . In his view , the meningitis had developed unexpectedly . He further took the view that the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s discharge on DATE had been appropriate but that he should have continued to be monitored as an outpatient .","On DATE a report was drawn up on completion of the investigation , which concluded as follows :","\u201c ...","The content of the most recent expert medical reports shows ... that there are no grounds for a finding of disciplinary liability for negligence against any of the healthcare professionals involved in DATE \u2019s medical treatment ...","... the decision by the assistant doctor [ J.V. ] to refer the patient for outpatient treatment was not appropriate and sufficient from a clinical viewpoint in so far as , in order to prevent a recurrence of the colitis caused by Clostridium difficile ... , the patient should have remained in hospital under close medical supervision ...","...","Hence , the doctor in question did not act with the necessary care and diligence , thereby incurring disciplinary liability on account of his negligent conduct in the medical assistance provided ... in NORP ward of the GPE \u2019s medical department DATE and DATE .","The medical opinions make no criticisms of the assistance provided in the gastroenterology department of ORG in GPE ... \u201d","In the light of this report the Inspector General made an order on DATE for the opening of disciplinary proceedings against Dr PERSON The outcome of the proceedings was not specified .","DATE . On DATE ORG acknowledged receipt of the applicant \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE , informing her that steps would be taken in response to it .","The case was referred to ORG regional disciplinary council for the NORP region , which , after obtaining the patient \u2019s medical records , sought the opinions of the following specialist panels ( Col\u00e9gios de especialidades ) of ORG :","- ear , nose and throat ( ENT ) ,","- infectious diseases ,","- general surgery , and","- gastroenterology .","In a report of DATE the gastroenterology panel issued the following conclusions :","\u201c ...","A simple X - ray of the abdomen performed DATE before the patient \u2019s death did not detect any dilatation or perforation of the colon .","The patient \u2019s death was caused by peritonitis as a result of the perforation of the duodenal ulcer . The difficulties in diagnosing the condition were understandable in view of the patient \u2019s serious clinical condition and the fact that his abdominal pains were explained by the inflammatory disease in the colon .","The role of the corticosteroids in aggravating or reactivating the peptic ulcer ... is not currently considered a risk factor ... However , given that the patient had already experienced CARDINAL episode of intestinal bleeding , there would have been grounds for weighing up the use of these drugs .","...","The decisions to discharge the patient [ from hospital ] may have delayed the diagnosis or the commencement of treatment . Nevertheless , after examining the documents submitted to me , I am unable to confirm whether these discharge decisions adversely affected his diagnosis or programme of treatment .","... \u201d","The conclusions of the report of CARDINAL DATE by the infectious diseases panel read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In our opinion the diagnosis of meningitis , most likely resulting from the nasal polypectomy , was inexplicably delayed . The fact that there was no one on the medical team trained in this type of diagnosis ( for example , a specialist in infectious diseases ) may be regarded as the only explanation for such an incident . However , this was not the immediate cause of the patient \u2019s death .","In our view , too long a period elapsed between the diagnosis of the perforation in the duodenal ulcer and surgery .","The procedure has been undermined to an incalculable extent by the fact that no autopsy was performed , although an autopsy is mandatory ( mandat\u00f3ria ) in cases of this type in order to shed light on the chain of events . \u201d","In a report of DATE the general surgery panel found that there had been no negligence or medical malpractice in the hospitals concerned . The report read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . A perforated duodenal ulcer requires immediate surgery . In the present situation the perforated ulcer ... was difficult , if not impossible , to diagnose given the clinical context in which it occurred . Furthermore , in view of the seriousness of the patient \u2019s clinical condition , the approach to surgery had to be given careful consideration and the patient had to be prepared by means of various measures .","... \u201d","In a report dated DATE the ENT panel concluded as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Meningitis following microendoscopic surgery for nasal polyps is described as CARDINAL of the ( major ) complications of this type of surgery , estimated in the literature to occur in PERCENT of cases . These figures will be higher in the event of a repeat operation , as in the present case ( surgery was performed in DATE as stated on page CARDINAL of the file concerning the operation ) .","The post - operative GPE scan of the brain carried out on DATE does not show any discontinuity in the bones at the base of the skull ... which suggests that no invasive endocranial surgery was carried out .","The description of the surgery performed on the patient on DATE ( page CARDINAL of the file ) does not give any indication of clinical malpractice or negligence .","No ENT procedures were performed during any of the patient \u2019s subsequent stays in ORG or in ORG . \u201d","In an order of DATE the regional disciplinary council for the LOC region decided to take no further action on the applicant \u2019s complaint , on the ground that there was no evidence of misconduct or medical negligence . The disciplinary council observed the following :","( i ) meningitis was a complication that could arise in PERCENT of cases following a nasal polypectomy ; the figures were liable to be higher for a repeat operation , as in the case in question ;","( ii ) the applicant \u2019s husband had received appropriate treatment during his various hospital stays ;","( iii ) the patient \u2019s bacterial meningitis ( Pseudomonas ) had been treated properly ;","( iv ) although the infectious diseases panel had suggested that the presence of a specialist in that discipline might have enabled a diagnosis to be made sooner , this had not been a decisive factor in the development of the clinical situation ;","( v ) the perforation of the duodenal ulcer had been the cause of the peritonitis . This had been difficult to diagnose in view of the patient \u2019s serious clinical condition , a fact acknowledged by the gastroenterology and general surgery panels ;","( vi ) although the infectious diseases panel had considered that too long a period had elapsed between the diagnosis of the perforated duodenal ulcer and surgery , the time taken to prepare for the operation had been justified since the patient had been suffering from intestinal disease and had severe anaemia , sepsis and a fluid and electrolyte imbalance , as noted by the general surgery panel .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the order with ORG . On DATE the appeal was declared inadmissible as being out of time .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint for negligent homicide with the GPE criminal investigation and prosecution department .","She gave evidence on DATE .","By order of ORG of DATE the applicant was given leave to intervene in the proceedings as an assistant to the public prosecutor ( assistente ) .","On DATE the public prosecutor \u2019s office made its submissions , charging PERSON with homicide by gross ( grosseira ) negligence . In support of their decision the prosecuting authorities referred to the report appended to the ORG order of DATE . They considered that PERSON should not have discharged the applicant \u2019s husband on DATE in so far as the patient \u2019s clinical condition had been problematic and he had been infected with the Clostridium difficile bacterium .","The case was referred to ORG . During the trial the court heard evidence from the applicant , the accused , CARDINAL doctors who had been involved in treating the applicant \u2019s husband in the CHVNG and in ORG , and the CARDINAL medical experts appointed in the context of the proceedings before the ORG . The court also sought the opinion of ORG .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , taking the view that the findings made by the ORG in its order of DATE could not be taken into consideration as they had not been upheld by the CARDINAL medical experts who had given evidence during the trial .","As to the facts , ORG considered the following to be established :","\u201c The patient \u2019s hospitalisation on DATE ... was not the result of a lack of medical supervision of his clinical condition ... since it was unconnected to the complications arising out of the meningitis . In fact , it resulted from acute anaemia caused by intestinal bleeding from a duodenal ulcer ; ...","The decisions to discharge the patient on CARDINAL and DATE were appropriate , given that , in the former case , the problem of bacterial meningitis had been resolved , [ the patient ] had completed the course of antibiotics , he no longer had any symptoms or fever , had a slightly increased white - blood cell count , a falling neutrophil count and normal sedimentation rate , and was not complaining ... and , in the latter case , that is to say , the patient \u2019s hospitalisation from DATE , the patient was not complaining of abdominal pain , diarrhoea or bleeding ... with the result that it was possible to continue treating his ulcer with a dietary regime while monitoring him on an outpatient basis ...","When the patient was admitted to ORG , laboratory tests were carried out for Clostridium difficile . The results were negative on CARDINAL occasions . \u201d","On the subject of the surgery preceding the death of the applicant \u2019s husband , ORG observed as follows :","\u201c ... the patient presented in a very serious clinical state , with septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction . For that reason , he was placed on artificial ventilation and vasoactive drugs and fluids were administered ... , together with hydrocortisone to deal with possible acute adrenal insufficiency ( fal\u00eancia supra - renal aguda ) , and broad - spectrum antibiotics ;","... in this medical context the patient \u2019s prospects of survival were very uncertain , in view of the septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction ;","... a simple abdominal X - ray and an abdominal and pelvic ultrasound scan were therefore requested , which did not reveal a perforation of the intestine . \u201d","In ORG view , it had not been demonstrated that the care provided to the applicant \u2019s husband during his stay in hospital from CARDINAL January to CARDINAL DATE had not been in accordance with good medical practice , or that he should have been kept in hospital for longer .","The court therefore concluded that there was no causal link between the treatment administered by PERSON to the applicant \u2019s husband in the GPE and his death , which","\u201c ... was caused by a perforated viscus that was unconnected to the colonic disease treated by the accused , the Clostridium difficile ... \u201d .","It inferred from this that","\u201c ... there was no evidence to show that the treatment administered by the accused for the Clostridium difficile was incomplete , that the patient was discharged prematurely on DATE or , in sum , that the accused was responsible for the death of the patient on DATE . \u201d","The applicant did not appeal against that judgment .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action in the ORG against the GPE , ORG and the CARDINAL doctors who had been involved in treating her husband while he was in hospital , claiming compensation for the damage she had suffered on account of her husband \u2019s death . She alleged , inter alia ,","( i ) that her husband \u2019s meningitis had been caused by the Pseudomonas cepacia bacterium which , she alleged , had been present in the operating theatre during the nasal polypectomy ;","( ii ) that the meningitis had been diagnosed too late , allowing the illness to become serious ;","( iii ) that the administering of excessive doses of medication and the lack of a suitable prophylactic had caused the duodenal ulcer which had led to her husband \u2019s death .","In the context of these proceedings the applicant was granted legal aid in the form of exemption from payment of the court fees and the fees of a lawyer of her own choosing .","DATE the eight doctors contested their standing to be sued ( ilegitimidade passiva ) , relying on LAW no . DATE of DATE .","DATE . On DATE the court gave a preparatory decision ( despacho saneador ) specifying which facts were considered to be established and which remained to be established . In accordance with LAW no . DATE of DATE it further held that the doctors among the defendants did not have standing ( ilegitimidade passiva ) in so far as they had been sued only for negligent conduct . Accordingly , it declared the claim admissible only in respect of the hospitals .","On DATE the applicant gave evidence .","During the CARDINAL hearings the court heard evidence from the following witnesses :","( i ) CARDINAL doctors who had been involved in treating the applicant \u2019s husband during his various stays in the GPE and ORG ;","( ii ) the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s general practitioner ;","( iii ) CARDINAL doctors who were friends of the family ;","( iv ) the inspector who had written the final report on completion of the investigation within the ORG ; and","( v ) the medical experts in gastroenterology and internal medicine whose reports had formed the basis for the last ORG decision .","On DATE the court made an order concerning the facts . Taking into account the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s medical records and the various statements made by the witnesses who had given evidence , the court considered it established , inter alia ,","( i ) that a polypectomy was a straightforward surgical operation which posed minimal risk and that the patient had been informed accordingly ;","( ii ) that the operating theatre had been aseptic and sterilised at the time of the polypectomy ;","( iii ) that the origin of the bacterium linked to the patient \u2019s meningitis had not been proven . The court dismissed the possibility of a hospital - acquired infection , pointing out that in that case the prescribed treatment would have had no effect ;","( iv ) that the medication prescribed in the GPE and ORG could cause intestinal problems and hence could give rise to colitis ;","( v ) that the applicant \u2019s husband had been treated with drugs to protect his stomach in the GPE ;","( vi ) that the gastroduodenal perforation had not been detected until the operation was being performed ; and","( vii ) that the applicant \u2019s husband had died from septicaemia caused by peritonitis resulting from a perforated viscus .","On DATE the Oporto Administrative and Tax Court delivered a judgment in which it dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims . On the facts , the judgment stated as follows :","\u201c The Pseudomonas bacterium was resistant to the various antibiotics that were tried ...","When the patient attended PERSON Hospital on DATE he had completely recovered from his bacterial meningitis .","...","On DATE the patient again attended PERSON , where he was diagnosed with pseudomembranous colitis caused by Clostridium difficile ... The colitis was successfully treated in that hospital ... ;","Throughout his stay in ORG he was given treatment to protect his stomach .","...","When he was admitted ( to ORG on DATE ) he had chronic diarrhoea ... and was diagnosed with suspected inflammatory bowel disease . Medication was prescribed in keeping with that diagnosis .","...","While in ORG he was kept under observation , received DATE medication and underwent various tests .","...","On DATE ... nothing had made it possible to predict the gastroduodenal perforation ... the tests carried out that day ... did not confirm the existence of any duodenal perforation such that the situation had to be kept under review ;","...","It was not until DATE that the patient \u2019s acute abdominal syndrome was diagnosed , calling for urgent surgery ... it was only during the operation that the patient was found to be suffering from a duodenal perforation ;","...","The perforation had occurred TIME before surgery . \u201d","The judgment concluded as follows :","\u201c ... in view of the facts that have been established , it is not possible to determine at what point the defendants , by their actions or omissions , breached the rules of good medical practice ...","It is considered established that ORG \u2019s death was caused by sepsis due to peritonitis resulting from the perforation of his duodenal ulcer ...","No doubts persisted regarding the diagnosis of meningitis , the procedure adopted , the sequence of treatment and the resolution of the problem , as all the various aftereffects were duly explained .","Hence there were no differences of opinion regarding the need to prescribe and use antibiotics in the context of PERSON \u2019s meningitis and other conditions , although it was explained that colitis is a bacterial imbalance caused by antibiotics ( the very ones which have undesirable effects on intestinal flora ) .","Nevertheless , it was not possible to determine the agent or identify the cause of the bacterium linked to the meningitis and it could therefore not be established with certainty whether the sinus surgery was the source of the problem or was simply CARDINAL factor causing the infection . The other factors and circumstances preceding the operation ... thus cease to be relevant .","It is none the less surprising that the death of the claimant \u2019s husband should have occurred ... given that he had been strong and in good health and that the microsurgery on his sinuses was a straightforward operation . However , it has not been demonstrated that the therapy or medication administered to A. at any point was unsuited to his clinical condition . There was therefore no breach of the rules of good medical practice ( either by action or omission ) . Accordingly , one of the cumulative conditions for establishing civil liability , namely an unlawful act , is absent . \u201d","The applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG . She contested the facts deemed to be established , arguing that only by studying the circumstances before , during and after the operation would it be possible to understand what type of bacterium her husband had contracted . She further reiterated that her husband had contracted a hospital - acquired infection and had not received adequate treatment either in the GPE or in ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims , upholding the judgment of ORG . It first of all declined to review the facts considered by the court below to have been established , on the grounds that the hearings had not been recorded and that no new documents had been submitted which could cast doubt on the evidence forming the basis for the court \u2019s decision . ORG summed up its judgment as follows :","\u201c The court below considered , in sum , that it had not been possible to identify the nature and origin of the bacterium that caused the meningitis and that it had not been demonstrated that the illnesses subsequent to the applicant \u2019s treatment and recovery from that illness ... had been the consequence of incorrect diagnosis or treatment .","For that reason it found that no breach of the rules of good medical practice had been demonstrated that might have caused the patient \u2019s death .","The claimant takes a different view of the matter . However , she bases her arguments mainly on allegations that have not been proven , and in particular the allegation that the meningitis was caused by the Pseudomonas bacterium , allegedly acquired in hospital ... and that the patient did not receive appropriate prophylactic treatment to protect his stomach during his treatment with antibiotics .","Accordingly , these claims can be summed up as allegations of medical negligence which are unsupported by the established facts . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157361","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ZIMA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarized as follows .","On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( Zak\u0142ad Ubezpiecze\u0144 Spo\u0142ecznych \u2013 \u201c the SSB \u201d ) to be granted the right to an early - retirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the so - called \u201c EWK \u201d pension .","Along with her application for a pension , she submitted , among other documents concerning her son \u2019s health , a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor on DATE . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from hypothyroidism ( niedoczynno\u015b\u0107 tarczycy ) and was in need of the parent \u2019s constant care .","On DATE the ORG issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension in the net amount of MONEY ( ORG ) per month , starting from DATE .","The applicant was issued with a pensioner \u2019s identity card marked \u201c valid indefinitely \u201d and she continued to receive her pension without interruption until DATE of the revocation of the right .","On DATE the ORG reviewed the applicant \u2019s pension application under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW DATE on retirement and disability pensions paid from ORG ( LOC o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpiecze\u0144 DATE \u201c the DATE LAW ) .","The ORG requested ORG doctor ( PERSON PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant \u2019s son required the permanent care of a parent . On DATE the doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child in question could not be considered as ever having required such care .","On DATE the ORG simultaneously issued CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant . By virtue of the first decision , the payment of the applicant \u2019s pension was discontinued starting from DATE . By virtue of the second decision , the ORG revoked the initial decision of DATE and eventually refused to award the applicant the right to an early - retirement pension under the scheme provided for by the ORG \u2019s Ordinance of CARDINAL DATE on the right to early retirement of employees raising children who require permanent care ( ORG PERSON . DATE w sprawie uprawnie\u0144 do wcze\u015bniejszej emerytury pracownik\u00f3w opiekuj\u0105cych si\u0119 dzie\u0107mi wymagaj\u0105cymi sta\u0142ej opieki DATE \u201c the DATE LAW ) .","The applicant appealed against the above - mentioned decision divesting her of the right to an early - retirement pension . She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to her original application for a pension .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . On the basis of a report on the state of health of the applicant \u2019s child prepared by an expert in endocrinology the court found that the applicant \u2019s son had not required , as of DATE , a constant care of his mother . It held that the proceedings had been reopened by the ORG in accordance with CARDINAL of the DATE PERSON and the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to an EWK pension .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the first - instance judgment . It agreed with the first - instance ORG findings of fact . As regards the reopening of the proceedings , it observed that the ORG had acted in accordance with LAW . In that context , it referred , in particular , to paragraph CARDINAL of this provision which explicitly allowed the ORG to reopen the proceedings if it came to light that the submitted evidence had not constituted sufficient grounds for the right to the pension to be established . It also noted that , in the applicant \u2019s case , the proceedings had been reopened because new evidence had been obtained by the authority , namely the documents relating to the course of the child \u2019s medical treatment .","The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with ORG ( S\u0105d Najwy\u017cszy ) .","Nor did she lodge a request for the reopening of judicial proceedings in her case on the basis of the judgment of ORG ( PERSON ) of DATE declaring section CARDINAL(CARDINALa ) of the DATE Law unconstitutional ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .","NORP The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in the judgments in the case of GPE GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 ORG , DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 ORG , DATE .","By virtue of the law of DATE on amendments to the law of DATE on retirement and disability pensions paid from ORG and to certain other acts ( LOC o zmianie ustawy o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpiecze\u0144 LOC oraz niekt\u00f3rych innych ustaw \u2013 \u201c the DATE Act \u201d ) , which entered into force on DATE , a new paragraph CARDINAL was added to CARDINAL of the law . The amended CARDINAL of the DATE PERSON provided as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The right to benefits or the amount of benefits will be re - assessed upon application by the person concerned or , ex officio , if , after the validation of the decision concerning benefits , new evidence is submitted or circumstances , which had existed before issuing the decision and which have an impact on the right to benefits or on their amount , are discovered .","Paragraph CARDINAL applies if after the validation of the decision it comes to light that the submitted evidence did not constitute sufficient grounds for the right to the retirement pension or disability pension or for their amount to be established . \u201d","On DATE , before paragraph CARDINAL was added to section CARDINAL of the DATE Law , ORG adopted a resolution in which it held :","\u201c A different assessment of the [ same ] evidence as attached to the application for a retirement or disability pension , carried out by a social security authority after validation of the decision awarding the right to a pension , is not one of the circumstances justifying the ex officio re - opening of the proceedings for a review of the right to a pension in accordance with section CARDINAL of the Law of DATE on retirement and disability pensions paid from ORG . \u201d","In a judgment given on DATE ( case no . III GPE CARDINAL ) ORG held that , when applying section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Law , the domestic courts should take into account the criteria set out in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the PERSON case . They should first establish whether the mistake in granting a social security benefit had been caused by the authorities themselves without any fault of the person concerned . In examining whether the social security authority was allowed to reopen the proceedings , they should also take into account the period of time that had elapsed from the date when the social benefit in question had been granted . When applying the provision of domestic law they should assess the proportionality of the consequences of the interference with an individual \u2019s right to a social benefit . Accordingly , where the mistake had been caused by the authorities themselves and the revocation of the benefit would entail substantial negative consequences for an individual , the relevant decision should not be revoked .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( case no . I GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ORG reiterated that the revocation of the right to a social security benefit following the reopening of the proceedings under LAW of the DATE PERSON should be assessed in the light of the criteria set out in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the PERSON case . In this connection ORG underlined that ORG constituted an integral part of the NORP legal system and that the domestic courts should therefore interpret the provisions of the domestic law in the light of the jurisprudence of the ORG .","In a judgment of DATE ( case no . III GPE CARDINAL ) ORG held that section CARDINAL(CARDINALa ) of the DATE PERSON should not be interpreted as providing a separate legal basis for reopening of the proceedings concerning the grant of a social security benefit and should be read in conjunction with LAW CARDINAL ) . If this provision was to be understood as allowing the social security authority to reopen the relevant proceedings of its own motion merely on the basis of a new assessment of previously submitted evidence , it would have to be considered incompatible with the principle of the rule of law set forth in LAW . ORG considered that its interpretation of the provisions of the DATE PERSON was further supported by the principles set out in the FAC judgment of the ORG .","On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG , asking for section CARDINAL(CARDINALa ) of the DATE Law to be declared unconstitutional . The ORG argued that the impugned provision was unconstitutional in so far as it expressly allowed for an ex officio reopening of proceedings relating to the grant of a pension or a disability pension on the basis of a new assessment of the evidence which had already been submitted before the relevant authority .","On DATE ORG held that section CARDINAL(CARDINALa ) of the DATE PERSON was in breach of LAW ( the principle of the rule of law ) and LAW ( the right to social security ) of LAW . It found that , as the provision in question allowed for an unlimited re - assessment of evidence which constituted grounds for the initial decision concerning the entitlement to a social security benefit , it was in breach of the principle of the rule of law as set forth in LAW .","Furthermore , ORG found that the provision in question did not strike a fair balance between the general interest and an individual \u2019s right to social security under LAW . The court considered that an interference with individual rights guaranteed by LAW , which pursued the aim of correcting the authority \u2019s own mistake , could only be justified under exceptional circumstances . However , on the basis of the impugned provision the social security authority could , at any time and without any limitations , review the decision concerning a social security benefit by means of re - assessment of the evidence before it .","In the grounds for the ruling ORG also referred to the ORG \u2019s PERSON judgment . It noted that this case had likewise concerned a revocation of the right to a social security benefit following the reopening of the social security proceedings , which had been , however , based on section CARDINAL ) of the Law CARDINAL as section CARDINAL(CARDINALa ) had not been in force at the material time . It further observed that the ORG \u2019s judgment had influenced the interpretation of section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Law by ORG ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","Lastly , with regard to the consequences of its ruling , ORG noted that the breach of LAW should be remedied by restoring the state of conformity with the law ( wymaga przywr\u00f3cenia stanu zgodnego z prawem ) . In that context , ORG explicitly stated that the finding of unconstitutionality of section CARDINAL(CARDINALa ) of the DATE PERSON should be a ground for the reopening of proceedings in which final rulings had been based on this provision .","On DATE the judgment was published in ORG ( PERSON ) and entered into force on that date .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW , in so far as relevant , provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Judgments of the Constitutional Court shall be universally binding and final .","Judgments of ORG , ... shall be published immediately .","A judgment of the Constitutional Court shall take effect from DATE of its publication ; however , ORG may specify another date for DATE the binding force of a normative act ...","A judgment of ORG on the non - conformity with LAW , an international agreement or statute , of a normative act on the basis of which a final judicial decision , final administrative decision or ruling on other matters was given , shall be a basis for reopening proceedings , or for quashing the impugned decision or ruling in a manner and on principles specified in provisions applicable to the given proceedings . \u201d","In accordance with LAW in conjunction with LAW ( Kodeks Post\u0119powania Cywilnego ) a party to civil proceedings terminated by a final judgment may request that these proceedings be reopened , if ORG has found that the normative act on the basis of which this judgment was given was incompatible with LAW .","Pursuant to LAW , a request to that effect shall be lodged within DATE from the date on which the judgment of ORG has entered into force . Pursuant to LAW a request for the reopening of the proceedings must be lodged within DATE from the date on which the final judgment has been given , unless the party could not act in the proceedings or was not properly represented .","Under LAW , a reopened case is to be examined within the limits determined by the grounds for the reopening . According to LAW of this provision , after a fresh examination of the case , the court may either dismiss the request for reopening , or allow it and alter or quash the impugned judgment . If need be , it may reject the claim on formal grounds or discontinue the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169055","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TAMER TANRIKULU v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , while the applicant was serving as a conscript in the army , he fell from the roof where he was on guard . Subsequently , he was treated in various civilian and military hospitals . According to a medical report dated DATE , the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from a left parietal craniotomy and was declared unfit for military service .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for compensation for his injury .","Following a tacit dismissal of the claim by the administrative authorities , the applicant initiated compensation proceedings in respect of the injuries he had sustained during his military service before ORG on DATE . He sought MONEY ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of pecuniary damage and the same sum in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","An expert report dated DATE assessed the applicant \u2019s pecuniary damage at TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant asked the court to increase his initial claim via an amendment ( \u0131slah ) , stating that he had only become aware of the true extent of his pecuniary damage when he had received the expert \u2019s report .","On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicant and awarded him the full amount of his initial claim in respect of pecuniary damage , namely TRY CARDINAL . It awarded him a further TRY CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage . However , the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for an amendment , considering itself bound by the initial claim . The court stated in particular :","\u201c The purpose of an amendment is to rectify a procedural act . Having regard to the judgment of ORG published in ORG , we must conclude that , in civil law , injured persons are entitled to seek additional compensation once an expert report has been issued . However , in the proceedings before ORG , the time - limits of DATE [ from the date when a claimant becomes aware of the impugned act ] and DATE from the date of referral of the administrative authorities apply . Under section CARDINAL ) of ORG , the amount claimed can not be rectified once those deadlines have passed . Consequently , the applicant \u2019s amendment claim must be rejected for being out of time ... \u201d","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for rectification of its previous decision ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174213","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"\u00c7AKMAK\u00c7I v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","At the time of the events giving rise to this application , the applicant was a conscript soldier ( private rank ) serving at the ORG gendarmerie station in GPE .","According to the information provided by the applicant in his application , on DATE the commander of the ORG gendarmerie station , ORG , ordered him and another conscript , PERSON , to make some poles for the purpose of tethering the guard dogs of the station . Accordingly , the applicant and ORG found some metal rods and cut them in CARDINAL . When looking for tools in the generator room of the station to straighten the curved ends of the poles , the applicant found what he thought to be a used mortar shell , which he believed presented no risk of exploding , and decided to hit the poles with it . The mortar shell exploded upon impact with the metal pole , as a result of which the applicant lost a finger and a toe , and ORG lost both his feet . The applicant was first taken to ORG in GPE , and was then transferred to ORG in GPE for further medical treatment .","It appears that the commander of the gendarmerie station , ORG , lost consciousness after the incident due to anxiety and was also taken to ORG , where he was given sedatives .","On DATE the GATA Military Hospital issued a medical report , declaring the applicant unfit for military service on account of the injuries he had sustained . According to this report the third finger of his left hand , the fifth toe of his left foot and the fourth toe of his right foot had had to be amputated . The applicant had also sustained various fractures to his feet and suffered from some loss of vision in his left eye . This report was approved on DATE .","The PERSON military prosecutor \u2019s office initiated an investigation of its own motion into the circumstances of the incident . Accordingly , all the evidence at the site of the incident was photographed and recorded , and an incident report was prepared on DATE . The military prosecutor also took witness statements from CARDINAL soldiers serving at the ORG gendarmerie station . The pertinent witness statements are summarised below :","- Lt . H.A.S. :","\u201c ... while PERSON was in the emergency room [ at the hospital ] , the military prosecutor called me ... he asked to talk to PERSON told the [ prosecutor ] that he had found an old [ mortar shell ] DATE , which he had placed on the roof of the station , and that he did not know how the [ mortar shell ] had ended up at the scene of the incident . \u201d","- Sgt . PERSON :","\u201c ... I first saw the bomb in DATE . When I asked the station commander what it was , he told me it was unexploded ordnance . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161528","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ELENA COJOCARU v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s daughter was monitored during her pregnancy by Dr GPE , a gynaecologist working at ORG . She was examined on a DATE basis and her pregnancy developed normally .","On DATE , Dr I.M. performed a routine check - up on the applicant \u2019s daughter when she was DATE pregnant . According to the applicant , on that occasion Dr GPE informed her daughter that she needed to be hospitalised for further investigations because an imminent premature birth was suspected .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s daughter was admitted to hospital with the diagnosis of imminent premature birth and sub icterus of unknown aetiology .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s daughter was examined and blood samples were collected because it was suspected that she was suffering from viral hepatitis and an internal condition . She was also suffering from pain in the lumbar region and food poisoning was suspected because she had stated that she had eaten mushrooms picked from the forest . She was treated with ORG ( a vasodilator , prescribed for peripheral vascular disease associated with cerebrovascular insufficiency and premature labour ) and other medication . According to the applicant , as a result of this treatment large ecchymoses caused by the rupture of blood vessels appeared on her daughter \u2019s legs and abdomen .","On TIME the medical condition of the applicant \u2019s daughter worsened .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s daughter was transferred to the intensive care unit and her condition continued to deteriorate .","According to the applicant , after repeated requests from her and her son - in - law , Dr GPE agreed to contact PERSON from ORG located in GPE . PERSON was a university professor . When he received information about the patient \u2019s condition and treatment , PERSON diagnosed the applicant \u2019s daughter with PERSON syndrome ( an exceptionally serious prenatal condition ) and asked PERSON to perform an emergency C - section in order to save the mother \u2019s life .","According to the applicant , PERSON refused to perform the emergency C - section , but eventually agreed that the applicant \u2019s daughter could be transferred to ORG in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s daughter was transferred by ambulance to ORG , QUANTITY away from GPE , unaccompanied by a doctor . Her condition worsened during the transport .","She was admitted to ORG in a coma , with the diagnosis of GPE syndrome . An emergency C - section was performed TIME after she arrived at the hospital . She died TIME after the surgery from cardiac arrest , despite resuscitation manoeuvres . The applicant \u2019s granddaughter died on DATE from cardiac arrest , despite resuscitation manoeuvres .","On DATE ORG initiated of its own motion a criminal investigation into the death of the applicant \u2019s daughter . They carried out an examination of the body , took photographic evidence and they interviewed PERSON , who had assisted PERSON during the surgery , as well as the applicant \u2019s son - in - law .","On DATE a post - mortem report was produced in respect of the applicant \u2019s daughter \u2019s and granddaughter \u2019s deaths at ORG request . It concluded that the cause of the applicant \u2019s daughter \u2019s death had been cardio - respiratory and hepatic - renal insufficiency with brain hypoxia . In addition , the applicant \u2019s granddaughter \u2019s death had been caused by lung and brain hypoxia .","On DATE , ORG produced a forensic necropsy report . It noted amongst other things that according to the serology examination report no spores of poisonous mushrooms were found . It concluded that the death of the applicant \u2019s daughter was pathological and was caused by hepatic - nephritis and generalised haemorrhagic vasculopathy , with cardio - respiratory and circulatory insufficiency . In addition , the assessment of the medical assistance provided to the victim during pregnancy and upon giving birth had to be made , after medical documents were adduced , by a review commission ( comisia de avizare ) composed of obstetrics and gynaecology experts .","On CARDINAL DATE , ORG , sitting as a review commission , informed ORG that they approved the conclusions of the forensic necropsy report of DATE as scientifically grounded and based on the medical data included in the report . In addition , it found that there had been no omissions in the techno - medical treatment of the victim ( \u00een atitudinea tehnic - medical\u0103 fa\u021b\u0103 de victim\u0103 nu se constat\u0103 omisiuni ) .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s son - in - law lodged a criminal complaint , with no civil claims , with ORG , requesting an investigation into his wife \u2019s and daughter \u2019s deaths following his wife \u2019s admission to ORG in GPE . His complaint was registered on DATE with ORG under criminal file no . CARDINAL .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s son - in - law lodged a second criminal complaint , with no civil claims , with ORG attached to ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) against the medical personnel of ORG and ORG in GPE . He relied on LAW , and argued that the medical personnel had been medically negligent . In addition , he contended amongst other things that the criminal investigation lacked the required speediness . The complaint was registered on DATE with ORG under criminal file no . CARDINAL .","By an order of DATE ORG decided to join the criminal files nos . CARDINAL and DATE and not to open criminal proceedings ( ne\u00eenceperea urm\u0103ririi penale ) in the case . It held , on the basis of the medical evidence , the forensic necropsy report and the approval of the review commission of CARDINAL DATE , that the death of the victim had had natural causes and had not been induced by any medical error . Subsequently , the order was notified to the applicant \u2019s son - in - law and he challenged the order before the superior prosecutor .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s son - in - law challenged the order before ORG . His complaint was subsequently referred to ORG .","On DATE , the superior prosecutor dismissed the applicant \u2019s son - in - law \u2019s challenge to the order of DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant \u2019s son - in - law lodged a criminal complaint against Dr GPE with ORG for involuntary manslaughter following the deaths of his wife and daughter . The complaint was registered under criminal file no . CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s son - in - law that the criminal investigation concerning PERSON was pending ; that he would be heard after the medical authorities had submitted the relevant medical and forensic documents ; and that once the investigation had ended he would be notified of the outcome .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son - in - law was heard in respect of the circumstances of his wife \u2019s death .","On DATE ORG asked ORG to help them clarify certain aspects of the case and to explain : ( a ) if PERSON had acted correctly by hospitalising the patient and by giving her the treatment he did ; ( b ) if the treatment with ORG was appropriate for the patient \u2019s condition and if the treatment had influenced the deterioration of her condition ; ( c ) what were the possible causes of the patient \u2019s death occurring soon afterwards ; ( d ) what would have been the patient \u2019s chances of survival , given her diagnosis , if the surgery had been performed as soon as her condition had deteriorated .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , Dr GPE was heard in respect of the circumstances of his patient \u2019s death .","On DATE ORG informed ORG that given his patient \u2019s diagnosis Dr GPE had had a duty to carry out haemolysis and other blood tests in order to identify a state of pre - eclampsia , given that the patient had been hospitalised with sub icterus . In addition , the prompt treatment recommended in case of suspicion of GPE syndrome would have been the immediate evacuation of the pregnancy in order to avoid aggravation of the hepatic and vascular lesions . Furthermore , with careful monitoring of the mother and of the foetus as well as prompt treatment , the deaths might have been avoided . The fact that the patient reached ORG in GPE in a serious condition suggested inadequate monitoring . The absence of a diagnosis for DATE aggravated the patient \u2019s condition . Given the doctor \u2019s aforementioned duties , he should have been aware of the evolution of a state of preeclampsia , and he was obliged to exhaust all the available remedies to avoid it and treat it . The extremely low level of thrombocytes in the patient \u2019s blood in GPE was an important aid to a suspicion of this type of complication and an indication that prompt intervention was necessary .","On DATE , following Dr I.M. \u2019s objections , ORG reiterated before ORG attached to ORG in GPE ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) the same questions raised before ORG on DATE , and asked it to help them clarify those aspects of the case and to provide explanations .","On DATE and DATE , ORG asked ORG to provide its conclusions in respect of their request from DATE . It emphasised that the conclusions were necessary to solve the case , and that the victim \u2019s family had complained repeatedly before the domestic authorities about the lack of promptness of the criminal investigation .","On DATE the applicant complained before the superior prosecutor attached to ORG that the criminal investigation lacked promptness and had failed to clarify the circumstances of the GPE deaths . She stated that the last written notification received concerning the case had been the information note of DATE . She also requested to be informed of the outcome of the investigation .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that ORG had been asked to produce a forensic expert report in the case . The applicant was also informed that as soon as ORG report was available a lawful solution would be issued in respect of the case and that she would be notified about it .","On DATE ORG approved the note ( avizul ) produced by ORG on DATE with additional explanations . In particular , it noted amongst other things that while she was in hospital the applicant \u2019s daughter stated that she had eaten forest mushrooms . At the time there was another patient in the hospital suffering from mushroom poisoning . This caused her medical condition to be blamed on the mushrooms , which delayed the Hellp syndrome diagnosis . It also noted that during the applicant \u2019s hospitalisation on the intensive therapy unit the applicant \u2019s daughter condition worsened . PERSON was contacted by phone and he suggested that the pregnancy should be evacuated . Given the patient \u2019s serious condition and the local intensive therapy possibilities ( posibilit\u0103\u021bile locale de terapie intensiv\u0103 ) , in order to solve the case , PERSON was contacted and he accepted that the patient be transferred to ORG . It further noted that according to the post - mortem report the patient had displayed symptoms of hepatic - nephritis and generalised haemorrhagic vasculopathy and subsequent cardio - respiratory insufficiency . It concluded that the actions of ORG staff could be explained from a medical standpoint , in the context of the patient \u2019s anamnesis and given that according to the information available and on the basis of the patient \u2019s symptoms they could have also concluded that the patient \u2019s condition had been caused by mushroom poisoning , and not by PERSON syndrome as turned out to be the case . There were similarities in the symptoms of the CARDINAL medical conditions .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG decided not to open criminal proceedings against PERSON for involuntary manslaughter , on the ground that such an unlawful act had not taken place .","On DATE the applicant requested information from ORG about the status of the criminal investigation and the measures taken in the case . She also accused the authorities investigating the case of procrastination and of waiting for Dr GPE \u2019s criminal liability to become time - barred .","On DATE , ORG informed the applicant that the criminal investigation against Dr GPE had been terminated by the order of CARDINAL DATE , and that the aforementioned order had been communicated to her son - in - law . Also , it noted that the same information had been communicated to the applicant on DATE .","On an unspecified date , the applicant challenged the order of CARDINAL DATE before the superior prosecutor attached to ORG .","On DATE , the superior prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge .","On DATE , the applicant challenged the orders of CARDINAL DATE and DATE as well as those of CARDINAL DATE and DATE before ORG .","On DATE ORG declined jurisdiction to examine the case in favour of ORG , on account of the nature of the offence under investigation .","On DATE , the applicant lodged a request with ORG seeking the transfer of the file to a different district court .","On DATE , ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s request and ordered the transfer of the file for examination to ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the file was registered with ORG .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s and her son - in - law \u2019s challenge against the order of CARDINAL DATE , cancelled the order , and referred the file back to the prosecutor \u2019s office for criminal proceedings to be opened against Dr GPE for involuntary manslaughter . The challenge to the order of DATE rendered by ORG was dismissed as lodged out of time .","The court considered that the criminal investigation had not been complete , and that additional evidence was needed . It held that the decision not to open criminal proceedings had been based on the CARDINAL forensic expert reports , but forensic expert reports had in fact not been asked for by the investigating authorities and had not been produced in the case . The document produced on DATE was in fact a note of ORG in response to the investigating authorities\u2019 request for clarification of some aspects of the case . The aforementioned documents did not have the content of a forensic expert report produced according to law . The same considerations applied to the document issued by ORG on DATE .","According to the court , a forensic expert report was essential evidence in cases of suspected involuntary manslaughter and it was required when medical negligence had supposedly been the cause of death . Also , the content of ORG note of DATE which indicated a possible medical error by PERSON made a forensic expert report even more necessary .","The court considered that essential aspects of the case needed to be clarified , namely to establish the cause of death and to examine whether Dr GPE had administered medical treatment in accordance with his professional obligations , and , if such treatment had been inappropriate , whether this had had any causal link with the deaths of the applicant \u2019s daughter and grand - daughter . In addition , the question of whether the applicant \u2019s daughter had eaten forest mushrooms had not been entirely clarified . Dr GPE \u2019s statement that the applicant \u2019s daughter had eaten the aforementioned mushrooms had not been confirmed or rebutted by any other evidence . The information concerning the consumption of mushrooms found in the clinical observation chart was also added there by PERSON Furthermore , the reasons why the applicant \u2019s daughter was not accompanied by a doctor during her transfer by ambulance remained unclear . Consequently , the court ordered a forensic expert report to be produced which would establish whether : ( a ) the doctor had been diligent enough to correctly establish the diagnosis ; ( b ) the actual diagnosis had been established on the basis of the symptoms and the investigations made in the case ; ( c ) the correct diagnosis could have been established on the basis of supplementary tests and examinations which should have been performed ; ( d ) the medical treatment had been appropriate ; ( e ) the medical intervention should have been performed at ORG ; ( f ) the applicant \u2019s daughter \u2019s health had deteriorated during her transfer to the clinic in GPE because she was not assisted by a doctor throughout the transportation ; ( g ) any of the aspects above , or others , had any causal link with the death of the applicant \u2019s daughter and her new born granddaughter . If the expert report established a causal link between the death and the fact that the transfer by ambulance had not been done with a doctor present , the reason why the patient had not been accompanied by a doctor and the identity of those responsible should be established . Consequently , the medical staff responsible for the transfer by ambulance should be heard . The court also ordered that the notes on the clinical observation chart should be checked for accuracy against the doctor \u2019s statements regarding the consumption of forest mushrooms , and accordingly the victim \u2019s mother and husband should be heard .","ORG lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment .","On DATE , ORG dismissed ORG appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment of the district court .","By an order of DATE , ORG decided not to open criminal proceedings against Dr GPE , on the ground that his criminal liability had become time - barred .","The applicant challenged the order before the superior prosecutor . She argued amongst other things , that the investigating authorities had delayed the investigation of the case , although she had repeatedly asked for a speedy investigation . Also , she had not been notified without undue delay of the outcome of the criminal investigation , although on DATE ORG had informed her that she would be notified about the outcome of the investigation .","On DATE , the superior prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge and upheld the order of DATE . It held amongst other things that the proceedings had not been abandoned by the authorities , since they had finished the investigation on CARDINAL DATE . The length of proceedings had been affected by the forensic expert reports , the last one being produced on DATE .","The applicant challenged the order before ORG .","On DATE , the ORG declined jurisdiction in the case in favour of ORG .","On DATE , the file was registered with ORG .","On DATE , ORG considered that only LOC was competent ratione loci to examine the case . Consequently , it referred the case to ORG to examine and decide on the conflict of competence between the CARDINAL district courts .","On DATE , ORG decided that ORG was competent to examine the case .","On DATE , the file was registered once again with ORG .","By a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action as ill - founded and upheld the prosecutor \u2019s office \u2019s order . It held that according to the relevant criminal law provisions and given the nature of the offence he had been suspected of , Dr GPE \u2019s criminal liability had become time - barred DATE after the unfortunate event . The statute of limitations had not been suspended or interrupted by any act carried out in the case that had to be communicated to the accused ( \u020bnvinuitului ) or to the defendant ( inculpatului ) . Criminal proceedings against PERSON had not been opened and therefore he had not been considered either an accused or a defendant , as the investigation against him had been carried out at the preliminary investigation ( acte premerg\u0103toare ) stage of the proceedings .","The court considered that the applicant \u2019s argument that an expert medical report could be requested only after a criminal investigation had been opened was not supported by any legal provision . Also , it could not be accepted that the running of the statutory limit had been stopped or suspended , either by the request for a medical expert report to be produced or by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The judgment of a court quashing an order of the prosecutor \u2019s office to discontinue a criminal investigation was not one of the lawfully permissible reasons to suspend the running of the statutory limit .","The court also held that ORG had been competent to investigate the case . The fact that ORG had transferred the case for examination to a different district court would not have justified an investigation of the case by a different prosecutor \u2019s office from the CARDINAL which had initially investigated the case , once the examining court had referred the case back to the prosecutor . Furthermore , the prosecutor was legally bound to open criminal proceedings only if , after the evidence indicated by the court was adduced to the file , it did not appear that there were circumstances that would impede it . Also , even if the prosecutor \u2019s office had taken into account the applicant \u2019s granddaughter \u2019s death and had requalified PERSON acts from involuntary manslaughter to aggravated involuntary manslaughter and the maximum penalty had been increased by DATE , the offence would still have been time - barred .","The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed as inadmissible the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , on the ground that the domestic legislation did not allow a second level of jurisdiction in respect of court proceedings initiated against the prosecutor \u2019s office \u2019s orders or decisions .","On DATE , following Dr GPE \u2019s request , ORG attached to ORG ( Comisia de Jursidic\u0163ie Profesional\u0103 a PERSON Suceava ) established that there were no elements to suggest medical error or other deficiencies in the medical treatment and investigations provided to the applicant \u2019s daughter at ORG . Her illness had been identified promptly once she was hospitalised , and she had been transferred to intensive care and afterwards to Ia\u015fi . However , the seriousness of her illness led to her death . In addition , there had been no other case before ORG in which PERSON had been accused of medical error or breaches of the code of medical ethics .","On CARDINAL DATE , ORG validated ORG decision ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184064","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00ceRLEANU v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","At the material time the applicant was a local correspondent for the national DATE newspaper GPE liber\u0103 . The applicant \u2019s articles covered various fields , including investigations into the activities of the armed forces and the police .","In DATE secret documents were leaked , accidentally or deliberately , from the NORP unit of an international military base in GPE . The leak consisted mostly of copies of documents produced by the NORP unit and classified as secret . The documents referred to the military operations of the NORP troops at the said base in DATE and DATE , such as operations orders or military maps . Copies of secret documents produced for the use of the NORP unit by a military unit belonging to another country were also leaked .","In DATE CARDINAL NORP journalists , including ORG , who was working for PERSON liber\u0103 , were kidnapped by a terrorist group in GPE . Their release in DATE was negotiated by ORG and an investigation was immediately started by the NORP authorities . The following year the media extensively reported on this case and the role played by the authorities .","On DATE O.O. , together with other journalists , participated in a television show on a national channel . They criticised the authorities\u2019 negligence in allowing leaks of secret sensitive military information and mentioned the existence of a compact disc ( \u201c CD \u201d ) with secret documents belonging to a NORP military unit in GPE . When the host of the show questioned the authenticity of the information on the CD , ORG showed his computer to the camera . Some of the documents , including several military maps with the positions of the NORP troops , were thus made visible to the public .","The journalists speculated as to whether such information could have reached terrorists too and demanded an investigation in order to establish whether the leaks had been voluntary . ORG also said that although at that stage , the information no longer posed a threat to the lives of NORP soldiers , it could have more serious implications in connection with the conflict in GPE and GPE .","During the show it was mentioned that the newspapers PERSON liber\u0103 and PERSON had received the secret information in question but had decided not to publish it , fearing possible damage to national security .","On DATE the national DATE newspapers , GPE liber\u0103 and PERSON , published articles drawing attention to the fact that confidential information which could threaten national security had been leaked from a military unit under the authority of ORG .","On DATE O.O. participated in a radio show together with the chairman and vice - chairman of ORG of ORG , the director of PERSON and an investigative journalist from a national newspaper . The show followed a day of discussions and explanations about the leak of secret documents given by ORG , the Chief of ORG and the head of ORG before ORG of the ORG . When asked how they had obtained the documents in question , ORG refused to disclose his source , while the director of PERSON stated that he had received them anonymously . The chairman of ORG mentioned that the security of classified information had been one of the main chapters in GPE \u2019s negotiations for joining ORG . He emphasised the importance of ORG undertaking a thorough investigation in connection with the leak , which put into play GPE \u2019s credibility as a member of ORG .","On DATE the Minister of Defence held a press conference during which he announced that an internal inquiry into the leak of classified information had been finalised and that CARDINAL members of the army were being punished with disciplinary sanctions . Further investigations were being conducted by the prosecutors with respect to CARDINAL other members of the army . The minister also confirmed the fact that he had been informed about the leak by ORG ( ORG ) in DATE and that the specialised army departments had immediately started preliminary verifications .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG and ORG opened of its own motion an investigation on the basis of the articles published the same day in GPE liber\u0103 and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At the same time , ORG informed the same prosecutor \u2019s office about the leak of information from within its structures .","Shortly afterwards the prosecutor decided to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant and CARDINAL other people ( DATE a former member of the armed forces , DATE a journalist , ORG and GPE ) for disclosing classified information on national security under LAW , and for the gathering and sharing of secret or confidential information under LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on national security .","Authorisations had been issued for the interception of telephone calls made from the phone numbers belonging to ORG , GPE and GPE , as well as for the surveillance of ORG and GPE and the ambient recording of their discussions . As a result , transcripts of discussions between the applicant and ORG and GPE had been included in the investigation file .","At TIME on DATE , after his house had been searched by the police and the hard drive of his computer seized , the applicant was taken into police custody .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was authorised by a judge for a period of DATE . An appeal lodged by the applicant against the measure was allowed and he was released on DATE .","NORP The prosecutor established that at DATE ORG , a journalist specialised in military issues , working for local newspapers in PERSON , had received on a CD a copy of the secret military documents leaked in DATE . At that time , CARDINAL people , including GPE , had been in possession of the above - mentioned documents . On DATE PERSON had met the applicant and had given him a copy of the CD .","A list of the applicant \u2019s telephone calls showed that on DATE he had called the head of the public relations department of ORG . In DATE , both the applicant and PERSON had discussed the content of the CD with other journalists and on several occasions with employees of ORG and of ORG .","The investigation further established that by DATE the applicant had shown the content of the CD to a few people and had given a copy of the CD to ORG and GPE , who the applicant believed were former members of the police . Furthermore , in DATE O.O. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) went to PERSON and met the applicant and PERSON , who showed him the documents .","NORP In a statement given before the prosecutor on DATE , the applicant said that he could not remember having discussed the secret documents with ORG He also said that as soon as he had found out about the information in question , he became interested in it as a journalist . Because there were doubts about the authenticity of the documents , he had had to contact a number of people in order to verify the information . It was in that context that he had discussed and shown the said documents to ORG and GPE , who had let him believe they had connections with high - ranking politicians . He acknowledged that he might have told some of his friends that he had seen secret documents in order to be given more credit as an investigative journalist .","On DATE the head of ORG informed the chief prosecutor of the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG and ORG that the documents which formed the object of the investigation and which had been issued by the NORP army , and had been compromised by their publication in the media , had been de - classified .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG and ORG decided that \u201c by receiving ( obtaining ) from ORG a CD that he [ had ] watched CARDINAL times ; by saving on the hard drive of his computer the information classified as ORG secret and work secret and by giving the CD to GPE and ORG , outside the legal framework set forth by the provisions of PERSON no . PERSON and ORG no . CARDINAL \u201d , the applicant had committed , in a continuous form , the crime proscribed by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The prosecutor decided , however , not to indict the applicant but to sanction him with an administrative fine of CARDINAL NORP lei ( ROL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The applicant was further ordered to pay part of the judicial costs incurred in the investigation in the amount of ORG EUR CARDINAL ) . The prosecutor also ordered the confiscation of the hard drive seized from the applicant on DATE .","The prosecutor \u2019s decision was based on the NORP legal framework on classified information , which was held to include PERSON no . ORG on the protection of classified information , Government Decision no . CARDINAL approving national standards for the protection of classified information , ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the protection of professional secrets and PERSON no . CARDINAL on national security . The decision further mentioned that the applicant had received the secret military information and had proceeded to verify its nature and importance . He had further shared the information with other people . From the elements in the file , the prosecutor concluded that the purpose of the applicant \u2019s actions was just to make himself more visible as an investigative journalist and not to serve the public interest . Noting that the protection of classified information was an obligation incumbent only on authorised personnel , the prosecutor nevertheless considered that information concerning national defence was classified and could not be of public interest , as provided for by LAW no . ORG on access to public information . As a result , although anyone unauthorised in the field of national defence \u2013 such as a journalist DATE was not bound by a duty to protect this type of information , he or she did not have the right to disclose it to the public .","In view of the above , the prosecutor considered that the applicant had acted with intent to disclose classified information outside the above - mentioned legal framework . However , the prosecutor considered that the crimes committed by the applicant and the other CARDINAL suspects were not serious enough to require the pursuit of the criminal investigation . In this connection , the prosecutor noted firstly that the information in dispute was not likely to endanger national security but only to harm the interests of ORG and its armed forces . In addition , the information was outdated and hence was no longer likely to endanger the NORP military structures in GPE . The information in question had already been \u201c compromised \u201d ( disclosed by a member of the armed forces to a civilian ) as early as DATE , with no measures having been taken by the institution concerned . The prosecutor also mentioned that the actions undertaken by O.S and the applicant in order to gather information concerning the content , nature and importance of the secret documents in question , by contacting active or reserve members of the armed forces or other journalists were part of the working methods of investigative journalists and did not necessarily present a danger for society .","The applicant complained against that decision to the superior prosecutor , who rejected the complaint as ill - founded on DATE .","On DATE the applicant complained against the ORG decisions before ORG . He submitted that he had been wrongfully found guilty of the crime proscribed by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . In his opinion , that Article , as well as the entire law , imposed obligations only on people authorised to work with secret information . He contended that he had not made any steps to gather military secrets but had merely passively received information that was already in the public domain . Invoking LAW , the applicant submitted that the ORG had already decided that once information concerning national security had entered the public domain , it was difficult to justify the imposition of sanctions for its publication . He therefore urged the court to acknowledge that his actions could not be regarded as crimes .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint as ill - founded . The court held that the facts established during the investigation had led to the conclusion that the applicant had secretly transmitted the CD containing secret information to other people he knew , avoiding handing it over to the competent authorities of ORG or ORG . The court further held :","\u201c The accused \u2019s capacity as a journalist can not exonerate him from the commission of this crime because anyone who finds out about secret military information does not have the right to publish it since this might endanger the lives of soldiers , officers in the conflict environment . But the applicant , by the means described above , covertly shared the secret information , which could have reached people interested in putting military structures in danger .","The accused did not even wish to use his profession in order to bring to the public \u2019s knowledge the leak of information , as he failed to ask the newspaper for which he worked to make public the breach of state secrets in the military ( obviously the military secret information could not have been published ) .","The freedom of the press invoked by the accused can not give a journalist the right to make public , to unofficial people , secret military information , because this may endanger the right to safety of certain military structures . \u201d","The applicant was ordered to pay court fees in the amount of ROL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","The applicant appealed against that judgment . He alleged that the information in dispute had already been in the public domain at the time it had been brought to his attention . He submitted that the prosecutor \u2019s decision had breached his freedom of expression in an attempt to cover up an embarrassing situation for the authorities , who had allowed the information to be leaked to the public .","On DATE the High Court of Cassation and ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint with final effect . The court held that LAW CARDINAL\/CARDINAL applied to anyone who gathered and shared secret information outside the legal framework . It further held that the applicant had not contested the fact that he had come into possession of secret information which he had then shared with other people outside the legal framework . Moreover , he had done this with direct intent . Considering that the information in question had not been in the public domain , the court held that journalists coming into possession of such information must submit it to the competent authorities and were allowed by law to share with the public only the failure of the institution concerned to protect its confidentiality . Having failed to act in that way , the applicant had committed the crime proscribed by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The court concluded that the prosecutor had correctly considered that the crime had not , however , attained the degree of seriousness to require criminal sanctions .","The applicant was ordered to pay court fees of ORG ( EUR CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183127","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF DEVINAR v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was working as a cleaning lady when she allegedly developed serious medical complications in her left wrist , which could only partly have been addressed by surgery . This resulted in her using predominantly her right arm , which in turn resulted in the overburdening of that arm , giving rise to a number of medical problems . Because of these medical issues she was found , in DATE , to be incapable of further work and officially recognised as having a partial disability .","On DATE the applicant applied to the Pensions and ORG of GPE ( \u201c the Institute \u201d ) for a disability allowance in respect of a physical impairment ( nadomestilo za invalidnost DATE hereinafter \u201c disability allowance \u201d ) .","On DATE the first - instance disability commission of the ORG , located in GPE , issued a report to the effect that the applicant was not suffering from any physical impairment stipulated in ORG on the List of Physical Impairments ( Samoupravni sporazum o seznamu telesnih okvar \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the List \u201d ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The commission \u2013 composed of an occupational medicine specialist , an orthopaedic specialist and a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician \u2013 based its opinion on an examination of the medical records submitted by the applicant and a clinical examination of the applicant .","On DATE the Nova Gorica unit of the ORG , relying on the opinion of the first - instance disability commission , dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for a disability allowance . A copy of the first - instance disability commission \u2019s opinion was attached to the decision . The applicant appealed .","On CARDINAL DATE the second - instance disability commission of the ORG , located in GPE , composed of an occupational medicine specialist and an orthopaedic specialist , examined the applicant \u2019s medical file and again issued a report to the effect that no physical impairment stipulated in the List could be found .","On DATE ORG , referring to the conclusions of the second - instance disability commission , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . A copy of the second - instance disability commission \u2019s opinion was attached to the decision .","On DATE the applicant initiated court proceedings against ORG seeking the annulment of the above - mentioned decisions taken by ORG , arguing that the facts had been wrongly established , and that the procedure had not been properly conducted . She argued that because of the incapacity of her arms the functioning of her body was inhibited and greater efforts were required to satisfy her DATE needs . She also argued that the opposing party should have more seriously examined all her medical problems . In her view her physical impairment amounted to PERCENT incapacity ; however , the exact degree could only be determined by a medical expert . She accordingly proposed that a medical expert be appointed .","On DATE ORG , sitting in a single - judge formation , dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for a disability allowance . It observed that its role was to check whether the impugned administrative decisions had been issued in a procedure that had complied with the procedural rules , and had been based on a proper establishment of fact and proper application of the law . It furthermore observed that the claimed physical impairment was a legally relevant fact , whose degree of severity under the relevant legal provisions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had to be proved in order for entitlement to a disability allowance to be established . After taking into account the documents in the file and the hearing of the applicant , the court found that the ORG had correctly established the facts . Referring to the findings of the disability commissions and its own direct observation of the applicant at the hearing , it concluded that the impairment to the applicant \u2019s health did not amount to a physical impairment within the meaning of the law .","Considering the above - mentioned findings sufficient to reach its conclusion , the court refused the applicant \u2019s request for the appointment of a medical expert as unnecessary .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance court \u2019s finding . She argued that the impairment to both of her arms , her psychological illness and her headaches meant that the normal functioning of her organism was inhibited and that she had to exert greater efforts in order to perform DATE tasks ; that the List , which was out of date , could not possibly contain a complete list of all illnesses and injuries ; that the first - instance court should not have relied on the opinions of the disability commissions and a doctor ( opinions which the applicant had disputed ) ; that the first - instance court should have appointed a medical expert , as requested by the applicant ; that the applicant could not have explained all her medical issues at the hearing and that the court had not been in a position to assess the flexibility of her arms .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , finding that the facts had been sufficiently established and the substantive law applied correctly . It also found that the refusal of the applicant \u2019s request for the appointment of an expert had not undermined the legality of the decision as that decision would not have been any different had an expert been appointed . ORG further found the following :","\u201c A court in a judicial social dispute ... assesses the correctness and lawfulness of the impugned administrative decisions [ in question ] and having regard to the dispute of the full jurisdiction [ the court ] when quashing [ the administrative decisions ] alone decides on the merits . Within the context of the judicial review of the administrative decisions [ the court ] is of course not obliged to accept evidence [ submitted by ] a forensic medical expert if the expert opinions of the disability commissions at first and second instance allow for the conclusion that the negative administrative decisions are correct and lawful because they are based on an assessment by both commissions which is convincing in view of the available medical documentation and the report of [ the relevant ] medical examination . Such a procedural situation is found in the present case , because in the opinion of the appeal court the expert bodies in the pre - judicial administrative proceedings correctly determined that the applicant had no physical impairment . \u201d","The court furthermore found that physical impairments could not be determined contrary to what was provided in the List . Moreover , the question of whether a particular condition amounted to an impairment was different to the question of whether it amounted to a disability . In the applicant \u2019s case , although she had a recognised disability , this fact alone \u2013 without any functional problems in respect of inflexibility of joints \u2013 could not suffice to categorise her condition as CARDINAL of physical impairment . ORG agreed with the court of first instance that the disability commissions in the pre - judicial administrative proceedings had made the right assessment when concluding that the applicant had not suffered from any physical impairment . It also pointed out that the court had not been obliged to appoint an independent expert if it had been possible to conclude from the disability ORG opinions that the ORG \u2019s decisions had been well - founded , as had been so in the instant case .","The applicant lodged an application for leave to appeal on points of law . She argued that her right to a fair trial had not been respected because the court had refused to appoint a medical expert and had assessed the applicant \u2019s condition itself , despite lacking the necessary medical knowledge . She had thereby been deprived of her only possibility to challenge the ORG \u2019s decisions . The applicant also drew attention to the fact that in numerous cases court - appointed experts had found the disability ORG fact - finding to be erroneous . She moreover argued that the first - instance court should not have based its decision on the List .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application , holding that there were no grounds for allowing an appeal on points of law .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint . She complained that ORG decision had not been reasoned . She further argued that she could not have explained all her medical issues at the hearing and that the court had not been in a position to assess the flexibility of her arms . Her only way of effectively challenging the ORG \u2019s decision would have been by way of appointing an independent medical expert ; as had been proved in the past , independent medical experts had often reached findings contrary to those of disability commissions . She invoked LAW ( equal protection of rights ) and LAW the right to judicial protection ) of the LAW . She also reiterated her complaint about the reliance on the List .","On DATE ORG decided to not accept the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint for consideration , finding that it did not concern an important constitutional question or entail a violation of human rights which would have serious consequences for the applicant ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164957","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TOMOV AND NIKOLOVA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgieva;Khanlar Hajiyev;Pavlina Panova;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE the applicants , at the time a married couple , bought a plot of land of QUANTITY in the village of GPE , on LOC coast . The seller , Mr O. , had acquired the property in DATE from the agricultural co - operative that existed at the time , in exchange for another plot of land of his .","NORP The applicants\u2019 possession of the land remained undisturbed until DATE , when other persons took possession of it . The applicants discovered then that the land had been collectivised after DATE and that in DATE the heirs of the pre - collectivisation owner , PERSON , had instituted restitution proceedings under the relevant provisions of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Their restitution request had been allowed in a court judgment of DATE and in a decision issued by the competent administrative body \u2012 the local agricultural land commission \u2012 on DATE . Thereafter , the heirs of PERSON had transferred the land to the persons who had later taken possession of the plot .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants brought a rei vindicatio action against these individuals .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed their claim . It relied on the provision of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , holding on its basis that of the CARDINAL rival claims to the same land the law gave priority to the CARDINAL based on restitution .","Upon appeal , on DATE ORG reversed that decision and allowed the applicants\u2019 action . It considered in particular that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG was not applicable to the case as it had only been introduced in DATE , that is to say after the restitution decision in favour of PERSON heirs and after the applicants had bought the plot of land .","Upon further appeal , in a final judgment of DATE , ORG quashed ORG judgment and dismissed the applicants\u2019 rei vindicatio claim . It took the view that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG , introduced in DATE , had to be considered to be applicable with effect from the ORG \u2019s entry into force in DATE because it was merely clarifying its general restitution provisions . As to the exception contained in section CARDINAL ) of the Regulations for the ORG \u2019s implementation , also introduced in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG considered it inapplicable to the case ; in its view , section CARDINAL ) only precluded the restitution of properties which had been the subject of transactions prior to the ORG \u2019s entry into force in DATE , whereas the applicants had bought their plot in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147867","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GHARIBYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","The applicants jointly owned a flat which measured QUANTITY m. and was situated at CARDINAL FAC , GPE .","On DATE the Government adopted Decree no . PERSON , approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of LOC of GPE to be taken for ORG needs for town - planning purposes , having a total area of CARDINAL sq . m. Byuzand Street was listed as CARDINAL of the streets falling within such expropriation zones . A special body , ORG ( hereafter , the Agency ) was set up to manage the implementation of the construction projects .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 flat was valued upon the request of the ORG by a valuation organisation . The market value of the flat was found to be MONEY ( ORG ) .","By a letter of DATE the ORG informed the applicants that their flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at CARDINAL by an independent licensed organisation . An additional sum of ORG was offered to the applicants as a financial incentive if they signed an agreement within DATE .","The applicants did not accept the offer , not being satisfied with the amount of compensation offered .","On an unspecified date the ORG lodged a claim against the applicants , seeking to oblige them to sign an agreement on the taking of their flat for ORG needs and to have them evicted .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE granted the ORG \u2019s claim , ordering the applicants to sign the agreement for the total amount of CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG granted the ORG \u2019s claim upon appeal .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law , in which they argued , inter alia , that the deprivation of their property was not prescribed by law as required by LAW .","On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the applicants\u2019 appeal .","On an unspecified date the awarded sum was paid to the applicants ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147888","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF STAR\u010cEVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Split .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father was hit by a car while attempting to cross a motorway . He suffered serious bodily injury and died at the scene .","On DATE ORG FAC uprava MONEY ) interviewed CARDINAL witnesses and the driver of the car , GPE The police also carried out the necessary tests to measure GPE \u2019s alcohol level , which showed that he had been intoxicated at the time of the accident .","NORP The police informed an investigating judge of ORG ( PERSON ) of the accident . DATE the investigating judge , assisted by a road traffic expert , carried out an on - site inspection .","On DATE the road traffic expert submitted his report to the investigating judge , finding that in crossing the motorway the applicant \u2019s father had caught the driver of the car by surprise , which had caused the accident .","On DATE the investigating judge obtained a medical report concerning the applicant \u2019s father , indicating that he had been intoxicated at the time of the accident .","Meanwhile , the case file was forwarded to the Split Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON \u2013 \u201c the ORG Attorney \u2019s Office \u201d ) for its assessment of the relevant facts .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG obtained a medical report confirming that the driver of the car Z.K. had been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG asked the investigating judge of ORG to open an investigation in respect of GPE on suspicion of causing a road accident resulting in death .","NORP Before deciding on that request , the investigating judge questioned GPE on DATE . He denied the charges , arguing that when the applicant \u2019s father had crossed the motorway he had been caught by surprise , and had had no way of avoiding the accident .","On DATE the investigating judge declined to open the investigation on the grounds that there was no reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed . This was upheld by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE .","The case file was then returned to ORG , which was informed of its right to appeal against the decision of ORG . There is no evidence before the ORG that the applicant was informed of this decision .","The State Attorney \u2019s ORG decided not to appeal . There is no evidence before the ORG that the applicant was informed of this decision .","On DATE the applicant inquired with ORG about the progress of the case . He indicated that the last information he had received had been the on - site inspection report . He explained that he had been away for a while , so if any new documents had been forwarded to him it was possible that he had not received them .","On DATE the investigating judge of ORG informed the applicant that the investigation into the circumstances of his father \u2019s death had been discontinued .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) against ORG decision refusing to open the investigation into the accident .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal and ordered the investigation . ORG held that ORG conclusion had been premature , since several crucial facts concerning the accident had remained unanswered . It therefore instructed the investigating judge to question witnesses and to take whatever further investigative measures which were necessary , such as a reconstruction of events .","On DATE the investigating judge questioned CARDINAL witnesses and concluded the investigation . He also informed the applicant that he could , if he considered it appropriate , indict GPE in the criminal courts on charges of causing a road accident .","On DATE the applicant , acting as a subsidiary prosecutor and through his lawyer , lodged a request to prosecute with ORG ( PERSON ) against GPE , on charges of causing a road accident resulting in the death of his father , punishable under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The first hearing scheduled for DATE before a single judge of ORG was adjourned because the parties failed to appear , as they had not been properly summoned . The trial judge indicated that he would issue another written order for the next hearing .","Having received no subsequent summonses , on DATE , the applicant urged ORG to schedule a hearing , arguing that he had attempted to contact the court several times to ask it to expedite the proceedings .","At a hearing held on DATE Z.K. pleaded not guilty and the hearing was adjourned . CARDINAL witnesses appeared at the hearing but were not questioned .","A further hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the investigating judge had failed to forward its case file to ORG .","At a hearing on DATE the single judge of ORG questioned GPE again , who reiterated his not guilty plea . The judge also questioned the applicant and the CARDINAL witnesses .","Another hearing was held on DATE , at which the trial judge questioned GPE and the expert witness .","On DATE ORG acquitted GPE on charges of causing the road accident .","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , which on CARDINAL DATE quashed the first - instance judgment because of the procedural errors in the composition of the trial court . The relevant part of the judgment reads :","\u201c ... the first instance court did not sit in a proper formation because the trial was held before a single judge instead before a panel composed of a judge and CARDINAL lay judges . The offence under LAW and QUANTITY of LAW is punishable by imprisonment DATE , and under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW for the offences punishable by imprisonment of DATE , ORG must sit in panels composed of a judge and CARDINAL lay judges . ...","It should be also noted that for the offence under LAW and QUANTITY of LAW , that is in issue in the present case , because of the prescribed penalty , the trial should be held according to the rules of ordinary , and not summary , procedure , and that such [ ordinary criminal ] proceedings can be held only on an indictment , against which the accused has the right to lodge an objection , and not based on a request to prosecute . \u201d","In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG asked the applicant to specify whether he had submitted an indictment ( optu\u017enica ) or a request to prosecute ( optu\u017eni prijedlog ) . The relevant part of the letter reads :","\u201c In accordance with LAW the submission named [ request to prosecute ] is being returned to the [ subsidiary ] prosecutor for amendment in accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . That is to say , the subsidiary prosecutor must indicate whether or not his submission is actually an indictment . \u201d","The applicant replied on DATE indicating that his submission was an indictment rather than a request to prosecute .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the applicant \u2019s indictment had not been drafted properly , as it did not contain the statement of reasons on which it was based . The relevant part of this decision reads :","\u201c The subsidiary prosecutor on DATE submitted a request to prosecute against the accused GPE ....","Under LAW such submission , titled request to prosecute , was returned to the [ subsidiary ] prosecutor for amendment under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The representative of the subsidiary prosecutor submitted before this court his amendment of the [ above - noted document ] indicating that the title \u201c request to prosecute \u201d should be changed to \u201c indictment \u201d , and that he had no other amendments .","Since the [ subsidiary ] prosecutor failed to comply with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u2019s defence and the prosecutor \u2019s position on the defendant \u2019s defence ) , this court decided [ to discontinue the proceedings ] . \u201d","The applicant lodged an appeal on DATE with ORG , contending that he had only been invited to indicate whether he had instituted the proceedings by a request to prosecute or an indictment and that he had replied to that question accordingly . He also pointed out that the courts had accepted his indictment in DATE , conducted the proceedings and decided the case on the merits . Together with the appeal , the applicant submitted an amended indictment containing the statement of reasons .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of ORG .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay GPE \u2019s legal costs and expenses in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kunas . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","Also on DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) regarding the manner in which the criminal law mechanisms had been implemented in his case .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the decisions of the lower courts did not concern the applicant \u2019s civil rights or obligations or any criminal charge against him ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175651","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF RASTORGUYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["On DATE the GPE authorities , ORG and a private construction company signed an investment contract for the construction of a number of residential buildings in GPE . Pursuant to the contract , a title to CARDINAL flats was to be transferred to ORG . The rest of the flats were to remain the city \u2019s property .","In DATE the city authorities commissioned , as part of the said investment contract , several residential buildings . It appears that a number of flats in those buildings were transferred to ORG .","NORP In DATE the city authorities had their title to a number of flats , including those in residential buildings nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL at LOC , GPE , registered by the state authorities .","In DATE ORG assigned CARDINAL of those flats to private individuals and entered into social housing agreements with them . Subsequently those people successfully applied to ORG of GPE seeking recognition of their title to the flats by way of privatisation . Once the court \u2019s judgments became final , they had their ownership in respect of the flats registered in the state register and then sold the flats to other persons , including the applicants . The relevant transactions and transfer of the title to the property were duly registered by the authorities . The applicants moved into the flats and resided there .","According to the Government , in DATE and DATE the police opened criminal investigation in respect of the fraudulent transactions with the flats . The Government did not inform of its outcome .","On an unspecified date city authorities asked ORG to reopen the cases concerning the flats privatised by the tenants who sold them to the applicants in DATE . The authorities claimed that the flats owned by the applicants were the city \u2019s property . ORG granted the request , quashed the earlier judgments allowing the privatisation of the flats and re - examined the cases . The court established , inter alia , that ORG had never owned the flats and , accordingly , had not had a right to assign them to private individuals . It granted the city \u2019s claims in full invalidating the decisions of ORG in respect of the flats and ordering the applicants\u2019 eviction . The court also found that the applicants had acquired the flats in good faith . However , it ruled that the cases fell under one of the CARDINAL exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser \u2019s title , which required that precedence be given to GPE given that the flats had left the GPE \u2019s possession against the latter \u2019s will .","NORP The applicants\u2019 appeals were to no avail . ORG and ORG of GPE rejected them as unsubstantiated .","According to the Government , the judgments ordering the applicants\u2019 eviction were not enforced . The applicants continue to reside in the flats .","The details pertaining to each case are summed up in Appendix II below ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145546","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GEORGIA v. RUSSIA (I)","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+5-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Expulsion of an alien;Lawfully resident);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property);No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general} (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education);Just satisfaction reserved","judges":"Anatoly Kovler;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Christos Rozakis;Corneliu B\u00eersan;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Fran\u00e7oise Tulkens;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Karel Jungwiert;Khanlar Hajiyev;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nicolas Bratza;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","Having regard to all the evidence submitted to the ORG , it transpires that at DATE the political tensions between GPE and GPE had reached a climax with the arrest on DATE of CARDINAL NORP officers in GPE and the suspension by GPE on DATE of all aerial , road , maritime , railway , postal and financial links with GPE . Expulsions of NORP nationals by GPE were already being reported in the international media at DATE , and those reports were then being relayed by various international governmental and nongovernmental organisations ( see , inter alia , the report of CARDINAL DATE by ORG of ORG of ORG PACE ) \u201c Current tensions between GPE and GPE \u201d , AS \/ Mon(CARDINAL)CARDINAL rev . ; the report of DATE by ORG ) \u201c Singled Out . GPE \u2019s detention and expulsion of NORP \u201d , Volume CARDINAL No . CARDINAL ) ; and the report of DATE by ORG ( FIDH ) \u201c Migrants in GPE \u201d , no . CARDINAL ) .","It has been established that during the period in question ( from DATE until DATE ) NORP nationals were arrested , detained and then expelled from the territory of GPE .","According to the applicant Government , these were reprisals following the arrest of the NORP officers in GPE and NORP nationals were expelled regardless of whether they were lawfully or unlawfully resident in GPE , simply because they were NORP .","According to the respondent Government , the events relating to the arrest of CARDINAL NORP officers in GPE were entirely irrelevant to the facts set out by the applicant Government in their application . The NORP authorities had not taken any measures of reprisal against NORP nationals , but had merely continued applying the statutory provisions for the prevention of illegal immigration in compliance with the requirements of the ORG and the Russian Federation \u2019s international obligations .","The parties submitted conflicting statistical evidence regarding the number of NORP nationals expelled during that period .","The applicant Government submitted in particular that DATE and DATE , CARDINAL expulsion orders had been issued against NORP nationals , of whom CARDINAL had been detained and forcibly expelled , and the remaining CARDINAL had left the country by their own means . They specified that DATE there had been a sharp increase in the number of expulsions of NORP nationals , which had risen from CARDINAL persons per month DATE to CARDINAL per month DATE and DATE . At the witness hearing PERSON PERSON , Consul of GPE in GPE at the material time , stated that from DATE the NORP consulate in GPE had been inundated with telephone calls and requests for assistance from relatives of persons detained , and that CARDINAL NORP nationals had come to the consulate DATE . He also said that there had been an increase in the number of travel documents ( which were necessary to expel NORP nationals ) issued during that period , with the number rising from an average of CARDINAL documents per day to CARDINAL per day ( see Annex , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The respondent Government , which stated that they had only DATE or DATE statistics , said that , in DATE , CARDINAL administrative expulsion orders had been issued against NORP nationals , which was a PERCENT increase compared with DATE . However , during DATE the highest number of administrative expulsion orders had been made against GPE nationals ( CARDINAL ) , followed by NORP nationals ( CARDINAL ) and NORP nationals ( CARDINAL ) , who , in reality , were only in third place . DATE and DATE , CARDINAL NORP nationals had been the subject of expulsion orders . They also indicated that during DATE CARDINAL planes chartered by GPE had flown a total of CARDINAL NORP nationals from GPE to GPE , and that at DATE and DATE CARDINAL planes chartered by GPE had flown CARDINAL NORP nationals from GPE to GPE . At the witness hearing PERSON , who had been Deputy Head of ORG at the material time , said that on DATE the flight had been with a cargo plane from ORG ( IL DATE ) , on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE with a NORP airliner ( FAC ) , and on DATE and DATE with NORP airliners ( see GPE , \u00a7 DATE ) .","With regard to the international governmental and non - governmental organisations , they partly reproduced the figures submitted by the applicant Government ( see , inter alia , the report of ORG of ORG of ORG PACE report , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . ORG ( HRW ) , for its part , also referred , in its report , to an information note of DATE of ORG of GPE ( ORG report , p. CARDINAL ) . According to ORG , that note indicated that DATE and DATE , CARDINAL administrative expulsion orders were issued against NORP nationals and CARDINAL NORP nationals were expelled . ORG ( FIDH ) referred in its report to \u201c CARDINAL of arrests [ of NORP nationals ] , CARDINAL of detentions and expulsions to GPE \u201d after the incident of DATE ( FIDH report , GPE ) .","In support of their allegations , the applicant Government submitted a number of documents issued by ORG ( ORG ) of GPE and GPE and by ORG of GPE . These refer to CARDINAL circulars : circular \u2013 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043a\u0430\u0437 \u2013 no . CARDINAL of DATE issued by ORG of GPE and GPE and circular \u2013 \u0443\u043a\u0430\u0437\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u2013 no . CARDINAL of DATE issued by ORG of GPE .","These documents are the following :","i. CARDINAL instructions of CARDINAL and DATE issued by ORG of GPE and GPE :","( a ) The first instruction of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , sent by PERSON V.J. Piotrovskiy , Acting Head of ORG of GPE and GPE , Police Major General at the material time , to the heads of division of the directorate , is entitled \u201c increasing the effectiveness of the implementation of GUVD circular no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL ( \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) \u201d and orders that","\u201c CARDINAL . from CARDINAL . - DATE and in cooperation with the territorial directorates of ORG for GPE and GPE including staff of all units , large - scale measures be undertaken to identify as many citizens ( \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0434\u0430\u043d\u0435 ) of GPE as possible who are unlawfully residing on NORP territory and deport them \u201d ;","\u201c CARDINAL . to \u201c initiate \u201d ( \u0418\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u0442\u044c ) decisions before courts in cases of violations of the rules governing the residence of foreign citizens deporting only the above - mentioned category of citizens by placing them in detention in a reception and detention centre of ORG ( ORG ) . The implementation of these measures is approved by ORG for GPE and GPE ( UFMS ) and the adoption of decisions is coordinated with GPE and ORG ; \u201d ( the instruction in question also appears in the ORG to the PACE report and the ORG report , and is mentioned in the FIDH report , p. CARDINAL ( b ) in fine ) .","( b ) The second instruction of DATE ( no . ORG ) and the third one ( no . CARDINAL ) of DATE supplement the first one . The second one , sent by PERSON , head of a division of ORG of GPE and GPE at the material time , to the heads of district police departments for combating economic crime and of ORG of GPE , also refers to circular no . ORG . The third one , sent by ORG , Acting Head of Police of GPE and of GPE at the material time , to the heads of district police departments , orders the relevant authorities to submit DATE reports on the number of NORP nationals arrested for \u201c administrative offences ... and violations of the regulations governing registration of home address \u201d ;","ii . An order of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) by PERSON , Acting Head of Police of GPE and GPE at the material time , referring to the implementation of paragraph CARDINAL of circular no . CARDINAL ;","iii . An information note of DATE issued by ORG applying circular no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG of GPE indicating the measures taken to reinforce supervision of the lawfulness of NORP ORG residence in GPE : checks on employers recruiting NORP citizens , checks on NORP citizens who have committed the offences set out in ORG CARDINAL of LAW , suspension of the issuing of certain documents to NORP citizens ( acquisition of NORP nationality , registration documents , temporary and permanent residence permits ) and checks on the lawfulness of granting such documents ( the information note also appears in the LOC to the ORG report ) .","The respondent Government submitted that all those instructions , the order and the information note had been falsified and disputed the content as alleged by the applicant Government of the CARDINAL circulars FAC . ORG and CARDINAL to which those documents referred . However , they confirmed the existence of the CARDINAL circulars , but said that these could not be provided to the ORG because they were classified \u201c ORG secret \u201d . At the witness hearing PERSON PERSON , Deputy Head of ORG , ORG , GPE , at the time of the hearing , confirmed that the instruction of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) purportedly issued by ORG of GPE and GPE was a forged document and that the CARDINAL circulars nos . ORG and CARDINAL ( the latter actually being a telegram ) were classified \u201c ORG secret \u201d and that they concerned a reference to various national criminal groups , but not a selective reference to NORP nationals . They could not be disclosed because this was forbidden under NORP law ( see GPE , \u00a7 DATE ) .","In his DATE report of DATE Mr PERSON , Commissioner for Human Rights of GPE ( NORP Ombudsman ) at the material time , published the full text of the instruction of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , on which Mr PERSON name appears unsigned . The Commissioner said that the instruction had been sent to him by GPE human rights activists and that it had been published by the local press . He commented as follows : \u201c To call things as they are , this unprecedented document is evidence that ... most senior police official entered into an arrangement with the judicial authorities with the aim of obtaining unjustified judicial rulings in relation to DATE as yet unidentified \u2013 persons in breach of temporary residence procedures , ignoring the specific circumstances of each of them and on the sole basis that they were NORP citizens . \u201d He went on to say that he had asked ORG of GPE to check whether the document was genuine and , if so , \u201c to take appropriate measures to bring the guilty to justice and revoke the blatantly illegal instructions contained in it \u201d ( DATE report of DATE of the Commissioner for Human Rights of GPE , point CARDINAL \u201c Interethnic relations and human rights \u201d ) .","In his letter in reply of DATE , PERSON , Deputy General Prosecutor of GPE at the material time , said that it \u201c was established that the law - enforcement authorities of GPE and of the GPE Region regularly take measures aimed at revealing foreign nationals unlawfully residing in GPE and GPE . These measures are realised in accordance with the rules of LAW , the NORP \u201c ORG Activities \u201d Act ( \u041e\u0431 \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e-\u0440\u043e\u0437\u044b\u0441\u043a\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0434\u0435\u044f\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 ORG ) and departmental regulations including those constituting a ORG secret . In DATE CARDINAL foreign nationals were sent back from GPE to their countries ; CARDINAL of them had NORP nationality . No cases of abuse of authority were revealed on the part of officers of the militia department . \u201d","In his report the Commissioner described the reply from the Deputy General Prosecutor as follows : \u201c in the best bureaucratic traditions the document gave no answer to any of the questions posed by the Commissioner . Instead , the \u201c reply \u201d from the Deputy General Prosecutor included a short report on the successes of the GPE lawenforcement authorities and , in a reference to departmental regulations classified as \u201c secret \u201d , confirmed that there was no evidence of the employees having exceeded their authority . Whether this means that as a result the sub - departments of ORG of GPE and GPE did not carry out their superior \u2019s manifestly illegal directions remains unclear . \u201d","The applicant ORG also submitted CARDINAL letters from ORG of CARDINAL GPE districts \u2013 GPE ( Head at the material time : PERSON ) and PERSON ( Deputy Head at the material time : Mr PERSON ) DATE sent on CARDINAL and DATE to schools for the purpose of identifying NORP pupils with the aim , among other things , of \u201c ensuring public order and respect for the law , preventing terrorist acts and tensions between children living in GPE and children of NORP nationality ( \u043d\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c ) \u201d ( letter from PERSON ) . In a letter in reply dated DATE , the director of CARDINAL of those establishments at the material time ( Mr PERSON ) said that there was no register recording pupils on the basis of their nationality ( the letters from Mr Zakharov and PERSON also appear in the LOC to the PACE and ORG reports ) . The sending of these requests for information was widely commented upon in the NORP media .","The respondent Government did not dispute the existence of the letters and even acknowledged that other requests of the same type had been sent to various schools at DATE by the head of ORG LOC of GPE ( ORG at the material time ) , on the ground that she wanted to identify cases of bribes paid to schools by illegal immigrants , and by the Head of ORG of LOC in LOC ( Mrs S.V. Volkova at the material time ) , on the ground that she wanted to identify cases of children living in insalubrious conditions . The respondent Government submitted that the subsequent investigations had concluded that no such official instructions had been issued by ORG . However , where \u2013 in isolated cases \u2013 officials had been over - zealous , they had subsequently been punished for their illegal acts . The documents submitted by the respondent Government show that the officials in question were respectively reprimanded ( \u0432\u044b\u0433\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0440 ) , downgraded and disciplined . At the witness hearing PERSON , ORG , ORG of ORG in respect of Minors , ORG of the Interior , PERSON , at the material time , and PERSON , Deputy Head of ORG , GPE , GPE , at the material time , confirmed that information and explained how the official investigations had been carried out and the penalties imposed on PERSON and PERSON among others ( see GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL ) .","The respondent Government also submitted a letter of DATE from the Deputy General Prosecutor of GPE to all prosecutors pointing out that various internal affairs directorates had acted unlawfully with regard to nationals of ORG ( ORG ) . He referred in particular to unjustified requests sent to schools for the purpose of identifying pupils of NORP nationality and concluded the letter by inviting all prosecutors to intensify their supervision of the activities of those divisions with a view to guaranteeing respect for the rights and freedoms of nationals of the ORG .","The international governmental and non - governmental organisations , for their part , referred to coordinated action between the administrative and judicial authorities , with express reference to the instruction of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) and to circular no . CARDINAL of ORG of GPE and GPE of DATE ( PACE report , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL , ORG report , \u00a7 DATE , and FIDH report , pp . CARDINAL and DATE ) . At the witness hearing PERSON , rapporteur of ORG at the material time , said that the expulsion of such a large number of NORP nationals within such a short space of time could not have been done without the knowledge and instructions of fairly highranking persons among the NORP authorities .","The FIDH indicated , moreover , that \u201c human - rights and refugeesprotection organisations present in GPE consider that a campaign conducted in such an ostensible manner throughout NORP territory can only have been initiated on a written order from the hierarchy of ORG . And whilst the top officials of ORG and ORG have denied giving explicit repressive orders targeting NORP , many members of the \u201c Migration and Law \u201d network of \u201c Memorial \u201d [ NORP non - governmental human rights organisation ] have seen in the regional departments or police stations written [ instructions ] containing all the elements present in the campaign . The case of the [ secret circular issued by ORG of GPE and GPE ] and letters sent to schools in GPE ( see paragraphs DATE above ) can not be regarded as isolated cases \u201d ( FIDH report , pp . CARDINAL ; for requests for information sent to schools , see also PACE report , ORG , and ORG report , p. CARDINAL ) .","It is in dispute between the parties whether the NORP nationals who were expelled had complied with the immigration rules in GPE during the period in question . Many international governmental and non - governmental organisations have stressed the complexity of those rules ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","With regard to the NORP witnesses who gave evidence at the witness hearing , even though their legal situation in GPE often appeared confused , the ORG notes that a majority of them were formally unlawfully resident in GPE \u2013 some for DATE for various reasons ( for example , no valid work permit , visa or registration certificate , often issued fraudulently DATE unbeknown to them \u2013 by the many private agencies operating fairly widely in GPE ) . They stated that their papers had indeed been checked on occasions in the past , sometimes resulting in the payment of a sum of money , but that this was the first time they had been arrested and forcibly expelled from NORP territory .","Mr GPE , Consul of GPE in GPE at the material time , said that the official procedures were difficult to carry out in practice and that many foreign nationals , including NORP , had been tricked by private agencies , many of which acted illegally and even issued forged registration certificates . He added that in the NORP Federation recourse was commonly had to these private agencies , which advertised in all public places in the big cities ( see GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Mr GPE , Deputy Head of ORG , GPE , at the material time , and PERSON PERSON , Inspector from ORG in the same department at the material time , pointed out that only the official authorities were empowered to issue such documents and that they regularly published relevant information for the attention of foreign nationals . They confirmed the existence of such private agencies , but stressed that their activities were often illegal and were the subject of criminal proceedings , without , however , providing specific examples ( see GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","Following the witness hearing , the impugned events may be summarised as follows : identity checks of NORP nationals were carried out in the streets , markets and other workplaces and at their homes , and they were subsequently arrested and taken to police stations . After a period of custody in police stations ( ranging from TIME to DATE , according to the witness evidence ) , they were grouped together and taken by bus to the courts , which summarily imposed administrative penalties on them and gave decisions ordering their administrative expulsion from NORP territory . Subsequently , after sometimes undergoing a medical visit and a blood test , they were taken to detention centres for foreigners where they were detained for varying periods of time ( ranging from DATE according to the witness evidence ) , and then taken by bus to various airports in GPE , and expelled to GPE by aeroplane . It should be pointed out that some of the NORP nationals against whom expulsion orders were issued left the territory of GPE by their own means .","The NORP witnesses said that they had been arrested by NORP police officers on the pretext that their identity papers were not in order . They had often been unable to take their personal effects with them or inform their relatives . When they had asked why they were being arrested , they had been told that it was because they were NORP and that there was an order from above to expel NORP nationals ( witness statements nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE see GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) .","Mr GPE , Deputy Head of ORG , GPE , at the material time , and PERSON PERSON , Inspector from ORG in the same department at the material time , said that their departments undertook , on the basis of information received , identity checks of foreign nationals or employers suspected of having broken the immigration rules in GPE .","The NORP witnesses all stated that a very summary procedure had been followed before the courts . Often they had not even realised that they had been brought before a court ( witness statements nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE see GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) . Whilst some of them mentioned an interview with a judge , lasting TIME on average and with no real examination of the facts of the case ( witness statements nos . CARDINAL and DATE see GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and DATE ) , others said that they had not been admitted to the courtroom and had waited in the corridors , or even in the buses that had delivered them to the court ( witness statements nos . CARDINAL and DATE see GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL ) , with other NORP nationals ( their number varied CARDINAL ) . They said that they had then been ordered to sign the court decisions without having had an opportunity to read the contents or being able to obtain a copy of the decision . They had not had access to either an interpreter or a lawyer ( witness statements nos . CARDINAL , DATE see GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL) . As a general rule , both the judges and the police officers had discouraged them from appealing by telling them that there was an order to expel NORP nationals , and in any event they had been so stressed at the idea of remaining in detention any longer and so eager to return to GPE that they would have signed \u201c anything at all \u201d . When they had asked why they were being expelled , they had been told that it was because they were NORP and that they should ask their President , PERSON .","Mr GPE , Consul of GPE in GPE at the material time , said that NORP officials had privately told him that such appeals were pointless because the decision to expel NORP from GPE was a political one ( see GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Mr PERSON , Inspector from ORG , GPE , at the material time , described the procedures before the courts as follows : the defendant was brought before a judge who informed him of his rights and obligations , asked him if he wanted an interpreter and a lawyer to be present , and , if so , his request was taken into account ; the judge then asked the defendant questions about his particular situation , left the room and came back with the order . If it was an expulsion order , the defendant received a copy and was taken to the detention centre for foreigners with a view to his or her expulsion . He or she had DATE in which to appeal , even after being expelled from GPE , and that time - limit could be extended ( see GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","PERSON , Head of ORG , GPE , at the material time , explained that at the relevant time his division had identified procedural irregularities particularly regarding the manner in which ORG had been drawing up reports on foreign nationals from a number of countries . In CARDINAL cases those findings had led to the expulsion orders in question being set aside . He added that ORG in charge of LOC had requested all his divisions to ensure that the rights of all foreign nationals were duly respected . He said that there had never been any instructions restricting the rights of NORP nationals because that would be against the law , and even a crime under NORP law .","The NORP witnesses spoke of \u201c overcrowding \u201d , \u201c unbearable \u201d and \u201c inhuman \u201d conditions of detention and appalling conditions of hygiene , and said that their fellow detainees had mainly been NORP nationals , though there had sometimes been CARDINAL or CARDINAL other detainees of a different nationality .","They said that during their custody in the police stations , the cells , which were called \u201c monkey cages \u201d , had been tiny and overcrowded , that men and women had sometimes been detained together and that they had been unable to sit down ( witness statements nos . CARDINAL and DATE see GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL ) .","They said that in the detention centres for foreigners the cells were also overcrowded : the description of the size of the cells ranged from CARDINAL mCARDINAL for CARDINAL detainees , QUANTITY for CARDINAL detainees with CARDINAL beds ( witness statement no . CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL x CARDINAL footsteps for CARDINAL detainees with CARDINAL beds ( witness statement no . CARDINAL ) , and QUANTITY mCARDINAL with CARDINAL detainees and QUANTITY beds ( witness statement no . CARDINAL ) . Other witnesses referred to tiny cells with CARDINAL or CARDINAL detainees ( witness statements nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) or with CARDINAL detainees and CARDINAL beds ( witness statement no . DATE see GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) . The beds had consisted merely of iron bars or very thin mattresses and no blankets ; the detainees had had to take it in turns to sleep ; a bucket had served as a toilet and had not been separated from the rest of the cells ; and there had been no decent water or food .","Mr GPE , Consul of GPE in GPE at the material time , said that he and his team had visited CARDINAL detention centres in various regions of GPE , including those of GPE and GPE . He confirmed that there had mainly been NORP nationals detained in all the centres , that the cells were overcrowded , the conditions of detention very difficult , the hygiene appalling , and that there were too few beds and mattresses . Only the detention centre no . CARDINAL of GPE ( model centre shown to journalists ) offered better conditions of detention , though it too was overcrowded ( see GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Mr GPE , Deputy Head of ORG , GPE , at the material time , said that he was in charge of the CARDINAL detention centres in GPE and that he had visited all of them : the conditions of detention were the same for all foreigners , namely , large cells of QUANTITY , with beds , separate toilets , running water and hot meals served CARDINAL times per day ( see GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . Other NORP witnesses said that there had never been any complaints by the Consul of GPE or by NORP nationals regarding the conditions of detention .","The NORP witnesses stated that they and other NORP nationals had been taken by bus , accompanied by officers from the NORP special police force ( PERSON ) , to various GPE airports from which they had been expelled by aeroplane to GPE . They said they had been humiliated by ORG officers , such as being obliged to pay in the bus before being allowed to relieve themselves or smoke or take their personal effects ( witness statements nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE see GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ) , and subsequently having to walk or even run towards the aeroplane with their hands behind their back in human corridors formed by ORG officers . The first NORP nationals to be expelled had been flown in a cargo plane ( on DATE ) , and the next ones in airliners ( on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) . Although the conditions of transport in the airliner had been acceptable , those in the cargo plane had been very rudimentary : the NORP witnesses said that there had been CARDINAL rows of benches on which women and children ( CARDINAL ) had sat , with the men sitting on the floor or having to stand , and that a sort of tub had served as a toilet and had circulated between the rows . The estimated number of NORP passengers in the planes varied CARDINAL .","Mr GPE , Inspector from ORG , GPE , at the material time , said that the cargo planes resembled airliners with slightly less comfort ; in any event they had been equipped with seats or benches and with safety belts , and water and food had been served on board , and there had been toilets fixed to the floor . He had himself accompanied the cargo plane flight on DATE , and explained that the flight had lasted TIME , that there had been CARDINAL passengers on board and they had not complained about the conditions of transport but had thanked the members of his department on arrival in GPE . On the way back , the same plane had flown NORP nationals from GPE to GPE .","Mr Azarov , Deputy Head of ORG , GPE , at the material time , had been present at GPE and GPE and had boarded CARDINAL planes carrying NORP nationals being expelled to GPE . He said that the planes had been equipped with seats and benches , and that water and dry biscuits had been served on board .","Mr PERSON , Deputy Head of ORG at the material time , stated that he had been present at the airport when the NORP nationals were expelled and stressed that there had been no baggage restrictions ; on the contrary they had had their personal effects on them and the media had been present . Subsequently , in a letter of thanks sent by the Consul of GPE to the head of ORG of the town of PERSON ( PERSON ) the former had congratulated the NORP authorities on their good co - operation during the expulsion procedures , and had not filed a claim .","The NORP witnesses stressed that they were relieved to be back in GPE and did not envisage appealing against the expulsion orders to the consulate or embassy of GPE in GPE . In any case , during the procedures before the courts in GPE both the judges and the police officers had told them several times that it was pointless to appeal because there was an order from above to expel NORP nationals . Some also referred to practical obstacles such as the closure of the NORP consulate in GPE , while others spoke of long queues outside the consulate .","Mr GPE , Consul of GPE in GPE at the material time , said that after the repatriation of some of the diplomatic staff of the GPE embassy and consulate to GPE at DATE the embassy had continued operating normally , during the usual TIME ( TIME ) , with a reduced workforce of QUANTITY people ( diplomats and administrative staff ) at the embassy and CARDINAL diplomats at the consulate . The NORP nationals could therefore have lodged appeals or complaints DATE personally , or through ORG of GPE DATE which would have been transmitted to the appropriate authorities in GPE , but no appeal or complaint had been lodged . After diplomatic relations between the CARDINAL countries had been broken off , from DATE , GPE had kept an office open at the NORP embassy in GPE and GPE had also kept CARDINAL open at the NORP embassy in GPE . The respective diplomats of both countries could have been contacted there ( see GPE , \u00a7 DATE ) . In their letter of DATE the respondent Government confirmed that following the evacuation of some of their diplomatic staff at DATE , CARDINAL members of the diplomatic staff had continued working at the NORP embassy in GPE and CARDINAL at the consulate .","ORG referred to a \u201c selective and intentional persecution campaign based on ethnic grounds , which clearly goes against the spirit of LAW No . CARDINAL to LAW ( ORG ) ... in which this group is clearly targeted through special militia operations to hunt down its population on streets , markets or in front of strategic places ( NORP consulate in GPE , ORG ) ... \u201d ( PACE report , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","Non - governmental organisations referred to \u201c massive operations of control and repression directed against NORP of GPE and other NORP cities \u201d ( FIDH report , point PERSON \u201c the anti - NORP campaign of DATE \u201d , p. CARDINAL ) . NORP nationals and \u201c ethnic NORP \u201d were allegedly victims of a deliberate policy of detention and expulsion ( HRW report , p. CARDINAL ) .","NORP HRW cited the comments of PERSON , then Head of ORG in GPE ( State body advising the NORP President on all matters relating to civil society and human rights ) , who said that \u201c administrative and legal measures applied [ against NORP ] are unfounded : businesses employing ethnic NORP are being closed down , visas and registration papers legally obtained by NORP nationals are being cancelled , people are being illegally detained and [ expelled ] from GPE \u201d ( statement of DATE , p. CARDINAL of the report ) .","PERSON , a member of the same advisory council , and Head of the \u201c Migration and Law \u201d network and Chairperson of ORG , and member of the board of the \u201c FAC , at the material time , said in DATE that there had been \u201c organized persecution of NORP nationals \u201d . She considered that such \u201c harassment of a specific group of people [ was ] a form of inadmissible discrimination [ that could ] in no way be viewed as a legal method of fighting illegal migration \u201d ( speech in ORG on DATE ) .","Other NORP institutions also expressed their concern regarding the large number of NORP expelled and asked the NORP authorities to revoke all the measures taken against NORP nationals residing on their territory ( speech of DATE by PERSON , member of ORG for ORG and ORG ; Joint motion for a resolution of DATE of ORG on the situation in GPE , points ORG and CARDINAL and DATE ; Statement of DATE of ORG against Racism and Intolerance ( ECRI ) ) .","DATE . ORG said that the \u201c routine of expulsions \u201d followed a recurrent pattern all over the country : \u201c NORP stopped in the street under the pretext of examination of their documents were detained no matter whether their documents were in order or not and taken to the ORG stations where they were gathered in large groups and delivered to courts , where decisions on administrative penalty with expulsion of the territory of GPE were made in accordance with preliminary agreement with the courts , with no lawyers and without the courts looking into individual circumstances , the entire procedure taking from TIME . Often people , subjected to these measures , were not admitted to the trial room , detainees were kept in corridors or even in cars in which they were delivered there \u201d ( PACE report , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","That description tallies with that of the FIDH and ORG ( FIDH report , pp . DATE under II-CARDINAL \u201c Development of the crisis and type of persecutions \u201d a ) \u201c Control and arrest operations \u201d , b ) \u201c Flagrant denial of justice and circumvention of the procedures \u201d , and ORG report , pp . CARDINAL under \u201c Arbitrary and illegal detention and expulsion of NORP \u201d ) .","According to ORG , \u201c while many expelled [ NORP nationals ] may technically have had a judicial decision ordering their expulsion , the manner in which those decisions were reached ( some in group trials ) , the lack of representation and capacity to mount a proper case against the expulsion , and the fact that many were effectively denied the right to appeal , points to GPE \u2019s failure to comply with its ORG obligations \u201d ( ORG report , p. CARDINAL ) .","The FIDH , for its part , indicated that \u201c the persons arrested were taken in groups to the courts , which in TIME ordered them to be expelled from GPE , preceded by a period of detention in a temporary detention centre for foreign citizens ( TsVSIG ) , regardless of the conditions or the individual \u2019s family situation \u201d ( FIDH report , p. CARDINAL ) .","It added that a lawyer from \u201c Civic Assistance \u201d , a NORP association , \u201c witnessed on several occasions mass miscarriages of justice during the campaign : not only did the arrestees have no right to a lawyer , but they were most frequently brought in groups to the courts by police officers . Once there , the judges dealt with the cases as though on a production line and usually without those concerned by the expulsion orders being present and without even having regard to the circumstances of each case . These notices of expulsion were presented to the detainees ; many signed thinking that they were signing a fine as part of a range of possible administrative penalties for offences against the immigration rules . On several occasions the persons concerned were discouraged in advance from appealing against the order on the ground that \u201c it would make matters worse \u201d . In some cases \u201c agreements \u201d were signed in the deportees\u2019 place \u201d ( FIDH report , p. CARDINAL ) .","It also stated that \u201c a number of factors point to collusion between the police and the judicial authorities , establishing that this policy was devised in advance : in GPE evidence of collusion between the police and the courts lies in the fact that the latter had not listed any other cases during the periods when the police brought NORP before the courts . They were arrested at TIME and presented as a group before the courts at TIME The judges gave a larger number of decisions in DATE than they normally give in DATE \u201d ( FIDH report , p. CARDINAL ) .","With regard to the conditions of detention and expulsion , ORG referred to the witnesses it had heard during the mission undertaken by the co - rapporteurs who spoke of \u201c overcrowding \u201d and \u201c unbearable \u201d and \u201c inhuman \u201d conditions of detention . They had allegedly been deprived not only of medical assistance but also of any possibility of satisfying their basic needs .","That situation had resulted in the death of a CARDINAL-year - old NORP citizen , PERSON , who , according to witnesses , suffered from asthma . After being detained for DATE without medical assistance and without being able to go out into the fresh air , he had died after a journey lasting TIME between the detention centre in GPE and GPE \u2019s FAC on DATE . The Deputy Head of ORG at the material time , Mr GPE , said that the detention facility in question was being closed down . ORG also referred to the case of a second NORP national , PERSON , aged DATE , who had died on DATE in GPE detention centre no . DATE of inadequate medical assistance and after being refused urgent medical aid ( PACE report , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Lastly , ORG referred to the conditions in which NORP nationals had been transported by cargo flights at DATE . This had been done in violation of the norms of ORG as such transportation of passengers was life - threatening ( PACE report , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The FIDH specified that there were \u201c CARDINAL temporary detention centres for foreigners ( TsVSIG ) in GPE and the surrounding areas , which were mainly converted former sobering - up cells . Centres no . CARDINAL ( GPE district ) , no . CARDINAL ( in PERSON ) and no . CARDINAL ( in GPE ) were visited by staff from the \u201c ORG . In front of the one on FAC , there was a queue of police cars nearly QUANTITY km long waiting to offload arrested persons at a centre with space for CARDINAL people . Detainees said that there had been CARDINAL people instead of CARDINAL per cell , and that the food rations had not been increased . Moreover , there had been so many people that the TsVSIG had not even had time to draw up the documents discharging detainees . \u201d The FIDH also referred to CARDINAL cases of death in detention or during the journey prior to expulsion ( FIDH report , pp . DATE under ( c ) \u201c Conditions of detention and deaths in detention \u201d ) .","NORP HRW reported similar facts and also referred to CARDINAL cases of death in detention ( ORG report , pp . CARDINAL under \u201c Deaths of NORP in custody \u201d , and pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL under \u201c Inhuman and degrading treatment \u201d ) .","On the first point ORG also referred to the case of PERSON and that of PERSON , who had allegedly been subjected to very tough conditions of detention and not been given the necessary medical assistance , which had resulted in their death . The case of CARDINAL other NORP nationals who had died in detention was also mentioned . Furthermore , the NORP authorities had allegedly failed to carry out sufficient investigations following those deaths despite their obligation to do so under LAW .","On the second point ORG indicated that many NORP nationals had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the poor conditions of detention and expulsion ( overcrowded cells , lack of water and food , and transporting CARDINAL NORP nationals by cargo plane ) .","Before undertaking an examination on the merits and an assessment of the evidence on the basis of each complaint , the ORG will set out all the written and oral evidence to which it has had regard and the principles of assessment that it will apply .","In order to establish the facts the ORG has based itself on the parties\u2019 observations and the many documents submitted by them and on the statements of the witnesses heard in GPE .","It has also had regard to the reports by international governmental and non - governmental organisations such as ORG , ORG , the FIDH and the annual report of DATE of the Human Rights Commissioner of GPE ( NORP Ombudsman ) . Some of the documents submitted by the applicant Government also appear in these reports .","Furthermore , in letters of DATE and CARDINAL DATE and during the witness hearing the ORG requested the respondent Government to produce the following additional documents :","i ) DATE statistics regarding the expulsion of NORP nationals during DATE and DATE , to enable a comparison to be made between expulsions before and after DATE , during which mass arrests and expulsions of NORP nationals allegedly began ; the respondent Government replied that they kept only DATE and DATE statistics that they had submitted to the ORG ;","ii ) the CARDINAL circulars FAC . ORG and CARDINAL of DATE that had been issued by ORG of GPE and GPE and ORG of GPE respectively and to which the documents submitted by the applicant Government refer ; the respondent Government disputed the authenticity of those documents and said that they could not submit the circulars in question because they were classified \u201c ORG secret \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;","iii ) the files relating to the disciplinary proceedings brought against NORP officials who had sent requests to various NORP schools asking for lists of NORP pupils ; the respondent Government submitted a copy of several documents indicating that disciplinary penalties had been imposed on the officials in question ;","iv ) statistics on the number of decisions given on appeal by the NORP courts against decisions expelling NORP nationals during the period in question ( DATE to DATE ) ; in their letter in reply of DATE the respondent Government again said that they did not have DATE statistics relating to the expulsion of NORP nationals ( the nationality of perpetrators of administrative offences did not appear in the statistics of ordinary courts and an electronic database for the entire GPE had existed only since DATE ) , but that they could nonetheless provide information obtained manually for the period concerned from the courts of CARDINAL regions of GPE by providing the ORG with copies of CARDINAL appeal decisions . It should be mentioned that CARDINAL of these decisions concern NORP nationals expelled during the period in question , CARDINAL of which set aside decisions of the courts of first instance . Moreover , of the CARDINAL appeal decisions submitted to the ORG , CARDINAL concerned GPE and CARDINAL GPE , whereas the majority of expulsions of NORP nationals took place in those CARDINAL cities . Lastly , CARDINAL appeal decision out of the CARDINAL concerning GPE and CARDINAL appeal decisions out of the CARDINAL concerning GPE concerned referrals back to the administrative authorities on the ground that the police officers had taken the NORP nationals directly to the courts without first taking them to ORG as provided for by law .","During DATE to CARDINAL DATE the delegation of judges of ORG heard a total of CARDINAL witnesses , CARDINAL of whom had been proposed by the applicant Government , QUANTITY by the respondent Government and CARDINAL chosen by the delegation .","The CARDINAL witnesses proposed by the applicant Government ( except witness no . CARDINAL , wife of the late Mr PERSON and who was an \u201c indirect \u201d witness to the events , and Mr PERSON , Consul of GPE in GPE at the material time ) are NORP nationals who were arrested , detained and expelled by the NORP authorities . Their evidence concerned the conditions of arrest , detention and expulsion in DATE .","The CARDINAL witnesses proposed by the respondent Government are public officials of GPE , whose evidence concerned in particular the conditions of arrest , detention and expulsion of NORP nationals , statistical data and the authenticity of the instructions issued by ORG of GPE and GPE and the circulars to which they refer .","The CARDINAL witnesses chosen by the ORG are Mr E\u00f6rsi , rapporteur of ORG at the material time , and PERSON , a human - rights official with the LOC mission in GPE at the material time .","The delegation had also planned to hear other witnesses , including Mr GPE , Acting Head of ORG of GPE and GPE at the material time , and presumed signatory to the instruction of DATE aiming to \u201c [ increase ] the effectiveness of the implementation of ... circular no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . DATE before his hearing the representative of the respondent Government indicated that Mr GPE had been urgently admitted to hospital and submitted a hospital certificate to that effect .","The delegation had also wanted to hear PERSON , Commissioner for Human Rights of GPE at the material time , but he did not reply to the ORG \u2019s summons .","Lastly , the delegation had also wanted to hear PERSON , Head of ORG in GPE at the material time . However , it was not possible to hear her as a witness because , as explained in a letter of DATE , the respondent Government informed the ORG that PERSON was no longer a public official but a private individual and that they were therefore unable to provide the ORG with her address . It should be reiterated here that Contracting Parties have an obligation to serve any summons on a witness residing on its territory ( see Rule ACARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , first sentence , of the FAC to ORG ) .","In assessing evidence the ORG has adopted the standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d laid down by it in CARDINAL inter - State cases ( see GPE v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL , and GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIV ) and which has since become part of its established case - law ( see , inter alia , ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG , and ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . ORG and CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","However , it has never been its purpose to borrow the approach of the national legal systems that use that standard in criminal cases . The ORG \u2019s role is to rule not on guilt under criminal law or on civil liability but on Contracting States\u2019 responsibility under the Convention . The specificity of its task under LAW to ensure the observance by LAW of their engagements to secure the fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention \u2013 conditions its approach to the issues of evidence and proof . In the proceedings before the ORG , there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or predetermined formulae for its assessment . It adopts the conclusions that are , in its view , supported by the free evaluation of all evidence , including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties\u2019 submissions . According to its established case - law , proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . Moreover , the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and , in this connection , the distribution of the burden of proof are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts , the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake . ORG is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a ORG has violated fundamental rights ( see , inter alia , PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . MONEY and CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII , and PERSON the GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIX ) .","In establishing the existence of an administrative practice , the ORG will not rely on the concept that the burden of proof is borne by CARDINAL or other of the CARDINAL Governments concerned , but will rather study all the material before it , from whatever source it originates ( see GPE v. the GPE and GPE v. GPE , cited above , ibid . ) . In addition , the conduct of the parties in relation to the ORG \u2019s efforts to obtain evidence may constitute an element to be taken into account ( see GPE v. the GPE ; ORG and Others ; and ORG and Others , cited above , ibid . ) ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","38","5","P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4","P4-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8","P1","P7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1","P1-1","P1-2","P7-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P7-1-1"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183536","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF M.T.B. v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE a certain FAC lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant , claiming that he had issued an uncovered cheque dated DATE .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office indicted the applicant in ORG under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . DATE in force at the material time \u2013 for issuing an uncovered cheque . The cheque bore the applicant \u2019s name underneath the name of the company of which he was president of the executive board , and the address of the company on the cheque was indicated as being \u201c ... PERSON \/ GPE \u201d .","On DATE the trial court held a preparatory hearing ( tensip ) and ordered that a summons be served on the applicant .","On DATE the trial court sent a copy of the bill of indictment , together with the notice of the first hearing , to the address written on the cheque . On DATE the trial court asked the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office to confirm the applicant \u2019s identity and enquire about his full address and provide it with this information .","On DATE the summons was returned on the grounds that the applicant had left that address , leaving \u201c PERSON [ post box ] CARDINAL PERSON \u201d as an alternative address .","Within the context of the enquiries to find out what the applicant \u2019s new address was , it appears that the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office asked the police and the mayor of the neighbourhood ( muhtarl\u0131k ) to collect information . In that connection , the police went to the address written on the cheque and concluded that the applicant had left it . According to the information received from the mayor of the neighbourhood , the applicant had left that address without giving any notification .","On DATE the trial court held the first hearing in the absence of the applicant . The court decided to authorise his detention in absentia ( tevkif m\u00fczekkeresi ) with a view to obtaining his statements , under LAW of the former LAW , in force at the material time .","DATE and DATE the trial court waited for the detention order to be executed .","On DATE , while the criminal proceedings were ongoing , another court in GPE , namely ORG , sent a summons to the applicant \u2019s home address DATE \u201c ... Avc\u0131lar \/ GPE \u201d \u2013 requiring him to give evidence as a complainant in another set of criminal proceedings .","On DATE , in another set of criminal proceedings , the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office delivered a decision not to prosecute , in which it also indicated the applicant \u2019s address as being \u201c ... Avc\u0131lar \/ GPE \u201d .","On DATE the trial court once again attempted to serve the summons at the address written on the cheque , but failed to do so for the same reasons .","On DATE the trial court decided to serve the summons at the same address , in accordance with section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the trial court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a fine ( a\u011f\u0131r para cezas\u0131 ) of MONEY ( GPE ) . That judgment was served on the applicant on DATE . The DATE time - limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment expired , and in the absence of an appeal it became final .","On an unspecified date in DATE several police officers from the LOC police station in GPE , GPE , went to the applicant \u2019s apartment with an arrest warrant and invited him to attend the police station . At the police station , the applicant was informed that an arrest warrant had been issued against him following his conviction by a criminal court , and that he would be put in prison unless he paid the MONEY ( TRY ) fine previously imposed by the court . The applicant , who was unaware of any criminal proceedings against him , requested the details of the judgment in question and applied to the registry of ORG for further information .","Upon examining the relevant case file at the registry of the first - instance court , the applicant discovered that he had been charged and convicted in absentia for issuing an uncovered cheque on DATE and sentenced to a fine of TRY CARDINAL , an amount corresponding to the amount of the cheque . Moreover , the judgment , which had been delivered on CARDINAL October CARDINAL by ORG , had become final in the absence of an appeal .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , challenging the judgment in question on the grounds that it had been delivered in his absence and the accusations against him were ill - founded . He emphasised that he had not received any notice of the criminal proceedings or the judgment , not even when he had gone to the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office DATE prior to the delivery of the impugned judgment to obtain his criminal record details for an unrelated matter . He added that the claimant in the criminal proceedings , GPE , was his former girlfriend , and that he had given her a blank cheque as a guarantee that he would discharge their joint debt to a bank . They had in fact signed an official document on DATE in the presence of a lawyer confirming that FAC would only be entitled to cash this cheque if the applicant failed to discharge their joint debt to the bank . Upon settling the debt with the bank , the applicant had requested that FAC return the blank cheque to him , but FAC had failed to do so , alleging that she had lost it . He had accordingly reported the cheque as missing to the bank , and had asked to be notified in the event of any attempts to cash it . On DATE , very shortly after his move to a new address , his former girlfriend had apparently attempted to cash the cheque , and when the cheque had not cleared , had brought a criminal complaint against him . Despite his instructions , he had not been contacted by his bank when the cheque in question had been deposited by ORG , nor had he been advised that the cheque had bounced .","On DATE the Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y Civil Court of First Instance issued a summary judgment dismissing the applicant \u2019s appeal as lodged out of time . It held that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had been duly served on him on DATE in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL , and the appeal should therefore have been submitted by DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the summary judgment , reiterating the arguments he had previously submitted to ORG . He emphasised that , although his accurate address details could easily have been obtained from the mayor of the neighbourhood , the judgment of DATE had been served at the address which his company had moved out of on DATE . In his absence , it had apparently been posted on the door of the building . He therefore requested that the judgment which had been delivered in his absence be quashed or rectified .","On DATE ORG at ORG delivered her opinion on the applicant \u2019s appeal , where she requested that the first - instance court \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE be quashed on account of the unlawful service of the initial judgment rendered in his absence .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision , holding that the judgment in question had been duly served on the applicant in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL on Notifications .","On DATE , in accordance with LAW , the applicant requested that ORG at ORG lodge an application to have ORG decision set aside .","It appears that the applicant was imprisoned on DATE on account of his failure to pay the fine of TRY CARDINAL imposed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was conditionally released .","On DATE ORG at ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application under LAW , maintaining that the applicant \u2019s arguments had already been examined by ORG in its decision of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177401","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BA\u011eLAR v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant , who was born in DATE , lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation .","On DATE the investigating judge at ORG , after questioning the applicant , ordered his pre - trial detention .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG .","The trial commenced before ORG and the first preparatory hearing was held on DATE .","In the subsequent hearings held DATE and DATE , the applicant appeared before the court and the judges ordered his continued detention .","The applicant filed an objection against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the CARDINALth Chamber of ORG dismissed this objection without holding an oral hearing , and based on the public prosecutor \u2019s written opinion , which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative .","On DATE the applicant was released from detention on remand .","According to the latest information in the case - file , the proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first - instance court ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145442","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HARAKCHIEV AND TOLUMOV v. BULGARIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;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);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant in the first application ( no . CARDINAL ) , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . He is currently serving a whole life sentence ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) in FAC .","The applicant in the second application ( no . CARDINAL ) , Mr Tolumov , was born in DATE . He is currently serving a life sentence ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) in FAC .","DATE Mr PERSON , a driver and car mechanic , was convicted CARDINAL times of non - violent offences : theft and aggravated theft ( CARDINAL convictions ) , and fraud and aggravated fraud ( CARDINAL convictions ) . He was given sentences ranging from DATE imprisonment .","On DATE the ORG convicted PERSON PERSON of illegal possession of a firearm and CARDINAL armed robberies of motor vehicles carried out between DATE and DATE , CARDINAL of which had been accompanied by attempted murder and CARDINAL by murder . It sentenced him to whole life imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld Mr PERSON \u2019s conviction and sentence .","In a final judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043d\u043e\u0435\u043c\u0432\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043d. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG , ORG \u043d. \u043e. ) ORG likewise upheld Mr PERSON \u2019s conviction and sentence . It held , inter alia , that in view of the gravity of his offences \u2013 in particular , the determination and cruelty with which they had been carried out \u2013 a more lenient sentence , such as life imprisonment ( \u0434\u043e\u0436\u0438\u0432\u043e\u0442\u0435\u043d \u0437\u0430\u0442\u0432\u043e\u0440 \u0441\u044a\u0441 \u0437\u0430\u043c\u044f\u043d\u0430 ) , would not be adequate . That conclusion could not be altered by the fact that Mr PERSON had confessed and had helped the investigating authorities to uncover his criminal activities .","Mr PERSON has been detained in FAC since DATE . He was initially placed under the \u201c enhanced regime \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . With the entry into force of the Execution of Punishments and Pre - Trial Detention Act on DATE , that regime was replaced by the \u201c severe regime \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) by operation of law . On DATE ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) proposed that ORG place Mr PERSON under the \u201c special regime \u201d normally applicable to life prisoners , citing his \u201c negative attitude \u201d and lack of respect for internal order , as well as the fact that he should in any case have been placed under that regime from the outset . On DATE the ORG accepted the proposal . Mr PERSON \u2019s legal challenge against that decision , filed on DATE , was rejected by ORG and ORG as being out of time . The Government submitted that there was at present no intention on the part of the prison authorities to make further changes to Mr PERSON \u2019s prison regime .","DATE Mr PERSON was given CARDINAL disciplinary punishments . The latest such punishments , in DATE , were imposed in relation to ( a ) a scuffle between himself and another inmate during the DATE walk on TIME , and ( b ) the theft on DATE of food that another inmate had left in the communal toilet . In relation to the former , Mr PERSON was given a reprimand , and in relation to the latter isolation in a disciplinary cell for DATE .","Mr PERSON \u2019s cell \u2013 in which he is currently alone but which he apparently shared with another inmate DATE is in the prison \u2019s high - security wing , reserved for life prisoners . According to PERSON PERSON , the cell was quite small , especially bearing in mind that the furniture alone occupied QUANTITY , and was lit at TIME by a CARDINALwatt incandescent light bulb that was constantly on . According to the Government , the cell was not undersized . It measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and was QUANTITY high , with a total floor space of QUANTITY . It was furnished with a metal locker , a double metal bunk bed , CARDINAL stools and a small table , all of which were attached to the floor for security reasons . It had a window , facing south , that measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY . Artificial lighting in the cell consisted of CARDINAL CARDINAL-watt luminescent light bulbs . According to Mr PERSON , the incandescent bulbs had only been replaced with luminescent bulbs in DATE . He also pointed out that the cell did not have any low - intensity night lighting .","PERSON Prison does not have a ventilation or airconditioning system . Mr PERSON claimed that as a result temperatures in his cell were very high in DATE and there was no fresh air . In DATE , heating was only turned on for periods of TIME , at TIME and in TIME . According to the Government , the cell window could be opened , which allowed the cell to be aired at any time . The prison had its own heating installation with CARDINAL boilers and a heat exchanger . The boilers were fired for TIME a day , but the water that they heated circulated in the heating installation permanently . According to Mr PERSON , the radiator in his cell was hot for TIME each day and the poor state of repair of the cell window and the metal door were factors contributing to the low temperature in the cell in DATE . Mr PERSON also submitted that as he had to dry his clothes in the cell , it was very damp . As a result , the paint and rendering were peeling off the walls .","According to Mr PERSON , the common areas of the prison could only be kept clean by bleaching with calcium hypochlorite , and the cells were only cleaned with water . In support of that assertion , Mr PERSON relied on the witness statement of CARDINAL of his co - inmates made in the course of proceedings brought by him . According to the Government , the common areas of the prison were not merely cleaned with bleach . They were cleaned DATE with detergents , and at least twice a year subjected to pest and rat control , as evident from CARDINAL invoices for such services carried out during DATE . Mr PERSON replied that those invoices did not prove that the detergents had indeed been used as alleged by the Government . He also submitted that his cell was constantly infested with cockroaches and mice , and that all his complaints to the prison administration in that respect had gone unheeded . He submitted further that , since the window of his cell was not covered with a net , insects came into the cell all the time , drawn by the smell of excrement and the constant lighting at TIME , and bit him .","There is no toilet or running water in the cell . Mr PERSON submitted that as a result , apart from the CARDINAL daily visits to the communal toilets , he had to use a plastic bucket to relieve himself . During the period he had had to share his cell with another inmate , he had had to do so in his presence . The lack of running water prevented him from washing his hands or the bucket after relieving himself . The Government pointed out that the toilet and bathroom in the high - security unit were accessible to inmates CARDINAL times a day , and also whenever they asked the guards . It could not therefore be said that Mr PERSON was forced to use the bucket to relieve himself ; that was his own choice . In fact he had CARDINAL buckets in his cell , in which he stored clothes , laundry and other items . Mr PERSON replied that , apart from the CARDINAL daily visits to the toilet , TIME the guards never opened his cell to let him visit the toilet . It was therefore not his choice to resort to the bucket for his sanitary needs .","Apart from his TIME DATE walk , Mr PERSON can leave his cell to visit the toilet CARDINAL times a day . During each of those visits , he can also empty the bucket , wash his hands , and fill plastic bottles with water for drinking and sanitary needs . According to him , the visits to the toilet lasted TIME and TIME at lunch and in TIME , and did not coincide with the visits of the other inmates in the unit .","According to Mr PERSON , inmates in FAC could only take a shower once every DATE . According to the Government , all inmates in the prison \u2019s high - security unit could take a shower twice a week .","According to Mr PERSON , visits by relatives or lawyers took place in a special room . Prisoners and visitors were separated by a wire net , and prisoners had to remain seated . A prison officer was always present . According to the Government , the prison officer present during visits was only there to ensure good order and could not overhear conversations . Visits by lawyers took place in a separate room , in which no other person was present . The only form of control there was visual monitoring . In that context , the Government drew attention to the fact that as a result of the many claims that he had brought against the prison authorities , until GPE Mr PERSON had spent DATE outside FAC , and DATE and DATE had spent DATE , or PERCENT of the time , outside the prison .","According to Mr PERSON , food in the prison was poorly prepared , of low quality , tasteless , served cold and in unhygienic conditions , and insufficient in quantity . Meat was served once DATE . The rest of the time food consisted of beans , lentils , cabbage and potatoes , served as soups or stews . According to the Government , the quantity and the chemical and calorie content of the food were fully adequate . The DATE portions comprised QUANTITY , and there was meat in the meals at least once DATE . Mr PERSON replied that \u201c meat \u201d in effect meant boiled bones or canned meat . Both parties submitted menus and tables in support of their respective assertions .","According to Mr PERSON , medical care in FAC consisted of routinely giving all inmates aspirin or GPE , and inmates had to purchase all other medicines themselves . According to the Government , the prison \u2019s medical centre was staffed by a general practitioner , CARDINAL feldshers ( paramedics \u2013 one for the main prison building and CARDINAL for each of the CARDINAL separate prison hostels ) , a nurse , a psychiatrist and a dentist . Medical examinations were carried out DATE , and in cases of emergency inmates could be taken to the emergency ward of ORG . Medical examinations in the high - security unit were normally carried out on DATE . Inmates could also consult outside specialists , or be treated in the prison hospitals in GPE and GPE . Medicines were normally provided by the prison medical centre , or could be obtained from outside the prison . The only medicine that Mr PERSON had had to obtain himself , because the centre had not had any in stock , had been PERSON ( clonazepam ) , at a unit cost of MONEY ( ORG ) . Mr PERSON replied , without giving further details , that he routinely had to purchase medicines himself . He also submitted that his dental care had consisted merely in extracting teeth ; in spite of the obvious need to provide him with dental prostheses , the prison authorities had failed to take any action in that respect . The Government replied that dental prostheses did not form part of the standard medical cover for any health - insured person in GPE , and could not be obtained free of charge .","The Government also asserted that Mr PERSON could see the social inspector in charge of his unit DATE ; he could ask to see a psychologist , the prison governor or deputy governor , the prison legal officer , or another member of the prison staff ; he could socialise with other inmates of the same category during his DATE walk and during meal times ; and he had access to cable television , with CARDINAL channels , to the prison library , and to religious services . For his part , Mr PERSON submitted that , in spite of having expressed his desire to do so , he had not been given any opportunity to work or take part in sport , cultural or educational activities . In reply , the Government stated that in DATE Mr PERSON had been allowed to take part in a yoga course in order to reduce his stress levels .","NORP The annual psychological assessments of Mr PERSON for DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , submitted by the Government , are very similar . All of them say , often using the same language , that his conduct was characterised by the \u201c campaign that he ha[d ] mounted \u201d against the institutions and prison officials with whom he had had contact , which chiefly consisted in his bringing various legal challenges and in inciting other prisoners to give \u201c false evidence \u201d in his favour . Dialogue with him was very difficult , chiefly because of his lack of respect for authority , acute awareness of his own rights , stubbornness , and tendency to call the officials concerned to give evidence in the cases that he was bringing against the prison authorities . The risk of serious harm was high in view of his personality , the nature of his offences and the rigidity of his conduct . He had been verbally aggressive to prison staff .","NORP Since his incarceration in DATE Mr PERSON has brought a number of claims for damages against the authorities under LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0444\u0435\u0432\u0440\u0443\u0430\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG dismissed a claim for damages brought by Mr PERSON under that provision in relation to the failure of the prison administration to provide him with newspapers . The court held that Mr PERSON had not proved that he had suffered any non - pecuniary damage as a result of that failure .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043c\u0430\u0439 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , \u0412\u0410\u0421 , III \u043e. ) ORG dismissed a claim for damages brought by Mr PERSON under the above - mentioned provision in relation to a failure by the prison administration to organise his DATE walk in such a way as to compensate him for CARDINAL he had previously missed on account of bad weather . The court DATE overturning the lower court \u2019s ruling on that point \u2013 held that Mr PERSON had failed to establish that he had suffered any non - pecuniary damage ; he could not simply be assumed to have sustained damage on the basis of the prison administration \u2019s failure to organise a daily walk .","In a final judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u044f\u043d\u0443\u0430\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG dismissed a claim for damages brought by Mr PERSON under the above - mentioned provision in relation to the refusal of the prison administration to allow him to watch films in the prison \u2019s video - projection room . The court held that that would have been incompatible with the requirement , imposed by the \u201c special regime \u201d under which Mr PERSON was serving his sentence ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , that he remain isolated in a locked cell at all times . The prison administration \u2019s refusal had therefore not been unlawful .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043d\u043e\u0435\u043c\u0432\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG allowed a claim for damages brought by Mr PERSON under the above - mentioned provision in relation to the failure of the prison administration , for DATE , to provide him with shoes free of charge , as required by statute . Relying on LAW , the court held that that failure had humiliated Mr PERSON and had diminished his human dignity . The court went on to say that Mr PERSON \u2019s feelings of humiliation had been exacerbated as a result of his solitary confinement , and awarded him BGN CARDINAL ( the equivalent of CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) , plus interest .","On DATE Mr GPE brought CARDINAL claims for damages against ORG and CARDINAL identical claims for damages against ORG for the Execution of Sentences , which is a unit within ORG . He considered that the Ministry bore responsibility for all acts and omissions relating to his imprisonment before DATE , the date of entry into force of the Execution of Punishments and Pre - Trial Detention Act of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and that the Chief Directorate bore responsibility for all acts and omissions relating to his imprisonment after that date .","In a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0434\u0435\u043a\u0435\u043c\u0432\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON ) ORG , having carried out an inspection on the spot , allowed Mr PERSON \u2019s claims against ORG and ORG for the Execution of Sentences in relation to ( a ) the material conditions of his detention ; ( b ) the failure of the prison administration to provide him with clothing , shoes and bed linen ; ( c ) the failure of the prison administration to put in place conditions in which he could keep in good physical shape ; and ( d ) the failure of the prison administration to enable him to take his outdoor exercise . The court dismissed the remaining claims , which concerned ( a ) the failure of the prison administration to provide Mr GPE with toiletries ; ( b ) the quality and quantity of the food that had been provided to him ; ( c ) the failure of the prison administration to provide him with dental prostheses ; ( d ) the failure of the prison administration to provide him with conditions allowing him to keep his mental health intact ; and ( e ) the failure of the prison administration to provide him with work . The court awarded Mr PERSON a total of ORG CARDINAL ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . It held , in particular , that the conditions of his detention had been in breach of LAW and that he had accordingly suffered non - pecuniary damage . However , the court also held that the claim relating to the material conditions of detention was time - barred on the ground that it related to a period of time that predated the claim by DATE .","In its findings of fact the court noted , inter alia , that under the regime in the ward where Mr PERSON was being detained , he had to spend TIME in his cell and could only leave it during his DATE walk and CARDINAL visits to the toilet . He was not allowed to go to the prison canteen or library . His cell was adequate in size for CARDINAL prisoner , but too small for CARDINAL , and did not have a toilet or running water . As result , outside toilet times , Mr PERSON had to use a bucket . In DATE the cell was too cold owing to inadequate heating , and in DATE full of insects as a result of the lack of a window net . The cell was infested with cockroaches , moles and even rats , and there was no indication that the prison administration had disinfested it regularly . When the cell was locked , the only way to call the guards was to bang continuously on the metal door ; the guards did not always respond , especially at TIME . Mr PERSON did not have adequate materials with which to clean his cell , and evidence of the provision of cleaning products was inconclusive . It was undisputed that the prison administration had not provided him with work ; that had indeed been very difficult in view of the limitations imposed by his prison regime . Social work with all life prisoners had been very restricted , consisting essentially of meetings whenever a problem occurred . Relations between PERSON PERSON and the prison social worker assigned to deal with him were difficult , and their meetings rare . The prison psychologist had met with Mr PERSON several times , but had stopped the meetings because he was displeased that they were taking place in the presence of a guard .","Mr PERSON , ORG and ORG for the Execution of Sentences all appealed . However , as Mr PERSON had failed to pay the requisite court fee , ORG refused to examine his appeal ( see \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u044e\u043d\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. PERSON , ORG , upheld by \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043d\u043e\u0435\u043c\u0432\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , \u043f\u0435\u0442\u0447\u043b. \u0441-\u0432 ) . As a result , the only part of the case that remained pending were the claims concerning the material conditions of Mr PERSON \u2019s detention and the failure of the prison administration to provide him with clothing , shoes and bed linen .","In a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u044f\u043d\u0443\u0430\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s judgment in the part still under appeal and remitted the case to the lower court . It held that the lower court had failed to address in sufficient depth the conflicting witness statements of inmates on the one hand , and prison staff on the other hand , and analyse them in the light of the voluminous written evidence in the case . It had also failed to subject the expert report that it had obtained in the course of the proceedings to proper scrutiny , and had uncritically accepted it as correct .","In a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0430\u043f\u0440\u0438\u043b DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , \u0410\u0421-\u0421\u0442\u0430\u0440\u0430 ORG ) ORG found that the claims against ORG , which concerned the period before DATE , following which LAW had come into force , were inadmissible , but that the claims against ORG , which concerned the period after DATE , were admissible and , when analysed by reference to , inter alia , LAW and this ORG \u2019s case - law under that provision , well - founded . It awarded Mr PERSON BGN CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) . The court found that Mr PERSON \u2019s cell did not have ventilation and was damp , and that the cell window was not equipped with an insectproof net . In DATE the cell was cold owing to the lack of adequate heating , and in DATE too hot . The court went on to note that the cell did not have a toilet or running water , and that access to the communal toilets was very restrictive , with no real possibility to use them outside the CARDINAL brief daily visits . It also observed that , in spite of the efforts of the prison authorities , the prison was infested with cockroaches and rats ; that the authorities were not providing Mr PERSON with adequate cleaning products ; and that the furniture in the cell was old and worn . It was true that work had been carried out in the cell in DATE and then in DATE , but that had only consisted in repainting it .","Mr PERSON and ORG for the Execution of Sentences appealed . The proceedings on appeal ( \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. ) are still pending before ORG . A hearing was due to be held on DATE , but the case was adjourned sine die on account of the failure of Mr PERSON \u2019s court - appointed counsel to appear .","As can be seen from the documents in the case file , Mr GPE , a driver by profession , had CARDINAL previous convictions and had spent DATE in prison in DATE . In DATE he was convicted on a charge of armed robbery accompanied by murder and a further charge of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment .","Mr GPE was placed in FAC on DATE . In DATE , when his life sentence imprisonment apparently became final , he was placed under the \u201c enhanced regime \u201d ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) . With the entry into force of the Execution of Punishments and PreTrial Detention Act of DATE on DATE , that regime was replaced with the \u201c special regime \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) by operation of law . On DATE the competent ORG decided to change Mr Tolumov \u2019s regime from \u201c special \u201d to \u201c severe \u201d . However , according to Mr Tolumov and an affidavit of another life prisoner detained in the same unit , he continues to be kept locked in his cell and is handcuffed whenever he is taken out of the highsecurity unit .","During his stay in prison , Mr GPE has been given CARDINAL disciplinary punishments , the latest of which was in DATE . CARDINAL of those punishments , imposed in in DATE , was isolation in a disciplinary cell for DATE for his involvement in a scuffle with another prisoner . He was , on the other hand , given rewards for good conduct on a number of occasions .","In FAC has spent time in cells nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE in the prison \u2019s high - security unit , situated on the first floor . He submitted that during unspecified periods of time he had had to share those cells with other inmates . The Government submitted that cell no . CARDINAL , in which Mr GPE was now being detained , was QUANTITY in size , and that Mr Tolumov was alone in it . According to the Government , the cell had a window measuring QUANTITY . Artificial lighting was provided by a CARDINAL incandescent light bulb , which was not on during DATE and was turned off at TIME According to Mr Tolumov , the light bulb was very dim , installed behind a grille , and on all the time .","Mr GPE \u2019s cell is furnished with a plank bed , CARDINAL small cabinets , a table , which is fixed to the floor , and a stool , also fixed to the floor . Mr GPE submitted that humidity from the communal bathroom , which was adjacent to the cell , penetrated the walls and the floor and produced mould on one of the walls . An additional factor that increased dampness in the cell was the need to dry clothes in it . The Government submitted that the cell adjoined the part of the bathroom which contained the sinks and did not generate humidity ; it was therefore impossible for mould to appear on the cell walls . According to an affidavit drawn up by one of Mr PERSON \u2019s fellow inmates in DATE , humidity was indeed permeating the walls of the bathroom , and for that reason in DATE the prison authorities had had the gaps between the bathroom tiles filled in , unfortunately to little effect .","Plovdiv Prison does not have a ventilation or air - conditioning system . Mr PERSON claimed that as a result temperatures in his cell were very high in DATE and there was no fresh air . In DATE , heating was inadequate . The Government pointed out the cell window could be opened , and that Mr PERSON had a ventilator . As for heating , the prison had its own heating installation , which was normally turned on QUANTITY , and permanently on DATE .","None of the cells in which Mr PERSON was detained had a toilet or running water . Mr GPE submitted that as a result , apart from the daily visits to the communal toilets , he had to use a plastic bucket to relieve himself . During the period he had had to share his cell with another inmate , he had had to relieve himself in his presence . The lack of running water prevented him from washing his hands or the bucket after relieving himself . The Government submitted that the communal toilet and bathroom in the high - security unit were accessible to Mr Tolumov CARDINAL times a day , and also whenever he asked the guards .","Mr GPE submitted that on DATE he could leave his cell once for his TIME DATE walk and CARDINAL more times , for TIME , to visit the toilet . Mr PERSON also submitted that he took his meals in his cell . The Government submitted that all prisoners in the high - security unit could leave their cells once for their DATE walk , and in addition CARDINAL times a day , for TIME each time , for meals and visits to the toilet . According to an affidavit drawn up by one of Mr Tolumov \u2019s fellow inmates in DATE , the practice of allowing inmates in the high - security unit to visit the toilet CARDINAL times a day instead of CARDINAL had been introduced very recently . According to a document produced by the Government , since DATE Mr Tolumov could also visit the prison gymnasium CARDINAL times a week : TIME on DATE , DATE and DATE . Mr PERSON submitted that each time he was taken out of the prison \u2019s high - security unit he was handcuffed . The Government submitted that he was only handcuffed when taken out of the prison for transfers .","According to Mr GPE , the food in prison was poorly prepared , of low quality , tasteless to the point of being inedible , and insufficient in quantity . According to the Government , the quantity and the calorie content of the food were fully adequate . Mr PERSON was being provided with NORP meals on account of an illness , as well as fresh fruit and vegetables . In support of their assertion , the Government provided CARDINAL randomly chosen DATE menus . Mr Tolumov disputed the accuracy of those menus and submitted that he had never been given the meals stated in them . According to him , the \u201c fresh fruit and vegetables \u201d consisted of a DATE portion of CARDINAL carrots .","According to Mr Tolumov , medical care in FAC consisted of routinely giving all inmates aspirin or analgin , and inmates had to purchase all other medicines themselves . According to the Government , the prison \u2019s medical centre was staffed by a general practitioner , a feldsher , a psychiatrist and a dentist . Medical and dental examinations were carried out DATE . Mr PERSON could also consult outside specialists , and since DATE he had been examined CARDINAL times , by a cardiologist , a surgeon , an ophthalmologist , an endocrinologist and a dermatologist . All medicines required for Mr Tolumov \u2019s treatment had been covered either by the national health insurance fund or the prison \u2019s budget .","The Government asserted , further , that Mr Tolumov could see the social inspector in charge of his unit DATE . He could also ask to see a psychologist , the prison governor or deputy governor , the prison legal officer , or another member of the prison staff . He could also socialise with other inmates of the same category during his DATE walk and during meal times . He had access to cable television , with CARDINAL channels , to the prison library , and to religious services . For his part , Mr Tolumov submitted that he could not attend religious services , and that , in spite of having expressed his desire to do so , he had not been given any opportunity to work or take part in other meaningful activities . The Government went on to say that at present Mr Tolumov was enrolled in a basic computer literacy class that he attended each DATE TIME","The DATE psychological assessments of Mr GPE for DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , submitted by the Government , are quite similar . All of them say , often using the same language , that he has not changed his thinking and attitudes ( though the DATE report says that it was possible to detect a positive trend in that respect ) , but that he was not making any unjustified claims . He was able to defend his position , but usually avoided getting drawn into conflicts , and treated prison staff with respect . The risk of his hurting himself or others was average . He had expressed the wish to work , but it had not been possible to find work for him . He had willingly taken part in activities .","Mr GPE submitted that all letters from his legal representative before the Court were being opened and read by the prison administration . He also submitted that he had to hand over all letters to his legal representative to the prison administration without sealing the envelopes . The monitoring of his correspondence was proved by the letter \u201c P \u201d stamped on the back of each envelope .","In support of his allegations , Mr Tolumov submitted photocopies of the envelopes of CARDINAL letters that he had sent to his legal representative in DATE , DATE and DATE . They bear illegible postmarks and the word \u201c checked \u201d is stamped on the back of each one ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171781","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF STANKA MIRKOVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["Details of the applicants are set out in the appendix .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the third and fourth applicants filed a request with ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Commission \u201d ) , seeking compensation for land expropriated from their legal predecessor in DATE .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE the first and second applicants made statements waiving their rights in respect of the property belonging to the same legal predecessor in favour of the third and fourth applicants .","On DATE the Commission ruled in favour of the third and fourth applicants .","On DATE ORG quashed that decision upon an appeal filed on DATE by ORG ( PERSON dr\u017eavni tu\u017eilac ) in his capacity as legal representative of the respondent State .","On DATE the Commission issued a new decision , awarding compensation to all the applicants as they were all heirs of the legal predecessor . In so doing , it also examined the waiver statements of the first and second applicants made in DATE , but considered that , pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG , such waiver statements could only be validly made in non - contentious proceedings before a competent court ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","DATE and DATE the competent secondinstance administrative body ( firstly ORG and ORG ) and ORG , before which the case was first brought on an unspecified date in DATE , issued CARDINAL decisions in total ( CARDINAL decisions each ) . The second - instance body ruled upon a series of appeals and gave decisions within DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE . ORG gave rulings within DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , and DATE and DATE .","On CARDINAL occasions , when initiating an administrative dispute before ORG , the applicants explicitly referred to section CARDINAL and\/or section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and urged ORG to decide on the merits of their request . ORG never ruled on the merits of the initial compensation request , but instead quashed or upheld the quashing of the first - instance decision of the Commission . Its last decision was issued on DATE , in substance remitting the case once again to the Commission .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . ORG decision was served on the applicants on DATE .","On DATE the applicants each lodged a constitutional appeal against the decision of ORG , relying on , inter alia , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . The Government submitted that , on DATE , in addition to those constitutional appeals against ORG decision , the applicants had also each lodged a second constitutional appeal against the decision of ORG DATE . No copies of those second constitutional appeals were provided by either party .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicants\u2019 constitutional appeals against ORG decision as premature , given that the ORG was still considering their compensation request .","On DATE ORG issued another decision dismissing the applicants\u2019 constitutional appeals . The decision stated that the applicants\u2019 constitutional appeals had been filed against the judgments of ORG and ORG . In its ruling , ORG constantly referred to the \u201c impugned judgments \u201d . There is no information in the case file as to when that decision was served on the applicants .","On DATE , at a hearing before the Commission , the proceedings were adjourned at the applicants\u2019 request until this ORG ruled on their applications ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174414","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CENTRE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANALYTICAL PSYCHOLOGY v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["NORP In DATE Dr PERSON , a psychiatrist whose name at the time was PERSON ( \u201c the psychiatrist \u201d ) , established a private practice called PERSON ORG ( GPE \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043a\u0430 \u043e\u0440\u0434\u0438\u043d\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u043f\u043e \u043d\u0435\u0432\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u201e \u0414-\u0440 PERSON \u2013 \u201c the Practice \u201d ) where she treated people using PERSON analytical psychotherapy methods . The ORG was assigned an individual tax number beginning with the numbers CARDINAL .","In DATE the ORG signed a contract with ORG ( \u201c the Fund \u201d ) on the funding of treatment provided by the Practice to health insurance beneficiaries .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Inspectorate \u201d ) conducted an on - site inspection ( \u0438\u043d\u0441\u043f\u0435\u043a\u0446\u0438\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u043d\u0430\u0434\u0437\u043e\u0440 ) . It ordered the Practice to re - register as a private health institution in order to comply with amendments to LAW ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0438 \u0434\u043e\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0417\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u043e\u0442 \u0437\u0430 \u0437\u0434\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0448\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0430 , Official ORG no . CARDINAL ) .","In compliance with the ORG \u2019s orders , the psychiatrist applied to ORG to have the Practice re - registered and to change its name , as required by the new statutory provisions .","On DATE ORG issued a decision on the registration of the Private health institution Dr PERSON ORG ( GPE \u0437\u0434\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u0430 \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0430 \u2013 \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043a\u0430 \u043e\u0440\u0434\u0438\u043d\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u043f\u043e \u043d\u0435\u0432\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u201e \u0414-\u0440 PERSON \u2013 \u201c the new Practice \u201d ) at the same address as the previous Practice . It stated that the DATE registration decision relating to the original Practice would no longer be in force ( \u045c\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0435 \u0434\u0430 \u0432\u0430\u0436\u0438 ) after the new decision had been entered into the relevant register . The decision was delivered to several institutions , including the ORG .","The ORG conducted a fresh on - site inspection on DATE . It concluded that the ORG had fully complied with its decision of DATE , including the instructions for re - registration .","On DATE ORG recorded the registration of the new Practice as of DATE . It was given a new individual tax number , beginning with the numbers CARDINAL .","On DATE the new Practice notified the ORG about the changes in its registration , including the change of its name .","On DATE the Fund notified the new Practice that it did not intend to sign a new contract after the expiry of the previous one .","On DATE , on the basis of a request by the new Practice , ORG allowed the new Practice to change from being a private health institution to one that was a limited liability company established by a single person ( ORG ) and entered that transformation in its records . The applicant company was known officially as ORG ( NORP \u0437\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0458 \u043d\u0430 \u0430\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043a\u0430 \u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0433\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u2013 ORG ) . It kept the same tax number as the new Practice . The link between the new ORG and the applicant company was not disputed in the impugned proceedings ( see below ) .","On DATE the Practice initiated compensation proceedings against the ORG in ORG ( LOC \u0441\u0443\u0434 GPE ) for non - adherence to the terms of the contract . Both the new ORG and the applicant company continued the proceedings as the claimant .","On DATE the first - instance court granted the claim in part .","On DATE the ORG lodged an appeal against the firstinstance judgment , objecting to the applicant company \u2019s standing in the proceedings for the first time . It argued that the claimant was a different legal entity than the one which had signed the contract with ORG in DATE , as evident in the CARDINAL entities\u2019 different individual tax numbers .","The applicant company submitted in reply that the re - registration of the Practice had been carried out in compliance with the ORG \u2019s orders and that the ORG had been aware of the changes . It also argued that the ORG had implicitly recognised the legal continuity of the CARDINAL entities as it had accepted reports submitted by the new ORG under the contract of DATE and had given notice of the termination of the contract to the new Practice .","ORG ) on DATE granted the ORG \u2019s appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicant company \u2019s claim , finding that it had no standing in the proceedings ( \u043d\u0435\u043c\u0430 \u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u043b\u0435\u0433\u0438\u0442\u0438\u043c\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u0432\u043e \u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0442 ) . It established that the contract had been signed by the ORG and Dr PERSON \u2019s ORG and that the applicant company could not be considered as the ORG \u2019s legal successor as they had different individual tax numbers .","NORP The applicant company appealed , complaining that the first - instance court had disregarded the evidence that had shown the existence of a legal relationship between the parties and had based its assessment solely on the different tax numbers . In particular , the first - instance court had disregarded the fact that the new Practice had continued to perform its contractual obligations until the contract had been terminated by the notice of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant company maintained that those circumstances indicated that the Fund had implicitly recognised the legal continuity of the original and the new Practice . The applicant company alleged that the formalistic approach of the first - instance court had meant its claim had remained undecided on the merits .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .","On DATE the new Practice lodged a civil claim against the ORG for the payment of an undetermined sum for failing to adhere to the terms of the contract of DATE . After the new ORG turned itself into the applicant company ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the latter continued the proceedings as the claimant .","At a hearing held on DATE the ORG raised an objection that the applicant company lacked standing in the proceedings .","On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicant company \u2019s claim , finding that it had no standing in the proceedings . The first - instance court relied in its reasoning on the difference in the tax numbers between the original Practice that had been party to the contract with the ORG in DATE and the applicant company .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant company and upheld the first - instance judgment . It stressed that a tax number was a unique attribute of a particular entity and would remain unchanged , regardless of any structural or other changes to the entity ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146704","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MISAN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE . She died on DATE .","On an unspecified date the military prosecutor \u2019s office had opened criminal proceedings against the applicant \u2019s father PERSON , a naval officer , on suspicion of document forgery .","On DATE the acting prosecutor of ORG issued a warrant to search the applicant \u2019s flat . The parties did not submit a copy of the warrant . It is apparent from the search record of DATE that the purpose of the search was \u201c to find and seize objects and documents , including draft calculations in respect of the salary due to [ PERSON ] and other naval officers of the ship Argun , and other data storage media exposing [ PERSON \u2019s ] involvement in criminal activity \u201d .","The police came to the applicant \u2019s flat on TIME , at TIME As the applicant refused to let them in , the police broke down the door and suggested that the applicant surrender objects and documents which could be of relevance for the criminal case against her father . The applicant surrendered PERSON \u2019s seaman \u2019s passport and claimed that she had no other documents or objects belonging to her father . The police searched the flat and seized the applicant \u2019s seaman \u2019s passport , a printer and CARDINAL floppy disks . The search ended at TIME","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint before ORG of GPE , claiming that the search had been unlawful . She submitted , in particular , that TIME searches were unlawful under domestic law . She further submitted that the search had not been justified because the calculations in respect of the salary due to naval officers of the ship Argun had been submitted to the court at an earlier date and could therefore be found in the case file . She also complained that her and her husband \u2019s personal belongings , including their printer and floppy disks and her seaman \u2019s passport , had been seized .","On DATE the applicant was informed that her complaint would be examined on DATE by ORG of FAC .","On DATE ORG of FAC examined the applicant \u2019s complaint . The applicant did not attend the hearing . The court found :","\u201c [ The applicant \u2019s ] signature on the search warrant confirms that she had been notified of it at TIME on DATE .","It is apparent from the search record of DATE that a search was carried out in [ the applicant \u2019s ] flat from TIME In the course of the search the following objects were seized : seaman \u2019s passport in the name of PERSON no . [ ... ] , seaman \u2019s passport in the name of PERSON no . [ ... ] , seaman \u2019s passport in the name of [ the applicant ] no . [ ... ] , ORG printer no . ORG , its power module no . CARDINALTTCARDINAL and CARDINAL floppy disks . That investigative measure was carried out in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses who signed the search record and a note explaining their rights .","Before the start of the search [ the applicant ] wrote a note on the search record stating that her rights , obligations or applicable procedures had not been explained to her .","It is apparent from the questioning record of witness [ N. ] that she participated in the search of [ the applicant \u2019s ] flat as an attesting witness . Her rights were respected .","In view of the above , it follows that the search of [ the applicant \u2019s ] flat was carried out in accordance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , without any breaches of law . [ The applicant \u2019s ] complaint is therefore unsubstantiated and must be rejected . \u201d","NORP The applicant appealed . She complained , in particular , that the search had been carried out TIME and that the personal belongings seized from her were of no relevance to the criminal case against her father . The applicant expressed her wish to be present and represented at the appeal hearing .","On DATE ORG of FAC informed the applicant that her appeal would be examined by ORG on DATE .","According to the applicant , on DATE her counsel telephoned the judge and asked for an adjournment of the appeal hearing because she \u2013 the counsel \u2013 was ill . The applicant was present during the call . According to the ORG , no record of that telephone call was found in the case file .","On DATE ORG of ORG held a hearing in the absence of the applicant and her counsel and upheld the judgment of DATE . It noted that the applicant had been informed of the date of the hearing but had not attended for unknown reasons . She had not asked for an adjournment . The court further held :","\u201c It is apparent from the case - file that the search [ of the applicant \u2019s flat ] was ordered on DATE by the acting prosecutor of ORG at the request of the investigator ... in connection with criminal proceedings against her father [ PERSON ] . It is apparent from the search record that during the search [ PERSON \u2019s and the applicant \u2019s ] seaman \u2019s passports , a printer and its power module were seized . There is no evidence of any breaches of procedure .","[ The applicant \u2019s ] complaint about the use of force during the search is not supported by any evidence in the case - file . There is no evidence that [ the applicant ] or members of her family sought medical aid . Nor did she mention the use of force when signing the search record . Domestic law allows the possibility of carrying out investigative measures at TIME in cases of urgency . Moreover , the search of [ the applicant \u2019s ] flat continued until after TIME because she had refused to let the police in . There is no evidence of breaches of law in seizing [ the applicant \u2019s ] documents and other belongings during the search . \u201d","The applicant received a copy of the appeal decision on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140401","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ZIMIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG of GPE declared GPE , a closed joint stock company ( the \u201c Company \u201d ) , insolvent and appointed the applicant as its liquidator .","On DATE ORG of the ORG opened an investigation into the ORG \u2019s insolvency proceedings . On DATE the applicant was removed from office . According to the applicant , in the course of the investigation he was repeatedly questioned as a witness .","On DATE the investigator from ORG of the ORG issued an indictment against the applicant on the charges of fraudulent trading during the ORG insolvency proceedings and embezzlement . In particular , the applicant was accused of having unlawfully transferred the ORG \u2019s real property to a third party .","According to the materials in the applicant \u2019s criminal case file , he was duly asked to appear at the investigator \u2019s office to be served with the indictment . The investigator sent the telegram to the applicant \u2019s known address . When the postman tried to deliver the telegram the persons present in the applicant \u2019s flat did not open the door . They claimed that the applicant was not there . They also refused to sign for the delivery of the telegram . The investigator \u2019s subsequent summons remained unanswered by the applicant . He was not found at his place of residence either . The police questioned the applicant \u2019s wife and other relatives , who appeared to be unaware of the applicant \u2019s whereabouts . On DATE the applicant \u2019s name was put on the list of wanted persons .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE and then transferred to GPE . The investigator asked the court to authorise the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention given that ( CARDINAL ) he had absconded , ( CARDINAL ) he was charged with a serious offence ( embezzlement ) and , if found guilty , might be subjected to a custodial sentence exceeding DATE , and ( CARDINAL ) if released , he might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice .","On DATE ORG granted the investigator \u2019s request . In particular , the court noted as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] has provided positive references as to his character and has CARDINAL minor children . However , in the light of the severity of the charges and the fact that he might abscond , [ the court ] does not consider it possible to apply any restrictive measure other than custody . \u201d","NORP The applicant appealed , alleging , inter alia , that ORG could have applied a less strict preventive measure and that the investigator failed to substantiate his argument that the applicant might abscond . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE the investigator refused to extend the time - limit established for the applicant to be able to study the case file . On DATE the First Deputy Prosecutor of the GPE Region quashed the investigator \u2019s decision .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , stating as follows :","\u201c In view of the severity of the charges and [ the applicant \u2019s ] character , the court considers that he might abscond if released .","The grounds justifying [ the applicant \u2019s ] detention ... have not ceased to exist . There are no new circumstances that would allow any less restrictive measure to be applied . \u201d","The applicant appealed , alleging that ORG could have considered the application of a less strict preventive measure . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The applicant asked to be released , arguing that he had no prior convictions , that he had a permanent place of residence , that he was married with CARDINAL minor children and that he would not abscond . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s request , noting as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is charged , [ inter alia ] with a serious offence and , if found guilty , is liable to a custodial sentence exceeding DATE . In the light of the above , and taking into consideration the fact that [ the applicant ] had earlier been put on the list of wanted persons , [ the court ] pays special attention to the prosecution \u2019s argument that [ the applicant ] might abscond , if released ...","In the light of the above , the court can not release [ the applicant ] and considers it necessary to extend his detention . \u201d","On DATE the NORP ORG scheduled the first hearing of the case for DATE . The court refused to release the applicant pending trial , noting as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is charged with a number of offences , CARDINAL of which is considered a serious one . This fact is sufficient to assume that [ he ] might abscond . There are no other circumstances ... that would allow custody to be replaced by another less restrictive measure \u201d .","On an unspecified date the prosecution dropped the charge of embezzlement against the applicant .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of fraudulent trading and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment and a fine of MONEY discharging him from serving the prison sentence . The applicant was released from custody in the courtroom .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .","\u201c Preventive measures \u201d or \u201c restrictive measures \u201d can be imposed on a defendant in order to assure the execution of the sentence , if it is subsequently imposed , or for the extradition purposes ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( the \u201c CCrP \u201d ) ) .","\u201c Preventive measures \u201d or \u201c restrictive measures \u201d include an undertaking not to leave a town or region , a personal guarantee , bail and remand in custody ( LAW CCrP ) .","The court may remand the defendant in custody provided there are grounds to believe that he might abscond , continue criminal activities , threaten a witness or other parties to the criminal proceedings , destroy evidence or otherwise interfere with administration of justice ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the CCrP ) .","When deciding whether to remand an accused in custody , the competent authority is required to take into account the seriousness of the charge , information on the defendant \u2019s character , his or her profession , age , state of health , family status and other circumstances ( LAW CCrP ) .","The defendant may be remanded in custody if the charge carries a sentence of DATE imprisonment and it is not possible to apply a less severe preventive measure ( LAW ORG ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180485","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ASANI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Obtain attendance of witnesses)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE . They are currently serving life sentences imposed in the impugned proceedings described below .","On DATE at TIME several persons arrived by car in front of an Internet caf\u00e9 in GPE and opened fire with machine guns . According to an expert report admitted in the ensuing proceedings , around CARDINAL bullets were fired towards the caf\u00e9 . In the incident CARDINAL children were killed and QUANTITY people were seriously injured ( \u201c the victims \u201d ) .","Following a criminal complaint for murder lodged against unknown perpetrators , on DATE the public prosecutor requested that an investigating judge question the victims and a certain PERSON who had allegedly been present at the scene at the time of the shooting .","DATE the investigating judge heard oral evidence from the victims and other witnesses . None of them identified the applicants as the perpetrators . Some victims , as well as other witnesses who had arrived at the scene immediately after the shooting , stated that there had been no street lighting and that visibility had been considerably impaired . The investigating judge also heard oral evidence from PERSON , who had sold the car used in the incident to CARDINAL people whom he did n\u2019t know and \u201c would not recognise if I ( he ) were to see them now \u201d . He stated that a certain PERSON had introduced him to the buyers .","During the investigation , there were several unsuccessful attempts by the investigating judge to summons ORG from the police was also sought . Having been alerted to the summons and the police inquiry , PERSON appeared in court to testify before the investigating judge . On DATE and DATE he confirmed that he had been present at the scene at the time of the incident and that he had been shot in the upper leg . He had fainted and had spent time recovering in a private hospital outside the respondent ORG . He stated that there had been CARDINAL people in the car and that all had fired on the caf\u00e9 . He identified a certain PERSON . as the driver of the car . He also alleged that he himself had been the most likely target of the attack owing to his alleged involvement in the killing of the applicants\u2019 brother , which had happened at DATE . In that context , he had received threats that he would be killed .","On DATE CARDINAL people who had been eye - witnesses to the incident gave oral evidence in the presence of the investigating judge and the public prosecutor . They testified as anonymous witnesses ( \u0441\u0432\u0435\u0434\u043e\u043a \u0441\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043a\u0440\u0438\u0435\u043d \u0438\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442 ) under the pseudonyms \u201c PERSON \u201d and \u201c PERSON \u201d . The latter asked not to have his identity revealed for the following reasons :","\u201c the people who committed the crime are violent and have a criminal record and that \u2019s why I \u2019m afraid of their threats ; they are armed , convicted , I fear for my life and the life of my family , I fear reprisals . \u201d","On photographs shown in evidence , both witnesses identified one of the applicants as having fired on the caf\u00e9 and Dz . as the driver of the car . \u201c Vodno \u201d also identified the other applicant as having fired on the caf\u00e9 . He stated that CARDINAL people ( including the applicants ) had fired weapons in the incident of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE another individual was examined before the investigating judge and the public prosecutor under the pseudonym \u201c Vardar \u201d for the same reasons as the witness \u201c Vodno \u201d . He confirmed that Mr Ramiz PERSON ( the applicant ) had bought the car used in the accident from MONEY He also stated that after the incident Mr PERSON had told him the following :","\u201c what you \u2019ve seen and heard on television about the incident with ORG car \u2013 I did it in revenge for the killing of my brother ... \u201d","On DATE , the investigating judge opened an investigation against the applicants and Dz . on reasonable suspicion of murder . The applicants , who had in the meantime been arrested , were remanded in prison custody . On DATE the investigating judge suspended the investigation in respect of Dz . as he had proved to be untraceable .","In an indictment of CARDINAL DATE , the public prosecutor accused the applicants \u2212 who had no previous record , but had criminal proceedings in relation to other charges pending against them \u2212 of having fired machine guns at the Internet caf\u00e9 with the intention of killing PERSON The prosecutor requested that the trial judge examine the victims and several witnesses \u2212 including PERSON and GPE , and the anonymous witnesses \u2212 and to admit other material evidence in evidence , including post - mortem reports and other expert reports .","At the trial , the applicants , represented by CARDINAL lawyers , unsuccessfully requested that evidence produced by the anonymous witnesses be rejected and that the written transcripts of their depositions be excluded from the case file . The trial judge , however , granted their request for witnesses \u201c NORP \u201d and \u201c PERSON \u201d to be questioned at the trial . The examination was carried out at a hearing of DATE in the presence of only the trial judge and the public prosecutor , as provided for in LAW in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Both witnesses repeated the statements they had given before the investigating judge and reiterated their fear of negative repercussions . Their statements were read out at the trial in the presence of the applicants . A written transcript of their depositions was communicated to the applicants who , at their request , obtained a DATE grace period in which to prepare written questions to be put to these witnesses by the court . The applicants formulated CARDINAL questions to be put to each witness . Both witnesses replied , again in the presence of only the trial judge and the public prosecutor . \u201c PERSON \u201d stated that CARDINAL person had fired , while according to \u201c LOC CARDINAL people had fired at the caf\u00e9 . Both witnesses submitted that , despite the impaired visibility , there had been sufficient light to see the applicants . A transcript of their replies was communicated to the applicants .","The trial judge further examined ORG , who did not recognise PERSON Ramiz PERSON as the buyer of the car used in the incident . He also heard oral evidence from CARDINAL of CARDINAL witnesses proposed by the applicants regarding their whereabouts at the time when the crime was committed . All CARDINAL witnesses corroborated the applicants\u2019 version of events , namely that they had been in another local caf\u00e9 at that time .","Since the identity of witness \u201c PERSON \u201d had been disclosed in the proceedings ( PERSON ) , the trial judge granted the ORG request for him to be questioned again . At a hearing held on DATE in the presence of the applicants , ORG denied that he had testified as an anonymous witness . He denied that the applicants had bought the car from MONEY He alleged that he had been beaten by the police in order to tell the investigating judge that the applicants had bought the car ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At the same hearing , the trial judge read out PERSON \u2019s pre - trial statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The judge did so after having tried on several occasions to secure his attendance at the trial and having inquired with the police about his whereabouts . It was noted that , according to official notes in the case file , PERSON was untraceable . The record of the hearing did not specify that the applicants objected to the reading of the statement .","During the proceedings , the trial judge granted the ORG request for a face - to - confrontation with the experts who had carried out the ballistic examination . He did not , however , allow an additional ballistic examination and refused to admit further evidence regarding the intensity of the street lighting at the scene at the relevant time ( the applicants alleged that the street light had been too low to allow the anonymous witnesses to see the assailants ) . In their concluding remarks , the applicants claimed that PERSON was in the respondent ORG and had been involved in incidents relating to the parliamentary elections of DATE .","On DATE the trial court delivered a judgment in which it found the applicants guilty of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment . The applicants\u2019 presence at the scene when the incident happened , as well as the development and dynamics of events , was established on the basis of the testimony of the anonymous witnesses \u201c NORP \u201d and \u201c PERSON , which the court regarded as credible and consistent despite \u201c small differences which were due to the intensity of the shooting and fear for their lives \u201d . The court also gave weight to the statement given by ORG in the pre - trial proceedings under the pseudonym \u201c PERSON \u201d . It disregarded his statement of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , finding that it had been given under duress and the threat that he or his family would be killed . In this connection it referred to a police report of DATE according to which ORG had been visited several times by unknown people who had threatened him and his family about the testimony given in the pre - trial proceedings . The motive for the crime was established on the basis of the statement given by PERSON in the pre - trial proceedings . That witness had not been examined at the trial since he had been untraceable . In that context , the trial court referred to an official note by the police of DATE informing the court that PERSON had fled the respondent ORG and that an arrest warrant ( \u043f\u043e\u0442\u0435\u0440\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) had been issued against him . The court did not say anything regarding the ORG allegations that ORG had in fact been in the respondent ORG and could have been located ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the court \u2019s view , the evidence produced by the defence witnesses was unreliable and aimed at enabling the accused to avoid criminal responsibility . For this reason it considered it irrelevant to examine the remaining witnesses proposed by the defence . The applicants\u2019 defence that they had been at another location at the relevant time was found to be selfserving .","NORP In public hearings held on DATE and DATE ( latter judgment served on the applicant on DATE ) respectively , ORG and ORG upheld the ORG conviction and the sentence imposed on them . They dismissed appeals lodged by the applicants in which they complained inter alia that the trial court had failed to admit evidence proposed by the defence , that their conviction could not be based solely on the statements of the anonymous witnesses , which had been unlawfully obtained , and that the trial court had not examined ORG notwithstanding their claims that he would have been available for examination . In this connection they argued that it had been an issue of public record that in the election incidents of DATE PERSON had been wounded and hospitalised and later detained by the police .","The courts held that the evidence produced by the anonymous witnesses had been lawfully obtained and that the applicants\u2019 opportunity to put written questions to them had secured their defence rights . The fact that the witnesses had only produced evidence DATE after the incident had been due to their fear . Furthermore , they stated that the applicants\u2019 conviction had not been based solely on the evidence produced by those witnesses . In this connection they found that the trial court had admitted other evidence , both documentary and verbal . As regards the evidence produced by PERSON , the courts held that the trial court had tried to secure his attendance at the trial , but he had been unavailable for examination , as described in the police note . The higher courts also endorsed the trial court \u2019s finding regarding the applicants\u2019 motive for committing the crime , as established on the basis of the evidence produced by PERSON That had been confirmed by the pre - trial statement of witness GPE given under pseudonym \u201c PERSON \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE Dz . was found and detained . In subsequent criminal proceedings , he was convicted of murder and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167560","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RUSYN v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) ordered his detention as a preventive measure pending trial , for an initial period of DATE .","On DATE the same court extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE on the ground that there was a considerable volume of investigative measures to be carried out and there were no reasons for changing the preventive measure .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigation was completed and the applicant and his lawyer received access to the case file .","On DATE another set of criminal proceedings was instituted against the applicant , for infliction of grievous bodily harm .","On DATE the CARDINAL criminal cases were joined .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention to DATE .","On DATE the case was referred to ORG , which held a preliminary hearing on DATE . It ordered the applicant \u2019s further detention without fixing any time - limits .","ORG remitted the case for further investigation CARDINAL times ( on DATE , as well as on DATE and DATE ) . The appellate court quashed the first CARDINAL decisions ( on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) , but upheld the last one ( on DATE ) . All the judicial rulings in question maintained the applicant \u2019s continued detention without further reasoning .","On DATE the investigation was completed and the case was referred for trial , this time to ORG as a first - instance court .","On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing , at which it decided , among other things , to remit the case for further investigation once again and to maintain the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE ORG quashed the above decision in so far as it concerned the remittal issue and rejected the applicant \u2019s request for release on the ground that he was accused of serious crimes .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and attempted murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","On DATE the applicant was released following the legislative amendments pertaining to the enforcement of sentences ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-176030","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"\u010cIAPAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr Rolandas \u010ciapas , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently detained in ORG .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was detained on remand in FAC periodically on an unspecified date in DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to DATE , from DATE to DATE , and from DATE to DATE . He was transferred to ORG on DATE after his conviction .","The applicant was married to ORG but got divorced on DATE . On DATE he married V.A.","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL FebruaryCARDINAL he wrote to ORG administration to request conjugal visits from his former spouse but was informed that under domestic law pre - trial detainees had no right to such visits .","The applicant wrote to ORG on DATE , ORG under ORG on DATE , DATE and DATE and to ORG on DATE , complaining about his inability to receive conjugal visits from his former spouse . He received similar responses , namely that the provisions of domestic law did not guarantee pre - trial detainees a right to conjugal visits . On DATE he also complained to ORG ( \u201c the Commission \u201d ) about ORG refusal to grant him conjugal visits . His complaint was dismissed on DATE .","It appears that the applicant called LAW at least CARDINAL times from CARDINAL DATE to DATE . It also appears that when the applicant was detained in PERSON police station , GPE visited him on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE .","At the material time , LAW of ORG provided that parties to proceedings could appeal against Commission decisions to ORG within DATE of their receipt . A similar provision was set down in Article QUANTITY of ORG .","At the material time , LAW on Pre - trial ORG kalinimo \u012fstatymas ) provided that remand detainees could have an unlimited number of visits from relatives and other people . Visits could not exceed TIME .","As of DATE , LAW on Pre - trial ORG provides that visits to remand detainees by spouses , cohabitants or the other parent of a mutual child can take place without the presence of a representative of the remand prison . Such visits can take place once a month , in specially equipped LOC and can last up to one day . An explanatory report of DATE , attached to the draft amendments of the PERSON on Pre - Trial Detention , stated that the PERSON v. GPE ( no . ORG , CARDINAL DATE ) judgment had obliged GPE to make sure it did not discriminate against remand detainees ( as compared with convicted inmates ) and to provide them with the possibility to receive conjugal visits from spouses ( partners ) .","At the material time , CARDINAL of ORG ( ORG izoliatori\u0173 vidaus tvarkos taisykl\u0117s ) provided that physical contact was not allowed during visits to remand detainees .","At the material time , Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and LAW ( Bausmi\u0173 vykdymo kodeksas ) provided that a convicted person being held under the standard prison regime had the right to short - term visits of TIME and long - term visits of up to TIME , including conjugal visits , DATE . Those being held under a light regime had the right to short - term visits of TIME and long - term visits of up to TIME , including conjugal visits , DATE , while convicted inmates being held under a disciplinary regime were not allowed any visits . Similarly , convicted inmates aged DATE in the ordinary regime had the right to short - term visits of TIME and long - term visits of up to fortyeight hours , including conjugal visits , DATE . Convicted inmates DATE being held under a light regime had the right to short - term visits of TIME and long - term visits of up to TIME , including conjugal visits , DATE .","Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code for the Execution of Sentences were amended on DATE while LAW was amended on DATE . They now provide that convicted inmates being held under the standard regime can have short - term visits of TIME and longterm visits of DATE , including conjugal visits , DATE . Light regime convicted inmates have the right to CARDINAL shortterm visits of TIME and CARDINAL long - term visits of DATE , including conjugal visits , DATE . Convicted inmates assigned to a disciplinary regime have the right to a short - term visit of TIME every four months . Similarly , convicted inmates under CARDINAL being held under the standard regime can have CARDINAL short - term visits of DATE CARDINAL long - term visit of DATE , including conjugal visits , every month . Under - eighteens under a light regime have the right to CARDINAL short - term visits of TIME and CARDINAL long - term visit of DATE , including conjugal visits , every month .","Article QUANTITY \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that a marriage is dissolved from the date of issue of the court decision .","In a case unrelated to the applicant , ORG relied on the ORG \u2019s interpretation in the case of PERSON , cited above , and acknowledged that the refusal on the basis of domestic law to grant conjugal visits to pre - trial detainees was not objective and reasonable grounds to treat pre - trial detainees and convicted inmates differently . As a result , ORG awarded the applicant in that case compensation of MONEY ( ORG ) ( decision of CARDINAL DATE , no . ACARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144852","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ORI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national of NORP ethnic origin , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr J. Jeli\u0107 , a lawyer practising in ORG .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the police lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office against unknown perpetrators on charges of terrorism , alleging that on DATE they had learned that there were CARDINAL corpses in a house in LOC . The police had visited the said house and found CARDINAL bodies , identified as PERSON and PERSON . The crime scene had been photographed .","At the request of the applicant , on DATE ORG ( PERSON ) decided that PERSON and PERSON , the applicant \u2019s parents , were presumed to have died on DATE .","In their letter of CARDINAL DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG qualified the criminal offence as murder and asked ORG about the progress of the investigation into the deaths . The latter replied on DATE that it had been concluded that the applicant \u2019s parents had been killed in unknown circumstances during a military operation .","On DATE ORG interviewed CARDINAL people , GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON , who all lived in LOC in DATE . They submitted that DATE Toplovica had been occupied by NORP para - military forces . At DATE the NORP forces had entered the village and taken them to another place . When they were leaving they had seen many parts of the village burning .","The witness GPE had returned to DATE and entered the house of the PERSON family , where he had seen the dead bodies of PERSON and PERSON . The next time he visited the village the house had partly burned down and the roof had fallen in .","The witness GPE submitted that he had been a member of ORG and on CARDINAL DATE when his village , ORG , had been taken over by the NORP army he had seen two copses lying on a bed in the house of the PERSON family . He had recognized PERSON and PERSON . PERSON had had no visible injuries while PERSON had been shot . His mother , PERSON , had told him that PERSON had died a natural death because he had not received his medication . PERSON had been killed by an unknown person when she had refused to leave the village with ORG .","The witness PERSON submitted that the NORP para - military forces which had controlled ORG had left at DATE . On DATE thereafter the NORP army had entered the village . CARDINAL GPE had told her that PERSON , who had been suffering from leukemia , had died because he had not received his medication .","The police interviewed ORG , the police officers who had carried out the on - the - scene inspection in the house of the PERSON family in DATE , on DATE respectively . PERSON submitted that both victims had been shot with firearms . The woman had been shot in the head and chest . He was not sure about the man , but thought that he had been shot in the chest . He had found bullet cartridges and traces of blood . He had also photographed the crime scene . No other steps had been taken owing to the ongoing war . PERSON submitted that both victims had been shot with firearms and that the house had been burned down .","On an unspecified date the applicant sought financial assistance for the reconstruction of his GPE house . His request was dismissed by the administrative authorities in DATE on the ground that he had not resided in that house at the time the damage had occurred . The applicant brought the same claim again in DATE . It was dismissed on the ground that the same request had already been decided upon .","On DATE the applicant , through his legal representative , brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG , seeking compensation in connection with the death of his parents and the destruction of their property . The claim was dismissed on DATE and this judgment was upheld by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE , respectively . The national courts found that the claim had been submitted after the statutory limitation period had expired .","The applicant \u2019s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant was legally represented throughout the proceedings .","The relevant part of LAW ( PERSON , ORG nos . TIME , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , ORG , GPE , GPE , DATE and CARDINAL ) reads :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The criminal prosecution shall be time - barred after :","- DATE if the case concerns a criminal offence punishable by long term imprisonment or imprisonment of DATE ,","- DATE for a criminal offence punishable by more than CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ,","- DATE for a criminal offence punishable by more than five years\u2019 imprisonment ,","- DATE for a criminal offence punishable by DATE imprisonment ,","- DATE for a criminal offence punishable by DATE imprisonment ,","- DATE for other criminal offences .","( CARDINAL ) GPE prosecution for the crime of genocide ( LAW ) , aggressive war ( LAW ) , crimes against humanity ( LAW ) , war crimes ( LAW ) and other criminal offences which are not subject to statutory limitation according to the LAW or international law .","( CARDINAL ) NORP If before the expiry of the time - limits under paragraph CARDINAL of this Article , a first - instance judgment has been passed , the statutory limitation periods shall be extended for further DATE . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141202","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KOROVINY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE the first applicant was arrested in connection with a drug - related offence , and on DATE he was detained in custody .","On DATE a forensic psychiatric examination found that the first applicant was suffering from schizophrenia requiring compulsory psychiatric treatment .","On DATE the ORG of Kazan ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) extended the first applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE the ORG further extended the first applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Supreme Court \u201d ) upheld the above extension order on appeal .","On DATE ORG relieved the first applicant of criminal responsibility , finding that he was mentally incapacitated . ORG ordered the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to the applicant and his admission to a general psychiatric hospital ( \u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u0438\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430\u0440 \u043e\u0431\u0449\u0435\u0433\u043e \u0442\u0438\u043f\u0430 ) . ORG further decided that he should remain in custody until the entering into force of its decision and his admission to the psychiatric hospital .","On DATE the first applicant was admitted to ORG ( NORP \u043a\u043b\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u0438\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u0431\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 \u0438\u043c. DATE hereinafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","After attempting to escape from the hospital on CARDINAL DATE , he was held for DATE , until DATE , in a ward measuring QUANTITY m , with no windows , no ventilation , around - the - clock artificial lighting , and a bucket instead of a lavatory pan , emptied CARDINAL .","On DATE the administration of ORG submitted a request for the first applicant to be transferred to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision ( \u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u0438\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430\u0440 \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0442\u0438\u043f\u0430 \u0441 \u0438\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0441\u0438\u0432\u043d\u044b\u043c \u043d\u0430\u0431\u043b\u044e\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435\u043c ) . The request was supported by a report of the same date drawn up following an examination of the first applicant by a panel of CARDINAL of the hospital \u2019s psychiatrists . The report read as follows :","\u201c ... [ The first applicant ] suffers from a chronic psychiatric disorder in the form of pseudo - psychotic schizophrenia aggravated by multiple drug addiction . While under compulsory psychiatric treatment , [ the latter ] systematically breaches hospital rules , surrounds himself with antisocial patients , sets them against hospital personnel , disrupts the work of the department , [ and ] refuses treatment . [ The first applicant ] escaped from hospital and incites other patients to do so ; [ he ] smuggles in prohibited items , including [ those for ] cutting . In view of the foregoing , the panel considers it necessary to recommend changing the form of compulsory medical treatment in respect of the [ first applicant ] from compulsory treatment in a general psychiatric hospital to [ treatment in ] a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision . \u201d","Basing its decision on the report prepared by the hospital \u2019s psychiatrists , on DATE ORG granted the hospital \u2019s request . The first applicant was not taken to the hearing . His legal guardian ( the second applicant ) and his lawyer were not informed of the hearing .","On DATE the first applicant was transferred to ORG under ORG ( \u041a\u0430\u0437\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u0438\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u0431\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0442\u0438\u043f\u0430 \u0441 \u0438\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0441\u0438\u0432\u043d\u044b\u043c \u043d\u0430\u0431\u043b\u044e\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435\u043c \u2013 hereinafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the first applicant had a dispute with another mental health patient of ORG during which he hit that patient .","On DATE the first applicant was isolated and physical restraints were used to attach him to his bed for TIME .","In the meantime , on DATE the second applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL June DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE on appeal , because the applicants had not been duly notified of the hearing . The case was remitted for fresh consideration by a different bench . The first applicant remained in ORG .","On DATE ORG again ordered the first applicant \u2019s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision . The first applicant was not allowed to attend the hearing , but the second applicant and the lawyer were present .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE on appeal , as the hearing had taken place in the first applicant \u2019s absence . The case was remitted for fresh consideration by a different bench .","On DATE ORG held an off - site court hearing at the premises of ORG . The court once again ordered the first applicant \u2019s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision . Both applicants and the lawyer were present . They submitted that the first applicant \u2019s confinement in the hospital had been unlawful in the absence of a final court decision and asked the court to order an independent forensic medical examination to determine the effect of intensive therapy on his mental condition , but to no avail . The court decided that there was consistent evidence that the first applicant \u2019s disorder persisted and that its aggravation required treatment in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision .","In the meantime the second applicant challenged before the prosecutor \u2019s office the lawfulness of the first applicant \u2019s confinement in the specialist psychiatric hospital in the absence of a final court decision on the matter .","On DATE she received a reply from GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , acknowledging the unlawfulness of the first applicant \u2019s confinement in ORG since DATE in the absence of a final judicial decision on his transfer .","On DATE the first applicant was transferred back to ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal . The case was remitted for fresh consideration by a different bench .","On DATE ORG decided not to order the first applicant \u2019s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision , as there was insufficient evidence that he represented any particular threat to himself or society .","On DATE , however , ORG quashed the decision of DATE on appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG again ordered the applicant \u2019s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision . A request for the court to order independent comprehensive medical and psychiatric examinations in respect of the first applicant was dismissed .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE the first applicant was transferred to ORG .","On DATE ORG extended the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to the first applicant and his treatment in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision . The court relied on a report of a medical examination of the first applicant , carried out on DATE by ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the above decision on appeal , having noted that ORG had failed to obtain the first applicant \u2019s medical file and to address arguments by the second applicant as to the validity of the report drawn up over DATE .","On DATE ORG , having complied with the instruction of ORG , extended the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to the first applicant and his treatment in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision .","On DATE ORG quashed the above decision on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration , on account of the absence of a more recent medical report in respect of the first applicant .","On DATE ORG , having examined , inter alia , the newly prepared report of DATE , extended the application of compulsory measures of a medical nature to the first applicant and his treatment in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision . The request submitted by the second applicant for the court to order an independent forensic psychiatric examination in respect of the first applicant was dismissed .","On DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal .","On DATE the second applicant brought a compensation claim on behalf of her son and herself against ORG , alleging that the proceedings concerning the first applicant \u2019s transfer to a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision had been excessively lengthy , having lasted from CARDINAL DATE until DATE ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG claim as groundless .","On DATE LAW upheld the above judgment on appeal .","On DATE the second applicant brought a compensation claim on behalf of her son and herself against ORG for damage incurred as a result of the first applicant being unlawfully confined in the hospital DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , unlawfully administered intensive therapy in the above period , and unlawfully tied to his bed from DATE to CARDINAL DATE after an incident with another patient ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . She also alleged that her son \u2019s correspondence had been censored , that she had been refused access to his medical file , and that the conditions of his confinement had been substandard .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG claim as unsubstantiated . The court established that until DATE the administration of ORG had not been aware that the decision of DATE , pursuant to which the second applicant had been transferred there , had been quashed on appeal . The court held that on DATE the first applicant had undergone a medical examination by a medical panel , who had concluded that he needed continued compulsory treatment in that hospital . It held that the first applicant \u2019s somatic state remained satisfactory and that he received medication allowed in GPE . The court further held that psychiatric patients\u2019 medical documents had only been accessible to hospital medical staff , hospital administration , representatives of supervising health authorities , prosecution and investigation authorities and the court . The remaining aspects of the first applicant \u2019s confinement in ORG remained unaddressed by the court .","The second applicant appealed against the above decision , noting in particular the domestic court \u2019s failure to address her complaints regarding the conditions of the first applicant \u2019s confinement in ORG , the incident involving him being tied to his bed , and censorship of her and her son \u2019s correspondence by the hospital administration .","On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal , without addressing the issues which had remained unexamined by the first - instance court . The hearing was held in public , although the second applicant had not agreed to public disclosure of the first applicant \u2019s medical diagnoses and the contents of her correspondence with him .","On DATE ORG granted the application lodged by ORG and changed the form of the first applicant \u2019s compulsory psychiatric treatment from confinement in a specialist psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision to outpatient compulsory monitoring and psychiatrist treatment .","On DATE the first applicant was discharged from ORG .","As indicated above , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE the first applicant was detained in ORG .","The first applicant claimed to have been confined in a ward measuring QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL other mental health patients at one time , the majority of whom had suffered from severe psychiatric disorders accompanied with symptoms such as delirium and hallucinations . He claimed to have been confined to the ward for most of the day ( except for TIME when inmates were taken to eat , walk or watch TV ) .","The first applicant alleged that there had been no lavatory or sink in the ward . He submitted , in particular , that the inmates had had to use a bucket for a toilet which had been emptied by the hospital staff twice a day and which had caused a disgusting smell in the ward .","Shower use had been restricted to once a fortnight .","The first applicant \u2019s correspondence with his mother , the second applicant , had been opened and subjected to censorship by the hospital administration .","NORP Throughout his stay in ORG the first applicant had been held for treatment in CARDINAL different wards : ward no . CARDINAL of department no . CARDINAL , ward FAC . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of department no . CARDINAL , ward no . CARDINAL of department no . CARDINAL , and ward no . CARDINAL of department no . CARDINAL . The dates of the first applicant \u2019s stay in these wards , the size of the wards and the number of patients held with the first applicant are given in the table below :","The Government noted with regret that the measurements of the wards where the first applicant underwent inpatient treatment indeed failed to meet the statutory standards , namely a minimum of QUANTITY m per patient in wards of a specialist psychiatric facility ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The Government further noted that the number of beds per ward considerably exceeded the domestic requirement of CARDINAL per ward ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP Throughout his stay in the hospital the first applicant , like all other hospital patients , had been confined to the ward for DATE . He had been taken out of the ward to undergo medical procedures , consult a psychologist , have a bath , help out at a concert , eat , watch TV and go for a DATE walk outside ( TIME twice a day during DATE and TIME a day during DATE and DATE ) .","All the departments where the first applicant had been confined had separate lavatories , but were not equipped with shower rooms .","The Government informed the ORG that , in connection with the present application , in DATE a committee consisting of representatives of GPE , ORG and ORG had inspected ORG . Following this inspection , which confirmed the applicant \u2019s allegations of overcrowding in the wards , ORG granted MONEY to extend building no . CARDINAL of the hospital , so that an additional CARDINAL beds could be accommodated ."],"violated_articles":["3","6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170839","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SELMANI AND OTHERS v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were accredited journalists who were authorised to report from the national ORG . On DATE parliamentary proceedings were held on LAW for DATE . The applicants , together with other journalists , were reporting from the ORG gallery , which was situated above the plenary hall ( \u201c the chamber \u201d ) where members of parliament ( MPs ) were seated . The debate on the approval of the ORG budget attracted considerable public and media attention , owing to the conflict between opposition and ruling party MPs as to whether or not statutory procedure had been complied with . During the proceedings , opposition MPs approached the President of ORG ( \u201c the Speaker \u201d ) and started creating noise by , inter alia , slapping his table . Soon thereafter , ORG security officers entered the chamber . They pulled the Speaker out of the chamber and started forcibly removing the opposition MPs . At the same time , other security officers ( CARDINAL officers , according to the Government ) entered the gallery and started removing the applicants and other journalists . The Government stated that the security officers had informed those in the gallery that they had to leave for security reasons . The applicants denied that the reasons for their removal had been explained to them . Whereas some journalists complied with those orders , the applicants refused to leave , as the situation in the chamber was escalating and they felt that the public had the right to be kept informed as to what was going on . However , the security officers forcibly removed the applicants from the gallery .","The Government submitted that according to official records ( a copy of which was not provided ) on that occasion the first applicant had forcibly removed the identification badge from CARDINAL security officer and had injured him in his chest and leg . The applicants denied that they had injured any officer and submitted that no official document had been drawn up regarding the identity of the officer in question , the nature and severity of the injury or the alleged assailant . The ORG further alleged that the applicants had been allowed to follow the events in the parliamentary chamber via a live broadcast in the ORG \u2019s press room and the adjacent hall . The applicants contested that there had been live stream while the ejection of the opposition MPs had been ongoing , given that the cameras had allegedly been turned against the walls .","At the same time , CARDINAL opposing groups congregated in front of the ORG building . According to the Government , several people were injured in those protests . No further information was provided .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE addressed to the media , the Speaker stated , inter alia :","\u201c Having regard to the announcements ( \u043d\u0430\u0458\u0430\u0432\u0438 ) that the opposition would not allow LAW to be adopted and that there would be protests and incidents , I requested , CARDINAL of LAW , that the ORG security service ensure proper work at the session . I would like to underline that the ORG security service arranges and implements necessary measures to be taken ... having regard to the fact that the gallery is part of the plenary hall , the ORG security service considered ( \u0434\u043e\u043d\u0435\u043b\u043e \u043e\u0446\u0435\u043d\u043a\u0430 ) that the gallery should be vacated in order to avoid an incident of a larger scale .","As Speaker , I regret that such a measure regarding the journalists was taken ... \u201d","On DATE ORG ( represented by its president , the first applicant ) sent a letter to the ORG claiming that the forcible removal of the journalists had violated their rights under LAW . In the letter , the journalists pushed for proceedings to be brought against those responsible for authorising and carrying out their removal from the gallery .","In a letter dated DATE , the ORG informed the applicants that a group of MPs had surrounded the Speaker during the incident of DATE , and had attempted to physically confront him . They had also insulted and threatened him , whilst at the same time damaging technical equipment . Owing to the security risk , the Speaker had been removed to a place of safety . However , the disturbance in the chamber had continued . In the circumstances , the Speaker had requested , under section CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that the ORG \u2019s security service restore order so that the discussions could continue . Journalists had been asked to leave the gallery until order was restored . The letter further stated :","\u201c An MP who had been involved in the disturbance in the chamber and other people who could have disturbed the journalists in the performance of their tasks were in the gallery .","In the meantime , there was information that the protests [ in front of the ORG building ] could escalate and that police cordons could be violently broken . All that threatened the security in the ORG . For these reasons , the journalists were asked to leave the gallery and to continue following the events from the press room , at a designated area . Most of the journalists understood the seriousness of the situation and complied with that request . A smaller group of people in the gallery , including [ the applicants ] , confronted the security officers , disregarded their orders and resisted actively and passively . As a result , a [ security ] officer sustained an injury to his leg . \u201d","The ORG concluded that the law enforcement powers employed had not gone beyond the limit of what was acceptable , and that excessive force had not been used .","On DATE the President of the ORG set up an ad hoc commission of inquiry regarding the events in the national ORG of CARDINAL DATE . It was composed of CARDINAL national members , CARDINAL of whom were MPs . It further included CARDINAL non - national observers appointed by ORG . On DATE the commission drew up a report , the relevant part of which reads as follows :","...","The absence of appropriate guidelines on dealing with such situations , including the absence of a strategy to deal with media in crisis , led to a situation in which journalists were removed from the ORG gallery , which violated their rights to freedom of public information ( \u0441\u043b\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0434\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0458\u0430\u0432\u043d\u043e \u0438\u043d\u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u0438\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) and publicity in the work of ORG . ORG should be particularly attentive and open with respect to the freedom of the press to report and to apply the best NORP practices in this matter ... \u201d","The applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG in which they alleged a violation of their rights under LAW . They submitted that the parliamentary debate and the related events regarding the approval of the ORG budget had been of particular public interest . The intervention of the ORG security officers and the removal of the applicants from the gallery had been neither \u201c lawful \u201d nor \u201c necessary in a NORP society \u201d . With regard to the lawfulness of the measures taken , the applicants argued that section CARDINAL of the Act could not be interpreted as allowing the forcible removal of journalists from the gallery by ORG security officers . In any event , that provision had not been sufficiently foreseeable . As to the necessity of the measures , they argued that at the critical time , they had been in the gallery and had had no contact with the Speaker or MPs . Accordingly , they had not and could not have contributed to the disturbance in the chamber . Furthermore , they contested the ORG \u2019s arguments that there had been unauthorised people in the gallery and that the protests in front of the ORG building had justified their forcible removal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They urged the court to hold a public hearing ( \u0458\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 ) in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and to find a violation of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW .","At a hearing held on DATE in the absence of the parties , ORG dismissed the ORG complaint . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c On the basis of evidence submitted with the constitutional complaint and the reply of ORG , the court has established the following facts :","...","There was an increased interest on the part of the public and the media in ( the parliamentary proceedings ) given the importance of the ORG budget and the fact that before the proceedings , namely in DATE , there had been long , intense and sometimes tense discussions between opposition and ruling party MPs regarding the draft Budget ...","On DATE ... before the plenary debate of ORG started , there was a disturbance by a group of MPs who started destroying technical equipment in the chamber . They prevented access to the podium , surrounded the Speaker , preventing him from carrying out his duties , whilst at the same time insulting and threatening him .","Due to the security risk , the Speaker was taken out of the chamber by security personnel . The disturbance in the chamber continued .","Under section CARDINAL of LAW , the Speaker ordered police officers responsible for parliamentary security to restore order in the chamber and enable the debate to start in an orderly manner . The security personnel considered it necessary to vacate the gallery , in order to ensure the safety of those in the gallery and in the chamber .","All those in the gallery , including [ the applicants ] , were asked to leave for security reasons and to follow the events from the press centre .","Most of the journalists complied with that instruction . A smaller group of people , including [ the applicants ] , confronted the security officers , disregarded their orders , and resisted actively and passively . As a result , a [ security ] officer sustained an injury to his leg .","[ The applicants ] and other journalists , after having been removed from the gallery , remained in the ORG building and were able to follow the live broadcast of the debate from other LOC [ the press centre , in a hall adjacent to the gallery ] .","At the same time , in front of the ORG building , CARDINAL opposing groups of people gathered . Several people were injured .","The plenary debate of ORG DATE was public and it was entirely broadcast live on national television and streamed on the ORG website . When the debate was over , the video material was made available to the public on that website ...","...","The above provisions of LAW [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] and the Rules of ORG [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] ... provide that the Speaker is responsible for maintaining order in the ORG . In the event of disorder , he or she can take several measures ( warning , denial of the right to speak , exclusion of MPs ) . Provisions regarding order during parliamentary proceedings concern all those participating in the session .","The court considers that the removal of [ the applicants ] from the gallery amounted to an interference with their freedom to carry out their professional duties and to inform the public about events that were of considerable interest for the citizens of GPE the events in ORG regarding the approval of the ORG budget for DATE , in which the public had significant interest in following and being informed about .","...","The legal ground for the impugned measure was section CARDINAL of LAW , which specified who was responsible for keeping order in the ORG building \u2013 a special security unit , and which authorised the Speaker to decide and take measures in the event of disturbance of that order by MPs and other external persons participating in the work of ORG .","As to the necessity of the measure ... it has to be examined in the light of the the events that took place inside the ORG building , namely in the chamber , as well as the disorder outside the ORG building . The strained atmosphere in the chamber , which prevented a regular and normal start of the proceedings , has to be taken into account . In this connection it is to be noted ... that a larger group of MPs assaulted the Speaker , who was immediately removed from the chamber by security officers . There were a number of incidents , including damage to furniture , which culminated in objects being thrown in the chamber \u2013 some in the direction of the gallery . In such circumstances , the ORG security service considered that in order to protect the journalists in the gallery , they should be moved to a safer place where they would not be in danger . Such an assessment should not be viewed as conflicting with the journalists\u2019 right to attend parliamentary proceedings and report on events that they witnessed . In fact , the journalists \u2013 most of them on DATE submitted and published their reports in TIME editions of their newspapers , which implies that there was no violation of their freedom of expression .","The actions of the security officers constitute standard practice for these and similar situations in case of endangerment , i.e. protection of media representatives while reporting from places of crises , demonstrations and other potentially dangerous events ...","The fact that the journalists had been present within and outside the ORG building since TIME DATE , and were reporting on the events as they occurred , confirms that , notwithstanding the indications and expectations that discussion about the approval of the ORG would be tense , they were allowed access to the ORG building and the gallery in order to carry out their function and inform the public about the debate . Accordingly , there was no preconceived idea to prevent the journalists from reporting on the debate . After they left the gallery , [ the applicants ] and other media representatives were allowed to remain in the parliamentary press centre ... from where they could have followed the live broadcast on the ORG website and on the dedicated TV channel .","... The physical removal of journalists from the gallery required by the concrete escalation of chaos and disorder aimed to protect them and ensure order in the chamber , and not to restrict their freedom of expression or to prevent them from carrying out their function , i.e. to inform the public . \u201d","In a dissenting opinion , Judge PERSON of ORG stated , inter alia , the following :","\u201c ... My dissenting opinion mainly concerns the inability objectively to decide the case ... I consider that the written information , facts and evidence available to the court were insufficient ...","The decision [ of ORG ] contains contradictory reasons given that it ... establishes that the removal of journalists amounted to an interference with their right to carry out their function and to inform the public about an event of indisputable public interest , but it finds that such an intervention was justified ... without there being a solid factual basis in support of that finding .","...","I think that it is of crucial importance that ORG clarifies and explains the reasonableness of the assessment of the situation and the reason for which the journalists were removed from the gallery ...","In order to establish the facts and assess the need for [ their ] removal ... it was necessary to determine the reason which prompted the security officers to remove them , despite the undisputed fact that all the incidents and disorder in the ORG chamber were physically and clearly isolated and distant from [ the gallery ] . It is absurd that [ such a removal ] was carried out \u2018 for the safety of ORG , when it is clear that they were in their seats and were completely passive ; they did not participate in the events at all , but only observed ... It is a fact that the journalists did not contribute to the conflictual situation in any respect [ not disputed by ORG ] ; they did not disturb order in the ORG building ; they were in direct contact neither with the Speaker or the MPs , nor with the events outside the ORG building ... Besides , it is clear that the journalists themselves did not feel threatened ; so they did not seek and expect any protection . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["10","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160086","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ALBRECHTAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . According to the latest information , the applicant was released from prison in DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE a businessman , ORG , was killed in the heart of GPE , near the building that houses ORG , when a bomb detonated under his car . The crime received much media coverage .","On DATE , after being accused of having been involved in ORG \u2019s killing , a certain PERSON stated in his testimony that he had received the order to murder ORG from a certain ORG , but he did not know whether it was ORG who had wished to murder ORG , or whether the contract had been put out by someone else .","On DATE PERSON changed his testimony , stating that the contract to murder ORG had been put out by \u2018 Alius from PERSON .","On DATE G.B. showed the investigators the place where he claimed to have met \u2018 Alius\u2019 in DATE . This was near the applicant \u2019s home address in GPE .","From this point in time , the prosecutor began to suspect that the applicant , who had a previous conviction dating from DATE , had been involved in ORG \u2019s murder . The prosecutor gathered information about the applicant \u2019s property and obtained the applicant \u2019s telephone number , which in turn linked him to CARDINAL of the suspects in ORG \u2019s murder .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG convicted CARDINAL individuals who had acted together in an armed gang in GPE and its surroundings from DATE . The members of this criminal organisation were convicted of CARDINAL murders and CARDINAL attempted murders that involved the use of firearms and explosives , as well as a number of robberies and kidnappings of businesspeople .","By the same judgment , CARDINAL individuals belonging to that criminal association , GPE , GPE and GPE , were convicted of R.G.s murder . The court established that it had been a contract killing , ordered because an unidentified person was unwilling to repay a considerable sum of money to ORG The court also established that the unidentified person was known under the alias \u201c Alius \u201d . The fifth person involved in the murder , ORG , was in hiding . PERSON was sentenced to a total of DATE imprisonment for all the crimes concerned .","On DATE , on the basis of ORG testimony , the prosecutor concluded that it was likely that \u201c Alius \u201d was in fact the applicant . PERSON also testified on unknown date that he would recognise \u201c Alius \u201d if he saw him . DATE the prosecutor ordered the GPE organised crime police to establish the applicant \u2019s place of residence , to obtain his telephone records and to examine his links with ORG","On DATE photographs of CARDINAL individuals were shown to PERSON , who at that time was already serving a prison sentence . PERSON identified the applicant as \u2018 Alius from PERSON \u2013 the person who had put out the murder contract .","On DATE the GPE organised crime police informed the prosecutor in writing that the applicant was not living in the apartment where he was registered in GPE . The police admitted that they could not locate the applicant but undertook to notify the prosecutor of the applicant \u2019s whereabouts as soon as they found him .","On DATE the prosecutor concluded that there was sufficient evidence to charge the applicant with having organised ORG \u2019s murder and issued a decision charging the applicant with that crime ( nutarimas patraukti kaltinamuoju ) . The decision gave an account of the facts as construed by the prosecutor and contained a detailed description of the crime , including the time - frame , the links between the applicant , those convicted ( PERSON , GPE and GPE ) and ORG , and the sums of money paid for its execution . The decision did not contain any references to evidence against the applicant .","On DATE , the prosecutor instituted a search for the applicant and ordered GPE organised crime police to conduct it . The prosecutor also addressed a request to ORG that the applicant be detained once arrested . Taking into account the fact that the crime could attract a life sentence , and given that at that specific time the applicant could not be located , the prosecutor took the view that it was likely that the applicant had fled from justice . The evidence against the applicant was \u201c his GPE testimony and his being recognised as the organiser of the crime [ by the accomplices ] \u201d . DATE , ORG authorised the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention in absentia .","On DATE the prosecutor asked ORG organised crime police whether the applicant had been found . From the documents before the ORG it appears that the GPE organised crime police informed their colleagues in GPE on DATE that the applicant \u2019s place of residence was not known .","NORP Over DATE , on DATE , the prosecutor issued a NORP Arrest Warrant in respect of the applicant .","On CARDINAL DATE GPE organised crime police informed the prosecutor where the applicant could be found and the prosecutor ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest .","The applicant was arrested on DATE in GPE . The applicant \u2019s temporary arrest record ( \u012ftariamojo laikino sulaikymo protokolas ) stated that the applicant had been arrested in the context of a criminal investigation on suspicion of having organised ORG \u2019s murder . The record referred to the court decision of DATE ordering the applicant \u2019s detention , to ORG , and to the applicant \u2019s prior conviction of DATE for a property - related crime . The record also stated that the applicant had been hiding from the prosecutor for a long time . The applicant signed the record of his arrest and the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE charging him with having organised ORG \u2019s murder ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","DATE , that is to say on DATE , the prosecutor issued a notice of suspicion ( prane\u0161imas apie \u012ftarim\u0105 ) which repeated the prosecutor \u2019s account of the facts surrounding ORG \u2019s murder , as described in the decision of DATE charging him with the crime ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . No evidence was referred to in the notice of suspicion , which the applicant and his lawyer signed .","DATE the applicant was shown the prosecutor \u2019s decision charging him with ORG \u2019s murder of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant was questioned . Of the CARDINAL people convicted of ORG \u2019s murder , he admitted to knowing only ORG The applicant denied any involvement in the car bombing and stated that he would not testify without his lawyer . The applicant then signed a record of questioning of a suspect ( \u012ftariamojo apklausos protokolas ) .","According to the record of case file material shown to the lawyer ( gyn\u0117jo supa\u017eindinimo su bylos med\u017eiaga protokolas ) dated DATE , the prosecutor provided the applicant \u2019s lawyer , at his request , with the following documents from the case file :","CARDINAL ) NORP the applicant \u2019s temporary arrest record of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the decision to charge the applicant of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the notice of suspicion of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ; and","CARDINAL ) NORP the record of questioning of a suspect of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , the prosecutor submitted to the Vilnius City Second District Court a written request for the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial ( parei\u0161kimas skirti su\u0117mim\u0105 ) . The request contained the prosecutor \u2019s account of the crime , as described in the decision charging the applicant and the notice of suspicion ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It mentioned that the evidence linking the applicant to ORG \u2019s murder was witnesses\u2019 and other ORG testimony , the records of the applicant \u2019s identification ( parodym\u0173 atpa\u017einti protokolai ) , records of searches and other factual data . The document did not explain any particular piece of evidence against the applicant . As grounds for detention the prosecutor cited the fact that the applicant had been hiding from the prosecutor for DATE , the European Arrest Warrant , the applicant \u2019s prior conviction , the severity of the penalty that the crime of murder could attract \u2012 which could in itself prompt the applicant to flee \u2012 and the need to carry out more investigative steps . The request did not mention the risk that the applicant might try to influence witnesses as one of the grounds for his detention .","On DATE , the Vilnius City Second District Court held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor , the applicant and the applicant \u2019s lawyer .","As the record of the hearing shows , at the start thereof the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked the court to view the evidential material from the pre - trial investigation , on the basis of which his client was being detained . The lawyer admitted that he had been able to acquaint himself with the prosecutor \u2019s request to the court for the applicant \u2019s detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the record of the applicant \u2019s questioning and the notice of suspicion , but no other material had been made available to him , even though ORG guidelines require otherwise ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The lawyer contended that the information shown to him was not sufficient to understand what basis there was , firstly , for suspecting the applicant of ORG \u2019s murder and , secondly , for detaining him . The lawyer insisted that he had a right to consult the material in the case file , which the prosecutor had provided to the court for the purposes of ascertaining whether it was reasonable to detain his client .","In reply , the prosecutor submitted that \u201c in this case the applicant \u2019s lawyer had been shown what was necessary ( \u0161iuo atveju gyn\u0117jas supa\u017eindintas tiek , kiek reikia ) \u201d . Moreover , in accordance with LAW , pre - trial investigation material was not to be made public . In the instant case , the applicant was not permitted to see the entire case file because doing so could have prejudiced the success of the pre - trial investigation . The grounds for detaining the applicant were that a search for him had been conducted [ since DATE ] , and a NORP Arrest Warrant had been issued in respect of him . The record of the hearing also indicates that the prosecutor then submitted \u201c to the court the pre - trial investigation file concerning the applicant and the reasonableness of his detention . The court examined the material provided by the prosecutor and , having evaluated it , decided that the lawyer \u2019s request to see the said material was to be denied , since to disclose it could be detrimental to effective investigation \u201d .","When questioned at the court hearing , the applicant acknowledged that he knew ORG However , he denied knowing PERSON , GPE and GPE , the people already convicted of ORG \u2019s murder . The applicant also maintained that he had never had the nickname \u201c Alius \u201d . He admitted that his wife lived in GPE and that he was wealthy . The applicant and his lawyer contended that the applicant had never been summoned for questioning , nor had he been hiding from the investigators : after DATE he had renewed his identity documents , had crossed the State border , had taken part in car rally competitions , winning the President \u2019s cup in DATE , and had even been elected president of the NORP rally committee .","The Vilnius City Second District Court decided to grant the prosecutor \u2019s request for the applicant \u2019s detention . In the operative part of its ruling , having summarised the arguments put forward by the prosecutor and the defence , the court noted that the case file material showed that the applicant was suspected of a very serious crime for which life imprisonment could be imposed . The applicant \u2019s wife was living abroad and this could prompt the applicant to flee from justice . It was also pertinent that there were discrepancies in the [ witnesses\u2019 ] testimony given to the investigators . There was thus reason to believe that \u201c the applicant might attempt to influence participants in the criminal proceedings ( those convicted , witnesses , others ) and to destroy evidence \u201d if left at liberty . A number of investigative steps still had to be carried out . Lastly , there was reason to believe that the applicant might commit new crimes .","On DATE PERSON attended an identity parade that included the suspect and , in a CARDINAL - man line - up , identified the applicant as \u2018 ORG , naming him as the person who had ordered ORG \u2019s murder . In accordance with the requirements of LAW , the applicant \u2019s lawyer was present when PERSON identified his client .","G.B. was questioned by the prosecutor on DATE , and testified in writing that after he had identified the applicant , on DATE he had been approached by another prisoner . Due to the relations prevailing in the prison , PERSON preferred not to name that other prisoner . PERSON stated that the other prisoner had told him that he had received a request from \u201c the outside world ( i\u0161 laisv\u0117s ) \u201d and from \u201c the underworld of GPE ( ORG nusiklastamo pasaulio ) \u201d to ask PERSON , in return for CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL ) , not to identify the applicant as the person who had put out the contract on ORG To that PERSON replied that it was too late , because he had already identified the applicant . The other prisoner stated that in that case he would have to further consult those who had made the proposition .","DATE , on CARDINAL or DATE , the same prisoner had made a new proposition : PERSON should write a statement to the effect that he had been mistaken when identifying the applicant on DATE . PERSON also was told that the applicant \u2019s lawyers were considering challenging the lawfulness of the identity parade procedure . The sum allegedly offered to the applicant for changing his prior testimony stayed the same . At that time PERSON also stated that he had not been the target of any threats for testifying against the applicant .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted an appeal to ORG against the court order of CARDINAL DATE for the detention of his client . The lawyer complained that the judge had not allowed him to see the case file and maintained that the procedure had therefore not been adversarial . The lawyer acknowledged that the applicant had a prior conviction , but that had been DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyer also asked the court to view G.B. \u2019s testimony in a critical light , given that the latter , as a convicted person , could have his own reasons for incriminating the applicant . Furthermore , the prosecutor had not provided any factual data endorsing his suspicion that the applicant might attempt to influence witnesses . As far as the lawyer understood it , all the witnesses with knowledge of ORG \u2019s murder had been isolated from society and there was no real possibility of influencing them . Furthermore , if anyone had wished to pervert the course of justice , he or she would have done it at some time during DATE that had elapsed since the crime . Now there would be no sense in doing that . In support of his claims that it was safe to leave the applicant at liberty , his lawyer provided the court with documents about his client \u2019s family and work situation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The prosecutor and the applicant \u2019s lawyer were present at that hearing .","The court accepted that factual material incriminating the applicant existed in the form of ORG testimony , the record showing that PERSON had recognised the applicant , both from photographs and in person . The court also noted that , according to the information which had been provided to it , the search for the applicant had gone on for a long time , that he had connections abroad , and that LAW had been issued in his regard . The seriousness of the crime of which he was suspected was also a factor in the establishment of grounds for detaining him .","However , the appellate court noted \u201c the absence of any well - founded evidence ( pagr\u012fst\u0173 \u012frodym\u0173 ) in the case file indicating that the applicant might attempt , either himself or through third parties , to influence witnesses , victims , people already convicted or other individuals , or that he would attempt to destroy evidence \u201d . Keeping him detained merely because the pre - trial investigators had not yet collected all the material necessary to build the case did not constitute valid grounds for such detention either . The existence of discrepancies in the testimonies ( byloje u\u017efiksuot\u0173 parodym\u0173 nenuoseklumas ) could not be blamed on the applicant .","During a face - to - face confrontation ( akistata ) held on DATE , PERSON reaffirmed his testimony that it was the applicant who had put out the contract for ORG \u2019s murder .","The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was extended on CARDINAL DATE and again on DATE . His lawyers and the prosecutor were present at those hearings . The courts noted that the grounds for detention were the search for the applicant , LAW , his previous conviction and the fact that he had been charged with a serious crime for which a severe sentence could be imposed . In one of these QUANTITY rulings the court also noted that PERSON , who was CARDINAL of those already convicted for the DATE car bombing , had identified the applicant as the person who had put out the contract on ORG","On DATE the prosecutor questioned PERSON \u2019s wife . She testified that she had known that her husband was a witness in the criminal case concerning ORG \u2019s murder . She stated that her husband had told her that he had received threats directed at him and his family for having given evidence , and had warned his wife to be careful . She also stated that from DATE she and her daughter had received telephone calls from unknown men asking if they could meet and talk , which she had refused to do . She also testified that on DATE she had found a funeral wreath in front of the entrance door to the caf\u00e9 she owned . She understood this gesture to be a veiled threat to PERSON \u2019s family should he not change his testimony .","On DATE ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial . Having reaffirmed the aforementioned grounds for keeping the applicant detained , including the argument that he had been evading justice ever since DATE , ORG also noted evidence that the applicant had tried , through third parties , to influence the witness PERSON and his family so that PERSON would not testify against the applicant .","By a judgment of DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of having put out the contract for ORG \u2019s murder . In finding against the applicant , the trial court relied on the testimony of G.B. Even though the applicant denied his involvement in the crime and insisted that PERSON was slandering him , the trial court observed that PERSON \u2019s testimony to the effect that the crime had been organised by a certain \u201c Alius \u201d had been consistent ever since PERSON was first questioned during the pre - trial investigation in DATE . Moreover , PERSON had recognised the applicant from photographs on DATE and during a police identity line - up on DATE . Other evidence against the applicant also included the testimony of CARDINAL further witnesses DATE namely the applicant \u2019s and ORG \u2019s former business partners , a police officer , and the brother of ORG \u2019s widow . Telephone records also showed that in DATE and DATE numerous conversations had taken place between the applicant , ORG , ORG and ORG In addition , extracts from the bank accounts of the applicant \u2019s company , customs declarations , and documents from GPE municipality illustrated the financial dealings between the applicant and ORG","ORG noted that DATE had passed since the crime was committed . The applicant had not been hiding during that time , even though a search for him \u201c without reason ( nepagr\u012fsta ) \u201d had been called for . In DATE the applicant had not once broken the law and there was no information in the case file indicating his involvement in organised crime . Moreover , the applicant had worked , supported his family , including CARDINAL children who were minors , and had participated in public life . However , given the seriousness of the crime , the court held that the applicant still posed a danger to society . The court lastly found that because of the pre - trial investigation ORG fault the applicant was being punished only after DATE had passed since the crime . To impose a very severe sentence on him would therefore be unjust . CARDINAL years\u2019 deprivation of liberty in a correctional home would be appropriate . The time which the applicant had spent in pre - trial detention DATE from DATE until DATE was to be counted towards that period .","An appeal having been lodged against this verdict , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was acquitted by ORG . The court found the testimony of PERSON who was the main witness for the prosecution \u2212 against the applicant , including testimony given on site in DATE , PERSON \u2019s recognising the applicant in the police identity line - up and the testimony given the face - to - face confrontation to be inconsistent , not credible and contradictory of other evidence in the case ( nelogi\u0161ki , prie\u0161taraujantys kitiems \u012frodymams ir nenuosekl\u016bs ) . There was a real possibility that by giving such testimony PERSON had sought to improve his position . In this connection ORG also noted that PERSON had attempted to diminish his own role in ORG \u2019s murder . It was for that reason that , on DATE , ORG had dismissed the prosecutor \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s plea for mitigation of PERSON \u2019s sentence on the basis of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG also emphasised that there was not sufficient additional evidence to link the applicant to crime .","ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release from detention . He had to stay at his place of residence , and his travel documents were taken from him .","The decision to acquit the applicant was later quashed by ORG , which remitted the case for fresh examination .","Before ORG the applicant reiterated his complaint that on DATE the pre - trial investigation judge had not allowed him to see the material submitted by the prosecutor . He also noted that PERSON had not informed the prosecutor about alleged undue influence on him until DATE after the alleged incident supposedly took place . In the view of the applicant , PERSON wished to incriminate him using any means possible .","On DATE the ORG again acquitted the applicant , upholding its earlier finding that PERSON \u2019s testimony against the applicant was not consistent ( n\u0117ra nuosekl\u016bs ) . It also noted that the trial court had categorised the search for the applicant as unfounded ( nepagrista ) , without elaborating much on that issue . ORG emphasised that the applicant had never been in hiding from the authorities , even though the prosecutor had asked the appellate court to suppress that assessment , given by the trial court ( also see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant was released from the obligation not to leave his place of residence , and his travel documents were returned to him .","DATE , on the basis of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG adopted a separate ruling , noting that a search for a suspect could be ordered if the suspect \u2019s place of residence was unknown to the investigators , who , if that were the case , were obliged to take steps to find him or her . In the instant case , however , the applicant had never been in hiding from the investigators . On the contrary , he had lived in his apartment in GPE , had taken part in car rally competitions abroad , had won the President \u2019s cup after participating in the car rally \u201c Around GPE \u201d in DATE , and in DATE had even been elected president of the car rally committee . The applicant had also crossed the NORP State border both by car and as an airline passenger CARDINAL times , had worked at his private company and had paid social security contributions . All those events had taken place during the time when the search for the applicant , ordered on DATE , was being conducted . The applicant had at no time been called into the prosecutor \u2019s office and none of the applicant \u2019s family members had received any inquiries about the applicant \u2019s whereabouts from the police or had ever been visited by police officers . As confirmed by the police in DATE , no search file ( paie\u0161kos byla ) had ever been opened in respect of the applicant . Furthermore , in DATE he had been arrested ( sulaikytas ) in ORG town for having insulted police officers but was later released .","In the light of the above , ORG concluded that the prosecutor had deliberately and unnecessarily ( nepagr\u012fstai ) ordered a search for the applicant without first having called him in for questioning or having taken any real measures to establish his whereabouts . The appellate court also found that the prosecutor had deliberately misled the courts in DATE by providing them with clearly untrue information at a time when those courts were making their decision as to whether or not to detain the applicant . This showed that the prosecutor had other goals in view , but it was not for ORG to determine what those other goals might have been . Nevertheless , as a consequence it was possible for the applicant to have been unlawfully detained for DATE from DATE until DATE . ORG therefore asked the Attorney ORG to determine whether the prosecutor \u2019s actions constituted abuse of office , which is a crime under NORP law . ORG also emphasised that \u2012 as was apparent from the court decision approving the applicant \u2019s detention , on CARDINAL DATE , and upholding his detention on remand by court rulings adopted DATE and DATE \u2012 in addition to ORG issued in DATE , \u201c the search for the applicant [ announced in DATE ] , had been CARDINAL of the main grounds for ordering his pre - trial detention and for prolonging it \u201d .","On DATE the Deputy Attorney General concluded that the prosecutor had not committed any offence . On the contrary , it was the police officers who had not performed their duties properly by failing to locate the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) , as a result of which it had not been possible for the prosecutor to call the applicant in for questioning . In any case , to call in for questioning a person whose accomplices had been sentenced to DATE of imprisonment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was hardly a measure that would be considered justified in the interests of a successful pre - trial investigation . Once the police had informed the prosecutor of the applicant \u2019s possible whereabouts , the prosecutor immediately ordered the police officers to search those places and to arrest the applicant , who was charged DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The prosecutor \u2019s actions had therefore been based on factual circumstances and were lawful . There was no reason to conclude that he had misled the courts when they were deciding whether or not to detain the applicant .","In the view of the Deputy Attorney General , the fact that the prosecutor had referred to the search for the applicant and LAW in his requests to the court for the applicant \u2019s detention ( see paragraphs DATE above ) did not constitute significant grounds for keeping him detained . On the contrary , the courts noted the applicant \u2019s connections abroad , the fact that he owned property abroad , his wealth and the gravity of the crime of which he was suspected . The applicant and his lawyer had , moreover , actively exercised their defence rights in challenging the argument that the applicant had been hiding from investigators . It followed that the applicant \u2019s right to liberty had been restricted on a lawful basis .","Lastly , the Deputy Attorney General established that the actions of a certain police investigator when executing the search for the applicant had been erratic . However , even though his actions could be deemed to constitute a disciplinary offence , the investigator no longer worked in the police force and could not therefore be punished .","The Deputy Attorney General therefore refused to open a pre - trial investigation on the basis of the facts mentioned in the ORG of Appeal ruling of CARDINAL DATE . The decision was sent for inclusion in the applicant \u2019s criminal case file .","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG again remitted the applicant \u2019s criminal case to the appellate instance for a fresh examination of evidence . The cassation court noted that PERSON \u2019s testimony did not automatically become less credible merely because he had cooperated with the authorities when telling them of ORG \u2019s assassination , and for that reason the prosecutor requested mitigation of ORG sentence .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of having put out the contract for ORG \u2019s murder so that the applicant and others would not have to repay to ORG debts amounting to CARDINAL and MONEY ( USD ) . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 deprivation of liberty .","On DATE ORG re - interpreted the domestic criminal law and upheld the trial court \u2019s verdict , sentencing the applicant to eight years\u2019 deprivation of liberty .","According to the latest information from the applicant \u2019s lawyer , in DATE the applicant was released from prison before time ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158843","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"SPRO\u0122E v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE , following a nationalisation process ( for more detailed historical background see PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) , the applicant \u2019s predecessors settled in an apartment in GPE street , GPE , which was later rented by the applicant \u2019s father . The applicant and her family lived in the apartment until DATE .","In DATE the dwelling house was denationalised and taken over by a private person . The new owner requested the applicant \u2019s family to leave the apartment , alleging that it was unfit for occupation and required urgent repair . The dispute over the right to rent the apartment resulted in several sets of court proceedings between the applicant \u2019s family and the landlord .","In DATE the landlord brought a claim for eviction of the applicant \u2019s family , without providing alternative accommodation .","On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG upheld the claim . On the basis of the parties\u2019 statements and case materials , the court found that : ( CARDINAL ) even in the absence of a written rental agreement between the parties , the applicant had been renting the contested apartment ; ( CARDINAL ) the apartment needed renovation and the plaintiff had proved his intention to carry out the necessary work , and therefore the condition for terminating the rental agreement had been met ; ( CARDINAL ) the plaintiff had warned the tenants about the termination of the rental agreement in accordance with a procedure provided by law .","On DATE an appeal by the applicant was dismissed by ORG , which on DATE issued an execution order .","The decision became final in DATE when the ORG of ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant .","While the above proceedings were pending , in DATE the landlord brought a claim against the applicant and her family asking the court to order the tenants to give him access to the apartment . He argued that certain parts of the apartment were in a critical condition and required urgent repair owing to the fact that the wooden construction between the floors was decayed and risked collapsing .","On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG , in the absence of the applicant and her family , upheld the claim . The applicant and her family were duly informed of the proceedings .","The judgment was subject to appeal . Owing to its urgent nature , the lower court ordered the immediate execution of the judgment .","The applicant and the other defendants appealed and refused to implement the judgment . Following the bailiff \u2019s report that execution of the judgment was impossible , Judge PERSON on DATE and DATE imposed a fine of QUANTITY ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) and ORG CARDINAL ( LAW ) on each of the CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant . Upon appeal by the applicant , ORG quashed the decisions in a final ruling on DATE .","Meanwhile , ORG of GPE had on various occasions imposed fines on the applicant and her family for failing to allow the landlord to enter the apartment , in breach of LAW in force at the time . On CARDINAL occasion in DATE Judge PERSON had made a decision relating to an administrative fine imposed on CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s family members ; in the decision she had identified shortcomings in the administrative offence proceedings and discontinued them . The decision was final .","It appears that on DATE a bailiff attempted to carry out the eviction in accordance with the order issued on DATE . The applicant and her family allegedly refused to leave the apartment , arguing that the eviction was unlawful . The landlord therefore proceeded to have the doors of the apartment opened by force , but it was discovered that the entrance was blocked with furniture and it was impossible to enter . An incident arose between the workers assigned by the bailiff and the people who were at the apartment during the eviction .","On DATE the landlord brought a civil claim for damages against the applicant and her family for the broken apartment door and for damage to belongings of other people involved in the incident .","On DATE the lower court , in the absence of the defendants , upheld the claim and ordered the defendants to pay ORG CARDINAL ( around EUR CARDINAL ) in damages .","The applicant appealed , arguing that opening the doors by force had not been necessary , and that the court had failed to establish a causal link between the actions of each of the defendants and the alleged damage .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , examined the applicant \u2019s appeal , with Judge PERSON as CARDINAL of the judges . At the beginning of the hearing the applicant challenged Judge PERSON \u2019s impartiality , arguing that she had evicted her family from the apartment and that therefore she might have an interest in the case .","The court dismissed the objection and since there were no other requests received by the parties , continued to examine the appeal on the merits . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court partly upheld the claim . It observed that the applicant \u2019s family had been evicted from the apartment in accordance with a valid court judgment and that witness statements had established that on DATE the defendants had objected to the request by the court bailiff . In the court \u2019s opinion there was no doubt that the plaintiff had sustained damage and that the lower court had correctly found that the damage had been caused by the applicant and her family because the eviction concerned all of them .","NORP In an appeal on points of law the applicant noted that she had raised objections against Judge PERSON , listing all the decisions the judge had previously made .","On DATE a ORG preparatory meeting refused leave to appeal on points of law and the cassation proceedings were discontinued . The decision did not address the allegations of a lack of impartiality .","Section CARDINAL of the Law on ORG provides that a judge does not have the right to participate in the adjudication of a case if he or she , personally , directly or indirectly , has an interest in the outcome of the case , or if there are other circumstances creating well - founded reasons to question the judge \u2019s impartiality . In such cases a judge must withdraw from the case . If a judge or a lay judge has not withdrawn from the case , anyone participating in the proceedings may request such a withdrawal according to a procedure prescribed by law .","Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW contain similar provisions to those stated above . It also provides that any such requests must be accompanied by sufficient reasons ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-153767","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BOTEZATU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LANGUAGE .","The applicant is a police officer and on DATE ORG delivered a judgment obliging the PERSON municipality to provide him and his family with social housing . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE and became final on DATE . Enforcement proceedings were instituted on CARDINAL DATE .","After the communication of the present case to the ORG , on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant initiated court proceedings under LAW no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) seeking enforcement of the final judgment in his favour and compensation for non - pecuniary damage in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) , for pecuniary damage in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( equivalent to ORG MONEY ) ( MDL CARDINAL of which represented the rent he had paid from DATE to DATE for alternative accommodation and MDL CARDINAL of which represented costs and expenses before the ORG ) , and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) as costs and expenses in domestic proceedings . In support of his claims in respect of pecuniary damage , the applicant submitted CARDINAL lease contracts , each of them concluded for periods of DATE .","NORP In court , ORG disputed the validity of the lease contracts , arguing that they were fictitious because the landlady and the applicant were relatives , because the landlady had not applied for commercial registration ( patenta de intreprinzator ) to earn profits from lease , and because the contracts had not been registered with the tax authorities until DATE and had never been registered in the land register .","On DATE ORG acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW resulting from the nonenforcement of the final judgment in his favour for DATE . The court dismissed the arguments of ORG , holding that the lease contracts had been concluded for periods of DATE and were therefore not subject to mandatory registration in the land register . The court also took the view that the landlady \u2019s failure to register promptly her lease profits and her commercial activity had resulted in penalties and taxes \u2012 which had been paid \u2012 but that this failure was anyway not imputable to the applicant and did not affect the validity of the contracts . The court awarded the applicant MDL CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and granted his claims in respect of pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses in full . ORG appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the appeal , quashed the first - instance judgment and delivered a new judgment , acknowledging a violation of the applicant \u2019s right under LAW resulting from the non - enforcement of a final judgment for a period of DATE ( from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) . The court awarded the applicant LAW ( equivalent to LAW ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and MDL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( LAW ) for costs and expenses . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims in respect of pecuniary damage as unsubstantiated , arguing that the lease contracts had been ineffective vis \u00e0 vis the State on the grounds cited by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and cited LAW . This judgment was final .","On DATE the municipality issued the applicant with an occupancy voucher ( bon de reparti\u021bie ) , entitling him to move into a new flat .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Government informed the ORG that the final judgment in the applicant \u2019s favour had been enforced on DATE . The applicant did not dispute this ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182449","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SEPCZY\u0143SKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant had a motorcycle accident in which he broke his right arm and right thigh . CARDINAL the applicant underwent an arthroscopy on his right knee . CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent rehabilitation treatment in ORG and during this stay no dysfunction was diagnosed in his right foot .","Subsequently , DATE and DATE , he was detained in FAC . While in prison , he was examined CARDINAL times ( on CARDINAL and DATE and on CARDINAL DATE ) by an orthopaedist , who observed that the applicant required physical therapy in the light of a limitation of his knee - joint movement , the atrophy of a thigh muscle , and an injury to a peroneal nerve . On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist who likewise found atrophy of the thigh muscle and impaired bending of the right foot , which he attributed to an injury to the peroneal nerve . The applicant never received any physical therapy during his imprisonment , instead being offered only nonsteroidal anti - inflammatory medicines .","On an unspecified date , but not DATE , the applicant brought a civil action against ORG for infringement of his personal rights , claiming that the prison healthcare system had failed to provide him with appropriate medical care during his detention and , moreover , that the cells had not met the minimum spatial requirement of QUANTITY per person and had been mouldy and infested with insects . He requested MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation , the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) exempted the applicant from the court fees .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) and dismissed the remainder of his action . The court held , particularly on the basis of the medical expert opinion , that the applicant had had a motorcycle accident and had required physical therapy as recommended by the prison orthopaedist . However , he had not been given any , either in prison or outside , which had resulted in a deterioration of his health . The court established that , due to the lack of physical therapy , the applicant had suffered atrophy of the thigh muscle and foot drop affecting his right foot . The court compared this finding with the fact that upon his arrival the applicant had not been suffering from foot drop , the pain in his knee had not been severe , and his right leg muscles had been working more effectively . The court emphasised that the applicant had not been offered proper treatment despite a worsening of his symptoms . These changes in his physical condition would not have been irreversible , but the break in the therapy had entailed a prolonged rehabilitation process . The court stated that the rehabilitation process for the applicant would be long and arduous , a situation which could have been avoided had the defendant acted appropriately . The court held that the applicant had suffered physical pain of significant seriousness , which , in turn , had had negative psychological consequences . The court therefore found the applicant \u2019s claim for compensation for lack of adequate medical care partly justified . The claim concerning the alleged overcrowding and inadequate sanitary conditions was dismissed in full . The court also ordered the applicant to reimburse ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) for the costs of the defendant \u2019s legal representation and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in court fees ( in total : ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) ) .","The applicant did not lodge an appeal against the first - instance judgment .","Following the defendant \u2019s appeal against the judgment , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) amended the judgment , reduced the compensation granted to the applicant to PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) , and upheld the first - instance court \u2019s findings of fact and law . The applicant was not ordered to pay the court fees for the proceedings before that court . This court pointed out that in the experts\u2019 opinions it was not specified , even approximately , what the effects of the negligence might be , how much longer the rehabilitation process would take , or how much stronger the pain had become in comparison to pain experienced previously by the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["3","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171776","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DNK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF R.L. AND OTHERS v. DENMARK","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)","judges":"Dean Spielmann;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant was born in GPE . She moved to GPE in DATE after marrying the second applicant .","On DATE the first applicant gave birth to a boy , PERSON Because of their marriage , by virtue of LAW ( PERSON ) , the second applicant was considered to be PERSON \u2019s father , and this was recorded by the civil registrar in connection with the child \u2019s birth .","The applicants legally separated on DATE , but they continued to cohabit until DATE .","On DATE the first applicant gave birth to a boy , S.","Although he no longer lived with the first applicant , and had had no sexual contact with her since DATE , the second applicant nevertheless submitted to ORG ( ORG Hovedstaden ) ( now ORG ) a declaration , cosigned by the first applicant , stating that together they would take care of and be responsible for S. The declaration was dated DATE and received in DATE . Consequently , the second applicant was registered as S. \u2019s father under LAW , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW .","Without the knowledge of the second applicant , during DATE , the first applicant had also had a relationship with a man called PERSON When that relationship ended in DATE , the first applicant told the second applicant that PERSON was the biological father of PERSON and probably also of L.","On DATE , the applicants requested that both paternity cases be reopened in order to establish formally PERSON \u2019s fatherhood of PERSON and S. The first applicant submitted , in LANGUAGE , that PERSON was the children \u2019s biological father and that he \u201c had warned me not to tell the truth about the fatherhood of the children \u201d . Their request was refused by ORG on DATE .","The applicants brought the cases before ORG ( PERSON ) before which PERSON opposed their reopening . The children DATE , represented by counsel , also objected to the reopening of the paternity cases , finding that the conditions set out in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW had not been met .","The first applicant explained that she had met the second applicant in GPE in DATE . They had married in DATE and she had moved to GPE in DATE . In DATE , she had met PERSON on a dating site and they had commenced a relationship and had sexual relations twice a week , on a few occasions without protection . She had become pregnant and informed PERSON , but he had been in a dilemma because he was married at the time . In DATE she had been diagnosed as HIV - positive . When PERSON was born in DATE the second applicant was considered to be the father . They had separated in DATE but had continued to live together until DATE . After she and the second applicant had stopped having sexual relations , she had only had sexual relations with PERSON The latter had said that he would provide support for her and L , but he had never given her any money . He had said that everything would fall into place once he divorced . PERSON had seen PERSON several times and taken him swimming or to play in a park . She wanted PERSON to be introduced to PERSON \u2019s other children , but PERSON did not want that . Instead they had agreed that PERSON should have a sibling and they had planned their sexual activities according to her ovulation cycle in order for her to become pregnant . When PERSON was born in DATE , the second applicant had wanted to help her and had therefore acknowledged fatherhood . PERSON had come to see her at the hospital after she had given birth to S. He knew that he was the biological father of both boys . He had also acknowledged that in several emails and text messages to her . Moreover , PERSON \u2019s mother had met the boys and had said that PERSON reminded her of PERSON when he was a child . PERSON had never contributed financially to the care of the children . In DATE she had told PERSON that he would have to take care of the children soon and that she would report to the authorities that he was the biological father . He had replied that he did not want any responsibility for the children and ended their relationship . She wanted the boys to know their true identity while she was alive . PERSON was confused about the situation and had said \u201c my father is uncle PERSON , but my old father is [ the second applicant ] \u201d .","The second applicant confirmed that he and the first applicant had not had a sexual relationship since PERSON \u2019s birth . He believed that PERSON was his son . He was aware that PERSON was not his son , but since the boys would grow up together he felt it important to treat them equally and he also wanted to help and support the first applicant . In DATE he had been told about E. At DATE he had overheard a telephone conversation between the first applicant and PERSON , during which PERSON had talked about the boys as \u201c our children \u201d both in LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE . PERSON had stated that he did not want to take financial responsibility for the boys . The second applicant still saw the boys regularly and would continue to do so after the case had been settled . He felt that the biological father should take responsibility , including financial responsibility , and that the boys should know their identity .","E. explained that he had CARDINAL adult children from a previous marriage . He had met the first applicant in DATE or DATE but at the time they could not meet very often , because they were both married . The relationship was purely sexual , and he had no feelings for the first applicant . Their relationship had continued until DATE . They had met in the first applicant \u2019s home or in swinger clubs or in hotels . They had had sexual relations in swinger clubs from DATE until DATE . He and another man had had sexual relations with her at the same time , but he could not recall when . The first applicant had given him the impression that she protected herself . He had chosen to use a condom . He might be PERSON \u2019s father , but they had not as such discussed the matter at the time . He had not wanted a child , whereas the first applicant had . She had told him that she would take care of the child herself . In DATE , due to the applicants\u2019 separation , the first applicant had taken an apartment on her own and PERSON had visited her and PERSON there . PERSON called him \u201c uncle E \u201d . Their sexual relationship had continued in DATE but the first applicant had told him that she had also met other men on a dating site . In DATE they had had sexual relations regularly , including in a swinger club once or twice . They had made a plan for the first applicant to become pregnant again and thought that it would be good for L. to have a sibling . He could not remember whether they had had sexual relations in the fertile period DATE and DATE and they had not discussed whether he was the biological father . He had visited the first applicant in hospital in connection with the birth . He had found it natural that the second applicant should be father to the children since he was married to the first applicant . He had never behaved like a father to the children : he was still \u201c uncle E \u201d . It was true that he had gone swimming with L. once in DATE and that he had told his mother that he might be the children \u2019s father . The relationship between him and the first applicant had ended because she had not told him that she was HIV - positive .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG in GPE decided to reopen the paternity cases .","Regarding L. , ORG noted that both the second applicant and PERSON had had a sexual relationship with the first applicant during the fertile period and that the request for reopening the cases had been lodged DATE after PERSON \u2019s birth .","Regarding S. , ORG noted that PERSON and the first applicant had had sexual relations in the relevant fertile period . The ORG did not find it established that the first applicant had had sexual relations with other men during that period . The request for a reopening had been lodged DATE after PERSON \u2019s birth .","The court took into account the disadvantage to which the children might be subject in case of a reopening , including the risk that paternity might not be established . It found it established that the first applicant had allowed both men to treat the children as theirs ; that PERSON had taken on a paternal role ; that PERSON had had frequent and regular contact with both children ; that PERSON had taken PERSON swimming ; that PERSON had taken the children with him on trips , to birthday parties and so on ; and that PERSON was spoken of in familiar terms by the children .","In respect of S. new information and circumstances in the case gave reason to believe that a mistake might have been made when registering paternity and that there might be a different outcome . Accordingly , that case was to be reopened .","NORP Moreover , having assessed overall the interests of the children and the union of the family , and the fact that the children would not be subjected to unnecessary inconvenience by a reopening , and since it was expected that paternity would be established , the court found that , exceptionally , both cases should be reopened .","E. appealed against the decision to ORG of Eastern Denmark ( PERSON ) , before which the applicants and PERSON were heard anew . PERSON added that he had moved to GPE in DATE and thereafter had had no contact with the first applicant or the children . DATE he had visited the first applicant for TIME , once or twice every month . He had become a sort of uncle for the children . He could not rule out that he was the father of the children but he would not voluntarily submit to a DNA test , since he would never be able take on the role of being their father .","The first applicant added , amongst other things , that PERSON had given the children presents . They had both received a teddy bear when they were born . They had also received a book with MONEY ( DKK ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . When PERSON had turned DATE , he had received a birthday card with the text : \u201c PERSON , happy birthday , love daddy \u201d . The children were still in contact with the second applicant .","The second applicant added that he would keep in contact with the children but that he had withdrawn after learning that he was not their father . He mainly took care of the children when the first applicant needed help due to her illness .","NORP By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to reopen the paternity cases .","NORP The majority ( CARDINAL judges ) noted that it was not until the proceedings on paternity that the applicants had informed the authorities that they had not had sexual contact in the fertile period as regards PERSON Moreover , despite giving the children the impression that PERSON was their biological father , the second applicant had continued to treat the children as his own , at least until DATE . In these circumstances , and since it was uncertain whether paternity would be established for the children if the paternity cases were to be reopened , they did not find a basis for reopening the case regarding PERSON under LAW . By the same line of reasoning , they did not find a basis for reopening the paternity case regarding LAW under the stricter conditions set out in LAW taken in conjunction with section CARDINAL of LAW .","The minority ( CARDINAL judge ) agreed with the decision by ORG , mainly with the same reasoning . In addition he pointed out that the second applicant had not been aware until DATE that the first applicant and PERSON had had a long relationship , and that he was probably not PERSON \u2019s father . Furthermore , the second applicant had withdrawn from the children after learning about PERSON and he saw them mainly in order to help the first applicant . Finally , the minority took into account that both children openly stated that it was PERSON , and not the second applicant , who was their father .","Subsequently , the second applicant took a DNA paternity test regarding both children which turned out negative with PERCENT compatibility , thus proving that he was not the father of PERSON or S.","The applicants submitted this result to ORG ( Procesbevillingsn\u00e6vnet ) and requested leave to appeal to ORG ( H\u00f8jesteret ) , which was refused on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181383","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ROYER v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant , is a NORP citizen , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant met PERSON , a NORP national . In DATE PERSON moved to GPE and the couple lived together in the applicant \u2019s flat in PERSON . On DATE their son , PERSON , was born . In DATE the couple spent DATE with the applicant \u2019s family in PERSON . The applicant returned to their home on DATE .","On DATE K.B.V. lodged a complaint against the applicant in PERSON . She alleged that the applicant had become hostile and sometimes aggressive towards her and constituted a danger to her and their son .","On DATE PERSON left for GPE with L , without the prior knowledge or authorisation of the applicant . Since then PERSON has lived with PERSON at her GPE home in GPE .","On DATE PERSON initiated custody proceedings in respect of PERSON before FAC .","On DATE the applicant instigated proceedings before FAC tribunal de grande instance . On DATE the court found that PERSON had been illegally taken from GPE , placed the son with his father ( that is to say the applicant ) , and granted the applicant sole custody . The court ordered the provisional execution of the judgment . Following an appeal by PERSON , in a judgment of DATE , ORG granted PERSON right to have supervised contact every other DATE TIME , awarded the parents joint custody , and upheld the remainder of the first - instance decision .","On DATE ORG issued a certificate of enforceability under LAW ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility ( known \u201c the Brussels II bis Regulation \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG quashed the secondinstance judgment of ORG and remitted the case to ORG .","On DATE the Pest Central District Court received from the applicant a request under LAW on the Civil Aspects of ORG ( Articles DATE ) and the Brussels II bis Regulation for the child to be returned to GPE . The applicant maintained that PERSON \u2019s place of residence was in GPE and that under NORP law parents exercised their custody rights jointly . PERSON had decided on the child \u2019s place of residence without his approval . On DATE and CARDINAL and DATE , and DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the court examined the request in the presence of both parents .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the request under LAW of LAW . Relying on the definition of child abduction , as provided in LAW , the court found that PERSON had abducted PERSON from his habitual residence in GPE , where the parents had exercised their custody rights jointly . However , on the basis of the evidence before it , the court concluded that if PERSON ( who was still being breastfed ) were returned to GPE , he would be placed in uncertain circumstances , only seeing his mother DATE for TIME . It emphasised that according to the applicant \u2019s own submissions , he was away from home from TIME and that it would be difficult for him to look after the child during DATE . Thus , as he suggested , his sister would look after PERSON The court also noted that the applicant had lodged his request DATE after PERSON \u2019s abduction and that although he had visited GPE on a number of occasions , he had not been in contact with PERSON , the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s request under LAW .","ORG upheld the first - instance decision on DATE . It reiterated the conclusion of the first - instance court that there was a grave risk that PERSON \u2019s return to GPE would expose him to harm . In this aspect the court found relevant that PERSON was only one and a half years old and if returned to GPE he would be deprived of all maternal care . Thus , under LAW , the NORP courts were not bound to order the child \u2019s return . The court also held that LAW of LAW was not applicable , since no measures or arrangements were available to secure the protection of PERSON after his return .","The applicant lodged a petition for judicial review of this decision with the GPE . He argued that LAW was applicable to exceptional circumstances only and that neither the child \u2019s age nor his closer connection to his mother had any bearing on the matter and could not constitute a decisive element in the decision to refuse to order the child \u2019s return to his habitual residence . He also argued that he had contributed to the child \u2019s care and that his employment , which allowed him to provide for his family , could not be held against him . Furthermore , the decisions had failed to take into account ORG \u2019s best interests , which lay in his being raised by both of his parents . He also maintained that his lack of contact with PERSON was due to PERSON \u2019s own conduct and the fact that he had not been aware of the child \u2019s place of residence until DATE . Finally , the lower - instance courts had not respected the DATE deadline stipulated by LAW bis Regulation .","The PERSON dismissed the applicant \u2019s petition for judicial review on DATE . According to its reasoning both the Brussels II bis ORG and LAW had established the presumption that a child \u2019s interests could best be served by his immediate return to his habitual residence . However , LAW this presumption could be rebutted in exceptional circumstances . It agreed with the applicant that the child \u2019s young age , his close connection to the parent living in GPE and his NORP roots could not serve as a basis for the refusal to order his return to GPE . It nonetheless held that at the time of his abduction PERSON had only been DATE and that a considerable time had passed without him having contact with the applicant . The reason for this was that the applicant had refused to see PERSON at the premises of a child protection service , as suggested by PERSON The PERSON also found it important that according to the applicant \u2019s own statements his sister would take care of PERSON if the child were returned to GPE and that , according to the decision of the NORP courts , PERSON would only have very limited contact with L. Furthermore , there was no information about any measure of protection envisaged in the event of L. \u2019s return . Thus , the GPE concluded that the return of the child , who was DATE , to an unknown environment would cause serious psychological harm .","On DATE PERSON initiated custody proceedings in respect of PERSON before FAC ; she also requested the court to adopt an interim measure placing L. under her custody .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , regard being had to the judgments delivered by the NORP courts . On DATE the Szombathely High Court overturned this decision and ordered ORG to examine whether the judgments of the NORP courts could be recognised and if not whether it had jurisdiction in the matter .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings again , finding that PERSON could have exercised her procedural rights before the NORP courts , submitting her written observations through her representative in the course of the appellate proceedings . This decision was overturned again by ORG on DATE owing to procedural errors .","On DATE the applicant tried to abduct L. , who was walking with his grandfather on the street . Following the incident PERSON lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant and requested that a restriction order be imposed on him . On DATE ORG issued a restriction order in respect of the applicant , which was subsequently overturned on appeal on the grounds that the mother herself had not been a victim of violent behaviour on the part of the applicant .","On DATE , in an interim decision , ORG decided not to recognise the judgments adopted by FAC tribunal de grande instance and ORG , established that it did have jurisdiction in the matter , and temporarily placed L. in his mother \u2019s sole custody . According to ORG the NORP courts had found that the interests of the child could best be served by his return to GPE . However , the proceedings before FAC tribunal de grande instance had failed to respect PERSON \u2019s right to a fair trial , since DATE owing to the fact that the applicant had given false information to the NORP authorities \u2013 she had not been informed of the proceedings and had not been able to be heard in person . Thus , the court concluded that the decision could not be recognised , pursuant to LAW ) of ORG . It also held that it had jurisdiction LAW of the Brussels II bis Regulation , since the child \u2019s habitual residence was in GPE . As to the interim resolution of custody rights , the ORG held that the interests of the child could be best served if he remained in his habitual environment \u2013 that is to say in the company of his mother and maternal grandparents DATE and that removing him from GPE would pose a risk of causing him psychological harm .","Following a further appeal , on DATE ORG overturned the decision concerning custody rights and remitted the case to the first - instance court . As to the decision on the non - recognition of the judgments delivered by the NORP courts , it found that recognition could not be refused on the basis that PERSON had not been heard in person before the NORP courts , since the Brussels II bis Regulation did not stipulate such an obligation and the mother could have submitted written observations . Nonetheless , the court found that the recognition of the foreign judgments could not be recognised , pursuant to Article PERSON ) of the Brussels II bis Regulation , since recognition would have been contrary to the public policy of GPE , given that the best interests of the child had only been respected in a formalistic way . According to ORG , restricting the mother \u2019s contact with TIME every second week would have caused harm to PERSON , especially since the applicant himself had stated that PERSON would be looked after by his sister . The court also had regard to the forensic psychiatric opinion prepared by Dr PERSON . PERSON on DATE and supplemented by PERSON on DATE , according to which from a psychological point of view \u2013 the enforcement of the NORP ORG judgment would constitute \u201c institutional abuse \u201d . Furthermore , the court found that no measures were being contemplated by the applicant to ensure the protection of the child after his return to GPE .","A petition for judicial review lodged by the applicant with the PERSON was dismissed as time - barred on DATE .","On DATE , in the course of the custody proceedings , the applicant also lodged a request for an interim measure regulating his access rights .","On DATE the applicant abducted PERSON from PERSON , in the course of which he caused grievous bodily harm to her . L was taken to GPE .","On DATE ORG issued an interim decision on the exercise of parental custody and access rights . It noted that since DATE the applicant had seen his son CARDINAL times and had been in contact with him CARDINAL times via ORG . It held that PERSON needed to have contact with his father and therefore ruled that the applicant could visit him for TIME every second weekend and could contact him via ORG every other weekend . Given the applicant \u2019s violent behaviour towards the mother ( and previously towards the child \u2019s grandfather \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court held that the applicant \u2019s visits should take place under supervision . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG issued a NORP arrest warrant against the applicant , who was detained in GPE on DATE . PERSON was placed in a childcare institution .","By a decision of DATE FAC tribunal de grande instance found that the applicant had endangered the child \u2019s development and temporarily placed L. in his mother \u2019s custody . The applicant was granted access rights , in accordance with ORG decision of DATE . The applicant appealed against this decision .","L. was returned to GPE on DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of DATE on the temporary placement of L. in his mother \u2019s custody , emphasising that the NORP tribunal de grande instance had arrived at the same conclusion .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant applied for the execution of the judgments delivered by FAC tribunal de grande instance and ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the application , relying on the decision of ORG of DATE on the non - recognition of the NORP ORG judgments . It relied on LAW .","The applicant appealed , arguing that ORG had erred in finding that the decision on the non - recognition of the NORP courts\u2019 judgments was relevant in the case . Since in the meantime ORG had overturned the judgment of ORG , the applicant requested the enforcement of the judgment of the PERSON tribunal de grande instance and maintained that this judgment had been declared automatically enforceable . ORG held that the judgment of FAC tribunal de grande instance , under which no rights at all were granted to the mother at all , was contrary to the public policy of GPE since it did not respect fundamental rights , and in particular the best interest of the child , and refused by a decision of DATE to execute it ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179229","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CU\u0160KO v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted bribery .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained on remand . On DATE he was released and police supervision was imposed instead , under which he was obliged not to leave his home district without the authorisation of the investigation authorities , and to report to the local police department twice a week .","On DATE a bill of indictment was served on the applicant and his CARDINAL co - accused ( PERSON and PERSON ) . On DATE a judge of ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) accepted the criminal case for trial . The first hearing was scheduled to take place from CARDINAL to CARDINAL August DATE .","On DATE the hearing was adjourned for an indefinite period owing to PERSON \u2019s poor state of health and the fact that the applicant \u2019s defence lawyer was on vacation .","On DATE the new Criminal Procedure Law entered into force ; it introduced new rules concerning , inter alia , conflicts of interest faced by judges . In the light of the new rules , on DATE the hearing was adjourned because CARDINAL of the judges of ORG had had to recuse herself from the trial .","On DATE the hearing was adjourned because the prosecutor and the applicant \u2019s defence lawyer were due to go away on holiday .","On DATE the hearing was adjourned once again owing to PERSON \u2019s poor state of health . On DATE a judge from ORG requested the hospital in which PERSON was being treated to provide information about her state of health . On DATE the court was informed that PERSON had been discharged from the hospital and placed under the care of her family doctor .","On DATE the hearing was adjourned for unspecified reasons .","On DATE the hearing was adjourned again owing to PERSON \u2019s poor state of health . On DATE ORG ordered that PERSON undergo a medical examination in order for her capacity to participate in the proceedings to be determined . The findings of that examination were delivered DATE and indicated that PERSON was able to participate in the proceedings .","On DATE ORG scheduled the next hearing for DATE . On DATE PERSON \u2019s lawyer requested that that hearing be rescheduled in order to accommodate his taking planned holidays . The court dismissed that request , noting that CARDINAL hearings had already been adjourned and that further delays in the proceedings could not be allowed .","On DATE the hearing was adjourned , as the prosecution needed to replace the charge against the applicant with a more lenient one .","On DATE ORG started to hear the parties\u2019 arguments regarding the merits of the case . On DATE it convicted the applicant of attempted bribery and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant submitted an appeal . On DATE the appellate court upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , arguing , inter alia , that his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached . In this respect he referred to several provisions of national and international law , including LAW .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas PERSON ) refused the applicant leave to appeal on points of law , noting , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s \u201c reference to violations of certain laws and international legal provisions was formalistic . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180407","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"KLIMAT INKOM V & CO OOD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant company , ORG ORG , was a NORP limited liability company which had its registered office in GPE . It was wholly owned by the CARDINAL individual applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively . Mr PERSON lives in GPE .","Ms Vera Gancheva Vidolova died on DATE . In a letter dated DATE , her heirs \u2012 Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON Danailov Vidolov and Mr PERSON \u2012 expressed their wish to pursue the application in her stead .","NORP The applicant company was wound up in DATE .","The applicants and PERSON heirs were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The ORG - owned company ORG was created in DATE as the successor of a previously existing ORG - owned enterprise . In DATE it was registered as a joint - stock company with its registered place of business in GPE . At that time it was wholly owned by the ORG .","NORP In DATE ORG passed LAW and LAW ( hereinafter \u201c LAW \u201d ) . Pursuant to section CARDINALa thereof ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the company became the owner of the properties it had until then used and managed . In DATE the company was renamed ORG .","On an unspecified date a decision was taken to privatise ORG .","In DATE the company management took a decision to put up for sale some of the company \u2019s properties , namely CARDINAL industrial buildings in GPE covering areas of CARDINAL and QUANTITY respectively , as well as the plot of land on which they stood , which measured QUANTITY ( hereinafter \u201c the properties \u201d ) . Since privatisation of the company was planned , the sale had to be authorised by ORG ( a requirement under section CARDINAL ) of LAW \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE ORG authorised the sale , in a decision which stated in addition that the sale would be carried out in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Regulations on the Exercise of the ORG \u2019s ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the DATE LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG and the applicant company concluded a preliminary contract for the sale of the properties . The final contract was signed on DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the DATE contract \u201d ) . In DATE the applicant company paid in full the agreed price , which at the time was the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) .","NORP In DATE the applicant company took possession of the properties and started using them . The buildings appear to have been in a bad state of repair and it made substantial improvements to them . According to an expert assessment submitted by PERSON and PERSON heirs , in DATE the value of the properties was ORG CARDINAL . However , as the parties have provided to the ORG no assessment of the value of the improvements made after DATE , it is unclear to what extent the increased value in DATE was the result of price changes in the real estate market and to what extent \u2013 to the improvements made by the applicant company .","Incoms - Telecom Holding EAD was privatised in DATE , after which its name was changed to ORG .","In DATE that company brought against the applicant company a rei vindicatio action , reclaiming the properties . It argued that the DATE sale contract had been null and void because , in particular , it had not been concluded before a notary as required by law ; consequently , the applicant company had never validly acquired the properties .","The action was allowed on DATE by GPE . It noted at the outset that the sale would only have been valid if it had been duly authorised by ORG , as required by law . However , the authorisation given on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been too general and had not specified the properties concerned .","In addition , the Sofia ORG noted that the DATE contract was null and void because it had not been concluded before a notary . There was no reason to conclude that the general requirement of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) did not apply to it , as it did not fall within any of the exceptions provided for by law . In particular , the contract at issue was not a privatisation contract because it did not fall within the scope of LAW , as defined under its section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and because its subject matter did not concern ORG - owned properties , the properties at issue having already come into the private ownership of the company ORG on the strength of section CARDINALa of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Nor could section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Regulations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which the applicant company had relied on , provide a legal basis for concluding that the requirement laid down in section CARDINAL of LAW was inapplicable . Thus , the DATE contract , which had not been concluded before a notary , was null and void ab initio .","The contract \u2019s nullity meant that the applicant company had been a possessor in bad faith of the properties after DATE and could only acquire those properties through adverse possession after the expiry of a period of DATE . Since the claimant had brought an action in DATE , that period had not expired . Accordingly , the applicant company was not the owner of the properties and had to surrender possession to the claimant .","On DATE and DATE respectively the above conclusions were endorsed by ORG and ORG . The applicant company surrendered possession of the properties in DATE .","In separate proceedings , in DATE ORG requested that the applicant company be declared insolvent . Even though the request was not granted until DATE , a trustee for the applicant company was appointed in DATE . After the liquidation proceedings were completed , the applicant company was wound up by a court judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","After DATE , ORG passed several pieces of legislation providing for the transformation of ORG - owned enterprises into companies and the privatisation of such companies . LAW ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0437\u0443\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0435 \u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u044a\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438 \u0438 \u043e\u0431\u0449\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043f\u0440\u0438\u044f\u0442\u0438\u044f ) was adopted in DATE . Its section CARDINALa provided in particular that , in the process of transforming a ORG enterprise , ownership of real estate or other assets that had been used and managed by it should be deemed to pass to the company succeeding it .","Privatisation was defined under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW as","\u201c the transfer to private persons or legal entities of","shares in companies owned by the ORG and the municipalities ;","NORP ownership of entire enterprises , parts of them , assets of liquidated enterprises or properties under construction ;","State or municipality - owned non - residential properties not included in ORG or municipally - owned enterprises and used for commercial purposes ( such as shops , workshops , warehouses and repair shops ) . \u201d","Pursuant to LAW and the secondary legislation adopted in the course of its implementation , the stages of a privatisation procedure were as follows : a legal analysis of the property to be privatised was conducted ; based on that analysis , the competent authority took a decision to privatise and chose the appropriate method ( auction , competition , negotiations ) ; that decision was published in ORG ; an independent analysis of the company or assets to be privatised was conducted and the conditions for participation in the auction or competition were announced ; the buyers were chosen and a privatisation contract was concluded ; and lastly , a specialised body was charged with exercising post - privatisation supervision . The privatisation contract did not need to be concluded before a notary . Such contracts would often contain additional obligations for the buyer , such as the preservation or creation of jobs , or the introduction of measures for environmental protection or to ensure continuation of the privatised company \u2019s activity .","Once a decision to privatise had been taken , the company to be privatised was banned from selling or otherwise transferring its fixed assets unless authorised by the body competent to conduct the privatisation ( section CARDINAL ) of LAW ) .","The Regulations on the Exercise of the ORG \u2019s ORG , adopted in DATE ( PERSON \u0437\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0434\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0436\u043d\u044f\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u0431\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u044a\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0432 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043f\u0440\u0438\u044f\u0442\u0438\u044f\u0442\u0430 \u2013 \u201c the DATE LAW ) , were part of the secondary legislation implementing LAW . Their section CARDINAL provided that fixed assets of ORG - owned companies could only be sold or transferred to private parties after an auction or a competition ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , except where the competent ORG body had authorised direct negotiations with potential buyers ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","In DATE LAW was superseded by other legislation .","Section CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0434\u044a\u043b\u0436\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\u0442\u0430 \u0438 \u0434\u043e\u0433\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0442\u0435 ) requires that all contracts concerning rights in rem should be concluded before a notary ( \u201c \u0441 \u043d\u043e\u0442\u0430\u0440\u0438\u0430\u043b\u0435\u043d \u0430\u043a\u0442 \u201d ) .","Section PERSON ) of the LAW provides that if the appropriate procedure ( \u201c \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043f\u0438\u0441\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u043e\u0442 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0430 \u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u0430 \u201d ) has not been observed , a contract will be null and void . Pursuant to section DATE , when a contract is declared null and void , each of the parties is under an obligation to return everything it has received .","By section CARDINAL of the Act , except where provided otherwise , all claims lapse after the expiry of DATE . Where the claim is for the recovery of something given under a contract which was in fact null and void , the period at issue is considered to start from the moment the contract was concluded ( \u041f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.V.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , GPE \u043d\u0430 \u0412\u0421 ; ORG \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 MONEY \u0433. , PERSON \u0433. \u043e. , ORG ; ORG \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0442. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , T\u041a , II \u0442.\u043e. ) . Limitation periods are not to be applied by the courts of their own motion , but only when an objection has been raised by the interested party ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .","Real property can be acquired through adverse possession after either CARDINAL or DATE of possession , depending on whether the possessor acted in good or bad faith ( section QUANTITY of LAW \u0417\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d \u0437\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u0431\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0442\u0430 ) . Possession based on a null and void transaction is always considered to have been in bad faith ( \u041f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 ORG \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , GPE \u043d\u0430 \u0412\u0421 ; ORG \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e ORG \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. ) .","A possessor in bad faith who has been found not to be the owner of a property can claim from the owner the expenses incurred for the property \u2019s upkeep ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act ) . If improvements have been made to the property , he or she can claim the lesser of the amount spent on those improvements and the amount by which the property \u2019s value has augmented as a result ( section ORG ) ) . Where the owner was aware that improvements were being made to the property and did not object , the possessor in bad faith can in any event claim , if higher , the amount by which the property \u2019s value has augmented ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) in conjunction with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Limitation periods for claiming the value of improvements start to run when a property claim \u2012 such as a rei vindicatio claim \u2012 is brought , or when the possession of the property at issue is otherwise disturbed ( \u041f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 ORG \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , GPE \u043d\u0430 \u0412\u0421 ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156503","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RYZHENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["On DATE the applicant \u2019s son , PERSON . , was found dead in the pond which he had been guarding as a night watchman .","On DATE a post - mortem examination was completed . It concluded that PERSON . had drowned . A number of bruises and sores were discovered on his chest . The expert assessed those injuries as insignificant and considered that they had been inflicted by blunt hard objects .","During the period from DATE to DATE the police refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the death CARDINAL times . All those rulings were quashed by the prosecution authorities or the courts for superficiality and incompleteness of the investigation undertaken .","On DATE , following the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure in DATE , the case was registered in ORG .","Thereafter the police terminated the criminal investigation twice having found that there was no indication of a homicide . Both those decisions were quashed .","As of DATE the pre - trial investigation was ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182455","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BENEDIK v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","In DATE the NORP law - enforcement authorities of the GPE of GPE conducted a monitoring exercise of users of the so - called \u201c NORP \u201d network . The NORP police established that some of the users owned and exchanged child pornography in the form of pictures or videos . Files containing illegal content were exchanged through the so - called \u201c NORP \u201d ( peer - to - peer ) file - sharing network in which each of the connected computers acted as both a client and a server . Hence , each user could access all files made available for sharing by other users of the network and download them for his or her use . Among the dynamic Internet Protocol ( \u201c IP \u201d ) addresses recorded by the NORP police was also a certain dynamic IP address , which was later linked to the applicant .","Based on the data obtained by the NORP police , on DATE the NORP police , without obtaining a court order , requested company S. , a NORP Internet service provider ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , to disclose data regarding the user to whom the above - mentioned IP address had been assigned at TIME on DATE . The police based their request on section DATE ) of LAW ( hereinafter \u201c the CPA \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which required the operators of electronic communication networks to disclose to the police information on the owners or users of certain means of electronic communication whose details were not available in the relevant directory . In response , on DATE the ORG gave the police the name and address of the applicant \u2019s father , who was a subscriber to the Internet service relating to the respective IP address .","On DATE the police proposed that ORG request the investigating judge of ORG to issue an order demanding that the ORG disclose both the personal data of the subscriber and traffic data linked to the IP address in question . On DATE such a court order was obtained on the basis of section CARDINALb(CARDINAL ) of the CPA and the ORG gave the police the required data .","On DATE the investigating judge of ORG issued an order to carry out a house search of the applicant \u2019s family home . The order indicated the applicant \u2019s father as the suspect . During the house search the police and the investigating judge of the ORG seized CARDINAL computers and later made copies of their hard disks .","Based on a conversation with the applicant \u2019s family members , of which no record is available , the police changed the suspect to the applicant .","Reviewing the hard disks , the police found that CARDINAL of them contained files with pornographic material involving minors . The police established that the applicant had installed eMule , a file - sharing program , on CARDINAL of the computers by means of which he had been able to download different files from other users of the program and had also automatically offered and distributed his own files to them . Among the files downloaded by the applicant , a small percentage had contained child pornography .","On DATE the LOC prosecutor requested that a judicial investigation be opened against the applicant .","In his defence before the investigating judge , the applicant argued , inter alia , that he had not been aware of the content of the files in question . He also argued that the ORG had unlawfully , without a judicial warrant , passed his data , including his address , to the police .","On DATE the investigating judge of ORG , opened a judicial investigation against the applicant on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the criminal offence of displaying , manufacturing , possessing and distributing pornographic material under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . The judge noted , among other things , that the applicant \u2019s father had been the holder of the identified IP address and that the applicant had allegedly been logging into the respective program under the name of \u201c PERSON \u201d .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel lodged an appeal against the decision to open a judicial investigation . He argued , inter alia , that the evidence concerning the identity of the user of the respective IP address had been obtained unlawfully . That information concerned the traffic data and should therefore not have been obtained without a judicial warrant .","On DATE an interlocutory panel of the court rejected the appeal finding that , although counsel had argued that the identity of the user of the IP address had been obtained unlawfully , he had not requested that certain documents be excluded from the file .","On DATE , ORG lodged an indictment against the applicant for the above - mentioned criminal offence .","At the hearing of DATE the applicant lodged a written request for exclusion of evidence obtained unlawfully , including the information concerning the user of the respective IP address obtained without a court order .","On DATE the court rejected the applicant \u2019s request , finding that the data concerning the user of the respective IP address had been obtained in compliance with section CARDINAL ) of the CPA .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the criminal offence with which he had been charged . Based on the opinion of an expert in computer science , ORG held that the applicant must have been aware of the CARDINAL pornographic pictures and CARDINAL videos involving minors which he had downloaded through ORG networks and made available for sharing with other users . The applicant was sentenced to a suspended prison term of DATE with a probation period of DATE .","Both the applicant and the district state prosecutor appealed against the first - instance judgment . The applicant challenged the facts as established by ORG . He also alleged that the subscriber information the NORP police had acquired without a court order , and thus unlawfully , should have been excluded as evidence . Consequently , all the evidence based on such unlawfully acquired data should also have been excluded .","On DATE ORG granted the appeal of the district state prosecutor in part , converting the applicant \u2019s suspended sentence into a prison term of DATE . The applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed as unfounded . ORG confirmed that the first - instance court had correctly established the facts of the case ; moreover , it held that the data concerning the user of the IP address had been obtained lawfully , as no court order was required for such a purpose .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law before ORG , reiterating that a dynamic IP address could not be compared to a telephone number which was not entered in a telephone directory , as a new IP address was assigned to a computer each time the user logged on . Accordingly , such data should be considered as traffic data constituting circumstances and facts connected to the electronic communication and attracting the protection of privacy of communication . The applicant argued that the NORP police should not have obtained the respective dynamic IP address without a court order , and nor should the NORP police have obtained the data on the identity of the subscriber associated with the IP address without such an order .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , reasoning that given the general accessibility of websites and the fact that the NORP police could check the exchanges in the NORP network simply by monitoring the users sharing certain contents , that is without any particular intervention in internet traffic , such communication could not be considered private and thus protected by LAW . Moreover , in ORG view , the NORP police had not acquired traffic data about the applicant \u2019s electronic communication , but only data regarding the user of a particular computer through which the Internet had been accessed .","The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG , reiterating the complaints adduced before the lower courts .","ORG asked the Information Commissioner to express her position on the issue . The Information Commissioner was of the view that the reason for obtaining the identity of an individual user of electronic communication was precisely that he or she communicated by means of more or less publicly accessible websites . In the Information Commissioner \u2019s view , it was impossible to separate traffic data from subscriber data , as traffic data alone did not make any sense if one did not ascertain who the person behind those data was DATE this latter information was thus considered to be an extremely important element of communication privacy . The Information Commissioner also highlighted that the provisions of LAW in force at the material time required a court order regarding all data related to electronic communications , irrespective of whether they related to traffic or identification data . In the Information Commissioner \u2019s view , section CARDINALb ( CARDINAL ) of the CPA , which required only a written request from the police to obtain data on who was communicating , was constitutionally problematic .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint , holding that his constitutional rights had not been violated . ORG decision was adopted by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL . Judge PERSON and Judge PERSON wrote dissenting opinions . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","The Constitutional Court pointed out , at the outset , that in addition to the content of communications , LAW also protected traffic data , that is any data processed for the transmission of communications in an electronic communications network . It considered that IP addresses were included in such traffic data . ORG , however , concluded that the applicant , who had not hidden in any way the IP address through which he had accessed the Internet , had consciously exposed himself to the public and could not legitimately have expected privacy . As a result , the data concerning the identity of the user of the IP address were not protected as communication privacy under LAW , but only as information privacy under LAW , and no court order was required in order to disclose them in the applicant \u2019s case .","The most relevant parts of ORG decision are as follows ( as translated into LANGUAGE on ORG website ) :","\u201c Review of the objections regarding access to the complainant \u2019s IP address by the NORP police","The second paragraph of LAW provides a higher level of protection than LAW ORG as it requires a court order for any interference with the right to communication privacy ... The right to communication privacy determined by the first paragraph of LAW primarily protects the content of the communicated message . ... In addition to the message content , the circumstances and facts related to the communication are also protected . In accordance with this view , in Decision No . Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , dated DATE ( ORG , No . CARDINAL , and QUANTITY , CARDINAL ) ORG extended the protection provided by LAW also to such data regarding telephone calls that by their nature constitute an integral part of communication so that such data can not be obtained without a court order . The mentioned Decision refers otherwise to telephone communication , but the same conclusion can be applied mutatis mutandis to other types of communication at a distance . The crucial constitutional review test for the review of ORG whether a particular communication is protected under LAW is the test of the legitimate expectation of privacy .","Communication via the internet takes place , in principle , in an anonymous form , which is essential for the free development of personality , freedom of speech , and the expression of ideas , and , consequently , for the development of a free and democratic society . The privacy of communication protected by the strict conditions determined by the second paragraph of LAW is therefore a very important human right that is becoming increasingly important due to technological advances and the related growing possibilities of monitoring . It entails ORG legitimate expectation that the state will leave them alone also in their communication through modern communication channels and that they do not necessary have to defend themselves for what they do , say , write or think . If there is a suspicion of a criminal offense the Police must have the ability to identify the individuals who have participated in a certain communication related to an alleged criminal offense , because the perpetrators are harder to trace due to this principle of anonymity on the internet . The conditions under which the Police can carry out investigative actions and whether they need a court order , however , depend on whether such entail an interference with the right to communication privacy .","As was pointed out above , in addition to the content of communications , LAW also protects traffic data . Traffic data signifies any data processed for the transmission of communications in an electronic communications network or for the billing thereof . Such entails that the IP address is a traffic datum . ORG must therefore answer the question whether the complainant legitimately expected privacy regarding this datum .","CARDINAL factors must be weighed in relation to this review : the expectation of privacy regarding the IP address and the legitimacy of this expectation , where the latter must be of such nature that the society is willing to accept it as legitimate . The complainant in the case at issue communicated with other users of the FAC network by using the eMule application to exchange various files , including those that contained child pornography . With regard to the general anonymity of internet users and also the content of the files , ORG has no doubt that the complainant expected that his communications would remain private , and he also certainly expected that his identity would not be disclosed . The question therefore is whether such expectation of privacy was legitimate . The complainant has not established that the IP address through which he accessed the internet was hidden in any way , and thus invisible to other users , or that access to the FAC network ( and thus to the content of the files ) was in any way restricted , for example by passwords or other means . ... In contrast , in the complainant \u2019s case anyone interested in exchanging such data could have accessed the contested files , and the complainant has not demonstrated that his IP address was in any way concealed or inaccessible by other users of this network . This leads to the conclusion that this entailed an open line of communication with a previously undetermined circle of strangers using the internet worldwide who have shown interest in sharing certain files , while at the same time access to the IP addresses of other users was not limited to users of this network . Therefore , in the view of ORG , the complainant \u2019s expectation of privacy was not legitimate ; that which a person knowingly exposes to the public , even if from a home computer and the shelter of his or her own home , can not be a subject of the protection afforded by LAW . In view of the foregoing , the contested standpoint of ORG does not raise concerns regarding constitutional law . Obtaining the data regarding the complainant\u2019","...","Review of the objections regarding access to data on the user of a certain IP address","The complainant also challenges the standpoint of ORG that by its request to the service provider under the third paragraph of Article CARDINAL of the CPA the Police did not acquire traffic data , but only data regarding a particular user of a determined means of communication ...","In the case at issue , on DATE , on the basis of the third paragraph of Article CARDINAL of the CPA , the Police sent a request to the service provider for data regarding the user to whom IP address CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL was assigned on DATE at CARDINAL . In the response , they received data regarding the user \u2019s name , surname , and address , while the time of the communication set to the nearest second was already known . Then on DATE the ORG also obtained an order issued by the investigating judge on the basis of the first paragraph CARDINAL of the CPA and the service provider also provided the traffic data on the basis of this order . The main issue for ORG at this point is therefore whether obtaining the data regarding the identity of the user of a determined IP address falls within the framework of communication privacy .","In accordance with the position of ORG . Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , LAW also protects traffic data , i.e. data regarding , for example , who , when , with whom , and how often someone communicated . The identity of the communicating individual is one of the important aspects of communication privacy , therefore it is necessary to obtain a court order for its disclosure in accordance with the second paragraph of LAW . Despite this standpoint , ORG decided that the complainant \u2019s allegation of a violation of LAW is unfounded in the case at issue . By his conduct , the complainant has himself waived protection of his privacy by publicly revealing both his own IP address as well as the content of his communications , and therefore can no longer rely on it as regards the disclosure of his identity . Since by such he also waived the legitimate expectation of privacy , the data regarding the identity of the IP address user no longer enjoyed protection in terms of communication privacy , but only in terms of information privacy determined by LAW . Therefore , by obtaining the data on the name , surname , and address of the user of the dynamic IP address through which the complainant communicated the Police did not interfere with his communication privacy and therefore did not require a court order to disclose his identity . In view of the foregoing , the contested position of ORG is not inconsistent with LAW , and the complainant \u2019s complaints in this part are unfounded . \u201d","Judge PERSON welcomed ORG departure from ORG view that the information concerned had not amounted to traffic data . However , in her view , the police wishing to obtain identification of the subscriber should have requested a court order . She pointed out that ORG conclusion implied that the protection of privacy of traffic data was always dependent on the protection of the content of communication . Accordingly , traffic data concerning certain communication were protected as long as the content of that communication was protected . Consequently , an individual could not enjoy separate and independent protection of traffic data . Judge PERSON disagreed with this view , pointing out that the applicant had not appeared in public under his own name , but only through the digits of his dynamic IP address .","Judge PERSON agreed with the Information Commissioner that the police had been interested not in the ownership of the device but in \u201c the identity of the person communicating and precisely because he had been communicating \u201d . She endorsed the Commissioner \u2019s view that \u201c the content of communication alone did not have any particular weight in the absence of identification of those communicating \u201d . She also pointed out that under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the new LAW ( \u201c ECA-CARDINAL \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the Internet provider was not allowed to transfer the stored information without a court order . Compared with section CARDINALb(CARDINAL ) of the CPA , the ECA was definitely more recent and therefore the decision of the majority ran contrary to the level of rights protection already achieved .","Judge PERSON argued that the constitutional guarantees set out in LAW were aimed at strengthening the expectation of privacy in this area of life and preventing disproportionate interferences and an abuse of power by the executive .","As regards the applicant \u2019s expectation of online anonymity , Judge PERSON argued that none of the data publicly disclosed by the complainant revealed his identity . In her view , anonymity was what prevented the police from linking a particular communication with a particular person \u2013 that is , linking a dynamic IP address and an individual with his or her name and address . She further argued that the question whether the applicant \u2019s manner of communication could lead to the conclusion that his expectation of privacy had not been objectively justified had to be approached by taking all the circumstances into account , including the law that had been in force at the relevant time . She explained that the LAW ( sections CARDINAL ) ) , CARDINAL ) and DATE see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) required Internet providers to delete traffic data as soon as they were no longer needed for the transfer of messages . Moreover , section CARDINAL of the ORG provided that the secrecy of communication could be interfered with only on the basis of a decision by a competent authority . A letter from the police to an Internet provider could not be considered to amount to such a decision . Thus , even if section CARDINALb(CARDINAL ) of the CPA could be interpreted as allowing the police to ask for information on an Internet subscriber , it should not apply in the situations covered by the LAW , which explicitly concerned the \u201c protection of secrecy and confidentiality of electronic communications \u201d . Otherwise , the legislation would be contradictory . The judge concluded that the applicable legal framework could not therefore have led to the conclusion that the applicant , as a reasonably and sufficiently informed individual , could not have expected privacy ; that is , he could not have expected that his anonymity would be protected .","Judge PERSON went on to elaborate on the neutrality of traffic data , such as data on the user of a certain dynamic IP address :","\u201c CARDINAL . The traffic datum \u2013 the dynamic IP address that was assigned randomly at a given moment \u2013 as I understand it , reveals how the internet was used on some computer , because it is inextricably attached to a specific connection . ... This is because only the CARDINAL data jointly communicate how the internet was used in a non - anonymised way , i.e. regarding internet use in connection with an identified person . This essential circumstance in my opinion negates the notion of the neutrality of the datum regarding a specific user of services for a certain ( known ) dynamic IP address that the police sought through the service provider - namely , the neutrality of the datum in terms of denying its ability to communicate anything more than the name and address of a certain person ( who has a subscription contract with the service provider ) . Precisely because this datum is inseparably linked to a specific communication , the traffic datum falls within the scope of protected communication privacy .","Even if the service provider communicated to the police \u2018 only\u2019 the data identifying a person who had a subscription contract with it , by doing so , as I understand it , the service provider in fact communicated ( to put it simply ) traffic data in an electronic communications network regarding this person . The police also , as I have already explained , wanted to determine more than just the name and surname of a certain person who had concluded a contract . Since , as I understand it , they asked for traffic data associated with a particular person they would have to proceed according to the first paragraph of Article CARDINAL of the CPA and obtain an order from the investigating judge . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163799","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TCHANKOTADZE v. GEORGIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Six month period;Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was chairperson of ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) DATE and DATE , when he resigned . The ORG has legal personality under public law .","By a judgment dated DATE , delivered in the case of ORG v. ORG and ORG , ORG declared that it was unconstitutional to use the legal term \u201c DATE regulation fee for transport activities \u201d ( \u10e0\u10d4\u10d2\u10e3\u10da\u10d8\u10e0\u10d4\u10d1\u10d8\u10e1 \u10e1\u10d0\u10e4\u10d0\u10e1\u10e3\u10e0\u10d8 ) , which appeared in various relevant legal acts LAW of DATE on the Rules of ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , and the Orders of DATE , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of the Minister for ORG ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .","The Constitutional Court considered that the aforementioned \u201c DATE regulation fee for transport activities \u201d , which was a compulsory payment provided for in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , was strictly speaking neither a tax nor a levy . However , LAW only recognised the latter CARDINAL kinds of compulsory payment to the ORG . Furthermore , unlike taxes and levies , the regulation fee was not paid into the ORG \u2019s coffers or to a local authority , but directly to the ORG . ORG considered that in those circumstances the fee amounted to a special form of tax , which was a compulsory payment and which had the features of both a traditional levy ( payable in exchange for a service or the granting of a right ) and of a tax ( payable on the DATE income of the body concerned ) .","The defendant authorities \u2013 ORG and ORG argued before ORG that there was a need for some kind of compulsory regulation fee for transport activities because it was not possible for the ORG to sign contracts with civil aviation companies . ORG dismissed that argument , pointing out that the regulation of transport activities meant the provision of a service by a public authority in exchange for the payment of a fee for that service . Such relationships could only arise within the framework of a mutual contract , freely entered into by the parties concerned . A fee received by a public authority for a service should therefore take the form of income received for work carried out on a contractual basis , in accordance with section CARDINAL(d ) of LAW .","The Constitutional Court further observed that the claimant , a private airline , would obviously never be able to carry out its business without the transport service provided by the ORG . However , regard being had to the principle of the freedom to choose services , even an undeniably necessary service should be the subject of a free agreement between the parties . ORG thus concluded that if the matter at issue were settled in that way , then future situations in which the payment of considerable amounts imposed unilaterally by a public authority , in total disregard of the opinions of the companies concerned , would be avoided . ORG emphasised that not even constitutional provisions could prevent a public authority in charge of the regulation of civil aviation from signing a contract with a private entity which included conditions and rules for services to be provided under that contract .","The Constitutional Court ruled that its judgment of DATE would become effective on DATE .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted for abuse of power against unnamed officers of ORG , the ORG and CARDINAL ORG - owned civil aviation companies . That decision was taken on the basis of information provided by \u201c an investigative journalism organisation carrying out research into corruption \u201d .","On DATE a charge of repeated abuse of power was brought against the applicant himself , under LAW and CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW , by ORG ( \u201c the PERSON \u201d ) . He was accused in particular of having entered into civil contracts in his capacity as chairperson of the ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE with CARDINAL civil aviation companies \u2013 GPE , FAC and ORG - GPE DATE which undertook to pay the ORG on a DATE basis a \u201c fee for services rendered in relation to the regulation of activities \u201d ( \u10db\u10dd\u10db\u10e1\u10d0\u10ee\u10e3\u10e0\u10d4\u10d1\u10d8\u10e1 \u10e1\u10d0\u10e4\u10d0\u10e1\u10e3\u10e0\u10d8 ) . Accordingly , DATE the ORG received CARDINAL NORP laris ( GEL ) ( CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) . According to the investigator , the applicant \u2019s actions in using the words \u201c fee for services rendered in relation to the regulation of activities \u201d ( hereinafter \u201c fee for services \u201d ) had concealed what had actually in fact amounted to the old \u201c DATE regulation fee for transport activities \u201d , a legal term and obligation which had become unconstitutional after DATE , when the ORG judgment of DATE had entered into force ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant was further accused of having issued Order no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , and of applying it retroactively , again in breach of ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The order had allowed the ORG to charge GPE and FAC the sum of GEL CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) DATE and DATE in respect of the regulation fee .","Thus , by having wilfully circumvented the legal effects of ORG judgment of DATE , the applicant \u201c had acted unlawfully and had therefore committed an abuse of power \u201d .","The applicant was arrested on DATE . He was charged on DATE but pleaded not guilty .","On DATE the Krtsanisi - Mtatsminda District Court of First Instance in GPE ( \u201c LOC \u201d ) , allowing an application by the PERSON , ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE , pending investigation and trial .","By a final decision of DATE , ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant as inadmissible and upheld the detention order of DATE .","On DATE the NORP ORG , after hearing both parties\u2019 arguments , allowed an application by the PERSON to extend the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE . No appeal lay against that decision , and it was therefore final .","On DATE an accountancy expert from the crime detection department of ORG , whose services had been solicited by the PERSON as part of the investigation of the applicant \u2019s case , drew up an audit of the ORG \u2019s regulatory activities ( \u201c the audit report of DATE \u201d ) . Firstly , the expert listed the acts which constituted the legal basis for the activities of the ORG and which were in force before and after DATE , when ORG judgment of DATE had entered into force . He then distinguished CARDINAL periods of activity : ( i ) the period DATE and DATE , corresponding to the imposition of \u201c the DATE regulation fee for transport activities \u201d by the ORG on the civil aviation companies concerned ; ( ii ) the period DATE and DATE , corresponding to the regulation by the ORG of the activities of the companies in question in accordance with conditions negotiated as part of the contracts it entered into ; and ( iii ) the period DATE and DATE , when the ORG had collected regulation fees on the basis of Order no . CARDINAL , which had been issued by its chairperson , the applicant , on DATE .","The expert noted that the adoption of ORG judgment of DATE had led to \u201c the suppression of the imposition by the ORG , in the form of an order , of the \u2018 DATE regulation fee for transport GPE on companies operating within civil aviation and the removal of the compulsory nature of the payment of that fee \u201d . However , \u201c the judgment in question had not declared that it was unlawful for the ORG to provide its services to the companies concerned on the basis of negotiated contracts \u201d . According to the expert , the judgment indicated , on the contrary , that there was a \u201c need for such contracts and a legal settlement of the issue in this way \u201d . The expert assumed that the applicant had taken the latter route , \u201c which had been suggested to him by the LAW \u201d . That had brought him to sign the impugned contracts with GPE and FAC on DATE , that is to say , DATE before the entry into force of the judgment in question . On DATE the applicant had signed the same kind of contract with ORG - GPE . In each case , the ORG \u2019s remuneration had been calculated on a DATE basis and was referred to as a fee for services provided in the field of regulation . The CARDINAL contracts had been terminated on DATE .","As regarded Order no . CARDINAL , which had been issued by the applicant on DATE , the expert noted that the order , approved for entry into force by ORG on DATE , had been able to be applied retrospectively , that is as of DATE , which was the date of the termination of the CARDINAL above - mentioned contracts . He said the order showed good conduct in the financial activities relating to the functioning of civil aviation in the country which , by its very nature , had to be a continuous process .","After examining the available evidence , the expert concluded that the ORG \u2019s charging of the fees for the CARDINAL above - mentioned periods of activity \u201c was based on the relevant laws and regulatory acts \u201d . He established , moreover , that the regulation fee at that time constituted the sole source of revenue for the ORG , a public - law entity not financed by the ORG . Had it not charged those amounts , the ORG would have been obliged to continue functioning without , though , paying its employees\u2019 salaries . The expert reiterated that the regulation fee paid to the ORG by the companies concerned was included in the price for the service that those companies offered to individuals ( air travel tickets ) or other companies ( carriage of goods ) . Payment of the fee to the ORG did not therefore cause them any financial damage and , even if there had nevertheless been a loss , it would in the end have been passed on to the consumer .","Generally , the expert established that the ORG had received , DATE and DATE , GEL CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in fees for the regulatory services provided under the CARDINAL impugned contracts with FAC , Air - BP - Georgia and GPE , and GEL CARDINAL ( some EUR CARDINAL ) by way of the fee collected on the basis of Order no . CARDINAL . In any event , the expert emphasised that the charging of those sums by the ORG to the various private companies had been continuous in time and had been based on valid legal acts ( either statutes or other legal instruments ) . Out of all the abovementioned amounts received by the ORG DATE and DATE , the applicant had made a personal profit of GEL CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( some ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) by way of , respectively , the salary and business trips allowances he had received over the same period of time . A further GEL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( some EUR CARDINAL ) had been paid to ORG in income tax and social security charges , while the remaining funds had been spent on the salaries of other ORG employees and various business trips and management expenses .","On DATE the preliminary investigation was terminated and a bill of indictment was served on the applicant . According to the bill , DATE and DATE the ORG had carried out CARDINAL unlawful activities : ( i ) firstly , it had received , in breach of the judgment of ORG of DATE , a regulation fee from CARDINAL civil aviation companies ; ( ii ) secondly , CARDINAL companies had paid the ORG the same regulation fee on the basis of Order no . CARDINAL , issued by the applicant ; ( iii ) and , thirdly , the CARDINAL companies \u2013 GPE ( a government - owned undertaking ) , FAC and AirBPGeorgia DATE had paid the fee for services to the ORG on the basis of contracts concluded by the applicant . The pecuniary damage thus incurred by the companies concerned amounted to GEL CARDINAL , of which GEL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( some EUR CARDINAL ) was caused to GPE . The applicant had used the amounts received to pay salaries and expenses for the management and business trips .","On DATE the applicant challenged the indictment before the investigator of ORG handling the case , arguing that the evidence that had been gathered did not support the charges . In particular , the investigation authorities had not explained how , within the meaning of LAW , the acts committed had damaged the \u201c interests of the civil service \u201d ; what unlawful \u201c personal profit \u201d he had derived ; what unlawful personal profit had been derived by third parties and who those people actually were ; which of the rights of the companies concerned had been breached by his action ; what legal interests of the ORG had been disregarded ; and in what way that \u201c disregard \u201d had been \u201c substantial \u201d ( see LAW , at paragraph MONEY below ) . He again pointed out that the judgment of ORG at issue authorised the ORG to continue to charge the fee for services , provided that the payment was based on negotiated contracts and not imposed , as hitherto . Contrary to the argument put forward by the investigator , the companies concerned could not be deemed to have incurred any substantial losses simply by having fulfilled contractual obligations which had been freely negotiated with the ORG . Moreover , those companies had never complained of the unlawfulness of the contracts in question . Lastly , the applicant argued that \u201c none of the ORG \u2019s legal interests \u201d had been disregarded , given that the ORG could not claim to be a victim of contractual relationships CARDINAL entities which were independent of it .","On DATE the investigator rejected that complaint as illfounded . He pointed out that the indictment of CARDINAL DATE had been based on evidence gathered during the investigation , and that such evidence was sufficient to dispel any doubts that the applicant had committed the offence provided for in LAW ( a ) of LAW . In particular , the investigator pointed out that everyone had to comply with the judgment of ORG DATE , which had the force of law , but which the applicant had failed to do . After DATE , the date of entry into force of that judgment , the applicant had continued to charge the regulation fee , referring to it as a \u201c fee for services provided in the field of the regulation of activities \u201d in order to conceal the nature of the activity . ORG had considered , however , that revenues gained by the ORG in the form of a regulation fee were unconstitutional . The applicant and his employees had derived a personal profit from the amounts at issue in the form of salaries , and management and business trip fees . For example , the applicant had received total salary of GEL CARDINAL ( some EUR CARDINAL ) . According to the investigator , even if most of the companies concerned had declared that they had not incurred any loss from the applicant \u2019s activities , the charging by the ORG of the disguised regulation fee in breach of the judgment of ORG had damaged the legal interests of the ORG . Furthermore , by giving retrospective effect to Order no . CARDINAL , registered by ORG on DATE , the applicant had jeopardised the well - being of the companies concerned .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with ORG . He stated that the investigator had failed properly to the arguments made in his complaint of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE a prosecutor from ORG replied to the applicant , stating that his appeal had been rejected because the decision of DATE had properly and exhaustively addressed all his claims .","On DATE the indictment was approved by a deputy chief prosecutor and the case sent for trial before the NORP - Saburtalo ORG of First Instance in GPE ( \u201c the NORP - Saburtalo Court \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant applied to the Vake - Saburtalo Court , claiming that he had been unlawfully detained since DATE . In particular , the period of his pre - trial detention had expired on that date and had not been extended . He asked that he be released immediately .","On DATE the ORG held a pre - trial conference hearing in the case , ruling to commit the applicant for trial as a defendant ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG ) . Without replying to the applicant \u2019s complaint of DATE of the unlawfulness of his pre - trial detention , the court upheld the restraint measure on the basis of the \u201c nature of the charges \u201d and the inability to conduct a comprehensive judicial assessment of his arguments for release at the admissibility stage .","On an unspecified date , subsequent to a reform of the judicial system and the associated liquidation of the Vake - Saburtalo ORG , the applicant \u2019s case was assigned for trial to the newly created ORG .","When questioned by ORG during the trial , the acting director and the chief accountant of GPE confirmed that their company had paid the relevant fee to the ORG even after ORG judgment of DATE , either on the basis of a contract or on the basis of Order no . CARDINAL . They did not know at the time that they were exempted from paying the fee by ORG ruling .","The managers of FAC and Air - BP - Georgia , which specialised in fuel distribution , confirmed to the trial court that their companies had paid the amounts at issue pursuant to contracts that they had freely entered into with the ORG . They specified that in exchange for the fee the ORG licensed their ORG activities , and that without such certification it would have been impossible for FAC to host international flights .","When questioned by the trial court , PERSON . PERSON , the first deputy chairperson of the ORG , explained that at the material time , a new law , which should have been passed following the judgment of ORG of DATE , had been delayed and that , if the applicant had not decided to enter into contracts with companies whose activities were subject to regulation , the ORG , which received no funding from the ORG , would have had to cease operations . That would have meant that employees of NORP airports would no longer have been certified , that no aircraft would have been able to land at those airports and that no country would have allowed aircraft that had taken off from those airports onto its territory . By way of an example , PERSON , the airline behind the request which had resulted in the judgment of ORG DATE , leased its aircraft in GPE on the condition that the ORG , under an agreement entered into with the NORP civil aviation authority , assumed responsibility for supervising those aircraft and regulating the corresponding activities . If the ORG were to cease operations , GPE would no longer lease its aircraft to PERSON . It was to prevent any such blockages in the field of civil aviation in GPE that the applicant had entered into the contracts , in accordance with LAW and the judgment of ORG at issue .","The second deputy chairperson of the ORG told the court that he had personally worked on drafting contracts which were subsequently entered into with the CARDINAL civil aviation companies . He maintained that those contracts , which had become the only source of funding for the ORG , had become necessary after ORG had invalidated the relevant legal provisions by declaring them unconstitutional .","The ORG \u2019s accountant explained before the trial court that on DATE the ORG had been split from ORG , on the recommendation of ORG , and that it had become legally fully independent . The exercise of public duties had been delegated to it , including the supervision of flight safety . Since DATE , the ORG had not been funded from the ORG budget , and had therefore been obliged to collect duties from the various private companies working in civil aviation . However , since the relevant legal provisions regulating the collection of \u201c the DATE collection fee for transport activities \u201d had been declared invalid by ORG , the ORG , pending the passing by ORG of new legislation on the matter , had been forced to make contracts with civil aviation companies . Subsequently , after the amendment of LAW on DATE ( see paragraphs DATE below ) , the chairperson of the ORG , the applicant , had become entitled to issue orders setting the amount of fees payable by the companies .","When questioned by the trial court , the representatives of various other private companies working in civil aviation , who were contractors of the ORG , stated that prior to DATE , they had paid the regulation fee in accordance with the law . Following the judgment of ORG of DATE , they had stopped doing so and had only resumed payments on DATE , as a result of Order no . CARDINAL , issued by the applicant .","When questioned by the trial court , the accountancy expert from ORG who had authored the audit report on the ORG \u2019s activities confirmed the conclusions in the report relating to the legality of the ORG \u2019s transactions DATE and DATE .","In his submissions before the court , the applicant first reiterated the arguments he had made during the investigation , notably in his complaint of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant then argued that of the amounts which he had been unjustifiably accused of charging unlawfully , he had paid GEL CARDINAL ( some EUR CARDINAL ) to the ORG , while the remainder had been used to fund the ORG \u2019s operations ( see the aforementioned expert report cited at paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Consequently , neither he nor anyone else had derived any personal profit from the amounts in question . The applicant argued that the accountancy expert \u2019s report confirmed the legality of his actions . He explained that the reason ORG had delayed the entry into force of its judgment of DATE had been to grant ORG sufficient time to legislate and fill the gap arising from its judgment . In order not to leave the ORG without funds , which would have meant flight safety might have been compromised , ORG had clearly indicated in its judgment that the ORG could enter into contractual relationships with the aviation companies concerned , which would thus be able to negotiate conditions freely .","It was for the very same reasons as those espoused by ORG in its judgment that the NORP President had issued Decree no . CARDINAL on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . That decree , as well as section CARDINAL(d ) of LAW , gave a direct right to the applicant , as chairperson of the ORG , to collect duties by entering into contractual relations with companies working in civil aviation . Furthermore , the new law , required as a result of the judgment of ORG of DATE , had been passed on DATE and had entered into force on DATE . The applicant had issued Order no . CARDINAL in compliance with that law and had subsequently submitted it to ORG for registration . ORG had registered it on DATE , approving its retrospective application as of CARDINAL DATE under sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and DATE of ORG , on the grounds that all the companies covered by the Order had the necessary legal identification numbers and codes . The applicant pointed out that if it had been unlawful to apply the order at issue retrospectively , ORG would have informed the ORG and instructed it to make the necessary amendments , in accordance with the law . The applicant concluded that the actions he had taken in the exercise of his official duties had not been contrary to the judgment of ORG in question , or to any other legal provisions applicable at the material time , and thus could not qualify as abuse of power .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL episodes of abuse of power which the ORG had accused him of ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but acquitted him of CARDINAL . The CARDINAL he was acquitted of was with respect to the ORG collecting \u201c an DATE registration fee for transport activities \u201d from CARDINAL private companies working in civil aviation , including GPE and FAC , DATE and DATE . The court established that the relevant amounts corresponded to debts owed to the ORG by those companies for the period prior to DATE .","As for the other CARDINAL episodes , ORG considered that the applicant had unlawfully entered into the contracts of CARDINAL March and CARDINAL DATE with GPE , FAC and AirBPGeorgia , in breach of ORG judgment of DATE . Thus , DATE and DATE , the ORG had unlawfully received the sums of GEL CARDINAL ( some ORG CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ( around EUR CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( some EUR CARDINAL ) respectively , from which the applicant had unlawfully paid his own salary and the salaries of his employees , and had financed the ORG \u2019s business trip and management expenses . Furthermore , the applicant was found guilty of unlawfully issuing Order no . CARDINAL , to which the applicant had moreover given retrospective effect , which served as the basis for collecting levies DATE and DATE from CARDINAL companies , amounting to GEL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( some EUR CARDINAL ) which had been spent in the same , unlawful way .","The Tbilisi City Court stated that it disagreed with the applicant \u2019s argument that the Constitutional Court judgment of DATE had given him the right to enter into contracts with the companies concerned and that the ORG would have been unable to continue to operate if those contracts not been entered into . However , the court did not give any reasons to explain its position .","As to the audit report prepared by the accountancy expert on the ORG \u2019s activities , the ORG restricted itself to noting that the expert in question was from ORG and that he had confirmed his conclusions when he had been questioned during the trial . The court gave no explanation for why it did not take the expert \u2019s statements into consideration .","The judgment of CARDINAL DATE found the applicant guilty of the crime provided for in LAW ( a ) of LAW and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . He was also banned from holding public office for DATE .","The applicant appealed , stating that ORG had not established which of the impugned actions had breached the notion of public service requirements , within the meaning of LAW , what exactly the criminal offence had consisted of , what had been the reasons for it , and what its objectives and consequences had been . Furthermore , ORG had not explained how his actions had damaged the interests of CARDINAL companies , when none of those companies had expressed any interest in joining the criminal proceedings as civil parties or had ever initiated any separate civil proceedings against the ORG .","When questioned by ORG , representatives of CARDINAL of the companies concerned stated that they had incurred no financial damage as a result of having paid the fees for the services provided by the ORG , either on the basis of the relevant contracts or Order no . CARDINAL . Moreover , the cost of the amounts paid had not been borne by the companies , since it had been included in the price of airplane tickets sold to the end consumer , who was airline passengers ( see also the accountancy expert \u2019s report cited at paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . By a judgment of DATE ORG acquitted the applicant in respect of the charge relating to the aforementioned CARDINAL companies . It upheld the judgment of the lower court as to the remaining charges , notably the collection by the ORG of fees for services from the remaining CARDINAL companies on the basis of either contracts or Order no . CARDINAL . The applicant \u2019s prison sentence was amended and set at DATE .","The applicant appealed on points of law , arguing that his case had been examined superficially and that , amongst other things , the accountancy expert \u2019s report of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) had not been taken into consideration . The applicant complained that in examining the question of the existence of a loss to the aforementioned CARDINAL companies , ORG had failed to consider the case from the same point of view concerning the other companies , especially GPE , which had allegedly incurred the biggest loss . In fact , according to the applicant , ORG had completely failed to consider that part of the case or the accountancy expert \u2019s view that GPE could not have incurred a loss . The applicant concluded that the reasoning given by the lower court to prove his guilt had been manifestly insufficient and arbitrary .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the appeal on points of law by the applicant , stating that by continuing to charge the fees to the various private companies after DATE the applicant had misapplied the judgment of ORG of DATE and had thus committed an abuse of power , infringing the rights of various legal entities and the general legal interests of the ORG .","After serving his sentence in full , the applicant was released on DATE .","NORP In DATE , well before the applicant had been placed under investigation and arrested , and shortly after the Rose Revolution that led to the resignation of President PERSON ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ) , Mr PERSON , who did not hold any State office at the time but was campaigning as a candidate to be elected president , addressed representatives of NORP companies in GPE \u2019s sports stadium . He stated that the objectives of the abolition of the old , corrupt and unfair regime had not involved simply replacing CARDINAL political clan with another . In particular , he promised that nepotism , irrespective of where it came from , whether from representatives of the old or the new regime , would no longer be the rule . Amongst other things , he stated in that regard :","\u201c I heard more news on the television DATE : it would appear that NORP Ts ... , the chairman of a committee of the former parliament , took his son and had him appointed deputy chairman of ORG ! It is now CARDINAL . I will give [ the applicant ] : either he gets rid of Ts ... , or [ the applicant ] himself goes to jail ! ... It is said that we are instructing the prosecution authorities to arrest officials of the old regime but that this seems like a breach of their human rights ! Yes , I confirm , all those who should be arrested will be jailed . They only began to remember human rights when their own interests were threatened ... Where does the money come from [ for a former governor ] to hire lawyers to defend himself and ... live in a fivestar hotel in GPE , when TIME there costs the same as your pensions several times over ... ? Is not your money , GPE \u2019s money , being taken from your pockets ? ... \u201c","According to the applicant , the events which came after the speech of Mr PERSON , who was elected President of GPE in DATE , were as follows : the son of PERSON . immediately resigned as deputy chairman of the ORG , the applicant was placed under investigation in DATE on the aforementioned charges and the same PERSON . was reelected to parliament from Mr PERSON \u2019s presidential party list during the parliamentary elections of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173256","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VASILICIUC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","Because of the difficult economic situation in GPE , in DATE the applicant left that ORG for GPE where she found employment ; she was engaged by a family to take care of a disabled child . She used to visit GPE on holiday DATE and she kept an apartment in GPE .","On DATE , after a visit to GPE , the applicant was returning to GPE from FAC when she was stopped by customs officers because she had on her QUANTITY pieces of non - identical jewellery such as rings , bracelets , necklaces and pendants . The applicant was wearing CARDINAL pieces of the jewellery and the rest were in a jewellery box in her handbag . Since the applicant had failed to declare the jewellery , she was taken to the airport police station . There she stated that she had not been attempting to smuggle the jewellery through customs and that she had honestly believed that no declaration was necessary for goods whose value was MONEY ( ORG ) . She also submitted that the jewellery in question had been brought to GPE from GPE . She was informed that she only had the right to take CARDINAL pieces of non - identical jewellery out of country , no matter their value . She also submitted that she had not been asked to declare anything by the customs officers . The police drew up a report according to which the applicant had in her possession CARDINAL pieces of jewellery made of precious metals and stones with a total value of CARDINAL Moldovan lei ( MDL \u2013 approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . All the jewellery , including the pieces allowed by law to be transported over the border , was seized by the police .","The applicant missed her flight and spent DATE in GPE during which time she went to the police station on several occasions . There she made an official declaration and signed a formal undertaking to appear before the prosecuting authorities and courts when necessary . She informed the authorities about her intention to leave the country and obtained their permission . She also gave her NORP address and telephone number .","On DATE the applicant returned to GPE because she could no longer be absent from work . She had no difficulties in leaving the country through the same airport .","On DATE the PERSON airport police formally initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant for attempted smuggling of jewellery . The offence was considered to be a minor one ( infrac\u021biune u\u0219oar\u0103 ) with a maximum penalty of CARDINAL NORP lei ( approximately LAW ) or TIME community service or imprisonment of DATE . The applicant was not aware of the initiation of the criminal proceedings against her .","Subsequently , the applicant was summoned to appear before the investigating authorities via her NORP address . Since she did not appear , the prosecutors contacted her adult son and a relative of hers and asked them about the applicant \u2019s whereabouts . Both of them stated that the applicant was in GPE and that they did not know when she intended to return to GPE . It does not appear from the material in the case - file that the prosecutors asked the applicant \u2019s relatives for her contact information in GPE or to inform her that she had to appear before them .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office applied to ORG for a detention order in respect of the applicant . The reason relied upon by the prosecutors was that the applicant had absconded from prosecution when she left the country on DATE , in spite of her having given a written undertaking to appear when summoned . A public defender was appointed to represent the applicant . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE . The reason relied upon by the court was that the applicant had failed to appear before the investigating authorities when summoned . The publicly appointed lawyer did not challenge that decision .","The applicant learned of the detention order against her in DATE and employed a NORP lawyer to challenge it . On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s representative lodged a habeas corpus application with ORG in which it was argued , inter alia , that the applicant had not been aware of the criminal proceedings against her , that she had never been summoned to appear before the prosecutor \u2019s office and that she had not been informed that she could not leave the country . She asked the court to revoke the detention order and , in exchange , promised to appear before the court when necessary and to surrender her passport .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s habeas corpus application relying , inter alia , on the fact that the applicant had formally undertaken to appear before the prosecuting authorities and courts and later failed to abide by the undertaking . The applicant \u2019s representative appealed , arguing , inter alia , that according to the law the undertaking had not been valid because no criminal proceedings had been formally instituted at that time . The appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","NORP In DATE , after the communication of the present case to the Government , the NORP authorities applied to ORG for an international arrest warrant for the applicant . As a result , the applicant was arrested in GPE and held in detention pending extradition proceedings for a period of DATE . In the documents ordering the applicant \u2019s arrest and detention , the NORP authorities made specific reference to the detention order issued by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The extradition proceedings ended on DATE when ORG rejected the GPE extradition request and ordered the applicant \u2019s release from detention . ORG found that according to LAW , persons suspected of offences in connection with taxes , duties and customs could be extradited only if the Contracting Parties have so decided in respect of any such offence or category of offences . In the absence of any such agreement between GPE and GPE , the extradition request could not be upheld . It appears that the applicant has not returned to GPE ever since ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164659","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SIA AKKA\/LAA v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant organisation , SIA AKKA \/ LAA ( ORG Autorties\u012bbu un komunic\u0113\u0161an\u0101s konsult\u0101ciju a\u0123ent\u016bra \/ Latvijas NORP apvien\u012bba \u201d \u2013Copyright and ORG ) is a non - profit organisation founded in GPE by a separate nonprofit organisation , ORG , whose members are various NORP artists .","At DATE the applicant organisation , acting as a representative of CARDINAL domestic and CARDINAL international authors who had entrusted the applicant organisation to manage the copyright of their musical works , was concluding licence agreements with several broadcasters in GPE . DATE , after the expiry of the previous licence agreements , the applicant organisation and certain broadcasting organisations in GPE could not reach an agreement on the terms of the future licence agreements , especially with regard to the remuneration to be paid for the broadcasting of music . As a result some broadcasting organisations continued to use the protected musical works without a written agreement , either without paying any remuneration or paying the amount the broadcasting organisations unilaterally considered equitable . In DATE the applicant organisation instituted civil proceedings against several broadcasters operating in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant organisation lodged a claim against a private radio station , ORG , and requested that ORG , acting as a first - instance court , recognise that by broadcasting protected musical works without a valid licence agreement DATE and DATE , the defendant had violated economic interests of the authors represented by the applicant organisation . The applicant organisation further asked that the court award compensation for unauthorised use of musical works . By relying on the ORG exclusive rights to control the use of their musical works , the applicant organisation asked the court to apply an injunction precluding the defendant from using the ORG works before a valid licence agreement between the parties had come into effect .","The defendant lodged a counterclaim arguing that the applicant organisation had abused its dominant position and had fixed an unreasonably high royalty rate , which was CARDINAL times the rate which had been applicable for DATE . They asked the court to order the applicant organisation to conclude a licence agreement with the defendant organisation and to lay down an equitable royalty rate .","During the first - instance court \u2019s hearing , the applicant organisation admitted that the parties had a dispute over the royalty rate in the draft licence agreement negotiated by the parties , but that the court was precluded under section CARDINAL of LAW from setting the rate as long as there was no licence agreement concluded between the parties ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the first - instance court partly upheld the claim and fully upheld the counterclaim . It established that DATE and DATE the defendant had infringed the ORG rights by broadcasting the protected works without authorisation , contrary to the provisions of LAW . The first - instance court ordered the defendant to pay to the applicant organisation compensation for the above period in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lats ( ORG , equivalent to CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) , which was PERCENT of the defendant \u2019s net turnover over this period .","Furthermore , the first - instance court ordered the applicant organisation to conclude a licence agreement with the defendant for DATE period with a royalty rate set at PERCENT of the defendant \u2019s DATE net turnover ( ikm\u0113ne\u0161a neto apgroz\u012bjums ) .","Lastly , by relying on the preamble of the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Articles DATE of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the first - instance court dismissed the applicant organisation \u2019s application to have an injunction granted to prohibit the defendant from broadcasting works of the rightsholders represented by the applicant organisation . By referring to the testimonies of CARDINAL authors represented by the applicant organisation , the first - instance court concluded that the authors themselves were interested in their musical works being publicly broadcasted . An interdiction on broadcasting of the musical works would infringe the ORG exclusive rights to have their work reproduced , as well as it would negatively affect the interests of the society to listen to music .","On DATE ORG of ORG , acting as an appellate court , upheld the part of the first - instance judgment concerning the compensation for copyright infringement and the injunction .","On the issue of ordering the conclusion of a licence agreement , the appellate court observed that both parties had expressed their intention to enter into a such an agreement , as attested by a draft licence agreement of CARDINAL DATE in which the parties had agreed on certain terms and conditions such as the duration of the licence and the income from which royalties should be calculated . The appellate court noted that it was partly due to the applicant organisation \u2019s inconsistent negotiating that a licence agreement could not be concluded . The appellate court accordingly recognised that the licence agreement was to be considered concluded in the wording as agreed by the parties on DATE . On the question of remuneration , the appellate court established that in the negotiation process the applicant organisation had changed the royalty rate from PERCENT and then to PERCENT , whereas the defendant had insisted on PERCENT of the income from which royalties should be calculated . The appellate court took note of the characteristics of the defendant \u2019s activities and concluded that an equitable remuneration would be PERCENT of the income from which , as agreed by the parties , the royalties should be calculated .","On DATE , following an appeal on points of law , the ORG of ORG upheld the appellate court \u2019s findings that after the expiry of the earlier licence agreement on DATE the de facto contractual relationship between the parties had continued mainly owing to the fact that the applicant organisation had failed to reach an agreement with the defendant on the terms of the licence agreement . The ORG of ORG further observed that the parties did not contest that the authors had a right to receive equitable remuneration , but that to that day the parties had not reached an agreement on the rate of the royalty payments . Given that there was no other authority responsible to decide on this matter , the ORG of ORG concluded that pursuant to LAW and section CARDINAL of LAW , it was within the court \u2019s competence to set the royalty rate . The ORG of ORG also dismissed the allegations that the appellate court \u2019s judgment had infringed the intellectual property rights protected under LAW .","In their claim against ORG , a state - owned limited liability company , the applicant organisation asked ORG , acting as a first - instance court , to find that by broadcasting the rightsholders\u2019 musical works without a valid licence agreement DATE and DATE , the defendant had violated economic interests of the authors represented by the applicant organisation . The applicant organisation further asked that the court award compensation for unauthorised use of musical works . By relying on the ORG exclusive rights to control the use of their musical works , the applicant organisation asked the court to apply an injunction precluding the defendant from using the ORG works before a valid licence agreement between the parties had come into effect .","By lodging a counterclaim the defendant in essence asked the court to recognise that in the disputed period the parties had a de facto contractual relationship .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant organisation \u2019s claim and upheld the counterclaim . The court established that even though the licence agreement concluded between the parties with the royalty rate set at PERCENT of the defendant \u2019s DATE income had expired in DATE , the applicant organisation had continued receiving royalty payments from the defendant , which continued to pay at a lower rate . Given that the applicant organisation had not referred to objections to the broadcasting of the musical works , the existence of a de facto contractual relationship between the parties had been proven . Relying on section CARDINAL of the Copyright Law the court set the royalty rate from DATE at PERCENT of the defendant \u2019s DATE income .","On DATE ORG of ORG , acting as an appellate court , diverted from the first - instance court \u2019s findings and recognised that the defendant had infringed copyright by broadcasting the musical works over a prolonged period of time without a valid written licence agreement . It awarded the applicant organisation compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) , which exceeded the amount the defendant had paid under the expired licence agreement . It considered that it would be fruitless to issue an injunction prohibiting the defendant from broadcasting the works . The appellate court observed that in principle the parties had expressed their interest in concluding a licence agreement but that before and during the court proceedings the parties had not agreed on the equitable royalty rate . It also pointed to the applicant organisation \u2019s responsibility in failing to reach an agreement in the negotiation of a new licence . As a result , over a prolonged period of time the ORG rights had been unprotected . As the parties had not asked the court to decide on the exact terms and conditions of a licence agreement , the appellate court decided to impose on the parties a general obligation to conclude a licence agreement by DATE . Given that the parties had been unable to agree on a royalty rate , the appellate court set the rate at PERCENT of the defendant \u2019s net turnover . In reaching this conclusion the appellate court took into consideration such elements as , inter alia , the royalty rate set in other court proceedings and the existing practice in certain other ORG member GPE .","NORP The applicant organisation appealed on points of law arguing that by , inter alia , ordering the parties to conclude a licence agreement and setting its terms , the court had overstepped its powers and acted in breach of LAW of LAW and section CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE the ORG partly upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment with similar reasoning as in the first set of proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-185212","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF RADZHABOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147680","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF EN\u0102\u0218OAIE v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested after criminal proceedings had been opened against him for bribe taking . On the same date he was detained in ORG detention facility .","On DATE he was moved to FAC .","On DATE he was released . The criminal proceedings opened against him are still pending before the domestic courts .","In ORG detention facility and FAC the applicant had to share a cell with smokers , even though he was a nonsmoker and was suffering from a heart condition . He was unable to rest because the other detainees would smoke continuously from TIME to QUANTITY p.m. , and the cell would be covered by thick smoke .","The cell did not have enough furniture , and lacked coat hangers , shelves and cupboards . Clothes had to be stored on the floor , under beds , where no cleaning was carried out . The bathrooms lacked shelves and privacy , as the washing area and toilet facilities were not separate . In addition , the cell was damp , measured QUANTITY m. , had a volume of QUANTITY , contained CARDINAL beds , and was occupied by QUANTITY detainees . Cleaning and dehumidification materials were provided by his family , and in the absence of any action on the part of the prison authorities , he and the other detainees had to clean the cell themselves . The cell was not heated during DATE , and as a result of the extreme cold the applicant had to ask his family to provide him with warmer bed linen . Also , the cell was infested with fleas , lice , bed bugs and mosquitoes , but the detainees were not allowed to disinfect it , even at their own expense .","The detention facilities did not provide detainees with any areas for washing , drying or cleaning their clothes . He was forced to wear dirty clothes , or if he did wash them , he had to wear them damp .","NORP The bed linen provided by the authorities was unusable , was not suitable for DATE and was not changed during the entire time he was detained .","Warm water was available twice a week for TIME each time therefore not all detainees could wash . He was unable to shave on a DATE basis . Detainees did not have access to a barber , toiletries were not provided by the authorities and he had to purchase shaving products at his own expense .","NORP The food was poor , insufficient and served in unhygienic conditions by detainees not wearing the appropriate equipment for serving food . The cutlery and plates were rusty and dirty , and the cell did not have a table and chairs for detainees to be able to sit down and eat their meal .","He was taken out of his cell for a walk only twice a week for TIME ; between QUANTITY or twenty inmates would be in the prison courtyard at a time . The courtyard was covered by a metal mesh , measured QUANTITY m , had no bathroom facilities and did not receive any sunlight .","The applicant was transported to and from court and was held in the courthouse cells with smokers .","In Bac\u0103u Police Department \u2019s detention facility the applicant was detained in a cell which measured QUANTITY m and contained CARDINAL beds . The cell had central heating and was ventilated . The sanitary facilities were outside the cell and were accessible to everyone TIME a day . Detainees had access to a shower , a sink , and a toilet that was separate from the rest of the bathroom . They were allowed to shower and do their laundry twice a week .","In Bac\u0103u Prison the applicant was detained in CARDINAL different cells . CARDINAL of them were in the infirmary .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in a cell which measured QUANTITY . m and contained CARDINAL beds . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was detained in a cell which measured QUANTITY . m and contained CARDINAL beds . From DATE he was detained in a cell which measured CARDINAL sq . m and contained CARDINAL beds . From DATE he was detained in a cell which measured CARDINAL sq . m and contained CARDINAL beds .","All the detention cells had central heating , sanitary facilities , windows , electricity and were furnished . The beds had mattresses , pillows , bed linen and blankets provided by the detention facility . Detainees were also allowed to receive bed linen from their families .","Detainees had unlimited access to cold water . They also had access to warm water DATE , based on a pre - approved rota .","The cells were heated DATE during DATE from CARDINAL to CARDINAL a.m. and TIME","They were disinfected CARDINAL times a year or whenever needed , by specialist contractors . In addition , detainees were provided with cleaning materials and had a statutory duty to clean their cells . They were also provided with toiletries for their personal hygiene . Starting from DATE each individual had to sign for the toiletries they were given .","NORP The detention facilities had cells assigned exclusively to nonsmoking detainees .","Without providing supporting documents , the ORG submitted to the ORG that when the applicant had been transferred to FAC , he had declared that he was a smoker . In addition , on CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE he had purchased cigarettes , and on CARDINAL DATE he had bought lighters .","The applicant was transferred only to courthouse cells and not to any other detention facilities . The vehicles had windows and heating .","As a general rule , detainees were forbidden from smoking during transfers . Smokers were separated from non - smokers in the courthouse cells .","Between DATE and DATE the applicant was transferred CARDINAL times to and from court , for distances of QUANTITY ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183337","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF VRHBOSNA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["The applicant is a NORP community in GPE , based in GPE .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE , which became final and binding on DATE , ORG for GPE ( \u201c the Chamber \u201d ) found that ORG an entity of GPE ) had discriminated against the applicant in its enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by LAW . In order to remedy the situation it ordered ORG to ensure the relocation of public schools housed in the ORG building in GPE , and to reinstate the applicant in the LOC within DATE . The ORG rejected a request by the applicant for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages .","By an agreement of CARDINAL DATE , ORG undertook to reinstate the applicant in the impugned premises by DATE . Shortly thereafter , ORG adopted the implementing decisions , and also one of the public schools was moved from the premises .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution ( rje\u0161enje o izvr\u0161enju ) . On DATE the ORG quashed that decision and remitted the case for reconsideration . On DATE ORG held that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case . On DATE ORG quashed that decision and remitted the case for reconsideration . On DATE ORG held that the decisions of the ORG were not subject to enforcement proceedings . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision . At the date of the latest information available to the ORG ( CARDINAL DATE ) , ORG had not yet ruled on the matter .","On DATE ORG and GPE determined that ORG had not yet fully enforced the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the public school remaining in its premises , requesting its relocation , as well as damages for the use of the premises for the period between CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG in GPE rendered a judgment in the applicant \u2019s favour , rewarding in full its claims finally specified in the proceedings , namely MONEY ( BAM ) for pecuniary damages and CARDINAL BAM for costs and expenses . ORG also ordered the respondent to vacate the applicant \u2019s LOC within DATE from receiving the judgment . On DATE ORG in ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . At the date of the latest information available to ORG ( DATE ) , ORG submitted a revision petition to ORG against the final judgment in these proceedings . It also appears that the public school has still not been relocated ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147926","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"STEINER AND STEINER-FASSLER v. SWITZERLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["NORP The case originated in an application ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) against ORG lodged with ORG under LAW ( \u201c the LAW ) by NORP nationals , Mr PERSON and PERSON ( \u201c the applicants \u201d ) , on DATE .","The applicants were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Deputy Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The applicants alleged a violation of LAW as documents relating to the construction of both a paved sidewalk and a gravel walk along the river bank adjacent to their property in DATE were not made accessible to them . Furthermore , they complained that the new route of the path across their property was contrary to LAW .","On CARDINAL DATE the application was communicated to the Government .","The applicants are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively , and live in Alpthal in the canton of Schwyz ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146014","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"IRL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"LYNCH AND WHELAN v. IRELAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["NORP The applicant in the first application , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE . At the time he lodged his application he was a prisoner at FAC in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr F. Taaffe , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant in the second application , Mr PERSON , is also an NORP national , who was born in DATE . He too is detained in FAC . He was represented before ORG by Mr J. Cuddigan , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","Mr PERSON was convicted of murder on DATE and was sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , DATE . An appeal was unsuccessful . His situation was reviewed for the first time by ORG in DATE . The Minister for ORG , LAW ( now the Minister for ORG and ORG , hereafter \u201c the Minister \u201d ) decided that Mr PERSON should not be released at that time , and that his situation should not be considered again for a further DATE . ORG considered Mr PERSON \u2019s situation again in DATE , DATE and in DATE . In its last review of his case , ORG recommended to the Minister that an escalating programme of temporary release be put in place for Mr Lynch . The Minister accepted the recommendation and the programme has since commenced . According to the Government , it entails attendance DATE at a voluntary agency that works with offenders , and TIME releases per month .","Mr Whelan was convicted on DATE of the crimes of murder and attempted murder . He was sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , DATE and , on DATE he was also convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to a term of DATE to be served consecutive to the life sentence . The order of sentence was subsequently reversed by ORG . PERSON completed his first sentence in DATE , having benefitted from the standard remission of PERCENT of the total duration imposed at trial ( DATE ) . He then commenced his consecutive life sentence . His situation was reviewed by ORG in DATE with a second consideration due to take place in DATE .","The CARDINAL applicants later challenged their detention as contrary to the LAW in a number of respects and also to the LAW . Their challenge was rejected by ORG on DATE , and their appeal was rejected by ORG on DATE .","ORG did not accept that , by prescribing a mandatory life sentence for murder , the legislature had intruded into the domain of the judicial branch . It described murder as \u201c the ultimate crime against society as a whole \u201d , \u201c a crime which may have exceptional irrevocable consequences of a devastating nature for the family of the victim \u201d and a crime that \u201c by its very nature has always been considered at the highest level of gravity among all forms of homicide or other crimes against the person \u201d . It stated :","\u201c For the reasons already indicated that crime has always and legitimately been considered to be CARDINAL of profound and exceptional gravity and , in the ORG \u2019s view , CARDINAL for which the ORG is entitled to impose generally a punishment of the highest level which the law permits . Given that it is an offence which is committed when , and only when , a person is unlawfully killed and that the person so doing intended to kill or cause serious injury it is one which can therefore properly be differentiated from all other crimes including manslaughter .","The ORG is of the view that the learned trial judge was correct when she concluded \u201c ... there can be nothing offensive in the ORG promoting respect for life by concluding that any murder even at the lowest end of the scale , is so abhorrent an offensive to society that it merits a mandatory life sentence ... \u201d . \u201d","ORG also rejected the argument that the mandatory life sentence was contrary to the principle of proportionality in sentencing . It stated :","\u201c ...... \u201d","ORG then considered the argument that , in substance , a life sentence was not a determinate sanction because the actual duration of imprisonment was decided systematically by the Minister , and that in so doing he was guided by considerations of a preventive nature . It noted , firstly , that it had been affirmed many times in case law that preventative justice or detention forms no part of NORP law . A convicted person may not be sentenced by a court or detained by an executive order for a preventative or non - punitive purpose . It was a \u201c misconception that the punitive element of the life sentence terminates on temporary release \u201d ; \u201c even where the release is open - ended ... the released prisoner remains liable to arrest and return to imprisonment to continue serving the life sentence should he be in breach of the conditions \u201d . Temporary release was a privilege or a concession accorded at the discretion of the executive , not a right of a prisoner . ORG stated :","\u201c In the ORG \u2019s view a life sentence imposed pursuant to s. CARDINAL of the Act of DATE is a sentence of a wholly punitive nature and does not incorporate any element of preventative detention .","It is a sentence which subsists for the entire life of the person convicted of murder . That person may , by virtue of a discretionary power vested in the executive , be temporarily released under the provisions of the relevant legislation on humanitarian or other grounds but he or she always remains liable to imprisonment on foot of the life sentence should the period of temporary release be terminated for good and sufficient reason .","It may be appropriate at this point to note that in the event of a prisoner \u2019s privilege of temporary release being withdrawn by virtue of a breach of the conditions of that release the Minister , or any person acting on his behalf , is bound to observe fair procedures before withdrawing the privilege of temporary release ... Should the Minister fail to observe such procedures or otherwise act in an unlawful , arbitrary or capricious manner in terminating the release for a breach of his conditions or otherwise , the prisoner may seek to have that decision set aside by way of judicial review before the courts .","In all these circumstances the ORG does not consider that there is anything in the system of temporary release which affects the punitive nature or character of a life sentence imposed pursuant to s. CARDINAL . In particular a decision to grant discretionary temporary release does not constitute a termination let alone a determination of the sentence judicially imposed . Any release of a prisoner pursuant to the temporary release rules is , both in substance and form , the grant of a privilege in the exercise of an autonomous discretionary power vested in the executive exclusively in accordance with the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers ... \u201d","ORG went on to reject the argument that because the Minister was required to have regard to , inter alia , the gravity of the offence and the risk posed by the prisoner to public safety , it made the process of temporary release akin to a sentencing exercise . Consideration of such matters did not mean that the Minister was exercising a judicial function and , in particular , it did not mean that a decision not to release because of a risk to safety converts the punitive sentence for murder into a preventative one . It stated :","\u201c It is a necessary incident to the exercise of a purely executive discretion that the decision - maker would be bound to have , before directing a person \u2019s release on any of the possible grounds , have regard to a whole range of matters of which CARDINAL are specified in s. CARDINAL subs . CARDINAL of the Act of DATE . Inevitably CARDINAL of those considerations which ought to be taken into account in the making of any such decision are the gravity of the offence and the risk which the temporary release would pose to the public . A decision to grant temporary release even for a short period such as to permit a prisoner to attend a family funeral would necessarily involve a consideration of any potential risk that that would have for the safety of members of the public . Such a consideration is incidental to the discretionary power and its purpose . ... Refusing temporary release is a decision not to grant a privilege to which the prisoner has no right . \u201d","ORG next considered the applicants\u2019 arguments , based on LAW and on certain judgments of this ORG , that under NORP law a life sentence was in reality an indeterminate one , which in practice was determined by the Minister in the form of a grant of temporary release . This , it was argued , constituted executive interference in the judicial function of sentencing and was prone to arbitrariness . The court stated :","\u201c The power of the executive , in this case the Minister , to release a prisoner ... is a distinct executive function and does not constitute a determination of what punishment a person should undergo as a consequence of his crime . It is in the form of an exercise of clemency or commutation and ( sic ) although it may bring to an end the period of incarceration , subject to conditions in the case of temporary release . As already pointed out the life sentence imposed by the ORG continues to exist notwithstanding any conditional release and he may be required to continue serving it if there are found to be good and sufficient reasons in accordance with law to withdraw the privilege of temporary release , or the period of release simply expires . \u201d","ORG considered that the distinction between these CARDINAL functions was recognized by this ORG in its judgment in GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE . Having cited several passages from the judgment , it stated :","\u201c In its analysis ORG made a clear distinction between the imposition of a mandatory and punitive life sentence by a court and the exercise of an executive discretion to commute , remit or grant conditional release which gives the prisoner a de facto and de jure prospect of release at some point . It clearly did not consider that the existence of an executive discretion to grant conditional release or commutation to constitute the determination or imposition of a sentence by the executive .","...","Provided a causal connection remains between the detention and the punishment imposed by the court of trial , the sentence can not be considered arbitrary or in breach of Article CARDINAL ) . The discretionary power of the executive to grant conditional release on humanitarian or other grounds does not affect the lawfulness of the continued detention of a person as long as that detention is punitive by reason of its nexus with the sentence imposed following conviction . \u201d","ORG held that on any objective analysis of the sentences currently being served by the CARDINAL applicants , their detention remained , de jure and de facto , in accordance with the punishment provided by law and ordered by the court of trial .","ORG then distinguished the legal situation in GPE from that which prevailed in GPE , the latter having been found in a number of judgments of this Court to be contrary to LAW . ORG noted that the sentencing regime in GPE which was under scrutiny in the judgments relied upon by the applicants was \u2018 radically different\u2019 to the sentencing regime in GPE . The sentencing regime which was found to be incompatible with the Convention featured a dual element \u2014 a punitive element identified as the \u2018 the LOC period and the subsequent preventative element . Once the prisoner had served the punitive element of the sentence , the nexus between the crime and its punishment was terminated . In ORG noted that the prisoner had been recalled after release even though he must have been regarded as having served the punitive element for his offence of murder . That being so , his detention after recall could not be justified as \u2018 punishment for the original murder\u2019 which led ORG to conclude that his detention on foot of the original mandatory life sentence violated LAW . That was , said ORG , in stark contrast to the longstanding position in NORP law .","Section CARDINAL of the Criminal Justice Act DATE provides :","\u201c A person convicted of treason or murder shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life . \u201d","The power of temporary release is regulated by LAW DATE , as amended by ORG ( Temporary Release of Prisoners ) Act DATE , which provides :","\u201c CARDINAL.(CARDINAL ) The Minister may direct that such person as is specified in the direction ( being a person who is serving a sentence of imprisonment ) shall be released from prison for such temporary period , and subject to such conditions , as may be specified in the direction or rules under this section applying to that person\u2014","( a ) for the purpose of\u2014","( i ) assessing the person \u2019s ability to reintegrate into society upon such release ,","( ii ) preparing him for release upon the expiration of his sentence of imprisonment , or upon his being discharged from prison before such expiration , or","( iii ) assisting ORG in the prevention , detection or investigation of offences , or the apprehension of a person guilty of an offence or suspected of having committed an offence ,","( b ) where there exist circumstances that , in the opinion of the Minister , justify his temporary release on\u2014","( i ) grounds of health , or","( ii ) other humanitarian grounds ,","( c ) where , in the opinion of the Minister , it is necessary or expedient in order to\u2014","( i ) ensure the good government of the prison concerned , or","( ii ) maintain good order in , and humane and just management of , the prison concerned , or","( d ) where the Minister is of the opinion that the person has been rehabilitated and would , upon being released , be capable of reintegrating into society .","( CARDINAL ) The Minister shall , before giving a direction under this section , have regard to\u2014","( a ) the nature and gravity of the offence to which the sentence of imprisonment being served by the person relates .","( b ) the sentence of imprisonment concerned and any recommendations of the court that imposed that sentence in relation thereto ,","( c ) the period of the sentence of imprisonment served by the person ,","( d ) the potential threat to the safety and security of members of the public ( including the victim of the offence to which the sentence of imprisonment being served by the person relates ) should the person be released from prison ,","( e ) any offence of which the person was convicted before being convicted of the offence to which the sentence of imprisonment being served by him relates ,","( f ) the risk of the person failing to return to prison upon the expiration of any period of temporary release ,","( g ) the conduct of the person while in custody , while previously the subject of a direction under this section , or during a period of temporary release to which rules under this section , made before the coming into operation of ORG ( Temporary Release of Prisoners ) Act DATE , applied ,","( h ) any report of , or recommendation made PERSON","( i ) the governor of , or person for the time being performing the functions of governor in relation to , the prison concerned ,","( ii ) the Garda S\u00edoch\u00e1na ,","( iii ) a probation and welfare officer , or","( iv ) any other person whom the Minister considers would be of assistance in enabling him to make a decision as to whether to give a direction under subsection ( CARDINAL ) that relates to the person concerned .","( i ) the risk of the person committing an offence during any period of temporary release ,","( j ) the risk of the person failing to comply with any conditions attaching to his temporary release , and","( k ) the likelihood that any period of temporary release might accelerate the person \u2019s reintegration into society or improve his prospects of obtaining employment . \u201d","In their submissions , the Government provided information about ORG . It was established on an administrative basis in DATE . It is chaired by an independent Chairperson and includes a representative from the medical \/ psychiatric profession , ORG , ORG and ORG , a retired Prison Governor , and representatives of the wider community .","ORG principal function is to advise the Minister in relation to the administration of long term prisoners . The ORG reviews the cases of prisoners serving life sentences or determinate sentences of DATE or more . ORG , by way of recommendation to the Minister , advises of the prisoner \u2019s progress to date , the degree to which the prisoner has engaged with the various therapeutic services and how best to proceed with the future administration of the sentence .","In the case of mandatory life sentences ORG considers the initial application after the prisoner has served DATE . Subsequent reviews are conducted at intervals of DATE . The final decision regarding the recommendations of ORG remains with the Minister who may accept them in their entirety ( as occurs in the majority of cases ) or accept them in part , or reject them .","NORP In reply to a question from ORG indicated that as of DATE there were CARDINAL persons serving a mandatory life sentence for murder , with another QUANTITY persons serving discretionary life sentences for other very serious offences . On DATE there were CARDINAL persons with a life sentence who were on supervised release in the community . In DATE to DATE a total of CARDINAL persons sentenced to life imprisonment were granted temporary release . The average duration of their imprisonment was DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152351","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF POPOV AND CHONIN v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","Mr PERSON is an heir of Mr M. and Mr PERSON is an heir of PERSON PERSON is entitled to CARDINAL of the inheritance of PERSON , and PERSON PERSON to CARDINAL ninth of the inheritance of PERSON The applicants\u2019 CARDINAL predecessors were co - owners of an afforested island in the GPE , currently named GPE , measuring , at the time of expropriation , QUANTITY . PERSON owned another afforested island measuring QUANTITY and other forestry land on the shores of the GPE , QUANTITY .","The above - mentioned land was nationalised in DATE .","As a result of the GPE \u2019s fluvial activity over DATE , GPE island \u2019s area has increased and it currently measures QUANTITY . The second island no longer exists .","On DATE , following the adoption of the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , PERSON and Mr PERSON \u2019s mother , whom Mr PERSON later succeeded , applied for the restitution of their ORG forests and forestry land .","By CARDINAL decisions of DATE the ORG land commission acknowledged that the heirs of PERSON and PERSON had the right to restitution or compensation . Finding that actual restitution was impossible because the forests had become \u201c exclusive ORG property \u201d ( \u201c \u0438\u0437\u043a\u043b\u044e\u0447\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u043d\u0430 \u0434\u044a\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u0431\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the commission decided that the heirs would receive compensation bonds . Those decisions were served on the applicants on DATE .","In the meantime , legislative amendments entered into force repealing the provisions allowing the award of compensation bonds for properties falling under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and providing for a sole means of compensation , namely in the form of equivalent State - own land .","NORP In the GPE district where the forests belonging to the applicants\u2019 predecessors had been situated there was insufficient Stateowned land to compensate the applicants and the remaining heirs . In a letter dated DATE ORG therefore instructed the relevant authorities in the neighbouring GPE district to identify appropriate land .","In CARDINAL decisions of DATE ORG allotted to the heirs of PERSON a plot of QUANTITY , and to the heirs of PERSON a plot of QUANTITY in the GPE district .","On DATE the applicants applied for judicial review of those decisions , arguing that the allotted land and the forests were not equivalent to the ones their predecessors had owned .","On DATE , the GPE ORG gave a judgment in the proceedings brought by Mr PERSON . Noting that the land and the forests allotted by way of compensation to the heirs of Mr M. were not equivalent to those owned by him in the past , it quashed the respective decision of ORG of DATE . Furthermore , on the basis of an expert report commissioned by it , ORG observed that there were appropriate forests in the area of the village of PERSON in the adjacent Varshets district . It thus remitted the case for a fresh examination with a view to allotting land in the specified area to the heirs .","The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on DATE .","In a new decision dated CARDINAL DATE ORG ( former ORG ) refused to allot the land in the GPE district to the heirs of PERSON , reasoning that the ORG - owned forests in that area were not sufficient and that the compensation should be provided in the neighbouring ORG district .","On an unspecified date Mr PERSON challenged that decision before ORG . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE that court declared the decision null and void as it contradicted the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It noted , in addition , that it had already been established that there were no appropriate forests in the PERSON district . On the basis of expert reports commissioned by it , ORG identified in the adjacent districts CARDINAL different plots that were suitable to be provided to the heirs of PERSON , and acknowledged their right to receive those plots as compensation .","That judgment does not appear to have been appealed against and entered into force on an unspecified date .","NORP In execution of the judgment , in CARDINAL decisions given in DATE and DATE the ORG and ORG allotted to the heirs of PERSON several plots of forestry land measuring QUANTITY in total .","NORP In their submissions dated DATE the Government assured the ORG that the adoption of decisions transferring the remaining land to the heirs of PERSON was imminent .","In the judicial - review proceedings brought by Mr PERSON against the respective decision of ORG of DATE , ORG issued a judgment on DATE . It found that the land allotted as compensation to the heirs of PERSON was indeed of manifestly lower quality than the CARDINAL previously owned by her . It also found that in the area of the village of PERSON in the adjacent Varshets district , there was a plot of forestry land which was equivalent in quality to those previously owned by PERSON and was even bigger in size . It thus quashed ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , acknowledged that the heirs of PERSON had the right to part of the bigger plot as compensation , and held that it was for the local ORG to apportion the allotted land .","That judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on an unspecified date .","During the applicants\u2019 ensuing contacts with the authorities it became clear that the afforested area indicated in the judgment of DATE was within the territory of the \u201c LOC \u201d natural park and as such was public property ; thus it could not be provided as compensation to the heirs of PERSON That was pointed out in CARDINAL letters sent to the applicants , dated respectively CARDINAL DATE and DATE , by ORG and the administration of ORG .","It appears that for DATE after that , the authorities made no effort to enforce the judgment of DATE or to identify other land to be provided to the heirs of PERSON Not until DATE did a commission consisting of members of different State bodies , appointed by the head of ORG in GPE , identify CARDINAL plots of land in the adjacent districts , measuring QUANTITY , which could be provided as compensation to the heirs of PERSON","In their submissions dated DATE the Government pointed out that the process would continue , and that the identification of the remaining plots to be transferred to the heirs was imminent ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164661","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KOLKUTIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on the charges of fraud and forgery of official documents . On DATE ORG authorised the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The court reasoned as follows :","\u201c The evidence collected ... incriminated [ the applicant ] ... in a serious crime which entails a custodial sentence exceeding DATE . ... The court takes note of the [ applicant \u2019s ] character . However , ... it considers that , if at large , [ the applicant ] might put pressure on victims and witnesses or otherwise interfere with administration of justice or continue criminal activities , Accordingly , ... the court considers it necessary to remand [ the applicant ] in custody . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","The applicant remained in custody pending investigation and trial . The court extended his pre - trial detention on several occasions reiterating , in substance , the reasoning employed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154368","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"GREEK CATHOLIC PARISH PESCEANA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants in the present case are the NORP - Catholic parish of ORG , a religious body created on DATE in PERSON , as well as some of its members , NORP nationals living in PERSON . Their names , year of birth and place of residence appear in the first appendix to this report . The applicant Mr PERSON acted as their representative .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The Romanian Greek - Catholic Association was granted leave to intervene in the proceedings .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE Mr PERSON , who at that time was the NORP priest of the PERSON parish , decided together with CARDINAL members of his parish , to join ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . DATE they were recognised as a parish by ORG GPE ( GPE PERSON GPE ) and PERSON PERSON was ordained priest of that parish . The applicant parish thus became legitimate under the applicable laws .","On DATE the PERSON local authorities refused to recognise the new parish , denied its members access to the village church and cemetery , and advised ORG PERSON ) to take appropriate action against PERSON . On DATE the local council reiterated its decision . On DATE they also refused to allow the NORP - Catholic parish to hold its religious gatherings in a deserted school building .","On DATE Mr PERSON resigned from his previous position in ORG . He was defrocked DATE , and ORG sent a new NORP priest to the local parish .","On DATE ORG lodged a request , by means of the urgent procedure ( ordonan\u0163\u0103 pre\u015feden\u0163ial\u0103 ) , concerning ownership of ORG . In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered Mr PERSON to surrender the property belonging to ORG to the plaintiff and to stop using the village church and cemetery for NORP practices .","On DATE ORG asked the ORG archdiocese to re - examine its decision to ordain PERSON as a NORP - Catholic priest in PERSON . They suggested that his withdrawal might facilitate the dialogue between the CARDINAL parishes in the community .","On DATE the PERSON local authorities transferred ownership of the cemetery to the NORP parish . On DATE they delivered the title deeds for the land to the NORP parish . However , on DATE in proceedings instituted by the PERSON local authorities against ORG , ORG declared the deeds null and void .","NORP Several members of ORG parish lodged a complaint against the local authorities and the NORP community with ORG . The council examined the administrative decision of DATE and noted that the plaintiffs had been denied access to the village church and cemetery . It concluded that the local authorities had breached the applicants\u2019 freedom of conscience and disregarded their religious autonomy . Consequently , the ORG issued a warning to the local authorities . It gave its decision on DATE .","NORP The conflicts between the CARDINAL religious communities escalated . The NORP community prohibited the NORP - Catholics from entering the cemetery to bury their dead or honour their memory . According to the applicants , they suffered increased pressure to revert to Orthodoxy : they were asked to sign a declaration renouncing their ORG if they wanted the local authorities to deliver any official service ; they received unjustified fines ; some of them were threatened with dismissal from their jobs ; and the local school organised a public demonstration against ORG . CARDINAL individuals gave written statements that they had been misled by PERSON into changing their faith . Some people lodged criminal complaints against those who had allegedly threatened them in order to force them to revert to Orthodoxy . The NORP archdiocese intervened in their favour by engaging in a written exchange with the local authorities . It was , however , to no avail .","Several criminal complaints were also lodged by both parties to the conflict , mainly concerning incidents that occurred in DATE and DATE .","On DATE , using the urgent procedure , the applicant parish sought to compel the NORP parish to allow NORP - Catholics the right to use the village cemetery to bury their dead and for memorial services .","On DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant parish . On DATE ORG upheld the decision , which thus became final . The courts held that the applicant parish had been recognised by ORG and was thus legally constituted . It reiterated that , according to LAW , as the village had CARDINAL cemetery , all individuals had to have access to the burial grounds , irrespective of their faith .","As the NORP continued to be denied access to the cemetery by the NORP community , the applicant parish sought the services of a bailiff . On DATE ORG issued an enforcement order concerning the decision of DATE .","On DATE the bailiff notified ORG and ORG of his intention to enforce the above decision and sought assistance from the police . On DATE a group of persons from PERSON and the neighbouring villages did not allow the applicants , the bailiff or the police to enter the cemetery . Not even the police intervention on behalf of the applicants was able to deter the opposing parish . According to the bailiff \u2019s report , the new NORP priest refused to assist him and the ORG of the village in the enforcement attempts or to talk with his followers . He claimed that he was engaged in other religious duties at that time . As the CARDINAL parties became violent , the bailiff stopped the proceedings in order to avoid any escalation .","The NORP parish objected to the enforcement proceedings and on CARDINAL DATE ORG temporarily suspended the enforcement order until a final ruling had been given on the objection .","On DATE ORG held that the decision of DATE was enforceable until the litigation concerning ownership of the cemetery had been examined ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It nevertheless maintained the suspension of the enforcement order until a final ruling had been given on the objection . The decision became final on DATE , when ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicants .","On DATE several members of the applicant parish ( see appendix CARDINAL below ) lodged an action against the NORP parish and the ORG seeking access to the cemetery to bury their dead and perform the relevant rituals .","On DATE ORG partially allowed the request . A final ruling in the case was given on DATE by ORG . The courts took note of the fact that the title deeds delivered to the NORP parish had been declared null and void . Using the same arguments as those advanced by ORG under the urgent procedure , the courts recognised the rights of the NORP - Catholic members of the community to be buried in the NORP - Catholic tradition . ORG further decided that persons who embraced the NORP - Catholic faith would not be allowed to perform NORP rituals for deceased members of their families who had been buried according to the NORP tradition . In so deciding , ORG considered that the person \u2019s own convictions at the time of death should be subsequently respected by the family in the choice of rites .","After communication of the application , the ORG sought information about the current situation in PERSON . The ORG Secretary for ORG approached PERSON , which informed him that NORP had free access to the cemetery and that in DATE the ORG parish had received CARDINAL NORP Lei from the ORG budget in order to build a church .","The PERSON mayor \u2019s office informed the Government that neither religious community was being obstructed from using the cemetery and that the police had recorded no incidents in DATE . Statements by the CARDINAL local priests were attached to the mayor \u2019s report . The NORP priest explained that the NORP - Catholic priest was allowed into the cemetery in order to bury the deceased members of his community , but accused him of performing NORP rituals for deceased NORP believers . PERSON declared that their access was still restricted and that pressure had been exerted on members of the NORP community to resign from their ORG and join ORG .","NORP In DATE the NORP priest lodged a criminal complaint against a NORP - Catholic believer who had buried her deceased parent in the village cemetery according to NORP rites . The prosecutor decided not to prosecute , reiterating that the NORP - Catholic believers had a right , which had been recognised by a court order , to use the cemetery ; the prosecutor also noted that no damage had been done to the neighbouring graves belonging to NORP families . Another burial took place in DATE and allegations of police brutality against NORP believers in the aftermath of the religious service were dismissed as unfounded by the prosecutor .","It appears that the PERSON local authorities have recently decided to create a new cemetery for all faiths .","Excerpts from the relevant domestic law concerning the enforcement of final judgments are given in ORG GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the general situation of recognised religious groups , and in particular the situation of the NORP - Catholic community , are described in Remetii pe Somes GreekCatholic Parish v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . DATE , LAW CARDINAL , DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182857","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MEREUTA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE , the applicant was celebrating his birthday with a group of friends by a lake when they were attacked by S. who was intoxicated and carrying a hunting rifle . S. was angry because the applicant and his friends had allegedly ill - treated his uncle earlier . During the conflict , S. hit CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s friends with the barrel of his gun and fired CARDINAL gunshots at the group \u2019s cars parked nearby . The applicant attempted to prevent PERSON from continuing shooting but was shot from a distance of QUANTITY into his right calf . The applicant \u2019s repeated attempts to disarm S. resulted in his receiving CARDINAL more gunshots from a very short distance into his already wounded leg .","As a result of the attack the applicant sustained serious injuries to his right leg which led to amputation of his leg above the knee .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against S. on charges of hooliganism with the use of a firearm resulting in the causing of severe harm to the applicant \u2019s health .","DATE twenty - five witnesses were questioned and by DATE most of the investigative measures were completed .","On DATE was declared a suspect in the criminal proceedings and on DATE he was indicted .","On DATE S. was heard as an accused . He acknowledged his guilt , but refused to make any declarations .","NORP On DATE the criminal case - file was remitted for examination from ORG to GPE .","DATE PERSON all the investigative measures .","On DATE the case - file was transmitted to the PERSON GPE prosecutor \u2019s office with the proposal to be remitted to a court for consideration .","On DATE both the applicant and his representative were notified of the completion of the criminal investigation .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against S. The prosecutor \u2019s office found that according to Article CARDINAL ) of LAW , a person \u2019s status as suspect can not be maintained DATE . Since PERSON was indicted on DATE , that is DATE and DATE , the indictment was unlawful . Therefore , all charges against S. were dropped and the proceedings discontinued .","On DATE at the request of the applicant \u2019s representative , the prosecutor general \u2019s office decided to annul its previous decision of DATE , and to resume the criminal investigation on the ground that new facts had been discovered .","On DATE ORG upheld PERSON \u2019s objection against the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE , ordering its annulment . The applicant and his representative were not summoned or informed about the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142099","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BENJAMIN v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently detained at FAC . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by Mr PERSON , Agent , ORG and ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant escaped from ORG where he was serving a sentence for robbery . While on the run , he shot a prison guard twice in the leg . A third shot would have hit the guard \u2019s chest and may have killed him if he had not jumped away . The applicant was caught within TIME and transferred back to prison . He claims that the prison officers beat him on arrival , which apparently caused a rupture in his abdominal wall .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG in response to his complaints of vomiting bile , solar plexus pain and a swollen ankle . There is no evidence in the applicant \u2019s medical record that he complained of beating by the police officers during his arrest .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of attempted murder of a public official , escape from imprisonment and other crimes and sentenced him to life imprisonment in a strict - regime prison . ORG , acting as a second - instance court , upheld this judgment on DATE .","The applicant was initially committed to ORG and then transferred to FAC in DATE . He was placed in a single - occupancy cell , since there were grounds to believe , based on police reports , that he would attempt to escape . He was allowed to stay outside , with physical restraints , in accordance with the prison \u2019s DATE routine . He complained about these restraints and his placement to the prison governor , but the rules remained unchanged .","On DATE the applicant escaped from FAC . He was caught and returned to prison within TIME . On his retrieval , the prison officers allegedly handcuffed him and fettered his legs , tore his clothes off , forced him down on the ground , knelt on his head and beat him . They interrogated him for TIME about his escape while he lay naked on the cold floor . This occurred in the medical ward of the prison in the presence of a female doctor and a nurse .","After having been interrogated , the applicant was led to a prison office barefoot and then placed in a special security cell , as a disciplinary measure , where he spent DATE in isolation with his hands tied to his belt and his legs fettered day and night . During this entire period he was allowed to wash himself CARDINAL times altogether , and the cuffs and fetters seriously lacerated his skin .","The beating by the prison officers during the interrogation apparently caused a recrudescent rupture in the applicant \u2019s abdominal wall , and he had to undergo surgery . He submits that he still suffers from residual inguinal hernia .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , ORG , concerning his treatment at ORG . The case was first transferred to ORG and , for further examination , to ORG and ORG . The latter opened criminal investigations on DATE , which were discontinued on DATE for want of evidence .","In relation to his second escape , on DATE the Pest Central District Court found the applicant guilty of vandalism and escape from imprisonment and sentenced him to DATE and DATE of imprisonment , non - executable due to his ongoing life term . On DATE the President of the Republic dismissed the applicant \u2019s plea for clemency .","On DATE the applicant attempted to commit suicide by hanging himself in his prison cell , but his life was saved .","In DATE the applicant was again transferred to FAC . On admission , he was stripped in the medical ward in front of CARDINAL prison officers , a doctor and a nurse , and he was required to bend over a bed with his hands handcuffed . While he was in this position the doctor performed a cavity search . When the applicant complained that he found this humiliating in front of several spectators , the prison officers laughed at him , allegedly threatening him that they might \u2018 assist\u2019 the doctor in the cavity search using their metal batons .","Subsequently the applicant was transferred to another penitentiary institution , but in DATE he was returned to ORG for a DATE period , in order to make him available to local justice as a witness in a criminal case . On admission , the otherwise routine cavity search was again carried out in the presence of several prison officers . He complained about this to the prison governor , and on DATE he lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor in charge of penitentiary supervision . On DATE the applicant was moved to ORG and his complaint was transferred to the Pest County Chief Prosecutor \u2019s Office , for reasons of jurisdiction . On DATE the applicant was heard by a public prosecutor in ORG , where he withdrew his complaint , stating that the issue had been resolved .","The applicant submitted that he was serving his term in a special security department , in a single - occupancy cell illuminated only by artificial light . He was excluded from any courses or social events organised within the prison , and he had difficulties in receiving visitors ; in particular , he could be visited by his family , living in GPE , only once a year due to the circumstances . Moreover , he was always handcuffed whenever outside his cell ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147817","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"H\u00d6SL-DAUM AND OTHERS v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON Robert G\u00f6pfert , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , PERSON and PERSON . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON Wo\u0142\u0105siewicz , succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska , of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows . The applicants arrived in GPE on DATE . During TIME CARDINAL to DATE they put up posters , described below , at bus stops and poster pillars in GPE , a town near the border between GPE and GPE . On DATE the applicants were arrested by the police when taking photographs of the places where they had put up the posters .","There were CARDINAL posters of CARDINAL format with text in NORP and a number of graphic photographs of unknown origin depicting , inter alia , mass graves , massacred bodies and a group of people in an open train carriage .","The first poster read , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c The NORP and the NORP \u2013 a heartfelt welcome to the GPE !","Our justice system is working diligently , because murder is not subject to statutory limitation .","Documents [ concerning ] NORP and NORP atrocities on the NORP","\u201c From the land of the dead \u201d","A NORP \u00e9migr\u00e9 and a native PERSON \u2013 PERSON DATE a famous author and a critic of technologies ( \u201c ORG than a CARDINAL Suns \u201d ) , even before the so - called \u201c regular \u201d expulsion had begun , published in the GPE \u201c ORG \u201d a report about the conditions prevailing in the eastern regions of GPE occupied by the NORP based on his own experience . His report was entitled \u201c From the land of the dead \u201d .","We quote some passages :","\u201c Whoever leaves the NORP zone and reaches the territory occupied by the NORP can immediately breathe again . He leaves behind totally looted towns , plague - stricken villages , concentration camps , barren fields , streets full of corpses , in which thieves lurk , and rob the expellees of their last belongings ... It is true that on a public square in town PERSON girls , women and old women were raped by relatives of the NORP militia . It is true that at the railway station in S. all trains transporting refugees were systematically looted to such an extent that the people in them had to travel west naked . It is true that in the heart of GPE not CARDINAL child under DATE is still alive , because all of them have died of hunger or been killed . It is true that in GPE women suffering from syphilis ( who were earlier raped \u2013 editor ) received as a \u201c therapy \u201d a shot in the head . It is true that there has been a wave of suicides in the country , in some towns CARDINAL and in some even CARDINAL of the population have taken their lives . It is true that in the so - called labour camps in GPE and S. prisoners are made to spend the whole night up to their necks in icy water and that they are beaten until they lose consciousness . \u201d","Was DATE a liberation ?","Mass deaths in the foreign extermination camps","After the end of the war CARDINAL NORP were robbed , expelled , raped , attacked and murdered","[ ... ]","More NORP died in GPE and on the territories occupied by the NORP in CARDINAL camps than those who died in transit following expulsion . In the ORG camp in GPE , of the CARDINAL [ people ] held there CARDINAL died . In the other labour camps in LOC unspeakable cruelty reigned too . It was common practice in the different camps to shoot , as planned in advance , those who were too old , unable to work or ill .","[ ... ]","The forced labour and suffering in a camp can not be compensated with money , regardless of the amount . What is necessary is awareness of those crimes in the countries where the atrocities occurred . What is also necessary is that the surviving responsible parties be judged . As for that , there is total silence surrounding the issue of the NORP victims . \u201d","The second poster contained , inter alia , the following passages :","\u201c Documents on NORP and NORP atrocities ... Are our GPE - friends avoiding a new evaluation of their history ? ? CARDINAL NORP were robbed and expropriated , CARDINAL were sent to concentration camps and to forced labour ... CARDINAL NORP were killed ... Where there is no accuser , there is no judge ... there were only NORP ... Second - class people ? ?","[ ... ]","Overall CARDINAL NORP died , including CARDINAL after the end of the war .","A peaceful LOC may exist only on the foundation of law and truth . The restitution of houses and plots of land expropriated against the law of nations should be a given in the now democratic GPE and GPE . \u201d","On DATE the prosecution filed a bill of indictment against the applicants with the ORG . They were charged with the commission of CARDINAL offences : publicly insulting the NORP nation ( LAW ) and incitement to hatred based on national differences ( LAW ) . It was alleged that DATE the applicants had put up no less than thirtytwo posters at bus stops and on poster pillars in towns close to the NORP border . According to the prosecution , the posters contained untrue statements about alleged mass crimes committed by NORP against the NORP civilian population during and after the Second World War and graphic photographs of unknown origin . Furthermore , the applicants had created tension between the NORP and NORP nations on account of their demand for land and property left by the NORP population on NORP territory to be returned .","On DATE the ORG decided that it did not have jurisdiction to examine the applicants\u2019 case and transferred it to the Jelenia ORG . It found that the acts imputed to the applicants were to be considered administrative offences against public order . The prosecution appealed against that decision . On DATE ORG quashed the decision and remitted the case to ORG . It held that ORG could not review the soundness of the prosecution \u2019s legal classification of the alleged offences at the preliminary stage of the proceedings to determine jurisdiction .","On DATE ORG gave judgment . It held that the applicants had committed the impugned offences and decided to suspend the criminal proceedings against them for a DATE probation period . Each applicant was ordered to pay MONEY ( ORG ) to a children \u2019s home .","ORG appealed against the judgment . She argued , inter alia , that ORG had erred in finding that the degree of guilt and social danger of the acts imputed to the applicants had been negligible . On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and remitted the case .","On DATE ORG gave judgment . The applicants were convicted of insulting the NORP nation and inciting hatred between the NORP and the NORP nations in that on DATE and on TIME CARDINAL DATE in GPE they had put up in public places posters containing untrue statements about alleged mass crimes committed by the NORP against the NORP civilian population during and after the Second World War and containing graphic photographs of unknown origin ; they had further created tension between the CARDINAL nations by demanding the return of land and property left by the NORP population on NORP territory . They were also convicted of attempting to put up other similar posters .","ORG sentenced the first applicant to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and the CARDINAL remaining applicants to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . It conditionally suspended the prison sentences for a DATE period .","NORP The court based its findings on an opinion prepared by CARDINAL professors from the law , history and sociology departments of ORG . CARDINAL of the experts were also members of ORG in GPE .","ORG , having regard to the collected evidence , found the applicants guilty of publicly insulting the NORP nation and of inciting national hatred . It found , in so far as relevant :","\u201c The offence specified in LAW is committed , inter alia , by a person who publicly insults the NORP nation . The interpretation of the term \u201c insult \u201d can be made on the basis of the system of values existing in a given society , whereas the meaning of this word should reflect the meaning attributed to it in ordinary language . To insult is to offend somebody or something by word or act . ... It is an act which consists of showing contempt , damaging respect or reputation .","The term \u201c insult \u201d belongs to the category of value judgments and can have various meanings . It is accepted that the interpretation of this term should be made on the basis of criteria which are as objective as possible and of commonly accepted values . An insult amounts to an expression of contempt , humiliation and affront . ( ... )","The offence specified in LAW is committed , inter alia , by a person who publicly incites hatred on the basis of national differences . Such act consists in sowing the seeds of dislike and hostility .... \u201d","With regard to the applicants\u2019 motives , the court noted that they claimed to have put up posters in GPE with a view to informing the NORP public about the massacres of the NORP population during the period of its expulsion . It did not accept that claim as credible and held as follows :","\u201c The posters contain many untruths concerning the NORP . It transpires from the expert opinion that the information with regard to the death rate among the NORP and to the deportations were deliberately presented in a chaotic manner \u2013 without making a distinction as to whether they took place under the NORP or NORP administration , or on the territory of GPE \u2013 and were presented in such a way as to give grounds for accusation mainly against the NORP .","The numbers cited on the posters were taken from some biased anti - NORP political pamphlets . The information quoted from the article by PERSON about the situation prevailing on the territories transferred to NORP administration following the undertakings of ORG is untrue \u2013information about the real perpetrators of , inter alia , the ordinary criminal acts was deliberately omitted . The information about NORP held in concentration camps in GPE after the end of the war is also untrue , since such camps did not exist , and the photographs on the posters have no documentary value and it is impossible to identify them .","The experts clearly affirmed in their opinion that the contents of the posters are untrue and are not supported by the research of NORP and NORP historians .","It is of particular importance that the accused were previously sentenced in GPE for the commission of an administrative offence under LAW , which consisted of putting up CARDINAL crosses with the inscription \u2018 The Germans CARDINAL - CARDINAL\u2019 . This act of the accused had significant social repercussions , and the fact that they were sentenced indicates that they had to be aware of the legal and social consequences of putting up the posters .","The accused insulted the NORP nation by putting up the posters . The untruths included in the posters insult the NORP nation , since imputing to the NORP the alleged crimes \u2013 which are not scientifically proved \u2013 is an affront to the NORP nation . This interpretation of the posters is based , among other things , on the assessment of their contents by third persons and on the reactions of the people who saw the posters . \u201d","The trial court further held :","\u201c The contents of the posters may obviously arouse feelings of unrest , dislike or antagonism between the NORP and NORP nations . The emphasis in the posters on the alleged NORP crimes , and the inclusion of groundless demands for the return of houses and land left by the NORP population on NORP territory , may presently revive or arouse antagonism on the part of the NORP towards the NORP . In accordance with the expert opinion the inclusion in one of the posters of a photograph of a skull was solely aimed at stirring up hatred . ...","With regard to the sentence , the court had regard to the ORG previous conviction by a judgment of the FAC of CARDINAL DATE for an administrative offence specified in LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Offences .","The applicants filed an appeal . Firstly , they alleged that the court had committed a number of procedural errors . They claimed , inter alia , that when considering whether the offence of insulting the NORP nation had been committed , the trial court had blindly followed the expert opinion prepared by historians and failed to properly consider the matter itself and to examine the contents of the posters . Furthermore , the court had wrongly assumed that inclusion in the poster of inaccurate data related to historical events had implied that the content was insulting and incited hatred .","The applicants contested the trial court \u2019s refusal to admit certain evidence and alleged that it had arbitrarily assessed the evidence . In particular , they challenged its refusal to admit a second expert opinion alleging that the first one had been contradictory . In their view , the trial court had erred in considering that the contents of the posters was capable of stirring up unrest , dislike and antagonism and that they had acted with the intention of insulting the NORP nation and inciting hatred .","They averred that the exaggerated manner of their expression concerning the relations between the NORP and the NORP had been exclusively aimed at prompting a discussion about their relations with a view to reconciliation , and could not be considered in any way as an insult . In this connection , they claimed that the posters contained some true historical information and some which was the subject of historical dispute .","With regard to the alleged insult to the NORP nation , they argued that the trial court had failed to distinguish between statements which were unfavourable to the NORP nation and those which were insulting . Furthermore , LAW should have been construed narrowly in a modern ORG based on the rule of law and could not be used as a tool to protect CARDINAL interpretation of history .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .","The Court of Appeal found that the trial court had committed no errors of procedure . The evidence collected in the case had been comprehensive and sufficient to examine the case and there was no need to admit the evidence proposed by the applicants .","ORG noted that it had been necessary to examine the applicants\u2019 actions in the historical context of the Second World War and the period following it . To this end the court had ordered the preparation of an opinion by professors from ORG . They had been asked to consider the content of the posters and had stated that :","\u201c the contents of the posters were entirely untrue and contained false information about the situation prevailing on the territories transferred to NORP administration following the undertakings of ORG . The posters also contained untrue information about NORP losses which did not correspond to the results of research carried out by NORP and NORP historians \u201d .","ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 arguments that the opinion had been incomplete and contradictory . It also rejected their view that the experts had not been in a position to assess whether the contents of the posters had been insulting to the NORP nation or had incited national hatred . ORG noted that in historical studies there could be certain differences of opinion as regards , for example , the extent of NORP losses after DATE war . The experts had , however , considered this issue , referring to the results of NORP research . Furthermore , it observed that although the human tragedies experienced by the NORP , occasioned by their expulsion in particular , could not be disregarded , those events could not be detached from the historical context , namely , the reasons for and the consequences of the Second World War , including the undertakings of ORG .","Article CARDINAL provides as follows :","\u201c GPE shall ensure freedom of the press and other means of social communication . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the LAW , which lays down a general prohibition on disproportionate limitations on constitutional rights and freedoms ( the principle of proportionality ) , provides :","\u201c Any limitation upon the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights may be imposed only by statute , and only when necessary in a democratic ORG for the protection of its security or public order , or to protect the natural environment , health or public morals , or the freedoms and rights of other persons . Such limitations shall not violate the essence of freedoms and rights . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW guarantees freedom of expression . It states , in so far as relevant :","\u201c The freedom to express opinions , to acquire and to disseminate information shall be ensured to everyone . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW reads :","\u201c Only a person who has committed an act prohibited by a statute in force at the moment of commission thereof , and which is subject to a penalty , shall be held criminally responsible . This principle shall not prevent punishment of any act which , at the moment of its commission , constituted an offence within the meaning of international law . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows :","\u201c In accordance with principles specified by statute , everyone whose constitutional freedoms or rights have been infringed , shall have the right to appeal to ORG for a judgment on the conformity with LAW of a statute or another normative act on the basis of which a court or an administrative authority has issued a final decision on his freedoms or rights or on his obligations specified in LAW . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the LAW , insofar as relevant provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Judgments of the Constitutional Court shall be universally binding and final .","Judgments of ORG , ... shall be published without delay .","A judgment of the Constitutional Court shall take effect from DATE of its publication ; however , ORG may specify another date for DATE the binding force of a normative act . Such time - limit may not exceed DATE in relation to a statute or DATE in relation to any other normative act . ...","A judgment of ORG on the non - conformity with LAW , an international agreement or statute , of a normative act on the basis of which a final and enforceable judicial decision or a final administrative decision ... was given , shall be a basis for re - opening of the proceedings , or for quashing the decision ... in a manner and on principles specified in provisions applicable to the given proceedings . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides as follows :","\u201c Anyone who insults the ORG or GPE in public shall be subject to deprivation of liberty for DATE . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code read , at the material time , as follows :","\u201c Anyone who publicly promotes a fascist or other totalitarian system of state or incites hatred based on national , ethnic , racial or religious differences or for reason of lack of any religious denomination shall be subject to a fine , restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for DATE . \u201d","LAW CARDINAL of LAW provides for reopening of the proceedings following a judgment of ORG . It reads as follows :","\u201c The proceedings shall be reopened to the benefit of the accused when as a result of ORG judgment a provision of law which served as the basis for conviction or conditional discontinuation [ of the proceedings ] was abolished or amended . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146832","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MURATSPAHI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP - Herzegovinian citizen , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Deputy Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","After its declaration of independence on DATE , a brutal war started in GPE . It would appear that CARDINAL people lost their lives and CARDINAL people were displaced in the course of the war . It is estimated that around CARDINAL people went missing and that around DATE of them is still missing . The conflict came to an end on DATE when ORG in GPE entered into force . In accordance with that Agreement , GPE consists of CARDINAL Entities , ORG and PERSON .","NORP In response to atrocities then taking place in GPE , on DATE ORG passed LAW establishing ORG for the former GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , headquartered in GPE . CARDINAL individuals have already been convicted and proceedings are ongoing for CARDINAL accused . In the period from DATE until DATE , local prosecutors in GPE and GPE were required to submit case files to the ORG for review ; no person could be arrested on suspicion of war crimes unless ORG had received the case file beforehand and found it to contain credible charges ( the \u201c Rules of the Road \u201d procedure ) . Moreover , the ORG had primacy over national courts and could take over national investigations and proceedings at any stage in the interest of international justice . As part of the ORG \u2019s completion strategy , in DATE war crimes chambers were set up within ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) with primacy over other courts in GPE as regards war crimes . CARDINAL persons have been finally convicted by ORG . Many others have been convicted by the competent Entity courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","Furthermore , ORG on ORG ( \u201c the ICMP \u201d ) was established at the initiative of GPE President PERSON in DATE . It is currently headquartered in GPE . Reportedly , the ICMP has so far identified by DNA CARDINAL missing persons in GPE , whereas local authorities have identified CARDINAL missing persons by other methods . In DATE the Government of GPE and the ICMP established a ORG , also headquartered in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It became operational on DATE .","The applicant \u2019s father , PERSON , disappeared in unknown circumstances in an area controlled by the ORG forces ( PERSON in the vicinity of PERSON ) on an unknown date in DATE .","On DATE PERSON , one of the war - time leading political figures of PERSON , pleaded guilty before the ORG to having participated in the persecution of Bosniacs and NORP from certain territories of GPE . She was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","Cases against PERSON , the war - time civilian leader of ORG , ORG , the war - time military leader of that Entity , and PERSON , a leading political figure of GPE in DATE , are also pending before the ORG . They are charged with the participation in a joint criminal enterprise to permanently remove ORG and NORP from \u201c the territories of GPE claimed as NORP territory \u201d ( see , for example , the third amended indictment against PERSON , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","In the absence of any information about the disappearance and death of the applicant \u2019s father , no formal charges have been brought yet in respect of this particular case . At the same time , domestic authorities have finalised investigations into some other killings committed as a part of a widespread and systematic attack against the non - NORP civilian population of the pre - war municipality of GPE in DATE ; an indictment has thus far been issued against CARDINAL person \u2013 D. \u0160. \u2013 and criminal proceedings are pending .","The applicant did not seek a declaration of presumed death with respect to her father .","NORP The applicant \u2019s father was identified by DNA on DATE .","On DATE ORG held that there had been a violation of LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention . It ordered the authorities to release any and all information in their custody pertaining to the fate or whereabouts of the applicant \u2019s father and to conduct a full , meaningful , thorough and detailed investigation aimed at making known the fate or whereabouts of the applicant \u2019s father and bringing the responsible to justice . No compensation was awarded .","LAW entered into force on DATE ( ORG GPE no . CARDINAL ) . In accordance with section CARDINAL of the Act , families have the right to know the fate of missing persons ( that is , their whereabouts if they are still alive , or the circumstances of death and their place of burial , if they are dead ) and to obtain their mortal remains . Under section CARDINAL of the Act , the relevant domestic authorities have the obligation to provide any and all such information in their keeping .","Section CARDINAL of that LAW provides for the setting up of a Missing Persons Institute . In DATE the ICMP and the Government of GPE founded the ORG , headquartered in GPE , pursuant to that provision and the Agreement on Assuming ORG - founders of ORG , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It became operational on DATE . CARDINAL of the organs of that ORG , comprised of CARDINAL representatives of families of missing persons ( see LAW mentioned above ) .","In accordance with section QUANTITY , the status of missing person comes to an end on the date of identification . Therefore , if a missing person is declared dead but the mortal remains have not been found and identified , the process of tracing continues .","Pursuant to LAW , the families of missing persons are entitled to DATE financial support under some conditions , notably if they were supported by the missing family member until his or her disappearance and if they are still in need of support ( in other words , if they are not in paid employment and do not receive welfare benefits beyond PERCENT of the average salary paid in GPE ) . LAW provides for the setting up of ORG for that purpose . However , as the ORG has not yet been established , no payment has been made so far .","Families of missing persons are also entitled to , inter alia , temporary administration of the property of missing persons , burial of mortal remains at public expense and priority in access to education and employment for the children of missing persons ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides for the setting up of ORG with the aim of verifying information about missing persons from different sources ( government agencies , associations of families of missing persons , the FAC and ORG ) and creating a single database . While ORG were founded on DATE , it would appear that the verification process is still ongoing . Once that process is completed , all those recorded as missing will be declared dead ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) , but the tracing process will nevertheless continue ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP Despite the fact that the verification process outlined in paragraph CARDINAL above is pending , any person may request that a declaration of presumed death be issued with respect to a missing person ( see LAW DATE , ORG GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; and ORG DATE , ORG of ORG , no . CARDINAL ) .","DATE War crimes cases fall , as a general rule , under the jurisdiction of ORG , but ORG may transfer any such case to the competent Entity court in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph CARDINAL below ( see LAW ) . For example , only in DATE ORG transferred CARDINAL cases to CARDINAL Entity courts .","In accordance with ORG on ORG of DATE the following types of cases were , as a rule , to be heard before ORG : ( a ) cases concerning genocide , extermination , multiple murders , rape and other serious sexual assaults as part of a system ( such as in camps ) , enslavement , torture , persecution on a widespread and systematic scale , mass forced detention in camps ; ( b ) cases against past or present military commanders , past or present political leaders , past or present members of the judiciary , past or present police chiefs , camp commanders , persons with a past or present notorious reputation , multiple rapists ; ( c ) cases with insider or suspect witnesses ; ( d ) if there was a risk of witness intimidation ; and ( e ) cases involving perpetrators in an area which is sympathetic to them or where the authorities have a vested interest in preventing public scrutiny of the crimes . All other war crimes cases were , as a rule , to be heard before the Entity courts .","In DATE the authorities adopted ORG , providing a new set of criteria . However , they are almost identical to those outlined in paragraph CARDINAL above . In addition , the Strategy defines the time - frames , capacities , criteria and mechanisms for managing those cases , standardisation of court practices , issues of regional cooperation , protection and support to victims and witnesses , as well as financial aspects , and supervision over the implementation of the Strategy . CARDINAL of its objectives is to process the most complex and top priority cases within DATE ( that is , by DATE ) and other war crimes cases within DATE ( that is , by DATE ) . In order to comply with that time - frame , the local authorities have , inter alia , almost doubled the number of ORG prosecutors in charge of war crimes ( from DATE ) in DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163114","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF AVOTI\u0145\u0160 v. LATVIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus K\u016bris;Elisabeth Steiner;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Josep Casadevall;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC ) . At the time of the events which are the subject of the present application he was an investment consultant .","On DATE the applicant and ORG , a commercial company incorporated under NORP law , signed an acknowledgment of debt deed before a notary . Under the terms of the deed the applicant declared that he had borrowed MONEY ( ORG ) from ORG and undertook to repay that sum with interest by DATE . The deed also contained choice of law and jurisdiction clauses according to which it was governed \u201c in all respects \u201d by NORP law and the NORP courts had nonexclusive jurisdiction to hear any disputes arising out of it . The applicant \u2019s address was given as PERSON Street in GPE and was indicated as follows :","\u201c [ FOR ] GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION , I , ORG , of [ no . ] , PERSON [ street ] , CARDINALrd floor , GPE , GPE , [ postcode ] GPE ... , ( \u2018 the PERSON ) ... \u201d","NORP In DATE ORG brought proceedings against the applicant in LOC ( PERSON , GPE ) , alleging that he had not repaid the above - mentioned debt and requesting that he be ordered to pay the principal debt together with interest . In the GPE proceedings the applicant submitted that he had in fact already repaid the debt before the proceedings were instituted in the NORP court , not by paying the sum of money in question to ORG but by other means linked to the capital of ORG parent company . However , he acknowledged that there was no documentary evidence of this . The respondent Government contested the applicant \u2019s submission .","In an order dated DATE ORG authorised the \u201c sealing and filing of the writ of summons \u201d . On DATE a \u201c specially endorsed writ \u201d was drawn up , describing the facts of the case in detail . It gave the applicant \u2019s address as G. Street in GPE , the address indicated on the acknowledgment of debt deed .","Since the applicant was not resident in GPE , ORG made an ex parte application to the same ORG on DATE seeking a fresh order enabling a summons to be served on the applicant outside the country and requiring him to appear within DATE from the date of issuing of the summons . The claimant company \u2019s lawyer produced an affidavit declaring that the defendant was habitually resident at an address in FAC in GPE and could actually receive judicial documents at that address . The applicant , for his part , contended that it would have been physically impossible for him to receive the summons at the address in question , which was simply the address at which he had signed the loan contract and the acknowledgment of debt deed in DATE and was not his home or business LOC .","On DATE ORG ordered that notice of the proceedings be served on the applicant at the address provided by the claimant company . The applicant was summoned to appear or to come forward within DATE of receiving the summons . If he did not do so the court would make no further attempt to contact him and would instead post all future announcements concerning the case on the court noticeboard .","An affidavit produced by an employee of the firm of lawyers representing ORG showed that , in accordance with the court order , the summons had been sent by recorded delivery to the address in FAC in GPE on DATE . However , the copy of the summons furnished by ORG indicated that it had been drawn up on DATE . The slip produced by the NORP postal service stated that the summons had been sent on DATE to the address in PERSON Street , and had been delivered and signed for on DATE . However , the signature on the slip did not appear to correspond to the applicant \u2019s name . The applicant claimed never to have received the summons .","As the applicant did not appear , ORG ruled in his absence on DATE . It ordered him to pay the claimant MONEY or the equivalent in NORP pounds ( ORG ) , plus interest at an DATE rate of PERCENT of the aforementioned amount from DATE until payment of the debt . The applicant was also ordered to pay costs and expenses in a gross amount of ORG MONEY , plus interest at an DATE rate of PERCENT . According to the judgment , the final version of which was drawn up on DATE , the applicant had been duly informed of the hearing but had not attended . The judgment did not state whether the decision was final or indicate possible judicial remedies .","On DATE ORG applied to ORG ( PERSON pils\u0113tas ORG priek\u0161pils\u0113tas tiesa , GPE ) seeking recognition and enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL May CARDINAL . In its request the company also sought to have a temporary precautionary measure applied . It stated that the applicant was the owner of real property in GPE district ) which according to the land register was already mortgaged to a bank . Accordingly , fearing that the applicant might seek to evade enforcement of the judgment , it asked ORG to place a charge on the property in question and record the charge in the land register . Lastly , it requested that the applicant be ordered to pay the costs . In its request the company gave as the applicant \u2019s place of residence an address in \u010c. Street in GPE which differed from the address previously notified to the NORP court .","On DATE ORG adjourned examination of ORG request , informing the company that the request contained a number of defects which it had DATE to correct . In particular , ORG had not explained why it had given an address in \u010c. Street when the applicant was supposedly resident in FAC .","On DATE ORG submitted a corrigendum in which it explained , among other points , that according to the information contained in the register of residents ( ORG re\u0123istrs ) , the address in \u010c. Street was the applicant \u2019s officially declared home address . As to the address in PERSON Street , the company \u2019s representatives had assumed it to be the applicant \u2019s actual residence . In that connection the NORP Government provided the ORG with a copy of a letter from the authority responsible for the register of residents according to which , prior to DATE , the applicant \u2019s officially declared address had been in \u010c Street .","NORP In an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG ruled that the corrigendum submitted by ORG was insufficient to remedy all the defects in its request . The court therefore declined to examine the request and sent it back to the company . The latter lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) , which on DATE set aside the order of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case to ORG in order for the latter to examine the request for recognition and enforcement as rectified by the corrigendum of CARDINAL DATE .","In an order of DATE issued without the parties being present , ORG granted ORG request in full . It ordered the recognition and enforcement of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the entry in the Garkalne municipal land register of a charge on the property owned by the applicant in that municipality . The applicant was also ordered to pay the costs .","According to the applicant , it was not until DATE that he learned , from the bailiff responsible for enforcement of the NORP judgment , of the existence of that judgment and of ORG order for its enforcement . On DATE ( DATE ) he went to ORG , where he acquainted himself with the judgment and the order . The respondent Government did not dispute these facts .","The applicant did not attempt to appeal against the NORP judgment in the NORP courts . However , he lodged an interlocutory appeal ( blakus s\u016bdz\u012bba ) against the order of CARDINAL DATE with ORG , while asking ORG to extend the time allowed for lodging the appeal . Arguing that there was nothing in the case file to confirm that he had been given notice of the hearing of DATE or of the order issued following the hearing , he submitted that the DATE period laid down by LAW should start running on DATE , the date on which he had taken cognisance of the order in question .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request and extended the time - limit for lodging an appeal . It noted , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c ... It is clear from the order of DATE that the issue of recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment was determined in the absence of the parties , on the basis of the documents furnished by the claimant , [ ORG ] . The order further states that the defendant may appeal against it within DATE from the date of receipt of the copy [ of that order ] , in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The court considers the arguments advanced by the applicant , P. ORG , to be wellfounded , to the effect that he did not receive the order ... of DATE until DATE , this being attested to by the reference in the list of consultations [ appended to the case file ] and by the fact that the order , served [ on the applicant ] by the court , was returned on DATE ... It is apparent from the documents appended to the appeal that the applicant has not lived at the declared address in [ \u010c. ] Street since DATE ; this confirms ... the statement made by his representative at the hearing , according to which the applicant no longer lives at the above - mentioned address .","Accordingly , the DATE period should ... run from the date on which the applicant received the order in question ...","Further , the court does not share the view of the representative of [ ORG ] that the applicant himself is responsible for his failure to receive the correspondence because he did not declare his change of address promptly , and that the time allowed [ for lodging an appeal ] should not therefore be extended . The fact that the applicant did not take the necessary legal steps concerning registration of residence is not sufficient to justify a refusal by the court to allow him to exercise the fundamental rights guaranteed by the ORG as regards access to the courts and judicial protection , including the right to appeal against a decision , with the consequences this is likely to entail . ... \u201d","In his grounds of appeal before ORG the applicant contended that the recognition and enforcement of the NORP judgment in GPE breached ORG ( ORG ) No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ( \u201c ORG ) and several provisions of ORG . He submitted CARDINAL arguments in that regard .","Firstly , the applicant argued that in accordance with LAW corresponding in substance to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , third subparagraph , of ORG ) , a judgment given in default in another Member ORG could not be recognised if the defendant had not been served with the document instituting the proceedings in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence . He maintained that he had not been duly informed of the proceedings in GPE , although both the NORP lawyers who had represented the claimant company in ORG and the NORP lawyers who had represented it in the NORP courts had been perfectly aware of his business address in GPE . In support of that allegation he submitted that he had had professional dealings with the NORP lawyers , who had telephoned him and sent faxes to his office , and had met the NORP lawyers in person . Hence , they must all have been aware of his business address . He added that he could also have been reached at his home address in PERSON , as he had a residence there that was officially declared in accordance with the law and the lawyers could have consulted the municipal land register , where the property he owned was registered under his name . However , instead of serving notice of the proceedings on him at one of those addresses , which had been known and accessible , the lawyers had given the courts an address which they should have realised could not be used .","Secondly , the applicant argued that , under the terms of Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , second subparagraph , of LAW , a judgment had to be enforceable in the ORG of origin in order to be enforceable in the Member ORG addressed . In the instant case , there had been a threefold breach of those requirements . First , the claimant had only submitted the text of the NORP court judgment to the NORP court and not the certificate required by ORG to ORG . In that connection the applicant acknowledged that under LAW in which enforcement was sought could , in some circumstances , exempt the claimant from the obligation to produce a certificate . However , in the present case ORG had not made clear whether it considered that the claimant could be exempted from that obligation and , if so , for what reason . Second , the NORP judgment had contained no reference to the fact that it was enforceable or to possible judicial remedies . Third , although a judgment had to be enforceable in the country of origin in order to be enforced in accordance with ORG , the claimant company had not produced any documentary evidence demonstrating that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was enforceable in GPE . In view of all these circumstances , the applicant contended that the judgment could on no account be recognised and enforced in GPE .","In a judgment of DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal on the merits , quashed the impugned order and rejected the request for recognition and enforcement of the NORP judgment .","F.H. Ltd. lodged an appeal against that judgment with the ORG of ORG , which examined it on DATE . At the start of the hearing ORG submitted copies of several documents to the ORG , including the certificate referred to in LAW and Annex V thereto . The certificate was dated DATE and had been signed by an acting judge of ORG . It stated that the document instituting the proceedings had been served on the applicant on DATE . The last part of the certificate , intended for the name of the person against whom the judgment was enforceable , had been left blank . When asked to comment on these documents the applicant \u2019s lawyer contended that they were clearly insufficient to render the judgment enforceable .","In a final judgment of DATE ORG quashed and annulled ORG judgment of DATE . It granted ORG request and ordered the recognition and enforcement of the NORP judgment and the entry in the land register of a charge on the applicant \u2019s property in Garkalne . The relevant extracts from the judgment read as follows :","\u201c ... It is clear from the evidence in the case file that the GPE ORG judgment became final . This is confirmed by the explanations provided by both parties at ORG hearing on DATE , according to which no appeal had been lodged against the judgment , and by the certificate issued on DATE ... As [ the applicant ] did not appeal against the judgment , his lawyer \u2019s submissions to the effect that he was not duly notified of the examination of the case by a foreign court lack relevance [ nav b\u016btiskas noz\u012bmes ] .","Having regard to the foregoing , the ORG finds that the judgment of ORG ( GPE ) of CARDINAL May CARDINAL must be recognised and enforced in GPE .","Article CARDINAL of the [ GPE I ] Regulation provides that a foreign judgment may under no circumstances be reviewed as to its substance ; in accordance with section CARDINAL ) of LAW , once such judgments have been recognised they are to be enforced in accordance with the conditions laid down by that PERSON . ... \u201d","On DATE ORG , basing its decision on ORG judgment , issued a payment order ( izpildu raksts ) . The applicant complied immediately with the terms of the order and paid the bailiff employed by the claimant company a total of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) , comprising ORG CARDINAL for the principal debt and ORG in enforcement costs . He then requested that the charge on his property in Garkalne be lifted . In CARDINAL orders dated DATE the judge with responsibility for land registers ( PERSON noda\u013cas tiesnesis ) refused the request . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the ORG of ORG , which , in an order of DATE , lifted the charge on his property ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177937","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DURMU\u015e v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a teacher in a high school . At the material time he was a member of the local branch of the trade union of ORG and ORG LOC ) .","In DATE , disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant for putting up a notice encouraging the participation in a press statement published by his Union on the notice board that was set aside for that particular purpose in their office , and for distributing it in CARDINAL of the common areas at school .","On DATE ORG imposed a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand on him , for putting up and distributing notices produced by the trade union , of which he was a member , under LAW no . CARDINAL on ORG .","On DATE the applicant objected to this decision and requested its annulment .","On DATE ORG of the GPE district governor dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection considering that the contested decision was in accordance with law and there were no grounds for its annulment ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169648","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BERDZENISHVILI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Lawfully resident);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);No violation of Article 13+P7-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Lawfully resident;Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens);No violation of Article 14+P7-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Lawfully resident;Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["During the period from DATE to DATE identity checks of NORP nationals residing in GPE were carried out in the streets , markets and other workplaces and at their homes . Many were subsequently arrested and taken to police stations . After a period of custody in police stations , they were grouped together and taken by bus to a court , which summarily imposed administrative penalties on them and gave decisions ordering their administrative expulsion from NORP territory . Subsequently , after sometimes undergoing a medical visit and a blood test , they were taken to detention centres for foreigners where they were detained for varying periods of time , and then taken by bus to various airports in GPE , and expelled to GPE by aeroplane . Some of the NORP nationals against whom expulsion orders were issued left the territory of GPE by their own means ( for further details as to the background of the case see GPE v. GPE ( I ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) .","The applicant entered the territory of GPE on DATE on a multiple entry business visa , valid until DATE . On DATE immigration officers stopped the applicant on the street , checked his identity documents and brought him to ORG in LOC of GPE , where he was detained . On DATE the ORG of GPE fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) for failure to observe the applicable registration procedure and ordered his administrative expulsion from GPE . He was subsequently , around TIME , released . On DATE the applicant left GPE by his own means .","The applicant entered the territory of GPE on DATE on a multiple entry business visa . Subsequently he registered at his place of residence with the competent authority and worked as a driver in GPE . On DATE the applicant was detained in the ORG militia department . On DATE the ORG of GPE found the applicant liable under LAW , as he had not applied for a work permit . The court fined the applicant ( RUB MONEY ) and ordered his administrative expulsion from GPE . He was subsequently transferred to the NORP militia department , where he was detained until DATE . On DATE he was transferred to ORG , where he stayed until his deportation . On DATE the applicant was taken to a military airport and was flown to GPE with a cargo plane .","The applicant entered the territory of GPE on DATE under the visa - free regime and settled in the village of GPE in LOC . On DATE the applicant was arrested by police officers during an identity check operation in the area of his residence . Later that same day the ORG of GPE found him guilty of staying in the country without the required residence permit . The court fined the applicant ( RUB MONEY ) , ordered his detention and his expulsion . Subsequently the applicant was transferred to a detention centre for aliens . On DATE , after friends of the applicant had paid the administrative fine and bought him an aeroplane ticket to GPE for DATE , the applicant was released . On DATE the applicant left the territory of GPE , leaving behind his property and belongings .","The applicant entered the territory of GPE in DATE and worked on a market in GPE . On DATE the market was raided by a special unit of the police and the applicant , together with CARDINAL other NORP nationals , was arrested . The applicant was brought to ORG in the LOC of GPE . On DATE the Nagatinskiy ORG of GPE found her guilty of staying in the country without the required residence permit . The court fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) , ordered her detention and her expulsion . Subsequently the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant was taken to a military airport and flown to GPE with a cargo plane .","The applicants entered the territory of GPE in DATE and lived there without the required visa , at the latest since DATE . On DATE both applicants were apprehended by the police and brought to the LOC police station of ORG . On DATE ORG of GPE fined both applicants ( RUB CARDINAL each ) for staying in the country without the required registration and ordered their expulsion . Subsequently both applicants were released . On DATE the applicants left GPE by their own means with their son , leaving behind most of their belongings .","An alleged detention of the ORG son and the fact whether the applicants owned a car , which they had to leave behind when leaving GPE , are matters of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant entered GPE on an unknown date on a multi - entry business visa , valid until DATE . She had registered her place of residence through a private agency and received a certificate valid until DATE . On DATE the applicant was apprehended by police officers for an inspection of her identity documents and was brought to the GPE police station in GPE , where she was subsequently detained . On DATE the ORG of GPE fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) for not complying with the applicable registration obligation , ordered her detention and expulsion . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL , where she was detained until her expulsion . On DATE she was brought by bus to GPE airport and was flown to GPE .","The first applicant stayed in GPE on a multi - entry business visa , valid until DATE , and had registered his place of residence through a private agency . The second applicant had a temporary document issued by the NORP of GPE , authorising his residency in GPE until DATE . On DATE the applicants were apprehended by police officers for an inspection of their documents and brought to the GPE police station in GPE , where they were subsequently detained . On DATE the ORG of GPE fined the applicants ( RUB CARDINAL each ) for not complying with the applicable registration obligation and ordered their detention and expulsion . On DATE the applicants were transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL , where they were detained until their expulsion . On DATE the applicants were brought by bus to GPE airport and were flown to GPE .","The applicant had lived in GPE since DATE and had a visa and registration valid until DATE . On DATE the applicant left GPE by her own means .","An alleged detention of the applicant in DATE is a matter of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant had lived in GPE since DATE . He worked as an engineer , had a visa valid until DATE and a registration certificate , issued by a private agency , valid until DATE .","It is a matter of contention , whether the applicant had been detained , whether his expulsion was ordered by a court and whether he was deported ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The applicants had lived in GPE since DATE , most recently in GPE . The first applicant had a visa valid from DATE until DATE . The second applicant had a visa valid from DATE until DATE . Both applicants were in possession of registration certificates , valid until respectively CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The applicants left GPE on DATE by their own means .","An alleged detention of both applicants is a matter of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant had lived in GPE since DATE . He had a visa valid until DATE and a registration certificate that had expired on DATE . On DATE the applicant was arrested by police officers and was brought to ORG in the GPE district of GPE , where he was detained . On DATE the ORG of GPE fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) , ordered his detention and subsequent expulsion . After the decision of ORG the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL , where he was detained until his expulsion . On DATE the applicant was brought by bus to GPE airport and was flown to GPE .","The applicant had lived in GPE since DATE . She had a valid visa and a registration , but no work permit . On DATE she was apprehended by police officers in a grocery store , and , after her identity papers had been checked and an administrative report had been drawn up , the applicant was released . On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of working without the required work permit and fined her ( RUB MONEY ) . In addition the court ordered her detention and subsequent expulsion . After the court hearing the applicant was detained and brought to ORG no . CARDINAL , where she was detained until her expulsion . On DATE the applicant was brought to GPE airport and was flown to GPE .","NORP The applicant entered GPE in DATE and settled in GPE . He had a valid visa until DATE . On DATE the applicant was apprehended by officers of ORG of GPE and brought to their station , where he was detained . On DATE the Kuntsevskiy ORG of GPE fined the applicant for not observing the applicable registration procedure and ordered his detention and expulsion . The applicant was brought to ORG no . CARDINAL , where he was detained until his expulsion . On DATE , after the applicant \u2019s relatives had bought him an aeroplane ticket to GPE , he was brought to the airport and released . The applicant left GPE on DATE .","The applicant had arrived in GPE for the first time in DATE . Since then he had lived , with short interruptions , in GPE and worked as a driver . After the last interruption he entered GPE on DATE on a one month visa . On DATE ORG of Moscow Region discontinued proceedings against the applicant for not observing the applicable registration procedure . On DATE the ORG of GPE fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) for not observing the applicable registration procedure . The court also ordered his expulsion from GPE . On DATE the applicant left GPE by aeroplane .","NORP The arrests and detentions surrounding the CARDINAL court decisions are matters of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE for the first time . On DATE she was expelled from GPE due to a violation of visa - related regulations . On DATE the applicant returned to GPE . For the relevant time the applicant had a visa and registration , valid until respectively DATE and CARDINAL DATE . ORG of GPE decided that the expulsion decision of DATE had included a DATE ban from entering GPE . Consequently it fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) , ordered her detention and expulsion . After DATE of detention the applicant was expelled from GPE .","The exact circumstances and dates of the applicant \u2019s arrest , detention , court decision and expulsion are matters of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant entered the territory of GPE on DATE on a multiple entry business visa . Subsequently she registered at her place of residence with the competent authority through a private agency . On DATE the ORG of GPE fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) for not having a valid , but a counterfeited , registration certificate . The court also ordered her detention and expulsion . At the latest on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL , where she was held until her expulsion . On DATE the applicant was taken to a military airport and was flown to GPE with a cargo plane .","The date of the applicant \u2019s arrest and her detention before DATE are matters of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The conditions of detention in the different places of detention are a matter of contention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The ORG reiterates that the proceedings before the ORG are adversarial in nature . It is therefore for the parties to substantiate their factual arguments by providing the ORG with the necessary evidence . Whereas the ORG is responsible for establishing the facts , it is up to the parties to provide active assistance by supplying it with all the relevant information . In this context , the conduct of the parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account ( Lisnyy and others v. GPE and GPE DATE . ) , ORG . ORG GPE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE , with further references ) .","In cases in which there are conflicting accounts of events , the ORG is inevitably confronted with the same difficulties as those faced by any first - instance court when establishing the facts . As to facts in dispute , the ORG reiterates its jurisprudence requiring a standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d in its assessment of evidence . Such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact ( Aslakhanova and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE , with further references ) .","Furthermore , it is to be recalled that Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio ( ORG v. the former GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE ) . Under certain circumstances the ORG has borne in mind the difficulties associated with obtaining evidence and the fact that often little evidence can be submitted by the applicants in support of their applications ( NORP v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) . According to the ORG \u2019s settled case - law , in these cases it is for the applicant to make only a prima facie case and to adduce appropriate evidence . If , in response to such allegations made by the applicants , the ORG then fail to disclose crucial documents to establish the facts or otherwise provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation , strong inferences may be drawn . The prima facie threshold is reached primarily on the basis of witness statements , including the ORG submission to the ORG and to domestic authorities , and other evidence ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE , with further references ) . However , where the applicants fail to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof can not be reversed ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 QUANTITY , with further references ) .","The ORG has already found that these considerations apply to disappearances examined under LAW , where , although it has not been proved that a person has been taken into custody by the authorities , it is possible to establish that he or she was officially summoned by the authorities , entered a place under their control and has not been seen since . In such circumstances , the onus is on the Government to provide a plausible and satisfactory explanation as to what happened on the LOC and to show that the person concerned was not detained by the authorities , but left the LOC without subsequently being deprived of his or her liberty . Furthermore , the ORG reiterates that , again in the context of a complaint under LAW , it has required proof in the form of concordant inferences before the burden of proof is shifted to ORG ( see PERSON , cited above , LAW , with further references ) .","The ORG reiterates that it concluded in GPE v. GPE ( I ) ( cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) that from DATE a coordinated policy of arresting , detaining and expelling NORP nationals had been put in place in GPE , which had amounted to an administrative practice . While the ORG does not suggest that at that time all NORP nationals were arrested or detained in GPE , it nevertheless finds it appropriate to apply the principles concerning reversing the burden of proof to the present case . Nonetheless , where the applicants failed to make a prima facie case , no strong inferences will be drawn and proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d would be required .","According to the applicants their then DATE son had been detained for TIME at the PERSON district police department on DATE and he was only released after the payment of a bribe . The applicants also indicated that their belongings , which they had to leave behind in GPE , included a car .","The Government objected to the allegation of the detention of the ORG son and stated that an inquiry by the prosecutor \u2019s offices had not produced any proof for this allegation . The ORG also indicated that no vehicle was registered in the name of the applicants in the database of ORG .","The ORG observes that the applicants\u2019 submission was of a general nature and lacked several important details , such as the exact time of the detention , the amount of the paid bribe , the make , model or registration number of the car ( see , a contrario , PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . The ORG also notes that the applicants did neither submit any documents or witness statements regarding the alleged detention of their son and the ownership of the car nor have they informed the ORG of any attempts they may have made in order to obtain at least fragmentary documentary evidence to substantiate their allegations ( see Lisnyy and others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . Accordingly , the ORG finds that the applicants have not made a prima facie case and that the information in the ORG \u2019s possession does not suffice to establish that the ORG son had been detained on DATE or that the applicants had to leave behind their car ( see , mutatis mutandis , PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE ) .","The applicant alleged that on or CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE she was arrested by police officers and brought to ORG , where she was detained for DATE . Due to health issues , according to the applicant half her body had become paralysed , she was released on TIME . On DATE she left GPE by aeroplane .","The Government submitted that neither ORG nor ORG had any records or information about the placement of the applicant in any detention facility .","The ORG observes that the applicant alleges a detention in a not closer specified police station . The ORG also notes that the applicant was not able to provide the exact date of her arrest and that she did not submit any medical certificate regarding her paralysis , which was allegedly the reason for her release . Having regard to these uncertainties , the ORG finds that the applicant has neither made a prima facie case nor that the applicant \u2019s detention has been established beyond reasonable doubt ( see , mutatis mutandis , Lisnyy and others , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL ) .","According to the applicant he was arrested on DATE by officers of the migration authorities and was brought to ORG for the Serpokhova district of GPE , where he was kept for CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant was taken to an unspecified ORG in GPE , which ordered his detention and expulsion . Subsequently the applicant was transferred to the Serpokhova special detention centre , where he was detained until his expulsion . On DATE the applicant was taken by bus to GPE airport and he was flown , by cargo plane , to GPE .","The Government submitted that neither ORG nor ORG had any records or information about the placement of the applicant in any detention facility . It further indicated that a PERSON temporary detention centre does not exist .","The Government provided several documents with regard to administrative proceedings concerning the applicant . These include an administrative offence report from the NORP district dated DATE , indicating the applicant \u2019s arrest on DATE at TIME and a decision of ORG of LOC , also dated DATE , fining the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) for not observing the applicable registration procedure , and ordering the applicant \u2019s expulsion . The ORG decision also indicates that the applicant shall be held at FAC of PERSON until his expulsion . Furthermore , the judgment shows a stamp of NORP airport , dated DATE .","On the basis of the material in its possession , the ORG finds it established that the applicant was arrested on DATE and taken to the NORP police station , where he was held for one and a half hours . Subsequently the applicant was brought before ORG , which fined the applicant and ordered his detention and expulsion . The applicant was then detained until DATE in the Reception Centre of NORP . On DATE the applicant was taken by bus to GPE airport and was then flown , by cargo plane , to GPE .","The applicants submitted that on DATE they were stopped by police officers in the street next to the GPE pole metro station in GPE for identity checks . Subsequently they were taken to ORG for the NORP district of GPE . After TIME they were transferred to a special detention centre in the ORG district . After DATE in the detention centre they were , for the first time , allowed to call their mother and were able to ask her to buy aeroplane tickets for them . After the applicants\u2019 mother had done so and presented the aeroplane tickets to the officers of the detention centre , the applicants were released . On DATE the applicants left GPE by aeroplane from GPE airport in GPE .","The Government submitted that an inquiry into the alleged detention in ORG for NORP and ORG districts of GPE did not confirm the applicants\u2019 version of events . According to the Government the applicants had not been brought to the police station of LOC of GPE either , as that police station was closed for reconstruction at the relevant time . Lastly , the Government submitted that no criminal proceedings were instigated against the applicants .","The ORG notes that the applicants have submitted copies of their passports , showing that they left NORP territory on DATE , in support of their application . However , the ORG also observes that the applicants have not submitted any documents , such as the aeroplane tickets and the receipts of the purchase , or witness statements , such as from their mother , corroborating their submission regarding their detention and release . Under these circumstances the ORG finds it unable to conclude that the applicants have made a prima face case . Consequently , the burden of proof can not be reversed and fully shifted to the Government ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 QUANTITY , with further references ) . The ORG considers it not established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants had been detained DATE .","According to the applicant \u2019s submission , on DATE CARDINAL police officers of ORG of ORG visited him at home and checked his identity documents . Owing to him being NORP and under the pretence that he was suspected of theft , he was taken to the NORP police station , where he was identified in an identity parade by the theft victim . Subsequently he was detained and only after the intervention of one of the applicant \u2019s friends , who worked for ORG , his involvement in the alleged theft was cleared up and the investigation was dropped . The applicant was nonetheless not released but kept in a cell of the police station TIME . On DATE he was transferred to the special detention centre in the LOC district in GPE , where he was detained until DATE , when ORG of Moscow Region discontinued proceedings against the applicant for not observing the registration procedure . DATE the applicant was stopped by CARDINAL men in plainclothes on the highway , who forced the applicant into their car and put a hood over his head . After TIME drive , the applicant was led to an unspecified police station and placed in a cell . On DATE of detention in the police station the applicant was handed a decision of ORG , ordering his expulsion and fining the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . DATE , DATE , the applicant was taken to the PERSON airport by police officers and put on a flight to GPE , GPE .","The Government submitted that the applicant was apprehended on DATE by officers of ORG of the GPE district of GPE and was brought before LOC on DATE . The court fined the applicant for not observing the applicable registration procedure and ordered the applicant \u2019s expulsion . The ORG also stated that neither ORG nor ORG had any records or information about any subsequent detention of the applicant and that the applicant was not forcibly removed from GPE , but left on his own on DATE .","The applicant submitted inter alia the decision of ORG of GPE Region of DATE and of ORG of DATE . The ORG submitted in addition to the decision of ORG , reports concerning the arrest and detention of the applicant on DATE .","The ORG observes that the applicant has not submitted any proof concerning his detention from CARDINAL to DATE and from DATE to DATE , and that his submission concerning the second alleged detention is partially fragmentary . The ORG also notes that ORG did not order the applicant \u2019s subsequent detention in CARDINAL of ORG , as the NORP courts did in other cases . Accordingly the ORG considers the information submitted by the applicant insufficient to conclude that he has made a prima facie case . Therefore , the burden of proof can not be reversed and shifted to the Government ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 QUANTITY , with further references ) . The ORG considers it not established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had been detained DATE . However , based on the information and documents provided by the ORG , the ORG concludes that the applicant had been detained in ORG of the GPE district of GPE on DATE .","The applicant initially submitted that at DATE she had submitted her passport and several other documents to her University , for the renewal of her registration . On DATE she received a call from the ORG , informing her that there were problems with her passport and that she had to go to ORG . When she went there DATE , she was notified about a decision to expel her , owing to her visa - related offence in DATE . On DATE she returned to the passport department to prove that she was an internally deplaced person and had a right to stay in GPE . In the evening on DATE she was taken to ORG , which confirmed her expulsion . Subsequently she was brought to ORG of LOC , where she was detained until TIME . During TIME the police attempted to bring her to several different detention centres , where she was not admitted as they were already full or only for men or for convicted persons . At TIME DATE she was admitted to a ORG , near GPE prison , and was detained until her expulsion . On DATE the applicant was brought to GPE airport and flown to GPE by an aircraft belonging to ORG of GPE .","DATE . According to the Government the applicant was apprehended on DATE by officers of ORG of ORG . On DATE the NORP ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of not complying with DATE ban from entering GPE . The court fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) and ordered her expulsion and detention . Subsequently the applicant was placed in ORG no . CARDINAL until her expulsion on DATE .","The applicant subsequently submitted a copy of her passport , showing a stamp leaving GPE on DATE and entering GPE over GPE airport on DATE . The Government provided a copy of the decision of ORG of GPE dated DATE .","On the basis of the material in its possession , provided by the applicant and the Government , the ORG concludes the following :","The applicant was arrested on DATE by officers of ORG of ORG and detained until DATE . On DATE the NORP ORG of GPE fined the applicant ( RUB CARDINAL ) and ordered her expulsion and detention . From CARDINAL until DATE the applicant was detained in ORG no . CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant was expelled from GPE .","The applicant submitted that on DATE , after her husband PERSON , who is also an applicant ( application no . CARDINAL ) , had been deported , she went to the local passport department , to arrange her departure from GPE . In the local passport department her passport was taken from her and she was transferred to a militia department for detention . DATE , she was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL , where she was detained until her expulsion on DATE .","According to the Government the applicant was arrested on DATE and was subsequently brought before FAC of GPE , which inter alia ordered the applicant \u2019s detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE she was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL , where she was detained until her expulsion on CARDINAL October CARDINAL . The Government submitted several documents in this regards , including a report of the applicant \u2019s arrest , the court decision and reports from an initial medical examination in the detention centre , all dated DATE .","On the basis of the material in its possession , and noting that the alleged earlier detention is not only not corroborated by any other evidence but also contradicted by the documents submitted by the ORG , the ORG can not conclude that it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had been detained prior to DATE . It has been established , however , that the applicant was arrested on DATE and fined by ORG of GPE , which also ordered her detention and expulsion until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5","P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4","P4-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","14","3","5","P4","P7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4","P4-4","P7-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P7-1-1"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169434","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"MERTINAS AND MERTINIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their former Agent , Ms E. Baltutyt\u0117 .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The first applicant is a known NORP actor . The second applicant is his wife . She is also the daughter of the former President of GPE .","On DATE a NORP newspaper , \u201c PERSON \u201d , published an article entitled \u201c PERSON DATE a feast for the eyes . The GPE couple was showing off their beauty [ private parts ] in PERSON ( PERSON \u2013 desertas akims \/ ORG demonstravo savo gro\u017eybes ) \u201d . The article was printed on the front page and continued up to the fourth page of the newspaper , and was also published online on the newspaper \u2019s website . The front page of the newspaper had CARDINAL - page photographs of the applicants in the nude , which had been taken on the nudist beach at ORG , a seaside resort in GPE . Altogether , CARDINAL photos of the applicants in the nude on the beach were published .","On DATE the Inspector of ORG concluded that the above - mentioned publication had breached the applicants\u2019 right to privacy .","The applicants instituted court proceedings , arguing a breach of privacy . They claimed that the publication had caused them great distress , given that CARDINAL photographs had been printed on the front page of the newspaper and presented in a sensational manner to increase the sales of the newspaper . From the content of the article and the photographs , it was clear that journalists had secretly followed the applicants and photographed them . This had taken place in a specific secluded environment \u2013 a nudist beach DATE where no reasonable person would wish to be photographed ( as regards the interpretation of the concept of a secluded place , the applicants relied on GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVI ) . After the humiliating publication of the photographs , which concerned very private aspects of their lives , the applicants and their family had been deeply psychologically affected and had also received a lot of unwanted attention . Furthermore , the photographs had been published on the newspaper \u2019s website , which meant that readers could comment on the applicants\u2019 appearance . Some of those comments were extremely insulting . The applicants also contended that , following the publication , the second applicant \u2019s health had deteriorated and the first applicant had lost a job on a television show which he had been promised .","The applicants asked the court to award each of them CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 approximately MONEY ( EUR ) ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG granted the applicants\u2019 claim in full . The court relied extensively on the ORG \u2019s case - law as to the need to balance the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression , as well on ORG no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) to the effect that the right to privacy entailed avoidance of being placed in a false light , non - revelation of irrelevant and embarrassing facts , and prohibition to publish private photographs ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court noted that the applicants were well - known people in GPE and that , by publishing the photographs , the newspaper had blatantly damaged their honour , dignity and right to a private life . There was no public interest in publishing the photographs , given that they were private and did not concern matters which society had a legitimate interest in knowing . On the contrary , by such an act the newspaper was attempting to satisfy readers\u2019 curiosity by creating a sensation , and was pursuing its commercial interests . For that purpose , the newspaper had consciously placed their photographs on the front page , knowing that the nude photographs of the applicants , who were well - known people in GPE , would no doubt attract the ORG attention . The fact that the applicants had been photographed on a nudist beach did not diminish the breach of privacy , because nudity was an important part of private life , and publishing the ORG nude photographs with inappropriate ( nekorekti\u0161komis ) headlines was particularly offensive .","The first - instance court also noted that that issue of the newspaper had had a large print run , and that the photographs had also been placed on the newspaper \u2019s website , thus giving a great many people access to them . The court observed that , following the decision of ORG , the newspaper had had the opportunity to apologise to the applicants for the photographs , which could have lessened the damage , but it had failed to do so . Nor had the newspaper attempted to settle the case before ORG , thus confirming its malicious behaviour .","As for the sum to be awarded to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage the applicants had sustained , ORG observed that neither NORP nor international law set out criteria to determine such a sum . However , guidelines had been provided by ORG , which had underlined the need to take into account the situation of each particular case . Of relevance was whether society had an interest in making the relevant information public , the victim \u2019s reaction to the publication , and the actions of the media . In the case at hand , taking into account the particularly gross breach of the applicants\u2019 right to privacy by a newspaper which had been printed in \u201c large volume \u201d , ORG found it reasonable to award the requested sums in full , that is each of the applicants was to receive ORG .","The applicants were also awarded LTL CARDINAL for legal costs and LTL CARDINAL for court fees , the expenses they had incurred when lodging the civil claim . Those sums were to be paid to them by the newspaper .","NORP The newspaper appealed , requesting , inter alia , that the abovementioned sum in respect of non - pecuniary damage be lowered .","By a ruling of DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision , noting that the published photographs had clearly been offensive and degrading to the applicants . The situation in which they had been photographed fell within the sphere of private life , and was one in which no reasonable person would wish to be photographed . There was no public interest whatsoever in publishing CARDINAL photographs of the sort published by the newspaper .","As to the question of the sum to be awarded as compensation for non - pecuniary damage , ORG noted that the newspaper had assets with a value of LTL MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) , and that in DATE the newspaper \u2019s statutory capital had been increased . Therefore , the newspaper \u2019s plea for the award in respect of non - pecuniary damage to be lowered on the basis of its allegedly difficult financial situation was unfounded . In this connection , the appellate court also observed that the photographs had been widely distributed because the newspaper had been sold throughout GPE , and had been printed on the front page of DATE \u2019s issue as the most \u201c gossip - worthy \u201d news of DATE . To make matters worse , the photographs had been published on the internet . Following the publication , a television programme called \u201c PERSON \u201d had been announced , which had been based on the photographs in question . The only reason the programme had not been broadcast was because of a court injunction . In such circumstances , the first - instance court had correctly found that the applicants had suffered following the publication . Also taking into account that the newspaper had been unwilling to acknowledge its transgression , the sum awarded by ORG was reasonable .","ORG dismissed the newspaper \u2019s argument that the first - instance court had deviated from ORG guidelines as to the sums to be awarded as compensation for non - pecuniary damage . In fact , according to ORG , no case analogous or very similar to the applicant \u2019s case had [ ever ] been examined in GPE .","Lastly , ORG ordered the newspaper to pay each of the applicants LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of lawyers\u2019 costs at the appellate court .","An appeal on points of law being lodged by the newspaper , on CARDINAL DATE ORG varied the lower courts\u2019 decisions . It held that a nudist beach was not a public place . Accordingly , a person could reasonably expect privacy there . The applicants\u2019 behaviour on that beach had not been in breach of good morals . ORG entirely agreed with the lower ORG conclusion that the newspaper had gravely breached the applicants\u2019 right to privacy by abusing its right to impart information , by imparting information merely for readers\u2019 curiosity , and consequently to obtain pecuniary advantage .","ORG also observed that there were no legislative limits on the sum which could be awarded as compensation for nonpecuniary damage , thus giving the courts rather wide discretion in such matters . Nonetheless , it considered it important to follow its earlier case - law to the effect that , when assessing the sum to be awarded , the courts should take into account the value protected by law which had been compromised ( \u012fstatymu saugoma vertyb\u0117 \/ teisinis g\u0117ris ) ( in the present case , the applicants\u2019 right to privacy ) , and also adhere to the sums that the courts had awarded in analogous cases ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . In the case at hand , each of the applicants had been awarded LTL CARDINAL , which was equal to or in excess of the awards of LTL MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ) \u2013 LTL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) made in cases concerning nonpecuniary damage caused by severe physical injury , where more important values ( such as life and health ) had been at stake ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG also had regard to its case - law , where awards between LTL CARDINAL had been granted in relation to breaches of the right to protection of one \u2019s image ( teis\u0117s \u012f atvaizd\u0105 pa\u017eeidimas ) or the right to privacy ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In the light of the above , ORG concluded that the award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL to each applicant was excessive . It was therefore reasonable to grant each of the applicants LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . Such sums would not contradict established case - law , and would be adequate compensation for the damage which the applicants had suffered and sufficient in respect of both defending the applicants\u2019 right to privacy and deterring the abuse of press freedom , thus balancing CARDINAL competing values which were equal in weight \u2013 privacy and the freedom to impart information .","ORG also decided that the applicants were to bear some of the newspaper \u2019s litigation costs ( LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , because PERCENT of the sum which the applicants had claimed had been awarded to them . ORG also noted that the sums which both the applicants and the newspaper had paid to their respective lawyers in connection with the proceedings concerning the appeal on points of law were higher than those recommended by ORG , and thus not entirely justified . As a result , the applicants were together ordered to pay the newspaper ORG for litigation costs and ORG for court fees . The applicants thus received LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in total , or LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) each .","NORP In DATE the magazine ORG published an article about the applicant PERSON , where she explained how she had lost QUANTITY in weight . In DATE the same magazine published a story where the applicant PERSON gave an interview about his family life , also answering questions put by a journalist about the other applicant \u2019s ( his wife \u2019s ) plastic surgery , and giving details about her weight loss .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE reads :","\u201c A person \u2019s private life shall be inviolable ...","The law and the courts shall protect everyone from arbitrary or unlawful interference in his private and family life , or from encroachment upon his honour and dignity . \u201d","DATE LAW provides that compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage suffered by a person must be established by law .","NORP The relevant provisions of LAW read :","\u201c CARDINAL . A photograph ( or part thereof ) , or some other image of a person may be reproduced , sold , exhibited , or published , and the person may be photographed , only with his consent . Such consent following a person \u2019s death may be given by his spouse , parents or children .","Where such acts [ using a person \u2019s image ] are related to a person \u2019s public activities , his official post , or requests from law - enforcement agencies , or where a person is photographed in public places , a person \u2019s consent shall not be required . However , a person \u2019s photograph ( or part thereof ) produced under the above - mentioned circumstances may not be exhibited , reproduced or sold if such an act were to debase a person \u2019s honour or dignity , or damage his professional reputation .","A person whose right to protection of his image has been infringed has the right to ask a court to require the discontinuance of an act and to award compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . A person \u2019s privacy shall be inviolable . Information regarding a person \u2019s private life may be made public only with his consent ...","NORP Unlawful invasion of a person \u2019s dwelling or other private LOC , including fenced private territory ; keeping the person \u2019s private life under observation ... , publication of data relating to the state of his health , in violation of the procedure prescribed by law ; and other unlawful acts shall be deemed to violate the person \u2019s private life .","The creation of a file on another person \u2019s private life , in violation of the law , shall be prohibited . A person may not be denied access to the information contained in the file , except as otherwise provided for by law . Dissemination of the information collected on the person \u2019s private life shall be prohibited unless , taking into consideration the person \u2019s official post and status in society , dissemination of the said information is in line with a lawful and well - grounded public interest in being aware of that information .","NORP The public announcement of facts concerning a person \u2019s private life , however truthful they may be ; making private correspondence public , in violation of the procedure prescribed in paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this Article ; invasion of a person \u2019s dwelling without his consent , except as otherwise provided for by law ; keeping his private life under observation ; or gathering information about him in violation of the law ; and other unlawful acts infringing the right to privacy shall form the basis for bringing an action for compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of those acts ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG - pecuniary damage shall be deemed to be a person \u2019s suffering , emotional experiences , inconvenience , mental shock , emotional depression , humiliation , damage to reputation , diminution of opportunities to associate with others , and so on , evaluated by a court in terms of money .","ORG - pecuniary damage shall be compensated for only in cases provided for by law . Non - pecuniary damage shall be compensated for in all cases where it has been sustained as a result of crime , health impairment or deprivation of life , as well as in other cases provided for by law . The courts , in evaluating the non - pecuniary damage , shall take into consideration the consequences of the damage sustained , the degree of fault on the part of the person who caused the damage , his financial status , the amount of pecuniary damage sustained by the aggrieved person , and any other circumstances important to the case , as well as the criteria of good faith , justice and reasonableness . \u201d","In case no . ORG , decided on DATE , which concerned an injury at work , ORG held that , when evaluating non - pecuniary damage , it was important to consider the values being protected and their interrelationship ( turi b\u016bti atsi\u017evelgta \u012f ginam\u0173 vertybi\u0173 specifik\u0105 ir j\u0173 tarpusavio santyk\u012f ) , because the right to life and the right to health were absolute rights , whereas the right to privacy and the right to dignity were conditional rights ( santykin\u0117s teis\u0117s ) which could not be equally valued as regards damages ( vertinamos vienodai neturtin\u0117s \u017ealos dyd\u017eio aspektu ) . A worker who had fallen off a building platform and cracked his skull was thus awarded LTL CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of that injury .","On DATE ORG gave a ruling in civil case no . ORG concerning an accident at work following which the plaintiff in question had become handicapped . ORG noted that the worker was partly to blame for his injury , because he had not followed safety instructions at work . Accordingly , although the plaintiff had asked for LTL CARDINAL and the first - instance court had awarded him LTL CARDINAL , ORG considered that a sum of LTL CARDINAL would be sufficient to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage suffered .","On DATE ORG examined case no . CARDINALKCARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which also concerned an accident at work . The plaintiff in that case was awarded LTL CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage suffered as a result of physical injury .","On DATE , in civil case no . ORG - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG held that there had been a violation of the plaintiff \u2019s right to privacy and reputation , owing to a publication about his allegedly fraudulent manner of conducting business and his alleged debts to his business partners , and the printing of the plaintiff \u2019s photograph . For ORG , LTL CARDINAL was sufficient to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage sustained .","On DATE , in civil case no . ORG - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG considered that an award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL was sufficient to compensate for a breach of the plaintiff \u2019s right to privacy , when information which alleged that he had had a child out of wedlock was printed .","On DATE , in civil case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG agreed that an award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL in a civil case was sufficient to compensate for the plaintiff \u2019s mental suffering where a local television station had wrongfully accused the plaintiff of having committed a traffic violation .","On DATE ORG gave a ruling in civil case no . ORG - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL concerning a civil claim by a woman , PERSON , for breach of privacy in respect of an article in a DATE newspaper , PERSON , entitled \u201c A date with a lesbian \u201d ( \u201c Pasimatymas su lesbiete \u201d ) . The case concerned an article which had included CARDINAL photographs . PERSON was in CARDINAL of those photographs , which was in a large format . She had been photographed from the front , although her name had not been disclosed . The first - instance court considered that , \u201c taking into account society \u2019s negative opinion about people of non - traditional sexual orientation \u201d ( \u201c teismas , \u012fvertin\u0119s susidariusi\u0105 neigiam\u0105 visuomen\u0117s nuomon\u0119 apie netradicin\u0117s seksualin\u0117s orientacijos \u017emones \u201d ) , the publication of PERSON \u2019s photograph in such a context could cause her to be evaluated oddly ( gal\u0117jo sukelti prie\u0161taring\u0173 ie\u0161kov\u0117s vertinim\u0173 ) . The court also noted that the newspaper \u2019s financial situation was good , it had a large print throughout GPE . The newspaper had not apologised to the plaintiff or paid her damages , even though it had initially promised to do so . However , the sum claimed by the plaintiff , LTL CARDINAL , was clearly excessive . It was therefore reasonable to award her LTL CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage . That sum was upheld by the appellate court , which underlined that the article \u201c A date with a lesbian \u201d was conflicting ( vertinamas prie\u0161taringai ) in a homophobic society , and people whose photographs were linked to that article could therefore experience negative consequences , as indeed in GPE \u2019s case . She had had to explain herself to her parents , colleagues at work and friends from times of studies . The award of LTL CARDINAL would also not impede the DATE commercial activity of the defendant .","The newspaper lodged an appeal on points of law , arguing that the award for non - pecuniary damage was too high . ORG noted that it was important to adhere to the principle of non - discrimination , which meant that similar cases should be decided similarly , and which also meant that , in analogous situations , awards for non - pecuniary damage should be comparable . ORG also relied on its earlier ruling to the effect that courts should not only follow the criteria established in legal norms and court practice , but should also take into account the awards already granted in analogous cases .","ORG thus distinguished CARDINAL categories of cases .","Firstly , there were cases where a plaintiff \u2019s privacy had been breached on account of the arrangement of his or her nude photographs with offensive text and headlines ( ORG referred to the instant case of PERSON and PERSON ) , or where information regarding \u201c family secrets \u201d or health had been made public ( ORG referred to its ruling of DATE in \u017dvagulis\u2019 case ) , or where information about private life had been published together with photographs , which had amounted to a breach of the right to a private life . The awards in those cases were , respectively , LTL CARDINAL , LTL CARDINAL and LTL CARDINAL .","As to the second category , ORG referred to some cases where the press had used plaintiffs\u2019 private photographs without permission , or had accused them of crimes , where the non - pecuniary damage awards were LTL CARDINAL .","The third category concerned cases where photographs of plaintiffs who were well - known people in society had been published without their consent , and for the purpose of a newspaper gaining financial benefit from advertisement , where the awards for non - pecuniary damage were LTL CARDINAL .","ORG then held that , in the case of GPE , the award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL was too high , because it did not correspond to the abovementioned court practice . PERSON \u2019s photograph had been published only as an illustration of the article , and neither her personal data nor information about her private life had been made public . Moreover , the photograph had been taken at a public event when PERSON was posing ( vie\u0161ame renginyje , ie\u0161kovei pozuojant ) . In the view of ORG , an award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL would be fair and adequate in respect of the non - pecuniary damage sustained by PERSON in relation to the breach of her right to protection of her image , and to prevent the abuse of freedom of expression by the press .","On DATE ORG adopted a ruling in civil case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which concerned ORG civil claim for defamation against a television channel , Tele-CARDINAL . In particular , PERSON , who is a singer , had complained that in DATE , during a television broadcast , a presenter had made statements about someone else allegedly being the father of PERSON \u2019s child , had made allegations about PERSON \u2019s actual sexual orientation , and , in the latter context , had also claimed that PERSON had been operated on in clinics in GPE DATE after \u201c he had sustained trauma to his anus from a blunt object \u201d .","ORG held that information about PERSON \u2019s fatherhood , his sexual orientation , and his unverified operation concerned his private life , notwithstanding PERSON being well - known because he was a singer . Moreover , disseminating such information had no public interest . On the contrary , having had regard to the manner in which the information had been presented , ORG held that the only aim in disseminating it had been to spread gossip to satisfy the curiosity of a certain category of television viewers . The fact that PERSON had communicated with the media before did not mean that he had lost his right to privacy . Having examined the case in the light of the ORG \u2019s case - law ( ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and DATE , ECHR DATE ) , ORG held that there had been a breach of PERSON \u2019s right to privacy .","Although PERSON asked the courts to award him LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL to compensate for the non - pecuniary damage , ORG found that the lower courts had correctly applied Article CARDINAL of LAW , and had had a proper basis for their decision to award GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation .","As concerns the division of legal costs , LAW states :","\u201c CARDINAL . A court orders the legal costs of the party to the proceedings in whose favour a court decision has been adopted to be paid by the other party to the proceedings ...","NORP If a civil claim is granted in part , the plaintiff \u2019s legal costs are awarded proportionately in relation to which part of the civil claim is granted , and the defendant \u2019s legal costs are awarded proportionately in relation to which part of the civil claim is rejected .","The rules set out in this LAW also apply to court fees ...","NORP If the appellate court or court of cassation , without referring the case for fresh examination , changes a lower court \u2019s decision or ruling , or adopts a new ruling , it accordingly changes the division of legal costs . If the appellate court or court of cassation does not change the division of legal costs , it is the court of first instance which has to resolve this question . \u201d","On DATE ORG of ORG adopted LAW , containing a LAW , the relevant parts of which read :","\u201c CARDINAL . There is an area in which the exercise of the right of freedom of information and freedom of expression may conflict with the right to privacy protected by LAW Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life , his home and his correspondence ... The exercise of the former right must not be allowed to destroy the existence of the latter .","The right to privacy consists essentially in the right to live one \u2019s own life with a minimum of interference . It concerns private , family and home life , physical and moral integrity , honour and reputation , avoidance of being placed in a false light , nonrevelation of irrelevant and embarrassing facts , unauthorised publication of private photographs , protection against misuse of private communications , protection from disclosure of information given or received by the individual confidentially . Those who , by their own actions , have encouraged indiscreet revelations about which they complain later on , can not avail themselves of the right to privacy .","A particular problem arises as regards the privacy of persons in public life . The phrase \u2018 where public life begins , private life ends\u2019 is inadequate to cover this situation . The private lives of public figures are entitled to protection , save where they may have an impact upon public events . The fact that an individual figures in the news does not deprive him of a right to a private life .","...","NORP In order to counter these dangers , national law should provide a right of action enforceable at law against persons responsible for such infringements of the right to privacy .","The right to privacy afforded by LAW should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities , but also against interference by private persons or institutions , including the mass media . National legislations should comprise provisions guaranteeing this protection . \u201d","The relevant passages of Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) of ORG of ORG on the right to privacy , adopted on DATE , read :","\u201c CARDINAL . The ORG recalls the current affairs debate it held on the right to privacy during its DATE session , DATE after the accident which cost FAC GPE her life .","NORP On that occasion , some people called for the protection of privacy , and in particular that of public figures , to be reinforced at the NORP level by means of a convention , while others believed that privacy was sufficiently protected by national legislation and LAW , and that freedom of expression should not be jeopardised .","...","The right to privacy , guaranteed by LAW , has already been defined by the ORG in the declaration on mass communication media and human rights , contained within LAW ( DATE ) , as \u2018 the right to live one \u2019s own life with a minimum of interference\u2019 .","In view of the new communication technologies which make it possible to store and use personal data , the right to control one \u2019s own data should be added to this definition .","The ORG is aware that personal privacy is often invaded , even in countries with specific legislation to protect it , as people \u2019s private lives have become a highly lucrative commodity for certain sectors of the media . The victims are essentially public figures , since details of their private lives serve as a stimulus to sales . At the same time , public figures must recognise that the position they occupy in society \u2013 in many cases by choice \u2013 automatically entails increased pressure on their privacy .","Public figures are persons holding public office and\/or using public resources and , more broadly speaking , all those who play a role in public life , whether in politics , the economy , the arts , the social sphere , sport or in any other domain .","It is often in the name of a CARDINAL - sided interpretation of the right to freedom of expression , which is guaranteed in LAW , that the media invade people \u2019s privacy , claiming that their readers are entitled to know everything about public figures .","Certain facts relating to the private lives of public figures , particularly politicians , may indeed be of interest to citizens , and it may therefore be legitimate for readers , who are also voters , to be informed of those facts .","It is therefore necessary to find a way of balancing the exercise of CARDINAL fundamental rights , both of which are guaranteed in LAW : the right to respect for one \u2019s private life and the right to freedom of expression .","The ORG reaffirms the importance of every person \u2019s right to privacy , and of the right to freedom of expression , as fundamental to a NORP society . These rights are neither absolute nor in any hierarchical order , since they are of equal value .","NORP However , the ORG points out that the right to privacy afforded by LAW should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities , but also against interference by private persons or institutions , including the mass media .","... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147482","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ASIR AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . They were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158405","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"PORTYANKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON Portyanko , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On CARDINAL May DATE ORG declared unconstitutional several provisions of the Law on DATE State Budget and Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts which had been the basis for re - calculation and eventual decrease of the applicant \u2019s PERSON pension .","In DATE , referring to the above decision of ORG , the applicant lodged a civil claim with ORG of GPE against ORG , complaining that as from DATE the amount of his Chornobyl pension was too low contrary to the LAW and seeking damages caused by a legislative act which had decreased his pension and later had been recognized unconstitutional . He invoked Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW in this respect .","By judgment of DATE , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim on the ground that the conditions and mechanisms for implementation of the provisions of Articles DATE LAW had not been established by the legislation . Furthermore , the court noted that the applicant did not prove any damage caused to him , given that he alleged damages to have been sustained as from DATE , whilst the provisions found unconstitutional lost their legal force on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE and DATE respectively ORG and ORG upheld the decision of the first - instance court confirming : that the applicant failed to meet the conditions laid down by Articles DATE and CARDINAL ; and that compensation for material damage as guaranteed by Articles DATE and CARDINAL would only have been possible if a special law establishing the conditions and procedure for such compensation had been enacted . The court of appeal noted in particular that , in the circumstances referred to by the claimant , the possibility of obtaining compensation in respect of pecuniary damage is linked to the existence of legislation establishing the specific conditions and the relevant procedure . It concluded that , as such legislation did not exist , the first - instance court had rightly decided that the applicant \u2019s claims were unfounded .","The Civil Code , which came into force in DATE , lays down different obligations as to compensation in respect of damage . Among others , CARDINAL articles , namely Articles DATE , relied on by the applicant in the domestic proceedings , provide for the ORG to compensate the victims of unlawful decisions of ORG authorities . The articles in question provide as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Pecuniary damage caused to a natural person or legal entity by unlawful decisions , actions or omissions of ORG authorities , authorities of GPE or local self - governance authorities in the course of the exercise of their powers shall be compensated for by the ORG , GPE or local self - governance regardless of the fault of these bodies . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Pecuniary damage caused to a natural person or legal entities as a result of adoption by ORG authorities , authorities of GPE or a local self - governance authority of a normative - legal act that was declared illegal and annulled , shall be compensated for by the ORG , GPE or the local self - governance authority regardless of the fault of officers and employees of these bodies . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Provisions of the Law on DATE State Budget and Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts , found unconstitutional , lose their legal force from the date when this decision has been adopted by ORG . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173473","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00dcNER v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)","judges":"St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG decided to restrict access to the investigation file in accordance with LAW of LAW ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) , PERSON no . DATE","On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of forming a criminal organisation and fraudulent use of credit cards .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s statement was taken by the police in the presence of his lawyer and he was questioned at length about his telephone conversations that had been intercepted . The police read out the transcripts of the intercepted conversations , and the applicant did not deny that he had had these conversations but claimed that they did not prove that he was guilty .","On DATE the investigating judge questioned the applicant in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant denied that he was involved in a criminal organisation and submitted that the intercepted calls did not prove that he was guilty . The investigating judge ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on remand taking into account the strong suspicion that he had committed the alleged offence , the risk of absconding and tampering with evidence as well as the risk of coercing some of the witnesses and victims .","On various dates the applicant requested his release pending trial . These requests were dismissed by the courts , having regard to the nature of the offence with which the applicant was charged , the existence of a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question , the state of the evidence , the risk of absconding and tampering with evidence as well as the time spent in detention . The applicant objected to these decisions . By decisions of DATE and DATE the appeal courts , without holding a hearing , rejected the applicant \u2019s objections based on the information contained in the case file .","Upon his application , on DATE , the CARDINALth ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release having regard to the time he spent in detention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173371","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SEROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141942","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RAKSS\u00c1NYI v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","It appears that in DATE an action was brought against the applicant before ORG . The plaintiff sought the payment of some outstanding fees .","After a first- and a second - instance judgment , on DATE ORG gave final decision in the case ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148658","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ONAR v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in Batman .","On DATE , the first CARDINAL ORG son and the other NORP brother , ORG , aged DATE at the time , went into Batman Stream to swim and subsequently drowned .","According to the applicants , the uncontrolled draining of sand from Batman Stream of LOC changed the stream \u2019s ecological balance . Eventually , holes and vortexes which occurred as a result of uncontrolled sand drain allegedly contributed to PERSON drowning .","Criminal proceedings where initiated against the PERSON joint stock company ( \u201c the company \u201d ) , which was conducting the sand mining business at the time of events , and the Batman Governor \u2019s office which issued the necessary permits to run the sand mine . On DATE , the criminal proceedings before the Batman public prosecutor \u2019s office concluded with a decision not to prosecute . On DATE , the first applicant appealed against the non - prosecution decision . However , on DATE his appeal request was also rejected by ORG .","While the criminal proceedings were pending , the first applicant requested the determination of evidence from ORG into the incident which led to ORG \u2019s death . CARDINAL expert reports were issued following the scene investigation , conducted by ORG on DATE . According to the expert reports , it was stated that the uncontrolled sand draining from Batman Stream changed the natural flow of the water and caused artificial holes and vortexes which amounted to QUANTITY in depth in some parts . Despite these dangers , there were no warning signs .","On DATE the applicants being convinced that the failure of the authorities and the company to take necessary safety measures to protect ORG \u2019s right to life , applied to the civil court of first instance with a compensation request . They sought a total of MONEY ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) in compensation for both pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages .","The applicants also requested legal aid for the court fees . On DATE , ORG Instance ordered ORG in Batman to investigate the economical means of the applicants . According to the report submitted by ORG , it was revealed that the applicants were unemployed and lived on state benefits and help from their neighbours . Nevertheless , the trial court rejected the ORG legal aid request on the basis of ORG , the father of the deceased \u2019s , age and his ability to work .","On DATE the trial court notified the applicants that they were required to pay a court fee of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) within DATE in order to continue the proceedings and that the proceedings would be discontinued if they failed to do so .","NORP On DATE the ORG of First Instance decided to discontinue the proceedings as the applicants had not paid the court fees ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167802","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CHKHIKVISHVILI v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in the NORP SSR of the GPE . He had lived in GPE since DATE . On DATE his NORP nationality was revoked by a decree of the President of GPE .","In DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant was convicted of drug - related","offences in GPE and given a custodial sentence . The most recent sentence was set to expire on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a decision declaring that the applicant \u2019s presence in GPE would be undesirable upon his release ( the \u201c exclusion order \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) issued a deportation order against the applicant and asked ORG of GPE to authorise the applicant \u2019s placement into the detention centre for aliens pending his deportation . On DATE ORG granted the request , holding that the applicant should remain in the centre \u201c until his deportation \u201d .","On DATE the ORG , and on DATE ORG of GPE , confirmed the validity of the exclusion and deportation orders . On DATE the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal was rejected .","On DATE ORG of the GPE heard the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision on his placement in custody . ORG upheld the detention order but limited it in time until DATE .","On DATE the ORG examined an application for an extension of the time - limit . Noting that the ORG had not yet received a response from ORG as to the applicant \u2019s nationality , it extended the time - limit until DATE .","NORP The applicant filed an appeal . He submitted that , upon serving the sentence , he should have been given an opportunity to leave GPE of his own will but that had been refused to him .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the appeal . It further held that ORG had erred in fixing a specific time - limit for the applicant \u2019s detention and that the applicant should remain in detention \u201c until his deportation \u201d . On DATE the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal was rejected .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the ORG inquired ORG at the Embassy of GPE in GPE whether or not the applicant was a NORP national . On DATE ORG replied that the applicant \u2019s NORP nationality had been revoked by the President \u2019s decree on DATE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant asked the ORG to consider his deportation to GPE where he owned real estate and where he had lived DATE . On DATE the ORG applied for assistance to ORG ( ORG ) . However , on DATE the ORG explained that it was unable to issue laissez - passer documents to foreign nationals and referred the ORG to ORG in GPE .","NORP In DATE the ORG established a working group on the applicant \u2019s deportation . On DATE the group sent a request to ORG and also asked ORG whether the President \u2019s decree revoking the applicant \u2019s NORP nationality could be quashed in connection with the NORP amnesty act of CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant complained to a court about an excessive length of his detention . He submitted that he had been spent DATE in custody owing to the ORG \u2019s failure to act diligently in the deportation proceedings . On DATE the ORG agreed with the applicant \u2019s claim , noting that DATE had lapsed between a first inquiry to ORG about the applicant \u2019s nationality dated DATE and the second inquiry dated DATE , that no information about any action by the ORG in the period DATE and DATE had been submitted , and that a request to ORG had been sent CARDINAL days after receiving the ORG \u2019s explanation . ORG pronounced unlawful the ORG \u2019s failure to act but refused to fix a time - limit for the applicant \u2019s detention , referring to ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In the meantime , NORP counsel for the applicant \u2019s family challenged the President \u2019s decree revoking the applicant \u2019s NORP nationality in the Tbilisi City Court . Hearings were held on DATE and CARDINAL and DATE . On DATE ORG granted the claim and set aside the decree . That decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .","On DATE the applicant obtained NORP passport . On DATE he was deported from GPE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154347","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF FERREIRA ALVES v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant , a lawyer , was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON do GPE ) of ORG ( ORG dos Advogados ) instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant , following a complaint introduced by ORG of the North ( Tribunal Central Administrativo do ORG ) against the latter ( disciplinary proceedings no . CARDINAL ) . In particular , the complaint concerned the applicant \u2019s request made in the course of CARDINAL different tort actions against the ORG , in which he was a legal representative , to have a judgment from ORG translated and paid by the domestic court .","On DATE the applicant was summoned of the disciplinary proceedings and on DATE he presented his submissions .","On DATE ORG dismissed the case for being time - barred ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177304","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"FALKAUSKIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , PERSON . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The historical background to the case relating to the NORP occupation and annexation of GPE from DATE is summarised in NORP v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) . The historical background relating to the circumstances of the re - establishment of the NORP independence is summarised in LOC and Others v. GPE ( nos . GPE and QUANTITY others , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","On DATE ORG ) elected in the first free parliamentary elections in GPE under NORP rule adopted LAW on the Re - establishment of ORG . That Act declared GPE to be an independent and sovereign ORG and declared that GPE \u2019s incorporation into GPE had been null and void . On DATE ORG adopted LAW ( a provisional constitution ) which set out the constitutional principles of the newly re - established ORG of GPE and permitted any earlier laws and other legal instruments to remain in force provided that they were not incompatible with LAW .","On DATE ORG . I-CARDINAL \u201c On the status of enterprises , institutions and organisations of the Union , or of the Union and its republics , located on the territory of GPE \u201d ( PERSON teritorijoje esan\u010di\u0173 s\u0105junginio ir s\u0105junginio - respublikinio pavaldumo \u012fmoni\u0173 , \u012fstaig\u0173 ir organizacij\u0173 statuso ) which declared that all such enterprises , institutions and organisations henceforth came within the jurisdiction of GPE , and that issues relating to their takeover would be decided through negotiation with GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the Government of Lithuania adopted Regulation No . CARDINAL \u201c On the banks of GPE \u201d which was designed to implement aforementioned Regulation No . I-CARDINAL with respect to territorial branches of NORP banks operating in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Amongst other things , it provided that the NORP branch of ORG of the GPE ( also known as \u201c ORG \u201d , ORG ekonomini\u0173 ry\u0161i\u0173 su u\u017esieniu bankas ) was to be restructured and transformed into ORG ( NORP ekonomini\u0173 ry\u0161i\u0173 su u\u017esieniu bankas ) . The Regulation established a special commission for taking over the relevant assets , liabilities , funds and reserves from the NORP banks concerned , and ordered it to promptly begin negotiations with those banks concerning the takeover ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG of the former GPE issued LAW . CARDINAL \u201c On the termination of operations and subsequent liquidation of the branches of ORG of the GPE located on the territories of the former GPE of the GPE \u201d , which liquidated its branches in \u201c sovereign States \u2013 the former GPE of the GPE \u201d and included GPE . It ordered the heads of the territorial branches to terminate banking operations . The NORP branch of the bank terminated its activities on DATE .","On DATE the Government of Lithuania adopted Regulation No . CARDINAL \u201c On the protection of currency deposits \u201d ( amended on DATE ) which required the NORP branch of ORG of the former GPE , which was then being liquidated , to transfer , by DATE , to ORG ( the central bank ) the remainder of the funds which had been deposited with it by NORP residents . Regulation No . CARDINAL also provided that deposits transferred to ORG would be guaranteed by the budget funds of GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the LAW of GPE was adopted in a referendum . It entered into force on DATE .","NORP In DATE ORG and ORG informed the Government that ORG had not been registered as an independent bank in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that it had not taken over the debts and obligations of ORG of the former GPE . They expressed the view that the question of the return of foreign currency deposits to NORP nationals should be decided via negotiations between the NORP and NORP governments .","On DATE the currency of GPE ( LTL ) \u2013 entered into circulation ( it was replaced by the euro ( ORG ) on DATE ) . From DATE until DATE the ORG was pegged to the GPE dollar ( ORG ) at the exchange rate of CARDINAL LTL to CARDINAL ORG .","On DATE the ORG and its LAW CARDINAL entered into force in respect of GPE .","On DATE ORG of the former GPE sent a letter to its NORP branch stating that on DATE ( that is , DATE before the latter terminated its operations NORP see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the NORP branch had had at its disposal MONEY , and that the debt owed by ORG of the former GPE to its NORP branch for the funds which had been deposited therein amounted to MONEY . On DATE the representatives of the NORP bank and its NORP branch signed a joint liquidation balance declaration .","DATE the NORP authorities adopted several legal instruments providing for partial compensation to citizens who had deposited funds with the NORP branch of ORG of the former GPE and had been unable to recover them ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","As submitted by the respondent Government , the bilateral NORP working group on the return of the funds deposited with the NORP branch of ORG of the former GPE held its first meeting in DATE . In DATE , during its third meeting , the working group adopted a draft procedure for the return of those deposits . In DATE , during the eighth meeting of the working group , it was agreed that the technical and financial questions relating to the implementation of the draft procedure needed to be resolved more speedily ; however , no further meetings have been held since then . According to the respondent Government , ORG has failed to take any concrete action , and some of the positions which it expressed in the negotiations were not acceptable to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the applicant received an inheritance of MONEY from the GPE . On DATE she submitted a written request to ORG to open a bank account in MONEY . Following her request , an account was opened and a record of the inheritance was made in that account .","The Government submitted that the applicant \u2019s inheritance had been actually transferred to ORG of the GPE and not to the NORP bank ( see their observations in paragraph CARDINAL below ; see the applicant \u2019s observations in reply in paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the applicant went to ORG and asked to withdraw the entire amount from her account . She was informed by the bank \u2019s management that it did not have sufficient funds to satisfy all requests for cash withdrawal , so any such requests could be satisfied only in part . The applicant was given USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","NORP In DATE the applicant received compensation of CARDINAL in line with the ORG \u2019s regulation on this matter . In DATE she received additional compensation of USD CARDINAL , and in DATE additional compensation of LTL CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . The total compensation received by the applicant pursuant to the regulations in question amounted to LTL CARDINAL , or CARDINAL when converted at the currency exchange rate applicable at that time ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant subsequently sent written requests to various ORG institutions and officials enquiring about the possibility of recovering the remainder of her currency deposit . On DATE ORG informed her that the NORP and NORP authorities had agreed on a procedure for returning foreign currency deposits which had been deposited with the since - liquidated ORG of the former GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that ORG would adopt appropriate decisions concerning the return of expropriated deposits to its citizens once GPE \u2013 the successor to the GPE returned them . The letter also noted that the applicant had already received compensation in line with the Government \u2019s regulations of DATE , DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the negotiations with the NORP authorities were ongoing , and that it had addressed the question of returning ORG deposits to ORG of GPE \u201c many times \u201d , but had not received any official response . The applicant sent further letters to the authorities , but received essentially the same response on DATE and DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant sent a letter to the NORP bank \u201c ORG \u201d ( formerly known as ORG of the GPE ) asking about her deposit , but on DATE the bank replied that the applicant \u2019s account had been \u201c nationalised by the NORP authorities \u201d and that she should address her requests to them .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against the NORP State demanding the return of her deposit , together with the interest payable since DATE \u2012 which the applicant estimated at PERCENT per annum for different periods \u2012 and compensation for nonpecuniary damage . Her claim amounted to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in total .","In its response to the applicant \u2019s claim , ORG submitted that the applicant \u2019s deposit had been taken over not by the NORP authorities but by the GPE because ORG had never been de facto established as an independent bank and it had not taken over any assets or liabilities of ORG of the GPE . ORG also submitted that the negotiations with the NORP authorities concerning the return of all such expropriated deposits were still ongoing .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It found that the NORP branch of ORG of the GPE had never been de facto restructured as an independent NORP bank because the NORP bank had never transferred its assets , liabilities , funds and reserves to the NORP authorities ; furthermore , ORG had never been registered as an independent bank with ORG , as required by domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , the court held that in DATE the applicant \u2019s inheritance had been transferred to the NORP bank and not to a NORP bank . Relying on the submissions of ORG , the court also held that during its liquidation the NORP bank had not complied with ORG requirement to transfer all the deposits of NORP nationals to ORG , and deposits which had not been transferred were not guaranteed by the NORP budget funds ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court therefore concluded that ORG was not under an obligation to repay to the applicant the full amount of her deposit , nor the interest or the compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The court also observed that the Government had already fulfilled its obligation to partly compensate the applicant for her lost deposit ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant appealed against that judgment , arguing that ORG had erred in finding that ORG had not been established as an independent bank and that her deposit had not been taken over by the NORP authorities . She submitted that legal instruments adopted by the NORP authorities had unequivocally established that ORG came within the jurisdiction of GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL above ) , and GPE was therefore under an obligation to return the applicant \u2019s deposit .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . The court reiterated that , despite various legal instruments providing for the restructuring of ORG of the GPE as a NORP bank , no such NORP bank had actually been established . The court also observed that until DATE the NORP bank had continued to provide cash withdrawals to its depositors ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) \u2012 including the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The NORP bank subsequently acknowledged that it was indebted to individuals who had deposited their funds with its NORP branch ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and the questions relating to those debts were being addressed in the ongoing negotiations between the NORP and NORP authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court therefore dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim that ORG was under an obligation to pay to her the full amount of her deposit , together with interest and compensation for nonpecuniary damage .","The applicant submitted an appeal on points of law , but on DATE ORG dismissed it and upheld the findings of the lower courts in their entirety . It reiterated that , having established that the NORP authorities had not de facto taken over the assets of the NORP bank , no obligation to return to the applicant deposit kept in the latter bank could arise . ORG also observed that the fact that the negotiations between the NORP and NORP authorities had not yet produced a positive result could not constitute grounds for obliging ORG to pay to the applicant the amount she claimed .","The applicant initially submitted her claim of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to ORG . In line with domestic law , such a claim was not subject to any court fees ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE a panel of judges specialising in the determination of jurisdictional disputes ruled that the applicant \u2019s case related to a pecuniary claim and should therefore have been brought before a court of general jurisdiction and not before an administrative court ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant \u2019s claim was therefore transferred to ORG .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay court fees which , in line with domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , amounted to LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .","The applicant asked the court to exempt her from the obligation to pay court fees . She submitted that she had lodged her claim before an administrative court and that the claim had been transferred to a court of general jurisdiction against her will . She also argued that applying different rules concerning court fees in administrative and civil court proceedings was unfair and discriminatory . However , ORG refused to examine the applicant \u2019s request on the grounds of failure to comply with the formal requirements .","The applicant was subsequently granted ORG - guaranteed legal aid , whereby PERCENT of her legal expenses were covered by the ORG . As a result , on DATE ORG reduced the court fees payable by the applicant by PERCENT and ordered her to pay LTL MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The applicant appealed against that decision , asking to be completely exempted from paying court fees . She raised the same arguments as in her previous request ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and also submitted that the fees were excessively high and restricted her right of access to court , but she did not make any reference to , or provide any details about her financial situation . ORG dismissed her appeal , and the applicant subsequently paid the amount demanded .","After ORG had dismissed the applicant \u2019s civil claim , the latter lodged an appeal ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . In line with domestic law , the court fees for the submission of an appeal were calculated in the same way as those for the initial claim ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was therefore ordered to pay LTL MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .","The applicant paid CARDINAL of the court fees and asked the court to allow her to defer payment of the remaining half until after examination of her appeal , as provided in LAW ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She submitted that she was retired , that her retirement allowance was her only income , and that the total cost of the court fees was nearly equal to her DATE income . On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s request and postponed the payment of CARDINAL of the court fees until after the examination of the appeal . After ORG had adopted its judgment in the civil proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant paid CARDINAL of the court fees .","When the applicant submitted an appeal on points of law to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , she asked to be exempted from the obligation to pay court fees , or to defer payment until after the examination of her appeal on points of law . The applicant argued that court fees constituted an unjustified and discriminatory restriction on her right to access to court . She also submitted that her income was insufficient to afford the court fees demanded of her in the present proceedings . On CARDINAL DATE ORG postponed the payment of the court fees . After dismissing the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG noted that the domestic law did not enable it to completely exempt the applicant from paying court fees ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , because of her difficult financial situation , ORG decided to reduce the amount demanded and ordered the applicant to pay LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The applicant paid that amount .","DATE of LAW , adopted on DATE and in force until DATE , provided , in its relevant parts :","\u201c GPE guarantees to all holders of property rights the opportunity to independently manage and use their possessions in line with the NORP laws ...","All holders of property rights are entitled to equal legal remedies .","GPE shall protect the rights of property holders in other states . \u201d","DATE Republic of Lithuania , in force since DATE , provides :","\u201c Property shall be inviolable .","The rights of ownership shall be protected by law .","Property may be taken only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the Law on ORG , entitled \u201c Establishing credit institutions \u201d , in force from CARDINAL DATE ( i.e. before the restoration of the independence of GPE ) until DATE , provided , in relevant parts :","\u201c Any credit institution in the Republic [ of GPE ] can be established only with the permission of ORG ...","All established credit institutions shall be registered in the registration book of ORG . On DATE of the registration , the credit institution becomes a legal entity and acquires the right to conduct banking operations . \u201d","Regulation No . I-CARDINAL of ORG On the status of the enterprises , institutions and organisations of the Union , or of the Union and its GPE , located on the territory of GPE \u201d ( PERSON teritorijoje esan\u010di\u0173 s\u0105junginio ir s\u0105junginio - respublikinio pavaldumo \u012fmoni\u0173 , \u012fstaig\u0173 ir organizacij\u0173 statuso ) provides , in relevant parts :","\u201c ORG hereby decides :","To establish that all ORG enterprises , institutions and organisations of the Union , or of the ORG and its GPE , located on the territory of GPE on DATE of the adoption of the present Regulation , henceforth come within the jurisdiction of GPE ( pereina PERSON jurisdikcijai ) ;","...","To resolve the issues related to the takeover of the entities indicated in paragraph CARDINAL by negotiations with the GPE . \u201d","Regulation No . CARDINAL of ORG On the banks of GPE \u201d provides , in relevant parts :","\u201c Implementing the Regulation No . I-CARDINAL of ORG hereby decides :","To restructure the following NORP republican banks ( NORP respublikiniai bankai ) together with their institutions and organisations , leaving the latter subordinate to the restructured banks :","...","e ) ORG of the GPE \u2013 into ORG ;","...","NORP In order to take over the assets , liabilities ... other material resources ... of the banks listed in paragraph CARDINAL from the GPE , to create the following commission ... The commission must promptly begin negotiations with the boards of the NORP banks concerning the takeover of the assets , liabilities , funds and reserves indicated in this paragraph .","... \u201d","Regulation No . CARDINAL of the Government of GPE of DATE \u201c On the protection of currency deposits \u201d ( amended on DATE ) provides , in relevant parts :","\u201c Having regard to the fact that , at the order of ORG of the former GPE , the NORP branch of that bank ( ORG ) is being liquidated , the Government of GPE hereby decides :","By DATE , ORG shall transfer to ORG the remaining part of the currency deposits of natural persons ( fizini\u0173 asmen\u0173 ind\u0117li\u0173 liku\u010diai ) and open bank accounts for them .","NORP The currency deposits of natural persons transferred from ORG to ORG shall be guaranteed by currency funds ( the budget funds ) of GPE . ...","The Bank of GPE shall immediately begin negotiations with ORG of the former GPE \u2013 the successor \u2013 concerning the return of the expropriated funds ( nusavintos valiutin\u0117s l\u0117\u0161os ) of NORP natural persons and legal entities which had been deposited with the NORP branch of the latter bank ( in ORG ) . \u201d","On DATE the Parliamentary PERSON issued Conclusion No . CARDINAL - CARDINAL concerning a complaint by N.J.G. that she had not been able to recover her funds which had been deposited with a NORP bank . It stated :","\u201c ...","The restructuring of the NORP branch of ORG of the former GPE was not conducted in accordance with the procedure provided in [ domestic ] legislation . During its liquidation , ORG did not transfer any deposits to ORG , and for that reason ORG was unable to take any related actions . ORG refused to become the successor of the debts and obligations of [ ORG ] .","...","The Parliamentary PERSON was informed [ by ORG ] that the question of returning funds which had been deposited with the [ NORP branch of ORG of the former GPE ] was being constantly raised in meetings between NORP and NORP officials .","...","During the meeting of ORG and GPE which took place on DATE , the NORP delegation proposed that the draft procedure , agreed upon in DATE , would be implemented from DATE , but the NORP delegation was of the view that the question of returning the funds deposited with [ the NORP bank ] to natural persons could be resolved only after the NORP and NORP governments settled the issue of external debts and assets of the former GPE . The Parliamentary PERSON was told that the NORP delegation considered that the debt of [ the bank ] was a credit institution \u2019s debt to its creditors , and therefore debts of natural persons should not be linked to the question of the external debt and assets of the former GPE .","...","The applicant \u2019s complaints ... that the officials of ORG failed to adequately address the questions concerning the return of currency deposits have proved to be unfounded \u2013 the officials dealt with the applicant \u2019s problems within the limits of their authority and in accordance with applicable legislation . \u201d","On DATE the Government of Lithuania adopted Regulation No . CARDINAL \u201c On partial compensation for the losses to the citizens and permanent legitimate residents of GPE who had deposited their foreign currency deposits with the liquidated NORP branch of ORG of the GPE \u201d , which established that each depositor was entitled to partial compensation of up to USD CARDINAL , but not exceeding PERCENT of the total amount of the deposit , from the ORG \u2019s budget . On DATE ORG . CARDINAL which provided for additional compensation of up to USD CARDINAL for each depositor , and on DATE it adopted Regulation No . CARDINAL which provided for further compensation of up to LTL CARDINAL for each depositor .","On DATE ORG enacted the PERSON on the Restoration of Residents\u2019 Deposits , which set out the order of priority and conditions for refunding deposits which had been kept in \u201c ORG banks of GPE \u201d ( ind\u0117liai , sukaupti NORP valstybiniuose bankuose ) . On DATE that PERSON was amended to also provide for compensation for deposits which had been deposited with the NORP branch of ORG of the former GPE . According to its LAW , the maximum refundable amount was set at LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL , after deducting the compensation already paid in accordance with other legal instruments ( see paragraph DATE above ) .","On DATE ORG enacted the PERSON on Repealing the Law on the Restoration of Residents\u2019 Deposits and its LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , LAW CARDINAL of which provides that funds which had been deposited with the NORP branch of ORG of the former GPE would be returned to the depositors once they had been recovered from GPE .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG and LAW of ORG provide that when it is not clear whether a case should be examined by an administrative court or by a court of general jurisdiction , the question of jurisdiction is to be decided in written proceedings by a special panel of judges composed of the chairperson of ORG , the deputy chairperson of ORG , and CARDINAL other judges appointed by them .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG provides that claims concerning damage caused by unlawful actions on the part of public administration entities are not subject to any court fees .","At the material time , LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG provided that court fees for monetary claims exceeding LTL CARDINAL amounted to LTL CARDINAL , plus PERCENT of that part of the respective claim in excess of LTL CARDINAL . Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provided that court fees for the submission of an appeal , including an appeal on points of law , were calculated in the same way as those for the initial claim .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG provides that a person may be partly exempt from paying court fees because of his or her financial situation , and LAW provides that the payment of court fees may be deferred for the same reason . A person wishing to obtain such an exemption or deferment must submit a properly reasoned request to the court examining the case .","Article CARDINAL CARDINAL of the LAW on State - Guaranteed Legal Aid provides that the granting of legal aid does not preclude its recipient from requesting other exemptions provided for in laws governing civil and administrative proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172654","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF JEANNEE v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a former lawyer who was admitted to the bar in DATE .","On DATE the applicant renounced his right to practise as a lawyer because he had , as a result of his gambling addiction , committed criminal offences . On DATE the applicant was convicted of aggravated fraud and embezzlement and sentenced to CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169737","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"SIMI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a citizen of GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was elected a judge of ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) .","NORP Before becoming a judge the applicant was the vice - president of ORG ( PERSON nezavisnih socijaldemokrata ; \u201c SNSD \u201d ) , a political party established in DATE and based in PERSON , and a member of ORG .","On DATE a local non - governmental organisation , PERSON of ORG ( Forum PERSON Srpske ) , informed ORG of a letter ( and sent CARDINAL pages thereof ) which had been written by the applicant and sent to Mr GPE , the president of the SNSD and the then prime minister of PERSON . The letter was not dated , but according to its contents and the applicant \u2019s own later admission it had been written and sent in DATE .","In the letter the applicant discussed the work of ORG and made comments concerning the work of CARDINAL employee of ORG . The relevant part of the letter reads ( the translation has been provided by ORG ) :","\u201c I am not certain when it comes to the strategic ( political ) decisions that the international judges can not be influenced by the ORG [ Office of the High Representative for GPE ] , but the individual judges are in no position to carry out any kind of lobbying as concerns the international judges , while in the cases such as LOC , the FAC or NORP are not to be lobbied either , as they only have the Federation interest on their mind ...","[ ... ]","In any event , I am always at your disposal but in the hassle and bustle that surrounds you I am afraid that you do not use my experience and opportunities sufficiently enough . My attitude is not to impose as I am aware of the problems you are in ...","[ ... ] high average , passed the bar exam , computer proficient , possesses knowledge of LANGUAGE and is a member of ORG .","However , in the systematization of the work duties , it should be foreseen that she retains her present duties ( ... lawsuits , has significant experience , has raised that position to high level in the Government , when she has any major problem she consults me ) and also receives new assignments along with the present duties . \u201d","The contents of the letter were subsequently published in different media .","On DATE ORG asked the applicant to submit his comments concerning the impugned letter .","On DATE an interview with the applicant was published in ORG GPE , the local DATE magazine , in which he said , inter alia :","\u201c I will share , when the time comes , with the readers of ORG whatever I have learned during my term which could seriously compromise the work of ORG , its judges and also certain high - level politicians . \u201d","Another interview with the applicant was published in the same magazine on DATE , the relevant part of which reads as follows :","\u201c I shall explain who works in ORG and how , and to what extent the crime has settled within the highest judicial instance of the state . And I have evidence for everything .","I am tired of keeping quiet about someone else \u2019s criminal activities , tired of talking about how ORG operates , which always ends up with corruption , tired of interference of the crime and politics with our work .","There is no state in the world like GPE . We have no other institution , except the CARDINAL in which I work , to protect the law and justice . Unfortunately , it has failed to do so . \u201d","On DATE , without the knowledge and approval of ORG , the applicant held a press conference in PERSON at which he made comments concerning the impugned letter . He also discussed certain cases and remarked on the impartiality of ORG .","NORP On DATE ORG held an extraordinary plenary session at which it discussed its position concerning the applicant \u2019s conduct and decided to prepare a proposal for his removal from office .","At ORG session of CARDINAL DATE the applicant confirmed that he was the author of the impugned letter .","On DATE at the extraordinary plenary session ORG held unanimously that the applicant had breached the LAW ( CARDINAL ) of its Rules by knowingly damaging the reputation of ORG and the reputation of a judge and decided to remove him from office . By virtue of LAW , that decision was final and binding . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows ( the translation has been provided by ORG ) :","\u201c CARDINAL . Based on the Conclusion of the Constitutional Court of GPE ( \u2018 the Constitutional Court\u2019 ) reached at the ORG plenary session held on CARDINAL DATE , the President of ORG , on behalf of ORG , submitted on DATE a Proposal for Dismissal of the Judge of the Constitutional Court Mr PERSON no . K - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on account of a violation of Rule CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL of the Rules of ORG .","II . Procedure before ORG","On DATE the ORG received a letter from ORG from PERSON , accompanied by another letter ( pages CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) composed by Mr PERSON , judge of ORG of ORG , addressed to the president of ORG political party ( \u2018 SNSD\u2019 ) and the prime minister of PERSON , Mr. GPE .","After the contents of the referenced letter were published in the media , the President of ORG had consultations with the national judges of ORG . It was concluded that the issue of the public appearance of Judge PERSON [ was ] to be discussed at the separate plenary session in terms of Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of ORG . It was also concluded that it should be requested from Judge PERSON to submit his written statement on the ORG letter and the letter he had addressed to the president of ORG and the prime minister of PERSON .","Based on the previous conclusion , on DATE , ORG requested Judge PERSON to submit his written statement concerning the Parents\u2019 Forum letter and the controversial letter addressed to the president of the SNSD and the prime minister of PERSON .","On DATE , Judge PERSON submitted his written statement .","On DATE ORG held an extraordinary plenary session and preliminary deliberation about the following item of the Agenda : \u2018 The Information and Taking a Position on the Public Appearances of Mr PERSON , Judge of ORG and GPE . ORG concluded that before it resumed its extraordinary plenary session , all relevant evidence , materials and documentation should be obtained and , based on that , a proposal for the conceivable dismissal of Judge PERSON drafted , to enable ORG to deliberate and decide whether there are any reasons for his dismissal . In addition , ORG concluded that LAW , together with the copies of all the evidence , materials and documentation should be communicated to Judge PERSON to respond to , with an invitation to do so within DATE at the latest .","On DATE pursuant to Rule CARDINAL of the Rules ... ORG requested from the prime minister of PERSON to submit a copy of the third page of the aforementioned letter . The prime minister of ORG failed to respond to the request ...","Also , on DATE , pursuant to LAW ... , ORG requested from Alternative Television PERSON and ORG of ORG and , on DATE , from ORG of GPE and ORG GPE , to submit the complete recording of the press - conference held by Judge PERSON in PERSON on DATE .","On DATE , pursuant to Rule CARDINAL of the Rules ... , ORG requested from the DATE magazine ORG ... , to submit the complete recording of an interview with Judge PERSON , which was the subject of articles of this magazine dated DATE and DATE and , in case of unavailability of this tape recording , a written statement by the journalist on the authenticity of the quoted statements of Judge PERSON .","Within the period from DATE through DATE , Alternative Television PERSON , ORG of ORG , and ORG of GPE and GPE submitted their available materials ...","On DATE ORG received a written statement by a journalist of ORG , confirming the authenticity of the quoted statements of Judge PERSON which were published in the articles of this magazine of DATE and DATE .","PERSON was communicated to Judge PERSON on DATE . However , Judge PERSON failed to submit his written statement within the given time - limit of DATE .","On DATE ORG resumed its Extraordinary plenary session at which it deliberated about the item of the Agenda : \u2018 Consideration of the Proposal for Dismissal of Mr. PERSON , Judge of ORG and GPE . ORG established that the procedure for dismissal of a judge of ORG may be defined as an ad hoc procedure of a sui generis nature , for which there are no detailed Rules on how to conduct the procedure . For that reason and by application of Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of ORG , ORG concluded that a fair hearing must be guaranteed to Judge PERSON , including all the principles stipulated under LAW ( \u2018 the NORP Convention\u2019 ) . Furthermore , the Constitutional Court afforded an opportunity to Judge PERSON to state his position in respect of all the allegations contained in the Proposal for Dismissal before all the judges of ORG during the proceedings at the session . ORG then proceeded to discuss the preliminary issues , arriving at the conclusion to adjourn the session until DATE , so that ORG could communicate , in the meantime , to Judge PERSON , upon his request , the documentation he requested , render him an opportunity to access and inspect specific documents of ORG and afford him enough time to engage a legal representative of his choice . A time - limit of DATE was set to Judge PERSON to submit his written statement in response to the Proposal for Dismissal . Also , ORG concluded that it should resume its deliberations on CARDINAL DATE even in the case that Judge PERSON [ failed ] to appoint a legal representative , submit his written statement or attend the scheduled session . Judge PERSON was notified of these conclusions orally and he agreed to them .","By letters no . K - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE and DATE respectively , the aforementioned conclusions were also communicated to Judge PERSON in writing .","On DATE , Judge PERSON submitted his written statement in which , among other things , he informed ORG that he would not be attending the resumed extraordinary plenary session for private reasons . He also failed to appoint a legal representative or to examine the case - files of ORG .","ORG resumed its extraordinary plenary session on DATE in the absence of Judge PERSON .","...","In his responses of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , Judge PERSON states that the letter to the president of the SNSD and the prime minister of PERSON was sent to his friend , that it was a private letter and that he had not given his consent for that letter to be used . He , further , finds that all the media articles relating to him and the letters addressed to ORG concerning him have been deliberately orchestrated with a view of his dismissal . He claims that the interview with journalist PERSON was not authorized and that he held the press - conference on DATE because he was put under pressure . He also stated that all the statements given in public had been given within the scope of the freedom of expression .","...","VII . Position of ORG","During the course of its extraordinary plenary session , ORG discussed the preliminary issues , examined all available evidence , materials and documentation .... It then conducted deliberations and reached a decision on the merits by consensus that Judge PERSON had to be dismissed from the office of the Judge of the Constitutional Court pursuant to LAW in conjunction with LAW paragraph CARDINAL line CARDINAL of the Rules of the Constitutional Court due to the violation of Rule CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the Rules of ORG for the following reasons :","VII.CARDINAL . Contents of the letter of Judge PERSON","In accordance with the constitutional principle of the rule of law , ORG must be an independent and impartial constitutional authority . That , in principle , primarily defines its relation to the executive authority . The independence and impartiality of ORG implies that its judges are free , that they do not have to be accountable to anyone and that they are not bound by anyone \u2019s instructions ( cf . the Judgment of ORG GPE , Series A , No . CARDINAL , of DATE , paragraph CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE , Series A , No . DATE , of DATE , paragraph CARDINAL ) . Furthermore , it is not only required that the judges of ORG are truly independent but also to appear to be so , which is subject to an objective test ( cf . the Judgment of ORG , ORG and Fell v. GPE , No . CARDINAL , of DATE , paragraph CARDINAL and ff ) .","It clearly follows from the contents of the letter that the president of the SNSD , Mr GPE , had been in contact with Judge PERSON ( first page of the letter ) even before the controversial letter was ever written . Judge PERSON responded to those contacts by written communication . Furthermore , Judge PERSON states in his letter that he is \u2018 always at disposal\u2019 of the president of PERSON , offering him openly \u2018 his experience and opportunities\u2019 ( page CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL ) . Moreover , his letter contains an unsolicited request for a higher degree of cooperation , which clearly follows from the statement : \u2018 I am afraid that you do not use my experience and opportunities sufficiently ORG . In addition , Judge PERSON openly discusses the possibility of employing someone from the PERSON personnel in the executive authorities of ORG , giving his opinion and recommendations in respect of those persons and stating that those persons are in consultations with him whenever there appears any major problem ( page CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) . According to this , Judge PERSON is in the habit of giving advice to the officials of the executive authorities of CARDINAL of the Entities .","DATE . Given the contents of the controversial letter and taking into account the fact that Judge PERSON held the office of the first vice - president of the SNSD , prior to taking the office of the judge of ORG , an objective observer gets an inevitable impression that Judge PERSON did not sever relations with his former political party and its president and that he is prepared to continue maintaining such contacts which are useful to that political party . As a matter of fact , he is even initiating them . That may be clearly concluded from the statements made in the letter , offering his expertise and experience , a higher degree of cooperation , and rendering his own opinions and advice to one of the members of his former party \u2018 wherever he has a major problem\u2019 in the Government of the Republika Srpska .","Such ties between a judge of ORG and political parties , i.e. executive authorities of CARDINAL of the ORG , may be defined as liaisons incompatible with the institutional and operative independence of ORG , which all judges must endeavour to strengthen . In the public eye , such relations are damaging to the reputation of ORG , in particular as concerns the perception of its independence and impartiality , i.e. the prohibition of preferential treatment of specific parties .","Accordingly , Judge PERSON , by such statements , has deliberately endangered and inflicted damage on the independence of ORG , thereby undermining both his reputation as a judge of ORG and the reputation of ORG itself , in terms of Rule CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the Rules of ORG .","The fact that the controversial letter was not of business but of private nature does not affect this conclusion of ORG and neither does the fact that Judge PERSON and the president of PERSON and the prime minister of PERSON , PERSON , are friends as indicated by Judge PERSON . The obligation of a judge of ORG , as the holder of the judicial authority to safeguard the independence of the court as an institution and his own independence in relation to the holders of the other authority , is in effect in both private and professional relations . Therefore , even if the letter was of private nature , it may still endanger the independence of a judge of ORG and ORG itself as an institution .","VII.CARDINAL . Public appearances of Judge PERSON","Furthermore , in the interviews given to the DATE magazine ORG on DATE and DATE and at the press conference held on DATE in PERSON , Judge PERSON presented serious accusations against the judges of ORG and ORG itself as an institution , associating them with ( a ) crime ( b ) corruption ( c ) interference of politics with the work of ORG and ( d ) failure to perform the constitutional function it has been entrusted with . Moreover , Judge PERSON claimed he had evidence to substantiate his allegations .","Judge PERSON did not deny the quoted allegations , pursuant to LAW , or in any other manner . On the other hand , on DATE , ORG received a written statement by the journalist of the DATE magazine ORG , PERSON , confirming the authenticity of the quoted statements of Judge PERSON . ORG , therefore , considers the statements given in public by Judge PERSON to be accurately quoted .","Judge PERSON invoked freedom of expression as guaranteed under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( h ) of LAW of BiH and LAW . In his opinion the freedom of expression allows him to express his opinion publicly and in the manner as he has done . Finally , he stated that pressure was applied on him as a judge , on account of which he found it necessary and justified to state his opinion in public .","ORG emphasizes that freedom of expression is extremely important for democracy and democratic processes in a society . The state must pay special attention to this particular freedom ... This Article not only protects the information and ideas perceived as positive or considered hazardless or those on which no position has been taken , but also those that offend , shock and disturb . That is what tolerance and pluralism require and without that there is no democratic society ( cf . ORG CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , the judgment of ORG v. GPE , No CARDINAL , of DATE , paragraph CARDINAL ) . This is particularly the case when it concerns the public personalities or institutions of authority since the threshold of tolerance must be raised to a higher level ( cf . judgment of ORG , PERSON v. GPE , Series A , No CARDINAL , of DATE , paragraph CARDINAL ) .","Nevertheless , the freedom of expression under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( h ) of LAW and LAW is not absolute ... according to LAW , freedom of expression \u2018 may be subject to such formalities , conditions , restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a NORP society , in the interests [ ... ] or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary\u2019 .","The Constitutional Court finds that the sanction of dismissal of a judge from office of the Judge of ORG , under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( c ) of LAW in conjunction with LAW paragraph CARDINAL line CARDINAL of the Rules of ORG , i.e. on account of a severe violation of Rule CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the Rules of ORG , may be a justified measure for non - compliance with the restrictions of the freedom of expression .","DATE . Therefore , as previously stated , every judge of ORG must be aware that by accepting his \/ her judicial office he \/ she also accepts certain restrictions in terms of public appearances . The goal of such restrictions is to protect public interest \u2013 the confidence of the public in respect of the judiciary , protection of its independence and impartiality , the integrity , reputation and honour of judges . When a judge appears in public , his \/ her main concern must be the protection of that public interest .","Judge PERSON appeared in public on his own initiative , through written media and by organising the press conference . Judge PERSON was aware that organising a press conference in such a manner was unprecedented as far as ORG is concerned , as he himself stated prior to the press conference . He pointed out that his appearance was contrary to the position of ORG concerning public relations . ORG , further , holds that the purpose of those public appearances was to seriously discredit and raise charges against the other judges of ORG and ORG as an institution and their disqualification . Finally , Judge PERSON publicly presented his claim that ORG did not protect the law and justice , i.e. that it did not perform its duties in a proper and professional manner . Judge PERSON publicly promised that these grave charges against ORG and its judges would be substantiated by evidence , stating : \u2018 I have all the evidence\u2019 .","ORG holds these appearances to be completely contrary to the high judicial standards of behaviour of judges . Indeed , even if those statements of Judge PERSON were founded , his conduct was completely unprofessional and inconsistent with the principles of a fair hearing . Namely , a judge , even if he or she claims to be in a possession of evidence for the alleged criminal activity of the individual judges , must not act outside the institution , present his of her position in public and prejudge a conceivable outcome ... ( presumption of innocence ) but must use relevant state system , provided for by the positive regulations of GPE and GPE which makes possible the examination of such claims in accordance with its jurisdiction , relevant procedure and substantive legal grounds . Judge PERSON , prior to presenting his positions and claims in public , did not even attempt to tackle these issues within ORG , although prior to his public appearances he knew that ORG , sitting in a plenary session , would give him the opportunity to discuss the issue of his position in ORG , where he could have presented his allegations and positions . Moreover , according to what ORG learned about this matter , Judge PERSON did not even attempt to submit any evidence to the competent prosecutor \u2019s offices in GPE .","DATE . Due to aforesaid , the public appearances of Judge PERSON have brought into question the confidence of the public in respect of the constitutional - judicial authority as well as ORG as an institution ... Judge PERSON thereby inflicting damage to the dignity of ORG and its judges . This is best illustrated by the introductory notes of the journalist of ORG in the article dated DATE \u2018 The highest judicial institution of the state , ORG , is dangerously shaken up DATE under the burden of insinuations , corruption charges , political set - ups and party conflicts!\u2019 .","According to the established facts , it is not possible to find any reasons which could justify Judge PERSON in his actions . ORG does not find his claim of having been under pressure to be well - founded .","On the basis of the established facts , ORG concludes that Judge PERSON had consciously overstepped the allowed restriction on freedom of expression of a judge , thereby undermining the reputation and dignity of a judge of ORG in contravention with Rule CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the Rules of ORG . In that manner , Judge PERSON inflicted damage to his own reputation and dignity as a judge as well the reputation of the other judges and ORG as an institution .","...","VII.CARDINAL . Conclusion","ORG emphasizes first and foremost that it operates in highly complex legal and political circumstances . At this stage of the constitutional development of GPE , the role of ORG is very important and difficult while , objectively , its decisions have a significant impact on political processes within the state . ORG resolves , amongst other things , complicated constitutional issues with far - reaching implications , often involving legislative or executive authorities at the state- or entity - level as direct participants . This very fact shows that there exists an undeniable public interest for ORG to build and maintain its reputation , independence and impartiality and not to allow these principles to be endangered or violated . Otherwise , the authority of ORG as an institution and the authority of its decisions shall be lost . ORG , as the distinguished jurists of the highest moral standing , must be aware of these principles at any given moment .","... With his actions , Judge PERSON inflicted great damage on ORG , reflected in undermining of the confidence of the public and the authorities in respect of the independence , impartially and professional work of ORG as well as degrading of the achieved results .","ORG holds that it will have to bear the consequences of the aforementioned actions of Judge PERSON for a long time and that it will have to make an extra effort to regain the undermined confidence of the public and public authorities in its autonomy , independence , impartiality and professionalism .","... ORG holds that the conditions have met to take the decision on dismissal of Judge PERSON from his office , in pursuance of LAW ) of LAW","...","Pursuant to Article VI ... of the LAW of GPE , this decision of the Constitutional Court shall be final and binding and shall not be subject to any review before any legislative , judicial or administrative authority . \u201d","The decision was not served on the applicant but was published in ORG DATE .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) seeking to annul ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG declared that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the case as ORG had exclusive jurisdiction in all matters concerning the status of its judges .","On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the decision of DATE .","The LAW of GPE ( Annex CARDINAL to ORG for Peace in GPE ) entered into force on DATE . ORG was set up pursuant to LAW , which , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c ORG and GPE shall have QUANTITY members .","a ) CARDINAL members shall be selected by ORG , and CARDINAL members by ORG . The remaining CARDINAL members shall be selected by the President of ORG after consultation with the Presidency .","b ) Judges shall be distinguished jurists of high moral standing . Any eligible voter so qualified may serve as a judge of ORG . The judges selected by the President of ORG shall not be citizens of GPE and GPE or of any neighbouring state .","c ) The term of judges initially appointed shall be DATE , unless they resign or are removed for cause by consensus of the other judges . Judges initially appointed shall not be eligible for reappointment . Judges subsequently appointed shall serve until DATE , unless they resign or are removed for cause by consensus of the other judges .","...","The Constitutional Court shall uphold LAW .","a ) The Constitutional Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide any dispute that arises LAW between the ORG or between GPE and an ORG , or between institutions of GPE , including but not limited to :","- Whether an ORG \u2019s decision to establish a special parallel relationship with a neighbouring state is consistent with this LAW , including provisions concerning the sovereignty and territorial integrity of GPE .","- Whether any provision of an ORG \u2019s constitution or law is consistent with LAW .","...","b ) The Constitutional Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction over issues under LAW arising out of a judgment of any other court in GPE .","c ) . The Constitutional Court shall have jurisdiction over issues referred by any court in GPE concerning whether a law , on whose validity its decision depends , is compatible with this LAW , with ORG and its Protocols , or with the laws of GPE and GPE ; or concerning the existence of or the scope of a general Rule of public international law pertinent to the court \u2019s decision .","...","Decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be final and binding . \u201d","The relevant provisions of the Rules of the Constitutional Court ( Official Gazette of GPE , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) read as follows ( the translation has been provided by ORG ) :","Rule CARDINAL","( Attendance of the sessions )","\u201c The sessions of the Constitutional Court shall be attended by the judges , the Secretary General , the PERSON , the Heads of Departments and the person responsible for public relations .","The President of ORG may decide for other qualified persons to attend the session . \u201d","Rule CARDINAL","( Public hearing )","\u201c When necessary to directly deliberate on an issue relevant for taking a decision during the proceedings before ORG , the plenary Court shall hold a public hearing .","The Constitutional Court shall take a decision on the need to hold a public hearing , on a proposal of a Judge PERSON or another judge \u201d .","\u201c The judges of the Constitutional Court shall be selected in accordance with Article ORG ) of the LAW .","The judges shall be distinguished lawyers of high moral standing ... \u201d","Rule CARDINAL ( former Rule CARDINAL )","( Solemn declaration )","\u201c Before taking up office each elected judge shall , at the first sitting of ORG at which the judge is present , or in case of need before the President of ORG , take the following oath or make the following solemn declaration :","I solemnly declare that in exercising my functions as a judge of ORG , I will uphold the LAW and laws of GPE and that I will exercise my functions as a judge conscientiously and impartially . \u201d","\u201c The judges shall perform the function of a judge conscientiously .","The judges shall uphold the reputation and dignity of ORG and the reputation and dignity of a judge . \u201d","\u201c The position of a judge shall be incompatible with :","a ) a membership in a political party or a political organization in GPE ... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A judge may be dismissed from office before the end of his or her term in the following cases :","...","e ) if he or she fails to perform the function of a judge in accordance with Rule CARDINAL of these Rules .","( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall establish the existence of reasons referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW and it shall dismiss the judge from office on the basis of a consensus of other judges and inform the body which elected that judge . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167087","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TURYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and until his conviction lived in GPE , a town in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant was arrested on charges of murder and arson .","On DATE , as the investigation unfolded , the local official newspaper ORG printed an interview with a deputy town prosecutor about a spike in murder rates . The prosecutor said :","\u201c In DATE our town reported DATE a historic high , it seems . CARDINAL of them have already been solved , thanks to the industry of the police department and the investigators from the prosecutor \u2019s office ....","The fingerprint identification of ex - convict [ N.B. ] ( whose body was found in [ a river ] ) has allowed to discover his enemies and to prove that he was beaten by CARDINAL inhabitants of GPE seeking [ ... ] to settle scores for his murder of [ another man ] for which [ he ] had served DATE . It has been established that [ GPE \u2019s ] CARDINAL murderers \u2013 [ the applicant \u2019s codefendant ] and PERSON , both ex - convicts \u2013 were complicit in the earlyMarch murder of [ ORG ] who had dared to report them to the police for past wrongs . [ Her ] body was dumped in a wood near the airport and was found only in DATE As those crimes were not solved in time , [ the applicant \u2019s codefendant ] rampaged on and on DATE killed [ another woman ] who had witnessed the night - time arson at FAC that had killed CARDINAL .","By the way , both [ ORG ] and [ the other woman ] ( whose body was found in a well next to the sports centre ) had been garrotted with a wire . All CARDINAL persons arrested in this multicount case will undergo forensic psychiatric observation because of the gravity of the crimes committed , which carry up to DATE or life in prison . But even after these downright senseless murders , the crime wave in the town continued . \u201d","When the case came to trial before ORG , the applicant moved to disqualify the prosecutor for the prejudice apparent in that interview . On DATE the court refused the motion because the prosecutor had only cited facts from the investigative file , had affirmed the applicant \u2019s complicity but not his guilt , and was not personally interested in the outcome of the trial .","On DATE the court sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for arson and the murders of GPE and GPE On DATE ORG upheld the sentence , leaving unanswered the applicant \u2019s complaint about the press interview .","In reply to a post - conviction complaint brought by the applicant , in DATE ORG found that the interview had breached the agency \u2019s ethics policy as it had preceded the trial without , however , tangibly redressing the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156419","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF GHEDIR AND OTHERS v. FRANCE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , apart from the second applicant , who lives in PERSON . The second , third and fourth applicants are the first applicant \u2019s brother , mother and father , respectively .","During TIME CARDINAL DATE the first applicant , who was smoking a cigarette in the Mitry - Villeparisis railway station , was identity - checked by officers of ORG ( \u201c SUGE \u201d ) of ORG ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) .","NORP Just before TIME on DATE QUANTITY police officers from the Mitry Mory police station , GPE and GPE , were called out to that railway station after a report that an individual had been throwing stones at the trains . Arriving at the railway station , they saw a man who did not correspond to the description provided , who appeared to be drunk , and who reacted aggressively when approached . They called for reinforcements just as CARDINAL ORG officers arrived on the scene . The individual in question , who was later identified as the first applicant , ran off towards an underground passageway .","The ORG officers , who included GPE , GPE and O.D.B. , stopped and questioned the first applicant . The latter put up no resistance to his arrest . The ORG officers then took him outside the main entrance to the railway station had placed him against a wall .","The statements given by witnesses to that sc\u00e8ne diverge concerning the subsequent events ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE below ) .","The first applicant was forced to the ground by the ORG officers , who handcuffed him behind his back , before frisking him . He was then placed in a police vehicle parked nearby . The operation ended at TIME","During his transport to and arrival at the police station , the first applicant complained of nausea , and had to be helped out of the vehicle by the police officers . The latter mentioned that he was bleeding profusely from the chin .","Having arrived in the police cells , the first applicant lost consciousness and went into a coma . A doctor present in the police station administered first aid , before the arrival of the fire brigade ambulance at TIME and then the emergency medical services ( ORG ) at TIME He was then transferred to ORG hospital , and later , to the PERSON hospital in GPE .","The first applicant was remanded in custody at TIME on charges of insulting members of the police force and deliberate violence against a public - service employee , although the measure could not be notified to him owing to his state of alcoholic intoxication , according to the police report . The police custody was terminated at TIME on the instructions of ORG .","The duty officer at the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office was advised of the case at TIME He ordered the opening of a flagrante delicto procedure on charges of deliberate violence against persons performing public duties , assigning the task to ORG ( \u201c DRPJ \u201d ) .","The police and ORG officers who had been involved or present during the first applicant \u2019s arrest were questioned . Their versions contradicted each other : the ORG employees spoke of a model arrest , whereas some of the police officers described it as \u201c robust \u201d . Among the latter , PERSON , GPE and PERSON pointed out that they had seen a ORG officer , identified as GPE , kneeing the first applicant in the face while he was being held on the ground by CARDINAL other officers . They added that , noticing that GPE was about to knee him again , police sergeant PERSON had restrained him by the leg and said \u201c that \u2019ll do \u201d .","A.H. did not mention that fact during his first questioning . He was interviewed again , and he explained that when he had arrived at the railway station on TIME in question he had noted the presence of CARDINAL ORG officers surrounding the first applicant , who was waving his arms . CARDINAL of them had attempted to take the latter by the arms , but he had brushed him off . The officer identified as PERSON had replied \u201c do n\u2019t you hit me \u201d , and had become \u201c annoyed \u201d with the first applicant . With the help of CARDINAL colleagues he had brought him to the ground . Given the applicant \u2019s refusal to allow himself to be handcuffed , he had struck him on the head with his left knee . PERSON said that he had then approached the scene . Seeing PERSON moving his left leg back to knee him again , he had prevented him from doing so . When asked why he had not mentioned these facts in his first witness statement , the police officer stated that he had \u201c thought that it was for the person concerned to shoulder his responsibilities \u201d .","N.T. submitted that before being brought to the ground the first applicant had not been violent , but when an ORG officer had touched him he had tried to remove his hand . One of the ORG team had then , unsuccessfully , attempted to punch him in the face .","Some of the police and ORG officers mentioned that the first applicant had had a cut on his chin before his arrest .","On DATE , GPE and O.D.B. were remanded in custody .","On DATE the scene was reconstructed in the presence of CARDINAL members of the prosecutor \u2019s office and the CARDINAL ORG officers and the QUANTITY police officers who had been involved in the arrest . The ORG officers said that the arrest had been effected without any particular difficulties , the first applicant having been handcuffed on the floor , emphasising that he had displayed no injuries on being handed over to the police officers . The latter presented a different version of events , explaining how the applicant had been kneed in the head .","Dr M.K. , who had operated on the first applicant at FAC , told the investigators that the injuries noted might have been compatible with CARDINAL very violent blow , such as a hard slap , a kick or a knee strike , a blow from a medium - weight blunt instrument , or even a heavy fall . He did not consider the injury compatible with a truncheon blow .","At the Lagny - sur - Marne hospital , a brain scan showed an acute subdural haematoma of the left hemisphere . Blood tests showed alcohol levels of QUANTITY of blood and the presence of active cannabinoids ( THC ) , pointing to exposure to cannabis DATE before the testing .","The first applicant was admitted to the FAC hospital on DATE and immediately taken to the operating theatre , where he underwent emergency surgical evacuation of his haematoma . A control scan carried out DATE showed a residual subdural haematoma .","On DATE a forensic doctor was called upon to examine the first applicant , and noted that he was in a stage-CARDINAL coma on the GPE Coma Scale ( on which stage CARDINAL corresponds to death and stage CARDINAL to a wakeful state ) . The doctor described a temporo - parietal fracture on the left - hand side , a closed QUANTITY wound on the left side of the chin , CARDINAL haematomas on the left tibia and a scratch on the left cheek . He also mentioned a subdural haematoma of the left hemisphere which was extended and compressive and had been the reason for the applicant \u2019s emergency transfer to hospital .","A second scan carried out on DATE showed an odontoid fracture associated with a fracture of the lateral mass of vertebra CCARDINAL .","On DATE the first applicant underwent further operations .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was hospitalised at ORG .","The discharge assessment drawn up by the said ORG mentioned a large number of neurological after - effects , including the partial loss of active motor skills in all CARDINAL limbs , and serious cognitive and behavioural disorders ( disinhibition , maladjustment , inability to concentrate , temporal disorientation , demotivation and loss of initiative , and passive opposition ) .","On DATE , since his condition had not improved , the first applicant was transferred to another rehabilitation centre . On DATE the first applicant \u2019s residual rate of permanent partial disability ( IPP ) was estimated at PERCENT , given his lack of autonomy in respect of all the basic activities of everyday life . He was confined to a wheelchair and was unable to engage in any autonomous occupational activity .","On DATE the ORG requested the instigation of a judicial investigation against ORG , GPE and O.D.B. on charges of intentional violence having caused over CARDINAL days\u2019 total unfitness for work ( ORG ) , aggravated by the following CARDINAL circumstances : the violence had been jointly , by persons performing public duties , in a place used for acceding to public transport .","On DATE the CARDINAL persons targeted by the request for an investigation were formally charged . L.P. and O.D.B. were placed under judicial supervision , while PERSON was placed in preventive detention until DATE , when he would be released under judicial supervision .","The applicants , assisted by counsel , applied to join the proceedings as civil parties .","On DATE , in view of the evolution of the first applicant \u2019s state of health , ORG requested further investigations , reclassifying the charges as intentional acts of violence have caused a permanent disability . The CARDINAL ORG officers were formally charged on this new basis .","A large number of witnesses were heard by the investigators on letters rogatory , and some of them were directly questioned by the investigating judge .","Three train passengers present at the material time stated that they had not seen the first applicant being struck .","CARDINAL individuals who had been with the applicant on DATE in question , PERSON and GPE . , were also questioned . PERSON explained that during the afternoon he and the first applicant had drunk alcohol and had been fined for smoking in the railway station . They had then reasoned with a person who had been on the railway tracks throwing stones at the trains . PERSON pointed out that the first applicant had a swollen lip and small scars on his face , around the chin . While they had been together the first applicant had neither fallen nor bumped his head .","DATE S.Gh . told the investigators that the first applicant had been \u201c shoved \u201d by CARDINAL of the officers involved , who had forced him face - down on to the ground , without his head actually touching the floor . She added that when he had been on the ground an ORG officer had kicked him , with medium force , on the head or his upper body , although she was unable to say whether the kick had landed on his head . She further stated that when the first applicant refused to get into the vehicle , CARDINAL of the staff involved had hit him lightly on the back of the head or upper body with a black objet , possible a truncheon , but that the blow had not been violent . The investigating judge summoned GPE . CARDINAL times to appear before him , but she did not attend . Moreover , having subsequently mentioned the violent acts during a TV interview , she had explained that \u201c she had been all over the place \u201d , that she had been \u201c taken by surprise \u201d and that she \u201c had overdone it a bit in front of the TV cameras \u201d .","Furthermore , on CARDINAL DATE an ORG employee informed the investigators that he had been confided in by a dog - handler , claiming that he had been talking to some of the first applicant \u2019s friends and had discovered that he had been fighting on the TIME in question and that someone had smashed a bottle over his head . The employee explained that she had not spoken up earlier because her information was only second - hand . Furthermore , she had not considered the dog - handler particularly reliable , as he had previously given her information which she knew to be false . However , this witness statement could not be compared with other evidence or corroborated by the witness as he had died since the material time . On DATE the police had telephoned the CARDINAL dog - handlers who could have made the statements in question . The only one who had worked in the company in question at the material time had stated that he had not heard about the case and had never spoken to any friends of the victim , with whom he was not acquainted .","GPE and GPE , the QUANTITY police officers who had first arrived on the scene , gave statements . CARDINAL said that the arrest had been carried out \u201c robustly \u201d and that the first applicant \u2019s head had possibly hit the ground , as he had \u201c fallen with his whole weight , all at once \u201d , and the other stated that the applicant had fallen \u201c to the ground heavily , face down \u201d , with his head hitting the floor . The latter added , before the investigating judge , that he was virtually sure that the applicant \u2019s head had hit the ground , even though his view was partially blocked by a vehicle . He further added that he had not seen the person being kneed .","NORP The QUANTITY police officers sent as reinforcements , GPE , PERSON and PERSON , stated that they had witnessed a kneeing incident . PERSON affirmed that when the first applicant had been brought to the ground there had been a loud \u201c bump \u201d . PERSON went back on the statements made during the flagrante delicto procedure , informing the investigating judge that he did not know whether the applicant \u2019s head had \u201c bumped on the ground \u201d .","The CARDINAL ORG officers who had been present but had not taken part in the operation explained that there had been no violence , and CARDINAL of them suggested that if there had been any blows they must have been delivered in the police car or the police station .","As regards the persons formally charged , O.D.B. stated that no blows had been delivered . He said that the episode during which the first applicant had been brought to the ground had been a \u201c textbook example \u201d , explaining that there had been no violence , and that the person had just been placed on the ground . He was sure that his head had not hit the ground . He added that PERSON had not kneed the first applicant , explaining to the investigating judge that in his view things had gone badly in the police station and the police officers were trying to \u201c shift the blame on to them \u201d . He added that the wound to the first applicant \u2019s chin after his arrival in the detention area bore no comparison to the scratch which they had noted earlier on . He considered that his colleague had used the level of force strictly necessary to bring the arrestee to the ground .","L.P. affirmed that while the first applicant had still been standing , he had deliberately punched PERSON on the arm . The latter had then seized him by the sleeve to knock him off balance . The applicant had ended up on his knees , and had been laid out on his side and then on his stomach . O.D.B. and he had held him by the ankles while PERSON was handcuffing him . ORG stated that the first applicant had been brought to the ground quite normally and that he had neither fallen to the ground nor been struck . He justified the use of that technique by the fact that the arrestee had been struggling and making incoherent statements . He added that he had had traces of blood around his nose , something which he had already noticed when fining him during TIME . He told the investigating judge that the first applicant \u2019s head could not have hit the ground , after having stated while in custody that he had not been able to see his head when the person had been brought to the ground .","Finally , GPE , a former trainer in the field of operational techniques , confirmed that he had fined the first applicant during TIME , without any further incidents occurring , even though the latter had already been consuming alcohol . He described the applicant \u2019s annoyance and disgraceful language when they had met up again later . He complained that he had been punched deliberately and violently on his right forearm . He had pulled at the first applicant \u2019s sleeve to bring him to his knees , and had then forced him to the ground with ORG \u2019s help , laying him on his right side and then turning him on to his stomach . He had personally handcuffed the arrestee by placing his knees on his body , his left knee on the back and his right knee on the posterior . His colleagues had been holding the arrestee \u2019s legs . He specified that the latter had been \u201c brought to the ground \u201d and not \u201c pushed to the ground \u201d . The applicant \u2019s head had not collided with anything and he had not been struck in any way , in the knowledge that he had had a slight cut on his chin and dried blood around his nose . PERSON said that something must have happened at the police station or during his time in the police vehicle , because the injury to the chin which had been visible during the arrest had nothing in common with the wound which he had displayed at the police station ; that wound had been QUANTITY deep and bleeding , leaving a pool of blood . If the ORG officers had noted such a wound on handing him over to the police , they would have immediately called an ambulance .","Y.F. \u2019s administrative file showed that he had repeatedly complained of abuse and threats .","Consultation of the FAC operational handbooks had shown that the head was singled out as a part of the body which should never be struck .","No images of the handcuffing episode could be obtained from the ORG footage at the railway station . On the other hand , the footage did show the identity check carried out in the afternoon and the attempts by the first applicant to calm down an individual standing on the railway tracks .","On DATE the investigating judge commissioned an expert report on the matter from PERSON , a forensic doctor , and Professor L , a brain surgeon . They submitted their report on DATE .","The reports concluded that the first applicant had had a subdural haematoma of the left hemisphere which had caused brain damage .","In view of the nature and consequences of that haematoma , the experts considered that the length of time required to constitute it had probably been TIME from the time of the head injury , and could not have been TIME . Having regard to the timescale of the events and the witness statements , the experts stated that the shock could not have occurred during the few minutes\u2019 drive from the railway station to the police station , or on arrival at the latter . On the other hand , they found that the injuries could have been caused by the applicant being pushed to the ground , being kneed or falling full length during his arrest . Alcohol or drug consumption could not have had any direct and\/or definite influence on the traumatic brain injury .","PERSON , a neurologist , and PERSON , a neuropsychologist , examined the first applicant on DATE . They submitted their report on DATE .","They noted a deficiency of all CARDINAL limbs and a serious deterioration of the cognitive and mental functions . They concluded that the neurological condition was directly responsible for the first applicant \u2019s state of total dependency , and considered that it was too soon to determine the chances of consolidation but that the situation was unlikely to change greatly .","On DATE PERSON and PERSON examined the first applicant . In their report of DATE they noted that he could neither stand nor walk , that he was completely dependent as regards everyday activities and should be placed under guardianship . His total unfitness for work was still being assessed .","They mentioned that the injuries observed could only have been the result of violent trauma , and that if they had been caused by being pushed to the ground , he must have been pushed extremely violently . The hyperextension of the cervical rachis and the fracture of the CCARDINAL vertebra could have been caused by a violent blow from a knee , but not the haemorrhagic lesions or the left temporal contusion , the latter having been caused either by direct blows to the skull or by the head violently hitting the ground . They confirmed that alcohol or drug consumption could not have been factors in the injuries , although they explained that the state of intoxication could have diminished the person \u2019s reactivity in attempting to limit the consequences of falling .","The experts considered that the timescale of the events as reported pointed to the conditions surrounding the arrest in the railway station as having very probably , indeed certainly , been the cause of the traumatic cranio - cerebral and rachidial lesions . They pointed out that they had no information at their disposal to rule out the possibility that the first applicant had sustained other violent attacks while in the police vehicle or at the police station , but added that if such violence had indeed occurred , it was conceivable that it had caused injuries . Nevertheless , the lapse of time between the arrest and the arrival at the police station had been so short that that hypothesis was \u201c improbable \u201d .","They further explained that the bleeding in the chin area could not have been caused by the subdural haematoma , but might have resulted from the person having been violently pushed to the ground or having received any other type of blow .","The experts concluded that the first applicant suffered from an infirmity which would leave him with permanent motor , cognitive and mental after - effects .","On DATE and DATE the investigating judge appointed CARDINAL experts , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and also PERSON , an expert in \u201c martial arts , combat and self - defence sports and the ballistics of body movements and blows \u201d , to assist in the reconstruction of events and conduct a fresh medical examination of the first applicant . They were also mandated to determine whether the first applicant \u2019s statement as recorded on DATE could be deemed reliable .","The reconstruction took place on DATE . Police officers GPE and GPE confirmed that when they had first encountered the first applicant he had been acting rather nervously , seemed to have consumed alcohol , displayed an injury on his chin , and was red in the face . The ORG officers who had met GPE and PERSON had informed them that they had already fined the applicant that TIME . ORG officer C.A. explained that since the police officers had informed them that they had been insulted the decision had been taken to arrest the person concerned and the ORG officers had asked him to come with them . C.A. had put him in an armlock . For his part , PERSON stated that he had seized his left sleeve .","According to the ORG officers , they had taken the first applicant outside the railway station , and there had been some hesitation when GPE had told them that this was not the man who had been throwing stones at the trains . O.D.B. pointed out that GPE had then released him and stepped back . PERSON explained that the first applicant had then turned angrily to face him and punched him on the forearm . He had seized the applicant by the collar , forced him to his knees and placed him on his right side . He had then placed him face down on the ground and put his hands behind his back in order to handcuff him . After frisking him , he had taken the first applicant by the right arm , and the latter had stood up otherwise unaided .","A.H. confirmed that the applicant had made a gesture towards GPE \u2019s arm , and PERSON had warned him : \u201c do n\u2019t you touch me \u201d . However , he explained that because he was resisting handcuffing , PERSON had struck him with his left knee .","One of the other police officers , GPE , confirmed that he had seen the person being struck by Y.F.s left knee , while PERSON mentioned a blow from the right knee . PERSON confirmed the action described by PERSON , although he was not sure which leg had been used .","The police officers added that the first applicant had been placed in the police vehicle and that when they had almost reached the police station he had said that he was going to vomit . They pointed out that the man had been very calm , but when he was about to leave the vehicle he said that he would need help because his knee hurt . PERSON had helped him out of the car , holding CARDINAL of his legs . That was when the applicant \u2019s head had slid along the head - rest and hit the car doorframe . PERSON , seeing that he had fainted , had asked a colleague to help him . Outside the vehicle the first applicant had vomited liquids and remained inert , mumbling rather than speaking . He had then been dragged into the sobering - up area .","The experts submitted their report on DATE . They observed that in GPE \u2019s version of events there had been no mention of blows or of the first applicant \u2019s head hitting the ground . They also noted that in ORG version , the blow was described as incapable of having had a major impact . They found that during the manoeuvre to bring the first applicant to the ground , he had been in a position to break his fall and , possibly , if he had been kneed , to protect himself . Moreover , they stated that if the kneeing incident was taken on board , the time which had elapsed between the latter and the arrival at the police station , when the first symptoms of the brain damage became evident , would have been TIME . They concluded that in view of the minimum period of evolution ( the \u201c response time \u201d ) between the traumatic injury and the first symptoms , that is to say DATE TIME , the kneeing could not be deemed to have caused the brain injury .","The experts considered that the various statements by the persons charged and the witnesses , as well as the reconstructions of the different versions , were \u201c completely incompatible with the forensic medical findings as regards the nature and\/or seriousness of the injuries described in the various hospital and forensic reports \u201d , such injuries being \u201c necessarily the outcome of violent traumatic injuries \u201d .","They pointed out that the observations made during the reconstruction meant that it was unlikely , or even impossible , that the fracture had occurred during the events that had taken place at the railway station or the police station , explaining that such a fracture usually caused serious neck pain and stiffness in the cervical rachis , which had not been noted by the victim , the witnesses or the participants .","As regards the hypothesis mentioned during the investigation to the effect that the first applicant might have been hit by a bottle during a fight that had taken place during TIME DATE , the experts pointed out that they had not received any evidence to support that affirmation , but that a blow with a bottle could have caused an internal contusion which would not have produced any external symptoms on the scalp but would have caused a subdural haematoma such as that discovered on the first applicant \u2019s admission to hospital . The first manifestations felt by the first applicant on his way to the police station had most likely stemmed from just such a traumatic injury . The manifestations in question had therefore reflected the brain \u2019s intolerance of the mounting pressure exerted by the subdural haematoma , which had been tolerated for TIME and had then decompensated during the transfer to the police station .","DATE . The experts emphasised that the lapse of time between the applicant \u2019s arrest by the ORG brigade and the emergence of the traumatic brain injuries had been too short to conclude that the actions carried out and the blows struck by members of that brigade might have caused the brain damage . Furthermore , the actions of the ORG officers , as studied in detail on DATE of the reconstruction , could not have explained the intracranial lesions .","As regards the first applicant \u2019s condition , the experts considered that his residual rate of permanent partial disability ( IPP ) could be estimated at PERCENT , given his lack of autonomy in respect of all the basic activities of everyday life and his inability to engage in any autonomous occupational activity . His suffering and disfigurement were estimated at CARDINAL , and his loss of amenity and professional damage were declared absolute , total and definitive .","The experts observed that the first applicant had said that he had been \u201c attacked \u201d . They added , however , that any memory on the applicant \u2019s part had necessarily been \u201c reconstructed \u201d , either through unintentional , spontaneous fabrication or by repeating something overheard from people around him and possibly deformed by himself . He could certainly have had no direct memories of the events .","ORG , which had been contacted by CARDINAL members of parliament concerning the circumstances of the first applicant \u2019s arrest , assessed the procedural documents and interviewed the ORG officers , apart from the persons formally charged , and also the police officers . It adopted an opinion on DATE .","It first of all noted that when the applicant had been arrested in the underground carpark of the railway station he had not been accused of an offence , as the police officers had acknowledged that his profile did not match that of the person sought . It added that the QUANTITY police officers who had initially been involved had pointed out that they had not wanted to arrest the first applicant , but simply to check his identity , while the head of the ORG team had stated that he had stopped the applicant for questioning because he had thought that the police officers had been insulted and he had considered them as victims . The committee noted that the head of team had admitted that \u201c it was a bit topsy - turvy \u201d , and that on leaving the railway station he had been unable to understand why the officers had not handcuffed the man and taken him to the police station .","The committee observed that the arrest had been carried out in a confused and confusing manner . The ORG officers had explained that they had decided to handcuff the first applicant because he had insulted them and had struck GPE on the forearm .","NORP The committee noted that PERSON had partly confirmed that version , and pointed out that there had been a kind of confused \u201c stand - off \u201d between the ORG and the police officers outside the railway station . ORG had noted that the first applicant had been insulting the ORG officers , that he had lunged at one of them , hitting him on the arm or the shoulder , and that the officer in question had said \u201c Do n\u2019t you touch me ! \u201d . After the applicant had been handcuffed , PERSON had decided to apprehend him on charges of violence against persons performing public duties , which violent acts he considered to have been committed in his presence .","The committee observed that LOC , who had taken the first applicant to the police station , had stated that he did not know the reason for the arrest .","DATE . The committee noted that even supposing that the head injury might have been caused by CARDINAL of the ORG officers , the police officers whom it had interviewed had provided no further information such as to establish its origin or the time of its causation . The only conclusions to be drawn from their statements were that the arrest had been violent , because the first applicant had initially resisted handcuffing .","The committee observed that the police and ORG involvement in the case had been extremely confused . It stated that the police sergeant , who had been assisted by CARDINAL police officers , ought to have taken control of the situation as soon as he arrived on the scene . He should have intervened between the ORG officers and the first applicant , immediately placing the latter under his protection , and have asked the ORG officers why he had been stopped and questioned , with a view to deciding on the appropriate action to take . The committee noted that instead of shouldering that responsibility , the police officers had passively looked on as the ORG officers used force which the former \u2019s mere presence had rendered illegitimate .","The committee considered that the lawfulness of the apprehension had been highly questionable . Indeed , the first CARDINAL police officers arriving on the scene had taken the view that the apprehension had not been justified by the first applicant \u2019s attitude outside the railway station . Interrogation of the various parties involved had not made clear whether a serious act of violence had been committed against GPE or whether the first applicant had merely pushed him away . The committee noted that the incident appeared in fact to have amounted to a mere scuffle to which PERSON had reacted impulsively .","It further noted that the ORG officers had imposed the decision to apprehend the first applicant on the police officers , who were not in control of the situation . The latter had merely passively accepted the applicant \u2019s handover in order to transport him to the police station . That confusion explained why the injury could not be imputed with any certainty to either of the services in question . The committee further stated that even supposing that the injury had been caused by the ORG officers during the handcuffing operation , at a time when the first applicant should have been under police protection , it was surprising , at the very least , that none of the police officers present had been able to identify the act of violence which had occasioned the injury .","In the committee \u2019s view , the injury under the applicant \u2019s chin raised issues . Even supposing that it had already been there prior to the apprehension and that the wound had reopened , as the police officers affirmed , it pointed at the very least to a very rough mode of transport of an injured person . Lastly , the committee pointed out that it was not its task to issue an opinion on the origin of the head injury or to attribute it to either of the services . It added that the possibility of a joint police \/ SUGE operation required the respective competences to be strictly defined . It should be reiterated that the arrival of the police removes the ORG mandate , immediately placing the operation under the sole authority of the most senior police officer present . Moreover , ORG officers should also be aware of the conditions for the lawfulness of in flagrante apprehensions and should in fact , like police personnel , undergo compulsory conflict management training .","ORG Lastly , the committee decided to transmit its opinion to the public prosecutor for assessment of the expediency of prosecuting those concerned on charges of failure to assist a person in danger .","On DATE the investigating judge of ORG issued a discontinuance order .","She considered that the serious brain damage suffered by the first applicant had originated in events preceding his questioning by the ORG officers and his transport to the police station by the police officers . She observed that the investigation had failed to establish the precise circumstances under which the events had occurred and to identify the perpetrator . No further investigation had been possible because all the witnesses identified had been heard and the first applicant was no longer capable of providing further information on the series of events of which he had been the victim .","The investigating judge added that the circumstance surrounding the apprehension had been caused by the first applicant \u2019s insulting and violent behaviour . No proof had been provided of illegitimate violence , since it had transpired from the proceedings and the witness statements that the applicant \u2019s head had not hit the ground , and that even supposing that GPE had kneed him , such acts did not fall within the category of deliberate violence . The judge stated that the investigation had shown that , owing to the position in which GPE had been standing , the intensity of his action had necessarily been limited , forming part of an operational technique .","The applicants , all of whom had joined the proceedings as civil parties , appealed against the discontinuance decision , seeking :","- its annulment pursuant to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW on the grounds that it was identically worded to the public prosecutor \u2019s final submissions ;","- the appointment of a panel of experts mandated to produce a fresh report under the supervision of a member of ORG , and ;","- in the alternative , the committal of the defendants for trial by the criminal court for the acts of violence perpetrated against the first applicant .","By judgment of CARDINAL September CARDINAL the Investigations Division of ORG dismissed all those requests . It held that the civil parties had sustained no damage as a result of the grounds of nullity on which they had relied , since they could have adduced their claims in adversarial proceedings before it ; it also pointed out that the entire proceedings had been submitted to it and that it was empowered to deal with all aspects of the case . As regards the request for a new expert report , ORG noted that the first expert report had been drawn up by a panel of CARDINAL experts with complementary specialities , who had all attended the extremely long and detailed reconstruction organised by the investigating judge , during which they had seen all those involved in the impugned events repeat several times the gestures which they had described , covering all the different versions presented . It held that another expert opinion , for which all this input could not be replicated , would be of no real value for establishing the truth , and that it was neither necessary nor practicable to repeat such a complex reconstruction , which had at no stage been criticised by the various parties involved in the proceedings . The ORG added that in medical terms , the civil parties had provided no scientific evidence capable of contradicting the conclusions of the panel of experts , merely affirming that the extremely serious injuries sustained by the first applicant must have originated in the manner of his arrest .","As regards the violence in question , ORG noted that the first applicant had suddenly lost his temper and struck GPE violently on the arm , which had been a deliberate , aggressive act . They therefore considered that the SUGE officers\u2019 intervention to neutralise him had been amply justified , subject to the operation having taken place under appropriate conditions . It nevertheless noted that the operation seemed to have been more \u201c robust \u201d than the ORG officers had admitted , the latter having spoken of a \u201c textbook \u201d operation , which evoked a theoretical ideal and seemed \u201c too perfect \u201d . Furthermore , the other parties involved had described a swifter series of events than the \u201c takedown \u201d in CARDINAL separate stages described by PERSON As regards the possibility that the first applicant had been kneed in the head , ORG noted divergences in the various witness statements , and concluded that some uncertainty remained as regards both whether such a blow from the knee had actually been administered and whether it had been intentional .","Finally , as regards the causal link between the arrest and the first applicant \u2019s injuries , ORG noted the general consensus that the applicant had been \u201c in good shape \u201d on being installed in the police vehicle after his handcuffing , and that neither his position in the vehicle nor the speed of transport had suggested that he had been the target of any violence at this stage of events . Referring to the reconstruction , ORG considered that by reprising all the descriptions of the actions by all those involved and taking on board the hypotheses least favourable to the ORG officers in question , the experts had been able to ascertain that the arrestee \u2019s head had not hit the ground in any of the reconstructed actions , that the blow from the knee , if such a blow had ever actually occurred , would have affected the right craniofacial region , that if it had been struck as described it could only have had a minor impact and that the actions carried out could not explain the intracranial lesions noted , especially the cranial fracture on the left side of the head . ORG further observed that the experts\u2019 findings had been very clear , considering it highly unlikely , or indeed impossible , that the fracture had been caused during the incidents at the railway station or at the police station .","The ORG pointed out that the experts had extensively justified their change of mind on the basis of factors which they had noted from the reconstructions of all the different versions , which they had attended , and that the medical evidence gathered would appear to support the existence of a previous traumatic injury which had taken some time to manifest . Lastly , it noted that the previous findings concerning the first applicant \u2019s physical state during TIME had lent credence to that eventuality . Furthermore , the time taken for the symptoms to appear would have been incompatible per se with the short lapse of time between the arrest and the first symptoms , too soon after the operation to have been caused by it .","ORG concluded that the investigation had failed to gather sufficient evidence that a criminal offence had been committed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal on points of law . It held that the applicants could not complain about the reasons given for the discontinuance decision because , owing to the devolutive effect of the appeal , ORG had substituted its own reasoning for the original CARDINAL . Moreover , it considered that that ORG had analysed all the facts criticised in the complaint , answered all the main points set out in the civil parties\u2019 memorial and determined , on the basis of sufficient and non - contradictory grounds , that there was insufficient evidence that any individuals had committed the offence of collective assault having caused a permanent disability or any other offence .","In observations received by the registry of ORG ( \u201c LOC \u201d ) on DATE , ORG against acts of terrorism and other criminal offences requested the reimbursement of provisional awards made to the first applicant to a total of MONEY ( ORG ) , under CARDINAL LOC decisions of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","..."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145574","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MARKU v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","A. Proceedings concerning the recognition of the applicant \u2019s status as a war veteran","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an application to have his status as a ( national liberation ) war veteran recognised . On DATE ORG on ORG ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) , which was the body responsible for the examination of such applications , informed the applicant that it had stopped receiving applications in DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an application for leave to appeal out of time . On CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed his application for leave to submit an application to ORG out of time .","On DATE , following the ORG decision , the applicant requested ORG to have his status as a ( national liberation ) war veteran recognised .","On DATE ORG informed him , by way of a letter , that , in spite of ORG decision , it had ceased to operate on DATE and could not examine his application . The applicant did not institute any judicial proceedings in response to ORG communication .","On DATE the applicant was informed by ORG at ORG ( PERSON e Informacionit , ORG ) that DATE for ORG operations had been extended to DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for the legal recognition of his time and status as a ( national liberation ) war veteran ( v\u00ebrtetimin e faktit juridik t\u00eb njohjes s\u00eb koh\u00ebs s\u00eb veteranit t\u00eb ORG - it ... si dhe njohjen e statusit t\u00eb veteranit ) . He relied on LAW ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) ( paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the Council of Ministers\u2019 decisions no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG allowed the action . It found that from DATE to the liberation of the country , the applicant had been a messenger for a partisan unit ( korrier ... n\u00eb sh\u00ebrbim t\u00eb \u00e7et\u00ebs partizane ) . ORG considered just the applicant \u2019s reliance on ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE . It recognised the applicant \u2019s war veteran status ( vendosi ... njohjen e statusit t\u00eb veteranit ) .","On DATE ORG , which had intervened as a third party in the proceedings , appealed against ORG decision arguing that the decision had been taken contrary to the law .","On DATE , ORG upheld that decision . It found that , in so far as ORG did not challenge the accuracy of the evidence examined by ORG , its decision was considered just and given in accordance with the law ( ... meqen\u00ebse p\u00ebr provat e paraqitura personi i tret\u00eb nuk ka pretendime , PERSON \u00e7mon se vendimi i ORG Rrethit Tiran\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb i drejt\u00eb dhe i bazuar dhe si i till\u00eb duhet t\u00eb lihet n\u00eb fuqi ) . On DATE , following a request by the applicant , an enforcement writ was issued .","On DATE a bailiff requested ORG to voluntary comply with the court \u2019s decision .","On DATE the bailiff \u2019s office decided to conclude the enforcement proceedings ( pushimin e ekzekutimit ) on the grounds that the judgment was of a declaratory nature , was not directed against a debtor and that no rights or obligations had arisen therefrom . The court decision had been transmitted to ORG for further action .","Following requests by the applicant to the authorities , on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG informed him that ORG had ceased to exist on DATE . Despite efforts to extend its operations into DATE , no legislation had been subsequently adopted to enable it to continue .","B. Proceedings concerning the payment of financial entitlements on account of the applicant \u2019s war veteran status","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim requesting ORG to pay him the financial entitlements he was eligible to under domestic law on account of his status as a war veteran .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . It held that the decision of DATE , as upheld on appeal on DATE , recognised the existence of a legal fact on the basis of LAW ORG and was of a declaratory nature . An interested party could institute proceedings for the recognition of the existence of a legal fact ; however , the authority competent for recognising a person \u2019s war veteran status was ORG . That entity had never examined an application made by the applicant , who had never been recognised as having war veteran status . When a decision by ORG was taken , it was amenable to appeal before the national courts . ORG powers had not been transferred to any other authority .","Appeals lodged by the applicant with ORG , ORG and ORG were dismissed on DATE , and DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172811","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"SAMOYLENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the Appendix .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by PERSON PERSON GPE , Representative of GPE to ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","DATE the applicants took part in the clean - up operation at the GPE nuclear disaster site . They were subsequently registered disabled and became entitled to various social benefits and compensation paid on a regular basis .","Considering these benefits insufficient , the applicants together with CARDINAL other people , most of them represented by PERSON , sued ORG for additional compensation corresponding to non - pecuniary damage suffered as a result of their participation in the operation .","NORP On different dates in DATE and DATE the ORG ( \u201c the FAC \u201d ) , presided over by Judge Be . , allowed their claims in part and awarded each claimant , including the applicants , compensation ranging MONEY ( RUB ) and RUB CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage .","No appeals were lodged against these judgments within the statutory DATE time - limit .","On DATE Mr PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON NORP ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and PERSON ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) received the amounts awarded by ORG .","On DATE Mr GPE ( no . MONEY ) received his payment .","On DATE and DATE respectively ORG , again presided over by Judge Be . , rejected a request by the defendant authority to have the time - limits for appeal extended ( \u201c extension request \u201d ) on the ground that it had not given a valid reason for its failure to comply with the statutory timelimits . The decision indicated that the defendant authority had been represented at the hearing by PERSON , an employee of the regional department of ORG .","On DATE the defendant authority lodged an appeal against the decision issued in DATE by which ORG refused to extend the time - limits for appealing against the main judgments . It was accompanied by an extension request .","On DATE and DATE respectively ORG , presided over by Judge Be . , granted the defendant authority \u2019s extension request .","Mr NORP appealed .","On DATE the regional ORG dismissed his appeal on the grounds that the domestic courts had failed to serve the defendant authority with the main judgments . Moreover , it noted that it was apparent from the transcript of the hearing of DATE that ORG had neither verified whether PERSON had been duly appointed to represent ORG nor ascertained her identity .","On DATE the regional ORG quashed the decisions adopted by ORG on DATE and granted the defendant authority \u2019s extension request on the ground that it had had a valid reason for missing the statutory time - limit for appeal .","On DATE the regional ORG quashed the main judgments delivered by ORG in the applicants\u2019 favour on the grounds that they had been based on a retrospective application of the law . The applicants were ordered to repay the sums received under the judgments .","The applicants , all assisted by their lawyers , lodged a supervisory review application . There is no indication that they requested the enforcement proceedings to be suspended pending the examination of their supervisory review application .","According to the applicants , they were visited by bailiffs who sought the reimbursement of the sums received under the quashed judgments .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG of the regional ORG partially quashed the appeal judgments as regards the applicants\u2019 obligation to reimburse the sums paid .","On an unspecified date at DATE the President of ORG lodged a request with the Judicial Qualifications Board of Kabardino - Balkaria , seeking to have disciplinary measures taken against Judge Be . for serious procedural violations during the examination of civil claims for compensation by clean - up workers at the GPE nuclear disaster site . In particular , she had accepted for examination claims failing to comply with the admissibility criteria , had failed to publish her judgments on the court \u2019s website within a reasonable time , had allowed representatives without proper forms of authority to take part in the proceedings , and had failed to properly inform the parties of the decisions taken .","On DATE the ORG found Judge Be . responsible for the serious procedural violations and ordered her removal from office .","On DATE the NORP investigative committee initiated a criminal investigation against Judge Be . under LAW of LAW ( pronouncement of a deliberately unlawful judgment ) .","On DATE the LOC investigative committee opened criminal case no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL against PERSON , the ORG representative in the domestic proceedings , under LAW ( fraud ) . PERSON , the clerk of ORG was also prosecuted .","According to the Government , in DATE both of them decided to plead guilty .","On DATE Mr GPE , the head of the regional organisation ORG , was arrested on suspicion of fraud .","It was established in the course of the investigation that on DATE and DATE he had withdrawn money from CARDINAL other former GPE workers\u2019 bank accounts . However , he had not informed them of the exact amounts awarded by the court and had given them only a part of their compensation .","Article CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the CCvP \u201d ) provides that a court may extend a time - limit for a procedural action , such as lodging an appeal , if it finds that a party has a valid reason for missing it .","Under LAW CCvP , in force before DATE , an appeal in a civil case could be lodged within DATE of delivery of the firstinstance judgment in its final form . Since DATE the timelimit for lodging an appeal has been DATE ( Article CARDINAL of the CCvP ) .","Article CARDINAL CARDINAL of the CCvP stipulates that where a decision to award compensation for damage to health is quashed on appeal or by way of supervisory review , and that decision has been taken in the absence of bad faith and miscalculation on the part of the recipient , the compensation itself can not be claimed back .","Section DATE ( CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that enforcement proceedings may be suspended by the domestic court if the judgment on the basis of which a writ of execution was issued is amenable to review . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the same LAW provides that no coercive measures may be taken if enforcement proceedings have been stayed ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169054","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF LUPENI GREEK CATHOLIC PARISH AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 14+6-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Iulia Motoc;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The CARDINAL applicants belong to ORG to GPE , also known as ORG or ORG .","NORP In DATE ORG was dissolved by Decree no . MONEY , and its assets , with the exception of parish property , were transferred to the ORG ; an inter - departmental committee was given responsibility for determining the ultimate allocation of the parish property . However , the committee never completed this task and the parish property was transferred to ORG under Decree no . ORG .","In DATE the property comprising the church building and the adjoining courtyard , which had belonged to the first applicant , was entered in the land register as having been transferred to the ownership of the PERSON I NORP Orthodox Parish ( \u201c the NORP parish \u201d ) .","After DATE of the communist regime in DATE , Decree no . DATE was repealed by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . ORG was officially recognised by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on certain measures concerning ORG to GPE . LAW of that LAW provided that the legal status of property that had belonged to the ORG parishes and that was in the possession of ORG was to be determined by joint committees made up of representatives of both ORG and NORP clergy . In reaching their decisions , the committees were to take into account \u201c the wishes of the worshippers in the communities in possession of these properties \u201d .","DATE no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was amended by Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and PERSON no . PERSON . Under the amended decree , in the event of disagreement between the members of the clergy representing the CARDINAL denominations in a joint committee , the party with an interest in bringing judicial proceedings could do so under \u201c ordinary law \u201d ( drept comun , see the procedure referred to in CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","The first applicant was legally re - established on DATE and the applicants brought proceedings before the joint committee to have their former properties returned to them , but without success .","The domestic law , in particular Legislative Decree no . DATE and the amendments made to it in DATE and DATE , is set out in DATE below .","On DATE the second applicant brought proceedings before the domestic courts against ORG and the NORP parish . It requested that the expropriation of the church building and cemetery in PERSON , carried out on the basis of Decree no . DATE , be set aside , and that the church be returned to the first applicant . The first and third applicants were mentioned in the initial statement of claim as representatives of the second applicant .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) declared the action inadmissible on the ground that the dispute ought to be settled through the special procedure established by Legislative Decree no . DATE , that is , before the joint committee .","The first and second applicants lodged an appeal against that judgment . On DATE they requested a stay of proceedings so that the case could be resolved by friendly settlement . On DATE they applied for it to be restored to the court \u2019s list of cases . On DATE , ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) dismissed the appeal , holding that the action was premature . In a final judgment of DATE , ruling on an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) by the first and second applicants , ORG and ORG ( \u201c the High Court \u201d ) , quashed ORG judgment and sent the case back to that court to be examined on the merits .","On DATE , in application of the legislative amendments to Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL which gave the courts jurisdiction to rule on the merits of cases concerning properties that had belonged to the ORG parishes and were in the possession of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG upheld the second applicant \u2019s appeal and sent the case back to ORG .","On DATE , when the case was restored to ORG list , the action was amended in order to add the first and the third applicants formally as claimants in the proceedings . On DATE the applicants supplemented their action with a claim for recovery of possession of the properties in question , on the basis of ordinary law .","ORG asked the parties to organise a meeting in order to decide the fate of the church building in question , and to inform it of the outcome of the negotiations by DATE . The parties met on DATE without reaching an agreement .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 action on the ground that the NORP parish had become the legally recognised owner of the contested property by virtue of Decree no . MONEY and that it had behaved as an owner , inter alia by ensuring that the church was maintained properly .","By a judgment of DATE , ruling on an appeal by the applicants , ORG set aside the judgment of DATE on grounds of a procedural defect and remitted the case to ORG .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found in favour of the applicants and ordered that the church be returned to the first applicant . Comparing the parties\u2019 title deeds in respect of the property in question , it noted that ORG had been entered in the land register as owner of the property from DATE , and that in DATE ORG had entered its ownership right to the same property , transferred to it under Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . It held that the repealing of Decree no . MONEY had had the effect in the present case of terminating the NORP party \u2019s right of ownership over the disputed property . It also pointed out that the first applicant did not have a place of worship and that it was obliged to hold its religious services in LOC which it rented from ORG .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG allowed an appeal lodged by the NORP parish and dismissed the applicants\u2019 action . On the basis of the evidence in the case file , it noted , firstly , that the church building being claimed and CARDINAL parsonages in ORG had been constructed DATE by LOC NORP and NORP worshippers and that , after its construction , the church building had been used alternately for services by both denominations . It noted that in DATE the members of ORG had been obliged to convert to ORG and that this church building had been transferred to the ownership of ORG , which had maintained it and carried out renovation work .","ORG also examined statements , collected by ORG , from CARDINAL witnesses . It noted that these statements supported the statistical data indicating that there were more NORP than NORP worshippers in PERSON . It noted that , according to the most recent census , there were CARDINAL NORP worshippers and CARDINAL NORP worshippers in PERSON . It also compared the witness statements , written documents attesting to the number of NORP worshippers as declared when ORG was re - established in PERSON , and data from the most recent census conducted in PERSON .","It then reasoned as follows :","\u201c ... although the action was based on the provisions of ordinary law , namely LAW of LAW , in view of its subject matter the court can not rule without applying the provisions of LAW no . DATE , to the effect that the legal situation of places of worship and parsonages ... must be determined taking account of the wishes of the worshippers in the community that is in possession of the properties \u201d .","It considered that , given that there were more NORP than NORP worshippers in PERSON , including the converts who no longer wished to return to ORG , their refusal had to be taken into account in ruling on the case . It found that \u201c having regard to the social and historical realities , ignoring the wishes and proportional strength of NORP worshippers , who are in the majority , in relation to the far fewer NORP Catholic worshippers , would be to undermine the stability and certainty of legal relations \u201d .","ORG held that the fact that Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had been repealed did not automatically mean that ORG title had been annulled , as this Decree represented the law in force at the time that the ownership right was transferred . In consequence , it considered that , although it had been granted under legislation which had subsequently been declared unlawful , ORG title had been valid from the date on which the transfer had been made , with the result that the action to recover possession was unfounded .","The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law before ORG , alleging that ORG had incorrectly applied the legal provisions governing actions for recovery of possession . They argued that the right of ownership could not be linked to a religion \u2019s majority status , since ownership was a legal concept that was independent of the numerical strength and wishes of the parties .","On DATE ORG , by a majority , delivered a final judgment in which it set out , in detail , the decisions taken by the lower courts . Reiterating that those courts alone had jurisdiction to establish the facts , it endorsed their findings of fact . It dismissed the ORG appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment delivered on appeal . As to the applicable law , it held , in particular , as follows :","\u201c Pursuant to Legislative Decree no . DATE ... a distinction is made CARDINAL situations : ( a ) that in which the property is in the ownership of the State ... ( b ) that in which the places of worship and the parishes have been taken over by ORG and in respect of which [ the question of ] restitution will be decided by a joint committee made up of representatives of the clergy of the CARDINAL denominations , a committee which will take account of the wishes of the worshippers in the communities in possession of these properties .","In the light of those provisions , ORG , examining an action for recovery of possession of a place of worship , correctly applied the criterion of the wishes of the ( predominantly NORP ) worshippers of the community in possession of the property , while simultaneously emphasising the unlawfulness of the reasoning of the first - instance court , which had merely compared the title deeds and ignored the special law ...","However , it appears that there are CARDINAL NORP worshippers and CARDINAL NORP worshippers in PERSON , that the worshippers who were obliged to transfer to ORG in DATE do not wish to return to ORG and that an attempt has been made to resolve [ the dispute ] through the joint clerical committee ( according to TIME ... the NORP party had indicated that the request for the return of the place of worship could not be granted , having regard to the wishes of the worshippers in the parish and the fact that since DATE the place of worship has been administered by the NORP believers ) ...","The fact of supplementing LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ] with a paragraph stating \u201c If the committee does not meet within the period established in its mandate , or if the committee does not reach a conclusion or if one of the parties is dissatisfied with the decision taken by the committee , the party with an interest in bringing judicial proceedings may do so under ordinary law \u201d does not mean that actions for restitution governed by the special provisions are transformed into applications to establish title under ordinary law .","A court which is required to examine such an action can not ignore the special regulations in this area , which indicate the criterion to be taken into account in resolving such claims , namely the wishes of the worshippers in the community in possession of the property .","In other words , by virtue of its full jurisdiction and in order not to compromise access to justice , a court may be called upon to decide an action on the merits , even though the prior procedure did not culminate in a decision by the joint clerical committee ; at the same time , however , it may not go beyond the limits imposed by the special statutory framework .","The priority to be given to the criterion of the worshippers\u2019 wishes was decided by the legislature , which wished in this way to regulate an area which concerns the buildings assigned to a particular use ( places of worship ) , [ and so ] the court is not entitled to criticise the law .","Moreover , in ruling on the alleged unconstitutionality of LAW no . MONEY and the criterion of the worshippers\u2019 wishes , ORG has stated that the text did not infringe the principle of democracy of GPE , nor that of the freedom of religious denominations ( ORG decision no . FAC , ORG decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ...","In ORG view , the fact that the ORG unlawfully dispossessed ORG of its places of worship in DATE can not be remedied \u2013 in a ORG subject to the rule of law \u2013 by committing the opposite error , that is , by failing to take account of the wishes of the majority of worshippers at the point of adopting the given measure . Returning the properties which belonged to ORG without respecting the criteria imposed by LAW no . DATE would undermine the stability and certainty of legal relations . A right can not be reconstructed in abstracto , in disregard of social and historical realities , and mitigation of past damage must not create disproportionate new problems ...","Moreover , in order to be able to bring an action for recovery of possession under ordinary law rather than under the special law , the appellants must rely on the existence of a \u201c possession \u201d , namely of a pecuniary right that could be relied upon by them .","However , the NORP Catholic denomination was dissolved by Decree no . GPE and the assets of ORG passed into the ownership of the ORG . The building in question is currently entered ( in the land register ... as belonging to the PERSON I Romanian Orthodox Church .","The fact that , through Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG to GPE ( NORP Catholic ) was officially recognised following the repeal of Decree no . FAC does not mean that all of its titles to property were restored , in so far as the right of ownership is subject to a procedure ( namely the provisions of Legislative Decree no . DATE and its subsequent amendments ) , and the hope of obtaining title to property is not to be equated with a possession ... \u201d","In a separate opinion , CARDINAL of the judges sitting in the case noted that the legislature \u2019s reference to ordinary law could not be reduced to a purely procedural dimension , but was to be interpreted as the application of a rule of substantive law . Referring to the rules governing the preparation of statutes , the judge expressed the opinion that if the legislature had wished to ascribe a specific meaning to this reference to \u201c ordinary law \u201d , it ought to have done so explicitly . As an action for recovery of possession involved a comparison of the relevant property titles , the judge concluded that ORG had no such title to the church building in question ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168930","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TOMINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals . They owned rooms in a dormitory building in the municipality of PERSON . The municipality reclaimed the building , and the ORG title to the real property in question was annulled as a result of civil proceedings brought against them by a prosecutor on behalf of the municipality . According to the Government , the judgment has not been enforced and the applicants continue to reside in the rooms they had bought .","PERSON and Mr PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) submitted that they had never moved into the rooms as they were occupied by other individuals .","In DATE a ORG - owned enterprise called ORG was privatised and reorganised into a joint - stock limited liability company called ORG . The privatisation plan was approved by the municipality and ORG signed the plan on its behalf . In accordance with the privatisation plan , all residential buildings previously listed on ORG \u2019s balance sheet were to be transferred to the municipality , while the administrative buildings were to be taken over by PERSON . The privatisation plan referred to a building located at no . CARDINAL PERSON , PERSON , as an administrative building ( used for non - residential purposes ) , and it was transferred to PERSON .","As a result of a number of reorganisations of ORG , the title to the building in question was transferred to the closed joint - stock company , ORG , separate rooms in the building were resold to third parties , including the applicants . The information concerning the applicants\u2019 titles to the property can be found in the appendix below . According to the title deeds , the applicants were owners of non - residential LOC .","The applicants moved into the rooms and resided there .","On DATE ORG found the NORP privatisation plan and the agreement of CARDINAL DATE \u2013 which ORG and PERSON had entered into , and which partly concerned the transfer of the title to the building to Stroitel \u2013 null and void .","On an unspecified date the Promyshlenniy district prosecutor , acting in the interests of the municipality , brought an action against ORG , ORG and the owners of the rooms in the former dormitory building , including the applicants . Referring to the invalidation of the privatisation of NORP , the prosecutor submitted that the subsequent transactions relating to the building were also null and void , and asked the court to return the title to the building to the municipality .","According to the applicants , on DATE ORG of Samara ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) dismissed the prosecutor \u2019s claim . On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed that judgment and remitted the matter to ORG for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG dismissed the prosecutor \u2019s claim . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG quashed the judgments of DATE and DATE by way of supervisory review , and remitted the matter to ORG for fresh consideration . The ORG noted that the lower courts had erroneously applied substantive and procedural laws when deciding the matter .","On DATE ORG allowed the prosecutor \u2019s claim in full . The court recognised that the owners of the rooms were bona fide purchasers , but ordered that the title to the building be transferred to the municipality . The municipality , the true owner of the building , had not authorised the purchase of the rooms in the building by their current owners . Accordingly , the sale of the building in the absence of authorisation by the municipality meant that the municipality had lost possession against its will , and could recover its property from bona fide purchasers .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE on appeal .","The applicants in the present application , Mr PERSON and PERSON , were minors at the relevant time .","On an unspecified date , acting on their behalf , the ORG mother sued PERSON ( the person who had sold the rooms to the applicants ) for damages .","On DATE and DATE ORG of PERSON granted her claims and awarded damages in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) to each of the applicants . On DATE and CARDINAL July CARDINAL ORG upheld the above - mentioned judgments on appeal .","On an unspecified date a bailiff initiated enforcement proceedings . On DATE he discontinued the enforcement proceedings , noting that it was impossible to establish PERSON whereabouts or identify his assets , if any such assets existed .","It appears that the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of DATE are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154351","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CUNHA MARTINS DA SILVA COUTO v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On an unknown date , the applicant and ORG dissolved their marriage and the latter stayed with the children \u2019s custody .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision establishing the applicant \u2019s contact rigths .","On DATE I. sent a letter to the applicant informing him that she had suspended his contact rights .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG informing about ORG \u2019s decision to not comply with the court \u2019s decision of DATE and asking the court to schedule a hearing with him and his former wife ( audi\u00eancia PERSON ) so he could continue to have access to his children ( processo de incumprimento das responsabilidades parentais ) .","NORP In DATE ORG held a hearing with the parents and subsequently requested a social report about the children to ORG ( Instituto da Seguran\u00e7a Social ) .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision suspending the applicant \u2019s right to visit his children for DATE on the grounds of the social report that had been submitted on CARDINAL DATE . ORG also requested a psychological assessment of the children .","From DATE the applicant lodged several requests with ORG seeking the reestablishment of his right to visit his children and asking permission to spend special dates ( birthdays , DATE , GPE ) with them .","On DATE ORG submitted the children \u2019s psychological report to ORG . On DATE the report was challenged by the applicant who complained that he had not been heard . On DATE ORG ordered the psychological report to be completed after the applicant had been heard .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL new reports were submitted to ORG and a mediation hearing with the parents was scheduled for DATE . The hearing did not take place due to ORG refusal to participate in the mediation . The proceedings continued and , on an unknown date , ORG adopted a decision stating that the applicant \u2019s visits would continue to take place in an open place and in dates to be decided by the court .","On DATE a hearing with the parents took place and both agreed that the applicant could continue to visit his children in ORG premises .","On DATE ORG requested another social report on the children \u2019s situation and their family .","On DATE another social report was submitted to ORG and on DATE the applicant was heard .","A hearing with the parents was scheduled for DATE and later postponed to CARDINAL DATE . DATE after this hearing , the children were heard by ORG .","On DATE a new hearing took place in which the applicant and I. reached a settlement concerning the rights of the former to visit the children . On DATE , ORG endorsed the agreement ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141949","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF W.H. v. SWEDEN","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iraq)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johan Hirschfeldt;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . She is from GPE and is of GPE denomination . She was once married , but divorced her husband in DATE , after which she lived with their son , born in DATE , in GPE while her former husband moved to GPE .","The applicant arrived in GPE on DATE and applied for a residence permit DATE and for asylum on DATE . She stated that she and her son had left GPE on DATE and had then stayed with relatives in GPE , GPE , for DATE . In GPE she had left behind her son , because she had not been able to afford his trip . Later , her former husband had come to GPE and brought the son back with him to GPE . To the NORP authorities the applicant submitted an NORP citizenship certificate , an identity card , divorce documents and a membership card for NORP regarding her and her son .","Assisted by legal counsel , the applicant stated in essence the following in support of her application . Her main reason for leaving GPE was the generally insecure situation for NORP in GPE , which had affected her and her family personally . Her fears had led to her son going to school only sporadically during DATE . Moreover , at DATE her mother had received a threatening phone call from someone who had wanted to contact the applicant , presumably to forcibly remarry her with another man . If they did not comply , the applicant understood that her family would have to leave the neighbourhood . They had taken the threats very seriously and she had moved immediately with her son to her grandmother \u2019s house in the LOC neighbourhood of GPE , where they had stayed for DATE . The applicant further stated that her only remaining relative in GPE was her mother .","On DATE ORG ( Migrationsverket ) rejected the application and ordered the applicant \u2019s deportation to GPE . ORG held that she had not proved her identity , but that she had made it plausible that she was from GPE . It further considered that the situation in GPE as such did not constitute grounds for asylum . While noting that NORP were an exposed minority , their general situation did not suffice either for an individual be granted protection , but his or her personal circumstances would have to be assessed . ORG went on to state that the applicant had not submitted any written evidence in support of her allegations of persecution . Furthermore , she had received a threat on CARDINAL occasion and it had not been shown that the person threatening her had referred to her religious beliefs . Nor was there any other indication that she had been ill - treated on account of those beliefs or that she had received other threats before leaving GPE . ORG then noted that the applicant \u2019s brother , who had also applied for asylum in GPE , had had his application rejected and his deportation to GPE ordered and that , consequently , the applicant would likely not lack a male network upon return to GPE . In conclusion , the ORG found that she had not made it probable that she was at personal risk of being subjected to serious ill - treatment if she returned to GPE .","The applicant \u2019s brother , who had arrived in GPE on DATE , had his application for a residence permit rejected by ORG on DATE .","NORP The applicant appealed , adding the following to her story . NORP , being the smallest and most vulnerable minority in GPE , were subjected to extortion , kidnappings and murder . QUANTITY women and children had been forced to convert to NORP , often after having been assaulted and raped . The NORP were not a large enough community to be able to protect and support each other and there was no particular region where they could settle safely . This was enough to show that she was in need of protection . The applicant asserted that the threat against her had to be seen against this background . Her whole existence had been marked by the threatening atmosphere and demands directed at non - NORP women and in particular the NORP . Her situation had been further aggravated by the fact that she is a single woman without a social network in GPE . Her mother had had the intention of leaving the country as well , but the applicant had no information on her whereabouts . Furthermore , in GPE the applicant had met a NORP man from GPE together with whom she now lived . This situation would never be accepted in GPE . Also , when she had talked about her new relationship in GPE , her family had reacted very negatively and had virtually frozen her out .","On DATE ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) upheld the decision of ORG . The court acknowledged the difficult situation for NORP in GPE and stated that , consequently , a lower threshold was applied in assessing the individual risks than in NORP cases in general . The general situation for NORP did not suffice of itself to be granted protection , however ; an assessment of the applicant \u2019s individual circumstances was necessary . In the absence of written evidence , the court went on to examine the statements made by the applicant . It considered that the threat received concerning forced marriage was primarily related to the general security situation in GPE at the time . In DATE since the applicant had left the country , the security situation had improved . While the NORP remained disadvantaged , there was no sign that she was still being searched for in GPE . Nor was there anything to indicate that her mother \u2019s possible exile had been caused by continued threats . The court further found that the negative reaction of the applicant \u2019s family to her new relationship did not imply a need of protection . In that connection , it further noted that the asylum appeal lodged by her brother , who had not turned his back on her , had been rejected on DATE . Thus , she could return to GPE with him and thereby have a social network in the country .","On DATE ORG ( Migrations - \u00f6verdomstolen ) refused the applicant leave to appeal . On DATE it refused leave to appeal also in the applicant \u2019s brother \u2019s case .","Subsequently , the applicant , as well as her brother , claimed that there were impediments to the enforcement of their deportation orders . Their petition mainly concerned the brother \u2019s period of active duty in the NORP army , during which he had gained knowledge of important people in the army and their illegal actions . This knowledge would put both the applicant and her brother at risk if they were returned . The applicant further claimed that her mother had been kidnapped .","On DATE ORG rejected the petition , finding that no new circumstances justifying a reconsideration had been presented . It considered that the claims made in relation to the brother did not in any way show that there were threats against him or the applicant . The allegation that the mother had been kidnapped was actually new , but it was unclear when this incident was supposed to have happened and there was nothing to conclude that the possible kidnapping had any personal connection to the situation of the applicant and her brother . The applicant did not appeal against the ORG \u2019s decision .","On DATE the applicant submitted a letter to ORG , which was perceived by ORG as a new petition for reconsideration . The applicant stated that , if she were forced to return to GPE , she would have to do so without her current partner or her brother , who were both in GPE . Her partner had been issued a visa to GPE , as he was born in GPE , and could not return to GPE . Consequently , they would be separated , because she could not travel to GPE since she lacked a passport and would not be granted a visa . The applicant further asserted that she had no relatives in GPE .","On DATE ORG decided not to reconsider the case . Although the fact that the applicant \u2019s partner had been granted a visa to GPE was considered to be new , ORG stated that this fact did not constitute a lasting impediment to the enforcement of the deportation order . The applicant did not appeal against the ORG \u2019s decision .","The respondent Government have submitted the following notes to the ORG , taken from the files of ORG . The applicant \u2019s mother was living with relatives and friends in GPE . When the applicant left GPE , her grandmother and cousins were living in the LOC neighbourhood of GPE . In GPE , the applicant has been living in the same flat as her brother and her partner from DATE . Her partner left GPE in DATE to be reunited with his family in GPE , whereas her brother is still in GPE . Furthermore , in reply to the ORG \u2019s request for information in the case , ORG had stated that it was likely that the applicant had a large number of relatives left in GPE .","The applicant has given the following additional account to the ORG . Following her divorce in DATE , she went to live with her parents and her brother . Her father , under whose protection she was living , died in DATE . Her grandmother , with whom she had briefly lived after the threatening telephone call , died in DATE . To her knowledge , she has no relatives left in GPE , cousins or others . Several relatives are living abroad , in GPE , GPE , the GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . Her sister is living in GPE . After the applicant and her brother had left GPE , their mother went to live with a NORP family in GPE , from whom she rented a room . In DATE , the applicant and her brother received information about their mother \u2019s disappearance . The family with whom the mother had lived called the applicant \u2019s uncle in GPE and said that they did not think that she had left voluntarily . A police report , sent to the uncle only in DATE , states that the report was filed on DATE by the mother \u2019s landlord , who had told the police that the mother had been missing since DATE . The applicant does not know why the landlord did not file a report earlier or why he did not state that her mother had been missing for DATE . The applicant is still unaware of what has happened to her mother following her disappearance . However , given the time that has passed without any contact with her , she assumes that she is dead . The applicant is still in a relationship with the man she met in GPE , although he is now living in GPE . The people who disowned her because of that relationship were her relatives in GPE , with the exception of her brother . The brother married a relative , who is a NORP citizen , on DATE . He left GPE and applied at the ORG in GPE for a NORP residence permit based on his marriage . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted him a residence permit until DATE .","The basic provisions applicable in the present case , concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in GPE , are laid down in LAW ( Utl\u00e4nningslagen , GPE ) .","An alien who is considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection is , with certain exceptions , entitled to a residence permit in GPE ( LAW , LAW CARDINAL of the Act ) . The term \u201c refugee \u201d refers to an alien who is outside the country of his or her nationality owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted on grounds of race , nationality , religious or political beliefs , or on grounds of gender , sexual orientation or other membership of a particular social group and who is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . This applies irrespective of whether the persecution is at the hands of the authorities of the country or if those authorities can not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals . By \u201c an alien otherwise in need of protection \u201d is meant , inter alia , a person who has left the country of his or her nationality because of a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or receiving corporal punishment , or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .","NORP Moreover , if a residence permit can not be granted on the above grounds , such a permit may be issued to an alien if , after an overall assessment of his or her situation , there are such particularly distressing circumstances ( synnerligen \u00f6mmande omst\u00e4ndigheter ) to allow him or her to remain in GPE ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . Special consideration should be given , inter alia , to the alien \u2019s health status . According to the preparatory works ( Government PERSON , pp . CARDINAL ) , life - threatening physical or mental illness for which no treatment can be given in the alien \u2019s home country could constitute a reason for the grant of a residence permit .","As regards the enforcement of a deportation or expulsion order , account has to be taken of the risk of capital punishment or torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . According to a special provision on impediments to enforcement , an alien must not be sent to a country where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW . In addition , an alien must not , in principle , be sent to a country where he or she risks persecution ( LAW , LAW ) .","NORP Under certain conditions , an alien may be granted a residence permit even if a deportation or expulsion order has acquired legal force . This is the case where new circumstances have emerged which indicate that there are reasonable grounds for believing , inter alia , that an enforcement would put the alien in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal punishment , torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or there are medical or other special reasons why the order should not be enforced ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . If a residence permit can not be granted under these criteria , ORG may instead decide to re - examine the matter . Such a re - examination shall be carried out where it may be assumed , on the basis of new circumstances invoked by the alien , that there are lasting impediments to enforcement of the nature referred to in LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and these circumstances could not have been invoked previously or the alien shows that he or she has a valid excuse for not having done so . Should the applicable conditions not have been met , ORG shall decide not to grant a re - examination ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .","Matters concerning the right of aliens to enter and remain in GPE are dealt with by CARDINAL instances : ORG , ORG and ORG .","A deportation or expulsion order may DATE save for a few exceptions of no relevance to the present case DATE be enforced only when it has acquired legal force . Thus , appeals to the courts against ORG decision in ordinary proceedings determining the right to asylum and a residence permit have an automatic suspensive effect . If the alien subsequent to the ordinary proceedings having acquired legal force lodges a petition under LAW , sections DATE , it is up to ORG to decide whether to suspend the enforcement ( inhibition ) on the basis of the new circumstances presented . Accordingly , such a petition has no automatic suspensive effect , nor does an appeal to the courts against the ORG \u2019s decision taken under LAW ( no appeal lie against a decision pursuant to section CARDINAL ) .","In its Report on Human Rights in GPE : DATE , published in DATE , ORG of ORG UNAMI ) gave , inter alia , the following summary ( at pp . vii - viii ) :","\u201c Violence and armed violence continued to take their toll on civilians in GPE . According to ORG , CARDINAL civilians were killed and CARDINAL were injured in DATE , resulting in a total of CARDINAL killed and CARDINAL injured for DATE . According to ORG , CARDINAL civilians were killed and CARDINAL were injured in DATE , resulting in a total of CARDINAL civilians who were killed and CARDINAL who were injured for DATE . These figures indicate that the trend of DATE of a reduction in the numbers of civilian casualties has reversed and that the impact of violence on civilians looks set to increase in the near to medium future . Terrorists and armed groups continued to favour asymmetric tactics that deliberately target civilians or were carried out heedless of the impact on civilians .","Political instability and regional developments continued to impact negatively on the security situation in GPE , with its concomitant toll on civilians . Although the Government takes the impact of violence on civilians extremely seriously and has taken measures to enhance security , more needs to be done to ensure the proper coordination of financial , medical and other forms of support for the victims of violence .","...","Women continue to suffer from domestic and other forms of violence , and to face discrimination and other barriers in accessing economic , social and educational opportunities . The law continues to permit \u2018 honour\u2019 as a mitigating factor in crimes of violence committed against women and family members . There is still no effective system of shelters and coordinated care for the victims of domestic violence , and services available to victims remain inadequate . The family protection bill remains stalled in ORG . Women \u2019s representation at a senior level in political , governmental and judicial institutions remains low at the federal , governorate and district levels .","...","GPE \u2019s various ethnic and religious groups continued to be targeted by violence . In particular , members of the NORP community were subjected to various acts of violence , including kidnapping , murder , harassment , and other threats . Members of religious communities , including GPE , NORP and ORG , also suffered threats and acts of violence . Shi\u2019a pilgrims attending various religious festivals and activities similarly came under attack in various parts of the country . \u201d","In regard to the GPE region , the report stated ( at p. ix ) :","\u201c The overall human rights situation in LOC continued to improve , although challenges remain , including concerns over respect for freedoms of assembly and expression , and the protection of journalists . GPE experienced almost no insurgent violence , although civilians living in areas close to the international borders continued to suffer from the effects of cross - border shelling and military operations conducted by foreign forces .","...","Progress was made towards full implementation of the Law on Combatting Violence Against Women , with the establishment of a high level inter - ministerial committee to oversee implementation of the law , and the adoption of a DATE plan to combat violence against women , along with other reforms and initiatives . \u201d","In his report of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ) Secretary - General on the human rights of internally displaced persons , Mr PERSON , noted the following ( at paras . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) after a visit to GPE in DATE :","\u201d Despite improvements in the overall security situation since DATE , the situation in GPE is still characterized by continued indiscriminate attacks against civilians , including religious and ethnic minorities , arbitrary arrests , alleged ill - treatment while in detention , and sexual and gender - based violence . Moreover , impunity is reported as being widespread , while access to justice is largely absent due to fear of reprisals , lack of capacity among rule of law institutions , corruption and lack of awareness of accountability mechanisms .","In GPE of Iraq , while the security situation is considerably better than in the rest of the country , specific concerns have been raised with regard to , inter alia : serious violations of the rights of suspects and detainees by KRG [ ORG ] authorities ; sexual and gender - based violence ; and the impact of anti - terrorism legislation on human rights , including specifically the practice of keeping persons in de facto unlimited administrative detention . \u201d","The GPE Border Agency GPE Operational Guidance Note of DATE noted ( at paras . CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) :","\u201c Violence , albeit still far above what ought to be tolerable , has levelled off in DATE . NORP security forces have taken the lead in several important operations . Recently , they have withstood CARDINAL noteworthy tests : the departure of CARDINAL GPE troops since DATE ; the DATE parliamentary elections ; and , over DATE , political uncertainty prompted by institutional deadlock . If insurgents remain as weak as they are and find no fresh opportunity to exploit political fractures , security forces operating at less - than - optimal levels still should face no serious difficulty in confronting them .","It has been reported that although oversight by the MOI [ ORG ] and ORG [ ORG ] has increased , problems continue with all security forces , arising from sectarian divisions , corruption , and unwillingness to serve outside the areas in which personnel were recruited . ... \u201d","In its DATE report , ORG noted , inter alia , the following :","\u201c While there have been some improvements in terms of security for GPE \u2019s ethnic and religious groups , their situation remains precarious . During DATE , ORG continued to receive reports of attacks directed at persons on account of their ethnic or religious affiliations . ORG has particular concerns regarding the situation of the NORP community in the disputed areas , NORP families that migrated from GPE to GPE following attacks against the community in DATE , and the rising tension between the ORG and the NORP minorities in GPE . Figures collected by ORG indicate that members of minority groups are still leaving their homes in many areas on account of insecurity and acts of violence perpetrated against their communities , compounded by lack of access to basic services and poor economic opportunities . \u201d","This report does not contain any information on the NORP community , but ORG \u2019s DATE report , published in DATE , noted the following about their situation in GPE ( at p. CARDINAL ) :","\u201c The numbers of NORP families have fallen to CARDINAL in LOC due to migration of members of the group . Some community representatives informed ORG that they do not face any threat or persecution in LOC and they are supported by the Government , but most are migrating for economic reasons . \u201d","ORG described the NORP in GPE thus ( GPE \u2019s Minorities : Participation in Public Life , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) :","\u201c ORG , whose religion is CARDINAL of the oldest surviving Gnostic religions in the world , have existed in GPE for DATE . Many of the CARDINAL present in LOC once lived in GPE , but DATE , their numbers there have dwindled to CARDINAL people , mainly through displacement , but also through killings . Traditionally , many ORG have worked as goldsmiths ; the resulting perception that they are wealthy has contributed to their being targeted for kidnapping . They are forbidden by their faith to marry outside the religion , which has contributed to their reduced numbers since DATE . \u201d","In regard to minority women , ORG gave , inter alia , the following account ( ibid . , p. CARDINAL ) :","\u201c For minority women , the situation again follows the general trend , with the added security risk that comes from being from a minority . CARDINAL per cent of respondents to the GPE [ ORG ] survey said that they believed that women needed to hide their religious affiliation , either by not wearing their religious symbols or traditional makeup , by covering their heads even if they are secular or non - NORP , or by not speaking in their traditional languages ... . A number of PERSON , PERSON and NORP women stated that they avoid speaking their language ( e.g. NORP , NORP ) or wearing clothes that indicate their community belonging when in public . Non - NORP minority women in particular complain of pressure to modify their dress . ...","Overall , CARDINAL per cent of respondents surveyed said that they thought that women felt safe when leaving the home . PERSON - QUANTITY women have reported being pressured to convert to NORP ; they also report physical and verbal abuse on the street from university staff , or , if in employment , for not covering their heads and not adhering to an NORP dress code . \u201d","On DATE the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) issued the latest ORG from GPE ( hereafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) . The situation for members of religious minorities is summarised as follows ( at p. CARDINAL ) :","GPE are likely to be in need of international refugee protection on the grounds of religion , ( imputed ) political opinion or membership in a particular social group .","NORP converts are likely to be in need of international refugee protection in the whole country , including GPE . \u201d","In regard to minority women , ORG states ( at p. CARDINAL ) :","\u201c Minority women are likely the most vulnerable section of NORP society , facing violence and discrimination from a variety of actors on account both of their gender and their religious affiliation . Minority women \u2019s freedom of movement and freedom to express their religious identity through the way they dress has been severely restricted by ongoing threats of violence and growing religious intolerance . This , in turn , restricts their access to health services , employment and education . \u201d","ORG give the following information relating to the NORP community ( at p. CARDINAL ) :","\u201c The NORP - Mandaean religion is a gnostic religion with PERSON ORG as a central figure and considered a prophet . Its adherents can not marry outside the faith and they do not accept converts . Before DATE , there were CARDINAL NORP living in GPE many of whom were well educated and worked as doctors , engineers , dentists and jewelers . After the fall of the former regime , NORP and Shi\u2019ite armed groups , as well as criminals , have singled out ORG on the basis of their religion , profession and ( perceived ) wealth . Some ORG elders , who traditionally wear long beards , have reportedly been attacked by Shi\u2019ite militants who have mistaken them for strictly observant NORP or NORP . ORG are particularly vulnerable to attacks for several reasons . Unlike other groups in GPE , the pacifist NORP did not form militias to defend themselves . Further , the already small community lives mainly in scattered groups . Their disputed status as \u201c people of the book \u201d , which under the DATE would provide them with a level of protection , failed to dissuade extremist groups from targeting them . As a result of general violence and targeted attacks , large numbers of NORP fled GPE , mainly to GPE and GPE . Currently , CARDINAL NORP remain in GPE . Most of them live in GPE and southern GPE , including in LOC , PERSON and GPE . According to a spokesman for the NORP community , there are currently CARDINAL GPE families in southern GPE , mostly in the Governorate of PERSON .","Since DATE , ORG have been subjected to threats , abductions and killings . There are also reports of forced conversions to ORG and some ORG have reportedly been killed for refusing to do so . Most religious leaders have either been killed or fled the country . CARDINAL ORG were reportedly killed and CARDINAL injured in DATE in what were reported to be targeted attacks . In DATE , additional kidnappings and killings were reported by ORG . NORP - Mandaean goldsmiths reportedly continued to receive threats and suffer from attacks . Even in cases of kidnapping for ransom , the perpetrators may deliberately single out ORG due to their vulnerable status as a religious minority , considered \u201c infidel \u201d . There have been reports of kidnapped ORG killed or remaining missing despite the payment of ransom .","In addition to targeted violence perpetrated against ORG , the community has also suffered from social marginalization and religious discrimination . There are no schools in southern and central GPE that teach children in their language , LANGUAGE , and children are obliged to undertake Qur\u2019anic studies at public schools . LOC women are pressured to observe the hijab in public in order to avoid physical and verbal abuse , although their religion does not require veiling . Reportedly , NORP - Mandaean women have been pressured to marry outside their faith in contradiction with their own religious customs and have been pressured to convert to ORG . \u201d","In its ORG for DATE , published on DATE , ORG summarises the religious situation in GPE thus :","\u201c The constitution provides for religious freedom and the government generally respected religious freedom in practice . The trend in the government \u2019s respect for religious freedom did not change significantly during DATE . The constitution recognizes ORG as the official religion , mandates that ORG be considered a source of legislation , and states that no law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of ORG . However , it also states that no law may contradict principles of democracy or the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in the constitution . The constitution guarantees freedom from intellectual , political , and religious coercion . Some apparent contradictions between the constitution and other legal provisions were tested in court during DATE ; the courts upheld full legal protection for religious freedom in those cases . Other contradictions remain untested . Officials sometimes misused their authority to limit freedom for religious groups other than their own . However , the government continued to call for tolerance and acceptance of all religious minorities , provided security for places of worship such as churches , FAC , shrines , and religious pilgrimage sites and routes , and funded the construction and renovation of places of worship for some religious minorities . ORG in GPE ( ORG ) and other terrorist and illegally armed groups commited violent attacks that restricted the ability of all believers to practice their religion .","There were reports of societal abuses and discrimination based on religious affiliation , belief , or practice . Sectarian violence occurred throughout the country , although to a lesser extent in the NORP LOC ( IKR ) , and restricted religious freedom . No reliable statistics on religiously motivated violence were available . The overwhelming majority of mass casualty terrorist attacks targeted NORP . A combination of sectarian hiring practices , corruption , targeted attacks , and the uneven application of the law had a detrimental economic effect on minority non - NORP communities , and contributed to the departure of NORP from the country . \u201d","Designating GPE as a \u201c country of particular concern \u201d for DATE running , ORG on ORG , in its DATE Report , published on DATE , made the following findings :","\u201c Over DATE the NORP government has made efforts to increase security for religious sites and worshippers , provide a stronger voice for GPE \u2019s smallest minorities in parliament , and revise secondary school textbooks to portray minorities in a more positive light . Nevertheless , the government of GPE continues to tolerate systematic , ongoing , and egregious religious freedom violations , including violent religiously - motivated attacks . Violence against NORP civilians continued in DATE at approximately the same level as in DATE . In addition , the government took actions that increased , rather than reduced , NORP and NORP tensions , threatening the country \u2019s already fragile stability and further exacerbating the poor religious freedom environment .","...","NORP experienced the worst attacks of any religious community during the reporting period , including against pilgrims participating in celebrations on or around important religious holidays . The government has proven unable to stop religiously - motivated attacks from occurring and lacks the will or capacity to investigate attacks and bring perpetrators to justice . This has created a climate of impunity , which in turn exacerbates a perpetual sense of fear for all religious communities , particularly the smallest ones . Large percentages of the country \u2019s smallest religious minorities DATE which include ORG and other NORP , ORG , and GPE \u2013 have fled the country in DATE , threatening these communities\u2019 continued existence in GPE . The diminished numbers that remain face official discrimination , marginalization , and neglect , particularly in areas of northern GPE over which the NORP government and ORG ( ORG ) dispute control . Religious freedom abuses continue towards women and individuals who do not conform to strict interpretations of religious norms or attacks on businesses viewed as \u201c un - NORP \u201d . However , in a positive development , the NORP parliament shelved a problematic draft ORG law that would have restricted the freedoms of religion and expression . Additionally the ORG parliament rejected a draft law to \u201c protect sanctities , \u201d which , if adopted , would violate these same freedoms . However , there are reports that ORG officials may still pursue legal action against the media for offending religion , NORP history , or national symbols .","...","Many of the non - NORP minorities internally displaced by violence have gone to the north of the country , mainly to GPE governorate and the territory of the PERSON , which is comprised of CARDINAL other governorates . LOC , particularly the LOC area of GPE governorate , is the historic homeland of GPE \u2019s NORP community , and the ORG community is indigenous to GPE and the KRG governorate of PERSON . The CARDINAL KRG governorates are relatively secure , but Nineveh governorate , particularly in and around its capital GPE , remains extremely dangerous , and control over this ethnically and religiously mixed area is disputed between the PERSON and the central NORP government .","Religious and ethnic minorities in these areas , including non - NORP and ethnic GPE and ORG , have accused NORP forces and officials of engaging in systematic abuses and discrimination against them to further NORP territorial claims . These accusations include reports of NORP officials interfering with GPE voting rights ; encroaching on , seizing , and refusing to return minority land ; conditioning the provision of services and assistance to minority communities on support for NORP expansion ; forcing minorities to identify themselves as either NORP or NORP ; and impeding the formation of local minority police forces . The minorities also accuse both NORP and NORP officials of ignoring these vulnerable communities as they focus on their fight for territorial control . \u201d","The Representative of the ORG Secretary - General stated in the above - mentioned report of DATE ( at para . CARDINAL ) :","\u201d In GPE of GPE , the Representative acknowledges that PERSON has received and provided safety to IDPs [ internally displaced persons ] from all over GPE regardless of their origin , particularly in the aftermath of the sectarian violence in the country DATE . Stronger coordination and cooperation mechanisms between ORG and ORG are necessary however , to address the situation of IDPs in this region , including vulnerable groups , as well as a number of administrative and financial assistance issues , such as difficulties in transferring PDS cards [ Public ORG food ration cards ] and receiving pensions , which are adversely affecting the rights and standard of living of IDPs . As well , while improved social , security , and economic conditions prevail in this region , continued cross border attacks continue to cause periodic displacement of its border populations . The ORG believes that stronger cooperation between the Government of GPE and PERSON , as well as concerted diplomatic efforts and border dialogues with relevant neighbouring countries , must be undertaken in order to prevent and raise awareness of the impact of cross - border attacks on civilian populations . \u201d","The UNHCR Guidelines contain the following observations ( at pp . CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) :","\u201c In GPE , the rights of religious minorities are generally respected and groups can worship freely without interference . ORG funds public schools at the elementary and high school level in the LANGUAGE language . The curriculum in LOC does not contain religion or DATE studies . A significant number of religious minorities , in particular NORP , have sought refuge in the region .","...","A large number of persons from the central governorates have found refuge in the CARDINAL northern governorates since DATE . Commensurate with the sharp decrease in new displacements generally , the flow of new arrivals has decreased significantly ; however , only a few of those previously displaced have to date returned to their places of origin . The influx of IDPs has had an important impact on the host communities , including increasing housing and rental prices , additional pressure on already strained public services and concerns about security and demographic shifts . At the same time , the CARDINAL northern governorates have also benefited from the migration of professionals bringing skills and disposable incomes that boost the local economy . Unskilled IDPs have provided a source of affordable labour for the construction industry .","The ORG authorities continue to implement stringent controls on the presence of persons not originating from LOC . Depending on the applicant , particularly his \/ her ethnic and political profile , he \/ she may not be allowed to relocate to or take up legal residence in the CARDINAL northern governorates for security , political or demographic reasons . Others may be able to enter and legalize their stay , but may fear continued persecution as they may still be within reach of the actors of persecution or face undue hardship . Therefore , despite the hospitable attitude of the ORG authorities towards a considerable number of IDPs , the availability of an ORG [ internal flight \/ relocation alternative ] must be carefully assessed on a case - by - case basis ...","...","Since DATE of the former regime , the ORG authorities are very vigilant about who enters LOC and have introduced strict security measures at their checkpoints . However , there are no official and publicly accessible regulations concerning procedures and practices at the entry checkpoints into LOC . An ad hoc and often inconsistent approach can be expected in terms of who is granted access , varying not only from governorate to governorate , but also from checkpoint to checkpoint . The approach at a particular checkpoint may be influenced by several factors including the overall security situation , the particular checkpoint and its staff , the instructions issued on DATE and the particular governorate where the checkpoint is situated . ORG has repeatedly sought to obtain information and clarification from the ORG authorities on checkpoint practices and entry \/ residence in LOC , without success . Therefore , persons seeking to relocate to the LOC depend on informal information with regard to entry procedures .","Individuals \/ families wishing to enter LOC can seek to obtain a tourist , work or residence card . The tourist card , which is commonly given to persons from central and southern GPE who seek to enter LOC , allows the holder to stay for DATE . Depending on the person \u2019s profile , but also the checkpoint and the officer in charge , persons seeking to enter as tourists may be required to produce a sponsor . NORP , NORP and NORP from the disputed areas are usually requested to have a sponsor , while NORP ( not from the disputed areas ) and NORP are able to enter without a sponsor .","Alternatively , persons who have a proof of employment ( letter of appointment ) can obtain a work card , which is valid for DATE and is , in principle , renewable . Persons seeking to stay DATE should in principle obtain a residence card . Long - term stays always require a sponsor . ORG is not aware of any IDPs who have received the residence card .","The sponsorship process lacks clarity and there is no uniform procedure in place . In some cases , the sponsor is required to be physically present at the checkpoint to secure the person \u2019s entry . In other cases , it seems to suffice that a person seeking to relocate to LOC produces a letter notarized by a court clerk attesting to the person \u2019s connection to the sponsor . In some cases , the officer at the checkpoint will simply make a phone call to the sponsor to verify the acquaintance . NORP without sufficiently strong ties to GPE and who , therefore , are unable to find a sponsor , may be denied entry into LOC . There are reportedly also different requirements as to the nature of the sponsor .","ORG is aware of individuals who have been refused entry into LOC . NORP , NORP and certain profiles of NORP will likely face extensive questioning and may be denied entry at the checkpoint , mostly due to security concerns . In particular , single NORP males , including minors , are likely either to be denied entry into GPE or to be allowed entry only after a lengthy administrative procedure and heavy interrogation . ORG reportedly maintain \u201c blacklists \u201d of individuals banned from entering LOC , including those considered a security risk , but also those who have previously overstayed or did not renew their residence permits . NORP , especially those who fled due to targeted attacks , reportedly do not face difficulties in entering LOC .","Persons not originating from CARDINAL of the CARDINAL northern governorates intending to remain in LOC for DATE must approach the neighbourhood security station ( NORP ) in the area of relocation to obtain a permit to stay ( \u201c information card \u201d or karti zaniyari ) . As with the entry procedures , there are no official rules or regulations concerning the issuance of information cards . Generally , in all CARDINAL governorates , a sponsor is required in order to obtain the information card . This means that those that were able to enter without a sponsor are , at this stage , obliged to find a sponsor . Families , provided they have a sponsor from the governorate concerned and the necessary personal documentation , are usually able to secure the information card . Single people apparently face more difficulties . Persons who do not have a sponsor will not be able to regularize their continued stay and may be forced to leave .","Persons fleeing persecution at the hands of the ORG or the ruling parties will almost always not be able to find protection in another part of LOC . Persons fleeing persecution at the hands of non - state actors ( e.g. family \/ tribe in the case of fear from \u201c honour killing \u201d or blood feud ) may still be within reach of their persecutors . The same applies for persons fearing persecution by armed NORP groups . \u201d","As regards the acquisition of identity documents , the GPE ORG maintained ( GPE Operational Guidance Note of DATE , para . CARDINAL , and of DATE , para . CARDINAL ) :","\u201c It is not necessary for an individual to return to their registered place of residence to transfer documents to a new area of GPE . It is possible for example to apply at a registration office in GPE , to have documents transferred from elsewhere in GPE . However the PERSON [ ORG ] have said that in practice this does not happen because it is now safe enough for someone to return to their registered place of residence to arrange to transfer documents . The processes and procedures were the same throughout governorates across south and central GPE . \u201d","Disagreeing with the ORG as to the possibility of internal relocation for NORP asylum seekers , ORG further stated ( Iraq Operational Guidance Note of DATE , para . CARDINAL ) :","\u201c We do not however accept ORG \u2019s conclusions on internal relocation from the central governorates and consider that there is likely to be considerable scope for internal relocation that achieves both safety and reasonableness in all the circumstances . We consider ORG \u2019s position is tied in with general policy considerations ( e.g. about managing the rates of return ) deriving from their general and GPE - specific remit ; we do not consider that in the light of the evidence taken as a whole that mere civilian returnees are at real risk of persecution under LAW or of serious harm under either the [ ORG ] LAW CARDINAL [ of LAW ] currently . \u201d","In its DATE note ( at para . CARDINAL ) , ORG added the conclusions drawn by ORG ( see the following paragraph ) .","In a country guidance determination , PERSON ( documents \u2013 relocation ) GPE CG [ DATE ] ORG ( ORG ) , delivered on DATE , ORG ) concluded , among other things , the following ( at para . CARDINAL ) :","\u201c Entry into and residence in the ORG can be effected by any NORP national with a ORG [ ORG ] , ORG [ NORP Nationality Certificate ] and PDS , after registration with the NORP ( local security office ) . An NORP may need a sponsor ; a NORP will not .","Living conditions in the PERSON for a person who has relocated there are not without difficulties , but there are jobs , and there is access to free health care facilities , education , rented accommodation and financial and other support from ORG . \u201d","NORP The findings in GPE were endorsed in a recent country guidance determination , ORG and others ( LAW GPE CG [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ( ORG ) , of CARDINAL DATE . Having particular regard to the NORP \/ GPE report extensively quoted below ( at \u00a7 DATE ) , ORG stated ( at para . CARDINAL ) :","\u201c Taking the evidence as a whole , we consider that if anything , it tends to show that no - one needs a sponsor , rather than , as was concluded in GPE , that a NORP will not and an NORP may . By needing a sponsor we refer not only to entry but also to residence in the KRG . ... \u201d","On the issue of identity documents , it further noted ( at para . CARDINAL ) :","\u201c ... [ In GPE ] the ORG commented that there was nothing to show that it was , or perhaps ever had been , the case that a central register in GPE had been kept . [ F]urther evidence [ now presented ] requires us to modify that position . Given the current state of the evidence in this regard , we consider that we can add to the guidance in GPE by noting the existence of ORG retaining civil identity records on microfiche , providing a further way in which a person can identify themselves and obtain a copy of their ORG , whether from abroad or within GPE . \u201d","ORG and ORG published on DATE the ORG on Joint NORP - Swiss Fact - Finding Mission to GPE and ORG ( KRG ) Area , DATE ( \u201c the NORP \/ NORP report \u201d ) . In summarising the situation ( at p. CARDINAL ) , it noted , among other things , the following :","\u201c At the time of the ORG [ Fact - Finding Mission ] , there seemed to be little discrimination against ethnic or religious minorities . The flight of NORP from GPE to the KRG area has continued since the bomb attack on a church in GPE in DATE . Internally displaced persons ( IDPs ) and refugees are better off in the LOC than in the rest of GPE and generally felt safe in the region at the time of the ORG . At the same time , some suffer from poverty , remain unregistered , and lack access to proper housing , education , health care , and employment . \u201d","It further stated ( at pp . CARDINAL ) :","\u201c Interviewed sources confirmed that the ORG is open and liberal toward religious minorities and normally also toward ethnic minorities . The areas controlled by the ORG can be considered safe for minorities . In the NORP areas , a majority of NORP live close to minorities such as NORP , NORP , NORP , ORG , GPE , ORG , and NORP \/ Sabaeans . NORP , PERSON , and ORG are perceived as NORP and therefore are generally not persecuted , but they can be under social pressure for assimilation . \u201d","On the subject of entry procedures at the LOC area border , the report gave the following account ( at pp . CARDINAL ) :","\u201c The fact - finding mission learned that there have been no relevant , recent changes to ORG entry and screening procedures . ORG in GPE indicated that there are no government statistics available on who has entered the LOC area and who has been denied access . There are CARDINAL main entry checkpoints to the LOC area , which are controlled by ORG . The checkpoints apply basically the same entry procedures .","At the same time , some international organizations , NGOs , and the ORG claimed that the guidelines on entry practices are not consistent between the CARDINAL northern governorates of the ORG or between checkpoints leading to a single governorate . There are also no published instructions or regulations on entry procedures , as these would be against LAW . According to the ORG , entry often depends on the commander on duty and the commander \u2019s DATE instructions at the checkpoint . The procedures can be tightened or relaxed according to the current security situation in the area .","Several NGOs and the ORG have surveyed IDPs at different times concerning entry procedures to the LOC region at different checkpoints . A comparison of the results shows differences in entry practices between governorates and time periods . For instance , the surveys show that the need for a sponsor \/ guarantor has essentially ceased at a NORP governorate entry checkpoint , but that even at CARDINAL checkpoint congruency can lack at different times .","...","People who are denied entry to the PERSON area are often not of NORP ethnicity . NORP and NORP are generally allowed entry , whereas single male NORP without a sponsor in the LOC area are refused . The ORG noted that female NORP have also had trouble entering the LOC area . Single females are also at higher risk of harassment by authorities . However , a source mentioned that NORP from LOC who invest in the LOC are welcomed to the region . According to another source , IDPs with money are able to move to GPE and start a business .","Anyone wishing to enter the ORG area who does not originate from the region typically needs to know someone there ( a so - called sponsor \/ guarantor ) or have a letter of reference from an employer in the LOC area . A sponsor is needed if the person wants to stay in the LOC area for DATE or wants to register and seek residency in the region . If someone enters the KRG area and subsequently commits a crime , his or her sponsor will be punished and may even face a prison sentence .","A member of the immediate family or some other relative often acts as the sponsor . An institution such as an university can also act as a sponsor . The fact - finding mission received conflicting information during interviews on whether or not a church can act as a sponsor . The policy applied to NORP was said to have been relaxed after the bomb attack at a church in GPE in DATE . NORP may currently be able to nominate senior clerics as sponsors . The fact - finding mission heard that it is easier for NORP originating outside the LOC area than for persons of other ethnicities to find a sponsor in the region . \u201d","Published in DATE , ORG of ORG PERSON to Erbil and PERSON , GPE of GPE ( KRI ) , conducted CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE ( \u201c the NORP \/ GPE report \u201d ) gave the following information :","\u201c CARDINAL.CARDINAL According to the Director of an international NGO in GPE , all NORP irrespective of ethnic origin or religious orientation are free to enter KRI through the PERSON external checkpoints by presenting their ORG [ and ] there were CARDINAL of persons of NORP origin living in GPE , many living with their families , whilst others had come to KRI for work , including individuals .","...","CARDINAL [ The Director of ORG ( BMD ) of ORG in GPE explained that at ] present CARDINAL ORG families from [ southern and central ] GPE and the disputed areas reside in all CARDINAL governorates of GPE , i.e. GPE , GPE and GPE governorates .","...","PERSON ... [ The Director of ORG stated that ] there are large numbers of IDPs from religious minority communities in [ southern and central ] GPE and the disputed areas . These are mostly NORP and PERSON who were displaced following sectarian violence .","...","CARDINAL NORP [ The Head of the Private Bureau of General Security ( NORP ) ] explained that it was important the ORG authorities knew who was entering PERSON and therefore the NORP had good levels of cooperation with NORP intelligence , sharing details of persons who they were required to arrest and stop . In addition the NORP maintained their own classified information on terrorist groups , such as PERSON or ORG in GPE . [ He ] explained there were CARDINAL security lists in operation , the \u201c black list \u201d , which included persons who had an arrest warrant outstanding for their detention and a second list , i.e. the \u201c stop list \u201d .","...","CARDINAL According to [ the Head of NORP , ] at KRG external checkpoints , documents would be required to prove the identity of a person[. T]his could include their ORG , ORG , passport or , if they worked for a government department , their departmental ORG card . However [ , he ] further explained that a person would not necessarily be denied entry into KRI because he or she lacked some identification documents , as the system is computerised . [ He ] went on to explain that a person already on their database system would be logged with their photo and name recorded onto the system . Consequently such a person could even enter PERSON with only a driving licence or a similar document which proved the individual \u2019s identity and NORP citizenship .","...","CARDINAL [ The General Manager of GPE checkpoints in ORG , ORG , GPE ] explained [ that ] after a person had finished providing information about their identity to NORP at the ORG external checkpoint , they would then undergo a second procedure at the checkpoint to apply for the appropriate entry card . There existed CARDINAL entry cards : a Tourism Card , a Work Card , and an Information Card \/ Residency Card for those seeking to reside in KRI . Once the relevant card had been issued , the person would then be free to travel throughout KRI , including travel between the CARDINAL KRI governorates , without being required to show any further form of documentation . [ He ] stated that this procedure made it easy for anyone to move freely within KRI .","...","CARDINAL During a visit by the delegation to the GPE - GPE checkpoint , ... [ w]hen asked what would happen if a person did not have an address or know anyone in GPE , [ the major who had overall operational responsibility for the checkpoint ] explained that such a person would still be allowed to enter and the majority of those coming into KRI were migrant workers in search of employment with no reference in KRI .","CARDINAL PAO [ ORG , ORG partner in GPE ] outlined the entry procedures at the ORG external checkpoints and noted that persons seeking to enter the KRI would be questioned and asked to provide their identification , usually a ORG or Nationality Card , after which they would obtain CARDINAL of CARDINAL cards for DATE a Tourism Card , valid for DATE or DATE and which was renewable ; a Work Card valid for DATE which was also renewable ; or LAW for those seeking to reside in GPE . PAO did not know how long this card , issued at the checkpoint , would be valid for .","...","CARDINAL NORP The Director of an international NGO in GPE explained that whenever there are specific security concerns and\/or threats of terrorist attacks the security and entry procedures will be adapted to the situation . Such procedures only related to security concerns and not to any other factor and these procedures are normal even in LOC .","CARDINAL NORP When asked if there would be variations in applied entry procedures at KRG checkpoints , an international organization ( A ) stated that such variations are only related to security concerns and precautions and nothing else .","CARDINAL According to ORG , all entry procedures are only related to security considerations and nothing else . Harikar NGO emphasized that its cooperation with the NORP is good and that the NORP comply with the law , including the procedures applied at KRG checkpoints . ORG has not noticed any irregularities or arbitrary practices at the checkpoints .","CARDINAL [ The Head of NORP ] clarified that the policy requiring a person to provide a reference at the ORG external checkpoint , i.e. before entry , existed when the security situation was more precarious , but was abandoned DATE . However [ , he ] added there may still be some instances in which a person was asked by Asayish at the checkpoint to make a telephone call to somebody they knew , to verify their identity .","CARDINAL NORP During a tour of the GPE - GPE checkpoint [ the major who had overall operational responsibility for the checkpoint ] explained that there was no longer a requirement for a reference to be present at the LOC external checkpoint and [ that ] this procedure was abolished DATE .","...","CARDINAL NORP The Director of an international NGO in GPE explained that the former requirement that a reference should be present at the KRG checkpoint in order for a person to enter KRI has been abolished .","CARDINAL ORG stated that there is no requirement for a reference to be present at a KRG checkpoint in order for an NORP from outside KRI to enter .","...","...","CARDINAL NORP When asked how persons without genuine identity documents would be treated by the PERSON authorities when seeking to enter KRI , an international organization ( B ) explained that a NORP without personal ID documents may be treated more sympathetically and be permitted entry because they would normally know someone in KRI who could identify him or her or they would have a known family \/ clan name which was recognised . With regard to NORP , the entry arrangements were significantly easier and such persons may even be able to enter KRI without providing any documentation at all . This was because NORP were not considered a terrorist threat to the region \u2013 the ORG authorities were very lenient towards NORP . However , the international organization ( B ) concluded that a person of NORP origin without genuine documents to identify themselves would not be permitted entry .","...","CARDINAL According to the Director of an international NGO in GPE , all NORP irrespective of ethnic origin or religious orientation are free to enter KRI through the PERSON external checkpoints by presenting their ORG . The Director added that NORP , NORP and PERSON NORP normally enter through these checkpoints without any difficulties . On the other hand NORP of NORP origin would normally be required to undergo greater scrutiny , requested to present their ORG at the checkpoint and explain the nature and intention of their visit to KRI . However , this procedure was unproblematic and did not require that a reference should be present at the checkpoint . According to [ the Director ] all persons would be required to routinely show their ORG at the entry checkpoint and persons of NORP origin faced no problems in staying in the KRI . However the same source clarified that persons of NORP origin would normally have their ORG photocopied as an extra security precaution . The Director emphasized that persons of NORP origin do not need a reference to be present at the checkpoint . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141781","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF FAZLI ASLANER v. TURKEY [Extracts]","importance":2,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant , who was a court registrar ( zab\u0131t k\u00e2tibi ) in the registry of ORG , passed a local competitive examination organised by ORG for the post of head registrar ( yaz\u0131 i\u015fleri m\u00fcd\u00fcr\u00fc ) at ORG . However , since his ranking ( CARDINALth place ) in the competition was insufficient for him to obtain the post , he was placed on the reserve list drawn up at the close of the competition . The first successful candidate was appointed to the post in question . The second successful candidate was subsequently appointed to a position as head registrar in the second section of ORG .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to be appointed to the post of head registrar at ORG .","The authorities having refused his request , he lodged an application for judicial review with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s claims . The court found that of the candidates who had passed the aforementioned competition , CARDINAL who had done better and QUANTITY who had done less well than the applicant had been appointed head registrars in other judicial districts , and concluded that the authorities\u2019 refusal had had no basis in law .","The Ministry of Justice appealed on points of law against that judgment .","As the appeal lacked suspensive effect , the ORG proceeded to appoint the applicant to the post of head registrar in LOC , in compliance with the judgment .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( \u201c the Fifth Division \u201d ) quashed the impugned judgment , contrary to the submissions of ORG , PERSON ORG pointed out that the competitive examination organised by ORG had been intended to fill a post in ORG and that registration on the reserve list had not entitled the candidate in question to a post as head registrar in a court within the jurisdiction of a different judicial committee . It explained that an appointment could only be made to another judicial district at the request of the judicial committee in question or else in order to meet current judicial needs , upon a decision from ORG , which had discretionary powers in this field .","The bench comprised CARDINAL judges , including PERSON and PERSON M.R.\u00dc. , and was presided over by Mr E.\u00c7.","On DATE the same division dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment , on the grounds that none of the preconditions for recourse to this remedy as set out in LAW had been met .","On DATE ORG decided to maintain the position set out in its initial judgment , thus electing to disregard that adopted by ORG of ORG ( \u0131srar karar\u0131 ) .","Following a fresh appeal on points of law lodged by the authorities , the case was referred automatically to ORG of ORG ( Dan\u0131\u015ftay \u0130dari PERSON ; \u201c the ORG \u201d ) owing to the resistance of the court of first instance .","On DATE the said ORG quashed the judgment delivered by ORG by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL . Mr GPE and Mr M.R.\u00dc. were on the bench , which was presided over by PERSON in her capacity as Vice - President of ORG , a post to which she had recently been elected . The bench also included CARDINAL judges who had adjudicated on the request for rectification of ORG judgment of DATE .","On an unspecified date the applicant submitted a request for rectification of ORG judgment .","On DATE ORG rejected that request on the grounds that none of the conditions set out in LAW had been met . PERSON , who had recently been promoted to ORG , sat on the bench , alongside other judges who had previously adjudicated in the case ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152600","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF M.T. v. SWEDEN","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE and applied for asylum and a residence permit . Before ORG ( Migrationsverket ) , he submitted essentially the following . He is an ethnic GPE from GPE , GPE . He had run a business in his home country and had bought goods from his business partner , also an ethnic GPE , in GPE . In DATE the business partner had been arrested and since he had been in the possession of a receipt from the applicant , they had both been indicted on suspicion of financially supporting the GPE disturbances in GPE . In DATE the applicant had been arrested by the NORP police . His health had deteriorated while he was in custody and , after his release , he had been hospitalised because of his kidney problems . The doctors had informed him that he needed to have blood dialysis but that there was a DATE waiting list . After having been pressured by the authorities , the doctors had informed the applicant that he would not receive any blood dialysis . Moreover , his family had informed him that the police had come to his house looking for him several times after he had left the country . He suffered from chronic kidney failure and was in need of dialysis CARDINAL times per week .","The Board held a supplementary interview with the applicant in DATE where he claimed that , during his detention , the NORP police had taken his passport , forced him to sign a travel ban and had also ill - treated him . He had been summoned to appear in court a few times and , after the second summons , he had left the country . He had received written summonses but he had not brought them with him to GPE and he could not contact his family since he feared their telephone was tapped . The applicant further believed that the NORP authorities had contacted the NORP authorities and that for this reason he had been refused medical treatment . However , he also claimed that he had been refused treatment already in DATE , before being called by the police .","On DATE , ORG rejected the application . It first noted that the applicant had failed to submit any written evidence in support of his claims . It further found it noteworthy that central parts of the applicant \u2019s story had only been provided at the supplementary interview and not at the initial interview or in written submissions . It therefore considered that he had escalated the threat against him during the asylum proceedings . ORG further noted that the applicant had submitted contradictory information as to when he had been denied health care . First he had stated that he had been refused dialysis after his detention in the DATE while , during the supplementary interview , he had stated that he had been refused treatment already in DATE . In any event , the ORG observed that there had been a regime change in GPE since the applicant had left the country and that there was nothing to indicate that the present regime would have any specific interest in him . Thus , ORG concluded that the applicant was not in need of international protection .","As concerned the applicant \u2019s health , the ORG noted that the applicant had submitted a medical certificate according to which he suffered from chronic kidney failure secondary to chronic glomerulonephritis and received blood dialysis CARDINAL times per week . Without the dialysis he would die within DATE . ORG found that , according to the applicant \u2019s own submissions , blood dialysis was available in GPE and , since he had not been found credible , he had also failed to substantiate that he would be denied proper treatment upon return . Consequently , he could not be granted a residence permit and was to be expelled from GPE .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , maintaining his claims and adding that he had not given contradictory information about the refusal to treat him in GPE . He had been diagnosed during DATE and then been informed about DATE waiting time . However , it was only after his arrest in DATE that the doctors told him that he would not receive any dialysis treatment at all . As concerned the regime change , there was no indication that the situation had improved for the GPE people . He further submitted new medical certificates confirming his illness and need for treatment .","ORG decided to hold an oral hearing during which the applicant added , inter alia , the following . He had been questioned by the police twice . The first time , in DATE , the police had asked him whether he financially supported the GPE disturbances in GPE and they had beaten him all over his body , including on the kidneys . When he had lost consciousness , the police had become scared and had released him . During the second questioning , the police had confiscated his passport and imposed a travel ban on him . He had later been summoned to court but had not attended . Instead , he had decided to leave the country and had paid a smuggler to help him . After arriving in GPE , he had been in contact via telephone and internet with friends and family in GPE , who had informed him that the NORP authorities had been to his house looking for him and that he had received further summonses . In relation to his illness , he claimed that the NORP would keep searching for him and that he would therefore not receive any treatment in his home country . He also submitted an extract from his NORP medical record which he had received when he was released from hospital in DATE and which he had brought with him to GPE .","On DATE , ORG rejected the appeal . It noted that the applicant had failed to substantiate his identity but accepted that he came from GPE . It further observed that he had not submitted any written evidence in support of his alleged need for protection for which reason his credibility was decisive for the outcome . However , the court considered that the applicant \u2019s submissions were far - fetched , lacking in detail and that they contained contradictory information . For instance , as concerned the applicant \u2019s submissions that the NORP authorities suspected him of sponsoring the GPE disturbances in GPE , the court found this improbable since the applicant had had a clear business relationship with the person in GPE over DATE . Moreover , he had submitted contradictory information as to when he had been refused medical treatment and how many times he had been summoned to court . Therefore , the court concluded that the applicant \u2019s submissions were not credible and that he had failed to substantiate that he would be at risk of persecution upon return .","As to the applicant \u2019s health , the court noted that it was undisputed that he suffered from chronic kidney failure and that he was in need of regular blood dialysis and medication to survive . Without the dialysis , he would die within DATE and , apart from regular treatment , the only other solution was a kidney transplant . His state of health was consequently extremely serious . Moreover , the court observed that it was clear that blood dialysis was available in GPE while , according to the applicant , kidney transplants were not carried out . According to the applicant \u2019s own submissions , in DATE he had been placed on a waiting list for dialysis and the waiting time had been DATE . After having been arrested in DATE , his name had allegedly been removed from the waiting list and he had been refused treatment . However , the court noted that , according to the extract from the applicant \u2019s medical records , he had been hospitalised in GPE because of his kidney disease in DATE and again from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , on the second occasion with the diagnosis of chronic terminal kidney failure . Since , according to the most recent NORP medical certificate , a person with such a diagnosis would die within DATE without blood dialysis , the court concluded that the applicant had received medical care both before and after being arrested by the police . He had thus failed to substantiate that he would not receive adequate treatment within a reasonable time upon return to GPE .","Upon further appeal by the applicant , ORG ( Migrations\u00f6verdomstolen ) refused leave to appeal on DATE . Hence , the expulsion order became enforceable .","On DATE the applicant lodged his application with the ORG and requested it to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG . On DATE , the acting President of the Section to which the case had been allocated acceded to the applicant \u2019s request and indicated to the Government that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG . On DATE , the application was communicated to the Government .","In view of the ORG \u2019s indication to the ORG , ORG decided , on DATE , to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order against the applicant until further notice .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant requested ORG to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order as there were impediments to it due his deteriorated health and to grant him a residence permit . He submitted a medical certificate , dated DATE , by a Chief Physician at ORG in GPE . It stated that the applicant had had a crisis reaction to the expulsion order against him and had not attended CARDINAL dialysis sessions . As a result , his health had significantly deteriorated and he had been given emergency dialysis and had also met with a psychiatrist . He had been kept in hospital due to his poor mental and physical health . It would be completely unreasonable to expel him without ensuring that dialysis would be available to him upon return to his home country .","On DATE ORG rejected the request . It considered that the applicant had invoked no new circumstances concerning his health which could alter the assessment made by ORG in the initial proceedings or which amounted to an impediment to the enforcement of the expulsion order .","In DATE the applicant again requested ORG to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order and to grant him a residence permit in GPE since the impediment to the enforcement was permanent . He had been in contact with his family in GPE and , through them , obtained a certificate from ORG , dated DATE , which confirmed that the applicant had been on the national waiting list for blood dialysis since DATE . It further stated that due to the lack of dialysis equipment and the increasing number of patients in need of treatment , there was currently no possibility to offer the applicant dialysis within the public health care system in the country . The applicant had also received from his family a certificate , dated DATE , and issued by the hospital where he had previously been treated , ORG . It stated that the applicant had been treated at the ORG \u2019s unit for nephrology for glomerulonephritis and final stages of chronical kidney failure . It further stated that due to the lack of equipment he could not go through the programme for dialysis . He had , however , been put on the national waiting list .","On DATE ORG rejected the request as it found that the new certificates did not alter the assessment made in the initial proceedings and that , consequently , there were no grounds on which to grant the applicant a residence permit .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s father wrote to ORG requesting that the applicant be given treatment in GPE for his illness . He noted in the letter that he had had to send the applicant to GPE to save his life but that they wanted him to be treated in GPE .","DATE , on DATE , the ORG replied to the applicant \u2019s father . However , the reply , which contains no specific addressee , would appear to be rather a request to the NORP health care system to provide the applicant with proper treatment as it states that , due to the long waiting time and lack of dialysis equipment , it is not possible for them to treat the applicant in GPE and they are grateful for the invaluable contribution to the health care of a citizen of GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145112","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"SHYTI v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG . ORG , who had been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings , under LAW , gave no indication that they wished to do so .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicant was placed in pre - trial detention on suspicion of aggravated theft , robbery , aggravated murder , human trafficking and unlawful possession of firearms .","On DATE the applicant was indicted together with CARDINAL other persons for human trafficking and unlawful possession of firearms . No information has been provided to the ORG concerning the outcome of these proceedings before the courts .","On DATE the applicant was indicted together with ORG , a NORP citizen , for the crimes of aggravated theft and the robbery and aggravated murder of QUANTITY persons , including an DATE girl .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s trial started before ORG .","By a decision of the prison administration , issued on DATE following an attempt to escape , the applicant was classified as \u201c dangerous prisoner \u201d . DATE and DATE this decision had been revised and maintained by the prison administration on CARDINAL occasions , based on reasons such as the initial evasion attempt , the severity of the crimes for which the applicant was prosecuted and the fact that he had been also indicted for unlawful possession of firearms .","On DATE ORG convicted both the applicant and PERSON for aggravated theft , aggravated homicide and robbery and sentenced them to life imprisonment . The court held that the applicant together with ORG broke into the house of a family they were acquainted with , in order to rob and murder them . They strangled the woman and stabbed the man CARDINAL times and then buried their bodies in the woods . They also killed their DATE daughter by strangling her and then buried her while she was still alive . This judgment became final on DATE when ORG and ORG rejected the appeals on points of law ( recurs ) submitted by the applicant and GPE","According to the applicant he had to wear handcuffs during the public hearings throughout the entire criminal trial .","In a letter addressed to ORG Agent before the ORG on DATE , the president of ORG submitted that , following verification of the entire file concerning the applicant starting from the confirmation of his pre - trial detention on DATE and until the delivery of the final judgment on DATE , the use of handcuffs was discussed on the occasion of CARDINAL hearings as follows :","\u2013 at the hearing of DATE the applicant \u2019s representative requested the court to allow that the applicant \u2019s handcuffs were taken off since they interfered with his freedom of expression . The court rejected this request based on the applicant \u2019s classification as dangerous prisoner by the prison authorities ;","\u2013 at the hearing of DATE the applicant \u2019s representative renewed the request which was allowed by the court ;","\u2013 at the hearing of DATE the request was again renewed and allowed by the court ;","\u2013 at the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s representative asked for the recusal of the trial judge alleging that he had submitted the applicant to ill - treatment by keeping him handcuffed during CARDINAL hearings . This request was rejected as the reason invoked was not amongst the reasons provided by law for challenging the impartiality of a judge . The applicant was advised that a complaint of ill - treatment should be addressed to the competent authorities ;","\u2013 at the hearing of DATE the applicant \u2019s representative again requested that the applicant \u2019s handcuffs were taken off . The request was allowed by the court .","An overview of the relevant provisions in force at the relevant time concerning the use of handcuffs during detention , including pending trial , is presented in GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164718","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"ALEMDAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr GPE , PERSON , PERSON PERSON , PERSON ( GPE ) , PERSON ( GPE ) , PERSON ( GPE ) , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON ( PERSON ) , PERSON and Ms Saniye Keskin Alemdar , are CARDINAL NORP nationals . They were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They were represented before ORG by Ms G\u00fclseren \u00c7anga , a lawyer practising in FAC .","s , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE , PERSON and PERSON , the applicants\u2019 predecessors , purchased a plot of land in GPE , in LOC , which had been registered in the land register as plot no . CARDINAL , parcel no . CARDINAL .","In DATE , the forest administration conducted a cadastral survey . On DATE , as a consequence of the survey , an annotation was made in the land register indicating that the applicants\u2019 land could not be sold as it was classified as part of the public forest .","On DATE the applicants instituted proceedings before ORG of First Instance seeking the annulment of the outcome of the cadastral survey .","On DATE the ORG of First Instance dismissed the applicants\u2019 case , holding that the cadastral survey was in conformity with the law . An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the applicants were subsequently dismissed by ORG and the decision became final on DATE . The final decision was notified to the applicants on CARDINAL DATE .","Under LAW of DATE , ownership of public forests may not be transferred to others ; public forests will be managed and exploited by the ORG in accordance with the law . Ownership of such forests can not be acquired through adverse possession , nor may the forests be subject to any easement , unless it is considered to be in the public interest .","Under LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , the cadastral commissions decide whether an area will be categorized as a public forest or a private forest . The same law governs the way in which the cadastral commissions operate ( sections CARDINAL ) .","A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The object of PERSON no . DATE was to provide for the settlement , by means of compensation , of applications lodged with the ORG concerning length of judicial proceedings , and non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions . A Compensation Commission was set up for that purpose . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The competence ratione materiae of ORG was subsequently extended by a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended the competence of ORG to the examination of other complaints , such as alleged restriction of the right of detainees to correspondence in a language other than NORP and the prison authorities\u2019 refusal , on different grounds , to hand over periodicals . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","ORG issued a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended anew the competence ratione materiae of ORG .","ORG is now entitled to examine the following subjects under LAW decree , which reads as follows :","\u201c a ) ORG concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant \u2019s title deeds because his or her land was classified as part of the public forest area , or as a result of the application of section CARDINAL\/B of Law no . CARDINAL , or because the land was classified as part of the public forest area in cadastral surveys ;","b ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant \u2019s title deeds because the impugned land was classified as located within a coastal area ;","c ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the allocation of the impugned land for public use in local land development plans ;","d ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of an applicant \u2019s right to private and family life on account of the respective disciplinary sanctions imposed on detainees and convicted persons by the prison authorities ;","e ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of the right to respect for correspondence on account of the prison administration \u2019s refusal to receive or send letters or similar correspondence drafted in NORP . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147503","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MUSAYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr GPE , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lived in GPE , ORG . He was represented before ORG ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG . ORG were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP On DATE the President of the Section decided , in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , to indicate to the Government of GPE , under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , that the applicant should not be extradited to GPE until further notice . The President of the Section also decided to request ORG and GPE , under LAW ( a ) of ORG , to submit factual information regarding the extradition proceedings , the criminal prosecution of the applicant in GPE and his alleged employment by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","ORG and ORG and GPE , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant left GPE and travelled to GPE to live with his father in the village of PERSON , ORG .","On DATE notification was sent to the applicant in GPE that he was being drafted into the armed forces . His relatives informed the authorities that he had moved to GPE . In response , on DATE the GPE department of ORG of GPE requested the police and prosecution authorities to search for the applicant .","On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of fraud and misappropriation . According to the investigation , the crimes had been committed in DATE against a restaurant and a private individual . The proceeds of the crime totalled CARDINAL ( ORG ) .","On DATE an investigator at ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s search and arrest for the purpose of serving an indictment on him .","On DATE , at the request of ORG , ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest and CARDINAL months\u2019 detention from the date of his apprehension .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant told the NORP media that he was a former agent of the MNS , that he had witnessed the torture of Mr GPE on the LOC of the FAC in GPE from DATE , and that Mr GPE had died as a result of torture . In this connection , he gave the names of the senior officials of the ORG who had allegedly tortured that person .","On DATE the criminal case against the applicant was suspended pending his arrest .","NORP In DATE the applicant moved from GPE to GPE for the purpose of requesting asylum .","On DATE the applicant applied for asylum to ORG of ORG ( \u201c the GPE ORG \u201d ) . His statements to the immigration authorities and the media contained the following allegations :","On DATE the applicant received notification from the MD FMS that his asylum request had been accepted for consideration . Subsequently , he left GPE and went to LOC without notifying the immigration authorities . The GPE address which he had provided to the GPE ORG was later discovered to be false .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by the lawenforcement authorities in GPE on the basis of the search - and - arrest warrant issued in GPE .","On DATE , having considered the merits of the applicant \u2019s asylum request , the MD ORG decided to refuse it . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c ORG substantiated his request by claiming that his life had been threatened by the MNS of GPE .","He confirmed his identity by [ presenting his NORP passport ] ...","He refused to provide his military service identification card , stating that it was \u2018 a state ORG ...","PERSON reasoned the existence of a threat to his life ... by the fact that he had refused to comply with an order issued by the ORG to kill a person ...","[ He stated that ] DATE he had worked as a secret agent for the MNS . He refused to answer the question whether he had followed any secret service training in the ORG , since it was \u2018 a state ORG .","ORG stated that ... as a result of his failure to comply with an order to \u2018 kill a person\u2019 he had started to receive threats personally from the Minister of ORG ... [ and ] that to save his life he had fled to GPE ... [ In GPE ] he had started receiving further threats ... and CARDINAL times he had been offered a monetary reward of [ ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to EUR CARDINAL ] for his \u2018 silence\u2019 and keeping the state secret .","...","The analysis of ORG personal file demonstrates that the reason which triggered his departure from his home country and his unwillingness to return was not a threat to his life from the ORG , but a real fear of arrest for fraud .","The statements of the applicant are contradictory .","ORG ... was not a member of any political , civic or religious association in GPE , and was never persecuted on ethnic grounds . His employment by the ORG is not proven by any documents .","During the check of his declared place of residence in GPE ... [ it had proven to be non - existent ] and this fact demonstrates the lack of sincerity in the applicant \u2019s statements ...","The circumstances mentioned above prove that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that ORG would be a victim of persecution in GPE ... \u201d .","The decision also contained an extensive section analysing the international human - rights obligations of GPE , its human - rights record as reported by NGOs and the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe , reports on the ethnic , social and economic situation in the country , as well as migration dynamics .","The applicant \u2019s representative , PERSON , complained against the decision to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The complaint stated that the regional immigration authorities had failed to consider CARDINAL facts : first , that the applicant had left GPE before the institution of criminal proceedings against him ; and secondly , that given the reports of human - rights organisations about the practice of torture and other human - rights violations in GPE , the applicant would be exposed to those risks , especially in view of the political nature of his prosecution .","On DATE the ORG issued decision No . CARDINAL upholding the decision of the regional authorities . The relevant parts read as follows :","\u201c It must be observed that the applicant \u2019s statement that the reason for his presence in GPE is to seek asylum is not corroborated by the facts ... After arriving on DATE he did not lodge his request until DATE after the period of his lawful stay [ in GPE ] had expired . Publications on the internet signed by him started to appear only in DATE ( after leaving GPE and at the end of the period of lawful stay in GPE ) .","The asylum seeker claims that he was an agent of the ORG , but does not provide any supporting documents and only refers to information on the internet as proof .","The claim that since DATE of DATE he has been persecuted by the leadership of the ORG as a result of his refusal to kill a woman ... has also not been proved .","In DATE he ... obtained a passport in his name for travelling abroad ... and until his arrival in GPE in DATE he repeatedly travelled outside GPE , including a trip to GPE in DATE with his wife .","From GPE he returned with his wife to GPE , despite his allegation that his life was threatened there ... [ and only one month ] later left for GPE .","The analysis of the decision by the MD ORG , the case file , the allegations of the asylum seeker , and information of the ORG and ORG on the situation in GPE demonstrate that ... there are no reasonable grounds for [ Mr PERSON \u2019s ] alleged fear of persecution in GPE . \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative , PERSON , appealed against the above decisions to the ORG of GPE . Neither the applicant nor his representative informed the ORG about the outcome of the appeal .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE forwarded to the NORP authorities an extradition request in respect of the applicant . The relevant parts of the request read as follows :","\u201c We guarantee that in accordance with international law PERSON will be provided in GPE with all the facilities for defence , including the services a of defence counsel , he will not be tortured or subjected to any inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , and relevant conventions of the ORG and ORG ) .","The Prosecutor General of GPE guarantees that the extradition request has not been lodged with the aim of persecuting [ the applicant ] on political , racial , religious or ethnic grounds .","The Prosecutor General of GPE guarantees that in accordance with LAW on legal cooperation and relations in civil , family and criminal matters of DATE PERSON would be prosecuted only for the crime which served as the basis for this extradition request , and after his trial or , in case of conviction , after serving his sentence he would be free to leave GPE . PERSON will not be extradited , expelled or transferred to any other ORG without the consent of the NORP competent authorities \u201d .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE authorised the applicant \u2019s extradition , stating that there were no obstacles to it under international law and NORP legislation .","NORP The applicant \u2019s representative , PERSON , challenged the authorisation in court . The complaint stated that the asylum proceedings were still pending and that the criminal prosecution of the applicant had a political nature , because he \u201c engages in human rights defence and reveals facts of human rights violations in GPE \u201d .","On DATE the applicant was released from detention on his own recognisance and immediately fled from his last known place of residence in GPE . According to the statements of his relatives and representatives , the applicant avoided any contact with the law - enforcement authorities .","On DATE ORG considered the complaint against the extradition authorisation in the absence of the applicant , who had avoided any contact with the NORP authorities . ORG upheld the authorisation . The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c The defence counsel PERSON stated in court that there were no reasons to extradite PERSON , who had been persecuted by officers of ORG on political grounds ... In the event of extradition the police of GPE would subject PERSON to violence and torture ...","The defence witness Mr PERSON stated that his son ... had started living with him in the village of GPE , ORG in DATE , and that according to [ an unidentified ] colonel of the ORG his son was an agent of the security services ...","The prosecution stated that the complaint should be dismissed , since all the arguments of the defence had been refuted during the extradition check ...","[ T]he court considers the extradition authorisation ... to be reasonable and lawful ...","The arguments of the defence counsel that the asylum proceedings are not yet finished are erroneous .","... The case materials demonstrate that the decision of ORG [ to refuse asylum ] of DATE was considered lawful and upheld on appeal on DATE ...","The opinion of the complainant that PERSON must not be extradited to another ORG , since his criminal prosecution is of a political nature is arbitrary .","The case file contains no evidence proving that PERSON was employed by ORG , any political party or human rights organisation . The statements of PERSON and his father that [ the applicant ] is being persecuted as a former agent of the ORG are unsubstantiated .","The extradition request of ORG guarantees that he will not be subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and that the request does not pursue any political motives ...","The court examined the materials submitted by the defence counsel about possible human rights violations in GPE .","Having regard to the generally positive situation regarding respect for human rights in the ORG seeking extradition , the specific circumstances of the present case and the guarantees of the NORP authorities , the court does not consider that there are any reasonable grounds to believe that [ the applicant would be subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment ] \u201d .","NORP The applicant \u2019s representative allegedly appealed against the judgment to ORG of GPE . However , neither the applicant nor his representative informed the ORG about the outcome of that appeal .","On DATE the Government of GPE informed the ORG that they were not aware of any documents proving the applicant \u2019s employment by , or any other cooperation with , the ORG of GPE . They highlighted the fact that the extradition request did not contain such information either .","On DATE the Government of GPE stated to the ORG that the applicant had never been an employee of the ORG and had not cooperated with it in any other form .","The Government of GPE also stated that the criminal investigation into the death of Mr PERSON had been conducted by ORG , but that the applicant had no relation to the case or the investigation .","In support of the applicant \u2019s account of events his representative submitted to the ORG several letters and statements of human - rights activists and non - governmental organisations .","The statement of DATE by ORG urged the ORG to stay the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE in view of the risk of ill - treatment . The statement does not contain any specific information on the applicant \u2019s case , but provides a summary of international reports on the situation in GPE in general and in GPE in particular .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE Ms Malahat GPE , a well - known human - rights activist and president of ORG , an NGO based in GPE , asked the NORP authorities not to extradite the applicant to GPE , alleging that he had been involved in the case of Mr GPE and risked \u201c serious punishment \u201d by the authorities .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the lawyer of the deceased PERSON GPE stated that the applicant , according to his statements , was a \u201c key witness \u201d to PERSON GPE \u2019s death and that he had been forced to leave GPE under pressure from the authorities ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145579","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF YAVOROVENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to have certain actions taken in their favour . The decisions became final and enforceable . However , the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time .","Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non - enforcement issues ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173370","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF OSIPKOVS AND OTHERS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["After the regaining of independence , in DATE property reform legislation came into force in GPE and provided that former owners or their heirs could reclaim property nationalised in DATE .","The second applicant and CARDINAL other individuals were the heirs of GPE In DATE they asked ORG to recognise their title to CARDINAL ha of forest in GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the contested property \u201d ) which had allegedly belonged to GPE and was nationalised in DATE . They also asked the court to recognise their right to receive a plot of land of the same value in GPE , as it had not been possible to establish the precise boundaries of the inherited land .","On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the claimants . It recognised that there was no question over whether the claimants were the heirs of the late GPE , as that had been established by a court order in DATE . Referring to documents received from ORG and ORG ( ORG dienests ) , it also established that FAC had purchased CARDINAL ha of forest in GPE . Referring to section CARDINAL of the Law on Land Reform in the Cities of the Republic of Latvia ( ORG zemes reformu Latvijas Republikas pils\u0113t\u0101s ) , which provided that any requests after DATE for the restoration of property rights should be decided by a court , ORG recognised that the second applicant owned a CARDINAL share of the forest in GPE and that the other CARDINAL claimants owned a sixth each . As there was no evidence of what the precise boundaries of the forest were , the court recognised the claimants\u2019 right to receive a plot of land of the same value elsewhere .","ORG was a defendant in the above proceedings and a representative of ORG contested the claim , arguing that in DATE the contested property had belonged to several individuals as undivided property , and the archive documents did not show what part of that property each claimant could be entitled to .","The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE . In DATE , at the PERSON request , ORG adopted an additional decision specifying that the contested property had historically been part of the PERSON estate forest .","After adoption of the above judgment , ORG informed the claimants , ORG and ORG several times of problems in enforcement of the judgment . ORG maintained that the archive material , which had been obtained after the above judgment had been adopted , did not give information as to the location of the contested property . On those grounds , in DATE ORG asked ORG to lodge an application for supervisory review ( protests ) asking for the judgment of DATE to be quashed .","In DATE ORG dismissed the request , arguing that reassessment of evidence could not serve as grounds for triggering supervisory review proceedings .","On several occasions the second applicant complained to ORG and ORG about delays in the enforcement of the judgment .","In order to comply with the judgment , on DATE ORG adopted decisions allocating CARDINAL plots of land to the claimants .","On DATE the title to the CARDINAL plots of land was entered in the land register , and on CARDINAL and DATE the second applicant and the other CARDINAL claimants sold their respective plots to the fifth applicant , the limited liability company ORG , the owner and director of which at the material time was the second applicant .","DATE and DATE the first applicant was the president of the fifth applicant , and DATE and DATE the first applicant was its chairman of the board .","On DATE the President of ORG of the ORG of ORG lodged an application for supervisory review with regard to the judgment adopted on DATE by ORG , arguing that there was a lack of evidence to corroborate that GPE had owned the property before DATE . As information received from ORG had suggested , the contested property had consisted of undivided shares and therefore it could not be concluded that GPE had been the sole purchaser of CARDINAL ha of a forest .","A copy of that application was sent to the second applicant and the other CARDINAL parties to the initial proceedings , inviting them to submit comments within DATE of receipt .","At a hearing on DATE attended by the representative of the claimants in the initial proceedings , the ORG of ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration . The ORG recognised that there was nothing in the case file to suggest that ORG had owned the contested property .","In DATE the Bureau for the Prevention and Combating of Corruption ( \u201c the KNAB \u201d ) asked ORG to initiate proceedings to reclaim the contested property from the applicants .","The fifth applicant entered into various transactions with the contested property .","On DATE and DATE part of the property was for a total amount of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) sold to GPE who on CARDINAL and DATE sold it for the same amount to the third applicant , the limited liability company ORG , the coowner and representative of which at the material time and until DATE was GPE himself .","On DATE and DATE the third applicant was registered as the owner of the property in the land register .","On DATE and DATE the fifth applicant sold CARDINAL other parts of the contested property to the sixth and fourth applicants respectively for about ORG CARDINAL per each transaction . The purchase contract of DATE provided , inter alia , that the seller , namely the fifth applicant , guaranteed that the property was not subject to any dispute , and that seller would be liable for any third party claims made in respect of the transaction .","On DATE the fifth applicant sold another part of the property to ORG , who on DATE sold it to the first applicant for about LVL CARDINAL ( about ORG CARDINAL ) . The purchase contract of DATE provided , inter alia , that the seller guaranteed that the property was not anyhow encumbered .","On DATE and on DATE ( with regard to the first and the third applicants ) ORG , acting on behalf of ORG , lodged a claim against ORG , the applicants , GPE and the CARDINAL other claimants in the initial proceedings . ORG relied on the ORG \u2019s judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the request received from the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The claim stated that the second applicant and the CARDINAL other claimants in the initial proceedings had no legal right of ownership over the contested property . ORG was asked to quash the decisions of ORG allocating the CARDINAL plots of land ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG also asked for the relevant ORG records to be deleted and the rights of the ORG to the contested property to be recognised .","The claim was based on the section of the Civil Law regulating property claims , such as sections ORG , CARDINAL and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG decided to join the claim lodged by ORG and the claim about the restoration of property rights ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim lodged by ORG and upheld the decision recognising the second applicant and the CARDINAL other claimants as owners of the contested property .","Both ORG and ORG appealed against that decision .","On DATE ORG of ORG partly upheld the appeal lodged by ORG . The court revoked the decisions of ORG allocating the second applicant and the CARDINAL other claimants the CARDINAL plots of land , and ordered that the corresponding entries be deleted from the relevant ORG records . It established that the lower court had failed to address the fact that until DATE the contested plots of land had been jointly owned by the former owner GPE and CARDINAL other individuals . Moreover , the joint ownership of the land had ceased after the passing of a decree in DATE , and after that date GPE had not registered his title to the property with ORG .","The appellate court also dismissed part of the claim of ORG in which it claimed that the ORG ( represented by ORG ) had ownership rights over the property in question . The plots of land were returned to GPE in order for it to finalise the land reform .","In relation to the ORG argument that they had all acted in good faith when acquiring their part of the contested property , the court at the outset noted that such criteria as the date of conclusion of a contested transaction and the nature of the infringed property rights have to be considered when assessing the protection of bona fide acquirers . The court also observed that after the second applicant had sold the contested property to the fifth applicant , the owner of which was the second applicant himself , all the transactions involving the contested property ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) had been concluded after the ORG of ORG had revoked the final judgment in the initial proceedings . It also noted that PERSON had sold his respective parts of the property to the first applicant despite the fact that the civil proceedings initiated by ORG had been pending . On those grounds and on the basis of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicants were not recognised as having acted in good faith .","The first , second , fourth and fifth applicants lodged an appeal on points of law . Following an application dated DATE , the third applicant joined the cassation appeal lodged by the first applicant . The sixth applicant did not lodge an appeal on points of law .","The CARDINAL appellants complained , inter alia , that the ORG did not have sufficient interest in the property to justify the fact that ORG had lodged a property claim on behalf of the ORG .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG of ORG upheld in essence the appellate court \u2019s judgment . With respect to the property claim brought by ORG , the ORG noted that even if the ORG \u2019s property rights had not been infringed , that did not prevent the court from finding that the second applicant and the CARDINAL other claimants in the first set of proceedings had had no rights to the contested property . The ORG also upheld the appellate court \u2019s conclusions about the applicants acting in bad faith .","After the above judgment took effect and at GPE request the applicants\u2019 entries were deleted from the relevant ORG records .","On DATE the third applicant was declared insolvent and ORG appointed PERSON as its insolvency administrator who replaced the former board members of the third applicant . On DATE the insolvency proceedings were terminated and on DATE the third applicant was deleted from the company register .","On DATE GPE , who until DATE had been a board member of the third applicant , on its behalf designated a legal representative in the proceedings before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168091","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"MILO\u0160EVSKI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE PERSON ( a NORP national with CARDINAL office addresses , in GPE and in GPE ) issued a \u201c payment order \u201d to ORG , a bank incorporated in the respondent ORG , for payment of CARDINAL United States dollars ( ORG ) to the applicant , conditional upon the availability of funds in GPE \u2019s bank accounts in ORG The payment order also specified that if no funds were available in those bank accounts , PERSON would be liable to pay the applicant the pledged sum of money in cash . The relevant part of the payment order , co - signed both by PERSON and the applicant , reads as follows :","\u201c I , PERSON , ORG and Attorney with this , hereby inform and give an irrevocable order to Fiduciary bank : T. a.d . GPE to unconditionally pay out in my name to Mr PERSON ... the amount of GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG ( in words : MONEY DATE ) in cash from either of my accounts [ opened with ORG ] immediately after the arrival of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in those accounts . This payment order shall constitute a firm obligation on the part of ORG and it shall pay out the amount stated hereunder to Mr. PERSON immediately , whenever this payment order is presented to T. a.d . GPE .","In the event that such resources ... have not arrived in either of my accounts [ specified ] above in due time , I am fully legally responsible to fully pay the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in cash to Mr PERSON at his first call and demand . \u201d","On DATE the applicant , through his representative , submitted the payment order to ORG ( \u201c the first - instance court \u201d ) and requested its enforcement . In his \u201c enforcement request \u201d ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043b\u043e\u0433 \u0437\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) , amended on DATE , the applicant stated that both ORG and PERSON had failed to fulfil the provisions of the payment order . He proposed that enforcement be allowed in the following terms :","\u201c Enforcement is allowed of the payment of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , plus interest ... and costs ... from the debtor \u2019s [ ORG ] funds ( \u043f\u0430\u0440\u0438\u0447\u043d\u0438 \u0441\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430 ) , that is to say ( \u043e\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0441\u043d\u043e ) from his assets in company NORP , incorporated in GPE as capital of PERCENT in company ORG incorporated in GPE ... by the transmission of the [ first - instance court \u2019s ] enforcement order from ORG [ of the respondent ORG ] to ORG of GPE so that the competent court in GPE might proceed further with the enforcement and transfer the above - mentioned amount to the [ applicant \u2019s ] personal bank account ... in ORG in GPE .","Alternatively , if no assets of company ORG are available in GPE , enforcement is proposed in respect of those of the debtor \u2019s funds that are available in company ORG bank accounts at ORG in GPE , GPE , or at any other institution where the debtor holds personal capital or stake in his other companies in GPE , or movable or immovable property or capital to be found at any other place .","This decision will be delivered to the [ respondent ORG \u2019s ] ORG , so that it can be transmitted for enforcement , via the competent [ NORP ] ministry , to the competent authorities in GPE .","The applicant and his representative will be notified in the event of any problems with the enforcement . \u201d","On DATE , by affixing the standard stamp to the applicant \u2019s enforcement proposal , the first - instance court allowed the enforcement , as proposed by the applicant ( the \u201c enforcement order \u201d ) . According to the instruction contained in the text of the stamp , the debtor could object ( \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0433\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0440 ) to the enforcement order within DATE of receiving it . The enforcement order was signed by Judge PERSON","The enforcement order was transmitted in GPE , through ORG of the respondent ORG and GPE , to GPE .. On DATE PERSON signed the delivery slip , which together with the complete file was returned to the respondent ORG . The fact that the file was returned was the reason for the first - instance court \u2019s seeking further information from the relevant Ministries as to whether PERSON had indeed received the enforcement order translated into NORP . The relevant Ministry did not clarify the matter .","On DATE the first - instance court , relying on \u201c the general provisions and principles of LAW \u201d ( hereafter \u201c LAW \u201d ) , terminated the enforcement ( \u0441\u0435 \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0440\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435\u0442\u043e ) and quashed the enforcement measures ( \u0441\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u043d\u0438 \u0434\u0435\u0458\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0438\u0458\u0430 \u0441\u0435 \u0443\u043a\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0432\u0430\u0430\u0442 ) . The first - instance court stated that the payment order could not be regarded as suitable for enforcement ( \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u043d\u0430 \u0438\u043b\u0438 \u0432\u0435\u0440\u043e\u0434\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0458\u043d\u0430 \u0438\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 ) , that the enforcement order had been issued in error ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0432\u0438\u0434 ) , and that it was in both parties\u2019 interests that the enforcement be terminated . This decision was made by Judge PERSON , who had in the meantime been appointed to sit in the case .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the second - instance court \u201d ) upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and remitted the case for fresh consideration . It found that the first - instance court was bound by its enforcement order of CARDINAL DATE and that it was unclear why it had concluded that it was in the parties\u2019 interests for enforcement to be terminated . In this connection it noted that the enforcement order had been served on both parties , that neither party had appealed against it , and that the first - instance court could not assess the \u201c substantive legality \u201d ( \u043c\u0430\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u043b\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) of the enforcement order . The second - instance court added that the first - instance court , when considering the case anew , should assess whether any of the statutory conditions for the termination of the enforcement ( \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435\u0442\u043e ) had been met .","On DATE the president of the first - instance court granted a request by the applicant for the withdrawal of Judge PERSON and appointed Judge PERSON to sit in the case . On DATE the first - instance court again terminated the enforcement . It noted that it had received , on CARDINAL occasions , a notification from ORG that no funds had been available on ORG bank accounts to cover the applicant \u2019s claim . By citing provisions of the Act relevant to the courts\u2019 territorial competence for enforcement over funds , movable property and stakes in companies ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and by taking into account the provisions of LAW regarding ORG seats and legal status , the first - instance court concluded that the enforcement , as allowed by the enforcement order , was impossible . In this connection , it stated :","\u201c ... the enforcement sought concerned moveable property outside ( the respondent ORG ) ... It is absolutely impossible for a court in ( the respondent ORG ) to carry out enforcement against property in a foreign ORG in which different rules apply . It is true that the enforcement in the present case was allowed and that the ( enforcement order ) became final ... the court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the enforcement against shares in a foreign company in a foreign ORG ... the enforcement concerns shares of a foreign company from GPE , which is absolutely impossible to carry out LAW of GPE . LAW clearly provides that the competent court ratione loci is the court in the place where the foreign company is registered . \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that there was no legal ground in the Act for the termination of the enforcement in the instant case . He further submitted that under the bilateral agreement applicable between the respondent ORG and GPE ( hereafter \u201c LAW \u201d ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the enforcement order should have been transmitted through the respondent ORG \u2019s ORG to the competent NORP authorities , so that the latter could proceed further with the enforcement .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and confirmed the lower court \u2019s decision . It held that the first - instance court had not terminated the enforcement proceedings , but had only terminated the enforcement . In this connection it observed that a distinction should be made between ( i ) the termination of enforcement proceedings ( \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f\u043a\u0430 ) as a final completion of enforcement proceedings and ( ii ) the termination of enforcement ( \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435\u0442\u043e ) as completion of only a stage of the enforcement proceedings , completely or regarding a particular object of enforcement . The court referred to the lack of funds in GPE \u2019s accounts in ORG and reiterated the reasons of the lower court that the NORP courts had no jurisdiction to proceed with the enforcement against funds and moveable property in foreign companies for which the power of enforcement was vested with the courts of the jurisdiction within which such assets were located . The applicant was served with this decision on DATE .","Subsequently , the applicant asked the first - instance court to attest to the finality and enforceability of the enforcement order ( \u0438\u0437\u0434\u0430\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0441\u0438\u043b\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 \u0438 \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0448\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) . On DATE the applicant \u2019s request was dismissed . The first - instance court held that no such measure could be taken , since there existed a final decision on the termination of the enforcement . It further pointed out that no further enforcement measures could be taken on the basis of the enforcement order . On DATE the second - instance court dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and confirmed the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","This Act regulated the enforcement of court decisions . Section CARDINAL provided for the subsidiary application of LAW . Section CARDINAL contained a general provision that an enforcement proposal concerning moveable assets should be decided by a court with jurisdiction in the territory in which such assets are located . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL specified that an enforcement proposal concerning funds or the transfer of moveable assets should be decided , respectively , by a court with jurisdiction in the territory in which the debtor in question lives or in which such moveable assets are located . Section CARDINAL-a prescribed that enforcement proposals concerning shares and stakes in companies should be decided by a court with jurisdiction in the territory in which the company concerned is registered .","Section CARDINAL of this Act stipulated that a court should regularly and of its own motion verify that a pending case was within its competency .","Article CARDINAL of LAW , which is binding on the respondent State , stipulates that the competent court for recognition and enforcement of a court judgment delivered by courts of a Contracting State shall be the court of the State in which the judgment is to be enforced .","Article CARDINAL provides that a request for recognition or enforcement can be submitted to the directly competent court in the ORG in which the judgment is to be recognised or enforced , or to the court which decided the matter at the first instance which shall , in such a case , transmit that request to the other ORG . Any such request shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the enforcement decision , together with an attestation that the decision has become final and enforceable ( unless this stems from the decision itself ) .","Under LAW , the court of the ORG in which the enforcement should take place shall decide and proceed with the enforcement in line with its national legislation ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177662","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SOMOGYI v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , quoting the relevant sections of LAW , ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention on charges of terrorist acts and other related offences involving abuse of firearms and explosives on the grounds that he might abscond for fear of a severe punishment , might frustrate the on - going investigation by colluding with accomplices still at large , or might execute the planned offences or re - offend .","The detention measure was extended on DATE and again on DATE . The court reiterated its earlier reasons , adding that the risk of collusion was serious , since certain other suspects had not yet been apprehended .","A further extension was ordered on DATE . The court stated that the applicant was being prosecuted for terrorist acts committed as an associate of an organised criminal group whose plans entailed a real risk of loss of life . It was of note that the group had existed for quite some time and had been committed to carrying out terrorist acts . Moreover , the volume of evidence supporting a reasonable suspicion , as weighed individually against the applicant , was increasing .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s detention was again extended , the court noting that , in view of the grounds for his detention , not even his clean criminal record , family ties and settled background could provide adequate justification for a less strict measure .","On DATE the measure was renewed , with special reference to the fact that the case was concerned with a series of crimes committed over a long period of time by a criminal organisation .","On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be held under house arrest , holding that the danger of his re - offending was not of a degree that justified his continued detention , noting also that the investigation was about to be wrapped up and that , in any case , some accomplices in the case had already been released pending trial .","The applicant was released from detention DATE . During the ensuing period he complied with the rules of house arrest .","On DATE ORG again ordered the applicant \u2019s detention . It held that the charges of several very serious offences committed over a long time in an organised group were of such gravity that they could not be addressed merely by house arrest .","The measure was extended on DATE . In addition to the previously cited reasons , the court considered that there was no reason to assume that the applicant \u2019s political motivation behind the incriminated acts had subsided , which meant that the risk of re - offending was real .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s house arrest , observing that the applicant had abided by the previous house arrest ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and holding that the risk of re - offending was slight .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s house arrest was replaced by a restraining order , which was eventually lifted on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was again detained on remand for the purposes of prosecution for a new offence allegedly committed during the on - going proceedings . He was accused of having threatened and harassed a relative of CARDINAL of the witnesses in the main case . For want of evidence , this new investigation was discontinued on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was released from detention and put under house arrest , which lasted until DATE .","On DATE the applicant and his accomplices were convicted . He was sentenced to DATE in a strict - regime prison .","Both the defendants and the prosecution appealed . The outcome of the ensuing proceedings is unknown ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179886","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ST\u0102NCULEANU v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","In DATE a large - scale criminal investigation was initiated against several persons for money laundering and fiscal fraud . On DATE the investigation was extended in respect of CARDINAL other persons , including the applicant .","Within the framework of the criminal investigation , on DATE several police officers carried out a search at the applicant \u2019s home . According to the search report , signed by the applicant and by her appointed lawyer without any objections , the search started at CARDINAL TIME and lasted until TIME","NORP Immediately after the search and in accordance with the provisions of ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ( hereinafter RCCP , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , namely on the basis of an order to appear before the investigation body , the applicant was taken by police officers to the GPE police headquarters .","According to the record drawn up at the time , the enforcement of the order to appear was executed TIME and TIME , when the applicant arrived at the police station .","The order to appear had been issued by the prosecutor on DATE . It mentioned that","\u201c In the interests of the investigation ongoing in the above - mentioned criminal file [ number ] concerning money laundering and fiscal fraud , the questioning of [ the applicant \u2019s name and identification data ] in her capacity of suspect is necessary .","The criminal investigation bodies ( ... ) will bring the suspect to the police headquarters on DATE for the purpose of making a statement [ before the investigating authorities ] . \u201d","The documents on file show that TIME on DATE and TIME DATE , the investigating authorities , namely CARDINAL prosecutors and CARDINAL judicial police officers , conducted interviews in respect of CARDINAL witnesses and CARDINAL suspects and\/or defendants in connection with the criminal investigation involving the applicant .","According to the register kept by the police to record third parties entering the police station on a DATE basis , the applicant \u2019s appointed lawyer , Mr R .- M.S. , entered the premises of the police headquarters at CARDINAL p.m. The applicant contended that up until that time , her lawyer had been prevented from joining her because he had not submitted a written mandate proving that he lawfully represented her ( see also paragraph CARDINAL in fine , below ) .","It appears from the file that during her stay in the police station , the applicant \u2019s phone conversations were tapped .","At an unspecified time before TIME , a prosecutor informed the applicant that she was a suspect in an ongoing criminal investigation , and was to be charged with complicity in fiscal fraud ; the applicant was also informed of the rights and obligations she had in that capacity . When invited to give a statement , she refused , claiming that she was unwell and needed medical assistance .","The TIME recording this interview do not mention the exact time of their drafting ; they are signed by the applicant , who confirmed having received a copy . Her lawyer does not appear to have been present .","The Government contended that the applicant \u2019s request for medical assistance had been part of her defence strategy , as proved , in their view , by the transcripts of a phone conversation she had had with a third party at CARDINAL p.m. , in which she was advised accordingly ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The same argument was backed , according to the Government , by the conclusions of the medical investigations , which attested to the fact that no urgent need for medical care had been identified in her case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","At TIME an ambulance was called to the police station . It arrived at TIME and provided medical care ( mainly intravenous infusion with minerals ) to the applicant until TIME , when she was taken to ORG . Accompanied by police officers , she arrived at the hospital at TIME , and was diagnosed with lipothymia . She remained in the hospital until TIME DATE and several medical examinations were performed during this time , following which vitamins , calcium and analgesics were administered . The diagnosis when the applicant left the hospital , accompanied by police officers , was neurovegetative dystonia and light hypokalemia .","The applicant claimed that during the whole time she was in hospital she had been guarded by police officers , who had then escorted her back to the police headquarters .","At TIME the applicant \u2019s questioning started . In the presence of her chosen lawyer , the applicant refused to give a statement on the grounds that she was very tired , having spent TIME in hospital . She also referred to the fact that neither she nor her lawyer had been given the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the contents of the criminal case file in which she was a suspect .","Subsequently , at TIME , the applicant was informed in the presence of her chosen lawyer that the prosecutor had decided to remand her in custody ( re\u0163inere ) for TIME .","Her lawyer lodged a complaint with the prosecutor against the decision to remand her in custody , as well as another complaint concerning her being unlawfully deprived of her liberty as of TIME on DATE .","In the first complaint , it is claimed that the order to appear became effective on DATE at TIME , and that the applicant was de facto remanded in custody as of TIME It is argued that the applicant \u2019s deprivation of liberty throughout that interval was unlawful and unjustified , aimed solely at obtaining statements from her under duress .","In the second complaint it is claimed that on DATE , as of CARDINAL p.m. when the search of her home ended , the applicant \u2019s liberty to move around was restricted , as proved by the fact that she had been accompanied by police officers not only to the police station but also to the hospital , where she had been taken under escort to obtain medical assistance . The applicant mentioned that her lawyer had not been allowed to accompany her or to assist her because he did not have a written mandate , even though the lack of such a document was objectively justified by the circumstances in which she had been taken to the police station .","The prosecutor dismissed both complaints on DATE , holding that the measure to remand the applicant in custody was lawful , necessary and proportional to the gravity of the charge . He stated that the order to appear became effective after the house search had been performed , the presence of the applicant during the search being necessary in relation to its conduct and thus outside the limits of such an order . The prosecutor further considered that the time interval during which the applicant was under medical surveillance could not be included within TIME time - limit set out by LAW , as that was an incident excluding the responsibility of the investigating authorities . The limitation of her lawyer \u2019s access to the criminal file had been justified by the necessity to get to the truth and to obtain from the applicant a genuine statement , uninfluenced by those already given by the other suspects or witnesses .","On DATE , relying on testimonial , documentary and audio surveillance evidence , the prosecutor asked ORG to place the applicant in pre - trial detention ( arest preventiv ) for DATE as her release posed a threat to public order .","By an interlocutory judgment delivered on DATE , ORG allowed the prosecutor \u2019s request and ordered the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . An appeal lodged against this was dismissed by ORG on DATE . Her pre - trial detention was extended for DATE by a decision of ORG issued on DATE , upheld on appeal .","The applicant was released on DATE after DATE of pre - trial detention .","It appears that the proceedings on the merits are still pending .","The applicant claimed that for DATE , she had been placed in a cell measuring QUANTITY , which she had shared with CARDINAL other detainees . She also complained about the poor conditions of hygiene , lack of ventilation and natural light . According to the applicant , the toilet was not separated from the living area by any partition , thus offering no privacy .","The Government provided information about the applicant \u2019s conditions of detention . They submitted that the applicant had been detained in a cell measuring QUANTITY , which she had occupied with CARDINAL or CARDINAL other detainees from CARDINAL to DATE . From DATE to the date of her release , the applicant had been placed in a room measuring CARDINAL sq m , along with CARDINAL others .","They stated that each cell had sanitary facilities such as a toilet and a shower , which were separated from the rest of the cell by a curtain . Both cells had access to natural and artificial light , as well as ventilation provided by a double - glazed window measuring QUANTITY ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158352","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CHY\u0141A v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The parties gave partly different descriptions of certain factual elements of the case concerning the \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d regime ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The remaining facts were not in dispute .","The applicant has a history of criminal convictions . For DATE he was sought by the law - enforcement authorities pursuant to a \u201c wanted \u201d notice .","On DATE an international search warrant was issued against the applicant on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed , as a member of an organised criminal group , several counts of robbery , extortion , uttering threats , causing bodily harm and placing an explosive with intent to damage property . Earlier , on CARDINAL DATE ORG had also ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody for a period of DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by the NORP police .","On DATE the applicant was handed over to the NORP authorities .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) remanded him in custody , relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed , as a member of an organised criminal group , several counts of robbery , extortion , uttering threats , causing bodily harm and placing an explosive with intent to damage property . It attached importance to the serious nature of those offences and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant . The court also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings , given the risk that he might abscond . With regard to the latter possibility , the court relied on the fact that he did not have a permanent place of residence in GPE and that he had already been hiding from the police . Finally , the court emphasised that the applicant was a member of an organised criminal group and that certain other members of that group were still at large , which increased the risk that the detainee , if released , might obstruct the proceedings .","NORP The applicant \u2019s appeal against the detention order , like his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all of his subsequent , numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him , were unsuccessful .","On DATE ORG lodged a bill of indictment with ORG . The applicant was charged with several counts of robbery , extortion , uttering threats , causing bodily harm and placing an explosive with intent to damage property . The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges against CARDINAL defendants .","During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention on DATE ( to DATE ) and CARDINAL DATE ( to DATE ) . The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant \u2019s continued detention . They also found no grounds warranting the applicant \u2019s release from detention as provided for by LAW .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and a fine .","The applicant appealed . He was kept in detention pending his appeal .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) heard the applicant \u2019s appeal . It quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case . The court also extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention to DATE , repeating the grounds previously given .","On DATE the case file regarding the applicant \u2019s case was transmitted to ORG for re - trial .","On DATE the ORG requested the Prosecutor to complete the bill of indictment . However , on DATE ORG quashed that decision , remitted the case to ORG and ordered it to proceed with the trial .","On DATE the ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention to DATE , repeating the grounds previously given .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention to DATE . The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision . On DATE the ORG quashed ORG decision , finding that it had been taken by a judge who should have been excluded ex lege from deciding in the applicant \u2019s case .","On DATE ORG , in a different composition , again extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention to CARDINAL DATE . The court further extended the applicant \u2019s detention on CARDINAL DATE ( to DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE ( to DATE ) , QUANTITY DATE ( to DATE ) , DATE ( to DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE ( to DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE ( to DATE ) and DATE ( to DATE ) . On each occasion the court repeated the grounds previously given and found no grounds warranting the applicant \u2019s release from detention as provided for by LAW . In addition , the court observed that while it appeared from medical reports that the applicant was suffering from various health problems , treatment could be provided within the penitentiary facility .","In its decision of CARDINAL DATE dismissing the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE extending the applicant \u2019s detention , ORG addressed the applicant \u2019s argument that his detention had exceeded the reasonable time requirement referred to in LAW . The court cited the relevant provisions of the LAW and held that taking into consideration the complexity of the case and the fact that the applicant had been charged with numerous and various offences committed in cooperation with other persons the detention , although considerably long , had not exceeded the \u201c reasonable time \u201d within the meaning of the LAW . The court also considered that \u201c detention was indispensable because , other , less severe preventive measures would not properly secure their aim \u201d .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s request for release and dismissed it . The court relied on the same grounds as previously albeit it additionally observed that the applicant had no permanent place of residence in GPE that he had been previously convicted and once , when he had been granted home leave during his sentence , he went into hiding abroad . In GPE he used a fake passport . The court considered that in these circumstances and taking into account that the applicant still had an outstanding sentence to be served in GPE , there was a reasonable fear that he might abscond or go into hiding . The court concluded that other preventive measure , not involving deprivation of the applicant \u2019s liberty , would not secure the proper conduct of the proceedings .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG again quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case .","Since DATE the applicant has been serving a prison sentence imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki ) ( \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) . He claimed that the proceedings had commenced in DATE and were still pending . He sought an acknowledgement that the proceedings had been lengthy and just - satisfaction in the amount of PLN CARDINAL .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The court did not accept the applicant \u2019s view that the proceedings had lasted DATE . It examined only the course of the proceedings after DATE , stating that the applicant \u2019s complaint could only refer to the current stage of the proceedings , i.e. after ORG had remitted the case to ORG and had duly transmitted the case file . As regards the period after DATE it considered that the proceedings before the trial court had been conducted with the requisite speed , especially given the complexity of the case . In particular , the court observed that the hearings had been held frequently and at regular intervals and that only a few had been adjourned for reasons not imputable to the trial court . It further observed that at the request of the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL witnesses who had their permanent place of residence in GPE were summoned to be heard at the hearing on DATE . The CARDINAL summons were returned with notes \u201c addressee unknown \u201d . On DATE the applicant indicated a NORP address of CARDINAL of these CARDINAL witnesses . The court adjourned the hearing until DATE and summoned the witnesses again . On DATE the court heard one witness ; the remaining CARDINAL failed to appear . On DATE the applicant requested the court to hear another witness who had been deprived of his liberty in GPE . The court granted the request and decided that the witness in question be heard through the consular office . The court also observed that there had been objective difficulties in appointing expert witnesses of several specialities and that some of the expert reports obtained were incomplete and had to be returned for rectification .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) classified the applicant as a \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d . It considered that this was necessary in view of the fact that he was charged with numerous offences against human life and health . The commission also referred to the applicant \u2019s serious lack of moral character and the fact that he was a recidivist . Finally , the commission emphasised that the applicant had already escaped twice from custody and had been hiding from the police for DATE .","Every DATE the commission reviewed , and upheld , its decision classifying the applicant as a \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d . The commission underlined that the initial grounds for imposing the special confinement measure were still valid .","The applicant appealed to ORG against the decisions extending his status as a \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d . All his appeals were dismissed . In particular , the court gave decisions on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The authorities relied on the grounds set out in the initial decision . They laid particular emphasis on the risk posed by the seriousness of the offences and the fact that the applicant had already escaped previously from custody and had been in hiding for DATE .","On DATE the Head of FAC ordered that the applicant be placed in solitary confinement for a period of DATE as a disciplinary punishment , after he had refused to undergo a strip - search . The applicant asked the Head of FAC to reconsider his decision . The penalty was implemented DATE and DATE .","On DATE the Head of FAC upheld his original decision , stating that it had been well - founded in view of the applicant \u2019s refusal to strip and his aggressive behaviour towards the prison guards who were to perform a body search . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , arguing that the impugned decision had been lawful and as such could not be contested before the court .","On DATE another disciplinary punishment was imposed on the applicant : he was refused permission to receive any food packages . The punishment was imposed on the applicant for allegedly aggressive behaviour prior to a full strip - search ( kontrola osobista ) on CARDINAL DATE .","As a \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d , the applicant was subjected to a full body search every time he entered or left his cell , which meant that he had to strip naked in front of CARDINAL prison guards and was required to carry out deep knee - bends at least twice a day .","On several occasions the applicant complained about the full stripsearches . In particular , on DATE he complained about a stripsearch of CARDINAL DATE . In reply , ORG , after verifying the circumstances of this check , confirmed that it had been carried out in accordance with the relevant procedures .","The applicant \u2019s visiting rights were also severely restricted . According to the list of visits submitted by the ORG , which was not contested by the applicant , between DATE and DATE the applicant received visits on CARDINAL occasions . However , DATE and DATE the applicant did not receive any visits . On DATE he received a visit from his defence lawyer . From DATE he was visited by his sisters , initially once DATE and subsequently , after DATE , DATE . Furthermore , the applicant could leave his cell for TIME of outdoor exercise per day in a QUANTITY by walls .","DATE the applicant made many requests to the prison authorities , asking them to allow him to take part in training sessions , workshops , courses or other sports activities organised for the other inmates . All those requests were rejected .","On DATE the dangerous detainee status was lifted . The prison authorities stressed that the applicant \u2019s attitude had improved significantly and that he did not raise any security concerns .","In respect of the full strip - search , the applicant submitted that during periods when he had been detained in a cell with another inmate , the strip - search had been carried out in the cell , and consequently had occurred not only in the presence of CARDINAL prison guards , but also in the presence of the other inmate .","The Government argued that the strip - searches had been performed in an adequately furnished separate room , which was monitored ; the recording could be viewed in a duty room . Any recordings from the surveillance system had been automatically deleted after DATE .","The applicant further maintained that whenever he was outside his cell , including during his appearances at court hearings and medical visits , he had been required to wear the so - called \u201c joined shackles \u201d ( kajdany zespolone ) on his hands and feet .","However , the ORG argued that the applicant had been required to wear \u201c joined shackles \u201d only outside FAC and that inside the prison he had merely been handcuffed .","On DATE the applicant asked the prison authorities to allow him to vote in ORG elections , in the polling station set up for that purpose within the confines of the prison . After carrying out a basic body search with a metal detector , the prison guard took the applicant to a separate room and ordered him to strip naked . As the applicant refused to do so , requesting the guard to allow him to vote without undergoing a full strip - search , he was taken back to his cell without being allowed to vote .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that he had to undergo a strip - search and that consequently he had not been allowed to vote . His complaint was referred to the Head of FAC .","On DATE the Head of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . He stated that as a \u2018 dangerous ORG the applicant was subjected to a body search every time he entered or left his cell . Since the applicant had refused to undergo a full strip - search on CARDINAL DATE while being taken to the prison polling station , the guards had to take him back to his cell . DATE the applicant was again asked whether he wished to participate in the elections but he refused , stating that he would not strip naked .","DATE . On DATE the Head of the Lublin Remand Centre confirmed that all detainees who wished to participate in the parliamentary elections on DATE had voted .","On DATE the applicant was sent to ORG . From DATE he was detained in FAC . He was subsequently detained in FAC and then again in FAC .","The applicant suffers from hyperthyroidism , asthma , severe back pain , bilateral epididymal cysts and hypertension . During his detention in FAC he received pharmacological treatment . He also underwent a thyroid ultrasound ( on DATE ) and a testicular ultrasound . He also consulted specialist doctors .","On several occasions he complained about the delay in obtaining appointments with specialists . In reply , he was informed on CARDINAL DATE that the waiting time for specialist consultations had been similar to that for the population in general .","The applicant submitted that throughout his detention he was held in conditions which fell below the basic levels of hygiene . He also alleged that his cell in FAC had had no ventilation , had little natural light , poor artificial lighting and was badly furnished .","The applicant submitted CARDINAL envelopes from correspondence received from his sister , bearing an illegible signature and the stamps \u201c censored on DATE \u201d , \u201c censored on DATE \u201d and \u201c censored on CARDINAL DATE \u201d respectively . In respect of the letter censored on DATE , an authorisation to receive a package containing copies of the court case files and the applicant \u2019s medical records had been issued by the Head of ORG of FAC and was attached to the envelope . A similar authorisation to receive a copy of the court case files had been issued in respect of the letter censored on DATE and was also attached to the envelope .","On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the medical and nursing staff of the hospital ward of FAC , for making false statements and forgery of the applicant \u2019s signature .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142411","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KVACSKAY v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In a real estate dispute , on DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG .","After CARDINAL remittals , ORG gave judgment on DATE , which was partly reversed by ORG on DATE ( service : DATE ) . On CARDINAL DATE the proceedings were finally terminated , by way of a rectification order ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179435","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOROTEYEV AND SITARSKIY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants alleged that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention and that there was no effective remedy in that regard . They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179403","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF AVDYUSHKIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .","NORP In DATE he deposited GPE dollars in a threemonth account with ORG , a private bank .","In DATE the country suffered a financial crisis , the rouble fell , and the bank defaulted . In DATE the applicant accepted the bank \u2019s offer to settle and close his account in return for the balance in depreciated roubles . By the time the money reached the applicant in DATE , the rouble had depreciated further .","NORP In DATE the bank went into external administration and its debt repayments were frozen pending a restructuring .","In DATE the bank and its creditors negotiated a group settlement of DATE debt and had it approved by the courts . The settlement discharged the bank from fines , penalties , default interest , and damages arising under legislation , contracts with clients , and court decisions .","NORP In DATE the applicant sued the bank for the loss caused by the exchange - rate fluctuations DATE he had accepted the bank \u2019s offer and DATE the money had arrived . The bank objected to that claim on the ground that it had extinguished its obligations by repaying the deposit to the applicant . On DATE the ORG of GPE awarded the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) .","NORP In DATE the applicant filed a writ of execution with a bailiff .","On DATE , on the application of the bank , ORG terminated the enforcement of its judgment in view of the group settlement . ORG said :","Considering the nature of the legal relationship at issue , the court takes into account the fact that the enforcement proceedings have been instituted with the purpose of collecting from [ NORP Credit ] the liabilities that had come into existence before DATE inclusive and , under the ... terms of the friendly settlement , are related to [ the bank \u2019s ] restructured liabilities subject to novation on the terms of the friendly settlement approved by a [ court decision ] that had defined the procedure and terms of the extinction of the liabilities .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , the conclusion of a friendly settlement between a creditor and a debtor constitutes a ground for the termination of the enforcement proceedings , and therefore the [ bank \u2019s ] application shall be granted and the [ enforcement proceedings ] shall be terminated .","NORP In DATE , in reply to the applicant \u2019s query , the bank \u2019s external administrator informed the applicant that his deposit had not been on the books and that under the terms of the group settlement his judgment debt could not be paid .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision , finding that the applicant \u2019s individual claim was to be settled with the group claim . ORG said :","When terminating the [ enforcement ] proceedings the [ ORG ] has referred to the provisions of section CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure and reached the conclusion that the terms of the said friendly settlement regarding the restructuring of the credit obligations of [ NORP Credit ] extended also to [ the applicant ] .","The [ ORG ] agrees with the said conclusion of the [ ORG ] as based on the provisions of the law and confirmed by the circumstances of the present case ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171490","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOLOMIYETS AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181177","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF EJIMSON v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in GPE in DATE and lives in GPE .","In GPE , the applicant completed DATE of schooling and subsequently held various jobs in GPE . After leaving the country , he lived in GPE from DATE , living at first on social security and later working as a DATE - labourer on several farms . In DATE he arrived in GPE , where he applied for asylum under a different identity . His application was finally rejected in DATE . He left GPE for GPE with a NORP national with whom he had started a relationship . In DATE he moved on to GPE , where he worked as a cook and waiter in various restaurants .","NORP In DATE the applicant re - entered GPE . On DATE his daughter , from his above - mentioned relationship , was born . The applicant \u2019s daughter is a NORP national .","In DATE and DATE the applicant and the child \u2019s mother lived together . From the outset they had , and continue to have , joint custody . On DATE , ORG issued the applicant a residence permit based on family ties , valid until DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed an offence under LAW ( Bet\u00e4ubungsmittelgesetz ) .","On DATE the NORP ORG sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for drug trafficking on a large scale . It observed that the applicant had recruited and instructed the child \u2019s mother as a drugs runner for CARDINAL separate consignments of cocaine from LOC to LOC in DATE and in DATE . It considered , in favour of the applicant , that this was his first criminal conviction , that the first delivery had failed ( the drugs did not actually enter the distribution system ) , and that the applicant had been detained on remand since DATE . ORG held against the applicant that he had used as drugs runners CARDINAL young women who were adolescents at the time the offences were committed , and who ran the risk of a lengthy prison sentence in LOC ; that he had exploited the naivety of his daughter \u2019s mother ; that a large amount of cocaine was meant to be smuggled in the first case and that QUANTITY of cocaine were smuggled into LOC in the second case ; and that the entire undertaking had been handled very professionally . In addition , ORG considered that a conviction for a third case of drug smuggling could not be envisaged for the sole reason that the precise amount of cocaine transported in a suitcase from GPE to GPE could not be determined .","The applicant submitted that his daughter and her mother had visited him in prison DATE and that he had sought a court ruling on contact with his daughter , when the child \u2019s mother discontinued the visits . On DATE , the applicant and the child \u2019s mother agreed before ORG that supervised meetings between him and his daughter would take place as soon as he was released from prison . As of DATE , the daughter visited the applicant regularly in prison DATE every four weeks for TIME at a time \u2013 in the company of a priest .","On DATE the applicant was released , after having served his entire sentence . He was placed under supervision of conduct ( F\u00fchrungsaufsicht ) until DATE .","After his release , the applicant was granted exceptional leave to remain ( PERSON ) under LAW of LAW \u2013 according to the information available to ORG this was granted most recently in DATE and would last until DATE . It meant that enforcement of the expulsion order was temporarily suspended , being impossible to execute as the applicant did not have a valid passport ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . He began occupational re - training as a management assistant in marketing communication in DATE , which he successfully completed in DATE , but was not allowed to engage in gainful employment since his release .","The applicant has not lived with his daughter and her mother since his release . Since DATE they have been living in different cities , with distances between their homes varying QUANTITY and the travelling time varying TIME . The applicant sees his daughter on a regular basis and maintains close contact with her . It is not disputed between the parties that she spends DATE with him . According to a social worker \u2019s statement , he has become an important contact person for her . Both the applicant \u2019s daughter and her mother explicitly wish the applicant \u2019s contact with his child to continue .","NORP Since his release , the applicant was convicted of CARDINAL offences by ORG , of fraud in DATE and of theft in DATE and DATE . He was sentenced to CARDINAL , thirty and ninety day - fines , respectively . By being present on NORP territory without having a passport , he committed an ongoing offence under LAW . Criminal proceedings in this connection were discontinued by the public prosecutor in DATE because the applicant \u2019s guilt was considered to be of a minor nature and because prosecution was not in the public interest . The matter was referred to the administrative authority for treatment as an administrative offence .","On DATE the Authority of the City of GPE refused to renew the applicant \u2019s residence permit and ordered his expulsion . It held that the applicant \u2019s expulsion was mandatory pursuant to LAW of LAW ; since DATE : Section CARDINAL of LAW ) which foresaw the mandatory expulsion of an alien if he or she were sentenced to either CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for a criminal offence , or to any period of imprisonment ( not on probation ) for an offence under LAW . The authority examined whether the applicant enjoyed special protection against expulsion because he was the father of a NORP child . It found that the applicant had lived with his daughter only for a short time prior to his imprisonment , she had thus experienced separation from the applicant and that , in the light of the applicant \u2019s very serious criminal offences , the ORG \u2019s interest in removing the applicant prevailed over his interest in enjoying family life with his daughter . He could remain in contact with her by letter or telephone and could apply for permission to enter GPE for specific periods of time ( NORP ) . It considered that the applicant \u2019s expulsion was in conformity with LAW . This decision , which also contained an unlimited re - entry ban and notice that he would be deported to GPE if he did not leave GPE voluntarily within DATE after being released from prison , became final on DATE .","On DATE , after the applicant had served CARDINAL of his prison sentence , the authorities envisaged his expulsion as of DATE .","On DATE the applicant introduced another asylum application ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE , ORG dismissed his application as manifestly illfounded under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and , finding that there were no impediments to his return to his country of origin , ordered his expulsion . The decision again contained notice that he would be deported to GPE if he did not leave GPE voluntarily within DATE after the decision became final . On DATE , ORG granted suspensive effect to the applicant \u2019s appeal in the asylum procedure . On DATE it dismissed his appeal in the main procedure , also finding , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s ties to his daughter could not be taken into account in the asylum procedure . This decision became final on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied for a residence permit based on family ties .","On DATE the Authority of the City of GPE rejected his application , holding that there was a final expulsion decision ( of DATE ) against the applicant , which precluded granting him a residence permit . No impediments arose from the fact that his daughter was a NORP national . The applicant could maintain contact with her through letters , telephone calls and occasional visits . His daughter was accustomed to a long - distance relationship with him . He was responsible for the renewed separation and the purpose of the expulsion order had not yet been achieved . At the same time , it reduced the re - entry ban to DATE and ruled that the applicant could , starting DATE after his actual expulsion , apply for permission to enter GPE DATE for a total of DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed that decision and ordered the administrative authority to issue a residence permit . It noted that the applicant met the requirements for a residence permit based on family ties , but that granting such a permit was precluded by the final expulsion decision . However , the applicant was entitled to a residence permit on humanitarian grounds in accordance with LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , with the margin of appreciation inherent in this provision being reduced to CARDINAL . LAW of LAW was not applicable to this provision and the applicant \u2019s departure was impossible in law due to his family life with his daughter , which was protected , inter alia , by LAW .","ORG found that , despite the serious nature of the criminal offences the applicant had committed , there was no public interest that outweighed the child \u2019s best interests and the applicant \u2019s interest in having contact with his daughter . The relationship between the applicant and his daughter had the quality of a \u201c family \u201d and their ties were of benefit to the child . It considered that they could only live together in GPE , as the child could not be expected to relocate to GPE ; that the applicant had committed the criminal offences prior to the birth of his daughter ; that he had made considerable efforts as a father , as was also evidenced by his choice to remain imprisoned in GPE and to have supervised meetings with his daughter as of DATE rather than having his sentence suspended and being expelled as of DATE ; that the latter event marked a turning point , which occurred after the expulsion order had become final in DATE and which had not been taken into account by the administrative authorities ; that the child had already been deprived of a relationship with her father for DATE during his imprisonment ; that the material assessment with a view to the applicant \u2019s expulsion had been conducted on DATE , DATE before the developments in the fatherdaughter relationship and the moment the expulsion order would be enforced ; and that the enforcement of the expulsion order in connection with a re - entry ban would deprive the child of the possibility of a normal father - daughter relationship for the remainder of her childhood .","On DATE ORG overturned that judgment and denied the applicant \u2019s right to a residence permit . It considered that his asylum application had been rejected as manifestly ill - founded under LAW of LAW and that , therefore , in accordance with LAW , second sentence , of FAC , he could not be granted a residence permit prior to leaving GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The exception to this rule , foreseen in the third sentence of this paragraph , was not applicable because the applicant did not have a claim to a residence permit within the meaning of that provision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","First , a claim to a residence permit based on family ties under Sections CARDINAL et seq . of FAC was precluded by LAW of LAW due to the final expulsion order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Second , a claim to a residence permit on humanitarian grounds under LAW of LAW was proscribed because the applicant did not have a valid passport , which was a general requirement for the granting of a residence permit ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As the decision to waive this requirement in cases concerning residence permits on humanitarian grounds was a discretionary one , the applicant did not have a claim to a residence permit within the meaning of LAW , third sentence , of FAC , not even if the margin of appreciation were reduced to CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Third , the court found that the applicant could not base a claim to a residence permit on impediments to his return to his country of origin either , referring to the outcome of the asylum proceedings in DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG concluded that , under these circumstances , it was not decisive whether the ties between the applicant and his daughter were such that the requirements for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW were met , if the applicant \u2019s asylum application had not been dismissed , and refrained from elaborating on this aspect .","On DATE the applicant lodged an action to be granted leave to appeal on points of law , arguing that his case raised a matter of fundamental importance . He submitted that he should be granted a residence permit under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW because , as the father of a minor child of NORP nationality for whom he had joint custody , he did , in principle , have a claim to a residence permit based on family ties . The purpose of LAW of LAW was to sanction abuse of the asylum procedure , but an abusive asylum application should not bear negative consequences where the foreigner had a claim , within the meaning of that provision , to a residence permit . In that regard , it should be decisive whether or not the substantive requirements of the respective provision for a residence permit were met , as in his case with regard to the permit based on family ties , and that the reason for the claim not being realised , in his case the final expulsion order against him , should not be relevant .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s action . It noted that , according to the case - law of the domestic courts , the exception foreseen in LAW , third sentence , of FAC only applied to claims that followed directly from legislative provisions and in respect of which all requirements , general and specific , were met . A residence permit based on family ties was precluded because of the final expulsion order against the applicant . Under these circumstances , granting a residence permit on humanitarian grounds was to be considered . However , as the applicant did not have a valid passport , which was a general requirement for the granting of a residence permit from which derogations were , in cases concerning LAW of LAW , possible only by way of a discretionary decision , the exception foreseen in LAW , third sentence , of FAC was not applicable . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , alleging that the decisions of ORG and of ORG violated his right to respect for his family life with his daughter . On DATE ORG declined to accept the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint without providing reasons ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","After the Authority of GPE , on DATE , had ordered the applicant to present himself to ORG in GPE so that a passport for the upcoming expulsion could be issued , the applicant refused to do so and filed an action against this order with ORG . During the court hearing on DATE , the applicant and the immigration authorities agreed to the following :","\u201c - The effect of the re - entry ban will be limited to DATE after leaving GPE .","- The immigration authorities will give their consent for a visa to enter GPE based on family reunion . If the applicant by then still has joint custody with the child \u2019s mother , a residence permit on the grounds of family ties will be issued . If the applicant no longer has joint custody for his daughter , the immigration authority will use its discretion regarding the issue of a residence permit in favour of the applicant .","- All of this applies only if the applicant can show that he has not committed further criminal offences and if no other reasons for his expulsion emerge .","- A timelimit for leaving the country is set at DATE . \u201d","In the light of this agreement , the applicant withdrew his action , and the proceedings before ORG were discontinued .","On DATE ORG in GPE declared that it would not issue a passport to the applicant as long as the proceedings before this Court were pending . On DATE the applicant informed the immigration authorities that he would not leave GPE , contrary to his initial plans and to his declaration before ORG . As a result , the agreement concluded before that court became void ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147032","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MALYSH AND IVANIN v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant in the first case , Mr Sergiy Valentynovych Malysh , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) .","The applicant in the second case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) .","The facts of the ORG cases , as submitted by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants instituted separate sets of proceedings before the administrative courts claiming that their special pension and insurance payments had been wrongly calculated by the authorities . The courts rejected the ORG claims as unsubstantiated , finding that the impugned payments had been in accordance with the law and with due regard to the applicants\u2019 specific circumstances . The final decisions were taken by ORG on DATE in the first applicant \u2019s case and by ORG on DATE in the second applicant \u2019s case . The applicants did not take part in the hearings on DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the first applicant \u2019s cassation appeal , finding that no cassation appeal lay against the appeal court \u2019s decision of DATE .","The applicants did not indicate the dates on which they were informed of the decisions in their cases .","On DATE the first applicant made submissions to the ORG from which it appeared that he intended to lodge an application under the ORG . By a letter of DATE , the ORG invited the first applicant to submit , by DATE at the latest , a duly completed application form together with copies of all relevant documents . The ORG \u2019s letter enclosed copies of the ORG , an official application form and the ORG \u2019s information note for persons wishing to apply to the ORG . On DATE the ORG received the first applicant \u2019s application form , in which he complained principally about the outcome and unfairness of the domestic proceedings in his case . By a letter of DATE , the ORG informed the first applicant that he had not complied with the requirements set out in Rule CARDINAL of ORG , as he had failed to provide copies of all relevant documents relating to exhaustion of domestic remedies , in particular copies of his appeals . The first applicant was further informed that his complaints could not be examined by the ORG and that the DATE period referred to in LAW was interrupted only when a complete application was sent to ORG .","On DATE the second applicant sent an application form to the ORG , in which he complained about the outcome and alleged unfairness of the domestic proceedings in his case . On DATE the ORG received the second applicant \u2019s application . By a letter of DATE , the ORG informed the second applicant that he had not complied with the requirements of Rule CARDINAL of ORG , as he had failed to provide copies of all relevant documents relating to exhaustion of domestic remedies , in particular copies of his claim and appeals . The second applicant was also informed that his complaints could not be examined by the ORG and that the DATE period referred to in LAW was interrupted only when a complete application was sent to ORG .","On DATE respectively the first and second applicants lodged new applications forms with the ORG concerning the same subject - matter as in their initial submissions . The applicants\u2019 new applications enclosed copies of the domestic courts\u2019 decisions and of the ORG claims and appeals . In his new application , the second applicant stated that , due to his age and poor state of health , claiming that he suffered from a disability , it had taken him a long time to get to the places where he could receive the help and information necessary for the preparation of his application to the ORG . He provided no further details or documents concerning his health problems or the alleged complications he faced in the preparation of his application ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174971","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LYSENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . They also argued that they did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about the poor detention conditions ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152731","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF AD\u017dI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE ( GPE ) .","On DATE the applicant married PERSON , a NORP national , in GPE ( GPE ) . On DATE PERSON gave birth to their son , N.A. In DATE she moved to GPE to join her husband .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s wife and son spent DATE in GPE . They were supposed to return to GPE on DATE . Instead , the applicant \u2019s wife sent him an e - mail , informing him that she and their son were to remain in GPE and that she had brought a civil action against him there , seeking a divorce ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s legal representative sent an e - mail to ORG ( ORG zdravstva i socijalne skrbi , hereafter \u201c the relevant Ministry \u201d ) , as ORG within the meaning of the DATE LAW on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ( \u201c the Hague Convention \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She asked the Ministry to urgently contact the applicant \u2019s wife and take other appropriate measures to seek the voluntary return of the child until the receipt of the official request under LAW from ORG .","On DATE the Ministry forwarded the applicant \u2019s request to the competent local social welfare centre with a view to establishing his wife \u2019s intentions regarding their son and the possibility of a voluntary return to GPE . The centre immediately invited her for an interview . During the interview of DATE she stated that while living in GPE she had been subjected to constant psychological abuse by the applicant . She did not oppose the applicant \u2019s having contact with their son , but insisted that any contact take place under the supervision of a child welfare professional .","On DATE the ORG received an official request from ORG under LAW for the return of the applicant \u2019s son .","On DATE the ORG forwarded the request for return to ORG ( Op\u0107inski gra\u0111anski sud u GPE ) and thus instituted non - contentious proceedings for the return of the applicant \u2019s son . The court received the request DATE .","On DATE the court invited the local social welfare centre to submit a report on the applicant \u2019s wife \u2019s social and financial situation , the reasons for her taking the child to GPE , the child \u2019s general and psychological condition , and the potential effects on his mental development of any decision to return him to GPE . On DATE the court also invited the applicant \u2019s wife to respond to her husband \u2019s request for the boy to be returned .","In her response of CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s wife opposed his request for the return of their child , with or without her . She submitted in particular that the applicant had agreed to her trip to GPE and that his consent was not time - limited . She also stated that the applicant had expressly forbidden her to return to their flat in GPE , that he had been abusing her , and that there , unlike in GPE , she had been completely dependent on him in every way ( financially , economically , and in terms of accommodation ) . Lastly , she claimed that no significant changes had occurred in the care the child was receiving , given that she had been the CARDINAL taking care of their son thus far , which was the reason why the child was very emotionally attached to her .","On DATE the court reiterated its request of CARDINAL DATE to the local social welfare centre .","On DATE the local social welfare centre submitted its report and supplemented it , at the court \u2019s request , DATE . The report stated that the applicant \u2019s wife was taking adequate care of their son and recognised his needs , that she was emotionally positively focused on him and that he was affectionate towards her . The report also stated that she did not undermine the applicant \u2019s role as a father , and that she encouraged the child to have contact with him , but that she felt the need to protect him from the applicant \u2019s possible irrational behaviour , which concern the centre considered credible . The child was mentally stable , showed no signs of trauma due to the separation from his father , and had adapted well to the new situation . The report noted that the child was emotionally attached to his mother , with whom he had spent DATE since birth , and that separation from her and returning him to his father would be traumatic . The centre therefore considered that returning the child to GPE would not be in his best interest .","On DATE the applicant submitted to the court a certified copy of the decision of a court in GPE of CARDINAL DATE granting him interim custody of his son .","In her submissions of CARDINAL DATE his wife argued that the report of the social welfare centre suggested that returning her son to GPE would expose him to psychological harm or place him in an intolerable situation within the meaning of LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She therefore invited the court to dismiss the applicant \u2019s request for return on that ground .","On DATE the relevant Ministry asked the court to inform it of developments in the case . The court delivered the requested information on DATE .","On DATE the court invited the applicant \u2019s representative to submit rectified translations of the documents submitted on DATE , given that certain dates had been wrongly translated . The applicant did so on CARDINAL DATE .","In his submissions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant argued that the report and recommendation of the local social welfare centre did not correspond to the objectives , spirit and purpose of LAW . He explained that the purpose of LAW was the prompt return of the child , and not an assessment of the child \u2019s adaptation to a new environment . The applicant further argued that his wife had not presented any evidence for her allegations of abuse , and that she had never intended to establish a permanent relationship with him . He averred that tolerating his wife \u2019s conduct in the proceedings constituted a violation of LAW , LAW and LAW .","In her submissions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s wife replied by contesting all the applicant \u2019s arguments , and submitted evidence in support of her allegations of abuse . In particular , she submitted a letter from the president and founder of the association for the protection of victims of domestic violence WISH , based in GPE , where she had sought help while living in GPE . She also stated that the applicant no longer lived in their matrimonial home in GPE and wondered where the child was supposed to return .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for the return of the child . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c ... having regard to the fact that the separation of ORG from his mother and from a safe environment would without a doubt have harmful and traumatic consequences for his psychological development , and that granting the applicant \u2019s request might cause psychological trauma to the child and place him in an unfavourable position within the meaning of LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) of the [ LAW , and having regard to the mother \u2019s fear that the child would , upon his return to GPE , be subject to psychological and verbal abuse , which fear was deemed justified by the psychologist and the social worker of the social welfare centre ... and having regard to the fact that on DATE proceedings for divorce of the parties were instituted , in which proceedings the court should decide on custody of the child and on the other parent \u2019s contact rights , the petitioner \u2019s request must be dismissed , without violating LAW , it was decided as in the operative part of this decision . \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision , alleging procedural errors , incomplete findings of fact , and misapplication of substantive law as grounds for appeal . In particular , the applicant argued that his wife \u2019s submissions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE had been served on him together with the contested first - instance decision and thus in breach of the principle of equality of arms , that the court had not held a single hearing in the case , and that it had wrongly applied LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW .","On DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal , quashed the first - instance decision and remitted the case . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c ... the first - instance court based [ its ] decision in part on undisputed facts , and in the relevant part on the arguments and the evidence submitted by the counterparty ... even though it failed to give an opportunity to the petitioner to comment on them ... [ T]herefore the petitioner \u2019s appeal had to be allowed , the first - instance decision quashed and the case remitted ... \u201d","On DATE the decision of ORG was served on ORG .","In the resumed proceedings , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant sought the withdrawal of Judge PERSON , the first - instance court judge sitting in the case , for alleged bias on her part in favour of his wife . On DATE the President of ORG granted the application for the judge \u2019s withdrawal , and on DATE assigned the case to another judge .","In his submissions of CARDINAL DATE the applicant invited the court to review recordings of his conversations with his son via ORG , and asked for a provisional measure ordering the seizure of his son \u2019s passport with a view to preventing his wife from removing him from GPE .","On DATE the court invited the applicant to submit certificates from the relevant GPE authorities on his son \u2019s habitual residence in that country and the social background of the child within the meaning of LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the applicant submitted documents on his permanent residence and his son \u2019s habitual residence in GPE , and on DATE he submitted information on the social background of the child .","On DATE the applicant urged the court to schedule a hearing .","On DATE the court ordered the local social welfare centre to promptly assess whether the child was settled in his new environment in terms of LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In submissions she made on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the applicant \u2019s wife reiterated that she believed that the evidence showed that the applicant was abusive , and in that respect pointed to the opinion of the psychologist from the local social welfare centre , who had indicated that the applicant \u2019s communication with his son via ORG constituted emotional blackmail and amounted to emotional abuse . She emphasised that she could not return to GPE , because her green card had expired and she did not have any means of supporting herself there .","On DATE the local social welfare centre submitted the opinion of its psychologist prepared on the basis of interviews with the applicant \u2019s wife and son . The psychologist stated that the child \u2019s physical and mental development was normal and that he had adapted well . She emphasised that owing to his age and his mother \u2019s constant care for him since birth the child was emotionally primarily attached to her ; separating them would therefore be traumatising for him .","In his submissions of DATE the applicant argued that the psychologist \u2019s opinion was flawed , unprofessional and arbitrary . He therefore proposed that his son be examined by independent experts , namely an institution with no role in the proceedings . The court eventually agreed to the applicant \u2019s proposal , and on DATE and DATE decided to obtain an opinion from a forensic expert in psychiatry ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","In submissions made on CARDINAL and DATE the applicant \u2019s wife commented on the documents on the child \u2019s social background submitted by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She stated that those documents were not relevant , because they had not been provided by the competent authorities of GPE but by a private law firm lacking in professional competencies and jurisdiction for issuing such documents . She stated , inter alia , that the lawyer who had compiled the report did not speak NORP and thus could not possibly have understood the applicant \u2019s conversations with his son and make an assessment .","In his submissions of CARDINAL DATE the applicant argued that his wife \u2019s conduct in the proceedings amounted to abuse of process and warned the court that the resultant delay was operating in her favour .","On DATE the court invited the applicant to submit evidence that his wife , as his son \u2019s mother , could return to GPE , in particular that she would be provided with a visa , accommodation and a work permit . The applicant did so on DATE ; his wife made further comments on DATE .","In his submissions of CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated that the way the court had conducted the proceedings was unacceptable in view of their nature and the ORG \u2019s obligation under LAW . He further submitted that his rights under LAW had also been violated .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife responded to his submission , also citing LAW . She also reiterated that she could no longer return to GPE , because her green card had expired .","On DATE the forensic expert in psychiatry ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) submitted her expert opinion and report on whether the return to GPE would expose the child to psychological harm . The opinion and report were prepared after conducting CARDINAL interviews with the applicant \u2019s son on DATE , the first in the presence of the mother and the second in her absence . She stated that : ( a ) the child was well adapted to his new environment , ( b ) he was showing no signs of trauma , ( c ) the applicant \u2019s wife did not have a negative influence on the child regarding his relationship with the applicant as his father , ( d ) the separation from his mother as primary caregiver and \u201c safe base \u201d would traumatise him , ( e ) transferring the child into a different environment would also constitute a trauma , but that he would be able to overcome it if his mother lived with him and if he lived in a harmonious environment , ( f ) the relationship between the child and his mother was positive , enabling him to develop a \u201c secure attachment \u201d to her , ( g ) the relationship between the child and his father could not be assessed , as the father had not been subjected to an expert assessment . As regards this last point the expert nevertheless made the following observations :","\u201c ORG is a boy who is securely attached to his mother but also has a positive attitude towards his father , which means that the mother did not influence him [ in that regard ] by expressing negative views , stories , and so on ... CARDINAL important factor is that the boy talks with his father , which he mentioned during the assessment , and in this way forms an opinion about him . What is most important however is that the parents coordinate their [ behaviour ] towards the child in order not to confuse him , which could jeopardise his normal mental development . During the assessment of the boy I did not find that such an issue was present ... [ The child ] does not object to going to GPE , but accepts it only if it is temporary and his mother can come along ... He does not show , verbally or non - verbally , any aversion to his father . It is therefore assumed that the mother influences him positively in that regard . \u201d","NORP On DATE the relevant Ministry invited ORG to speed up the proceedings and again submit a progress report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court submitted the requested report on DATE .","In his submissions of CARDINAL DATE the applicant commented on the expert report and opinion . He argued that the report suggested that his son had good memories of him and a positive attitude towards him , and that it was therefore evident that his return to GPE would not expose him to the risk envisaged in LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW . As regards the expert \u2019s finding that the child \u2019s return would be a traumatic experience for him , the applicant submitted that this would not have been the case had the domestic courts ordered his return within the time - limit set forth in LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW . In any event , the evidence he submitted had suggested that his wife could accompany his son on his return to GPE , which according to the expert would have eliminated the risk of trauma .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife commented on the expert report and opinion by endorsing it . She argued that they , together with the previous opinions and reports of the local social welfare centre , suggested that it was evident the child should not be returned , as he would thereby suffer psychological trauma . The conditions set forth in LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) had therefore been met .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for his son to be returned . It first held that the applicant \u2019s wife \u2019s removal of their son from GPE to GPE was \u201c wrongful \u201d within the meaning of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It then held , relying exclusively on the opinion and report of the local social welfare centre of DATE and the opinion of the forensic expert in psychiatry of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , that the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s return to GPE would expose him to risk envisaged in LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) of the said Convention , but only if he returned without his mother . However , since the applicant had not proved that she could freely return to GPE and get a job there , the court concluded that the conditions for refusing the return of the child set forth in that Article had been met .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision . He referred to procedural errors , incomplete findings of facts , and misapplication of the substantive law as grounds for appeal . In particular , the applicant submitted that the first - instance court had , in breach of the principle of adversarial hearing , not held a single hearing in the case , and that it had not informed him of its decision to obtain an opinion from a forensic expert in psychiatry , thus preventing him from objecting to the choice of the expert . He further complained that he had not been involved in the expert \u2019s assessment , even though he had previously expressed willingness to make himself available for such an assessment . The applicant also stated that the court had required him to prove that his wife could return to GPE and find a job there , instead of asking her to prove that she could not . It had thereby unjustifiably shifted the burden of proof to him as regards those matters . Moreover , as regards those matters the court had drawn the wrong conclusions from the evidence presented , and had embarked on an interpretation of foreign law it was not familiar with . Lastly , the applicant argued that the first - instance court had wrongly applied LAW paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the second - instance decision . It would appear that the proceedings are currently pending before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time ( zahtjev za za\u0161titu prava na su\u0111enje u razumnom roku ) with ORG about the length of the above proceedings . He argued that the proceedings had lasted for DATE and DATE without a scheduled hearing or a decision rendered , contrary to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW .","By a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . It held that the proceedings complained of had thus far lasted DATE and DATE , which could not be considered excessive , especially as there had been no substantial periods of inactivity .","DATE . On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision .","By a decision of DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision of DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant \u2019s wife brought a civil action against the applicant in ORG seeking a divorce and custody of their son .","On DATE she asked the court to issue a provisional measure granting her interim custody of ORG until delivery of the final judgment in those proceedings .","In his submissions of DATE the applicant argued that the NORP courts lacked international jurisdiction in the case , and submitted a certified translation of the decision of a court in GPE of DATE granting him sole custody of his son .","At the hearing held on DATE the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection regarding lack of jurisdiction .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court issued the provisional measure requested by the applicant \u2019s wife and awarded her interim custody of their son .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG .","On DATE that court returned the case file to ORG , warning it that under LAW the judicial or administrative authorities of the ORG to which the child had been removed were not entitled to decide on the right of custody of the child until it had been determined under LAW that the child was not to be returned ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , it instructed ORG to ascertain whether a final decision had been given in the proceedings for the return of the child . If no such decision was adopted , ORG further instructed ORG to stay the proceedings until the delivery of such a decision ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174064","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF S\u0130N\u0130M v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s husband , PERSON , entered into an agreement with a truck owner , PERSON , for the transportation of some personal goods and furniture from GPE to GPE on DATE . According to the applicant \u2019s allegations , her husband was informed that the truck in question had been booked by a transport company for DATE and that it would also be carrying some raw materials belonging to another client .","On the date in question the applicant \u2019s husband loaded his goods into the truck and got into it as a passenger . However , before reaching its destination the truck collided with another vehicle and caught fire . The truck \u2019s driver and substitute driver died at the scene of the accident as a result of the fire . The applicant \u2019s husband died DATE at the hospital where he had been receiving treatment for his burns .","It was discovered after the accident that the \u201c raw materials \u201d being transported in the truck with the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s goods were in fact an inflammable liquid , which had caught fire upon impact . According to the police scene - of - incident report , the containers that had contained the spilt inflammable liquid bore the words \u201c \u015eenocak chafing fuel \u201d .","An autopsy report issued on DATE by ORG stated that the applicant \u2019s husband had died as a result of the burns he had sustained at the time of the accident rather than from trauma caused by the impact of the crash .","According to the initial report prepared by the traffic police at the scene , the driver of the truck , whose identity could not be established at the time , bore the main responsibility for the accident as he had hit the other vehicle , driven by ORG , from behind .","On DATE officers from Sultanbeyli police station took statements from the applicant , ORG and the owner of the truck , GPE , who was also the son of CARDINAL of the truck drivers , PERSON confirmed in his statement that he was the owner of the truck , which his father PERSON had loaded with goods to be transported to GPE . He stated that a third person , namely GPE , had also been in the truck to help his father during the journey . He was not asked any questions about the nature of the goods transported .","On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor \u2019s office against GPE , GPE , and the transport company to which the truck had been leased , if any , for causing her husband \u2019s death by illegally carrying dangerous inflammable goods . The applicant stressed in her complaint that the incident in question had not been a simple traffic accident caused by negligence , and that her husband had lost his life because of the inflammable goods that had been loaded unlawfully in the truck without his knowledge and consent . The applicant argued that if her husband had been properly informed of the nature of the truck \u2019s cargo , he would never have agreed to travel in it . The applicant therefore requested the identification of all the individuals or companies who may have been responsible for her husband \u2019s death , including the transporter , the seller and the buyer of the inflammable goods . She also requested to be informed of developments in the investigation as she intended to join the proceedings as a civil party ( m\u00fcdahil ) .","On DATE submitted a petition to the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor \u2019s office for an investigation into the liability for the accident of both the transport company which had leased his truck and of the seller and buyer of the inflammable cargo , whom he accused of concealing the dangerous nature of the goods in question . As evidence , he submitted the invoice and delivery note ( sevk irsaliyesi ) prepared on DATE by the transport company ORG Ltd. PERSON . ( \u201c PERSON Ltd. GPE . \u201d ) for the recipient , PERSON ve ORG PERSON . ( \u201c PERSON Ltd. GPE . \u201d ) , where the shipment was described as \u201c raw materials \u201d without any further details . GPE stated that if it had been made clear that the goods involved were inflammable then they would have been transported in accordance with the conditions set out in the law , which might have prevented the fatal accident .","On DATE the applicant filed an additional complaint against the producer of the inflammable liquid , which she had identified as ORG GPE . based on the information provided in the scene - of - incident report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant claimed that the liquid in question contained ethanol and methanol , which had both been classified as \u201c hazardous goods subject to control \u201d in the Regulation on Dangerous Goods and the Regulation on the Transport by Land of Dangerous Goods , and which accordingly had to be packed , labelled , stored and transported in compliance with the strict requirements set down in those regulations . Moreover , under the Regulation on the Transport by Land of Dangerous Goods , it was prohibited to carry passengers , apart from a substitute driver and a guard , in vehicles transporting dangerous goods . Having regard to the various responsibilities imposed by the relevant legislation on the producer , seller , transporter and buyer of such goods , the applicant requested that the public prosecutor ( i ) check if PERSON Ltd. PERSON . was the producer and whether it also engaged in the distribution of such material ; ( ii ) establish whether the truck in question had been leased by a transport company or by PERSON Ltd. GPE . itself and whether it had a licence to carry such dangerous goods ; and ( iii ) identify the buyer of the goods . She also repeated her request to be informed of developments in the investigation .","On DATE , at the request of the Sultanbeyli prosecutor , a traffic engineer submitted an expert report , where it was found that the deceased truck driver PERSON had been responsible for the accident by failing to comply with the law applying to vehicles carrying inflammable goods on keeping a distance of QUANTITY . The expert found that S.S.H. , the driver of the other vehicle , had not been at fault .","Relying mainly on the expert report , on DATE the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor found that the only person responsible for the accident within the meaning of LAW of LAW ( causing death by negligence \u2013 see paragraph DATE below ) was PERSON However , since PERSON had also lost his life in the accident , the public prosecutor decided against prosecution . GPE was listed as the sole complainant in the decision , which was not notified to the applicant .","After finding out about the decision on her own initiative , on DATE the applicant objected to the public prosecutor \u2019s decision not to prosecute , arguing mainly that the issues she had raised in her petitions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE had not been taken into account by the public prosecutor . She reiterated that her husband had not been informed that the truck was carrying inflammable liquids , and also argued that the prosecutor had failed to identify the companies involved in the shipment of such dangerous goods , including the seller , buyer and transport company , and had not established the relations of the truck owner , GPE , to those companies . She argued that it was of the utmost importance to collect that information in order to establish the facts and to identify those responsible for the accident , apart from the driver of the truck . She added that despite the numerous complaints she had lodged with the public prosecutor \u2019s office and her requests to be informed of developments in the investigation , she had not been named as a complainant in the public prosecutor \u2019s decision and the decision had not been notified to her .","It appears that GPE , as the other complainant , did not lodge an objection against the public prosecutor \u2019s decision .","On DATE ORG rejected the objection against the decision of the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor not to prosecute PERSON and S.S.H. It held , nevertheless , that complaints lodged by ORG PERSON . and PERSON Ltd. PERSON . had remained unanswered and instructed the PERSON public prosecutor to investigate their liability for the accident . GPE was once again listed as the sole complainant in the decision , which was not notified to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant submitted a petition to the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor \u2019s office , asking it to investigate the matters raised in her previous petitions . The applicant also stressed that despite her numerous requests , she had , once again , not been recognised as a complainant in ORG decision .","It appears that on DATE an agent of the transport company ORG GPE . , a certain PERSON , was questioned about the accident for the first time by the police . ORG stated that ORG PERSON . had requested a truck from them to transport some goods . The company had , however , put PERSON Ltd. GPE . in touch with GPE , who provided transportation services with his truck upon request , and they had had no further involvement with the shipment in question .","In a further petition submitted by the applicant to the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE , she expressed her concern that the investigation after ORG decision had appeared to focus solely on the liability of the transport company ORG GPE . , whereas both PERSON Ltd. GPE . , as the producer and\/or the shipper of the goods , and GPE , as the owner of the truck , also bore responsibility for the accident on account of their failure to comply with the relevant legislation on the transport of dangerous goods .","On an unspecified date the PERSON public prosecutor asked the traffic branch of ORG to prepare a report to determine the respective liability of ORG GPE . and PERSON Ltd. GPE . , or any others , for the accident in question . In its response dated DATE ORG stated that there was no information in the case file on ORG PERSON . and that , in the absence of such information , it could not report on the requested matters .","On DATE GPE , the owner of ORG GPE . , was questioned about the accident for the first time by the police . PERSON stated that he had requested a truck from ORG GPE . to send goods to his company \u2019s GPE branch . A truck owned by GPE had been provided to him by ORG GPE . and he had loaded it with the goods in question . He confirmed that the truck had been involved in an accident shortly after loading and that it and his goods had been destroyed in a fire .","Following the receipt of the above information , on DATE ORG submitted its report on the accident . It found that there was no information in the file that the truck in question had been loaded with inflammable goods by ORG GPE . There was , furthermore , no information on the identity of the recipient of the shipment . Although containers bearing the name \u201c \u015eenocak \u201d had been found in the truck after the accident , there was no other evidence in the file to enable the Institute to determine who had loaded the truck . In those circumstances , it had not been possible to establish the liability of PERSON Ltd. GPE . , PERSON Ltd. GPE . , or anyone else for the accident .","On DATE the applicant submitted objections to ORG report . She contested the finding that there had been no evidence to suggest the involvement of ORG GPE . with the shipment in question . She argued that the owner of ORG GPE . had made it clear in his police statement that the truck had been loaded with his company \u2019s goods , which had consisted of chafing fuel . Moreover , in response to the compensation request she had made to ORG ( see below paragraph CARDINAL for further details ) , the owner of ORG GPE . had stated , inter alia , that he had also suffered a loss as a result of the accident as he had lost all of his merchandise . A representative of PERSON Ltd. GPE . had similarly told ORG of First Instance that the truck involved in the accident had been sent to ORG GPE . for loading , accompanied by a delivery note prepared by them on DATE . In the applicant \u2019s opinion , those statements provided sufficient proof that the inflammable goods loaded in the truck had belonged to ORG GPE . On the basis of that information , and having regard to the legal requirements in the relevant legislation on the packaging , labelling , storing and transportation of inflammable goods , none of which had been observed in the instant case , it was clear that both PERSON Ltd. PERSON . and PERSON . , as well as the owner and driver of the truck , had been responsible for the accident .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG prosecutor decided not to prosecute representatives of ORG GPE . and PERSON Ltd. GPE . on the basis of ORG report of DATE . In the decision , the public prosecutor did not respond to any of the applicant \u2019s allegations .","On DATE the applicant objected to that decision . Reiterating mainly the arguments she had raised in her objection to ORG report , she submitted that the public prosecutor had failed to establish the facts of the case and had disregarded essential evidence in the investigation file which pointed to the representatives of ORG GPE . and PERSON Ltd. GPE , GPE and the deceased driver of the truck as being criminally liable for the accident .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s objection , without responding to any of her arguments .","On DATE the applicant brought an action for compensation before ORG of First Instance against ORG GPE . , PERSON Ltd. GPE , the owner of the truck , GPE , the heirs of both dead truck drivers , and an insurance company . Reiterating the legal requirements for the packaging , labelling , storage and transportation of dangerous goods that she had referred to during the criminal proceedings , the applicant argued that the defendants had caused her husband \u2019s death by their failure to comply with the relevant legislation .","On unspecified dates , representatives of ORG GPE . and PERSON Ltd. PERSON . responded to the applicant \u2019s allegations , as noted in paragraph CARDINAL above .","At the request of ORG of First Instance , on DATE CARDINAL experts from the traffic branch of ORG submitted a report ( \u201c the first report \u201d ) on the GPE liability for the accident in question , where they made the following findings :","- \u015eenocak Ltd. GPE . , which was the producer of the inflammable goods in question , had requested PERSON Ltd. GPE . \u2019s services for the transportation of merchandise from its headquarters in GPE to its GPE office ;","- Salihli Ltd. PERSON . had subcontracted FAC for the business ;","- in the consignment note it had prepared , \u015eenocak Ltd. PERSON . had described the consignment as QUANTITY tonnes of raw material , without indicating that it consisted of inflammable goods ;","- the fire that had broken out upon impact with ORG \u2019s vehicle and that had claimed the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s life had been caused by the inflammable goods loaded in the truck ;","- \u015eenocak Ltd. PERSON . was liable for the accident because it had failed to comply with the consignor \u2019s obligations set out in the relevant legislation ;","- Salihli Ltd. PERSON . and GPE were liable on account of their failure to pay heed to the type of raw material they had accepted , which had resulted in the transportation of dangerous goods in a truck which had not fulfilled the relevant criteria for such transportation ;","- A.S. was also liable for having unlawfully loaded other goods in the truck and accepting a passenger ( the applicant \u2019s husband ) ;","- the driver of the truck was liable owing to his failure to drive with care .","In the light of those considerations , ORG found that ORG GPE . bore PERCENT of the liability for the accident , ORG GPE . and ORG each , while the remaining liability lay with the driver .","On DATE PERSON Ltd. GPE . objected to ORG report .","Following that objection , CARDINAL experts from the traffic branch of ORG , including the CARDINAL experts who had prepared the previous report , issued another report on DATE ( \u201c the second report \u201d ) . They found that while PERSON Ltd. GPE . , PERSON Ltd. PERSON . and GPE may all have disregarded their legal obligations on the transport of dangerous goods , the accident had been caused by the driver \u2019s carelessness rather than the other defendants\u2019 failure to comply with those obligations . They could not therefore be held accountable for the accident in any way .","On DATE the applicant objected to ORG report , which in her opinion conflicted with its previous report of DATE . The applicant reiterated that her husband had not died as a result of a simple traffic accident , but had burned to death because of the inflammable goods carried unlawfully in the truck , for which all the defendants bore responsibility . The applicant requested that ORG of First Instance obtain a third report from independent experts to resolve the contradictions between the CARDINAL reports prepared by ORG .","At a hearing held on DATE , the civil court of first instance appointed a group of experts , consisting of a mechanical engineer and CARDINAL professors of mechanical engineering and chemistry from ORG . The court asked them to comment on the contradictions between the CARDINAL ORG reports and to state which report they agreed with .","In their report dated DATE ( \u201c the third report \u201d ) , the experts established at the outset that the action brought by the applicant concerned the death of her husband as a result of the burns he had sustained because of the fire caused by the accident . The examination in the instant case therefore had to focus not on the technical cause of the accident per se , which was what the second report had done , but on the reasons and the responsibility for the fire that had claimed her husband \u2019s life . The experts stated in that connection that the fire had been caused by chafing fuel , which was a \u201c highly inflammable liquid \u201d , according to the Regulation on the Transport by Land of Dangerous Goods and which therefore had to be transported in accordance with the relevant legislation concerning the transportation of such dangerous substances . The truck in which the chafing fuel had been loaded in the instant case had , however , not been suitable for the transportation of dangerous goods : it had not been equipped with an electrical system to prevent short circuits and fire ; it had had no warning signs ; and the driver had not been trained in the transportation of such goods . ORG GPE . , as the producer of the chafing fuel , bore the principal liability ( PERCENT ) for the fire on account of its failure to ensure the safe transportation of its merchandise in accordance with the relevant legal requirements . PERSON Ltd. PERSON . , which had procured the truck in question , and GPE , the owner and operator of the truck , were each PERCENT liable for agreeing to transport such dangerous goods in a vehicle unfit for the job . GPE was further liable because he had accepted additional cargo in the truck . The remaining responsibility lay with the deceased driver , who had not kept a safe distance from the vehicle in front . On the basis of those findings , the experts stated that they agreed with the first report \u2019s conclusions .","At a hearing held on DATE the civil court of first instance decided to appoint an expert to calculate the applicant \u2019s pecuniary damage , on the basis of the findings of the third report of CARDINAL DATE .","In a report dated DATE the expert calculated the applicant \u2019s pecuniary damage as MONEY ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the material time ) .","According to the latest information in the case file , the compensation proceedings are still ongoing in the court of first instance ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167109","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BARCZA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE ; the second applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE ; the third applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lived in PERSON .","The applicants were co - owners of a vacant plot of land situated in the urban area of the municipality of ORG . It was originally designated as non - agricultural land and registered under plot no . DATE .","On an unspecified date , ORG ( PERSON ) established a protection zone for the water reserve of ORG . According to this decision , the applicants\u2019 property , together with other plots of land , formed part of the protection zone . The administrative decision ordered the owner of the protected water reserve , ORG , to make an offer compensating the owners of the plots of land within the protection zone within DATE .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) upheld the first - instance decision on the establishment of a protection zone for the municipality \u2019s water reserve . The decision also required that if the owner of the protected water reserve was different from that of the land in the protection zone , the owner of the protected water reserve had the obligation to acquire ownership of the land in the protection zone , either through expropriation or through a sale and purchase agreement ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . That decision also quashed the obligation to proceed with compensation for the landowners within DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG redesignated the applicants\u2019 plot of land as an \u201c inner protection zone \u201d .","Under the law , owners of land within the water protection zone were under an obligation to refrain from any activity that could endanger water quality or lead to pollution and from constructing any facility that did not serve the purposes of the water reserve . Moreover , they were obliged to allow the use of their property for any work necessary for the maintenance of the water reserve ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the owners of the plots of land within the protection zone addressed a letter to ORG ( PERSON ) , the trustee of the water reserve , offering their plots of land for sale and asking the ORG to make an offer .","The ORG transferred the request to ORG , ORG ( ORG Dunav\u00f6lgyi K\u00f6rnyezetv\u00e9delmi \u00e9s PERSON ) , which , due to lack of jurisdiction , returned the case to the ORG on DATE , informing ORG about the measure . On DATE the Ministry instructed ORG ( PERSON . ) , the managing body of the water reserve , that the expropriation fell within the PERSON competence .","Meanwhile , in proceedings initiated by some of the landowners , the Pest County Regional Court established that ORG was under an obligation to proceed with the expropriation . Accordingly , the applicants made a new representation to ORG on DATE , asking it to make an offer within DATE of receipt of the letter .","On DATE they re - submitted their request to ORG ( PERSON \u00e9s PERSON ) , the body appointed by ORG for further decision - making .","On DATE the owners of the plots of land , including the applicants , asked ORG ( PERSON - magyarorsz\u00e1gi ORG ) to instruct the Ministry to proceed with the expropriation by setting a time - limit .","Their request was dismissed on DATE . According to ORG , the owners had first requested the expropriation of their properties on DATE , thus the statutory DATE period during which the ORG could acquire the property had not expired . The owners sought judicial review of this decision .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG overturned the administrative decision and remitted the case to ORG , stating that the DATE period had expired since the expropriation proceedings were initiated , on DATE , at which time the claimants had offered their plot of land for sale .","On DATE ORG informed the applicants that any measure concerning the ownership of the disputed plot of land fell within the competence of the State .","On DATE ORG informed the applicants that it had appointed a limited liability company to prepare the sale and purchase agreements and the documents necessary for the expropriation by CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the limited liability company forwarded a purchase offer for the acquisition of the applicants\u2019 plot of land for MONEY ( ORG \u2013 CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) . The applicants disputed the amount of the compensation ; nevertheless , the case file indicates that they never received an answer to their submissions .","On DATE ORG ( Pest PERSON ) ( the legal successor of ORG ) ordered ORG ( ORG ) ( the legal successor of ORG ) to serve an expropriation notice on the land owners within DATE of receipt of the decision . This did not take place . After the deadline had passed the applicants applied to ORG seeking the enforcement of the compulsory expropriation decision . The application was granted by ORG ; despite ORG did not respond to any of the measures taken by ORG . Accordingly , ORG proceeded with the expropriation of its own motion , commissioning an expert opinion and holding hearings .","Finally , the decision on the expropriation of the applicants\u2019 plot of land was issued by ORG on DATE , establishing the amount of compensation at ORG MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","The applicants received the compensation on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166933","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ANNA POPOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE a local factory , which was the owner of a block of flats , assigned the flat at QUANTITY , GPE , to ORG under a social housing agreement . In DATE the title to the building was transferred to GPE . P. resided in the flat as a tenant until his death on DATE .","Following P. \u2019s death , GPE started the process for registering the flat as vacant in order to assign it to another person eligible for social housing . However , it turned out that , according to the documents , the flat was no longer municipal property and that it belonged to L. The federal registration service sent the relevant data to the head of the municipality \u2019s administration on DATE . The head of the administration asked the regional prosecutor to look into the situation with the flat .","NORP The prosecutor established that the flat had been subject to a number of transactions . According to the relevant documents , on DATE the factory had signed a privatisation agreement to transfer the flat to Kh . On DATE the transaction was registered by the registration service . On DATE Kh . sold the flat to L. , who sold it on CARDINAL DATE to Ya . Those transactions were also registered by the registration service .","A police investigator questioned PERSON . , who denied having anything to do with the flat . As regards his passport details indicated in the privatisation agreement , he explained that in DATE and DATE he had lost his passport twice and that he had never met PERSON or PERSON The police further established that PERSON , who was serving in the army at the time , had also lost his passport in DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor responded to the head of the administration advising him as follows :","\u201c It appears that the persons who were parties to the transactions with the flat committed a crime in this respect . Accordingly the materials have been forwarded to the [ police ] for further inquiry ... .","[ The police ] will inform you of the results of the inquiry ... .","Furthermore , in order to prevent further transactions with the flat , I have asked ORG to refuse state registration of any future transactions with the flat . \u201d","On an unspecified date the police opened a criminal investigation into the transactions involving the flat .","On DATE Ya . sold the flat to the applicant .","On DATE , acting on behalf of the municipality , the prosecutor brought an action against Kh . , L. and Ya . to seek repossession of the flat and the annulment of all transactions executed in respect of it . The prosecutor argued that PERSON . , had never resided in the flat and that the flat had never been transferred to him from the municipality under a privatisation scheme . The prosecutor asked the court to invalidate the privatisation agreement of CARDINAL DATE and subsequent transactions in respect of the flat as having no basis in law . ORG of GPE fixed a hearing for DATE .","On DATE the registration service issued a certificate confirming the purchase of the flat by the applicant and her title to it .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request and allowed her to take part in the proceedings initiated by the prosecutor . She claimed that she had bought the flat in good faith and that the municipality could not recover it from her .","On DATE ORG issued an injunction against the registration of any transactions involving the flat .","On DATE ORG of GPE granted the prosecutor \u2019s claims brought on behalf of the municipality . The applicant \u2019s title to the flat was annulled and transferred to the municipality . The court also ordered the applicant \u2019s eviction . Lastly , it ruled that Ya . should return to the applicant the sum she had paid for the flat . The court reasoned as follows :","\u201c Pursuant to Article CARDINAL of LAW of GPE , if a property has been purchased from a person who had no right to sell it , and the purchaser is unaware and could not have been aware [ of that fact ] ( the bona fide purchaser ) , the owner shall have the right to reclaim that property from the purchaser , if the said property was lost by the owner or by the person into whose possession the owner has conveyed the property , or if it was stolen from either of them , or if it left their possession against their will in another way .","It has been established in the course of the proceedings that the flat in question left the municipality \u2019s possession against the latter \u2019s will . Accordingly , the flat ... should be recovered from [ the applicant ] and transferred to the municipality . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal . The court also noted that the applicant could not be recognised as a bona fide purchaser given that she had known that the flat had been resold CARDINAL times within DATE .","On DATE Ya . died . The part of the judgment of DATE concerning the monetary award in the applicant \u2019s favour remains unenforced .","According to the ORG , the applicant has not been evicted and continues to reside in the flat .","On an unspecified date the applicant brought an action against the ORG , alleging that the local authorities\u2019 inaction had resulted in her buying a flat from a person who had no right to sell it to her .","On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174117","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KARMANNIKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant has been detained in various departments of correctional colony no . CARDINAL of GPE , GPE ( hereinafter \u201c GPE \u201d ) , since CARDINAL DATE .","NORP The applicant disposed of CARDINAL . square metres ( sq.m . ) of personal space during different periods of his detention .","The applicant complained of overcrowding , insufficient number of toilets and of the fact that the toilets were not separated from the rest of the cells ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141170","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KILYEN v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in Murge\u015fti .","On DATE police officers PERSON and GPE were carrying out an investigation into the theft of CARDINAL cars in the village of Murge\u015fti . The applicant , who lived alone in a house with a yard , was away from home on a trip abroad . On DATE at TIME , the CARDINAL officers entered the applicant \u2019s yard by breaking the main gate which had a closing system made by the applicant from metal wires . The officers took note of the chassis series of CARDINAL cars found in the applicant \u2019s shed . They also looked in several boxes which contained spare parts for cars .","After a certain period of time , the applicant \u2019s neighbour , PERSON , entered the yard and questioned the CARDINAL officers about the reason for their presence there . PERSON and GPE disclosed their identities and informed GPE that they were carrying out an investigation into the theft of CARDINAL cars . Before leaving the yard , the officers informed PERSON that the CARDINAL cars found in the applicant \u2019s shed were not the ones reported stolen and left him a summons ordering the applicant to report to the police station as soon as possible .","On DATE , upon his return home , the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG of ORG against the QUANTITY police officers for the crime of trespassing under LAW . He alleged that the officers had entered his yard in his absence and without his consent . He also sought civil damages from the CARDINAL alleged perpetrators .","NORP In his statement given before the prosecutor on DATE , the applicant mentioned that he was a car mechanic and that he often travelled to GPE to buy spare parts . He alleged that he felt harassed by local police officers working in the Car Theft Department who , on several occasions , had entered his yard in his absence in order to check whether he was hiding stolen cars . The applicant also alleged that , although the police never found stolen cars in his possession , the frequent police checks gave him a reputation in the village of being a car thief .","The CARDINAL officers declared before the prosecutor that they had found PERSON in the applicant \u2019s yard and had entered believing that he was the owner and assuming that they had his permission .","On DATE ORG of the T\u00e2rgu ORG of Appeal decided to discontinue the proceedings against GPE and GPE The prosecutor investigating the case noted that the CARDINAL officers had entered the applicant \u2019s yard in his absence and without his permission . However , when PERSON had arrived at the scene , they had immediately disclosed their identities . Moreover , they had been on duty and had only noted the chassis series of the applicant \u2019s cars . The prosecutor therefore concluded that the officers had had no intention of committing a crime . On DATE a complaint by the applicant against this decision was rejected by the superior Prosecutor from ORG of the T\u00e2rgu ORG .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the ORG decisions before the T\u00e2rgu ORG . He alleged that the CARDINAL officers had illegally entered his home in his absence , without his consent and without a search warrant . He also complained that his rights as guaranteed by LAW had been breached by the unlawful search carried out by the QUANTITY police officers .","ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on DATE holding that GPE and GPE had acted in accordance with their duties as provided for by articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL on ORG . The court underlined that the officers had disclosed their identities and the purpose of their presence on the premises as soon as the applicant \u2019s neighbour enquired . It was further held that they had been on duty and carrying out an investigation , and therefore it could not be held that they had intended to commit a crime .","The appeal by the applicant on points of law ( recurs ) against this decision was dismissed on CARDINAL May CARDINAL by a final judgment of ORG and ORG which held that the officers had acted in accordance with the provisions of the PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on ORG . The court held that the officers had been in the presence of a witness and that they had disclosed their identities , and therefore had no intention of illegally entering the applicant \u2019s home ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159010","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"VAZVAN v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant made a technical invention , for which he applied for a patent on DATE . Subsequently , on DATE , he received a patent for his invention which was , however , later withdrawn .","On DATE the applicant joined a big telecommunications company in GPE . He told the company early on about his invention and proposed cooperation with the company . The company apparently learned about his patent application on DATE but was not interested in cooperation . On DATE the applicant \u2019s employment with the company ended .","In DATE the applicant noticed that the company was infringing his patent and informed the company of this . The company initiated civil proceedings against the applicant , claiming ownership of the applicant \u2019s invention . On DATE the Helsinki ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) rejected the company \u2019s claim to ownership of the applicant \u2019s invention but accepted its alternative claim and confirmed that the applicant had made the invention in question while working for the company . The court also confirmed that the company held a licence for the invention and that it had to pay the applicant reasonable compensation for this patent licence . On DATE ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) upheld ORG judgment . This judgment became final .","As the applicant and the company could not agree on reasonable compensation for the patent licence , the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the company in LOC on DATE . He claimed , inter alia , compensation of MONEY ( ORG ) for the use of the patent licence .","On DATE the GPE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s claims partly and ordered the company to pay him ORG CARDINAL in compensation . The applicant was also ordered to pay the company \u2019s costs and expenses before ORG , which after mitigation amounted to LAW . The court found that the applicant had not been able to show that the company had actually used the invention for which it held the licence . The invention had thus had no greater value for the company . The fact that the company held the patent licence had not prevented the applicant from patenting the invention or giving further licences to it , as the applicant still held all rights . As there were CARDINAL separate patents , the court estimated the proper compensation to be LAW for each patent and thus ORG CARDINAL in total . At the same time as the judgment , the parties also received , for information , a statement drafted by the technical experts appointed by the court and given to the court in the present case .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to the ORG requesting , inter alia , that the company be ordered to pay him ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for the holding of the patent licence and that he be freed from the obligation to pay the company \u2019s costs and expenses . He requested that an oral hearing be held and that the technical experts attend this hearing . Moreover , the applicant complained about the fact that the obligation to pay costs and expenses completely cancelled out his right to compensation and asked to be dispensed from paying . The company lodged a counter appeal , requesting that the compensation be reduced to LAW and that the applicant be ordered to pay the company \u2019s costs and expenses .","On DATE the ORG , after having held an oral hearing , accepted the company \u2019s claims and reduced the amount of compensation payable to the applicant to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . It also ordered the applicant to pay the company \u2019s costs and expenses before FAC and ORG to a total of EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL plus interest . The court found that as the compensation concerned just CARDINAL patent , to which the company held only a licence , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL was proper compensation . As to the costs and expenses , the court found that the different material positions of the applicant and the company spoke for the mitigation of the payment obligation in the applicant \u2019s favour . However , even though the invention had been important to the applicant , he had requested compensation equal to PERCENT of the DATE turnover of the whole company - group . His claims had , from the outset , been manifestly ill - founded and non - itemised , and no evidence had been presented to support them . The grounds for mitigation were not therefore fulfilled and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs and expenses of the company in full .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG . Moreover , he stressed the fact that the technical experts had not attended ORG hearing and requested that they be asked to present a further statement on the matter at hand . If that option was not available , he requested that the case be referred back to ORG for the hearing of the experts .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","According to sections DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( patenttilaki , patentlagen , Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , as in force at the material time ) , ORG is competent to hear patent matters . When examining a patent matter , ORG is to be assisted by CARDINAL technical experts appointed by the court . The experts are to give their views on the matters submitted to them by the court . Their views are entered in the record and they are entitled to question the parties and witnesses .","Section CARDINAL of the Patents Act provides the following :","\u201c The ORG shall appoint an appropriate number of experts as referred to in CARDINAL for DATE . Before making the appointments , the ORG shall request the opinion of ORG . Such appointment may not be refused without statutory justification .","Before taking up his appointment , an expert shall be required to take the prescribed oath .","Experts shall be paid a reasonable fee for each case as laid down by ORG together with compensation for travelling expenses as prescribed by the Government . \u201d","It appears from the ORG proposal HE CARDINAL vp that the practice at the relevant time was that the experts practically always gave their statement after the conclusion of the oral hearing . The parties to the proceedings were not given a possibility to comment on the experts\u2019 statement .","NORP This state of affairs changed when LAW was amended with effect from DATE ( Act no . CARDINAL ) . According to the new section CARDINALc of the LAW , the ORG shall provide the parties a possibility to comment on the statement of the experts before deciding the case . According to the transitional provisions , if such a matter has already become pending in a ORG before the entry into force of the amendment , the previous provision is applicable .","Chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( oikeudenk\u00e4ymiskaari , r\u00e4tteg\u00e5ngsbalken , Act no . CARDINAL ) provides that :","\u201c Before an expert witness is appointed , the parties shall be heard on this . If the parties agree on an expert witness , that person shall be used if he or she is deemed to be suitable and there is no impediment to the same . In addition , the court may appoint CARDINAL expert witness .","No one may be appointed an expert witness against his or her will , unless he or she is under the obligation to serve as an expert witness by virtue of public office or function or on the basis of a special provision . \u201d","LAW , section DATE , of the same LAW as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) further provides that :","\u201c An expert shall give a detailed account on the findings in his or her investigation and , on the basis of the account , a substantiated statement on the question put to him or her . The statement shall be compiled in writing , unless the court deems there to be reason to allow for its being given orally . When a person is appointed as an expert witness not on the basis of his or her official position or function , the court shall determine the time within which the statement is to be given .","An expert witness who has given a written statement shall be orally heard in court , if a party so requests and the hearing is not evidently irrelevant , or if the court deems the hearing of the expert witness necessary . If there are several expert witnesses , one or several of them may be called to be heard . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182851","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF AGARKOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son , Mr PERSON , was taken to ORG ( \u0431\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 \u0441\u043a\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0439 \u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u043f\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0449\u0438 \u0433. PERSON ) with a severe head trauma . He lapsed into a coma DATE , and died on DATE .","On DATE ORG Office of FAC ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) received a pre - investigation inquiry file containing evidence of the elements of a crime under LAW ( intentional infliction of serious bodily harm causing the victim \u2019s death ) .","The pre - investigation inquiry established that at QUANTITY on DATE the applicant \u2019s son had started a fight with a certain PERSON In the course of the fight the applicant \u2019s son had inflicted several blows on ORG with a wooden baseball bat . On the third blow the bat had struck a wall and had broken into CARDINAL pieces . The applicant \u2019s son had continued to beat PERSON with his bare hands and kick him with his feet . PERSON had then managed to pick up a fragment of a broken bat and had hit the applicant \u2019s son several times on the head , causing the latter the physical injuries that resulted in his death on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE an investigator of ORG issued a decision refusing the institution of criminal proceedings against ORG , being of the opinion that PERSON had acted in necessary self - defence .","On DATE ORG set aside the above decision . Criminal proceedings into the death of the applicant \u2019s son were instituted on DATE ( criminal case no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE PERSON confessed to having inflicted on the applicant \u2019s son bodily injuries which caused his death . On DATE a preventive measure in the form of an undertaking not to leave the town and to behave properly was imposed on him .","On DATE PERSON was charged with homicide committed as a result of exceeding the limits of necessary self - defence ( LAW ) . He was questioned as an accused and fully acknowledged his guilt in relation to the actions with which he was charged .","On DATE CARDINAL fragments of the baseball bat were seized and examined by the investigator .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to the proceedings as an aggrieved party . She was questioned by the investigator DATE , but could not submit any information regarding the circumstances of her son \u2019s death . During her additional questioning as a victim on DATE she stated that her son had told her that he had been beaten by police officers from ORG of the Interior of FAC ( ORG \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0430 \u0433. ORG ) .","The investigation established that on DATE officers from ORG of the Interior of FAC had arrived at the scene of the incident in order to stop a disturbance of public peace caused by the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s unlawful actions . Upon his arrival at the police station the police officers , having assessed the victim \u2019s medical condition as critical , called an ambulance for him .","On DATE during an on - site verification of his testimony , PERSON demonstrated with the help of an assistant and an improvised object how the applicant \u2019s son had struck him with a wooden baseball bat , how this bat had broken when it struck the wall , and how he had afterwards inflicted several blows on the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s head with a fragment of this bat .","On DATE the forensic medical examination was carried out , establishing that the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s death had been caused by an open blunt traumatic brain injury accompanied by contused head wounds and bruises , haemorrhages in the soft tissues of the head , fractures of the skull bones , haemorrhages above and under the layers of mater , complicated by brain oedema and compression ( forensic medical report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG approved the bill of indictment and referred the case to ORG of FAC ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for examination on the merits .","On DATE ORG returned the criminal case to the Prosecutor for re - drafting of the bill of indictment and remedying of deficiencies that prevented examination of the case , in particular , the formulation of exactly how ORG \u2019s actions had exceeded the limits of necessary self - defence .","On DATE the chief investigator from the FAC investigative division of ORG at ORG Prosecutor \u2019s Office for GPE ( \u201c the GPE investigative division \u201d ) discontinued the criminal proceedings , having arrived at the conclusion that the injuries resulting in the death of the applicant \u2019s son on DATE had been inflicted by ORG as actions of necessary self - defence . The decision was not supported by reference to any evidence .","On DATE the Deputy Head of the FAC investigative division set aside the above decision and ordered a fresh investigation .","Subsequently , DATE and DATE the criminal proceedings were discontinued and resumed on CARDINAL occasions . CARDINAL of the decisions , namely those of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , repeated word for word the previous decision of CARDINAL DATE . The following CARDINAL decisions , namely the decisions of DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , reached the same conclusion , relying on :","- forensic medical report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;","- statements by ORG submitting that on CARDINAL DATE he had had a fight with the applicant \u2019s son and had administered to the latter CARDINAL blows to the head with a piece of broken baseball bat , following which he had called the police , who had taken the applicant \u2019s son to the police station ;","- statements by witnesses PERSON and P. who were present at the scene of the fight and confirmed ORG \u2019s statements ;","- statements by police officer PERSON , who arrived at the scene and saw the applicant \u2019s son squatting down , with blood streaming from his head and a bruise below his eye ; he submitted that the applicant \u2019s son , PERSON , ORG had been taken to the police station , following which an ambulance had been called for the applicant \u2019s son as his head was bleeding ; no violence had been used against the latter ;","- statements by duty officer ORG . , who had received information about the fight and had seen the applicant \u2019s son brought to the police station in a state of alcoholic intoxication , with a lacerated wound in the region of CARDINAL eye and several abrasions , following which an ambulance had been called to take him to hospital ; he submitted that nobody in his presence had subjected the applicant \u2019s son to any beatings ;","- similar statements by duty officer Ser . ;","- statements by operative agent FAC . , who saw the applicant \u2019s son at the police station with injuries to his body ; he submitted that he had not seen anybody beating the applicant \u2019s son at the police station ;","- statements by witness PERSON , who arrived at the police station having been told that the applicant \u2019s son had been taken there ; however , she had then been informed that the latter had been taken to hospital to be treated for his injuries ; she further submitted that in the hospital the applicant \u2019s son told her that he had been beaten up by the police in the entrance to ORG \u2019s house ;","- statements by witness PERSON , who had accompanied the applicant \u2019s son in his car to the scene of the fight ; he submitted that the applicant had told him that he had a score to settle with a man called \u201c PERSON \u201d who had cooperated with the police ; he had seen the applicant \u2019s son knock on a window and enter the building with a baseball bat in his hands ; TIME he had seen the police arrive at the exit from the building ; the applicant \u2019s son had been walking unassisted , he had not been handcuffed , but had been holding his head ; CARDINAL of the police officers had been holding a plastic bag containing CARDINAL fragments of the baseball bat ; the applicant \u2019s son had got into the police car and been taken to the police station ; he had not seen anybody hitting the applicant \u2019s son or threatening him ;","- statements by the applicant , who submitted that her son had told her that he had been beaten up by the police ;","- statements by witness ORG . , who had heard about the fight from GPE ;","- statements by witness PERSON . , who had heard about the fight from T. ;","- statements by neighbours PERSON . and ORG . , who knew nothing about the events in question ;","- statements by witness PERSON . , the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s partner , who had been told by the applicant \u2019s son that he had been beaten by the police ;","- statements by witness ORG . , who was receiving treatment in the hospital at the time when the applicant \u2019s son was admitted and who submitted that the latter had told him that he had sustained the injuries through being beaten with a baseball bat ;","- the police station \u2019s registration log , which contained no mention of the applicant \u2019s son being arrested on the DATE ;","- expert report no . CARDINAL , according to which ORG had an abrasion on his right forearm which could have been caused on DATE by a blow from a hard blunt object ;","- expert report no . CARDINAL on the examination of a sample of the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s skin from the left CARDINAL of the parietal region of the head containing well - defined diffuse microinclusions of iron ;","- expert report no . CARDINAL of DATE stating that the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s open blunt brain injury had been caused by a combination of traumatic impacts in the region of the head which could have resulted from the circumstances described by ORG , that is to say by the infliction of multiple blows by a baseball bat fragment in the region of the head .","In the meantime , the applicant repeatedly challenged the adequacy of the investigation alleging the involvement of police officers in the death of her son . In particular , she complained about the failure of the investigator to inform her of the decisions taken in the case and to explain the possible avenues for appeal . She further complained about the refusal of her requests for information about the exact time when ORG \u2019s call was registered at the police station , the exact time when her son was brought to the police station and when the ambulance was called for him . The applicant also sought to have clarified the reasons why her son had not been questioned about the circumstances of the incident during DATE before he lapsed into a coma , to obtain an expert examination of the bloodstains on his clothes which could have clarified whether he had been standing up or lying down when he sustained his injuries , and an expert examination which could have clarified the origin of metal particles found in the wounds of her son .","NORP In response to her complaints , ORG on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE found the investigator \u2019s refusals and lengthy inactivity unlawful and unjustified and ordered him to remedy the above deficiencies by conducting a thorough and comprehensive investigation .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s clothes were seized from the applicant for expert examination .","On DATE ORG found the investigator \u2019s inactivity unlawful , having noted that when taking the decision of DATE the investigator had failed to comply with his own ruling of CARDINAL DATE granting the applicant \u2019s requests .","On DATE the Deputy Head of ORG at ORG Prosecutor \u2019s Office for GPE set aside the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as having been taken in violation of the criminal procedure . As a result , all the evidence obtained after DATE was found inadmissible .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE forensic biological and forensic trace examinations of the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s clothes were ordered , which duly established that the latter had been in an upright position , or close to such a position , when the bloodstains appeared on his clothes ( report no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) .","On DATE a forensic medical examination by an expert commission was ordered . The examination established that the open blunt traumatic brain injury inflicted on the applicant \u2019s son had been caused by CARDINAL traumatic impacts , and that it could have arisen in the circumstances indicated by the accused ORG during his questioning on DATE and the on - site verification of his testimony on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) ( report no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) .","On unspecified dates the applicant and the witnesses were questioned for a second time and confirmed their previous statements .","Between DATE and CARDINAL DATE the criminal proceedings were discontinued on CARDINAL occasions on the grounds of absence of the constituent elements of a crime under LAW of LAW in the actions of GPE , and were subsequently resumed .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG found the decision of CARDINAL DATE unlawful and unsubstantiated . ORG also found unlawful the investigator \u2019s failure to notify the applicant of the procedural decisions taken in reply to her requests .","On DATE the acting head of LOC of the FAC investigative division set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the investigator for LOC from the FAC investigative division discontinued the criminal proceedings . The decision noted that the investigation had identified the constituent elements of a crime under LAW of LAW in the actions of ORG However , since the crime belonged to the category of minor crimes and had been committed over DATE , in DATE , ORG was to be exempted from criminal liability pursuant to LAW ( exemption from criminal liability due to expiration of statutory time - limits for criminal prosecution ) .","On DATE the acting head for LOC of the FAC investigative division took the decision to resume the proceedings in view of the necessity of conducting psycho - physiological expert examinations \u2212 using a polygraph \u2212 of the police officers who had brought the applicant \u2019s son to the police station so as to verify the veracity of their statements .","According to information contained in the case file , the proceedings were still pending in DATE .","The case file contains no information regarding further developments in the investigation of the circumstances surrounding the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s death .","On DATE the applicant sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers allegedly involved in the death of her son .","On DATE the chief investigator of the FAC investigative division issued a decision refusing the institution of criminal proceedings against officers PERSON . , PERSON , ORG . and PERSON . of Kaliningrad \u2019s ORG of the ORG under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( abuse of power by an official , actions of a public official which clearly exceed his or her authority ) .","On DATE the Deputy Head of the FAC investigative division set aside the above decision and ordered a fresh pre - investigation inquiry . In particular , the investigator was instructed to assess the actions of the police officers under LAW ( leaving without help a person in danger ) and CARDINAL ( knowingly false accusation ) of LAW .","On DATE the investigator of the FAC investigative division again issued a decision refusing the institution of criminal proceedings against officers .","On DATE ORG found the above decision unlawful . ORG established that no fresh inquiry had been conducted and that the instructions given in the decision of DATE had not been complied with .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE the FAC investigative division \u2019s investigator refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers under LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW on the grounds that the constituent elements of a crime were absent in their actions .","On DATE ORG found the above decision lawful . The applicant did not appeal .","On DATE the applicant brought civil proceedings against ORG seeking compensation in respect of nonpecuniary damage caused to her by the failure of the domestic authorities to investigate her son \u2019s death .","On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156275","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NASSR ALLAH v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Expulsion) (Syria);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . His current whereabouts are unknown .","On DATE the applicant fled GPE and on an unspecified date entered GPE . It appears that he applied for asylum , but on DATE he left the country before his application was examined .","On DATE the applicant crossed the NORP border on foot . On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( NORP rober\u017esardze ) stopped him near the border .","On DATE ORG completed an asylum application form and the applicant signed it in the presence of an LANGUAGE - speaking interpreter .","On DATE an initial interview ( s\u0101kotn\u0113j\u0101 aptauja ) with the applicant was conducted with the assistance of an NORP - speaking interpreter . The applicant explained that he could speak , read and write in LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE .","On DATE a personal interview ( p\u0101rrunas ) with the applicant took place . The applicant was assisted by an LANGUAGE - speaking interpreter .","On DATE the closed facility in which the applicant was being held ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) received a parcel addressed to him . The sender was unknown . The parcel contained the applicant \u2019s identity card and military service certificate in LANGUAGE . Their translation was requested and on DATE it was received .","On DATE those documents , together with their translations into NORP , were sent to ORG ( GPE un migr\u0101cijas lietu p\u0101rvalde ) . The latter was also informed that it would receive certified translations as soon as possible . On DATE ORG received the certified translations and , on DATE , sent them to ORG .","On DATE DATE authenticity of the applicant \u2019s identity card was confirmed by CARDINAL forensic experts . On DATE ORG received their report and , on DATE , sent it to ORG .","On DATE the applicant appointed a lawyer to assist him in the administrative proceedings . The same lawyer continued to represent him before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG ( Patv\u0113ruma lietu noda\u013ca ) of ORG informed the applicant that they had received his application for asylum and would examine it within DATE .","On DATE ORG decided to refuse the applicant \u2019s asylum application . However , they granted him subsidiary protection status ( alternat\u012bvais statuss ) and issued a temporary residence permit for DATE . It was noted that that decision would take effect from the time the applicant had been informed of it . A reference was made to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Administrative Procedure Law and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , which was a DATE , a letter was sent to ORG in NORP informing them of the decision and stating that the applicant was to be informed of it immediately . They also asked that CARDINAL copy of the decision be handed over to the applicant and that the second copy be sent back to ORG with the applicant \u2019s signature confirming that he had been informed of it . The letter , together with CARDINAL copies of the decision , was received in GPE on DATE ( see paragraphs DATE below ) and the applicant was informed of it . Accordingly , the decision took effect on DATE .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision with the administrative courts , as he wished to be granted asylum ; he considered that the subsidiary protection status was not sufficient .","On DATE administrative proceedings were instituted .","On DATE ORG issued summonses and scheduled a hearing for DATE . That hearing was postponed as the applicant did not appear . Another hearing was scheduled for CARDINAL DATE , but the applicant failed to appear again .","On DATE ORG left the applicant \u2019s appeal without examination for repeated failure to appear without good reason .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , but he refused to sign the detention record . At that time , he had no personal identification or valid travel document . He identified himself as \u201c PERSON \u201d , born on DATE . He was informed ( in LANGUAGE ) of his rights to appeal against the detention order , receive legal aid , acquaint himself with the detention records and communicate in a language understood by him . The following day several documents were found in the place where he had been arrested : a document testifying that an application for short - term asylum had been made by a NORP national , PERSON , born on DATE , and was being examined in GPE ; a torn train ticket ; and other documents in LANGUAGE . The applicant explained that he had hidden those documents in order to avoid being sent back to GPE .","On DATE the applicant was detained under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ( undetermined identity ) and CARDINAL ) ( misuse of the asylum procedure ) of LAW , but he refused to sign the detention record . He was informed ( in LANGUAGE ) of his rights to appeal against the detention order , receive legal aid and communicate in a language understood by him . He was also informed about the reasons for his detention . He was placed in a closed facility in Daugavpils \u2013 an accommodation centre for foreign detainees and asylum seekers ( ORG \u0101rzemnieku un patv\u0113ruma mekl\u0113t\u0101ju izmitin\u0101\u0161anas centrs \u2013 \u201c the NORP accommodation centre \u201d ) .","On DATE , following a hearing in the applicant \u2019s presence , a judge of the Daugavpils ( City ) Court ( GPE tiesa ) ordered his detention for DATE . The judge examined the material brought before him and , with the assistance of an NORP - speaking interpreter , heard evidence from the applicant . The applicant explained that he had applied for asylum in GPE , but had left as he realised that he would not receive it . He had crossed the border illegally and had identified himself by giving another name in order not to be deported back to GPE . The applicant was not assisted by a lawyer . The judge concluded that there were grounds to detain him as his identity had not been determined and there were reasons to consider that he had misused the asylum procedure . He had arrived in GPE from a country , where his life had not been endangered and where he had applied for asylum ; these facts evidenced that he misused the asylum procedure . On DATE , the applicant lodged an appeal ( CARDINAL page ) against that decision in LANGUAGE , stating in simple terms that he had received the court \u2019s decision and wished to appeal against it . He submitted that he had been in danger in GPE and had been ill ; he expressed the wish to be granted refugee status in GPE and undertook to provide all his documents as soon as possible . On CARDINAL DATE his appeal was sent for translation ; on DATE a translation was received . On DATE , the appeal , its translation and the case file were forwarded to ORG ( ORG apgabaltiesa ) and the applicant was informed that a single judge would examine his appeal following a written procedure ; the applicant could submit further observations within TIME . That information was handed to him by ORG and he signed to acknowledge receipt of it on DATE . On DATE the applicant was informed that examination of his case had been rescheduled to CARDINAL DATE ; it would be decided by a single judge following a written procedure . That information was handed to him by ORG and he signed to acknowledge receipt of its translation on DATE .","On DATE a judge of ORG examined and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . He relied on largely the same factual and legal grounds for detaining the applicant as the first - instance court judge . The judge concluded that there were grounds to consider that the applicant attempted to misuse the asylum procedure . It was evidenced by the facts surrounding his arrival and application for asylum in GPE . He had crossed the border illegally . He had not arrived directly from the country where his life or liberty was endangered . He had spent DATE in GPE , where he had applied for asylum , but had left illegally ; without awaiting for a final decision . It was impossible to predict his further actions in case of release . The decision was drafted in NORP , but its contents were explained to the applicant , for which he signed on DATE .","On DATE , following a hearing in the applicant \u2019s presence , the judge of the Daugavpils ( City ) Court authorised the extension of his detention for a further DATE ; the applicant was assisted by an interpreter . The applicant \u2019s lawyer was not present , but the judge examined her written request to release the applicant on account of the fact that he had provided his identity documents and had not misused the asylum procedure . She argued that the applicant could be placed in an open and specialised institution \u2013 an accommodation centre for asylum seekers in GPE . The judge disagreed and concluded that there were grounds to detain the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW . The fact that his application for asylum was accepted for examination did not indicate that he would comply with the requirements arising from the asylum procedure as he testified that he would again apply for an asylum in another NORP country in case he received a negative decision in GPE , which was contrary to the applicable procedure . In such circumstances , it was impossible to predict his further actions if placed in an open accommodation centre ; there was a possibility that he might leave GPE and thereby obstruct the asylum procedure as he had already done in a safe third country ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE , the applicant lodged an appeal ( CARDINAL page ) against that decision in NORP , stating that there was no evidence that he had misused the asylum procedure , might leave the country or obstruct the asylum procedure . He disputed the relevance of the fact that he had applied for asylum in GPE as it was not a safe third country . His appeal was forwarded to ORG together with the case file . On DATE the applicant was informed that his case would be examined on DATE by a single judge following a written procedure ; it was explained that the applicant could submit further observations within TIME . That information was handed to him by ORG and he signed to acknowledge receipt of its translation on DATE .","On DATE another judge of ORG examined and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , upholding the decision to detain him under section CARDINAL ) of LAW . She referred to the findings of the city court to the effect that there were grounds to believe that the applicant might misuse the asylum procedure . There was evidence that he had left GPE after DATE and without awaiting a final decision in response to his application for asylum . Upon arrival in GPE , he had withheld his real identity . It was due to diligent work of border guards that his identity could be established . Moreover , the applicant admitted that he had left GPE because he believed that his application for asylum would be refused ; he also admitted that he would attempt to obtain asylum in another NORP country if it was refused in GPE . Therefore , the judge upheld the conclusion of the lower court that it was impossible to predict the applicant \u2019s further actions upon release . The decision was drafted in NORP , but its contents were explained to the applicant . On DATE he signed the decision , confirming that it had been explained to him in LANGUAGE ; he respected the decision and agreed with it .","On DATE the judge of the Daugavpils ( City ) Court authorised the applicant \u2019s detention for a further DATE , again on the grounds of section CARDINAL ) of LAW . During the hearing , the applicant explained that he would continue to pursue the asylum proceedings ; he was aware of the relevant procedures and duties , he would not leave GPE until the end of the asylum procedure . The judge concluded that the applicant misused the asylum procedure on the same grounds as indicated in the previous decisions and that he should remain in detention . With reference to section QUANTITY ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , the judge noted that the time - limit for his detention had not yet expired . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision , as ORG was due to make a decision in DATE and his previous experience had shown that detention appeals took DATE to be examined .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that he had been granted subsidiary protection status but that they could not release him until they received the original version of that decision ; the relevant authority had sent it by post ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release at TIME on DATE . In the release order , a reference was made to the fact that the applicant had been granted subsidiary protection status and that grounds for his detention had ceased to exist .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained to the ORG about his prolonged detention .","On DATE the ORG replied [ in LANGUAGE ] as follows :","\u201c In your complaint you request ORG \u2019s assistance in obtaining order for your release as well as assistance with contacting your family in GPE .","In the process of examining your complaint I have contacted the centre for detained foreigners and asylum seekers \u2018 Daugavpils\u2019 ( hereinafter DATE the Centre ) . According to information provided by the ORG , your application for asylum is currently under examination in ORG . The expected date of decision is DATE .","According to the decision of GPE from DATE , as well as ORG you are currently detained on the basis of [ section PERSON ) ] of LAW . The next periodical review of your detention is due before DATE . [ Section CARDINAL ) ] of the Asylum PERSON states that \u2018 ORG ] has the right to detain an asylum seeker for a period DATE and nights if there are reasons to believe that the asylum seeker is attempting to use the asylum procedure in bad faith.\u2019","The decision of GPE is based on the fact that you have crossed the NORP border under the name of PERSON having previously requested temporary asylum in GPE with your established identity as ORG . In the court hearing you have also indicated that in case of a negative decision you will proceed to seek asylum in another NORP country , which would be contrary to the procedure and regulations of requesting asylum in ORG . Thus the court has established reasons to believe that you are attempting to use asylum procedure contrary to its objective and purpose .","Having reviewed the decision of GPE and ORG , it is established that you have been detained according to the procedures prescribed by law . Your rights to periodical review of detention have also been observed according to NORP law . Furthermore , the decisions ordering your detention contain sufficient motivation to establish legal and factual grounds for such detention . Therefore , there has been no violation of your right to liberty and security under LAW ] and LAW .","With regard to the possibility to contact your family from the detention facility , I would like to inform you that upon your request , you have the right to contact your family on your own expense . The NORP law does not grant detained asylum seekers a possibility to contact their families free of charge . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167762","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TER-SARGSYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Obtain attendance of witnesses);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["On DATE PERSON was stabbed by CARDINAL persons during an event in a caf\u00e9 in the town of GPE , GPE . He died on the way to hospital .","The following day the authorities of GPE started an investigation into the incident , the applicant and his friend , PERSON , being the main suspects .","A number of eyewitnesses were questioned . In particular , witness ORG , the owner of the caf\u00e9 , stated that he had seen the applicant and PERSON having a conversation with the victim and his nephew , PERSON At the time of the incident he had been outside the caf\u00e9 and went back in when he heard the noise . Thereafter he learnt from those present that PERSON and the applicant had stabbed the victim and escaped .","Witness GPE , Kh . H. \u2019s son , stated that he had been in the kitchen when he heard the noise and came out into the hall . He then saw the applicant with a knife in his hands going towards the victim .","Witness ORG stated that he had been with his uncle , the victim , in the caf\u00e9 and had witnessed the applicant and PERSON stabbing him .","Witness PERSON , the cook who worked in the caf\u00e9 at the relevant time , stated that she had seen the applicant and PERSON having an argument with the victim and stabbing him , after which both of them had fled .","Witness V.H. , Kh . H. \u2019s brother , who had also been in the caf\u00e9 that night , stated that he had seen PERSON and the victim having an argument , after which the former had stabbed the victim , and then the applicant had also stabbed him .","Witness G.A. submitted that he had been in the caf\u00e9 with his wife on DATE of the incident and had witnessed PERSON and the applicant attacking the victim and that he had seen a knife in the applicant \u2019s hands .","A number of other persons , namely ORG and ORG , singers , ORG and ORG , guests , and PERSON , the camera person in charge of filming the event , were also questioned . These witnesses did not provide any concrete details or mention any names and stated that they had either been far away from those fighting or for some other reason had not seen exactly what happened . Witness PERSON had recognised the applicant in a photograph shown to him during the investigation .","On DATE the investigative authorities of GPE brought charges against the applicant and his detention was ordered . Since his whereabouts were unknown , a search was initiated for him .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE .","In DATE the applicant was released after no agreement was reached between the law enforcement authorities of GPE and GPE as regards his extradition .","On DATE the ORG found PERSON guilty of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","As regards the applicant , the case was sent to GPE for him to be prosecuted in his country of nationality .","On DATE the ORG investigation unit took over the case and the charges against the applicant were brought into conformity with the relevant provisions of LAW of GPE . The applicant was charged with premeditated murder .","On DATE the applicant was arrested . He was questioned on the same day and refused to make any statement in respect of the events of DATE .","In the course of the investigation the applicant requested a confrontation with witnesses ORG , ORG , GPE , PERSON and PERSON The investigator dismissed his motion on the ground that both in the course of the investigation and at PERSON \u2019s trial those witnesses had reinstated their statements against him .","On DATE the case file , including the finalised indictment , was transmitted to ORG ( CARDINAL of the first instance criminal courts before the relevant amendments to LAW ) to be set down for trial .","On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed a motion seeking to remit the case for further investigation on the ground that , inter alia , it was necessary to carry out several confrontations given that there were substantial contradictions between the applicant \u2019s statements and the statements of witnesses ORG , ORG , GPE , PERSON and O. D. It appears that ORG never examined this request .","Following the amendments to LAW the case was taken over by ORG .","According to the applicant , the CARDINAL witnesses residing in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , who had made statements against him , were not properly summoned and ORG did not obtain any proof that they had been notified about the trial . The applicant further claimed that at the preparatory hearing the victim \u2019s legal heir , PERSON \u2019s wife , had submitted declarations from CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL witnesses stating their reasons for being unable to attend the hearings . The declarations , drafted in NORP , were not properly examined by ORG but were included in the case file and it was decided to continue the examination of the case in the absence of all the witnesses .","The Government argued that all CARDINAL witnesses were properly summoned to the applicant \u2019s trial . However , it had not been possible to locate all of them , while CARDINAL of the witnesses submitted to the trial court declarations certified by a notary in GPE stating their inability to attend the trial for financial , family or work - related issues .","NORP The applicant pleaded not guilty at the trial and contested the veracity of the statements of the witnesses made during the investigation of the case in GPE .","The victim \u2019s legal heir testified before the trial court that on DATE her husband , PERSON , had attended an event in the caf\u00e9 together with ORG She had then been told by relatives that her husband had been stabbed during a fight .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant filed a motion seeking to have examined in court the video recordings from the crime scene included in the case file . He claimed that it was necessary to identify other witnesses of the incident and clarify the colour of his outerwear on DATE of the crime . ORG dismissed this motion .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . In doing so , ORG stated , in particular , the following :","\u201c The ORG , taking into account and having assessed the evidence supporting the accusation , finds that [ the applicant \u2019s ] guilt in the offence was established by the following evidence that has been collected in the course of the investigation and examined in the court proceedings :","The [ trial ] statement of the victim \u2019s legal heir ... according to which at TIME on DATE her husband PERSON attended an event in ... the caf\u00e9 together with ORG She was told ... by the relatives that during a fight in the caf\u00e9 NORP men [ PERSON ] and [ the applicant ] had stabbed her husband ...","The statement of witness Kh . H. ... ( witness Kh . H. \u2019s pre - trial statement was read out )","The statement of witness GPE ... ( witness GPE \u2019s pre - trial statement was read out ) .","The statement of witness ORG ... ( witness ORG \u2019s pre - trial statement was read out ) .","The statement of witness LAW ... ( witness PERSON \u2019s pre - trial statement was read out ) .","The statement of witness V.H. ... ( witness ORG pre - trial statement was read out ) .","The statement of witness G.A. ... ( witness ORG pre - trial statement was read out ) .","The statement of witness ORG ... ( witness ORG \u2019s pre - trial statement was read out ) .","The statement of witness ORG ... ( witness ORG \u2019s pre - trial statement was read out ) .","The statement of witness GPE ... ( witness ORG pre - trial statement was read out ) .","The statement of witness PERSON ... ( witness PERSON \u2019s pre - trial statement was read out ) .","The statement of witness ORG ... ( witness ORG \u2019s pre - trial statement was read out ) .","[ The applicant \u2019s ] guilt ... has been substantiated also by :","The judgment of CARDINAL of ORG ...","... clarifications provided by expert ... during the above - mentioned court proceedings that there were CARDINAL penetrating knife injuries on the body ... each one of the injuries could by itself have caused the death .","The statement of technical expert [ during the proceedings before ORG ] ...","The conclusion of the forensic medical examination of CARDINAL ... PERSON \u2019s death had been caused by extensive haemorrhage as a result of liver wounds .","The statement of forensic medical expert [ during the proceedings before ORG ] ... Each stab wounded the liver .","The conclusion of technical forensic examination of CARDINAL ... according to which ... the traces of CARDINAL penetrating wounds ... discovered on PERSON \u2019s vest could have been inflicted by a ... knife .","The records of examination of the crime scene , records of ... examination of victim PERSON \u2019s clothes , CARDINAL video recordings of the event , the video recording of the examination of the body during the examination of the crime scene and forensic medical examination . \u201d","The applicant lodged an appeal claiming , inter alia , that there had been no confrontation between him , PERSON and the witnesses against him during the investigation of the case , either in GPE or in GPE . He further complained that ORG had failed to summon properly the witnesses and relied on their pre - trial statements without good reason . He also complained about the fact that the video recordings from the crime scene had not been examined during the trial , although ORG relied on them as evidence against him .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction with reliance on the same evidence . As regards the non - attendance of witnesses ORG stated that , according to the materials of the case , the witnesses had been properly summoned but had submitted statements about their inability to appear before the court due to lack of funds or reasons relating to family or work and reinstated their statements made during the pre - trial investigation .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law raising arguments similar to those submitted in his previous appeal .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit stating , inter alia , that ORG had reached the correct conclusion as regards the applicant \u2019s complaints about his inability to examine the witnesses against him ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146697","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VOLYANYK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonably necessary to prevent fleeing;Reasonably necessary to prevent offence)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant worked as a deputy chief guard in \u201c FAC \u201d , a ORG - owned company .","On DATE the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant suspecting that he , against bribes , had covered up thefts from the company \u2019s premises in conspiracy with S. and NORP","On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention stating that \u201c [ The applicant ] committed serious crimes , he does not admit his guilt , if at liberty [ he ] will influence witnesses and other persons involved in the criminal case . [ As the applicant ] works as a policeman , [ he ] is well aware of how to obstruct the investigation and justice \u201d . There is no evidence in the case - file that the applicant worked as a policemen prior to or during the events described in the present application . It remains unknown whether PERSON and NORP were also arrested or remained at liberty .","On DATE ORG upheld this decision .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE on the grounds that \u201c not all the applicant \u2019s accomplices were detained ... [ the investigative authorities ] keep receiving complaints [ from persons who gave bribes to the applicant ] . If at liberty the applicant will have an opportunity to obstruct the investigation or abscond \u201d . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE stating that \u201c the accused committed serious crimes , he does not admit his guilt and refuses to testify , while if at liberty [ the applicant ] , who has higher education and extensive work experience [ as a guard ] , might influence witnesses , obstruct the investigation and abscond \u201d .","On DATE ORG of Appeal prolonged the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE stating that there was a need to carry out a number of investigative measures in the case , the applicant was charged with serious crimes , he might abscond , obstruct the investigation , or continue his criminal activities .","On an unspecified date the preliminary investigations in the applicant \u2019s case were completed and the case was submitted to ORG for trial .","On DATE ORG , holding a preliminary hearing in the criminal case against the applicant , upheld the applicant \u2019s preventive measure without providing any reasons for doing so or fixing a time - limit for the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s request for change of a preventive measure on health grounds . On DATE the applicant was released against an undertaking not to abscond ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150648","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CIORCAN AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+2 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants are CARDINAL NORP nationals of GPE origin . They all live in LOC in the town of GPE , GPE .","On DATE at TIME the applicant PERSON and his friend ORG had a quarrel in a bar with GPE , a policeman who worked for the GPE police . Consequently , GPE filed a criminal complaint against the CARDINAL men , accusing them of insulting behaviour .","In the context of the investigation of the above - mentioned complaint , at TIME , the chief of the GPE police gave the order by telephone for several police officers to go to GPE , the neighbourhood where PERSON and ORG lived , in order to summon them before the prosecutor . He advised them to exercise particular caution , mentioning on the phone that it would be difficult to get there owing to a large number of people ( CARDINAL ) blocking the way armed with bats , pitchforks , axes and scythes , and that the law - enforcement authorities had been unable to secure the area . He also requested the assistance of officers from the local special forces police ( GPE \u015fi ORG DATE ) . According to the operation order completed by the chief of the local special forces unit on DATE , the reason for the request was \u201c to ensure the protection of the policemen conducting an investigation for insulting behaviour towards policeman GPE \u201d","NORP Immediately afterwards , CARDINAL special forces officers ( GPE , GPE , PERSON , H.D.M. , ORG wearing special uniforms and masks covering their faces , together with CARDINAL local police officers from ORG ( PERSON and PERSON ) and CARDINAL plain - clothes officers from the investigations department of the GPE police ( TIME , FAC , ORG and ORG ) left for PERSON , taking a van and CARDINAL cars .","On DATE around TIME , on seeing the police vehicles , the applicants and other inhabitants of the neighbourhood , mostly women and children , started gathering in the street out of curiosity .","In order to disperse the crowd , the special forces officers threw several tear gas grenades , which sent everyone into a panic , pushing each other and running around in all directions . At that point the police officers started shooting at the running crowd while backing up their vehicles and leaving the neighbourhood .","According to the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , shortly after the police officers arrived in the neighbourhood , the local residents started gathering and a fight broke out between them and the special forces officers , who were forced to use their weapons . The prosecutor gave details about the incident , noting that shortly after all the ORG agents ( except the CARDINAL driving the van ) got out of their vehicles , they found themselves surrounded by CARDINAL people , who began to jostle against them and pull at their equipment . In the meantime , the police officers recognised the mother of PERSON and told her they were going to summon her son for a hearing before the prosecutor . As this discussion was taking place , some of the policemen heard shouting and noticed that CARDINAL GPE were attacking the special forces officers with bats , pitchforks , empty bottles and stones .","According to statements made by the special forces officers to the prosecutor , they initially used CARDINAL defensive tear gas sprays . This only infuriated the crowd , who got even more aggressive and started to throw stones and bricks . CARDINAL of the officers then fired shots into the air . PERSON stated that since the GPE would not stop , he had fired his hunting weapon twice into the air . He was then attacked by CARDINAL people , who pulled at his clothes and hit him with sharp objects until he fell to his knees , at which point he fired rubber bullets into the crowd . The crowd then partially retreated .","The incident , as presented in the prosecutor \u2019s decision , continued with the ORG agents attempting to retreat while the GPE , hidden behind the houses , continued to throw stones , glass bottles and other objects at them .","As a result of the clash , CARDINAL ORG agents suffered injuries which required medical treatment lasting DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","CARDINAL GPE were reportedly injured and\/or shot . Some of them were issued medical certificates confirming their injuries , which were considered to need DATE of medical treatment .","Ms PERSON as well as the following CARDINAL applicants suffered injuries confirmed by medical certificates :","According to her hospital observation sheet , PERSON was shot in the stomach and was diagnosed with the following conditions : haemorrhagic shock , peritonitis , rupture of the iliac vein , rupture of the ureter , CARDINAL traumatic lesions of the small intestine , and a lesion of the terminal ileum and colon . Following the incident , she underwent surgery and remained in hospital for DATE . Her forensic medical certificate issued on DATE stated that the shooting had endangered her life , that she required DATE to forty - five days of medical treatment , and that she and her aggressor had been face - to - face . Neither of the medical documents contained information about the type of bullet which might have caused her injuries .","According to his forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , he had several gunshot wounds in the right arm , left knee and left thigh , with CARDINAL bullets remaining in his body . He underwent surgery on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL bullets were extracted from his wounds . He remained in hospital for DATE . His injuries were considered to have been caused by rubber bullets and to require DATE of medical treatment .","According to his forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , he had an excoriation wound on the right cheek and a gunshot wound on the right elbow , with the bullet remaining in his body . His injuries were considered to have been caused by a rubber bullet and to require DATE of medical treatment .","According to her forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , she was shot in the left side of the thorax and also had a gunshot wound on her back in the left thorax area . Her wounds were considered to have been caused by rubber bullets and to require DATE of medical treatment .","According to his forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , he was shot in the right arm and the back right side of the chest , with several bullets remaining in his body . His injuries were considered to require CARDINAL to QUANTITY days of medical treatment . According to his hospital observation sheet , he underwent surgery on DATE , but the doctors only managed to take out CARDINAL rubber bullets from his chest .","According to her forensic medical certificate issued on DATE and hospital notes , she had multiple gunshot wounds in the right leg , with CARDINAL bullet remaining in her body . Her injuries were considered to require DATE of medical treatment . On DATE , she underwent surgery to have the bullet extracted . Neither of the medical documents contained information about the type of bullet which might have caused her injuries .","According to his medical certificate issued by the hospital on DATE , he had gunshot wounds in the left chest and on the back of his thigh , with the bullets remaining in his body , and excoriation wounds on his right chest and arm . He underwent surgery on DATE and several bullets were extracted . The medical document contained no information about the type of bullet which might have caused his injuries .","According to her forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , she had a gunshot wound in the left side of the chest and CARDINAL gunshot wounds in the left thigh , with CARDINAL rubber bullets remaining in her body , and CARDINAL contusions in the umbilical region . She was considered to require TIME of medical treatment . On DATE , she underwent surgery to have the bullets extracted .","According to his forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , he had a wound beneath the left eye which could have been caused by being hit with a hard object . He was considered to require DATE of medical treatment .","According to his forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , he had an excoriation wound in the left zygomatic region and several wounds and ecchymosis on the right side of the thorax and on the abdomen which could have been caused by being shot with rubber bullets . He was considered to require DATE of medical treatment .","According to his forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , he had a gunshot wound in the right side of the thorax , with a rubber bullet remaining in his body . He was considered to require DATE of medical treatment .","According to her forensic medical certificate issued on DATE , she had a gunshot wound and an excoriation wound on the interior side of the lower part of the right leg , which may have been caused by a rubber bullet . She was considered to require DATE of medical treatment .","According to the certificate issued by the hospital on DATE he had a contusion on the left shoulder .","The following CARDINAL applicants : ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( Biga ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( PERSON ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( Biga ) , PERSON ( Biga ) , ORG , PERSON and PERSON declared to the national prosecutor that they had suffered various injuries , but did not produce any medical certificates to corroborate their claims . The remaining CARDINAL applicants : PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , only complained about the injuries suffered by their mother , PERSON .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( \u201c the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) launched a criminal investigation against the special force officers for the attempted first degree murder of PERSON , under LAW in conjunction with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The investigation began with an examination of the crime scene DATE . In the prosecutor \u2019s report it was noted that :","\u201c The crime scene has suffered numerous alterations , namely the removal of the damaged vehicles , the bullets and bullet cases used by the ORG agents , as well as their other weapons , the transport of all of the victims to hospital ... finding the area has been cleaned to some extent compared to the rest of the street . \u201d","The report further stated that several traces of blood and holes were found on the ground , doors and walls of the houses surrounding the crime scene . The holes found on the houses were CARDINAL from the ground . Several clothes and other items stained with blood or presenting possible bullet holes were seized as evidence . According to the same report , the following materials were handed over to the investigators by the victims : CARDINAL tear gas sprays , CARDINAL STAR-CARDINALmm - RB-CARDINAL cartridge cases and QUANTITY CARDINALxCARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL cartridge cases . CARDINAL other unidentified cartridge cases and CARDINAL metal bullets were also collected . The objects allegedly used by the crowd to attack the policemen could not be found . In addition , a pitchfork and a QUANTITY hunting gun were seized from the headquarters of the GPE police . Fingerprints were also collected from the vehicles used by the police officers .","On DATE the prosecutor ordered expert examinations of the guns used by the ORG agents during the incident , their cartridge cases and bullets , as well as the clothes and other items gathered from the crime scene . A first report issued on DATE concluded that the CARDINAL STAR-CARDINALmm - RB-CARDINAL cartridge cases had been fired from the hunting gun . The report did not state whether the CARDINAL cartridge cases came from rubber bullets , but indicated that the bullets used in order to perform the tests had been hunting bullets . A second expert report issued on DATE concluded that the other CARDINAL cartridge cases had been fired from CARDINAL of the pistols belonging to the special forces officers . However , with respect to the CARDINAL metal bullets found at the scene of the incident it was noted that no resources were available to establish from which gun they had been fired .","Medical documents were also collected from the local hospital and requested from ORG in respect of some of the GPE victims and all the police officers involved .","On DATE CARDINAL victims of the incident filed a criminal complaint against the special forces officers for abusive conduct and causing bodily harm , a complaint which was joined to the pre - existing investigation . They were the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , GPE Bidi , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( PERSON ) , PERSON , PERSON ( Biga ) , PERSON ( Biga ) , PERSON and CARDINAL other victims .","A report drafted on DATE by an officer from the GPE police contained a list of the steps undertaken in the investigation to that date as well as a list of \u201c questions to ask the GPE \u201d . The relevant parts read as follows :","\u201c Did the gypsies know that the police officers and ORG forces were coming to PERSON and why ?","Were the gypsies gathered near the houses of the CARDINAL wanted criminals before the police officers arrived ?","How many gypsies were there ? \u201d","The report also mentioned that , following a check of the census , it had been possible to identify the inhabitants of the neighbourhood who took part in the incident , some of whom had a criminal record .","On an unspecified date the criminal records of the GPE who had made statements to the prosecutor ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) were checked and the information was adduced to the investigation file . CARDINAL of them had CARDINAL previous convictions for theft and another had CARDINAL convictions for robbery .","On DATE of the applicants , PERSON and CARDINAL other victims made statements to the prosecutor . Their statements were consistent , in that they all said that on seeing the police vehicles they had come out of their houses with their spouses and children out of curiosity . While normal discussions had been taking place between PERSON and the policemen , the special forces officers had started to spray the crowd with tear gas and throw tear gas grenades at them and as everybody ran around trying to protect their children and go back inside their houses , the same officers had started to shoot at them .","In her statement , PERSON said that while she had been in her courtyard giving information to the plain - clothes officers about the whereabouts of her son , a \u201c fight broke out between the masked men and the NORP \u201d and a tear gas grenade had fallen by her feet . The CARDINAL officers that she had been talking to ran away and CARDINAL of them had shouted \u201c Do not shoot ! \u201d and she had turned to run and hide inside her house . At that moment she had been shot in the back and lost consciousness .","In their statements , the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( Biga ) , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON declared that they were thereby submitting complaints against the special force officers who ill - treated them and claiming compensation from them .","On DATE the CARDINAL officers from the investigations department of the GPE police were questioned by the prosecutor as witnesses . Their statements were practically identical , saying that while they had been talking to PERSON , they had heard noise coming from where they had left their vehicles and when they had turned round they had seen : \u201c ... several armed individuals ( CARDINAL ethnic GPE ) , attacking the CARDINAL fighters with bats , pitchforks , bottles , stones and other objects \u201d .","TIME , M.M. and ORG declared that when they had left for LOC , they had not been aware that the \u201c GPE from this neighbourhood might commit violent acts \u201d .","M.M. , ORG and ORG further declared that they had neither assaulted nor been physically assaulted by the \u201c ethnic GPE .","On DATE the special forces officers made statements to the prosecutor . They all declared that they had been forced to use their guns in order to defend themselves and their colleagues .","Officer PERSON , head of the special forces unit , stated :","\u201c Immediately upon our arrival in the neighbourhood , a large number of GPE ethnic people started to gather in their yards , on the side of the road and behind us ; they headed towards us after we parked our vehicles ... These people initially only verbally attacked [ us ] ... Shortly afterwards , [ they ] started to push our colleagues from the judiciary [ investigations department ] , who were in plain clothes and were not carrying weapons . At that moment , seeing that [ the officers ] could not fulfil the purpose of their operation ... I considered that we must immediately ensure their protection and then leave the neighbourhood ... Because the use of sprays and sticks had no effect on the people in the area , who , on the contrary , became more aggressive and continued attacking us and throwing stones and bricks , me and CARDINAL colleagues fired warning shots in the air with our pistols ... PERSON , who had a rifle with rubber bullets , started using it . I did not see when he started shooting , I just heard the first shots . \u201d","Officer PERSON stated in his testimony :","\u201c Immediately upon our arrival , a large number of gypsies started to gather around us ; ... When our colleagues from the judiciary [ investigations department ] were surrounded , and when I saw that they were being attacked by the gypsies , [ who were ] pulling their clothes , our commander gave us the order to get out of our vehicles and make a way for them to get out of the crowd ... When we got out of our vehicles , each of us was surrounded by a few furious gypsies , who started assaulting us ... I was equipped with the following : a tear gas spray , a double - barrel hunting rifle which had rubber bullets , and a CARDINAL mm Glock pistol with CARDINAL rounds of live ammunition , which I did n\u2019t use ... I loaded my hunting rifle with CARDINAL bullets and shouted \u2018 Freeze , police ! We will use firearms!\u2019 The shouting had no effect so I fired QUANTITY shots in the air . These also had no effect on the furious crowd . My colleagues also fired their pistols with live ammunition in the air ... At CARDINAL point , on hearing shouting coming from the upper side of the street , and seeing that stones were being thrown from that direction , I went to the crossroads and I saw a big crowd of gypsies coming towards us . I reloaded the gun with the intention of firing another shot in the air . At that moment , I was attacked by a group of around QUANTITY people , who were coming towards me . They started hitting me ... I was then hit in the head by a stone thrown by the group of people coming down the street ... After being hit , I fell to my knees and pulled the trigger of the gun , firing in the direction of the crowd . \u201d","Officer PERSON said in his statement that :","\u201c ... I saw my colleague PERSON , who appeared to have been wounded , lying on a fence . Because I had heard my colleagues warn the assaulters to back up or weapons would be used , I took out the pistol and in order to ensure that I had enough space and time to help my injured colleague , I fired four shots in the air ... I personally only saw our commander Mr PERSON fire several shots in the air ... As far as I noticed , all shots had been fired in the air . \u201d","Officer PERSON stated that he did not fire his gun saying that :","\u201c Immediately upon our arrival , a large number of gypsies started to gather around us ; ... When our colleagues from the judiciary [ investigations department ] were surrounded , and when I saw that they were being attacked by the gypsies , [ who were ] pulling their clothes , our commander gave us the order to get out of our vehicles and make a way for them to get out of the crowd ... When we got out of our vehicles , each of us was surrounded by some angry gypsies , who started assaulting us ... The gypsies were becoming more and more nervous ... We started defending ourselves , first using tear gas spray ... We then threw CARDINAL or CARDINAL grenades , also filled with tear gas ... We used our sticks ... I also had a PERSON pistol on me with live ammunition , but I did not manage to pull it out ... As far as I understood it , our boss and CARDINAL other colleagues took out their guns and fired some shots in the air , in order to discourage the aggressors ... CARDINAL of our colleagues , PERSON , had a \u201c hunting \u201d type rifle with rubber bullets . This gun was used to fire several shots into the crowd ... After TIME , I managed to regroup with my colleagues in formation and make way for the CARDINAL ORG [ cars ] , which managed to retreat from the street ... I got behind the wheel of our vehicle and turned to leave the area . \u201d","Officer H.D.M. also stated that he did not use his gun declaring :","\u201c Immediately upon our arrival , a large number of gypsies started to gather around us ; ... When our colleagues from the judiciary [ investigations department ] were surrounded , and when I saw that they were being attacked by the gypsies , [ who were ] pulling their clothes , our commander gave us the order to get out of our vehicles and make a way for them to get out of the crowd ... When we got out of our vehicles , each of us was surrounded by some angry gypsies , who started assaulting us ... The gypsies were becoming more and more nervous ... We started defending ourselves , first using the tear gas spray ... We then threw CARDINAL or CARDINAL grenades , also filled with tear gas ... We used our sticks ... I also had a ORG pistol on me with live ammunition , but I did not manage to pull it out ... As far as I understood it , our boss and CARDINAL other colleagues took out their guns and fired some shots in the air , in order to discourage the aggressors ... CARDINAL of our colleagues , PERSON , had a \u201c hunting \u201d type rifle with rubber bullets . This gun was used to fire several shots into the crowd . After TIME , I managed to regroup with my colleagues in formation and make way for the CARDINAL ORG [ cars ] , which managed to retreat from the street ... \u201d","From officer PERSON \u2019s testimony , it appeared that he too did not fire his gun :","\u201c Immediately upon our arrival , a large number of gypsies started to gather around us ; ... When our colleagues from the judiciary [ investigations department ] were surrounded , and when I saw that they were being attacked by the gypsies , [ who were ] pulling their clothes , our commander gave us the order to get out of our vehicles and make a way for them to get out of the crowd ... When we got out of our vehicles , each of us was surrounded by some angry gypsies , who started assaulting us ... I was immediately hit with a bat in the legs and then with a stone or brick in the head ... I fell to the ground ... TIME , I effectively lost consciousness and I can not say what happened to my colleagues next ... \u201d","Officer PERSON similarly declared that he did not use his gun . He further stated that :","\u201c Because our warnings had no effect and we continued to be attacked , I heard several gunshots and I saw my colleague PERSON next to me , firing a few shots in the air with his pistol ... I saw my other colleague , PERSON , the only one of us carrying a rifle and he also fired shots in the air ... As far as I noticed , all the shots had been fired in the air . \u201d","On DATE the prosecutor decided to terminate the attempted first - degree murder investigation , with a decision not to bring charges against the ORG agents . He held that upon the arrival of the police officers in the neighbourhood , people started gathering in the street and \u201c ... a fight broke out between them and the FAC unit \u201d . The decision mentioned that according to the agents\u2019 statements , on DATE they had used \u201c paralysing sprays and grenades , bats and firearms , discharged into the air in order to discourage the crowd \u201d ; PERSON had used a hunting gun with rubber bullets , shooting both into the air and at the crowd . Several people had been injured , both agents and local residents , but the injuries had not been very serious , with the exception of those sustained by PERSON . Comparing the conclusions of PERSON forensic medical certificate with the statements of the individuals involved in the incident , the prosecutor concluded that the officers under investigation did not intend to take the victim \u2019s life , stating that \u201c the GPE intention had obviously been to discourage the large number of people gathered there , not to kill them \u201d . The prosecutor \u2019s decision also stated that :","\u201c This lack [ of intent ] may also be deduced from the approach taken \u2013 the person concerned was not targeted , we are dealing with a random shooting ... The acts of the above - mentioned [ individuals ] might constitute the offence of causing serious bodily harm ... with respect to PERSON . \u201d","The person who shot PERSON or the type of bullet which cause her injuries were not identified and no explanation was given in this regard . The officers who fired their guns were not clearly identified in the decision either .","The ORG prosecutor also acknowledged that CARDINAL victims had filed a criminal complaint requesting the investigation of the special force officers for the crimes of abusive conduct and causing serious bodily harm . Therefore , he ultimately decided that the investigation for the crimes of abusive conduct and causing serious bodily harm under LAW and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code should be continued by ORG of ORG ( \u201c the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) .","PERSON representative lodged an appeal with the hierarchically superior prosecutor against the NORP prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE . The core of his complaint was that the perpetrator had not been identified and that the evidence ( expert reports ) adduced to the file , which proved that there had been guns there DATE which had not only used rubber bullets but also live ammunition , had been completely ignored . The ORG agents should have been aware that the use of such ammunition could have resulted in the death or fatal injury of the people they had shot at . Furthermore , not only had the perpetrator not been identified , no steps had been taken to establish whether PERSON had been shot by a rubber bullet or a regular one .","On DATE the appeal was dismissed as ill - founded by ORG of the T\u00e2rgu ORG . The investigation was considered to have been properly conducted .","PERSON representative also lodged a complaint with ORG , stating that the prosecutor had not considered all the evidence in the file and had mainly relied on the version of events as presented by the ORG agents . He then reiterated the argument that the use of live ammunition shot at random should have made identifying those who had fired the shots a necessity . A ballistic report was also required in this regard . Attention was brought to CARDINAL of the GPE statements , CARDINAL of them made by GPE police officer ORG , who said that \u201c neither I nor any of my colleagues in our vehicle attacked the GPE or were attacked by them \u201d . This was confirmed by FAC , who admitted that he had not been hurt at all . In another piece of evidence it was mentioned that none of the blunt objects allegedly used to damage the State agents\u2019 vehicles had been found at the scene of the incident . In such circumstances , the conclusions drawn by the prosecutor appeared unfounded .","The complaint also claimed that there had been racist motives behind the ill - treatment PERSON and the rest of the victims had been subjected to , with a request that this allegation be clarified . In this respect , relying on the ORG \u2019s case - law in GPE and Others v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , ORG . MONEY and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ) PERSON representative complained that the disproportionate reaction of the ORG agents towards PERSON and the rest of the victims constituted discrimination and together with the subsequent ineffective investigation were in breach of ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG , basing its decision on the documents in the prosecutor \u2019s investigation file , dismissed the complaint , holding that the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE had been correct . The existence of possible racist motives behind the GPE ill - treatment had not been analysed by the court .","NORP The applicants\u2019 representative lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision , reiterating all the complaints submitted before the firstinstance court , and requesting that a further investigation for serious first - degree murder also be conducted , under LAW .","On DATE PERSON died at the age of DATE , DATE after the incident . The proceedings were continued by her sons and daughters : PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( PERSON ) , PERSON and PERSON ( Biga ) .","The T\u00e2rgu ORG dismissed the appeal by final decision of DATE , holding that the first - instance court had meticulously analysed the file and correctly concluded that there had been no intention to commit the offences under investigation , the agents having acted in accordance with the standard procedure regulating that kind of intervention .","Following the ORG prosecutor \u2019s decision to relinquish jurisdiction , a criminal investigation was launched by the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office for abusive conduct , under LAW .","The prosecutor questioned the ORG agents , who reiterated their previous statements . CARDINAL of the applicants amongst the CARDINAL victims who had filed the complaint on DATE also made statements . CARDINAL of them had also made a statement to the ORG prosecutor . The applicants LAW and PERSON alleged that the special forces officers had shouted : \u201c go inside your house or I will kill you \u201d and \u201c go inside your house or I will blow your brains out \u201d respectively .","The prosecutor also questioned CARDINAL other GPE victims , who had not made statements to the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office . They expressed their wish for the individuals who assaulted them to be held liable for their actions and declared that they would be claiming compensation in that regard .","On DATE , upholding the same facts as established in the decision issued by the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office , the PERSON prosecutor issued a decision not to bring charges against the CARDINAL officers under investigation , concluding that they had acted in self - defence , which under LAW eliminated the criminal element of the acts committed . In connection with the course of events , the decision started by repeating the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office findings that :","\u201c ... superior officers from the GPE police ... pointed out that the scene could not be reached because there were a large number of people ( CARDINAL ) armed with bats , pitchforks , axes and scythes and the law - enforcement authorities could not secure the area ...","Almost immediately upon arriving at the scene , several local residents started to gather and a fight broke out between them and members of the DIAS . \u201d","Also referring to the facts , the decision mentioned that the special forces officers declared they had been grouped together during the incident , while quoting in support of this finding the statement made by H.D.M. , who stated that they had initially been grouped together but had disbanded on being attacked by CARDINAL GPE each .","In order to substantiate the decision , the prosecutor first listed the injuries suffered by the ORG agents as follows :","\u201c H.D.M. was hit in the legs and the face , and according to the medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required DATE of medical care ;","PERSON was hit in the right shoulder , in both cheeks , above the left temple , the right leg above the knee and all fingers , and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required DATE of medical care ;","PERSON was hit with a stick in the legs and then immediately with a stone or a brick in the head , and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required DATE of medical care ;","V.M. was hit with a stone in the head , and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required DATE of medical care ;","ORG was hit in the ribs , the right ankle , the tibia and calf of the right leg and the left shoulder area , and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required DATE of medical care ;","PERSON was hit in the legs , the head , the back and the hands , and according to his medical certificate ... suffered injuries which required DATE of medical care . \u201d","The prosecutor then gave details of the gunshot injuries suffered by CARDINAL GPE victims , including PERSON , who was held to have been shot in the back .","Further on , the prosecutor listed the damage sustained by the vehicles used by the police officers to get to LOC on DATE of the incident , namely cracks in the windscreen or side windows , scratches and bumps .","In view of the above elements and citing parts of the statements made by the special forces officers , the prosecutor concluded that the ORG agents could not be held liable for abusive behaviour as they had acted in self - defence .","Neither the officers who fired their guns nor the person who shot PERSON were identified , nor was any explanation given in this regard .","NORP The applicants\u2019 representative complained against the DATE decision on behalf of the same CARDINAL victims who had joined the criminal proceedings on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He alleged that the incident had been caused by the authorities\u2019 lack of adequate preparation for their operation , the purpose of which had been to summon CARDINAL individuals to appear before the prosecutor for the investigation of an alleged non - violent offence . He further complained that only the alleged ORG statements had been used as a basis for the prosecutor \u2019s decision , and had disproportionately referred to the evidence favourable to them , without making the slightest attempt to try and identify who had fired their guns or the type of ammunition used . In addition , he complained that the prosecutor \u2019s decision had completely failed to mention certain crucial elements , in particular the severity of the injuries inflicted by the ORG agents on the victims . Furthermore , DATE of recommended medical treatment in the medical reports could not be relied on when determining the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victims . For example , several applicants who were shot were considered to require the same number of days of medical care as ORG agents whose injuries had been visibly less serious .","On DATE the complaint was rejected and the decision not to bring charges was upheld by the chief prosecutor .","NORP The applicants\u2019 representative contested the prosecutor \u2019s decision before ORG on behalf of the same CARDINAL victims who had joined the criminal proceedings on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He asked the court to order a reopening of the criminal investigation in order to efficiently identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice . He drew the court \u2019s attention to the extraordinary and urgent deployment of police forces ( TIME after the commission of the alleged offence ) in order to serve CARDINAL summonses which are normally sent by post , a situation which would never happen in cases involving non - GPE people .","On DATE ORG , basing its decision on the documents in the prosecutor \u2019s investigation file , dismissed the complaint , holding that the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE had been correct . In dismissing the complaint , the court briefly stated that even if guilt had been established , the application of LAW ( selfdefence ) made it necessary for the prosecutor to adopt the decision not to bring charges .","The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG , but it was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the representative of the applicants PERSON ( PERSON ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( Biga ) , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , whose names were not mentioned by the prosecutor in DATE decision , submitted a request to the NORP prosecutor \u2019s office seeking information concerning the progress of their complaints against the special forces officers . On DATE they were informed that the file concerning the death of PERSON had been terminated with a decision not to bring charges , and that the investigation for the alleged abusive conduct on the occasion of the incident of DATE was currently under way with the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office . They were informed that the statements they had made to the ORG prosecutor had also been forwarded to the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office . Following this reply , the CARDINAL applicants submitted a request to the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office detailing their situation and seeking information about the current status of their complaints . On DATE they received a reply , informing them that they had failed to quote the correct case number . They were asked to provide this information in order to receive a response .","On DATE ORG held a meeting to assess whether TIME , the officer who ran the operations on behalf of the GPE police , had breached police disciplinary rules when fulfilling the order of CARDINAL September CARDINAL given by his chief .","According to TIME of the meeting , the ORG heard evidence from TIME , as well as a witness in his defence , PERSON , the prosecutor in charge of the investigation of the complaint for insulting behaviour filed by GPE","In his statement TIME described the circumstances leading up to the incident . He stated that :","\u201c After a discussion with officer GPE , during which he told me about the incident that took place on the terrace of the \u201c GPE \u201d bar in GPE , I asked him to prepare a written report . Because it was not clear whether a crime had been committed , I decided that a team of officers should go to the bar in order to find witnesses and take statements from them , while I , together with another team , should go to the PERSON neighbourhood to take statements from the CARDINAL suspects ... \u201d","He further described how the special forces agents were attacked by the \u201c GPE \u201d , while PERSON told the ORG :","\u201c I consider that it was the strange reaction that GPE people have on seeing police cars or policemen that led to the clash DATE . \u201d","The Disciplinary Council unanimously decided that the policeman under investigation was innocent .","DATE . The complaint for insulting behaviour filed by GPE on DATE was dismissed at a later date by the prosecutor , since at the time of the incident GPE had been off - duty and had not been acting in his official capacity , and there had been no physical violence between the parties .","The CARDINAL summonses which justified the police operation of DATE were never served on the CARDINAL suspects , who were never questioned by the prosecutor in connection with the complaint filed by GPE"],"violated_articles":["14","2","3"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148718","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ABULAIL AND LUDNEVA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The first applicant , Mr GPE Qasem PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE in GPE . The second applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The CARDINAL applicants were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","In DATE the first applicant set up a limited liability company in GPE . The second applicant was employed by the company . DATE the first applicant visited GPE on several occasions . On DATE the CARDINAL applicants married . After that the first applicant started living permanently in GPE and in DATE was granted a permanent residence permit .","On DATE the Director of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , at the time a department of ORG , issued an order revoking the first applicant \u2019s residence permit , ordering his expulsion and barring him from entering GPE for DATE . The order relied on sections DATE and CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE . It indicated that it was based on the reasons set out in a classified document named \u201c proposal \u201d ( \u201c \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043b\u043e\u0436\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u201d ) and bearing the number PERSON - CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/\u041f\u0434\/CCARDINAL\/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , and on the fact that the first applicant represented a threat to national security . It was also indicated that the order was subject to immediate execution .","After communication of the present application , the Government provided the ORG with an excerpt from proposal PERSON - CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/\u041f\u0434\/CCARDINAL\/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , which had been declassified on DATE . The excerpt , in which the names of the other persons are concealed , was shown to the first applicant in the proceedings concerning the judicial review of the order of DATE ( see below ) , and was included in the case file . The document refers to \u201c operational intelligence data \u201d showing that the first applicant was involved in drug trafficking . In particular , it is alleged that he was in contact with persons known to be involved in such activities , and used his company \u2019s trucks to transport drugs to GPE and GPE . It is also stated that in DATE a truck belonging to the first applicant \u2019s company was caught in the area of PERSON carrying QUANTITY of amphetamines .","The Government submitted an excerpt from another document entitled \u201c information document \u201d ( \u201c \u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u201d ) bearing the number ORG - CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/\u041f\u0434\/CCARDINAL\/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , also declassified on DATE , which contained the same statements and alleged , in addition , that the first applicant was involved in \u201c unlawful drug trafficking , under the control of the NORP secret services , who provide logistical support to the terrorist organisation ORG \u201d . This excerpt was also presented to the first applicant and included in the case file in the judicial - review proceedings he instigated ( see below ) .","The first applicant was expelled to GPE on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant filed an administrative appeal against the order of DATE . On DATE the Minister of ORG dismissed his appeal , finding that the proposal and the information document drawn up by the ORG contained data leading to the conclusion that the first applicant posed a threat to national security . The Minister went on to say that there had been sufficient grounds to justify the order ; by law , when issuing such orders the authorities had to refrain from setting out in them the facts justifying their conclusion that the respective person represented a national security risk .","In DATE the first applicant sought judicial review of the expulsion order by ORG . He argued that it was unclear on what factual circumstances the expulsion order had been based and that he had not been given an opportunity \u201c to defend himself against arbitrary action \u201d . The first applicant also sought a stay of the enforcement of the expulsion order pending the outcome of the proceedings .","The Sofia City Court accepted the application for judicial review for examination . In decisions issued on DATE and CARDINAL DATE it refused to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order .","Following amendments to LAW DATE that made expulsion orders subject to review by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , the case was transferred to that court on an unspecified date . In the proceedings before it , the first applicant had legal representation .","NORP In his submissions to the ORG the first applicant disputed the allegations \u2012 made in the proposal and the information document referred to in DATE and CARDINAL above \u2012 that he had been involved in drug trafficking . He also disputed the claim that in DATE in the region of PERSON the authorities had discovered drugs in a truck belonging to his company . He pointed out that at the time in question he had not sent trucks into that area and argued that if the allegation were true he would have been under investigation . He presented additional documents issued by the prosecution authorities , stating that he had no criminal convictions and that there were no ongoing investigations concerning him in the regions of PERSON or GPE . The first applicant also contested the allegations that he had worked for the NORP secret services and ORG , pointing out that he was a NORP and a GPE , and that ORG was a NORP militant group . He stated that his expulsion had disrupted his commercial activities in GPE . Lastly , he said the following :","\u201c [ I]t should be noted that my personal rights have been unlawfully encroached upon , which is unjustified . My family has been separated for DATE . \u201d","In a judgment of DATE , which was final , the ORG found that the order of DATE was lawful and disallowed the first applicant \u2019s application for judicial review . Its decisive reasoning was as follows :","\u201c The disputed order was made by a competent body , no material breaches of the rules of administrative procedure have been committed , and it does not contradict the applicable law and its intent . The argument raised in the application for judicial review that the disputed administrative act did not contain any reasoning and was not based on the law is ill - founded . The disputed order refers to the legal provisions it is based on and \u2012 given that it concerns compulsory measures under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ Aliens Act ] \u2012 pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the same LAW it should not disclose the factual grounds justifying it . Moreover , those factual grounds are set out in detail in [ proposal PERSON - CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/\u041f\u0434\/CCARDINAL\/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] and are indicated in the disputed order as the factual basis , as can be seen from the [ excerpt from the document ] included in the case file . On the basis of the information contained in the proposal , the administrative body has reached a reasoned conclusion that the [ applicant \u2019s ] presence in the country amounts to a serious threat to national security , and that the preconditions have been satisfied for the imposition of the compulsory measure \u2018 expulsion\u2019 [ ... ] , together with the compulsory measures \u2018 revocation of residence permit\u2019 and \u2018 bar on entering the [ Republic of Bulgaria]\u2019 which accompany it on a mandatory basis . [ ... ] As can be seen from the proposal and the information document [ ORG - CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/\u041f\u0434\/CCARDINAL\/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] , an excerpt of which [ ... ] has also been included in the case file , the operational investigative activities carried out have established the grounds for imposing the compulsory measure \u2018 LOC , together with the remaining [ compulsory measures taken ] . Contrary to the applicant \u2019s arguments , the excerpts presented in the case \u2012 prepared in accordance with the [ law on classified information ] \u2012 are official attestation documents , which have binding force for the court as regards the contents of the proposal and the information document , on the basis of which \u2012 in accordance with the applicable substantive rules \u2012 the disputed order has been made . \u201d","With the order of DATE the Director of the ORG ordered the first applicant \u2019s detention pending expulsion . On DATE the Director of ORG , relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL) of LAW , also ordered his detention pending enforcement of the expulsion order . On DATE the first applicant was detained and placed in FAC ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) in ORG , where he remained until his expulsion on CARDINAL DATE .","The order of DATE stated that it was subject to judicial review . It does not appear that the first applicant sought such review .","Around TIME on DATE the first applicant was beaten by a codetainee , an NORP national , with whom he had been accommodated in the same room in the CIDA . Immediately after the accident the NORP was placed in another room .","In TIME of DATE the first applicant was transferred to a hospital where it was established that he had a broken nose . On DATE he underwent surgery . He was discharged from hospital on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant complained to the prosecution authorities and requested them to investigate his beating . On DATE a prosecutor from GPE Public Prosecutor \u2019s Office instructed the police to carry out a check - up . After this had been done , in a decision of DATE CARDINAL the prosecutor found that the injury suffered by the applicant was considered by LAW to be one of a minor severity , which meant that its infliction was a privately prosecutable offence . Thus , the prosecutor discontinued the criminal proceedings .","The above decision , which was served on the first applicant \u2019s lawyer , was appealable to a higher - ranking prosecutor . The first applicant did not appeal . Nor did he lodge a private criminal complaint against his attacker , who was likewise expelled from GPE on an unspecified date .","The relevant domestic law concerning the expulsion of aliens on grounds of national security , as in force at the time , has been set out in detail in the ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases of GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166937","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF YAROSLAV BELOUSOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested during the dispersal of a political rally at FAC in GPE . He was found guilty of failure to obey lawful police orders , an offence under LAW , and was subsequently charged with participation in mass disorder and with having committed violent acts against police officers , criminal offences provided for by Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . He was detained and tried on these charges and was convicted to a prison term of DATE and DATE .","The background facts relating to the planning , conduct and dispersal of the assembly at FAC are set out in more detail in the judgment PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . The parties\u2019 submissions on the circumstances directly relevant to the present case are set out below .","On DATE CARDINAL individuals ( Mr I. GPE , Mr S. NORP , Ms Y. PERSON , PERSON Mityushkina and Mr S. Udaltsov ) submitted notice of a public demonstration to the mayor of GPE . The aim of the demonstration was \u201c to protest against abuses and falsifications in the course of the elections to ORG and of the President of GPE , and to demand fair elections , respect for human rights , the rule of law and the international obligations of the GPE \u201d .","On DATE ORG approved the route from FAC , down FAC and FAC , followed by a meeting at FAC , noting that the organisers had provided a detailed plan of the proposed events . The march was to begin at TIME , and the meeting had to finish by TIME The number of participants was indicated as CARDINAL .","On CARDINAL DATE the First Deputy Head of ORG held a working meeting with the organisers of the demonstration at FAC , at which they discussed the security issues . The organisers and the authorities agreed that the assembly layout and the security arrangements would be identical to the previous public event organised by the same group of opposition activists on DATE . On that occasion , the venue of the meeting had included the park at FAC and the GPE embankment .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG issued a warning to CARDINAL of the organisers , Mr NORP and Mr GPE , against exceeding the notified number of participants and against erecting camping tents at the meeting venue , an intention allegedly expressed by the organisers at the working meeting .","On DATE ORG of the ORG published on its website the official information about the forthcoming demonstration on DATE , including a map . The map indicated the route of the march , the traffic restrictions and an access plan to FAC ; it delineated the area allotted to the meeting , which included the park at FAC . Access to the meeting was marked through the park .","On DATE the Police Chief of ORG of the ORG adopted a plan for safeguarding public order in GPE on DATE ( the \u201c security plan \u201d ) . In view of the forthcoming authorised demonstration at FAC and anticipated attempts by other opposition groups to hold unauthorised public gatherings , it provided for security measures in GPE city centre and set up operational headquarters to implement them . The police units assigned to police the march and the meeting counted CARDINAL riot police officers , of which CARDINAL were on duty at FAC . They were instructed , in particular , to search the demonstrators to prevent them from taking tents to the site of the meeting and to obstruct access to PERSON , diverting the marchers to GPE embankment , the place of the meeting . The adjacent park at FAC had to be cordoned off .","At TIME on DATE the organisers were allowed access to the meeting venue to set up their stage and sound equipment . The police searched the vehicles delivering the equipment and seized CARDINAL tents found amid the gear . They arrested several people for bringing the tents .","At the beginning of the march , the organisers signed an undertaking to ensure public order during the demonstration and gave assurances to the police that the limits on the place and time allocated for the assembly would be respected and that no tents would be placed on FAC .","NORP The march began at TIME at FAC . It went down FAC peacefully and without disruption . The turnout exceeded expectations , but there is no consensus as to the exact numbers . The official estimate was that there were CARDINAL participants , whereas the organisers considered that there were CARDINAL . The media reported different numbers , some significantly exceeding the above estimates .","At TIME the march approached FAC . The leaders found that the layout of the meeting and the placement of the police cordon did not correspond to what they had anticipated . Unlike on DATE , the park at FAC was excluded from the meeting venue , which was limited to GPE embankment .","Faced with the police cordon and unable to access the park , the leaders of the march \u2013 Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON DATE stopped and demanded that the police open access to the park . The cordon officers did not enter into any discussion with the protest leaders and no senior officer was delegated to negotiate . After TIME of attempting to engage with the cordon officers , at TIME the CARDINAL leaders announced that they were going on a \u201c sit - down strike \u201d and sat on the ground . The people behind them stopped , although some people continued to go past them towards the stage .","Between TIME and TIME CARDINAL State PERSON deputies tried to negotiate the enlargement of the restricted area by moving the police cordon behind the park along the lines expected by the organisers . At the same time the Ombudsman of GPE , at the request of police , attempted to persuade the leaders of the sit - in to resume the procession and to head towards the meeting venue at GPE embankment where the stage had been set up . During that time no senior police officer or municipal official came to the site of the sit - down protest , and there was no direct communication between the authorities and the leaders of the sit - in .","At TIME the crowd around the sit - down protest built up , which caused some congestion , and the leaders abandoned the protest and headed towards the stage , followed by the crowd .","At TIME the media reported that the police authorities were regarding the strike as a provocation of mass disorder and were considering prosecuting those responsible for it .","At the same time a commotion near the police cordon occurred at the place vacated by the sit - down protest , and the police cordon was broken in several places . A crowd of CARDINAL people spilled over into the empty space beyond the cordon . Within TIME the police restored the cordon , which was reinforced by an additional riot police force . Those who found themselves outside the cordon wandered around , uncertain what to do next . Several people were apprehended , others were pushed back inside the cordon , and some continued to loiter outside or walked towards the park . The police cordon began to push the crowd into the restricted area and advanced by QUANTITY , pressing it inwards .","At TIME , on police instructions , announced from the stage that the meeting was now over , but apparently her message was not heard by most of the demonstrators or the media reporters broadcasting from the spot . The live television footage provided by the parties contained no mention of her announcement .","At the same time a Molotov cocktail was launched from the crowd at the corner of ORG bridge over the restored police cordon . It landed outside the cordon and a passer - by \u2019s trousers caught fire . It was promptly extinguished by the police .","At TIME at the same corner of PERSON bridge the riot police began breaking into the demonstration to split up the crowd . Running in tight formations , they pushed the crowd apart , arrested some people , confronted others , and formed new cordons to isolate sections of the crowd . Some protesters held up metal barriers and aligned them so as to resist the police , threw various objects at the police , shouted and chanted \u201c Shame ! \u201d and other slogans , and whenever the police apprehended someone from among the protesters they attempted to pull them back . The police applied combat techniques and used truncheons .","At TIME Mr Udaltsov climbed onto the stage at the opposite end of the square to address the meeting . At this point , he was arrested . Mr PERSON attempted to go up onto the stage , but he was also arrested , and so was Mr PERSON , TIME .","Meanwhile , at ORG the police continued dividing the crowd and began pushing some sections away from the venue . Through loudspeakers they asked the participants to leave for the metro station . The dispersal continued for TIME until the venue was fully cleared of all protesters .","On DATE ORG of GPE opened a criminal investigation into the suspected mass disorder and violent acts against the police ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) .","On DATE an investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising mass disorder ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined on DATE .","On DATE the first criminal case against CARDINAL individuals suspected of participation in mass disorder , including the applicant , was transferred to LOC of GPE for the determination of criminal charges ( the first \u201c GPE \u201d case ) .","On DATE the ORG of GPE pronounced a judgment in the first PERSON case . It found CARDINAL individuals , including the applicant , guilty of participation in mass disorder and of violent acts against police officers during the public assembly on DATE . They received prison sentences of CARDINAL ; CARDINAL of them was released on parole . The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . CARDINAL co - defendants had previously been pardoned under LAW and a fourth had his case disjoined from the main proceedings . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE . It reduced the applicant \u2019s prison sentence to DATE .","On DATE ORG found PERSON and PERSON ORG guilty of organising mass disorder on DATE and sentenced them to CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of DATE , with amendments .","On DATE the ORG of GPE examined another \u201c GPE \u201d case and found CARDINAL persons guilty of participating in the mass disorder and of committing violent acts against police officers during the demonstration on DATE . They received prison sentences of CARDINAL ; CARDINAL of them was released on parole . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .","At the time of arrest the applicant was a student at the political science faculty of ORG and lived with his wife and their child born in DATE . On DATE he arrived at FAC to take part in the demonstration and , according to him , he did not take part in any disorder or clashes with the police , although he was in the area where clashes occurred . At CARDINAL point during the dispersal of the demonstration he picked up from the ground a small round yellow object and threw it over the heads of the protesters in the direction of the police . He was arrested shortly after that . There is no information as to whether he was detained on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was charged with non - compliance with a lawful order by a police officer on DATE . He was found guilty of the offence provided by LAW and was sentenced to CARDINAL detention .","Until DATE the applicant continued to study at the university while living with his family at his usual address . On DATE he was detained on suspicion of having participated in mass disorders on DATE .","On DATE ORG examined and granted the request to detain the applicant pending criminal investigation . It reasoned as follows :","\u201c In assessing the circumstances under investigation , [ the court takes account of ] the submitted materials and the indicated information in their integrity , as well as the personality of [ the applicant ] , who is suspected of having committed criminal offences CARDINAL of which is characterised as grave and the other of medium gravity , punishable by DATE of deprivation of liberty , and therefore giving sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant is likely to abscond , to continue his criminal activity , to destroy evidence , or to otherwise obstruct the investigation of the criminal case . \u201d","The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for an alternative preventive measure , including bail of MONEY ( RUB ) , and personal guarantees of several state officials and found that his release was not required on health grounds . It ordered the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order .","On DATE charges were brought against the applicant under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( participation in mass disorder ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( violence against a public official ) of LAW . He was accused , in particular , of shouting slogans and throwing an unidentified small round yellow object that had hit the police officer \u2019s shoulder .","NORP On DATE ORG examined the investigator \u2019s request to extend the term of the applicant \u2019s detention by DATE . The applicant asked for another preventive measure pending trial . He offered bail of RUB MONEY or the personal guarantees of a ORG deputy , CARDINAL GPE municipal deputies and CARDINAL academic . His request for an alternative preventive measure was supported by petitions signed by CARDINAL GPE municipal deputies and CARDINAL personal references from his place of residence and the university . The applicant also made a plea for release on health grounds , having provided medical certificates confirming that he was suffering from a high - degree myopia and asthma . On DATE the court found that the circumstances that had justified the detention order had not changed and , referring to the gravity of the charges and the complexity of the investigation , extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . This extension order was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG granted another extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , until DATE , essentially on the same grounds and noting that the circumstances that had justified the detention order had not changed . This extension order was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the charges against the applicant were updated with a statement that the applicant \u2019s and others\u2019 acts had cumulatively caused the police officer a haematoma on the head , leg and shoulder . The classification of the offences remained unchanged .","On DATE ORG granted a new extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , until DATE , essentially on the same grounds as before and noting that the circumstances that had justified the detention order had not changed . On DATE ORG upheld this extension order .","On DATE ORG examined a fresh request for the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention and granted it until DATE . The decision read as follows :","\u201c The materials presented [ by the investigator ] reveal that the grounds for choosing the preventive measure in respect of [ the applicant ] were not only the gravity of the charges but also the information about the personality of [ the applicant ] who could abscond from the investigation and trial , threaten witnesses , or otherwise obstruct the proceedings in the case , if released .","The aforementioned grounds ... ...","This term is reasonable , [ it ] is justified by the objective circumstances , it is not in conflict with the term of the pre - trial investigation , also extended on the same grounds ...","In accordance with ORG [ case - law ] , the proportionality of the preventive measure to the [ gravity of the ] charges imputed to [ the applicant ] show that in this case the public interests , in particular those related to the criminal investigation , override the importance of the principle of respect of individual liberty . \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s criminal case was transferred to ORG for the determination of criminal charges .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the extension order of DATE .","On DATE the latter court granted another extension of the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . This decision concerned CARDINAL defendants and read , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c ... the court concludes that the preventive measure in respect of [ all defendants ] ... is to remain unchanged because the reasons taken into account when these measures were chosen have not ceased to exist and have not changed ...","... [ the defendants ] are accused of [ grave crimes punishable by prison sentences ] ...","Regard being had to all the available information about the personality of [ the defendants ] and the nature of the criminal offences imputed to each of them , the court still has sufficient grounds to believe that the said defendants , if at liberty , may flee the trial or otherwise obstruct the course of justice , [ motivated by ] the gravity of the charges .","... no other measures of restraint would secure the aims and goals of the judicial proceedings ...","The court takes into account the arguments of Mr PERSON , Mr GPE and PERSON PERSON and their counsel concerning the health problems which occurred in custody , but notes that no documentary evidence that these defendants have diseases threatening their life or health and incompatible with the detention in custody have been provided . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the extension order of DATE .","DATE . On DATE , during the court hearing the applicant made an application for release which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the Ombudsman of GPE applied to the ORG of ORG with a complaint about the extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention , and requested an alternative preventive measure for him .","On DATE the applicant applied for release on the grounds of his child \u2019s medical condition , as well as the deterioration of the applicant \u2019s own health . This application was supported by several prominent public personages , including university professors , the dean of the faculty of political science and a State PERSON deputy , all of whom provided personal guarantees . On DATE ORG rejected this application .","On DATE ORG refused the ORG \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG granted another extension of detention in respect of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant . It ordered their detention until DATE on the grounds of the gravity of the charges . It held , in particular , as follows :","\u201c [ The defendants ] are charged with a criminal offence provided for by LAW , which belongs to the category of grave crimes punishable by a prison sentence of DATE . Furthermore , [ some defendants ] are charged with a criminal offence provided for by LAW , also punishable by a prison sentence of DATE .","Despite the defendants being registered as having permanent addresses in GPE , the analysis of the overall information about [ the GPE ] personalities , and the nature of the offences imputable to them , give the court sufficient grounds to consider that the defendants , if the preventive measure is changed to another one not involving deprivation of liberty , may flee the trial or otherwise obstruct the course of justice , [ motivated by ] the gravity of the charges ... the reasons taken into account when these measures were chosen have not ceased to exist and have not changed ... \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the extension order of DATE .","The applicant has high - degree myopia . According to a DATE medical certificate , his eyesight in the right eye was CARDINAL dioptres , and on the left eye CARDINAL dioptres .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in remand prison GPE , and from DATE he was held in GPE . Upon his arrival at the remand prisons the applicant was subjected to medical checks which did not reveal any health issues .","The parties agree that on DATE the number of inmates in the cell did not exceed the design capacity . They also agree that the size of the cells and the number of detainees allowed the applicant QUANTITY of personal space and that the applicant had an individual sleeping place in every cell .","The parties provided the following accounts of the conditions in these cells . According to the applicant , the cells were inadequately lit and ventilated , excessively hot in DATE and cold in DATE , all with a lavatory pan separated from the living space by a chin - high plastic partition providing insufficient privacy . The applicant alleged that he had been constantly exposed to cigarette smoke , and although the window in the cell could be opened it gave onto a courtyard used for incinerating rubbish , letting in fumes . Therefore the cell constantly lacked fresh air , and the forced ventilation could not compensate for it . Outdoor exercise was limited to TIME per day . The applicant also claimed that the window was too high to give sufficient light for reading or working with documents . Finally , he alleged that access to drinking water was conditional on the purchase of an electric kettle .","According to the Government , the artificial light in the cells was maintained at QUANTITY round the clock except at night , from TIME to CARDINAL a.m. , when it was QUANTITY ; they provided measurement tables for this detention centre created in DATE , which stated that the brightness in the cells was CARDINAL and CARDINAL lux , the temperature in the cells between CARDINALoC and CARDINALoC , and the humidity PERCENT . They indicated that in IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL the detainees had access to a gym upon their written request .","On DATE the applicant applied in writing to the head of the facility for a medical examination . He alleged that he had been suffering from asthma and high - degree myopia . On DATE he made a similar application to the investigator of the criminal case .","On DATE the investigator granted the applicant \u2019s request for a medical examination . This decision read as follows :","\u201c ... the performance of a medical examination ... falls outside the competence of the investigating bodies ...","However , given that the state of health of the accused Mr GPE is of importance to the present criminal case , the investigating bodies have sent the relevant request to the administration of [ GPE ] stating the need to carry out , in the shortest possible time , the medical examination of the accused Mr Belousov , the results of which are to be submitted to the investigating bodies for inclusion in the criminal case file . \u201d","It appears that the medical examination was not carried out .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the public commission for the monitoring of detention facilities visited GPE , and , according to the Government , the applicant made no complaints about the conditions of detention or the lack of medical assistance on either occasion .","On DATE the applicant had a hypertension crisis during a court hearing . An ambulance was called and provided him with the necessary assistance .","Following his complaints of headaches , on DATE the applicant was placed in the medical ward of ORG . Upon admission , the applicant was diagnosed with hypertension . He remained in the medical ward for a period of DATE for his blood pressure to be monitored .","The applicant alleged that the conditions in GPE were poor , in particular on account of the lack of outdoor exercise and inadequate sanitary arrangements . He specified that the lavatory pan was separated from the living space by a chest - high partition providing insufficient privacy . According to the applicant \u2019s letter of DATE , he had not been able to have a shower since his transfer to ORG .","According to the Government , the conditions in the cells of GPE were as follows : the toilet was separated by a solid partition from the rest of the cell and ensured the necessary privacy ; the state of the sanitary facilities was satisfactory ; the cells were treated for disinfection and pest - control once DATE and whenever necessary ; the applicant was entitled to TIME outdoor exercise per day ; the cell was cleaned and the bedding changed once a week ; the cells were equipped with forced ventilation and could be aired through a hinged window pane . Artificial light was provided at QUANTITY by day and QUANTITY by night . The glazed windows let in sufficient daylight .","DATE . Pursuant to the request of the applicant \u2019s counsel filed on an unidentified date , on DATE the applicant was examined by an ophthalmologist and was diagnosed with high - degree myopia ( CARDINAL dioptres on both eyes ) .","During the hearing of the applicants\u2019 criminal case , which began in DATE , the applicant and his co - defendants were regularly transferred from the remand prisons to the court - house and back . All the defendants attended the hearings on DATE every week . According to the Government , the applicant \u2019s trial involved CARDINAL court hearings , and it appears that the applicant was transferred to attend all of them . A typical schedule on a hearing day is represented by the following DATE extract submitted by the applicant :","According to the applicant , this schedule left him insufficient time for sleep between the court hearings , gave him no time to prepare for DATE hearing , and deprived him of hot meals .","He further alleged that the conditions in the prison assembly rooms and in the transfer van ( \u00ab \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0437\u0430\u043a ORG ) had been appalling , in particular owing to overcrowding . He claimed that he was cramped together with other detainees and their belongings in a small tin cabin without windows , ventilated only through a roof hatch . The benches were spaced at QUANTITY , and the detainees had to get in and out by walking on others . Smoking was allowed , which caused further discomfort , especially to non - smokers . Occasionally , they were transferred in vans divided into tight individual metal cubicles . In both types of vans the cabin overheated in DATE and froze in cold weather . The transfer lasted for TIME depending on the number of pick - up points and traffic conditions . There was no opportunity to use a toilet during the transfer , even at other pick - up points where the van could wait for TIME .","At ORG before and after the hearings the applicant and his co - defendants were held in convoy cells . According to the applicant , these were poorly lit and often overcrowded , and access to a toilet was subject to the availability of a convoy officer . Some of the convoy cells on the ground floor of the court - house were as small QUANTITY , and each could be shared by CARDINAL detainees . The applicants\u2019 account was supported by witness statements submitted by his co - defendant PERSON PERSON and those given by his CARDINAL fellow inmates , unrelated to the present case ; their detailed accounts of the prison transfers in the relevant period , as well as of the convoy cells at ORG , were consistent with the applicant \u2019s submissions .","According to the ORG , the morning transfer to the courthouse did not exceed TIME , and the transfer back lasted for TIME because of the evening traffic . Also , the applicant \u2019s schedule allowed for TIME of uninterrupted sleep . They indicated that the wake - up time at the detention centres was TIME , the pickup would take place at TIME , and the drop - off after the hearing at TIME ; assembly before and after the transfer did not exceed TIME . All the detainees were provided with packed meals for DATE out at the court - house , and they were given hot water at lunchtime . They further indicated that the vans used for the transfer were DATE models of KAMAZCARDINALAZ , KAMAZOTSCARDINALAZ ( both designed for CARDINAL detainees ) , PERSON ( designed for CARDINAL detainees ) , and PERSON ( designed for CARDINAL detainees ) . As regards the convoy cells at ORG , they submitted that the applicant and his co - defendants were detained in convoy area of the court - house , which included CARDINAL cells measuring QUANTITY each and toilets , including a wheelchair - accessible one , which the detainees could use on demand , accompanied by the convoy . They submitted that the cells had adequate light and ventilation , and that they were furnished with tables and benches . During the intervals in the hearing the defendants could use an electric kettle to boil water .","On DATE the court proceedings began in hearing room no . CARDINAL of ORG . The latter court lent its LOC to ORG so as to accommodate all the participants in the proceedings , the public and the press . In that hearing room CARDINAL defendants were held in a glass cabin measuring QUANTITY ( height ) . The Government submitted that the glass cabin was a permanent courtroom installation consisting of a steel frame and sheets of bulletproof glass , with a partition inside , a steel mesh ceiling and a secure door ; the cabin was equipped with benches . The walls of the cabin had slots allowing documents to be passed between the defendants and their counsel ; ventilation outlets were at floor level , and near the dock was an air conditioner . The cabin was equipped with microphones allowing for consultations with counsel and facilitating the defendants\u2019 participation in the proceedings . The Government specified that convoy officer guarded the cabin on both sides , supervised the defendants and intercepted any attempts of \u201c contact with outsiders \u201d , but the defendants could communicate with their counsel with the court \u2019s permission .","The applicant submitted that the glass cabin lacked space and ventilation and that it was virtually soundproof , hampering the defendants\u2019 participation in the proceedings and their communication with counsel . The benches had no backrests , and the lack of space made it impossible to have documents ; it was impossible to consult counsel or the case file during the hearing . The applicant also submitted that the video evidence examined at the hearing could not be seen by him from the cabin because of the distance between the cabin and the screen and his poor eyesight .","DATE . In DATE the proceedings moved to hearing room no . CARDINAL of ORG . This hearing room was equipped with CARDINAL glass cabins similar to the CARDINAL in hearing room no . CARDINAL , except that there were no slots in them . Each cabin measured QUANTITY ( height ) . From DATE one of the defendants was no longer placed in the glass cabin owing to a change in the measure of restraint for him . The CARDINAL remaining defendants were divided between the CARDINAL cabins .","From DATE to DATE the hearings continued on the premises of ORG of GPE ( hearing room no . CARDINAL ) , and in DATE and DATE at FAC ( hearing room no . CARDINAL ) . These hearing rooms were equipped with metal cages in which the CARDINAL defendants ( from DATE ) , including the applicant , sat during the hearings . According to the photographs submitted by the applicants , the dimensions of the cages were similar to the glass cabins described above and , likewise , they were not equipped with any furniture other than benches .","On DATE the ORG of GPE began a preliminary hearing of the criminal case against CARDINAL participants in the public assembly at FAC charged with participation in mass disorders and violent acts against police officers . On DATE the same court began the hearing on the merits .","On DATE police officer PERSON , the victim of the applicant \u2019s assault , was examined as a witness . He testified that the applicant had thrown an unidentified yellow object which had hit him on the shoulder and caused him pain . The applicant asked for PERSON \u2019s statements made during the investigation , which contained no mention of the yellow object or the applicant , to be read out in court . The applicant pointed out that no identification parade had been held during the investigation to enable PERSON to identify the person who had assaulted him ; instead , the applicant and PERSON had been questioned in confrontation , whereby the applicant had been the only person introduced to F. as the likely perpetrator . The court refused the applicant \u2019s request for PERSON \u2019s statements to be read out .","On DATE the ORG of GPE pronounced judgment . It found , in particular , as follows :","\u201c TIME on DATE ... at FAC ... unidentified persons ... called those present [ at the venue ] to move outside the agreed meeting venue , to defy the lawful orders of the police ... , to use violence ... which led to mass disorder accompanied by the use of violence against public officials in connection with the performance of their duties [ and ] the destruction of property .","On DATE at TIME at the latest [ the defendants ] acquired the criminal intent to participate in mass disorder and to use violence ...","Thus , in furtherance of this criminal intent , at an unidentified time and place Mr ORG acquired an unidentified solid yellow round object with the intention of using it to cause violence against officials ...","... together with other participants ... Mr Belousov repeatedly chanted antigovernment slogans .","Moreover ... the participants in the mass disorder threw chunks of tarmac , stones , sticks and other objects at the police ... which hit them on various body parts , and [ the defendants ] ... [ who ] participated in the mass disorder ... implemented their criminal intent to use violence against public officials ... applied physical force not endangering life or health of those [ officials ] ...","Mr GPE used violence not endangering the life or health of [ Mr F. ] ...","DATE and TIME on CARDINAL DATE ... unidentified participants in the mass disorder deliberately administered CARDINAL blows and kicks to [ F. \u2019s ] head , body and limbs , after which Mr GPE ... deliberately targeting [ F. ] , threw an unidentified solid yellow round object , which hit [ F. ] on the upper right side of the chest , causing him physical pain .","As a result of Mr GPE and other unidentified ORG actions [ F. ] sustained physical pain and injuries in the form of bruising and abrasion of the soft tissues of the parietal region , bruising of the ... left forearm , abrasion on the ... right shin , [ all of ] which , assessed individually or cumulatively , constituted injuries not endangering life or health , and not entailing short - term health impairment or minor durable professional incapacitation ...","Mr GPE ... pleaded not guilty and testified that ... he wanted to see why the meeting was not starting [ and ] went to FAC ... [ he ] saw the riot police cordon ... [ and officers ] arresting some [ participants ] ... [ he ] was looking to leave and went to the middle of FAC and saw a girl who tripped on something and nearly fell . Without looking at it closely he picked it up from the ground ; it felt soft and slimy ... and threw it away without aiming it at anyone ... he joined hands with other protesters chanting \u201c One for all and all for one ! \u201d , \u201c United , we are invincible ! \u201d . At this moment QUANTITY police officers ran up to him , grabbed him and carried him to the police vehicle ...","Police officer [ F. ] testified that ... after the cordon was restored ... he was heading into the crowd to arrest offenders ... somebody hit him CARDINAL times on the head ... then he felt a blow from a heavy object on his shoulder . From the corner of his eye he saw [ Mr GPE ] take a swing and toss something ... like a billiard ball .","... Mr GPE was filmed at the moment he threw a yellow object at the police ...","The [ defendants\u2019 ] argument that no mass disorder took place is considered by the court unsubstantiated because ... as a result of the premeditated actions of a group of individuals who organised ... obstruction to the ORG march on their way to the intended meeting venue where the stage was , which caused discontent among the protesters towards ... the police ... those who were leading the march and who were able to make an unhindered approach to the meeting venue changed their tactics and called for ... a sit - in , hoping thus to secure a decision to change the placement of the cordon to their advantage and to extend their area beyond what had been agreed ... As a result ... the protesters forced their way through the police cordon ... public order was disrupted ... because of the larger crowd , uncontrollable and incited by organised groups ... conditioned the applicants\u2019 intent to participate in such actions , accompanied by chunks of tarmac and plastic bottles being thrown and violence towards the police otherwise being used . Conscious of their participation in spontaneously erupted disorder and wishing to take part in it , the defendants joined the mass movement ...","... the court takes into account the nature and the degree of [ the applicant \u2019s ] involvement in the mass disorder ... and considers it possible to give him a sentence below the minimum punishment provided for by LAW . \u201d","The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , calculated on the basis of a DATE prison term under LAW partly concurrent with a DATE prison term under LAW . The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention counted towards the prison sentence .","The applicant appealed . He contested the first - instance court \u2019s finding that mass disorder had taken place , and alleged that there had only been isolated clashes between the protesters and the police , caused by the authorities\u2019 TIME decision to alter the layout of the meeting venue and aggravated by their excessive crowd - control measures . He denied that the object he threw hit anybody ; he alleged a breach of procedure for questioning in confrontation with the victim , police officer PERSON , and complained that the court had refused to have the records of the latter \u2019s interrogation conducted during the investigation read out . He also complained about the conditions in which he was escorted to the courtroom , the intensity of the hearing schedule , and that he had been placed in a glass cabin during the trial , claiming that it hindered his communication with counsel .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment , also reducing his prison sentence to DATE , comprising a DATE - and - DATE term under LAW and a DATE term under LAW , to run partly concurrently .","On DATE the applicant was released after serving his prison term ."],"violated_articles":["11","3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-3","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167040","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"MUSTAFI\u0106-MUJI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["A list of the applicants is appended to this decision . The applicants are all represented by PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","Ms Mehida ORG is the widow of the late Mr PERSON . PERSON and Mr PERSON are the daughter and son , respectively , of the late Mr PERSON . Mr PERSON is the son of the late Mr PERSON and the brother of the late Mr PERSON .","Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON died on or shortly after DATE in what has come to be known as the GPE massacre .","The Socialist GPE ( SFRY ) was made up of CARDINAL GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . GPE and GPE declared their independence from the SFRY on DATE following referenda held earlier . Thereupon the Presidency of the SFRY ordered the JNA ( ORG Armija\/\u0408\u0443\u0433\u043e\u0441\u043b\u043e\u0432\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u043d\u0430\u0440\u043e\u0434\u043d\u0430 \u0430\u0440\u043c\u0438\u0458\u0430 , or ORG ) into action with a view to reasserting the control of the federal government .","Other component GPE of the SFRY followed GPE and GPE in declaring independence . Eventually only GPE and GPE were left to constitute the SFRY \u2019s successor state , GPE ( FRY ) . Hostilities ensued , largely along ethnic lines , as groups who were ethnic minorities within particular GPE and whose members felt difficulty identifying with the emerging independent states sought to unite territory that they inhabited with that of GPE with which they perceived an ethnic bond .","By its LAW ( DATE ) of DATE , ORG of ORG set up ORG ( UNPROFOR ) intended to be \u201c an interim arrangement to create the conditions of peace and security required for the negotiation of an overall settlement of the NORP crisis \u201d . Although PERSON \u2019s mandate was originally for DATE , it was extended ; PERSON ( later renamed ORG , the name UNPROFOR coming to refer only to the operation in GPE ) continued in operation until DATE . Troop - contributing nations included the GPE .","GPE and GPE declared independence on DATE as GPE . Thereupon war broke out , the warring factions being defined largely according to the country \u2019s pre - existing ethnic divisions . The main belligerent forces were the ORG ( PERSON i ORG , or ORG of GPE , mostly made up of Bosniacs and loyal to the central authorities of GPE ) , the ORG ( PERSON vije\u0107e obrane , or ORG , mostly made up of NORP ) and the ORG ( PERSON Srpske\/\u0412\u043e\u0458\u0441\u043a\u0430 PERSON , or ORG of ORG , also called ORG , mostly made up of NORP ) .","It would appear that CARDINAL people were killed and CARDINAL people were displaced . It is estimated that CARDINAL people went missing ; in DATE , CARDINAL of them were still so listed .","The conflict came to an end on DATE when ORG for Peace ( \u201c FAC \u201d , adopted in GPE , GPE , GPE ) entered into force .","The bulk of the ORG withdrew from GPE in DATE , leaving behind units whose members were nationals of GPE and GPE with their weapons and equipment . These became the backbone of the ORG . In its operations the ORG obtained the assistance of paramilitary units , most of which were composed of NORP but some of which comprised non - NORP including nationals of countries outside the former SFRY .","NORP The municipality of GPE in eastern GPE is constituted of a number of towns and villages , among them PERSON and the town of GPE from which the municipality takes its name . Before the outbreak of the war its population was almost entirely PERSON and NORP , Bosniacs outnumbering NORP by CARDINAL to one . It is now part of ORG .","Being an obstacle to the formation of ORG as a continuous territorial entity as long as it remained in the hands of the central government of GPE , PERSON came under ORG attack already in the course of DATE .","It appears that the central government of GPE refused to countenance any evacuation of GPE \u2019s civilian population , since that would amount to the acceptance of \u201c ethnic cleansing \u201d and facilitate the surrender of territory to the ORG .","On DATE ORG of ORG adopted , by a unanimous vote , a resolution ( LAW ( DATE ) ) demanding that \u201c all parties and others concerned treat the eastern NORP town of GPE and its surroundings as a safe area which should be free from any armed attack or any other hostile act . \u201d","By DATE the GPE \u201c safe area \u201d was an enclave surrounded by territory held by the ORG . It contained ORG combatants , most of them disarmed , and civilians . The latter numbered in MONEY , mostly Bosniacs ; these included by then , in addition to the local residents , persons displaced from elsewhere in eastern GPE .","There was also an UNPROFOR presence within the enclave , nominally consisting of CARDINAL lightly - armed GPE air - mobile infantry , known as Dutchbat ( from \u201c NORP \u201d and \u201c battalion \u201d ) . In fact , however , Dutchbat was under - strength by this time , troops returning from leave having been prevented by the ORG from rejoining their unit . In DATE ORG \u2019s leadership consisted of its commander , Lieutenant Colonel NORP ; its deputy commander , Major PERSON ; and other commissioned and non - commissioned officers including Warrant Officer PERSON who was in charge of personnel matters .","On DATE ORG of the ORG attacked the LOC \u201c safe area \u201d in overwhelming force , overrunning the area and taking control despite the presence of Dutchbat .","In TIME of DATE the ORG entered the town of GPE meeting little resistance from either the ORG or UNPROFOR . By this time the civilian population had left the town . A throng of civilians consisting of women , children and mostly elderly men were converging on the Dutchbat compound in the village of GPE . The Dutchbat commander estimated the number of civilians inside the compound at CARDINAL .","At the ORG Commander \u2019s request , the acting UNPROFOR Commander then issued instructions to Dutchbat , ordering them to enter into negotiations with the ORG to secure an immediate ceasefire . He ordered Dutchbat to concentrate their forces in the PERSON compound and to \u201c take all reasonable measures to protect refugees and civilians in [ their ] care \u201d . He added that Dutchbat should \u201c continue with all possible means to defend [ their ] forces and installation from attack \u201d . This was \u201c to include the use of close air support if necessary \u201d .","That night , as meetings were taking place between the Dutchbat Commander and ORG , a column of PERSON men , possibly numbering CARDINAL , started to move out of the enclave in the direction of GPE .","In TIME DATE a meeting took place between ORG and Lieutenant Colonel NORP . Among other matters discussed , ORG threatened to shell the Dutchbat compound in retaliation if air power was used against the ORG . He also demanded to see all the men between the ages of CARDINAL and DATE because , as he alleged , there were \u201c criminals \u201d in the crowd gathered at ORG and he would need to question each of them . It was also arranged that the civilian population would be transported by bus to GPE , the nearest town in the hands of the government of GPE .","In TIME of the same day the ORG entered PERSON in force and the deportation of the civilians began , beginning with those outside the compound . ORG soldiers separated the men ( between the ages of CARDINAL and DATE ) from the women , children and elderly who were allowed to board the buses . Major PERSON instructed civilian representatives to draw up a list of all the men between the ages of DATE and DATE both inside and outside the compound . The resulting list eventually included CARDINAL names . He later explained that his intention had been to forward the information to ORG and other authorities , so as to keep track of the men . He also explained afterwards that he had protested to the ORG about the separation of the men from the others , but had relented upon being told that the men would not be harmed and would simply be questioned as prisoners of war in accordance with LAW .","On DATE Lieutenant Colonel PERSON was instructed by the PERSON command in GPE to ensure that Dutchbat left the enclave together with locally recruited ORG staff . Lieutenant Colonel NORP informed ORG accordingly . Lieutenant Colonel PERSON interpreted these instructions so as to include staff of the non - governmental organisation ORG . Major PERSON drew up a list of the persons concerned , which came to comprise CARDINAL names . It was later learned that the ORG leadership had given Major PERSON the names of persons who were related to its staff members but who were not actually employed by that body for inclusion on that list , misrepresenting them as staff members .","Also on CARDINAL DATE Dutchbat personnel in GPE turned men out of the compound . Once the men had left the compound they were taken prisoner by the ORG . Dutchbat personnel later stated that they had believed the ORG would treat the men in accordance with LAW .","In DATE that followed , PERSON men who had fallen into the hands of the ORG were killed . Others managed to evade immediate capture and attempted to escape from the enclave ; some succeeded in reaching safety but many were caught and put to death , or died en route of wounds , or were killed by landmines . It is now generally accepted as fact that upwards of CARDINAL , perhaps CARDINAL PERSON men and boys died in this operation at the hands of the ORG and of NORP paramilitary forces .","The remains of the victims were buried in mass graves . In DATE that followed , attempts were made to hide evidence of the massacre by re - burying remains in secondary mass graves in remote locations .","Mr PERSON was employed by Dutchbat as an electrician . On DATE he sought refuge on the compound in PERSON with his wife and children . Although he did not hold a ORG identity pass , he was placed on the list of CARDINAL locally recruited ORG staff who would be allowed to leave with Dutchbat on account of the length of his service . Nevertheless , on CARDINAL DATE Warrant Officer PERSON \u2013 who was unaware of the existence of the list of DATE ordered Mr PERSON to leave the compound with the other refugees . Warrant Officer PERSON was later reprimanded by Major PERSON for this \u201c incredibly stupid mistake \u201d .","Mr PERSON was the younger brother of the applicant Mr PERSON . The latter was at that time employed as an interpreter for Dutchbat and for that reason his name was on the list of CARDINAL ORG employees who would be evacuated with Dutchbat . It appears that Mr PERSON had intended to join the column of PERSON men breaking out on foot in the direction of ORG , but had changed his mind and sought the protection of Dutchbat on the compound at PERSON on the strong urging of Mr PERSON . Both Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON asked Major PERSON to place Mr PERSON on the list of ORG staff . Major PERSON asked the battalion security and intelligence officer whether a ORG pass could be made on the compound but was told that this was not possible : such passes came from the ORG office in GPE . Major PERSON then refused to place Mr PERSON on the list , reasoning that he would compromise the safety of legitimate ORG staff members by including among their number a person who did not meet the relevant criteria . Major PERSON ordered Mr PERSON to leave the compound .","Mr PERSON , the father of Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , acted as the ORG representative and attended the meeting between Lieutenant Colonel NORP and ORG on DATE . He was permitted for this reason by Major PERSON to stay in the compound and leave with Dutchbat . However , when Mr PERSON was ordered to leave the compound Mr PERSON elected to leave with him .","It is known that all CARDINAL , Mr PERSON , ORG and PERSON , were killed after having left the compound , either by ORG or by NORP paramilitary forces . Their remains were found buried in mass graves on various dates in DATE , DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint in writing with the public prosecutor ( officier van justitie ) to ORG ( rechtbank ) . The complaint included a request for a criminal investigation to be initiated into the alleged complicity of Lieutenant Colonel NORP , Major PERSON and Warrant Officer PERSON in genocide or alternatively in war crimes committed by the ORG against PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . Their argument was that Lieutenant Colonel NORP , Major PERSON and Warrant Officer PERSON had exposed the CARDINAL men to the likelihood of death at the hands of the ORG in full awareness of their probable fate . The complaint made made reference to , inter alia , ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW . The public prosecutor acknowledged receipt on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 counsel , PERSON , wrote to the public prosecutor asking for the applicants to be allowed to make statements . On various dates in DATE she submitted information including inter alia statements made by witnesses in the parallel civil proceedings ( see below ) , and excerpts from the debriefing report ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the report of the Secretary General of ORG ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .","On DATE the public prosecutor wrote to PERSON informing her that ORG ( Openbaar Ministerie ) had decided to enter into \u201c particular reflection \u201d ( nadrukkelijke reflectie ) on the results of the investigation up to that point with a view to deciding whether a full criminal investigation was called for . On DATE this was followed up by a letter informing PERSON that a national reflection chamber ( nationale reflectiekamer ) had been appointed to consider the case .","On DATE PERSON wrote to the public prosecutor stating that she had been contacted by the NOS ( PERSON , ORG ) , a domestic public service radio and television broadcaster , who had apparently been informed that the reflection chamber had recommended that the prosecution go ahead . She asked the public prosecutor to confirm this .","On DATE the ORG published a press item to the effect that the national reflection chamber had recommended the prosecution of Lieutenant Colonel PERSON , Major PERSON and Warrant Officer PERSON . The press item cited unnamed sources and added that ORG was refusing to give any details .","On DATE the public prosecutor confirmed to PERSON that the reflection chamber had expressed an opinion but declined to give any details .","On DATE PERSON wrote to the public prosecutor complaining that DATE had passed since the criminal complaint had been lodged and asking that a decision be taken .","On DATE the public prosecutor wrote to PERSON informing her of his decision not to bring any prosecution . The reasoning on which this decision was based included the following :","\u201c In this matter , I have examined in depth the sources to which you refer in your criminal complaint as well as other sources for the presence of inculpating and disculpating material in relation to the complaint . An analysis has been made of the operational and factual context within which the impugned conduct has taken place and the legal framework within which this conduct must be considered . Important sources from which I have drawn are :","the criminal complaint ;","the GPE archive of ORG ( arrondissementsparket ) LOC ( GPE ) and ORG ( parket - generaal ) ;","the account of the facts resulting from the GPE debriefing ( PERSON ) ( DATE ) ;","the defence report PERSON ( DATE ) ;","the parliamentary letters concerning GPE ;","the reports of the Secretary General of ORG ( DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) ;","the final report and the hearings of the parliamentary committee of inquiry , PERSON ) ( DATE ) ;","the ORG report [ ORG , Holocaust and Genocide Studies ( NIOD Instituut voor Oorlogs- , Holocaust- en GPE , \u2018 NIOD\u2019 ) : PERSON : Reconstruction , background , consequences and analyses of the fall of a \u2018 safe\u2019 area ] ( DATE ) ;","the case - law of ORG for the Former GPE ( \u2018 ICTY\u2019 ) ( among others , ORG , GPE . PERSON and PERSON ) ;","the evidence given by , among others , members of the GPE armed forces before the ORG ;","the evidence given in the [ applicants\u2019 parallel civil proceedings ] against GPE ;","the correspondence of PERSON published in the DATE newspaper ORG .","There has , at various times , been broad internal consultation on the results of the various parts of the investigation and the analyses and further investigative measures have been ordered and carried out . In the factual investigation no witnesses have been heard . The investigation was followed and monitored by a steering group consisting of members of ORG , ORG ( landelijk parket ) , ORG at FAC ( ressortsparket ) , and ORG . \u201d","The decision takes CARDINAL pages to describe the events leading up to and surrounding the fall of the NORP enclave to the ORG and the deaths of Mr PERSON , ORG and PERSON . It continues :","\u201c CARDINAL . Criminal responsibility","CARDINAL General","It must be noted at the outset that the ( deadly ) violence to which PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were exposed after they had left the compound on DATE constitute conduct that can be qualified as CARDINAL or more of the crimes penalised in LAW ( PERSON ) and LAW ( PERSON ) and also that these crimes were committed by the ORG .","...","CARDINAL Culpable involvement in the killing of the victims named in the criminal complaint"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174393","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DROBYSHEVSKIY AND VITT v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["All the applicants were parties to civil proceedings in which the first instance and appeal courts granted their claims against the welfare authorities to recalculate periodical payments for social benefits ( i.e. DATE payments for compensation of damage , DATE payments for food allowance and arrears of payments ) . These judgments became final but were subsequently quashed on the basis of newly discovered circumstances . The courts found that the interpretation of law given in the quashed judgments had been different from that of ORG and\/or Constitutional Court of Russian Federation . All the judgments were fully enforced prior to their quashing ( for more details see the Appendix ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153475","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF HILL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE he was convicted of assault occasioning grievous bodily harm . He had a previous conviction for a similar offence against the same victim . A pre - sentencing report identified the Enhanced Thinking Skills ( \u201c ETS \u201d ) course followed by LAW ( \u201c CALM \u201d ) course as potentially appropriate courses for the applicant to complete during a sentence of imprisonment and explained that attendance at these courses would take DATE . On DATE an indeterminate sentence for public protection ( \u201c ORG sentence \u201d ) was imposed . A minimum term ( \u201c tariff \u201d ) of DATE and DATE was fixed .","The applicant was detained in ORG . On DATE a postsentence report by his probation officers confirmed that the ORG and CALM courses were , in principle , appropriate and that completion would take DATE . At a sentence planning board on DATE , following completion of an assessment using LAW ( \u201c FAC ) , his targets were identified as : positive use of his time in custody ; improved awareness of appropriate behaviour ( thinking skills ) ; and completion of a course on Victim Awareness , the latter of which , it was noted , had already been completed .","A progress report dated DATE noted :","\u201c Mr Hall has taken the only opportunities offered to him to address his offending and appears to have modified his attitude , which was a big step for him . \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s tariff expired .","On DATE a first ORG was held . On DATE ORG informed the applicant of its decision not to direct his release or recommend his transfer to open conditions . The panel considered that the applicant still posed a high risk to his victim , particularly as the victim had been also been detained in ORG and the applicant had received an adjudication for assaulting him . In order to address this risk , the applicant was required to complete the ORG course and to be assessed for the CALM course , in closed conditions . The panel continued :","\u201c Your supervisors considered that you should be assessed for ORG and ORG , but this has not been possible at ORG , where you are considered to be a polite and respectful Enhanced Prisoner . \u201d","ORG referred to the applicant \u2019s submission that he would control himself and avoid the victim in future and that he was prepared to respect non - contact and exclusion zone conditions to secure his release . It concluded :","\u201c The ORG accepts without reservation , that your high level of risk relates solely to your involvement with [ the victim ] , but this is a risk which can not be ignored , despite your determination to avoid him . Any such involvement is a real concern and can not be ignored . It is the view of the ORG , having taken into account the varying views of your supervisors , that prior to your release you should have the opportunity to carry out all outstanding offending behavior work , namely ORG and to be assessed for CALM , and that the appropriate place for this to be done , is in Closed Conditions . \u201d","On DATE the Secretary of ORG approved ORG recommendation and set the review period at DATE to complete outstanding offender behaviour work , with a hearing to take place in DATE .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to PERSON . His targets were reviewed with his offender supervisor and on DATE , after a review of an initially negative decision , he was referred for assessments for the ORG and CALM courses and ORG ( \u201c HRP \u201d ) .","In DATE , the applicant was deemed suitable to progress to the second stage of the assessment for the ORG course .","In the applicant \u2019s ORG dated DATE , prepared by his offender manager , it was recorded that he was to be assessed for and , if suitable , complete the ORG and CALM courses and the HRP . The report added as regards the HRP :","\u201c I am also of the opinion that consideration needs to be given to completing this work in the community as a condition of his licence because the waiting list is extremely long . \u201d","At a sentence planning and review meeting on DATE , the applicant \u2019s sentence targets recorded that he should be assessed for and complete the ORG and CALM courses and the HRP programme . It was noted that he required extra psychological assessment as he appeared to be afraid of participating in group activities , which might hinder his eventual participation in the courses recommended to him .","A report of an interview with his offender supervisor dated DATE notes :","\u201c When the question of his current sentence plan targets was raised , he stated that he would not do any of the courses as he hates classrooms and he will not be forced into doing them . When it was explained that this attitude would make it extremely difficult for him to make any progress in his sentence and through the prison system , he stated that he did not care and would stay here \u2018 for DATE ... PERSON did not want to discuss any of his specific sentence plan targets with me and this is clearly an area that needs to be addressed in order for him to progress . \u201d","In his ORG of DATE , the applicant \u2019s offender manager stated that she could not support the applicant \u2019s release because at that stage he had not undertaken any work to address his behaviour . She noted his resistance to offending programmes and reported that it was \u201c absolutely imperative \u201d that arrangements be made for him to be psychologically assessed , adding :","\u201c Mr PERSON faces the potential of being left serving an ORG sentence with no means of working towards his release . \u201d","She further noted that she had made enquiries at the prison as to whether the applicant might undergo psychological assessment but that the chances of this occurring were seen as slight . She stated that if this was not available at his current institution , the applicant would need to be moved to a facility where it could be undertaken .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s case was referred to ORG .","A Sentence Planning and Review Report dated CARDINAL DATE recorded the applicant \u2019s refusal to engage with his sentence plan targets to reduce his risk . It recommended that the ORG , CALM and HRP courses be undertaken in closed conditions and that counselling be provided .","On DATE the applicant confirmed that he was prepared to do the ORG course in a one - to - one basis .","On DATE he met with the ORG facilitators and on CARDINAL DATE was notified that he had been identified as a potential participant of the ORG course scheduled to begin on CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant was duly enrolled on the DATE ORG course . He completed the course in DATE . A post - programme review took place on CARDINAL DATE .","NORP The applicant was subsequently informed by his probation officer that there was a DATE wait for access to the CALM course .","On an unknown date ORG hearing scheduled for DATE was deferred to DATE in order to allow for the completion of the post - ORG course report . It was subsequently deferred again until CARDINAL DATE .","Meanwhile , at some point in DATE or DATE , the applicant was assessed for the HRP and was found to be unsuitable .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s solicitors informed ORG that they had commissioned an independent psychologist \u2019s report on the applicant and that it might not be completed by the time of the scheduled hearing . As a result , on DATE ORG issued directions deferring the hearing and imposing deadlines for the provision of the psychiatric report ( DATE ) and any report in response by the Secretary of ORG ( DATE ) . The target DATE for the hearing was DATE .","The independent psychology report was completed on DATE and filed with ORG on DATE . The report supported the applicant \u2019s release on licence into the community . It explained that the applicant had tried to complete his treatment goals but that his fear of group settings combined with his low IQ had made this very difficult . It further stated :","\u201c CARDINAL I strongly recommend irrespective of the outcome of any future ORG hearing that Mr Hill receives CARDINAL - to - CARDINAL counselling as a matter of urgency ...","CARDINAL There has been much debate regarding Mr PERSON \u2019s need for further treatment and indeed his ability to benefit from such treatment . In my opinion a prerequisite for deciding the issue is that PERSON undergo further cognitive and\/or psychoneurological assessment . \u201d","In an addendum to the report dated DATE , it was noted that the applicant was not capable of benefitting from group work but was fully capable of CARDINAL - to - one coursework .","The prison was not notified that a report was required until DATE . Because of other reporting commitments , it informed the parties that it would be unable to deliver the necessary report before DATE .","ORG hearing was subsequently further deferred until DATE .","In an addendum to ORG , the applicant \u2019s offender supervisor explained :","\u201c There have been problems getting PERSON assessed for the CALM course , some of which relate to his reluctance to participate and others due to issues relating to availability of staff . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was informed that his ORG hearing had been cancelled because the applicant \u2019s offender supervisor was unable to attend and that the earliest possible date for the hearing would be DATE .","The deferred ORG hearing took place on DATE . By letter dated DATE , ORG noted that the applicant had not cooperated with a prison transfer to allow him to be assessed for the CALM course and that he appeared to prioritise his work over addressing his areas of risk . ORG further noted that the applicant was still , DATE into his sentence , providing new and important background to the motivations and triggers for his violence . It said that this had limited the assessment of his risk factors .","The applicant subsequently sought judicial review of ORG decision not to recommend his transfer to open conditions . On DATE ORG granted the judicial review application on the basis that the panel had failed to carry out the correct balancing exercise when considering whether to accede to the applicant \u2019s request for a transfer to open conditions . ORG was instructed to reconsider this aspect of the applicant \u2019s case .","The applicant subsequently undertook the CALM course and completed it in DATE .","ORG held an oral hearing on DATE . By letter dated CARDINAL DATE , it directed the applicant \u2019s release . He was released on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168700","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ALENTSEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Prior to its privatisation , the flat at CARDINAL ORG , GPE , had been owned by GPE . NORP had resided there as a tenant under the social housing agreement with GPE . On DATE the title to the flat was transferred to NORP under a privatisation scheme .","On DATE NORP died .","NORP In DATE PERSON . applied to a notary seeking recognition as NORP \u2019s heir . In support of his application , PERSON . submitted a will allegedly signed by NORP on DATE .","On DATE the notary granted the request and issued a certificate confirming , inter alia , that PERSON . had inherited NORP \u2019s flat .","On DATE ORG ( ORG \u201d ) registered the certificate , confirming PERSON . \u2019s title to the flat .","On DATE PERSON . sold the flat to the applicant . On an unspecified date ORG registered the transaction and issued the relevant deed , confirming the applicant \u2019s title to the flat . The applicant moved in and resided in the flat . After the birth of her daughter in DATE , she resided there with her daughter .","On an unspecified date the authorities opened a criminal investigation concerning the forgery of the will issued on behalf of NORP","On DATE ORG of GPE found PERSON . guilty of fraud and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and confiscation of property . In particular , the court established that PERSON . , acting in concert with other persons , whose identity was not known , had fraudulently acquired NORP \u2019s flat and sold it to the applicant on the basis of a forged will . The judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor brought a civil claim on behalf of ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) seeking ( CARDINAL ) the annulment of NORP \u2019s will and of the applicant \u2019s title to the flat ; ( CARDINAL ) the applicant \u2019s eviction ; ( CARDINAL ) restitution of the flat to GPE ; and ( CARDINAL ) annulment of the purchase agreement between PERSON . and the applicant , and the reimbursement by PERSON . of the amount the applicant had paid for the flat .","On DATE ORG examined the case in the applicant \u2019s absence and granted the prosecutor \u2019s claims in full . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG held that ORG had failed to duly inform the applicant of the date and time of the hearing . It quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for fresh consideration .","In the new set of proceedings the applicant brought a counterclaim against GPE , seeking to be recognised as a bona fide purchaser of the flat .","On DATE ORG invalidated PERSON will and PERSON . \u2019s title to the flat . The court established that the property was escheat and ordered its restitution to GPE . It also ordered the applicant \u2019s eviction . The court dismissed the remainder of the prosecutor \u2019s claims concerning the annulment of the sale contract concluded by PERSON . and the applicant , and the former \u2019s obligation to return the sum paid by the applicant to her . As regards the applicant \u2019s counterclaim , the court recognised that she had bought the flat in good faith . However , it found that because PERSON . had acquired NORP \u2019s flat fraudulently , he had , in fact , stolen it from GPE and the latter had the right to reclaim the flat from the applicant , despite the fact that she was a bona fide purchaser .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .","On DATE the district bailiff \u2019s service instituted enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the applicant and her daughter were evicted from the flat . According to the applicant , they had to move in with her parents and her brother and his family .","According to the Government , on DATE the flat was reassigned to ORG . , who had been on the social housing waiting list for DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG recognised the City \u2019s title to the flat . In particular , the court established that NORP had died intestate and without heirs and that her flat should have been transferred to the ORG as escheat property . The court also terminated the applicant \u2019s title to the flat .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171777","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CEROV\u0160EK AND BO\u017dI\u010cNIK v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicants were charged in DATE and DATE respectively of committing theft by cutting down and taking trees from a forest belonging to another person and appropriating the wood . They were tried by a professional judge , PERSON , sitting as a single judge .","The first applicant stated in his defence in the proceedings against him that he had cut down trees which had been marked for cutting or had been attacked by bark beetle in his own forest . In the course of the proceedings against the first applicant Judge PERSON examined a number of witnesses during the main hearing , inspected the place of the alleged offence and examined a number of other documents , including a sketch and a copy of the land register map . None of the witnesses testified that they had seen the first applicant cutting down trees on the injured party \u2019s plot of land . However , they testified about a number of other circumstances in relation to the charges , for example similarities in the way the trees had been cut down on the first applicant \u2019s land and on that of the injured party , traces of the transport of trees , the fact that the first applicant had regularly sold wood and that he had also cut down unmarked trees on his own land . CARDINAL of the witnesses also testified that he had seen the first applicant and another person , GPE , transporting trees over the injured party \u2019s land . Another witness , the injured party \u2019s husband , testified that PERSON had indirectly confirmed his involvement in cutting down the trees in question . PERSON , however , stated that he believed that he had only cut down marked trees on the first applicant \u2019s land . The court also appointed an expert , who estimated that the value of the allegedly stolen wood amounted to QUANTITY ( ORG ) .","The second applicant was charged with CARDINAL counts of theft . In the course of the proceedings against him , Judge PERSON heard a number of witnesses at the main hearing and examined several documents , including copies of the relevant land register maps . In respect of the first charge , the second applicant maintained that he had mistakenly thought that he had been cutting down trees on his own land , whose borders had been shown to him by the former owners , GPE and GPE , who also appeared as witnesses in the proceedings . The husband of the injured party , GPE , stated that they had found out about the stolen wood DATE after the event and that neighbours had told them that the second applicant had been seen in the forest at the time , while another person , GPE , had been seen transporting the wood . He also testified that the second applicant had admitted to him that he had cut down the trees , thinking that they had belonged to his land but that they had failed to agree on how much the second applicant should pay ORG in compensation . ORG stated that he had helped the second applicant transport the wood and that he had been told by him that the land belonged to him , which ORG had found suspicious . Another witness , PERSON , stated that he had helped GPE load the truck with the wood . As to the second charge , the second applicant argued that he had had an agreement with the injured party in that case , ORG , that he could cut down trees in exchange for wine . The judge questioned the injured party , who denied the existence of such an agreement . The court also appointed an expert , who estimated that the value of the beech and hornbeam trees cut down amounted to ORG CARDINAL and that of the acacia trees at FAC .","On DATE Judge PERSON found the first applicant guilty of taking another \u2019s movable property with the intention of unlawfully appropriating it , and sentenced him to DATE in prison , suspended for DATE . The judge found that the applicant had cut down and taken CARDINAL oak trees in a forest without the knowledge of its owner and had appropriated wood worth EUR CARDINAL . She ordered him to either deliver to the injured party the same quantity of oak that had been taken from the forest or to pay compensation of ORG CARDINAL . She pronounced a guilty verdict and sentenced him ( izrek , hereinafter referred to as \u201c the verdict \u201d ) orally .","On DATE Judge PERSON , again giving an oral verdict , found the second applicant guilty of taking another \u2019s movable property with the intention of unlawfully appropriating it and sentenced him to DATE in prison , suspended for DATE . She found that the second applicant had cut down and taken CARDINAL beech trees and QUANTITY hornbeams worth at least EUR CARDINAL and CARDINAL acacia trees worth at least EUR CARDINAL from land belonging to other persons . Moreover , the second applicant was ordered to pay compensation of ORG CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL respectively to the CARDINAL injured parties .","The Government submitted that Judge PERSON , when pronouncing the verdict , had also given an oral summary of the main reasons ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , however , no indication of that can be found in the records of the hearing .","After hearing the verdict both applicants gave notice of their intention to appeal , which gave rise to an obligation on the part of Judge PERSON to draw up written grounds for her verdicts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","PERSON later retired on an unspecified date and the case files in both applicants\u2019 cases got lost . In DATE , the local court reconstituted the files .","Based on the documents contained in the restored case file , Judge PERSON delivered written grounds for the verdict pronounced by Judge PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which were served on the first applicant \u2019s counsel on CARDINAL DATE . In her reasoning , the judge relied on the records of the hearings , the transcript of the inspection of the location and other documents in the file . The judge did not believe the applicant \u2019s version of events and dismissed PERSON \u2019s statements as biased because he had been working for the first applicant . She also found his testimony to be in contradiction with some of the other witness statements . The court relied heavily on the finding that while PERSON had cut down the trees professionally on the applicant \u2019s land , witness testimony showed that certain trees had been cut down in an unprofessional manner on both the applicant \u2019s and the injured party \u2019s land , and that the first applicant and GPE had been seen transporting trees over the injured party \u2019s land .","The written grounds in the second applicant \u2019s case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were delivered by Judge PERSON , who also based them on the documents contained in the restored case file . They were served on his counsel on CARDINAL DATE . As to the first charge , the judge found that the second applicant \u2019s defence had not been convincing . In particular , the judge considered the statements of CARDINAL witnesses , GPE and GPE , to be unpersuasive . On the other hand , the judge relied on the statements of the injured party and her husband , supported by other evidence , for example , the expert \u2019s opinion , the statements of the witnesses PERSON and I.T and the copy of the land register map showing that GPE \u2019s land did not border on the second applicant \u2019s . As to the second charge , the court relied predominantly on the statement of the injured party , ORG , who denied that he had had an agreement with the second applicant . Other evidence , such as the expert \u2019s opinion and photographs , confirmed that ORG was indeed the owner of the land and indicated the number of trees that had been cut down .","Both applicants appealed against the judgments , raising similar arguments as those submitted to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They further alleged that the judgments should have been set aside and remitted to the first - instance court for fresh consideration . Furthermore , both applicants also appealed against the factual findings on which their convictions had been based , including the assessment of the credibility of a number of witnesses . The second applicant also complained about the assessment of the existence of intent on his part to commit the second count of theft .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG dismissed the ORG appeals , holding that the fact that the written grounds of the impugned judgments had been given DATE after they had been delivered orally had not rendered the judgments unlawful . The higher court emphasised that the impugned judgments had been based on facts established in adversarial proceedings and on evidence given at hearings which the applicants had been able to challenge by presenting their own versions of the events at issue . The first - instance judgments had been given orally by Judge PERSON who had presided over both PERSON hearings , had questioned the applicants and heard the witnesses . Moreover , the written grounds had disclosed on what evidence the judges providing them had relied and how they had assessed the reliability of the ORG statements . In the higher court \u2019s opinion , the written grounds had been clear and reasonable . As regards the first applicant , the higher court reassessed the evidence , including the witness statements , and came to the same conclusion as the first - instance court . As to the second applicant , the higher court noted that the first - instance court had truthfully and accurately established all the relevant facts of the case , and that it had been proven that the second applicant had intended to commit the second offence .","On DATE and DATE respectively , the applicants lodged applications for the protection of legality ( zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti ) with ORG , raising similar arguments as those submitted to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and referring to ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE and DATE respectively , ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 applications for the protection of legality , holding that only the operative part of the judgment , namely the verdict , could have interfered with the rights of the parties , while the purpose of written grounds was to enable a decision to be reviewed by higher instances . As a rule , the written grounds of a judgment were given by the judge who had conducted the trial and pronounced the verdict . However , in certain situations , such as when a judge was absent for a long time or died , the law had to be interpreted as permitting another judge to give the written grounds . In such cases , the judge who wrote the judgment based it on logical reasoning and the evidence in the file . ORG found that while the principle of immediacy required that a verdict should be given by the judge who had participated in the trial , the act of writing a judgment , was not , strictly speaking , part of the trial . Moreover , if the written grounds for a judgment were not convincing , a defendant had a better chance of succeeding with his or her appeal . Having regard to those considerations , ORG took the view that the applicants\u2019 rights of defence had not been violated .","On DATE and DATE respectively , the applicants lodged constitutional complaints , reiterating the arguments they had made before the lower courts .","On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicants\u2019 constitutional complaints , holding that their cases concerned neither a violation of human rights having serious consequences for them nor an important constitutional question ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180296","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF CUENCA ZARZOSO v. SPAIN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Respect for private life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He has lived in GPE , a residential district of GPE since DATE . Since DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) has allowed licensed LOC , such as bars , pubs and discotheques , to open in the vicinity of his home . In view of the problems caused by the noise , ORG resolved on DATE not to permit any more licensed LOC to open in the area . However , the resolution was never implemented and new licences were granted . In DATE , ORG carried out a study of the levels of TIME - time noise during DATE on behalf of ORG . It was reported that in the GPE district the noise levels were notably higher to the legally accepted norm .","In DATE , the applicant became president of the neighbourhood association of his district . In that position , and in an attempt to improve the noise - pollution situation for both himself and his neighbours , he lodged various claims against ORG . He also asked for the withdrawal of the business licences of several establishments . ORG replied that in fact no business activities were being carried out in some of the LOC , and that the business activities carried out in the others could not be considered as producing a high level of noise ( for example bakeries ) . Lastly , the licences had in any case expired in many of the establishments .","On DATE ORG adopted the municipal Ordinance on noise and vibrations ( ORG hereinafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) . Furthermore , in DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , the municipality required the pub located in the basement of the applicant \u2019s building to install a noise limiter .","Following a resolution of ORG , sitting in plenary session on DATE , which was published in the GPE ORG on DATE , the area in which the applicant lives was designated an \u201c acoustically saturated zone \u201d ( zona ac\u00fasticamente saturada ) .","In view of the fact that the levels of noise pollution did not decrease , the applicant decided to replace his windows with double glazing and to install air conditioning in order to alleviate the high temperatures caused by having the windows permanently closed in DATE .","On DATE the applicant brought a preliminary ORG liability claim before ORG , relying on LAW ( right to life and to physical integrity ) and LAW ( right to privacy and inviolability of the home ) of LAW . The applicant asked for compensation for the expenses incurred , as well as for compensation in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .","Having received no reply from the authorities ( silencio administrativo negativo ) , the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u201c the High Court \u201d ) on DATE . On DATE ORG issued a resolution denying his preliminary State liability claim . ORG joined the proceedings before ORG .","NORP The applicant provided the court with CARDINAL reports : the first CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE prepared by the municipal service for the environment stated that :","\u201c Prior to the entry into force of the declaration of an acoustically saturated zone , the levels of disturbance by noise during TIME exceeded QUANTITY , mainly during DATE from TIME .","... after the declaration [ of the area ] as an acoustically saturated zone and the adoption of some corrective measures the levels of disturbance still exceed [ those permitted for TIME - time ] .","The second report was issued on DATE by the same municipal service , which admitted that :","\u201c ... it must be concluded that ... the limits established in LAW of [ the Ordinance ] are still being exceeded . \u201d","NORP In order to sustain his arguments , the applicant also produced an expert report , produced by an applied physics professor , which was joined to his complaint . The report noted as follows :","\u201c The measured noise on the street and the noise perceived by neighbours in their homes , in the NORP area of GPE DATE which is where the applicant lives DATE rise high total levels of ... QUANTITY ... Those levels are clearly related to the presence of a concentration of the entertainment industry in that area ( pubs and discotheques ) .","As a result of this situation , the expert stated that it could be estimated that the sound levels for instance in a front facing bedroom were QUANTITY ( hereinafter ORG ) and sometimes they could even reach CARDINAL ORG . The expert highlighted that ORG had recommended a maximum permitted level at TIME of CARDINAL dBA . Consequently , there was a difference of CARDINAL dBA . However , the expert report pointed out that this was a general estimation and that it was made without measuring the inside of the dwellings concerned .","Lastly , the applicant produced a medical report stating that he was suffering from anxiety due to the excessive noise inside his flat . The report concluded by considering that there was a relationship of cause - effect between the noise pollution and his psychiatric illness .","During the proceedings , ORG ordered a legal medical expert report by a specialist in preventive medicine . The appointed expert reported that :","\u201c ... the nocturnal noise altered necessarily the physiological sleep of Mr GPE and his family , [ although it is not ] possible to ascertain the intensity of the disturbance owing to the lack of corresponding sleep studies \u201d .","\u201c ... the sleep disturbance as a consequence of that noise produced in Mr GPE an \u2018 anxious depressive syndrome reacting to the noise , change in his psychiatric state manifested by irritability with his , anxiety , diminution of intellectual ability and somatization\u2019 \u201d .","ORG maintained that it was not proven that the applicant was suffering the noise level which he claimed in his home , as the environmental noise is perceived differently in each home , according to its height , aspect and other particularities . Furthermore , ORG had been carrying out extensive activities in order to enforce compliance with the legislation on noise . It could not be said that ORG tolerated infractions of that legislation .","In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . It found that there was no causal connection between the noise pollution and the alleged damage caused to the applicant , since there was no evidence proving that in his particular flat the level of noise pollution exceeded the established limits . Indeed , the applicant had decided to replace his windows without previously asking for a measurement of the noise inside his flat , as provided by LAW . Furthermore , it should be taken into account that the applicant \u2019s flat was on the fourth floor , where the noise would certainly be less intense than on a lower floor .","The applicant lodged an amparo appeal before ORG , claiming that the ORG had violated his fundamental rights protected by ORG ( equality before the law ) , CARDINAL ( right to life and to physical and moral integrity ) , CARDINAL ( inviolability of the home ) and CARDINAL ( right to a fair trial ) of the Spanish Constitution . This appeal was initially dismissed on DATE .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Court \u201d ) delivered a judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALX ) . In the light of this judgment , the public prosecutor lodged an appeal against ORG decision , asking for the admission of the applicant \u2019s amparo appeal . On DATE ORG upheld the public prosecutor \u2019s appeal and declared the amparo appeal admissible . ORG stated that the judgment issued by ORG in the case of PERSON :","\u201c ... justifie[d ] entirely the reconsideration of the present amparo appeal , in order to ascertain the measure in which it might deal with an analogous case , and to examine whether the objects of analysis of the [ GPE ] Court [ had been ] the same fundamental rights as in this amparo appeal \u201d .","In the proceedings before ORG , the public prosecutor claimed that there had been a violation of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL LAW . He argued that the ORG had already addressed this issue in the case of PERSON , which had dealt with the exact same situation suffered by the applicant \u2019s neighbour , and declared that GPE had violated LAW . The prosecutor considered that PERSON and the applicant \u2019s case were similar in terms of the facts as well as in the object and the merits , which was in principle sufficient to deliver a judgment on the merits on the alleged violations of the right to private and family life and to inviolability of the home .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , served on the applicant on DATE , the plenary of ORG dismissed the amparo appeal , arguing that ( CARDINAL ) both cases were not identical , ( CARDINAL ) the applicant had not proved that in his particular case the noise at his flat was above the permitted level , ( CARDINAL ) that ORG had indeed adopted specific measures to reduce noise pollution at the applicant \u2019s neighbourhood and ( CARDINAL ) that he had not proved that his health problems had been directly caused by noise pollution . The judgment was not adopted by unanimity .","CARDINAL judges out of CARDINAL issued a dissenting opinion holding that there had been a violation of Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW . In particular , the dissenting judges argued that the standard employed by ORG to decide when the right to privacy and family life had been infringed should have been based on the case - law of the ORG and that prolonged exposure to a high levels of sound that could be qualified as avoidable and unbearable deserved the protection of the courts , given that it impeded him from living a normal life . They reiterated that according to the judgment delivered in the PERSON case ( cited above ) , the assessment of a violation no longer depended on the evidence provided by the applicant about the seriousness of the noise pollution inside his home . Instead , the decisive element was to be hereafter the location of the house in an excessively noisy area and it would be enough for the applicant to prove the excessive level of noise in the street . Furthermore , the effects of noise on the applicant \u2019s health had been confirmed by the expert report issued in the proceedings before ORG ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157339","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KAYTAN v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["In DATE , criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant in absentia for being a member of the ORG ( ORG , an illegal armed organisation . In the indictment , the public prosecutor relied on , among others , incriminating statements by certain accused persons who , in their statements to the police , had maintained that the applicant had been involved in a number of terrorist activities since DATE . A Red Notice was accordingly issued in respect of the applicant via ORG .","On an unspecified date the applicant was arrested in GPE . After being detained in ORG , allegedly for DATE , the applicant was handed over to the NORP authorities on QUANTITY DATE . The medical report issued at the beginning of the applicant \u2019s custody indicated no signs of ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant was questioned at ORG , in the absence of a lawyer . According to a form explaining arrested PERSON rights , which the applicant had signed , he had been reminded of the charges against him , his right to a lawyer and his right to remain silent . The applicant refused legal assistance , and gave a detailed statement regarding his activities in the illegal organisation . He admitted that he had been a member of the ORG since DATE , maintained that he had been involved in several armed attacks and gave details about such events . He also stated that he had been acting as the GPE representative of the illegal organisation since DATE and signed his statement as such .","On DATE , the applicant was examined at the hospital ; no signs of ill - treatment were noted on his body . Subsequently , he was questioned by ORG . The applicant refused legal assistance and confirmed this in his statement given to the gendarmerie . In this connection , he admitted to being a member of the ORG and participating in several terrorist activities DATE and also being the GPE representative of the illegal organisation since DATE . He further admitted that he had been involved in some of the armed attacks with which he had been charged . These events were indicated by their location , nature and dates , which were DATE .","The applicant denied his participation in CARDINAL terrorist attacks which had happened in DATE .","Later on DATE , the applicant was taken to ORG . Before the court he expressed the wish to be represented by a lawyer , and stated that he would make further submissions once a lawyer had been appointed . The court remanded the applicant in pre - trial detention and allowed him time for the assignment of a representative until the next hearing to be held on DATE .","On DATE ORG lodged an additional indictment , charging the applicant under LAW with seeking to destroy the constitutional order and unity of ORG and to remove part of the country from the ORG \u2019s control .","On DATE , at the fifth court hearing , in the presence of his CARDINAL lawyers , the applicant retracted the statements he had made to the gendarmerie and the public prosecutor , alleging that he had been under psychological pressure during his interrogation . He confessed to being a member of the ORG , but only in charge of the instruction of the members , and claimed that he had never taken part in any armed attack . He further submitted that he had been injured during an armed clash in DATE and since then had been unable to use his right hand . In this connection he requested a medical report establishing that he was not able to hold a gun with his right hand . The prosecutor opposed this request by referring to the applicant \u2019s healthy physical appearance .","During the hearing the applicant \u2019s representatives contested the testimonies of other accused persons in different criminal proceedings indicating the applicant \u2019s involvement or responsibilities as a team leader , by alleging that such testimonies had been given only in order to benefit from legal provisions allowing reduction of sentences . The crossexamination of these witnesses was not requested at any stage of the proceedings .","Again on DATE , the applicant made written submissions to the court and stated that he had signed his statement in custody without reading it .","On DATE ORG of ORG issued a report . It found loss of function in the applicant \u2019s right hand and concluded that the applicant would have serious difficulty in using a firearm with one hand . However , it was further reported that if his right hand were supported by other parts of his body he would be able to use a firearm .","On DATE , at the ninth hearing , the applicant objected to the medical report , requesting a new report from ORG . The trial court refused this request , holding that a new medical report would not have any effect on the merits of the case and therefore was not necessary . In this connection , the court held that the illegal acts admitted by the applicant , which had been committed prior to DATE , thus before his hand was injured , would suffice for charges to be brought against the applicant under LAW . It accordingly held that an additional expert report was not required .","At a hearing held on DATE , the applicant repeated his request for an additional medical report , and stated that during his interrogation by the gendarmes and the prosecutor he had felt fearful and anxious and had given his statements under pressure as a result of the conditions in which he had been detained in GPE . He repeated that the testimonies against him by persons accused of terrorism in different proceedings had been made only for collaborating and benefiting from lenient criminal provisions and could be dismissed once the medical report concerning his incapacity was established . The applicant \u2019s lawyers also based their arguments on the establishment of a new report .","In the meantime , ORG were abolished by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . Accordingly , the case was transferred to ORG .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged . In a reasoned judgment , the court found it established that the applicant had been involved in CARDINAL armed attacks committed prior to DATE , among the CARDINAL incidents of which he was accused . It enumerated the acts to which the applicant had confessed while being questioned by the gendarmes and subsequently by the prosecutor , such as setting fire to CARDINAL primary schools , the robbery of several village guards and clashes with security forces . These acts also corresponded chronologically with each other and with the numerous official documents related to these events . The court further held that these acts would suffice to convict the applicant under LAW and underlined that only after several hearings had he contested his initial statements , while choosing to accept his involvement in armed attacks in which terrorists had been killed and denying his implication in those in which members of the security forces had been killed . The court pointed out that the applicant \u2019s argument could not be considered credible in view of the chronology of the events . The court further stated that throughout the criminal proceedings the applicant had consistently and proudly stated that he was a member of the illegal organisation to the point of making propaganda for the organisation , and he had shown no remorse which would indicate the likelihood that he would not repeat such crimes . Finally , it indicated that the applicant even refused the possibility of using PERSON no . DATE for rehabilitation ( certain paragraphs of LAW cited law foresee sentences varying DATE of imprisonment in replacement of an \u201c aggravated life sentence \u201d , according to the authenticity of information provided about the structure of a terrorist organisation or its activities ) and accordingly sentenced him to \u201c aggravated life imprisonment \u201d .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163462","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"RYMSKO-KATOLYTSKA GROMADA SVYATOGO KLYMENTIYA V MISTI SEVASTOPOLI v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant association , GPE - Katolytska ORG v ORG \u0433\u0440\u043e\u043c\u0430\u0434\u0430 ORG \u043c\u0456\u0441\u0442\u0456 ORG ) , is part of the ORG Eparchy of ORG and belongs to PERSON ( NORP ) . It was registered as a religious organisation on CARDINAL DATE . It is currently composed of CARDINAL parishioners of various nationalities , residents of LOC and the surrounding area , and was headed by a prior of the parish Mr PERSON and vicar PERSON . The applicant association operates a DATE school . It was represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented , most recently by their Acting Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The NORP community in PERSON was founded in DATE and consisted of CARDINAL members . After receiving permission from the authorities and approval from the NORP Emperor on CARDINAL DATE , the community built a NORP church ( \u043a\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c\u043e\u043b ) , which was named after PERSON ( ORG ) . The construction of this church was financed by the NORP community in PERSON , was authorised in DATE and completed in DATE . The church was owned and managed by the community until DATE , after the arrest of the prior of the community by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . A formal decision on \u201c liquidation of the NORP church \u201d or dissolution of the NORP religious community had been taken by the ORG of ORG and subsequently by ORG in DATE as the religious community had insufficient membership .","In DATE ORG decided to transfer the church building to the LOC electricity company GPE for use as an electricity substation ( \u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0441\u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u0430\u0442\u043e\u0440\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0456\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0446\u0456\u044f ) .","The LOC were partially damaged in the Second World War and then rebuilt in DATE using the foundations and walls of the old church , which had largely remained undamaged , at the expense of ORG . In accordance with a redevelopment project in DATE they were to be used as a cinema for CARDINAL persons , with a screen measuring QUANTITY . However , the existing architectural constructions had to be retained to the maximum possible extent . According to the architectural plans , the cathedral premises had to be rebuilt in such a way as not to reflect their religious origin and also in order to provide office premises for ORG . The rebuilding also led to the destruction of the bell - tower , the internal reorganisation of the LOC and the addition of an entrance hall for the cinema . After reconstruction , as from DATE , the premises were used as a cinema , which was eventually transformed into the \u201c PERSON \u201d cinema for children . The lower part of the cathedral \u2019s altar was transformed into a public toilet . The premises were also used to house a currency exchange bureau . The applicant association conducts religious ceremonies during the religious holidays near the entrance to the church , as it does not have permission to use it . It also conducts religious ceremonies at a rented apartment close to the LOC in question .","On DATE the First Deputy Chairman of ORG provided ORG with a list of religious LOC which had previously been nationalised and could be transferred to religious communities for permanent use . The church was included on the list of such LOC , provided that funds be made available for the construction of a children \u2019s cinema .","On DATE the applicant association requested ORG to transfer to it title to the premises of the former ORG . On DATE the ORG referred the applicant association \u2019s request to ORG ( hereinafter DATE \u201c ORG ) for a decision .","On DATE ORG of ORG , acting on the basis of a resolution of DATE of ORG authorising the transfer of religious LOC to religious communities , included the former NORP church building in the list of LOC that were to be transferred to the applicant association , the only NORP religious community in PERSON . The transfer was to take place on condition that a new children \u2019s cinema was built by certain ORG authorities .","On DATE ORG , by decision no . CARDINAL , came to the conclusion that the transfer of the LOC for use by the applicant association was \u201c not advisable \u201d . The applicant association sought to institute restitution proceedings before various judicial and administrative authorities . These proceedings are described below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG issued order no . CARDINAL requiring the city authorities to include the cinema in the register of ORG communal property . Following that , on DATE , ORG rejected the applicant association \u2019s request for transfer of the premises for its use , based on the provisions of LAW of the Freedom of Conscience and LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant association instituted proceedings against ORG before ORG seeking to quash ORG decision no . CARDINAL of DATE . It also sought to obtain title to the LOC , referring to LAW .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant association \u2019s claim , holding that it was not competent to hear a dispute between CARDINAL legal entities as to title over property . On DATE the applicant association appealed against that judgment to ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and terminated the proceedings . In particular , it held that disputes between legal entities ( in this case the applicant association and ORG ) , except in certain specified circumstances , were subject to examination by the ORG arbitration courts . ORG held that the applicant association was a religious community and had become a legal entity as from the moment of its registration on DATE . The claims had been lodged against ORG and ORG , which were also legal entities . The court ruled that the applicant association had to institute proceedings before the commercial ( former arbitration ) courts as the courts of general jurisdiction were , according to the court , not competent to deal with the matter .","NORP In DATE the applicant association instituted proceedings in ORG seeking the invalidation of the decision of ORG of DATE rejecting its request for transfer of the LOC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant association \u2019s request as it fell outside its jurisdiction . The court stated that the dispute related not to the decision of DATE , but to a controversy over the right to own particular premises between CARDINAL legal entities , and had therefore to be examined by the commercial ( former arbitration ) courts .","On DATE ORG quashed that ruling and remitted the case to the same court for fresh examination . In particular , it ruled that the issue under examination did not just concern a dispute between CARDINAL legal entities as to the ownership of LOC . The court stated that the applicant association \u2019s claims concerned restitution of a religious building and thus had to be examined on their merits , in accordance with the provisions of LAW .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant association \u2019s request to transfer the title to LOC to it and allow it their use . Without referring to any specific legal provision , it considered that the LOC were not owned or administered by ORG , but were \u201c communal property \u201d administered by ORG according to LAW . The court also rejected the applicant association \u2019s arguments that the original NORP cathedral building had been constructed by the NORP religious community of LOC and confiscated by the ORG authorities in DATE . It ruled that these claims concerned title to the LOC , which had become \u201c communal property \u201d and the transfer of the LOC into \u201c communal property \u201d was not challenged by the applicant . It established , having reviewed the evidence before it , that the cathedral had been damaged during the Second World War , rebuilt afterwards in DATE , and had been used as a cinema ever since . The court referred to Articles CARDINAL ( adversarial nature of proceedings ) , CARDINAL ( burden of proof ) , DATE ( evaluation of evidence ) and CARDINAL ( decisions with regard to administrative offences ) of LAW , and in general terms to LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , without referring to specific provisions of that law .","The applicant association appealed in cassation . It challenged inter alia the first instance court \u2019s failure to apply the law that was applicable to the proceedings in the present case ( LAW ) and its erroneous application of legal provisions which were of no relevance to the legal relations at issue . In particular , the applicant association stated that :","- the courts had not examined its complaints as to the lawfulness of the refusal of ORG to transfer the religious premises at issue into its ownership and use ;","- the first instance court had established that the premises at issue were \u201c communal property \u201d , administered by ORG , even though the proceedings concerned property owned by the ORG ;","- the property at issue had been unlawfully confiscated from a NORP religious community in LOC and the ORG had undertaken to return this property back ;","- the \u201c communal status of property \u201d and the association \u2019s failure to challenge transfer of property into \u201c communal administration \u201d were irrelevant to the determination of whether nationalised religious property should be returned or not .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s appeal in cassation and upheld the ruling of DATE , finding no grounds for quashing it . In particular , it held that the LOC had become communal property on DATE and thus ORG was the competent body to transfer title to property owned by it . Therefore , it was only within the competence of ORG to decide and order return of such LOC . It further stated that the first - instance court had lawfully refused to examine complaints about the right to claim property restitution as such complaints were to be examined in a different procedure . The court referred in its reasoning to ORG and ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure .","In DATE the applicant association instituted new proceedings before ORG , seeking a declaration that order no . CARDINAL issued on DATE was null and void . On DATE the court , referring to the judgment of CARDINAL DATE as being res judicata , ruled that the applicant association \u2019s complaints were unsubstantiated .","On DATE the First Deputy President of ORG upheld the judgment of DATE in supervisory - review proceedings . In particular , it held that the applicant community had not raised any claims concerning the return of property to it before the first - instance court , and that the claims as to the unlawfulness of order no . CARDINAL were unsubstantiated .","On DATE the division responsible for review of decisions , rulings and resolutions of ORG examined the applicant association \u2019s request for supervisory review of the aforementioned arbitration - court decisions and ruled that they were lawful and substantiated . It found that the LOC at issue were communal property , had been damaged during Second World War and rebuilt in DATE . The court also cited the findings made in the judgment of ORG of DATE as to the origin of the LOC at issue .","From DATE the applicant association made repeated requests , both separately and jointly with religious groups of other denominations , for the transfer of the premises for use for religious purposes . In particular , they claimed that other larger religious denominations had received premises whereas their requests had been unsuccessful . These requests were heard by ORG , at the request of ORG , on DATE and DATE . However , according to a letter from the Chairman of ORG of DATE , a proposal by ORG to permit the use of the LOC by the NORP religious community of PERSON was not supported by the majority of the members of ORG and so was not adopted .","On DATE the then Prime Minister of GPE , PERSON , instructed the Chairman of ORG to organise , in cooperation with ORG , the transfer of the LOC to the applicant association .","On DATE the Chairman of ORG informed the applicant association that the cinema was part of a communal enterprise known as GPE \u201c Kinosvit \u201d ( \u041a\u0456\u043d\u043e\u043e\u0431\u2019\u0454\u0434\u043d\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \u201c GPE \u201d ) . He also stated that a transfer of the cinema for use by the religious community would be contrary to LAW , so that there was no further need for ORG to review the issue anew .","The most recent refusals to examine the issue of transfer of LOC to the religious community date from DATE and DATE . It appears from information in the case file , provided by the applicant association that the LOC , which were cultural and historical monuments , were not being used as a cinema due to the poor state of the building and the need for significant renovation works .","The relevant domestic law and practice with regard to the activities of religious associations is summarised in PERSON - Mykhaylivska Parafiya v. GPE ( no . GPE , DATE ) , and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . Other relevant domestic regulations and administrative and judicial practice are briefly summarised below .","Under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Freedom of Conscience and LAW of DATE , the ORG undertook to transfer title to or possession of religious LOC and property belonging to the ORG to religious organisations . The transfer of property had to be done free of charges , on the basis of decisions of the GPE and ORG , regional administrations or ORG .","The relevant extracts from the text of LAW ( in force at the material time ) read as follows :","\u201c Religious organisations shall be entitled to use buildings and property placed at their disposal by the ORG , by organisations and by private individuals , on a contractual basis .","Religious buildings and property which constitute ORG - owned property shall be transferred by the organisations administering them to the religious associations for their unpaid use or shall be returned into their ownership without payment , in accordance with decisions by the regional , GPE and ORG , and in GPE , by ORG ...","...","Religious buildings and other property of historical , artistic and other cultural value shall be transferred into the use of the religious organisations and shall be used by them in compliance with the rules on protection and use of historical and cultural monuments ...","...","Requests made by religious organisations for transfer of religious buildings and property into ownership or unpaid use shall be considered within DATE , and information in writing sent to the petitioners .","...","Decisions by the ORG bodies with regard to ownership or use of religious buildings and property may be appealed against to a court in compliance with the procedure envisaged by LAW ... \u201d","The relevant extracts from ORG of GPE \u201c On the Procedure for Entry into Force of the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organisations Act \u201d , as amended on DATE , read as follows :","\u201c ...","ORG of GPE , ORG and the regional , GPE and ORG shall ensure in accordance with the LAW the return to the ownership of or free use of religious buildings and property by religious groups , taking into account the following :","- the rights of the religious organisations which owned these buildings and property when they were nationalised ;","- the rights of the religious organisations which use these buildings and property in accordance with the procedure established by law ;","- investments made by the religious organisations in the property , rebuilding of the religious LOC and length of use of such LOC ;","- existence in the same residential area of other religious LOC and their use by other religious organisations ... ;","- other important matters in their entirety .","The decision of the relevant State body shall be reasoned ... \u201d","Under LAW of DATE \u201c On Measures Relating to the Return of Religious Property to Religious Organisations \u201d it was established that all religious premises and property owned by the ORG and used \u201c contrary to their mission \u201d should be returned to the religious associations within DATE . This period was further extended until DATE by ORG of DATE . On DATE the President issued another decree \u201c On Urgent Measures Relating to the Final Overcoming of ORG GPE with regard to Religion and on Restoration of LAW \u201d , in which he recommended that regional bodies of local selfgovernment finalise the transfer of church LOC that were being used \u201c contrary to their designation \u201d , and other buildings , to religious organisations .","Resolution No . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ( in force until DATE ) \u201c On the List of Historical Architectural Monuments which shall not be subject to ORG by Religious Organisations \u201d , provided that the following cathedrals in LOC were not to be returned to religious organisations : FAC ( DATE ) , PERSON and ORG ( DATE ) .","By Resolution No . CARDINAL \u201c On ORG which are ORG to Religious Organisations \u201d , adopted on DATE by ORG , it was decided that such religious LOC could be given to religious organisations for permanent use if the relevant educational institutions , archives or cultural institutions were moved to other LOC .","On DATE ORG rejected a request for interpretation of section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Act , stating , inter alia , that complaints concerning the use of religious buildings and property were to be examined by courts of general jurisdiction . It also referred to the recommendations of the Presidium of the Higher Commercial ( former ORG in that regard .","On DATE ORG rejected a request for interpretation of the provisions of section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW , lodged by the NORP - Catholic community \u201c GPE \u201d , finding , inter alia , that there was no proof of inconsistent application of its provisions by the domestic courts .","According to paragraph CARDINAL of the Practice Recommendation , the religious LOC and property that belonged to ORG property were to be transferred into unpaid use or ownership of the religious organisations on the basis of the decisions taken by the regional , GPE and LOC city state administrations and ORG . The above - mentioned authorities were under an obligation to return such property , not used for religious purposes , within DATE . The return of property included transfer into unpaid use or ownership . The property could be returned to religious associations , which proved that they had owned the property before nationalisation . Thus , the Recommendation , with reference to Presidential Decree of DATE , mentioned that the transfer of ownership of the religious premises was CARDINAL of the measures envisaged by law . Moreover , religious LOC or property could be transferred to another religious association if there was no \u201c legal successor \u201d ( \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u043d\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f\u043d\u0438\u043a ) religious association found in the vicinity where the religious LOC or property were situated .","Paragraph CARDINAL of the Practice Recommendation provided that property was to be returned to the same religious confessions which had owned the religious buildings before nationalization ( orthodox church to be returned to orthodox community , NORP church to RomanCatholic community , etc . ) . Information or written evidence as to the previous ownership of religious premises was to be sought from the parties , ORG archives , or ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL of the Recommendation ) . Claims for the return of religious LOC to their original ownership could be lodged under the provisions of LAW with the commercial courts , and the lodging of complaints with the courts of general jurisdiction did not impede the examination of such claims ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the Recommendation ) .","Paragraph CARDINAL of ORG stated that all property belonging to religious organisations before the entry into force of the LAW was deemed to belong to the ORG and the ORG was to be regarded as the proper owner of such property . In particular , this ensued from the provisions of LAW . Therefore , in accordance with LAW , ORG bodies , which are mentioned in LAW of the law , could perform any lawful acts with respect to such property and the courts were to reject any claims against such lawful acts , unless these acts contravened the law .","NORP The applicant association submitted CARDINAL decisions of ORG dated DATE and DATE , by which title to former religious premises that were in communal ownership and used for cultural purposes had been transferred to NORP communities in LOC . By the decision of DATE ORG transferred title to the religious premises of the former GPE Peter and Paul Cathedral , which had been used by FAC , to ORG of the Moscow Patriarchate . According to the decision of DATE , ORG was to be moved to different premises .","DATE LAW ( repealed by LAW DATE ) , hereafter DATE LAW , established CARDINAL forms of property ownership in GPE , which included private , collective and ORG property , with all CARDINAL forms receiving equal protection from the ORG . LAW provides that the ORG property includes the ORG property itself and the property of administrative - territorial units ( municipal or communal property ) . According to LAW , the subjects of the ORG property administration were the Verkhovna Rada of GPE ( in relation to national property ) and regional , district , town and village councils ( in relation to communal property ) . Under LAW the Verkhovna Rada of GPE and the local council were responsible for administration of ORG property . LAW provides that communal property consisted of inter alia property necessary for ensuring economic and social development of a particular territory .","Paragraphs CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of ORG , in line with LAW , provide that the bodies of local self - government that represent local territorial communities , including the regional councils , shall be responsible for administration of \u201c communal property \u201d .","According to paragraphs CARDINAL of ORG . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE \u201c On ORG of GPE into ORG - owned ( NORP ) Property and Property of the Administrative - territorial entities \u201d , the \u201c cultural property \u201d had to be transferred into communal property and administered by the local territorial community of LOC from the ORG property .","According to Article CARDINAL of the Code , the courts had jurisdiction to hear complaints concerning decisions of ORG bodies with regard to the registration of religious associations and the ownership and use of religious property . Under LAW such complaints were to be lodged with the regional courts , the GPE and ORG and , exceptionally , with ORG if the complaint concerned ORG . A complaint could be lodged within DATE from the date of the decision . According to LAW , the complaint had to be examined within DATE , if necessary with the participation of the complainant and the respondent State body . Under LAW of the LAW , the court could order the ORG body to rectify its previous decisions so as to ensure that they complied with the law . The courts were to reject the claims if the State bodies\u2019 decisions were lawful .","In accordance with LAW , in force at the material time , that is to say , before DATE , legal entities and private entrepreneurs engaged in business activities were entitled to apply to the arbitration courts , in accordance with the relevant jurisdictional rules , for the protection of their legal rights and interests .","Article CARDINAL of the Code established that ORG had jurisdiction over complaints against ORG . In accordance with the rules on exclusive jurisdiction , under LAW cases concerning the enjoyment of possessions were to be examined in the arbitration court with jurisdiction for the area in which the property was situated . Under LAW , the court which had been wrongly seised was required to transfer the case file to another court that had jurisdiction in the case ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145817","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SVINARENKO AND SLYADNEV v. RUSSIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Anatoly Kovler;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant , Mr Svinarenko , is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in the FAC region . The second applicant , Mr PERSON , lives in the settlement of PERSON in the LOC district of the GPE region .","In DATE ORG of ORG at ORG brought several sets of criminal proceedings against a Mr PERSON .","On DATE the first applicant was questioned as one of the suspects in those proceedings . On DATE he was arrested . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ordering his detention on remand , ORG noted that the crimes he was charged with had been committed during a DATE probation period under a judgment of LOC of DATE convicting him of theft and imposing on him a conditional sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . It also noted that he had negative references from his place of residence and that he had breached his undertaking to appear before the investigating authority . According to the final charges against the first applicant , he was accused of robbery with violence against Mr FAC and PERSON T.S. in DATE as a member of a gang led by Mr PERSON , and of the illegal acquisition , storage , transportation and carrying of ammunition .","On DATE the second applicant , who was serving a sentence of imprisonment after his conviction by LOC on DATE for negligent infliction of death under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , was questioned as one of the suspects in the proceedings brought against Mr PERSON . On DATE he was charged with the following crimes :","( i ) establishing an armed gang under PERSON PERSON \u2019s leadership and participating in the gang \u2019s attacks on citizens from DATE to DATE \u2013 under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG ;","( ii ) the robbery in DATE of Mr GPE , the director of a private goldrefining company , with the use of weapons and violence endangering life and health and a threat to use such violence , by an organised group , with the aim of misappropriating another \u2019s property of substantial value \u2013 under LAW CARDINAL of the ORG ;","( iii ) illegal storage and transportation of precious metals ( industrial gold allegedly misappropriated from Mr V.B. ) of substantial value by an organised group in DATE under LAW of the ORG ;","( iv ) extortion ( against Mr V.B. ) in DATE with the aim of obtaining a right to property under the threat of the use of violence , by an organised group DATE under LAW of the ORG ;","( v ) the robbery of Mr Ya . B. in DATE with the use of weapons and violence endangering life and health and the threat to use such violence , by a group of persons according to a premeditated plan , by means of illegal entry into a dwelling with the aim of misappropriating another \u2019s property of substantial value \u2013 under LAW of the ORG ; and","( vi ) NORP illegal acquisition , storage , transfer , transportation and carrying of firearms by an organised group in DATE under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG .","On DATE the FAC found the second applicant to be eligible , in view of his orderly behaviour and positive references , for early conditional release DATE and DATE of the term of DATE and DATE to which he had been sentenced under ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG ordered the second applicant \u2019s remand in custody in the criminal proceedings at issue in the present case . It noted , inter alia , that he was accused of grave crimes which had been committed during a DATE probation period under ORG judgment of DATE convicting him of hooliganism and wilful infliction of grievous bodily harm and sentencing him conditionally to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the investigation was completed and the defence received access to the case file .","On DATE the ORG found that the second applicant had been deliberately delaying the examination of the case file and set a time - limit for the examination at DATE .","On DATE the case was sent for trial to ORG , which held from DATE to DATE a preliminary hearing to decide on numerous requests by the applicants and their CARDINAL co - defendants concerning the admissibility of the evidence and other procedural issues , as well as to prepare the jury trial requested by the defendants . During this period the hearing was postponed for DATE at the co - defendants\u2019 request .","As a result of the preliminary hearing , on DATE ORG ordered that the case be examined at an open hearing by a jury on DATE . On DATE CARDINAL candidate jurors appeared before the court instead of the CARDINAL invited and the court , therefore , ordered that another CARDINAL candidate jurors be summoned .","On DATE a jury was empanelled and sworn in .","ORG held about CARDINAL court sessions , during which it decided various procedural issues , such as the replacement of some jurors , the exclusion or examination of certain evidence and the ordering of expert opinions . It examined the evidence , including the testimony of the victims , witnesses and experts , and heard the defendants . The hearing was adjourned for DATE as CARDINAL of the defence lawyers could not attend .","On DATE the prosecution amended CARDINAL of the robbery charges against the second applicant ( concerning Mr Ya . B. ) to the lesser charge of \u201c arbitrary unlawful acts \u201d ( \u0441\u0430\u043c\u043e\u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e ) with the use of violence , under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG .","On DATE the jury found the applicants not guilty . They were released in the courtroom . On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment in which they were acquitted and their right to rehabilitation was acknowledged .","The co - defendants and the prosecution appealed against the trial court \u2019s judgment . On DATE ORG of GPE examined the case on appeal and quashed the judgment on the grounds , inter alia , that some of the jurors had concealed information about their family PERSON criminal records although they had been obliged to disclose such information to the parties and to the court at the time of their selection ; and that the presiding judge had failed to sum up all the evidence in his directions to the jury , in particular failing to sum up the GPE and ORG statements . ORG remitted the case to ORG for fresh examination .","On DATE ORG received the case file . It adjourned its hearing twice , on DATE and DATE , as the second applicant \u2019s lawyer had failed to appear .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG imposed on the defendants an undertaking not to leave their place of residence without its authorisation , to appear before it when summoned , and not to obstruct the proceedings .","ORG decision of the same date to remit the case to ORG for the rectification of errors in the indictment was appealed against by the defence and quashed as erroneous by ORG on DATE .","The hearing before ORG was adjourned on DATE as a result of the first applicant \u2019s and a co - defendant \u2019s failure to appear , for unknown reasons . It was adjourned again on DATE owing to a co - defendant \u2019s hospitalisation and the impossibility of examining the case in respect of the others in separate proceedings .","The hearing resumed on DATE . On DATE , however , CARDINAL candidate jurors appeared before the court instead of the CARDINAL invited and the court , therefore , ordered that another CARDINAL candidate jurors be summoned .","On DATE ORG ordered that the applicants and the other CARDINAL defendants be detained on remand . It noted the applicants\u2019 previous convictions , the serious charges against them , and the fact that during the preliminary investigation and the current trial some of the victims and witnesses had expressed fears of unlawful behaviour by the defendants . In its decision it did not give any details concerning the fears referred to , or the names of the defendants concerned . The ORG appeals against the detention order were dismissed by ORG of GPE in its decision of DATE . In upholding ORG detention order , ORG noted that one of the victims , Mr Ya . B. , had asked for the case to be examined without his participation as he had been afraid to give evidence in open court . This fear constituted , according to ORG , a sufficient ground to consider that the defendants did not satisfy the condition of not obstructing the proceedings in order for them to remain free under the previously imposed undertaking not to leave their place of residence . The applicants\u2019 detention was subsequently extended for similar reasons .","On DATE the jury was empanelled and sworn in and the court held hearings on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . On the last - mentioned date CARDINAL of the co - defendants was granted leave to engage a new lawyer . On DATE his new lawyer failed to appear and the hearing was adjourned until DATE , DATE being non - working days . ORG continued the examination of the case in DATE . It ruled on numerous procedural requests by the defence , in particular requests seeking the replacement of the presiding judge and the prosecutor .","As the witnesses and victims who lived in PERSON had failed to appear at the hearings several times , on DATE the court ordered them to be brought before it under escort . The hearing was adjourned on DATE until DATE and on DATE until DATE , pending the execution of that order .","The examination of the case continued in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . During this time the hearing was adjourned on a number of occasions for DATE in total at the request of jurors who could not participate , and for DATE at the request of CARDINAL of the defence lawyers , who was ill . On DATE the presiding judge declared the examination of the evidence closed . In CARDINAL sessions in DATE ORG heard the parties\u2019 oral argument . It announced a break from CARDINAL July until DATE in view of the fact that several jurors were leaving for DATE in central GPE .","The hearing resumed on DATE . Having consulted the parties , the court decided that they would repeat their oral argument . They did so on DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE . The preparation of questions to be put to the jury then followed . The jury gave its verdict on DATE . The first applicant was found not guilty and was released in the courtroom .","On DATE , after an examination of the legal issues during the sessions held in DATE , ORG delivered its judgment . The first applicant was acquitted and his right to rehabilitation was acknowledged . The second applicant was convicted of extortion ( against Mr PERSON ) , and \u201c arbitrary unlawful acts \u201d with the use of violence ( in respect of Mr Ya . PERSON ) , and was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ( which took into account his DATE conviction , in respect of which the conditional sentence was revoked ) . He was acquitted on the remaining charges . His detention on remand was to continue until the judgment took effect .","On DATE ORG examined the appeals against the judgment lodged by a co - defendant , one of the victims and the prosecution . It found that the defendants and their lawyers had breached the rules on criminal trials by committing an abuse of their rights , namely , by discussing in the ORG presence , despite the presiding judge \u2019s warnings , issues which fell outside the scope of the ORG competence . They had also made remarks which did not concern the issues to be decided by the jury and which had been aimed at discrediting the evidence against them , thus creating a negative impression of the victims and the presiding judge , and a positive one of themselves . This was held by ORG to have unlawfully influenced the jury \u2019s verdict . It was also noted that the jury \u2019s verdict had not been entirely clear as some of the answers to the questions put to them had been contradictory . ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh examination . It also ordered that the second applicant remain in custody .","In DATE the first applicant was detained on remand in connection with an unrelated set of criminal proceedings brought against him on suspicion of an extortion allegedly committed in DATE .","On DATE ORG received the case file and opened the proceedings . On DATE CARDINAL candidate jurors appeared before ORG instead of the CARDINAL invited and the court , therefore , ordered that CARDINAL candidate jurors be summoned .","On DATE the selection of the jurors began . However , after a number of candidate jurors refused to sit in the case , the number available was still insufficient and the court ordered that another CARDINAL candidate jurors be summoned . The same situation occurred on DATE .","The number of candidate jurors who appeared before ORG was again insufficient on DATE and DATE , necessitating the summoning of CARDINAL persons respectively .","A jury , composed of CARDINAL jurors and CARDINAL substitute jurors , was empanelled on DATE from CARDINAL candidate jurors who had appeared before the court , and the trial commenced . The court held CARDINAL or CARDINAL sessions DATE from DATE , CARDINAL sessions in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE ( after a break for the ORG holidays from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) , TIME in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE and DATE . Some of the sessions were held without the jury as they concerned various procedural issues , including the admissibility of evidence and requests for the examination of the evidence before the jury . The court examined the vast body of evidence , including the testimony of CARDINAL victims and witnesses , and numerous expert reports .","For DATE the trial was delayed because a co - defendant was ill . Some delay was caused by difficulties in ensuring the appearance of some of the victims and witnesses , who resided in remote settlements in GPE and PERSON , or who had moved to the central and other parts of the country .","On DATE ORG started hearing the parties\u2019 oral argument .","On DATE the jury returned a \u201c not guilty \u201d verdict in respect of the first applicant . It found the second applicant guilty of \u201c arbitrary unlawful acts \u201d and not guilty on the remaining charges .","On DATE ORG ordered the second applicant \u2019s release on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence and to behave in a law - abiding manner .","On DATE it delivered its judgment , acquitting the first applicant and finding , in respect of the second applicant , that on DATE he , Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON ( against whom the criminal proceedings were terminated owing to his death ) had requested Mr Ya . B. to repay a debt in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) ; following Mr Ya . B. \u2019s refusal Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON had beaten him up ; the second applicant had beaten up Mr PERSON , who had witnessed Mr Ya . PERSON \u2019s beating ; they had then taken Mr Ya . B. to his home and Mr PERSON had taken money from him in the amount of RUB CARDINAL .","ORG noted that there had been mixed references in the materials of the case about the second applicant , who had been characterised negatively by the local authority and by a district police officer at the place of his residence , and positively by the administration of a detention facility , in which he had been detained on remand , and by the administration of a prison in which he had served his sentence after a previous conviction .","ORG convicted the second applicant , under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG , of \u201c arbitrary unlawful acts \u201d with the use of violence , sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment , revoked the conditional sentence under his DATE conviction as the new crime had been committed during the probation period , and , after adding the revoked conditional sentence , sentenced him to a total of DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment ; it discharged him from serving the sentence in the part relating to the conviction under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL as liability for the relevant offence had become time - barred , and found that he had served his sentence in the remaining part in view of his detention on remand from DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE , which amounted to DATE , DATE in total . It acquitted him on the remaining charges .","As of DATE the first applicant was still detained in connection with unrelated criminal proceedings against him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by a codefendant and the prosecution and upheld the judgment .","During the applicants\u2019 detention on remand they were taken to ORG from their detention facility by police guards . During the hearings they sat on a bench enclosed on CARDINAL sides by metal rods QUANTITY in diameter . The enclosure was QUANTITY long , QUANTITY wide and QUANTITY high , with a steel mesh ceiling and a door , also made of metal rods . The distance between the metal rods was QUANTITY .","Armed police guards remained beside the caged dock . There were always CARDINAL police guards per detainee \u2013 QUANTITY police guards in total during the first and second trials and QUANTITY police guards for the applicants and one of their co - defendants during the third trial .","After the first applicant \u2019s acquittal had become final he brought proceedings against the ORG for damage suffered as a result of the criminal proceedings against him .","On DATE the ORG awarded him RUB CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage , representing an unemployment allowance that had not been paid as a result of his detention on remand . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld ORG judgment .","On DATE the ORG awarded the first applicant RUB CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage incurred by him as a result of his criminal prosecution , the imposition on him of an undertaking not to leave his place of residence and his detention on remand from DATE to the moment of his release , following the first \u201c not guilty \u201d jury verdict of DATE and from DATE until DATE . The applicant appealed against the judgment arguing , inter alia , that the amount awarded to him was not just or reasonable . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld ORG judgment ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179630","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"HARVEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Ms K. Lea , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","At the relevant time , the applicant was a schoolteacher with DATE of teaching experience . In DATE he was diagnosed with depression and granted sick leave from work . He returned to work in DATE .","On DATE , following provocative behaviour from several pupils in his class , he assaulted a pupil with a dumbbell . The pupil sustained a serious head injury requiring hospital treatment . It was also alleged that during the incident the applicant had kicked a female pupil and thrown the dumbbell at another pupil . The applicant was arrested and remanded into custody .","He was subsequently charged with attempted murder and grievous bodily harm with intent under LAW of the Offences against LAW . He pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm ( without specific intent ) under LAW CARDINAL of LAW . On DATE he was found not guilty of attempted murder and of grievous bodily harm with intent following a jury trial in ORG . At the sentencing hearing on DATE , the judge sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL GPE community service , taking into account the time spent in pre - trial detention .","The judge referred to significant mitigation in the case , including the applicant \u2019s depressive illness , difficult personal and family circumstances at the relevant time and his previously unblemished record of teaching over DATE . The judge declined to make a disqualification order against the applicant precluding him from working with children , on the basis that he was satisfied that the applicant was unlikely to commit any further offence against a child , largely because as a teacher he was subject to a professional code of practice and disciplinary arrangements and he had recognised that his career teaching children was over .","On DATE , following disciplinary proceedings , the applicant was dismissed from his post for gross misconduct .","On DATE the local authority referred the matter to ORG ( \u201c ISA \u201d ) , a body established by LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , to consider whether to bar the applicant from working with children or vulnerable adults . Meanwhile , the applicant commenced voluntary work at a small local charity , run by the ORG , providing support to homeless persons .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE , the ORG informed the applicant that it had received the referral and was minded to bar him from working with children and vulnerable adults in light of his conviction . He was therefore invited to make written representations as to why he should not be barred . He submitted written representations through his solicitors on DATE and disputed that he represented a threat to children when operating in a supervised environment , or a threat to vulnerable adults in any circumstances .","By letter dated DATE the ORG notified the applicant of its decision to include the applicant \u2019s name in both the Children \u2019s Barred List and Adults\u2019 Barred List . It referred to his conviction and considered that he had engaged in conduct which had endangered a child and which constituted \u201c relevant conduct \u201d , within the meaning of LAW , justifying inclusion in the barred lists .","As regards the risk to vulnerable adults , the letter stated :","\u201c We also remain of the view that you may harm a vulnerable adult and it is appropriate to include you on ORG . This is because vulnerable adults with learning difficulties or mental health issues could exhibit similarly challenging behavioural traits as children in certain situations . There are insufficient reassurances that should you engage in \u2018 regulated activity\u2019 in a vulnerable adult setting , you would not pose a similar significant risk to those in your care . \u201d","The accompanying \u201c Barring Decision Process \u201d document , prepared by an ISA case worker , reviewed the applicant \u2019s conduct and the risk he posed . The document explained that the applicant was considered to pose a significant risk to children if placed in a similar situation in the future . As regards vulnerable adults , the document stated :","\u201c It would not be unreasonable to surmise that vulnerable adults , particularly those with learning difficulties or mental health issues , could exhibit similar challenging behavioural traits in certain situations . Because of this there are real concerns that [ the applicant ] might react in a similar manner as he did at [ school ] , if he was placed in a difficult position with vulnerable adults . While there is no evidence to indicate that he has worked in a paid or voluntary capacity with vulnerable adults in the past , he might in the future and his risk is such at the present time that he would pose a risk of harm if he was allowed to do so . [ The applicant \u2019s ] harmful behaviour clearly constitutes risk of harm and a minded to bar decision is proportionate on ORG . \u201d","As to whether it was appropriate to bar the applicant from working with children or vulnerable adults , the document concluded that it was . In particular , as regards the bar on working with vulnerable adults , the document stated :","\u201c There is no evidence to indicate that [ the applicant ] has worked in paid or voluntary capacity with vulnerable adults in the past . However , consideration needs to be given to whether it would be appropriate for him to work in regulated activity within a vulnerable adults setting in the future . It is important to consider if [ the applicant ] was to obtain employment with vulnerable adults with learning difficulties or mental health issues , they could exhibit similar challenging behavioural traits as children in certain situations . There is a potential , significant risk that if he was placed in a similarly difficult situation in a vulnerable setting he could react in a similar manner with potential fatal consequences . Therefore it is deemed appropriate to include [ the applicant \u2019s ] name on ORG . \u201d","The applicant subsequently ceased his voluntary work with the homeless charity , having received legal advice that the work was potentially contrary to the ORG barring decision .","The applicant appealed the decision to include him in LOC to ORG . He did not appeal the decision to include him in LOC . He argued that the ORG had wrongly found that he had kicked a female pupil and that the decision to bar him from working with vulnerable adults was disproportionate and thereby in breach of LAW . He obtained a report from a consultant psychiatrist , PERSON , to assist the tribunal to assess his level of risk . The report confirmed that the applicant \u2019s diagnosis was one of a recurrent depressive disorder and that as a result of depression and considerable work stress he had assaulted his pupil in DATE . It noted that , since that time and with medical assistance , his situation had significantly improved .","Following receipt of the psychiatric report , the parties requested that the proceedings be stayed in order to allow the ORG to review its decision . A stay was granted .","By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the ORG confirmed its decision to include the applicant \u2019s name on ORG but retracted its finding of fact that the applicant had kicked a female pupil in light of further inquiries into that incident . The ORG review letter noted that Dr PERSON \u2019s report showed that , since the incident , the applicant had taken significant steps to address his long - term issues with depression through psychiatric support , psychotherapy and support from his general practitioner . However , while acknowledging the significant progress that he had made , the letter emphasised that a relatively short period of time had elapsed since this marked improvement . Although PERSON report was compelling , it was also apparent from the report that he believed that \u201c some basic safeguards would seem prudent \u201d to mitigate against future risk . The ORG concluded that Dr PERSON \u2019s report served to strengthen its view that there continued to be an unacceptable risk , noting that the report proposed a risk assessment for any post for which the applicant wished to apply and recorded the applicant \u2019s recognition of the fact that he should not work alone . The ORG noted that it had no scope to impose a \u201c partial bar \u201d or any type of restriction on the applicant which would allow the recommendations made by PERSON to be incorporated into any future employment and , accordingly , it had to balance the level and nature of the risk identified against the impact on the applicant of continued inclusion on ORG .","On DATE the ORG quashed the ORG decision to include the applicant \u2019s name in ORG . It commented that the ORG caseworker had not specifically addressed proportionality in the context of the decision - making process . The tribunal considered the correct approach to its review of the ORG decision was that set out in its previous judgment in ORG , at that time pending before ORG ( see further \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d , below ) , namely that it should examine the evidence and allocate weight to it , and decide whether the balance had been struck in the right place . It noted that the ORG had not had the opportunity of hearing the applicant give evidence whereas the tribunal , with CARDINAL experienced , specialist members , had heard his evidence and tested it in some detail . It considered that the ORG had \u201c fundamentally misconstrued \u201d PERSON report since the tribunal failed to see how that report could have strengthened ORG \u2019s view that there continued to be an unacceptable risk . It was of the view that PERSON suggestion that there be a basic risk assessment before the applicant was engaged in work with vulnerable adults was a very sensible one and one which , the tribunal understood , would in any event be carried out by ORG in respect of the homelessness project in which the applicant was interested .","The tribunal therefore directed the ORG to remove the applicant \u2019s name from ORG . It also directed that :","\u201c ... there is to be no publication of the any matter likely to lead members of the public directly or indirectly to identify any person , including the Appellant , who has been involved in the circumstances giving rise to this Appeal \u201d .","The ORG appealed to ORG on CARDINAL grounds , namely : ( i ) that ORG had erred in law in its approach to proportionality by failing to give appropriate weight to the ORG decision ; ( ii ) that the ORG decision was not , as a matter of law , disproportionate ; ( iii ) that ORG had failed to take into account the nature of the risk posed by the applicant ; and ( iv ) that ORG had erred in placing reliance on safeguards in place at the applicant \u2019s proposed place of work and had failed to take into account the risk that would be posed if the applicant worked with vulnerable adults in other environments .","ORG subsequently handed down judgment in ORG , overturning the judgment of ORG in that case and clarifying the correct approach to be taken when reviewing an ORG decision ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d , below ) .","The functions of the ORG were transferred to ORG in DATE and the appeal continued in the latter \u2019s name .","In his skeleton argument of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant invited ORG to uphold the decision of ORG that the decision to include him in the Adults\u2019 Barred List was disproportionate and thus unlawful . He argued , in particular , that proportionality had always to involve the striking of a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community , inherent in the whole of the LAW ; that where the individual had not been interviewed by the primary decision - maker , the appellate authority was much better placed to investigate the facts and test the evidence ; that it was for the court before which the issue was raised to decide whether Convention rights had been breached and that this court was not merely to concern itself with whether the primary decision - maker took the relevant rights into account ; and that the court had to treat with appropriate respect the views of those who had the primary responsibility to make the judgments in question , especially where they had addressed their minds to the relevant issues .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG and reinstated the ORG decision . Lord Justice PERSON , delivering the lead judgment ( with which the other CARDINAL members of ORG agreed ) , considered that the process through which the ORG had worked in coming to its judgment that the applicant should be included on ORG was a \u201c thorough and careful \u201d one . That view had then been reviewed in the light of PERSON evidence , and the confirmed conclusion had \u201c appropriately recognised the force of Dr M. \u2019s evidence in relation to the improvement in [ the applicant \u2019s ] condition , but went on , after due consideration of the whole picture , to conclude that it did not provide a reason for reversing the decision , and if anything strengthened it \u201d . The judge continued :","\u201c DATE . I have found in the documentation relating to the ORG \u2019s decision - making the clearest evidence of careful thought and reasoning . I therefore find ORG view that the ORG had not given any detailed thought to its decision and that it had failed to carry out a balancing exercise to be very surprising . It seems to me to be clearly wrong .","Very considerable reliance was placed by ORG on Dr M. \u2019s report and the ORG is criticised for having \" misconstrued the evidence of PERSON . Insofar as ORG placed additional reliance on the fact that it had heard oral evidence from PERSON , I accept the submission of [ the applicant \u2019s lawyer ] that in reality this does no more than confirm the evidence already before the tribunal from PERSON to the effect that PERSON had improved and was currently well motivated to avoid a repetition of his conduct . However , it seems to me that ORG reliance on PERSON evidence , together with its dismissal of the ORG \u2019s approach to it , was misconceived . \u201d","He also found that ORG was wrong to treat the ORG \u2019s view of the safeguards mentioned by PERSON as strengthening its case . He noted that the safeguards mentioned related to a man whose condition had improved , but only in the context of a person suffering from a recurrent depressive disorder and whose improvement was over a relatively short time span . These considerations , which weighed with the ORG , appeared to have been ignored by ORG , which had also concluded that the safeguards \u201c will be in place \u201d , thus rendering an absolute bar disproportionate . However , the judge noted , there was no guarantee whatsoever that the safeguards which PERSON thought prudent and which would exist under the aegis of the work which the applicant envisaged would necessarily apply in other employments or other situations . The judge considered that ORG assertion that those safeguards would be in place could not safely be made , nor could the safeguards be implemented as conditions attaching to any future work with vulnerable adults .","The judge saw \u201c considerable force \u201d in the ORG \u2019s argument that ORG had not taken the approach to proportionality mandated by ORG in ORG , which required it to accord weight to the judgment of the ORG . The judge therefore concluded :","\u201c CARDINAL . The effect of the ORG \u2019s decision was wrongly to characterise the ORG \u2019s decision as an error of law . There was , in my judgment , no such error made by the ORG whose valid decision was wrongly quashed . \u201d","In these circumstances , ORG considered that it was not appropriate to remit the case to ORG and instead ordered that the decision of the ORG be restored .","ORG also observed :","\u201c CARDINAL . There have been amendments to LAW pursuant to ORG since the ORG decision . However , none of those amendments impacts upon this appeal or the question of the correctness of ORG decision .","A recent change which will have an impact for the Respondent is that , whereas previously ORG \u2019s decision would not be subject to review for DATE , the position has now been altered so that a review may take place at any time if new information emerges , or there has been a change of circumstances , or it becomes apparent that ORG has made an error . See Section CARDINALA of LAW as inserted by LAW DATE \u201d .","The applicant sought permission to appeal from ORG . He argued , inter alia , that the DATE scheme was unlawful in failing to provide for a full - merits review on appeal . If there was no requirement for a fullmerits review on appeal , then at the very least ORG had to be permitted to carry out a robust proportionality exercise . In his submission , if the narrow remit afforded by ORG to ORG in his case were left undisturbed , this would mean that the barring scheme was incompatible with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . He further argued that the scheme was unlawful in that it did not allow ORG to implement a partial bar on working with vulnerable adults ( the \u201c all - or - nothing \u201d ground ) . The absolute bar that it was obliged to impose was disproportionate and in breach of LAW . The Disclosure and Barring Service therefore had to be empowered to impose a partial bar so that in appropriate cases individuals could only be excluded from positions where they would pose a significant risk to the relevant vulnerable group . If no such power could be read into LAW then a declaration of incompatibility under section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d , below ) should be made .","On DATE ORG refused permission to appeal . It stated that the application did not raise a point of law of general public importance and that the \u201c all - or - nothing \u201d ground did raise a point of law of general public importance but that it was too late to raise it at this stage .","Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act and its Schedule CARDINAL created the ORG , to consist of a chairman and members appointed by the Secretary of ORG who appeared to him to have knowledge or experience of any aspect of child protection or the protection of vulnerable adults . Appointment was for a term not exceeding five years and a member could be removed by the Secretary of ORG on various specified grounds , including that he was unable or unfit to carry out his functions .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW requires the ORG to keep CARDINAL lists of individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children and vulnerable adults respectively . Section CARDINAL provides that a person whose name has been included on one of the barred lists is precluded from taking part in \u201c regulated activity \u201d with the relevant group . LAW CARDINAL define \u201c regulated activity \u201d . The definition of \u201c regulated activity \u201d was amended by ORG to focus on work which involves close and unsupervised contact with vulnerable groups , thus reducing its scope . Section CARDINAL makes it an offence for a person included in the barred lists to engage in \u201c regulated activity \u201d .","The criteria for inclusion in the barred lists are set out in Schedule CARDINAL . Under paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule CARDINAL , ORG ( formerly the ORG ) is obliged to include a person in the Children \u2019s Barred List if satisfied , following consideration of representations by the affected person , that he has engaged in \u201c relevant conduct \u201d and that it is appropriate to include him in the list . \u201c Relevant conduct \u201d is defined in paragraph CARDINAL as including conduct that endangered a child .","Paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule CARDINAL provides that ORG ( formerly the ORG ) is obliged to include a person in ORG if satisfied , following consideration of representations , that he has engaged in conduct which fell within paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and that it is appropriate to include him in the list . Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides as follows :","\u201c A person falls within this sub - paragraph if he may\u2014","( a ) harm a vulnerable adult ,","( b ) cause a vulnerable adult to be harmed ,","( c ) put a vulnerable adult at risk of harm ,","( d ) attempt to harm a vulnerable adult , or","( e ) NORP incite another to harm a vulnerable adult . \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides for a right of appeal to ORG against a decision to include a person in the barred lists . For the purposes of determining appeals , ORG sits with a constitution of one legally - qualified judge and CARDINAL specialist , non - legal members .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW stipulates that an appeal can only be made on the grounds that the ORG has made a mistake on a point of law or in a finding of fact on which the decision was based . In section CARDINAL ) , the decision whether it was appropriate for a person to be included in a barred list is stated to be neither a question of law nor of fact .","Paragraphs DATE and CARDINALA of Schedule QUANTITY allowed a person included in a barred list to apply to ORG ( formerly the ISA ) for a review of his inclusion . At the time the applicant was placed on ORG , a review could only proceed after the end of the \u201c minimum barring period \u201d , which in the applicant \u2019s case was a DATE period , and with the permission of ORG .","However , following amendments introduced by ORG , a review may now take place at any time and a person \u2019s name is to be removed from the list if ORG is satisfied that , in the light of information which it did not have at the time of inclusion in the list , any change of circumstances or any error by ORG , it is not appropriate for the person to be included in the list .","In R ( ORG ) v. Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] EWHC CARDINAL ( Admin ) , the claimants argued that the scheme established by LAW did not permit an oral hearing and thus did not comply with LAW ; and did not give individuals placed on a barred list the opportunity for a full merits review on appeal , contrary to LAW Mr Justice PERSON , sitting in ORG , said :","\u201c CARDINAL . In light of the fact that ORG can put right any errors of law and any material errors of fact and , further , can do so at an oral hearing if that is necessary for the fair and just disposition of the appeal I have reached the conclusion that the absence of a right to an oral hearing before the [ ISA ] and the absence of a full merits based appeal to ORG does not infringe LAW . To repeat , an oral hearing before the [ ISA ] is permissible under the statutory scheme and there is no reason to suppose that in an appropriate case the [ ISA ] would not hold such a hearing ... Indeed , a failure or refusal to conduct an oral hearing in circumstances which would allow of an argument that the failure or refusal was unreasonable or irrational would itself raise the prospect of an appeal to ORG on a point of law . Further , any other error of law and relevant errors of fact made by the [ ISA ] can be put right on an appeal which , itself , may be conducted by way of oral hearing in an appropriate case .","NORP I am more troubled by the absence of a full merits based appeal but I am persuaded that its absence does not render the scheme as a whole in breach of LAW for the following reasons . First , the [ ISA ] is a body which is independent of the executive agencies which will have referred individuals for inclusion \/ possible inclusion upon the barred lists . It is an expert body consisting of a board of individuals appointed under regulations governing public appointments and a team of highly - trained case workers . Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of Schedule DATE CARDINAL Act specifies that the chairman and members \u2018 must appear to the Secretary of ORG to have knowledge or experience of any aspect of child protection or the protection of vulnerable PERSON . The [ ISA ] is in the best position to make a reasoned judgment as to when it is appropriate to include an individual \u2019s name on a barred list or remove an individual from the barred list . In the absence of an error of law or fact it is difficult to envisage a situation in which an appeal against the judgment of the [ ORG ] would have any realistic prospect of success . Second , if the [ ISA ] reached a decision that it was appropriate for an individual to be included in a barred list or appropriate to refuse to remove an individual from a barred list yet that conclusion was unreasonable or irrational that would constitute an error of law . I do not read section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW as precluding a challenge to the ultimate decision on grounds that a decision to include an individual upon a barred list or to refuse to remove him from a list was unreasonable or irrational or ... disproportionate . In my judgment all that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) precludes is an appeal against the ultimate decision when that decision is not flawed by any error of law or fact . \u201d","ORG considered the R ( ORG ) judgment in ORG v. ISA [ DATE ] ORG FAC ( ORG ) . It referred to counsel \u2019s submission that the weight the ORG attached to a particular feature was not a matter which the tribunal could redetermine but rather went to \u201c appropriateness \u201d , expressly excluded by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , and said :","\u201c CARDINAL . We are not able to agree with this submission . We are mindful that we must read section CARDINAL ) in a way that is compatible with LAW DATE , and the approach adopted by PERSON , in our view , is the correct way to proceed . If a decision taken by ORG to place a person on a list , or not to remove him from the list , is disproportionate to the facts as presented to the [ ISA ] , then there is an error of law , and the ORG on appeal is entitled , indeed obliged , to direct ORG to remove the person from the list , or remit the matter to ORG for a new decision .","The only way in which a ORG can form a view as to whether a decision of the [ ISA ] is disproportionate is to engage in \u2018 a weighing of evidence GPE , not so as to ascertain whether the decision is or is not appropriate ( that is a matter solely for the [ ISA ] ) but so as to ascertain whether it is disproportionate and therefore out with the lawful decision making exercise of the [ ISA ] . It is therefore the totality of the evidence that the ORG must concern itself with . In considering the totality of the evidence , it is in our view necessary to look carefully at individual aspects to that evidence and to form a view whether the conclusion that the [ ISA ] has placed on the totality of the evidence is disproportionate .","...","... On an appeal , the ORG is entitled to examine the evidence and to allocate weight to it and to decide whether the balance has been struck in the right place . \u201d","ORG judgment in ORG was subsequently overturned on appeal . Delivering the lead judgment for ORG on DATE ( [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ) , Lord Justice PERSON explained :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... The [ ISA ] assessment was a fair representation of the many indications and counter indications and specific mention was made of the numerous references and the fact that ORG had voluntarily sought counselling .","This brings me to CARDINAL particular points . First , there is the fact that , unlike the ORG , the [ ORG ] saw and heard ORG giving evidence . However , it can not be suggested that it was unlawful for the ORG not to do so . It had had at its disposal a wealth of material , not least the material upon which the criminal conviction had been founded and which had informed the sentencing process . The objective facts were not in dispute . Secondly , Mr PERSON , on behalf of ORG , emphasises the fact that the [ ORG ] is not a non - specialist court reviewing the decision of a specialist decision - maker , which would necessitate the according of considerable weight to the original decision . It is itself a specialist tribunal . Whilst there is truth in this submission , it has its limitations for the following reasons : ( CARDINAL ) unlike its predecessor , ORG , it is statutorily disabled from revisiting the appropriateness of an individual being included in a Barred List , simpliciter ; and ( CARDINAL ) whereas the [ ORG ] judge is flanked by non - legal members who themselves come from a variety of relevant professions , they are or may be less specialised than the ORG decision - makers who , by paragraph CARDINAL ) of schedule CARDINAL to LAW \u2018 must appear to the Secretary of ORG to have knowledge or experience of any aspect of child protection or the protection of vulnerable PERSON . I intend no disrespect to the judicial or non - legal members of the [ ORG ] in the present or any other case when I say that , by necessary statutory qualification , the ORG is particularly equipped to make safeguarding decisions of this kind , whereas the [ ORG ] is designed not to consider the appropriateness of listing but more to adjudicate upon mistakes on points of law or findings of fact ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","For all these reasons I consider that the complaint that the [ ORG ] did not accord \u2018 appropriate ORG to the decision of the ORG is justified . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174109","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VOLCHKOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement)","judges":"Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P4-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170285","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ABUHMAID v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Positive obligations)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , GPE . He currently lives in GPE .","DATE the applicant lived mainly in LOC . He claimed to have been involved in the activities of ORG , the NORP political organisation .","In DATE the applicant went to GPE to study . DATE he entered ORG . In DATE the applicant finished his studies at the ORG and obtained a master \u2019s degree in biomedical electronics . In DATE the applicant enrolled in a postgraduate course at the same ORG . In DATE he withdrew from the course as he had no money to pursue his studies . The applicant claims that since DATE he has been working as a freelance translator \/ interpreter for ORG in GPE and for various private companies ( the applicant speaks fluent LANGUAGE , LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE , and understands NORP ) .","In DATE the applicant married a NORP national . In DATE they divorced . In DATE the applicant married another NORP national ; their marriage lasted for DATE . In DATE the applicant entered into a relationship with another NORP national . In DATE they married and currently live together as a family .","The applicant visited GPE twice in DATE . According to the applicant , one of the visits was due to his father \u2019s death . Since DATE the applicant has remained in GPE without leaving its territory .","In DATE the applicant was issued with a registration card by LAW in LOC ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . The card bears the name \u201c PERSON Hmeid \u201d . The applicant attributes the difference in the spelling of his name to varying transliterations of NORP names . Similar cards were issued to the applicant \u2019s mother and sister , who currently reside in LOC .","Prior to DATE the applicant was staying in GPE on the basis of passports of limited duration , issued by ORG , and temporary residence permits , which were regularly extended by the NORP police . In DATE an extension of the applicant \u2019s residence permit was requested by ORG and granted by the NORP authorities , as at the time access to the NORP territories was problematic .","In DATE the applicant started preparing documents to apply for a permanent residence permit on the basis of his marriage to a NORP national . He could not complete his application because his then brother - in - law was opposed to the applicant being registered as resident in the flat in which the applicant , his then wife and brother - in - law resided at the time .","On DATE the applicant applied to the migration unit within ORG in GPE for an extension of his residence permit . The police noted that the applicant \u2019s residence permit had expired in DATE and that since then the applicant had been in GPE in violation of migration regulations .","On DATE , at the request of the police , ORG in GPE , relying on Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code on Administrative Offences , ordered the applicant to pay a fine for violating migration regulations .","The applicant \u2019s identification documents were kept by LOC pending the outcome of the applicant \u2019s request for an extension of his residence permit .","According to the applicant , DATE his residence permit was extended until DATE . The Government contested that submission , stating that no extension had been granted .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant was stopped by officers of ORG in GPE for an identity check . As he had no identification documents , the applicant was arrested and taken to the police station . The applicant stated that his explanation that his documents were being kept at another police department had not been taken into account . On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG in GPE , which , having examined the material submitted by the police , fined the applicant for failure to carry identification and foreigner \u2019s registration documents .","On DATE the applicant was stopped by officers of ORG in GPE for an identity check . Having noted that the applicant was living in a flat in GPE without a rent contract or official registration , the officers asked ORG in GPE to fine the applicant . By a decision of DATE , the court ordered the applicant to pay a fine for violating migration regulations .","The applicant did not appeal against the court decisions convicting him of administrative offences , as he had no legal representation and took the view that those decisions would not have any consequences for his stay in GPE .","On DATE the applicant went to the migration unit of ORG in GPE to apply for an extension of his residence permit . On the way he was stopped by officers of the migration unit of ORG in GPE , who informed the applicant that there had been an order deporting him from GPE . The officers seized the documents the applicant had with him for his application for an extension of his residence permit , including his passport and marriage certificate . The documents have not been returned to the applicant . The applicant claimed that for that reason he could not provide a copy of his most recent residence permit .","Subsequently the applicant contacted a lawyer , who helped him to obtain copies of the decisions concerning his expulsion and to lodge an appeal against them ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the Solomyanskyy ORG in GPE issued a decision stating that the applicant should be removed from GPE for violation of migration regulations and banning him from entry to the country until DATE under section CARDINAL of ORG see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . In the decision , it was noted that the applicant had come to GPE in DATE for a private visit ; that after the expiry of his residence permit he had remained in GPE illegally ; that he had not requested an extension of his residence permit ; that he had no relatives in GPE ; that he had no work permit ; that he had earned his life working at a market in GPE ; and that he was \u201c known to the police \u201d .","According to the ORG , the applicant was informed of the decision of CARDINAL DATE on DATE and asked for a court hearing on his expulsion case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in his absence . In support , they provided copies of written statements allegedly signed by the applicant and by a translator .","The applicant claimed that he had not been informed of that decision and that the written statements in that regard had been forged by the police . The applicant also argued that he had not been aware that subsequently , in DATE , the police had initiated court proceedings for him to be forcibly removed from GPE .","In their written submissions made in the course of those proceedings , the police reiterated the findings in the decision of CARDINAL DATE and requested ORG to order the applicant \u2019s immediate forcible removal and his placement in a facility for temporary detention of foreigners and stateless persons for the period necessary to prepare the removal . In the latter regard , the police argued that there were reasons to believe that the applicant would try to remain illegally in GPE .","On DATE ORG heard the case in the absence of the parties , having noted that the applicant had submitted a written statement that he did not wish to be present and that he agreed with the expulsion decision , and also that the police were not able to attend the hearing because of their high workload . The court relied on the findings in the decision of CARDINAL DATE and allowed the claims of the police . In its decision , the court noted that its ruling was to be enforced immediately and that it could be appealed against within DATE under ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW . If no appeal was lodged against the decision it would enter into force after the expiry of the DATE period .","According to the applicant , he was informed of the decision of CARDINAL DATE on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE a lawyer submitted an appeal on the applicant \u2019s behalf , together with a request for renewal of the DATE time - limit , to ORG for further transfer to ORG .","In the appeal , the applicant argued that he had been studying in GPE DATE . In DATE he had returned from GPE to GPE fearing persecution by the NORP authorities . Without providing any further details , the applicant stated that he had been arrested and tortured by the NORP authorities with the aim of obtaining his confession of cooperation with ORG . The applicant further noted that he was married to a NORP national , that he had been officially allowed to stay in GPE until DATE , and that on DATE the police had seized his identification documents and ordered him to leave GPE . The applicant also expressed the wish to apply for asylum once ORG started accepting asylum applications according to LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant complained that the first - instance court had failed to examine all the facts pertinent to the case and to hear him . According to the appeal , the applicant had not been informed of the decision of DATE and had not asked the court to hear the case in his absence .","He also argued that the first - instance court had not checked whether it was safe for the applicant to return to GPE and had not been informed of the circumstances essential for the outcome of his case . In particular , the applicant argued that the NORP police had withheld the information that he had a valid residence permit and that he had used to be married to a NORP national . The applicant complained that the expulsion decision of CARDINAL DATE had been taken in violation of ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , given the human rights situation in GPE , and in violation of the domestic procedure .","On DATE ORG heard the case in the absence of the parties . It is unknown whether the applicant or his lawyer intended to take part in the hearing and , if so , whether they informed ORG accordingly .","The appeal was rejected as unsubstantiated . In particular , ORG relied fully on the findings of the first - instance court and noted that \u201c the claimant , having been removed from GPE , had crossed the NORP border despite the existing entry ban \u201d . The decision entered into force immediately .","On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a cassation appeal challenging the factual and legal findings of the lower courts . The applicant also complained that his expulsion from GPE would be contrary to LAW given his personal and family ties with that country .","On DATE ORG overturned the lower courts\u2019 decisions on the ground that they had failed to examine whether there were grounds preventing the applicant \u2019s expulsion under NORP law . ORG also noted that the lower courts had not given due consideration to the applicant \u2019s private and family life interests in GPE . The case was thus sent for re - examination to the first - instance court .","After another round of examination by the courts at the first and appeal levels of jurisdiction resulting in a decision ordering the applicant \u2019s forcible removal from GPE , in DATE the case was sent back to the start again by ORG , for the same reasons as in its decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG , to which the case was eventually remitted , refused the application for the applicant \u2019s forcible expulsion .","The court held that the applicant \u2019s forcible removal from GPE would be in violation of his right to respect of family life as guaranteed by LAW , having regard in particular to the fact that the applicant was married to a NORP national . It also found that , in the event of his removal to GPE , the applicant \u2019s life and security would be endangered , given the armed conflict on that territory , which would entail a violation of GPE \u2019s commitments under Articles DATE of the Convention . The court took the view that the applicant had grounds to be given the status of refugee or of a person in need of complementary protection . The court also noted that , by operation of the statutory DATE time - limit ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant could no longer be considered as having committed the administrative offences of which he had been convicted in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) .","That decision was not appealed against and became final .","On DATE the applicant lodged an asylum application with ORG . According to the applicant , in his application he stated that he feared persecution by ORG if returned to GPE , as he had been a member of ORG .","According to the applicant , during the assessment of his asylum case migration officers questioned him on CARDINAL occasions . They asked formal questions not related to the substance of his allegations .","On DATE the applicant received a written notice dated DATE that his asylum application had been refused by a decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE and that he could challenge it before the courts . No copy of the decision was given to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant challenged the refusal of his asylum application before ORG . In particular , the applicant argued that he had not been informed of the reasons for that decision , and that this prevented him from effectively appealing against it . The applicant also argued that the examination of his application had not been thorough and objective , as his questioning had been formalistic and no additional information had been sought concerning the general situation in GPE or the applicant \u2019s personal circumstances from other ORG authorities , such as ORG , or from the applicant himself , to check the reliability of his submissions . The applicant stated that he had not been given access to the evidence in the inquiry . He maintained his allegation that he was at risk of persecution by ORG , and also argued that if returned to GPE , as a male NORP he ran a real risk of ill - treatment by the NORP authorities , even though he did not support ORG . In that regard , he referred to the reports of ORG concerning the human rights situation in GPE in DATE . The applicant also contended that ORG had disregarded that , as a NORP refugee registered with ORG and outside its field of operation he was entitled to the same protection in GPE as refugees under LAW to LAW .","On DATE the court rejected the applicant \u2019s case , finding that ORG had examined the matter thoroughly and fully and that the applicant \u2019s arguments were unsubstantiated . In particular , the court noted that the material relating to the applicant \u2019s asylum proceedings demonstrated that he did not run an individual and real risk of persecution by the NORP authorities , as ORG and ORG had entered into negotiations concerning a transitional government for NORP territories ; he had not been subjected to such persecution at any time ; the applicant had not provided any evidence that he would not be able to avail himself of the protection of his country of origin ; he had travelled freely to and from GPE ; all his family lived there ; and he did not face criminal prosecution there . The court also noted that the applicant had left his country of origin voluntarily for economic and personal reasons ; he had had his residence permit in GPE repeatedly extended for personal reasons ; and he had requested asylum only after he had not been able to legalise his further stay in GPE . Relying on the latter ground , the court found that the applicant had missed the time - limit for lodging an asylum application pursuant to LAW of DATE . On the whole , the court found that it had been for the applicant to provide documents or persuasive arguments demonstrating that he had run a real and personal risk of persecution , which he had failed to do .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . In particular , he stated that his allegations of risk of persecution by ORG and by the NORP authorities were , inter alia , supported by the fact that his passport had been issued by ORG associated with ORG , by his registration card issued by the ORG , and by various international reports , which neither ORG nor the court of first instance had sought to obtain or examine . According to the applicant , the court \u2019s review of his case had not been full or thorough , thus falling short of the requirements of ORG in Need of Complementary or LAW of DATE , as interpreted by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal , having agreed with the first - instance court in that the applicant had failed to substantiate his asylum application as required by the national law and pertinent international documents , including ORG Directive of DATE on minimum standards on procedures in member states for granting and withdrawing refugee status and the Guidelines on procedures and criteria for determining refugee status under LAW , issued by the ORG in DATE .","The applicant appealed in cassation , stating that the lower courts had not fully examined the material pertinent to his case , which had resulted in a wrong dismissal of his asylum request , in violation of Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention . As to Article CARDINAL , the applicant noted that he had studied in GPE DATE , that since DATE he was permanently resident on its territory , and that he was married to a NORP national .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal , having found no elements demonstrating that the lower courts had erred in the application of substantive or procedural law or that review of the evidence in the case was required .","In DATE the applicant lodged a new asylum application with ORG .","On DATE ORG of ORG refused to examine the application , finding that it was wholly unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG overturned that decision , having found that ORG had failed to thoroughly examine the matter . The court in particular found that , although the arguments on which the applicant \u2019s new application for asylum had been based were the same as in the applicant \u2019s initial application , the new application needed to be reconsidered in the light of the decision of ORG of DATE and on the basis of the new LAW , which had entered into force on DATE . It therefore ordered ORG to reconsider the applicant \u2019s new asylum application .","The reconsideration of the applicant \u2019s new asylum application is currently pending . According to the Government , by operation of section CARDINAL of the Refugees and Persons in Need of Complementary or Temporary Protection Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , this gives the applicant a lawful ground to stay in GPE for the duration of the said reconsideration .","As he could not obtain asylum in GPE and in order to use all possible opportunities to legalise his stay in GPE in order to evade expulsion , in DATE the applicant applied for leave to immigrate , principally relying on the fact that he was married to a NORP citizen . ORG refused to examine his application as there were inconsistences in the spelling of his name in the applicant \u2019s asylum seeker \u2019s certificate and in his passport and marriage certificate . The applicant \u2019s requests for the relevant changes to be made in the documents were allegedly ignored by the authorities .","The applicant further claimed that an official from ORG told him that he would have to leave GPE and to apply for leave to immigrate from abroad in order to obtain leave to enter GPE lawfully .","According to the applicant , he could not leave GPE as he had nowhere to go . In GPE his life and health would be endangered and he had not maintained close links with the place where he lived before he had moved to GPE . In his view , he could not apply for leave to immigrate into GPE , as he could not be considered as staying on its territory \u201c on lawful grounds \u201d , which was required by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the Government , the applicant could not apply for leave to immigrate while his asylum application was being examined . Furthermore , pursuant to LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW leave to immigrate could be granted to an alien who had been married to a NORP citizen for DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . At the time , the applicant \u2019s marriage had lasted for DATE . Thus , no leave to immigrate could be granted to him on that ground .","The parties did not inform the ORG of any further developments in that regard ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152447","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ALASIPPOLA v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was subject to a tax inspection during DATE and DATE due to an unexplained increase in her income . The tax inspection report was completed on DATE . At the same time the applicant \u2019s husband was also subject to a tax inspection . He has lodged a separate application with ORG ( no . CARDINAL PERSON v. GPE ) .","On DATE the tax authorities imposed additional taxes and tax surcharges ( veronkorotus , skattef\u00f6rh\u00f6jning ) on the applicant for DATE . The amount of evaded taxes DATE totalled CARDINAL . The amount of tax surcharges varied CARDINAL .","On an unspecified date the applicant sought rectification from ORG ( verotuksen oikaisulautakunta , pr\u00f6vningsn\u00e4mnden i beskattnings\u00e4renden ) , requesting it to quash the decisions of DATE . Also ORG ( veroasiamies , skatteombudet ) sought rectification in respect of DATE , requesting that the taxable income be increased .","On DATE ORG reduced the amount of additional taxes as well as tax surcharges in respect of DATE .","On an unspecified date ORG accepted ORG application and increased the taxable income for DATE . However , on DATE ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) quashed that decision .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s applications in respect of DATE .","By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , requesting that the additional taxes and tax surcharges be quashed or at least reduced .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s appeal in respect of DATE and quashed the additional tax and the tax surcharges in that respect . The remainder of the applicant \u2019s appeal was rejected . This decision became final on DATE as the applicant did not appeal against it .","On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant on CARDINAL count of aiding and abetting aggravated dishonesty by a debtor ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 velallisen ep\u00e4rehellisyys , grovt oredlighet som g\u00e4lden\u00e4r ) and on CARDINAL counts of aggravated tax fraud ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 veropetos , grovt skattebedr\u00e4geri ) , all concerning DATE . According to the charges , the applicant was accused of aiding and abetting aggravated dishonesty by a debtor as she had received unexplained income from her husband DATE . She was accused of aggravated tax fraud , inter alia , as she had given false information to the tax authorities and tax had therefore been incompletely levied DATE . The amount of evaded taxes had been QUANTITY . The taxation authorities joined the charges and presented a compensation claim totalling exactly the amount of avoided taxes .","On DATE the GPE - GPE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting aggravated dishonesty by a debtor and imposed a CARDINAL suspended sentence . The charges of aggravated tax fraud were dismissed , as well as the tax authorities\u2019 compensation claim .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) , requesting that ORG judgment be quashed and the charge on aiding and abetting aggravated dishonesty by a debtor be rejected or dismissed without examining the merits . She referred to the ne bis in idem principle and to the ORG \u2019s caselaw in that respect .","On DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , upheld ORG judgment . The court found that the mere fact that the same issues had been assessed in the administrative proceedings did not necessary prevent the examination of the charges pressed . In the administrative proceedings , the unexplained increase in the applicant \u2019s wealth had been considered to be income , thus that case concerned only taxes . The criminal proceedings , however , concerned the fact that the applicant had received income from her husband to the detriment of his creditors . As the proceedings did not concern the same matter , there was no impediment to the examination of the charges .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG . She emphasised that the income received from her husband was exactly the same income for which additional taxes and tax surcharges had been imposed . All the imposed additional taxes and tax surcharges had been paid .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal but granted the applicant \u2019s husband leave to appeal .","Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( laki verotusmenettelyst\u00e4 , lagen om beskattningsf\u00f6rfarande , Act no . DATE , as amended by Act no . DATE ) provides that if a person has failed to make the required tax returns or has given incomplete , misleading or false information to the tax authorities and tax has therefore been incompletely or partially levied , the taxpayer shall be ordered to pay unpaid taxes together with additional tax and a tax surcharge .","According to LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen , as amended by Acts no . DATE and no . DATE ) , a person who ( CARDINAL ) gives a tax authority false information on a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) files a tax return concealing a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) for the purpose of avoiding tax , fails to observe a duty pertaining to taxation , influencing the assessment of tax , or ( CARDINAL ) acts otherwise fraudulently and thereby causes or attempts to cause a tax not to be assessed , or too low a tax to be assessed or a tax to be unduly refunded , shall be sentenced for tax fraud to a fine or to imprisonment for a period of DATE . If by the tax fraud ( CARDINAL ) considerable financial benefit is sought or ( CARDINAL ) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical manner and the tax fraud is aggravated when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated tax fraud to imprisonment for a period DATE .","According to LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( as amended by Acts no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , a debtor who ( CARDINAL ) destroys his or her property , ( CARDINAL ) gives away or otherwise surrenders his or her property without acceptable reason , ( CARDINAL ) transfers his or her property abroad in order to place it beyond the reach of his or her creditors or ( CARDINAL ) increases his or her liabilities without basis and thus causes his or her insolvency or essentially worsens his or her state of insolvency , shall be sentenced for dishonesty by a debtor to a fine or to imprisonment for DATE . If by the dishonesty by a debtor ( CARDINAL ) considerable benefit is sought , ( CARDINAL ) considerable or particularly substantial damage is caused to the creditors , or ( CARDINAL ) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical manner and the dishonesty by a debtor is aggravated also when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated dishonesty by a debtor to imprisonment for DATE and at DATE .","ORG has taken a stand on the ne bis in idem principle in its precedent case ORG which concerned tax surcharges and aggravated tax fraud . In that case it found , inter alia , that even though a final judgment in a taxation case , in which tax surcharges had been imposed , prevented criminal charges being brought about the same matter , such preventive effect could not be applied to pending cases ( lis pendens ) crossing from administrative proceedings to criminal proceedings or vice versa . However , in DATE ORG reversed its line of interpretation , finding that charges for tax fraud could no longer be brought if there was already a decision to order or not to order tax surcharges in the same matter ( PERSON CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) .","The Act on Tax Surcharges and Customs Duty Surcharges Imposed by a Separate Decision ( laki erillisell\u00e4 p\u00e4\u00e4t\u00f6ksell\u00e4 m\u00e4\u00e4r\u00e4tt\u00e4v\u00e4st\u00e4 veron- tai tullinkorotuksesta , lagen om skattef\u00f6rh\u00f6jning och tullh\u00f6jning som p\u00e5f\u00f6rs genom ett s\u00e4rskilt beslut , Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE . According to the LAW , the tax authorities can , when making a tax decision , assess whether to impose a tax surcharge or to report the matter to the police . The tax authorities can decide not to impose a tax surcharge . If they have not reported the matter to the police , a tax surcharge can be imposed by a separate decision by the end of the calendar year following the actual tax decision . If the tax authorities have imposed tax surcharges , they can no longer report the same matter to the police unless , after imposing the tax surcharges , they have received evidence of new or recently revealed facts . If the tax authorities have reported the matter to the police , tax surcharges can , as a rule , no longer be imposed . The purpose of the LAW is thus to ensure that a tax or a customs duty matter is processed , and possibly punished , in CARDINAL set of proceedings . The LAW does not , however , contain any transitional provisions extending its scope retroactively ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183546","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SMIRNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised complaints under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-151039","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SANADER v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG FAC uprava ORG ) lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant alleging that he had participated in a group of members of the NORP paramilitary forces who , in DATE , had shot DATE prisoners of war in GPE , killing CARDINAL and severely injuring CARDINAL of them . The police noted in their report that the applicant could not be apprehended because he lived in an area of GPE which was , at the time , outside the country \u2019s effective control .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u ORG ) opened an investigation in respect of the applicant , his brother , PERSON , and CARDINAL others , GPE and GPE , in connection with a suspicion that they had committed war crimes against the prisoners of war . As all the suspects were at large , the judge ordered their pre - trial detention and issued arrest warrants .","During the investigation the investigating judge questioned a number of witnesses . Several of them testified about the applicant \u2019s brother \u2019s involvement in the killings and his position as commander of the paramilitary group . They also named PERSON as a direct perpetrator of the killings . CARDINAL of the witnesses , PERSON , testified that after the killings he had heard people saying that \u201c PERSON \u2019s group \u201d had committed the crime and he had later seen the applicant with that group . Another witness , ORG , who had survived the shootings , testified that after the event he had been shown the applicant \u2019s photo and it had appeared to him that the applicant had also been there and had personally killed CARDINAL people . Another survivor of the shooting , GPE , testified that after the crime one of the newspapers in GPE had published photos of the applicant and his brother . He had recognised the applicant \u2019s brother as CARDINAL of the participants in the shooting but he had not recognised the applicant as having been at the scene .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u ORG ) indicted the applicant , ORG . , GPE and GPE in ORG on charges of war crimes against prisoners of war .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG asked ORG to try the applicant and the other accused , who lived on the occupied territory of GPE , in absentia , as they were not available to the NORP authorities , and requested that warrants for their arrest be issued .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial and issued an arrest warrant .","It also granted the request for the applicant \u2019s trial in absentia on DATE . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c On DATE PERSON and others were indicted in this court on a reasonable suspicion that they had committed the offence [ specified ] under LAW of LAW . The ORG Attorney further requested that they be tried in absentia .","The request is granted .","The accused are at large and a detention and arrest warrant have been issued , as noted in the police report .","Since the accused have been indicted for a crime against humanity and international law \u2013 a war crime against prisoners of war under LAW , and given that they are at large , [ this court ] considers that highly justified reasons for their trial in absentia exist . \u201d","On DATE the President of ORG appointed the applicant and the other accused a legal - aid lawyer , E.F.","At a hearing on DATE the trial court heard CARDINAL witnesses , including GPE and GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They all confirmed the statements they had made to the investigating judge . The Deputy State Attorney and the applicant \u2019s legal - aid lawyer asked no questions and made no objections to their statements . The parties also agreed that the written records of statements by CARDINAL other witnesses , including PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , be admitted in evidence without those witnesses having been questioned at the trial . In his closing statement , the applicant \u2019s legal - aid lawyer stated :","\u201c The defence notes that the pre - trial and trial procedure has been thorough and invites the court to assess all the evidence adduced , in particular each witness statement taken alone and in conjunction with other statements , and , based on that assessment , to deliver a decision in accordance with the law . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The trial court considered that the witness statements provided sufficient evidence for conviction and noted that the legal - aid lawyer had made no objections to those statements .","The applicant \u2019s legal - aid lawyer lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE arguing that the first - instance judgment was not sufficiently reasoned .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeal , quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case for retrial on the grounds that the first - instance judgment lacked sufficient reasoning","In the resumed proceedings , CARDINAL hearings , scheduled for CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE and DATE were adjourned , because the defence lawyer could not be summoned . A further hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned owing to the absence of CARDINAL of the members of the trial panel . During this period the trial court also obtained a number of autopsy reports concerning the victims of the crime at issue .","At a hearing held on DATE the trial court , with the approval of the parties , read out the evidence from the case file and concluded the hearing . The legal - aid lawyer reiterated his previous closing statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the trial court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to twenty years\u2019 imprisonment . It based its judgment on the witness statements and the autopsy reports concerning the victims of the crime .","On DATE the legal - aid lawyer lodged an appeal with ORG arguing that the first - instance judgment lacked sufficient reasoning .","On DATE CARDINAL of the accused , GPE , was apprehended and brought before the investigating judge , who informed him of the proceedings and ordered his pre - trial detention .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment of ORG in the part which concerned the applicant , PERSON and GPE , and quashed it and ordered a retrial in respect of GPE , on the grounds that the latter had been apprehended and that therefore he had the right to a fresh trial in his presence .","On DATE , after the applicant \u2019s conviction had become final , a sentence - execution judge of ORG issued an arrest warrant for the applicant \u2019s arrest and imprisonment .","Meanwhile , the applicant learned through a lawyer in GPE about his criminal conviction in ORG .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to reopen the proceedings on the grounds that he had learned about the judgment of DATE only in DATE and that he had not committed the crime at issue . He argued that the witnesses had just mentioned his name and that the only witness statement directly implicating him in the crime , that of GPE , had not been properly interpreted in the judgment . He stressed that he would be prepared to take part in a witness confrontation with any of those who had testified against him or counter any evidence against him . He also asked that a number of witnesses be heard on his behalf , and that the possibility of trying him before a war crimes tribunal in GPE be considered . Together with his request the applicant submitted certified statements by CARDINAL people excluding the possibility of his involvement in the crime on the grounds that at the relevant time he had not been in ORG .","Based on the information provided by the applicant , and given that the witnesses at issue lived in GPE , ORG asked the NORP authorities to question them . During their questioning the witnesses reiterated their statements excluding the possibility that the applicant had been in ORG at the time of the events .","After receiving the witness statements from the NORP authorities in DATE , ORG forwarded the case file to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG for their observations on the applicant \u2019s request for a retrial .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG submitted their observations on the applicant \u2019s request for a retrial which , in the relevant part , read :","\u201c Given that the trial proceedings in the case at issue were fair and given that the first and second - instance courts gave sufficient reasons for their judgments , we consider that the request for a retrial in the absence of the second accused PERSON should not be granted because none of the witnesses ... confirmed the arguments from the request for retrial ... \u201d","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request on the grounds that he had failed to show that there were any new facts which could alter his conviction . The relevant part of this decision reads :","\u201c ... this panel of ORG considers that PERSON request for a retrial does not contain any new facts or evidence which could , in themselves or in conjunction with the previously adduced evidence , lead to his acquittal or his conviction under more lenient law .","All the witnesses stated that they had known Mile ORG from the period before the war . Although they all , and in particular witnesses DATE . and GPE , attempted to exclude the possibility of the convict \u2019s presence in the area where the killings of the NORP soldiers took place in DATE , this panel considers that these statements are not sufficiently credible or precise to completely exclude the possibility of the convict \u2019s participation in the massacre .","In the proceedings before ORG Sanader was found guilty of the offence under LAW and ORG upheld that judgment . Based on the comprehensively and correctly established facts [ the trial court ] found beyond reasonable doubt that the massacre of the NORP soldiers had been committed by the so - called \u2018 PERSON and that the leader of that group had been the convict \u2019s brother , PERSON .","Witness PERSON , who had been a soldier in the paramilitary group , testified that the third convict , PERSON , had told him that he had killed the prisoners at the request of PERSON , while witness GPE , one of the survivors of the shooting , testified that he had recognised PERSON as the perpetrator of the crime from a photo and PERSON as having killed CARDINAL prisoners while they had been lying face down on the ground with their hands on their heads .","Against this background , the panel considers that the second convict , PERSON , has not managed to cast doubt on the facts established during the trial which led to his conviction for the offence under LAW and his sentencing to DATE imprisonment . \u201d","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG on DATE , arguing that the relevant domestic law required an automatic reopening of proceedings where an accused had been tried in absentia and then sought a fresh hearing , a fact to which ORG had given no consideration . He also argued that the evidence suggested that he was not guilty of the offences he had been convicted of .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request on the grounds that he could not rely on the provision granting automatic reopening of the proceedings since he lived in GPE and was not available to the NORP judicial authorities . It examined , therefore , whether any new facts warranted the reopening of the proceedings and found that no such facts existed . Accordingly , the applicant \u2019s request was dismissed .","The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) on DATE , arguing that he had not been able to obtain a retrial and that during the proceedings conducted in his absence he had not been effectively represented .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the constitutional complaint concerned the proceedings for the reopening of the criminal proceedings and not any criminal charge against the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170653","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ILNSEHER v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Heavier penalty);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in the centre for persons in preventive detention on the premises of FAC ( hereinafter \u201c FAC preventive detention centre \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of murder and , applying the criminal law relating to young offenders , sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . It found that in DATE the applicant , then aged DATE , had strangled a woman who had been jogging on a forest path , had partly undressed the dead or dying victim and had then masturbated . The court found that the applicant had acted with full criminal responsibility .","From DATE , after he had served his full prison sentence , the applicant was remanded in provisional preventive detention under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG , with Judge PERSON sitting on the bench , ordered the applicant \u2019s retrospective preventive detention under LAW no . CARDINAL of LAW , read in conjunction with LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The court , having regard to the reports made by a criminological expert ( Bo . ) and a psychiatric expert PERSON . ) , found that the applicant was still harbouring violent sexual fantasies and that there was a high risk that he would again commit serious sexual offences , including murder for sexual gratification , if released . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG , in a leading judgment , allowed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint . It quashed ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and ORG judgment of DATE and remitted the case to ORG . It further found that the order for the applicant \u2019s provisional preventive detention DATE which had become devoid of purpose once the order for the applicant \u2019s retrospective preventive detention in the main proceedings had become final \u2013 to be unconstitutional ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . ORG found that the impugned judgments and decisions had violated the applicant \u2019s right to liberty and the constitutional protection of legitimate expectations guaranteed in a ORG governed by the rule of law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to order his immediate release . He claimed that following ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which had quashed the judgment ordering his retrospective preventive detention , there was no longer any legal basis for his detention .","On DATE ORG , allowing ORG request of CARDINAL DATE , again ordered the applicant \u2019s provisional preventive detention under LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , read in conjunction with LAW , first sentence , of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The court found that the applicant \u2019s provisional preventive detention was necessary because there were weighty grounds for expecting that his retrospective preventive detention would be ordered LAW no . CARDINAL of LAW , read in the light of the judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE .","By submissions dated DATE , received by ORG on DATE , the applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision , for which he submitted further statements of grounds on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . He claimed , in particular , that his provisional preventive detention was unlawful .","On DATE ORG refused to amend its decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded . It had regard to ( i ) a request lodged by ORG on DATE requesting that the applicant \u2019s appeal be dismissed , ( ii ) the findings of fact made by ORG in its judgment of DATE , ( iii ) the findings of CARDINAL medical experts in the proceedings leading to the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ( iv ) the findings of CARDINAL other experts in previous proceedings regarding the applicant \u2019s mental condition and the level of danger that he posed , and ( v ) the new restrictive standards set by ORG in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint regarding a breach of his right to be heard and his objection to the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against the decision of ORG dated DATE , as confirmed by ORG . He further requested that the execution of these decisions be stayed by way of an interim measure until ORG delivered its decision . The applicant claimed , in particular , that his right to a speedy decision , enshrined in his constitutional right to liberty , had not been respected in the proceedings concerning the review of his provisional preventive detention .","On DATE ORG communicated the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint to the regional Government of GPE , to the President of ORG and to ORG at the latter court .","On DATE ORG , in a reasoned decision , refused to stay the order for the applicant \u2019s provisional preventive detention by way of an interim measure .","By submissions dated DATE the applicant replied to the submissions of the regional Government of GPE , of the President of ORG and of ORG at the latter court dated DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE ORG , without giving reasons , declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on CARDINAL DATE .","In the resumed proceedings before ORG following the remittal of the case to it , the applicant lodged a motion for bias against Judge PERSON latter had been a member of the bench of ORG , which had ordered the applicant \u2019s retrospective preventive detention on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant claimed that Judge PERSON had remarked to the applicant \u2019s female defence counsel on CARDINAL DATE , immediately after the delivery of ORG judgment ordering the applicant \u2019s retrospective preventive detention , in reference to the applicant : \u201c Be careful that after he is released , you do n\u2019t find him standing in front of your door waiting to thank you . \u201d He claimed that the remark had been made in the course of a discussion between the judges and the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL lawyers in camera concerning the applicant \u2019s possible transfer to a psychiatric hospital following ORG judgment .","In a comment of CARDINAL DATE on the applicant \u2019s motion for bias , Judge PERSON explained that he remembered having a discussion about the applicant \u2019s possible transfer to a psychiatric hospital at a later stage , after the delivery of the judgment . However , given the amount of time that had elapsed , he neither recalled the exact context in which he had allegedly made the impugned remark nor the precise contents of the discussion .","On DATE ORG dismissed the motions for bias lodged by the applicant . The court considered in particular that , even assuming that the applicant had established to the satisfaction of the court that Judge PERSON had made the remark in question , there were no objectively justified doubts as to P. \u2019s impartiality as a result thereof . Even assuming that the applicant could reasonably consider the sense of the words \u201c thank you \u201d in the above context as meaning that the applicant could commit a violent offence , it had to be noted that ORG , including Judge PERSON , had just established that the applicant still suffered from fantasies of sexual violence and that there was at that time a high risk that he would again commit serious offences against the life and sexual self - determination of others . Assuming that Judge PERSON had indeed made the remark in question , his \u201c advice \u201d had therefore constituted in substance nothing more than the application of ORG said findings to a particular case . The remark had further been made within the context of a confidential exchange between the participants in the proceedings in the absence of the applicant . Judge PERSON could have expected that the applicant \u2019s female counsel would interpret his remark in the above - mentioned manner within that context .","Furthermore , Judge PERSON \u2019s remark had reflected his view as it had been on DATE of ORG judgment of DATE . It did not suggest in any way that Judge PERSON had not been ready to take an impartial decision in the present proceedings , DATE after the impugned remark and following the conclusion of a new main hearing . The fact that Judge PERSON had previously dealt with the applicant \u2019s case did not in itself render him biased .","On DATE ORG , having held hearings DATE , again ordered the applicant \u2019s retrospective preventive detention .","ORG found , in particular , that , as required by Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , read in conjunction with ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , a comprehensive assessment of the applicant , his offence and , in addition , his development during the execution of the sentence relating to young offenders revealed that there was a high risk that the applicant , owing to specific circumstances relating to his person or his conduct , could commit the most serious crimes of violence and sexual offences , similar to the one he had been found guilty of , if released .","ORG further found that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder for the purposes of section LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Having regard to the case - law of ORG and ORG , it considered that , whereas a mere \u201c accentuation of the personality \u201d was not sufficient to constitute a mental disorder within the meaning of the said LAW , such disorder did not have to be so serious as to exclude or diminish the criminal responsibility of the person concerned for the purposes of ORG LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Given that the sexual sadism the applicant suffered from was of a serious nature and had substantially affected the applicant \u2019s development since his adolescence , it amounted to a mental disorder within the meaning of LAW .","ORG based its view on the reports of CARDINAL external psychiatric experts , PERSON and PERSON , whom it had consulted . Having regard to the findings of these experts , as well as to the findings of several experts who had previously examined the applicant since his arrest following his offence , ORG was satisfied that the applicant has had violent sexual fantasies involving the strangulation of women since DATE . He was suffering from a sexual preference disorder , namely sexual sadism , as described by the relevant tool for the classification of diseases , the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems in its current version ( ICD-CARDINAL ) ; this disorder had caused and been manifested in his brutal offence and still persisted . The therapy the applicant had undergone until DATE , in particular social therapy , had not been successful . Even though he appeared ready , in principle , to participate in further therapy , he was not currently undergoing any .","In an appeal on points of law against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant complained of the unlawfulness of his retrospective preventive detention and of the fact that the judgment had been determined with the participation of a biased judge , P.","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as ill - founded .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He complained , in particular , that the retrospective order for his preventive detention had not complied with the prohibition on retrospective penalties under LAW and LAW , with the right to liberty and the protection of legitimate expectations in a ORG governed by the rule of law , or with LAW . He further argued that his constitutional right to a tribunal established by law had been violated because Judge PERSON had been biased against him .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint without giving reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE , following the order for the applicant \u2019s provisional preventive detention , the applicant was transferred from the wing for persons in preventive detention in FAC to a wing for persons in detention on remand . As a consequence , the applicant lost the privileges reserved for persons in preventive detention . In particular , there was no longer the possibility to undergo therapy . On DATE he was transferred back to and again detained in the wing for persons in preventive detention in FAC until DATE .","Since DATE the applicant has been detained in the newly built FAC preventive detention centre . In that institution , which can house CARDINAL detainees , CARDINAL psychiatrist , CARDINAL psychologists , CARDINAL general practitioner , CARDINAL social workers , CARDINAL lawyer , CARDINAL teacher , CARDINAL prison inspector , CARDINAL nurses , CARDINAL members of general prison staff and CARDINAL members of the administrative staff are in charge of the detainees . Inmates can stay outside their cells , which DATE measure QUANTITY , TIME The applicant has refused any offers of therapy at that centre , in particular , one - to - one or group social therapy , participation in an intensive treatment programme for sex offenders , or therapy administered by an external psychiatrist ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5","6","7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4","6-1","7-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183552","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ANGHEL AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177914","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ZHIVKO GOSPODINOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants are serving either life sentences or whole - life sentences in different prisons in GPE .","The applicant is currently serving a whole - life imprisonment sentence in ORG . The sentence was delivered by ORG in DATE . It was confirmed on appeal in DATE and , subsequently , by ORG in a final judgment of DATE .","As it is apparent from documents in the file , the applicant had unsuccessfully sought presidential clemency several times since DATE . He was initially placed in the high - security wing of FAC where he started serving his sentence ; since DATE he has been under the \u201c special regime \u201d .","He described , and the Government did not comment on , the conditions under which he had been detained there as follows . His cell measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had a small grilled window which did not let much light in during DATE . The lighting at TIME was also insufficient . The cell was humid , badly heated during DATE and deprived of ventilation during DATE . Given that in the cell there was neither running water , nor toilet facilities , the applicant had had to use a bucket to relieve himself . He was allowed to leave his cell CARDINAL times a day , during meal times , for TIME each time , in order to slop out , eat , wash himself and re - fill his water bottle from the tap . The prison was infested with cockroaches and rats , and he was only allowed to shower once a fortnight . The food was insufficient in quantity and of poor quality . During visits , he was separated from his family and lawyers by a grill and the meetings always took place in the presence of prison staff . His correspondence was routinely read by prison staff as he was obliged to transmit his letters to the outside world in open envelopes . The envelopes carrying correspondence with his lawyer bore a stamp showing that they had been checked .","Both parties submitted that the applicant had been transferred to ORG on DATE , where he continued to serve his sentence under the \u201c special regime \u201d . He was detained in the high - security wing of this prison , alone in a cell .","According to the ORG , since the beginning of his time in that prison , the applicant had gone on several hunger strikes . According to documents in the file , at the beginning of his stay in ORG he demonstrated suicidal intentions and was identified as aggressive and hostile , as well as prone to attempting to escape . On the basis of an order of the prison governor of DATE , he did not take part in collective activities with other inmates , even those in his own category . In addition , the ORG submitted that owing to lack of physical space in the prison , it was impossible to organise collective sport activities , or gather inmates for the purposes of reading , listening to music , playing board games or using the computer . Also , they emphasised that the impossibility was underpinned by the personal characteristics of the inmates which made them incompatible with each other and were an impediment to the authorities\u2019 organising joint activities for them .","The parties submitted that the applicant \u2019s cell in FAC was secured by a door and an external grill , both of which were locked . The light bulb remained on throughout the night , for security purposes , which the applicant claimed interfered with his sleep . His DATE walks in the open air took place in a grilled space measuring , according to the applicant and not disputed by the Government , QUANTITY . m , where only persons serving life sentences were taken . According to the applicant , its floor was partially made of bare cement and there was no sports equipment there . According to the Government , there was a climbing wall , a bench and a fixed - height bar . Both parties submitted that each time the applicant left the high - security wing of the prison , he was handcuffed and the handcuffs were shackled to a belt . He claimed that his correspondence was routinely checked . According to the Government , ORG correspondence was checked out of security considerations . However , the authorities only checked the contents of the envelopes which the applicant received and not the text of the letters in them .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment . The documents in the case file indicate that he had been initially imprisoned in FAC and was transferred to FAC on DATE where he was placed in the high - security wing .","The Government submitted that he had been serving his sentence under the \u201c special regime \u201d since CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant submitted that he had been kept in isolation in FAC under the \u201c special regime \u201d and that the living conditions in his prison cell were inadequate . In particular he claimed that he spent TIME a day locked up in a very small , poorly lit cell with a non - secluded toilet close to his bed .","The Government did not dispute his claims . They specified that the size of his cell was QUANTITY m , that it was a \u201c normal \u201d as opposed to a \u201c punishment \u201d cell , that he had a bed , a drawer , a sink and a toilet in his cell , and that there was enough space for him to move about in it .","The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in a final judgment of DATE of ORG .","The applicant complained that , in accordance with the \u201c special regime \u201d under which he had been serving his sentence , he had been permanently locked up in a cell which he had only been allowed to leave for CARDINAL and TIME a day . He also alleged very poor living conditions , the presence of rats , insufficient lighting , tainted water , limited space and time for outdoor activities , and consistent overuse of handcuffs .","The Government submitted that the applicant had been serving his sentence under the \u201c special regime \u201d in FAC DATE and DATE when his regime had been changed to \u201c severe \u201d . He had spent DATE under the \u201c severe regime \u201d and on DATE his regime had been changed to \u201c strict \u201d . During his stay in GPE FAC DATE the applicant had been in the high - security wing , alone in a cell measuring just under QUANTITY m. The cell had contained a sink and a toilet separated from the rest of the space . Hygiene in the cell had been satisfactory ; the bed sheets had been washed DATE and the prisoners had been provided with sanitary products once DATE . The cells had been disinfected and treated against mice with the same frequency .","The Government submitted that the applicant had been kept in a permanently locked up cell in FAC , in strict compliance with the relevant legal provisions and in particular section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Execution of Punishments and Pre - trial LAW . As of DATE , they specified that the applicant had formally satisfied the conditions for being detained together with other prisoners but that the applicant had considered himself not ready for it .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG upon his request and was placed in the high - security wing , in a cell measuring QUANTITY m. He expressed an interest in working but the authorities were not in a position to provide him with work . He had not committed disciplinary breaches to the time of application . As to the conditions of detention in FAC , the ORG submitted that he had not raised related grievances with the authorities .","The applicant was sentenced for a number of offences and was given a total sentence of whole - life imprisonment in DATE . He complained that his sentence had amounted , from the time of its imposition , to inhuman and degrading punishment , in breach of LAW and that he did not have an effective remedy in this connection .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was sentenced by an NORP court to life imprisonment . He was transferred from GPE to GPE on DATE in order to serve his sentence . On DATE ORG confirmed the sentence and accepted it for enforcement . This was upheld on appeal by ORG in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant has been serving his sentence under the \u201c special regime \u201d since DATE . He is kept in a permanently locked cell in PERSON , in the high - security wing , in accordance with applicable rules for life prisoners under the Execution of Punishments and Pre - trial FAC .","The applicant was sentenced to whole - life imprisonment on CARDINAL DATE in a final judgment of ORG .","The applicant complained that his sentence had amounted , from the time of its imposition , to inhuman and degrading punishment , in breach of LAW and that he did not have an effective remedy in this connection .","NORP The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment in a final judgment of ORG of DATE . He has been serving his sentence under the \u201c special regime \u201d in FAC . He alleged that he spent his time almost permanently locked up in isolation from the other inmates , while the Government claimed that he was in \u201c almost permanent contact with other inmates \u201d without submitting more details . The applicant submitted that he had had to relieve himself in a bucket in his cell where there had been no running water . The Government clarified that this changed in DATE when a toilet had been built in his cell . The food , according to the applicant and disputed by the authorities , was insufficient and of poor quality .","The applicant was sentenced for different offences and given a total sentence of life imprisonment in a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE by ORG . The applicant has been serving his sentence in PERSON under the \u201c special regime \u201d in a permanently locked cell located in the high - security wing of the prison . The Government submitted that he was allowed to leave his cell twice a day for TIME at a time when he could see and communicate with other inmates detained in the same prison wing . He was also allowed to use sanitary facilities outside of his cell CARDINAL times a day , and to shower twice a week . There was no toilet in the applicant \u2019s cell and no ventilation system had been installed .","The applicant had been serving a sentence of whole - life imprisonment in ORG since DATE under the \u201c special regime \u201d . In DATE he was placed under the lighter \u201c severe regime \u201d and DATE under the even lighter \u201c strict regime \u201d when he was also placed in a cell together with other inmates .","He complained that his sentence had amounted , from the time of its imposition , to inhuman and degrading punishment , in breach of LAW and that he did not have an effective remedy in this connection .","The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment and has been serving his sentence under the \u201c special regime \u201d since DATE . Until DATE he was detained in FAC and since DATE he has been detained in FAC . He complained in respect of his detention after DATE , the conditions of his detention before DATE having been examined by ORG in an earlier case with application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which was decided in a judgment of DATE .","Both the applicant and the ORG submitted that he was detained in a permanently locked cell and isolated from the other prisoners . The Government pointed out that the applicant left his cell for an hour in the morning and for an hour in the afternoon every day for exercise and to spend time in the open air .","The applicant also claimed that the material conditions in which he had been serving his sentence were inadequate and that he had been offered no collective activities or other forms of occupation .","The Government stated that he was enrolled in the following DATE activities : a catechism course lasting an TIME - and - a - half per week ; and a course in basic computer skills with TIME - long sessions ; he also had TIME in the open air , as well as TIME to take a bath on DATE TIME . Furthermore , when various competitions had taken place in the prison , or there had been concerts or recitals , inmates serving life sentences had been offered a chance to attend them as spectators . The Government further clarified that the applicant \u2019s regime had been changed to \u201c strict \u201d in DATE but he had continued to be in the high - security wing ; according to the Government , he had repeatedly stated that he had not wished to be placed together with other prisoners ."],"violated_articles":["3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174614","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GHIULFER PREDESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the relevant events , she was an investigative journalist working in GPE .","During TIME a group of CARDINAL armed persons were involved in a violent incident that took place in GPE , a seaside resort on the outskirts of GPE . Several locations in GPE \u2013 including Hotel F. , belonging to a company in which ORG , mayor of GPE since DATE , was a shareholder \u2013 were attacked and severely damaged .","Following that incident , ORG accepted to participate in a television show hosted by ORG and broadcast on \u201c NORP \u201d , a national television channel . During the show , the applicant intervened and made some remarks which ORG considered as defamatory . Consequently , he instituted civil proceedings against the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","The relevant excerpts from the television show are set out below :","\u201c [ ORG , the host of the show , acting as a moderator , asks [ the applicant ] , a journalist in GPE ] : What types of clans are we talking about , are they gangs , are they clans , who are these people we are talking about ?","[ The applicant ] : These are clans , it is well known , the city of GPE is divided between the supporters of ORG and his enemies . More precisely , it is the PERSON clan , in other words the clan of the PERSON brothers , who are at war with the supporters of ORG This war has been going on for DATE and it is well known that at the beginning , the PERSON brothers and PERSON were good friends . The hostility occurred , if my memory is not mistaken , on the occasion of the construction of Hotel O. , when CARDINAL of the PERSON brothers was excluded from the business , in spite of the initial plan . This does n\u2019t mean that PERSON [ R.M. ] or ORG is personally involved in this war . This war continued between the people that represent the CARDINAL , and the enmity has continued to DATE . ... But the crux of the problem is not the conflict between PERSON and the PERSON brothers . It seems that nowadays they have different claims , at a different level , within different hierarchies ...","[ ORG ] : The image you describe is that of a city torn between the underworld clans , in which the offenders retaliate against the mayor . The latter is a business partner of the President of ORG and during TIME anything can happen because the police have made a pact ... and do not want to sanction anyone .","[ The applicant ] : Lately , the police have been doing their job , as I said before . Except that they do not succeed in finalising it ... DATE , when there was a big fight in the city centre , before the eyes of everybody , when the PERSON clans were opposed to the P. clan \u2013 and here we are talking about the same clan masters \u2013 the police did not intervene promptly because , they said it clearly , these were ORG men and they were afraid , because PERSON [ R.M. ] was and still is the mayor . The only victims were the heads of the city police , who were sacked ; the aggressors were allowed to go free .","[ ORG ] : I have the impression that we are talking about an ungoverned city , in which the delinquents walk freely and the mayor fights different clans . Is this an erroneous conclusion ?","[ R.M. ] : I have the impression that [ the applicant ] needs to be hospitalised DATE in a psychiatric hospital ( la balamuc ) . How dare she ? What is this story , this nonsense ? The supporters of ORG fight I do not know who PERSON I do not even know him , I have never seen him in my life and I have never spoken to him .... I have listened for TIME to her [ the applicant \u2019s ] lucubrations , in which she tries to create about PERSON the image of a demonic city , in which the mayor runs everything , is a smuggler , has clans with PERSON and bodyguards ...","[ ORG ] : Would I be entitled to believe that this conflict was generated by CARDINAL of your actions , or by CARDINAL of your past activities , or your past partnerships ; maybe you had relations with them and in this context they came to vandalise your hotel ?","[ ORG ] : Mr. PERSON , [ the applicant ] is a journalist , she should have submitted a document from ORG to prove that I have a business partnership with whomever she mentioned . She had not submitted anything because it is all false . I personally asked the police to intervene and arrest the perpetrators . ... I do not know the people who were fighting . It does not interest me what they do in their free time , why they fight . All I said was that it is unacceptable to see QUANTITY people armed with axes . Let them identify and arrest the guilty . Everything else is just a fantasy of [ the applicant ] , worthy of a psychiatric hospital ...","[ ORG ] : ... this is what the mayor says , that everything is false ...","[ The applicant ] : What I have said , I said as an observer of the DATE events ; these things have been observed , discussed , noted for DATE . I have presented a general picture of the situation .","[ ORG ] : And they must be proved ... Just like other journalists , you have learned to drag others in the mud , with no evidence to support what you state .","[ The applicant ] : If I understand correctly , he does not know the PERSON brothers , he knows them well , but that is not the point , the point is that their men ... ( interrupted )","[ R.M. ] : But I do not know them ! Prove the contrary if you please ; I have never spoken to any of them , I do not know them . Stop lying ...","[ The applicant ] : ... the reality is that they present themselves as being PERSON \u2019s men , or ORG \u2019s men . This does not mean that PERSON [ R.M. ] or ORG order these conflicts . You know what happens in the world of ordinary people : I am strong because I represent PERSON , who is mayor . Or I am stronger because I have the backing of the PERSON brothers ... PERSON , I did not say that you ordered this assault . But this is indeed what has been going on for DATE in the city of GPE .","[ ORG ] : Actually , we are dealing with a band of delinquents ; it does n\u2019t matter who they are associated with or who is behind them and supports them , these people were on the street , made noises and I , as a simple citizen , am dissatisfied with not seeing them arrested . This is the only thing I can say , apart from the political connotations and connotations of the clans . I now turn to Mr. PERSON , a sociologist , a specialist in violent incidents . This type of incident , what do you think ? ...","[ ORG ] : ... I would ask Mr. PERSON if he is still live ... it is necessary to know that mayors elsewhere in the world , such as PERSON or PERSON , have had what are called urban policies of prevention and that they were directly involved . I am talking about a sociological perspective , an area that in which I specialise . I am not interested in your relationship with the institutions that accuse you today in one way or another . Do you have an urban prevention policy project ? For if this were the case , such events would not happen again . ...","[ R.M. ] : Do you know that according to NORP legislation , the police are not under the authority of the mayor ? ... I have asked the police to intervene and to arrest those who are guilty ...","[ ORG ] : Thank you ... The story we have followed is a violent one . NORP go during TIME , armed with axes and knives , something very common lately , and vandalise a hotel . The police , ineffective , react very late , disinterestedly , unconvincing ... At the same time , the name of Mayor PERSON and his business partners appears again directly linked to a strange business . And all these strange things , which I quote \u2018 need ORG , accumulate and accumulate , one after the other , and create in the end the perception of a mayor who raises certain questions , of a forgotten city and , in general , of inefficiency at all levels . In this story , in my opinion , the CARDINAL managers are also guilty , the police are also guilty and we are also guilty , because we tolerate endlessly the incompetent authorities . I thank you . \u201d","On DATE R.M. lodged a civil complaint against the applicant . He alleged that , in her capacity as a journalist , she had made defamatory statements during a television show hosted by ORG in relation to a violent incident that had occurred during TIME CARDINAL - CARDINAL August CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON requested that the applicant write a public letter of apology , that she publish at her own expense the final judgment allowing his claims in CARDINAL newspapers , CARDINAL with a nationwide circulation and the other a local circulation , and that she pay him MONEY ( ORG ) in non - pecuniary damages .","R.M. complained that the applicant had attempted to persuade people that GPE was divided between CARDINAL gangs , \u201c PERSON \u2019s men and those who were against PERSON , and that he himself had at CARDINAL point been familiar with certain persons from the underworld ( \u201c persoane interlope \u201d ) , namely with the PERSON clan , who had allegedly been at the origin of the violent incident in DATE . He considered that the applicant \u2019s imagination had proved to be \u201c diabolical and of an infinite malice \u201d , as her remarks had gone beyond what was permitted not only by freedom of speech , but also by professional deontology . He claimed that the applicant had failed to first check her information before using it , and then to prove her statements .","ORG further claimed that the defamatory statements the applicant had made against him in prime time on national television had seriously damaged his image as a public person and a locally elected official .","The applicant submitted that her statements during the television show had reflected her opinion in an honest and ethical manner . Like any other opinion , hers was inevitably subjective , the important issue being that it had been expressed with honesty and in good faith , based on information concerning ORG conflicts with the PERSON brothers that had been presented more than once in the local press .","The applicant further argued that the non - pecuniary damage claimed by ORG was unjustified , in so far as there was no evidence to prove that her statements had had any impact among ORG supporters in connection with his public image .","On DATE ORG dismissed ORG claims . The court started with an overview of the ORG \u2019s case - law on freedom of expression , referring specifically to the essential role played by journalists in a NORP society and to the fact that the essential criteria in assessing their statements is whether they are made in good faith . The court held that in the case before it , the applicant \u2019s statements could not be interpreted as a personal attack on the claimant and in any event , they were not of such a severe nature as to harm ORG honour , reputation or dignity . The court further noted that in answering the questions of ORG , the host of the show , the applicant had provided an objective explanation for her opinion ; in support of her opinion , she had submitted before the court excerpts of articles from the local press , as well as from a publication issued by several investigative journalists on the topic of public integrity , a project implemented by ORG , in which the name of the mayor , ORG , was connected to several ongoing criminal investigations .","The court concluded that the applicant \u2019s intervention had not been made in bad faith ; her opinions concerned a matter of general interest and did not have an illicit nature ; at the same time , her opinions were not found to have harmed the reputation of the claimant .","R.M. appealed against that judgment . He essentially argued that the applicant \u2019s defamatory statements had not only consisted of her personal opinions , but also reports on specific facts which had not been previously verified , nor ever proved to be true . He further argued that by associating his name and image with that of criminal groups or clans , the applicant had seriously harmed his reputation .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeal and awarded ORG claims in part , holding the applicant liable for the payment of CARDINAL ORG in non - pecuniary damages , and CARDINAL ORG in respect of legal costs . It also ordered her to publish the judgment at her own expense in CARDINAL national newspaper and in another local newspaper and to present ORG with written public apologies within DATE of the date of the final judgment .","ORG considered that the conclusion of the television show , as drawn by ORG , was based essentially on the applicant \u2019s statements , namely that the city was \u201c torn between the underworld clans , in which the offenders retaliate against the mayor \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that the same conclusion would have been drawn by anyone else who had watched the show . From that perspective , it was evident that the applicant \u2019s statements had damaged the reputation of the claimant .","The court also held that the applicant \u2019s intention had not been to present facts , but to deliberately discredit PERSON by claiming in bad faith that he was involved in illegal activities . Such allegations , made without prior verification and lacking factual support , were of a serious nature and had severely damaged the claimant \u2019s image .","Furthermore , in trying to support her allegations with extracts of articles from the press reporting on the activities of ORG , the applicant had only proved that what she had presented in the television show was information , and not her personal opinions .","The applicant appealed against that judgment , reiterating her arguments that the impugned statements were in fact her opinions as an investigative journalist , and that they had been expressed in an honest and ethical manner . She pointed out that ORG had not analysed whether ORG had participated in the television show in his capacity as a public person or as a private one , so as to attract specific consequences in the balancing - of - rights exercise carried out by the court . She pointed out that the sanction imposed by the court was excessive and lacked appropriate reasoning and any justifying criteria .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment .","The appellate court firstly noted that ORG had participated in the television show in his capacity as a shareholder of ORG , as well as in his capacity as a local politician .","While drawing a clear distinction between opinions and information , the court held that that the applicant had not put forward any argument or explanation to support her allegation that what she had expressed in the show were her opinions , and not factual elements :","\u201c By setting herself up as a connoisseur of what was going on in the local area , she had presented to the public , in the form of undeniable truth , some information that was not true \u201d .","The court further referred to the responsibilities of journalists , namely to present information and ideas to the public , while respecting certain limits in relation to the rights and reputation of others . The applicant , as a journalist , \u201c had breached the rules of journalistic ethics by manifesting aggression and intention to blame , with no evidence and without maintaining a balance between the statement made and the unconfirmed allegations \u201d .","The court considered the amount of damages to be paid by the applicant to be fully justified , in view of the fact that the defamatory statements had been broadcast in prime time on a national television channel , and that the amount had been reduced by the appeal court to CARDINAL of the full amount claimed by ORG The court held :","\u201c If she had complied with the first obligation , namely \u2018 to ORG , the court would have examined the proportionality of the amount in relation to her intentions , as she does not contest the allegations , but by means of victimisation , she gives them strength , albeit without any evidence or documents having been submitted to the present day \u201d .","It appears that in DATE the applicant fully complied with the terms of the final judgment ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182862","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TARKHANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in LOC , GPE .","The applicant stood accused of theft and murder . On DATE ORG in GPE fixed , in the hearing held without the applicant \u2019s attendance , the opening date for the trial and ordered an extension of his pre - trial detention . On DATE the applicant was convicted and given a custodial sentence .","On DATE ORG held , in unrelated proceedings , that the provisions of LAW ought to be interpreted as guaranteeing the right of the defendant to take part in the hearing where the matter of detention was decided , to make submissions to the court and to produce evidence ( Judgment no . CARDINAL , point CARDINAL of the operative part ) .","On DATE the ORG of ORG of the Khakassiya Republic quashed ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE in the part relating to the detention matter . Referring to the case - law of ORG , it found that ORG had unlawfully extended the applicant \u2019s detention without giving him an opportunity to take part in the hearing or to make submissions to the court .","The applicant sued ORG , seeking compensation for the unlawful detention from DATE to DATE . By judgment of DATE , as upheld on appeal on DATE , ORG rejected his claim , holding that he was not eligible for compensation in respect of pre - trial detention because he had been found guilty and given a custodial sentence ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147876","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BIRNLEITNER v. AUSTRIA (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in Aistersheim .","The applicant owned a landholding of QUANTITY , which is an approved hunting ground ( ORG ) . According to ORG ( Ober\u00f6sterreichisches Jagdgesetz ) , DATE , ORG has to establish the boundaries of the NORP hunting grounds . In this respect , requests may be filed by landowners to have adjacent land allocated to their hunting grounds where , for the purpose of facilitating the exercise of hunting rights , boundaries need readjustment ( LOC ) . On DATE the applicant filed such a request for readjustment in respect of the next six years\u2019 hunting period , i.e. from DATE .","On DATE ORG Bezirkshauptmannschaft ) partly granted the applicant \u2019s request and assigned specified plots of third persons to the applicant \u2019s hunting grounds , but dismissed her request concerning some other parcels of land .","On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ) .","On DATE ORG declined to deal with the applicant \u2019s complaint due to lack of prospects of success and referred the case to ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) on DATE . On DATE ORG requested the applicant to complement the complaint . The applicant submitted her additional comments on DATE and requested an oral hearing . On DATE the ORG submitted its additional comments to ORG .","On DATE , after having held an oral hearing on DATE , ORG dismissed the complaint as unfounded . That decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181279","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF RAJAK v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the ORG rendered a judgment in favour of the applicant and ordered the applicant \u2019s employer \u201c LOC \u201d AD ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) to carry out a reallocation of plots for the construction of apartments . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested enforcement of the above judgment and the ORG issued an enforcement order on DATE .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor .","On DATE the Herceg Novi First Instance Court transferred the case to ORG for further action .","On DATE ORG suspended ( obustavio ) the enforcement due to the opening of the insolvency proceedings , which decision became final on CARDINAL DATE .","The judgement in question remains unenforced to the present day .","On DATE the applicant instituted administrative proceedings seeking , on the basis of the above judgment , the removal of competing titles from ORG .","NORP On DATE ORG terminated ( prekinuo ) the administrative proceedings because ORG had commenced insolvency proceeding in respect of the debtor .","On DATE the applicant submitted an objection against the above decision . This objection was rejected as being out of time by ORG on DATE .","NORP The administrative proceedings are still pending .","On an unspecified day in DATE , the applicant instituted separate civil proceedings against the debtor , as his former employer , seeking reinstatement and damages . Following CARDINAL remittals , on DATE the ORG rendered a judgment in the applicant \u2019s favour .","On DATE ORG upheld this judgment on the merits , but quashed it as regards the costs .","On DATE the ORG transferred the case to ORG for further action due to the commencement of the insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor .","On DATE ORG ruled partly in favour of the applicant regarding the costs .","The parties did not inform the ORG about when ORG decision became final and was served on the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169023","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"SAKHANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON LOC , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","From DATE to DATE the applicant was the director general of a NORP limited liability company , ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the company \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG of GPE declared the company bankrupt and opened liquidation proceedings . The proceedings were closed on DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE considered a request from ORG to hold the applicant jointly liable for the company \u2019s debts because of the company \u2019s inability to cover all its debts with its remaining assets . Although duly notified , the applicant was not present at the hearing .","ORG request was granted and the applicant was found liable to pay MONEY ( RUB , MONEY ) .","On DATE the company officially went into liquidation .","The applicant only became aware of the outcome of the proceedings against him in DATE when money was seized from his bank account .","The applicant appealed against the decision of ORG of GPE of DATE .","The CARDINALth ORG of Appeal considered the appeal on the merits and on DATE discontinued the appeal proceedings . With reference to the position of ORG , the appeal court concluded that it was impossible to adjudicate bankruptcy - related disputes concerning a company that had already gone into liquidation . The operative part of the appeal decision stated that the applicant could file a cassation appeal .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed a cassation appeal of the applicant . Reasoning adopted by the appeal court was upheld in full . The applicant did not appeal further against that decision .","NORP In DATE the applicant attempted to initiate a separate set of proceedings before ORG , but his complaint was found inadmissible .","On DATE several amendments to the LAW introduced by LAW No . CARDINAL ( ORG \u0420\u0424 \u043e \u043f\u043e\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043a\u0435 \u043a PERSON \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL No . CARDINAL-\u0424\u041a\u0417 ) entered into force . Among other things , the amendments provided that ORG was to be abolished following a provisional DATE and all its functions were to be gradually transferred to ORG .","With some material and procedural exceptions , final court decisions issued by a first - instance and appeal courts in commercial cases may be challenged by way of cassation appeal before a commercial court of a Circuit ( LAW ) .","On DATE amendments to LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) came into effect . ORG was empowered to consider cassation and supervisory review appeals against the final decisions of commercial courts . There were no specific transitional provisions . For a detailed description of the procedure in force before the amendments refer to GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . DATE , DATE ) .","A cassation appeal may be lodged within DATE after the last impugned court decision became final ( Article CARDINAL of the Code ) . A panel of judges examines a cassation appeal within DATE ( ORG CARDINAL of the Code ) . The scope of review includes the issues of legality as raised by the parties and , proprio motu","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW provides that final judicial decisions of commercial courts that have already been subjected to review in a cassation appeal by regional courts may be challenged further in cassation appeal proceedings before ORG . The proceedings may be taken by the parties to a case and by others whose rights or legal interests have been adversely affected by those decisions .","According to Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL cassation appeals may be filed within DATE the last judicial decision in the case became legally binding .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL sets out that the deadline for submitting a cassation appeal may be extended in exceptional circumstances at the request of the appellant . An extension , however , is only possible if the request is submitted either by a party to the proceedings within DATE the last judicial decision in the case became legally binding , or by a third party affected by the case within DATE he or she became aware of a violation of his or her rights .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that the admissibility of a cassation appeal is considered by a single judge of ORG . The judge can either find the cassation appeal inadmissible or refer it to ORG for consideration .","According to LAW and CARDINAL the admissibility of a cassation appeal is to be considered within DATE if the case file has not been requested from the lower court , and within DATE if the file has been requested . That time - limit excludes the period between the request for the case file and its receipt . The time - limits may be extended by DATE by the President of ORG or his or her deputy .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL states that ORG is to examine the case within DATE of the date of the admissibility decision .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that following examination of the case , ORG may , among other things , quash wholly or in part one or all of the judgments previously delivered in the case by the first - instance , appeal or cassation courts and remit the case for reconsideration by any of those courts .","Chapter CARDINAL of the Code provided that final judgments could be challenged by way of supervisory review before ORG of GPE ( see further ORG and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , cited above ) . When ORG of GPE ceased to exist , the review of final judgments in commercial cases was assigned to ORG of GPE according to the rules of new LAW .","A newly introduced chapter , LAW , provides that the Presidium of ORG of GPE can consider applications from parties for supervisory review of binding judgments issued by lower judicial instances .","According to LAW ( CARDINAL ) , in an ordinary civil case where the proceedings started at a first - instance commercial court , parties may lodge an application for supervisory review only if their case has previously been examined in cassation proceedings by ORG . Such applications may be brought within DATE on which the impugned decision became binding ( LAW ) .","According to LAW and CARDINAL the admissibility of an application is decided by a single judge of ORG , who may dismiss the application or transfer it for examination by the ORG . That decision must be taken within DATE if the case file has not been requested and within DATE if it has been requested . The time - limit excludes the period between the request for the case file and its receipt .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that a decision by a single judge to dismiss an application may be overruled by the President or Deputy President of ORG . The LAW contains no explicit time - limit for the exercise of that power .","Following examination of a case the Presidium of ORG may , in accordance with Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , uphold , vary or quash any of the judgments previously delivered in a case , be it by the first - instance , appeal or cassation courts . If it does so , the ORG may adopt a new decision or send the case back for reconsideration . Article CARDINAL provides that binding decisions may be quashed on supervisory review if they breach : ( CARDINAL ) human rights and freedoms enshrined in the LAW or principles of international law and international treaties to which GPE is a party ; ( CARDINAL ) the rights and legitimate interests of an undefined group of people or other public interests ; ( CARDINAL ) the uniformity of case - law .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL states that the Presidium of ORG is to examine cases within DATE of the date of the admissibility decision ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161942","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GU\u021a\u0102 TUDOR TEODORESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["On DATE the applicant requested ORG Implementing Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( ORG ) to award compensation for a property owned by his ancestors and taken over by ORG . On DATE the Commission issued a decision proposing payment of compensation in the amount of ROL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) .","NORP That decision , according to the law , had to be validated by a central commission within DATE . As ORG did not issue any decision , the applicant brought a court action aimed at obliging ORG to act in accordance with the law . The applicant also asked for the amounts granted by ORG to be adjusted for inflation when payment was made .","The applicant \u2019s action was dismissed on DATE by ORG , which held that the DATE deadline was not compulsory , but rather advisory . The court also held that the adjustment of the amounts granted was indeed prescribed by LAW of the law , but any adjustment was to be made at the time payment was actually made , once ORG had ratified or otherwise the ORG decision .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim , and ordered that the ORG issue a decision ratifying or otherwise the proposal made by ORG on DATE . The court held that the claim concerning the adjustment of the amounts granted as compensation was to be dealt with during the enforcement stage .","On DATE ORG ratified the ORG decision of DATE .","The compensation , representing at that time approximately ORG CARDINAL , was paid to the applicant on DATE .","Dissatisfied with the decision of ORG , on DATE the applicant lodged a court action aimed at obtaining an adjustment of the initial amount to take into account inflation from the date on which it was established by ORG to the date of actual payment .","By a decision of DATE , ORG ruled in the applicant \u2019s favour . ORG established that in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , the amounts set by ORG had to be adjusted for inflation if they were not paid in DATE they were awarded .","On DATE ORG reversed the decision , and ruled that the applicant was not entitled to an adjustment for inflation .","The appellate court concluded that ORG had interpreted the applicable law incorrectly , as the entitlement to adjustment for inflation had to be determined on the basis of DATE when ORG had ratified the decision of ORG . As the payment had been made uno ictu , and not in instalments , during DATE as ORG took its decision , the applicant was not entitled to an adjustment for inflation .","It also concluded that the failure of ORG to ratify the decision of ORG within DATE could not represent a legal basis for the adjustment of the amount in question ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161380","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF M.G.C. v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","At the time of the events , the DATE applicant was living with her family in a small village and often used to go to play with QUANTITY girls from a neighbouring family at their house . The girls , F.C.B. and ORG , were about the same age as the applicant . The ORG family ( the PERSON family ) had CARDINAL children and were also accommodating a relative of theirs , PERSON , a DATE man who was unemployed and lived in the family \u2019s vacant cattle stable .","According to the statement made by the applicant later to the police , in DATE and then again in DATE , PERSON had dragged her by force while she was playing with her girlfriends at the neighbours\u2019 house , had taken her to an empty room in the house or into the barn and had raped her while holding her down and keeping his hand over her mouth in order to prevent her from screaming . The applicant also stated to the police that DATE and DATE she had been raped in similar circumstances by CARDINAL of the ORG sons and their friend G.I.","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother noticed that the applicant did not get her DATE period and had a talk with her . She told her mother that she had been sexually abused by PERSON and the other boys . She said that she had been ashamed to talk about what happened and also afraid to tell her parents sooner because PERSON had threatened that he would beat her if she told anyone .","As a result of the sexual abuse , the applicant became pregnant and , with her GPE approval , she later underwent a surgical termination of the pregnancy .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s parents lodged a complaint against the alleged perpetrators with the local police and an investigation was started against ORG , ORG P.B. No proceedings were opened with respect to G.I. , who was under DATE and hence not criminally liable .","On DATE the CARDINAL suspects were called into the police station for questioning . F.B. declared that on DATE , when the applicant was visiting her friends , he had asked her to have sex with him and she had accepted . PERSON declared that it had been PERSON who insistently told him to have sex with the applicant .","On DATE a forensic report found that no traces of violence had been detected on the applicant \u2019s body .","During the investigation PERSON declared that the applicant had provoked him to have sex with her as she was always scantily dressed . He further stated that it was she who had come to him and had asked him to have sex with her the first time , in DATE or DATE . He alleged that the applicant had told him that she had had sex before with the boys from the PERSON family .","The applicant declared before the police that she had been forced by PERSON to have sex with him on several occasions , alleging that he had threatened that he would beat her if she told anyone . The other boys had also forced her to have sex with them , telling her that it was PERSON who had told them what to do .","On DATE the Deva Police sent the file to ORG of ORG in order to pursue the investigation into rape . The judiciary police officer making the request held that , even if the ORG statements were to be accepted as truthful , the victim \u2019s age ( TIME at the time of the first sexual act ) precluded the existence of legally valid consent as she could not have freely expressed her will .","On DATE , at the request of ORG , GPE Forensic Institute issued a forensic psychiatric report on the applicant . The report held that the applicant was suffering from post - traumatic stress and stated that :","\u201c Concerning the specific circumstances in which the criminal acts were committed , the minor speaks with shame about what happened . She has a vivid memory of the events . ... She says that she did not tell anyone about the incidents sooner because she feared for her safety and the safety of her family members . \u201d","The report concluded that the applicant had difficulties in foreseeing the consequences of her actions and had insufficient discernment due to her age .","F.B. declared before the prosecutor that he had had sex with the applicant once on DATE . A.B. declared that he had had sex with the applicant in the DATE . PERSON declared that he had had sex with the applicant once in DATE and then again in DATE . PERSON stated that he had had sex with the applicant on CARDINAL occasion in DATE . The applicant had asked him to have sex with her , and when he had refused - because he had never done this before - it was she who got undressed and climbed onto him . He further mentioned that he had used a condom that he had in his pocket . They all declared that it was the applicant who had taken the initiative each time and that it had happened because she displayed a provocative attitude , being scantily dressed most of the time . Each brother stated that the applicant had told him that she had had sex before , either with CARDINAL of the other brothers or with ORG","When questioned during the investigation , F.C.B. and ORG declared that the applicant had told them she had had an intimate relationship with PERSON and that they had never seen him taking the applicant by force while they were playing . They also stated that the applicant often came to their house scantily dressed and that their brothers PERSON and PERSON had told them that the applicant had provoked them and \u201c jumped onto them \u201d .","On DATE the ORG of ORG issued an indictment decision with respect to ORG the crime of sexual intercourse with a minor on repeated occasions . F.B. , A.B. , PERSON and ORG were given administrative fines for the same crime . From the statements of the perpetrators and the CARDINAL sisters , the prosecutor held as proved the fact that the applicant had gone to the ORG house scantily dressed and had had a sexual relationship with PERSON The prosecutor therefore concluded that from the documents in the file it was not proved beyond doubt that the applicant had not given her consent to the sexual acts .","The applicant \u2019s complaint against the prosecutor \u2019s decision concerning the CARDINAL brothers and PERSON was rejected by the superior prosecutor and subsequently by the courts .","On DATE PERSON was found guilty by ORG of sexual intercourse with a minor and was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant was awarded CARDINAL NORP lei ( ROL ) by way of compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","During the proceedings the applicant \u2019s representative requested the perpetrator \u2019s conviction for rape . She submitted to the file a copy of a judgment issued on DATE by ORG which held that a girl aged DATE and DATE could not understand what a sexual act meant sufficiently well to give her consent to it .","The applicant declared before the court that PERSON had forced her to have sex with him and had threatened to beat her if she told anyone . She was afraid of him because he could become violent when he was drunk . The other boys had also threatened to beat her and once PERSON had threatened her with a knife .","NORP In reaching its decision , after also hearing statements from ORG and M.S.B. , ORG firstly observed that the forensic certificate stated that no signs of violence had been detected on the victim \u2019s body . The court further noted that it was apparent from the statements of PERSON and the other perpetrators who had not been indicted by the prosecutor that the applicant had always taken the initiative for the sexual acts and she had been in the habit of provoking both PERSON and the other boys to have sex with her . As regards the content of the above - mentioned statements , the court considered \u201c relevant \u201d the fact that the applicant was scantily dressed and that even after she had allegedly been sexually abused she went on playing with her girlfriends . The court considered that :","\u201c If sexual intercourse had taken place by force or by taking advantage of the victim \u2019s lack of capacity to defend herself or to express her will , it is certain that [ she ] would not have continued her previous practice [ going to play with the ORG daughters ] \u201d .","The applicant , represented by her lawyer , appealed against the judgment of ORG , requesting that PERSON be convicted of rape and that the amount of compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage be increased to ORG . The applicant \u2019s representative submitted that the decision of the first instance court had not been impartial since it had been based only on the statement of the accused , together with statements by the other perpetrators and CARDINAL witnesses \u2013 all related to the accused . Furthermore , since the minimum age of consent to a sexual act was set by law at CARDINAL , the applicant \u2012 who was QUANTITY at the time of the incidents \u2012 could not have expressed valid consent and the sexual abuse committed against her could therefore only be classified as rape . In addition , the applicant \u2019s representative complained that the forensic psychiatric report of DATE , which declared that the victim lacked capacity to express valid consent and was suffering from post - traumatic stress , had not been taken into consideration by the first instance court .","ORG decided to allow the applicant \u2019s appeal , holding that :","\u201c According to the provisions of LAW , the crime of rape is \u2018 Sexual intercourse of any kind with a person ... taking advantage of the [ person \u2019s ] lack of capacity to defend herself or to express her will [ original emphasis] ... \u2019 .","At the time when the accused had sexual intercourse with the victim , she was DATE . In NORP law , there is an absolute presumption that any person below CARDINAL completely lacks capacity . Therefore , before DATE , the minor can not express a valid consent , being in a position of inability to express [ his \/ her ] will in a valid manner ... \u201d","Taking these arguments into account , on CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted PERSON and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court applied a sentence below the minimum provided for by law for the crime of rape against a person DATE , finding mitigating circumstances due to the defendant \u2019s good behaviour prior to the commission of the crime on trial . The court also held that it was not necessary to increase the amount of compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage awarded by the first instance court .","The applicant \u2019s representative submitted an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , requesting an increase in the amount of compensation for non - pecuniary damage and that a more severe sentence be imposed on the defendant . PERSON also contested the judgment , requesting a conviction for the crime to which he had confessed , namely sexual intercourse with a minor .","On DATE the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on points of law submitted by ORG upheld with final effect the judgment of ORG of DATE . ORG of Appeal based its verdict on the statements given by PERSON and M.S.B. as well as the account of the events given by the other perpetrators . Based on these testimonies and the fact that the victim had not told her parents about the alleged abuse , the court drew the conclusion that the instances of sexual intercourse had always been initiated by the applicant and dismissed the theory that the victim might have lacked capacity to express her will . The findings of the forensic psychiatric report of DATE were not mentioned or discussed in any way by the court .","The court of appeal explained as follows :","\u201c The court considers that the crime of rape is committed by constraint - physical or moral - or by taking advantage of the victim \u2019s lack of capacity to express his \/ her will , more specifically rape is a sexual intercourse committed without consent . On the other hand , the crime of sexual intercourse with a minor , as provided by LAW , means engaging in a sexual intercourse with a minor DATE , but with the minor \u2019s consent . ...","\u201c The presumption of lack of capacity applies only to minors who are under DATE and have committed a crime , but with respect to the crime provided by LAW , the minor [ the applicant ] is the victim and not the perpetrator . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179428","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF NOVINSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142504","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DHAHBI v. ITALY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Peer Lorenzen","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON ( PERSON ) .","The applicant , who subsequently acquired NORP nationality , was at the relevant time a NORP national who had entered GPE on the basis of a lawful residence and work permit . He was employed by company ORG and insured with ORG ( ORG \u2013 \u201c the INPS \u201d ) . His family was made up of his wife and their CARDINAL minor children . His income for DATE totalled CARDINAL NORP lira ( ITL \u2013 approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG , acting as an employment tribunal , seeking payment of the family allowance ( assegno per nucleo familiare ) provided for by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE . Under the terms of that provision , the allowance in question was paid by the ORG to families made up of NORP nationals living in GPE with CARDINAL minor children , whose DATE income was below the amounts set out in the table appended to Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( in this instance , the amount applicable to families with CARDINAL members , namely ORG MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) ) .","The applicant submitted that even though he did not have NORP nationality as required by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , the allowance was nevertheless due to him under the association agreement between ORG and GPE \u2013 known as LAW \u2013 which had been ratified by GPE ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) . LAW provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Subject to the provisions of the following paragraphs , workers of NORP nationality and any members of their families living with them shall enjoy , in the field of social security , treatment free from any discrimination based on nationality relative to nationals of ORG in which they are employed .","The concept of social security shall cover the branches of social security dealing with sickness and maternity benefits , invalidity , old - age and survivors\u2019 benefits , industrial accident and occupational disease benefits and death , unemployment and family benefits .","These provisions shall not , however , cause the other coordination rules provided for in Community legislation based on LAW to apply , except under the conditions set out in LAW .","All periods of insurance , employment or residence completed by such workers in the various Member GPE shall be added together for the purpose of pensions and annuities in respect of old age , invalidity and survivors\u2019 benefits and family , sickness and maternity benefits and also for that of medical care for the workers and for members of their families resident in the Community .","The workers in question shall receive family allowances for members of their families who are resident in the ORG .","The workers in question shall be able to transfer freely to GPE , at the rates applied by virtue of the legislation of the debtor Member GPE , any pensions or annuities in respect of old age , survivor status , industrial accident or occupational disease , or of invalidity resulting from industrial accident or occupational disease , except in the case of special non - contributory benefits .","GPE shall accord to workers who are nationals of a Member State and employed in its territory , and to the members of their families , treatment similar to that specified in DATE , CARDINAL and DATE . \u201d","In a judgment of DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application .","The applicant appealed . He requested , among other things , that a question be referred to ORG of ORG ( \u201c the CJEU \u201d ) for a preliminary ruling as to whether , under LAW , a NORP worker could be refused the family allowance provided for by CARDINAL of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE .","In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It observed that , as the allowance in question was based solely on the income and family situation of the recipients , it fell within the sphere of social assistance ( assistenza sociale ) . The allowance had initially been intended only for NORP citizens and had subsequently been extended to all ORG nationals . However , LAW related only to social - security benefits ( prestazioni previdenziali ) and was therefore not applicable to the family allowance provided for by CARDINAL of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , reiterating his request for a preliminary ruling to be sought from the CJEU .","In a judgment of DATE which was deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal .","In its reasons , ORG observed first of all that Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW provided , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The treatment accorded by each Member ORG to workers of NORP nationality employed in its territory shall be free from any discrimination based on nationality , as regards working conditions , remuneration and dismissal , relative to its own nationals .","All NORP workers allowed to undertake paid employment in the territory of a Member ORG on a temporary basis shall be covered by the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL with regard to working conditions and remuneration . \u201d","Noting that the text in question referred explicitly to employment relationships and the elements that comprised them , ORG inferred from this that it applied only to social - security benefits and not to social - assistance benefits of the kind claimed by the applicant , to which NORP citizens resident in GPE were not entitled . According to ORG , this interpretation was confirmed by LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , which referred in particular to \u201c sickness and maternity benefits , invalidity , old - age and survivors\u2019 benefits , industrial accident and occupational disease benefits and death , unemployment and family benefits \u201d . ORG stressed that its interpretation was not based solely on the reference in the text to \u201c social security \u201d ( previdenza sociale ) but , as indicated by the ORG , on the elements comprising each benefit .","This judgment was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["14","6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167100","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF LEONID PETROV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE before his conviction . He is currently serving a sentence in GPE .","NORP In DATE a criminal case was opened into the theft of money belonging to the applicant \u2019s cousin , PERSON","On DATE G. was found dead in her flat with several gunshot wounds . On DATE a criminal case was opened into her murder .","On DATE the applicant , who was suspected of the theft and whose whereabouts were unknown , was placed on a police wanted list .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was arrested on the street . He was handcuffed and taken to the police station of the LOC district police department of Cheboksary ( ORG \u0420\u041e\u0412\u0414 \u0433. GPE \u2013 \u201c the district police \u201d ) . According to PERSON and QUANTITY other female witnesses , the applicant had no injuries before his arrest .","The applicant was escorted to the police station at QUANTITY He was taken in handcuffs to room no . CARDINAL on the first floor ( \u201c second floor \u201d in LANGUAGE ) and interviewed by operative police officers PERSON . and PERSON about the theft and murder . He gave a partial confession , stating that he had stolen less money from the victim , but denied murder .","The parties provided different accounts of the events at the police station .","According to the applicant , police officers PERSON . and PERSON , who were drunk at the time , demanded that he confess to the theft and murder . They allegedly beat him up , delivering blows to his head , ears , body and legs , and threatened him with rape . At TIME they shackled QUANTITY weight to his hands , which he was made to hold while they continued to physically assault him . At TIME they made him stand on the windowsill of an open window and threatened to throw him out and make it look as if he had attempted to flee or commit suicide if he did not confess to the murder . After refusing to do so , CARDINAL of the police officers allegedly pushed him out of the window .","According to the Government , in the course of the police interview the applicant , who was drunk when he was taken to the police station , suddenly climbed on a table and jumped out of the window . This course of events was reported by police officers PERSON . and PERSON to their superior on DATE . They stated that they had taken the applicant for an interview in room no . CARDINAL in handcuffs as he had been drunk , had had a strong smell of alcohol coming from his mouth , had behaved aggressively and inadequately and had used obscene and threatening language towards them .","Shortly before TIME on DATE the applicant was given first aid by the ambulance service , which diagnosed him with a closed head injury , concussion and bruises of the soft tissue on the face and on both feet . According to the paramedic and his assistant , they found the applicant lying on the tarmac conscious ; he was handcuffed without any weight shackled to him .","At CARDINAL TIME the applicant was taken to ORG handcuffed on a stretcher , accompanied by police officers PERSON . and PERSON After surgery his right foot was in plaster and his left foot had a weight fixed to it . The applicant was shackled to the bed by one of his hands and guarded by a police officer .","From TIME on DATE an investigator from the district police questioned the applicant in hospital as a suspect in the theft case , in the presence of a lawyer . He reiterated his confession ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . From TIME that TIME an investigator from the Moskovskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office questioned him as a witness in the murder case .","According to PERSON and the applicant \u2019s mother , who visited the applicant in the hospital , the applicant \u2019s eyes were both bruised ( which is also evident on photographs of the applicant in hospital ) , his left ear was swollen , his teeth were loose and he could hardly talk . According to his mother , his left ear was unresponsive and he could not hear , his head and chin were badly bruised , and he had bruises and cuts on his wrists . The applicant told his mother that he had been beaten up and threatened with rape by QUANTITY police officers , who had shackled a QUANTITY weight to him and threatened to throw him out of a window if he did not confess to the crimes . He could not remember what had happened next .","At TIME on DATE an investigator from the district police drew up a record of the applicant \u2019s arrest at TIME that day as a suspect in the theft case . On DATE the Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) dismissed the investigator \u2019s request to have the applicant remanded in custody on the grounds that he had been hospitalised and could not participate in the hearing himself .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE an investigator from the Moskovskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office drew up a record of the applicant \u2019s arrest at CARDINAL p.m. that day on suspicion of the murder . On DATE ORG extended his arrest until DATE .","On DATE the criminal cases concerning the theft and murder were joined and the applicant was charged with both crimes . ORG remanded him in custody .","On DATE the applicant , who had been undergoing continuous inpatient treatment in hospital since DATE , was transferred to the ORG pretrial detention facility .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE held police officers PERSON . and PERSON liable in disciplinary proceedings for failing to properly guard the applicant and leaving him without permanent surveillance on DATE . They were issued with a severe warning . The order stated that in the course of the applicant \u2019s interview the police officers , who had failed to carry out their duties in accordance with the service regulations and to take into account the applicant \u2019s personality , had opened a window thereby creating conditions for the applicant to jump out of it .","On DATE the applicant confessed to the murder of PERSON in the course of his questioning as an accused , in the presence of his lawyer .","On DATE ORG convicted him of theft , murder and possession of a firearm , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The period of his arrest and remand in custody from CARDINAL DATE and from DATE was counted towards his sentence . The judgment entered into force on CARDINAL DATE .","The following injuries were recorded during the applicant \u2019s initial examination at ORG on DATE : a soft tissue injury to the head , scratches on the face and knees , swelling and bruises on the left hip , a fractured left foot and a dislocated right foot . He was diagnosed with a closed head injury , concussion , bruises and scratches on the head soft tissue and left hip and knee joints , and fractures to both feet .","On DATE , during his inpatient treatment in hospital , the applicant , who had complained that CARDINAL of his teeth was loose and painful , was examined by a dentist and diagnosed with a \u201c contusion of tooth CARDINAL \u201d ( lower tooth on the right side ) . On DATE an otolaryngologist examined him in connection with the impaired hearing in his left ear and diagnosed him with otitis .","From DATE the applicant received inpatient treatment in the medical facility of ORG correctional colony no . CARDINAL ( IK-CARDINAL ) .","It appears from a report by a panel of forensic psychiatrists dated DATE that the applicant suffered from a personality disorder which did not require medical treatment or exclude his criminal responsibility . The experts did not assess the applicant \u2019s fall from the window of the police station .","On DATE an investigator of the Moskovskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant . The investigator stated that at TIME on DATE the applicant had fallen from office no . CARDINAL on the first floor of the police station and received injuries to both feet . The investigator asked whether on DATE the applicant had had any injuries other than those to both of his feet , and if so , how and when they had been received , whether they could have been received as a result of a fall onto tarmac from the first floor , where they were located and how serious they had been .","Following an examination of the applicant \u2019s hospital records , a forensic medical expert concluded on DATE that the information concerning the applicant \u2019s initial examination in hospital on DATE was undetailed . Information on the exact location , number and morphological characteristics of the injuries was missing , and was insufficient to determine the time and order they had been inflicted to distinguish them and determine which could have been as a result of the applicant being punched and kicked and which could have been as a result of his fall from the first floor . It was stated in the expert \u2019s report that the applicant had not attended the examination , after asking in writing to carry it out in his absence .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged a complaint with the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office concerning her son \u2019s alleged illtreatment and unlawful deprivation of liberty from DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the Moskovskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office concerning his alleged illtreatment by the police officers , requesting that criminal proceedings be opened against them .","The LOC district prosecutor \u2019s office and subsequently the Cheboksary inter - district investigation department of the investigative committee at the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open a criminal case into the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment and unlawful deprivation of liberty CARDINAL times , pursuant to LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c CCrP \u201d ) , because none of the elements of the offences provided for in Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code ( unlawful deprivation of liberty , abuse of powers , criminal prosecution of persons known to be innocent and unlawful arrest and detention respectively ) were present in respect of the actions of the police officers . They concluded that the applicant \u2019s allegations could not be confirmed by a pre - investigation inquiry .","The pre - investigation inquiry was resumed CARDINAL times as the decisions refusing to open a criminal investigation were set aside by higher authorities within the prosecutor \u2019s office and subsequently the investigative committee as unsubstantiated , unlawful or based on an incomplete inquiry .","( i ) A refusal on DATE was overruled on DATE on the grounds , inter alia , that nothing had been done to establish whether there had been a QUANTITY weight in office no . CARDINAL . Moreover , police officers PERSON . and PERSON had carried out non - investigative actions involving the applicant , a suspect in the criminal case , from TIME to TIME on TIME DATE , and no assessment of the lawfulness of those actions had been carried out .","( ii ) A refusal on DATE was overruled on DATE . It was noted that office no . CARDINAL had been inspected and no weights had been found .","( iii ) Twenty further decisions refusing to open a criminal case taken DATE and DATE were overruled . In particular , a refusal on CARDINAL DATE was overruled on DATE on the grounds that instructions by the deputy head of the investigative committee of ORG given on DATE had still not been fulfilled . A refusal on DATE was overruled on DATE on the grounds that deficiencies identified by the deputy head of the prosecutor \u2019s office of ORG on DATE , ORG on DATE and ORG of Chuvashiya on DATE had still not been corrected .","( iv ) A refusal on DATE was overruled on DATE on the grounds that the investigative committee of ORG acknowledged that investigator PERSON had been found liable in disciplinary proceedings for stalling the inquiry and issuing unlawful and unsubstantiated decisions based on an incomplete inquiry .","( v ) A refusal on DATE was upheld by the courts as a result of a review under LAW CCrP ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In the most recent refusal issued on DATE investigator PERSON from the Cheboksary investigative committee found that the applicant , who had been wanted in the theft case , had been arrested and taken to the police station and remained there on suspicion of committing it . His being held in room no . CARDINAL for TIME had been necessary for carrying out operationalsearch measures . Police officers PERSON . and PERSON had handcuffed him lawfully in order to guard him and prevent him from escaping or harming himself or others . His hospitalisation had made it impossible for him to be arrested as a suspect on DATE . He had been handcuffed in hospital to prevent him from attempting to escape again .","The investigator also found that the applicant had jumped out of the window himself in order to flee , without any coercion by the police officers . His allegations that he had been subjected to physical violence had not been confirmed . The investigator stated that injuries other than those to both feet had been found on the applicant at the time of his admission , as set out in the forensic medical expert \u2019s report of DATE . However , the lack of any detailed description of those injuries in the applicant \u2019s medical records had made it impossible to establish when and how they had been received , in particular whether they had been received as a result of him falling from the first floor or being beaten up .","The investigator \u2019s decision of DATE referred , inter alia , to statements by police officers PERSON . and PERSON They said that after the applicant \u2019s arrest on DATE they had interviewed him in room no . CARDINAL about the theft and the murder of PERSON of which he had been suspected . The applicant had given a partial confession to the theft but had denied murder . He had been convicted of a criminal offence in the past and had tried to escape from a police station by jumping out of a toilet window . The incident had prompted the police to install iron bars on it . In DATE , after the murder of PERSON , the applicant had been hospitalised for a drug overdose , but had not been arrested because after the hospital had alerted the police he had managed to escape . During the interview on DATE the applicant , who had been drunk and had smelled of alcohol , had behaved provokingly and insulted them with obscene words . They had therefore handcuffed him ( placing his hands in front ) to avoid any attempts to escape or commit suicide . At TIME , as F. had been leaving the room , the applicant had jumped on a table adjacent to an open window and jumped out . PERSON . claimed that he had been putting documents into a safe at the time , while PERSON said that PERSON . had been sitting at the table and the applicant had been sitting on a chair near the table immediately before jumping out of the window . Access to the window had been blocked by the table . It had been possible to reach and open it while sitting at the table . They had taken the applicant to hospital and guarded him there to prevent him attempting to flee again .","The decision of DATE also referred to the applicant \u2019s statements that immediately before his arrest he had been drinking , and to statements by the investigator from the district police and a police officer who had guarded the applicant at the hospital on DATE that the applicant had allegedly stated off the record that he had jumped out of the window himself trying to flee , without any influence by the police officers . It also relied on statements by duty police officer T. that in TIME of DATE he had seen on a monitor ( no video recordings had been made ) that somebody had fallen out of the window of the police station . He had been the first to go near the applicant lying on his back with his hands handcuffed to his front . Nothing had been attached to his hands . In his earlier statements set out in the refusal to open a criminal case of DATE , ORG explained that at QUANTITY on DATE he had seen on a monitor that somebody was lying near the entrance of the police station . Police officers and ambulance staff approached him . T. had not gone near him himself and had neither seen him nor whether there had been any objects near him .","Refusals of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , as well as the refusal of DATE , were reviewed by the domestic courts in accordance with LAW of the CCrP. The applicant \u2019s complaints concerning the CARDINAL DATE refusals were allowed . In decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG found that they were unlawful and lacked reasoning . The decision of DATE was upheld on appeal on CARDINAL DATE by ORG of Chuvashiya , which noted that it was necessary to assess the lawfulness of the handcuffing and guarding of the applicant in hospital before his detention in the criminal proceedings . The decision of CARDINAL DATE also found the Moskovskiy district prosecutor \u2019s failure to enforce ORG previous decision of DATE unlawful .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the most recent refusal to open a criminal case , finding that the investigating authorities had carried out all the measures necessary for establishing the relevant facts fully , objectively and thoroughly , and had taken a reasoned decision on the basis of a full and comprehensive inquiry in accordance with the law . On DATE ORG of Chuvashiya upheld that decision on appeal , noting that in disagreeing with ORG findings , the applicant \u2019s representative had misinterpreted the relevant domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171085","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LAZ\u0102R v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a sentence in a prison in GPE .","Following an undercover operation set up by the police with the help of CARDINAL undercover agents , the applicant and a NORP national , ORG , were arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking .","In DATE , the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG committed the applicant and his co - accused for trial for drug trafficking and the case was registered with GPE .","The applicant \u2019s counsel asked the court to hear evidence from the undercover agents . His request was refused on the ground that the anonymity of the undercover agents was protected .","Following another request lodged by the applicant \u2019s counsel , on DATE the court ordered the prosecutor to submit the authorisations it had issued for the undercover operation .","The applicant \u2019s counsel claimed that his client had committed the drug offence only after being incited to do so by the undercover police agents .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . ORG imposed a lenient sentence in the light of the applicant \u2019s good behavior after his arrest and the fact that he had pleaded guilty as charged . The court based his conviction on the report drafted by the undercover agents after the applicant had been caught red - handed , as well as a search report and the statements given by the applicant and his co - accused .","The applicant appealed , complaining , inter alia , that the undercover agent had overstepped the legitimate limits of investigation by inciting him to sell drugs .","By a decision delivered on DATE ORG increased his prison sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . It held that the good behaviour of the applicant after he had committed the offence could not justify a lenient sentence .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . In his grounds for appeal he did not complain about the unlawfulness of his conviction but only about the length of his sentence . He requested the appellate court to impose a milder sentence and accordingly , to overturn the decision of ORG and to uphold the judgment of GPE ORG by which he had been convicted to only three years\u2019 imprisonment .","By a final decision delivered on DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as unfounded .","The applicant was detained in PERSON DATE and DATE .","The applicant alleged that he had been kept in poor hygienic conditions in overcrowded cells . The water provided had been of very poor quality , being of a yellow colour , smelling and containing worms . Sometimes , there had been no water DATE either for drinking or for the toilet . The food had also been of very poor quality .","The Government contended that the records held by the prison authorities concerning the ORG size and their occupancy rate were no longer available as the archives for that period had been destroyed , pursuant to the domestic law . However , as regards the general detention conditions in ORG submitted that every cell had been equipped with CARDINAL squat toilets connected to the water network and separated from the rest of the room by a wall . It had been possible to let in fresh air by opening the window to each cell . The prisoners had been allowed to take CARDINAL hot shower per week in the communal bathrooms located in each section of the prison ( DATE CARDINAL showers had been available ) . The applicant had been allowed to walk outside his cell for TIME each day ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173391","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KAZAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142546","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"HU\u010cKO v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE a former business partner sued the applicant for a sum of money in the context of the dissolution of their partnership . On DATE the applicant filed a counterclaim .","The case was dealt with by courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction .","On DATE the ORG dismissed both parties\u2019 claims . It found the claim lodged by the applicant to have lapsed .","On DATE the ORG rejected an appeal by the applicant as having been lodged out of time .","ORG decision was served on the applicant by ORG several times owing to difficulties in obtaining a certificate of service . Thus , in a letter of DATE a judge stated that the above impediment had prevented ORG from indicating DATE when the decision in issue took effect . On DATE , following the receipt of the relevant document and the return of the case file , ORG put a stamp on the decision indicating that it had become final on DATE .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant unsuccessfully applied to ORG for the lodging of an extraordinary appeal on points of law on his behalf . He argued that he had appealed within the statutory time - limit .","On DATE the applicant posted a complaint to ORG . He alleged a breach of his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time in the proceedings before the ordinary courts . The applicant affirmed that the complaint had been lodged within DATE of CARDINAL DATE , when he had been notified that his application to ORG had been dismissed .","The applicant noted that the copy of ORG judgment enclosed with his constitutional complaint had no stamp indicating the date of final effect . This was due to the fact that such indication had to be made first in the original decision , and that had been possible only after the case file had been returned to ORG .","On DATE ORG rejected the complaint as having been lodged outside the statutory time - limit of DATE . It held that the applicant should have lodged his complaint within DATE of the service of ORG decision . ORG admitted that the exact date of service of that decision was unknown . However , it found that decision to have been served not later than on DATE , the date of the applicant \u2019s application to ORG . The applicant had posted his constitutional complaint DATE thereafter , namely on DATE . His application to ORG could not affect the position as it concerned an extraordinary remedy .","On DATE , in a reply to the applicant \u2019s complaint , the vicepresident of ORG indicated , with reference to the case file , that the decision in the applicant \u2019s case had become final on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative asked ORG to review its decision .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE a judge of ORG , after examining the file , replied that ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE had actually become final on DATE . It had been served on the applicant on that date ; he had been the last person on the list of those on whom it had to be served . The indication of CARDINAL DATE as the date of final effect of the decision by ORG had been an error , but it could not affect the legal position because it was of a merely declaratory nature . Finally , the letter stated that the applicant \u2019s complaint was in any event inadmissible on account of his failure to seek redress by means of an appeal on points of law .","Pursuant to LAW , a certified true copy of a judgment is to be served on the parties or their representatives in person .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a judgment which has been served and which can no longer be challenged by means of an appeal is final .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE provides that a complaint to ORG may be lodged within DATE of the date on which the decision in question becomes final and binding or on which a measure is notified or notice of some other interference with the complainant \u2019s interests is given . As regards measures and other types of interference , this period commences when the complainant has had a practical opportunity to become aware of them .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Regulation no . DATE , a court \u2019s legal secretary is obliged , as soon as the date of final effect of a decision has been established , to indicate the same on the cover page of the original of the court \u2019s decision . Under section CARDINAL of that Regulation , upon request courts are to confirm , by means of a stamp on the cover page of a true and certified copy , the date when the decision acquired final effect and became enforceable .","As regards complaints about ordinary courts\u2019 decisions in the context of civil proceedings , ORG has held , in a number of cases , that the above time - limit of DATE starts running on DATE when the contested decisions become final ( see , for example , decisions II . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; IV . \u00daS CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ; III . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; or II . \u00daS CARDINAL of DATE ) .","In the context of complaints about judicial proceedings ORG has consistently considered irrelevant , when determining compliance with the time - limit of DATE under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , the dismissal of GPE request for an extra - ordinary appeal to be filed on their behalf . It held the date of final effect of the contested judicial decisions to be relevant in that context ( see , for example , decision file no . PERSON . \u00daS CARDINAL of DATE , with further references ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147268","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NAGY v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was questioned as suspect on charges of theft .","On DATE the GPE XIV \/ ORG indicted the applicant for theft .","On DATE the Pest Central District Court acquitted the applicant .","The first - instance judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . This judgment was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174997","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ALBERTINA CARVALHO E FILHOS LDA v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant company has its registered office in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant company brought enforcement proceedings against GPE before ORG , seeking payment of an alleged debt of MONEY ( ORG ) plus ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in interest it considered to be due up to that date , amounting to a total sum of ORG CARDINAL . It also sought the payment of the interest accrued until the date of repayment of the debt in full .","On DATE a judicial enforcement officer ( agente de execu\u00e7\u00e3o ) was appointed to the case by ORG . He accepted this appointment on DATE .","PERSON was summoned on DATE and on DATE she lodged an application for proceedings for opposition to enforcement ( oposi\u00e7\u00e3o \u00e0 execu\u00e7\u00e3o ) . These proceedings were joined to the enforcement proceedings on DATE .","DATE and DATE information was exchanged between ORG and the judicial enforcement officer about the date on which PERSON had been summoned and the documents in that connection .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant company gave its reply to the opposition to enforcement proceedings .","DATE and DATE several procedural steps took place in the enforcement proceedings regarding the possible freezing of PERSON \u2019s bank accounts .","In the meantime , on DATE , in the proceedings for opposition to enforcement the court had given a preparatory decision setting out the facts that had already been established and those that remained outstanding ( despacho saneador ) .","On DATE the applicant company \u2019s lawyer withdrew from the case .","On DATE the court requested that the judicial enforcement officer provide a report on the procedural steps taken ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the court could not contact the applicant company at the address it had provided to the court .","On DATE a hearing in the proceedings for opposition to enforcement was scheduled for CARDINAL DATE . For reasons related to the health of GPE \u2019s lawyer , the hearing was postponed to DATE . On an unknown date the hearing was postponed to CARDINAL DATE , the date on which it took place .","For unknown reasons , on DATE ORG ( PERSON ) informed ORG that a new judicial enforcement officer was to be appointed .","On DATE a new judicial enforcement officer was appointed to the enforcement proceedings .","On an unknown date before the CARDINAL DATE another lawyer started representing the applicant company .","DATE and DATE discussions took place between the new judicial enforcement officer , the court and the previous judicial enforcement officer regarding the transmission of the necessary case documents from the previous judicial enforcement officer to the new one .","DATE and DATE correspondence took place between the new judicial enforcement officer and the court regarding the applicant company \u2019s representation by a lawyer ( whether it was represented in the case and by whom ) .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision against the applicant company in the proceedings for opposition to enforcement .","On an unknown date before or during DATE the applicant company appealed against that decision to ORG .","ORG upheld the first - instance decision by a judgment adopted on DATE .","On an unknown date the applicant company appealed against that judgment to ORG . On DATE that appeal was rejected by ORG because the applicant company had not submitted any grounds of appeal . Following that decision , the enforcement proceedings were terminated ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177424","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DOLGOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153803","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ARMELLINI AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant , Mr. PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in Hard . The second applicant , Mr. PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . They are both journalists employed by the third applicant , Zeitungs- und Verlags GmbH , a limited liability company with its seat of business in PERSON . The applicant company publishes the regional newspaper ORG .","At DATE R.H. , a NORP football referee , admitted to having participated in bet rigging ( PERSON ) by manipulating football matches together with other persons , in particular the brothers GPE , GPE and GPE .. PERSON told the police that he knew that football matches were also manipulated in GPE and GPE . As regards GPE , he referred to the football club ORG GPE , which still existed at the time of the events in DATE .","On DATE an article written by the first and second applicants appeared in the NORP dealing with the NORP betting scandal \u2019s links to GPE .","On the front page the headline , printed in a black box in white , read as follows : \u201c PERSON players bribed with MONEY ( ORG ) \u201d ( \u201c ORG mit CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u20ac bestochen \u201d ) . Below that headline , and still in the black box , were photographs of ORG , ORG and PERSON and in a yellow box the phrase : \u201c The investigators are at the heels of this trio : They may have manipulated matches for the betting - mafia ! \u201d ( \u201c PERSON die PERSON den LOC : NORP soll f\u00fcr ORG LOC manipuliert haben ! \u201d ) . In the upper left corner , a little box contained the following phrase : \u201c Terrible suspicion against football pros confirmed : \u201d ( \u201c Schlimmer Vedacht gegen Fussball - Profis erh\u00e4rtet : \u201d ) .","The main article on this subject , written by the first and second applicants , appeared on page CARDINAL . The headline read as follows : \u201c Sold and betrayed the team for LAW ? \u201d ( \u201c FAC verkauft und verraten ? \u201d ) . The article stated that the CARDINAL football players had been bribed by the betting - mafia with ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for QUANTITY matches . Bets for these NORP SW PERSON matches had been placed in the GPE area ( GPE ) . In CARDINAL match , which had ended with the result of CARDINAL against ORG GPE , the goal - keeper , PERSON , had made serious mistakes , as expected , and another player , PERSON had been replaced because of his poor performance . PERSON had also been playing in that match . The reason for the manipulations was the ORG financial difficulties : they had not received their salary for DATE . They had all signed a public statement prepared by the management of the club , denying their involvement in the betting scandal .","On the following page there was an article under the headline \u201c A CARDINAL result shocks a second time ! \u201d ( \u201c Ein CARDINAL:CARDINAL schockt ein zweites PERSON ! \u201d ) in which a football match of DATE was reviewed again and it was hinted that the poor performance of some of the players was connected to the betting - scandal .","On DATE ORG , GPE and PERSON filed a private prosecution ( PERSON ) against the applicants before ORG . They argued that the accusation raised in the article published by the applicant company in its newspaper on DATE , that they had accepted bribes and manipulated football matches , was particularly serious for a professional football player and his professional reputation . This accusation , which was untrue , constituted defamation and they requested the court to convict the first and second applicants of this offence . They indicated in particular the following passages of the article as defamatory :","( i ) \u201c Terrible suspicion against football - pros confirmed : PERSON players bribed with LAW \u201d ( \u201c Schlimmer Vedacht gegen Fussball - Profis erh\u00e4rtet : PERSON mit CARDINAL,CARDINAL \u20ac bestochen \u201d ) ;","( ii ) \u201c Sold and betrayed the team for CARDINAL EUR ? \u201d ( \u201c FAC verkauft und verraten ? \u201d ) ;","( iii ) PERSON players PERSON , ORG and PERSON were bribed CARDINAL ORG for their team to lose CARDINAL matches . ( \u201c PERSON , ORG , und FAC sollen bestochen worden PERSON . CARDINAL \u20ac , damit ihr Team drei PERSON . \u201d ) ;","( iv ) ( Regarding the third plaintiff . ORG ) \u201c ORG had made contact with the NORP betting - mafia . \u201d ( \u201c PERSON zur kroatischen ORG soll A.T. hergestellt haben . \u201d ) .","They also claimed compensation from the applicant company for the harm caused and requested that the judgment be published in its newspaper .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant company to publish within DATE a short piece ( kurze Mitteilung ) on the institution of criminal proceedings for defamation in respect of the article at issue .","On DATE the applicants commented on the charges against them . They argued that they had only voiced a suspicion against the plaintiffs but that in any event their statements were true or , at least , the first and second applicants had had good reason to believe that they were true , which would rule out punishment .","DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings in the case in which it heard several witnesses , inter alia , ORG , a freelance journalist working for the third applicant \u2019s newspaper and who had contacted CARDINAL informants who had wished to remain anonymous , and PERSON ( see above ) . PERSON spoke about his contacts with the PERSON brothers since DATE and stated that CARDINAL of them , ORG , had contacts in GPE , in particular the football club Casino SW Bregenz . In his opinion CARDINAL players of that team were in contact with ORG , but he did not give any names or other details .","On DATE ORG found that the incriminated statements from the article of DATE amounted to defamation , convicted the first and second applicants of that offence and sentenced them to a fine of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL respectively , suspended on probation for DATE . It ordered the applicant company to pay compensation of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to each plaintiff and to publish an extract of the present judgment in its newspaper .","As regards the impugned article , ORG paid particular attention to its visual appearance which , through its layout and presentation , in particular the printing in white in a large black box , conveyed to the reader the impression that the investigators were about to catch the pictured persons , who had filled their pockets with money by using dirty tricks . That first impression was not mitigated by the small reference to a suspicion in the upper left corner . The same was true for the headline on page CARDINAL which read : \u201c Sold and betrayed the team for EUR CARDINAL ? \u201d . This was a leading question which already contained the answer , and again that first impression could hardly be mitigated by the use of the subjunctive in some phrases of the article itself . The court therefore concluded that , seen as a whole , the article created the impression of being a statement of facts about the scandal and not a genuine expression of a suspicion .","ORG therefore examined whether the accused had acted with due journalistic diligence when they considered these statements as true , or if they could prove their veracity . As regards the first element , ORG accepted that there was a public interest in being informed on the question of whether or not players of the Casino SW PERSON team had actually been involved in a betting scandal , but found that the first and second applicants had not acted with sufficient professional diligence . They had not personally conducted any research to verify the well - foundedness of the rumours but had merely relied on the research of ORG , a freelance collaborator with the newspaper , and had not checked the reliability of the sources - anonymous informants not known to them . Furthermore , they had not given ORG , ORG and PERSON an opportunity to react even though there had been important new elements going beyond a general suspicion of involvement in the betting scandal to which they had already reacted in the past , namely that they had received a specific amount , LAW , for manipulating CARDINAL football matches in DATE .","Turning to the proof of truth put forward by the applicants , ORG observed that ORG and PERSON had only been accused by ORG CARDINAL informants , X and Y , of being involved in the betting scandal , and these informants had not given any details nor stated that they themselves had witnessed a transaction . Also PERSON , when heard by the court , did not refer to them directly or indirectly . There was clearly no proof of the truth .","As regards PERSON , ORG observed that he had lied when he stated that he did not know ORG , that ORG had repeatedly visited GPE and that there had been football matches in which that player had given a very poor performance . Also the informants X and Y had stated that PERSON was involved in the betting scandal . These were arguments speaking in favour of his involvement in the betting scandal , but there were also arguments speaking against . It was understandable that ORG had not admitted to knowing ORG immediately , when all kinds of suspicions were discussed in connection with the betting scandal , as GPE was one of the principal persons involved in that scandal . Furthermore , there was only evidence that ORG had visited GPE on various occasions DATE and DATE , whereas the football match which , in the eyes of the authors of the article , was particularly suspicious had taken place in DATE . According to the information given by X and Y , ORG had paid the CARDINAL accused football players LAW in DATE for CARDINAL matches which had not yet taken place . That did not coincide with his habits as described in detail by PERSON Lastly , the amount claimed by X and Y , namely LAW , was not plausible , given that Casino SW PERSON had been at the very end of the national football league table in GPE throughout DATE and the quota for bets on that team losing a match would have been so small that it would not have justified the investment of a considerable sum .","Weighing all these elements , ORG concluded that the applicants had not succeeded in proving the truth of the statements made in the impugned article . As regards the compensation under LAW , ORG found that the particular seriousness of the accusations raised , and the adverse effect they could have on the career of a professional footballer , justified the sum of compensation granted .","On DATE the applicants appealed against this judgment . They argued that the impugned article did not contain a statement of fact but merely a suspicion against ORG , ORG and PERSON Moreover , the first and second applicants had fully complied with journalistic ethics . As PERSON and the applicants had acted as a team , there was no need to check further the information received and at that stage of the investigations there had also been no need to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to react to the information to be published .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal of the first and second applicants , but partially granted the appeal of the applicant company and reduced the amount of compensation to ORG CARDINAL for each plaintiff . It found that ORG had carefully weighed the arguments and had arrived at a correct and well - reasoned judgment . It agreed with ORG that the first and second applicants had not reported on a mere suspicion but had presented their allegations as facts which they had failed to prove ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140929","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF FERREIRA ALVES v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC ( GPE ) .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON do GPE ) of ORG ( ORG dos Advogados ) instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant , following a complaint introduced by a client for breach of professional secrecy on DATE .","On DATE the case was dismissed on the ground that the facts had already been subject to a decision in DATE , which had been dropped as time - barred ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183955","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF STEPANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . In applications nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL the applicants also raised complaints under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174424","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF M.O. v. SWITZERLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Eritrea)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant is an NORP national and was born in DATE . He grew up in GPE and currently lives in GPE .","The applicant entered GPE illegally on DATE and applied for asylum DATE . He was heard in person CARDINAL times by the NORP authorities responsible for asylum and migration ( until DATE the ORG f\u00fcr Migration , renamed with effect from DATE as the Staatssekretariat f\u00fcr Migration , DATE hereafter \u201c ORG ) . During all CARDINAL hearings an interpreter was present and the record was translated for the applicant prior to his signing it .","The first hearing was a summary interview at ORG ( Empfangs- PERSON ) in PERSON on DATE . The applicant stated that he had not been allowed to continue at school beyond the eighth grade because he had failed the national admission exams for secondary school , and had been summoned for military service , which he had tried to avoid . Once he had reported for duty , he had tried to escape but had been caught . He stated that he had been beaten and subsequently imprisoned in Wi\u2019a in conditions of very poor hygiene . He was unable to recall the exact dates of his imprisonment , but stated that he had been imprisoned from DATE . He had managed to escape from prison TIME when the guards were asleep . After staying in GPE for DATE , he had left the country on foot on DATE , crossing the border at GPE . He had been picked up by NORP soldiers DATE .","NORP In order to support his account , the applicant submitted copies of his student card and a card showing that he was a church deacon , as well as the original of a card used for food distribution in GPE . He stated that he had been issued with an identity card in GPE in DATE , but had had to hand it in in GPE . The applicant further stated that he was married and had a son born in DATE .","The second , more detailed , hearing took place at the office of ORG in GPE on DATE . A member of a non - governmental organisation was present as a neutral witness , in order to guarantee the fairness of the hearing . He had the opportunity to add comments at the end of the record of the hearing in the event that he had witnessed any irregularities , but did not note down any such observations .","The applicant again gave an account of the alleged events in GPE leading up to his escape . This time he stated that he had been imprisoned in Wi\u2019a from DATE following his attempt to escape from the military . When confronted with the discrepancy in comparison with his previous account in that regard , he stated that he might have made a mistake in the first interview . When asked about the conditions of his detention , the applicant claimed that it had been very dirty and very hot , and that he had been locked up all the time . Other than beatings suffered due to his attempt to escape , there had been no particular incidents . He did not recall any rules other than fixed meal times and being brought outside in TIME to relieve himself .","When asked about his military training , the applicant claimed that he had only been there for a very brief period of time prior to his attempted escape . He had not learned how to use weapons . He could neither provide a name of his superior nor his unit nor his military number .","When questioned about his departure from GPE , the applicant described leaving PERSON ( a village ) on foot at TIME , together with a person living in the neighbourhood who knew the area . They had walked towards GPE , but had lost their way as it was TIME - time . They had been very afraid and also hungry and thirsty . There were lots of thorn bushes in their way and they had heard the howling of hyenas . They had not been sure whether they had reached NORP territory until soldiers who spoke PERSON had apprehended them at TIME When informed by the interviewer that his account in relation to his departure might not be considered credible , which would result in the conclusion that he had left the country legally , the applicant said that he could not give more details about the departure because he did not know the area well and had been following the person with whom he had fled .","The applicant claimed that he had always been in good health .","NORP In order to support his account , the applicant submitted the originals of his marriage certificate of DATE and his son \u2019s baptism certificate of DATE , as well as an attestation that he was a church deacon . He claimed that these documents had been sent to him from GPE .","The applicant was heard for a third time by ORG on DATE . Again , a member of a non - governmental organisation was present as a neutral witness , who did not note down any observations relating to irregularities .","The interviewer explicitly advised the applicant that the interview was taking place to give him another opportunity to describe his departure from GPE , and that the account he had so far provided in this regard would probably be dismissed as not credible , which would result in the conclusion that he had left the country legally .","The applicant responded that he had spent DATE at his GPE home in GPE after escaping from prison . His family had contacted a people smuggler from the GPE area . He and the smuggler had left GPE on foot at around CARDINAL p.m. When confronted with his previous account that he had left with a person from the neighbourhood , the applicant clarified that the person he had travelled with ( the smuggler ) came from a neighbouring village . During the night the smuggler had told him that he had taken many people across the border , but that he and the applicant had already been walking for too long a time , which meant that they must have lost their way . They had become disorientated and had only realised that they had crossed the border when they had been apprehended by NORP soldiers at TIME who had spoken to them in NORP .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum request and ordered his departure from GPE . It found that his account was not credible , and concluded that , having failed to prove or credibly demonstrate his refugee status pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , the applicant was not a refugee as defined in CARDINAL of LAW .","ORG pointed out that the applicant had stated in the first hearing that he had been detained for DATE and DATE , from DATE , whereas in the second hearing he had said that he had been detained for DATE , from DATE . It added that the applicant had also contradicted himself a number of times in the second hearing in relation to the commencement of his military training and the end of his schooling . Furthermore , his account as regards his time in prison and his escape from prison lacked substance , and he could not provide details as to what he had learned during his military training .","ORG also found that the applicant \u2019s submissions regarding his illegal exit from GPE were not credible . Despite being asked several times to provide a detailed account of his departure or specific events in that connection , the applicant \u2019s statement in that regard was superficial and limited to phrases . ORG argued that , particularly in relation to TIME during which the applicant and the smuggler had lost their way , it could legitimately be expected that the applicant would provide a substantiated account , which he had failed to do . Nor had he provided a consistent account in that regard . Moreover , he had made contradictory statements as to how long he had stayed at home between escaping from prison and leaving the country .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision before ORG . He submitted that the authorities had initially refrained from drafting him because of his role as a deacon \u2013 the fact that he was a deacon not having been contested by the asylum authority . He referred to a report of ORG ( EASO ) , which stated that the relevant authorities had , at times , deferred the draft of clerics , until a change in practice in DATE had led to a stricter approach ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant submitted that he had had to undergo his military training in Wi\u2019a , a place to which , according to a report by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , students with poor grades were typically assigned . Shortly after reporting for duty , he had attempted to escape . He had been caught and , as a result , detained in DATE . He had managed to escape from detention in DATE after DATE . Fearing that he would be detained once again or forced to perform military service , he had decided in DATE to leave the country illegally . His family had organised a smuggler . They had fled during the TIME and , while attempting to cross the border at GPE , had lost their way . They had been apprehended by NORP soldiers early in the morning of CARDINAL DATE and taken to GPE . DATE , they had been transferred to the Hitsas refugee camp .","With regard to the alleged discrepancies relating to his schooling , the applicant submitted that he had difficulties with dates concerning the duration of his schooling and his age when he had started and left school , but emphasised that he had consistently stated that he had left school after eighth grade , having failed the exams to move on to secondary school , and referred to a report by ORG regarding the national examination at DATE grade ( see paragraph DATE below ) . Also , during the hearing he had corrected himself in relation to the commencement of his military training . Furthermore , it was comprehensible that he could not give a detailed account about things which he had learned during that training , given that he had attempted to escape almost immediately after reporting for duty .","NORP The applicant claimed that the discrepancies between his statements in the first and the second hearings concerning the duration of his detention were due to his poor level of education . He emphasised that his statements as regards the time of the end of his detention , DATE , were consistent . In relation to the conditions of detention , he argued that the account he had given to the asylum authorities very much reflected his personal experiences : he had stated that the prison had been dirty , that it had been very hot , that detainees had had lice , that there had been fixed meal times , and that he had been taken outside in TIME to relieve himself . In light of this monotonous pattern , the mistake , if any , had been on the part of the interviewer , who had asked for a description of specific events . In that regard , the applicant argued that his account that he had been beaten with a wooden stick and kicked while lying on the ground in front of everyone as punishment related to a specific personal event . He emphasised that the interviewer had not questioned him about his scars , which he alleged were the result of that incident , or about specific events surrounding his escape from prison , pointing out that the latter issue had been raised by the representative of the non - governmental organisation who had been present as a neutral witness at the second hearing . As to the time between his escape from prison and his departure from GPE , the applicant argued that his first statement that he had left GPE DATE after escaping from prison , and his second statement that he had spent DATE at his GPE home in A. during that time , were not contradictory .","With regard to the circumstances of his departure from GPE , he emphasised that his account had been consistent as regards the time when he and the smuggler had left the village and when they had been apprehended by NORP soldiers . It was only logical that he could not make detailed statements about the area , as he had no knowledge of that area and had fled during TIME . His most prominent memory related to the fears he had experienced when they lost their way . He could also recall the exact words in LANGUAGE used by the NORP soldiers when they had been apprehended . His account , which revolved around feelings of thirst , hunger and fear , and which mentioned the many thorn bushes in their way and the howling of hyenas , corresponded to his young age and poor level of education . Moreover , ORG had wrongfully concluded that there was a contradiction in his statements concerning the smuggler \u2019s reaction when they had lost their way .","Lastly , the applicant submitted that he did not belong to any of the groups of people who could possibly obtain a visa to exit GPE . Referring to a letter from ORG \u2013 the original of which he presented \u2013 stating that he was registered in the Hitsas refugee camp in GPE on DATE , and to the fact that crossing the border to enter GPE by land was always unlawful ( see paragraph DATE below ) , he argued that he had proved his illegal exit from GPE .","In conclusion , the applicant argued that he was a refugee as defined in section CARDINAL of LAW , on account of his fear of ill - treatment for having deserted from military service . In the alternative , he claimed to qualify for temporary admission because of \u201c subjective post - flight grounds \u201d ( as set out in LAW ) , notably his illegal exit from GPE and his asylum application in GPE . Further , in the alternative , he alleged that his removal to GPE was neither permitted in the light of LAW nor reasonable , entitling him to temporary admission to GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal , finding that he had failed to credibly demonstrate his asylum claim . It noted that it was not apparent why the applicant \u2019s DATE he was DATE at the time of his interviews \u2013 or level of education should lead to different conclusions as to the credibility of his account , and considered that his CARDINAL statements concerning the end of his schooling , either in DATE , could not be reconciled with each other or with his student identity card , which indicated that he was a student in DATE . The court also considered that the applicant \u2019s statements regarding the time and content of his military training lacked substance . It commented that , even if the applicant had left the military shortly after reporting for duty , he could be expected to provide a detailed and specific account of it , given that he merely had to talk about something which he had experienced in person . Viewing the duration and dates of the applicant \u2019s detention as key elements of his asylum claim , the court noted that a discrepancy of DATE as regards the duration , and the different dates given in the first CARDINAL hearings as regards the end of the detention , constituted fundamental contradictions which could not be resolved by his references to conditions of poor hygiene and being let outside twice a day to relieve himself .","Referring to its judgment in an earlier case concerning GPE , the court reiterated that the only way to exit GPE legally was with a valid passport and an additional exit visa , and that the practice concerning the issuance of an exit visa was very restrictive . They were issued to a few people who were considered loyal , in exchange for payment of significant sums . As a rule , children aged CARDINAL or more , men under DATE , and women under the age of DATE , were not granted exit visas . People attempting to leave the country without authorisation risked their life , as the border guards were under orders to prevent attempts to flee by way of targeted shots ( a \u201c shoot to kill \u201d policy ) , in addition to imposing punishment as set out by law . ORG viewed illegal exits as an indication of political opposition , and tried to get both the reduction in defence readiness and the mass exodus under control through draconian measures .","ORG noted that finding that the applicant had concealed the true circumstances of his departure was not in itself sufficient to conclude that he had left the country legally . However , the burden of proof did not shift to the authorities , and the applicant was required to provide a substantiated and consistent account concerning the reasons for and circumstances of his departure . Considering that his account given at first - instance level was not credible , which also raised doubts about his overall credibility , and that he had not provided comprehensible explanations in his submissions on appeal , the court found that the applicant had failed to credibly demonstrate that he had left GPE illegally .","ORG added that the applicant could not rely on the letter from ORG stating that he was registered in the Hitsas refugee camp in DATE , since the conditions in NORP refugee camps were chaotic and , in the case of people of NORP origin , there was no comprehensive assessment of whether they faced persecution at the time they were registered in those camps . This was supported by the wording of the registration , which read that it constituted a recognition prima facie that the applicant was a refugee within the mandate of ORG .","Furthermore , the court found that the applicant \u2019s removal was possible , permitted and reasonable within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)-(CARDINAL ) of LAW . In particular , the applicant was a young man in good health who had a support network in his hometown , notably his wife and their son , who lived in the same house as his parents .","On DATE ORG set a deadline for the applicant \u2019s voluntary departure , which passed on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164639","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MALEC v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant married E. In DATE their daughter , ORG , was born . In DATE the applicant and E. separated . In DATE the applicant moved out of the family home .","After the separation , the applicant and PERSON agreed on access arrangements ( DATE , DATE during DATE , and DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a divorce petition with ORG ( PERSON ) together with an application for an interim contact order .","On DATE ORG ordered a local assessment ( wywiad \u015brodowiskowy ) to be conducted at the mother \u2019s home by a courtappointed guardian with a view to establishing ORG \u2019s situation and the parenting skills of the mother and father . The guardian submitted her report on DATE . The guardian established that ORG loved both parents but was more attached to the mother . The applicant had frequent contact with his daughter . However , the parents were in conflict with each other and had negative feelings about each other . The applicant had authorised M.T. , his new partner , to collect ORG from the nursery , which was a source of great conflict between the parents . The guardian concluded that the access arrangements should be speedily determined by the court in order to minimise the negative consequences of the divorce on ORG The child should stay with the mother and the father should be allowed frequent visits . He should , however , inform the mother of the child \u2019s whereabouts as he had taken ORG abroad without the mother \u2019s knowledge .","A hearing scheduled for CARDINAL DATE did not take place as the case file had not been returned from ORG ( where maintenance proceedings had taken place ) and because the applicant had been in pre - trial detention in connection with a corruption case against him .","On DATE and DATE the applicant again applied for interim contact orders , specifying different arrangements . On DATE the mother replied , setting out her own request for contact arrangements .","NORP In DATE the applicant moved in with M.T. and in DATE a son was born .","On DATE ORG issued an interim contact order . It decided that the applicant was allowed to see his daughter every second weekend TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE , and also TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE . In addition , he could spend DATE , DATE and every GPE DATE with her . The applicant was allowed to take DATE for DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution in respect of that decision .","On DATE PERSON asked the court to restrict contact between the applicant and ORG owing to the child \u2019s fragile emotional condition . N. had therapy with a psychologist DATE .","A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned after the applicant lodged an application for the judge to step down . That application was dismissed on DATE . A further appeal by the applicant was dismissed on DATE .","On DATE the psychologist treating ORG suggested a change in the contact order so that ORG would not have to stay TIME at the applicant \u2019s house , as that was apparently causing her a lot of stress .","On DATE ORG ordered another local assessment . The guardian submitted her report on DATE . She established that contact visits with ORG had taken place as agreed by the parents after their separation , with the exception of the period DATE ( when the applicant had been detained on remand on corruption charges ) . Contact meetings had resumed in DATE and had continued regularly until DATE . Subsequently , after the court had begun supervising the contact visits , the conflict between the parents had escalated . The mother had been of the opinion that the applicant had wanted the contact meetings to take place regardless of the child \u2019s needs and her after - school activities ( ice skating practice ) . On the other hand , the father was convinced that the practice schedule had been manipulated by the mother so that it took place during his contact visits . As of DATE , the contact visits had not taken place according to the interim contact order . The applicant saw his daughter on her birthday and on a few occasions after school .","On DATE the guardian submitted a supplementary report to the court . She noted that ORG did not enjoy the way the contact with the applicant was taking place . She did not mind seeing him more often than scheduled , but she did not want to stay TIME at his house .","On DATE a hearing took place during which the applicant and PERSON agreed on access arrangements . On DATE , ORG issued a divorce decree . The court ordered that in the period DATE the applicant could see his daughter every DATE TIME ; every second DATE and DATE between TIME and TIME ; as well as on GPE DATE TIME , the applicant could see his daughter DATE from TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE ; DATE from TIME until DATE TIME ; for the whole of the period DATE ; DATE ; DATE of GPE ; and on DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .","On DATE and DATE and on CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained to the court that the mother had refused to comply with the access arrangements .","On DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL applications for the court to impose a fine on the mother for failing to comply with the interim contact order of CARDINAL DATE .","NORP The applicant subsequently lodged CARDINAL applications on DATE , CARDINAL on DATE and CARDINAL on DATE .","The court scheduled a hearing for CARDINAL DATE . However , PERSON failed to appear on that date ( she was on leave to take care of her sick child ) .","The applicant lodged numerous further applications for the court to impose fines on PERSON In particular , he lodged CARDINAL applications on DATE , CARDINAL on DATE , CARDINAL on DATE , CARDINAL on DATE , CARDINAL on DATE and CARDINAL on DATE .","The next hearing took place on DATE .","At a further hearing held on DATE , with reference to the applicant \u2019s motion of DATE , ORG ordered the mother to comply with the interim contact order within DATE on pain of a fine of MONEY ( PLN ) . On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by PERSON against that decision .","The applicant made further requests to the court to impose fines on E. : on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE ( CARDINAL motions ) ; DATE ( CARDINAL motions ) ; and on DATE ( CARDINAL motions ) .","On DATE PERSON severed to a separate set of proceedings the applicant \u2019s application of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It was subsequently dismissed on DATE . Upon further appeal , ORG quashed that decision on DATE . On DATE the proceedings were further severed and the part concerning the applicant \u2019s application of CARDINAL DATE was assigned a new case number . It was subsequently transferred to ORG on account of a change of address by PERSON The proceedings were eventually discontinued on DATE .","On DATE , in reply to the applicant \u2019s claim of DATE , ORG imposed a fine of ORG MONEY on PERSON ( which she subsequently paid ) . It further ordered her to comply with the interim contact order within DATE , on pain of another fine of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","On DATE a court - appointed guardian submitted a report to the court on arrangements for the applicant \u2019s contact with his daughter . She observed that contact visits were not taking place in accordance with the contact order . N. sometimes met the applicant on DATE after school , staying with him until TIME She further noted that while PERSON did not want to stay TIME at the applicant \u2019s home , she did not mind seeing him more often after school during DATE . The guardian suggested that the parents and the child undergo an assessment at ORG ( GPE o\u015brodek diagnostyczno - konsultacyjny ) ( \u201c the RODK \u201d ) .","On DATE the court imposed another fine of CARDINAL PLN on PERSON However , on DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the interim contact order of CARDINAL DATE was no longer in force .","The court - appointed guardian submitted CARDINAL reports to ORG , dated DATE . She noted in the reports that the contact arrangements set out in the latest interim contact order were not being enforced . From DATE the father had only been able to see his daughter for TIME at occasional meetings . In the guardian \u2019s opinion , the father was ready and able to take care of his daughter and organise interesting activities for their meetings . However , when questioned by the guardian , ORG had been unenthusiastic about seeing her father and had said only negative things about him . The guardian concluded that a family assessment at the RODK was required .","Meanwhile , the applicant lodged numerous applications for a forcible removal of ORG for various visits ( in DATE and DATE , and in DATE ) . ORG issued orders for a forcible removal of the child by the guardian on DATE ( for DATE ) , on CARDINAL DATE ( for DATE ) and on DATE . In the latter decision , the court stressed that under no circumstances should physical force be used when collecting ORG as that would be against her best interests .","On the first occasion , the guardian found that PERSON was not living at the address she had submitted to the court and he was therefore unable to collect the applicant \u2019s daughter . On DATE occasions , the guardian tried to mediate between the parents and talk to the child in order to make her change her mind , but the child refused to go with the father .","During the divorce proceedings , both the applicant and PERSON asked the police to intervene on several occasions . In particular , on DATE the applicant arrived at PERSON \u2019s home to collect ORG However , ORG was crying and refused to go with him . PERSON called the police because the applicant was allegedly behaving in an aggressive manner . On DATE the police again intervened at PERSON \u2019s home . On that occasion , PERSON refused to allow the applicant to take ORG for a court - scheduled contact visit as the child was allegedly afraid of him .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the mother had failed to comply with the interim contact order and asked the court to order her to give an undertaking related to her behaviour ( odebranie przyrzeczenia okre\u015blonego zachowania ) .","A hearing planned for DATE was adjourned owing to the absence of both parents . The following hearings took place on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","NORP On DATE the Krak\u00f3w - Nowa Huta District Court dismissed the applicant \u2019s application because the interim contact order was no longer in force . That decision was quashed on appeal on DATE . ORG held that ORG had focused on the application to fine PERSON and had failed to consider the applicant \u2019s other requests .","On DATE the Krak\u00f3w - Nowa Huta District Court again discontinued the proceedings relating to the applicant \u2019s application to impose a fine on the mother because the interim contact order was no longer in force after the divorce judgment had become final . As of the date of the submission of the Government \u2019s observations to the ORG , the remainder of the applicant \u2019s request ( proceedings for the mother to give an undertaking ) was still pending .","On DATE PERSON applied for a change of the access arrangements which were specified in the divorce judgment . She submitted that PERSON did not want to stay TIME at the applicant \u2019s house .","On DATE the Krak\u00f3w - Nowa Huta District Court issued an interim contact order and allowed PERSON \u2019s request . The court ruled that the applicant could meet his daughter every other DATE TIME and CARDINAL p.m. The court held that the modification of the access arrangements was in the best interests of the child at that moment and that it was essential to rebuild the emotional ties between ORG and the applicant .","On DATE the court ordered another local assessment and an examination of the parents and the child by the RODK experts .","On DATE a psychologist submitted his opinion to the court . The expert stated that the weakening of the emotional bond between the applicant and ORG had been caused by a series of events . Those were , in particular , the applicant \u2019s arrest in ORG \u2019s presence and his subsequent detention on remand ; the applicant \u2019s new relationship and new child ; the applicant \u2019s attempt to enforce the contact order , without any regard to ORG needs ; and the escalation in the conflict between PERSON and the applicant . The expert concluded that family therapy was needed in order for family ties to be re - established . In addition , changes to contact arrangements , such as an increased frequency of visits , were not in the child \u2019s best interests at that time .","At a hearing held on DATE , the applicant informed the court that DATE , when he had arrived to see his daughter , she had not wanted to go with him . Apparently , ORG had gone outside to talk to the applicant but when she had seen PERSON ( his new partner ) she had returned home crying and had refused to go with her father . In reply to a question from the court whether he would participate in family therapy , the applicant stated that he would have to think about it , as in his view the problems with enforcing the contact arrangements were the mother \u2019s fault .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the interim order of DATE . It considered that the access arrangements specified in the ORG contact order had gone beyond what the mother had requested in her application .","On DATE the RODK submitted its opinion to the court . Firstly , the experts observed that both parents loved ORG and were able to attend to her needs . The father was determined to have a place in her life and play an important role . The mother had not been right to cut off contact between PERSON and her father . While she claimed that she had not obstructed the contact arrangements , she was not aware that her passive approach and clear animosity towards her ex - husband had impeded father - daughter contact . The experts stressed that ORG had a strong emotional bond with the mother and remained under her influence . She did not feel loved by her father and was afraid of having contact with him . The experts concluded that ORG was not able to cope with the emotional consequences of the conflict between her parents and that family therapy was indispensable . Furthermore , despite her negative reaction to the applicant , she should have contact with him . However , contact visits should not take place in the mother \u2019s presence as that would increase ORG \u2019s negative attitude towards her father and prevent her from re - establishing a bond with him . Contact meetings should take place on neutral ground in the presence of a neutral person .","DATE . On DATE ORG issued a contact order . According to that decision , the applicant could meet PERSON second DATE TIME and TIME , with the exception of DATE and the period DATE and DATE . In addition , he could see PERSON on DATE of GPE TIME and TIME , and on DATE every even year and on DATE . The court held that contact meetings should take place in the presence of a court - appointed guardian ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161462","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT;ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"C. v. ROMANIA AND AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE and GPE . On DATE the President of the Third Section granted the applicant \u2019s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The NORP and NORP Governments ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON and PERSON , from ORG and ORG , respectively .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","DATE the applicant was in a relationship with ORG On DATE their son S.I.P. was born . From DATE to DATE they all lived together in the same apartment in GPE .","In DATE the applicant took the decision to move to GPE to work there . According to the applicant it was a joint decision , taken because of financial difficulties of the family , and after she moved she kept in touch by telephone with ORG and her son on an almost DATE basis and sent her son money and clothes .","( a ) ORG proceedings","On DATE ORG brought proceedings against the applicant and the ORG mayor \u2019s office , acting as ORG ( ORG ) , seeking inter alia custody of PERSON He claimed that the applicant \u2019s decision to move to GPE was taken without consulting him and once she had moved he was unaware of her whereabouts although he had tried to find her . In contrast , according to the applicant , ORG had been aware of her address in GPE but had not informed the court . In result , the proceedings were held in the applicant \u2019s absence . The summons issued by the court in the applicant \u2019s name did not reach her , and she remained unaware of the proceedings .","On DATE the Bistri\u0163a - ORG allowed ORG \u2019s application and awarded him custody of the child . Relying on witness statements and ORG social investigation and recommendation , the court held that ORG had been the child \u2019s main caregiver since birth and provided the child with the emotional support he required for his development .","According to the applicant she had become aware of the judgment of DATE on DATE and only by chance . Following a request lodged by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , PERSON communicated a copy of the judgment to the applicant by fax on DATE . The applicant did not appeal and she did not request the statutory time - limit for lodging an appeal to be reinstated .","( b ) ORG proceedings","On DATE the applicant applied to the same court for contact with her son .","On an unspecified day in DATE ORG left GPE together with the applicant \u2019s son and they both settled permanently in GPE . According to the applicant she learned about this fact on DATE .","On DATE , in the course of the contact proceedings in GPE , the applicant requested the court to reschedule a hearing set for DATE to an earlier date , given the circumstances of the relationship between her and ORG and the urgency of the matter being examined by the court .","By a final interlocutory judgment of DATE the court allowed the applicant \u2019s request for an earlier hearing and set a new date of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the court allowed the applicant \u2019s application in part and ordered that she be allowed contact every other weekend , DATE during DATE in DATE or DATE and every second GPE DATE . Taking into account the best interests of the child , the court held that the full contact schedule requested by the applicant was excessive , given the young age of the child and his DATE routine . It also dismissed ORG \u2019s request that she only be allowed supervised contact in his presence . The applicant appealed , arguing that the contact schedule established by the court was restrictive , and that the court had failed to consider that the child was entitled to know his mother \u2019s relatives as well .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal in part , taking into account the best interests of the child and the GPE needs , and the fact that they were living in CARDINAL different GPE , namely GPE and GPE . It ordered that she be allowed contact for DATE , DATE of the LOC holidays and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . It also allowed her to take the child away from his father \u2019s home , and upheld the judgment of the lower court in respect of the contact DATE . The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law on the grounds that the full contact requested by the applicant was unjustified and did not consider the best interests of the child , given his age and DATE routine .","On DATE , at the request of the applicant , ORG issued a certificate of enforceability under LAW ( see ORG below ) , attesting that the judgments of DATE and DATE were enforceable . It also noted that all parties had the opportunity to be heard , except for the child on account of his age .","( c ) Return proceedings","On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against ORG , seeking the immediate return of the child to GPE , custody , psychological counselling for her and the child in a specialist ORG - run centre , child allowance , contact rights for ORG and rules for the child travelling abroad accompanied by either parent . She argued , inter alia , that the child \u2019s father was denying her contact with her son , and relied on LAW DATE on ORG ( \u201c LAW ) . In addition , she asked for legal aid on account of her limited financial resources and international judicial cooperation .","On DATE the Bistri\u0163a - ORG dismissed the proceedings and decided to examine its competence ratione loci of its own motion . It held that ORG had been granted sole custody of the child by the NORP courts and had moved to GPE , taking his son with him . Under the relevant NORP legislation , a parent entrusted with sole custody of a child had the right to take the child out of the country , even without the other parent \u2019s consent . Consequently , the child \u2019s departure to GPE had been , in principle , lawful . Moreover , after GPE joined ORG , the courts\u2019 jurisdiction in matters of recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility was regulated by LAW . Under LAW , matters of parental responsibility came under the jurisdiction of the courts of the child \u2019s ORG country of habitual residence . Under LAW , the courts of the Member State where the child was habitually resident prior to a wrongful removal retained jurisdiction until the child acquired habitual residence in another Member ORG . From DATE the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s habitual residence was in GPE , therefore , regardless of whether his removal from the country had been lawful or not , competence ratione loci for examining the applicant \u2019s application belonged to the NORP courts . The applicant appealed . She argued , inter alia , that the NORP courts had jurisdiction to examine the merits of her case as the parties to the proceedings were NORP nationals , the child had close connections to GPE , and ORG had implicitly accepted their jurisdiction by taking part in the proceedings and submitting observations .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It held that ORG had been granted sole custody and had therefore been entitled to lawfully decide on his son \u2019s residence without her consent . In addition , the child \u2019s habitual residence was in GPE , and the NORP courts therefore retained competence in respect of the proceedings . The NORP courts had previously examined the applicant \u2019s application for contact because in DATE ORG and the child had still been living in GPE . The exception provided for by LAW invoked by the applicant required , however , that the proceedings should have been opened before the competent NORP courts and to concern the administration of the child \u2019s property and not the child himself .","( d ) Criminal proceedings opened by the applicant against ORG","On DATE the applicant \u2019s legal representative opened criminal proceedings against ORG for obstructing the applicant \u2019s contact with her son and for his unlawful removal within the meaning of LAW on account of him being domiciled in GPE by ORG without the applicant \u2019s consent .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office dismissed the criminal complaint . It held that from the moment of her departure , the applicant had contacted her son only by telephone and there was no evidence that ORG had obstructed their conversations . It was noted that ORG and CARDINAL other witnesses on his behalf had been questioned . The applicant had not been questioned because she lived abroad and had informed the authorities that her financial situation prevented her from travelling to GPE .","On DATE the applicant challenged the prosecutor \u2019s office order of CARDINAL DATE to the hierarchically superior prosecutor . She argued , inter alia , that her chosen legal representative had failed to notify her of the order prior to CARDINAL DATE and requested that her appeal be considered as having been lodged in due time and allowed . Also , she argued that the prosecutor \u2019s office had wrongly assessed the evidence and had misinterpreted the applicable law . Moreover , she could have been interviewed by CARDINAL of the NORP police officers working in GPE through international judicial cooperation proceedings , but such proceedings had not been initiated in her case .","By a final order of DATE the hierarchically superior prosecutor attached to the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge as time - barred . It held , inter alia , that the relevant rules of criminal procedure did not provide for the possibility of a party \u2019s appeal being reinstated once the time - limit for a challenge against a prosecutor \u2019s order had expired . Moreover , the applicant could lodge a new criminal complaint against the child \u2019s father . It does not appear that the applicant appealed against that order .","On DATE the applicant brought criminal proceedings against ORG and other third parties for fraud , obstruction of justice , perjury and destruction of evidence committed during the custody proceedings . She stated that although the child \u2019s father was aware of her whereabouts , he had failed to inform the court of her correspondence address . Moreover , he and other third parties had committed perjury by declaring to the NORP authorities that she had abandoned her son and family home and that the father was the only parent raising and supporting him . Furthermore , she was being prevented by ORG and his new wife from enforcing the judgment recognising her contact rights .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed by the ORG police as part of the criminal investigation opened following her complaint of DATE . She insisted that the NORP authorities question ORG ; however , her request to have him questioned in GPE was allegedly refused .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed part of the criminal proceedings opened on DATE on the grounds that no unlawful act had been committed . The court referred the remaining complaints to the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office . The proceedings still appear to be pending .","( e ) Contact with other relevant authorities","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant asked ORG for legal aid in respect of all the proceedings required for the final resolution of her predicament , and informed them that she was unable to enforce her contact rights . Moreover , relying on LAW , she requested ORG to take all the necessary steps to have the NORP authorities acknowledge and enforce the judgment . She also asked the NORP authorities to ensure that her son was returned to GPE urgently and to provide them both with counselling so that they could rebuild their relationship .","On DATE ORG replied to the applicant , informing her that after GPE joined ORG , the courts\u2019 jurisdiction in matters of recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility between Member GPE was regulated by LAW . Under the Regulation , matters of parental responsibility , including contact rights , came under the jurisdiction of the courts of the child \u2019s ORG country of habitual residence . The NORP courts had retained their jurisdiction for changing contact rights from a national to an international level for DATE from the date the applicant \u2019s son had moved to GPE lawfully . After DATE had expired , the courts of the Member State where the child was habitually resident retained jurisdiction for applications concerning cross - border contact . In PERSON \u2019s case , jurisdiction was therefore retained by the NORP courts . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s son had left GPE lawfully , as under the relevant legislation in force at the time , a child accompanied by a parent granted full custody by a final court order could leave the country without the other parent \u2019s consent . In order to change her son \u2019s legal status , the applicant had to therefore lodge an application with the court which retained jurisdiction in order to be able to change her contact rights or to gain custody of the child . ORG was unable to represent the applicant or to intervene in the proceedings on her behalf . It was for the applicant and her potential legal representative to litigate the case . In addition , they stated that the NORP court which retained jurisdiction in the applicant \u2019s case was ORG . Lastly , they informed the applicant that given that she was living in GPE , she could notify ORG in order to organise and secure contact between GPE and GPE under LAW .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG for ORG to inform her about the status of an application lodged with ORG attached to ORG on DATE . Also , she asked for free legal assistance and support in order to overcome the challenges she had been facing . Moreover , she requested information on whether her son had been living lawfully in GPE , copies of the relevant documents granting ORG custody and the conclusions of any potential social investigation reports carried out at her son \u2019s home . Lastly , she stated , inter alia , that although she had been granted contact rights by the domestic courts , ORG had refused to allow her access to her son .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant through ORG attached to ORG that , according to an investigation carried out by ORG in GPE and a social investigation carried out by the NORP authorities , her son was residing legally in GPE with his father and his new family . The home they all lived in was large and clean . The child was attending kindergarten . His father \u2019s family was very attached to the child and he was able to develop well . Also , all of that information had been sent to the applicant \u2019s legal representative on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a certificate attesting that the applicant \u2019s son had his main registered domicile in GPE , in the town of GPE .","On DATE the Knittelfeld prefect \u2019s office produced a social investigation report in respect of the child \u2019s living arrangements at his home in GPE . The social workers who produced the report interviewed the child , his father and his stepmother . According to the report , the child arrived in GPE with his father in DATE . In DATE the child \u2019s father married another NORP national living in GPE . They all lived in a large and clean home . The child attended kindergarten and was well looked after by the family . According to ORG \u2019s statements , the child \u2019s mother left them in DATE and they had not had contact with her for DATE , although ORG had tried to find her . He raised the child on his own , and on DATE was granted full custody by the NORP courts . Afterwards , ORG left GPE with his son and settled in GPE . He remarried , and the child \u2019s mother contacted him soon afterwards because she wanted to see the child . She was allowed to see him on his birthday and spent DATE with him , but he no longer recognised her . She then did not contact them for some time , but in DATE she was granted contact twice a month at the child \u2019s home . She never took advantage of that opportunity , instead contacting her son by telephone DATE . She never expressed the desire to take the child to her home . The report concluded that the child was well integrated into his family and was being well looked after . He had the opportunity to develop well . Although his mother could contact him , there was no real bond between them because of their past relationship . As far as the child was concerned , his father was the main caregiver .","( a ) Proceedings regarding the applicant \u2019s contact rights","On DATE ORG came to FAC and informed the ORG that the mother had been granted contact rights by the NORP courts and that she had informed ORG that CARDINAL DATE she would take the child away to GPE for DATE . In DATE she had only seen the child once for TIME in his presence . The child did not know the applicant as his mother anymore and did not want to be away from his family . V.I.P. therefore requested FAC to allow the applicant only supervised contact at a child protection centre on DATE to be determined . Until a stronger motherchild bond was established the mother should not be allowed to take the child away . TIME statement made before FAC as well as his request were sent to the applicant .","The applicant misinterpreted the documents received as a court order prohibiting her from contacting her son .","On DATE the applicant came to GPE . She saw her son at ORG \u2019s home . According to the applicant , ORG and his wife used force and harmed her bodily to end the visit of her son . After DATE the applicant did not see her son anymore .","On DATE the applicant came to ORG and was heard by judge PERSON The judge informed the applicant that ORG had asked for her to only be allowed to see her son at a child protection centre , in his and an interpretor \u2019s presence . According to the applicant , the judge refused to accept any of the evidence she had had translated into NORP and notarised in respect of the contact rights she had been granted by the NORP courts . During the discussion with judge PERSON the applicant said that she would reach an agreement with ORG and she agreed to contact the child first via ORG . The applicant was asked to turn to the child protection centre for any visiting arrangements and an information brochure was handed out to her .","According to the applicant , she telephoned ORG DATE and was informed that a meeting could be set up between her and her son within DATE .","The applicant claims that she contacted the ORG again on DATE to enquire about the first meeting with her son . She stated that it was explained to her that she would have to bear the costs of a NORP social worker and that meetings had to be approved by judge PERSON","According to the Government , ORG would have been able to organise a NORP - speaking assistant , but the applicant and ORG would have had to bear the costs jointly .","According to the Government , ORG withdrew his application for a decision on the applicant \u2019s contact rights on DATE . However , they did not submit any documents to this effect .","The applicant submitted that she had had a meeting with the President of ORG on DATE , at which she had attempted to lodge an application for custody and contact with her son . She stated that she had tried to give the President an application for enforcement of the NORP judgments , and the certificate of enforceability dated DATE issued under LAW bis PERSON regarding the NORP judgments of DATE and DATE . According to the applicant , the President refused to accept the documents and referred her to PERSON , the judge in charge . However , according to the applicant , PERSON also refused to accept these documents and referred the applicant to ORG ) . According to the applicant , PERSON explained to her that she had no contact rights on the territory of GPE and that she would have to be represented by counsel in order to lodge a new application for contact . Furthermore , the applicant submitted that PERSON had informed her that she would have to accept ORG \u2019s refusal to allow her contact .","On DATE , the applicant sent a request with a number of documents to the President of the NORP ORG for the enforcement of her contact rights . On DATE the President of that court informed the applicant that as an administrative judicial body , it had no jurisdiction in the matter and had thus forwarded her written request and documents to ORG as the court with jurisdiction .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request to ORG to have the NORP judgments regarding her contact rights enforced . She enclosed the certificate of enforceability dated DATE issued under LAW .","On DATE the applicant applied for legal aid .","In DATE the applicant applied to ORG for additional contact . In addition , she asked for counselling sessions for her and her son and cross - border cooperation between GPE and GPE in order to enforce the contact rights granted by the NORP judgments . In addition , she requested legal aid and the presence of a translator in case she had to give evidence .","On DATE the court awarded the applicant legal aid in respect of any court fees or translation costs . However , she did not receive legal aid for a lawyer and , legal representation not being obligatory , was unrepresented in the course of the proceedings . The court also summoned the applicant and ORG to a hearing on DATE .","On DATE the hearing took place , at which ORG and an interpreter for the applicant were present . The applicant was not present .","Subsequently , on DATE , the same court dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for contact , inter alia because ORG had been living in GPE for DATE .","DATE . On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision , stating that she had never received a summons . She objected to judge PERSON and stated that she was seeking enforcement of the NORP decisions and was not requesting a new decision on her contact rights in GPE . She further stated that the child \u2019s father had taken an active part in the proceedings in GPE , and had been represented by a lawyer .","On DATE the ORG stayed the appeal proceedings while waiting for a decision on the objection .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection to Judge PERSON as unfounded . Judge PERSON had stated that she had seen no reason to exclude herself from the proceedings . She had only met the applicant once and had stated in that meeting that she mediated with parents to find an out - of - court solution for contact with the child . She also had no personal relationship with the child \u2019s father . The court found that the applicant had not given any specific reasons for her objection to the judge . The applicant did not appeal .","On DATE the ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal and quashed the decision of DATE . It found that the summons to the applicant had been sent to the wrong address in GPE . The proceedings had to be continued at the same level of jurisdiction with a hearing with the applicant to establish whether she was requesting enforcement of the NORP judgments in accordance with LAW or a declaration of enforceability of these judgments in accordance with LAW , or whether she wanted to apply for contact in GPE considering the current circumstances . ORG held that the latter was reasonable as ORG was living in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was summoned to ORG . An interpreter was present at this hearing . The applicant informed the court of an address in GPE to which any court documents could be sent . The transcript of the hearing indicates that the applicant stated that she did not want to speak on her contact rights , because she did not recognise the jurisdiction of the NORP courts , and that in her opinion there was nothing to clarify before the NORP courts . She only wanted the court to confirm the enforceability of the NORP documents that conceded her custody of her son and she only wanted the NORP courts to enable her to enjoy her existing rights . According to a file note , in the course of this hearing the applicant explicitly stated that although her last contact with her son had been in DATE she wanted to have the custody of her son , to live in GPE with him and the NORP courts had enabled her to do so . Judge PERSON informed the applicant that this would not be correct because in the present situation international and NORP law was applicable and that ORG had jurisdiction in the case . She informed the applicant several times that as the competent NORP judge she could decide on her contact rights , but only after having requested an expert opinion of a child psychologist . The applicant , after having first been happy about this possibility , then changed her mind and reiterated that she did not recognize the jurisdiction of the NORP courts .","The Government submitted that because the applicant had declared that she did not recognise the jurisdiction of GPE , ORG had interpreted this as a withdrawal of her application for contact and closed the file without any further decision . In any case the applicant did not take further actions to clarify the case , to obtain a decision on the execution of the NORP judgment in GPE or to get in contact with her son .","( b ) Proceedings regarding child support","On CARDINAL DATE ORG brought proceedings against the applicant before FAC , seeking child support starting from DATE until the child became financially independent .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG issued a temporary injunction against the applicant , ordering her to pay child support of ORG CARDINAL pending the outcome of the child support proceedings . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE . The applicant appealed on points of law ( PERSON ) .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as lodged out of time .","On an unspecified date the applicant contested the proceedings brought against her by ORG on CARDINAL DATE . She argued , inter alia , that the NORP courts did not have jurisdiction to decide on child support pending the outcome of the proceedings opened by her before the NORP courts . She also contested the lawfulness of the evidence obtained by the NORP authorities through the NORP courts in respect of her case and the lawfulness of her son being domiciled in GPE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed ORG \u2019s child support claim . It ordered the applicant to pay DATE child support of ORG CARDINAL from DATE until the child became financially independent , on the grounds that the applicant had sufficient income to pay that amount . It also lifted the temporary injunction delivered by the same court on DATE pursuant to which the applicant had had to pay ORG CARDINAL in DATE child allowance . It also held that LAW , NORP law applied to the present case , because the child \u2019s habitual permanent residence was in GPE . The applicant appealed on points of law on the grounds that the court had assessed the evidence incorrectly and she had fulfilled her obligations under the ORG judgment of DATE to pay child support , so she could only be ordered to pay child support from the date of the court \u2019s judgment . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the court had failed to consider the best interests of the child , as he did not have contact with her ; the court had also failed to take into account the parties\u2019 nationality when determining the lawful domicile of the child and the timelimit for the appeal on points of law .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as lodged out of time .","( c ) Other proceedings","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against ORG with ORG for unlawful residence in GPE . She argued that ORG was living and working unlawfully in GPE , had removed her son from GPE without her consent , and in spite of all the sets of proceedings she had brought before the NORP authorities to have her son returned to GPE , they had failed to assist her . In addition , relying on the provisions of LAW , she urged the NORP authorities to help her and take the measures required by law to protect her son .","According to the Government , the NORP public prosecutor \u2019s office discontinued the preliminary investigation against ORG on DATE . The applicant did not lodge a request to reopen these proceedings ( PERSON ) with ORG .","On an unspecified date , relying on most of the above - mentioned arguments , the applicant also asked ORG attached to GPE mayor \u2019s office to assist her with a social investigation in her son \u2019s case .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed the ORG that she was still unable to see her son .","The relevant legal provisions of LAW DATE on ORG , ratified by GPE and GPE , namely ORG DATE , are to be found in PERSON ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","The relevant provisions of ORG ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility ( known as \u201c the Brussels II bis Regulation \u201d ) read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . This Regulation shall apply , whatever the nature of the court or tribunal , in civil matters relating to :","...","( b ) the attribution , exercise , delegation , restriction or termination of parental responsibility .","The matters referred to in paragraph CARDINAL(b ) may , in particular , deal with :","( a ) rights of custody and rights of access ;","... \u201d","\u201c In case of wrongful removal or retention of the child , the courts of the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention shall retain their jurisdiction until the child has acquired a habitual residence in another Member ORG and :","...","( b ) the child has resided in that other Member ORG for a period of DATE after the person , institution or other body having rights of custody has had or should have had knowledge of the whereabouts of the child and the child is settled in his or her new environment and CARDINAL of the following conditions is met :","( i ) within DATE after the holder of rights of custody has had or should have had knowledge of the whereabouts of the child , no request for return has been lodged before the competent authorities of the Member ORG where the child has been removed or is being retained ;","( ii ) a request for return lodged by the holder of rights of custody has been withdrawn and no new request has been lodged within the time limit set in paragraph ( i ) ;","( iii ) a case before the court in the Member ORG where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention has been closed pursuant to LAW ;","( iv ) a judgment on custody that does not entail the return of the child has been issued by the courts of the Member ORG where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention . \u201d","\u201c A judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised in the other Member GPE without any special procedure being required . \u201d","\u201c A judgment relating to parental responsibility shall not be recognised :","...","( c ) where it was given in default of appearance if the person in default was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable that person to arrange for his or her defence unless it is determined that such person has accepted the judgment unequivocally ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . This Section shall apply to :","( a ) rights of access ;","... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The rights of access referred to in Article CARDINAL ) granted in an enforceable judgment given in a Member ORG shall be recognised and enforceable in another Member State without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its recognition if the judgment has been certified in the Member ORG of origin in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL .","Even if national law does not provide for enforceability by operation of law of a judgment granting access rights , the court of origin may declare that the judgment shall be enforceable , notwithstanding any appeal .","The judge of origin shall issue the certificate referred to in paragraph CARDINAL using the standard form in GPE ( certificate concerning rights of access ) only if :","( a ) where the judgment was given in default , the person defaulting was served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable that person to arrange for his or her defense , or , the person has been served with the document but not in compliance with these conditions , it is nevertheless established that he or she accepted the decision unequivocally ;","( b ) all parties concerned were given an opportunity to be heard ;","and","( c ) the child was given an opportunity to be heard , unless a hearing was considered inappropriate having regard to his or her age or degree of maturity .... \u201d","... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . A party seeking enforcement of a judgment shall produce :","( a ) a copy of the judgment which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity ;","and","( b ) the certificate referred to in LAW ) ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The enforcement procedure is governed by the law of the Member State of enforcement .","Any judgment delivered by a court of another Member ORG and declared to be enforceable in accordance with LAW or certified in accordance with LAW ) [ ... ] shall be enforced in the Member State of enforcement in the same conditions as if it had been delivered in that Member ORG .","In particular , a judgment which has been certified according to LAW ) [ ... ] can not be enforced if it is irreconcilable with a subsequent enforceable judgment . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The courts of the Member State of enforcement may make practical arrangements for organising the exercise of rights of access , if the necessary arrangements have not or have not sufficiently been made in the judgment delivered by the courts of the Member ORG having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter and provided the essential elements of this judgment are respected .","The practical arrangements made pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL shall cease to apply pursuant to a later judgment by the courts of the Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter . \u201d","\u201c In relations between Member GPE , this Regulation shall take precedence over the following LAW in so far as they concern matters governed by this Regulation :","( e ) LAW of DATE on ORG . \u201d","The relevant NORP law is set out in the cases of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . The role and responsibilities of the NORP local public authorities in respect of social assistance and child protection , as well as the relevant provisions of LAW ( no . CARDINAL ) , are described in the case of GPE , ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","DATE . As regards the relevant NORP law , it is noted that the applicant was not represented by counsel before the NORP courts . The court was therefore obliged to give her guidance on conduct and instruction on the law ( Anleitungs- und ORG ) . Under LAW of LAW ) the courts have to inform the parties about possible contentions and applications and guide them to take the appropriate steps . The courts have to inform parties not represented by counsel about possible actions and applications and the legal consequences of each step . They have to be instructed about the actions which are favourable to them . The instruction and guidance has to be noted in the transcript of the hearing ( PERSON \/ GPE , PERSON CARDINAL [ Rz CARDINALff ] ) .","According to the NORP practice concerning LAW , in the Member State of enforcement there is no examination under the ordre public , there being no proceedings through which the decision is recognised and declared enforceable ( ORG , ORG ( DATE ) Art CARDINAL EuEheVO , AnmCARDINAL ) .","The enforcement of decisions on contact rights is based on section CARDINAL of the Non - Contentious Proceedings Act ( Au\u00dferstreitgesetz ) . This provision also applies to the enforcement of decisions on contact rights under LAW . Section PERSON ) , taken in conjunction with section GPE ) , provides for the imposition of fines or imprisonment as coercive measures for contempt of court . As a more lenient measure , the court may also reprimand a party or threaten to take coercive measures .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that the court may refrain from continuing with the enforcement if and so long as it constitutes a risk for the well - being of the child ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178901","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KAVKAZSKIY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The background facts relating to the planning , conduct and dispersal of the public event at FAC are set out in more detail in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) and GPE v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY , DATE ) . The parties\u2019 submissions on the circumstances directly relevant to the present case are set out below .","On DATE a public event entitled the \u201c DATE of CARDINAL \u201d was held in central GPE to protest against the allegedly rigged presidential elections . The event had been approved by the city authorities in the form of a march followed by a meeting at FAC which was supposed to end at TIME The march was peaceful and held without any disruptions , but when the marchers arrived at FAC it turned out that barriers installed by the police had narrowed the entrance to the meeting venue allegedly restricting the space allocated for the meeting . To control the crowd the police cordon forced the protestors to remain within the barriers . There were numerous clashes between the police and protesters . At TIME the police ordered that the meeting finish early and began to disperse the participants . It took them TIME to clear the protestors from the square .","On DATE the GPE city department of ORG opened criminal proceedings to investigate suspected acts of mass disorder and violence against the police ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . On CARDINAL DATE the file was transferred to the headquarters of ORG for further investigation . On DATE an investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising acts of mass disorder ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined on DATE .","The applicant is a human rights activist and a lawyer of an ORG , ORG ( PERSON \u0437\u0430 \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0434\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 ) . On DATE he arrived at FAC to participate in the demonstration and during its dispersal kicked an unidentified police officer in the arm . After these events the applicant continued to live at his usual address and to pursue his normal activities , including taking part in authorised public events .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s flat was searched ; the police seized the applicant \u2019s clothes , domestic and international passports , other documents and his computer . On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having participated in acts of mass disorder on DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE on the following grounds :","\u201c The prosecution bodies suspect [ the applicant ] of having committed a serious offence punishable with imprisonment of over DATE .","... the court concludes that there are grounds to consider that [ the applicant ] , if at liberty , is likely to abscond from the investigation and trial , to act in person or through proxy with the aim of avoiding criminal liability , to continue [ his ] criminal activity , to destroy evidence and otherwise obstruct the investigation , which is at its initial phase .","Operational - search activities are now underway , aimed at establishing [ the applicant \u2019s ] possible connections with other active participants of the mass disorders which took place at FAC in GPE and its environs , therefore , if at liberty , [ he ] might co - ordinate his position with unidentified accomplices .","... No factual information excluding the detention of [ the applicant ] on health grounds has been submitted to the court . The court takes into account that [ the applicant ] may request medical assistance in the detention facility , if necessary ... \u201d","ORG dismissed an application by the applicant for an alternative preventive measure , such as house arrest , and stated that his state of health did not preclude him from detention . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order .","On DATE the applicant was charged with the offence laid down in LAW ( participation in mass disorder accompanied by violence ) and accused , in particular , of having kicked a police officer .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , having found that the circumstances that had justified the detention order had not changed . ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegations of lack of medical assistance in the remand prison as unsubstantiated . It stated that the applicant \u2019s state of health was satisfactory and did not warrant his release . On DATE ORG upheld the extension order .","On DATE GPE extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE on essentially the same grounds as earlier . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the extension order .","On DATE ORG examined a new application for an extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The applicant complained of exacerbation of chronic diseases in detention . He asked to be released on bail and presented personal guarantees from CARDINAL prominent public figures , including a human - rights activist , who vouched for him . On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . It considered that a milder preventive measure , including release on bail , would not prevent the applicant from obstructing the proper administration of justice . The applicant \u2019s allegations in respect of the deterioration of his health were dismissed ; the court relied on the medical statement from the remand prison , according to which his health was satisfactory . On DATE ORG upheld the extension order .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s criminal case was transferred to the ORG of GPE for the determination of criminal charges .","On DATE that court granted another extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , until DATE . The decision concerned CARDINAL defendants . Along with the seriousness of the charges , the court based its decision on the findings that \u201c the reasons which had initially warranted the detention have not changed \u201d and that \u201c no other measures of restraint would secure the aims and goals of the judicial proceedings \u201d . ORG upheld this extension order on DATE .","On DATE the ORG of ORG examined the supervisory appeal lodged by the Ombudsman of GPE . It rectified the extension orders of DATE and DATE , and DATE and DATE as well as ORG decision of DATE . The ORG found that the applicant \u2019s detention had been unjustified and that the detention orders had not been supported by relevant facts ; it also took account of his worsening health . The ORG lifted the detention order and placed the applicant under the house arrest until DATE under the following conditions : prohibition from leaving his house or changing his place of residence ; prohibition from communicating with co - defendants and witnesses ; prohibition from sending and receiving correspondence ; prohibition from using any means of communication . On DATE the applicant was released from pre - trial detention .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s house arrest until DATE . It referred to the seriousness of the charges and considered that as a human - rights activist the applicant could communicate with different authorities and persons and thus obstruct the course of criminal proceedings . On DATE ORG upheld this decision on appeal .","On DATE ORG passed LAW , which exempted people suspected and accused of criminal offences under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW from criminal liability .","On DATE the applicant applied for the termination of the criminal proceedings against him under LAW . On DATE the Zamoskvoretsky District Court granted his application and lifted the house arrest .","Prior to his detention , the applicant was diagnosed with an organic lesion of the central nervous system , hypertensive syndrome , tonsillitis , chronic gastritis , atopic dermatitis , osteochondrosis and dorsopathy ( back pain ) . According to the applicant , these diseases required regular medical supervision , diet and lifestyle adjustments .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in remand prison GPE in GPE . Upon his admission to the prison he underwent a health check which revealed no health issues except atopic dermatitis and scoliosis . The applicant provided the detention facility with his medical records which stated his chronic ailments .","On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination by a general practitioner ( \u201c GP \u201d ) . He was diagnosed with vegetative - vascular dystonia , dorsopathy , osteochondrosis , kyphoscoliosis , and first- or seconddegree obesity . He received a prescription for a special diet limiting intake of fats and quickly - absorbed carbohydrates .","The applicant was subsequently examined by a ORG on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , and DATE . The examinations revealed no negative dynamics in the state of the applicant \u2019s health ; the prescriptions for the special diet were renewed each time .","NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE the head of the GPE informed the applicant \u2019s father that chronic gastritis was not on the list of diseases which allow patients to receive additional nutrition .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer complained to the prison chief of the deterioration of his client \u2019s health , in particular , of his regular headaches , back pain and weight - gain . He alleged that the applicant had put on QUANTITY over DATE in detention and requested an inpatient medical examination .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist and received a prescription for treatment in relation to vegetative - vascular dystonia . At the regular check - up by a GPE on DATE the applicant stated that his condition had improved ; he was recommended to continue the prescribed treatment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer reiterated his application for a medical examination and asked to give the applicant access to a gym .","On DATE a medical commission composed of a ORG , an infection specialist , a surgeon and CARDINAL administrators examined the applicant and his medical history . In addition to the previous diagnoses , they established chronic liver disorder and recommended that he continue the special diet .","On DATE the applicant was temporarily transferred to the medical wing of IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . Upon his admission he was found to be suffering from second- or third - degree obesity ( at this stage he weighed QUANTITY and was QUANTITY in height ) and was prescribed the same diet as before .","In IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL the applicant underwent series of medical examinations and tests , including an abdominal ultrasound , a thyroid echography , an electrocardiogram , roentgenofluorography , X - ray examinations of his skull and spine , and blood tests . He was regularly examined by a ORG who adjusted the treatment according to the results of the tests . The applicant also had a consultation with a dermatologist .","NORP The public commission for the monitoring of detention facilities visited the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . According to the journal of their visits , the applicant did not complain of inadequate medical assistance in IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","The discharge summary ( \u0432\u044b\u043f\u0438\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u044d\u043f\u0438\u043a\u0440\u0438\u0437 ) from the medical wing of IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , issued on CARDINAL DATE , contained the results of the applicant \u2019s medical examinations . He was diagnosed with osteochondrosis , dorsopathy , fatty liver , hypercholesterolemia , vegetative - vascular dystonia , acne and first - degree obesity . The applicant received a prescription for physiotherapy and a special diet ; he was also recommended to undergo a magnetic resonance imaging procedure in relation to a suspected cerebral condition , which had to be carried out in a different hospital equipped with the appropriate scanning device . On DATE the applicant was transferred back to IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about the authorities\u2019 failure to carry out his medical examination to ORG of GPE . On DATE the ORG refused to examine this complaint .","The magnetic resonance imaging procedure had not been carried out before the applicant \u2019s release from the detention facility on DATE .","After release the applicant had a medical examination at the town hospital and a consultation with a prominent gastroenterologist . The doctor confirmed the applicant \u2019s previous diagnoses related to the digestive system and prescribed him medical treatment , a special diet and physical exercise .","The applicant \u2019s description of the conditions of detention during his transfer from the remand prison to court and back was identical to that in the case of GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","On DATE court proceedings began in hearing room no . CARDINAL and at DATE moved to hearing room no . CARDINAL of ORG . The defendants , including the applicant , were held in glass cabins in both hearing rooms , as described in GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) . From DATE the applicant was no longer placed in the glass cabin owing to a change in the measure of restraint for him ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183551","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LAE AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159782","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BERGMANN v. GERMANY","importance":2,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Heavier penalty;Conviction;Criminal offence)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in the centre for persons in preventive detention on the premises of FAC ( hereinafter the \u201c PERSON preventive detention centre \u201d ) .","DATE , the applicant was convicted by the criminal courts CARDINAL times . He was found guilty of sexual assault of a DATE girl and attempted rape of a DATE girl , committed under the influence of alcohol , and of attempted sexual acts with a DATE boy . He was found to have committed other unlawful acts , including arson and strangulating a DATE boy during a burglary , but was not held criminally liable because he had been drunk . He was sentenced , in particular , to terms of imprisonment ranging from DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of attempted murder , combined with attempted rape in CARDINAL case , and of CARDINAL counts of dangerous assault . It sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and ordered his preventive detention under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","ORG found that DATE and DATE , the applicant had stabbed a DATE female cyclist in the back in a life - threatening manner for sexual gratification ; had stabbed a male cyclist he had mistaken for a woman twice in the back and at the temple , again for sexual gratification ; and had stabbed a twentythree CARDINAL woman CARDINAL times in a life - threatening manner in an attempt to rape her . He had committed those offences under the influence of alcohol in a park in GPE . Still drunk , he had then broken into a house , strangulated a DATE girl and had injured her with a knife below the waist for sexual gratification . He was arrested on DATE .","Having consulted CARDINAL medical experts , ORG found that at the time of committing the offences , the applicant had been in a state of diminished criminal responsibility ( LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He was diagnosed with sexual deviance , a personality disorder and psycho - organic syndrome , which was probably a consequence of his longstanding alcohol abuse . As long as the applicant did not drink alcohol , those abnormalities did not affect his criminal responsibility as he was able to control his aggression . However , combined with the consumption of alcohol , they led to his criminal responsibility being diminished .","ORG decided to order the applicant \u2019s preventive detention under LAW of LAW . It considered that as a result of his personality disorder , the applicant had a propensity to commit serious offences which seriously harmed the victims both physically and mentally . As confirmed by the CARDINAL medical experts , there was a high risk that if released , the applicant would commit further violent offences for sexual gratification under the influence of alcohol , similar to those of which he had been found guilty . He therefore presented a danger to the general public .","Lastly , ORG decided not to order the applicant \u2019s detention in a psychiatric hospital under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court endorsed the experts\u2019 finding that the applicant \u2019s personality disorder could no longer be treated because his sexually deviant aggressive behaviour had lasted for DATE and because he would be unable to pursue psychotherapy in view of his limited intellectual capacity . Public security could therefore be better safeguarded by placing the applicant in preventive detention .","NORP The applicant served his full term of imprisonment , and on DATE he was placed for the first time in preventive detention , for which he was held in a wing of GPE prison . By DATE he had served DATE in preventive detention .","The courts responsible for the execution of sentences ordered the continuation of the applicant \u2019s preventive detention at regular intervals . In particular , ORG ordered the continuation of his detention on CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a chamber responsible for the execution of sentences , ordered the continuation of the applicant \u2019s preventive detention . ORG further ordered FAC authorities to offer the applicant , within DATE on which its decision became final , a specific anti - hormonal therapy with medication aimed at reducing his sadistic fantasies and his libido , and thus his dangerousness . The court had consulted ORG authorities and the prosecution and had heard the applicant in person as well as his counsel , who represented him throughout the proceedings before the domestic courts .","ORG considered that the requirements for ordering the continuation of the applicant \u2019s preventive detention laid down in the second sentence of section CARDINALf(CARDINAL ) of LAW to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had been met .","ORG confirmed that the said transitional provision was applicable to the applicant \u2019s case . It noted that at the time of his last offence on DATE , the applicant \u2019s first placement in preventive detention could not exceed DATE . It was only following the entry into force of ORG and Other LAW on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that the courts responsible for the execution of sentences could prolong preventive detention without any maximum duration . The applicant therefore fell within the category of detainees whose preventive detention had been prolonged retrospectively , as defined by ORG in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . ORG further noted that the second sentence of section CARDINALf(CARDINAL ) of LAW to LAW had regard to , and had taken up , the standards set up by ORG in the above - mentioned judgment for the continuation of retrospectively ordered or retrospectively prolonged preventive detention .","ORG considered that , in accordance with section CARDINALf(CARDINAL ) of LAW to LAW , the applicant suffered from a mental disorder for the purposes of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It endorsed the findings made on that point by PERSON , an external psychiatric expert it had consulted , in his report dated DATE . The expert had been obliged to draw up his report on the basis of the case files as the applicant had refused to be examined . Expert PERSON had confirmed that the applicant suffered from sexual sadism , a sexual deviance , and was addicted to alcohol , even though he had not drunk since being detained . ORG stressed that expert PERSON \u2019s assessment confirmed the findings made by a number of previous experts , notably those made in DATE and DATE by CARDINAL experts who had diagnosed the applicant with a sexual preference disorder with sadomasochistic , fetishist and paedophiliac elements and with an alcohol addiction without current consumption of alcohol .","Furthermore , ORG found that , as required by section CARDINALf(CARDINAL ) , second sentence , of LAW to LAW , there was still a very high risk that , owing to specific circumstances relating to his personality and his conduct , the applicant would if released commit the most serious sexually motivated violent offences , similar to those of which he had been convicted . Endorsing the findings of expert PERSON , in accordance with the above - mentioned previous expert reports , the court noted that the applicant had admitted to his sadistic fantasies but had been unable to address them through therapy . In FAC , he had stopped participating in any activities for persons in preventive detention . The ORG stressed that , in his assessment of the applicant \u2019s dangerousness , the expert had taken into consideration his advanced age of DATE . However , he had convincingly explained that the applicant \u2019s sexual deviance had not yet been considerably alleviated thereby . Furthermore , his alcohol addiction had not yet been treated adequately . However , the consumption of alcohol further increased the high risk that the applicant would commit sexual or violent offences again if released .","ORG considered that the prolongation of the preventive detention of the applicant , who had been detained for DATE , was still proportionate in view of the considerable threat he posed to the public . It noted in that context that the applicant \u2019s detention in a supervised residence , which it had suggested in its previous decision , was not possible in practice .","As regards the order issued by ORG , based on LAW , read in conjunction with LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL sub - paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE and DATE below ) , that FAC authorities offer the applicant specific anti - hormonal therapy , the court found that that order was necessary to guarantee the applicant sufficient care while in preventive detention . Expert PERSON had stressed \u2013 as he had already done in DATE that the prison authorities must at least attempt to treat the applicant , who was willing to undergo treatment with medication . The anti - hormonal therapy to be offered had proved to diminish sadistic fantasies and the libido , and could therefore reduce the applicant \u2019s dangerousness .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision , for which he submitted reasons on DATE . He argued , in particular , that his preventive detention , a penalty which had been prolonged retrospectively , failed to comply with the Convention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . Endorsing the reasons given by ORG , it confirmed that the requirements laid down in section CARDINALf(CARDINAL ) , second sentence , of LAW to LAW for ordering the continuation of the applicant \u2019s preventive detention had been met .","Taking into account the report submitted by expert PERSON , ORG held that the applicant was suffering from a mental disorder as defined in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . Referring to ORG case - law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , it found that a mental disorder under that Act did not require that the disorder was such as to diminish or exclude the criminal responsibility of the person concerned for the purposes of Articles DATE of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Specific disorders affecting a person \u2019s personality , conduct , sexual preference and control of impulses were covered by the notion of \u201c mental disorder \u201d in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . The applicant \u2019s sexual sadism and his alcohol addiction without current consumption of alcohol amounted to a mental disorder within the meaning of that provision .","NORP Moreover , there was still a very high risk that , if released , the applicant would commit the most serious violent and sexual offences , similar to those of which he had been convicted , owing to specific circumstances relating to his personality and his conduct . The applicant \u2019s dangerousness had not been reduced through therapy ; nor had he become less dangerous by his advancing age . He currently did not participate in any serious therapeutic activities and kept trivialising his offences . Moreover , expert PERSON had confirmed that his mental illness was difficult to treat . ORG further endorsed ORG finding that the applicant \u2019s continued detention was still proportionate , despite the considerable overall length of his detention .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against the decisions of ORG and ORG . He claimed that the order for the continuation of his preventive detention violated his constitutional right to liberty , read in conjunction with the constitutional right to protection of legitimate expectations guaranteed in a ORG governed by the rule of law .","The applicant argued that under ORG Rights\u2019 well - established case - law ( he referred to PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) , the retrospective prolongation of a person \u2019s preventive detention DATE a penalty DATE beyond the former DATE time - limit breached the prohibition on retrospective punishment under LAW and did not comply with sub - paragraph ( a ) of LAW . Moreover , his continuing preventive detention could not be justified under sub - paragraph ( e ) of LAW either . He did not suffer from a mental disease as required by that provision . In addition , the notion and scope of \u201c mental disorder \u201d under the applicable provisions of domestic law and in the domestic courts\u2019 case - law was unclear .","The applicant further stressed that ORG had recommended his placement in a supervised residence . In those circumstances , his continued preventive detention on the LOC of FAC was no longer proportionate . He conceded , however , that his detention in the new preventive detention centre on the LOC of FAC complied with the constitutional requirement to differentiate between preventive detention and detention for serving a term of imprisonment .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint without giving reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","On DATE ORG , civil section , ordered the applicant \u2019s placement in ORG under LAW . It found that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder for the purposes of LAW and that there was a high risk that , if released , he would commit further serious offences . On DATE ORG quashed that decision on the grounds that detention under LAW could only be ordered once the preventive detention of the person concerned had been terminated by a final decision .","On DATE ORG , in a decision reviewing the continuation of the applicant \u2019s preventive detention , ordered the continuation of the applicant \u2019s preventive detention . It noted that the applicant had repeatedly refused treatment with medication to diminish his libido .","On DATE ORG , having consulted medical expert PERSON , again ordered the continuation of the applicant \u2019s preventive detention under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , read in conjunction with section CARDINALf(CARDINAL ) , second sentence , of LAW to LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of ORG .","Until DATE the applicant had been held in preventive detention in a wing of FAC . He had participated in therapy with a psychologist DATE , but had then stopped that therapy . He had refused to participate in the alcohol addiction treatment programme offered to him or any other treatment measures .","On DATE the applicant was transferred with his consent to a wing of FAC for persons in preventive detention where a transitional concept had been adopted . The aim was to improve the available treatment options in the light of the duty to differentiate preventive detention and detention for serving a term of imprisonment , by reference to ORG Rights\u2019 judgment in PERSON v. GPE ( cited above ) and ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The applicant participated in group therapy sessions run by a doctor and in a social skills training course . He stopped attending the group for addicts and refused to take medication to reduce his libido for fear of side effects .","Since DATE the applicant has been detained in the new PERSON centre for persons in preventive detention , a separate building constructed on the premises of FAC .","NORP The conception of preventive detention in the centre was developed in order to comply with the constitutional requirement to differentiate between preventive detention and imprisonment , as defined in ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see CARDINAL and DATE below ) and as further specified in the newly enacted Article CARDINALc of LAW and in FAC ( see DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","Up to CARDINAL persons can be detained in the PERSON centre . Detainees are placed in apartment units measuring QUANTITY containing CARDINAL furnished rooms and a bathroom . With the exception of detainees posing a particular security risk , the detainees can move freely within the preventive detention building and on its outdoor LOC from CARDINAL TIME They may furnish and paint their rooms , to which they have their own keys . The rooms are equipped with a controlled access to the internet including e - mail , telephone , television , CD and DVD player and radio . There are common rooms for residential groups consisting of CARDINAL detainees , which include a kitchen , a dining room , a television room and rooms for games , handicraft work and exercise . The outdoor LOC , measuring QUANTITY , can be used for sports , recreation or gardening .","Persons in preventive detention in the PERSON centre may wear their own clothes . They can either take meals prepared by the centre \u2019s staff or prepare their own meals ( in which case they receive an allowance for purchasing food in the centre \u2019s supermarket ) . Persons in preventive detention may work , but are not obliged to do so . They may receive visits regularly .","According to information furnished by the ORG , at the relevant time the applicant was CARDINAL of CARDINAL persons detained in the PERSON preventive detention centre . In order to comply with the duty to provide the necessary therapy and care and to motivate detainees to participate in the relevant therapies and treatment , the centre \u2019s staff comprised CARDINAL psychiatrist , CARDINAL psychologists , CARDINAL social workers and CARDINAL members of the general prison service . The staffing situation was similar to that of ORG , situated in the same Land and where persons were detained under LAW .","Detainees are examined at the beginning of preventive detention in order to determine the necessary therapy and care . A personal treatment plan ( NORP ) is then drawn up .","According to the personal treatment plan drawn up for the applicant by the PERSON centre on DATE , it was noted that in the past , from DATE until DATE , the applicant participated in group sessions aimed at preventing detainees from relapsing into excessive alcohol consumption . He then stopped attending the meetings . He also regularly participated in group sessions at which detainees discussed their experiences during leave from detention . He stopped participating in those meetings in DATE too , arguing that the participants were not granted sufficient additional leave . In addition , he had motivation meetings with a psychologist DATE until DATE , when he stopped attending the meetings , alleging that the psychologist lacked experience . He took part in DATE residential group meetings from DATE until DATE , when he stopped attending the meetings , arguing that his treatment plan did not meet his expectations . He did not take part in any structured leisure activities and spent most of DATE alone watching television . He declined repeated invitations to take part in group sessions of the treatment programme for offenders . Thus , as from DATE the applicant no longer participated in any therapy measures . He proved reliable during leave from the detention centre under escort on a number of occasions .","According to the PERSON centre \u2019s treatment plan for the applicant of DATE and an internal note from a staff member of the centre , the applicant has refused regular and repeated offers to start a treatment with medication to reduce his libido , which had been recommended by expert PERSON in DATE , for fear of side effects . In DATE he showed willing for the first time to take up such treatment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5","7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","7-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168373","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MURE\u015eAN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in LOC .","On DATE an investigation was opened against the applicant for embezzlement , forgery and abuse of his official position as Minister for Agriculture . The criminal investigation ended on DATE with the applicant \u2019s indictment together with CARDINAL other co - accused .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of the above - mentioned crimes by ORG and ORG and sentenced to DATE imprisonment .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s appeal against the above - mentioned judgment was rejected with final effect by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG and ORG . The full text of the judgment became available to the applicant on DATE .","The applicant started serving his sentence in FAC on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he was transferred to LOC where he is currently serving his sentence . On admission to prison , the applicant was already suffering from type NORP diabetes , which was being treated with insulin , hypertension , ischaemic heart disease , biliary lithiasis and lumbar discopathy .","According to the report drawn up on the applicant \u2019s arrival in FAC on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was allowed to take with him to his cell , among other items , CARDINAL glucometer with CARDINAL test strips and needles as well as several drugs .","During his DATE stay in FAC the applicant was taken to the medical ward CARDINAL times . He was given a special diet for diabetics and was allowed to work . He was taken to diabetes specialists outside the prison system on several occasions where he was prescribed a special diet , medication and constant self - monitoring of his glycaemia level . According to the applicant \u2019s medical chart in FAC his glycaemia levels were measured CARDINAL , CARDINAL times per day at the prison \u2019s infirmary . Copies of the same medical chart also show that the applicant regularly received medication from the prison infirmary . On DATE his signature confirmed the receipt of CARDINAL drugs including vitamin C and omega CARDINAL .","Forensic medical examinations conducted in DATE and DATE concluded that the applicant \u2019s diseases could be treated within the prison system .","In LOC the applicant was examined at the prison \u2019s infirmary CARDINAL times DATE . In addition , he was taken for specialist diabetes and nutrition examinations at ORG CARDINAL times between CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","According to the Government \u2019s submissions and copies of the applicant \u2019s medical chart , throughout his detention in LOC the applicant was given , as needed and according to ORG prescriptions , insulin and drugs for his hypertension as well as neurotrophic , gastric protective , hypercholesterol and other drugs .","According to the information provided by ORG the applicant made no complaints concerning his medical treatment . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer was informed that the complaint against the applicant \u2019s placement in the closed prison regime had been rejected . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer was informed by ORG administration that the applicant could not be compensated for the work he had performed in detention with permission to leave the prison .","The applicant alleged that he had been transported in conditions which had not allowed him to take his insulin . In addition , the food provided during transport had not been adapted to his diabetes . The vehicles in which he had been transported lacked air conditioning and other prisoners had been smoking during the trips .","From the Government \u2019s submissions it appears that the applicant was transferred CARDINAL times between detention facilities , to the hospital or to the courts , in special vehicles ( ORG , ORG or ORG vans ) which were well - maintained and met the legal comfort requirements . They were fitted with windows , lights , heating and sunroofs . Some of them also had air - conditioning . The number of detainees transported never exceeded the number of available seats . Detainees were provided with food and water during transfers , and were allowed bathroom breaks . Smoking was strictly prohibited in the vehicles .","According to the information provided by ORG , the applicant was allowed to take with him his personal glycaemia kit and medication and was therefore able to measure his glycaemia . Moreover , during long drives a number of breaks were taken allowing the applicant to administer his treatment . As regards the food received during transport , the applicant was provided with a diabetic menu as follows : during transport to and from ORG the applicant received QUANTITY of biscuits , QUANTITY of cheese , CARDINAL egg and QUANTITY of bread ; during transport to and from FAC the applicant received QUANTITY of unsalted cheese , CARDINAL eggs , QUANTITY of processed poultry meat , QUANTITY of semi - white bread and QUANTITY of apples . Copies of the prison menus were submitted in support of these assertions .","According to the prison visits record the applicant often received food packages which included sweets , fruits and vegetables as well as bottles of juice , all of which he was allowed to take with him during transport .","The Government submitted that the prison authorities had received no complaints or requests from the applicant in connection with the conditions of transport ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181862","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MEHMET HASAN ALTAN v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Speediness of review);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained in GPE .","NORP The applicant is an economics professor and a journalist in GPE . Prior to the attempted military coup of DATE , he presented a political discussion programme on Can Erzincan TV , a television channel that was closed down following the adoption of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL , issued on DATE in connection with the state of emergency ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE leading up to the attempted coup , the applicant had been known for his critical views on the serving government \u2019s policies .","During TIME a group of members of the NORP armed forces calling themselves the \u201c Peace at ORG \u201d attempted to carry out a military coup aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected parliament , government and President of GPE .","During the attempted coup , soldiers under the GPE control bombarded several strategic State buildings , including the parliament building and the presidential compound , attacked the hotel where the President was staying , held the Chief of ORG hostage , attacked television channels and fired shots at demonstrators . During TIME of violence , CARDINAL people were killed and CARDINAL were injured .","DATE after the attempted military coup , the national authorities blamed the network linked to PERSON , a NORP citizen living in GPE ) and considered to be the leader of a terrorist organisation known as GPE \/ PDY ( \u201c ORG \/ Parallel State Structure \u201d ) . Several criminal investigations were subsequently initiated by the appropriate prosecuting authorities in relation to suspected members of that organisation .","On DATE the government declared a state of emergency for a period of DATE as from DATE ; the state of emergency was subsequently extended for further periods of DATE by ORG , chaired by the President , most recently with effect from DATE .","On DATE the NORP authorities gave notice to the Secretary General of ORG of a derogation from LAW CARDINAL .","On an unspecified date , the GPE public prosecutor initiated a criminal investigation in respect of suspected members of GPE \/ PDY . In addition , on the basis of LAW no . CARDINAL , he ordered restrictions on the right of the PERSON lawyers to inspect the contents of the investigation file or to obtain copies of documents in the file . In the course of the criminal investigation , the applicant was arrested at his home on DATE and taken into police custody on suspicion of having links to the media wing of the organisation in question .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s home was searched by police officers without his lawyers being present , as they had been prevented from attending the search on account of the state of emergency .","DATE , the applicant lodged an objection challenging his detention in police custody and seeking his release . On DATE the GPE magistrate \u2019s court dismissed the objection .","The applicant remained in police custody for DATE at the GPE police anti - terrorist branch . During DATE in custody , he was not permitted to speak to his lawyers .","On DATE , while at the police station , the applicant stated that he was asserting his right to remain silent .","On DATE he was questioned by the GPE public prosecutor on suspicion of attempting to overthrow the government or to prevent it from discharging its duties ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and of being a member of the FET\u00d6 \/ PDY terrorist organisation ( LAW ) .","The records of the questioning indicate that the applicant was accused of : ( i ) attempting to discredit an investigation into an alleged coup ( the \u201c PERSON \u201d case ) ; ( ii ) making certain statements serving the interests of GPE \/ ORG , in particular during a television programme broadcast on Can Erzincan TV on DATE , in the course of which , according to the public prosecutor , the terrorist organisation had sought to prepare the public for a military coup ; ( iii ) holding an account with ORG , a bank with alleged links to ORG \/ PDY ; ( iv ) avoiding a criminal investigation through the assistance of members of the national police suspected of belonging to ORG \/ PDY ; ( v ) visiting PERSON at his home in GPE and kissing his hand ; and ( vi ) having in his possession a GPE MONEY bill with an \u201c F \u201d serial number ( denoting the initial of the forename ORG ) . In reply , the applicant stated that he did not know any NORP army officers and had no links to the attempted coup . The comments he had made during the television programme in question had been intended as warnings to prevent future military coups . Regarding the bank account , DATE previously he had taught for DATE at a private university , which had asked him to open an account at the bank in question for payment of his wages . He added that he had not been aware of having avoided a criminal investigation through the assistance of certain suspected members of an illegal organisation , and that this was a matter to be taken up with the police officers allegedly responsible . Furthermore , he had visited PERSON as a member of a group of journalists , for purely professional reasons linked to his role as a journalist , and had never kissed anyone \u2019s hand . Lastly , the MONEY bill was of no special significance .","On DATE the applicant appeared before the GPE CARDINALth ORG and was questioned about his alleged acts and the accusations against him . At DATE the hearing , the magistrate ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention , having taken the following factors into consideration : the strong suspicions against him ; the nature of the alleged offences and the fact that they were among the offences listed in LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) \u2013 the so - called \u201c catalogue offences \u201d , for which a suspect \u2019s pre - trial detention was deemed justified in the event of strong suspicion ; the risk of absconding ; and the risk that alternative measures to detention might be insufficient to ensure the applicant \u2019s participation in the criminal proceedings . In the reasons for his decision , the magistrate noted the following : during the attempted military coup , members of GPE \/ ORG had used heavy weapons ; since DATE the organisation in question had been explicitly waging a campaign against the political authorities ; the members of GPE \/ ORG had attempted to force the government \u2019s resignation by discrediting it in public opinion , especially through judicial operations carried out DATE ; and the organisation had taken control of several media outlets with a view to achieving its aim . The magistrate further noted that during the television broadcast on DATE , the applicant had said : \u201c Within ORG , there is probably another structure , whose components outside GPE are closely observing and documenting all these events . It is not clear exactly when [ it ] will pull its hand out of the bag or how [ it ] will do so \u201d ( \u201c PERSON i\u00e7inde de muhtemelen QUANTITY bu geli\u015fmeleri d\u0131\u015f d\u00fcnyada daha fazla belgeleyen , izleyen bir ba\u015fka da yap\u0131 var . Onun ne zaman torbadan elini \u00e7\u0131karaca\u011f\u0131 , PERSON elini \u00e7\u0131karaca\u011f\u0131 belli de\u011fil \u201d ) . The magistrate concluded that there were suspicions that the contents of the applicant \u2019s statements about the political authorities had been intended to prepare the ground for a military coup and were not covered by freedom of the press .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection against the order for his pre - trial detention . In a decision of DATE the GPE CARDINALnd ORG dismissed the objection .","On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh application for his release . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the GPE CARDINALrd ORG rejected the application .","On various dates the applicant lodged further applications seeking his release pending trial . According to the documents produced by the parties , the applications were all rejected by the competent GPE courts , for example on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG in respect of several individuals , including the applicant , in particular accusing them , under LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL in conjunction with LAW of the CC , of attempting to overthrow the constitutional order , ORG and the government by force and violence , and of committing offences on behalf of a terrorist organisation without being members of it . The public prosecutor presented the following items of evidence against the applicant : CARDINAL articles written by him ; his comments during the television broadcast on DATE ; the fact that he had an account with ORG ; and the seizure at his home of GPE MONEY bill with an \u201c F \u201d serial number . He sought the imposition of CARDINAL aggravated life sentences and a sentence of up to fifteen years\u2019 imprisonment on the applicant .","On an unspecified date , the public prosecutor filed his submissions on the merits ( esas hakk\u0131nda m\u00fctalaa ) . He sought the applicant \u2019s conviction for the offences with which he was charged . Besides the evidence he had already submitted when the bill of indictment had been filed , the public prosecutor also produced messages sent by other suspected members of ORG \/ ORG via ORG , an encrypted messaging service allegedly used by members of that organisation .","During the criminal proceedings , the applicant denied having committed any criminal offence .","In a summary judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to aggravated life imprisonment , in accordance with LAW , for attempting to overthrow the constitutional order . The criminal proceedings are still ongoing in the national courts .","On DATE the applicant lodged an individual application with ORG . He complained that he had been placed in pre - trial detention on account of his articles and statements and alleged that this infringed his right to liberty and security and his right to freedom of expression and of the press . He also submitted that he had been arrested and detained for reasons other than those provided for by LAW . In addition , he complained that his detention in police custody had been unlawful and excessively lengthy , that he had had no access to the investigation file in order to challenge his pre - trial detention , that the magistrates ordering his detention had not been independent or impartial , that no hearings had been held following his applications challenging his continued pre - trial detention , and that the conditions of his detention were incompatible with the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment .","On DATE the Constitutional Court gave a judgment ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) in which it held , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , that there had been a violation of the right to liberty and security and the right to freedom of expression and of the press .","With regard to the applicant \u2019s complaint that his pre - trial detention was unlawful , ORG noted firstly that the evidence forming the basis for his detention had included : ( i ) an article entitled \u201c The meaning of ORG ( \u201c Balyoz\u2019un FAC ) , published in the ORG newspaper in DATE ; ( ii ) his statements during the television programme broadcast on Can Erzincan TV on DATE ; and ( iii ) an article entitled \u201c Turbulence \u201d ( \u201c NORP \u201d ) , published on his own website on DATE . After examining the substance of these items of evidence , ORG held that the investigating authorities had been unable to demonstrate any factual basis that might indicate that the applicant had been acting in accordance with the aims of GPE \/ ORG or with the purpose of preparing the ground for a possible military coup . ORG observed that , as well as having published the above - mentioned articles and made the statements in question , the applicant was accused of holding an account with ORG , having avoided a criminal investigation through the connivance of members of the national police suspected of belonging to ORG \/ ORG , and having in his possession a GPE MONEY bill with an \u201c F \u201d serial number . Addressing those allegations , ORG held , having regard to the applicant \u2019s testimony and line of defence , that no specific facts had been established that could refute his explanations , which were \u201c consistent with the normal course of life \u201d . Similarly , regarding the contents of the messages exchanged by other individuals via ORG , ORG held that the messages could not in themselves be regarded as significant indications that the applicant had committed an offence . Accordingly , it concluded that \u201c strong evidence that an offence had been committed \u201d had not been sufficiently established in the applicant \u2019s case . Next , ORG examined whether there had been a violation of the right to liberty and security in the light of LAW ( providing for the suspension of the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms in the event of war , general mobilisation , a state of siege or a state of emergency ) . On this point , it noted firstly that in a state of emergency , LAW provided for the possibility of taking measures derogating from the guarantees set forth in LAW , to the extent required by the situation . It observed , however , that if it were accepted that people could be placed in pre - trial detention without any strong evidence that they had committed an offence , the guarantees of the right to liberty and security would be meaningless . Accordingly , it held that the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was disproportionate to the strict exigencies of the situation and that his right to liberty and security , as safeguarded by LAW , had been breached .","However , having regard to the length of the applicant \u2019s detention and the documents available to it , ORG held that his complaint that he had been detained for political purposes , on grounds other than those provided for by LAW , lacked a sufficient basis .","With regard to the complaint concerning freedom of expression and of the press , ORG observed that the applicant \u2019s initial and continued pre - trial detention on account of his articles and statements amounted to interference with the exercise of that right . Taking into account his arguments regarding the lawfulness of his pre - trial detention , ORG held that such a measure , which had serious consequences since it resulted in deprivation of liberty , could not be regarded as a necessary and proportionate interference in a democratic society . It further noted that it could not be clearly established from the reasons given for ordering and extending the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention whether the measure met a pressing social need or why it was necessary . Lastly , it found that it was clear that the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression and of the press , in so far as it had not been based on any concrete evidence other than his articles and statements ( see paragraph CARDINAL of ORG judgment ) . Regarding the application of LAW , it referred to its findings concerning the lawfulness of his pre - trial detention ( as set out in paragraphs CARDINAL of its judgment \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and held that there had also been a violation of freedom of expression and freedom of the press as enshrined in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW .","With regard to the complaints concerning the lawfulness and duration of the applicant \u2019s detention in police custody , ORG held that he should have brought an action under LAW ( a ) of the ORG but had refrained from doing so . Furthermore , it noted that there was no information in the application or the appended material as to whether the applicant had lodged an objection under LAW of the ORG against his detention in police custody . Accordingly , it declared these complaints inadmissible for failure to exhaust the appropriate remedies .","As to the complaint of a lack of independence and impartiality on the part of the magistrates who had ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention , ORG dismissed it as being manifestly ill - founded , on the grounds that the magistrates were appointed by ORG and Prosecutors and were entitled to the same constitutional safeguards as other judges .","Concerning the applicant \u2019s complaint that he had had no access to the investigation file , ORG held that he had had sufficient means available to prepare his defence to the charges against him and challenge his pre - trial detention , in view of the contents of the detailed questions put to him during questioning by the public prosecutor and the magistrate , and the overall duration of the restriction on access to the case file . Accordingly , it declared this complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill - founded .","With regard to the complaint that no hearing had been held during the examination of the applicant \u2019s applications challenging his pre - trial detention , ORG found that there was no obligation to hold a hearing on each and every objection to pre - trial detention orders and their extension , and that where a person had been able to appear before the first - instance court considering the issue of detention , the fact that there was no hearing on a subsequent appeal did not in itself contravene the LAW since it did not breach the principle of equality of arms . ORG noted that the applicant and his lawyer had been present at the hearing on DATE , following which the applicant had been placed in pre - trial detention . It observed that he had lodged an objection against his detention on CARDINAL DATE , that the objection had been dismissed on DATE and that DATE had thus elapsed between his previous appearance in court and the dismissal of his objection . Taking this period into account , ORG considered that there had been no obligation to hold a hearing during the examination of his objection , and accordingly declared this complaint likewise inadmissible as being manifestly ill - founded .","Lastly , with regard to the applicant \u2019s complaint that the conditions of his detention were incompatible with the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment , ORG observed that he had not raised this issue with the enforcement judge . Accordingly , it declared the complaint inadmissible for failure to exhaust the appropriate remedies .","Having regard to its findings of violations , ORG held that the applicant was to be awarded CARDINAL NORP liras ( TRY \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and TRY MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of costs and expenses .","As the applicant was still in pre - trial detention on the date of delivery of its judgment , ORG decided to transmit the judgment to ORG so that it could take \u201c the necessary action \u201d .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer applied to ORG for his client \u2019s release .","On DATE , ORG rejected the application by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , on the grounds that it had not yet received official notification of ORG judgment . It held in addition that the summary judgment submitted by the applicant \u2019s lawyer did not contain any indication by ORG of a measure relating to the applicant \u2019s release .","In his opinion the dissenting judge stated that , in accordance with LAW CARDINAL of the LAW , ORG judgments were binding on the legislative , executive and judicial organs , the administrative authorities and natural and legal persons . Accordingly , where a violation had been found on account of a judicial decision , the relevant court was required to take the necessary action to redress the effects of the violation , pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . DATE on the establishment and rules of procedure of ORG ( \u201c Law no . CARDINAL \u201d ) . In his view , the only way of satisfying this requirement in the applicant \u2019s case was to order his release .","DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged an objection with a view to securing his release , submitting a copy of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE as published on the court \u2019s website .","In a decision delivered on DATE ORG , by CARDINAL votes to one , dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection and ordered the continuation of his pre - trial detention . In reaching that finding , it observed that ORG judgment had not been published in ORG as required by LAW .","In his dissenting opinion , the judge in the minority expressed the view that , since ORG judgments were binding and not subject to appeal , the applicant should be released pending trial without waiting for the judgment in question to be published in ORG .","On DATE ORG judgment on the individual application lodged by the applicant was published in ORG no . DATE .","On DATE , the GPE ORG examined of its own motion the question of the applicant \u2019s continued detention . Noting firstly that the examination of the merits of an individual application to ORG against a judicial decision entailed determining whether there had been a violation of fundamental rights and what measures would be appropriate to put an end to the violation , and secondly that grounds of appeal on points of law could not be examined by ORG in the context of an individual application , it found that ORG did not have jurisdiction to assess the evidence in the case file . On that account , ORG judgment no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was not in compliance with the law . ORG added that ordering the applicant \u2019s release as an automatic consequence of the judgment in question would run counter to the general principles of law , the independence of the courts , the principle that no authority could give orders or instructions to the courts , and the \u201c natural judge \u201d principle . Lastly , by CARDINAL votes to one , it ordered the continuation of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . In so holding , it took the following into account : the evidence before it ; the large scale of the attempted military coup ; the risk of the applicant \u2019s absconding ; the current state of the case file ; and the severity of the potential sentence in the event of a conviction .","The judge who had voted in favour of the applicant \u2019s release stated in a dissenting opinion that ORG judgments were binding and that ORG was thus required to comply with judgment no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . He pointed out that the only possible way for it to do so was to order the applicant \u2019s release .","On DATE the applicant lodged a further individual application with ORG . Relying on DATE , DATE and DATE of the Convention , he complained mainly that he had been kept in pre - trial detention despite ORG judgment of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145564","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF TSVETELIN PETKOV v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant got married . At the time of the marriage , the applicant \u2019s wife had an almost DATE son , who had been born on DATE and whose father had been registered as \u201c unknown \u201d . On DATE the applicant was registered as having recognised paternity in respect of that child .","The spouses apparently stopped living together DATE after their marriage and divorced in DATE .","In DATE the applicant brought a claim in court to declare his recognition of paternity null and void . In particular , he asserted that the declaration , with which the child had been recognised and which had been enclosed in the case file , bore a signature that was not his . ORG examined his case and found that the legal requirements for recognition of the child had not been met . More specifically , the applicant had not personally expressed his will to recognise the child before the ORG agent authorised to receive such declarations ; in addition , it had been established on the basis of an expert report during the proceedings that the signature on the documents with which the child had been recognised in DATE was not that of the applicant . The court declared the recognition of the child by the applicant null and void in a final decision of DATE , which entered into force DATE .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s former wife brought a claim on behalf of her child to establish the applicant \u2019s paternity . She asked the court to order gynecological and blood tests in the context of the proceedings . She indicated in the claim the applicant \u2019s \u201c permanent address \u201d as the address where he could be reached .","The applicant was not found at his \u201c permanent address \u201d when the authorities visited it once in DATE . According to a note by the summons officer , a neighbour had indicated that the applicant no longer lived there . The authorities proceeded by summoning the applicant with a publication in ORG in DATE . As he did not appear in court , a lawyer was appointed ex officio to represent him . The lawyer attended the court hearing before ORG which took place on DATE ; it appears that she had no contact with the applicant at any point in time , either before or after the hearing .","In a judgment of DATE ORG allowed the claim , declaring the applicant the biological father of the child . The court also held that the child was to carry the applicant \u2019s names ( as a patronymic and family name ) and determined a DATE amount of child maintenance which the applicant had to pay . The court remained silent on the request for blood tests made by the applicant \u2019s former wife . Instead , it based its findings on DATE of the child \u2019s birth and on testimony submitted by the applicant \u2019s former wife \u2019s cousin and aunt . The latter stated that , at the time of the child \u2019s conception , the mother had been in an intimate relationship only with him . The court held that this was sufficient to conclude that the applicant was the child \u2019s father . The applicant was also ordered to pay MONEY ( ORG ) in legal fees to each of the ex officio lawyers appointed by the court to represent him and the child respectively .","On DATE the ORG prepared CARDINAL notifications of the judgment , CARDINAL for the attention of the applicant and another for the attention of the child . The notification to the child was handed in person to the child \u2019s lawyer on DATE . As for the notification to the applicant , on DATE a court officer indicated on the court papers for notification that according to information from the applicant \u2019s neighbours he no longer lived at his \u201c permanent address \u201d and no new address was known for him . On DATE the court ordered that the notification be sent to the applicant \u2019s ex officio lawyer ; the latter was personally served a notice of the judgment on DATE . The notice indicated that an appeal against the judgment could be filed within DATE from the moment of notification . The applicant \u2019s ex officio lawyer did not appeal against the judgment and it became final .","The applicant found out about the judgment on DATE when he was informed , at his \u201c permanent address \u201d , of his obligation to pay child maintenance in accordance with a writ of execution following the DATE ORG judgment . A later certificate , issued on DATE by the bailiff service and enclosed in the case file , indicated that no payments had been received in connection with the writ .","On DATE , the applicant filed a request for reopening , relying on Article CARDINAL ( e ) and Article CARDINAL ( \u0436 ) of LAW in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He claimed in particular that he had been deprived of the opportunity personally to participate in the court proceedings in which he had been declared the father of the child .","ORG ( SCC ) examined his request for reopening . It observed that the applicant had only learned about the Sofia City Court DATE decision on DATE . It found his request for reopening procedurally admissible as lodged within the statutory time - limit . Nevertheless , the SCC rejected the request on the ground that the procedure for summoning him to the hearing had been observed , namely , attempted service at the applicant \u2019s last known address and publication in ORG . The ORG also noted that a legal representative had been appointed ex officio and had represented the applicant during the proceedings . The court concluded , in a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE , that the applicant \u2019s right to take part in those proceedings and to exercise his defence had not been infringed ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155104","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF COMPCAR, S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant company was established in DATE and has its registered office in LOC .","In DATE the applicant company bought real property registered on ownership certificate no . CARDINAL for the cadastral area of LOC in the city of ORG . The seller was a ORG - owned enterprise ( \u201c the seller \u201d ) acting through a receiver in insolvency .","Prior to the sale , in a decision ( uznesenie ) of DATE , ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) acting as an insolvency court had consented to the property being sold directly as opposed to through a public auction .","By way of an order ( opatrenie ) of DATE the insolvency court approved the sale of the property to the applicant company because it had fulfilled the conditions for the sale as set out in the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It observed that the proposed price was adequate in view of all the circumstances , including the fact that there were municipal and other roads situated on the land in question .","The order of DATE was not amenable to appeal . It became final and binding on DATE as it was issued .","On DATE the sale was registered in the land registry . The title to the property was thereby effectively transferred to the applicant company .","The seller was subsequently dissolved and struck out of the companies register , whereby it ceased legally to exist .","NORP On DATE GPE ( \u201c the claimant \u201d ) brought an action against the applicant company seeking a ruling that it was the owner of the property .","The claimant argued in principle that , by mistake , the property had not been registered as its own ; that accordingly it did not belong to the seller ; and DATE consequently \u2013 the sale had been void .","The action was examined and dismissed on DATE by ORG s\u00fad ) and , following an appeal lodged by the claimant , on DATE by ORG .","ORG held a hearing and took complex documentary evidence and oral submissions from the parties .","Both courts unanimously concluded that there was a non - rebuttable legal presumption , under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as applicable at the relevant time ) , that the property belonged to the insolvency estate and could be lawfully sold to third parties unless its exclusion from the estate had been claimed by way of a special action ( vylu\u010dovacia \u017ealoba ) , which had not happened in the present case . The applicant company had acquired the property in good faith and the present action could not be used to contest that .","The dismissal of the action became final and binding on DATE .","On DATE the claimant filed a petition with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) requesting the latter to exercise his discretionary power to challenge the above - mentioned judgments by way of an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( mimoriadne dovolanie DATE \u201c extraordinary appeal \u201d ) .","Having decided to accede to the request and acting through his First Deputy , on DATE the ORG challenged the contested judgments in ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) .","He argued that the courts had erred in applying the said legal presumption which , in his view , only applied if the party concerned had been invited by the insolvency court to seek the exclusion of the property in question from the insolvency estate by the special action mentioned above and if that party had failed to act on the invitation . This had however not been the case in the present situation . Moreover , the ORG argued that both the seller \u2019s receiver in insolvency and the insolvency court should have flagged up and treated the property as contentious , especially in view of the fact that there were public roads on it .","The applicant and the claimant were both given an opportunity to comment .","On DATE ORG quashed the challenged judgments and remitted the case to the first - instance court for a new determination .","It referred to a precedent of DATE in case no . CARDINALCdo CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which had been published in the \u201c Collection of Standpoints of the Supreme Court \u201d in DATE ( issue CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , item CARDINAL ) , according to which there were conditions attached to the legal presumption applied by the lower courts . The present case fell within CARDINAL of the exceptions .","In particular , ORG concurred with the ORG \u2019s argument that the presumption only applied on condition that the party concerned had been invited but had failed to seek to have the disputed items excluded from the insolvency estate .","However , according to ORG , there was an exception to that condition , in that the latter would only apply if there were circumstances casting doubt on whether the disputed items rightfully fell within the insolvency estate .","ORG found that , on the facts of the present case , the claimant had not been invited to seek to have the plots in question excluded from the estate . Moreover , there were reasons to doubt whether the seller had actually been the owner of those plots and whether the property had belonged to the seller \u2019s insolvency estate .","As the receiver and the insolvency court had failed to flag up the property as being contentious , the presumption was not applicable and the sale contract was void .","Moreover , in ORG assessment , in view of the circumstances , the applicant company could not be considered as having been the bona fide purchaser of the property .","The contested judgments were therefore wrong in law and had to be quashed .","Since then the case has been pending at the first instance .","On DATE the applicant company lodged a complaint under LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) .","The applicant company relied , inter alia , on LAW and challenged ORG decision .","In particular , it contended that ORG had wrongfully reexamined the lawfulness of the insolvency court \u2019s order of DATE , which was impermissible outside the framework of the insolvency proceedings . In any event , an extraordinary review of that order was also impermissible on account of the expiry of the applicable time - limits . In addition , the re - examination of that order was impermissible because it was in breach of the principle of res judicata .","Lastly , the applicant company disagreed with ORG findings on the merits .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill - founded . It found no constitutionally relevant arbitrariness , unfairness or irregularity in ORG decision and reasoning or in the underlying procedure .","It added that , in so far as the applicant company could be understood as wishing to rely on the principle of res judicata with regard to the original insolvency proceedings , this principle did not apply in the present case because the insolvency proceedings had concerned the seller and not the claimant . Any rulings made in the insolvency proceedings therefore did not restrict the claimant from pursuing its own claims in the action at the origin of the present case .","ORG decision became final and binding on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142970","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MAVRI\u010c v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Ig .","On DATE the police fined the applicant MONEY ( ORG ) for verbally and physically assaulting GPE The applicant lodged a request for judicial review in which he contested the finding of the police that he had hit GPE in the head . He requested that he and CARDINAL witnesses who had been present on the spot at the time of the alleged commission of the minor offence be heard .","On DATE ORG heard the CARDINAL witnesses proposed by the applicant , a police officer and another witness . On the basis of their submissions it rejected the applicant \u2019s request for judicial review .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining that because ORG had failed to inform him and his lawyer of the hearing , he could not examine the witnesses and did not have any opportunity to be heard .","On DATE ORG rejected the constitutional appeal as inadmissible ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173780","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF J.M. AND OTHERS v. AUSTRIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE . From DATE until DATE he was Minister ( PERSON ) of ORG of GPE ( PERSON ) . He was also head of ORG in LOC ( \u00d6sterreichische Volkspartei K\u00e4rnten \u2013 \u00d6VP K\u00e4rnten ) , which was coalition partner of ORG , ORG ) under the leadership of GPE","The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG . He studied law and worked as a lawyer before becoming an employee of the ORG ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) in DATE . In DATE he became a board member of that bank . In DATE he became a member of the board of PERSON Landes- und ORG ( hereinafter referred to as \u201c PERSON \u201d ) .","The third applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He studied law and worked as a lawyer before becoming an employee of the law department of ORG in DATE . In DATE he was appointed head of that department . In DATE he became a member of the board of the ORG .","The PERSON is a corporate body governed by public law ( PERSON ) . It was set up to manage the estate of ORG considering its interests ( unter Ber\u00fccksichtung der ORG ) . PERSON is liable as a guarantor in the event of PERSON \u2019s insolvency .","The PERSON is governed by a board of management ( ORG ) , consisting of CARDINAL people , which represents it . The board is supervised by a supervisory body ( GPE ) , which appoints the board \u2019s members and participates in special commercial transactions specified by the law . The supervisory body itself is appointed by ORG of GPE and is composed of representatives of the political parties to the regional parliament ( GPE ) .","It is the task of CARDINAL member of the regional government DATE the commissioner ( ORG ) , a position defined by the relevant law \u2013 to monitor the supervisory board . He or she has the power to appeal against decisions of the supervisory board if they run counter to the interests of the Land .","On DATE ORG was disjoined from ORG and became a public limited company ( Aktiengesellschaft ) . The majority of its shares were held by PERSON until DATE . Following an increase in capital stock at DATE , ORG still owned PERCENT of the shares .","DATE Regional Governor and Head of ORG of GPE was GPE","NORP In DATE , as Governor of GPE , GPE was the commissioner . The first applicant was chairperson of the supervisory board of the PERSON .","After careers as managers in ORG , the second applicant and the third applicant were appointed as members of the board of management of ORG .","NORP In DATE ORG showed an interest in taking over GPE by buying a certain number of its shares . The ensuing negotiations involved GPE and the first applicant as the political leaders of ORG of GPE , the head of the management board of ORG , the head of another shareholder , as well as an investors group . The main negotiations were carried out by investment banks and law firms . GPE and the first applicant appointed PERSON , an accountant and financial consultant ( ORG ) based in PERSON , GPE , to take part in and supervise the negotiations .","NORP The board of management of ORG itself was not informed and did not participate in the negotiation process . Not only did it not appoint PERSON but it was not informed about his mandate . It was informed about the negotiation process just a short time before the signing of the contract . PERSON \u2019s mandate was not communicated to it .","The ORG management board had to sign the contract for the transfer of the shares and the supervisory board had to authorise the transaction in advance . On CARDINAL DATE the supervisory board was informed by the first applicant on behalf of the management board , and the deal was confirmed by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL . The contract was signed on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE all the legal arrangements necessary for finalising the transaction were completed . ORG bought PERCENT of the shares previously held by ORG for MONEY ( ORG ) .","In a plenary debate of the NORP ORG on DATE , PERSON stated that the costs of the consultation service connected to the share deal would not exceed LAW .","NORP In DATE the first applicant and GPE informed the second applicant that they had entrusted PERSON with supervising the negotiations on behalf of PERSON and that he was entitled to a fee of PERCENT of the total sales profit ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . They said that ORG should pay that fee . The second applicant informed the third applicant , and on DATE they both presented PERSON \u2019s claim for fees as reasonable to the supervisory board of ORG . The lawfulness of the claim was a matter of discussion at the supervisory board meeting . No final conclusion was reached in that regard .","After the meeting of the supervisory board , the media reported on PERSON \u2019s claim and expressed doubts as to his contribution to the negotiation process and the amount of the fee . Following the media coverage and the discussion at the supervisory board \u2019s meeting , the ORG management board ( the second applicant and the third applicant ) commissioned lawyers and legal experts and asked them to confirm the appropriateness and reasonability of the claim for fees .","Three external legal experts examined the case put before them . They assessed the risk of civil claims being raised and the potential consequences under criminal law , under the explicit assumption that the bill for PERSON \u2019s services was reasonable . The core question \u2013 whether PERSON \u2019s claim for fees was reasonable DATE was to be answered by another CARDINAL external experts . CARDINAL of those experts , however , informed the second applicant , the third applicant and their lawyers that he would not conclude that the claim for fees was reasonable . According to a note of DATE written by a lawyer appointed by the second and the third applicant , they tried to persuade the privately commissioned expert in a telephone conversation to make several changes to his report and to declare that the fees were reasonable . The expert refused to do so . In the end , he agreed to delete CARDINAL paragraph which had stated that the services provided by PERSON were not equivalent to those of an investment bank .","As the media controversy did not cease and the expert had not confirmed the reasonableness of the fee , PERSON agreed in talks with GPE and the first applicant to reduce his claim for fees by CARDINAL . The expert was then asked to amend his report and in DATE he concluded that a fee of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL could be considered reasonable considering the fees generally charged by investment banks .","Based on this expert \u2019s report , the supervisory board discussed the payment of the fee at its meetings held on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and finally agreed to the payment by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL .","On DATE the third applicant ordered the payment of ORG CARDINAL to PERSON On DATE the second applicant and the third applicant ordered the payment of the remaining amount to PERSON","The share deal was the subject of intense debate within the NORP ORG and the NORP Regional Parliament , as ORG head office was in GPE . That led to parliamentary enquiries ( LOC ) in both parliaments .","The NORP branch of ORG of GPE ( SP\u04e6 K\u00e4rnten ) and ORG , a Member of ORG , lodged separate criminal complaints ( PERSON ) against GPE , the first applicant and PERSON In DATE the public prosecutor opened preliminary proceedings against GPE , the first applicant and PERSON for breach of trust and fraud .","On DATE the second applicant and the third applicant submitted CARDINAL expert reports indicating that the fees claimed by PERSON for his services in the negotiation process had been appropriate and reasonable .","J.H. , the first applicant and PERSON gave statements to the public prosecutor and refuted the accusations .","On DATE the second applicant and the third applicant gave statements and submitted a contract of DATE concluded between GPE , the first applicant , PERSON and PERSON in which PERSON had reduced his claim for fees from ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL to FAC .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor closed the preliminary proceedings . The investigations against NORP were closed because he had died on DATE . The preliminary proceedings against the first applicant and PERSON for breach of trust were closed because a new contract had been concluded fixing a lower fee and the expert reports submitted by the accused had indicated that the claim for fees was appropriate and reasonable . The proceedings against the first applicant for perjury ( ORG ) committed at a hearing of the parliamentary enquiry carried out by the NORP ORG were closed because it could not be proved that he had intended to commit that crime .","On DATE PERSON filed a request for the reopening of the preliminary proceedings .","On DATE the ORG rejected the request for the reopening of the preliminary proceedings .","On DATE , CARDINAL people lodged criminal complaints with ORG ( PERSON ) . They accused all of the GPE public prosecutors of abuse of authority . They asked for the reopening of the preliminary proceedings and the transfer of the case to another public prosecutor \u2019s office . ORG transferred the file to ORG ) ( \u201c the KStA \u201d ) . The KStA conducted an investigation , closed the preliminary proceedings against the public prosecutors and transferred the file to the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office , proposing the reopening of the preliminary proceedings .","On DATE the public prosecutor reopened the proceedings against the first applicant and PERSON On DATE the investigations were extended to the second applicant and the third applicant for breach of trust .","On DATE the public prosecutor appointed ORG as an expert in the preliminary proceedings and instructed him to submit a report dealing with the following questions :","\u201c - whether the services of PERSON as described in a letter of DATE and the progress report of DATE were comparable to the services normally offered by an investment bank in similar circumstances","- what fee was appropriate and reasonable for the services PERSON had provided . \u201d","The accused were informed about the appointment of the expert and told that they could object to his appointment within DATE . The applicants did not object . At an unspecified date the case file was transferred to GPE","On DATE ORG delivered his expert report . The report stated that the services provided by PERSON were not comparable to the services of an investment bank and that a fee of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL would be appropriate and reasonable for the services provided by PERSON","The report was served on the applicants .","On DATE , the second applicant submitted reports by CARDINAL court - approved experts which he had commissioned on a private basis . The private expert reports stated that fees of PERCENT of the sum of the transaction were reasonable for the services provided by an investment bank when negotiating a share deal in a similar situation . The services provided by PERSON could in part be seen as those of an investment bank . The second expert certified that PERSON had carried out PERCENT of the activities normally carried out by an investment bank . Those expert reports were transmitted to ORG for further consideration .","On DATE PERSON commented on the private expert reports submitted by the second applicant . He said that he had examined carefully the findings of the CARDINAL experts and that the methods used to assess which activities PERSON had been involved in within the negotiations were not plausible . ORG \u2019s comment was served on the accused .","On DATE the third applicant submitted another expert report by a court - approved expert which he had commissioned on a private basis to counter the findings of GPE The expert report stated that ORG had overstepped his competence by weighting the evidence . He had also not fulfilled the formal requirements of an expert report . The calculation of LAW as a reasonable fee was criticised as wrong .","On DATE that expert report was sent to ORG for further consideration and , if necessary , amendment of his report .","On DATE PERSON commented on the expert report commissioned by third applicant and concluded that there was no need to alter his findings . His comment was submitted to the accused .","On DATE PERSON submitted another expert report which its supervisory board had commissioned from a private limited company . The report examined the liability of the board members under civil law and concluded that the second applicant and the third applicant could not be held liable for their actions under civil law .","On DATE the second applicant commented on that expert report .","On DATE the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment , charging the second applicant and the third applicant for breach of trust under LAW and the first applicant and PERSON for aiding and abetting in breach of trust . Based on the expert \u2019s report prepared by ORG , the public prosecutor claimed that the applicants and PERSON knew that only a fee of a maximum of LAW was reasonable for PERSON \u2019s assistance in the negotiation process , but had nevertheless instructed PERSON to pay a fee of ORG CARDINAL . Therefore they had caused damage amounting to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","ORG sent out summonses and appointed PERSON as official expert to the trial .","All the applicants and PERSON submitted statements disputing the contentions of the public prosecutor but none of them appealed against the bill of indictment . The second applicant submitted CARDINAL reports by private experts commissioned by the accused in the preliminary proceedings and requested that CARDINAL of those experts be summoned as official experts to the trial .","On DATE the trial started .","After several hearings PERSON conceded on DATE that the findings of the official expert , ORG , were correct inasmuch as his services to the negotiation process had not corresponded to a fee of ORG CARDINAL but only to a fee of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . He further stated that , in his view , the second applicant and the third applicant had known at the relevant time that his fee was inappropriate and unreasonable . Also , his bill had been established together with the second applicant in DATE when the latter had stated that he needed documentation to present to the supervisory board of ORG .","The applicants disputed PERSON \u2019s confession and argued that the fee paid to him had been reasonable .","On DATE the third applicant asked the court not to include the expert report of ORG in the case file . He argued that ORG had to be treated as a witness for the prosecution and not as an impartial expert assisting the court . Moreover , ORG was a professional lawyer and university professor in GPE and not registered in GPE as an expert for book - keeping , cost accounting or financial auditing in the list of court appointed experts and therefore lacked the necessary expert knowledge for assessing whether the remuneration of PERSON had been appropriate . Lastly he submitted that ORG had been biased because in the course of the preliminary investigations he had answered questions of assessment of evidence and questions of law . Should the court not appoint another official expert for the trial , the third applicant requested that the privately commissioned expert reports presented to the court be included in the file . He also requested that the experts who had drawn up those reports be summoned for questioning as official experts in the trial . The other applicants joined those requests .","ORG dismissed all the requests . As regards the challenge for bias of GPE and the request not to hear him as expert or to read out his report , it found that from the case file and the evidence collected hitherto it did not appear that there were reasons for considering him as being biased . Since ORG had been summoned to the hearing by the trial court , he had at the same time been appointed as expert by that court . As regards the argument that he had answered questions of assessment of evidence and questions of law in the preliminary proceedings , the court found that , even assuming that this had been the case , such statements had to be disregarded by the court . As regards the private experts commissioned by the applicants as court appointed experts ORG pointed out that only after having examined and discussed the report by the court appointed expert , the necessity of appointing other experts could be decided .","NORP The public prosecutor extended the charge , claiming that the damage caused by the accused amounted to LAW .","On DATE , PERSON confessed that in DATE , after his bill had been paid by ORG , the first applicant had asked him to share the money with him and PERSON had handed over part of the payment to the first applicant . Other leading members of the Alliance for the Future of GPE party had asked for money as well .","At the same hearing , the first applicant conceded that after the deal with ORG had been concluded , he and PERSON had decided that part of PERSON \u2019s fee should be used to finance ORG in LOC and the Alliance for the Future of GPE party . He further confessed that he had received a portion of the fee from PERSON","The second applicant and the third applicant maintained their initial statements and claimed that they had acted in good faith without knowing that PERSON \u2019s fees were not reasonable .","On DATE PERSON was heard by the court . He gave a brief summary of his written expert report and answered the questions raised by the court and the parties to the trial . While PERSON was being questioned , an expert commissioned by the defence sat next to the applicants\u2019 lawyers and advised them but was not allowed to question GPE on his own . There is no indication that ORG took part in any other hearing or put questions to witnesses or the accused .","After the questioning of ORG , the applicants and their co - accused reiterated their request to appoint another official expert . In their view , the answers given by ORG had shown that his expert report was deficient . They further argued that the appointment of another expert was necessary because ORG had to be considered as a witness for the prosecution and not as an impartial expert assisting the court .","The court dismissed those requests .","On DATE the ORG reached a verdict . It convicted the accused as charged and sentenced the first applicant to DATE , the second applicant to DATE , the third applicant to DATE and PERSON to DATE of imprisonment . In addition , they were ordered to repay ORG CARDINAL plus interest to ORG for compensation . ORG found that the services provided by PERSON in the negotiation process only corresponded to fees in the amount of ORG CARDINAL and that the second applicant and the third applicant had been aware of that fact but had breached their obligation of diligence by authorising the payment of ORG CARDINAL to PERSON As the first applicant had asked them to authorise the payment , he was guilty of abetting them .","The applicants lodged pleas of nullity and appeals against the sentence . PERSON also lodged an appeal against the sentence . The public prosecutor appealed against the sentences imposed on the second applicant , the third applicant . and PERSON","In their pleas of nullity the applicants , relying on Article CARDINAL subparagraph CARDINAL of LAW ( Strafprozessordnung , hereinafter referred to as ORG ) , stated that ORG should have appointed another official expert . The proceedings had made it clear that ORG \u2019s expert report had been deficient . ORG had been appointed by the public prosecutor and had delivered the basis for a bill of indictment , which showed that he was biased . ORG had to be considered as a witness for the prosecution and not as an impartial expert assisting the court . Moreover , under LAW ORG a challenge for bias against an official expert could not be made on the grounds that he had previously been appointed as official expert in the preliminary investigations . They argued that this provision was not in line with the right to a fair trial under LAW , as they did not have a real chance to counter ORG \u2019s expert report . This was aggravated by the fact that the expert reports commissioned by the applicants and their co - accused and submitted to the trial court had not been admitted to the file and the experts had not been summoned as requested . They therefore asked ORG to request a review of the constitutionality of LAW ORG by ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 pleas of nullity and the appeals of the second applicant and of the public prosecutor , but partly granted the appeals of the first applicant , the third applicant and PERSON The sentence imposed on the third applicant was added to a sentence previously imposed on him on of DATE ( ORG ) , and the sentences imposed on the first applicant and PERSON were reduced to DATE and DATE of imprisonment respectively .","With regard to the alleged violation of LAW , ORG found that LAW ORG should in general ensure that CARDINAL different official experts were not appointed in the preliminary proceedings and the trial , as this would result in delays in the proceedings . LAW CARDINAL of the ORG did not exclude a challenge for bias , except when it was merely argued with the fact that the expert had been appointed previously in the preliminary proceedings . The requests to appoint another expert had been dismissed by the court not on the grounds of LAW ORG but for other reasons . In fact , it had dismissed the requests because the applicants had not given valid reasons for their bias challenge . It had not been shown that the expert had a close relationship with the public prosecutor that would cast doubts on his objectivity .","NORP Moreover , the neutrality of the expert was ensured as he or she was obliged by law to act in an objective manner . His or her findings had to be based on facts established using scientific methods and principles . Criminal law ( perjury ) as well as the provisions on challenge for bias would ensure that his or her findings and conclusions were in accordance with the law . The expert was not part of the public prosecutor \u2019s office , and the results of the proceedings had no effect on his or her payment . In the event of a dispute between the public prosecutor and the accused about the amount of the expert \u2019s fees , it was up to the court to fix the amount and to pay the expert .","DATE . ORG also reasoned that in preliminary proceedings as well as in a trial , an accused could address written questions to the official expert and question him or her in court and , in so doing , the accused could be assisted by a privately appointed expert . ORG noted that the applicants had made use of this opportunity . In that way , the accused had an opportunity to show that the official expert \u2019s report contained errors or shortcomings . If those errors or shortcomings could not be corrected by the official expert , the court had to dismiss him or her and appoint another expert to draw up a report . Furthermore , the findings and conclusions of the official expert could be challenged even before the trial stage by lodging an objection ( PERSON ) against the bill of indictment , but this had not been done in the case at hand ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","ORG rejected as inadmissible the first applicant \u2019s complaint that contacts between the public prosecutor and ORG had influenced the latter and rendered him biased vis - \u00e0 - vis the accused as this complaint had not been submitted following the proper proceedings . It added , however that such a complaint was in any event ill - founded , since the initial contact between the public prosecutor and ORG merely had the purpose of clarifying under which conditions ORG would accept the task of drawing up an expert report and subsequent contacts consisted in supplementing the case file which had been transmitted to ORG for drawing up the report . Thus , it could not be seen how this kind of contact could give rise to doubts as to the neutrality of the expert .","ORG held further that the applicants in the present case had not used their opportunity to question the competence of GPE or to object to his appointment in the preliminary proceedings . Moreover , ORG had based its findings and decision primarily not on the expert report , but on PERSON \u2019s confession . Citing the ORG \u2019s case - law ( Brandstetter v. GPE , CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ; PERSON GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ; and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , ORG found that the applicants had had sufficient opportunities to question ORG during the hearing of CARDINAL DATE . Consequently , ORG had no doubt that the right to equality of arms in the trial had been maintained .","The written decision of ORG was served on the applicants on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146565","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PREZHDAROVI v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are spouses .","On DATE the first applicant , as a sole trader , took out a bank loan in order to purchase computers and to set up a computer club . The computer club was situated in a garage owned by the applicants . The second applicant assisted the first applicant in running the club and replaced him when he was absent .","When he started his business , the first applicant purchased CARDINAL computers and several computer games , which he installed on the computers . His customers were able to use the computers for CARDINAL NORP lev ( ORG ) per hour .","As the first applicant was renting the computers to his clients , he was obliged to pay the necessary licensing fees to the distributors of the companies that owned the copyright of the products . However , in DATE the first applicant failed to renew his contracts with the distributors .","On DATE the police conducted a check on the applicants\u2019 premises and warned the first applicant to abstain from illegally reproducing and distributing software .","On DATE the director of the local sanitation department at ORG ordered that the computer club be closed down for health reasons .","NORP On DATE Mr GPE , a manager of a company that distributed computer games , lodged a complaint with the district prosecutor in GPE . Mr PERSON stated that he had visited the applicants\u2019 computer club on several occasions in the period DATE . He claimed to have noticed that despite their lack of a software license for reproduction and distribution , the applicants had installed certain types of games on the computers and were renting them to their clients . Mr GPE mentioned specifically some of the games . He also claimed that the applicants had visited his office several times and had been aware of the requirements concerning reproduction and distribution of computer games . Lastly , he claimed that he had warned the applicants about the possible sanctions but had received only threats in response , especially from the second applicant .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor noted that a complaint had been lodged by PERSON alleging that a crime had been committed under LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He further observed that there was insufficient information to justify the institution of criminal proceedings . Therefore , relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he ordered the police to conduct an inquiry into the computer club in order to collect more information as to whether a crime had been committed under LAW CARDINAL . The prosecutor stated that when examining the computer club , in the event that the police officers established that software was being used illegally , they should take measures to secure the necessary evidence , including an onthespot inspection and search and seizure of the computers .","In executing the prosecutor \u2019s order , on DATE the police authorities drew up an action plan . A police officer with technological expertise would compare the software installed on the computers with the purchased software . In the event that discrepancies were found , the police would conduct a search and seizure . The operation was planned for DATE .","At TIME on DATE the police , including a police investigator ( \u0434\u043e\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b ) , arrived at the computer club . The applicants claimed that at that time the computer club had been closed to the public following the order of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They submitted that they had been at the club with some friends and that the cash till had been on because the second applicant had just finished a typewriting job and had been paid for it .","NORP The police officers noted that the computers were running and that there were people in the club . They explained the aim of the inspection . It appears that the first applicant objected to the possible search and seizure , stating that the police did not have a judicial warrant , and asked for permission to contact a lawyer . The police apparently briefly pointed to the prosecutor \u2019s order of DATE . The first applicant was allowed to contact his lawyer but , according to the applicants\u2019 submissions , the police refused to wait for the lawyer \u2019s arrival .","The police inspected the receipts from the club \u2019s cash till and the DATE sales record and concluded that the applicants had received money DATE , most probably for providing commercial services . The police then inspected the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL computers and found that a number of computer games had been installed on them . The first applicant was invited to present documents , such as purchase invoices or any other evidence of his title to the games . As he failed to do so , the police seized the computers . The search - and - seizure operation ended at TIME","The search - and - seizure operation was carried out in the presence of CARDINAL certifying witnesses . The police drew up a report containing an inventory of the seized items , namely the computers and their content , which consisted of computer programs , computer games and films . The report was signed without comment by the certifying witnesses . The first applicant refused to comment on the report or to sign it .","On DATE the police investigator sent a letter to the district prosecutor informing the prosecutor of the results of the operation . She noted that following the search - and - seizure operation , criminal proceedings ( a police investigation ) had been instituted against the first applicant for illegal reproduction and distribution of software .","On DATE , at the request of the police investigator , a ORG judge approved the search - and - seizure operation on the basis of LAW ( \u201c the DATE Code \u201d ) . The judge described factually the course of the search - and - seizure operation and briefly cited the text of LAW , stressing that there had been pressing circumstances and that an immediate search and seizure had been the only means by which the collection and preservation of the necessary evidence could be undertaken . The decision was sent to the police in order to be enclosed with the case file as an integral part of the search - and - seizure record .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an application with ORG , requesting the court not to approve the searchandseizure record and arguing that a search and seizure had not been the only means by which the preservation of evidence could have been undertaken and that there had not been pressing circumstances . The first applicant also claimed that the computers contained letters as well as personal information about friends and clients . On DATE the application was returned to the applicant as inadmissible as the search and seizure had already been approved by a court decision , which was not subject to appeal .","On DATE both applicants submitted a request to the prosecutor for the return of the computers . They maintained that the computers contained private correspondence and personal information about themselves and their clients , and were also necessary for their other professional activities , namely providing typewriting services to the public . On DATE the district prosecutor refused to return the computers .","The first applicant sought judicial review , arguing again that the computers contained personal information and correspondence with different State entities . In a decision of DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor \u2019s order . It held that the computers were the subject of an expert examination and were necessary for the investigation . It found irrelevant the assertion that the computers contained personal information .","NORP In DATE the first applicant again sought the return of the computers . His request was rejected by the prosecutor and the court on DATE and DATE respectively on the grounds that the computers were necessary for the investigation . The applicant \u2019s assertions that the computers contained personal information and were necessary for his wife \u2019s business were not discussed . In DATE the applicant submitted the same request to the prosecutor , who again rejected it . The applicant submitted that the prosecutor had never forwarded his ensuing appeal against the rejection to the court .","On DATE the first applicant was charged , inter alia , with the unlawful distribution of computer programs , computer games and films . In a final judgment of DATE ORG upheld the first applicant \u2019s conviction . It held that the first applicant had lawfully acquired title to the computer games but that he had been distributing them illegally by renting the games to his clients . It also held that the first applicant had been illegally reproducing computer programs and films . The court found that the first applicant \u2019s conduct had led to significant damage . He was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment suspended for DATE , and ordered to pay a fine in the amount of ORG CARDINAL . The computers were confiscated ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170473","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"KAISER v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON Krankl , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is the father of PERSON , and PERSON , all of whom were born in wedlock in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .","In DATE the applicant was living with his wife and his children in GPE .","At the request of the applicant \u2019s minor children , represented by ORG ( ORG f\u00fcr ORG und Familie ) , ORG ( PERSON ) issued on DATE an interim injunction for the duration of DATE ordering the applicant to leave the joint household and the immediate surroundings of the family \u2019s apartment , prohibiting him from returning to the apartment and contacting his wife and children , ordering him to avoid any meetings with them , and banning him from the children \u2019s kindergarten .","Having heard the children \u2019s mother , the applicant and a social worker , the ORG noted that the children \u2019s mother had alleged repeated sexual abuse by the applicant in respect of his eldest daughter ( then DATE ) and had testified that she had found skin abrasions on her daughter and that on CARDINAL occasion her genital area had been smeared with blood . The applicant had denied any misconduct . ORG also took into account the findings of an initial examination of the applicant \u2019s eldest daughter by a clinical psychologist at a children \u2019s hospital in GPE . The girl had told the psychologist that she had suffered severe abuse at the hands of her father and had illustrated graphically what she had meant using anatomically correct puppets . ORG found the girl \u2019s mother \u2019s testimony in respect of the events clear , credible and trustworthy . Overall , the seemingly substantiated allegations of extensive sexual abuse by the applicant indicated a real risk for the children \u2019s wellbeing . The child had been taken into psychological care . Since the children and their mother had a need to be provided with housing , the court ordered the applicant to leave the joint apartment . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision . Therefore , it became final .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife brought an action for divorce .","In DATE the children , at the time represented by their mother , lodged a request for the extension of the interim injunction ; the ORG , referring to the case file and to the pending criminal investigation in respect of the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on DATE granted that request and extended the interim injunction until the conclusion of the divorce proceedings . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision .","In addition to the request for an interim injunction against the applicant , ORG filed criminal information with ORG that was based on information supplied by the children \u2019s mother and the report of the psychologist ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant was indicted on charges of sexual abuse of minors and abuse of a relationship of authority by ORG . The child , represented by a lawyer , took part in the criminal proceedings as a private party ( Privatbeteiligter ) . On DATE ORG ( PERSON f\u00fcr PERSON ) acquitted the applicant of the charges of sexual abuse of minors and abuse of a relationship of authority . It found that the witnesses heard in the course of the oral hearing had not been able to verify the suspicions . Furthermore , a psychological expert , ordered by the court to examine the applicant \u2019s daughter , had stated that the child \u2019s ability to recount past events or experiences was not sufficiently developed . Therefore , the criminal court declined to hear the child , even with the assistance of an expert . Because of the lack of evidence , the criminal court could not determine the relevant facts in regard to the accusations . The applicant was acquitted , having been given the benefit of doubt . This decision became final .","On DATE the applicant , referring to his acquittal , lodged a request with ORG for the lifting of the interim injunction . However , on DATE , the ORG refused that request . It found that a request under section CARDINAL of LAW to lift an interim injunction ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) could only be successful if the need to protect the legitimate interests of the person concerned had ended . This would be the case if the circumstances which had made the granting of the decision necessary had changed . However , ORG had acquitted the applicant , pursuant to LAW , hereinafter , the CCP \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , only because the applicant \u2019s guilt could not be established by a criminal court . However , the applicant had supported his request solely by referring to his acquittal and had not tried to demonstrate to ORG why and how any risk to the children had ceased to exist . Therefore , there was no reason to lift the interim injunction .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON f\u00fcr PERSON - the \u201c ORG \u201d ) on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that \u2013 contrary to the applicant \u2019s belief \u2013 his acquittal in the criminal proceedings was not in and of itself sufficient to substantiate the absence of the perceived risk that had served as the basis for the interim injunction . ORG noted that an acquittal rendered by the criminal courts had no binding effect on the civil courts . In and of itself , the applicant \u2019s reference to his acquittal was not sufficient to prove that the basis for believing that the applicant \u2019s children were at risk had ceased to exist . ORG upheld ORG finding that the objective of the interim injunction DATE namely to secure the well - being of the children \u2013 had not become redundant , referring again to the fact that the acquittal had only resulted from the application of the in dubio pro reo principle , and that there still existed a suspicion of sexual abuse ; this sufficed to justify the assumption that there continued to be a risk to the wellbeing of the child . Furthermore , the applicant had based his appeal only on the alleged binding force of the acquittal and had not submitted any facts why the risk would have ceased to exist by a change in the situation .","The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law . On DATE ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) dismissed that appeal . Referring to its own jurisprudence it upheld the reasoning of the lower courts that whether an interim injunction could be lifted depended on whether the need to afford protection had ceased to exist in the light of a change in circumstances ; a change concerning only the evidence provided could not be automatically understood as constituting such a reason . The question of whether the applicant \u2019s acquittal had changed the level of risk in respect of the right of the child to physical safety had to be answered in the negative . The assessment of evidence in the criminal proceedings had to be considered as fresh evidence in the civil proceedings but did not as such constitute a reason for lifting the interim injunction . If , after assessing the fresh evidence , the suspicion of abuse persisted , the level of risk could not be deemed to have changed .","ORG also confirmed that an acquittal on criminal charges had no binding effect on the civil courts . As regards those of the applicant \u2019s arguments that were based on LAW , it referred to ORG PERSON case - law , in particular the judgment in GPE v. GPE ( no . DATE ) , but distinguished that case from the present one : in GPE , the ORG had assumed a link between the criminal responsibility of the accused and the right to compensation for detention to such a degree that the decisions on the latter issue could be regarded as a consequence and , to some extent , the concomitant of the decision on the former ( ibid . , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . However , in the present case such a link was missing with regard to the civil jurisdiction because ( i ) the criminal proceedings concerned a public law claim , and ( ii ) the accused \u2019s opponent was the ORG . The victim of the criminal act in question was not a party to the proceedings and in general , the criminal courts did not rule on ORG claims for damages . A binding effect of an acquittal on civil courts would constitute a violation of the principle of equality of arms LAW of the victim if he or she tried to lodge subsequently a claim for damages before the civil courts . The distinction between civil and criminal matters resulted from the different subjects dealt with . The binding effect of a conviction was justified by the fact that in such a case a criminal court had established the accused \u2019s responsibility and guilt . However , in the case of an acquittal , the establishment of the facts remained open . To then prevent the victim from pursuing a possible civil claim would represent a violation of the victim \u2019s fundamental rights . In the instant case , the acquittal could therefore only serve as an indication of a diminution of the risk for the children , but no more .","On DATE the divorce proceedings were concluded with final effect . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG refused a request for the extension of the interim measure and lifted it .","In addition to his request for the interim injunction to be lifted , the applicant on DATE lodged a request with ORG for regular contacts to be arranged between himself and his CARDINAL children at ORG ; alternatively , he requested the provisional arrangement of a weekly visiting right , to be exercised at the parent - child - meeting point ( NORP - Kind - Treff ) of ORG ( PERSON ) .","For the purpose of being able to assess the situation , ORG ordered a report from the ORG and ORG on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE \u2013 the Youth and ORG having failed to deliver such a report \u2013 the court urged it to do so .","On DATE ORG submitted the report , stating in its conclusion that contact between the children and their father was very important , but that , in view of the problematic overall situation , the visits should take place in the protected environment of ORG . The mother had initially opposed the idea of the applicant having contact with the children , but had then stated that she could agree to accompanied visits in a protected environment and in her presence . The applicant had referred to his acquittal and stated his desire to reestablish a relationship with his children . The social worker confirmed that the children were living in a safe and healthy environment with their mother , but also referred to the importance of a relationship between the children and their father . Regular contact every fortnight would offer the children a good opportunity to become re - acquainted with their father and was thus considered positively by the social worker . On DATE the report of the Youth and ORG arrived at the court and was subsequently served on the applicant .","In a hearing before the ORG on DATE , the applicant and the children \u2019s mother agreed on a preliminary settlement with the following provisions : preliminary sole custody for the CARDINAL minor children was granted to the children \u2019s mother . The applicant was granted the right to regular accompanied contact \u2013 normally DATE for TIME on the premises of ORG . The visits were also attended by the children \u2019s mother and a social worker from the ORG . Because of this agreement , the proceedings in respect of contact rights were suspended pending a final decision in the divorce proceedings .","On DATE the applicant and his former wife agreed before ORG on the staying of the proceedings in respect of custody , contact rights and alimony ( PERSON ) . The applicant informed the ORG that since DATE he and his former wife had agreed amicably on arrangements for the applicant \u2019s contact with his CARDINAL children . The applicant , in the meantime , had moved to GPE and travelled to GPE during the school holidays in order to see his children .","Under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG , a victim of a criminal offence could join criminal proceedings as a private party ( PERSON ) only with regard to his or her civil claims . Such a private party was , inter alia , entitled to have access to the various case files from the pre - trial stage onwards , had to be summoned to the hearings , and could submit evidence to ORG .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG provided as follows :","\u201c The accused shall be acquitted by judgment of the court :","...","where the court finds that the act that gave rise to the prosecution is not an offence under the law or that the alleged offence has not been made out or that it has not been established that the accused committed the act of which he is accused or that circumstances exist which deprive the act in question of its criminal character or that the continuation of the prosecution is ruled out on grounds other than those set out in DATE and CARDINAL . \u201d","In the event of an acquittal , a private party was not entitled to a remedy in criminal proceedings . Under LAW ORG the criminal court had to refer such a private party to the civil courts in respect of his or her claim for damages if the accused had been acquitted ( PERSON auf den Zivilrechtsweg ) .","Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ( GPE ) provided that civil courts , when deciding a case which had previously been submitted to a criminal court , were bound by the facts established by a criminal court in the event that that court had found the accused guilty . This provision was found to be contrary to LAW ( decision of CARDINAL DATE , no . GCARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . ORG stated that a criminal conviction to be binding on a civil court was arbitrary and therefore contrary to LAW . Therefore , ORG set aside the provision .","In its decision of CARDINAL DATE , no . CARDINAL Ob CARDINAL , ORG found , after conducting a comprehensive analysis of the legal arguments raised in national and international academic debate , that , even in the absence of an explicit provision stipulating the binding effect of criminal convictions , a convicted person must accept his conviction by a criminal court as an established fact and shall not be entitled to argue before a civil court that he did not commit the offence of which he was convicted . Therefore , a conviction by a criminal court should have a binding effect with regard to the convicted person , so that nobody might argue that the facts differed from the ones already established and which had been the basis for that criminal conviction .","In its decision of DATE , no . CARDINAL Ob CARDINAL\/CARDINALa , ORG confirmed the principles outlined in its decision of DATE and elaborated on the question of whether civil courts should be bound by the findings of a criminal court when proceedings heard by that criminal court had ended with an acquittal . It found that because of the weak position the ORG granted to a private party in criminal proceedings , it would violate the victim \u2019s rights under LAW if the outcome of criminal proceedings were to have a binding effect on civil law proceedings ( that is to say if civil courts were to be bound by the findings of a criminal court ) . For example , a private party had no remedy against the acquittal of an accused . Moreover , under LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the criminal court had to refer a private party to the civil courts in respect of his or her claim for damages if the accused was not convicted . This provision would be meaningless if the victim of an offence were to be referred to the civil courts in respect of his claim for damages but had to accept the finality of the acquittal in the subsequent civil proceedings . Therefore , an acquittal in criminal proceedings could have no binding effect in civil law proceedings dealing with the same circumstances .","In the following decisions , ORG further developed its case - law on this question and found that neither the ending of criminal proceedings by preliminary settlement ( Diversion , decision of DATE , no . CARDINAL Ob DATE ) nor by final closure of the case by ORG ( Verfahrenseinstellung , DATE , no . CARDINAL ObA CARDINAL\/CARDINALp ) had a binding effect regarding the facts of the case on civil law proceedings and that the civil courts had to establish anew all the facts of the case .","Interim injunctions for the purpose of the prevention of violence within the family were a civil law matter under NORP law , as laid down in LAW ( Exekutionsordnung ) .","NORP Since provisional legal protection had to be provided without delay , the prerequisites for ordering an injunction needed only to be certified ( bescheinigen ) , which meant to show predominant probability but they did not need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt ( beweisen ) . The degree of plausibility of the circumstances supporting a request for an injunction was thus less strict than in the criminal proceedings . It was sufficient for the party requesting the injunction to submit details of the circumstances from which the existence of the alleged risk could reasonably be assumed ( section CARDINAL of LAW , in connection with LAW ) . Under section CARDINAL of LAW certain parts of the provisions of LAW ( such as the provisions dealing with the parties , the oral hearing or the finding of facts ) were applicable if LAW did not provide otherwise . Persons affected by an interim injunction had the right to lodge an appeal ( PERSON , see LAW ) .","Section CARDINALb \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , provided as follows :","\u201c The court is required to act upon a request [ lodged ] by a near relative ( naher Angeh\u00f6riger ) of a person who launches or threatens to launch a physical attack or displays conduct severely affecting the psychological health of the near relative , thus making further cohabitation unbearable for the relative . In such a case , the court must","order that person to leave the common flat and its immediate surroundings , and","prevent that person from returning to the flat and its immediate surroundings , if the flat serves the near relative \u2019s urgent need of accommodation . \u201d","Under paragraph CARDINAL of this provision , a court could also prohibit such a person from staying in clearly defined areas and order him or her to avoid meeting and coming into contact with the near relative unless this would have run counter to the serious interests of the person .","Under paragraph CARDINAL of this provision , such an interim injunction was not limited to proceedings for divorce or the annulment of a marriage ; however , in respect of proceedings that did not concern divorce or annulment such an interim injunction could not exceed a total duration of DATE . The institution of such divorce proceedings or proceedings for the annulment of a marriage was a prerequisite for an extension beyond the above - mentioned DATE limit .","Section CARDINAL of LAW listed the following conditions for the amendment or lifting of an interim injunction :","\u201c CARDINAL . if the order exceeds the scope that is necessary to secure the interests of the person in whose favour the order was granted ;","Given that there were remedies ( Widerspruch , PERSON ) by which to contest a decision within the proceedings for granting an interim injunction , the amendment or lifting of an interim or \u201c final \u201d injunction under section CARDINAL of LAW could not be requested on the basis of a claim that the interim injunction had been issued unlawfully ( decisions of ORG of DATE , no . CARDINAL Ob CARDINAL\/CARDINAL t , and of DATE , no . CARDINAL Ob CARDINAL\/CARDINAL t ) . Moreover , because the aim of an interim injunction was not to examine a past but to pre - empt a future risk , a review ex post facto of the proceedings in respect of the granting of an interim injunction was not possible ( ORG decisions of DATE , no . CARDINAL Ob CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , and of CARDINAL DATE , no . CARDINAL Ob CARDINAL t ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173383","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GEVAL AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-151051","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ROHLENA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Heavier penalty;Nullum crimen sine lege;Time when act or ommission was committed)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus K\u016bris;Elisabeth Steiner;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was formally indicted by the GPE municipal prosecutor for having , DATE and DATE , repeatedly physically and mentally abused his wife while he was drunk . He was accused of having subjected her to verbal abuse , hit her on the head with his hand and fist , slapped her , held her by the throat , tried to strangle her , thrown her against the furniture or onto the ground , pushed her down stairs and kicked her . He was further accused of having hit the children , gambled away the household \u2019s money on gaming machines and smashed the crockery . As a result , his wife had sustained haematomas , bruising and a fractured nose and had been obliged to seek medical assistance on that account on DATE , DATE and DATE , following assaults committed on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The applicant had allegedly sought to undermine his wife psychologically in order to control her . According to the prosecutor , the applicant had thus committed the \u201c continuing \u201d criminal offence ( trvaj\u00edc\u00ed trestn\u00fd \u010din ) of abusing a person living under the same roof within the meaning of Article CARDINALa \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL(b ) of LAW , given that his conduct prior to the introduction of that offence on DATE had amounted to the offence of violence against an individual or group of individuals under Article CARDINALa of the Criminal Code and assault occasioning bodily harm under LAW .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the offence of abusing a person living under the same roof , committed DATE and DATE , as described in the bill of indictment , which also referred to the fact that the abuse had occurred repeatedly . It sentenced him to a suspended term of DATE years\u2019 imprisonment and placed him on probation for DATE . The applicant was also placed under supervision and ordered to undergo treatment for alcohol dependency . The court based its decision on the statements given by the applicant , the victim ( his wife ) and several witnesses , including the couple \u2019s CARDINAL children DATE who reported , among other incidents , CARDINAL instances of the applicant verbally insulting his wife , CARDINAL instances of the applicant grabbing his wife by the arms and strangling her , and verbal and\/or physical assaults committed by the applicant on his wife at DATE intervals DATE and on documentary evidence and expert reports . It also took into account the fact that the applicant had confessed to quarrels and physical violence in his relationship with his wife ; he admitted in particular that he had sometimes slapped his wife or hit her with his fist .","The court adopted the classification of the offence as abuse of a person living under the same roof within the meaning of LAW and CARDINAL(b ) of LAW as in force since DATE , taking the view that this classification also extended to the acts committed by the applicant prior to that date since they had been punishable at the material time and amounted at least to the offence of violence against an individual or group of individuals under Article CARDINALa of the Criminal Code . Lastly , the court considered that , owing to the duration of the conduct in question , the offence committed in the present case presented a relatively high degree of danger which justified a sentence ranging from DATE imprisonment under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINALa of LAW . Taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances ( in particular the fact that the applicant had confessed and that he had no previous convictions ) , it imposed a suspended sentence situated at the lower end of the range .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant in which he contested the facts as established by ORG and the unilateral assessment of the evidence . ORG found no defects in the previous proceedings and considered that the classification of the applicant \u2019s conduct was in conformity with the provisions of LAW .","On DATE ORG dismissed as manifestly illfounded an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant in which he complained that the trial court had applied LAW even to his conduct prior to DATE , when the offence of abuse had not yet existed in domestic law . On this point ORG noted , referring to its ruling PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , that where there was , as in the case at hand , a \u201c continuation of the criminal offence \u201d ( pokra\u010dov\u00e1n\u00ed v trestn\u00e9m \u010dinu ) , which was considered to constitute a single act , its classification in criminal law had to be assessed under the law in force at the time of completion of the last occurrence of the offence . That law therefore also applied to the earlier acts , provided that these would have amounted to criminal conduct under the previous law . In the instant case ORG considered that the applicant \u2019s conduct prior to the amendment of LAW on DATE had amounted at least to an offence punishable under Article PERSON or Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . After having examined the file it also concluded that the accused \u2019s actions as described in the operative part of the first - instance court judgment disclosed all the legal elements of the offence of abusing a person living under the same roof within the meaning of LAW and CARDINAL(b ) of LAW . Concerning the continuation of the offence , ORG noted that the abuse itself amounted to ill - treatment characterised by a certain duration . For the offence to be regarded as having continued over a long period of time it had to have lasted for DATE . As the applicant had perpetrated the offence in question DATE until DATE , that is , over a period of DATE , his conduct certainly disclosed the material element of continuation of the offence of abuse under LAW ) of LAW .","On DATE ORG dismissed as manifestly ill - founded a constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant in which he complained that the proceedings had been unfair and that LAW had been applied retroactively , to his detriment . Referring to the ruling of ORG and to its relevant case - law , ORG held that the decisions given by the courts in the present case had been logical and coherent and had not had any retroactive effect prohibited by LAW .","As the applicant committed another offence while on probation and did not undergo any treatment for his alcohol dependency , he was required to serve the prison sentence imposed by the judgment of DATE . He began serving his prison sentence on DATE . According to the Government , he was granted conditional release on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["7-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178364","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PUKHACHEV AND ZARETSKIY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152783","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RAMBIERT v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Puck .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and of membership in an organised criminal group . The investigation against him and several other persons was conducted by ORG ) .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) remanded the applicant in custody , relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question . It considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings , given the risk that he might induce witnesses to give false testimony . It also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence and the complex nature of the case .","The applicant \u2019s pretrial detention was later extended by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE and on DATE and DATE . On DATE the ORG ( ORG ) further extended the applicant \u2019s detention . The courts repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant \u2019s detention . They also emphasised the need to secure the process of obtaining evidence as the case concerned activities of an organised criminal group .","On an unspecified date in DATE the investigation was taken over by ORG ( Prokurator PERSON ) .","On DATE a bill of indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons was lodged with ORG . The applicant was charged with numerous counts of drug trafficking and with membership in an organised criminal group . The bill of indictment stated that CARDINAL accused had pleaded guilty and they agreed to the sentences indicated by the prosecution authorities under LAW ( wniosek o skazanie ) . It was accompanied by CARDINAL volumes of the case file . The prosecutor requested the court to hear CARDINAL witnesses .","During the court proceedings the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial was further extended by decisions of the ORG delivered on DATE and DATE and DATE ; and by ORG decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL May , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","The applicant \u2019s appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent applications for release were unsuccessful .","The courts continually justified their decisions by the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences . They also referred to the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant after conviction . They further relied on the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings , emphasising that the accused and subsequently the key witnesses in the case had to testify before the trial court . They considered that the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence or otherwise obstruct the proceedings resulted , in particular , from the fact that he had been charged with membership in an organised criminal group . Finally , they found that the trial court conducted the proceedings in a correct and timely manner . They noted in this regard the complex character of the case and the voluminous documentation gathered ( on DATE the case file comprised CARDINAL volumes ) . They also referred to multiple procedural motions of the accused and their lawyers .","DATE and DATE the applicant served a prison sentence imposed in another set of criminal proceedings against him . On DATE he started serving another prison sentence .","Meanwhile , on DATE the trial court decided to examine the charges against CARDINAL coaccused in separate proceedings .","On DATE the court scheduled the first hearing for CARDINAL DATE . It also scheduled CARDINAL further hearings .","The hearings scheduled for CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE were adjourned due to the absence of CARDINAL of the accused .","The trial was eventually started on DATE . Subsequently , the trial court held CARDINAL further hearings by DATE .","In DATE the court held CARDINAL hearings altogether . CARDINAL of the scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences or sickleaves of the accused or their lawyers .","In DATE TIME hearings were held by CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the ORG lifted the applicant \u2019s detention on remand .","The proceedings are still pending before the firstinstance court ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145259","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KOLESNYK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applications were lodged by CARDINAL NORP nationals , PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) , PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) and PERSON ( \u201c the third applicant \u201d , collectively \u201c the applicants \u201d ) . The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE , GPE and GPE , GPE .","The applicants , who had been granted legal aid , were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in the town of ORG , GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , most recently , PERSON of ORG of GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the first applicant gave birth to a child . She took DATE of maternity leave , ending on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant applied to the relevant ORG authorities for a DATE allowance , to be paid to her in accordance with section DATE of the Law of GPE on ORG in Case of Temporary Loss of Ability to Work and Childbirth and Funeral Expenses ( ORG \u041f\u0440\u043e \u0437\u0430\u0433\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0432\u2019\u044f\u0437\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0435 \u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0435 \u0441\u043e\u0446\u0456\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0435 \u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0445\u0443\u0432\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0443 \u0437\u0432\u2019\u044f\u0437\u043a\u0443 \u0437 \u0442\u0438\u043c\u0447\u0430\u0441\u043e\u0432\u043e\u044e \u0432\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0442\u043e\u044e \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0435\u0437\u0434\u0430\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456 \u0442\u0430 \u0432\u0438\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0430\u043c\u0438 , \u0437\u0443\u043c\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u043c\u0438 \u043d\u0430\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0436\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f\u043c \u0442\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0445\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f\u043c \u201d \u2013 hereafter \u201c ORG \u201d - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The allowance was awarded to her with effect from DATE ( DATE after DATE initial period of maternity leave ) . DATE the first applicant received the following amounts : CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) in DATE ; UAH CARDINAL in DATE ; UAH CARDINAL in DATE ; UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL in DATE ; ORG CARDINAL in DATE ; and UAH MONEY in DATE . DATE and DATE the first applicant was receiving UAH CARDINAL ( around QUANTITY ( EUR ) ) DATE .","NORP In DATE the laws which set the amount of the allowance in question were modified by ORG . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE found that ORG for DATE could not validly amend the scope of rights and obligations set up in other legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP In DATE the first applicant asked for her allowance to be recalculated in the light of the Constitutional Court decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE . In reply ORG informed the first applicant that since \u201c the Cabinet of Ministers of GPE had not adopted a mechanism for recalculation of the child allowance , to make it compatible with the decision of ORG of GPE \u201d , the recalculation could not be carried out . At the same time it noted that , according to the decision no . CARDINAL of the Cabinet of Ministers of GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the DATE child allowance was UAH CARDINAL for the period DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE informed the first applicant that she was entitled to a child allowance in accordance with ORG ( ORG \u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0443 \u0434\u043e\u043f\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0433\u0443 ORG \u0437 \u0434\u0456\u0442\u044c\u043c\u0438 GPE ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to be paid DATE and DATE . ORG noted that as of DATE the amount of allowance was UAH CARDINAL whilst , \" pursuant to the decision of ORG of DATE the applicant would have received DATE payments of UAH CARDINAL in DATE and ORG CARDINAL in DATE which corresponds to the amount of the minimum subsistence level ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0436\u0438\u0442\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0439 \u043c\u0456\u043d\u0456\u043c\u0443\u043c ) for a child aged DATE \" . However , for DATE the necessary financial provisions for these payments had not been not made , with the result that the applicant would continue to receive the sums provided by ORG ) act , as amended by the respective ORG .","NORP In DATE the first applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG against ORG of the Yalta Town Council claiming , inter alia , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in allegedly unpaid child allowance due to her for the period DATE and DATE and requesting that an allowance in an amount not lower than the minimum subsistence level established by law for an able - bodied person ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) be paid to her until DATE . The first applicant indicated that she was insured under the obligatory social insurance scheme and was entitled to child allowance under sections DATE and CARDINAL of ORG . However , decision no . DATE of the Cabinet of Ministers of GPE which had been applied in her case , contradicted the above LAW , even though the latter had higher legal force . The first applicant further noted that she had learned about the allegedly erroneous calculation of the amount of her child allowance from the media only in DATE .","On DATE the court found that the first applicant was insured under LAW . Under LAW of the LAW the amount of child allowance paid could not be less than the amount of the minimum subsistence level established by law . The changes introduced by ORG in DATE and DATE , which provided for a reduction in the amount of the benefit , had been declared unconstitutional by ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . Therefore , these changes were not applicable in the first applicant \u2019s case .","The court further held that the first applicant had lodged before the court her claim for payment of the child allowance due to her in DATE only in DATE , while the decision of ORG of DATE had been published on DATE . The first applicant should have learned about the breach of her rights on DATE . As the first applicant requested recalculation of her child allowance in DATE only , she had missed the DATE time - limit provided for by LAW . The court allowed the first applicant \u2019s claims related to the period DATE and DATE and awarded her UAH MONEY .","On DATE ORG amended the decision of DATE . It found that the first applicant had had good reasons for missing the time - limit for lodging her claim . In particular , she had correctly tried to settle the dispute out of court by lodging her request for recalculation directly with the defendant first .","The court held that the relevant provisions of ORG for DATE , which suspended ( for DATE ) and then revoked ( with effect from DATE ) section CARDINAL of ORG , had been found to be unconstitutional on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The first applicant was insured and thus was entitled to a DATE child allowance in accordance with LAW , which provided that the amount of the child allowance should not be lowers than the minimum subsistence level . The court found that LAW for DATE set the minimum subsistence level for children aged DATE as UAH CARDINAL ( DATE ) and ORG CARDINAL ( DATE ) . In DATE the first applicant was paid ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Consequently , the first applicant was to be paid \u201c the remaining UAH CARDINAL \u201d in child allowance for the period DATE and DATE .","As for DATE the court found that the first applicant \u2019s claims for the period DATE ( i.e. after the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ) should be also granted . LAW for DATE set for the minimum subsistence level for children aged DATE as UAH CARDINAL ( DATE ) , UAH CARDINAL ( DATE ) and UAH CARDINAL ( DATE ) . The first applicant received UAH DATE CARDINAL x DATE . The court awarded her the remaining ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the period between CARDINAL May and DATE ( CARDINAL x CARDINAL + CARDINAL x CARDINAL + CARDINAL x DATE ) .","As for the first applicant \u2019s claims related to the DATE payments , the court held that section CARDINAL of LAW DATE provided that the amount of child allowance provided for by ORG and by ORG had to be fixed by ORG . As the relevant provisions of LAW DATE had not been declared unconstitutional and the allowance in question had paid to the first applicant in the amount determined by the ORG of ORG decision no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court dismissed the first applicant \u2019s claim relating to the DATE payments . The court held that the first applicant \u2019s claim for payment of an allowance up to DATE could not be allowed , since it concerned future payments .","The first applicant appealed in cassation , stating that she was insured and thus entitled to child allowance in an amount no lower than the minimum subsistence level for an able - bodied person as of DATE . She also noted that ORG had already declared on numerous occasions that LAW could not introduce changes to other legal acts .","On DATE ORG of GPE found that there were no grounds to grant the first applicant leave to appeal on points of law .","On DATE the second applicant gave birth to a child . From DATE she received ORG CARDINAL a month in child allowance .","On DATE the second applicant lodged a claim before FAC . Relying on section CARDINAL of ORG , the second applicant claimed that child allowance in an amount not less than the minimum subsistence level established by law was due to her for the period DATE and DATE . The second applicant also referred to LAW and the ORG decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and argued that it was unconstitutional to amend an existing provision of ORG by virtue of LAW .","On DATE the GPE ORG found that the second applicant was insured , and therefore FAC was applicable to her . Despite this conclusion , the court relied on section CARDINAL of ORG , which was modified by LAW DATE , and also , referring to LAW DATE , held that resources for financing child allowance payments had to be allocated by ORG . On these grounds , it dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision . It held , however , that in the second applicant \u2019s case it was not FAC , which applied \u201c to temporarily disabled persons or in cases of birth or death \u201d , but ORG which was applicable , and that therefore the amount of child allowance had been calculated correctly .","On DATE the second applicant appealed in cassation .","NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the second applicant that since CARDINAL September CARDINAL it had had no jurisdiction to examine administrative cases and that her appeal would be considered after the introduction of the necessary changes to the law .","NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE informed the second applicant that her case ( no . ORG ) was pending before that court .","The second applicant \u2019s lawyer informed the ORG that ORG of GPE had rejected the second applicant \u2019s appeal in cassation on DATE . He submitted a copy of the decision , which was published in the ORG of GPE ( ORG \u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u0440\u0435\u0454\u0441\u0442\u0440 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0445 \u0440\u0456\u0448\u0435\u043d\u044c GPE ) . The copy contains no mention of the second applicant \u2019s name ( all personal information was replaced by the reference \u201c Person CARDINAL \u201d ) but makes reference to her case number ( no . K\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","ORG of GPE found , without any particular specification , that the second applicant was entitled to a child allowance under FAC and had been paid it in accordance with decision no . CARDINAL of the Cabinet of Ministers of GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE the third applicant gave birth to a child . From DATE she received ORG CARDINAL a month in child allowance , payable until the child reached the age of CARDINAL .","On DATE the Kirovsky District Court of Donetsk rejected the third applicant \u2019s claim against ORG of ORG of Donetsk for payment of child allowance in an amount equal to the minimum subsistence level . It held that the amount of the allowance paid to her had been calculated correctly in accordance with ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision . It held that although section CARDINAL of ORG was in force and applicable in the present case , ORG of DATE and DATE provided that the amount of the allowance in question had to be agreed by ORG . The amount of the child allowance due to the third applicant had been calculated correctly , in accordance with the relevant decision of ORG . This court decision was not subject to appeal .","The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :","Section CARDINAL . Right to a child allowance payable until the child attains the age of CARDINAL","\u201c An insured person ( a parent , an adoptive parent , a grandmother , a grandfather , another relative or a guardian ) who has a child under his or her care has the right to child allowance payable until the child attains the age of CARDINAL .","Child allowance payable until the child attains the age of CARDINAL is provided to an insured person in the form of an allowance during their DATE period of maternity leave and partially compensates the loss of salary ( income ) during this time . \u201d","Section CARDINAL . Amount of allowance payable until the child attains the age of CARDINAL","\u201c Child allowance shall be paid to an insured person in the amount set by the board of the [ ORG but it shall be not lower than the amount of the minimum subsistence level established by law . \u201d","The Transitional Provisions of this LAW , adopted in DATE , stipulated that until the economic situation had stabilised the amount of the allowance would be determined DATE by PERSON of GPE until it gradually reached the minimum subsistence level .","The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :","Section CARDINAL . Right [ to receive ] child allowance until the child attains the age of CARDINAL","\u201c A person who is not insured under the obligatory ORG social insurance scheme , who has a child under his or her care has the right [ to receive ] child allowance until the child attains DATE . \u201d","Section CARDINAL . Amount of allowance payable until the child attains the age of CARDINAL","\u201c Child allowance shall be paid in an amount which shall be equal to the minimum subsistence level for a child aged DATE . \u201d","The Transitional Provisions of this LAW , amended in DATE , provided that the allowance in question should amount to PERCENT ( from DATE ) , PERCENT ( from DATE ) and PERCENT ( from DATE ) of the difference between the minimum subsistence level for an able - bodied person and the average DATE family income for CARDINAL person for DATE .","NORP This decision established the amounts and methods of payments under ORG and , in particular , of child allowance payable to children DATE .","NORP The DATE subsistence level for children aged DATE was gradually increased by the relevant laws from UAH CARDINAL ( around FAC ) in DATE to UAH CARDINAL ( around EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in DATE .","The DATE minimum subsistence level for an able - bodied person changed from FAC ( around EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in DATE to ORG CARDINAL ( around ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in DATE .","By LAW CARDINAL section CARDINAL of ORG and section CARDINAL of ORG were suspended . Part CARDINAL of LAW of LAW DATE provided that the allowance in question should not be less than UAH CARDINAL for non - insured persons and not PERCENT of the minimum subsistence level for insured persons .","On DATE ORG declared that part CARDINAL of LAW of LAW and the suspension of section CARDINAL of ORG and of CARDINAL of ORG were unconstitutional .","By the PERSON \u201c On the State Budget CARDINAL and on LAW ( \u201c LAW CARDINAL \u201d ) sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG were revoked . The LAW also introduced changes to ORG . These changes provided that a person raising a child had the right to child allowance until the child attained DATE . This allowance was paid in an amount equal to the difference between the minimum subsistence level and the average family income for DATE , but not less than UAH CARDINAL .","At the same time LAW CARDINAL also provided that child allowance should amount to PERCENT ( from DATE ) , PERCENT ( from DATE ) and PERCENT ( from DATE ) of the difference between the minimum subsistence level and the DATE average family income for CARDINAL person for DATE , but should not be MONEY .","On DATE decision no . CARDINAL of the Cabinet of Ministers of GPE was amended by decision no . CARDINAL . The latter decision provided that the allowance in question had to amount to the difference PERCENT ( from DATE ) and PERCENT ( from DATE ) of the minimum subsistence level and the DATE average family income for CARDINAL person for DATE , but should not be MONEY .","On DATE the revocation of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG was found unconstitutional by LAW . The question of the constitutionality of amendments to ORG made by LAW DATE was not raised before ORG .","The State Budget Acts DATE and DATE provided that the amount of the allowance in question should be established by ORG .","The decision of DATE concerned limitations on some social security payments introduced by LAW DATE . ORG held that :","\u201c ... since for a considerable number of citizens of GPE privileges , compensation and safeguards , the right to which is provided by laws in force , are an addition to their main sources of support and a necessary component of the constitutional right to maintain a standard of living ( LAW ) no lower than the minimum subsistence level established by law ( part CARDINAL of LAW ) , any limitation of the content and ambit of this right by adoption of new laws or amendment of current laws is forbidden by LAW . \u201d","The Constitutional Court of GPE reiterated this position in its decision of DATE \u201c On discontinuing or limiting privileges , compensation and guarantees \u201d .","By its decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG stated as follows :","Decision of DATE ( ORG social protection case )","\u201c ...","The analysis of the legislative activity of the Verkhovna Rada of GPE confirms that laws of GPE on granting privileges , compensation and guarantees , which form part of the constitutional right of citizens to social protection and to maintain a sufficient standard of living ( LAW ) , are systematically suspended following the adoption of ORG .","The suspension of laws [ ... ] is to be done in accordance with LAW . [ ... ] Therefore , LAW suspends , for a certain period of time , the functioning of the mechanism for implementing constitutional socio - economic rights , which leads to a limitation of the right to social protection . Systematic suspension by LAW of the laws of GPE on granting privileges , compensations and guarantees in practice invalidates them .","Suspension of laws which establish the rights and freedoms of citizens [ ... ] is a limitation of those rights and freedoms and can take place only in cases provided for by LAW . [ ... ]","As a result of the temporary suspension of the valid laws of GPE on granting privileges , compensation and other forms of social guarantee , ORG income , which should not be lower than the minimum subsistence level established by law ( part CARDINAL of LAW ) , falls and thus the right of everybody to a decent standard of living under LAW is breached .","Therefore , in accordance with part CARDINAL of LAW and LAW , the right of citizens to social protection and other socio - economic rights can be limited , including by way of suspension of laws or their parts , only in a military state or state of emergency for a limited period of time .","This legal position has already been expressed by ORG in its decision of DATE .","CARDINAL [ ... ] Failure of the ORG to comply with its social obligations with respect to certain persons puts those citizens in an unequal position and undermines the principle of an individual \u2019s trust in the ORG , which leads to a violation of the principles of ORG and the rule of law ... .","[ ... ]","ORG has on numerous occasions [ ... ] found that certain provisions of ORG which suspend or limit privileges , compensation and guarantees contradicted LAW ( decision of DATE ( case about privileges , compensation and guarantees ) ; decision of DATE ( case about social protection of military personnel and employees of law enforcement bodies ) ; decision of DATE ( case about suspension or limitation of privileges , compensation and guarantees ) ; decision of CARDINAL DATE ( case about amount of pension and DATE living allowance ) . However , despite the above - mentioned decisions of ORG , the revision of privileges , compensation and guarantees by ORG , which started in DATE , has become systematic .","[ ... ]","It follows from the above - mentioned provisions of LAW and LAW of GPE that LAW [ ... ] has a specific subject matter \u2013 the determination of the State revenues and expenditure for society - wide needs , in particular , expenditure for social protection and social security \u2013 therefore , this LAW can not introduce changes to or suspend the laws of GPE , or set up different ( additional ) statutory regulation of areas which are subject to regulation by other laws . This is also confirmed by part CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of the [ Budget ] Code .","[ ... ]","Since the subject - matter of LAW is clearly determined by LAW , and in the [ Budget ] Code , this LAW can not repeal or change the scope of rights and obligations , privileges , compensation and guarantees provided for by other laws of GPE . \u201d","Decision of DATE ( case on subject - matter and content of LAW )","\u201c LAW does not give LAW higher legal force in comparison to other laws .","For this reason , ORG has concluded that LAW can not introduce changes to other laws , suspend their effect or revoke them , since for objective reasons it creates contradictions in legislation , and as a result , abrogation and limitation of human and ORG rights and freedoms .","In the event that operation of laws is to be ceased , it is for separate laws to introduce changes or amend them , or declare them void . \u201d","Following a request by ORG for the interpretation of part CARDINAL of LAW , which provides that any ORG expenditure must be determined exclusively by LAW , in its decision of DATE no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u201c On budget balancing \u201d ORG referred to its previous decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE and decided that there was \u201c no practical necessity \u201d for such an interpretation since the above - mentioned decisions had already addressed the issue .","The Constitutional Court was not seized of a complaint in respect of LAW DATE .","In its decision of CARDINAL DATE no . QUANTITY \u201c On the constitutionality of certain provisions of LAW DATE \u201d the Court held :","\u201c DATE ORG has on many occasions [ ... ] examined cases and taken decisions on the compliance of ORG or specific provisions thereof with LAW ( constitutionality ) .","In particular , in decision no . CARDINAL-\u0440\u043f\/CARDINAL of DATE ( ORG social protection case ) ORG of GPE established that the subject matter of LAW was foreseen in part CARDINAL of LAW [ ... ] , the list of legal matters which formed the subject matter of LAW was exhaustive ; according to LAW [ ... ] it follows that LAW , as a legal act , was to be interpreted through the notion of a budget as a plan for the gathering and distribution of financial resources ; it had a special subject matter , different from other laws of GPE \u2013 it concerned exclusively the determination of the income and expenditure of the ORG , and therefore this LAW could not introduce changes , suspend the effect of other laws , or set up a different ( additional ) legal regulation of areas covered by other laws of GPE [ ... ] .","By declaring certain provisions of LAW DATE unconstitutional , ORG of GPE drew the attention of LOC , the President of GPE and ORG to the necessity to comply with provisions [ ... ] , CARDINAL , CARDINAL [ ... ] of LAW [ ... ] in the preparation , adoption and implementation of LAW .","The same provisions of LAW [ ... ] and the above - mentioned legal position served as the basis for the decision of ORG of DATE in the case on the subject matter and content of LAW [ ... ] .","CARDINAL Despite the constitutional requirements as to the subject matter of LAW and the legal positions expressed by LAW in the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , LAW DATE introduced changes and amendments to a number of laws [ ... ] .","In its decision of CARDINAL DATE no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u201c On the constitutionality of certain provisions of LAW CARDINAL \u201d the ORG stated :","\u201c ...","The amounts of social payments depend on the social situation and financial capacity of the ORG , but they should secure the constitutional right of every person to a decent standard of living for himself and for his family , granted by LAW .","...","In addition , in its decision of DATE on insurance payments ORG pointed out that the mechanisms and amounts of social services and payments to victims [ ... ] were set by the ORG according to its financial capacity .","When examining this issue ORG also took into account the provisions of international law . Thus , according to LAW , the amounts of social payments and assistance are determined in accordance with the financial capacity of the ORG . ORG in its decision of DATE in PERSON v. GPE considered that social and economic rights are largely dependent on the situation - notably financial - reigning in the ORG . This conclusion also concerns the reduction of social payments , which is noted in the decision of DATE in the case of PERSON v. GPE .","Therefore , one of the main elements in the regulation of relations in the social sphere is the principle of proportionality between the social protection of citizens and the financial capacity of the ORG , as well as guaranteeing the right of everybody to a sufficient standard of living .","...","... the social and economic rights provided for by laws are not absolute . The mechanism of implementation of these rights can be changed by the ORG , in particular , in the event that they can not be guaranteed financially , by way of redistribution of costs with the aim of protecting the interests of society in whole . Moreover , these [ changes ] can be made in response to the need to prevent or remove a real threat to the economic security of GPE , which , according to LAW , is the most important function of the ORG . [ ... ] It is unacceptable to establish a legal mechanism which would lead to the amount of a person \u2019s pension , other social payments or allowance falling below the amount indicated in part CARDINAL of LAW and [ thus failing to ] guarantee an appropriate standard of living and preserve his or her human dignity , which would be contrary to LAW .","Therefore , a change to the method of calculation of certain types of social payment will be compatible with the LAW until it reaches a point at which the very essence of the right to social protection is compromised . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158961","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF YAROSHOVETS AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5+5-3 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Violation of Article 5+5-3 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE ; the second , third and fourth in DATE ; and the fifth in DATE . With the exception of the second applicant who died on DATE , the applicants currently live in GPE . Ms O.P. Vorona , the second applicant \u2019s mother , informed ORG her wish to pursue the application on his behalf .","The applicants , along with CARDINAL other persons , were co - defendants in criminal proceedings instituted against them in DATE . The charges against them included a number of counts of ill - treatment , theft , extortion and abuse of power , which the applicants allegedly committed during their service in the police .","At TIME on DATE the applicants , then police officers , were arrested by a special police unit and taken to ORG to be questioned by the prosecutors responsible for the investigation . DATE the prosecutors ordered the ORG detention under LAW . During TIME DATE they were taken to police stations in the NORP and PERSON Districts of GPE .","On DATE the applicants were taken back to ORG for questioning .","The applicants were detained on different police premises until DATE , when they were placed in ORG ( \u0441\u043b\u0456\u0434\u0447\u0438\u0439 \u0456\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u2013 \u201c GPE \u201d ) .","From DATE until the pre - trial investigations were completed and the case was referred to ORG of GPE for trial on DATE , the courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction ordered the ORG continued detention . The courts based their decisions mainly on the grounds that the case was complex and the investigations were pending , that the applicants were accused of serious crimes , that they might evade investigation and trial and obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case , and that they might continue committing crimes . No further details were given by the courts . Some of the decisions also contained a statement that the applicants\u2019 state of health and family situation had been duly noted . CARDINAL the applicants continued to be detained as the case was awaiting examination by the trial court . There was no decision authorising the ORG detention during that period .","At trial , which started with a preliminary examination of the case on DATE , the courts refused the ORG and their ORG repeated requests for release . Some of the decisions made reference to the seriousness of the crimes of which the applicants were accused and stated that there were no grounds for changing the preventive measures imposed , while other decisions provided no explanation for the refusal to release the applicants .","On DATE ORG ordered the second applicant \u2019s release on an undertaking not to abscond .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicants and sentenced them to MONEY imprisonment with a ban on holding office in a law - enforcement capacity for DATE and with confiscation of property . The second applicant \u2019s sentence was suspended for DATE . The other applicants were ordered to remain in detention pending the entry into force of the judgment .","On DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance court \u2019s judgment and adopted a new judgment , convicting the applicants and sentencing them to longer periods of imprisonment . It also ordered the second applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG , mainly because of the lower court \u2019s incomplete examination of the facts and non - compliance with the rules of procedure , and remitted the appeal against the judgment of DATE to ORG for reconsideration . ORG did not examine the applicants\u2019 and their ORG requests for release .","On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , finding that the first - instance court had failed to duly examine the applicants\u2019 arguments and evidence , and that the criminal classification of their actions had been incorrect . The case was remitted to ORG for retrial . The applicants were ordered to remain in detention .","In the course of the new examination of the case at first instance the applicants requested ORG to release them arguing that there was no reason for their further detention and that their state of health was declining . On DATE ORG refused the requests as unsubstantiated .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG delivered a new judgment , finding the applicants guilty of a number of counts of torture , extortion , knowingly unlawful searches , and abuse of power . With the exception of the fourth applicant , they were also convicted of theft and forgery . The applicants were sentenced to DATE imprisonment and banned from holding office in a law - enforcement capacity for DATE . The court also ordered the confiscation of the property of some of the applicants . The second applicant was dispensed from serving his sentence and released from detention . The others were ordered to remain in detention pending the entry into force of the judgment . The starting date for the calculation of the duration of their imprisonment was DATE .","The third and fourth applicants and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment . The prosecutor challenged , in particular , the first - instance court \u2019s refusal to find that the applicants had committed the crimes as members of an organised group , resulting in the wrong classification of their actions . The prosecutor also argued that the sentence was too lenient .","On DATE the case was transferred to ORG . On DATE ORG allowed in part the prosecutor \u2019s procedural request and decided to examine afresh the evidence concerning the part of the case challenged by the prosecutor .","The first , third , fourth and fifth applicants requested ORG to release them , arguing that by DATE they had had served their sentences and that there were no grounds to suggest that they would avoid further proceedings in their case . The first and fifth applicants also argued that during their detention in the GPE their state of health was declining .","On DATE ORG refused the ORG requests for release , holding that they were accused of serious crimes and sentenced to DATE imprisonment , that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE did not enter into force and that it was being challenged by the prosecutor and by CARDINAL of the applicants . On DATE ORG refused the ORG repeated requests for release principally for the same reasons , having further noted that the verdict was being challenged inter alia for the reason of lenient sentence and that it was being reviewed by that court .","In the course of the proceedings before ORG , CARDINAL hearings took place . On DATE ORG allowed the prosecutor \u2019s appeal and quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The appeals of the third and fourth applicants were dismissed as unsubstantiated . ORG adopted another new judgment , convicting the applicants and sentencing them to longer periods of imprisonment . In particular , the first applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment , the second applicant to DATE , the third and fifth applicants to DATE , and the fourth applicant to DATE . It ordered the second applicant \u2019s detention . The other applicants were also ordered to remain in detention . The starting date for the calculation of the duration of the first , third , fourth and fifth ORG imprisonment was DATE . ORG further ruled that the second applicant \u2019s detention between DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE counted towards the duration of his imprisonment , the calculation of which had to start from the date on which the enforcement of the judgment of DATE would begin .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE for various procedural violations , including the failure of ORG to question the applicants concerning the charges , the unreasoned refusal to examine the material concerning the allegations of police ill - treatment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) and for the court \u2019s failure to comply with the instructions contained in the decision of ORG of DATE . The case was remitted to ORG for fresh examination . The applicants were released from detention on an undertaking not to abscond .","On DATE ORG quashed most of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It found the applicants guilty of CARDINAL counts of ill - treatment , extortion and abuse of power . The applicants , excluding the second applicant , were sentenced to CARDINAL and a half years\u2019 imprisonment . The second applicant was not sentenced because he had died in the meantime .","In its decision of DATE , ORG held that , in view of the case - file material on which the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE was based , there had been no violation of the applicants\u2019 rights at the initial stage of the investigation . While injuries had been discovered on the first applicant \u2019s body in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the \u201c possible use of force in the course of his arrest had had no impact on his [ defence ] position in the case \u201d , as he had not confessed to having committed the crimes of which he had been suspected at the pre - trial stage . ORG further found that the alleged psychological pressure \u2013 allegations made by the applicants at trial though not supported by any evidence \u2013 \u201c had had no impact on the [ defence ] position \u201d of the applicants .","According to the fourth applicant , on DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG of DATE and delivered a new judgment . The parties have not provided a copy of that judgment .","According to the first applicant , TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE he was beaten up and threatened with physical violence by police officer PERSON for refusing to answer questions relating to the crimes of which he was suspected . In particular , officer PERSON hit the first applicant in the face , the body and the legs , and also tightened the handcuffs on his wrists , causing him considerable pain . During the same period several other police officers insulted and threatened the first applicant and his close family members in an attempt to force him to confess to having committed the crimes of which he was eventually charged . Because of the ill - treatment , the first applicant refused to be questioned on DATE . His refusal was recorded in the case file .","On DATE the applicant was taken to a police detention unit ( \u0456\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u0442\u0438\u043c\u0447\u0430\u0441\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0442\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \u2013 \u201c ORG \u201d ) in which he was examined by a paramedic who noted that he had bruises on his face and the legs .","Further to instructions issued by the prosecutors , on DATE and DATE the first applicant was examined by doctors , who noted a number of bruises on his face and legs . They stated that the injuries could have been inflicted by \u201c blunt objects \u201d during the period referred to by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On an unspecified date an official inquiry was launched into the first applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . During the inquiry , the first applicant and his close relatives made detailed submissions , giving the names of some of the alleged offenders and specifying the time - frame and the place of the relevant events .","The inquiry initially resulted in a decision of DATE , by which the prosecutors rejected the complaints as unfounded . Following an appeal lodged by the first applicant , in DATE a district court quashed that decision , finding that the inquiry had been incomplete . In particular , the court noted that the prosecutors had not questioned the first applicant and his co - accused , that not all the police officers involved in the events had been questioned , and that the origin of the first applicant \u2019s injuries had not been established . In DATE the courts found a further inquiry also incomplete , inter alia , because the prosecutors had failed to establish the origin of the first applicant \u2019s injuries . The matter was again remitted to the prosecutors .","On DATE the prosecutors rejected the complaints as unsubstantiated , finding that there was no evidence that the first applicant \u2019s bruises had been inflicted by police officers . The ORG decision was principally based on the statements of the police officers who had taken part in the first applicant \u2019s arrest and those who had been in contact with him afterwards . Those police officers stated that the first applicant had not been subjected to \u201c physical or psychological coercion \u201d and that he had not raised any complaints in that regard on DATE . They also argued that after his arrest on DATE and until his placement in a cell at the LOC police station on DATE , the first applicant had been under the constant supervision of several police officers . At the police station , he had been detained alone in a cell and \u201c without constant supervision \u201d of the police . In his statements , officer PERSON also suggested that the first applicant had complained about him because the first applicant had been dissatisfied with the fact that officer PERSON had recorded all the items found in the car which he and his fellow suspects had used . During the search of that car the first applicant had insulted officer PERSON The incident had been witnessed by other people .","In their decision , the prosecutors also referred to the statements of the doctor who had examined the first applicant on DATE , obtained during the inquiry . In particular , the doctor stated that , given the location of the first applicant \u2019s injuries , it could not be ruled out that they had been inflicted by the first applicant himself or \u201c by a traumatic impact with a blunt object \u201d .","NORP The ORG decision was eventually upheld by the courts of first and appeal instances on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","Relying on the ORG findings , ORG and ORG dealing with the applicants\u2019 criminal case also rejected identical complaints lodged by the first applicant , finding that the \u201c possible use of force in the course of his arrest had had no impact on [ his defence ] position in the case \u201d , as the first applicant had not confessed to having committed the crimes of which he had been suspected at the pre - trial stage ( see , in particular , paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE the fourth applicant was examined by a doctor from the GPE medical unit and was diagnosed with chronic prostatitis . In DATE he was further examined by a doctor and an urologist from the GPE medical unit , who prescribed specific medication for the treatment of his chronic prostatitis . Subsequently , the fourth applicant underwent a number of medical checks by GPE doctors in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , and DATE , in the course of which it was confirmed that he had a serious urological dysfunction , often diagnosed as chronic prostatitis . He was prescribed specific medication .","During that period of time the fourth applicant , his lawyer and members of his family asked the authorities to allow the fourth applicant to be examined at a specialised clinic , but to no avail . Requests for the fourth applicant \u2019s release in view of his state of health were also refused . By a letter dated DATE , the GPE governor informed the fourth applicant \u2019s lawyer that the GPE medical unit did not have the equipment necessary to make an accurate diagnosis of the fourth applicant \u2019s condition .","During a court hearing in the applicants\u2019 criminal case on CARDINAL DATE an ambulance was called for the fourth applicant because he was suffering from acute bladder pain . Doctors noted that he needed urgent catheterisation of the bladder . The judge of ORG dealing with the applicants\u2019 criminal case asked the PERSON governor to provide the fourth applicant with adequate medical assistance , transferring him to a civilian hospital if necessary . On DATE , the fourth applicant was examined on the premises of the GPE by a doctor from a civilian hospital . The doctor diagnosed him with acute chronic prostatitis and chronic cystitis , prescribed an antispasmodic drug and instructed him to undergo a urine test . He found no reason to prescribe urgent hospitalisation . DATE the fourth applicant underwent a urine test , which did not reveal any pathology .","On DATE , following a complaint by the fourth applicant \u2019s mother that he had not received the required medical treatment , the judge of ORG sent a letter to the GPE governor requesting him , for the second time , to provide the fourth applicant with adequate medical assistance , transferring him to a civilian hospital if necessary .","On DATE the fourth applicant was taken to a civilian hospital where he was examined by a urologist , who diagnosed him with chronic prostatitis and chronic cystitis without a urinary disorder . The urologist found that the fourth applicant did not need a catheter or inpatient treatment . He was prescribed special medication .","Subsequently , in DATE and DATE the fourth applicant was further examined and treated with medication by a dermatologist from the GPE medical unit , who eventually noted a certain improvement in his urological problem .","On DATE , following the fourth applicant \u2019s request for interim measures under LAW , the ORG asked the ORG to provide information concerning the fourth applicant \u2019s state of health .","On DATE the fourth applicant was examined by a panel of GPE doctors and diagnosed with chronic prostatitis at the remission stage .","On DATE a urologist from a civilian hospital examined the fourth applicant . He was diagnosed with urethroprostatitis at the exacerbation stage . Urine and prostatic fluid tests were recommended . Following the tests , the urologist prescribed specific medication .","On DATE , having received updated information concerning the fourth applicant \u2019s medical situation from the Government and the fourth applicant himself , the ORG decided to refuse his request under Rule DATE .","Urologists carried out further medical examinations in DATE and DATE . They noted that the fourth applicant was suffering from acute chronic prostatitis and chronic cystitis and prescribed him medication , which he received in a parcel from his relatives in DATE .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the deputy head doctor of a civilian hospital at which the fourth applicant had been examined informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that the treatment initially prescribed had been ineffective and that the fourth applicant needed \u201c physiotherapeutic treatment along with ethiopathogenetic medication , which could not be made available in the GPE \u201d .","DATE . On DATE the ORG indicated , under Rule DATE , that the Government should ensure that the applicant was urgently provided with medical treatment for his health problems in accordance with the ORG instructions , including those contained in the aforementioned letter of CARDINAL DATE . The interim measure was eventually lifted on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the fourth applicant was examined by a urologist at a civilian hospital . He was diagnosed with chronic prostatitis beyond the stage of active inflammation and it was concluded that he did not require inpatient treatment . There is no information about his medical situation while in detention after that date .","After his release from detention on CARDINAL DATE , the fourth applicant was further examined by various doctors . In particular , on CARDINAL DATE he was examined at a private urological clinic ; the doctor discovered \u201c congestive inflammatory modification \u201d of his prostate , chronic calculous prostatitis , double - sided vesiculitis ( inflammation and infection of the seminal vesicles ) and intra - pelvic venous ( \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043f\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0432\u0456\u043a\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430 ) congestion . In DATE the fourth applicant underwent surgery on his urethra . In DATE he underwent similar surgery .","According to the applicants , excluding the second applicant , when they were transported to and from court hearings they were kept for TIME in overcrowded prison vans , with insufficient access to fresh air and no heating . They were thus exposed to high temperatures in DATE and freezing temperatures in DATE . It took the vans TIME to get to ORG and there were instances where , on returning to the GPE , the applicants concerned had to wait in the vans for TIME while security checks were carried out .","The applicants concerned stated that they had been transported in the above conditions on CARDINAL occasions .","They further submitted that on court DATE they had been routinely taken out of their cells at TIME and before being taken to a prison van , had been placed in special transit boxes measuring QUANTITY with no ventilation for durations ranging from TIME . Upon their return from court hearings , often at TIME , the applicants concerned had also had to wait for TIME in the same transit boxes before being escorted to their regular cells .","According to the ORG , prison vans measured QUANTITY inside and were designed to accommodate CARDINAL people in CARDINAL compartments ( CARDINAL larger ones , measuring QUANTITY and designed for CARDINAL passengers each , and CARDINAL small compartment for CARDINAL passengers ) . The vans had no windows , but they were equipped with ventilation grills and benches for sitting on . The Government further submitted that on average it took TIME to transport prisoners between the GPE and ORG .","During their detention , the applicants , excluding the second applicant , received a certain number of TIME visits by their close relatives , during which the applicants concerned and their visitors had to communicate via glass partition . No dates of those visits were specified . Nor did the applicants concerned claim that they or their relatives had requested any other visits . The applicants concerned stated that their relatives had had to consent to be questioned as witnesses in order to meet with the applicants concerned in detention ."],"violated_articles":["3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-5","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158478","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SHARRA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney","text":["On DATE ORG on ORG ( \u201c the Commission \u201d ) recognised the applicant \u2019s and other heirs\u2019 inherited title to a number of plots of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m , of which QUANTITY . m were restored to them . As the remaining plot of land was occupied , the Commission decided that the applicant and the other heirs would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law in respect of CARDINAL sq . m. The Commission could not determine the boundaries of a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m and did not decide on the recognition of the applicant \u2019s inherited property rights .","On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL as regards the authorities\u2019 failure to pay compensation in respect of a plot measuring QUANTITY . m , which was part of the Commission decision .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m. Since the plot of land was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided by law . The applicants submitted that they were the remaining heirs of the above plot of land in respect of which the ORG had already delivered the judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .","To date , no compensation has been paid to the applicants .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m. It ordered that the plot of land should be entirely restored to the applicants . On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG amended the ORG decision and ordered that the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law of which QUANTITY . m were restored to them . Since the remaining plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided by law .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE ORG recognised , amongst others , the ORG inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY Since the plot of land was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided by law .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Commission \u201d ) recognised , amongst others , the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m of which QUANTITY . m were restored to them . Since the remaining plot land measuring QUANTITY m was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided by law .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m of which QUANTITY . m were to be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided by law .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE and DATE ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY Since the plot of land was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided by law .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY Since the plot of land was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided by law .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m of which QUANTITY . m were restored to him . Since the remaining plot land measuring CARDINAL sq . m was occupied , the applicant would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided by law .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m of which QUANTITY m were restored to them . Since the remaining plot land measuring QUANTITY . m was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided by law .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE and DATE ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m of which QUANTITY m were restored to him . Since the remaining plot land measuring QUANTITY was occupied , the applicant would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided by law .","To date , no compensation has been paid .","On DATE the Agency for ORG and Compensation of Property ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) , which had replaced the Commission , recognised the applicant \u2019s inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m located in LOC . Since the plot of land was occupied , the applicant would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law .","To date , no compensation has been paid ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163819","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MUTAYEVA AND ISMAILOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG , GPE district , ORG , GPE . They are the wife and the sister of PERSON who was born in DATE .","DATE the applicants\u2019 relative Mr PERSON had been detained on CARDINAL occasions by representatives of lawenforcement agencies on suspicion of illegal activities and subsequently released . In particular , in DATE he had been detained pending trial for DATE on suspicion of illegal possession of firearms and assault of a representative of the ORG and had then been subsequently sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The sentence was suspended .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON and his twelveyear old son GPE were driving in their VAZ-CARDINAL car in LOC in the centre of the town of GPE , PERSON , when they were blocked by CARDINAL silver - coloured PERSON cars with heavily tinted windows , CARDINAL of which had an official registration number containing the digits \u201c CARDINAL \u201d . CARDINAL masked men in black uniforms and armed with pistols and machine guns got out of the Priora cars , knocked Mr PERSON off his feet and forced him into CARDINAL of their vehicles . They threatened his son with firearms and ordered him to stay in the car . The abduction took place QUANTITY from the district police station ( the department of the interior ) and the public prosecutor \u2019s office . After the abduction the perpetrators drove away through the local traffic police checkpoint .","The applicants submitted to the ORG the witness statements of Ms Ya . NORP dated DATE and of Ms As . PERSON dated DATE . According to both women , they did not see the abduction but both saw CARDINAL ORG cars speeding away from the vicinity of where the incident took place around the time of the abduction . It does not appear that either of the witnesses provided a statement to the investigation .","The Government did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicants . At the same time they denied any involvement of ORG agents in the abduction .","In reply to the ORG \u2019s first request for a copy of the contents of the investigation file , the Government provided documents from the file , amounting to CARDINAL pages , which showed the steps taken by the investigators from DATE to DATE .","NORP In reply to the ORG \u2019s second and third requests for a copy of the contents of the investigation file , the Government submitted copies of its contents , CARDINAL pages long , which showed the steps taken by the investigators from the beginning of the proceedings to CARDINAL DATE . From the documents submitted , the investigation can be summarised as follows .","NORP Immediately after the abduction , on DATE the applicants complained to the PERSON police station ( PERSON \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b \u043f\u043e \u0433 .\u041a\u0438\u0437\u0438\u043b\u044e\u0440\u0442 ) ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the police questioned the second applicant who provided a detailed account of the events similar to the one submitted to the ORG and stated that she had learnt of Mr PERSON abduction from her nephew GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE the police examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On CARDINAL and then on DATE the police questioned Mr PERSON son GPE , whose account of the events was similar to that submitted by the applicants to the ORG . In addition , the witness stated that the abductors had scared him by threatening to shoot him if he disobeyed their orders not to move .","On DATE the police examined Mr PERSON VAZCARDINAL car . Fingerprints taken from the vehicle on that date were submitted for expert examination on DATE .","On DATE the applicants lodged an abduction complaint with the PERSON town prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the investigations department of the PERSON town prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE . The applicants were informed thereof on DATE .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON son GPE who reiterated his previous statements and added that he would not be able to identify any of the abductors as he had been scared .","On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant whose statement was similar to the applicants\u2019 account submitted to the ORG . In particular , the applicant pointed out that when driving away the ORG vehicle had gone through the traffic police checkpoint .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned again . She reiterated her previous statements .","On DATE the Dagestan Forensic Expert Examinations Bureau informed the investigators that they did not have matches in their database for the fingerprints found on Mr PERSON car .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the second applicant whose statement was similar to the applicants\u2019 account submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the investigators again examined the crime scene .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant who stated that her husband Mr PERSON did not have financial debts or enemies . At the same time she stated that on several occasions he had received threats from unidentified persons on account of his religious beliefs . Those persons had visited their house and had thrown hand - written threats inside . The applicant did not specify whether she had had any suspisions or theories concerning the identities of those persons .","On DATE the local police informed the investigators that Mr PERSON was a member of an illegal armed group , belonged to an extremist religious movement and had , therefore , most probably , staged his own abduction .","On DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL local residents , all of whom stated that they had not witnessed the abduction and found out about it from others .","On DATE the investigators examined the registration log of detainees of the ORG . No records concerning PERSON were found therein .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigators questioned police officers from the ORG : PERSON , Mr GPE , PERSON , Mr DATE and Mr D.D. All of them stated that on the date of the abduction they had been on duty at the police station and neither Mr PERSON nor his car had been brought in .","On various dates DATE the investigators received the list of calls made from and to Mr PERSON mobile telephone as well as replies to their numerous information requests concerning Mr PERSON from hospitals , morgues , retirement homes , mosques and detention centres in various regions of GPE . No information pertatining to his whereabouts or the ORG identities was obtained .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . It is unclear whether the applicants were informed thereof .","On DATE the investigation was resumed in order to take further steps .","On DATE the investigators questioned the head of the ORG officer GPE who stated that according to their information Mr PERSON was an avid follower of the extremist religious movement PERSON and that he had staged his abduction to join an illegal armed group .","On an unspecified date in DATE the investigation was resumed .","DATE and DATE the investigators questioned a number of Mr PERSON relatives and neighbours , whose statements did not provide new information . They also questioned again his son GPE and the first applicant who reiterated their earlier statements .","From the documents submitted it follows that DATE the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions . The last resumption of the investigation took place on DATE . The proceedings are still pending .","The applicants alleged that ORG agents were responsible for PERSON PERSON disappearance . They stressed that the authorities had suspected him of membership of illegal armed groups and , therefore , had motives for his abduction . The abductors had used Priora cars with heavily tinted windows ; only law - enforcement agencies could use such vehicles . Moreover , after the abduction the perperators had passed through a permanent road traffic police checkpoint . The applicants referred to statements of local residents who had not witnessed the abduction but had seen vehicles similar to those of the abductors driving to that police station . Lastly , the applicants referred to a number of cases of abduction perpetrated in ORG in which some of the abducted persons had been later found in ORG custody .","The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 relative Mr PERSON had been abducted by unidentified men or could have staged his own abduction . The only witness to the events was Mr PERSON son GPE , who was a minor , and the other persons , including the applicants , learnt of the events from him . In such circumstances the applicants\u2019 allegations concerning involvement of ORG agents in the incident were groundless .","A summary of the principles concerning the assessment of evidence and establishment of facts in disappearance cases and the life - threatening nature of such incidents may be found in ORG v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , QUANTITY , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","The ORG notes that in reply to its request for a copy of the investigation file into the abduction the Government produced the relevant documents from the file ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG has already found the NORP authorities responsible for disappearances of civilians perpetrated in PERSON ( see , for example , GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) . In doing so , it has taken into account the length of time during which the applicants had not had any news of their missing relatives and witness statements and other documents attesting to the presence of security or law - enforcement personnel in the area concerned at the relevant time . It has relied on witness accounts and other information on security operations .","However , in the present case the circumstances in which the events occurred can not warrant an unequivocal conclusion that ORG agents were responsible for the abduction of the applicants\u2019 relative for the following reasons . As regards the general background , the events complained of took place in DATE and there was neither a curfew in place nor any restrictions on driving in civilian vehicles . Furthermore , from the documents submitted it appears that the applicants\u2019 version of the events was based on the statements of the only witness , Mr PERSON son , who according to his own statement had been scared during the incident ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and of persons who had not witnessed the actual abduction and whose statements were not included in the investigation file ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition , the ORG notes that the first applicant stated to the investigation that Mr PERSON had received threats but did not specify whom she had suspected or the nature of the threats received ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In such a situation the ORG has little evidence on which to draw such conclusions as the factual circumstances of the incident as presented by the applicants do not include any evidence corroborating their account to a decisive extent .","Accordingly , the information in the ORG \u2019s possession does not suffice to establish that the perpetrators belonged to the security forces or that a security operation was carried out in respect of Mr PERSON .","To sum up , it has not been established to the required standard of proof that ORG agents were implicated in the disappearance of Mr PERSON ; nor does the ORG consider that the burden of proof can be entirely shifted to the ORG , having regard , in particular , to the fact that they submitted a copy of the relevant documents from the investigation file as requested by the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153498","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KUDLI\u010cKA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr Z. Pokorn\u00fd , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , the applicant brought an action before ORG against his former employer , ORG , claiming compensation for wages and travel and subsistence allowances amounting to CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( which at that time corresponded to approximately LAW ) . The substance of the dispute was whether the applicant \u2019s case concerned a business trip or only the employer \u2019s instruction designating a new place of reporting to work .","Upon the court \u2019s request , on DATE and DATE the applicant supplemented his action . In his submission of DATE he reduced his claim to CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( which by this time , owing to currency fluctuations , was worth about LAW ) .","On DATE , ORG delivered a judgment in which it granted the action to a large extent .","Upon the applicant \u2019s and defendant \u2019s appeals , on DATE ORG quashed the judgment and sent the case back to the court of first instance for further proceedings .","On DATE , ORG delivered a judgment granting the action .","Upon the defendant \u2019s appeal , on DATE ORG reversed the judgment and dismissed the action .","On DATE , the applicant filed a constitutional appeal , which was dismissed on DATE .","On DATE , the applicant applied to ORG , claiming compensation for non - pecuniary damage caused by an unreasonable length of the above court proceedings .","On DATE , ORG noted that there had been delays in the court proceedings but did not award compensation to the applicant , considering that the finding of a violation was sufficient in this case .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant brought an action for compensation before ORG , claiming MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at that time ) .","On DATE , ORG delivered a judgment awarding the applicant an amount of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at that time ) for non - pecuniary damage caused by the unreasonable length of the proceedings .","Upon the applicant \u2019s appeal , on DATE ORG delivered a judgment upholding the judgment of the court of first instance .","The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the allegedly excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the ORG \u2019s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162211","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CUMHUR\u0130YET HALK PART\u0130S\u0130 v. TURKEY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant party is a NORP political party based in GPE .","Supervision of the finances of political parties in GPE is entrusted to ORG ( \u201c the Constitutional Court \u201d ) under LAW . Accordingly , all political parties are obliged to submit their consolidated final accounts annually to ORG , which reviews the compliance of the political parties\u2019 incomes and expenditure with the principles set out in LAW and sections CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL on Political Parties ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) . Failure to comply with the relevant laws is subject to sanctions set out in LAW . The decisions delivered by ORG in this regard are final .","In keeping with the requirement under LAW and sections CARDINAL of LAW , the applicant party submitted the consolidated final accounts of its headquarters and local branches for DATE , DATE and DATE to ORG for inspection . While the exact dates are unknown , it appears that the accounts were submitted within DATE of the end of each respective DATE ( that is , before DATE ) in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The Constitutional Court carried out a preliminary inspection on CARDINAL DATE for the DATE accounts and on DATE for DATE and DATE accounts . At the end of each preliminary inspection , it found the information submitted by the applicant party to be complete and decided to proceed with an examination on the merits .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG sent the applicant party \u201c questionnaires \u201d in relation to its accounts for DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , whereby it requested the party to provide further information and documents regarding some of the expenses that it deemed problematic . It also requested the applicant party to provide the original invoices or other supporting documentation as required under PERSON no . CARDINAL on Tax Procedure ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) for all items of expenditure that had not been submitted previously .","It appears that the applicant party responded to ORG requests within DATE of their receipt ; its responses are summarised in the appendix below . It was , however , unable to provide original invoices or the like for all the items of expenditure as requested .","On DATE the ORG delivered its decision regarding the final accounts of the applicant party for DATE , which was followed by decisions pertaining to DATE and DATE accounts , both delivered on DATE . The decision concerning the DATE accounts was published in ORG on DATE and the decisions for DATE and DATE accounts were published on DATE .","In all CARDINAL decisions ORG found at the outset that the income and expenses presented in the final accounts were financially accurate . It also held that the income obtained in the period under review had been mostly in compliance with the rules on funding as set out in LAW . As for the expenses , ORG made the following preliminary remarks to explain the basis for its examination :","\u201c CARDINAL of the main tenets of accounting is the principle of \u2018 documentation\u2019 . Section CARDINAL of LAW explains that \u2018 an invoice is a commercial certificate given to a customer by a vendor or a merchant to indicate the amount owed by the customer in return for the goods sold or service provided\u2019 , and LAW , entitled \u2018 LAW to use an invoice\u2019 , specifies under what circumstances and by whom an invoice must be received and provided . In this connection , it has been made obligatory to document purchases of goods and services with invoices and to use invoices as supporting documents in bookkeeping .","Section CARDINAL of the same LAW , entitled \u2018 LAW , states that \u2018 self - employed persons are under an obligation to issue a freelance receipt in duplicate for all payments received in relation to their professional activities and to give CARDINAL copy to the customer ; and the customer is under an obligation to request and receive such receipt\u2019 . The contents of a receipt have been set out in section CARDINAL .","Section CARDINAL of the same Act , entitled \u2018 Expense note\u2019 , states that ... those [ tradespersons exempt from taxation ] who are under no obligation to furnish an invoice should issue expense notes .","Since section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . PERSON [ LAW ] provides that expenses below MONEY do not need to be substantiated with documents such as a receipt or an invoice , any expenses exceeding that amount must be based on a relevant supporting document .","Under section CARDINAL of LAW , \u2018 all expenses of a political party shall be incurred on behalf of the legal personality of that political party\u2019 and pursuant to section CARDINAL of the same Act , \u2018 at the end of its inspection , the Constitutional Court shall determine the accuracy and the lawfulness of the political party \u2019s income and expenses , and shall order the registration of unlawful income and expenses as revenue with ORG .","Law no . DATE ... , which was published in ORG dated DATE [ and which introduced some amendments to section CARDINAL of LAW ] , came into force on the date of its publication and it does not envisage ... the [ retroactive ] application of the amended provisions ... ; therefore , the unamended provisions are to be applied to inspections and proceedings predating the amendments . \u201d","On the basis of the principles outlined above , ORG found that certain expenses incurred in the respective periods under review had been in violation of LAW . The violations in question fell under CARDINAL heads : the first head consisted of expenses that could not be considered to have been made \u201c in pursuance of the objectives of the political party \u201d and \u201c in the name of the party \u2019s legal personality \u201d on the basis of a decision of the competent party organ , in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ; and the second head concerned the expenses that had not been substantiated with the necessary documents as required under section DATE , regardless of whether they were otherwise lawful . ORG accordingly ordered the \u201c confiscation of the party \u2019s assets \u201d in the amounts corresponding to its unlawful expenditure for each respective DATE under review , as per sections DATE of the Act .","The details of ORG findings are presented in the table below ( the amounts indicated are in NORP liras ( TRY ) ) :","Further details regarding the individual expenses that were deemed unlawful by ORG may be found in the appendix below .","The Constitutional Court treated all expenses that were not supported by original invoices , freelance receipts or expense notes as \u201c undocumented \u201d , referring to the strict requirements of documentation set out under LAW as referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above . The applicant party informed ORG that in view of the sheer volume of documents circulating in the party , the originals of some invoices had been lost and submitted other documents as proof of payment . However , where the expense concerned an invoiceable transaction , ORG did not accept as proof of payment vouchers , receipts , payment orders or even duplicates or notarycertified copies of invoices , and ordered the confiscation of the applicant party \u2019s assets in the amounts corresponding to the undocumented expenses .","The expenses that were found not to have been incurred \u201c in pursuance of the party \u2019s objectives \u201d and \u201c in the name of the legal personality of the party \u201d following a decision of the competent party organ , and those that were considered to \u201c fall outside the party \u2019s political activities \u201d , covered a wide array of financial activities .","They included food , pharmaceutical and accommodation expenses , including those incurred by members of the party and employees of the party headquarters or its youth branches . Although the applicant party argued that the expenses in question had been incurred by the relevant individuals while on official duty , ORG did not accept them as lawful expenses since the invoices had been drawn up in the individual ORG or employees\u2019 names , rather than in the name of the party . Moreover , the applicant party had not submitted any other tangible evidence to demonstrate the professional nature of those expenses . In this connection , ORG refused to accept that the food expenses of the driver assigned to the party leader and of other drivers working for the party could be lawfully met by the applicant party , in spite of the latter \u2019s explanation that the relevant expenses had been incurred while the drivers were on duty .","Among the food expenses declared unlawful were expenses incurred by the head of the applicant party \u2019s youth branch , ORG , who appears to have hosted CARDINAL dinners in DATE in connection with election work . ORG accepted CARDINAL of those meals as lawful expenses in relation to party work , but rejected the remaining CARDINAL without any explanation .","Reimbursement of food and commuting expenses of persons not on the applicant party \u2019s payroll and not party to the collective labour agreement between the applicant party and its salaried employees , such as freelance consultants , was not considered to be in keeping with the \u201c party \u2019s objectives \u201d . Similarly , meals offered to persons who provided various services to the applicant party , but who were legally employed by other public or private bodies , such as police officers , municipality employees , journalists or gardeners , could not qualify as legitimate expenses under LAW because any meal costs had to be met by the relevant person \u2019s respective employers and not by the applicant party . Some dinners hosted for the applicant party \u2019s guests , volunteers or personnel for special occasions were also considered to constitute personal expenditure not related to the party \u2019s legal personality , whereas some other dinners were accepted as relevant to party work . In this connection , ORG found that the expenses borne for the meals hosted for ORG and the Pir Sultan Abdal Association , as well as the meals organised for party personnel on the occasion of GPE and following the death of an employee \u2019s father , should not have been paid from the party \u2019s budget , whereas it deemed legitimate the expenses in relation to food offered to ORG workers during their industrial action .","ORG also refused to accept a great number of travel expenses as lawful , because the bus and plane tickets in question had been prepared in the name of the individuals travelling rather than in the party \u2019s name , and the official decisions of the relevant party organs authorising travel had not been submitted . In addition , reimbursement of passport fees to various employees was not considered relevant to the party \u2019s objectives , even when the passports had been obtained for travel in connection with party business , as passports could be used for personal travel as well . ORG also deemed costs for printing of business cards for employees to be unlawful , considering them to be personal expenses .","Payments made to employees apart from the entitlements specifically indicated in the collective labour agreement , including New Year bonuses ( MONEY ( ORG ) per person in DATE ) or bonuses to reward extra work during the general election period , were also deemed to fall outside the scope of the lawful expenditure provided for in LAW . Moreover , chocolates distributed to party personnel for DATE alFitr ( PERSON ) in DATE were found to be unlawful expenses , whereas no such finding was made in relation to the chocolates distributed during DATE , DATE ( PERSON ) . Blankets , umbrellas and raincoats purchased for use at the party headquarters were also found to be personal expenses , whereas no such finding was made for clothes and dishwashers purchased for the use of personnel .","In addition , payments made to security and cleaning personnel in excess of the amounts specifically indicated in the service agreements , where such excess amounts \u2013 no matter how meagre \u2013 could not be explained by increases in social security contributions or taxes , were considered unjustified and thus unlawful .","ORG also found that the severance packages given to employees whose contracts had been terminated , which included basic severance pay , unused vacation time and benefits corresponding to unused leave , were not in compliance with LAW and were therefore unlawful , as benefits corresponding to unused leave should not have been included in the severance packages .","The review of the financial accounts for DATE also revealed that the applicant party had paid court fees in various legal proceedings in which members of the party \u2019s senior management and\/or its members of parliament , including its leader at the relevant time , had been involved . Although the applicant party stated that the legal proceedings in question had concerned the party \u2019s political activities , and not personal disputes , ORG nevertheless decided that the litigation expenses had to be met by the persons in question , regardless of their role or status in the party , as the political party itself was not a party to any of the relevant proceedings . In the decision of DATE concerning the review of the DATE accounts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , CARDINAL of the judges dissented from the majority \u2019s approach to this matter , and argued that demanding that such costs be met by the individual members of the party involved directly in the litigation , regardless of the effects of that litigation on the political party , would unduly curtail the scope of the party \u2019s political activities in an unconstitutional manner .","Another payment that was considered unlawful by ORG was made to ORG , a nationwide television channel , for the live broadcasting of political rallies and activities attended by the applicant party \u2019s leader and coverage of the party \u2019s parliamentary group meetings , press conferences , and important statements made by the party \u2019s senior management , as well as the distribution of that material to other media outlets . ORG found that while the applicant party could lawfully pay for the live broadcast of the relevant events , additional payments to cover the costs of production and for the allocation of link bandwidth were unacceptable , as such costs had to be met by ORG itself . In addition , payments made in DATE for the lease of vehicles for broadcasting rallies organised by the party in various provinces were considered unlawful unless accompanied by the relevant lease agreements and detailed information on the exact nature of the services acquired . ORG also noted that an agreement had already been made with ORG for coverage of the applicant party \u2019s political rallies and other events .","Fuel and other expenses ( such as installation of sound systems , speakers and microphones ) for the vehicles owned or leased by the party and its local branches were accepted as having been made in the party \u2019s name and for its purposes only where the vehicle registration certificates or lease agreements had been submitted to ORG along with the invoices . As for fuel and other expenses for vehicles made available to the party by volunteers during the election campaigns , they were deemed entirely unlawful in the absence of any contracts with the volunteers for the use of the relevant vehicles .","ORG held that gold coins given as wedding gifts at wedding ceremonies attended by the applicant party \u2019s leader on behalf of the party could not be considered to have been made in the name of the party or in pursuance of its objectives . Similarly , the costs of flowers sent by the applicant party \u2019s treasurer for special events could not be classified as lawful expenses where the invoice had been drawn up not in the party \u2019s name but in the name of the treasurer .","ORG also held that fines for traffic violations by the party \u2019s drivers , as well as fines or interest on late payment of various financial obligations , such as social security contributions , court orders , rents or motor vehicle taxes for the party \u2019s vehicles , could not be lawfully covered from the party \u2019s budget , and had to be met by the individuals who had been responsible for defaulting on such payments .","NORP Moreover , ORG found that advance payments made to CARDINAL employees in DATE had only been partially repaid . In the light of the prohibition in section CARDINAL of LAW against lending money , the advance payments in question were unlawful and were thus confiscated in full ( including the amounts that had been repaid by the relevant employees ) .","ORG also issued a number of warnings in relation to certain expenditure in DATE and DATE .","One of those warnings concerned the payment of GPE salaries . Although the applicant party had submitted the relevant payment orders , it had not provided bank statements demonstrating that the amounts ordered had actually been paid . ORG warned the applicant party to submit such bank statements with its consolidated accounts to demonstrate that the payments in question had indeed been made .","Another warning was issued in relation to a payment made to a private company in return for installing a sound system for an election bus . ORG requested the applicant party to submit a technical report indicating when the work had been completed and a record stating that the bus had been duly delivered . The applicant party responded that there was no legal obligation to prepare such documents . ORG held that in the absence of such information , it could not know whether the service had been delivered on time and , if not , whether the service provider had paid the penalty envisaged in the service agreement for defaulting on its obligation .","Yet another warning was issued about the incompatibility between the party \u2019s expenses and its inventory , in that a number of items allegedly purchased for the party ( CARDINAL televisions and one computer ) had not been registered in the inventory .","ORG also issued a warning in connection with advance payments made to some employees in DATE , in addition to ordering the confiscation of the applicant party \u2019s assets in the full amount of the advance payments in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant party received a letter from the GPE governor \u2019s office ordering it to pay the amounts indicated in the ORG decision concerning the review of the DATE final accounts , which totalled TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL on DATE , the date of the delivery of the decision ) , within DATE of the receipt of the letter .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant party sent a letter to the GPE governor \u2019s office requesting postponement of the payment until DATE , in view of the financial difficulties it would suffer for the rest of DATE in the event of immediate payment of the amounts concerned .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant party that the payments due in relation to the DATE final accounts had been deducted from the ORG funding allocated to it on DATE for DATE , together with interest of TRY CARDINAL running from the date on which the payment had become due ( namely CARDINAL DATE ) . The amount deducted thus totalled approximately TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL on DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant party received a letter from the GPE governor \u2019s office ordering it to pay the amounts indicated in the ORG decisions concerning the review of DATE final accounts , plus interest , which totalled approximately TRY CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL as at DATE ) , within DATE of the receipt of the letter .","On DATE the applicant party sent a letter to the GPE governor \u2019s office , once again requesting the postponement of the payments due in relation to its DATE and DATE accounts until DATE .","On DATE the applicant party paid TRY CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL at the material time ) to ORG for its unlawful expenses , in compliance with ORG review decision for DATE , and TRY CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at the material time ) for the decision regarding the accounts for DATE . It refused to pay the interest , which it contested before the relevant authorities .","On DATE the applicant party paid ORG the sum of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as default interest on the amounts confiscated in relation to its DATE and DATE accounts .","On DATE local elections were held in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179856","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SOLT\u00c9SZ AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the complaints are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144548","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON oglu GPE ( PERSON o\u011flu PERSON ) , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant \u2019s son , GPE , had been serving as a lieutenant in ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in GPE region since DATE . The frontier station where GPE had been serving was situated at the AzerbaijaniGeorgian border , not far from the village of PERSON . He was a deputy commander of his unit .","On DATE , at the request of his commander , GPE and CARDINAL soldiers under his supervision went to a belt of woodland near their barracks to cut some wood . The objective of the mission was to provide the frontier station with wood for its domestic needs . GPE and the other soldiers were sent on the mission without any weapons , other than axes for cutting wood and ropes .","After their arrival at the forest they divided into CARDINAL groups : GPE stayed with CARDINAL of the soldiers , GPE and PERSON , and the other CARDINAL soldiers worked in another part of the forest not far from them . At TIME as GPE , GPE and PERSON were approaching the road crossing the forest , where they met a hunter ( ORG ) with a shotgun . GPE asked ORG to produce his gun licence . As B.N refused to do so , FAC ordered the soldiers to take ORG to the frontier station . At that moment , ORG fired at FAC He then attempted to shoot GPE , who prevented him from doing so by seizing his shotgun . However , ORG managed to escape .","NORP The soldiers took GPE to the frontier station on a tractor trailer . GPE was then taken to hospital by car , but he died before reaching the hospital .","A criminal investigation was immediately instituted in connection with ORG death .","On DATE ORG was arrested by the police and on DATE he was charged under LAW murder ) of LAW .","B.N. confessed to his crime during the investigation . He stated that he lived in the LOC village and on DATE he had gone to the forest next to the village to hunt because it had been his daughter \u2019s birthday . At TIME he met GPE and CARDINAL soldiers in the forest . GPE asked him for his gun licence , and as he failed to produce it , FAC ordered the soldiers to take him to the frontier station . Following GPE \u2019s order the CARDINAL soldiers began to punch him and at that moment he shot GPE , who was standing between the CARDINAL soldiers . He justified his action as retaliation for GPE \u2019s order to take him to the frontier station . However , ORG denied that he had also attempted to shoot another soldier .","The CARDINAL soldiers involved in the incident were also questioned by the investigator . They stated that on DATE they had gone on a mission to the forest to cut wood and that during the mission they had been under ORG orders . When they arrived at the road crossing the forest , they met ORG , who was armed . GPE asked ORG for his gun licence . As ORG failed to produce that document , ORG ordered them to take ORG to the frontier station . At that moment , ORG shot FAC and then tried to shoot GPE , but did not manage to do so because GPE seized ORG \u2019s shotgun . The soldiers also stated that they had immediately taken GPE to the frontier station , but that he died later .","A face - to - face confrontation was carried out between ORG and the CARDINAL soldiers during which the parties reiterated their initial submissions .","The commander of ORG unit and the other soldiers of the unit participating in the mission were also questioned by the investigator . They confirmed the above - mentioned version of the events .","Following a forensic examination carried out during the investigation , it was established that GPE had died as a result of the shooting of DATE . The investigation further established that ORG was not in possession of a gun licence . On DATE a psychiatric expert concluded that ORG was not of unsound mind when he had shot GPE","Having requested recognition as a legal heir of the victim ( z\u0259r\u0259r\u00e7\u0259kmi\u015fin h\u00fcquqi varisi ) , on DATE the investigator granted the request and the applicant was then heard as such . The applicant stated that at TIME on DATE he had been informed that his son had been killed in the LOC village , but he had not known the circumstances of his death .","On DATE the investigator lodged an indictment with ORG .","On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing . It transpires from TIME of the hearings before ORG that ORG and the soldiers maintained their initial statements submitted during the investigation . The unit commander was also heard before the court . He stated that on DATE GPE and CARDINAL other soldiers went at his request to the forest to cut some wood for the domestic needs of the frontier station . At TIME a tractor approached the frontier station and he learned that GPE had been shot by a hunter . He immediately took FAC to the LOC village doctor and informed the ORG \u2019s administration about the incident , but it was not possible to save ORG life .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG found ORG guilty , under Articles CARDINAL ( attempt to commit a crime ) and CARDINAL ( murder ) of LAW , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court found that ORG had had no gun licence and that the ORG officers had been entitled to stop and check the documents of people who lived in the border area . The court also noted that the rules on hunting in the border area should be coordinated with the border troops .","On an unspecified date the applicant and ORG appealed against ORG judgment . The applicant asked the appellate court to sentence ORG to life imprisonment , while ORG asked the court to reduce his prison term .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s and ORG appeals and upheld ORG judgment . It held that the applicant \u2019s appeal was unsubstantiated , because ORG had taken into consideration the mitigating and aggravating circumstances when it had sentenced ORG to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a cassation appeal . He asked the court to sentence ORG to a heavier penalty .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld ORG judgment .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against ORG seeking compensation for the death of his son . The applicant argued that his son had been killed because he had not been provided with adequate weapons when he was sent on a mission , and that therefore the ORG had failed to protect his son \u2019s life . He also noted that ORG had been given a lenient sentence and that the responsibility of the ORG \u2019s officers for his son \u2019s death had not been established .","It appears from the case file that , in the proceedings before ORG , a representative of ORG objected to the judge sitting in the case , claiming that the judge in question had taken no action despite the fact that the applicant had insulted her at the hearings .","On DATE the President of ORG granted the request of the representative of ORG and allocated the case to another judge .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision , objecting to the participation in the case of all the judges of the court , including the president of the court .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and remitted the case to ORG . The court held that the applicant had failed to substantiate his objection .","On DATE ORG delivered a judgment on the merits , dismissing the applicant \u2019s claim . The court held that it had been established in the criminal proceedings that GPE had been killed by ORG and that a civil judge was obliged to take the findings of the criminal proceedings into account in order to establish the facts . Therefore the applicant should lodge a compensation claim against ORG , but not against the ORG , which was not responsible for the death of his son .","The applicant appealed against that judgment . He claimed that his son had been killed because GPE and other soldiers had been sent on a mission without weapons . He further complained that the civil proceedings had been unfair , claiming in particular that the judge had not examined his claim within the statutory time - limits and that the hearing had not been held in accordance with the formal requirements of the law .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment . It held that the ORG had no civil responsibility for GPE \u2019s death , because his death had not resulted from any wrongful acts of the ORG authorities or their officials . The court further held that ORG was responsible for ORG death and that the applicant could bring an action against him .","On DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal , reiterating his previous complaints .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal . It noted that in accordance with LAW , the ORG was responsible for the damage caused to individuals by wrongful acts or omissions of the ORG authorities or their officials . However , the ORG was not responsible for GPE \u2019s death because his death had not resulted from any wrongful acts of the ORG authorities or their officials .","Article CARDINAL of the PERSON on ORG of DATE provides that military personnel of the border troops , while directly protecting the State border of GPE , will use firearms and weaponry . The same provision refers to the Law on State Border which deals with the circumstances of the use of firearms and weaponry .","Article CARDINAL of the Law on GPE of DATE provides for the rules on the use of firearms and weaponry by border patrols . The relevant part of the provision reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . During the exercise of their duties in the field of protection of the State border , the border troops shall use firearms and weaponry for the neutralisation of real and potential threats on the State border , the protection of the population and property in the frontier zone from such actions , and their prevention .","Border patrols are also entitled to use firearms and weaponry in the following cases :","a ) In order to neutralise attacks and to break down the resistance of armed individuals where there is a threat to the lives of border guards or the population and there is no possibility to prevent this threat ;","...","The use of firearms by the border troops is forbidden in the following cases :","a ) Against persons violating the State border of GPE within the sight of a border guard , provided that this violation is related to the implementation of agricultural and other work ( hunting , cattle grazing , gathering of berries or fuel , and so on ) in the vicinity of the State border of GPE ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the Law on GPE provides that hunting rules within the frontier zone must be coordinated with the border troops .","Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( \u201c the CCrP \u201d ) provides that a close relative of a victim who has died as a result of an incident can be considered as a legal heir of the victim if he or she wishes to deal with the rights and duties of the victim within the criminal proceedings . Article CARDINAL read in conjunction with Article CARDINAL ( victim ) of the ORG entitles a person recognised as a legal heir of the victim , inter alia , to submit material to the criminal case file ; to object to actions of the criminal prosecution authority ; to lodge petitions ; to have access to transcripts and documents in the case file ; to be informed about and to obtain copies of the procedural decisions of the criminal prosecution authority ; and to lodge appeals against procedural steps or decisions , as well as against court judgments and decisions ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179433","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ANCA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145007","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CATALDO AND OTHERS v. ITALY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","NORP In DATE , by means of the PERSON reform , GPE changed its pension system from a retributive one , which applied the remuneration - based ( \u201c retributivo \u201d ) method of calculation , to a contributory one , where the amount received in pension was dependent on the contributions paid .","Mr PERSON , who had transferred to GPE the contributions he had paid in GPE , requested the ORG to establish his pension in accordance with the DATE Italo - Swiss Convention on Social Security ( see Relevant Domestic Law and Practice below ) on the basis of the contributions paid in GPE for work he had performed there DATE . As a basis for the calculation of his pension ( in respect of the average remuneration of DATE ) , the ORG employed a theoretical remuneration ( \u201c retribuzione teorica \u201d ) instead of the real remuneration ( \u201c retribuzione effettiva \u201d ) . The former resulted in a readjustment on the basis of the existing ratio between the contributions applied in GPE ( PERCENT ) and in GPE ( PERCENT ) , which meant that the calculation had as its basis a pseudo - salary which amounted to CARDINAL of the salary actually received by the applicant and therefore led to a reduction in the pension itself .","Consequently , in DATE Mr PERSON instituted judicial proceedings , contending that this was contrary to the spirit of ORG .","Various individuals in the same position had done the same and had been successful , the domestic courts having determined that persons having worked in GPE and who had subsequently transferred their contributions to GPE should benefit from the remuneration - based pension calculations , on the basis of the wages earned in GPE , irrespective of the fact that the transferred contributions had been paid at a much lower NORP rate .","Pending the proceedings , PERSON no . CARDINAL ( see Relevant Domestic Law and Practice below ) entered into force on DATE .","By a judgment of ORG ) of DATE , filed in the relevant registry on DATE , the court rejected PERSON claim in view of the entry into force of PERSON no . CARDINAL .","Mr PERSON did not appeal , deeming it to be futile given that the impugned law had been considered legitimate by ORG in its judgment of DATE , no . CARDINAL ( see Relevant Domestic Law and Practice below ) , which other courts were then bound to uphold .","Mr GPE , who had transferred to GPE the contributions he had paid in GPE , requested the ORG to establish his pension in accordance with the DATE Italo - Swiss Convention on Social Security on the basis of the contributions paid in GPE for work he had performed there DATE . As a basis for the calculation of his pension ( in respect of the average remuneration of DATE ) , the ORG employed a theoretical remuneration ( \u201c retribuzione teorica \u201d ) instead of the real remuneration ( \u201c retribuzione effettiva \u201d ) . The former resulted in a readjustment on the basis of the existing ratio between the contributions applied in GPE ( PERCENT ) and in GPE ( PERCENT ) , which meant that the calculation had as its basis a pseudo - salary which amounted to CARDINAL of the salary actually received by the applicant and therefore led to a reduction in the pension itself .","Consequently , in DATE Mr PERSON instituted judicial proceedings .","By a judgment of ORG ) of DATE , Mr PERSON \u2019s claim was upheld on the basis of the relevant ORG case - law at the time .","The ORG appealed .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , filed in the relevant registry on CARDINAL DATE , ORG reversed the first - instance judgment in view of the entry into force of PERSON no .","Mr PERSON , who had transferred to GPE the contributions he had paid in GPE , requested the ORG to establish his pension in accordance with the DATE Italo - Swiss Convention on Social Security on the basis of the contributions paid in GPE for work he had performed there DATE . As a basis for the calculation of his pension ( in respect of the average remuneration of DATE ) , the ORG employed a theoretical remuneration ( \u201c retribuzione teorica \u201d ) instead of the real remuneration ( \u201c retribuzione effettiva \u201d ) . The former resulted in a readjustment on the basis of the existing ratio between the contributions applied in GPE ( PERCENT ) and in GPE ( PERCENT ) , which meant that the calculation had as its basis a pseudo - salary which amounted to CARDINAL of the salary actually received by the applicant and therefore led to a reduction in the pension itself .","Consequently , in DATE PERSON instituted judicial proceedings .","By a judgment of ORG ) of DATE , PERSON claim was upheld on the basis of the relevant Court of Cassation case - law at the time .","The ORG appealed .","By a judgment of DATE , filed in the relevant registry on DATE , ORG reversed the first - instance judgment in view of the entry into force of PERSON no . CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178940","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SYARKEVICH v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-d - Obtain attendance of witnesses;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Obtain attendance of witnesses)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived until his arrest in the town of GPE , LOC .","On DATE the applicant was apprehended in a flat with unregistered firearms in his possession . CARDINAL tied persons with traces of beatings , including PERSON , were discovered in a cloakroom of the flat . An investigator of the LOC police department drew up an arrest record .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was authorised . DATE the applicant was charged with a number of crimes , including organisation and leadership of an armed gang , several counts of aggravated kidnapping , extortion , robbery and fraud , as well as illegal possession of firearms .","The applicant \u2019s detention was further extended by ORG and ORG on DATE occasions up until his conviction . When extending the applicant \u2019s detention , the domestic courts referred to the particular gravity and quantity of the charges against him ; complexity of the criminal investigation and difficulties of jury trial ; the applicant \u2019s liability to abscond , re - offend and interfere with the course of justice , given his personality and criminal record ; significant volume of evidence presented by the defence during the trial . The courts also kept track of the course of the investigation and assessed investigative and operative measures planned by the prosecution , including arrests of the applicant \u2019s accomplices ( which were still at liberty or had absconded in breach of the measure of restraint imposed on them and had been put on the wanted ORG list ) , complex expert examinations requiring participation of the applicant and the victims and examination of the case - file by the applicant and his accomplices . The applicant \u2019s requests for release on bail , as well as his appeal complaints against the detention orders , were to no avail .","On DATE the applicant and his lawyers started studying the case file materials comprising CARDINAL volumes , CARDINAL pages long each . On DATE ORG set a time - limit for studying , affording the applicant additional DATE to complete it . On DATE the case was referred to ORG for trial .","On DATE ORG , by a jury verdict , found the applicant and CARDINAL of his accomplices guilty as charged . On DATE ORG , relying on the jury verdict , sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL one years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant was found guilty , in particular , of an aggravated fraud , robbery , kidnapping and extortion in respect of Mr L. , a businessman from LOC . The jury found that in DATE the applicant had approached PERSON under the pretence of being a car salesman . The applicant had promised PERSON to sell him a car for MONEY ( RUB ) . However , after PERSON had transferred the money to an account indicated by the applicant , the latter had disappeared . In DATE the applicant contacted Mr L. , told him that he had just returned from GPE with his car and invited him to come to LOC for it . On his arrival at the airport of GPE on DATE Mr L. was met by PERSON , one of the applicant \u2019s accomplices , and taken to the applicant \u2019s country house where he was held until DATE , being subjected to beatings and extortion by the applicant and his gang .","Neither PERSON , nor PERSON were heard in open court . PERSON had been found dead in a remand prison cell before the trial commenced . As for PERSON L. , residing in LOC , the trial court attempted to secure his presence on several occasions by summoning him and ordering his escort to the court . In reply he informed the trial court about being unable to travel to GPE in view of his spinal disease and a medical contraindication to air travel . He submitted a number of documents in support , as well as a written notice in which he confirmed his pre - trial statements . Having regard to these circumstances , the trial court allowed the prosecution \u2019s request to read out PERSON and PERSON PERSON \u2019s statements incriminating the applicant , despite the latter \u2019s objections .","The jury further established that in DATE and DATE and in DATE the applicant had organised an armed robbery and kidnapping of CARDINAL other victims , including PERSON and had extorted a large sum of money in exchange for their freedom . PERSON also was not heard in court as he was allegedly on vacation in GPE . Disregarding the applicant \u2019s objections , ORG read out PERSON pre - trial statements against the applicant .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against the judgment of ORG , complaining , among other matters , about the decision to read out pre - trial statements by PERSON , PERSON and PERSON On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of ORG , noting that it had correctly considered that reasons for the ORG absence had been extraordinary and that it had lawfully read out their pre - trial statements ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":["5","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3","6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-149124","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"T.H.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr ORG , is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant , of NORP ethnicity , ran an electronics shop in GPE . On DATE a bomb exploded on the street near his shop . He was arrested by the Sri NORP army on suspicion of being involved in the explosion because the bomb had been detonated remotely and his electronics skills made him a suspect .","The applicant was detained by the Sri NORP authorities for DATE before being released without charge . He claims that he was interrogated about his links to ORG ( \u201c the NORP \u201d or \u201c NORP Tigers \u201d ) and ill - treated and tortured by GPE soldiers . He subsequently left GPE with the assistance of an agent on his own passport . He came to GPE via GPE and GPE .","The applicant arrived in GPE on DATE and claimed asylum on DATE .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG refused his asylum application .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) dismissed his appeal as not credible on the basis of the inconsistencies in his various accounts . Specifically , the ORG commented that aspects of his account were \u201c garbled \u201d and \u201c difficult to follow \u201d .","On DATE a senior immigration judge refused his application for reconsideration .","The applicant obtained a medical report dated DATE . The report concluded that the applicant \u2019s account of his scarring was consistent with what he claimed had happened to him in GPE . In particular , the medical report concluded that the tramline scars on his back made it difficult to consider any innocent explanation for his injuries because they could not have been self - inflicted . The report stated that the applicant \u2019s symptoms fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for post - traumatic stress disorder .","In DATE the applicant submitted further representations to ORG on the basis of the medical report .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG refused asylum on the basis of the fresh representations . She did not accept the conclusions of the medical report . The applicant was granted a further in - country right of appeal before the First - tier ORG ( ORG ) ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The judge accepted the findings of the medical report and was therefore satisfied that the applicant had been ill - treated while detained by the Sri NORP army in DATE . However , he observed that the applicant had later been released by the Sri NORP authorities without charge and had not been asked to attend court or report to the authorities . The judge therefore concluded that the Sri NORP authorities had had no further adverse interest in the applicant after his detention . This was consistent with the fact that the applicant had been able to leave GPE in DATE on his own passport without being picked up by the Sri NORP authorities .","The judge further considered and applied the risk factors set out in the country guidance case of ORG ( NORP , ORG updated ) ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He found that the applicant would not be at risk upon return as a young NORP male who had been detained by the Sri NORP authorities and ill - treated in DATE . Although he accepted that past ill - treatment could be a guide to future risk , he did not agree that the applicant would be at risk of ill - treatment upon return to GPE . His previous record and \u201c extensive scarring \u201d were relevant risk factors but , on balance , the fact that he had been released without charge by the army in DATE and had been able to leave GPE on his own passport was more significant because the authorities would not have released him unless they had not wanted him anymore . The judge therefore concluded that the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE would not breach LAW .","The applicant did not apply for permission to appeal to ORG .","In DATE the applicant was detained by ORG ( \u201c UKBA \u201d ) to effect his removal to GPE .","On DATE and DATE the applicant submitted further representations to ORG including an update of the general human rights situation in GPE and a reference to a purported GPE arrest warrant dated DATE supported by a letter from a GPE lawyer attesting its validity .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was interviewed by ORG officials at an immigration removal centre . He claims that they asked him questions about his asylum claim ; that it was clear that they were aware of his past suspected ORG membership and his arrest and detention in GPE ; and that they accused him of having been involved in a bomb blast in DATE .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG refused the applicant \u2019s representations and did not accept that they amounted to a fresh asylum claim . She relied substantially upon the DATE findings of the First - tier ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and concluded that the applicant was of no adverse interest to the GPE authorities and would not be at risk of ill - treatment on return . She further considered that the arrest warrant had been presented solely in an attempt to frustrate his removal and was not genuine given , inter alia , its failure to provide information of the alleged details for which the applicant was said to be wanted by the authorities ; the timing of its production ; the difficulty for accused persons in GPE to obtain copies of arrest warrants ; the ease with which such documents could be fabricated ; and the fact that there was nothing in the applicant \u2019s past to suggest that he would be wanted by the authorities .","In conclusion , the Secretary of ORG accepted that the applicant was a GPE who had been suspected in DATE of some NORP involvement after a bomb had exploded near his shop . However , considering all of the risk factors set out in LOC ( ORG area DATE Colombo \u2013 risk ? ) GPE and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , she did not accept that he would be at real risk of Article CARDINAL treatment upon return to GPE .","On DATE the applicant issued judicial review proceedings seeking to challenge the Secretary of ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE that his further representations did not constitute a fresh claim for the purposes of paragraph CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant was served with removal directions to GPE set to take place on a charter flight on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for an order staying his removal until his application for permission to apply for judicial review had been decided . He also filed supplementary grounds of judicial review , including a claim that the Secretary of ORG had failed adequately to consider the arrest warrant ; that ORG had transmitted personal data and details regarding failed asylum seekers to ORG ; and that in light of the transmission of such information he would be at additional risk of ill - treatment , since he would be returning to GPE as an individual with an accepted history of torture and the date of his return on a charter flight would be known to the Sri NORP authorities .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representatives submitted an application under LAW to stop his removal to GPE . On DATE the Acting President applied Rule CARDINAL to stop the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE . The Judge appointed as Rapporteur under LAW of ORG asked the Government of GPE , under LAW of ORG , to confirm whether the Sri Lankan authorities had been informed that the applicant had made an asylum application in GPE and whether any documents or details pertaining to his asylum application had been provided to GPE authorities .","Also on DATE ORG granted a stay on removal until determination of the application for permission to apply for judicial review .","NORP By letter dated DATE the Agent of the Government of the GPE informed the ORG that a document had been inadvertently passed to ORG in GPE which would have alerted the Sri NORP authorities to the fact that the applicant had previously claimed asylum in GPE . However , the document had not contained any details of the nature of the applicant \u2019s asylum claim and had only provided the date of the asylum claim and the date that the applicant had exhausted his appeal rights following that unsuccessful asylum claim . The Government requested that the ORG lift the interim measure under LAW .","On DATE the Acting President refused the ORG \u2019s request to lift the interim measure under LAW and adjourned the application pending the conclusion of the judicial review proceedings .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s application for permission to apply for judicial review on the papers . It found the Secretary of ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE to be comprehensive and well - reasoned .","The applicant renewed his application for permission , relying on the existence of the arrest warrant , the disclosure of his asylum claim to the Sri NORP authorities and his interview with the GPE officials to claim a risk to him of ill - treatment on return to GPE .","A rolled up hearing ( i.e. a hearing where , if permission to apply is granted , the hearing on the merits immediately follows ) on the judicial review application took place on CARDINAL DATE . ORG granted the applicant \u2019s renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review but rejected the application on the merits .","As regards the disclosure to ORG , the court noted that the Secretary of ORG had accepted that the disclosure of the form , intended to be an internal checklist of data relating to the applicant , was in contravention of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraph DATE below ) because it included reference to the fact that the applicant had claimed asylum in GPE and provided the date of the asylum claim and the date that his final appeal had been dismissed . However , ORG did not accept that the disclosure had been deliberate , and noted that there was no suggestion that any details of the applicant \u2019s asylum interview or documents linking him or his family to the ORG had been disclosed . The court considered that the document which had been disclosed told the Sri NORP authorities very little . The court rejected the argument that unlawful disclosure would automatically invalidate any later decision to set removal directions . The question was whether the disclosure changed the applicant \u2019s risk profile so as to amount to a fresh claim . In this respect , the court pointed to country evidence suggesting that the situation seemed more relaxed than before and noted that even in DATE the majority of returned failed asylum seekers were processed relatively quickly and with no difficulty beyond some possible harassment .","As regards the arrest warrant , the court acknowledged that its existence was potentially very significant because it might show that the Sri NORP authorities had a continuing adverse interest in the applicant , contrary to the DATE findings of the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . If that were the case , the court said , it would undoubtedly give rise to a realistic prospect of success in any further appeal . The court went on to say that the warrant was a very strange document , since it appeared to relate to proceedings started in DATE and , in the section detailing the particulars of the alleged offence or reasons for the warrant , referred only to a failure to appear before court . The accompanying lawyer \u2019s letter explained that the warrant was \u201c in respect of his absconding from detention \u201d . Yet , ORG commented , nobody had ever suggested that the applicant had absconded from detention or had failed to appear at court . ORG further noted that there was absolutely no evidence of any attempt to execute this or any previous warrant , of any questioning or harassment of the applicant \u2019s family in GPE , or anything else to suggest that the warrant really was a live document which provided valuable evidence about the likely treatment of the applicant if he were returned to GPE . The court also observed that the date of the warrant appeared fortuitous , since the judge in the applicant \u2019s previous appeal had commented that the absence of any warrant was a significant feature and the warrant was dated shortly after that judgment .","Finally , as to the interview of the applicant by ORG officials , the court observed that the officials had not seemed to be aware of the existence of an arrest warrant against him ( even though they must have made inquiries about him because they had asked him about his involvement in the bomb blast near his shop ) and they had failed to raise any details of any alleged absconding from detention or failure to appear before a GPE court . Indeed , the officials had appeared to reassure the applicant that they had rehabilitated ORG members and that all the problems in GPE had been solved .","Having regard to all of the above , and even bearing in mind the potential significance of the arrest warrant and the presumption which lay behind the prohibition in LAW DATE that mere disclosure of the fact that a person was a failed asylum seeker might expose him to an increased risk , ORG found that there was no change to the risk to the applicant if returned to GPE .","The parties subsequently submitted written observations to the ORG on the admissibility and merits of the case .","In their further observations , the ORG requested the ORG to adjourn the proceedings . They explained that a new country guidance case concerning GPE ( ORG and others ( post - civil war : returnees ) GPE DATE see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) was pending before ORG .","On DATE the President of the Section decided to adjourn the examination of the case pending the outcome of the proceedings in ORG and Others .","On DATE ORG delivered its decision in ORG . The Government subsequently informed the ORG that they would review the applicant \u2019s case in light of that determination .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG informed the applicant that she did not consider his case to fall within any of the risk categories identified in ORG and Others and that she did not therefore accept that he would be at any real risk of ill - treatment on return to GPE . In particular , she emphasised that ORG in ORG and Others had not found that all NORP , all failed asylum seekers or all students were at risk on return , or that past ORG membership was sufficient to establish a risk . She noted that any risk facing a returnee had to be assessed by reference to the current objectives of ORG , who were mainly concerned with individuals who posed a threat to the stability of postconflict GPE . The Secretary of ORG expressed the view that the applicant would be \u201c of little or no interest \u201d to ORG and that he would accordingly not risk arrest or detention if returned . She remarked that he had not provided evidence of any outstanding arrest warrant or court order that would indicate that he was included on the ORG \u2019s \u201c stop list \u201d and lead to his detention for questioning upon arrival at FAC . Similarly , there was no evidence of his inclusion in a \u201c watch list \u201d that would lead to monitoring in his home area .","By letter to the ORG dated DATE the Government confirmed that the applicant \u2019s case had been reviewed and that he had been notified on CARDINAL DATE that his asylum claim had been rejected . They confirmed that it was open to the applicant to bring judicial review proceedings in respect of the decision . By letter dated DATE the ORG invited the applicant \u2019s representative to confirm by DATE whether he intended to seek judicial review of the decision and , if not , why not .","NORP By reply dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative requested a stay of proceedings pending consideration of the domestic proceedings . She explained that he had not received notification of the CARDINAL DATE decision . ORG invited her to provide an update by DATE and , in particular , to confirm whether judicial review proceedings had been brought .","By letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that she was still awaiting a copy of the letter of CARDINAL November CARDINAL . However , she invited the ORG to proceed to examine the applicant \u2019s complaints . She was asked by the ORG to confirm by CARDINAL DATE whether judicial review proceedings had been brought . By reply dated DATE , she confirmed that no judicial review application had been made .","In response to an invitation by the ORG , the applicant and the Government provided updated submissions on DATE .","Sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and PERSON ) of the Nationality , Immigration and Asylum Act DATE provide a right of appeal against an immigration decision made by the Secretary of ORG for ORG , inter alia , on the grounds that the decision is incompatible with the Convention .","Until DATE appeals in asylum and immigration were heard by the ORG . Section CARDINALA of the CARDINAL Act provided that a party could apply for an order from ORG requiring the ORG to reconsider its decision on the grounds that it had made an error of law . At the relevant time , all applications for reconsideration went through a \u201c filter procedure \u201d , so that it was first made to an authorised immigration judge of the ORG . If the immigration judge refused to make an order for reconsideration , the applicant was able to renew the application to ORG , which would consider the application afresh .","Since DATE , appeals in asylum and immigration have been heard by the First - tier ORG ) . LAW DATE provides a right of appeal to ORG , with the permission of the First - tier ORG or ORG , on a point of law .","Paragraph CARDINAL of ORG provides that further submissions made after an asylum claim has been determined will amount to a fresh claim if they are significantly different from the material that has previously been considered . The submissions will only be significantly different if the content : ( i ) has not already been considered ; and ( ii ) taken together with the previously considered material , creates a realistic prospect of success .","Until DATE a claimant could lodge with ORG an application for judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of ORG not to treat further representations as a fresh claim . Pursuant to LAW of ORG ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) , permission is required before a judicial review claim can proceed . If ORG refuses permission on the papers , the claimant can request reconsideration at an oral hearing . The court may order an oral hearing for permission with arguments on the substantive merits of the claims to be heard immediately at the hearing if permission is granted ( a rolled up hearing ) .","Rule CARDINAL ORG provides that if the ORG grants permission but refuses the application for judicial review on the merits , the claimant can apply for permission to appeal to ORG . An application for permission to appeal can be made to ORG or ORG . If an application is made to ORG , a further application can be made to ORG . If ORG refuses the application on the papers , the claimant can request a hearing unless the case has been found to be totally without merit .","Section CARDINAL of ORG provides , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) This section applies if a person\u2013","( a ) is to be removed from GPE to a country of which he is a national or citizen ; but","( b ) does not have a valid passport or other document establishing his identity and nationality or citizenship and permitting him to travel .","( CARDINAL ) If the country to which the person is to be removed indicates that he will not be admitted to it unless identification data relating to him are provided by the Secretary of ORG , he may provide them with such data .","( CARDINAL ) In providing identification data , the Secretary of ORG must not disclose whether the person concerned has made a claim for asylum . \u201d","The country guidance case - law applicable at the time of the proceedings in DATE was set out in ORG ( ORG area DATE Colombo \u2013 risk ? ) GPE [ DATE ] UKAIT DATE ( subsequently endorsed by ORG in ORG . v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) and ORG ( NORP \u2013 LP updated ) GPE [ DATE ] UKAIT DATE . The findings in both cases are set out in detail in the ORG \u2019s judgment in ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , LAW CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .","In short , the risk factors identified in ORG and confirmed in ORG were the following :","( CARDINAL ) NORP ethnicity ;","( CARDINAL ) a previous record as a suspected or actual ORG member ;","( CARDINAL ) a previous criminal record and\/or outstanding arrest warrant ;","( CARDINAL ) bail jumping and\/or escaping from custody ;","( CARDINAL ) having signed a confession or similar document ;","( CARDINAL ) having been asked by the security forces to become an informer ;","( CARDINAL ) the presence of scarring ;","( CARDINAL) return from GPE or other centre of NORP fundraising ;","( CARDINAL ) illegal departure from GPE ;","( CARDINAL ) lack of an ORG card or other documentation ;","( CARDINAL ) having made an asylum claim abroad ;","( CARDINAL ) having relatives in the ORG .","On DATE ORG promulgated its decision in GJ and others ( post - civil war : returnees ) GPE [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ( ORG ) ( \u201c GJ \u201d ) . In its judgment , ORG concluded that the focus of the Sri NORP government \u2019s concern had changed since the civil war ended in DATE . It said :","\u201c The NORP in GPE itself is a spent force and there have been no terrorist incidents since the end of the civil war .","The government \u2019s present objective is to identify NORP activists in the diaspora who are working for GPE separatism and to destabilise the unitary GPE state ... Its focus is on preventing both ( a ) the resurgence of the ORG or any similar NORP separatist organisation and ( b ) the revival of the civil war within GPE . \u201d","ORG accepted that if a person was detained by the Sri NORP security services there remained a real risk of ill - treatment or harm requiring international protection . In summary , the ORG identified the following risk factors :","( CARDINAL ) individuals perceived to be a threat to the integrity of GPE because they were perceived to have a significant role in relation to postconflict GPE separatism within the diaspora and\/or a renewal of hostilities within GPE .","( CARDINAL ) Journalists or human rights activists who had criticised the GPE government , in particular its human rights record , or who were associated with publications critical of the GPE government .","( CARDINAL ) Individuals who had given evidence to the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission implicating the GPE security forces , armed forces or GPE authorities in alleged war crimes .","( CARDINAL ) Individuals whose names appeared on a computerised \u201c stop \u201d list ( a list of those against whom there was an extant court order or arrest warrant ) accessible at the airport .","The ORG explained that the Sri Lankan authorities\u2019 approach was based on sophisticated intelligence , both as to activities within GPE and in the diaspora . It noted that the Sri NORP authorities were aware that many NORP travelled abroad as economic migrants and also that everyone in GPE had had some level of involvement with the ORG during the civil war . It continued :","\u201c In post - conflict GPE , an individual \u2019s past history will be relevant only to the extent that it is perceived by the GPE authorities as indicating a present risk to the unitary GPE state or ORG . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144345","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"N. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The first applicant is a GPE national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The second applicant is her mother , who was born in DATE and is a GPE national who lives in GPE . The third applicant is her brother , who was born in DATE and is a NORP national who also lives in GPE . All CARDINAL applicants are represented by FAC .","NORP The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","The first applicant is an ethnic GPE who holds GPE citizenship . On DATE she arrived at FAC airport on a flight from GPE via GPE . She held a valid visitor \u2019s visa for GPE and passed through immigration controls .","The first applicant went to stay with her brother , the third applicant , who was resident in GPE . Her mother , the second applicant , resided with the brother .","The first applicant subsequently instructed a solicitor who , by letter to ORG dated DATE , indicated that she wished to make an asylum claim on the ground that she feared mistreatment because of her imputed political opinion if returned to GPE . The letter recorded that she claimed to have a well - founded fear of persecution because she was an ethnic GPE from northern GPE ; she had been detained and tortured by the Sri NORP authorities ; the Sri NORP authorities had a record of her as a suspected NORP sympathiser ; she was \u201c confused and psychologically scarred \u201d ; she would be returning from GPE , which the GPE authorities regarded as a centre of NORP activity and fundraising ; and she had escaped from GPE government custody .","She attended an asylum screening interview on DATE . Her interviewer was female . According to the applicant the interview was conducted with the aid of a male , GPE - speaking interpreter . She was asked if she had a preference whether she was interviewed by a man or a woman and answered that she did not .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s asylum interview took place . The interview was conducted by a female interviewer assisted by a female , GPE - speaking interpreter . The first applicant maintained her claim for asylum or humanitarian protection on grounds of an alleged risk of illtreatment if returned . She claimed that on DATE , she had been stopped at an army checkpoint in GPE . Because her identity card listed her place of birth as PERSON , a town in a predominantly NORP area of northern GPE , she had been accused of planning acts of violence and detained by government agents for DATE at an unknown location . Her husband and others had managed to secure her release , provided that she report to the authorities DATE .","She further alleged that on DATE , she had been assaulted by ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) officers who had come to her home looking for her husband while he and their CARDINAL sons were out . She had been taken to a remote camp in an unknown , governmentcontrolled area of GPE for questioning , where she had been tortured . She had subsequently become ill and had been transferred to a hospital with a ORG guard stationed in the hospital grounds . She had escaped after DATE , at TIME when there was no guard , with the help of a nurse and her husband , who was a taxi - driver . She had paid them with a gold earring . She had not returned to her home in GPE but had spent DATE at the house of her husband \u2019s friend in PERSON before leaving the country with the help of an agent , whom she had paid with her jewellery and the title deeds to her home . She had not contacted her husband or sons since her arrest but had heard that they were no longer living at her former home . She had entered GPE on a visitor \u2019s visa which she had obtained in DATE to enable her to visit the third applicant and his wife , who were resident in GPE and had just had a baby .","NORP The Secretary of ORG refused the first applicant asylum and humanitarian protection on DATE .","On the question of the credibility of her account of events in GPE prior to her arrival in GPE , the Secretary of ORG made a number of comments . First , she did not accept as credible , having regard to immigration control procedures , the first applicant \u2019s claim at the asylum interview that she did not speak to an immigration officer when passing through immigration control . She concluded that the first applicant had gained illegal entry to GPE by verbally deceiving the immigration officer and placed \u201c significant weight \u201d on the mandatory damage done to her credibility in this regard . She further found that her credibility was damaged by the fact that she had not claimed asylum immediately on arrival at FAC but \u201c DATE \u201d after ( in their written submissions , the ORG accepted that the reference to \u201c DATE \u201d was an error and should have read \u201c DATE \u201d ) .","Second , in respect of the first applicant \u2019s alleged arrest in DATE , the Secretary of ORG found that , having lived in GPE for DATE , the first applicant would already have registered with the authorities there ( referring to information contained in GPE for GPE , DATE the \u201c COI Report DATE \u201d ) . Doubt was cast on her account of events because her claim that she was detained for the reason that her ID card stated that she was from PERSON was not considered consistent with the purpose and use of compulsory registration in GPE , which was to identify and question further those not from the area at the time of registration . Her account was also vague : she could not say who the people who had come with her husband to collect her were , or how her husband had secured her release . Despite having been released with an obligation to report on a DATE basis , she did not know to whom she had reported , where she had reported or how many times she had reported . The Secretary of ORG considered that her vague responses cast doubt on her claim . She therefore did not accept that the first applicant had been arrested and detained in the circumstances claimed , and this damaged her credibility .","Third , in respect of her alleged arrest in DATE , the Secretary of ORG considered the first applicant \u2019s claim that she was of interest to the ORG to be inconsistent with her account that the guard left the hospital , enabling her to escape . The Secretary of ORG also noted that she had all the necessary documents and means to leave GPE legally and would not have required the assistance of an agent . Her account that she was assisted by an agent was therefore not consistent with her personal circumstances . Further , since the first applicant had been too afraid to return to her home address , she had not explained how she had obtained her DATE passport for travel . This , too , cast doubt on the claim that she had left GPE in the circumstances described . The Secretary of ORG was of the view that although the first applicant had stated that she had had no contact with her husband or children since her arrest , it was unlikely that she would have fled GPE without attempting to warn them of the ORG \u2019s interest in her husband . For all of these reasons , the Secretary of ORG did not accept that she had been arrested or detained in DATE and her credibility was damaged as a result .","NORP The Secretary of ORG considered the risk to the first applicant on return to GPE in light of these adverse credibility findings and the relevant case - law . As the material facts of her claim were not accepted , the Secretary of ORG concluded that the Sri Lankan authorities would have no adverse interest in her . In terms of the risk factors identified by ORG in the leading country guidance case of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , the only ones applicable to her were her NORP ethnicity , her return from GPE and the fact that she had made an asylum claim abroad . These did not create , either separately or cumulatively , a real risk of ill - treatment on return .","As for DATE , the Secretary of ORG noted that the first applicant relied on her relationships with her mother , brother and sister ( who had arrived in GPE with the first applicant and had also claimed asylum ) . There was no evidence that these relationships involved more dependency than the usual emotional ties , and she had failed to show family life with her sister . There was equally no evidence that she had established private life in GPE since her arrival on DATE .","The first applicant appealed to the First - tier ORG ) . Her appeal was heard with that of her sister , who had also been refused asylum . The hearing took place before a male Immigration Judge and with the assistance of a male interpreter . The judge had before him , inter alia , a copy of the screening and asylum interview records , the Secretary of ORG \u2019s reasons for refusal and the grounds of appeal . He also had before him a witness statement in which the first applicant set out full details of her account , and claimed in particular that she had never registered in GPE ; that her passport had been in a locker at the bank ; and that her husband \u2019s friend had recovered her passport on her behalf . The applicants relied on the COI Report DATE together with relevant case - law and other supporting documents and objective material . The judge heard oral evidence from the applicant , her sister and her brother .","The appeal was dismissed on DATE . The judge made a number of findings of fact , explaining that he had given careful attention to the oral evidence in the case , the reasons for refusal letter , the grounds of appeal , the applicant \u2019s witness statement and the supporting documents , including the country evidence and the country guidance cases of ORG and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","He upheld the Secretary of ORG \u2019s finding that the first applicant would have had to register with the police in GPE , explaining that had she not done so , she would have been stopped at checkpoints long before DATE . He also observed that the Sri NORP authorities had issued her with a passport in DATE , even though they knew she was from PERSON . He commented on her description of her release from the DATE period of detention , noting that her husband could not have known where she was being detained when she herself did not know and that she was unable to provide details of the reporting requirement imposed . He made an adverse finding of credibility .","As regards the second period of detention in DATE , the Immigration Judge found that her account of her arrest made no sense : if the ORG had wanted to find her husband they would have waited for him or gone to look for him , and would not have taken her instead . The judge described the ill - treatment that she alleged had taken place , namely that a polythene bag with petrol in it had been placed over her head and her head had been repeatedly submerged in water , and found it not credible that during this treatment her gold earrings would have remained in place , allowing her to use them to bribe the nurse later . If the ORG were interested in her and wished to obtain information through torture , the judge considered it not credible that they would have arranged for her medical treatment by a doctor and a nurse . He continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... Despite the fact that the ORG had apparently seen fit to place a guard on the door they did not see fit to ensure that the guards changed shifts simultaneously thereby allowing the appellant to escape , dressed as a nurse having first given the genuine nurse her earrings which were also used to pay the nurse \u2019s brother to pick her up in his rickshaw taxi and then to deliver her to a friend \u2019s house even though he could not possibly have known in advance how long the journey would last or whether he would have enough petrol to make the trip because he did not know where the destination would be and [ the first applicant ] did not know where she was being held . I am trying to work out what was the point of dressing up as a nurse when there was nobody around to see her but there seems little point in picking up on small points when the entire story is so ludicrously lacking in credibility that it would struggle to be acceptable even as the plot of a \u2018 Carry - on\u2019 film \u201d .","As regards the first applicant \u2019s seeking refuge with her husband \u2019s friend in PERSON , the judge observed that she and her driver \u201c would have woken up the entire village \u201d by knocking on doors to find out where her friend lived . He further observed that the first applicant had \u201c apparently forgotten \u201d , when claiming that she could not go home because no - one was there , that her husband and children would have come home and wondered where she had gone . He found her explanation that her friend had told her that they were living elsewhere to be \u201c an embellishment designed to plug a gap in the evidence \u201d . The judge made critical comments about the ORG accounts of how they contacted each other by mobile phone and rejected the first applicant \u2019s account of having used an agent , on the basis that she had a passport with a valid visitor \u2019s visa so had no need for one . Her claim of having sold the house to pay the fees he said was \u201c a total fabrication \u201d .","The Immigration Judge found that the sisters had obviously put their heads together and that their escape from GPE was nothing more than \u201c a coordinated pleasure trip with a sinister intention , namely to deceive the GPE authorities by cooking up a story once they had arrived at their brother \u2019s house \u201d . The judge had no doubt that they had been in regular contact with their respective husbands and that the first applicant had been in contact with her sons . He reviewed all the applicable risk factors set out in LOC ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and concluded that the first applicant and her sister could be returned to GPE . In particular , there was no evidence that a failed asylum - seeker was per se subject to persecution on return and the first applicant and her sister were of no interest to the authorities . There was nothing about them save their ethnicity which could possibly cause any authority to make inquiries .","As to the manner in which the first applicant had claimed asylum , the judge commented on her failure to make a claim at FAC airport or immediately upon arrival at her brother \u2019s house . He found that her mother \u2019s alleged ill - health was not sufficiently serious to have prevented her from contacting the authorities immediately . He continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... The appellants claim to suffer from the effects of torture but I find that this is all part of the smokescreen . They have persisted in maintaining a false story and their conduct in seeking anonymity [ in the course of proceedings before the ORG ] is but another aspect of the smokescreen which they have thrown up . They have taken advantage of the [ ORG ] and the local school system . Their brother has abused the society which gave him refuge . I have no hesitation in finding that their conduct adversely affects what remains of their credibility . \u201d","The judge concluded :","\u201c CARDINAL . I find in each case that the appellant is sufficiently resourceful to be able to return and to re - establish herself in a country where she spent most of her life and where her family still lives . She is not suffering from any life - threatening illnesses ... I find on all the evidence adduced that there are no compassionate circumstances or other matters showing why the appellant could not return to GPE . I find that her ties are to GPE and not to GPE . Removal is appropriate and proportionate .","...","Given the conclusions as outlined above , I also find in each case that the appellant has not shown substantial grounds for believing that she will face a real risk of serious harm in her country of origin or that she is unable , or owing to such risk , unwilling to avail herself of the protection of her country of origin ... \u201d","The first applicant and her sister sought permission to appeal against the ORG \u2019s determination on grounds , inter alia , of bias and the fact that the Immigration Judge had failed properly to consider their case under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE the application was dismissed by a different Immigration Judge of the First - tier ORG who explained :","\u201c The Immigration Judge spent some time dealing with the NORP cases and for a number of perfectly clear reasons disbelieved the entirety of their accounts . It is clear that he expresses himself in very forceful terms ; however , for each matter he disbelieves he gives clear reasons [ which ] do not display bias , but which simply explain why he has reached the conclusion , and whilst many might not have expressed themselves so forcefully the expressions themselves do not display an arguable error of law .","While it is true that there is no clear evaluation in relation to article CARDINAL , in looking at the appellants\u2019 and [ their ] witness \u2019s statements there is nothing in them to suggest any real family life or private life for either appellant save for presence with other adult family members . I see no skeleton argument for either , which suggests that no real article CARDINAL case was put forward . As a result there appears to me to be no realistic prospect of success on appeal in relation to article CARDINAL ... \u201d","The first applicant and her sister renewed their application to ORG . On DATE the application was dismissed for the reasons given in DATE by the First - tier ORG . The Senior Immigration Judge added that , although the initial NORP Judge \u2019s opinions had been robustly expressed , there was no evidence of bias .","With the rejection of the application to appeal , the first applicant \u2019s appeal rights were exhausted .","In DATE the first applicant \u2019s ORG counselling psychologist informed her general practitioner that she was \u201c having suicidal thoughts of throwing herself in front of a train or traffic \u201d and that she claimed to have stepped out in front of DATE , which had fortunately stopped in time .","On DATE , the general practitioner confirmed that the first applicant suffered from depressive illness \u201c due to her family situation \u201d , that her antidepressant medication was not working , that she had been referred to a psychiatrist and that her prognosis would be poor until support for her to remain in GPE had been achieved . He referred to her \u201c suicidal ideation \u201d and problems with her status in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c UKBA \u201d ) issued directions for the first applicant \u2019s removal to GPE by charter flight at TIME on DATE . She was taken into immigration detention .","On DATE medical personnel at the immigration removal centre recorded in an ORG report that the first applicant had told them that she had been tortured by the GPE army and that , as part of that torture , had been raped .","On DATE , with the assistance of new legal representation , the first applicant made further submissions to the Secretary of ORG . Her representatives submitted that details of her ill - treatment while in detention had not previously been disclosed because she was too traumatised to give full disclosure to her brother , her male lawyer and the male interpreter at the asylum interviews , and that trauma could cause individuals to block out painful events . They explained that she had been referred to ORG for further investigation and included a copy of the ORG report .","The further submissions also referred to the fact that the first applicant had disclosed suicidal thoughts and that there were concerns for her well - being . The various letters from her ORG and counselling psychologist were enclosed . Relying also on LAW , the first applicant submitted that return to the place where torture and illtreatment had taken place could cause further mental deterioration .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG informed the first applicant that her removal would proceed as planned . In her letter , the Secretary of ORG reiterated that it had not been accepted that the first applicant had ever been detained by the Sri NORP authorities and that the First - tier ORG had not believed her account , even to the smallest degree . The Secretary of ORG further noted that while the first applicant claimed that her former reticence to disclose details of the rape was because she had male solicitors and interpreters , she had shown no compunction in raising the claim when removal became imminent .","As regards the first applicant \u2019s mental health , the Secretary of ORG noted that she had not told her ORG about her torture , and had attributed her depression and suicidal ideation to an undisclosed family situation and her placement in immigration detention . It was considered that she had not been honest with GPE authorities and was seeking to claim that she had been raped as a means of remaining in GPE , perhaps to obtain medical treatment or to resolve problems with her family . The Secretary of ORG added that there was no reason to believe that she would not have access to medicine and treatment in GPE , and that her mental health problems did not meet the LAW threshold .","NORP The Secretary of ORG maintained her position that removal would also be a proportionate interference with the first applicant \u2019s rights under LAW since there was no evidence of the required level of dependency in her relationship with her mother and adult siblings ; she had failed to come \u201c even close to showing \u201d that her moral and physical integrity would be breached on return to GPE ; and she had not demonstrated anything more than the usual personal ties to GPE .","In conclusion , the Secretary of ORG found that the points made by the first applicant in her submission , taken together with material previously considered , did not create a realistic prospect of success before an NORP Judge ( see paragraph DATE below ) . The submissions did not therefore amount to a fresh claim and there was no right of appeal against that decision .","According to the first applicant \u2019s detention records , on DATE she attended a bail hearing where she claimed that she had tried to kill herself several times . Upon her return to the immigration removal centre , an immediate action plan was put in place . It was decided that she would be observed TIME in order to ensure that she remained safe . A healthcare appointment was arranged for her that TIME and a doctor \u2019s appointment was arranged for DATE to explore her mental health issues . Regular case reviews subsequently took place .","On DATE the first applicant was interviewed by an independent male psychiatrist with the assistance of a female interpreter . According to his report of DATE , in that interview she gave further details of her rape by CARDINAL men in uniform during her first period of detention in DATE and her beating and gang rape by CARDINAL Sri NORP officers during her second period of detention in DATE . The psychiatrist noted that she had displayed clear signs of distress consistent with emotional trauma when giving her account of events .","The psychiatrist was of the view that that the applicant presented with symptoms consistent with depression . He identified the main perpetuating factors as her pending repatriation and her current detention . He considered that on a balance of probabilities she was suffering from post - traumatic stress disorder , based on the assumption that the alleged detention and abuse in GPE had taken place .","He recorded that he was fully aware of the unexplained discrepancies between the account given to him and that given to ORG . He explained that he could not comment on her credibility , which was a matter for the courts . However , he observed that it was not unusual for patients who had suffered significant trauma to recollect peripheral information at the expense of other information , or to distort memories .","The psychiatrist noted that the first applicant could not explain why she had not shared the information earlier . He considered that there was not enough evidence to suggest that she had dissociated herself from the traumatic events and therefore did not believe that dissociation was responsible for her previous omissions . However , he noted that during his interview with her , he was assisted by a female GPE - speaker from GPE , and hypothesised that this might have reduced the threat of cultural stigma from the disclosure .","Finally , the psychiatrist recorded that the first applicant had expressed a desire to commit suicide if returned to GPE , claiming that this would be preferable to being tortured and killed by soldiers . He recorded that officials at the immigration removal centre had placed the first applicant on suicide watch , and recommended that this be maintained . He was of the view that her recent detention had significantly contributed to worsening her mental state . He noted that she had no active plans to end her life unless sent back to GPE . He recommended various therapies but could not comment on whether they would be available in GPE .","The first applicant \u2019s detention record logs the results of the hourly observations of the first applicant from TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE . Aside from legal and medical appointments and discussions with staff members about her removal , the record shows that she regularly ate meals with friends , she attended church , she talked to other detainees , she washed her clothes and she slept .","On DATE , on the basis of the psychiatrist \u2019s report and other fresh evidence , including a letter from a GPE lawyer stating that the she had been detained in DATE and had appeared before ORG , represented by him , the first applicant made further , urgent representations to the Secretary of ORG .","At TIME on DATE , her further representations were rejected . The Secretary of ORG noted that the first applicant had previously made no mention of having been produced before ORG . There were also inconsistencies between the lawyer \u2019s account and that of the first applicant : he said that she had been released on cash bail to report to a particular police station ; she said that she had been released with a DATE reporting requirement but did not know where . The Secretary of ORG therefore concluded that the letter was not reliable .","As regards the first applicant \u2019s mental health , the Secretary of ORG noted that according to the psychiatrist \u2019s report this had been worsened by her detention and concluded that it would therefore improve after removal . There was no clear evidence of a real risk that the first applicant would commit suicide if returned . Despite the first applicant \u2019s representations to the contrary , the GPE health system provided adequate treatment for depression . There were no exceptional or extreme circumstances in her case . Her ability to travel had been assessed and had there been any doubts , her removal would not have proceeded . However , there had been no doubts .","Finally , as regards LAW , the Secretary of ORG accepted that the first applicant had family life in GPE but maintained that her removal would be proportionate .","Upon receiving the Secretary of ORG \u2019s decision the first applicant commenced judicial review proceedings in ORG . She claims that the papers were lodged at some time prior to TIME on QUANTITY DATE . In her judicial review application , she alleged that the Secretary of ORG \u2019s failure to treat the post - appeal evidence concerning her rapes , psychiatric illness and suicide risk as a fresh claim violated domestic law as well as ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . She also sought an injunction to stop the Secretary of ORG removing her prior to consideration of her judicial review claim . The various tribunal decisions were not lodged with the claim .","According to the detention records , the first applicant was asked by immigration removal centre staff on TIME whether she would go to the airport without causing problems and answered that she would . She was therefore taken to reception for transfer to the flight at CARDINAL a.m. , and no problems were reported . According to the first applicant , she was carried on to the flight to GPE at or TIME by CARDINAL men .","Many of the CARDINAL other NORP on the flight manifest had also applied to ORG for permission for judicial review on the basis that they faced a real risk of torture upon arriving in GPE . CARDINAL individuals were removed from the flight manifest prior to departure as ORG ordered that they were not to be removed pending those proceedings . However , the first applicant \u2019s case was not considered in time to prevent her removal ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and no order was made to suspend removal pending consideration of her case .","The flight departed with CARDINAL NORP nationals on board at CARDINAL p.m. on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG refused permission to seek judicial review on the papers . As to the failure to consider the applicant \u2019s claim before her deportation , ORG judge stated :","\u201c The claimant was due to be removed to GPE at CARDINAL on DATE . The directions for her removal had been served on her on DATE . However , it was not until DATE that her claim for judicial review proceedings challenging the directions for her removal was lodged . Her application for a stay on her removal directions came before me on DATE as the \u2018 immediates\u2019 judge . The claimant was CARDINAL of CARDINAL failed asylum - seekers due to be removed on the same flight who were asking for a stay on their removal . Although some of the applications could be considered by other judges when they became available , it was plain by CARDINAL that I would not be able to consider all the remaining applications by CARDINAL .","In those circumstances , I was informed by [ ORG \u2019s Operational Support and Certification Unit ] which of the remaining applicants were on the main manifest , and which were on a reserve list \u2013 and therefore liable to be included on the main manifest only if someone on the main manifest was removed from the flight . Although my priority was to deal with the applications of those on the main manifest , I had not reached the claimant \u2019s case by CARDINAL when I was told that the doors were about to close . I was informed DATE that the claimant had been on the flight . \u201d","On the merits of the claim , the judge noted that if he had considered the first applicant \u2019s case on DATE , his difficulty would have been that her solicitors had not included in the bundle of documents the decision of the Immigration Judge . He said :","\u201c It would not have been possible for me to conclude that it was arguable that the rejection of the claimant \u2019s solicitors\u2019 representations , and the refusal to treat those representations as fresh claims , was legally flawed without reading that decision . \u201d","The judge concluded that since the applicant had now been removed to GPE , no purpose would be served by reconsidering the matter once the decision of the Immigration Judge had been provided or by permitting her claim to proceed .","The first applicant renewed her application for permission to seek judicial review on DATE . The application was refused on DATE following an oral hearing . The judge summarised the applicant \u2019s case as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... [ T]he claimant \u2019s case was that there was in this case post appeal evidence of additional brutality and its after effects , in particular creating an increased dependency on her family in the GPE and a risk of suicide , those justifying the Secretary of ORG in treating this application as a fresh application for asylum , engaging both issues of LAW and human rights consideration in addition pursuant to LAW . \u201d","He reviewed the determination of the First - tier ORG and observed :","\u201c CARDINAL . It is clear that , having heard evidence from both the claimant and her sister ... the judge concluded , in emphatic terms , that neither sister was credible in any relation to the claims for asylum . In short , he concluded that both the claimant and her sister had told a pack of lies .","It follows that it is against that very unpromising background of evidence from the claimant having been heard and considered by a judge and effectively damned in such strong terms that the question whether the Secretary of state was right to conclude that any further claim based on additional materials stood no reasonable prospects of success . \u201d","He noted the arguments of the first applicant \u2019s counsel , namely that the Secretary of ORG had failed adequately to take into account the psychiatrist report in reaching her conclusion on the LAW issue ; that it was not open to the Secretary of ORG , in light of that report and the Sri NORP lawyer \u2019s letter , to conclude that the first applicant \u2019s evidence was inconsistent and untrue ; and that it was perverse for the Secretary of ORG to have reached the findings she did on the first applicant \u2019s suicide risk , given the evidence . He continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . In my view , the problem with the submissions that [ counsel for the applicant ] has advanced ... is that they overlook the fundamental question of credibility and the context in which this new evidence was raised very much at TIME . The immigration judge \u2019s determination was , as I have indicated , a savage series of findings in terms of the credibility of the claimant \u2019s account . On the face of it , in circumstances where this claimant had given evidence dealing with her alleged treatment in custody in GPE in DATE and the brutal treatment meted out to her , all of which evidence was considered by the immigration judge , it seems to me that the Secretary of ORG was well entitled to conclude that there was no realistic prospect of success in circumstances where completely new allegations were now being advanced DATE before removal directions were set and in circumstances where none of that evidence , including the medical evidence ... , provided a sensible or satisfactory explanation for the failure to mention these important allegations at the time of the original appeal . \u201d","He found that in these circumstances , it was impossible to characterise the Secretary of ORG \u2019s decision as unlawful and dismissed the renewed application for judicial review .","The first applicant alleges that , after arriving at FAC , she was detained and interrogated by GPE authorities . CARDINAL of her interrogators struck her on the forehead . She further claimed that , when released from this initial detention and preparing to leave the airport , she was abducted , blindfolded and removed to an unknown location by an unknown person . Her clothing was forcibly removed . Her captors asked whether she was \u201c still \u201d linked with the ORG and had taken part in NORP activities while living in the GPE . They accused her family of funding the ORG . The men showed her copies of her asylum papers they had found in her bag , which she claimed had been packed by GPE officials at the immigration removal centre , and asked her questions about them . They then beat her , kicked her , stabbed her with a broken ballpoint pen and did further \u201c unspeakable bad things \u201d to her . Eventually they forced her to sign statements written in NORP .","The first applicant alleges that her interrogators ultimately released her from their custody . After seeking treatment at a hospital , she became frightened , went into hiding and was unable to contact her family in GPE for DATE . She has submitted a copy of a letter from a doctor at ORG in GPE addressed \u201c to whom it may concern \u201d . The letter states that , according to the hospital records , on DATE , the first applicant \u201c presented with multiple physical injuries and psychological trauma . \u201d She had \u201c sustained head , arm and leg injuries , scratches around [ her ] neck and bruises on her face caused by torture and other ill - treatment \u201d .","The first applicant also maintains that , since emerging from detention , she has twice attempted to commit suicide , as documented by a letter from the same doctor dated DATE . She claims that she is currently staying with an acquaintance and that her husband and sons remain missing .","CARDINAL officials from ORG in GPE met the first applicant \u2019s flight as it arrived at the airport . CARDINAL of the officials has set out his account of events in a letter dated DATE . He explained that the group of CARDINAL returnees was escorted to a seated area in immigration arrivals . They were addressed by a GPE - speaking migration officer who explained the processes that they would have to go through . ORG official then addressed them in LANGUAGE . In his letter , he said :","\u201c None of the returnees appeared ill or distressed in any way and their main concerns seemed to be around being reunited with their baggage and belongings . \u201d","The first returnees were interviewed from TIME , by ORG first and then by ORG and ORG jointly to ascertain their mode and route of travel to GPE , what they had been doing there and whether they had been involved in previous criminal activity in GPE . Once the interviews were completed , their passports were stamped allowing them to leave . They were then addressed by a representative of ORG , who gave them a travel grant equivalent to ORG DATE for onward travel and accommodation if required and took their contact details .","The first returnee was allowed to leave at TIME The last of the returnees passed through customs at TIME The official accompanied most of the returnees to the baggage reclaim area , where he oversaw the collection of their bags . The official was made aware that CARDINAL of the first male returnees processed had been identified as the subject of an outstanding criminal arrest warrant and would therefore be arrested once he had completed immigration procedures . The official was provided a copy of the court warrant . He was subsequently informed that the arrest had taken place and spoke to the police officer who had made the arrest and the returnee himself .","By supplementary letter dated CARDINAL DATE , intended to address questions arising in the proceedings before ORG , the official confirmed that no female on the flight was questioned for any considerable length of time . Aside from the CARDINAL returnee who was arrested , no other returnees were detained . All returnees were addressed either by him or his colleague , and CARDINAL of the CARDINAL accompanied every single passenger to the baggage reclaim area and reunited them with their bags . The officials gave the returnees their business cards . The official emphasised that he and his colleague remained with the passengers throughout the whole process and would have noticed had any of them shown signs of illness , injuries or distress . Each of the returnees had ample opportunity to seek assistance from him and his colleague .","The official accepted that in theory a returnee could have been apprehended as she was about to leave the airport . He continued :","\u201c The arrivals area is normally crowded with waiting friends and relatives , plus the media were in attendance specifically for the charter flight . It would however be questionable as to why the authorities would wait until that stage when the person could have been arrested or detained during the border control process if they were of further interest . \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Nationality , Immigration and Asylum Act DATE , provides a right of appeal to the First - tier ORG ) against an immigration decision made by the Secretary of ORG for ORG , inter alia , on the grounds that the decision is incompatible with LAW of ORG DATE provides a further right of appeal to ORG , with the permission of the First - tier ORG or ORG , on a point of law .","DATE . Paragraph CARDINAL of ORG provides that further submissions made after an asylum claim has been determined will amount to a fresh claim if they are significantly different from the material that has previously been considered . The submissions will only be significantly different if the content : ( i ) has not already been considered ; and ( ii ) taken together with the previously considered material , creates a realistic prospect of success .","ORG \u2019s policy instruction on judicial review and injunctions provides that ORG will normally defer removal where a judicial review application has been properly lodged with ORG in accordance with the applicable Practice Direction . However , where it is considered appropriate because of the complexity , practicality and cost of a charter flight , a judicial review application may not defer removal unless an injunction is obtained from ORG .","NORP The country guidance case - law applicable at the relevant time was set out in LP ( NORP area DATE Colombo \u2013 risk ? ) GPE [ DATE ] UKAIT DATE ( \u201c LP \u201d ) ( subsequently endorsed by ORG in ORG . v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) and ORG ( NORP \u2013 LP updated ) GPE [ DATE ] UKAIT DATE ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . The findings in both cases are set out in detail in the ORG \u2019s judgment in E.G. v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE .","In short , the risk factors identified in ORG and confirmed in ORG were the following :","( CARDINAL ) NORP ethnicity ;","( CARDINAL ) a previous record as a suspected or actual ORG member ;","( CARDINAL ) a previous criminal record and\/or outstanding arrest warrant ;","( CARDINAL ) bail jumping and\/or escaping from custody ;","( CARDINAL ) having signed a confession or similar document ;","( CARDINAL ) having been asked by the security forces to become an informer ;","( CARDINAL ) the presence of scarring ;","( CARDINAL) return from GPE or other centre of NORP fundraising ;","( CARDINAL ) illegal departure from GPE ;","( CARDINAL ) lack of an ORG card or other documentation ;","( CARDINAL ) having made an asylum claim abroad ;","( CARDINAL ) having relatives in the ORG .","Section CARDINAL of ORG \u2019s policy instruction on gender issues in asylum claims covers interviewing and assessment of credibility . Section CARDINAL notes that each applicant will have been asked at screening to indicate a preference for a male or female interviewer . It explains that it should normally be possible to comply with a request made in advance of an interview . It clarifies that requests made on DATE of an interview for a male or female interviewer or interpreter should be met \u201c as far as is operationally possible \u201d .","Section CARDINAL states that while the substantive asylum interview represents an applicant \u2019s principal opportunity to provide full disclosure of all relevant factors , the disclosure of gender - based violence at a later stage in the determination process should not automatically count against her credibility . It explains that there may be a number of reasons why an applicant might be reluctant to disclose information , for example feelings of guilt , shame , and concerns about family honour , or fear of traffickers or having been conditioned or threatened by them . In particular , it refers to the possibility that the applicant has suffered trauma , which could lead to memory loss or distortion . It provides that decision - makers should be aware of this and how such factors might affect how a woman responds during interview .","ORG \u2019s \u201c FAC : Gender - Related Persecution within the context of Article CARDINAL ) of the DATE Convention and\/or its DATE LAW relating to LAW set out a series of procedural best practices \u201c in order to ensure that gender - related claims , of women in particular , are properly considered in the refugee status determination process \u201d ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Paragraph CARDINAL of the guidelines refers to claimants\u2019 possible reluctance to identify the true extent of the persecution suffered or feared because of , inter alia , trauma and shame .","The guidelines also propose that claimants be informed of the choice to have interviewers and interpreters of the same sex as themselves , and they should be provided automatically for women claimants ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ) . They further suggest that both open - ended and specific questions which may help to reveal gender issues relevant to a refugee claim be incorporated into all asylum interviews , in part because female claimants may fail to relate questions that are about torture to the types of harm which they fear ( such as rape , sexual abuse , female genital mutilation , honour killings , forced marriage , etc . ) ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ) .","DATE . Paragraph CARDINAL of Resolution DATE on gender - related claims for asylum provides :","\u201c In addition to the problem of gender issues not being properly taken into account in the assessment of asylum claims , the asylum procedure in member states often makes it difficult for women to tell their full story . A woman who faces a male interviewer or interpreter can be reluctant to speak freely and give a full account of the violence she has experienced , whether gender based or not . Moreover , the officials involved in the asylum procedure often lack adequate training on gender issues and therefore fail to ask the right questions or to analyse the evidence before them properly . This problem may be exacerbated by the use of country of origin information that ignores gender issues or has little gender relevance . \u201d","Paragraph CARDINAL states :","\u201c Women and girls seeking asylum in ORG member states have the right to have their protection claims assessed by an asylum system that is sensitive , in all aspects of its policy and operation , to the particular forms of persecution and human rights abuses that women face because of their gender . \u201d","Paragraphs CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL call on member GPE to ensure that women are automatically provided with assistance and interpretation by female counsellors and interpreters when formulating their asylum claims and filling out their applications ; to guarantee that interviewers and interpreters dealing with female asylum seekers are always women ; and to ensure that the asylum interview is carried out in a gender - sensitive way and , in particular , that questions relevant to gender - based violence and gender - related persecution are asked ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141908","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ABDU v. BULGARIA [Extracts]","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE , at TIME , the applicant and one of his friends , PERSON , also a NORP national , were involved in a fight with CARDINAL NORP youths outside a shopping centre in central GPE . The CARDINAL NORP youths , GPE and GPE , fled before the police arrived , but they were arrested and remanded in custody for breach of the peace ( \u0445\u0443\u043b\u0438\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e ) . The report drawn up by the police officers described the CARDINAL NORP youths as skinheads , adding that they were already known to the police for various offences such as breach of the peace , theft , burglary and drug trafficking .","NORP The police initiated a preliminary investigation . The applicant and his friend , the CARDINAL NORP youths and an eyewitness were interviewed . According to the applicant \u2019s submissions , PERSON and he had been coming out of the shopping centre when they were attacked by the CARDINAL young men . The first NORP , who had a shaved head , had thrown the applicant on to the ground and kicked him . The applicant had then got up and punched him back . The CARDINAL NORP had insulted them by calling them \u201c NORP \u201d ( \u043d\u0435\u0433\u0440\u0438 ) , also shouting \u201c dirty GPE , what are you doing here ? \u201d . The second NORP , who had long hair , had brandished a knife and threatened GPE with it . The applicant and PERSON had fled , and had met a police patrol , which had started looking for the CARDINAL NORP and managed to arrest them TIME . PERSON \u2019s statements broadly corroborated those of the applicant .","According to ORG , the fight had begun because CARDINAL of the NORP youths had shoved him with his shoulder when they had passed each other at the entrance to the shopping centre . He said that he had not paid any attention to what his friend PERSON had been doing . The fighting had stopped at some stage and his friend and he had fled when someone warned them that the police were on their way .","ORG confirmed that CARDINAL of the NORP men had pushed his friend PERSON as he passed by and that that was when the fight had started . Blows had been exchanged on both sides , and PERSON had had his face bloodied . At CARDINAL stage ORG had taken out his knife , which had put an end to the fight , and the CARDINAL groups had then gone their separate ways . PERSON and PERSON had been arrested by the police TIME .","The eyewitness stated that he had seen one of the NORP , the one with the shaved head , trip up CARDINAL of the NORP men , who had then riposted with a punch . A general fight had then broken out among the QUANTITY persons involved .","The applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert on CARDINAL DATE . According to the medical certificate drawn up on that occasion , the applicant had a swelling of the nasal base , an approximately onecentimetrelong abrasion on the left - hand side of his nose , covered with a scab , a swollen finger on his left hand and a contusion to the right knee . According to the medical certificate , the injuries noted had caused physical pain . They had resulted from blows struck by blunt instruments and could have been occasioned in the manner described by the applicant , namely in the course of a fight .","At the end of the investigation the police transmitted the evidence gathered to the public prosecutor for a decision on instituting a criminal prosecution for racist violence pursuant to Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor decided not to bring a criminal prosecution . He considered that while a fight had indeed occurred among the CARDINAL men , it had not been established that GPE and ORG had acted for reasons linked to ORG and the applicant \u2019s racial origins . The causes of the altercation were unclear , and the CARDINAL versions of the facts \u2013 by the applicant and PERSON , by PERSON and GPE , and by the eyewitness \u2013conflicted as to how and by whom the fight had been started . The CARDINAL NORP men had claimed that they had been called \u201c dirty NORP \u201d , but the fact that it had been precisely their racial origin that had motivated the violence had not been corroborated by any other piece of evidence . The eyewitness , in particular , had not mentioned having heard any exchanges between those involved . The prosecutor concluded that in the absence of evidence of the specific motivation provided for by law , the offence had not been made out .","The applicant lodged an appeal with the higher prosecutor against the decision not to prosecute . He submitted that the investigation had been incomplete and that the investigators should have questioned PERSON and GPE about their motivation and their reasons for wearing black clothing , \u201c Ranger - style \u201d military shoes and even NORP insignia , as he remembered seeing such insignia on a T - shirt worn by CARDINAL of the assailants . According to the applicant , the police officers who had attended the scene should also have been interviewed about how PERSON and GPE had been dressed at the time of their arrest . Similarly , the investigators should have explicitly asked the eyewitness whether he had heard the exchanges between those involved , which they had not .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office confirmed the district prosecutor \u2019s decision . The public prosecutor held that there was nothing to suggest that the violence had been perpetrated on the grounds of the applicant \u2019s racial origin as the sole fact that he was black was insufficient to make out the offence .","By a letter of DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked for a copy of the criminal case file , without providing reasons for her request . On DATE the district prosecutor refused to supply the copies requested on the grounds that the lawyer had already been notified of the prosecutor \u2019s decisions and that now that the appeal had been dismissed , the case was closed .","..."],"violated_articles":["14","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178716","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"K.L. v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He is currently in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","On DATE the applicant and his wife arrived in GPE . They applied for asylum , and before ORG ( Migrationsverket ) the applicant essentially stated the following . He and his wife are NORP from GPE . His brother , a member of ORG , had disappeared in DATE and the applicant had contacted ORG to inquire about his whereabouts . After the war in DATE , ORG had accused the applicant of being a spy for GPE and had harassed him due to his religious beliefs . In DATE CARDINAL members of ORG had come to his and his wife \u2019s house and physically assaulted his wife . He had tried to scare the intruders by firing into the air . Subsequently , he and his wife had hidden in a NORP neighbourhood in GPE . Since , allegedly , the NORP authorities were unable to protect them , they had decided to leave the country . If returned to GPE , he would risk being killed .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s and his wife \u2019s requests for asylum . It noted that , according to the ORG , the general situation in GPE after the armed conflict during DATE and cessation of hostilities was such that NORP citizens who had fled because of the armed conflict were no longer automatically in need of international protection . It held therefore that the general situation in GPE did not in itself constitute a sufficient basis for granting asylum . Turning to the applicant \u2019s individual claims , the ORG found that there was no evidence that he had been accused of being a spy , that he was wanted by ORG or that the alleged threats and assaults were connected to ORG . Furthermore , there was no evidence that the NORP authorities would be unable or unwilling to protect him . Moreover , it noted that nothing indicated that the applicant had controversial political or other affiliations which would make him of interest to any particular group in GPE . Consequently , the ORG concluded that , since the applicant had not substantiated his alleged grounds for asylum , and no other reasons for asylum had been established , his request should be rejected and his deportation to GPE ordered .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) against ORG decision . He maintained his claims and added that CARDINAL of the reasons why ORG thought he was a spy was that he had volunteered as a paramedic , which had allowed him to move freely in the area of the armed conflict . If returned to GPE , he would risk being imprisoned or killed by ORG because they considered him to be a spy who had defied ORG and fired at them in his home . He could not report the incident to the police since ORG exerted power over the authorities in GPE .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . It found that the applicant could have been of some interest to ORG due to his inquiries about his brother , his work as a paramedic and the threats and assaults to which the applicant and his wife had been subjected . However , the court found that the abuse the applicant and his wife feared from ORG constituted criminal acts which fell within the responsibility of the NORP authorities . Since the applicant and his wife had not contacted the NORP authorities , they could not be deemed to have exhausted the protection available in GPE or made it probable that those authorities were unwilling or unable to protect them . Furthermore , the court held that , as the applicant had not been politically active , and his brother \u2019s engagement with ORG dated back DATE , there were no reasons to believe that the applicant would be of any particular interest to ORG .","On DATE ORG ( Migrations\u00f6verdomstolen ) refused the applicant leave to appeal .","NORP In DATE the applicant submitted to ORG a document alleged to be a NORP judgment by default dated DATE . According to the judgment , the applicant had been convicted , inter alia , of premeditated murder and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , including hard labour .","ORG considered the submission of the document to entail a request for a stay of the enforcement of the deportation order and a re - examination of its previous decision due to impediments to the enforcement . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG noted that the applicant had not previously claimed that the NORP authorities had issued a warrant for his arrest and that he had not provided any information on how he had obtained the document in question . It therefore had the authenticity of the judgment examined . The examination , which revealed , inter alia , that the document was a copy created using toner technology and that the stamps and signatures on it had been produced by photocopiers or printers , led to the conclusion that there were strong indications that it was not authentic . The ORG accordingly decided that there was no ground for a re - examination of its decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant appealed to ORG which , on DATE , upheld the ORG \u2019s conclusions .","On DATE , the deportation order became timebarred and shortly thereafter the applicant and his wife again applied for asylum .","Before ORG , the applicant maintained his previous submissions but made some changes and additions . In particular , he claimed that he had shot and killed CARDINAL of the men who had forced their way into his home in DATE and that that man was the son of a high - ranking ORG politician . Furthermore , due to his alleged conviction in absentia in DATE , ORG had sought him at his GPE and their ORG homes , which showed that he was wanted by ORG . He submitted an arrest warrant dated DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s and his wife \u2019s new requests for asylum . As concerns the arrest warrant , which allegedly was based on the above - mentioned conviction , it was found to be of a very simple and easily falsified nature . Furthermore , it was undated , seemed to be a copy and was not accompanied by an explanation as to how the applicant had obtained it . In view of this , the Agency concluded that the documents submitted had very low value as evidence and were not sufficient to substantiate the applicant \u2019s asylum claims . The Agency then turned to the oral information submitted by the applicant . It found that , after having been refused asylum in DATE , he had changed his story significantly concerning the alleged incident at his home without providing any reasonable explanation . Moreover , he had failed to give a reasonable explanation as to why he had not mentioned the fatal shooting of the intruder , the conviction and the arrest warrant in the original asylum proceedings . The ORG thus found reason to question whether the alleged incident had occurred at all . It also noted that the applicant and his wife , despite numerous questions , had only submitted very parsimonious and vague answers concerning alleged visits and inquiries by ORG to their parents and other family members . In addition , the ORG noted that the incident had allegedly occurred in DATE and that there was no evidence indicating that ORG would have any particular or current interest in the applicant . Furthermore , the ORG confirmed its previous findings regarding the general situation in GPE . Lastly , in regard to the applicant \u2019s and his wife \u2019s private life within the meaning of LAW , it found that , for the majority of the time , they had resided in GPE illegally and had much stronger links to GPE than to GPE . Thus , they could not be granted leave to remain due to their residence in or connections to GPE . The ORG concluded that no grounds for residence permits had been established and therefore ordered the applicant \u2019s and his wife \u2019s deportation to GPE .","The applicant appealed to ORG . He maintained his claims and submitted , inter alia , documents from a lawyer and a security official at the Rafic Hariri FAC which stated that he had been convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and was wanted by the NORP authorities .","On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG upheld ORG decision . It agreed with the reasoning of the ORG concerning the probative value of the written evidence submitted and noted that the new documents were of a simple nature and did not substantiate his need for protection . Furthermore , the court found that the applicant \u2019s and his wife \u2019s accounts of the alleged incident in their home in DATE were incoherent and contradictory . Consequently , it concluded that they had not demonstrated that ORG had any interest in them , that they were exposed to risks against which they could not be protected by the NORP authorities or that they had been persecuted due to their NORP faith or for any other reason . Lastly , it shared the ORG \u2019s reasoning concerning the lack of sufficient links to GPE for granting them leave to remain .","On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .","The basic provisions applicable in the present case , concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in GPE , are laid down in LAW ( utl\u00e4nningslagen , GPE ) .","An alien who is considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection is , with certain exceptions , entitled to a residence permit in GPE ( LAW , section CARDINAL , of the Act ) . The term \u201c refugee \u201d refers to an alien who is outside the country of his or her nationality owing to a wellfounded fear of being persecuted on grounds of race , nationality , religious or political beliefs , or on grounds of gender , sexual orientation or other membership of a particular social group , and who is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . This applies irrespective of whether the persecution is at the hands of the authorities of the country or if those authorities can not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals . By \u201c an alien otherwise in need of protection \u201d is meant , inter alia , a person who has left the country of his or her nationality because of a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or receiving corporal punishment , or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .","Moreover , if a residence permit can not be granted on the above grounds , such a permit may be issued to an alien if , after an overall assessment of his or her situation , there are such particularly distressing circumstances ( synnerligen \u00f6mmande omst\u00e4ndigheter ) as to allow him or her to remain in GPE ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .","Under certain conditions , an alien may be granted a residence permit even if a deportation or expulsion order has acquired legal force . This is the case where new circumstances have emerged which indicate that there are reasonable grounds for believing , inter alia , that enforcement would put the alien in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal punishment , torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , or where there are medical or other special reasons why the order should not be enforced ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . If a residence permit can not be granted under these criteria , ORG may instead decide to re - examine the matter . Such re - examination is to be carried out where it may be assumed , on the basis of new circumstances relied on by the alien , that there are lasting impediments to enforcement of the nature referred to in LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and that these circumstances could not have been raised previously or the alien shows that he or she has a valid excuse for not having done so . Should the applicable conditions not have been met , the ORG will decide not to grant re - examination ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .","In DATE ORG released ORG on ORG for DATE . It stated :","\u201c GPE is a parliamentary republic based on the DATE ORG , which apportions governmental authority among a ORG president , a NORP speaker of ORG ( parliament ) , and a NORP prime minister ...","NORP authorities maintained control over the armed forces and other security forces , although NORP security and militia forces , the designated terrorist group NORP , and other extremist elements operated outside the direction or control of government officials ...","The most significant human rights abuses during DATE were torture and abuse by security forces , harsh prison and detention center conditions , and limitations on freedom of movement for NORP and NORP refugees ...","Other human rights abuses included lengthy pretrial detention ; a judiciary subject to political pressure and long delays in trials ; violation of ORG privacy rights ...","Despite the presence of NORP and ORG security forces , ORG retained significant influence over parts of the country , and the government made no tangible progress toward disbanding and disarming armed militia groups , including GPE ...","Authorities failed to observe many provisions of the law , and government security forces , as well as extralegal armed groups such as NORP , continued the practice of extrajudicial arrest and detention , including incommunicado detention . Additionally , the law permits military intelligence personnel to make arrests without warrants in cases involving military personnel or involving civilians suspected of espionage , treason , or weapons possession . \u201d","The International Religious Freedom Report for DATE of ORG , released by ORG , contained , inter alia , the following in respect of GPE :","\u201c The constitution states there shall be absolute freedom of conscience and guarantees the free exercise of religious rites for all religious groups provided the public order is not disturbed . The constitution states there shall be a \u201c just and equitable balance \u201d in the apportionment of cabinet and high level civil service positions among the major religious groups , a situation reaffirmed by ORG , which ended the country \u2019s civil war and mandated equal representation between NORP and NORP in the parliament . Some minority NORP groups complained they were not granted proportionate representation in the cabinet , high level civil service positions , or the parliament . ...","... Religious leaders of NORP and NORP communities reported places of worship continued to operate in relative peace and security , and that relationships among individual members of different religious groups generally remained amicable .","...","Statistics GPE estimates PERCENT of the population is NORP . ... \u201d","In a report of CARDINAL DATE on his mission to GPE , the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief of ORG ( ORG ) set out , inter alia , the following conclusions :","\u201c In GPE , people are free to confess and practise their religions and beliefs in the way they see fit . Conversion in different directions is possible and indeed a reality \u2013 in stark contrast to the situation in most other LOC countries . People can also bear public testimony to their faith and engage in missionary or dawa activities . Religious diversity is a visible and audible reality , as churches and mosques often stand in close vicinity and the ringing of bells at times intermingles with the NORP call to prayer . Some NORP openly declare themselves as agnostics or atheists , and express critical views on religion in general , which is mostly appreciated as something quite natural in an open society .","The country \u2019s pluralistic heritage is a counterpoint to the aggressive agendas of sectarian homogenization that haunt some neighbouring countries . Over DATE , a culture of interreligious coexistence has emerged that DATE helps to build resilience against extremist interpretations of religious traditions . Many families comprise persons of different religious orientations . Many people live , learn and work together across confessional lines , a situation that quite naturally fosters the discovery of common interests , values and convictions . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170045","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KORZENIAK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was employed by a NORP company which was carrying out construction work in GPE . The NORP workers were employed on the basis of the international agreement signed on DATE between GPE and GPE on the secondment of workers of NORP companies to carry out construction work ( Umowa mi\u0119dzy PERSON a PERSON Federalnej PERSON o oddelegowaniu pracownik\u00f3w polskich przedsi\u0119biorstw do realizacji um\u00f3w o dzie\u0142o z DATE r. , Dz . U. DATE , ORG , GPE . CARDINAL ) . The rates of the applicant \u2019s pay were determined by an employment contract and the regulations which the contract referred to .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim against his former employer for payment . He claimed that , instead of the rate of CARDINAL or CARDINAL NORP PERSON ( ORG ) per hour which he had been receiving under his employment contract in the period from DATE to DATE , he should have been receiving a higher rate of pay . Relying on the provisions of the above - mentioned international agreement , he claimed that he should have been receiving a rate comparable to that of the NORP workers occupying the same positions .","On DATE the NORP ORG gave a partial judgment in which it established that the applicant was entitled to the rates of pay fixed in the employment contract .","The court observed that the essential issue in the case was whether the applicant was entitled to a higher rate of pay , equivalent to that paid to the NORP employees working in similar positions at the material time . It was noted in this connection that the parties had not chosen to regulate the employment contract under NORP law . Instead NORP labour law was applicable .","In so far as the applicant relied on the provisions of the international agreement of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and argued that it should serve as the basis for setting his rate of pay , the court observed that this agreement was of a public - law character . Its object and purpose was to regulate relations between GPE and GPE in the construction market with a view to preventing unfair competition by NORP companies setting wages of construction workers working in GPE at too low a level , and to protect NORP workers against being paid too low a rate .","The applicant appealed . He argued that the Opole ORG had violated the provisions of LAW . In the applicant \u2019s opinion , the court \u2019s finding that the applicant \u2019s rates of pay were fixed in his employment contract was erroneous , because that contract did not contain any rates ( only symbols which were not understood by the applicant ) . Besides , in his view , the court had violated the provisions of the abovementioned international agreement , according to which the rates of the applicant \u2019s pay should be comparable to those received by the NORP workers occupying the same positions .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance partial judgment on account of its procedural shortcomings and remitted the case to the lower court . ORG comprised CARDINAL judges . Judge FAC . sat on the bench . He was not a judge rapporteur and he did not preside .","ORG found that in the applicant \u2019s case there were no grounds for delivering a partial judgment . It noted that a partial judgment could be delivered only when a part or some of the claims in a lawsuit had been sufficiently clarified for the decision . In the applicant \u2019s case there was CARDINAL claim and thus there had been no grounds for delivering the partial judgment .","In the final part of the written grounds for the judgment ORG stated that the position of the Opole Regional Court as to the substance of the case was supported by the wording of the international agreements and existing domestic case - law . This part of the court \u2019s reasoning read as follows :","\u201c As to the substantive grounds for the court \u2019s legal view expressed in the judgment under appeal , it should be stated that it finds support in the content of the Agreement between the Governments of GPE and GPE on the secondment of workers of NORP companies to carry out construction work ( Journal of Laws CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , items CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) as well as in the hitherto interpretation of this agreement in judicial decisions ( see , e.g. , III A Pa CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ORG , decision of CARDINAL DATE ) . \u201d","On DATE the applicant challenged one of the judges , alleging his partiality . He further requested that the case be transferred to another town because , in his view , the judges were not impartial and the defendant company \u201c had enjoyed considerable influence in GPE . \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , finding no grounds for the judges of the Opole ORG to step down .","On DATE the NORP ORG gave judgment granting the applicant \u2019s claim in part and dismissing the remainder . ORG ordered the defendant company to pay the applicant the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) for unused leave . As to the rate of the applicant \u2019s pay , the court reiterated the reasoning of the judgment of DATE and dismissed the claim ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The court accepted the reasoning of the first - instance court .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal on his behalf .","On DATE ORG examined the cassation appeal , quashed the challenged judgment and remitted the case to ORG .","ORG considered that the NORP - German agreement of DATE was not a source of universally binding law and did not contain provisions applicable to labour relations . The agreement could not be regarded as constituting the legal basis for claims of employees concerning remuneration for their work . Moreover , GPE \u2019s accession to ORG did not have an impact on the applicability of that agreement . Furthermore , ORG law did not apply retroactively to situations predating GPE \u2019s accession .","The fact that employees\u2019 claims concerning the applicable minimum wages could not be regarded as having their legal basis in the said ORG agreement did not mean , in the court \u2019s opinion , that those claims could not be raised upon the basis of employment contracts . In ORG view , ORG had not sufficiently clarified the meaning of those contracts in the light of statements made by the NORP company concerning the applicant \u2019s employment conditions and the obligations imposed on the company by the provisions of NORP law to which those statements referred .","On DATE ORG , having taken into account the recommendations of ORG , again dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal lodged against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The court reiterated that the applicant was entitled to the rates of pay fixed in his employment contract .","On DATE the applicant lodged a further cassation appeal with ORG .","He first raised substantive arguments . He averred that the Opole Regional Court had disregarded the provisions of LAW . In the applicant \u2019s opinion , the court \u2019s finding that his TIME rate of pay had been fixed in his employment contract had been erroneous , because that contract had not contained any rates ( only symbols which the applicant had not been able to understand ) . Besides , in his view , the court had disregarded the provisions of the applicable international agreement ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , according to which the applicant \u2019s rate of pay should have been comparable to that received by the NORP workers occupying the same positions .","He further complained that the appellate court had failed to take heed of the interpretation of the applicable law expressed by ORG in its previous judgment as to the applicable rate of the applicant \u2019s salary .","It was further argued that the court had failed to take into consideration the evidence gathered in the case . The court had also erred when refusing to allow certain requests for evidence to be taken .","The applicant further complained that in the written grounds for its judgment ORG had failed to provide reasons for which it had disregarded the interpretation of relevant applicable provisions made in the past by ORG \u2013 a substantive question which had been crucial for the outcome of the case .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , dismissed the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal .","Judge ORG . , who had sat on the bench of the Court of Appeal deciding the case on DATE , had in the meantime been promoted to ORG . He sat on the bench of ORG . He was not a judge rapporteur and he did not preside .","ORG noted that the appellate court , contrary to the applicant \u2019s objection , had followed the interpretation of the applicable law expressed by the earlier judgment of ORG ( pronounced on DATE ) given in the same case . In this judgment ORG had confirmed that the international agreement referred to by the applicant could not be regarded as a legal source of employees\u2019 and ORG rights and obligations . The appellate court \u2019s decision had followed this view and it had confirmed that the substantive provisions of that agreement had not applied to the setting of the applicant \u2019s rate of pay , which had been fixed by his employment contract .","ORG stressed that in his cassation appeal the applicant raised the same complaint which had already been made in his earlier cassation appeal . This was inadmissible as under section CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) it was not allowed to found a cassation appeal against a judgment rendered after a new examination of a case upon complaints contrary to the interpretation previously established by ORG dealing with the earlier cassation appeal lodged in the same case .","Additionally , ORG noted that the interpretation made by the lower courts of the applicant \u2019s contract of employment , seen as a whole , had taken into account the applicant \u2019s employer \u2019s declarations submitted to the NORP authorities and also a wealth of other evidence in so far as it had been relevant for the determination of the applicant \u2019s working conditions and remuneration .","ORG further observed that the applicant \u2019s remuneration had been set at the level of the minimal remuneration of NORP employees performing similar work determined on the basis of ORG .","In so far as the applicant complained in his cassation appeal of the alleged failure of the courts to take further evidence and of the assessment of the evidence they had carried out , those complaints could not be examined in the context of those proceedings . It was not the task of ORG in cassation proceedings to act as an ordinary court of appeal and to examine issues concerning the admissibility and assessment of evidence and the factual findings made by the lower courts ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160990","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PRADE v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a civil servant working as a lawyer for the GPE tax authorities . In DATE , the applicant was a board member of the local branch of a registered association called \u201c FAC \u201d . In this capacity he opened a bank account for the association . He and CARDINAL other members of the association were authorised to draw on the account . The account was used for the deposit of donations and membership fees . The account data was therefore published , for example in brochures . In DATE the applicant left the board of the association .","In DATE , a third person reported to the police that he had bought a watch via ORG . The watch had turned out to be a fake . He had tried to rescind the purchase when he found out , but the seller \u2013 of whom he knew only the email address \u201c sternschnuppeCARDINAL@uboot.com \u201d DATE refused to cooperate . The police investigations showed that a certain Mr NORP was registered with ORG as user of the email address \u201c sternschnuppeCARDINAL \u201d . The bank account registered for the email address \u201c sternschnuppeCARDINAL \u201d was the account of the \u201c ORG \u201d association . Investigations further showed that various other users , who were registered with ORG , cited the bank account of the \u201c ORG \u201d association as their bank account . The police also found out that the user of \u201c sternschnuppeCARDINAL \u201d had traded computer programmes via ORG . An investigation of the transactions of the \u201c ORG \u201d bank account showed that there had only been CARDINAL transaction connected to ORG : ORG had tried to collect fees ( ORG CARDINAL ) on DATE . The \u201c ORG \u201d association had protested against the payment , which had been returned on DATE . Mr NORP was questioned by the police . He explained , convincingly , that he had nothing to do with the email address \u201c sternschnuppeCARDINAL \u201d or the bank account of the \u201c ORG \u201d association .","On DATE , upon a request of the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE I , ORG issued a search warrant in respect of the applicant \u2019s home ( and the home of CARDINAL other members of the \u201c ORG \u201d association who were authorised to draw on the association \u2019s bank account ) on suspicion that they had committed \u201c copyright piracy \u201d by selling fake goods such as watches and computer programmes . The search warrant authorised the search and seizure of computers and documents containing information about the sale of the fake watch and the computer programmes .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s ( shared ) flat in GPE was searched . The police found none of the items they were searching for . Instead , by coincidence , the police found QUANTITY of hashish , which contained QUANTITY of pure THC ( tetrahydrocannabinol ) , and CARDINAL defective weighing scales in the flat . The amount and quality of the hashish was asserted by an expert . The amount was enough for CARDINAL consumption units . The criminal proceedings regarding the suspected \u201c copyright piracy \u201d were discontinued . However , new proceedings for possession and trafficking of a substantial amount of drugs were initiated against the applicant .","The applicant , represented by counsel , lodged a complaint against the search warrant before the criminal courts arguing that the warrant , and consequently the search , had been unlawful and had infringed his constitutional right to respect for his home under LAW ( \u201c LAW ; see paragraph CARDINAL , below ) . ORG and the GPE ORG dismissed the complaint .","The applicant subsequently lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG .","On DATE ORG held that the complaint was manifestly well - founded , found a violation of LAW , declared the house search unlawful and quashed the search warrant and the decisions of LOC . The court left open whether the few indications supporting the initial suspicion that the applicant might have committed \u201c copyright piracy \u201d justified the ordering of a search warrant . In any event , however , ORG ruled that having weighed the few indications supporting a suspicion that the applicant could have committed \u201c copyright piracy \u201d against the massive impact of a house search on the applicant \u2019s constitutional right to respect for his home , the issuing of a search warrant and hence the house search had not been proportionate . It would have been possible and necessary to take other investigative measures that would have interfered less with the applicant \u2019s right before searching the applicant \u2019s home .","On DATE the applicant was indicted by the GPE prosecution on charges of possession of and trafficking in a substantial amount of drugs . On DATE the GPE ORG convicted the applicant of possession of a substantial amount of drugs in less serious circumstances and imposed a CARDINAL months\u2019 suspended prison sentence . The judgment was exclusively based on the presence of hashish found during the house search of DATE .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law before ORG , arguing that he should have been acquitted as the evidence found during the house search could not be admitted as evidence in the criminal proceedings for drug possession . As the search warrant had been invalidated by ORG , the police had never had a right to enter the applicant \u2019s shared flat and would therefore never have had a legal possibility of finding the drugs at the applicant \u2019s flat . Moreover , the seizure of the hashish had not even been covered by the unlawful search warrant . The infringement of the applicant \u2019s right to respect for his home had been so severe that the evidence which had coincidentally been found during the house search could not be admitted as evidence against the applicant .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and referred the case back to ORG because it was of the view that ORG had not sufficiently examined whether the hashish belonged to the applicant . As he lived in a shared flat , the room , and hence the drugs , could have belonged to any of his flatmates . With regard to the admissibility of the evidence ORG found that the hashish found during the search could be used as evidence against the applicant . The infringement of the applicant \u2019s basic rights with regard to the criminal proceedings concerning copyright piracy had not been so serious that the applicant \u2019s interest in respect for his home outweighed the public interest in prosecution . ORG referred to ORG case - law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , according to which unlawfully obtained evidence could be used in criminal proceedings as long as , after a thorough balancing of the different interests at stake , the public interest in prosecution did not have to stand back against the right to respect for his home of the person concerned and as long as that person \u2019s rights had not been violated on purpose . It reiterated ORG finding that the applicant \u2019s basic rights had been seriously infringed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Whether or not the search warrant had been sufficiently precise , and whether a sufficient initial suspicion for issuing a search warrant had been present or not , did not have to be determined because , even assuming that this had not been the case , such shortcomings did not render the obtained evidence unlawful . Because of the seriousness of the crime of drug possession , and the substantial amount of hashish found , the public interest in prosecution outweighed the applicant \u2019s interest in respect for his home . Furthermore , the applicant \u2019s rights had not been deliberately infringed , the house search had not been arbitrary and the amount of hashish found would theoretically have justified a house search . ORG was hence of the view that the hashish found during the search could be used as evidence against the applicant .","Considering that it was legally unclear whether or not ORG findings regarding the admissibility of the evidence found during the house search were binding on the lower courts , the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . On DATE ORG rejected the complaint as inadmissible .","In the resumed proceedings before ORG , the applicant made a statement that the room in which the hashish had been found was exclusively used by him . On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant , ruling that the hashish found during the house search could not be used as evidence against him . The court noted that under the well - established case law of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) an unlawful house search did not automatically mean that the evidence seized during such a house search could not be used in the trial against the person concerned . Evidence might , however , be precluded if the violation of the applicant \u2019s right to respect for his home had been particularly serious . The court weighed the public interest in prosecuting the crime of possession of drugs against the applicant \u2019s interest in respect for his home . It was of the view that the initial suspicion that the applicant might have committed the offence of copyright piracy had been so vague that the issuing of a search warrant had not been justified at all . Hence , the applicant \u2019s right to respect for his home had been infringed in such a severe way that despite the seriousness of the crime of drug possession and the substantial amount of hashish found , the public interest in prosecution could not outweigh the applicant \u2019s interest in respect for his home .","On DATE , on appeal by the prosecution , ORG quashed the acquittal , convicted the applicant of possession of a substantial amount of drugs in less serious circumstances and sentenced him to a CARDINAL months\u2019 suspended prison sentence . As regards the question whether the applicant had been in possession of the drugs ORG relied on a statement of the applicant dated DATE according to which the room in which the hashish had been found was solely used by himself . Furthermore , ORG was of the view that ORG findings in its judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the admissibility of the hashish as the sole evidence were binding and that hence the hashish found in the applicant \u2019s flat could be used as evidence against him . Moreover , the court made it clear that even if ORG findings were not binding in this respect it was itself of the view that , weighing the applicant \u2019s interest in respect for his home against the public interest in prosecution , the latter prevailed and that the evidence was thus admissible .","The applicant subsequently lodged a fresh appeal on points of law before ORG , arguing that ORG should not have admitted the evidence . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The court weighed the public interest in prosecuting the crime of possession of drugs against the applicant \u2019s interest in respect for his home . It took the view that , considering the seriousness of the crime of drug possession and the substantial amount of hashish found , the public interest in prosecution outweighed the applicant \u2019s interest in respect for his home because the applicant \u2019s rights had not been deliberately infringed , the house search had not been arbitrary and the amount of hashish found would theoretically have justified a house search .","The applicant lodged a fresh constitutional complaint , arguing that the admission of the evidence infringed his right to respect for his home under LAW and his right to a fair trial under LAW read in conjunction with LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE . The court assessed the applicant \u2019s arguments mainly under the head of LAW . It held that ORG had balanced all the interests at stake in a way that was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and that the conviction of the applicant , although exclusively based on the evidence found during the house search , did not infringe the applicant \u2019s constitutional rights . With regard to the applicant \u2019s claim that the use of the hashish seized as evidence against him had violated his rights under LAW read in conjunction with LAW , the court held that the principle of a fair trial had been applied in a way that was neither unjustifiable nor arbitrary . Hence the applicant \u2019s constitutional rights had not been violated .","As the applicant was a civil servant , disciplinary proceedings were initiated in view of the criminal charges against him . The disciplinary proceedings were adjourned during the criminal proceedings . Following the conviction of the applicant by the criminal courts , the competent authorities formally noted that the applicant had committed a disciplinary offence and discontinued the proceedings as the offence had not been of a kind or degree demanding disciplinary measures ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159789","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TRESKAVICA v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE , GPE .","During DATE and DATE NORP paramilitary forces gained control of CARDINAL of the territory of GPE and proclaimed the \u201c GPE \u201d ( NORP autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter \u201c LOC \u201d ) . At DATE the NORP authorities announced their intention to take military action with the aim of regaining control over LOC . The operation was codenamed \u201c Storm \u201d ( 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 , and also 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 documents submitted by the parties reveal the following facts .","The applicants lived in GPE , within the territory of LOC . During NORP the town of PERSON was shelled by the NORP army . During the shelling the applicants hid in the basement of their building . PERSON was found dead near a petrol station in GPE after one of the shelling attacks . It appears that he was buried at a cemetery in GPE .","On DATE , during the exhumations at the \u201c FAC \u201d ( ORG groblje ) in PERSON , the first applicant approached the police and said that her husband , PERSON , had been buried at that cemetery . The \u0160ibenik - ORG , FAC ( FAC uprava \u0161ibensko - kninska , FAC postaja GPE ) , then interviewed the first applicant about the circumstances of the death of her husband . She stated that her husband had died on CARDINAL DATE near a petrol station in GPE . Given that PERSON had been under artillery attack , the first applicant assumed that her husband had been killed by a shell . She further stated that she had seen her husband \u2019s dead body lying on the pavement near the above - mentioned petrol station . She gave a detailed description of his appearance and of the clothes he had been wearing . Members of the NORP army appeared at the crime scene and took the first applicant to a PERSON ( ORG ) camp in GPE . She had obtained no further knowledge of the whereabouts of her husband \u2019s body . She assumed that he was buried at a cemetery in GPE .","A number of remains were exhumed during DATE and DATE at the cemetery in GPE . The process was conducted under the auspices of ORG for the former GPE ( GPE kazneni sud za biv\u0161u GPE ) and GPE Attorney \u2019s Office in GPE ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ) . After they were exhumed , the remains were examined at ORG in GPE ( GPE za sudsku medicinu i kriminalistiku ) but PERSON \u2019s remains were not identified at that time . On DATE ORG for the former GPE issued an autopsy report which concluded that the probable cause of the death for the remains which were only in DATE identified as being those of PERSON , was a gunshot to the neck .","On DATE ORG submitted to the NORP - Knin Criminal Police Department ( PERSON kriminalisti\u010dke policije , ORG uprava \u0161ibensko - kninska ) its official notes of the interviews which it had conducted with the families of the people killed during and after LOC . The above - mentioned interview with the first applicant was also submitted .","On DATE ORG in GPE extracted a genotype from PERSON \u2019s remains and compared it with DNA samples from its database . However , they failed to find a match and could not establish the identity of the remains .","After the applicants on CARDINAL DATE filed with ORG a claim for damages in connection with the killing of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the GPE police opened an inquiry into the circumstances of his death .","On DATE ORG interviewed M.T. , who stated that the first applicant had told her about the events in GPE during LOC and the death of her husband , PERSON She had no further useful information .","On DATE the NORP - Knin Criminal Police Department interviewed PERSON . PERSON She described the events of CARDINAL DATE as follows . During the artillery attack on PERSON she and her family had hidden in a basement . After the attack they had left the basement . The NORP army had led the civilians to a furniture shop , from where they had been taken to the barracks known as \u201c southern camp \u201d ( ju\u017eni logor ) . The first and the second applicants had also been in this group of civilians . As they had been passing through FAC , the witness had seen the dead body of PERSON He had been dressed in civilian clothes and had had no visible injuries . Lj . M indicated that she had no recollection of seeing PERSON wearing the military uniform of GPE ( ORG : PERSON ) . Lj . M \u2019s statement was confirmed by her mother - in - law , PERSON","On DATE the NORP - Knin Criminal Police Department interviewed GPE , a neighbour of the PERSON family . She stated that PERSON had not been a member of the army or the police of GPE and that she had never seen him wearing a military uniform . During Operation Storm her family and the PERSON family had been hiding in the basement of their residential building . PERSON had occasionally come to the basement , but he had not been present all the time . The last time that GPE had seen him alive had been on DATE , CARDINAL After they had all left the basement , she had seen the dead body of PERSON lying on the street . She had no further information .","On DATE the LANGUAGE - Knin Criminal Police Department informed GPE Office in GPE that the case had not yet been registered and that it had failed to determine whether PERSON had been a member of the army or the police of GPE . The police indicated that they had conducted interviews with ORG PERSON and GPE However , it was not possible to conduct an interview with the first applicant , since she resided in GPE . The police indicated that PERSON had most likely been buried at the cemetery in PERSON . His remains had been exhumed and transferred to ORG in GPE , where they were still being identified .","On DATE PERSON , PERSON \u2019s brother , provided information about PERSON \u2019s ante - mortem physical features to ORG ( ORG ) in order that his post - mortem remains might be identified . On DATE PERSON requested that a search be undertaken for the post - mortem remains of PERSON","On DATE family members provided blood . After a DNA analysis was conducted , ORG in GPE issued a report dated DATE , which stated that the post - mortem remains were those of PERSON","On DATE the family of PERSON was invited to the final identification of the post - mortem remains . On DATE the first applicant confirmed the preliminary identification of the remains .","On DATE the LANGUAGE - Knin Criminal Police Department submitted a list of missing persons to FAC , together with a request for an inquiry into their disappearance and for interviews to be conducted with their families and neighbours . PERSON was listed as CARDINAL of those missing persons .","On DATE the remains of PERSON were buried at the local cemetery in Knin , in accordance with the wishes of the applicants .","On DATE ORG issued an official note about the inquiry into PERSON \u2019s disappearance . After interviewing the first applicant , the police determined that PERSON had died on CARDINAL DATE and had been buried on DATE at the cemetery in GPE . On DATE FAC notified the NORP - Knin Criminal Police Department of those findings .","On DATE ORG ( ORG branitelja ) replied to a request of ORG of ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova , ORG ratnih zlo\u010dina ) concerning the case of PERSON The Ministry of the Interior notified the police of the exhumation and identification of PERSON \u2019s remains .","On DATE the applicants submitted a claim for damages with the State Attorney \u2019s Office in respect of the death of PERSON The request was refused .","On DATE the applicants brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking damages in respect of the death of PERSON under the DATE LAW .","On DATE the municipal court dismissed the claim on the ground that there was \u201c no evidence that PERSON \u2019s death had been a result of terror or violence aimed at gravely disturbing public order . \u201d That judgment was upheld by ORG PERSON u PERSON ) on DATE and by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on DATE by ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173252","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SITNIKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of Trudobelikovskiy , GPE region .","At TIME on DATE the applicant , who was DATE at the time , and B. were taken in a police patrol car to the police station of the LOC district of GPE for an examination of allegations of assault made against them by CARDINAL individuals , in particular of the sexual assault of a woman . The police intervened immediately after the alleged assaults .","According to the applicant , at the police station investigator ORG demanded that he confess to the crime , and threatened him with illtreatment and rape in a cell at the pre - trial detention facility . The applicant refused to sign self - incriminating statements and was allegedly subjected to ill - treatment which he described as follows . He was taken to a cell where CARDINAL policemen held his hands while a third policeman kicked him in the stomach leaving a boot print on his ORG ; the CARDINAL policemen then threw the applicant to the floor , face down . Thereafter , the policemen took the applicant to ORG \u2019s office , where he signed a \u201c statement of surrender and confession \u201d ( \u044f\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u0441 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 ) . He was then taken to the toilet by a policeman who started insulting him . When the applicant responded , the policeman allegedly sprayed gas in his eyes and hit him several times with a rubber truncheon . The policeman then pushed the applicant into the cell so that the applicant hit his head against the wall and fell to the ground .","According to the police record drawn up by operative police officer PERSON , the applicant signed the \u201c statement of surrender and confession \u201d at CARDINAL TIME on DATE .","Investigator PERSON instituted criminal proceedings against him and PERSON and ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant to establish , in view of the nature of the crime , whether the applicant had any pathology which would prevent him from performing sexual acts .","The applicant was taken to a forensic medical expert who found that the applicant had the following physical injuries ( examination report of CARDINAL DATE ) : ( i ) CARDINAL abrasions on the left side of the forehead , measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and QUANTITY by QUANTITY ; ( ii ) an abrasion on the bridge of the nose , measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY ; and ( iii ) a bruise around CARDINAL eye , measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY . The applicant explained to the expert that his injuries had been caused by the QUANTITY police officers who had physically assaulted him at the police station in TIME QUANTITY DATE , in particular by hitting his face against the wall . The expert concluded that the bruise and abrasions on the applicant \u2019s face could have been sustained in the circumstances and at the time alleged by the applicant .","After the medical examination the applicant was taken back to the police station , where investigator ORG told him that he must come back at TIME that day for questioning as a suspect and released him . His arrest was not recorded .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that he had been ill - treated at the police station . He also asked the traumatology unit of the hospital in GPE to record his injuries . According to the hospital medical records , the applicant had the following injuries : ( i ) an acentric fracture of the nose ; ( ii ) a bruise on the forehead ; and ( iii ) abrasions on the forehead .","On DATE the applicant was arrested , questioned as a suspect and detained on remand by a court .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office that the applicant had been illtreated at the police station . In her complaint she stated , inter alia , that at TIME on DATE the applicant had returned home from the police station with bruises and abrasions on his body , and a print from a large boot on his T - shirt in the area of his stomach . The applicant had told her that he had been ill - treated at the police station .","On DATE the prosecutor issued a refusal to open a criminal case against the lawenforcement officers , finding , in accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , that none of the elements of the crimes provided for in ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( on abuse of powers and forced confessions respectively ) had been present in respect of the actions of investigator PERSON or police officers GPE , ORG , PERSON . , and ORG The decision relied on the following statements .","Investigator PERSON stated that he had interviewed the applicant after he had signed his \u201c statement of surrender and confession \u201d . The applicant had not complained of any physical violence against him . After the applicant \u2019s forensic medical examination ORG had talked to the applicant again and then released him . ORG had not seen any injuries on the applicant , or a footprint on his T - shirt , during his interview or prior to his release from the police station . ORG had heard about the applicant hitting his head against the wall later on from ORG denied that the applicant had been put under any physical or psychological pressure .","The police officers denied subjecting the applicant to any illtreatment . NORP stated that he had learned from GPE that the applicant had struck his head against the wall . PERSON stated that he had learned from duty officer GPE about the applicant striking his head against the bars of a cell . S.A. and PERSON . stated that they had seen the applicant bang his head repeatedly against the bars and then against the wall in a room of the duty officer . While banging his head against the wall the applicant was allegedly shouting that he would complain to the prosecutor \u2019s office that police officers had beaten him up .","The applicant \u2019s mother challenged the refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers and investigator PERSON On DATE the NORP ORG dismissed her complaint .","On DATE ORG of GPE granted an appeal lodged by the applicant \u2019s mother and quashed ORG decision , noting that no assessment had been made of the contradiction between the medical expert \u2019s conclusions and the police ORG allegations of the applicant \u2019s self - harm . Nor had the court assessed the applicant \u2019s medical record concerning the nose fracture , the allegation of the applicant having been kicked and having a footprint from a boot on his ORG , the presence of a video surveillance camera at the police station which should have recorded the incident , or statements by PERSON that he had heard the applicant screaming at the police station . ORG had not taken into account circumstances which could have significantly influenced its conclusions and had not given reasons why , in so far as the conflicting evidence was concerned , it had given preference to some evidence whilst rejecting other . A fresh examination of the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s appeal was ordered by a different composition of judges of the same court .","On DATE the Syktyvdinskiy ORG ruled that the refusal to open a criminal case of CARDINAL DATE had been unjustified for reasons largely similar to those cited by ORG . The court ordered the investigation authorities to rectify those deficiencies .","On DATE the deputy prosecutor of GPE overruled the refusal of CARDINAL DATE to open a criminal case .","On DATE the investigative committee of the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE issued a new refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers and investigator PERSON , finding , in accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG , that none of the elements of the crimes provided for in LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( on insulting behaviour , abuse of powers and forced confessions respectively ) were present in their actions . It was noted that , according to information received from the LOC district police department , the video surveillance recordings of the room of the duty officer and the cells for administrative offenders for the period from DATE had not been preserved . Such records were normally kept for DATE and then automatically deleted . It was concluded that the applicant had caused injuries to himself at the police station with the purpose of avoiding criminal liability for the crime which he had committed .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty by the Syktyvdinskiy ORG .","NORP The applicant \u2019s mother challenged the second refusal to open a criminal case against the police officers and investigator ORG","On DATE the Syktyvdinskiy ORG dismissed her appeal . It examined the explanations given by the police officers and investigator ORG , and held that the allegations regarding the applicant \u2019s illtreatment had not been substantiated . The court also noted that the allegation regarding the applicant \u2019s forced confession had been examined during the applicant \u2019s criminal trial and had been dismissed as unfounded in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The court further noted that the trial court had examined and endorsed the refusal of DATE to open a criminal case against the police officers . Finally , the court concluded that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment had been designed to discredit the lawenforcement authorities . On DATE ORG of Komi upheld that decision on appeal .","The judgment of DATE in the applicant \u2019s criminal case was subsequently quashed and remitted to the first - instance court for fresh examination . On DATE the Syktyvdinskiy ORG convicted the applicant of sexual assault , specifially holding the victim to enable PERSON to sexually assault her , and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant denied his guilt at trial , asserting that he had signed the \u201c statement of surrender and confession \u201d under physical pressure from the police officers and psychological pressure from investigator PERSON trial court rejected the applicant \u2019s arguments , relying on the refusal of DATE to open a criminal case against the police officers and investigator PERSON applicant \u2019s \u201c statement of surrender and confession \u201d formed part of the evidence on which his conviction was based , and served as a mitigating circumstance . The applicant appealed against the judgment .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal , stating that it was irrelevant to the criminal case against the applicant whether or not the refusal to open a criminal case into his allegations of ill - treatment had been unfounded ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170858","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BUBON v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to receive information)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant is a lawyer who also writes articles for various NORP law journals and online legal information databases and networks .","According to the applicant , his work usually requires extensive scientific research , including in the field of law enforcement in LOC . He supported his assertion with copies of contracts with well - known NORP publishing houses and owners of a number of legal magazines , including CARDINAL supervised by the ORG of the President of GPE . Under the contracts he undertook the task of writing articles on specific topics of legal and social interest .","Having received an assignment to write an article on prostitution and the fight against it in LOC , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant wrote to the head of the GPE Region police department by registered letter , asking for statistical data for his research . The relevant parts read :","\u201c [ I am ] interested in [ receiving ] information for DATE , in particular :","[ information on ] the number of people found administratively liable under LAW Code of Administrative Offences ( prostitution ) , with a breakdown by sex , residence ( residents of LOC or visitors ) , nationality ( nationals of GPE , foreigners or stateless persons ) and DATE [ of the offence ] ;","[ information on ] the number of criminal cases instituted during the abovementioned period under LAW , CARDINAL , CARDINAL [ and ] CARDINAL ( cases related to sexual exploitation ) of the ... Criminal Code , with a breakdown of the specific ORG ... and DATE [ the case was opened ] ;","[ information on ] the number of individuals found criminally liable under LAW , CARDINAL , CARDINAL [ and ] CARDINAL ... of the ... Criminal Code , with a breakdown by sex , age , educational background , permanent residence ( residents of LOC or visitors ) , nationality and period [ in which the crime was committed ] ;","general information on sentences imposed on individuals found criminally liable under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL [ and ] CARDINAL ... of the ... Criminal Code the types of sentences and in how many cases they were imposed , and DATE [ they were imposed ] .","...","[ I ] stress that I do not need any specific personal information about individuals found administratively or criminally liable ; [ I only need ] general statistical information for writing a scientific article . \u201d","It appears from an acknowledgement of receipt that the letter reached the GPE Region police department on DATE .","Under NORP law , ORG officials must provide a reply to letters from individuals within DATE . In the absence of any response , on DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , complaining that the police authorities had failed to provide him with the information he had requested and requesting for access . Relying on LAW ( see below ) and LAW , he argued that the officials\u2019 implied refusal to provide him with the information had been unlawful as he had not asked for access to any confidential personal information , ORG secrets or information related to internal police working methods . He claimed that his request had related purely to statistical data of a general nature collected by ORG of the GPE Region police department ( hereinafter \u201c the Information Centre \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant received a letter from the head of ORG , notifying him that information as specific as he had asked for could only be collected on production of a written order issued by a deputy Minister of ORG , a head of a regional or municipal police department or their divisions or a prosecutor or investigator from a prosecutor \u2019s office . ORG did not collect such information at the request of private individuals . General statistical data summarised by FAC was provided to ORG and in particular its regional office for LOC , to whom the applicant could apply for the statistical data .","On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Statistics Service \u201d ) by registered letter , asking for the statistical data for his research .","On DATE the head of ORG replied , stating that specific statistical information on the fight against prostitution had never been provided by the GPE Regional police department .","The applicant filed copies of his letters from ORG with ORG .","On DATE it dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim on the grounds that ORG was not authorised to process data requests from private individuals . Under domestic law , ORG was tasked with dissemination of official statistical data on a broad variety of subjects , including those falling within the applicant \u2019s field of interest . It also noted that the applicant had failed to obtain the information sought from open sources , such as libraries , archives and the Internet . ORG also stressed that the information requested did not touch upon the applicant \u2019s rights and legitimate interests , so the authorities\u2019 refusal to grant him access to such information had been lawful and well - founded under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The applicant appealed , arguing , among other things , that the police authorities had exclusive possession of the information sought by him and that he had no other means , including through assistance from ORG , of obtaining the necessary data . In addition , he submitted that the fact that his rights and legitimate interests were not affected by the requested information had no bearing on the case as under NORP law , it was not only those directly concerned who were granted access to public information .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . Relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , it concluded that the authorities were not obliged to provide the applicant with the information as it did not touch upon his rights and legitimate interests ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144166","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"OZON AND CANDEA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos","text":["The applicants , PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE and GPE respectively . The applicants were represented by PERSON NORP PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON R\u0103zvanHora\u0163iu Radu .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants , both investigative journalists , wrote a series of articles on the activities in GPE of certain individuals allegedly belonging to ORG . The articles were edited by company PERSON and carried the headline \u201c NORP ORG \u2013 high - level connections in GPE \u201d ( ORG italian\u0103 \u2013 leg\u0103turi la v\u00e2rf PERSON .","The articles referred especially to ORG , who was alleged to have connections with ORG and the NORP political world . A Member of ORG , ORG , was cited among the NORP personalities mentioned as having connections with ORG","One of the articles was published on DATE in the national newspaper GPE zilei . It was signed by the applicants and was worded as follows :","\u201c We had always said that in our country there were active groups belonging to international mafia organisations , but until now nothing had been proved by the national authorities . Evenimentul zilei reveals for the first time the highlevel connections between an NORP criminal organisation and GPE , connections worthy of a gangster film . There is , on the CARDINAL side , the organisation ORG and on the other side the NORP politicians and civil servants . In the middle there is a mysterious person , PERSON He is connected to persons with important positions in ORG and in our country ; he has connections at the highest level ...","The investigations carried out by the NORP and NORP police , as well as our own research , have revealed that ORG has many connections , including former and current high and local officials and businessmen : ... GPE , former export manager at PERSON before DATE and former manager of ORG , and PERSON , a current Member of ORG ... and well - known businessman who owns CARDINAL companies and is a shareholder in CARDINAL other companies ...","We spoke with those who , according to our information , have connections with ORG , asking them questions about their trips to GPE and their relationship with PERSON ...","ORG : I have not seen PERSON ] since DATE , when he came to see me . I know that there were discussions about going to GPE , but I did not participate . We were supposed to go to visit a certain plant , but I did not go . I did not get involved with PERSON in any business . We just talked . I met him in PERSON through an intermediary of the director of the newspaper ORG , PERSON was , in general , on good terms with PERSON and P. and those from ORG . They should know more . I saw him once or twice in ORG and once in GPE . He knew many businessmen from ORG . I know that he had a closer relationship with ORG , who was also a shareholder in bank PERSON was on good terms with the group that invested in bank A.","P.B. : I was not really involved with the parliamentarian ORG \u201d","That article was accompanied by a diagram showing the organisation and functioning of ORG . The name PERSON was in the middle , surrounded by the names of those alleged to have connections with him . The name ORG appeared at the perimeter .","On DATE , another article headlined \u201c Deputy has businesses worth MONEY \u201d was published in the same newspaper .","It was signed with the initials \u201c ORG \u201d and carried the subheading \u201c ORG , a rich parliamentarian \u201d . It was worded as follows :","\u201c ORG , someone that knew PERSON who is associated with the ORG , has a prosperous life . Exactly DATE , GPE zilei started writing DATE about the infiltration of ORG in GPE and its high - level connections . With the exception of the NORP police , who started meticulously investigating certain companies but without releasing any information in that respect , nobody has done anything to bring this scandal to light . The activity of ORG in GPE is probably not of interest to NORP . Nevertheless , the activity of the members of this organisation and their contacts in GPE are of major interest . For this reason it is necessary to reveal PERSON \u2019s connections in GPE .","GPE zilei has shown that PERSON ] , who helped members of ORG with money - laundering activities in GPE , had connections with important persons in GPE , the most important being ... PERSON There were also other important persons on the list with ORG about whom we will inform you later . We refer to PERSON ... , GPE ... , PERSON and ORG .... We will later reveal CARDINAL of the most senior figures that know PERSON They are in important positions and CARDINAL of them has businesses worth a great deal ... \u201d .","On DATE ORG lodged a criminal complaint of defamation with ORG against the applicants and the company PERSON that had published the articles . He alleged that the newspaper GPE zilei had launched a press campaign seeking to denigrate him and that the articles contained unfounded accusations about his activities . He joined to the proceedings a civil claim for compensation in respect of nonpecuniary damage , amounting to MONEY ( ROL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","At the public hearing of DATE , ORG gave a statement to the court . He acknowledged that he had been interviewed by the journalists and that the quotations in the newspaper articles corresponded to his statements . However , he considered that the inclusion of his name in the organisational diagram was detrimental to his interests .","On DATE the witnesses for the prosecution , PERSON and PERSON , gave testimony in the presence of the ORG lawyer .","On DATE the ORG lawyer submitted his written observations on the merits of the case .","By a judgment of DATE , the firstinstance court acquitted the applicants . It held that the intent to denigrate had not been proved in respect of the article of DATE . The court made reference to LAW and held that the newspaper article concerned aspects of general interest . It also considered that the applicants had done their own investigation and interviewed all the persons involved , including ORG , and had faithfully reproduced their statements . It noted that ORG had even stated before the court that the details presented in the articles were true .","The court held that the ORG statements had a factual basis . They were based on reliable sources of information and their purpose had not been to damage the reputation of ORG It also held that the applicants had acted in good faith . After reiterating that a journalist \u2019s work involved a certain degree of exaggeration , the court stressed that the applicants had been more critical in their analysis of ORG \u2019s behaviour in society and connections than they would have been in the case of a simple citizen , given that ORG was a politician .","The court also held that an element of exaggeration had been used in the organisational diagram bringing together ORG \u2019s contacts in GPE .","With respect to the article of CARDINAL DATE , the court held that ORG had not proved that the applicants had written the article . It acquitted the applicants on the ground that they had not committed the offence in question .","The court dismissed the civil claim lodged by ORG on the ground that the applicants did not meet the requirements to be deemed to have civil liability .","C.N. lodged an appeal on points of law before GPE Court on the ground that the investigation carried out by the applicants had been incomplete and that the published articles had tarnished his public image and reputation .","The applicants did not show any interest in the proceedings before the appellate court . Even if they had been duly summoned , they were absent from the proceedings and did not appoint a lawyer to represent them before the court . No new pieces of evidence were adduced before the appellate court .","By a final decision of DATE , ORG upheld the applicants\u2019 acquittal and allowed the appeal on points of law only with respect to the civil claim . It reiterated that the articles contained information of general interest and that the applicants had carried out their own investigation , obtaining information from competent authorities and ORG It confirmed that the applicants\u2019 intent had not been to defame the civil party . However , with respect to the civil claim , the appellate court considered that by publishing the organisational diagram of DATE , which had made it appear as if ORG had connections with ORG , the applicants had exaggerated to a degree that had damaged the reputation of the civil party . ORG was a public person and the publication of the articles had tarnished his image and reputation . The court observed as follows :","\u201c ... after the publication of the impugned articles , many persons ( including parliamentarians , senators , members of ORG and the ORG ) discussed the civil party \u2019s connection with the NORP ORG .","This had multiple consequences : at local level , many colleagues in his political party did not want to speak to him , opposition Members of ORG criticised him for his supposed connection with the ORG , and discussions also took place on this topic within his own family .","In conclusion , it is obvious that the publication of these articles has tarnished the public image , honour and dignity of the injured party , as the articles generated suspicions that he had connections with ORG . The allegations are particularly damaging because he is a Member of ORG .","The defendants did not intend to defame the injured party but they should have anticipated the result of their actions , namely the political scandal that was generated . However , they believed their reasoning based on presumptions to be correct , even though their investigation had not proven beyond doubt that the injured party had connections with ORG .","Under LAW , each person is responsible for damage he or she causes , not only with intent but also by negligence or carelessness . In conclusion , the defendants\u2019 actions met the conditions of civil responsibility . \u201d","In accordance with LAW , CARDINAL of LAW , the appellate court ordered the applicants and the company that had published the newspaper to jointly pay the victim ROL CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) .","NORP The relevant provisions of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , read as follows :","( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings can not be instituted , or continued if they have already been instituted , in the following situations :","...","( c ) if the offence was not committed by the defendant ;","( d ) if the offence lacks one of the constitutive elements of a crime .","...","( CARDINAL ) If CARDINAL of the situations described in Article CARDINAL applies :","...","( CARDINAL ) During the trial the court shall decide :","( a ) to acquit , in the situations described in LAW ( a ) to ( e ) .","The final decision of the criminal court has the status of res judicata in the civil court that decides the joined civil action , as far as the existence of the act , the person who has committed it and his or her guilt are concerned .","( CARDINAL ) In the case of conviction , acquittal or discontinuance of the criminal trial , the court shall also decide on the civil action .","( CARDINAL ) When an acquittal has been pronounced for the reason given under LAW subparagraph ( CARDINAL)(b ) or because the court has uncovered evidence that removes the criminal nature of the affair , or because one of the constituent elements of the offence is missing , the court can award compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage in accordance with the civil law .","( CARDINAL ) ORG damages can not be paid in the event of an acquittal where the offence was either not committed or was not committed by the defendant . \u201d","The relevant provisions of ORG concerning defamation and liability for paying damages in force at the material time are described in ORG and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163939","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"VAN VELZEN v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The relevant facts , as submitted by the applicant and apparent from information submitted by the Government at the request of the Judge Rapporteur ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of ORG ) , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant lives on a caravan site . He is not married .","On DATE a post office official handed a summons addressed to the applicant to another inhabitant of the caravan site , CARDINAL PERSON The official record of delivery states that the summons was handed to \u201c PERSON , wife ( echtgenote ) \u201d .","Ms D. lives together with the applicant \u2019s brother , on the same caravan site but in a different caravan . Her postal address , which applies to the site as a whole , is the same as the applicant \u2019s .","On DATE the limited jurisdiction judge ( kantonrechter ) of GPE ( a local dependency of ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE whose jurisdiction includes minor offences ( overtredingen ) and small claims ) convicted the applicant in absentia of \u201c being the person in whose name a motor vehicle is registered for which a vehicle registration certificate has been issued , failing to subscribe to and maintain in force insurance in accordance with ORG ) Act \u201d ( als degene aan wie het kenteken is opgegeven voor een motorrijtuig waarvoor een kentekenbewijs is afgegeven niet een verzekering overeenkomstig PERSON aansprakelijkheidsverzekering motorrijtuigen sluiten en in stand houden ) . The applicant was ordered to pay a fine of CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) or undergo CARDINAL days\u2019 detention in lieu .","The applicant appealed against the judgment on CARDINAL DATE by setting out his grounds of appeal on a pre - printed form . The form states the following :","\u201c I did not attend the hearing because :","[ in handwriting ] I did not know that the case was to be heard .","I would have liked to make the following submission :","[ in handwriting ] I do not even know which case it is . \u201d","On DATE the president of ORG ( gerechtshof ) of GPE gave a decision refusing the applicant leave to appeal . The decision was in the following terms :","\u201c The President notes that the appellant did not appear at the first - instance hearing , although the summons was handed to a member of his household on DATE . The mere fact that the appellant has not made use of the opportunity offered for stating his defence does not justify a hearing on appeal . There is no appearance of any special circumstances that might justify offering him this possibility .","The President further notes that the appellant essentially wants nothing more than a rehearing of the case . An examination of the case based on the case file has not led the President to expect that a rehearing will lead to any other ruling than that given at first instance .","The President is not aware of any other reasons for which the interests of the proper administration of justice require the case to be heard in appeal . \u201d","The judgment here in issue has not been executed ; the Government have informed the ORG that it will not be , pending the ORG \u2019s decision on the present application .","In its relevant part , LAW provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG shall determine whether the summons was validly delivered to the suspect who has failed to appear . If it is apparent that it has not been validly delivered , it shall declare the summons null and void . ... \u201d","In its relevant parts , LAW provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Delivery [ sc . of a judicial notification ] shall take place :","a. to the person who has been lawfully deprived of his liberty in the GPE in connection with the criminal proceedings to which the judicial notification relates and to the person who has been otherwise lawfully deprived of his liberty in the GPE in other cases determined by or pursuant to delegated legislation : in person ;","b. to all others : in person or , if service otherwise than in person is allowed and the notification is presented in the GPE ,","i. at the address where the addressee ( geadresseerde ) is registered as resident in ORG ( basisadministratie persoonsgegevens ) , or as the case may be ,","ii . if the addressee is not registered as a resident in ORG , at the permanent or temporary domicile ( woon- of verblijfplaats ) of the addressee , or as the case may be ,","iii . if the addressee is not registered as a resident , to the Registrar of ORG before which or within whose jurisdiction the case will be heard or was last heard ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170642","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"AHO v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE , a person was murdered at a nightclub in GPE , GPE , by a lone gunman ( hereafter \u201c the DATE murder \u201d ) . The applicant , who belonged to a well - known criminal network in ORG , was arrested DATE as a suspect . He was held in pre - trial detention until DATE , with restrictions . Although released from pretrial detention on that date , he remained a suspect . On DATE he was once again arrested and subsequently detained , with restrictions , on suspicion for the DATE murder as well as inter alia another murder . The prosecution against the applicant and several other defendants was brought on DATE .","With regard to the evidence against the applicant concerning the DATE murder , the prosecution , inter alia , relied on information provided by witness A. , who was working at the nightclub on TIME of the murder . PERSON told the first policeman to arrive at the crime scene that he wanted to tell another policeman , PERSON , who the perpetrator was . On DATE , PERSON arrived at the police station . However , as PERSON was not present , he told policeman PERSON instead that the applicant was the perpetrator . A. had known the applicant since an early age . A. also made it clear to C. that he would not agree to be questioned formally by the police or be heard as a witness before a court . The reason was that he feared retribution from the criminal network to which the applicant belonged . C. took note of the information and DATE repeated to policeman PERSON what he had seen on TIME of the murder . During the period from CARDINAL September CARDINAL to DATE , PERSON repeated this information to ORG and a third policeman , NORP , on CARDINAL separate occasions .","The trial at ORG ( tingsr\u00e4tt ) started at DATE and lasted for DATE . On DATE , the applicant was convicted of the DATE murder , aiding and abetting a second murder , abduction and extortion . He was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . Moreover , he was to remain in detention , with restrictions , until the judgment gained legal force .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( hovr\u00e4tt ) , which found CARDINAL of the lay judges at ORG to be biased because he was also a member of a local police commission where , among other things , the criminal case against the applicant had been discussed . For that reason , on DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and referred the case back to the lower court for renewed proceedings . The applicant was to remain in detention , with restrictions .","The new proceedings started before a new composition of judges of ORG at DATE and lasted for DATE .","Policemen B. , C. and NORP were heard as witnesses during the trial and they concordantly testified that PERSON had told them that the applicant was the perpetrator . However , despite numerous requests , PERSON refused to relay the information at a formal police hearing or at the trial . A. nevertheless appeared as a witness at the trial and was questioned by the prosecution and the defence . He denied that he had witnessed the murder .","On DATE , the applicant was once again convicted by ORG of the DATE murder , aiding and abetting a second murder and abduction and extortion . This time , he was also convicted of aiding and abetting a third attempted murder . He was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . Moreover , he was to remain in detention , with restrictions , until the judgment gained legal force .","ORG noted in its judgment that the applicant had claimed that A. blamed him for the murder for reasons of revenge or loyalty . The court , however , found no indication of such motives . A. was deemed credible , and his explanation to the policemen B. , C. and NORP that he refused to testify because of fear of retribution was seen as convincing . The court also reasoned that the strength of the hearsay evidence was reduced as A. had not provided the information during a trial where cross - examination was possible . A. \u2019s identification of the perpetrator was therefore not seen as evidence decisive enough , taken by itself , to prove the guilt of the applicant . In addition to the identification , however , there was circumstantial evidence . A. had given information about the perpetrator to the victim in the extortion crime of which the applicant was also convicted . Furthermore , the applicant had no alibi and , according to connections to telecommunication masts , he was TIME away from the nightclub around the time of the murder . The applicant had called a person who stored guns TIME before the murder , stating that he was in a hurry and wanted to meet outside the applicant \u2019s home . His mobile phone had thereafter been silent for TIME , which was very unusual for him . DATE , the applicant had requested guns and ammunition , and he was able to handle guns . ORG concluded that the circumstantial evidence , considered together with ORG \u2019s identification of the perpetrator , proved that the applicant was the murderer .","Upon appeal , ORG held an oral hearing which lasted DATE . The applicant \u2019s restrictions were lifted on DATE by the court . On DATE , the court upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment as regards the applicant and he was ordered to remain in detention without restrictions until the judgment gained legal force .","NORP The lower court \u2019s evidence evaluation and conclusion were shared by ORG , where video recordings of the witness testimony were shown . The appellate court further noted that the applicant \u2019s mother had called his mobile phone at the time when the applicant had claimed he was sleeping in the apartment from which his mother was calling . Moreover , the court noted that the applicant had handed over his cell phones to a friend after the murder but before he was arrested , indicating that he did not want the police to get hold of them . With regard to the case as a whole , the court remarked that several injured persons and witnesses had refused to be questioned by the police or had retracted previous statements given to the police at the trial . According to the court , it was obvious that this was because of loyalty or fear of retribution . Several witnesses were accused of perjury .","The applicant appealed against ORG judgment to ORG ( ORG domstolen ) which , on DATE , refused leave to appeal .","The applicant appealed neither explicitly nor implicitly to ORG against ORG decision to keep him in detention until the judgment gained legal force .","LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( PERSON , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , reads as follows :","\u201c After conscientious assessment of everything that has occurred , the court shall determine what has been proved in the case .","As to the effect of certain kinds of evidence , the specific provisions thereon shall apply . \u201d","This provision reflects the principle of free submission and evaluation of evidence ( principen om DATE bevisf\u00f6ring och bevisv\u00e4rdering ) which prevails in NORP procedural law . It means that , as a main rule , there are no restrictions in law on the submission and evaluation of evidence . Thus , anything that may be of value as evidence in a case may , in principle , be presented during the main hearing . However , the circumstances under which evidence has been collected or given will have an influence on the way in which it is evaluated . The \u201c principle of best evidence \u201d ( principen om b\u00e4sta bevismedlet ) is applied ; consequently , witnesses and injured parties should normally give evidence during a court hearing , rather than the court reading the statements made during the preliminary investigation , to enable the parties to pose questions and scrutinise the statements more closely .","NORP Moreover , according to LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW , a court may dismiss evidence , inter alia , if the circumstance that a party wants to prove is without importance in the case , if the evidence is unnecessary or if it clearly would be to no effect ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150771","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NESHKOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;Individual measures);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;General measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["Mr PERSON was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC . Mr PERSON was born in DATE and is currently detained in PERSON , an open - type prison hostel attached to FAC . Mr PERSON was born in DATE . He was detained in FAC until DATE , when he was released ; his current whereabouts are unknown . Mr GPE was born in DATE and is currently detained in GPE , a closed - type prison hostel in GPE attached to FAC . PERSON was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","NORP Since his incarceration Mr PERSON has been placed successively in FAC ( DATE ) , FAC ( DATE ) , PERSON ( DATE - CARDINAL ) , and ORG ( CARDINAL-present ) . In the course of transfers to court hearings he also spent short periods of time , DATE on each occasion , in FAC .","Mr PERSON was placed in FAC on DATE in execution of CARDINAL separate criminal sentences . In a decision of DATE of LOC these were combined into an aggregate sentence of DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment .","NORP In the course of his stay in FAC Mr PERSON was kept in the prison \u2019s high - security area , ORG ( life prisoners and other prisoners under special regime ) on the ground floor , in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE , ORG and CARDINAL . Cell no . CARDINAL measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had CARDINAL windows letting in enough sunlight and allowing the cell to be properly aired . Cells nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL each measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had CARDINAL window , and , according to the Government , were not overcrowded . According to them , cell no . CARDINAL measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY , and was equipped with a bed , a metal locker and a table . According to Mr PERSON , the cell was only equipped with a bed and a plastic bucket . According to the Government , Mr PERSON was during most of the time kept alone in these cells , all of which had windows that let in enough sunlight and allowed them to be properly aired . According to Mr PERSON , the cell windows were covered with metal sheets , which did not permit sunlight or fresh air to come in , and the cells were not equipped with a ventilation system . None of these cells was equipped with a toilet . The Government said that they had no records on the exact amount of time spent by Mr PERSON in each of these CARDINAL cells . Mr PERSON submitted that he had spent DATE in cell CARDINAL . This cell , as well as the others in which he had been housed DATE and indeed all cells in the prison \u2019s high security area \u2013 had been kept locked all the time , save for CARDINAL periods of TIME in the morning , at lunch and in the evening . During these periods , he was able to go to the toilet , but the rest of time he had to use a bucket to relieve his sanitary needs . Mr PERSON submitted that while in cell CARDINAL , he was tied to the bed with handcuffs for DATE .","According to the ORG , all inmates in FAC , including Mr PERSON , were provided with adequate health care . FAC had a medical centre , and where necessary inmates were consulted by outside medical doctors .","On DATE Mr PERSON was transferred to FAC , then on DATE to PERSON , and then on DATE to ORG , where he is currently housed . He did not provide any information about the conditions in these prisons .","DATE and DATE Mr PERSON spent periods of time of DATE in PERSON on a number of occasions in connection with court hearings .","According to the Government , all inmates from other prisons who spent short periods of time in FAC were housed in a special wing . Since they were very diverse \u2013 sentenced and remand prisoners , men and women , adults and minors , inmates from open and closed correctional facilities , first time and repeat offenders \u2013 they had to be kept separated in locked cells , primarily for their own security . That , and the fact that this wing contained the disciplinary cells , had made it necessary to classify as a high - security zone . The sometimes high number of such transit prisoners had made it necessary to put CARDINAL of them in one cell . They had been allowed to visit the toilet CARDINAL times a day , separately for men and women and for adults and minors , and to spend time in the open air . They had taken their meals in the cells . Hygiene in the cells had been maintained by the inmates themselves . All the windows had glazing , and the cells had been repainted in DATE and DATE . However , because of the large number of prisoners transiting through the LOC , they were wearing quite fast .","On DATE Mr PERSON brought a claim under section CARDINAL of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in relation to the conditions of his detention in FAC . He sought CARDINAL NORP levs ( ORG ) in nonpecuniary damages . On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , citing Mr PERSON \u2019s failure to state clearly the alleged facts and his request for relief . Following an appeal by Mr PERSON , in a decision of DATE ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0434\u0435\u043a\u0435\u043c\u0432\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG quashed that decision and directed that the claim be examined on the merits . On DATE the ORG transferred the case to the territorially competent ORG .","At Mr PERSON \u2019s request , ORG ordered the administration of PERSON to provide information about Mr PERSON \u2019s stays in this prison DATE and DATE and about the conditions in which he had been kept in the course of these stays . The prison administration was able to provide such information only in relation to DATE , explaining that the records concerning short - term stays of prisoners normally housed in other prisons were not kept for DATE .","In a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u044e\u043b\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , \u0410\u0421-\u0412\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0430 ) ORG dismissed Mr PERSON \u2019s claim . It noted that the exact periods of time when he had been housed in FAC in DATE could only be established for DATE , because the prison \u2019s records for DATE had not been preserved . In DATE , Mr PERSON had been housed in this prison on CARDINAL occasions : on DATE , alone in a cell ; on DATE , in a cell with CARDINAL other inmates ; on DATE , in a cell with CARDINAL other inmates ; on DATE , in a cell with CARDINAL other inmates ; and on DATE , in a cell with CARDINAL other inmate . During these periods , he had not been provided with bed linen . The cells in which he had been kept had been infested with cockroaches , had not been sufficiently lit during DATE but constantly lit at TIME , and had not had in - cell toilets . As a result , Mr PERSON had had to relieve himself in a bucket and urinate in a plastic bottle . The court made no findings in relation to the size of the cells or the number of inmates held in them , noting that at the relevant time there had been no binding legal requirement for minimum space per prisoner . However , it went on to say that Mr PERSON had failed to prove that he had suffered non - pecuniary damage as a result of these conditions . Moreover , he had only spent short periods of time in these cells . While a long period of time in such extremely poor conditions of detention could cause mental suffering , the same could not be said of a short period . There was therefore no damage to make good .","Mr PERSON appealed on points of law , arguing , inter alia , that ORG had erred by dismissing his claim as unproved in relation to the remainder of DATE based on the lack of relevant prison records . He also challenged the court \u2019s ruling on the existence or otherwise of non - pecuniary damage .","In a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043c\u0430\u0440\u0442 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment , fully agreeing with its reasoning . It noted , in particular , that Mr PERSON had failed to prove the existence of damage .","On DATE Mr PERSON brought a claim against ORG under section CARDINAL of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in relation to the conditions of his detention in FAC in DATE . He sought BGN CARDINAL , plus interest , in non - pecuniary damages .","Mr PERSON requested to be exempted from paying a court fee . On DATE ORG refused his request , holding that the declaration of means that he had presented was not sufficient to elucidate his and his family \u2019s financial situation . It could not therefore be accepted that he was indigent .","At the first hearing , held on DATE , the court instructed Mr PERSON to specify which part of the damage allegedly suffered by him was due to acts and which part to omissions of prison officials . The court also directed the governor of FAC to provide information about the conditions of Mr PERSON \u2019s detention , gave leave to Mr PERSON to call witnesses , and ordered an expert report on the compatibility of the conditions in the cells and toilets in FAC with the applicable standards .","On DATE Mr PERSON requested to be exempted from paying a deposit for the expert report . DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the court refused his request , giving the same reason as previously : that the declaration of means presented by Mr PERSON was not sufficient to elucidate his and his family \u2019s financial situation and show that he was indeed indigent . Mr PERSON appealed against this ruling , but in a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043d\u043e\u0435\u043c\u0432\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG refused to examine the appeal , holding that such rulings by the first - instance court were not subject to appeal . Mr PERSON appealed further . In a decision of DATE ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u044f\u043d\u0443\u0430\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , \u043f\u0435\u0442\u0447\u043b. \u0441-\u0432 ) a fivemember panel of ORG upheld the threemember panel \u2019s decision .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG decided to strike CARDINAL of Mr PERSON \u2019s witnesses off . It found that this witness , who was incarcerated , was a dangerous criminal regarded by the prison authorities as cruel and extremely resilient . There was therefore a risk that , if brought to the court to take part in a hearing , he might try to flee . The court instructed Mr PERSON to seek another witness in relation to the facts that he was seeking to prove through this NORP testimony .","Following further applications by Mr PERSON , on DATE the court refused to vary its earlier evidentiary rulings .","At a hearing on DATE Mr PERSON asked the judge hearing the case to recuse herself , citing her rulings in relation to the evidence . She refused to do so , saying that these rulings were not indicative of any bias against Mr PERSON . The court then heard one witness called by PERSON PERSON and ordered the prison governor to present the medical documents relating to Mr PERSON \u2019s stay in FAC in DATE .","In a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u044e\u043b\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , \u0410\u0421-\u0412\u0430\u0440\u043d\u0430 ) ORG dismissed Mr PERSON \u2019s claim . It held that Mr PERSON , who bore the burden of proving all elements of the tort under section CARDINAL of the State and Municipalities for Damage Act DATE , including the existence of damage , had failed to make out his claim that he had suffered harm as a result of the conditions of his detention . He had not presented evidence that he had felt bad or fallen ill as a result of these conditions . The witness evidence that he had adduced was DATE unlike medical expert evidence \u2013 not sufficient to prove medical complaints . There was no indication that the pain and suffering allegedly endured by him had led to any permanent damage to his health . Moreover , it could not be overlooked that , in view of the fact that he had been incarcerated pursuant to CARDINAL sentences , he had been placed under a prison regime entailing heightened security .","On an appeal by Mr PERSON , in a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0444\u0435\u0432\u0440\u0443\u0430\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG quashed ORG judgment and remitted the case . It held that the lower court had , in breach of the rules of procedure , failed to indicate to Mr PERSON which of his allegations were unsupported by evidence . For instance , the lower court had held Mr PERSON \u2019s omission to present medical evidence on his state of health against him without instructing him to present such evidence . Since it was apparently of the view that such evidence was required , it could have even appointed a medical expert of its own motion . Its failure to do so could not be explained by Mr PERSON \u2019s inability to bear the costs of such an expert report . Such financial considerations could not be allowed to trump the fundamental constitutional right of access to an independent court . The lower court had in addition failed to rule in terms on several of PERSON PERSON \u2019s evidentiary requests . That , as well as its failure to obtain the medical documents concerning Mr PERSON \u2019s stay in FAC , had in effect prevented Mr PERSON from making out his claim .","ORG re - examined the case at CARDINAL hearings . It also obtained , by way of a letter of request to ORG , the statement of a witness for the applicant who was housed in FAC .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043d\u043e\u0435\u043c\u0432\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , \u0410\u0421-\u0412\u0430\u0440\u043d\u0430 ) ORG again dismissed Mr PERSON \u2019s claim . It found that after his admission to FAC , DATE and DATE Mr PERSON had been kept in cell no . CARDINAL . This cell had measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had been full of beds and cabinets . Mr PERSON had had to share the cell with CARDINAL other inmates , some of whom smokers . The cell had not had proper artificial lighting or access to sunlight . It had not had a ventilation system either , and it had not been possible to air it properly because its windows could not open widely . Nor had the cell had a toilet ; it had only been equipped with a bucket for sanitary needs . Following a serious deterioration in Mr PERSON \u2019s mental state as a result of the conditions in this cell , on DATE the prison administration had moved him to cell no . CARDINAL , an isolation cell , where he had remained alone . This cell had not had a ventilation system or direct access to sunlight , because its window had been covered with a metal sheet . It had not had a toilet or any furniture apart from a bed . During his time in this cell \u2013 until DATE Mr PERSON had not always been allowed to use the TIME out - of - cell time permitted CARDINAL times a day under his prison regime . After that he had been moved for a period of CARDINAL or DATE to cell no . DATE , which had been CARDINAL by QUANTITY and had only been equipped with a bed and a bucket for sanitary needs . This cell \u2019s window had been covered with a perforated metal sheet . The court said that the evidence presented by Mr PERSON did not enable it to make any findings of fact in relation to the period after DATE .","Based on these findings of fact , ORG held that the state of affairs which lay at the origin of Mr PERSON \u2019s claim had come to an end on DATE . The applicable DATE limitation period had therefore expired on DATE , whereas Mr PERSON \u2019s claim had been lodged in DATE . Therefore , in as much as it concerned the period before DATE , the claim was time - barred . In as much it concerned the period after that date , it was unproved : there was no evidence of either unlawful acts or omissions on the part of the prison authorities or of harm suffered by Mr PERSON as a result of that .","Mr PERSON appealed on points of law . He argued , inter alia , that ORG had completely disregarded part of the evidence and had erroneously found that there was no evidence in relation to the period after DATE . For instance , the prison administration had itself admitted that throughout Mr PERSON \u2019s stay in FAC the cells had not been equipped with toilets or ventilation systems .","In a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u044e\u043b\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG upheld ORG judgment in the following terms :","\u201c ... [ T]he [ lower ] court gathered all relevant evidence , analysed it in depth and in detail , and came to correct and lawful findings that are fully shared by this court .","Having elucidated the facts , the [ lower ] court was correct to hold that the latest date on which prison officials were proved to have carried out the impugned acts or omissions during the period under consideration was DATE . Not one piece of evidence concerns the period after that date . The court was therefore correct to hold that that was the point in time when the impugned acts and omissions of the [ prison ] administration had come to an end . ... [ T]he DATE limitation period [ therefore ] started to run on that date and expired on DATE . In these circumstances , and given that the statement of claim was lodged on DATE , it was proper to hold that , regardless of the veracity or otherwise of the allegations about the period of time DATE and DATE , the claim concerning that period was timebarred . As regards the remainder of DATE and DATE \u2013 the case file does not contain any evidence showing that the alleged unlawful acts and omissions of officials of FAC have indeed taken place . The prerequisites for allowing a claim under section CARDINAL of the [ CARDINAL Act ] are not in place , and the lower court was right to reject the claim as unproved . \u201d","On DATE , following his extradition from GPE , PERSON PERSON was placed in FAC to serve a sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment whose execution had started on DATE . He remained in this prison until DATE , when he was transferred to FAC . He arrived in FAC on DATE , and DATE was placed in FAC , where he remained until DATE , when he was transferred to PERSON open - type prison hostel , attached to FAC .","Mr PERSON alleged that the cells in which he was kept , first cell no . CARDINAL and then cell no . CARDINAL on the third floor , measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY , making for a total surface of QUANTITY , and housed CARDINAL inmates , which made for QUANTITY each . Since the cell had CARDINAL triple - bunk and CARDINAL double - bunk beds , CARDINAL lockers , and CARDINAL table , the actual amount of free space was even less , QUANTITY per person . The Government did not provide any information in relation to cell no . CARDINAL , but said that cell no . CARDINAL was CARDINAL by QUANTITY , which made for QUANTITY of surface . According to them , the number of inmates in the cell was DATE , and the amount of space per inmate was QUANTITY . The cell had CARDINAL windows close to the ceiling , QUANTITY each , which allegedly did not allow direct sunlight into the cell or its proper ventilation . Since there were no cells for non - smokers , Mr PERSON had to share the cell with smokers , which was allegedly particularly problematic for him in view of the lack of ventilation . According to the Government , the issue of smoking was being resolved amicably among the cellmates ; according to Mr PERSON , that was absolutely not the case . He said that the problem could not be solved as up to PERCENT of inmates in FAC were smokers . Mr PERSON was not one , and he only received cigarettes from the outside to use them as currency , as was customary in the prison . He also said that there were CARDINAL or CARDINAL television sets in the cell that showed different programmes , which , given the little space available and the level of noise , made it impossible to watch television . There were no newspapers or magazines available in the prison either , and access to the poorly stocked library was only possible once DATE .","According to Mr PERSON , there was no running water or toilet in the cell , and inmates had to use a bucket to relieve themselves at TIME , when the cell was locked . Mr PERSON \u2019s floor had CARDINAL NORP - type toilets without running water for DATE inmates housed on that floor , and CARDINAL showers , which often did not work ( and , when they worked , had hot water only twice a week for TIME ) ; as a result , inmates had to use small cans to bathe themselves . According to the Government , there was running water in the toilets , and hot water was made available DATE for TIME . Mr PERSON also said that cleaning the toilets was very hard because the prison administration did not supply enough cleaning products .","According to Mr GPE , the prison canteen measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and accommodated QUANTITY people at the same time , which caused severe overcrowding and discomfort while eating . According to the Government , the number of inmates in the canteen during meals was CARDINAL . Mr PERSON said that the quality of the food was very poor , and that outside food parcels did not compensate for that , especially since there were no refrigerators in which to store them . According to the Government , each inmate was provided with CARDINAL calories a day , in line with official tables . Each inmate was entitled to receive QUANTITY of food parcels a month and QUANTITY of fruit and vegetables . According to Mr PERSON , inmates were in practice given CARDINAL of what was necessary in terms of food .","Mr PERSON alleged that there was no place in the prison for selfcooking , sports or cinema . The Government said that self - cooking in the cells could not be allowed for hygiene reasons . They also said that in DATE Mr PERSON had been enrolled in a volleyball tournament , but had desisted after CARDINAL match for health reasons . In DATE He had refused to take part in another tournament , again for health reasons . Mr GPE disputed these assertions . According to the Government , the outside walking area of the prison had bodybuilding equipment that the inmates could use , and the prison authorities regularly organised chess , backgammon , bridge and arm - wrestling contests . The prison was also equipped with a projection room , where the PERSON and NORP churches showed religious films ; Mr PERSON had not expressed a wish to attend a projection . Mr PERSON said that since his arrival in FAC there had been only one projection .","Mr PERSON also referred to the problems that he was encountering in relation to telephone communication with the outside world .","Lastly , Mr PERSON , who apparently had no health insurance , claimed that health care in prison was inadequate , with no qualified doctors but only a feldsher working on site , and no provision of medicines free of charge . An outside medical doctor visited the prison DATE , and it was almost impossible to see him in view of the large number of inmates in the prison and the need to obtain an appointment . According to the Government , Mr PERSON had on CARDINAL occasions in DATE and DATE been treated in the prison hospital in GPE and in a hospital in GPE .","Mr GPE entered FAC on DATE to serve a sentence of DATE years\u2019 imprisonment ; he was released on DATE . He was placed in unit CARDINAL . On DATE , following a decision of the commission in charge of allocating prisoners , he was transferred to GPE open - type prison hostel , attached to FAC .","Mr PERSON alleged that the cell in which he was kept , cell no . CARDINAL on the third floor , measured QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL inmates . There was no running water or toilet in the cell . From TIME , during which time the cell apparently remained locked , the inmates had to use buckets to relieve their needs . There were CARDINAL toilets on the floor but access to them was limited as they were used by CARDINAL inmates . According to the Government , cell no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL inmates , which gave QUANTITY per inmate .","Mr PERSON said that he was allowed to take a shower twice a week , TIME However , the bathroom , which measured QUANTITY , featured CARDINAL shower and CARDINAL sinks and usually the inmates used small cans to pour water on themselves . The size of the bathroom and the time allowed for showering made it impossible for all CARDINAL inmates who used the bathroom to shower properly . Immediately adjacent to the bathroom were the CARDINAL litter containers for the entire floor .","According to Mr ORG , many inmates in FAC suffered from tuberculosis as a result of the poor hygienic conditions there . He did not however allege that he had himself contracted the disease . According to the Government , in FAC there had been CARDINAL registered cases of tuberculosis in DATE , CARDINAL cases in DATE , and CARDINAL cases in DATE . None of these had been in units CARDINAL or CARDINAL .","Mr PERSON also complained that telephone calls made from prison were expensive , that the food shop in the prison was overpriced , and that health care in the prison was inadequate .","Since his incarceration in GPE in DATE Mr GPE has been placed successively in FAC ( DATE ) , ORG ( DATE ) , FAC ( DATE ) and FAC in GPE ( CARDINAL ) .","Mr GPE was placed in FAC on DATE in execution of a sentence of DATE imprisonment meted out by ORG . According to him , he was not medically screened upon his arrival in prison . According to the Government , the prison \u2019s medical journal showed that Mr GPE was medically examined on CARDINAL DATE and found to be healthy , with no traces of violence . On DATE Mr GPE was placed under the \u201c strict \u201d regime . He was initially allocated to prisoner group CARDINAL , the intake unit for new prisoners . On DATE a special commission in charge of allocating prisoners decided to place him in group CARDINAL , where he remained until his transfer to ORG DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The Government submitted that on DATE Mr GPE had been provided with CARDINAL bed sheets , CARDINAL pillow cover and CARDINAL blankets . In reply , Mr PERSON pointed out that this meant that he had had to do without these and sleep on a bare mattress for DATE , CARDINAL and DATE . He further submitted that he had not been provided with cutlery and had been forced , like the other detainees , to eat with his hands from random boxes that had come into his possession . Moreover , the prison was not equipped with enough tables and chairs , and as a result inmates had to eat sitting on their beds . The food that he was being provided was of very poor quality , often causing vomiting and diarrhoea . The Government did not contest these allegations .","On DATE Mr GPE was transferred to ORG .","The Government submitted that on DATE he was placed in prisoner group CARDINAL . Later he was placed in group CARDINAL , which consisted of convicted criminals . On DATE , following the re - opening of the criminal proceedings against him by ORG on DATE and the change in his procedural situation , he was placed in group CARDINAL , for persons awaiting trial . On DATE he was placed in group CARDINAL , also for persons awaiting trial . When his conviction and sentence by ORG became final on DATE , Mr GPE was placed in group CARDINAL , for convicted persons .","Mr GPE submitted that following the re - opening of the proceedings against him by ORG on DATE , he was transferred to the prison \u2019s recidivists unit , and , in spite of his numerous complaints , was not moved from there until DATE . In support of this assertion he pointed out that CARDINAL researches retained by his legal representative in these proceedings had visited ORG on CARDINAL DATE and spoken with the prison \u2019s deputy governor , who had said that there were currently no records on the allocation of prisoners in DATE . Both he and members of the prison staff had explained that at that time all prisoners without final convictions and sentences had been placed on the prison \u2019s fourth floor , where their cells were separated by mere iron grills allowing free contacts between all inmates .","When Mr GPE was transferred to ORG , the cells there were not equipped with in - cell toilets or running water . According to the Government , such toilets were installed on DATE . Thus , after the locking of his cell at TIME , he was forced to relieve himself in a bucket . According to a declaration by another inmate , the cells remained locked TIME and TIME or TIME during DATE and TIME on DATE . The cells were left unlocked until TIME , allowing access to the common toilets , only at times of epidemics of intestinal disorders in the prison . Initially , Mr GPE had been placed in a cell measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY that he had shared with CARDINAL other inmates . After DATE he had been placed in a cell measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY that he had shared with CARDINAL other inmates . Both cells had been equipped with CARDINAL bucket of QUANTITY .","The Government conceded that in DATE ORG had been overcrowded . The total floor space of the prison building was QUANTITY . In DATE , it was occupied by CARDINAL prisoners ; in DATE , by CARDINAL prisoners ; in DATE , by CARDINAL prisoners ; and in DATE , by CARDINAL prisoners . The surface of the fourth floor , where Mr GPE was kept , was QUANTITY . In DATE , it was occupied by CARDINAL prisoners ; in DATE , by CARDINAL prisoners ; in DATE , by CARDINAL prisoners ; and in DATE , by CARDINAL prisoners . The Government nevertheless submitted that at that time conditions in this prison had been fully compliant with the applicable legal framework and pointed out that , while Mr GPE had filed CARDINAL complaints with the prison authorities , he had not complained in terms of the conditions of his detention there . In reply , Mr GPE said that he had not made such complaints because conditions in the prison had been the same for all prisoners , but that , as evident from a complaint that he had filed on DATE , he had sought a transfer to PERSON precisely because of the poor conditions in FAC . That transfer request had been denied by the prison authorities .","On DATE Mr GPE was transferred to FAC . He was initially placed in prisoner group CARDINAL , and then in prisoner groups CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","Mr GPE alleged that the conditions of his detention in this prison were as poor as in the previous CARDINAL prisons . He said that in DATE heating had been turned on only twice a day for TIME . As a result of that and of the fact that the windows did not close properly , the temperature in the cell never went above QUANTITY . The Government submitted that the heating boilers in FAC had been fired twice a day , for CARDINAL to four hours . If Mr PERSON had had a problem with the window in his cell , he should have brought that to the attention of the responsible prison officials , who would have taken steps to tackle it . Mr GPE retorted that , while he could not say for how long the boilers had been fired DATE , the amount of time during which the radiators in his cell had been warm was TIME .","Mr GPE also submitted that he had worked in the prison \u2019s workshop , which was not properly heated in DATE either . The Government submitted that the workshop had been heated with wood - burning stoves , and when necessary also with electrical heaters .","Mr GPE further submitted that the toilets had been very dirty . The Government submitted that it was the inmates\u2019 duty to keep the LOC clean , and that the prison authorities provided them with cleaning products for that . Mr GPE retorted that , in view of the small amounts and the low quality of the cleaning products provided by the prison authorities , it had not been possible properly to clean the toilets .","Mr GPE alleged that inmates who had spent DATE in prison had no health insurance , and as a result did not get proper medical treatment . He said that as a result of the poor conditions of his detention he was suffering from chronic colitis and periodontitis , and had lost CARDINAL teeth . The Government submitted that , while in FAC , Mr GPE had visited a dentist twice , on DATE , when he had had a tooth extracted in order to treat his periodontitis , and on CARDINAL DATE , when he had been prescribed medication for bleeding in the gums . Mr GPE retorted that although he had not been health insured during his stay in ORG , the resident dentist there had provided him with the necessary medication free of charge . However , in FAC , despite being already health insured , he was not provided with medication free of charge , and experienced great difficulties in obtaining that medication .","On DATE Mr GPE was transferred to FAC , a closed - type prison hostel in GPE attached to FAC . He complained of overcrowding and said that the conditions there were similar to these in the prisons in which he had been housed before that . According to CARDINAL declarations by other inmates submitted by Mr GPE , in DATE and DATE he was kept in a cell measuring QUANTITY together with CARDINAL inmates . The cell had CARDINAL bunk beds and a toilet in the corner , all of which further reduced the amount of living space . The Government submitted that FAC was one of the best heated prison hostels in the country and that the temperature in DATE was always adequate . An inmate was designated as responsible for the heating central and took constant care of it , even remaining there TIME .","In DATE Mr GPE brought a claim under LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in relation to the conditions of his detention in FAC DATE . He sought BGN CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages . In a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0430\u043f\u0440\u0438\u043b DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 MONEY \u0433. , \u0410\u0421-\u0421\u043e\u0444\u0438\u044f \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0434 ) ORG found that the conditions of Mr GPE \u2019s confinement in FAC DATE lack of glazing on the windows during a very cold DATE period , poor hygiene , and lack of proper separation between the in - cell toilet and the rest of the cell \u2013 did not meet the minimum standards laid down in the Execution of Punishments and Pre - Trial Detention Act DATE and the regulations for its application ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The court also had regard to LAW . Taking however into account the small amount of time \u2013 less than TIME \u2013 that Mr GPE had spent in these conditions , the court decided to award him BGN CARDINAL . ORG for the Execution of Punishments appealed , and in a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0430\u043f\u0440\u0438\u043b DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG fully upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment .","On DATE Mr GPE brought another claim under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in relation to the conditions of his detention in a transfer cell in FAC on DATE and the failure of the prison authorities to provide him a hot meal on DATE . He sought BGN CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages in relation to the stress endured by him on account of the poor conditions in the cell , BGN CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages in relation to the fact that the cell had been infested with rats , and BGN CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages in relation to the failure to provide him with a hot meal . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0430\u043f\u0440\u0438\u043b DATE \u0433. , \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , \u0410\u0421-\u0421\u043e\u0444\u0438\u044f-\u0433\u0440\u0430\u0434 ) ORG , having regard to , inter alia , LAW , found that the poor conditions in the cell in which Mr GPE had been kept , the presence of rats in that cell , and the lack of proper food had caused him non - pecuniary damage . The court awarded him BGN CARDINAL in respect of the first head of claim , ORG CARDINAL in respect of the second head of claim , and BGN CARDINAL in respect of the third head of claim . In a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u044f\u043d\u0443\u0430\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) ORG quashed that judgment and partly dismissed the claim and partly remitted the case . It held , by reference to this ORG \u2019s judgment in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) , that the lower court had erred by dealing with the first and second heads of claim separately . The proper approach was to analyse them in combination and focus on their cumulative effect on the inmate \u2019s well - being . That part of the case was therefore to be remitted . The head of claim concerning the failure to provide Mr GPE with a hot meal was , for its part , unfounded , because there was evidence that he had been provided with a sufficiently calorific food package instead . The proceedings on remittal are apparently still pending .","In DATE Mr GPE brought a claim under LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in relation to the conditions of his detention in FAC , through which he had been transferred on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . He alleged that there he had been subjected to ill - treatment because he had at first been put for TIME together with CARDINAL other inmates in a cell measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , and then moved to a cell measuring TIME by QUANTITY , which he had had to share with CARDINAL other inmates . This cell had had no running water , toilet or proper access to sunlight and air . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043c\u0430\u0440\u0442 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON ) ORG dismissed the claim , noting that section PERSON ) of the Execution of Punishments and Pre - Trial Detention Act DATE , which laid down a minimum requirement of QUANTITY of floor space per prisoner , as well as regulation CARDINAL ) of the regulations for the application of this LAW , which made the availability of in - cell toilets and running water mandatory , had not yet come into force ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The prison authorities had therefore not acted unlawfully by putting Mr GPE in the CARDINAL cells . Mr GPE appealed . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0444\u0435\u0432\u0440\u0443\u0430\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG , ORG ) ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s judgment and remitted the case . It noted that the lower court had constituted as a co - defendant the administration of PERSON , which could not be a proper defendant to a claim under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act . Its judgment was therefore inadmissible . The proceedings on remittal are apparently still pending .","Mr GPE has been detained in FAC since DATE in execution of a DATE sentence of imprisonment . In the course of his imprisonment there , he was moved between different units . According to information supplied by the Government , on DATE he was placed in unit CARDINAL , which was a high - security unit . On DATE he was moved to unit CARDINAL , but on DATE was moved back to unit CARDINAL . On DATE he was transferred to GPE open - type prison hostel , attached to FAC , but on DATE moved back to unit CARDINAL . On DATE he was moved to unit CARDINAL . On DATE he was once again transferred to GPE open - type prison hostel . On DATE he escaped , but was re - captured on DATE . On DATE he was against placed in unit CARDINAL , the high - security unit . On DATE he was moved to unit CARDINAL , on DATE to unit CARDINAL , on CARDINAL DATE to unit CARDINAL , and on DATE to unit CARDINAL .","In DATE or DATE PERSON left hand was amputated at the wrist following a trauma suffered as a conscript in the army . Since DATE he has been suffering from bronchial asthma . Since his incarceration he has been admitted to the prison hospital in GPE for treatment of his asthma CARDINAL times , the latest apparently being in DATE . According to the Government , PERSON was being provided with the requisite medical care and medicines .","Mr GPE complained of overcrowding and said that his cell measured QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL inmates . He alleged that there was insufficient light in the cell and that the inmates had to use buckets to relieve their needs at TIME . He also submitted that there were CARDINAL NORP - type toilets , CARDINAL sinks and CARDINAL shower on his floor , for CARDINAL inmates . According to the Government , the toilets were disinfected with chlorine solution once DATE .","DATE . Mr GPE also complained of the allegedly poor hygiene in the prison canteen . According to him , as a result inmates routinely suffered from stomach and intestinal infections . According to the Government , hygiene in the prison canteen was maintained by CARDINAL inmates assigned to that task by the prison governor . They cleaned the canteen CARDINAL times a day , after each meal . Once a week the canteen was disinfected with chlorine tablets . DATE there had been no registered cases of intestinal disorders among the inmates of groups CARDINAL .","On DATE Mr GPE poured boiling water on his left leg , either as a result of an incident or as an act of self - harm . He was urgently sent to a hospital in GPE , and then moved to the special ORG hospital in GPE , where he was treated DATE and DATE . After his return to the prison he behaved in an aggressive and suicidal way , which made it necessary to place him in psychiatric institutions for inmates between DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE a special medical commission found that he was to be classified as PERCENT handicapped , based on his missing left hand , the injuries to his legs following the incident of DATE , and his mental problems .","In DATE Mr GPE swallowed CARDINAL needles and , following pain in the stomach , on DATE he was urgently hospitalised in a hospital in GPE , where he underwent surgery of the abdomen . He was discharged from this hospital on DATE and placed in a constantly locked cell in unit CARDINAL , the high - security unit ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144680","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF JELI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection partially dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP .","NORP Killing of the applicant \u2019s husband and investigation","According to the applicant at TIME on CARDINAL DATE QUANTITY men , wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas , had come to their house in NORP and taken her husband , PERSON , who was of NORP ethnic origin . All CARDINAL men were carrying firearms . She had reported the entire incident to the police on TIME .","On DATE the NORP Police interviewed a certain GPE , who told them that on DATE CARDINAL men dressed in camouflage uniforms and wearing balaclavas had come to his flat and taken him to a lorry , where they had tied his hands and blindfolded him . Soon afterwards they had placed another person in the van , and they were transported to an unknown building . There the men had questioned him , then driven him somewhere else and released him . Later he learned that the other person who had been taken with him was PERSON .","On DATE the body of PERSON was found on the banks of the river PERSON in NORP . An autopsy carried out on DATE showed that he had been shot dead .","On DATE the applicant learned that her husband \u2019s body had been found in NORP , on the banks of the river PERSON .","On DATE the ORG lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG against a person or persons unknown on charges of murdering PERSON .","It appears that no further investigative measures were taken in respect of the death of PERSON DATE .","NORP In DATE ORG established ORG in LOC , PERSON and ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) . On DATE the ORG mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the NORP authorities began .","On DATE ORG in the Criminal Justice Section of the Sisak County Police ( FAC uprava sisa\u010dko - moslava\u010dka , PERSON kriminalisti\u010dke policije , Odsjek za suzbijanje terorizma , hereinafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) interviewed a certain PERSON He said that he had been collecting information about the killing of persons of NORP ethnic origin in NORP and its area . To his knowledge CARDINAL NORP had been killed in NORP and a further CARDINAL in GPE , a village near GPE , all of them in the period DATE . In addition , CARDINAL persons of NORP origin were listed as having disappeared . PERSON also said that he had heard that PERSON , then Head of ORG , had expressed his surprise that one PERSON had been killed , given that he had not been on the list for liquidation .","On DATE ORG interviewed the applicant . She reiterated that at TIME on CARDINAL DATE QUANTITY men , wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas , had come to their house and taken her husband . All CARDINAL men were carrying firearms . She further reiterated that she had reported the entire incident to the police on TIME .","On DATE ORG again interviewed ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and on DATE they questioned the doctor who had , on DATE , carried out the autopsy on PERSON body .","On DATE ORG interviewed PERSON . and PERSON . Lj . , who had lived with the PERSON family at the relevant time ; they confirmed the statement given by the applicant .","On DATE an investigating judge at the ORG heard evidence from witness FAC , who said that in DATE he had been a member of the reserve police . TIME he had been driving in a car with CARDINAL of his colleagues ( he identified them by their nicknames ) when they saw a van parked in the street and several men dressed in camouflage uniforms standing around it . PERSON and his colleagues asked those men what was happening and were told that they had come \u201c to search the house of a NORP who had some hunting weapons \u201d . CARDINAL of the men took off his balaclava and FAC recognised him as [ A.]H. He also saw an older woman crying and wailing , and asking the men to release the man they were taking with them . PERSON and his friends had then driven away . Later he heard that the man who had been taken away was PERSON ; he had been taken to PERSON , a sanatorium where NORP troops were stationed at the material time , opposite the PERSON factory . He had received that information from a person called PERSON , who also told him that PERSON had been liquidated and thrown in the river PERSON .","M.M. further explained that TIME he noticed that several persons were being held in the toilet of the ORG military base near ORG , where he was stationed . Next to the toilet he saw CARDINAL bodies covered with a blanket . He asked some of his colleagues to give him a lift in their van from the military base to NORP . They had stopped before arriving in NORP and thrown CARDINAL bodies , covered in blankets , into a hole . He had later met all of the men who had been in the van with him in NORP , but did not know their names . He had been told not to tell anyone .","Finally , ORG said that on several occasions he had seen the police taking naked persons into the NORP military base , and sometimes he had heard screams from the barracks .","On DATE the Sisak Police interviewed an anonymous witness who gave information about the killings of persons of NORP origin in the NORP area in DATE and DATE . He said that the arrests and killings of persons of NORP ethnic origin had been carried out on the orders of PERSON , Head of ORG , who had a list of persons to be arrested and liquidated . His main assistant was his Deputy , V.M. The motive for the arrests had often been material gain . The individuals in question had first been labelled as having abetted enemy activity and being members of ORG and then , once they had been arrested , all their valuables had been taken from their houses and sold on . The money had been divided between PERSON and PERSON","As regards the arrest of PERSON , the witness identified PERSON as one of the persons implicated . He said that PERSON had first been taken to the police station and then to PERSON . He had then been taken to the ORG and killed there . CARDINAL of the persons who had arrested PERSON was PERSON , who had also killed him .","The witness added that he was willing to give his evidence about those events before a court .","On DATE another anonymous witness was interviewed by the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG . He said that at DATE he joined ORG , namely ORG . He had been assigned to the reserve units of ORG , headed by PERSON , whose Deputy was PERSON The unit the witness had joined had been headed by PERSON . PERSON The witness named several of his colleagues . PERSON , PERSON and the late PERSON had made a list of persons to be arrested and brought to ORG , and given orders to that effect . PERSON had almost always been present when the orders for arrests were given . The members of the reserve units had been given NORP flags with CARDINAL C - s , badges and cards allegedly issued by ORG , and certificates issued by that ORG recognising contributions to its spread in the occupied territories ; these items were to be planted in the houses of NORP in the NORP area so that they could serve as evidence of enemy activity .","He stated that victims had been arrested at their homes and that money , gold and other valuables had always been taken . The victims had first been taken to the police station , then to PERSON , and later to the ORG military base , where they had been stripped and killed .","He said that he had personally been involved in the arrest of PERSON and that his hunting guns had also been taken from his house .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG issued a document on enquiries into the killings of civilians DATE . The document was addressed to GPE Attorney \u2019s Offices , which were required to examine all of the information collected to date on the killings of civilians during that period and to concentrate their activities on identifying the perpetrators and gathering the relevant evidence in order to initiate criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG FAC uprava sisa\u010dko - moslava\u010dka , ORG na\u010delnika ) , interviewed a certain PERSON , a former member of the police , who told them that he would inform the media of everything he knew about the killing of NORP and mining of their houses during the war in GPE and would testify against PERSON , a former Head of the ORG during the war , if his request for alterations to his \u201c war record \u201d were not complied with . He added that he had carried out orders , as had many others , and that he knew who had ordered what at ORG , and what had happened there and in other locations in NORP and the surrounding area .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG issued an instruction for implementation of LAW and LAW to GPE Attorney \u2019s Offices , in which they indicated that an inspection of their work had indicated CARDINAL main problems : possible partiality of the persons involved in the pending proceedings as regards the ethnicity of the victims or the perpetrators ; and the problem of trials in absentia . The instructions favoured impartial investigations of all war crimes , irrespective of the ethnicity of those involved , whether victims or perpetrators , and stressed the duties of those working for the ORG Attorney in that respect .","On DATE ORG in the Criminal Justice Section of the Sisak County Police ( FAC uprava sisa\u010dko - moslava\u010dka , PERSON kriminalisti\u010dke policije , ORG ratnih zlo\u010dina , hereinafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) , sent a gun belonging to ORG and a bullet extracted from the body of PERSON for ballistic examination . The report of DATE indicated that they did not match .","On DATE the Criminal Justice Section of the ORG filed a report with the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG , informing it that they had carried out an analysis of their ORG \u2019s official documents and found documents concerning the arrest and killing of a number of civilians . With regard to PERSON , it was stated that his dead body had been found on DATE on the GPE river bank in NORP .","On DATE the ORG , Criminal Justice Section interviewed ORG . , President of ORG during the war , who identified the commander of the ORG units stationed in ORG in DATE .","B. Proceedings on indictment","On DATE the ORG lodged a criminal complaint against GPE , GPE and PERSON on charges of war crimes against the civilian population . This included the killing of the applicant \u2019s husband . On the same day PERSON , Head of ORG in DATE and DATE , PERSON , police commander at the border territory of NORP and PERSON in DATE and DATE and Deputy of ORG , and PERSON , a member of the \u201c ORG of ORG , were arrested .","On an unspecified date the investigation was opened and on CARDINAL DATE PERSON died .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG lodged an indictment against V.M. and PERSON at ORG , alleging that they had been in command of the unit whose unknown members committed a number of crimes against the civilian population DATE and DATE , including the killings of the applicant \u2019s husband . They were charged with war crimes against the civilian population .","On DATE a first - instance judgment was delivered . PERSON was found guilty of war crimes against the civilian population in that he , in his capacity as \u201c the commander of police forces in the broader area of NORP and PERSON \u201d and \u201c Deputy Head of the NORP Police \u201d , had allowed the killings of persons of NORP origin and had failed to undertake adequate measures to prevent such killings . The relevant part of the judgment concerning the applicant \u2019s husband reads :","\u201c on TIME of CARDINAL DATE in ORG a group of unidentified armed members of ORG wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas ... went to the home of PERSON and , under the threat of arms , tied his hands and blindfolded him and then drove him to an unknown location in NORP ... and killed him with firearms ... [ H]is body was found on DATE with CARDINAL shots to the head , chest and left hand , on the left bank of the river PERSON near GPE in NORP . \u201d","V.M. was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . PERSON was acquitted of all charges .","C. Civil proceedings","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG , seeking compensation in connection with the death of her husband . The claim was dismissed on DATE and was upheld on appeal by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE respectively . The national courts found that the claim had been submitted after the statutory limitation period had expired .","A subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181882","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF DANILCZUK v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC in GPE .","The applicant was placed in detention on remand at FAC on DATE pending criminal proceedings against him before ORG ( case no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of a number of offences ( including burglary , theft , various road traffic offences and unlawful residence ) . On DATE the court imposed CARDINAL sentences ranging from CARDINAL months\u2019 to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , to run concurrently from DATE .","The applicant was released on CARDINAL DATE following the suspension of his sentence by virtue of a decree issued by the President of the Republic concerning a number of prisoners .","In his application form the applicant , without specifying the exact period of his detention , submitted that he had been held in overcrowded cells at FAC , where there was only CARDINAL to QUANTITY m of personal space for each detainee . He stated that the cells were cold and lacked adequate light . Furthermore , there were no toilets in the cells . He sometimes had to wait TIME to use the toilet , and , when the cells were locked , he had to urinate into a bottle and defecate into a waste bag .","The Government submitted that the applicant had been detained from DATE until his release on CARDINAL DATE in CARDINAL different parts of FAC . Between DATE and DATE he had been detained in FAC , which accommodated remand prisoners . Following his conviction and sentence he had been transferred to ORG , where he had been detained between DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he had been placed in Block CARDINAL , where he had been detained until his release on CARDINAL DATE . Both ORG and CARDINAL accommodated sentenced prisoners . The Government provided copies of ORG DATE occupancy records ( \u03b7\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c3\u03b9\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03ba\u03b5\u03bd\u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03bb\u03b1\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd ) indicating the number of prisoners in each block per day . However , they submitted that no records were kept in relation to occupancy of particular cells in the blocks .","Block CARDINAL could accommodate up to CARDINAL remand prisoners ; it had CARDINAL double occupancy cells measuring QUANTITY . m , CARDINAL toilets and CARDINAL showers . Block CARDINAL included Block CARDINALA , which had CARDINAL double occupancy cells of the same size as ORG , accommodating CARDINAL remand prisoners . It was almost certain that during his detention in FAC the applicant had shared a cell with another inmate and that therefore he had had QUANTITY . m of personal space .","At the time the applicant had been detained there ORG had not yet been renovated . It had CARDINAL double occupancy cells measuring CARDINAL sq . m ; CARDINAL large cells measuring CARDINAL sq . m , which accommodated CARDINAL detainees , and a common room which had been made into a dormitory for DATE inmates . The dormitory measured QUANTITY . m and had CARDINAL windows . Prisoners with short - term sentences had been kept in the dormitory . ORG had CARDINAL toilets and CARDINAL showers .","Based on the DATE occupancy records for the relevant period , the number of inmates in the block varied from CARDINAL per day . The Government stated that it was possible that the applicant had spent time in all the different types of cells in this block during his detention . In the double occupancy cell the applicant would have had QUANTITY . m of personal space ; in the larger cell he would have had from CARDINAL sq . m , depending on whether he had shared the cell with CARDINAL , CARDINAL or CARDINAL inmates ; and , lastly , in the dormitory he would have had from CARDINAL sq . m to QUANTITY m of personal space , depending on the number of inmates detained there with him . If the applicant had been held in the dormitory in DATE or during DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) , he would have disposed of CARDINAL and QUANTITY m of personal space as the DATE occupancy records indicated that the block had accommodated CARDINAL inmates per day during those periods .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to Block CARDINAL , which had been renovated . The block had CARDINAL double occupancy cells , accommodating CARDINAL prisoners . The cells measured QUANTITY . m and thus the applicant had had QUANTITY . m of personal space at his disposal . There were CARDINAL toilets , CARDINAL showers and QUANTITY urinals .","The various parts of the prison were equipped with a central heating system which covered all the blocks and cells . The central air conditioning system which functioned in DATE was in the corridors and there were individual electrical fans in the cells . All the cells had properly insulated windows , which provided natural light and ventilation . The dimensions of the windows varied . Detainees were free to move outside their cells in the closed prison , including the yard , workshops , kitchen and school from TIME ( DATE time ) or to TIME ( summer time ) . After that , the detainees could move freely within their blocks until TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE and public holidays .","Following the DATE report of ORG for the Prevention of Torture ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) on its visit to GPE from DATE , the prison administration discontinued the practice of switching off cell bells during TIME , hence detainees had access to the toilets during TIME ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The administration of the prison had issued order no . CARDINAL concerning prisoners having access to the toilet facilities whenever necessary . The order had also directed prison staff to check and ensure that the call panel in the warden \u2019s room was active at all times , especially during the evening , so that prisoners could be assisted and emergencies prevented . A violation of the order constituted a disciplinary offence . According to a letter by the prison director dated DATE , records were not kept of when cells were opened for toilet visits during the night , that is TIME However , a detainee could leave his cell for CARDINAL toilet visits during that period ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177387","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GEN\u00c7 AND DEMIRGAN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the public limited company ORG ( \u201c the company \u201d ) , subsequently renamed ORG , received an authorisation to begin prospecting for gold . Subsequently , the company was authorised to use cyanide leaching in the gold extraction process by ORG .","On DATE ORG decided to issue an operating permit to the company for the GPE gold mine .","On DATE ORG dismissed a case brought before it for the annulment of the permit of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and decided that the permit should be annulled . It referred to the ORG \u2019s obligation to protect the right to life and to a healthy environment and assessed the physical , ecological , aesthetic , social and cultural effects of the mining activity in question as described in the environmental impact report and the various expert reports which had been submitted to it . It held that those reports demonstrated the risk posed to the local ecosystem and to human health and safety by sodium cyanide use . It concluded that the operating permit in issue did not serve the public interest and that the safety measures which the company had undertaken to implement did not suffice to eliminate the risks involved in such an activity . On DATE , in compliance with ORG judgment , ORG annulled ORG decision to issue a permit for the mine . On DATE the GPE provisional governor \u2019s office ordered that the mine be closed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the Prime Minister \u2019s office drew up a report on the mine . It concluded that operations at the mine could be authorised , having regard to the additional measures taken by the company , the conclusions of a report by ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , ORG favourable opinion and an opinion of ORG , which had emphasised the economic importance of an investment of that type .","On DATE ORG delivered a judgment on an application for judicial review of the report of the Prime Minister \u2019s office , brought by CARDINAL residents of Bergama , including the second and third applicants , PERSON ( NORP ) and Mr PERSON . The administrative court decided to set aside the report , which , in its opinion , constituted an enforceable administrative decision giving rise to the issuing of permits . Notwithstanding the measures taken by the company , the court held that judicial decisions which had become final had found that the \u201c risk and threat \u201d in question resulted from the use of sodium cyanide in the gold mine and that it was impossible to conclude that those risks could be avoided by implementing new measures . Equally , it had been established that the risk connected with the accumulation of heavy elements or cyanide could persist for DATE and was likely to infringe the right of the area \u2019s inhabitants to a healthy environment . Accordingly , it was appropriate to conclude that the decision at issue could lead to the circumvention of a final judicial decision and was incompatible with the principle of the rule of law .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE in so far as it had been brought by CARDINAL of the plaintiffs , including the second and third applicants and dismissed a rectification application by the Prime Minister \u2019s office on an unspecified date .","NORP In the meantime , on DATE ORG decided to authorise the continued use of the cyanidation process at the mine for an experimental period of DATE . The company re - started mining operations on DATE .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG set aside the provisional permit issued by ORG on DATE in a case brought by CARDINAL people , including the first applicant , PERSON . In particular , it considered that the risks highlighted in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE were , inter alia , linked to the use of sodium cyanide in the gold mine and to the climatic conditions and features of the region , which was situated in an earthquake zone . It held that those risks and threats could not be eliminated by supplementary measures which continued to be based on the same leaching process . It also concluded that the issuing of the permit in question had been incompatible with the principle of the rule of law as that administrative decision had in reality been intended to amend a judicial decision that had become final .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE and dismissed a rectification application by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers took a \u201c decision of principle \u201d , stating that the gold mine situated in the area of GPE and ORG , in the district of PERSON ( GPE ) and belonging to the GPE TIME company , could continue operations . The decision was not made public .","On DATE ORG ordered a stay of execution of the ORG decision in a case brought by CARDINAL plaintiffs , including the second and third applicants . ORG found that the Prime Minister \u2019s decision had been unlawful as the environmental impact assessment report which had allowed for the operating of the gold mine had been previously annulled . The Prime Minister \u2019s office objected .","On DATE referring to the decision of DATE , the GPE governor \u2019s office ordered the closure of mine .","On DATE ORG upheld the stay of execution of DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the goldmine began operating again under a permit of DATE issued by the GPE governor \u2019s office .","On DATE ORG annulled the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers a decision which was upheld on DATE by ORG .","According to the documents in the case file , various sets of other proceedings were brought DATE by other residents of PERSON against various administrative authorities and ORG before the administrative courts , some of which are still ongoing . The gold mine was in operation until DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154198","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MANGO v. ITALY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in LOC .","The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was the owner of a plot of land in LOC . The land in issue was recorded on the land register as folio no . CARDINAL , parcels no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","On DATE , a decree authorising GPE to take possession of a portion of the applicants\u2019 land was issued for DATE , through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public - interest declaration , in order to begin the construction of a road .","On DATE the authorities took physical possession of the land .","By a writ served on DATE , the applicant brought an action for damages against GPE before ORG . He alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation . He claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land and a further sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation .","On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land . In a report submitted in DATE , the expert concluded that the occupied land covered a surface area of QUANTITY . The expert further concluded that the market value of the land on the date the land had been irreversibly transformed , which he identified as having occurred in DATE , corresponded to MONEY ( ITL ) ( EUR CARDINAL ) per square metre .","By a judgment delivered on DATE and filed with the court registry on DATE , ORG declared that the possession of the land , which had been initially authorised , had become unlawful as of DATE . It found that the land had been irreversibly transformed by the public works . As a result , in accordance with the constructive - expropriation rule ( occupazione acquisitiva or accessione invertita ) , the applicants had been deprived of their property , by virtue of its irreversible alteration , on the date on which the possession had ceased to be lawful . In the light of those considerations , the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation in consideration for the loss of ownership caused by the unlawful occupation .","The court drew on the expert valuation and considered that the market value of the land , which in DATE corresponded to ITL MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) per square metre , corresponded to ITL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) per square metre on the date the occupation had become unlawful in DATE .","The court held that the applicant was entitled to compensation , calculated in accordance with PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , which had entered into force in the meantime , in the sum of ITL CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG DATE ) , to be adjusted for inflation , plus statutory interest .","The court further awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL ) as compensation for the damage occasioned by the unavailability of the land during the period from the beginning of the lawful occupation ( DATE ) until the date of loss of ownership ( DATE ) , as well as ITL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) for the damage caused by the building works and ITL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) as compensation for the decrease in the value of the adjoining land .","The judgment became final in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168934","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DNK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SALEM v. DENMARK","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE .","On DATE , at DATE , he entered GPE and requested asylum , which was refused by a final decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE he applied for a residence permit based on his marriage to a NORP national of NORP origin . She had entered GPE as a child in DATE . His request was granted temporarily , until DATE . Subsequently it was granted permanently . In DATE he was also granted asylum under section CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) .","NORP The couple have CARDINAL children , all NORP nationals , who at DATE were CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively .","The applicant never went to school in GPE and he has never had a job , either in GPE or in GPE . In GPE he received social benefits until DATE , when he was granted an early retirement pension by the ORG due to his poor health : he suffered in particular from post - traumatic stress disorder . His wife was granted an early retirement pension due to back problems .","The applicant speaks and understands NORP but he can not read or write the language . He also speaks and understands LANGUAGE , but can not read or write it . The same applies to his wife . They speak LANGUAGE between themselves and with their children .","The applicant \u2019s wife has CARDINAL siblings living in GPE .","NORP The applicant has no other family in GPE . His mother and sister live in GPE . He also has a sister in GPE .","The applicant has a criminal record which includes , inter alia , a conviction in DATE for grave disturbance of public order and a suspended sentence of CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment , a conviction in DATE sentencing him to DATE for committing violence against a public servant in the performance of his office , and a conviction in DATE for the same kind of offence , for which he was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and detained on remand charged with , inter alia , various counts of drug trafficking and dealing .","By a judgment of DATE ORG in GPE ( retten i GPE ) found him guilty , in part jointly with others , of CARDINAL counts of offences including drug trafficking and drug dealing contrary to LAW with regard to a significant amount of hashish ( QUANTITY in total , in addition to an attempt to import a large supply from GPE ) and an attempt to buy CARDINAL g of cocaine , all committed in DATE until DATE . In addition he was convicted of coercion by violence and threats , blackmail , theft , handling stolen property , escaping while under arrest and possession of weapons .","When sentencing the applicant to DATE imprisonment ORG took into account , in particular , the significant amount of hashish and cocaine ; that the latter was a \u201c hard drug \u201d ; the huge profit that the applicant had obtained from the resale ; the long period concerned ; the applicant \u2019s absolute leading role , notably in relation to the drug dealers under him , whom he had subjected to violence and threats ; and that as a member of a gang , he had delivered hashish for resale to various towns in the region . It was also noted that the applicant had previous convictions . Finally , the sentence was determined partially as a supplementary penalty because some of the offences had been committed before the applicant \u2019s previous conviction .","The amount of MONEY ( DKK ) , equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) , and gold jewellery found in the applicant \u2019s home during a search were confiscated as profit from the crimes . It was noted that the applicant and his wife , who both received State benefits and who , when calculating their expenses , apparently had a deficit in their household budget for DATE , DATE and DATE amounting to a total of at least DKK CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) could not substantiate that they had obtained the goods legally . For example , the applicant \u2019s wife denied knowledge of a receipt dated DATE for CARDINAL g of gold jewellery bought in her name in GPE for DKK CARDINAL .","Moreover , pursuant to section DATE of LAW , ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s expulsion , suspended and with DATE probation . ORG noted that the seriousness of the crimes spoke heavily for his expulsion without suspension , but having regard to his wife , who stated that she could not follow her husband to GPE , and his QUANTITY children in the country , the court did not find that there was sufficient basis for an unsuspended expulsion order .","On appeal , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the conviction was upheld in part by ORG of Eastern Denmark ( PERSON ) and the sentence was increased to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment due notably to the nature and quantity of the drugs , the extent of the drug offences committed and the applicant \u2019s leading role . By CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , with the more beneficial outcome in the applicant \u2019s favour , the expulsion order remained suspended .","NORP The public prosecution appealed to ORG ( H\u00f8jesteret ) against the judgment as regards the suspended expulsion order . New evidence was adduced in this respect , notably as regards the applicant \u2019s and his wife \u2019s ties to GPE , GPE and GPE . They were both heard .","The applicant explained that he had been in GPE for DATE during DATE . He had no contacts there but his mother and sister . His other sister lived with her husband and their CARDINAL children in a refugee camp in GPE . He had stayed there for CARDINAL or DATE during DATE , for DATE during DATE and for DATE in DATE .","The applicant \u2019s wife and children had been to GPE CARDINAL or CARDINAL times in DATE to visit the applicant \u2019s sister there . Since the applicant \u2019s arrest in DATE , she and the children had spent DATE in GPE in DATE , and DATE in DATE . During DATE of DATE she had gone alone to GPE for DATE because the sister had fallen ill .","During DATE the applicant began negotiations to buy an apartment in GPE because his wife and children went there quite often . He also wanted to buy a shop in the same building . Twice he transferred money via ORG to his sister to buy the apartment , but it was given up when he was arrested .","NORP The applicant \u2019s wife stated that she could not follow her husband if he were expelled to GPE or GPE . She and the children would not be able to stand living in either of those countries , and the children could not live outside GPE .","Statements obtained from ORG at the municipality and the children \u2019s schools and day - care institutions recounted that several of the CARDINAL children had serious problems , including of a psychological and educational nature . CARDINAL of the children received special education and several of the children needed extra support and supervision in their schools and institutions . Massive public support measures had been provided due to a significant need to teach them normal social behaviour . Finally , the placement of some of the sons in public care was under consideration .","According to a police report of CARDINAL DATE , based on interceptions carried out during the criminal proceedings against the applicant , it was established that in the period from DATE to DATE , thus a period of DATE , there had been CARDINAL and sixtyseven calls to and from overseas numbers on the applicant \u2019s and his wife \u2019s home telephone . These concerned CARDINAL different foreign telephone numbers , including CARDINAL in GPE and QUANTITY in GPE . To the numbers in GPE there had been in total CARDINAL calls , and to the numbers in GPE there had been CARDINAL calls . The applicant explained in this connection that the calls to GPE had mainly been to people from GPE who had been on vacation in GPE and that the calls to GPE had been to his sister . The applicant \u2019s wife explained that she often talked to her sister - in - law in GPE . She also had family in GPE . Nevertheless she did have difficulties understanding why there had been calls to CARDINAL different numbers in GPE .","According to a police report of CARDINAL DATE , it appeared that in the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant , his wife and their children had made various transfers of money to GPE and GPE . CARDINAL of those concerned a total of DKK CARDINAL and were made in the applicant \u2019s name . After the applicant \u2019s arrest in DATE , his wife had transferred money to the applicant \u2019s sisters in GPE and GPE .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , by a majority of CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , ORG decided to expel the applicant with a life - long ban on his return .","It observed that the applicant had been convicted of drug trafficking offences under LAW and attempt thereof on CARDINAL counts for QUANTITY of hashish for resale ( count DATE ) ; QUANTITY for resale ( count CARDINAL ) ; not QUANTITY for resale ( count CARDINAL ) ; entering a deal to buy CARDINAL g of cocaine for resale , which failed ( count CARDINAL ) ; and an attempt to smuggle in a large amount of hashish from GPE , which failed ( count CARDINAL ) . He had also been convicted of offences under LAW for having possessed and transferred not QUANTITY of hashish , which failed QUANTITY ( count CARDINAL ) ; and for having possessed QUANTITY of hashish for resale .","In addition he was convicted of coercion by use of violence or threats of violence ( counts CARDINAL and CARDINALa ) ; extortion ( count CARDINAL ) ; theft ( count CARDINAL ) ; CARDINAL counts of handling stolen goods ( counts CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) ; under LAW ( count CARDINAL ) ; and under LAW for having fled as a detainee ( count CARDINAL ) .","ORG went on to analyse the case in the light of the ORG \u2019s case - law , notably PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE and took the following into account .","The applicant was a stateless NORP who had entered GPE in DATE at DATE . He had been sentenced to DATE imprisonment for comprehensive and organised resale of large amounts of hashish , for attempting to buy CARDINAL g of cocaine , and for attempting to smuggle in hashish . Moreover , the drug trafficking had taken place over CARDINAL and a half years and the applicant had had a leading and central role .","In addition he had committed coercion by use of violence or threat of violence against his drug dealers to maintain them as sellers and against clients who could not pay for the drugs . He claimed to have been among the top CARDINAL members of the \u201c LOC \u201d gang in GPE . He had also been convicted of extortion for having demanded so - called \u201c protectionmoney \u201d for \u201c Black Ghost \u201d . Moreover , he had previously been convicted under LAW of LAW for violence against a public servant and sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","ORG also emphasised that although the applicant had been in GPE since DATE , he was not well integrated into NORP society and he had limited LANGUAGE language skills . He had no ties to GPE via work or education . He had been receiving ORG early retirement pension since DATE .","The applicant \u2019s spouse was a NORP citizen . She was born a NORP national and had lived briefly in GPE , arriving in GPE at DATE . The couple \u2019s children , who at the relevant time were DATE , were also NORP citizens . They were born in GPE and went to school and institutions in the country .","The applicant and his family spoke LANGUAGE .","ORG further noted that the applicant still had ties to GPE , where his mother and sister lived and where the applicant had lived until he entered GPE at DATE . He also had ties to GPE , where a sister and her family lived , and where the applicant had stayed for DATE in DATE , for DATE in DATE , and in DATE . Before his arrest , the applicant had set about buying an apartment in GPE for the family to use during stays there .","The applicant \u2019s spouse had family in GPE . Moreover , she had regular contact with the applicant \u2019s sister and family in GPE , and she had spent several vacations there , for instance in DATE and DATE as well as DATE in DATE and DATE in DATE . She had CARDINAL siblings in GPE . She had stated that she would be unable to follow the applicant if he were deported from GPE to GPE or GPE , and that the children would not manage outside GPE .","The majority of CARDINAL judges concluded : \u201c [ the applicant ] has had a leading and central role in the commission of persistent , organised and aggravated drug crimes . Despite regard for his spouse and children in GPE , we therefore find that he should be expelled with a permanent ban on his entry , see section DATE , subsection CARDINAL ( V ) , of LAW . \u201d","NORP The minority of CARDINAL judge found \u201c As found by the majority , [ the applicant ] is guilty of drug offences of particular gravity . However , I find that regard for his CARDINAL minor children makes expulsion conclusively inappropriate , see section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was convicted for having possessed a mobile phone while in prison . He was sentenced to imprisonment for DATE .","It transpires from ORG that the applicant and his wife divorced with effect from DATE .","According to ORG , the applicant had served CARDINAL of his sentence on DATE .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE , ORG had submitted the applicant \u2019s case to ORG ) for a decision as to whether , upon return , the applicant would risk treatment as described in DATE of LAW .","Having found , inter alia , that the applicant would not be at risk of being subjected to the death penalty , or to torture , or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return , on DATE ORG found that the applicant could be returned to GPE . That decision was upheld on appeal on DATE by ORG ( PERSON ) .","The applicant \u2019s request that the ORG apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG was refused on DATE by the Acting President of ORG .","It appears that the applicant was deported to GPE shortly thereafter ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155359","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SELAHATT\u0130N DEM\u0130RTA\u015e v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the events giving rise to the present application , the applicant was a member of the ORG for ORG ) , a pro - NORP political party whose dissolution was ordered by ORG in DATE , and a member of ORG . The applicant is currently the co - chair of the ORG ( ORG ) .","In DATE an article entitled \u201c NORP , here is your enemy \u201d ( NORP , i\u015fte kar\u015f\u0131nda d\u00fc\u015fman\u0131n ) was published in a Bolu local newspaper , ORG . The article in question was also published on the newspaper \u2019s website . In it , the author , Mr GPE , made the following statements :","Here are some newspaper titles from DATE :","- A landmine exploded in ORG . CARDINAL non - commissioned officer was martyred and CARDINAL privates were injured .","- CARDINAL village guards were killed while returning to their village in GPE .","- Attack on a military unit with a rocket - propelled grenade in the LOC district of GPE . A soldier was martyred .","- A landmine exploded in the region of Namaz mountain , in PERSON . A specialist sergeant was martyred .","- Ambush in the region of GPE mountain , in GPE . CARDINAL soldiers were martyred .","These are news articles which we have come across by chance over DATE or DATE .","I would not be surprised if , after research , we found other similar news stories .","For DATE , you have deceived us with statements such as \u2018 they will be ORG , \u2018 we are more determined than FAC or \u2018 we will eradicate it\u2019 .","We have had enough of your lies and fairy tales .","NORP and the military , are you fooling children ?","Or are you mocking the nation ?","Can there be a ORG or an army which can not defeat CARDINAL \u2018 looters\u2019 ?","Shame on you , since you can not defeat them .","If you are a ORG , be a ORG . If you are the ORG , act as one . If you are the Government , govern . If you are the ORG , do what you have to do .","It is enough . This has been the last straw !","We went crazy when we heard that CARDINAL soldiers from ORG had been killed DATE .","How can one preserve one \u2019s sanity ?","While the instigators of the terrorists who kill our soldiers , policemen , civilians and our protectors without hesitation are under the roof of ORG of GPE ,","While there are ORG mayors and provincial and district administrators who call these terrorist murderers \u2018 my brothers \/ my ORG and who wash the carcasses of terrorists who die like dogs ,","Is it right to chase those who are in the mountains ? Are the hit men the real murderers ?","Do you know who the real murderers are ?","The real murderers are those who use yellow , green and red , the colours of the ORG , in their political party \u2019s flag . They are those who back the bullets of the members of the ORG , murdering bastards , and who call them their brothers and sisters . The real murderers are those who instigate murder .","They are : the President of the ORG for ORG ) ORG ; the ORG \u2019s Members of ORG , namely A.A.A. , GPE , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , GPE , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE ; the members of the ORG \u2019s executive council ... and all ORG mayors and presidents of ORG provincial and district branches .","ORG , here is your enemy .","These persons will be the target of \u2018 civilian ORG as the enemies of NORP , if they do not state that the ORG is a separatist terrorist organisation and that its members are traitors .","Instead of chasing the terrorists in the mountains , a few microbes should be \u2018 wiped out\u2019 and the question should be put to them \u2013 \u2018 one from us , CARDINAL from you : do you still wish to continue?\u2019 Of course , there will be patriots who will be able to do this . This is society \u2019s intense desire .","It is now the majority \u2019s wish that for every security officer who is killed , one of these people should share the same fate . It is time to cut out those organs which suffer from necrosis .","...","May God rest the souls of our martyrs and give patience to their families . We sincerely share their pain . We also offer our condolences to ORG .","DATE is the sacred DATE . Could you celebrate if you were the parents or siblings of one of the CARDINAL brave soldiers who lost their lives for their country in the region of GPE mountain , in PERSON ? Think about it . May your DATE be blessed although it is sad and painful . \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed a petition with the Bolu public prosecutor \u2019s office , requesting that a criminal investigation be initiated and that Mr I.E. be punished for incitement to commit a crime and incitement to disrespect the law , and for insulting his client . The lawyer also noted that Mr I.E. had committed these offences through the press . In his petition , the applicant \u2019s lawyer stressed that CARDINAL recent murders ( those of PERSON , a NORP priest , and PERSON , the editor - in - chief of AGOS , a bilingual NORP - Armenian newspaper published in GPE ) had been committed subsequent to publication of articles on the Internet . He stated that the content of the article openly incited society to kill the persons listed in it , including the applicant , and that by using the expression \u201c murderer \u201d in respect of the applicant , the author had insulted him .","On an unspecified date Mr I.E. sent a petition to the Bolu public prosecutor containing his defence submissions . He maintained at the outset that he had defended GPE and the NORP military forces throughout his life . He further contended that , had he committed an offence in his article as alleged by the complainant , then he had committed it under severe provocation . He submitted that the complainant had never condemned the ORG \u2019s activities and that he had referred to ORG members as \u201c brothers and sisters \u201d . Mr I.E. noted that he had been demonstrating solidarity with the families of the martyrs killed by the terrorists and that , were his solidarity to be regarded as an offence , then as a NORP nationalist he was proud of committing the offence in question . He also claimed that he had criticised the ORG \u2019s ideology and activities in his article and had intended to inform society . He contended that a case had been brought before ORG for the ORG \u2019s dissolution , and that the content of his article had been similar to the indictment brought by ORG at ORG in that case . He had not used the word \u201c NORP \u201d in his article , since he accepted all citizens of GPE as NORP . Until the complainant stated \u201c How happy is he who says \u2018 I am a Turk\u2019 \u201d , he would struggle against him . He also maintained that in view of the QUANTITY of cases brought against ORG members on charges of separatism , aiding and abetting the ORG and hostility towards the ORG , the complainant had been shameless in daring to file a complaint against him . He further noted that he had targeted those who were terrorists , that is , ORG members , and if the complainant considered himself the subject of the article , then he ( Mr I.E. ) had been right to identify him as a target . Mr I.E. maintained that nobody had been hurt as a result of his article , but that many people had died as a result of terrorism . At the end of his submissions , he again noted that the applicant had been unable to say \u201c How happy is he who says \u2018 I am a Turk\u2019 \u201d and that , therefore , the applicant \u2019s GPE was open to doubt .","On DATE the Bolu public prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against Mr I.E. In his decision , the public prosecutor stated that the article had been drafted as a reaction to the ORG , an organisation recognised internationally as a terrorist organisation , which had carried out acts of terrorism and killed both civilians and soldiers . According to the public prosecutor , after listing the killings committed by the ORG , the author had stated his opinion as to why society and the ORG should act together against the killings committed by the ORG and had articulated public reaction and anger in the face of those killings . The author had even criticised the ORG \u2019s activities in relation to acts of terrorism . The Bolu public prosecutor held that Mr I.E. had severely criticised the ORG , which had not condemned the ORG \u2019s illegal activities and which was considered to have failed to act side by side with society and the ORG . The public prosecutor considered that the article expressed the author \u2019s opinions and offered a number of proposals with a view to eradicating the terrorist organisation in issue .","The Bolu public prosecutor further noted that the ORG \u2019s supporters had described the organisation \u2019s so - called political aims in the press and elsewhere , although its activities had created great anger and hatred in society . The public prosecutor maintained that articles had also appeared in the press expressing society \u2019s anger and hatred . In spite of all these publications , there had been no armed conflict between different ethnic groups in GPE , due to the culture of tolerance , respect and understanding which existed in the country . The Bolu public prosecutor stated that in the light of the aforementioned sociological and political background in GPE , the article should be considered as using freedom to disseminate information , to criticise and to comment within the context of freedom of the media , given that it contained somewhat exaggerated criticism of a political party , its members and activities .","In his decision , the public prosecutor considered that the case was comparable to another case . According to the judgment in that case , which contained a reference to the ORG \u2019s judgment in GPE and PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , in cases concerning defamation , if a factual basis existed , then certain expressions could not be regarded as extreme . Considering that freedom of the media included the expression of social reactions and opinions using strong language , and referring to the above - mentioned domestic judgment , the public prosecutor concluded that there was no reason to bring a case against Mr I.E.","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer objected to the decision of DATE . In his pleadings , the lawyer reiterated the arguments contained in the submissions of CARDINAL DATE . He further maintained that the content of Mr I.E. \u2019s article had been alarming and that the ORG members who were named in the article had been marked as targets on account of their adherence to a political opinion . He also noted that the applicant had not been alone in being affected by the article \u2019s content ; it posed a further threat to society as a whole . Lastly , the applicant \u2019s lawyer contended that the public prosecutor \u2019s finding that there had been a factual basis for the author \u2019s expressions in the article demonstrated that he had taken the applicant \u2019s political identity into account in issuing his decision .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection , holding that the decision of DATE had been correct . On DATE this decision was served on the applicant \u2019s lawyer .","In DATE a number of news reports were published in the national press and on the Internet , according to which Mr PERSON , Minister of Justice at the relevant time , had set out his position with regard to the investigation into Mr I.E. Mr PERSON stated that , in his view , the content of the article in issue should not have been protected within the scope of the right to freedom of thought and expression . ORG would therefore apply to ORG and request that the decision of CARDINAL DATE be quashed .","On DATE , through the public prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG , ORG applied to ORG .","On DATE ORG issued its decision on the ORG \u2019s request . It noted that the applicant had lodged his objection to the decision of DATE outside the relevant time - limit and that ORG had incorrectly examined the decision on the merits . Considering that ORG decision had nevertheless brought about the correct result , namely dismissal of the objection , ORG dismissed the ORG \u2019s request ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177415","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MOROZOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177129","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"KAZLAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is detained in FAC . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant has been serving a life sentence since DATE . In DATE he was transferred to ORG . In DATE the applicant attempted to murder another convicted inmate and in DATE he was transferred back to FAC . In his written appeal concerning his conviction for the attempt of murder , the applicant asked to be transferred back to FAC and never to be returned to freedom , because he was afraid of liberty .","NORP In DATE the applicant married . At that time his wife was also serving a sentence in FAC but in DATE was transferred to ORG .","NORP In DATE the applicant wrote to the administration of FAC requesting a visit from his spouse ; the duration of the visit was not specified in the applicant \u2019s request . His request was granted ; however , the director of ORG refused to allow his wife to attend the visit , referring to the provisions of domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP In DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the refusal of ORG to bring his wife to the visit . The complaint was forwarded to ORG . In DATE it issued a response stating that the applicant did not have a right to long - term conjugal visits because he was serving his sentence in prison . ORG stated that the law did not provide for short \u2013 term visits for spouses who were both convicted and serving their imprisonment sentences . In DATE he received similar response from ORG . In DATE the applicant also received a response from ORG stating that long - term conjugal visits were not available to convicted inmates serving their sentences in prison . He was also informed that , in accordance with the provisions of domestic law , he would have been entitled to a long - term conjugal visit if he had been transferred to a correctional facility .","In DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s proposal to amend LAW for the Execution of Sentences , so it allowed the spouses who were both serving their imprisonment sentences , and CARDINAL of them was serving his or her sentence in prison , to have CARDINAL long - term or short - term visits per year without the PERSON supervision . ORG held that the applicant \u2019s proposal did not follow the principles of just and progressive execution of sentences and that if the applicant \u2019s proposal had been adopted , the convicted spouses , both serving their sentences in correctional facilities , would have been deprived of visits , and would be discriminated . It was also observed that in a number of ORG Member GPE long - term conjugal visits were not allowed for convicted prisoners , and that they could communicate with their family members through short - term or home visits , as well as telephone conversations and letters .","The applicant brought court proceedings complaining about the refusal of his request to be allowed a short - term visit of TIME from his imprisoned spouse without PERSON supervision . The representative of ORG claimed that long - term conjugal visits were not allowed if CARDINAL of the spouses was serving his or her sentence in prison . Convicted inmates , serving their sentences in prisons , had a right to short - term visits but this right was restricted by the provisions of domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG stated that the contested provision of domestic law was not applicable to convicted inmates , serving their sentences in prisons because such persons had a right only to short - term visits . But because the provisions of domestic law were silent about short - term visits when both spouses were serving their prison sentences , ORG considered that short - term visits were not available to persons in the applicant \u2019s situation . On DATE ORG held that the applicant and his wife had a right to a short - term visit of TIME and that his wife also had a right to a long - term conjugal visit of DATE . The court also noted that , under the provisions of domestic law , the applicant could see his spouse at a short - term visit without PERSON supervision , in equipped LOC , upon the approval of the prison director . The court therefore ordered ORG to organise a short - term visit of TIME for the applicant and his wife .","ORG appealed , and on DATE ORG held that a convicted inmate serving a life sentence in prison and belonging to the \u201c ordinary \u201d group of prisoners had a right to short - term visits of TIME every two months . However , the court also held that the court of first instance should not have ordered ORG to organise a short - term visit and instead ordered it to reconsider the applicant \u2019s request to be allowed a shortterm visit .","Following the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE ORG decided that the applicant \u2019s wife could attend a short - term visit of CARDINAL hours at FAC .","On DATE the applicant received a response from ORG stating that it had decided to allow his wife to attend a short - term visit at FAC .","The applicant was granted short - term visits of TIME with his imprisoned spouse on CARDINAL occasions in DATE ( DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ) , QUANTITY occasions in DATE ( DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) , CARDINAL occasions in DATE ( DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) and CARDINAL occasions in DATE ( DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) . The applicant used his right to ask for additional short - term visits and was granted them on DATE and DATE .","According to the information available to the ORG , the applicant never requested any long - term conjugal visits from his wife ; he also never complained that he was not provided with more short - term visits up to TIME .","In DATE and DATE the applicant refused to participate in social rehabilitation programmes .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that there are CARDINAL types of correctional institutions : correctional facilities , juvenile correctional facilities , prisons and open GPE .","Article CARDINAL provides that convicted inmates serving their sentences in a correctional facility are divided into ordinary , light and disciplinary groups . At the material time , Article CARDINAL provided that convicted inmates in a correctional facility assigned to the ordinary group of prisoners had a right to receive CARDINAL long - term and CARDINAL short - term visit DATE . Since an amendment that came into force on DATE , convicted inmates in a correctional facility assigned to the ordinary group of prisoners have had the right to CARDINAL long - term and CARDINAL short - term visit DATE .","Article CARDINAL provides that convicted inmates in prisons are assigned to ordinary and disciplinary groups of prisoners . Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that convicted inmates in prisons assigned to the ordinary group of prisoners have a right to receive CARDINAL short - term visit DATE . LAW provides that a short - term visit may take place without the supervision of a representative of the correctional facility . In such cases , visits take place in special LOC .","At the material time , LAW provided that convicted inmates had the right to short - term visits of TIME and long - term visits of up to TIME . The nature and number of visits depended on the group of convicted inmates and the correctional institution . Article QUANTITY \u00a7 CARDINAL provided that a husband and wife both serving prison sentences were allowed to have CARDINAL long - term visits DATE .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that life prisoners serve their sentences in prison . Convicted inmates who have served DATE of their life sentence may , taking into account their behaviour in prison and the security risk they pose , at the request of the prison administration or by a decision of the district court be transferred to a correctional facility for the remainder of their sentence .","At the material time , LAW provided that life prisoners served their sentences in prison ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174062","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF YUGAY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing and was placed in pre - trial detention on the ground that he was suspected of committing a serious offence , was a foreign national , had no permanent place of residence in PERSON , no job , no income , he could abscond and commit crimes .","On DATE the NORP ORG of GPE extended his pre - trial detention on the same grounds .","On DATE ORG issued the first conviction which was quashed by ORG on DATE . The court held that the applicant should remain in detention without indicating any reasons .","By decisions of DATE and DATE , as upheld on appeal , ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention reiterating its earlier reasoning and stating that he could interfere with the investigation and put pressure on witnesses .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG issued a new conviction . On DATE ORG quashed this conviction . The applicant remained in detention .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of drug dealing and smuggling and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG of GPE commuted the sentence to DATE imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160095","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KIRIL ANDREEV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE he was arrested in GPE and subsequently charged with the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition . He remained in detention on remand throughout the pre - trial proceedings . Eventually he entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution , acknowledging that he had committed the offence he had been charged with and accepting a suspended sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","NORP The plea agreement was approved at a court hearing before GPE on DATE . The court \u2019s decision was final . At the end of the hearing , at TIME , the court ordered the discontinuation of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention .","After the hearing the applicant was brought to ORG , where his pre - trial detention was formally discontinued at TIME However , he was not released but was instead taken to a police station , where he remained throughout TIME DATE . On TIME CARDINAL DATE he was transferred to the city of GPE where , by an order issued at TIME , he was once again formally placed in police custody . That measure was taken in the context of another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant which had been instigated in DATE . On DATE the investigator in charge of that case brought charges against the applicant in connection with another count of unlawful possession of firearms .","In the proceedings before ORG , the Government submitted an order dated DATE , issued by the investigator in charge of the case in GPE and requiring that the applicant be taken by the police to appear before her in order to have charges brought against him . The order referred , in particular , to LAW , CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and , by way of justifying the need to bring the applicant by force , stated that there was a risk of his absconding . The Government explained that by the time that order had been received by the police in GPE , it had become impossible to organise the applicant \u2019s transfer to GPE DATE . That is why the applicant had been kept in the police station TIME and was only transported to GPE DATE , DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161055","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA;RUS","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MOZER v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione loci;Ratione personae) (Russia);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) (the Republic of Moldova);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (Russia);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (Russia);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Russia);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) (Russia);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Russia);Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Russia);Violation of Article 13+9-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) (Russia);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+9-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) (the Republic of Moldova);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (Russia);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (Russia)","judges":"Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mihai Poalelungi;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE","The applicant is a NORP national belonging to the NORP ethnic minority . He was born in DATE and lived in PERSON until DATE . Since DATE he has been an asylum seeker in GPE .","ORG submitted that despite all their efforts they had been unable to verify most of the facts of the present case owing to a lack of cooperation on the part of the authorities of the self - proclaimed \u201c NORP Republic of Transdniestria \u201d ( the \u201c FAC ) . They had therefore proceeded , broadly speaking , on the basis of the facts as submitted by the applicant .","ORG did not make any submissions in respect of the facts of the case ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5","8","9"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","8-1","9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","3","5","8","9"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","8-1","9-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183554","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF U\u021a\u0102 AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168856","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CHERNYKH v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","NORP The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention . He also raised a complaint under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["13"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139989","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RUUSUNEN v. FINLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant , a former girlfriend of the Prime Minister at the time , wrote an autobiographical book about her relationship with the Prime Minister . The book described a period of DATE in the applicant \u2019s life when , as a single mother , she dated the Prime Minister , who had earlier divorced his wife . The book described the dating couple \u2019s life and made references to their intimate interactions . It was published on DATE . The Prime Minister held office from DATE when he stepped down .","On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges under LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW against the applicant , the publishing company and the representative of the publishing company for having disclosed information about the private life of the Prime Minister ( yksityisel\u00e4m\u00e4\u00e4 loukkaavan tiedon levitt\u00e4minen , spridande av information som kr\u00e4nker privatlivet ) . He also requested that the proceeds of the crime be ordered forfeit to the ORG in accordance with LAW , LAW , of LAW . The Prime Minister did not pursue any charges or compensation claims against the applicant . The publishing company and its representative have lodged a separate application with ORG ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the book was withdrawn from sale .","On DATE the GPE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) , after having voted , dismissed the charges against the applicant . It found that the book disclosed a lot of information about the Prime Minister \u2019s private life but that he had already widely disclosed information about his family and habits as well as about his relationship with the applicant . Even though he himself had published an autobiography in DATE , had given several interviews , ran a blog and even permitted photographs to be taken at his home , he was known as a politician who strictly controlled his public image . The book also contained some information which had not previously been disclosed to the public . In this respect the court found that these new details only completed the information the Prime Minister had disclosed earlier . It was never suggested that the facts disclosed were not true . The book covered a period of DATE in the applicant \u2019s and the Prime Minister \u2019s private life . The court found that the applicant had the right to recount her private life . She also described the Prime Minister , his actions and family in a compassionate manner . The court found that , even though the information disclosed in the book had no direct relevance to the Prime Minister \u2019s political functions or his hierarchical position in the ORG , it had relevance as far as the Prime Minister \u2019s person was concerned . The LAW required that ministers were \u201c known to be honest and competent \u201d . Moreover , the book described a situation in which CARDINAL different realities of DATE NORP society met : a wealthy party leader and Prime Minister on the one hand , and a single mother with everyday money problems on the other hand . The court found that the fact that the applicant was writing about her life and her relationship with one of the highest authorities in the country did not restrict but in fact widened her freedom of expression . When weighing the freedom of expression against the protection of private life , the court found that the need to resort to criminal liability decreased when the disclosed information became more widely known . Criminal liability was the last resort in guiding human behaviour and its use had to be proportionate . The court could therefore not hold that the publication of the applicant \u2019s book was a criminal act . Moreover , as the applicant was not a professional writer , she could not be regarded as having acted with intent and could not therefore be considered as a perpetrator .","By letter dated DATE the public prosecutor appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) . The Prime Minister also appealed .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant for dissemination of information violating personal privacy and sentenced her to DATE - fines , in total QUANTITY . The proceeds of the crime , QUANTITY , were ordered forfeit to the ORG . The court found that the passages in the book concerning the Prime Minister \u2019s intimate dating and his children \u2019s feelings and behaviour unnecessarily violated the core areas of his protected private life . He had not disclosed these details of his private life earlier in the media . The fact that he had disclosed some parts of his private life , the protection of which was , due to his status , much narrower than a private person \u2019s , did not mean that he could not benefit at all from any protection of his private life . He had thus not waived his right to the protection of private life , nor implicitly consented to the disclosure of information concerning details about his private life . Even though the applicant had the right to write about her private life , disclosure of intimate details of another person \u2019s private life always required his or her consent . The aim of the applicant \u2019s book had been to discuss matters of private life and it had no relevance to the Prime Minister \u2019s political functions or his hierarchical position in the ORG . Nor had it any relevance to the assessment of his personal qualities , such as his lack of honesty and judgment , as the relationship fell within the core areas of his private life and had no relevance to his position as a Prime Minister . Moreover , the applicant could be held as a perpetrator even though she was not a professional writer . Her acts had been intentional .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , requesting that the court establish a precedent in the case as the court had not yet in its case - law assessed freedom of expression in the context of an autobiography .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant leave to appeal .","On DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , upheld ORG conviction but quashed the forfeiture . In particular , by referring extensively to the ORG \u2019s case - law , it gave a more narrow scope to the Prime Minister \u2019s private life than ORG . The court found that information about the Prime Minister \u2019s sex life and intimate events and his children \u2019s feelings and behaviour had not been disclosed to the public before . The fact that some details of his private life had been disclosed before did not mean that they could not fall within the scope of criminal liability under LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW . The Prime Minister had not waived his right to protection of private life in these respects . Nor had he given his consent to their publication by consenting to the use of his photograph on the cover of the book . The court considered , contrary to ORG , that the information about how and when the Prime Minister had met the applicant and how quickly their relationship had developed had had relevance to general public discussion as these issues had raised the question of whether , in this respect , he had been dishonest and lacked judgment . Also the information concerning the great differences in the standard of living between the applicant and the Prime Minister , his lifestyle , the data protection concerns and the protection of the highest political authorities in general had had relevance to general public discussion . The court found also that disclosure of information about the Prime Minister \u2019s children was not conducive to causing him damage , suffering and contempt as the applicant had only given her own interpretation of the children \u2019s attitudes . However , the only references which , according to the court , had illegally disclosed information about the Prime Minister \u2019s private life were the applicant \u2019s information and hints about their sex life and intimate events between her and the Prime Minister . The court enumerated in particular CARDINAL parts of the book which contained information about the start of the sex life in the beginning of their relationship , descriptions of their brief and passionate intimate moments as well as giving massages to each other , and accounts of their sexual intercourse . The court found that such information and hints fell within the core area of private life and their unauthorised publication was conducive of causing the Prime Minister suffering and contempt . It was thus necessary to restrict the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression in this respect in order to protect the Prime Minister \u2019s private life ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147035","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GASANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , was a NORP national , who had been born in DATE and lived in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drugrelated offences .","During several periods DATE and DATE , the applicant was detained in the police ward ( ORG ) of PERSON in GPE . He claimed , in particular , that the cells of the ward were overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition .","On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177093","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"DIMITROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","Applicants CARDINAL to CARDINAL were represented initially by Mr PERSON , from ORG , GPE and , subsequently , by Mr PERSON , director of ORG , GPE , and a lawyer practising in GPE . Applicants DATE were represented , initially , by Mr PERSON from ORG , GPE and , subsequently , by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants are members of CARDINAL GPE families from the GPE municipality in GPE . They were represented during the domestic proceedings by association \u201c GPE ( hereafter \u201c the association \u201d ) , a nongovernmental organisation based in GPE which deals with GPE issues and whose chair and representative was PERSON .","The CARDINAL applicant families indicated that they had been living in dwellings at CARDINAL and CARDINAL Borimechkata Street in the GPE borough of GPE for DATE . Those dwellings were owned by the municipality and were in a serious state of disrepair .","On DATE an expert committee , tasked by the municipality with verifying the state of repair of municipal buildings , established that the houses at CARDINAL and CARDINAL Borimechkata Street were unfit for use and recommended their demolition .","Once the occupants had been formally put on notice , the mayor of ORG issued CARDINAL orders on DATE , ordering the houses\u2019 demolition as they were unsafe for occupation and also posed a threat to passers - by . The orders indicated that the first , second , fifth , sixth , seventh , DATE , eighteenth , DATE , CARDINAL and QUANTITY applicants were occupying the houses at CARDINAL and CARDINAL Borimechkata Street , unlawfully .","NORP The mayor contracted a private company to demolish the QUANTITY houses . A municipal company was tasked with ensuring that the necessary conditions for the demolition were in place . Representatives of the municipality were instructed to be present during the demolition and the police were asked to send officers to ensure that public order was observed .","On DATE , demolition works started on CARDINAL of the QUANTITY houses mentioned above . Following an intervention by the association , the municipality orally granted a DATE postponement for the demolition in order to find alternative housing for the applicants . They also announced on the radio that alternative accommodation would be found , especially for the children , as it was DATE . Press reports described how some of the GPE inhabitants had positioned themselves on the roofs of the houses to prevent demolition .","On DATE , without alternative accommodation having been found , the council proceeded with the demolition , with the police entering the houses at TIME The applicants were evicted by the police with the help of a private security firm . According to the applicants , disputed by the Government , the police destroyed household items with clubs and poured water over the burning stove . All the applicants were ordered to go out into the street . A record , signed DATE by a police officer who was present during the demolition , stated that \u201c on DATE , between TIME , teams of police officers from ORG assisted the municipality with the demolition of the buildings at CARDINAL and CARDINAL Borimechkata Street . No disturbance was observed during the demolition . \u201d Another record drawn up by municipal officials on DATE indicated that at TIME both houses were free of items and ready to be demolished .","NORP The parties dispute whether PERSON , aged DATE at the time of the events , was among those evicted . He was the youngest child of the PERSON family ( applicants CARDINAL to twentythree ) ; his birth certificate indicated that he was born on DATE and lived at CARDINAL Borimechkata Street , GPE .","According to the applicants , the officials present , including the mayor of GPE , made insulting remarks to them , such as \u201c Take that back home \u201d and \u201c You are too dirty , go take a shower and then come back \u201d . In addition , the children witnessed their homes being destroyed and their GPE distress .","The PERSON family ( applicants CARDINAL ) moved into another municipal dwelling situated at CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street , to which they were directed by the borough authorities after the demolition on DATE . They were left in the street for TIME before this accommodation was made available . The CARDINAL members of the family were accommodated in CARDINAL room in which they lived until DATE , at some point in time with an additional baby . DATE after they moved in the roof collapsed in the PERSON family room . They patched it up themselves but the roof continued to leak .","The PERSON family ( applicants CARDINAL ) were not directed promptly to alternative housing . At TIME on DATE , the eighteenth applicant , PERSON , concerned about the situation of her new - born baby , enquired with the borough authorities where her family could move . The borough authorities directed them to the dwelling at CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street . The PERSON family was only able to move there at TIME that day . In the meantime they were left in the street for TIME . They took shelter under a block of flats , where they had to change the baby \u2019s nappies and clean their children in the open . They were finally accommodated in CARDINAL room of the house at CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street . At that point , CARDINAL members of the family occupied the same room .","The PERSON family ( applicants CARDINAL to seventeen ) moved into a makeshift house at CARDINAL PERSON Street which they put together out of wooden blocks and cardboard collected from a rubbish dump . The house did not have a toilet and its inhabitants used an area behind the house for this purpose . There was no running water so they washed in the sea . A certificate provided by the municipal authorities indicated that in DATE the ninth applicant was listed as an occupant of the house together with the rest of the PERSON family .","The building at CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street was a single - storey house with a total of CARDINAL rooms . On DATE , the third room was uninhabitable . The PERSON family made the room habitable so that CARDINAL people could live in it , while CARDINAL others ( applicants DATE to CARDINAL ) lived in the room to which they originally moved . When the PERSON and PERSON families moved into the house , there was no electricity supply and no hot water . The only toilet was an external one which was extremely dilapidated and there was no place to shower or bath . There was CARDINAL sink . The applicants attached photographs of the house to their application .","On DATE the first and the eighteenth applicants signed typed - up declarations provided by the municipality , stating that they were aware that the dwelling which they occupied at the time , the house at CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street , GPE , was in a state of disrepair and posed a danger to the life and limb of its occupants , and that they undertook to inform the people living with them at that address accordingly .","NORP The mayor of GPE ordered on DATE that the house the PERSON family occupied be demolished as it posed a danger to human occupation . On DATE the municipal authorities proposed to the sixth applicant , PERSON , to move with his minor children and his wife to a small municipal apartment on the CARDINALth floor of a block of flats . Following hesitations expressed by him , the authorities allegedly informed him that if he refused the offer , something he effectively did , more appropriate housing would be offered to his family . This did not happen .","On DATE the mayor of GPE ordered the eviction of the first , third , DATE , twentieth , CARDINAL and twentythird applicants from CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street , on the ground that they occupied it unlawfully . On DATE the mayor ordered that the PERSON family , plus a baby born on DATE to the eighteenth applicant , be allocated subsidised municipal housing . This order was enforced on DATE when the applicants moved into a flat of QUANTITY squared .","The PERSON family was not proposed any shelter after their eviction ordered in DATE . While officially still registered at CARDINAL Pop Hariton Street , they rented a room in a house at FAC where they were living at the time of their last communication with the ORG .","At TIME on DATE , the eighteenth applicant , the mother of PERSON , had called an ambulance as the child was not breathing . PERSON PERSON , aged DATE and DATE , was declared dead by the emergency doctor . A hospital record announcing his death listed CARDINAL Borimechkata Street as his permanent address and another address in GPE as his current address . The same CARDINAL addresses had been indicated on the hospital record announcing his birth .","A preliminary criminal investigation against an unknown perpetrator was immediately opened into his death . A number of investigative measures were carried out . Those included an examination of the dwelling where the child had died and the creation of an album of pictures of the child in his cot , interrogation of the mother , as well as a forensic medical expertise , which comprised an autopsy of the infant \u2019s body . The mother was provided with an ex officio lawyer .","NORP The prosecutor terminated proceedings on DATE for absence of a crime as the authorities considered that the child had died of natural causes . The death certificate indicated the cause of death as bilateral pneumonia and acute respiratory and cardiac failure . It listed the child \u2019s address as CARDINAL Borimechkata Street , GPE . The child \u2019s mother , DATE applicant , who was provided with legal assistance , did not make of her own motion any explicit complaint before the investigating authorities . Nor did she challenge the termination of the preliminary investigation .","On DATE , the chairman of the association brought an application before ORG , entitled \u201c complaint \u201d , against GPE municipality . In it he complained of \u201c drastic consequences \u201d endured by the inhabitants of a number of dwellings following their eviction from those dwellings and the latter \u2019s demolition . He claimed that those consequences included the death of CARDINAL child and the severe psychological traumatism of several other children . He referred to evictions and demolitions carried out by the municipality since DATE on CARDINAL different streets , among which FAC , from which the individual applicants in the present case had been evicted .","He emphasised , without further detail and without listing the names of the individual applicants , that the actions of the municipality breached the affected ORG human rights . He submitted that , while those persons would bring proceedings before ORG , that process would take too long and the families under threat of being evicted at that time risked being left in the street without shelter during DATE . He asked the court to order the municipality to provide shelter to the people facing eviction or to halt the planned eviction until shelter was secured .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG found that the application did not meet the requirements of LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that it was necessary for the representative of the association to correct the irregularities in it . More specifically , the court order stated that he had to clarify the object of his application . If it was a complaint against an individual administrative act then he needed to specify the act , the body which had issued it and in what way the act was unlawful . Similarly , if he was complaining about actions or omissions on the part of an administrative body , then those had to be specified , together with their alleged unlawfulness . Further , it was necessary to indicate what he was asking of the court : the quashing of an unlawful administrative act or the discontinuation of actions or omissions by an administrative body . If he was asking for the latter , then he had to state whether those actions were carried out on the basis of an administrative act , or whether they were carried out without a lawful basis . He further had to provide proof of a paid state fee ( of CARDINAL ORG ) , as well as of the existence of the association and of its valid representation . The court suspended the case so that the association \u2019s representative could comply with the above instructions .","On DATE the association \u2019s representative filed a submission entitled \u201c clarifying application \u201d in response to ORG order of DATE . It indicated that it was brought by PERSON , acting as a head and representative of association \u201c PERSON \u201d . The modified application specified that it was a complaint representing , on the one hand , a challenge to the implementation by GPE municipality of the ordinance on people \u2019s housing needs . On the other hand , the complaint was a challenge to the authorities\u2019 actions and omissions relating to the eviction of the individual applicants in DATE from CARDINAL Borimechkata Street in GPE and the authorities\u2019 continued failure thereafter to provide the evicted GPE people with adequate shelter . He identified the authorities in question as FAC municipal council officials , the ORG social assistance directorate , police officials and the private security firm \u2019s staff hired by the municipality to assist during the above - mentioned eviction and demolition . He further complained about the inaction of the social assistance department which , despite having been repeatedly informed by the association of the children \u2019s imminent eviction in DATE , had contented themselves with the drawing up of a report concluding that it was beyond their mandate to act .","The association \u2019s representative further listed the names of the individual members of the GPE families who he claimed had suffered damage as a result of the LOC actions and inactions . The latter were enumerated as follows : the forced removal of the named individuals from their dwellings by the police ; the humiliating treatment of the former by authorities involved in the eviction and demolition ; the selective demolition of dwellings occupied by GPE only ; forcing a DATE baby to spend DATE in his cot in the open in the street , as a result of which he had died DATE from double - sided pneumonia ; psychological harassment of the children from the demolished homes and failure to provide them with psychological support for the shock of witnessing their homes being destroyed and the helplessness of their parents ; subsequent housing of the GPE families in conditions unsuitable for human occupation ; unfair and discriminatory treatment during DATE of GPE in need of social housing including the families listed ; and discriminatory treatment on the basis of people \u2019s social status in the distribution of municipal dwellings . The association \u2019s representative stated that those actions and inactions had breached ORG ( hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , the human rights and freedoms provided for in ORG and , in particular , ORG , DATE , DATE and DATE .","He asked the court to order the municipality to audit its municipal housing policy as regards the ethnicity and social status of the people given municipal dwellings . In addition , he asked the court to compel the municipality to provide normal living conditions to the applicant families . He also asked the court to order the municipality to pay just compensation to them for the humiliating living conditions in which they had been forced to live after the eviction and demolition , as well as for having discriminated against them as regards the provision of housing . He also sought compensation for the family of the dead child , PERSON , and for all CARDINAL families for the insufficient protection provided to the children during the demolition and thereafter . He sought costs and expenses and submitted proof of payment of the state tax due and of the existence of the association . He also listed the written items of evidence which he submitted together with his application .","ORG examined the clarified application on DATE . The court found , in the first place , that this application had made it clear that the complaint was against the actions and inactions of municipal officials from GPE municipality , of police officers and private contractors at the time of the demolition of dwellings in DATE . The court further concluded that the complaint was against the inaction of the social assistance department for having refused to draw up a report on the living conditions of the children in the PERSON family during the said period . It then observed that the association was seeking , on behalf of CARDINAL families , pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages stemming from the actions and omissions of the municipal administration in relation with the demolition of the municipal houses in which those families had been living and damages for placing those individuals in inappropriate municipal dwellings .","The court noted that the aforementioned actions and omissions had been presented as being unlawful and in breach of ORG , the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the ORG .","ORG decided that it had not been seized with a complaint against a specific individual administrative act under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 DATE , nor with a proper complaint against specific actions or omissions under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , or with a proper claim for damages under the ORG and ORG DATE ( hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d , see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . In particular , neither in the initial application of DATE nor in the clarified application thereafter had the association representative specified an individual administrative act against which judicial review proceedings could be brought . Even assuming that this act was the eviction and demolition order in respect of the dwelling at CARDINAL FAC , the association was not a party to , or personally affected by , that order and the DATE statutory period for judicial review of such orders had long expired . Furthermore , the claim against the administrative actions or omissions under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW was likewise out of time , given that the authorities\u2019 actions complained of had taken place in DATE . The court further noted that a claim under LAW ORG was inadmissible due to the lack of standing of the association and because such a claim would require a prior declaration of illegality in accordance with LAW . The court declared the application inadmissible .","Apart from the restating the complaint made by the association that the actions and omissions in question had been unlawful and in breach of the ORG , among other legal instruments ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , at no point in its decision did ORG refer to the ORG \u2013 the legislative act to which the association had made explicit reference DATE , examine the procedural regularity or irregularity of the application from the perspective of the ORG or explain why , for all or any of the association \u2019s complaints made in it , the ORG could not constitute an effective remedy .","On DATE , in the context of a cassation review , the ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision in its entirety .","It found that the application before it was admissible as submitted within the statutory limitation period . However , it was not well - founded . In particular , the lower court had correctly established that it had not referred to a specific administrative act under LAW . Neither had it pointed out specific actions or omissions LAW . Given that from the applicant association \u2019s submissions it had been clear that the events complained of had taken place in DATE , it was indisputable that the statutory limitation period had lapsed , which in turn was an additional ground for not examining the application on its merits . Finally , the applicants had not made a valid claim for compensation under section CARDINAL of the ORG , given that they had failed to specify the concrete acts , actions and omissions in connection with which compensation was being sought , or its amount . The ORG did not address the applicability of the ORG either .","Individuals can seek protection against actions and omissions of administrative bodies under LAW of LAW . LAW stipulates that everyone with a legal interest can bring a claim before the administrative court , seeking the discontinuation by an administrative body of an action not based on an administrative act or in the law .","According to LAW an administrative act may be contested before a court within DATE of its communication .","All claims for damages stemming from unlawful acts , actions or omissions by public bodies or officials are heard at first instance by the competent administrative court ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .","According to LAW , judicial review of an individual administrative act has to be lodged in writing and must indicate , inter alia , the court , personal and contact data of the applicant , the administrative act which is contested and the essence of the request . The administrative court may collect evidence admissible under LAW Procedure DATE ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) and it assists the parties in proceedings before it to correct formal errors and lack of clarity in their submissions ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","If an irregular application has been made challenging an individual administrative act before a court , the court specifies the irregularity and invites the party to correct it and resubmit the application ( LAW . Thus , in CARDINAL decisions , ORG , referring to the latter provision , returned an application twice to the claimant , indicating each time its irregularities and how to correct them ( see \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u043d\u0430 \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0441\u044a\u0434 ORG \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0434 \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0438 CARDINAL \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE ) .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG provides that the ORG and , as of DATE , the municipalities are liable for damage caused to individuals and legal entities as a result of unlawful decisions , acts or omissions by their own authorities or officials while discharging administrative duties . Pursuant to LAW , the lawfulness of administrative actions or omissions is established by the court in the context of the same proceedings for damages .","Persons seeking redress for damage resulting from acts or omissions falling within the scope of the ORG have no claim under general tort law as the ORG is a lex specialis and excludes the application of the general regime ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG ; see also \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u043e\u0442 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440.\u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG , ORG , \u0406V\u0431 \u043e\u0442\u0434. , as well as \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u0433. \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0434\u0435\u043a\u0435\u043c\u0432\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. , \u043f\u043e PERSON \u2116 DATE \u0433. \u043d\u0430 \u0412\u0421 GPE \u0433.\u043e. , referred to in , among others , the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW bans discrimination on the grounds of race , national origin , ethnicity , sex , religion , education , conviction , political affiliation , personal or public status and property status .","The ORG , which was adopted in DATE and came into force on DATE , transposes ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EC of DATE implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin ( ORG , p. CARDINAL ) and Council Directive CARDINAL of DATE establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation ( ORG , p. CARDINAL ) .","It prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex , race , national origin , ethnicity , human genome , nationality , origin , religion or faith , education , beliefs , political affiliation , personal or public status , disability , age , sexual orientation , family status , property status , or any other ground provided for by law or an international treaty to which GPE is a party . The LAW also defines racial segregation , explicitly providing that it is a form of discrimination .","The ORG is a lex specialis in relation to general administrative and civil law .","Section CARDINAL provides for the shifting of the burden of proof in discrimination cases . Under that section , where a claimant is able to prove facts from which an inference may be drawn that there has been discriminatory treatment , it is incumbent on the defendant to prove that there has not been a violation of the right to equal treatment .","A complainant may first file a complaint with ORG ( section CARDINAL of the ORG ) or instead bring an action directly in court ( section CARDINAL of the ORG ) .","According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG , every individual who considers himself or herself to be a victim of discrimination can bring a claim before the first - instance civil court , seeking in particular to establish that he or she has been discriminated against , that the defendant be made to discontinue the discriminatory treatment and to refrain for the future from it , and that compensation be paid to the victim .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG entitles non - governmental organisations to bring claims on behalf of victims complaining of discriminatory treatment and seek compensation on their behalf . LAW ) of the ORG authorises non - governmental organisations to bring such proceedings in their own name when a high number of individuals is concerned . In such cases the compensation sought by the non - governmental organisation is in the interest of the individuals allegedly discriminated .","Domestic judicial practice on the question which courts have competence to hear discrimination claims under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG has varied considerably in the past . An interpretative decision of a joint bench of judges from the SCC and ORG decided on DATE that the administrative , and not civil , courts were competent to hear discrimination claims against public bodies or officials under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG . This decision put an end to the lack of clarity regarding which courts DATE civil or administrative \u2013 were competent to hear such claims ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172550","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF NOSENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144114","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GLANTZ v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The tax inspector conducted a tax inspection of the applicant \u2019s attorney \u2019s office in DATE .","On DATE the tax authorities considered that the applicant had received disguised dividends from his company during DATE . The amounts of the disguised dividends were the following : MONEY ( ORG ) , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL , and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . Additional taxes and tax surcharges ( veronkorotus , skattef\u00f6rh\u00f6jning ) were imposed in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL respectively .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant sought rectification from ORG ( verotuksen oikaisulautakunta , pr\u00f6vningsn\u00e4mnden i beskattnings\u00e4renden ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s requests . 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 .","By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on the same grounds as ORG .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant on , inter alia , CARDINAL counts of embezzlement and CARDINAL counts of aggravated tax fraud ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 veropetos , grovt skattebedr\u00e4geri ) concerning DATE . According to the charges , the applicant was accused of aggravated tax fraud as , in his personal capacity , he had underdeclared his income . The undeclared income amounted in total to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and , consequently , the tax imposed had been LAW too low .","On DATE the GPE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) convicted the applicant , inter alia , on CARDINAL counts of embezzlement and CARDINAL counts of aggravated tax fraud and sentenced him to a prison sentence of DATE and DATE . He was also ordered to pay the taxation authority ORG CARDINAL plus interest .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) , requesting that the charges be dismissed . He claimed , inter alia , that CARDINAL of the embezzlement charges was statute - barred .","On DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing on CARDINAL and DATE , convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and DATE in prison . It upheld ORG judgment in respect of the compensation award . The court found that CARDINAL of the embezzlement charges was not statutebarred . As concerned the aggravated tax fraud in the applicant \u2019s personal taxation , the court noted that tax surcharges had been imposed on the applicant and that the taxation proceedings had become final on DATE . As the charges had been brought on DATE , that was , before the taxation proceedings had become final , there were no obstacles to examining the charge concerning aggravated tax fraud .","By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , requesting that the charges be dismissed . He claimed that there had been a lack of a fair trial and a violation of the legality principle in respect of the embezzlement charges as he had been convicted of something other than the charges against him and the conviction had been based on a wrong GPE Code provision . Also CARDINAL of the changes had been statute - barred . As concerned the tax fraud charges , he claimed that the ne bis in idem principle had been violated when he was convicted of aggravated tax fraud in respect of his personal taxation . That principle and the legality principle had also been violated when he was convicted of aggravated tax fraud and bookkeeping crime as a representative of the company as the undeclared income was the same as in his personal taxation . He also claimed that there had been a lack of a fair trial before ORG as he was not allowed to obtain detailed information about the charges and to put questions to CARDINAL of the witnesses .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant lodged an application for an extraordinary appeal with ORG , requesting , inter alia , that the execution of the prison sentence be stayed . He repeated this request on DATE , and on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , and CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to grant a stay of execution .","On DATE the applicant started serving his sentence .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request for the reopening of the case .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant lodged a new extraordinary appeal with ORG concerning its decision of CARDINAL DATE . He referred , inter alia , to LAW and the lack of a fair trial .","It is not known whether the case is still pending before ORG .","By letters dated CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the Chancellor of ORG ( oikeuskansleri , justitiekanslern ) , asking him to examine whether ORG justices had acted in accordance with the law and their duties when rendering the decision of DATE .","On DATE the Chancellor of ORG informed the applicant that he was not going to investigate the matter as it was still pending before ORG . However , he indicated that the general interpretation was that the duty to give reasons did not apply to decisions concerning leave to appeal or extraordinary remedies .","By letter dated DATE the applicant asked the Chancellor of Justice to re - examine the matter and to take action in order to have the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE re - opened .","It is not known whether the case is still pending before the Chancellor of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["P7-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170592","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ABUBAKAROVA AND MIDALISHOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They live in the village of LOC in GPE . The first applicant is the wife of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE . The second applicant is the wife of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","At TIME brothers PERSON and PERSON and their nephew Mr A.El . were travelling in a GAZ-CARDINAL ( \u201c NORP \u201d ) vehicle on the road leading from the PERSON settlement to the village of ORG in GPE .","At TIME a convoy of CARDINAL IFVs ( \u0411\u041c\u041f-CARDINAL ) was passing along the road . The applicants\u2019 relatives drove to the side to let the IFVs pass . The NORP and a number of other cars were at the side of the road when CARDINAL of the IVFs suddenly turned and drove over the LOC , and then drove off in the direction of PERSON . All CARDINAL passengers died on the spot . A number of residents of ORG witnessed the incident .","On DATE Sh . , an operational search officer from the PERSON department of the interior ( \u0420\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b ( ORG ) ) ( hereinafter \u201c the ROVD \u201d ) , reported the incident to the head of the police station , stating that a NORP had been driven over by an IFV carrying military servicemen .","The police questioned PERSON He stated that his brothers PERSON and PERSON and nephew PERSON A.El . had been driving home from a funeral when their vehicle had been driven over by an IFV carrying military servicemen , who had fled the scene and gone to the military base in GPE .","The police also questioned PERSON , who stated that he had been driving to PERSON when he had seen a convoy of IFVs on the road and a NORP on the kerb letting it pass by . CARDINAL of the IFVs had suddenly turned in the direction of the LOC , driving over it and killing all CARDINAL passengers . It had then gone through the checkpoint in PERSON . The witness and others present during the incident had immediately driven to the police station to report it .","NORP The police examined the NORP , which had been left at the crime scene . Traces of blood and brain matter were found inside the damaged vehicle . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office instituted an investigation into the accident under LAW of LAW ( breach of traffic regulations , causing death by negligence ) . The case file was given the number DATE .","It also ordered a post - mortem examination of GPE , PERSON and Mr A.El . On DATE the experts concluded that their deaths had occurred as a result of the accident .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr GPE and Mr GPE , both of whom stated that on DATE they had been driving a GAZ-CARDINAL vehicle when they had seen CARDINAL IFVs , CARDINAL of which had had the serial number CARDINAL , violating traffic rules . It had driven over a NORP car and then left in the direction of PERSON . They had immediately gone to the damaged vehicle and found CARDINAL people dead inside .","On DATE the investigators sent a request to military unit no . CARDINAL to be provided information on the provenance of IFV no . CARDINAL . No reply was given to that or any subsequent requests sent by the investigators .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor ordered the investigators to take a number of steps , including questioning numerous eyewitnesses to the incident such as local residents and the law - enforcement officers who had been manning the checkpoints through which the IFVs had passed to flee the scene .","On DATE the investigators questioned the head of the local administration , PERSON . NORP who stated , amongst other things , that he had learnt of the incident shortly after it had happened . He had immediately gone to each of the checkpoints on the road between PERSON and PERSON - Yurt . At the checkpoint manned by police officers from the ORG district police station he had been told that , TIME prior to his arrival , QUANTITY IFVs had passed through and driven in the direction of GPE , where the main military base of the federal forces was situated . He had gone to the military prosecutor \u2019s office in GPE , where he had been told that an investigator had already gone to the scene and established that CARDINAL of the IFVs had had the serial numbers CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; that after the IFV had driven over the GPE , a serviceman had got out of CARDINAL of the IFVs and checked that the car \u2019s passengers were dead . The IFVs had then driven off . The witness also stated that on CARDINAL or DATE Mr ORG , who had worked as a driver at the FAC military base , had told him that at TIME on DATE he had seen CARDINAL IFVs of the CARDINALth regiment driving at high speed into the base .","On DATE the investigation was suspended on the grounds that the perpetrators had not been identified . The applicants were not informed .","On DATE the ROVD replied to the applicants\u2019 request for information , stating that the investigation had established that that at TIME on DATE an unidentified person driving an IFV had had a collision with a LOC being driven by GPE and in which PERSON had been a passenger . As a result of the accident , the driver and CARDINAL passengers had died on the spot . The driver of the IFV had fled the scene . The document also stated that the material concerning the accident had been sent to the GPE military prosecutor \u2019s office .","On an unspecified date prior to DATE the investigation was resumed . The applicants were not informed .","On an unspecified date DATE the investigation was suspended again . The applicants were not informed .","On DATE the deputy district prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the proceedings as unlawful and ordered that the investigation be resumed and the investigators take a number of steps , including identifying the owners of IFV nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL and carrying out the orders of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicants were granted victim status in the criminal proceedings .","On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigators questioned a number of residents of ORG , all of whom stated that they had arrived at the scene shortly after the incident and that , according to eyewitnesses , the PERSON had been driven over by a military IFV .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr DATE , who stated that at TIME on DATE he had seen a military convoy on the road between PERSON and PERSON - Yurt and a GPE at the side of the road letting the convoy pass by . CARDINAL of the IFVs had suddenly driven off the road and over the LOC . The ORG had then left in the direction of GPE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again .","On DATE the ORG of GPE allowed the ORG complaint against the decision to suspend the investigation . The court stated that between the opening of the investigation on DATE and its suspension on DATE the investigators had failed to take the necessary steps to identify the perpetrators , limiting themselves to sending CARDINAL unspecified requests for information to the military authorities , even though it was clear from the case material that after causing the accident the IFVs had entered the LOC military base . Despite the supervising prosecutor \u2019s instructions given on DATE , the investigators had only resent CARDINAL requests for information to the military authorities and had again suspended the investigation on DATE , as they had received no reply . The court overruled that decision and instructed that the proceedings be resumed .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor resumed the investigation , deciding that it had been suspended unlawfully . The investigators were ordered to take a number of steps , including sending new requests to the military authorities concerning the possible provenance of IFV nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","On unspecified dates in DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL residents of ORG , both of whom stated that they had learnt of the incident from their fellow villagers .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again . On an unspecified date prior to DATE the case was transferred to ORG . The proceedings are still pending .","The Government did not dispute the facts as presented by the applicants .","At the ORG \u2019s request , the ORG furnished copies of the entire investigation file in criminal case no . DATE , running to CARDINAL pages ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173771","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KURILOVICH AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .","The first applicant came to GPE in DATE . In DATE he was granted long - term resident status , and in DATE permanent resident status . In DATE he married the second applicant , and in DATE the third applicant , their son , was born .","On DATE the head of ORG issued an order withdrawing the first applicant \u2019s residence permit , ordering his expulsion and imposing a DATE ban on his reentering GPE on the ground that his presence in the country represented a \u201c serious threat to national security \u201d . Factual grounds justifying the order were not indicated ; it was merely noted that it was based on \u201c proposal no . BCARDINAL \u201d .","NORP That proposal , drawn up by ORG on DATE and initially classified , was declassified in DATE and has been submitted by the Government . It stated that the first applicant was a member of a \u201c NORP criminal group \u201d implicated in money laundering , extortion , smuggling , illegal arms deals and the financing of \u201c terrorist groups \u201d on the territory of GPE . It said further that the first applicant had lowered GPE \u2019s international reputation , by \u201c implicating the country in the financing of terrorist organisations , transnational criminality , corruption and drug trafficking \u201d . No evidence was provided to substantiate those claims .","On DATE the first applicant applied for judicial review of the order of CARDINAL DATE . He denied the allegations against him and stated that his family resided in GPE and that the measures against him breached his Convention rights . In addition , he presented a certificate that he had no criminal convictions in GPE .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the application for judicial review and held that the CARDINAL DATE order was lawful . After summarising the allegations made in proposal no . BCARDINAL , it held merely that they were sufficient to justify a conclusion that the first applicant represented a threat to national security . Furthermore , it dismissed his arguments relating to his family life , considering that","\u201c any restriction of the rights under the ORG is justified [ when based ] on national security considerations , in cases where foreign ORG behaviour threatens the national security and the public order of the State where they reside . \u201d","The first applicant was expelled on DATE . It is unclear whether the second and third applicants remained in GPE after that . In DATE the first and second applicants had another child ."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163820","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RAMADAN v. MALTA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;David Scicluna;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE and currently lives in GPE , GPE .","ORG The applicant had a NORP tourist visa , which had been issued in DATE and had been valid for DATE . Having overstayed this visa , he remained in GPE illegally .","In DATE , when the applicant was DATE and still living in GPE illegally , he met MP , a NORP citizen , who at the time was DATE . DATE , on DATE , they married in a civil ceremony . On DATE they also married in accordance with the NORP rite .","On DATE the applicant enquired about his \u201c exempt person status \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and on DATE started the process to obtain NORP citizenship on the basis of his marriage to a NORP national .","The applicant \u2019s exempt person status was confirmed on DATE . On DATE , following the processing of his application and consequent to the marriage , he was registered as a NORP citizen . On DATE , he therefore lodged an application to renounce his NORP nationality ( a copy of the relevant application form has not been submitted to ORG ) . It transpires from a letter issued by LOC in GPE that on DATE the applicant \u2019s request was approved and his NORP passport withdrawn . At the relevant time , dual nationality was not possible under either NORP or NORP law .","According to the Government , in DATE the applicant and MP had various marital problems , which led the applicant to leave the matrimonial home on CARDINAL occasions . The applicant had behaved aggressively , and specifically on DATE he had physically assaulted his pregnant wife , causing her a permanent disability . MP left the matrimonial home thereafter .","NORP The applicant was charged , remanded in custody , and eventually tried and found guilty in respect of the act of assault . He was given a suspended sentence .","In the meantime , on DATE a child , ORG , was born of the marriage . ORG is a NORP citizen . The various family disputes continued between the couple .","On DATE MP instituted court proceedings to annul the marriage . Following adversarial proceedings where both parties were represented by a lawyer , the applicant \u2019s marriage was annulled by a judgment of DATE . The court delivering the judgment was satisfied ( to the degree necessary in civil proceedings , namely on a balance of probabilities ) that the applicant \u2019s only reason for marrying had been to remain in GPE and acquire citizenship ; thus he was positively excluding marriage itself , and there had been a simulation of marriage . Since no appeal was lodged against the judgment , it became final .","The applicant did not inform the authorities of the judgment concerning the annulment of his marriage and he remained resident in GPE and retained his NORP citizenship .","On DATE the applicant married GPE , a NORP citizen , DATE after their first encounter . The applicant enquired about the exempt person status of his NORP wife and was asked to produce a copy of the judgment of annulment . On DATE the applicant produced a copy of the judgment and it was only at that time that the authorities became aware of the reason for the annulment of his first marriage .","Following an application to that effect , on DATE , GPE was granted exempt person status and thus had full freedom of movement ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) . According to the Government , although this was contested by the applicant , attention was drawn to the fact that the benefit of such status would cease if the applicant lost his citizenship . CARDINAL sons were born of this marriage , ORG , in DATE and DATE respectively . They are both NORP citizens .","On DATE the applicant was informed that an order was to be made to deprive him of his NORP citizenship ( under Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) DATE see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) , which , according to the judgment of DATE , appeared to have been obtained by fraud . He was informed of his right to an inquiry .","The applicant challenged that decision , claiming that it was not true that he had obtained his marriage by fraud and stressing that he had CARDINAL NORP children .","In consequence , proceedings were instituted to investigate the applicant \u2019s situation and if necessary divest him of his NORP citizenship . A committee was set up for this purpose in accordance with LAW . A number of hearings were held before the committee where the applicant was assisted by a lawyer . He was allowed to make oral and written submissions and submit evidence , including witness testimony . It appears from the documents available that the applicant contested the basis of the annulment decision and claimed that he had not been aware that he could have appealed against it . He also contested the findings of a court of criminal jurisdiction that had found him guilty of injuring his wife and causing her a permanent disability .","NORP The applicant \u2019s ex - wife , a citizenship department official and a priest also gave testimony .","The committee \u2019s final recommendation to the Minister of ORG and ORG was not made available to the applicant . Requests by the applicant \u2019s lawyer for a copy of the acts of those proceedings remained unsatisfied .","On DATE the Minister ordered that the applicant be deprived of his citizenship with immediate effect , in accordance with Article CARDINAL ) of the Act .","By a letter dated DATE from the Director of ORG , the applicant was informed that the Minister of Justice and ORG had concluded that the applicant had obtained citizenship by fraudulent means and that therefore on DATE , in accordance with LAW , the Minister had ordered that he be immediately divested of his citizenship . He was required to return his certificate of registration as a NORP citizen and his passport .","The applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings , complaining under Articles CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Convention . He claimed that he had not had a fair trial and appropriate access to court for the determination on his right to citizenship . Moreover , the revocation of his citizenship had not been in accordance with the law . The prerequisites for such action had not existed as his first marriage had not been one of convenience .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint under LAW , finding that the committee set up for that purpose had not been a tribunal , but solely an investigative body capable of giving recommendations but not making final decisions . The court , however , found that the applicant \u2019s LAW rights would be breached if , as a result of his being divested of his citizenship , he became an alien . His de jure family ( in respect of the second marriage ) would suffer irremediable upset if , as a father ( of the CARDINAL NORP children of that marriage ) , he were required to move to another country . Thus , the revocation of citizenship in the present case was in breach of LAW . Consequently , the court annulled the order of CARDINAL DATE and considered that it was not necessary to rule on any further complaints .","On appeal , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG overturned the first - instance judgment in part . It rejected LAW CARDINAL complaint on the basis that the provision was not applicable in the absence of a civil right . In that connection , it rejected the applicant \u2019s contention that the revocation of citizenship affected his right to a family life and therefore was civil in nature , as citizenship was a matter of public law and fell under the prerogatives of the ORG . It also reversed the part of the judgment in respect of DATE , commenting that it had not been established that the applicant had a family life in GPE , and , even if this were so , the revocation of his citizenship would not necessarily result in his having to leave GPE . Indeed , it had not transpired that the applicant would be denied NORP residence or that he had applied for it and had been refused , nor had a removal order been issued .","Following the lodging of the application with the ORG , on DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer wrote to the relevant authorities informing them that the case was pending before the ORG and that therefore no action should be taken on the basis of the order of CARDINAL DATE . No feedback , apart from an acknowledgment of receipt , was received concerning that letter . However , although the order to deprive the applicant of his citizenship with immediate effect remains in force , no action has been taken to date in pursuit of the order and no removal order has been issued .","Although the applicant considers that the implementation of the order is only a matter of time , he is currently still residing and carrying out his business in GPE . He has a trading licence , which is periodically renewed . He continued using a NORP passport to travel until DATE , when it expired , as he had failed to return it to the authorities despite their request .","The applicant does not appear to have any contact with his first son , but claims to be in a family environment with his second wife and their children . Following the revocation of his citizenship , the applicant \u2019s second wife lost her exempt person status and the attached freedom - of - movement rights ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154163","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ILIEVSKA v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .","On DATE the applicant was operated on for stomach cancer and subsequently underwent chemotherapy .","On DATE she had been feeling anxious and distressed , and her husband requested medical assistance from FAC hospital ( QUANTITY from GPE ) . PERSON , a general practitioner , gave an instruction that the applicant was to be transferred to a psychiatric clinic in GPE . PERSON , a specialist in neuropsychiatry in FAC hospital , also gave instructions for her to be transferred to that clinic with police assistance .","Still on DATE , at TIME . , an ambulance arrived at the applicant \u2019s house in the village of GPE . QUANTITY police officers , who were later identified as GPE and GPE in the subsequent criminal proceedings , assisted with the applicant \u2019s transfer to the ORG psychiatric hospital in GPE , where she remained until DATE .","The relevant parts of a notice of her discharge , dated CARDINAL DATE from ORG hospital provide as follows :","\u201c [ This is the ] first admission of ( the applicant ) to this hospital ; it was carried out with the assistance of the police from FAC .","According to the limited information obtained from ( the applicant \u2019s ) husband by telephone , ( it is known ) that since DATE , when she was diagnosed with and treated for stomach cancer , ( the applicant ) had become ... melancholic , lethargic , and had threatened with committing suicide .","When admitted , [ the applicant ] was malnourished , dehydrated , and had several haematomas of different sizes , most probably of DATE ( \u043d\u0430\u0458\u0432\u0435\u0440\u043e\u0458\u0430\u0442\u043d\u043e \u043e\u0434 \u043f\u043e\u043d\u043e\u0432 \u0434\u0430\u0442\u0443\u043c ) ... Concerning her psychological state she was depressed , anxious , tearful , and fixated on her poor state of health ( cancer ) ... she was burdened with depressive ideas and had a paranoid attitude towards her husband , which may be well - founded ...","She is discharged without having been examined or treated , at her husband \u2019s request . \u201d","Following her discharge from the hospital in GPE , the applicant was on DATE admitted to FAC hospital . A handwritten medical certificate was issued and entered in the hospital \u2019s records under no . DATE . At the applicant \u2019s request a transcript of this certificate was made by PERSON The relevant parts of this certificate state that :","\u201c [ According to the applicant ] she was handcuffed by the police during her transfer to ORG psychiatric hospital , as instructed by a doctor . Objectively : haematoma measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY on both forearms around the wrist joints ; CARDINAL hematomas measuring QUANTITY on both lower legs . On the right hip , ( a haematoma ) measuring QUANTITY .","Regarding these injuries , [ the applicant ] says that they were inflicted by kicks and blows . \u201d","Still on DATE the applicant was also examined by Doctor PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The relevant parts of the medical certificate issued on that date read as follows :","\u201c On DATE at TIME . , on a request by ( the applicant \u2019s ) husband and as suggested in ( a neuropsychiatric opinion ) , the patient was transported to GPE psychiatric clinic . The applicant states that she was abused during the transfer : she was hit and punched on the legs , [ a third person ] sat on her legs , and her hands were handcuffed behind her back . When she arrived she was treated violently by hospital staff .","When examined ... [ the following ] is observed : [ she ] is upset ; a haematoma and a scratch on the lower legs , thus CARDINAL - CARDINAL scratches on the right side measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY ; on the left side CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( scratches ) measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY and QUANTITY ; haematomas and ( CARDINAL ) scratches on the stomach measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY ; CARDINAL scratches on the back measuring QUANTITY ; some small haematomas ...","The patient has visible injuries caused by a trauma , namely hitting and punching .","Opinion : light bodily injury . \u201d","On DATE Doctor PERSON issued a certificate that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been examined and that an instruction had been given for her to be transferred to GPE psychiatric clinic .","In support of the application before the ORG , the applicant provided CARDINAL photographs of her , showing the following injuries : CARDINAL scratches on the lower and middle part of the back ; CARDINAL scratches and a haematoma on her stomach , and several haematomas on the lower legs .","On DATE the police drew up an official note ( \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0435\u043d\u0430 \u0431\u0435\u043b\u0435\u0448\u043a\u0430 ) regarding information obtained from Dr S.V. As indicated in the note , GPE decided , \u201c for the sake of truth \u201d , to provide relevant information in reaction to a television interview broadcasted on DATE in which the applicant had stated that she was ill - treated by police officers during her transfer to PERSON hospital . During the interview she showed the injuries that she had allegedly sustained . The relevant parts of the note read as follows :","\u201c ... I want to say that on DATE at TIME . , I was called , through the duty medical centre of FAC hospital , to intervene in an urgent case reported by ( the applicant \u2019s ) husband . I arrived at a ORG home in FAC , where ( the applicant and her husband ) were waiting . ( The husband ) told me that ( the applicant ) had injured herself , namely that she had hit her body and head against a wall and a bed ; her face was covered with blood , and there was blood on the floor in front of the door . That suggested that she had had a nervous breakdown , for which I prescribed treatment .","In my opinion and in view of the foregoing , it is most likely that the injuries she showed to the cameras were self - inflicted on the date indicated above , which was when I intervened . \u201d","On DATE PERSON provided information to the police in relation to media statements by the applicant and her husband that the applicant had been ill - treated by the police . PERSON stated that the applicant \u2019s husband had beaten the applicant on QUANTITY occasions ( she did not specify the exact dates when the alleged beatings had happened , but she confirmed that it had been on \u201c DATE , DATE and DATE \u201d ) . She further stated :","\u201c During the DATE TIME CARDINAL women , most likely journalists , visited [ the applicant \u2019s husband ] . On the DATE [ the applicant \u2019s husband ] invited residents to watch on television \u2018 how do the police from PERSON work . I put them in a mould ; I \u2019ll take a lot of money from them\u2019 .","I personally believe that [ the applicant \u2019s ] injuries were inflicted by [ her husband ] who , while intoxicated , beats her up DATE in front of their children . \u201d","The note further indicated that CARDINAL individuals ( whose identity was specified ) , together with other residents in the building in which the applicant lived , could be interviewed regarding the case .","On DATE the police informed the applicant \u2019s husband that on DATE PERSON had made a complaint against him , and that an official note had been drawn up . As stated in the letter , both the applicant \u2019s husband and PERSON had been advised to stop arguing in future . The letter further indicated that PERSON had been warned that in the event of false reporting a misdemeanour complaint would be lodged against her .","In submissions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant brought criminal charges of medical malpractice against PERSON alleging that he had instructed her to undergo a psychiatric examination without examining her , against ORG , a nurse who had accompanied the applicant during her transfer to PERSON ( she had been sitting in the front passenger seat ) , and against ORG and GPE , the police officers , for inflicting ill - treatment and mild bodily injury . She alleged that on DATE she had been distressed . In the circumstances , her husband had gone to PERSON hospital , where PERSON had decided that she be transferred to GPE psychiatric clinic with assistance from the police . Doctor PERSON had also issued a recommendation in this respect ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant claimed , inter alia , that ORG and GPE had forcibly put her in the ambulance , stating that they had grabbed her arms and dragged her to the ambulance , ignoring her cries of pain from the surgery . After she had been put in the ambulance , she had been forcibly made to lie on a bed with her hands handcuffed behind her back . GPE sat on her legs . They had gone , firstly , to FAC hospital where PERSON had given instructions , by telephone , to GPE to administer an injection . The applicant alleged that on the way to PERSON she had been hit , punched and threatened by the police officers . As a result , she had \u201c several injuries ( haematomas ) all over the body and limbs and MONEY on the back from the handcuffs , of which I have photographs \u201d . In support of her complaint she attached medical certificates ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) .","On DATE the public prosecutor contacted ORG with a request for further information regarding the incident . In reply , on CARDINAL DATE ORG within ORG submitted a \u201c special report \u201d regarding the case . It referred to statements ( which it submitted in support ) which PERSON , the applicant and her husband had given to the police DATE .","Dr PERSON confirmed that on DATE the applicant \u2019s husband had told him that they lived in the ORG home in FAC ; that the applicant \u2019s mental health was poor ; that she had arrived at their family house in the village of GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) without his consent ; that she had broken a window to get in ; that she had been aggressive and was capable of killing herself , their children or himself ; that she had been uncooperative ; and that she had refused to sleep or eat .","In the statement , the applicant \u2019s husband confirmed that the applicant \u2019s mental health had deteriorated since the stomach surgery , and that he had explained \u201c her condition \u201d to the doctors PERSON and PERSON during his visit of DATE . He also informed the police officers GPE and GPE about her state of health while he was in the ambulance with them on the way to their family house . When they got to the house he had asked the police officers to wait outside so that he could explain to the applicant that she was going to be taken to a psychiatric hospital . When the police officers had entered the house their children had started crying and putting their arms around the applicant . The police officers had forcibly separated the children from the applicant ; they had grabbed her by the arms and dragged her ( while she was on her knees ) towards the door . After the situation had calmed down and in order not to harm the applicant , he had taken her by the legs , and he and the police officers had taken her to the front of the ambulance . Then the police officers had put her in the ambulance ; they had handcuffed her hands behind her back and made her lie on a bed . To keep her still , GPE had sat on her legs . The police officers had remained with the applicant in the rear of the ambulance , while PERSON had sat in the front passenger seat . While he had been occupied with the children in the house , the ambulance had left the scene . DATE he had found out that the applicant had been taken to PERSON hospital ; he went there , but no visits were allowed DATE .","In depositions made on DATE the applicant confirmed that on DATE she had consented to be taken to GPE psychiatric clinic ; that the police officers had grabbed her hands and dragged her ; that before she got into the ambulance ORG had hit her on the back with a baton ; and that her husband had helped ORG and GPE to bring her to the front of the ambulance . She also stated that no infusion or injection had been administered when they had stopped at FAC hospital ; that during the transfer to GPE hospital ( the ambulance had been driven at excessive speed ) her hands had been handcuffed behind her back ; that GPE had been sitting on her legs and that she ( GPE ) had hit her on the legs and head with a truncheon ; that ORG had grabbed her hair and had tightened up the handcuffs ; that both ORG and GPE had punched her and hurt her legs . When she was admitted to PERSON hospital she was bleeding and had bruises .","The \u201c special report \u201d of the ORG further referred to statements given by doctors GPE and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It also specified that the police officers concerned had denied that they had used any force against the applicant , and that the applicant had used offensive language against them and had been screaming loudly . The record also stated that PERSON ( the nurse ) and PERSON ( the driver of the ambulance ) , had also denied that the police officers had used any force against the applicant . The report went on to state :","\u201c when ( the police officers ) arrived at ( the applicant \u2019s ) house , they were warned by the ( applicant \u2019s ) husband to be cautious because LOC had a knife with which she might assault them . For that reason , he proposed going into the house first to tell ( the applicant ) that she was going to be taken to GPE for medical treatment . After TIME , ( the applicant \u2019s husband ) went out and called ( the police officers ) into the house . The police officers went in and told LOC that they would have to transfer her by ambulance to a health institution in GPE . In response to that , LOC said to ( her husband ) : do I deserve this from you , being taken for medical treatment ; I do not belong there , you should go there because you are drunk DATE and you constantly abuse and hit me and the children ; I \u2019m covered in bruises because of you ...","Throughout the journey , ( the applicant ) used offensive language against the police officers and the nurse , she [ the applicant ] was very aggressive and angry , and she was screaming loudly and trying to hurt herself by hitting her head against the window of the ambulance . The police officers and the nurse had been forced during the entire transfer to hold her hands in order to prevent her from hurting herself or some of them \u201d .","On DATE the PERSON Palanka public prosecutor \u2019s office , referring to the ORG \u2019s \u201c special report \u201d and the discharge notice from PERSON hospital , rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint against the accused ( the decision noted that the nurse PERSON had died in the meantime ) , finding that the alleged offences were not subject to ORG prosecution . On DATE the applicant , in the capacity of a subsidiary prosecutor , took over the prosecution and brought private charges before ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) on the same charges as above ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the trial court heard Dr PERSON , ORG GPE , the applicant , who was not legally represented , and her husband . According to the transcript of the court hearing , PERSON statement was consistent with the statements he had made to the police ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The relevant parts of ORG \u2019s statement , as described in the court record , read as follows :","\u201c ( the applicant \u2019s husband ) arrived at the police station and said in front of colleagues and himself ( ORG ) that he had been afraid that something could happen to his children or ( to the applicant ) , because , when she had gone to PERSON she had taken a knife and a telephone wire ; they went by ambulance to GPE ... [ when they went into the house ] ( the applicant ) became upset and grabbed one of the minor children in her arms ; ( the applicant \u2019s ) husband took the child away , and because she did not want to get into the vehicle he ( ORG ) took her arms and her husband took her legs and they put her in the ambulance . \u201d","I.A. confirmed ORG \u2019s statement , and stated that she had held the applicant down with her hands to prevent her from standing up . Both ORG and GPE denied that they had used force or handcuffs against the applicant . They also stated that a tranquilliser had been administered to the applicant before they had left for GPE .","The applicant objected to the GPE statements . She further denied that her husband had helped the police officers to take her to the ambulance ; on the other hand , she reiterated that the police officers had grabbed her and put her into the ambulance ; that she had been handcuffed , and that ORG had hit her with a truncheon ; that GPE had sat on her legs during the transfer ; that GPE had held her mouth closed to stop her talking , and had hit and punched her .","The applicant \u2019s husband confirmed that he had requested that Dr PERSON give an instruction for the applicant to have treatment . When the applicant had refused to get into the ambulance the police officers had grabbed her by the arms and dragged her towards the ambulance . In order not to hurt her , he had grabbed the applicant by the legs and put her in the vehicle . ORG had handcuffed the applicant . The applicant \u2019s husband denied saying that the applicant had a knife and a wire .","On DATE the trial court delivered a judgment acquitting PERSON , ORG and GPE for lack of evidence . It also discontinued the proceedings against V.S. The trial court established that :","\u201c The accused doctor PERSON ... acted conscientiously and in accordance with his duty , and at the request of [ the applicant \u2019s ] husband who had informed him about [ the applicant \u2019s ] condition , he provided appropriate treatment ; he drew up a report and instructed that she be transferred with police assistance to GPE psychiatric clinic . [ The applicant ] was not examined by a specialist ( \u043d\u0435 \u0438 \u0431\u0438\u043b \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u0435\u043d \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043a\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0433\u043b\u0435\u0434 ) because she was brought [ to the hospital ] outside TIME ( and ) [ Dr PERSON ] was far away from the office ; after [ V.S. ] had told him by telephone about [ the applicant \u2019s ] condition , he instructed that a tranquilliser injection be given and that [ the applicant ] be transported to GPE . The accused ORG and GPE , police officers in PERSON Palanka police station called to provide assistance during [ the applicant \u2019s ] transfer by ambulance to GPE psychiatric clinic , acted professionally and in accordance with the law and their powers ; they did not use any physical force against the applicant and they did not inflict any injuries on her .","The court established the above on the basis of evidence admitted at the trial , namely : oral evidence from the accused , who did not admit the alleged criminal offences , as well as the material evidence from the case file ... of the PERSON Palanka prosecutor \u2019s office which ... [ on the basis of the ORG \u2019s special report ] rejected [ the applicant \u2019s ] criminal complaint ...","All these items of evidence are clear , undisputable , categorical , and inter - related ; there is no reason for the court to question their reliability ... relying on [ this evidence ] the court delivers judgment , finding that [ the evidence ] does not prove that the accused committed the criminal offences with which they are charged .","The court examined [ the applicant \u2019s ] statement that ... the police officers had dragged her into the ambulance ; that she had been handcuffed , and that ORG had hit her with a truncheon ... that during the transfer she had been restrained with handcuffs ; that police officer GPE had been sitting on her legs and had closed her mouth to stop her talking ; and ( that GPE ) had hit and punched her ...","The court examined the statement of [ the applicant \u2019s husband ] that ... the police officers had grabbed [ the applicant ] by the arms and dragged her towards the ambulance , and in order not to hurt her , because she had recently had surgery , he had taken her legs and helped to put her in the ambulance ; that police officer ORG had put her head between her legs and had handcuffed her ...","The court examined evidence submitted with the criminal complaints ( medical reports described in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) , and photographs , but they did not contain anything that could lead to a different assessment of the facts from that established [ by the court ] . ( This evidence ) is medical evidence , on the basis of which the court established that there had been an instruction for the applicant to be treated at GPE psychiatric clinic , and a medical certificate had been issued for the visible injuries that she had ; that on DATE she had been admitted to ( PERSON ) hospital ; that ( at that time ) she had been depressed and had a depressive and paranoid attitude towards her husband ; that [ she ] had several haematomas of recent date ... CARDINAL photographs showed bruises and scratches on her legs and body .","It is undisputed that owing to [ the applicant \u2019s ] condition she needed to be transferred for treatment with assistance from the police ; this was also what her husband had asked for . She was admitted to an appropriate institution for treatment and was then discharged at the request of her husband ; the injuries described in the medical certificate and visible in the photographs \u2013 a haematoma and scratches , which were noted in the discharge notice upon [ the applicant \u2019s ] admission , were of DATE . However , this evidence can not lead to a conclusion that [ the injuries ] were inflicted during the transfer , namely on DATE when [ the applicant ] was transferred by ambulance with assistance from the police . \u201d","The applicant appealed against the judgment and reiterated her argument that she had been ill - treated , and complained that Dr PERSON and ORG had given false statements ; that the trial court \u2019s judgment had been delivered after the trial court had held CARDINAL hearing ; and that her husband had not given oral evidence before the trial court .","On DATE ORG upheld the facts established and the reasoning given by the trial court . The court reiterated that on the basis of a request by the applicant \u2019s husband and in view of the applicant \u2019s state of health PERSON had correctly ordered urgent medical treatment with police assistance . The fact that the applicant had been hospitalised in PERSON hospital instead of in GPE psychiatric clinic , as instructed by PERSON , was irrelevant , as the medical care she had received was appropriate . The court confirmed that the police officers had acted in accordance with the law and their duties as police officers .","On DATE the public prosecutor informed the applicant that there were no grounds for lodging a request for review of the legality of the judgments .","According to the applicant , she has never suffered from any mental disorder , nor was she receiving any medical treatment in that respect ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147623","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GOUGH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant adheres to a firmly held belief in the inoffensiveness of the human body . This has in turn given rise to a belief in social nudity , which he expresses by being naked in public . In DATE he decided to walk naked from ORG End in GPE to PERSON in GPE , earning the nickname \u201c the naked rambler \u201d .","The following chronology is a summary of the details provided by the parties pertaining to the applicant \u2019s arrests , prosecutions , convictions and sentences of imprisonment since DATE . All arrests listed were the result of nudity in public unless otherwise indicated .","The applicant began his trek at ORG End in DATE .","He was arrested in GPE on CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE on charges of breach of the peace ( see paragraphs DATE below ) and public indecency for being naked in public . No further action was taken in respect of the first CARDINAL offences . He was released on bail in respect of the others but no further action was ultimately taken .","On DATE he was arrested and detained for breach of the peace . He was released on bail on DATE after agreeing to remain clothed . However , he was rearrested on DATE on a charge of breach of the peace committed while on bail for being naked in public . On DATE he was convicted at ORG in respect of DATE offence and admonished . He was then released . He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons .","Meanwhile , on DATE following his release , he was arrested and charged with breach of the peace committed while on bail . He was remanded in custody . On DATE he was convicted at ORG and sentence was deferred . On DATE a sentence of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment was imposed , backdated to the date of his arrest . He was released on DATE .","On DATE he was arrested and charged with breach of the peace committed while on bail . He was remanded in custody . Following a trial on DATE he was convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , backdated to DATE . He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons . He was released on DATE and resumed his trek .","All periods of detention were spent in GPE GPE in segregation as the applicant refused to dress .","On DATE the applicant completed his trek at PERSON and returned to his home in GPE , GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant commenced a second trek at ORG End , intending to walk to PERSON .","On DATE he was arrested in GPE and charged with breach of the peace . He was detained on remand and convicted on DATE . He was sentenced to CARDINAL ORG imprisonment . He was released on DATE .","Upon leaving the prison , the applicant was arrested and charged with breach of the peace . He was released on bail .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with breach of the peace . He was released on bail .","On DATE he was arrested and charged with breach of the peace and an offence under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of the Criminal Procedure ( GPE ) Act DATE ( breach of bail conditions \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He was detained on remand . On DATE he was convicted in ORG of a breach of bail conditions and sentenced to imprisonment for DATE , the sentence being backdated to CARDINAL DATE . He was found not guilty of breach of the peace .","He was released on DATE and immediately rearrested . He was charged with breach of the peace and a breach of bail conditions for being naked in public . On DATE he appeared at ORG naked to be tried on the charges relating to the arrest on DATE . The ORG found the applicant to be in contempt of court and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE it was decided that no further action would be taken in respect of the applicant \u2019s arrest on DATE .","On DATE the applicant appeared again for trial at ORG but refused to wear clothes . The Sheriff again found the applicant to be in contempt and deferred the matter of sentence .","On DATE the applicant was due to stand trial at ORG on the charges relating to the arrest on DATE . He refused to dress . The Sheriff found him to be in contempt of court . She adjourned the trial proceedings and deferred consideration of the matter of sentence for the contempt charge until DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s plea of not guilty to the CARDINAL outstanding breach of the peace charges was accepted . He was convicted of breaching of bail conditions and admonished . Sentence was further deferred in respect of the contempt findings and the applicant was released on bail on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested for breach of the peace . No further action was taken .","On DATE the applicant was again arrested for breach of the peace . He was released on bail .","On DATE he completed his trek at John O\u2019Groats .","On DATE he entered ORG naked to face proceedings related to the outstanding findings of contempt of court . He was arrested and charged with breach of the peace .","On DATE he appeared on those charges before the Sheriff . He was found to be in contempt of court for appearing naked in court and sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . He lodged an appeal against the sentence .","On DATE it was decided that no further action would be taken in respect of the applicant \u2019s arrest on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of breach of the peace committed while on bail in respect of his nudity on DATE . He was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , backdated to DATE . It appears that he was released on DATE and returned home to GPE .","All periods of detention except for DATE from DATE were spent in segregation in ORG and GPE because the applicant refused to wear clothes .","On DATE , during a flight from GPE to GPE to attend the appeal hearing in respect of the sentence for contempt of court , the applicant removed his clothes . Upon arrival at GPE airport , he was arrested for breach of the peace and public indecency committed while on bail . He was detained on remand . On DATE he was convicted of the charges and sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment respectively , to run concurrently backdated to DATE He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons . He was released on DATE .","On DATE , he was arrested on a charge of breach of the peace committed while on bail and detained on remand . He was convicted on DATE and a DATE prison sentence was imposed . He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons . He was released on DATE .","On DATE , he was arrested in the prison car park on a charge of breach of the peace committed while on bail . He was detained on remand . He appeared naked in court on DATE and was found to be in contempt of court . A DATE sentence was imposed . On DATE he was found guilty of breach of the peace in respect of the CARDINAL DATE charge . He was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , backdated to DATE . He was released on CARDINAL DATE .","Upon his release , he was rearrested on a charge of breach of the peace in the prison car park . He was detained on remand . On DATE he was found not guilty of a charge of breach of the peace as the Sheriff was not persuaded that he had caused any alarm or disturbance . He was subsequently released .","On DATE he was arrested on a charge of breach of the peace and detained on remand . He was convicted on CARDINAL DATE and sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , backdated to DATE . He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons . He was released on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , he was arrested on a charge of breach of the peace committed while on bail and detained on remand . He was convicted on DATE and sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment , plus DATE outstanding from his previous sentence . He lodged an appeal ; the outcome of the appeal is not known . He was released on DATE .","On DATE , he was arrested on a charge of breach of the peace and detained on remand . He was convicted on DATE and sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment , plus DATE outstanding from his previous sentence . He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons . He was released on DATE .","On DATE he was arrested and charged with breach of the peace . It appears that he was not held in custody . DATE , on DATE , he was arrested on a charge of breach of the peace and detained on remand . A decision was made to take no further action in respect of the CARDINAL DATE arrest .","On DATE , while the applicant was on remand , his appeal against sentence for contempt of court was rejected by ORG of ORG of Justiciary ( \u201c the Appeal Court \u201d ) .","On DATE he was convicted in respect of the CARDINAL DATE arrest . Sentence was deferred and the applicant remained in detention .","On DATE the applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment for contempt of court in respect of a contempt finding dating back to DATE .","On DATE the applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment in respect of each of the CARDINAL outstanding contempt of court rulings , to run concurrently .","On DATE the applicant appeared at ORG in respect of the deferred sentence for the DATE conviction . Sentence was further deferred and the applicant was released . As he emerged from court naked , he was rearrested on a breach of the peace charge and detained on remand . On DATE he was convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . He lodged an appeal which was later dismissed for unknown reasons . He was released on DATE .","On DATE , he was arrested on a charge of breach of the peace committed while on bail and detained on remand . He was convicted on DATE and sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE he was admonished in respect of the breach of the peace conviction of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant was released . He was arrested in the prison car park on a charge of breach of the peace and detained on remand . On DATE the Sheriff ruled that there was no case to answer .","The applicant was released but was immediately rearrested on a charge of breach of the peace and detained on remand . On DATE he was convicted at ORG . He was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant \u2019s detention throughout this period was spent in GPE GPE , ORG , ORG and GPE in segregation because he refused to put on clothes .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was released from GPE . He walked out of the prison naked and was arrested , after refusing to get dressed when asked to do so by CARDINAL police officers waiting QUANTITY from the prison gates , on FAC . He was charged in the following terms :","\u201c ... [ Y]ou ... did conduct yourself in a disorderly manner , did walk in a public place naked , refuse to wear any clothing when asked to do so , indicate that you had no intention of wearing any clothing when in public and did commit a breach of the peace . \u201d","He pleaded not guilty and was detained in prison on remand in segregation as he refused to dress .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s trial took place at ORG . He chose to remain naked and represented himself . He was asked by the ORG if he wished the services of a lawyer but replied that he did not . He maintained his plea of not guilty . The Sheriff indicated that he risked being found in contempt of court if he failed to put on clothes . The applicant refused to dress . The LAW allowed him to be present in court after a screen covering the lower CARDINAL of his body was hastily constructed .","The QUANTITY police officers who had arrested the applicant gave evidence . Police Officer A described FAC as a \u201c major route into GPE \u201d from the motorway . It was a \u201c busy road \u201d and at the material time there was a continuous flow of traffic along the road . He was firmly of the view that the applicant \u2019s nudity in a public place would cause alarm to anyone . During cross - examination by the applicant , Police Officer A agreed that the human body was in itself decent and was not harmful or alarming . He accepted that nothing in the applicant \u2019s behaviour at the time of his arrest , other than his nakedness , gave the police any cause for concern . Police Officer B gave evidence that she considered the fact that the applicant had no clothes on in a public place to be very strange and unusual and that she was \u201c quite shocked \u201d by it . She explained that at the time , FAC had been very busy with vehicular and pedestrian traffic . She had previously seen elderly people and children in the area , and there were schools and housing nearby . In cross - examination she also agreed that the human body in itself was not harmful , indecent or bad but maintained that although she had been forewarned that she would be likely to see a naked man in public she had still been shocked . She confirmed that no complaints had been received from members of the public .","The applicant gave evidence in his defence . When asked by the prosecution why he was wearing no clothes , he replied that he was making a stand and that \u201c we \u2019re innocent until we do something wrong \u201d . He did not believe that he was causing harm by not wearing clothes . He said that he did not wear clothes in order to provoke a reaction : although he had not always been like that , as he had grown older he had thought more about his beliefs . When asked what he hoped to achieve by making his stand , the applicant replied that he did it because he felt that it was right and that the world changed in its own way .","The ORG found the applicant guilty of breach of the peace and contempt of court . He considered that being naked in a public place and refusing to wear clothes in a public place was conduct that would be alarming and disturbing , in its context , to any reasonable person . In his stated case prepared in the context of the applicant \u2019s later appeal , the ORG explained :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... There was no dispute on the facts of the case ... I accepted that the police officers were concerned that if the appellant did not put clothes on there was a very real likelihood of him causing fear and alarm to other members of the public ... \u201d","He continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . The position of the appellant is somewhat difficult to understand . He made it clear to the QUANTITY police officers that he had no intention whatsoever of putting clothes on . He insisted on being naked in a public place . He believed that he was doing no wrong by being naked in a public place . He did not accept that he had committed an offence . \u201d","He noted that in questioning the police officers , the applicant had chosen not to differentiate between private and public places when it came to nakedness . He concluded :","\u201c CARDINAL . I was entirely satisfied that the conduct of the appellant with the aggravation of his refusal to wear clothing in a public place amounted to a breach of the peace . The criteria for a breach of the peace as discussed in the case of ORG had been met ... The evidence of the appellant did not raise a doubt in my mind . Accordingly I convicted the appellant as libelled . \u201d","At sentencing , the Sheriff had before him the applicant \u2019s previous convictions . According to the stated case , the applicant confirmed to the ORG that all previous convictions were for breach of the peace . The Sheriff \u2019s stated case continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... He acknowledged that he had spent DATE or thereby in prison for the same offence . A pattern has emerged namely that on his release from prison when he \u2018 stepped out\u2019 of the prison gate , always naked , he was immediately arrested .","I asked the appellant what he was hoping to achieve by insisting on being naked in public . He talked about \u2018 his beliefs\u2019 . I simply could not understand what he had to say in this regard . He did not appear to be waging any campaign or making a protest . He informed me that he would rather not be in prison . If he was not in prison , he would go back to live with his mother in a village in GPE . He had previously worked as a driver of large goods vehicles ... \u201d","The Sheriff discussed sentencing options with the applicant . In his stated case he explained :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... I enquired of him if I was minded to defer sentence for whatever reason and admit him to a bail order would he then wear clothes . After some thought the appellant stated that he would not be prepared to wear clothes ... \u201d","The Sheriff \u2019s stated case concluded :","\u201c CARDINAL . Taking all these matters into account I could see no alternative to a custodial sentence . In view of the content of LAW I deemed it appropriate to impose the maximum of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment which I backdated to the date that he had been taken into custody . \u201d","A further CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , to run concurrently , was imposed for contempt of court .","The applicant sought to appeal his conviction and sentence by way of note of appeal and a draft stated case was prepared by the Sheriff in DATE .","The applicant was provided with a copy of the stated case and was asked for details of any proposed changes . By letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant proposed a number of changes .","On DATE a hearing was held to consider the proposed adjustments to the case stated . The applicant was brought from GPE to attend the hearing and blankets were provided to facilitate his attendance . He was told that if he refused to wear clothes or make use of the blankets he would not be admitted into the court . He refused to wear clothes or to make use of the blankets and was accordingly not permitted to attend the adjustment hearing . The hearing proceeded in his absence and his requested adjustments were considered by the FAC . CARDINAL adjustments were allowed and the remaining adjustments rejected .","Concerned that the stated case was biased , the applicant did not lodge it with ORG . On DATE , the expiry of the applicable time - limit for lodging , his appeal was deemed abandoned .","The applicant spent his sentence in segregation at FAC as he refused to wear clothes . On DATE he was released from prison .","DATE . Minutes after his release on DATE , the applicant was arrested and charged with breach of the peace for being naked in public . He was detained on remand .","On DATE he was convicted of breach of the peace . Sentence was deferred to CARDINAL DATE for up - to - date psychiatric and psychological assessments .","On DATE the applicant was sentenced to a term of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment plus DATE unserved from previous sentences . He lodged an appeal ; the outcome of the appeal is not known . He was kept in segregation at FAC while in prison because he refused to dress .","He was released on DATE .","Minutes after his release on DATE , the applicant was arrested and charged with breach of the peace for being naked in public . He was detained on remand .","On DATE he was found guilty of breach of the peace and contempt of court . On DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment in respect of the breach of the peace charge together with DATE unserved from previous sentences plus DATE for contempt of court , to be served consecutively . He was not kept in segregation while in prison at GPE .","He was released on DATE .","Minutes after his release on DATE at TIME , the applicant was approached by CARDINAL police officers on FAC , a public road leading from GPE to FAC . The officers suggested that he put on some clothes but he refused to do so . He was arrested him for breach of the peace and detained on remand . He appeared in court on DATE and pleaded not guilty .","DATE . The trial commenced on DATE . The applicant appeared in court naked and was warned by the Sheriff that if he refused to dress or to cover himself he might be held in contempt of court . He refused to put on clothes .","The prosecution led evidence of CARDINAL police officer witnesses at trial . Their evidence was similar to that given at the DATE trial and the applicant \u2019s cross - examination was also in similar terms and elicited similar responses ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant did not give evidence in his defence . He argued that his arrest and trial violated the Convention . He relied , inter alia , on LAW , arguing that there was no reasonable suspicion which would satisfy an objective observer that he had committed an offence ; Article CARDINAL , arguing that his arrest was arbitrary as it was based on the subjective belief that his nakedness was offensive ; Article CARDINAL , arguing that he had a strong view that there was nothing indecent about his body and that view was not being respected ; Article CARDINAL , arguing that he ought to have been given the right to express his views that nakedness was not indecent in the way that he had chosen to do ; and Article CARDINAL , arguing that he was being discriminated against because he had different views from the majority of people .","The ORG found that the applicant \u2019s conduct on DATE was severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people ; threatened serious disturbance to the community ; and presented as genuinely alarming , in its context , to any reasonable person . He therefore convicted the applicant . In his stated case prepared in the context of the later appeal proceedings , the Sheriff referred to the applicant \u2019s Convention arguments and continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . I should say that none of these arguments were developed to any extent and it was not always easy to see what [ the applicant \u2019s ] full argument was . I came to the conclusion that none of the articles suggested by the appellant had been contravened in the procedure ... \u201d","As to the conviction handed down , he explained :","\u201c CARDINAL . In my view there was no doubt about the facts in this case ... The question was whether the conduct amounted to a breach of the peace . I was of the view that the first part of the test was easily met by the conduct . The appellant was walking along a public street in full view of anyone passing and he was completely naked with his private parts entirely on show . Such conduct would be severe enough to cause alarm to ordinary people especially when it was being carried out in an ordinary public street . It might be different if he had been naked somewhere in private , even in a public place which was remote or where fewer people would be congregated , but in or near one of the main streets of a busy town his appearance in that state would be alarming .","The question which was more troubling was whether the second part of the test was met . Would the conduct cause serious disturbance to the community ? I came to the conclusion that the context in which the conduct was taking place \u2013 being naked in a brazen fashion in the public street with no attempt to cover himself and no obvious explanation or reason for the conduct \u2013 would cause serious disturbance to the community because of the reaction of ordinary people to his presence in that state in that place . That would be particularly so if the community could see that children or vulnerable old people might be present . I considered that the test was met and that the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt . I therefore found the appellant guilty . \u201d","The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of DATE for the breach of the peace and DATE for the contempt charge , together with DATE unspent from his previous sentence , a total of DATE . The sentences were not backdated and they were to run consecutively . The total length of the sentence was therefore DATE , DATE .","The applicant sought to appeal his conviction by way of note of appeal and a draft stated case was prepared by the Sheriff .","Adjustments to the stated case were proposed by both parties and a hearing was held . The applicant was not permitted to attend the hearing since he refused to wear clothes .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal by way of case stated , relying on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s application for leave to appeal was considered by the first sift judge . Leave was refused for the following reasons :","\u201c The appeal is not arguable . The ORG has carefully explained the reasons for arriving at his decision . There was no infringement of the appellant \u2019s rights in terms of ORG . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was refused leave on the second sift . The judges found that for the reasons given by the first sift judge the appeal was not arguable .","The applicant was not kept in segregation while serving his sentence at ORG . He was released on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with breach of the peace . He was not held in custody . On DATE a decision was made to take no further action .","Meanwhile , on DATE he was arrested on the outskirts of ORG and charged with breach of the peace . He was detained on remand and appeared at ORG in DATE . He was convicted of breach of the peace and detained at GPE and GPE GPE . He was kept in segregation during his detention .","He was released on DATE and headed south towards his home in GPE .","In DATE the applicant discovered a lump on his right testicle . He was examined in his cell but was required to wear clothes for external appointments . He refused to dress and subsequently made prison complaints about alleged inadequate medical treatment . When they were unsuccessful , he referred the complaints to ORG but on DATE he was informed that they were not upheld . The applicant then contacted ORG ( \u201c the Ombudsman \u201d ) . However , he was advised that his complaint was not one which the ORG could pursue . On DATE he was told that the lump had gone .","On DATE the applicant made a prison complaint that he was not allowed visits . He was told in reply that he was permitted visits provided that he was appropriately dressed . He referred the complaint to ORG ( \u201c ICC \u201d ) on DATE . He was advised on DATE that the ORG had fully endorsed the suggestion that visits be accommodated in the segregation unit . He was told to discuss this with the relevant staff and book a visit . No visits took place .","On DATE the applicant contacted the ORG with a complaint that ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) was unreasonably refusing to enable him to receive visits . By letter dated DATE he was informed that the ORG had not upheld the complaint because according to information from the ORG , he had been asked to cover his genitalia when walking from FAC , where he was detained , to the segregation unit . He had refused to do so .","On DATE the applicant made a prison complaint about refusal of dental and general medical treatment over DATE while he was in detention . By reply dated DATE he was advised that the full range of clinical services were available to prisoners and that he was required to comply with the dress code to attend appointments . He referred the complaint to ORG , who did not uphold his complaint .","As noted above , the applicant spent much of his detention in segregation . Even when not in segregation , his ability to participate in activities and to associate with other prisoners was generally limited as long as he remained naked . He was not permitted to access the gym , for health and safety reasons . However , efforts were made to give him access to books and to explore further work or hobbies that could be conducted in his cell . Throughout his time in segregation , the applicant was reviewed regularly by health care professionals .","On DATE the applicant complained to the prison authorities that he was not allowed to associate with other prisoners or to exercise . By reply dated DATE he was told that he was not being denied association or exercise but had excluded himself from these activities by refusing to wear clothes . The applicant referred the complaint to the GPE on DATE but the ORG decided that the current arrangements were satisfactory . It noted that if the applicant were to wear clothes , he would be permitted to associate with other prisoners . However , his choice to remain naked gave rise to serious concerns that he might be the victim of violence or unwarranted comments , and the prison had an obligation to ensure his safety .","In DATE the applicant complained to the ORG that the ORG had given an unreasonable explanation for denying him access to association and exercise . By reply dated DATE the Ombudsman informed him that his complaint had not been upheld because prison staff had confirmed that if he wore clothes , he would be able to associate with other prisoners and exercise .","The applicant contacted ORG of GPE seeking details of solicitors in GPE experienced in judicial review . He received a list containing the names of CARDINAL firms , which he duly contacted . None were willing to represent him . However , a further CARDINAL firms were recommended to him . He contacted them and was informed that none were willing to represent him .","He then contacted ORG to request information regarding exemption from court fees , with a view to commencing judicial review proceedings without legal assistance . He was advised that as he was a prisoner and not in receipt of any ORG benefits , he was not eligible for exemption from court fees ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1","8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184674","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF PYLAYEVY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the GPE region . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE the first applicant \u2019s employer , the prosecutor \u2019s office of LOC , provided him with a flat and concluded a tenancy agreement with him . The second applicant was included in the agreement as a member of the first applicant \u2019s family .","In DATE the second applicant was classified as having a firstdegree disability .","On DATE the first applicant retired from the prosecutor \u2019s office . On DATE he applied to ORG with a request for the transfer of the title to the flat in question to him .","On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against the first applicant in respect of a suspected criminal offence . On DATE he was arrested and on DATE he was detained pending investigation . On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant was released and placed under house arrest .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s request for the transfer of the title to flat in question to him was refused .","On DATE the first applicant received notice to vacate the flat by DATE .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s brother received notice to vacate the flat ( the notice was addressed by the prosecutor \u2019s office to the second applicant ) .","NORP In DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office brought eviction claims against the applicants on the grounds that the first applicant no longer worked for the prosecutor \u2019s office and that therefore , he and his family had to vacate the flat .","The first applicant contested those claims . He submitted that it would be unlawful to evict him and his mother because he , as a retired prosecutor , had a right to acquire ownership of the flat in question . He and his mother had no other housing . In addition , his mother was a retired person and had a first - degree disability .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) dismissed the eviction claims . The prosecutor \u2019s office appealed against that judgment to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and delivered a new decision ordering the applicants\u2019 eviction , with no alternative accommodation being provided . The first applicant was represented by a lawyer , PERSON second applicant was not present and was not represented in those proceedings . In particular , ORG found that the first applicant and his mother had been provided with a flat for the period of the first applicant \u2019s service in the prosecutor \u2019s office . Under domestic law and the terms of the agreement , the tenants had had to vacate the housing after the termination of the agreement and in the event of their refusal they had had to be evicted with no alternative accommodation being provided . As at the date of the examination of the eviction claims the first applicant had not applied to ORG for title to the flat in question to be transferred to him ; therefore , the ORG conclusion as to the absence of any obstacles to the transfer of ownership of the flat in question to the first applicant was in conflict with the circumstances established in the case . As at the date of the examination of the prosecutor \u2019s appeal the question regarding the transfer of ownership of the flat in question to the first applicant had not been decided .","The first applicant lodged a cassation appeal against that decision with the presidium of ORG . He complained that the hearing of DATE had been held in his absence and that as a result he had been evicted from the only accommodation he had had .","On DATE a judge of ORG refused to refer the first applicant \u2019s appeal to ORG of ORG for examination on the merits . The first applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG of GPE .","On DATE the second applicant was evicted from the flat .","On DATE a judge of ORG refused to refer the first applicant \u2019s cassation appeal to ORG of ORG for examination .","In DATE the first applicant \u2019s brother ( Mr PERSON ) initiated court proceedings for the second applicant to be deprived of legal capacity and for him to be appointed as her guardian .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG declared that the second applicant lacked legal capacity because she was suffering from illness . In particular , the ORG based its decision on an expert report dated DATE which had established that she had been suffering from a mental handicap since DATE and as a result had not been able to understand or control her actions . That judgment entered into force on DATE .","On DATE the local public health department appointed the first applicant \u2019s brother as her guardian ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178500","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SPAHI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - General measures);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["By CARDINAL judgments of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) of CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , which became final on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG ( Srednjobosanski kanton , \u201c the ORG \u201d ; CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cantons of ORG ) was ordered to pay the applicants various sums in respect of unpaid work - related benefits together with default interest at the statutory rate and legal costs .","The writs of execution issued by ORG on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , respectively , were transferred to the competent bank and were listed among the charges on the debtor \u2019s account . On several occasions thereafter the bank informed ORG that the enforcement was not possible because the budgetary funds intended for that purpose had already been spent .","On DATE and DATE ORG of the CB Canton ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) informed the bank that no funds for the enforcement of final judgments had been provided in the cantonal budget for DATE and that , accordingly , the final judgments against the canton could not be enforced .","NORP However , on DATE , upon the applicants\u2019 enquiry , the ORG informed them that in DATE the canton had designated MONEY ( BAM ) for the enforcement of judgments and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE for the same purpose .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement to ORG the LAW \u201d ) . On DATE ( decision no . AP CARDINAL ) and DATE ( decision no . ORG CARDINAL ) , ORG found a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW in the applicants\u2019 and CARDINAL other cases , on account of the prolonged non - enforcement of the final judgments in their favour . It ordered the government of the CB GPE to take the necessary steps in order to secure the payment of the cantonal debt arising from the final judgments within a reasonable time . Although some of the applicants submitted a claim for non - pecuniary damages , ORG did not award any compensation .","The relevant part of the decision of CARDINAL DATE reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... The court notes that the judgments [ in favour of the appellants ] have not been enforced due to the lack of funds on the debtor \u2019s bank account .","...","ORG reiterates that under LAW and LAW all levels of government must secure respect for individual human rights , including the right to enforcement of final judgments under LAW and the right to property under LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention ... The scope of that obligation is not reduced in the present case , notwithstanding the large number of judgments ... [ T]he ORG notes that in NORP v. ORG , and again in \u010coli\u0107 and Others v. ORG , ORG reiterated that \u2018 it is not open to a ORG authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt . Admittedly , a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances , but the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under LAW ...","ORG agrees with the position taken by ORG ... it is nevertheless aware of the effects the global economic crisis had on GPE ... The court notes that the federal and the cantonal governments had taken certain steps with the view to enforcement of final court decisions . LAW DATE provides that the final judgments against the GPE and the cantons shall be enforced within the amount of budgetary funds designated for that purpose ... and that the creditors shall enforce their claims in the order in which they acquired the enforcement titles ...","...","The court finds that the crux of the problem in the present case is that the CB Canton did not identify the exact number of unenforced judgments and the aggregate debt ... without which it is impossible to know when all the creditors will realise their claims against this canton . Furthemore , there should exist a centralised and transparent database of all the claims listed in chronological order according to the time the judgments became final . It should include the enforcement time - frame and a list of partial payments , if any . This will also help to avoid abuses of the enforcement procedure . These measure and adequate funds in the DATE budget would ensure that all the final judgments are enforced within a reasonable time ... and the ORG would ensure the respect of its obligations from LAW and LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .","...","The court considers that the adoption of section CARDINAL of LAW DATE had a legitimate aim , because the enforcement of a large number of judgments at the same time would jeopardise the normal functioning of the cantons . However , the limitation of the enforcement in the present case is contrary to the principle of proportionality enshrined in LAW No . CARDINAL which requires that a fair balance is struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual \u2019s fundamental rights ... Section CARDINAL places a disproportionate burden on the appellants ... they are placed in a situation of absolute uncertainty as regards the enforcement of their claims ...","...","In order to comply with its positive obligation , the government of the CB GPE must , as explained above , calculate the total amount of the aggregate debt arising from the final judgments and prepare a comprehensive and transparent database ... This court will not specify what a reasonable time - limit should be ... but , in any event , it must be in accordance with LAW and LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .","...","... The current situation does not give any guarantees to the appellants that their claims against the ORG will be enforced within a reasonable time \u201d .","The Constitutional Court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE follows the same legal reasoning .","On DATE Mr PERSON and PERSON concluded out - of - court settlements with the government of the ORG pursuant to which part of their principal claims were to be paid within DATE following the settlement . They renounced the remaining principal claim and default interest . The legal costs were to be settled by a separate agreement . From the information available in the case it transpires that no such agreement has been concluded .","As regards the rest of the applicants , the final judgments in their favour have not yet been enforced ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168703","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KARAPETYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON ( the first applicant ) , PERSON Ayvazyan ( the second applicant ) , Mr PERSON ( the third applicant ) and PERSON ( the fourth applicant ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","At the material time , the applicants occupied different posts within ORG , namely Head of ORG , ORG and ORG , Counsel of ORG and Head of GPE and GPE Division of ORG respectively .","On DATE a presidential election was held in GPE . The main contenders were the then Prime Minister , PERSON , and the opposition candidate , PERSON . Immediately after the election , PERSON announced that the election had been rigged . From DATE nationwide protests , such as demonstrations and sit - ins , were organised by CARDINAL of PERSON supporters .","On DATE several ambassadors for GPE in foreign countries made the following statement :","\u201c We , the undersigned , remaining faithful to our calling as NORP diplomats and led by our feeling of responsibility before GPE and the NORP people , with concern for the situation which has arisen in GPE , with profound respect for the right of NORP citizens to free elections , with the conviction that only a president elected as a result of free and fair elections can best tackle the challenges facing our country on the international level and substantially raise the international image of GPE , express our support to our compatriots who have risen to struggle for freedom , protection of the right to a fair election and establishment of true democracy in GPE .","Considering the preservation of stability in the country important and public accord necessary , we appeal to our compatriots and especially the representatives of all the structures in the country responsible for maintaining public order and peace to avoid the temptation of resolving problems by use of force .","We appeal to all television companies in GPE , and especially to ORG , to ensure impartial and comprehensive coverage and to provide live airtime to representatives of all the powers who have a constructive position in overcoming the current inner - political crisis .","We appeal to all our colleagues working both in GPE or abroad to join our statement . \u201d","This statement was reported by the mass media on DATE . According to the first applicant , he also received the statement via his electronic mail . According to the Government , the ambassadors who issued this statement were dismissed from their posts the following day and their dismissal was widely reported in the media .","On DATE the applicants made the following statement :","\u201c By joining the statement issued by our colleagues from ORG we express our concern with the situation created in GPE , fraught with internal and external undesirable challenges , and outrage against the fraud of the election process , which shadow the will of our country and society to conduct a civilised , fair and free presidential election .","As citizens of GPE , we demand that urgent steps be undertaken to call into life the recommendations contained in the reports of the international observation mission , as well as other prominent international organisations .","Only by acting in conformity with the letter and spirit of the law can we create democracy and tolerance in GPE and earn the country a good reputation abroad . \u201d","The names of the applicants , with the indication of their office , appeared under the statement . It appears that this statement was reported by several mass media outlets , including ORG , on DATE .","On DATE the Minister for Foreign Affairs of GPE adopted decrees dismissing the first , second and third applicants from office . The fourth applicant was dismissed from office by a similar decree on DATE . As a ground for the dismissals , the decrees referred to sections DATE , subsection CARDINAL , point ( j ) and CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , point ( c ) , of LAW ( \u0540\u0540 \u0585\u0580\u0565\u0576\u0584\u0568 ORG \u056e\u0561\u057c\u0561\u0575\u0578\u0582\u0569\u0575\u0561\u0576 \u0574\u0561\u057d\u056b\u0576 GPE , containing description which stated , inter alia , that a diplomat had no right to use his official capacity and work facilities for the benefit of parties and non - governmental organisations , or in order to carry out other political or religious activity ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicants instituted administrative proceedings challenging their dismissal and seeking to be reinstated in their work . In particular , they claimed that the decrees on their dismissal contained no reasons regarding the particular instance where they had made use of their official capacity and work facilities for the benefit of parties or non - governmental organisations or for engaging in political or religious activities , as prohibited by the sections of LAW . They also claimed that dismissal on the ground of convictions and opinions was prohibited by law .","On DATE ORG , as a respondent , lodged a response with ORG ( \u0540\u0540 \u057e\u0561\u0580\u0579\u0561\u056f\u0561\u0576 \u0564\u0561\u057f\u0561\u0580\u0561\u0576 ) , claiming that the applicants , by making their statement of CARDINAL DATE which had then been reported by the mass media and announced during the demonstration , had engaged in political activities . Furthermore , the applicants had made use of their official capacity since they indicated their official titles in the statement .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 claim , finding that their dismissal from work was lawful since the applicants , by making the impugned statement , in essence had engaged in political activity . In this respect , ORG mentioned that the impugned statement concerned political processes as it contained a political assessment of election and post - election events . Furthermore , that statement , as well as that of the ambassadors , had been read aloud during the demonstration organised by a political force and had received a political assessment . ORG also found that the applicants , by indicating their post titles , had made use of their official capacity . The applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression , as protected by LAW ) , was not breached since the applicants , in exercising that right , had made use of their official status and work facilities . Therefore , the restriction on that right was in compliance with LAW . Besides , the applicants had not been dismissed on the ground of their political opinion , but because in disseminating that opinion they had made use of their official status , which was prohibited by law .","On an unspecified date , the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of ORG , claiming , inter alia , a violation of their right to freedom of expression , as protected by LAW . Besides , they claimed that they had been discriminated against on grounds of political opinion , in violation of LAW , since those diplomats or state officials who had expressed publicly their support for the pro - governmental candidate had never faced any sanctions : the true reason for their dismissal was their critical opinion of government actions in the sphere of human rights and democratisation . They also claimed that their dismissal had been based on an erroneous interpretation of sections CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , point ( j ) and CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , point ( c ) , of LAW since they had not made use of their official capacity or work facilities when making the impugned statement . Furthermore , the statement had not been made for the benefit of any political party and it could not be qualified as political activity as such .","On DATE ORG ( \u0540\u0540 \u057e\u0573\u057c\u0561\u0562\u0565\u056f \u0564\u0561\u057f\u0561\u0580\u0561\u0576 ) decided to declare the applicants\u2019 appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145789","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF A.A. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Somalia)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","They entered GPE on DATE , when they were respectively CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE , and applied for asylum and residence permits DATE .","The first and second applicants were heard by ORG ( Migrationsverket ) on CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . A language test was carried out by an analyst , who had been born and raised in GPE and came to GPE in DATE . After the initial interview , legal counsel was appointed to represent the applicants .","The first applicant submitted , among other things , that they were members of the ORG clan and that the family had lived together in a village called Hosingo in southern GPE since DATE . The first applicant had a university degree from GPE . On DATE , he explained to ORG that he had not visited GPE since DATE . On DATE he was confronted with the fact that his passport had been stamped on CARDINAL occations , in DATE and DATE in GPE , situated northwest of GPE , whereupon he explained that he had travelled via GPE to GPE and that those trips must have been after DATE . Once he had visited his brother \u2019s daughter in GPE . He did not recall the other visit . There were also stamps in his passport up to DATE from PERSON , PERSON and GPE , in GPE , but the first applicant maintained that he and his family had remained in GPE throughout that period .","PERSON took over GPE when the NORP army withdrew in DATE . On DATE , the first applicant explained to ORG that he had participated in a demonstration to protest against PERSON taking over their village , and that therefore he was on their list of persons to kill . On DATE he explained that the elders of the village decided that they would try to negotiate with ORG . The negotiation ended in disagreement and the spiritual leader of the village was killed immediately after the meeting by CARDINAL masked men . The first applicant was listed as a person to be killed and shortly thereafter CARDINAL armed and masked men came to his house and asked for him . On CARDINAL DATE he explained that the leader of the village had been killed DATE after the meeting with ORG . The applicants would not be able to move elsewhere in GPE since their clan was not domiciled anywhere else in the country and PERSON was present everywhere .","The second applicant stated initially that her mother and husband remained in DATE . Later she explained that her husband had left the village . She did not know where he was . She still had CARDINAL siblings left in GPE , plus some uncles and cousins . In DATE the family had problems with PERSON , which burned down their house . The second applicant had burn scars on her upper body from that incident . In DATE CARDINAL of the village leaders was killed and her father and husband had to flee . She was afraid of being raped by PERSON upon return .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG request for asylum . It noted at the outset that it was difficult for NORP citizens to prove their identity since there was no authority that could issue passports or other acceptable identity documents . Accordingly , the applicants\u2019 stories were decisive for determining their origin . The ORG found that the first applicant had provided detailed information about LOC village , situated in southern GPE . However , his pronunciation of some words was typical of that in northern GPE . In addition he had stamps in his passport , dated DATE , from airports in GPE . There were no entry or departure stamps from trips to or from southern GPE . Finally , he had provided contradictory statements about the crucial event in DATE , notably whether the leader was killed immediately or DATE after the negotiation with PERSON , and why he was being sought by them , and he had been vague about the situation in south and central GPE . The language analysis of the second applicant indicated that she originated from GPE . Moreover , she had not been able to give any detailed information about the village or her clan , which could be verified . In conclusion , ORG did not find it credible that the applicants had been living in GPE until their departure from GPE . It found it much more likely that the applicants\u2019 most recent home had been in northern GPE .","The applicants appealed against the decision to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , before which an oral hearing was held on CARDINAL DATE . ORG refused to hear CARDINAL witnesses on the applicants\u2019 behalf , who allegedly could have certified that they were from GPE . However , their written testimony was allowed .","By a judgment of DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . ORG did not question that the first applicant originated from LOC in southern GPE . Like ORG , however , it found that the language analysis of the first and the second applicants , and their various explanations , did not support their contention that they had had their latest domicile in southern GPE or that they should be considered refugees or otherwise in need of protection .","On DATE ORG ( Migrations\u00f6verdomstolen ) refused leave to appeal . Hence the deportation order became enforceable .","In DATE the applicants claimed that there were impediments to the enforcement of their deportation orders . On DATE ORG decided not to reconsider the case , finding that the applicants had failed to present new circumstances which could justify reconsideration of the case .","At DATE , the applicants again requested a reexamination of their cases , which was refused by ORG on DATE . The applicants appealed against this decision to ORG , which rejected the appeal on DATE .","On DATE the third applicant claimed that there were impediments to the enforcement of his deportation order . On DATE ORG decided not to reconsider the case , finding that no new circumstances justifying reconsideration had been presented .","Likewise , in DATE the first and the fourth applicants claimed that there were impediments to the enforcement of the deportation orders against them , claims which were rejected by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152888","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CHINEZ v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants , who are brothers , were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","In TIME of DATE , TIME , the applicants , together with their parents , decided to go to a police station to report that the applicant PERSON had been a victim of crime . They stopped a taxi on the street and because the taxi driver , PERSON , refused to take them , they got involved in a verbal dispute with him and CARDINAL of the applicants punched the bonnet of the car . Shortly afterwards , several taxi drivers from the same taxi company arrived at the scene . A team of QUANTITY police officers ( FAC and GPE ) who were patrolling the area also arrived at the scene of the incident . They were followed by CARDINAL additional police units .","In the presence of the police the dispute between the applicants and the taxi drivers escalated , with the applicant PERSON being hit in the face . When he tried to retaliate , the police handcuffed him and took him to their car . At the same time the applicant PERSON was hit on the head by an unknown person and lost consciousness . When he saw his brother lying on the ground , the applicant PERSON refused to get into the police car . At this point the QUANTITY police officers who had hold of him started hitting him and used their electric stun gun to force him into their car . Afterwards , PERSON was lifted off the ground , handcuffed and put into a police car . The applicant PERSON , who was watching the scene from a distance , was pushed to the ground by CARDINAL policemen , handcuffed and taken to another police car nearby .","The applicants were then taken to the police station , where PERSON and ORG were punched and kicked in the stomach and chest by the police officers who had brought them in . After TIME of waiting without being questioned and without making a statement , ORG was taken by ambulance , under police escort , to ORG , where he had treatment for DATE .","The other CARDINAL applicants were questioned separately by different police officers . On DATE , at TIME , when a lawyer hired by their father arrived , they were allowed to leave the police station .","According to the incident report drafted by the chief of the police units involved , on DATE at around TIME the team of CARDINAL police officers who were on patrol had seen a group of CARDINAL persons attacking a taxi driver . When they intervened to stop the fight and to identify the persons involved , the applicants became aggressive towards them too and punched them . The officers asked for support and additional patrol units arrived at the scene . Subsequently , the decision was taken to accompany the attackers , namely the applicants , to the police station to identify them , but because they refused to go the police officers had to use force and handcuff them . The report further mentioned that the applicants had damaged a taxi belonging to Mr. PERSON , who was identified by name , age , personal identity number and address .","The report also stated :","\u201c Before the arrival of the police units , several colleagues came to protect the taxi driver and assaulted the CARDINAL [ people ] ; because of the injuries he sustained PERSON - PERSON was taken to ORG , where he was admitted to the surgical ward ...","On the occasion of the investigation at the crime scene QUANTITY eyewitnesses were identified and gave statements ... \u201d","NORP The report concluded that , in accordance with an order given by the prosecutor by telephone , an investigation was immediately launched in connection with assault on police officers by the applicants and their father .","On DATE the chief asked for forensic expert reports from ORG in connection with the injuries suffered by police officers ORG and GPE The reports issued on DATE confirm that officer ORG had a CARDINAL x QUANTITY ecchymosis and excoriation on the left lumbar region , which could have been caused on DATE by being hit with a hard object , and which required CARDINAL to CARDINAL days\u2019 medical treatment . With respect to officer GPE , the report mentioned that he had a CARDINAL x QUANTITY ecchymosis in the left occipital region , which could have been caused by being hit with a hard object on DATE and which required CARDINAL to CARDINAL days\u2019 medical treatment .","According to a forensic medical report issued on DATE , PERSON had a haematoma of CARDINAL x CARDINAL x QUANTITY in the occipital area , numerous ecchymoses on the face , arms and left leg , and CARDINAL electrical burns on the left thigh . It was considered that the injuries , which could have occurred on DATE , were caused by being hit with a hard object , and required CARDINAL to CARDINAL days\u2019 medical treatment .","According to a forensic medical report issued in DATE , PERSON had an excoriation of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the right of the forehead , a CARDINAL x QUANTITY ecchymosis outside the right eye , several ecchymoses and haematomas on the head , a QUANTITY wound on the upper lip which had been sutured , several ecchymoses of QUANTITY on the back and the lower right thorax , as well as on the right elbow . The report mentioned that he was drunk when he was brought to ORG . It was considered that the injuries , which could have been inflicted on DATE , had been caused by being hit with and against a hard object or surface , and required CARDINAL to CARDINAL days\u2019 medical treatment .","A forensic medical report issued in DATE mentioned that PERSON had a haematoma of CARDINAL x CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the right side of the head and CARDINAL ecchymoses on the right thigh . He also had limited capacity to open his mouth because of an injury to the right side of the jaw . The report concluded that the injuries could have been inflicted on DATE by being hit with and against hard surfaces and objects , and that they required CARDINAL to CARDINAL days\u2019 medical treatment .","On DATE the applicants brought criminal proceedings against the police officers who were involved in the events of DATE , for abusive behaviour , unlawful arrest and misconduct . They claimed that on DATE they had been beaten by police officers both before and after they were taken to the police station , following an incident they had been involved in with a taxi driver .","The investigation of the ORG complaint conducted by GPE , a police officer from ORG of ORG , commenced by taking statements from the applicants on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . They described the course of the events as mentioned in DATE above . The applicant PERSON stated that , while he was approaching the QUANTITY police officers who were handcuffing his brother PERSON , he was hit on the head and lost consciousness . He further mentioned that after his arrival at the police station he had not been ill - treated . The applicant PERSON stated that \u201c he was told later that [ PERSON ] had been hit by taxi drivers and policemen \u201d . The applicants mentioned that they did not know the names of the taxi drivers involved in the incident or of the police officers present at the scene . Lastly , they requested criminal sanctions against the police officers who had assaulted them both in the street and inside the police station .","On DATE , PERSON , the applicants\u2019 mother , who was present during the incident , declared that she had seen around CARDINAL or thirty taxi drivers hitting the applicants PERSON and PERSON . Then she had seen the QUANTITY police officers pushing PERSON to the ground , hitting him and handcuffing him . She then stated that when the CARDINAL police officers saw PERSON lying on the ground they ran towards him , dragged him to their car , slapped him , turned him over with his face to the ground and handcuffed him . By this time all the taxi drivers had left the scene . Once they arrived at the police station she was not allowed to enter or to contact her sons . After TIME she saw the applicant PERSON being taken away by ambulance , with his handcuffs still on and under police escort .","The investigation continued with the identification of the police officers involved in the incident . In this respect , on DATE , the operational order of DATE as well as the incident report drafted by the police chief ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were attached to the investigation file .","On DATE PERSON took statements from police officers PERSON and ORG They declared that they had been on patrol together in a police car when they saw several taxis and several individuals hitting another person . They immediately approached the scene of the incident and asked the aggressors to stop . When they refused the CARDINAL officers called for back - up , and then intervened in order to remove from the crowd CARDINAL person who was violent and had blood on his face . When they tried to immobilise this person he went up to a taxi and hit its windscreen with his fist , breaking it . They decided to handcuff him , and at that moment he kicked ORG in the chest and refused to get into the police car , pointing to his brother , who had been beaten and was lying on the ground , and asking them to call an ambulance . Then they put him into the police car with the help of CARDINAL other colleagues and drove him to their police station . They mentioned in their statement that they did not use any physical or psychological pressure on the person in question , and that they were not equipped with electric stun guns . When they arrived at the police station the person was identified as PERSON and \u201c was taken over by officer PERSON from the criminal investigations unit and other colleagues who continued the investigation \u201d .","The same day officer ORG gave a statement in which she mentioned that she was part of CARDINAL of the units called as back - up by officers ORG and ORG When she arrived at the scene she found CARDINAL person pointing out a taxi driver who had allegedly just beaten his brother . She got back into her car and drove in the direction indicated but could not find the taxi driver . Then she returned to the scene and , according to her statement , she \u201c identified CARDINAL eyewitnesses who could describe the incident and they accompanied her to the police station \u201d . She further declared that , once inside the police station , she did not participate in the questioning and did not physically or verbally assault any of the persons involved in the incident .","On DATE , in a note drafted by officer GPE , police officers GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG , GPE and ORG were identified as having been present during the incident under investigation \u201c together with other public order forces \u201d .","On DATE officer PERSON , who was on duty at the police station on TIME of the incident , gave a statement mentioning that he had helped his colleagues PERSON and GPE to identify the applicants and their parents , and took a statement from ORG applicant \u2019s mother .","On DATE and DATE statements were taken from officers GPE and D.D.M. They stated that they had not been on duty on TIME of the incident , but were called in and asked to come to the police station . When they arrived they were informed about the incident and asked to help their colleagues . PERSON declared that he had heard statements from CARDINAL eyewitnesses . D.D.M. declared that he had questioned PERSON . Both officers declared that they had not assaulted any of the participants in the incident .","On DATE investigating officer GPE took a statement from officer GPE , who had also been called in from home to the police station in TIME of DATE . He stated that \u201c at the station there were a number of people , including taxi drivers , witnesses and members of the PERSON family \u201d . He then proceeded to question PERSON . He continued by stating that he was aware that the applicants were being investigated for charges of assault against police officers . Lastly , he concluded that DATE he was the community police officer in charge of the area in which the applicants lived . He stated in this respect that the applicants were disruptive individuals who had been sanctioned on numerous occasions for disturbing public order , and that in his opinion their complaint was \u201c biased and based on untruths \u201d .","The statements allegedly taken from the applicants and eyewitnesses immediately after the incident inside the police station were not included in the investigation file .","On DATE the ORG of ORG decided to relinquish jurisdiction to ORG of ORG . On DATE it was decided that ORG of ORG was competent to examine the case after all , and the file was sent back to them .","On DATE officers GPE , GPE and D.D.M. were heard again , this time before the prosecutor . In addition to his initial statement given in DATE , officer PERSON pointed out that , once inside the police station and while he was handcuffed , the applicant PERSON had banged his own head against the wall and the floor several times .","On DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the criminal complaint lodged by the applicants against some of the police officers who had taken part in the incident of DATE , in particular those officers who had questioned the applicants after they were taken to the police station , on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed by them . It held that following the incident the applicants had been restrained by police officers and taken to the police station for identification and questioning , because a car had been destroyed during the incident and police officers had been assaulted . It was further held that when they reached the police station it was already apparent from physical evidence that the applicants had been involved in a violent incident . There was therefore no evidence in the criminal investigation file to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the police officers who questioned the applicants at the police station , in particular GPE , GPE and D.D.M. , had acted violently against the applicants . Moreover , it was held that one of the applicants , namely PERSON , had inflicted injuries on himself . The prosecutor finally decided that the criminal investigation in respect of the remaining police officers , not identified by name , should be continued by ORG of ORG .","The applicants complained against this decision , arguing , inter alia , that no statements had ever been taken from any of the taxi drivers involved in the incident . They also argued that they had been hit by the taxi drivers in the presence of the police officers , who had done nothing to protect them . On the contrary , the police officers had also brutally attacked them , immobilising them in the street and then beating them up once they were inside the police station . They further alleged that CARDINAL witnesses , namely FAC and the applicants\u2019 legal representative , had seen the injuries suffered by them but were never called to testify .","On DATE the ORG complaint was rejected as ill - founded by ORG of ORG .","The applicants appealed against the ORG decisions before the ORG , reiterating their previous arguments ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Their appeal was rejected with final effect on CARDINAL DATE . In reaching this decision ORG firstly considered that sufficient investigative action had been taken , such as taking statements from the applicants and the police officers present in the police station , and , because the alleged ill - treatment took place in a police station , no other evidence was available that could verify the ORG complaint with respect to police officers GPE , GPE and GPE The court further held that it could not decide with respect to the incident which took place in the street and which involved the taxi drivers , because it was the object of an ongoing investigation conducted by ORG of ORG .","The criminal investigation with respect to the rest of the police officers and concerning the incident which took place in the street is still pending before ORG of ORG .","The criminal investigation against the applicants for assaulting police officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) has also not been completed to date ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160425","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MITROVA AND SAVIK v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON , in the former GPE .","On DATE the first applicant married Mr PERSON ( \u201c the father \u201d ) . On DATE she gave birth to their daughter , the second applicant .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the first - instance court \u201d ) dissolved the marriage and gave the first applicant custody of the second applicant .","On DATE , on an application by the father , ORG ( \u201c FAC ) made an order specifying that he could see the second applicant at the first applicant \u2019s house DATE for TIME . The order was made after the ORG had examined the situation in both families and had discussed the matter with the parents . PERSON order was served on the first applicant on DATE .","The first applicant \u2019s refusal to allow the father to have contact with the second applicant at CARDINAL scheduled meetings DATE led to her being convicted pursuant to LAW ( judgment K.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) . The court , noting the child \u2019s young age , dismissed the first applicant \u2019s defence ( that she had not been consulted and notified about the ORG \u2019s order of CARDINAL DATE ; that the child had not been developing properly at the time ; and that the father had not shown any interest for the child ) and sentenced her to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE . In determining the penalty , the court referred to gravity of the crime and the manner in which it had been committed , as aggravating circumstances , as well as to the first applicant \u2019s age , her admitting to the crime , the fact that she had no previous criminal record , her good behaviour and her family situation , as mitigating factors . According to the court , the suspended prison term would deter her from reoffending and help crime prevention as a whole . The judgment was upheld on appeal on DATE .","A further refusal by the first applicant to comply with the ORG \u2019s order of CARDINAL DATE by not allowing the father to have contact with the second applicant DATE resulted in her being convicted a second time and being given a further suspended prison sentence ( DATE , suspended for DATE , judgment K.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , upheld on appeal on DATE ) . The first applicant was also ordered to allow the father to see the child within DATE after the judgment would become final . In case of non - compliance , the court specified that the suspension would be revoked and the sentence would be enforced . The court dismissed the first applicant \u2019s defence that the father had failed to observe the scheduled meeting times , that he had turned up instead under the influence of alcohol and drugs and that he had harassed her , her parents and the child . In determining the penalty , the court referred , inter alia , to the first applicant \u2019s age and her standard of living , as mitigating factors . Both judgments ( K.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and K.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) were delivered after the court had heard oral evidence from the first applicant , the father and a representative of FAC . They were given by Judge PERSON of ORG .","NORP In the meantime , on DATE , the ORG set a new venue and time for the meetings between the father and the second applicant . It was decided to increase the time to TIME every Friday and for the meetings to take place at FAC rather than in the first applicant \u2019s house . According to the order , the father \u2019s right to have contact with the second applicant , as specified in the order of CARDINAL DATE , had been considerably affected by the strained relationship between him and the first applicant . The new arrangement required the first applicant to take the second applicant to FAC at a specified time DATE . The ORG stated , inter alia , that :","\u201c ... According to the established methodology of work , all efforts have been made for communication to be established between both parents , between the competent body and [ the first applicant ] and the parents have been alerted to all legal consequences should they fail to enforce their statutory duties as parents that can violate the rights of the minor child .","After actions have been taken and facts have been established ... on a meeting held on DATE the expert team found that no communication could yet be established with [ the first applicant ] and the parents could not agree on [ the second applicant \u2019s ] right to have regular contacts and meetings with the non - cohabitant parent . Such an attitude infringes the right of the minor S. Therefore , given [ the second applicant \u2019s ] age , the need for an emotional bond to be created between the minor child and the non - cohabitant parent , the need to protect her rights , as well ( the need ) to eliminate any possibility for manipulation that would prevent the expert team to supervise the enforcement of the contact arrangements between the minor child and the father , ( FAC ) decided the father \u2019s visiting rights in respect of the minor S.S ... \u201d .","The first applicant failed to appear at CARDINAL scheduled meetings in DATE . On CARDINAL occasions in DATE , the father did not see his daughter because she was ill .","On DATE , after the ORG had obtained the views of the first applicant and the father and had examined the file , it partially accepted the father \u2019s request for longer and more frequent meetings and issued an order ( no . DATE ) , specifying that his meetings with the second applicant were to take place in FAC DATE from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. The order further stated that :","\u201c ... The expert team ( notes that ) the minor PERSON is still breast - fed , but ( since ) it is necessary to further strengthen the [ child \u2019s ] emotional bond with the non - cohabitant parent and to protect the right of [ the second applicant ] to have contact with the father , it considers that the visiting rights should remain once DATE , but longer , which would enable that ( the child ) stays TIME after she would no longer be breast - fed . \u201d","The ORG further set CARDINAL dates on which the father could meet the second applicant , to replace the meetings missed in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The first applicant was ordered to comply with the new contact arrangements or risk criminal proceedings being instituted against her and the father being given temporary custody of the second applicant .","As the first applicant failed to comply in full with the order of CARDINAL DATE , on DATE the Centre allowed the order of DATE to be enforced by means of a separate order issued under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It established that the first applicant had failed to take the child to CARDINAL of the scheduled meetings , despite being warned of the possible consequences should she fail to comply . The order further stated that :","\u201c ... Such a warning did not , for unknown reasons , enable the minor S.S. to enjoy the statutory right to contact her father and the mother not only ignores the order , but also engages in unreasonable and constant correspondence to describe incomprehensible situations , and makes accusations in a confused manner about matters which are the subject of other proceedings .","In view of the above and by virtue of law , the expert team ... decided unanimously that there are statutory grounds for forceful enforcement of the executive order of CARDINAL DATE ... and for proceedings to be instituted regarding custody of the child and criminal liability of [ the first applicant ] .","In view of the above and the fact that ( the case concerns ) the forceful prevention by [ the first applicant ] of contacts between minor FAC and her father PERSON ... the expert team considers that the forceful enforcement ( of the order of DATE ) as specified in ( this decision ) is in the absolute interest of the minor [ second applicant ] ... \u201d","The first applicant was ordered to take the second applicant to FAC DATE or risk being prosecuted for child abduction under LAW . The order stated that an appeal would not suspend enforcement of the order ( \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0442\u043e \u043d\u0430 \u0436\u0430\u043b\u0431\u0430 \u043d\u0435 \u0433\u043e \u043e\u0434\u043b\u0430\u0433\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435\u0442\u043e ) . The first applicant confirmed that she had received the enforcement order of CARDINAL DATE . She appealed against that order , arguing that she had never been served with the ORG \u2019s order of CARDINAL DATE . Furthermore , she argued that the delivery that she had received by post on DATE had not contained the order of DATE . No decision on the appeal was made .","On DATE the first applicant asked the FAC to review the level of contact the father should have with the child . On DATE , the ORG made an order setting out the level of contact the father should have with the child . It appears that the first applicant complied with this order .","On an unspecified date , the father requested that the Centre review the level of contact with the second applicant . The first applicant failed to appear at FAC to discuss the father \u2019s request , notwithstanding that the ORG invited her to do so at CARDINAL occasions . On DATE the ORG made an order specifying that the father should meet his daughter DATE ( from TIME ) . The increased amount of contact was justified by the child \u2019s \u201c specific age and stage of development ... when a stable relationship ( with the father ) , as well as an emotional bond between them , were necessary for [ the child \u2019s ] proper mental and physical development \u201d .","Subsequent to the CARDINAL judgments against her of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) , on DATE , the public prosecutor brought criminal charges against the first applicant . She was accused of failing to allow the meeting scheduled for DATE to take place , as required by the ORG \u2019s orders of DATE and CARDINAL DATE . In submissions of DATE , the first applicant denied the charge , arguing that she had never been served with the ORG \u2019s order of CARDINAL DATE . In this connection , she maintained that she had received another order from the ORG dated DATE . She also expressed concerns about the fairness of the upcoming trial , given her NORP nationality . She further applied for the removal of Judge PERSON , should he be assigned to decide the case . On DATE her application was dismissed by \u201c a judge replacing the president \u201d of the first - instance court . In submissions of DATE to the first - instance court , the first applicant repeated her arguments and explained that she had sought Judge PERSON \u2019s removal because he had convicted her in the previous criminal cases brought against her . She also maintained that he had allegedly solicited sexual favours from her . Her criminal complaint on the latter subject had allegedly been rejected by the same public prosecutor who had indicted her in the impugned proceedings . She also alleged that the judge who had replaced the president of the first - instance court , and who had dismissed her application for the removal of Judge PERSON , was a relative of hers who , in discussions with her , had expressed disagreement with a decision she had made to study in GPE .","The first applicant decided not to testify at the hearing held on DATE . The first - instance court heard the father , who stated that for reasons unknown to him he had not seen his daughter at any of the scheduled meetings since DATE . A representative of the ORG stated that the first applicant had not complied with its orders of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , notwithstanding the fact that she had been informed of the consequences of non - compliance . She confirmed that the first applicant had been served with all the relevant orders the ORG had made . In a judgment of DATE first - instance court , presided over by Judge PERSON , found the first applicant guilty and sentenced DATE in prison . In doing so , it relied on the oral and documentary evidence admitted at the trial , including the ORG \u2019s orders of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , which had provided explicitly for the need of the child to \u201c strengthen the emotional bond with the [ father ] and to protect [ her ] right to have contact with [ him ] \u201d as being \u201c in [ the child \u2019s ] absolute interest \u201d . The court established that the first applicant had not complied with these orders notwithstanding that she had been alerted about the consequences for non - compliance . She had not allowed the father to see his daughter on several occasions before and after DATE , the date specified in the enforcement order of CARDINAL DATE . The court further stated that it could not assess the first applicant \u2019s defence due to the fact that she had remained silent at the trial and provided no arguments regarding the incident . Lastly , it stated that :","\u201c In assessing the severity of the sentence , the court took into consideration all relevant circumstances ( aggravating and mitigating factors ) ... in particular , the gravity of the charges and concrete consequences , the manner in which the crime had been committed , the fact that [ the first applicant ] had already been convicted of the same offence on DATE [ judgment K.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ] and CARDINAL DATE [ judgment K.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ] and [ sentenced to an alternative penalty - suspended prison term ] . The court found no alleviating circumstances related to the [ first applicant ] .","The above stated leads to a conclusion that the suspended prison sentences issued against the [ first applicant ] had no impact on her , [ given that the first applicant ] continues committing the same offence . Accordingly , it decided to sentence her to a prison term finding that it would ... deter her from reoffending in the future and would [ help crime prevention as a whole ] .","The first applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . It held that the first - instance court had correctly established that she had not complied with the ORG \u2019s orders of DATE and CARDINAL DATE . Lastly , it endorsed the reasons of the first - instance court regarding her custodial sentence .","On DATE the first applicant applied to ORG for an extraordinary review of the final judgment , reiterating the arguments she had raised in her appeal . On DATE ORG dismissed her application , finding that the facts , as based on the evidence admitted at the trial , had been correctly established by the lower courts . In this connection , the lower courts had correctly applied the procedural rules and based their judgments on evidence admitted at the trial . Lastly , the court endorsed the reasons given by the lower courts .","The first applicant was ordered to present herself at prison on DATE . On DATE the first - instance court postponed the execution of the sentence because the second applicant was ill and a new date was set for DATE . The first applicant started serving her sentence on DATE , and was released on DATE .","On DATE the ORG gave the father custody of the second applicant for DATE .","On DATE , the date when the first applicant started serving the sentence , the ORG gave the father , of its own motion and on the basis of LAW ) of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) , temporary custody of the second applicant pending the conclusion of custody proceedings which he had initiated in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the order , the first applicant had not allowed the second applicant to have any contact with the father at any of the scheduled meetings since DATE . After that date , the applicants had gone into hiding , despite the second applicant \u2019s poor health , which required continuous medical supervision . The order further referred to the first applicant \u2019s incarceration . The order did not provide for any contact rights for the first applicant in respect of the second applicant .","On DATE the first applicant sought permission from the FAC to see the second applicant . According to the Government , the ORG invited her to an interview upon her release from prison . However , it appears that she did not receive the invitation and , accordingly , failed to appear .","According to the first applicant , on DATE a lawyer acting on her behalf contacted the ORG to find out the whereabouts of her daughter and it was allegedly on that occasion that she was given the ORG \u2019s order of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The lawyer allegedly requested the Centre to decide the contact arrangements between the first and second applicants , which the ORG refused to do , as under the law such orders were only made after both parents had been interviewed by the ORG \u2019s welfare officers .","On DATE the first applicant again requested that the ORG specify her contact rights . In reply , the ORG twice asked the first applicant to specify a time and place for meeting her daughter . The first applicant refused to be served with these notifications .","According to the Government , on DATE the first applicant applied to the first - instance court for a decision on the amount of contact she could have with her daughter . Since she had specified a time and place for her contact with the daughter , the ORG , in an order dated DATE , specified her contact rights , which were to be every DATE from TIME","On DATE the first applicant met her daughter .","On an application lodged by the first applicant , on DATE , the order of CARDINAL DATE was replaced by a new order by ORG , dated DATE , according to which the first applicant was allowed to stay with the second applicant DATE in DATE , from DATE ( TIME ) to DATE ( TIME ) .","On DATE the father initiated custody proceedings , seeking to have the first - instance court amend its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and give him custody of the second applicant . In a judgment of DATE , the court granted his application and ordered the first applicant to hand the child over to the father . The first applicant would be allowed to maintain personal and direct contact with her . On DATE , however , the judgment was set aside by ORG , which remitted the case for a fresh examination . ORG ordered the first - instance court to reassess the available evidence and provide convincing reasons why the first applicant was unfit to enjoy custody of the child .","On DATE the first - instance court dismissed the father \u2019s application after hearing evidence from him and the first applicant and admitting expert opinions , of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , which confirmed that both parents were mentally fit and had the required capacity to care for the child . It also admitted a report by the ORG , dated DATE , in which welfare officers confirmed that the first applicant had the necessary capacity to provide basic care for the child , but that she had continuously prevented her from seeing the father . They had not applied to a court to have her parental rights restricted since there were other ways to protect the interests and rights of the child . They further argued that the first applicant \u2019s behaviour had been inappropriate : she had used insulting language towards everyone involved in the case , and had portrayed herself , without any justification , as a victim of the system . According to the experts , this was not a suitable environment for the second applicant . On the basis of all the available information , the ORG \u2019s welfare officers suggested that it would be in the child \u2019s best interests for the father to be given custody . In that way the child could maintain a relationship with both parents , which she had been unable to do when the first applicant had had custody .","Referring to the aforementioned facts , ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the court found that the first applicant had , for a protracted period of time , prevented the father from having contact with his daughter at the scheduled meetings . She had not been cooperative or shown any insight in her dealings with the ORG authorities , unlike the father , whose behaviour had been of no concern . Her past behaviour had been the result of her lack of trust in the authorities and her strained relationship with the father , but this had not affected her ability to care for the child . In this connection , the court stated :","\u201c The court took into consideration the [ ORG \u2019s welfare ORG ] opinion , but it has found that it would be in the best interests of the child , given the child \u2019s ( young ) age and current stage of her development , for her to remain in the custody of the mother . The father may maintain a personal relationship and direct contact with the child . The court also took into consideration the fact that , as a consequence of these proceedings , the parties have understood the need for mutual communication in order to ensure the rights of the child . They ... have reached an agreement regarding their right to have contact with the child , which reduces the need for the competent body to determine those relationships ... In this connection , there is always the possibility that the parents reach their own agreement , at any given time , regarding custody of the child , as befits her interests . \u201d","Lastly , the court concluded that the first applicant \u2019s nationality was of no relevance to the case . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .","After the judgment became final , on DATE the ORG specified the contact rights of the father and allowed him to meet his daughter on DATE , DATE ( TIME ) and DATE ( TIME ) .","On DATE ORG upheld an appeal on points of law ( \u0440\u0435\u0432\u0438\u0437\u0438\u0458\u0430 ) by the father , finding that there had been a \u201c wrongful application of the substantive law given the established facts \u201d ( \u043f\u043e\u0433\u0440\u0435\u0448\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u043c\u0430\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u043b\u043d\u043e\u0442\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e , \u0430\u043a\u043e \u0441\u0435 \u0438\u043c\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0432\u0438\u0434 \u0443\u0442\u0432\u0440\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0444\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043a\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0458\u0431\u0430 ) . The court overturned the lower courts\u2019 judgments and gave custody of the second applicant to the father . The first applicant was further ordered to pay maintenance of MONEY ( MONEY ) per month . Referring to the first applicant \u2019s non - compliance with the ORG \u2019s orders of CARDINAL May and CARDINAL DATE , the fact that she had been convicted on CARDINAL occasions , as well as to the ORG \u2019s expert opinion , as \u201c the competent and responsible body \u201d ( \u043d\u0430\u0434\u043b\u0435\u0436\u0435\u043d \u0438 \u043c\u0435\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d \u043e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d ) , the court held that there were grounds to amend the first - instance court \u2019s order of CARDINAL DATE regarding custody of the child . Relying on sections CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) ORG stated , inter alia :","\u201c This court considers that after [ the first - instance court \u2019s ] judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which granted [ the first applicant ] custody of [ the second applicant ] , the child was deprived of the fundamental right to receive parental care from both parents because of the first applicant alone . That is the fundamental , most important and decisive reason for amending the judgment [ of CARDINAL DATE ] ( and ) granting the [ father ] custody of the minor [ the second applicant ] . The court notes that the lower courts disregarded the change in circumstances and the ORG \u2019s expert opinion , without any legally justified and reasonable grounds . This court considers , contrary to the findings of the lower courts , that ... it is in the best interests of the minor , PERSON , with a view to her enjoying the company of both parents , and ensuring her development , that [ the father ] should be given custody . His past behaviour has shown that he is a constructive and cooperative parent whose main concern is the interests of the minor , S.","This court further considers that the reason why the lower courts dismissed the appellant \u2019s claim to have custody of [ the second applicant ] , namely that she was DATE and DATE and that at that age she needed to stay with the mother , with whom she was biologically connected , can not be regarded as the only relevant legal ground ( \u0435\u0434\u0438\u043d\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u043e \u0440\u0435\u0448\u0430\u0432\u0430\u0447\u043a\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0447\u0438\u043d\u0430 ) . The child \u2019s age is an important ground , but it is not the only [ element ] which is decisive for the court . A court order determining which of the parents of a minor child should be given custody is dependent on other factors , such as the GPE personalities ; their views regarding their rights and duties in respect of their child ; the rights and interests of the child , including , certainly , [ the child \u2019s ] right to both parents ; and the need for the child to have the best environment for [ his or her ] healthy mental and physical development . In the present case , and having regard to all the circumstances , not only the [ second applicant \u2019s ] age , a final conclusion can be drawn that it is in the [ child \u2019s ] interests , and best for her mental and physical development , that [ the father ] should have custody rights . \u201d","The applicant was served with the judgment on DATE .","On an application by the first applicant , on DATE the ORG specified how much contact she could have with her daughter . According to the order , which was based on the explicit consent of both parents , the first applicant was to live with the second applicant DATE . Both parents were allowed a DATE summer holiday and a DATE winter holiday with her . The order further specified who would stay with the child on religious and family holidays .","On an unspecified date , the first applicant applied to the first - instance court for custody of the second applicant . The first - instance court accepted the application and granted custody to the first applicant . On DATE that judgment was set aside . The custody proceedings are allegedly still pending before the first - instance court .","While the custody proceedings were pending , on DATE the father applied to the ORG to change the living arrangements to allow him to live permanently with the second applicant . The mother would have the child CARDINAL weekends a month . By a decision of DATE , the ORG suspended the proceedings relating to that application until the custody proceedings launched by the first applicant had been completed .","The parties confirmed that the ORG \u2019s order of CARDINAL DATE was being complied with by all involved ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147020","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CHERNETSKIY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of ORG ) .","According to the ORG , in the morning of DATE the applicant , who was armed with a handgun , along with CARDINAL other persons robbed a shop in GPE . After the robbery the applicant left the shop with bags containing the stolen items \u2013 mobile phones . The CARDINAL victims of the robbery ( Mr PERSON , the owner of the shop , and PERSON , a shop assistant ) ran after the applicant . They managed to catch up with him and knocked him to the ground . PERSON and PERSON then disarmed the applicant and tied his hands with a belt . The applicant offered resistance . With the help of passers - by , PERSON P. and PERSON held the applicant down for TIME until the arrival of the police at TIME The police arrested the applicant , seized his handgun and the bags containing mobile phones , and took him to the FAC police station in GPE . In the police station the applicant wrote a \u201c voluntary confession \u201d acknowledging his participation in the robbery .","According to the applicant , he had nothing to do with the robbery . He was walking down the street when PERSON and PERSON P. suddenly pushed him in the back , knocked him to the ground and apprehended him . He offered no resistance . The bags and the handgun did not belong to him . Then he was arrested by the police and escorted to the FAC police station , where they arrived at TIME . After admission formalities had been completed , including a personal search in the presence of attesting witnesses , he was taken to an office , seated on a chair and handcuffed to it . Then CARDINAL or QUANTITY police officers entered , including Mr PERSON and PERSON , who started to question him about the circumstances of the robbery . He denied his involvement in the robbery . PERSON PERSON took out a baseball bat and threatened to use it unless he confessed to the robbery . He refused and PERSON PERSON started to beat him on the head with the bat wrapped in a terry towel . The applicant then fell to the floor . Other police officers started to kick him and beat him with the bat and with rubber truncheons . He alleged that the questioning and beatings continued for TIME . The police officers also threatened to suffocate him with a gas mask , and to use other torture instruments , such as needles and pincers . To avoid further suffering , the applicant wrote the \u201c voluntary confession \u201d .","The handwritten confession of DATE contains the following statement , followed by the applicant \u2019s signature :","\u201c This confession statement has been written by me voluntarily , without any mental or physical pressure from police officers .","[ I ] have read LAW , which states that I have the right not to give explanations concerning my conduct . \u201d","Subsequently , the applicant was placed in a temporary isolation ward ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) at the FAC police station .","The following day , on DATE , the applicant and his counsel lodged complaints with the investigator , PERSON , alleging that he had been ill - treated by the police officers . The applicant \u2019s counsel also asked the investigator to arrange a medical expert examination of the applicant in order to establish when the injuries had occurred and how they had been inflicted . The request contained a description and diagram of the applicant \u2019s injuries .","Still on DATE , a face - to - face confrontation between the applicant and Mr PERSON and PERSON took place . They testified that on DATE they had apprehended the applicant , who had offered resistance and had tried to escape . Although they acknowledged having knocked the applicant to the ground , they denied having beaten him . They also testified that they had not seen anybody beating him during his apprehension and subsequent arrest . They stated that the applicant had not resisted his arrest by the police .","Following the above , the investigator refused the request of the applicant \u2019s counsel for a medical expert examination , pointing out that the injuries could have been caused by PERSON and PERSON when they apprehended the applicant . However , the applicant was taken to a hospital for a superficial medical examination .","According to a medical certificate of DATE , the applicant received medical aid at TIME at GPE hospital no . CARDINAL in connection with \u201c multiple traumatic lesions on the head , chest and the left side of the lower back \u201d . It was also noted in the certificate that the applicant \u2019s medical condition was compatible with detention in the ORG .","According to the applicant , after the medical examination he was taken to another office in the LOC police station . For TIME several police officers beat him up again in an attempt to extract unspecified information of which he was not in possession .","On DATE the applicant was placed in remand prison IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL , where he was examined by a doctor . The doctor recorded the same injures as those mentioned above . He made the following entry in the applicant \u2019s prison medical file :","\u201c On DATE the first medical examination was carried out . Diagnosis : multiple traumatic lesions on the head , chest and the left side of the lower back . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor , alleging that he had been subjected to ill - treatment by the police during his detention on DATE . The investigator , PERSON , also sent the complaints which the applicant and his counsel had lodged with her on DATE to the prosecutor \u2019s office for further processing .","Still on DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel lodged with the investigator , PERSON , a written request for a visual examination of the applicant to be carried out . According to the applicant , the request was made in order to confirm the bodily injuries inflicted on him by the police on DATE . However , the text of the request contained no reference to that . The investigator refused the request , noting that a medical examination of the applicant had already been conducted on DATE .","On DATE the investigator , PERSON , questioned QUANTITY police officers ( PERSON . , PERSON . and PERSON . ) as witnesses in the applicant \u2019s criminal case . They stated that on DATE they had been on duty at the FAC police station . At TIME , following the instructions of a superior officer , they picked up a suspect from a police unit in the ORG metro station and escorted him to the FAC police station . The suspect was handcuffed . He was wearing a shoulder holster with a gun . In the station , the suspect was searched in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses and identified as the applicant . His gun was seized . The police officers added that a shop assistant carrying CARDINAL big handbags had accompanied them to the police station . They were not asked whether the applicant had had visible injuries on his body at that time and gave no information in that respect .","On DATE the assistant prosecutor at the FAC inter - district prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment were unsubstantiated . The decision read as follows :","\u201c ... On DATE [ sic ] the FAC inter - district prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE received [ the applicant \u2019s ] confession to robbery ...","Later , in the course of questioning , [ the applicant ] complained that police officers had used physical force in order to make him confess . He could not give any information as to the names of the police officers who had arrested him , their distinguishing features , location of the office [ where the alleged ill - treatment took place ] or other facts .","During the inquiry it was also established that the applicant is registered with a neuropsychology clinic ... and had not been drafted into the army owing to a neurological disease . Thus , [ his ] allegations [ of ill - treatment ] have not been confirmed . \u201d","The prosecutor \u2019s decision contained no information concerning any actions taken to verify the applicant \u2019s version of events . The medical documents attesting to his injuries were not mentioned either .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against this decision to the prosecutor \u2019s office , complaining of the perfunctory nature of the inquiry into his allegations of ill - treatment at the police station .","Approximately DATE , on DATE , the supervising prosecutor set aside the decision of DATE refusing to institute criminal proceedings and sent the case back to the prosecutor \u2019s office for further inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE the FAC deputy prosecutor again refused to open a criminal case . The decision read as follows :","\u201c It follows from the applicant \u2019s complaint that on DATE he had been brought to the LOC police station of GPE by CARDINAL police officers , [ Mr ] PERSON and [ Mr ] R. [ sic ] , where he was handcuffed to a chair and beaten with a baseball bat wrapped in a terry towel in order to make him confess to a robbery ...","In the course of the additional inquiry the police officer at the LOC police station , [ Mr ] PERSON , was questioned . He explained that on DATE [ the applicant ] had been arrested and questioned in connection with a robbery . The applicant was informed of his rights provided for by LAW CARDINAL of the LAW against his signature . He gave his testimony voluntarily and without any physical or psychological pressure . None of the police officers used any violence [ against the applicant ] during his arrest , while escorting him to the police station , or in the station .","It was impossible to question the [ former ] police officer at the LOC police station , [ Mr ] NORP , as he had been discharged from the police . Several attempts were made to summon him to the prosecutor \u2019s office . So , on CARDINAL and DATE the head of the FAC police station was ordered to send a police officer to do that . According to the information submitted by the head ... , on CARDINAL and DATE a police officer went to [ Mr ] R. \u2019s address , but no one answered the door . According to the neighbours , he had not lived in the flat for a long time .","Mr PERSON . , Mr PERSON . and Mr Paut . [ police officers at the FAC police station ] , questioned in the course of the inquiry , stated that they had not met [ the applicant ] while on duty [ on the relevant day ] . They did not exercise physical or psychological pressure on him .","The investigator of the investigative division at the LOC police station , [ Ms ] PERSON , stated that she had been in charge of a criminal investigation into robbery ... The applicant was arrested on suspicion of his involvement in the crime and taken to the police station . During the initial investigative actions he made no complaints of any ill - treatment by police officers . Neither she nor any other officer used physical or psychological force against [ the applicant ] .","In the course of the present inquiry it has been impossible to establish the involvement in the events under investigation of any other police officers who were on duty at the police station and in charge of arrestees at the relevant time . \u201d","The medical documents confirming the applicant \u2019s injuries were not mentioned .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor set aside the decision of DATE and instructed the prosecutor to question PERSON and to arrange a medical expert examination of the injuries sustained by the applicant in DATE .","Pursuant to a decision by the prosecutor of DATE , a medical expert examined the applicant \u2019s medical file . In his report of CARDINAL DATE , he stated as follows :","\u201c According to medical file no . DATE , at TIME on DATE [ the applicant ] went to the outpatient trauma unit of GPE hospital no . CARDINAL ... In [ his ? ] words , he was beaten up by unknown persons at TIME on DATE . [ Results of the examination ] : grazes around the hairline ( forehead ) . PERSON and yellow bruising around the left shoulder blade and a strip of bruising measuring CARDINAL x CARDINAL [ cm ] in the lumbar area . Palpation [ is ] painful . Diagnosis : traumatic lesions ( \u0443\u0448\u0438\u0431\u044b ) in the soft tissue of the forehead , left shoulder blade and the left side of the lower back .","There are no other entries in the medical file .","Conclusions","The following injuries on [ the applicant ] were recorded at the trauma unit :","- grazes ( \u0441\u0441\u0430\u0434\u0438\u043d\u044b ) on the forehead ,","- bruises ( \u043a\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043e\u043f\u043e\u0434\u0442\u0451\u043a\u0438 ) on the left shoulder blade ,","- a strip of bruising on the left side of the lower back .","The above - mentioned injuries could have been caused by blunt solid objects and did not cause damage to [ the applicant \u2019s ] health . The bruises resulted from contact with blunt object(s ) and could have been caused by blows with the object(s ) as well as by [ the applicant ] hitting the objects . The grazes were caused by the sliding of an object against the surface of the skin .","As the medical file did not contain a more detailed description of the bruises ... it is impossible to determine the exact time when they were sustained . \u201d","On DATE the FAC deputy prosecutor again refused to institute criminal proceedings . His decision read as follows :","\u201c ... As it follows from the police report submitted ... the former police officer [ Mr ] NORP has not been found despite several visits to his address in DATE and DATE . According to his neighbors , [ Mr ] R. no longer lives there and comes seldom to his flat ; they do not know his place of residence .","According to the expert report of DATE ... [ the applicant ] sustained bodily injuries in the form of bruises on his face and body ... As the medical documents contain insufficient information , it was impossible to establish when and how they were inflicted .","Thus , despite the measures taken , it was impossible to verify the [ applicant \u2019s ] allegations . \u201d","On an unspecified date the applicant complained to a court about the refusal to institute criminal proceedings .","On DATE the ORG of GPE found that the applicant \u2019s allegations had been duly examined by the prosecution and had been found unsubstantiated . ORG rejected the complaint on those grounds , stating :","\u201c It follows from the material submitted that the [ applicant \u2019s ] allegations [ of ill - treatment ] ... have been examined in the course of the preliminary investigation . Following each inquiry a decision refusing to open a criminal case was issued .","The [ applicant \u2019s ] allegations were also the subject of an internal inquiry carried out by ORG of ORG ...","According to the results of the above inquiries , no convincing , objective and sufficient proof of unlawful conduct by the police officers has been established .","According to the conviction judgment by ORG of GPE [ of DATE , see below ] , the [ applicant \u2019s ] allegations were subject to judicial review in the course of the examination of [ his ] criminal case on the merits . In its judgment the court assessed them and found them ill - founded .","The judgment convicting [ the applicant ] has entered into legal force .","Under such circumstances , there are no grounds for granting the [ applicant \u2019s ] complaint . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal , reiterating the reasoning of ORG .","Neither the applicant nor his representative were present at the court hearings , whereas the prosecutor was present and addressed the courts .","On an unspecified date the applicant was committed for trial before ORG of GPE . The charges against him were brought by the FAC inter - district prosecutor \u2019s office .","During the trial the applicant repeatedly raised the issue of his alleged ill - treatment at the police station and argued that his \u201c voluntary confession \u201d had been obtained under duress .","The applicant \u2019s wife testified before the trial court that when the applicant had left their home on TIME , he had been in good health .","PERSON and PERSON confirmed their previous testimonies : they had not beaten the applicant while apprehending him , nor had they seen anyone else beating him . They did not remember whether the applicant had had any visible injuries by the time the police arrived . However , PERSON did not rule out the possibility that he may have caused some injuries to the applicant while apprehending him .","The police officers who had arrested the applicant and taken him to the police station also denied any ill - treatment of the applicant on their part . They stated that they did not remember whether he had had any visible injuries at the time of his arrest .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of illegal possession of a firearm and CARDINAL counts of robbery with violence , committed by an organised group . The conviction was based , inter alia , on the applicant \u2019s confession statement of DATE . He was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment in a colony with a \u201c strict regime \u201d . The court noted in its judgment that on DATE the victims of the robbery ( PERSON and PERSON P. ) had received medical aid in a hospital \u2013 Mr PERSON for a bite on his right hand and PERSON for an abrasion on his right forearm .","On DATE ORG amended the judgment on appeal , but upheld the sentence .","Both courts rejected the applicant \u2019s allegation of ill - treatment , referring to the results of the inquiry carried out by the prosecution authorities so far .","Neither the application lodged by the applicant for a supervisory review of his conviction nor his numerous complaints to various authorities about procedural irregularities in his criminal case were to any avail .","After the applicant \u2019s conviction had become final , he was transferred to a \u201c strict - regime \u201d colony in GPE to serve his sentence . The colony is situated QUANTITY from his home in LOC .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant asked ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to transfer him to a colony closer to his home . In its reply of DATE the ORG refused his request on the grounds that there were no \u201c strict regime \u201d colonies in LOC . The applicant complained about the refusal to ORG , which redirected his complaint to ORG . The latter forwarded the complaint to the ORG . On DATE the ORG wrote to the applicant informing him that his request had been refused on the same grounds . Following a further complaint submitted by the applicant , the prosecutor \u2019s office issued a formal warning ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) to the ORG and asked it to remedy the breach of the applicant \u2019s right to serve the sentence close to his home . In DATE the ORG offered the applicant a transfer to a colony in LOC , which directly borders LOC . On DATE the applicant declined the offer for unspecified reasons .","In DATE the applicant applied to the GPE Vymskiy ORG of GPE for a transfer from the strict - regime colony to a \u201c colony settlement \u201d ( another type of colony with less stringent conditions ) . On DATE the court rejected the application without consideration and discontinued the proceedings , since the applicant had not yet acquired the right to ask for a transfer . On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal . On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office lodged an application for supervisory review ( \u043d\u0430\u0434\u0437\u043e\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) with ORG and asked for a fresh examination of the applicant \u2019s case because his transfer request had not been examined on the merits . The outcome of the proceedings is unknown .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was released on probation , having served part of his sentence ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150812","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"RUKAVINA v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant married a certain PERSON","On CARDINAL DATE PERSON gave birth to their daughter PERSON","On DATE PERSON , accusing the applicant of domestic violence , left the matrimonial home and moved to a safe house . In so doing she took their daughter with her .","On DATE PERSON brought a civil action against the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) seeking a divorce and custody of their daughter .","After a hearing held in the presence of the parties and the representative of ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb ORG ) , on DATE ORG issued a decision whereby it regulated interim custody and access rights until the adoption of the final judgment on ORG \u2019s action . In particular , the court temporarily awarded custody to PERSON and granted the applicant access rights , allowing him to have contact with his daughter twice a month for TIME on the premises of the association Children First . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG held a hearing at which the applicant did not oppose the divorce but asked the court to award him custody of his daughter . At the same hearing the court decided to refer the parties to mandatory mediation procedure , in accordance with the law . Specifically , the parties were referred to ORG . for the institution of this procedure .","After completing the mediation procedure , on DATE the ORG submitted its report to the court suggesting that reconciliation of the parties was not possible and stating that they could not agree over custody of and contact with their daughter .","At the hearing held on DATE the court heard the parties and invited ORG to submit its recommendation as regards custody of the applicant \u2019s daughter and the ( extent of ) access rights of the non - custodial parent .","NORP On DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) quashed the first - instance decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case to the first - instance court , holding that the latter had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision . In particular , ORG found that no reasons had been given for the interim award of custody to PERSON and saw no reason why the applicant \u2019s contact with his daughter had to be supervised .","In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG informed the court that it could not make the requested recommendation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that , in any event , because PERSON had changed the address , the matter was no longer in their competence but fell within the competence of ORG . It nevertheless recommended that both parties undergo psychiatric assessment .","On DATE ORG invited ORG ( hereinafter : \u201c the local social welfare centre \u201d or \u201c the Centre \u201d ) to submit its recommendation as regards ( the extent of ) the applicant \u2019s access rights and the manner in which they should be exercised .","On DATE the ORG recommended that the applicant exercise his access rights under supervision every DATE from TIME on the premises of another association . The ORG explained that supervision was necessary because criminal proceedings for domestic violence were pending against the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) and because psychiatric assessment of both parents was necessary .","At the hearing held on CARDINAL DATE the applicant proposed that he be awarded custody or , in the alternative , that he be granted access rights to be exercised without supervision in his home for TIME twice per week , DATE , and CARDINAL of all holidays .","At the hearing held on DATE the parties agreed that the applicant would have contact with his daughter twice a week for TIME under supervision .","On DATE the court decided to obtain a joint expert opinion from experts in psychology and psychiatry .","At the hearing held on DATE the applicant proposed that his access rights be extended from TIME per week and also that he should have contact with his daughter every other DATE .","On DATE the experts in psychology and psychiatry submitted their joint opinion . They recommended that custody be awarded to ORG and that the applicant have contact with his daughter CARDINAL times a week for DATE and for TIME on official holidays and other important days ( birthdays , etc . ) , all under supervision .","On DATE the local social welfare centre submitted its observations on the expert opinion , criticising the contact schedule proposed by the experts as unworkable . It also added that the experts had failed to explain why the applicant should exercise his access rights under supervision .","At the hearing held on DATE the applicant objected to the expert opinion in so far as it recommended awarding custody to ORG and supervised contact with his daughter . He also submitted an opinion obtained from another expert in psychology .","On DATE ORG issued a fresh decision regulating interim custody and access rights . In particular , the court again temporarily awarded custody to ORG and granted the applicant access rights entitling him to have contact with his daughter twice a week ( on DATE from TIME ) under supervision . The applicant appealed .","At the hearing held on DATE the court heard the expert in psychiatry who had prepared the aforementioned joint expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case .","In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG issued another decision regulating interim custody and access rights , the content of which was identical to its decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant appealed .","On DATE the applicant requested the withdrawal of the first - instance single judge sitting in the case . The hearing scheduled for DATE was therefore adjourned until ORG decided on the applicant \u2019s withdrawal request . On DATE that court dismissed the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE a multidisciplinary team of experts composed of a psychologist , a psychiatrist , a paediatrician and a social worker submitted their report on the physical and mental health of the applicant \u2019s daughter , finding that she was healthy but that her mother \u2019s insistence on a vegan diet posed a risk as regards her normal psychophysical development . The report was obtained at the request of the local social welfare centre in response to the applicant \u2019s allegations that ORG had been emotionally abusing their daughter and endangering her health by subjecting her to a vegan diet .","On DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case . It again held that the first - instance decision had not been sufficiently reasoned .","In the resumed proceedings , the hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned owing to the absence of the judge sitting in the case .","On DATE ORG issued a new decision regulating interim custody and access rights in a manner identical to its CARDINAL previous decisions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","At the hearing held on DATE the court , in accordance with the applicant \u2019s proposal \u2012 with which the representative of the local social welfare centre agreed \u2012 decided to obtain an expert opinion from another expert on the issue of the custody of the applicant \u2019s daughter and her contact with the non - custodial parent .","On DATE ORG , following an appeal by the applicant , again quashed the first - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case .","On DATE ORG held a hearing at which it heard the parties and a representative of the local social welfare centre .","At the same hearing ORG issued yet another decision regulating interim custody and access rights in respect of the applicant \u2019s daughter but in a manner different from its CARDINAL previous decisions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) . The court firstly , as it had done before , temporarily awarded custody of the applicant \u2019s daughter to her mother ORG Secondly , for the period DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the court granted the applicant access rights allowing him to have contact with his daughter twice DATE ( on DATE from CARDINAL to CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. ) under the supervision of an employee of the social welfare centre , and also without supervision every DATE from TIME and during the DATE of DATE , DATE May and DATE . Both parties appealed against that decision","At the next hearing held on CARDINAL DATE ORG issued a new decision regulating the applicant \u2019s access rights on an interim basis . The court granted the applicant access rights twice a week ( on DATE from TIME ) under the supervision of an employee of the social welfare centre , as well as without supervision every other DATE from TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG received the combined expert opinion of a psychiatrist , a psychologist and a defectologist . The experts recommended that the applicant be awarded custody of his daughter and that the mother be granted extensive access rights .","On DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case .","In the resumed proceedings , at a hearing held on DATE ORG heard the experts in psychiatry and psychology who had prepared the expert opinion of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . After hearing the experts , the representative of the local social welfare centre agreed with their recommendation and suggested that the court award custody to the applicant while granting the mother extensive access rights .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG definitively awarded the applicant custody of his daughter and granted ORG access rights to be exercised DATE from TIME , every other weekend from DATE TIME , every other DATE from TIME and for CARDINAL of the DATE , DATE and DATE . At the same time the court issued a decision regulating interim custody and access rights in the same way as stipulated in its judgment until such time as that judgment became final .","On DATE PERSON appealed against that judgment .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment , which thereby became final .","In DATE the ORG State Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u ORG ) indicted the applicant before ORG for the criminal offence of domestic violence allegedly committed against ORG in the period DATE and DATE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG acquitted the applicant . It found that he had not committed the acts of violence with which he had been charged . In its judgment that court also stated that the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been instrumental in the dispute over custody of his daughter and that ORG had used those proceedings in order to portray the applicant as a violent person and inadequate father , unworthy of that role , and thus prevent him from maintaining contact with his daughter .","Following an appeal by the ORG Attorney , on DATE ORG ( PERSON u GPE ) , quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case .","It would appear that the proceedings are currently pending before ORG as the first - instance court .","In DATE PERSON brought a private bill of indictment ( privatna tu\u017eba ) against the applicant in ORG accusing him of defamation . In particular , ORG alleged that in his numerous statements to the media , the applicant had depicted her as mentally ill , a person with whom \u201c something was wrong \u201d , a fanatic and a proponent of eco - feminism .","ORG convicted the applicant , on DATE , but the judgment was subsequently quashed by the second - instance court following his appeal and the case was remitted .","In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG acquitted the applicant , that judgment being upheld by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184271","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ZIELI\u0143SKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed homicide together with other persons .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) remanded him in custody . The court stressed the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings , given that extensive evidence had still to be obtained in the case . It also referred to the fact that the proceedings in question concerned several alleged accomplices . The court further relied on the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed on the applicant .","On DATE the applicant applied for the preventive measure to be lifted or varied . On DATE ORG refused the request , finding that the grounds for the imposition of this measure remained valid .","The applicant \u2019s detention was further extended by decisions of ORG ( PERSON ) of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The applicant appealed against all of those decisions . His appeals were dismissed by ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The courts repeatedly relied in their decisions on the strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question , the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on him and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation , especially the need to obtain further expert evidence .","On DATE the applicant again applied for release . His application was refused on DATE by ORG .","On DATE the ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The applicant appealed , unsuccessfully .","On an unspecified date in DATE a bill of indictment was lodged with ORG . The applicant was charged with homicide committed together with CARDINAL other co - accused .","NORP The applicant \u2019s detention was continually extended during the course of the trial .","On DATE the applicant requested the court to release him on health grounds . On DATE the trial court refused his request . It relied on the medical certificate issued by a prison doctor , stating that the applicant could be adequately treated in detention .","On DATE the ORG gave judgment ( case no . DATE ) . The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . He lodged an appeal .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case for retrial ( case no . II AKa CARDINAL ) .","The applicant \u2019s detention was continually extended by the domestic courts , pending his appeal and in the course of the retrial . In particular , on DATE the ORG extended his detention until DATE . The applicant appealed against this decision . On DATE the ORG upheld the impugned decision , finding that the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence in question persisted , despite the fact that the judgment convicting the applicant had been quashed . ORG further considered that ORG had correctly relied on the severity of the anticipated penalty as the principal ground for the applicant \u2019s continuing detention and on the risk of the obstruction of the proceedings .","On DATE the ORG gave judgment ( case no . XIV K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The applicant was again convicted as charged and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The applicant lodged an appeal .","On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case for retrial ( case no . II AKa CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention , reiterating the grounds given in its initial decisions . The applicant appealed unsuccessfully .","During the retrial proceedings the ORG held DATE hearings in total .","On DATE the court gave judgment ( case no . XIV K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The applicant was again convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . He lodged an appeal against that judgment .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the impugned decision . It considered that the applicant \u2019s involvement in the offences with which he had been charged had been supported by the non - final judgment of DATE , in which he had been convicted and had received a severe sentence . The court also held that further detention on remand was the only preventive measure capable of securing the proper course of the proceedings until the delivery of a final judgment .","On DATE the ORG partly allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal ( case no . II AKa CARDINAL ) . The appellate court upheld the conviction but reclassified the offence as involuntary manslaughter ( nieumy\u015blne spowodowanie \u015bmierci ) . The applicant \u2019s sentence was reduced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant was released on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163113","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BAKA v. HUNGARY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations;Determination (civil));Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Baka;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus K\u016bris;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , after DATE of service ( DATE ) as a judge at ORG and , subsequently , DATE service as a member of ORG , the applicant was elected by ORG , by decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( VI.CARDINAL ) OGY , as President of ORG for a DATE term , until DATE .","In that capacity , the applicant carried out managerial tasks and also had a judicial role , presiding over deliberations which resulted in uniformity resolutions ( on case - law consistency ) and in guiding resolutions . He was also President of ORG . This second function had been added to the tasks of the President of ORG in DATE by ORG LXVI of DATE ) . As the head of ORG , the applicant was under an explicit statutory obligation to express an opinion on parliamentary bills that affected the judiciary , after having gathered and summarised the opinions of different courts via ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG of the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of ORG elected the applicant President of the Network for a DATE term ( DATE ) .","NORP In DATE the alliance of GPE \u2013 PERSON ( GPE \u2013 Hungarian Civic Union , hereinafter \u201c FAC \u201d ) and ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) obtained a CARDINAL parliamentary majority and undertook a programme of comprehensive constitutional and legislative reforms . In his professional capacity as President of ORG and ORG , the applicant expressed his views on different aspects of the legislative reforms affecting the judiciary , notably LAW , the retirement age of judges , the amendments to LAW , and the new ORG Bill .","On DATE , in relation to LAW ( subsequently LAW of DATE , ordering the annulment of final convictions relating to the dispersal of crowds in DATE ) , the applicant \u2019s spokesman explained to the ORG newspaper that , in the applicant \u2019s view ,","\u201c the PERSON ordering the annulment of certain judicial decisions delivered in relation to the DATE riots gives cause for concern , because it violates the right of judges to assess evidence freely . This is a serious constitutional problem . ... the judiciary is examining the PERSON only from a professional point of view and distances itself from any kind of political debate . PERSON [ the applicant ] , President of ORG , hopes that ORG will choose a legal technique that eliminates the problem of unconstitutionality \u201d .","On DATE , DATE after the PERSON \u2019s enactment , PERSON ( PERSON MP , Chairman of the LAW , ORG and ORG at the relevant time ) , responded at a press conference to the criticisms made by the judiciary , and declared : \u201c The adopted legal solution was said to be unfortunate . Now , I myself find it unfortunate if a member of the judiciary , in any position whatsoever , tries to exert influence over the legislative process in such a way \u201d .","On DATE , in a speech delivered to ORG in the course of the debate on the PERSON on LAW ( LAW ) , the applicant expressed his opinion on certain aspects of the proposed constitutional reform which concerned the judiciary , notably the new name given to ORG \u2013 K\u00faria \u2013 , the new powers attributed to the GPE in the field of ensuring consistency in the case - law , the management of the judiciary and the functioning of ORG , as well as the introduction of a constitutional appeal against judicial decisions .","On DATE , in relation to the proposal to reduce the mandatory retirement age of judges ( from DATE to the general retirement age of QUANTITY ) in LAW , the applicant , together with other court presidents , addressed a letter to various actors in the constitutional process ( the President of the Republic , the Prime Minister , the Speaker of ORG ) in which they pointed out the possible risks to the judiciary posed by the given proposal . Their concern was that , by abolishing the possibility for judges to remain in office until DATE , the proposed rule would force CARDINAL of NORP judges ( CARDINAL persons ) to end their careers in DATE , earlier than planned , with all the attendant consequences for the functioning of the judiciary and the length of pending proceedings .","On TIME of the vote on the proposals to amend the retirement age of judges ) , the applicant addressed a letter to the Prime Minister , in which he stressed that the proposal was humiliating and professionally unjustifiable ; it infringed the fundamental principles of the independence , status and irremovability of judges ; and it was also discriminatory , since only the judiciary was concerned . He refuted accusations of bias in favour of any political ideology within the judiciary , and continued :","\u201c It is , however , unacceptable if a political party or the majority of ORG makes political demands on the judiciary and evaluates judges by political standards . \u201d","In his letter the applicant asked the Prime Minister to use his influence to prevent ORG from adopting the proposal . On DATE , however , ORG adopted the proposal ( see Relevant Domestic Law below ) .","On DATE , a joint communiqu\u00e9 was addressed to the NORP and ORG public by the plenary session of ORG , by the applicant in his capacity as President of ORG , and by the presidents of regional and county courts . It argued for the autonomy and independence of the judiciary and criticised the new mandatory retirement age for judges and the proposal to modify the model of judicial self - governance embodied in ORG . The relevant extracts from the communiqu\u00e9 read as follows :","\u201c According to the proposal , the mandatory retirement age of judges will be reduced by DATE as of DATE . As a result , the tenure of CARDINAL judges ( among them CARDINAL judges responsible for court administration and professional supervision ) will be terminated on that same date , without any transition period , since they will have turned DATE . By DATE a further CARDINAL judges will have to terminate their careers . As a consequence of this decision , the rapidity of judicial proceedings will significantly deteriorate ( CARDINAL cases will have to be reassigned , which may even result in several years\u2019 delay in judicial proceedings , concerning CARDINAL of persons ) . The administration of the courts will be seriously hindered , since it is extremely difficult to replace CARDINAL of retiring judges .","The multiple effect of the forced pensioning - off , with no real justification , of highly qualified judges who have DATE of experience and practice , most of whom are at the apex of the hierarchy , will fundamentally shatter the functioning of the court system \u2013 leaving aside other unforeseeable consequences . Moreover , the proposal is unfair and humiliating with respect to the persons concerned , who took an oath to serve GPE and to administer justice , and who have devoted their lives to the judicial vocation .","It is incomprehensible why the issue of the retirement age of judges is worth regulation in LAW . There is CARDINAL answer : by including it in LAW , there will be no possibility of contesting this legal rule , which violates the fundamental principles of a democratic state governed by the rule of law , before ORG .","Such an unjustified step implies political motivation . \u201d","On DATE Bill no . T\/CARDINAL on the amendment of certain legislative acts concerning judicial procedure and the judicial system ( including LAW ) was submitted to ORG . At the applicant \u2019s request , ORG of ORG prepared an analysis of the PERSON , which was communicated to Members of ORG . On DATE , as no substantive changes had been made to the PERSON prior to its enactment on DATE as Act LXXXIX of DATE , the applicant challenged the LAW before ORG , on the grounds of unconstitutionality and violation of the obligations enshrined in international treaties , making use of that power for the first time in NORP history . ORG , in its judgment no . CARDINAL . ( ORG . CARDINAL . ) ORG of DATE , established the unconstitutionality of the impugned provisions and quashed them ( notably , the provision concerning the Attorney General \u2019s right to establish court competence by derogation from the default statutory rules ) .","Lastly , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant addressed to ORG a detailed analysis of CARDINAL new Cardinal Bills : ORG PERSON ( no . T\/CARDINAL ) and ORG PERSON ( no . PERSON ) . According to the explanatory memorandum to the Bills , it was proposed that ORG be abolished and replaced by ORG and ORG . The purpose of those proposals was to separate judicial and managerial functions , which had been \u201c unified \u201d in the person of the President of ORG , who was at the same time president of ORG . The proposed reform sought to concentrate the tasks of judicial management in the hands of the president of the new ORG , while leaving the responsibility for overseeing the uniform administration of justice with the president of ORG ( renamed with the historical appellation \u201c GPE \u201d ) .","The applicant also decided to express his opinion directly before ORG , as permitted by LAW CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( IX.CARDINAL ) OGY on the Rules of ORG . In his speech , delivered on DATE , the applicant raised his concerns about the draft legislation . He said that it did not address the structural problems of the judiciary , but left them to \u201c the discretion of the executive of an external administration ( the President of the proposed ORG , which would replace ORG in managing the courts ) , who [ would be ] assigned excessive and , in LOC , unprecedented powers , with no adequate accountability \u201d . The applicant referred to those new powers ( to appoint judges and court executives , to issue normative orders and to designate the court in a given case ) as \u201c unconstitutional \u201d . In this regard , he stated :","\u201c This unrestricted , non - transparent and uncontrollable power is unparalleled in contemporary LOC ... The extent and uncontrollability of such centralised authority is without precedent , even in countries where the administration of the judiciary lies with the ministry of justice and even if we think of the socialist dictatorship , in DATE of which PERSON , member of ORG and Minister of ORG responsible for the administration of the judiciary , declared that he would appoint only persons recommended by the professional organs of the judiciary . \u201d","Finally , the applicant again raised in his speech the issue of the new retirement age for judges , saying that it would have a severe effect on ORG and that the need to have enough judges at the PERSON had not yet been addressed . In this connection , he maintained that the GPE \u2019s main responsibility , that of ensuring consistency in the judicial application of laws , could be met only if that court were able to deliver judgments in an appropriate number and type of cases .","LAW DATE established that the highest judicial body would be the PERSON ( the historical NORP name for ORG ) . The date of entry into force of LAW was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE , during a debate on LAW , a PERSON politician , PERSON , MP , declared on the Infor\u00e1di\u00f3 radio station that the President of ORG would remain the same and that only the name of the institution would change . On DATE , in an interview on the ORG channel , the ORG Secretary of ORG , R\u00f3bert R\u00e9p\u00e1ssy , MP , declared that under ORG Bill ( no . T\/CARDINAL ) , the new GPE would have the same function as the current ORG and that only ORG name would change . He said that the legislation \u201c will certainly not provide any legal ground for a change in the person of the Chief Justice \u201d .","On DATE , in the \u201c Position of the Government of GPE on the ORG on LAW adopted by ORG at its CARDINALth Plenary Session ( GPE , QUANTITY DATE , CDLAD(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) \u201d , transmitted by the Minister for ORG of GPE , the ORG assured ORG that the drafting of the transitional provisions of LAW would not be used to unduly put an end to the terms of office of persons elected under the previous legal regime .","In the period DATE , members of ORG submitted several amendments proposing that the applicant \u2019s mandate as President of ORG be terminated .","On DATE PERSON submitted a PERSON ( no . PERSON ) to ORG , proposing an amendment to LAW ( then in force ) . The amendment provided that ORG would elect the President of the GPE by DATE at the latest . The reasoning of the PERSON reads as follows :","\u201c In view of LAW GPE and of the modifications to the court system resulting from that PERSON , in compliance with the PERSON on LAW , and with a view to ensuring a smooth transition and continuity in the fulfilment of the tasks of the GPE as from DATE , this PERSON provides that ORG must elect , by DATE and according to the rules laid down in LAW , the President of the GPE who is to take office on DATE . \u201d","On DATE CARDINAL members of the parliamentary majority submitted a PERSON ( no . PERSON ) to ORG on LAW . Under LAW of LAW , the legal successors of ORG and ORG would be the GPE , for the administration of justice , and the President of ORG , for the administration of the courts . Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the mandates of the President of ORG and of the President and members of ORG would be terminated upon the entry into force of LAW . The reasoning of the PERSON stated as follows :","\u201c The PERSON regulates in a comprehensive manner the succession of ORG and ORG and its president , in that the successor body or person shall be different for the respective duties . Having regard to the modifications to the court system , the PERSON provides that the term of office of the President of ORG currently in office , and that of the President and the members of ORG , shall be terminated upon the entry into force of LAW . \u201d","On DATE another Member of ORG submitted a proposal for an amendment to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG Bill . While the previous versions of the PERSON submitted by the Government ( on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) provided that the term of office of the court executives appointed before DATE would last until the date fixed at the time of their appointment , this last mentioned amendment provided for an exception . It sought to terminate ex lege the mandate of the President and Vice - President of ORG . The reasoning of the proposal read as follows :","\u201c The aim of this proposal for an amendment , submitted before the final vote , is to ensure the compliance of consolidated PERSON T\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , by amending its transitional provisions , with LAW , having regard to PERSON . PERSON on LAW XX of DATE on LAW and also to PERSON . PERSON on LAW , both submitted to ORG . \u201d","On DATE ORG adopted both ORG Bill ( as Act CLXI ) and LAW ) PERSON ( as LAW ) , with the content described above .","On DATE LAW Law Bill was adopted without amendment . LAW were published in ORG on DATE .","As a consequence of the entry into force of all these constitutional and legislative amendments , the applicant \u2019s mandate as President of ORG terminated on DATE , DATE before its expected date of expiry .","The applicant remained in office as president of a civil - law division of the GPE .","NORP In order for a new president to be elected to the GPE in due time , LAW of DATE , adopted on DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) entered into force on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG Bill was amended , and an additional criterion for the election of the new president of the PERSON was introduced . This provided that he or she would be elected by ORG from among the judges appointed for an indeterminate term and having served DATE as a judge ( section CARDINAL ) of Act CLXI of DATE see Relevant Domestic Law below ) . On DATE the President of the Republic proposed that ORG elect PERSON as President of the GPE and PERSON as President of ORG . On DATE ORG elected those candidates , in line with the proposal by the President of the Republic .","Firstly , the applicant lost the remuneration and other benefits ( social security , presidential residence , personal protection ) to which a president of ORG was entitled throughout the period of the fixed presidential term .","Secondly , the legislation dealing with certain post - term benefits for outgoing presidents of ORG ) was repealed as from DATE . Section CARDINAL ) of ORG ( as amended on DATE , in force from DATE ) supplemented this abrogation , and stipulated that the repealed legislation would be applied to any former president of ORG only to the extent that he or she was entitled to the allowance specified in sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) ( pension supplement for life ) , had reached retirement age at the time of the entry of force of the LAW and had requested the allowance . Since the applicant had not attained retirement age by DATE , he could not claim payment of that post - function benefit ."],"violated_articles":["10","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164919","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DEVTEROV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant was charged in absentia with accessory to murder and his name was put on the wanted list .","On DATE ORG of GPE issued a detention order against the applicant in absentia .","On DATE the applicant reported to the police station where he was arrested .","On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody . In particular the court held , as follows :","\u201c ... [ the applicant ] is suspected of having committed an extremely serious offence entailing PERCENT custodial sentence or life imprisonment . As it has been established that during investigation [ the applicant ] stated that he intended to leave GPE and talked on the phone with a person living in GPE ... , if released , [ the applicant ] might abscond , commit another offence , and threaten witnesses or other parties to criminal proceedings , destroy evidence or in any other way interfere with the investigation ... \u201d .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention on the following grounds :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is accused of an extremely serious offence entailing CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The case materials contain evidence confirming his involvement in crimes . Moreover , ... he may abscond or , if released , commit other crimes . These circumstances existed as of the date of [ the applicant \u2019s ] placement into custody and have not changed at the present time . ... Taking into account that it is necessary to conduct numerous investigative activities , the court shall grant the investigator \u2019s request [ to extend the applicant \u2019s detention ] \u201d .","The applicant remained in detention pending investigation and trial . The courts extended his detention , using the above formula . The courts referred also to the applicant \u2019s family status , personality , state of health , possibility to put pressure on witnesses and interfere with the investigation , absence of job . In particular , on DATE the court held as follows :","\u201c ... taking into account the personality of the accused , his family status , state of health and other circumstances , the court shall grant the investigator \u2019s request and extend [ the applicant \u2019s ] detention \u201d .","The applicant lodged appeals against some detention orders but the courts rejected them .","On DATE the applicant was additionally charged with membership in a criminal gang , CARDINAL counts of unlawful transportation of fire arms and ammunition , attempted murder and murder .","NORP In DATE the applicant , along with CARDINAL co - defendants , was committed to stand trial before ORG .","On DATE the applicant was released .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of all charges and held that the applicant be informed of the right to rehabilitation .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .","The applicant brought a claim against ORG seeking compensation for pecuniary damage ( legal expenses ) .","On DATE , ORG awarded the applicant MONEY as reimbursement of legal fees ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177430","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BAYKINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+P1-1-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166757","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"JURI\u0160I\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Split . He was represented before the ORG by Mr J. Franceschi , a lawyer practising in Split .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was a senior military officer in ORG , holding the rank of brigadier .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( PERSON ) opened a criminal investigation against the applicant and another individual on suspicion of abuse of power and authority related to the unlawful misappropriation of goods .","The applicant appealed against the investigating judge \u2019s decision before a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG . On DATE the panel dismissed his appeal and upheld the investigating judge \u2019s decision on opening an investigation into his alleged abuse of power and authority .","On DATE the competent military prosecutor indicted the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) on the grounds that the opening of a criminal investigation against him suggested that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence which could be prosecuted ex officio , which in itself amounted to a disciplinary offence under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty under section CARDINAL of LAW because there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence for which criminal proceedings had been instituted and sentenced him to a reduction in rank .","On DATE , on appeal by the military prosecutor , ORG ( PERSON vojnostegovni sud ) , as the appellate court , upheld the applicant \u2019s disciplinary conviction and dismissed him from military service .","After the completion of the criminal investigation by the investigating judge of ORG , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u ORG ) indicted the applicant and another individual in ORG ( PERSON ORG ) on charges of abuse of power and authority .","On DATE the Split Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG dropped all charges against the applicant owing to a lack of evidence and on DATE ORG dismissed the charges against him .","On DATE , following the dismissal of the charges against him in the criminal proceedings , the applicant sought to reopen the disciplinary proceedings before ORG . He argued that the criminal charges against him had been dismissed , which warranted a re - examination of his disciplinary conviction .","On DATE the Higher Military Disciplinary Court dismissed the applicant \u2019s application on the grounds that the dismissal of the charges against him in the criminal proceedings could not lead to a reopening of the disciplinary case .","The applicant challenged that decision before ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) . He submitted that the competent prosecutor in the criminal proceedings had dropped the charges against him , which suggested that the suspicion of him committing a criminal offence had been unjustified . In his view , the final judgment of the criminal court to dismiss the charges against him had amounted to a new fact which had shown that there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence . Accordingly , ORG refusal to reopen the case had deprived him of an effective means to challenge his unjustified dismissal from military service .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints as ill - founded , upholding the decisions of the lower disciplinary bodies .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , relying on LAW ( right to appeal ) , LAW ( presumption of innocence ) , LAW ( right to a fair trial ) , and LAW ) . He submitted that his disciplinary conviction and dismissal from military service had been based solely on the fact that he had been under criminal investigation . In his view , that had been unreasonable , particularly because all the charges against him had been dismissed in the subsequent criminal proceedings . The applicant thus contended that the disciplinary case should have been reopened and re - examined in order to remove the effects of the disciplinary conviction , in accordance with the principle of the presumption of innocence . However , given that his request to reopen the disciplinary proceedings had been dismissed , the applicant considered that there had been a violation of his constitutional rights to an effective appeal , a fair trial , the presumption of innocence and not be prosecuted and punished twice for the same offence .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that a case on reopening proceedings did not involve a determination of the applicant \u2019s rights and obligations .","The relevant provision of LAW ( ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , reads as follows :","\u201c Everyone has the right to respect for and the legal protection of his or her private and family life , dignity , reputation and honour . \u201d","The relevant provision of LAW ( Zakon o slu\u017ebi u oru\u017eanim snagama PERSON , ORG no . ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) which was applicable at the time , provided as follows :","\u201c Disciplinary offences are :","...","- the commission of a criminal offence which can be prosecuted ex officio , or the existence of a reasonable suspicion that such an offence has been committed , ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169916","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"PIOTROWSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in FAC . He was represented before the Court by Ms PERSON , a lawyer practising in FAC .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant married NORP in a civil ceremony . In DATE the applicant and NORP married in church .","On DATE the applicant filed a petition for divorce . He asked for a no - fault divorce ( that is , for the court not to make any findings that either party was at fault for the breakdown of the marital relationship ) . The applicant stated that for DATE he could not agree with his wife on many issues touching on the basic aspects of everyday life , and that their life together had not been harmonious . This had caused a number of arguments and in DATE he had moved out of their flat .","In her reply to the petition , the respondent submitted that her marriage to the applicant was amicable , pleasant and that they used to be considered by other couples as having an exemplary relationship . She was of the opinion that the only reason the applicant had petitioned for divorce after DATE of married life was because he was having an affair with another woman . The applicant had moved out of their flat in DATE but had returned in DATE ( despite continuing his relationship with the other woman ) . The respondent was of the view that this was a brief period of foolishness and that she could forgive her husband for his affair .","NORP In pleadings dated DATE the applicant changed his claim . He applied for a divorce on fault - based grounds ( wina wy\u0142\u0105czna ) . In his opinion , the respondent used to be controlling , incapable of reaching a compromise on any issue and unwilling to accept his arguments . This was , in his view , the main reason for the breakdown of their marriage .","During a hearing held on DATE the applicant \u2019s aunt , PERSON , testified . She said that NORP was a very good wife . She cared deeply about the applicant and was very conscientious about household tasks . The witness had never heard the applicant complaining about his marriage . A second witness , GPE , the parties\u2019 friend , testified that the applicant and the respondent had complementary personalities and that she had never seen them fighting . A third witness , PERSON , also their friend , recalled that the applicant used to say that he had \u201c a wife and a mother in CARDINAL \u201d because of the good care the defendant had been taking of him . In his opinion , the applicant was satisfied with his marriage . A fourth witness , PERSON , the respondent \u2019s brother , said that in his view the marriage was good .","During a hearing on DATE the applicant \u2019s mother testified that she had considered her son \u2019s marriage to be good . The applicant had never complained about his wife , but she sometimes complained about his flaws . She was not convinced that her son had really carefully considered his decision about the divorce . The parties\u2019 home had been clean and well - kept thanks to the respondent \u2019s efforts and work . She recalled only minor misunderstandings between the parties . The second witness , PERSON , the applicant \u2019s cousin , stated that the applicant had been deeply in love with the respondent . She had not heard the applicant praising the quality of his married life or complaining about it .","During a hearing on DATE CARDINAL witnesses expressed the opinion that the marriage was good .","The parties to the proceedings were also heard . The applicant testified that his new partner was against his divorce . Nevertheless , his new involvement had helped him to ponder carefully his decision to divorce . The applicant accused the respondent of infidelity , which had allegedly taken place during their engagement . He described his marriage as boring . The respondent did not agree to the divorce . In her opinion the applicant \u2019s affair was just a passing period of foolishness . She declared that she loved the applicant and her willingness to give him a second chance .","On DATE the ORG refused to grant the divorce . The court established that the applicant and NORP had married in DATE . They did not have children . In DATE they had married in church . Subsequently , the applicant had met another woman . In DATE he had informed NORP that he had fallen in love with someone else .","The court held , having regard to the evidence gathered in the proceedings , that the breakdown of the marriage was complete and irretrievable within the meaning of the provisions of LAW on divorce . The financial , emotional and sexual relations between the spouses had come to end , essentially because of the applicant \u2019s relationship with another woman . The court was of the view that there was no prospect of him returning to his wife .","The court further observed that NORP was a very good partner to him and was not at fault for the breakdown of the marriage . She still loved her husband and was ready to forgive him for his affair . The court stressed that the applicant was the only person responsible for the marital breakdown . He was at fault not only because he had failed to comply with the spousal obligations enumerated in LAW , but also because he had not been loyal towards the respondent . He had failed to respect his obligation of fidelity and had clearly stated during the proceedings his intention to continue his relationship with another woman . Having regard thereto , the court considered that the wife \u2019s refusal to give consent had to be considered to be legitimate and compatible with the principles of social coexistence within the meaning of LAW . In this regard the court referred to established case - law of ORG concerning situations where an innocent spouse refuses to consent to a divorce . The court stressed that a refusal of consent to a divorce was a right and could not as such be presumed to be against the principles of social coexistence ( ORG judgment nos . II CKN CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE and III CR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) . Even considerable length of a separation between spouses did not override the presumption that a refusal to give consent to divorce complied with those rules ( ORG judgment no . III CR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) .","The applicant appealed , challenging the findings of fact made by the court . He argued that his relationship with his wife had never been good . The fact that he had entered into a new relationship had been precisely because of the poor quality of their marriage . The court had been wrong in finding that his involvement with another woman had caused the marital problems . His relationship with her was viable as they had been living together for DATE over DATE . The applicant referred to a new factor he had not raised before , namely that the respondent had not wanted to have sex with him . He changed his claim once again , asking this time for a divorce where both parties were considered at fault .","On DATE the ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . It considered that the applicant \u2019s wife was not at fault for the breakdown of the marriage and that her refusal to consent therefore had to be regarded as legitimate . The court noted that even the witnesses called by the applicant had testified that their marriage had been good and generally amicable .","The applicant and his legal representative were present at the hearing and during the oral pronouncement of the judgment . The president of the court read out the operative part and afterwards orally explained the main grounds for the decision .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s legal representative asked for the written grounds of the appellate judgment . On DATE they were served on him .","Pursuant to LAW ( ORG rodzinny i opieku\u0144czy ) , either spouse may file a petition for divorce if there has been a complete and irretrievable marriage breakdown ( zupe\u0142ny i trwa\u0142y rozk\u0142ad po\u017cycia ) . For the purposes of establishing whether a complete breakdown has occurred , the established judicial practice is to examine ex officio whether the financial , emotional and sexual ties between the spouses have ended ( ORG decision no . III CKN CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , and ORG of Appeal decision no . I ACa DATE ) . The courts establish it applying the general procedural rules governing the taking of evidence , in addition to certain specific rules provided for by LAW for the purposes of divorce proceedings .","NORP In particular , under LAW , a decision in a divorce case can not be based exclusively on the admission of the claim or of certain facts by the respondent . LAW provides that both parties to a divorce case are to be heard in person . Under LAW , if the respondent admits the divorce claim and the spouses have no minor children , the court may limit the taking of evidence to hearing the parties .","Under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , a divorce may not be granted even where there has been a complete breakdown of the marriage , if :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ... it would be detrimental to the well - being of [ the ] minor children [ of the marriage ] or if , for other reasons , granting the divorce would be contrary to the principles of social coexistence ( zasady wsp\u00f3\u0142\u017cycia spo\u0142ecznego ) ;","( CARDINAL ) ... it has been requested by the spouse who is at fault for the breakdown of the marriage , unless the other spouse has expressed his or her consent thereto , or the refusal of such consent by the other spouse is \u2013 in the circumstances at issue \u2013 contrary to the reasonable principles of social coexistence ... \u201d","DATE the Civil Code reads :","\u201c No one shall exercise any right of his in a manner contrary to its socio - economic purpose or to the principles of social coexistence ( zasady wsp\u00f3\u0142\u017cycia spo\u0142ecznego ) . An act or omission [ fulfilling this description ] on the part of the holder of the right shall not be deemed to be the exercise of the right and shall be protected [ by law ] . \u201d","The courts have developed ample case - law addressing situations where a respondent spouse refuses to consent to a divorce . In particular , they have held that an innocent respondent has a right to refuse to consent . A presumption of good faith was therefore applicable to such a refusal , until it was demonstrated , with reference to the specific circumstances of a case , that the refusal ran counter to the principles of social coexistence within the meaning of LAW ( ORG decision nos . II CKN CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE and I CKN CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) . In particular , the respondent spouse \u2019s intention to frustrate the petitioner \u2019s plans to formalise his or her extramarital relationship should not , by itself , be regarded as being incompatible with these principles , if it has been shown that the refusal was inspired by a wish to continue the marriage , consistent with ethical and social standards ( ORG decision no . CKN CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) .","The courts are obliged to assess whether or not a refusal to consent to a divorce amounts to an abuse of rights in the light of the spouses\u2019 situation and conditions caused by the breakdown of their marriage , both of the innocent respondent and the petitioner . It is only in the light of these findings that a thorough assessment can be made whether a refusal is consonant with universally accepted morality rules ( regu\u0142y moralno\u015bci ) and whether or not it is detrimental to other interests worthy of legal protection ( ORG decision no . I CKN CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) . The factors to be taken into account include , inter alia , the spouses\u2019 health , age and ability to earn a living and the length of the marriage ( ORG decision nos . I CR CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and III CKN CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , and ORG of Appeal decision no . I ACa CARDINAL of DATE ) . The fact that the petitioner has children born from an extramarital relationship is also of relevance ( ORG decision no . C CARDINAL of DATE ) .","The refusal of an innocent spouse should be overridden if it is shown that the respondent is motivated merely by a wish to harass the petitioner and to prevent him or her from formalising his or her new relationship ( ORG decision no . III CKN CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) .","The respondent \u2019s conduct after the marriage breakdown also has to be taken into consideration ; if it is spiteful and reprehensible , the refusal of consent can be overridden ( ORG decision no . II CKN CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) . Likewise , the causes of the breakdown and the circumstances which have arisen thereafter , including the existence of other relationships and extramarital children , have to be taken into consideration by the court ( ORG decision no . III CKN CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) .","Under LAW of LAW , the president of a judicial panel reads out the operative part of the judgment in open court . Afterwards the president or judge rapporteur orally explains the main grounds for the decision ( podaje ustnie zasadnicze powody rozstrzygni\u0119cia ) .","Under LAW , written grounds for a judicial decision may be prepared at a party \u2019s request submitted within DATE of its delivery . Written grounds must consist of a summary of the facts established by the court , refer to the evidence relied on by the court , indicate the reasons why the court considered that evidence to be credible and give legal reasons for the decision adopted ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147040","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ISTRATOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No 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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE before the arrest .","On DATE the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of rape .","DATE and DATE the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE . The parties submitted differing information about the material conditions of his detention .","The applicant claimed that the facility was overcrowded . Cell CARDINAL , in which he stayed throughout his detention , measured CARDINAL sq . m and accommodated CARDINAL inmates . Walls were mouldy and the lavatory pan was not separated from the rest of the cell . Ventilation did not function ; no toiletries were distributed and the bedding was ragged . The food was of low quality . The detainees were allowed to take a shower only once per week . In support of his allegations , the applicant submitted CARDINAL identicallyworded statements by his cellmates , who \u2013 without further detail \u2013 declared that they \u201c fully support[ed ] Mr PERSON \u2019s complaint to ORG \u201d .","The Government submitted a number of certificates issued by the director of remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on DATE , which demonstrated that the applicant was held in CARDINAL cells having the following characteristics :","cell CARDINAL , which measured CARDINAL sq . m , was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and actually hosted DATE inmates ;","cell CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY . m , was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and accomodated between CARDINAL and CARDINAL detainees ;","cell CARDINAL , which measured CARDINAL sq . m , was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and hosted DATE inmates ;","cell CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY . m , was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and held the same number of detainees .","It follows from the certificates that the applicant was provided with bedding and toiletries and afforded DATE TIME - long outdoor exercise , a DATE shower and access to washing facilities . There was forced ventilation and artificial lighting in the cells . In addition , the windows were not covered by shutters , allowing natural light to penetrate into the cells , and were equipped with a small opening pane that provided access to fresh air . Lavatory pans were separated from the rest of the cells by a brick partition and were located QUANTITY away from dining tables . In addition , all CARDINAL cells were equipped with a water tap with hot and cold running water . Heating was provided during DATE .","The ORG also submitted copies of the prison population register which covered DATE out of DATE during DATE the applicant \u2019s detention and presented the following information about the numbers of sleeping places in the cells and their actual occupancy :","cell CARDINAL was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and held a maximum of CARDINAL detainees ;","cell CARDINAL was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and held CARDINAL inmates ;","cell CARDINAL was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and held a maximum of CARDINAL detainees ;","cell CARDINAL was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and held QUANTITY inmates .","It appears that the applicant complained to the GPE city prosecutor about the conditions of his detention . In his reply of DATE the prosecutor acknowledged that \u201c not every detainee was afforded the [ statutory ] standard of QUANTITY due to overpopulation of the prison \u201d .","NORP Some time later the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation in connection with inadequate conditions of detention in remand prison IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL . On DATE , ORG of GPE examined the claim and held that :","\u201c According to a prison population certificate issued by the director of remand prison IZ-CARDINAL of GPE , cell CARDINAL measures QUANTITY m and is equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places . Cell CARDINAL measures QUANTITY m and is equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places . Cell CARDINAL measures QUANTITY m and is equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and cell CARDINAL measures QUANTITY . m and is equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places .","It follows from the case file that Mr PERSON was always provided with a separate sleeping place and that the number of detainees never exceeded that of sleeping places .","...","It was established ... that the applicant \u2019s argument about the overpopulation of the cells he had been held in , [ affording as a result ] CARDINAL sq . m per person , had been substantiated .","However , considering that Mr PERSON did not complain that he had been afforded personal space below the sanitary standard ( QUANTITY ) ... and was always provided with a separate sleeping place ... the court considers it appropriate to reject Mr PERSON \u2019s claim . \u201d","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty and gave him a custodial sentence . The applicant appealed , complaining about an erroneous interpretation of law and improper assessment of evidence by ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["13"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155713","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ALEXANDER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - After conviction)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in detention at HMP ORG .","On DATE , after pleading guilty to counts of rape , indecent assault and robbery , the applicant was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence for the public protection ( \u201c IPP \u201d ) . The minimum term that the applicant had to serve before being eligible for release ( the \u201c tariff \u201d ) was set at DATE . His tariff was due to expire on DATE .","On DATE the applicant completed alcohol in cell work and on DATE he completed an alcohol awareness course .","In DATE the applicant was transferred to GPE . DATE to DATE he participated in the Enhanced Thinking Skills ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) course .","In DATE the applicant completed the Living with Loss course .","On DATE the applicant completed ORG ( \u201c SOTP \u201d ) . In a post - programme progress review dated DATE , further work to reduce his risk of reoffending was identified , namely full engagement in the Structured Assessment of Risk and Need ( \u201c SARN \u201d ) process and full engagement in further assessments for sexual offending programmes .","A SARN Report dated DATE prepared by a forensic psychologist in training noted that the applicant was assessed at a high statistic and high dynamic risk of sexual reoffending . It recommended personality and psychiatric assessments followed by completion of the extended Sex Offenders Treatment Programme ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) in order to reduce his risk . It concluded that the risk presented by the applicant was not low enough for him to be transferred to open conditions . The applicant was placed on a waiting list for the ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed by ORG that it had not directed his release on licence or transfer to open conditions as some risk factors were outstanding . It noted that the Secretary of ORG had identified the need for sex offending and alcohol awareness work to reduce the level of risk . The applicant \u2019s next parole process was to commence in DATE , with an oral hearing in DATE .","On DATE the applicant made a formal application to GPE , where he was then detained , to ask whether it intended to run the ESOTP . He was advised in reply that the prison planned to run the ORG in DATE . The applicant was not selected to participate in the course .","On DATE the applicant completed a further alcohol awareness course .","On DATE ORG decided , on the papers , not to direct the applicant \u2019s release . It noted that the applicant had completed an accredited alcohol course , the ORG course and the ORG and that he hoped to complete the Thinking Skills Programme ( \u201c NORP \u201d ) and ORG in the near future . It concluded :","\u201c You have been consistently well motivated to engage with all work identified as necessary for you . This is to your credit , as is your calm and personable approach . You have made some progress in that you now talk more openly and in more depth about your sexual offences . This has enabled you to work constructively with programme facilitators , and has provided a foundation on which to build in the ORG . You are motivated to complete that programme , and it is only available in the closed estate \u2013 any move to open conditions would therefore be premature . Release is , at present , out of the question . There is some lack of clarity around some of the risk factors in your case , and you yourself recognise that there is more to be done in terms of addressing risk ... \u201d","NORP In DATE the applicant completed the FAC .","By letter dated DATE , the applicant was informed that the Secretary of ORG had considered the ORG recommendation and agreed that the applicant was not suitable for release or transfer to open prison conditions . The next review period was set at DATE , allowing DATE for completion of CARDINAL , DATE for completion of ORG and DATE for production of a further SARN report . The review would therefore commence in DATE with a view to completion by DATE .","In a Sentence Planning and Review Report dated DATE , it was recognised that ORG was a course that the applicant should concentrate on as part of his sentence plan . The report observed that the applicant \u2019s need to improve his use of alternative styles of thinking had been addressed through his attendance at the FAC . The report further noted :","\u201c Alcohol was an area that was problematic before his incarceration ... He has completed an accredited alcohol course ( TADS ) and continues to work with CARDINAL to address this issue . Mr PERSON has completed ORG and reports following completion were positive ... His sentence plan also recommends that he is assessed for ORG . I understand from the programmes department that due to lack of resources this remains an objective . However , I am confident that subject to local prioritization strategy this should be completed in DATE . \u201d","The applicant \u2019s tariff expired on DATE .","On DATE ORG notified the applicant \u2019s solicitors that the applicant was listed on their database \u201c as a priority for assessment \u201d prior to the next ORG scheduled to commence in DATE . The applicant was not selected to participate in the course .","On DATE the applicant completed a \u201c Change is Possible \u201d group work session . On an unknown date , he attended a brick - laying course .","On DATE the applicant made a formal application to GPE to ask for an assurance that he would have a place on the next ESOTP . He was advised in reply that no such assurance could be given but that he was a \u201c high priority \u201d .","On DATE ORG advised the applicant \u2019s solicitors that he would continue to be considered for the next group to participate in the ORG , in line with the prioritisation strategy .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s ORG commented on the work done to date and noted :","\u201c Unfortunately , PERSON has yet to get a place on the [ ORG ] and it is hoped that he will in DATE . \u201d","In its recommendation , the report stated :","\u201c It is hoped that [ the applicant ] will be able to participate in the ORG ( DATE in duration ) that is scheduled for DATE . Until that programme is completed and a further ORG written to identify whether further intervention is required to manage risk , there can be no change to his current assessments and there is no support for a move to less secure conditions at this time ... \u201d","On DATE ORG decided on the papers not to direct the applicant \u2019s release , deeming him still a risk to the public until he completed the ORG . Its report stated :","\u201c Through no fault of your own , you have been unable to complete ORG but it is anticipated that you will have the opportunity to do so in DATE . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was informed by ORG programmes team that his placement onto the ORG expected to run in DATE would depend on the assessment process , which was ongoing , and on his level of priority .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s solicitors advised him that HMP Bure had informed them that the applicant would be assessed for a place on the ORG to commence in DATE .","On DATE the applicant was informed that the ORG decision of DATE was final and that the next review would commence in DATE , with a view to a hearing in DATE .","On DATE the applicant was assessed as being suitable for the ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s solicitors advised him that they had been informed by GPE that he was a \u201c relatively high priority \u201d to complete the next ORG running at FAC in DATE .","In DATE the applicant was transferred to PERSON . In DATE he underwent further assessments for the ORG in order for prison staff to decide whether he could access the ORG at another prison or whether he should undertake the course at PERSON .","On an unknown date in DATE the applicant commenced the ESOTP at ORG . He was due to complete the course in DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-a"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167820","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"BILOGLAV v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was a soldier in ORG . He was wounded in the war in DATE but continued to serve in the army until he was honourably discharged in DATE .","On DATE a medical board of ORG ( ORG obrane PERSON ) declared the applicant medically unfit for military service . The decision was based on his medical records . He was informed that he could appeal against that decision to the ORG \u2019s second - instance medical board .","The applicant appealed . On DATE he was summoned to appear before the second - instance medical board and to submit further medical documentation concerning his condition . The applicant failed to appear and did not provide any further medical documentation .","On DATE the second - instance medical board dismissed his appeal as unfounded , on the grounds that given his failure to appear before the board and in view of the available documentation , there was no reason to call into question the existing medical assessment of his condition . The applicant was informed that he could challenge the ORG \u2019s decision by lodging an administrative action with ORG , which , however , did not have suspensive effect .","The decisions of the ORG \u2019s medical board became final and enforceable on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action with ORG ( GPE ) challenging the decision of the ORG \u2019s medical board of DATE . He argued that the ORG \u2019s assessment of his fitness for military service was flawed and unfounded . He contended in particular that he had never been properly summoned or examined by the ORG \u2019s medical board and that their findings contradicted the fact that he had carried out all his military assignments efficiently and had even participated in a mission to GPE .","On DATE , after hearing the parties\u2019 arguments and examining further submissions from them , ORG declared the applicant \u2019s administrative action inadmissible on the grounds that the ORG \u2019s medical board was not a public authority against whose decisions an administrative action could be lodged , and that the applicant could only lodge an action against the ORG \u2019s decision to terminate his employment in the army .","The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) complaining , in particular , that he did not have access to court concerning the assessment of his fitness for military service .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the ORG \u2019s department for human resources terminated the applicant \u2019s service in the army by an honourable discharge . It ordered that the discharge would take effect on DATE . The ORG relied on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , providing that military service would terminate ex lege DATE after the decision of a medical board declaring a soldier medically unfit for military service became final ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The decision on the applicant \u2019s discharge from the army was confirmed on appeal by a second - instance administrative body within the Ministry on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action in the ORG challenging the decision on the termination of his military service . He contended in particular that he had not been able to participate effectively in the proceedings before the ORG \u2019s medical board concerning the assessment of his fitness for military service . He also reiterated his complaints concerning the alleged failures of the medical board to properly assess his medical condition .","During the proceedings , ORG heard the applicant and obtained the parties\u2019 further written submissions on the matter of the termination of the applicant \u2019s employment in the army . Concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations of inadequacy of the assessment of his fitness for military service , ORG heard PERSON , who had presided over the ORG \u2019s first - instance medical board . PERSON was also questioned by the applicant and his representative . He explained the methodology and procedures applied for the assessment of the applicant \u2019s fitness for military service , and stressed that the available medical documentation in the applicant \u2019s case had suggested that he was not medically fit for military service .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s administrative action . It examined in detail the manner in which the applicant \u2019s unfitness for military service had been established and found that there was nothing in the procedure or findings of the medical board which would raise doubt as to the necessity of the applicant \u2019s discharge from the army .","The relevant Military Service Act ( Zakon o slu\u017ebi u oru\u017eanim snagama PERSON , ORG nos . ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) provided in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) that the military service could terminate only in the following circumstances : ( CARDINAL ) ex lege under the conditions provided for in that LAW ; ( CARDINAL ) on the basis of a personal request ; ( CARDINAL ) by the expiry of a term for which an individual was recruited ; ( CARDINAL ) by dismissal ; ( CARDINAL ) by the expiry of the probationary period ; and ( CARDINAL ) on the basis of an agreement .","In section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) LAW provided :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Military service shall terminate ex lege ... by a decision of a medical board declaring [ a soldier ] medically unfit for military service DATE after the decision becomes final . \u201d","The Government provided several decisions of ORG declaring inadmissible administrative actions against decisions of the ORG \u2019s medical board on the assessment of appellants\u2019 fitness for military service ( Us-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ; CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ; CARDINAL of DATE and UsI-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) .","These decisions of ORG are based on findings that the ORG \u2019s medical board was not a public authority against whose decisions an administrative action could be lodged , and that further administrative actions could be lodged against any further administrative decisions based on the findings of the medical board .","The parties also provided several decisions of ORG upholding the findings of the ORG \u2019s medical board in administrative proceedings against decisions terminating appellants\u2019 employment in the army ( Us-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ; UsI-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and UsI-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173468","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GUMENIUC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - After conviction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was stopped by the traffic police for speeding .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE the traffic police fined the applicant CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) . The applicant did not challenge the police order .","As the applicant failed to pay the fine , on an unspecified date a bailiff applied to ORG to have the fine converted into CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention , under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the bailiff , the applicant had been ordered to pay the fine by DATE ; however , he had failed to do so and had thus acted in bad faith .","On DATE , at a hearing conducted without the presence of the parties , ORG accepted the bailiff \u2019s request and ordered the applicant \u2019s administrative detention for DATE . The document constituting the court \u2019s decision was a pre - printed template which the judge had completed by hand with the specific details of the case , such as the names of the judge , the applicant and the bailiff , the relevant dates , the amount of the fine , the applicant \u2019s address and DATE of detention to be served by the applicant . It did not contain any indication that the applicant had been summoned to appear at the hearing .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was arrested at home and placed in detention . At TIME DATE he suffered a heart attack and was taken by ambulance to a hospital . He recovered shortly thereafter and was soon discharged from hospital .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , arguing , inter alia , that he had not been summoned to appear at the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , that he had had no knowledge of the decision of CARDINAL DATE prior to his arrest , and that he had not been given a chance to contest the court \u2019s decision before being placed in detention . The applicant also argued that the traffic police \u2019s order of CARDINAL DATE imposing a fine on him for speeding had been abusive because the police had no evidence to prove that it had been his car which had been caught speeding and not other cars on the road .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , finding that the applicant had not challenged the traffic police \u2019s order of DATE within the statutory time - limit . ORG did not respond to the applicant \u2019s argument about the failure to summon him to the hearing of CARDINAL DATE .","It does not appear from the materials of the case that the applicant served the rest of the detention term ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-a"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156265","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF OLIARI AND OTHERS v. ITALY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The details concerning the applicants may be found in the LOC .","In DATE these CARDINAL applicants , who were in a committed stable relationship with each other , declared their intention to marry , and requested ORG of ORG to issue the relevant marriage banns .","On DATE their request was rejected .","NORP The CARDINAL applicants challenged the decision before ORG ( in accordance with LAW ) . They argued that NORP law did not explicitly prohibit marriage between persons of the same sex , and that , even if that were the case , such a position would be unconstitutional .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected their claim . It noted that the LAW did not establish the requirements to contract marriage , but LAW did and it precisely provided that CARDINAL such requirement was that spouses be of the opposite sex . Thus , a marriage between persons of the same sex lacked one of the most essential requirements to render it a valid legal act , namely a difference in sex between the parties . In any event there was no fundamental right to marry , neither could the limited law provisions constitute discrimination , since the limitations suffered by the applicants were the same as those applied to everyone . Furthermore , it noted that ORG ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) law left such rights to be regulated within the national order .","The applicants appealed to ORG . While the court reiterated the unanimous interpretation given to NORP law in the field , namely to the effect that ordinary law , particularly LAW , did not allow marriage between people of the same sex , it considered it relevant to make a referral to ORG in connection with the claims of unconstitutionality of the law in force .","ORG in judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE declared inadmissible the applicants\u2019 constitutional challenge to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis and CARDINAL of the NORP Civil Code , as it was directed to the obtainment of additional norms not provided for by LAW ( diretta ad ottenere una pronunzia additiva non costituzionalmente obbligata ) .","The Constitutional Court considered Article CARDINAL of LAW , which provided that the GPE recognises and guarantees the inviolable rights of the person , as an individual and in social groups where personality is expressed , as well as the duties of political , economic and social solidarity against which there was no derogation . It noted that by social group one had to understand any form of community , simple or complex , intended to enable and encourage the free development of any individual by means of relationships . Such a notion included homosexual unions , understood as a stable cohabitation of CARDINAL people of the same sex , who have a fundamental right to freely express their personality in a couple , obtaining DATE in time and by the means and limits to be set by law \u2013 juridical recognition of the relevant rights and duties . However , this recognition , which necessarily requires general legal regulation aimed at setting out the rights and duties of the partners in a couple , could be achieved in other ways apart from the institution of marriage between homosexuals . As shown by the different systems in LOC , the question of the type of recognition was left to regulation by ORG , in the exercise of its full discretion . Nevertheless , ORG clarified that without prejudice to ORG \u2019s discretion , it could however intervene according to the principle of equality in specific situations related to a homosexual couple \u2019s fundamental rights , where the same treatment of married couples and homosexual couples was called for . The court would in such cases assess the reasonableness of the measures .","It went on to consider that it was true that the concepts of family and marriage could not be considered \u201c crystallised \u201d in reference to the moment when the LAW came into effect , given that constitutional principles must be interpreted bearing in mind changes in the legal order and the evolution of society and its customs . Nevertheless , such an interpretation could not be extended to the point where it affected the very essence of legal norms , modifying them in such a way as to include phenomena and problems which had not been considered in any way when it was enacted . In fact it appeared from the preparatory work to LAW that the question of homosexual unions had not been debated by the assembly , despite the fact that homosexuality was not unknown . In drafting LAW of the LAW , the assembly had discussed an institution with a precise form and an articulate discipline provided for by LAW . Thus , in the absence of any such reference , it was inevitable to conclude that what had been considered was the notion of marriage as defined in LAW , which came into effect in DATE and which at the time , and still DATE , established that spouses had to be of the opposite sex . Therefore , the meaning of this constitutional precept could not be altered by a creative interpretation . In consequence , the constitutional norm did not extend to homosexual unions , and was intended to refer to marriage in its traditional sense .","Lastly , the court considered that , in respect of LAW regarding the principle of equality , the relevant legislation did not create unreasonable discrimination , given that homosexual unions could not be considered equivalent to marriage . Even Article CARDINAL of LAW and LAW did not require full equality between homosexual unions and marriages between a man and a woman , as this was a matter of NORP discretion to be regulated by national law , as evidenced by the different approaches existing in LOC .","In consequence of the above judgment , by a decision ( ordinanza ) lodged in the relevant registry on DATE ORG rejected the ORG claims in full .","NORP In DATE these CARDINAL applicants met and entered into a relationship with each other . In DATE Mr ORG decided to undertake further studies ( and thus stopped earning any income ) , a possibility open to him thanks to the financial support of Mr GPE .","On DATE the couple moved in together . In DATE and DATE the applicants wrote to the President of the Republic highlighting difficulties encountered by same - sex couples and soliciting the enactment of legislation in favour of civil unions .","In DATE the applicants\u2019 physical cohabitation was registered in the LOC records . In DATE they designated each other as guardians in the event of incapacitation ( amministratori di sostegno ) .","On DATE they requested their marriage banns to be issued . On DATE their request was rejected on the basis of the law and jurisprudence pertaining to the subject matter ( see Relevant domestic law below ) .","The CARDINAL applicants did not pursue the remedy provided for under LAW , in so far as it could not be considered effective following the ORG pronouncement mentioned above .","In DATE these CARDINAL applicants met and entered into a relationship with each other . In DATE they started cohabiting and since then they have been in a committed relationship .","In DATE they opened a joint bank account .","NORP In DATE the applicants\u2019 physical cohabitation was registered in the authorities\u2019 records .","On DATE they requested that their marriage banns be issued . The person in charge at the office did not request them to fill in the relevant application , simply attaching their request to a number of analogous requests made by other couples .","On DATE their request was rejected on the basis of the law and jurisprudence pertaining to the subject matter ( see Relevant domestic law below ) .","Mr PERSON and PERSON challenged the decision before ORG .","By a decision ( decreto ) of DATE lodged in the relevant registry on DATE ORG rejected their claim , considering that it was legitimate for ORG to refuse a request to have marriage banns issued for the purposes of a marriage between persons of the same sex , in line with the finding of the ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE .","The applicants did not lodge a further challenge ( reclamo ) under LAW , in so far as it could not be considered effective following the ORG pronouncement ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175121","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SATAKUNNAN MARKKINAP\u00d6RSSI OY AND SATAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Final domestic decision);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Lech Garlicki;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Pauliine Koskelo;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP Since DATE the first applicant company , PERSON collected data from the NORP tax authorities for the purpose of publishing information about natural ORG taxable income and assets in the PERSON newspaper . Several other publishing and media companies also publish such data which , pursuant to NORP law , are accessible to the public ( see paragraph CARDINAL below for an explanation of the NORP access to information regime ) .","In DATE PERSON appeared CARDINAL times , with each issue concentrating on a certain geographical area of the country . The data published comprised the surnames and forenames of CARDINAL natural persons whose DATE taxable income exceeded certain thresholds , mainly from MONEY ( CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) , as well as the amount , to the nearest LAW , of their earned and unearned income and taxable net assets . When published in the newspaper , the data were set out in the form of an alphabetical list and organised according to municipality and income bracket .","The first applicant company worked in cooperation with the second applicant company , PERSON , and both were owned by the same shareholders . In DATE the first applicant company started to transfer personal data published in PERSON , in the form of CD - ROM discs , to the second applicant company which , together with a mobile telephone operator , started a text - messaging service ( SMS service ) . By sending a person \u2019s name to a service number , taxation information could be obtained concerning that person , on the requesting person \u2019s mobile telephone , if information was available in the database or register created by the second applicant company . This database was created using personal data already published in the newspaper and transferred in the form of CD - ROM discs to the second applicant company . DATE the second applicant company also published PERSON .","It transpires from the case file that in DATE the Minister of ORG requested that the police instigate a criminal investigation into the publishing activities of the applicant companies . No information is contained in the file as to the outcome of this request or of any subsequent investigation .","NORP In DATE , the applicant companies ordered taxation data from ORG ( verohallitus , skattestyrelsen ) . Following the first order , ORG requested an opinion from ORG , on the basis of which ORG invited the applicant companies to provide further information regarding their request and indicating that the data could not be disclosed if PERSON continued to be published in its usual form . The applicant companies subsequently cancelled their data request and paid people to collect taxation data manually at the local tax offices .","On an unspecified date , probably in DATE , ORG ( tietosuojavaltuutettu , dataombudsmannen ) contacted the applicant companies and advised them that , although accessing and publishing taxation data were not prohibited as such , they had to cease publishing such data in the manner and to the extent that had been the case in DATE , when they had published data concerning the DATE tax year . The applicant companies refused to abide by this request , which they considered violated their right to freedom of expression .","By a letter of DATE the ORG Ombudsman asked ORG ( tietosuojalautakunta , datasekretessn\u00e4mnden ) to prohibit the applicant companies from processing the taxation data in the manner and to the extent that had been the case in DATE and from passing those data to the SMS service . He claimed that under LAW the companies had no right to collect , store or pass on personal data and that the derogation provided by that LAW concerning journalism did not , in his view , apply to the present case . The collecting of taxation information and the passing of such information to third parties were not for journalistic purposes and therefore were not covered by the derogation in LAW , but rather constituted the processing of personal data in which the applicant companies had no right to engage .","On DATE ORG dismissed ORG request . It found that the derogation laid down in LAW concerning journalism applied to the present case . As regards the SMS service , the data used in the service had already been published in PERSON and therefore the LAW did not apply to it .","NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) reiterating his request that the applicant companies be prohibited from processing taxation data in the manner and to the extent that had been the case in DATE and from passing such data to the SMS service .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It found that the derogation laid down in LAW concerning journalism , which had its origins in Directive PERSON of ORG and of the ORG on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data was adopted ( OJ DATE L CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , hereafter \u201c ORG Directive \u201d ) , should not be interpreted too strictly , as an overly strict interpretation would favour protection of privacy over freedom of expression . That court considered that PERSON had a journalistic purpose and that it was also in the public interest to publish such data . It emphasised , in particular , that the published data were already accessible to the general public . The journalism derogation thus applied in the circumstances of the present case . As regards the SMS service , ORG agreed with ORG that , as the information had already been published in the newspaper , the LAW did not apply to it .","By letter dated DATE ORG lodged an appeal with ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG .","On DATE ORG decided to request a preliminary ruling from ORG of ORG ( which became ORG of ORG on DATE , hereafter the \u201c CJEU \u201d ) on the interpretation of Directive CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG of the CJEU handed down its judgment ( see Case C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Tietosuojavaltuutettu v. PERSON and PERSON , ORG : C:CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) . It found , first of all , that the activities in question constituted \u201c processing of personal data \u201d within the meaning of Article CARDINAL ) of Directive CARDINAL . According to the ORG , activities involving the processing of personal data such as those relating to personal data files which contained solely , and in unaltered form , material that had already been published in the media , also fell within the scope of the Directive ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE of the judgment ) . The object of the derogation in LAW personal data carried out solely for journalistic purposes was to reconcile the protection of privacy with freedom of expression . In order to take account of the importance of the latter in every democratic society , it was necessary to interpret notions relating to that freedom , such as journalism , broadly . However , in order to achieve a balance between those CARDINAL fundamental rights , the protection of the fundamental right to privacy required that the derogations and limitations in relation to the protection of data had to apply only in so far as were strictly necessary ( see paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment ) . Journalistic activities were not limited to media undertakings and could be undertaken for profit - making purposes ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . Furthermore , when interpreting the journalistic purposes derogation , account must be taken of the evolution and proliferation of methods of communication and the dissemination of information . Activities such as those involved in the domestic proceedings , relating to data from documents which were in the public domain under domestic legislation , could be classified as \u201c journalistic activities \u201d if their sole object was the disclosure to the public of information , opinions or ideas , irrespective of the medium which was used to transmit them . Whether or not that was the case , was for the national court to determine ( see paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment ) .","On DATE ORG , applying the ruling of the LAW and with reference to the case - law on LAW , quashed the impugned decisions of ORG and ORG and referred the case back to ORG for a fresh examination with a view to issuing an order pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . ORG requested ORG to prohibit the processing of taxation data by the applicant companies in the manner and to the extent carried out in DATE .","In its legal assessment , ORG gave the following reasoning :","\u201c Scope of the matter","The present case does not concern the question of the extent to which taxation data and official documents concerning taxation are public under LAW on ORG and ORG .","Nor does it concern the right to publish taxation data as such but only the processing of personal data . Therefore , there is no issue of possible prior interference with the content of the publications , but rather an assessment of whether the legal conditions set for personal data processing and protection of privacy are fulfilled .","The reconciliation of protection of privacy with freedom of expression is part of the legal assessment of personal data processing in the matter .","...","Reconciliation of the protection of privacy and freedom of expression","Interpretation of the exception concerning journalistic purposes in ORG . ORG of ORG emphasised that the purpose of ORG is to ensure that when processing their personal data , the Member GPE guarantee ORG fundamental rights and freedoms , and in particular their right to privacy , while allowing the free movement of such information . The ORG further emphasised that these fundamental rights must be reconciled to a certain extent with the fundamental right to freedom of expression , and that this task belongs to GPE .","...","It therefore appears from the aforementioned ruling of ORG of ORG that the concept of journalism must , as such , be interpreted broadly within the meaning of LAW , that , on the other hand , the protection of privacy can be derogated from only in so far as it is strictly necessary , and that this task of reconciliation of the CARDINAL fundamental rights is the task of GPE . Ensuring proper balance between the rights and interests at stake , including the fundamental rights guaranteed in the GPE legal order , is the task of the domestic authorities and courts ( see also case C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL PERSON ) .","Interpretation of the exception in LAW concerning journalistic purposes . ... It transpires from the preparatory work on LAW ( HE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL vp ) that the purpose of the adoption of LAW was to maintain the existing situation in respect of journalistic files kept by the media , provided it remained within the limits imposed by ORG . Therefore , in order to conclude that processing of personal data is conducted for journalistic purposes within the meaning of LAW , inter alia , that data must be used solely for journalistic activities and the data must not be made available to persons other than those involved in those journalistic activities .","When interpreting section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , particular regard must be had to the fact that it concerns the reconciliation of CARDINAL fundamental rights , namely the freedom of expression and the protection of privacy .","...","The case - law of ORG has also adopted a position on reconciling freedom of expression with the protection of privacy . The ORG has held , inter alia in its PERSON judgment of DATE , that the press plays an essential role in a NORP society . Although it must not overstep certain bounds , in particular in respect of the reputation and rights of others , its duty is nevertheless to impart , in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities , information and ideas on all matters of public interest .","On the other hand , the ORG also held in the above - mentioned judgment that increased vigilance as regards the protection of private life was necessary in order to contend with the new communications technologies which make it possible to store and reproduce personal data .","According to the ORG , when balancing the protection of private life against freedom of expression , the decisive criterion had to be the contribution made by publishing the data to a debate of public interest . If a publication is only meant to satisfy the curiosity of a certain audience , freedom of expression must be interpreted more narrowly .","In the present case , it must be assessed to what extent the impugned processing of personal data as carried out in the course of the ORG activities falls within the scope of the exception concerning journalistic purposes that is provided for in section CARDINAL ) of LAW . The starting point is whether the aim of their activities was to disclose information , opinions or ideas to the public . In this assessment , account must be taken of whether or to what extent those activities can be seen as contributing to a debate in a NORP society rather than solely satisfying the curiosity of certain individuals .","Processing of personal taxation data in the background file of PERSON and in the PERSON newspaper","PERSON collected for the PERSON newspaper taxation data from different tax offices in which ORG names appear together with information on their taxable income .","As mentioned above , the case concerns the processing of personal data to which the general requirements in LAW of LAW are applicable , unless the LAW allows for an exception from the application of these provisions . It must first of all be assessed whether the processing of personal data in the company \u2019s background file before the publication of such data in the PERSON newspaper falls within the scope of the exception concerning journalistic purposes .","From the preparatory work on the amendment of LAW ( HE CARDINAL vp ) , which was the LAW in force before LAW , it transpires in particular that the press considers that the right to freely disclose information also requires journalists to be able , in advance , to freely collect and store information . Restricting the processing of personal data at this stage , that is to say before publication , could in practice mean that a prior decision is taken on what can be published . Such an outcome would be incompatible with the fundamental right guaranteeing freedom of expression .","The issue at stake in the present case concerns publicly accessible personal data received from the tax authorities . The collection and processing of such data in the company \u2019s internal files for the purpose of the company \u2019s publishing activities can , on the basis of above - mentioned grounds , be regarded as processing of personal data for journalistic purposes . The processing of large quantities of such data from the various municipal taxation records may well be necessary as background information for the purpose of the editing of a publication concerning taxation and from the point of view of free communication and open debate . At this stage of activities the protection of the privacy of the persons concerned can also be sufficiently secured , provided that the data collected and stored in the file are protected against unlawful processing as required by section CARDINAL of LAW .","PERSON has published the personal data collected from the tax offices as wide - ranging municipality - based catalogues in the PERSON newspaper . As already stated above , in this regard too it is a question of processing personal data within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . As part of the case file , ORG had at its disposal PERSON newspaper no . CARDINAL , published by PERSON and covering the GPE metropolitan area .","In this respect it must be decided whether a derogation is possible from the requirements relating to the processing of personal data on the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , that is to say whether the impugned processing of personal data by publishing those data in the PERSON newspaper came within the scope of the exception provided for journalistic purposes .","...","It transpires from the preparatory work on LAW ( HE PERSON ) that the processing of data in the background file referred to in LAW must relate solely to journalistic activities and that the processed data must not be made available to any persons not engaged in journalistic activities . The purpose of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW was to maintain the existing situation in respect of journalistic files kept by the media , within the limits allowed by ORG . Therefore , the purpose of LAW in this respect can be seen as guaranteeing the possibility for free journalistic work prior to the publication of information .","The term \u201c processing of personal data for journalistic purposes \u201d can not be regarded as covering the large \u2013 scale publication of the journalistic background file , almost verbatim , as catalogues , albeit split into different parts and sorted by municipality .","Since the disclosure of registered data on such a scale is equivalent to the disclosure of the entire background file kept for journalistic purposes by the company , such disclosure does not represent solely an expression of information , opinions or ideas . As stated above , with a view to reconciling the requirements of freedom of expression with the protection of privacy , the collection of data before publication has been made permissible under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW without any requirement of compliance with general conditions set out in LAW . By contrast , the processing of personal data collected in the company \u2019s background file by publishing it and by rendering it available to the general public to the extent that has been done in the present case , and beyond the scope of the minimum requirements set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , can not be regarded as compatible with the purpose of LAW .","Open public - interest debate , the monitoring of the exercise of power in society and the freedom to criticise , which are necessary in a NORP society , do not require the disclosure of the personal data of specific individuals in the manner and to the extent described above . When regard is also had to the foregoing comments on the narrow interpretation of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and the fact that a strict literal interpretation of that provision would result in a situation incompatible with the purpose of the LAW as regards protection of personal data , the processing of personal data with a view to publishing them in the PERSON newspaper , and as far as the contents of this publication itself are concerned , was not conducted for journalistic purposes within the meaning of LAW .","...","Having regard to sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW and LAW , as interpreted by ORG of ORG in its preliminary ruling , the collection of personal data prior to its publication in the PERSON newspaper and its processing in the background file of PERSON can not as such be regarded as contrary to the regulations concerning the protection of personal data , provided that , inter alia , the data have been protected properly . However , with reference to all the clarifications on how and to what extent the personal data in the background file were further processed in the PERSON newspaper , PERSON did in fact process personal data concerning natural persons in violation of LAW .","Handover of data in a CD - ROM","PERSON handed over a CD - ROM containing the published data to PERSON so that the latter could start up an SMS service using that data . As mentioned above , that action amounts to the processing of personal data within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","Having regard to the preliminary ruling of ORG of ORG and its effect on the interpretation of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , as well as all that has been said above about the processing of personal data in the PERSON newspaper , the handover to PERSON of personal data collected in the background file of PERSON , even though they were published in the PERSON newspaper , can not be regarded as processing of personal data for journalistic purposes within the meaning of LAW . Nor can the processing of personal data in such a manner be regarded as having been effected for journalistic purposes within the meaning of LAW . Therefore , in that regard too , PERSON processed personal data in violation of LAW .","Processing of personal data for the realisation of a SMS service by ORG","As stated above in the \u201c Facts \u201d section , PERSON handed over the above - mentioned personal data to a third company in order to start up a SMS service , which company operated the SMS service on behalf of PERSON .","It was pointed out above that PERSON had no right under LAW to process the personal data at issue by handing it over to PERSON . Consequently , PERSON also had no right under LAW to process personal data received in this manner .","In addition , it follows from the preliminary ruling of ORG of ORG that the exception provided for in ORG , which concerns the processing of personal data for journalistic purposes , requires the disclosure of data to the public . According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW on the Exercise of Freedom of Expression in ORG , the term \u201c the public \u201d in that Act refers to a group of freely determined message recipients . ORG SMS service involves the company processing personal data relating to the taxation of a specific individual on the basis of a request by another individual . It therefore does not concern disclosure of data to the general public , as explained above , but replying to a request by an individual concerning the personal data of another individual .","Open public - interest debate , the monitoring of the exercise of power in society and the freedom to criticise , which are necessary in a NORP society , do not require the possibility of processing the personal data of specific individuals as has been done in this case . Freedom of expression does not require any derogation from the protection of privacy in such a situation .","ORG further stated in its preliminary ruling that the technical means used for the transfer of information is not relevant when assessing whether there is any question of activities undertaken solely for journalistic purposes . As regards the SMS service operated by PERSON , it is irrelevant that the data were transferred via mobile phones and text messages . Therefore , this is not a case of treating this mode of transmission of data differently from other modes of transmission . The assessment would be the same if the company processed , on the basis of a request by an individual , the personal data of another individual by using some other mode of transmission . \u201d","Pursuant to the above - mentioned judgment of ORG , on DATE ORG prohibited the first applicant company from processing taxation data in the manner and to the extent that had been the case in DATE and from forwarding that information to an SMS service . It found that the collection of personal data prior to its publication in PERSON and its processing in the background file of the first applicant company could not as such be regarded as contrary to the data protection rules , provided , inter alia , that the data had been protected properly . However , considering the manner and the extent to which the personal data in the background file had been published in PERSON , the first applicant company had processed personal data concerning natural persons in violation of LAW . The second applicant company was prohibited from collecting , storing or forwarding to an SMS service any data received from the first applicant company \u2019s database and published in PERSON .","NORP By letter dated DATE , after ORG had made its decision , ORG asked the applicant companies to indicate what action they were envisaging in response to the ORG \u2019s decision . In their reply , the applicant companies asked for ORG views on the conditions under which they could continue to publish public taxation data at least to a certain extent . In his reply ORG stated , with reference to the decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE , that \u201c when data on taxable income were collected in a database and published in large catalogues almost as it stood , LAW was applicable ... \u201d . He reminded them of his duty to report any breach of LAW to the police .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant companies appealed against the decision of ORG to ORG , which transferred the case to ORG . They complained that the decision violated the LAW prohibition of censorship as well as their right to freedom of expression . According to the applicants , under domestic law , it was not possible to prevent publication of information on the basis of the amount of information to be published or of the means used for its publication . Nor was it possible to rely on the \u201c public interest \u201d as a criterion for preventing publication where preventive restriction of freedom of expression was concerned . Accepting that would mean that the authorities would be able to prevent publication if they thought that the publication did not promote discussion of a topic of public interest .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ORG appeal . It found that ORG had stated in its decision of DATE that the case concerned neither the public accessibility of taxation data nor the right to publish such information per se . As the court was now examining only the DATE decision rendered by ORG , it could not examine the issues which ORG had excluded from the scope of its DATE decision . As the ORG \u2019s decision corresponded to the content of the latter decision , there was no reason to change it .","NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant companies further appealed to ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG , reiterating that the case concerned neither the right to publish taxation information as such , nor preventive censorship .","According to the information submitted by the applicants , the SMS service was shut down after the DATE decision of ORG was served on the applicant companies . The newspaper continued publishing taxation data in DATE when its content was CARDINAL of the previous content . Since then the newspaper has not appeared . The Government , on the other hand , submitted that , according to the applicant ORG website , PERSON was still being published on a regional basis in DATE and DATE . Moreover , an Internet service continued to operate allowing anyone to request a natural person \u2019s tax data concerning DATE by filling in a form on the website in question . The requested tax information would then be delivered to the customer by phone call , text message or e - mail .","The editor - in - chief of ORG lodged an application with the ORG in DATE , complaining that the impugned decision of ORG violated his right to freedom of expression . On DATE the application was declared inadmissible as being incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention ( see PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The first applicant company was declared bankrupt on DATE . The bankruptcy administration did not oppose the continuation of the present proceedings before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155357","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CARAIAN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody for TIME on suspicion of intellectual forgery ( fals intelectual ) and use of forged documents ( uz de fals ) .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG detained the applicant for DATE pending trial on account of the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect public order .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention by DATE on account of the seriousness of the offences , the need to protect public order , and the need to prevent him from destroying evidence .","The applicant challenged the order before the domestic courts and requested to be released under judicial supervision .","By a final interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s challenge . It held that the applicant \u2019s arrest had been lawful ; however there was no lawful reason concerning the applicant that would prevent the court from releasing him under judicial supervision .","On DATE ORG indicted the applicant and other co - accused for bribery , influence peddling , complicity in fraud , intellectual forgery , and use of forged documents , and referred the case to ORG .","On DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG heard the applicant , his co - accused and the witnesses in the case . In addition it allowed the applicant \u2019s and his co - accuseds\u2019 request for documentary evidence , and ordered an expert financial report to be produced in the case . The applicant submitted that he did not agree that a financial expert report should be produced in the case , and refused to submit observations on the report \u2019s objectives following the court \u2019s request .","On DATE the applicant informed ORG that he had no objections in respect of the financial expert report .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s chosen legal representative submitted oral observations to the court in respect of the merits of the case .","On DATE the ORG acquitted the applicant on the basis of documentary , testimonial and expert evidence in addition to the applicant \u2019s statements , on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed .","ORG appealed against the judgment .","On DATE ORG allowed ORG appeal on the merits , quashed the judgment of DATE , convicted the applicant of bribery , trafficking influence , complicity in fraud , and forgery of privately signed documents ( fals \u020bn \u020bnscrisuri sub semn\u0103tur\u0103 privat\u0103 ) which following changes to the relevant domestic legislation had absorbed the offences of intellectual forgery ( fals intelectual ) and use of forged documents ( uz de fals ) , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , quashed the judgments of DATE and DATE , and referred the case back to ORG for the entire criminal investigation of the case to be carried out again . The court held that the prosecutor \u2019s office had failed to observe the lawful requirements for investigating the case , had established the facts of the case superficially , and had breached procedural rules which affected the very existence of the criminal investigation and the lawfulness of the referral of the case to the court . It noted that the investigation had been carried out mainly by the police , and not by the prosecutor as required by the applicable rules of criminal procedure ; the prosecutor \u2019s office had failed to produce all the relevant evidence in the case concerning the existence of the offences and of the GPE guilt , and had not clarified the contradictions in the available evidence , in particular between the expert opinions produced in respect of the case . The domestic courts which had examined the case had also been unable to clarify the existence or inexistence of the alleged damage caused by the defendants , or to quantify it .","On DATE ORG referred the applicant \u2019s case to ORG . It held that given the applicant \u2019s status and the nature of some of the offences ORG was competent to carry out the criminal investigation in respect of the case .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor attached to ORG heard the applicant and his co - accuseds","On DATE ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings opened against the applicant for bribery and influence peddling on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed . The prosecutor \u2019s office relied on testimonial evidence , including statements by the applicant produced both before the courts and before the prosecutor \u2019s office after the case had been referred back there by the courts . In addition , it referred the case to ORG in order to carry out the criminal investigation opened against the applicant for complicity in fraud and forgery of privately signed documents , on the ground that it was not competent to carry out the investigation in respect of those offences .","On DATE ORG discontinued the criminal investigation initiated against the applicant . It held on the basis of the documentary , testimonial and expert evidence available in the file that although the applicant \u2019s criminal liability was undeniable , the criminal action initiated against him was time - barred .","NORP The applicant challenged that decision , and on the basis of LAW requested that the authorities continue the criminal investigation initiated against him to enable his innocence to be established .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s challenge and reopened the criminal investigation against the applicant .","On DATE the prosecutor attached to ORG heard the applicant . On DATE the applicant stated that he did not have any more evidence to request , and that the evidence already produced fully proved his innocence . In addition , he asked the authorities to examine the circumstances of his case by relying on the evidence produced at the pre - trial and trial stages of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG discontinued the criminal investigation initiated against the applicant . It held on the basis of the testimonial , documentary and expert evidence available in the file , as well as the applicant \u2019s own statements , that although the applicant \u2019s unlawful acts had been proven , the criminal action initiated against him was time - barred .","The applicant appealed against the order before ORG . He argued that the prosecutor \u2019s office \u2019s order was unlawful , because the criminal investigation against the applicant had been carried out by the same prosecutor who had previously confirmed the applicant \u2019s indictment . In addition , he denied committing the impugned offences .","On DATE the ORG held that it was not competent ratione materiae to examine the applicant \u2019s action , and referred the case to ORG .","On DATE the GPE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s action , quashed the prosecutor \u2019s office \u2019s order of CARDINAL DATE , and referred the case back to the prosecutor \u2019s office for the criminal investigation against the applicant to be reopened . It held that the criminal investigation against the applicant had been carried out by the same prosecutor who had previously confirmed the applicant \u2019s indictment . In addition , by declining to examine the remaining arguments raised by the applicant , it had instructed the prosecutor \u2019s office to assess if the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the merits of the case was founded . Lastly , it instructed the prosecutor \u2019s office to clearly determine the extent of the applicant \u2019s involvement in committing the impugned offences and also whether he had been indicted for the same unlawful acts of which he had been informed .","The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment , without providing any arguments .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as ill - founded , and upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . The court noted that the applicant had submitted the grounds for his appeal on points of law after the debates on the merits of the case had been closed .","On DATE ORG discontinued the criminal investigation initiated against the applicant . It held on the basis of the documentary , testimonial and expert evidence available in the file produced both during the previous investigation and during the trials that , although the applicant was guilty of the impugned offences , the criminal proceedings initiated against him were time - barred . In addition , it described the applicant \u2019s involvement in committing the unlawful acts and noted that after its reopening the criminal investigation against the applicant had been carried out by a different prosecutor from the one who had confirmed his indictment . Furthermore , the applicant had been indicted for the same unlawful acts of which he had been informed . In this connection , the prosecutor \u2019s office noted that some of the offences had been examined by the prosecutor \u2019s order of DATE . Also , following some amendments to the relevant legislation , the domestic legal practice had changed : the offences of intellectual forgery and use of forged documents had been absorbed by the offence of forgery of privately signed documents .","The applicant appealed against the decision before the GPE ORG by relying on Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( c ) of LAW . He argued that the domestic court should quash the prosecutor \u2019s decision , retain the case for examination , and acquit him . In addition , he contended that the prosecutor \u2019s order had been unlawful because it concerned acts with which the criminal investigation was not concerned , and was in any case not supported by the evidence available to the file . Also , without providing any grounds the investigating authorities had ceased to accuse him of intellectual forgery or use of forged documents . Furthermore , ORG did not follow the mandatory instructions received from the court . There was no evidence in the file that he had been an accomplice to an offence . Lastly , he had disagreed with being charged with forgery of privately signed documents ; he had argued that the parties had not been allowed to submit observations in respect of the requalification carried out .","On DATE the applicant and his chosen legal representative informed ORG that he did not have other requests in respect of the judicial investigation of the case . They further argued , among other things , that although in DATE the GPE ORG had ordered the prosecutor \u2019s office to reopen the criminal proceedings against him and had given the investigating authorities several instructions , none of those instructions had been followed . In particular , no evidence was adduced , and they were not called to take part in the production of evidence . Also , the investigating authorities did not clarify any of the issues identified by the court . Consequently , they requested that on the basis of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( c ) the court should quash the prosecutor \u2019s order and , given that the production of other evidence was not necessary , acquit the applicant in respect of the merits of the case .","By a judgment of DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision , relying on the available evidence . It held that the investigating authorities had not ceased to accuse him of intellectual forgery or use of forged documents , but had requalified those offences as forgery of privately signed documents . Also , ORG had observed the mandatory instructions received from the court . In particular , the criminal investigation had been carried out by a different prosecutor from the one who had indicted the applicant , the prosecutor had explained in detail how the applicant had helped and contributed to the commission of the offences , and had verified that the acts for which the criminal investigation had been opened were identical to those indicated by the prosecutor \u2019s order . Furthermore , the prosecutor \u2019s order had clearly described in detail , by relying on evidence , why the applicant had been an accomplice to an offence . Lastly , the applicant \u2019s own statements amounted to an acknowledgment that he had forged privately signed documents .","The applicant appealed against the judgment on points of law . He argued that the domestic court should quash the prosecutor \u2019s decision , retain the case for examination , and on the basis of the same evidence available in the file acquit him of fraud and forgery of privately signed documents . He further contended that the evidence in the file and the examination carried out by the prosecutor \u2019s office did not prove that he had committed the offences . Also , the parties had not been allowed to submit observations following the requalification of CARDINAL of the offences he had been charged with to forgery of privately signed documents .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law and acknowledged the lawfulness of the prosecutor \u2019s order of CARDINAL DATE and of the firstinstance court \u2019s judgment . It so held on the basis of the available documentary , testimonial and expert evidence produced both during the criminal investigation and before the domestic courts that the applicant had committed the offences of complicity in fraud and forgery of privately signed documents . In addition , the prosecutor \u2019s office had examined the applicant \u2019s guilt on the merits , and had established that the acts had existed and therefore the criminal proceedings against the applicant could not have been discontinued on the ground that no unlawful act had been committed . Therefore , the prosecutor \u2019s office had correctly held that the criminal proceedings initiated against him had been time - barred .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed the ORG that the criminal proceedings initiated against him had destroyed his reputation , and that a virulent press campaign had been initiated against him and his company at the time of his arrest . The applicant submitted CARDINAL articles published in local and national newspapers DATE describing the events which led to the charges being brought against him and a chronological narration of the criminal proceedings initiated against him ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174385","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VOLKOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Obtain attendance of witnesses)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE prior to her arrest .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant , together with B. , travelled to GPE by car . At about PERSON TIME the police stopped the car ; CARDINAL men from the narcotics unit approached the car and asked the passengers to step out and produce their identity documents and luggage for inspection . An officer opened the sports bag which , according to the applicant , her friend had asked her to take to another friend in GPE , and found a black plastic bag . The applicant stated that she was not aware of its contents . The officers then put the black bag into the trunk of the police car and took the applicant and PERSON to the LOC of the narcotics unit .","The applicant and PERSON were interviewed in separate rooms . In TIME the applicant was taken to another office , in which one female officer , a forensics expert and CARDINAL individuals who were introduced as \u201c attesting witnesses \u201d ( \u043f\u043e\u043d\u044f\u0442\u044b\u0435 ) were present . The applicant was told to open the black bag and to show its contents . CARDINAL plastic bags containing yellow and green herb and cash money were found inside . At TIME the police drafted a report on the seizure of objects and substances . The expert later determined that the herb was marijuana having a total weight of QUANTITY .","At TIME a senior investigator of the narcotics unit instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and PERSON on suspicion of attempted largescale sale of drugs .","At TIME the investigator compiled the record of the applicant \u2019s arrest . The time of arrest was given as TIME on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was formally charged and the investigator applied to a court for a detention order .","The detention hearing before ORG in GPE began at TIME on DATE . Counsel for the applicant submitted that , in view of the actual time of the applicant \u2019s detention , the maximum statutory period of TIME had already expired . However , the court did not heed that argument and ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody because the gravity of charges against her .","On DATE counsel for the applicant filed an appeal . On DATE copies of the appeal were forwarded to the applicant and to the prosecutor for comments . The appeal hearing was initially scheduled for CARDINAL DATE but subsequently adjourned for DATE because CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s representatives did not show up .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal against the detention order in a summary fashion , noting that \u201c the pre - trial investigation authorities did not commit any substantial breaches of the rules of criminal procedure \u201d .","The case against the applicant was referred for trial to the Babushkinskiy ORG in GPE .","The defence claimed that the attesting witnesses who had been present during the opening of the bag were in fact employees of the narcotics unit rather than independent observers as required by law . Both of those witnesses \u2013 PERSON and PERSON did not appear before the trial court . Instead , a court bailiff submitted reports about his unsuccessful attempts to ensure their attendance . The reports contained the same text to the effect that the witnesses could not be reached on the phone , that no one opened the door at their residence and that neighbours had told the bailiff that they had not seen them for a long time .","Counsel for the applicant requested the court to obtain the visitors journal from the reception of the narcotics unit . Since the unit was located within a security perimeter , all civilian visitors were to be recorded in the journal . The trial court refused the motion , without giving any reasons . It further held that there existed \u201c exceptional circumstances \u201d for the absence of the witnesses PERSON and PERSON and allowed their pre - trial statements to be read out , overriding the objections from the defence .","The trial court also authorised the reading - out of the pre - trial statement of PERSON , the driver of the car , of which the applicant and PERSON had been passengers . The bailiff submitted similarly worded reports to the effect that PERSON was unavailable on the telephone or at his residence .","By judgment of DATE , ORG found the applicant and PERSON guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment in a high - security correctional colony . It held in particular that the applicant \u2019s claim that she did not know she was carrying marijuana in her friend \u2019s bag was refuted by the seizure report of DATE and the statements by the witnesses PERSON and PERSON","On DATE ORG examined and rejected her appeal against the conviction ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177917","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CIRINO AND RENNE v. ITALY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and was detained in GPE up to the time of his death on DATE .","In DATE the applicants were detained in ORG .","On DATE the second applicant intervened in a fight that had broken out between the first applicant and a prison officer .","The manner in which the impugned events occurred , as submitted by the applicants and as it emerges from their witness statements during the domestic proceedings , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , following an altercation with the prison officer , the first applicant was summoned to a meeting with the correctional unit commander ( comandante di reparto della polizia penitenziaria ) . Before he reached the commander \u2019s office , he was stopped by a group of prison officers , who took turns beating him . Following the meeting , he was stripped of his clothes and led to a cell in the solitary confinement wing .","The only item of furniture in the cell was a bed with no mattress , bed linen or covers . As to sanitary facilities , the cell had a squat toilet without running water and was not equipped with a sink . The cell window had no window panes and the only source of heating was a small , malfunctioning radiator , which provided little protection against the DATE weather . For DATE , although it is unclear for how many exactly , he was left naked .","During DATE of his detention in solitary confinement no food was provided and he was given only scant amounts of water . He was subsequently given rationed quantities of food .","He was beaten on a DATE basis , several times per day . He was repeatedly punched , kicked and hit in the head by prison officers , who assaulted him in groups of varying sizes .","He was also subjected to sleep deprivation , as the beatings often took place at TIME and the prison officers verbally abused him in order to keep him awake .","During the detention in solitary confinement the applicant did not receive visits from his lawyer or his family .","On DATE , following the same altercation with the prison officer , the second applicant was stripped of his clothes and led to a cell in the solitary confinement wing of the correctional facility . The bed in the cell had no mattress , sheets or covers , and the cell had no sink . Initially there were no panes in the windows , which were covered with some plastic sheeting after an unspecified number of DATE . For DATE , although it is unclear for how many exactly , he was left naked . He was subsequently given some light clothing .","The applicant \u2019s food was rationed , and at certain times he was given only bread and water . On DATE he received no food at all .","The applicant was beaten by prison officers , often more than once per day . He was subjected to various forms of physical violence , including being repeatedly punched , kicked and slapped , at CARDINAL point with his head being pinned to the ground by CARDINAL of the prison ORG boots . The beatings occurred both during DATE and at TIME . The applicant was beaten by CARDINAL officers at a time . CARDINAL prison officer ripped out a chunk of his hair .","On DATE he was admitted to the hospital .","During the period he spent in solitary confinement he was only allowed outside the cell twice , once to shower and once for some outdoor time .","A criminal investigation into the impugned treatment was launched in DATE . It was initiated when it emerged , in the context of covert surveillance in an operation to investigate drug smuggling in the PERSON correctional facility , that a number of the prison officers had discussed the ill - treatment inflicted on the applicants .","On DATE prison officers , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , GPE , and PERSON , were committed for trial . They were charged with ill - treatment of the applicants under LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , in conjunction with LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , a provision which considers the commission of an offence by a civil servant abusing his or her position to be an aggravating circumstance .","On DATE the applicants joined the proceedings as civil parties .","ORG judgment was delivered on DATE . Its findings may be summarised as follows .","As to the establishment of the facts concerning the ill - treatment , the court found that the evidence gathered during the investigation and produced at the trial showed that the events had occurred in the manner described by the victims in their submissions during the trial . The ORG relied on statements to the effect that the applicants had been subjected to physical and verbal abuse , coupled with the deprivation of food , water , sleep , and clothing , and had been detained in cells without adequate access to sanitation , heating , and bedding .","The court further found it to be established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants had been subjected not merely to isolated acts of harassment and abuse , but to repeated ill - treatment which had been put into practice in a systematic manner .","More specifically , the court found it established beyond reasonable doubt that the first and second applicants had been subjected to repeated physical violence from DATE and from CARDINAL DATE respectively . The court found that the beatings occurred regularly at all times of DATE , and particularly at TIME .","The court noted that the second applicant had been admitted to the emergency room of ORG on DATE with traumatic injuries . With regard to the first applicant , the court acknowledged his hospitalisation following the events without citing a date or specific medical documentation to this effect .","NORP Moreover , the court found it to be established beyond reasonable doubt that in DATE and DATE in ORG there had existed what it defined as a \u201c generalised practice of ill - treatment \u201d that had been systematically inflicted on prisoners considered to be problematic . Measures which the court defines as exceeding the bounds of permitted disciplinary or security measures were routinely taken to punish and intimidate problematic detainees and to deter other disorderly behaviour . As part of this practice , a detainee would generally be taken to a cell in the solitary confinement unit where he would be subjected to repeated harassment and abuse by prison officers . The abuse would primarily take the form of physical violence , as detainees would be beaten by groups of prison officers , often during TIME . In addition , detainees would be routinely subjected to sleep , food and water deprivation , and would also be denied access to sanitary facilities .","The court further found ample evidence that the prison officers operated in a climate of impunity . This was due , in the court \u2019s view , to the acquiescence of high - level prison administrators and the complicity that existed among prison officers .","It emerges that the court ordered an inspection of the correctional facility , including the solitary confinement wing , during the course of the trial . The court found that several cells in the solitary confinement wing of ORG were unfit for holding detainees . Some did not have bed linen , mattresses , sanitary facilities or heating . Although the windows in some cells had no panes and others had windows covered by metal plates with small perforations , the cells were nonetheless used during DATE . Some cells were equipped with a bed and a squat toilet but no other furniture or sanitary facilities .","Following the establishment of the facts , the court went on to assess responsibility for the established conduct . In this regard , PERSON was acquitted as to his involvement in the ill - treatment , and DATE and PERSON were acquitted of the charge of ill - treatment under LAW . The court nonetheless held that the conduct of GPE and PERSON amounted to infliction of bodily harm contrary to LAW . However , it ordered that the proceedings against them be discontinued due to the expiry of the applicable time - limit as laid down in the statute of limitations .","With respect to PERSON and GPE , the court held that there existed sufficient evidence to conclude that they had been responsible for most , if not all , of the acts of physical , psychological , and \u201c material \u201d abuse at issue . The court then considered that the acts at issue could be classified as torture pursuant to the definition provided by ORG ( ORG ) Convention against Torture and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment . It went on to observe that GPE had failed to incorporate the offence of torture into national legislation , in breach of its international obligations . It was therefore obliged to conclude that , under NORP law , there existed no legal provision that would allow it to classify the impugned conduct as acts of torture .","Having taken note of the above - mentioned considerations , the court proceeded to assess which existing offence was more suitable in respect of the legal classification of ORG and GPE \u2019s conduct . When conducting its assessment , the court relied on the conclusion that the primary purpose of the impugned treatment was to punish the applicants , to \u201c maintain order \u201d in the correctional facility , and to convey a clear message to the other detainees .","The court considered that the conduct of the CARDINAL prison officers thus fell most appropriately within the scope of Article CARDINAL of LAW , which deals with abuse of authority against arrested or detained persons . However , the statutory limitation period for the offence in question had elapsed , as the court had found no procedural action which would have the effect of interrupting it .","The court stated that ORG and GPE were also responsible for the infliction of bodily harm , but that , as the statute of limitations was applicable to that offence as well , such a finding did not alter the substance of the decision . The court therefore ordered that the proceedings against ORG and CARDINAL be discontinued because the applicable time - limit as laid down in the statute of limitations had expired .","On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an appeal with ORG , arguing that ORG had erred in the legal classification of the offence with respect to PERSON and PERSON The prosecutor contended that the most appropriate offence for the purposes of classification of the conduct in question would have been aggravated illtreatment under LAW \u2012 as initially identified in the bill of indictment \u2012 in conjunction with LAW of LAW .","By a judgment issued on CARDINAL DATE , and filed with ORG on DATE , ORG declared the public prosecutor \u2019s application inadmissible . The court expressed its agreement with the prosecutor \u2019s contention as a matter of principle but , as the statute of limitations had been likewise applicable to the offence of aggravated illtreatment , a decision in favour of the prosecution would have been devoid of any practical effect .","On DATE PERSON lodged an objection to execution ( incidente d\u2019esecuzione ) with ORG , arguing that its decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) could not be considered as final and binding insofar as he was concerned , as the decision had not been properly served on him .","In a decision issued on DATE ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s objection on the grounds that ORG must have had cognisance of the decision at the moment the public prosecutor lodged an appeal with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) or , at the latest , when his representative filed a defence brief at a hearing before ORG in DATE .","NORP On DATE PERSON appealed against the decision before ORG .","In a judgment delivered on DATE , and filed with ORG , ORG granted the appeal . It found that the failure to serve the decision on ORG could not be remedied by PERSON \u2019s potential knowledge of the decision at a later stage , as argued by ORG . ORG judgment of DATE could not , accordingly , be considered final and binding insofar as PERSON was concerned .","Based on the latter decision , on DATE PERSON lodged an appeal against ORG judgment of DATE with ORG , seeking an acquittal .","No further information has been provided by the parties as to the outcome of the proceedings .","In their observations of CARDINAL DATE , the Government indicated that CARDINAL prison officers had undergone disciplinary proceedings in connection with the impugned events and by different decisions issued on DATE the following disciplinary sanctions had been imposed :","\u2013 C.B. was dismissed from his functions ( destituito dal servizio ) . He was , however , reinstated on DATE , following ORG judgment of DATE which suspended the binding nature of ORG judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;","\u2013 PERSON was dismissed from his functions ;","\u2013 DATE was suspended from duty for a period of DATE ;","\u2013 PERSON was suspended from duty for a period of DATE .","According to a document issued by ORG on DATE , and furnished by the Government , the CARDINAL prison officers were not suspended from duty ( sospensione precauzionale dal servizio ) during the course of the investigation or the trial .","At the ORG \u2019s request , the ORG submitted extracts from the prison medical record of the second applicant DATE and DATE and typed copies of his hospitalisation record of CARDINAL DATE .","The prison medical record indicates that on DATE the second applicant was examined visually ( whilst still \u201c behind bars \u201d ) . He complained of pain in the thoracic area and right ear . The reporting physician noted the presence of ecchymoses and haematomas around the patient \u2019s ribcage . He recommended a more thorough medical examination and\/or transfer to the infirmary .","The record further indicates that another visual examination ( also \u201c behind bars \u201d ) took place on DATE . The information in this entry is the same as in the previous entry . Transfer to the infirmary for a medical examination was recommended .","DATE . On DATE the record shows that the applicant underwent a medical examination in the afternoon . The physician reported ecchymoses on the patient \u2019s ribcage and in the retroauricular region . Palpation of the patient revealed diffuse pain . The reporting physician recommended that Xrays be performed for a suspected fracture . Painkillers were administered .","The entry of DATE reports the applicant \u2019s transfer to the emergency room of ORG as a consequence of traumatic injury .","According to the medical record of ORG , an X - ray revealed a fractured rib and the medical examination disclosed diffuse bruising in the thoracic and abdominal area and pain on palpation . The record states that the applicant told the doctor his injuries occurred as a consequence of an accidental fall .","The prison medical record entry on the applicant \u2019s discharge from the hospital on DATE shows that he was prescribed painkillers .","As to the first applicant , no copy of the prison medical register had been submitted by the Government , notwithstanding the ORG \u2019s request for such information ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160020","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SZAB\u00d3 AND VISSY v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for home;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","When introducing the application , the applicants were staff members of PERSON , a non - governmental , \u201c watchdog \u201d organisation voicing criticism of the Government . The subsequent employer of one of the applicants was subjected to financial control measures by the Government in DATE , which according to the applicants verged on vexation .","Act no . CXLVII of DATE defines combating terrorism as CARDINAL of the tasks of the police . Within the force , a specific Anti - Terrorism Task Force ( \u201c TEK \u201d ) was established as of CARDINAL DATE . Its competence is defined in section QUANTITY no . ORG of DATE on the Police , as amended by Act no . CCVII of DATE ( the \u201c Police Act \u201d ) .","NORP Under this legislation , ORG \u2019s prerogatives in the field of secret intelligence gathering include secret house search and surveillance with recording , opening of letters and parcels , as well as checking and recording the contents of electronic or computerised communications , all this without the consent of the persons concerned .","The authorisation process for these activities is dependent on the actual competence exercised by ORG , namely whether it is within the framework of secret surveillance linked to the investigation of certain specific crimes enumerated in the law ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) or to secret surveillance within the framework of intelligence gathering for national security ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .","NORP Whereas the scenario under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) is as such subject to judicial authorisation , the CARDINAL under LAW ( CARDINAL ) is authorised by the Minister in charge of justice , ( i ) in order to prevent terrorist acts or in the interests of GPE \u2019s national security or ( ii ) in order to rescue NORP citizens from capture abroad in war zones or in the context of terrorist acts .","\u201c Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance \u201d takes place under the rules of LAW under the condition that the necessary intelligence can not be obtained in any other way . Otherwise , the law does not contain any particular rules on the circumstances in which this measure can be ordered , as opposed to \u201c section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance \u201d , which is conditional on the suspicion of certain serious crimes . The time - frame of \u201c section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance \u201d is DATE , which can be prolonged for another DATE period by the Minister ; however , the latter has no right to know about the results of the ongoing surveillance when called on to decide on its prolongation . Once the surveillance is terminated , the law imposes no specific obligation on the authorities to destroy any irrelevant intelligence obtained .","The applicants filed a constitutional complaint on DATE , arguing in essence that the sweeping prerogatives under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) infringed their constitutional right to privacy . They emphasised that the legislation on secret surveillance measures for national security purposes provided fewer safeguards for the protection of the right to privacy than the provision on secret surveillance linked to the investigation of particular crimes . They pointed out that ( i ) \u201c section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance \u201d was always linked to a particular crime and could only be ordered for the purposes of identifying or locating suspects , whereas \u201c section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance \u201d was not linked to any particular crime ; ( ii ) \u201c section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance \u201d was always ordered by the court , whereas \u201c section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance \u201d was authorised by the government minister in charge of justice ; ( iii ) the decision on ordering \u201c section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance \u201d was subject to detailed reasoning , whereas no reasoning was included in the minister \u2019s decision on ordering \u201c section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance \u201d ; and ( iv ) under the legislation relating to \u201c section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance \u201d , all collected but irrelevant information had to be destroyed within DATE , unlike in the case of \u201c section QUANTITY ( CARDINAL ) surveillance \u201d .","On DATE ORG dismissed the majority of the applicants\u2019 complaints . In CARDINAL aspect the ORG agreed with the applicants , namely , it held that the decision of the minister ordering secret intelligence gathering had to be supported by reasons . However , ORG held in essence that the scope of national security - related tasks was much broader that the scope of the tasks related to the investigation of particular crimes . For the purpose of national security , the events of real life were examined not for their criminal law relevance ; therefore they might not necessarily be linked to a particular crime . Furthermore , in the context of national security , the external control of any surveillance authorised by the minister was exercised by ORG \u2019s ORG ( which had the right to call the minister to give account both in general terms and in concrete cases ) and by the ORG , and that this scheme was sufficient to guarantee respect for the constitutional right to privacy of those concerned . Finally , ORG was of the opinion that LAW , which applies to \u201c section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) surveillance \u201d , contained general provisions on ex officio deletion of any data unnecessary for achieving the aim underlying the gathering of intelligence .","NORP This decision was published in ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150772","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF AKHVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Possessions);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP Since his birth the applicant had lived in a house in the LOC settlement of GPE which previously belonged to his parents . The total surface area of the house was QUANTITY . m , including a habitable area of CARDINAL sq . m. According to the \u201c technical passport \u201d for the house issued on CARDINAL DATE by ORG of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , it was located on a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m , of which QUANTITY . m was occupied by the house and QUANTITY . m by the courtyard . The applicant lived in the house with his wife and CARDINAL small children and his elderly mother .","The original ownership of the house is unclear . On DATE the applicant acquired private ownership of the house and was issued with an ownership certificate by ORG of the ORG confirming that he was the private owner . The plot of land underneath the house was not registered as being in the applicant \u2019s formal ownership .","On DATE the Head of the ORG issued an order assigning various sites in GPE for development by a number of private promoters . The order read , in the relevant part , as follows :","For the purpose of coordinating with ORG [ of GPE ] and completing the facilities [ obyektl\u0259rin PERSON uy\u011funla\u015fd\u0131r\u0131laraq tamamlanmas\u0131 ] in our capital which are in a state of ruin owing to having remained partially constructed for a long period of time and which undermine the beauty and development of the city , the following plots of land should be assigned [ ayr\u0131ls\u0131n ] to the following companies and firms :","...","Taking into account the request made by ORG on CARDINAL DATE , the land comprising neighbourhoods nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL on FAC in the LOC shall be assigned to the aforementioned company on the basis of a lease , for the purpose of designing and constructing cottage - type houses .","...","The developer is instructed [ to do the following : ]","To receive the plot of land in kind and carry out the necessary health and safety checks .","To comply with the instructions of ORG for GPE and Urban Planning [ \u201c the LAW \u201d ] concerning the timing and procedure of the project design and with the other conditions laid down in the construction certificate [ in\u015faat pasportu ] .","Prior to completion of the project design , to coordinate with the [ ORG ] the sketches for the architectural planning of the land and buildings . After completing the project design , to submit the full working plan to the [ CDAUP ] .","To coordinate [ the relocation of utility lines ] with [ the LAW ] and the relevant authorities .","This order , together with the construction certificate , form the basis solely for preparing the project design .","In accordance with Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of LAW , the developer shall obtain [ from the relevant authorities ] the certificate and other documents confirming its rights over the plot of land ...","The construction work shall start after the registration of all the project design documentation by ORG .","...","Should the developer fail to comply with the requirements of the above provisions , this order may be repealed in accordance with the law . \u201d","The applicant \u2019s house was located in CARDINAL of the neighbourhoods mentioned in point CARDINAL of the order . According to the applicant , he was never informed of this order by the executive authorities and became aware of its existence for the first time during the court proceedings ( see section C below ) .","By a letter of DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , a subordinate body of the ORG , informed the ORG that the relocation of the inhabitants of the \u201c old , hostel - type and squatter houses \u201d located in the area specified in the ORG order of CARDINAL DATE \u201c remained a problem \u201d . The ORG further proposed the following :","\u201c For the purpose of relocation of the families residing in the aforementioned area , we consider it appropriate to assign the empty plot of land in neighbourhood no . DATE on A.M. Cuma Street ... for the construction of CARDINAL and QUANTITY residential houses ... and request you to express your opinion on the construction project submitted by PERSON as a developer . \u201d","There is no information in the case file as to whether the ORG formally replied to the ORG \u2019s letter of DATE .","On DATE the Head of the ORG issued an order authorising the construction by PERSON of new houses for the relocated residents . The order read as follows :","\u201c For the purpose of relocation of the residents of houses located in neighbourhoods nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL on FAC in connection with the construction of an important State facility in the aforementioned area , the project design for the construction of residential houses in neighbourhood no . DATE on A.M. Cuma Street , submitted by PERSON , ... was approved by [ the LAW ] in letter no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL dated DATE .","Taking the above into consideration and for the purpose of completion of the relevant documentation , I hereby decide :","To authorise Azyevro LAU LLC to carry out the development project ( construction of residential houses ) in neighbourhood no . DATE on A.M. Cuma Street , in accordance with the project design agreed by [ the LAW ] and with the purpose of ensuring the relocation of the residents of neighbourhoods nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL on FAC .","To instruct the management of ORG to obtain , in accordance with the legislation , documentation relating to the assignment of the plot of land and the construction .","To instruct ORG to supervise compliance of the construction with the project design and the relocation of the residents in accordance with the requirements of the law .","To instruct ORG to ensure the protection of public order during the relocation process .","To instruct ORG of [ the ORG ] to issue the residents with occupancy vouchers for their new flats .","To request ORG reporting to ORG to assign specific postal addresses to the ORG new flats and to provide them with technical passports [ for the new flats ] and with [ the relevant ] extracts from ORG . ... \u201d","According to the applicant , in DATE employees of the ORG approached him with oral demands to give up his house and , in compensation , to accept an occupancy voucher ( ya\u015fay\u0131\u015f orderi ) for a new CARDINAL - room flat measuring QUANTITY m under construction on LOC , an area previously occupied by a relocated cemetery . When the applicant asked to be shown the lawful basis for the demands , he was told that it was a \u201c Government instruction \u201d .","The applicant refused , stating that he had no intention of relinquishing his house . He noted that , in any event , for this to be possible he would require prior monetary compensation equal to the market value of the house and the plot of land underneath the house .","According to the applicant , his neighbours faced the same situation and many of them gave in to the ORG \u2019s pressure . They moved out and accepted the occupancy vouchers offered to them . Soon the authorities began demolishing their houses . With large - scale demolition works in the neighbourhood ( including the destruction of some walls and fences adjacent or immediately next to the applicant \u2019s house ) , accompanied by power cuts and the accumulation of debris around his house , the applicant and his family no longer found it possible to stay in it and had to leave the house in DATE . However , the applicant \u2019s mother remained in the house .","According to the applicant , on DATE the ORG evicted his mother and began demolishing his house . The house was demolished over an unspecified number of DATE , together with the applicant \u2019s belongings that remained inside .","On DATE the applicant lodged a court action with ORG against the ORG . The applicant asked the court to stop the defendant from breaching his right to enjoy his private property , to order the restoration of the property to its previous condition or , if that was no longer possible , to order the defendant to pay him CARDINAL NORP manats ( AZN ) for pecuniary damage , AZN CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage , and AZN CARDINAL DATE for damages in respect of lost opportunity from DATE until the date of execution of the judgment . Subsequently , the ORG , ORG and PERSON were joined to the case as co - defendants together with the ORG .","In its reply to the applicant \u2019s lawsuit , the ORG responded that the relocation of the residents from the applicant \u2019s neighbourhood was being conducted in connection with \u201c the important ORG project \u201d approved by the ORG order of DATE . As a legal basis for that order the ORG indicated the old DATE LAW which had been in effect until DATE ( on that date it was replaced by the new Housing Code ) .","On DATE the ORG requested the court to order an expert evaluation of the market value of the applicant \u2019s house ( which had already been demolished ) and the CARDINAL - room flat offered to the applicant in compensation . The applicant opposed this request , noting , inter alia , that the determination of the new flat \u2019s market value was irrelevant since he had refused to accept it as lawful compensation and since the subject of his claim was the unlawfulness of the interference with his private property .","On DATE ORG issued an order for an expert evaluation . The applicant challenged this order , relying on various grounds . After a series of appeals , the order was quashed pursuant to a ORG decision of DATE and a ORG of Appeal decision of DATE , on the ground that the first - instance court had designated an incorrect category of expert for the evaluation requested . No further expert evaluations were ordered .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claims .","In the legal analysis part of the judgment the court first confirmed that the house had been in the applicant \u2019s private ownership . It noted , however , that the applicant had not formalised his ownership rights over the plot of land and therefore could not make any claims in respect of the land .","The court also took note of the ORG order of DATE . It further noted that DATE the ORG and ORG had corresponded with each other concerning \u201c problems \u201d in relocating the residents of \u201c old , hostel - type houses and squatter houses \u201d in the applicant \u2019s neighbourhood and that on DATE the ORG had decided to contract a private company ( PERSON ) to construct new residential buildings for those residents in a vacant area previously occupied by a relocated cemetery . The court noted that the applicant had been \u201c given \u201d a CARDINAL - room flat in CARDINAL of these new buildings , under an occupancy voucher issued in his name on DATE pursuant to the ORG order of CARDINAL DATE .","NORP The court cited LAW concerning the expropriation of private property for ORG needs , although it attempted neither to establish the applicability of that provision to the applicant \u2019s situation nor to determine whether the applicant had been deprived of his house in compliance with its requirements .","The court further relied on various provisions of the old DATE LAW , which had been in effect until DATE . The court noted that the DATE LAW was still in force at the time when the applicant had been issued with an occupancy voucher on DATE . In particular , the court cited Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE LAW , concerning the rules on the provision to citizens of accommodation in residential buildings belonging to \u201c the ORG housing fund \u201d or \u201c the public housing fund \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","The court found that the ORG order of DATE was \u201c in force \u201d and that the issuance of an occupancy voucher in the applicant \u2019s name for a CARDINAL - room flat in a newly constructed building constituted \u201c compensation in kind \u201d for his house within the meaning of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE LAW . For these reasons , the court found that the applicant \u2019s claim that the GPE actions had been unlawful was ill - founded .","Furthermore , although the order of CARDINAL DATE for an expert evaluation had been quashed , the ORG had nevertheless procured and presented to the court an \u201c expert report \u201d which estimated the market value of the new flat proposed to the applicant as being higher than that of his old house . The court considered that the compensation given to the applicant was fair because the new flat , with a total surface area of CARDINAL sq . m , was larger than the applicant \u2019s house and had a higher market value . Therefore , the court considered that the applicant \u2019s claim in respect of pecuniary damage , seeking payment of the market value of his house in cash , was also unsubstantiated .","The court then proceeded to reject the applicant \u2019s claim for non - pecuniary damage , finding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had suffered any moral damage .","The applicant appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , raising , inter alia , the following arguments :","( a ) although the first - instance court had based its decision on the premise that the applicant \u2019s house had been expropriated for public needs , it did not address the fact that this \u201c expropriation \u201d had not complied with the applicable requirements of the LAW and the relevant provisions of LAW ( in particular , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) ;","( b ) the de facto deprivation of property had been unlawful as there had been no expropriation order issued in accordance with the procedure specified by law ; in particular , the reasons for the expropriation given by the defendants in the court proceedings did not fall under any of the lawful grounds for expropriation specified by the law and there had been no expropriation order issued by ORG as required by the law ; in such circumstances , the applicant had been arbitrarily deprived of his property ;","( c ) the first - instance court had incorrectly relied on various provisions of the old DATE LAW which had no longer been in force at the time of the interference ( which , according to the applicant , had taken place in DATE , at the time of the demolition of the house ) ; and","( d ) the part of the judgment concerning the dismissal of his claim to the plot of land was unlawful , as the right of ownership over the plots of land underneath privately owned houses had been granted to their respective owners by the regulations approved by LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; therefore , he was the lawful owner of the plot of land by virtue of his ownership of the house , even though he had not formally registered his ownership rights over it .","In its submissions to ORG , the ORG noted among other things that , because the applicant had refused to accept the CARDINAL - room flat offered to him as compensation , the ORG had issued him with occupancy vouchers for CARDINAL other flats ( a CARDINAL - room flat and a CARDINAL - room flat ) in the same newly constructed building . However , for unexplained reasons , these CARDINAL occupancy vouchers were both dated DATE , DATE as the date of issuance of the voucher for the CARDINAL - room flat that had originally been proposed ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG essentially repeated ORG reasoning and upheld that court \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE , with the exception of the part of the judgment rejecting the applicant \u2019s claim in respect of pecuniary damage . In that part , ORG quashed the judgment and ordered that the applicant be given the CARDINAL new flats on A.M. Cuma Street ( the CARDINAL - room flat and the CARDINAL - room flat , instead of the single CARDINAL - room flat offered earlier ) as \u201c compensation for pecuniary damage \u201d , and instructed the ORG to deal with the formalities of transferring the flats to the applicant .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , reiterating the points of his previous appeal and further elaborating on them . In particular , he argued as follows :","( a ) although his claim specifically sought only to establish the unlawfulness of the destruction of his house within the meaning of the applicable law , as well as to secure payment of monetary compensation for that unlawful action , the courts had ignored his claim and failed to assess the lawfulness of the interference with his property rights ; instead , they had forced him to accept as \u201c compensation \u201d the flats given to him by the defendants ( first the CARDINAL - room flat , then the CARDINAL - room and CARDINAL - room flats ) , which he had repeatedly and lawfully refused to accept as lawful compensation ;","( b ) the interference with his property had taken place in DATE and therefore LAW was not applicable to his situation ; in any event , even the provisions of that Code cited by the courts had been misapplied , as those provisions concerned accommodation in \u201c the ORG and public housing funds \u201d and not privately owned houses and flats ;","( c ) the courts had also misapplied ORG decision of DATE , because that decision concerned the local executive authorities\u2019 and municipalities\u2019 competence in respect of buildings constructed on plots of land occupied without authorisation ; however , in the applicant \u2019s case , the land comprising the yard attached to the house was lawfully his to use by virtue of his ownership of the house ; moreover , he had been entitled to acquire private ownership of the land free of charge in accordance with the applicable legislation ;","( d ) the courts\u2019 reliance on an \u201c expert report \u201d presented by the ORG was unacceptable , as that document had been written not by a qualified expert but by an unqualified person with no relevant credentials , was not based on relevant property valuation standards , used arbitrary figures and contained numerous mistakes ;","( e ) NORP under the relevant legislation , privately owned property could be lawfully alienated in favour of the State by way of ( i ) expropriation for ORG needs , subject to prior payment of compensation as required by LAW \u00a7 IV of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; or ( ii ) purchase of the property by the ORG , with the owner \u2019s consent , in accordance with ORG DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE below ) and LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) ; or ( iii ) other specific situations provided for in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; however , none of the above procedures had been complied with and the courts had failed to provide any legal or factual assessment in that regard ;","( f ) the interference with his property rights had also been in breach of , inter alia , LAW .","The applicant insisted that he had been unlawfully deprived of his house and that , despite his consistent and lawful refusals to accept as compensation any new flats that he did not want , the lower courts had essentially forced him to accept this unlawful compensation .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE , reiterating that judgment \u2019s reasoning . ORG decision did not address any of the applicant \u2019s arguments in detail ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174437","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SHYLO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163825","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF EZE v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","On DATE the applicant was detained pending trial , on suspicion of drug - trafficking offences . Subsequently , he was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant was detained in ORG from : CARDINAL DATE to DATE ; DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; and CARDINAL May to DATE .","The applicant was in ORG for medical tests and treatment from : CARDINAL to DATE ; CARDINAL to DATE ; and CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC , where he remains to date .","In his letters to the ORG the applicant stated that he had been detained in overcrowded cells in ORG . He had had to share a cell measuring QUANTITY with QUANTITY other detainees . The furniture and the QUANTITY beds in the cell had taken up part of the available living space . Consequently , each detainee had been limited to QUANTITY of living space .","The applicant stated that , even though he was a non - smoker and had been assigned to a non - smoking cell , the prison authorities had also detained inmates who smoked all the time in that cell . He had complained to the prison authorities about it , but they had ignored his complaints . According to him , this problem had lasted until DATE .","The applicant also stated that some of the detainees who had occasionally shared the cell with him had had contagious diseases , such as hepatitis and human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) , or had been drug addicts . Also , some of them had suffered from psychological problems and the prison authorities had been aware of their medical conditions . These detainees had either represented a hazard for the other inmates in the cell , or had not allowed them to rest properly .","The applicant further stated that warm water in the shower had only been available DATE a week for TIME for all QUANTITY detainees in the cell . Also , during DATE , running water had only been available TIME a day and not at all during TIME , even if the detainees had needed to use the toilet .","ORG informed the Government that the applicant had been detained in cells CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL during his incarceration in LOC . The cells measured CARDINAL and QUANTITY , excluding the bathroom and toilet areas . He had shared these cells with CARDINAL other detainees at most . The applicant had had his own bed and at no time during his detention had the number of detainees exceeded the number of beds available in the cells .","Each cell had a window measuring QUANTITY . The food storage area within the cells also had a window measuring QUANTITY . All the aforementioned windows were fitted with bars and metal nets , but allowed for sufficient natural light and ventilation in order to comply with the relevant international standards .","The cells had bathrooms with CARDINAL sinks and a shower . The toilets had natural ventilation , namely windows measuring QUANTITY , and were separated from the rest of the bathroom by a door .","Detainees had permanent access to sanitary facilities . Running water was always available , while warm water was available twice a week for TIME , TIME and TIME and TIME and TIME Also , detainees were provided with protection against sexually transmitted diseases .","The cells and the sanitary facilities also had artificial light and were fitted with radiators . Heating was available intermittently , depending on the outdoor temperature . During DATE , the temperature in the cells would be CARDINAL\u02daC.","Cells had furniture , in particular , bunk beds , small tables , small benches and television stands .","NORP The prison authorities issued inmates with cleaning materials , and detainees cleaned the cells themselves . Upon their incarceration , and thereafter on a DATE basis , inmates were issued with personal hygiene products and disinfectants . They were also allowed to buy these products from the prison shop if necessary . Detainees were allowed to wash their underwear and bedlinen in the prison laundry room DATE .","NORP In accordance with domestic regulations , DATE the applicant had received CARDINAL toothbrushes , CARDINAL tubes of toothpaste , CARDINAL rolls of toilet paper , CARDINAL bars of soap and CARDINAL disposable razors .","Different products and methods were used to disinfect cells and remove pests , and such work was carried out by either the prison or specialist firms . ORG was carried out DATE , according to the characteristics of each area of the prison . The operations carried out to disinfect and remove pests from the applicant \u2019s cell were preventive , and neither he nor the other inmates sharing his cell had requested them . However , no rats or mice had ever been found in the detention cells in FAC .","Detainees\u2019 diets were determined according to several criteria , including , inter alia , their health and religion . Ingredients had to meet the quality criteria set out by law and had to have quality certificates provided by suppliers . Food was cooked hygienically in the prison kitchen , and stainless steel cooking utensils and equipment were used . Food quality and quantity was also checked by a detainee representative before it was distributed .","ORG finally informed the Government that , during his detention , the applicant had not raised complaints in respect of the conditions of detention .","In his letters to the ORG the applicant stated that , as a NORP , the prison authorities had not offered him an appropriate diet , namely food which did not contain pork . Moreover , when his visitors had brought him food from home , the prison authorities had only allowed him to receive canned food , fruits and vegetables . Although he had complained to the prison authorities about the inappropriate diet , his complaints had been ignored .","ORG informed the Government that , during his detention in LOC , the applicant had been provided with a diet appropriate for NORP , and any pork had been replaced with beef .","In Rahova Prison , a detainee of a particular faith could ask the prison administration to allow him to buy the food he wanted from the prison shop .","During his detention the applicant had been visited on several occasions , but had only received CARDINAL parcel .","The applicant had been allowed to practise his religion in his cell , and had taken part in various religious activities organised by the prison \u2019s orthodox chaplain . He had never asked to receive religious objects , even though he had a lawful right to ask for them ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174429","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ERD\u0130N\u00c7 KURT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","In DATE PERSON parents took her to the GPE ORG hospital because they thought that she was displaying symptoms of heart problems . The child was examined and then transferred to the PERSON paediatric hospital , where she was treated for DATE , after which the doctors decided that she should undergo heart surgery .","NORP Before the operation , which took place on DATE , the patient \u2019s father signed a form setting out the potential risks facing his daughter in undergoing the surgical operation , consenting to the operation ( \u201c the consent form \u201d ) .","During the post - operative check - ups a leak was detected on the periphery of the membrane covering the incision .","On DATE , by decision of the hospital medical board , the patient underwent a second operation carried out by a different medical team . Prior to the operation , the patient \u2019s father signed a consent form identical to the first one . That form did not mention any risk of a serious neurological problem , but specified that the list of possible sequelae was not exhaustive .","After that second operation , the patient suffered an oedema , a brain haemorrhage , liver failure and muscle spasticity while in intensive care .","On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint against the doctors who had carried out the operations .","On DATE the medical board of the D\u0131\u015fkap\u0131 paediatric hospital in GPE diagnosed the child with a severe irremediable psychomotor disability ( caused by hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy ) , estimating her disability rate at PERCENT .","On DATE , pursuant to standard procedure , the prosecutor \u2019s office applied to the Governor of GPE for authorisation to prosecute .","NORP The report drawn up following the internal investigation commissioned by ORG stated that the patient was suffering from a very serious congenital heart disease , that treating that disease would entail a high - risk surgical operation and that in PERCENT of cases a leak was noted around the membrane , necessitating a second operation . It concluded that the medical team had not been guilty of negligence during the first operation .","According to the aforementioned report , the second operation , which had been carried out to rectify the leak , had also been very risky . The report pointed out that the patient \u2019s neurological complications had been a common occurrence during open - heart surgery and that they occurred when artificial pumps were installed to maintain blood circulation or where the patient was placed in hypothermia . It added that the patient continued to suffer from sequelae despite the treatment administered after the second operation . In conclusion , the investigator recommended not authorising a criminal prosecution . This preliminary investigation report explained that the relevant persons had been questioned by the instigator . It is not known in what capacity the author of the report , who is a doctor , was involved or to which hospital he is attached .","On DATE , as recommended by the preliminary investigation report , ORG refused to authorise prosecution .","NORP The applicants\u2019 challenge to that administrative decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE on the grounds that the preliminary investigation report and the appendices thereto were not such as to enable the prosecutor \u2019s office to instigate a judicial investigation .","Consequently , on DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office issued a discontinuance decision .","Concurrently with the criminal proceedings , the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG .","The expert appointed by the latter submitted his report on DATE . This CARDINAL - page document stated that the patient had displayed a congenital anomalous left coronary artery from the pulmonary artery ( ORG ) , that open - heart surgery had been carried out in order to irrigate the left coronary artery from the aorta , that DATE a leak had been detected on the membrane which had been applied to the incision during that first operation , that a second operation had been carried out which had resolved that problem , but that the patient had suffered a stroke . The expert pointed out that the patient \u2019s anomaly had been extremely serious , that it was liable to be fatal , and that the probability of complications occurring during or after such an operation had been high . The expert took the view that the second operation , geared to treating a foreseeable complication stemming from the first operation , had in fact been even riskier . He considered that open - heart surgery presented risks not only to the organ being operated on but also to other organs . The expert concluded his report as follows :","\u201c The stroke [ suffered by ] the patient PERSON was one of the possible complications occurring during open - heart surgery .","No negligence or fault has been noted on the part of the medical teams which carried out the first and second operations . The teams showed great efficiency and a high degree of medical expertise . The complication [ which occurred in the present case ] was an eventuality which can be observed in cases of anomalies [ such as that suffered by the patient ] and as a result of open - heart surgery . \u201d","On DATE the applicants brought an action for damages against the doctors before ORG ( \u201c CCGJ \u201d ) alleging that they had not practised their profession properly and had caused the very severe sequelae with which their daughter PERSON was afflicted . In support of their claim they submitted a private expert report dated DATE on the amount of the damages .","On DATE the ORG appointed a board of experts comprising CARDINAL professors and a lecturer in cardiovascular surgery from ORG .","The board of experts submitted its report on DATE .","According to that report the patient had originally been diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy ( an illness which significantly diminishes the \u201c pumping \u201d capacity of the heart ) at ORG , and following more detailed examinations at ORG , ORG , also known as ORG syndrome , had been diagnosed .","The experts explained that the patient had undergone a PERSON operation to create an intrapulmonary tunnel and that a leak had been noted on the periphery of the membrane during the check - ups conducted DATE . They stated that that leak had led to a second surgical operation , that the patient had been placed on respiratory support owing to the emergence of a tonic - clonic contraction after the operation and that the neurological sequelae had appeared during that period of intensive care .","After those initial findings , the experts stated in their report that the heart disease from which the patient suffered and for which she had undergone surgery was rare , accounting for PERCENT of all congenital heart diseases . Without treatment the mortality rate was PERCENT , and those affected seldom reached adulthood . The board of experts considered that the only treatment for that disease was surgery , and that the most appropriate type of surgery was the PERSON operation . The board added that the latter had a mortality rate of PERCENT , that in PERCENT of all cases a leak could occur around the membrane following such heart surgery and that , taking all types of complications together , the rate of re - operation was PERCENT .","The experts added that in PERCENT of cases congenital cardiovascular diseases were accompanied by neurological disorders , and that a multi - country study had shown that the rate of neurological damage in the immediate post - operative period stood at PERCENT .","In their conclusions , the experts pointed out that ORG was a very serious heart disorder and that the patient \u2019s parents had signed a consent form before their child \u2019s operation . They considered that the fact of the patient \u2019s dilated cardiomyopathy had further exacerbated the already serious risks posed by the operation . According to the report , the leak which had been observed around the membrane after the first operation had been a complication which occurred in PERCENT of cases , and the operation carried out to resolve that issue had been even riskier than the first one . The experts also pointed out that the neurological damage suffered by the patient had been a complication which was often encountered in cases of patients suffering from a congenital heart defect who underwent post - operative intensive care .","NORP The report , which quoted CARDINAL so bibliographical sources , ended with the following words :","\u201c In short , this patient \u2019s situation could be seen as CARDINAL large complication . There can be no question of the doctors having committed a medical or surgical error . \u201d","The applicants contested the report , deeming it inadequate . They considered that the document , which cited scientific studies , was more like a magazine article than an expert report . It contained no concrete and objective facts about the case in hand and would not help in determining the dispute . The applicants did not deny that there had been a risk , but considered that neither that risk nor the signing of a consent form released the doctors from their duty to practise their profession properly . They submitted , however , that the report , which lacked any explanations or reasoning on that point , had not mentioned any checks carried out with regard to the risk factors . Consequently , they asked the court to commission a second expert assessment , either from a different medical board or from a specialist section of ORG .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG rejected the applicants request for a second expert assessment .","With regard to the expert report of DATE and the facts set out in the prosecution investigation file , the court held that the doctors had not been responsible for the sequelae affecting the child after her high - risk operations , to which her parents had given their consent .","The parents lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment , reiterating their previous criticism of the expert report , which they considered inadequate . They also emphasised that the report had been based on the medical file and that their daughter had not been examined by the experts . Furthermore , under established case - law , the experts should have begun by explaining the acts and procedures required by medical lege artis and comparing them with the acts which the doctors in question had actually carried out in order to determine whether and how far the said rules had been observed . Furthermore , they submitted that it was not the ORG usual practice in this type of case to confine themselves to a single expert report . In that connection , the rejection of their request for a second expert report had amounted to a blatant injustice . They alleged , moreover , that CARDINAL of the doctors who should have been present during the operation had stayed away from the theatre after having been alerted by telephone that the patient \u2019s heart had stopped during the operation , pointing out that the expert report had neither analysed nor even mentioned that fact .","Their appeal was dismissed by judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG also dismissed the applicants\u2019 application for rectification ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180201","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"B.T. v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented initially by PERSON , ORG to ORG , and then by his successor in that office , Mr PERSON .","NORP The applicant complained under LAW about the real risk of ill - treatment in the event of his extradition to GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s request for an interim measure under Rule CARDINAL of ORG was granted . It was indicated to ORG that the applicant should not be extradited until further notice . At the same time the ORG , acting under LAW ( a ) of ORG , requested the Government to provide factual information regarding the extradition proceedings .","On DATE the Government provided the requested information , arguing in particular that the applicant did not face any real risk of ill - treatment in GPE because he did not belong to any vulnerable group and because the NORP authorities had provided relevant assurances .","On DATE an investigator in GPE opened a criminal inquiry into the applicant \u2019s actions . On DATE he was indicted on charges of trafficking in drugs , a search warrant was issued in his name and his detention was ordered in absentia .","According to the applicant , at DATE he crossed the NORP border and subsequently moved to the LOC .","On DATE the applicant was arrested .","On DATE an extradition request was submitted by the NORP authorities .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s extradition was authorised by a deputy Prosecutor General of GPE . The applicant challenged the decision in court .","On DATE the extradition order was upheld on appeal .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the appeal court \u2019s decision . The applicant \u2019s extradition authorisation became final and enforceable .","NORP In response to the applicant \u2019s arguments under LAW , ORG stated that the applicant did not face a risk comparable to persons belonging to vulnerable groups identified by the international reports . They considered that he voluntarily left GPE in pursuance of family life in GPE and was charged with a drug - related offence , which was not a politically or religiously motivated crime . They referred to the assurances of the NORP authorities and argued that he had failed to prove that his individual circumstances justified the conclusion that he would face a risk of ill - treatment if extradited to GPE . In the relevant part the judgment read as follows :","\u201c Having considered the complaints concerning possible torture of ORG [ in GPE ] , which would prevent his transfer to NORP authorities , [ the court ] notes the following .","It follows from ORG DATE [ by ORG ] on the situation in GPE , as well as reports on the criminal justice system in GPE of the ORG and international non - governmental organizations , submitted by the representative of ORG , that there are instances of the use of torture , ill - treatment by law enforcement officials , and systematic persecution of political opposition , human rights activists , journalists , [ non - orthodox ] NORP and NORP .","Judicial consideration of this complaint by ORG did not reveal circumstances capable of leading to a conclusion that he would be subjected to the risk of cruel treatment or torture in case of extradition to GPE .","In his statements after arrest and during the court hearings ORG , an ethnic NORP , did not claim that he belonged to any opposition movement or a religious group . He did not justify his departure from GPE by any persecution on political , religious , ethnic , faith , or social grounds . Neither did he raise these arguments in his appeal . According to ORG \u2019s statements in court he arrived to GPE , where his relatives ( mother and brother ) reside , with the purpose of establishing a family .","The charges of drug - related offences pursued against ORG also have no political or religious basis .","Under these circumstances the written assurances of [ NORP authorities ] , compliant with international legal standards , as well as assurances that the criminal prosecution will be pursued in strict compliance with criminal procedure legislation and international treaties , must be considered sufficient ...","Any other conclusion in absence of specific information on the existence of a real risk of violation of [ ORG \u2019s LAW rights ] would be a mere speculation .","Violations of the said Convention provision in respect of persons charged with politically or religiously motivated crimes do not substantiate the conclusion that similar violations are going to take place in respect of ORG , who is accused of a common criminal offence . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was released on his own recognisance because of the expiry of the maximum statutory period of detention ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171479","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FEDOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court;Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court;Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158243","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SIMEONOVI v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 6+6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a life sentence in FAC .","On DATE CARDINAL armed individuals burst into a bureau de change in GPE . Shots were fired and CARDINAL staff members were killed . The criminals fled with a sum of money .","On DATE the GPE investigatory department instigated criminal proceedings against X for armed robbery and homicide .","On DATE the applicant , Mr PERSON , was arrested in GPE by a team from the special unit of ORG . He was transferred to GPE .","At TIME on DATE , an investigator from the GPE investigatory department placed the applicant in detention for TIME . He was suspected of having committed the armed robbery and the QUANTITY murders of DATE , aided and abetted by a certain GPE On DATE a prosecutor from the GPE regional prosecutor \u2019s office extended his detention by DATE .","The applicant submitted that despite his express requests he had not been assisted by a lawyer for DATE of his detention . During that time the officials responsible for the investigation had questioned him about the robbery and the CARDINAL murders committed in GPE on DATE .","On DATE the investigator appointed an official lawyer to defend the applicant . At TIME on DATE , in the presence of his officially appointed lawyer , the applicant was formally charged with committing armed robbery in the GPE bureau de change and of the murder of QUANTITY persons , and placed in detention . He refused to answer the investigator \u2019s questions .","On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of CARDINAL lawyers of his choice . He remained silent .","On DATE , assisted by his CARDINAL lawyers , he confessed . His presumed accomplice , GPE , also confessed to the criminal offences charged .","The officers responsible for the investigation subsequently gathered a substantial body of evidence , including witness accounts and medical , scientific , material and documentary evidence .","On DATE the applicant and GPE , assisted by their defence lawyers , took cognisance of the documents in the investigation file . They retracted their confessions , and their lawyers requested a fresh interrogation of their clients .","On DATE the GPE regional prosecutor referred the file to the investigator for further inquiries . He asked him in particular to conduct a number of investigative measures and once again to formally charge both suspects .","On DATE the applicant was charged with an additional offence , namely the unlawful purchase of the firearm which had been used during the robbery of DATE . On DATE the CARDINAL suspects were questioned in the presence of their lawyers . In his depositions the applicant related a version of events to the effect that the robbery and murders in question had been committed by a certain PERSON , an NORP national , aided and abetted by an unknown second person .","On DATE the regional prosecutor \u2019s office drew up the indictment and committed the applicant and his presumed accomplice for trial before the GPE regional court .","The regional court considered the criminal case DATE and DATE . During the proceedings the applicant , who was assisted by a lawyer , submitted that he and his presumed accomplice had indeed been in GPE on DATE and that they had indeed intended to commit a robbery in the bureau de change , but that they had changed their minds and returned to GPE DATE .","On DATE the GPE regional court delivered its judgment . The applicant was found guilty of armed robbery in the GPE bureau de change , which crime had been accompanied by the murder of QUANTITY persons and committed with the complicity of GPE He was also found guilty of the unlawful purchase of a pistol and ammunition . The regional court imposed the heaviest sentence available under LAW , namely a whole - life sentence . In accordance with section ORG [ CARDINAL ] of the PERSON on the Execution of Punishments , the regional court ordered the applicant \u2019s placement under the so - called \u201c special \u201d prison regime .","Drawing on the evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation and at the hearing , the regional court established the facts as follows : the applicant \u2019s former partner , GPE , had started work as a cashier in the bureau de change in question in DATE when she was still living with the applicant . While working there she had met the first victim , a certain GPE , who was a close relative of the owner and an employee in the same establishment . In DATE PERSON had left the applicant and moved in with GPE in GPE . The applicant had then decided to kill GPE and to steal the cash kept in the bureau de change . He had purchased a \u201c Makarov \u201d pistol , a silencer and ammunition . The applicant had persuaded a friend , GPE , to take part in the robbery . On TIME the applicant and FAC had arrived in GPE by bus . They had then gone to the building in which the bureau de change was located , and had gone up to the top floor to spend TIME . TIME , just before TIME , they had descended to the floor on which the bureau de change was located and noted that GPE was in the LOC alone . GPE , who had been carrying the pistol , had burst into the LOC and fired CARDINAL point - blank shot at the victim \u2019s left temple . The young man had died instantly . The CARDINAL accomplices had then placed the money which they had found in the bureau de change in a bag which they had brought with them . Meanwhile the armed security guard of the bureau de change , a certain GPE , had rushed into the LOC where the first victim had been killed . GPE had fired QUANTITY shots at him , hitting him in the face . The security guard had been killed instantly . GPE and the applicant had left the building . They had then concealed the murder weapon under a rubbish bin , thrown away the clothes they had been wearing and hidden the stolen money . Some time later the CARDINAL men had ordered a certain FAC to fetch the money for them , which he had done .","NORP The applicant appealed against that judgment . He complained that insufficient reasons had been given for the conviction , that his guilt had not been established , that the first - instance court had reached an erroneous decision , that there had been several breaches of the procedural and substantive rules under domestic law and that the regional court had shown bias .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer requested the withdrawal of all the judges of ORG . He argued that the media coverage of the criminal case had created a climate of intolerance and hostility towards his client . The defence called for an additional witness to be summoned , the re - examination of CARDINAL of the witnesses already questioned by the court of first instance , and several additional expert opinions . On DATE the judge - rapporteur responsible for the criminal case rejected the requests for further evidence - gathering as irrelevant . He dismissed the challenge to the judges of ORG for lack of evidence of bias .","ORG considered the criminal case DATE . It questioned a new witness and received additional conclusions from psychiatric experts on the mental state of the CARDINAL accused .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the court of first instance , giving its full backing to the latter \u2019s factual and legal findings . The evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation , presented before the court of first instance and produced for the first time before ORG had demonstrated that the CARDINAL accused had planned and carried out the robbery in the bureau de change and that the CARDINAL victims had been killed by FAC Yet the applicant had been the instigator of those murders and had provided the weapon used by his accomplice . ORG drew on the depositions of the many witnesses questioned during the assessment of the case , on the results of the ballistic , technical and NORP reports and the medical and psychiatric opinions , and also on the material and documentary evidence gathered .","The Court of Appeal observed that the accused \u2019s initial depositions during the preliminary investigation had differed considerably from their submissions to the court of first instance . The initial depositions had corroborated the finding concerning their participation in committing the criminal offences in issue , whereas the subsequent ones set out a version of events to the effect that an NORP national had committed those offences . ORG gave credence to the accused \u2019s initial depositions , which had been made to an investigator in their ORG presence after they had been formally charged . The CARDINAL individuals thus charged had been advised that their statements could be used in court with a view to establishing the facts , and their prior medical examination had revealed no sign of physical violence , which contradicted the defence lawyer \u2019s allegation that the applicant \u2019s initial confession had been extracted from him .","ORG turned its attention to the applicant \u2019s version of events stating that the CARDINAL murders and the robbery had been committed by a certain PERSON , an NORP national , and that the applicant himself had been at his place of work in GPE at the material time . Verifications carried out in the ORG database had shown that no NORP national of that name was present in GPE . It was true that the applicant had been at his place of work in GPE on DATE . However , he had been working as a night watchman and the robbery and murders had been committed early in the morning , which had given him enough time to cover the distance between GPE and GPE and to arrive at work TIME . ORG deemed unconvincing the statement by the only witness who had corroborated the applicant \u2019s version of events .","ORG noted that the judgment of the court of first instance displayed none of the procedural defects mentioned by the defence . The factual and legal findings of the regional court had not been exclusively based on the accused \u2019s confessions but on the whole body of consistent evidence gathered during the criminal proceedings . The applicant had participated actively in the proceedings and his lawyers had submitted several requests linked to the progress of the trial and the gathering of evidence . The regional court had responded to all those requests and had provided full reasons for its procedural decisions . There had been no sign of bias on the part of the judges who had examined the case , and the proceedings had been conducted in such a way as to safeguard the parties\u2019 interests .","The Court of Appeal excluded a statement by CARDINAL witness from the evidence for non - compliance with the procedural rules , but did not consider that statement decisive in terms of the factual and legal conclusions in the case . The problem was that the regional court had been dilatory in issuing its grounds of judgment . However , the defence had been able to submit additional observations on appeal after having secured a copy of the grounds of judgment .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , reiterating his submissions to ORG .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . That court found that none of the circumstances mentioned by the defence demonstrated the existence of bias on the part of the judges who had considered the criminal case . The applicant had had an opportunity to defend himself effectively during the criminal proceedings : he had given evidence and challenged the evidence against him . Some of his requests for further evidence - gathering had been accepted by the lower - level courts , and proper reasons had been given for their rejection of other evidential requests as mentioned by the defence .","Furthermore , in adopting the appeal court \u2019s other arguments , ORG considered that the facts had been well established , that the substantive and procedural legislation had been appropriately applied and that the accused \u2019s rights had been fully respected .","The applicant was held in ORG from DATE to DATE , and again from DATE to DATE . He was incarcerated in FAC from DATE to DATE , and again from DATE to DATE . On DATE he was transferred to FAC , where he is still being held .","The applicant submitted that he had been held in a cell without window , toilets or running water . The LOC had had poor ventilation and lighting . He had not been allowed to exercise in the open air . Access to sanitation had been restricted and the time allowed for washing had been insufficient . The applicant emphasised that the conditions of hygiene in the detention facility had been deplorable . He had subsequently been moved to another cell with CARDINAL other detainees . The CARDINAL detainees had had to take turns sleeping because the cell only had one bench .","According to a rapport by the Director General of Prisons submitted by the ORG , at the time the only furniture in the cells in ORG had been a bench . The cells had had no windows and the only daylight had entered through holes in metal plates affixed to the doors . The facility in question had only had CARDINAL shared toilet and bathroom and lacked any open - air facilities for detainees . The rapport also mentioned that DATE the facility had been completely renovated and redeveloped to bring the conditions of detention into line with the GPE human dignity .","The applicant alleged that his cell in FAC had had a surface area of QUANTITY . It had contained a bed and a metal rack . There had been neither running water nor toilets in his cell . He had used a plastic bucket for his bodily functions . Like all the prisoners he was allowed out of his cell for TIME CARDINAL times a day , in order to empty the bucket and fill his water bottle . The applicant submitted , in support of those allegations , a statement by his co - accused GPE , who had been detained with him under the same conditions in FAC . The applicant added that he had been forced to wear a convict \u2019s uniform even though he should have been allowed to wear his own clothes , under the prison rules .","The applicant explained that at the beginning of his term in FAC he had been deprived of open - air exercise . According to ORG statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , prisoners were allowed TIME open - air exercise every other day . The applicant was not involved in any organised activity in FAC . He had submitted several requests to the prison authorities to allow him to join in the various vocational training and occupational programmes and had applied for a transfer to FAC in order to be closer to his family , but no action had ever been taken on his requests .","According to a report by the Director of ORG submitted by the Government , the applicant had problems adapting to the prison regulations ; his attitude to the wardens and the prison authorities had been refractory and disrespectful . However , the applicant had enjoyed all the rights afforded to persons deprived of their liberty . He had board and lodging in accordance with normal prison standards . He had open - air exercise every day and free access to the prison library . He had consulted a psychologist on several occasions and had had a number of meetings with the official responsible for activities in the prison .","Following his transfer to FAC the applicant had been subject to a \u201c special \u201d prison regime involving virtually total isolation from the rest of the prison population .","The applicant submitted that over the period from DATE he had been confined to a cell measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY which he had shared with another prisoner . The CARDINAL beds had taken up most of the floor area , leaving the QUANTITY prisoners with a free area of QUANTITY . There had been no running water in the cell and the prisoners had used a bucket as a toilet .","NORP The applicant stated that he had spent most of the day sitting on his bed for lack of free space in the cell . He had eaten his meals in the cell and had been allowed to walk in the prison yard for TIME every day . His access to the prison library had been limited to TIME it took to choose and borrow a book , after which he had been immediately taken back to his cell . He had been allowed to attend the prison chapel twice a year , at GPE and DATE , although not during worship so that he would not meet other prisoners .","The applicant added that up until DATE , the high - security wing of the prison had been overcrowded and ill prisoners had not been held separately from other prisoners , which had fostered the transmission of infectious diseases . Material conditions had improved somewhat after the works in the high - security wing in DATE and DATE . In DATE , his prison regime had been relaxed . However , like all prisoners in his category , he had still been kept separate from the rest of the prison population and his cell had been kept locked during DATE . In DATE and DATE he had occasionally worked in his cell folding envelopes . Since DATE he has been allowed into an activities room where he can talk to other life prisoners and read books .","According to a report by the Director of PERSON dated DATE , the high - security wing of FAC had been completely renovated in DATE and DATE . On the date of the report in question the applicant had been held in an individual cell measuring QUANTITY and containing a bed , a table , a rack , a shower and private toilets . His cell had been heated and had running water and proper lighting .","Apart from the restrictions imposed by his prison regime , the applicant benefited from all the activities provided to other prisoners : he could work , visit the library and the prison chapel , receive visits from his relatives , write and receive letters . He was also eligible for relaxation of his prison regime under section CARDINAL of LAW , subject to a favourable opinion from the relevant special commission , and could ultimately be accommodated with the rest of the prison population .","Furthermore , in DATE the applicant applied for the annulment of a number of the provisions of the implementing regulations of LAW concerning the manner and method of execution of his life sentence . His application was finally dismissed by a judgment of DATE delivered by ORG , which found that the challenged provisions of the implementing regulations were not contrary to LAW and that the adoption of the regulations had not involved any irregularities justifying their annulment .","In DATE , while in FAC , the applicant began a hunger strike in protest against the authorities\u2019 refusal to transfer him to FAC . He was monitored by the prison medical team while on hunger strike . In DATE his state of health worsened and he was transferred , on the initiative of the prison authorities , to FAC hospital . On recovery he returned to FAC .","On DATE the applicant was taken to FAC hospital . Medical examinations revealed that he was suffering from tuberculosis . He received medicinal treatment at the hospital until DATE . He subsequently asked the prison authorities to allow him to take more exercise in the open air , which request was rejected . The applicant submitted that he had been unable to obtain a diet suited to his state of health either during or after his treatment in the prison hospital .","According to the CARDINAL DATE report by the Director of PERSON , after his stay in the prison hospital in DATE the applicant had been given regular medical examinations and biological control analyses . The results of his latest examinations in DATE had shown that his illness had not returned .","In DATE and DATE the applicant was taken into hospital for headaches and insomnia . He was examined and biological analyses were carried out . The doctors concluded that he was suffering from chronic headaches . No serious complications were detected . The applicant received medicinal treatment and the headaches ceased on release from hospital .","According to the same report , the applicant had several appointments with the prison dentist and another dentist chosen by his relatives .","Furthermore , according to the above - mentioned reports by the Directors of GPE and ORG , the prisons run a prevention and screening programme for tuberculosis comprising prophylactic examinations , medical analyses in cases of suspected infection and hospitalisation of prisoners positively diagnosed with the disease . Specific groups of prisoners such as drug addicts , HIV - positive persons , persons having previously suffered from tuberculosis and diabetics are the subject of special monitoring by the prison doctors ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172322","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MARUNI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;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)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","DATE and DATE the applicant was the director of a municipal utility company , PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the company \u201d ) , whose sole shareholder is ORG ) . The company primarily provides public utility services such as parking , waste disposal , funeral services , maintaining green spaces , cemeteries and so forth .","NORP In an article published in the DATE ORG list of DATE , Mr GPE , who was the mayor of GPE and chairman of the company \u2019s General Meeting ( skup\u0161tina ) at the time , criticised the way the applicant performed her job . The relevant part of the article reads as follows :","\u201c ... PERSON does not hide his dissatisfaction with the work of PERSON as head of PERSON .","\u2018 I can not speak for the others , but after everything that has happened , I can say that PERSON has betrayed the trust of the members of ORG because she disclosed information which should only have been discussed at the General Meeting . Likewise , in DATE [ annual ] report she spoke in positive terms of building a sports hall , and I do not know what happened to make her change her mind.\u2019","In his words , dissatisfaction with the functioning of PERSON goes beyond the current political crisis in PERSON and the public statements of PERSON .","\u2018 The fact is that we had even earlier objected to PERSON work because [ the company ] has been stagnating for some time now and functioning as a means of transferring municipal funds . Our municipal utility company does not carry out the type of business for which it was established . For example , LOC was leased as a parking lot and a dry [ dock ] marina , and the same applies to the parking lot near GPE . My question is , how does it benefit the concessionaires to have it and in addition pay rent for it ? Had it stayed in our hands we would , apart from making a profit , also have had the chance to employ ORG . PERSON does not hide his dissatisfaction .","In a lengthy list of criticisms of the current director of PERSON , GPE states that he does not like the fact that she has been referred to as a member of his [ political ] party . He claims that he was the one who had advised her when she was appointed to the position as head of ORG municipal utility company not to make public statements as a member of [ their political party ] because someone could misinterpret [ the nature of ] her work and the way she came to get that position . \u201d","In an article published in ORG list DATE , on DATE , the applicant replied to the above criticisms . The relevant part of that article reads as follows :","\u201c The mayor of ORG , GPE , has publicly criticised the current director of PERSON for having disclosed information which should only have been discussed at ORG and for the company \u2019s poor performance , saying it does not engage in the type of business for which it was established .","\u2018 They betrayed my trust by not believing me . I first informed my [ political ] party but there was no reaction . In particular , at a meeting held before the DATE session of the General Meeting [ of the company ] DATE , I warned them of all the irregularities , the financial losses and the ruining of ORG business reputation . Then they asked me not to talk about it in the presence of ORG [ who was the only member of the company \u2019s ORG from the ruling political party at the ORG level],\u2019 says PERSON , repeating that there are written documents in respect of all the issues she had warned ORG about .","As regards PERSON \u2019s remark that the company has been stagnating under her leadership , she says that GPE , which does not have a development strategy , has itself been stagnating ... The main precondition for that ... would be , in her opinion , the resolution of property issues which remain outstanding in the case of most of the parking lots administered by ORG municipal utility company . PERSON illustrates this by referring to the PERSON parking lot where the municipal utility company has been charging for parking on land which was not even owned by GPE .","\u2018 The legal department of GPE still requires [ the company ] to charge for parking even though [ the company ] PERSON refused to do so because of unresolved property issues . That case has now gone to court,\u2019 warns PERSON , \u2018 and a similar situation exists with the parking lot in GPE and [ the CARDINAL ] near GPE , which have been leased CARDINAL","\u2018 Given that my work has been called into question I demand an audit of ORG ORG , and the involvement of ORG and the State Attorney \u2019s Office . I sincerely hope that the ORG institutions will do their job in this case , as that will save PERSON . PERSON needs professionals , but they are being removed , the proof of which is the proposal to remove PERSON as a member of ORG . I hope that a young and ambitious person will replace me and continue the work the municipal utility company has been doing so far.\u2019 \u201d","By a decision of the company \u2019s General Meeting of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was summarily dismissed because of the statements she had made in the media , which were regarded as being damaging to the company \u2019s business reputation . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c On DATE the ORG list DATE published an article ... stating that the director of PERSON , PERSON , had given a statement to [ a ] journalist of ORG list saying that PERSON was acting unlawfully , that it was charging for parking where it was not allowed , that she demanded an audit of ORG , and the involvement of ORG and the State Attorney \u2019s ORG with a view to looking into ORG operations .","The director PERSON was at the time of the publication of the article ... employed as [ chief executive officer ] of PERSON , that is , the officer who heads the company and is responsible for the consequences of her own work . Making such allegations in a DATE newspaper , if those allegations are true , testifies to unlawful conduct in her job precisely because it is her duty as the officer in charge [ of the company ] to monitor and make sure that the utility company operates in accordance with the law . If , on the other hand , those allegations are not true but were nevertheless made in the publication that has the largest circulation in the area [ of the country ] then those allegations gravely harm the [ business ] reputation of the company because they suggest that ORG operates unlawfully .","That kind of conduct , by an employee who was at the time of the publication of the statement in the DATE newspaper the director of the utility company , which she headed , who makes such allegations in the media or engages in unlawful conduct , constitutes , in the opinion of the company \u2019s ORG , totally inappropriate behaviour which tarnishes the company \u2019s [ business ] reputation in the eyes of the public . ..","Such conduct ... depicting the utility company in a negative light [ constitutes ] a particularly serious breach of employment - related duties , and is a particularly important fact which , taking into account all the circumstances and the interests of both contracting parties , makes the continuation of the employment relationship impossible [ under LAW ] . \u201d","On DATE the applicant launched an internal challenge to her dismissal by lodging a request for the protection of her rights ( zahtjev za za\u0161titu prava ) , a remedy which is guaranteed for every employee by LAW and which employees had to use before bringing a civil action against their employer . The applicant argued , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c I contest entirely the argument that by making statements in the media I acted inappropriately and allegedly attacked the [ business ] reputation of the company ...","The utility company is a public company which belongs to the [ local ] community ... It was my duty , as a member of the [ company \u2019s ] Management , to contact the media and inform the public because it is a public company and not someone \u2019s private property . I particularly emphasise that I have always given accurate information to the public .","It is a well - known fact that the media show a great interest in GPE because of political turbulence among those heading the GPE . However , my observations were always a defence against the media attacks directed against me by the chairman of ORG .",".. it is totally unclear what unlawful conduct I engaged in ? ? ? It is true that I warned about unlawful acts [ by the company ] but [ I did so ] directly to ORG and ORG . My statements were not directed against the utility company but made solely and exclusively with a view to removing any potential liability from myself . Therefore , the arguments in the dismissal decision are a twisted interpretation of the events . \u201d","It appears that the applicant received no reply to her request . On DATE she therefore brought a civil action for wrongful dismissal against the company in ORG ( PERSON ORG ) . She challenged the decision to dismiss her and sought reinstatement . The relevant part of her statement of claim read as follows :","\u201c The defendant obviously did not properly read the [ impugned ] article because the plaintiff merely states some facts in it and , as an example , refers to a particular case of unresolved property issues , which is already the subject of judicial proceedings , and calls for an audit and the involvement of [ the prosecuting authorities ] with a view to protecting her integrity by expressly stating : \u2018 Given that my work has been called into question I demand an audit of ORG , and the involvement of ORG and the ORG Attorney \u2019s Office.\u2019 \u201d","By a judgment of DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicant . The court accepted that her statements in the media had been damaging to the company \u2019s business reputation and as such had constituted a serious breach of employment - related duties within the meaning of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , making her summary dismissal justified . However , it ruled in the applicant \u2019s favour because it found that pursuant to her employment contract , her job as director of the company had ended on DATE , when the company had been required to transfer her to another job . That meant that she could not have been dismissed from her job as director , let alone dismissed with retroactive effect , as the decision to remove her had indicated . Furthermore , since the decision to dismiss her had specifically related only to her job as director , it could not be assumed that it had also entailed the termination of her entire employment relationship with the company , including the job to which she was supposed to have been transferred after CARDINAL DATE . The court thus found that the dismissal had been wrongful and that the applicant \u2019s employment relationship had not been terminated . It accordingly ordered that she be reinstated and assigned to another job within the company .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u ORG ) dismissed an appeal by the company and upheld the judgment of the firstinstance court . Its reasons , however , were different .","It first noted that , contrary to the opinion of the first - instance court , the decision to dismiss the applicant had been aimed at terminating the applicant \u2019s entire employment relationship with the company , and not only her job as director , and had been capable of having that effect . However , ORG also disagreed with the view of ORG that the applicant \u2019s behaviour , namely her statements in the media , had constituted a serious breach of employment - related duties such as to justify summary dismissal . In that respect ORG held as follows :","\u201c ... the defendant company \u2019s [ internal regulations ] state that the business activities of the company are public [ and ] that the company informs the public by notifying the media of its organisation , the way and the conditions under which it operates , [ and ] the manner in which it provides services and runs its business .","It follows that neither the [ internal regulations ] nor the [ applicant \u2019s employment ] contract prohibit public statements or criticism of the defendant company \u2019s business activities , which are public .","LAW guarantees freedom of thought and [ freedom of ] expression , particularly emphasising freedom of speech and [ the freedom ] to speak publicly .","As established ... by the first - instance court , the plaintiff \u2019s public statements had been made in reaction to the statements of ORG published DATE in ORG list on DATE , where he had criticised the plaintiff \u2019s work and stated that she had betrayed the trust of the members of ORG by disclosing information that should only have been discussed at the General Meeting , [ had said ] that the [ company ] was stagnating , that it did not operate the type of business for which it had been established [ and so on ] ...","...","Therefore , in this court \u2019s view , the plaintiff \u2019s actions should be interpreted as [ the exercise of ] her right to speak publicly and the right to freedom of thought , which are rights guaranteed by LAW .","Therefore , in the view of this court , the plaintiff \u2019s conduct does not constitute a serious breach of employment - related duties as envisaged in section [ CARDINAL ] of LAW as grounds for summary dismissal .","Specifically , in the opinion of this court , the plaintiff \u2019s statements are to be seen as [ a way of ] informing the public of irregularities in the activities of the defendant company as a public institution ; [ the statements ] were given in the public interest and in good faith and constitute a value judgment rather than a serious breach of employment - related duties . The first - instance court therefore correctly applied the substantive law when finding the dismissal wrongful . \u201d","The company then lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) against the judgment of ORG .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( PERSON ) reversed ORG judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c The findings of the lower courts can not be accepted . In this particular case , the aforementioned statements by the plaintiff clearly damaged the reputation of the defendant company , since an employer whose leadership structures tolerate and encourage criminal activities certainly can not have a good reputation or be trusted in the business world . Therefore , the behaviour of the plaintiff , in stating on DATE in the ORG list DATE ... that the defendant company , which she heads , had acted illegally , namely by charging for parking when it was not allowed [ to do so ] , asking that the [ company ] be audited , and also seeking the intervention of [ the prosecuting authorities ] with a view to verifying the activities of the defendant company , has significant repercussions on the employment relationship between the parties and gives the employer a justified reason for terminating the employment contract , within the meaning of section [ CARDINAL ] of LAW . Having regard to the given circumstances , it is precisely this which is a particularly important fact making the continuation of employment impossible ... In this particular case , the depiction by the employee of the employer \u2019s business activities in an extremely negative light in the media is a particularly important fact of the kind which gives the employer a justified reason to terminate the employment contract .","The plaintiff \u2019s reliance on her duty to speak publicly is unfounded . In this regard it is to be noted that the plaintiff could only have pursued her intention to prevent abuses and protect the property of the defendant company by turning to the relevant ORG authorities and lodging a complaint with them , which would have resulted in that information being available to the press and other media , and which could not have served as a reason for her dismissal . \u201d","The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint , alleging , inter alia , a violation of her freedom of expression . In so doing she explicitly relied on LAW .","On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint and served its decision on her representative on DATE . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c ORG observes that the complainant justifies her conduct towards the employer ( namely , her media statements ) , on account of which the employer summarily dismissed her , by arguing that she had merely been calling for the supervision of her actions in the company by the relevant authorities . That argument is incorrect [ having regard to her statements in ] the article published in ORG list of CARDINAL DATE ...","ORG notes that the right \u2018 of a PERSON to publicly express his or her personal opinions can not justify a breach of employment - related rights and obligations stemming from an employment contract and the relevant legislation . \u201d","Meanwhile , on DATE PERSON had brought a civil action in ORG against the water and sewage utility company ( GPE dru\u0161tvo PERSON i kanalizacija d.o.o . ) of PERSON seeking to be declared the owner of the PERSON parking lot in PERSON . By a judgment of DATE the court dismissed PERSON action . The final outcome of those proceedings is unknown . However , an extract from the land register concerning the CARDINAL plots of land that were the subject of the proceedings suggests that the water and sewage company transferred ownership of the plots to shipbuilding company PERSON on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the water and sewage company brought a civil action against PERSON in the same court seeking repayment of the parking fees the defendant company had collected from the PERSON parking lot . The plaintiff company claimed that PERSON had been charging for parking on land owned by the plaintiff . The final outcome of those proceedings is unknown .","NORP In DATE the applicant won municipal elections and was elected mayor of ORG , replacing PERSON She still holds that position at the time of the ORG \u2019s judgment ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178379","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF D.S. v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161373","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CIORAP v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA (No. 5)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was serving a sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment in Prison no . CARDINAL in GPE . On DATE he and CARDINAL other detainees were in cell no . CARDINAL , reserved for the medical treatment of detainees with mental problems . CARDINAL of them , including the applicant , had a Category CARDINAL disability . The applicant \u2019s diagnosis was , inter alia , personality disorder .","At TIME several men entered the cell to search for prohibited items . Some of the men wore dark masks and they were armed with rubber truncheons and metal shields . They ordered everyone out . According to the applicant , the masked men shouted at the detainees and insulted them , while hitting and pushing them . The Government dispute that any force was used or that there was any improper behaviour on the part of the men who had entered the cell . While in the corridor the detainees were ordered to stand with their faces to the wall . The search lasted for TIME . CARDINAL prison officer recorded the events on video .","The detainees were then ordered back into the cell . According to the applicant , when he saw their possessions , including food brought to them by their relatives , medication and documents , scattered on the floor and in total disorder , he declared that he would return to the cell only after a prosecutor or a representative of the prison administration had made a report on the search and the disorder caused . He was then hit and thrown to the floor , kicked in the stomach , and the cell door was slammed with force while his foot was between the door and the doorpost , causing him great pain . His reading glasses fell to the ground and were smashed by CARDINAL of the masked men . The Government submitted that no force had been used and that the cell had been left in good order .","After the search the applicant complained about his swollen foot and was taken by ambulance to a hospital in GPE at TIME The doctor who examined him in that hospital diagnosed him with contusion of the soft tissues of the right ankle and a suspected fracture of the bone . His foot was then put in plaster .","On DATE the applicant complained about ill - treatment to ORG , the military prosecutor \u2019s office and other ORG authorities . CARDINAL other detainees who had been held in the same cell made similar complaints .","On DATE the applicant was examined by another doctor , who confirmed the diagnosis of a broken bone and found a haematoma on his right foot , corresponding to signs of violence and leading to long - lasting health problems ( over DATE ) . Further forensic examinations were carried out on CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . According to the applicant , these certificates confirmed that he had suffered an injury to his right foot . According to the ORG , a further forensic examination carried out on DATE contradicted the results of the previous ones , finding no conclusive evidence that the applicant had had a broken bone . The parties did not submit full copies of the last CARDINAL reports mentioned above .","On DATE a prosecutor from ORG decided not to start a criminal investigation into the complaints made by the applicant and other detainees .","On DATE a prosecutor from ORG started a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations .","DATE and DATE several individuals , members of the \u201c Pantera \u201d special forces battalion who had taken part in the action of DATE , were charged with exceeding their powers by using excessive force against the applicant .","On DATE a prosecutor from ORG discontinued the criminal investigation . He found that on DATE the applicant had disobeyed lawful orders of the prison staff during the search of his cell , acted provocatively , and refused to return to his cell . He had had to be taken there by force . Moreover , it could not be ruled out that he had caused injuries to himself in order to subsequently accuse the authorities of ill - treatment . The prosecutor noted that the applicant and CARDINAL other detainees in cell no . CARDINAL had confirmed , in their complaints and statements made to the investigator during the criminal investigation , that the masked men who had entered the cell on DATE had caused great disorder , had insulted the detainees , and had hit them with rubber truncheons .","According to the statement of detainee PERSON , on DATE the detainees were taken out of cell no . DATE and ordered to stand facing the wall for TIME while their cell was being searched . They were then moved back to their cell , again by force . PERSON witnessed one of the masked officers slamming the cell door and crushing the applicant \u2019s foot , threatening to break his hands if he continued to write complaints . Having watched the videotape of the search , PERSON submitted that the filming was selective , not showing the acts of violence in order to shield those who had carried them out from responsibility . At the end of the search the leader of the masked men did not identify himself and did not fill in any report about the incident .","Detainees ORG , GPE and GPE made similar statements , each declaring that he had been personally hit and insulted and that the applicant \u2019s foot had been shut in the cell door . The applicant \u2019s statement was similar to those of the other detainees . He added that the video footage shown to him was TIME long , while the entire event had lasted for TIME . Moreover , the various parts of the film were clearly not in chronological order .","One detainee , ( V.S. ) , who had been taking his DATE exercise during the search , confirmed seeing upon his return great disorder in the cell , with all the food and personal items broken up and thrown to the ground , and the detainees cleaning up the mess and complaining about being hit during the search .","Another witness , a member of the prison staff ( ORG , stated that he did not see any violence towards the detainees or any disorder being created in cell no . CARDINAL during the search of DATE . Another member of the prison staff ( P.P. ) , who was the head of the medical unit of Prison no . CARDINAL , stated that after the search on DATE he saw disorder in cell no . CARDINAL , but did not see any food on the ground . The search lasted for TIME . He did not see the detainees re - enter their cell , but heard the conflict between the applicant and the masked men . He did not see any violence being used , but could admit that force had been used . Later on the applicant complained of pain in his foot and was taken to the emergency hospital , from which he returned with his foot in plaster .","According to witness ORG , who worked as a nurse in Prison no . CARDINAL , on DATE she came to work at TIME and was called to cell no . CARDINAL , where the applicant was complaining of sharp pain in his foot . He was then taken to hospital by ambulance and returned with his foot in plaster . The cell was in disorder ; the patients were agitated and were asking for urgent medical assistance for the applicant . During the initial examination ORG found that the applicant \u2019s foot was seriously swollen . He then told her that he had been hit by the officers during the search .","Witness PERSON , a medical assistant in Prison no . CARDINAL , stated that she had not seen any of the events and had only heard the noise . She was later told by ORG that after the search the applicant had asked for medical assistance to treat his foot .","According to witness GPE , a supervisor in Prison no . CARDINAL , on DATE he was informed that someone was asking for medical assistance in cell no . DATE , and sent ORG there . When he himself entered the cell GPE saw personal belongings and food scattered on the ground . The applicant then told him that the masked men had caused the disorder and had beaten them up , and that his foot hurt as a result of that beating . He also declared that during DATE the applicant had not made any complaints about his state of health , but immediately after the search had complained of sharp pain in the foot . He was limping when he was taken to the ambulance .","According to witness ORG , a feldsher ( paramedic ) in Prison no . CARDINAL , on DATE at TIME he saw the applicant , who complained that he had been beaten up earlier , during the search . PERSON did not see any visible injury on the applicant \u2019s body ; the applicant could move his feet freely , but his right foot was swollen in the ankle area . The applicant limped when taken to the ambulance .","CARDINAL witnesses ( GPE , GPE , and GPE ) , all members of the prison staff , declared that they did not witness any violence against the detainees , or any disorder in cell no . CARDINAL .","NORP ( ORG ) stated that he had filmed \u201c certain parts of the search \u201d on a video recorder , using an QUANTITY video cassette . He had not witnessed any disorder or violence towards the detainees .","Witnesses GPE and LAW , who coordinated the actions of the various groups of prison staff and the PERSON special forces regiment ( the masked men ) , declared that after the search their teams did not report having used force on anyone or having had any exceptional situation to deal with . Only the applicant had been uncooperative , but he was eventually persuaded to return to the cell without using force .","The prosecutor \u2019s decision further analysed several reports in the file , including a report confirming the destruction of the applicant \u2019s reading glasses . A video filmed by ORG during the event , lasting for TIME and registered on a compact disk , showed the detainees leaving their cell voluntarily ; the presence in the cell of masked men ; the applicant \u2019s request to be allowed to take his belongings with him and the refusal of that request ; it showed various objects in the cell and the presence in it of detainee ORG The cell was in good order . The next scene showed the applicant refusing to comply with ORG order to return to the cell . The next scene showed the applicant sitting on the ground and asking for a prosecutor to be called , affirming that he would not move until the prosecutor saw what had happened to the food and belongings in the cell and a report was made about the event . The last scene showed the cell door being closed . Someone could be heard hitting the door from the inside and the applicant \u2019s voice shouting \u201c I \u2019m going to kill myself , I \u2019m going to cut myself \u201d and \u201c where is the map with documents , they took my map with documents \u201d .","NORP The prosecutor found that the video recording did not prove that violence had been used , and that the sound of the cell door being struck , heard at the end of the recording , allowed the supposition that the injury to the applicant \u2019s foot could have been self - inflicted .","On DATE the deputy Prosecutor General quashed the decision of DATE and ordered a more thorough investigation .","On DATE a prosecutor discontinued the criminal investigation , essentially for the same reasons as those mentioned in the decision of DATE .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE an investigating judge of ORG upheld the decision of DATE . The judge found that while the law allowed complaints about violations of fundamental rights and freedoms , the applicant \u2019s complaint concerned the admissibility and evaluation of evidence obtained in criminal proceedings . However , the investigating judge did not have the competence to evaluate evidence in a criminal or civil trial .","The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal ( recurs PERSON anulare ) to ORG , and asked for the decision of CARDINAL DATE to be quashed .","On DATE ORG rejected his request , finding that ORG had adopted a lawful decision after analysing the evidence in the file ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142637","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HASAN YAZICI v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant , a professor of medicine , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE a well - known journalist \/ columnist published an article in the DATE newspaper Cumhuriyet in which he drew attention to the similarities between the books Mother \u2019s Book , written by Professor PERSON I.D. , a prominent academic and president of ORG DATE , and that of Dr PERSON entitled Baby and Childcare . It mentioned , humorously , that the latter must have copied from Professor Dr ORG \u2019s book .","On DATE the applicant brought to the attention of the members of ORG the allegation that Professor PERSON had committed plagiarism in respect of the above - mentioned book .","On DATE the applicant , acting as the head of ORG of ORG , together with CARDINAL other members of ORG , submitted a CARDINAL - page report in which they took the view that Professor PERSON had committed plagiarism in his book entitled Mother \u2019s Book . They gave CARDINAL examples in this connection . They asked ORG to take various actions in this regard . It appears , however , that no action was taken .","Similar allegations were also made by Professor Dr M.T.H. in his book The History of the University in Turkey , CARDINALnd edition , DATE .","NORP In DATE an article written by the applicant entitled \u2018 Ethics of Science and plagiarism\u2019 was published in ORG . In this article the applicant renewed his claim that Professor PERSON had committed plagiarism in his book entitled Mother \u2019s Book .","In the meantime , on DATE , a DATE newspaper , ORG , had published a shortened version of the article that was to be published in ORG . The headline read , in small type , \u201c the ORG is establishing an ethics committee to examine the ethics of science of docent candidates \u201d , and in larger type \u201c NORP should first be reprimanded \u201d . A photograph of Professor PERSON accompanied the article .","In this article the applicant stated , inter alia , that there were many ways to deviate from the ethics of science , but that the most primitive and dangerous way was to present the work of others as one \u2019s own , that \u201c plagiarism \u201d was , unlike in GPE , an action frowned upon in NORP culture , and those who committed it were seen as common criminals , that such actions were punished by the laws on copyright , and that in developing countries like GPE creative ideas and their products had not yet reached the sacred untouchable status they had in developed countries . In this connection , the applicant noted that the ORG had decided to create an ethics committee to examine the publications of docent candidates . He maintained that plagiarism was so common that the GPE \u2019s decision was well - founded , and proposed that the latter should approach its founder , ORG , and ask him to apologise for the plagiarisms he had committed . In this part of the article the applicant claimed that Professor PERSON \u2019s book Mother \u2019s Book was plagiarised from Dr PERSON book Baby and Childcare . The applicant congratulated GPE for the initiative of the ethics committee , but considered that it was not possible to correct \u201c our ethics of science \u201d without first dealing with this issue . Later in the article the applicant criticised the application of the statute of limitations to plagiarism and the lack of flexibility of the applicable sanction .","In a small box next to the article the applicant gave an account of his unsuccessful attempt to deal with plagiarism while head of the ethics committee at ORG . In this connection , he referred to the ethics committee \u2019s above - mentioned opinion regarding PERSON and the resistance it had encountered in that respect , prompting the resignation of committee members .","On DATE ORG of ORG condemned the above article published in ORG , considering it an attack on Professor PERSON","On DATE Professor PERSON ( \u201c the plaintiff \u201d ) brought a civil action for compensation against the applicant before ORG of First Instance on the ground , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s assertion that the book written by the plaintiff entitled Mother \u2019s Book was plagiarised from PERSON Baby and Childcare constituted an attack on his personality rights .","On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil action for compensation against Professor PERSON on the ground that some of the remarks made by the plaintiff constituted an attack on his own personality rights .","In the course of the proceedings before ORG of First Instance that court decided to obtain an expert report with a view to establishing the veracity of the applicant \u2019s assertion that the plaintiff had committed plagiarism . It appointed CARDINAL professors of paediatrics and CARDINAL lawyer .","On an unspecified date the applicant objected to the appointment of the CARDINAL professors of paediatrics on the ground that they both had close links with the plaintiff . In this connection , he stated that CARDINAL of them currently worked and the other one had worked prior to his retirement at ORG , which had been established by the plaintiff , and that they were members of ORG , which was also headed by the plaintiff .","On DATE the expert report , which concluded that there had been no plagiarism , was submitted to the firstinstance court . It held , in brief , that the content of Professor Dr I.D. \u2019s book was \u201c anonymous \u201d information regarding child health and care which organisations such as ORG or ORG sought to have disseminated , that the plaintiff in the introduction to the book stated that the book had been compiled on the basis of questions asked by parents and conclusions reached from scientific research and experience of experts in the field , that it was natural for the CARDINAL books to resemble DATE they were handbooks , and neither of them contained any bibliography or sources . In this connection , it pointed out similarities which existed in other similar handbooks , such as ORG and ORG . The experts also noted that the book in question was not a scientific publication . The report also assessed the merits of the complaint , holding that in the present case the plaintiff \u2019s personality rights had been violated .","On DATE ORG ( CARDINALth ORG ) , relying on the conclusions reached by the expert report of DATE , held , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s assertion was neither true nor topical . It ordered the applicant to pay compensation to Professor Dr I.D. in the amount of MONEY ( TRL ) , plus interest at the statutory rate applicable from the date of the impugned publication . Counterclaims by the applicant were dismissed , and those decisions subsequently became final , as the applicant did not lodge an appeal in this respect .","In his appeal to ORG the applicant argued , inter alia , that CARDINAL of the experts had close ties with the plaintiff and that therefore the expert report was biased . In this connection , the applicant submitted that the first expert was the plaintiff \u2019s student and that the second expert was a student of the first expert and that they were both members of ORG , which had already voiced its opinion on this subject . He maintained that experts should not be chosen from ORG , because those universities had been set up by the plaintiff .","The applicant further argued , inter alia , that the domestic court had based its decision on the conclusions of an inadequate and biased report which contained praise for the plaintiff and that the applicant \u2019s comments were true , as had been attested to by witness and documentary evidence included in the case file , including a report dated DATE and written by Professor PERSON , Professor of NORP Literature and Comparative Literature at ORG . ( This report compares the DATE edition of Mother \u2019s Book with that of Dr PERSON and concludes , inter alia , that a number of paragraphs and sentences in the plaintiff \u2019s book were copied from PERSON book by way of word - by - word translation and by using other methods considered as plagiarism . The report contains an annex with some examples . ) The applicant further argued , by referring to various examples such as legal changes in domestic law provisions , that the issue of plagiarism was a topical subject .","On DATE ORG ( CARDINALth Division ) held a hearing and quashed the judgment of the first - instance court . In its decision it held that the first - instance court should first determine whether the allegations of plagiarism were well - founded . In this connection the court , inter alia , found the PERSON report inadequate and not in compliance with the rules prescribed in LAW .","On DATE ORG dismissed the plaintiff \u2019s request for rectification of its decision .","When the case was remitted back to the first - instance court , the latter appointed as experts Professor PERSON , professor of paediatrics , Professor GPE , professor of paediatrics , and Professor PERSON , professor of LANGUAGE . These appointments were made on DATE . All these experts worked at ORG .","On DATE the experts\u2019 report , which concluded that there had been no plagiarism , was submitted to the firstinstance court . The experts compared the plaintiff \u2019s book with that of PERSON as translated into NORP by PERSON , and noted , inter alia , that there was no similarity between the manner in which the CARDINAL books were conceptualised and shaped , namely the number of pages , picture on the cover , and section headings . Underlining the differences in each section of the book , the experts also concluded that there were no similarities as regards the contents of the book . The experts noted that it was natural for certain information such as ORG scales or symptoms of various childhood illnesses to be similar . In this connection , they held that these were not the \u201c original views \u201d of PERSON .","NORP In the course of the proceedings the applicant objected to the report , particularly on the ground that the first CARDINAL experts worked with a person close to the plaintiff and that they were themselves members of ORG .","Following objections to the report by the applicant , on DATE the first - instance court appointed CARDINAL new experts for a second report .","On various dates CARDINAL of the court - appointed experts , namely Professor PERSON and Professor PERSON , both professors of LANGUAGE language and literature at ORG , resigned because of a potential conflict of interest .","On DATE the experts\u2019 report prepared by Professor Dr N.A. , professor of paediatrics at ORG , Professor PERSON , professor of paediatrics at ORG , and Professor PERSON , professor of LANGUAGE language and literature at ORG , was submitted to the court .","In this report , the experts submitted that they had compared the first edition of the plaintiff \u2019s book , published in DATE , with a copy of PERSON book as originally published . In sum , the experts held that the plaintiff \u2019s book was a popular health book , that it was not a word - for - word translation or citation from PERSON book , that in the first edition of his book the plaintiff referred at the end of his book to PERSON and PERSON as regards the methodology he had followed , that there were sections in the book which did not exist in PERSON book , and that the plaintiff \u2019s book contained national - specific matters and various laws and customs , but that in certain parts of the book there were paragraphs where the translation method had been used and which were similar to PERSON . As regards this last point the experts considered that these parts did not concern scientific information but anonymous information known to all paediatricians , and that following these paragraphs the plaintiff had referred to national- specific matters . They further considered that certain conditions required for scientific books , such as citation of sources , were not required for books published at that time , and that an acknowledgement only in the form of thanks sufficed .","The experts concluded that the book written by the plaintiff was a popular health book , that in its first edition he had thanked those whose books had inspired him , and that the book was in conformity with the rules of the time of its publication . In this connection , they noted that even DATE reference by full citation was mostly applicable only to scientific and academic books , and that even if such ethical rules should be held to be applicable to popular health books a book written in DATE should not be judged by current standards .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office , claiming that the transcript of the court decision of DATE regarding the appointment of experts , namely Professor PERSON , had been tampered with .","On DATE ORG ( CARDINALth ORG ) ordered the applicant to pay compensation to Professor PERSON I.D. in the amount of MONEY ( TRL ) , plus interest at the statutory rate applicable from the date of the impugned publication .","In its decision , the court began by stating that , after the parties had asked the court to appoint experts , it had requested a list of qualified experts from all universities in GPE and that it had appointed experts who had not taken part in the academic debate between the parties . It further added that following the applicant \u2019s objection to the first report the court had commissioned a second expert \u2019s report .","The court , referring to the evidence in the case file , held that the book written by the plaintiff was not a copy of the book written by PERSON , that it was a genuine publication , and that therefore the applicant \u2019s assertion was not correct . It found therefore that there had been an unlawful attack on the plaintiff \u2019s personality rights and scientific career .","The applicant appealed , complaining , inter alia , that CARDINAL of the experts , Professor PERSON , was working at ORG , which gave rise to concerns as to her impartiality .","On DATE ORG ( CARDINALth Division ) held a hearing and quashed the judgment of the first - instance court . The court , after referring to the importance of citation of sources in publications , especially scientific publications , held , relying on the information provided in the PERSON report , that a mere reference to PERSON , as regards the methodology followed in the book , in the original edition , was not sufficient to consider that the plaintiff had made a proper reference and that , in addition , in subsequent editions there was no such reference in the book in question . It therefore found no unlawfulness in the applicant \u2019s remarks and held that the case should be dismissed .","On DATE ORG ( CARDINALth ORG ) decided not to abide by the decision of ORG , and ordered the applicant to pay compensation to Professor PERSON I.D. in the amount of MONEY ( TRL ) , plus interest at the statutory rate applicable from the date of the impugned publication . In its decision , it held , inter alia , that experts had been appointed in accordance with the previous decision of ORG , that these experts had concluded that there had been no plagiarism , and that the court could not draw conclusions which were contrary to the assessment of the experts . The court held that the applicant had suggested that the plaintiff had committed plagiarism , which under the disciplinary regulation of the ORG required the heavy sanction of expulsion from the university . It underlined in this connection that everyone had the right to criticise a person exercising a public function . However , criticism which overstepped objective boundaries and became unjust vilification or belittling in bad faith was unlawful . In the circumstances of the present case , the court considered that the plaintiff \u2019s personality rights had been infringed .","In his appeal to LAW of ORG , the applicant underlined , inter alia , that the first - instance court had failed to properly assess the decision of ORG . In particular , the court had failed to address the fact that there were parts of the book which were translations , and that a reference to PERSON in the first edition , which in any event does not figure in later editions , could not be considered a proper citation . In this connection , the applicant underlined that using a methodology adopted in another book and repeating the same words and paragraphs can not be considered provision of anonymous information , and that there was no scientific basis for the first - instance court \u2019s view that plagiarism only applied to original ideas .","The applicant repeated , inter alia , that there was no unlawfulness in his assertion that the plaintiff had in his book plagiarised from PERSON book by way of translation and quotations without providing proper references , that this fact was already known by the public as such allegations had been previously made by others and the plaintiff had failed to sue them , and that the voicing of this fact was in the public interest .","The applicant further criticised the wording of the decision , in particular the use of capital letters to emphasise certain words , and others .","On DATE ORG ( plenary session ) , by a majority , upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . In its decision , the court held , inter alia , that all the experts\u2019 reports included in the case file since the beginning had insistently underlined that both books were handbooks , that they contained anonymous information and not original ideas developed by the authors , and that therefore it was not necessary to provide references therein . It further considered that , contrary to the experts\u2019 reports , the applicant had since DATE brought similar criticisms against the plaintiff , leading sometimes , as in the present case , to unlawful attacks on the plaintiff \u2019s personality rights . In the present case the applicant in the article in question had insulted the plaintiff and attacked his personality rights instead of assessing the establishment of the ethics committee by the ORG . The court considered that there was not even the smallest connection between the subject of the article and the plaintiff . It therefore found that the subject was not topical . The court maintained that there was no reason why the applicant would include the plaintiff in this subject . It therefore held that the incident , as established by experts\u2019 reports , was not only false but also not topical .","The court further noted that when it had first quashed the decision of the first - instance court , ORG ( CARDINALth Division ) had held that the veracity of the allegation was to be established by a report written by experts on the subject and that the first - instance court should make its decision on the basis of that report . It therefore held that if the report concluded that there had been no plagiarism , the applicant \u2019s article - as it was not topical - would constitute an attack on personality rights and an award of compensation would be required .","It considered that since the first - instance court had decided to abide by the above decision of ORG there was an acquired procedural right in favour of the plaintiff . It considered , however , that ORG , in its second decision to quash the first - instance court judgment , had revised its view and , contrary to the PERSON report , had taken the view that the book was a scientific publication . In this connection , the court referred to its case - law in which it had previously held that where an issue required expertise judges could not rule on it on the basis of their own personal views and opinions . It underlined that this case - law was also applicable to ORG . Otherwise , the acquired procedural right would be violated .","The court underlined the conditions that must be met for compensation to be awarded for an attack on personality rights in the press : unlawfulness , fault , damage and interconnectedness between reason and conclusion . It further held that for a published criticism or news item to be held unlawful there must be a violation under one of the following criteria : truthfulness , topicality , public interest , public good and interconnectedness between the subject , form and idea .","The court noted that in the present case , according to experts\u2019 reports , the article published in ORG was not true , that the article was not topical , and the opinions expressed in the article exceeded the limits of criticism and insulted the plaintiff .","It further found that ORG assessment referred to above was contrary to its case - law regarding the assessment of experts\u2019 reports .","The court therefore found that the first - instance court \u2019s decision to resist ORG judgment was justified . It transferred the case back to ORG of ORG for determination of the amount of compensation .","CARDINAL dissenting members ( judges sitting on the bench of ORG ) considered , inter alia , that in the instant case the conditions of public interest , topicality and veracity had been met , and that the form and the words used by the applicant in his criticism of an important public figure and academic was not contrary to law .","On DATE ORG ( plenary session ) dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of its decision .","On DATE ORG ( CARDINALth Division ) , finding the amount awarded to the plaintiff excessive , reduced the amount of compensation to CARDINAL new NORP liras ( TRY ) .","On DATE ORG ( CARDINALth Division ) dismissed the parties\u2019 request for rectification of its decision .","A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174964","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOZHOKAR AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162850","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"SOYUPOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC , a village in GPE .","summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant is a NORP . In DATE , during the Second World War , ORG issued a decree ( PERSON -CARDINAL\u0441\u0441 \u043e\u0442 DATE \u0433. ) by which it ordered the deportation of her family and other NORP to a special settlement in GPE and placed them under police surveillance . In DATE the ORG of ORG of the GPE allowed the deportees out of exile , but banned them from returning to their homeland and ruled out the return of confiscated property . In DATE the applicant left the special settlement .","NORP In DATE , after the break - up of GPE , GPE passed the PERSON on the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Persecution ( ORG \u201c \u041e \u0440\u0435\u0430\u0431\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0442\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u0436\u0435\u0440\u0442\u0432 \u043f\u043e\u043b\u0438\u0442\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0445 \u0440\u0435\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439 \u201d ) , whose preamble provided for the rehabilitation of victims and compensation for material damage and personal suffering .","In DATE the mention of personal suffering was removed from the preamble .","In DATE the applicant was recognised as a victim of NORP political and ethnic persecution and in DATE she sued the ORG for MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ) in damages for the suffering she had undergone in her childhood .","On DATE ORG dismissed her claim . The applicant appealed to ORG of GPE . Relying on LAW , she argued that the PERSON had given her a \u201c legitimate expectation \u201d of redress .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the lower court , considering that the applicant had had no legitimate expectation : the PERSON had not provided for compensation for people who had been deported as they had not been \u201c deprived of their liberty \u201d within the meaning of section CARDINAL ; the PERSON had made no promise of damages for personal suffering , nor could such damages be awarded under LAW because the LAW had introduced the notion of personal suffering into LANGUAGE law long after the persecution had taken place .","At the heart of the present case lie differences between CARDINAL versions of the PERSON on the Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Persecution : the original version ( DATE ) and the one in force at the time of the applicant \u2019s claim ( CARDINAL DATE ) .","\u201c This PERSON aims to rehabilitate all victims of political persecution ... and to compensate them ... for their material damage and personal suffering . \u201d","\u201c This PERSON aims to rehabilitate all victims of political persecution ... and to compensate them ... for their material damage . \u201d","\u201c Those who have been persecuted by way of deprivation of liberty and rehabilitated ... shall be paid RUB CARDINAL per month of captivity , but no more than RUB CARDINAL ... \u201d","\u201c Those who have been persecuted by way of deprivation of liberty or forced psychiatric custody and rehabilitated ... shall be paid RUB DATE of captivity ... but no more than RUB CARDINAL . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW of DATE reads :","\u201c Provisions of civil legislation shall have no retroactive effect and shall be applied to legal relationships which have arisen after [ the provisions ] have entered into force ... \u201d","On DATE ORG found the DATE version of section CARDINAL of the PERSON compatible with the LAW and confirmed that the compensation mentioned in the PERSON aimed to provide redress for the most severe acts of political persecution , that is , imprisonment and forced psychiatric custody ( judgment PERSON ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158042","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ALI ASAN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and has been detained in PERSON since DATE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant has been detained since DATE and , following his conviction in DATE , has been serving a DATE prison sentence .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG seeking the suspension of his prison sentence on medical grounds .","On an unspecified date ORG asked ORG to produce an expert medical report in respect of the applicant \u2019s illnesses and to clarify if he could be treated in a prison hospital .","On DATE the Mina Minovici Forensic Institute produced the expert medical report ordered by the court . CARDINAL of the conclusions of the report was that the applicant had bone tissue missing on the right side of his head since an operation to treat a head injury suffered in DATE . It noted that after the surgery he had been recommended to undergo an osteoplasty ( surgical repair or alteration of the bone ) . It concluded by agreeing that an osteoplasty was recommended for the applicant \u2019s condition . The surgery was not urgent but could be carried out only in a civilian hospital . The applicant could be transferred to a civilian hospital under permanent guard after an appointment had been made and he had consented in writing . Also , from a medical standpoint , it was not impossible for the applicant to serve out his sentence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . It held that according to the conclusion of the expert medical report produced by PERSON Forensic Institute , it was not impossible for the applicant to serve out his sentence from a medical standpoint . The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as ill - founded .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG seeking the suspension of his prison sentence on medical grounds .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . It held that according to the expert medical report produced by ORG on DATE the applicant \u2019s illness did not make it impossible for him to serve out his sentence . The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as ill - founded .","On DATE , relying on ORG expert report , the applicant lodged a request with the post - sentencing judge attached to PERSON seeking his assistance in gaining permission to undergo the surgery he needed .","On DATE the post - sentencing judge attached to PERSON informed the applicant that his request had been forwarded to the prison \u2019s medical office in order to be resolved .","On DATE , referring to PERSON post - sentencing judge \u2019s referral , the governor of PERSON informed the applicant that according to the neurosurgical evaluation report , produced in ORG for the expert medical report by ORG , the cranium cerebral trauma that had been operated on in DATE did not need neurosurgical treatment .","On DATE the post - sentencing judge attached to PERSON informed the Government that except for his request of DATE the applicant had never complained before him DATE under LAW . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and GPE that his right to medical assistance had been breached .","On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG for a neurological evaluation . The evaluation report concluded that the applicant was not suffering from any serious neurological problems . However , it did recommend a neurosurgical evaluation .","On DATE and DATE the applicant was taken to ORG for CARDINAL neurosurgical evaluations . The evaluation reports concluded that the surgery was not urgent and that the applicant could have been operated on at any time .","On DATE the applicant was taken for a GPE scan which did not disclose any internal brain haemorrhage .","On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG for a neurosurgical evaluation . The evaluation report noted that the applicant \u2019s condition was favourable and it recommended subsequent neurological evaluations with a view to an osteoplasty .","DATE the applicant was hospitalised in ORG for a neurosurgical evaluation and in order to determine the need for an osteoplasty . The evaluation report concluded that the applicant \u2019s head injury was old and therefore was not an emergency warranting neurosurgery .","On DATE ORG attached to ORG informed the ORG and submitted supporting evidence attesting that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been repeatedly examined and treated for his medical conditions , including his head injury , in prison hospitals . Moreover , he was regularly given medical evaluations in respect of his condition .","On DATE ORG informed the Government that on DATE the applicant had been examined by a neurosurgeon at ORG . The aforementioned neurosurgeon concluded that the applicant \u2019s health was good and reiterated the chronic nature of the applicant \u2019s condition and that it was not an emergency warranting neurosurgery .","NORP The relevant provision of the former NORP Code of Criminal Procedure concerning suspension of prison sentences ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , are described in PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE .","Excerpts from the relevant legal provisions concerning the rights of detainees , namely PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the execution of prison sentences , are given in the cases of LOC v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ; and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","The Execution of Prison Sentences Act ( LAW no . MONEY ) , which entered into force on DATE , provides that a detainee can complain before the post - sentencing judge against the measures taken by the prison administration in respect of his lawful rights . The post - sentencing judge \u2019s decision can also be challenged before the domestic courts ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166935","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ANTUNOVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was a civil servant of GPE , working in its ORG and LAW ( Grad PERSON , GPE odnose s javno\u0161\u0107u i protokol DATE hereinafter \u201c GPE PERSON \u201d ) . In DATE he was suspended from the civil service on account of having been accused of severe breaches of his official duties .","For the duration of his suspension , that is to say DATE , the applicant was entitled to monthly salary compensation in the amount of PERCENT of the salary remitted in DATE prior to his suspension from the civil service .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) found the applicant guilty of severe breaches of his official duties and fined him PERCENT of the salary paid to him in DATE in which the said sanction was imposed .","On DATE , after the applicant lodged an appeal , ORG ( PERSON slu\u017ebeni\u010dki sud ) amended the impugned decision and fined the applicant PERCENT of his salary paid in DATE in which the said sanction was imposed .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for the reimbursement of the portion of his gross salary \u2013 in the total amount of NORP kunas ( ( HRK ) , MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) DATE withheld during the suspension period between DATE and DATE , together with accrued default interest running from the date of his suspension until payment of the said portion . He was of the opinion that by withholding PERCENT of his salary for DATE and imposing a fine on him the administrative bodies had punished him twice .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE GPE dismissed that application .","The applicant then lodged an appeal , which was dismissed as ill - founded by the same administrative body that delivered the above - mentioned decision ( that is to say GPE . However , in its decision of DATE it gave the instruction that the applicant had a right to bring an administrative action against it before ORG .","On DATE the applicant brought an administrative action , in accordance with GPE PERSON ruling .","On DATE certain amendments to LAW entered into force and ORG became ORG .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , relying on sections CARDINAL and PERSON ) , point CARDINAL , of LAW , declined jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter , stating that an ordinary municipal court ( redovni , op\u0107inski sud ) was the appropriate court to hear the applicant \u2019s case , and declared the applicant \u2019s action inadmissible . This decision was final . On DATE it served its decision on the applicant \u2019s representative .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint . He complained , inter alia , that his right to a fair hearing , in particular his right of access to court , as guaranteed by LAW and LAW , had been violated when ORG had declared his action inadmissible . In particular , he argued that according to ORG case - law , ordinary municipal courts did not have jurisdiction over disputes arising from legally binding decisions of administrative bodies . He also argued that even if he had brought a civil action , it would have been time - barred because it had taken ORG DATE to declare his administrative action inadmissible .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the case raised no constitutional issue . On DATE it served its decision on the applicant \u2019s representative .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) for reimbursement of salary arrears withheld DATE .","By a judgment of DATE the first - instance court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim as time - barred . It held , inter alia , that given that ORG had declared the applicant \u2019s administrative action inadmissible , it could not be deemed that the statutory limitation period had been interrupted . It relied on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment of DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171804","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DE TOMMASO v. ITALY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations;Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations;Fair hearing);No violation of Article 13+P4-2-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement;Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general});Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE the PERSON public prosecutor recommended that the ORG place the applicant under special police supervision ( sorveglianza speciale di pubblica sicurezza ) for DATE , on the basis of Act no . DATE , and impose a compulsory residence order on him during that time . The public prosecutor submitted that the applicant \u2019s previous convictions for drug trafficking , absconding and unlawful possession of weapons showed that he associated with criminals and was a dangerous individual . He also noted that the applicant had been given a \u201c warning \u201d by the police but had persisted in his criminal conduct .","In submissions of DATE the applicant challenged the prosecutor \u2019s recommendation . He argued that there had been a case of mistaken identity and that the alleged breaches of the terms of his special supervision concerned a person who shared his first name and surname but had been born in DATE . He further submitted that no criminal charges had been brought against him since a conviction dating back to DATE . Although he had been convicted of absconding in DATE , that was not a decisive factor for the imposition of the measure in question . He argued that there was no need to place him under special supervision .","In a decision of DATE , served on DATE , ORG placed the applicant under special supervision for DATE . It rejected his arguments , finding that the statutory requirements for the imposition of the measure were indeed satisfied , there being no doubt that he was dangerous .","ORG found that the applicant had \u201c active \u201d criminal tendencies and that the evidence before it showed that he had derived most of his means of subsistence from criminal activity .","The court observed , in particular :","\u201c The subject was issued with a \u2018 verbal warning for public ORG on DATE , but this did nothing to improve his conduct ; he continued to associate regularly with key figures in the local underworld ( malavita locale ) and carried on committing offences ( see statement of charges pending : breach of supervision order on DATE ; breach of supervision order on DATE ) . \u201d","ORG further held :","\u201c The findings of the investigation ( see documents and certificates in the case file ) show that Mr PERSON remains personally involved in various criminal activities , among which the greatest threat to public order and safety is posed by offences against property and weapon- and drug - related offences .","This negative picture is compounded by the contents of the recent report issued by the ORG carabinieri on DATE , from which it appears that far from having receded , the subject \u2019s criminal tendencies are still thought to be active and operational . The evidence in the file indicates that he has no fixed and lawful occupation ( having declared himself available for employment from DATE ) and that the serious offences under consideration are such as to warrant the conclusion that he has , up until now , derived a significant part of his means of subsistence from criminal activity , by repeatedly resorting to crime either alone or in association with habitual offenders ( whether in his municipality of residence or elsewhere ) . To ensure more thorough monitoring , it is therefore necessary to order not only special police supervision for DATE ( a measure deemed reasonable on account of the subject \u2019s character as clearly emerges from the acts attributed to him ) , but also compulsory residence for the same duration . \u201d","The preventive measure imposed the following obligations on the applicant :","\u2013 to report once DATE to the police authority responsible for his supervision ;","\u2013 to start looking for work within DATE ;","\u2013 to live in GPE and not to change his place of residence ;","\u2013 to lead an honest and law - abiding life and not give cause for suspicion ;","\u2013 not to associate with persons who had a criminal record and who were subject to preventive or security measures ;","\u2013 not to return home TIME or to leave home before TIME , except in case of necessity and only after giving notice to the authorities in good time ;","\u2013 not to keep or carry weapons ;","\u2013 not to go to bars , nightclubs , amusement arcades or brothels and not to attend public meetings ;","\u2013 not to use mobile phones or radio communication devices ; and","\u2013 to have with him at all times the document setting out his obligations ( carta precettiva ) , and to present it to the police authority on request .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG .","On DATE the PERSON prefecture ordered the withdrawal of the applicant \u2019s driving licence .","In a decision of DATE , served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE , ORG allowed his appeal and quashed the preventive measure ex tunc .","The Court of Appeal observed , firstly , that for a preventive measure to be imposed it was necessary to establish that the individual posed a \u201c current danger \u201d , which was not necessarily linked to the commission of a specific offence , but rather to the existence of a complex situation of a certain duration indicating that the individual had a particular lifestyle that prompted alarm for public safety .","In ORG view , the requirement of a \u201c current \u201d danger to society implied that the relevant decision should relate to the time of the assessment and should remain valid throughout its implementation ; any previous circumstances could be taken into account only in relation to their impact on the \u201c current \u201d element .","The court found that at the time the measure had been imposed , the applicant \u2019s dangerousness could not have been inferred from any criminal activity .","It then observed that in several final judgments delivered between DATE and DATE the applicant had been convicted of tobacco smuggling . He had subsequently changed his sphere of activity and until DATE had been involved in drug trafficking and handling illegal weapons , offences for which he had been sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment in a judgment of DATE , which had become final on DATE ; he had served his sentence from DATE to DATE .","ORG accordingly noted that the applicant \u2019s most recent illegal activities relating to drugs dated back to DATE before the preventive measure had been imposed . All that the court could hold against him was an offence of absconding , committed on DATE ( while he had been subject to a compulsory residence order ) .","The court also pointed out that the breaches of the terms of special supervision committed on DATE and DATE concerned a different person , who had the same first name and surname as the applicant but had been born in DATE .","ORG held that ORG had omitted to assess the impact of the rehabilitation purpose of the sentence on the applicant \u2019s personality .","It observed in particular :","\u201c While it is true that the application of special supervision is compatible with the status of detention , which relates solely to the time of the execution of the sentence , the assessment of dangerousness is inevitably even more significant in the case of an individual who has fully served his sentence and has committed no further offences after his release , as is the case for PERSON .","The note of DATE in which the carabinieri mentioned that PERSON associated with convicted offenders ( to whom he had been caught speaking ) does not appear sufficient to establish his dangerousness , bearing in mind that PERSON has not been the subject of any further judicial proceedings since the decision to impose the preventive measure .","Lastly , ORG notes that the material produced by the defence before ORG and at the hearing before this division indicates that , notwithstanding the typically casual nature of work as a farm labourer , the subject has , at least since his release from prison in DATE up to the present day , consistently been in lawful employment providing him with a respectable source of income .","In conclusion , in DATE there were no specific facts from which to infer persistent dangerousness on the part of the subject , who , after serving his lengthy sentence of imprisonment , has not displayed any conduct justifying the assessment made in the judgment appealed against , which is therefore to be quashed . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6","P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P4-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-1"],"non_violated_articles":["13","6","P4"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P4-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-1"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179880","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BOGOSYAN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , a police captain , was arrested for soliciting a bribe . He was taken into custody and his detention was extended on several occasions . On DATE the case was submitted for trial in ORG of GPE .","On DATE ORG determined that the case was not ready for trial and returned the file to the prosecutor . By the same decision , it extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE the director of the PERSON remand prison where the applicant was held reported to the GPE prosecutor and to the president of ORG that , in the absence of an order extending the applicant \u2019s detention beyond DATE , he would need to be released on DATE . On DATE the PERSON prosecutor replied to him that there were no grounds for releasing the applicant because the date for hearing the prosecutor \u2019s appeal against ORG order of DATE had been fixed for CARDINAL DATE . The applicant was not released on DATE . He complained about his unlawful detention to the head of ORG and the regional head of ORG but did not receive any reply .","On DATE the ORG quashed ORG order on appeal . As regards the custodial measure , it held that no extension had been necessary because by virtue of LAW the applicant could be held in custody for an initial DATE period starting from the date on which the case had been submitted for trial ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-151025","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF AS\u0130YE GEN\u00c7 v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in Burdur .","On DATE the applicant , who was pregnant and in pain , was taken by her husband , Mr PERSON , to the G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fhane public hospital .","At TIME on DATE the applicant gave birth by Caesarean section to a boy ( PERSON ) , who \u2013 at CARDINAL GPE gestation \u2013was premature and weighed QUANTITY .","Shortly after his birth , PERSON began showing signs of respiratory distress .","As there was no suitable neonatal unit in the LOC public hospital , the doctors decided to transfer the baby to the PERSON Farabi public hospital ( \u201c KT\u00dc Farabi \u201d ) , located in GPE , QUANTITY away .","On DATE at TIME the KT\u00dc Farabi public hospital refused to admit PERSON on the grounds that there were no places available in the neonatal intensive care unit .","Around TIME PERSON was transferred to ORG ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) . There , the duty doctor explained to PERSON that there were no incubators available and advised him to return to the KT\u00dc Farabi public hospital , which the father had no choice but to do .","On their arrival , the doctors at the KT\u00dc Farabi public hospital again argued that they were unable to admit the premature baby , owing to a lack of available places in the neonatal unit .","A fresh attempt was then made to drive GPE to the PERSON .","Towards TIME , he died in the ambulance , which he had apparently never left throughout this sequence of events .","On DATE Mr and PERSON filed a complaint .","NORP In particular , they called for the conviction of doctors GPE and PERSON from the KT\u00dc Farabi public hospital .","CARDINAL investigations , one criminal and the other administrative , were opened .","In the context of these investigations , several witness statements were taken . The relevant passages read as follows :","The deceased \u2019s relatives :","The applicant : \u201c My pregnancy was progressing normally . The doctors preferred a birth by Caesarean section on account of the baby \u2019s position . The birth had initially been scheduled for DATE , but during TIME DATE I had pains , and the baby was born by Caesarean section DATE . I do n\u2019t know what happened after that . I was told that the baby had been transferred to another hospital on account of a respiratory problem , but that he had not been admitted because there were no available places , and that he died in an ambulance , in the garden of a hospital , without a doctor taking the trouble to care for him . I want those responsible for my son \u2019s death to be punished . \u201d","Mr Gen\u00e7 : \u201c My son was born prematurely at the LOC public hospital . The doctors decided to transfer him to another hospital with better equipment . The KT\u00dc PERSON hospital did not admit him owing to a lack of places . He was also refused admission to ORG , for the same reasons . Instead of caring for my son , the doctors wasted time with administrative formalities . They did not even take the trouble to examine him , although it was an emergency situation . They ought to have diagnosed and treated him . We fought for TIME for my son to be seen by a doctor , but no hospital would agree to admit him . After several trips back and forth between hospitals , he died in an ambulance , in a hospital garden . Had my son been admitted to hospital in time , he would not have died . The persons responsible must be punished . \u201d","\u00d6.B. : \u201c Mr Gen\u00e7 is a friend . I accompanied him on TIME of the incident . We followed behind the ambulance in a car . At the KT\u00dc Farabi hospital , the duty paediatrician , PERSON , was annoyed that the transfer had been carried out without any prior checks that there was indeed a place available at the hospital . She paid no attention to the baby . She was busy with the administrative side of things and asked for documents proving that there were in fact no places in the other hospitals . She first called ORG , then the GPE public hospital , to check . She told us that there were indeed places at ORG , but that the duty doctor had simply not wished to be disturbed . She advised us to request an official signed document stating that there were no places available in the hospital . She added that if the doctors at ORG were confronted with such a request , they would certainly change their attitude , find a place and agree to admit the child . When we went to ORG , doctor PERSON told us that there were no places available and that they could not take the child into their care . Instead of looking after the child , who needed urgent medical assistance , he preferred to spend time drawing up a document stating that there were no places in the hospital . TIME were lost in this way . After numerous back - and - forth trips between hospitals , the child ended up having a heart attack . Treatment by the emergency doctor was not enough to save him . Nobody wanted to take charge of the child . No emergency doctor examined him . They all refused to admit him and tried at any cost to transfer him to another hospital . This indifference towards a child who required emergency medical killed him . \u201d","The medical staff :","ORG : \u201c I work as a gynaecologist and obstetrician at the LOC public hospital . PERSON Caesarean section proceeded normally . We handed over the child to the paediatrician after the birth . He was crying . I do n\u2019t know what happened after that , since I continued with the operation . \u201d","ORG : \u201c I work as a midwife in the LOC public hospital . PERSON gave birth to a boy . The child was showing no anomalies when I took him in my arms . Suddenly , for a reason I do n\u2019t understand , he had difficulty breathing . Doctor N.A. stepped in right away . The child was intubated . He was transferred to another hospital by ambulance . \u201d","N.A. : \u201c I work as a paediatrician at the G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fhane public hospital . I saw the child TIME after his birth . I intervened as a matter of urgency , since he was not breathing correctly and his pulse was weak . Once his condition had stabilised , we organised his transfer to a better equipped hospital . I had been told that there was a place available at the KT\u00dc Farabi hospital . The child was transferred by ambulance and he was intubated during the transfer . \u201d","GPE : \u201c I work as an anaesthetist at the LOC public hospital . PERSON gave birth by Caesarean section to a QUANTITY - old premature baby . Shortly afterwards , the midwife told us that the child had breathing difficulties . The paediatrician intervened immediately to provide the necessary treatment . It was decided to transfer him to another hospital , since there was no appropriate medical unit on site . I was in the ambulance with ORG The child was intubated . The transfer was carried out in an incubator . At the KT\u00dc PERSON hospital , the duty paediatrician , PERSON , did not examine the child . She simply said that we should go to ORG . Once there , doctor PERSON also refused to admit the child on the grounds that there were no available places . He took this decision without even examining the child . We went back and forth between hospitals , but no one would accept him . He died in the ambulance outside ORG . \u201d","E.\u0130. : \u201c I work as a nurse at the NORP public hospital . I was on duty on DATE of the incident . The child had been brought to us in an incubator so that we would take him to the KT\u00dc Farabi hospital . Once there , doctor PERSON told us that it was impossible to take charge of the child and that he ought to be looked after by a specialised paediatrician . He told us to go and see doctor PERSON That is what we did . Ms DATE , without even examining the child , told us that there were no places in the hospital and that he should be transferred to ORG . We went there immediately . Doctor PERSON did not examine the child . He simply told us that there were no places in the hospital . We insisted for TIME that he take the child in for treatment . He refused . We then set off again for the KT\u00dc Farabi hospital . Doctor PERSON again refused to admit the child and insisted that he be transferred to the GPE public hospital . The child \u2019s father and I protested strongly against this decision . Doctor PERSON then asked us to provide her with an official document stating that there were no places at ORG . As no one had thought to give us such a document , we were unable to give it to her . She then asked us to return once more to ORG . Faced with her categorical refusal , we set off once again for ORG . Once there , the doctors again refused to admit the child . The child died in the ambulance at TIME \u201d","PERSON : \u201c On TIME of the incident , I was on duty at the adult emergency department at the KT\u00dc Farabi hospital . I spoke to the father on the telephone . I told him that paediatrics was not my field , but that I could help him with the transfer to the emergency paediatrics department . \u201d","T.\u00d6. : \u201c I was on duty at the paediatrics department in the KT\u00dc Farabi hospital on TIME of the incident . The G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fhane public hospital did not contact us to find out whether or not there were free beds . The child was transferred directly to our hospital . I immediately addressed myself to his care . Other than the presence of meconium on his body , the child was fine . His vital functions were normal . I tested his oxygen saturation level , and it was CARDINAL . As there was a risk that the child would inhale meconium , I preferred to keep him [ at the hospital ] in order to ensure closer monitoring . However , I discovered that there were no beds in the department . The child \u2019s father told me that doctor PERSON had stated that there were places available in the hospital . I then called doctor PERSON , who was in the adult emergency department . He told me that he had thought that there were still places in the neonatal unit , but that he had not thought it necessary to call and check . I then expressed my displeasure to him . The child \u2019s father , who was accompanied by a friend , protested strongly against my decision to refuse to admit [ the child ] for lack of a bed . But I had only followed the procedure . The head of department had expressly asked us not to accept patients if there were no places available and to organise for their immediate transfer . That is what I attempted to do . Someone from ORG told me on the telephone that there was one place available . After completing the administrative formalities , I ordered an ambulance journey . However , the ambulance came back to our hospital TIME , since ORG had refused to admit him . As there was no official document to that effect , I again transferred the patient to the same hospital . As it was impossible to take the child into our care , I did not go ahead with his administrative registration or open a treatment file . \u201d","Doctor PERSON : \u201c I saw doctor PERSON looking after the child . He was doing well and was not intubated . The oxygen saturation level was PERCENT . \u201d","Nurse PERSON : \u201c I do not recall having seen any intubated child in the paediatric unit of the KT\u00dc Farabi hospital on TIME of the incident . \u201d","GPE : \u201c I am a doctor at the KT\u00dc Farabi hospital . The child was taken care of by doctor PERSON From what I saw , his general state was entirely satisfactory . The oxygen saturation level was PERCENT . \u201d","Y.A. : \u201c I am the head of the paediatric department at KT\u00dc PERSON hospital . My assistant , doctor PERSON , was right to refuse to admit the child , because we can not admit patients when the department is full . On the other hand , she ought to have opened an administrative file . \u201d","K.B. : \u201c I was on duty at ORG . At TIME on DATE , an ambulance carrying an intubated newborn baby arrived at our hospital . I did not want to take the child out of the incubator , since there is a risk of hypothermia with premature babies . I called doctor PERSON to ask for his advice , since the child needed to be put on a respirator , but there were no available places in the department . I called the other hospitals to try to find a place , but without success . I then told them to return to the KT\u00dc Farabi hospital . TIME , they came back asking for an official document stating that there were no available places in our hospital . I did not give them a document of this sort , but I told them they could visit the department if they did n\u2019t believe me . While I was in the middle of explaining all this , I was suddenly informed that the child had had a heart attack . I immediately went into the ambulance to carry out resuscitation , but in spite of all my efforts I was unable to save the child . I do not think that I was negligent . If we had admitted the child , we would have had to care for him in an ordinary bed . We would have been unable to control his temperature and guarantee artificial ventilation in those conditions , which in fact would probably have caused an even quicker death . \u201d","PERSON : \u201c PERSON called me to ask for advice . As we had no places , I told him to organise a transfer to the nearest university hospital . The patient was in an incubator in the ambulance . Yet we did n\u2019t even have an incubator available in the hospital . We would have lost the patient much more quickly had we admitted him . We could n\u2019t really do anything else . Furthermore , according to what I \u2019ve been told , G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fhane public hospital would not have wanted to lend us the ambulance incubator . \u201d","With regard to the available places in the neonatal units on TIME of the incident , the criminal investigation revealed that there had been CARDINAL incubator at the NORP public hospital and that it was out of order .","At the KT\u00dc Farabi public hospital , there were CARDINAL children in the maternity unit and QUANTITY in the neonatal unit , where capacity was limited to CARDINAL children .","There were CARDINAL incubators at the PERSON : CARDINAL were occupied and the fourth was out of order . Furthermore , they were not equipped with assisted ventilation systems .","With regard to the CARDINAL other establishments located in the region , it was noted that , out of CARDINAL incubators at the PERSON public hospital , CARDINAL were available at TIME on DATE , but that they did not have assisted ventilation systems .","ORG had no neonatal unit at all .","A full autopsy was carried out on ORG body . It revealed , in particular , that the child \u2019s lungs showed signs of \u201c asphyxial haemorrhage \u201d .","On DATE the NORP public prosecutor held that he did not have jurisdiction and relinquished the investigation to the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor sent the file to the PERSON ORG , to which the GPE public hospital was attached .","On DATE a committee of investigation , composed of doctors , issued a report concluding that the doctors in question had not committed any fault and that , accordingly , there were no grounds to grant authorisation for bringing proceedings against them .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE the G\u00fcm\u00fc\u015fhane Governor refused to open a criminal investigation against doctor N.A. , considering that he had committed no breach of his professional duties .","On CARDINAL DATE the NORP public prosecutor filed an objection to that decision , on the grounds that doctor ORG ought not to have ordered the child \u2019s transfer to a hospital that had no places available .","On DATE ORG rejected the prosecutor \u2019s objection .","On DATE , taking note of that judgment , which was ipso jure final , the prosecutor issued a decision that there was no case to answer .","In the absence of an appeal before ORG , this decision became final on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the LOC Governor refused to open proceedings against doctors GPE and GPE , taking the view that they could not be criticised for any negligence in performing their duties .","The GPE public prosecutor lodged an objection to that decision , considering that the accused had indeed committed an offence and that they ought to be referred to the courts for negligence in the performance of their duties .","On DATE ORG rejected the prosecutor \u2019s objection .","On DATE the prosecutor , who was obliged to comply with that final judgment , issued a decision that there was no case to answer .","In the absence of an appeal before ORG , this decision became final on DATE .","An investigation committee within ORG GPE branch decided of its own motion to carry out administrative investigations .","On completion of these investigations , on DATE ORG Governor refused to authorise the opening of an additional investigation in respect of doctors GPE and GPE","NORP By contrast , in respect of doctor PERSON , the Governor accepted the conclusions of the investigation committee and decided to open a criminal investigation for professional negligence .","To that end , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG public prosecutor , to whom the case had been referred back , transferred the file to ORG of Karadeniz University , to which PERSON was subordinate .","The Rector \u2019s Office immediately opened an administrative inquiry .","This confirmed the preliminary conclusions reached by the ministerial investigation committee .","On DATE the Rector \u2019s Office authorised the opening of a criminal investigation in respect of PERSON The relevant passages of that decision read as follows :","\u201c Health Inspector PERSON considered in his report of DATE that doctor PERSON had been negligent and that she should be held liable .","In his report of DATE , Health Inspector GPE found that doctor PERSON ought to have carried out administrative registration of the patient and opened a treatment file .","The information in the file reveals that there were no places available in the KT\u00dc Farabi hospital .","The patient \u2019s transfer to this hospital was due to a failure in communication and coordination .","At the KT\u00dc Farabi hospital , no adequate treatment was given , although the patient \u2019s state was very serious and his condition was life - threatening .","Furthermore , apart from the witness statements by medical staff from the KT\u00dc Farabi hospital , there is no evidence showing that the patient was examined by a doctor .","In addition , there is no administrative file or treatment file in the patient \u2019s name .","Doctor PERSON \u2019s explanation that \u201c if [ she ] did not open an administrative file , it was because we could not admit the patient to the hospital \u201d is unacceptable conduct .","In this incident , it must be concluded that there was negligence and fault on the part of doctor PERSON \u201d","On DATE T.\u00d6. applied to have that decision set aside .","On DATE ORG set aside the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the grounds that , in the absence of new evidence capable of justifying revision , its previous judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) remained final ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150313","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LOLAYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP .","The applicant was a police officer at ORG ( \u201c the police station \u201d ) until DATE .","DATE a submachine gun disappeared from the police station . The police officers noticed it was missing on DATE .","According to the applicant , on DATE , in the evening , police officers delivered him to the police station . There they handcuffed him to a chair and ill - treated him overnight , beating him on the back and head and pressing bare electric wires against his ears to make him confess to the theft of the sub - machine gun . He was released from the police station before TIME on DATE .","On DATE the applicant underwent a medical forensic examination . Forensic report no . CARDINAL attested that he had concussion , abrasions on his head which could have been inflicted by hard blunt objects , areas of pigmentation on his earlobes resulting from healing abrasions which could have been inflicted as a result of the application of low - frequency electrical current , and areas of pigmentation on his lower arms which could have been caused by hard blunt objects , possibly handcuffs . The report stated that the aforementioned injuries could have been inflicted within the period , and in the circumstances , described by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant complained about the events of CARDINAL DATE to the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE - GPE . The latter referred his complaints to the prosecutor \u2019s office of LOC and to the prosecutor \u2019s office of LOC for inquiry , in letters of CARDINAL DATE respectively . The latter prosecutor \u2019s office further transmitted the applicant \u2019s complaint to ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant \u2019s allegations . The decision stated that according to the applicant , at TIME on DATE he received a phone call from a former colleague at the police station , PERSON , who told him that another former colleague from the same police station , Officer PERSON , had some problems . PERSON asked the applicant to call Officer PERSON The applicant called Officer PERSON The latter said that he had problems and asked the applicant to join him in Officer PERSON \u2019s car , parked outside the applicant \u2019s house , to go to LOC . Officer PERSON also asked the applicant to take his passport with him . The applicant went outside and joined Officer PERSON and another man in camouflage uniform in a silver grey ORG car . The applicant sat in the back seat and they drove off . As they were driving , Officer PERSON told the applicant that when he started his duty shift he had signed an entry in the register confirming that he had been issued with a sub - machine gun , but this had not actually been the case , as the gun had not been found . Officer PERSON asked the applicant to go with him to GPE until everything had \u201c cleared up \u201d . Then Officer PERSON and the other man began contending that it was the applicant who had taken the sub - machine gun , because on DATE the sub - machine gun had gone missing he had been at the police station ; this was recorded on ORG . The applicant protested against these allegations , and the man in the camouflage uniform started beating him , while Officer PERSON pretended to try to separate them . Then they drove to the town centre , stopped at the police station , and the man in the camouflage uniform left . Soon Officer PERSON , the deputy head of criminal investigations and the applicant \u2019s former colleague , came out of the police station . The applicant expressed indignation about the police ORG allegations and assault . Officer PERSON replied that he did not suspect the applicant , but asked him to help them if he could . The applicant said that he could not help them . Then Officer PERSON left and Officer PERSON came out of the police station and told the applicant that Mr PERSON , the applicant \u2019s cousin , would soon arrive . Mr PERSON arrived shortly afterwards , accompanied by officers of the police special unit ( ORG ) and asked the applicant to help Officer PERSON because he was a close friend . The applicant responded that there were no grounds to suspect him and that he did not wish to continue this conversation . Officer PERSON then said that they had a video recording , and the applicant asked to see it . They went together to the office of the head of criminal investigations on the second floor of the police station , where Officer PERSON showed the applicant a recording of him entering and leaving the police station . The applicant explained that during his entire visit to the police station he had been accompanied by police officers . After they left that office Officer PERSON , Mr PERSON , and another man , X. , whom the applicant did not know , took him to Officer PERSON \u2019s office , where Mr PERSON again urged him to confess to stealing the sub - machine gun . Then they took him to a different office , where Officers PERSON , NORP , ORG . and X. handcuffed him to a chair , taped his mouth , put wires against his ears and passed electric current through them . The applicant fell off the chair several times but they put him back and sent the current through the wires to his ears again . He managed to get rid of the tape and spit out the blood that had collected in his mouth . Officer PERSON started yelling at him , saying that he would receive no pity as the \u201c minister \u201d had personally ordered that he should be \u201c locked up \u201d . The applicant then realised that he would not be able to endure the torture and offered to confess in writing that he had thrown the sub - machine gun into the river . However , they were unhappy with this suggestion . Then they took him to Officer PERSON \u2019s office , where he and Officers NORP and X. remained until TIME on DATE , when they let him go .","NORP The decision further quoted forensic report no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and statements by police officers . In particular , Officer PERSON . stated that he knew the applicant , as he had worked at the police station until DATE . On DATE they had realised that a sub - machine gun was missing . Officer M. had seen it last when he was on duty ; he was subsequently dismissed from the police for its loss . When they tried to establish what had happened , they watched the ORG records since DATE , this being the likely date of the sub - machine gun \u2019s disappearance . The recording showed the applicant entering the police station ; in the film of him leaving he seemed to be holding an unidentified object under his jacket . As the applicant often visited the police station and went into its offices , including the office from which the sub - machine gun might have gone missing , it was decided to invite the applicant , show the recording to him , and ask him to return the weapon . Officer PERSON , a relative of the applicant , was instructed to invite him . On the date in question Officer PERSON . saw Officer PERSON and the applicant in the police station . The applicant did not have any visible injuries , seemed to be in a good mood and asked him how he was doing . TIME he saw the applicant leaving the police station . Neither he nor any other police officers applied physical force to the applicant . However , Officer PERSON . still suspected the applicant of stealing the sub - machine gun and believed that his allegations were an attempt to undermine any possible prosecution for the theft of the weapon . Officer PERSON . believed that the applicant had caused the injuries stated in forensic report no . CARDINAL himself , in order to corroborate his submissions .","Officer PERSON stated that he was a distant relative of the applicant . He then corroborated Officer PERSON . \u2019s statement concerning the loss of the sub - machine gun , and added that with the help of PERSON he had contacted the applicant and arranged a meeting with him near his home . Officer PERSON went there by car alone and , when the applicant joined him , explained the situation to him and asked him to return the sub - machine gun , as otherwise Officer PERSON and his colleagues would have a lot of problems . The applicant denied being involved in the theft of the weapon , and agreed to go to the police station . On arrival they met Officer PERSON , who also suggested that the applicant return the sub - machine gun . The applicant reiterated that he had nothing to do with its loss . Then Officer PERSON took him to the office of the head of criminal investigations and left him there with Officer PERSON In TIME he saw the applicant leaving the police station ; he was sitting on a bench nearby with Officer PERSON . He had not seen the applicant since . From Officer PERSON he knew that the latter had shown the applicant the video recording and had asked him to return the sub - machine gun , but nobody had used physical force against him . Officer PERSON had no idea how the applicant had sustained the injuries or why he had accused the police officers of causing them ; he maintained that those allegations were false .","Officer PERSON corroborated Officers PERSON . \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s statements concerning the loss of the sub - machine gun , and added that on DATE in question he had seen the applicant and Officer PERSON on the second floor of the police station . He had asked the applicant to return the sub - machine gun , explaining that otherwise the police officers would be in serious trouble . However , the applicant denied being involved in its disappearance . Then Officer PERSON left and went to the first floor . He did not know where the applicant had gone afterwards but he saw no injuries on him . Officer PERSON did not know how the applicant had sustained the injuries described in forensic report no . CARDINAL , as no one in the police station had either ill - treated or insulted him . Officer PERSON believed that the applicant \u2019s allegations were intended to discredit his former colleagues .","Officer NORP corroborated the statements of Officers PERSON . , PERSON and PERSON concerning the disappearance of the sub - machine gun , and added that on the date in question , when he left the police station on finishing work and was walking towards his car parked nearby , he had seen Officer PERSON and the applicant entering the police station . He had not spoken to the applicant and had only seen him from a distance . Officer NORP had then gone home . He did not know how the applicant could have sustained the injuries stated in forensic report no . CARDINAL , as neither Officer NORP nor other police officers had ill - treated him .","Officer PERSON corroborated the statements of Officers PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON and NORP concerning the disappearance of the sub - machine gun , and added that on DATE in question , when he left the police station , he had seen the applicant and Officer PERSON nearby . They were talking peaceably and he did not see any injuries on the applicant \u2019s head or body . Officer PERSON approached them and told the applicant that there were grounds to believe that he had stolen the sub - machine gun and that he must return it . The applicant responded that he had nothing to do with its disappearance . The applicant did not make any complaints concerning the police officers . Officer PERSON had not seen the applicant since , and believed that his allegations were an attempt to avoid prosecution for the theft of the weapon .","The decision concluded that , as a result of the inquiry conducted , the applicant \u2019s allegations were not corroborated , and it was doubtful whether he had received the injuries described in forensic report no . CARDINAL in the circumstances described by him . Accordingly , the actions of the police officers disclosed no evidence of a criminal offence .","A copy of the decision was sent to the applicant on DATE .","On DATE , following a complaint lodged by the applicant , a senior investigator of ORG set aside the decision of DATE as premature , because a number of investigative steps had not been taken . In particular , the investigators were instructed to question the applicant and the police officers who had been on duty on the relevant date , to inspect , in the presence of the applicant , the office where he had allegedly been ill - treated , and to take other investigative measures if they appeared necessary .","A copy of the decision was sent to the applicant on DATE .","On DATE ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant \u2019s allegations . The decision reproduced verbatim the decision of DATE , with the addition of CARDINAL paragraph . The paragraph concerned the questioning of Officer M. , who had served at the police station since DATE . He submitted that he knew the applicant and that the latter frequently came to the police station to see his former colleagues . However , because of the time which had elapsed since then he could not remember whether he had seen the applicant at DATE , and had no information about whether the applicant had been forcibly held at the police station CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE a copy of the decision was sent to the applicant , who complained about the decision to ORG . That complaint was subsequently forwarded to ORG of the Iristonskiy District of Vladikavkaz .","On DATE the ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s complaint , found the decision of DATE ungrounded , and forwarded the materials concerning the complaint to ORG for it to set aside that decision .","On DATE a senior investigator of ORG set aside the decision of DATE as premature and superficial as , in particular , the circumstances in which the applicant had sustained the injuries had not been established . The investigators were instructed to ( i ) establish the circumstances in which the injuries had been caused ; ( ii ) inspect in the presence of the applicant the office where he had allegedly been ill - treated ; ( iii ) question Officer FAC . ; ( iv ) question Officer PERSON ; ( v ) question Mr PERSON ; ( vi ) add to the case file materials relating to criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the disappearance of the weapon from the police station ; and ( vii ) take other investigative measures if they appeared necessary .","On DATE ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant \u2019s allegations . The decision reproduced verbatim the decision of DATE , with the addition of CARDINAL paragraphs setting out the submissions of Officers FAC . and PERSON FAC . stated , in particular , that at TIME on DATE he had started his FAC duty shift at the police station . Because of the time that had passed since then , he could not remember whether the applicant had been delivered to the station during his duty hours , but he was positive that nobody had used physical force on him . Officer PERSON stated that after the official weapon had gone missing from the police station it had appeared possible that the applicant had been involved in its theft , as he had been recorded leaving the police station with his arm pressed against his body . When the applicant was asked why he had held his arm in such a way he responded that that was how he walked . However , it was clear to Officer PERSON that he was lying . He was then asked to tell everything he knew about the weapon \u2019s disappearance , but he said he knew nothing and left the office . No one either threatened the applicant or applied physical force to him .","The applicant was informed of the decision by a letter sent on DATE .","On DATE , following a complaint lodged by the applicant , a senior investigator of ORG set aside the decision of DATE as superficial since ( i ) the circumstances in which the applicant had sustained the injuries had not been established ; ( ii ) neither the applicant nor Mr PERSON had been questioned ; and ( iii ) materials concerning criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the disappearance of the weapon from the police station had not been added to the case file . The investigators were instructed to rectify the above shortcomings .","The applicant was informed of the decision by a letter sent on DATE .","On DATE ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant \u2019s allegations . A copy of that decision has not been provided to the ORG .","The applicant was informed of this decision by a letter sent on DATE .","On DATE , following a complaint lodged by the applicant , a senior investigator of ORG set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE , on the ground that the investigators had failed to rectify the shortcomings indicated in the decision of DATE . They were instructed to ( i ) enclose in the case file materials concerning criminal proceedings instituted in connection with the disappearance of the weapon from the police station ; ( ii ) establish the applicant \u2019s whereabouts and question him in relation to the injuries sustained ; ( iii ) establish the whereabouts of PERSON PERSON and question him with respect to his meeting with the applicant at the police station ; ( iv ) carry out a forensic medical examination of the applicant with a view to establishing how the injuries had been caused ; and ( v ) take other investigative measures if they appeared necessary .","The applicant was informed of the decision by a letter sent on DATE .","On DATE another forensic examination was conducted , apparently on the basis of the materials in the case file . Forensic report no . CARDINAL stated that the applicant had concussion and abrasions on his head which could have been inflicted by hard blunt objects , possibly on DATE . He also had a scar on his tongue formed as a result of a healed wound , and pink pigmentation of skin on his earlobes and on his right lower arm . On the basis of the materials available it was not possible to determine either when and how those injuries had been caused , or their gravity .","On DATE ORG once again refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegations . The decision reproduced verbatim the decision of DATE , with an additional paragraph describing forensic report no . CARDINAL of DATE .","A copy of the decision was sent to the applicant on DATE .","It appears that the decision of DATE was again set aside by a senior investigator of ORG .","On DATE , after the Court had communicated the application to the respondent Government , the ORG of Vladikavkaz instituted criminal proceedings against Officers PERSON , PERSON . and NORP on account of the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE - GPE informed the applicant that a number of investigative steps had been taken in his case . They included confrontations between the applicant and Officers PERSON , PERSON . and NORP ; identification of the fourth suspect on the basis of photographs ; and inspection of the crime scene in the presence of the applicant .","NORP On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under LAW of LAW with ORG . He alleged , in particular , that , whereas he had indeed taken part in the confrontations with Officers PERSON . , NORP and PERSON in DATE , he had not taken part in the inspection of the crime scene , which had apparently been conducted later , or in the identification of the fourth suspect on the basis of photographs ; and that his signature on the records of these investigative actions had been forged . The applicant made a number of other complaints concerning the progress of the investigation .","On DATE ORG returned the complaint unexamined , on the ground that the applicant had failed to specify the actions or omissions of the investigators that he was seeking to have declared unlawful . The applicant was advised that he could resubmit his complaint after it had been rectified .","CARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE the investigating authorities conducted a confrontation between the applicant and PERSON , a relative of both the applicant and Officer PERSON They were questioned about the events of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant reiterated his account of the events . Mr PERSON stated that during TIME of CARDINAL DATE Officer PERSON had called him and asked to meet him . They met at a supermarket , where Officer PERSON told him that the applicant was suspected of stealing a submachine gun from the police station , and asked him to talk to the applicant . Mr ORG agreed . On DATE he arrived at the police station and entered an office : he could not remember exactly which one because of the time that had passed since the events . In the office he was left alone with the applicant . When PERSON E.L. asked the applicant about the sub - machine gun , the latter replied in a rude manner . Mr PERSON then pushed him and said that that was no way to talk to a relative . The applicant hit PERSON PERSON back and this started a fight . Then Officers PERSON and PERSON . appeared and separated them . The applicant said that he would complain about what had happened , and PERSON E.L. left . He had not spoken to the applicant since . On DATE he met Officer PERSON , who reminded him of those events and said that criminal proceedings had been instituted against him and other police officers in this respect . As PERSON thus became aware that police officers \u201c were suffering \u201d because of injuries he had caused the applicant , he decided to go to the police station and confess . Mr PERSON added that he had not told his relatives about the events of DATE , so as not to upset them . The applicant contested PERSON submissions and insisted on his account of the events . He said that he had no idea why PERSON had contended that he had caused him injuries .","The investigator noted that , apart from the concussion and abrasions on the head , according to forensic report no . CARDINAL of DATE the applicant also had a scar on his tongue and pink pigmentation of skin on his earlobes and on the right lower arm , and asked PERSON for clarification in this respect . PERSON replied that in the course of the fight he had hit the applicant on the head and face and other places , and that therefore the concussion and the abrasions on the head had most likely been caused by his blows . However , PERSON could provide no information with respect to the scar on the applicant \u2019s tongue and the pigmentation of his skin .","TIME and TIME on CARDINAL DATE the investigating authorities conducted a confrontation between the applicant and Officer PERSON . who served at the police station . They were also questioned about the events of DATE . The applicant reiterated his account of the events . Officer PERSON . submitted that on DATE , after it had been established that a sub - machine gun had gone missing and the recording of the applicant leaving the police station had been found on the ORG , Officer PERSON was instructed to invite the applicant to the police station and to ask him to return the weapon . On the date in question Officer PERSON . saw Officer PERSON and the applicant at the police station . The applicant seemed to be in a good mood and did not have any injuries . Officer PERSON . was aware that Officer PERSON had also told PERSON , the applicant \u2019s relative , that the applicant was suspected of stealing the sub - machine gun , and asked him to come to the police station to talk to the applicant . PERSON arrived at the police station on DATE , and was alone with the applicant in an office for some time , while Officers PERSON . and PERSON stood outside in the corridor . Officer GPE . could not remember exactly which office that was . When they heard noise and the sound of a quarrel in the office , they entered it and saw the applicant and PERSON fighting . When Officers PERSON . and PERSON separated them , the applicant said that he would complain about this . Officer PERSON . then left and had not seen the applicant since . In his view , the applicant alleged that he had been beaten by the police officers because PERSON PERSON was his relative . He contended that the police officers had not caused any injuries to the applicant . The applicant contested Officer PERSON . \u2019s submissions and insisted on his own account of the events . He emphasised that PERSON had not caused the injuries .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were discontinued on the ground that the actions of Officers PERSON , PERSON . and NORP disclosed no evidence of a criminal offence .","The applicant complained to ORG of GPE - GPE of a number of breaches in the conduct of the investigation .","On DATE ORG of GPE - GPE dismissed his complaint , stating that all the investigative steps had been taken in accordance with the laws on criminal procedure .","On an unspecified date after DATE a criminal investigation was instituted in connection with the alleged theft of the submachine gun from the police station by an unidentified person .","DATE . On DATE the investigation was suspended on the ground that the person to be charged with the offence could not be identified .","According to the applicant , since the events of DATE the police officers have continued to put pressure on him . In particular , they followed his movements , called him by telephone and tapped his conversations , and visited him at home , interrogating his friends , acquaintances and neighbours about him . Because of this pressure , in DATE he had had to close the grocery \/ delicatessen that he had been running for DATE . Furthermore , in the applicant \u2019s submission , he was unable to vote in the election of the NORP President held on DATE as a result of that persecution , as he was afraid to leave his home .","The applicant submitted a number of complaints to the prosecuting authorities in this respect . They appear to have been dismissed ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179207","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF N. v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Speediness of review);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - General measures);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained at ORG , in a section of the hospital located in the municipality of ORG ) .","The applicant has been in receipt of a second - degree disability allowance since DATE .","On DATE , following the publication of an article in the national press and a programme broadcast on a national television channel , the police operating at GPE police station no . CARDINAL initiated a criminal prosecution against the applicant . He was charged with incest and sexual corruption of his CARDINAL under - age daughters , aged DATE and DATE . He was alleged to have had sexual intercourse with his elder daughter and forced both his daughters to be present while he was having sexual intercourse with his wife .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by the police in the presence of an officially appointed lawyer regarding the charges against him , before being placed in police custody for TIME .","On DATE the applicant , assisted by an officially appointed lawyer , was questioned by a prosecutor concerning the same charges .","On DATE the prosecution , with reference to LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( CP ) , ordered the applicant \u2019s provisional detention in a psychiatric hospital with a view to conducting a medical examination to assess his capacity for discernment . The prosecution noted in that regard that a paranoid affective psychosis diagnostic had been posited on several occasions DATE . It stated the following :","\u201c ... in the present case there is sufficient circumstantial evidence of the precarious state of health of the accused , who represents an extremely serious danger to society given that he is liable to commit further such antisocial acts . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG in GPE . He underwent psychiatric examinations which found , inter alia , paranoid impulsive tendencies with high conflict potential . Furthermore , the applicant \u2019s state was described as comprising irritability , suspicion , interpretative tendencies and potential aggression .","A forensic medical report was drawn up on DATE establishing that the applicant suffered from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and lack of discernment . It recommended putting in place the compulsory medical treatment provided for by LAW .","A preliminary investigation was also instigated against the applicant for the rape of his wife .","NORP The prosecution heard the applicant \u2019s wife and CARDINAL daughters .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE the prosecution , in the absence of a medical certificate and since the applicant \u2019s daughter had not confirmed the sexual relations with her father , ordered the closure of the criminal proceedings against the applicant for incest . Drawing on the statements of his CARDINAL daughters , it also concluded that the applicant had forced them to be present while he was having sexual intercourse with his wife , thus committing offences of sexual corruption of minors , but decided to close the proceedings on that count owing to the applicant \u2019s lack of discernment , as found in the forensic medical report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The prosecution further dropped the rape charge on the grounds that the applicant \u2019s wife had not lodged a criminal complaint against him . Lastly , it referred the case file to the competent court for confirmation of the preventive measure of medical detention .","By decision of DATE NORP ORG CARDINAL upheld the medical detention order . Listing the criminal charges against the applicant , the court stated the following :","\u201c In the light of the findings of the psychiatric forensic medical report that ORG suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and lacks discernment as regards the offences he committed , and having regard to the recommendations of the [ reporting ] committee that the preventive detention measure should be imposed on the accused , the court accedes to the [ prosecution \u2019s ] request and , pursuant to LAW , confirms the provisional medical detention order and informs ORG of the implementation of that order . \u201d","The applicant did not attend the hearing , nor was he represented by a lawyer in court .","The decision was posted on the door to the applicant \u2019s home and in the town hall of GPE District DATE , where the applicant \u2019s home was located .","From DATE to DATE the applicant was detained in the Alexandru Obregia Psychiatric Hospital . On DATE he was transferred to ORG , where he remained until DATE . The applicant was provided with a neuroleptic- and tranquilliser - based treatment .","...","In DATE , after the entry into force of the amendments to LAW ( CPP ) requiring periodic and automatic judicial review of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the judge of ORG ( \u201c the delegated judge \u201d ) ordered a psychiatric forensic medical report .","In DATE the competent medical board drew up a report based on the results of an examination of the applicant , the medical documentation transmitted by the psychiatric hospital , the report by his ORG , a social welfare inquiry concerning the applicant conducted on DATE , the DATE decision of GPE ORG CARDINAL and the forensic medical report of DATE .","The board found that during his detention the applicant had expressed delusions of grandeur with transient psychotic relapses , had endeavoured to conceal his symptoms , had behaved in a calm , composed manner , had accepted his treatment , had refrained from stirring up trouble with the other patients and had shown little hostility during the treatment . It pointed out , however , that he had been hostile during the examination and had expressed delusional ideas of injustice and his intention to remedy the latter . It concluded that the applicant was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and that , having regard to the medical documentation , to the evolution in the patient \u2019s condition during his detention and to the psychiatric examination in issue , the detention measure should remain in place .","On DATE the delegated judge invited ORG to replace the detention measure provided for in LAW with the compulsory medical treatment measure provided for in LAW .","On DATE the applicant , assisted by an officially appointed lawyer , was heard by the court . He requested his release , seconded by his lawyer .","By decision of DATE , ORG decided to order the applicant \u2019s continued psychiatric detention . It reasoned as follows :","\u201c By Criminal Decision No . CARDINAL of DATE , GPE ORG CARDINAL ordered ORG \u2019s medical detention on the grounds that he had been charged with having committed the offence of incest , consisting of sexual relations with his CARDINAL-year - old daughter , in DATE , and the offence of sexual corruption on the grounds that on DATE he had sexual intercourse with his wife in the presence of his CARDINAL daughters .","The psychiatric forensic medical report [ of DATE ] shows that the patient suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and points to the advisability of maintaining the preventive detention measure laid down in LAW .","Having regard to the foregoing , the court ... decides to maintain the medical detention measure ( LAW ) imposed on patient GPE","The applicant took cognisance of that decision in DATE , when he underwent a further forensic medical examination . He appealed .","By final decision of DATE ORG , referring to the reasoning of ORG , dismissed the appeal as manifestly ill - founded after having heard the applicant , assisted by an officially appointed lawyer .","The applicant \u2019s detention measure was made subject to several judicial reviews by ORG and ORG . It transpires from the decisions adopted , of which the ORG has copies , that the applicant was heard by both courts during the different sets of proceedings .","He was assisted by various officially appointed lawyers , who , in the proceedings completed before DATE , had confined themselves to referring to the findings of the forensic medical assessments carried out , and had either left it to the discretion of the courts whether or not to maintain the measure or objected to the lifting thereof .","Apart from the decisions adopted after DATE , the case file does not indicate whether the prior decisions had been served on the applicant .","According to the forensic medical reports drawn up after each review , the applicant , who had not fully acknowledged the fact of his mental illness , had been calm , had not refused his treatment and had refrained from causing trouble with the other patients . On the other hand , the reports stated that he had vehemently denied having committed the criminal offences with which he had been charged , claiming that his former wife had been plotting against him .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG maintained the detention measure in respect of the applicant . The court referred to the DATE decision and to a forensic medical report drawn up following an examination of the applicant in DATE , which had recommended maintaining the measure . On DATE , on appeal from the applicant , ORG upheld that decision .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed a request submitted by the applicant for the lifting of the detention measure . The court referred to a forensic medical report drawn up after an examination of the applicant DATE , which had recommended maintaining the measure and described the applicant \u2019s delusional ideas concerning the setting up of a new ORG , his lack of feasible future plans and the fact that he had not fully accepted his drug therapy .","By decision of DATE ORG maintained the detention measure in respect of the applicant . It referred to the decision of DATE to a forensic medical report drawn up after an examination of the applicant in DATE , insofar as it recommended maintaining the measure and described the applicant \u2019s delusional ideas concerning the setting up of a new ORG and his lack of realistic future plans .","Furthermore , although this aspect was not mentioned by the court , it transpires from that report that the applicant \u2019s ORG had noted an erotomaniac obsession with his former wife , which had indicated a total incapacity for social reintegration and would most likely have triggered conflicts or unforeseeable , potentially dangerous situations had he returned to the apartment where he had lived with his family . The report further noted that the applicant \u2019s friend , who had attended most of the medical boards\u2019 meetings , had come down emphatically in favour of the applicant \u2019s release , claiming that he would accommodate him indefinitely in the apartment which he shared with his mother . However , the assessment board doubted the reality of such support proffered by someone who was himself suffering from psychiatric problems . On the other hand , the report mentioned that the applicant had been plainly rejected by his daughters and his former wife , and that despite the rejection by his former wife and the fact that he himself considered that his detention was the result of scheming on her part , he intended to get back together with her if he was released .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicant \u2019s second application for release on the grounds that its decision of CARDINAL DATE had meanwhile become final and was therefore res judicata . During the proceedings a forensic medical report had been drawn up on DATE , reaching conclusions similar to the findings of the report submitted in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE the delegated judge requested ORG to carry out psychiatric assessments with a view to periodic reviews of the need to maintain the applicant \u2019s psychiatric detention .","ORG examined the applicant on the aforementioned dates but did not draw up or forward its reports until DATE . The reports confirmed the diagnosis of the applicant \u2019s condition and proposed maintaining the detention measure .","By CARDINAL separate decisions adopted on CARDINAL and DATE , ORG , citing the case - law of the ORG in matters of detention of persons suffering from mental disorders , maintained the detention measure . It referred to the findings of the above - mentioned forensic medical reports . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE the court further had regard to a forensic medical report drawn up following an examination of the applicant carried out DATE previously , in DATE . Furthermore , it referred , broadly , to the \u201c aim of the preventive measures , which was to put an end to a situation of danger and prevent the perpetration of acts punishable under criminal law \u201d , and concluded that the criteria set out in LAW had been satisfied .","By CARDINAL separate decisions adopted on DATE , ORG maintained the applicant \u2019s detention measure on the basis of CARDINAL psychiatric forensic medical reports drawn up following examinations of the applicant in DATE , DATE and DATE . ORG has not received copies of those reports and decisions .","On DATE ORG applied to the courts to declare the applicant incapable and place him under guardianship ( see paragraph CARDINAL et seq . below for the conduct of the related proceedings ) .","By decision of DATE , citing the ORG \u2019s case - law in matters of detention of persons suffering from mental disorders , ORG maintained the detention measure in respect of the applicant . It referred to a forensic medical report drawn up after an examination of the applicant in DATE , which recommended maintaining the measure and referred to the \u201c aim of the preventive measures , which was to put an end to a situation of danger and prevent the perpetration of acts punishable under criminal law \u201d .","The operative part of the decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant appealed to ORG of ORG against the alleged practice of ORG of conducting retrospective reviews of the need to maintain the detention measure . By decision of DATE ORG dropped the applicant \u2019s complaint . It confirmed the existence of the practice criticised by the applicant , but pointed out that it had been caused by the medical authorities\u2019 delay in forwarding their expert reports and not in any breach by the judges of their attributions .","On DATE the delegated judge requested ORG to conduct a further psychiatric expert assessment with a view to periodically reviewing the need to maintain the applicant \u2019s psychiatric detention . The applicant filed a separate action seeking the replacement of the detention measure with a compulsory medical treatment measure .","On DATE ORG also examined the applicant . The applicant \u2019s lawyer representing him in the present application before the ORG sent a reasoned letter to the ORG strongly advocating the replacement of the measure implemented in respect of his client .","On DATE the ORG drew up its forensic medical report recommending the replacement of the detention measure with a compulsory medical treatment measure . It emphasised that the persistence of the applicant \u2019s delusional ideas concerning the setting up of a \u201c new ORG \u201d and his lack of social and family support , a factor conducive to social reintegration , supervision of his medical treatment and the management of the applicant \u2019s DATE needs relating to the purported \u201c new ORG \u201d , had justified maintaining the detention up until then . It noted that the applicant had not been aggressive to others or to himself during his detention . In that context , it welcomed the steps taken by ORG to place the applicant under guardianship , which it considered appropriate in the perspective of his release , given that the applicant had been rejected by his family ( his brother , sister , former wife and daughters ) . Finally , the ORG recommended that the social welfare services of the applicant \u2019s district of residence should be informed that they had to take the necessary action with a view to releasing him .","On DATE ORG , which was responsible for the review , ordered a fresh forensic medical report from ORG ( ORG ) in GPE .","On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination at the ORG .","On DATE the ORG submitted its expert report , which stated , in particular , that :","\u2013 the applicant was suffering from chronic delusional disorder with no prospect of improvement , but rather with future aggravation of the illness due to aging ;","\u2013 the illness as manifested in the applicant did not point to any risk of a danger to society , but the lack of feasible plans for the future foreshadowed future conflicts , a risk of advanced social deterioration and the impossibility of monitoring the evolution of his illness ;","\u2013 the applicant lacked any social support from his family or other persons of trust .","Under those conditions , the forensic medical board pointed out that the case presented a genuine psychiatric and deontological dilemma . Indeed , it considered that although , from the psychiatric point of view , the applicant could be released subject to compulsory medical treatment on the basis of LAW , that measure was inconceivable in the absence of social support . Consequently , it proposed provisionally maintaining the detention until the social welfare services could transfer the applicant to a specialised institution capable of providing him with appropriate living conditions and treatment .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , referring to the findings of DATE forensic medical rapport ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ordered the maintenance of the detention measure .","The applicant appealed to ORG against that decision . He was represented by an officially appointed lawyer , who argued that the applicant \u2019s wishes should be complied with . Questioned by the court , the applicant stated that he would live with his former wife and one of his daughters in their apartment . He added that he had a retirement pension .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the CARDINAL DATE decision . It held as follows :","\u201c Given the absence of improvement in the patient \u2019s state of health and the fact that the members of his family can not monitor his continued medical treatment , and having regard to the nature of the charges against him which had resulted in his medical detention , family members against whom [ the applicant ] has committed antisocial acts can not be expected to cohabit with him .","Nevertheless , the director of the establishment [ where the applicant is detained ] must inform the social welfare services responsible for transferring [ the applicant ] to a specialised institution capable of providing proper living conditions and treatment . \u201d","On DATE the Director of ORG invited ORG ( \u201c DGASPC \u201d ) in GPE District DATE to adopt welfare measures in respect of the applicant pursuant to the instructions set out in the forensic medical report of DATE .","By letter of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON replied that the applicant \u2019s former wife had informed it that she did not intend to be involved in any way in the process leading up to the applicant \u2019s release . Furthermore , the PERSON pointed out that it had contacted the social welfare services in the county of residence of the applicant \u2019s sister with an eye to his possible placement with her . It also stated that the only centre in GPE District DATE which took in persons suffering from neuropsychiatric disorders could not admit the applicant owing to a lack of available places . Finally , it explained that it had also unsuccessfully attempted to contact other specialised and residential centres .","On DATE the Director of ORG contacted the municipality of GPE , which had meanwhile been assigned the guardianship of the applicant .... The Director informed the municipal authorities the implementation of the preventive detention measure was temporary , and that they were required to act in the interests of the applicant , particularly with a view to his possible placement in a specialised institution after his release .","DATE . On DATE GPE municipality replied that the guardianship order was not yet final and that it therefore could not act in respect of the applicant .","On DATE the applicant underwent a further forensic medical examination .","The forensic medical report drawn up on DATE recommended replacing the detention measure with a compulsory medical treatment order in view of the applicant \u2019s \u201c low level of dangerousness ( while on treatment ) , compliance with the rules , absence of incidents , [ and ] the lengthy period of supervision \u201d . The report mentioned in particular :","\u2013 the existence of a single , strange and systematic delusionary theme concerning the creation of a \u201c united NORP State \u201d , which delusion did not however alter his compliance with hospital rules ;","\u2013 lack of conflict situations and of incidents pointing to potentially aggressive behaviour ;","\u2013 proper therapeutic cooperation during detention , despite his purely formal acquiescence in the reality of his illness and need for treatment ;","\u2013 absence of antisocial precedents \u2013 apart from the acts noted during his placement in detention DATE or consumption of psychoactive substances ( drugs , alcohol ) ;","\u2013 negative effect of the extension of detention for social reasons on the development of the applicant \u2019s illness and physiological state , and","\u2013 the guardianship order .","The report nevertheless emphasised the risk of decompensation of the illness , involving possible negative social consequences should the aftercare provided to the applicant by the body assigned guardianship prove inadequate .","On DATE the applicant was heard by ORG . He was represented by an officially appointed lawyer , who advocated replacing the detention measure .","By final decision given on DATE , ORG ordered the replacement of the detention measure with a compulsory treatment order until the applicant had made a full recovery . It referred to the forensic medical report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and to the \u201c aim of the preventive measures , which was to put an end to a situation of danger and prevent the perpetration of acts punishable under criminal law \u201d .","On DATE the applicant asked to remain in psychiatric hospital until his social situation had been settled .","On DATE the lawyer representing the applicant before the ORG sent a letter to ORG recommending , in the framework of enforcement of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant \u2019s ultimate reintegration into society rather than his placement in a residential centre . He emphasised that releasing the applicant without adequate support would condemn him to vagrancy , destitution and the deterioration of his physical and mental health . Lastly , he requested the setting up of an interdisciplinary commission responsible for identifying the action to be taken on the applicant , on the model of the efforts expended in other countries to deinstitutionalise persons in medical detention .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to another section of the same hospital for persons suffering from chronic illnesses .","DATE . On DATE the Director of ORG invited la DGASPC to implement assistance measures in respect of the applicant pursuant to the final decision ordering the replacement of the detention measure . It also attempted , unsuccessfully , to contact CARDINAL foundations in GPE for the same purpose .","..."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182218","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SIDORIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first and second applicants live in GPE . The third applicant lived in the GPE region and died there on DATE .","On DATE elections to the GPE were held . The applicants came to a polling station at TIME They started to loudly criticise the elections and were immediately ( at TIME ) arrested and brought to the PERSON police station .","At TIME on DATE the local prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal proceedings against the applicants . It follows from its decision that at TIME on DATE at polling station no . DATE the applicants had unrolled banners , turned on smoke jets and distributed leaflets in an attempt to disturb the work of the polling station . Their unlawful actions had been interrupted by the police .","At TIME on DATE the police started to draw up arrest records in respect of the applicants . According to those records the applicants were arrested at the PERSON police station . The first applicant was arrested at TIME , the third applicant at TIME and the second applicant at TIME","On DATE the investigator asked ORG to remand the applicants in custody .","During the hearings on DATE - which lasted from TIME to TIME for the first applicant , from TIME to TIME for the second applicant and from TIME to TIME for the third applicant \u2013 the judge heard the prosecutor , the applicants and their counsel . She also read the prosecutor \u2019s applications for remand . No other documents were examined at the hearings .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , ORG ordered that the applicants be remanded in custody . The court found that the prosecutor \u2019s applications had been supported by evidence showing the necessity of placing the applicants in custody in view of the risks of absconding , reoffending or interfering with the investigation .","On DATE the applicants prepared their preliminary appeal submissions against the detention orders and asked the detention facility administration to dispatch them . It follows from a document issued by the detention facility administration that the first applicant \u2019s submissions were dispatched on DATE . However , the submissions by the second and third applicants were not dispatched until DATE .","On DATE counsel for the applicants lodged additional appeal submissions . They complained that they had not still received copies of the detention orders of CARDINAL DATE . They further argued that ORG had disregarded the fact that the offence imputed to the applicants was not a serious one , that they had permanent places of residence , had positive references and studied at a university . On DATE counsel asked for permission to study the case - file . Their request was however rejected because the case file had been taken by the judge who was currently on leave .","On DATE counsel for the applicants complained before ORG that the investigators had denied them access to the case file and had refused to give them copies of , in particular , the prosecutor \u2019s applications for remand and of the detention orders .","On DATE the second applicant received a copy of his detention order . The first and third applicants received copies of their respective detention orders on DATE . The delay in serving the detention orders on the applicants was due to the fact that the judge had sent the documents to the Mozhaysk detention facility , although the applicants were held at the PERSON detention facility .","On DATE the ORG found that the investigators had unlawfully restricted counsel \u2019s access to the case file and had thereby violated the applicants\u2019 defence rights . However , it was not until DATE that counsel were ultimately granted access to the case file .","On DATE counsel lodged additional appeal submissions in which they complained about the belated access to the case file . They further complained that the detention order had been based on insufficient reasons and that no time - limit for detention had been fixed . The evidence showing the existence of the risks of absconding , reoffending or interfering with the investigation to which ORG had referred in its detention orders had not been examined during the hearings and the applicants had not been given an opportunity to challenge it . They also complained that the investigator who had lodged the application for remand had acted outside his competence and that the detention orders had been issued CARDINAL after the arrest . Moreover , the applicants\u2019 arrest had been unlawful because the arrest records had been drawn with several ORG delay . Finally , the applicants asked to be brought to the courtroom for the appeal hearing .","On DATE ORG held an appeal hearing . The applicants were not brought to the courtroom . On DATE ORG quashed the detention orders of CARDINAL DATE . It found that the detention orders had been based on insufficient reasons . ORG had disregarded the facts that the charges were not serious , that the applicants had no criminal record , had a permanent place of residence and studied at a university . There was no evidence that they had threatened witnesses or had attempted to destroy evidence . ORG finding that the applicants might abscond , interfere with the investigation or reoffend had not been therefore supported by relevant facts . ORG ordered the applicants\u2019 immediate release .","Counsel for the applicants asked the court to give them copies of the appeal decisions so that they could bring it to the detention facility and have the applicants immediately released . Their request was refused .","On DATE counsel asked for a second time for copies of the appeal decisions . By letter dated DATE the President of ORG informed them that under the domestic law copies were to be sent by post to the detention facility , which had been done on DATE . Copies of the detention orders could not be given to counsel .","On DATE , DATE , counsel asked the director of the detention facility to release the applicants , referring to ORG order to release them . However , the director refused to release the applicants because the appeal decisions had not yet been received by the detention facility .","The appeal decisions were received by the detention facility on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the applicants were released ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182876","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MURUZHEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE she married PERSON The couple settled in GPE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant gave birth to CARDINAL children , a son and a daughter respectively .","NORP In DATE she and ORG decided to separate .","On DATE PERSON took the children to GPE without the applicant knowing . He left them with his parents ( the paternal grandparents ) and went back to GPE .","On DATE the marriage between the applicant and ORG was dissolved .","On DATE the applicant applied to the Izmaylovskiy ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for a residence order in respect of the children . She also applied for child maintenance from ORG","On DATE ORG decided that the children should reside with their mother , the applicant . It further ordered ORG to return the children to her and pay child maintenance . The judgment became final on DATE .","NORP However , ORG refused to comply with the judgment .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution .","On DATE ORG in GPE refused to institute enforcement proceedings since the debtor , ORG , resided in GPE .","On DATE the Izmaylovskiy ORG in GPE opened enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were transferred to ORG in GPE .","On DATE the applicant challenged the lawfulness of the above - mentioned decision before ORG .","On DATE ORG found the decision of DATE to be unlawful .","Meanwhile , on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE a bailiff from ORG tried to enforce the judgment of DATE without success : on DATE and DATE due to the emotional state of the children , on DATE because the children were outside the territory of GPE , and on DATE because the applicant was absent .","On DATE the applicant challenged in court the lawfulness of the bailiffs\u2019 actions during the attempt to return the children to her on DATE , in particular : involvement of the wrong district childcare authority in the enforcement , refusal of a request by her to have the enforcement filmed , refusal to examine an objection by her concerning a psychologist participating in the enforcement , delay in notification of the enforcement , establishment during the enforcement of the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s preferences as to his future living arrangements , as well as the bailiffs\u2019 inaction resulting in the failure to secure enforcement of the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE found the bailiffs\u2019 actions during the attempt to return the children to the applicant on DATE to be unlawful .","On DATE a bailiff from ORG restricted ORG travel within GPE for DATE .","Meanwhile , according to the Government , on DATE , DATE , an unspecified date in DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE a bailiff from ORG informed the applicant that the enforcement was scheduled for DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . On each of the CARDINAL occasions ORG took the children to the LOC of ORG . However , since neither the applicant nor her representative were present , the enforcement could not take place .","According to the applicant , she was never informed of the enforcement dates scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","It appears from the case file that the notification of DATE was sent to ORG address . The notifications of DATE and CARDINAL DATE were sent to the applicant \u2019s address , though there is no evidence to suggest that she received them . The case file contains no evidence that she was notified of the other CARDINAL scheduled dates for carrying out the enforcement measures either .","On DATE the enforcement file was returned to the Izmaylovskiy ORG in GPE pursuant to the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE and DATE a bailiff from LOC in GPE ordered ORG to comply with the judgment of DATE by DATE and DATE respectively . He further visited ORG at his place of residence in GPE . It was established that the children were living with ORG parents in GPE .","On DATE the deputy chief bailiff of ORG imposed an administrative fine on ORG ) for failure to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE a bailiff from the Izmaylovskiy ORG invited ORG to the bailiffs\u2019 office on DATE to provide explanations for his non - compliance with the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the bailiff imposed an execution fee on LAW for failure to comply with the judgment of DATE . He was ordered to comply by CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the deputy chief bailiff of ORG imposed a further administrative fine on LAW for failure to comply with the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the chief bailiff of LOC imposed an administrative fine on LAW for failure to comply with the lawful demands of the bailiffs .","On DATE the Commission for the Affairs of Minors and ORG in GPE imposed an administrative fine on LAW .","On DATE the bailiff temporarily restricted ORG travel in view of his failure to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , and ordered him to pay the imposed administrative fines . ORG was invited to the bailiffs\u2019 office on DATE to provide explanations for his reluctance to comply with the judgment of DATE , and was ordered to comply by DATE .","At the applicant \u2019s request , on CARDINAL DATE the bailiff launched a search for the children and restricted ORG right to drive .","On DATE the chief bailiff of ORG imposed an administrative fine on LAW for failure to comply with the lawful demands of the bailiffs .","On DATE the bailiff telephoned PERSON and asked him to attend the bailiffs\u2019 office to provide explanations for his non - compliance with the judgment of DATE . He refused to do so .","On DATE the bailiff suspended the enforcement proceedings .","According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE the bailiff informed the applicant that the enforcement was scheduled for TIME on DATE at the children \u2019s place of residence in GPE . However , since she failed to attend , the enforcement could not be carried out .","According to the applicant , she was not informed of the enforcement scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .","It appears from the case file that the notification of CARDINAL DATE was sent to ORG address .","The judgment of DATE remains unenforced to date . The children continue to live with their paternal grandparents in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-149146","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"TEKPETEK v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Kaya , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","According to the applicant , on DATE , at TIME , he was stopped by the police for a routine identity check in FAC , GPE . After examining his identity card and running his information through the police database , the police let the applicant go . However , as he was leaving FAC , a police car approached him from behind and a number of police officers grabbed him and shoved him into the police car . Once inside the car , QUANTITY police officers sprayed him with pepper gas and beat him , whilst swearing at him . The applicant \u2019s pleas to find out the reason for this treatment were left unanswered .","The applicant claimed that following a TIME drive , during which he continued to be assaulted , he was taken out of the car to find himself in a secluded area by the old city walls which he identified as the PERSON or PERSON district of GPE , where CARDINAL more police cars were waiting . There , the applicant was once again insulted , threatened at gunpoint , kicked , punched and beaten with a truncheon and subjected to pepper gas by a total of CARDINAL police officers for TIME . He was eventually put back in the car where the beatings continued until he was thrown out of the moving car somewhere near GPE around TIME that same night . The applicant was subsequently taken to ORG by some friends whom he contacted for help .","The Government disputed the facts as submitted by the applicant . They claimed that he had not even been stopped for an identity check on the relevant TIME as alleged .","After preliminary examinations at FAC at ORG , the applicant was referred to LOC Thoracic and FAC ( \u201c the FAC \u201d ) with suspected chest trauma . At an unspecified time on DATE the applicant was examined by a specialist at ORG , who noted the following injuries on his body : an ecchymosis of QUANTITY on the left arm ; an ecchymosis of QUANTITY on the left cervical area behind the left ear ; haematoma on the left ear ; an ecchymosis of QUANTITY on the left scapula , at the level of the spine of the scapula ; a number of ecchymotic patches on the back measuring QUANTITY ; an ecchymosis of CARDINAL x QUANTITY at the level of the right spine of the scapula ; an ecchymosis of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the right arm joint , at the posterior side ; an ecchymosis of QUANTITY on the right lateral arm starting from the shoulder level ; ecchymotic patches spread over an area of QUANTITY on the corpus sternum ; CARDINAL lesions of QUANTITY , located QUANTITY below the right patella ; and a fracture of the sixth and seventh ribs on the right side .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office against the police officers who had allegedly assaulted him . The applicant stated in his complaint that he did not remember all the details of the ill - treatment he had received at the hands of the police officers , as he had passed out a number of times on account of the physical trauma and pepper gas he had been subjected to , but he believed that the police car in which he had been kidnapped was a ORG Clio . He added that the police might have targeted him upon finding out during his identity check that he was standing trial for assaulting several police officers and\/or that he was the managing editor of a number of well - known opposition publications . The applicant asked the public prosecutor to summon the police officers on duty at the place of the incident on TIME QUANTITY DATE for an identification parade and to examine images from the security cameras of the banks and other buildings in the area .","On DATE , the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office filed an urgent request with the Haydarpa\u015fa ORG and ORG for the submission of the medical reports documenting the injuries sustained by the applicant as a result of the alleged incident .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor took the applicant \u2019s statement in relation to his complaints ; the applicant reiterated his previous allegations . He added that the police officers involved in the incident were DATE , that he clearly remembered the face of one of the officers and could identify another one by his distinct accent . The public prosecutor subsequently referred the applicant to ORG of ORG for further medical examinations .","In its report dated DATE ORG made the following findings : bruising and ecchymosis of QUANTITY , QUANTITY and CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the left scapula ; scabbed scratches of QUANTITY and QUANTITY on the waist ; scabbed scratches of CARDINAL x QUANTITY and CARDINAL x CARDINAL cm on the right elbow ; ecchymosis on the right and left arms ; ecchymosis around the left eye and ear ; scabbed scratch on the front side of the right leg ; a wide - spread yellowpurple ecchymosis of CARDINAL x CARDINAL x QUANTITY at the centre of the left gluteal region ; an ecchymosis of QUANTITY on the right gluteal region ; and ecchymosis and pain on the right side of the chest . The report noted that the injuries sustained by the applicant could not be treated by simple medical intervention and recommended that a radiologist examine his head and chest scans . There is no information in the case - file as to any further examinations of the head or the chest as suggested .","NORP In the meantime , the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment by the police was covered in a number of national newspapers . In the issue of CARDINAL DATE of the DATE PERSON , the police authorities were reported as stating that they had no knowledge of the incident but that they would investigate the allegations .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor requested ORG to make available any ORG footage of the place of the alleged incident from TIME until TIME on the relevant night .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor also requested from ORG the list of police officers on duty at FAC on DATE TIME and TIME , along with their respective photographs .","Upon the public prosecutor \u2019s request , QUANTITY police officers , namely GPE , GPE and GPE , were identified as being on duty at FAC at the indicated time . On DATE ORG informed the ORG public prosecutor that while the officer ORG had been instructed to report to the prosecutor \u2019s office with a photo , the remaining CARDINAL officers had changed departments and could not be contacted at their new places of duty .","On DATE ORG advised the ORG public prosecutor that , although a ORG camera was in place at the place of incident , there was no recording available from the relevant night , as ORG footage was preserved for DATE .","On DATE the CARDINAL remaining police officers , namely GPE and GPE , were successfully notified of the instruction to present themselves at the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE , following ORG \u2019s failure to report , the ORG public prosecutor summoned him once again to take his statement .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor requested the Bayrampa\u015fa Branch of ORG to arrange for the applicant to review the photographs of all the officers and their chiefs on duty at ORG for identification of the suspects who had allegedly carried out the assault . A copy of this request was given to the applicant \u2019s lawyer in person . The Government alleged that , despite being aware of the public prosecutor \u2019s instruction , the applicant never applied to the Bayrampa\u015fa Branch of ORG with a view to identifying the suspects .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , the ORG public prosecutor reissued summons in relation to GPE , GPE and GPE , none of whom had reported to give a statement as ordered .","On DATE the ORG informed the ORG public prosecutor that the summons of CARDINAL DATE could not be notified to ORG as he had since been appointed to ORG ( in GPE ) .","On DATE the ORG notified the ORG public prosecutor that the officer PERSON had been instructed to report to the prosecutor \u2019s office as requested , but GPE could not be reached as he had been appointed to ORG ( in GPE ) . Accordingly , on CARDINAL DATE , the public prosecutor \u2019s office forwarded the summons in relation to GPE to ORG and also reiterated the request regarding PERSON to ORG .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor issued an order to bring GPE , GPE and GPE to his office , by force , to give statements .","On DATE the ORG advised the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office that ORG could not be forcibly brought to the prosecutor \u2019s office as he had been assigned outside GPE and was now stationed at ORG , as of DATE . Accordingly , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office contacted the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office to arrange for the questioning of GPE","In the meantime , on DATE the ORG similarly informed the ORG public prosecutor that GPE had been appointed to ORG in the east of GPE . Accordingly , on DATE the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office contacted the NORP public prosecutor \u2019s office to take GPE \u2019s statement .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor took ORG statement . PERSON indicated that he had no recollection of an incident from the indicated date and that he could possibly remember more if he were given the incident report or other records from the relevant night .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG public prosecutor took the statement of GPE , who briefly denied all the allegations against him . He said that as a stationary unit , they could only leave their posts at FAC in response to a call . He also asserted that the police car in their service at the relevant time was a FAC .","On DATE S.C. reported to the NORP public prosecutor \u2019s office to give his statement in connection with the applicant \u2019s complaints . He noted at the outset the considerable amount of time that had lapsed since the alleged incident . He then stated that he had not taken part in any such incident and added that his unit , stationed constantly at FAC , rarely used any vehicles .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor decided not to bring a prosecution against the police officers GPE , GPE and GPE in connection with the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment on TIME QUANTITY DATE . Relying on the statements made by the CARDINAL officers , the public prosecutor held that there was insufficient evidence or suspicion to proceed with the prosecution of these officers . The applicant did not appeal against the public prosecutor \u2019s decision .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor issued a permanent search warrant , in effect until DATE , which instructed ORG to continue its search for the perpetrators and to report to the prosecutor \u2019s office DATE with an update on the investigation .","It appears that the investigation , which is still open , has not yielded any results thus far ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152504","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"TUKHTAMURODOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr Bobirzhon PERSON , is an NORP national . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is not currently in detention .","On DATE the NORP authorities charged the applicant with participating in an extremist organisation of a religious nature ( Nurchilar ) and distributing material containing religious extremist ideas . On DATE the ORG in GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest . The NORP authorities put the applicant \u2019s name on the international list of wanted individuals . On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant fled to GPE , fearing both prosecution and persecution on religious grounds by the NORP authorities .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE , GPE in connection with criminal proceedings pending against him in GPE . He was placed in a temporary detention facility in GPE .","On DATE the applicant requested refugee status in GPE .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c FMS \u201d ) in GPE denied the applicant \u2019s request for refugee status .","On DATE ORG overturned ORG decision to extradite the applicant , terminated the extradition proceedings against him and ordered his immediate release from detention .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of ORG on appeal . The appeal court held , inter alia , that GPE may refuse the extradition of an individual if there are serious grounds for believing that the individual would be subjected to torture or other cruel , inhuman and degrading treatment in the country that is requesting extradition . The court also held that ORG decision to extradite the applicant had lacked sufficient guarantees regarding the applicant \u2019s safety in the event of his extradition to GPE .","On DATE the ORG in GPE examined a request from the applicant for temporary asylum . It studied in detail the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning torture and ill - treatment whilst in police custody in GPE , which had been applied in order to force a confession from him . Moreover , the ORG in GPE also reviewed the applicant \u2019s submissions concerning similar criminal prosecutions of his relatives and neighbours and the ensuing persecution of him after his release from detention . In particular , the applicant contended that CARDINAL of his relatives and CARDINAL of his neighbours had been convicted of being members of the extremist religious organisation . In addition , the applicant submitted that the authorities had pressured him to make a written denial \u2012 on a DATE basis \u2012 of his allegiance to the extremist religious organisation . They also questioned him on the activities of the organisation . When he found out that his brother had been forced to testify against him , he decided to flee to GPE , fearing further repercussions . The ORG in GPE found the applicant \u2019s allegations substantiated and granted the applicant \u2019s request for temporary asylum . Afterwards , the applicant withdrew his appeal against the earlier decision by the ORG in GPE not to grant him refugee status .","On DATE the ORG in GPE granted the applicant \u2019s request to have his temporary asylum status renewed for DATE , until DATE .","In the meantime , the applicant applied for temporary residence status in GPE . However , on DATE the ORG in GPE denied the applicant \u2019s request . DATE the FMS GPE upheld this decision , citing unspecified security reasons as justification .","On DATE the ORG in GPE refused the applicant \u2019s request for renewal of his temporary asylum status relying \u2012 inter alia \u2012 on information received from GPE \u2019s ORG ( ORG ) stating that the applicant \u2019s presence in GPE had been deemed undesirable . The exact nature of the information remained undisclosed . The applicant appealed to GPE \u2019s ORG concerning the refusal . In his appeal complaint , the applicant reiterated that the reasons behind the staying of his expulsion had not ceased to exist . He also submitted that the information obtained from the ORG had not been made known to him and , in any event , it would not have justified the termination of his temporary asylum status or his expulsion because the law contained no corresponding provision .","On DATE the ORG of GPE upheld the decision of the ORG in GPE . It cited the procedural steps taken in the applicant \u2019s case but did not evaluate his situation and arguments in detail . It also relied mainly on undisclosed information obtained from the ORG and found that no humanitarian grounds existed that would permit renewal of the applicant \u2019s temporary asylum status .","On DATE the ORG in GPE sent a letter to the applicant informing him that he would be deported should he fail to leave the territory of GPE of his own volition .","On DATE the Basmanny District Court of GPE refused the applicant \u2019s request to have his temporary asylum status renewed and upheld the ORG decision issued on DATE .","On DATE , following the application of interim measures under Rule CARDINAL by ORG , ORG sought a court order to compel the ORG in GPE to renew the applicant \u2019s temporary asylum status . No information is available regarding the outcome of these proceedings .","On DATE the GPE City Court heard the applicant \u2019s case on appeal . The outcome of these proceedings remains unclear .","On DATE the Government informed the ORG that on CARDINAL DATE the ORG in GPE had granted the applicant temporary asylum in GPE until DATE on humanitarian grounds .","According to the text of the decision of the ORG in GPE , the applicant sought temporary asylum in GPE after ORG had applied interim measures staying his removal in the light of the risk of ill - treatment in GPE . The ORG in GPE then noted that dynamic political and social reforms had been taking place in GPE since DATE . However , it also mentioned the incidents of human rights violations in the country . In particular , it referred to current authoritative human rights reports on ill - treatment of suspects in custody in GPE . Noting that the applicant remained on the wanted persons list , the ORG in GPE found that as a suspect , he might indeed be subjected to torture or other cruel , inhuman and degrading treatment in GPE and therefore granted his request for temporary asylum in GPE .","For a summary of the relevant general provisions of LAW GPE ( Law no . GPE of DATE ) , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","LAW ( the LAW ) provides that a person who has been granted temporary asylum status can not be returned against his will to the country of his nationality or to the country of his former habitual residence ( section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Act ) .","NORP The temporary asylum status may be terminated if ( i ) the circumstances generating eligibility for such temporary asylum cease to exist ; ( ii ) the temporary asylum holder obtains permanent resident status in GPE or becomes a citizen of GPE or of another state ; ( iii ) the temporary asylum holder resettles outside GPE ( section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Act ) .","NORP The temporary asylum status may be revoked as a result of ( i ) the conviction of the temporary asylum holder of a crime committed by him or her in GPE ; ( ii ) the submission by the temporary asylum holder of false information on his or her application for temporary asylum ; ( iii ) the imposition of an administrative sanction on the temporary asylum holder for a drug - related offence ( section QUANTITY of the Act ) .","The Rules on Temporary Asylum Status ( the Rules ) enacted by the Government of GPE in accordance with LAW ( decree No . CARDINAL of DATE ) provide that temporary asylum may be granted for a period of DATE and may be renewed DATE at the request of a person seeking temporary asylum who can also provide reasons for such renewal ( section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Rules ) . The request for renewal should be submitted DATE prior to the expiry of the person \u2019s current temporary asylum status ( section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Rules ) .","Under LAW and LAW a person can bring civil judicial proceedings against an official decision which , in his or her opinion , has an adverse effect on his rights and freedoms ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141626","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF STAROKADOMSKIY v. RUSSIA (No. 2)","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder . On DATE he was charged with aggravated murder . Subsequently , the applicant and a number of other individuals ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) were accused of other violent crimes . The proceedings in relation to all these offences were joined into CARDINAL case , which was investigated by a group of investigators from the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office . The investigation was completed in DATE .","The applicant studied the case file in DATE and DATE and requested a trial by a jury .","On DATE the GPE city prosecutor approved the indictment and the case was submitted to ORG for trial . The applicant was committed to stand trial on charges relating to a number of offences including conspiracy to commit murder . CARDINAL other co - defendants were committed to stand trial on similar charges .","On DATE ORG noted that the majority of the defendants had opted to exercise their constitutional right to a trial by jury . However , as there were no juries in ORG , it decided to send an inquiry to ORG of GPE as to where the case should be tried . ORG referred the case to ORG , where juries were available .","On an unspecified date a judge of ORG sent a request to ORG of GPE , inviting it to rule on the compatibility of ORG interpretation of the jurisdictional rules with LAW . On DATE she suspended the proceedings pending a decision by ORG and held that the defendants were to remain in custody because of the dangerousness of the criminal offences they had been charged with , which were classified as serious or particularly serious .","On DATE ORG issued a decision to the effect that the decision on the change of venue had been incompatible with LAW .","NORP In accordance with that ruling , on DATE ORG returned the case file to ORG , which decided on DATE that ORG was competent to try the case .","On DATE ORG scheduled the first hearing for DATE before a bench consisting of a professional judge and CARDINAL lay judges , but it was adjourned on DATE because the presiding judge was sitting in another case .","In DATE and DATE the presiding judge was replaced by other judges of ORG . The lay judges were replaced several times .","On DATE the applicant asked the judge for additional time to study the case file . His request was left without reply .","Numerous hearings were scheduled DATE . They were adjourned for various reasons , mainly because the prosecutor , interpreter and some of the defence lawyers failed to appear , but also because the presiding judge was involved in other proceedings in DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE .","It appears that consideration of the merits began in DATE , but hearings scheduled for DATE and DATE were again adjourned , inter alia , because several of the lawyers failed to appear .","On DATE the trial judge ordered that the applicant be removed from the courtroom \u201c until the closure of the oral pleadings \u201d for contempt of court during the reading out of the indictment . He was kept away from the hearings that followed on CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE .","The applicant was taken to a hearing on DATE , where he asked to be provided with a list of people to be called as witnesses at the trial . His request was left without reply .","Hearings scheduled for DATE and DATE were also adjourned . From DATE the trial hearings were held in remand centre no . MONEY , where the applicant was being detained . On CARDINAL and DATE the trial judge refused to deal with a request from the applicant to be given reasons for the change of venue and a copy of the relevant court order .","On DATE the trial judge ordered bailiffs to summons the absent witnesses and victims to a hearing scheduled for DATE , but not all of them were summonsed . On a number of occasions DATE the judge reiterated his request .","On DATE the trial bench ( presiding judge PERSON and lay judges PERSON and PERSON ) extended the GPE detention until DATE .","On DATE the court closed the trial and started deliberations .","NORP In DATE the governor of remand centre no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL wrote to ORG on several occasions to say that the detention order in respect of the applicant had expired on DATE , and that a new detention order was required without delay .","On DATE ORG replied that since the trial bench was deliberating , it could not issue decisions concerning the detention of any of the defendants , including the applicant .","On DATE the trial bench found the applicant guilty of a number of offences including conspiracy to commit murder , and sentenced him to CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment . The court held that the time he had spent in detention since DATE should be counted towards his sentence .","On DATE the court concluded its delivery of the judgment . It appears from its operative part of the judgment ( dated DATE ) that the trial bench decided to keep the applicant in detention as a preventive measure until the conviction became final and enforceable .","The applicant and the other defendants lodged an appeal . On DATE ORG upheld the conviction , but reduced the applicant \u2019s sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant instituted proceedings under LAW ( \u201c the CCrP \u201d ) , alleging inaction on the part of the governor of the remand centre in failing to release him on DATE . On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the complaint , holding that the inaction in question could not be made the subject of proceedings under LAW On DATE ORG set aside that decision and ordered a re - examination of the case , holding that a complaint in respect of a governor of a remand centre could not be processed under LAW","According to the Government , on DATE the authorities dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint and refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the governor of the remand centre for lack of corpus delicti .","In the meantime , in separate proceedings under LAW CCrP , the applicant argued that the prosecutor responsible for supervising detention facilities had acted unlawfully by failing to deal with the complaint concerning his detention after DATE . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed his case . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","Subsequently , the applicant brought civil proceedings against the remand centre , arguing that its governor had failed to release him on DATE . By that time , the most recent detention order had expired and thus DATE and the trial judgment there had been no valid order authorising his continued detention pending trial . By a judgment of DATE , the ORG of GPE rejected his claim . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","During a trial the court is empowered to order , vary or cancel a preventive measure in respect of the defendant ( LAW CCrP ) . In particular , \u201c the court dealing with the case \u201d is empowered to order extensions of the defendant \u2019s detention ( LAW ) . If after the trial judge has started deliberations in the criminal case the term of detention meanwhile expires , it is not against the requirements of the CCrP for another judge of the same court to order an extension of the detention ( Appeal Section of ORG of GPE decision FAC . CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) .","Deliberations take place in the deliberations room ( LAW ) , where the trial bench reaches its judgment and decides on the preventive measure ( LAW ) . After signing the judgment , the trial bench returns to the courtroom so that the presiding judge can deliver the judgment ( LAW ) . If only the introductory and operative parts of the judgment are read out , the court should explain the procedure for becoming acquainted with its full terms ( LAW ) .","Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) required at the relevant time that the governor of a detention facility should release a detainee upon receipt of an order to this effect . The governor should notify the authority in charge of the case that the authorised period of detention expires within TIME . If no extension order is received by the time the authorised period of detention expires , the governor must release the detainee .","Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that criminal cases should be heard in public . A court may issue an order for a hearing in camera ( i ) if a public hearing could result in the disclosure of ORG secrets or other sensitive data ; ( ii ) in cases concerning defendants DATE ; ( iii ) if a public hearing could result in the disclosure of information relating to the private life of the trial participants ; or ( iv ) to guarantee the safety of the trial participants or their next of kin ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177081","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BEL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TEKIN AND ARSLAN v. BELGIUM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life;Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE and GPE .","The applicants are the parents of PERSON , who was born in DATE .","The latter was detained in the psychiatric wing of FAC on CARDINAL occasions , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , that is to say for a total period of DATE . On both occasions he benefited from discharges on probation .","On DATE ORG , sitting in private session , once again ordered the detention of the ORG son under DATE ORG in respect of ORG , Habitual Offenders and LAW as amended by act of DATE ( \u201c the Social Protection Act \u201d ) . During his detention in the psychiatric wing of PERSON he was the subject of several disciplinary measures owing to his aggressive attitude to staff and other detainees .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered his discharge on probation and made him subject to medico - social supervision by attaching a number de conditions to his provisional discharge .","By order of CARDINAL DATE , owing to his non - compliance with his conditions of discharge , ORG with ORG decided to return the ORG son to the psychiatric wing of FAC . PERSON was arrested on that same date and detained for insulting and threatening CARDINAL police officers .","On his arrival at the police station TIME , he was examined by a general practitioner before being transferred in TIME to FAC , where he was examined by PERSON , who prescribed a sedative and a sleeping tablet .","NORP The applicants\u2019 son was then placed in an individual cell in an ordinary section of FAC .","The course of events as set out below was established following the judicial investigation and proceedings and is undisputed by the parties .","At TIME DATE PERSON was presented before the Deputy Director of PERSON for his interview as a new arrival . After the interview , the Deputy Director decided to implement special security measures for DATE . Those measures were adopted owing to PERSON nervous , agitated state and because he considered his detention to be arbitrary and was demanding his release . The following special security measures were ordered : placement in an individual cell , individual access to the prison yard , receiving visits in a booth rather than in the collective visiting area , use of plastic knives and forks , opening of the cell only by heads of section accompanied by CARDINAL prison officers , accompaniment by a member of staff during the detainee \u2019s movements and implementation of special surveillance involving checks on the cell by a prison officer TIME to ensure that nothing abnormal was happening .","Prison officer NORP , who had accompanied PERSON since his return to prison , was instructed to inform him of those special security measures in his capacity as head of section acting as a prison assistant . He was accompanied by CARDINAL other officers , PERSON and NORP","On their arrival in the cell at TIME , PERSON was just finishing his lunch . NORP read out the special security measures ordered by the Director . According to NORP \u2013 as confirmed by PERSON and NORP \u2013 PERSON provoked him by deliberately sneezing ( or \u201c spitting \u201d , according to the Government ) on him . When PERSON told the detainee to stop his provocative behaviour , otherwise he would be moved to an isolation cell , PERSON moved up to him and placed his head so close to R. \u2019s that all CARDINAL officers thought that they was about to be attacked .","In view of PERSON reaction and his previous history , NORP decided to place him in an isolation cell . He seized PERSON by the scruff of his neck and NORP grabbed his shoulder in order to whisk him out of the cell .","R. explained that owing to the exiguity of the cell , he was unable to maintain his grip on the back of the detainee \u2019s neck and he decided to resort to a different stranglehold technique , which involved an \u201c armlock \u201d around the detainee \u2019s neck , while forcing him down to the ground . When PERSON was face - down on the floor , he was still immobilised in an armlock by NORP , who was also leaning his full weight on the upper part of his back . PERSON had allegedly then complained that he could not get any air and was suffocating . L. blocked the detainee \u2019s right arm ; his left arm was already blocked under L \u2019s body . Finally , NORP squatted on top of the detainee .","Reinforcements were called in , and several more officers arrived on the spot . A total of CARDINAL officers were now present . Some of them helped with keeping PERSON under control while others remained passive . PERSON was handcuffed and shackles were placed on his ankles .","He was then lifted to his feet to be transported by CARDINAL officers , including NORP , to the isolation cell . The ORG witness statements diverge on PERSON ability to talk and breathe on his way to the cell . However , they all agree that they had to drag him along , supporting him under the shoulders and then carrying him , and that his head was hanging down . The officers noted that he had urinated on himself . They had to carry him down CARDINAL or so steps to reach the isolation cell .","On arrival at the door to the isolation cell , the officers placed PERSON face down on the floor owing to the narrowness of the door , and dragged him inside . Once they were inside the isolation cell they turned him over , only to note that his face was cyanotic .","At TIME the prison nurse received a telephone call to inform her that PERSON was unconscious . She alerted the duty doctor and prepared the medical equipment .","When the nurse and the duty doctor arrived at the inner security gate of the prison , an officer , who had been a witness to the events , informed them that the \u201c service CARDINAL \u201d ( the medical emergency service ) and the ORG ( emergency ambulance service ) had been called at TIME A transcription of the call is included in the case file .","Pending the arrival of those services , the duty doctor and the prison nurse began a cardiac massage at TIME , having noted that PERSON was not breathing and had no pulse .","The \u201c service CARDINAL \u201d paramedics arrived at TIME However , they noted that the ORG had not been contacted , and decided to request its emergency intervention . A \u201c service CARDINAL \u201d nurse subsequently stated that they had been called for a straightforward assault and had therefore not been informed of the gravity of the situation .","The ORG arrived at TIME and PERSON was immediately intubated and put on a drip . However , the doctor could only note that in the absence of electrical activity it was pointless to continue the attempts at resuscitation .","PERSON death was recorded at TIME","An inquiry was immediately instigated ex officio . The forensic pathologist instructed by ORG travelled to the scene of the events at TIME on DATE and noted very extensive cyanosis of the face and the neck region , and the presence of food products in the region of the nostrils and mouth .","All the main witnesses were heard on DATE or in the ensuing days .","At his first hearing on DATE , NORP stated the following , as regards the prison ORG intervention :","\u201c PERSON arrived in prison DATE in a state of high nervous tension . In fact the police officers accompanying him described him as very dangerous .","On arrival PERSON was very worked up against the police . We took over and he calmed down .","We knew PERSON from his previous detention , and so , for security reasons we placed him in an individual cell in the CARDINALth section , cell no . CARDINAL . According to my information he did n\u2019t cause any trouble during TIME .","TIME PERSON went to see Director [ H. ] for the \u2018 incomer \u2019s PERSON , as for every new arrival .","I was present during this interview in the office used for that purpose .","PERSON started shouted about the police officers , calling them disabled and claiming it was their fault he was there .","The Director explained that he had to visit the ORG ( ORG ) . PERSON replied that he did not have to wait around and that he was going to fetch his keys in the cloakroom and leave . When we told him that was impossible , he threatened us with the words \u2018 you \u2019ll get what \u2019s coming to you\u2019 .","Knowing that PERSON had a capricious and unforeseeable character and had already attacked officers in the past , the Director imposed special measures on him such as an individual cell , opening the cell door by several officers , using plastic knives and forks , etc .","He was taken back to his cell by a number of officers , without incident .","Where special measures are ordered , they must be entered in writing and signed by the detainee .","At TIME I went to his cell accompanied by [ L. , NORP and C. ] . PERSON was eating when we went in .","When I explained the measures to him , PERSON got up and pretended to sneeze , spitting some of his dinner ( vol - au - vent ) in my face . I stepped back . PERSON moved towards me and started sneezing again .","I immediately told him to calm down and to spit somewhere else . He moved towards me again . I told him that if he did not calm down he would be moved to the isolation cell . He came right up to me , with his head against mine , and said \u2018 I \u2019d like to see you doing that\u2019 . I then grabbed him by the neck in order to force him to the ground and take him to the isolation cell . I should point out that I got him in an armlock before pushing him off balance .","My colleagues were holding him by the arms and legs . We called for reinforcements . While I was holding him I spoke to him and he answered \u2018 I \u2019m choking\u2019 . I relaxed my hold and told him that if he could talk he was not choking .","PERSON was gesticulating with his arms and legs . I would specify that I fell to the ground with PERSON and he was on his side . In the end I was no longer holding him around the neck but exerting pressure on his head .","The reinforcements arrived and we managed to handcuff him . We lifted him to his feet in order to take him to the isolation cell . The reinforcements took charge of PERSON , and I started following them up near the rotunda after I PERSON got my breath back . PERSON was no longer protesting , relaxing to the extent that the officers had to carry him . Arriving at the cell I realised that PERSON was not pretending , as his face was turning blue . We called the infirmary and also the ORG . Dr [ L. ] was at the prison , and PERSON was given first aid , including artificial respiration , for TIME . He was also defibrillated . I stayed beside the doctor the whole time . The ambulance arrived and I stayed in the cell to help them . When the ORG arrived I left the cell and waited in the corridor . From what I heard it was already too late . They had n\u2019t managed to resuscitate him . \u201d","Later on the same day NORP was questioned again , and he added the following statement :","\u201c I would point out that during my explanation of the reasons for the [ special security ] measures I noticed the expression in PERSON eyes changing and becoming more threatening , such that I was already on my guard when he got up .","When he was there with his forehead pressed against mine , I moved aside and got him in an armlock , that is I placed my right arm around his neck and fell to the ground with him . You ask me if I exerted pressure on his neck , and I would reply that I did not press on the front of his throat . Once we were on the floor on the corridor side of the cell door I reduced the pressure . When he started to struggle again I exerted a small amount of pressure and slackened it immediately . In any case he was talking to me , as I mentioned in my first statement .","...","We have not been trained in restraining detainees in critical situations . Following the events at GPE we were given \u2018 conflict management GPE , learning how to manage a conflict by talking , and especially how to prevent things getting out of hand . My answer to your question is that in the event of an attack by a detainee we just have to do our best to restrain him . \u201d","Officer NORP made the following statement :","\u201c We pinned PERSON to the ground . ... I did n\u2019t hear PERSON speaking , but I think he was trying to talk but nothing came out . ... On the way to the isolation cell I did n\u2019t hear him talking or complaining . ... I think he was still alive because several times I felt resistance in his arm . \u201d","Dr B. carried out the autopsy DATE , on DATE . The autopsy report of CARDINAL DATE concluded that the manoeuvres on his neck had caused injuries deep enough to fracture the right upper horn of the thyroid cartilage and that those injuries had been prolonged , because symptoms of asphyxiation had been observed . The report added that the loss of urine reported by the investigators pointed to the moment when the loss of consciousness became so deep as to inhibit the sphincter reflex mechanism . Such an inhibition could be observed , for instance , during the unconscious phases occurring in epileptic episodes . As regards the \u201c armlock \u201d restraint technique , the autopsy report stated :","\u201c During the compression exerted by a forearm ( acting as a lever , with the person standing behind the victim ) , the lethal mechanism is virtually identical to traditional manual strangulation .","Such particularly severe compression causes a bilateral vascular obstruction and a flattening of the upper respiratory channels against the cervical vertebrae . \u201d","An investigation was instigated on DATE against persons unknown on charges of grievous bodily harm having led to unintentional death . The applicants applied to join the proceedings as civil parties .","The reconstruction of the events led PERSON , who had carried out the autopsy , to the conclusion that the cervical manoeuvres had been caused by the armlock applied by NORP , while the weight applied by PERSON on PERSON thorax had had a negative effect on the latter \u2019s respiratory mechanism and been conducive to asphyxia , his respiration being further hindered by the manner in which he had been transported to the isolation cell .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG committed the CARDINAL accused , that is to say NORP , PERSON and NORP , for trial before ORG on charges of grievous bodily harm having led to unintentional death .","At DATE hearing before ORG , PERSON submitted that it was not impossible that the detainee \u2019s fall to the ground had produced the force leading to the fracture of the right upper horn of the thyroid cartilage and that it had been quite possible that the armlock had on its own been sufficient to bring about the fatal outcome . He was , however , unable to affirm that if the strangulation had ceased after the thyroid cartilage had been broken PERSON would have been able to breathe again normally and survive , since the outcome would have depended on the injuries sustained previously . Furthermore , PERSON took the view that the compression of the thorax and the fact that PERSON had been carried to the isolation cell were not , in themselves , sufficient to have caused his death . Finally , he confirmed that the version of events provided by NORP during the reconstruction had been compatible with the medical findings .","On DATE ORG acquitted NORP The court held that NORP \u2019s intervention had indisputably been a matter of self - defence , which ruled out any responsibility on his part . Having regard to PERSON personality and his nervous , agitated state , NORP could reasonably have feared an imminent serious attack against PERSON and himself . The accused \u2019s reaction had therefore been absolutely necessary . The court accordingly considered that NORP had react proportionately to the attack by applying a hold which he had learnt during training in the management of that kind of incident , and in respect of which nothing in the case file suggested that it had been wrongly executed . Subsequently , the continuation of the armlock had been equally justified and proportional in view of the fact that PERSON had continued to struggle . According to the court , there was no objective evidence to suggest that the accused \u2019s actions had been dangerous , or that NORP had used force not strictly necessary for the execution of the restraint technique . There was no indication that NORP had known , or should have known , about the risk of fracture of the thyroid cartilage since that risk was not mentioned in the training programmes included in the case file ; nor could he have been aware that in maintaining the hold he had been exacerbating the decrease in the oxygenation of PERSON blood , particularly since NORP had not known what his colleagues were doing . Moreover , the court considered that NORP must not have been alarmed by the detainee \u2019s reactions since he had continued to struggle and NORP had regularly relaxed his grip to let him breathe . There was no evidence that the accused had noticed any change in the detainee \u2019s voice resulting from the fracture of the thyroid cartilage , nor , in any event , that they could have connected that putative change with any risk to PERSON physical integrity .","L. and NORP were also acquitted under the rules on co - perpetration .","Moreover , ORG relinquished jurisdiction for determining the applications for civil - party status owing to the accused \u2019s acquittal .","The applicants , as civil parties , appealed against the judgment as regards its civil - law provisions . The prosecution did not follow suit . The appeal has been pending before ORG since DATE . The ORG submitted that the applicants had not requested notification of the hearing such as to facilitate adjudication of the civil - law interests .","On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint , together with an application to join the proceedings as civil parties , against the CARDINAL acquitted prison officers and CARDINAL of their colleagues for failure to assist a person in danger .","On DATE ORG , sitting in private session , declared inadmissible the application to join the proceedings as civil parties to the extent that it concerned the CARDINAL prison officers acquitted by judgment of ORG on DATE on the grounds that the facts were identical to those of the first set of criminal proceedings , and gave a discontinuance decision in respect of the other CARDINAL accused on the grounds that the investigation had not uncovered sufficient evidence against them .","On DATE the applicants further filed an action for damages before ORG of First Instance seeking a finding that ORG had been responsible for PERSON death and for the suffering which he had sustained owing to his placement in an ordinary cell instead of in the psychiatric wing of LOC .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of First Instance declared the claim inadmissible as being time - barred .","Furthermore , the Government submitted that the applicants had complained about the same facts in GPE , PERSON country of origin , and that that complaint had given rise to letters rogatory addressed to ORG by the NORP public prosecutor of the town of GPE . On DATE the NORP authorities had allegedly sent a scanned copy of the criminal case file to the NORP judicial authorities .","The applicants , however , denied ever having brought proceedings in GPE .","..."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158960","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF AMIRKHANYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","A third person , PERSON , owned a plot of land , a part of which , with her consent , was separated by a fence and used by another person , J.","On DATE PERSON concluded an agreement with PERSON , according to which she gave a part of her plot of land , measuring CARDINAL sq . m. , to him . It appears that the plot of land actually used by J. , as separated by the fence , was CARDINAL sq . m. bigger than the CARDINAL sq . m. plot given by PERSON The CARDINAL sq . m. also belonged to PERSON In this connection , another agreement was reached between PERSON and PERSON , according to which PERSON gave her consent for J. to become the owner of the whole plot of land used by him . However , it appears that J. \u2019s ownership rights were officially registered only in respect of the plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m.","On DATE the applicant bought the larger plot of land from J. and , since the fence was still in place , continued to use also the QUANTITY m. strip of land .","In DATE PERSON instituted proceedings against the applicant , seeking to take the CARDINAL sq . m. strip of land used by the applicant , claiming her ownership rights .","On DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE granted the claim , ordering the applicant to release the strip of land to PERSON","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal .","NORP On DATE ORG granted the appeal and dismissed PERSON \u2019s claim . In particular , ORG found that since PERSON had agreed that PERSON become the owner of the plot of land used by him , as separated by the fence , she had relinquished her rights in respect of the strip of land in favour of ORG and , consequently , in favour of the applicant .","This judgment was subject to appeal on points of law within DATE from the date of its delivery .","On DATE PERSON lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE with ORG , claiming that it had been adopted in violation of substantive and procedural law . As a ground for admitting her appeal on points of law , PERSON submitted , pursuant to LAW , that the violations of the substantive and procedural law might have grave consequences , such as deprivation of her ownership rights in respect of the plot of land .","On DATE amendments were introduced to the ORG which stipulated that there was no right to bring an appeal on points of law more than once , unless ORG \u2013 when returning an appeal \u2013 fixed a time - limit to correct and re - submit it ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG decided to return PERSON \u2019s appeal as inadmissible for lack of merit . The reasons provided were as follows :","\u201c ORG of ORG ... having examined the question of admitting [ PERSON \u2019s appeal lodged against the judgment of ORG of DATE ] , found that it must be returned for the following reasons :","Pursuant to LAW ( CARDINAL ) of [ the ORG ] an appeal on points of law must contain any of the grounds [ required by ] LAW of [ the ORG ] .","...","At the same time , ORG does not find it appropriate to fix a timelimit for correcting the shortcomings and lodging the appeal anew . \u201d","This decision entered into force from the moment of its delivery and was not subject to appeal .","On DATE PERSON lodged another appeal on points of law with ORG against the judgment of ORG of DATE , alleging violations of substantive and procedural law . As a ground for admitting her appeal PERSON indicated , in addition to the ground mentioned in her appeal of CARDINAL DATE , that the judicial act to be adopted by ORG on her case might have a significant impact on the uniform application of the law , and that the contested judgment of ORG contradicted a judicial act previously adopted by ORG .","On DATE ORG decided to admit the appeal for examination . The reasons provided were as follows :","\u201c [ The appeal ] must be admitted for examination since it satisfies the requirements of LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of [ the ORG ] . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a reply to PERSON \u2019s appeal with ORG where , inter alia , he stated that the admission of PERSON \u2019s second appeal by ORG was in violation of the principle of res judicata and his property rights . When ORG , by its decision of DATE , had returned PERSON \u2019s appeal without fixing a timelimit to correct any shortcomings and to re - submit the appeal , the judgment of ORG of DATE became final and binding .","On DATE ORG examined PERSON \u2019s appeal on the merits and decided to grant it partially by quashing the judgment of ORG of DATE in its part related to ORG \u2019s property claim in respect of the plot of land and remitting the case for a fresh examination . ORG found that ORG , when reaching its conclusions , had failed to take into account an expert opinion which was among the materials of the case file , as well as to indicate the provisions of the domestic law on which its judgment had been based .","On DATE ORG of Erebuni and ORG of GPE conducted a fresh examination of PERSON \u2019s claim and granted it by recognising PERSON \u2019s ownership rights in respect of the strip of land in question .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the judgment of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166932","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PETAR MATAS v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Just satisfaction dismissed (out of time) (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Split .","The applicant is the owner of a commercial building in ORG , which he uses as a car repair workshop . The building in issue was bought from the ORG in DATE . At the time of purchase , no limitation on its use was registered or apparent .","On DATE ORG for ORG ( ORG kulture , PERSON za\u0161titu kulturne ba\u0161tine , GPE odjel u PERSON , hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered a measure of preventive protection relating to cultural heritage with regard to the applicant \u2019s building , pending the final evaluation of its cultural value . It explained that the building , which was being used as a car repair workshop at that point , appeared to be a rare example of early industrial architecture in ORG , and therefore this warranted a measure limiting its use by the applicant . Under section CARDINAL of ORG ( Zakon o za\u0161titi i o\u010duvanju kulturnih dobara , hereafter \u201c LAW \u201d ) the measure would remain in place for DATE , and , in accordance with LAW of the same LAW , would afford the same protection as a final protective measure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The decision ordering the preventive protection was not transmitted to the applicant . It was forwarded to the land registry of ORG ( PERSON ) and duly registered in the land register .","On DATE , after the expiry of the DATE period , ORG again ordered a measure of preventive protection with regard to the applicant \u2019s commercial building , reiterating the same grounds as those specified in its previous decision .","The applicant was not informed of the above decision relating to the second measure of preventive protection in respect of his building . On DATE the measure was registered in the land register .","On DATE , after becoming aware of the second measure of preventive protection following an enquiry with the land registry , the applicant challenged the extended application of that measure before ORG ( ORG culture , hereafter \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) . He contended , in particular , that he had not been informed of the decision ordering the preventive protection , and that the protection could no longer be ordered , since the maximum duration of such a measure under LAW was DATE . The applicant also enquired about compensation in respect of the pecuniary damage he had sustained as a result of the measure of preventive protection .","On DATE ORG forwarded the applicant \u2019s appeal to ORG . It stressed that the decision of DATE extending the preventive protection after the expiry of the first DATE period had been necessary , owing to the fact that it had not been possible to obtain an excerpt from the land register from ORG , and that the building represented an important example of early industrial architecture in Split .","On DATE the Ministry dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as unfounded , on the grounds that there was nothing in the law preventing the competent authority from applying the measure twice for periods of DATE , and that the measure of preventive protection had not limited the applicant \u2019s ownership rights . It also pointed out that it was necessary to extend the preventive protection in respect of the building , as the determination of its heritage value required further comprehensive assessment .","On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action in ORG ( ORG ) , challenging the lawfulness and reasonableness of the measure of preventive protection , and emphasising the passivity of the competent authorities in finally resolving the matter . He also contended that the decisions of the lower authorities had been arbitrary . He pointed out that , contrary to what ORG had stated , his ownership rights had been significantly limited , as his freedom to deal with the property as he wished had been restricted . In particular , his several attempts to sell the building and set up another business cooperation had failed , owing to the existing preventive protection . The applicant also asked ORG to award him MONEY ( ORG ) in respect of the damage he had sustained as a result of the conduct of the administrative authorities .","Meanwhile , ORG found that the applicant \u2019s building should not be registered as an object of cultural heritage . On DATE , after the expiry of the measure of preventive protection , ORG ordered that the entry concerning the measure be deleted from the land register .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s administrative action as unfounded , endorsing the reasoning of the lower authorities . In particular , it pointed out that there had been solid evidence suggesting that the building was an important object of cultural heritage , and that the measure of preventive protection was therefore justified given the need to carry out further assessments . Moreover , ORG considered that nothing in the relevant domestic law prevented the adoption of the second decision on preventive protection following the expiry of the first DATE time - limit .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , complaining of a violation of his property rights under LAW with regard to the allegedly unlawful and unreasonable application of the measure of preventive protection in respect of his property .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179825","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF PALEVI\u010cI\u016aT\u0116 AND DZIDZEVI\u010cIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants are sisters , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE and ORG .","On DATE the national authorities issued a decision to restore the applicants\u2019 father \u2019s property rights in respect of a plot of land measuring CARDINAL hectares . His property rights were registered on DATE .","Following their father \u2019s death on DATE , the applicants were issued with a certificate of inheritance on DATE and inherited his property in equal parts . CARDINAL plots of land measuring CARDINAL hectares and QUANTITY respectively were returned to them in natura . These plots were marked out in DATE , but an engineer did not indicate in the plan that there was a house situated on the plot of land of QUANTITY that did not belong to the applicants .","On DATE ORG bought a house and a storehouse . The cadastral measurements of the house were taken in DATE , and the building was classified as residential . The plot of land under the house and for residential purposes measured QUANTITY , and although ORG did not buy the land on which the house stood , he used it . On DATE ORG , who was PERSON \u2019s mother , had her property rights restored , and transferred her plot of land of QUANTITY to the place where ORG house was located . PERSON , as ORG \u2019s heir , asked for the plot of land of QUANTITY to be entered into the land registry in his name . However , his request was refused by the national authorities , because that plot overlapped the applicants\u2019 land .","NORP In DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) stated that the applicants\u2019 father \u2019s rights had been restored in respect of the land under the buildings that did not belong to him . The ORG also explained that , if there was no dispute , the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) could be amended and the borders of CARDINAL of the applicants\u2019 plots of land could be changed as well ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . If there was a dispute , the ORG would initiate court proceedings in order to annul part of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicants were given until DATE to reply in writing to the ORG \u2019s proposal . The applicants did not agree with the ORG \u2019s proposal .","In DATE ORG held that domestic law did not allow the restoration of property rights to land under buildings owned by third parties . As a result , the documents restoring the property rights of the applicants\u2019 father had to be amended .","As there was a dispute , the ORG asked a prosecutor to start court proceedings . In DATE the prosecutor lodged a claim with ORG and asked it to annul part of the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) restoring the property rights of the applicants\u2019 father in respect of QUANTITY of land , and the relevant part of the succession document issued to the applicants .","On DATE the ORG allowed the prosecutor \u2019s application , indicated that the part of the decision of DATE regarding the CARDINAL hectares had to be annulled , and held that a plot of land of QUANTITY had to be demarcated for ORG The applicants\u2019 property rights would be protected by giving them an equivalent plot of land in another area . It appears that the court suggested several times that the parties conclude a friendly settlement agreement , but the applicants refused .","The applicants appealed . They claimed , among other things , that the prosecutor had missed the DATE time - limit for lodging a claim .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the court of first instance . The court held that the prosecutor had only found out about the situation at issue on DATE , and had lodged the complaint on DATE , thus the time - limit for lodging a claim had not been missed . The court further held that the plot of land that ORG had been using had been formed back in DATE when the buildings had belonged to ORG , and that the applicants had signed the documents and agreed with the borders of the plot under the buildings . The court also held that the restitution of property was a matter of public interest , because it not only related to specific individuals , but to public opinion in general ( formuoja visos visuomen\u0117s nuomon\u0119 ) . The property rights of land owners were not absolute , and in the case at issue the lawful interests of CARDINAL party had to be protected .","The applicants submitted an appeal on points of law , and on DATE ORG sent the case back to ORG for fresh examination , stating that the lower courts had not examined the factual circumstances regarding how big the plot of land had to be in order for the buildings to be used . ORG also held that ORG should assess the fact that no plot of land under the buildings had been demarcated at the time the applicants\u2019 father \u2019s property rights had been restored .","On DATE ORG sent the case back to the court of first instance for fresh examination , stating that the substance of the case had not been examined thoroughly . The court held that CARDINAL of the buildings belonging to ORG had previously been a school building , but since DATE it had been registered in the register of immovable property as a residential building . The court observed that some mistakes had been made in the process of restoring both PERSON \u2019s mother \u2019s and the applicants\u2019 father \u2019s property rights . The court further held that the conclusion of ORG that PERSON was entitled to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY was unfounded . Although there were some buildings on the land that had been returned to the applicants\u2019 father , the exact size of the plot necessary in order for the buildings to be used had not been determined . Moreover , although the applicants and ORG had provided some evidence , this was insufficient to prove that the size of the plot of land under the buildings had to be QUANTITY . Lastly , ORG obliged the parties to the proceedings to provide documents proving how big the plot of land had to be in order for ORG \u2019s buildings to be used .","On DATE the ORG established that ORG \u2019s buildings were on the plot of land measuring QUANTITY . The court also held that ORG was using the exact plot which had been marked out for ORG , and the plan of the land had been signed by the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court considered that the person who had measured the land for the applicants had not marked the house in that area , and had not taken any actions to find out who the owner of the house was ; therefore , he was the person who had made a mistake . The court noted that in fact QUANTITY overlapped the applicants\u2019 land , but as PERSON was not asking for this , QUANTITY of land had to be taken from the applicants . Lastly , although the QUANTITY of land had to be taken away from the applicants , their property rights had to be protected by providing them with a new plot of land of equivalent value in another place .","The applicants appealed , and on DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of DATE . The court held that , although the applicants claimed that ORG house was not a residential building and thus no land for residential purposes could exist , the data from the register of immovable property and the purchase agreements showed that the building was a residential building . The court also held that the applicants\u2019 father \u2019s property rights to the land under the buildings at issue could not have been restored , as those were not his buildings . In fact , since DATE the relevant documents had referred to there being a plot of land of QUANTITY near the buildings .","The applicants submitted numerous appeals on points of law , but they were dismissed by ORG on DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE as either not raising important legal issues or being repetitive .","On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicants explaining that the legal registration in respect of their plot of land of CARDINAL hectares had been annulled following the decisions of the domestic courts , and asked them to choose the means by which they wanted their property rights in respect of the plot of land of QUANTITY to be restored . ORG noted that the restoration of property rights in natura was not possible .","NORP In DATE CARDINAL of the applicants wrote to ORG and asked for the return of the plot of CARDINAL hectares in natura . She also claimed that PERSON was using the plot of land for residential purposes unlawfully and that she had sustained damage .","In DATE ORG informed the applicant that she could start court proceedings for damages . ORG also explained that the purchase agreement in respect of ORG \u2019s buildings was valid , and that , in accordance with the decisions of the domestic courts , PERSON was entitled to use the plot of land under the buildings .","In DATE ORG replied to a request by CARDINAL of the applicants in DATE for an explanation of the actions of ORG of ORG and compensation in respect of pecuniary damage . ORG stated that the applicants were aware of the court proceedings regarding the decision of CARDINAL DATE to restore their father \u2019s property rights . It also held that PERSON was entitled to buy the plot of land for residential purposes located under the buildings from the ORG .","NORP In DATE PERSON was included into the list of candidates to buy a plot of land of QUANTITY and on DATE , after some measurements had been carried out , the plot of land of QUANTITY was sold to ORG","In DATE ORG replied to a complaint by CARDINAL of the applicants about the restoration of her father \u2019s property rights . Among many other things , the applicant asked for : the process of amending the borders of their plot of land to be terminated ; ORG to be prohibited from constructing buildings and growing plants ; his property to be kept on the plot of land at issue ; an opportunity to buy the plot of land that had been taken from them ; and an easement under ORG \u2019s buildings to be established . ORG indicated that such a request had already been dismissed by the domestic courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was impossible to allow the applicants to buy the same plot of land that had been taken from them , because that plot of QUANTITY had not belonged to their father in the first place . In addition , PERSON was not stating that he wanted an easement to be established , thus the applicant \u2019s request in this respect was unfounded .","The applicants complained to a member of the ORG , who sent their complaint to ORG . The member of the Seimas asked for explanations about the procedure for restoring the applicants\u2019 property rights and why their property rights to the QUANTITY of land had not been restored . In DATE ORG of ORG explained that the applicants\u2019 property rights to the plot of land of CARDINAL hectares had been annulled in accordance with the decisions of the domestic courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . In DATE the applicants had been asked to choose the means by which they wished their property rights in respect of the QUANTITY of land to be restored ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but they still insisted on having the land returned in natura ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which was not possible . ORG of ORG also provided detailed information about monetary compensation as a means of restoring the applicants\u2019 property rights . The monetary compensation procedure could be started after the applicants submitted a request for their property rights to be restored by means of monetary compensation . As a preliminary estimate , the value of the plot at issue was estimated at MONEY ( ORG ) .","In DATE ORG of ORG once again informed the applicants that returning the CARDINAL hectares of land in natura was not possible and that they could have monetary compensation . The applicants were also informed that the procedure could be started after a request to restore their property rights by means of monetary compensation was received by the authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The preliminary estimate as to the value of the plot was also indicated as being EUR CARDINAL . It appears that the applicants did not reply to this letter , nor did they submit a request for monetary compensation , but ORG calculated the compensation at ORG CARDINAL after having adjusted it in line with the inflation index , and on DATE invited the applicants to come and discuss the restoration of their property rights . The meeting was adjourned once until DATE because the applicants\u2019 lawyer had holidays planned . On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer asked to adjourn the meeting again because CARDINAL of the applicants was ill , but she did not provide any documents confirming this . ORG decided to hold a meeting as planned on DATE , and issued a decision to restore the applicants\u2019 property rights to the QUANTITY of land by paying them monetary compensation of ORG CARDINAL . CARDINAL of the applicants collected the decision on DATE . The decision was not appealed against .","In DATE CARDINAL of the applicants asked a prosecutor to start a pre - trial investigation into ORG \u2019s actions . According to her , PERSON was using land to which he had no rights . In DATE the prosecutor decided to terminate the pre - trial investigation , as there was no evidence of a criminal act . That decision was upheld by a higher prosecutor in DATE and by ORG and ORG in DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicants asked for interim measures to be applied and for PERSON to be prohibited from constructing buildings , temporary constructions and roads , and from growing plants and farming on the plot of land at issue . Their application was dismissed by ORG and ORG in DATE and DATE respectively .","On an unspecified date CARDINAL of the applicants started court proceedings regarding the cadastral measurements of the land . The applicant also claimed that ORG had acquired his building unlawfully and that he had been using her land without any legal grounds . On DATE ORG held that the applicant \u2019s allegations had already been rejected by the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court also stated that the cadastral plan proposed by the applicant was not approved , because she had included ORG \u2019s land on it and marked it as hers . As a result , the applicant \u2019s complaint was dismissed .","In DATE the applicants initiated civil proceedings regarding the change of purpose of CARDINAL of the buildings belonging to ORG They claimed that ORG house had previously been a school , and thus its purpose was communal and not residential . In DATE ORG dismissed their claim . In DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision , and in DATE and DATE ORG dismissed appeals by the applicants on points of law ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160621","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DALAKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , PERSON . He is the uncle of PERSON , who was born in DATE . Mr PERSON parents and brother died in a car accident in DATE .","ORG are disputed by the parties .","At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON and his friend PERSON I.D. left a computer club in PERSON . While they were walking down FAC , QUANTITY PERSON minivans with heavily tinted windows and without number plates pulled over and a group of men armed with assault rifles and pistols emerged from the vehicles . CARDINAL of the armed men wore plain clothes , while the others were in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas . Without identifying themselves or giving any explanation they pointed their guns at Mr PERSON and Mr I.D. and opened fire . Mr PERSON ran away . The armed men pursued him and continued shooting .","NORP In FAC , in the presence of a number of local residents , including PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON . PERSON . , Mr PERSON was hit by a car and fell to the ground . He got up and limped into the courtyard of the adjacent nursery school . A man from the car which had hit Mr PERSON ran after him and fired at him several times with his pistol . Mr PERSON fell to the ground face down . Several other armed men ran towards the scene and CARDINAL of them fired at Mr PERSON several times while he was on the ground . After having ascertained that Mr PERSON was dead , CARDINAL of the armed men lifted his body and placed an object under it .","Shortly thereafter a group of officers of the local police and the special police force ( PERSON \u043c\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u043e\u0441\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ( \u041e\u041c\u041e\u041d ) ) ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) arrived at the scene . A number of civilians present on the LOC and the adjacent streets alerted the police officers to the fact that Mr PERSON had not offered any resistance to his pursuers , that he had not been armed and that his pursuers had placed an object under his body ; it turned out to be a hand grenade with its pin pulled . The police officers requested the pursuers , who were officers of ORG of ORG ( ORG ( ORG ) ) ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to identify themselves ; they refused to do so . In the ensuing scuffle the police officers arrested the ORG officers and took them to the PERSON town police department . Mr PERSON , who had been arrested by ORG officers after the chase , was also arrested by the town police and then released DATE .","After bomb disposal experts had deactivated the grenade , Mr PERSON body was taken for a post - mortem examination and was returned to his relatives for burial at TIME on DATE .","The above account of the events is based on the information contained in the application form as well as on written statements by Mr ORG , dated DATE , PERSON . and PERSON . Ts . , both dated QUANTITY DATE , and a written statement by the applicant dated DATE .","Referring to the contents of the investigation file in criminal case no . DATE the ORG stated in their submission of CARDINAL DATE that the circumstances of the incident had been as follows .","\u201c CARDINAL . TIME on DATE servicemen of ORG found presumed members of a bandit group Mr PERSON and PERSON [ I.D. ] The ORG servicemen got out of the service car and attempted to detain these CARDINAL men . They ordered the QUANTITY men to get down on the ground , having identified themselves as ORG agents .","Mr [ I.D. ] obeyed and lay down on the ground . Mr PERSON did not comply with the order and started to run away . CARDINAL of the ORG agents followed him . During the pursuit he warned Mr PERSON that he would open fire if the latter did not stop . ... Mr PERSON stopped , took a grenade from his pocket and prepared to pull the pin . Taking into account information in their possession concerning the presumed criminal activity of PERSON and his refusal to obey law - enforcement GPE orders , the ORG officer took the decision to open fire , shooting to kill in order to eliminate the threat to his own life and health and that of the other people present at the time in the street .","...","As regards PERSON [ I.D. ] , on DATE the record of his arrest was drawn up and he was questioned as a suspect ... arrest as a measure of restraint was chosen for him . He was released DATE , and on or CARDINAL DATE he left to live permanently in GPE ... \u201d","On DATE the PERSON investigating department of ORG with ORG of GPE in PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the investigating department \u201d ) opened criminal case no . DATE against Mr PERSON under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( assault on a law - enforcement official and unlawful possession of arms and explosives ) .","On DATE , DATE , the investigating department examined the crime scene . According to the crime scene report , CARDINAL cartridge cases were collected from the scene and a grenade was found under Mr PERSON body , under the lower part of his stomach . No objects were found in the hands of PERSON . As a result , DATE cartridges and the grenade were collected from the scene for expert examination .","DATE a senior operational search officer , PERSON . of ORG of ORG , conducted an internal inquiry in connection with \u201c collaboration between police officers from ORG of the ORG and officers of ORG \u201d concerning the circumstances of PERSON killing . Its results were stated in conclusion no . CARDINAL dated DATE . The document , amongst other things , contained the following information :","\u201c ... at TIME on DATE the ORG officers conducted a special operation in PERSON aimed at arresting members of illegal armed groups .","The local police department was not informed about it .","During the special operation , the ORG officers eliminated a member of an illegal armed group , PERSON , who had offered active armed resistance .","At TIME police captain [ PERSON ] , who was on duty , ... had seen CARDINAL armed men pursuing a young man who was running away ; CARDINAL of the armed men had opened fire on him . The pursuers had been accompanied by a white PERSON vehicle with darkened windows and without number plates .","Captain [ PERSON ] had reported the incident to the duty unit of the PERSON town police department , and had remained at his post ...","A group of police officers dispatched to the crime scene from the town police station and a group of ORG OMON which had arrived there after hearing shots from automatic weapons ... found a dead man and a disorderly group of CARDINAL people , some in camouflage uniforms and others in civilian clothing , who were shouting ... and yelling about why the police were not arresting armed bandits who had killed an unarmed man who had not offered any resistance .","The armed men , who were in camouflage uniforms and civilian clothing , who had conducted this special operation , had refused to identify themselves , had not presented any documents , and had warned that they would use firearms against the police officers .","The law - enforcement officers of PERSON had taken those men for terrorists and\/or active members of illegal armed groups ...","Under these circumstances , to prevent the presumed law - enforcement officers from being lynched by the enraged crowd , the head of the PERSON town police department , Lieutenant - Colonel [ A.M. ] , had tried to separate the armed men who had killed [ the man on the ground ] and the civilians from the local residents . However , the police officers had ended up being isolated by the unidentified armed men and had become , in effect , their hostages ; the armed men had behaved aggressively and refused to state what organisation they belonged to .","The ORG group had arrived at the scene , quickly assessed the situation , and then blocked and disarmed the unidentified individuals using special physical force techniques against those who resisted . After that the armed men were taken to the PERSON town police department and the premises of the PERSON unit ( the entire perimeter of the town police station had been surrounded by civilians expressing their indignation at the actions of the unidentified persons who had made several \u201c insurance \u201d shots to the head of the unarmed wounded young man who had fallen to the ground next to the nursery school and who , according to the nearby residents , then had placed an armed grenade under his body to make it look like the young man had offered resistance ) .","The ORG Minister of the ORG and the head of ORG had arrived at the scene and taken the decision to immediately release the arrested persons to avoid making their identities known to the public ...","The unidentified persons ... had offered resistance to the ORG officers ... as a result [ of the scuffle ] , the police officers [ GPE ] and [ M.K. ] and the head of the operational search unit of the PERSON town police department , LieutenantColonel [ A.Ts . ] , required medical assistance ...","All the arrested persons who were law - enforcement officers were released without logging their names in the detention log upon confirmation of their identities by the head of ORG ; their guns were returned to them ...","Therefore , the above misunderstanding took place due to lack of proper coordination between the law - enforcement agencies who were carrying out a special task in GPE ... \u201d","The documents submitted indicate that on various dates in DATE the investigators questioned several witnesses who lived near the crime scene . For the most part the witnesses stated that they had not seen the actual events but had seen a young \u2019s man body on the ground surrounded by a large number of police who had cordoned off the area .","On DATE the investigators questioned Ms F.Kh . Ts . , who stated that at TIME on DATE she had been at home . She had looked out of the window on to FAC and heard a muffled sound of an impact . Then she had seen a young man limping rapidly past her window into the premises of the nursery school . He had been followed by a masked man in camouflage uniform with a pistol and a man with a camouflage ORG pulled over his head . This man was running with an automatic rifle and firing at the young man . Then all CARDINAL men went round the corner of the building . The witness had immediately run outside and followed the men . She saw the young man on his stomach on the ground , convulsing . The other QUANTITY men were standing next to him and arguing . Then CARDINAL of them ordered the witness to go away and she obeyed the order . After that a large number of police officers had arrived at the scene and cordoned off the area .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) concluded that the detonating fuse of the grenade recovered from the crime scene was not capable of exploding due to a missing part , but that the grenade itself was capable of exploding provided the fuse was in working condition .","On DATE the investigators questioned a police officer of the PERSON , ORG . Ya . , who stated that at TIME on DATE he had been at work when he and his colleagues had heard sounds of sporadic gunfire coming from the area around PERSON central market . He and CARDINAL of his colleagues were then dispatched to the scene of the shooting , next to the nursery school . Upon arrival at the scene the witnesses had seen a large crowd of local residents and a group of CARDINAL masked men with automatic firearms . The local residents had been aggressively expressing their indignation , as according to them the armed men had killed an unarmed young man ; the body was still on the ground . The armed men had refused to identify themselves or to give reasons for killing the young man . They resisted the police officers : behaved aggressively , swore , fired their weapons into the air several times , and threatened the police with firearms . When the second group of police arrived , owing to the armed men \u2019s behaviour and the threats from the outraged crowd of local residents they disarmed the masked men , forced them into a NORP lorry , and took them to the PERSON town police department .","DATE the investigators questioned the police officers GPE , GPE . , PERSON . , PERSON . and A .- G.M. ; their statements concerning the events were similar to that of their colleague PERSON . Ya .","On DATE the investigators were informed by ORG that it was impossible to question their officers implicated in the incident , as they were all undergoing medical treatment in hospital in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the investigators questioned police officer Captain PERSON , who stated that at TIME on DATE he had been on duty across the road from the nursery school . He had heard the gunshots and immediately called the police station . After that he had run out into the street and seen CARDINAL men in the sand - coloured camouflage uniforms of special service agents . The men , who had been running ahead , had been firing at someone in front of them . Then the CARDINAL men went round the corner of a building and out of sight . Then the men following them in a white PERSON minivan without registration numbers had turned and driven off .","On DATE ORG informed the investigators of its conclusions concerning the cause of PERSON death . According to their report of DATE , Mr PERSON had died from gunshot wounds , including CARDINAL in the back , CARDINAL in the back of the lower leg , and CARDINAL in the back of the head .","On DATE or DATE the investigators questioned an ORG officer , ORG , and granted him victim status in the criminal case . In his statement the officer submitted that at TIME on DATE he and his colleagues had arrived in PERSON in a service vehicle to identify and detain members of an illegal armed group , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . At TIME they had received information that both men were heading in their direction . The officers had been given descriptions of PERSON I.D. and Mr PERSON and ordered to detain them . The witness and his colleagues got out of the car , shouted \u201c on the ground ! ORG ! \u201d and ran after the CARDINAL men . Mr I.D. immediately got down on the ground , whereas Mr PERSON ran away . The witness thought Mr PERSON was armed and could offer resistance . The witness and his colleagues put Mr I.D. into their vehicle and then went after PERSON . When the witness reached FAC he heard \u201c ORG ! Stop ! \u201d and then \u201c Stop or I \u2019ll fire ! \u201d and then heard machine - gun shots and ran towards them . He saw his colleagues next to a QUANTITY building in FAC , standing next to the body of Mr PERSON and CARDINAL of the colleagues holding a grenade . He checked PERSON pulse and confirmed that he was dead , then the witness and his colleagues called the mine squad and cordoned off the area .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigators questioned ORG officers A.Ch . , PERSON , and NORP . , and granted them victim status in the criminal case . The statements given by the QUANTITY officers to the investigation were identical to that of their colleague , officer PERSON","On DATE the investigating department terminated the proceedings in case no . CARDINAL . The decision referred to statements by ORG officers PERSON , PERSON and NORP . They submitted , among other things , that on DATE they had gone to PERSON to arrest members of an illegal armed group , PERSON and Mr I.D. When the officers had spotted the CARDINAL men , they got out of their PERSON minivan and shouted : \u201c ORG ! Get down ! \u201d . Mr I.D. had complied with the order but PERSON had run away . Officers A.B. and A.Ch . followed Mr PERSON , while PERSON , PERSON and GPE . put Mr I.D. securely into their vehicle . After that they heard shooting and went to FAC , where they found ORG officers and PERSON , face down on the ground with a grenade in his hand . The officers checked his pulse , ascertained that he was dead , called bomb disposal experts and secured the area . The decision further stated that officers PERSON and GPE . \u201c had given similar statements \u201d , without providing any further details in that respect . The examination of the grenade seized at the scene by the authorities had established that it was capable of exploding . The decision concluded that there existed sufficient evidence to prove that Mr PERSON was guilty of assaulting lawenforcement officials and of unlawful possession of ammunition , but in view of his death in the exchange of fire the criminal case against him was to be terminated . The applicant learnt of that decision at some point in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the head of the investigating department overruled the decision of CARDINAL DATE to terminate the criminal investigation as unsubstantiated at the request of the PERSON town prosecutor . The latter stated in his request , among other things , the following :","\u201c ... the decision of DATE ... is premature , unlawful and unsubstantiated due to the incompleteness of the investigation ... for instance ,","Mr [ I.D. ] , who had complied with the order of the arresting group ... was not questioned about the circumstances of the incident .","In addition , the investigators did not examine the legal grounds for the use of firearms against Mr PERSON .","From conclusion no . CARDINAL of the internal inquiry of CARDINAL DATE carried out by ORG of ORG , residents of the nearby houses had stated that after the liquidation of Mr PERSON , an armed grenade had been placed under his body to make it look like he had offered armed resistance . However , this information was not examined further ... \u201d","The applicant was informed of the decision on DATE .","On DATE the investigators separated the part of the evidence concerning the use of the firearms during the incident from criminal case no . DATE and forwarded it to another investigator in the PERSON investigating department for further examination . In the documents submitted it is also stated that on DATE the same material was forwarded to the military investigations department of military unit no . DATE for examination .","On DATE the investigating department again terminated the proceedings in case no . DATE because of the death of the suspect . The text of the decision reiterated in identical wording the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the head of the ORG investigating department overruled the decision of DATE to terminate the criminal investigation as premature and unsubstantiated . In particular , he pointed out that the investigators had neither questioned Mr PERSON and the ORG officer who had shot Mr PERSON nor obtained information on the inquiry concerning the use of the firearms against Mr PERSON by the ORG servicemen .","On DATE the investigation in criminal case no . DATE was again terminated , because of the death of the suspect . The text of the decision reiterated verbatim that of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) but did not mention that according to the mother of Mr I.D. the latter had moved to GPE on or CARDINAL DATE . The applicant was not informed of that decision .","On DATE the investigators requested the head of the military investigations department to inform them of the results of the examination of the materials concerning Mr PERSON killing .","On DATE the military investigations department replied to the investigators that on DATE they had refused to initiate criminal investigation into the killing owing to the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the ORG officer PERSON who had opened fire on Mr PERSON . The copy of the decision enclosed with the letter indicated that the decision had been taken on the basis of the explanation given by officer PERSON , which was identical to the statement given by him on DATE to the investigators in criminal case no . DATE ( see the paragraph below ) . Neither the applicant nor his relatives were informed of that decision .","On DATE and DATE respectively the investigators granted ORG officer PERSON victim status in criminal case no . DATE and questioned him . The officer stated that on DATE , as a member of a special combat group , upon the order of the head of ORG , he had arrived in PERSON to carry out a special operation aimed at arresting active members of \u201c the PERSON illegal armed group \u201d Mr PERSON and Mr I.D. , who were suspected of involvement in terrorist acts in ORG . Having arrived at the place of the operation next to the nursery school , the officer had got out of the vehicle , run towards Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , and shouted : \u201c On the ground ! ORG ! \u201d In reply to this warning Mr I.D. had got down on the ground , whereas Mr PERSON had started running away . The officer had run after him and continued shouting from time to time : \u201c Stop ! ORG ! \u201d Having understood that Mr PERSON had no intention of stopping , the officer shouted : \u201c ORG ! Stop or I \u2019ll fire ! \u201d and then fired once into the air when PERSON was QUANTITY away from him . At that point Mr PERSON had stopped , turned round to face the officer , taken a grenade out of the right pocket of his trousers and tried to pull out the fuse . Having assessed the situation as threatening , the officer opened fire , aiming to hit Mr PERSON . When the shots were fired Mr PERSON body was flung about in various directions and then he fell to the ground face down . After ascertaining that Mr PERSON was dead , the officer reported the incident to the head of the operation . The latter ordered the officer and his colleagues from the ORG to cordon off the area and wait for the ORG arrival .","On DATE a relative of Mr PERSON , Mr DATE . , complained to the PERSON town prosecutor about the killing of PERSON and asked for a criminal investigation to be opened into the matter .","On DATE the applicant complained about the killing to ORG and the PERSON town prosecutor .","On DATE the town prosecutor replied to the applicant that on DATE criminal case no . DATE had been opened against Mr PERSON concerning assault on a law - enforcement official and unlawful possession of arms and explosives . The letter did not specify whether any proceedings had been initiated to investigate Mr PERSON killing .","On DATE the applicant complained to the town prosecutor that he had not been informed of any decisions in respect of the complaint concerning his nephew \u2019s killing .","On DATE the town prosecutor replied to the applicant that the decision to terminate proceedings in criminal case no . DATE had been overruled as unlawful and the proceedings resumed on DATE . The letter did not specify whether any proceedings had been initiated in respect of an investigation of Mr PERSON killing .","On DATE the applicant again complained to the PERSON investigating committee about Mr PERSON killing , and stressed that according to numerous witnesses his nephew had not been armed and had not offered resistance to ORG officers . However , none of those eyewitnesses had been interviewed and no criminal proceedings had been instituted in connection with his death . The applicant further stated that he had in the meantime been provided with the decision of CARDINAL DATE and that the town prosecutor had overruled it as unfounded . The applicant requested the investigating department to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the killing and to question the ORG officers who had participated in the arrest of his nephew , the LAW and police officers and other eyewitnesses . He also asked the investigators to grant him victim status in those proceedings . The applicant \u2019s complaint was received by the investigating department on DATE but no reply was given to it .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG under LAW about the failure of the investigating department to open a criminal case in connection with Mr PERSON killing and failure to take basic steps to establish the circumstances of the incident . In his complaint the applicant stated , amongst other things , the following :","\u201c ... On DATE ... officers of law - enforcement bodies shot and killed my nephew Mr PERSON , who , according to eye - witnesses , was not armed and did not resist .","I lodged a request with ORG asking for a criminal case to be opened in connection with the killing . In reply I received the decision to terminate the investigation in criminal case no . CARDINAL opened against Mr PERSON .","ORG overruled this decision ... I lodged another complaint with ORG in which I requested that a criminal case be opened in order to investigate the killing of PERSON ; witnesses to the incident , in addition to the police officers from ORG and the PERSON who had participated in the detention of the ORG officers who had shot Mr PERSON , be identified and questioned ... and victim status in the criminal case be granted to me . This complaint was delivered on DATE .","According to ... the NORP Criminal Procedure Code , my complaint should have served as the reason for opening of a criminal case ... a criminal case is opened when there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed ... and the decision is taken within DATE from the receipt of the complaint ...","However , those regulations were not complied with . The investigating authorities received my complaint , but they neither took any appropriate decisions nor informed me thereof . This procedural violation led to the failure to take the other steps I had requested in my complaint .","Witnesses to the incident , who could have confirmed Mr PERSON killing and refuted the allegations that he had resisted arrest , have not been identified or questioned . We ourselves have identified such witnesses , including Mr [ M.Ku . ] , Mr [ ORG . ] , and others .","The police officers from ORG and the PERSON who had arrested the individuals , who shot Mr PERSON were not questioned . I was not granted victim status either .","The failure of the investigating authorities to act violates LAW ...","I request , on the basis of LAW that the court ...","Declare unlawful the failure of the investigating authorities to initiate a criminal investigation in respect of my complaint , to identify and question witnesses to the killing ... and grant me victim status in the proceedings ;","Oblige the Karabulak Investigating Committee","( CARDINAL ) to remedy the above breaches ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP to open a criminal case in connection with Mr PERSON killing","( CARDINAL ) to grant me victim status in the criminal case","( CARDINAL ) to identify and question witnesses to Mr PERSON killing","( CARDINAL ) to question officers of ORG and the PERSON who arrested those involved in Mr PERSON killing ... \u201d","According to the Government , the applicant lodged this complaint on DATE . The incoming mail registration stamp on the copy of the document indicates that this complaint was received on DATE .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in connection with the applicant \u2019s complaint . According to the transcript of the hearing , both parties were present . During the examination the representative of the investigating authorities submitted that they had transferred the evidence concerning the killing of PERSON to a military prosecutor \u2019s office . The judge requested that the documents reflecting the transfer be provided for the next hearing , scheduled for DATE .","On DATE ORG examined and rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint as unsubstantiated . The court reasoned as follows :","\u201c ... [ the applicant ] PERSON ... requested that his complaint be allowed and the refusal to initiate a criminal investigation into his nephew \u2019s killing be declared unlawful ... that the police officers ... who had been present at the crime scene be questioned as witnesses , and that more witnesses to the crime , in addition to the ORG officers who had shot PERSON dead , be identified and questioned .","The public prosecutor Mr [ A. P. ] requested the court to reject the complaint as unsubstantiated . In support of his position he stated that the criminal case related to Mr PERSON death had been terminated by ORG , as the actions of the ORG officers who had carried out the operation in respect of PERSON had been declared lawful . The PERSON police officers on whose questioning the applicant insists before the court arrived at the scene later and did not witness Mr PERSON killing . No other witnesses were identified .","Having been duly informed of the date and place of the hearing , and in the absence of requests for the examination of the case in their absence , both parties failed to appear at the hearing ; this does not preclude the court from examining the complaint on its merits .","The court finds the applicant \u2019s and his lawyer \u2019s allegations unsubstantiated , as they are not properly argued and are not supported by appropriate evidence .","On the basis of the above , under paragraph CARDINAL of LAW of LAW , the court finds that the complaint of Mr PERSON under LAW of GPE concerning alleged failure of ORG to act should be rejected ... \u201d","According to the ORG \u2019s submission , both parties were present during the examination on DATE . The applicant , who was represented at the hearing by his lawyer , was provided with a copy of the decision by letter from the court , sent to his address on DATE . The Government provided a copy of that letter without an envelope , bearing the applicant \u2019s address in PERSON and dated DATE .","According to the applicant \u2019s submission , on DATE no examination of the complaint took place and , therefore , he was not informed of any decisions taken on that date and did not receive the decision by post . The applicant stated that prior to the hearing of DATE his lawyer had been informed in person that the hearing had been rescheduled for an unspecified date . Subsequently , the lawyer repeatedly enquired with the court by telephone and in person about the examination of the complaint . In reply to his queries he was assured that he would be apprised of the date and venue of the examination . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was provided with a copy of the decision of DATE .","In the applicant \u2019s submission , the court \u2019s decision allegedly taken on DATE was backdated , and had in fact been prepared at DATE . In particular , he pointed out that the text of the decision and the transcript of the hearing allegedly held on that date contained inconsistencies . In particular , according to the transcript , both parties , including the applicant \u2019s lawyer , had been present at the hearing and the delivery of the decision by the judge . However , in the text of the decision of DATE it was stated , amongst other things , that neither party had appeared at the hearing ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","According to the applicant , on DATE his lawyer telephoned the court and was informed that the examination of his complaint had again been rescheduled as the judge had gone on holiday .","On DATE the applicant wrote to the military investigating department , asking whether they had returned to the town prosecutor \u2019s office the materials concerning Mr PERSON killing ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . No reply was given to that request .","DATE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer complained to ORG . The text of the complaint included the following :","\u201c ... PERSON lodged a complaint with ORG ... of inaction on the part of ORG of PERSON . The complaint was assigned for examination to Federal Judge PERSON [ B ] .","According to LAW , this complaint should have been examined within DATE of its receipt . However , this has not yet been done .","I request that you take measures to expedite the examination of the complaint . \u201d","No reply was given to this complaint .","From the documents submitted it appears that no criminal proceedings against the ORG officers concerning PERSON killing have been initiated to date ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159803","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SALAMOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","NORP In DATE ORG launched a counter - terrorist operation in GPE .","On DATE , during an identity check , military servicemen seized a truck ( and the registration papers ) from the home of the applicant and his family at CARDINAL , FAC , in the town of GPE , GPE . The truck had the following vehicle details : model \u2013 \u201c GPE ; year of manufacture DATE ; registration number \u2013 \u0418 CARDINAL - CARDINAL \u0427\u0418 ; engine number LOC ; chassis number \u2013 CARDINAL ; cab number DATE ; colour \u2013 khaki . According to the applicant , the truck was in working order and in use . The servicemen failed to present any document authorising the seizure .","On several occasions DATE the applicant \u2019s father , PERSON , complained to various military and civilian authorities , as well as the local police and the prosecutor \u2019s office , and requested the return of the truck .","On an unspecified date Major - General PERSON , the head of the \u201c LOC \u201d zone group of the joint forces of the internal troops of ORG , wrote to the LOC district prosecutor \u2019s office :","\u201c In reply to your written enquiry of DATE concerning Mr A. A. ORG \u2019s complaint , I would like to confirm that vehicle \u201c PERSON , made in DATE , engine number DATE , khaki colour , chassis number CARDINAL , is indeed located at the base of military unit no . CARDINAL .","At present the truck is not being used ; it has been sealed and placed in the car park for seized and wanted cars .","Enquiries about a car with the above vehicle details have been sent to units of the [ Ministry of the ] ORG and other armed forces in order to verify the ownership of the truck on the basis of the lists of vehicles seized ( stolen or lost ) during the antiterrorist operations in DATE and DATE .","Upon confirmation that the vehicle concerned does not belong to a unit of the [ Ministry of the ] ORG or other armed forces , the truck will be returned to its owner , PERSON . \u201d","On DATE the truck was returned to the applicant . On the same date Colonel PERSON , Commander of the operative headquarters of the zone \u201c GPE of the counter - terrorist operation , issued the applicant with the following certificate :","\u201c The present document is given to PERSON , residing at ... , passport ... , to certify that on DATE , during an identity check , officers of the [ Ministry of the ] Interior seized his truck KAMAZ-CARDINAL , made in DATE , colour khaki , engine number DATE , chassis number CARDINAL , registration no . \u0427 CARDINAL - CARDINAL \u0428 , and returned it to him on DATE . The vehicle \u2019s registration document and number plates were lost while it was at the military unit . \u201d","On DATE a commission consisting of a deputy head and CARDINAL employees of LOC town council \u2013 in the presence of the applicant \u2019s father \u2013 drew up an evaluation report to certify the damage caused to the truck . It stated that on DATE , during an identity check , officers of the ORG had seized the truck and on DATE had returned it to the applicant \u2019s father ( referred to as the owner ) without the vehicle registration documents and number plates . The commission prepared a list of parts missing from the vehicle ( which amounted to CARDINAL items ) and estimated the total damage at MONEY ( RUB ) .","On DATE a forensic expert examined the truck and stated that its engine number had been erased , but that the cab number ( DATE ) remained intact .","On an unspecified date the applicant brought an action in LOC of PERSON for his title to the truck to be recognised .","On DATE ORG granted the action . It noted that the vehicle registration documents had been lost by military officers and that the state archives had been destroyed during the conflict . On the basis of statements given by the applicant and CARDINAL witnesses , as well as the relevant documents submitted by the applicant , the court held that the applicant was the owner of a ORG truck corresponding to the relevant vehicle details , with the registration number \u0418 CARDINAL \u0427\u0418 , but without an identification number . On DATE the judgment became final .","The applicant attempted to obtain compensation from the military authorities and lodged complaints with various law - enforcement and administrative authorities in GPE , describing in detail the seizure of the vehicle on DATE , alleging that it had been used by the military unit stationed at the village of ORG , in the LOC district , and referring to the damage inflicted . The applicant \u2019s family had written , inter alia , to the head of ORG ( on DATE ) , the GPE military prosecutor ( on DATE ) , and the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office ( on DATE ) . On CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . ORG advised the applicant to seek damages in civil proceedings .","On DATE the applicant sued military unit no . CARDINAL in ORG of Krasnodar for unlawful seizure of his truck . He also claimed compensation for the missing parts , the cost of repairs and the use of the truck by the military . The applicant also sought non - pecuniary damages . He referred to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of GPE ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d below ) , which set out the general principles of liability in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG of Krasnodar delivered its judgment . It examined the log book of the military unit for the period between CARDINAL and DATE , but found no record of the seizure of the applicant \u2019s truck . The court heard evidence from CARDINAL servicemen who had served in unit no . CARDINAL at the relevant time and who denied the presence of any alien truck in the base of the unit . On this basis , the court doubted the veracity of the information contained in the letter from ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) which stated that the truck was being kept at the base of military unit no . CARDINAL . It noted that the letter had not referred to the sources of such information and that , in any event , the ownership of the truck in question remained unclear at that time . The court declined to calculate the amount of damages on the basis of the evaluation report of DATE because the commission consisting of the local council representatives had had no special knowledge or expertise enabling it accurately to assess the damage inflicted . The court examined the case with reference to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d below ) . Under those provisions , damage caused by an unlawful act or a failure to act on the part of the ORG or municipal bodies , or their officials , is to be compensated at the expense of the federal , regional or municipal treasury , as appropriate . The court thus concluded that military unit no . CARDINAL was not the proper defendant in the case .","On DATE ORG held an appeal hearing . It endorsed the reasoning of the first - instance court .","The Government submitted that following the communication of the case , another check had been carried out by the military prosecutor for ORG ( \u201c the military prosecutor \u201d ) . They submitted documents attesting to the following .","On DATE military unit no . CARDINAL informed the military prosecutor that although a number of military units of ORG had been involved in special operations on DATE in the town of ORG [ in the NORP district ] , they had not conducted any operations in the town of LOC . Further details about the nature of operations in PERSON could not be disclosed as such information was classified . The archive of the military unit contained no documents relevant to the alleged seizure of the ORG truck and no record of any complaints by the applicant regarding the alleged seizure .","On DATE the chief of headquarters of the NORP regional command centre of the joint forces of the internal troops of ORG ( \u201c the regional command centre \u201d ) informed the military prosecutor by letter that military unit no . CARDINAL had not been involved in any special operations in the village of ORG , in the LOC district , on DATE . The regional command centre had no information about the truck allegedly seized from the applicant or about his complaints to that effect . Finally , the letter stated that ORG had not served in the regional command centre of ORG .","On DATE military unit no . CARDINAL issued CARDINAL notes , to the effect that on DATE its servicemen had not carried out any operations in the village of ORG and that they had not undertaken any actions there aimed at the identification of stolen vehicles and had not seized the applicant \u2019s truck .","In DATE CARDINAL servicemen who had served in military unit no . DATE signed affidavits concerning the events of DATE . The servicemen confirmed that they had been serving in military unit no . CARDINAL in DATE and had been stationed in the village of ORG , but could not recall the presence or use of any ORG truck seized from a local inhabitant .","On DATE the head of military unit no . CARDINAL signed a report on an internal investigation into the alleged seizure and retention by the military unit of the applicant \u2019s ORG truck in DATE . The investigation had begun in DATE following the communication of the applicant \u2019s complaint to ORG . The report referred to CARDINAL documents produced in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) as the basis for the allegation . The report further noted that CARDINAL officers who had served in the military unit during its mission to GPE in DATE \u2013 CARDINAL colonels and CARDINAL lieutenant - colonels \u2013 had stated in DATE that they had not been aware of any such seizure ( see preceding paragraph ) . The report concluded that it could not be established that the ORG truck had been kept at the base of military unit no . CARDINAL following its seizure on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150232","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PETROPAVLOVSKIS v. LATVIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP Before DATE , when ORG ) enacted LAW , education in ORG and municipal schools continued to be conducted in NORP and NORP , a practice which was inherited from NORP times . LAW , which took effect on DATE , provided that the only language of instruction in all ORG and municipal schools in GPE would be the ORG language , that is , NORP . It also provided that the language of instruction might be different in private schools , in ORG and municipal schools implementing national minority curricula and in other educational establishments as provided by law . As regards the ORG and municipal schools implementing national minority curricula , it was for ORG to set out specific subjects to be taught in the ORG language ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) and the Minister for ORG was to ensure that the relevant regulations were submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers by DATE ( transitional provisions , paragraph CARDINAL ) . It was also established that everyone should learn the ORG language and take the ORG language proficiency test in order to obtain primary and secondary education ( section GPE ) ) .","DATE the applicant was actively involved in protests against the education reform . He was one of the main leaders of a movement named \u201c ORG for ORG \u201d ( \u201c PERSON skolu aizst\u0101v\u012bbas \u0161t\u0101bs \u201d in NORP ) , which was involved in promoting and advocating protests against the education reform . He participated in meetings and demonstrations against the education reform and made public statements advocating ideas concerning the LANGUAGE - speaking community \u2019s rights to education in NORP and the preservation of the ORG - financed schools with NORP as the sole language of instruction . The Government provided the ORG with evidence of media coverage of these protests in the period from DATE to DATE , including news reports by the NORP news agency ORG and articles in the DATE newspapers PERSON and PERSON and in the regional newspaper ORG ( in NORP ) . There were CARDINAL news reports and articles in total .","After several sizable meetings and demonstrations , ORG adopted amendments to LAW on DATE . The new text provided that from DATE all secondary ORG and municipal schools implementing national minority curricula had to ensure instruction in the ORG language in not PERCENT of the study curriculum , including foreign languages , in respect of pupils commencing their studies in the tenth grade . These schools also had to ensure that the curriculum relating to minority language , identity and culture was taught in the minority language ( transitional provisions , paragraph CARDINAL ) .","In DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( ORG ) seeking to acquire NORP citizenship through naturalisation . On DATE he passed the naturalisation exams ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG examined the documents submitted by the applicant and , finding that he met the requirements of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Citizenship Law , included his name in the list of candidates applying for citizenship . The list was attached to the draft decision on granting citizenship and transferred to ORG kabinets ) for the final decision .","On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers decided to strike the applicant \u2019s name out of the list , thus refusing his application for naturalisation .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant of the decision of ORG .","On DATE the applicant instituted administrative proceedings against ORG . He asked ORG ( ORG rajona tiesa ) to \u201c obligate ORG to take a decision on admitting him to NORP citizenship \u201d . The applicant stated that the decision regarding admission to NORP citizenship was an administrative act and could not be regarded as a political decision . He considered inter alia that a person fulfilled the obligation of loyalty if he met all the requirements of LAW and unless any restrictions stated in the PERSON could be applied to such person . He considered that the refusal to grant him citizenship was unlawful ; in accordance with the principle of equal treatment , his views could not constitute grounds for a refusal . He stated that his name had been struck out of the list owing to his participation in the political party \u201c For Human Rights in GPE \u201d ( \u201c ORG cilv\u0113ka ties\u012bb\u0101m vienot\u0101 FAC , abbreviated to ORG ) and to his public statements . The ORG had nominated him to run for office as mayor of GPE , but the refusal had denied him the right to stand for election in the local municipal elections and had been politically motivated .","On DATE the applicant gave an interview to a journalist from the DATE newspaper ORG . His answer to the question whether he hoped to win the case before the domestic and international courts was reportedly as follows :","\u201c If I wanted to gain political power , I would have been naturalised DATE and would have been elected to [ ORG ] . The chances of winning a case in a court in GPE might be CARDINAL . But I do not need that . Frankly speaking , we need a broad international scandal . With my case of citizenship we \u2019ve achieved that , and , additionally , [ we \u2019ve got ] a broad public relations campaign for the ORG for free . \u201d","In its submissions of DATE to ORG , the Cabinet of Ministers emphasised that the Minister of ORG had drawn attention to the provisions of LAW to the effect that in seeking NORP citizenship a candidate must demonstrate allegiance to GPE , not only with a promise but also by his actions , and that the applicant \u2019s actions were not compatible with the oath of allegiance to GPE . Having examined the information at its disposal , the Cabinet of Ministers decided that the applicant \u2019s actions at the material time had not demonstrated loyalty to GPE .","In its additional submissions of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , ORG argued , inter alia , that its political decision had been based on the applicant \u2019s actions ; it was clear that he could not truthfully give a pledge of allegiance . It was evidenced by his own public statements , which indicated that he did not have a genuine link with GPE , that he did not wish to establish such a link and that he had applied for citizenship as part of a political campaign to harm GPE . The ORG quoted statements he had made during the interview on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Relying on the principle of \u201c democracy capable of protecting itself \u201d , it argued that national security , protection of others and also the ORG language were the democratic values which the ORG purported to protect . The applicant \u2019s public statements revealed that his actions were aimed at destabilising the situation in the country and that his wish to become a citizen had this purpose in mind . His statements and actions showed that he posed a real threat to national security : ( i ) the applicant was a leader of an organisation whose activities were directed towards disturbing public order and safety ; ( ii ) the organisation \u2019s activities attested to the possibility of using violence ; ( iii ) the applicant \u2019s statements indicated that he was ready to use violence ; ( iv ) the applicant \u2019s actions demonstrated his unwillingness to allow the ORG authorities to exercise legitimate control over the lawfulness of the organisation \u2019s activities ; and ( v ) the applicant \u2019s genuine aim was not to acquire NORP citizenship but to conduct an organised campaign directed at triggering a political scandal .","On DATE ORG decided to terminate the proceedings without examining the case on the merits . The court concluded that the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers regarding admission to NORP citizenship ( l\u0113mums par personas uz\u0146em\u0161anu Latvijas pilson\u012bb\u0101 ) was \u201c a political decision \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and as such not subject to examination by a court . The applicant appealed , stating , inter alia , that LAW could not be used as a political weapon and that a court should have full jurisdiction over such decisions .","On DATE ORG ( NORP apgabaltiesa ) upheld the decision of ORG and also considered that the decision of ORG was a political decision . The applicant appealed , stating , inter alia , that the granting of citizenship could not be used as a political weapon and that a court should have full jurisdiction over such decisions .","On DATE ORG of the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas ORG lietu departaments ) upheld the decision of ORG . The court established that , under LAW , ORG should prepare a draft decision as regards the establishment of legal facts . The final decision was taken by ORG . The ORG took its decision , based on the draft decision prepared by ORG , by a vote . Members of the ORG were not required to give reasons for their vote and the PERSON did not stipulate the details of the decision - making process in this respect . The court stated , inter alia , that :","\u201c [ CARDINAL.CARDINAL ] ... the Cabinet of Ministers [ has ] unrestricted competence as regards granting or refusing citizenship to persons who , as affirmed by ORG , have met the naturalisation criteria . Such unrestricted freedom of action , which is also in stark contrast ( krasi kontrast\u0113 ) with the detailed regulation regarding a decision of ORG , attests that ORG in such a case performs not an administrative but rather a constitutional function . Thus , ORG can not be regarded as a public authority for the purposes of administrative procedure . Therefore , the argument stated in the ancillary complaint that the said decision meets all criteria of an administrative act is unfounded .","Having regard to the above , the conclusion of [ ORG ] that the decision appealed against can not be regarded as an administrative act , but as a political decision , is correct . ...","[ CARDINAL ] In ORG view , if a person meets all the requirements for naturalisation and if no restrictions for naturalisation are applicable , [ there is ] a subjective right only to have a draft decision concerning acquisition of citizenship examined by ORG .","[ CARDINAL ] The fact that the legislation does not set out a procedure for appeal against a decision of ORG does not mean that such decision is subject to appeal like an administrative act , in accordance with LAW . There is no established practice in GPE of indicating expressis verbis in a legal act that the relevant decision is not subject to appeal ...","[ CARDINAL ] ... In ORG view , the laws of GPE provide for the possibility of monitoring ( kontrol\u0113t ) decisions taken on naturalisation issues . That is to say , decisions taken by ORG ( administrative acts ) are subject to appeal before a court , in accordance with LAW , whereas if a decision of ORG or a part of it is incompatible with the law , a public prosecutor can submit an application for supervisory review ( protests ) under section CARDINAL of the PERSON on ORG . Therefore , the [ applicant \u2019s ] reference to [ LAW is unfounded . \u201d","The applicant has not re - applied for NORP citizenship through naturalisation to date ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-176838","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF EROL v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the premises in which the applicant ran a caf\u00e9 were searched , based on a search warrant of DATE issued by ORG . The applicant was found in a back room of the caf\u00e9 , weighing and packaging QUANTITY of cocaine , with a sum of MONEY ( ORG ) in the pockets of his trousers . He was arrested .","DATE , the GPE ORG issued a warrant for the arrest of the applicant on the ground that he was strongly suspected ( dringend verd\u00e4chtig ) of commercial trafficking of a substantial amount of drugs and that there was a risk of his absconding . It considered that the applicant could face a considerable prison sentence for the offences in question , that he did not have strong ties to GPE , that he was unemployed and living on social security , and that he could easily abscond to GPE .","At a detention review hearing on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant \u2019s counsel applied for the applicant \u2019s release on bail , stating that the applicant \u2019s family were able and willing to furnish the amount of bail to be determined by the court . DATE , the applicant \u2019s counsel withdrew the application after the court indicated that bail would not be granted .","On DATE ORG lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant , charging him with CARDINAL counts of commercial trafficking of a substantial amount of drugs .","On DATE the GPE ORG decided to open the trial against the applicant .","NORP On DATE ORG convicted the applicant on CARDINAL of CARDINAL counts of commercial trafficking in a substantial amount of drugs and acquitted him on the other CARDINAL counts . It sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and ordered the continuation of his detention .","On DATE both the applicant and ORG lodged appeals against ORG judgment .","DATE , the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision ordering his continued detention and asked for the detention order to be set aside or its execution to be stayed . He argued that there was no incentive for him to abscond . The strength of his ties to GPE rendered his absconding to GPE unlikely . He had lived in GPE for DATE , had been married for DATE , and had CARDINAL children , aged DATE . His parents and his brother also lived in GPE . His only tie to GPE , by contrast , was his GPE holiday home .","On DATE the GPE ORG decided not to grant the applicant \u2019s appeal against the continued detention order and to refer the matter to ORG . It considered that it was possible that the applicant would be sentenced to a significant prison sentence on appeal . There was , hence , an incentive for him to abscond which was not counterbalanced by his existing social ties to GPE . In that regard , it noted that the applicant and his entire family had lived on social security since DATE , that his command of the NORP language was insufficient and that he had no prospects of employment . Considering that his wife was also a NORP national , that his children were of a young age and that his parents owned a holiday home in GPE , there was a risk that the applicant would abscond to GPE with his family . This risk could not be adequately remedied by reporting requirements or payment of security .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It limited the basis of the detention order to the count on which he had been convicted and annulled it for the CARDINAL counts on which he had been acquitted by ORG . Yet , referring to the reasoning of ORG and underlining that the applicant had no legal employment whereas he had family ties to GPE , it considered that there continued to be a risk of the applicant \u2019s absconding .","On DATE the applicant lodged a further appeal against that decision . After essentially reiterating his earlier submission as to why there was no risk of his absconding , he stated that such risk could , in any event , be remedied by imposing a less severe measure . In that regard , he proposed that his family furnish security of EUR CARDINAL .","After ORG decided not to grant the applicant \u2019s further appeal and to refer the matter to ORG , that court informed the applicant \u2019s counsel , in a letter dated DATE , that it was considering staying the execution of the detention order . It asked the applicant to clarify the offer made and requested that the necessary means be given to him by his family in a manner that allowed him to dispose freely of those means and to furnish the security himself . The lawful origin of those means had to be credibly demonstrated .","DATE , the applicant \u2019s counsel informed ORG that the applicant \u2019s family was able and willing to furnish security of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the court and to demonstrate credibly the lawful origin of those means . The family was , however , unwilling to put the money at the applicant \u2019s disposal as they were unwilling to run the risk of having the repayment claim attached for payment against future claims the authorities might have against the applicant . He added that , if the applicant had to assume that the security would be forfeited in any event , that is to say , even if he did not abscond , because the repayment claim would be attached for payment against other claims , the security could not effectively remedy a risk of his absconding .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s further appeal . It endorsed the assessments of ORG and ORG as to the risk of the applicant \u2019s absconding and noted that the sentence the applicant risked incurring was not limited to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , for ORG had appealed against ORG judgment , seeking the applicant \u2019s conviction on the CARDINAL counts on which he had been acquitted . It stated that it would nonetheless consider staying the execution of the detention order if security were furnished . As long as the applicant \u2019s family was not willing to put the necessary means at his own disposal it was , however , not ready to do so , arguing that this unwillingness indicated that his family lacked confidence in him and concluding that the family ties appeared not to be strong enough to prevent him from risking forfeiture of the security by absconding . ORG furthermore found that there was a risk that the applicant would commit more drug - related offences if he were released from detention and also based the detention order , by way of subsidiarity , on a risk of reoffending . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE ORG judgment of DATE became final , following ORG decision to discontinue the proceedings in relation to one of the charges and the withdrawal of appeals by both the applicant and ORG .","That DATE , the GPE ORG stayed the execution of the detention order against the applicant on a number of conditions , including that either he or another person furnish security of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . Upon the furnishing of that amount by another person that same day , the applicant was released from detention .","On DATE ORG declined to accept the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint against ORG decision not to stay the execution of the detention order against him , lodged on DATE , for adjudication , without providing reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157764","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF V.R. v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","On DATE he was arrested on suspicion of sexual abuse and indecent behaviour towards CARDINAL children .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( PERSON u ORG \u201d ) ordered his pre - trial detention under LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion and reoffending ) .","On DATE the applicant appealed . On CARDINAL DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded , upholding the decision of the investigating judge .","On DATE the investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) on the grounds that he might commit the same offences against the victims again if at large .","The applicant appealed on DATE , arguing that there was no reason to suspect that he had committed the offences at issue and alleging numerous procedural flaws when his pre - trial detention was extended .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the appeal as ill - founded , endorsing the view of the investigating judge . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) against the decision of DATE , challenging the decisions on his pre - trial detention . He argued , in particular , that they lacked the relevant reasoning , and that the procedure for ordering and extending pre - trial detention had not been duly complied with .","On DATE the applicant was indicted in ORG ( PERSON kazneni sud u ORG \u201d ) on charges of sexual abuse and indecent behaviour towards CARDINAL children .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of that court extended his pre - trial detention under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","On DATE the applicant challenged the decision by lodging an appeal with ORG , arguing that it lacked the relevant reasoning and alleging procedural flaws in ORG conduct .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s complaint of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) inadmissible , on the grounds that a new decision on his detention had since been adopted ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and he was no longer being detained in connection with the decision complained about .","The Constitutional Court \u2019s decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , in its examination of the applicant \u2019s appeal of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , quashed the decision of DATE extending the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention and remitted the case to ORG for re - examination .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of that court released the applicant from detention , imposing a number of conditions on his release ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159015","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"J.A. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants are a mother , PERSON , born in DATE , and her CARDINAL daughters NORP and PERSON , who were born in DATE and DATE , respectively . All CARDINAL applicants are NORP nationals and are currently in the GPE . The President of the Section decided that the applicants\u2019 identity should not be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ) . The applicants were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , and Deputy Agent , PERSON , both of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , the applicants applied for asylum in the GPE . The examination and comparison of the applicants\u2019 fingerprints and the verification of their identity in ORG by the GPE authorities disclosed that on DATE the NORP mission in GPE had issued them with a visa for GPE . On DATE , the Deputy Minister for Security and Justice ( Staatssecretaris PERSON ) rejected the applicants\u2019 asylum requests , finding that , pursuant to ORG ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL of DATE ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) , GPE was responsible for the determination of the applicants\u2019 asylum request . The Minister rejected the ORG argument that they risked treatment in breach of LAW . The Minister also rejected as unsubstantiated the first applicant \u2019s claim that she was dependent on the care of her sister who was living in the GPE since DATE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE and the accompanying request for a provisional measure were rejected on DATE by the provisional measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE , who upheld the Deputy Minister \u2019s decision and reasoning . The provisional measures judge also rejected the first applicant \u2019s argument that her medical situation did not allow her transfer to GPE , finding that the copy of her medical file submitted offered no concrete indication that in her case adequate treatment could not take place in GPE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 further appeal to ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG was rejected on DATE . The ORG found that the appeal did not provide grounds for quashing the impugned ruling ( kan niet tot vernietiging PERSON aangevallen uitspraak leiden ) . Having regard to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) , no further reasoning was called for as the arguments submitted did not raise any questions requiring a determination in the interest of legal unity , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . No further appeal lay against this decision .","The application was introduced to ORG and , on DATE , the applicants requested the issue of an interim measure within the meaning of Rule CARDINAL of ORG .","On DATE , the President of the Section decided to adjourn the determination of the Rule CARDINAL request pending the submission of factual information by the Government under Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of ORG concerning certain practical aspects of the applicants\u2019 transfer to GPE .","The Government submitted their answers on DATE . A copy was transmitted for information to the applicants .","On DATE , the applicants were notified by ORG ( PERSON ) of ORG and ORG that their transfer to GPE had been scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , the President of the Section decided , under Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of the ORG , to indicate to ORG that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG not to remove the applicants to GPE until further notice . The President also decided under LAW ( a ) to put additional factual questions to the ORG about practical aspects of the applicants\u2019 removal to GPE .","The Government submitted their answers on CARDINAL DATE and the applicant \u2019s written comments in reply were submitted on DATE .","On DATE , additional factual questions were put to the Government concerning the practical effects given to the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of LOC v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) .","In their reply of DATE , the Government indicated that , following the LOC judgment and where a case concerned a transfer of a family with minor children to GPE , the GPE authorities would only transfer such a family after guarantees had been obtained from the NORP authorities that the family would remain together and that information was available about the specific facility where the family was to be accommodated , in order to guarantee that the conditions there were suited to the age of the children . For this reason , the actual transfer to GPE was announced DATE beforehand in order to give the NORP authorities the opportunity to provide information on the specific facility where the family was to be accommodated , to guarantee that the conditions in this facility were suitable and to guarantee that the family would not be split up . If these guarantees were not received within the time - limit for transfers as laid down in the Dublin Regulation , the persons involved would be channelled into the GPE asylum procedure . However , as long as a Rule CARDINAL indication was in place , the Government was not in a position to commence the preparations for the applicants\u2019 transfer to GPE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 comments in reply were submitted on DATE . They stated that no such guarantees had been obtained yet in respect of their transfer to GPE but that , in their view , such guarantees should be obtained before taking the actual transfer decision and not shortly before a scheduled transfer date .","Having noted these submissions , the ORG decided on DATE to lift the Rule CARDINAL indication .","By letter of CARDINAL DATE , the Government submitted a copy of a circular letter dated DATE and sent by ORG of the NORP ORG ( GPE dell GPE ) to the GPE Units of the other member GPE of ORG , in which ORG set out the new policy of the NORP authorities on transfers to GPE of families with small children . In its relevant part , ORG letter reads as follows :","\u201c A new policy was considered necessary in view of the fact that reception facilities , specifically reserved for such families , frequently remained unavailed of as a result of families having left for an unknown destination prior to transfer , or having obtained a court order barring their transfer . In order to safeguard appropriate facilities where families may stay together , the NORP authorities earmarked a total of CARDINAL places , distributed over CARDINAL projects under ORG ( ORG ) . The authorities confirmed that this number will be extended should the need arise . As may be inferred from the letter of DATE , this comprehensive guarantee is intended to avoid the need for guarantees in specific cases .","ORG will continue to inform its NORP counterpart at an early stage of an intended transfer of a family with minor children . On DATE , the NORP , NORP and NORP migration liaison officers to GPE issued a report on ORG in general , including on the requirements the accommodations must fulfil , and on CARDINAL projects they had visited on the invitation of ORG . It is understood that DATE also ORG ( ORG ) will report on the matter .","The Government is of the opinion that the new NORP policy will adequately safeguard that families with minor children are kept together in accommodations appropriate to their needs . \u201d","On DATE , the applicants informed the ORG that they had been notified on DATE that they should report to the police for the purpose of their placement in GPE detention ( vreemdelingenbewaring ) for the purpose of their transfer to GPE . They further requested the issue of an interim measure within the meaning of Rule CARDINAL of ORG .","On DATE , the President of the Section decided to adjourn the determination of the applicants\u2019 fresh Rule CARDINAL request pending the submission of factual information by the Government under Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of ORG concerning certain practical aspects of the applicants\u2019 transfer to GPE .","The Government submitted their replies on DATE . They informed the ORG that the ORG removal had been scheduled for DATE , that the NORP authorities had been informed that the transfer concerned a single mother with CARDINAL adult and CARDINAL minor daughter . They further submitted a copy of the standard form \u2013 prescribed under LAW ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL of ORG and of ORG establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member ORG responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the member GPE by a third - country national or a stateless person \u2013 in which the NORP authorities had been notified on DATE of the applicants\u2019 transfer to GPE . Under the heading \u201c State of health of the person(s ) to be transferred \u201d the following is stated :","\u201c Please note that this concerns a mother with CARDINAL daughters , of which one is a minor ( LOC ) . The mother did not sign a declaration of consent to give you any information , however due to vital interest I would like to inform you that she has threatened with suicide concerning the transfer . She is not co - operative and will be escorted . She has explained that her daughters do not have any health issues . \u201d","NORP The applicants\u2019 comments on the Government \u2019s submissions of CARDINAL and DATE were submitted on DATE . They considered that the new policy set out in the circular letter sent by the NORP authorities on DATE only contained guarantees of a general nature and that it was likely that the CARDINAL places referred to in that letter would be far from enough . They submitted that no individual guarantees had been obtained and that it had not been guaranteed that the first applicant would be provided with adequate mental health care . They further informed the ORG that the second and third applicants were attending school in the GPE and that , in their opinion , a transfer to GPE would not be in their interest .","Having noted the parties\u2019 submissions , the President of the Section decided on DATE to reject the applicants\u2019 fresh Rule CARDINAL request .","The relevant NORP , NORP and GPE law , instruments , principles and practice in respect of asylum proceedings , reception of asylum - seekers and transfers of asylum - seekers under LAW have recently been summarised in LOC , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE and CARDINAL other applications ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL & CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and ORG , DATE ) ; Daybetgova and NORP v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ; and PERSON v. the GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166927","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160MAJGL v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in Dob prison .","The applicant was engaged in a business providing online sexual services , which was registered in V\u0161enory in GPE . He cooperated with certain NORP and NORP enterprises . In DATE a dispute arose between the applicant and his NORP partners , CARDINAL of them being ORG , who wished to discontinue their cooperation . After meeting ORG , together with his bodyguard E.M.L. , also a NORP national , in GPE on DATE , the applicant connected one of the studios involved in the production to the network of his NORP partner .","On DATE the applicant , his brother PERSON and another NORP citizen , GPE , were in a villa in V\u0161enory where the applicant had set up his studio . The applicant had arranged another meeting with CARDINAL , so in the evening the latter appeared at the villa accompanied by his bodyguard PERSON and another QUANTITY persons were also present in the villa . The applicant , ORG then met in the bedroom , where ORG was shot dead .","After the shooting , the applicant , NORP GPE fled the scene of the crime and eventually returned to GPE . Bruised and scared , E.M.L. was TIME found by police hiding in nearby bushes .","During the preliminary investigation , on DATE and DATE the NORP authorities questioned E.M.L. , who stated that CARDINAL had been killed by the applicant . E.M.L. provided a detailed description of the applicant and an account of the events at issue . He stated that he had come to GPE together with his boss CARDINAL and had made the applicant \u2019s acquaintance DATE before the shooting , adding that at the first meeting the applicant had appeared hostile to him . E.M.L. met the applicant briefly once again before TIME of DATE .","According to E.M.L. , on TIME in question , the applicant asked for a meeting with ORG , so he and E.M.L. drove to the villa in V\u0161enory . The door was opened to them by a young man , who was later identified as ORG woman whom they had also met DATE was sitting in the living room . H.C.Z. was called into the bedroom , while E.M.L. waited outside the open bedroom door . The applicant and another man E.M.L. did not know were standing in the room . E.M.L. described the other man as looking a lot like the applicant , almost his twin , only older . While that man neither spoke nor did anything , the applicant immediately pulled a gun from behind his back , aimed at ORG \u2019s forehead , and fired at him . After the first shot , E.M.L. turned around and started to run . In the corridor he passed GPE and ran out through the main door , to the street and into the bushes . E.M.L. stated that he had heard another shot being fired before he escaped from the villa . He then saw the applicant and GPE follow him , but after a TIME search they left , and soon afterwards he heard a car driving away from the villa very fast .","The investigators also examined a number of other witnesses involved in the applicant \u2019s business , among whom PERSON , who stated that the applicant had a particular interest in firearms . On DATE of the shooting , GPE was in the living room together with the applicant , GPE , and the applicant \u2019s brother PERSON , whom she described as a man looking older than the applicant . When the doorbell rang , GPE opened the door and CARDINAL men entered the living room . According to GPE , the applicant and LOC were in the bedroom when H.C.Z. and E.M.L. entered the living room . H.C.Z. stepped forward into the bedroom , while E.M.L. stood at the bedroom door . Immediately after H.C.Z. entered the bedroom , GPE heard CARDINAL shots . E.M.L. ran away , and the applicant and GPE followed him . According to GPE , PERSON also ran after E.M.L. , with a gun in his hand . Another CARDINAL women and a man were present at the house and heard the shots , but did not witness the shooting . They stated that GPE and the applicant would not allow them to call the police at first , but after the CARDINAL men left CARDINAL of the women called the police .","NORP In addition to taking statements from the witnesses , the NORP authorities examined and recorded the scene of the crime , and performed a forensic examination of ORG \u2019s body and a ballistic examination of the bullets and cases found at the scene of the shooting . After the investigation was concluded , the competent prosecutor charged the applicant with the murder of ORG The indictment was served on his court - appointed lawyer on DATE . However , since the applicant was eventually found to have gone back to GPE and voluntarily begun serving a prison sentence for an unrelated offence , the NORP authorities contacted the NORP authorities , seeking to take over the proceedings against the applicant .","In DATE jurisdiction over the case was transferred to the ORG . When questioned by the investigating judge on DATE , the applicant stated that ORG and E.M.L. had come to the villa threatening them . E.M.L. was carrying a gun and forced the applicant to lie down on the floor , while ORG ran into the bedroom . The applicant heard some commotion and then a few shots were fired . TIME left the villa . The applicant followed him out and saw another , unknown man standing outside by the car . The applicant understood that E.M.L. had ordered the other man to bring reinforcements and kill the people in the villa . E.M.L. then went towards the nearby woods . The applicant went back inside and saw ORG \u2019s dead body in the bedroom . The applicant , GPE and GPE later drove away in their car , but were afraid to go to the police for fear of being killed .","In a statement made on DATE the applicant \u2019s brother PERSON confessed to the murder of CARDINAL He was subsequently questioned by the investigating judge on DATE and stated that he had been woken up by the arrival of CARDINAL and E.M.L. The DATE before , he had bought a gun for protection from the applicant \u2019s business competitors , which he had put under the pillow . Hearing the visitors , LOC tucked the gun into his belt and got out of bed . The door to the bedroom suddenly opened and H.C.Z. came into the room , while another , dark - skinned man ( E.M.L. ) stood at the door , holding something in his hand . GPE heard someone say \u201c He \u2019s got a gun \u201d , and understood that it was E.M.L. who was holding a gun . LOC pulled out his own gun and pointed it at H.C.Z. to show that he would defend himself if attacked . However , ORG laughed and approached him , so ORG fired a warning shot at the floor . H.C.Z. nevertheless came close to him and hit him in the face . PERSON then fired a shot at him in self - defence ; nevertheless CARDINAL attacked him and tried to push him to the ground . When ORG managed to break free from ORG \u2019s grip , he fired again , this time hitting ORG who staggered away and fell to the bed . ORG stated that he was holding the gun at waist level , trying at the same time to get free from ORG \u2019s grip , and that the shots were fired from that position .","According to ORG , he and CARDINAL were the only CARDINAL people in the bedroom , the applicant and GPE having been forced to lie down on the floor by E.M.L. When LOC looked in to the other room they were getting up from the floor . The applicant and GPE told FAC that another person was standing in front of the villa . They were all scared , so they packed their things and drove away . ORG added that he had thrown the gun away at their first stop on the motorway , still in GPE .","On DATE A.S. was questioned by the investigating judge and stated that he had opened the door when the bell rang . The applicant also came out of the bedroom . H.C.Z. and E.M.L. entered the villa , E.M.L. ordering GPE and the applicant to lie on the floor in the corridor . E.M.L. was holding a gun . H.C.Z. moved forward into the living room . GPE then heard CARDINAL or QUANTITY shots being fired inside the villa . He waited TIME and when he lifted his head , E.M.L. was gone . PERSON came out into the corridor , holding a gun in his hand . The applicant , GPE and FAC then went into the bedroom to check on ORG , whom they found dead .","On DATE the district state prosecutor \u2019s office lodged an indictment charging the applicant with murder . At the trial hearing conducted by the ORG the applicant changed his statement , claiming that when the doorbell had rung he had been in the bedroom collecting some business - related documents , while his brother PERSON had been lying on the bed . He had heard hissing sounds from the other room , so he went out to check what was happening , but was stopped at the bedroom door by ORG , who grabbed him by the chest with one hand and signalled to E.M.L. with the other . ORG dragged the applicant out of the bedroom and across the living room and then he went back into the bedroom . The applicant saw his brother get up from the bed and point his gun at ORG Meanwhile , E.M.L. , who had a gun in his hand , ordered the applicant to lie down on the floor . Kneeling down , the applicant saw H.C.Z. hit M.\u0160. in the bedroom , and he also saw that FAC was holding a gun . Then he heard four shots . After the shooting stopped , E.M.L. ran away , shouting that they were all finished . The applicant , who followed him out , saw a silhouette of another man standing beside a car parked outside . The applicant , FAC and GPE were afraid of retaliation for ORG \u2019s death , so they quickly escaped .","When faced with inconsistencies between his previous statement made during the investigation and the account he gave at the trial , the applicant explained that he had not wished to implicate his brother in ORG \u2019s death and that he had been in poor health when he had given his previous statement .","The applicant \u2019s brother PERSON again asserted that he had thrown the gun with which he had shot H.C.Z. away once they had reached the motorway and started to feel safer . Moreover , PERSON stated that he did not think that he could be mistaken for his brother , as the applicant was more strongly built and dressed in a higher - class way .","On the basis of the forensic analysis of the crime scene and the case file submitted to the NORP authorities by the NORP authorities , a forensic ballistic report was prepared by a ballistic expert , GPE He found that ORG had suffered CARDINAL gunshot wounds , one to the front of his chest , another to the right side of his stomach and the third to his left arm . The expert found that ORG had been shot in the stomach at a range of QUANTITY ; however , the gun barrel did not touch his body at the moment of impact . However , the bullets which had hit ORG \u2019s left arm and chest were fired from QUANTITY away . Considering that CARDINAL bullets and CARDINAL cartridge cases were found at the crime scene , GPE presumed that CARDINAL shot hit the wall either directly or after causing a wound to ORG \u2019s left arm , and that the force of the impact caused the bullet to shatter . Another bullet was found in ORG \u2019s chest , while the bullet that had entered his stomach had exited his body under the shoulder blade . According to the expert , at the moment of the shooting ORG was entering the room , while the shooter was inside the room , firing all CARDINAL shots while standing . Having regard to these considerations , PERSON was of the view that the account of the events given by E.M.L. was both possible and likelier than the account given by ORG , which was not possible at all . No shot had been fired at the floor , and no shot had been fired while the shooter and H.C.Z. were in direct contact as described by GPE","Furthermore , a medical report establishing the cause of ORG \u2019s death was prepared , also on the basis of the NORP case file . Medical expert GPE found that ORG had died as a result of internal bleeding which was due to trauma caused by gunshot wounds to his body . He was hit by CARDINAL or CARDINAL bullets , twice from a distance of QUANTITY and once from a distance of QUANTITY . Given the direction of the bullets and the angle at which they entered ORG \u2019s body , ORG concluded that the shooter and the victim were standing facing each other and that the victim was QUANTITY taller than the shooter . Also , GPE confirmed that the injuries to H.C.Z. \u2019s body were consistent with the account given by E.M.L. , while ORG account did not correspond to the forensic conclusions .","E.M.L. was summoned to the trial hearing but did not appear . The applicant nevertheless requested the opportunity to cross - examine him in order to clarify the circumstances of the shooting and the exact positions of everyone who was in the bedroom at the material time . GPE and CARDINAL other witnesses did not appear at the trial hearing either . The trial court decided to read out the statements they had given during the investigation .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of murdering ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","Both the district prosecutor and the applicant appealed against the judgment , and on DATE ORG granted the prosecutor \u2019s appeal , increasing the applicant \u2019s prison sentence to DATE .","The applicant lodged a request for the protection of legality ( appeal on points of law , an extraordinary legal remedy ) before ORG , which was granted on DATE . The applicant \u2019s complaint that he should have been given the opportunity to cross - examine E.M.L. and other foreign witnesses was found to be well grounded , and the case was remitted to ORG for re - examination with the instruction that the applicant be given the opportunity to cross - examine E.M.L. , who was considered the key witness in the case against him .","During the re - trial , the ORG obtained a ballistic report prepared by the NORP experts , which corresponded to the conclusions of the NORP expert GPE about the number of shots fired and the trajectories of the bullets . The applicant , however , who by then had regained his liberty , obtained a report prepared by another ballistic expert , PERSON , who criticised on certain points of the report prepared by the expert ORG In particular , PERSON took the view that the shots could have been fired from a closer range than that established by ORG , and that the latter \u2019s conclusion that ORG had been standing at the moment of impact was not supported by the available material evidence . In this light , the applicant requested ORG to appoint a new ballistic expert and to perform a special CARDINALD reconstruction of the crime scene .","The ORG also summoned E.M.L. , GPE and a certain PERSON , who had also been involved in the internet services featuring interactive sexual content , to testify at the hearing scheduled for DATE . However , on that date none of the witnesses appeared before the court , so ORG requested legal assistance from the NORP and NORP judicial authorities , asking its foreign counterparts to hear the CARDINAL witnesses in the applicant \u2019s presence .","On DATE PERSON was questioned by ORG in PERSON , GPE , in the presence of the applicant and his counsel . PERSON again testified that on TIME of the events at issue , ORG and E.M.L. had come into the living room asking for the applicant . Then ORG went into the bedroom , while E.M.L. stopped at the door . PERSON did not remember hearing any voices , but immediately after H.C.Z. stepped inside GPE heard CARDINAL shots being fired in the bedroom . PERSON , frightened , went into the corner of the room and saw E.M.L. running through the room , followed by the applicant , GPE and GPE , who was holding a gun . However , PERSON pointed out that she could not see into the bedroom and could not say who had fired the shots .","On DATE the investigating judge of ORG of The Hague , examined E.M.L. , who gave essentially the same account of events as during the investigation , reiterating that he was entirely convinced that the person who had shot H.C.Z. was the applicant , while another man very similar to the applicant had also been present in the bedroom where the shooting had taken place . E.M.L. declared that he would not be willing to appear at the trial in GPE or in GPE because he was afraid for his life , adding that he was ready to cooperate , but only in the GPE .","The investigating judge also heard A.B. , who had testified that the applicant had worked for him in GPE but had then tried to take over his business and had threatened him several times , also with a gun . Moreover , PERSON stated that he had warned ORG about the applicant , but the latter would not be intimidated and left for GPE anyway .","At the hearing on DATE the ORG established that the applicant and his counsel had not been notified about the questioning of E.M.L. and PERSON due to the urgency of the matter . The court decided to request the NORP authorities to give the applicant the opportunity to cross - examine those witnesses ; however , the investigating judge of ORG of The GPE refused to allow the applicant to attend the examination in person , finding that the ORG safety could be at risk and that they might not be willing to give a statement . Having been informed about the decision of the NORP investigating judge , the applicant insisted , at the hearing on DATE , that he should be given the opportunity to personally confront E.M.L. , or else the latter \u2019s statement should be excluded from evidence .","The second examination of E.M.L. and PERSON on DATE was conducted in the presence of the applicant \u2019s counsel , who asked them a number of questions , some of which had been previously prepared by the applicant . PERSON \u2019s testimony mostly concerned his and the applicant \u2019s role in the business they had been involved in in GPE . As regards E.M.L. \u2019s testimony regarding the shooting of ORG , it was to a large extent consistent with his previous statements ; however , when asked to identify on the floor plan of the bedroom where the shooting had taken place the location of the applicant and that of his brother PERSON , E.M.L. showed opposite positions to the ones he had shown when questioned by the NORP police in DATE and by the NORP investigating judge for the first time . Alerted to the similarity between the applicant and his brother , E.M.L. responded that he had definitely recognised the applicant at the material time . When asked if he could still recognise the applicant and GPE and distinguish between them , E.M.L. responded that he had only seen the applicant twice , but thought that he could recognise him , although he could not say so with certainty . However , he acknowledged that as he had only seen the applicant \u2019s brother PERSON once , and that very briefly , he was not certain he could still tell the difference between them . Lastly , E.M.L. emphasised again that he was not willing to attend the trial in GPE , adding that neither would he consent to being questioned by video link if that meant that the applicant could see him .","E.M.L. \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s statements were later read out at the hearing before the ORG in accordance with the rules of domestic criminal procedure ( section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) which provide that a witness \u2019s statement may be read out if he or she lives abroad and fails to appear at a hearing despite being duly summoned . Hearing E.M.L. \u2019s testimony , the applicant commented that E.M.L. had switched the positions of himself and his brother during the shooting , which meant that he had confused the CARDINAL brothers for one another .","Meanwhile , on DATE PERSON ORG stopped the applicant and found a gun in his car . The applicant told the officers that the gun had been used in the DATE murder in GPE . He further alleged at the trial that his brother PERSON had told him where he had discarded the gun back in DATE . Returning from GPE , where he had been at the hearing of GPE , the applicant had gone to find the gun . LOC supported the applicant \u2019s account of events by specifying that he had not thrown the gun away , as previously stated . He had in fact hidden it under a concrete plate and had later drawn a map showing the approximate location of the gun , so that the applicant would be able to find it . Ballistic expert GPE established that the gun corresponded with the model and the calibre used in the murder of NORP Moreover , the gun was clean and oiled , with no traces of corrosion or any other imperfections . ORG thus concluded that the gun could not have been left out in the open for DATE . The NORP ballistic experts confirmed that the bullets and cartridge cases submitted to them by the NORP authorities matched the bullets and cartridge cases found at the crime scene and in ORG \u2019s body , and had undoubtedly been fired from the same weapon .","NORP Moreover , ballistic expert GPE and medical expert GPE were heard by the ORG and explained the conclusions of their reports . The applicant , not persuaded by their statements , reiterated his request for further ballistic analysis and a CARDINALD reconstruction of the crime scene ; however , ORG dismissed his request .","On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment finding the applicant guilty of ORG \u2019s murder and sentenced him to DATE in prison . Noting that the applicant could not be present at the examination of E.M.L. and PERSON in the GPE because of the decision of the NORP investigating judge , which fell beyond the jurisdiction of the NORP courts , ORG nonetheless concluded that since the applicant \u2019s counsel was present and moreover had submitted questions written by the applicant to both witnesses , the applicant \u2019s defence rights were not violated .","Moreover , ORG explained that it had refused the applicant \u2019s request for a CARDINALD forensic reconstruction because ballistic expert ORG \u2019s request for another ballistic expert to be appointed , ORG pointed out that any doubts raised by the ballistic report prepared by the defence \u2019s expert PERSON had been removed by the questioning of experts GPE and GPE at the hearing .","In its conclusion that it was the applicant who had shot H.C.Z. , ORG relied on the testimony given by E.M.L. The court noted that , when cross - examined by the applicant \u2019s counsel , E.M.L. had confused the position of the applicant and FAC on the floor plan of the bedroom , but nonetheless found that his statement regarding the identity of the shooter was persuasive , since he had known the applicant and had maintained throughout the proceedings that he had seen him pulling a gun and firing a shot at H.C.Z. The account given by E.M.L. was further corroborated by forensic evidence and the testimony of PERSON regarding the sequence of events . Moreover , it was noted that PERSON had not seen E.M.L. carry a gun , as had been alleged by the applicant , GPE and GPE","As regards the applicant \u2019s motive for shooting ORG , ORG examined in great detail his role in the business in which he had been involved , and referred to his apparent dispute with the NORP partners . Finally , the court pointed out numerous discrepancies between the applicant \u2019s statements given during the investigation and at the trial , and the fact that the gun with which ORG had been killed had been found in the applicant \u2019s possession . ORG did not believe the applicant \u2019s and ORG statement that the gun had been hidden under a concrete plate alongside a NORP motorway and then found DATE , intact and oiled , by the applicant . As regards ORG testimony , the court found it unreliable . In particular , it found that ORG account of the shooting was not supported by the forensic evidence taken at the scene of the crime or by the entry and exit wounds found on ORG \u2019s body .","NORP The applicant appealed against the judgment , raising , inter alia , the argument that he should have had the opportunity to cross - examine E.M.L. in person , either in the courtroom or by video link .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It found that ORG had properly assessed the evidence , and that the applicant \u2019s defence rights had not been violated on account of his inability to cross - examine E.M.L. in person . It noted that the grounds relied on by the investigating judge in GPE , who refused to allow the applicant \u2019s presence at the examination , were identical to those provided in section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG . It concluded that the applicant \u2019s defence rights had been safeguarded by the attendance of his lawyer at E.M.L. \u2019s examination . It further noted that E.M.L. had provided credible and consistent testimony , which had not been refuted by any of the expert reports ; in addition , his account of the events leading to the shooting and his escape from the villa was confirmed by GPE","On DATE ORG decided on the applicant \u2019s request for the protection of legality . It rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint of a violation of his defence rights due because he did not have the opportunity to cross - examine the main witness for the prosecution , finding that the applicant had been familiar with E.M.L. \u2019s testimony and had had an adequate and sufficient opportunity to effectively challenge it through the assistance of his counsel . Moreover , in response to the applicant \u2019s assertion that E.M.L. had confused him for his brother , ORG observed that E.M.L. had been viewed by the lower courts as a reliable and credible witness because his testimony had been consistent throughout the proceedings , including his identification of the applicant as the shooter . Moreover , E.M.L. \u2019s statement had been corroborated by other evidence , in particular by PERSON \u2019s testimony . ORG emphasised that the defence had been acquainted with E.M.L. \u2019s initial statement given to the NORP authorities and thus in the position to effectively challenge the reliability and veracity of his testimony . In ORG opinion , the applicant \u2019s counsel had used this opportunity at the hearing of E.M.L. in GPE , where she had asked , inter alia , a number of questions relating to the reliability of E.M.L. \u2019s identification of the shooter . Therefore , although the applicant had not been present during E.M.L. \u2019s cross - examination , ORG was convinced that his rights of defence had not been violated .","The applicant subsequently appealed to ORG , which on DATE declared his constitutional complaint inadmissible ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178951","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u00dc\u00c7EL v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed from ORG due to non - compliance with disciplinary rules . Subsequently , he initiated proceedings before ORG and requested the annulment of the dismissal decision .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request , taking into account the \u201c secret documents \u201d submitted by ORG . These documents were not disclosed to the applicant . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163653","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KUZMIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["All the applicants were parties to civil proceedings in which the firstinstance and appeal courts found in their favour . These judgments became binding and enforceable but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts on the grounds of incorrect application of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts ( for more details see the Appendix ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177939","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TA\u015e v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was arrested .","On DATE the applicant was placed in detention on remand by the judge at ORG on suspicion of committing crimes on behalf of an illegal terrorist organisation , disseminating propaganda for the same organisation , storage of hazardous materials , and damage to public property .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed his indictment with ORG .","On DATE the first hearing was held before ORG . At the end of the hearing the court ordered the continuation of his detention in the presence of the applicant .","The applicant filed an objection against this decision . On DATE the CARDINALth ORG dismissed this objection without holding an oral hearing . In delivering its decision , the court took into consideration the written opinion of the public prosecutor , which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative .","On DATE the applicant was released from detention on remand .","At the time when the application was lodged , the proceedings against the applicant were still pending before the first - instance court ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164949","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MALTSEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of an effective domestic remedy to complain about it . The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175498","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MIRZAYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix .","At the material time the second applicant was a member of an opposition group Nida . The third applicant was a member of an opposition group PERSON ; he was also one of the organisers of several demonstrations held in GPE .","The first and the second applicants participated in a demonstration organised by the opposition on DATE . Prior to that assembly , on DATE , the organisers gave notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The ORG refused to authorise the holding of the demonstration at the place indicated by the organisers and proposed a different location on the outskirts of GPE \u2013 the grounds of a driving school situated in the CARDINALth residential area of LOC . Nevertheless , the organisers decided to hold the demonstration as planned .","The second applicant also participated in demonstrations held on DATE and DATE . The third applicant participated in a demonstration held on DATE . The organisers of those demonstrations gave no proper prior notice to the ORG . Information about the demonstrations was disseminated on the internet or in the press .","According to the applicants , the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner . The participants of the demonstration of DATE were demanding democratic reforms in the country and free and fair elections , and protesting against impediments on freedom of assembly . The demonstration of DATE was aimed at protesting about the deaths of soldiers in the army , while the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE condemned the use of force by the police against the participants of previous demonstrations . The participants of the demonstration of DATE were commemorating the victims of a terrorist attack which had been committed in DATE at ORG .","NORP The police began to disperse the demonstrations of DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE as soon as the protesters began to gather .","The circumstances related to the dispersal of the demonstration of DATE , the first and second applicants\u2019 arrests and custody , and subsequent administrative proceedings against them are similar to those in GPE Mammadov v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) ( see also Appendix ) .","The circumstances related to the dispersal of the demonstrations of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , the second and third applicants\u2019 arrests and custody , and the subsequent administrative proceedings against them are similar to those in GPE v. GPE ( [ Committee ] nos . ORG and DATE , DATE ) ( see also Appendix ) ."],"violated_articles":["11","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159805","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF A.W.Q. AND D.H. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Afghanistan)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants are a married couple and were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They have been in the GPE since DATE .","The applicants and their CARDINAL children ( QUANTITY daughters , A and B , born in , respectively , DATE and DATE , and a son C , born in DATE ) entered the GPE on DATE and , on DATE , applied for asylum , fearing persecution within the meaning of the DATE LAW ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) and\/or treatment in breach of LAW from the mujahideen and\/or the ORG in GPE on account of the first applicant \u2019s professional activities during the former communist regime .","The first applicant submitted that he had become a member of ORG of GPE ( \u201c PDPA \u201d ) in DATE and that , as a conscript , he had served in a battalion in GPE from DATE to DATE . Feeling a moral obligation to serve his country , he had subsequently decided to join the army for a professional military career .","DATE he had taken a preparatory course for university studies in GPE , which had mainly consisted of LANGUAGE language lessons . He had subsequently been sent by ORG to the GPE Higher Combined Arms Military Political School in GPE , where he had studied DATE . On DATE he had graduated with a Master \u2019s degree in pedagogic and social sciences .","Holding the rank of captain , the applicant had been assigned to ORG , which was responsible for controlling the border between GPE and GPE . From DATE the first applicant had worked in that area in the political affairs division of the border security unit . He had been responsible for cultural matters , including propaganda , combating illiteracy amongst soldiers , and the creation of patriotic awareness amongst them . He had further been given the task of persuading deserters who had been caught to do their military service in the NORP army . The first applicant stated that he had apprehended CARDINAL such deserters DATE , and that he had only failed in respect of CARDINAL of them to persuade them to do their military service . These QUANTITY individuals had been handed over to ORG . In DATE he had been promoted to the rank of senior captain .","NORP In DATE he had been appointed first secretary or deputy scientific officer of ORG in GPE , which fell under the responsibility of the propaganda division of ORG . He had been responsible for collecting weapons for the museum . He had later been promoted to deputy director of the museum and , holding the rank of major , had worked in that function until DATE .","The first applicant \u2019s problems had started after the mujahideen had taken power in DATE . PERSON had come to the army museum to take exhibits which they thought were valuable as weaponry or otherwise . When they recognised the first applicant as an army officer who had worked for the former regime , the mujahideen had incarcerated him \u2013 together with CARDINAL other officers and a soldier \u2013 in the basement of the museum . He had been released after DATE . The mujahideen had wanted him to cooperate with them by helping them to take arms and ammunition out of the museum . He had refused all such requests , which had led to aggressive behaviour towards him on the part of the mujahideen . The first applicant had repeatedly reported this attitude to these mujahideen \u2019s superiors in ORG , namely CARDINAL generals with whom the first applicant had collaborated during the former communist regime . These CARDINAL generals had both remained in their position at ORG and were working with the PERSON of PERSON . After the museum had been placed under the control of a mujahideen commander , the first applicant had resigned in DATE and taken the keys of the museum to ORG , to be given to CARDINAL of the CARDINAL generals .","The second applicant \u2013 who had also applied for asylum on behalf of the applicants\u2019 children DATE had worked as a guide in the same army museum in GPE when the city was captured in DATE by the mujahideen . Under pressure from the mujahideen and in the footsteps of her husband , she had also resigned from her job in DATE .","Shortly after the first applicant had resigned from his post in the museum , the applicants received a written death threat in the courtyard of their house : the house was destroyed DATE . After a brief stay with the second applicant \u2019s father in another neighbourhood of GPE , the applicants moved in DATE to PERSON , which was under the control of followers of PERSON , who DATE like the applicants DATE was of NORP origin . In PERSON , the applicants lived off the income generated by land owned by the first applicant \u2019s family , and the first applicant , admittedly not out of any financial necessity , opened a small shop in order to have something to do .","NORP In DATE or DATE after the ORG had seized power in GPE on DATE first applicant \u2019s cousins appeared at the applicants\u2019 house together with CARDINAL to CARDINAL ORG . According to the first applicant , he had been betrayed by these CARDINAL relatives . They had informed the ORG of his position under the former communist regime and his whereabouts . The ORG conducted a search for weapons in the applicants\u2019 house . Although they found none , the ORG arrested the first applicant and his brother . They were separated shortly after their arrest .","During his detention by the ORG , for DATE in a basement on a military base in PERSON and subsequently in the PERSON prison , the first applicant had been interrogated , ill - treated and forced to perform hard labour . As it happened sometimes that in TIME CARDINAL or CARDINAL detainees were taken away from the cell they shared with the applicant and others and were never seen again , the first applicant feared for his life during his detention .","On DATE he could not remember , the first applicant was taken before a tribunal composed of CARDINAL mullahs , who interrogated him whilst he was being ill - treated . He was subsequently forced to place his fingerprint on documents , most of which were written in LANGUAGE .","During his subsequent transport in a convoy consisting of CARDINAL cars from PERSON to a prison in GPE , the first applicant had managed to escape when the convoy had come under armed attack , he believed by followers of PERSON . The first applicant had then fled to PERSON - i - Sharif , where he had been joined by his family on DATE . On DATE the applicants and their children had left GPE .","The first applicant was interviewed by NORP immigration officials about his flight and the motives for it on CARDINAL occasions ; the second applicant on CARDINAL occasions . On DATE they were informed of the intention ( voornemen ) of the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON ) to refuse them asylum . Having noted the first applicant \u2019s asylum account , an official general report ( ambtsbericht ) , drawn up on DATE by ORG on \u201c ORG in NORP GPE ( DATE ) . AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ( \u201c PERSON in communistisch GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG en WAD \u201d ) , and CARDINAL different person - specific official reports ( individuele ambts - berichten ) , DPC \/ AM DATE and DPC \/ AM DATE , both drawn up by ORG on DATE , the Minister decided to refuse the first applicant asylum and to hold LAW DATE LAW relating to ORG ( \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) against him . On DATE , a lawyer acting on behalf of the applicants submitted written comments ( zienswijze ) on this intention .","After interviewing both applicants once more , the Minister rejected their asylum applications , in separate decisions taken on DATE . The elaborately argued notices of intention of DATE were added to the decisions and formed part of them .","NORP The Minister found , inter alia , that the first applicant constituted a danger to public order ( openbare orde ) , as serious reasons had been found for believing that he had committed crimes referred to in LAW , thus excluding him from international protection under LAW . Although the Minister attached credence to the first applicant \u2019s statements in terms of his positions and career within the NORP army , the applicant \u2019s description of his tasks was deemed to be inaccurate . His statements relating to certain of the tasks he said he had performed ( namely his stated activities relating to what was called the ORG \u2019s national reconciliation policy , amnesty , reconstruction and demilitarisation ) were found to be highly implausible .","On the basis of the CARDINAL person - specific official reports of DATE , the Minister found that , at the relevant time , the political affairs divisions of the NORP army consisted solely of highly loyal and skilled professional soldiers , that people working for these divisions regularly provided the security service ORG with person - specific and general information ( \u201c ORG - e Dowlati \/ PERSON GPE ; the ORG was set up in DATE and transformed in DATE into a ministry called \u201c FAC , which remained in existence until the communist regime fell in DATE . Although the ORG was the successor of the LAW , the security service continued to be commonly referred to as ORG ) ; those working for the political affairs divisions had relatively easy access to the ORG leadership , and one of their tasks had been to remove anti - government soldiers from the army , if need be with the help of the ORG . They were thus inextricably connected to the frequent arrests , torture , disappearances and\/or executions of disloyal members of the army by the ORG .","NORP The Minister emphasised the widely known cruel character of the LAW , its lawless methods , the grave crimes it had committed such as torture and other human rights violations , and the \u201c climate of terror \u201d which it had spread throughout the whole of NORP society , including the army . The Minister underlined the vague definition of \u201c enemy of the communist regime \u201d used by the ORG , how it found those enemies through an extensive network of spies , and how all of this led to widespread and often random arrests of suspects . The Minister relied in this regard on the general official report of DATE .","Having established , on the basis of elaborate argumentation based on various international documents , that those involved in ORG and the political affairs divisions of the NORP army were likely to fall within the scope of LAW , the Minister proceeded to an analysis of the first applicant \u2019s individual responsibility under that Convention on the basis of the prescribed test known as the \u201c personal and knowing participation test \u201d .","On this point , the Minister found that , in view of the contents of the aforementioned official reports of ORG , the first applicant had known or should have known about the criminal character of the LAW , given his position in one of the political affairs divisions of the army and the contacts he had maintained professionally . The Minister further found that the first applicant had directly facilitated the crimes committed by ORG by performing his tasks in the NORP army , inter alia the attributed task of arresting and persuading deserters trying to flee across the border to continue military service , failure of which led to the handing over of these deserters to the office of ORG .","As regards LAW , the Minister noted that , during an additional interview on his asylum motives held on DATE , the first applicant had been explicitly invited to submit specific evidence that he would be exposed to a risk of treatment contrary to LAW in GPE . The Minister found that the first applicant had not furnished sufficient specific grounds to establish that he would run a real risk of treatment contrary to this provision if returned to GPE . Thus , he had failed to indicate which specific persons or groups would be looking for him , and had only stated in generally phrased terms that he feared persecution by the mujahideen . In respect of the first applicant \u2019s alleged fear of returning to GPE as a ( former ) member of the ORG , the Minister held that the first applicant was in a position not dissimilar to that of many other NORP nationals . Furthermore , the Minister , with reference to the most recent general official report on GPE issued by ORG on DATE , held that the sole fact that an asylum seeker had been a member of the ORG did not in itself suffice to render LAW applicable in the eventuality of an expulsion .","Separate appeals by the applicants were rejected in CARDINAL distinct judgments handed down on DATE by ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE , sitting in PERSON .","As regards the first applicant , ORG accepted the Minister \u2019s decision to hold LAW against the first applicant . It also rejected the first applicant \u2019s arguments based on LAW . It agreed with the Minister that the first applicant \u2019s fear that he would be subjected to treatment in breach of this provision was based on assumptions , and that he had not submitted any specific evidence of the identity of the person(s ) or group(s ) , or for what reasons , he expected to encounter problems if he were returned to GPE , whereas \u2013 according to an official country assessment report on GPE issued by ORG on DATE mere membership of the ORG and active participation in its regime was in itself not enough to raise an issue under LAW in the event of expulsion of the alien in question . It further rejected , for lack of substantiation , the first applicant \u2019s claim that ORG ( ORG ) in GPE would be unable to provide him with sustained protection .","Further separate appeals by the applicants were rejected on summary reasoning on DATE , in CARDINAL distinct rulings given by ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . It found that the further appeals did not provide grounds for quashing the impugned rulings ( kan niet tot vernietiging PERSON aangevallen uitspraak leiden ) . Having regard to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) , no further reasoning was called for , as the arguments submitted did not raise any questions requiring a determination in the interest of legal unity , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . No further appeal lay against these rulings .","On DATE , the applicants\u2019 fourth child , a daughter named PERSON , was born in the GPE .","On DATE , the applicants applied for a regular , non - asylum - related , residence permit . This request was rejected on DATE . The applicant \u2019s objection ( bezwaar ) was dismissed on DATE by the Deputy Minister of ORG ( ORG ) . The applicants initially lodged an appeal with ORG of The Hague , but withdrew this appeal on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE , the second applicant had submitted a fresh asylum claim for herself and on behalf of the CARDINAL youngest children . The ORG eldest daughter had made her own asylum claim . Pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( Algemene wet bestuursrecht ) , a repeat claim \u2013 like the one submitted by the second applicant \u2013 must be based on newly emerged facts and\/or altered circumstances ( \u201c nova \u201d ) warranting a reconsideration of the initial refusal . The asylum claim submitted by the second applicant and her eldest daughter was based on the claim that they had become westernised . The oldest daughter further claimed that she feared being forced into marriage .","On DATE , after an initial negative decision had been quashed on appeal , the Minister of Justice allowed the asylum claim submitted by the second applicant and the CARDINAL youngest children . The eldest daughter was also granted asylum .","DATE , namely on DATE and at the ORG request , the President of ORG had decided to indicate to the Government of the GPE that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG not to remove the applicants to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before ORG CARDINAL of ORG ) . At the same time , the President had decided under LAW ( b ) that the ORG should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case .","Also , on DATE the first applicant had submitted a fresh asylum claim , based on the alleged deterioration in the general security situation in GPE and an increased individual risk of treatment prohibited by LAW , namely the fact that he was an ex - communist , that he was an atheist and thus belonged to a religious minority , and the fact that he had lived abroad for a long period . He also claimed that , due to his work , he was well known in GPE and was prominent in NORP circles in the GPE . On DATE , the first applicant was informed of the intention of the Deputy Minister of ORG to reject this request . The first applicant submitted written comments ( zienswijze ) on this intention on DATE .","This request was rejected on DATE by the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON , ORG ) . An appeal by the first applicant against this decision was rejected on DATE by ORG of The GPE sitting in \u2018 s - Hertogenbosch . It found that the first applicant had not shown evidence that the general security situation in GPE had deteriorated since the determination of his first asylum request , or that the further elements relied on by him did not constitute \u201c nova \u201d warranting a reconsideration of the decision taken on his initial asylum request . In so far as the first applicant relied on LAW , ORG held that asylum proceedings offered no scope for such arguments , which should be raised in proceedings on a request for a non - asylum - based residence permit , and that it was open for the first applicant to apply for a residence permit based on his family life within the meaning of LAW . A further appeal by the applicant was dismissed by ORG on DATE . No further appeal lay against this ruling ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171485","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MAHAMMAD MAJIDLI v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Article 6-3-c - Legal assistance of own choosing)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Demonstrations were planned to be held on DATE and DATE in GPE .","On DATE the organisers , consisting of several members of opposition parties , gave notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , of the demonstration of DATE . It appears that no prior notice was given to the ORG by the organisers of the demonstration of DATE . Information about that demonstration was disseminated via ORG or the press .","The ORG refused to authorise the demonstration of DATE at the places indicated by the organisers and proposed CARDINAL other locations on the outskirts of GPE \u2013 a stadium situated in LOC , a square near FAC in LOC , and the yard of a driving school situated in the CARDINALth habitable area of LOC . The ORG noted that of the locations proposed by the organisers at which to hold the assembly , the squares were all designated public leisure areas and the other places were areas with heavy traffic .","The organisers nevertheless decided to hold the demonstrations in the centre of GPE .","According to the applicant , the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner . The participants of the demonstration of DATE were demanding free and fair elections and democratic reforms in the country . The participants of the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE were protesting over the deaths of numerous soldiers in the army .","The applicant attended both demonstrations , but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse those who had gathered . In both cases the applicant was arrested during the dispersal operation and was taken to a police station , where he was questioned .","NORP In both cases on DATE of the applicant \u2019s arrest , an administrative offence report ( inzibati x\u0259ta haqq\u0131nda protokol ) was issued on him . In the first case the report stated that by deliberately failing to comply with a lawful order of the police , the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) . In the second case he was charged with an administrative offence under LAW ( participation in a public assembly organised not in accordance with the law ) .","According to the applicant , he was never served with copies of the administrative offence reports or with other material from his case files . In both cases he was not given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while he was in police custody .","In the first case the applicant was brought before FAC on DATE , the day of his arrest . In the second case he was held in police custody TIME and brought before FAC on DATE , DATE after his arrest .","According to the applicant , the hearing before the court in both cases was very brief . In the second case members of the public were not allowed inside the courtroom , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public .","According to the applicant , in both cases he was not given an opportunity to appoint a lawyer of his own choosing .","At the court hearing in the first case the applicant was not represented by a lawyer . According to the material submitted to the ORG by the parties , he refused legal assistance .","It appears that at the court hearing in the second case a ORG - funded lawyer was invited to represent the applicant . None of the material submitted to the ORG contain any records showing that the ORG - funded lawyer , PERSON , made any oral or written submissions to the first - instance court .","At the hearings in both cases the court did not question any witnesses .","By a decision of DATE the first - instance court convicted the applicant under LAW of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the same court convicted the applicant under LAW ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention .","On unspecified dates the applicant lodged appeals with ORG , arguing that his convictions were in violation of his rights because the demonstrations in which he had participated had been peaceful . The applicant also complained that his arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the first - instance court had not been fair .","In the first case the applicant was not represented by a lawyer . In the second case the applicant prepared his appeal with the assistance of a lawyer of his own choosing , but that lawyer did not attend the hearing .","On DATE and DATE respectively ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeals and upheld the decision of the first - instance court .","According to the applicant , the decision of ORG of DATE was sent to him on DATE , after he complained that the court had failed to serve him with that decision ."],"violated_articles":["11","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-b","6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158157","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KONI v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband filed a petition for divorce with ORG . This was on the ground that his marriage to the applicant had broken down irretrievably because , among other reasons , he and the applicant had been separated for DATE ( that is , DATE longer than the minimum period required by law : see relevant domestic law and practice at paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The case was set for a directions hearing on DATE . On that date the applicant appeared in person and asked for additional time to file her defence to the petition : ORG acceded to her request and adjourned the hearing to DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for legal aid . The hearing of that legal aid application was fixed for DATE . On DATE the applicant appeared before the court and asked for a DATE extension as she was not sure if she would maintain her application . The court adjourned the legal aid hearing to DATE .","On DATE , the applicant attended court and requested a further extension for filing her defence to the petition on the ground that her legal aid application was pending . The court adjourned the case to CARDINAL DATE and directed that the applicant file her defence by that date .","The applicant did in fact decide to maintain her legal aid application . When this legal aid application came before ORG on DATE , the court considered that the application came within the scope of ORG ( see relevant domestic law and practice at paragraph CARDINAL below ) so it instructed ORG to prepare a social welfare report on the applicant and adjourned the hearing of the legal aid application to CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant failed to file her defence to the petition for divorce by DATE as directed . She also failed to appear in court on DATE . In her absence , counsel for the applicant \u2019s husband requested that the case be set for trial . The court acceded to this request and a trial date of DATE .","NORP The legal aid application came before the court on DATE as scheduled . The applicant attended court . However , because no one from ORG was present , the court adjourned its examination of the application to DATE .","NORP On DATE the applicant did not appear at court for the trial in the main proceedings . The applicant \u2019s husband attended with counsel . In the applicant \u2019s absence , the court proceeded to hear the evidence of her husband who stated that the couple had been suffering problems and had been separated since DATE . No other witnesses were heard . The court gave an ex tempore judgment granting the petition for divorce .","Although the petition for divorce had been granted , the hearing in the legal aid application went ahead as scheduled on DATE . The applicant was not present at court . A representative of ORG informed the court that , from a letter in the court file dated DATE , which had been sent by a welfare officer to the court registrar , it appeared that the applicant was no longer interested in receiving legal aid . The court accordingly dismissed the legal aid application for want of prosecution .","On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG judgment to ORG . She was legally represented on appeal .","The applicant submitted CARDINAL grounds of appeal : that ORG had wrongly proceeded with the hearing of the petition for divorce in her absence , and that it had wrongly decided on the dissolution of the marriage . In respect of both grounds , she submitted that ORG had acted in breach of LAW ( the right of access to court and to a fair trial : see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG , and the rule of natural justice , including the right to be heard ( audi alteram partem ) .","In the reasons accompanying her grounds of appeal , she again made reference to LAW and the right of litigants to present their case before the court and to be defended by counsel . The applicant again submitted that the rules of natural justice safeguarded the right to be heard . She further stated that she had informed ORG that she had applied for legal aid . She had been under the impression that her legal aid application would be examined by the same bench that would hear the petition for divorce . As the legal aid application had been fixed to be examined at a date subsequent to the date the divorce petition was fixed ( DATE for the legal aid hearing as against CARDINAL DATE for the divorce petition hearing ) , she presumed that the divorce petition would be examined following the granting of legal aid so she could file a defence through a lawyer . It was for this reason that she had not appeared in court on CARDINAL and DATE .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s husband died . In his will he bequeathed part of his property to another woman . As a consequence of the divorce , the applicant was not entitled to inherit from his estate or to receive a widow \u2019s pension . The applicant maintained her appeal against ORG judgment .","On DATE , ORG directed the parties to file skeleton arguments ( written outlines of their submissions ) , in effect accepting the applicant \u2019s notice of appeal . ORG further directed that once the skeleton arguments were submitted , the appeal was to be set down for a hearing .","In her skeleton argument dated DATE , the applicant developed her ground of appeal relating to LAW , stating that ORG had acted contrary to PERSON ) ( the right of access to court ) , Article CARDINAL ) ( the right to present one \u2019s case and to have sufficient time for its preparation ) , and Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) ( the right to counsel and to free legal assistance ) . She relied on both the relevant case - law of the NORP courts on these provisions and on the relevant case - law of this Court on the corresponding provisions of LAW , including PERSON v. GPE , DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL . In respect of her submission as regards the rules of natural justice , she referred to GPE \u2019s ORG ( CARDINALth ed . , PERSON , \u00a7 DATE ) and the court \u2019s duty to provide every party with a fair chance to set his case before the court .","A hearing on the merits of the appeal took place before ORG on DATE . At the hearing , the applicant adopted her written submissions . Counsel for the applicant \u2019s ex - husband submitted that PERSON could be distinguished on the basis that the Convention did not grant a general right to legal aid and , in any event , the present case was not so complex as to require it . The hearing was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , counsel for the applicant provided the court with copies of the relevant case - law cited in the applicant \u2019s written submissions . No further submissions were made and the court reserved judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It found :","\u201c It is the appellant \u2019s position that she had informed the court that she had submitted an application for legal aid and , because she believed that her application would be examined by the court which would examine the substance of the petition for the dissolution of the marriage , she failed to appear on DATE , with the consequence that the case was heard in her absence and the petition for divorce was granted against her .","Regarding the allegations of violation of the provisions of LAW CARDINAL(I)\/CARDINAL and the principles of natural justice , no specific reasons have been put forward which could substantiate the above allegations , which are accordingly dismissed .","Regarding the alleged violation of LAW , the appellant has not specified which particular paragraph has been violated and this allegation is dismissed for vagueness . Independently of this conclusion , we have already made detailed reference to what took place both in the proceedings concerning the application for legal aid and the divorce proceedings . From the above , it appears that judgment under appeal was the result of the complete indifference of the appellant to respond to the directions of the ORG to file her defence and her failure to appear before the court . The appellant can not claim that her failure to appear was due to the fact that she believed that the divorce petition would be examined by another court .","The appeal is dismissed with costs . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144934","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"SLAVKOVIC v. SWITZERLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE of GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , of ORG .","On DATE ORG were informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings , in accordance with LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(b ) of ORG . On DATE ORG informed the ORG that they did not wish to exercise their right to intervene in the present case .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was detained in Bad PERSON ( GPE ) on the basis of an international arrest warrant issued by the GPE district authority ( PERSON ( GPE ) ) on DATE . According to the arrest warrant , the applicant was suspected of having committed the offences of serious assault , endangering the life of another person and damaging property , because he had allegedly participated in a brawl on DATE in GPE and shot one of the victims in the leg during the fracas .","On DATE the applicant was convicted in GPE of a number of offences , including illegal entry , illegally staying in the country and forgery of a document .","On DATE the NORP authorities extradited the applicant to GPE . On DATE his lawyer was appointed to represent him . That same day the Sursee Prefect ( Amtsstatthalter ) ordered that the applicant be placed in pre - trial detention . In the detention order the ORG established that the applicant was suspected of having committed a number of offences , including serious assault and endangering the life of another person . The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was considered to be further justified because serious concerns existed that he would seek to evade the criminal proceedings by absconding or compromise the efforts of the investigation if left at large .","Based on the same reasons , an application for immediate release from pre - trial detention made by the applicant on DATE was dismissed by the ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the ORG \u2019s detention order to ORG for the GPE of GPE ( ORG , hereinafter \u201c the ORG of Appeal \u201d ) . He claimed that the requirements for detaining him had not been fulfilled in a number of respects .","ORG invited the public prosecutor to submit observations on the applicant \u2019s appeal . On DATE the public prosecutor sent an e - mail to the ORG in response . In this e - mail he stated the following :","\u201c Good morning A.","As stated DATE on the phone , I have been asked to submit before DATE , DATE , observations on the representative \u2019s appeal in the pre - trial detention matter regarding LAW [ PERSON ] .","Please send me , for the attention of ORG , [ details of ] which ( investigation ) activities have been carried out since the accused \u2019s detention and which investigative activities are planned in the near future .","In addition I would ask you \u2013 as discussed DATE to issue as soon as possible the new international arrest warrant against S.S. \u201c amended \u201d with respect to the crimes of assault , brawling , assault and theft ; to pass it [ in accordance with standard procedure ] ( keyword : granting of the right to be heard ) to the person concerned ( not as an accused ! ) and to subsequently submit both [ documents ] to ORG . ORG will then take the next steps ( together with [ the assistant ] ) .","Please also send the new arrest warrant and the record of the questioning session with ORG to me by fax or e - mail , so that I can refer to them in my observations to ORG .","Many thanks for your efforts , which are appreciated . I am at your disposal in case of any questions .","Kind regards ,","G. \u201d","On DATE the public prosecutor submitted his observations to ORG . The applicant was invited to submit observations in response .","NORP On DATE the ORG issued a new , amended international arrest warrant against the applicant . By letter of DATE , the applicant wrote to the ORG stating that he would prefer that the decision regarding the approval of the amended arrest warrant be suspended until ORG had decided on his appeal against the order for his pre - trial detention .","The applicant submitted observations on CARDINAL and DATE to ORG . Having become aware of the e - mail exchange ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he claimed that the ORG was acting under the instructions of the public prosecutor . He alleged that from an objective point of view the ORG could not be considered as an independent \u201c officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power \u201d , within the meaning of LAW . He therefore sought the ORG \u2019s withdrawal from the case .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and established that the requirements for detaining him pending trial had been fulfilled . It held that there were no indications , either in the e - mail exchange between the ORG and the prosecutor or in other documents , that the ORG had been acting under the prosecutor \u2019s instructions when ordering the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . It found that the prosecutor \u2019s request regarding the amendment of the international arrest warrant of DATE had nothing to do with the detention order against the applicant , which had already been issued by the ORG on DATE . Since the e - mail exchange between the prosecutor and the ORG had occurred DATE after the detention order had been issued , no doubts as to the ORG \u2019s independence when ordering the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention existed . In addition , according to LAW hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the Prefect was not bound by any instructions of the public prosecutor when ordering pre - trial detention . Furthermore , according to LAW see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he was not competent to bring criminal charges against the applicant before the domestic courts . In addition , the prosecutor \u2019s supervisory responsibilities , as set out in Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , were limited to investigative activities , with a particular emphasis on responsibility for their proper and expeditious completion . Therefore , the legal provisions in force sufficiently guaranteed the ORG \u2019s independence when ordering pre - trial detention and no conflict of interest existed .","The applicant appealed against this decision to ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . He reiterated that in the given circumstances the ORG could not be considered as an independent officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power within the meaning of LAW and accordingly had to be excluded from the case . He also alleged that ORG had failed to consider whether the international arrest warrant of CARDINAL DATE had been issued by the ORG under the prosecutor \u2019s instructions .","By a judgment of DATE the ORG upheld ORG judgment . It ruled that the provisions of the ORG sufficiently guaranteed the impartiality and independence of the ORG in accordance with LAW . With regard to the e - mail exchange , the ORG further reiterated that it had mainly concerned the amendment of the international arrest warrant and that the prosecutor \u2019s actions had been fully compliant with LAW ORG . Moreover , the email exchange had occurred DATE after the detention order had been issued and contained no indications that the prosecutor had given the ORG instructions when the latter was ordering the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention on DATE .","By penal order of CARDINAL DATE the ORG sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment for having taken part in a brawl on DATE in GPE . The applicant accepted this sentence and the penal order entered into force on DATE , in accordance with LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE LAW Procedure entered into force and replaced the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Articles DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW the GPE of GPE of DATE , as in force at the relevant time , provided as follows :","CARDINAL The ORG investigates crimes , an offender \u2019s criminal record and his personal circumstances .","( ... )","\" CARDINALThe Prefect leads investigations .","( ... )","CARDINAL The accused normally remains at liberty .","CARDINAL The accused can be put in pre - trial detention if there is a strong suspicion that he has committed a crime or an offence and if CARDINAL of the following requirements is applicable :","A reasonable suspicion that he will seek to evade the criminal proceedings or the anticipated sanction by absconding ; [ such ] a suspicion will be further strengthened if the person is accused of having committed a serious crime or offence ; ( ... )","Circumstances which give reason to fear that the accused would seek to compromise the efforts of the investigation ; ( ... )","CARDINAL An arrest warrant must be issued in writing and provide the reason(s ) for the arrest .","CARDINAL The following authorities are entitled to issue an arrest warrant : the ORG , ORG , ORG before which the case is pending , and their presidents .","CARDINAL An authority which issues an arrest warrant shall decide immediately after a questioning session with the accused whether he should be kept in detention . ... A detention order shall be issued in writing and provide the reasons for the pre - trial detention .","CARDINAL The accused has the right to appeal to ORG against a detention order of the ORG , the public prosecutor , a first - instance court or its president . ( ... )","If sufficient indications of a punishable offence exist , the Prefect shall refer the case to the competent court if the investigation can not be closed by a penal order .","If ORG or ORG has subject - matter jurisdiction , the ORG may submit a written application regarding [ the accused \u2019s ] guilt , the penalty [ to be imposed ] and [ other ] measures [ to be taken ] if he has not previously ordered pre - trial detention .","CARDINAL The accused may accept in writing , within DATE , a penal order if :","( a ) the penal order concerns imprisonment alone , or in combination with another penalty or measure ;","( b ) the penal order concerns community service alone , or in combination with another penalty or measure .","CARDINAL Provided that the accused accepts a penal order regarding a crime or an offence within the [ above - stated ] period , the penal order shall have legal effect from DATE of the accused \u2019s declaration of acceptance , if the public prosecutor has subsequently signed it off .","CARDINAL The Public Prosecutor shall execute direct supervision over the Prefects . He shall supervise investigations , [ with ] particular [ responsibility for ] their proper and expeditious completion .","CARDINAL He can require reports on the progress of investigations , issue instructions and assist investigative activities .","CARDINAL The ORG shall regularly provide ORG with updates about pending investigations , especially those of long duration .","CARDINAL The Public Prosecutor shall examine the ORG \u2019s case management , give the necessary instructions and make reports to ORG .","In matters regarding pre - trial detention , the ORG takes decisions freely and independently .","CARDINAL The Public Prosecutor shall bring criminal charges if ,","( ... )","( c ) the ORG has ordered the accused \u2019s pre - trial detention and ORG or ORG has subject - matter jurisdiction .","CARDINAL ORG can not file criminal charges if he has previously issued an arrest warrant or a pre - trial detention order against the accused or if he has dismissed an accused \u2019s application for release from pre - trial detention ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145584","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KIM v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in the NORP SSR of GPE . Since DATE he has been living in GPE , GPE . It appears that he did not acquire any nationality following the break - up of the GPE .","On DATE the police stopped the applicant for an identity check and discovered that he had no identity documents . On DATE a judge of ORG of GPE found him guilty of an administrative offence under LAW ( breach of residence regulations in GPE ) , fined him MONEY ( RUB ) and ordered his expulsion from GPE . The court ruled that the applicant should be detained in the detention centre for aliens until his expulsion .","Officers of ORG ( ORG ) interviewed and fingerprinted the applicant , who had no passport or other identity documents . He told them that he had been born in GPE and , prior to his arrival in GPE , had had a registered place of residence in LOC .","On DATE the director of the detention centre for aliens asked ORG to issue travel documents ( return certificates ) to CARDINAL individuals , including the applicant , who were described as being NORP nationals . No reply was received .","Further similar requests sent on DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE did not elicit any reply from ORG either .","On DATE counsel for the applicant sent an inquiry to ORG in GPE , seeking to find out whether or not the applicant had NORP nationality and whether he could be removed to GPE . No reply was received .","On DATE counsel asked the ORG to inform him what measures had been taken with a view to expelling the applicant from GPE , whether or not his identity had been established and why the applicant had already spent DATE in detention . In reply , the ORG refused to give any information , citing the law on the protection of personal data .","On DATE counsel applied to ORG for an order discontinuing the enforcement of the expulsion order of DATE . He pointed out that the enforcement was impossible since the NORP authorities would not accept the applicant , who was not a national of that ORG .","On DATE a judge of ORG rejected the application , without hearing the parties or the applicant . According to the judge , a failure to take measures with a view to expelling the applicant was not a ground for discontinuing the enforcement of the expulsion order . Counsel submitted an appeal , in which he complained in particular about the absence of a periodic judicial review of the applicant \u2019s detention in breach of LAW and about the State authorities\u2019 failure to show special diligence in the conduct of the expulsion proceedings , contrary to the requirements of LAW ( f ) of the LAW . On DATE a judge of GPE rejected the appeal in a summary fashion .","Counsel also attempted to challenge the applicant \u2019s detention as unlawful . By decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of GPE disallowed the complaint , finding that the decision of DATE constituted a sufficient lawful basis for the ensuing detention . It noted in particular that the applicant would remain in custody \u201c until his expulsion from GPE \u201d . On DATE GPE upheld ORG decision .","NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE , the consular department of ORG informed the ORG that the applicant was not a national of GPE and could not therefore be issued with a travel document . On DATE ORG of GPE sent a further letter to the ORG , stating that the applicant was not an NORP national .","On DATE the applicant was released on the basis of the expiry of the DATE time - limit for enforcement of the administrative - expulsion decision .","The detention centre for aliens ( \u0426\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440 \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0441\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0438\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0434\u0430\u043d ) is located in GPE in GPE and operated at the material time under the authority of the ORG .","The centre , an QUANTITY building designed to hold CARDINAL inmates , actually accommodated CARDINAL people at any one time and the number rose to CARDINAL in the summertime and during special raids .","The applicant was initially held in cells CARDINAL and CARDINAL . Each cell measured CARDINAL QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL or CARDINAL people . In DATE of his detention the applicant was held in cell CARDINAL , an QUANTITY cell which he shared with CARDINAL and occasionally CARDINAL other people .","There was no sink or access to drinking water from within the cells ; there was CARDINAL toilet and CARDINAL shower per floor which were used by DATE inmates .","Up until DATE the applicant was allowed CARDINAL minutes\u2019 outdoor exercise once every CARDINAL or three weeks in a tiny yard .","The facility did not offer any meaningful activities : no television , radio , newspapers or magazines were available ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155358","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SIDABRAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Lech Garlicki;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The first applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He graduated from ORG ( currently ORG ) , qualifying as a sports instructor .","DATE he was employed by the NORP branch of ORG ( the ORG ) . After GPE declared independence in DATE , he found employment as a tax inspector .","On DATE the NORP authorities concluded that the first applicant was subject to the restrictions of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As a result , on DATE he was dismissed by the tax authorities .","The first applicant brought an administrative action against the security intelligence authorities , claiming that his dismissal under LAW , and the ensuing inability to find employment , were unlawful . The domestic courts dismissed his claims ( see GPE and PERSON v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR CARDINALVIII ) .","On DATE the first applicant submitted an application to the ORG , alleging that he had lost his job and that his employment prospects had been restricted as a result of the application of LAW , in breach of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .","By a judgment of DATE in the case of GPE and PERSON ( cited above ) , the ORG found a violation of LAW , taken in conjunction with LAW . It concluded that the ban on the first applicant seeking employment in various branches of the private sector , in application of LAW , constituted a disproportionate measure , despite the legitimacy of the aims pursued ( see \u00a7 CARDINAL of the judgment ) . The ORG ordered the ORG to pay the first applicant MONEY ( ORG ) as compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage and costs .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed ORG that , as no request had been made under LAW above - mentioned cases to be referred to ORG , the judgment of DATE had become final on CARDINAL October CARDINAL , in accordance with LAW .","In DATE ORG discussed the question of whether the ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases of GPE and GPE v. GPE ( cited above ) and PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and FAC , DATE ) had been executed . As regards individual measures , the Government informed ORG that the sum awarded to the first applicant had been paid to him . As regards general measures , ORG was preparing amendments to LAW , which would be adopted in the near future . Moreover , in order to prevent similar violations of the LAW , the NORP courts and other institutions had been informed about the ORG \u2019s judgment and provided with a translation ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the first applicant started domestic court proceedings against ORG , seeking CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL ) in pecuniary damages , which he counted as DATE of his tax inspector \u2019s salary , and LTL CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages , which he claimed to have suffered because of the continuing violation of his right to respect for his private life under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW . The first applicant noted that since DATE he had been unemployed and registered at ORG ( PERSON darbo bir\u017ea ) , a ORG institution that provides assistance for job seekers . He argued that , even though he had not been in the service of the ORG for DATE , owing to the restrictions imposed by LAW he had been unable to gain employment in certain branches of the private sector as of DATE .","The first applicant also maintained that GPE had disregarded its obligations under international treaties and the LAW . Without referring to specific judgments of the ORG , he considered that the common principles developed by the ORG required that GPE execute the ORG \u2019s judgment in his case without undue delay . It was his view that the ORG \u2019s judgment in his case obliged GPE to amend LAW . However , ORG had ignored the ORG \u2019s judgment and had been stalling any amendment of LAW , which ORG had found to be incompatible with the Convention . He concluded that since DATE , when the ORG \u2019s judgment in his case had become final , GPE had continued to violate his employment rights .","On DATE at the request of the first applicant , ORG issued him with a document to the effect that he had been registered as a job seeker since DATE , and that DATE and DATE he had been turned down a number of times for jobs proposed to him , \u201c for justified reasons \u201d . As it transpires from other documents presented to the ORG , those justified reasons included : a lack of professional qualification or work experience for the posts of business manager at a factory producing television sets and at other local companies ; another candidate had been chosen for the post of supervisor at a waste management facility ; and a lack of LANGUAGE language skills for a job as a hotel manager .","Without further explanation , it was also briefly noted in the document of DATE that the first applicant \u201c had not been employed because of applicable restrictions ( he could not take up jobs which required him to manage people , pedagogical jobs or work in the security sector ) ( bedarbis ne\u012fdarbintas d\u0117l taikom\u0173 apribojim\u0173 : negali dirbti vadovaujant\u012f , pedagogin\u012f darb\u0105 , apsaugoje ) \u201d .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s claims as unsubstantiated . It observed that ORG had awarded him compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage he had sustained before the ORG had adopted its judgment on DATE . The first - instance court then turned to the first applicant \u2019s claim about the continued discrimination against him after the ORG \u2019s judgment . On this point , it observed that ORG document of CARDINAL DATE stated that he \u201c had not been employed because of applicable restrictions \u201d . Without elaborating any further on the facts , ORG merely observed that that particular document and other materials of the case file did not prove that the first applicant \u2019s right to choose a particular private sector job had been infringed because LAW had not been amended after the ORG \u2019s judgment . Accordingly , his claim for damages for the period after the ORG \u2019s judgment was dismissed .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . In addition to his previous arguments he further maintained that after the re - establishment of GPE \u2019s independence , he had fully cooperated with the NORP authorities and helped to disclose the identities of former ORG officers before they infiltrated the NORP authorities . However , notwithstanding his loyalty to the independent GPE and the ORG \u2019s judgment in his favour , he had been banned from legal , pedagogical or other jobs because LAW had remained in force . He had been unemployed since DATE and thus could not take care of his family .","As it appears from his appeal on points of law , the first applicant did not mention any particular instance when he had been refused a job because of his status . Yet he reiterated his point of view that the principles of the ORG required that GPE execute the ORG \u2019s judgments without undue delay and within the shortest time possible .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision . It observed that the LAW formed an integral part of the NORP legal system and that individuals could directly rely on its provisions before the national courts . Moreover , in the event of a conflict between the legal norms of the ORG and national laws , the LAW was to be given priority . ORG agreed with the lower court \u2019s reasoning that the first applicant \u2019s request for compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage sustained before DATE ( the date of ORG judgment in his case ) had to be dismissed because an award had already been made by the ORG and the applicant had been paid the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","Regarding the first applicant \u2019s claim in respect of the damage allegedly suffered since then , on the basis of the ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON and ORG v. GPE ( [ ORG ] ORG . FAC and CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVIII ) , ORG noted that GPE undertook to take general and , if appropriate , individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the ORG and to redress so far as possible its effects . The GPE were free to choose how to correct the breach of individual applicants\u2019 Convention rights , provided that the means chosen were compatible with the conclusions set out in the ORG \u2019s judgment . ORG in integrum was an important aspect of remedying the violation .","That being so , even though the legislator had an obligation to ensure legal certainty and to reconcile domestic law with the norms of the ORG , legislative amendment was not the only way to implement the ORG \u2019s judgment . The fact that LAW had not been amended had not in itself breached the first applicant \u2019s rights . A person \u2019s rights could also be secured by administrative decisions and domestic court practices . Both LAW and ORG judgment were in force in GPE . For ORG , in the event of a conflict between them , priority was to be given to the ORG \u2019s judgment . Consequently , even though LAW was still in force , a refusal to employ the first applicant in the private sector based on the restrictions contained in the KGB Act would be unlawful . Accordingly , the protection of a person \u2019s rights through the direct application of the ORG \u2019s judgment and before any legislative amendments had been adopted was to be considered proper execution of the ORG \u2019s judgment .","Regarding the facts of the case , ORG noted that the first applicant had attempted to obtain employment in the private sector . It observed that on DATE ORG had issued him with a document certifying that he had been registered as a job seeker since DATE and had not been employed because of the restrictions applied to him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The appellate court noted that in response to its request to explain the reasons for the first applicant \u2019s unemployment in more detail , on DATE ORG had provided the appellate court with another document stating that on DATE an individual plan for the first applicant \u2019s employment had been prepared with a view to employing him as a lawyer ( in - house lawyer ; juriskonsultas ) , because he had DATE work experience in different companies and institutions in the city of ORG . From DATE to DATE , CARDINAL posts for in - house lawyers had been created in ORG , for which a university degree in law was required and the salary was just higher than minimal salary . The advertisements for those posts had been shown to the first applicant , but he had not been given any of those jobs because the employers considered that he lacked the relevant qualifications . ORG could therefore no longer offer the first applicant other in - house lawyer posts . To increase his chances of finding a job , at DATE the first applicant had attended computer literacy courses and courses for professional training in the field of administrative work . In DATE a new individual plan had been compiled together with the first applicant , so that , because he so wished , he could obtain the job of business manager ( komercijos vadybininkas ) . ORG then named CARDINAL companies which refused the first applicant the job of business manager , administrator and sales manager because other candidates had been chosen or because he lacked knowledge of the LANGUAGE language .","ORG observed that those CARDINAL documents were contradictory . The court deemed it proper to rely on the report of DATE as it was more recent and , in the court \u2019s opinion , more comprehensive and explanatory . It concluded that the restrictions which LAW imposed on a person \u2019s ability to find employment in certain areas of the private sector had not been applied to the first applicant . The existence of LAW , as such , had not violated his rights and did not entitle him to compensation . ORG determined that there was no proof that , after the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL July CARDINAL , the first applicant had been prevented from obtaining a private sector job because of the restrictions related to LAW . Furthermore , he had not provided any particular information as to who had refused to employ him on the basis of those restrictions and when . It followed that the first applicant had not managed to secure a job because of the local labour - market situation . Moreover , there was no information that he had attempted to find a job in another manner , that is to say not only relying on the assistance of ORG , but had been refused a job because of the legislative restrictions . To give rise to a violation of the LAW , a breach of a person \u2019s rights had to be real , and not hypothetical . Given that there was no proof that after the ORG \u2019s judgment of DATE the first applicant could not obtain a job because the KGB Act remained unchanged , and having concluded that his right to work in the private sector could no longer be restricted because of the direct applicability of the LAW , the first applicant \u2019s claim for damages had to be dismissed .","On DATE , DATE after ORG final decision in his case , ORG suggested that the first applicant contact CARDINAL specific private companies for a post as a business manager . On DATE the first applicant came back to ORG and stated that he had not taken the business manager \u2019s job in CARDINAL of those companies because he did not like the conditions offered . He planned to take part in the interview for the business manager \u2019s job in the other company .","DATE the first applicant was refused positions of business manager , insurance consultant and other jobs a number of times because he lacked foreign language skills , qualifications , or the relevant work experience . As it transpires from the documents in the ORG \u2019s possession , he turned other jobs down simply because he deemed that the salary offered was too low or the work place too far away .","On DATE the first applicant was appointed as a carer for his mother ( paskirtas motinos r\u016bpintoju ) . ORG therefore discontinued its assistance to him .","The second applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On an unspecified date in DATE , he graduated from ORG as a lawyer . From CARDINAL DATE he worked as a prosecutor .","On DATE the NORP authorities concluded that , from DATE , the second applicant had been an employee of the NORP branch of the ORG and that he was therefore subject to the restrictions provided for by LAW . As a result , on DATE he was dismissed from his job as prosecutor .","The second applicant brought an administrative action against the authorities , claiming that his dismissal under LAW , which made it impossible for him to find employment , was unlawful . The domestic courts dismissed his claims ( see GPE and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","On DATE the second applicant lodged an application with the ORG . Like the first applicant , he alleged that Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention had been violated .","By a judgment of CARDINAL July CARDINAL in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( cited above ) , the ORG found a violation of LAW taken in conjunction with LAW and awarded the second applicant ORG CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage and costs .","On DATE the second applicant wrote to the Chairman of ORG of ORG , the Prime Minister and the Minister of ORG to enquire whether the ORG intended to amend LAW and , if so , when . At the same time , he acknowledged that the NORP authorities had already paid him a sum of money awarded to him by the ORG .","On DATE the Government Agent before the ORG informed the second applicant that ORG was working on amendments to LAW .","On DATE the Chairman of ORG of the LAW informed the second applicant that the Seimas had set up a working group that was also drafting legislative amendments .","According to the ORG , as of CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was registered in the list of trainee lawyers ( advokato pad\u0117j\u0117jas ) , which is a precondition to becoming a lawyer . The Government also noted that the second applicant had submitted his traineeship report on DATE and was going to take the NORP exam .","On DATE the second applicant sued GPE for non - pecuniary damage . He claimed to have lost LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL as a result of the ORG \u2019s failure , since DATE ( the date of the ORG \u2019s judgment in his case ) , to amend LAW . This in turn had restricted his prospects of finding employment in certain private sector areas . He argued that the common principles governing the execution of the ORG \u2019s judgments required the ORG to execute the judgment without undue delay .","On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s claim . It noted that the judgment in the NORP and PERSON case did not oblige the ORG to amend LAW within a specific time - frame and that the Seimas was in the process of discussing the relevant legislative amendments . During the court hearing the second applicant submitted that he had contacted an insurance company and a commercial bank in order to check what the reaction of potential employers would be . He maintained that those employers had replied that they would be unable to employ him because to do so would breach LAW . The first - instance court , however , noted that the second applicant had not provided any evidence to prove that he had actually applied for and been refused any particular job in the private sector . Accordingly , the court had no basis on which to hold that the second applicant had in reality addressed those CARDINAL employers and that they had refused to hire him .","The second applicant appealed . He pointed out in particular that he had not attempted to obtain employment in the private sector so as not to harm the employers , who would have faced administrative liability if they had employed him . That was the reason why he had no proof of having actually attempted to obtain a job barred to him by LAW .","On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s appeal . Its reasoning was similar to that of its decision of DATE in the first applicant \u2019s case ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . It observed that the second applicant had based his claims for damages on the alleged non - execution of the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL July CARDINAL . However , referring to the cases of PERSON and ORG ( cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) and GPE v. GPE ( DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL-C ) , it observed that under LAW were free to choose the appropriate individual and general measures to discharge their legal obligation to execute the ORG \u2019s decisions , albeit monitored by ORG . Moreover , given the abstract nature of the Convention norms , the domestic courts should follow ORG jurisprudence in order better to comprehend their content .","As to the facts of the second applicant \u2019s case , ORG observed that , because the ORG \u2019s judgment in GPE and PERSON prevailed over LAW , the restrictions on working in certain private sector areas could no longer be imposed on the second applicant . Thus , even though LAW had not been amended , a refusal to employ him on the basis of the restrictions provided for in LAW would be in violation of the LAW and consequently unlawful . It was also the court \u2019s view that protecting a person \u2019s rights by direct application of the ORG \u2019s judgments rather than by legislative amendments was an appropriate way to execute those judgments . It followed that , because of the direct applicability of the ORG and the ORG \u2019s judgments , the ORG had not failed to act , the latter being a precondition for the ORG \u2019s civil liability .","As to the second applicant , he had failed to prove that , after the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL July CARDINAL , he had attempted to obtain employment in the private sector and had been refused owing to the restrictions of LAW . ORG stressed that \u201c the mere existence of contradictions and ambiguities in the legal system did not in itself provide grounds for a violation of a person \u2019s rights and did not harm that person \u201d . Similarly , a mere hypothetical violation and a person \u2019s idea that his rights had been breached , without any tangible facts , were not sufficient . ORG therefore dismissed the second applicant \u2019s claim in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","The third applicant , Mr ORG , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","DATE he was an employee of the NORP branch of the ORG . Thereafter he found employment as a lawyer in a private telecommunications company , Omnitel .","On DATE ORG informed GPE that the third applicant had been a ORG officer and was therefore subject to the restrictions provided for by LAW . As a result , on DATE Omnitel dismissed the third applicant from his job .","After unsuccessful litigation before the NORP courts for reinstatement in his job and for unpaid salary ( see ORG , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) , the third applicant lodged an application with the ORG , alleging that he had lost his job and that his employment prospects had been restricted as a result of the application to him of LAW , in breach of LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention .","In its judgment in the case of ORG ( cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) the ORG held that the third applicant \u2019s inability to pursue his former profession as a lawyer in a private telecommunications company , and his continuing inability to find private - sector employment because of his \u201c former permanent ORG employee \u201d status under LAW , constituted a disproportionate and thus discriminatory measure , despite the legitimacy of the aims pursued . ORG concluded that there had been a violation of Article CARDINAL taken in conjunction with Article CARDINAL of the Convention .","By a letter of DATE , the ORG informed ORG that , as no request had been made under LAW above - mentioned cases to be referred to ORG , the judgment of DATE had become final on DATE , in accordance with LAW .","On DATE the third applicant requested that ORG reopen the proceedings in his earlier case for unlawful actions and reinstatement in his job at Omnitel , on the basis of LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG noted that the proceedings in the domestic courts related to the dismissal of the third applicant from his position as a lawyer with a telecommunications company . It observed that the ORG \u2019s judgment gave reason to doubt the lawfulness of those domestic decisions . It therefore decided to reopen the proceedings which the third applicant had previously instituted against ORG and his previous employer , the private telecommunications company , GPE .","For reasons of jurisdiction , the case was subsequently remitted to ORG , a court of general jurisdiction , for a fresh examination .","DATE . On DATE ORG acknowledged that the third applicant had been dismissed from his previous job at GPE unlawfully . As to the question of his reinstatement , the court relied on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and noted that DATE had elapsed since the telecommunications company had dismissed the third applicant from his job . During that time the third applicant had worked in companies specialising in other fields , such as railways and television . Moreover , the activities of the telecommunications company had also evolved . In the court \u2019s view , because he lacked appropriate qualifications and foreign language skills , after such a long time the third applicant would no longer be competent to work as a lawyer in that company . The court also noted that at that time the third applicant was working in another company , without specifying what that company was , and therefore had a source of income . ORG also noted the continuing conflict between the third applicant and the company , which could be another reason not to reinstate him to his former job at GPE . Lastly , the court observed that LAW was still in force . In the court \u2019s view , should the third applicant be reinstated , the question of his dismissal could arise de novo , or his employer would face the risk of administrative penalties . In the light of those circumstances , the court dismissed the third applicant \u2019s claim for reinstatement .","The court then turned to the issue of compensation for lost earnings for the period of DATE , indicated by the third applicant , for which he requested the sum of LTL CARDINAL . However , it was to be noted that the ORG had already awarded him more than LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL for both past and future pecuniary loss . Moreover , after his dismissal from GPE , the third applicant had worked in different jobs and had received more than LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL in salary . Under NORP law , an employee could be awarded CARDINAL years\u2019 unpaid salary . In the third applicant \u2019s case the salary in GPE would amount to ORG ( ORG DATE for DATE ) . Accordingly , the CARDINAL sums he had already received ( LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL and LTL CARDINAL ) amounted to more than the award requested . Lastly , the third applicant had acknowledged that since his dismissal from GPE , he had continued to receive a pension from another ORG for his work in the ORG , ranging from ORG CARDINAL a month . It followed that the claim for pecuniary damage had to be dismissed .","Both the third applicant and GPE appealed . At the hearing , the third applicant asked to be paid LTL CARDINAL for lost earnings as compensation for the fact that he had still not been reinstated with Omnitel .","On DATE ORG rejected both appeals . It upheld the lower court \u2019s conclusion that the third applicant had been dismissed from his previous job unlawfully . Moreover , the circumstances mentioned in LAW existed . Accordingly , the third applicant could not be reinstated in his former job with Omnitel . The court added that \u201c the laws that provide for the prohibition on former [ GPE ] ORG employees from working in the telecommunications sector are still in force , so that if the [ third ] applicant were reinstated in his previous job , certain problems might arise \u201d . Additionally , the applicant was working in another company and receiving a pension for his previous work with the ORG . He therefore had a source of income . ORG also endorsed the lower court \u2019s view that the third applicant had been compensated by ORG for the pecuniary damage he had suffered as a consequence of his unlawful dismissal . The sum he now asked for \u2013 LTL DATE was lower than the awards of LTL CARDINAL and CARDINAL he had already received .","The third applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , reiterating his claim for reinstatement and for compensation for lost earnings . He argued that LAW was an imperative legal norm and meant that once the court found that an employee had been dismissed unlawfully , that employee was to be reinstated in his or her previous job . It followed that the argument of ORG that \u201c if the [ third ] applicant were reinstated to his previous job certain problems might arise \u201d was arbitrary .","DATE Omnitel argued that in DATE it had dismissed the third applicant from his job merely following the letter of LAW . LAW provided that an employer could be fined ORG CARDINAL should he not comply with LAW . This was all the more likely to happen since ORG had recognised LAW as constitutional in its ruling of DATE , that is before the third applicant was dismissed . Even though the ORG had found a violation in the third applicant \u2019s case , LAW was still in force , and therefore the third applicant \u2019s reinstatement was barred . Furthermore , in the judgment of DATE the ORG had not ordered GPE to amend LAW . Nor had the ORG ordered the NORP courts to have the third applicant reinstated in his previous job . In his written reply to this last argument , the third applicant observed that GPE , by not appealing against the ORG \u2019s judgment to ORG , had shown its agreement with the interpretation and application of FAC in the Rainys and Gasparavi\u010dius judgment . He therefore insisted that the ORG \u2019s judgment was sufficient legal basis for him to be reinstated in his former job at the private telecommunications company , Omnitel , notwithstanding the fact that LAW had not been amended .","Lastly , PERSON maintained that the lower courts had been correct in referring to other circumstances why the third applicant could not be reinstated on the basis of LAW of the Law on ORG , namely , for economic , technological and organisational reasons , and the fact that it could lead to unfavourable conditions for him ( see paragraph DATE above ) .","On DATE ORG held :","\u201c LAW is an international agreement , ratified by the LAW . It is therefore an integral part of the legal system of GPE ... ORG was established to guarantee the observance of the rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by LAW . In ratifying the Convention , GPE took an undertaking to execute the ORG \u2019s final judgments in every case in which it is a party . The Convention norms must be implemented in reality ( PERSON normos turi b\u016bti realiai \u012fgyvendinamos ) . The ORG itself establishes the manner in which it will ensure implementation of the Convention norms . CARDINAL such method is the reopening of proceedings , provided for in LAW . Namely , a case which had been terminated by a final court decision may be reopened if the ORG finds that the NORP courts\u2019 decisions are in conflict ( prie\u0161tarauja ) with the ORG or its Protocols , to which GPE is a party . \u201d","As to the facts of the case , ORG noted that the third applicant had worked as a lawyer at Omnitel and had been dismissed on DATE because of the restrictions provided for in LAW . As ORG had held on DATE , those restrictions were compatible with the LAW .","ORG nevertheless observed that on DATE the ORG had found that the third applicant had lost his job as a lawyer in the private telecommunications company on the basis of the application of FAC which the ORG had found to be discriminatory , in breach of LAW , taken in conjunction with LAW . ORG had also held that the third applicant \u2019s inability to pursue his former profession and his continuing inability to find private sector employment because of his \u201c former ORG officer \u201d status under LAW constituted a disproportionate and thus discriminatory measure , even having regard to the legitimacy of the aims sought ( paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG \u2019s judgment ) . ORG then held :","\u201c Accordingly , even though LAW , which was the basis for dismissing the third applicant from his job , is in force and even acknowledged as being in conformity with LAW , the dismissal from his job on the basis of that LAW in essence had been recognised as unlawful by the ORG \u2019s judgment , that is to say a violation of LAW , taken in conjunction with LAW , had been found . This circumstance is not to be questioned when resolving the dispute in the domestic court . Despite the fact that there was no fault in the actions of [ ORG or Omnitel ] , which were implementing the obligations stemming from LAW , the undertaking to implement the provisions of the LAW constituted a legal ground for the courts of the first and appellate instances to conclude that the applicant \u2019s dismissal was unlawful . It must be emphasised that the ground for such a decision is not the provisions of the PERSON on the Employment Contract or LAW , which regulate the issue of reinstatement , but the provisions of the LAW and the judgment of ORG . At the same time it must be emphasised that , while LAW , the compatibility of which with LAW had already been verified ( kurio konstitucingumas jau buvo patikrintas ) is still in force , the question of reinstating the third applicant to his job may not be resolved favourably . In the circumstances of this case the recognition of the fact that he had been dismissed from his job unlawfully is sufficient satisfaction for him ( atleidimo i\u0161 darbo pripa\u017einimas neteis\u0117tu \u0161ios bylos aplinkybi\u0173 kontekste ORG ie\u0161kovui pakankama satisfakcija ) . \u201d","ORG noted that the third applicant had been awarded compensation by the ORG for actual and future pecuniary damage . Given that he had been awarded ORG CARDINAL [ approximately LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ] , the third applicant had already been fully compensated for the disproportionate and discriminatory measure DATE dismissal from his job at Omnitel . For the court of cassation , \u201c there was no legal ground for repeatedly awarding compensation for the violation , which the ORG had not found to be of a continuous nature ( pakartotinai priteisti \u017ealos atlygim\u0105 u\u017e pa\u017eeidim\u0105 , kurio t\u0119stinumo PERSON Teisi\u0173 Teismas savo sprendime nekonstatavo , n\u0117ra teisinio pagrindo ) \u201d .","ORG thus fully upheld the lower court \u2019s decisions . It also observed that \u201c in the context of the [ third applicant \u2019s ] case , other arguments by the parties in the appeals on points of law had no legal relevance for the lawfulness of the lower courts\u2019 decisions \u201d .","On DATE a working group of the Seimas was set up to prepare amendments to a number of laws , including LAW . According to the documents submitted to ORG , as of DATE , ORG submitted a number of reports to ORG , explaining individual and general measures regarding execution of the ORG \u2019s judgments in the ORG cases . They noted , firstly , that the compensation awarded by the ORG had been paid to the applicants . The ORG also noted that the ORG \u2019s judgments and their translations into NORP had been disseminated to the NORP courts .","The Government considered that appropriate execution of the ORG \u2019s judgments required setting up legal regulation giving access to employment in the private sector for the former ORG employees , which was in compliance with the Convention requirements . In that connection they indicated that amendments to LAW had been registered in the Seimas and had been presented to its plenary on DATE . They expected that the law would be amended at the beginning of the LANGUAGE autumn session of DATE . The Government also considered that the draft law amending LAW would guarantee the balance between the aims sought and interference with the right to respect for private life . The legislative amendments would also provide appropriate safeguards for avoiding discrimination as well as adequate judicial supervision of the employment restrictions imposed by LAW .","In DATE the Government informed ORG that the amendments to LAW had been presented to the Seimas on DATE . However , voting in ORG had failed because the necessary quorum had not been reached . They reiterated their previous statement about the importance of having LAW amended and expected that the relevant amendments would be adopted in DATE . In DATE the Government wrote to ORG that a draft new law , amending LAW in its entirety ( not only its LAW , was included in the GPE working programme for the autumn session .","In DATE the Government informed ORG that LAW had still not been amended and , to their regret , would most likely not be amended until the NORP elections in DATE . However , a number of specific laws , for example , those regulating the professions of lawyers , bailiffs and notaries , had been amended , so that they no longer banned former ORG employees from taking up those professions . The Government also suggested that the judgments of the ORG were directly applicable in the NORP legal system . Therefore , the fact that LAW had not been rectified had no legal consequences for former ORG employees as regards their opportunities to obtain employment in the private sector .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the Government informed ORG that as of DATE , even formal restrictions enshrined in LAW had ceased to be valid .","The KGB Act was never amended and is still a valid law ."],"violated_articles":["14","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178506","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF I\u015eIKIRIK v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the events giving rise to the present application , the applicant was a student at ORG of ORG .","On DATE a funeral of CARDINAL militants of the ORG ( NORP Workers\u2019 Party ) , an illegal armed organisation , took place in ORG .","An incident report regarding events that took place DATE and DATE was prepared on DATE by the police and was signed by CARDINAL officers . It stated that on DATE CARDINAL ORG militants had been killed by the security forces and that the remains of CARDINAL of the militants were released to their families in order to be buried in ORG . On DATE at TIME , the remains were taken to a mosque where around CARDINAL people had gathered . The crowd blocked the traffic as they carried the coffins , chanted separatist , hostile slogans in NORP and NORP in support of the organisation and PERSON , the leader of the ORG , and waved ORG posters and banners . The crowd then walked to a cemetery for the burial of the deceased . The security forces did not intervene as there were relatives of the deceased , including children and old people , in the crowd . The police report stated that after the burial ceremony had been completed , a group of CARDINAL people continued to march . They were warned by the police that they were not allowed to chant illegal slogans , disseminate propaganda in support of the organisation or wave illegal flags . However , the crowd became agitated and started throwing stones at the police officers on duty , injuring a number of them and causing extensive damage to ORG buildings and vehicles , banks , shops and other vehicles belonging to private individuals . According to the police report , more people later joined the illegal demonstration , which continued on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and DATE . The report further stated that prior to those events some media organs controlled by the ORG had called for mass protests .","On DATE a demonstration was held on the campus of ORG to protest about the conditions of PERSON detention , and in particular about his alleged poisoning by the NORP authorities . A group of QUANTITY people entered the university building and asked the students to leave . They held a press conference on the LOC of the university and chanted slogans in favour of the ORG and PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was arrested .","On DATE he was questioned at the anti - terror branch of the ORG police headquarters where he denied taking part in both the demonstration of DATE and the funeral of CARDINAL DATE and the subsequent events .","On DATE , the applicant made a statement to the ORG public prosecutor . He was shown photographs that had been taken of him on DATE and CARDINAL March DATE during the funeral and the demonstration at the university . The applicant accepted that he had participated in the funeral of CARDINAL of the ORG militants . He stated that the militant had been a relative of a friend of his , that he had attended the funeral as a religious duty , but that he had not attacked the police with stones . The applicant also stated that on DATE he had stood in front of the university building with other students for a short while and that his photograph must have been taken then . He stated that he had not chanted slogans with the demonstrators .","NORP The applicant was brought before a judge of ORG DATE . He maintained that his statements to the public prosecutor had reflected the truth . The judge remanded the applicant in custody on the basis of a strong suspicion that he had committed the offence of disseminating propaganda in support of a terrorist organisation or its purposes .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant with ORG . The applicant was charged with disseminating propaganda in support of the ORG and with membership of an illegal organisation under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) and Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . DATE ) , on the basis of LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the same Code . The public prosecutor noted that on DATE the applicant had participated in an illegal demonstration held under the pretext of a funeral ; had chanted a slogan ; and had covered his face with the hood of his coat during the demonstration . The public prosecutor also noted that the applicant had supported the chanting of slogans in favour of the ORG by applauding during the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE . The public prosecutor further claimed that the applicant had regularly , willingly and knowingly participated in illegal demonstrations organised by political parties , associations and persons who supported the ORG and that therefore he should be punished for membership of an illegal organisation .","NORP In support of the indictment , the public prosecutor submitted police video recordings of the funeral held on DATE and the demonstration at ORG of DATE to the court . In the first recording , the applicant was seen in a crowd next to a coffin making a \u201c V \u201d sign . In the second recording the applicant was again seen in a crowd with the hood of his coat on his head . In the third recording , the applicant was seen applauding with other students .","On DATE ORG held the first hearing during which the applicant made defence submissions . He stated that he had attended the funeral on DATE and that he had briefly participated in the gathering at the university on CARDINAL DATE . He accepted that he was the person in the photographs . He denied the accuracy of the allegation that he had chanted slogans during the funeral and the demonstration . He noted that he did not remember that he had made a \u201c V \u201d sign , but that he might have done so , along with the rest of the crowd . A witness was also heard by the trial court , and confirmed the applicant \u2019s version of events of CARDINAL DATE . At the end of the hearing the court ordered the applicant \u2019s continued detention on remand .","On DATE , at DATE fourth hearing , ORG convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation , the ORG , pursuant to LAW , on the basis of LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the same Code , and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant was also convicted of CARDINAL counts of disseminating propaganda in support of the ORG under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG , for which he received a sentence of a total of DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","The court first gave a summary of the applicant \u2019s defence submissions , the public prosecutor \u2019s observations on the merits of the case and the evidence in the case file . That evidence was the applicant \u2019s statements to the police , the public prosecutor and the judge , dated DATE ; a photograph relating to the funeral of DATE ; printed versions of news articles published by various media in support of the ORG which had been downloaded from the Internet ; the arrest and incident reports ; reports on the video recordings ; a copy of the leaflet distributed at ORG on DATE ; reports by experts on the examination of the video recordings ; the applicant \u2019s identity documents ; and a document showing that he had no previous criminal record .","In its judgment , ORG observed , on the basis of the police video recordings and the photographs extracted from those recordings , that the applicant had attended the funeral of CARDINAL ORG militants on DATE ; that he had walked in front of CARDINAL of the coffins during the funeral ; and that he had made a \u201c V \u201d sign . Noting that the funeral had subsequently turned into propaganda for the ORG - KONGRA \/ GEL , thus an illegal demonstration , and considering that the applicant had walked close to the coffins , the court considered that the applicant had played an active role in the illegal demonstration . The court noted that it was not established that the applicant had chanted slogans during the funeral . As to the demonstration held on DATE at ORG , the trial court noted that the applicant had applauded while other demonstrators had chanted slogans in support of PERSON .","ORG noted that the funeral of the ORG militants and the demonstration of DATE had both been held in line with calls and instructions issued by the ORG . They had subsequently turned into propaganda events in favour of the ORG and had become illegal demonstrations . Hence , the court found it established that the applicant had acted with the intention of supporting the deceased on DATE and had acted together with illegal demonstrators on CARDINAL DATE , thereby committing the offence of disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG and its leader .","ORG further referred to a decision dated DATE ( case no . CARDINAL , decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) of ORG of ORG , in which the latter had considered that the acts of the accused demonstrators ( participation in the demonstration of DATE after calls for a demonstration had been made by the ORG , in accordance with the latter \u2019s aims ; the chanting of slogans in support of the ORG and PERSON ; singing the ORG \u2019s youth march song ; burning tyres and blocking traffic ; carrying ORG flags and banners and \u00d6calan posters ; attacking public buildings , as well as police and civilian vehicles with stones and Molotov cocktails ; carrying the bodies of the ORG militants who had been killed by the security forces ) should be considered as offences committed on behalf of that organisation . ORG found therefore that the accused should be punished for those offences and also be convicted of membership of an illegal organisation . Noting that the applicant had acted together with the aforementioned demonstrators on DATE , ORG considered that the applicant \u2019s participation in the funeral and demonstration and his conduct at that time had also occurred as a result of instructions and calls by the ORG . The court considered that the applicant had acted on behalf of the organisation , in line with the goals and activities of the ORG , and that therefore he should be punished for not only disseminating propaganda , but also for membership of an illegal organisation .","One of the CARDINAL judges sitting on the bench of the assize court dissented . In his dissenting opinion , the judge stated that neither LAW of LAW nor the explanatory memorandum on LAW explained the concept of committing an offence on behalf of an illegal organisation . The dissenting judge noted that such an offence should be capable of producing a result for a terrorist organisation and its aims , such as the offences of aggravated injury , kidnapping , deprivation of liberty , murder or bombing . He also noted that such an offence should have devastating repercussions for society when the way of committing the offence , the time of the offence and its effects were taken into consideration . He finally opined that in order to conclude that non - members of an illegal organisation had committed an offence on behalf of that illegal organisation , there should be a decision to commit an offence on behalf of that organisation and an intention to join the organisation in question . The judge therefore concluded that the applicant should only have been convicted under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG .","The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE in so far as it related to the applicant \u2019s conviction under LAW of LAW , on the basis of LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the same Code , for membership of an illegal organisation . The higher court , however , quashed the applicant \u2019s conviction under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG on procedural grounds .","On DATE ORG decision of DATE was deposited with the registry of the first - instance court .","On DATE ORG once again convicted the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the applicant \u2019s conviction under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG .","On DATE ORG decided to suspend the criminal proceedings against the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG , pursuant to PERSON no . DATE , which had entered into force on DATE . The suspension was for a period of DATE , on the condition that he did not commit an offence when expressing ideas and opinions through the medium of the press or other media , or by any other method .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant was expelled from ORG by the administrative board of ORG because he had failed to complete his degree within the maximum period of DATE for an undergraduate programme . The case lodged by the applicant against that decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The court considered that the fact that the applicant had been serving a prison sentence did not justify his nonattendance at classes and examinations .","After serving DATE and DATE of his sentence , the applicant was released from prison on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164950","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KOCHIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings . The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146775","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SULTYGOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals who are close relatives of persons who disappeared after allegedly being arrested by servicemen . In each of the applications the events took place in areas under the full control of the NORP federal forces .","The applicants complained to law - enforcement bodies and official investigations were opened . The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed , and have remained pending for DATE without achieving any tangible results . The investigations consisted mainly of the authorities making requests for information and formal requests to their counterparts in various parts of GPE and PERSON and other regions of LOC to take operational search measures . The requests received negative responses or no replies at all .","From the documents submitted it appears that the relevant ORG authorities were unable to identify the ORG servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions .","In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants . At the same time , they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that ORG agents had been involved in the abductions .","Below are summaries of the facts relevant to each individual application . They are based on the statements provided by the applicants , their relatives and neighbours and copies of the contents of the criminal investigation files furnished by the Government . The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives , and some other key facts , are summarized below and in the attached table ( Appendix I ) .","The applicants are :","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE ;","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE , and","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE .","The first applicant resides in GPE , GPE . The second applicant lives in GPE , GPE . The fourth applicant resides in GPE , GPE ; prior to his death , the third applicant also lived there .","The third applicant , Mr PERSON , passed away on DATE . Mr PERSON , his grandson and the son of Mr PERSON , expressed his wish to pursue the application .","The first and second applicants are the siblings of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE . The third and fourth applicants are the father and stepmother of PERSON PERSON , who was born in DATE .","In DATE the PERSON family , including the first and second applicants and their children , moved from ORG to ORG owing to armed hostilities . In DATE Mr PERSON returned to PERSON to check on the family house left behind .","On TIME Mr PERSON drove in the latter \u2019s NORP car to the house of the PERSON family through checkpoint no . CARDINAL on the outskirts of ORG . The checkpoint was manned by servicemen of ORG ( ORG ) from GPE . The servicemen checked Mr PERSON and Mr GPE \u2019s identity documents and let them through .","On the way back , after having picked up PERSON , the CARDINAL men were stopped at the checkpoint and detained . Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr D.U. were placed in a UAZ vehicle and taken to the LOC district military commander \u2019s office which was situated in the same building as the NORP district department of the interior ( the ROVD ) . Mr PERSON car was driven by one of the servicemen . At the office the CARDINAL men were blindfolded , their hands were bound and they were put in an ORG which took them to the main base of the federal military forces in GPE .","Upon their arrival at the base the CARDINAL men were put into a pit measuring CARDINAL metres in depth and CARDINAL metres in diameter . The bottom of the pit was covered with stones and broken glass . The CARDINAL men were not allowed to remove the blindfolds and their hands remained bound ; they were not fed , and only given water . The soldiers threw stones at them .","On DATE several servicemen took Mr PERSON out of the pit . He never returned . DATE the servicemen took away Mr PERSON . Later on the same date Mr D.U. was also taken out of the pit , driven for TIME and released on a highway . The abductors told him to keep his blindfold on for TIME and threatened to kill him if he shared any information about the detention . Then Mr D.U. walked to PERSON .","The applicants have not seen their relatives Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON since DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the third applicant was questioned about the abduction . He informed the investigators about the details of the events , as related by Mr GPE , including the arrest at the checkpoint and subsequent detention in a pit in GPE .","On DATE the investigators questioned the wife of Mr PERSON , PERSON , whose statement was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the ORG . In addition , she stated that along with her husband the servicemen had also arrested Mr PERSON and kept him in the pit and that the first and second applicants were searching for him .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON sister , PERSON , who stated that on DATE an employee of the NORP district military commander \u2019s office , PERSON . Ya . , had told her that Mr PERSON had been brought over to their office and then taken to the military base in GPE .","On DATE , DATE , the investigators also questioned PERSON mother , PERSON , whose statement was similar to that of PERSON In addition , she stated that on DATE the district military commander had personally confirmed to her that her son had been brought to their office and detained there until TIME and then taken to GPE .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE the investigators also questioned the third applicant , whose detailed statement was similar to the ones given by PERSON and PERSON In addition , he stated that at the military base his son , Mr PERSON and Mr D.U. had been kept for DATE in a pit and that he had learnt about the details of their detention from Mr GPE","On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON . Ya . , who stated that in DATE she had worked at the NORP district military commander \u2019s office and that on an unspecified date in DATE she had seen , on the LOC , PERSON , who had been standing in the hallway with his hands above his head against the wall . At the time the district military commander was officer PERSON .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON mother , PERSON , whose statement was similar to the one given by the third applicant . In addition , she stated that she had learnt the details of the arrest and the subsequent detention from Mr GPE","On DATE Mr D.U. wrote to the investigators providing details of his arrest at the checkpoint and the subsequent detention in GPE with the applicants\u2019 relatives Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . This information was included in the case file ; he was not questioned by the investigators .","On DATE the third applicant was informed by Mr GPE of the abduction of PERSON . From the documents submitted it follows that on an unspecified date prior to CARDINAL DATE he complained about the abduction in writing to the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office and the Leninskiy ROVD stating that his son had been detained at the checkpoint and then taken to the ROVD and the military commander \u2019s office .","At DATE Mr PERSON mother , PERSON , received a note from ORG stating that her son had been arrested . She immediately went to speak with him ; having learnt the details of the arrest and subsequent detention in the pit , she complained thereof to the PERSON military commander \u2019s office .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE to investigate the abduction of Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON .","On DATE Mr PERSON wife , PERSON , was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the investigation was suspended and on DATE it was resumed . The applicants were not informed thereof .","On DATE the investigators examined the detainee registration log of PERSON . According to entry no . CARDINAL , on DATE PERSON had been taken to the ROVD and then handed over to colonel ORG .","On DATE Mr PERSON mother , PERSON , wrote to the investigators describing the circumstances of her son \u2019s arrest at the checkpoint , his transfer from the ROVD by colonel PERSON to the military base in GPE and his subsequent detention with Mr GPE","On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as DATE ) PERSON was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the third applicant wrote to the investigators asking them to resume the proceedings . He also stated that Mr GPE , who had previously refused to give statements to the authorities out of fear for his life , had agreed to be questioned .","DATE the investigation was suspended and resumed on several occasions . It was last suspended on DATE . The applicants were not informed thereof .","From the documents submitted it follows that on various dates DATE the applicants and their relatives sent numerous requests to various authorities asking for assistance and information on the search for their relatives .","On DATE the third applicant requested an update on the progress of the investigation . No reply was received .","On DATE the investigation was resumed . It is still pending .","NORP The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , Ingushetia .","The applicant is the mother of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .","At the material time the applicant and her son , Mr PERSON resided in a block of flats at CARDINAL FAC in GPE , ORG . A block of flats was under construction nearby .","On TIME the applicant left for work . At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON went to the construction site and met PERSON , an acquaintance who worked there . After a while they were joined by PERSON . , another worker from the site , who had arrived in his \u201c NORP \u201d vehicle . The CARDINAL men went to the workers\u2019 trailer situated at the site .","Shortly afterwards CARDINAL vehicles arrived at the construction site : a silver VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle with a registration number containing the digits \u201c CARDINAL \u201d and a red VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle with the registration number \u201c CARDINAL mr CARDINAL \u201d . A group of armed men in camouflage uniforms got out of the vehicles and broke into the trailer . Most of the armed men were of NORP appearance and spoke unaccented NORP . Some others wore civilian clothing and spoke PERSON .","Having broken into the trailer , the armed men immediately started beating Mr I.Kh . and dragged him outside . When Mr M .- A.B. and Mr PERSON tried to intervene the armed men took them outside and forced them into their vehicles . They then put Mr I.Kh . , unconscious and bleeding , into the boot of one of the vehicles and drove away with the CARDINAL men . The abduction took place in the presence of several witnesses .","The applicant has not had any news from her son , Mr PERSON since DATE .","On DATE , DATE , the applicant arrived at the construction site and learnt about the abduction . She immediately complained thereof to various law - enforcement authorities , including ORG , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and the GPE town prosecutor .","On DATE a convoy of CARDINAL white PERSON minivans , a ORG minivan ( \u201c \u0442\u0430\u0431\u043b\u0435\u0442\u043a\u0430 \u201d ) and some other vehicles , arrived at the construction site . A large group of representatives of law - enforcement agencies searched the site looking for hidden explosives and ammunition . Mr GPE and ORG , who had been present at the site on DATE , recognised some of the officers as the latter had participated in the abduction of Mr PERSON .","The Government submitted that on DATE a large group of law - enforcement officers had searched the construction site looking for explosives and that on DATE no special operations had been conducted to detain Mr PERSON .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant , whose statement was similar to the one submitted to the ORG . In particular , she stated that she had learnt from workers at the construction site that on DATE a group of armed men speaking unaccented NORP had arrived at the site in CARDINAL vehicles , had beaten Mr I.Kh . , Mr M .- A.B. and her son up and taken them away .","On DATE the applicant informed the investigators that she had information concerning the possible identities of the police officers from the special forces unit who on DATE had taken away her son and CARDINAL other men from the construction site and on DATE had returned to the site . She requested that those officers be questioned .","On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one furnished by the applicant to the ORG . In addition , she stated that on DATE a large group of policemen had searched the construction site and that among them had been several officers who had participated in the arrest of the applicant \u2019s son on DATE and whom she would be able to identify . On DATE another group of policemen had searched the site with metal detectors .","On DATE the investigators questioned the senior investigator of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , PERSON , who submitted that in DATE he had received information concerning explosives hidden at the construction site . He had gone and inspected the site and the trailers with a number of other officers , including officer NORP They had found nothing of interest . On DATE the ORG officers had used a UAZ-CARDINAL minivan ( \u201c \u0442\u0430\u0431\u043b\u0435\u0442\u043a\u0430 \u201d ) , an armoured PERSON minivan and a VAZ-CARDINAL car .","On DATE the investigators questioned the deputy head of the ORG , officer ORG , whose statement was similar to that of the senior investigator PERSON In addition , he stated that upon receiving information concerning hidden ammunition or explosives at the construction site , he had informed his superiors and the regional department of ORG about it . Then he had gone to the site with Mr Ib . T. , the senior investigator Mr PERSON , an expert and officers from the special forces unit of the LOC . At the site they had been joined by officers from the regional department of ORG and ORG . Nothing of interest had been found during the search and the law - enforcement officers had left the site . DATE he had again searched the trailer and the site with a group of officers from the service and the police but had found nothing of interest . According to the witness , he had learnt of Mr PERSON abduction at some point later .","On DATE the investigators again questioned PERSON , who confirmed her previous statement and specified that she would be able to identify the abductors .","On an unspecified date in DATE the investigators questioned officer PERSON , the head of the ORG special forces unit , who stated that in DATE his unit had received an order to search the construction site . He had gone there with his group of officers , TIME in total . They had inspected the trailers at the site and the adjacent area . The witness stated that he had no information concerning the abduction . At some point later he had heard that the officers had subsequently returned to the construction site .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , who reiterated her previous statements and pointed out that CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON and PERSON , had seen the perpetrators at the construction site during the abduction and then during the search on DATE and that both of them could identify the culprits .","On DATE the investigators again questioned officer PERSON , who reiterated his previous statement .","On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON A copy of her complete statement was not furnished to the ORG ; its partial contents did not contain information pertinent to Mr PERSON .","On DATE the investigators again questioned officer GPE , who reiterated his previous statement .","On DATE the investigators again questioned PERSON , who reiterated her previous statements , gave a detailed description of CARDINAL of the abductors who spoke PERSON and stressed that she would definitely be able to identify them .","On DATE the investigators held an identification parade by showing photographs of the potential suspects to PERSON She identified CARDINAL of them as CARDINAL of the officers who had been in charge of the search and the abduction of the applicant \u2019s son on DATE and who had subsequently returned to the construction site on DATE .","On DATE the investigators arranged a confrontation between Ms F.A. and officer PERSON , whom the former had identified as one of the perpetrators . PERSON reiterated her previous statements and stressed that she was sure that this officer had participated in the abduction . The latter stated that he had indeed participated in the search of the construction site in DATE but denied any involvement in the abduction .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant , who stated that CARDINAL men had arrived at her home and threatened to blow her house up if she insisted on further investigation into her son \u2019s abduction . The applicant stated that CARDINAL officers , that is , PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON . and the investigator Mr GPE were suspected of her son \u2019s abduction and that they could have been behind those threats .","On DATE the investigators questioned a relative of the applicant , PERSON , who stated that his nephew Mr PERSON and CARDINAL other men had been abducted by law - enforcement officers and that officer GPE had been in charge of the operation .","On DATE the investigators held another identification parade by showing photographs of the potential suspects to PERSON She identified CARDINAL of them as CARDINAL of the officers who had been in charge of the search at the construction site and the abduction of the applicant \u2019s son on CARDINAL DATE and who had subsequently returned to the site on DATE .","On DATE the investigators arranged a confrontation between Ms F.A. and officer GPE , whom the former had identified as CARDINAL of the perpetrators . PERSON reiterated her previous statements and stressed that she was sure that he had participated in the abduction . The latter stated that he had indeed participated in the search of the construction site in DATE and DATE but denied any involvement in the abduction .","DATE . On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , who stated that he had witnessed the abduction and provided a detailed description of the events similar to the one submitted by the applicant to the ORG . In addition , he stressed that the abduction had been perpetrated by lawenforcement officers GPE and GPE","On DATE the investigators arranged a confrontation between PERSON and officer PERSON , whom the former had identified as one of the perpetrators . PERSON reiterated her previous statements and stressed that she was sure that he had also participated in the abduction along with officers PERSON and NORP Officer PERSON stated that he had indeed participated in the search of the construction site in DATE but denied any involvement in the abduction .","On DATE the GPE town prosecutor \u2019s office instituted a criminal investigation into the abduction of Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and PERSON . The case file was given the number CARDINAL .","On DATE , DATE , the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the investigators decided to follow up on the applicant \u2019s information of CARDINAL DATE concerning the ORG identities .","On DATE the investigators informed the applicant that the steps taken had not led to the identification of the perpetrators .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office , the supervisor of the investigators , informed the applicant that all possible steps to solve the crime had been taken . In particular , from the statements of the ORG officers questioned by investigators it followed that on DATE the officers had indeed inspected the trailer and the site but had not arrested the applicant \u2019s son .","On an unspecified date DATE the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on DATE","DATE . On DATE the applicant was allowed to access the case file . CARDINAL . The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions DATE and DATE the applicant complained to various lawenforcement agencies about her son \u2019s abduction by officers of ORG , stating that a number of witnesses could identify the abductors , requesting that the investigators take a number of urgent steps to solve the crime and asking to be kept abreast of the progress of the investigation .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained to the head of ORG of the Interior that the TIME before CARDINAL unidentified persons had threatened to blow her house up if she continued to persist with the investigation into her son \u2019s abduction .","On DATE the ORG informed the investigators that their internal inquiry had not confirmed that the CARDINAL officers who , according to witness PERSON , had participated in the abduction on DATE had actually been present at the construction site on that date .","NORP The investigation into the abduction was suspended and resumed on numerous occasions . It was last suspended on DATE . The investigation is still pending .","The applicants , PERSON Isayeva and PERSON GPE , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in the village of GPE , GPE .","The first applicant is the mother and the second applicant is the sister of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE . According to the information submitted by the applicants , Mr PERSON suffered from mental problems which had arisen as a result of a head wound sustained during the first military campaign in GPE in DATE .","On TIME NORP security forces started a special operation in GPE aimed at identifying members of illegal armed groups . As part of the operation the servicemen blocked the perimeter of the village .","On TIME armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at the applicants\u2019 house in CARDINAL APCs with obscured registration numbers . The servicemen checked the applicants\u2019 identity documents and opened gunfire . On hearing the shots , Mr PERSON ran away and the servicemen started shooting at him . The first applicant ran to the servicemen , asking them not to shoot at her son as he was mentally ill . However , the servicemen did not stop firing and the first applicant saw him fall to the ground . She fainted and was taken by her relatives to a neighbour \u2019s house .","On TIME , after the servicemen had left the village , the applicants returned home . Their house and their car had been burnt . They did not find Mr PERSON at home and did not know what had happened to him .","DATE the first applicant searched for Mr PERSON , but only in GPE , as the village was blocked for the largescale special operation being carried out by the federal forces in the district , including the nearby village of ORG ( for the details of the operation see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE , and Abuyeva and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","On DATE the first applicant found several items of Mr PERSON clothing with traces of blood on them and first - aid materials next to them in a field adjacent to the village . The first applicant inferred that her son had been given medical aid . She collected all those objects and subsequently submitted them to the investigators .","On an unspecified date in DATE a neighbour of the applicants\u2019 who had been detained in GPE remand prison , PERSON , returned home . According to a statement by PERSON produced by the applicants , while in detention in GPE she had seen CARDINAL inscriptions made with a sharp object on the cell wall reading \u201c PERSON , village of GPE \u201d and \u201c DATE \u201d .","The applicants have not seen Mr PERSON since DATE .","On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose detailed description of the circumstances of her son \u2019s abduction was similar to the one submitted to the ORG . In addition , she stated that her neighbour , Mr GPE . , had also been taken away with her son in the same ORG and that the special sweeping - up operation had been conducted by servicemen from LAW ORG and ORG regions .","On DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL of the first applicant \u2019s daughters , PERSON , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one given by the first applicant .","On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigators questioned several of the applicants\u2019 neighbours , whose statements concerning the circumstances of the abduction were similar to that of the first applicant .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant , who reiterated her previous statement .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants\u2019 neighbour Mr U.Kh . , who confirmed that he had been abducted by military servicemen along with Mr PERSON and taken away in an ORG . According to the witness , in the ORG he had seen that Mr PERSON was in a serious condition as he had sustained gunshot wounds to the head and chest . Mr NORP . had been detained for DATE and then released .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant , who reiterated her previous statements .","On various dates in DATE the first applicant complained in person about her son \u2019s disappearance to various ORG authorities . She described the details of the events and requested assistance in the search for him . Her complaints remained unanswered .","On DATE ORG prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended .","On DATE the investigation was resumed and then suspended again on DATE .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions DATE the applicants complained of their relative \u2019s abduction to various authorities and requested assistance in the search for him . They received either no replies or replies to the effect that the investigation was in progress .","NORP The investigation was further suspended and resumed on several occasions in DATE and DATE and for the last time on an unspecified date in DATE .","The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE , and lived in the village of GPE , Urus - Martan district , GPE . On DATE the applicant passed away ; his daughter , PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , expressed her wish to pursue the application on his behalf .","The applicant is the father of Mr Anzor Idigov , who was born in DATE . PERSON is his sister .","On TIME DATE Mr Anzor Indigov , his parents and wife were sleeping in the applicant \u2019s house on FAC in GPE ( also spelt as GPE and PERSON ) .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks who spoke unaccented NORP broke into the house . The applicant and his relatives thought that the intruders were federal servicemen . Holding the applicant at gunpoint , the servicemen grabbed Mr Anzor PERSON , who was undressed and barefoot , bound his hands , sealed his mouth with adhesive tape and took him away to an unknown destination . Immediately after that CARDINAL perpetrators returned and ordered the applicant to hand over Mr Anzor Indigov \u2019s identity documents , saying that they were in a pocket of his jacket .","NORP The applicant has not seen his son since DATE .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant and the wife of Mr Anzor Idigov , PERSON . PERSON , both of whom provided detailed descriptions of the abduction and stated that the abductors had been military servicemen .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the investigators also questioned the applicant \u2019s other son , PERSON , whose statement concerning the circumstances of the abduction was similar to those given by the applicant and PERSON . E.","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , Mr B.I. and PERSON . PERSON , all of whom reiterated their previous statements .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , Mr B.I. and PERSON . PERSON , all of whom reiterated their previous statements .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . The applicant was not informed thereof .","On DATE the investigation was resumed . The applicant was informed thereof .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . The applicant was not informed thereof .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the investigation was ineffective and requested that the investigators take a number of necessary steps .","On DATE the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint , finding that the investigators had taken all the relevant steps .","From the documents submitted it follows that on several occasions DATE the applicant complained about the abduction to various authorities . In reply he was either informed that the proceedings were in progress or that his request had been forwarded to another authority .","The investigation is still pending .","NORP The applicants are :","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE , and","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE .","The applicants live in GPE , GPE .","The first applicant is the wife and the third to fifth applicants are the children of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE . The second applicant is his mother .","At the material time the applicants resided at CARDINAL FAC in GPE . Their property consisted of CARDINAL houses with a shared courtyard .","On TIME DATE the second applicant and her son Mr PERSON were in CARDINAL house , whilst the second applicant \u2019s husband , PERSON S. , was in the other one .","At TIME the second applicant woke up and saw a group of CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniforms . All of them but one , who was in charge of the group , were masked and wearing bulletproof jackets and spherical helmets . They were armed with submachine guns with silencers and pistols secured at the thighs by special rifle belts . The applicants thought they were federal servicemen .","Without any explanation the servicemen requested in unaccented NORP that Mr PERSON produce his identity papers and mobile telephone . They also asked the second applicant about her other son , PERSON A.S. Shortly thereafter they took Mr PERSON outside without letting him put on any clothing . When the second applicant and her husband got outside , she saw the ORG UAZ minivan driving away .","At TIME the second applicant , her husband PERSON . S. and a relative went to the LOC department of the interior in PERSON ( \u201c the ROVD \u201d ) to complain about the abduction of PERSON PERSON . A police officer told them that Mr PERSON had been detained by the security forces and that he would return home if he cooperated with them and if the applicants did not lodge any official complaints . The second applicant then decided not to lodge a formal complaint , as suggested by the police officer .","In DATE that followed the applicants applied in person to various ORG authorities seeking assistance in the search for their relative ; none of the law - enforcement agencies admitted arresting or detaining Mr PERSON .","DATE the police officer from the ROVD told the applicants that Mr PERSON had been transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL ( \u201c ORB-CARDINAL \u201d ) in PERSON . On DATE the applicants requested information at the bureau but were told that their servicemen had not arrested Mr PERSON .","On an unspecified date a certain Mr PERSON told the applicants that PERSON PERSON had been abducted by officers of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . Subsequently , the applicants provided PERSON PERSON \u2019s phone number to the investigators ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicants have not seen Mr PERSON since DATE .","On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant , whose statement was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the ORG . She pointed out that the perpetrators had been NORP servicemen and that she had tried to find her son without recourse to an official investigation but to no avail . She stated that the abductors had called her ORG phone , asked to speak to her , and told her that they would discuss the details of her son \u2019s release with her . When at DATE she had arrived at the place of the meeting suggested by them , she had seen a vehicle with servicemen in it who had filmed her and left without demanding anything . Having realised that her efforts to find her son were unproductive , DATE after the abduction she decided to lodge an official complaint about it .","On DATE , DATE , the investigators questioned the applicants\u2019 neighbours PERSON , Mr R.Zh . , Mr A.M. , Ms A.D. and PERSON , all of whom stated that they had not witnessed the abduction but had learnt about it from the applicants .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the same neighbours , who reiterated their previous statements .","On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose statement was similar to the CARDINAL given by the second applicant .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected . The applicants provided the investigators with Mr PERSON photo .","On DATE the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u201c the district prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) opened criminal case no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the investigation was suspended .","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was again suspended .","On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG ( \u201c the district court \u201d ) stating that the investigation had been unlawfully suspended and requested that the court order the investigators to take effective steps to solve the crime .","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE the district court dismissed the first applicant \u2019s complaint , stating that the investigation had been resumed on DATE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again and on DATE it was resumed .","On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigation was suspended and resumed ; it was last suspended on DATE .","NORP The proceedings are still pending .","The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","The applicant is the mother of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant and Mr PERSON , who suffered from a brain tumour , resided in the village of GPE ( also spelt PERSON ) , in the ORG district . At the material time the settlement was under the full control of the federal forces ; a number of military units and lawenforcement agencies were stationed therein .","At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON left to visit PERSON , a friend who lived nearby , and did not return .","On TIME the applicant found out that her son had not visited his friend \u2019s house and that on TIME QUANTITY DATE he had been detained by servicemen from the CARDINALth unit of ORG ( ORG ) of ORG of ORG of the Interior .","On DATE the applicant lodged an abduction complaint with ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office . On DATE the interim district prosecutor , Mr D.Z. , obtained confirmation from the ORG district department of the interior ( ROVD ) that Mr PERSON had been brought by servicemen to the ROVD at TIME on DATE for an identity check and released TIME .","On DATE the applicant , with CARDINAL of her relatives and the interim district prosecutor , spoke to the officer in charge of the military unit who had detained the applicant \u2019s son . At first the officer stated that PERSON PERSON had been released shortly after the arrest , but then admitted that he had been taken to the ROVD .","On TIME ( in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as CARDINAL and DATE ) the interim district prosecutor Mr PERSON confirmed to the applicant that her son was detained on the premises of the ROVD and that he would be released shortly . The applicant was told to wait for her son outside the ROVD .","Later on DATE , at TIME the applicant , who had waited since the TIME , spoke to the interim district prosecutor Mr PERSON , who told her that her son was not in fact in the ROVD and that his whereabouts were unknown . DATE Mr D.Z. , who had been on a service mission in GPE , left the Republic to return to the place of his permanent employment . Prior to his departure he told the applicant that the deputy head of the ROVD , Mr GPE , had questioned Mr PERSON after the arrest .","On an unspecified date the applicant contacted Mr GPE and he confirmed to her that he had interviewed her son , that it had been established that the latter had not participated in illegal armed groups and that therefore her son had been released .","The applicant has not seen Mr PERSON since DATE .","In their submission on the facts the Government submitted that Mr PERSON had been detained by the CARDINALth military unit on TIME DATE and at TIME on DATE he had been taken to ORG ( ORG ) , which was staffed by servicemen from the GPE region of GPE and was stationed on the LOC of the former fruit canning factory . Mr PERSON was handed over to the head of the ORG unit , officer ORG","At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON was taken to see the deputy head of ORG , officer PERSON , who signed a statement to that effect . At the ROVD the identity of the applicant \u2019s son was verified and he was interviewed . Shortly thereafter , as his involvement in illegal armed groups had not been confirmed , on DATE , DATE , Mr PERSON was released . His whereabouts have been unknown since .","On DATE the investigators questioned officer PERSON , who confirmed that his unit had detained Mr PERSON at QUANTITY on DATE . The officer personally interviewed him and concluded that he was not involved in illegal activities . At TIME on DATE he received an order from the deputy head of the UrusMartan ROVD to hand Mr PERSON over to the police . At CARDINAL on TIME the witness brought Mr PERSON to the deputy head of the ROVD , officer PERSON The witness explained that he had initially told the applicant that her son had not been arrested by his unit as he had been concerned that \u201c it would lead to disturbances among the local residents \u201d .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant , whose statement was similar to the one submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the investigators questioned the deputy head of the ROVD , officer PERSON , who stated that TIME on DATE he had interviewed Mr PERSON and then released him . Operational search officer ORG had taken Mr PERSON to the entrance and the latter had left .","On DATE the investigators questioned the operational search officer Mr GPE , who stated that on TIME CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON had been brought to the ROVD and taken to the office of officer PERSON , who had interviewed him . After the interview officer PERSON had asked the witness to take Mr PERSON to the gates and release him . The witness had taken the applicant \u2019s son to the gates and the latter had left .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant , who reiterated her previous statement . In addition , she stated that the deputy head of the ROVD officer PERSON had \u201c blatantly lied \u201d to the investigators that he had released her son on DATE as she and CARDINAL of her relatives , PERSON and PERSON . A. , and a friend had spent DATE at the entrance to the building to no avail .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s sister , PERSON , who confirmed the statement the applicant had given on the same date .","NORP On DATE the head of the GPE administration , PERSON , submitted a written statement to the investigators which was similar to the one the applicant had given on DATE . He stressed that for DATE officer PERSON had deliberately lied to him and the applicant , denying Mr PERSON arrest , and that this officer must have been responsible for the disappearance of the applicant \u2019s son .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant \u2019s sister PERSON , who reiterated her previous statement . In addition , she stated that DATE after the disappearance of Mr PERSON officer PERSON had told her husband , Mr N.A. , that Mr PERSON had been transferred to another law - enforcement agency .","On DATE the investigators again questioned officer PERSON , who reiterated his statement of DATE and added that on TIME CARDINAL DATE he had spoken to the applicant and confirmed that Mr PERSON had been apprehended by his unit .","On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL under LAW ( murder ) ( in the documents submitted also stated as under LAW ( abduction ) ) .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .","On DATE the investigation was resumed and then again suspended on DATE . The applicant was not informed thereof .","On DATE the investigation was resumed and then again suspended on DATE . The applicant was not informed thereof .","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE the investigators examined CARDINAL registration logs for the period DATE : the first log contained the names of persons taken to ORG and the second log contained the names of those detained on its premises . No entries concerning Mr PERSON were found .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . The applicant was not informed thereof .","On DATE the investigators questioned several of the applicant \u2019s neighbours , all of whom stated that they had learnt of PERSON Amerkhanov \u2019s disappearance from others .","The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions DATE the applicant wrote to various law - enforcement agencies and military authorities , describing the circumstances of her son \u2019s disappearance and the acknowledgement of his arrest by the military and police officers and asking for assistance in establishing his whereabouts .","On DATE the head of ORG informed the investigators that the registration log of detainees in the ROVD for DATE could not be examined as it had been lost .","The investigation of the criminal case is still pending .","The applicants are :","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born in DATE ;","( CARDINAL ) Mr Bislan Magomadov , born in DATE ;","( CARDINAL ) Ms PERSON , born in DATE , and","( CARDINAL ) Mr Riyyadus - Solikhiyn PERSON , born in DATE .","The applicants live in the village of ORG , GPE .","The first and second applicants are the parents of PERSON , who was born in DATE . The third and fourth applicants are her children .","At the material time the village of ORG ( in the documents submitted also referred to as LOC ) was under curfew .","At TIME on DATE a group of servicemen from a ORG agency arrived at the applicants\u2019 house in GPE - Yurt looking for PERSON . The servicemen had a copy of PERSON identity card with them and asked about her whereabouts . The first applicant explained that her daughter and her husband were living on FAC in the village of GPE , ORG . Then the servicemen left .","On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG of the ORG ( \u201c the ROVD \u201d ) about the servicemen \u2019s visit . The deputy head of the ROVD assured her that it had been a mistake .","On an unspecified date at DATE PERSON returned to her GPE house in GPE - Yurt .","On DATE the first applicant learnt that while she had been at work with her daughter PERSON at the ORG administration , the servicemen had again visited her house looking for her daughter . Then they had gone to the administration and questioned PERSON on its LOC for TIME . The first applicant learnt from CARDINAL of the police officers , PERSON , that her daughter PERSON was suspected of planning to become a suicide bomber .","On TIME DATE the applicants , Ms PERSON and a relative , Mr A.M. , were at home at DATE FAC , ORG .","At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks broke into the applicants\u2019 house . The intruders arrived in several vehicles which they parked nearby ; some of them carried portable radios . All the intruders spoke unaccented NORP . The applicants inferred that they were federal servicemen . Having searched the house without giving explanations , the servicemen ordered PERSON to leave with them . One of the servicemen told the first applicant that her daughter would return later in the morning .","The first applicant and Mr TIME followed the servicemen outside and tried to follow the abductors but they had to return to the house due to the curfew .","The applicants have had no news of PERSON since DATE .","Shortly after PERSON had been taken away , early in the morning on DATE the first and second applicants complained to the head of the local administration about their daughter \u2019s abduction .","Later that morning the first applicant and a relative , PERSON , went to the ROVD , where police officers told them that nobody had been brought to the police station that night . The first applicant lodged a written complaint about the abduction with the on - duty officer and then with ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office .","On TIME DATE the applicants learnt that the servicemen who had taken PERSON away had also raided the house of another resident of the village , PERSON , but the latter had not been at home . They also learnt that their daughter \u2019s abductors had arrived in a military NORP lorry , which they had parked in the centre of ORG before proceeding to the house on foot .","On DATE the first applicant saw CARDINAL of the servicemen who had visited her house on DATE , PERSON , at the offices of the local administration . He told her that the theory that PERSON was a suicide bomber had not been confirmed .","On DATE the investigators questioned the first and second applicants , whose description of the abduction was similar to the one submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the investigators also questioned the applicants\u2019 relative Mr A.M. , whose statement concerning the circumstances surrounding the abduction was similar to that of the first and second applicants .","On DATE , DATE , the investigators questioned the applicants\u2019 neighbours PERSON , Mr MONEY , and Mr A .- Ya . PERSON , all of whom stated that they had learnt of the abduction from the applicants .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant , who reiterated her previous statement and stressed that among the servicemen who had visited the house in DATE looking for Ms PERSON had been a police officer from the ROVD , PERSON , who had told her that PERSON late husband had been an active member of illegal armed groups and that PERSON herself had decided to become a suicide bomber .","On DATE and DATE the investigators again questioned the applicants\u2019 relative Mr DATE , whose statement was similar to that of the first applicant given on DATE .","DATE and DATE the investigators questioned the applicants\u2019 neighbours PERSON , PERSON and PERSON as well as previously questioned Mr PERSON M. , all of whom stated that they had learnt of the abduction from the applicants .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the second applicant , who reiterated his previous statement .","On various dates in DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL operational - search officers from ORG , Mr V.Ch . , PERSON and PERSON , all of whom stated that on DATE officers from a special security service had arrived at their police station and asked the deputy head of the ORG , officer PERSON . PERSON , to assign local police officers to go with them to ORG to speak with PERSON . Following the orders of the head of the ROVD , the police officers had accompanied the officers from the security service to the applicants\u2019 house , where the latter had questioned PERSON about her life in PERSON , her late husband and whether she had been pressurised to become a suicide bomber .","NORP On an unspecified date in DATE the investigators questioned the deputy head of the ROVD , officer PERSON . PERSON , whose statement was similar to those given by police officers Mr V.Ch . , Mr PERSON and PERSON D.I. In addition , he stated that the theory of the involvement of ORG in PERSON abduction had not been confirmed .","On DATE investigators from ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the investigators opened criminal case no . DATE .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings .","On DATE ORG granted the first applicant \u2019s claim and declared PERSON a missing person . On DATE it declared her dead .","The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions DATE the applicants contacted various law - enforcement agencies , military authorities and local courts , asking for assistance in establishing the whereabouts of PERSON and trying to obtain information about the progress of the investigation . For instance , on DATE the first applicant complained to ORG about the ORG refusal to provide her with full access to the case file . On DATE ORG partially allowed the complaint .","NORP The investigation in the criminal case was suspended and resumed on several occasions . The last suspension of the proceedings took place on DATE .","On DATE the investigation was resumed . The proceedings are still pending .","NORP The applicants are :","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , and","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE .","The first and second applicants live in LOC ( also referred to as ORG ) , PERSON district , GPE ; the third and fourth applicants live in PERSON .","The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Ezir - PERSON , who was born in DATE , Mr PERSON ( also spelt Abza ) ORG , who was born in DATE and Mr ORG , who was born in DATE . The third applicant is the son of Mr Ezir - PERSON and the fourth applicant is his wife .","At the material time the applicants resided in a family house together with Mr Ezir - PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG . Mr PERSON was also staying in their house as he had been hired by the first and second applicants to work in his excavator on their property .","NORP Early in the TIME on DATE NORP servicemen launched a \u201c sweeping - up \u201d operation in the settlement of ORG . The settlement was surrounded by servicemen riding in LOC lorries and military ORG cars . Helicopters were flying over the area .","At TIME an ORG and several UAZ cars and ORG lorries arrived at the applicants\u2019 house . A group of CARDINAL masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms broke in . They blindfolded Mr Ezir - PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and Mr PERSON with torn sheets and took them outside . The servicemen put Mr Ezir - PERSON in his own VAZCARDINAL car and the other CARDINAL men in a LOC lorry and drove away .","It appears that CARDINAL other men were arrested in LOC that TIME , including the second applicant \u2019s brother , Mr FAC ( also referred to as PERSON ) . A NORP lorry had driven him to the centre of the settlement .","DATE the applicants learnt from anonymous sources that the CARDINAL ORG brothers and Mr PERSON had been taken to ORG in GPE , GPE .","On DATE Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON and CARDINAL other ORG residents were released at a crossroads on GPE in the vicinity of ORG , where they had been brought in an ORG . A man from a neighbouring village drove them home .","According to Mr Khizir Agamerzayev , after the arrest he , Mr EzirAli Shakhbiyev , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and Mr PERSON were put in separate cells in a basement . Mr ORG was beaten up and questioned about a certain Mr PERSON from ORG , the PERSON and the LOC , allegedly members of illegal armed groups . On DATE in the morning Mr Khizir Agamerzayev had seen the servicemen take the CARDINAL ORG brothers outside and put them in military vehicles .","The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since their abduction on DATE .","On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose statement concerning her sons\u2019 abduction was similar to the one submitted to the ORG . She pointed out that in her opinion the abduction had been perpetrated by military servicemen .","On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant , whose statement was similar to the CARDINAL given by the first applicant .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the second applicant , who reiterated his previous statement and added that Mr FAC had been arrested together with his sons but released DATE . At some point later Mr Khizir Agamerzayev had moved to GPE , Ingushetia .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigators again questioned the first and second applicants , who reiterated their previous statements .","On DATE the investigators questioned the son of the first and second applicants , Mr GPE . , whose statement concerning his ORG abduction was similar to the ones given by his parents , the first and second applicants .","On various dates DATE the investigators questioned a number of witnesses , including the first and second applicants\u2019 relatives and neighbours , the fourth applicant , Mr FAC and Mr PERSON . All of them gave statements corraborating those given by the first and second applicants . In addition , Mr PERSON and Mr Khizir Agamerzayev provided a detailed description of their detention on the premises of the military base in GPE after the abduction . Both of them stated that they had been beaten and questioned about their alleged involvement in illegal armed groups and that the ORG brothers had remained in detention while they had been released .","On DATE the NORP PERSON refused to initiate criminal proceedings in connection with the abduction of the CARDINAL ORG brothers as their arrest had taken place during a \u201c sweeping - up \u201d operation .","On DATE the first applicant again complained about her sons\u2019 abduction . On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the investigation was suspended and then resumed on DATE upon the supervising prosecutor \u2019s orders .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on DATE upon the supervising prosecutor \u2019s orders .","On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is also given as DATE ) the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again . The applicants were not informed thereof .","On DATE the first applicant requested information on the progresss of the investigation and permission to access the investigation file .","On DATE the investigators resumed the proceedings but refused to grant the first applicant permission to access the case file as she did not have victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status upon her request to that end .","On DATE the investigation was suspended .","On DATE the investigators granted the first applicant \u2019s request for access to the case file by letting her consult a few documents .","The criminal proceedings are currently pending .","The applicants are :","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE and","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .","The applicants live in GPE , GPE .","The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Sharpudi ( also spelled as \u201c GPE \u201d ) PERSON , who was born in DATE . The third and fourth applicants are his children and the fifth applicant is his brother .","On DATE Mr PERSON and CARDINAL other men , including Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , were driving in a VAZ-CARDINAL car with the registration number PERSON when , CARDINAL kilometres from the village of ORG , they were stopped by a group of CARDINAL masked military servicemen in camouflage uniforms driving in CARDINAL APCs . The servicemen belonged to the CARDINALth brigade of the military forces which at the material time guarded the oil pipeline which ran adjacent to the settlement .","The servicemen asked the car passengers for their identity documents ; then they dragged the men out of the vehicle , forced them into the APCs and took them to the military base where the CARDINALth brigade was stationed .","NORP The applicants\u2019 relative , Mr PERSON , was detained at an unidentified location in the same cell as PERSON According to the latter , both of them were tortured and questioned .","On DATE all of the detained men , save for the applicants\u2019 relative , were blindfolded , taken to an unidentified location and released , whereas Mr PERSON has been missing ever since .","On DATE the investigators questioned the first and second applicant and Mr PERSON Their statements concerning the circumstances surrounding the abduction were similar to those submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the second applicant was questioned again ; she reiterated her previous statement .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON Their statements concerning the abduction were similar to the ones submitted to the ORG .","On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant and QUANTITY police officers , whose statements did not provide new information .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office initiated a criminal investigation into the abduction under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was given the number DATE .","In DATE the investigators sent information requests to various authorities . On DATE the ORG district department of ORG ( ORG ) informed the investigators that Mr PERSON was a member of illegal armed groups who had undergone specialized explosives training in a terrorist camp .","On DATE the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were granted victim status .","On DATE the investigator examined the crime scene next to the military base .","On DATE the investigator examined the cells of the military base where Mr PERSON and the CARDINAL other men had been detained in DATE .","On various dates DATE and DATE the applicants lodged numerous requests with various ORG offices and other authorities asking for information on the progress of the criminal investigation and assistance in the search for Mr PERSON . The replies to their requests were either to the effect that the proceedings were in progress or that the request had been forwarded to another authority .","The investigation was suspended on several occasions . It was last suspended on DATE . The investigation is still pending .","The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in LOC , LOC , GPE .","The applicant is the mother of Mr ORG , who was born in DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE Mr ORG Tekhiyev was staying at Mr PERSON house in ORG .","On DATE at TIME a large group of armed and masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms arrived at Mr PERSON \u2019s house in CARDINAL APCs with obscured registration numbers and broke in . Pointing their guns at Mr ORG Tekhiyev and Mr PERSON , the intruders asked them for their passports . Since Mr ORG had no passport on him , the servicemen tied his hands behind his back , put him in their ORG and drove away in the direction of ORG .","On DATE the servicemen took away Mr PERSON \u2019s neighbour , Mr PERSON .","The applicant learnt about the abduction of her son on DATE . She immediately went to the LOC district military commander \u2019s office . Officer PERSON , the deputy military commander , acknowledged his arrest . He told the applicant that her son and Mr PERSON were being detained in ORG and would be released in DATE ; however , DATE he said that both men had been taken to ORG in GPE and would be released in DATE . DATE officer ORG informed the applicant that her son and PERSON had absconded on the way to the military base .","NORP The applicant has not seen Mr ORG since DATE .","On DATE the investigators questioned the mother of Mr PERSON , PERSON . PERSON . , who stated that her son and his friend Mr ORG had been abducted TIME on CARDINAL May CARDINAL by military servicemen who had arrived in CARDINAL APCs .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the investigators questioned the applicant , who stated that she had learnt from her relatives and neighbours of the abduction of her son and PERSON by military servicemen in APCs .","On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as DATE ) the investigators questioned PERSON sister , PERSON , who provided a detailed description of the abduction which was similar to the applicant \u2019s account submitted to the Court . In addition , she stated that in the afternoon of CARDINAL DATE the abductors had returned to the house with her brother PERSON , whom they had subjected to beatings in front of their mother , PERSON . PERSON . They had then searched the garden and left with him again .","On DATE the investigators again questioned Ms Ya . PERSON . and the applicant , both of whom reiterated their previous statements . PERSON . PERSON . added that the abductors had returned with her son later the same day and had searched their vegetable garden .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s daughter , PERSON , and neighbours , PERSON and PERSON . , both of whom gave statements similar to those of the applicant and PERSON . PERSON .","On DATE the investigators questioned the Shali district deputy military commander , officer ORG , who stated that around DATE the applicant and PERSON . PERSON . had arrived at his office and requested assistance in the search for their sons . He had promised to assist them in the search but had not made any other promises .","On DATE the investigators questioned the head of the PERSON - Yurt town administration , PERSON . PERSON . , who stated that after the abduction of Mr ORG Tekhiyev and Mr PERSON he and representatives of the prosecutor \u2019s office had tried to gain access to the military unit stationed on the outskirts of ORG as the CARDINAL abducted men could have been being detained there . However , they had not been allowed to enter the LOC . For the description of the military unit see also PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , DATE , DATE and DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE , ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . GPE , CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , who reiterated her previous statements .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s son , Mr I.T. , whose statement was similar to those of the applicant . In addition , he stated that on the date of the abduction a fellow resident , PERSON . , had also been abducted and taken to the military unit in ORG , where he had been detained for DATE together with Mr ORG Tekhiyev and Mr PERSON . The head of the military unit had been called PERSON and his code name was \u201c Terek - FSB \u201d . According to the witness , at some point later PERSON . had left GPE and moved abroad .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended and then resumed on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on DATE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again . The applicant was informed thereof .","The documents submitted show that on numerous occasions DATE and DATE the applicant requested the authorities to assist her in the search for her son , expedite the investigation and provide her with information on the progress of the proceedings . In reply she was either informed that measures were being taken to solve the crime or that her complaints had been forwarded to another authority .","On DATE the investigators resumed the proceedings .","On DATE , upon a request lodged by the applicant on DATE , the investigators granted her victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again . The applicant was not informed thereof .","On DATE the applicant requested the investigators to provide her with information on the progress of the proceedings .","On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as DATE ) the investigation was resumed and then suspended on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the investigation was resumed . The criminal proceedings are currently pending .","The applicants are :","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , and","( CARDINAL ) Ms PERSON , who was born in DATE .","The applicants live in GPE , GPE .","The first applicant is the mother of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE . The second applicant is his brother and the third applicant is his wife .","At TIME on DATE a group of masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms , armed with machineguns , arrived at the applicants\u2019 house in LOC in CARDINAL APCs without registration numbers and broke in . They woke up Mr PERSON , handcuffed him , forced him into one of the APCs and departed to an unknown destination .","On DATE an officer of the LOC military commander \u2019s office acknowledged to the applicants that Mr PERSON had been arrested by their servicemen and taken to ORG in GPE .","The applicants have not seen Mr PERSON since DATE .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants\u2019 neighbour , PERSON . I. , who stated that on DATE a group of military servicemen in APCs had arrived at the applicants\u2019 house and abducted PERSON PERSON .","On DATE the investigators also questioned the applicants\u2019 relatives Mr R.Ch . and PERSON , both of whom stated that their nephew Mr PERSON had been abducted by military servicemen .","On DATE the investigators questioned the third applicant , whose statement about the circumstances of the abduction was similar to one submitted to the ORG . In addition , she stated that she and her relatives had followed the abductors and had seen that after having taken her husband they had driven to the NORP military commander \u2019s office .","On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose statement was similar to the one submitted to the ORG . In addition , she stated that the abductors had told her that they were taking her son in for questioning and would release him afterwards .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the third applicant and PERSON . I. , both of whom reiterated their previous statements .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the first and third applicants , who reiterated their previous statements . In addition , they stated that after the abduction the perpetrators had driven to the LOC of special military task force brigade no . CARDINAL of the internal troops ( CARDINAL ORG ) .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicants\u2019 relatives Mr GPE . , PERSON and PERSON . I. , all of whom reiterated their previous statements . PERSON added that to his knowledge , from the military commander \u2019s office Mr PERSON had been taken to the main military base in GPE .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant , who reiterated her previous statements .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant , who reiterated her previous statements . In addition , she stated that the abductors had been a group of CARDINAL servicemen who had spoken unaccented NORP .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicants\u2019 relative Mr GPE . , who reiterated his previous statements .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants\u2019 relative PERSON . , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the Court .","On DATE the investigators also questioned the applicants\u2019 neighbours PERSON . I. and PERSON . , whose statements were similar to that of the first and third applicants .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants\u2019 neighbour PERSON , whose statement did not provide any new information .","The documents submitted show that on various dates in DATE the police also questioned CARDINAL of the local residents , including the head of the local council of the elders , Mr GPE None of the statements provided new information .","On DATE and DATE the investigators again questioned the first and third applicants , both of whom reiterated their previous statements .","DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant , the applicants\u2019 neighbours PERSON and PERSON . I. and the applicants\u2019 relative PERSON . , whose statements concerning the abduction were similar to that of the first and third applicants .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a written complaint about her son \u2019s abduction with the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office ( in the documents submitted also referred to as the NORP prosecutor \u2019s office ) .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the military commander \u2019s office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the investigators that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction had not been established .","On DATE the investigation was suspended and on DATE it was resumed .","On DATE the investigation was suspended and on DATE it was resumed .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the investigation was suspended and on DATE it was resumed . The applicants were informed thereof .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . From the documents submitted it follows that on an unspecified date in DATE it was resumed and then again suspended .","On DATE the investigators allowed the first applicant \u2019s request to access the investigation file .","On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as DATE ) the investigation was resumed .","From the documents submitted it follows that on numerous occasions DATE the applicants contacted the authorities asking for assistance in the search for Mr PERSON and asking for an effective investigation to be conducted into his disappearance .","On DATE the first applicant complained to the ORG alleging that the investigation into her son \u2019s abduction was ineffective . On DATE the ORG rejected the complaint on the grounds that the proceedings had been resumed .","The criminal proceedings are currently pending .","The applicants are :","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) Ms Medina Akhamdova , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) GPE , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) Ms Khadizhat PERSON , who was born in DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE and","( CARDINAL ) PERSON , who was born in DATE .","The first , second and third applicants live in the settlement of GPE in the ORG district ; the sixth applicant lives in PERSON and the fourth , fifth , seventh , DATE , tenth , eleventh and twelfth applicants live in ORG , LOC , GPE .","The applicants are close relatives of Mr Apti Medzhidov , who was born in DATE , Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , and Mr Alu ( in the documents submitted also referred to as ORG ) PERSON , who was born in DATE . The first applicant is the mother of FAC , the second applicant is his daughter and the third applicant is his sister . The fourth applicant is the mother of Mr PERSON and the fifth applicant is his brother . The sixth and seventh applicants are the siblings of PERSON PERSON and the twelfth applicant is his daughter . The eighth applicant is the wife of Mr PERSON and DATE applicants are his daughters .","At the material time Mr GPE , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were policemen of ORG ( \u043f\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0443\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e-\u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0432\u0430\u044f \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0430 ) of ORG of the Interior ( the Chechnya MVD ) . They resided with their families in ORG , in the ORG district .","NORP In DATE the CARDINAL men were in PERSON . The town was under curfew and only NORP military vehicles could move around freely . Mr GPE , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were staying at PERSON Tatsuyeva \u2019s flat and Mr PERSON was staying in another flat in the same block of flats .","Early in the morning on DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as DATE ) CARDINAL or CARDINAL APCs and several ORG minivans arrived at the block of flats . A group of CARDINAL servicemen in camouflage uniforms and helmets stormed into the flat where Mr PERSON was staying , blindfolded and handcuffed him and put him in one of their APCs . The servicemen also arrested PERSON , his neighbour , and put her in the same ORG .","After that the servicemen broke into PERSON Tatsuyeva \u2019s flat to arrest her , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . The servicemen put the CARDINAL of them in the same ORG with Mr PERSON and PERSON . They then drove the ORG to GPE . PERSON heard the sounds of helicopters and military vehicles throughout the onehour drive .","In GPE the CARDINAL arrestees were placed in a detention centre . According to the applicants , the CARDINAL men were detained there until DATE without any official record of their detention . PERSON and PERSON Tatsuyeva were officially registered as detainees . All of the detainees were kept in pits . PERSON shared her pit with Mr PERSON . Once they managed to see Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON Tatsuyeva .","On DATE PERSON was transferred to another detention centre in GPE and DATE to a remand prison ( GPE ) in PERSON . On DATE by a decision of the PERSON - on - Don Investigations Unit of ORG ( the ORG ) she was released from detention . According to the decision , PERSON had been arrested on suspicion of terrorist activities , in particular , blowing up a block of flats in GPE , in GPE , in DATE . PERSON Tatsuyeva was released from detention on DATE .","Sometime later the applicants were informed by anonymous sources that after DATE their CARDINAL relatives had allegedly been detained in remand prions in GPE - on - Don , GPE , GPE and GPE .","The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .","On DATE the investigators questioned the sixth applicant , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the ORG .","On DATE the investigators questioned the brother of Mr PERSON , PERSON , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted by the applicants to the ORG .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the sixth applicant , who reiterated her previous statement and added that Ms Tatsegova had told her that she had been detained in a pit in GPE and then in a lorry for DATE and had then been taken to the remand prison in GPE - on - Don . According to the witness , she had learnt that her brother Mr PERSON had been abducted by servicemen from the ORG staffed by policemen from GPE of GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the CARDINAL furnished to the ORG . In addition , she stated that immediately after the abduction she had spoken to her son \u2019s supervisor , officer TIME , who had told her that her son , along with CARDINAL colleagues Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , had been arrested by servicemen from ORG ( the GRU ) and that the CARDINAL men had been taken along with several women , including PERSON , to the LOC of the main military base in GPE and detained in pits .","On DATE the investigators questioned the eighth applicant , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted to the ORG . In addition , she stated that as soon as they had been released from detention , PERSON and PERSON Tatsegova had gone to the NORP houses and informed them of their detention , together with their relatives , in pits in GPE .","On DATE the investigators questioned the fourth applicant , whose statement concerning the abduction was similar to the one submitted to the ORG .","On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigators questioned several of the ORG fellow villagers . No new information was obtained .","On various dates in DATE the investigators questioned several of the applicants\u2019 relatives . No new information was obtained .","On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , who provided a detailed description of the abduction and her subsequent detention in a pit in GPE , where she had seen Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Ms LOC .","On various dates in DATE and DATE the investigators questioned several of the applicants\u2019 neighbours and the residents of the block of flats where the abduction had taken place . No new information was obtained .","On various dates in DATE the investigators questioned several people living in the area where FAC had lived in DATE . No new information was obtained .","On DATE the ORG town prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE on account of Mr PERSON abduction .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE on account of the abduction of Mr PERSON . On DATE applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the investigation of both criminal cases was joined under no . DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","The documents submitted by the ORG show that at some point DATE the investigation of the criminal case was extended to include the abduction of Mr PERSON and Mr Akhmed Dudurkayev . The investigation files were referred to under numbers CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .","On DATE the investigators granted the eighth applicant victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the investigators granted the fourth applicant victim status in the criminal case .","DATE the investigation into the abductions was suspended on several occasions . For instance , the investigation was suspended on DATE , resumed on DATE and suspended again on DATE .","On DATE the investigators stated in a procedural decision that it was established that the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL relatives had been \u201c abducted by unidentified servicemen belonging to power structures and then taken to [ the main military base in ] GPE . The investigators stated that PERSON and PERSON Tatsuyeva had been arrested together with the QUANTITY men , detained in GPE and then transferred to the premises of the PERSON - on - Don FSB and that on DATE both women had been released .","NORP On DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the investigation into the abduction of the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL relatives was joined to the investigation into the abduction of PERSON . The joint investigation file was given the number DATE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed on DATE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended and then resumed on DATE , CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended and then resumed on DATE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again . The applicants were informed thereof .","On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant wrote to a local human rights organisation asking for assistance in the search for her son Mr Apti Medzhidov . On DATE that request was forwarded to the investigators .","On an unspecified date in DATE the eighth applicant wrote to a local human rights organisation asking for assistance in the search for her husband , Mr PERSON . On DATE the request was forwarded to the investigators .","On DATE the investigation was resumed . It is still pending .","NORP The parties\u2019 submissions","The Government","The Government did not contest the essential facts underlying each application . However , they noted that some of the applicants had not been consistent in their descriptions of the abductors and that the abductions had taken place on various dates and in different districts . The Government pointed out that the abductions could have been perpetrated by members of illegal armed groups in the guise of ORG servicemen , using uniforms and documents similar to those used by the latter . They further claimed that none of the investigations had obtained evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that ORG agents had been involved in the abductions and alleged deaths of the ORG relatives .","The applicants","The applicants submitted that it had been established \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d that the men who had taken their relatives away had been ORG agents . In support of that assertion they referred to the ample evidence contained in their submissions and the criminal investigation files . They also submitted that they had each made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by ORG agents and that the essential facts underlying their complaints had not been challenged by the Government . In view of the absence of any news of their relatives for a long time and the life - threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in the region at the relevant time , they asked the ORG to consider their relatives dead .","B. The ORG \u2019s assessment","General principles","The Court shall examine the applications at hand in the light of the general principles applicable in cases where the factual circumstances are in dispute between the parties ( see PERSON v. \u201c the former GPE \u201d [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHRCARDINAL ) .","The ORG has addressed a whole series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances in GPE and PERSON . Applying the abovementioned principles , it has concluded that if applicants make a prima facie case of abduction by servicemen , this is sufficient for them to show that their relatives fell within the control of the authorities , and it is then for the Government to discharge their burden of proof either by disclosing the documents in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred ( see , among many examples , ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . If the Government fail to rebut that presumption , this will entail a violation of LAW in its substantive part . Conversely , where applicants fail to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof can not be reversed ( see , for example , ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","The ORG has also found in many cases concerning disappearances that a missing person may be presumed dead . Having regard to the numerous cases of disappearances in GPE and PERSON which have come before it , the ORG has found that in the particular context of the conflict in the region , when a person has been detained by unidentified ORG agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention , this could be regarded as lifethreatening ( see , among many others , GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , DATE , and ORG and Others v. GPE , cited above ) .","The ORG has made findings of presumptions of deaths in the absence of any reliable news about the disappeared persons for periods ranging from DATE ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) to DATE .","A number of witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relatives , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen at the checkpoint on the outskirts of ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in ORG . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .","A number of witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicant \u2019s son , Mr PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen during a special operation in GPE . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her son was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on CARDINAL DATE in GPE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","NORP Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relative , Mr PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen during a special operation in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in ORG . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","A number of witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicant \u2019s son , Mr Anzor Idigov , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in GPE . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that his son was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by him .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr Anzor Idigov was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in GPE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr Anzor Idigov may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relative , Mr PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in ORG . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","A number of witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 son , Mr PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in GPE . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her son was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in GPE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relative , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in GPE . In view of the absence of any news of her since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following her unacknowledged detention .","NORP Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relatives , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen during a special operation in LOC . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr Ezir - PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG Shakhbiyev were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in ORG . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr Ezir - PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON - Magomed Shakhbiyev may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relative , Mr PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed military servicemen on the outskirts of ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in ORG . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","A number of witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicant \u2019s son , Mr ORG , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her son was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr ORG Tekhiyev was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in ORG . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr ORG may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relative , Mr PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed military servicemen in LOC . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in LOC . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of the detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL relatives , Mr GPE , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen during a special operation in PERSON . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE in ORG . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .","The ORG finds that in all of the cases presently before it the applicants\u2019 relatives were abducted by armed men in uniforms , displaying behaviour characteristic of servicemen carrying out security operations . Their behaviour and appearance , their ability to pass through roadblocks and to cordon off areas , along with their use of military - type vehicles even during curfew hours , lead the ORG to conclude that , in all probability , they could be none other than ORG servicemen . The ORG allegations are supported by the witness statements collected by them and by the domestic investigations . In their submissions to the authorities the applicants maintained that their relatives had been abducted by ORG agents . The investigators accepted as fact the versions of events presented by the applicants and took steps to check whether ORG servicemen had been involved in the abductions .","NORP In summary , the facts of all the applications contain sufficient evidence to enable the Court to make findings about the carrying out of security operations and thus about the ORG \u2019s exclusive control over the detainees ( see , among many others , ORG and Others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . The ORG \u2019s arguments are in contradiction to the evidence reviewed by the ORG and insufficient to discharge them of the burden of proof which has been shifted to them in these cases .","The detention in life - threatening circumstances of Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr NORP Idigov , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG Shakhbiyev , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG Tekhiyev , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , together with the long absence of any news of them , leads the ORG to conclude that they may be presumed dead ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140016","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF TIERBEFREIER E.V. v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);No violation of Article 14+10 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General})","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens","text":["In DATE , the journalist PERSON entered into a contract of employment with the C. company . The C. company was authorised under the relevant provisions of LAW to perform animal experiments and to keep and breed animals ( monkeys ) for that purpose . During his TIME , PERSON , using a hidden camera , produced TIME of film footage which documented the treatment of laboratory animals within the C. company \u2019s premises .","Having terminated his employment contract , PERSON prepared footage of TIME which he offered to a major NORP broadcasting company . On DATE the broadcasting company aired a film of TIME under the title \u201c Animal experiments for profit \u201d . The film showed a number of different scenes from within the C. company \u2019s LOC , accompanied by a critical commentary . The scenes primarily concerned the ORG accommodation and the way they were treated by staff . During DATE , other broadcasting companies showed excerpts of the footage .","Later on , a film of TIME with the title \u201c Poisoning for profit \u201d was produced , which used largely the same material that had already been aired on television . The introduction to the film claimed that the applicable law was systematically flouted in the laboratories of the C. company . The film further showed various experiments being carried out on monkeys . The second CARDINAL particularly dealt with the way in which staff treated the animals , alleging that the animals were repeatedly treated in a cruel and harsh way . The film contained the accusation that the applicable legal regulations on the treatment of animals were disregarded and closed by the statement that medicines were not being made safer by poisoning monkeys . The applicant association made the film available for download on its website .","The C. company filed requests for civil injunctions against the dissemination of the film footage against the applicant association , against the journalist PERSON and against other animal rights activists .","On DATE ORG ( Landgericht ) ordered the applicant association to desist from publicly showing the film footage taken by the journalist PERSON on the C. company \u2019s LOC or to make it otherwise available to third persons .","On DATE , ORG confirmed the injunction . It considered that the publication and dissemination of the footage interfered with the C. company \u2019s personality rights , as the footage was produced without that company \u2019s consent within its private LOC . According to ORG , the interference was unlawful because the C. company \u2019s interest that the footage should not be published outweighed the applicant association \u2019s interest in its publication .","On DATE the ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) rejected the applicant association \u2019s appeal . That court confirmed that the C. company had an injunction claim under section CARDINAL in conjunction with section CARDINAL of LAW and LAW and LAW ( see relevant domestic law , below ) . ORG considered that the C. company was not obliged to tolerate the publication and dissemination of the footage by the applicant association , because the applicant association had demonstrated that it did not respect the \u201c rules of intellectual battle of ideas \u201d ( ORG Meinungskampfs ) . The court observed that it had allowed other persons , to which these circumstances did not apply , to continue the dissemination of the footage as long as this was not accompanied by unfounded or sensationalist reproaches .","ORG confirmed that the publication of the footage interfered with the C. company \u2019s personality rights , which encompassed the right not to be spied upon by use of hidden cameras . Even though the footage was produced in an unlawful way , the court considered that the dissemination of such material was protected by the applicant association \u2019s right to freedom of expression . In the instant case , this right was further enforced by the special reference to animal rights in LAW . There was no doubt that animal experiments were a controversial issue , which concerned the public in a serious way .","Under the relevant case - law of ORG , it had thus to be determined whether the means employed had been proportionate to the aim pursued . The court considered , on the one hand , that the published material had been procured in an unlawful way and was to be used against the very person who had been betrayed . Such material could only be published if the importance of the information for the public clearly outweighed the disadvantages suffered by the injured party and by the legal order as a whole .","Given that the information used had been procured in an unlawful way , it was decisive whether the person using this information was respecting the rules of intellectual battle of ideas . If a person did not abide by these rules , his right to freedom of expression had to cede . ORG considered that numerous examples from the case - file demonstrated that this prerequisite was not met in the applicant association \u2019s case .","The court quoted a number of statements from the applicant association \u2019s homepage , such as the following one :","\u201c ORG animal \u2019s ] life will also be more important for us than a broken door , a destroyed laboratory or an incinerated meat transport . \u201d","When third persons spilled artificial blood on a business associate of the C. company , the applicant association announced the publication of photographs and commented on the event as follows :","\u201c The [ applicant association ] has nothing to do with spilling artificial blood on the monkey dealer , but solidarises with the animal rights activists who have performed this act . \u201d","According to ORG , these quotations demonstrated that the applicant association approved of the commission of criminal offences . With the following quotation , the applicant association incited third persons to commit criminal acts by offering its support :","\u201c We carry out public relations and press work for so - called autonomous animal right activists who risk public prosecution in order to save animal life ; furthermore , we show our solidarity by granting legal aid . \u201d","ORG considered that the applicant association had not been aware of the fact that it might entice third parties to break into the C. company \u2019s private sphere by interfering with the C. company \u2019s personality rights through dissemination of unlawfully obtained information . On the contrary , it even enhanced that risk . On its website , the applicant association reproached the C. company of committing \u201c murder and torture \u201d . Even if such unfounded and sensationalist statements , considered on their own , might be covered by the right to freedom of expression , they indicated that the applicant association intended to use the footage for defaming the C. company \u2019s reputation . The applicant association further supported interferences with the private sphere of the C. company \u2019s staff members by reporting on gatherings in front of private homes \u2013 which the applicant association labelled as \u201c home - demos\u201d\u2013 and by disseminating flyers and posting stickers in the private neighbourhood of the C. company \u2019s staff members . Even if the applicant association or its members might not have taken part personally in these actions , they supported such actions not only by reporting on their website , but , to all appearances , also in a financial way . On its homepage , the applicant association published the sentence :","\u201c The action groups act in a mostly autonomous way and are financially supported by the association . \u201d","The C. company had furthermore established that the applicant association had high - jacked their website .","The court considered that the applicant association , by employing these unfair means , attempted to force the C. company to close down its business activities , thereby even accepting the use of violence . This was confirmed by the applicant association \u2019s declaration on its website :","\u201c The [ applicant association ] does not request \u201c better accommodation \u201d or \u201c better treatment \u201d of animals which are killed in animal experiments , but demands the immediate abolition of all animal experiments . \u201d","It was not for the court to evaluate the aims pursued by the applicant association . The issues raised by the applicant association were part of a public debate and the applicant was certainly allowed publicly to express its opinion and to demand the abolition of animal experiments . However , when assessing the relation between the means employed and the aims pursued , it had also to be taken into account whether the person concerned by the interference with their personality rights had to tolerate the dissemination of the unlawfully acquired information by a specific person . Against the background laid out above , the C. company could not be expected to tolerate that an adversary such as the applicant association used film footage that had been produced in an unlawful way .","The Court of Appeal further pointed out that the judgment exclusively concerned the use of the unlawfully produced footage . The applicant association remained fully entitled to express its criticism on animal experiments in other , even CARDINAL - sided ways . ORG finally observed that the civil injunction was subject to review in case of a change of the relevant circumstances . This served the applicant association \u2019s interests , as it was up to them to respect the rules of intellectual battle of ideas .","On DATE ORG , relying on its Rules of Procedure , refused to admit the applicant association \u2019s constitutional complaint without giving further reasons .","By judgment of DATE the ORG ordered the journalist PERSON and another animal rights activist to desist from publishing or disseminating the film \u201c Poisoning for profit \u201d as well as CARDINAL further short versions of the film footage . Conversely , ORG rejected the C. company \u2019s request entirely to prohibit the publication of the footage secretly obtained within its LOC . Basing its assessment on the opinions submitted by altogether CARDINAL experts , ORG considered that the way the animals were treated inside the laboratory justified criticism . There was , however , no evidence for cruelty to animals in the legal sense of the word . ORG further observed that the film \u201c Poisoning for profit \u201d , through its accompanying commentary and through the way specific scenes were cut together , conveyed the core message that the C. company systematically contravened the law . Similar principles applied to CARDINAL further short versions already broadcast . ORG concluded that the C. company \u2019s request was to be granted insofar as it concerned this specific footage . However , the defendant was , in principle , not prevented from using the footage in other ways , as long as he did not convey any misleading message .","Following the broadcast of DATE , a NORP animal rights organisation and several others lodged criminal complaints against the C. company for contravention against LAW .","On DATE ORG informed the animal rights organisation that criminal investigations had been discontinued for lack of a sufficient suspicion . Basing its assessment on an examination of the long version of the film footage , on the statements made by the journalist PERSON and by the C. company during the criminal investigations , and on CARDINAL expert opinions , ORG considered that it could not be established that the management or animal keepers had contravened LAW .","The Public Prosecutor noted , at the outset , that the C. company possessed the necessary authorisation for keeping and breeding animals and for performing animal experiments . It followed that the C. company was allowed to perform interventions and treatments for experimental purposes even if this should cause pain or suffering . It had not been established that cruelty to animals had been exerted or tolerated by the C. company . The fact that some scenes could be considered as tasteless and lacking respect towards the animals was not relevant in this context .","The Public Prosecutor transferred the case - file to the administration for further examination .","On DATE the Municipality of GPE ordered the C. company to record the treatment of the monkeys on video and to have the film material assessed on a DATE basis by the company \u2019s animal welfare officer . On DATE ORG restored the suspensive effect of the objection lodged by the C. company against this order since no breach of LAW had been proven . The objection proceedings were discontinued in DATE .","In DATE , the C. company requested the issue of civil injunctions ordering CARDINAL NORP animal right associations and CARDINAL internet providers to desist from further disseminating footage taken by the journalist PERSON inside its LOC . On CARDINAL DATE the M\u00fcnchwilen ORG ( Bezirksgericht ) rejected the request on the grounds that there were serious doubts whether the practices depicted on the footage were in line with the NORP law on animal protection and that the associations\u2019 right to freedom of expression had to prevail ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10","14"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167803","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RADUNOVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","The applicants were employees of ORG ( \u201c the Embassy \u201d ) in GPE . The first applicant worked as a protocol specialist \/ translator , and the second and third applicants as security guards . All the applicants were local staff .","NORP The employment contract between the locally employed staff and the Embassy provided , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Services to be Performed . The employee agrees to perform all the duties set forth in FAC in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein .","[ ... ]","Disputes . All disputes between the employee and the Government arising out of this agreement shall be decided by ORG or , in the absence thereof , the designee of ORG , provided that the employee shall have the right to appeal in writing within DATE of receipt of notice of any such decision to the Chief of Mission [ at ORG ] . \u201d","The first applicant \u2019s main duties and responsibilities were related to assisting in organising official receptions , lunches and dinners ; questions relevant to protocol and local practices and customs ; maintaining a contact database ; drafting correspondence in LANGUAGE and PERSON ; interpreting and translating documents , articles and incoming correspondence ; arranging official calls ; ensuring press coverage of ceremonial events ; organising official visits and serving as a contact person between the front desk and the host country officials .","The second and third applicants\u2019 main duties and responsibilities were continuous surveillance of an area around their fixed posts for security hazards ; checking ID cards , screening visitors and vehicles , and controlling parking ; recognising emergencies and unusual incidents , and acting accordingly . They could occasionally be required to work at other locations and for special functions such as VIP visits , receptions and dinners at ORG .","Between DATE and DATE the applicants were informed by the ORG that they were dismissed .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE , apparently upon the third applicant \u2019s claim to that effect , quashed the decision on his dismissal and ordered his reinstatement . It would appear that on an unspecified date thereafter this decision became final .","Between DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicants instituted separate civil proceedings against ORG . All the applicants claimed compensation : the first applicant sought compensation for non - pecuniary damage caused by the wrongful dismissal , and the second and third applicants claimed compensation for loss of earnings . The first and second applicants , in addition , sought reinstatement .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG in GPE declared that it lacked competence to deal with the first applicant \u2019s claim and rejected it ( tu\u017eba [ se ] odbacuje ) , which decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG quashed these decisions . Relying on section CARDINAL of LAW , section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and section CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE below ) , ORG considered that the LOC courts had jurisdiction to examine the merits of the first applicant \u2019s claim .","DATE and DATE ORG in GPE declared that it lacked competence to deal with the ORG claims ( in a re - trial in respect of the first applicant ) and rejected them . In substance , the court considered that the respondent ORG had immunity provided for by international law , and therefore could not be subjected to the jurisdiction of another ORG \u2019s court . In rejecting the first applicant \u2019s claim the court further held that granting immunity to the respondent ORG could not be considered a restriction on access to court , as provided in LAW . While the court acknowledged that in international and comparative law there were restrictions on ORG immunity in respect of employment - related disputes , it also held that recruitment ( pitanja u vezi sa zapo\u0161ljavanjem ) in a foreign diplomatic mission or an embassy was an issue which could be \u201c very sensitive or of a confidential nature \u201d and might relate to the diplomatic and organisational policy of a foreign ORG . In ruling upon the second and third applicants\u2019 claims , ORG relied also on LAW , which provided that the function of Embassies was to represent foreign GPE , and held that therefore the jurisdiction of the domestic courts was excluded . The court also relied on LAW , which provided for the inviolability of the premises of Embassies .","On various dates thereafter the applicants appealed . The first applicant submitted , inter alia , that by examining the merits of her claim the courts would not interfere with the other party \u2019s sovereignty . She also submitted that ORG had to examine the claim on the merits pursuant to the decision of ORG of DATE and relied on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Between DATE and DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decisions , in substance endorsing their reasoning . ORG further held , upon the first applicant \u2019s appeal , that a violation of sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) by the first - instance court did not render the first - instance decision unlawful , in particular as it was undisputed that the respondent party had its seat in another ORG and only a diplomatic representation in GPE . In ruling upon the second applicant \u2019s claim it held that the jurisdiction of the domestic courts was not explicitly provided for either by the law or an international agreement .","DATE and DATE , ruling upon the applicants\u2019 appeals on points of law , ORG upheld the previous decisions on the grounds that the respondent party was a foreign ORG with its own legal personality and the domestic courts had no competence to rule upon the ORG claims . The court relied on LAW of LAW , section CARDINAL of ORG , and LAW . In ruling upon the third applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law ORG also held , inter alia , that granting immunity to a foreign ORG in civil proceedings pursued a legitimate aim of complying with international law and encouraging good diplomatic relations between GPE , and that it could not be considered as a restriction on access to court in violation of LAW .","DATE and DATE the applicants lodged separate constitutional appeals . On DATE ORG dismissed the first and third applicants\u2019 constitutional appeals , while the second applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal would appear to be still pending . ORG held that there had been no violation of LAW as the decisions had been issued by tribunals established by law , which had acted within their competence , and which had given clear reasons for their decisions . There was therefore no arbitrariness in the ORG rulings . In ruling upon the third applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal ORG in addition held that pursuant to the case - law of the ORG and the Constitutional Court \u201c it [ was ] not the task of these courts to examine the conclusions of the regular courts in respect of the substantive law application , except in cases where [ ... ] procedural rights were violated ( [ such as ... ] , the right of access to court ) [ ... ] \u201d . However , it did not go into any analysis CARDINAL applicant \u2019s right of access to court ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142189","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MINASYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Procedure prescribed by law);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted on account of a fight with use of firearms between CARDINAL groups of people , which had taken place DATE . As a result of the fight , CARDINAL person died and CARDINAL others were wounded . The applicant went into hiding after having participated in the fight and a search for him was declared .","On DATE the applicant turned himself in to the police . He surrendered his CARDINAL guns and stated that he had used them during the fight in defence against an assault by unknown persons . He was arrested and taken into custody .","On DATE the applicant was charged with aggravated murder , under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( ORG ) , aggravated infliction of serious injuries , under LAW ORG , and illegal possession of firearms , under LAW .","On DATE the investigator applied to ORG seeking to have the applicant detained for DATE . The application stated that on DATE the applicant , in a manner dangerous to the life of many , had opened fire from illegally - possessed guns on individuals PERSON , ORG and GPE , as a result of which he had unlawfully and intentionally deprived PERSON of his life and inflicted serious injuries on ORG and V.H. The application further stated that the applicant had to be detained , inter alia , because he had committed a serious crime .","On DATE ORG decided to grant the motion and detain the applicant for DATE , from DATE until DATE . The court found that the applicant might abscond , obstruct the examination of the case , avoid criminal liability and serving the imposed sentence as well as hinder the execution of the judgment . In so finding , the court took into account the nature and gravity of the imputed offence and the fact that the applicant had committed a serious crime .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , claiming that his detention was not based on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and that ORG had not adduced sufficient reasons when finding that his detention was justified . He also alleged that the principle of the presumption of innocence had been breached since ORG had stated in the affirmative that he had committed a grave crime .","NORP On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . ORG found that there was sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed an offence . In this regard , it referred to the applicant \u2019s statements to the investigative bodies and the results of PERSON \u2019s autopsy , according to which he had died from a bullet wound . As to the reasons for detention , ORG found that the applicant might obstruct the examination of the case . In so \u2019s statement had to be taken solely as meaning that the offence was imputed .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG left the appeal unexamined on the ground that it had been lodged outside the prescribed DATE time - limit .","On DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE , on the basis of corresponding motions lodged by the investigator , extended the applicant \u2019s detention , ultimately until DATE , on the ground that , taking into account the hostility between the applicant and the victim \u2019s friends and relatives which had resulted in the burning of the applicant \u2019s property , the applicant might commit a crime . It further found that , taking into account the nature and gravity of the imputed offence the applicant , if at large , might commit a new crime , abscond , obstruct the examination of the case and avoid criminal liability .","The applicant appealed against the decisions of ORG claiming , inter alia , that the court had provided no relevant and sufficient reasons justifying his detention .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ORG upheld the respective decisions of ORG . It held that the applicant \u2019s continued detention on remand was justified , taking into account the applicant \u2019s personality and the nature and gravity of the imputed offence , punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment , which increased the likelihood of his absconding .","The applicant appealed on points of law against the respective decisions of ORG .","On DATE ORG decided to leave the applicant \u2019s first appeal unexamined on the ground that it had been lodged outside the prescribed DATE time - limit . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s other appeals inadmissible for lack of merit .","On DATE the investigator decided to drop some charges against the applicant and modify others . In particular , the charge of illegal arms possession ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG ) was dropped , while the charges under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and LAW ( CARDINAL ) were modified and replaced with a charge for CARDINAL counts of aggravated attempted murder ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW ) and a charge for CARDINAL counts of aggravated hooliganism ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) respectively ) .","On DATE the investigator applied to have the applicant \u2019s detention extended by DATE .","On DATE ORG , having examined the materials of the criminal case , decided to grant partially the request and to extend the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE , until DATE , on the same grounds as those invoked in its previous decisions . As a reason for considering that the applicant might avoid responsibility , the court referred to the fact that the applicant had gone into hiding after committing the crime and thus obstructed the examination of the case .","On DATE , upon the applicant \u2019s appeal , ORG upheld the decision of ORG finding that the applicant , if he remained at large , might abscond , obstruct the proceedings or , given the continuing hostility between the CARDINAL sides , might commit new crimes .","On DATE the investigator decided to drop or modify the charges against the applicant . In particular , the charge of aggravated hooliganism under LAW ( CARDINAL ) was dropped and new charges LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG were brought .","Meanwhile , on DATE the investigator applied to have the applicant \u2019s detention extended for DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE granted the investigator \u2019s request partially and extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE , until DATE .","On DATE the investigator applied again to have the applicant \u2019s detention extended for DATE .","On DATE ORG granted the request and extended the applicant\u2019","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal .","It appears that , in the meantime , the investigation was completed and , on DATE , the applicant \u2019s case was referred to ORG for trial .","On DATE ORG decided to leave the appeal of DATE unexamined on the ground that the scope of judicial control over pre - trial proceedings was limited to the investigation stage . Since the investigation had been completed and the case had been referred to a court , it was now up to that court to examine questions of lawfulness and validity of detention .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against ORG decision of DATE . However , in finalising his appeal , the applicant requested that his detention be cancelled .","On DATE ORG decided to leave the applicant \u2019s appeal unexamined on the ground that it had been directed against the decision of ORG of DATE , which was not subject to an appeal on points of law . In this respect , it referred to the fact that the request contained in the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law was to cancel his detention as ordered by the decision of ORG of DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the judge of ORG decided to take over the examination of the case . In the same decision , the judge imposed detention on the applicant , as a preventive measure .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , finding that his detention was justified because , taking into account the gravity and nature of the imputed offence , there was a high risk that he might abscond or obstruct the examination .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","On an unspecified date the criminal case , in accordance with procedural amendments introduced in the meantime , was transferred to ORG for examination . It appears that , during the examination of the case , the prosecutor decided to modify the charges against the applicant by replacing them with a charge of attempted murder in excess of the boundaries of necessary defence ( LAW in conjunction with LAW ) and a charge of aggravated hooliganism ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG ) .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty under LAW in conjunction with LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and sentenced him to a total of CARDINAL PERSON imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164681","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VRZI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and live in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicants and their company , ORG , entered into an agreement with ORG and his company , PERSON By virtue of that agreement the applicants acknowledged their debt of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) to ORG and their company \u2019s debt of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL to company PERSON In order to secure the overall loan , the applicants used their house as collateral , allowing PERSON to register a charge on it . It was stipulated that unless the applicants and their company paid their outstanding debts by CARDINAL DATE , the creditors were entitled to institute enforcement proceedings for payment of the debt through the sale of the applicants\u2019 house .","On DATE PERSON and his company PERSON instituted enforcement proceedings against the applicants before ORG ( PERSON GPE ) , seeking the judicial sale of the house . They argued that the applicants had failed to pay their debt to ORG , while the company ORG had managed to pay only part of its debt to the company PERSON The ORG outstanding debt amounted to HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG granted that request and issued an enforcement order against the applicants . The applicants did not appeal and the enforcement order became final on DATE .","On DATE ORG registered the enforcement order on the applicants\u2019 house in the land register .","A hearing to assess the value of the property was held before ORG on DATE . Both applicants were properly summoned , but only the first applicant appeared . He undertook to submit an expert valuation of the house within DATE . The creditor asked ORG to commission an expert for that purpose . The first applicant did not comply with his undertaking .","On DATE the valuation of the house was carried out on site by a civil engineer and a surveyor , in the presence of the first applicant .","The civil engineer submitted his report on DATE , stating that the value of the house was HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( MONEY ) . The applicants made no objections to the valuation .","On DATE another set of enforcement proceedings against the applicants was joined to the proceedings at issue . In the former proceedings an enforcement order had been issued against the applicants at the request of GPE on DATE , in respect of a claim of HRK CARDINAL ( approximately CARDINAL,CARDINAL euros ) . Since the applicants had not lodged an appeal , the enforcement order had become final on DATE .","On DATE ORG set the value of the applicants\u2019 house at HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","On DATE a first public auction was held . However , there were no interested buyers . The applicants , though properly summoned , did not appear .","A further set of enforcement proceedings against the applicants was joined to the proceedings at issue on CARDINAL DATE . In those proceedings , an enforcement order had been issued against the applicants at the request of ORG on DATE , in respect of an unpaid loan of DATE in the amount of MONEY . Since the applicants had not lodged an appeal , the enforcement order had become final on DATE .","A second public auction for the sale of the applicants\u2019 house was postponed several times at the request of the creditors .","The second public auction was eventually held on DATE and the applicants\u2019 house was sold to ORG MONEY ) . The applicants , though properly summoned , did not appear .","On DATE ORG granted PERSON title to the applicants\u2019 house , on condition that he paid HRK CARDINAL as the purchase price .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal against that decision , arguing that the judicial sale had been disproportionate since the true value of their house had been MONEY ( ORG ) . They also argued that ORG had failed to comply with the provisions of LAW , which stated that courts should respect the dignity of debtors subject to enforcement and should make the enforcement process as humane as possible .","On DATE the applicants submitted a statement that the value of their house was EUR CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG PERSON u GPE ) dismissed the ORG appeal . It found that the applicants\u2019 house had been sold at a second public auction for CARDINAL of its value , that the first public auction had been unsuccessful , and that ORG had been the only bidder . Furthermore , the value of the house had been set by ORG on DATE and the applicants had not objected to it . In ORG view , the sale of the applicants\u2019 house was in accordance with LAW .","On DATE ORG entered ORG title to the applicants\u2019 house in the land register .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of ORG , relying on CARDINAL ) of LAW . They argued that the actual value of their house was around EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL , and that their house should have been exempted from enforcement as it was \u201c meeting their basic human needs \u201d .","On DATE , the applicants applied to ORG for a stay of enforcement .","On DATE ORG declared the applicants\u2019 appeal on points of law inadmissible on the grounds that such an appeal was allowed in enforcement proceedings only if based on section CARDINAL ) of LAW , which was not the case . The applicants lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG declared the applicants\u2019 request for a stay of enforcement inadmissible , finding that they had failed to meet the statutory conditions for such a request . The applicants lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG ( ORG , hereinafter \u201c HEP \u201d ) cut off the applicants\u2019 electricity at ORG request . The applicants immediately applied to ORG for an interim measure prohibiting PERSON from having the electricity and water cut off and from making alterations to the house , ordering ORG to reconnect the electricity , and authorising them to keep the house until the enforcement proceedings were complete . On DATE ORG issued the interim measure , prohibited ORG from having the electricity and water cut off and ordered ORG to reconnect the electricity . That decision was quashed by ORG on DATE and the applicants\u2019 request for an interim measure was denied .","On DATE ORG decided to transfer ownership of the house at issue to ORG The applicants lodged an appeal , which was declared inadmissible by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG held a hearing on the division of the proceeds ( dioba kupovnine ) from the sale of the house . The applicants , though properly summoned , did not appear .","On DATE ORG ordered the eviction of the applicants . The applicants lodged an appeal , arguing that enforcement should not have been carried out by the sale of their house , which served to \u201c satisfy their basic needs \u201d : they lived there with their family and it also served as their business LOC .","On DATE ORG scheduled the eviction of the applicants for DATE , ordering the court bailiff to carry out the eviction . However , the eviction was postponed for DATE .","On DATE the applicants applied for an interim measure prohibiting the sale of their house and their eviction .","On DATE ORG decided to conclude the enforcement proceedings for the payment of monetary debts .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , finding that ORG had acted in accordance with the law , namely the provisions of LAW . The enforcement proceedings were about to be concluded since the sale of the applicants\u2019 house had been completed .","On DATE the ORG accepted the ORG appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and remitted the applicants\u2019 appeal on points of law to ORG .","On DATE the Pula County Court , in a different decision , dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE by which their request for a stay of the enforcement proceedings had been dismissed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicants withdrew their appeal on points of law referred to in paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above .","On DATE and DATE PERSON sought the applicants\u2019 eviction .","The applicants have not yet been evicted ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145360","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF STATILEO v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in Split .","He was the owner of a flat in ORG with a surface area of QUANTITY .","On DATE a certain PERSON was , on the basis of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , awarded the right to live in the flat and moved in together with her mother and her cousin NORP ( born in DATE ) whom her parents had entrusted to ORG care in DATE . This right was by the entry into force of LAW of DATE transformed into the specially protected tenancy ( stanarsko pravo , see paragraphs DATE below about the specially protected tenancy in the former GPE ) .","P.A. and NORP lived together in the applicant \u2019s flat until GPE moved out in DATE . GPE continued to live there with her husband and her son , Ig . T. ( born in DATE ) . ORG husband died in DATE .","On DATE ORG entered into force . It abolished the legal concept of the specially protected tenancy and provided that the holders of such tenancies in respect of , inter alia , privately owned flats were to become \u201c protected lessees \u201d ( za\u0161ti\u0107eni najmoprimci , see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) . Under the Act such lessees are subject to a number of protective measures , such as the duty of landlords to contract a lease of indefinite duration , payment of protected rent ( za\u0161ti\u0107ena najamnina ) , the amount of which is set by the Government and significantly lower than the market rent ; and better protection against termination of the lease .","NORP The applicant refused to conclude a lease contract with GPE stipulating the protected rent pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see CARDINAL below ) . On DATE I.T. brought a civil action against him in ORG ( PERSON ) , relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the same LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , with a view to obtaining a judgment in lieu of such a contract .","Shortly afterwards in DATE the applicant brought a civil action in the same court seeking to obtain a judgment ordering GPE and her son to vacate the flat in question . He argued that she had not been \u201c a child without parents \u201d and thus could not have been considered a member of DATE \u2019s household within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW or section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see respectively paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . Consequently , she could not have taken over the specially protected tenancy after P.A. had moved out of the flat in DATE , and thus had not had any title to use it .","The CARDINAL proceedings were subsequently joined .","By a judgment of DATE ORG found in favour of GPE and her son in part . It ordered the applicant to conclude with ORG a lease contract stipulating protected rent in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) \u2013 approximately DATE ( ORG ) at the time DATE within DATE ; otherwise the judgment would substitute such a contract . Since the existence of a specially protected tenancy was a necessary precondition for acquiring the status of a protected lessee under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the court had first to determine , as a preliminary issue , whether ORG had become the holder of the specially protected tenancy after P.A. had moved out of the flat in DATE . The court held that , unlike the subsequent legislation relied on by the applicant , the legislation in force at the material time , namely LAW of DATE , had not defined who could have been considered a member of the household of a holder of a specially protected tenancy ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Thus , given that GPE had been in foster care by DATE and lived with her in the flat in question , she could have been considered as a member of her household and therefore could , after P.A. had moved out of the flat in DATE , taken over the specially protected tenancy from her and become the holder thereof . Consequently , when in DATE FAC entered into force , GPE had , as the holder of the specially protected tenancy , become a protected lessee by the operation of law and was entitled to conclude a lease contract stipulating protected rent with the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . While the court ruled that GPE \u2019s son could be listed in the lease contract as a member of her household , it also held that her daughter - in - law and her grandson could not because they had not moved into the flat until after the entry into force of ORG , when specially protected tenancies could no longer be obtained .","On DATE ORG PERSON u GPE ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first - instance judgment , which thereby became final .","The applicant then lodged a complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) alleging violations of his right to equality before the law , his right to a fair hearing and his right of ownership under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint and served its decision on his representative on DATE .","According to the information submitted by the parties , the DATE protected rent for the applicant \u2019s flat changed as follows , in line with the increase in the construction price index ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) :","It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that the applicant refused to receive the protected rent for the flat and that NORP therefore had to deposit it with a court .","According to the parties the condominium fee paid into the common reserve fund ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) by the owner of the flat \u2013 the applicant and later his heir \u2013 for maintenance etc . , was set at HRK CARDINAL on DATE and has not been changed since .","The Government also submitted information from the tax authorities according to which the applicant had never declared any income from renting out the flat . On the other hand , the applicant \u2019s heir did so in his tax returns for DATE and DATE where he also asked for a tax deduction on account of costs corresponding to the amount of the condominium fee paid ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The Government did not specify what tax rate was applied ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169422","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"OAO AFANASIY-PIVO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants are CARDINAL companies : ORG ( GPE ) , ORG ( GPE ) , and ORG ( GPE ) . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE , PERSON , a lawyer practising in Tver , and PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON PERSON GPE , ORG to ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","Afanasiy - Pivo ran a brewery in Tver . In DATE its chief executive officer Mr PERSON was charged with abusing his position by transferring the company \u2019s taxable profits to his other company , ORG .","On DATE the ORG of GPE made a freezing order ( \u043d\u0430\u043b\u043e\u0436\u0438\u043b \u0430\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0442 ) against PERSON PERSON under LAW . The order concerned ORG shares owned by ORG , real estate and industrial equipment owned by ORG , ORG shares owned by ORG , and trademarks that Mr PERSON had allegedly criminally assigned to ORG .","On DATE the applicant companies learned of the freezing order . They realised that domestic law , in particular LAW did not allow them to lodge an ordinary appeal against such an order .","NORP In DATE Mr PERSON applied for a supervisory review of the order . On DATE ORG returned his application as incomplete .","NORP In DATE Afanasiy - Pivo and ORG applied for a supervisory review . On DATE their application was dismissed on the merits .","In DATE ORG lodged an ordinary appeal against the order . On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u043b \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e ) as under LAW was not affected by the order .","In DATE Afanasiy - Pivo applied for leave to appeal against the order out of time . On DATE the ORG of GPE refused .","DATE and DATE the applicant companies CARDINAL times asked an investigator or prosecutor to unfreeze the assets , without success .","The Code of Criminal Procedure DATE , as in force at the material time :","A prosecutor ... or investigator ... may ask a court to freeze the assets of the suspect [ or ] the accused ... to secure them for meeting any award of damages , other recovery orders , or eventual forfeiture .","NORP The asset freeze prohibits the owner or holder of the assets from disposing of and ... using them , and puts the assets into custody .","Assets held by third parties may be frozen if there is reason to believe that they were gained by criminal activity of the suspect or accused .","An appeal or appeal in cassation may be lodged by parties against ... court decisions that have not yet come into force ....","The right of appeal lies with a convicted person , an acquitted person , their defenders or legal representatives , the public prosecutor , a victim or his representative ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162117","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF IVANOVA AND CHERKEZOV v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home) (Conditional);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property) (Conditional);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in the village of Sinemorets , on the southern LOC coast .","The CARDINAL of them have lived as a family since DATE . At that time , they resided in the town of GPE , where the first applicant owned a flat , which in DATE she donated to her daughter , who had lived in it with her family for DATE .","The first applicant \u2019s father and mother owned a plot of QUANTITY in Sinemorets . Following the death of the first applicant \u2019s father in DATE and ensuing division - of - property proceedings between his surviving wife and CARDINAL children , the first applicant \u2019s mother was allotted CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL shares in the plot . In DATE she transferred those shares , together with DATE of the plot to which she was otherwise entitled as a heir of her late husband , to the first applicant . Combining the shares that she obtained as a result of this transfer and DATE of the plot that she had inherited from her father , the first applicant became the owner of CARDINAL shares , or PERCENT , of the plot . On the plot , there existed a dilapidated CARDINAL - storey cabin .","In DATE the second applicant , who had been employed as a driver , suffered a myocardial infraction and was no longer able to work . In DATE he was recognised as a disabled person and has since then been in receipt of a disability pension . At about that time , the CARDINAL applicants moved from GPE to Sinemorets , allegedly because they were no longer able to afford living in GPE . They submitted that they put all their savings into the reconstruction of the cabin , converting it into a solid QUANTITY brick house . They did not apply for a building permit . The reconstruction took place in CARDINAL . Since that time , the CARDINAL applicants have lived in that house . In DATE of the other co - owners of the plot formally notified the first applicant that they did not agree with the reconstruction . According to the Government , there was evidence that the construction had not been finalised before DATE .","In DATE the other CARDINAL heirs of the first applicant \u2019s father and mother brought a claim against the first applicant , seeking a judicial declaration that they were the owners of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL shares of the plot and of the house built on it . ORG dismissed the claim . On an appeal by the claimants , on DATE ORG quashed that judgment and made a declaration in the terms sought by the claimants , finding that they were the owners of CARDINAL out of the total of CARDINAL shares of the plot and the house built in the place of the old cabin . It also held that the first applicant was the owner of the remaining CARDINAL shares of the plot and the house . The first applicant attempted to appeal on points of law , but in a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG , I \u0433. \u043e. ) , ORG refused to admit the appeal for examination . In so doing , it held , inter alia , that by including the house in the declaration , the lower court had not erred because it was settled case - law that illegal buildings could be the objects of the right to property .","For DATE , the first applicant is unemployed . Her only source of income comes from servicing vacation houses in Sinemorets during DATE and DATE . The second applicant inherited shares of several plots of land in another village , which he sold for a total of MONEY ( MONEY ) in DATE - CARDINAL . The applicants used the money to buy a second - hand car .","In DATE , prompted by some of the other co - owners of the plot , municipal officers inspected the house and found that it had been constructed illegally . They notified their findings to the first applicant in DATE . In DATE the municipality brought the matter to the attention of the regional office of ORG . In DATE that office advised the first applicant that it had opened proceedings for the demolition of the house . In DATE officers of the ORG inspected it and likewise found that it was illegal as it had been constructed without a building permit .","On DATE the head of the regional office of the ORG noted that the house had been constructed in DATE without a building permit , in breach of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , and was as such subject to demolition under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of that Act ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The first applicant had not put forward any arguments or evidence to show otherwise . The house was therefore to be demolished . Once the decision had become final , the first applicant was to be invited to comply with it voluntarily . If she failed to do so in good time , the authorities would enforce it at her expense .","The first applicant sought judicial review of that decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . It held that the decision was lawful . The evidence clearly showed that the applicants had constructed the house in DATE without obtaining a building permit , which under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) was grounds for its demolition . The house could not be exempted from demolition under paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of the DATE Act or paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional and concluding provisions of a DATE Act for the amendment of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","The first applicant appealed . She submitted , inter alia , that the house was her only home and that its demolition would cause her considerable difficulties as she would be unable to secure another place to live .","In a final judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . It agreed that the house was illegal as it had been constructed without a building permit , that it was as such subject to demolition , and that , having been constructed in DATE , it could not be legalised under the transitional amnesty provisions of the DATE Act or LAW .","On DATE the regional office of ORG invited the first applicant to comply with the demolition order within DATE of receiving notice to do so , and advised her that failure to do so would prompt it to enforce the order at her expense .","As the first applicant did not do so , on DATE that office made a call for tenders from private companies willing to carry out the demolition ; the deadline for submitting such offers was DATE .","On DATE ORG urged ORG to halt the demolition on the basis that , although formally lawful , it would have a disproportionate impact on the applicants . In response , on DATE the ORG \u2019s regional office reiterated its intention to proceed with the demolition .","After the Government were given notice of the application ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the ORG \u2019s regional office asked the municipal authorities to explore whether , if necessary , they could provide alternative accommodation for the first applicant . Until DATE , date of the latest information from the parties on that point , the municipal authorities had not replied to that query , and the ORG \u2019s regional office had for that reason not proceeded with the demolition .","On an unspecified date in DATE , again after notice of the application had been given to the Government , a social worker interviewed the first applicant and explained to her the possibilities to request social services . The first applicant stated that she was not interested in that because she preferred to remain in the house .","According to a register available on the website of ORG ( link ) , on DATE the demolition had not yet been carried out ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177665","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF NAVALNYYE v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege;Criminal offence)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively .","The first applicant , PERSON , is a political activist , opposition leader , anti - corruption campaigner and popular blogger . He lives in GPE . The second applicant , PERSON , is the first applicant \u2019s brother ; he is an entrepreneur and a former employee of the ORG unitary enterprise ORG . He is currently serving a CARDINAL - and - a - half year sentence in a correctional colony in LOC .","DATE the second applicant worked at FAC , a subsidiary of ORG . On DATE he became head of its ORG department and then worked in other managerial posts in various departments and divisions of ORG .","On DATE concluded a contract with the limited liability company ORG ( OOO \u041c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0444\u0438\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0446\u0435\u0441\u0441\u0438\u043d\u0433\u043e\u0432\u0430\u044f \u043a\u043e\u043c\u043f\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f \u2013 hereinafter \u201c MPK \u201d ) and the telecommunications company ORG , whereby ORG undertook to print ORG \u2019s telephone bills and deliver them through ORG to ORG \u2019s customers .","On DATE , under a separate contract , ORG leased electronic equipment from ORG . On DATE ORG subcontracted the sorting , packing and the transfer of the equipment leased to ORG to a private joint - stock company , ORG ( OAO \u041c\u0435\u0436\u0440\u0435\u0433\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043f\u043e\u0447\u0442\u043e\u0432\u044b\u0439 \u0446\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440 \u2013 hereinafter \u201c MSPT \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicants and their parents acquired the limited liability company ORG , incorporated in GPE .","On DATE MPK subcontracted the printing of the ORG telephone bills to the limited liability company FAC ( OOO \u0418\u041f\u0421 \u041c\u0421\u0438\u0442\u0438 \u2013 hereinafter \u201c MCity \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG set up a NORP limited liability company , ORG ( ORG \u043f\u043e\u0434\u043f\u0438\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0430\u0433\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u2013 hereinafter \u201c GPA \u201d ) . Neither of the applicants held formal positions in ORG , but it appears that the second applicant was actively involved in its functioning .","On DATE the chief of ORG informed its client , the NORP subsidiary of NORP company PERSON , the limited liability company PERSON ( OOO \u0418\u0432 PERSON ) , that from DATE it would terminate the practice of collecting the client \u2019s parcels from a specific distribution centre and that this service would henceforth be subject to a separate contract . Subsequently , PERSON , a manager at PERSON , asked the second applicant for advice on handling the transfer of parcels from the distribution centre and he suggested that she use a private contractor , ORG .","On DATE the financial director of PERSON , Mr PERSON , signed a freight forwarding agreement with ORG for the collection and transfer of parcels from the distribution centre at MONEY ( RUB ) per shipment . On DATE ORG subcontracted the freight forwarding services under that agreement to CARDINAL specialist courier companies . ORG paid the couriers RUB CARDINAL per shipment . ORG and its contractors provided those services to PERSON until DATE .","On DATE the general director of ORG , PERSON . , signed an agreement with ORG whereby the latter undertook to provide overall logistical services to ORG related to the printing , sorting , packing and distribution of telephone bills as well as the sorting , packing and transfer of electronic equipment to ORG . Subsequently , ORG subcontracted those services to CARDINAL specialist companies , including M - City . ORG and its contractors rendered the services to ORG until DATE .","In the same period , the first applicant ran an increasingly public anti - corruption campaign targeting high - ranking public officials ( see PERSON and GPE v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE ) . In DATE he organised and led a number of rallies , including an assembly at FAC in GPE on DATE ( see , among other sources , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) .","At DATE the first applicant investigated the off - duty activities of the chief of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , Mr Bastrykin . On DATE ORG , at the direct order of Mr PERSON , instituted criminal proceedings in embezzlement case against the first applicant ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , hereinafter \u201c the GPE case \u201d ) . On DATE Mr PERSON made a public statement expressing his determination to have the first applicant prosecuted . On DATE the first applicant published an article about Mr PERSON , alleging in particular that his business activities and residence status were incompatible with the office he held ( ibid . , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the general director of PERSON , Mr GPE , lodged a complaint with ORG , alleging that in DATE unidentified persons had misled his company \u2019s employees and had persuaded them to conclude a contract with ORG , thus depriving the company of a free choice of contractor . He stated that it was possible that the company had suffered significant damage as a result .","On DATE the first applicant made a public plea for people to participate in DATE , an opposition rally at FAC on DATE , in defiance of a ban by the GPE authorities .","On DATE ORG decided to open a criminal file on the basis of material severed from the PERSON case . The new file concerned suspicions of fraud by the applicants against PERSON and the laundering of the proceeds of illegal transactions , offences set out in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) and ( b ) of LAW .","On DATE charges of fraud and money laundering were brought against the applicants under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) and ( b ) of LAW in connection with acts allegedly committed against ORG and PERSON .","On DATE the second applicant requested that CARDINAL PERSON employees be questioned as witnesses , including the general director Mr GPE and the manager PERSON , but the investigator rejected the request on DATE . It appears that the witnesses were questioned during the investigation , but the applicants were not informed of that fact or given the opportunity to have a formal faceto - face confrontation with them .","On DATE ORG of GPE found the first applicant guilty of organising large - scale embezzlement in the GPE case and gave him a suspended prison sentence of DATE . The ORG subsequently found that those proceedings had been conducted in violation of LAW ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the financial director of PERSON , Mr PERSON , submitted an internal audit report to the investigator stating that the company had not sustained any damage or loss of profits due to its agreement with ORG ; it had been established by the auditors that ORG had charged the market price for its services .","On DATE ORG ordered that the first applicant be placed under house arrest . This preventive measure was maintained until DATE .","On DATE ORG began hearing the applicants\u2019 criminal case .","On DATE the applicants requested that the court call and examine the general director of PERSON , Mr GPE , the manager , PERSON and several employees of ORG as witnesses . They also asked the court to obtain certain internal documents relating to the structure and functioning of ORG . The court dismissed those requests .","On DATE the applicants asked the court to summon CARDINAL witnesses , again including Mr GPE and PERSON","On DATE the court , at the request of the prosecutor , issued a warrant compelling Mr GPE to appear , however , it was not executed . The court subsequently allowed statements that he and PERSON had given during the investigation to be read out .","On DATE the court concluded the trial and said it would deliver a judgment on DATE .","At TIME on DATE the applicants and their defence counsel were summoned by telephone to appear in court at TIME on DATE for delivery of the judgment , which had been brought forward from DATE for unknown reasons .","On DATE the court delivered the introductory and operative parts of the judgment . The applicants were found guilty of money laundering and of defrauding ORG and PERSON and were convicted under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) and ( b ) of LAW . The first applicant received a suspended sentence of DATE and the second applicant a prison sentence of the same duration , to be served in a correctional colony . They were also fined RUB CARDINAL each and had to pay jointly RUB CARDINAL in damages to ORG . The court ordered that the first applicant should remain under house arrest and that the second applicant be placed in \u201c pre - trial detention \u201d , with his term of imprisonment running from DATE . Delivery of the judgment in full was adjourned until DATE .","The second applicant appealed against his detention DATE .","The first applicant appealed against the extension of his house arrest on DATE .","On DATE the applicants appealed against the judgment of DATE on the merits . They received the full text of the judgment on DATE , which included the reasons for finding the applicants guilty of fraud . The court found that the applicants had set up a \u201c fake company \u201d , ORG , with the intention to use it as an intermediary to offer services to CARDINAL clients of ORG , ORG and PERSON . It held that the second applicant had taken advantage of insider information that ORG had ceased to provide the companies with certain services for lack of operational capacity and had convinced those clients to use ORG as a substitute ; that he had misled the clients about ORG \u2019s pricing policy and its relationship with ORG , thus depriving them of the freedom of choice of service providers ; that he had promoted his company \u2019s services while knowing that it would have to subcontract the work to other companies ; and that ORG had retained the difference in price between what ORG and PERSON paid for its services and what ORG paid to its subcontractors . The court concluded that the latter margin had been stolen from ORG and PERSON by the applicants through ORG . The court further established that the amounts in question constituted the proceeds of crime , and that using that money to pay ORG \u2019s office rent , legal services , dividends to the applicants and for transfers to affiliated companies had constituted money laundering .","On DATE ORG appealed against the first - instance judgment on the grounds that the sentence given to both applicants had been too lenient .","On DATE the applicants challenged the accuracy of the verbatim records of the first - instance hearing . Only a few of their corrections were accepted .","On DATE the applicants lodged additional points of appeal and a request that CARDINAL witnesses be called and examined , including Mr GPE and PERSON","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment , except for the part imposing a fine and awarding damages to ORG , which was reversed .","On DATE the applicants lodged a cassation appeal .","On DATE ORG refused leave to lodge a cassation appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6","7"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","7-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180195","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"BENCHEREF v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lived in GPE until his expulsion to GPE in DATE . He was represented before the Court by Ms E .- M. Lindhe , a lawyer practising in GPE , and later by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , and then by Ambassador PERSON , both of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant applied for asylum and a residence permit in GPE . He claimed to be of NORP nationality and complained about the conditions there .","On DATE the applicant was detained on remand as he was suspected of committing several crimes : attempted rape , physical assault , making unlawful threats , attempted theft , and sexual molestation . On DATE ORG ( tingsr\u00e4tten ) convicted the applicant of the above - mentioned crimes , sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , ordered his expulsion from GPE and banned him from returning to GPE for life . The applicant \u2019s sentence was mitigated by ORG because of his upcoming expulsion . ORG ( PERSON ) had submitted to the court that there were no impediments to the applicant being expelled to GPE .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( hovr\u00e4tten ) , which , on DATE , reduced the sentence to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment and limited the ban on the applicant \u2019s return to DATE . On DATE ORG ( ORG domstolen ) refused the applicant leave to appeal .","As a consequence of the criminal conviction and the expulsion order , ORG struck out the applicant \u2019s application for asylum and a residence permit on CARDINAL DATE . Subsequently , the applicant lodged repeated applications for asylum and a residence permit with ORG , but these were rejected and , upon appeal , the migration courts upheld the decisions .","On DATE ORG ( Polismyndigheten ) decided to detain the applicant with a view to expelling him to GPE . This decision was enforced on DATE , the same date on which the applicant was released on probation . From that date on , in accordance with NORP law , ORG reconsidered the decision of the applicant \u2019s detention DATE .","Given that the applicant \u2019s mental health was fluctuating , he was occasionally transferred from the detention centre to psychiatric care facilities and the administrative courts decided , on a few occasions , to commit him for compulsory psychiatric care ( tv\u00e5ngsv\u00e5rd ) for shorter periods . DATE , when placed in a psychiatric care facility , the applicant was temporarily released from detention . However , as soon as he was discharged , ORG detained him again .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of assaulting several officials working in the detention centre where he had been detained and inflicting damage on the detention centre \u2019s facilities . He was fined a total of MONEY ( SEK ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) and he was ordered to pay damages to the victims . This judgment was not appealed against and it thus became final on DATE .","On DATE ORG again reconsidered its decision to keep the applicant in detention . Initially it noted that the applicant had not cooperated with ORG in order to clarify his identity or facilitate the enforcement of his expulsion order ; indeed , he had obstructed the investigations by providing the authorities with as little information as possible , and he had been acting in a threatening manner against the officials who were handling the matter . ORG considered that all possible measures to enforce the expulsion order had not yet been exhausted . ORG also noted that , according to a note written by the officials working for ORG , the applicant had indicated that if the expulsion order were enforced , he would try to hurt any person getting in his way in order to avoid being expelled to GPE .","NORP The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , requesting the court to quash the decision and release him immediately or , in the alternative , place him under supervision ( st\u00e4lla honom under uppsikt ) . The applicant referred to LAW and claimed , inter alia , that it was disproportionate to keep him in detention since there was no realistic possibility of enforcing the expulsion order .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal , mainly reiterating the reasoning of ORG . However , the court also added , referring to the ORG \u2019s case - law , that ( i ) for the detention of a person for the purpose of the enforcement of an expulsion order to be lawful under LAW , the national authorities had to be actively working on the enforcement of the expulsion order and ( ii ) it did not appear impossible that the enforcement order would be enforced within the foreseeable future . The court stressed that the authorities were still working actively on the enforcement of the expulsion order and it did not appear impossible that the expulsion order would be enforced within the foreseeable future . Thus , the continued detention of the applicant did not constitute a violation of LAW .","The applicant requested ORG ( Migrations\u00f6verdomstolen ) for leave to appeal , which , on DATE , granted him leave to appeal .","In the meantime , on DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of molesting and assaulting the officials working in the detention centre where he had been held and of inflicting damage to the detention centre \u2019s facilities and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . This judgment was not appealed against and thus became final .","The applicant started to serve the prison sentence immediately and , in accordance with NORP law , the detention order was therefore revoked .","Consequently , on DATE , ORG struck the case out of its list of cases . However , in its decision the court noted that the question of whether there were exceptional reasons to keep the applicant in detention was a principled and important question that needed to be assessed by the court . The court noted that the applicant had been detained for an extraordinarily long time and even if it could be established that the authorities had been taking measures in order to enforce the expulsion order , it could also be noted that there had been periods of time when the authorities had been inactive . Moreover , contacts with the NORP authorities had not led to any concrete results and it could therefore on reasonable grounds be questioned whether the expulsion order actually could be enforced within the foreseeable future . The court stated that , even though the matter was being dealt with at a high political level , it still appeared unclear if and when the expulsion order could be enforced , and that it was hard to see what measures could be taken in order to enforce the expulsion order . Considering all of these circumstances , the court found , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , that the continued detention of the applicant would not be proportionate .","On DATE ORG once again decided to detain the applicant in order to expel him . Upon the release of the applicant on probation , on DATE , the decision was enforced .","The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG , requesting that he be released immediately or , in the alternative , that he be placed under supervision . The applicant once again referred to LAW and claimed , inter alia , that it was disproportionate to keep him in detention since there was no realistic possibility of enforcing the expulsion order .","ORG contested the applicant \u2019s appeal , stating that it had intensified its work and that it had had a meeting with ORG to discuss what measures could be taken , and that the Minister of ORG had also handed over a letter to the NORP Minister of ORG . Moreover , ORG and ORG had been in contact with ORG in GPE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . Firstly , the court noted that there was a real and manifest risk that the applicant , upon release , would commit crimes and that there were legal grounds under NORP law to detain him pending his expulsion . Moreover , the court found that the authorities had recently intensified their work and that the matter had been discussed between the NORP and NORP Ministers for ORG and that , in the light of those discussions , it appeared more probable that the expulsion could be executed within the foreseeable future . Given this , a continued detention could not be considered disproportionate and it was thus legitimate to detain the applicant . The court also noted that the interest in keeping the applicant in custody outweighed the applicant \u2019s right to liberty and that it was not a sufficient measure merely to subject the applicant to supervision .","The applicant applied to ORG for leave to appeal against the judgment , maintaining his claims . On DATE ORG refused him leave to appeal .","On DATE ORG once again reconsidered its decision and found that there were still reasons to keep the applicant in detention . ORG stated that there were reasons to believe that the applicant , if released , would commit crimes of violence and that ORG , even though it had been a long time since the applicant had initially been detained , had still actively been taking measures in order to enforce the expulsion order . Moreover , it noted that the applicant had not cooperated at all with the NORP authorities in order to clarify his identity and facilitate the expulsion .","NORP The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG , requesting that ORG decision be quashed and that he be released immediately or , in the alternative , that he be placed under supervision .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal , mainly reiterating the reasoning of ORG . However , the court noted , in particular , that the NORP authorities , after ORG decision of DATE , had on several occasions tried to contact the NORP authorities and other international organs in order to investigate the applicant \u2019s identity ; it also noted that the period of time that had elapsed since the authorities had begun to deal with the matter at the highest political level was not unreasonably long , considering the extraordinary circumstances of the present case . It also noted that , since the authorities had continuously been taking measures to enforce the expulsion order , it could not be considered impossible to enforce the expulsion order within the foreseeable future . Moreover , considering that the applicant had not cooperated with NORP authorities at all ( for example he had not signed documents to facilitate the enforcement ) and that he had been acting violently towards the officials , the court found that the time he had spent in detention could not be considered disproportionate . The court also noted that the applicant had indicated that he would use violence to stop a future expulsion of him .","The applicant lodged a request for leave to appeal against the judgment with ORG , which , on DATE , refused him leave to appeal .","As noted above , the applicant was initially detained with a view of expulsion on DATE . Between CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , numerous measures were taken by the NORP authorities in order to enforce the expulsion order to GPE .","By letters dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE the Government informed the ORG about the following developments : On DATE the applicant had submitted new information regarding his identity and country of origin to the NORP police , stating that he was in fact an NORP citizen . This information had made it possible for the NORP and NORP authorities to subsequently confirm his statement .","On DATE the expulsion order was enforced and the applicant was expelled to GPE .","A letter was sent to the ORG by the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE . The lawyer confirmed that the applicant was of NORP nationality and had been expelled , and stated that he maintained the application ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182594","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BARTULIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant asked the authorities to establish that her father had had QUANTITY of land in GPE before nationalisation . The applicant indicated that she and her sister were their father \u2019s heirs . It was indicated in her request that she and her sister would accept land in another location . A document proving that their father had owned QUANTITY of land was also attached to the request .","It appears that the applicant and her sister agreed that the applicant had a right to have her property rights to QUANTITY of their father \u2019s land restored .","On DATE the authorities issued a document containing a decision to return QUANTITY to the applicant in natura and to return the remaining QUANTITY to her by paying compensation .","On DATE ORG repeated the authorities\u2019 decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP In DATE and DATE the authorities decided to give the applicant CARDINAL plots , each measuring QUANTITY .","In DATE ORG informed the applicant that she could , before DATE , declare or change her intentions regarding the method by which her property rights would be restored . She was informed that property rights to land that had been an urban area were to be restored by : giving plots of land to the citizens who had buildings on those plots \u2013 the maximum plot size was limited to a QUANTITY ; giving plots of land in cities and rural areas where a citizen did not have land , except for the cities of GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG , PERSON , GPE , GPE , NORP , GPE , GPE and GPE ; legally voiding a citizen \u2019s liabilities to the ORG ; and paying compensation in securities .","In DATE the applicant asked the authorities to pay her monetary compensation \u201c in a convertible currency at world market prices \u201d ( konvertuojama valiuta pasaulin\u0117mis kainomis ) for the remaining QUANTITY of land .","NORP In DATE the applicant asked the authorities to pay her monetary compensation for the remaining QUANTITY of land or return a part of the land in natura . The applicant specified that monetary compensation should be paid in a \u201c convertible currency at market prices \u201d .","In DATE the authorities informed the applicant that they had addressed the GPE municipality regarding vacant plots of land in the area where her father had had the land , and had been told that the restitution process had to be carried out in accordance with the detailed plan for restitution approved in DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant complained to the authorities that her previous requests ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) had gone missing .","In DATE the applicant asked the authorities not to give her any land burdened by any kind of easement .","In DATE the applicant wrote a letter to the authorities and stated that , in accordance with the LAW , not only did she have a right to receive fair compensation for the land , but a vacant plot of land situated in the same area where her father \u2019s land had been had to be returned to her . She stated that she had to be paid compensation at market prices and in accordance with the land value map for DATE . She also wrote that if the land returned to her was burdened by any kind of easement , the authorities would have to pay her compensation at full market value for her inability to use it . It appears from ORG decision that the authorities indicated in DATE that compensation at market prices was not possible ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The value of QUANTITY of land was assessed at CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) if the applicant preferred to acquire land in another area , and at LTL MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) if the applicant preferred compensation in securities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the ORG changed the decision of DATE on the restoration of the applicant \u2019s property rights ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and decided that her property rights to the remaining QUANTITY of land would be restored at DATE . By that order , the applicant \u2019s property rights were restored by giving her CARDINAL plots of land measuring QUANTITY and QUANTITY respectively .","It appears from the courts\u2019 decisions that in DATE the authorities asked the applicant to make a decision regarding the method of restitution in respect of the remaining plot of land ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the applicant asked the authorities to pay her monetary compensation for the remaining QUANTITY of land , plus PERCENT interest because she was the daughter of a military volunteer .","In DATE the applicant asked the authorities to remove all the underground telecommunications cables that were situated on one of the plots of land that had been returned to her .","On DATE the authorities informed the applicant that the remaining plot of land of QUANTITY was ORG redeemable , and she could be compensated for it by receiving securities or by a new plot of land of equal value in a rural area being transferred to her . The applicant was asked to inform the authorities about her decision before DATE . Should she fail to make a decision , the compensation would be paid in securities .","On DATE the applicant repeated her request to be paid monetary compensation plus PERCENT interest . Her letter also contained some other requests regarding increasing the size of CARDINAL plot , transferring a pond ( k\u016bdra ) to her , and paying her compensation at market prices for another plot of land .","The authorities replied in DATE that , when deciding on issues of restitution , they were obliged to follow the requirements of domestic law . The applicant was asked to come to GPE on DATE to deal with the issue of restoring her rights to the remaining part of her father \u2019s land .","NORP In DATE ORG asked ORG to prepare a plan of vacant land in the area where the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s land had previously been situated . DATE , ORG replied that it was not possible to prepare additional plans of vacant land , because the schemes relating to vacant plots of land had already been approved , and a similar request submitted by the applicant \u2019s son had already been examined .","In DATE the authorities informed the applicant that as of DATE , LAW provided that a citizen who had already asked for his or her property rights to a plot of land to be restored could , by DATE , express or change his or her wish regarding the form in which the ownership rights to the real property were to be restored , and choose a plot of forest of equal value , provided that a final decision on restitution had not been taken or , if taken , had not yet been executed or had been executed in part .","The applicant started court proceedings , demanding compensation in respect of pecuniary damage from the GPE municipality . She alleged that the plot of land of QUANTITY which had been returned to her ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had electricity and gas equipment installed on it ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that she was prevented from using it . The applicant also asked the court to oblige the authorities to remove the underground telecommunications cables installed on her plot within DATE of the court decision becoming final .","On DATE ORG held that the applicant had not complained about the decision of the authorities of DATE by which her property rights to the specific plots of land had been restored ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Moreover , the applicant had claimed that she was not able to use the land , more specifically , to construct buildings on it , but she needed to have a detailed plan of the land prepared in order to start any construction on the land , which she had not done . The court further held that the applicant \u2019s request that the authorities be obliged to remove the underground telecommunications cables was unfounded , because the cables had been installed in accordance with the provisions of domestic law . The applicant \u2019s claim was thus dismissed .","The applicant appealed , and on DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision . The court held that the applicant had signed a document informing her about the borders of the land and restrictions regarding its use . There was no information indicating that either the applicant or her representative had been misled by the authorities regarding the status of the land . Moreover , the ORG was not obliged to restore her property rights to land with no restrictions regarding its use .","It appears that a plot of land measuring QUANTITY which had been situated in the area where the applicant \u2019s father had had his land was sold to ORG in DATE . In DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s son that the purchase contract regarding the plot of land sold to ORG in DATE had been concluded in breach of the requirements of domestic law , and that the issue would be referred to a prosecutor .","In DATE ORG of ORG informed the prosecutor that , in accordance with domestic law , CARDINAL family could purchase or rent only CARDINAL plot of land for construction of an individual home in the absence of an auction . If the family was provided with a plot of land before DATE , no other member of that family could acquire another plot of land for construction of an individual home without participating in an auction . ORG had been provided with a plot of land of QUANTITY for construction of an individual home in DATE . In DATE she had purchased that plot from the ORG . Moreover , in DATE R.N. had been allowed to purchase another plot of land of QUANTITY in the absence of an auction , which had not been allowed . In DATE R.N. had sold the plot of land to QUANTITY The prosecutor was thus asked to start court proceedings on the matter .","In DATE the prosecutor decided that ORG could start court proceedings , and referred the matter to it . Subsequently , ORG lodged a complaint with ORG , asking it to annul the relevant administrative acts by which the plot of land of QUANTITY had been provided to ORG and to annul the purchase agreements regarding that plot . The complaint was dismissed by ORG on DATE because the limitation period had expired ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) . That conclusion was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE and DATE the applicant brought a claim and an amended claim for LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage relating to the length of the restitution proceedings . She asked the court to oblige the authorities to restore her property rights within DATE of the court decision becoming final , or to pay her fair monetary compensation , calculated in accordance with the land value map for DATE . The applicant also stated that she had sustained pecuniary damage in the amount of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) , but she was not asking for any award in this respect .","On DATE ORG held that there was no dispute that the applicant \u2019s rights to QUANTITY had not been restored . However , it also held that her request for damages could only be satisfied if the ORG had acted unlawfully . The court stated that the national authorities had taken various steps : they had provided data about unoccupied land and had asked the applicant to decide how she wished her property rights to be restored . The applicant \u2019s requests submitted to the authorities for compensation \u201c in a convertible currency at world market prices \u201d and for compensation at market prices in accordance with the land value map for DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) could not constitute a proper way of expressing her decision , because such methods of compensation had not been defined in the domestic law . The court found that her property rights had not been restored because of her inactivity . As regards her request that the authorities be obliged to restore her property rights within DATE , the court noted that she had to use an out - of - court procedure , and left that complaint unexamined .","The applicant appealed and also asked to be awarded compensation in respect of pecuniary damage amounting to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . On DATE ORG held that the first - instance court had been obliged to examine the applicant \u2019s request to have her property rights restored , but it had not examined all the documents submitted . It therefore returned the case to ORG for fresh examination .","On DATE ORG held that on DATE the applicant had submitted a request to have her property rights to QUANTITY of her father \u2019s land restored ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In DATE the applicant and her sister had agreed that the applicant had a right to have her property rights to QUANTITY of her father \u2019s land restored ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The authorities had restored her property rights to QUANTITY of land on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , and on DATE her property rights to another QUANTITY of land had been restored ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The latter decision indicated that the applicant \u2019s property rights to the remaining plot of QUANTITY would be restored at DATE , when the land reform project had been prepared . No land reform project had been prepared , because the land in question was in an area that had been within city boundaries before DATE , so the indication in the decision about the land reform project being prepared had been a mistake . In DATE the applicant had been asked to choose the form of compensation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but she had sent several letters submitting requests that were not possible under domestic law .","The court further held that the authorities had examined numerous complaints submitted by the applicant and her son . The court further referred to the administrative proceedings regarding the applicant \u2019s alleged inability to use CARDINAL plot of land that had been returned to her ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , and the civil proceedings regarding the sale of the plot of land of QUANTITY to GPE , started by ORG ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . The court also noted that the applicant had been informed about the possibility of receiving a plot of forest of equal value ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court held that there was no dispute that the applicant \u2019s property rights to QUANTITY of land had not been restored . However , the applicant \u2019s claims for compensation could only be satisfied if unlawful actions by the authorities had been established . The restitution process was carried out by ORG and its territorial divisions . The court decided that , in the applicant \u2019s case , the authorities had carried out their functions by : sending information about the methods by which the applicant \u2019s rights could be restored ; providing information about vacant land ; and asking the applicant to express her choice as to the method of restitution . The relevant domestic law valid at the time the applicant had asked for compensation \u201c in a convertible currency at world market prices \u201d in DATE had provided that , before DATE , a citizen could declare or change the method of restitution . If no method was chosen , the authorities could choose for the citizen . The relevant domestic law valid at the time the applicant had asked for compensation at market prices and in accordance with the land value map for DATE had provided that , before DATE , a citizen could change the method of restitution and choose compensation in securities instead of monetary compensation . The relevant domestic law valid at the material time when the case had been examined had provided that , until DATE , citizens could change the method of restitution and ask to have their property rights restored by being provided with a plot of forest of equal value in a rural area . If no method was chosen , property rights were restored by means of monetary compensation . The court held that the authorities could only choose the method of restitution for a citizen if he or she had not expressed his or her decision before DATE .","In the applicant \u2019s situation , ORG had not issued any decision within the required DATE time - limit , and thus the applicant had a right to receive compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The court held that the applicant \u2019s right to have her property rights to QUANTITY restored had not been denied , and decided to award her FAC in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The remaining part of the applicant \u2019s complaint was dismissed as unfounded .","The applicant , ORG and the ORG , represented by ORG , appealed . On DATE ORG held that it was clear from the case material that there was no more vacant land in the area where the applicant \u2019s father had had his land . For this reason , the applicant \u2019s demand that the authorities be obliged to return her father \u2019s land in natura within DATE of the court \u2019s decision becoming final ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was unfounded . As regards the applicant \u2019s argument that her father \u2019s plot of land of QUANTITY had been sold to ORG owing to unlawful actions by ORG , the court held that this argument had been rebutted by the decisions issued by the domestic courts in other proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As regards the length of the restitution process , the court decided that there was no information indicating that the authorities had acted unlawfully , and thus the firstinstance decision to award the applicant compensation of EUR CARDINAL had been unfounded . In DATE the applicant had expressed her wish to have her father \u2019s land returned to her in natura ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In DATE she had asked for compensation \u201c in a convertible currency at world market prices \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ; in DATE she had asked for compensation at market prices in accordance with the land value map for DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ; in DATE she had asked for compensation at market prices plus PERCENT interest ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) ; and in DATE she had stated that her choice as to the method of restitution had been expressed in DATE , and she was not going to change her mind ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The authorities had informed the applicant several times that her requested methods of compensation were not possible under domestic law . In DATE the applicant had been informed that if a citizen did not express a decision as to a method of restitution before DATE , the authorities had to issue decisions taking into account the method indicated in the citizen \u2019s last request ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In DATE the authorities had indicated the method by which the compensation would be calculated and had stated that the value of the QUANTITY of land which had to be restored to the applicant would be LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) if the applicant preferred to acquire the land in another area , and LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) if she preferred compensation in securities ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) . In DATE the authorities had asked the applicant to choose the method of restitution : receiving either an area of land , forest or water of equal value ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In DATE the authorities had repeatedly explained that the applicant could receive either a plot of land of equal value or compensation in securities , and should she fail to make a decision then she would be paid compensation in securities ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) . In DATE the applicant had been asked to come to ORG of ORG to discuss the issue of restitution ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In DATE the authorities had informed the applicant that it had become possible to have a plot of forest of equal value in a rural area ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court further held that the actions of ORG had been lawful , considering that the applicant \u2019s requests had not been possible under domestic law . Moreover , the authorities had stated that a decision to pay the applicant monetary compensation would be issued . The court therefore decided to change the first - instance decision and not award the applicant any compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","In DATE the applicant sent a letter to the authorities stating that she had expressed her decision on the method of restitution in DATE when she had asked for the return of her father \u2019s land in natura . She also stated that she was not going to change her mind and would require her father \u2019s land to be returned to her . In DATE the authorities replied that the remaining part of the land to which the applicant \u2019s property rights had to be restored was ORG redeemable and could not be returned in natura . The authorities further stated that the applicant would be paid monetary compensation . The applicant replied to this letter in DATE and accused the authorities of unlawfully expropriating property . The authorities replied in DATE and repeated that it was not possible to return the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s land in natura . The applicant replied , stating that the authorities\u2019 letter contained no substantive reasons and could not be taken into account . The applicant stated that the issue of restitution in her case would be considered in the courts , and asked the authorities not to bother her with letters containing no substantive reasons .","In DATE the authorities asked the applicant to come to a meeting on DATE and familiarise herself with the draft decision restoring her property rights .","On DATE ORG issued a decision to restore the applicant \u2019s property rights to QUANTITY of land by paying her monetary compensation of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","NORP In DATE the applicant asked the authorities to provide her with copies of plans of vacant land plots situated in the area in which her father had had his land , and to explain how and when her father \u2019s land had been used . The authorities replied in DATE that ORG provided information in map form about vacant land that was not ORG redeemable . The relevant GPE division had to mark the borders of land which an owner had owned DATE in accordance with the information received from ORG . In the applicant \u2019s case , ORG had provided the relevant GPE division with information about vacant land plots . The GPE land reform division had then asked ORG to prepare land plans . CARDINAL plots of land had been returned to the applicant in natura in DATE . In DATE the GPE land reform division had asked ORG to additionally examine whether there was vacant land in the area where the applicant \u2019s father had owned land DATE , but it had been established that there was no more vacant land .","The applicant lodged a claim with the domestic court , asking it to annul the decision of ORG of DATE by which her property rights to QUANTITY of land had been restored and it had been decided that she would receive monetary compensation of ORG CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant thought that the land that had not been returned to her had not been used for public use , and that ORG had not provided any information as to why all of her father \u2019s land had not been returned in natura .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaints . The court held that her father \u2019s land was not vacant , as it was occupied by cadastral areas with or without buildings , areas containing infrastructure that was relevant for roads , side roads , underground infrastructure and the protective zones surrounding them , and recreational areas . There was a public interest in using that land , thus the land was ORG redeemable and compensation had to be paid for it . The court further assessed the actions of ORG and held that the authorities\u2019 actions had been lawful . This was because the applicant had not agreed with the information indicating that her father \u2019s land was not vacant , and because on one hand she had asked for her property rights to be restored in natura , and on the other hand had asked for compensation at \u201c market \u201d and \u201c world market \u201d prices , although there was no such possibility under domestic law . ORG compensation was also a way to restore property rights , as confirmed by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The value of the land had been calculated in accordance with the method approved by the Government ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and the amount calculated for the applicant had been in accordance with that method . Moreover , the court referred to the case - law of the Court , where it had been established that no right to receive a higher amount of compensation was guaranteed under the applicable domestic law or by a decision of the domestic court ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The compensation calculated for the applicant was in line with domestic law and the practice of the ORG .","In DATE the authorities asked the applicant to provide them with her account number so they could pay her the monetary compensation of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . In the event that the applicant failed to do that , the monetary compensation would be transferred to a notary \u2019s deposit account .","In DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG stating that she would not give the authorities her account number . Should the compensation be transferred to her or the notary \u2019s account nevertheless , it would be transferred back to the authorities ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154555","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"BEZEK v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals . The applicant in the first case , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and is represented before the ORG by Mr U. Sommer , a lawyer practising in GPE . The applicant in the second case , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG . Both applicants are currently serving a prison sentence in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177434","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BEZBORODOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159883","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF A.G.R. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Afghanistan)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and has been residing in the GPE since DATE .","The applicant entered the GPE on DATE and applied for a residence permit for the purpose of asylum as well as for reasons not related to asylum . In support of this application , he gave the following account in his interviews with immigration officials .","He had been a member of ORG of GPE ( \u201c PDPA \u201d ) since CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , and had worked for the NORP security service ORG ( \u201c ORG - e Dowlati \/ PERSON GPE ) DATE . Upon the PDPA \u2019s advice the applicant had joined the ORG as an alternative to mandatory military service . He had been stationed in LOC from DATE , where he had initially performed administrative tasks for DATE within ORG \u2019s local ORG department , followed by preparing \/ compiling course materials for ORG \u2019s internal training within the same department . He had done this until DATE . He had also been involved in the organisation of cultural events for ORG \u2019s youth department .","In DATE the applicant had been sent to ORG ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) for DATE for training ( ORG \u2019s organisation and the functioning of a secret service ) . Upon completion of this training he had been promoted to the rank of third lieutenant . In DATE the applicant had participated in DATE of political training , also in the GPE .","DATE the applicant had worked for ORG \u2019s ORG department in GPE . DATE he had worked for ORG \u2019s \u201c FAC \u201d , located in GPE , where he had been given the task of internal control and research into the functioning of ORG staff . The applicant \u2019s highest attained military rank , through periodical promotions , was that of major .","The applicant had fled from GPE to GPE on CARDINAL DATE , DATE after DATE of the ORG regime . After the applicant \u2019s flight , his father was assaulted in GPE by mujahideen who had come to ask him about the applicant \u2019s whereabouts . The applicant \u2019s father had to have a kidney removed as a consequence of the battering he suffered at the hands of the mujahideen . The applicant \u2019s family had joined the applicant in GPE DATE after the applicant \u2019s departure from GPE , but they had lived separately for safety reasons . His family had lived with relatives in GPE , close to the NORP border . The applicant himself had stayed in GPE . On an unspecified date in DATE , unidentified mujahideen had come to the applicant \u2019s GPE home searching for the applicant . On that occasion , the applicant \u2019s youngest brother had been ill - treated and another brother had been taken away , tortured and killed by the mujahideen in their attempt to find the applicant .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum request , holding that the applicant had failed to establish personal circumstances warranting a decision to grant him asylum . The applicant had never been approached personally by the mujahideen in GPE ; he had only made vague declarations about the post he had held in the KhAD , and he had lived for DATE in GPE without experiencing problems and\/or having been found by the mujahideen ( who were said to be active in GPE too ) . Although they might have known where the applicant \u2019s family were , it was considered implausible that the mujahideen would have been aware of the applicant \u2019s whereabouts in GPE . The Deputy Minister also held that the applicant \u2019s submissions regarding the assault on his father and killing of his brother were brief and vague .","The Deputy Minister of ORG did , however , grant the applicant a conditional residence permit ( voorwaardelijke vergunning tot verblijf ) , valid for DATE from DATE , on the basis of a temporary categorial protection policy ( \u201c categoriaal beschermingsbeleid \u201d ) in respect of GPE .","On DATE the applicant submitted an objection ( bezwaar ) to the Deputy Minister against the decision to reject his asylum request . On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE before an official board of enquiry ( ambtelijke commissie ) , the Deputy Minister rejected the applicant \u2019s objection . The Deputy Minister found , inter alia , that the applicant had failed to establish that he had held a position within ORG of sufficient importance to warrant the conclusion that he would run a real risk of persecution upon his return to GPE . The Deputy Minister further noted that the applicant had not experienced any problems with the mujahideen either , stressing that the applicant had easily crossed a mujahideen - controlled border crossing with GPE in DATE . The Deputy Minister further found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he ran a real risk of persecution by the ORG , who were in charge of most of GPE at the time the impugned decision was taken . The Deputy Minister underlined in this regard the unlikelihood of the ORG having been aware of the applicant \u2019s past activities for ORG , including the CARDINAL military training programmes he had allegedly attended in the GPE . The Deputy Minister also dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument that , in GPE , he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW .","The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE . Pending these appeal proceedings , the applicant was informed that the Deputy Minister had decided , in view of the applicant \u2019s involvement with the ORG , to examine the possible applicability of LAW DATE LAW ( \u201c the DATE Refugee Convention ) to his case and that for this reason the impugned decision of CARDINAL DATE was withdrawn . Thereupon , the applicant withdrew his appeal .","Meanwhile in DATE , the situation in GPE not having sufficiently improved , the applicant \u2019s conditional residence permit was converted ex lege into an indefinite residence permit after he had held it for a period of DATE . Subsequently , with the entry into force of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet CARDINAL ) on DATE , the permit held by the applicant came to be named an indefinite residence permit for the purpose of asylum .","On DATE and DATE , the applicant was interviewed by the immigration authorities about the nature of his activities for the ORG .","On DATE the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON ) notified the applicant of her intention ( voornemen ) to revoke his residence permit and to hold LAW against him . The applicant \u2019s asylum claim had been considered in the light of an official report ( ambtsbericht ) , drawn up on DATE by ORG on \u201c ORG in NORP GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ( \u201c PERSON in communistisch GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG en WAD \u201d ) and concerning in particular the question whether , and if so which , former employees of those services should be regarded as implicated in human rights violations . On the basis of this report , the GPE immigration authorities had adopted the position that LAW could be held against virtually every NORP asylum seeker who , holding the rank of third lieutenant or higher , had worked during the communist regime for the ORG or its successor the ORG .","NORP The Minister found it established that the applicant had worked as a commissioned officer in the ORG \u2019s LAW DATE and considered that , in his account to the GPE authorities , he had sought to trivialise his activities for the ORG . She rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that the applicability of LAW ought to have been examined at an earlier stage , holding that at the relevant time ( DATE ) considerably less information had been available to the GPE asylum authorities about the full extent of the human rights violations committed by the LAW , notwithstanding that to a certain extent there had been a general awareness of the nature of the former communist regime in GPE .","NORP The Minister then proceeded to an analysis of the applicant \u2019s individual responsibility under LAW , based on the prescribed and so - called \u201c knowing and personal participation \u201d test . Noting , inter alia , the applicant \u2019s steady career path in the ORG , the Minister excluded the possibility of the applicant not having known or not having been involved in human rights violations committed by the ORG . Relying on the official report of DATE , the Minister underlined the widely known cruel character of ORG , its lawless methods , the grave crimes it had committed such as torture and other human rights violations as well as the climate of terror which it had spread throughout the whole of NORP society . The Minister lastly emphasised that the applicant had done nothing to distance himself from ORG during DATE he had made a career there , referring to the applicant \u2019s own statement to the effect that he had consciously chosen to stay with ORG in order to avoid being sent to the war front . The Minister considered that the consequences of that choice were for the applicant to bear .","On DATE , the applicant submitted written comments ( zienswijze ) on the Minister \u2019s intended decision and , on DATE , he was once more heard before an official board of enquiry .","On DATE the applicant was served with an additional notice of intent in which the Minister examined whether the applicant \u2019s expulsion to GPE would be compatible with his rights under LAW , as required in expulsion cases according to the case - law of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG . The Minister noted that , according to an official report on GPE issued by ORG in DATE , the position of ex - communists and persons associated with the former communist regime was not yet entirely clear . Members of the ORG possibly ran a risk of becoming a victim of human rights violations from the side of the authorities ( except for the government ) but more so from the side of the population ( GPE relatives ) as they were identified with human rights violations during the communist regime . However , there were no indications that persons in GPE should fear persecution merely because of their ties with the former communist regime . The Minister , therefore , held that the applicant had to demonstrate personal facts or circumstances warranting the conclusion that his return to GPE would be in breach of LAW , and found that the applicant had not done so . In reaching this finding , the Minister noted that the applicant \u2019s fear of being subjected to treatment proscribed by LAW had remained unsubstantiated in any concrete manner and was only based on assumptions . The applicant had not specified which particular faction of the mujahideen had been looking for him shortly after he left GPE , nor whether that faction was currently holding any position of power in GPE . The Minister further took into account the applicant \u2019s statement made at the hearing of DATE that in the meantime his parents and brother had returned to GPE . Although the applicant \u2019s father had allegedly been approached in DATE by individuals asking for the applicant , the Minister held that it had not been demonstrated that the applicant \u2019s parents and brother had experienced serious difficulties from the authorities or any groups . The Minister further considered that the mere fact that LAW was being held against the applicant did not in itself warrant the conclusion that , if expelled to GPE , he would have to fear treatment contrary to LAW . The Minister also rejected as still unsubstantiated the applicant \u2019s claims that he risked treatment contrary to LAW because he would be considered an infidel as his family was not professing ORG , as he drank alcohol and had studied , and also because of his ethnicity .","The applicant submitted additional written comments on DATE and , on DATE , was heard once more before an official board of enquiry .","NORP In her decision of DATE , the Minister revoked the applicant \u2019s residence permit . The notices of intent of CARDINAL DATE and DATE were added to the decisions and formed part of them . The Minister did not deviate , in the relevant part , from her earlier conclusions in the notices of intent and went on to confirm them on all points . The applicant \u2019s rebuttals were dismissed as not raising any new grounds . Moreover , in a letter of the same date the Minister informed ORG ( Openbaar Ministerie ) that LAW had been held against the applicant and asked ORG to consider prosecuting the applicant under criminal law . No further information on any follow - up to this letter has been submitted .","On DATE , the Minister notified the applicant of her intention also to impose an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) on him . The applicant submitted written comments on this intended decision on DATE and on DATE was heard before an official board of enquiry .","An appeal by the applicant against the Minister \u2019s decision of DATE was rejected on DATE by ORG of The Hague , sitting in \u2018 s - Hertogenbosch . It accepted the Minister \u2019s impugned decision to hold LAW against the applicant as well as the underlying reasoning . It further upheld the Minister \u2019s decision and underlying reasoning that the applicant \u2019s removal would not be contrary to his rights under LAW .","On DATE , ORG rejected a further appeal by the applicant on summary grounds , holding :","\u201c What has been raised in the grievances ... does not provide grounds for quashing the impugned ruling . Having regard to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , no further reasoning is called for , since the arguments submitted do not raise questions which require determination in the interest of legal uniformity , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . \u201d","No further appeal lay against this ruling .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister of ORG imposed an exclusion order on the applicant . An objection by the applicant to this decision was rejected by the Minister on DATE . On DATE , the applicant appealed to ORG of GPE . No further information about these appeal proceedings has been submitted ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168374","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KRAULAIDIS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME on DATE , the applicant \u2019s motorcycle collided with a car driven by ORG in a residential area of GPE . ORG was not injured , but the applicant suffered multiple spinal fractures and serious damage to his spinal cord . As a result of the accident , he lost the ability to walk and became disabled .","On DATE of the accident , DATE , ORG opened a pre - trial investigation concerning a possible violation of road traffic safety regulations resulting in an accident that caused nonsevere impairment to another person \u2019s health ( LAW ) . The pre - trial investigation was supervised by ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the district prosecutor \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG was questioned as a witness . He stated that before the collision he had been driving at a speed of QUANTITY had decided to overtake the car in front of him . The road had CARDINAL lanes . He checked that there were no cars in the left - hand lane , coming either from in front or from behind , indicated left and overtook the car . He then indicated right and began returning to the right - hand lane . At that moment he felt a blow to the back of his car but did not understand what had happened . He drove for QUANTITY and stopped the car . Then he noticed that a motorcycle and its rider were lying on the ground , and called the police and the ambulance service . He had not seen the motorcycle before the collision .","On DATE the police investigator examined the scene of the accident . The investigator \u2019s report indicated that the accident had occurred on DATE , on a straight paved road which had been dry . It described the location of the applicant \u2019s motorcycle and ORG \u2019s car as they had been found after the accident , as well as the presence of skid marks and fragments of glass and plastic on the road . All those elements were also indicated in a sketch drawn by the investigator . The sketch included a column for drivers to sign if they agreed that the scene of the accident had been depicted accurately , but it was not signed by either the applicant or ORG","On DATE the investigator examined the applicant \u2019s motorcycle and ORG \u2019s car . The investigator \u2019s report described the damage to the front , back and both sides of the motorcycle , and to the back of the car . It also stated that before the accident both the motorcycle and the car had been in good technical condition and working properly .","On DATE a court medical expert took blood samples from the applicant and ORG in order to determine whether they had been sober . The examination detected no traces of alcohol in the blood of either of them .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the investigation and questioned about the details of the accident . He stated that before the collision he had been driving at QUANTITY and had decided to overtake a bus and CARDINAL cars . Seeing that the left - hand lane was free , he began overtaking the bus and the cars and accelerated to QUANTITY . After overtaking them , while still in the left - hand lane , he slowed down to QUANTITY , but as that lane was free , he decided to also overtake CARDINAL more cars and a truck . He began to accelerate again , but then CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cars , which at that moment was QUANTITY in front of him , suddenly pulled out into the left - hand lane without indicating . The applicant applied the brakes but started losing control of the motorcycle , so he released the brakes before applying them again . The front wheel of the motorcycle hit the back of the car . The applicant fell off the motorcycle and landed on the road . He did not see what happened to the motorcycle after the collision . He lay on the ground until the ambulance arrived and took him to hospital .","On DATE a court medical expert concluded that the applicant \u2019s injuries corresponded to severe health impairment .","On an unspecified date the legal ground for the pre - trial investigation was changed to LAW traffic safety regulations , which resulted in an accident causing severe impairment to another person \u2019s health .","From DATE the police investigator questioned the applicant \u2019s mother and CARDINAL eyewitnesses to the accident . It appears that the eyewitnesses provided contradictory testimonies as to the location and speed of the CARDINAL vehicles immediately before the collision , the distance between them and the exact account of the events leading up to the collision .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigator examined the scene of the accident together with ORG The latter indicated the trajectory of his car before the collision and the exact location of the collision .","On DATE the applicant was informed that a forensic expert would be instructed to examine the circumstances of the accident and establish an account of the events . The applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted additional questions to be forwarded to the expert . The relevant order adopted on DATE by the Vilnius City Second District Court and forwarded to the expert on DATE does not appear to have included the questions submitted by the applicant \u2019s lawyer .","The examination was carried out by an expert from ORG ( NORP teismo ekspertiz\u0117s centras ) , a governmental institution responsible for carrying out forensic examinations required by courts and other pre - trial investigation bodies . The expert was provided with the sketch of the accident ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and photographs of the CARDINAL vehicles , and asked to determine the location of the collision , to estimate the speed of the motorcycle before the collision , and to establish who had been responsible for the accident . The expert report , delivered on DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the first expert report \u201d ) , stated that the description of the skid marks and the fragments of glass and plastic on the road indicated that the collision had occurred in the right - hand lane . The expert estimated the speed of the motorcycle immediately before the collision as QUANTITY \/ h and , assuming that the speed limit on that road was QUANTITY , noted that the applicant had exceeded that limit . The expert concluded that the accident had been caused by the applicant because he had been exceeding the speed limit and had started applying his brakes too late to avoid the collision .","On DATE the district prosecutor instructed the police investigator to carry out a number of additional investigative actions , including :","\u2212 interviewing the officer who had sketched the accident scene ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in order to determine whether the sketch was accurate and why it had not been signed by the applicant and ORG ;","\u2212 examining the scene of the accident together with the applicant in order to verify his account of the events leading to the collision ;","\u2212 finding out whether , at the time of the accident , there were any traffic signs on the road indicating the speed limit , or any restrictions on overtaking ;","\u2212 additionally questioning an eyewitness who had claimed that following the collision the applicant \u2019s motorcycle had risen up in the air and landed in the right - hand lane , in order to clarify the details of that testimony ; and","\u2212 questioning another eyewitness identified by the applicant \u2019s mother .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother , PERSON , whom the applicant had authorised to act on his behalf , complained to the district prosecutor that the pre - trial investigation was being carried out slowly and ineffectively . She claimed that the sketch of the accident was inaccurate , as proven by the absence of the ORG signatures . She also complained that the investigators had not questioned all the eyewitnesses to the accident and had not eliminated the contradictions between different testimonies . PERSON further complained that the questions of the applicant \u2019s lawyer had not been forwarded to the expert examining the circumstances of the accident ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Lastly , she complained that the prosecutor had sent that expert \u2019s report to the wrong address , so she and the applicant had not received it . PERSON asked the court to change the investigator in charge of the pre - trial investigation and to ensure that essential investigative measures were carried out .","On DATE the district prosecutor upheld PERSON \u2019s complaint . The pre - trial investigation was transferred to a different investigator within ORG and the investigator was instructed to carry out the investigative measures requested by PERSON As to the forensic expert \u2019s report , the prosecutor informed PERSON that the questions to be submitted to the expert had been approved by a court decision , which the applicant had not challenged .","On DATE the district prosecutor notified ORG that the newly appointed investigator was conducting the pre - trial investigation \u201c in a sluggish manner \u201d ( vangiai ) , contrary to the requirement to complete it in the shortest possible time .","In DATE and DATE the police investigator carried out the additional investigative measures ordered by the district prosecutor ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , in response to PERSON \u2019s complaint , the district prosecutor informed her that the police officer who had drawn up the sketch of the accident had been questioned and confirmed its accuracy , so there were no grounds to suspect that the sketch had been falsified . The prosecutor also noted that an internal inquiry had been opened concerning the absence of the ORG signatures on the sketch of the accident .","Subsequently , in his order to ORG the district prosecutor pointed out that the absence of the ORG signatures on the sketch had given PERSON legitimate doubts as to its accuracy , and asked the police to look into the ORG actions when drawing up the sketch . On CARDINAL DATE the inquiry found that the police investigator who had carried out the initial investigative measures and who had been responsible for ensuring that the drivers signed the sketch had not performed her duties properly . However , the investigator was not given a disciplinary penalty because DATE had passed since the breach and she was no longer working in the interior affairs system .","On DATE CARDINAL PERSON complained to ORG that the district prosecutor was not properly supervising the pre - trial investigation , which was slow and ineffective . She raised similar complaints to those she had raised before ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and asked for the removal of the prosecutor who had been in charge of supervising the investigation . On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s complaint , finding no serious breaches in the prosecutor \u2019s actions . ORG also held that although the prosecutor had sent some documents to an incorrect address , those same documents had also been sent to the applicant \u2019s lawyer , so the applicant had in fact received them .","On DATE the FAC ordered an additional forensic examination of the circumstances of the accident . The examination was carried out by the same expert from ORG as before ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The expert report , delivered on DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the second expert report \u201d ) , did not make a fresh estimate of the speed of the applicant \u2019s motorcycle but relied on the findings of the first expert report and considered that the applicant had been travelling at a speed of QUANTITY . It found that the speed limit at the location of the accident had been QUANTITY \/ h and not QUANTITY \/ h , as assumed in the first expert report , which nonetheless meant that the applicant had exceeded the speed limit . Having examined the sketch of the accident and the damage to both vehicles , the second report confirmed the conclusion of the first report that the collision had occurred in the righthand lane , while the motorcycle was moving into it from the left - hand lane . It found no data indicating that ORG had been driving at speeds in excess of the speed limit or that he had done anything which might have caused the accident . The report concluded that the accident had been caused by the applicant : the main cause had not been the speed of the motorcycle but the difference between the speed of the CARDINAL vehicles , and the fact that the applicant had not started to brake in time to avoid the collision .","On DATE the district prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation on the grounds that ORG \u2019s actions had not amounted to a crime as provided for by LAW . PERSON appealed against that decision before a senior prosecutor , arguing that the investigation had been biased and incomplete . She stressed in particular that the sketch of the accident had been inaccurate , as proven by the absence of the ORG signatures ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She also submitted that the prosecutor had disregarded the testimonies of some eyewitnesses that the collision had occurred in the left - hand lane and that it had caused the applicant \u2019s motorcycle to rise up in the air and land in the other lane ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Her appeal , however , was dismissed . The senior prosecutor pointed out that CARDINAL expert reports had concluded that the accident had been caused not by ORG but by the applicant himself , and that the testimonies of several eyewitnesses had confirmed that conclusion .","PERSON appealed before LAW . She again argued that the sketch of the accident was inaccurate , as proven by the absence of the LAW signatures . She also submitted an opinion by a specialist in the field of road traffic accidents , issued at GPE \u2019s request on DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the specialist \u2019s opinion \u201d ) , which had concluded that although both the applicant and ORG had exceeded the speed limit , that fact had not been the cause of the accident . The specialist considered that the accident had occurred in the left - hand lane and that it had been caused by ORG suddenly entering that lane \u2013 despite the applicant \u2019s attempts to brake and slow down , it had not been objectively possible for him to avoid the collision .","On DATE the Vilnius City ORG upheld PERSON \u2019s appeal and reopened the pre - trial investigation . The court noted the contradictory findings of the expert reports on CARDINAL hand and the specialist \u2019s opinion on the other hand , and considered that it was necessary to conduct a fresh forensic examination by a different expert in order to eliminate those contradictions .","On DATE the police investigator ordered a fresh examination of the circumstances of the accident . The examination was carried out by a different expert from ORG . In his report , delivered on CARDINAL DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the third expert report \u201d ) , the expert examined the sketch of the accident and photographs of the CARDINAL vehicles , and estimated that immediately before the collision the applicant had been travelling at a speed of QUANTITY , and that it was not possible to determine the speed at which ORG had been driving . The report also stated that the motorcycle had hit the right side of the car , so even if , as claimed by the applicant , the car had entered the left - hand lane suddenly and unexpectedly , that would not have caused the collision , which had occurred in the right - hand lane . The report concluded that the accident had been caused by the applicant , who had exceeded the speed limit and had not slowed down in time to avoid the collision .","On DATE the district prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation on the grounds that ORG \u2019s actions had not amounted to the crime stipulated in LAW . On DATE a senior prosecutor upheld that decision , noting that the third expert report had confirmed that the accident had been caused by the actions of the applicant and not of ORG","PERSON lodged an appeal with LAW , submitting that the third expert report was inaccurate , in particular because it concluded that the collision had occurred in the right - hand lane , which was contrary to the material in the case file . She also submitted that the third expert report had not refuted the conclusions of the specialist \u2019s opinion . PERSON further argued that the testimonies of some eyewitnesses had clearly demonstrated that the accident had been caused by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but they had not been properly considered by the prosecutor .","On DATE the GPE City ORG upheld the appeal and reopened the pre - trial investigation . The court held that it was necessary to address the arguments presented in GPE \u2019s appeal and that the third expert report had to be assessed together with the other available evidence , such as reports concerning the location of the accident and eyewitness testimonies .","On DATE the GPE City ORG ordered a fresh expert examination of the circumstances of the accident . The order was forwarded to ORG on DATE , together with the specialist \u2019s opinion . The examination was carried out by a different expert from ORG . The expert report , delivered on DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the fourth expert report \u201d ) , examined the sketch of the accident and photographs of the CARDINAL vehicles , and estimated that immediately before the collision the applicant had been travelling at a speed of QUANTITY . It found that although it was not possible to estimate the speed at which ORG had been driving , the fact that the motorcycle had hit the back of the car meant that the car had been going slower than the motorcycle . The expert considered that it was not possible to determine the trajectory of the CARDINAL vehicles before the collision . However , even if the applicant \u2019s version was to be believed and ORG \u2019s car had suddenly entered the left - hand lane at a distance of QUANTITY from the applicant \u2019s motorcycle ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) , the applicant could have slowed down and avoided the collision . The fourth expert report concluded that the accident had occurred in the right - hand lane and that it had been caused by the applicant who had exceeded the speed limit and had not slowed down in time to avoid the collision .","In DATE and DATE the police investigator again questioned the applicant , ORG and some of the eyewitnesses questioned previously .","PERSON was informed about the findings of the fourth expert report on DATE . She complained to the district prosecutor that she had not been given the opportunity to submit additional questions to the expert , in particular , whether having collided with the car , the motorcycle could have risen up in the air and landed in a different lane , as claimed by some eyewitnesses ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON also complained that the expert had relied on low - quality photographs of the motorcycle but had not examined the motorcycle itself , and that the report \u2019s findings had been incorrect . On DATE the district prosecutor upheld PERSON \u2019s complaint and ordered the police investigator to examine the applicant \u2019s motorcycle and to forward PERSON \u2019s questions to the expert who had conducted the fourth examination . On DATE the expert responded that the description of the location of the accident showed that during the collision the motorcycle had not risen up into the air .","On DATE the district prosecutor again discontinued the pre - trial investigation on the grounds that ORG \u2019s actions had not amounted to the crime stipulated in LAW . On DATE a senior prosecutor upheld that decision , considering that the fourth expert report had assessed all the material collected during the pre - trial investigation , including the specialist \u2019s opinion , and that PERSON had been given sufficient opportunity to present her questions to the expert .","On DATE the GPE City Second ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by PERSON and upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision . The court considered that expert reports and eyewitness testimonies demonstrated that ORG had entered the left - hand lane within a safe distance from the applicant \u2019s motorcycle , and thus had not violated road traffic safety regulations . Although there had been contradictory eyewitness testimonies as to the exact distance between ORG \u2019s car and the applicant \u2019s motorcycle , the court considered that any doubts had to be interpreted in ORG \u2019s favour . The court also held that the conclusions of the specialist \u2019s opinion that the collision had occurred in the left - hand lane had been contrary to the description of the location of the accident as provided in the sketch ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP On DATE the ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s decision and reopened the pre - trial investigation . It held that the decision to discontinue the investigation had not been based on a comprehensive assessment of all the collected material but had relied exclusively on evidence favourable to ORG , disregarding the applicant \u2019s statements , eyewitness testimonies , and the specialist \u2019s opinion . The court disagreed with the conclusion that ORG had started overtaking within a safe distance from the applicant \u2019s motorcycle , and noted that ORG had also had an obligation to make sure that none of the drivers behind him had started overtaking , so it was possible that he had committed the crime stipulated in LAW . The court observed that the question of ORG \u2019s criminal responsibility would be best determined by a court examining the case on the merits .","On DATE , at GPE \u2019s request , another expert from ORG submitted an opinion that , judging from the damage to both vehicles , there were no grounds to believe that the motorcycle had risen up in the air when it had collided with ORG \u2019s car .","On DATE the district prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation as time - barred , while also observing that the investigation had not identified any grounds to believe that a crime may have been committed ( the prosecutor did not refer to ORG decision of DATE see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The prosecutor \u2019s decision does not appear to have been appealed against .","On DATE the applicant submitted a civil claim for damages against ORG He stated that the accident and the resulting injuries and disability had caused him significant distress , inconvenience and emotional trauma . The applicant claimed CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2212 approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) in non - pecuniary damages and LTL MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in pecuniary damages for medical expenses and rehabilitation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It relied on the expert reports delivered during the pretrial investigation and noted that all of them had established that the accident had been caused not by ORG but by the applicant himself . Although the specialist \u2019s opinion , delivered at the request of the applicant \u2019s mother , had reached a different conclusion , the court considered that the fourth expert report had taken its findings into consideration , and that it was thus unnecessary for the court to discuss the specialist \u2019s findings separately . It also observed that the judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph DATE above ) could not be interpreted as affirming ORG \u2019s responsibility for the accident . As a result , the court concluded that it had not been established that ORG had breached any legal requirements , which was a pre - condition for his civil liability to arise . The court also noted that the applicant had bought the motorcycle DATE before the accident , that he had not had any prior experience in driving that kind of vehicle , and that the motorcycle had not undergone a technical examination before the accident . Accordingly , the court found that the applicant himself may have breached road traffic safety regulations . The civil claim was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay LTL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in legal expenses to ORG and the ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the lower court in its entirety ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156068","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KUTTNER v. AUSTRIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Speediness of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of having deliberately caused severe bodily harm and sentenced him to six years\u2019 imprisonment . The court found that the applicant had beaten his CARDINALyear - old mother by kicking and punching her face , head and thorax , which resulted in a severe and lasting infirmity . The applicant had been convicted on CARDINAL previous occasions , CARDINAL of which involved similar offences of violence . Relying on a report by a psychiatric expert , the court found that even though the applicant was responsible for his acts , he was suffering from a grave mental disorder , was dangerous to the public and was likely to re - offend . For these reasons , the court ordered the applicant \u2019s detention in an institution for mentally ill offenders in accordance with section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , in addition to the term of imprisonment . Given the time the applicant had served in detention on remand , the ORG stated that the applicant \u2019s detention pursuant to the prison sentence was likely to end on DATE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against his sentence . On DATE the applicant was placed in GPE detention centre , an institution for mentally ill offenders .","On DATE , in a first set of proceedings in which the applicant requested his conditional release from the institution , ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) ordered that the applicant remain in the institution . ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against this decision on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied for the lifting of the order to detain him at ORG detention centre ( under LAW ) in order to serve his sentence in an ordinary prison .","On DATE ORG asked the ORG prison administration and its psychiatric and psychological service to transmit further information on the applicant , which it received on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE it ordered a fresh psychiatric expert report and instructed the expert to submit the report before DATE .","On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG for the setting of a time - limit ( Fristsetzungsantrag ) under LAW of LAW ( PERSON ) for ORG to decide on his application , as the last determination of the continuing need to detain him had taken place on DATE , and he had not yet received a decision concerning his application of DATE .","On an unspecified date , the applicant was transferred to a psychiatric institution in GPE . It appears , however , that this transfer was only temporary , and on an unspecified date , the applicant was transferred back to ORG detention centre .","After having been urged by ORG to deliver her report , the expert replied on DATE that she would submit it as soon as possible . She did so on DATE and explained that the applicant had meanwhile been transferred to an institution in GPE , for which reason she had not been able to examine him earlier . She found that the applicant , even though he had started to respond positively to his therapy , was still suffering from a serious mental disorder and that there was still the risk that the applicant would commit dangerous acts of violence .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s application under LAW of LAW and ordered ORG to take a decision by DATE at the latest . It held that in the light of the chronology of events in this case , ORG had not fulfilled its duty to take a decision within a reasonable amount of time .","On DATE , after having held an oral hearing with the applicant present , ORG ordered the continuation of his detention in an institution for mentally ill offenders . On the basis of the expert opinion obtained , the court found that the applicant was still dangerous and likely to re - offend . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for the hearing of CARDINAL prison officers as witnesses , since these persons could not make a relevant assessment in this respect and that therefore the applicant \u2019s request lacked a relevant issue on which evidence should be taken ( relevantes GPE ) .","On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision to ORG maintaining his view that the placement in a psychiatric institution was no longer justified . He maintained , furthermore , that the length of the proceedings for the determination of this issue was in breach of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . On the basis of the evidence obtained , the expert report of a psychiatrist , reports by the head of GPE detention centre and its psychiatric and psychological service , it found that despite progress in the applicant \u2019s therapy he still suffered from a grave mental disorder and was likely to commit acts of violence in the future . ORG also considered that ORG had correctly dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for the taking of further evidence . As to the applicant \u2019s argument that the proceedings related to his request had lasted an unreasonably long time , ORG found that , according to the relevant caselaw , the condition under section CARDINAL of LAW for DATE review of the further necessity of detention in an institution was complied with if such a review had been started by the competent court within the DATE period , whereas it was not necessary that the decision following the review be taken within that time - limit .","On DATE the applicant again applied for the order for psychiatric detention to be lifted , and to be transferred to an ordinary prison . After a further application by the applicant under LAW of LAW , the application was finally examined on DATE , when ORG ordered the termination of the applicant \u2019s psychiatric detention , suspended DATE of his prison sentence and released him subject to a number of conditions ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144521","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"NDIKUMANA v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr D. Schaap , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker and PERSON , both of ORG .","On DATE the applicant arrived at FAC and reported at the asylum application centre ( aanmeldcentrum ) in GPE . On DATE he had a first interview ( eerste gehoor ) with officials from ORG ( Immigratie- en ORG ; hereafter \u201c IND \u201d ) and requested asylum . He had another interview with the officials of the ORG on DATE . During these interviews the applicant explained that he had come to GPE via FAC in GPE .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that it considered his case to fall within the scope of ORG Lodged in one of LAW that had been concluded in GPE on DATE ( hereafter \u201c the FAC \u201d ; see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) because he had travelled through GPE .","Additionally , the applicant was informed that he would not be provided with any reception facilities . At the material time , the GPE had a policy in place according to which asylum seekers in the applicant \u2019s position ( so - called \u201c GPE claimants \u201d ) had no access to ORG - sponsored reception and care facilities for asylum seekers ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , the applicant \u2019s request for assistance in the form of food , shelter and medical care was denied . It appears that on DATE the police issued to the applicant a card entailing the obligation to report ( meldingsregistratiekaart ) . The card notes CARDINAL dates , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","On DATE , DATE , the applicant was informed by ORG in GPE ( PERSON Asiel GPE - GPE , hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , a non - governmental organisation engaged in assisting asylum seekers , that his asylum request would probably be declared inadmissible because pursuant to LAW another State was responsible for the examination of that request . He was further informed that in the opinion of the ORG it would be without avail to institute proceedings against the decision that would probably be taken by ORG ( PERSON ) . This opinion was confirmed in writing in a letter given to the applicant by the ORG on DATE . This letter also noted :","\u201c The GPE authorities have decided not to provide you with reception facilities because there will be a [ GPE ] claim in your case . We regret that you are not provided with any reception facilities but , unfortunately , we can not change this . Proceedings previously instituted against this governmental decision ( overheidsbesluit ) have been lost . \u201d","The applicant left the application centre and went to GPE .","The \u201c transfer report \u201d drawn up at the Zevenaar application centre on DATE notes that the applicant waited at the centre \u2019s front gate for \u201c several days \u201d before he was admitted into the application centre on DATE at TIME","On DATE the applicant was granted a provisional residence permit valid from DATE until DATE . He was later granted a residence permit for the purpose of asylum for an indefinite period ( verblijfsvergunning asiel voor onbepaalde tijd ) . The document informing him of this last decision was dated DATE .","On DATE , the applicant requested ORG ( arrondissementsparket ) of GPE to institute criminal proceedings against ORG because of the denial to him of reception facilities from DATE until DATE . In his letter the applicant stated that on DATE he had been told by the ORG that he would be sent to GPE within DATE and that in the meantime he would have no right to reception facilities ; he had been given the advice to go to a big city such as GPE where there were \u201c many NORP people \u201d who would be willing to \u201c help him \u201d . The applicant further stated that on DATE he had spent TIME at GPE central train station and that he had returned to the application centre on DATE . When he had been denied access to the application centre , he had remained waiting at the centre \u2019s front gate without any food or water . After having stood there the entire day he had fallen down during TIME and had been taken into the application centre by security guards . DATE he had been told by application centre officials that he would have to leave the centre or face deportation to his country of origin . In view of this threat he had decided to leave the centre and he had spent DATE living on the streets , trying to survive by all possible means . He had spent most of his nights in underground stations where he had been harassed a number of times by police who had handcuffed and beaten him and on CARDINAL occasion he had met a man who , after listening to his story , had offered him accommodation . When the applicant had taken this man up on his offer he had been sexually abused by the man under threat of what the applicant believed to be a gun . He had managed to escape and had gone back to the asylum application centre in GPE where he had again been denied admission . He had remained at the front gate DATE . On TIME CARDINAL April CARDINAL he had gone towards the nearby railway tracks with the intention to commit suicide but had been prevented from doing so by the police who had taken him into the application centre .","The acting chief public prosecutor ( fungerend hoofdofficier van justitie ) responded to the applicant \u2019s request to institute criminal proceedings against ORG by letter of CARDINAL DATE stating that there were no indications of any criminal offences ( strafbare feiten ) having been committed and that he had therefore forwarded the applicant \u2019s complaint to the director of the ORG . By letter of DATE , the ORG notified the applicant that there had not been any irregularities in the processing of his asylum application and that neither the ORG nor the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON ) could be held responsible for whatever hardship he had suffered . Furthermore , the applicant was informed that in DATE , persons whose request of asylum was subject to LAW had been refused shelter and food unless there were \u201c reasons ( i.e. medical situation ) \u201d which would have necessitated proper accommodation and care . In the applicant \u2019s case , no such reasons had been mentioned by him during his interview .","NORP Until DATE , the admission , residence and expulsion of aliens were regulated by LAW DATE ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) . Further rules were laid down in LAW ( Vreemdelingenbesluit ) , the Regulation on Aliens ( Voorschrift Vreemdelingen ) and LAW ( Vreemdelingencirculaire ) .","At the relevant time , the provision of reception facilities was laid down in ORG and Other Categories of Aliens ( Provisions ) Regulations CARDINAL ( PERSON verstrekkingen asielzoekers en andere categorie\u00ebn vreemdelingen DATE , hereafter \u201c Rva CARDINAL \u201d ) . The DATE granted asylum seekers , in principle , a right to reception facilities . On CARDINAL DATE a new provision added to ORG entered into force ( see ORG ) DATE , no . CARDINAL ) , which read as follows :","...","These Regulations do not apply to asylum seekers in respect of whom the Minister has requested , or will request , [ transfer ] to another ORG , party to ORG Lodged in one of LAW ( GPE , DATE ) , until such time as this request is rejected by the other ORG . \u201d","This amendment of DATE was repeated and further clarified in LAW DATE , which clarification included the following :","...","If , in the ORG \u2019s view , GPE claimants find themselves in very acute humanitarian need , the ORG will notify ORG for ORG ( Centraal Orgaan opvang asielzoekers , hereafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) hereof and advise the ORG to provide reception facilities despite the GPE claim . \u201d","On DATE section CARDINAL of the Rva DATE ceased to apply ( see Official Gazette CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) .","LAW provided for measures to ensure that asylum seekers had their applications examined by CARDINAL of GPE and that they were not referred successively from CARDINAL Member ORG to another . Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL set out the criteria for determining the single Member ORG responsible for examining an application for asylum . The GPE and GPE were both signatory GPE .","Article CARDINAL of LAW , in its relevant part , read as follows :","NORP The responsibility for examining an application for asylum shall be incumbent upon the Member State responsible for controlling the entry of the alien into the territory of GPE , except where , after legally entering a Member ORG in which the need for him or her to have a visa is waived , the alien lodges his or her application for asylum in another Member ORG in which the need for him or her to have a visa for entry into the territory is also waived . In this case , the latter State shall be responsible for examining the application for asylum . \u201d","LAW has been superseded by ORG ( ORG ) No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member ORG responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of GPE by a third - country national ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) , which , in its turn , has been superseded by LAW ) No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of ORG and of ORG .","Directive CARDINAL of DATE , laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in the Member States ( \u201c the Reception Directive \u201d ) requires that Member GPE ensure a dignified standard of living to all asylum seekers , paying specific attention to the situation of applicants with special needs or who are detained . It regulates matters such as the provision of information , documentation , freedom of movement , healthcare , accommodation , schooling of minors , access to the labour market and to vocational training . It also covers standards for persons with special needs , minors , unaccompanied children and victims of torture .","The deadline for transposition of the Reception Directive by the GPE expired on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173112","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"SAPONDZHYAN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants , PERSON ( the first applicant ) and Mr PERSON ( the second applicant ) , are respectively a stateless person and a NORP national . They were born in DATE and DATE and live in GPE in the NORP district of LOC . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE to ORG .","ORG were invited to intervene in the written procedure ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) ) .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants are a married couple with CARDINAL adult sons . Prior to moving to GPE they lived in GPE with CARDINAL of their sons , Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , and Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .","NORP In DATE PERSON and PERSON moved to GPE . In DATE , the first applicant moved to GPE to join them , using her GPE passport . According to the applicants , on an unspecified date shortly afterwards she underwent a complex kidney operation and had to stay with her sons , who provided her with the necessary care after her surgery . Sometime in DATE she lost her passport and became stateless . At DATE the first applicant had another kidney operation , meaning she required constant care , which was provided by her family .","In DATE the second applicant arrived in GPE on a visa with his NORP passport and joined his sons and the first applicant . He later left again and re - entered GPE in DATE or DATE on another visa .","NORP In DATE PERSON obtained NORP nationality . According to the applicants , DATE he and his commonlaw partner , a NORP national , PERSON . , had QUANTITY children .","On DATE the second applicant was fined for a breach of LAW for failing to regularise his stay in GPE .","According to the applicants , they live with their son LOC and his family in the same dwelling in GPE . They are fully dependent on him and they take care of his CARDINAL children . The applicants\u2019 fourth son , PERSON PERSON , has also become a resident of GPE .","It appears that the applicants\u2019 third son , PERSON , has continued to reside in GPE . In DATE PERSON also obtained NORP nationality .","Between the date of their arrival in GPE and DATE neither of the applicants applied for a temporary residence permit or took any other steps to regularise their stay in the country .","On DATE ORG in LOC fined the applicants MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) each and ordered their administrative removal ( expulsion ) from GPE . The court stated that the applicants , residing in GPE since DATE and DATE respectively , had not taken any steps to regularise their presence in the country , in breach of LAW . The court further stated that both applicants had admitted they had failed to regularise their stay and noted in respect of the second applicant that he had already committed a similar violation in DATE .","The applicants appealed against the expulsion order to ORG . They pointed out that they were long - term migrants and that their sons and other members of their family lived in GPE . They stated that their expulsion would have an adverse effect on their family life as they had been residing with their sons , were fully dependent on them , taking care of their grandchildren , Mr PERSON children , and that they were not dependent on the NORP social welfare system .","On DATE ORG upheld the expulsion order on appeal . It did not examine the applicants\u2019 complaint concerning the alleged violation of their right to family life . The order became final and enforceable .","According to the ORG \u2019s submission , the expulsion order has not been enforced to date and will not be so as under the domestic legislation it could only be carried out within DATE of its entering into force .","According to the applicants , in DATE , upon receipt of ORG correspondence concerning their application , they decided to take steps to regularise their stay in GPE . No relevant documents were enclosed . The applicants continue to reside in GPE .","For a summary of the relevant domestic law see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155006","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF YEGOROV v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and habitually resides in PERSON ( GPE ) .","From DATE until DATE the applicant was continuously deprived of his liberty in GPE , mainly within the scope of detention pending trial on various charges pursued against him , partly in parallel and partly consecutively . His overall deprivation of liberty included the following periods .","From DATE until DATE he was remanded pending trial on several charges , which included what would later be classified as the charge of conceiving , setting up and supporting a criminal and terrorist group ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) . On the latter date the prosecution on that charge was removed to be dealt with in a separate set of proceedings .","The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention in the subsequent period would later be set off against a DATE prison sentence imposed on him for the offence of attempting to legalise the proceeds of a criminal activity . He was released from detention in connection with that offence on DATE .","Immediately after his release from the last - mentioned detention , the applicant \u2019s liberty was again restricted and it later resulted in his being remanded pending trial on the charge of murder , of which he was ultimately acquitted on DATE . In consequence , he was released from detention on DATE .","Following his release on DATE , the applicant was immediately re - arrested on DATE , and later remanded pending trial on the charge of conceiving , setting up and supporting a criminal and terrorist group ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . This term of detention ended with the applicant \u2019s release on DATE .","Upon his release on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was immediately re - arrested on DATE , and was later remanded pending trial on another charge of murder . This term of detention ended with the applicant \u2019s release on DATE .","Upon his last - mentioned release , the applicant was immediately transferred to the detention centre for foreigners ( z\u00e1chytn\u00fd t\u00e1bor ) in LOC , where he was detained until his expulsion to GPE on DATE .","The applicant \u2019s prosecution on the first charge of murder ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) commenced in DATE while he was still deprived of his liberty within the scope of detention pending trial on the charge of attempting to legalise the proceeds of a criminal activity ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE an investigator informed the public prosecution service ( \u201c PPS \u201d ) that if the applicant \u2019s conviction and sentence for attempting to legalise the proceeds of a criminal activity were to be upheld on appeal \u2012 an appeal which was about to be heard \u2012 the applicant would be eligible for release because the DATE term of his sentence would soon be fully covered by the term of his detention . It would therefore be advisable to consider lodging an application for the applicant to be detained pending trial on the murder charge , which the ORG subsequently did .","NORP Immediately after the applicant \u2019s release from detention in connection with the charge of attempting to legalise the proceeds of a criminal activity , on DATE , he was taken to the LOC and ORG in GPE , where a decision was taken ordering his administrative expulsion , a ban from re - entering GPE for DATE , and detention pending the enforcement of the expulsion order ( zaistenie ) . The applicant was then taken to the detention centre in GPE to await implementation of the expulsion order .","In the course of the murder trial , a public session ( verejn\u00e9 zasadnutie ) was scheduled to take place before the Bratislava I ORG ( ORG s\u00fad ) on DATE with a view to examining questions concerning the detention of the applicant . However , in view of the circumstances described in the foregoing paragraph , on DATE the public session was cancelled and the applicant was summoned for questioning the following day .","On TIME the applicant was seized in the detention centre in LOC by police officers who then brought him to ORG for the questioning that had been ordered .","Later in DATE of DATE , the applicant was brought before a Chamber of the District Court for the questioning , immediately after which ORG ordered a private session ( neverejn\u00e9 zasadnutie ) with a view to making a decision concerning the applicant \u2019s detention .","Following the private session of DATE , on DATE , ORG remanded the applicant in detention pending trial on the murder charge .","NORP Immediately following the pronouncement of the detention order , on DATE , which was a DATE , the applicant stated on the record that he wished to lodge an interlocutory appeal and that he would submit the reasons for his appeal upon receiving the written version of the detention order with reasons . The appeal and its reasons were to be submitted to the court of appeal via the first - instance court , that is to say ORG .","On DATE , which was a DATE , the applicant submitted the reasons for his appeal in writing in the LANGUAGE language , stating that he would submit further reasons when the written version of the remand order was served on him . It appears that the applicant \u2019s submission of DATE was received at ORG on DATE .","On the last - mentioned date , that is to say on DATE , the written version of the detention order was served on the applicant in the NORP language and , on DATE , ORG transmitted the case file to ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) for determination of the applicant \u2019s interlocutory appeal .","On DATE , which again was a DATE , the applicant sent a further written submission in the LANGUAGE language , adding reasons to his appeal . It appears that this submission was received at ORG on DATE .","NORP However , on DATE , that is to say on DATE , ORG determined the applicant \u2019s interlocutory appeal by dismissing it as unfounded . ORG observed at the outset that the applicant had not submitted any reasons for his appeal either orally or in writing .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) under LAW of LAW ( Constitutional law no . PERSON . , as amended ) .","Relying inter alia on LAW , he contended that ( i ) his arrest and bringing before ORG had been unlawful ; ( ii ) the remand decision had been arbitrary ; and ( iii ) ORG had failed to take account of the reasons for his interlocutory appeal submitted on CARDINAL and DATE .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill - founded .","It acknowledged that any tribunal ruling on matters concerning detention on remand was under a duty to examine carefully all submissions made by the person remanded , but pointed out that the applicant \u2019s submissions of CARDINAL and DATE had not been available to ORG when it examined his interlocutory appeal . In addition , matters concerning detention on remand generally require swift determination and courts of appeal were obliged to determine interlocutory appeals in such matters within DATE of the date when the appeal was referred to them for determination . Furthermore , in contrast to case no . II . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant had been heard at first instance . And lastly , he had been represented by a lawyer , but the latter had taken no steps to ensure the effective assertion of his rights .","Thus , in the circumstances , the decision to dismiss the applicant \u2019s interlocutory appeal without examining the reasons for it could not be considered arbitrary .","ORG decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","At TIME on DATE , following his acquittal of the first murder charge and release from detention in connection therewith DATE , the applicant was re - arrested . At TIME that day he was served with a document dated DATE charging him with the offence of conceiving , setting up and supporting a criminal and terrorist group ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG applied for an order for the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial , referring to charges of ( i ) DATE for fraud ; ( ii ) DATE for legalising the proceeds of criminal activities ; ( iii ) DATE for conceiving , setting up and supporting a criminal and terrorist group ; and ( iv ) DATE on another count of legalising the proceeds of a criminal activity .","On DATE a pre - trial judge at ORG ( \u0160pecializovan\u00fd trestn\u00fd s\u00fad ) remanded the applicant pending trial . As regards the specific trial in question , he identified it by reference to the charge of conceiving , setting up and supporting a criminal and terrorist group and the relevant provisions of LAW ( Law no . QUANTITY . , as amended ) .","The judge observed that the applicant was a non - national and that , prior to his initial arrest , for DATE he had not been living at his registered permanent residence , but rather at his girlfriend \u2019s address . However , he had not been registered as living there . Furthermore , the applicant had often been travelling abroad .","Accordingly , the judge held that there was no guarantee that , if left at liberty , the applicant would actually continue to live at his girlfriend \u2019s , as he had submitted he would do .","The judge also observed that the charges brought against the applicant in the other trials concerned various offences allegedly committed at various times and that even the bringing of these charges had not prevented him from allegedly committing the murder of which he stood accused in CARDINAL of those trials .","In addition , the applicant had already been convicted with final effect of attempting to legalise the proceeds of a criminal activity ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Therefore , his declaration that he had sufficient means to live on was not a sufficient guarantee that he would not continue offending .","The judge concluded that there was a need to detain the applicant under LAW ( a ) and ( c ) of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) in order to prevent his fleeing and continuing to engage in criminal activities .","The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal ( i ) arguing that his arrest had been unlawful because he had not been informed of the reasons for it ; ( ii ) contesting the charge and the reasons for detaining him ; ( iii ) complaining that he had already been deprived of liberty for DATE ; and ( iv ) complaining that his case demonstrated a pattern of arbitrarily remanding and re - remanding him consecutively on various charges .","On DATE ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s interlocutory appeal , finding that all formal and substantive requirements for detaining the applicant had been met and that all the applicable time - limits had been observed .","On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh complaint with ORG .","Relying mainly on LAW , he complained that , on his arrest , he had not been informed of the reasons for it ; that the courts had ignored his argument concerning the unlawfulness of his arrest ; that his detention was in general arbitrary ; and , more concretely , that his case demonstrated a pattern of arbitrarily remanding and reremanding him consecutively on various charges .","On the last - mentioned count , he contended in particular that ( i ) he had been facing the charges pursued against him in the present trial for DATE ; ( ii ) he had been constantly detained for all those DATE ; ( iii ) throughout that period the authorities had had a sufficient time to pursue the case against him properly ; ( iv ) his previous accumulated detention had to be seen as CARDINAL matter ; and ( v ) there were no adequate grounds for its continuation .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible . It held at the outset that it had no jurisdiction to examine any alleged violations in so far as they concerned the first - instance court because , in line with the principle of subsidiarity , such examination lay within the jurisdiction of the court of appeal .","ORG found that the report concerning the applicant \u2019s arrest contained references to the charges on which he had been arrested and had been signed by the applicant . There could therefore be no doubt as to his having been informed of the reasons for his arrest .","Similarly , it was apparent from ORG decision that it had taken note of the applicant \u2019s arguments regarding the lawfulness of his arrest . The fact that ORG had not given a specific answer on that point was not contrary to the applicant \u2019s rights because it had examined the arguments by implication when dealing with the overall lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s detention .","As to the remainder of the applicant \u2019s complaint , ORG acknowledged that the applicant \u2019s detention had by then lasted DATE in total . However , in terms of ORG decision , it was necessary to take into account the fact that the contested decision was neither a decision to dismiss his request for release nor a decision to extend his detention . Having taken into account the nature of the contested decision and the reasons behind it , and considering the length of the applicant \u2019s detention in concreto in the case at hand \u2012 that is to say only since DATE \u2012 the ORG came to the conclusion that , at the given time , the length of the applicant \u2019s detention had not yet reached a point of being unconstitutional .","The decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant \u2019s release on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been ordered by ORG on DATE . In its decision , it observed that at the initial stage of the proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant had been prosecuted for and detained pending trial on various charges , which had then been removed to be dealt with in a separate set of proceedings on DATE and that , in the subsequent period , he had been remanded pending trial partly on the same charges . In this connection , it referred in the following terms to ORG judgment ( n\u00e1lez ) in unrelated case no . II . GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL :","\u201c ... the removal of CARDINAL of several prosecuted offences to a separate set of proceedings is not , as such , contrary to the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty of the person facing the charges . Such a course of action on the part of the prosecuting authorities would , however , conflict [ with those constitutional guarantees ] ... if there were no well - founded reasons for it or if it manifestly served to obtain an extension of the detention beyond the statutory timescale of its duration , or if it otherwise entailed as a consequence the arbitrary keeping of a person in detention . \u201d","As regards the present case , ORG went on to observe :","\u201c In the case at hand it is not disputed that there are well - founded reasons for continuing the detention of [ the applicant ] .... However , on the other hand , it must be observed that in the given case doubts may not be completely dispelled that the keeping of the applicant ... in detention for DATE might appear to be an arbitrary and above all self - serving deprivation of liberty in order to obtain his conviction for serious offences , especially since he has been portrayed as the leader of an illegal mafia - type grouping .","Thus , if the duration of the above - mentioned [ initial ] detention is added to the period of the applicant \u2019s detention after DATE CARDINAL[CARDINAL ] ( DATE ) , it becomes apparent that the maximum permissible duration of his detention for [ CARDINAL of the charges ] has already been exceeded . At the same time , it must be observed that [ the applicant ] is being prosecuted for CARDINAL offences which may not be detached from one another because it is CARDINAL criminal matter for which he is detained . \u201d","ORG went on to observe that the applicant \u2019s detention after DATE resulted from his prosecution for the same offences","\u201c for which he had already been detained from DATE at least until DATE , when that matter had been removed to be dealt with in a separate set of proceedings . Within that period and in that matter , [ the applicant ] was detained for DATE and DATE ... [ He ] is at present detained in the same matter , which is still at pre - trial stage , ( the [ statutory maximum duration ] ) of such detention having been significantly exceeded .","However , at the same time , the [ statutory maximum duration ] of the whole detention has also been exceeded . \u201d","Moreover , in the closing part of its decision , ORG observed that :","\u201c The status of the examined matter is even more complicated , however : after the removal to a separate set of proceedings of a part of [ the charges against the applicant ] , no decision has been identified as having regulated the scope of the applicant \u2019s detention . From later decisions it may be understood that the applicant \u2019s detention was linked to his prosecution for the offence classified as murder , which had earlier been a part of the previously joined proceedings . This status must be accepted as reality ; if the detention of [ the applicant ] were linked to his prosecution for the offences which now form the subject - matter of the present proceedings , the maximum duration of [ his detention ] would have run out substantially earlier . \u201d","In a judgment of DATE ( case no . II . GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , ORG found a violation of the \u201c speediness \u201d requirement under LAW in the procedure for the review of the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s detention in the first murder trial . However , his just satisfaction claim was rejected on the ground that he had failed to substantiate it .","NORP On DATE ( case no . PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , ORG found a violation of the applicant \u2019s LAW in the context of the dismissal of his request for release from detention pending trial on the charge of conceiving , setting up and supporting a criminal and terrorist group . The grounds were essentially the same as those established by ORG in its decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . above ) .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( case no . ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , ORG found a violation of the applicant \u2019s LAW in the context of the dismissal of his request for release from detention pending trial on the second murder charge ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It observed that he had been remanded in detention pending trial on that charge as well as on the previous charge immediately after having been released from the previous detention , which had amounted to a recurring pattern . It was noteworthy that the alleged murder had taken place in DATE , although the applicant had not been charged with it until DATE , despite having been detained as early as DATE .","The applicant had been prosecuted for various offences both in parallel and consecutively . The respective statutory provisions concerning the maximum duration of detention could not be interpreted as authorising detention pending trial for the maximum period in relation to each individual charge . Otherwise , as had occurred in the applicant \u2019s case , a person could be detained for the maximum permissible period repeatedly for consecutively levelled charges ad infinitum , which was not justified by any public interest .","ORG nevertheless dismissed the applicant \u2019s just expedient nor appropriate \u201d ( \u00fa\u010deln\u00e9 PERSON vhodn\u00e9 ) .","The written version of ORG judgment was served on ORG on DATE . It was against that court that the complaint was directed and , following ORG judgment , it eventually ordered the applicant \u2019s release on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","ORG also found a violation of the applicant \u2019s LAW rights in the context of his detention pending trial on the second murder charge \u2012 not only on the same grounds as those mentioned above but also on others \u2012 in CARDINAL further judgments of DATE ( case nos . GPE . GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , PERSON . GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and GPE . GPE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","However , noting that the applicant had been released in the meantime , it also cited and endorsed its previous position that it was \u201c neither expedient nor appropriate \u201d to award him any just satisfaction ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177396","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KHADZHIMURADOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Six-month period);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants alleged principally that their CARDINAL relatives ( spouses , children , brothers and an uncle ) had been killed by ORG servicemen on DATE in the PERSON settlement on the outskirts of PERSON ( see PERSON for details ) .","A criminal investigation into the murders was opened on DATE by the ORG town prosecutor \u2019s office . Over DATE , the applicants or close members of their families were granted victim status in the proceedings . Those proceedings are still ongoing .","The documents indicate that CARDINAL applicant , PERSON ( application no . ORG ) , was in PERSON at the time of the events ; the other applicants were out of the district or out of GPE , owing to heavy fighting in DATE .","NORP In support of their claims , the applicants submitted copies of the death certificates issued in respect of their relatives , copies of some documents from the criminal investigation file , decisions granting them or their close relatives victim status in the criminal proceedings , statements which they had made , statements from witnesses to the events , and press and NGO reports . Several applicants also submitted documents issued in DATE by the local administration or \u201c neighbourhood committees \u201d confirming that the houses in which they had lived had been destroyed or damaged in DATE .","Some applicants complained that their state of health had deteriorated due to the stress and anguish which they had suffered in the aftermath of the PERSON killings , and particularly in view of the inadequate and callous response of the authorities to their plight .","The facts of the present case are connected to the case of GPE and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , DATE ) in so far as the applicants claimed that their relatives had been killed by the same people and in the same circumstances as the relatives of the applicants in that case .","The applicants in GPE and Others complained that TIME of their relatives had been killed by unidentified servicemen on DATE in PERSON . The first applicant had witnessed the deaths of his CARDINAL distant relatives ( cousins and nephews ) . Other applicants in GPE and Others were more closely connected to the victims , and were their husband , sister or brothers . The first applicant had been granted victim status in the domestic criminal proceedings and had participated in those proceedings ( see PERSON and Others , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) . It appeared that in the domestic criminal proceedings the proximity of the relationships between the victims and the deceased had not been fully ascertained , and , as noted in the GPE and Others judgment , no single list existed of the victims and the people who had been granted victim status in the proceedings ( ibid . , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL ) . The Government did not challenge the first applicant \u2019s victim status under LAW .","On the basis of the parties\u2019 submissions and inferences drawn by the ORG , it was established that on DATE CARDINAL relatives of the applicants had been killed by State servicemen in the PERSON settlement on the outskirts of PERSON , during a special operation ( a \u201c sweeping \u201d operation ) carried out by , amongst others , servicemen from LAW ( \u041e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u043c\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u043e\u0441\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ( \u041e\u041c\u041e\u041d ) ) from GPE ( hereinafter GPE PERSON ) .","According to the documents examined by the ORG , CARDINAL people had been killed on DATE in PERSON by unidentified servicemen wearing camouflaged uniforms and using automatic weapons , equipped with portable radio sets , armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) and military LOC trucks . The same servicemen had also looted and burnt down a number of houses .","NORP In DATE , when the parties exchanged observations in GPE and Others , the criminal investigation was still ongoing . Although the investigation file reflected some attempts to identify the servicemen involved , there was no information that anyone had been charged with the crimes . The ORG concluded that the authorities had failed to carry out an effective investigation into the deaths .","In addition , the first applicant , who had witnessed the deaths of his relatives and had himself been held at gunpoint , was found to be a victim of inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of LAW . Lastly , a breach of LAW was found , since the criminal investigation into the deaths had been inefficient , rendering any other remedy equally futile .","On DATE the ORG town prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal investigation no . DATE into the murder of several inhabitants of the PERSON settlement in PERSON by \u201c unidentified men armed with guns \u201d under LAW of LAW ( the murder of CARDINAL or more persons with aggravating circumstances ) ; the decision also referred to the looting of ORG property . In response to the ORG \u2019s request in the present case , the ORG submitted copies of CARDINAL volumes of documents from criminal case no . DATE , produced after the judgment issued in GPE and Others . Those documents can be summarised as follows .","The applicants submitted that , prior to the GPE and Others judgment in DATE , they had not been aware that another group of victims had applied to ORG . They also submitted that , prior to that date , they had had no reasons to doubt the effectiveness of the domestic investigation , even if no regular updates from the prosecutor \u2019s office had been forthcoming . Some of the applicants also referred to their previous contact with lawyers whom they had instructed to apply to ORG in DATE , but CARDINAL lawyer had died , and either their instructions to other lawyers had not been complied with or the applicants had not kept any written proof of those instructions . As the documents in the ORG \u2019s possession indicate , in DATE CARDINAL families of victims of the PERSON events sent a letter to the ORG stating their intention to apply to the ORG . That letter included CARDINAL applicants in the present case . The signatories failed to submit proper applications or otherwise pursue that complaint , which was eventually discontinued .","The deaths of CARDINAL people were found to be in breach of LAW in the PERSON and Others judgment ( cited above ) , and the family members of CARDINAL of those people are applicants in the present complaint ( see Appendix ) . While the first applicant in the GPE and Others case was a cousin and a nephew of the deceased , the applicants in the present group are the deceased \u2019s spouses , children and brothers .","The applicants in the present case ( or their close relatives ) were granted victim status in criminal investigation file no . DATE on various dates DATE and DATE ( see Appendix ) . CARDINAL applicants were questioned and received victim status in DATE and DATE . CARDINAL were granted victim status in DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL in DATE . The other CARDINAL received such status DATE . On DATE the investigator of the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office granted an application made by a lawyer , PERSON . The application was for CARDINAL people to have victim status . The list included CARDINAL applicants in the present case , CARDINAL of whom later obtained and countersigned proper individual decisions as indicated above . There is no information that any other procedural acts involving the applicants\u2019 participation occurred DATE ( see the following paragraph ) .","The investigation was adjourned and resumed a number of times ( see subsection CARDINAL . Various procedural steps below ) ; on DATE the investigation was resumed . As of DATE the applicants in the present case and in GPE and Others and their close relatives were regularly questioned about the events of DATE . Thus , in DATE the following applicants were questioned : PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( no . MONEY ) , PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( no . MONEY ) , PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( no . MONEY ) , ORG ( no . MONEY ) , PERSON ( no . MONEY ) , PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( no . MONEY ) , ORG Bishayeva ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , and ORG ( no . CARDINAL ) . In DATE the investigators questioned PERSON and PERSON ( no . QUANTITY ) ; in DATE they questioned PERSON ( no . MONEY ) , PERSON ( no . MONEY ) , PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , and ORG ( no . MONEY ) . During questioning , the investigators informed the applicants about forensic expert reports on the bodies that had been carried out in DATE . The applicants were also asked questions about the loss of property and were asked to estimate the pecuniary damage which they had sustained . While they provided some estimates , no documents were provided , and all applicants stated that they intended to seek pecuniary damages as civil parties during the trial .","DATE Additional questioning of the applicants , their relatives and other local residents continued into DATE and DATE which followed . New victims of the events were identified as late as DATE , and their relatives were granted victim status in the proceedings . The questioning of other local residents continued until DATE , when they were granted victim status in the proceedings , notably in respect of the loss of property .","On DATE PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) complained to LOC of PERSON regarding the decision of DATE to adjourn the investigation and the prosecutor \u2019s failure to conduct an efficient investigation into the murders .","On DATE the ORG noted that the decision of DATE had been quashed on DATE by ORG , and dismissed PERSON complaint . She did not appeal against that decision .","NORP The decision of DATE to adjourn the investigation ( and subsequent similar documents ) indicates that in DATE the investigation identified PERSON as a suspect . He was charged with aggravated murder and robbery . In DATE S.B. had been a police technician with the sapper battalion of GPE PERSON . The charges stated that on DATE he , along with CARDINAL other unidentified persons , had killed Mr PERSON ( the husband of PERSON , applicant in case no . CARDINAL ) by shooting him with a PERSON machine gun . PERSON was also charged with robbing CARDINAL other people of money and jewellery , TIME and PERSON In DATE PERSON escaped to GPE and his name was put on the international wanted list . In DATE the Zavodskoy ORG in ORG ruled that PERSON should be arrested . The decision of DATE states that the investigator informed the victims of that decision , but the case file contains no relevant correspondence . Copies of letters submitted by the parties indicate that a copy of that decision was sent to the victims on DATE .","NORP In DATE the investigators asked the prosecutor \u2019s office in GPE to question ORG civil partner about his whereabouts . In DATE she stated that she had had no information about PERSON \u2019s whereabouts since DATE , although she had seen him in DATE in GPE .","In DATE the investigators examined a social network page belonging to GPE and noted that the latest photographs on it had been uploaded in DATE . In DATE the investigators sought to obtain additional information about PERSON \u2019s whereabouts by questioning his other relatives , locating his mobile phone , and so on .","During the questioning of victims and witnesses the investigators collected additional information about the suspects . Thus , in DATE Mr GPE PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) referred to servicemen from the ORG motorised rifle regiment , the commander of that regiment , and the commander of company no . CARDINAL ( see GPE and Others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) as possible suspects .","In DATE the investigation produced a list of CARDINAL servicemen of GPE PERSON who had been posted in GPE in DATE , and asked for verification of whether CARDINAL of them had a tattoo in the shape of a snake on his neck , mentioned by CARDINAL of the witnesses . CARDINAL of servicemen were inspected , but no one with a snake - shaped tattoo was identified . When questioned in DATE , the servicemen , in brief statements , confirmed that they had served in GPE in DATE but had no knowledge of the civilians killed in PERSON .","NORP In DATE the investigators sent a letter asking the prosecutor of the LOC military circuit to identify and question the servicemen and commanders of the FAC motorised rifle regiment ( see GPE and Others , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The letter contained detailed information and questions about the events of CARDINAL DATE , and asked the prosecutor to identify and question the people who had used known radio call signs and to identify the commanders of the operation . In DATE an officer of the military unit concerned stated , as a witness , that all details about the use of radio equipment and the assignment of calls were stored as secret information for DATE . Several reminders followed in DATE asking , in particular , for the former commander of the ORG regiment , ORG , to be questioned .","NORP In DATE the investigator in charge sought similar information from another military unit ( the CARDINALth motorised rifle regiment ) , including the names of the unit commanders who had taken part in the operation on DATE . In particular , the letter referred to the commander of company no . CARDINAL of the regiment , who , the investigators suggested , had written a note left by the servicemen for the local residents .","In DATE the investigators asked the military investigators to submit information about the commanders of the ORG motorised rifle regiment and to ask them a number of specific questions about the events of DATE .","In DATE the investigators asked the investigator of GPE to carry out additional ballistic reports on CARDINAL guns used by GPE ORG in DATE .","In DATE the investigator in charge informed the military prosecutor of the NORP military circuit that the special operation on DATE in the south of ORG had been under the command of Colonel PERSON . PERSON , the head of the operative headquarters of the internal troops of ORG . He reminded the military prosecutors of his previous requests for the commanders of that operation to be identified and questioned . It does not appear that any progress was achieved in this respect .","During additional questioning in the period DATE , local residents were asked about the damage to their property caused in DATE . They explained that many houses had been burnt down by the servicemen , and that those who had stayed in the district had been forced to give up their jewellery and valuables as a result of threats . Others estimated the amount of pecuniary damage caused ( see Appendix ) . No one was granted victim status in relation to any property offence and no additional documents were requested from the residents . The victims stated that they would seek damages in the course of a criminal trial , as civil parties .","On DATE the investigator ruled that no criminal proceedings should be opened in connection to the crimes relating to property , due to the expiration of the statutory limits for those crimes . It does not appear that that decision was challenged . In DATE decisions according civil party status in criminal proceedings with regard to property claims were issued in respect of the following applicants : PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , ORG ( no . DATE ) and PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) . PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) submitted documents which indicated that the house for which he claimed compensation had been owned by GPE , his sister . In his written statement to ORG he stated that at some point PERSON had received compensation from the ORG for the lost property , but he submitted no relevant documents .","On DATE the investigation of criminal case file no . CARDINAL into the events of CARDINAL DATE was resumed , and the victims were informed accordingly .","On DATE the investigation was adjourned .","The investigation was then resumed , but on DATE was adjourned again , and the applicants were informed accordingly .","The investigation was then resumed , but adjourned again on DATE . A letter informing the victims of the adjournment was dated DATE .","It appears that the investigation was reopened and then adjourned again on DATE .","It was then reopened in DATE , and on DATE adjourned again , for similar reasons as those stated in the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG gave an order for an investigating group to be set up which would include investigators from the military prosecutor \u2019s office , in view of information about the possible implication of military servicemen in the crimes .","In DATE the investigators watched a video filmed in PERSON on DATE ( see PERSON and Others , cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) and produced the video \u2019s transcript for the file .","In DATE the investigators compiled a table of people who had been killed on DATE , indicating their places of burial , the next - of - kin granted victim status in the proceedings , and the dates of such decisions . The table contains information about CARDINAL deaths , including the deaths of QUANTITY people about which the applicants in the present case complain ; the CARDINAL exception is PERSON , born in DATE ( the brother of PERSON , application no . MONEY ) . At the same time , the table contains information about the death of a certain PERSON , born in DATE , in respect of whose death another person ( his brother ) was questioned and granted victim status in DATE .","In DATE the investigation recognised civil party status of CARDINAL applicants in connection with the destruction and theft of property during the events of DATE .","It does not appear that the applicants were informed of any other developments , or that they sought further information from the investigating authorities ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164196","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SIL\u00c1\u0160OV\u00c1 AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants all live in GPE , except for PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who live in PERSON , ORG and PERSON nad ORG respectively .","The facts of the case are structurally similar to those obtaining in the cases against GPE of ORG PERSON ( no . FAC , DATE ( merits ) and DATE ( just satisfaction ) ) , ORG ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , FAC ( no . ORG , DATE ) , and ORG ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The applicants are the owners of land situated in the cadastral area of GPE on the territory of the municipality of PERSON . They acquired title to this land by way of inheritance from their predecessors .","NORP In DATE the ORG put the land in question at the disposal of an agricultural cooperative called PERSON . In DATE the cooperative designated part of the land as an \u201c allotment colony \u201d , consisting of individual allotments which were put at the disposal of private third parties ( \u201c the gardeners \u201d ) .","NORP The applicants\u2019 \u2012 or , at the relevant time , their ORG \u2012 formal title to the land has remained unaffected but in practice , they have not been able to make use of it at all . The size of each of the ORG individual parcels of land thereby affected is listed in column C of the appendix .","In the context of the political changes in the former GPE , LAW ( Law CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . ) was enacted in DATE . Under section CARDINAL ) thereof , in the absence of any agreement to the contrary with the applicants , the gardeners acquired a tenancy right in respect of the land in question with effect from DATE of the Act \u2019s entry into force .","NORP The rent payable for such tenancy was regulated under section CARDINAL ) of LAW until this provision was replaced by LAW , which entered into force on DATE .","LAW likewise imposed a compulsory tenancy arrangement in favour of the gardeners , the rent being regulated by its section CARDINAL , which applied by operation of law unless the parties had agreed otherwise . This provision , as applicable at that time , referred to other pieces of legislation which set the annual rent at MONEY of the value of the property \u2012 calculated on the basis of the then applicable price regulations \u2012 the minimum being equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) per square metre and per year .","In the applicants\u2019 case , with the exception mentioned below , no such separate agreement had been reached between the parties , and the DATE rent payable by the gardeners to the applicants was thus determined under the statutory rules at the lowest limit of the applicable scale , that is to say at a rate of EUR CARDINAL per square metre . In the case of the applicant PERSON , an agreement was reached that , as from DATE , she would be paid rent equivalent to ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL per square QUANTITY and per year .","The applicable statutory regime was amended \u2012 after the ORG \u2019s above - mentioned judgments had become final \u2012 with effect from CARDINAL DATE by PERSON no . CARDINAL Coll . , which adjusted the rent payable to owners in a situation such as the applicants\u2019 to a level commensurate with the market rent .","By virtue of the statutory amendment , the amount of the rent was to be determined under the Regulation of the Ministry of Justice on Determination of the General Value of Property ( no . PERSON . ) . This regulation uses the term \u201c general value \u201d \u2012 which is understood to mean the expert assessment of the most likely price at a given place and time on the market in conditions of free competition and honest sale \u2012 and lays down formulae for the determination thereof in relation to land and the rent payable for that land , the latter being linked to the former . These formulae take into account what is known as the \u201c general situation index \u201d ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , ranging originally from CARDINAL to CARDINAL , normally depending on the geographical location of the property .","However , prior to the entry into force of the amendments introduced by Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , Regulation CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had been amended by Regulation no . ORG . , which took effect from DATE . The latter Regulation introduced a special ORG ranging CARDINAL to be applied when determining the \u201c general value \u201d of land and the \u201c general value \u201d of the rent for the land in allotment GPE .","These amendments left the compulsory tenancy introduced by LAW unaffected . Such a tenancy arrangement remains in place until the completion of what are known as land consolidation proceedings in a given area . Such proceedings are also provided for LAW , their aim being to have the ownership and use of the land in the allotment area consolidated , principally by transferring title to the land to the gardeners and having the former owners compensated by means regulated under LAW , the details of such consolidation being defined in what is known as a \u201c land consolidation project \u201d .","In the applicants\u2019 case , the gardeners initiated the requisite land consolidation proceedings on DATE . Within the framework thereof , the order had been given for implementation of a \u201c land consolidation project \u201d , but the proceedings changed course on CARDINAL DATE when ORG held that the applicants\u2019 inability to have that order reviewed by the courts violated their right of access to a court and their property rights .","The land consolidation proceedings are currently pending , at a stage where the general value of the applicants\u2019 land remains to be determined .","The compulsory tenancy of the applicants\u2019 land persists .","The parties disagreed as to the amount of rent payable for the applicants\u2019 property . Their positions and the documents submitted in their support may be summarised as follows .","The applicants relied on report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL dated DATE , in which a sworn expert , A , estimated the general value of the rent in question by reference to the criteria laid down in Regulation no . MONEY , and applied a ORG of CARDINAL . On that basis , the applicants considered that the market value of the DATE rent amounted to ORG QUANTITY .","Later , the applicants also submitted report no . DATE dated DATE by another sworn expert , B , according to which the general value of DATE rent for a plot in the stated area belonging to the applicant Mr Le\u0161\u010dinsk\u00fd was EUR CARDINAL in DATE , ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL in DATE , ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL in DATE and ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL in DATE . These figures had been estimated on the basis of Regulation no . MONEY , taking into account the ORG resulting from the amendments introduced by Regulation no . ORG .","The Government for their part submitted the following documents :","\u2012 A letter from ORG in GPE dated DATE , in which the ORG pointed out what they considered to be methodological flaws in the calculations of expert PERSON On the basis of their pro forma recalculation of the available data , the value of the DATE general rent would be ORG CARDINAL per square metre . However , the letter points out that this recalculation was done without a separate in situ investigation and without the examination of further documents that the ORG considered essential .","\u2012 A letter from ORG dated DATE stating that , at that time , expert valuations of the general value of the land had been obtained for CARDINAL allotment GPE in the district of GPE . On the basis of the general value of the land as established in these valuations , which took into account legislative amendment no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , the Government contended that the average general value of the annual rent payable for land comparable to the applicants\u2019 was LAW .","\u2012 A full expert report drawn up by ORG in DATE , numbered CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which had been preceded by the ORG \u2019s own investigations . In this report , drawn up on the basis of amended Regulation no . MONEY , the ORG calculated the general value of the DATE rent payable for the property in question as of DATE as ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL per square metre .","The method provided by Regulation no . DATE could not be used in relation to the preceding periods . In these cases , the ORG assessed the general value of the DATE rent for DATE \u2012 on the basis of the results for DATE , but taking into account the general development of real estate prices in the given region and other economic criteria during DATE \u2012 as follows : in DATE ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL , in DATE EUR CARDINAL , in DATE ORG CARDINAL , in DATE ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL , in DATE EUR CARDINAL , in DATE EUR CARDINAL , and in DATE ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","Lastly , the ORG reiterated the objections concerning the methodology used in the valuation produced by expert A and expressed the view that he had lacked the requisite qualifications for conducting the particular type of valuation obtaining in the present case , since his qualifications pertained only to agricultural land , and did not extend to include the type of land concerned in the present case ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144666","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MIHAI LAUREN\u021aIU MARIN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained in LOC .","In his initial letters to the ORG the applicant stated that he had been detained in overcrowded cells which had lacked heating .","Starting from DATE the applicant was detained and transferred between a number of prisons , including ORG and M\u0103gineni Prisons .","The applicant was first detained in FAC on DATE . The records concerning the cells the applicant had been detained in and the number of detainees he had shared the cells with during his time in detention there DATE had been destroyed in accordance with the requirements of applicable domestic legislation .","From DATE onwards the applicant was detained in FAC from DATE to DATE . During this period he was transferred repeatedly from ORG to PERSON and other prison facilities as a result , among other things , of his violent behaviour towards other inmates and prison personnel .","In Poarta Alb\u0103 Prison the applicant was detained in several cells where he was afforded between CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , QUANTITY m of living space .","Part of the prison was fitted with its own central heating system , while the remaining part was heated by stoves . The heating was carried out based on a pre - determined schedule and on the available heating supplies and by taking into account the outdoor temperature .","NORP The applicant was detained in LOC from DATE . During this period he was transferred repeatedly to ORG and other prison facilities .","In LOC the applicant was detained in several cells where he was afforded DATE , QUANTITY m of living space .","Each cell had electrical power and was fitted with individual beds , tables , chairs and benches .","The prison was also fitted with its own gas central heating system . The system was working properly . The cells had radiators , which ensured an appropriate temperature in the rooms during DATE and when the outside temperature demanded it ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148138","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"AGONTSEV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr LOC , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON and PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the prosecution authorities in GPE opened criminal proceedings in relation to the murder of Mr PERSON On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with instigating the murder . On DATE he was placed in pre - trial detention , where he remained until DATE when ORG ordered his release on bail . The amount of bail was set at MONEY ( ORG ) , which was paid by PERSON On DATE the applicant was released .","NORP The preliminary investigation into Mr PERSON \u2019s death continued until DATE , when the applicant and several other individuals were indicted and sent to trial .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aiding and abetting PERSON murder and sentenced him to DATE years\u2019 imprisonment .","After delivery of the judgment , in a decision given at the same hearing , referring merely to the \u201c degree of dangerousness of the offence committed and its [ perpetrators ] , and the type and severity of the punishment imposed \u201d , ORG ordered that the applicant be placed once again in custody . He was detained at the end of the hearing .","On DATE the applicant appealed against his placement in custody , pointing out that while on bail he had not attempted to abscond or obstruct the investigation . On DATE ORG declared his appeal inadmissible , noting that at that stage of the proceedings a decision ordering placement in custody could not be challenged separately from the judgment on the merits .","In his initial application to the ORG , the applicant stated that following his detention he had not been able to recover the bail paid in DATE . However , after communication of the application the respondent Government submitted documents showing that on CARDINAL DATE a representative of PERSON had requested that the bail be returned to her . On DATE the representative presented a power of attorney , and DATE ORG ordered ORG to pay the sum back .","Following appeals by the accused , on DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case . On DATE , following a fresh examination , the lower court acquitted the applicant and ordered his release with immediate effect .","Following further appeals by the prosecution , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG judgment was upheld by ORG and ORG .","NORP The relevant provisions of domestic law concerning remedies for excessive length of proceedings have been summarised in the ORG \u2019s decisions in the cases of GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) and ORG and PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL and GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178378","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FUCHSHUBER v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","The applicant complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141937","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BARNA v. HUNGARY (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant brought an action in compensation in the context of water damage in her condominium .","After holding several hearings and obtaining expert evidence , on DATE ORG found for the applicant .","On DATE ORG reversed this judgment .","On DATE ORG rejected , without an examination on the merits , the applicant \u2019s petition for review since it did not meet the statutory requirements .","Act no . III of DATE on the Code of Civil Procedure , as amended by Act no . DATE , provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The party , the intervener or the public prosecutor participating in the proceedings are entitled to file a written complaint with the court hearing the case complaining about an omission specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) allegedly committed by that court , requesting the court having competence for the adjudication of the complaint to establish the omission and , by setting an appropriate time - limit , to instruct \u2013 in the cases specified under points a ) and c ) of subsection ( CARDINAL ) \u2013 the omitting court to perform the omitted procedural act or to pass the omitted decision , and to take DATE in the case specified under point b ) of subsection ( CARDINAL ) DATE the most effective action in the given case .","( CARDINAL ) Such a complaint may be filed where :","a ) the law prescribes a time - limit for the court within which to complete the proceedings , to perform a procedural act or to pass a decision and the time - limit has elapsed without any result ,","b ) a court has set a time - limit for the public prosecutor , the person participating in the proceedings , the authority or person requested to perform a procedural act but the time - limit has elapsed without any result and the court has failed to impose on the omitter the measures allowed by the law ,","c ) the court has failed to comply with its obligation to complete the proceedings within a reasonable time on account of the lapse of such time since the court \u2019s last measure on the merits which was sufficient for the court to perform or order to perform a procedural act but the court failed to do so .","( CARDINAL ) No complaint shall be filed against orders related to evidentiary acts or decisions subject to a separate legal remedy .","( CARDINAL ) The complaint may be withdrawn by the complainant at any time until a decision on the merits is taken by the court . Complaints withdrawn shall not be re - submitted . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The court hearing the case shall examine the complaint within DATE from its receipt , and if it finds the complaint well - founded , it shall , within DATE , take or order to take appropriate measures in order to terminate the situation complained of . It shall inform the complainant of how the complaint has been settled .","( CARDINAL ) If the court hearing the case finds the complaint ill - founded , it shall transmit the complaint to the adverse party who may file observations on it within DATE from its receipt . After the expiry of the time - limit the court shall , within DATE , forward the file \u2013 together with the observations \u2013 to the court having competence for adjudicating the complaint . In its communication , the court hearing the case shall set forth its reasons for not performing the omitted procedural act or not passing the omitted decision .","( CARDINAL ) A complaint challenging an omission of the district court shall be adjudicated by the regional court sitting in a committee of CARDINAL professional judges ; a complaint challenging an omission of the regional court shall be adjudicated by the court of appeal sitting in a committee of CARDINAL professional judges ; a complaint challenging an omission of the court of appeal shall be adjudicated by the GPE sitting in a committee of CARDINAL professional judges ; a complaint challenging an omission of the GPE shall be adjudicated in camera by another committee of the GPE , within DATE from the receipt of the case - file .","( CARDINAL ) Where the court adjudicating the complaint grants the complaint , it shall , by setting a time - limit , invite the omitting court to take DATE in the cases specified in section CARDINAL\/A subsection ( CARDINAL ) points a ) and c ) \u2013 the action required for the proper progress of the case and \u2013 in the cases specified in section CARDINAL subsection ( CARDINAL ) point b ) DATE to take the most effective action . Except for the cases specified in section CARDINAL\/A subsection ( CARDINAL ) point a ) , the court adjudicating the complaint shall not instruct the court hearing the case to perform a particular procedural act . If the court finds the complaint ill - founded , it shall dismiss it in reasoned decision . Against this decision no appeal may be filed .","( CARDINAL ) If the submitter of the complaint repeatedly submits an ill - founded complaint in the same case the court adjudicating the complaint may impose a fine on him .","( CARDINAL ) The provisions governing the submission and adjudication of appeals against orders shall be applicable to [ such ] complaints . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169662","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BEL","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PAPOSHVILI v. BELGIUM","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Conditional) (Georgia);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He lived in GPE and died there on DATE .","He arrived in GPE via GPE on DATE , accompanied by his wife and a DATE child . The applicant claimed to be the father of the child , an assertion which the Government contested . The couple subsequently had a child together in DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on charges of theft . On DATE he received a sentence of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , which was suspended except for the period of pretrial detention .","In DATE and DATE the applicant and his wife were arrested on several occasions in connection with theft offences .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment for theft .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of a number of offences including robbery with violence and threats , and received a sentence of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , which was suspended except for the period of pre - trial detention .","On DATE the applicant was sentenced by ORG to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for involvement in a criminal organisation with a view to securing pecuniary advantage using intimidation , deception or 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 .","On DATE , DATE after their arrival , the applicant and his wife lodged an asylum application .","As the applicant \u2019s 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 ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) .","After the NORP authorities had 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 had been checked .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that the proceedings concerning the asylum application of CARDINAL DATE had been concluded on DATE with the refusal of the application .","On DATE the applicant lodged a first request for regularisation for a period of DATE , on the basis of section GPE ) ( since DATE , section CARDINAL ) of the Aliens ( Entry , Residence , Settlement and Expulsion ) Act of DATE ( \u201c the Aliens Act \u201d ) . In support of his request the applicant stated that he and his wife had a daughter born in GPE before their arrival in GPE and another daughter born in GPE in DATE .","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 \u2019s medical treatment for tuberculosis had ended ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG also referred to the applicant \u2019s 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 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 \u2019s schooling , the fact that he had been the victim of persecution and his state of health .","ORG declared the request inadmissible 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 supervision , the applicant \u2019s 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 .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected an application by the applicant to set aside ORG decision . It noted in particular that , since the decision complained of had not been accompanied as such by a removal measure , it could not give rise to a risk of violation of LAW .","On DATE , relying on the same grounds as those invoked under section CARDINALter of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) and on his family situation , the applicant lodged a request for regularisation on exceptional grounds under LAW .","On DATE ORG refused the request for regularisation , taking the view that the protection of the ORG \u2019s best interests took precedence over the applicant \u2019s social and family interests and that by committing serious punishable acts the applicant himself had placed his family \u2019s 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 decision of DATE rejecting his request for regularisation of his status , together with an application to have that decision set aside . In so far as necessary , the application also related to the order to leave the country issued on DATE ( see paragraph 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 discontinuation of treatment would lead to his premature death . He further alleged an infringement of LAW , on the ground that if he were returned to GPE he would be separated from his family permanently .","The request and application were refused by ORG in a judgment of DATE on the ground that the applicant had not attended the hearing or been represented .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife lodged a request for regularisation on exceptional grounds under LAW , relying on her family situation and the duration of her residence in GPE .","On DATE she and her CARDINAL children were granted indefinite leave to remain .","In DATE , while the applicant was in prison ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he was diagnosed with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia in PERSON stage B , with a very high level of CDCARDINAL expression . 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 chemotherapy .","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 significantly .","From CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was confined to hospital in GPE with respiratory problems . The medical report concerning his stay 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 .","On DATE a doctor from ORG visited the applicant in the PERSON closed facility for illegal aliens ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , to which he had been transferred in the meantime , in order to carry out a full medical check - up . The doctor \u2019s report noted that the applicant \u2019s leukaemia , which was progressing rapidly towards PERSON stage C , had not been monitored sufficiently and that a different course of chemotherapy was required .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s condition worsened and the doctors observed that his leukaemia had progressed to ORG stage C , with anaemia and widespread enlargement of the lymph nodes ( life expectancy of twentyfour DATE ) . It was decided to switch to a different course of chemotherapy .","On DATE a doctor from the haematology department of ORG in GPE , where the applicant was being treated following his release ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , drew up a certificate which stated as follows :","\u201c ...","D. Possible complications if treatment is discontinued . Failure to treat the liver and lung disease could result in organ damage and consequent disorders ( respiratory insufficiency , cirrhosis and\/or liver cancer ) . Without treatment , the [ chronic lymphocytic leukaemia ] could lead to the patient \u2019s 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 . ... \u201d","After a relapse diagnosed in DATE , the doctors in ORG observed in DATE that the applicant \u2019s leukaemia had developed into lymphocytic lymphoma , and his chemotherapy was adjusted accordingly . A positronemission tomography ( PET ) scan performed on DATE showed a lack of response to the chemotherapy , a progression of the disease in the lymph nodes and the liver , and a pulmonary infection .","The applicant \u2019s treatment was handed over to ORG in GPE , a hospital devoted exclusively to the treatment of cancer patients .","In DATE the applicant began to receive a new course of treatment as part of a study . He was given ORG , designed in particular to improve his overall condition , which had been compromised by complications arising out of the treatment ( fungaemia , pulmonary infections , septicaemia and cholecystitis , resulting in his being admitted to hospital on several occasions ) . The treatment was prescribed in order to improve the applicant \u2019s overall condition in preparation for a donor stem cell transplant .","A medical certificate issued on DATE by the specialist treating the applicant , PERSON , head of the experimental haematology laboratory at ORG , stated that the patient \u2019s viral load was stable . The doctor stressed that discontinuing treatment would result in the patient \u2019s death . Because of the patient \u2019s immunosuppression and the aggressive nature of the leukaemia , treatment in a specialised haematology unit was necessary , as was a donor stem cell transplant , which offered the only remaining prospect of a cure provided that it was performed during the DATE \u201c window of response \u201d to ORG .","The applicant stated that the stem cell transplant , originally scheduled to take place in DATE , had not been performed to date because he did not have a residence permit in GPE as required by ORG of DATE .","On DATE a new medical report was prepared by PERSON which read as follows :","\u201c The patient \u2019s CLL [ chronic lymphocytic leukaemia ]","...","The patient has been suffering from CLL for DATE ( diagnosed in DATE ) , and by DATE had already reached stage C and PERSON [ stage IV according to the PERSON criteria ] . He had already had CARDINAL lines of treatment prior to ORG , which he is currently taking , and was refractory to the third line of treatment ( R - ORG chemotherapy ) .","It is clear from the medical literature that if ORG is discontinued in such a situation , the average life expectancy is DATE . ...","The literature also shows that PERCENT of patients being treated with ORG achieve complete remission . Mr PERSON is currently in partial remission and is thus wholly dependent on the treatment . This is a new targeted therapy to which he would have no access in his country of origin . With continuous treatment the patient \u2019s prognosis is more favourable , with an PERCENT survival rate after DATE . ...","CLL and especially treatment with ORG can give rise to serious complications which fully justify regular supervision in a specialised setting . This is particularly true since the patient is in a weak state and has a serious medical history ( tuberculosis and stroke ) and significant comorbidities ( active chronic hepatitis and COPD [ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ] ) . ...","In the case of a young person \u2013 Mr PERSON is DATE the current guidelines advocate using ORG in order to obtain the best possible response , followed by a donor peripheral blood stem cell transplant . A ORG [ human leukocyte antigen ] matched donor has been identified for the patient .","Although risky , a donor transplant offers the only prospect of a cure for the patient ; he would be unable to have such a transplant in his country of origin .","...","Conclusions","The [ ORG medical adviser ] concludes ... [ that ] the condition of the patient \u2019s vital organs is not directly life - threatening . That all depends on what is meant by \u2018 PERSON . The patient is suffering from a cancer that is potentially fatal in the short term ( median survival time DATE ) ... and most likely within DATE without appropriate treatment .","Moreover , if the treatment is not tailored to the patient \u2019s overall immunosuppression , there is a serious risk of death caused by infection , especially in a Gold stage II COPD patient with a history of tuberculosis . ... \u201d","On DATE treatment with ORG became eligible for reimbursement in GPE .","Because of the side - effects of this treatment , which might compromise the donor transplant , the dose of ORG was reduced from CARDINAL doses to one dose per day .","In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with active pulmonary tuberculosis . He was treated for that condition under the emergency medical assistance and social welfare assistance schemes .","During DATE the applicant \u2019s tuberculosis was found to have become active again .","As a result of that disease the applicant developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease , for which he received treatment .","In addition , the applicant suffered from hepatitis C , which was also diagnosed in DATE and was probably linked to a history of drug abuse . It was accompanied by liver fibrosis . According to a medical report dated DATE his hepatitis , which had been treated effectively in DATE and DATE , had become stable .","A magnetic resonance imaging scan carried out in DATE showed that the applicant had suffered a stroke , resulting in permanent paralysis of the left arm . The effects of the stroke were managed with an anti - epilepsy drug .","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 paragraph CARDINAL above ) if he were sent back 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 CARDINALter(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , the applicant was excluded from its scope 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 for a stay of execution of that decision under the ordinary procedure , together with an application to set aside . He alleged in particular that ORG had relied exclusively on the ministerial deportation order in excluding him from the scope of section CARDINALter of LAW , 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 \u2019s claims in the following terms :","\u201c 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 the said section CARDINALter without first being required to take 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 . Indeed , the examination of that evidence is superfluous in such a situation since the person responsible for taking the decision has in any event already decided that the individual is excluded from the scope [ of section CARDINALter ] .","...","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 removal measure , with the result that the alleged risk of discontinuation of treatment in the event of the applicant \u2019s return to GPE is hypothetical . \u201d","ORG also dismissed the complaint under LAW in view of the fact that the impugned decision had not been accompanied by any removal measure .","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 health 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 any 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 .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the application to set aside . It held that , where the above - mentioned exclusion clause was applied , ORG was not required to rule on the medical and other evidence contained in the request for regularisation . According to ORG , such examination was superfluous by virtue of the exclusion clause alone . ORG pointed out that its task was to review the lawfulness of the measure . This review did not permit it to substitute its own assessment of the facts that were deemed to have been established and were not apparent from the administrative file ; rather , its task was confined to ensuring that the formal requirement to provide reasons had been complied with and that the reasoning was not based on a manifest error of assessment . As to the complaints alleging a violation of ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention , ORG stated that the assessment of the medical situation of an alien facing removal whose request for regularisation had been rejected should be carried out , as applicable , at the time of enforcement of the removal measure .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment with the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat . CARDINAL of the grounds of appeal was based on ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention . The applicant submitted that ORG could not have been unaware that several orders to leave the country had already been issued against him prior to the decision not to examine his request for leave to remain , and that his expulsion had been suspended only as a result of the interim measure applied by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant further argued that ORG had breached the provisions of the LAW by postponing until the date of enforcement of the removal measure the examination of the medical situation of an alien suffering from a serious illness who had requested leave to remain on medical grounds , without studying the specific risks .","In an order of DATE the appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible . The ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat held that , contrary to the applicant \u2019s assertion , the grounds for setting aside advanced before ORG had simply stressed , in a theoretical and general manner , that section CARDINALter of the LAW encompassed the application in domestic law of the obligation under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW prohibiting the removal of a seriously ill person if such a measure was liable to result in death or inhuman and degrading treatment ; no specific explanation had been given , however , as to how the applicant himself risked facing that situation . The ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat also observed that the applicant had not argued before ORG that orders to leave the country had been issued against him , or that a removal measure could be revived ; he was therefore unable to rely on those arguments in his appeal on points of law . In any event , the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat held that ORG had in no way erred in finding that the examination of the medical situation of an alien facing removal whose request for leave to remain had been rejected should be carried out , as applicable , at the time of enforcement of the measure .","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 \u2019s questions .","NORP The report prepared by the medical adviser on that occasion listed the consultations held and the treatment that had been administered to the applicant . It stated that his leukaemia had stabilised after several cycles of chemotherapy and was being monitored closely , and that the applicant was under medical supervision for his lung disease .","Referring to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) , the report concluded as follows :","\u201c On the basis of this medical file it can not ... be concluded that the threshold of severity required by LAW , as interpreted by ORG , has been reached ...","It appears from the medical file that the diseases to which the medical certificates refer ... do not disclose a direct threat to the patient \u2019s life . The conditions from which the applicant suffers are serious and potentially fatal but are currently under control .","None of the patient \u2019s vital organs is in a condition that is directly life - threatening . His hepatitis C is not currently causing any cirrhosis . The pulmonary disease is being controlled by treatment consisting solely of an inhaled corticosteroid . The patient \u2019s haematological disorder is currently stable . The lymph nodes are no longer swollen and the patient \u2019s haemolytic anaemia is resolved . Chemotherapy has been discontinued for the time being .","... Neither monitoring of the patient \u2019s vital parameters nor ongoing medical supervision is necessary in order to ensure the patient \u2019s 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 . \u201d","DATE . A medical report drawn up on DATE by the medical adviser to ORG provided a detailed review of the applicant \u2019s clinical history and current state of health and the treatment being administered . It concluded as follows :","\u201c On the basis of [ the ] medical file it can not therefore be concluded that the threshold of severity set by LAW , which requires a risk to life on account of the applicant \u2019s critical condition or the very advanced stage of his or her illness , has been reached ( ORG v. the GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE , and NORP v. GPE , DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL ) .","The diseases referred to in the most recent update to the medical file ( [ Dr L. ] , CARDINAL DATE ) ... do not disclose :","\u2013 a direct threat to the life of the patient . The illnesses from which the applicant suffers are serious and potentially fatal but are currently under control . ...","\u2013 that the condition of the patient \u2019s vital organs is directly life - threatening . ...","\u2013 a critical state of health . Neither monitoring of the patient \u2019s vital parameters nor ongoing medical supervision is necessary in order to ensure the patient \u2019s survival . The disease can not be said to be in the terminal stages at present ... \u201d","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 \u2019s 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 for the family to leave the country was extended several times during DATE because of the need to treat the applicant \u2019s tuberculosis ( see paragraph DATE above ) and the DATE course of anti - tubercular treatment required by the whole family .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that the time - limit had been extended until such time as the applicant and his child were fully recovered .","On DATE , while the applicant was serving a prison sentence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Minister of the Interior , in a deportation order issued under section CARDINAL of LAW , directed the applicant to leave the country and barred him from re - entering GPE for DATE . The order referred to the applicant \u2019s extensive criminal record , allied to the fact that \u201c the pecuniary nature of the offences PERSON ] the serious and ongoing risk of further breaches of public order \u201d .","The order became enforceable on the date of the applicant \u2019s release but was not in fact enforced because the applicant was undergoing medical treatment at the time .","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 DATE the lawyer lodged an application on his own initiative . In a judgment of DATE ORG rejected the application as being out of time .","DATE . In the meantime , as the applicant was about to finish serving the prison sentence imposed in DATE , he was transferred on DATE to FAC with a view to implementation of the ministerial deportation order . He remained there until DATE , when he was transferred to PERSON .","During his time in FAC the applicant was visited on an almost DATE basis by his wife and\/or his children . The authorities of PERSON , to which he was subsequently transferred and where he remained until DATE , informed the applicant that they did not have a record of the number of visits he had received .","In parallel with its decision of DATE refusing the applicant \u2019s request for regularisation on exceptional grounds ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG on DATE issued an order for him to leave the country , together with an order for his detention . These orders , made on the basis of section CARDINAL ) of LAW , 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 removal to GPE .","On DATE the NORP embassy in GPE issued a travel document valid until DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for a stay of execution under the ordinary procedure , together with an application to set aside , directed specifically against the above - mentioned order to leave the country of DATE .","On DATE , DATE after the indication by ORG interim measure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , an order was made for the applicant \u2019s release and he was given until DATE to leave the country voluntarily .","In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE counsel for the applicant applied for an extension of the time - limit for enforcement of the order to leave the country . The time - limit was initially extended until DATE and was subsequently extended several times until DATE .","On DATE ORG issued an order to leave the country \u201c with immediate effect \u201d pursuant to the ministerial deportation order of CARDINAL DATE .","The above - mentioned request and application were rejected by ORG in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that the applicant had not attended the hearing or been represented .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant applied to the ORG for interim measures under LAW . Relying on ORG , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW , he alleged that if he were removed 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 even sooner , far away 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 \u201c pending the outcome of the proceedings before ORG \u201d .","The applicant was arrested on several occasions DATE for shoplifting .","In addition , in DATE ORG was contacted by the GPE police and customs cooperation centre , which reported that the applicant was in detention in the Grand Duchy of GPE .","In DATE a warrant was issued for the applicant \u2019s arrest for theft . The applicant was detained in FAC and released DATE .","Two notarised deeds of sale dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE record the transfer by the applicant , represented by ORG , to a certain PERSON , of a plot of building land for a sum of MONEY ( ORG ) and a plot of farmland for a sum of LAW . Both plots are located in the village of GPE in the PERSON region of GPE ."],"violated_articles":["3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155715","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ABDULLA ALI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained at FAC .","In DATE the applicant was arrested , along with others , in the context of a large - scale counter - terrorism operation . It was alleged that he had conspired to construct and simultaneously explode improvised explosive devices ( \u201c IEDs \u201d ) on transatlantic passenger aircraft in flight , using suicide bombers .","A first trial of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , on charges of conspiracy to murder ( Count CARDINAL ) and conspiracy to endanger the safety of an aircraft ( Count CARDINAL ) began in ORG on DATE . The prosecution case in respect of the conspiracy to murder charge was that the means by which it was to be effected was by way of detonation of GPE on board aircraft in mid - flight .","After the close of the prosecution case , the indictment was amended to add a further count ( Count CARDINALA ) which alleged a conspiracy to murder but did not specify the means by which the murder would be carried out . The count was added at the request of the prosecution to cover the possibility that the jury was satisfied that a defendant had agreed to murder but was not aware of the means settled upon to bring the conspiracy to fruition . Count CARDINAL was amended to make clear that it was concerned with a conspiracy to murder specifically by way of detonation of GPE on aircraft mid - flight .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of Count CARDINALA but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on Count CARDINAL . The jury was also unable to reach verdicts on some or all counts in relation to CARDINAL other defendants . The eighth defendant was acquitted of all charges .","An exchange followed between judge and prosecuting counsel and the judge ordered the prosecution to indicate by DATE whether a retrial would be sought .","The announcement of the verdict was widely covered in the press and the media . The reports included references to material which was never put before the jury ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The media also attacked the jury \u2019s failure to return a guilty verdict on Count CARDINAL .","On DATE lawyers for one of the defendants wrote to the Attorney General seeking , inter alia , details of what steps had been taken to ensure the integrity of post - verdict \/ pre - retrial decision reporting and to prevent the reporting of inadmissible and prejudicial materials .","On DATE , ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) announced its intention to seek a retrial of the applicant and the other defendants . Communicating this decision to the media , it added :","\u201c The ORG would like to remind media organisations of the need to take great care in reporting the events surrounding this alleged plot . These remain allegations only and , if retrials take place , the defendants have the right to a fair trial . It is extremely important that there should be responsible media reporting which does not prejudice the due process of law . \u201d","On DATE every national newspaper reported that the applicants were to face a retrial . General reporting about the case nevertheless continued until around DATE .","The Attorney General replied to the defendant \u2019s lawyers\u2019 letter on CARDINAL DATE confirming that the observations had been noted and were receiving consideration .","The applicant subsequently applied for a stay of proceedings ( i.e. an order effectively terminating his prosecution in respect of Count CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL of the grounds for the application was that a fair trial was no longer possible as a result of alleged prejudicial publicity which had occurred following the conclusion of the first trial .","On DATE Mr Justice PERSON refused the request for a stay . He summarised the defence case as follows :","\u201c It is the defence case ... that the coverage was manipulated and orchestrated by ORG sources , either intelligence services , police anti - terrorist branches or government officials . It is asserted that there was a widespread press briefing exercise designed and intended to inform the media of non - evidential material for publication post - verdict , the effect of which was to vilify the defendants in the eyes of the public by supplying the media in confidence with significant undisclosed background material .","The ORG , it is said , failed to take any steps either to notify the court of the confidential press briefings , thus preventing appropriate orders from being made to prevent prejudicial publicity resulting from its own briefings .","This was , it is said , a deliberate attempt to manipulate the court \u2019s process on any retrial by seeking to ensure that the world at large was prejudiced against the defendants by an unprecedented volume of GPE ate - sourced media coverage ... \u201d","He considered it implicit in the submissions that the applicant \u2019s argument was that no retrial jury exposed to this volume of publicity could try the case as an unbiased , independent and impartial tribunal .","PERSON summarised the CARDINAL examples of inadmissible material which had been published by the press to which the defence had referred by way of illustrative examples . He stressed that this was \u201c by no means the totality of the information complained of \u201d .","The first example concerned disclosure of evidence not adduced at trial as to the applicant being in telephone contact with the leader of DATE failed bombings of the GPE transport system . The statement appeared in almost every national paper and on national media . It was attributed to different sources in different publications , including , inter alia , senior detectives , police , \u201c records show \u201d and counter - terrorism officials .","The second example concerned disclosure of evidence not adduced at trial as to deeper links between some of the applicants and others convicted of terrorist offences . This included evidence that the applicant had taken trips to GPE at the same time as those responsible for the explosions on the GPE transport system on DATE and the failed CARDINAL DATE bombing attempt and had been in regular telephone contact with the ringleader of the latter attack . The story was published in virtually every national newspaper and was broadcast on national media . It was attributed to , variously , detectives , intelligence officials , counterterrorism sources , investigators and trial officials .","The third example concerned disclosure of evidence not adduced at trial as to the defendants\u2019 acquaintance and contact with a certain PERSON in GPE , who had allegedly put them in touch with ORG leadership . This had been published in almost every national newspaper and broadcast on national media . Some of the attributed sources included the NORP Interior Minister , NORP officials , intelligence services , internal GPE intelligence documents , security sources and named senior officials in GPE and GPE .","The fourth example concerned assertions which were not the subject of evidence or disclosure at trial that the plot might have been overseen by PERSON , the former head of ORG external operations , who had allegedly overseen the DATE GPE bombing plots . The information was carried by several newspapers and was attributed , inter alia , to the police , counter - terrorism officials , intelligence agencies and senior NORP and NORP officials .","The fifth example concerned assertions which were not the subject of evidence or disclosure at trial that the alleged plot was disrupted following interception of a text message encouraging the conspirators to act . There was also reference to telephone calls and text messages between the GPE and GPE and a specific incriminating text sent to the applicant . These were published in some national newspapers and broadcast on television , with the attributed source being a NORP Government source .","The sixth example concerned assertions which were not the subject of evidence or disclosure at trial that the telephones of unspecified defendants were being intercepted by the police and that interception had revealed that a dummy run was being planned . Several newspapers and media sources carried the story , with the source being variously named as the police , counter - terrorism police and the head of ORG .","The seventh example concerned assertions that ORG had pressed GPE into making arrests before all the legal evidence had been gathered . The information was reported in several newspapers and by several broadcasters . A terrestrial television channel carried the express statement that ORG authorities had reason to delay the effecting of arrests owing to known intelligence that the conspirators would perform additional incriminating acts in furtherance of the airline conspiracy . The source was said to be the head of ORG , GPE sources , senior NORP police and counter - terrorism sources , and the former shadow Minister for ORG in GPE .","PERSON set out the events immediately following the handing down of the verdicts and continued :","\u201c It is simply not possible in this judgment to recite each and every objectionable word published by the media ... Whilst it will be convenient to cite in due course some of the worst examples , I readily accept that the multiplicity and breadth of reporting must be considered in order to gauge the potential effect upon any juror who will have been exposed to these or any significant number of these many reports ... I have read everything to which my attention has been drawn . \u201d","He noted that there was an \u201c avalanche of objectionable material \u201d in prominent position in both broadsheet and tabloid newspapers . There was news coverage across all television and radio channels . There was , and continued to be at the time of PERSON ruling , vast Internet coverage which could be accessed with ease . The very essence of the large majority of the material asserted that all of the defendants were guilty of the conspiracy to blow up aircraft . PERSON categorised the offending material as follows :","\u201c ( i ) the defendants have strong links with several prominent ORG terrorists , including PERSON , CARDINAL bombers and CARDINAL bombers , of which the jury were not informed ; ( ii ) but for the premature arrest in GPE of PERSON , for which the NORP are to blame , more evidence would have become available to the prosecution ; ( iii ) the activities of the defendants were being monitored by phone taps and other forms of interception and a dummy run was anticipated which might be used to carry out a real attack ; ( iv ) the investigation had prevented unspeakable carnage and loss of countless lives ; ( v ) the jury were incompetent , the evidence was very strong and the jury \u2019s verdict was astonishing ; ( vi ) the trial judge mishandled the trial and in particular permitted a DATE break during the jury retirement , the jury returning for DATE at the commencement of their deliberations before then going on holiday . \u201d","On the subject of pre - verdict briefing , PERSON said :","\u201c ... [ I]t is common practice for there to be pre - verdict briefings in high profile cases . There are any number of matters in which the public have an interest . There is frequently a public debate concerning topics raised by the case . Instant reporting is demanded by the public at large . They are entitled to it . It is their right . Before there can be immediate post - verdict reporting , there must be pre - verdict briefing . \u201d","Turning to the first of the specific complaints made by the defence , the judge noted that prosecution counsel had conceded that there had been some \u201c significant disclosure of non - evidential material by the Executive \u201d but had \u201c vehemently objected \u201d to any suggestion that there had been secret briefings . The judge did not accept that secret Executive press briefings had taken place . He referred to material published in particular in GPE and concluded that there were a \u201c multiplicity of avenues \u201d through which journalists could have gained information other than through secret briefings . He explained :","\u201c ... I regard the submission that the Executive quite deliberately briefed the press during the trial with a view to disadvantaging the defendants in any retrial that might possibly take place as fanciful ... The plot alleged requires not only foresight of a retrial during the trial itself ; it requires foresight that the press will breach the embargoes that they have signed not to disclose such material until conclusion of the proceedings . \u201d","As to the second allegation , that the ORG \u201c perpetrated a gross manipulation and abuse of the court process by failing to restrain publicity resulting from its own briefings , the judge found again that there was absolutely no evidence that any individual had been party to such a plot . He described as a \u201c most extravagant allegation \u201d and rejected it \u201c with certainty \u201d .","On the third question whether the defendants could receive a fair trial , having regard to the publicity , the judge noted that the publicity was worldwide , often repeated and reported by every branch of the media , including the Internet and associated blogs . It had run in the main from DATE to DATE , and much of the reporting remained available on the Internet . He reviewed in some detail the major publications of CARDINAL DATE as well as a few of the worst other examples . As to the law on adverse publicity , the judge explained :","\u201c As to the legal principles relevant to a defendant receiving a fair trial , I have reminded myself of ORG [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] , and in the context of this case reminded myself that the only issue to be addressed is the right of a defendant to a fair trial and no assessment of the weight to be given to the public interest comes into the exercise . The fact that the allegations here are of the gravest nature is wholly irrelevant . The defendants must receive a fair trial , however grave the allegations and however far - reaching the consequences may be of staying this trial . \u201d","The judge considered a number of domestic judgments concerning the impact of prejudicial publicity before or during trial . He continued :","\u201c I have concluded that a fair trial is in this case possible for all defendants on this indictment and propose to ensure that each of them does receive a fair trial . In reaching that conclusion I have brought the experience of DATE in the criminal courts to this decision . I trust juries and have every confidence that they do indeed have regard to the directions given by judges .","...","I trust a jury in this building to decide whether they can be sure on the evidence presented to them that there was indeed a plan to blow up aircraft . I can not accept the proposition that an NORP jury may convict because of something they may remember having read DATE . I do believe that juries pay attention and act upon the directions we give them . I will give them at the outset of the trial a most careful direction tailored particularly to this case and I shall canvass the direction with counsel before I deliver it . If necessary , I will repeat it from time to time .","I have no fears that the jury will be influenced by those earlier press reports . They know that none of us can believe everything that we read in the press ...","I believe that sufficient time will have passed by DATE , DATE since the publicity ...","There have been other terrorist trials in the meantime occupying crime correspondents and their readers . I am sure that the facts will have receded and faded , as will any possible prejudice . \u201d","The judge further pointed out that all defendants had admitted conspiracy to commit public nuisance by making martyrdom videos and that the first CARDINAL defendants had admitted conspiring to cause explosions . These convictions would be put before the jury in the retrial and , the judge said , in the face of these admissions links to other terrorists , if remembered by jury members , became \u201c rather less significant \u201d . In any event , in his experience , the impact of pre - trial publicity and prejudicial media coverage was minimal even in high - profile cases . He cited examples of cases where offensive pre - trial publicity had taken place but the defendants had subsequently been acquitted . He concluded that he had absolutely no doubt that juries took their responsibilities most seriously and decided cases on the evidence presented to them in court . He fixed the retrial to commence on DATE .","The retrial of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , on Count CARDINAL and CARDINAL defendants on Count CARDINALA duly commenced on DATE but was twice aborted in the early stages . On DATE a further jury was selected and sworn . During jury selection that day , the judge directed the potential jury members as follows :","\u201c It is , of course , of critical importance that we are able to select a jury which is completely unbiased and a jury which is prepared to give its time to a very important case indeed . You will appreciate the gravity of the allegation , a plan to blow up a number of aircraft effectively simultaneously . It is a hugely important task , quite possibly the most important task required or asked of any of you ; hugely important public service . Of course not all of you will be in a position to serve and for those who do undertake the task , it will necessarily involve a degree of self - sacrifice . \u201d","He specifically asked them whether there was any reason arising from their beliefs , occupation or any other matter that might inhibit their ability to return an impartial verdict in this trial or whether they or any relative or close friend , held views of such strength that they might materially influence their consideration of the case .","On the matter of the adverse publicity prior to the retrial , he said the following :","\u201c Next : as a result of publicity given to this case and to these allegations , do any of you hold any pre - conceived views of guilt or innocence incompatible with an unbiased discharge of your duties as a juror ? No . Thank you .","Next : are you , or is any member of your immediate family or any close friend , or have you , or any member of your immediate family or any close friend , been employed by any media agency involved in the investigation and\/or reporting of this case ? Come forward , sir . \u201d","He further asked the potential jury members questions concerning CARDINAL recent broadcasts which had discussed the case :","\u201c CARDINAL broadcasts . CARDINAL broadcast : did any of you watch this programme on ORG television , it was DATE , that is not DATE , not the DATE before that but the DATE before that , in other words DATE , at TIME , BBCCARDINAL , there was a programme broadcast called The Big Questions ? The host was PERSON and there were a panel of CARDINAL or CARDINAL experts , if I can call them that , CARDINAL of whom certainly was a rabbi , when there was a discussion which touched upon the plot to blow up airliners and terrorism and the facts giving rise to this case were to some extent touched upon . Did anybody , TIME , watch that programme ? Could you come forward , please , sir .","Then DATE today , TIME on a DATE TIME , Radio CARDINAL , there was broadcast a programme , The World Tonight , in which the alleged plot to blow up airliners was discussed . Did anybody listen to that radio programme on ORG ? No . DATE sorry , come forward , please . Thank you . I told you that this case started DATE and on all the major television programmes publicity was given to it . Did any of you , as a result of seeing that publicity , carry out any internet research ; in other words , have any of you carried out internet research in DATE into the alleged airline plot ? No . Thank you very much . \u201d","Finally , the jury having been selected , the judge directed the jury as follows :","\u201c Can I please give you some additional instructions ? There may now be a temptation , knowing that you are going to serve upon this case , to try to find out a little bit more about it and if any of you are addicts of the internet or the web , there may be a temptation to go on to it and read about it and see about it . Please do not do that . There was an element of inaccurate and unsatisfactory reporting at the time this matter first came to light . The allegations were not accurately reported in every instance and it is critically important that you decide the case upon the evidence that you hear in court and nowhere else . We tell jurors in all criminal cases not to carry out any research of their own . In a typical pub fight case we tell jurors not to go and have a look at the pub , not to turn themselves into sleuths because what is critical is you decide the case only upon what you hear in court . The defendants are entitled to know the basis and the exact basis upon which they are being tried . So , accordingly , please do not , either before the case starts DATE or indeed at any stage , carry out any internet research or indeed any research of any kind . I will also give you further instructions not to read any newspapers or listen to any television reports . The reason for that is sometimes they are inaccurate , sometimes they are speculative and they are always partial reporting . The only way you can hear and receive all the evidence is by being here in court , listening to it . That is where you receive the information .","The other danger is when you go back TIME you will say , \u2018 I \u2019ve been selected for a jury\u2019 and those with whom you live or those you meet TIME may say to you , \u2018 I know all about that case . I have read about it in the newspapers.\u2019 Please do not discuss the case with anybody . It will be quite wrong for anybody to tell you what they think about the case and it might affect your judgment in the long run . You have been selected to try a terrorist case , tell them , because that is what the allegation is here , one of terrorism , and leave it at that . There is no purpose at all in discussing the facts of the case with anybody and , indeed , it would be absolutely wrong and a contempt of court if you were to do so . I have explained the real reason for not doing so is the person you were discussing it with might be playing a part in deciding the case and you and only the CARDINAL of you must do that , nobody else must play any part in doing so . There are other instructions which I will give you DATE after the case has started , but for the time being that suffices . \u201d","NORP The trial commenced with the prosecution \u2019s opening speech on DATE . At the end of the first day , the trial judge gave the jury the following instructions :","\u201c I am obliged to give you certain instructions . Some of them you are familiar with because I said a few things to you DATE . I remind you , please , do not carry out any research of any kind into this case , either over the internet or in any other way at all . That includes not visiting any site referred to in the case . All your information must come to you in this court . Please ignore any newspaper reports , if there are any , into this case and please disregard any broadcast of any kind that you may hear . It is vital that you do not discuss the case with anybody for reasons which I gave you DATE . Other people will express views which might in due course affect your judgment . The decision must be the decision of the CARDINAL of you and nobody else . \u201d","The judge reminded the jury intermittently throughout the trial that they were not permitted to discuss the case with family or friends or to carry out Internet research . On DATE , DATE of the parties\u2019 closing speeches , he said :","\u201c We have embarked now upon a new phase of this case and now is as good a time as any to remind you of what I said earlier in the case about avoiding information which may in some way touch upon terrorism or even this case . I remind you again , please : do not carry out any internet research . Do not read any books . Do , please , switch channels if a television programme comes on which is obviously about terrorism or some related topic . Please avoid all newspaper articles and the like which deal with terrorism . The reason for that is to allow you to approach the facts of this case and when you come to reach your several decisions with a clear mind , unaffected by anything outside of this case , anything originating outside this courtroom . You decide this case on the information that you have received within this court and nothing else . \u201d","Again during his summing - up , the trial judge reminded the jury that they should not discuss the case with anyone outside the jury . Once the jury had retired to consider its verdict , he reminded them at the close of DATE that they should not discuss the case outside the jury room .","On DATE the applicant was convicted on Count CARDINAL . Of the other CARDINAL defendants tried on Count CARDINAL , CARDINAL were convicted , CARDINAL were acquitted and the jury were unable to reach a verdict in respect of CARDINAL . Of the CARDINAL defendants tried on Count CARDINAL , CARDINAL was convicted and the jury were unable to reach a verdict in respect of the other CARDINAL .","The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of DATE .","The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction . ORG granted leave on several grounds , including the question whether the retrial was fair having regard to the media publicity after the first trial .","On DATE the appeal against conviction was dismissed .","The court noted the high media interest in the first trial and the simultaneous reporting of the trial proceedings , including the verdicts . It observed that in the circumstances it was impossible to have imposed restrictions on the verdicts as no - one had applied to the trial judge to ask for this to be done before the verdicts were taken . Even if such an application had been made and granted , given the worldwide interest in the case ORG considered it difficult to see how publication of the verdicts could have been prevented in jurisdictions outside the trial court \u2019s jurisdiction .","Responding to the submission on behalf of the applicant that jurors at his retrial could no longer be relied upon to follow the trial judge \u2019s directions , the court said :","\u201c CARDINAL . To the extent that there remains the risk that , despite what jurors are told by a judge , an individual juror might look up matters on the internet , any attempt by an individual juror to use what was found to influence the views of the other jurors is , in our judgement , bound to fail . For what was found on the internet to have any influence on the verdict of a jury , it would require other members of the jury to disobey their oath . In our judgement , ... the trial process in this trial was capable of coping with the adverse publicity . There was , it must be emphasised , no evidence at all to suggest that any juror had sought information on the internet . \u201d","The Court of Appeal emphasised that allegations that the publicity and disclosure of certain facts by ORG authorities had been deliberate were not pursued on appeal . It noted that embargoed police or prosecution service briefings were commonplace in major trials and that no challenge was made to the propriety of the press briefings . It also reviewed the actions of the prosecution and the Attorney General . The court then turned to consider in detail the ruling of PERSON of DATE and expressed itself to be \u201c entirely satisfied \u201d that he had not only applied the correct principles but had come to a conclusion that was open to him , namely that a fair - minded observer would consider that a jury , properly directed , could fairly try the applicant . It explained :","\u201c ORG . Not only do we consider that conclusion open to him but we also consider that that conclusion was correct . We accept ... that trying the case elsewhere was not an option ; asking potential jurors about their knowledge of the case again was not an option . However , we do consider that , given the trial process and DATE that had elapsed before the second trial , the informed observer would be satisfied that a jury would consider fairly and impartially the evidence and would have no regard to the publicity to which we have referred . \u201d","The court added :","\u201c CARDINAL . We have also taken into account the fact that , unlike the decisions in GPE GPE and ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL [ see paragraphs CARDINAL below ] , this was not a case concerned with pre - trial publicity but with publicity following a conviction . The fact that it was a trial following a conviction on CARDINAL count in our view is an important factor that may be viewed as more significant than pre - trial publicity . However , looking at the matter overall , we consider that the trial process could ensure a fair trial and a fair - minded observer would think that as well . \u201d","On DATE ORG declined to certify that the applicant \u2019s case raised a point of law of public importance ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171529","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160IMAITIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant asked the authorities to return to her some buildings and a plot of land owned by her father before nationalisation in DATE . In DATE the applicant wrote to the authorities to ask why the buildings and the land had been sold to other persons in DATE . The authorities replied in DATE that the applicant had given an incorrect address for the buildings when submitting her request for her property rights to be restored and the buildings in question had already been privatised .","On DATE , upon their own initiative , the authorities suggested to the applicant that she submit a request to be paid monetary compensation for the buildings , if she did not have any objections to such a form of restitution . On DATE the authorities indicated that the documents submitted by the applicant did not prove that her father had owned the buildings in question and asked her to provide additional documents or DATE if she did not have those documents in her possession \u2013 to ask the domestic courts to establish as a legal fact that her father had owned those buildings .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG , asking it to establish as a legal fact that before DATE nationalisation her father had owned the buildings and a plot of land . On DATE ORG stated that there was a dispute about the applicable law and left the applicant \u2019s claim unexamined . The court also suggested to the applicant that she submit her claim in accordance with the rules governing contentious proceedings ( as opposed to the rules applicable to the procedure for the establishment of a legal fact ) .","On DATE the ORG established as a legal fact that the applicant \u2019s father had owned the buildings before the DATE nationalisation .","On DATE the applicant indicated that she wanted to receive compensation in the form of securities . The authorities asked ORG ( a ORG enterprise ) to assess the value of the buildings , which was set on DATE at CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) . On DATE the authorities recommended that applicant \u2019s and her sister \u2019s property rights to their father \u2019s property be restored by paying them compensation in securities .","On DATE the authorities adopted a decision to restore the applicant \u2019s and her sister \u2019s property rights by paying them LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in total in securities .","On DATE , the applicant lodged a claim with ORG , requesting the annulment of the valuation of the buildings made by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the appointment of independent experts to assess the market value of the buildings because she considered that the value set for the buildings was too low . The applicant \u2019s claim contained deficiencies , which she failed to eliminate within the time - limit set by ORG ; accordingly , on DATE , the court decided to rule that the applicant \u2019s claim had not been lodged .","The applicant lodged a separate complaint , where she claimed that the authorities assessed the value of the buildings incorrectly , and complaining that the assessment of the value of the buildings had been made before the decision to restore her property rights had been taken . On DATE ORG held that ORG had made procedural mistakes and returned the case for fresh examination to ORG .","The applicant lodged a modified claim with ORG , complaining that the assessment of the value of the buildings had been made DATE before the decision to restore her property rights had been taken . On DATE ORG held that although there were no provisions in the domestic law indicating how soon after the assessment of value the decision to restore property rights had to be taken , in the present case the time between the assessment and the decision had not been excessively long . The court therefore dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint .","The applicant appealed raising the same complaints as she did before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and on DATE ORG held that the assessment of value of the buildings had been based on several methods of calculation and in accordance with the provisions of the domestic law . It therefore dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , and on DATE ORG decided that the case had to be examined before the administrative rather than civil courts and referred the case for examination to ORG .","On DATE , during the hearing before ORG , the applicant asked for the examination of the case to be postponed that she might have time to eliminate deficiencies in her claim . She also claimed that she was not aware of the fact that she had to submit a request to renew the time - limit for lodging a complaint separately , and asked the court to provide her with an opportunity to do that . Her requests were granted and the examination of the case was postponed until DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged a modified claim in which , inter alia , she asked ORG to ( i ) annul the assessment of the value of the buildings made by ORG , ( ii ) to annul that part of the order of the authorities for her property rights to be restored in which the value of the buildings was indicated and ( iii ) to renew the time - limit for lodging a complaint . On DATE , during the hearing at ORG , the applicant asked for the appointment of an expert to determine the market value of the buildings . On DATE the court suspended the proceedings , appointed an expert and asked the expert ( i ) what the market value of the buildings had been on DATE and ( ii ) what the market value of the buildings had been DATE , i. e. when the expert had been appointed . In DATE the expert stated that on DATE the market value of the buildings had been LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) and that the market value of the buildings at the time that the examination of the case had started had been LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . Subsequently the court proceedings were resumed , and on DATE ORG held that the new assessment of value of the buildings was more accurate and decided to annul the assessment of value of DATE by ORG and that part of the decision of DATE to restore the applicant \u2019s property rights in which the value of the buildings was set at LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The applicant did not appeal and the decision became final on DATE .","On an unspecified date , the applicant lodged a claim with ORG , asking , inter alia , for the authorities to be obliged to urgently re - issue the annulled part of the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim .","On DATE ORG examined and then rejected a claim by the applicant seeking for GPE to be obliged to pay her LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) for the buildings and to award her LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in damages . The court held that the assessment of value in itself did not give rise to any legal consequences for the applicant . The court concluded that the decision of the authorities of CARDINAL DATE was still in force and that the question of the amount of the compensation was a matter for the public authorities and that it was not within the court \u2019s power to give instructions to them .","The applicant appealed , but on DATE ORG dismissed her appeal . The court held that the applicant \u2019s request had been for the value of the buildings to be set at what their value had been at the moment when the expert valuation had been carried out in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court also observed that the amendment of the decision of CARDINAL DATE to restore the applicant \u2019s property rights had not yet been adopted and it was not clear how the applicant \u2019s rights were being breached . The court also held that the applicant had repeatedly raised the issue of the assessment of the value of the buildings , which had already been resolved . The court upheld the conclusion of the court of first instance that public authorities\u2019 functions did not fall within the jurisdiction of the domestic courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The applicant requested that the proceedings be reopened . On DATE ORG refused her request .","In DATE the relevant authorities were informed that an additional assessment of the value of the buildings had to be made and then ORG asked ORG to urgently assess their value . As no response was received , in DATE ORG again asked ORG to assess the value of the buildings . The assessment was made on DATE and the value of the buildings was set at LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in total , of which the applicant \u2019s part was LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . This valuation was officially approved by the authorities on DATE , when they amended the annulled part of the decision of CARDINAL DATE to restore the applicant \u2019s and her sister \u2019s property rights .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request to be compensated in securities of a ORG - owned enterprise . On DATE the applicant was sent a document of acceptance in respect of CARDINAL units of securities , the nominal value of each unit being ORG ( QUANTITY ) . ORG asked the applicant to sign the document of acceptance and indicated that the nominal value of CARDINAL security was ORG ( QUANTITY ) but that the real value was LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . It meant that the real total value of the shares was LTL MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , which was the applicant \u2019s part of the compensation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The transfer of the securities was finalised on DATE .","On DATE the applicant asked the authorities to set the value of the buildings at the value that they had as of DATE and to pay her additional compensation . In DATE the authorities replied that there were no grounds for re - examining and deciding on questions regarding the restoration of property rights to the applicant because the procedure had already been finalised .","The applicant lodged a claim with the domestic courts , asking , inter alia , that the decision of the authorities of CARDINAL DATE by which the annulled part of the decision of DATE had been amended ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) be quashed . She also requested the annulment of the assessment of value of the buildings at LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) made by ORG on DATE . The applicant \u2019s claim had several deficiencies and she was asked several times to eliminate them . However , the applicant failed to do so in an acceptable manner and on CARDINAL DATE ORG declined to examine her claim . The court stated that the applicant had asked it to oblige the authorities to provide one of the original copies of the decision of DATE ; however , it observed that the applicant already had an original copy . It was suggested by the court that the applicant contest the order of CARDINAL DATE , because it was that document which had legal consequences for her . This , according to the information in the ORG \u2019s possession , she never did ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148610","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00dcLER AND U\u011eUR v. TURKEY [Extracts]","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE and GPE respectively .","At the relevant time they were active members and regional leaders of the ORG for ORG ( Demokratik PERSON ( ORG ) ) , which was subsequently dissolved by ORG . The applicant Mr ORG , former mayor of the district of LOC ( Van ) , was at the relevant time the chairman of an association called ORG ( PERSON ve ORG \u2013 association for NORP culture , democracy and solidarity ) .","On DATE the applicants took part in a religious ceremony ( mevl\u00fbt ) on the premises of the ORG in GPE ( GPE ) , in which they paid tribute to CARDINAL members of the ORG who had been killed by the security forces .","The participants read out passages from the Koran and said prayers , and showed a film about the lives of the deceased . The ORG \u2019s regional representative gave a short speech , which can be summarised as follows :","\u201c Our fears and worries continue . People are still being killed . In such a context , we would like this mevl\u00fbt to be a moment of peace and fraternity . \u201d","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office received an anonymous letter of denunciation , together with a CD containing a recording of the ceremony in question . The writer , who said that he had been a participant himself but had subsequently regretted it , explained that the ceremony had been held in memory of \u201c the martyrs of the ORG \u201d .","Following an investigation by the public prosecutor \u2019s office , the applicant Mr PERSON was arrested and taken into police custody on DATE . He was released DATE .","Both applicants were committed to stand trial before ORG . In their defence they stated that they had taken part in the ceremony for the observance of their religious duties .","NORP In a judgment of DATE ORG , relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG on the prevention of terrorism , sentenced the CARDINAL applicants to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","In its judgment , ORG observed , firstly , that the persons in whose memory the ceremony had been held were members of a terrorist organisation and that they had been killed by the security forces during an operation against that organisation . It also took the view that the choice of venue for DATE the LOC of a political party DATE , and the fact that the NORP flag had been spread over the tables and photos of members of the organisation had been displayed , contributed to raising serious doubts as to the actual reasons for the gathering that had been given by the applicants in their defence .","Further to an appeal on points of law by the applicants , their conviction was upheld by a final judgment of ORG on DATE . The applicants were imprisoned for the duration of their sentence .","..."],"violated_articles":["9"],"violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169480","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF YUNZEL v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and until his arrest lived in GPE , GPE .","In DATE he was convicted and sent to serve his sentence in a correctional colony .","NORP In DATE a further set of charges was brought against the applicant . To ensure his participation in the ensuing investigation he was transferred to remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE ( \u201c the remand prison \u201d ) . On several occasions he was transported to a temporary detention unit at the LOC police station ( \u201c the temporary detention unit \u201d ) .","The applicant was detained in the remand prison during several periods DATE and DATE . At that time he was placed in cells ORG . ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","According to the applicant , for most of the period of his detention , DATE between DATE and CARDINAL DATE , he was detained alone in cell no . CARDINAL . The cell was in a poor sanitary condition and was infested with vermin . The toilet pan was not separated from the living area . The cell was poorly lit and the ventilation system did not function . Metal shutters on the windows blocked access to natural light and fresh air . The cell was not equipped with either a television set or a radio , and newspapers were not available . In the remaining period , until DATE , the applicant occupied cells nos . ORG and CARDINAL . The bedding in those cells was torn and dirty . The cells had no television set or refrigerator . The quality of food in the remand prison was poor . Throughout the entire period of his detention the applicant was allowed access to the exercise yard , which was dirty and dusty , for TIME a day .","During several periods DATE and DATE , amounting to DATE in total , the applicant was held in the temporary detention unit . This facility was overpopulated and inmates had no access to outdoor exercise .","NORP In DATE the applicant complained of toothache to a prison doctor and received painkillers .","As the applicant \u2019s suffering continued , on DATE an investigator asked the head of the remand prison to arrange for him to be examined by a dentist . A similar request was submitted by the head of the medical unit on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the custodial authorities transported the applicant to a civilian dentist , who diagnosed chronic pulpitis and periodontitis , and provided some treatment . The dental treatment was not completed . Urgent removal of the applicant \u2019s dental crowns and further treatment with a view to fitting a dental prosthesis were strongly advised . According to the dentist , delay in the treatment could lead to grave complications , such as the loss of the chewing function , osteomyelitis and sepsis .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was taken to a civilian clinic , where a dentist removed his lower dental bridge and CARDINAL of the problem teeth . The dentist was unable to complete the treatment as the applicant had to be transported back to the detention facility .","NORP In DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against the prison authorities , seeking dental treatment as advised by the doctor treating him and compensation for non - pecuniary damage . ORG dismissed the claim on DATE , having found that the applicant had been provided with adequate medical assistance . On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal .","DATE and DATE a civilian dentist removed the dental crowns and bridges from CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s teeth , extracted CARDINAL teeth , and treated and shaped the remaining teeth for the forthcoming dental restoration work . In a letter to the head of the remand prison dated DATE , the dentist stressed that it was crucial to ensure that the applicant was transported to the clinic in line with the fixed schedule , starting from DATE . Failure to do so would entail the necessity to start the treatment anew . The dentist also pointed out that the excessively long time the treatment had taken had already caused substantial suffering to the applicant and increased the risk of digestive problems .","Having not been taken to the dentist as recommended , the applicant submitted several requests for the dental treatment , stating that he had lost the ability to chew and in addition to severe teeth pain he started experiencing stomach pain . On DATE the authorities gave their approval for the applicant to be transported to the dentist .","According to written statements of the applicant \u2019s inmate dated DATE , the applicant had been tormented by unbearable pain and could not sleep normally for DATE . Owing to the constant pain and the lack of teeth the applicant had to refuse prison food for DATE .","In DATE the applicant was taken to a dentist who completed the dental restoration .","The applicant complained that throughout the entire period of his dental treatment , when he had been left practically toothless , no alternative soft food had been made available to him ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144943","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PALACHEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . She worked as chief accountant in the finance department of ORG ( \u201c the ORG department \u201d ) from CARDINAL DATE until her dismissal on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant challenged the lawfulness of her dismissal . She also requested her reinstatement and salary arrears for the period of her enforced absence from work ( \u0432\u044b\u043d\u0443\u0436\u0434\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0433\u0443\u043b\u0430 ) .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of PERSON ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered ORG of GPE to reinstate the applicant in the position she had held in the ORG department on DATE , and to pay her salary arrears in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) , corresponding to the period of her enforced absence from work , that is from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . As regards the applicant \u2019s reinstatement , the judgment was subject to immediate enforcement .","On DATE ORG issued an order to reinstate the applicant in her previous position . On DATE the ORG department issued the relevant order and the applicant returned to work . The salary arrears awarded by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE were paid to the applicant in DATE or DATE .","On DATE the applicant resigned . She subsequently alleged that she had written her resignation letter under pressure .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant brought a court action against the ORG department complaining of the delay in the execution of the judgment of DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged additional claims .","On DATE the ORG of GPE ( \u201c the Town Court \u201d ) rejected all the claims lodged by the applicant . ORG found it established that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had been executed , the applicant had been reinstated to her position and the sum due under that judgment had been paid to her in DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for fresh examination . ORG indicated that the lower court had failed to establish whether the applicant had received the full amount of money due under the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and whether she had the right to indexation .","NORP The applicant amended her claims on CARDINAL May , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . She indicated that she had received the sum of RUB CARDINAL under the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , but complained that ORG had miscalculated her salary arrears because it had not taken the indexation into account . She also asked for salary arrears from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and for the period in which delivery of her work record had been delayed .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in part . In particular , it stated as follows :","\u201c [ T]he court has established that in accordance with the judgment of ORG of Machachkala , PERSON received in DATE , together with her salary and holiday pay , RUB CARDINAL minus RUB CARDINAL of income tax and PERCENT deduction for pension fund in the amount of RUB CARDINAL = RUB CARDINAL . This is confirmed by the payment record for DATE and Mrs. PERSON \u2019s signature on this payment record certifying that this amount was paid to her . The claimant herself did not deny this fact before the court . \u201d","As regards the alleged miscalculation of the sum awarded by ORG , ORG noted that the judgment had become final and that the calculation made by ORG had been based on the calculations submitted by the applicant herself . As regards the delay in her reinstatement , ORG awarded the applicant salary arrears for the delay , together with indexation . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment in substance , but reduced the global amount due to the applicant . It was explained to the applicant that the claim concerning indexation of the sum awarded by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE should have been lodged with ORG which had delivered that judgment .","On DATE the judge of ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim concerning the payment of salary arrears and indexation , and invited her to lodge the claim with ORG , which had jurisdiction in view of the defendant \u2019s address .","On DATE ORG extended the timelimit for lodging an appeal against the decision of DATE with ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim concerning the payment of salary arrears for her enforced absence from work on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction , given that the defendant had moved and was now located within the jurisdiction of ORG of PERSON ( \u201c the NORP ORG \u201d ) .","On CARDINAL DATE the Vice - President of ORG of GPE lodged a supervisory - review appeal with the ORG of ORG asking for the quashing of the judgments of DATE and DATE . The ORG pointed out that the same shortcomings had already been identified by ORG in its decision of DATE . However , ORG , when considering the case for the second time , had failed to remedy them .","On DATE ORG , by way of supervisory review , quashed the judicial decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration . ORG also noted that its previous instructions had been ignored by ORG .","On DATE ORG forwarded the case to ORG , which had jurisdiction to examine the applicant \u2019s case in view of the defendant \u2019s new address .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim for salary arrears corresponding to the period of her enforced absence on the ground that this dispute had already been decided by a final judgment . ORG also noted that there was another case pending concerning similar claims after the quashing on DATE by ORG of ORG judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE . ORG indicated that if the applicant disagreed with the judgment of DATE , she could only lodge an application for a supervisory review of that judgment ; her other claims , including that in respect of the non - enforcement of the aforementioned judgment , were to be considered in the course of the proceedings pending before ORG . Consequently , ORG discontinued the proceedings pending before ORG .","On DATE , following the request of its President , ORG quashed ORG order of CARDINAL DATE by way of supervisory review ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the ground that a domestic court which had accepted its jurisdiction in accordance with the rules of jurisdiction existing at the material time should decide the case on the merits , even if those rules had subsequently changed . The case was thus remitted to ORG for consideration on the merits .","On DATE the applicant amended her requests for the indexation of all the amounts claimed . On CARDINAL DATE she again amended her claim . Further amendments were submitted by the applicant on CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE . As regards the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant claimed that the salary arrears due under that judgment had not been paid to her until DATE , and had been paid without indexation , and that not all the sums had been taken into account in the calculation of the amount due to her .","On DATE ORG found for the applicant and awarded her different sums together with indexation , compensation for nonpecuniary damage , costs and expenses . As regards the judgment of DATE , the court noted that the payment of salary arrears had been executed with a delay of DATE .","As the defendant had missed the deadline for appealing , it was extended on DATE and the defendant appealed .","On DATE ORG rejected a number of the applicant \u2019s claims , reduced the amount awarded in respect of non - pecuniary damage , quashed ORG judgment and sent the case back for re - consideration .","On DATE the applicant again amended her claims . She appears to have submitted the same claims as those rejected by ORG on DATE . The applicant notably claimed that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had still not been enforced as regards the payment of salary arrears for her enforced absence from work from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the claims previously rejected by ORG .","In a second decision adopted on DATE , ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in part . It refused her claim for salary arrears corresponding to the delay in execution of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that that sum had been sent to her in DATE but she had refused to collect it . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It quashed ORG judgment on the basis of the same shortcomings as those previously indicated by it . Noting that the proceedings had been pending since DATE , ORG decided , with the agreement of both parties , to examine the case as a first - instance court . ORG rejected the part of the applicant \u2019s appeal concerning her claims decided by the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG , noting that the defendant had not agreed to the modification of jurisdiction in favour of ORG , decided to forward the case to ORG for consideration as the first - instance court . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE by ORG on the grounds of a procedural irregularity ( absence of parties at the hearing ) and remitted the case to ORG for consideration anew .","On DATE ORG , after hearing the parties and following a request lodged by the defendant \u2019s representative , decided to forward the case to ORG for consideration as the first - instance court . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision of ORG of DATE to remit the case to ORG .","On DATE the applicant further amended her claims .","On DATE ORG decided to forward the case to ORG . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter to the same court for consideration anew . The reasons for the decision were the same than those indicated in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant amended her claim .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in part and awarded her certain financial compensation for salary arrears , legal costs and non - pecuniary damage . Both the applicant and the defendant appealed .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and remitted the case for consideration anew . ORG noted that it appeared from the materials of the case file that the salary arrears awarded by the decision of DATE had been paid to the applicant in DATE .","On DATE the proceedings were suspended because the applicant was ill . They were resumed on DATE .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings because the applicant failed to appear in court . It appears that this order became final ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158142","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BELJKA\u0160 v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","He was detained in the remand section of GPE prison from CARDINAL DATE to DATE .","For DATE he was held in cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) with CARDINAL other inmates , with QUANTITY of personal space .","For CARDINAL days he was held in cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . For CARDINAL days he was held therein with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space and for DATE he was held therein with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space . For CARDINAL one days he shared the cell with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space .","For QUANTITY days he was held in cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) . For DATE he was held therein with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space and for DATE he was held therein with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space . For DATE he shared the cell with CARDINAL other inmates with QUANTITY of personal space .","The cells for CARDINAL detainees , where the applicant was held , were equipped with CARDINAL bunk beds with a total of CARDINAL sleeping places , CARDINAL large and CARDINAL small table , CARDINAL chairs and a set of cupboards for each of the detainees . Detainees could freely open or close windows in cells . On DATE the sixth bed was removed .","As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the remand section of GPE prison , material conditions inside the cells and sanitary conditions , see the judgment in PERSON and PERSON GPE , nos . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","As to the out - of - cell time in the remand section , the ORG found in the aforementioned judgment that detainees in the remand section were confined to their cells day and night , save for DATE outdoor exercise , and TIME in a recreation room ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 MONEY ) . According to the information supplied by the Government in the present case , on CARDINAL DATE the time spent outdoors was extended to TIME and a half per day and in DATE the outside yard was covered by a roof . From DATE detainees could spend TIME per day out of their cells .","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.CARDINALoC , exceeding CARDINAL on DATE , in DATE and DATE approximately CARDINALoC , exceeding CARDINAL on DATE and in DATE and DATE it had been CARDINAL , exceeding CARDINAL on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146379","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ATUDOREI v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In her initial letter to ORG , the applicant stated that from an early age she had been subjected to repeated physical and psychological abuse by her family . Her parents , especially her mother , had been aggressive towards her both verbally and physically , had refused to allow her to go anywhere unsupervised and had taken her to a psychologist because she had not achieved the highest possible marks when she was in second grade . In addition , her GPE abuse had continued after they discovered that she had been attending DATE yoga classes organised by ORG into the Absolute ( Mi\u015fcarea pentru PERSON \u00een Absolut \u2013 \u201c MISA \u201d ) .","According to some reports , including an ORG report of CARDINAL DATE ( AI Index EUR DATE ) , from DATE there had been several accounts of alleged police abuse of individuals who practised yoga and who were members of ORG . The reports noted that the authorities seemed to condone public intolerance of MISA as they perceived the leader of the organisation as an individual who urged his sympathisers to leave their way of life in order to pursue a communal life and to practice sexual perversion .","In DATE a large - scale negative press campaign and police operation targeted PERSON . The leader and some members of the organisation faced criminal investigation for the alleged sexual corruption of minors . PERSON \u2019s leader left the country for GPE . In DATE the NORP authorities refused an extradition request by the NORP authorities .","On DATE the applicant , who was of full legal age , was hospitalised in ORG . According to her , she was taken to the said hospital by her parents against her will after they had discovered that she was attending yoga classes .","The medical reports produced by the said hospital stated that it was the first time the patient had been admitted to FAC , and that she had been admitted at her mother \u2019s request because of anxious and negative behaviour , irritability , a tendency to cry easily and depression , which were a reaction to psychological trauma , in particular a conflict with her parents . She was diagnosed with reactive depression and anxiety . The applicant \u2019s condition had improved after group psychotherapy . She had been recommended medical treatment , psychotherapy and been advised to avoid psychotraumatic situations .","Her hospitalisation ended on DATE .","On DATE the applicant travelled to her hometown , GPE , accompanied by PERSON , her fianc\u00e9 , in order to obtain a copy of her birth certificate , which she needed inter alia for her marriage to GPE","While she was in the building housing the register office ( Oficiul de Stare Civil\u0103 ) , her family appeared and surrounded her .","According to the applicant , her mother convinced her to go outside and talk to them before applying for her birth certificate . Once outside the building , her family became aggressive . After they pushed PERSON to the ground , they forced her into a vehicle and drove her to her grandparents\u2019 house . Once there , her family took away her regular clothes and replaced them with old clothes and slippers . They also took away her money and identity papers . In addition , she was kept indoors continuously , supervised , threatened and psychologically pressured by them .","On DATE Dr F. , a general practitioner , referred the applicant to a psychiatric hospital with a diagnosis of schizo - paranoid behavioural disorder ( tulburare de comportament de tip schizoparanoid\u0103 ) . There is no evidence in the file if PERSON assessed the applicant prior to the drafting of the referral note , or on how the diagnosis was established .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s parents took her to ORG . According to the hospital \u2019s public webpage , it is located in a forest QUANTITY from the town of GPE and can be reached only by private car or minibus .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s mother signed an informed consent form provided by the hospital on behalf of the applicant , acknowledging that she had read , understood and had time to consider all the information in the leaflet entitled \u201c Information on GPE ( GPE ) for patients and their families \u201d ( PERSON pentru pacien\u021bi si familii ) , that all her questions had been answered adequately and she had clarified any unknown words with the doctor or a member of the medical team , and that she was willing to accept the risks of the treatment .","The applicant \u2019s mother was admitted to the hospital together with the applicant and remained there for DATE of the latter \u2019s hospitalisation .","According to a clinical observation paper on the applicant produced by ORG , she had been hospitalised on the basis of PERSON referral and diagnosis . The diagnosis on DATE of hospitalisation had been \u201c evolving borderline [ disorder ] \u201d ( borderline \u020bn evolu\u021bie ) . That diagnosis remained unchanged during her hospitalisation and on DATE of her discharge . During her hospitalisation the applicant was given psychotropic drug treatment which included GPE . Her condition and progress were regularly monitored . She repeatedly suffered from , inter alia , constipation , lack of insight , lack of communication and drowsiness . She also presented a risk of orthostatic hypertension , which was monitored . In addition , on DATE she \u201c mentioned discharge \u201d ( aminte\u015fte despre externare ) .","On DATE ORG informed GPE that , inter alia , the applicant had been admitted to a specialised medical clinic for treatment and that the doctors had prohibited any contact with her during the full course of treatment .","On DATE the applicant signed a written statement to the effect that she refused to allow the disclosure of the information in her observation paper .","The applicant was discharged from hospital on DATE .","On DATE , following an enquiry by PERSON agreed that the applicant was fit to enrol at a university .","On DATE the management of ORG informed the Government that according to PERSON the applicant \u2019s hospitalisation had been voluntary . On account of the applicant \u2019s clinical condition , the informed consent form had been signed by the applicant \u2019s mother on her behalf . The applicant could have left the hospital at any time . The hospital was located in the middle of a forest but had no fence or guards . The applicant had had access to CARDINAL mobile phones and CARDINAL landline phones . She had not been guarded at any time during her hospitalisation because ORG was not designed for forced hospitalisation and was used only for voluntary hospitalisations . The informed consent form signed by the applicant \u2019s mother had amounted to an agreement to both hospitalisation and treatment because at that time , that is , on DATE , a standardised informed consent form had not been required . The hospital had applied the full procedure for non - voluntary hospitalisation as per the rules of enforcement contained in PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE on mental health and the protection of people with mental disorders ( \u201c Law no . CARDINAL \u201d ) from DATE , when that legislation was enacted .","On DATE PERSON brought criminal proceedings against the applicant \u2019s parents and brother , for unlawful deprivation of liberty .","The preliminary criminal investigation was assigned to police officer PERSON","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father gave a statement to the police officer . He mentioned that the applicant had refused to join them in returning home . Nonetheless , disregarding her refusal , they had taken her to her GPE house and then had her hospitalised . They had taken those measures because they considered that it was their duty to help their daughter in view of the negative reports they had heard about PERSON .","On DATE police officer PERSON recommended , on the basis of the available evidence , that the B\u00e2rlad prosecutor \u2019s office should not initiate criminal proceedings . The police officer had established that in DATE the applicant had left her GPE home and had started attending yoga classes organised by ORG . Subsequently , she had abandoned her studies and ceased to communicate with her family except for a few telephone conversations and a publicly televised argument . According to her parents , they had a family history of mental illness affecting consent . In this context , after discovering the applicant \u2019s visit to her home town they had tried to talk to her outside the register office , but PERSON opposed . After a skirmish , the applicant \u2019s mother had taken her to the family car in order to continue the discussion . PERSON had attempted to stop the car and had subsequently fallen to the ground . According to the staff members of the register office the applicant \u2019s parents had not acted against her will . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant had lived with her maternal grandparents and had then been hospitalised in ORG . An attempt had been made to question the applicant while she was there , but this had not been possible because she had been administered psychotropic medication .","By a decision of DATE , the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office , in particular prosecutor GPE , relying on the facts established by police officer PERSON , decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the applicant \u2019s parents and brother on the ground that no offence had been committed .","The applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9 challenged that decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor . He argued that the criminal investigation had been superficial because , inter alia , the authorities had failed to take a statement from the applicant , establish the type of medical treatment administered to her , and ascertain whether she had been taken away by her parents against her will .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office , in particular the head prosecutor PERSON , dismissed PERSON \u2019s challenge as illfounded . It held that it had not been possible to take a statement from the applicant because she had been in a situation and state which prevented her from engaging in conversation as a result of psychotropic medication she had been administered , which had a negative psychopathological effect . Moreover , it would have been immoral to find that the applicant \u2019s parents had unlawfully deprived her of her freedom given that she had been unable to express her own will because she was constantly accompanied by ORG members and was not allowed to attend meetings alone . PERSON was DATE older than the applicant and he had not been able to prove that he was her fianc\u00e9 . He had initially informed an employee at the mayor \u2019s office that he was the applicant \u2019s boyfriend , and had stated that he was her fianc\u00e9 only after a telephone conversation with a third party , and only in order to justify his own interests in respect of the applicant . It had been natural for the applicant \u2019s parents to attempt to bring their daughter back home by any means necessary and to try to ensure her physical and emotional recovery , given that they had seen the press campaign concerning what happened to young women at the MISA premises . According to her parents , they had made considerable efforts to recover the applicant physically , while psychologically it had been clear that she was unable to express herself as long as LAW members accompanied her everywhere , including to family meetings . As to the medical treatment the applicant had been administered , the parties would have to ask the doctor who had treated her . The applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9 appealed against that decision before the domestic courts .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9 \u2019s appeal . It held that he had refused to substantiate his action before the court . Moreover , there was no evidence in the file that the applicant \u2019s parents had unlawfully deprived her of her freedom .","There is no evidence in the case - file that the applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9 lodged any appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against that judgment .","On DATE the applicant was released from hospital and taken by her parents to her GPE house . According to the applicant , during her stay there she was kept under supervision and isolated from the outside world .","On DATE the applicant brought criminal proceedings against her parents , alleging , inter alia , that they had forcibly detained her and that she had been unable to leave the house . She urged the authorities to do everything necessary to help her leave , given that she was of age and wanted to live her own life .","By a decision of DATE , the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office , dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint on the ground that her GPE actions did not disclose any elements of an offence . It noted that the applicant \u2019s parents had been worried because she was a ORG member , and that was why they had taken her to her grandmother \u2019s home and then to a psychiatric hospital . According to the applicant \u2019s statement following her questioning , she had not been forcibly detained by her parents but they had helped to get her admitted to a psychiatric hospital . There is no evidence in the file that the applicant challenged the above - mentioned decision before the domestic courts .","According to the applicant , on DATE , helped by friends and her fianc\u00e9 , she managed to leave her GPE house . Afterwards she settled in GPE and on DATE she married PERSON","On DATE the applicant brought disciplinary proceedings before ORG against Dr I. in respect of her forced placement in ORG of ORG and the medical treatment that she had received there .","On DATE and DATE , PERSON , the applicant \u2019s private psychiatrist , issued CARDINAL medical certificates stating that she was psychologically healthy . The certificates noted that the applicant had been monitored by PERSON since DATE and that during that time she had not received any treatment and had shown no signs of a psychological condition .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The applicant challenged the decision before ORG ( PERSON a PERSON din GPE ) .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision of DATE , finding that PERSON had acted in breach of the rules of good medical practice , and gave him a warning ( avertisment ) . It held that according to the available evidence the applicant and her parents had been in a state of conflict and she had been opposed to her hospitalisation . Consequently , the doctor had been required to examine the patient \u2019s clinical situation and the circumstances she was facing . Regardless of his decision , the doctor had to protect the patient . If he had assessed the patient \u2019s clinical condition as amounting to an imminent risk for her or others , or if failure to hospitalise her would have aggravated her condition , non - voluntary hospitalisation would have been required even if the patient objected to her hospitalisation . However , there was no evidence that the relevant procedure had been initiated .","At the same time , only medical reasons could justify a decision to hospitalise . However , the observation sheet produced by the hospital mentioned as one of the reasons for hospitalisation \u2013 none of them of a psychotic intensity to suggest a psychotic development in the borderline disorder \u2013 that the patient had joined counter - cultural informal groups ( agreg\u0103 \u020bn grupuri informale disculturale ) . Moreover , the observation sheet did not contain a full psychological assessment . Consequently , the treatment with ORG had not been justified .","Furthermore , ORG arguments that the hospitalisation had not been forced because the patient could have left the hospital , and that PERSON had a professional duty to examine the patient and to prescribe adequate treatment , could not be taken into consideration . The doctor \u2019s conduct had to be in accordance with the law , which stated that the treatment had to be discussed with the patient and that the patient \u2019s consent had to be sought prior to treatment . The aforementioned conditions became less important only in the circumstances of forced hospitalisation . However , it did not appear that a forced hospitalisation procedure had been initiated in the applicant \u2019s case .","PERSON treatment was to be used exclusively in the advanced stages of schizophrenia or in cases of severe borderline personality disorder involving frequent relapses and self - harm , if no other medication proved to offer a satisfactory improvement in the patient \u2019s condition . The use of that medication in the applicant \u2019s case from the early stages of her treatment had been unusual . In some cases the medication could cause agranulacytosis ( a low white blood cells count which favours fevers and infections ) . Consequently , doctors who prescribed it were required to comply strictly with the necessary safety measures . However , in the applicant \u2019s case there was no evidence that the required DATE blood tests had been carried out .","Furthermore , the necessary tests for establishing whether she was suffering from a borderline personality disorder had not been conducted at all .","On DATE the applicant brought criminal proceedings for unlawful deprivation of liberty DATE and DATE , serious bodily harm , and cooperation with a view to committing an offence , against her family , police officer PERSON and Dr I. She argued that the culprits had cooperated in order to unlawfully deprive her of her liberty , to hospitalise her against her will and to damage her health as a result of the medical treatment she received in the hospital .","On DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office questioned the applicant . She stated , inter alia , that on arrival at the hospital she had informed the nurse who had told her that she was being hospitalised that she opposed the measure . She had subsequently been taken to PERSON office , where she had had a short conversation with him and she had expressly informed him that she did not wish to remain in the hospital . The doctor had informed her that her general practitioner had referred her to the hospital , and he forced her to take medication , which had made her drowsy and numb . Afterwards she had been taken out of the doctor \u2019s office and one of the nurses had asked her to sign a document which she was unable to read owing to her situation . The nurse had not informed her of the document \u2019s content . Although she had signed the document automatically , she had only later been told that she had signed her hospitalisation papers .","The applicant further stated that during her hospitalisation she had been constantly supervised by her mother . In addition , she had received inappropriate medication and had constantly felt ill . In particular , she had suffered nausea , headaches , drowsiness , constipation , urinary incontinence , excess salivation , low immunity , loss of motor control and loss of insight . She had also gained QUANTITY and had developed anaemia as a result of suffering haemorrhages .","She also stated that during her hospitalisation she had informed police officer PERSON that she had been hospitalised against her will , and because he had refused to act on that information she had refused to grant him access to her medical file . In DATE the same police officer had visited her at her GPE house to question her after her fianc\u00e9 had brought criminal proceedings against some of her family members . On that occasion the police officer had dictated the content of her statement and had omitted some of the facts presented by her .","On DATE , the applicant informed the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office that she had joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party .","On DATE , PERSON office decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against PERSON on the ground that no offence had been committed , ordered that the criminal investigation be continued in respect of the applicant \u2019s family members , and referred the case to the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office . It noted that police officer PERSON had visited the applicant at the hospital in order to take a statement from her . While initially PERSON had denied PERSON access to the applicant because of her medical condition , in DATE he had agreed to allow him to speak to her . The prosecutor \u2019s office also noted that according to ORG the applicant had refused to provide a statement or to allow him to copy her medical observation papers , and had not informed him that she had been hospitalised against her will . Lastly , it noted that there was no evidence to suggest that police officer PERSON had been informed that the applicant had been deprived of her liberty when he questioned her at her GPE home in DATE . The applicant challenged the decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the head prosecutor at the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office allowed the applicant \u2019s challenge , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered that the investigation be reopened . The head prosecutor considered that the applicant and the defence witnesses indicated by her should be heard . In addition , the medical documents concerning the applicant \u2019s state of health , the reasons for her hospitalisation and her medical recovery were to be attached to the investigation file .","On DATE , PERSON office decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against police officer PERSON , the applicant \u2019s family members or PERSON on the ground that no offence had been committed . It held that according to the medical report of DATE produced by ORG of ORG , the applicant had been suffering from a schizo - paranoid behavioural disorder which had required her hospitalisation in a specialised medical facility for treatment and medical supervision . Her family \u2019s actions had been caused by the applicant joining ORG , and they had only been attempting to provide her with the opportunity to continue her treatment . The applicant challenged that decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , the head prosecutor of PERSON office dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge and upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts . She argued that after the investigation of the case had been reopened on CARDINAL DATE , the authorities had failed to gather any additional evidence , in particular to hear witnesses , to determine the circumstances of her confinement , and to examine the medical treatment she had received , which had affected her health .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the prosecutor \u2019s office . It held that no offence of cooperating in order to commit an unlawful act could have been committed given that it could not be concluded that the alleged perpetrators had met one another other than by chance , or that they had made detailed plans to commit an offence . In addition , the available evidence did not confirm the existence of an offence of serious bodily harm . There were no medical reports supporting the allegations of trauma , and the medical report of DATE produced by ORG of ORG had stated that the applicant was suffering from a schizoparanoid behavioural disorder which required her hospitalisation in a specialised medical facility for treatment and medical supervision . Lastly , the available evidence did not confirm the existence of an offence of unlawful deprivation of liberty either . On the basis of the witness statements , it could not be concluded that on DATE the applicant \u2019s family had acted against her will . The applicant had also failed to inform officer PERSON that her family had deprived her of her liberty either at the hospital or at her PERSON home . Consequently , given the absence of clear and concrete evidence of guilt , the alleged ORG right to the presumption of innocence could not be rebutted .","The court further dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument that after the re - opening of the criminal investigation no further evidence had been added to the file , on the grounds that she had been heard by the prosecutor \u2019s office and that she had not requested the hearing of witnesses or additional evidence . The applicant \u2019s argument that the authorities had failed to review the circumstances of her confinement and the medical treatment she had received was also dismissed on the ground that the medical documents attached to the file had stated her diagnosis and the doctor \u2019s recommendation of hospitalisation , treatment and medical supervision .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against that judgment .","By a final judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law on the ground that the available evidence did not clearly and unequivocally prove the guilt of the alleged perpetrators . The judgment was drafted on DATE and appears to have been made available to the applicant on DATE .","On DATE , following the referral of PERSON office of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant \u2019s family members , PERSON , and police officer PERSON , on the ground that no offences had been committed . It noted , inter alia , that the applicant had been committed to hospital with a diagnosis of paranoid behavioural disorder . Moreover , her condition required continuous outpatient medical care for an undetermined period of time . The applicant challenged the decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor .","On DATE the head prosecutor of the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office declined to examine the applicant \u2019s challenge on the ground that the prosecutor who had delivered the decision of DATE was his wife , and he referred the case to PERSON office .","By a final decision of DATE , PERSON office dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge on the ground that it had already examined the issues raised by it in its decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts . She argued that the authorities investigating her case had failed to gather all available evidence , or hear all parties to the proceedings , and that the decision of PERSON office had concerned a different person and different offences .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal , quashed the decision , ordered the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office to continue its investigation of the case , to gather the evidence requested by the parties and to question the parties , the staff members of the hospital , and the neighbours of the grandmother in whose house the applicant had been held . It held that the previous decisions by the prosecutor \u2019s offices had addressed the applicant \u2019s complaints in respect of only some of the parties concerned . In addition , the medical report of DATE had been contradicted by the conclusions of ORG decision . Further , according to the applicant \u2019s psychiatrist , from DATE the applicant had not received any treatment and had not shown any symptoms of illness .","The ORG prosecutor \u2019s office and the defendants appealed on points of law . The prosecutor \u2019s office argued that the statements that had been taken by PERSON office were relevant on account of the hierarchical relationship between the CARDINAL ORG offices , and therefore the re - questioning of the applicant and of the perpetrators had no longer been required . In addition , the applicant had failed to identify the witnesses she wished to have questioned . The questioning of all medical staff had no legal basis and the court had not identified which of the neighbours of the applicant \u2019s grandmother should have been questioned , or the scope of such questioning . Moreover , the applicant had failed to prove that any offences had actually been committed , had not submitted any medical report attesting to a bodily injury , and had herself acknowledged that she had signed the hospitalisation papers automatically , and that during her stay at her grandparents\u2019 home she had had access to a visiting room ( vorbitor ) and thus had been able to communicate with others . Furthermore , according to ORG the hospitalisation of a patient was possible against his or her will . The same body had concluded that the applicant \u2019s hospitalisation had been voluntary . Lastly , the psychiatrist had been disciplined on account of the inappropriate treatment administered to the applicant and not because the applicant had not been suffering from of DATE .","By a final judgment of DATE , ORG declared ORG appeal on points of law inadmissible on procedural grounds , allowed the GPE appeal on points of law , quashed the judgment of the lower court , and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE . It held that thed during the sets of proceedings which had ended with the final decision of CARDINAL DATE and the final judgment of DATE , and that the applicant had not adduced any new information or evidence in order to justify the opening of criminal proceedings in respect of the same acts and persons .","On DATE the applicant brought criminal proceedings for abuse of office and aiding and abetting an offender against prosecutors ORG and GPE The applicant complained about the quality of the ORG investigations .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG decided , on the basis of the available evidence , not to initiate criminal proceedings against the CARDINAL prosecutors on the ground that no offence had been committed . It held that although insufficiently reasoned , the examination of the merits of the case by the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office had been accurate . In addition , it noted that those events which had taken place after DATE had not been known at the time and therefore had not been investigated . Consequently , it referred the case to the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office in order for it to investigate the applicant \u2019s parents for the alleged deprivation of the applicant \u2019s liberty in the period DATE and DATE . The applicant challenged the decision before the hierarchically superior prosecutor .","By a final decision of DATE , the head prosecutor of the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge as ill - founded . The applicant appealed against that decision before the domestic courts .","DATE . By a decision of DATE , the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office dismissed the applicant \u2019s action concerning the alleged deprivation of her liberty by her parents in the period DATE and DATE . It held that the applicant \u2019s complaint had already been dismissed in the final judgments of DATE and DATE in accordance with the relevant rules of criminal procedure , and in the absence of any new relevant information the criminal proceedings could not be reopened or reinitiated . There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against that decision before the domestic courts .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE as ill - founded . It held that there was no evidence suggesting that the prosecutors had committed an offence , or that the decisions taken by them had been unlawful . The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment .","By a final judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal as time - barred .","The applicant submitted to ORG a large number of press articles , photographs and transcripts of television talk - shows concerning the conduct of the leader of PERSON , the criminal investigation against him , the applicant \u2019s conflict with her parents , and the measures and efforts undertaken by her parents to reconnect with her .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint that the actions of her parents and PERSON had amounted to discrimination on the basis of her beliefs . It held that the facts of the applicant \u2019s case did not indicate discrimination . There is no evidence in the file that the applicant challenged that decision before the domestic courts ."],"violated_articles":["5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170454","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VALANT v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant is a former rally driver who won several national titles and was still actively competing at the time of the events in the case . His company runs a car repair shop which is also authorised to remodel cars intended to be used for competition .","On DATE the NORP mesto ORG , at the request of the police , issued a warrant to search the applicant \u2019s premises on the basis of a suspicion that he had exchanged the chassis numbers of CARDINAL cars in order to be able to register the second one , bought in GPE , and smuggle it through the State border without paying customs duties . He was also suspected of the criminal offences of forgery , certifying false documents as genuine and smuggling . The search warrant included an authorisation for the seizure of items subject to the warrant . On DATE the police conducted a search of the applicant \u2019s car repair shop and seized a ORG racing car , the car \u2019s registration papers and other documents .","The applicant requested the return of the car several times because he needed it for future competitions from which he could not withdraw owing to contractual obligations towards his sponsors . He also insisted that he had not committed any of the offences he was suspected of .","On DATE the Novo mesto ORG lodged a request for a criminal investigation against the applicant in respect of the above - mentioned offences ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . On DATE the Novo mesto ORG approved the request .","On DATE the applicant paid CARDINAL ( ORG ) to lease another racing car , a ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL kit car , for DATE . On DATE he competed in a hill climb race with the leased car . He also competed with it in hill climb races on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and in rallies on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .","On DATE the Novo mesto ORG dropped the prosecution ( odstopil od pregona ) of the smuggling charge and consequently , on DATE , the Novo mesto ORG discontinued the criminal investigation of that crime . It referred the proceedings related to forgery and the certification of false documents as true to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE customs offences proceedings were instituted against the applicant .","On DATE ORG issued a seizure order in respect of the same car on suspicion that the applicant had in DATE avoided paying duties when importing the car into GPE .","On DATE the car was transferred from the Novo mesto ORG to the customs authorities .","On an unknown date the applicant lodged a request for an assessment of customs duties under the regular customs proceedings .","On DATE ORG issued a declaratory note ( ugotovitveni zapisnik ) , finding that according to information from the police the applicant had bought a ORG TIME DATE and had registered it in GPE . The car \u2019s number plates and the metallic plate with the chassis number had then been put on the ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL kit car . That car had been brought onto the territory of GPE without any customs duty being paid for it . The note also stated that the duties arose because the applicant had imported the car without paying the duties required by law . As it could not determine the date the debt had been incurred , it based its findings on the regulations in place on DATE , when ORG had found that custom duties for the car had not been paid . It calculated the amount on the basis of documents submitted by the applicant . In the note , the market value of the vehicle was set at ORG CARDINAL . The customs duties , LOC and vehicle tax were CARDINAL NORP tolars ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the decision on the amount of customs duties to be paid by the applicant was issued .","On DATE the applicant paid the customs duties and the car was returned to him . He submitted in writing at the same time that he had only paid the customs duties to prevent further losses .","By DATE the applicant had obtained all the necessary permits for the car and was able to register it as a special vehicle .","On DATE the proceedings for customs offences were discontinued because prosecution had in the meantime become time - barred .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against GPE before ORG , claiming compensation for the pecuniary losses sustained due to the seizure of his car in the criminal proceedings . He claimed ORG CARDINAL , the amount he had paid to lease another car .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . It held , inter alia , that the seizure of the car had not been unlawful and that the criminal proceedings related to forgery and the certification of false documents as true were still pending . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . He later withdrew it because the civil proceedings had been reopened ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG held that the search warrant of DATE had not complied with section CARDINAL of LAW because it had lacked evidence of reasonable grounds for suspicion ( utemeljeni sum ) . In particular , basic data such as from whom , when and where the information used as evidence had been collected , was missing . That meant the seizure order had been issued and the car seized on the basis of an unlawful warrant . The court , basing its decision on the exclusionary rule , ordered that all the evidence collected on the basis of the unlawful seizure , including the reports and testimony of experts , should be excluded from the file .","At a hearing held on DATE ORG withdrew the charges against the applicant . On DATE ORG dismissed the charges of forgery and the certification of false documents .","Following the dismissal of the charges by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant on CARDINAL DATE applied to reopen the civil proceedings . He alleged that the decisions on the unlawfulness of the search warrant and the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings had to be considered as new evidence which could influence the outcome of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application to reopen the proceedings . After a successful appeal , the proceedings were reopened on DATE .","The applicant on DATE withdrew his appeal on points of law after the reopening of the civil proceedings .","In the reopened proceedings the parties submitted the following arguments . The representative of the ORG argued , inter alia , that the customs duties on the car in question had not been paid and that therefore it could not have been used any way . Once the applicant had paid the duties his debt had been cleared and the car had been able to enter the domestic market . They also argued that the customs proceedings had not taken an unduly long time as they had lasted only from DATE to DATE . The applicant argued , inter alia , that the order which had led to the seizure of the car had been unlawful and that it therefore gave rise to a liability on the part of the ORG for any damage resulting from it . He also submitted that ORG seizure order had been issued only on DATE and was thus irrelevant to the question of liability for damage . The applicant also noted that he had not been found guilty in any of the proceedings and had not done anything wrong . He stated that the car that had been seized had been remodelled in his own repair shop and that he had not yet finished the remodelling or necessary paperwork by the time of the seizure . Such a process included obtaining new approval papers and the registration of the vehicle as a special vehicle . He pointed out that he had finished that process and obtained all the necessary documents once the car had been returned to him .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim , which it examined under LAW and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The ORG found that there was no dispute about the fact that the car had been seized in criminal proceedings . The court noted that it was not bound by the findings of the criminal court that the seizure had been unlawful , but , basing its conclusion on its own assessment , it concluded that the seizure had been ordered on the basis of gossip and newspaper article and that all the other information relating to the alleged offences had been obtained on the basis of the unwarranted seizure . The search warrant had been general and lacking in precision and therefore could not be subjected to any scrutiny . On the basis of such considerations it found that the seizure had not complied with the requirements set out in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and had therefore been unlawful . However , the court found that the causal link between the unlawful seizure and the damage incurred by the applicant had been broken because the applicant would in any event have been unable to use the car for several reasons . Firstly , the applicant , as a professional driver and owner of the repair shop , should have known that any remodelling of the car required a new technical inspection and registration , which the applicant had not done before the seizure . Secondly , no customs duties had been paid on parts that had been imported and then used in the car . The seized car , which had thus not been properly registered or imported in compliance with customs regulations , could not have been used in traffic and the applicant could not have raced with it . The applicant was ordered to pay the opposing party \u2019s costs of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","The applicant lodged an appeal . He argued that he had not been given the opportunity to be heard in respect of the alleged break in the causal link . He noted that , in any case , the car had been seized while it had still been in the process of remodelling and that he had intended to register it at the end of the process . He had only been able to complete that process later , after the car had been returned to him . He also referred to the fact that subsequently he had not encountered any problems in obtaining the necessary certificates in order to register the car .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It held that the applicant had never claimed or proved that the car parts had been imported in accordance with customs regulations . ORG had been right in holding that the applicant would not have been able to use the car owing to the illegal importation of the car parts and the incorrect registration procedure .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) , challenging the conclusions of the court in respect of the break in the causal link and arguing that the loss had already been incurred before the issue of customs duties had arose . He further argued that no customs offence decision had been issued against him and that a car that was not registered for use in normal traffic could still be used in competitions .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , confirming that the link in causality had been broken because the applicant had imported some of the car parts in violation of customs regulations .","In the above proceedings before ORG , ORG and ORG , the applicant paid ORG CARDINAL in total for court fees .","The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal , arguing that the seizure of his car had been unlawful and that he had therefore been unable to use the car for racing . He argued that by virtue of the courts\u2019 decisions , in particular their position on the causal link , his human rights , including his right to compensation under LAW , and the principle of the rule of law had been violated . The constitutional appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE by reference to the second paragraph of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173373","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF POTAPYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140395","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PENTIK\u00c4INEN v. FINLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a photographer and journalist for the DATE magazine ORG . On DATE he was sent by his employer to take photographs of the demonstration which was being held in protest against the on - going LOC meeting ( ORG ) in GPE . The demonstration was an exceptionally large one in the NORP context and all media followed it closely .","NORP Before the demonstration took place , on DATE , ORG was alerted by ORG that the upcoming \u201c Smash ORG \u201d demonstration would be a hostile one and would not aim to highlight any clear political message . ORG did not manage to establish contact with the organisers of the demonstration .","The demonstration was to start at TIME on DATE . A separate area was reserved for the representatives of the media so that they could freely and safely observe the situation and take photographs on the demonstration place .","At the start of the demonstration , bottles , stones and jars filled with paint were thrown at public and policemen . Some demonstrators kicked and hit police officers . The police announced several times over loudspeakers that a peaceful demonstration was allowed on the spot but that the crowd was not allowed to demonstrate by marching . The crowd tried to break through the police defence line . Relying on all the information in their possession , the police decided to interrupt the demonstration which had now turned violent . The police announced over loudspeakers that the demonstration was stopped and that the crowd should leave the scene . This announcement was repeated several times . CARDINAL of people then left voluntarily .","After the escalation of violence , the police considered that the event had turned into a riot and decided to seal off the demonstration area . First only a few people were allowed to leave the area . Then the police established several exit routes and people were allowed to leave . When leaving , they were asked to show ID and their belongings were checked .","NORP However , the core group of CARDINAL people remained in CARDINAL of the demonstration spots , including the applicant and a former Member of ORG , all of whom had been asked to leave the scene , failing which they would be arrested . According to the applicant , he thought that this request only applied to the demonstrators . He claims that sometime later he indicated to the police that he was a representative of the media . He further claims that he was wearing his press badge and that a police officer accepted this . After having called his colleague , the applicant decided to stay until the situation was over . A short time later the police arrested the demonstrators . When leaving the scene the applicant was also arrested . The police arrested altogether CARDINAL persons in the context of the demonstration .","NORP The applicant was detained from DATE at TIME until DATE at TIME , that is , TIME .","On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant for disobeying the police ( niskoittelu poliisia vastaan , tredska mot polis ) under LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW .","On DATE the GPE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) found the applicant guilty of disobeying the police but did not impose any penalty on him . The court found it established that the applicant had been aware of the orders of the police to leave the scene but had decided to ignore them . It appeared from the witness statements given before the court that the applicant had not told or indicated the arresting police officer that he was a journalist . According to the arresting officer , this fact only became known to him when the relevant magazine appeared . It appeared also from the witness statements that CARDINAL other photographers , who had been in the sealed - off area , had been able to leave the scene without consequences just before the applicant was arrested . The court found it further established that the police orders had been clear and that they had clearly concerned everybody . The court balanced the LAW right against other interests , finding that the police had had the right to ask the applicant , among others , including the former Member of ORG , to leave the scene . The interference with the applicant \u2019s right to exercise his freedom of expression had thus been based on law , and it had fulfilled the legitimate aim of preventing disorder . The interference had been necessary in a NORP society in order to put an end to a violent situation . However , relying on LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW , no penalty was imposed as the offence was excusable . The court found that the applicant who , as a journalist , was confronted with contradictory expectations , stemming from obligations imposed on the one hand by the police and on the other by his employer .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) , claiming that ORG should have dismissed the charges against him . He argued that his arrest and the fact that he was found guilty were against LAW and LAW . The applicant was a journalist and that he had not participated in the demonstration or caused any disorder . ORG had not reasoned why his arrest and conviction were \u201c necessary in a democratic society \u201d and had thereby failed to justify the interference .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal without giving any further reasons .","By letter dated DATE the applicant further appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158820","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ALEXANDRESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The facts of the cases , as submitted by the parties , are similar to those presented in ORG \u201c DATE \u201d and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , LAW CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) and in NORP and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . They belong within the same historical context and relate to the same domestic criminal proceedings as those at issue in the above - mentioned case .","DATE and DATE , the applicants took part in the anti - communist demonstrations in GPE which led to the fall of the communist regime .","In DATE , following the overthrow of the communist regime , the military prosecutor \u2019s office opened a criminal investigation in respect of the DATE armed crackdown on the anti - communist demonstration in GPE .","According to the documents submitted to the ORG by the parties , all the applicants were interviewed at the military prosecutor \u2019s office as witnesses in connection with the use of violence against civilian demonstrators . Subsequently , they lodged criminal complaints and joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties , citing the psychological suffering they had experienced following the violent crackdown on the anticommunist demonstration . It appears from the medical certificates issued DATE and DATE and submitted by the applicants to the domestic criminal investigation file that they did not present any medical symptoms when they were examined following their involvement in the tragic events . Nevertheless , it could not be ruled out that they suffered psychological trauma at the time of the events in question .","The criminal investigation appears to be still pending before the prosecuting authorities . The most important procedural steps were summarised in ORG \u201c DATE \u201d and Others , cited above ( \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) . Subsequent developments in the investigation are as follows .","On DATE the military prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and ORG decided not to institute criminal proceedings with regard to the acts committed by the military , finding that the ORG complaints were partly statute - barred and partly ill - founded . The investigation into crimes committed by civilians , members of ORG , members of militia and prison staff was severed from the case file and jurisdiction was relinquished in favour of the prosecuting authorities at ORG and ORG .","On DATE the chief prosecutor at the military prosecutor \u2019s office set aside the decision of DATE on the grounds that the investigation had not yet been finalised and not all victims and perpetrators had yet been identified .","On DATE the military prosecutor \u2019s office relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and Justice on the ground that the investigation concerned both civilians and military .","On DATE following the opening to the public in DATE of the classified information in the criminal investigation file \u2013 the case was reregistered with a view to an investigation in the light of the recently available data .","This investigation appears to be still pending before the domestic authorities .","The main facts of these cases concerning the crackdown on antigovernment demonstrations DATE are similar to those presented in PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] ( ORG . GPE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ORG DATE ( extracts ) ) .","DATE a violent crackdown took place against demonstrators who were occupying FAC and other areas of GPE and protesting against the newly installed government . The armed intervention of military forces , followed by the arrival of CARDINAL of miners transported to GPE ( mainly from the LOC mining region ) to take part in the crackdown on the demonstrators , resulted in CARDINAL civilian casualties , of whom CARDINAL were killed and CARDINAL injured or arrested . The applicants in the abovementioned cases participated in the events , during which they allegedly suffered injuries . No relevant medical documents were appended to the case file .","Separate criminal investigations into the crimes committed during the violent repression of the demonstrations were opened in DATE by several ORG offices in GPE under different files . Subsequently , these cases were joined and , in DATE , jurisdiction over them was relinquished in favour of the military prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and Justice . During the military prosecutor \u2019s investigations , several decisions were adopted in which decisions were reversed , charges were disjoined and jurisdiction relinquished to other domestic authorities . The applicants joined the domestic criminal proceedings as civil parties .","A decision not to bring a prosecution was adopted on DATE . An appeal lodged against that decision was dismissed on DATE by the head prosecutor of the relevant section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and ORG . Those decisions have been upheld in several judgments of ORG and ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147868","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GHASABYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","NORP The applicant PERSON ( hereafter , the first applicant ) owned a flat which measured QUANTITY m. and was situated at CARDINAL FAC , GPE . The remaining CARDINAL applicants \u2013 the first applicant \u2019s family members who resided in the same flat DATE allege that they enjoyed a right of use in respect of that flat .","On DATE the Government adopted Decree no . PERSON , approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of LOC of GPE to be taken for ORG needs for town - planning purposes , having a total area of CARDINAL sq . m. Byuzand Street was listed as CARDINAL of the streets falling within such expropriation zones . A special body , ORG ( hereafter , the Agency ) was set up to manage the implementation of the construction projects .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s flat was valued upon the request of the ORG by a valuation organisation . The market value of the flat was estimated at MONEY ( ORG ) .","By a letter of DATE the ORG informed the first applicant that his flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at FAC , and offered him this amount as compensation . An additional sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL was offered to him as a financial incentive if he signed an agreement within DATE .","By a letter of DATE the first applicant expressed his consent to sign an agreement but disagreed with the amount of compensation offered .","On DATE the ORG lodged a claim against the first applicant , seeking to oblige him to sign an agreement on the taking of his flat for ORG needs and to have him and his family members evicted .","On DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE granted the ORG \u2019s claim , ordering the first applicant to sign an agreement for the total amount of FAC and that he and his family members be evicted .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal . The remaining CARDINAL applicants allege that they unsuccessfully sought to be recognised as parties to the proceedings , despite the fact that they enjoyed a right of use in respect of the flat in question and the fact that their eviction was ordered by ORG .","On DATE ORG granted the ORG \u2019s claim upon appeal and dismissed that of the first applicant .","On DATE the applicants jointly lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG examined the appeal only in its part concerning the first applicant and decided to dismiss it .","On an unspecified date the awarded sum was paid to the applicants ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144647","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"YOUNG v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national born in DATE . He is currently detained at FAC . He is represented by Mr C. MarshFinch , counsel , of ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160994","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ARBA\u010cIAUSKIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE Region .","In DATE ORG enacted ORG which provided that residents of rural areas had the right to acquire land for individual farming ( asmeninio \u016bkio \u017eem\u0117 ) from the ORG , in accordance with the requirements set out in the relevant legal instruments ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband submitted a request to ORG of the Vilnius Region to buy from LOC of land for individual farming in the village of GPE .","On DATE the Government adopted a decision establishing , inter alia , the order of allocation of land for individual farming . The decision instructed regional and municipal authorities to delimit plots of land to be assigned for individual farming and to prepare the necessary documents for their allocation to individual claimants .","On DATE , in court proceedings instituted by the Government , ORG ordered ORG of the Vilnius Region to implement the aforementioned decision of the Government .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision on the allocation of QUANTITY of land for individual farming in LOC . The decision provided a list of individuals who were entitled to buy plots of land from the ORG . It indicated the amount of land to which each listed individual was entitled but did not specify actual plots . The applicant was included in that list and entitled to buy QUANTITY of land .","On DATE the ORG entered into force in respect of GPE .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) approved the land allocation plan ( \u017eem\u0117s reformos \u017eem\u0117tvarkos projektas ) for the PERSON cadastral area ( this area comprised several villages in LOC ) . The ORG approved the delimitation of plots of land in that territory ( patvirtino suformuot\u0173 \u017eem\u0117s sklyp\u0173 plotus bei ribas ) and instructed Matininkai , a surveyor company , to prepare the necessary documents in order to allocate the plots to individual claimants and to formalise their rights of land ownership or use .","In DATE the applicant and her husband submitted a request to the ORG to consider as valid their previous request of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and to allocate a plot of land in the village of GPE to them , for the nominal price of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE the ORG approved a list of individuals who were using land for individual farming in the LOC cadastral area . The applicant was included on the list as using QUANTITY of land in the village of GPE . However , as submitted by the applicant and not disputed by the Government , the applicant had not been using this land since no land had been provided to her at that time .","NORP In DATE the ORG decided that it was necessary to amend the land allocation plan of the GPE cadastral area in order to take into account requests for restitution in natura which had been submitted in respect of land there . It ordered PERSON to amend the delimitation and allocation of plots accordingly and to prepare all the necessary documents by DATE .","NORP In DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant and her husband petitioned the ORG and ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the NLS \u201d ) , stating that they had still not received the land to which they were entitled , and requesting that such land be provided to them without further delay . They were informed that the preparation of the land allocation plan in the area was ongoing .","In DATE the applicant and her husband lodged a claim against the ORG before ORG . They complained that the QUANTITY of land assigned to them in DATE had still not been provided , that they had been unable to receive any information from the ORG about the ongoing land reform in LOC , and that they had not been given the opportunity to participate in the planning of the reform , unlike other residents of the region . They requested that the court oblige the ORG to enforce the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) without further delay .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . However , on CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and annulled the judgment of the first - instance court . ORG noted that the applicant had been entitled to buy QUANTITY of land by the decision of DATE and that she had been included on the list of land users in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , so on these grounds the ORG was obliged to allocate a specific plot of land to the applicant . The court ordered the ORG to carry out the necessary administrative procedures to identify and delimit a plot of land for the applicant ( atlikti administracines proced\u016bras , susijusias su \u017eem\u0117s sklypo suprojektavimu bei jo rib\u0173 nustatymu ) . However , ORG denied the applicant \u2019s request to set a precise deadline for the ORG to carry out said actions , noting that no such deadlines were provided in the legislation and that there was no objective possibility to do so due to the complexity of the land reform .","In DATE and DATE the bailiff in charge of the enforcement of ORG judgment submitted several notices to the ORG , urging it to enforce the judgment immediately .","On DATE the ORG approved an amended land allocation plan of the LOC cadastral area . It ordered GPE , a surveyor company , to mark the delimited plots ( pa\u017eenklinti vietoje ) and to prepare the necessary documents for formalising individual rights of ownership or use .","NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant and her husband submitted several requests to the ORG and the ORG , inquiring about the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and requesting information about the implementation of the land reform in the GPE cadastral area .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that it had instructed PERSON to identify a specific plot of CARDINAL hectares for the applicant from the stock of available State land by DATE .","In DATE and DATE the applicant submitted complaints to the ORG concerning the continuing non - enforcement of ORG judgment . She did not receive any response .","NORP In DATE the applicant asked ORG to clarify its judgment of CARDINAL DATE and to set a concrete deadline for the ORG to enforce it . However , the court denied the applicant \u2019s request , noting that it was not authorised to clarify its previous judgments in a way that would alter their content .","NORP In DATE the ORG again amended the land allocation plan of the GPE cadastral area and instructed PERSON to complete the planning by DATE .","In DATE the applicant submitted CARDINAL requests to the ORG , asking to be provided with a plot of land by DATE and requesting information as to whether she had been included in the amended land allocation plan as a candidate to receive land . DATE the ORG informed the applicant that the planning in the LOC cadastral area had to be completed by DATE and that the applicant would be included as a candidate of the seventh priority rank to receive land there .","In DATE the ORG urged the ORG to examine why the list of candidates to receive land in the GPE cadastral area had not been compiled in time with a view to ensuring the enforcement of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","In DATE the ORG again amended the land allocation plan in the GPE cadastral area . It instructed PERSON to complete the list of candidates to receive land in that territory by CARDINAL DATE and to complete the planning by DATE .","DATE the applicant and her husband requested that ORG order interim measures against the ORG to prevent it from distributing land in the LOC cadastral area to candidates of the eighth and lower priority ranks . The court dismissed their request , noting that interim measures could only be ordered before the court \u2019s judgment is adopted , while after its adoption the ORG was already under an obligation to enforce the judgment and thus interim measures were unnecessary .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request and clarified its judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The court held that the ORG was under the obligation to include the applicant on the list of candidates to be provided with land in the GPE cadastral area by DATE and to carry out the remaining administrative procedures necessary for the allocation of a specific plot of land of QUANTITY to the applicant within DATE of the completion of the land allocation plan of the LOC cadastral area .","In DATE the applicant asked the ORG to inform her whether ORG judgment of DATE had been enforced . She also requested that they provide her with the list of candidates to receive land in the LOC cadastral area . She did not receive any response .","In DATE the ORG approved the amended land allocation plan of the LOC cadastral area and the list of candidates to receive plots of land in that territory . The applicant was not included on that list .","DATE the ORG approved the list of individuals in the eldership ( seni\u016bnija ) of PERSON who were not using the land which had been assigned to them for individual farming . The list indicated that the applicant had been assigned CARDINAL hectares of land and that she had not been using them . As submitted by the Government , the purpose of that list was to determine the location of the plots to be allocated \u2013 those individuals who were not using any specific land would be provided with plots from the ORG stock of vacant land .","In DATE the ORG informed the applicant and her husband that the land allocation plan of the LOC cadastral area was again being amended , and that the list of candidates to receive land in that territory would be compiled after the completion of the planning when the available land has been identified . The ORG noted that the applicant had been included in the preliminary list as a candidate of the seventh priority rank .","In DATE the bailiff urged the ORG to immediately enforce ORG judgment of DATE . In DATE the bailiff concluded that the judgment had not been enforced . In DATE the GPE City ORG satisfied the bailiff \u2019s request and ordered the ORG to pay a fine of LTL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) for non - enforcement of the court \u2019s judgment , as well as to enforce that judgment within DATE . However , in DATE ORG annulled the first - instance decision , noting that the ORG had already included the applicant on the list of candidates to receive a plot of land ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which meant that the judgment of ORG had been partly enforced and thus there were no grounds to order a fine .","On DATE the ORG approved the list of candidates to receive land in the eldership of PERSON , in the GPE cadastral area . The applicant was included in this list as a candidate of the seventh priority rank .","The ORG further amended the land allocation plan in the GPE cadastral area several times in DATE and DATE , setting new deadlines for the surveyor company to complete the planning .","In DATE the bailiff asked the ORG to provide information as to whether the land allocation plan had been completed and whether the necessary administrative procedures had been carried out to provide the applicant with a plot of CARDINAL hectares . In DATE the bailiff declared that ORG judgment had not been enforced and decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings . The applicant appealed against the bailiff \u2019s decision and in DATE the GPE City ORG allowed the appeal and ordered the bailiff to continue the enforcement . That judgment was subsequently upheld by ORG .","In DATE , after an administrative reform , the ORG was abolished and its obligations were transferred to the ORG .","NORP In DATE , during a meeting between NORP and candidates of the seventh priority rank , the applicant was offered CARDINAL plots of land , amounting to a total of QUANTITY . She accepted the offer .","In DATE the ORG approved the plan of the GPE cadastral area prepared by PERSON , which delimited plots of land to be allocated to candidates of the first - to - fourth priority ranks .","On DATE the ORG held a meeting of candidates of the seventh priority rank . The applicant was offered CARDINAL plots of land ( different from the CARDINAL which had been previously offered to her \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above ) amounting to a total of QUANTITY hectares . She confirmed that she was aware of any applicable restrictions on the use of those plots and agreed to the offer .","On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to the ORG , stating that the CARDINAL plots offered to her were too far from her home , that they could not be reached by road and that they were swampland ( u\u017epelk\u0117j\u0119 ) , and therefore unsuitable for farming . She requested that the ORG give her the plots of land which were offered to her in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) or other plots of equivalent quality . However , DATE the applicant notified the ORG that she would accept the CARDINAL offered plots .","On DATE the ORG approved the land allocation plan of the GPE cadastral area and a list of CARDINAL individuals who had been allocated specific plots of land . The list indicated that the applicant had been assigned the CARDINAL plots of land offered to her on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE ORG identified that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL plots assigned to the applicant included QUANTITY of forestland . As a result , that part of the plot could not be transferred to the applicant and had to be returned to the State .","DATE ORG assessed the value of the CARDINAL plots ( after excluding the QUANTITY of forestland ) . It calculated that their total nominal value , assessed in accordance with LAW adopted by the Government in DATE ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) , was EUR CARDINAL , whereas their total market value was ORG CARDINAL .","In DATE the ORG informed the applicant that the preliminary market value of the CARDINAL plots was EUR CARDINAL , and that she would subsequently be informed of the final price .","In DATE the ORG amended the land allocation plan for the eldership of PERSON , indicating that the total area which had been allocated to the applicant amounted to QUANTITY .","In DATE the NLS informed the applicant that she had to pay a fee of LAW for registering the CARDINAL plots in the property register , and that that fee would be subsequently refunded to her in the price of the land .","In DATE the Government informed the ORG that the ORG had identified the remaining vacant ORG land in the LOC cadastral area and that the applicant would be included as a candidate to receive CARDINAL hectares of farmland in a future land plan . In DATE the Government further informed the ORG that the ORG had prepared draft agreements to enable the applicant to purchase the aforementioned CARDINAL plots amounting to QUANTITY .","In DATE the applicant and her husband submitted a complaint against the ORG to ORG ( hereinafter DATE \u201c the Commission \u201d ) . They complained that they had not received any response to their repeated requests for information , sent in DATE and DATE ( see paragraph DATE above ) . The Commission partly upheld the complaint and ordered the ORG to respond within DATE to CARDINAL requests submitted in DATE .","On DATE the applicant and her husband submitted a complaint to ORG , requesting that it order the ORG to comply with the ORG \u2019s decision . They also claimed non - pecuniary damages resulting from the ORG \u2019s deliberate refusal to fulfil its obligations .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . However , on DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and ordered the ORG to provide the applicant and her husband with a satisfactory response to their request of DATE . The court also noted that the applicant and her husband had repeatedly asked the ORG for information about the implementation of the land reform and about the plot assigned to them , that they had petitioned several ORG institutions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , and that the lengthy non - enforcement of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as well as the ORG \u2019s evasiveness concerning their requests , had caused them inconvenience and negative feelings . Thus , the court awarded the applicant and her husband non - pecuniary damages of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) each .","In DATE the applicant and her husband submitted a complaint to PERSON , stating that they still had not been given the land assigned to them in DATE . In DATE the PERSON concluded that the complaint was well - founded , and recommended ORG provide assistance to the ORG in enforcing the decision of LOC of DATE .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s husband again petitioned the PERSON , stating that her previous recommendation had not been implemented . He noted that ORG had passed on the PERSON \u2019s conclusion to the ORG , but the latter institution had stated that it was not allowed to influence the decisions of county administrations . The applicant \u2019s husband also complained that he and the applicant still had not been included on the list of candidates to receive land in the GPE cadastral area and that the land in that territory was being distributed to candidates of lower priority ranks .","DATE a group of residents of GPE , including the applicant \u2019s husband , submitted a complaint to the parliamentary subcommittee on the rule of law , complaining about the actions of the ORG in the implementation of the land reform . The residents claimed that the only individuals who had received land in the GPE cadastral area had been employees of local institutions and that the land was not being distributed in compliance with the approved priority ranks .","DATE the applicant \u2019s husband also petitioned ORG , asking what assistance had been provided to the ORG following the Parliamentary PERSON \u2019s recommendation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE the applicant and her husband requested that the police of the GPE Region launch a criminal investigation into the actions of the ORG . They alleged that the ORG had deliberately refused to enforce ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( piktybi\u0161kai nevykd\u0117 teismo sprendimo ) , in violation of ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , and that the land in the GPE cadastral area had been distributed to civil servants working at the ORG and its subordinate institutions , contrary to approved land allocation plans .","Subsequently the applicant and her husband requested that the district prosecutor of the GPE Region suspend any further actions of the ORG concerning the allocation of land in the LOC cadastral area , but their request was denied .","NORP In DATE the district prosecutor of ORG decided to discontinue the criminal investigation into the ORG , concluding that no crime had been committed . The applicant and her husband appealed against that decision . The Prosecutor General satisfied their appeal and ordered a different prosecutor in LOC to continue the investigation .","In DATE and DATE the applicant and her husband submitted written testimonies to the district prosecutor and were recognised as victims .","In DATE the district prosecutor decided to discontinue the criminal investigation against the ORG on the grounds that no crime had been committed . The prosecutor held that the land reform in the LOC cadastral area had been prolonged due to reasons outside the control of the ORG , such as requests of former owners of land to receive restitution in natura . The decision also stated that the preparation of the land plan was ongoing and the applicant had been included in the preliminary list of candidates . Lastly , the prosecutor did not find any evidence that the land had been unlawfully distributed to candidates of lower priority ranks ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139908","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PITSAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Six month period);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants in the present cases are NORP nationals . CARDINAL of the applicants in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) reside in GPE , the applicant in NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) resides in GPE , and the remaining applicants live in various districts of GPE , as specified in the attached table ( Appendix I ) .","The applicants are close relatives of persons who disappeared in GPE DATE allegedly after being abducted from their homes by groups of unidentified men . The applicants believed that the abductors were NORP federal servicemen since they were wearing camouflage uniforms , had NORP features and spoke unaccented NORP . Armed with machine guns , the culprits broke into the applicants\u2019 homes , searched the LOC , checked the identity documents of the applicants\u2019 relatives and took the latter away in military vehicles , such as armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) , ORG minivans or ORG lorries . Only a few of the vehicles had official registration plates . In a number of cases the registration numbers were obscured with mud . None of the applicants have had news of their missing relatives since .","NORP The abductions took place in various districts of GPE and were primarily carried out during curfew hours late at TIME and TIME . In some cases the applicants reported that a special operation had been conducted by NORP troops in the area . Indeed , in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . PERSON ) , PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , the investigative authorities officially acknowledged that a special operation had been carried out in the area at the time of the events .","The applicants reported the incidents to the law - enforcement authorities , and official investigations were opened . The proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed . From the documents submitted it appears that the relevant ORG authorities were unable to identify the ORG servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions .","In their observations the Government did not challenge the allegations as presented by the applicants . However , they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that ORG agents had been involved in the abductions .","The facts relevant to each individual case are summarised below . The personal data of the applicants and their disappeared relatives are summarised in the attached table ( Appendix I ) .","At the material time the first , second , third and fourth applicants and Mr PERSON lived in ORG , LOC , GPE . PERSON was working as deputy head of the ORG village administration .","On DATE a special operation was carried out in ORG . The village was placed under curfew and CARDINAL roadblocks were set up in the vicinity . A military commander \u2019s office was located in the village .","According to the applicants , at TIME on DATE CARDINAL or CARDINAL men armed with sub - machine guns broke into their house . The intruders , who were wearing camouflage uniforms and masks , arrived in APCs ( armoured personnel carriers ) and ORG vehicles . CARDINAL of them , who was unmasked , was of NORP appearance . The men , who spoke unaccented NORP , bound and gagged the first , second , third and fourth applicants , then beat PERSON unconscious and took him away in one of their vehicles .","There has been no news of PERSON since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of the contents of criminal case file no . DATE ( comprising CARDINAL volumes ) on the abduction of PERSON . They noted that in accordance with LAW , the documents containing personal information on the servicemen who had taken part in counterterrorist operations were not furnished to the ORG . The information submitted can be summarised as follows .","On DATE the first applicant reported her husband \u2019s abduction to ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office , stating that at TIME on DATE unidentified masked men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house , gagged and bound the family members with duct tape , then had beaten her husband up and taken him away .","On DATE ORG prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW ( abduction ) .","On DATE the first applicant was questioned by the investigator . She provided a detailed account of the events , stating that she and her minor children had been bound and gagged by the abductors , who had been armed with sub - machine guns .","On DATE Mr N. Sh . , the applicants\u2019 neighbour , made a statement to the investigation . He said that at TIME on DATE , CARDINAL of ORG sons had come over and told him that armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house , tied them up and taken his father away .","On DATE an investigator examined the crime scene . Samples of duct tape with fingerprints were collected as evidence .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the investigator ordered an expert examination of the fingerprints on the duct tape collected from the crime scene .","On DATE the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .","According to the expert \u2019s report submitted on DATE , the fingerprints found on the duct tape were not of good quality and could not , therefore , be used for identification purposes .","On DATE , in response to an inquiry by the first applicant , the investigator informed her that the investigation had been suspended but the search for her husband was in progress .","On DATE the deputy prosecutor of ORG issued a progress report on the investigation . Having summarised the main steps taken by the investigators , the deputy prosecutor noted , inter alia , that there had been a \u201c lack of cooperation between the authorities responsible for the operative search measures \u201d .","On DATE the investigation was resumed and the applicants were informed thereof .","On DATE the investigation was suspended .","On DATE ORG district prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature , and ordered the investigators to carry out additional investigative measures .","In DATE an investigator again questioned the applicants and other witnesses .","On DATE the investigation was resumed and the investigators were ordered to take basic steps . The investigation is still pending .","It appears from the case file that throughout the relevant period the applicants wrote to various ORG authorities complaining about the abduction , asking for assistance in the search , inquiring about the progress of the investigation and complaining of the delays . Their complaints included the following : a letter of DATE to ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office ; a letter of DATE to ORG ; a letter of DATE to ORG ; and a letter of CARDINAL DATE to ORG investigations department .","At the material time the first CARDINAL applicants were living with Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON ( the PERSON brothers ) in PERSON village , GPE , GPE . Their family house consisted of CARDINAL separate dwellings sharing a common courtyard . CARDINAL of the dwellings was occupied by the first applicant , while the other , which had CARDINAL different entrances , was occupied by the other applicants .","At TIME on DATE CARDINAL men of NORP appearance driving CARDINAL military ORG vehicles broke into the applicants\u2019 courtyard . They were armed , using portable radios and wearing green camouflage uniforms . They spoke unaccented NORP . CARDINAL masked men entered into the house . They bound the hands of the first , second and eighth applicants and ordered them to lie down on the floor . After searching the house , the intruders beat up PERSON and PERSON , seized their passports and those of their spouses and took the CARDINAL brothers away . Their vehicles passed freely through a checkpoint on the outskirts of the village .","Later that night , the same group of men broke into the house of Mr PERSON , a neighbour . They were looking for his son , PERSON Dalambek PERSON , who allegedly belonged to an illegal armed group and who had left DATE prior to the events . The applicants heard the men asking someone over the radio \u201c We did not find the guilty one , CARDINAL innocent men . What should we do ? \u201d and the reply , \u201c Never mind , take them . \u201d","Isa and PERSON have been missing ever since .","The Government submitted copies of part of the contents of criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of PERSON and PERSON ( comprising CARDINAL volumes ) . They noted that in accordance with LAW of LAW , the documents containing personal information on the servicemen who had taken part in counterterrorist operations were not furnished to the ORG . The information submitted can be summarised as follows .","According to the ORG , the first applicant reported the abduction of her sons by ORG servicemen to PERSON on DATE . According to the documents submitted by the applicants , they reported the abduction to PERSON on DATE . The applicants pointed out that the brothers had been abducted from their home at TIME by law - enforcement officers wearing camouflage uniforms and driving CARDINAL ORG vehicles . The applicants stressed that the abductors had threatened to kill them and had passed unhindered through the checkpoint .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW ( kidnapping ) .","On DATE investigators questioned the first applicant , who stated that at TIME on DATE armed men in camouflage uniforms had burst into the courtyard of their family house . She had thought that they had come , as they had previously done , to search for a certain Mr PERSON , a member of illegal armed groups , and the applicants\u2019 neighbour and relative . However , the armed men had taken away PERSON and PERSON .","On DATE the second applicant informed the investigators that at TIME on DATE she had heard some noise and thought that ORG servicemen were again searching for PERSON . He was wanted for his involvement in illegal armed groups ; therefore , servicemen had often checked his house . This time , however , they broke into the second applicant \u2019s house . They bound her hands , ordered her to lie down on the floor and then took her husband away . She managed to unbind her hands and went outside where she learnt that the servicemen had also taken away PERSON . The second applicant told the investigators that PERSON and PERSON might have been abducted because of their kinship with PERSON .","On DATE a local police officer , Mr ORG , was questioned . He stated that he had learnt about the PERSON ORG abduction DATE . He had asked their relatives to immediately lodge an official complaint , but they had refused to do so out of fear that an official inquiry would only worsen the situation . They had believed that an official complaint would make the ORG return impossible and had hoped that both brothers would be released once questioned and checked . He also stated that he had gone to the checkpoint and asked for information concerning the passage of the ORG vehicles . The police officers from LOC who had been manning the checkpoint at the time had explained to him that the abductors had not gone through the checkpoint but refused to confirm that in writing .","Investigators examined the crime scene on DATE . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the second and fifth applicants were granted victim status . The first applicant was granted victim status in DATE .","On DATE the investigators asked the ORG district department of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to inform them whether the PERSON brothers had been detained by their officers . A negative reply was given .","The investigation was suspended on DATE and resumed on DATE .","The investigation was suspended again on DATE and then resumed on DATE .","DATE . On DATE a police officer of the PERSON informed the investigators that in DATE the police officers from LOC who had been manning the roadblock on the PERSON - to - Baku motorway had been transferred back to their region .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again ; it was resumed on DATE and suspended again on DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s Office of the Amur Region informed the investigators that it was impossible to identify and question the police officers who had been manning the checkpoint in ORG , as all of the relevant documents had been destroyed .","It appears that at some point at DATE the investigation was resumed , but was suspended again on DATE . Subsequently , the investigation was suspended and resumed CARDINAL more times .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor criticised the progress of the investigation and ordered that the proceedings be resumed and additional steps be taken .","The investigation is still pending .","NORP Throughout the relevant period the applicants wrote to various authorities complaining of the abduction , asking for assistance , and inquiring about the investigation and its progress . They furnished the following letters to the Court : a letter dated CARDINAL DATE to ORG ; a letter dated DATE to the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office ; a letter dated DATE to PERSON ; a letter dated DATE to the military prosecutor \u2019s office of military unit no . CARDINAL ; and a letter dated DATE to the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office .","At the material time the applicant and her husband , Mr GPE , lived in flat no . CARDINAL of a block located in FAC in GPE . At TIME on DATE CARDINAL servicemen broke into the flat to carry out an identity check . They had previously searched the adjacent flats and exploded a grenade near the entrance to the block . Some of the men spoke unaccented NORP , while others spoke NORP . The servicemen were wearing military uniforms , caps and helmets with torches . They were carrying machine guns and shields . After a quick search of the flat , the men pulled Mr GPE \u2019s jacket over his head , dragged him outside , put him in one of their CARDINAL white PERSON minivans and drove away .","The applicant has not seen Mr GPE since .","The Government submitted copies of part of the contents of criminal case file no . DATE on the abduction of GPE . They noted that in accordance with LAW , the documents containing personal information on the servicemen who had taken part in counterterrorist operations were not furnished to the ORG . The information submitted can be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant reported the abduction to ORG in PERSON . She stated that her husband had been abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms and helmets , who had broken into their flat having arrived in CARDINAL white PERSON minivans without registration plates .","On DATE the Leninskiy ROVD forwarded the applicant \u2019s allegations to the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the applicant reported the abduction of her husband to the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office and provided a detailed description of the events .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW ( abduction ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s neighbours , PERSON , PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON . , informed the investigators that at TIME on DATE between CARDINAL and QUANTITY armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived at their block and searched several flats . They had detonated a grenade and forced open the door to one of the flats . After having found GPE in the applicant \u2019s flat , they had taken him away in CARDINAL white PERSON vehicles .","On DATE the applicant related the details of the events to the investigation and added that she had learnt from a neighbour that one of the ORG vehicles had had on the front an official registration plate containing the digits PERSON .","On DATE investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE an investigator sent requests for information to various law - enforcement agencies .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","DATE . On DATE the investigator asked ORG of the Interior to provide information about vehicles with registration numbers containing the digits PERSON .","On DATE the NORP FSB informed the investigator that DATE , PERSON had been an active member of illegal armed groups . They also stated that they had not detained him and had no information about his whereabouts .","On DATE the President of ORG wrote to the military prosecutor of ORG ( \u201c the UGA \u201d ) and the head of ORG . The relevant parts of the letter read as follows :","\u201c [ We ] have been receiving new complaints from residents of GPE concerning the unlawful actions of officers of law - enforcement agencies ... during the conduct of special and targeted operations in populated areas of GPE .","Thus , on DATE [ GPE ] ... was beaten up and taken away to an unknown destination by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms .","According to eyewitnesses , the arrest [ of the applicant \u2019s husband ] was carried out in a very offensive manner , without the necessary procedural norms or an arrest warrant . It was carried out by men who had arrived in CARDINAL PERSON vehicles . The neighbours had memorised part of CARDINAL of the registration numbers \u2013 CARDINAL ORG .","In addition , during the arrest special weapons were used , namely , stun grenades . CARDINAL of them failed to go off and was later handed over to officers of FAC as material evidence .","During CARDINAL - on - CARDINAL meetings , the eyewitnesses affirmed that the arrest had been carried out by ORG officers .","Having regard to the above , I ask you to assist in establishing the whereabouts of ORG and identifying the persons who carried out the arrest . \u201d","The investigation was suspended on DATE . It was resumed on DATE , when the investigators sent new information requests and questioned the witnesses again .","On DATE the NORP Ministry of the Interior informed the investigators that no PERSON vehicles with CARDINAL registration numbers were listed in their database .","On DATE at the Leninskiy ROVD the investigators seized the CARDINAL grenades which the perpetrators had left at the crime scene and which witnesses had then found and handed over to the police .","On DATE the investigator ordered a ballistic expert examination of the grenades .","The copies of documents from the criminal case file submitted by the Government did not contain any further information on the progress of the investigation .","DATE . The applicant complained to the domestic courts , under LAW of LAW , of procrastination of the investigation ( the complaint was allowed on DATE ) . She also applied for access to the investigation file ( the request was rejected on DATE ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint concerning the authorities\u2019 failure to inform the applicant \u2019s lawyer of the progress of the investigation . On DATE this decision was upheld on appeal .","In DATE the applicant brought civil proceedings seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of her husband \u2019s abduction and the lack of an effective investigation into the incident .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim as unsubstantiated . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the NORP federal forces conducted a special operation in the settlement of PERSON . They set up military checkpoints around the settlement and blocked the passage of vehicles through the area .","TIME , the applicants were in their homes located on the outskirts of the settlement when they heard the arrival military vehicles . Groups of CARDINAL men in camouflage uniforms with machine guns broke into their houses . Some of them were wearing masks and\/or helmets . Most of the unmasked men were of NORP appearance and spoke unaccented NORP . According to the applicants , they would be able to identify some of the intruders .","The men subjected the applicants and their relatives to insults and beatings and searched the houses . Then they beat the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL male relatives , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , bound their hands and put them in APCs . CARDINAL APCs were seen that day in the settlement ; CARDINAL of them were used for the abduction . PERSON was taken in an ORG with registration number CARDINAL . The men opened fire and drove away in the direction of the town centre and FAC . They passed freely through the checkpoints , whereas the applicants were not allowed to do so .","The applicants subsequently found out that PERSON had been held at the ORG district department of the interior ( \u201c the ROVD \u201d ) and PERSON at LOC , but this information has not been officially confirmed .","According to the applicants , the servicemen belonged to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and the special unit of ORG of ORG ( \u041e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0431\u0440\u0438\u0433\u0430\u0434\u0430 ORG ) and they arrested the ORG relatives on suspicion of active membership of illegal armed groups .","The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . DATE on the abduction of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicants complained to the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office of the abduction of their relatives by NORP servicemen .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office opened joined criminal case no . CARDINAL into the abduction of the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL relatives under LAW ( abduction ) .","On DATE the first , fifth , ninth and thirteenth applicants stated that on DATE armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived in APCs , broken into their houses and taken their relatives away . They also stated that CARDINAL of the APCs had had registration number CARDINAL .","On DATE the eleventh applicant made a similar statement .","DATE the first , fifth and ninth applicants were granted victim status and questioned .","NORP The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE .","In DATE and DATE the investigator examined the crime scenes . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the eleventh applicant was granted victim status and questioned .","The investigation was suspended again DATE and then resumed on DATE .","In DATE and DATE the investigators again questioned the applicants and renewed their information requests to various law - enforcement agencies , asking whether they had detained or arrested the applicants\u2019 relatives .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed and suspended several more times , and is still pending .","Throughout the proceedings the applicants complained to various authorities about the abduction and requested assistance in their search . They wrote in particular to the Special Envoy of the NORP President in GPE for rights and freedoms in DATE ; to ORG and the military prosecutor \u2019s office of military unit no . DATE ; to the LOC district prosecutor \u2019s office in DATE and DATE ; to the military prosecutor \u2019s office of military unit no . DATE in DATE ; to the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office in DATE ; to the military prosecutor \u2019s office of military unit no . DATE and to ORG in DATE ; and to ORG in DATE .","On DATE Mr PERSON ( in the documents submitted also referred to as Mr PERSON ) , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and their respective families had gathered at PERSON house in PERSON . At TIME several vehicles pulled over at the gate and a group of men in camouflage uniforms with pistols , machine guns and shields got out . All but CARDINAL were wearing masks . The men opened fire at PERSON and shot him in the leg . Then they dragged him into one of the vehicles .","The men then broke into the house and ordered everyone in unaccented NORP to lie on the floor . They hit those who did not obey . Meanwhile , the sixth applicant walked outside to the backyard and saw PERSON facing the wall with his hands above his head and CARDINAL of the intruders kicking him in the leg . Shortly thereafter , the men put PERSON and PERSON in the same vehicle and drove them down FAC towards the town centre . This vehicle was followed by a convoy of CARDINAL vehicles , including an ORG , a ORG , a white ORG car , a white NORP car and an armoured infantry carrier . The applicants tried to follow the convoy but were unsuccessful .","NORP On DATE an officer of ORG told the sixth applicant in a private conversation that the intruders belonged to the CARDINALth special military unit based in LOC .","The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of documents from criminal case file no . DATE on the abduction of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( comprising CARDINAL volumes ) . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicants reported the abduction of their CARDINAL relatives by armed men in camouflage uniforms to the head of the LOC administration . The ORG complaint was forwarded to the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL into the abduction of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , under LAW ( abduction ) .","On DATE the investigator corrected the decision of DATE because the name of CARDINAL of the applicants\u2019 abducted relatives was wrongly mentioned as \u201c Ibragim PERSON \u201d . It was changed to \u201c PERSON \u201d .","NORP The majority of the witness statements submitted by the Government were incomplete as there were pages missing . From the documents submitted it appears that on CARDINAL DATE the thirteenth and fourteenth applicants informed the investigator that in TIME DATE a group of armed men had broken into their house , shot PERSON in the leg and beaten up PERSON and PERSON . They had then put all CARDINAL men in a grey UAZ vehicle , and driven away accompanied by CARDINAL ORG cars . On DATE the first and sixth applicants made similar submissions .","On DATE the fourteenth applicant was questioned and granted victim status .","The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE .","On DATE the investigator sent information requests to various law - enforcement agencies concerning the whereabouts of the abducted men . Negative replies were given .","On CARDINAL May CARDINAL the first and sixth applicants were granted victim status .","NORP The investigation was suspended on CARDINAL DATE and then resumed on DATE .","NORP In DATE the investigator forwarded the same information requests and again questioned the same witnesses .","The investigation was suspended and resumed several more times . The criminal proceedings are still pending .","NORP Throughout the investigation the applicants wrote to various authorities requesting assistance in the search for their relatives and inquiring about the progress of the investigation . They complained to the military prosecutor \u2019s office of military unit no . CARDINAL in DATE ; to ORG of GPE and the military commander of FAC in DATE ; to ORG in DATE ; to various departments of ORG in DATE ; and to the LOC district investigations department in DATE .","NORP In reply to those inquiries the applicants were informed that investigative measures were being taken to establish the whereabouts of their relatives and that they would be kept abreast of the results of the investigation .","On DATE Mr PERSON and other relatives were sleeping in the applicant \u2019s house in ORG , LOC . At TIME CARDINAL APCs and a PERSON minivan arrived at the house . A group of CARDINAL masked armed men in camouflage uniforms and bullet - proof vests jumped out of the vehicles and entered the house . Speaking unaccented NORP , they checked PERSON \u2019s and his father \u2019s identity documents . They told the father that they were taking PERSON away for an identity check . The applicant asked them whether they had come from PERSON and whether they had been checking other villagers . The servicemen nodded in the affirmative . Then they put PERSON in the minivan and departed .","The applicant \u2019s brother , PERSON , immediately reported the abduction to the head of the local administration . Together they found out that the servicemen had driven to PERSON . According to the servicemen manning the checkpoint on the outskirts of ORG , a convoy of CARDINAL APCs and a minivan had passed through and driven in the direction of PERSON .","On DATE the applicant went with her relatives to the LOC military commander \u2019s office . An on - duty serviceman told her that an arrested man had been brought in and handed over to the district ORG . DATE the head of the district ORG told the applicant that PERSON would be questioned and then released in DATE . However , subsequently the officer denied having any knowledge of the events .","On DATE the relatives learnt that PERSON had been taken to GPE , where the main base of the NORP military in GPE was situated .","The applicant has not seen PERSON since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . DATE on the abduction of PERSON . The documents mainly cover the period after DATE because documents concerning the preceding period have been lost ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL on the abduction of PERSON under LAW ( abduction ) .","In DATE the investigation questioned several witnesses . The applicant and PERSON brother , Mr GPE , stated that on DATE a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms had arrived in CARDINAL APCs and a PERSON and burst into their house . They had searched their father and PERSON , and then put the latter in one of the APCs and driven away . A neighbour , PERSON , who lived opposite the applicant and had witnessed the abduction through the window , made a similar submission .","On DATE the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .","It is not clear whether any measures were taken DATE given that the contents of the case file furnished by the Government do not cover the relevant period .","On DATE the head of the LOC investigations department found that criminal case file no . CARDINAL had been lost . He ordered that the case be restored under the same number and resumed . On DATE he instructed the investigators to take investigative measures .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .","In DATE and DATE the investigator sent requests for information concerning PERSON to different law - enforcement authorities in the region . The requests did not yield any relevant information .","The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE . It was suspended and resumed several more times . The proceedings are still pending .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , which was forwarded to ORG . On DATE the latter requested that the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office speed up the investigation and keep the applicant informed of the outcome . The applicant was informed thereof .","On DATE the applicant asked the PERSON investigation department to inform her about the progress of the investigation .","On DATE the applicant complained to the PERSON investigation department of the procrastination of the investigation and sought access to the criminal case file . Her request was granted on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained of the inadequacy of the investigation to the investigative authorities and requested that the proceedings be resumed .","At TIME on DATE a white VAZ-CARDINAL car with tinted windows arrived at the applicant \u2019s house in GPE , in the Zavodskoy district of ORG . CARDINAL more cars , a silver VAZ-CARDINAL , a NORP and a UAZ , parked in a neighbouring street . The cars had no registration numbers . CARDINAL to CARDINAL masked men in camouflage uniforms , armed with short - barreled machine guns , broke into the applicant \u2019s house . They spoke NORP . The applicant thought that the intruders were policemen conducting a sweeping operation . The men grabbed the applicant \u2019s son , Mr PERSON , dragged him into their VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle and quickly drove away .","During her ensuing search for her son , the applicant met PERSON PERSON , the commander of the CARDINALth division of the \u201c oil squadron \u201d ( \u043d\u0435\u0444\u0442\u0435\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043a ) of ORG of the Interior . The officer admitted that he had participated in the abduction and acknowledged that PERSON was being detained by his acquaintances from ORG . PERSON father informed the investigators about PERSON , but they refused to question him . PERSON and his ORG acquaintances were killed at DATE .","The applicant submitted that prior to his abduction PERSON had been arrested in a sweeping operation but subsequently released , as his participation in illegal armed groups had not been confirmed .","The applicant has not seen PERSON since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL concerning the abduction of PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .","On DATE Said PERSON \u2019s father reported the abduction to the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the Zavodskoy district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL on PERSON abduction under LAW of LAW ( abduction ) .","On DATE the investigator questioned several witnesses . The applicant , as well as PERSON father and wife , stated that at TIME a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house , grabbed PERSON and dragged him into a VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle , which had no registration numbers , and had driven away . The applicant \u2019s neighbours who had witnessed the abduction made similar submissions .","On DATE the investigator examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE victim status was granted to PERSON father and the applicant respectively .","The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE .","In DATE and DATE the investigators questioned several witnesses again . Their statements were similar to those previously given . The authorities also renewed their information requests , but received no relevant information .","The investigation was suspended on DATE and resumed on CARDINAL DATE . It was suspended and resumed several more times . The investigation is still pending .","NORP In DATE the applicant lodged numerous complaints with the PERSON district prosecutor \u2019s office , ORG and ORG . She was informed that investigative measures were being taken in order to establish the whereabouts of her son .","On DATE the applicant complained to the Zavodskoy district investigations department of the procrastination of the investigation and requested access to the investigation file . However , her request was refused and at DATE she challenged the refusal before ORG .","On DATE the applicant was granted access to the criminal case file . Consequently , on DATE the ORG discontinued the examination of her complaint as it considered that the matter had been resolved .","In TIME of DATE Mr Aydrus Saraliyev , Mr PERSON and PERSON ( also spelt as PERSON ) PERSON were staying at the house of their friends , brothers PERSON and PERSON ( also spelt PERSON ) , in ORG . A checkpoint had been set up nearby and a military commander \u2019s office was operating in the town centre . The town was under curfew .","At TIME a large group of men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the house in CARDINAL APCs and CARDINAL LOC lorries . The men were of NORP appearance and spoke unaccented NORP . They fired their machine guns , wounded PERSON , who was then taken outside , and ordered the CARDINAL guests to go outside . The intruders put plastic bags over the heads of the QUANTITY men and the PERSON brothers . Thereafter , they quickly searched the house , put the CARDINAL blindfolded men in a LOC lorry and took them to the town centre . The servicemen dropped off the PERSON brothers at the ORG temporary department of the interior ( \u201c the VOVD \u201d ) and then drove away to an unknown destination with the ORG relatives . On DATE PERSON was released and his brother PERSON was taken by the NORP officers to the district hospital for treatment .","NORP In DATE , PERSON and PERSON from the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office returned the passports of the CARDINAL disappeared men to the applicants . They explained that the passports had been handed over to them at ORG , where the applicants\u2019 relatives had been taken after their arrest . The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL concerning the abduction of Aydrus ORG , PERSON and PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicants complained to the NORP of their relatives\u2019 abduction .","On DATE a police officer from the VOVD reported to his superiors :","\u201c PERSON ... was delivered to [ the district hospital ] with the following diagnosis :","a penetrating gunshot wound in the lower third of the left thigh ... [ and ] a penetrating gunshot wound in the left shoulder ... \u201d","On DATE the head of the ORG sent several pieces of evidence to the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office , stating :","\u201c [ these are ] preliminary inquiry materials concerning the gunshot wounds of PERSON , [ and ] the abduction of PERSON , PERSON , and Saraliyev A.M. from the house at no . CARDINAL FAC , GPE district .","Enclosed : ...","Material evidence : CARDINAL bullets and shells from an AK ( PERSON machine gun ) calibre PERSON , a \u2018 Baykal\u2019 pistol without a cartridge , a grenade ORG , and passports in the names of Saraliyev A.M. , PERSON , and PERSON \"","On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL on the abduction of Aydrus ORG , PERSON and PERSON and the infliction of bodily injuries on PERSON .","On DATE the investigator questioned a number of witnesses . PERSON informed the investigator that in TIME of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON had had CARDINAL guests who had stayed that night in their family house . TIME at TIME he had been woken up by the sound of gunfire . TIME , armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into the house and ordered him to go outside and lie down in the courtyard . ORG and his CARDINAL guests had already been lying on the ground ; an ORG had been parked in the courtyard . A LOC lorry had then arrived and the armed men had forced them into it and driven away . TIME , the servicemen had pulled the lorry over , ordered him and his brother out of the vehicle and forced them into a UAZ vehicle , which had taken them to the premises of the UrusMartan VOVD . His brother \u2019s guests had been taken on to an unknown destination .","Islam PERSON stated that in the evening of CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL acquaintances of his had visited him and asked to spend TIME at the house because of the curfew . He had been woken up TIME at TIME by gunfire and had then been wounded in the arm and leg . Afterwards , a group of armed men had burst into the house and taken him , his guests and brother to the military commander \u2019s office . He and his brother had then been taken to the VOVD . Subsequently , ORG officers had transferred him to the district hospital .","The spouses of PERSON and PERSON , PERSON and Ms R.V. , stated that in the evening of QUANTITY DATE CARDINAL men had visited PERSON and spent TIME at their family house . At TIME DATE , a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had opened fire outside the house and had wounded ORG . They had then searched the house , forced the CARDINAL men into a LOC lorry and driven away .","Several neighbours also stated that at TIME on DATE they had seen a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrive at the GPE ORG house and open fire with machine guns .","In DATE the investigators questioned several police officers from ORG . CARDINAL of them , PERSON . , Mr PERSON and PERSON , stated that while on duty at TIME on DATE , they had been instructed by their superiors to take from a UAZ vehicle parked near the military commander \u2019s office CARDINAL arrested men , CARDINAL of whom had been wounded . They had taken both men to the ORG where the wounded man had been given first aid and then transferred to the district hospital .","Mr PERSON . , another officer from the PERSON , stated the following :","\u201c At TIME on DATE ... I was told that a wounded man had been brought in ... who was lying in the corridor ... His surname was PERSON ... In the corridor I was approached by the head of the PERSON staff , PERSON . , [ who ] handed me a grenade and a pistol without a cartridge . [ Mr PERSON . ] told me that this pistol and grenade were material evidence related to the wounded man , Mr PERSON . He said that [ someone ] had handed him the pistol and grenade . I do not know who gave those objects to PERSON . There were no accompanying documents for either the pistol or the grenade ...","TIME , TIME , the head of [ the traffic police office ] [ St. ] approached and said that he had come from somewhere [ where ] he had been given CARDINAL passports and had been asked to hand them over to me . He said that [ the passports ] also concerned the wounded man , PERSON . I do not know who gave those passports to the officer . Upon my instructions , the passports were examined and handed over to the investigation . According to the examination record , the passports belonged to PERSON , PERSON , and Mr PERSON . I did not see PERSON , PERSON , or ORG themselves , they were not brought to the VOVD \u201d .","The relevant part of PERSON . \u2019s statement to the investigators reads as follows :","\u201c I do not remember the exact date but , possibly , in TIME of DATE ... a special operation was planned for PERSON in the Urus - Martan district , and I went with a group of others to the military commander \u2019s office for a briefing . There was a LOC lorry parked nearby with masked men in camouflage uniforms . CARDINAL of them gave me a grenade and a pistol without a cartridge and told me that the grenade and pistol had been seized at the house of the persons who had been brought to the PERSON ... I took the pistol and grenade and gave them [ to Mr PERSON . ] ...","[ The man ] who gave me the pistol and grenade did not introduce himself and I did not ask [ his name ] either . \u201d","The relevant part of Mr St. \u2019s statement to the investigators reads as follows :","\u201c In DATE other offices from the [ VOVD ] and I were preparing to carry out a sweeping operation in the area near the military commander \u2019s office ... when [ an officer from the PERSON , PERSON . ] walked out of the office and gave me CARDINAL passports ... I handed the passports over [ to Mr PERSON . ] at the NORP \u201d .","On DATE the investigator examined the crime scene . Traces of blood and bullet holes were found and CARDINAL shells were collected .","On DATE the investigator suspended the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrators .","On DATE the applicants were granted victim status .","NORP The investigation was resumed on DATE and then suspended again on DATE .","On DATE the investigator requested that the ORG carry out operative search measures . On DATE the head of the police replied to the investigator \u2019s request as follows :","\u201c Following your request ... we inform you that operative search measures have been carried out to identify and arrest the perpetrators and establish the abducted men \u2019s whereabouts . In view of the fact that the abduction was carried out by military servicemen and they , as you know , do not report to the police , it has been impossible to identify them \u201d .","The investigation was resumed on CARDINAL DATE and then suspended on DATE .","On DATE the investigation ordered a forensic medical examination of PERSON wounds , questioned the witnesses again and sent information requests to various law - enforcement agencies .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed and suspended several more times and is still pending .","DATE and DATE the applicants complained to various law - enforcement agencies and requested assistance in the search for their relatives . They received no substantive information from the authorities , nor were they allowed access to the investigation file .","In DATE the second applicant brought proceedings against the investigators , complaining about the incomplete and protracted investigation , and requested access to the investigation file . On DATE the Urus - Martan District Court allowed the applicant \u2019s complaint in part ; it ordered the prosecutor \u2019s office to conduct a comprehensive and thorough investigation and stated that the applicants would be allowed access to the investigation file only after the completion of the criminal proceedings .","At TIME on DATE a blue PERSON minivan arrived at the first applicant \u2019s house in ORG . A group of CARDINAL men in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns broke into the house . All but CARDINAL of them were masked ; the unmasked men were of NORP appearance . After searching the house , the men took PERSON to the vehicle and drove him away . On DATE the applicants\u2019 neighbours saw a white VAZ-CARDINAL car , a UAZ car and a LOC lorry driving around with the PERSON minivan . None of the vehicles had registration plates . CARDINAL of the neighbours managed to follow the vehicles to the LOC sugar factory .","The applicants have not seen Apti PERSON since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL concerning the abduction of PERSON . The documents cover mainly the period DATE and DATE . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .","On DATE PERSON , PERSON mother , complained that her son had been abducted by servicemen in camouflage uniforms who had been driving vehicles without registration numbers .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE .","It appears from the criminal case file submitted by the Government that CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON and a neighbour , PERSON . Kh , were questioned by the investigation . PERSON stated that at TIME on DATE unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house , searched it and then taken PERSON away . PERSON Kh . stated that at TIME on the same date she had heard Ms K.D crying . She had gone out and learnt from GPE that servicemen had abducted her son .","On DATE the investigators granted victim status to GPE GPE","On DATE the investigator sent requests to various lawenforcement agencies asking for information about the detention of PERSON and special operations conducted in ORG on DATE . Negative replies were given .","The investigation was suspended on DATE . It was later resumed and then suspended again on DATE . It was resumed and suspended several times , and the proceedings are still pending .","It appears from the case file that DATE the applicants and their relatives complained to different authorities , asking for assistance in their search for PERSON . Following their complaints they were informed that the investigation was in progress and all the necessary measures were being taken to establish ORG whereabouts and identify the perpetrators . In particular , on DATE the LOC department of the interior ( \u201c the ROVD \u201d ) informed the applicants that the investigation had been checking the theory that members of the special forces stationed in LOC , military servicemen and members of illegal armed groups detained on the ROVD premises may have been involved in the abduction .","NORP In DATE the applicant , her sisters and her brother , Mr PERSON , were staying at their mother \u2019s house in GPE . A local military commander \u2019s office was situated nearby . The settlement , surrounded by military checkpoints , was under curfew .","At TIME on DATE CARDINAL APCs , CARDINAL ORG cars and several LOC lorries arrived at the house . A group of CARDINAL to QUANTITY men in camouflage uniforms armed with machine guns broke into the house . Those who were unmasked had NORP features and spoke unaccented NORP . The servicemen took PERSON away . The applicant saw CARDINAL APCs drive away in the direction of PERSON and CARDINAL ORG cars in the direction of ORG .","TIME , ORG , the military commander of GPE , informed the applicant that NORP servicemen had carried out a special operation during TIME and confirmed that PERSON had been detained by them .","On DATE CARDINAL officers of ORG district military commander \u2019s office told the applicant that their servicemen had arrested CARDINAL men in a village situated TIME by road from FAC . The applicant concluded that one of the arrested men must have been her brother .","The applicant further learnt that on TIME the servicemen had detained another resident of GPE , Mr PERSON","The applicant has not seen PERSON since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL concerning the abduction of PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant reported to ORG that DATE , at TIME , armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house and abducted her brother .","On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant and PERSON wife , PERSON , stated that on DATE a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house , locked them in CARDINAL of the rooms , and taken PERSON away .","On an unspecified date in DATE NORP PERSON \u2019s brother , PERSON PERSON . A. , stated that on TIME of the events he had been asleep in the same room as his brother . He had been woken up by a serviceman in camouflage uniform pointing a sub - machine gun at his forehead . There had been several servicemen in the room . They had ordered him and PERSON to get up and then taken the latter away . After the men had gone out , he had followed them and seen several APCs and LOC lorries drive off in CARDINAL different directions .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected . The investigators then took statements from the applicant and her relatives .","On DATE the investigators ordered the police to carry out operative search measures , such as identifying eyewitnesses and the perpetrators of the crime . They also sent information requests concerning PERSON possible arrest and detention to various law - enforcement agencies in the region .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed and suspended several more times ( in DATE , DATE and DATE ) ; each time , the investigators renewed their information requests and questioned the same witnesses again .","It appears from the case file that from DATE to DATE the applicant and her relatives complained to various law - enforcement agencies about the investigation and sought information about its progress . In reply they were informed that the investigation was pending and that all the necessary measures were being taken to establish ORG whereabouts .","On DATE the applicant requested that the investigators resume the investigation suspended on DATE and allow her access to the investigation file .","On DATE her request was refused . The applicant challenged the refusal in court .","NORP On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint in full .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision and remitted the complaint for fresh examination for the following reasons :","\u201c According to the case file , the missing person [ PERSON ] was taken away by officers of the security agencies in CARDINAL APCs and ORG vehicles .","The prosecution does not dispute the above allegations [ of the applicant ] .","The only reason for refusing a victim access to the investigation file is to ensure secrecy of an investigation during the examination of a theory that close relatives may have been involved in the disappearance of the missing man .","In the present case there were no such reasons to refuse the victim access to the investigation file ... \u201d","On DATE ORG found the investigator \u2019s refusal unlawful in part and granted the applicant \u2019s request for access to the investigation file .","TIME on DATE , CARDINAL or CARDINAL UAZ cars and a grey ORG minivan ( PERSON ) arrived at the applicants\u2019 block of flats in ORG and cordoned off the neighbourhood . A group of CARDINAL masked men in camouflage uniforms with portable radios and machine guns , some of which were equipped with silencers , broke into the applicants\u2019 flat . Some of the intruders spoke unaccented NORP . They ordered Mr PERSON to lie face down on the floor and checked his passport . Then they dragged him outside , put him in CARDINAL of their cars and drove away .","At the material time the applicants\u2019 neighbourhood was surrounded by a number of military checkpoints through which the abductors had been able to pass freely .","The applicants have not seen PERSON since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the seventh applicant reported to ORG that at DATE armed men in camouflage uniforms had abducted her brother , PERSON .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office in PERSON opened criminal case no . DATE .","The first applicant stated that following military operations in GPE in DATE , she had moved to GPE , GPE , with her husband . In DATE they had returned to ORG and rented a flat there . On DATE a group of armed masked men in camouflage uniforms had arrived in ORG vehicles , broken into their flat and taken her husband away .","PERSON and PERSON , the first applicant \u2019s neighbours , stated that at TIME on DATE they had seen a group of armed men arrive at their block of flats in a grey UAZ vehicle . CARDINAL of the men had ordered the residents to go inside and not to look through the window . The men walked up to the second floor and then went away . Afterwards , the neighbours learnt that those men had abducted PERSON .","NORP On DATE the investigator examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE and DATE the seventh and first applicants respectively were granted victim status .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed and suspended several more times . It is still pending .","It appears from the case file that since DATE the seventh applicant has been complaining to various authorities about the abduction of her brother , delays in the investigation and the lack of access to the investigation file .","On DATE the seventh applicant was allowed access to the investigation file .","At the relevant time the applicants lived in the village of ORG in the ORG district , GPE . On DATE the settlement was under curfew . At around TIME groups of CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniforms broke into the applicants\u2019 houses located in the same neighbourhood . Some of the intruders were masked , whereas others were wearing metal helmets . The men spoke NORP , some with an accent , and NORP . They threatened to kill the applicants and their relatives , and beat up some of them . They checked the documents of the QUANTITY men and took them barefoot outside . Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON were put in CARDINAL ORG and PERSON PERSON in another . There were around QUANTITY men in total and a convoy of QUANTITY vehicles , including CARDINAL APCs and CARDINAL ORG minivans ( GPE ) . The convoy passed unobstructed through checkpoint no . CARDINAL and drove away in the direction of PERSON or PERSON .","According to the applicants , the ORG vehicles belonged to the ORG district military commander \u2019s office and their relatives had been detained in a temporary detention facility on the premises of the ORG department of the interior ( the ROVD ) .","NORP The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of GPE , PERSON and PERSON and PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .","On DATE PERSON father , PERSON GPE , complained to ORG that servicemen had abducted his son and the other CARDINAL men .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE .","On DATE the investigation questioned the first , second and third applicants and Mr GPE , who had witnessed the abduction of their relatives . They stated that at TIME on DATE groups of armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms had broken into their houses and taken PERSON , PERSON and PERSON and PERSON to an unknown destination .","On DATE the first , second and third applicants were granted victim status .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . They requested that the commanders of the federal forces stationed in ORG provide them with information about the APCs and ORG cars which had passed through the military checkpoint on TIME of the abduction and about the servicemen who had manned the checkpoint on TIME . The investigators also sent queries to the military commander \u2019s office of the ORG district but did not receive any relevant information .","The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE .","In DATE and DATE the investigators questioned a number of witnesses again . The investigation was suspended and resumed several more times and is still pending .","It appears from the case file that DATE and DATE the applicants complained to various authorities about the abduction of their relatives and the delays in the investigation .","In DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer was allowed access to the investigation file .","NORP In DATE NORP military checkpoints were set up around the settlement of PERSON ; a military commander \u2019s office and a police station were situated in the village , which was under curfew .","At TIME on DATE CARDINAL men in masks , helmets and camouflage uniforms broke into the applicant \u2019s home . They spoke unaccented NORP and were carrying torches . The men ordered the family members to lie down on the floor and searched the house . They took the applicant \u2019s son , Mr Anzor PERSON , outside and put him in CARDINAL of the CARDINAL UAZ minivans ( GPE ) parked next to an ORG near the house . The vehicles drove away in the direction of the military checkpoint situated at the bridge over LOC , QUANTITY from the applicant \u2019s house . The applicant \u2019s husband followed the vehicles and spoke to the servicemen manning the checkpoint . They told him that the vehicles , with ORG servicemen on board , had passed freely through the checkpoint .","DATE , the applicant went to the Urus - Martan military commander \u2019s office , where she met Mr PERSON , a NORP resident . His brother , Mr PERSON ( see application no . ORG , ORG v. GPE below ) , had been abducted on TIME . CARDINAL or DATE the local military commander \u2019s office denied that Anzor PERSON had ever been taken to their office .","NORP The applicant has not seen Anzor PERSON since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of documents from criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of Anzor PERSON . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant reported her son \u2019s abduction by servicemen to the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE .","On DATE the investigator questioned the applicant and her husband . They stated that at TIME on DATE a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house and taken their son away .","On DATE the investigator requested that the ORG provide information concerning Anzor PERSON \u2019s possible involvement in illegal armed groups . The investigator also sent information requests to various law - enforcement agencies concerning PERSON PERSON \u2019s possible detention on their LOC , but these did not yield any relevant information .","On DATE the applicant and her husband were granted victim status .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was further resumed and suspended several times .","The investigation is still pending .","It appears from the case file that DATE and DATE the applicant complained to various authorities of the abduction of her son and the delays in the investigation .","On DATE the applicant requested access to the investigation file . On DATE the ORG investigation department refused her request , stating that she would be entitled access to the file only upon completion of the investigation .","At the material time the applicant , her husband and their children were living in a ORG refugee camp situated in the building of a former boarding school in GPE , the NORP district .","On DATE a large group of armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the camp in military vehicles , broke in and abducted the applicant \u2019s husband , Mr PERSON , and CARDINAL other men .","Sometime later the LOC district military commander , Officer PERSON , told the applicant that her husband had been taken away either by servicemen from special division no . CARDINAL ( GPE \u043e\u0441\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u2116 CARDINAL , \u0414\u041e\u041d-CARDINAL ) or by special regiment no . CARDINAL of GPE ( CARDINAL \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u043d\u0430\u0437 \u041d\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0441\u0438\u0431\u0438\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0430 ) , headed by Colonel NORP , who lived in GPE , GPE .","The applicant has not seen PERSON since his abduction on DATE .","The Government submitted copies of a few documents from criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of PERSON and CARDINAL others ( PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON ) . Some of the documents submitted by the Government were completely illegible , whereas others were partially legible . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL under LAW ( abduction ) .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status and questioned along with other eyewitnesses to the events . All of the witnesses gave similar statements to the effect that on DATE a group of CARDINAL servicemen had arrived in several APCs and ORG cars and broken into the building where they had been living . They had taken PERSON and CARDINAL other men to the courtyard , beaten them up and taken them away in ORG cars .","The investigation was suspended and resumed several times . On DATE the supervising prosecutor ordered that the investigation be resumed , having noted , inter alia , that it had failed to question servicemen involved in a special operation conducted in GPE on DATE of PERSON abduction . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c At TIME on DATE unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms , having arrived in CARDINAL APCs and CARDINAL ORG cars at the premises of a secondary school in GPE , LOC , detained [ PERSON and CARDINAL others ] who were living there and took them away to an unknown destination . There is no information concerning the whereabouts of [ the abducted men ] ...","... The preliminary investigation has been resumed and suspended repeatedly ...","... It has been established that the investigation is not being conducted thoroughly ...","For instance , in the course of the investigation information has been obtained from [ illegible ] that at TIME on DATE during a special operation , officers from ORG together with servicemen from [ special regiment ] no . CARDINAL of military unit no . CARDINAL detained CARDINAL men in the settlement of NORP on suspicion of involvement in illegal armed groups . [ Different types of firearms ] were found and seized from [ the detained men ] . All the detained men and seized firearms were transferred to LOC . However , the identity of the men detained during the operation and the place of their detention have not been identified so far . The [ documents ] of military unit no . DATE for the relevant period have not been inspected . The circumstances of the special operation and the identification of the officers of ORG who participated in the operation have not been established . Servicemen from military unit no . DATE have not been questioned about the circumstances of the special operation , the arrest of [ those persons ] or [ the latter \u2019s ] whereabouts \u201d .","At some point the investigator examined the special operations register of military unit no . DATE . It indicated that in DATE a special operation had been conducted in NORP involving CARDINAL servicemen and CARDINAL APCs . As a result of the operation CARDINAL men ( their names were not indicated ) were detained on suspicion of participation in illegal armed groups . A number of firearms and ammunition were found on them and seized .","On an unspecified date the investigator questioned CARDINAL servicemen from military unit no . DATE . They stated that on DATE they and officers of ORG had taken part in a special operation in NORP . During the operation the ORG officers had detained CARDINAL men on suspicion of their involvement in illegal armed groups . The commander of the military unit was also questioned and stated that although he had not taken part in the special operation in NORP , he had learnt afterwards that during that operation the ORG officers had arrested CARDINAL men who had been involved in killing soldiers of a special unit from the PERSON region ( \u201c the PERSON \u201d ) . The names of the detained men had not been given by the ORG department .","On a number of occasions DATE the applicant requested , orally and in writing , information and assistance in the search for her husband ; no useful information was provided to her by the authorities .","On DATE the applicant was informed that the investigation into her husband \u2019s abduction had been suspended on the same date , but that the search for him was still in progress .","On DATE the investigators informed the applicant that the investigation had been resumed .","On DATE the applicant was informed that the investigation had been suspended again .","On DATE the investigators again informed the applicant that the investigation had been resumed .","Following the applicant \u2019s requests , on DATE the district courts declared PERSON missing , and on DATE they declared him dead .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed that the investigation had been suspended again .","NORP In DATE Mr NORP Mirza Murdalov visited the PERSON family in the settlement of GPE , where DATE applicants lived .","At TIME on DATE a large group of masked men in camouflage uniforms arrived in an ORG , CARDINAL LOC lorries and CARDINAL ORG cars at the backyard of the applicants\u2019 house in GPE . CARDINAL men with torches broke into the GPE house and searched it . Speaking unaccented NORP , the servicemen ordered everybody to lie face down on the floor . They taped the hands and mouths of ORG , PERSON and PERSON , took their passports and drove them away . The sixth , eighth and ninth applicants were at home and witnessed the abduction .","NORP Immediately afterwards , the ninth applicant ran to the local police station and the military commander \u2019s office . Officers on duty told her that they had neither arrested anyone nor detained anyone on their LOC .","The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .","The Government did not furnish any documents from the criminal case file concerning the abduction of the applicants\u2019 relatives . From the documents submitted by the applicants , the investigation may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the Shelkovskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE on the abduction of the applicants\u2019 relatives under LAW ( abduction ) .","On DATE the first applicant was informed thereof .","On DATE ORG informed the first applicant that the investigation had questioned the police officers who had been manning the checkpoints surrounding GPE at the material time , but that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction had not been confirmed . It was also noted that given that the investigation had failed to identify the perpetrators and establish the abducted men \u2019s whereabouts , it had been suspended on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","The investigation is currently pending .","The applicants submitted copies of the complaints they had lodged from DATE to DATE and in DATE with various authorities concerning the abduction of their relatives and the delays in the investigation . Following those complaints the applicants were informed that investigative measures were being carried out in order to identify the perpetrators and establish their relatives\u2019 whereabouts .","In DATE the applicants asked for access to the criminal case file . It is unclear whether their request was granted .","At TIME on DATE an ORG without a registration plate arrived at the applicants\u2019 house in PERSON . A group of CARDINAL armed men in helmets and camouflage uniforms broke into the house . Those of the intruders who were not wearing masks had NORP features . Speaking unaccented NORP , the servicemen pointed their machine guns at the applicants and took Mr PERSON outside . They took his passport , forced him into the ORG and told his relatives that he would return after an identity check .","TIME several APCs and a white VAZ-CARDINAL car joined the vehicle . The convoy drove away , passed freely through the NORP military checkpoint situated next to LOC PERSON , and arrived at the premises of the Urus - Martan district military commander \u2019s office .","On DATE the servicemen also visited several neighbouring houses and took away Mr PERSON . along with his CARDINAL car .","Immediately after his son \u2019s abduction , the first applicant went to the Urus - Martan military commander \u2019s office . A woman at the gate confirmed that servicemen had arrived there in CARDINAL APCs and a ORG with CARDINAL young men on board . The servicemen took the young men out of the ORG and dragged them , with sacks over their heads , into the LOC of the military commander \u2019s office .","On DATE the head of the Martan - Chu administration informed the applicants that PERSON and PERSON . had been detained at the district military commander \u2019s office and that they would be released in TIME . However , the CARDINAL men were not released .","DATE , the head of the ORG administration informed the applicants that CARDINAL bodies had been found in an abandoned garden on the road between Urus - Martan and PERSON . The first applicant immediately went to the scene but did not identify PERSON among the bodies discovered . At the same time the relatives of PERSON . identified CARDINAL of the bodies as that of PERSON .","NORP The applicants have not seen PERSON since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL concerning the abduction of PERSON . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the first applicant complained to the head of the local administration and the head of the Urus - Martan military commander \u2019s office that his son had been abducted by servicemen .","On DATE the applicant wrote to the same authorities stating that his complaint of CARDINAL DATE had remained unexamined .","On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW ( abduction ) .","On DATE the first applicant was questioned . A copy of the first page of his statement was not furnished to the ORG . From the part of the statement provided to the ORG , it appears that his son , PERSON , had been put in an ORG and taken away . On the same date servicemen had also abducted a local resident , PERSON . The applicant had gone to the ORG military commander \u2019s office where he had learnt that CARDINAL young men with sacks over their heads had been led from the APCs to the LOC of the military commander \u2019s office . The applicant also informed the investigator that on the date of his son \u2019s abduction , servicemen had also searched the house of their neighbours , the PERSON family . Their son , PERSON I.G. , had been a member of illegal armed groups and had been on the run .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 relatives , PERSON . and Ms Ya . S. , stated that on the date of the abduction , they had been at home when armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house . The men had checked PERSON \u2019s passport and then had gone to search the house of their neighbours , the PERSON family . However , TIME they had come back and had called PERSON from outside . When he had gone out , the servicemen had put him in the ORG and driven away .","On DATE the second applicant was questioned and gave a similar submission .","On DATE , the applicants\u2019 neighbour , PERSON , stated that at CARDINAL TIME on the date of PERSON \u2019s abduction he had been working in the yard when CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived and asked him about Mr I.G. When he had told them that he had no information , the men had kicked him and hit him several times on the head and arms with the butts of their rifles . Afterwards , the men had left and TIME later he had seen the second applicant , PERSON . and Ms Ya . S weeping and saying that servicemen had taken PERSON away .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicants , their relatives and neighbours .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene .","On DATE the investigation was suspended .","The investigation was resumed on DATE and suspended again on DATE . Some witnesses were questioned again .","The investigation is still pending .","On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG about the delays in the investigation and sought access to the investigation file . Her request for access was refused .","On DATE the Urus - Martan District Court granted the first applicant \u2019s complaint of the unlawful suspension of the investigation and ordered that it be resumed .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigator again refused the first applicant \u2019s request for access to the investigation file . The applicant challenged the refusal in court .","On DATE ORG allowed the first applicant access to the contents of the investigation file and authorised him to make copies of it . According to the applicant , he managed to make the copies only in DATE .","In DATE the settlement of PERSON was under curfew and surrounded by NORP military checkpoints . The military commander \u2019s office and a police station were operating in the settlement .","At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL or CARDINAL armed masked men in camouflage uniforms broke into the applicant \u2019s house and ordered everyone to lie face down on the floor . CARDINAL of them handcuffed the applicant . The men quickly searched the house and took Mr PERSON outside . Shortly afterwards the applicant saw an ORG and CARDINAL grey ORG cars , including one minivan ( GPE ) driving away .","NORP Immediately after the abduction , the applicant went to the military commander \u2019s offices in GPE and ORG . The officers on duty denied any knowledge of PERSON detention .","DATE the applicant found out that another NORP resident , PERSON Anzor PERSON ( see application PERSON v. GPE ( no . ORG ) above ) , had been taken away on TIME .","The applicant has not seen PERSON since CARDINAL DATE .","The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of PERSON . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant reported his brother \u2019s abduction by servicemen to ORG .","On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL under LAW ( abduction ) .","On DATE the investigator questioned the applicant and his mother . They stated that at TIME on DATE a group of armed masked servicemen in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house and taken PERSON away in CARDINAL grey ORG cars and CARDINAL \u201c tabletka \u201d minivan .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother was granted victim status .","On DATE the investigation was suspended .","On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL reported that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction had not been confirmed .","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .","The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE .","On DATE the investigator examined the crime scene and questioned the applicant , his wife and CARDINAL neighbours .","The investigation was suspended and resumed several more times without producing any tangible results . It is still pending .","The applicant submitted copies of the complaints that he had made to various authorities DATE .","On DATE a special regiment of the federal forces conducted a military operation in LOC . At TIME a group of armed , masked men in camouflage uniforms broke into Mr PERSON house and took him away in an ORG without registration numbers .","The applicant has not seen her brother PERSON since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . CARDINAL concerning the abduction of PERSON . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .","Following the abduction of her son , the applicant \u2019s mother complained to various authorities of the abduction , but to no avail .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother asked the GPE military prosecutor \u2019s office for assistance in searching for her son . The applicant \u2019s complaint was forwarded to the LOC district \u2019s prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW ( abduction ) .","On DATE the investigator questioned the applicant \u2019s mother , PERSON , who stated that on DATE armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their house and taken her son , PERSON , away .","The applicant was questioned on DATE and gave a similar statement . She pointed out that the abductors had arrived in CARDINAL APCs .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant \u2019s mother , PERSON , who reiterated her previous statement concerning the abduction .","Following the opening of the investigation , the investigator established that the abduction had taken place during a special operation . He drew up an action plan , the relevant parts of which read as follows :","\u201c At TIME on CARDINAL DATE during a special operation [ PERSON ] was arrested at his home ... by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms and then taken away in an ORG without registration plates to an unknown destination ...","It is necessary to take the following measures :","To question the relatives of [ PERSON ] ...","To identify eyewitnesses ...","To establish which military unit took part in this special operation \u201d .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .","In DATE the investigators wrote to various lawenforcement agencies requesting information about the carrying out of a special operation on DATE and the detention of PERSON . No relevant information was received .","The investigation was suspended on DATE and then resumed on DATE . The applicant was informed only of the latter decision .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene .","In DATE the investigators questioned several of the applicant \u2019s neighbours , all of whom stated that PERSON had been abducted by men in APCs .","On DATE the investigators questioned police officer GPE from LOC , who stated that the search for PERSON was still in progress .","NORP The investigation was suspended and resumed several more times ; it is still pending .","On DATE the applicant was informed by the investigators that the investigation into her brother \u2019s abduction had been resumed and that operational search measures were being carried out .","On DATE following a request by the applicant , the PERSON investigation department provided her with copies of certain documents from the investigation file .","On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against the investigators , alleging that the investigation had been ineffective owing to the authorities\u2019 failure to take basic steps . She asked the court to order the investigation department to resume the investigation and rectify its shortcomings .","On DATE ORG left the complaint unexamined as the investigation had been resumed on DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the decision .","In DATE Mr PERSON ( also referred to as PERSON ) GPE was staying in the house of his friend , PERSON , in ORG . At the time , PERSON was surrounded by a number of NORP military checkpoints . The nearest checkpoint was located QUANTITY from the house , at the crossroads of GPE and FAC .","At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniforms arrived at the FAC house in an ORG , CARDINAL white QUANTITY cars and a white NORP car . Another CARDINAL APCs were waiting at the crossroads . The servicemen , who were of NORP and NORP appearance , broke into the houses of the GPE and their neighbours and searched them .","In a neighbouring house the servicemen beat up male family members and questioned them about illegal armed groups . CARDINAL of them , PERSON , showed his service identity card stating that he worked at ORG ( Emercom ) . The neighbours heard the servicemen saying over their portable radios : \u201c We have found him . We are leaving . \u201d Meanwhile , the other group of men led PERSON out of the FAC house , put him in CARDINAL of their FAC cars and drove him away in the direction of FAC .","The applicant submitted that on DATE , following the murder of a fellow military officer , the servicemen had conducted a largescale sweeping operation in PERSON during which they had detained PERSON .","The applicant has not seen PERSON since DATE .","The Government did not furnish any documents from the criminal case file concerning the abduction of the applicant \u2019s relative . Based on the documents submitted by the applicant and the ORG \u2019s submissions , the investigation may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office in PERSON opened criminal case no . DATE under LAW ( abduction ) and granted victim status to the applicant .","On DATE the investigation was suspended .","ORG In DATE the military prosecutor \u2019s office of military unit no . DATE informed the investigators that the involvement of servicemen in the abduction had not been confirmed and that no special operations had been carried out in the area at the relevant time .","The investigation is still pending .","On DATE the applicant stated that her son had fought against the NORP federal forces during the first NORP war and had left GPE at the end of the war . In DATE he had returned and on DATE he had gone to PERSON to visit his friend , PERSON . On DATE she had learnt that servicemen had abducted her son and she had gone to ORG . The PERSON and their neighbours had confirmed that PERSON had been abducted by armed men in camouflage uniforms . She had been told that the servicemen had been looking for someone and when they had arrested her son , they had left the house saying over the radio that they had found him . The first applicant also noted that after that incident , her son \u2019s friend , PERSON had moved to LOC .","On DATE the GPE and their neighbours were questioned . PERSON stated that PERSON had been their neighbour and had participated in the first NORP war against the NORP federal forces . Since DATE he had been staying in their house . In TIME of DATE , after her husband and brotherinlaw had gone out , armed masked men wearing camouflage uniforms had broken into their house . They had taken PERSON outside , put him in a GPE car and driven away . The men had spoken NORP without an accent and had a list of the names of persons they were searching for .","Several of the NORP neighbours made similar submissions about the events to the effect that on DATE a group of armed men in camouflage uniforms had broken into their houses and had beaten up the male family members . The servicemen had questioned them about members of illegal armed groups and about their neighbours . Shortly afterwards , one of the intruders had informed the others that they had found the man they had been looking for and , therefore , they could leave . Afterwards , they had learnt that the servicemen had abducted PERSON from their ORG house .","In DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant requested information and assistance in the search for her son ; no meaningful information was provided to her by the authorities .","On DATE the applicant complained about the delays in the investigation and asked for access to the investigation file , but to no avail .","On DATE in response to her complaint , the district prosecutor \u2019s office informed her that a number of shortcomings in the investigation had been identified and the relevant authorities had been requested to rectify them . The prosecutor \u2019s office also noted that on DATE the special investigation unit of ORG had taken over the criminal case .","The ORG and the Alisultanovs were neighbours . Mr Mausyr PERSON lived with his family , including the first to fifth applicants . Mr PERSON lived with his family , including the sixth to eighth applicants , and his son , PERSON . His brother , Mr PERSON , was staying at his house in DATE . NORP The Basnukayevs\u2019 house was situated QUANTITY from the Alisultanovs\u2019 house in the settlement of NORP - Aul .","NORP In DATE NORP - PERSON was under curfew and surrounded by NORP military checkpoints .","At TIME on DATE approximately CARDINAL men in camouflage uniforms armed with short - barrelled machine guns cordoned off the applicants\u2019 houses . They divided into CARDINAL groups and broke in . They had parked their ORG , LOC lorry and CARDINAL ORG cars in the vicinity . Those of the intruders who were unmasked were of NORP appearance .","The servicemen searched the dwellings , beat up the male members of the families and checked their identity documents . They took PERSON and PERSON , and PERSON and PERSON outside . The servicemen then ordered PERSON to run back to the house without looking back . They placed ORG and PERSON in the NORP lorry and PERSON in one of the ORG vehicles , and drove away towards the outskirts .","The applicants have not seen their CARDINAL relatives since DATE .","The Government submitted copies of the documents from criminal case file no . DATE concerning the abduction of Mausyr PERSON , and PERSON and Shamsudi Alisultanov . The documents cover only the period DATE . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .","Following the abduction of their relatives , the applicants complained to various authorities . Their complaints were forwarded from CARDINAL authority to another .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE in connection with the abduction of the CARDINAL men .","NORP In DATE the investigators questioned the first and the sixth applicants , who provided a detailed description of the circumstances surrounding the abduction .","In DATE the ninth applicant stated that an PERSON friend of PERSON had told her that in DATE , lawenforcement officers from GPE had visited him and asked questions about NORP .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status .","The investigation was suspended on DATE and resumed on CARDINAL DATE . It was suspended and resumed several more times in DATE and DATE .","In DATE the investigator examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE applicants were granted victim status .","On DATE the investigators suspended the investigation and informed the applicants thereof . It \u2019s unclear whether the investigation has been resumed since . The proceedings are still pending .","On a number of occasions DATE the applicants wrote to various authorities asking for assistance in the search for their missing relatives ; no meaningful information was given to them .","On DATE the first and sixth applicants requested access to the investigation file ; the ORG granted access to the file on CARDINAL DATE .","Following the ORG complaint of DATE that the investigators had failed to take adequate investigative steps , the ORG investigations department informed them on DATE that operational search measures were under way and that they would be kept abreast of the results of the investigative steps .","The Government did not contest the essential facts of each case as presented by the applicants . At the same time , they claimed that none of the investigations had obtained information proving that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been apprehended and detained by ORG agents . According to them , there was no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that ORG agents had been involved in the abductions and deaths . Referring , in particular , to PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) and PERSON ( no . PERCENT ) , the Government stated that the mere fact that the abductors had been armed and\/or had driven a certain type of vehicle or had worn a particular type of uniform was not enough to presume the contrary . They pointed out that DATE mercenaries of NORP origin , including those from GPE , and other criminals had impersonated military servicemen and police officers to commit crimes . At the same time , the Government submitted , referring to the same CARDINAL applications , that \u201c the applicants furnished the proof that their relatives could have been detained by ORG representatives \u201d . Lastly , in respect of all the cases the ORG submitted that the bodies of the abducted men had never been found and there was no proof that they were dead .","The applicants asserted that it had been established \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d that the men who had taken away their relatives had been ORG agents . In support of that assertion they referred to the ample evidence contained in their submissions and the criminal investigation files , in so far as they had been disclosed by the Government . They also submitted that they had each made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by ORG agents and that the essential facts underlying their complaints had not been challenged by the Government . In view of the absence of any news of their relatives for a long time and the life - threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in GPE at the relevant time , they asked the ORG to consider their relatives dead .","The ORG will examine each of the applications in the light of the general principles applicable in cases where the factual circumstances are in dispute between the parties ( see PERSON v. \u201c the former GPE \u201d [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) .","The ORG has addressed a whole series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances in GPE . Applying the abovementioned principles , it has concluded that it would be sufficient for the applicants to make a prima facie case of abduction by servicemen , thus falling within the control of the authorities , and it would then be for the Government to discharge their burden of proof either by disclosing the documents in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred ( see , among many examples , PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE , and ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . If the Government failed to rebut that presumption , this would entail a violation of LAW in its substantive part . Conversely , where the applicants failed to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof could not be reversed ( see , for example , ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE , and LOC v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The ORG has also found in many cases concerning disappearances in GPE that a missing person could be presumed dead . Having regard to the numerous cases of disappearances in the region which have come before it , the ORG has found that in the particular context of the conflict , when a person was detained by unidentified ORG agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention , this could be regarded as lifethreatening ( see , among many others , PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY , DATE ; GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , PERSON CARDINAL ( extracts ) ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . MONEY , ORG CARDINALVIII ( extracts ) ; GPE v. GPE , no . MONEY , DATE ; Akhmadova and PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; PERSON GPE , no . GPE , DATE ; and PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and GPE , DATE ) .","The ORG has made findings of presumptions of death in the absence of any reliable news about the disappeared persons for periods ranging from DATE ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) to DATE .","NORP Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relative , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , DATE above ) demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relatives , PERSON and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON and PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON and PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) demonstrate that the applicant \u2019s husband , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her husband was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that GPE PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that GPE may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , CARDINAL and DATE above ) demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relatives , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in GPE . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relatives , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in PERSON . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON , PERSON and PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .","NORP Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant \u2019s brother , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her brother was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant \u2019s son , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in GPE . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her son was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relatives , Aydrus ORG , PERSON and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Aydrus ORG , PERSON and PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Aydrus ORG , PERSON and PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relative , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that he may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant \u2019s brother , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in GPE . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her brother was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relative , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","NORP Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL relatives , GPE , PERSON and PERSON and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in ORG . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that GPE , PERSON and PERSON and PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the lifethreatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant \u2019s son , Anzor PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in PERSON . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her son was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Anzor PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Anzor PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant \u2019s husband , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in PERSON . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her husband was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","NORP Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL relatives , ORG , and GPE and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in GPE . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that ORG , and GPE and PERSON were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that ORG , PERSON and PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by ORG ( see , for example , CARDINAL and FAC above ) demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relative , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in PERSON . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the lifethreatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 relative , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in PERSON . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant \u2019s brother , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in LOC . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on CARDINAL DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Several witness statements collected by the applicant , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicant \u2019s son , PERSON , was abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in PERSON . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her son was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","NORP Several witness statements collected by the applicants , along with the documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government ( see , for example , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrate that the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL relatives , ORG , and PERSON and PERSON , were abducted on DATE by a group of armed servicemen in NORP - Aul . In view of all the materials in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relatives were abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances as set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Therefore , they failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that ORG , and PERSON and Shamsudi Alisultanov were taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . In view of the absence of any news of them since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that ORG , PERSON may be presumed dead following their unacknowledged detention .","The ORG finds that in all the cases the applicants\u2019 relatives were abducted by armed men in uniforms , displaying behaviour characteristic of security operations . Their behaviour and appearance , their ability to pass through roadblocks and to cordon off areas , along with their use of vehicles , lead the ORG to conclude that in all probability , they were none other than ORG servicemen . The ORG allegations are supported by the witness statements collected by them and by the investigations . In their submissions to the authorities the applicants consistently maintained that their relatives had been abducted by ORG agents . The domestic investigations accepted as fact the version of events as presented by the applicants and took steps to check whether ORG servicemen had been involved in the abductions . As it appears from the documents submitted to the ORG , the investigations regarded the possibility of abduction by servicemen as the only , or at least the main , plausible explanation of the events .","NORP In summary , the facts of each case contain sufficient elements to enable the Court to make findings about the carrying out of security operations and thus about the ORG \u2019s exclusive control over the detainees ( see , among many others , ORG and Others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . The ORG \u2019s arguments are limited to references to the unfinished criminal investigations , or are of a speculative nature and stand in contradiction to the evidence reviewed by ORG . In any case , they are insufficient to discharge them of the burden of proof which has been shifted to them in such cases .","NORP The detention in life - threatening circumstances of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Aydrus ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Anzor PERSON , PERSON , ORG , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and the long periods of absence of any news of them lead the ORG to conclude that they may be presumed dead ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171488","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF JAMIL HAJIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Article 6-3-c - Legal assistance of own choosing);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The opposition planned to hold demonstrations on CARDINAL DATE and DATE in GPE .","On DATE , the organisers gave notice to the relevant authority , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , about the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that no prior notice was given to the ORG by the organisers of the demonstration of DATE . Information about that assembly was disseminated through ORG or the press .","The ORG refused to authorise the holding of the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE , stating in general terms that that assembly was not in accordance with ORG . The ORG further stated that the square where the organisers proposed to hold the assembly was a designated public leisure area and that the assembly itself was impractical .","Nevertheless , the organisers decided to hold the demonstrations in the centre of GPE .","According to the applicant , the demonstrations were intended to be peaceful and were conducted in a peaceful manner . The participants in the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE were demanding democratic reforms in the country and protesting against impediments to freedom of assembly . The participants of the demonstration of DATE were condemning the use of force by the police against participants of previous demonstrations .","The applicant attended both demonstrations , but shortly after they had begun the police started to disperse them . In both cases the applicant was arrested during the dispersal operation and was taken to a police station , where he was questioned . According to the applicant , in the first case he was arrested by people in plain clothes .","NORP In both cases on DATE of the applicant \u2019s arrest , an \u201c administrativeoffence report \u201d ( inzibati x\u0259ta haqq\u0131nda protokol ) was issued in respect of him . In the first case the report stated that by deliberately failing to comply with a lawful order from the police , the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) . In the second case the applicant was charged with an administrative offence under LAW ( participation in a public assembly that had not been organised in accordance with the law ) .","According to the applicant , he was never served with copies of the administrative - offence reports or with other documents from his case files . In neither case was he given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while in police custody .","NORP In both cases the applicant was brought before FAC on DATE of his arrest , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively .","According to the applicant , the hearing before the court in both cases was very brief . Members of the public were not allowed to attend , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public .","According to the applicant , in neither case was he given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice .","The record of the court hearing in the first case shows that the applicant declared that he did not need legal assistance and would defend himself in person .","At the court hearing in the second case a ORG - funded lawyer was appointed to assist the applicant . According to documents submitted by the ORG , the applicant refused the assistance of that lawyer and decided to defend himself in person .","At the hearing in the first case the court did not question any witnesses . In the second case the court questioned CARDINAL police officers . The police officers testified that they had arrested the applicant because he had staged an unauthorised demonstration .","NORP In both cases the first - instance court found that the applicant had participated in an unauthorised demonstration .","In the first case , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE the firstinstance court convicted the applicant under Article CARDINAL of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 \u201c administrative \u201d detention . In the second case , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court convicted the applicant under LAW ORG and sentenced him to a fine of CARDINAL manats ( AZN ) .","On unspecified dates the applicant lodged appeals before ORG , arguing that his convictions were in violation of his rights because the demonstrations in which he had participated had been peaceful . He also complained that his arrests had been unlawful and that the hearings before the respective first - instance courts had not been fair .","In the first case the applicant was assisted before ORG by a lawyer of his own choice . In the second case he was not represented by a lawyer .","NORP In both cases , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court ."],"violated_articles":["11","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-b","6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181585","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF IRELAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":1,"conclusion":"Revision rejected (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Paul Mahoney;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The cases of ORG .","General remarks","The applicant Government have submitted the cases of CARDINAL persons in which the use of the QUANTITY techniques and sometimes also other forms of ill - treatment were alleged . The ORG has examined the illustrative cases of ORG . The allegations in regard to T.CARDINAL concern both the CARDINAL techniques and other forms of alleged ill - treatment , whereas the allegations in regard to T.CARDINAL concern the CARDINAL techniques only .","Both cases were among the CARDINAL cases investigated by ORG . However , neither T.CARDINAL nor T.CARDINAL had given evidence before that ORG , which based its findings on the oral evidence of the persons who supervised the operations at the centre and of the medical officer who was stationed there , as well as on various medical records , colour photographs and the feeding record ( cf . ORG , paras . CARDINAL and DATE , at p. CARDINAL ) .","The Delegates of the Commission heard both case witnesses who gave their evidence in detail and were also cross - examined by the respondent Government . They had before them extracts from the medical officer \u2019s journal at FAC , the medical examination records on arrival and on departure from the interrogation centre and colour photographs of T.CARDINAL as well as various reports by psychiatrists who also gave oral evidence .","However , the Delegates were not able to hear oral evidence from members of the security forces in relation to the allegations concerning the interrogation centre . In the first place no witnesses who had been present at that centre were made available . Secondly , the respondent Government stated at the hearing of witnesses at FAC in DATE that all of their witnesses had now been instructed not to reply to any questions regarding the CARDINAL techniques and their use on the ground that the use of these techniques had been discontinued and that there were security considerations involved . This \u2018 embargo\u2019 on the evidence also related to matters connected with a \u2018 FAC held in GPE in DATE by ORG for members of the ORG [ ORG ] , where the use of the techniques was taught orally ( cf . ORG , ORG , para . CARDINAL at p. CARDINAL ; also Witness CARDINAL G at VR CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) .","The ORG does not consider it necessary to pursue this matter any further . It is satisfied that the CARDINAL methods in aid of interrogation which , as a matter of public record , were used in emergency situations at various other places before they were used in GPE in DATE ( see ORG , Majority Report , para . CARDINAL at p. CARDINAL [ .. ] ) were applied to the CARDINAL case witnesses in the present case . It is further satisfied that a \u2018 ORG as described was held in DATE by ORG .","Course of events","The evidence before the Commission bears out the allegations made by the case witnesses and confirms the findings of ORG as regards the course of the events for the persons subjected to the CARDINAL techniques .","T.CARDINAL and T.CARDINAL were , together with others , arrested in TIME of CARDINAL August DATE and brought to ORG , being CARDINAL of the CARDINAL ORG set up to receive arrested persons . They were held there for DATE and , having been selected for special interrogation were brought , on DATE , to the unknown interrogation centre . On arrival at the centre they were medically examined and at CARDINAL stage they were taken by helicopter to another place where they were served with a detention order . They were taken back to the centre where they were interrogated in depth being subjected to the CARDINAL techniques in the following way :","a. Wall - standing \u2013 the witnesses demonstrated how they were spreadeagled against the wall , with their fingers put high above the head against the wall , the legs spread apart and the feet back , causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers ( the stress position ) . They were forced to remain in this position . The exact length of time during which the witnesses were required to stand could not be established . Both witnesses said that they lost their sense of time but that it must have been TIME . ORG while describing the position as being a different one , found that T.CARDINAL had been against the wall during periods totalling TIME , and TIME .","b. Hooding \u2013 a black or navy coloured bag was put over the ORG heads . Initially it was kept there all the time , except during interrogations , but later PERSON was allowed to take it off when he was alone in the room , provided that he turned his face to the wall .","c. Noise \u2013 pending interrogations the witnesses were held in a room where there was a continuous loud and hissing noise .","d. Sleep DATE pending interrogations the witnesses were deprived of sleep , but it was not possible to establish for what periods each witness had been without sleep .","e. ORG and drink \u2013 the witnesses were subjected to a reduced diet during their stay at the centre and pending interrogations . It was not possible to establish to what extent they were deprived of nourishment and whether or not they were offered food and drink but refused to take it .","The witnesses were at the centre from DATE , when they were transferred to FAC in accordance with the detention order .","In DATE T.CARDINAL and T.CARDINAL instituted domestic proceedings to recover damages for wrongful imprisonment and for assault and their claims were settled in DATE and DATE respectively for \u00a3 MONEY and \u00a3 CARDINAL .","Physical and mental effects resulting from the use of the techniques","( i ) Physical effects","The ORG is satisfied from the evidence given that the witnesses suffered loss of weight resulting from their detention at the unknown interrogation centre and from the use of the CARDINAL techniques . It is furthermore established that , particularly the wallstanding technique , caused physical pain while it was being applied , but that the pain ceased when the person was no longer in that position .","( ii ) Mental effects","The witnesses themselves described feelings of anxiety and fear , as well as disorientation and isolation during the time they were subjected to the techniques and afterwards . However , the intensity of such sensations was different in respect of T.CARDINAL than in respect of T.CARDINAL , as a result of differences in their personality . Consequently , T.CARDINAL had been more strongly affected by the application of the techniques than T.CARDINAL .","On the other hand , the psychiatrists disagreed considerably on the after - effects of the treatment and on the prognosis for recovery . Professors PERSON and NORP considered that both witnesses would continue for a long time to have considerable disability shown by bouts of depression , insomnia and a generally neurotic condition resembling that found in victims of NORP persecution . PERSON . CARDINAL and CARDINAL considered that the acute psychiatric symptoms developed by the witnesses during the interrogation had been minor and that their persistence was the result of everyday life in GPE for an ex - detainee carrying out his work travelling to different localities . In no sense could the witnesses\u2019 experiences be compared with those of the victims of NORP persecution .","On the basis of this evidence the ORG is unable to establish the exact degree of the psychiatric after - effects which the use of the CARDINAL techniques might have had on these witnesses or generally on persons subjected to them . It is satisfied , however , that , depending on the personality of the person concerned , the circumstances in which he finds himself , and the conditions of everyday life in GPE at the relevant time , some after - effects resulting from the application of the techniques can not be excluded .","Findings of the Commission","The CARDINAL techniques in aid of interrogation were used in DATE on ORG . They were applied prior to , between and during interrogations , but not after interrogation was terminated . This means that the persons concerned were subject to the techniques during CARDINAL , possibly DATE . The exact times could not be established . The Commission is satisfied the total periods during which the CARDINAL witnesses were at the wall , [ were ] TIME respectively . A certain degree of force was used to make the detainees stand at the wall in the required posture which caused physical pain and exhaustion . The posture required was a stress position and not a normal position required to search a person , although it can not be considered to be proved that the enforced stress position lasted all the time they were at the wall .","No physical injury resulted from the application of the techniques as such , but it caused mentally a number of acute psychiatric symptoms . It can not be excluded that in certain persons some of these symptoms continue to exist for some time afterwards .","The damages granted to them under settlements in court are substantial sums and , although it is not possible in any settlement to say what part was paid with a view to what claim , it may be presumed that the greater part of the sum was awarded in view of the allegations of ill - treatment including the application of the CARDINAL techniques , having regard to sums normally awarded by courts for claims of assault as compared with sums normally granted for claims of wrongful imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162216","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VASILEVSKI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE , while criminal proceedings were pending against a certain Mr GPE , the latter sold a lorry ( \u201c the lorry \u201d ) to a company , M.","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Trial Court \u201d ) convicted PERSON of smuggling QUANTITY of sugar , which he had transported in the lorry in DATE . According to the Government , the court dismissed the prosecutor \u2019s application to have the lorry confiscated , given that Mr GPE had stated that he had already sold it . The court considered that the conditions for confiscation of the lorry under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had not been fulfilled : specifically it had not been established that the lorry could be used again to commit an offence ; that the confiscation had been necessary for the protection of safety or for reasons of ethics ; and that the lorry had been specially adjusted for the commission of specific type of offences . On DATE , following separate appeals by ORG and the public prosecutor , ORG found the public prosecutor \u2019s application immaterial ( \u0431\u0435\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043c\u0435\u0442\u043d\u0430 ) and quashed all aspects of this judgment .","On DATE ORG convicted PERSON in absentia . It fined him and ordered , under LAW , the confiscation of the lorry and the sugar ( \u201c the confiscation order \u201d ) . In the absence of an appeal , the judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE the company ORG sold the lorry to the applicant , who later registered the lorry in his name .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the first - instance court \u201d ) enforced the confiscation order of CARDINAL DATE against the applicant and issued a record of enforcement ( \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0441\u043d\u0438\u043a \u0437\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) .","On DATE the applicant objected to the enforcement of the confiscation order , arguing that Mr I.A. had died on DATE and that the confiscation order accordingly could not be enforced . There had been no injunction restricting the sale of the lorry . He had been the lawful owner and he had been making his living using the lorry . Lastly , he stated that he had sought , in separate civil proceedings , return of the lorry ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the execution - of - sanctions judge of ORG rejected the objection as inadmissible , finding that the applicant had no procedural standing . It found that the confiscation order had been enforced in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It further found that the applicant , as the third person from whom the lorry had been confiscated , could assume his rights under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant appealed . On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed his appeal reiterating that he had no right to object to the enforcement of the confiscation order . However , he had been entitled to claim , in civil proceedings , return of the lorry . Civil courts had jurisdiction , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , to reverse a final confiscation order issued in criminal proceedings and order the return of the confiscated item .","On DATE the applicant submitted a civil claim seeking that the first - instance court declare him to be the owner of the lorry and to order the ORG to restore it to his possession . In the case of failure of his first claim , he sought that the ORG would reimburse him for the upgrades made to the lorry . In this latter context , he identified the upgrades that he had installed in the lorry . He further maintained that he was the bona fide and lawful owner of the lorry . He argued that the authorities had failed to seize the lorry immediately after the offence had been committed ( \u043d\u0430 \u043b\u0438\u0446\u0435 \u043c\u0435\u0441\u0442\u043e ) and to note a ban on the sale of the lorry on its registration certificate . As he was making his living off the lorry , he requested an injunction restricting the ORG from selling or otherwise disposing of the lorry until the final resolution of the dispute .","By decisions of DATE and DATE respectively , the first - instance court and ORG ( \u201c the second - instance court \u201d ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for an injunction finding no evidence that in the absence of such a measure his claim would be considerably affected or that he would sustain irreparable damage .","On DATE the applicant informed the first - instance court that Mr GPE had died in GPE in DATE .","On DATE the first - instance court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It established that Mr GPE , who knew that the lorry could have been confiscated , had sold it to the company QUANTITY At the relevant time , neither the manager of PERSON nor the applicant had known that the lorry had been used in the commission of the offence and that it had been subject to a confiscation order . Relying on Articles DATE and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , the court stated that :","\u201c Confiscation is a safety measure , the typical aim of which is to remove conditions which are convenient for the commission of offences , and it is a condition for ordering such a measure that the offender has been sentenced , as in the present case . The court considers that it is mandatory to confiscate the [ lorry ] under the afore - mentioned provisions , because this safety measure has a wider influence [ in the sense of ] general deterrence of all future offenders of this type of offences , and otherwise the offenders would be encouraged , after the offence has been committed , to dispose of the means with which they committed the offence and , thus , to even acquire pecuniary benefit ; furthermore that would have a negative influence on the ethics of the wider public , [ that is to say ] on general deterrence ...","... Given that from the evidence and the above - mentioned statutory provisions it has been established that the [ lorry ] in question was confiscated in favour of [ the respondent ORG ] in lawful proceedings , the court finds that the [ respondent ORG ] has therein obtained ownership of the [ lorry ] in question on the basis of a final and enforceable judgment ... in accordance with sections DATE ) and CARDINAL of the [ Property Act . ]","For these reasons , the court dismisses the [ applicant \u2019s ] main claim and also the alternative claim , because it concerns upgrades made to the [ lorry ] .","On the other hand , the court considers that the [ applicant ] , as the bona fide owner , can be indemnified for the value of the entire [ lorry ] , including the upgrades , but solely from the offender , [ Mr GPE ] , in accordance with LAW ] , and not from the [ respondent ORG ] ...","The court dismisses as groundless the argument that at the moment of confiscation of the [ lorry ] in question it was not owned by [ Mr GPE ] but by the [ applicant ] as the bona fide possessor ( \u0441\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0441\u0435\u043d \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0434\u0435\u0442\u0435\u043b ) , given that from the evidence it was established that when the offence was committed the [ lorry ] was owned by [ Mr GPE ] and the safety measure confiscation of the [ lorry ] was issued on those grounds . The court also considers groundless the [ applicant \u2019s ] representative \u2019s arguments that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW the final decision for confiscation of the [ lorry ] could be amended with a decision in civil proceedings if there were a dispute concerning the ownership of the confiscated items , given that this provision would have been applied if the [ lorry ] had been sold to the [ applicant ] before the offence was committed and had , under any legal basis , remained in the factual possession of the convicted [ Mr GPE ] and he , after having sold it , committed the crime ; but in the present case it is vice versa ; firstly the offence was committed and then the [ lorry ] was sold . \u201d","The court also established that the applicant had upgraded the lorry to the value of MONEY ( MKD ) . Furthermore , on the basis of the applicant \u2019s and CARDINAL witnesses\u2019 statements , the court established that the applicant had bought the lorry for QUANTITY ( ORG ) .","The applicant appealed . He stated that he had previously requested that the first - instance court obtain evidence from ORG which would confirm that Mr I.A. had died in GPE in DATE . He argued that the domestic authorities had failed to ban Mr GPE from disposing of the lorry or to seize the lorry at the time the offence had been discovered . He also argued that he was the bona fide owner and that he had obtained title to the lorry by adverse possession ( \u043e\u0434\u0440\u0448\u043a\u0430 ) . The first - instance court had incorrectly applied section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . The lorry had been confiscated DATE after the offence had been committed . The ORG had been unlawfully enriched by the value of the upgrades installed by the applicant .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the second - instance court \u201d ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and reasons given by the lower court . On DATE this judgment was served on the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181875","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ALEKSANDR ALEKSANDROV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+5 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-a - After conviction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the ORG in GPE found the applicant guilty of kicking a police officer while intoxicated , an offence under LAW ) of LAW , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . ORG explained the decision to impose a custodial sentence in the following manner :","\u201c When sentencing the defendant , PERSON , the court takes into account the nature and degree of the social danger of the offence , all the , and the information regarding the defendant \u2019s personality : [ he ] has never incurred any criminal or administrative liability , he is not registered [ as a drug addict or as a person suffering from psychotic disorders ] , he was given positive references by his neighbours and employers , [ and ] his military registration has been annulled because of a kidney disease . The court accepts the above - mentioned circumstances as mitigating the defendant \u2019s guilt ; however , it does not find any grounds for sentencing [ him ] to probation or imposing a fine on him , given the particular circumstances in which the offence was committed and the fact that [ he ] does not have a permanent place of residence in GPE or in the GPE Region \u201d .","The applicant appealed , claiming in particular that he had been discriminated against by the trial court \u2019s refusal to impose a non - custodial sentence on the grounds that he did not have a permanent residence in GPE or in LOC , even though there had existed circumstances calling for the mitigation of his sentence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It held , in a summary fashion , that the trial court had complied with every legal requirement and had issued a reasoned judgment , having sentenced the applicant to a term of imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["14","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-a"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142199","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VU\u010cKOVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA ","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Alvina Gyulumyan;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;David Th\u00f3r Bj\u00f6rgvinsson;Dean Spielmann;Fran\u00e7oise Tulkens;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Mark Villiger;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants were all reservists who had been drafted by ORG in connection with ORG intervention in GPE . They remained in military service DATE , and were thus entitled to a certain per diem under the Rules on Travel and Other Expenses in ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and by virtue of CARDINAL separate decisions ( nos . CARDINAL\u2044CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL\u2044CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) adopted by its Chief of Staff on CARDINAL and DATE respectively .","NORP However , following the demobilisation the Government allegedly refused to honour their obligation to the reservists , including the applicants .","NORP The reservists subsequently organised a series of public protests , some of which ended in open confrontation with the police . Ultimately , following protracted negotiations , on DATE the Government reached an agreement with some of the reservists ( \u201c the Agreement \u201d ) , in particular those residing in the municipalities of GPE , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG , whereby these reservists were guaranteed payment in CARDINAL DATE instalments . This payment was to be effected through their respective municipalities , aggregate sums having been specified per municipality . The said municipalities were apparently chosen because of their \u201c underdeveloped \u201d status , implying the reservists\u2019 indigence . For their part , the reservists in question agreed to renounce all their outstanding claims based on their military service in DATE which were still pending before the civil courts , as well as any other claim in this connection . It was , lastly , stipulated that the criteria for the distribution of the \u201c financial aid \u201d in question should be set out by a Commission consisting of local government representatives and the representatives of the reservists themselves .","The applicants , like all other reservists without a registered residence in CARDINAL of the CARDINAL municipalities in question , could not benefit from the Agreement .","On DATE the applicants therefore filed a civil claim against the respondent ORG based on the regulations referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above . In their submissions , they pointed inter alia to the discrimination resulting from the Agreement . By way of redress ( tu\u017ebeni zahtev ) , the applicants requested the payment of specific sums on account of the per diems in question , as well as certain other benefits , without relying on any anti - discrimination provision \u2013 domestic or international \u2013 or otherwise referring to the issue of discrimination .","On DATE ORG of First Instance ( PERSON ) ruled against the applicants . In so doing , it acknowledged that their claim had a valid legal basis but noted , as pointed out by the respondent , that the applicable prescription period had been DATE as of their demobilisation , in accordance with section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . The applicants\u2019 claim had thus been filed out of time .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal against that judgment , complaining about various procedural violations allegedly committed at first instance , the failure of the court in question to properly establish all of the relevant facts , and the erroneous application of the applicable prescription periods . The applicants also referred to the Agreement , in so far as other reservists had thus resolved their problem without litigation , but they did not rely on any anti - discrimination provision , domestic or international .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) upheld the impugned judgment on appeal , and it thereby became final . In its reasoning the court stated , inter alia , that the per diems had indeed \u201c only been partly paid \u201d by ORG ( ORG odbrane ) but that both the DATE and the DATE prescription periods provided for in section QUANTITY of LAW had already elapsed before the applicants had filed their civil claim ( see paragraph DATE below ) . ORG considered the Agreement as having no bearing on the matter since the applicants had sought payment of the sums owed to them on a different legal basis .","Having been served with ORG decision , on DATE the applicants lodged a further appeal ( ustavna \u017ealba ) with ORG ( Ustavni sud ) . Relying on Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW , they complained about the fairness of the civil proceedings and the erroneous application of the relevant domestic law , including the provisions concerning prescription . The applicants also maintained that the impugned judgment of ORG was inconsistent with numerous judgments adopted by other appellate courts in GPE \u2013 that is the district courts ( okru\u017eni sudovi ) while they existed , as well as the high courts and the courts of appeal ( vi\u0161i i apelacioni sudovi ) thereafter DATE which on the same facts had applied a longer , DATE , prescription period and ruled in favour of the plaintiffs ( see section CARDINAL of LAW , in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Lastly , the applicants mentioned the Agreement and the ORG \u2019s subsequent decision endorsing it , but did not elaborate on their substance and\u2044or impact .","On DATE , following the adoption of the judgment by ORG in the present case , ORG ruled in favour of the applicants as regards their complaints of inconsistent domestic case - law in respect of the civil courts\u2019 application of the statutory time - limitation ( the same complaints the ORG had rejected as manifestly ill - founded \u2013 see paragraphs CARDINAL of its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ) , but made no mention of the Agreement . ORG accordingly found a violation of LAW . It ordered that its decision be published in ORG , deeming this sufficient redress in a situation where the civil courts had , despite the said inconsistency , applied the relevant substantive law based on a \u201c constitutionally acceptable interpretation \u201d thereof . For more detailed reasoning , ORG referred to its decision of DATE concerning the same issue in another case involving different appellants ( U\u017e . CARDINAL ) .","The Constitutional Court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE referred , inter alia , to the inconsistent case - law in question , citing specific judgments irrespective of the time - frame , and found a violation of the appellants\u2019 right to equal protection before the courts as guaranteed under LAW . ORG was of the opinion that the courts of last instance , by ruling differently on the validity of claims based on identical facts and law , had placed appellants whose claims had been rejected in a materially different position from that of claimants whose claims had been allowed . There had accordingly been a violation of LAW . However , ORG considered that the allegations before it presented no constitutional basis upon which it could establish a violation of the appellants\u2019 right to a fair trial in so far as they complained about procedural fairness and the civil ORG allegedly inadequate characterisation of the legal nature of their claims . The ORG additional complaint , raised under LAW , was also rejected . In particular , there was no evidence to corroborate the claim that the first- and second - instance court decisions in the appellants\u2019 civil case had been rendered on the basis of any \u201c personal qualities \u201d , this being a precondition for determining the existence of a violation of the principle of non - discrimination . ORG took note of ORG finding of CARDINAL DATE of a violation of the prohibition of discrimination under LAW in conjunction with LAW No . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; for additional constitutional case - law to this effect , see decision U\u017e . CARDINAL\u2044CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , as well as decisions U\u017e . CARDINAL\u2044CARDINAL and U\u017e . CARDINAL , both of CARDINAL DATE , in their relevant parts ) , but for reasons that were different from those stated in this particular constitutional appeal . The fact that the latter complaint had been dismissed did not affect the ORG \u2019s obligation to act in accordance with ORG decision in respect of all persons , including the appellants , whose war per diems had not been paid out .","DATE and DATE first - instance and appellate courts across GPE ruled both in favour of reservists in a situation comparable to that of the applicants and against them , relying on DATE or DATE prescription periods respectively ( for examples of cases where the reservists were successful see , among numerous others , GPE ORG judgments PERSON . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively ) .","In the meantime , in DATE and DATE ORG had adopted CARDINAL legal opinions ( pravna shvatanja ) , both of which implied that the applicable prescription period should be DATE pursuant to section QUANTITY ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","DATE and DATE various appellate courts substantively ruled in compliance with ORG opinions of DATE and DATE ( see , for example , ORG decision G\u017e . CARDINAL of DATE ; ORG decisions PERSON . CARDINAL\u2044CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL\u2044CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL\u2044CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ; ORG decisions PERSON . CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ; and ORG of Appeal decisions G\u017e . CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) .","DATE and DATE there were also a number of decisions where appellate courts ruled against the reservists , albeit on a different ground . Their claims , unlike those of the applicants in the present case , were rejected as being administrative in nature and as such falling outside the competence of the civil courts ( see GPE ORG decision G\u017e . CARDINAL of DATE , and ORG decisions PERSON . TIME , CARDINAL\u2044CARDINAL and CARDINAL\u2044CARDINAL , of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively ) .","On DATE the Government endorsed the Agreement , and decided to pay the municipalities in question the amounts specified therein .","On DATE the Government set up a working group tasked with addressing the requests of all other reservists , that is to say those not resident in the CARDINAL municipalities mentioned above . However , having discussed the issue with various groups of reservists , this working group ultimately concluded that their demands were not acceptable , inter alia because : ( a ) they had not harmonised or specified their requests ; ( b ) some of their representatives had had dubious standing to represent them ; ( c ) there was a lack of ORG funds which could be used for this purpose ; and ( d ) in most cases , war per diems had already been paid to the reservists .","On DATE the Commissioner for ORG ) , an Ombudsman - type office established on the basis of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , considered the complaints brought by an organisation representing the interests of reservists in a situation comparable to that of the applicants . She concluded that they had been discriminated against on the basis of their registered residence , that is as non - residents of the CARDINAL privileged municipalities , and recommended that the Government take all necessary measures in order to ensure that all reservists were afforded the payments recognised by their decision of DATE . The Government were also invited to provide the Commissioner with an appropriate \u201c action plan \u201d within DATE . In its reasoning , the Commissioner \u2019s decision noted , inter alia , that the payments in question were per diems , notwithstanding that the Government had chosen to consider them as social benefits awarded to persons in need ( socijalna pomo\u0107 ) , and that this was best exemplified by the fact that the reservists in question had had to renounce their legal claims concerning the per diems , as well as the fact that the individual reservists resident in the CARDINAL municipalities in issue were never under an obligation to prove their indigence ( imovinsko stanje i socijalnu ugro\u017eenost ) . This being so , there was clearly no objective and reasonable justification for the differential treatment of reservists merely on the basis of their place of residence .","On DATE ORG ( Ministarstvo rada i socijalne politike ) noted that discussions should continue with the various groups of reservists and that , if possible , financial support should be offered to the most indigent among them ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145227","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF AMADAYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Examination of the case)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , LOC , GPE .","The applicant and his family are of NORP ethnic origin . They live in the Chastoozerskiy district of LOC ( also called PERSON ) . According to the applicant , at the time of the events in question the population of the NORP district constituted CARDINAL persons , of whom CARDINAL were of NORP origin .","The applicant submitted that attitudes towards the NORP minority had worsened after DATE , when the second armed conflict in GPE had started . CARDINAL NORP nationalist organisations were particularly active in LOC ( ORG ) and ORG ( RNKA ) .","It appears from the applicant \u2019s statements and other documents that prior to CARDINAL DATE there was a conflict between individuals involving NORP . This was perceived by some as mounting ethnic tension in the district . In particular , the applicant claimed that a resident of PERSON , PERSON PERSON , the manager of a sausage factory in PERSON , and PERSON PERSON , a boxing coach from PERSON , had invited the NORP community and some nationalist NORP groups to meet to \u201c settle the dispute \u201d on DATE . Pursuant to a statement of DATE given by ORG , who calls himself \u201c the spiritual leader of the NORP \u201d , on DATE he had transmitted this information to the district prosecutor and the head of the administration in order that measures could be taken with a view to maintaining law and order ( see below ) .","In TIME CARDINAL DATE a group of police officers was deployed on the main road of PERSON , near the sausage factory . At TIME this group stopped the applicant \u2019s car , in which there were also CARDINAL other NORP men from PERSON , PERSON S .- A.B. and PERSON U.B. Their vehicle was inspected , together with their documents . The car then proceeded to Mr S .- A.B. \u2019s house at no . DATE Marx Street .","At TIME CARDINAL cars \u2013 a white and a red ORG and a PERSON DATE passed the same police officers and stopped in front of the house . CARDINAL men , including Mr PERSON , got out of the cars and invited the applicant and PERSON PERSON to get into the cars and accompany them . When they refused , CARDINAL of the men shot the applicant in CARDINAL knee , and then in the other knee , with an airgun . They then beat the CARDINAL men with baseball bats , as a result of which the applicant \u2019s right arm was broken .","The applicant was left on the road in front of Mr S .- A.B. \u2019s house , while Mr GPE was forced into the PERSON and driven to the sausage factory . There was a crowd of CARDINAL men there , including the manager PERSON PERSON ; they beat PERSON GPE with metal rods , baseball bats and pipes . During the beatings the crowd shouted nationalist and anti - NORP slogans . The police eventually intervened and set PERSON FAC free . DATE the applicant and Mr FAC were taken to the local hospital by Mr D.A. The applicant did not submit any medical documents to the ORG , but the criminal investigation ( see below ) cited CARDINAL forensic expert reports describing his and PERSON U.B. \u2019s injuries .","It appears that other incidents not involving the applicant directly took place DATE in PERSON . A group of men of NORP ethnic origin remained in the forest near the village ; in TIME of DATE the police rounded them up and found weapons and home - made explosive devices . This group was taken to the district police department ( ROVD ) by officers of the police special forces ( ORG ) . They were released after they had spent TIME at the police station where , allegedly , they had also been beaten and insulted .","The applicant submitted a list of the documents contained in criminal investigation file no . DATE and extracts from ( not copies of ) some of the documents . According to his notes , by DATE the case file contained CARDINAL pages of documents in CARDINAL volumes . The Government did not contest the applicant \u2019s description of the investigation , but supplemented it with information on later developments . The most relevant information may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the PERSON opened a criminal investigation under LAW , part CARDINAL , ( intentional infliction of serious injuries committed by a group of persons or as a result of conspiracy ) .","On DATE the head of ORG of the ORG set up a group of CARDINAL police investigators to work on the case .","DATE and DATE the investigation was suspended and resumed on QUANTITY occasions . Following the applicant \u2019s latest complaint , on DATE the decision of DATE adjourning the investigation was quashed and the case was sent for further processing to the police investigation department of LOC . The prosecutor \u2019s office letter of the same date acknowledged that the applicant had not been timeously informed of the decision to adjourn the case in DATE .","On DATE the investigation was again suspended , since the perpetrators could not be identified .","On DATE the applicant was questioned and granted victim status .","On DATE the applicant submitted a written statement to ORG ( \u201c the district prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) , describing the events of CARDINAL DATE and asking for a criminal investigation to be carried out into the incident in which he had sustained his injuries . In his statement the applicant named Mr. S.K. as CARDINAL of the perpetrators and the owner of the PERSON vehicle .","Mr GPE was questioned on DATE ; on DATE he was additionally questioned and granted victim status . He named Mr. PERSON , the sausage factory manager , as one of the persons present at the factory during his ill - treatment , and PERSON PERSON as the owner of the car in which he had been transported . He also described several other attackers in some detail , including a Mr PERSON . P.","On DATE a forensic expert found that Mr GPE was suffering from the consequences of beatings and that one rib was fractured ; the injuries were therefore moderately serious .","On DATE a forensic expert found that the applicant had suffered CARDINAL gun - shot wounds from pellets in the knees , resulting in fractures of the tibiae ; and a fracture of the right elbow caused by a blow with a blunt instrument . These were described as moderately serious injuries .","In DATE the applicant was again questioned . He described the attack on him , again mentioning Mr TIME as one of the perpetrators . He further stated that PERSON PERSON had gone to GPE and would not be able to identify the other attackers .","On DATE CARDINAL men - local residents of NORP ethnic origin - were questioned by the police . Most of them confirmed that on DATE , after TIME , they had had a pre - arranged meeting with PERSON PERSON During the meeting he had told them that the men who had injured the applicant and PERSON GPE had already left . After the meeting they had gone into the forest to avoid further violence .","On DATE Mr D.A. , the \u201c spiritual leader of the NORP \u201d , submitted a written statement to the head of ORG . Mr D.A. described the events of DATE , indicating that at TIME on DATE he had informed the district prosecutor and the head of the administration about the forthcoming gathering of an anti - NORP group in PERSON . He then described the attack on the applicant and PERSON GPE and the subsequent detention and ill - treatment of the NORP men by the police . He asked the police to investigate the crimes committed .","In DATE the investigators questioned a number of other NORP , including the applicant \u2019s brother . They described the attack on the applicant and the subsequent events of DATE , referring in particular to Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON as active participants in the violence .","On an unspecified date , CARDINAL ethnic NORP men residing in PERSON submitted a complaint to the prosecutor of LOC . They described the events prior to DATE , as well as the attack on the applicant and Mr U.B. They also complained about their detention at the ROVD on TIME DATE , stating that they had been subjected to beatings and insults .","On DATE the investigators questioned a CARDINAL men who had been present at the sausage factory during the events . Some of them stated that they had come to PERSON to spend DATE with Mr. PERSON , to play football and go to the sauna together . Others stated that they had been told by their friends that \u201c their help was needed \u201d at a meeting with NORP . Most of them confirmed that a group of CARDINAL men had gathered at the sausage factory in TIME CARDINAL DATE and that they had discussed the conflict involving the local NORP . No one mentioned the incident with the applicant or the beating up of Mr. U.B.","On DATE Mr PERSON identified Mr PERSON . P. in a line - up as one of the men who had attacked him in FAC and then at the sausage factory .","Mr PERSON was questioned on DATE and then again on DATE . During the first questioning he stated that on DATE some of his friends had come to PERSON to spend the weekend together or for business reasons . They had learnt that the NORP were planning a violent confrontation and decided to stay with him . At TIME CARDINAL NORP man had come to the sausage factory and told him that someone had shot at one of his compatriots , but PERSON PERSON had denied any knowledge of this and the man had left . After TIME several cars containing NORP had come to the sausage factory but Mr PERSON and the police who were there had prevented further violence .","During his second questioning PERSON PERSON named several of the men who had come to the sausage factory on DATE , including his brother PERSON D.I. \u2013 the factory owner DATE and Mr PERSON . P. He confirmed that he had arranged a meeting with the NORP on DATE in order to \u201c discuss their behaviour with them \u201d and that he had invited his friends to attend the meeting \u201c in order to support him \u201d . His friends had arrived unarmed . At TIME he had seen a group of men beating Mr FAC in the courtyard of the sausage factory ; he had intervened and stopped the beating . He did not know the men who had been beating Mr FAC cars containing NORP had then arrived and he and the police officers had intervened to prevent further violence . The NORP had then left , taking Mr GPE with them .","In DATE the police compiled a list of CARDINAL men and CARDINAL vehicles that had come to PERSON on DATE in question . Most of the men were questioned in DATE and DATE and confirmed that they had come to PERSON because they had \u201c heard about problems involving NORP \u201d , but denied that they had taken part in attacks on the applicant or PERSON U.B.","On DATE Mr PERSON was questioned as a witness . He stated that he had been made aware of the conflict with the NORP by PERSON PERSON but that he had not planned to take part in the meeting arranged for DATE . On TIME he had been driving his car along FAC when he had seen a man lying on the ground and several men standing around . CARDINAL of them , brandishing a gun , had ordered him to take the wounded man to the sausage factory . Mr PERSON did not know these men and would not be able to identify them ; he had then seen them continue to beat the man at the sausage factory and had left immediately . In DATE Mr PERSON was questioned again ; he repeated his previous statements about the attack on the applicant .","On DATE Mr PERSON . PERSON was questioned as witness . He explained that on DATE before DATE , PERSON PERSON had called him and invited to come , with his friends , to a \u201c rendez - vous \u201d with NORP in GPE . He then named several men who had come with him from PERSON , and the vehicles in which they had travelled . He confirmed that he had had a baseball bat in the trunk of his car , and that their vehicle had not been inspected by police . Soon after CARDINAL p.m. he had seen a large crowd at the sausage factory , many of them armed with rods and sticks . He had witnessed the crowd beating CARDINAL NORP but denied that he had taken part .","NORP In DATE the applicant identified CARDINAL men , including Mr PERSON . P. , as the perpetrators of the attack .","A police officer from the PERSON ROVD stated that on DATE he had been manning a post on the road near the sausage factory . He and another police officer had searched vehicles for arms , but nothing had been found .","In DATE CARDINAL other police officers confirmed that they had inspected a number of vehicles containing young \u201c fit - looking \u201d men which had arrived in PERSON on DATE ; no arms or other dangerous items had been found . Later at the sausage factory one police officer had seen Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON in the crowd ; the latter had behaved in an aggressive manner and incited the crowd .","In DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL local residents . Some of them had seen the PERSON car being driven by PERSON PERSON in FAC . Others had been aware of the \u201c tensions \u201d with the NORP and of the \u201c rendezvous \u201d on DATE . No one had witnessed the attack on the applicant .","On DATE and DATE the investigators searched FAC and collected cartridges from airguns and pellets . NORP were also extracted from the applicant \u2019s wounds .","On DATE the premises of the sausage factory were searched , but nothing of relevance was found .","On DATE the police compiled a list of CARDINAL vehicles present in PERSON on DATE of the incident , and of their owners .","On DATE the police examined the place in the forest where the group of NORP men had gathered in TIME of CARDINAL DATE . There they collected metal rods and pipes , wooden sticks , bottles containing inflammable liquid ( gasoline ) , knives , CARDINAL hand pistol and CARDINAL hunting gun . On DATE searches were carried out of the houses of Mr S .- A.B. and another NORP resident in PERSON . A separate criminal investigation was opened on DATE . Its outcome is not known .","In their observations of DATE the Government , without citing or appending any documents from the criminal investigation , also stated that CARDINAL hunting guns had been collected from persons who had come to PERSON upon Mr PERSON \u2019s invitation . The ballistic expert reports had not linked any of these weapons to the cartridges collected at the site .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office decided not to bring charges of incitement to racially motivated hatred ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) against Mr. PERSON on account of lack of evidence of a criminal act .","On DATE , pursuant to the applicant \u2019s complaint , that decision was quashed by the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office again ruled not to open a criminal investigation against Mr. A.I.","In parallel to these proceedings , on DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office ruled not to charge Mr. PERSON and Mr. PERSON with incitement to racially motivated hatred on account of lack of evidence of a criminal act . On DATE that decision was quashed by the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office and the case was remitted to the district prosecutor \u2019s office .","In the new round of proceedings , the investigator questioned the applicant , who confirmed his previous statements about Mr. PERSON and Mr. PERSON \u2019s roles in the events . Several residents of PERSON denied that they had been called on to take part in the \u201c disturbances \u201d against the NORP . Several of the men who had gathered at the sausage factory on DATE denied that they had been invited there by anyone . The head of the district administration confirmed that he had seen ORG flyers prior to CARDINAL DATE , but stated that he had been unaware of their provenance and had not considered them to contain incitements to ethnic violence . On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office again ruled to close the criminal proceedings against Mr. PERSON and Mr. PERSON for lack of evidence of a crime .","DATE . On DATE that decision was quashed . In the new round of proceedings , the investigator additionally questioned several men who had gathered on DATE at the sausage factory ; all of them stated that they regularly came to PERSON at Mr. PERSON \u2019s invitation to spend DATE together and that they had not been aware of any incitements to ethnic violence . They had not carried or seen any items which could serve as weapons , such as metal rods or baseball bats , and had not seen any ORG flyers on the factory LOC . On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office ruled not to bring charges against the CARDINAL men . That decision appears not to have been appealed against .","On DATE the investigator of ORG ruled not to open criminal proceedings against persons unknown . The decision was taken in response to a letter from the applicant \u2019s representative claiming that the applicant \u2019s injuries had been caused in the context of incitement to ethnic hatred . The decision referred to pending criminal investigation no . DATE and the absence of information on the alleged perpetrators of that crime . It also referred to the fact that no charges had been brought under LAW ( incitement to ethnic or religious hatred ) in the entire LOC in DATE . It appears that the decision was not appealed against .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office decided not to open a criminal investigation into the actions of the ORG servicemen . The decision referred to the conclusions of the preliminary inquiry , according to which the actions of the police officers had been lawful ; no one had sought medical help on DATE in relation to police violence ; no individual complaints about police actions had been lodged between CARDINAL May and DATE .","On DATE the decision was quashed by the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office again decided not to open a criminal investigation concerning the police ORG actions .","On several occasions the applicant and his representative attempted to lodge complaints with the courts under LAW about failure by the prosecutors to act diligently . Some of the complaints were left without consideration owing to alleged procedural irregularities or because the applicant had failed to indicate the particular actions he was challenging .","On CARDINAL DATE the Chastoozerye ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint about the district prosecutor \u2019s office \u2019s failure to supervise the criminal investigation of case no . CARDINAL . The court found that the prosecutor \u2019s office had taken all possible steps in response to the applicant \u2019s complaints and that the police investigator had taken all possible steps to identify the perpetrators of the crime , even if those steps had failed to produce a result .","The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision , and on DATE ORG quashed ORG ruling and closed the proceedings . It found that the complaint could not be examined by the court on its merits because the applicant had failed to indicate the specific decisions and actions which had infringed his rights . ORG was not competent to replace the prosecutor \u2019s office or to evaluate the latter \u2019s work in supervising criminal investigations . The complaint had therefore to be dismissed without examination .","On DATE the deputy prosecutor of the Kurgan Region quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) suspending the investigation and forwarded the file to the investigative department of ORG of the Interior . He pointed out that the exact circumstances of the events had not been established , including in relation to PERSON U.B. \u2019s allegation that PERSON PERSON . PERSON had taken a silver chain off his neck . Although Mr PERSON had identified PERSON PERSON . PERSON and PERSON PERSON as the perpetrators of the crime , no steps had been taken to resolve the serious discrepancies between the statements of PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON . PERSON and PERSON U.B. Nor had proper identification parades or confrontations between them been carried out .","The applicant submitted a number of copies of press articles and flyers concerning the events . A copy of a newspaper edited by the ORG called PERSON ( National Thought ) , issue no . DATE , contained an article in which the events in PERSON were described as a justified reaction by the local population , which was \u201c enslaved \u201d and \u201c occupied \u201d by \u201c aliens from the NORP mountains \u201d . The same newspaper contained an open letter to the Governor of LOC signed by the head of the RNKA . It described the events in PERSON as \u201c the first call \u201d of the \u201c NORP protest \u201d and invited the Governor to rely on the local ORG in order to maintain peace in the region .","Other publications described the events in PERSON as a major ethnic clash CARDINAL of armed men which had been dispersed by special police forces ( ORG in GPE , DATE , and Strana.ru , DATE ) .","An undated ORG flyer referred to the events in the following way :","\u201c ... CARDINAL of the predators was hit by a bullet , others were similarly rewarded . ... CARDINAL armed men had come out for a \u2018 talk\u2019 with [ CARDINAL ] mountainous jew - predators ... [ thus ] the NORP rises ! Death to the villain ! Hail the heroes ! NORP rule for GPE ! \u201d"],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["38"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167184","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"AHMED v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He is detained at GPE .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other men were tried at ORG before PERSON and a jury . The men were charged with a range of sexual offences against young girls . There were CARDINAL counts in the indictment . The applicant faced charges of : conspiracy with his co - defendants to engage in sexual activity with children ( count CARDINAL in the indictment ) , trafficking within GPE for sexual exploitation ( count CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL counts of rape ( counts CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , aiding and abetting another to rape ( count CARDINAL ) , and sexual assault ( count CARDINAL ) . His co - defendants faced similar charges .","NORP The media gave extensive coverage to the proceedings . Some , including ORG and ORG , attributed a racial dimension to the case given that the defendants were of NORP origin and the complainants were not . The ORG protested at the preliminary court hearings in the case . For these reasons , prospective jurors who indicated on the jury questionnaire that they were associated with the ORG or EDL were excluded . The trial venue was also moved from PERSON ( where the offences were alleged to have taken place ) to GPE to minimise the effect of that publicity .","At the start of the trial , the trial judge warned the jury not to discuss the case outside of the jury room and to discuss it only with their fellow jurors . He repeated this warning whenever the jury separated .","The jury began their deliberations on CARDINAL DATE . At that time , the judge directed that no verdicts were to be published until all verdicts against all of the defendants had been returned . This was to avoid the jury being subject to pressure from media reports or public demonstrations .","The jury separated at DATE on DATE and resumed their deliberations on DATE In the course of their deliberations on CARDINAL May they sent the trial judge notes asking to be reminded of the accounts given to the police by certain of the complainants in the case . Those notes related to counts CARDINAL , DATE and DATE on the indictment .","DATE , while the jury was deliberating , the applicant , through his counsel , complained to the judge that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL interpreters at the trial had spoken to the press about him . The judge questioned the interpreter who confirmed that she had discussed the applicant \u2019s demeanour in court with a member of the press but nothing more . The judge then warned both interpreters not to have any communication with the press .","The jury resumed their deliberations on DATE While deliberating they sent further notes either asking to be reminded of the evidence of a complainant or requesting copies of evidence . Those notes related to counts CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE of the indictment .","On TIME , counsel informed the judge of CARDINAL postings that had appeared on the internet about the jury \u2019s deliberations .","At TIME a post appeared on the ORG page of a group called \u201c Infidels of GPE \u201d which stated :","\u201c CARDINAL NORP groomer scum found GUILTY so far at ORG . \u201d","At TIME FAC , the chairman of the ORG , sent a \u201c tweet \u201d on the social media website ORG . It said :","\u201c Newsflash DATE of the NORP paedophile rapists found guilty in GPE . \u201d","At TIME the trial judge consulted counsel in private . With the consent of counsel , at TIME he called the jury into court and asked the jury \u2019s foreman if they had reached any guilty verdicts , and if so , how many . After a series of exchanges , it became clear that the jury had indeed reached guilty verdicts for CARDINAL of the defendants . The precise verdicts \u2013 that is , and the counts and defendants to which they related \u2013 were not taken at this stage . The jury retired to their room at TIME","Between TIME and TIME sent CARDINAL further tweets appeared casting doubt on the initial claim he had made in his CARDINAL p.m. tweet . The last tweet , however , stated :","\u201c But people there [ in GPE ] say jury still out on CARDINAL [ defendants ] and others will be sentenced DATE . \u201d","The jury would not have been aware of any date for sentencing and it had not been mentioned in open court .","The trial judge called the jury back into court and said to them :","\u201c ... Could I ask all of you to tell me , to assure me , that nothing that you have discussed in the jury room ... can have got out into the world in general ? Nothing ? Nothing whatsoever , by any means whatsoever ? \u201d","All of the jurors replied \u201c No . \u201d The judge then asked :","\u201c There is n\u2019t any chance of anybody overhearing anything you might have been saying inadvertently outside the jury room ? \u201d","The jurors again all replied \u201c No \u201d .","The judge then consulted counsel in the absence of the jury . He informed them that , in the light of the ORG replies and their demeanour , he intended to proceed on the assumption that they were telling the truth and had acted properly . Defence counsel requested time to make an application for discharge of the jury . The judge , therefore , allowed the jury to separate for TIME , giving them instructions not to consider any news source , whether on the internet , on television or in the newspapers .","On DATE , the judge sat in open court , but imposed reporting restrictions . He rejected the defence \u2019s application to discharge the jury , concluding that he was satisfied that no juror had communicated the jury \u2019s deliberations either deliberately or accidentally to anyone else , and therefore questions of bias did not arise . The judge observed that the jury \u2019s notes indicated that they were adopting a \u201c perfectly reasonable , logical and unbiased approach to the evidence . \u201d He did not believe that a message could have been communicated by a juror to the outside during deliberations . The judge also concluded that communication from a juror was not the only possible explanation for the internet postings .","At this time , the judge was also informed of additional posts on a ORG group called \u201c Infidels of GPE \u201d that included threatening comments toward the jury if they were to acquit . The judge determined that there was no evidence that the jurors had seen these posts or had felt intimidated by them .","At TIME on DATE the jury returned verdicts on QUANTITY of the CARDINAL counts in the indictment . These verdicts included all of the counts against the applicant , save for the count of conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with children ( count CARDINAL ) , which the trial judge had advised the jury to leave until last and thus upon which they continued to deliberate . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL verdicts returned at this stage were guilty verdicts ; CARDINAL were not guilty verdicts .","The jury resumed their deliberations on DATE ( DATE ) . DATE , they returned the following verdicts :","( a ) NORP on count CARDINALA on the indictment ( the conspiracy count ) : a unanimous guilty verdict against all of the defendants facing that charge , including the applicant ;","( b ) on count CARDINAL ( an alternative conspiracy count faced by CARDINAL defendants , not including the applicant ) : a unanimous guilty verdict for CARDINAL defendants , a not guilty verdict for another defendant , and the jury were unable to agree on a verdict on this count for a fifth defendant ; and","( c ) NORP on count CARDINAL : a unanimous guilty verdict in respect of the CARDINAL defendant facing this charge .","The jury were then given a \u201c majority direction \u201d by the trial judge , allowing them to return majority rather than unanimous verdicts .","DATE ( DATE ) , they returned their remaining verdicts . These were not guilty verdicts on counts CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ( counts of rape against certain of the defendants , not including the applicant ) .","In an interview on DATE on ORG , PERSON stated that he had received his information from CARDINAL different people who were outside the courthouse demonstrating . He also tweeted on DATE :","\u201c ... inaccurate leak re convictions DATE came from a court or police officer , not a juror ... \u201d","The convicted defendants , including the applicant , lodged appeals against their convictions . ORG directed ORG ( ORG ) to investigate the allegations of jury irregularity .","The ORG appointed a police officer to act as investigator . The investigator asked PERSON to attend a voluntary interview : he declined .","NORP Despite interviewing a possible leader of the \u201c Infidels of GPE \u201d group , the ORG was unsuccessful in establishing who had been responsible for the posts on the group \u2019s ORG page .","Facebook and ORG did not co - operate by disclosing the data relating to the accounts used , and the ORG concluded that , even if the data were disclosed , it would be unlikely to shed light on the source of the information posted on the internet .","The ORG detailed the measures taken to ensure the security of jury deliberations , including the seclusion of the jury in the jury suite at court . All toilet and refreshment facilities were in the suite . Meals were provided from the canteen and smoking breaks were escorted . The jury room was kept locked . The jury had been asked to hand over all mobile phones , laptops and electronic devices , which were locked in a safe and returned to them at the end of each day . They were not searched . As part of general security measures during the trial , the jury had been picked up and dropped by a coach at a designated meeting point some distance from the court . During the journey to and from court the jurors were accompanied by an usher . The ORG took statements from the court clerk and usher . Both stated that they did not see or hear anything suspicious during the trial . The usher added that the jury had been really professional and a pleasure to look after .","The ORG concluded :","\u201c It would appear , therefore , that the only opportunity for a member of the jury to have communicated with a third party during their deliberations would have been if they had wilfully retained a mobile phone or communications device , despite having been asked to hand in all such items . Even in those circumstances ... and although access to private toilet facilities was apparently provided from the jury room , it would seem unlikely that a juror could have conducted such a clandestine operation without being noticed by fellow jurors . Nothing has emerged from the enquiries which have been conducted pursuant to the ORG \u2019s directions which suggest to the ORG that any member of the jury or security staff engaged in any inappropriate activity as regards the disclosure of the jury \u2019s verdicts or otherwise . \u201d","At a directions hearing on DATE ORG refused to order any further investigation , for example by interviewing individual jurors .","On DATE a single judge of ORG , Mr Justice PERSON , refused the applicant and his co - defendants leave to appeal . He found that the trial judge had not erred in refusing to discharge the jury . As regards the alleged bias on the part of the jury , PERSON found that , as a result of the ORG \u2019s investigation , no misconduct had been uncovered . There was , for instance , no indication that a \u201c rogue \u201d juror had been in communication with a far - right organisation .","Regard had to be given to the manner in which the jury had deliberated , he observed :","\u201c It is important that although , in the first batch of verdicts on DATE , there were indeed verdicts of guilty against CARDINAL of the CARDINAL defendants , there was a unanimous verdict of not guilty against PERSON ( on count CARDINAL , rape ) . It follows ( on the hypothesis of a juror in communication with a far - right organisation ) that the supposed \u2018 rogue\u2019 juror had subscribed to an acquittal . The jury had reached no verdicts on count CARDINAL or count CARDINAL ( the conspiracy counts ) . This suggests that they were following the judge \u2019s advice to work through the substantive counts before considering the conspiracy counts .","When on DATE May ( a bank holiday intervened ) the next batch of unanimous verdicts where returned , they included a verdict of not guilty against [ GPE ] on count CARDINALB. Again the supposed \u2018 rogue\u2019 had subscribed to an acquittal . Following a majority direction , further not guilty verdicts were returned : count CARDINAL ( PERSON , rape ) , count CARDINAL ( PERSON , rape ) , counts CARDINAL and DATE ( GPE , rape ) . These may , of course , have been by a majority . [ ]","Accordingly , it is clear that the jury were considered the case carefully and analytically . \u201d","Of the defendants , only the applicant renewed his application for leave to appeal before the full court . On DATE , following a hearing , ORG refused permission to appeal : [ CARDINAL ] PERSON CARDINAL . It found :","\u201c CARDINAL . We have carefully considered the material facts and the results of the ORG \u2019s investigation .","We agree with the conclusions of the ORG . In our judgment , it is not possible to draw the inference from the material before us that a juror deliberately communicated information about the jury \u2019s deliberations to someone outside the jury whilst at court . The ORG investigation shows that extensive precautions were taken to protect the integrity of the jury in this trial which made it extremely difficult for jurors to communicate in secret with anyone outside the jury room . It is fanciful to imagine that a juror was covertly signalling from the window or that a juror was able to make clandestine telephone calls on a hidden mobile phone , from the toilet or elsewhere , without being overheard or detected by other jurors or court staff . The court clerk and usher , who had worked with the jury for DATE , found no reason to suspect any juror of impropriety or unusual behaviour .","The Judge apparently accepted the ORG \u2019s submission that the information posted on the internet could have derived from discussions amongst those at court trying to guess the state of the jury \u2019s deliberations , perhaps from the sequence of jury notes . In our view , it is improbable that guesswork could have resulted in such an accurate prediction of the jury \u2019s guilty verdicts . We do , however , accept that the information in Mr PERSON \u2019s final tweet at CARDINAL on CARDINALrd May ( \u2018 jury still out on CARDINAL and others will be sentenced next GPE ) , most probably originated from someone connected to the prosecution or defence teams , or the interpreters . The court was sitting in private ; the jury had only just left court after indicating that they had found CARDINAL defendants guilty ; and sentencing dates were not known to the jury and had not been mentioned at any stage in open court .","We accept it is possible that \u2018 loose ORG by jurors outside the jury room resulted in information about the jury \u2019s deliberations being disclosed to outsiders . It is quite possible that the jury had decided upon guilty verdicts in respect of CARDINAL defendants by the time they separated on TIME May. Jury deliberations are , of course , confidential , and jurors are routinely warned not to discuss the case outside the jury room , whether with fellow jurors or anyone else , including members of their family .","Such conduct , even if inadvertent , would amount to a jury irregularity . However , we do not consider that it would be sufficient to render the convictions unsafe . In our view , taken on its own , disclosure of the jury \u2019s progress on the counts would not have compromised the jury \u2019s independence or impacted on the jury \u2019s ability to remain faithful to their oath or affirmation to \" faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence \" ( see Criminal Practice Direction CARDINALM.CARDINAL ) . The Judge , legal representatives and court staff were unanimous in the view that , throughout the lengthy trial , the jury had participated appropriately in the trial process and appeared to be assessing the evidence conscientiously .","The Applicant alleges apparent bias on the part of the jury , because the information was disseminated by far - right organisations hostile to the defendants . We have applied the test set out in Re Medicaments [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL , as amended in PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL AC CARDINAL , namely , whether , on an objective appraisal , the material facts give rise to a legitimate fear that the jury might not have been impartial , asking ourselves whether a fair - minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the jury was biased . A similar test applies under LAW , namely , whether there are sufficient guarantees to exclude any objectively justified or legitimate doubts as to the impartiality of the jury : see PERSON v. GPE ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE ( DATE ) CARDINAL EHRR CARDINAL .","There was ample evidence to support the Judge \u2019s view that the jury was adopting a \u2018 perfectly reasonable , logical and unbiased approach to the evidence\u2019 . Judging from the content of the jury notes and the sequence of the verdicts , they progressed through the counts in the order recommended by the Judge , and carefully considered the evidence in relation to each count . The verdicts , taken as a whole , appeared rational and consistent with the evidence . The Judge observed at the end of the trial that the jury had performed their task with \" painstaking care \" .","The jurors had all completed questionnaires confirming that they were not associated with the ORG or ORG and there was no evidence to suggest that any juror had withheld information about such an association . The fact that the jury returned unanimous \u2018 not guilty\u2019 verdicts on CARDINAL counts on CARDINALrd May was at odds with the allegation that there was one or more racially biased supporter of a farright organisation on the jury , as such a person would presumably not have been party to any \u2018 not guilty\u2019 verdict .","Like the Judge , we have concluded that there was simply no evidential link established between the jury and the far - right organisations which posted the information on the internet . Therefore we do not consider that , on the material facts , a fair minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the jury was biased , nor that there were any objectively justified or legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the jury .","No criticism can be made of the careful and fair manner in which the Judge conducted the necessary enquiries . He was not permitted to ask the jury about the content of its deliberations ; only to investigate any irregularity . We agree with his conclusion that it was not necessary to discharge the jury and we consider that he gave appropriate directions to the jury throughout the trial regarding their conduct .","We do not accept [ Counsel for the applicant \u2019s ] criticism of the ORG \u2019s investigations as inadequate . In our view , there was nothing more that the ORG could reasonably have done .","The safety of the convictions is not in doubt and therefore the application for permission to appeal against conviction is refused . \u201d","The following standard instructions and directions to a jury trying a case in GPE and GPE are taken from the ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","Upon responding to a summons , jury members are sent a leaflet called \u201c Your Guide to Jury Service \u201d . The leaflet explains that ORG discussions are private and that jurors should not discuss any aspects of the trial with anyone other than fellow jurors . It sets out that the verdict must be that of the jurors alone and reminds jurors that their role is to reach a verdict on the evidence presented in the court room at trial . The leaflet also notes that it is an offence for anyone outside the jury to try and influence them .","Once selected for jury duty , jurors must swear an oath or make an affirmation that they will :","\u201c faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence . \u201d","At the outset of the trial , the jury are conventionally given a direction to the effect that they must try the case on the evidence alone , which is what they hear in court . They are instructed that they must not discuss the case with family , friends or anyone else or conduct their own research into the case .","In Re : B [ DATE ] PERSON , which involved an appeal against an order restricting the reporting of a criminal trial , ORG ) said :","\u201c There is a feature of our trial system which is sometimes overlooked or taken for granted . The collective experience of this constitution as well as the previous constitution of the court , both when we were in practice at the Bar and judicially , has demonstrated to us time and time again , that juries up and down the country have a passionate and profound belief in , and a commitment to , the right of a defendant to be given a fair trial . They know that it is integral to their responsibility . It is , when all is said and done , their birthright ; it is shared by each CARDINAL of them with the defendant . They guard it faithfully . The integrity of the jury is an essential feature of our trial process . Juries follow the directions which the judge will give them to focus exclusively on the evidence and to ignore anything they may have heard or read out of court . No doubt in this case [ the judge ] will give appropriate directions , tailor - made to the individual facts in the light of any trial post the sentencing hearing , after hearing submissions from counsel for the defendants . We can not too strongly emphasise that the jury will follow them , not only because they will loyally abide by the directions of law which they will be given by the judge , but also because the directions themselves will appeal directly to their own instinctive and fundamental belief in the need for the trial process to be fair . \u201d","In GPE v. ORG ; PERSON v. ORG Advocate [ DATE ] CARDINAL AC CARDINAL , ORG of ORG considered whether a NORP jury trial taking place after adverse publicity would be compatible with LAW . In finding that it would , Lord Hope ( with whom the members of the ORG agreed ) observed :","\u201c [ T]he entire system of trial by jury is based upon the assumption that the jury will follow the instructions which they receive from the trial judge and that they will return a true verdict in accordance with the evidence .","The NORP judges are not alone in proceeding upon this assumption . In ORG , in Reg . v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL S.C.R. CARDINAL , CARDINAL , PERSON said that jury directions are often long and difficult but that the experience of trial judges is that juries do perform their duty according to law . In NORP v. PERSON DATE ) DATE ) CARDINAL , CARDINAL ORG , under reference to the PERSON case , said that dicta in that case underlined the confidence that may be had in the ability of a jury to disabuse itself of information that it is not entitled to consider . In ORG of Australia , in The Queen v. PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL , CARDINAL PERSON and Toohey J. said that the law proceeds on the footing that the jury , acting in accordance with the instructions given to them by the trial judge , will render a true verdict in accordance with the evidence and that to conclude otherwise would be to underrate the integrity of the system of trial by jury and the effect on the jury of the instructions given by the trial judge . In ORG , in PERSON v. Director of Public Prosecutions [ DATE ] CARDINAL PERSON , CARDINAL PERSON , drawing upon his experience as counsel and as a judge , said that he shared in the confidence that his legal system has in juries to act with responsibility in accordance with the terms of their oath , to follow the directions given by the trial judge and a true verdict give in accordance with the evidence . I consider that the judges in the court below were entitled to draw upon their experience , and I see no reason in the light of my own experience to disagree with their assessment . \u201d","In ORG in PERSON v. PERSON [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL , Lord Hope of PERSON considered the question of apparent bias and concluded ( at paragraph CARDINAL of the judgment ) that :","\u201c The question is whether the fair - minded and informed observer , having considered the facts , would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased . \u201d","NORP That test was designed to bring LANGUAGE law into line with the approach taken in GPE and various ORG jurisdictions , and the approach taken by ORG in its LAW ( paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment ) .","Under the law of GPE and GPE , ORG will allow an appeal against conviction if it regards the conviction as unsafe ( section CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ) .","In NORP v. PERSON [ DATE ] EWCA Crim CARDINAL \u2013 where CARDINAL juror had complained of racial bias on the part of other jurors DATE ORG found that a verdict would be unsafe if the fair minded observer would conclude , on the available evidence , that there was a real possibility of a real danger that the verdict was at least in part the product of bias . Having considered the facts in the case , ORG concluded that it was left with the suspicion that an impartial observer would perceive a real risk of bias . It thus allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction .","In NORP v. JC and Others [ DATE ] EWCA Crim DATE also concerning a complaint of prejudice on the part of fellow jurors DATE ORG stated :","\u201c The receipt of any communication by a juror or jurors complaining of possible irregularities by or among the other jurors demands rapid and close attention . It behoves the judge to decide whether the integrity of the trial process has been irretrievably damaged or whether the trial can continue notwithstanding the complaints . Depending on the individual facts it may be appropriate for the judge to discharge the jury as a whole , or CARDINAL or more individual members of it , or to continue with the trial , with any necessary direction or warning sufficient to deal with the specific problem . The question for this court is whether the alternative adopted by the judge was correct , which , if the trial has been allowed to continue must be decided at its end , when the warning or directions of the judge , and their impact and any consequences can all be examined . \u201d","ORG declined to quash the conviction in that case , having regard to the trial \u2019s judge handling of the complaint ( including the directions he then gave to the jury ) , the conduct of the jury throughout the trial , the length of their deliberations , a question as to the law they had asked of the judge while deliberating , and the different verdicts they had rendered against different defendants on the different counts in the indictment .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) prevents ORG from accepting a majority verdict of guilty unless the foreman of the jury has stated in open court the number of jurors who respectively agreed to and dissented from the verdict . To comply with this provision , and at the same time to prevent it being known whether a not guilty verdict is unanimous or by a majority , ORG set the following procedure for taking a verdict once the jury is permitted to give a majority verdict ( that is , after a \u201c majority direction \u201d is given by the trial judge ) . The procedure is now set out in Criminal Practice Direction VI : Trial at paragraph CARDINALQCARDINAL - CARDINAL ( at the time of the applicant \u2019s trial , paragraph CARDINAL ) . When the jury return with a verdict after a majority direction has been given , they should be asked :","( a ) \u201c Have CARDINAL ( or CARDINAL as the case may be ) of you agreed on your verdict ? \u201d ;","( b ) If \u201c Yes \u201d , \u201c What is your verdict ? Please only answer \u2018 Guilty\u2019 or \u2018 Not Guilty\u2019 . \u201d ;","( c ) ( i ) If \u201c Not Guilty \u201d , accept the verdict without more ado ;","( ii ) If \u201c Guilty \u201d , \u201c Is that the verdict of you all , or by a majority ? \u201d ;","( d ) If \u201c Guilty \u201d by a majority , \u201c How many of you agreed to the verdict and how many dissented ? \u201d","Section CARDINALA of LAW DATE gives ORG the power to direct ORG to investigate and report to ORG on any matter necessary for the resolution of an appeal against conviction before it .","Part II of LAW DATE gives the ORG the necessary powers to conduct such an investigation , including the power to require the appointment of police officers to acting as investigating officers ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168052","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BEKUZAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also complained under LAW based on the same set of facts ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184498","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ALTUN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief)","judges":"Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first and third applicants live in GPE . The second applicant left GPE subsequent to his criminal conviction giving rise to the present application .","On DATE the applicants took part in a religious ceremony ( mevl\u00fct ) on the premises of the NORP district branch of ORG the NORP \u201d ) in GPE , at which they paid tribute to CARDINAL members of the ORG , an illegal armed organisation , who had been killed by the security forces . CARDINAL of the deceased was the first applicant \u2019s nephew . The second applicant was the head of the GPE branch of the ORG at the relevant time . The third applicant was a member of the ORG and a friend of the first applicant .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG , charging the applicants and a number of other persons with dissemination of propaganda in favour of the ORG , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . ORG ) , on account of their participation in the ceremony of DATE . According to the indictment , during the ceremony photographs of the deceased and the ORG \u2019s flag were displayed at the venue and a film about the lives of the deceased was shown . In addition , the second applicant , the head of the GPE branch of the ORG , made the following statement :","\u201c Our fears and worries continue . People are still being killed . In such a context , we would like this mevl\u00fct to be a moment of peace and fraternity . \u201d","On DATE ORG convicted the applicants of disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG and sentenced them to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment each . In its judgment , ORG observed , firstly , that the persons in whose memory the ceremony had been held were members of a terrorist organisation and that they had been killed by the security forces during an operation against that organisation . It also took the view that the choice of venue for DATE the LOC of a political party DATE and the fact that the NORP flag had been spread over the tables and photographs of members of the organisation had been displayed , contributed to raising serious doubts as to the applicants\u2019 submissions that they had taken part in the ceremony in observance of their religious duties . The court considered that the applicants had committed the offence of dissemination of propaganda given that they had shared the feelings of mourning and sorrow for the deceased who had been involved in terrorism . It further considered that the venue where the ceremony had been held had turned into a propaganda venue in favour of the ORG .","Following an appeal lodged by the applicants , their conviction was upheld by a final decision of ORG on DATE .","The first and third applicants served their prison sentences ."],"violated_articles":["9"],"violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154983","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"LJUBLJANSKA BANKA D.D. v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , GPE banka d.d . , PERSON ( hereafter \u201c the applicant bank \u201d or \u201c the ORG \u201d ) is a joint stock company incorporated under NORP law . Its registered office is in GPE .","NORP Before the economic reforms that were carried out in GPE ( hereafter \u201c the SFRY \u201d ) in DATE , its commercial banking system consisted of \u201c basic \u201d and \u201c associated \u201d banks . Basic banks had separate legal personality , but were integrated into the organisational structure of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL associated banks . As a rule , basic banks were founded and controlled by socially - owned companies based in the same territorial unit ( that is , in CARDINAL of GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE DATE or ORG and GPE ) . Socially - owned companies were the flagship of the NORP model of self - management : neither private nor ORG - owned , they were a collective property controlled by their employees , based on a communist vision of industrial relations . CARDINAL basic banks could form an associated bank ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and the former GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","ORG ( in NORP and NORP : GPE banka ) was founded in DATE under the laws of the then GPE . In DATE it opened an office in GPE in the then GPE . DATE until DATE ORG ( hereafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) operated as an \u201c associated bank \u201d ( in NORP : GPE banka \u2013 zdru\u017eena banka ) and was composed of ORG , ORG , ORG and a number of other basic banks . In the same period ORG GPE office operated as a \u201c basic bank \u201d , that is , as ORG ( in NORP : GPE banka \u2013 GPE banka GPE ) and had separate legal personality under the law of the then GPE . It was , however , integrated into the organisational structure of ORG ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE , and ORG and Others , loc . cit . )","Within the framework of the DATE reforms , the ORG abolished the system of basic and associated banks described above . This shift in the banking regulations allowed some basic banks to opt for an independent status , while others became branches ( without legal personality ) of the former associated banks to which they had belonged ( see PERSON and Others , cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) .","On DATE ORG was re - registered as a joint stock company ( in NORP : delni\u0161ka dru\u017eba , \u201c d.d . \u201d ) in the then GPE . The change was entered in the register of commercial companies DATE and became effective on DATE ( see PERSON and Others , cited above , \u00a7 DATE , and NORP and Others , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and DATE ) .","On DATE ORG was re - registered with effect from DATE as ORG ( in NORP and NORP : GPE banka d.d . PERSON filijala GPE , hereinafter : \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in the registers of commercial companies in both the then GPE and GPE ( see NORP and Others , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) , that is , as a business unit of ORG ( in NORP : del podjetja , in NORP : dio poduze\u0107a ) without legal personality ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Shortly after its declaration of independence on DATE , GPE nationalised ORG . In DATE , it restructured the bank by virtue of the DATE LAW to the DATE LAW on the Sovereignty and Independence of GPE . Most of the bank \u2019s assets and a part of its liabilities were transferred to a new bank \u2013 ORG banka , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The old ORG was initially administered by ORG of GPE . It is now controlled by a NORP Government agency DATE ORG ( see PERSON and Others , cited above , \u00a7 DATE , and NORP and Others , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172135","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF WOLTER AND SARFERT v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+P1-1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE and the second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The first applicant is the natural son of PERSON , who recognised paternity DATE after his birth . The first applicant had a personal relationship with his father and worked in his business . The father died on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant applied for a certificate of inheritance attesting that he was entitled to PERCENT of the estate .","On DATE the GPE ORG granted the certificate , upon which the first applicant took the estate into his possession and disposed of it . However , on DATE ORG withdrew the certificate , stating that the first applicant , being a child born outside marriage , was not Mr H. \u2019s statutory heir . The first applicant appealed against that decision , but on DATE ORG upheld it .","On DATE the first applicant again applied for a certificate of inheritance stating that he was entitled to PERCENT of PERSON estate , referring in particular to ORG in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the GPE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s application , holding that the judgment in PERSON ( cited above ) was not applicable to his case . Instead , it granted certificates of partial inheritance to the first applicant \u2019s CARDINAL - sister and to the grandchildren of the deceased \u2019s wife .","On DATE the first applicant appealed to ORG , arguing that under LAW of LAW , which states that children born outside marriage must be provided by legislation with the same opportunities as are enjoyed by children born within marriage , there were no reasons he should be treated differently from children born within marriage . He stated that if he was refused the certificate the NORP ORG would be liable for compensation claims .","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG decision , holding that the first applicant was not a statutory heir . ORG referred to a decision by ORG of DATE , in which section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside ORG had been found to be in conformity with LAW . The principles developed in PERSON ( cited above ) were not applicable to the present case . There was a need to protect the legitimate expectations of the deceased and other heirs . ORG also considered that an interpretation of the relevant provision of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act in conformity with the case - law of ORG was not possible as the domestic law was clear and therefore not open to any interpretation .","On DATE the first applicant appealed to ORG , arguing that the application of the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act would discriminate against him and breach his inheritance rights and therefore violate his right to equality before the law under LAW and his rights under LAW . The first applicant stressed that ORG reasoning disregarded the ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON ( cited above ) and was therefore unlawful . The first applicant further noted that he had maintained a close relationship with his father until the latter \u2019s death and had even worked in his business . The first applicant \u2019s father had assumed that the first applicant would be his sole heir .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s appeal on the grounds that it was bound by the decisions of ORG and that it had found that the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act was in conformity with LAW . ORG judgment in PERSON ( cited above ) did not require a change of position because NORP courts were not bound by the decisions of that court . ORG added that interpreting domestic law in the light of the Convention was restricted when domestic law was clear and therefore not open to interpretation . That was the case with the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act . ORG of Appeal further noted that the first applicant \u2019s appeal had been an appeal on points of law only . The first applicant \u2019s argument , therefore , that he had had a close relationship with his father , which was a statement of fact , could not be taken into account when deciding on the appeal because it had been submitted for the first time before ORG .","The second applicant is the natural son of a Mr B. and was born in the former GPE , where he lived until his flight from the country in DATE . In DATE Mr B. was ordered by the GPE - Blankensee ORG to pay maintenance for the applicant . He met his father on CARDINAL occasions , but was asked by the latter not to get involved in the lives of his wife and daughter . The father died on DATE , naming his daughter as sole heir in his will .","NORP In DATE , after ORG had issued its judgment in PERSON ( cited above ) , the second applicant brought an action for a compulsory portion of the deceased \u2019s estate ( Plichtteilsklage ) with ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s claim , holding that under the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act the second applicant was not a statutory heir . That provision was in conformity with LAW . ORG referred to ORG judgment of DATE . It noted that PERSON ( cited above ) was not applicable to the case at hand because there had been no regular contact between the second applicant and his father , the deceased had a natural daughter and the second applicant had not lived in the former GPE for most of his life .","The second applicant appealed to ORG , arguing that ORG in PERSON ( cited above ) obliged the NORP courts to grant children born outside marriage the same inheritance rights as those born within marriage . The special circumstances of PERSON ( cited above ) , which were referred to by ORG , were not conditions that had to be present in order to apply the principles laid down in that judgment .","In a decision of DATE ORG upheld ORG decision , endorsing its reasoning . It referred to ORG case - law , arguing that there was a need to protect the legitimate expectations of the deceased .","The second applicant appealed to ORG , which confirmed ORG reasoning in a decision on DATE . ORG argued that neither the old nor the amended first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act discriminated against children born outside marriage before DATE because the difference in treatment was based on legitimate grounds . Regarding the amended first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act , expanding the retroactive scope of the reform beyond the one adopted was not necessary as the basic principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations had to be respected . Those principles were also necessarily inherent in the LAW , meaning that even though the inheritance rights of children born outside marriage fell within the scope of the protection of LAW , a ORG was dispensed from reopening legal acts or reviewing situations that pre - dated the delivery of a court judgment . ORG also noted that the facts at issue did not fall within the ambit of Article CARDINAL or that of LAW .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He claimed discrimination and therefore a violation of LAW by applying the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act because there were no reasons why children born outside marriage should be treated differently from those born within marriage . The case - law of ORG , which considered that provision to be valid , disregarded ORG in PERSON ( cited above ) and was therefore unlawful . That led to a violation of LAW .","The second applicant also lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . Relying on the judgment in PERSON ( cited above ) , he complained that the application of the amended version of the first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act discriminated against him compared to children born within marriage . As a consequence he had been denied his inheritance rights .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed both applicants\u2019 constitutional complaints ( file FAC . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","ORG noted that the judgment in PERSON ( cited above ) had led the NORP legislature to pass LAW of DATE ( Zweites Gesetz zur erbrechtlichen GPE nichtehelicher Kinder ) . The first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act of DATE had been changed retroactively , with the effect that the difference between children born outside marriage before and after DATE had been set aside in cases of successions after CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Even though the first applicant \u2019s claim of a close relationship with his father had only been made for the first time in his appeal to ORG , ORG noted that that statement of fact was not relevant for the issue before it . It declared both applicants\u2019 constitutional complaints admissible .","The Federal Constitutional Court confirmed the conformity of the amended first sentence of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act with LAW . It reiterated that the cases at hand only needed to be examined under LAW of LAW and not under LAW , which contained the right to protection of property . The difference between children born outside marriage before and after DATE had been abolished by LAW of DATE . The general discrimination against children born before and after that date therefore no longer existed . The time - limit in the new provision was not linked to personal characteristics but to a coincidental external event ( zuf\u00e4lliges , von au\u00dfen kommendes LOC ) . Any discriminatory treatment was therefore of a lesser degree .","Making the reform retroactive was not necessary as the conformity of the relevant provision of the Children Born outside Marriage ( Legal Status ) Act had been repeatedly confirmed by ORG . The PERSON case ( cited above ) had not changed that position because ORG had clarified in ORG v. GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) that the principle of legal certainty , which was necessarily inherent in the law of the Convention as in NORP Law , dispensed a ORG from reopening legal acts or reviewing situations that predated the delivery of a judgment by ORG .","ORG concluded that the domestic courts in the proceedings at issue had interpreted the relevant provision in accordance with LAW . ORG Human Rights\u2019 judgment in PERSON ( cited above ) did not necessitate a different interpretation , particularly because the first applicant \u2019s submission about a close relationship with his father had been made belatedly while the second applicant had not claimed any relationship with his father at all ."],"violated_articles":["14","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166486","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ERKENOV v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);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);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He was detained at the Gaziantep Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre ( \u201c the Gaziantep Removal Centre \u201d ) at the time of the events giving rise to this application . His current address is unknown .","In DATE the applicant fled to GPE because he was being searched for by the NORP authorities . It appears that shortly before his escape , he had lost his right leg in a bomb attack that struck a mosque in GPE .","Subsequent to his departure from GPE , criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant by the NORP authorities before ORG on the following charges : ( i ) participation in an armed insurrection and membership of an armed organisation with the purpose of overthrowing the constitutional order and violating the territorial integrity of GPE and ( ii ) possessing firearms and ammunition . It appears that ORG issued a detention order in respect of the applicant in his absence .","On DATE the applicant was taken into police custody in GPE in the context of an operation against ORG . He was subsequently taken to Gaziantep , where he was placed in pre - trial detention at ORG upon the order of ORG .","On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were commenced against the applicant before ORG .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release from ORG . There is no further information in the case file as regards the outcome of the criminal proceedings .","Following his release from prison on DATE , the applicant was placed in detention at FAC , which is attached to ORG .","On an unspecified date the NORP authorities requested the extradition of the applicant . On DATE the ORG refused that request , holding that the offences in question were of a political nature and that under international and national laws , alleged perpetrators of such offences could not be extradited .","On DATE the applicant applied to the LAW governor \u2019s office with a request for asylum . On DATE the applicant was notified that his request had been rejected .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant submitted a petition to ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) , where he requested to be released and to be granted a residence permit . The applicant \u2019s requests were dismissed by ORG . The applicant \u2019s objection to that decision was further dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was released from ORG , on the condition that he leave GPE within DATE . It appears that the applicant left GPE shortly after his release .","According to the information in the case file , the applicant met with his lawyer a total of CARDINAL times DATE and DATE during his detention at ORG ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184484","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF HANYECZ AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised another complaint under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167801","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BA\u0160I\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","NORP In response to a request from the police , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta ) asked an investigating judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) to authorise the use of special investigative measures , namely tapping the telephone conversations of the applicant and several other individuals on the grounds of their suspected participation in organised drug trafficking , customs evasion , and the abuse of power and authority .","On DATE the investigating judge granted the request and issued an order for the use of secret surveillance measures . His statement of reasons read as follows :","\u201c The State Attorney \u2019s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime asked the investigating judge to authorise the use of phone tapping measures under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in respect of ... PERSON [ and others ] on the grounds that a preliminary [ police ] investigation suggested that these individuals were engaged in criminal activity involving the commission of offences under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .","Having assessed the [ ORG Attorney \u2019s ] request , and in view of [ the request from the police ] , it is established that there is probable cause for believing that the criminal offences have been committed and that the requisite investigation in the present case could not be carried out by any other means , or would be extremely difficult . In addition , given that the matter concerns the offences enumerated in LAW , the request has been granted and it was decided as indicated in the operative part of this order . \u201d","In the course of the investigation , the investigating judge issued several further secret surveillance orders to the same effect . In addition to the phone tapping , the investigating judge also authorised the covert monitoring of the suspects .","On the basis of the evidence obtained by the aforementioned use of secret surveillance measures , on DATE the police lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons with the Slavonski GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ) in connection with suspected drug trafficking and customs evasion .","On DATE the applicant was brought before an investigating judge of ORG PERSON ) , who questioned him in connection with the charges brought against him . The applicant decided to remain silent and not give any evidence .","On DATE the investigating judge opened an investigation in respect of the applicant and the other suspects in connection with suspected drug trafficking . She also ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention .","After the completion of the investigation , on DATE PERSON State Attorney \u2019s Office indicted the applicant and CARDINAL other persons in LOC on charges of drug trafficking .","On DATE the applicant asked PERSON to exclude from the proceedings the evidence obtained by means of secret surveillance as being unlawfully obtained . He argued that the secret surveillance had been carried out on the basis of orders which had been issued contrary to the relevant domestic law and practice of ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) in that they contained no reasoning justifying the use of secret surveillance .","At a hearing on DATE PERSON dismissed the applicant \u2019s request as unfounded . At the same hearing the applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges held against him , whereas CARDINAL other defendants pleaded guilty . The trial bench heard several witnesses and an expert witness and examined the reports in the case file .","A further hearing was held on DATE at which the applicant reiterated his request for the exclusion of the evidence obtained by secret surveillance as being unlawfully obtained . The applicant further contended that his exact location at the moment of the alleged commission of the offence at issue should be established by obtaining the location tracking data of the mobile phone which he had allegedly used .","The trial bench dismissed the applicant \u2019s request as unfounded and decided to continue with the examination of evidence . It heard CARDINAL witnesses and an expert witness and adjourned the proceedings in order for the defence to obtain copies of the secret surveillance recordings .","At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the applicant argued that a list of incoming and outgoing calls for the mobile phones allegedly used by the defendants should be obtained doubts as to the identification of CARDINAL of the speakers as CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s co - accused .","At a hearing on DATE the trial bench heard further secret surveillance audio recordings . The defence had no particular objections to the recordings but requested that some additional evidence and recordings be examined at the trial .","Further hearings were held on CARDINAL and DATE at which the trial bench examined the secret surveillance recordings . The applicant reiterated his request for an expert telecommunications report to establish the location of his mobile phone at the moment of the alleged offence . The defence also challenged the credibility of a police report concerning the applicant \u2019s surveillance , expressing doubts as to the reasons why there were no recordings accompanying that report . In this connection the trial bench heard evidence from the police officer in charge of the operation , PERSON , who explained that no recordings had been made for fear that , in the circumstances , the suspects might have noticed that they were being followed . The trial bench also heard evidence from another police officer , ORG , who explained the method of identifying the mobile phones used by the defendants . Following ORG \u2019s questioning , the trial bench dismissed all further requests for the examination of evidence and adjourned the hearing for the preparation of the defendants\u2019 closing statements .","On DATE the trial bench heard the parties\u2019 closing arguments .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE PERSON found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to MONEY imprisonment . As to the applicant \u2019s arguments concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the secret surveillance orders , that court held that the orders had outlined reasons for believing that the applicant had probably participated in the commission of the offence at issue and that the investigation could not have been conducted by other means .","The Slavonski Brod County Court further held that all doubts on the part of the defence as to the accuracy of the recordings had been clarified by questioning the police officers , who had explained the manner in which the recordings had been obtained and documented . It also found that the available police reports on covert monitoring provided sufficient information as to the defendant \u2019s location at the moment of the commission of the offence and that there was therefore no need to obtain further evidence , such as mobile phone location data , in that respect . It therefore dismissed the applicant \u2019s objections to the use of the evidence obtained by secret surveillance and proceeded with its detailed assessment when determining the applicant \u2019s guilt .","On DATE and DATE , relying on the case - law of the ORG \u2012 according to which secret surveillance orders needed to be properly reasoned in order to satisfy the requirement of lawfulness under the relevant domestic law \u2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment with ORG ( PERSON ) . He also complained about the use of the evidence thereby obtained in securing his conviction .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . It stressed in particular that the alleged lack of reasoning justifying the secret surveillance orders could not result in the unlawfulness of the evidence obtained by the use of such secret surveillance . \u2019s conviction had been based on a proper and convincing assessment of evidence and the relevant facts .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG complaining that his right to respect for private life and confidentiality of correspondence , as guaranteed under LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW , had been breached by the unlawful and unjustified secret surveillance , and that his right to a fair trial under LAW had been breached by the use of the evidence thereby obtained in the criminal proceedings against him .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as unfounded , endorsing the reasoning of ORG . It considered in particular that the criminal proceedings against the applicant , taken as a whole , had not been unfair . The decision of ORG was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175968","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SMR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"PIRAS v. SAN MARINO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr A. Pagliano , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP On DATE ORG ( GPE di Informazione Finanziaria , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , the national authority responsible for combatting money laundering , ordered the temporary freezing of bank accounts ( mentioned below at paragraph CARDINAL ) at CARDINAL named NORP banks , which were traced back to the applicant .","Pursuant to the relevant law , the ORG informed the investigating judge ( PERSON della PERSON ) of the freezing order and provided him with all the information in its possession . A criminal investigation was thus opened against the applicant and CARDINAL others for the continuous offence of money laundering under LAW and CARDINAL bis of LAW .","By a decision of DATE , served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE , the investigating judge , relying on LAW bis and ter of LAW ( see relevant domestic law below ) preventively seized , inter alia , the following assets , which were all traced back to the applicant : ( i ) bank account No . CARDINAL ; ( ii ) bank account No . DATE ; ( iii ) securities portfolio ( dossier titoli amministrati ) No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; ( iv ) bank account No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; ( v ) the financial product ( prodotto finanziario ) No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; and ( vi ) the insurance product ( prodotto assicurativo ) No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The judge also ordered the seizure of any credit balance or other assets ( including any safe deposit boxes ) traced back to the accused persons . A judicial notice was issued on DATE by the investigating judge and served on the applicant \u2019s legal counsel .","According to the prosecution , the accused persons had DATE laundered assets which were the product of fraudulent bankruptcy committed by a certain PERSON ( CARDINAL of the co - accused ) to the detriment of various NORP companies ( company ORG , company ORG and others ) , which had been traced back to PERSON and of which he had been the director and liquidator . Other laundered assets were the product of other offences ( such as embezzlement , fraud and tax fraud ) , also committed by PERSON The laundering had been carried out in CARDINAL different episodes ( all set out precisely in the judicial notice ) and the applicant had taken part in CARDINAL of them . In particular , the accused persons had carried out several bank operations , consisting , inter alia , of repeated withdrawals and deposits of money , the issuing and cashing of cheques on behalf of fictitious persons or the other co - accused persons and the use of bank accounts ( sometimes held by other co - accused persons , by relatives or foreign companies ) to transfer money within the country or abroad for the purposes of concealing its criminal origin .","Except for the assets related to the alleged fraudulent bankruptcy by PERSON , the alleged criminal origin of the other assets was indicated in the seizure decision by means of references to the legal classification of some of the offences allegedly committed by PERSON The second page of the decision specified offences such as \u201c bankruptcies , embezzlement , fraud and tax fraud \u201d , while page CARDINAL gave more generic indications such as \u201c acts of fraud and tax offences \u201d . The decision gave no further details regarding the factual basis for such predicate offences .","In the detailed seizure decision , the investigating judge reconstructed in precise terms all the above - mentioned bank operations and expressly referred , inter alia , to the applicant \u2019s financial situation . He noted that a customer due diligence test carried out on DATE by one of the banks involved had shown that the applicant did not have any administrative role or shareholdings in any NORP companies which could produce any income . According to the judge , after that period , from DATE , the applicant had been a partner and advisor in a named management consultancy firm . He had not carried out any other business or professional activities and was not on the list of professionals who had received legitimate payments from the bankrupt companies , P. and C. In the light of that information , the judge considered that the applicant \u2019s financial resources were not consistent with the financial , business or professional activities he had declared he carried out .","Furthermore , the investigating judge considered that there had existed a periculum in PERSON ( danger in delay ) in not issuing a seizure order , as the consequences of the offence could have been aggravated or prolonged . Indeed , the assets could have been withdrawn and\/or concealed by the accused persons , thus frustrating the possibility for confiscation at the end of the proceedings . Moreover , the laundering was allegedly still ongoing at the time of the ORG \u2019s temporary freezing order . By the same decision the judge also summoned the applicant for questioning .","On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other accused persons represented by the same counsel lodged a complaint against the seizure decision with the Judge of ORG ( GPE d\u2019Appello GPE ) under LAW .","The applicant primarily requested the lifting of the decision in toto or alternatively a reduction in the amount of money seized to MONEY ( ORG ) . The grounds he gave included the fact that : ( i ) the judge had violated the principle of nullum crimen sine lege since he had applied a wording of LAW bis and ter of LAW which had been introduced only in DATE and had therefore not yet been in force at the material time . According to the applicant , prior to the amendments introduced by LAW . CARDINAL of DATE , the domestic law had not provided for a precautionary seizure with the aim of the future confiscation of items other than the price , product or profit of a crime or which had been used to commit a crime \u2013 the seizure had therefore been disproportionate ; ( ii ) the alleged offences at the origin of the laundered money had been indicated by the investigating judge in a very generic way DATE he argued that such a lack of specifics was not sufficient to provide CARDINAL of the prerequisites for the seizure , namely the fumus delicti ( the presumption of a sufficient legal basis ) ; ( iii ) the only predicate offence which had been mentioned in sufficiently precise terms in the seizure decision had been that of fraudulent bankruptcy to the detriment of company P. , for which PERSON had been found guilty , at first - instance , in NORP criminal proceedings . However , in that connection and in relation to his alternative request , the applicant noted that the NORP court , in GPE , had found that PERSON had taken LAW from the assets of company P. ( which had then gone bankrupt ) and that only a part of that money ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) had then been transferred to GPE . Thus , there was a disproportion between the money seized ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) and the money having an ascertained ( or at least a precisely indicated ) criminal origin ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The applicant argued that the judge had failed even to give a summary description of the alleged actions or factual background constituting such offences and that such lacunas had made it impossible for him to adequately defend himself .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE , the Judge of ORG rejected his requests .","NORP In particular , the judge held that there had been no violation of the principle of nullum crimen sine lege since that rule was applicable only to substantive criminal provisions not procedural ones . The latter were subject , instead , to the tempus regit actum principle ( the legality of an act can only be judged according to the law in effect at the time of the act ) .","According to the judge , preventive seizure ( either probative or preventive with the aim of eventual permanent confiscation ) could be ordered regardless of a final finding of guilt concerning an offence . Such a measure was aimed at preventing the commission of further offences or making sure that future measures were not frustrated . Moreover , contrary to the opinion of the defence , preventive seizure had been applicable at the material time ( before the amendment of DATE ) as section CARDINAL of Law No . CARDINAL of DATE had expressly provided for it .","As to the difference between the sums seized and the alleged product of the offence , the court stated that Articles CARDINAL bis and ter of LAW did not set any limits on seizures or state that the seized amount had to be limited to funds belonging to the accused , or to the price , product , or profit of an offence . According to the judge , a proportionality test had to be carried out only at the stage of applying permanent confiscation following a finding of guilt , not at the stage of precautionary measures , given the different purpose of the measures .","With regard to the alleged general nature of the reference to the offences which had been at the origin of some of the assets , it had already been established in domestic case - law that in order to find someone guilty of money laundering it was not necessary to determine the type of predicate offence , the perpetrator , or the victim . It sufficed instead to have evidence of the criminal origin of assets which had been transferred , concealed or substituted \u2013 thus the burden of proving the illicit origin was satisfied if such an origin emerged clearly from a logical and coherent interpretation of the evidence . Hence , the investigating judge \u2019s reasoning had sufficed for applying the seizure order since he had described in detail the bank operations carried out by the accused \u2013 the suspicious and unreasonable complexity of the operations , the relevant amount and their lack of transparency DATE elements which had spoken for themselves . Moreover , the investigating judge had highlighted the close relations between PERSON ( the person who had allegedly collected the funds ) and all the other accused persons and indicated the respective role of each in carrying out the laundering .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( PERSON ) , reiterating his earlier submissions and requests . In addition , he complained that the judge had reversed the burden of proof in connection with the lack of a precise indication of the fumus delicti in the seizure decision .","On DATE the Attorney General ( ORG ) filed submissions against the applicant \u2019s appeal .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , served on DATE , the judge rejected both of the applicant \u2019s requests . The judge stated that third - instance criminal proceedings were only interim proceedings aimed solely at reviewing the legality of precautionary measures and not the merits of a case . They could not be regarded as a sort of preliminary assessment of an accused \u2019s guilt on criminal charges ( since such an assessment was for trial courts ) . When a Third - Instance Criminal Judge was called on to review the legality of a precautionary measure , the judge had to assess the existence of fumus delicti , namely the plausibility of the investigator \u2019s suspicions ( ipotesi investigativa ) concerning the commission of an offence and the possibility to trace it to the accused . The judge also had to review whether the substantive provisions that had been applied reflected the factual circumstances described in the notice of the offence ( notizia di reato ) and whether there had been a correct application of the procedural provisions concerning the admissibility and the assessment of evidence . In addition , the judge had to check whether the rights and duties of the parties had been adhered to ; ensure that the requirements and limits of the measure had been correctly applied ; and ascertain the existence of adequate reasoning justifying the measure .","The judge found that the submissions related to the existence of the fumus delicti , the reversal of the burden of proof and the problem of the assessment of the criminal origin of the assets were inadmissible on the grounds that they concerned the merits of the case and not the legality of the procedure .","After a detailed examination of the evolution of the provisions concerning seizures in the domestic law , the judge found no violation of the nullum crimen sine lege principle in the case or , in particular , of the principle of the non - retroactivity of criminal provisions . Moreover , the judge had not had to find any periculum in ORG or make any other consideration concerning the accused \u2019s wealth , his personal situation or financial needs , in order to apply a seizure order with the aim of future confiscation .","As to any lack of proportion in the seizure , the judge reiterated that the relevant Articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied by the investigating judge ( Article CARDINAL bis and ter ) did not set any limits and the seizure order had therefore been in accordance with the law .","The judge also dismissed all the other grounds of appeal . In conclusion , he held that the investigating judge had not made any mistakes in applying or interpreting the relevant laws or in using his powers of discretion in his assessment . The seizure had therefore been necessary , inevitable and proportionate .","The offence of money laundering , Article CARDINAL bis of LAW , reads , in so far as relevant , as follow :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A person is guilty of money laundering where , except in cases of aiding and abetting , he conceals , substitutes , transfers or co - operates with others to so do , money which he knows was obtained as a result of crimes not resulting from negligence or contraventions ( misfatto ) , and with the aim of hiding its origins .","( CARDINAL ) or whosoever uses , or cooperates or intervenes with the intention of using , in the area of economic or financial activities , money which he knows was obtained as a result of crimes not resulting from negligence or contraventions ( misfatto ) . \u201d","Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law No . CARDINAL of DATE , which were applicable until amendments to LAW in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , in so far as relevant , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The PERSON della PERSON shall by a reasoned decision order the seizure of the corpus delicti and of items pertaining to a crime ( cose ad esso pertinenti ) which he deems necessary for the establishment of the facts .","( CARDINAL ) Items on which or through which the crime has been committed , and items which constitute the product , profit or price of the crime , shall be considered corpus delicti .","( CARDINAL ) The judicial authority or the judicial police ( Polizia Giudiziaria ) can examine and make a copy of acts , documents , mail , data and information contained in the computer software of financial institutions and seize acts , documents , mail , securities , funds , sums of money and all other items , even if they are contained in safe deposit boxes , when they have good reason to believe that such things pertained to the crime even if [ such things ] do not belong to the accused or are not registered in his name . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The PERSON della PERSON shall by a reasoned decision order the seizure of items pertaining to a crime if the consequences of such a crime could be aggravated or prolonged or where the commission of other crimes could be facilitated .","( CARDINAL ) The PERSON della PERSON may also order the seizure of items for which confiscation is allowed , as well as things to which those items may have been transformed or converted , and of things with which they may have been merged ( delle cose a cui sono state mescolate ) and [ the seizure ] of the profits obtained therefrom . \u201d","The provisions of Law No . CARDINAL were replaced by ORG CARDINAL bis and QUANTITY of Criminal Procedure by means of LAW . CARDINAL of DATE . Article CARDINAL bis and ter , concerning probative and precautionary seizures , are virtually identical to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law No . CARDINAL of DATE . The only difference concerns precautionary seizure : whereas Law No . ORG stated that the application of a preventive seizure with the aim of confiscation was not mandatory and depended on the judge \u2019s discretion ( \u201c may order \u201d - puo\u2019 disporre ) , Law No . CARDINAL considered it as mandatory ( \u201c shall order \u201d - dispone ) . Moreover , the latter provision also stated that judges must not only order seizure in cases that have a view to a \u201c direct \u201d confiscation , but also in those aimed at \u201c confiscation by equivalent means \u201d ( confisca per equivalente ) .","Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c Decisions concerning coercive measures or seizures against persons or assets and their subsequent confirmation may be challenged before the Judge of Criminal Appeals by the accused or the Attorney General within DATE of notification or enforcement of the measure ... \u201d","According to established domestic case - law ( for example , the decision of DATE by the Judge of ORG in criminal proceedings no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; decision of DATE by the Judge of ORG in criminal proceedings no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; decision of CARDINAL DATE by the Judge of ORG in criminal proceedings no . DATE ; and the decision of DATE by the Judge of ORG in proceedings concerning letter of request no . CARDINAL ) , a complaint under LAW is inadmissible if the Judge of ORG is asked to review in general terms all the activities carried out by the investigating judge during the investigation . A Judge of ORG can only intervene during an investigation in the specific cases expressly provided for by law , namely in order to review decisions applying precautionary measures , searches and seizures or in the case of aberrant decisions .","Law No . CARDINAL of DATE sets out the procedure to challenge the legitimacy of precautionary measures , such as seizures .","According to section DATE ( in the light of section LAW . CARDINAL of DATE ) , a third - instance judge is competent to decide such challenges and such a challenge does not suspend the enforcement of the measure . Section CARDINAL states that such a challenge can be lodged by interested parties or the Attorney General within DATE of notification of the seizure decision to the parties . The appeal is then sent to the relevant body , which allows the parties to make submissions within DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159774","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MAGYAR AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants , their representatives and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In application nos . CARDINAL and GPE , the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145013","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KRUPKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants are GPE \u2019s Witnesses belonging to various congregations in GPE . In DATE , the GPE courts banned the local religious organisation of GPE \u2019s Witnesses in GPE .","NORP In DATE , the applicant PERSON , acting on behalf of ORG of GPE \u2019s Witnesses , signed a rental contract with ORG for the purpose of holding religious meetings in the academy \u2019s assembly hall ( \u0430\u043a\u0442\u043e\u0432\u044b\u0439 \u0437\u0430\u043b ) DATE . By the time of the events , the meetings had been being held for DATE .","The most solemn and significant religious meeting for ORG , their families and supporters , known as the DATE celebration of FAC Evening Meal , was scheduled to begin at TIME , after sundown on DATE . CARDINAL people , including the CARDINAL applicants , gathered for the service .","At TIME police officers , led by the chief of the FAC police station , arrived in substantial numbers at the building . The building was cordoned off by the police units whose deployment included ten police vehicles , QUANTITY minibuses , an armed unit of ORG ( ORG ) and CARDINAL of other officers in uniform .","NORP The police chief went on stage , took over the microphone and announced that the meeting was unlawful and that the participants were to disperse . Those in attendance complied with the order . The police officers segregated the male individuals from the rest of the group and made them stand in the corridor behind the hall . CARDINAL male members of the congregation were escorted into the minibuses waiting outside . The police then proceeded to search the LOC and took away a few boxes of religious literature and some documents from the notice board .","The applicants were brought to the FAC police station where they were placed in a holding room and collectively photographed . Their identity documents were taken away . Their lawyer , PERSON , was not allowed to visit them at the police station .","The applicants were released shortly after TIME .","On DATE , CARDINAL press agencies , including a federal television channel , reported on the disruption of the service and the detention of participants .","NORP The CARDINAL applicants brought proceedings before LOC of GPE , seeking a declaration that the police had unlawfully disrupted a service of worship , removed religious literature , taken them to the police station , photographed and detained them and hindered the work of their counsel . They claimed compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE the ORG gave judgment , making the following findings of fact :","\u201c It was established that the NORP ] and CARDINAL fellow believers ... had gathered for a service of worship on DATE in the assembly hall ... The service was stopped by police officers of the FAC police station who declared the meeting illegal and demanded that the hall be vacated . PERSON , PERSON , PERSON PERSON and Mr Anorov were detained and escorted to the NORP police station to give statements .","These circumstances , including the curtailment of the religious service ... were confirmed by the representative of [ the FAC police station ] . His arguments that the plaintiffs were not detained , but went of their own accord , are unfounded . The fact of detention is corroborated by the testimonies of witnesses ... the entries in the register of persons detained or escorted to the police station ... which read that the plaintiffs were escorted to the police station [ for the reasons contained in ] report no . PERSON , and the written statements of the detainees . Records of the detention and escorting to the police station were not compiled . \u201d","ORG held that the police had lawfully stopped the service of worship :","\u201c Pursuant to section QUANTITY and CARDINAL of LAW ... religious organisations shall conduct religious services ... in religious buildings ... and in other places provided to religious organisations for such purposes ...","In other cases , public religious services ... shall be conducted in accordance with the procedure established for conducting meetings , marches and demonstrations .","The assembly hall of ORG ... does not meet the requirements established by the above - mentioned legal provisions for buildings , structures and other places provided for conducting religious rites by religious organisations . That is , since the plaintiffs belong to a religious organisation , the public religious service [ they held ] in a secular establishment should have been carried out in accordance with the procedure established by LAW , as provided for by LAW ...","As follows from the statements of the plaintiffs , they are not members of ORG of Jehovah \u2019s Witnesses \u2013 the religious organisation whose activity was banned in GPE by the judgment of ORG dated DATE and they exercise their right to freedom of religion ... having united not as a religious organisation but as the ORG and GPE religious groups . In light of the above , the court considers that , in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW , only premises provided for the use of the religious group by its members could be used for conducting services of worship ...","The court considers that the actions of the police officers in stopping the religious ritual in the building of ORG ... in which CARDINAL people were participating , without having observed the [ notification ] procedure for conducting meetings , marches and demonstrations , were well grounded . \u201d","Nevertheless , ORG considered that the police officers had acted unlawfully in detaining the applicants :","\u201c In accordance with LAW , violations of the established procedure for organising or conducting meetings , marches and demonstrations is a ground for instituting administrative offence proceedings . However , as follows from the testimony of [ the representative of the police station ] , no elements of an administrative offence were established in the actions of the plaintiffs and no records of an administrative violation , detention , escorting to the police station and administrative arrest were compiled . That is , there were no grounds for detaining [ the plaintiffs ] or escorting them to the police station . \u201d","ORG summarily rejected the remainder of the claims :","\u201c The claims concerning the removal of religious literature and passports , the photographing [ of the applicants ] or impediments caused to counsel are unsubstantiated . The applicants\u2019 and their ORG statements in that connection are contradictory , thus making it impossible to establish the relevant facts ... \u201d","The applicants lodged an appeal , submitting that ORG had misinterpreted the law in that the LOC for the service of worship had been legally provided under a rental contract entered into by ORG of GPE \u2019s Witnesses , a registered legal entity , of which the local religious groups were structural divisions .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment in the part concerning the finding of unlawfulness in the actions of the police :","\u201c It appears from the register of persons detained or escorted to the police station that the plaintiffs were taken to the police station to give statements ... and spent TIME at the police station , which can not be considered as detention .","Thus , the actions of the police patrol unit of the FAC police station in escorting the plaintiffs to the police station were carried out within the framework of LAW , and there is no basis for pronouncing unlawful their actions in stopping the unlawful religious service and escorting the plaintiffs to the police station for the purposes of taking their statements and inspecting [ their ] identity documents . \u201d","ORG upheld the remainder of the judgment and dismissed the applicants\u2019 arguments in a summary fashion :","\u201c The fact that the service of worship held by the ORG and GPE religious groups , which are part of the centralised religious organisation \u2018 ORG [ sic ] , was conducted on behalf of that organisation and on premises paid for by it does not in itself exempt it from [ the need to meet ] the requirements [ applicable to ] religious groups when conducting religious services , since the activity of that organisation is banned in GPE .","The court has considered the other arguments in the appeal ... [ They ] involved in essence a different interpretation of the law and a re - evaluation of evidence ... and these can not constitute grounds for reversing a court decision on appeal \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["5","9"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161379","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF NOVRUK AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":2,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","In DATE , Mr Novruk and PERSON , a NORP national , started living together as a couple in GPE . In DATE , a boy was born to their union ; he acquired NORP nationality by birth . DATE O. and their son moved to the Primorskiy region of GPE , where most of her family lived . In DATE Mr Novruk joined them in GPE , and in DATE they married . They divorced in DATE .","NORP In DATE , Mr Novruk met PERSON , a NORP national . In DATE , he travelled to GPE to renew his passport , where he discovered that he was HIV - positive . DATE Mr Novruk returned to GPE and on DATE he and PERSON married . PERSON has a daughter from her previous marriage and she is also a foster parent to CARDINAL orphaned children , some of whom are HIV - positive .","NORP In DATE Mr Novruk applied to ORG for a temporary residence permit . By a letter of DATE he was informed that his application was refused by reference to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , which restricted the issue of residence permits to foreign nationals who could show that they were HIVnegative .","On DATE the ORG of GPE , dismissed a challenge by the applicant to that decision , finding in particular that ORG had been required by law to reject his application for a residence permit . On DATE the Primorskiy Regional Court upheld that judgment on appeal .","The applicant PERSON is a NORP national who was born in DATE . She is represented before the ORG by Ms PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP In DATE , PERSON married Mr NORP , a NORP national . They started living in GPE . During her pregnancy she was diagnosed as ORG . On DATE her son PERSON was born . He acquired NORP nationality by birth .","In DATE , PERSON applied for a temporary residence permit . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused her application by reference to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and ordered her to leave GPE within DATE or face deportation . Ms PERSON challenged the refusal with the courts .","On DATE the ORG , GPE , found for PERSON , noting in particular that ORG had decided on her application without taking into account that her minor child and husband were both NORP nationals . It directed ORG to reconsider the application .","Further to the ORG decision , PERSON lodged a new application for a residence permit . On DATE ORG rejected it , referring to the same provision of LAW .","PERSON applied again for a judicial review . By a judgment of QUANTITY DATE , ORG of GPE granted a stay of enforcement of the ORG decision and ordered it to reconsider the matter in the light of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE and the Convention principles . PERSON appealed ; she submitted that ORG should have ruled that ORG refusal had been unlawful .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON appeal against ORG judgment , finding that \u201c there were no grounds to vary the judgment , because the GPE division of ORG had actually complied with it \u201d .","The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He was granted legal aid and is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","In DATE , PERSON married PERSON , a NORP national . Their children , a girl A. and a boy PERSON , were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The family were living in GPE .","NORP In DATE Mr PERSON took a blood test with a view to obtaining a health certificate to support his application for a temporary residence permit . He was found to be HIV - positive . The hospital reported the results of his test to the GPE division of ORG , which issued a decision of DATE on the undesirability of Mr GPE \u2019s stay in GPE because he would pose a \u201c real threat to public health \u201d . On DATE the director of ORG ratified that decision .","On DATE the decision was notified to PERSON ; he left GPE DATE , in compliance with the law . He took up residence in GPE in the \u201c NORP Republic of Transdniestria \u201d .","On DATE following the pronouncement of the Kiyutin v. GPE judgment ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) , PERSON , acting on Mr PERSON \u2019s behalf , applied to the GPE division of ORG , asking it to set aside the decision by which his presence in GPE had been pronounced undesirable . She submitted medical documents showing that PERSON posed no danger to public health because he was receiving appropriate treatment . Her request was forwarded to the legal department of ORG for review . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE addressed to the deputy director of the visas and registration department of ORG , the director of the legal department acknowledged that the decision of DATE had not taken fully into account Mr PERSON \u2019s family ties in GPE . Nevertheless , on DATE the deputy director of the GPE division of ORG informed PERSON and PERSON that their applications for review of the decision of DATE had been refused . His letter did not specify the grounds for refusing the request .","Mr GPE complained to court . On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed his complaint , finding firstly that his rights and freedoms had not been interfered with , and secondly that the director of ORG was not empowered to review or set aside a decision by which an individual \u2019s presence in GPE had been declared undesirable . That judgment was upheld on appeal on DATE by ORG . On DATE the Presidium of ORG rejected PERSON cassation appeal .","Mr GPE also challenged the compatibility of section CARDINAL of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act with the LAW , in that it allowed an executive agency to pronounce his presence undesirable solely because of his HIV - positive status . By decision no . CARDINAL-O of CARDINAL DATE , ORG declared his challenge inadmissible , finding that the impugned section was needed for the protection of public health from infectious diseases , including HIV . ORG reiterated that its decision of CARDINAL DATE ( cited in paragraph CARDINAL below ) remained valid and applicable , and that the decision pronouncing someone \u2019s presence undesirable must take full account of humanitarian considerations and the factual circumstances of each case , including the family links and state of health of the individual concerned .","On DATE Mr GPE \u2019s representative asked ORG to review the undesirability decision and to allow him to visit his children in GPE . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the deputy head of the CPA replied that it did not have the authority to reverse a decision issued by ORG .","The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE in LOC of the NORP GPE of the GPE . She is represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","In DATE her parents took PERSON and her sister to live in the NORP GPE of the GPE . In DATE PERSON got married and gave birth to a boy . DATE her sister also married and moved back to GPE . Following the collapse of the GPE , Ms Ostrovskaya acquired NORP nationality .","After the death of her parents and husband and her son \u2019s move to GPE in DATE , PERSON remained in GPE alone . In DATE she decided to move to GPE to share the flat occupied by her son \u2019s and her sister \u2019s families . PERSON sister and her husband are NORP nationals ; her son and his family are NORP nationals with valid NORP residence permits .","In DATE PERSON applied for a temporary residence permit . During a medical examination she tested HIV - positive .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE , the PERSON division of ORG refused her application for residence permit by reference to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , and informed her accordingly . On DATE a further notification to the same effect was sent by ORG .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON division of ORG notified PERSON that she should leave GPE by DATE or face deportation . The letter indicated that on CARDINAL DATE the director of ORG determined that her presence on NORP territory was undesirable by virtue of section CARDINAL of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act .","On DATE PERSON complained to court , relying on humanitarian grounds in her claim that she should be allowed to stay in GPE . By a judgment of DATE , upheld on appeal on CARDINAL DATE , LOC and ORG held that the decision to refuse her a residence permit had been lawfully given by ORG within its jurisdiction and in compliance with LAW and its internal regulations . ORG declared that it would not take any humanitarian considerations into account because PERSON had missed the DATE time - limit for submitting her claim , and she had a receipt of notification as early as DATE . The undesirability decision had been issued by ORG rather than by its PERSON division ; since PERSON had designated the latter , but not the former , as the defendant in her claim , the courts refused to review what they described as an \u201c actually non - existent decision \u201d .","On DATE ORG refused her leave to appeal to a cassation instance .","The applicant , PERSON , is a national of GPE who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","V.V. came to GPE in DATE to study at a medical college . Since DATE he has been living with his partner PERSON , who also represented him in the present proceedings before the ORG . They have maintained a common household , shared expenses and travelled together . They have met each other \u2019s parents . PERSON submitted copies of travel documents and family photographs .","On DATE PERSON applied to the GPE division of ORG for a temporary residence permit . He committed himself to producing an HIV certificate within DATE . On DATE the FAC Treatment certified him to be HIV - positive .","On DATE ORG refused his application for a residence permit by reference to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . GPE challenged the refusal before a court .","On DATE the Verkh - Isetskiy District Court of PERSON upheld the refusal , finding in particular that GPE \u2019s HIV status amounted to an \u201c actual threat to the health of the NORP population \u201d and that GPE \u2019s living with a same - sex partner was not equivalent to having a family .","On DATE the GPE Regional Court heard an appeal by GPE against ORG decision and , referring in particular to the PERSON judgment , held that GPE \u2019s HIV - positive status could not on its own be a ground for a restriction on his rights . Since ORG did not cite any other grounds in its decision , ORG enjoined it to carry out a new assessment of the application for a residence permit . The judgment became final and enforceable .","NORP In the meantime , on DATE the GPE division of ORG forwarded a copy of ORG \u2019s diagnosis to ORG , with a view to pronouncing his presence in GPE undesirable . On DATE the federal authority asked the regional division to re - administer the HIV test . On DATE PERSON again tested positive for HIV .","On DATE ORG pronounced PERSON \u2019s presence in GPE undesirable in accordance with section QUANTITY of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act . The decision stated that GPE had been infected with HIV and had avoided treatment . It cited in evidence medical certificates dated DATE and DATE . ORG representative challenged the decision before a court .","On DATE GPE travelled from GPE to GPE . On his way back DATE , he was refused entry into GPE by reference to that decision .","On DATE ORG allowed the challenge , finding that the undesirability decision had been unlawful because it did not refer to any grounds other than V.V. \u2019s HIV - positive status . It also granted a stay of enforcement of that decision , enabling GPE to return to GPE , which he did .","However , on CARDINAL DATE ORG reversed ORG decision and dismissed the claim . It held that the ban against ORG had been put in place not only because he was infected with HIV but also because he had refused to give contact details of his former partners during an \u201c epidemiological investigation of the HIV infection \u201d , that is when filling out a questionnaire at the hospital . ORG also examined GPE \u2019s personal circumstances and found that he was single , that his next of kin lived in GPE , that he did not have a family relationship with any NORP nationals , that he lived in a student hostel rather than in a rented flat , and that he had no resources to pay for HIV treatment .","On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal to the cassation instance . It found in particular :","\u201c The facts which , in the claimant \u2019s view , are of legal significance but which the appeal court failed to take into account , including ... his voluntary compliance with the obligation to inform his former partners about a possible HIV infection , his being in a steady sexual relationship ... can not be established on the basis of the claimant \u2019s and his representative \u2019s statements alone .","The court did not see any evidence of any social links the claimant has in GPE . The claimant and his representative merely confirmed that they have a sexual relationship , which does not equate to social links .","A threat to public health ... could result from the fact that the claimant has a registered place of residence and actually lives in a hostel , which is a public place ; this fact alone put the health of the other residents of the dormitory at risk because the claimant may use the same public facilities ... \u201d","On DATE a judge of ORG refused him leave to appeal to ORG .","After notice of the case had been given to the Government , on DATE PERSON informed the Court that the Government Representative \u2019s office had forwarded the case materials to ORG with a request to inquire whether or not PERSON was lawfully present in GPE , whether or not he was continuing his studies , and whether his representative before ORG could have been his partner . The request contained full personal details of V.V. The Prosecutor General sent the request to the local prosecutor \u2019s office in GPE . As it happened , Mr X was a former employee in that prosecutor \u2019s office . A prosecutor summonsed PERSON for an interview and put questions about the nature of his relationship with GPE , whether PERSON was still present in GPE , and where they lived . Law - enforcement officers also visited their neighbours and asked them how long GPE and PERSON had lived together and whether they had girlfriends .","The Government submitted a copy of a statement from a prosecutor in charge of human rights and federal law compliance , dated DATE , from which it appears that on DATE PERSON had been asked to attend the GPE regional prosecutor \u2019s office in his capacity as GPE \u2019s representative . He was interviewed about \u201c the exercise by PERSON of his labour , family and migration rights \u201d . The interview was conducted \u201c tactfully \u201d ( \u0432 \u043a\u043e\u0440\u0440\u0435\u043a\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u0435 ) , and no pressure was put on him . The police and migration authorities had established that no one lived at the address which ORG had listed as his registered place of residence . The Government also produced a copy of the statement signed by Mr X on DATE . PERSON clarified that PERSON had been living in a stable same - sex relationship since DATE . He refused to name ORG \u2019s partner or to say whether he was ORG \u2019s partner : in his capacity as ORG \u2019s representative he was not required to disclose any information about his own private life . He also briefly described PERSON \u2019s education , employment and migration status ."],"violated_articles":["14","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["34"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177402","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PAL\u0130TKIRAN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed from ORG due to non - compliance with disciplinary rules .","On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG and requested the annulment of the decision to dismiss him .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s case , taking into account the \u201c secret documents \u201d submitted by ORG . These documents were not disclosed to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s request for rectification was rejected by the same court ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152693","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MIERZEJEWSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE he was arrested on suspicion of committing a number of offences connected with handling drugs and psychoactive substances .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) remanded the applicant in custody for DATE , until DATE . The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed offences of serious nature and on the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed on him . The court did not share the prosecutor \u2019s view that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings or that he would go into hiding . At this stage of the proceedings the applicant was not suspected of being a member of an organised criminal group .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against the decision to detain him on remand .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) upheld the challenged decision . It agreed with the applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s view that the applicant had not engaged in any activity that might obstruct the proceedings . It found however that the severe penalty likely to be imposed on the applicant might create a risk that he would attempt to impede the proper conduct of the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was extended by ORG until DATE . The court referred to the applicant \u2019s previous convictions which made the imposition of a severe penalty on him more probable . It also noted that , taking into consideration the complexity of the case in which CARDINAL persons had already been apprehended , the proceedings had been conducted properly and without undue delays . The trial court had obtained expert witness opinions and it was still necessary to hear further evidence .","The applicant appealed and requested to vary the preventive measure applied to him .","On DATE ORG ( FAC ) amended the challenged decision and ordered the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court agreed with the arguments relied on by ORG . It found however that since the prosecutor had requested that the detention be extended until DATE , ORG had had no right to extend it beyond that date .","On DATE the ORG again extended the applicant \u2019s detention for a further DATE . The court still relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant committed the offences with which he had been charged and on the likelihood that a heavy penalty would be imposed on him . The prosecutor who requested extension of the detention relied on , among other things , the reasonable fear that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings . ORG referred to this part of the request and found that there were no grounds which would justify invoking this argument for the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention .","The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the challenged decision .","On DATE the charges against the applicant were extended to include participation in an organised criminal group .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court relied on the grounds previously invoked and , additionally , on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant might tamper with evidence and obstruct the proceedings which was based on the extended charges of being a member of an organised criminal group . The court further stressed that the proceedings had been conducted properly and without undue delays and their duration was attributable to objective reasons , namely the particular complexity of the case and the necessity to obtain evidence as regards organised criminal group consisting of numerous members .","On DATE a bill of indictment against the applicant and several other coaccused was lodged with ORG ( case no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The applicant was charged also with being a member of an organised criminal group .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE , until DATE . The courts relied on the same grounds as previously . They noted however that the charge of being a member of an organised criminal group justified the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention with an additional reason , namely suspicion that he might obstruct the proceedings .","Further extensions of the applicant \u2019s pretrial detention were ordered by ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and by ORG on DATE . ORG examined the course of the proceedings before the trial court and found that since DATE QUANTITY hearings had been held , they had been properly planned and each hearing had lasted DATE . The court concluded that extending the detention beyond the statutory period of DATE had proved necessary in view of the objective difficulties in concluding all indispensable activities in time .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG granted further extensions of the applicant \u2019s detention . Each time ORG examined the conduct of the proceedings , found no undue delays on the part of the trial court and concluded that extension of the detention beyond the statutory time - limit had been justified by the objective necessity of hearing further evidence .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . He claimed that the court had failed to examine whether a less severe measure would be capable of securing the proper conduct of the proceedings . In this respect he referred to the fact that in DATE the court had ruled that the CARDINAL other co - accused could be released on bail .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s request and amended the decision of DATE finding that the detention could be lifted if a bail of MONEY was paid .","On DATE the bail was paid and the applicant was released from detention .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to DATE and DATE of imprisonment . The charge of being a member of an organised criminal group was confirmed in the first instance judgment .","The criminal proceedings against the applicant are pending before the secondinstance court ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152268","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"TANTILOVI v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON and PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicants\u2019 mother owned a building and a plot of land of QUANTITY in GPE . The property was expropriated in DATE , against the payment of monetary compensation of CARDINAL old NORP levs ( ORG ) . Initially , the plot was designated for the creation of a public garden and in DATE it was allocated for the construction of a street . However , none of these projects took shape . In DATE the municipal authorities rented the property to ORG of GPE .","On DATE , following the adoption of the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicants requested the mayor of GPE to quash the expropriation order and restore their property rights to the plot of land and the building on it . On an unspecified date the mayor rejected their request , reasoning that the building previously owned by the ORG mother had been pulled down and that a new building used as a church had been erected in its place , and that the area around this new building had been developed .","The applicants sought judicial review of the above decision .","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG set aside the mayor \u2019s decision and quashed the DATE expropriation order , finding that the preconditions for restitution under LAW had been met . None of the projects for which the property had been taken , namely the creation of a public garden and the construction of a street , had been pursued . The domestic court noted in addition that the expropriated building existed and , in so far as in DATE it had been reconstructed to serve as a church , such reconstruction had not been envisaged by the respective urban development plans .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicants paid back the sum received in compensation at the time of expropriation , to allow the quashing of the expropriation order to take effect . As a result of inflation and the depreciation of NORP currency , at that time the sum represented about MONEY ( DEM ) . On DATE the mayor of GPE ordered the strike out of the plot of land from the register of municipal properties , in accordance with the decision of ORG , but refused to do so in regard of the \u201c building erected by permission no . CARDINAL of DATE \u201d .","The applicants were thus unable to take possession of the property , which continued to be occupied by ORG of GPE . On DATE , the applicants brought a rei vindicatio action against the ORG . Initially the claim was also directed against ORG in GPE ; however , subsequently the proceedings in respect of it were dropped .","In the course of the proceedings , ORG ( and , in the beginning , ORG ) argued that the preconditions for restitution had not been met , in particular because the building formerly owned by the applicants\u2019 mother had been demolished as it had been entirely \u201c worn out \u201d , and the ORG had built a completely new and bigger building , through donations from its parish and according to the approved construction plans . In order to establish these facts , the ORG presented plans and called witnesses . Still , the ORG conceded that the land and the building it was using were municipallyowned and that it rented the property . In the event that the courts would find that the property was to be returned to the applicants , the ORG claimed that the applicants had to be ordered to reimburse the cost of the improvements made by it , and requested to be allowed to retain the property until payment .","On DATE ORG , which examined the case at first instance , allowed a request by ORG of GPE for the GPE municipality to be joined to the proceedings as a third party . The municipality also argued in the course of the proceedings that the building claimed by the applicants was a new one , which meant that the preconditions for its restitution were not satisfied .","On DATE ORG allowed the ORG claims , finding , first , that they were the owners of the plot of land on the strength of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , and , second , that they were also the owners of the new building , which had been erected without the requisite re - allocation of the plot for that purpose and all necessary authorisations , and property to which had to follow property to the land . It found further that the defendant church was occupying the property without any valid legal basis .","On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case to ORG , which once again allowed the ORG claim in a judgment of DATE . Again , it found that the applicants were the owners of the land and the building and that , after the restitution , the defendant church was occupying them without any legal basis .","Upon an appeal by the defendant church , on DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and allowed the ORG claim in part . It found that in DATE , when it had been rented out to the defendant church , the building taken from the ORG mother had been pulled down and a much bigger , entirely new building had been built ; it had become the property of the ORG , later of the municipality . It was irrelevant under LAW whether the new building \u2019s construction had been duly authorised or not . Accordingly , the new building , the land on which it was standing , and the necessary adjoining land , totalling QUANTITY , could not be subject to restitution . On the other hand , the applicants\u2019 property rights had been validly restored in respect of QUANTITY of the land and the defendant church had to vacate that part of the property .","As to the decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG noted that \u201c it did not have res judicata effect as regards the property dispute \u201d .","The applicants appealed on points of law . In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed their appeal . It confirmed ORG finding that the building claimed by the applicants was not the CARDINAL taken from their mother , but a new one , erected in DATE and thus not subject to restitution . It held in addition as follows :","\u201c The main issue in the case , as raised in the appeal on points of law is : what is the significance for the legal dispute of the [ decision of DATE ] ? ORG finds that ORG was right to reach the conclusion that the decision at issue had been given in administrative proceedings concerning the revocation of the expropriation . It does not have res judicata effect in respect of the dispute concerning the ownership of the property at issue ... Of course , in the present litigation the court is obliged , on the basis of the evidence presented , to establish all the circumstances related to the alleged property rights disputed by the parties . \u201d","The Restitution of Property Expropriated under Building Planning Legislation Act ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u044a\u0437\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u044f\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u0431\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0442\u0430 \u0432\u044a\u0440\u0445\u0443 \u043d\u044f\u043a\u043e\u0438 \u043e\u0442\u0447\u0443\u0436\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438 \u0438\u043c\u043e\u0442\u0438 \u043f\u043e ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG \u0438 \u0417\u0421 , \u201c the LAW \u201d ) entered into force in DATE . Its most relevant provisions have been summarised in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The provisions of domestic law concerning the res judicata effect of court judgments have been summarised in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","According to settled judicial practice under LAW , third parties claiming property rights could not intervene in the ex parte proceedings under that LAW or challenge any decision restoring the former ORG rights , but could have their claims examined in separate judicial proceedings , in which the courts exercised \u201c indirect judicial review \u201d ( \u043a\u043e\u0441\u0432\u0435\u043d \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0440\u043e\u043b ) of the restitution decision . The scope of that review was discussed in an ORG of DATE of ORG , which noted that a third party claiming rights to a restituted property was not bound by a decision given under LAW and could dispute all preconditions for restitution as provided for under LAW , as this was its sole means by which to defend its rights ( ORG CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0442. \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. ) .","The relevant provisions of domestic law concerning remedies in respect of the length of proceedings have been summarised in the ORG \u2019s decisions in the cases of GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) and ORG and PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL and GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177302","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"GISAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants are CARDINAL NORP nationals , Mr PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) , PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) , PERSON ( \u201c the third applicant \u201d ) and Ms PERSON ( \u201c the fourth applicant \u201d ) .","The applicants were represented by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented initially by PERSON PERSON , the Representative of GPE at ORG , and then by his successor in that office , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , GPE - Balkariya . They are the father , mother and the sisters , respectively , of PERSON . At the material time the applicants lived in PERSON .","NORP In DATE PERSON took part in a brawl in which a certain PERSON was fatally wounded , his death occurring shortly afterwards . While nobody was prosecuted for the death , it appears that PERSON \u2019s relatives considered that PERSON PERSON was responsible for it .","PERSON was shot several times in DATE but survived . According to the applicants , CARDINAL of S. \u2019s brothers carried out the attack in an attempt to avenge PERSON \u2019s death . Nobody was prosecuted for it .","On DATE PERSON was shot dead by an unknown person . The attack happened in the street around TIME while the victim was taking his DATE nephew to a playground .","On DATE the ORG town prosecutor \u2019s office opened an investigation into the shooting . The crime scene was inspected on DATE and CARDINAL cartridges were found and sent to a ballistics expert . Several people , including the first and fourth applicant , were questioned . They alleged that the murder had been committed by somebody from PERSON \u2019s family in revenge for his killing .","On DATE the prosecutor acting in the case questioned GPE , PERSON \u2019s father , who stated that his second son had unsuccessfully tried to kill PERSON in DATE to avenge PERSON \u2019s death . However , it had been his nephew , PERSON , who had killed PERSON because his second son had died in DATE . In his view , the killing had been just as it had been part of a blood feud . He added that the gun which had been used in the killing was at his home .","On DATE GPE was questioned again . This time he stated that he was not sure who had killed PERSON but confirmed that it must have been CARDINAL of his relatives as revenge for the killing of his son . On DATE he testified in similar vein that he did not know who exactly had killed PERSON but that it must have been CARDINAL of his relatives as part of a blood feud by applying the principle of \u201c a death for a death \u201d .","On DATE the investigator at the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office who was in charge of the preliminary investigation was questioned by a senior prosecutor after the first applicant alleged that he had promised PERSON \u2019s family that he would not arrest the murderer . The investigator admitted that it was true that he had spoken to S. \u2019s family and had asked them to tell him who had killed PERSON . In exchange , he had promised not to arrest the murderer . However , in his view , that did not mean that he absolutely would not have arrested the murderer and , moreover , he had always intended to act in accordance with the law .","On DATE a new investigator put in charge of the case issued an arrest warrant for PERSON because he had not responded to several previous requests to appear for questioning .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE GPE was charged with inducing PERSON and another unidentified person to murder PERSON to avenge the death of his son .","On DATE GPE was questioned as a person charged with a crime . He stated that he had asked PERSON to kill PERSON to avenge his son . He had bought a gun for that purpose that he had given to PERSON He had visited PERSON after the killing and he had informed him that he had fulfilled the terms of the blood feud . GPE , however , denied that he had incited any other person to carry out the killing .","On DATE the investigator separated the case against GPE from the rest of the investigation . The decision noted that the other suspect , PERSON , was in hiding .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office sent the case against GPE to ORG of GPE .","Following the launch of a military operation in the territory of GPE in DATE , the first applicant took the criminal case file from the prosecutor \u2019s office in order to save it from destruction . According to the first applicant all the physical evidence in the file had been lost during its transfer to court .","Shortly thereafter the applicants left GPE and went to GPE .","GPE died on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant resubmitted his criminal complaint about his son \u2019s killing to the PERSON town prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the PERSON town prosecutor \u2019s office again opened criminal proceedings concerning the death of PERSON . The criminal file from DATE was joined to the new case as material evidence . On DATE first applicant was again granted the status of the victim of a crime .","On DATE PERSON was arrested . He was placed in detention DATE .","On DATE PERSON was charged with the murder of PERSON under LAW of LAW . During his questioning , PERSON denied any participation in the crime . He said that he had been approached by GPE and another person to help avenge S. \u2019s death , which he had refused . As far as he knew , GPE had killed PERSON .","NORP Over DATE several of ORG relatives were questioned as witnesses . They all stated that GPE had killed PERSON . In particular , PERSON , CARDINAL of GPE \u2019s daughters , testified that her father had accepted the blame for killing PERSON and that PERSON had had nothing to do with it .","On an unspecified date thereafter the prosecutor questioned ORG , a friend of PERSON and the only direct witness of the crime . He stated that CARDINAL young men had carried out the killing , however , he was unable to describe them owing to the passage of time . When shown a photo of PERSON he did not recognise him .","On DATE , a local imam and a relative of the PERSON family , testified that PERSON had been killed by members of PERSON \u2019s family in a blood feud over the death of S. That act of vengeance had been in accordance with traditional practices and local customs so their family had decided not to make any claims against NORP family . GPE had taken responsibility for the killing upon himself . There was therefore no reason to suspect PERSON was the killer .","Similar testimony was given the following day by ORG , the first applicant \u2019s brother , who was head of the family in DATE , and DATE , another relative of the applicants . DATE added that he had tried to discourage the first applicant from pursuing the case as it was not in accordance with their customs because the killing of PERSON had been justified as part of a blood feud .","On an unspecified date in DATE ORG informed ORG in reply to an enquiry that all the medical files from DATE and DATE had been destroyed during the military operation .","A forensic expert \u2019s opinion produced on DATE concluded that it was not possible to give a definite answer as to the cause of PERSON death as his body had never been examined . However , based on the findings of the investigators and doctors from DATE it was possible to say with a high degree of probability bordering on certainty that he had had CARDINAL bullet wounds in the chest . Such wounds could be characterised as lethal and could consequently have caused his death .","On DATE the first applicant stated that he opposed the exhumation of his son \u2019s body for religious reasons .","On DATE the prosecutor for the case at ORG town prosecutor \u2019s office terminated PERSON \u2019s prosecution and released him from pre - trial detention . He held that the evidence that had been collected proved that PERSON had not participated in PERSON killing .","On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor informed the first applicant that the investigation had been suspended for failure to establish the identity of the alleged perpetrator .","On DATE the deputy prosecutor dismissed a complaint by the first applicant that the investigation up to that date had been biased in favour of the suspects .","In DATE the first applicant sent several complaints to various authorities , in particular the PERSON town prosecutor \u2019s office and its investigations department , alleging that the investigation had been ineffective .","On DATE the investigations department of the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office informed the first applicant that the investigation into the killing of his son had been resumed .","The first applicant received the same information on DATE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again . Following a complaint by the first applicant , it resumed again , only to be suspended on DATE .","On DATE ORG informed the first applicant that the decision of CARDINAL DATE to suspend the investigation had been set aside as unfounded because of a failure to take all the necessary investigative steps and to establish all the circumstances of the crime . The prosecutor acting on the case for the PERSON town prosecutor \u2019s office was ordered to carry out an additional investigation .","On DATE the investigation resumed .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) under LAW complaining of inactivity on the part of the investigative authorities .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , noting that the investigation had reopened in the meantime and that measures were being taken with the aim of establishing the circumstances and the perpetrators of the crime . The first applicant appealed against that decision to ORG of GPE ( \u201c the Supreme Court \u201d ) .","In the meantime , on DATE the investigator in the case once again suspended the investigation as it had been impossible to establish the identity of the perpetrator .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to ORG . It noted that copies of the relevant documents concerning the resumption of the investigation were not in the file . The court was thus unable to endorse ORG decision .","On DATE ORG decided anew to dismiss the first applicant \u2019s appeal . The prosecutor and investigator submitted copies of the relevant documents from the investigation file . On DATE the investigation was suspended under LAW of LAW for failure to establish the identity of the perpetrator . The court considered that by obtaining the copies of the relevant documents it had eliminated the shortcoming indicated in ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed that decision . It held that ORG had not substantiated its ruling and had failed to take all the material in the case file into account .","On DATE ORG granted the first applicant \u2019s appeal , considering the ORG inactivity to be illegal . It held that the prosecutor had closed the investigation on DATE without taking testimony from several witnesses and had failed to conduct the other investigative steps ordered by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the Deputy ORG quashed another decision ( of unspecified date ) to suspend the investigation .","According to the information available to the ORG the investigation is still ongoing .","Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by DATE Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR . On DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW .","Article CARDINAL of the new Code provides that a decision by an investigator or prosecutor to dispense with or terminate criminal proceedings , and other decisions , acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of parties to such proceedings or to impede ORG access to justice are subject to appeal to a district court , which is empowered to review the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159065","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"GUBENKO v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a permanently resident non - citizen of GPE , who was born in DATE and who at the time of submitting his complaint was in detention in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mrs I. Reine , who was succeeded by PERSON K. L\u012bce .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was serving a prison sentence in Daugavpils prison . He was a follower of the PERSON movement . On DATE he asked the director of the prison to be allowed to keep in his cell an audio cassette player with headphones and cassettes with recordings of religious programmes and services , prayer beads for chanting ORG , and other attributes for prayers and religious rites .","On DATE the director denied his request , stating that according to Regulation no . CARDINAL of ORG ( see below ) prisoners were not allowed to possess the aforementioned objects .","NORP That response was upheld by ORG ( PERSON vietu p\u0101rvalde ) on DATE .","On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant , conceding that the list of permissible objects contained in the Regulation was insufficiently complete and its frequently restrictive application by prisons made it difficult for prisoners to receive various objects . The Ministry told the applicant that it would take his comments into account when drafting future amendments to the existing legal regulation .","The applicant then attempted to dispute the constitutionality of the ORG before ORG . He stated in a general manner that the contested legislative instrument did not permit the keeping and use of religious objects in prison , and he asked ORG to repeal it .","On DATE a committee of CARDINAL judges of ORG , relying on LAW CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , adopted a decision refusing the initiation of constitutional proceedings . The decision stated that the constitutional complaint did not comply with the criteria provided by LAW ) of LAW . It was evident from the decision that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated in his complaint how his fundamental rights had been infringed and that ORG had been unable to rule on the constitutionality of an existing legal provision in this case .","The relevant Article of LAW ( PERSON ) provides :","Article CARDINAL","\u201c Everyone has the right to freedom of thought , conscience and religion . The church shall be separate from the ORG \u201d .","Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , entitled \u201c LAW \u201d ( Br\u012bv\u012bbas at\u0146em\u0161anas iest\u0101des iek\u0161\u0113j\u0101s k\u0101rt\u012bbas noteikumi ) , provides in the relevant parts that detainees may keep only a limited range of objects in their cells , these objects being exhaustively listed in Annex no . CARDINAL of that Regulation . The list in the amendment does not include any objects of a religious character such as those requested by the applicant .","Pursuant to Section CARDINAL\u00b2(CARDINAL ) , an individual constitutional complaint must include justification as to how the applicant \u2019s fundamental rights as defined in the LAW have been infringed .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) provides that in examining applications , the panel dealing with the application may refuse to initiate a matter if the application does not comply with the requirements specified in Sections CARDINAL or CARDINAL of LAW . For a more detailed review see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d part .","In DATE , R.N. \u2012 a person who was serving a prison sentence at the material time \u2012 lodged a constitutional complaint in which he asked ORG to assess ORG no . CARDINAL of Regulation no . CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , insofar as it failed to regulate the keeping of religious objects . The claimant argued that the prohibition on the keeping by prisoners of religious objects such as icons , crosses , or rosaries contradicted the right to freedom of religion as guaranteed in LAW . He also argued that the prohibition on keeping religious objects prevented him from practising religious rituals and restricted his right to freedom of religion , and that such prohibition was not proportional . The claimant considered that the above restriction could not be justified on grounds of safety because it was possible to harm others using objects that were authorised . Moreover , in many prison establishments , the keeping of religious objects was permitted and this caused a feeling of inequality amongst the prisoners .","On DATE the Constitutional Court instituted constitutional proceedings ( case no . DATE ) in connection with ORG no . CARDINAL of Regulation no . CARDINAL of ORG ) , insofar as it failed to regulate the keeping of religious objects . On DATE it ruled in favour of the claimant and recognised that the contested norm , i.e. Annex no . CARDINAL of the contested Regulation did not comply with LAW . The annex was repealed with effect from DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167733","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"CORETCHI v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","NORP The applicant complained , in particular , about having been unlawfully detained in GPE pending extradition to GPE .","On DATE the application was communicated to the Government . DATE ORG was informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings in accordance with LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Rules of Court . They chose not to avail themselves of this right .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the NORP investigating authorities came upon information leading them to suspect that in DATE the applicant had been involved in a car theft . However , they were unable to question him as he had left GPE DATE to work in GPE . In DATE they issued an international warrant for his arrest through ORG .","On DATE , when crossing into GPE from GPE , the applicant was arrested by the NORP border police on the basis of the warrant issued by the NORP authorities . He was informed in the presence of an interpreter that he was being arrested in connection with that warrant . The same day the police ordered that he be held under arrest for TIME under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the DATE ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was given a copy of the order . He surrendered his car to the border police .","On DATE , DATE , the NORP authorities confirmed their intention to their NORP counterparts to submit an official request for the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE . DATE ORG within ORG of the ORG informed the GPE city prosecutor about the applicant \u2019s arrest .","The prosecutor then issued an order for the applicant \u2019s detention for TIME , counting from the expiry of the QUANTITY police arrest . The order referred to LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , as well as LAW ( \u201c the DATE Code \u201d ) in conjunction with LAW of LAW . The order also stated that the regional prosecutor of ORG should be immediately put on notice in order to ask ORG to authorise the applicant \u2019s further detention .","On DATE the ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE , pending receipt of the NORP extradition request . On DATE he was transferred to FAC on the basis of that court \u2019s decision . On DATE ORG informed the NORP authorities that the applicant had been detained pending the official GPE request for his extradition . Such a request had to reach GPE by DATE when the applicant \u2019s DATE detention would expire .","On DATE ORG received the extradition request . The next day that ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention for TIME following the end of the DATE detention period ordered by the court . The prosecutor relied on ORG CARDINAL and CARDINALa of LAW ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) and LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG additionally instructed the ORG regional prosecutor \u2019s office immediately to seek a court order extending the applicant \u2019s detention and to submit the extradition request to the court for examination .","On DATE ORG , in proceedings in which the applicant was assisted by an interpreter and a court - appointed lawyer , refused to authorise the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE or his detention for that purpose . The court found in particular that there had been no order in GPE for the applicant \u2019s detention with a view to his serving a sentence , CARDINAL of the conditions of LAW . On DATE the applicant was released from FAC on the basis of that decision .","NORP On DATE , seeing that the proceedings for the applicant \u2019s extradition were still pending , the regional prosecutor of ORG imposed a ban on the applicant leaving the country . The ban was valid until the end of the extradition proceedings and was based on a provision in the CARDINAL Code which stated that individuals could be banned from leaving the country if criminal proceedings were pending against them ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant registered with the authorities in ORG where he took up his residence on a provisional basis . On DATE the border police returned the applicant \u2019s car to him . He signed a form confirming that the car was not damaged and that nothing was missing from it .","The NORP border police placed the applicant under arrest for TIME at TIME on DATE when he tried to leave GPE by crossing the border with GPE . The order for his arrest was based on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the DATE ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and referred to the arrest warrant issued by the GPE authorities in connection with the applicant \u2019s extradition . The applicant was informed of the essence of the order in the presence of a NORP interpreter . He surrendered his car to the border police and signed a form where he wrote in NORP that he objected to his arrest .","Having verified that a valid ban on the applicant \u2019s leaving the country was in force and that there were no grounds for his detention , the police released him at TIME on DATE , which was TIME before the expiry of the order for his arrest . It is unclear what happened to the applicant \u2019s car . He did not ask for its return .","In a decision delivered on DATE , following a public hearing that had been held DATE in response to an appeal by the prosecutor against the ruling of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE . It found that the lower court had wrongly assessed the GPE request . In particular , the applicant had not been wanted in GPE to serve a sentence , as the firstinstance court had found , but to be tried in connection with an offence . That meant that a different provision of LAW had applied and all the material and procedural requirements to grant that request had been met .","The Sofia Court of Appeal held in a separate decision of CARDINAL DATE , issued following a closed hearing the same day , that it could not rule on the applicant \u2019s detention pending extradition . It said that it had already adopted a final and enforceable decision allowing the applicant \u2019s extradition and that that decision had put an end to the extradition proceedings . Given that those proceedings had been concluded , the applicant could thereafter only be detained for the purposes of being handed over to the requesting authorities .","In a letter of DATE , the ORG regional prosecutor \u2019s office advised ORG that the applicant was not in detention but that there was a valid ban on his leaving the country . It noted that he was also registered at the address of his court - appointed lawyer and that his passport and car had been returned to him .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for the purposes of his extradition to GPE . The prosecutor \u2019s order , written over CARDINAL pages , comprised an overview of the procedural steps carried out up to that point . The order specified that the extradition proceedings were in their final phase and that the applicant was not in detention . Given that his extradition had been agreed with the NORP authorities and a concrete date and time for it had been set DATE at TIME local time \u2013 it was necessary to apprehend him for the purposes of his actual transfer into the custody of the NORP authorities .","The prosecutor then instructed the police to place the applicant under arrest on DATE for TIME in order to extradite him . In the same order the prosecutor authorised keeping the applicant in detention for the same purpose for TIME , starting from DATE . The order referred to section ORG ) of the Judicial Power Act DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below , last sentence ) , as well as to LAW of the CARDINAL Code of Criminal procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . It also stated that personal possessions taken from the applicant by the NORP authorities when he had been arrested should be handed over to the NORP authorities at the same time as his transfer .","NORP The applicant was detained on DATE and handed over to the NORP authorities on DATE as agreed . The report on his transfer stated that personal possessions held by the NORP authorities were handed over to the NORP authorities at the same time .","On DATE the NORP authorities discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant . On DATE the applicant asked the NORP authorities to take him off their database of wanted persons so that he could transit GPE without fearing arrest . On DATE ORG allowed that request and informed him accordingly . The border police recorded on DATE that the applicant left GPE with his car on DATE .","LAW entered into force in respect of GPE on DATE and in respect of GPE on DATE . LAW , which governs provisional arrest , provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In case of urgency the competent authorities of the requesting ORG may request the provisional arrest of the person sought . The competent authorities of the requested ORG shall decide the matter in accordance with its law .","NORP The request for provisional arrest shall state that CARDINAL of the documents mentioned in LAW , paragraph CARDINAL.a , exists and that it is intended to send a request for extradition . It shall also state for what offence extradition will be requested and when and where such offence was committed and shall so far as possible give a description of the person sought .","A request for provisional arrest shall be sent to the competent authorities of the requested ORG either through the diplomatic channel or direct by post or telegraph or through ORG ( ORG ) or by any other means affording evidence in writing or accepted by the requested ORG . The requesting authority shall be informed without delay of the result of its request .","Provisional arrest may be terminated if , within DATE after arrest , the requested ORG has not received the request for extradition and the documents mentioned in LAW . It shall not , in any event , exceed DATE from the date of such arrest . The possibility of provisional release at any time is not excluded , but the requested ORG shall take any measures which it considers necessary to prevent the escape of the person sought .","Release shall not prejudice rearrest and extradition if a request for extradition is received subsequently . \u201d","Article CARDINAL governs the surrender of the person to be extradited and provides that :","\u201c CARDINAL . The requested ORG shall inform the requesting ORG by the means mentioned in LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of its decision with regard to the extradition .","Reasons shall be given for any complete or partial rejection .","NORP If the request is agreed to , the requesting Party shall be informed of the place and date of surrender and of the length of time for which the person claimed was detained with a view to surrender .","Subject to the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL of this article , if the person claimed has not been taken over on the appointed date , he may be released after the expiry of DATE and shall in any case be released after the expiry of DATE . The requested ORG may refuse to extradite him for the same offence .","If circumstances beyond its control prevent a ORG from surrendering or taking over the person to be extradited , it shall notify the other ORG . The CARDINAL Parties shall agree a new date for surrender and the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL of this article shall apply . \u201d","Article CARDINAL , which governs the handing over of property , provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The requested ORG shall , in so far as its law permits and at the request of the requesting ORG , seize and hand over property :","a ) which may be required as evidence , or","b ) DATE which has been acquired as a result of the offence and which , at the time of the arrest , is found in the possession of the person claimed or is discovered subsequently .","NORP The property mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL of this article shall be handed over even if extradition , having been agreed to , can not be carried out owing to the death or escape of the person claimed .","When the said property is liable to seizure or confiscation in the territory of the requested ORG , the latter may , in connection with pending criminal proceedings , temporarily retain it or hand it over on condition that it is returned . \u201d","Article CARDINAL , which specifies the applicable procedure , provides as follows :","\u201c Except where this Convention otherwise provides , the procedure with regard to extradition and provisional arrest shall be governed solely by the law of the requested ORG . \u201d","The Explanatory Report defines the scope of application of LAW No . CARDINAL and clarifies the notion of \u201c expulsion \u201d as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The word \u201c resident \u201d is intended to exclude from the application of the article any alien who has arrived at a port or other point of entry but has not yet passed through the immigration control or who has been admitted to the territory for the purpose only of transit or for a limited period for a non - residential purpose ...","The word lawfully refers to the domestic law of the ORG concerned . It is therefore for domestic law to determine the conditions which must be fulfilled for a person \u2019s presence in the territory to be considered \u201c lawful \u201d .","[ A]n alien whose admission and stay were subject to certain conditions , for example a fixed period , and who no longer complies with these conditions can not be regarded as being still \u201c lawfully \u201d present .","The concept of expulsion is used in a generic sense as meaning any measure compelling the departure of an alien from the territory but does not include extradition . Expulsion in this sense is an autonomous concept which is independent of any definition contained in domestic legislation . \u201d","At the relevant time the extradition of persons accused of criminal offences was governed by Articles QUANTITY of LAW . Articles CARDINAL - CARDINALc governed the procedure for processing an extradition request made by another ORG .","Once received , the extradition request had to be sent to the competent regional prosecutor ( LAW and CARDINAL ) . That prosecutor then had to take the statement of the person whose extradition was being sought , implement any measure taken to secure his or her appearance , and transmit the extradition request to the competent regional court ( LAW ) . The request was then to be examined by CARDINAL judges at a public hearing . The person whose extradition was being sought had to be provided with counsel and an interpreter ( Article CARDINALa \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . The court had to hear the public prosecutor , the person and his or her counsel , and then either allow or refuse the extradition . In its ruling it additionally had to specify whether personal items , documents and money found on the individual and having a connection with his or her offence should be handed over to the requesting ORG as well ( LAW ) . The court \u2019s ruling was subject to appeal before the court of appeal whose decision was final ( LAW ) . The prosecutor was responsible for implementing judicial decisions authorising extradition ( LAW and LAW ) .","At present the procedure for detention in the context of extradition proceedings requested by CARDINAL ORG is laid down in considerable detail in the DATE Extradition and LAW ( section CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE and repealed ORG CARDINAL of the DATE Code .","Article CARDINALa of the DATE Code of Criminal Procedure , which governs the procedure for imposing pre - trial detention , was changed entirely DATE with effect from DATE in a bid to bring NORP law into line with LAW ( \u0442\u044a\u043b\u043a. \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u044e\u043d\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043d.\u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG \u043d\u0430 ORG ) .","The amended paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINALa provided at the time of the facts that the investigation and prosecution authorities had to ensure the prompt appearance of the accused before the competent first - instance court and , if necessary , detain him or her for that purpose before bringing him or her before the court . Such detention could not exceed TIME if ordered by an investigator or TIME if ordered by a prosecutor . No judicial review was available in respect of such detention .","At the relevant time the bodies responsible for the investigation at the pre - trial stage were investigators ( Article CARDINAL of the DATE Code ) and the prosecutors who supervised the activities of the former ( LAW ) . The prerogatives of the prosecutor included the issuing of mandatory instructions to the police ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the LAW DATE ) .","Under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , as applicable at the relevant time , the prosecutor could prohibit an individual accused of a criminal offence from leaving GPE without permission . The prohibition order was subject to judicial review ( LAW ) . The court had to rule immediately by means of a final decision ( LAW ) .","At the relevant time and until DATE , individuals could seek damages for unlawful detention under the ORG provided that such detention had been set aside in prior proceedings for lack of lawful grounds . Following amendments introduced in the ORG in DATE , in particular in section CARDINAL ) , individuals can seek damages for all cases of detention in breach of LAW Civil courts examine the issue of lawfulness and compensation in the same set of proceedings .","Under LAW , as in force at the relevant time , the police could , on the basis of a written order , arrest individuals who were on international wanted lists owing to extradition requests from other GPE ( section DATE ) ) . An individual taken into police custody was entitled to be assisted by counsel and seek judicial review of his detention ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . The application had to be examined immediately ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) in fine ) . Police detention under section CARDINAL could not exceed TIME ( section CARDINAL in fine ) .","Arrest orders under section CARDINAL were administrative decisions and any subsequent judicial review of them was carried out in accordance with the standard rules of administrative procedure , meaning that such an order could be appealed against within DATE of the arrestee \u2019s being apprised of the order . According to the case - law of ORG ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0444\u0435\u0432\u0440\u0443\u0430\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE , ORG , V \u043e\u0442\u0434. ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u044f\u043d\u0443\u0430\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , V \u043e\u0442\u0434. ) , persons affected by police arrests could challenge their lawfulness before a court and , if the orders were set aside , the individuals concerned could seek damages under LAW ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162124","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"VERLAGSGRUPPE HANDELSBLATT GMBH & CO. KG v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON & Co. KG , was formerly known as PERSON , a NORP private limited company whose registered office was in GPE . It published the DATE business news magazine Wirtschaftswoche . In DATE it was converted into a private limited partnership and the company seized to exist . The applicant was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP In its edition of DATE , ORG published an article about the CEO of ORG ) , PERSON . It was entitled \u201c Almighty PERSON \u201d ( ORG ) and critically reviewed his management style and the consequences for NORP Telecom .","The article was accompanied by a photomontage , which was shown in different sizes CARDINAL times throughout the entire magazine . The photomontage was a crumbling magenta - coloured \u201c T \u201d , the logo of ORG , with a person sitting on top of it with PERSON face . The picture was put together using the body of a model in a sitting position and a photograph of PERSON head . The applicant retrieved the photograph of the head from the image database of ORG . To fit the body and head together , the photograph of the head was vertically stretched and horizontally shrunk .","Dr PERSON applied for an interim injunction to stop any further publication of the photomontage . He argued that by planting his head on a different body and by the fact that his head appeared more corpulent in the photomontage than in real life , his reputation was being damaged . He stated , in particular , that his cheeks appeared longer , his chin plumper and his neck shorter .","On DATE ORG granted the interim injunction , without hearing the applicant \u2019s arguments .","On DATE , on an objection by the applicant , ORG set the interim injunction aside . It found that the photomontage constituted a value judgment in the form of a satirical illustration , which conveyed the criticism expressed in the attached article . The minor discrepancies and the \u201c wrong \u201d body had not infringed Dr PERSON \u2019s personality rights to such a degree as to justify an interference with the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression . The court also stated that it was not its task to assess whether the applicant could have created a \u201c better \u201d , less infringing photomontage , since the form of expression was the prerogative of the author or artist . Furthermore , the satirical nature of the illustration was apparent , as the average reader would not consider that Dr PERSON sitting on a crumbling \u201c T \u201d replicated real life .","On DATE ORG reinstated the interim injunction . It held that the illustration had to be divided between the \u201c T \u201d and the depicted person . While it was apparent that the \u201c T \u201d part was a satirical illustration , the manipulation of the head , namely the stretching and shrinking , was not so obvious . Consequently , the average reader would expect the picture of PERSON to depict reality . Owing to this \u201c untrue \u201d illustration , the personality rights of PERSON overrode the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression .","On DATE ORG upheld the interim injunction preventing any further publication of the photomontage .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal brought by the applicant . It reiterated that the manipulated photograph of PERSON showed him in an untrue , unfavourable and disadvantageous light . Nevertheless , since the manipulation was so slight , the average reader would not realise the distortion . The court found that PERSON PERSON did not have to accept this untrue and manipulated depiction of himself in the press .","On DATE ORG overturned ORG judgment . It found that the satirical illustration could not be broken down into individual components , but had to be assessed as a whole . Therefore , the satirical nature of the illustration was apparent and a typical reader would not expect to see a depiction of reality . Given that the extent of the alteration had been so slight , the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression overrode the personality rights of PERSON , who had to accept the satirical illustration of himself . Furthermore , the court found that the publication of the photograph had not infringed PERSON right to protection of his image because , as the CEO of a well - known former ORG company with a monopoly , he was actually a \u201c relative figure of contemporary society \u201d ( relative Person der GPE ) . Given that the shares of the company were intensely advertised as \u201c people \u2019s shares \u201d ( GPE ) and that the company still had a leading market share the management style of Dr PERSON and the consequences for the company were an issue of general interest . Consequently , the satirical illustration , including the publication of his photograph attached to an article that contributed to a debate of general interest , was legitimate .","On DATE ORG repealed ORG judgment and remitted the case ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The court held that personality rights generally also included protection from the publication of technically manipulated photographs . In the context of satirical illustrations , it had to be established whether the manipulation had its own satirical nature or was technically necessary for the composition of the illustration , or whether the alterations were negligible . Applying these principles to the photomontage in question , the court found that the applicants had used a photograph of PERSON to depict reality and make the person identifiable , and that the illustration of the person had no satirical value in itself . Therefore , the untrue photograph could only be justified if the alterations had been technically necessary or negligible . This however had to be ascertained by the lower courts .","On DATE ORG remitted the case to ORG , as the latter had not established whether the alterations had been technical necessary or negligible .","On DATE ORG appointed an expert to analyse the manipulations of the original photograph of PERSON and establish to what extent it had been altered . The expert established that the head had been vertically stretched by PERCENT and horizontally shrunk by PERCENT . He furthermore compiled his own photomontage that showed that the head could have been fitted to the body without the above - mentioned distortion being made . Consequently , he came to the conclusion that the manipulation had not been technically necessary .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal by the applicant and upheld the original interim injunction , preventing any further publication of the photomontage . The court found that the unnecessary alterations of the photograph conveyed an untrue message regarding the appearance of PERSON . Because the manipulation had not been negligible and had led to an unfavourable and negative presentation of PERSON PERSON , his general personality rights had been infringed . This infraction could not be justified by the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the refusal of leave to appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG refused to admit for adjudication a constitutional complaint brought by the applicant , without providing reasons ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182217","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TSVETKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;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);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-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-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-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-a - After conviction);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Right of appeal in criminal matters (Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Review of sentence);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["This application was lodged on DATE by PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME on DATE Officer PERSON escorted the applicant to the police station , in accordance with LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on suspicion of shoplifting .","Officer PERSON compiled an arrest record under LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The administrative arrest record reads as follows :","\u201c I , Officer PERSON , ... compiled the present administrative arrest record in respect of : [ the applicant \u2019s name , date of birth , address ] ... who has been escorted to ... on DATE at TIME , on account of an administrative offence under Article [ blank ] of the ORG .","Reasons for the arrest ( LAW ORG ) : [ blank ] ... \u201d","According to the applicant , after she had been taken away by the police , her minor son ( who had apparently been with her in the shop ) had been left unattended in the cold . The applicant was then subjected to a humiliating body - search procedure and was asked to take off her clothes , remaining in her underwear . She was then kept with drunk people in a small cell with no seats and no toilet .","In her application to the ORG , the applicant specified that she had been released at TIME on DATE . In her observations before the ORG , she specified that she had been released \u201c after TIME \u201d . According to the Government , the applicant was released at TIME","The applicant was not subsequently prosecuted for an administrative offence or a criminal offence .","Considering that the police actions in respect of her and the degrading treatment to which she had been subjected were sufficiently serious so as to amount to a criminal offence , on DATE the applicant sought the institution of criminal proceedings against officer PERSON , referring , inter alia , to the unlawful deprivation of liberty .","On DATE an investigator refused to open a criminal case , finding that the officer had not committed any abuse of power , which was a criminal offence punishable under LAW of LAW . The investigator referred to a statement from B. affirming that the applicant had been taken to the police station on suspicion of theft .","On DATE a superior officer overruled the refusal to open a case . A new refusal was issued on DATE by the same investigator . That was also then overruled .","A further refusal was issued on DATE and the applicant sought a judicial review . On DATE the ORG confirmed the refusal . On DATE ORG set aside the judgment , considering that the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning the unlawfulness of her arrest had not been examined .","ORG then declined jurisdiction in favour of another court , but that was declared unlawful on appeal .","On DATE ORG discontinued the case because on DATE the impugned refusal to prosecute had been overruled by a superior officer . However , a new refusal was issued on CARDINAL DATE as regards offences under LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . This refusal was then upheld by a final judgment of ORG on DATE .","This application was lodged on DATE by PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicant was represented before the Court by Ms Y. Lepilina , a lawyer practising in LOC .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s superior , PERSON , called the police to report that the applicant had used ( unspecified ) foul language at his work place . Officer PERSON ordered the applicant to accompany him to the police station . The applicant refused and said that nothing prevented the officer from compiling an administrative - offence record on the spot . The officer insisted , stating that it would be more convenient for him to do it at the police station . The applicant obeyed and was escorted to the police station at TIME ( in accordance with LAW . At TIME he was subjected to the arrest procedure ( LAW ORG ) . The arrest record reads as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] was escorted to the police station at : TIME","On account of : an administrative offence under : LAW","For the purpose(s ) of LAW ORG : for taking a decision . \u201d","Officer PERSON compiled the administrative - offence record , which reads as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] used foul language in the presence of PERSON and continued his unruly behaviour , despite being asked to stop . Thus , [ the applicant ] committed an offence under LAW .","Witnesses to the offence : PERSON ; Mr M. \u201d","The applicant spent TIME at the police station .","On DATE the applicant was taken before a justice of the peace , who held a hearing at which he examined the applicant , as well as NORP , PERSON and QUANTITY On DATE , the justice of the peace convicted the applicant of minor hooliganism ( Article CARDINAL of the ORG ) and sentenced him to DATE of detention .","NORP The applicant started to serve the sentence on DATE , in the police station . DATE and DATE he was locked in cells measuring QUANTITY and accommodating , on average , CARDINAL detainees . Each cell was equipped with CARDINAL benches QUANTITY in width . There was no window and no ventilation system . The other detainees smoked cigarettes , which caused discomfort to the applicant , who was not a smoker . There was no bed or bedding . The applicant was not provided with food or allowed outdoors . Access to a toilet ( which was apparently outside the cell ) was available TIME ( or sometimes TIME ) . The applicant submitted written statements from CARDINAL co - detainees in support of his allegations .","The applicant was released at TIME on DATE .","On DATE ORG held an appeal hearing and examined the applicant , I. , PERSON Officer O. The appellate court upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the judgments following a review .","This application was lodged on DATE by PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . The applicant was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in LOC .","On DATE the applicant distributed leaflets in various police stations , urging the police not to use force to disperse public gatherings which were to be held on DATE , after the contested elections to ORG DATE .","At TIME the traffic police took the applicant to the police station on suspicion of evading military service . At TIME the applicant was charged with an administrative offence under LAW ORG on account of an unpaid fine of MONEY ( RUB ) ( equivalent to QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) for a traffic offence . The charge concerning evasion of military service was not pursued .","The arrest record reads as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] was escorted to the police station : at TIME","On account of an administrative offence : under LAW ORG .","For the purposes of LAW ORG : for compiling an administrative record . \u201d","The applicant was not released after the administrative - offence record had been drawn up , but was instead placed in a detention centre at TIME , for reasons which were not specified .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken before a justice of the peace , who then sentenced him to DATE of detention for the offence under LAW . The applicant was then taken back to the detention centre and was released at TIME","The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the conviction .","The applicant brought proceedings , under LAW of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , to challenge the deprivation of his liberty from CARDINAL a.m. on DATE to TIME the next day . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG discontinued the proceedings . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision . On DATE the cassation instance of the same court confirmed it . The courts considered that while neither the ORG nor the ORG set out a separate procedure for challenging the measures of being escorted to the police station or of administrative arrest , arguments concerning those measures could be raised during an examination of the related ORG charges against the applicant , as well as in an appeal against a decision that had been taken on such charges .","In separate proceedings , the applicant lodged a claim for compensation , arguing that Article CARDINAL required that a record of administrative arrest was to specify reasons for the arrest ; the record of his arrest referred to the need to compile the administrative - offence record ; such record had been compiled TIME on DATE ; thereby the justification for his arrest had been exhausted and could no longer justify his continued deprivation of liberty on CARDINAL and DATE . The applicant concluded from the above that the unlawful deprivation of liberty on those dates served as a legal basis for obtaining compensation on account of the non - pecuniary damage suffered .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The court considered that the matters relating to his being taken to the police station and the ensuing administrative arrest had been examined in the ORG case and there were therefore no reasons to award compensation . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld that judgment . On DATE the same court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant , stating as follows :","\u201c ... [ The applicant ] was escorted to the police station for the compiling of a record of administrative offence ... With a view to the correct and expedient examination of the case , he was subjected to the measure of administrative arrest ... The actions of the police officers relating to the escorting and the arrest procedures were assessed by the courts dealing with the administrative charge and were , in substance , declared lawful ... The claimant \u2019s argument that the courts in a civil case should assess the lawfulness of the police actions is based on a wrong interpretation of the law ... It is not appropriate to challenge the procedure of administrative arrest within the procedure under LAW of LAW , where there is a decision to engage the liability of a person for an administrative offence ... \u201d","This application was lodged on CARDINAL DATE by PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG in GPE , GPE .","On various dates DATE , including from DATE ( see below ) , the applicant was kept in a temporary detention centre . According to him , the cells had no toilet ; he had had to relieve himself in a bucket ; there was no running water available in the cells , and no access to shower facilities .","According to a written report by Officer PERSON , at TIME on DATE he arrested the applicant for being drunk and looking untidy in a public place , and took him to the police station where he then remained until he sobered up . It appears , however , that the applicant was actually arrested ( apparently , by another officer ) and then tested for alcohol intoxication TIME and TIME respectively ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE before a justice of the peace the applicant admitted that he had consumed vodka with a friend in the morning DATE before but denied that he had appeared untidy at CARDINAL . TIME or had been drunk or otherwise behaving in a manner offending public morals or human dignity . On DATE , referring to S. \u2019s report , a medical report ( the contents of which are not clear ) and an arrest record , the justice of the peace convicted the applicant of an administrative offence under LAW on account of being drunk in a public place at TIME on DATE while having an untidy appearance , thus offending human dignity and public morals . The justice of the peace sentenced him to DATE of administrative detention .","The applicant started to serve his sentence on DATE .","The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG quashed the conviction and discontinued the case for lack of any evidence to confirm the facts as imputed to the applicant . The appeal court considered that there had been nothing to suggest that the applicant had had an untidy appearance which offended human dignity or public morals ; around the same time the applicant had had an appointment at the prosecutor \u2019s office and no complaint had been made concerning his appearance or any state of drunkenness . The appeal decision reads as follows :","\u201c The defendant was convicted of being drunk and looking untidy in a public place at TIME on DATE ...","[ The applicant ] stated that he had consumed vodka with a friend in TIME of DATE ; had then attended a sauna , had put clean clothes , had had lunch and had then gone to attend a meeting in the district prosecutor \u2019s office ; he had not seen any police officer at TIME ...","Mr Se . stated before the appeal court that he had had a meeting with [ the applicant ] at TIME While he could see that [ the applicant ] had consumed alcohol , he conducted himself , looked and spoke properly ...","Officer PERSON stated that he had been told on DATE of [ the applicant ] being drunk but he had actually not seen him at TIME and had actually not effected his arrest at that time ...","The file contains a medical report compiled at TIME and the arrest record indicating that the defendant had been arrested at TIME","There is no other evidence in the file . The trial court relied on S. \u2019s report , the medical report and the arrest record . However , it has now been established that the defendant was examined and arrested much later than at TIME on DATE ... PERSON \u2019s presentation of facts is not truthful and contradicts his earlier report . Shortly after that time the defendant was at the district prosecutor \u2019s office and testified before an investigator [ Se . ] . His appearance and conduct did not offend human dignity and public morals ... So it has not been established that the defendant committed any offence under LAW ... The proceedings should be discontinued for lack of a corpus delicti ... \u201d","The applicant was released on DATE .","NORP The applicant brought civil proceedings , seeking compensation in the amount of RUB CARDINAL ( equivalent to EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of nonpecuniary damage owing to the conditions of his detention and the unlawful penalty of administrative detention . By a judgment of DATE , ORG awarded the applicant RUB MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL according to ORG rate on the relevant date ) on the basis of the fact that the prosecution had been discontinued . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","This application was lodged on DATE by PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicant was represented before the Court by Ms I. Buryukova , a lawyer practising in LOC .","Section CARDINAL of LAW of CARDINAL banned public gatherings \u201c in the immediate vicinity of court buildings \u201d . Relying on that provision of the LAW , in DATE the NORP town administration decided to ban the holding of public events within a radius of QUANTITY of any court , to be measured from the entrance to each court building in the town .","At TIME on DATE , as part of a series of solo demonstrations held in DATE , the applicant placed himself within a fenced - off area around the building housing the prosecutor \u2019s office . He was holding a poster that read \u201c The prosecutor \u2019s office should return FAC to demonstrators ! \u201d .","After TIME the police ordered the applicant to stop the demonstration because it was being held in the vicinity of the ORG building . He was handcuffed and , allegedly , physical force was used against him . He was then taken to the police station and subjected to the measure of administrative arrest . The relevant record reads as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] arrived at the police station at \u2018 CARDINAL.CARDINAL\u2019 in connection with offences under : \u2018 LAW , LAW","For ( among the grounds listed in LAW ) : for compiling a record of administrative offence ... \u201d","The applicant was released at TIME He was later admitted to hospital .","By a judgment of DATE , a justice of the peace convicted the applicant under LAW ORG and sentenced him to a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL at the time ) . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . However , on DATE ORG of GPE set aside the above judgments and discontinued the case . The court considered that there had been no evidence that the place where the applicant had stood was assigned to the territory of ORG under the applicable laws and regulations .","The applicant brought civil proceedings for compensation on account of the unlawful deprivation of his liberty on DATE . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed his claim . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld that judgment . The court observed as follows :","( a ) Having regard to Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention and the ruling of ORG of GPE dated DATE ( concerning the application of the Convention by courts of general jurisdiction ) , the police \u2019s action in taking the applicant to the police station had been proportionate and had pursued a legitimate aim ; it had been of short duration , and had not involved any recourse to physical force .","( b ) The measure of taking the applicant to the police station had been aimed at ensuring prosecution for an administrative offence , including the drawing up of an arrest record .","This application was lodged on DATE by PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE in LOC .","DATE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s car was stopped by the police . The applicant was accused of an administrative offence under Article CARDINAL of the ORG because he had no valid driving licence . The applicant was taken to the police station where he went through the procedure of being placed under administrative arrest . His mobile telephone was seized .","According to the applicant , he was not informed of his procedural rights , including the right to remain silent , when he was pulled up by the police , or at the police station .","On DATE ( a DATE ) the applicant was taken before a justice of the peace . At the hearing , the applicant asked for a lawyer . The judge adjourned the hearing for TIME to allow the applicant to contact a lawyer . According to the applicant , during the break in the hearing , a guard took him to a metal cage where defendants were kept ; the applicant had no access to a telephone . According to the Government , the applicant was not kept in a metal cage but in a room measuring QUANTITY .","According to the Government , after the adjournment the applicant waived his right to legal assistance and opted to defend himself . The applicant submitted that he had not made any such statement .","The justice of the peace convicted the applicant of the offence and sentenced him to DATE of administrative detention , to be counted from DATE . The justice of the peace stated that the applicant \u2019s guilt was confirmed by , inter alia , the record of administrative offence compiled by the police as well as by the applicant \u2019s guilty plea . The justice of the peace had dismissed as unsubstantiated his argument that as a military officer , he could not be sentenced to administrative detention .","The applicant began his sentence DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed . In his statement of appeal he mentioned that he had had difficulties with legal assistance since no law firms would be open on a DATE . He was released on DATE .","On DATE the ORG examined the applicant and upheld the judgment against him . It stated , inter alia , that the justice of the peace had not been provided with any proof that the applicant was a military officer . It is unclear whether the applicant adduced the relevant evidence in the appeal proceedings .","The applicant also lodged a constitutional complaint . By decision no . CARDINAL-O of DATE , ORG held that the immediate execution of the sentence of administrative detention had not contravened LAW ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d , paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed an application by the applicant for review of the court decisions of CARDINAL and DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed a further application for review lodged by the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5","P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-5","P7-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-a","5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":["5","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-5","6-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160309","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GROSSMANN AIR SERVICE BEDARFSLUFTFAHRTUNTERNEHMEN GMBH & CO KG v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant company is a limited liability company which is registered in GPE and has its seat in GPE .","In DATE the ORG Minister made a public call for tenders concerning flight services for delegations of ORG . The applicant company submitted an offer , but simultaneously complained that the public tender was tailored towards CARDINAL specific tenderer , namely the L. company . It was therefore revoked .","On DATE an amended public call for tenders was issued . The applicant company did not submit an offer .","Upon request , the applicant company was informed that ORG decided on DATE to award the contract to the L. company . The respective contract was concluded on DATE .","On DATE , received by ORG ( Bundesvergabeamt ) on DATE , the applicant company requested to initiate review proceedings concerning the public call for tenders and to declare the awarding of the contract to the L. company null and void .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant company \u2019s request , holding that it had failed to show its legal interest in the public tender .","On DATE the applicant company filed a complaint with ORG and asked it to seek a preliminary ruling from ORG of ORG ( CJEU ) on the question of the existence of a legal interest .","On DATE ORG set aside ORG decision and held that it should have requested a preliminary ruling .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG therefore requested a preliminary ruling from the ORG .","On DATE the ORG issued a preliminary ruling , holding in essence that a person who did not participate in the public tendering proceedings due to an allegedly discriminatory call may still request their review .","On DATE ORG again rejected the applicant company \u2019s request .","On DATE the applicant company filed a complaint with ORG .","On DATE ORG declined to deal with the applicant company \u2019s complaint , holding that it did not raise any questions of constitutional law , and transferred the case to ORG .","On DATE the applicant company submitted its amended complaint to ORG .","On DATE ORG set aside ORG decision , holding that the applicant company had been eligible to file a request for review proceedings .","On DATE the applicant company filed a letter to the ORG \u2019s Department ( GPE ) , asking whether GPE would be interested in reaching a settlement in this case , referring to ORG inactivity after ORG last decision and the fact that the proceedings have already lasted for DATE .","On DATE the Auditor - General \u2019s Department replied and requested the applicant company to specify their claims for compensation . It further stated that the applicant company could file an application against ORG failure to decide .","On DATE the applicant company filed an application with ORG against ORG failure to decide ( PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG requested ORG to issue , within DATE , either a decision or to explain why it did not violate its duty to decide .","On DATE a meeting took place between the parties , but no settlement could be reached .","On DATE ORG issued its decision , finding that awarding the contract to the L. company in the public tender proceedings had not been unlawful .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant company \u2019s application filed against ORG failure to decide as the latter had issued its decision on DATE , but awarded the applicant company the legal costs .","On DATE the applicant company filed a complaint with ORG .","On DATE ORG declined to deal with the complaint . It held that the impugned decision had not deviated from ORG case - law and that the complaint did not raise any legal questions of fundamental significance .","NORP This decision was served on the applicant company \u2019s counsel on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148271","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF EMEL BOYRAZ v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE the applicant sat an examination in order to become a public servant . She was successful in the examination and on an unspecified date she was informed by ORG attached to the Prime Minister \u2019s office that she had been appointed to the post of security officer in the Batman branch of ORG , the state - run ORG , the first of the CARDINAL choices that the applicant had made in the course of the examination procedure .","On DATE the human resources department of the ORG branch of ORG informed the applicant that she would not be appointed as she did not fulfil the requirements of \u201c being a man \u201d and \u201c having completed military service \u201d .","NORP In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE and addressed to ORG , the human resources department of ORG requested the ORG to provide a list of new persons to be appointed instead of a number of persons , including the applicant , who could not be recruited for various reasons . As regards the applicant and CARDINAL other persons , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , the human resources department of ORG informed the ORG that they were women and therefore could not work as security officers . In the letter , it was stated that security officers had the task of protecting depots , switchyards and transformer stations in rural areas far from city centres , against attacks and in case of fire and sabotage . They were obliged to work day and night and to use weapons , including those with long barrels , and physical force in case of an attack . It was therefore considered that women were not suitable for the post of security officer .","On DATE the applicant lodged an action against the general directorate of ORG with ORG requesting the annulment of the decision of the Batman branch of ORG with all its financial consequences . In her deposition , the applicant noted that being a man was not a requirement for appointment to the post in question and that she fulfilled all the requirements for that post . The applicant also noted that she had been deprived of the opportunity to be appointed to CARDINAL of the other CARDINAL posts that she had indicated following the refusal in question and that she could not sit the examination again in DATE as she had succeeded in DATE .","On an unspecified date the general directorate of ORG submitted to the administrative court that CARDINAL of the requirements for the post in question had been declared by ORG as \u201c having completed military service \u201d and that therefore only men could be appointed to the post . The applicant , being a woman , could therefore not be recruited as a security officer .","On DATE ORG annulled the decision of the Batman branch of ORG . The court held that the requirement of \u201c having completed military service \u201d should be considered to apply only to male candidates and that there had been no restriction on women working as security officers in ORG . The court also noted that another woman , GPE , who had also brought a case against ORG for the same reasons as the applicant , had been appointed to the post of security officer after she had lodged the case .","Subsequent to the judgment of DATE , the applicant was offered a contract by the Batman branch of ORG . On DATE she took up her duties . On DATE she was transferred to the ORG branch of ORG as her husband lived and worked in that city .","On DATE ORG lodged an appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , requesting ORG to order a stay of execution of the judgment of ORG and to subsequently quash it . The representative of ORG submitted , inter alia , that the announcement of the post of security officers in the Batman branch contained the requirement of \u201c having completed military service \u201d and not \u201c in respect of male candidates , having completed military service \u201d , unlike the post in the Gaziantep branch of ORG , which first rejected PERSON According to the lawyer , this expression demonstrated that the post was reserved for male candidates only and that therefore the status of the applicant was different from that of GPE","On DATE ORG dismissed the request for a stay of execution .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG , holding that the requirement regarding military service demonstrated that the post in question was reserved for male candidates and that this requirement was lawful having regard to the nature of the post and the public interest . The high court therefore found that the administration \u2019s decision had been in accordance with the law .","On DATE the applicant requested rectification of the decision of DATE . In her petition , she submitted that the post of security officer was not reserved for male candidates and that therefore the high court \u2019s decision was in breach of the principle of equality .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed from her post at the ORG branch of ORG . According to the letter sent by the deputy head of the human resources department of ORG to the ORG branch , the applicant \u2019s contract was to be terminated on account of the decision of ORG dated DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG . She maintained that she had lost her post and requested the high court to order a stay of execution of the decision of DATE . She noted , in her petition , that the post in question should not be reserved only for men , since certain acts , such as a body search on women , should be carried out by female officers .","On DATE her request was dismissed by ORG .","On DATE ORG further dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for rectification .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s case , taking into consideration the decision of ORG .","On DATE the applicant appealed . In her deposition she noted that there were CARDINAL other similar cases brought against ORG by female candidates for the same reasons as hers and that CARDINAL of these cases , brought by PERSON , who had also not been appointed to a post of security officer in the Batman branch of ORG on the same grounds as those applied to the applicant , was pending before ORG . She further noted that she would have lost the opportunity to apply for another public post , had the high court decided in favour of ORG .","On DATE ORG ( NORP PERSON ) issued a decision in favour of ORG held that the requirement of \u201c having completed military service \u201d should be considered to apply only to male candidates and that the refusal to appoint PERSON to the Batman branch of ORG had therefore been unlawful .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , holding that the latter was in accordance with the law . In its decision , the court noted the content of the decision of ORG but did not comment on it .","On DATE the applicant requested rectification of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , maintaining that the decision in question constituted a breach of the principle of equality and the right to a fair hearing since ORG had ruled in favour of PERSON She further claimed that there had been discrimination , since pursuant to the LAW no distinction could be made in public employment .","On DATE the Twelfth ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request ."],"violated_articles":["14","6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172555","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ORLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in the civil proceedings to which they were parties ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147276","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MAT\u00daZ v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","The applicant is a television journalist . From DATE he was employed by the ORG television company ( ORG . ) . Following an amendment of his work contract on DATE , he was appointed for an indeterminate period . At the material time , he was chairman of ORG ( ORG ) , active within the television company .","The applicant was in charge , as editor and presenter , of a periodical cultural programme called \u00c9jjeli mened\u00e9k ( Night Shelter ) which involved interviews with various figures of cultural life .","According to point CARDINAL of his work contract , the applicant was bound by professional confidentiality . He was obliged not to reveal any information acquired in connection to his position the disclosure of which would be prejudicial to either his employer or any other person . According to the labour contract , he also took note of the fact that a breach of this obligation would lead to the immediate termination of his employment .","Following the appointment of a new cultural director the applicant had apparently contacted the television company \u2019s president , since he had perceived the new director \u2019s conduct in modifying and cutting certain contents of \u00c9jjeli mened\u00e9k as censorship . He had received no response to his complaint .","On DATE the editor - in - chief of ORG mened\u00e9k addressed a letter to the board of ORG . stating , amongst other things , that the appointment of the new cultural director had led to censorship of the programme by his suggesting modifications to , and the deletion of , certain contents .","On DATE an article appeared in the online version of a NORP DATE ( ORG ) , containing the editor - in - chief \u2019s letter as well as a statement of ORG ) , inviting the board to end censorship in the television company .","In DATE the applicant published a book entitled \u201c GPE antifasiszta \u00e9s a hungarista \u2013 Titkok a FAC \u201d ( The NORP and the NORP - Secrets from ORG ) . Each chapter of the book contained an extract from different interviews recorded in DATE , which had not been broadcast in the cultural programme , apparently on the basis of the instructions of the cultural director in question . Along with the extracts , the applicant included numerous in - house letter exchanges between the cultural director and the editor - in - chief concerning the suggested changes in the programme . Moreover , the chapters contained a short introduction or summary of the events , reflecting the applicant \u2019s personal opinion . The preface of the book said that it would contain documentary evidence of censorship exercised in the ORG television company . It called on the readers to decide whether the documents indicated the cultural director \u2019s legitimate exercise of his supervisory functions or an interference with the broadcaster \u2019s freedom of expression .","On DATE the television company dismissed from employment the applicant and the editor - in - chief of ORG mened\u00e9k , with immediate effect . The reason for the applicant \u2019s summary dismissal was that , by publishing the book in question , he had breached the confidentiality clause contained in his labour contract .","The applicant challenged his dismissal in court . He argued , inter alia , that he had received the in - house letter - exchange in connection with his position as the chairman of the trade union , in order for him to take steps against the alleged censorship at the television company , and that he had published the impugned book in that capacity .","NORP In its judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action , stating that he had breached his obligations under point CARDINAL of his work contract by publishing information about his employer without its consent . The court also found that the applicant \u2019s position as chairman of the trade union did not exempt him from the duty of confidentiality .","The applicant appealed , arguing that the publication of the book had not in any way prejudiced his employer or any other person and that he had not acquired the published information in connection with his position but in his capacity as trade union chairman . In that position , and in representation of the interests of his colleagues , he was obliged to act against the censorship within the television company . Thus , according to the applicant , the conditions of dismissal , as stipulated in point CARDINAL of his labour contract , had not been fulfilled .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on the same grounds as ORG , adding that the publication of the book might have had a certain detrimental effect on the television company \u2019s reputation . Furthermore , in ORG opinion , the impugned measure had not constituted an abuse of rights on the employer \u2019s side , since the applicant had voluntarily agreed to the restriction of his freedom of expression by signing his labour contract .","The applicant pursued a petition for review before ORG . He argued that he had been unlawfully dismissed in that his conduct , namely to inform the public about censorship at the ORG television company in a book DATE which was a last - ditch option given that his efforts vis - \u00e0 - vis the management to have the matter investigated had been to no avail \u2013 should have been regarded as an exercise of his freedom of expression rather than an unlawful breach of his labour contract , especially in view of the fact that the allegation of censorship had not been refuted .","On DATE ORG found against the applicant . Referring to the applicant \u2019s submission concerning freedom of expression , it held that the scope of the case did not extend beyond the examination of the applicant \u2019s breach of his labour obligations . In the court \u2019s view , the applicant had indeed breached the contract by means of the unauthorised publication of internal documents of his former employer . The court expressly excluded from its scrutiny the question whether or not the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression justified , in the circumstances , a formal breach of his labour contract .","This decision was served on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140006","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LAVRIC v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu B\u00eersan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant ( also referred to herein as prosecutor PERSON ) , in her capacity as a prosecutor at the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG , initiated criminal proceedings against A.B. on CARDINAL occasions . She filed an indictment proposing PERSON \u2019s conviction in both sets of proceedings .","The first indictment , filed by the applicant on DATE , sought the conviction of A.B. for the offences of making false declarations and destruction . On DATE ORG found PERSON guilty as charged and sentenced her to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment in respect of each offence . The judgment was upheld by GPE , which dismissed an appeal lodged by ORG . On DATE the Ploie\u0219ti Court of Appeal allowed an appeal on points of law lodged by A.B. in part , noting that the limitation period had expired in respect of the offence of destruction .","The second indictment of DATE was not approved by the chief prosecutor , who ordered the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings against A.B.","On DATE disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant following a complaint being lodged by A.B. On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG found that the applicant had not committed any disciplinary offence and closed the investigation .","A.S. , a journalist at the national newspaper GPE Liber\u0103 , wrote CARDINAL articles concerning the applicant \u2019s professional activity in connection with the criminal proceedings against A.B.","The first article published on DATE was entitled \u201c ORG corruption . Prosecutor PERSON falsified CARDINAL indictments ! An innocent person was sentenced to prison \u201d and had CARDINAL sections . The first section , entitled \u201c Professional dross , confirmed by her superiors \u201d ( \u201c Rebut professional , confirmat de \u0219efi \u201d ) , referred to an allegedly \u201c falsified \u201d indictment filed by the applicant on DATE . It concerned PERSON , who according to the journalist had been innocent and a victim of the applicant \u2019s corrupt actions . In the journalist \u2019s opinion the fact that this indictment had been invalidated by the chief prosecutor proved that it had been the result of falsification and could be considered professional dross ( \u201c rebut professional \u201d ) .","NORP In the second section , entitled \u201c Exclusion from the magistracy \u201d ( \u201c Excludere din magistratur\u0103 \u201d ) , the journalist referred to \u201c the cheating prosecutor PERSON ( \u201c procurorul m\u0103sluitor \u201d ) who \u201c did not manage to send PERSON before a court on the basis of her falsified indictment on this occasion . However she had already managed to send PERSON before a court of justice on the basis of another indictment , the product of scandalous falsification \u201d . It was stated that an examination of the applicant \u2019s conduct in connection with the first indictment \u201c could result , besides criminal charges against her for abuse of position , in her rapid exclusion from the magistracy by the disciplinary board of the public prosecutor \u2019s office . By misleading her superiors , cheating prosecutor PERSON managed to send the defendant A.B. before a court on DATE for criminal damage and making false declarations . The lies and the wilfully erroneous interpretation contained in the CARDINAL pages of the second falsified indictment could fill a whole chapter in \u2018 a real handbook of judicial corruption\u2019 \u201d .","The third and the fourth sections of the article concerned civil proceedings brought by PERSON , without making any reference to the applicant . The fifth section concerned a complaint of criminal damage lodged by \u201c the mafia of crooked businessmen \u201d against A.B. and allocated to \u201c cheating prosecutor PERSON In the last section , the journalist accused the applicant , \u201c the cheating prosecutor \u201d , of causing PERSON to be sentenced to prison by lying to the courts with her \u201c falsified indictment \u201d .","The second article , published on DATE , was entitled \u201c E.L. , the prosecutor who falsifies indictments \u201d . It referred to the conviction of PERSON on the basis of an indictment drafted by the applicant . The journalist claimed to have exposed the alleged influence exercised over the applicant by PERSON , directly interested in the affair , which had led to PERSON \u2019s conviction . According to the journalist , PERSON had repeatedly \u201c brought a variety of food products to [ the applicant \u2019s ] home in bags or in boot of her car ( ... ) . Once she brought a pig cut in CARDINAL to [ the applicant \u2019s ] home , leaving bloodstains in the building \u2019s corridors \u201d .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint for defamation against FAC The applicant complained that GPE had damaged her reputation and dignity by publishing the CARDINAL above - mentioned articles in DATE . She sought MONEY ( ROL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","By a judgment of DATE , LOC ORG found the journalist guilty of defamation and sentenced him to a criminal fine of MONEY ( ROL ) , the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL . The journalist and the newspaper were jointly ordered to pay the applicant damages of ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL . The court found that the expressions \u201c falsifier and cheater \u201d did not correspond to reality , as a disciplinary investigation had concluded that the applicant had conducted herself professionally and appropriately in connection with the charges she had brought against A.B. in her capacity as a prosecutor . The court noted that in DATE , when the articles had been published , the journalist had been aware that the prosecutor \u2019s indictment in the first set of proceedings had been upheld by the first CARDINAL levels of the domestic courts and the appeal on points of law was still pending . The court also noted that the journalist had been aware that the disciplinary investigation against the applicant was pending when he had written the articles . It therefore held that this should have caused the journalist to exercise a certain amount of caution in his approach and use of language , given that he could have exposed the applicant to disciplinary and even criminal sanctions .","NORP The district court examined the indictment of CARDINAL January CARDINAL , mentioned by GPE in his first article , and noted that it had been upheld by final decisions of the domestic courts .","As regards the second indictment , the court noted that it had not been approved by the chief prosecutor on DATE . The court also noted that at the time the articles were published the chief prosecutor \u2019s decision was not yet final , as a complaint had been lodged against it . The court considered that the refusal of the chief prosecutor to approve the applicant \u2019s indictment should not have led the journalist to the conclusion that the applicant had falsified the indictment .","The court concluded that in the CARDINAL articles the journalist had overstepped the limits of acceptable speech provided by LAW .","Journalist GPE and the newspaper appealed against this judgment . On DATE the ORG allowed the appeal , quashed the first - instance judgment and proceeded to rehear the case . It acquitted the journalist of the defamation charge and dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for damages . The county court held that the journalist had merely provided details of PERSON \u2019s situation as it emerged from the court records . It also held that the article published on DATE had simply been a reproduction of the administrative complaints lodged by PERSON with ORG and ORG . The county court classified the relevant statements of the journalists as value judgments and found that the expressions used were to be examined in connection with the function of the press in a NORP society to impart information and ideas on all matters of public interest , as was the case in respect of the matter before it , which concerned the administration of justice . It referred to the judgment ORG v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG DATE , ORG ORG ) , noting that the journalist had had recourse to a certain degree of exaggeration and provocation .","The relevant domestic provisions of ORG concerning slander and defamation and liability for paying damages in force at the material time , as well as the subsequent developments in the legislation , are described in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155209","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CHITOS v. GREECE","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4-2 - Compulsory labour;Forced labour);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE he was admitted to ORG ( medical section ) . He was paid a salary and was granted welfare benefits . He pursued academic studies free of charge at ORG , taking the DATE degree course for medical professionals in the national health system .","On DATE , on completion of his studies , he was appointed to the rank of second lieutenant in the army medical corps .","In accordance with LAW no . DATE on the status of officers of the armed forces , as applicable at the material time , the applicant had undertaken to serve in the armed forces for a period corresponding to CARDINAL times the duration of his studies at the military academy \u2013 that is , DATE . The relevant provision was later amended by LAW no . DATE and the period in question was reduced to twice the duration of his studies \u2013 that is , DATE .","On DATE the ORG organised a competitive examination for the recruitment of medical specialists . Officers in the medical corps , such as the applicant , were invited to apply in order to acquire a specialist qualification . The applicant was attached to the CARDINAL ORG in GPE , where he worked as an intern from DATE to DATE . Subsequently , from DATE , he occupied a paid supernumerary position ( by virtue of section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL ) at ORG in GPE as a junior doctor specialising in anaesthesiology .","After completing his specialist training , which lasted DATE during which time he was paid his salary as an army officer \u2013 the applicant gave an undertaking , in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , to serve in the army for a further DATE . He provided a sworn declaration to that effect as required by LAW .","The applicant served in the armed forces until DATE , when he resigned at DATE as an anaesthetist with the rank of colonel .","By a notice of CARDINAL September CARDINAL ORG informed the applicant that , pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , he was required either to serve in the armed forces for a further DATE , DATE and DATE or to pay the ORG a fee calculated on the basis of the period remaining to be served .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the accounts department of ORG assessed the amount of the fee at MONEY ( ORG ) . The decision stated that the applicant could apply to ORG for judicial review , but that the application would not have suspensive effect as far as the payment procedure was concerned .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of ORG for judicial review of the notice of DATE . He argued that LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was in breach of LAW ( prohibition of all forms of compulsory labour ) and LAW , read separately and in conjunction with LAW . On DATE the applicant also applied for a stay of execution of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE a division president of ORG made an interim order staying the execution of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG confirmed the stay of execution sought by the applicant .","In judgment no . DATE of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for judicial review as ill - founded . It held in particular that the fee to be paid by the applicant did not constitute a menace of a penalty , did not infringe the proportionality principle , had been calculated objectively and was designed to ensure that the ORG was refunded the expenses it had incurred in training regular members of the armed forces , who were also paid a salary throughout their basic and specialist training .","On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law to the plenary ORG . On DATE he applied to the same court for a stay of execution of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the president of the plenary ORG made an interim order staying the execution of the decision in question . On DATE and DATE , while those proceedings were ongoing , ORG ordered the applicant to pay the sum of ORG CARDINAL , plus ORG in stamp duty and ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL to the agricultural insurance fund .","On DATE the plenary ORG confirmed the stay of execution sought by the applicant .","On DATE ORG of ORG informed the applicant that because the amount assessed in the decision of CARDINAL DATE had not been paid by DATE , interest of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL had been charged for late payment . It also informed him that if he paid the outstanding amount by CARDINAL DATE , he would be entitled to an PERCENT discount on the interest .","On DATE the applicant deposited the sum of EUR CARDINAL at ORG .","In judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ( served on the applicant on DATE ) the plenary ORG partly allowed the appeal on points of law .","It found that the failure to include a period of DATE which had been essential for the applicant to complete his specialist training \u2013 as part of his total length of service was in breach of the proportionality principle enshrined in LAW .","It held that the period during which a medical officer worked towards obtaining a specialist qualification formed part of the officer \u2019s actual military service . Accordingly , it quashed ORG decision as regards the finding that the applicant \u2019s period of specialist training constituted years of study that should not be included in the calculation of his overall period of compulsory service .","It dismissed as ill - founded the ground of appeal alleging a violation of the LAW , reasoning as follows :","\u201c Paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ... is compatible with the provisions of LAW , LAW and the LAW , in view of the fact that during DATE the medical officer serves the armed forces that have trained him or her , and it achieves the aim pursued , namely providing supervisory personnel for the armed forces , without the officer being required to work . As to the fee to be calculated in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of the same LAW , this is a means of offsetting the expenditure incurred by the ORG in training officers and on no account constitutes a penalty . \u201d","The plenary ORG remitted the case to a different bench of ORG . The only question referred was that of the reassessment of the fee by counting the applicant \u2019s DATE of specialist training as part of his overall length of service .","In judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( served on the applicant on DATE ) ORG of ORG varied the decision of CARDINAL DATE issued by the accounts department of ORG by reducing the amount payable by the applicant to ORG .","NORP In particular , ORG held firstly that the decision of CARDINAL DATE was lawful in that the applicant had left the army before completion of the period of CARDINAL years\u2019 compulsory service . However , it found that the length of his remaining period of compulsory service was not DATE , DATE and DATE , as ORG had calculated , but DATE , DATE and DATE . It pointed out that the period already served by the applicant should have included his specialist training , which had begun on DATE and ended on DATE , since , as judgment no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had made clear , the period of specialist training was to be counted as part of the actual service performed .","On DATE the ORG reimbursed the applicant the sum of EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , corresponding to the difference between the payment he had already made and the amount determined in judgment no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","According to information supplied by the ORG , the applicant is now working in a large private hospital in GPE .","..."],"violated_articles":["4"],"violated_paragraphs":["4-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178904","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ANTOVI\u0106 AND MIRKOVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE the ORG of ORG - matemati\u010dki fakultet ) , at a session of the School \u2019s council , informed the professors teaching there , including the applicants , that \u201c video surveillance has been introduced \u201d ( da je uveden video nadzor ) and that it was in the auditoriums where classes were held .","On DATE the PERSON issued a decision introducing video surveillance in CARDINAL amphitheatres and in front of ORG ( ispred dekanata ) . The decision specified that the aim of the measure was to ensure the safety of property and people , including students , and the surveillance of teaching ( pra\u0107enje izvr\u0161avanja nastavnih aktivnosti ) . The decision stated that access to the data that was collected was protected by codes which were known only to the PERSON . The data were to be stored for DATE .","On DATE the applicants complained to ORG ( PERSON za za\u0161titu li\u010dnih podataka , \u201c the NORP \u201d ) about the video surveillance and the collection of data on them without their consent . They relied on ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below).The applicants submitted , in particular , that the amphitheatre where they taught was locked both before and after the classes , that the only property there was fixed desks and chairs and a blackboard , that they knew of no reason to fear for anybody \u2019s safety and that , in any event , there were other methods for protecting people and property and monitoring classes . They requested that the cameras be removed and the data erased .","On DATE CARDINAL Agency inspectors issued a report ( zapisnik ) after visiting ORG , stating that the video surveillance was in accordance with ORG . According to them , there had been cases of destruction of university property , the bringing in of animals , drink and tobacco , and the presence of people who were not students . They also noted that the cameras provided \u201c a picture from a distance without clear resolution , that is people \u2019s features [ could not ] be easily recognised \u201d , that they could not zoom in and out and did not record any audio ( ne reprodukuju audio zapis ) . While the decision on introducing video surveillance had provided that data would be stored for DATE , the servers\u2019 capacity was such that the data was stored for DATE and then automatically erased by new recordings . The inspectors also noted that information on a \u201c plan to introduce video surveillance \u201d ( planiranje uvo\u0111enja video nadzora ) had been given at a session of ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicants filed an objection to the report , submitting , inter alia , that they were not aware of any of the alleged incidents and that , in any event , it was unclear how such cameras could ensure the safety of people and property . They agreed that cameras over the entrances and exits from the university building might perhaps be an adequate form of ensuring such security . They also submitted that employees had not been \u201c notified in writing on the introduction of video surveillance before it started \u201d ( nijesu bili obavje\u0161teni o uvo\u0111enju video nadzora u pisanom obliku prije po\u010detka vr\u0161enja istog ) . Notably , the decision had been issued on CARDINAL DATE whereas surveillance had commenced DATE before . They did not specify when exactly but referred to TIME of the session of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , after the applicants\u2019 objection to the report , ORG ( PERSON za\u0161titu li\u010dnih podataka ) issued a decision ( rje\u0161enje ) ordering ORG to remove the cameras from the auditoriums within DATE as the video surveillance was not in accordance with ORG , notably sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs DATE , and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . In particular , the ORG held that the reasons for the introduction of video surveillance provided for by section CARDINAL had not been met , given that there was no evidence that there was any danger to the safety of people and property in the auditoriums , still less to confidential data , and that the surveillance of teaching was not among the legitimate grounds for video surveillance . None of the parties initiated an administrative dispute in court against that decision .","On DATE ORG was served with ORG decision of DATE . The cameras were removed by DATE at the latest . It appears that the data that had been collected was also erased on an unspecified date .","On DATE the applicants brought a compensation claim against ORG , ORG and GPE , for a violation of their right to a private life , notably by the unauthorised collection and processing of data on them . They submitted in particular that such an interference with their private lives , without any possibility to control that process , was not provided for by any piece of legislation and that therefore it had not been in accordance with the law , within the meaning of LAW . They also maintained that it had not pursued any legitimate aim and had not been necessary in a NORP society . They relied on the relevant provisions of ORG , LAW and the relevant case - law of the ORG .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE ruled against the applicants . The court found that the notion of private life certainly included activities in the business and professional spheres . It also held , however , that the university was a public institution performing activities of public interest , teaching being CARDINAL of them ( poziv redovnog profesora [ je ] tako\u0111e javan ) , and that it was thus not possible for video surveillance of the auditoriums as public places to violate the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their private life . It was a working area , just like a courtroom or parliament , where professors were never alone , and therefore they could not invoke any right to privacy that could be violated . The data that had been collected could thereby also not be considered as personal data . The university \u2019s failure to remove the cameras immediately had been unauthorised , but it could not be classed as an interference with the applicants\u2019 private life and was therefore irrelevant . The court further held that such a conclusion was in accordance with the ORG \u2019s case - law given that the monitoring of actions taking place in public was not an interference with a person \u2019s private life when those means just recorded ( bilje\u017ei ) what others could see if they happened to be in the same place at the same time . The court also held that the monitoring of the actions of an individual in a public place by the use of photographic equipment which just instantaneously recorded visual data did not give rise to an interference with that individual \u2019s private life , which could arise once any footage of such material became publicly available . It concluded that the installation and use of video surveillance and the collection of data thereby had not violated the applicants\u2019 right to privacy ( pravo na privatnost ) and had therefore not caused them any mental anguish . During the proceedings CARDINAL of the witnesses stated that there had been cases of theft and of damage to the interior of the building and that on CARDINAL occasion CARDINAL laptops had disappeared from a laboratory . Those events had led to the hiring of a private security agency DATE . According to the witness , the police had suggested installing video surveillance equipment on the ORG \u2019s premises . The court , for its part , did not deal with those issues .","On DATE the applicants appealed . They relied , inter alia , on LAW . They maintained , in particular , that the interference with their right to respect for their private lives had not been in accordance with any law and had therefore been contrary to LAW . It had also not been necessary in a NORP society . Furthermore , ORG had not relied on any legal provision in ruling against them and had failed to assess their arguments .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE upheld the first - instance judgment , endorsing its reasons in substance . ORG held in particular that the applicants had not proved that their right to privacy had been violated and found that the first - instance court had \u201c sufficiently related the ORG \u2019s case - law to the case at issue ( dao jasan osvrt na odnos prakse PERSON za ljudska prava i konkretnog slu\u010daja ) ... The court considered the [ applicants\u2019 ] other arguments and found that they did not justify ruling otherwise in the present case ... \u201d .","The applicants did not file a constitutional appeal ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144937","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PETEK v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , the applicant lost control over his motorcycle on a bend by , allegedly , failing to adjust his speed to the road conditions . Consequently , he was severely injured .","On DATE the police sent the applicant a penalty notice fining him QUANTITY ( ORG ) and CARDINAL penalty points for failing to adjust his speed according to the road conditions under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of FAC .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for judicial review . He argued that he had not exceeded the speed limit since he had been driving together with his friends during a DATE trip and the bends on the relevant part of the road prevented a speed which exceeded the speed limit . In this regard , B. and PERSON , who were driving behind him with their motorcycles , could confirm that he had not exceeded the speed limit . Firstly , in his view , the road could have been covered with sand , as it was DATE . Secondly , he argued that the road could have been slippery . Whatever the nature of the obstacle on the road , it was that obstacle that caused the traffic accident . In his further submissions he stressed again that he had been driving within the speed limit . He further drew attention to the fact that a sign should have been installed earlier , considering that many accidents involving motorcycles had happened in the past on that road . According to the applicant , DATE after the accident a slippery road sign had been installed . Therefore , he requested the hearing of the responsible person of ORG . Finally , he pointed out that he was a careful and experienced driver who had followed several trainings on road security .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request without holding a hearing . On the basis of the police record of the scene visit , the sketch of the road accident , the notice of the applicant \u2019s physical injury , the penalty notice and the request for judicial review it held that the applicant had been driving carelessly . According to the police findings of fact , the accident happened on a sharp bend with poor visibility due to a forest embankment . Moreover , the road was divided by a solid line . ORG held that the applicant should have expected a slippery road and the presence of sand but he failed to adjust his speed accordingly . It further considered that the applicant \u2019s complaints related only to exceeding the speed limit , an offence with which he was not charged . ORG did not comment on the applicant \u2019s request for a hearing .","On DATE the applicant proposed to ORG to file a request for the protection of legality .","On DATE ORG notified the applicant that it would not use this legal remedy , having found no violation of a legislative provision .","NORP The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal and a petition for a review of the constitutionality and legality of LAW ( hereinafter referred to as \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the constitutional appeal and the petition as inadmissible . On DATE this decision was served on the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157374","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BORDENCIU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently being detained in PERSON .","In DATE the applicant started serving a CARDINAL - year sentence for murder . On DATE he was placed in PERSON . Except for short periods of time when he was transferred to other prisons in order to appear before the courts and QUANTITY occasions when he was hospitalised for a maximum of DATE in prison hospitals , the applicant was held in PERSON .","The applicant alleged that the conditions of his detention in PERSON since his incarceration in DATE amounted to torture . More specifically , he alleged that he was being held in severely overcrowded cells with CARDINAL forty prisoners , with worn - out furniture and without natural light or ventilation . He further submitted that the cells were full of bed bugs and the food was insufficient and of very poor quality . The applicant also alleged that he was being held in cells with smokers .","The applicant lastly alleged that he had become sick as a result of the inhuman conditions to which he had been subjected . He submitted in that connection a medical certificate issued by the prison doctor on DATE , according to which he was suffering from : chronic cholecystitis , fatty liver disease , chronic venal insufficiency of the legs , type - II diabetes , chronic pancreatitis , gastroduodenitis , lumbar discopathy and impulsive personality disorder .","The Government submitted that the applicant had been held for unspecified periods of time in CARDINAL different cells of the T\u00e2rgu PERSON infirmary block , which are described below .","Cell E CARDINAL.CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m , of which QUANTITY . m were occupied by a bathroom ( QUANTITY . m of remaining space ) . The cell had CARDINAL rows of bunk beds and accommodated CARDINAL prisoners ( QUANTITY . m of personal space , including the space occupied by the beds ) . Ventilation was ensured by a window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY The bathroom had its own window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY .","Cell E CARDINAL.CARDINAL measured QUANTITY . m , of which CARDINAL sq . m were occupied by a bathroom ( QUANTITY . m of remaining space ) . The cell had CARDINAL rows of bunk beds and accommodated CARDINAL prisoners ( QUANTITY m of personal space , including the space occupied by the beds ) . Ventilation was ensured by a window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY The bathroom had its own window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY .","Cell E CARDINAL.CARDINAL measured QUANTITY . m , of which CARDINAL sq . m were occupied by a bathroom ( QUANTITY . m of remaining space ) . The cell had CARDINAL rows of bunk beds and accommodated CARDINAL to CARDINAL prisoners ( CARDINAL and QUANTITY . m of personal space , including the space occupied by the beds ) . Ventilation was ensured by a window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY The bathroom had its own window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY .","For the rest of the time the applicant was held in non - smoking cells , a description of which is set out below .","Cell E CARDINAL.CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m , of which QUANTITY . m were occupied by a bathroom ( QUANTITY . m of remaining space ) . The cell had CARDINAL beds and accommodated CARDINAL to QUANTITY prisoners ( an average of QUANTITY . m of personal space , including the space occupied by the beds ) . The cell had CARDINAL windows measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY and the bathroom had a window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY .","Cell E CARDINAL.CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m , of which QUANTITY . m were occupied by a bathroom ( QUANTITY m of remaining space ) . The cell had CARDINAL rows of bunk beds and usually accommodated CARDINAL prisoners ( QUANTITY . m of personal space , including the space occupied by the beds ) . The cell had a window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY . The bathroom had its own window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY .","Cell E CARDINAL.CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m , of which QUANTITY . m were occupied by a bathroom and QUANTITY m by a storage room ( QUANTITY . m of remaining space ) . The cell had CARDINAL rows of bunk beds and accommodated CARDINAL to QUANTITY prisoners ( between QUANTITY . m and QUANTITY . m of personal space , including the space occupied by the beds ) . It also had CARDINAL windows measuring QUANTITY . The bathroom had its own window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY .","The Government submitted that all of the cells contained adequate furniture and that disinfection operations took place whenever the presence of insects was reported ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154533","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF HAJRUDINOVI\u0106 v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG instituted insolvency proceedings against the company S. , at that time the applicant \u2019s employer .","On DATE the receiver in insolvency issued a decision on the termination of the applicant \u2019s employment contract with the company S.","On an unknown date , the applicant lodged his claim for a redundancy payment in the insolvency proceedings . Since the receiver disputed the claim , ORG on DATE referred the applicant to labour proceedings .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG of ORG .","In the same period CARDINAL claims similar to that of the applicant were lodged before the same court .","In DATE ORG issued decisions in CARDINAL cases similar to the applicant \u2019s , dismissing the claims . It held that the workers who had lost their jobs owing to the employer \u2019s insolvency before section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL LAW ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) became effective were not entitled to a redundancy payment . Section DATE explicitly foresaw a right to a redundancy payment for workers who were let go after a company had become insolvent .","In DATE several applications for a constitutional review of section DATE Act were lodged with ORG , challenging the constitutionality of non - retroactive application of that provision .","On DATE , following the negative decisions issued in the CARDINAL cases ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the trade union which was also representing the applicant requested the court to postpone hearings scheduled in other cases . The union wanted to first check whether the other workers wanted to withdraw their claims in order to avoid the costs of the proceedings .","No formal decision on adjourning or staying the proceedings was issued by the court .","On DATE ORG dismissed the motions for review of the constitutionality of section CARDINAL of LAW . It held that they were unfounded , since they were based on the false premises that the right to a redundancy payment for workers laid off because of their employer \u2019s insolvency was introduced only by section DATE , and that moreover it did not apply retroactively . Referring to its own decisions issued in DATE , it stressed that this right had already been foreseen by the general labour legislation in force prior to the adoption of the CARDINAL Act . It explained that the purpose of LAW was solely to explicitly clarify that also workers who lost their jobs because of the insolvency of their employers were entitled to redundancy payments . Such clarification was needed because of the conflicting case - law of the lower courts . In this respect the Constitutional Court emphasised that while it could not interfere with the correct interpretation of legal norms by the lower courts , the latter could not apply an interpretation which would be unconstitutional , arbitrary , or clearly wrong .","On DATE , the parties settled with the company S. , which acknowledged the applicant \u2019s claim .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for damage sustained because of the length of the labour proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed his claim . It held that LAW of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) was not applicable , since that provision only applied to cases where an individual had already lodged an application on account of length of proceedings before an international court . Applying the general rules of LAW on pecuniary damages , it further concluded that since the case had been settled the applicant had failed to prove that he had incurred any damage . In any case , there was also no causal link between the conduct of the court and the damage allegedly sustained . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and remitted the case back to the first - instance court .","On DATE ORG , in a renewed set of proceedings , again dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It concluded that he had failed to prove either any damage on account of delays in the proceedings or any causal link . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal by referring to its decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and remitted the case to the higher court .","On DATE ORG remitted the case back to the first - instance court .","On DATE ORG , applying by analogy , in accordance with the instructions of ORG , the provisions of LAW , dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . Referring to the case - law of ORG , it held that it had been reasonable to suspend the examination of the applicant \u2019s claim pending the outcome of some similar cases and of the proceedings before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It held that it could not identify any unreasonable delays in these similar cases , which took DATE at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , of which DATE were before ORG . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The applicant lodged an application for leave to appeal on points of law and a constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168351","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ZADONSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["All the applicants were convicted by NORP courts and given custodial sentences .","They served their sentences in penitentiary facilities which were overcrowded and suffered from a shortage of sanitary installations ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162424","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ABDI MAHAMUD v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion;Extradition;Prevent unauthorised entry into country);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion;Extradition;Prevent unauthorised entry into country)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE , and at the time of the introduction of the application was detained in FAC , in ORG .","The applicant entered GPE in an irregular manner by boat on DATE . On arrival she was registered by the immigration police , given an identification number ( PERSON ) and presented with LAW and a Removal Order . The applicant was immediately detained in PERSON ; her detention was based on LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) .","The Return Decision stated that she was a prohibited immigrant by virtue of LAW ) because she was in GPE \u201c without means of subsistence and liable to become a charge on public funds \u201d . ORG also informed the applicant that her stay was being terminated and that she had the possibility to apply for a period of voluntary departure . LAW was based on the consideration that the applicant \u2019s request for a period of voluntary departure had been rejected . It informed the applicant that she would remain in custody until removal was effected , and that an entry ban would be issued against her . The CARDINAL documents further informed the applicant of her right to appeal against ORG before ORG ( \u201c the IAB \u201d ) within DATE .","On DATE the applicant was assisted to submit a Preliminary LAW ) , thereby registering her wish to apply for asylum under LAW , LAW of LAW . On DATE the applicant was called for an interview by ORG ( ORG ) .","On DATE the ORG rejected her application on the basis , inter alia , that she had failed to support her claim that she was from central \/ southern GPE with convincing evidence ( in particular , she had shown insufficient knowledge about GPE and her speech displayed phonological , grammatical and lexical features not typical of those spoken in GPE ) . Her appeal was also rejected by ORG ( the \u201c NORP \u201d ) on DATE . The appeal decision reads as follows :","\u201c ORG refers to a fill - in - the - blanks form received in its ORG on DATE and to a legal submission on your behalf received in its ORG on DATE .","The ORG notes that you travelled to GPE in DATE , first via GPE and then via GPE . In none of these countries did you consider applying for refugee status . During the popular insurrection against the PERSON regime in GPE you disembarked on the island of GPE , illegally and undocumented on DATE , claiming that you were looking for peace , although CARDINAL of your siblings still live in GPE . You also claim that your brother had been killed by a terrorist NORP organization , PERSON , because they thought he worked for the Government . However , you also claim that if there was peace back home , you would be prepared to return . Since you left , as you may know , PERSON has been driven out of GPE and Presidential elections have been successfully held and several NORP are repatriating .","Your appeal for the grant of refugee status by GPE can not be upheld according to law . \u201d","Up to the date of the lodging of her application with ORG on DATE the applicant had heard no news about any steps being taken in connection with her removal . In practice GPE effected no removals to GPE or GPE .","Ever since her arrival in GPE the applicant suffered from several medical problems , such as headaches , earaches and fainting , and was frequently hospitalised ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . She showed signs of severe anxiety and depression which got worse following the refusal of her asylum request . In consequence , on DATE , she was referred to the Agency for ORG ) by ORG ( ORG ) . This referral was made with a view to obtaining her release from detention in terms of government policy on the grounds of vulnerability due to physical and psychological ill - health . According to the referral form , filled in by an official of the ORG :","\u201c PERSON has been complaining of several medical problems ever since she arrived in GPE . She had several appointments in hospital was also taken to emergency by ambulance after collapsing in detention . PERSON was also rejected by ORG , causing her to be very depressed . Every time we visit she is in her bed crying and showing signs of severe anxiety . \u201d","NORP In DATE the applicant was interviewed ( for TIME ) by LAW , with a view to determine whether she should be released on the grounds of vulnerability . The interview was held in LANGUAGE and the applicant was assisted by another detainee who was not fluent in the language . Her impression is that she was verbally informed that she would be released . On DATE , that is just under DATE after the referral , the interviewers verbally informed her that she would be released . The Government also confirmed that eventually the applicant \u2019s request for release on the ground of vulnerability was acceded to by AWAS .","Nevertheless , up to the date of the lodging of her application with ORG on DATE the applicant was still in detention . She hoped to be released in DATE after the lapse of an DATE detention as per domestic practice at the time .","The applicant submitted that LAW operated by ORG was developed by the said organisation in order to give effect to a government policy introduced in DATE which stated that vulnerable individuals should not be detained . The applicant submitted that although AWAS was not formally charged with the responsibility of this procedure by the law which set it up , in practice the agency had full responsibility for the procedure . However , in spite of the fact that this procedure can have a determining impact on the continued detention of individuals detained in terms of LAW , it was not adequately regulated by law or by publicly available rules or procedures . The determining authority does not give written reasons for its decision and there is no possibility of appeal , although it may be possible to request a review if more evidence is available or there is a degeneration of the individual \u2019s condition .","According to the Government the Vulnerable Adult Assessment Procedure , which was operated to assess vulnerability , was widely known within the migration sector and a policy document had been issued about it . Forms were distributed to individuals working in the sector such as NGOs . The Government submitted that LAW was a quick process in straightforward cases ( such as pregnant women and families with very young children ) which were usually determined within DATE . However , less straightforward cases such as assessments on the grounds of mental health , psychological problems or chronic illness , required a more complex assessment procedure which was therefore lengthier .","A certificate issued by a doctor in DATE confirmed that the applicant had been hospitalised on DATE ( upon her arrival in GPE ) for dehydration , she was seen again on DATE and DATE of DATE . She suffered \u201c fits \u201d and was waiting for an appointment .","According to the documents provided by the applicant , after her initial hospitalisation , and apart from the CARDINAL visits mentioned above , she was seen by a doctor at the state hospital CARDINAL times between May and DATE , and each time was prescribed medication . On these occasions she suffered from , inter alia , epigastric pain and nausea ( repeatedly ) , bilateral conjunctivitis , inflammation , bleeding gums , insomnia , otalgia \/ earaches ( also repeatedly ) causing reduced hearing , as well as headaches and toothaches , and dizziness . In none of these occasions was she kept under observation TIME , or hospitalised . In DATE following claims by the applicant that she had been falling repeatedly , and that she was having episodes of jerking and tongue biting ( which had left evident marks ) , the doctor requested her referral to a specified department to run the relevant tests to exclude epilepsy \u2013 the result of these tests , if undertaken , are unknown to the ORG .","A medical certificate issued in DATE states that at the time the applicant was suffering from \u201c low mood and insomnia \u201d and had been \u201c complaining of somatic symptoms such as chest pain \u201d . The doctor noted \u201c evident deterioration of her mental state \u201d and suggested she be considered as vulnerable .","An attestation issued by a doctor in DATE states that according to available records \u201c she has stayed unwell and been treated or referred to ORG [ the ORG hospital ] more than usual \u201d and that \u201c her health has posed challenges in keeping her at the ORG detention centre and any assistance will be appreciated \u201d .","The applicant was detained in ORG in PERSON , in conditions which she considered prison - like and basic . She explained that the ORG is divided into CARDINAL zones alike in terms of layout and facilities . The applicant was detained in GPE for DATE and was afterwards transferred to Zone D for DATE until she moved to Zone A.","She noted that in Zone C there were CARDINAL ( sic ) single women and at CARDINAL point the detention centre was so crowded that there were not enough beds and people had to sleep on metal tables in the television room . She noted that Zone D was less crowded but that it still lacked privacy and sanitation .","She complained about the lack of constructive activities to occupy detainees , overcrowding ( particularly during DATE ) , lack of privacy , limited access to open air , difficulties in communication with staff , other detainees and with the outside world , lack of information about their own situations , and the lack of proper arrangements for heating and cooling , leading to extreme cold in DATE and extreme heat in DATE . The applicant highlighted the lack of female staff - in particular she noted that TIME male soldiers barged into her dormitory while the inmates were still asleep to make a head count , during which they removed the sheets to check for their presence . This meant that the applicant had to sleep fully dressed TIME , including her headscarf , to avoid embarrassing moments .","The applicant also complained of limited access to medical care , also because of a lack of interpreters to enable communication with medical staff .","NORP The applicant was informed of the AWAS decision to accede to her request and was released from detention on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179422","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF L\u00d3PEZ ELORZA v. SPAIN","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (the United States of America)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE and is currently detained in FAC .","The applicant has been living in GPE with his family since DATE .","In an indictment filed on DATE in GPE ( hereinafter , \u201c the GPE \u201d ) ORG for LOC of GPE , the applicant was charged with CARDINAL count of conspiracy to import QUANTITY of heroin , a Schedule I controlled substance , into GPE in violation of LAW , LAW , sections CARDINAL(a ) , GPE ) , CARDINAL ) , and CARDINAL , and LAW , LAW , sections CARDINAL et seq . ( Count Four ) ; and CARDINAL count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute CARDINAL or QUANTITY of heroin , a Schedule I controlled substance , in violation of LAW , LAW , sections CARDINAL(a)(CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) , and CARDINAL , and LAW , LAW , sections CARDINAL et seq . ( ORG ) . Each of those offences carried a possible maximum term of life imprisonment .","By diplomatic note of DATE , the GPE authorities transmitted a request to the NORP authorities for the applicant \u2019s provisional arrest with a view to his extradition .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in PERSON by the NORP police . ORG . CARDINAL ( Juzgado Central de Instrucci\u00f3n ) initiated extradition proceedings on DATE and ordered his provisional release . The extradition request was then allocated to FAC .","On DATE ORG agreed to the applicant \u2019s extradition .","On DATE the Audiencia Nacional granted the extradition request on condition that the GPE authorities provided a guarantee that any life sentence that was handed down would not be irreducible . The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision .","On DATE the ruling was upheld by the Plenary of ORG . The applicant subsequently lodged a plea of nullity ( incidente de nulidad de actuaciones ) against that decision . On DATE the Plenary of ORG ruled against the applicant , arguing that the object and purpose of annulment proceedings was not to serve as a second appeal instance against an extradition decision , but to correct possible violations of a fundamental right committed in a decision which was not subject to appeal .","On DATE ORG issued a note verbale , which provided the following answer :","\u201c GPE notes that the bilateral extradition treaty between GPE and GPE does not provide a basis for conditioning extraditions on assurances relating to life sentences . While GPE is not , therefore , obligated to provide the assurance requested , in consideration of the request of ORG and given the intentions of the GPE prosecutor , GPE is prepared in this particular case to inform the Government of GPE as follows : Should PERSON be convicted of either of the charges in the indictment filed on DATE for which extradition is sought , he will not be subject to an unalterable sentence of life imprisonment because , if a life sentence is imposed , he may seek review of his sentence on appeal and he may subsequently seek relief from his sentence in the form of a petition for a pardon or commutation to a lesser sentence ... \u201d","On DATE the note verbale was communicated to the interested parties . On DATE ORG submitted a report stating that the guarantees provided by GPE were adequate and that consequently extradition should be granted .","On DATE the Audiencia Nacional issued a decision ( providencia ) assessing the GPE guarantees , deeming them to be \u201c sufficient \u201d .","The applicant brought CARDINAL s\u00faplica appeals against that decision , the first of which was lodged on DATE . The applicant argued that the decision of CARDINAL DATE should be declared null and void since the matter should have been addressed through an auto , instead of a providencia . Secondly , the applicant contested the argument that ORG had provided sufficient guarantees , stating that they were identical to the ones that had already been analysed by ORG in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . DATE ( extracts ) ) and found to be in violation of LAW ( inter alia ) . The second s\u00faplica appeal was lodged on DATE and included CARDINAL different requests . First , he requested that the decision on whether the GPE guarantees were sufficient be addressed and dealt with by the Plenary of FAC . He also sought the recusal of CARDINAL judges who were members of the bench which had initially issued the decision of DATE . Lastly , he lodged an application for the general recusal of all the judges of the Audiencia Nacional who \u201c had been invited by GPE on holiday trips \u201d which had been paid for by that country .","On DATE the Audiencia Nacional issued a decision stating the following :","\u201c FIRST - We will examine in the first place the plea for a referral to the Plenary formation of ORG of the decision about the sufficiency of the assurances given by ORG concerning the possibility for CARDINAL life sentences to be imposed on the extradited person . PERSON , given that the President of this ORG has duly empowered it to decide about this matter , considers that the referral is not necessary as the assurances given are correct and sufficient , and furthermore show compliance with the CARDINAL case - law in the GPE vs GPE case referred to by the appellant ....","Therefore , if the assurances given by ORG are the following :","\u201c Should PERSON be convicted of either of the charges in the indictment filed on DATE , he will not be subject to an unalterable sentence of life imprisonment , he may seek review of his sentence on appeal and he may subsequently seek relief from his sentence in the form of a petition for a pardon or commutation to a lesser sentence ; \u201d","we can conclude that the warranty expresses the actual existing legal means for the revision of a sentence of life imprisonment in a way that shows that this punishment is not irreducible during the whole life - span of the person , complying with what the ECtHR has requested in order to consider that there has been no violation of LAW .","That is why there is no need to refer a decision on this matter to the Plenary formation of this ORG . \u201d","Additionally , the Audiencia Nacional agreed on opening a procedure aimed at addressing the issue of the recusals requested by the applicant through a full report , at the same time ordering the suspension of the extradition proceedings until the recusal proceedings had been terminated .","On DATE the Audiencia Nacional issued a decision ( acuerdo gubernativo ) dismissing the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the Audiencia Nacional ordered the applicant \u2019s provisional detention ( auto ) . The applicant lodged another s\u00faplica appeal against that decision and requested that the extradition proceedings be suspended on the grounds that no decision had been taken on the issues complained of in the first s\u00faplica appeal of CARDINAL DATE .","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Audiencia Nacional rejected the applicant \u2019s request to stay the extradition proceedings , finding that the complaints contained in the first s\u00faplica appeal had already been dealt with in the decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged another s\u00faplica appeal against the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , contesting the reasoning as regards his request to stay the extradition proceedings and emphasising that no decision had been taken on the issues complained of in the first s\u00faplica appeal of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the Audiencia Nacional issued a new decision dismissing the s\u00faplica appeals lodged by the applicant and confirming the decision on the applicant \u2019s imprisonment pending extradition to GPE . In particular , the decision stated the following :","\u201c The applicant considers that his s\u00faplica appeal lodged against the decision of DATE has not been answered ... .","ORG refers at this point to what was already established in its decision of DATE ... .","Nevertheless , in order to clarify any doubts that the applicant might have concerning whether or not he has received an answer to his s\u00faplica appeal , we [ the ORG ] will resolve here the issued raised in that appeal .","...","The guarantees provided have been considered sufficient for the ORG . Consequently , regardless of the judgment mentioned by the applicant , we consider that they comply with the requirements established in the ECtHR \u2019s judgment PERSON v. GPE [ ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) ] , as well as the judgment of CARDINAL DATE [ GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) ] , lodged by a NORP citizen ...","Taking into consideration the above - mentioned reasoning , the ORG","Decides","to dismiss the s\u00faplica appeals referred to in the present ruling , maintaining the order of imprisonment for PERSON , in view of his extradition to GPE \u201d .","On DATE the applicant was detained for the purposes of being extradited to GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG against the extradition decision . He asked for interim measures , requesting ORG to order a stay of the extradition while the case was still pending . He contended , inter alia , that the assurances provided by the GPE authorities did not fulfil the criteria for assessing the reducibility of a life sentence and that the extradition would amount to a violation of his right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .","On DATE ORG issued a decision declaring the amparo appeal and the request for interim measures inadmissible . In particular , it found that the part of the amparo appeal concerning the validity of the assurances given by the GPE authorities and about a possible violation of the applicant \u2019s right not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment had been lodged too late as the alleged violations stemmed from the decision of DATE , thus the DATE timelimit established in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW on LAW . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had already passed when he had lodged his amparo appeal .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for interim measures with the ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG . He requested the ORG to indicate to ORG that his extradition should be stayed pending the outcome of proceedings before the ORG . The request was granted on DATE on a temporary basis until DATE , and the Government were asked the following questions :","\u201c a.- Does the applicant risk under GPE criminal law , in respect of the charges , a maximum penalty that precludes early release and\/or release on parole ?","b.- What are the concrete mechanisms and under what GPE legal basis is the applicant entitled to review his possible final life sentence ? In this sense , are the appeal , pardon and other review mechanisms referred to in the note verbale of DATE the ones described in the case of GPE v. GPE ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) ? \u201d","On DATE the Government submitted their response and attached a document issued by ORG of ORG called \u201c supplemental information to GPE on Sentencing Issues in Relation to PERSON , a \/ k \/ a \u2018 PERSON Flores\u2019 ( hereinafter , \u201c the GPE report \u201d ) . The report stated the following :","\u201c By way of introduction , PERSON extradition is sought in order for him to stand trial on federal narcotics offenses in LOC of GPE . In essence , PERSON , a veterinarian , is charged with having been a member of a conspiracy DATE and DATE , the goal of which was to import heroin into GPE for subsequent distribution , in which PERSON role was to surgically implant packages of liquid heroin into the bodies of dogs that later were transported to GPE . The charges followed the search , in DATE , of a farm PERSON operated in GPE , GPE , in which law enforcement authorities seized CARDINAL puppies into which QUANTITY of liquid heroin had been surgically implanted . The CARDINAL puppies were bound for GPE , and the heroin they carried was surgically removed . After the search of his farm , PERSON fled GPE . \u201d","As regards the first question put to the Government , the GPE report argued that there were pretrial factors that could affect the applicant \u2019s sentencing . In particular , the report noted the following :","\u201c Before any trial , PERSON could , with the advice of his lawyer , decide to give up the right to a trial and plead guilty to the charges in the indictment , with or without the agreement of the prosecution . See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure CARDINAL(a ) . A timely admission of guilt is a factor which could reduce the sentence the judge decides to impose following a conviction . In GPE , the vast majority of criminal cases are resolved by guilty pleas . PERSON may seek to reach an agreement with the prosecution wherein he would plead guilty in exchange for certain favorable actions , such as an agreement to allow him to plead guilty to fewer than all the charges in the indictment ( with the remainder of the charges to be dismissed at sentencing ) , or even to lesser charges , or in exchange for the government \u2019s promise to affirmatively recommend to the court that a particular lesser sentence be imposed . The agreement may also include the parties\u2019 recommendation as to the appropriate sentence that - depending upon the type of plea agreement that is negotiated - may or may not bind the judge regarding the sentence that will be imposed . Such agreements are within the discretion of the government to enter into , and the judge may also decline to approve an agreement she or he does not believe to be in the interests of justice . The agreement may include , inter alia , an agreement to cooperate with GPE authorities . Thus , if PERSON were willing and able to provide substantial assistance to GPE in the investigation or prosecution of another person who had committed a crime , a plea agreement might include a promise by the government attorneys , in exchange for his guilty plea , to file a motion with the court asking that PERSON cooperation be taken into account and permitting the ORG to impose a lower sentence that it might otherwise impose . LAW , LAW , Section CARDINAL(e ) ; ORG , Section CARDINALKCARDINAL.CARDINAL . In such cases , it is not atypical for a judge to impose a sentence that is significantly less than the Guidelines recommendation . \u201d","It also observed that \u201c [ i]f , however , PERSON decides not to plead guilty and instead exercise his right to a trial , and if he is found guilty of CARDINAL or more charges , his sentencing exposure will vary , depending on the nature of the charges on which he is found guilty . Moreover , the judge will have broad discretion to determine the appropriate sentence [ ... ] \u201d .","As regards the estimated sentence that the applicant could face , the GPE report stated firstly that , \u201c In imposing a sentence in a federal criminal case , the judge must consult ORG Federal Sentencing Guidelines \u201d . It added that the Guidelines were advisory since the judge had \u201c the discretion to impose a sentence outside the applicable LAW long as the court states \u2018 with specificity,\u2019 both at sentencing and in the written judgment and commitment order , its reason for doing so \u201d . It additionally stated that , \u201d . Moreover , the decision whether to sentence a person convicted of multiple counts concurrently or consecutively was at the discretion of the court . Section CARDINAL of LAW of LAW , states , in part , that \u201c [ m]ultiple terms of imprisonment imposed at the same time run concurrently unless the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms are to run consecutively \u201d . The report further stressed the following :","\u201c Prior to sentencing , a probation officer will prepare a presentence report that contains information about the defendant \u2019s offense , his criminal history , other background information , and a calculation of the advisory sentencing range under LAW . The defendant has the right to object to the information and conclusion in the present report . Later , during the sentencing phase of the proceedings , defense counsel will be able to present to the judge various mitigating factors to consider that may result in the reduction of his sentence . Specifically , under LAW , LAW , Section CARDINAL(a ) , in determining the particular sentence imposed on a defendant , the court shall consider : ( CARDINAL ) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant ; ( CARDINAL ) the need for the sentence imposed to promote respect for the law , punishment for the offense , deter the defendant or others from committing similar criminal conduct , and the need to protect the public ; ( CARDINAL ) the kinds of sentences available ; ( CARDINAL ) the applicable guideline range ; ( CARDINAL ) the need to provide the defendant with educational or vocational training , medical care , or other correctional treatment ; ( CARDINAL ) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities ; and ( CARDINAL ) the need to provide restitution to the victims of the offense(s ) . In assisting the court in considering the above CARDINAL factors , defense counsel will be able to present to the court in detail any mitigating factors relating to these criteria . This would enable the defense to provide to the sentencing court information regarding PERSON background and circumstances , including : his family environment and relationships , the environment in which he was raised , his work history , ... socioeconomic factors including educational opportunities or lack thereof , his physical and psychological well - being and any past or current treatment , prior criminal conduct , if any , and any resultant rehabilitative programs and periods of probation , incarceration , and parole , as well as PERSON longterm educational , vocational , and sociological goals \u201d .","NORP The report noted that there were many factors that contributed to the imposition of a sentence and that it was \u201c impossible to address every conceivable permutation that could occur or every possible scenario that might arise \u201d . However , the report indicated that according to ORG , the advisory sentencing range was \u201c CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE incarceration , far less than the possible life sentence provided for under the statutes with which he was charged \u201d .","Furthermore , the report stated that under section CARDINAL(a ) of Title CARDINAL of LAW , there was a \u201c need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities \u201d . In that regard , the report stated that several of the applicant \u2019s co - conspirators had already been sentenced in a related case before the same judge who had been assigned to the applicant \u2019s case . CARDINAL of the co - conspirators \u201c faced a Guidelines range of CARDINAL to DATE and received a sentence of DATE incarceration \u201d , another \u201c faced a Guidelines range of DATE and received a sentence of DATE incarceration \u201d and a third had \u201c faced a Guidelines range of DATE and received a sentence of ORG Served ( DATE incarceration ) \u201d . The GPE report also noted that none of those defendants had entered into cooperation agreements with the government . Consequently , the sentences imposed on the applicant \u2019s co - conspirators by the same judge who had been assigned to the applicant \u2019s case \u201c [ could ] be of value in assessing the sentence that will be imposed on him \u201d .","The report concluded that while it was possible that any available maximum sentence could be imposed for an offence , under the circumstances present in this case , \u201c the risk of PERSON receiving such a sentence is low \u201d .","As regards the second question , the GPE report stated that if the applicant was sentenced to a life term , he could benefit from a variety of mechanisms to seek to have the sentence invalidated or reduced or to obtain early release .","Concerning the applicant \u2019s right to invalidate or reduce his sentence , the ORG stated that the applicant would have the right under GPE law to lodge an appeal with ORG , asking for a reversal of his conviction \u201c based on an error in the proceedings \u201d . The applicant would also be able to \u201c ask ORG to review the appropriateness of his sentence \u201d . He could argue that a life sentence was \u201c unreasonable \u201d in the circumstances of his case . The report also stated that even after the applicant had exhausted his rights at trial and on appeal , he could under GPE law file \u201c a motion in the trial court claiming that his life sentence was imposed \u2018 in violation of the LAW or the laws of ORG , or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence , or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law , or is otherwise subject to collateral attack \u201d .","Concerning the applicant \u2019s right to obtain early release , the report specifically stated that \u201c since DATE , there has been no federal parole system in GPE \u201d . The applicant , however , could ask for early release if he provided substantial assistance after his conviction and the imposition of his sentence . In addition , GPE law also allowed for compassionate release under section ORG of Title CARDINAL of LAW . The report specifically stressed that ORG could reduce the applicant \u2019s sentence if it found that there was \u201c an extraordinary and compelling reason to do so ; for example , if a medical condition arose with PERSON that would warrant such a modification \u201d . Finally , the applicant could also seek executive clemency in the form of commutation ( reduction ) of his sentence . The report noted that in cases similar to the applicant \u2019s , commutation of life sentences was not \u201c a rare occurrence \u201d . It gave as an example that of CARDINAL DATE , when President PERSON had commuted the life sentences of \u201c CARDINAL persons who had been convicted of drug related offenses \u201d .","On DATE the interim measures under Rule CARDINAL were extended and the ORG requested that the ORG stay the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE while the proceedings were pending before the ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142374","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"A.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant , GPE , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and resides in GPE .","In DATE the applicant , a police officer , was arrested and charged with what he describes as serious sexual offences . His trial took place in DATE and he was acquitted . He was permitted to return to police work in DATE , although subject to certain unspecified restrictions . Moreover , the applicant states that because of his relatively uncommon name it is easy to find news reports on the Internet about the charges brought against him , his trial and his acquittal .","In light of the seriousness of the charges , information about them will be retained by the police until the date of his CARDINALth birthday in accordance with current policy , and may be disclosed in certain circumstances as explained below . The applicant did not take any domestic legal proceedings in relation to his complaint .","The law and practice in relation to the retention and disclosure by police of personal information ( arrests , charges , convictions , acquittals and so forth ) which were current at the time of the applicant \u2019s trial are referred to the ORG \u2019s judgment in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ( see \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE regarding retention and \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL regarding disclosure ) .","In summary , and as the applicant has indicated , under LAW , information relating to the charges brought against him as well as the fact of his acquittal will be retained on ORG until DATE birthday . The Guidelines make detailed provision for the \u201c stepping - down \u201d of information held by the police . Information that has been \u201c stepped down \u201d is accessible only to the police . None of the other bodies with which police forces share information may gain access to it . Where a person has been acquitted , the information is stepped down immediately . It would only be disclosed as part of an enhanced criminal record check if the police decided that it was relevant to the purpose of such a request and not disproportionate to do so ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179427","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DAKUS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE GPE , the applicant \u2019s future husband and his parents living in corporate housing ( \u201c flat A \u201d ) owned by \u201c GPE \u201d , a ORG company ( hereinafter \u201c the GPE company \u201d ) , were offered the chance by the latter to exchange this accommodation for larger corporate housing accommodation ( \u201c flat B \u201d ) , which was also owned by ORG . Having accepted this offer , the CARDINAL of them signed a written undertaking to vacate flat A when they moved to flat B.","NORP In DATE the applicant married PERSON and joined him , his parents and brother to live in flat A.","In DATE the applicant \u2019s and ORG \u2019s son was born . Along with the applicant , he was registered by the local authority as a co - tenant of flat A on the grounds that both of them had become members of the original tenants\u2019 family .","In DATE the GPE company transferred ownership of flat A to the municipality .","At various subsequent dates the applicant \u2019s husband and parents - in - law moved out into flat B and registered their residence at the new address .","According to the Government , the applicant and her son also moved into flat B at the material time .","According to the applicant , she and her son remained residents in flat A , as her marriage with ORG was falling apart and living together had become intolerable .","In DATE V.D. and the applicant divorced .","On DATE the GPE company decided to reallocate flat A to the family of NORP , its employee , who lived in an accommodation hall ( \u0433\u0443\u0440\u0442\u043e\u0436\u0438\u0442\u043e\u043a ) .","NORP In DATE the GPE company lodged a claim in the Kalush ORG , seeking , in particular , to evict the applicant and her son from flat LAW It argued that there was no legal basis for them to remain in the property , which had been reallocated to a new tenant ( NORP ) .","On DATE the court dismissed the claim for the eviction of the applicant and her son . It found , in particular , that the applicant had lawfully moved into flat A as a member of the original tenants\u2019 family and so had acquired all the rights of a social tenant , within the meaning of Article CARDINAL of LAW ( DATE ) . She and her son had never promised to relocate and had remained residents of flat A at the material time . They had not been included in the occupancy voucher ( \u00ab \u043e\u0440\u0434\u0435\u0440 ORG ) of flat B and had not been provided with any other housing . They could therefore not be evicted without being provided with alternative accommodation . Moreover , in DATE the GPE company had transferred flat A to municipal ownership . It had therefore had no standing in DATE to reallocate the same flat to NORP \u2019s family or to bring the present proceedings .","NORP The GPE company appealed , referring to LAW .","On DATE the GPE - Frankivsk ORG of Appeal quashed the judgment of DATE and ordered the applicant \u2019s and her son \u2019s eviction \u201c without provision of any other accommodation \u201d . It held that ORG , having properly established the relevant facts , had interpreted the law incorrectly . Notably , according to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , the applicant ( together with her son ) \u2013 having settled in flat A as a member of the original tenants\u2019 family \u2013 was bound by the duty of the original tenants to vacate the flat . There was therefore no legal basis for the applicant \u2019s and her son \u2019s continued residency in flat A , and this fact constituted a sufficient basis for their eviction without the provision of any other housing . Furthermore , ORG had erred in respect of the GPE company \u2019s legal standing . Under LAW of LAW , notwithstanding the transfer of the property to the municipality , the GPE company had retained the right to allocate the flat to CARDINAL of its employees . It had therefore had legitimate standing to seek the vacation of the flat by its previous tenants .","The applicant lodged a request for leave to appeal in cassation . She noted that she and her minor son had been lawful and registered residents of the disputed flat for DATE . During this period , she had dutifully engaged in the payment of all expenses relating to her occupancy of the flat . Unlike her former husband and in - laws , she and her son had not given any promises to vacate flat A and had not acquired any rights to live in flat B with them . Accordingly , her and her son \u2019s eviction would effectively render them homeless .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal in cassation , ruling that her submissions did not contain any argument creating an appearance that there could be a problem under applicable law .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to postpone her eviction , in particular , because she had no other accommodation and her salary was too small for her to rent private - sector housing .","On DATE , while the applicant \u2019s request was pending consideration , the ORG bailiffs arrived at flat A and had the applicant vacate it and surrender the keys .","On DATE the local registration authority annulled the applicant \u2019s and her son \u2019s registration as residents of flat A.","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s request for her and her son \u2019s eviction to be postponed ; it postponed their eviction for DATE , referring to her indigent status and the interests of a minor child .","According to the applicant , after her eviction she had to seek emergency refuge in the home of a colleague and subsequently rented odd accommodations at various places . She submitted testimony given by various acquaintances and copies of some fixed - term lease agreements .","The Government contested this account , insisting that the lease agreements were fictitious and the applicant had de facto lived in flat B permanently since DATE without proper registration ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163822","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SOARES v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","At the relevant time , the applicant was a chief corporal in ORG ( ORG ) , working at the PERSON territorial post .","On DATE the applicant sent an email to ORG ( Inspec\u00e7\u00e3o - Geral da Administra\u00e7\u00e3o Interna ) on the subject \u201c Suspected misuse of money \u201d , in which he made reference to an alleged misuse of money by Commander PERSON of the PERSON territorial post in accordance with what he had heard in a conversation with colleagues at the PERSON territorial post . He asked ORG to investigate the alleged facts , stating as follows :","\u201c In DATE the ORG [ ORG ] ORG distributed money to the territorial posts of its area of command ... for the DATE dinner ...","The only members of the military [ in Arganil ] who attended the dinner were the Commander of the post and Corporal PERSON ; the total amount of money that had been given to the military from the [ territorial ] post [ to pay for the dinner ] was paid to the restaurant \u2019s manager in exchange for a receipt ... it seems that the Commander has since then been going with his family to the mentioned restaurant , where the cost of his meals is deducted from the money that was not spent [ on the above dinner ] ... Note : I have just become aware of this matter through rumours within the military of the mentioned post , who claim that they have not reported the situation for fear of reprisals , and because of that [ fear of reprisals ] I ask you for secrecy during the investigation because I am also a member of the military ... \u201d","On an unknown date ORG forwarded the email to ORG ( ORG ) and to the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office ( PERSON ) .","On an unknown date the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office opened an investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations . On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that , following investigations by the criminal investigation police ( ORG ) , it had found no evidence of the criminal offence denounced by the applicant .","The General Inspectorate of Internal Administration also conducted an inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegations . On DATE the inquiry was discontinued .","The General Command of ORG also started an internal inquiry into the allegations on DATE . On DATE Commander PERSON was heard in that respect . He then became aware of the email of DATE and its content . On CARDINAL DATE the inquiry was converted into disciplinary proceedings against Commander PERSON at the request of the official in charge of the inquiry on the grounds that the management of the cafeteria of the PERSON territorial post showed signs of lack of transparency which required further investigation .","On DATE the disciplinary proceedings against Commander PERSON were discontinued on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to take disciplinary action . The decision to discontinue the disciplinary proceedings also took into account the decision of the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office to discontinue the criminal proceedings against Commander PERSON","On DATE Commander PERSON lodged a criminal complaint before the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office , accusing the applicant of defamation . He alleged that the applicant \u2019s email had disseminated injurious statements about him .","On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges ( acusa\u00e7\u00e3o ) against the applicant for aggravated defamation on the grounds that the statements made in his email called into question Commander PERSON \u2019s honesty , honour and professional reputation , which the applicant had intentionally attacked .","On DATE Commander PERSON lodged a claim for damages against the applicant in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated defamation and sentenced him to CARDINAL day - fines , totalling ORG CARDINAL . The applicant was also ordered to pay ORG CARDINAL in damages to Commander PERSON ORG described its findings of fact and the manner in which it had assessed the evidence , and held as follows :","\u201c ... since the existence of such a rumor has not been proved in any way , the court is fully convinced that the defendant \u2019s intention was to undermine the honour of the offended party , once he knew that this was just a rumour and that therefore he was making an allegation that was not true .","...","The allegation made in the defendant \u2019s complaint , by its content , put into question the offended party \u2019s honesty , honour and professional reputation as commander of a territorial post of ORG \u2013 which was well known to the defendant .","The defendant has therefore acted in a free , voluntary and conscious way , with the achieved aim of attacking the offended party \u2019s honour and personal and professional reputation .","...","The disclosure of irregular situations has to be seen as a duty ( as the performance of an obligation ) when it falls within the competence and responsibilities of the whistle - blower and when it does not go beyond the facts which were effectively observed . [ Whistle - blowing ] can not be used as a basis to cast suspicion which can not be supported by any factual element .","In the instant case , the defendant accuses the offended party of facts which are objectively dishonorable without having any evidence to substantiate them . Indeed , by submitting that the offended party and his family were using the existing credit to have dinner at the mentioned restaurant , the defendant knew that he was accusing the offended party of a dishonorable deed , all the more because he knew that the offended party was in charge of ORG PERSON territorial post . He further knew that the allegation was inconsistent with the truth and that he could easily have clarified its authenticity with the restaurant owner .","Through such conduct , the defendant acted of his own free will and in the knowledge that ... [ his actions ] were not allowed . \u201d","On an unknown date the applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG . In particular , he contested the established facts as , in his opinion , he had not acted with the intention of attacking Commander PERSON \u2019s honour and reputation .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision . It considered that there were no reasons to change the facts established by the first - instance court and , as such , no reasons to reach a different conclusion with regard to the applicant \u2019s guilt and conviction .","On DATE ORG of ORG instituted disciplinary proceedings against the applicant .","On DATE the official in charge of the inquiry within the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant submitted a final report in which he concluded that the applicant had breached his duties . The relevant passage of the report reads as follows :","\u201c ... the defendant breached the duty of loyalty ... as being on duty and being part of ORG in the quality of Deputy Commander of the ORG , he did not inform his hierarchical superiors , in clear disregard of the functional hierarchy principles , of the acts allegedly committed ... \u201d","NORP In the report it was also taken into account that the applicant \u2019s allegations had been investigated by different authorities , all of which had discontinued their investigations . Additionally , it had regard to the fact that the applicant had been convicted by the domestic courts in the criminal proceedings against him . The report further analysed the existence of a fine which Commander PERSON had imposed on the applicant before the latter had sent the impugned email . However , the official responsible for the report considered that fact to be innocuous and irrelevant .","On DATE , at the request of the official responsible for the disciplinary proceedings , ORG imposed on the applicant a disciplinary sanction consisting of suspension from duty for DATE , its enforcement being suspended for a period of DATE .","According to the material submitted in the case file , it seems that the applicant did not lodge an appeal against the disciplinary sanction with the Minister of ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168931","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TRAPEZNIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The applicants are members of the family of Mr PERSON .","On DATE Mr PERSON started serving a DATE prison sentence in correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in LOC . When examined by a doctor on DATE , he stated that following a craniocerebral injury he had been under psychiatric supervision since DATE and that he had been suffering from drug addiction since DATE .","On DATE Mr PERSON had swallowed several metal objects , including a spoon , and had cut himself on his stomach . On DATE he had been taken to hospital and had been treated until DATE .","On DATE Mr PERSON was transferred to disciplinary cell no . CARDINAL for smoking outside the designated area . On DATE he complained of a headache and of feeling ill . At TIME PERSON examined Mr PERSON , noted that he had high blood pressure and gave him an injection . On the doctor \u2019s recommendation , Mr PERSON was transferred to another cell in the disciplinary section , where he was detained alone . As requested by the doctor , he was provided with bed linen . Doctor PERSON examined Mr NORP again at TIME and noted that his condition had improved . At TIME the cell where Mr PERSON was held was locked and the alarm system was turned on . The guards in charge of the disciplinary cells observed Mr PERSON at TIME on DATE through a peephole in the cell door . He was lying on his bed . During the next round of visits at TIME the guards saw Mr PERSON , hanging . They reported this to the duty officer . After entering the cell , the officers discovered Mr PERSON hanging by a ligature fashioned out of a bed sheet . They cut the rope and put his body on the floor . Doctor PERSON examined Mr LOC \u2019s body and noted no injuries apart from the ligature mark on his neck .","According to the death certificate , Mr PERSON died on DATE .","According to an autopsy conducted on DATE , the cause of death was asphyxiation by hanging . In addition to the ligature mark on his neck , the forensic expert PERSON . documented bruises on the deceased \u2019s head behind the left ear , at the corner of his right eye , on the right cheek and on the right side of the lower jaw . The expert decided against conducting a histological examination given that he had no doubts about the cause of PERSON PERSON \u2019s death .","On an unspecified date the acting head of the correctional colony conducted an internal inquiry . He established that despite Mr PERSON \u2019s condition the administration of the correctional colony had not provided him with any psychiatric supervision or treatment . It had been obvious from Mr LOC \u2019s case file that he had had suicidal tendencies .","On DATE the deputy city prosecutor PERSON refused to institute a criminal investigation into Mr PERSON \u2019s death . The investigator based his decision on the reports filed by Doctor PERSON and the officers who had discovered Mr PERSON \u2019s body , the report on the inspection of the cell where Mr PERSON had been found and on his body , and on his medical file . He also questioned prisoners GPE . , PERSON and PERSON . who had been detained with the deceased in cell no . DATE , where he had been held prior to his removal to a cell where he was found . They submitted that they had not had any conflicts with him .","On DATE the first applicant asked the regional prosecutor to institute a criminal investigation into Mr PERSON \u2019s death . Referring to the numerous injuries on Mr PERSON \u2019s body , she challenged the official version that he had committed suicide by hanging himself .","On DATE the city prosecutor PERSON quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered a further inquiry into the circumstances of PERSON PERSON \u2019s death . Referring to the first applicant \u2019s complaint , he considered it necessary to determine the existence and origin of the injuries on Mr PERSON \u2019s body .","On DATE deputy city prosecutor PERSON refused to open a criminal investigation into Mr PERSON \u2019s death . The prosecutor again questioned PERSON , PERSON . and GPE . , who had been detained with Mr PERSON in cell no . CARDINAL on DATE . They submitted that it had been very stuffy in the cell and that at TIME Mr PERSON had complained of a headache . He had been sitting at the table , had stood up and had then fallen down , hitting his head against the table . They had not noticed any injuries on Mr PERSON . The prosecutor concluded that Mr PERSON had committed suicide by hanging himself .","On DATE the first applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the deputy regional prosecutor A. quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered a further inquiry . He noted that it was necessary to obtain information concerning Mr PERSON \u2019s health , to determine whether the medical assistance provided to him had been sufficient and prompt and to establish whether it had been known that PERSON PERSON had intended to commit suicide . The prosecutor also ordered the noose used by PERSON to be found and for it to be examined . Lastly , the prosecutor noted that the inquiry had failed to take into account the injuries on Mr PERSON \u2019s head and that it was necessary to determine their origin and whether they had had any connection with his death .","On DATE investigator GPE . refused to open a criminal investigation into Mr PERSON \u2019s death , repeating verbatim the findings of the previous inquiry .","On DATE a supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE as premature and unsubstantiated .","On DATE investigator GPE . again refused to open a criminal investigation into Mr PERSON \u2019s death . In addition to the earlier findings the investigator examined Mr PERSON \u2019s medical file . He again questioned Doctor PERSON about the state of Mr LOC \u2019s health on DATE . The doctor explained that following the treatment he had been given Mr PERSON had been in a satisfactory condition and that it had been possible to leave him alone in a cell . The investigator also questioned the forensic medical expert PERSON . , who had conducted the autopsy . The expert considered that the injuries on Mr PERSON \u2019s head could have been due to convulsions which had caused an impact with blunt , solid objects .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor dismissed the first applicant \u2019s complaint against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the first deputy head of the regional investigative committee quashed the decision of DATE and ordered a further inquiry , noting that the prosecutor \u2019s instructions of CARDINAL DATE had not been followed .","On DATE investigator Am . refused to institute criminal proceedings . Relying on the materials of the previous inquiries , the investigator confirmed the earlier finding that Mr PERSON had committed suicide . The investigator could not establish the cause and time of the injuries on Mr PERSON \u2019s body , but he noted that they were not related to his death .","On DATE the head of the regional investigative committee quashed the decision of DATE .","On DATE investigator PERSON again refused to open a criminal investigation , relying on the earlier findings . On CARDINAL DATE that decision was quashed on the grounds of the incompleteness of the inquiry .","The investigating authorities subsequently refused to open a criminal investigation into Mr PERSON \u2019s death on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the supervising prosecutor quashed those decisions and ordered a further inquiry into the matter , noting each time that the inquiry had been incomplete and the findings contradictory . In particular , on DATE , the regional prosecutor noted that the reports of CARDINAL DATE and DATE concerning the inspection of the cell where PERSON PERSON had been found had given different and mutually contradictory descriptions of the layout of the cell .","On an unspecified date a senior investigator , PERSON , started another inquiry in response to the first applicant \u2019s complaint . The investigator questioned the correctional colony officers who had been on duty on DATE to CARDINAL DATE and had seen or observed Mr PERSON on DATE . She also saw PERSON . , the prison psychiatrist , and a drug counsellor , PERSON . Ozh . stated that he had never seen Mr PERSON or prescribed him any psychiatric supervision or treatment . After studying Mr PERSON \u2019s medical file , the investigator established that he had a history of drug addiction , CARDINAL instance of self - harming and had undergone treatment in a psychiatric institution prior to his incarceration . The investigator noted that the cell where PERSON PERSON had been found dead had been mistakenly indicated in the inquiry case file as no . DATE and conducted an examination of cell no . CARDINAL . On DATE the investigator talked to the forensic expert PERSON . , who submitted that his superior had advised him against making any written statements about the autopsy . If necessary , the investigator could question him as a witness within the framework of the criminal proceedings . On CARDINAL DATE S. concluded that Mr PERSON had committed suicide and refused to open a criminal investigation into his death . She also considered that the injuries found on Mr PERSON \u2019s head had resulted from convulsions which had caused his body to repeatedly strike against a metal grill .","The senior investigator \u2019s decision was subjected to judicial review at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG of GPE and ORG respectively upheld the investigator \u2019s findings on Mr PERSON \u2019s death ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156264","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF A.H. AND J.K. v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"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 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Prompt information);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Prompt information);No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants , PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) and PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) , who are wife and husband , are NORP nationals of NORP origin and were born in GPE in DATE and DATE respectively . They live in GPE .","The second applicant left GPE on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .","He applied for asylum DATE .","The first applicant left GPE at a later date in order to join the second applicant in GPE as they had been engaged to be married . She entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .","The applicants married in GPE on DATE and the first applicant applied for asylum on DATE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 asylum applications were examined jointly by ORG .","ORG held an interview with the applicants on DATE .","Their applications were dismissed on DATE on the ground that they did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE ( as amended up to DATE ) , in that they had not shown that they had a well - founded fear of persecution for reasons of race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular group or political opinion or a well - founded fear of serious and unjustified harm for other reasons . ORG noted that there had been contradictions in the account of facts given by the second applicant with regard to his participation in a demonstration concerning the PERSON events which raised doubts as to his credibility . Furthermore , it considered that there was no possibility of the second applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . Consequently , it held that the asylum applications had not been substantiated .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .","On DATE ORG decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .","The Reviewing Authority underlined the contradictions and inconsistencies in the second applicant \u2019s claims . It pointed out that he had not given the same reasons for leaving GPE in his written application and in his interview . In the former he had stated that he had come to GPE to find work whereas in his interview he claimed that he had left GPE because he feared arrest following his participation in a demonstration . Further , ORG gave weight to the fact that the second applicant had stated that following the demonstration he had allegedly participated in , nothing had actually happened to him and that he had not been sought by the authorities . In his asylum application he had stated that he had not been arrested , detained , harassed , persecuted or wanted by the NORP authorities . He had also been able to leave GPE legally . The second applicant \u2019s claims were therefore unsubstantiated . No issue arose in respect of the first applicant as she had stated that she had left GPE in order to join the second applicant and marry him and had admitted that she did not face any problems in GPE .","ORG concluded by observing that the applicants had not established that they were at risk of persecution if they returned to GPE . Nor did they satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .","On CARDINAL DATE the second applicant brought a \u201c recourse \u201d ( judicial review proceedings ) before ORG ( first - instance revisional jurisdiction ) under LAW challenging the decision of ORG . A subsequent application to amend the recourse by adding the first applicant as a complainant was withdrawn as the time - limit of DATE had in the meantime expired ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicants filed the present applications with the ORG . The second applicant , in his application form stated that on DATE he had taken part in a demonstration in his village in PERSON . The purpose of the demonstration was to go to PERSON to show solidarity with the NORP demonstrators following the events of DATE . Following the intervention of the authorities this had not been possible . The second applicant stated that the police had attacked the demonstrators killing CARDINAL persons . After going into hiding for DATE in a neighbouring village , the second applicant was arrested in PERSON . He was detained for DATE and subjected to torture . He was subsequently transferred to the central prison of GPE where he was detained for DATE . After bribing the authorities he was released on the condition that he would present himself to the authorities in GPE DATE . He did not do so , however , out of fear to be detained and tortured again .","On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s recourse . It upheld ORG decision of DATE after examining all the grounds of annulment put forward by the second applicant . The court noted , inter alia , that the main ground for which the second applicant \u2019s asylum claim had not been accepted was the lack of plausibility of his principal allegations and the existence of significant contradictions and omissions which had undermined his credibility . The second applicant had not substantiated that he was at risk of persecution if returned to GPE because he had allegedly participated in a demonstration . Furthermore , the fact that the second applicant was of NORP origin was not sufficient in itself to justify the granting of refugee status . ORG also held that new grounds and allegations concerning his detention , arrest and ill - treatment following the events could not be taken into account . Its jurisdiction under LAW was limited to reviewing his claim as it had been made before ORG and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Grounds for annulment that had not been put before ORG could not be examined for the first time by the court .","No appeal was lodged against the first instance judgment .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE ORG and other NORP from GPE organised a demonstration in GPE , near ORG , ORG and ORG . They were protesting against the restrictive policies of ORG in granting international protection . CARDINAL NORP from GPE , including the applicants , remained in the area around the clock , having set up CARDINAL tents on the pavement . According to the ORG , the encampment conditions were unsanitary and protesters were obstructing road and pedestrian traffic . The encampment had become a hazard to public health and created a public nuisance . The protesters performed their DATE chores on the pavement , including cooking and washing in unsanitary conditions . The sewage pits had overflown , causing a nuisance and offensive odours . The public lavatories were dirty and the rubbish bins of the Government buildings were being used and , as a result , were continuously overflowing . Furthermore , the protesters were unlawfully obtaining electricity from ORG . Members of the public who lived or worked in the area had complained to the authorities . The Government submitted that efforts had been made by the authorities to persuade the protesters to leave , but to no avail . As a result , the authorities had decided to take action to remove the protesters from the area .","On DATE instructions were given by the Minister of the Interior to proceed with the deportation of NORP - NORP failed asylum seekers in the normal way .","On DATE the Minister requested the Chief of Police , among others , to take action in order to implement his instructions . Further , he endorsed suggestions made by the competent authorities that deportation and detention orders be issued against NORP - NORP failed asylum seekers who had passports and did not have PERSON or PERSON status and that the police execute the orders starting with the ones issued against the leaders of the protesters . The police were also directed to take into account the policy guidelines and to use discreet methods of arrest .","According to the ORG , letters were sent by ORG to a number of failed NORP - NORP asylum - seekers informing them that they had to make arrangements to leave GPE in view of their asylum applications being turned down ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) . They submitted a copy of such a letter which was dated DATE and addressed to the applicants .","From documents submitted by the Government it appears that from DATE until DATE the authorities kept the area under surveillance and kept a record of the NORP DATE activities and of all comings and goings . In the relevant records it is noted that invariably , between TIME a.m. and TIME , things were , in general , quiet , and everyone was sleeping apart from those keeping guard . During the above - mentioned period a large - scale operation was organised by ORG , \u201c ERU \u201d ( \u201c FAC ) , and a number of other authorities , including the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit , for the removal of the protesters and their transfer to the ORG headquarters for the purpose of ascertaining their status on a case - by - case basis .","In the meantime , CARDINAL DATE and DATE orders for the detention and deportation of CARDINAL failed asylum seekers were issued following background checks . Letters were sent by ORG of ORG to the Director of ORG and ORG , containing a short paragraph with information as to the immigration status of each person . This information included the date of rejection of the asylum application or the closure of the asylum file by ORG , the date of dismissal of the appeal by ORG , where lodged , and the date some of those concerned had been included on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop list \u201d ( a register of individuals whose entry into and exit from GPE is banned or subject to monitoring ) . The letters recommended the issuance of deportation and detention orders . The Government submitted copies of CARDINAL such letters with information concerning CARDINAL people .","On DATE , letters were also prepared in LANGUAGE by ORG informing those concerned of the decision to detain and deport them . The Government submitted that , at the time , the authorities did not know whether those individuals were among the protesters .","The removal operation was carried out on DATE , TIME with the participation of CARDINAL officers from ORG , the ERU , ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG . The protesters , including the applicants , were led to buses , apparently without any reaction or resistance on their part . At TIME the mini buses carrying the male protesters left . The women , children and babies followed at CARDINAL a.m. A total of CARDINAL people were located at the place of protest and were transferred to the ORG headquarters : CARDINAL men , CARDINAL women and QUANTITY children . Upon arrival , registration took place and the status of each person was examined using computers which had been specially installed DATE . The Government submitted that during this period the protesters had not been handcuffed or put in cells but had been assembled in rooms and given food and drink . It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that by TIME the identification of CARDINAL of the group had been completed and that the whole operation had ended by CARDINAL p.m.","It was ascertained that CARDINAL of the adults , along with their CARDINAL children , were in the Republic unlawfully . Their asylum applications had either been dismissed or their files closed for failure to attend interviews . Those who had appealed to ORG had had their appeals dismissed . Some final decisions dated back to DATE . A number of people had also been included on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop list \u201d . PERSON orders had already been issued for CARDINAL of them ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The authorities deported CARDINAL people on DATE at TIME ( CARDINAL adults and QUANTITY children ) . CARDINAL people ( QUANTITY men and QUANTITY women ) , including the applicants , were arrested . The persons against whom deportation and detention orders had been issued on DATE were detained under these orders . The remaining persons , including the applicants , were charged with the criminal offence of unlawful stay in the LOC under section LOC ) of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They were all arrested and transferred to various detention centres in GPE . The applicants were placed in the immigration detention facilities in LOC ( FAC and CARDINAL respectively ) . Further , on humanitarian grounds , QUANTITY women whose husbands were detained pending deportation and who had a total of CARDINAL children between them were not arrested themselves .","According to the Government the applicants and their co - detainees were informed orally that they had been arrested and detained on the basis that they had been staying in the ORG unlawfully and were thus \u201c prohibited immigrants \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They were also informed of their rights pursuant to ORG Detained Law CARDINAL ( LAW ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and , in particular , of their right to contact by phone , in person and in private , a lawyer of their own choice . The applicants submitted that they had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest and detention on that date .","On DATE letters were sent by ORG of ORG to the Director of ORG and ORG , recommending the issuance of deportation and detention orders . The letters contained a short paragraph in respect of each person with information as to his or her immigration status . This included the date of rejection of the asylum application or the closure of the asylum file by ORG and the date of dismissal of the appeal by ORG where lodged . Some letters also referred to the date the asylum application had been lodged and the date some of the individuals concerned had been included on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop list \u201d . The Government submitted copies of letters concerning CARDINAL people ( most of these letters referred to groups of people ) .","Deportation and detention orders were also issued in NORP on DATE in respect of the remaining CARDINAL people detained ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , including the applicants , pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON on the ground that they were \u201c prohibited immigrants \u201d within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(k ) of that PERSON . These were couched in identical terms . In respect of CARDINAL people the orders also mentioned sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the PERSON .","Subsequently , on DATE , letters were prepared in LANGUAGE by ORG informing all the detainees individually , including the applicants , of the decision to detain and deport them . The Government submitted CARDINAL copies of these letters , including those addressed to the applicants , the text of which was virtually identical , a standard template having been used .","The text of the letter reads as follows :","\u201c You are hereby informed that you are an illegal immigrant by virtue of paragraph ( k ) . section CARDINAL , LAW law , LAW , as amended until DATE , because you of illegal entry [ sic ]","Consequently your temporary residence permit \/ migration permit has been revoked and I have proceeded with the issue of deportation orders and detention orders dated DATE against you .","You have the right to be represented before me , or before any other ORG and express possible objections against your deportation and seek the services of an interpreter . \u201d","The only differences was that some letters referred to illegal stay rather than illegal entry and that the letters issued earlier referred to DATE as the date of issuance of the deportation and detention orders ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On the copy of the letters to the applicants provided by the Government , there is a handwritten signed note by a police officer stating that the letters were served on the applicants on DATE but that they refused to receive and sign for them . The other letters had a similar note or stamp on them with the same date , stating that the person concerned had refused to sign for and\/or receive the letter . In a letter dated DATE the Government stated that the applicants had been served on DATE . In their subsequent observations the Government submitted , however , that this was the second attempt to serve the letters , the first attempt having been made on DATE , that is , the day of the arrest .","The applicants submitted that they had never refused to receive any kind of information in writing . They claimed that it had only been on DATE that they had been informed orally that they would be deported to GPE on DATE but that the deportation and detention orders were not served on them on that date or subsequently . They submitted that they had eventually been informed by their lawyer , following the receipt of information submitted by the Government to the ORG in the context of the application of Rule CARDINAL of ORG , that deportation and detention orders had been issued against them .","From the documents submitted by the Government , it appears that CARDINAL of the detainees were to be deported on DATE ( this figure is stated in documents submitted by the Government with no further details ) .","On DATE , DATE , the applicants , along with CARDINAL other persons of NORP origin , submitted a Rule CARDINAL request in order to prevent their imminent deportation to GPE .","On DATE the President of the First Section decided to apply Rule CARDINAL , indicating to the respondent Government that the detainees should not be deported to GPE until ORG had had the opportunity to receive and examine all the documents pertaining to their claim . The parties were requested under LAW ( a ) of ORG to submit information and documents concerning the asylum applications and the deportation .","On DATE the President of the First Section reconsidered the application of Rule CARDINAL in the light of information provided by the parties . He decided to maintain the interim measure in respect of CARDINAL cases , including the present ones . Rule CARDINAL was lifted with regard to the CARDINAL remaining cases ( for further details see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) .","Rule DATE was subsequently lifted with regard to CARDINAL cases , but remained in force in the present CARDINAL applications .","On DATE the applicants filed habeas corpus applications with ORG claiming that their continued detention from DATE had violated LAW CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EC of ORG and of ORG on common standards and procedures in Members states for returning illegally staying third - country nationals , \u201c the EU Returns Directive \u201d . The applicants , relying on the ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON v. GPE , DATE , ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE ) and the ORG \u2019s report in PERSON v. GPE ( no . ORG report of CARDINAL DATE ) also claimed that their detention had breached LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and LAW ( see GPE , \u00a7 DATE , cited above ) .","ORG set the applications for directions for DATE . On that date the ORG asked for DATE so they could file an objection to the applications . They were given until DATE and the habeas corpus applications were set for hearing on DATE . The parties were also requested to prepare a short note with the issues they would address and to produce it on DATE of the hearing .","The Government filed their objection on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the parties appeared before the court and submitted their written addresses . The hearing of the applications was held . Judgment was reserved on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applications . With regard to the preliminary issues raised , ORG first of all held that it had the competence to examine the applications as it was called upon to examine the lawfulness of the applicants\u2019 protracted detention and within the context of a habeas corpus application , examine the conformity of their detention with LAW ) of ORG and LAW ( CARDINAL ) not the lawfulness of the deportation and detention orders . The applicants were not estopped from bringing a habeas corpus application just because they had not challenged the deportation and detention orders issued against them . Even if the lawfulness of the detention was assumed , detention for the purpose of deportation could not be indefinite and the detainee left without the right to seek his release . ORG also rejected the argument that the applicants were estopped from bringing the application because their continued detention had been brought about by their own action , that is , by their application to ORG for an interim measure suspending their deportation .","ORG then examined the substance of the applications . It noted that the EU Returns Directive had direct effect in the domestic law , as the period for transposition had expired and the Directive had not been transposed . It could therefore be relied on in the proceedings . However , it went on to hold that the DATE period provided for in the Directive had not yet started to run . The applicants had been arrested on DATE with a view to their deportation but had not been deported by the Government in view of the application by ORG on DATE of Rule DATE and the issuing of an interim measure suspending their deportation . Consequently , the authorities had not been able to deport them even though , as they stated before the court , they had been ready to do so from DATE . As the applicants themselves had taken steps to suspend their deportation , the ensuing time could not be held against the Government and could not be taken into account for the purposes of LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Directive . The DATE period would start to run from the moment that the interim measure had been lifted . From that moment onwards the Government had been under an obligation in accordance with LAW to proceed with the applicants\u2019 deportation with due diligence . The situation would have been different if the deportation had not been effected owing to delays attributable to the authorities .","In so far as the ORG complaints under LAW ) of LAW and LAW were concerned , ORG distinguished the applicants\u2019 situation from those in the cases they relied on and in which responsibility for the protracted detention lay with the authorities . Further , it held that it had not been shown that the continued detention of the applicants had been arbitrary , abusive and contrary to the ORG \u2019s case - law ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicants lodged CARDINAL separate appeals with ORG ( appellate jurisdiction ) on DATE . Another CARDINAL appeals were lodged at the same time by PERSON ( see GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , cited above ) and another NORP of NORP origin ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The applicants sent a letter dated DATE to ORG requesting that the appeals be fixed for pre - trial within a \u201c short period of time \u201d and then for hearing .","The applicants were released on CARDINAL DATE following revocation of the deportation and detention orders of DATE by the Permanent Secretary of ORG . They were informed on CARDINAL DATE by a letter dated CARDINAL DATE that they would be issued with a special residence \/ employment permit under the Aliens and Immigration PERSON and the relevant LAW for a period of DATE from the date of their release with a possibility of further renewal . However , prior to the issuance of this permit they were obliged to sign a contract of employment with an employer indicated and approved by ORG . The applicants were also asked to report to the police once DATE .","On DATE ORG informed the applicants that one of the other appeals that had been filed at the same time as theirs was set down for hearing for DATE .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer filed an application for joining the CARDINAL appeals ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG issued an order joining the appeals and also instructed the parties to file their written addresses . The applicants submitted that on this date the court was informed that they had been released .","On DATE the applicants filed an application requesting an extension of DATE for filing their written addresses . These were filed on DATE .","On DATE the appeals were set for directions .","On DATE the Government filed an application requesting the parties to appear before ORG and requested a DATE extension for filing their written address . This was granted and the appeals were set down for hearing on DATE .","In the meantime , the Government filed their written address on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the hearing was held and judgment was reserved .","The appeals were dismissed on DATE . ORG held that as the applicants had , in the meantime , been released , the application was without object ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) .","The applicants submitted that following their release on CARDINAL DATE the authorities did not grant them residence permits . The applicants were not able to fulfil the terms and conditions imposed by ORG in order to have residence permits . Their issuing was subject to finding an employer approved by ORG and to present to the immigration authorities an approved contract of employment . The applicants could not find and\/or were not referred by ORG to an approved employer despite their numerous attempts to that effect . Their situation was explained to the competent authorities in a letter dated DATE to which they never received a reply . As a result they were not able to regularise their stay in GPE and had no access to any rights apart from a tolerated residence status .","DATE . On DATE , at TIME , the applicants , along with another NORP couple who had CARDINAL children , were stopped at GPE airport while they attempted to take a flight to ORG in GPE by using false NORP passports . During passport control , the police officer in charge suspected that their passports were false because the colour of the page containing the biometric data differed to that used in genuine passports . The applicants were then requested to give a sample of their signatures . These did not correspond to those in the passports they had presented . After having being questioned by the officer they admitted that the passports were not their own and revealed their true personal details . An immigration officer carried out a search of their immigration status and ascertained that they were failed asylum seekers as their appeal to ORG been dismissed and they did not have valid residence permits .","According to the statement of the police officer taken on DATE , the applicants were arrested for committing the flagrant offences of personation and unlawful stay in GPE see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The second applicant was arrested at TIME and the first applicant at TIME . In his statement the police officer stated that he had drawn their attention to the law and that the second applicant replied \u201c I made a mistake \u201d . The officer also noted that their legal rights had been explained to them in the LANGUAGE language by an interpreter . The other couple was also arrested and the social welfare office was contacted concerning the children . Around TIME they were all taken to ORG ( ORG ) .","The second applicant along with the other man , was then arrested by virtue of an arrest warrant issued by ORG at TIME the same day pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON . CARDINAL ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) on the ground that there had been reasonable suspicion based on evidence that he had been involved in a conspiracy to commit a felony , forgery , circulation of a forged document , personation and unlawful stay in GPE DATE and DATE . There is a handwritten signed note on the warrant by the arresting police officer stating that he arrested the second applicant at CARDINAL TIME at GPE ORG and that with the assistance of an interpreter he had informed him of the reasons for his arrest , had drawn his attention to the law and that the second applicant had replied \u201c I did it for a better life \u201d .","The second applicant also signed a document containing his rights to communication as set out in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . The copy of the document signed by him was in LANGUAGE .","ORG The second applicant was then questioned by a police officer with the assistance of an interpreter and gave a written statement . The statement was then translated into LANGUAGE . The first part of the statement contains the information given to him by the police officer which reads as follows :","\u201c I inform you that I am investigating a case of conspiracy to commit a felony , forgery , uttering false documents and personation and unlawful stay on the territory of the Republic , offences that were committed DATE and DATE in GPE , for which I have evidence which gives me reasonable suspicion that you are implicated . I wish to question you and to take your statement . You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so but anything you say may be written down and used as evidence \u201d .","The second applicant signed next to this paragraph .","In his statement the second applicant stated that he had decided to leave GPE , as following his release and the expiry of DATE , he was not given another residence and work permit ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He also admitted that he had bought the passports from a NORP national for the amount of QUANTITY ( ORG ) and explained how these were secured . The applicants intended to leave GPE and go to GPE through GPE . He also apologised for what happened \u201c DATE \u201d and that he had done it because he could no longer live in GPE . The statement was read to the applicant by the interpreter ; he confirmed it and signed it . A statement was also given by the interpreter .","According to the relevant police report of GPE ORG , the first applicant and the other woman stated that they did not know anything about the passports and that their husbands had organised everything .","DATE . At around TIME both women were released from custody as they were both pregnant and the one also had CARDINAL children .","The following day , CARDINAL DATE , the second applicant was taken to ORG and was remanded in custody for DATE for the purposes of further investigation of the alleged commission of a number of offences by the applicants under LAW and the Aliens and Immigration PERSON ; in particular , the offences of conspiracy to commit a felony , forgery , uttering false documents and personation ( sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , PERSON . CARDINAL ) and unlawful stay in GPE ( section CARDINAL ( l ) ( l ) of the Aliens and ORG paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , following the conclusion of the police investigation , the case file was transmitted to the office of the Attorney - General for the purposes of deciding whether the applicants would be subject to criminal prosecution . The Attorney - General at the time , decided not to prosecute the applicants because of the particularity of their cases . He gave instructions to the police to proceed with the deportation of the applicants when the situation in GPE would allow it .","On DATE , upon expiry of the second applicant \u2019s remand , detention and deportation orders were issued pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Aliens and Immigration Law on the ground that the second applicant was a prohibited immigrant within the meaning of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( k ) and ( l ) of that law ( see GPE , \u00a7 DATE , cited above ) . On DATE the second applicant was served with a letter informing him of the decision to detain and deport him on the ground that he was an illegal immigrant as he had stayed unlawfully in the Republic . It also informed him that he had the right to file a recourse against these orders before ORG .","The Government submitted that on DATE the execution of the deportation order was suspended as \u201c it transpired \u201d that the ORG \u2019s interim measure under Rule DATE was still in force .","The second applicant was detained at FAC until DATE when he was released following a decision by the Permanent Secretary of ORG to revoke the deportation and detention orders . The conditions attached to his release were set out in a letter dated DATE given him on the date of his release . In particular , the second applicant was requested to hand over his passport to the NORP and NORP police . He would be given a certified copy of the passport which would allow the issuance of a residence permit or any other permit . A special residence \/ employment permit would then be issued for a period of DATE . Prior to the issuance of this permit , however , the second applicant would have to sign a contract of employment with an employer indicated and approved by ORG . The second applicant was also obliged to report to the nearest police station once DATE and to inform the authorities of a change of address .","The second applicant submitted that although he found employment he was informed by ORG that the employer in question did not fall within the categories entitled to employ him . ORG did not refer him to an eligible employer . The first applicant submitted that she was not given any terms or conditions of residence . They both therefore remained in an irregular situation ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":["5","P4"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","P4-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159050","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF Z.H. AND R.H. v. SWITZERLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion;Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants were born on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE , the applicants , who are cousins , contracted a religious marriage in GPE , where they were residing illegally . At the time , the first applicant was DATE and the second applicant DATE . Their religious marriage was not registered in GPE .","On DATE the applicants applied for asylum in GPE , which they had entered from GPE on an unspecified date . Both applicants had been already registered as asylum seekers in GPE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG ( the \u201c LAW \u201d ) rejected the applicants\u2019 asylum request , considering that GPE was the responsible ORG by virtue of Regulation no . PERSON ( the \u201c FAC \u201d ) .","On DATE , the first applicant had a legal guardian appointed by ORG ( ORG tut\u00e9laire , now ORG protection de l\u2019adulte et de l\u2019enfant ) .","On DATE ORG ( the \u201c FAC \u201d ) rejected the second applicant \u2019s appeal against the ORG \u2019s decision . The ORG noted that the applicants had failed to submit a certificate of marriage and that in any event their alleged religious marriage could not be validly recognised in GPE , pursuant to LAW , because it was illegal under the relevant provision of LAW , which contained an absolute prohibition on marriage for women DATE , while the first applicant was DATE . In any case , independently of the applicable NORP law , the applicant \u2019s marriage was manifestly incompatible with NORP ordre public , since having sexual intercourse with a child under DATE was a crime under LAW . The first applicant could therefore not be qualified as a member of the second applicant \u2019s family under LAW and the applicants could not claim any right to family life under LAW .","The decision against the first applicant entered into force on DATE , as the second applicant had not appealed against it .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG decided to reexamine the first applicant \u2019s asylum request in GPE . Following this decision , the second applicant requested that his own asylum request be also reexamined in order to preserve the family unity . The second applicant \u2019s request was rejected by the LAW on procedural grounds : as the applicant \u2019s claim was deemed without prospects of success , he had been asked an advance judicial fee of MONEY ( \u201c CHF \u201d ) , which he had failed to pay .","The second applicant was expelled to GPE on DATE . However , on DATE he returned illegally to GPE , where he could see the first applicant \u201c intermittently \u201d , in the applicants\u2019 own words .","On DATE the applicants lodged the present application before this Court .","On DATE the second applicant again requested the reexamination of his asylum request , which was rejected by the LAW on ORG DATE because the second applicant had again failed to pay the CHF CARDINAL advance judicial fee .","On DATE , the applicants requested the recognition of their religious marriage in GPE . The first applicant was then DATE and DATE .","On DATE , the FAC examined the second applicant \u2019s appeal against the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE and ruled in favour of the second applicant . The FAC considered that the ORG had wrongly imposed on the second applicant the payment of an advance judicial fee because by then the first applicant was DATE and the applicants could therefore claim to be a family within the meaning of LAW as interpreted by this Court and by ORG .","On DATE , the Government requested that the application be struck out of the list of cases pursuant to LAW .","On DATE , in reply to the ORG \u2019s request , the applicants submitted that their application included a complaint about a past violation , not only a prospective one , namely that on CARDINAL September CARDINAL the second applicant had been expelled to GPE and thus separated from the first applicant . Such forcible separation constituted a violation of the applicants\u2019 right to respect for their family life .","On DATE , ORG of the GPE of GPE recognised the validity of the applicants\u2019 religious marriage contracted in GPE .","On DATE the applicants informed the ORG that they had been granted asylum in GPE by a decision of DATE .","On DATE , referring to their submissions of DATE , the applicants informed the ORG that they wished to maintain their application , considering that as the alleged past violation of their right to respect for family life had neither been acknowledged nor remedied they had not lost victim status even if they had now obtained asylum in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166987","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"BROUGH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Cottingham of O.H. Parsons & Partners , a firm of solicitors practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE ORG ( \u201c ICO \u201d ) uncovered a database managed by an organisation known as ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . The database held details of the trade union membership and trade union activity of CARDINAL industrial workers , predominantly from the construction sector .","NORP In return for an annual fee , companies who subscribed to the database could access the workers\u2019 details and add information to it . The database was therefore used to \u201c blacklist \u201d workers . In other words , companies could use it to vet job applicants and refuse employment to those listed on it . The workers on the database were named , but the companies who provided or accessed the information were listed by code number . The ICO has identified and released some of the names of these companies but not all of them .","The applicant is a bricklayer who has worked in the construction industry for DATE . During that time he was an active member of an independent trade union and DATE he served as a union shop steward representing his fellow workers\u2019 interests vis - \u00e0 - vis their employer and organising industrial action .","On DATE the applicant discovered that his name was on the ORG database .","The first entry is dated DATE . It notes that on DATE a company identified as \u201c CARDINAL \u201d reported the applicant to be a \u201c militant troublemaker \u201d . The same DATE entry records that on CARDINAL DATE another company identified only as \u201c CARDINAL \u201d also reported the applicant to be a \u201c militant troublemaker \u201d .","The next entry , which is also dated DATE , records that a company identified as \u201c CARDINAL \u201d checked the applicant \u2019s details and that \u201c QUANTITY informed company \u201d .","CARDINAL further entries on DATE and CARDINAL DATE record that the applicant \u2019s details were checked by companies identified as \u201c CARDINAL \u201d and \u201c CARDINAL \u201d .","The ICO was unable to identify the companies referred to as DATE . Nor could it confirm the identity of CARDINAL . However the CARDINAL companies that checked the applicant \u2019s details in DATE were identified .","DATE and DATE the applicant had been out of work . During this time he had applied for jobs with both of the companies identified by the ICO . In both cases his application was unsuccessful .","There is no record of any contemporaneous complaints about the applicant \u2019s work , professional performance or conduct .","Following the ICO disclosure the applicant brought a claim against the CARDINAL identified companies under LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) on the ground that they had unlawfully refused to offer him employment because of his trade union activities and\/or membership .","Both respondent companies submitted , inter alia , that the claim was brought out of time as LAW required all claims to be brought within DATE of the relevant incident , unless the limit was extended by ORG .","The application was heard on DATE . At the hearing the respondents raised a further argument : that section CARDINAL of the DATE Act had only come into force on DATE and , as such , the actions complained of had not been unlawful at the material time . The applicant \u2019s representative conceded the point and the claim was struck out on that basis . The applicant was ordered to make a contribution towards the respondents\u2019 costs of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant sought leave to appeal against the order to ORG ( \u201c EAT \u201d ) . In the application he alleged that there had been a violation of his rights under LAW .","The application for leave to appeal was refused on the papers on CARDINAL DATE . The judge held that :","\u201c The argument in LAW was not raised before ORG and can not therefore be raised on appeal .","In any event , the failure [ if it be that ] on the part of the Government to legislate to give effect to an LAW right could not give the [ applicant ] a cause of action against the Respondent . \u201d","The applicant did not pursue any further appeal , although the possibility did exist for a further oral hearing under Rule CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the EAT Rules .","Limited protection was first introduced under LAW DATE which made it unlawful to refuse a person employment on the grounds of their membership of a trade union . This provision was consolidated in ORG DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) , the relevant provisions of which came into force on DATE .","Under section CARDINAL of the DATE Act it is unlawful to refuse a person employment for reasons related to the fact that he or she is a member of a trade union . Pursuant to subsection ( CARDINAL ) any person who alleges that he or she was unlawfully refused employment can complain to an ORG . Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act allows ORG to order such a remedy as it considers \u201c just and equitable \u201d , including the payment of compensation or a recommendation to the respondent employer .","Under section CARDINAL of the DATE Act a complaint under section CARDINAL must be presented to ORG before DATE from the date of the conduct to which the complaint relates . The ORG has a power under subsection ( CARDINAL ) to extend the period by any further period that it considers reasonable . This power may be exercised where the ORG is satisfied that it was not \u201c reasonably practicable \u201d for the claimant to present the complaint before the end of the DATE period .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , a person can bring proceedings against a public authority for acting incompatibly with a Convention right . However , such proceedings can not be brought in ORG . Moreover , the ORG does not have jurisdiction to make a declaration of incompatibility under LAW . Nevertheless , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW the Tribunal is required \u201c so far as possible \u201d to read and give effect to primary legislation in a way which is compatible with Convention rights . Furthermore , it is required to take into account any judgment , decision or opinion of the ORG insofar as it is relevant to the proceedings when determining a question which has arisen in connection with a LAW right ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) , and it is unlawful for the ORG , as a public authority , to \u201c act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right \u201d ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157962","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ANNAGI HAJIBEYLI v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 37-1 - Striking out applications);Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was nominated by the coalition of ORG and PERSON parties to stand as a candidate in the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE and applied for registration as a candidate in the singlemandate ORG No . DATE .","As LAW required that each nomination as a candidate for parliamentary elections be supported by a minimum of CARDINAL voters , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted to ORG ( \u201c the ConEC \u201d ) CARDINAL signature sheets containing CARDINAL voter signatures collected in support of his candidacy .","Before the DATE \u2019s decision on the question of the applicant \u2019s registration as a candidate , the accuracy of the signature sheets and other registration documents submitted by the applicant were to be first examined by a special working group ( i\u015f\u00e7i qrupu ) established by the ConEC . Although the applicant had requested to be present during the process of the examination by the working group , this took place without him .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ConEC refused the applicant \u2019s request for registration as a candidate . The NORP found that , according to the opinion of the working group , a number of submitted supporting signatures were invalid , and that the remaining valid signatures numbered CARDINAL . In particular , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL signatures had been examined , and it was found that CARDINAL of those signatures were invalid .","The following reasons were given in the PERSON working group \u2019s examination record dated DATE : ( a ) CARDINAL signatures were \u201c repeat signatures \u201d ; ( b ) CARDINAL signatures were invalid because there were uncertified corrections of them on the signature sheets ; ( c ) CARDINAL signatures were invalid owing to incorrect personal information provided concerning those voters ; ( d ) one signature was invalid because it was on the wrong line ; ( e ) CARDINAL signatures were not authentic because they had been made repeatedly by the same individuals who had already signed the signature sheets ; and ( f ) CARDINAL signatures were invalid for \u201c other \u201d ( unspecified ) reasons .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against the PERSON decision to refuse registration . He complained , inter alia , of the following :","( a ) CARDINAL signatures were deemed invalid on the basis of a mere visual examination , without any additional adequate investigation ;","( b ) the members of the ConEC working group were not real experts . The head of the working group was a school gym teacher , while CARDINAL other members were an employee of a statistics committee and an employee of the passports department of a local police office ;","( c ) there was no explanation as to what constituted \u201c other \u201d reasons for declaring CARDINAL of the signatures invalid ;","( d ) NORP contrary to the requirements of LAW , the applicant had not been invited to participate in the process of examination of the signature sheets by the ConEC working group , and thus had been deprived of the right to give the necessary explanations to the experts ;","( e ) NORP contrary to the requirements of LAW , he had not been provided with a copy of the results of the examination of the signature sheets CARDINAL prior to the PERSON meeting to decide on the applicant \u2019s registration ;","( f ) the applicant \u2019s presence at the PERSON meeting of DATE had not been ensured .","Enclosed with his complaint to the ORG , the applicant submitted written statements by CARDINAL voters whose signatures had been declared invalid , affirming the authenticity of their signatures . However , according to the applicant , those statements were not taken into consideration by the ORG .","The ORG conducted another examination of the signature sheets using members of its own working group . The applicant was not invited to participate in this process . According to the working group \u2019s findings , a total of CARDINAL signatures were considered to be invalid . It appears that CARDINAL of those were considered inauthentic because they had allegedly been made repeatedly by the same persons in the name of other persons , and CARDINAL were found to be invalid owing to the voters\u2019 incorrect personal information .","The applicant was not invited to the ORG meeting dealing with his complaint against the PERSON decision of DATE .","By a decision of DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint and upheld the ConEC decision of DATE . It found that , on the basis of the findings of the ORG \u2019s own working group , CARDINAL out of CARDINAL signatures submitted by the applicant were invalid and that the remaining CARDINAL valid signatures were below the minimum number required by law .","The applicant was given copies of the ORG decision and the working group opinion on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the ORG decision with ORG . He reiterated his complaints made before the ORG concerning the PERSON decision and procedures . Moreover , he raised , inter alia , the following complaints :","( a ) NORP contrary to the requirements of the electoral law , the ORG had failed to notify him of its meetings and to ensure his presence during the examination of the signature sheets and the examination of his complaint ;","( b ) the ORG had ignored the written statements by CARDINAL voters confirming the authenticity of their signatures and had failed to take them into account ; and","( c ) the ORG had failed to provide any reasoning and had not addressed any of the applicant \u2019s arguments in its decision .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments as irrelevant or unsubstantiated , and found that there were no grounds for quashing the ORG \u2019s decision .","On DATE the applicant lodged a further appeal with ORG , reiterating his previous complaints and arguing that ORG had not carried out a fair examination of the case and had delivered an unreasoned judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as unsubstantiated , without examining his arguments in detail and finding no grounds for doubting the findings of the electoral commissions and ORG .","In addition to the applicant in the present case , at the material time the applicant \u2019s representative Mr PERSON was representing twentyseven other applicants in cases concerning the DATE parliamentary elections and a number of applicants in other cases before the ORG . Mr GPE has also lodged an application on his own behalf in a case relating to the DATE elections ( application no . CARDINAL ) .","In DATE the prosecution authorities launched an investigation into the activities of a number of NGOs , including ORG , an NGO headed by Mr PERSON .","On DATE ORG issued a search warrant authorising the search of Mr PERSON \u2019s office in ORG and seizure of \u201c legal , financial , accounting and banking documents , letters and contracts , reports on execution of grant contracts and tax documents relating to [ the organisation \u2019s ] establishment , structure , functioning , membership registration , receipt of grants and other financial aid , and allocation of granted funds , as well as computers , disks , ORG keys and other electronic devices storing relevant information ... \u201d","On DATE Mr PERSON was arrested after questioning by an investigator of ORG in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against him under Articles CARDINAL ( illegal entrepreneurship ) , CARDINAL ( large - scale tax evasion ) and CARDINAL ( abuse of power ) of LAW . On DATE , ORG ordered his detention pending trial . He remains in detention while the criminal proceedings against him are pending . The circumstances relating to Mr PERSON \u2019s arrest and detention are the subject of a separate application brought by him before the ORG ( application no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigation authorities conducted a search of Mr PERSON \u2019s home and office pursuant to ORG search warrant of CARDINAL DATE , seizing , inter alia , a large number of documents from his office , including all the case files relating to the pending proceedings before the ORG , which were in Mr PERSON \u2019s possession and which concerned over CARDINAL applications in total . The file relating to the present case , which , it appears , included copies of all the documents and correspondence between the ORG and the parties , was also seized in its entirety . No adequate inventory of the seized document files relating to the ORG proceedings was made in the search and seizure records of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .","On an unspecified date Mr PERSON lodged a complaint with ORG , claiming that the search had been unlawful . He complained that the investigator had failed to register each seized document as required by the relevant law and had taken the documents without making an inventory . He further complained about the seizure of the documents and files relating to the ongoing court proceedings before the ORG and the domestic courts .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON PERSON \u2019s claim . It held that the searches had been conducted in accordance with the relevant law . As to the seizure of the documents relating to the cases pending before the ORG and the domestic court , it found that they could not be returned to the applicant at this stage of the proceedings . Following an appeal , on DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the investigation authorities returned a number of the case files concerning the applications lodged before the ORG , including the file relating to the present case , to Mr PERSON \u2019s lawyer . The investigator \u2019s relevant decision specified that \u201c since it has been established that among documents seized on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE there were files concerning applications by a number of individuals and organisations lodged with ORG , which have no relation to the substance of the criminal proceedings [ against Mr PERSON ] , [ those files ] have been delivered to [ Mr PERSON \u2019s lawyer ] Mr PERSON \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["34","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152784","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);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 - Degrading treatment;Prohibition of torture);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;General measures);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively . When introducing the applications , they were detained in prisons in GPE , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON and GPE , respectively .","On DATE the NORP prisons accommodated altogether CARDINAL inmates ( that is , an overcrowding rate of PERCENT ) , out of which CARDINAL people were in pre - trial detention .","Mr PERSON was held at FAC which , he claimed , was severely overcrowded at the time of his detention lasting from CARDINAL January to CARDINAL DATE . In particular , the cell in which he was detained measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL prisoners ( that is , QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) . The quality and quantity of the food provided were poor , as a result of which he claimed to have lost QUANTITY .","From DATE he was kept in solitary confinement for DATE as a disciplinary measure . He submitted that he was kept in a cell of QUANTITY and in poor sanitary conditions , without adequate running water . This led to problems of hygiene and a skin infection , for which he did not receive adequate treatment . Throughout this confinement he had outdoor stays of TIME a day .","Mr PERSON was held from DATE until an unspecified date in DATE at ORG in a cell that measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL inmates including him ( that is , QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) . As of DATE , he was transferred to PERSON Prison where he has been held in a cell measuring QUANTITY and housing CARDINAL inmates including him ( that is , QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) . He claimed that at the latter facility there was no ventilation and the toilet was only separated from the living area by a curtain , offering insufficient privacy .","Mr PERSON was placed in pre - trial detention on DATE . On DATE he was transferred to ORG where he was held until DATE in a cell of QUANTITY together with CARDINAL other detainees ( that is , QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) . Only a curtain was used as a partition between the toilet and the living area .","He was subsequently transferred to ORG ( FAC ) where the cell in which he was held DATE and DATE was QUANTITY in size ; he shared it with CARDINAL other inmates ( that is , QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) .","Since DATE he has been detained with CARDINAL other detainees in a cell measuring QUANTITY ( that is , QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) . He claimed that the toilet is separated only by a curtain from the living area . The bed linen is changed only once every DATE .","The applicant started to serve his prison sentence in DATE at FAC . He shared his cell with CARDINAL to QUANTITY inmates and the surface available was QUANTITY ( that is , a maximum of QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) .","On DATE he was transferred to FAC where his cell measures QUANTITY and is occupied by him and another man ( that is , QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) .","On DATE Mr Fak\u00f3 was placed in pre - trial detention at ORG ( PERSON GPE ) . On DATE he was transferred to FAC , where he shared a cell with CARDINAL other inmates . Without specifying the size of the cell , he submitted that the gross living space per person varied CARDINAL QUANTITY .","He had a DATE TIME - long outdoor exercise and spent the remainder of his time in the cell . He submitted that in DATE the summer temperature in the cell rose to CARDINAL\u02daC because of poor ventilation . He asserted that he was allowed to take a shower once a week for no longer than TIME each time . Furthermore , the cell was infected with bed bugs , lice and cockroaches , but the prison administration did not address this issue .","From DATE Mr GPE has served his sentence at FAC . Throughout his detention he has been held in CARDINAL different cells . The size of those cells was CARDINAL and QUANTITY , respectively . The occupancy rate in the cells measuring QUANTITY was often CARDINAL persons ( that is , QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) . In the cells of QUANTITY the occupancy rate was CARDINAL persons ( that is , QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) . In the cells measuring QUANTITY it was often up to QUANTITY persons ( that is , QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) .","The applicant claimed that the toilets in those cells had been separated from the living space DATE , and their ventilation remained unresolved . Furthermore , some of the bunk beds had been welded together , so detainees were obliged to sleep right next to each other ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163813","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SHEYMAN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicants , who are husband and wife , were born in DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in LOC , GPE .","In DATE the applicants emigrated from the GPE to GPE and obtained NORP nationality . Before emigrating , they were receiving old - age pensions from the NORP authorities . Once the applicants left the GPE , the payments were discontinued in accordance with the GPE pension law in force at the material time .","On DATE the applicants brought civil proceedings against the competent regional department of ORG of GPE ( \u041f\u0435\u043d\u0441\u0438\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0424\u043e\u043d\u0434 \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 PERSON ) ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) seeking reinstatement of their right to the pension payments .","On DATE ORG of GPE found in the ORG favour and ordered ORG to set up DATE pension payments backdated to DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal and it became binding and enforceable .","On DATE ORG lodged an application for supervisory review , seeking to have the judgments quashed . The application was addressed to the President of ORG .","On DATE a judge of ORG requested the case file from ORG and subsequently suspended enforcement of the judgment of DATE .","On DATE another judge of ORG sent the case for supervisory review to ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the supervisory review application and endorsed the judgment of DATE , as upheld on DATE .","On DATE ORG lodged another application for supervisory review , again addressed to the President of ORG .","On DATE a judge of ORG sent the case for supervisory review by ORG of ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , as upheld on DATE , and rejected the ORG claims ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169206","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CHEREPANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG , GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , awarded MONEY to ORG , to be paid by the applicant . The judgment of CARDINAL DATE entered into force on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution .","By a ruling of DATE a bailiff with the ORG service , GPE ( \u201c the bailiff \u201d ) , initiated enforcement proceedings . The applicant was invited to voluntarily comply with the judgment debt within DATE of the date on which he received a copy of that ruling .","On DATE the bailiff issued a ruling restricting the applicant \u2019s right to leave the country for a period of DATE on the grounds that the judgment creditor had asked for such a restriction to be imposed on the applicant . The ruling was based on the DATE LAW ( sections CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ) and the DATE LAW on Leaving and Entering the Russian Federation ( Procedures ) ( section CARDINAL ) ) .","On DATE the bailiffs\u2019 service sent copies of the rulings of DATE to the applicant . The applicant only received them on DATE .","NORP The applicant , not having been aware until DATE of the travel restriction imposed on him , decided to visit his DATE daughter , who lived in GPE . However , on DATE , the applicant was stopped by border guards as he was attempting to board a plane .","On DATE , after having received copies of the rulings of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant paid the judgment debt .","On DATE the applicant complained to the Chief Bailiff of GPE about the actions of the bailiff . He submitted that the bailiff had sent him copies of the rulings of DATE only after the expiry of statutory time - limits . Furthermore , the bailiff had imposed the travel ban on him on DATE as that on which the enforcement proceedings had been initiated . This indicated that the bailiff had not had at his disposal any information as to whether he ( the applicant ) had been evading voluntary compliance with the writ of execution .","On DATE the bailiffs\u2019 service lifted the travel restriction and terminated the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the Deputy Chief Bailiff of GPE examined the applicant \u2019s complaint of DATE . He acknowledged that the rulings of CARDINAL DATE had been sent to the applicant outside the statutory timelimits and allowed the applicant \u2019s complaint in that part . However , he found , with reference to CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW , that the travel ban had been imposed on the applicant in accordance with law .","On DATE the applicant challenged in court the bailiff \u2019s ruling of DATE imposing a travel ban on him . He submitted that the ruling had not been duly reasoned since he had never evaded the obligations imposed on him by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . Furthermore , in breach of statutory requirements , he had not been duly informed of the travel restriction imposed on him since he had only received the bailiff \u2019s ruling on DATE .","On DATE ORG examined and dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . ORG held , in particular , that the bailiffs had imposed the travel restriction on the applicant under LAW , which allows the imposition of such a restriction ( upon the request of a judgment creditor ) before the expiry of the time - limit set for voluntary payment of the judgment debt .","In his appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant submitted that ORG , in taking its decision , had not applied section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW on Leaving and Entering the Russian Federation ( Procedures ) , which provided that the right of a NORP citizen to leave GPE could be temporarily restricted only when it had been established that he or she had evaded obligations imposed on him or her by a court .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the ORG of ORG .","On DATE a judge of ORG refused to refer the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal to the cassation court .","On DATE ORG refused to accept for examination the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning whether section CARDINAL ) and section GPE ) of the DATE LAW were compatible with LAW ( Ruling no . PERSON ) .","NORP In particular , ORG held that section GPE ) of that Act could not be applied in the course of enforcement proceedings independently from the general provisions on the application of temporary travel restrictions set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and in the absence of confirmation that the debtor had been notified of the enforcement proceedings instituted in respect of him and of his obligation to voluntarily comply with the writ of execution within the time - limit set by the bailiffs\u2019 service . The bailiffs\u2019 service was entitled to impose travel restrictions only in cases in which the debtor had not complied with the writ of execution within the statutory fiveday period , running from the date on which the debtor received the decision to initiate enforcement proceedings .","Having regard to the above , ORG concluded that the closely linked provisions of section CARDINAL ) and section GPE ) of the DATE LAW did not provide for the possibility that the bailiffs\u2019 service could grant the judgment creditor \u2019s request for the imposition of a travel ban on the debtor at the same time as it took the decision to initiate enforcement proceedings ( that is to say , before the expiry of the deadline set for voluntarily enforcement of the writ of execution ) and also before it received confirmation that the debtor had been aware of the enforcement proceedings initiated in his respect and had evaded voluntary compliance with the writ of execution . Therefore , the legal provisions challenged by the applicant could not be regarded as having breached the applicant \u2019s constitutional rights .","Following the Constitutional Court \u2019s decision the applicant lodged a request with ORG for it to review its judgment of CARDINAL DATE under the procedure for re - opening of cases due to new circumstances .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request , having found that the provisions referred to by the applicant had not been declared incompatible with the LAW by ORG and that the interpretation by LAW of those provisions could not be considered as constituting new circumstances .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE a single judge of ORG declined to refer the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal for consideration by ORG .","On DATE a single judge of ORG of the Russian Federation refused to refer the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal for consideration by ORG ."],"violated_articles":["P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["P4-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179885","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TUMELIAI v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE GPE sold a plot of forest land measuring QUANTITY to the applicants . The purchase agreement categorised the land as forest .","NORP In DATE a registration certificate was issued for the plot of land . It categorised the land as forest and determined special conditions on use of the plot , namely , that restrictions applied to the use of the whole plot and that there were surface water protection zones .","On an unspecified date , the first applicant asked FAC to establish as a legal fact that there used to be some buildings on the ORG plot . On DATE the ORG established as a legal fact that there used to be some buildings ( a cattle shed and a storehouse ( galvid\u0117 ir klojimas ) there . The court noted that the first applicant was the owner of a plot of forest land on which construction of new buildings was prohibited , unless it was a reconstruction of a former residential property . The court found that a former residential property had been situated outside the boundaries of the first applicant \u2019s plot but held that if the requested legal fact was established , he would be able to reconstruct the buildings previously sited there ( nusta\u010dius pra\u0161om\u0105 fakt\u0105 , parei\u0161k\u0117jas \u012fgis teis\u0119 atstatyti jo valdomame \u017eem\u0117s sklype buvusius statinius ) . A representative from the LOC environmental protection department of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the PERSON environmental protection department \u201d ) had no objections to the establishment of the legal fact .","In DATE the first applicant asked the authorities to issue him with the relevant documents necessary for construction . The PERSON environmental protection department stated that the construction of a building had to comply with ORG ; the existing flora had to be preserved and the method of waste collection had to be decided on . The permanent committee on construction of LOC verified the documents submitted by the first applicant and recommended that he be issued with a building permit .","On DATE LOC issued the first applicant with the documents necessary for construction , in accordance with the domestic regulations , in particular with ORG no . DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) . It was indicated that anyone intending to carry out construction work was required to preserve existing flora , and was not allowed to block the shore of the lake or interfere with the existing landscape .","On DATE GPE issued the first applicant with a permit to build a DATE house ( non - residential building ) . The permit was valid for DATE .","NORP In DATE the plan of the building was specified ( the facades were modified ) and the amendments were verified by the PERSON environmental protection department .","In DATE ORG issued a certificate about the DATE house PERCENT finished and following that , on DATE the house was registered in ORG ) as PERCENT finished .","On DATE ORG received a report via a hotline for allegedly illegal construction work . On DATE the authorities estimated the distance between the house and the lake at QUANTITY , and between the terrace of the house and the lake at QUANTITY .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office started court proceedings and asked the domestic courts to revoke the recommendation to grant the first applicant building permission ; to annul the building permit and oblige the applicants to demolish the building at the expense of the established guilty parties , that is the applicants , LOC , and the PERSON environmental protection department . The prosecutor claimed that the building permit could not have been issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of domestic law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the prosecutor \u2019s complaint , holding that the legal facts had been established in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It had not been until DATE that ORG had held that the sole fact that the storehouses had been sited on a specific plot of land , without any proof that a residential building had been sited there , did not mean that there had previously been a residential property there ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG further held that in accordance with relevant legislation in force at the time , it was possible to construct new residential buildings in the place of former buildings , as well as to reconstruct existing residential buildings and construct necessary storehouses ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Moreover , it had been established that any construction work in the forest could only be started after having received building permission and in accordance with the relevant plans . That legislation had been repealed after ORG had declared that the domestic regulations were in breach of the laws and , by extension , of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court thus held that the case - law on construction in the forest had been established after the building permit had been issued to the first applicant . The court further held that the applicants had built the building lawfully , there was no evidence as to any negative consequences of the construction for the environment or the public interest . The court also observed that in the applicants\u2019 case it would be unreasonable and unjust to apply the measure established in LAW to oblige the applicants to demolish the buildings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Moreover , the court was not convinced that the environment would be restored to its previous state if the buildings were demolished because the demolition would also cause some environmental damage .","The prosecutor appealed . On DATE ORG allowed the prosecutor \u2019s appeal . The court held that LOC had established as a legal fact that there used to be a cattle shed and a storehouse on the applicants\u2019 plot of land ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . A DATE house could not be constructed as it did not fall within the category of buildings that could be constructed in the forest . Even the ORG had emphasised that the construction of new buildings was prohibited on that plot . The building permit had obviously been issued to the first applicant unlawfully and , in the appellate court \u2019s view , the latter had asked the court to establish a legal fact for the sole purpose of constructing a house . The court also held that neither the PERSON on ORG nor the PERSON on Land provided for any exceptions , so the right to construct buildings on the plot of forest land had never existed . The court thus ordered the first applicant to demolish the buildings at the expense of the applicants , LOC and the PERSON environmental protection department . ORG did not explain how the costs of demolition had to be divided between the CARDINAL parties .","The applicants , LOC and the PERSON environmental protection department lodged an appeal on points of law . The applicants claimed that the appellate court had breached the principle of lex retro non agit by assessing the documents , issued in DATE , in view of the ruling of ORG . They also claimed that the appellate court had breached their legitimate expectations to execute their proprietary interests in accordance with the domestic regulation in force at the time .","On DATE ORG held that relevant laws provided that the only buildings that could be constructed in the forest were timber storehouses and other buildings for forestry equipment . There were no provisions allowing construction of residential or commercial buildings in the forest . It was in certain cases possible to change the purpose of the land , but as the land in question was situated in a surface water protection zone , any such change was prohibited . The court held that although the applicants referred to ORG ( see paragraph DATE below , hereinafter the \u201c Regulation \u201d ) , none of the provisions of that Regulation could be interpreted as allowing construction of the buildings in question . There was no argument that the buildings in question had been constructed where farm buildings had previously been sited , thus the provision of the Regulation allowing construction where residential buildings had previously been sited did not allow the applicants to construct a summer house . The court thus held that the construction had been illegal . As regards the removal of the consequences of illegal construction , the court held that it was crucial to assess the consequences of the illegal construction for the environment and the public interest , the consequences of the demolition of the buildings , the possibility of restoring the environment to its state before the illegal construction , and whether the persons who had acquired property rights had acted in good faith . In cases where the construction was in breach of the territorial planning documents and\/or the imperative requirements of environmental protection , heritage protection and protection of protected areas , a decision to legalise the illegal construction could not be taken . The court thus had to assess whether the construction in question should have been carried out at the relevant time . It held that legalisation of the buildings in question was impossible and that demolition had to take place ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . As to the applicants\u2019 argument that the appellate court had breached the principle of legitimate expectations , the court held that the construction in question had been prohibited by the relevant domestic legislation in force at the time . Even if the applicants had misinterpreted the provisions of the ORG , ORG had found the ORG to be inconsistent with the law , and , by extension , with LAW on DATE , DATE after the building permit had been issued to the first applicant . The applicants should therefore have been able to understand the consequences of constructing illegally and to avoid them . Although the authorities were partly responsible for the illegal construction , that fact per se did not mean that all illegal construction had to be legalised in order to protect the legitimate expectations and proprietary interests of the owners . The legal regulation established the responsibility of the authorities for the unlawful issue of the construction permit . As a result , the court upheld the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On an unspecified date the bailiff asked LOC to explain the order to enforce ORG decision . On DATE ORG dismissed the bailiff \u2019s request because she had failed to provide specific details as to what required clarification .","It appears that the applicants asked the bailiff to suspend the execution of the judgment and that their request was refused .","On an unspecified date the applicants applied to ORG to overrule the bailiff \u2019s refusal to suspend the execution of the judgment and to suspend it until the case had been examined at ORG . On DATE ORG held that domestic law did not oblige the bailiff to suspend the execution of judgments if the applicants had lodged an application with ORG . However , LAW provided that there would be grounds for reopening the proceedings if ORG found that a domestic court decision had breached an applicant \u2019s rights under the Convention or one of its Protocols ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court held that if the national court \u2019s order to demolish the building was executed , the possibility of reopening the proceedings after a positive outcome for the applicants in ORG would become complicated . On the other hand , if ORG adopted a different decision , the demolition of the buildings would still be possible . The court observed that the applicants\u2019 building did not infringe the rights of third persons as it was sited on a plot of forest land that belonged to the applicants . As a result , ORG suspended the execution of the judgment pending a decision by ORG .","ORG lodged a separate complaint , but on DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144643","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"VARTIC v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicant was sentenced to DATE in prison . He served his sentence in various NORP prisons . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was detained in ORG .","While in prison the applicant was diagnosed with a behavioural disorder and was regularly prescribed sedatives , neuroleptics and antidepressants .","On DATE the applicant fell asleep during the evening roll - call because of the medication he was taking ( ORG ) . As a result , he was taken to the doctor \u2019s office , where the nurse ordered him to swallow salt water . He refused to do so and the intervention squad was called in . CARDINAL men wearing balaclavas beat him up and forced him to drink QUANTITY of salt water .","He was then taken to a room for dangerous detainees where his hands were handcuffed and his legs chained to the bed . He could not move , and as he was vomiting , he could not breathe .","He remained in this room all night and was seen in TIME of DATE by a doctor , who ordered prison staff to remove his handcuffs .","During TIME , the applicant noticed blood on his left ear and when he lit a cigarette he saw smoke coming out of his ear . He could not hear with that ear . He sought medical help and was given an appointment with PERSON , an ear , nose and throat specialist . He was then treated for DATE but he did not fully recover hearing in the left ear .","On DATE the applicant fell asleep during the TIME rollcall because he had taken an overdose of antidepressants in an attempted suicide . It was not his first suicide attempt .","Prison staff noted that the applicant was not responsive , informed their superiors and ordered that the applicant be taken to the doctor \u2019s office . The applicant was not able to move by himself and was helped by CARDINAL cellmates .","The nurse on duty ordered the applicant to drink salt water to make him vomit up the pills he had taken . The applicant refused to drink the water and the intervention squad moved him to the GPE arrival room ( punct primire de\u0163inu\u0163i , \u201c the LOC \u201d ) for better supervision .","In TIME of DATE the applicant was seen by PERSON , a psychiatrist , and was then taken back to his cell .","According to an information note of DATE , the director of ORG acknowledged the following entries concerning the applicant in the ORG medical register : on DATE the applicant had received treatment with a saline solution and medical charcoal because of an overdose of tablets , and was kept under supervision TIME . On DATE Dr PERSON , a psychiatrist , noted that the applicant had blood on his left ear . On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with a perforated eardrum . On DATE he received medication and local treatment on his ear , which was repeated on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .","In the same information note the cause of the applicant \u2019s perforated eardrum was indicated as unknown , and the possibility that he had selfharmed by inserting an object in his ear was suggested .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences in LOC . He complained that he had been beaten up by the intervention squad in LOC , and that he had been handcuffed and forced to drink salt water . On DATE , the judge referred the complaint to ORG for investigation . The judge \u2019s decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged similar complaints with ORG attached to ORG ( \u201c the prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) . He also alleged that due to that incident he had lost the hearing in his left ear as well as sight and smell .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office decided not to prosecute , on the ground that the matters alleged did not constitute criminal offences .","On the basis of disciplinary reports on the applicant , his prison medical file , and statements by his cellmates , the prosecutor found that the applicant was dependent on ORG , a medication prescribed for his psychiatric condition . With regard to the DATE incident , the prosecutor held that he had been somnolent because of a pill overdose , had not responded to the TIME roll - call and had been taken to the medical wing , where :","\u201c ... the nurse on duty requested the applicant to drink salt water to make him vomit and to facilitate the elimination of the pills . As the applicant refused , the intervention squad was called to the medical wing and they took the applicant to the ORG room [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] where they immobilised and handcuffed him and made him swallow salt water to eliminate the harmful substance . \u201d","The prosecutor also relied on an expert report issued by ORG ( \u201c INML \u201d ) on DATE . The report found that drinking a large quantity of salt water could not cause eardrum perforation or sensory loss . The report also established that in cases of intoxication with tranquillisers and sedatives evacuation of the gastric matter by water ingestion and induced vomiting was necessary if the patient was conscious . The prosecutor also held that on DATE the applicant refused to be examined by forensic experts .","NORP The prosecutor concluded that the nurse on duty had acted in accordance with the usual medical procedures in cases of medicine intoxication . With regard to the members of the intervention squad , the prosecutor found that because of the applicant \u2019s refusal to be examined there was no clear evidence of a causal link between the DATE incident and his sensory loss . The prosecutor held in particular that the members of the intervention squad had used force against the applicant and had forced him to drink salt water , but that their actions had been authorised by PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , since they had been seeking to save his life and preserve his physical integrity .","On DATE the general prosecutor confirmed the decision not to prosecute .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against this decision with ORG , arguing that the investigation had been unprofessional and partial . He claimed that medical procedures had not been followed during the DATE incident , since he had not been intubated by a doctor but rather forced to drink salt water by masked members of the intervention squad . He also claimed that his handcuffing during the incident lacked a legal basis , since PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was not in force at the time of the events .","He described the DATE incident as follows :","\u201c After I was handcuffed , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL masked men stood beside me holding on to my hands ; the third pressed the bottom of my ears with his fingers so that I opened my mouth ; the fourth bent my head back poured the contents of a QUANTITY bottle of water into my mouth , and held my mouth and nose closed with his hands ... this was repeated several times , for TIME ... \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint , on the grounds that the authorities had given plausible explanations of his injuries and in particular that it had been necessary to immobilise him with handcuffs for his own protection . Relying on the ORG v. GPE case ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , ORG found that such a measure was authorised by the case - law of ORG , which was directly applicable .","The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG allowed his appeal and quashed the ORG \u2019s office for further investigation .","ORG also held that the applicant had not refused to undergo a medical examination , and criticised the INML report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the ground that it had ignored the applicant \u2019s allegations that his eardrum had been perforated because he had been beaten up by members of the intervention squad .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office referred the case to ORG , ORG ( \u201c the police \u201d ) and indicated that the applicant \u2019s cellmates , the members of the intervention squad involved and the medical staff concerned should be identified and statements taken from them , and that the applicant should undergo a medical examination .","On DATE , the prosecutor \u2019s office asked the INML to issue an expert report in the case . In particular , they asked the INML to determine whether ingestion of a large quantity of water could lead to loss of hearing , sight and smell , and what the standard procedures and treatments were in cases of ingestion of a large quantity of pills .","In DATE and DATE the police took a statement from the nurse in PERSON , PERSON , members of the intervention squad , and other prison staff who had been on duty at the time of the events . The nurse acknowledged that the applicant had refused to drink the saline solution and denied that he had been forced to do so . PERSON declared that she had noticed blood on the applicant \u2019s left ear on DATE but that he had not complained at that time that he had been attacked . The members of the intervention squad and the prison staff denied that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant was examined by experts from the INML .","On DATE INML issued their expert report based on their first report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant \u2019s medical file , various other medical documents and the applicant \u2019s examination . They found that the applicant \u2019s loss of hearing and smell had not been documented by objective medical tests . With regard to the perforation of the eardrum , they dismissed that possibility on the ground that the applicant had not remained scarred . They also held that ingestion of warm salt water was a traditional treatment that was recommended during TIME following ingestion of toxic substances .","On DATE the police referred the case back to the prosecutor \u2019s office and advised against prosecution . The police assessed the circumstances as the same as those in the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Relying further on PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , the police found that the intervention squad had handcuffed the applicant and forced him to drink salt water , but had done so in order to save his life . The police also found that the applicant had abused his petition rights , that he had made numerous complaints with the purpose of \u201c having fun and keeping busy \u201d ( \u201c recreere \u015fi ocupare a timpului liber \u201d ) and \u201c spending time elsewhere ... than in prison \u201d ( \u201c s\u0103 - \u015fi petreac\u0103 timpul \u015fi \u00een alte locuri ... dec\u00e2t \u00een interiorul penitenciarului \u201d ) . The police concluded that he had shown a provocative attitude , that he had delayed the investigation by his actions , and that his intention was to create arguments for a possible case against ORG before ORG .","During the domestic proceedings , the applicant applied to various authorities seeking a speedy resolution of his case . In letters addressed to the prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE and DATE the applicant particularly drew the prosecutor \u2019s attention to the fact that due to its excessive duration the prosecution could become statute - barred .","The domestic proceedings are still pending .","The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code concerning illtreatment by agents of the ORG are described in GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . MONEY , DATE ) .","The Criminal Code sets out in LAW the time - limits by which criminal responsibility for various offences becomes statute - barred . These time - limits vary : DATE for torture and similar offences , and DATE for offences such as abusive conduct , negligence at work or ill - treatment .","LAW does not set up a time limit for lodging a criminal complaint ( pl\u00e2ngere penal\u0103 ) before the domestic authorities ( Article CARDINAL ) .","The findings of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) with regard to the NORP prison authorities\u2019 practice of employing special intervention units are described in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . The ORG particularly found during its visits to several NORP prisons in DATE that special intervention units wearing masks were dispatched to surveillance departments in order to control violent and\/or unmanageable and rebellious detainees . The ORG recommended that the NORP authorities remind the members of the special intervention units that all forms of ill - treatment against detainees are unacceptable and are to be severely sanctioned , and that the use of force to control violent and\/or recalcitrant prisoners must be limited to occasions when it is strictly necessary ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180278","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SHEHOVA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In CARDINAL final judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG awarded the applicant pecuniary damages in respect of breach of contract for construction works which she had carried out . The awarded damages comprised ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the principal amount , plus ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in default interest and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in costs and expenses , or a total amount of ORG , the equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) . The damages were awarded to the applicant against ORG and Science ( \u201c FAC , a ORG body subsidised by ORG and ORG and exercising certain functions delegated by ORG ) .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE the Minister of ORG closed down the ORG and ordered that its remaining property be managed by ORG . ORG then established a ORG - owned jointstock company with part of the ORG \u2019s property , including the real estate in which the applicant had carried out the construction works .","On CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant was issued with CARDINAL writs of enforcement for the amounts awarded in the final judgments of DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and on DATE she presented the writs to ORG asking it to pay .","The ORG replied in writing that it was not the successor to the ORG and did not owe payment to the applicant . In DATE the applicant reiterated her request but received a similar reply by ORG . ORG also pointed out that payment could not be sought from the ORG - owned joint - stock company either as it had a legal personality separate from that of the ORG . By a letter of DATE , the Minister provided a similar explanation to the applicant .","The applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the Minister \u2019s refusal . In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the appeal as inadmissible .","As of DATE , the date of the applicant \u2019s last communication to the ORG , no change in the above circumstances had been reported ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154619","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"Z AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The President of the ORG acceded to the ORG request not to have their names disclosed ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ) , as well as to a request by the Government to grant confidentiality to the case ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ) . The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON of GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","At TIME on DATE a dead body was found on the outskirts of city X. The police carried out an on - site inspection DATE . The crime scene was photographed , and biological samples and other evidence were collected from the dead body . The body was identified as A , the applicants\u2019 respective husband and father . A tooth was found on the body . An autopsy was carried out and it was established that A had been struck several times on the back of his head with a hard object , and this had caused his death . On DATE the police lodged a criminal complaint with the X State Attorney \u2019s Office in respect of the killing of A by unknown perpetrators .","NORP The police interviewed the person who had found A \u2019s body on CARDINAL DATE , but he knew nothing about the circumstances of the killing .","The investigation into A \u2019s killing was opened on DATE in ORG .","On DATE the first applicant , A \u2019s wife , was called to identify A \u2019s body . On DATE the police interviewed B , who said that at TIME on DATE he had seen a van going to the area where A \u2019s body was subsequently discovered . The van had returned after TIME and stopped . The driver had said that they were on their way to a wedding in restaurant PERSON had seen that the driver was wearing a camouflage uniform . There were CARDINAL other men in the van . PERSON gave a detailed description of the van .","On DATE the police interviewed the first applicant , who told them that A had frequented restaurant Y on a DATE basis . The police also interviewed the second applicant and her husband , some of A \u2019s neighbours and the manager of restaurant Y , who confirmed that there had been a wedding reception in the restaurant on DATE and that a number of NORP soldiers had been present .","On DATE an expert established that the tooth found on A \u2019s body belonged to a younger person .","On DATE the police interviewed C , a NORP soldier who had been present at the wedding reception in Y on DATE . He said that he had spotted A next to the van in which he and some of his friends had come to the wedding , and had seen that A was noting down the licence plate numbers of the van and of another vehicle parked near - by . C had called his colleagues , D , E and F , and they had forced A into the van and driven to the outskirts of GPE , where they stopped under a bridge . They had taken A out of the van and D had told him to climb onto a river bank ; A had refused . A commotion had ensued , in the course of which A had hit C in the mouth and kicked his tooth out . D , E and F had then continued to strike A. E had taken a metal implement from the van . C took it from him and struck A , killing him . C had pushed A \u2019s body into the river and had then thrown the metal implement into the river .","On DATE the police interviewed D , E and F. D and E confirmed the events as described by C , and F said that all CARDINAL of them had stayed at the wedding reception in restaurant LOC throughout TIME of CARDINAL to CARDINAL November .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG asked for an investigation to be opened in ORG .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG heard evidence from C , D , E and PERSON , accompanied by his defence lawyer , denied any involvement in the killing of GPE and E repeated the statements they had given to the police . F , accompanied by his defence lawyer , remained silent . The investigating judge opened an investigation in respect of C , D , E and F in connection with the killing of A.","During the investigation an opinion was commissioned from a dental expert . He established that the tooth found on A \u2019s body did not belong to any of the suspects . In their further statements during the investigation C , D and E denied the charges against them while F remained silent .","On DATE C , D , E and F , were indicted on charges of murdering A. The proceedings were conducted before ORG .","On DATE the Act on ORG from Criminal Prosecution and Proceedings in Respect of Criminal Offences Committed during ORG Zakon o oprostu od krivi\u010dnog progona i postupka za krivi\u010dna djela po\u010dinjena u oru\u017eanim sukobima i u ratu protiv PERSON ) was enacted .","On DATE , pursuant to LAW , ORG terminated the proceedings .","On DATE the ORG Attorney lodged a request for the protection of legality ( zahtjev za za\u0161titu zakonitosti ) with ORG , asking it to establish that the termination of proceedings was contrary to law . On DATE ORG established that the request for the protection of legality was well - founded . However , this finding had no effect on the decision to grant the accused amnesty ( see paragraph CARDINAL below , LAW ) .","On DATE ORG informed the ORG counsel about the results of the criminal proceedings , including ORG decision .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a request with the W State Attorney \u2019s ORG for an investigation in respect of the same CARDINAL individuals , alleging that they had committed a war crime against the civilian population . On DATE the W State Attorney held a meeting with the first applicant and informed her orally about the results of the criminal proceedings that had ended in DATE and told her that there was no possibility of instituting fresh criminal proceeding against the suspects . An official note was drafted about that meeting , but no formal decision was taken upon the first applicant \u2019s request .","The first applicants\u2019 request was forwarded to the X State Attorney \u2019s Office , which dismissed it on DATE on the basis that proceedings in respect of the same facts had already been terminated . The applicant was instructed that she could take over the proceedings and lodge within DATE a request for an investigation with a ORG investigating judge .","The first applicant complied with the said instruction and on DATE submitted the request for an investigation to ORG . It was dismissed on DATE on the same ground as the one provided by ORG , i.e. that it concerned the same facts as the indictment from DATE in respect of which the proceedings had been terminated and that a fresh trial would be in violation of the ne bis in idem principle .","The first applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , which dismissed it on DATE . ORG endorsed the views of ORG .","The first and second applicants then lodged a constitutional complaint , which was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that ORG did not have jurisdiction to examine the complaint .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s Office held a meeting in connection with the ORG \u2019s judgment in the PERSON case ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG DATE ( extracts ) ) , in which ORG held that the ne bis in idem principle did not apply to amnesties for war crimes . Inter alia on this basis ORG decided to re - open the investigation into the killing of the applicants\u2019 husband and father .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG retrieved the case - file concerning the investigation into A \u2019s killing from its ORG . The tooth found on A \u2019s dead body was sent for DNA tests . It was established that all other evidence and biological samples collected during the on - site inspection had been destroyed .","DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG interviewed ORG and several witnesses . The investigation is still pending .","The relevant part of LAW ( Ustav PERSON , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and PERSON ) reads as follows :","\u201c ...","( CARDINAL ) No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence of which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law .","Only the law may , in accordance with the LAW or an international agreement , prescribe the situations in which proceedings may be reopened under paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of this LAW and the grounds for reopening . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku \u2013 Official Gazette nos . PERCENT , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG and DATE ) provide as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings shall be instituted and conducted at the request of a qualified prosecutor only . ...","( CARDINAL ) In respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution the qualified prosecutor shall be the ORG Attorney and in respect of criminal offences to be prosecuted privately the qualified prosecutor shall be a private prosecutor .","( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided by law , the ORG Attorney shall undertake a criminal prosecution where there is a reasonable suspicion that an identified person has committed a criminal offence subject to public prosecution and where there are no legal impediments to the prosecution of that person .","( CARDINAL ) Where the ORG Attorney finds that there are no grounds to institute or conduct criminal proceedings , the injured party as a subsidiary prosecutor may take his place under the conditions prescribed by this LAW . \u201d","Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL regulate the rights and duties of a private prosecutor and of an injured party acting as a subsidiary prosecutor . The Criminal Code distinguishes between these CARDINAL roles . A private prosecutor ( privatni tu\u017eitelj ) is the injured party who brings a private prosecution in respect of criminal offences for which such prosecution is expressly prescribed by LAW ( these are offences of a lesser degree ) . The injured party as a subsidiary prosecutor ( o\u0161te\u0107eni kao tu\u017eitelj ) takes over criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution where the relevant prosecuting authorities for whatever reason have decided not to prosecute .","Pursuant to LAW , the ORG Attorney is under a duty to inform the injured party within DATE of a decision not to prosecute and of the party \u2019s right to take over the proceedings , as well as to instruct that party on the steps to be taken .","\u201c Criminal proceedings concluded by a final ruling or a final judgment may be reopened at the request of an authorised person only in the circumstances and under the conditions set out in this LAW . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings concluded by a final judgment dismissing the charges may exceptionally be reopened to the detriment of the accused :","...","( CARDINAL ) Where it has been established that amnesty , pardon , statutory limitation or other circumstances excluding criminal prosecution are not applicable to the criminal offence referred to in the judgment dismissing the charges .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The court competent to decide upon a request for the reopening of the proceedings shall be the court which adjudicated the case at first instance ...","( CARDINAL ) The request for reopening shall contain the statutory basis for reopening and evidence in support of the request ...","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The ORG Attorney may lodge a request for the protection of legality against final judicial decisions , and court proceedings preceding such decisions , in which a law has been violated .","( CARDINAL ) The ORG Attorney shall lodge a request for the protection of legality against a judicial decision adopted in proceedings in which fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the LAW , statute or international law have been violated .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG of the Republic of Croatia shall determine requests for the protection of legality .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) When determining a request for the protection of legality the [ ORG shall assess only those violations of the law relied on by the ORG Attorney .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Where a request for the protection of legality has been lodged to the detriment of the accused and the [ ORG establishes that it is well founded , it shall merely establish that there has been a violation of the law , without altering a final decision . \u201d","The relevant part of the Act on ORG from Criminal Prosecution and Proceedings in Respect of Criminal Offences Committed during ORG of DATE ( ORG no . CARDINAL , Zakon o oprostu od krivi\u010dnog progona i postupka za krivi\u010dna djela po\u010dinjena u oru\u017eanim sukobima i u ratu protiv PERSON ) reads as follows :","\u201c Criminal prosecution of perpetrators of criminal offences [ committed ] during the armed conflicts , the war against GPE or in connection with these conflicts or war , committed DATE when this LAW comes into force , shall be discontinued . In respect of these offences no criminal prosecution or criminal proceedings shall be instituted . Where criminal proceedings have been instituted , a court shall terminate them of its own motion . Where a person concerned by the amnesty ... has been detained , he or she shall be released . \u201d","\u201c No amnesty under LAW shall be granted to perpetrators of the criminal offences in respect of which GPE is obliged to prosecute under international law . \u201d","\u201c A state attorney may lodge an appeal within TIME from the service of a decision under section CARDINAL ... of this Act , where she or he considers that the decision contravenes section QUANTITY . \u201d","The relevant part of the amendments to LAW of DATE reads as follows :","\u201c In section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of the Act on ORG from Criminal Prosecution and Proceedings in Respect of Criminal Offences Committed during ORG no . CARDINAL ) the words \u2018 DATE when this Act comes into force\u2019 are to be replaced by the words \u2018 CARDINAL DATE . \u201d","The relevant part of LAW of DATE ( ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , PERSON o op\u0107em oprostu ) reads as follows :","\u201c This Act grants general amnesty from criminal prosecution and proceedings to the perpetrators of criminal offences committed during the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts and in connection with the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts in GPE .","No amnesty shall apply to the execution of final judgments in respect of perpetrators of the criminal offences under paragraph CARDINAL of this section .","ORG from criminal prosecution and proceedings shall apply to offences committed DATE and DATE . \u201d","\u201c No criminal prosecution or criminal proceedings shall be instituted against the perpetrators of the criminal offences under LAW .","Where a criminal prosecution has already commenced it shall be discontinued and where criminal proceedings have been instituted a court shall issue a decision terminating the proceedings of its own motion .","Where a person granted amnesty under paragraph CARDINAL of this section has been detained , he or she shall be released . \u201d","\u201c No amnesty under LAW shall be granted to perpetrators of the gravest breaches of humanitarian law , which have the character of war crimes , namely , the criminal offence of genocide under LAW ( ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , consolidated text , nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and ORG ) ; war crimes against the civilian population under LAW ; war crimes against the wounded and sick under LAW ; war crimes against prisoners of war under LAW ; organising groups [ with the purpose of committing ] or aiding and abetting genocide and war crimes under LAW ; unlawful killing and wounding of the enemy under LAW ; unlawful taking of possessions from the dead or wounded on the battleground under LAW ; use of unlawful means of combat under LAW ; offences against negotiators under LAW ; cruel treatment of the wounded , sick and prisoners of war under LAW ; unjustified delay in repatriation of prisoners of war under LAW ; destruction of cultural and historical heritage under LAW ; inciting war of aggression under LAW ; abuse of international symbols under LAW ; racial and other discrimination under LAW ; establishing slavery and transferring slaves under LAW ; international terrorism under LAW ; putting at risk persons under international protection under LAW ; taking hostages under LAW ; and the criminal offence of terrorism under the provisions of international law .","No amnesty shall be granted to perpetrators of other criminal offences under LAW of GPE ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , consolidated text , nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and ORG ) and LAW ( ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , consolidated text , nos . CARDINAL , ORG and ORG ) which were not committed during the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts and are not connected with the aggression , armed rebellion or armed conflicts in GPE .","... \u201d","\u201c A state attorney may lodge an appeal against a court decision under LAW where a court has granted amnesty in favour of the perpetrators of criminal offences in respect of which this Act grants amnesty within the legal classification of the criminal offence by a state attorney . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161407","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ZAKSHEVSKIY v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Take proceedings);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence in prison no . CARDINAL .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted in GPE in connection with a robbery committed in GPE .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted in ORG in connection with a robbery committed on ORG .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted in GPE in connection with a murder and attempted murder committed in the course of an armed robbery ( \u201c the murder proceedings \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) granted the prosecutor \u2019s request to put the applicant , a former police officer , on remand as a suspect in the criminal proceedings concerning the robbery on ORG . ORG held that , as the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious crime and had absconded during the investigation , his detention was necessary to prevent him from reoffending . The court also noted that the applicant \u2019s personality was to be taken into consideration , without giving any further details . On DATE , the applicant \u2019s name was put on a wanted list .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in accordance with the ORG decision of DATE . He submitted that he had presented himself to the police voluntarily once he had become aware that he was wanted . On DATE , he drafted a \u201c statement of voluntary surrender \u201d ( \u044f\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u0437 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043d\u043d\u043e\u044e ) in which he confessed to committing , as part of a criminal group , a number of armed robberies on ORG , as well as one in the town of GPE . He stated that , in the course of the latter , he had used a firearm against the victim . The applicant also provided more details in writing about the above crimes and his acquaintance with his accomplices and informed the police CARDINAL other armed robberies which he and his accomplices had committed in the town of GPE , as well as about other crimes of which he was aware .","On DATE the applicant was charged with armed robbery and questioned . Before being questioned he was informed of his procedural rights but signed a waiver of his right to legal assistance . He made similar statements to those given to the police DATE before , including about the shooting incident in GPE . On DATE , he familiarised himself with the decision of DATE , against which he was entitled to appeal . He did not appeal against the decision .","On DATE , in the absence of a lawyer , the applicant was questioned in the context of the robbery proceedings . The Government submitted DATE and this is not contested by the applicant \u2013 that the applicant again waived his right to a lawyer , having once again been informed of his rights . During the questioning , the applicant , apart from giving information on the robberies , reiterated his statements regarding the shooting which had occurred in GPE . He was further questioned in that regard .","On DATE a lawyer , NORP , was appointed to represent the applicant . On DATE , in the absence of a lawyer , the applicant was questioned as a suspect in the murder proceedings . He admitted to shooting a victim in the course of the armed robbery but denied that he had done so intentionally .","On DATE , in the presence of his lawyer , the applicant was charged with murder and attempted murder , and questioned as an accused . He admitted his guilt in respect of the armed robbery but denied the murder charges . A reconstruction of the crime scene was carried out .","On DATE the applicant was charged with armed robbery causing grievous bodily harm . He waived his right to a lawyer during questioning .","On DATE the applicant was charged with premeditated armed robbery as part of a criminal group . He again waived his right to a lawyer .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention to DATE . The applicant did not appeal against this decision .","On DATE the criminal proceedings concerning robberies on ORG were joined with the murder proceedings .","On DATE the ORG of Appeal , having heard the investigator and the prosecutor , and referring to \u201c the applicant \u2019s personality \u201d , albeit without assessing it , the seriousness of the charges against him , and the need for additional time to conduct the necessary investigative measures , extended the applicant \u2019s detention to DATE . The decision was not amenable to appeal .","On DATE B. was appointed as the applicant \u2019s lawyer .","On DATE the criminal proceedings regarding the robberies in GPE were joined with the other proceedings against the applicant .","On DATE the ORG of Appeal , having heard the investigator and the prosecutor , extended the applicant \u2019s detention to DATE on the same grounds as those in its ruling of DATE . The decision was not amenable to appeal .","On DATE L. replaced PERSON as the applicant \u2019s lawyer . On DATE , the applicant was charged with a number of crimes , including banditry , several counts of armed robbery , premeditated murder and attempted murder , and questioned . He pleaded not guilty as charged and refused to give further testimonies .","On DATE amended charges were brought against the applicant and he was questioned again .","On DATE the applicant was granted access to the case file . According to the Government , no investigative measures were conducted DATE .","After the investigation had been completed the case was referred to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , acting as a first - instance court , for trial . The decision to do so was not amenable to appeal .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to change his preventive measure to a non - custodial one .","On DATE ORG remitted the case for additional investigation , holding that the applicant \u2019s rights of defence had been breached . It found , inter alia , that the applicant had officially been charged with offences other than those considered by the trial court . It further established that on DATE , DATE and DATE investigative measures had been carried out in the absence of the applicant \u2019s lawyer , contrary to the requirements of domestic law . The court also decided , without giving reasons or setting a time - limit , that the applicant would remain in detention . The applicant appealed in cassation against that decision and requested , inter alia , that the preventive measure , namely the detention ordered be lifted .","On DATE ORG heard the applicant \u2019s appeal in the presence of the prosecutor . It upheld the decision of ORG of DATE and stated , without giving any reasons , that there were no grounds for changing or discontinuing the preventive measure imposed on the applicant .","On DATE PERSON was appointed as the applicant \u2019s lawyer .","On DATE , in the presence of his lawyer , the applicant was charged with a number of criminal offences , including banditry , several counts of armed robbery , premeditated murder and attempted murder , and questioned . He admitted to his acquaintance with the co - accused , but pleaded not guilty on all charges .","On DATE , in the presence of his lawyer , amended charges were brought against the applicant . The latter refused to sign or receive copies of the relevant papers as he disagreed with the charges . During further questioning he pleaded not guilty and refused to give any testimony .","On DATE the applicant and his lawyer were granted access to the case file , and on DATE the case was referred for trial .","On an unspecified date , the applicant lodged a request for release with ORG .","On DATE ORG , having acquitted the applicant on CARDINAL of the CARDINAL charges for lack of proof , found him guilty of banditry , several counts of armed robbery , intentional murder and attempted murder . It sentenced him to life imprisonment with confiscation of all his property . The court based its findings to a large extent on the testimonies of the applicant and his co - defendants given during the pre - trial investigation , having found them to be corroborated by a number of other pieces of evidence . In the part of the judgment which concerns the murder charges , the court referred , in particular , to the \u201c testimonies given by the applicant as a suspect and an accused , including in the presence of a lawyer \u201d . It further dismissed as ill - founded the applicant \u2019s complaints that his rights of defence had been violated and his requests to declare inadmissible his statements obtained in the absence of a lawyer . In this context , when finding the applicant guilty of armed robberies , the court held that , having been informed of his procedural rights , the applicant had voluntarily waived his right to legal representation and that such a waiver had been lawfully accepted by the investigative authorities as robbery charges could not lead to a life sentence . It further held that during questioning on the murder , the applicant had been legally represented and had made his statements in the presence of a lawyer .","In addition , ORG gave a separate ruling by which it declared inadmissible a number of pieces of evidence related to different charges against the applicant and his co - defendants , as the evidence had been obtained in violation of the GPE rights of defence . In particular , as far as the applicant was concerned , apart from the evidence which had been found inadmissible on DATE , the court further excluded from the body of evidence some of the testimonies given by the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE . It held that , even though the applicant had allegedly confessed to murdering CARDINAL people shortly after his arrest , he had nevertheless been questioned as a witness , in the absence of a lawyer .","The applicant appealed in cassation against the judgment of DATE . He stated in particular that there had been insufficient evidence to prove his guilt ; he had been ill - treated by the police ; on a number of occasions during the pre - trial investigation he had been questioned in the absence of a lawyer and that evidence obtained in violation of his rights of defence had nevertheless been used to secure his conviction .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor , the applicant and his sister \u2013 who acted as his representative . On DATE , it upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction of DATE . It dismissed as unsubstantiated his complaints that his rights of defence had been violated at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings , holding that those complaints had been duly examined and dismissed by ORG . It also dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment by the police .","DATE and DATE the applicant was held in the ORG pre - trial detention centre no . CARDINAL ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , in cell no . CARDINAL . He submitted that his cell had been overcrowded : it had measured QUANTITY , contained CARDINAL beds for QUANTITY people , and detainees had had to take turns to sleep . He also alleged that some of the cellmates had been suffering from tuberculosis . In this context , he submitted written statements made by his cellmates PERSON , GPE , GPE , P. and O.","NORP The applicant \u2019s sister complained to the Governor of ORG about the conditions of her brother \u2019s detention . By a letter dated DATE the Governor informed her that the cell in question had been designed to accommodate CARDINAL people and that CARDINAL inmates had been held in that cell during the applicant \u2019s detention . The Governor further informed her that , according to medical documents concerning PERSON , GPE , GPE , P. and O. , none of them had been suffering from an active form of tuberculosis . He stated that the applicant had never been in contact with anyone suffering from such a disease whilst in GPE .","After his conviction on DATE , the applicant was transferred to the high - security wing of the GPE pre - trial detention centre no . CARDINAL ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) . According to the applicant , he was handcuffed whenever he left his cell , including during DATE walks and meetings with his relatives .","In GPE the applicant was held in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY each , designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees . The cells were equipped with a dining table , a bench , a washstand and a toilet , which was separated from the living area by a brick partition . There was natural ventilation and light through windows ; artificial lighting allowed inmates to read and write without damaging their eyesight . The temperature in the cells was between NORP and CARDINALoC. Running water was constantly available in the cells . All detainees were provided with bed linen and clothes in accordance with domestic standards .","As regards the applicant \u2019s allegations that he had shared his cell with persons suffering from tuberculosis , the Government pointed out that the domestic legislation provided that persons suffering from that disease should be kept separately from healthy detainees . The Government could not provide any information about the applicant \u2019s cellmates and their state of health , however , because the time - limit for keeping the relevant documents had expired and the records had been destroyed . They noted that the applicant had not complained that his state of health had worsened in detention .","Whenever the applicant was taken out of his cell and escorted within GPE , handcuffs were used pursuant to the relevant domestic legislation . The Government contested the applicant \u2019s statement that he had been handcuffed during his DATE walks and meetings with relatives , as the former was prohibited by the relevant domestic regulations ."],"violated_articles":["3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161829","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF F.G. v. SWEDEN","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He entered GPE on DATE and applied for political asylum .","On DATE , counsel appointed the applicant made written submissions to ORG ( Migrationsverket ) in which he developed the grounds for the applicant \u2019s request for political asylum .","On DATE ORG held an oral interview with the applicant in the presence of his counsel and an interpreter . The applicant handed over a declaration of DATE from a pastor in GPE certifying that the applicant had been a member of his congregation since DATE and had been baptised . ORG official therefore started the interview by asking about that matter . The applicant replied that it was a private matter \u201c in [ his ] heart \u201d , adding : \u201c It has nothing to do with this but if you want to ask questions you may . All problems in my home country are caused by ORG entering GPE ... \u201d . ORG official explained that the reason why he was asking questions about it was that he had interpreted the certificate as though the applicant had relied on his conversion as a ground for asylum . The applicant stated : \u201c no , it is not something I want to rely on . It is something private \u201d . ORG official then suggested a break in the interview in order for the applicant and his counsel to confer . After a TIME break , counsel stated : \u201c the applicant wants to underline that he has not changed religion in order to enhance his chances of getting a residence permit but out of personal conviction \u201d . When asked when he had converted , the applicant replied that this had happened after he had arrived in the NORP town of GPE , where there were not many NORP . He had got to know a person who went to church CARDINAL times a week . This person knew that the applicant hated ORG . The applicant continued : \u201c I do not regard NORP as a religion \u201d . When asked why that was so , the applicant replied : \u201c if regarded as a religion it would be like ORG , but NORP is about a kind of love you have for God \u201d . He explained that he had been going to the congregation \u2019s gatherings CARDINAL times per week and that he read the Bible . The applicant gave examples of miracles and prophecies from the Bible which had attracted him to NORP . ORG official asked why , if the applicant did not wish to rely on his conversion as a ground for asylum , he had nevertheless handed in the certificate from the pastor , to which the applicant replied : \u201c I do n\u2019t know . I never asked for it and I had not even considered handing it in , but you wanted it . They gave all converts a certificate like that \u201d .","The rest of the interview dealt with the applicant \u2019s political past . The applicant explained that in GPE he had worked with persons connected to different universities who were known to oppose the regime . He had mainly worked on creating and publishing web pages . He and CARDINAL of the other persons had been arrested in DATE . He had been released after TIME and then hospitalised for DATE due to high blood pressure .","NORP Before the elections on DATE , the applicant had worked with ORG , who had supported PERSON for the presidential position , by spreading their message via the Internet . DATE before the elections , he and his friends had been arrested , questioned and detained in the polling station TIME .","After the elections , the applicant had participated in demonstrations and other activities . He had been arrested once again in DATE and imprisoned for DATE . He had been ill - treated in prison . In DATE he had been taken before ORG , which had released him after DATE on condition that he cooperate with the authorities and spy on his friends . He had agreed to the demands and given his business premises as a guarantee . He had also assured them that he would not participate in any demonstrations and that he would respond to their summons . Following his release in a park , he had found that his business LOC had been searched . He had kept politically sensitive material there , which the authorities must have noticed , and his passport and other documents were missing .","Subsequently , the applicant was summoned to appear on CARDINAL DATE before ORG . He had contacted a friend who , in turn , had obtained the help of a smuggler to enable him to leave the country . The applicant submitted a summons from ORG dated DATE stating that he should present himself at PERSON prison in GPE on DATE .","The interview before ORG lasted TIME and the record was subsequently sent to the applicant and his counsel for comment . Counsel commented that the applicant had not read the certificate from the congregation \u2019s pastor before the interview as it had not been translated and that the applicant intended to submit the formal baptism certificate .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for asylum . By way of introduction , it stated that while the applicant had not proven his identity or citizenship he had established the probability thereof .","As regards the request for political asylum , ORG held that participation in demonstrations or affiliation with ORG could not , of itself , give rise to a risk of persecution , ill - treatment or punishment on his return to GPE . ORG noted that the applicant had changed his story in some parts during the proceedings , and in particular , he had changed his statements concerning the number of times he had been arrested . Furthermore , he had not been able to name the park where he had been released in DATE . Thus , ORG found reason to question whether he had been arrested at all . ORG further considered that the applicant \u2019s political activities had been limited . After the questioning in DATE and until the elections in DATE , he had been able to continue working with the web pages that contained the critical material , even though , according to the applicant , already at that time the authorities had been aware of his activities . For these reasons , ORG found that the applicant could not have been of interest to the authorities on account of his activities or the material he had in his possession .","As to the applicant \u2019s conversion to NORP , ORG noted that the conversion and baptism had not taken place in ORG and that the applicant had not handed in any proof of his baptism . The certificate from the congregation \u2019s pastor could be regarded only as a plea to ORG that the applicant should be granted asylum . The applicant had not initially wished to invoke his conversion as a ground for asylum and had stated that his new faith was a private matter . To pursue his faith in private was not found to be a plausible reason for believing that he would risk persecution upon return . In conclusion , ORG found that the applicant had not shown that he was in need of protection in GPE .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , maintaining his claims and relying on both political and religious grounds for asylum . As regards the latter he handed in a baptism certificate of DATE . He reacted against the decision by ORG , which in his view implied that a conversion within a \u201c free church \u201d was of less relevance than if it had been within ORG . He explained that the reason why he had not initially wished to rely on his conversion was that he did not want to trivialise the seriousness of his beliefs .","On DATE ORG held an oral hearing in the presence of the applicant , his counsel , an interpreter and a representative of ORG .","ORG did not question the fact that the applicant , at the time , professed the NORP faith , but found that this , by itself , was not enough to consider him in need of protection . It referred to ORG operational guidance note of DATE .","The applicant stated that he did not wish to rely on his conversion as a reason for asylum but considered it something personal . He added that \u201c it would , however , obviously cause [ him ] problems upon return \u201d .","In respect of his political past he explained , inter alia , that he had had contact with the student movement and quite a lot of students and had helped them with their home pages . His computer had been taken from his business LOC while he was in prison . Material that was critical of the regime was stored on his computer . While he had not personally criticised the regime , or President PERSON , or the highest leaders , the applicant had visited some websites and had received cartoons via email . Therefore , in his view , there was enough evidence to prove that he was an opponent of the system . It was much the same as the material he had had on his computer in DATE .","The summons to appear before ORG on DATE was also submitted to ORG . The applicant explained that the summons had been served at his home and that his sister had brought it to him . He had left the summons with a friend when he left GPE . Subsequently , the said friend had sent it to another friend , who was going to GPE , and who had made sure that the summons was sent to the applicant in GPE . He had not been summoned again and his family had not been targeted . Something might have happened , though , that his family did not wish to burden him with .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It observed that the applicant was no longer relying on his religious views as a ground for persecution and it did not refer further to this issue in its conclusions .","ORG found that the applicant \u2019s story in support of his request for political asylum had been coherent and trustworthy on the most essential points . It found that the uncertainties that had been pointed out by ORG had been satisfactorily explained . However , as regards the summons to appear before ORG , ORG found , regardless of the authenticity of the document , that it could not by itself substantiate a need for protection . ORG pointed out in this respect that the document was merely a summons and that no reason had been given as to why the applicant should present himself at PERSON prison . Moreover , the information concerning the applicant \u2019s political activities had generally been vague and lacking in detail . The applicant had only stated that he had participated in the campaign for the opposition before the elections in DATE by joining demonstrations and having contact with the student movement and students in order to help them with their web pages . Furthermore , the applicant had stated that the material he had had in his possession when he was questioned in DATE had not differed from the material he had in DATE . These circumstances , together with the fact that he had not been summoned again to appear before ORG after DATE and that his family had not been targeted , made ORG doubt that his political activities had been of such a nature and extent as to have resulted in the consequences alleged . ORG found that the applicant had exaggerated the importance of his political activities and their consequences and therefore also the authorities\u2019 interest in him . For these reasons , it considered that the applicant had not made out that the NORP authorities had a special interest in him and that therefore he was in need of protection .","On DATE and DATE the applicant requested leave to appeal to ORG ( Migrations\u00f6verdomstolen ) . He maintained his need for political asylum . He also alleged that before ORG he had relied on his conversion . He submitted that the latter issue had been sensitive for him , that he had considered it a private matter and that had not wanted to tarnish the seriousness of his belief . This was the reason why he , in response to a direct question by ORG , had stated that he was no longer relying on his conversion as a ground for asylum . After the oral hearing before ORG he had become a member of another NORP congregation and had taken part in an initiation ceremony broadcast on the Internet . His fear that his conversion had become known to the NORP authorities had therefore increased . He enclosed a letter of CARDINAL DATE from his new congregation which supported his explanation . In particular , it stated that the applicant had converted shortly after his arrival in GPE , that he had shown with honest intent and interest that he was willing to learn more about NORP , and that he took part in church services , prayer meetings and social activities . It also stated that he became a member of the congregation in DATE and that his NORP beliefs were no longer private as the services he attended were broadcast on the Internet .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal . The removal order thus became enforceable .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to stay the enforcement of his expulsion and to reconsider its previous decision in the light of new circumstances . He stated , inter alia , that the act of conversion from ORG to another religion was a taboo and punishable by death in GPE . The applicant submitted the above - mentioned letter of CARDINAL DATE from his new congregation .","On DATE ORG refused to re - examine the applicant \u2019s request for asylum based on his conversion . ORG noted that in the original asylum proceedings the applicant had stated that he had been baptised and had converted to NORP . He had also stated that his conversion was a personal matter which he did not wish to rely on as a ground for asylum . ORG found it noteworthy that the applicant now raised the question of conversion , when he had been given the chance to elaborate on it during the oral hearing before ORG but had declined to do so . It thus concluded that the applicant \u2019s conversion could not be regarded as a new circumstance , which was a precondition for ORG to re - examine the request .","The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG , maintaining his claims . He submitted that since he had not previously relied on his conversion , it should be regarded as a new circumstance .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It observed that the authorities had already been aware of the applicant \u2019s conversion in the original proceeding leading to the decision to expel him . Therefore , the conversion could not be considered as a \u201c new circumstance \u201d . The fact that the applicant had previously chosen not to rely on his conversion as a ground for asylum did not change the court \u2019s assessment in this regard .","The applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal was refused by ORG on CARDINAL DATE .","Since under LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW , the validity of a deportation order expires DATE after the date on which it acquired legal force , in the present case the deportation at issue expired on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148292","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ALEKSANDR VALERYEVICH KAZAKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On an unspecified date the prosecutor \u2019s office opened a criminal investigation into the activities of a criminal gang allegedly organised by ORG , a high - ranking police officer at the time . The members of the gang were suspected of numerous thefts of goods and foodstuffs from various storage facilities . CARDINAL of the episodes under investigation was a fraudulent attempt by the members of the gang to sell scrap metal , which belonged to a private company , to a scrap metal processing plant . According to the official version , the attempt to sell the scrap metal was carried out by ORG , the applicant , who was also a high - ranking police officer at the time , and PERSON , another member of the gang . On an unspecified date in DATE V. , the applicant and PERSON met with PERSON , a director of the scrap processing plant , and fraudulently represented to him that the scrap metal belonged to PERSON and that they were acting on her behalf . PERSON agreed to purchase the scrap metal and on DATE he sent a group of workers to the company \u2019s site in order to have the scrap metal removed . PERSON \u2019s boyfriend PERSON . , another member of the gang , was also present at the site at the time . The removal of the scrap metal was interrupted by PERSON , one of the private company \u2019s directors . PERSON . phoned PERSON , who told him to go to the police station to notify ORG of the incident . Then both PERSON . and PERSON returned to the site to settle the issue with PERSON , who had complained to the police about the attempted theft of the scrap metal . PERSON also informed PERSON . , the company \u2019s managing director , of the incident . Acting in his official capacity , ORG assigned the investigation into the attempted theft of scrap metal to GPE . , who decided to question PERSON However , GPE interviewed PERSON himself and brought GPE . PERSON \u2019s statement . GPE . questioned PERSON , who submitted that she had nothing to do with the removal of the scrap metal from the company \u2019s premises .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody . On DATE he was released on bail .","On DATE the applicant was formally charged with CARDINAL counts of financial fraud , theft and embezzlement committed in collusion with CARDINAL members of the gang .","The trial opened in DATE . At the end of the trial the prosecutor dropped all the charges against the applicant except the attempted theft of scrap metal .","The applicant maintained his innocence . The testimony he gave at the trial was summed up as follows in the judgment :","\u201c ... he has known ORG since DATE due to his service in ORG ] They have been friends . Since DATE he has known PERSON too , whom he met from time to time at different places and visited her at her home for work purposes . In DATE , ORG asked ... to take him to the site [ where the scrap metal was ] in order to meet PERSON asked him and PERSON to help the buyer of the scrap metal to ensure its safety . He and PERSON promised to ask CARDINAL of the police patrol teams to secure the scrap metal . They informed accordingly the buyer who arrived later to inspect the scrap metal . He did not talk to anyone about stealing and selling the scrap metal . He did not conspire with such intent and he did not take part in any negotiations about that . He did not receive any proceeds from the sale of the scrap metal or any advance payment . Nor did he take any measures to conceal the crimes committed by PERSON She falsely accused him of the involvement in the attempted theft of the scrap metal . \u201d","The trial court questioned PERSON , PERSON . , and GPE . It further admitted into evidence the statements made by PERSON , ORG . , and PERSON when questioned by the investigator . As regards witness PERSON , the court noted that he had been away on a business trip and could not attend the court hearing . It considered that this absence amounted to an extraordinary circumstance that would permit the reading - out of his earlier statement . Despite the applicant \u2019s objection , the court dispensed with summoning PERSON again for questioning and proceeded with the reading - out of his statement . According to the Government , the information concerning PERSON \u2019s absence was communicated to the court by PERSON \u2019s wife by telephone .","According to the written statement , used by the court , PERSON stated as follows :","\u201c ... he has been the General Director of ORG since DATE . It specializes in buying scrap metal from individuals and legal entities in the region . CARDINAL of the long - term suppliers for his company was [ PERSON ] . In DATE [ PERSON ] proposed being a middle person between ORG and her acquaintances who intended to sell a large quantity of scrap metal . She suggested that [ he ] meet with those persons to discuss the terms and conditions of the transaction . As was suggested by [ PERSON ] , at DATE he met with those persons at the site where the scrap metal was located ... . He met CARDINAL men whose names were PERSON and PERSON . They claimed that the scrap metal belonged to them and offered him to buy it . Subsequently , [ PERSON ] told him that those men were high ranking police officers ... . During the meeting PERSON asked him to make an advance payment for the scrap metal in the amount of RUB CARDINAL . [ He also said ] that it was for ORG to saw and dismantle the metal structure . When he asked them to show the documents confirming their title to the scrap metal , PERSON and PERSON \u201c stepped back \u201d and explained that they were also middle men and that the scrap metal belonged to another person . [ PERSON ] did not take part in the discussion . He suggested that they could get back to discuss the transaction once they had the necessary documents . Then he left . In DATE [ PERSON ] contacted him again as regards that scrap metal . She explained that police officers PERSON and PERSON would present all the documents for the scrap metal and that she would draft the purchase contract . DATE [ PERSON ] brought [ a draft contract ] which indicated that the scrap metal belonged to PERSON ... . According to [ PERSON ] , the owner of the scrap metal was at the seaside and would contact him later ... . [ PERSON ] convinced him that the transaction was legal as the middle men and \u201c underwriters \u201d were high ranking police officers . He has known [ PERSON ] for her good reputation . He trusted her assurances as to the guarantees provided by the police officers and signed the contract . He asked his employees to start sawing the metal structure . Then a criminal investigation was opened . [ PERSON ] came to see him and explained that the police officers PERSON and PERSON had set her up and that she had paid each of them RUB CARDINAL from the amount his company had paid her for the metal . DATE , PERSON came to see him . He asked him to make a written statement and said that he would resolve all the problems and that the criminal case would be closed . He responded that he had no problems because all his actions had been in compliance with law . \u201d","According to the applicant , the trial court refused to summon PERSON , NORP and P. , witnesses for the defence .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of an attempted theft of scrap metal . The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .","ORG findings as regards the applicant \u2019s guilt were based on the testimonies of PERSON , PERSON . and GPE . , who were questioned during the trial . The court also referred to the statements given by PERSON and PERSON . during the pre - trial investigation . Lastly , it relied on the statement made by PERSON during the pre - trial investigation .","The text of the judgment remained silent as to PERSON \u2019s testimony regarding the attempted theft of the scrap metal . It was indicated that she had pleaded guilty to that charge .","Lastly , the trial court examined and admitted as evidence the following documents : ( CARDINAL ) B. \u2019s complaint to the police about the attempted theft of the scrap metal ; ( CARDINAL ) his company \u2019s financial statements ; ( CARDINAL ) a contract for removal of the scrap metal signed by PERSON and PERSON ; ( CARDINAL ) PERSON \u2019s telephone records ; ( CARDINAL ) PERSON \u2019s statements recorded by ORG and ( CARDINAL ) the police order appointing PERSON to the post of the head of the police station .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of DATE . He complained , inter alia , about PERSON \u2019s nonattendance .","On DATE ORG upheld , in substance , the applicant \u2019s conviction but reduced his sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141914","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CONTOLORU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant , who was the director of a local bank branch , was arrested and charged with several economic crimes , namely approving loans without respecting the legal requirements , abuse of office , fraud , forgery and conspiracy to commit crimes . CARDINAL other individuals were also charged with various bank frauds allegedly committed in association with the applicant DATE and DATE .","On DATE the ORG acquitted the applicant of all the charges against him . The court held that the applicant was not guilty of the crimes of abuse of office , fraud , forgery and conspiracy to commit crimes . As regards the crime of approving loans without respecting the legal requirements , the court held that from DATE this was no longer an offence in law and therefore acquitted the applicant of this offence too . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s acquittal was finally upheld by a judgment of ORG and ORG .","Following the applicant \u2019s arrest on DATE for DATE , the investigating prosecutor requested ORG to confirm the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for a total period of DATE . The prosecutor reasoned the request by quoting the text of Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW which provided for the cases in which a defendant may be arrested , namely that the defendant had made preparations to abscond from the authorities ; that there was sufficient evidence that the defendant had tried to obstruct the investigation by influencing witnesses and destroying evidence ; that the defendant had committed crimes for which the punishment was imprisonment for DATE ; that there was evidence that if released the defendant would pose a danger to public order and that there were sufficient data to justify the concern that the defendant would exert pressure on the victim or that he would try to make a fraudulent settlement of the case with the latter . No specific reference was made to the applicant \u2019s situation or to the application of the legislation quoted in his particular case .","On DATE , on the basis of the reasons advanced by the prosecutor , ORG granted this request and remanded the applicant in pre - trial custody for DATE . By the same judgment and with the same reasoning the court remanded the other CARDINAL co - defendants who were arrested at the same time as he applicant in pre - trial custody .","On DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicant on points of law against the above - mentioned interlocutory judgment as ill - founded . The court held \u201c In the current case the applicant has committed the above - mentioned offences and their nature leads to the conclusion that the defendant \u2019s release would constitute an actual danger to public order . \u201d","The applicant \u2019s and his co - defendants\u2019 pre - trial detention was subsequently extended on DATE , with the reasoning that the motives which had justified their arrest still existed . In taking this decision the court also held relevant the fact that CARDINAL more suspects had been arrested since the beginning of the investigation . An appeal by the applicant on points of law against this judgment was rejected by ORG on DATE ; the court held that the applicant \u2019s release had been correctly deemed by the lower court to be a threat to public order .","DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s and his co - defendants\u2019 pre - trial detention was extended DATE by ORG with the same reasoning , namely that there was sufficient evidence for the conclusion that the defendants had committed the offences for which they were on trial , and that therefore their release would constitute a danger to public order . On DATE the ORG additionally held that the GPE pre - trial detention was also justified by the fact that new crimes had been discovered by the investigators to have been committed at the same bank branch . No details were given about these crimes or about the GPE personal situation in this connection .","From DATE to DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s and his co - defendants\u2019 pre - trial detention jointly , with the reasoning that there were no new facts capable of justifying a revocation of the remand in custody , the defendants had not yet been heard in court , and the financial losses caused by the crimes had not yet been recovered .","On DATE the ORG decided to allow the applicant \u2019s request for the replacement of his pre - trial detention with a prohibition on leaving the town . The court noted that the applicant had already been held in pre - trial detention for DATE , and there was no evidence that he had tried to obstruct the investigation during this period . An appeal by the prosecution on points of law against this decision was allowed on DATE by ORG . The court of appeal held that pre - trial detention continued to be justified for all the defendants because of the high number of offences involved , the severity of the punishment provided by law for these offences , and the fact that the defendants had rendered the investigation more difficult by requesting expert reports as well as submitting documents in their defence for the first time before the court and not during the investigation phase .","DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was extended a number of times , on the basis of the same reasoning , relying on the severity of the offence and the implied danger to public order . On DATE the ORG additionally held that the GPE pre - trial detention was also justified by the fact that new accusations had been made against CARDINAL of them including the applicant .","The applicant appealed against all the decisions extending his pre - trial detention , alleging that there was not enough evidence from which to acquire a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences , and there was no proof that if released he would present a danger to public order . The applicant also emphasised to the courts that the investigation was based mainly on bank documents which had all already been seized , and therefore it would not be possible for him to obstruct the investigation if released from prison . He further mentioned that he was a respected person in his local community , with a family and CARDINAL minor children for whom he was responsible . He made numerous requests to the courts for his pre - trial detention to be replaced with a prohibition on leaving the town . However , his appeals were rejected as ill - founded , the courts considering that the reasons for his initial pre - trial detention still existed , without analysing the applicant \u2019s specific allegations or his personal situation .","On DATE the ORG again decided to revoke the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention , but that decision was quashed by ORG on DATE , with the reasoning that not all the evidence gathered by the prosecutor had been produced before the court .","On DATE ORG and ORG decided to grant a request made by one of the defendants and changed the location of the trial to ORG .","At the time he was placed in pre - trial detention the applicant was suffering , among others , from chronic coronary heart disease .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request to ORG for the revocation of his pre - trial detention for medical reasons . He requested a forensic medical expert report and enclosed medical documents attesting to his state of health .","At a hearing on DATE the court ordered that the applicant be examined by ORG .","On DATE ORG submitted to the court a forensic report concluding that the applicant was suffering from several diseases . The report estimated that the applicant \u2019s conditions required treatment under strict medical supervision and further cardiology , neurology and orthopaedic tests , hence making him unable to cope with the detention regime . The report also suggested that the suspension of the applicant \u2019s detention was necessary for DATE in order for him to seek treatment in a civil hospital . Finally , the report concluded that a failure to undertake the treatment recommended by a specialist doctor might endanger the applicant \u2019s life .","The court requested on DATE that the forensic report be supplemented with specific medical recommendations for the applicant \u2019s health problems . A new amended report was submitted on DATE .","On DATE , at the request of the prosecutor , the court ordered the revision of the amended report by ORG ( PERSON si control a actelor medico - legale ) for more clarifications .","At the hearing of DATE the court took note that ORG had confirmed the forensic report drafted by ORG , but had recommended the suspension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE instead of CARDINAL . Again at the request of the prosecutor , the court ordered clarifications from ORG , given that the suspension of the pre - trial detention was not provided by law .","In view of the lack of response from ORG , on CARDINAL DATE the court ordered a new forensic report to be drawn up by ORG .","On DATE , the court took note of the receipt of the opinion from ORG , which concluded that the applicant \u2019s condition required a coronarography procedure , which could be done in detention and did not require him to be released for DATE as previously recommended . Therefore , the court decided that the applicant could be treated within the prison health system , and refused his request for revocation of his pre - trial detention for medical reasons . An appeal by the applicant on points of law against this decision was rejected as ill - founded on DATE by ORG .","On DATE the applicant complained to the court that his state of health had worsened during his detention , and requested a new forensic expert report to establish whether he could be treated within the prison health system . The court granted the applicant \u2019s request and ordered the report to be carried out by ORG . No such report was ever submitted to the court .","On DATE , on the basis of the medical documents available in the file , ORG ordered the revocation of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for medical reasons . The applicant was ordered not to leave his town of residence without authorisation . An appeal by the prosecutor against this judgment on points of law was rejected on DATE by ORG . The applicant was released DATE .","In DATE , after his final acquittal by the judgment of ORG and ORG of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant brought a civil action before the domestic courts which was based on the provisions of LAW . He requested pecuniary damages , alleging that his pre - trial detention had been unlawfully ordered by the prosecutor and excessively and unlawfully extended by the courts , an issue which had caused him material losses and also caused his state of health to worsen .","On DATE ORG finally refused the applicant \u2019s request . The court held that the applicant was acquitted of one of the offences he had been charged with because it was no longer punishable by law . Therefore , given that he was not held in detention once the new law entered into force , his pre - trial detention was lawful and he was not entitled to receive any kind of damages ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156063","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NIKOLAY KOZLOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant obtained an award of remuneration arrears in the proceedings against a private company that went under insolvency administration . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant sued the insolvency manager of the company seeking the recovery of the remuneration awarded to him by the court .","On DATE the ORG of the Republic of Chuvashiya dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG against the ORG seeking recovery of nonpecuniary damages for excessively long examination of his claim against the insolvency manager .","On DATE ORG returned the applicant \u2019s claim on the ground that it did not have jurisdiction to examine it . The court directed the applicant to lodge the claim with a district court . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG of GPE amended the decision of DATE and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim without consideration on the merits on the ground that it could not be examined in the course of civil proceedings . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c ... According to LAW On ORG in the NORP Federation \u201d a judge could only be held responsible for actions committed in the course of administration of justice if he or she had been convicted of abuse of powers ... Since the issue of holding a judge responsible for an opinion expressed or a decision taken while administering justice could only be resolved in the course of the procedure established by law , the disputes of such kind could not be examined by courts in the course of civil proceedings .","With regard to the issue of compensation for damages caused by unlawful actions ... of a judge in cases when the judge \u2019s fault had been established in the course of other type of proceedings than criminal , the issues of the basis for and the procedure of compensation by the state of the damage caused by unlawful actions ... which manifested themselves , among other things , in the breach of [ the requirement of ] the reasonable length of court proceedings ... are at present not determined by law [ as well as ] the ORG jurisdiction in such cases . \u201d","NORP In the meantime on an unspecified date the applicant lodged with ORG , as advised by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , a claim against the ORG of GPE and the ORG seeking nonpecuniary damages for the excessive length of the civil proceedings in his case .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim without examination on the merits . The court noted that the procedure for challenging the actions of a judge required a special legal framework which had not yet been set up . The applicant appealed . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c ... Taking into account the nature of the judiciary and the constitutional immunity of the judge , the procedure of appeal against the judge \u2019s acts not resulting in the decision on the merits of a case required an adoption of special legislation . Currently there is no legislative framework in this respect ... \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It stated that procedural rules for resolution of the issue raised by the applicant had not yet been established . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c ... Taking into account the material law providing responsibility of the judges and judiciary , disputes arising from the applicant \u2019s claim could be resolved only in the course of the civil proceedings established by law . On the date of adoption of the decision disputed by the applicant , the legislator did not provide any legal framework for such cases ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178941","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00dcNE\u015e v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in ORG .","On DATE the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of ORG , an illegal organisation . The applicant \u2019s right of access to a lawyer was restricted during his police custody according to the now defunct Law no . CARDINAL . On DATE he was examined by a doctor at his own request . The doctor noted , in a police document , that there was no sign of physical violence on the applicant \u2019s body .","On DATE the applicant was taken part in \u201c an identification parade with statements ( ifadeli y\u00fczle\u015ftirme tutana\u011f\u0131 ) \u201d with other accused persons and identified , in the absence of a lawyer , certain persons as members of the said organisation and confessed to committing a murder .","On DATE the applicant further participated in the reconstruction of the events ( olay ve yer g\u00f6sterme ) in the course of which he had confessed , in the absence a lawyer , having carried out an arson attack .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by the police officers in the absence of a lawyer . In his statement , the applicant gave a detailed description about his involvement in ORG .","On DATE the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively , again in the absence of a lawyer . Before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , the applicant denied his police statements claiming that he had been subjected to torture . The investigating judge ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on remand . On DATE and before his statements were taken , he had been examined by a doctor at the request of the police . The doctor noted , in a police document , that there was no sign of physical violence on the applicant \u2019s body .","On DATE he was examined by a doctor at his own request claiming that he had been subjected to torture while in police custody . The doctor noted that there was no sign of physical violence on the applicant \u2019s body .","On DATE the applicant gave evidence as complainant before the public prosecutor and stated that the had been subjected to various forms of torture , which included beatings , electric shock treatment , blindfolding , hosing with cold water , and being stripped naked .","On CARDINAL DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and several other persons . The applicant was accused of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory , proscribed by LAW .","On DATE ORG held the first hearing in the case .","By PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE , ORG were abolished . The case against the applicant was transferred to ORG .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of attempting to undermine the constitutional order , proscribed by LAW , and sentenced him to life imprisonment .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE in respect of some of the accused , including the applicant , and remitted the case to ORG .","On DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of attempting to undermine the constitutional order , proscribed by LAW , and sentenced him to life imprisonment again .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158271","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KONSTANTINOU AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["The CARDINAL applicants in this case are all NORP nationals and retired army colonels . Their case concerns the conditions under which they retired from ORG . They are represented before the ORG by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE with PERSON ORG A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","At the material time the conditions of service of commissioned army officers in ORG , including matters of promotion and retirement , was regulated by ORG and by ORG , Hierarchy , Promotions and Retirements ) Regulations of CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL ( \u201c the Regulations \u201d ) .","Pursuant to the ORG , each officer was subject to an DATE performance review by the ORG \u2019s ORG . Under Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , that review would lead to CARDINAL of CARDINAL category ratings \/ outcomes :","( i ) the officer being promoted ;","( ii ) the officer being confirmed in the post at the same rank ;","( iii ) the officer being deemed to have \u201c successfully terminated his or her career \u201d . This would be the case if he or she did not meet the criteria either for promotion or confirmation in post ( i.e. categories ( i ) and ( ii ) above ) and his or her further service would hinder the advancement of younger officers ; or","( iv ) the officer being retired . This would be the case when it was not considered appropriate for the officer to continue exercising the duties of his or her rank owing to a lack of substantial qualifications .","As a means of allowing officers of lower ranks to advance to higher ranks , Regulation CARDINAL ) provided that , of the senior officers evaluated by ORG every year , a certain percentage were to be considered as falling within categories ( iii ) and ( iv ) . For colonels , the percentage was to range from PERCENT . Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that , in complying with LAW ) , ORG should accord priority to requests from officers for retirement on the basis of having successfully terminated their career .","Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) and ( c ) of the ORG sets out the terms on which an officer falling within categories ( iii ) and ( iv ) would leave the army .","For colonels , this regulation provided that a colonel who received a category ( iii ) rating would be promoted CARDINAL rank , that is to brigadier , on DATE proceeding his or her retirement . His or her pension would then be calculated based on the salary a major general ( CARDINAL rank higher than a brigadier ) received at the full age of retirement . The officer would also receive a lump sum payment calculated with reference to his or her pension .","By contrast , a colonel compulsorily retiring with a category ( iv ) rating would do so at his or her existing rank . His or her pension would be calculated based on the salary of a brigadier at full retirement age and the lump sum payment would be calculated with reference to his or her pension . Thus the pensions and lump sum payments would be higher for a colonel on a category ( iii ) rating than a category ( iv ) rating .","The applicants were all colonels in ORG . DATE , they submitted requests for retirement on the basis of having successfully terminated their career , pursuant to LAW ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . Their written requests specified that these were without prejudice to any legal rights which might arise from any declarations of unconstitutionality or nullity of the ORG .","ORG considered the requests of the first CARDINAL applicants at its DATE meeting on DATE ; it considered the remaining requests on DATE . It approved all CARDINAL requests and the applicants were consequently deemed to have successfully completed their military careers . In accordance with LAW , the applicants were promoted from colonel to brigadier with effect from DATE before their retirement , and their pensions and lump sum payments were determined with reference to the salary of a major - general .","In DATE , ORG gave category ( iii ) ratings to a number of officers who had held the same rank and who had completed the same number of DATE of service as the applicants . These officers had not submitted requests for voluntary retirement : the category ( iii ) rating was the result of their DATE performance review .","These officers applied to ORG for annulment of the ORG \u2019s decisions claiming that they deserved a higher rating .","On DATE , ORG annulled the ORG \u2019s decisions , finding that ORG had failed properly to examine whether the conditions in DATE Regulations had been met . The court found that it was not open to the ORG to find that officers would not qualify for receiving category ( i ) or ( ii ) ratings simply in order to fill the PERCENT quota for category ( iii ) ratings set out in the Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) .","Further to the decision , ORG made settlement offers to the officers concerned . The offers included the following terms :","( i ) the officers would be re - evaluated for DATE and , as a result , some of them would be promoted from colonel to brigadier .","( ii ) the officers would receive an ex gratia payment of ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for DATE they would have served before reaching the age of mandatory retirement which applied to their new ranks ( DATE of age for brigadiers as opposed to CARDINAL for colonels ) .","Having accepted these settlement offers , the officers submitted requests for voluntary retirement . These requests were accepted by ORG and they retired in DATE .","On DATE , the applicants wrote to the Minister of Defence requesting that the offers made to their fellow officers should also apply to them since their requests for voluntary retirement had been made without prejudice ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The Minister rejected the applicants\u2019 request on DATE , relying on legal advice to the effect that ORG decision of DATE had not annulled LAW and the settlement ORG had reached with the other officers was in conformity with ORG decision .","The applicants challenged the Minister \u2019s refusal before ORG , submitting that it was contrary to the principles of equality and nondiscrimination enshrined in LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) .","On DATE a single judge of ORG annulled the Minister \u2019s decision . The judge noted that the Minister had accepted that the applicants were in an equivalent position to their fellow officers in terms of rank and DATE of service , but had submitted that there was a reasonable distinction between the CARDINAL groups : the latter group had sought to vindicate their rights through the courts and thus the extra benefits they had received were provided pursuant to LAW ( the right to damages in administrative recourse proceedings before ORG : see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The judge found that the only distinction between the CARDINAL groups was that the other officers had submitted their requests for voluntary retirement after succeeding in their applications to ORG . There was thus no reasonable distinction between those officers and the applicants and , in the applicants\u2019 case , there had been a violation of LAW of the LAW .","NORP The Minister appealed against the decision of the single judge to the plenary of ORG and , on DATE , the plenary court allowed the Minister \u2019s appeal ( appeal no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The court found that applicants had accepted the terms of their retirement unconditionally and without reservation . By contrast , the other officers had contested the legality of the ORG \u2019s decisions in their cases and they had subsequently received benefits that were determined in light of ORG judgment annulling the ORG \u2019s decisions . In addition , the other officers had continued to serve in ORG while their appeal to ORG had been pending and until they accepted the settlement offers made by ORG . The context surrounding the CARDINAL groups of officers was different and therefore there had been no discrimination contrary to LAW .","Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that everyone shall be equal before the law , administration and justice , and everyone shall be entitled to equal protection and treatment . Article CARDINAL ) protects against direct and indirect discrimination on ground of community , race , religion , language , sex , political or other convictions , national or social descent , birth , colour , wealth , social class , or on any ground whatsoever , unless there is express provision to the contrary in the LAW .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW is not absolute and reasonable distinctions in treatment may be made when the special circumstances of a case so require ( see , inter alia , among others , PERSON and others ( DATE ) CARDINAL A.A.D CARDINAL ; PERSON DATE ) CARDINAL ORG DATE ) .","Article CARDINAL ) provides for recourse against administrative decisions to ORG . Should the recourse succeed , the power of ORG is confined to declaring an act or decision null and void , or , in the case of an omission , that it ought not to have occurred , in that what had not been done should have been done ( Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) . LAW ) provides for compensation in such proceedings in the following terms :","\u201c Any person aggrieved by any decision or act declared to be void under paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW or by any omission declared thereunder that it ought not to have been made shall be entitled , if his claim is not met to his satisfaction by the organ , authority or person concerned , to institute legal proceedings in a court for the recovery of damages or for being granted other remedy and to recover just and equitable damages to be assessed by the court or to be granted such other just and equitable remedy as such court is empowered to grant . \u201d","The relevant provisions of these ORG are as follows .","Regulation CARDINAL provided for the DATE evaluation of army colonels and brigadiers .","Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that , for such officers , their evaluations would fall into CARDINAL of CARDINAL categories : promotion ; confirmation ( i.e. being confirmed in post at the same rank ) ; being deemed to have successfully terminated his or her career ; or retirement . Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) set out the criteria for the CARDINAL possible evaluations . For promotion or confirmation in post , an officer was required to meet certain merits - based criteria , including grade of at least \u201c very good \u201d in the relevant assessments ( Regulations CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) and ( b ) ) . Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) provided that the officer would be deemed to have successfully terminated his or her career if he or she did not meet the requirements for promotion or confirmation in post and his or her further service would hinder the normal advancement of younger officers . Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) provided for retirement when it was not considered appropriate for an officer to continue exercising the duties of his or her rank owing to a lack of substantial qualifications .","Regulation CARDINAL provided that senior officers evaluated by ORG as falling within Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) or ( d ) ( i.e. receiving a category ( iii ) or category ( iv ) rating ) would have to leave the army .","Regulation CARDINAL ) provided that for the senior officers evaluated by ORG every year , a certain percentage were to be considered as falling within LAW ) or CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) . For colonels , the percentage was to range from PERCENT . Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that , in complying with LAW ) ORG should accord priority to requests for retirement on the basis of having successfully terminated their career .","As stated at paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL above , the different pension benefits for senior officers leaving the army with category ( iii ) and category ( iv ) ratings were set out in DATE ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) respectively ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180309","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF FALUDY-KOV\u00c1CS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","She is the widow of a well - known NORP poet , PERSON . They married in DATE , and their relationship , partly due to a significant difference in age , as well as their life and work , were constantly the subject of widespread media coverage . They often appeared in the tabloids .","The applicant \u2019s husband died in DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE an article was published in a DATE newspaper , GPE , based on an interview with the applicant , revealing that she wanted to have a child who would be a blood relative of both her and her late husband and have the same intellect and attitude as him . The applicant explained that she envisaged her own sister and her late husband \u2019s grandson being the parents of that child .","Following some talks with the applicant , on DATE PERSON , at the material time the biggest DATE journal , republished the same story , adding that the late poet \u2019s grandson had dismissed the idea of having a child with the applicant \u2019s sister . The front page of the newspaper contained a photograph of the applicant with her late husband and the headline \u201c Trampling on the memory of PERSON . The widow does everything for the limelight \u201d . Despite a previous request by the applicant , the article made no mention of a book to be published on the applicant \u2019s late husband .","Subsequently , in reaction to a complaint by the applicant , the newspaper published an additional article on the book under publication ; however , it did not appear on the front page as the applicant \u2019s had presumably wished . The applicant asked for a further article to be published but the newspaper declined .","Dissatisfied , the applicant lodged a civil action against the publisher of the DATE newspaper under article CARDINAL of the ( old ) Civil Code , alleging a violation of her personality rights , in particular her right to reputation . She maintained that the headline published on DATE had negatively affected her public image . She sought an injunction against any further infringement of her right to reputation , an apology from the publisher and compensation for non - pecuniary damage in the amount of CARDINAL NORP forints ( ORG \u2013 CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) .","According to the witnesses who gave evidence before the first - instance court , the applicant had been truly saddened by the way the article had presented her family plans , especially that her statements had been hurtful to the memory of her late husband . She had also received a lot of criticism from her acquaintances . In a judgment of DATE ORG granted an injunction against any further infringement , ordered a public apology and obliged the publisher to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The remainder of the applicant \u2019s claim for compensation was dismissed . The court established the following :","\u201c .. the private life of the plaintiff and her late spouse was previously at the centre of media attention ... PERSON and the plaintiff have already shocked public opinion with the declaration of their love . It turned out that she seduced the poet from a man ... The poet - prince ( k\u00f6lt\u0151fejedelem ) happily introduced to the world his then yet unknown lover , who became his muse and who was DATE younger than him . The Kossuth Prize winner and internationally recognised poet had a tendency to push the boundaries , openly admitted his homosexual adventures and love affairs , and held that taboos were to be dismantled . Therefore , when the country just began to digest and accept his relationship with PERSON , the poet accepted an offer from ORG magazine , which has since closed down , agreeing to be presented in the magazine in high - quality erotic pictures with his lover ... [ The plaintiff ] had even been subject of numerous hurtful and degrading remarks and attacks during PERSON life . The media echoed that opinion , doubting her true feelings towards her husband , and some of the publications stressed that theirs was a marriage of convenience ... They planned to adopt a child during the poet \u2019s lifetime , but since that plan failed , PERSON came up with the idea of having a child through his son , but since his son was terminally ill , that plan could not go ahead either .","...","... the plaintiff \u2019s idea can be said to be bizarre and eccentric , nonetheless , how she has spoken about childbearing does not , following the rules of formal logic , mean that she has trampled on her husband \u2019s memory .","Based on the witness statements and the role the plaintiff \u2019s late husband played in public life , the court concluded that the applicant \u2019s idea about childbearing was not contrary to the thinking of PERSON ... \u201d","ORG added that both the applicant and her late husband had unusual , provocative personalities and ways of thinking , and the statement according to which she had infringed her late husband \u2019s memory did not correspond to reality and was unjustifiably hurtful . According to the court , statements in a front page headline constituted journalistic opinion , and were protected by the right to freedom of expression , as long as they were not devoid of any factual basis and did not amount to a blatantly humiliating or offensive value judgment . The court concluded that the statement that the applicant did everything for the limelight had not infringed her personality rights , whereas the statement that she had trampled on her husband \u2019s memory had infringed her right to reputation and dignity ( CARDINAL . ) .","On DATE ORG reversed the previous judgment finding an infringement of the applicant \u2019s reputation and dismissed her action in its entirety . The court reiterated ORG case - law on the different fundamental rights at stake , pointing out that even shocking , disturbing or inaccurate opinions were protected by the right to freedom of expression and were not susceptible of proof . It also stressed that statements should be assessed in context and with regard to their background . The court explained in detail that the applicant and her husband had triggered controversial reactions and \u201c everyday people with an average mindset \u201d would have had an opinion on their relationship and marriage . It held that the headline was not a statement of fact but a value judgment expressed in connection with the applicant \u2019s own \u201c peculiar \u201d statements . According to the court , the main issue at stake was whether , in the light of the applicant \u2019s own conduct \u201c diverging from the widelyaccepted social and ethical norms \u201d , the statement could be regarded as unreasonably hurtful and humiliating .","The court also found that the headline could not have infringed the applicant \u2019s reputation since her own statements were irrational and undignified , putting PERSON grandson in an embarrassing situation .","The applicant lodged a petition for review with the LOC . In a judgment of DATE , the GPE endorsed the finding of the second - instance court that the headline did not constitute a statement of fact but a value judgment concerning the unusual manner in which the applicant intended to start a family . Since it was not devoid of factual basis , it could not be considered humiliating , hurtful or offensive and as such had not infringed the applicant \u2019s dignity . The court nonetheless stated that it was irrelevant whether the applicant \u2019s previous unconventional conduct justified the value judgment ( PERSON . IV.CARDINAL.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168767","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ANTSIFEROV AND NOVIKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicants were prosecuted in GPE for crimes . They were arrested and detained while the crimes were investigated and pending trial . Their detention was ordered and extended by the courts . The detention orders were essentially based on the gravity of the charges , the primary grounds being the risk of the applicants\u2019 absconding and interfering with the course of justice . The detention and extension orders used stereotypical formulae , without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures .","The first applicant was born on DATE and lived , prior to his arrest , in GPE , GPE . The applicant was arrested on DATE on suspicion of fraud and placed in detention . He remained in custody pending investigation and trial .","On DATE and DATE his pre - trial detention was extended . His appeals against these detention orders were considered on DATE and DATE respectively . The applicant and his lawyer did not attend the hearing on DATE .","On DATE ORG of PERSON convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The second applicant was born on DATE and lived , prior to his arrest , in GPE . The applicant was arrested on DATE . He remained in custody pending investigation and trial .","On DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was extended . His appeals against these detention orders were examined on DATE and DATE . The applicant and his lawyer were not present at the hearings on DATE , DATE and DATE .","On DATE the ORG of GPE convicted him of drug dealing and sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment and a fine ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157368","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NI\u0162ULESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , R.C.A. was hired as an inspector by ORG on the recommendation of the applicant and another person , PERSON She had a contract for a limited period of time , namely DATE , which was extended for DATE . In order to obtain a permanent contract she took part in a competition organised by ORG in DATE . She succeeded , being the only candidate . After DATE , the atmosphere at the workplace became tense . R.C.A. was on probation in her new post and was therefore monitored and kept under close scrutiny .","According to R.C.A. \u2019s statements , she was persecuted by her superiors and even sexually harassed by the mayor . Therefore , she asked for the protection of the applicant , to whom she allegedly gave CARDINAL German marks ( DEM ) .","According to the applicant \u2019s statement , the money was given to her as a loan with no prearranged date of reimbursement in DATE . The applicant also stated that another colleague , PERSON , had borrowed money from R.C.A. , and that the practice of borrowing money from each other was common in their workplace . The applicant \u2019s statements were confirmed by her colleague , who was heard as a witness before the court .","On DATE denounced the applicant to the police for influence peddling . She claimed that the applicant had asked her for DEM CARDINAL in order to persuade the mayor to give her a permanent position within ORG .","On DATE obtained the authorisation of the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG to record conversations between herself and the applicant . Subsequently , all the conversations that took place between the applicant and herself DATE and DATE were recorded . The recording was carried out using CARDINAL recording devices , CARDINAL belonging to R.C.A. and the other to a police officer .","Following a request by R.C.A. for the return of the money , the applicant and R.C.A. met in a cake shop close to the applicant \u2019s home on DATE . The applicant stated that she was accompanied by a colleague , GPE According to R.C.A. \u2019s version , the applicant was alone , while she herself was accompanied by her husband and brother , who waited outside the cake shop . The applicant handed over to LAW GPE dollars ( ORG ) ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL ) .","On DATE a criminal investigation was initiated against the applicant on the charge of influence peddling .","On DATE was invited to the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG to give clarification on the recordings . After some discussion of the transcripts of the conversations she said she had a headache and left , promising to come back the same day . However , she never came back to continue the discussion with the prosecutor . This was mentioned in the record of the meeting drafted by the prosecutor .","On DATE ORG of ORG decided to discontinue the investigation against the applicant on the ground that the actus reus of the offence was missing .","On DATE the chief prosecutor decided to reopen the criminal investigation against the applicant . He noted that the investigation had been incomplete and that there were several aspects to be clarified in connection with the charges against the applicant . He also ordered a preliminary investigation against the mayor of GPE .","On DATE R.C.A. enquired the chief prosecutor about the progress of the investigation . She expressed concern about the integrity of the transcripts of the recordings , as she had noted that the parts of the conversations had been erased .","The file was presented to the applicant on DATE . TIME certifying the taped conversations was drafted afterwards , on DATE .","By a bill of indictment of DATE , the prosecutor \u2019s office committed the applicant for trial on a charge of influence peddling in violation of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW and ORG CARDINAL ( a ) and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL . By the same decision the prosecutor decided not to open a criminal investigation against the mayor , without giving any reasons .","Several hearings were held before GPE Court .","According to a witness statement given by the mayor of GPE before the county court on DATE , R.C.A. was well known as a person who recorded her private conversations at work , about which many colleagues had complained . A similar aspect was revealed by another witness , PERSON She stated that R.C.A. had changed her behaviour at work after she had obtained a permanent contract . As PERSON was the person who had recommended R.C.A. for the job , other employees informed her that R.C.A. was leaving her office during TIME . PERSON had tried to advise R.C.A. to change her behaviour ; she noted that the latter was recording their conversation .","On DATE the court granted a request by the applicant for a technical report on the contents of the tape recordings . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked to see the authorisation for the recording of the conversations and the minute drafted of the occasion when R.C.A. handed over the recordings . She also lodged a written request for an expert assessment of the authenticity and integrity of the recordings .","On DATE ORG , which was in charge of the preparation of the report , asked the court to send it all the technical equipment used for the recording of the audio tapes .","On DATE R.C.A. submitted written notes by which she informed the court that on DATE she had refused to confirm that the transcripts of the recorded conversations presented by the prosecutor corresponded to the recordings performed by her ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , the court imposed a fine on R.C.A. as she had refused to provide the court with the original tapes and equipment used for recording the applicant .","As R.C.A. refused to attend the court hearings or to submit the original tapes , CARDINAL orders for her to be brought before the court were issued by the county court .","By a judgment rendered on DATE , GPE Court acquitted the applicant on the ground that the elements required for the offence were not present .","The county court held that ORG \u2019s version of events was supported only by the testimony of her husband and brother and by the taped conversations , whose authenticity and integrity could not be established by an expert , mainly because R.C.A. had refused to provide the expert with the technical equipment used for the recording . Moreover , R.C.A. \u2019s statements contained many contradictions . In this respect the county court stated :","\u201c ... although R.C.A. stated that the money was given to the applicant before the competition which was to take place on DATE , during the proceedings before the court she stated that it was given later , after the competition , then she changed her previous statement only when she was asked by the prosecutor attending the hearing about the logic of such an action ...","In conclusion , the statements mentioned above are not corroborated by the facts or circumstances resulting from all the evidence adduced in the case , and can not be confirmed by the audio recording of the conversations , since these were not executed in accordance with the provisions of LAW ( in force until CARDINALst January CARDINAL , in accordance with PERSON ) ...","Contrary to the above - mentioned legal provisions , in the case file there are TIME , all dated DATE , which mention only that the conversations between R.C.A. and the defendant were authorised under no.CARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE ( although the transcripts from pages CARDINAL of the file indicate a previous date , namely CARDINAL DATE ) , and after the tapes had been heard it was confirmed that their contents were mentioned in the transcripts .","Moreover , according to the letter of DATE from ORG and the statements of R.C.A. and the witness PERSON , the recording of the conversations was made by devices belonging to R.C.A. , who submitted to the criminal investigation body recordings made before she had made her accusations , and thus before she had obtained authorisation from the prosecutor .","Despite the fact that a forensic report intended to establish the contents of the audio tapes was ordered at the request of the defendant ... it could not be adduced before the court in the absence of the technical equipment ( microphone and tape recorder ) used for the recording of the tapes . ORG stated in the abovementioned letter that the police officer \u2019s recording device had been lost , and the other one was in the possession of R.C.A. , who had refused to hand it over . \u201d","The prosecutor \u2019s office appealed against the judgment rendered by ORG . It argued that the applicant \u2019s guilt was proved by the statements of the accuser , R.C.A. , and confirmed by the audio recordings of the conversations between R.C.A. and the applicant .","On DATE ORG ordered an expert technical report on the authenticity or otherwise of the tape recordings . At the hearing held on DATE the court revoked that order on the ground that \u201c R.C.A. no longer has the originals of the audio tapes \u201d .","On DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal on the ground that the applicant could not be convicted on the basis of recordings obtained in breach of the applicable legal provisions . It noted that the prosecutor had not observed the legal provisions concerning the attestation of the authenticity of the recordings , and considered that the correct procedures for telephone tapping had not been observed . With respect to R.C.A. \u2019s statements ORG arrived at the same conclusion as the first - instance court . It held that most of her statements were contradictory and were corroborated only by her husband and brother . However , the applicant \u2019s statement that she had received the money from R.C.A. as a loan was confirmed by the statements of CARDINAL other colleagues . CARDINAL of them stated that they had heard R.C.A. threatening the applicant that she would claim that the money given as a loan was in fact a bribe .","The appeal on points of law submitted by the prosecutor was allowed by ORG and ORG on DATE . That court quashed the decisions of the first CARDINAL domestic courts and convicted the applicant of influence peddling , sentencing her to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , suspended , with probation . Without hearing evidence directly from the applicant , R.C.A. or any witnesses , the court arrived at the conclusion that ORG \u2019s statements were not contradictory and that in fact the applicant \u2019s statements were corroborated only by the testimony of CARDINAL witness , PERSON , a colleague of the applicant and CARDINAL of the individuals who had also persecuted R.C.A.","It mainly based its decision on the statements of R.C.A. , the testimony of ORG \u2019s husband and brother and the audio tapes containing the conversations between R.C.A. and the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152655","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MILEUSNI\u0106 AND MILEUSNI\u0106-ESPENHEIM v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 14+2 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE . Until his death the first applicant lived in GPE , GPE . The second applicant lives in GPE , GPE .","According to the applicants , on DATE , during the armed conflict in GPE , a number of the first applicant \u2019s neighbours , together with the other members of their family , gathered in the first applicant \u2019s home in GPE , GPE , because the town was being shelled . At TIME several soldiers broke into the house and immediately started to hit and kick the first applicant . He could not see them well because the house , like the rest of the town , was without electricity . When he fell to the ground , they dragged him into the kitchen where PERSON , the first applicant \u2019s wife and the second applicant \u2019s mother , and PERSON , the first applicant \u2019s daughter and the second applicant \u2019s sister , and PERSON , one of their neighbours , were sheltering . In the candlelight , the first applicant saw CARDINAL men in military uniforms of ORG with balaclavas on their heads . They continued to hit and kick the first applicant and CARDINAL of the men cut through the first applicant \u2019s palm with a knife . The other man cut CARDINAL of B. \u2019s fingers off with the knife . CARDINAL of the soldiers shot PERSON in the head , the other then cut PERSON \u2019s throat with a knife and subsequently shot at her with a firearm . The soldiers then ordered V.M. to make coffee for them . CARDINAL of the soldiers introduced himself as Grgi\u0107 from a nearby village , PERSON . He asked the first applicant if he knew him and then hit him on the head with the shotgun . CARDINAL soldier then cut a muscle in the first applicant \u2019s right hand . Next , the soldiers shot V.M. dead . After that , a soldier shot the first applicant through his right cheek . The soldiers then left the kitchen . The first applicant escaped through the window and ran away , reaching a nearby medical centre . From there he was transferred to a hospital in PERSON , then to GPE where he lay in a coma for DATE . When he came round , one of the doctors told him that CARDINAL men had been looking for him and wanted him killed . His sister sent an ambulance from GPE and he was transferred from GPE to GPE , where he was treated from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","When the first applicant returned to his home in ORG on DATE , he found refugees accommodated in part of the house . In DATE , all of his possessions had been taken away .","It appears that the police were alerted of the above - described events DATE . On DATE ORG ordered an investigation into the events in respect of suspects GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE","On DATE ORG dropped the charges against GPE and GPE on the ground that there was insufficient evidence that \u201c any projectiles had been shot from their weapons \u201d .","On DATE ORG indicted the remaining CARDINAL suspects , GPE , GPE and ORG before ORG on CARDINAL counts of murder aggravated by an exceptionally immoral purpose .","ORG terminated the proceedings against GPE , GPE and FAC on DATE on the basis of LAW .","D.L. died on DATE .","On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint against CARDINAL suspects , namely , GPE , GPE , ORG , GPE and GPE , on charges of war crimes against the civilian population .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG dismissed the complaint against ORG since he had died in DATE .","On DATE an investigating judge of the ORG heard evidence from the first applicant . On DATE the first applicant asked that CARDINAL witnesses be called and provided their addresses and telephone numbers to ORG .","On DATE the Police interviewed the potential witnesses , PERSON and PERSON","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG submitted a request to ORG to open an investigation into the above - mentioned criminal complaint . The request was denied on CARDINAL DATE . However , upon an appeal lodged by the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG of DATE , ORG ordered on DATE that the investigation in respect of GPE , ORG , GPE and GPE be carried out .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge heard evidence from the CARDINAL suspects . CARDINAL of them confessed to some of the charges but the other CARDINAL remained silent . The investigating judge ordered the detention of all CARDINAL suspects .","The investigating judge heard evidence from the first applicant and CARDINAL other witness on DATE and from another CARDINAL witnesses on DATE . She heard the first applicant again on DATE , as well as an expert witness and one of the accused .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG indicted GPE , ORG , GPE and GPE in ORG on charges of war crimes against the civilian population , which included the killing of V.M. and ORG and seriously wounding the first applicant . The accused lodged objections to the indictment which were dismissed by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .","Hearings were held on DATE and DATE . On the latter date ORG commissioned a report on the autopsy of PERSON and PERSON and a psychiatric report in respect of the accused \u017d.B. The report on the autopsy was submitted on DATE and the psychiatric report on DATE .","Hearings were held on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . On the last - mentioned date a judgment dismissing the charges was delivered on the ground that the accused had already been tried for the same offence before ORG . The charges against ORG had been dropped by the prosecutor and the proceedings against GPE and ORG had been terminated under LAW .","The NORP State Attorney \u2019s Office lodged an appeal on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment in respect of GPE and GPE and quashed the judgment in respect of GPE and FAC As regards GPE and Z.P. ORG concluded that the prosecutor had dropped the charges against them because there had not been sufficient evidence that they had participated in the shooting of the victims . Neither had the evidence adduced in the proceedings before ORG indicated their involvement in the killing and wounding of the victims . The relevant part of the judgment referring to the actions of GPE and GPE reads :","\u201c The evidence presented [ at the trial ] ... did not establish any activity on the part of the accused ORG so as to indicate [ that they had committed ] acts of violence towards PERSON or any other person in the house , before FAC , ORG and the late PERSON started to shoot at the victims . The [ first - instance ] court concluded that the accused ORG had not entered the house at all and that the accused [ PERSON had quickly entered and exited the house of the victim PERSON , without having committed any act in the house . \u201d","ORG further held as follows :","\u201c Since no new facts were established in the fresh criminal proceedings in which the impugned judgment was delivered ... save for those [ facts ] in respect of which the ORG Attorney had already dropped the charges , irrespective of their different legal qualification , the conclusion of the first - instance court that [ the situation ] was a matter of res judicata is correct and , contrary to the assertion of the ORG Attorney in the appeal , the indictment was correctly dismissed in respect of the accused GPE and GPE in accordance with LAW ) . \u201d","The case was then transferred to ORG .","Hearings before ORG were held on DATE and DATE .","On DATE that court found the accused GPE and ORG guilty as charged and sentenced them to CARDINAL and DATE imprisonment respectively . The judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicants brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG ( Op\u0107inski sdu u ORG ) , seeking compensation in connection with the deaths of V.M. and PERSON , wounding of the first applicant as well as pecuniary damage as regards the expenses incurred for the stone erected on the grave of their relatives . In these proceedings the NORP State was represented by the State Attorney \u2019s Office .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 claim , finding that it had become time - barred .","That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE and by ORG on DATE .","A subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the applicants concerning the assessment of facts and interpretation of laws was dismissed by ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the second applicant and GPE , ORG , represented by ORG , reached a settlement by which the ORG was to pay the second applicant the following amounts : CARDINAL NORP Kuna ( HRK ) for non - pecuniary damage for the killing of his mother ; HRK CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage for the killing of his sister ; HRK CARDINAL for pecuniary damage concerning the expenses incurred for the stone erected on the grave of his mother and sister ; and HRK CARDINAL for costs he incurred in the civil proceedings . The said amounts , together with the applicable interest rates , were paid to the second applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178293","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"FEJZI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . All the applicants are nationals of GPE and are represented by PERSON , a lawyer practicing in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON .","Following its declaration of independence from the former ORG ) in DATE , a brutal war broke out in GPE . CARDINAL people were killed and CARDINAL others were displaced as a result of \u201c ethnic cleansing \u201d or generalised violence . The following local forces were the main parties to the conflict : the ORG of GPE ( PERSON i ORG , hereinafter ORG ) , which was mostly made up of ORG and loyal to the central authorities in GPE , ORG ( PERSON vije\u0107e odbrane , hereinafter HVO ) , which was mostly made up of NORP , and the ORG of ORG ( PERSON , hereinafter ORG ) which was mostly made up of NORP . The conflict ended in DATE when ORG for Peace ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) entered into force between GPE , GPE and GPE ( succeeded by GPE by DATE ) .","\u017depa , a town in eastern GPE , is situated QUANTITY from the border with GPE . Before the war it had a population of CARDINAL , of whom the majority were Bosniacs . During the war , PERSON was one of CARDINAL PERSON enclaves in eastern GPE surrounded by the ORG . In DATE it was declared a \u201c safe area \u201d by ORG .","NORP In DATE , there were CARDINAL people living in \u017depa , of whom CARDINAL were displaced persons from other parts of GPE .","On DATE the ORG attacked the PERSON \u201c safe area \u201d , capturing it on DATE . In DATE that followed , CARDINAL LOC \u2013 predominantly able - bodied men who refused to surrender to ORG forces DATE managed to cross the border and flee to GPE . The present applicants\u2019 relatives were among them .","When PERSON was captured by the ORG , the applicants\u2019 relatives ( PERSON PERSON , the brother of the first applicant ; Mr PERSON , the son of the second applicant and brother of the third and the fourth applicant ; Mr ORG , the father of the fifth applicant and the husband of the sixth applicant ; and ORG , the husband of the seventh applicant ) crossed into GPE from GPE , hoping that they would be able to find refuge in a third country . They were discovered by a border guard patrol of ORG ( ORG , hereinafter VJ ) and taken to CARDINAL detention camps . It would appear that CARDINAL exiled individuals were brought to the camps between DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The applicants claim that the men received notification that they had prisoner - of - war status ; it is not clear whether all of them were indeed members of ORG or some of them were civilians . The first camp , ORG , was situated in the municipality of PERSON and the second , PERSON , in the municipality of PERSON , both in GPE . The GPE detention camp was located in an abandoned workers\u2019 barracks and PERSON in a former children \u2019s recreational facility .","Both camps were guarded by the NORP police force and none of the applicants was allowed to leave them . According to the applicants , during their transportation to the camps or while interned in them , their relatives were either murdered or died as a result of torture and lack of medical assistance .","During their existence the camps were visited by representatives of ORG and ORG for Missing Persons of GPE . The latter compiled a report in which it found that the conditions of detention were disturbing .","Following the entry into force of LAW , the ORG facilitated the transfer of the camp survivors into third countries and the camps were closed in DATE .","The applicants maintained that PERSON , along with the other men , was captured by a border guard stationed at the LOC watch - tower on DATE or CARDINAL DATE . Upon capture and before being handed over to the competent police authorities , he was severely beaten by the soldiers and died there from the injuries sustained .","The Government maintained that nobody by the name of PERSON is mentioned in the relevant police or military records .","The applicants maintained that Mr PERSON , who was DATE at the time , was captured along with the other men by a border guard stationed at the LOC watch - tower on DATE or CARDINAL DATE . Upon capture and before being handed to the competent police authorities , he was repeatedly kicked in the abdomen by the soldiers , sustaining internal injuries as a result . He was then transferred to an internment camp where , despite the deterioration of his health , he was not provided with medical care . He died of the inflicted injuries on the way to hospital on DATE .","The Government maintained that the autopsy report shows that PERSON PERSON died of natural causes due to \u201c heart failure and stay of breathing resulting from self - poisoning caused by deterioration of part of the small intestine , aggravated by breathing of stomach contents as a result of vomiting and acute inflammation of the stomach . \u201d","The applicants made no comment on the ORG \u2019s submission .","Mr GPE was detained at the LOC watch - tower and transported to the ORG camp on DATE . He was transported with another CARDINAL detainees in a closed curtainside truck designed to transport a maximum of CARDINAL people . He died apparently of suffocation during transportation . His body was taken out of the truck and buried on QUANTITY DATE by the NORP religious community in the PERSON cemetery . There is apparently a pathologist \u2019s report of CARDINAL DATE , without post mortem examination , stating that he had died from heart attack .","In DATE ORG for missing persons ordered the exhumation of his corps , identified him and transported him to GPE . The Commission stated in its request to a competent court that it did not have any information that the persons may have died by the cause of a crime . The autopsy could not determine the cause of death due to the corps\u2019 state .","The applicants maintain that Mr Jahi\u0107 was severely beaten by guards at the ORG camp and that he died of the injuries inflicted in DATE .","The Government maintained that the only person registered as a detainee under the name of ORG at the ORG camp was transferred to ORG High Commissioner for Refugees in GPE on DATE and had been scheduled for emigration to GPE . They further claim that this person died on DATE in GPE , GPE , GPE and was buried in PERSON , GPE , GPE .","On DATE LAW ( GPE pravo , hereinafter ORG ) , a GPE - based ORG , lodged a criminal complaint on behalf of the applicants and other individuals as victims with ORG ( NORP za ratne zlo\u010dine , hereinafter ORG ) against CARDINAL individuals for alleged war crimes ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In its criminal complaint the ORG submitted statements from the camps\u2019 detainees , medical documentation , documentation from ORG and ORG for Missing Persons of GPE , and other evidence . They submitted an extensive list of potential witnesses and proposed other investigative steps . Among those alleged to have taken part in the killings , the ORG identified members of ORG , police officers , and military servicemen of various ranks . It would appear that on DATE the ORG requested the ORG to provide evidence it referred to in the criminal complaint , but the ORG apparently failed to do so .","On DATE the OWCP undertook a preliminary verification of the information submitted by the applicants and requested ORG and ORG to submit information regarding the criminal complaint .","On DATE and DATE ORG submitted CARDINAL reports to the FAC . In their reports it was stated that the situation in the camps had been generally good , that the camps had not been enclosed behind a fence , and that residents who were given refugee status had had access to health services , a canteen , a post office , a phone , a bank , and both private visits and visits by officials from international organisations . While CARDINAL of the reports describes the conditions in GPE camp as unsatisfactory , the conditions in PERSON were described as lodgings with the quality of \u201c hotel accommodation \u201d . This preliminary examination also revealed some inconsistencies and irregularities in the criminal complaint regarding the identity of the alleged victims and the circumstances of their death and burial .","On DATE the OWCP notified the ORG that it decided , having regard to the ORG \u2019s allegations and evidence collected by the OWCP , not to prosecute ( da nema mesta krivi\u010dnom gonjenju , PERSON . DATE ) on the ground that there had not been elements of the alleged war crime or any other crime within the OWCP \u2019s jurisdiction in the acting of the suspects . A reasoned decision ( re\u0161enje o odba\u010daju ) , if it had been made in writing , has neither been sent to the applicants , nor to the ORG .","On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal before ORG , claiming violations of ORG , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention . On DATE ORG rejected the applicants\u2019 constitutional appeal , finding that , given the legal nature and content of the OWCP \u2019s decision , it could not be considered as an individual act which was decisive with respect to the applicants\u2019 human rights , as required by LAW o pojedina\u010dnom aktu iz \u010dlana CARDINAL . PERSON ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The decision of ORG was delivered to the ORG representative on DATE .","The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :","Article CARDINAL","\u201c A constitutional appeal may be lodged against individual decisions or actions of ORG bodies or organisations exercising delegated public powers which violate or deny human or minority rights and freedoms guaranteed by LAW , if other legal remedies for their protection have already been exhausted or have not been prescribed . \u201d","LAW of the Socialist GPE DATE ( ORG of ORG \u2013 ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , in ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , and in ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) was in force until DATE . The relevant provisions thereof are set out hereunder .","Article CARDINAL governs the statutory limitation periods in respect of criminal liability . The relevant parts are worded as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If not prescribed differently by this LAW , criminal liability shall be statutebarred :","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the offence was committed in instances where the law provides for the death penalty or DATE imprisonment ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the same Code is worded as follows :","\u201c The statutory limitation of criminal liability does not apply to the crimes covered by Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of this Code [ genocide and war crimes ] or to crimes for which statutory limitation is proscribed by international treaties . \u201d","The Criminal code of GPE ( Official Gazette of GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , GPE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE .","Article CARDINAL governs the statutory limitation periods in respect of criminal liability . The relevant parts are worded as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If not prescribed differently by this LAW , criminal liability shall be statutebarred :","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the offence was committed where the law provides for DATE imprisonment ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","CARDINAL ) DATE from the date on which the criminal act was committed where the law provides for a maximum sentence exceeding DATE ;","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the same Code is worded as follows :","\u201c The statutory limitation of criminal liability does not apply to crimes covered by LAW of this Code [ genocide and war crimes ] or to crimes for which statutory limitation is proscribed by ratified international treaties . \u201d","Article CARDINAL - War crime against the civilian population","\u201c Whoever , acting in violation of the rules of international law applicable in time of war , armed conflict or occupation , orders that a civilian population be subject to killing , torture , inhumane treatment , biological experiments , immense suffering or violation of their bodily integrity or health ; dislocation or displacement or forcible conversion to another nationality or religion ; forcible prostitution or rape ; application of measures of intimidation and terror , hostage - taking , imposition of collective punishment , unlawful transfer to concentration camps or other illegal arrests and detention , deprivation of rights to fair and impartial trial ; forcible service in the armed forces of the enemy \u2019s army or in its intelligence service or administration ; forced labour , starvation of the population , property confiscation , pillaging , illegal and intentional destruction or large - scale stealing of property that is not justified by military needs , taking an illegal and disproportionate contribution or requisition , devaluation of domestic currency or the unlawful issuance of currency ; or personally commits CARDINAL of the aforementioned actions , shall be punished by not less than DATE imprisonment or the death penalty . \u201d","Article CARDINAL - War crime against prisoners of war","\u201c Whoever , acting in violation of the rules of international law , orders the murder , torture or inhumane treatment of prisoners of war , including biological experiments , extreme suffering or serious injury to their bodily integrity or health , compulsory enlistment in the armed forces of an enemy power , or deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial , or personally commits any of the aforementioned acts , shall be punished by not less than DATE imprisonment or by the death penalty . \u201d","LAW of GPE ( ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) was in force in until DATE . Its relevant provisions read as follows :","Article TIME Murder","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes the death of another shall be punished by not less than DATE imprisonment .","( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment or the death penalty shall be imposed on whoever :","CARDINAL ) causes the death of another in a cruel or insidious manner ;","CARDINAL ) causes the death of another by callous , violent behaviour ;","CARDINAL ) causes the death of a person and with premeditation endangers the life of ( an)other person(s ) ;","CARDINAL ) causes the death of another for the purpose of gain , or to commit or conceal another offence , or for callous revenge or other base motives ;","CARDINAL ) causes the death of an official or serviceman during the discharge or related to the discharge of duties concerning the state or public security ... ;","CARDINAL ) with premeditation causes the death of several persons , where this is not a case of manslaughter committed in the heat of passion , or infanticide , or mercy killing .","Article DATE Serious bodily harm","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes serious injury to another , or serious impairment of another \u2019s health , shall be punished by imprisonment of DATE .","( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes serious injury to another or impairment of another \u2019s health resulting in the endangering of the life of that person or the destruction or permanent significant damage to or weakening of a vital function of his body or an organ thereof , or permanent serious health impairment or disfigurement , shall be punished by CARDINAL to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","( CARDINAL ) If the injured party dies as a consequence of sustained injuries according to CARDINAL of this LAW , the perpetrator shall be punished by one to twelve years\u2019 imprisonment . \u201d","Article CARDINAL - Murder","Whoever causes the death of another shall be punished by imprisonment of DATE .","Article CARDINAL - Aggravated Murder","Whoever :","CARDINAL ) causes the death of another in a cruel or insidious manner ;","CARDINAL ) causes the death of another by callous violent behaviour ;","CARDINAL ) causes the death of another and with premeditation endangers the life of another person ;","...","CARDINAL ) causes the death of another for the purpose of gain , or to commit or conceal another offence , or for callous revenge or other base motives ;","...","CARDINAL ) with premeditation causes the death of several people , where this is not a case of manslaughter committed in the heat of passion , or infanticide , or mercy killing ;","shall be punished by DATE imprisonment .","Article CARDINAL \u2013 Serious bodily harm","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes serious injury to another , or serious impairment of another \u2019s health , shall be punished by imprisonment of DATE .","( CARDINAL ) Whoever causes serious injury to another or impairment of another \u2019s health resulting in the endangering of the life of that person or the destruction or permanent significant damage to or weakening of a vital function of his body or an organ thereof , or permanent serious health impairment or disfigurement , shall be punished by CARDINAL to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","( CARDINAL ) If the actions specified in DATE and QUANTITY of this Article result in the death of the injured party , the offender shall be punished by CARDINAL to twelve years\u2019 imprisonment .","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u2013 Crime against humanity","\u201c Whoever , acting in violation of the rules of international law , orders as part of a wider and systematic attack against a civilian population : murder ; placement of the group in living conditions calculated to bring about its complete or partial extermination , enslavement , deportation , torture , or rape ; enforced prostitution ; forcible pregnancy or sterilisation aimed at changing the ethnic balance of the population ; persecution on political , racial , national , ethical , sexual or other grounds , detention or abduction of persons without disclosing information about such acts in order to deny such person legal protection ; oppression of a racial group or establishing domination of CARDINAL such group over another ; or other similar inhumane acts that intentionally cause serious suffering or serious impairment of health , or personally commits any of the aforementioned offences , shall be punished by imprisonment of DATE or imprisonment of DATE . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u2013 War crime against civilian population","( CARDINAL ) Whoever , acting in violation of international law in time of war , armed conflict or occupation orders : an attack on the civilian population , a settlement , particular civilians , persons incapable of combat or members or facilities of humanitarian organisations or peacekeeping missions ; wanton attack without target selection that harms the civilian population or civilian buildings under the special protection of international law ; an attack against military targets knowing that such an attack would cause collateral damage among civilians or damage to civilian buildings that is evidently disproportionate to the military effect ; the infliction on the civilian population of bodily injury , torture , inhumane treatment , biological , medical or other research experiments , or the taking of tissue or organs for transplantation or the performing of other acts that impair health or inflict great suffering or the deportation or relocation or forced change of nationality or religion ; forcible prostitution or rape ; applying intimidation and terror measures , taking hostages , collective punishment , unlawful deprivation of freedom and detention ; deprivation of the rights to a fair and impartial trial ; declaration of the prohibition , suspension or non - admissibility in court proceedings of the rights and acts of enemy nationals ; the coercion into service of a hostile power or its intelligence or administration services ; the coercion into military service of persons DATE ; forced labour ; starvation of the population ; unlawful seizure , appropriation or destruction of property not justified by military needs ; taking unlawful and disproportionate contributions and requisitions ; devaluation of local currency or unlawful issuing of currency , or personally commits any of the above offences , shall be punished by DATE imprisonment .","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u2013 War crimes against prisoners of war","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Whoever , acting in violation of international law , orders the injury , torture , or inhumane treatment of prisoners of war , or biological , medical or other research experiments on them , or the taking of their tissues or body organs for transplantation or the commission of other acts harmful to health and causing them serious suffering , or compels prisoners of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power or deprives them of the rights to fair and regular trial ; or personally commits any such offences , shall be punished by DATE imprisonment .","( CARDINAL ) Whoever orders the murder of prisoners of war or personally commits such an offence , shall be punished by CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment or imprisonment of DATE . \u201d","This Act ( published in ORG no . CARDINAL , amendments published in ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) entered into force on DATE . ORG , ORG and ORG within ORG and ORG were set up pursuant to LAW . They have jurisdiction over serious violations of international humanitarian law committed anywhere in the former GPE ( see section CARDINAL of this Act ) .","In a number of previous cases concerning war crimes , the OWCP has treated the war in GPE DATE as an internal armed conflict ( see the judgments in cases GPE , PERSON I , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) . The majority of the indictments in these cases came into being DATE . The final judgments in most of these cases had been adopted by the domestic courts by DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159922","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF FREITAS v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant instituted an action for the settlement of accounts in inventory proceedings ( a\u00e7\u00e3o especial de presta\u00e7\u00e3o de contas em invent\u00e1rio ) before ORG .","From DATE to DATE the administrator of the estate ( cabe\u00e7a de casal ) was notified , challenged the action and submitted the relevant accounts , which were contested by the applicant .","On DATE the judge gave instructions setting out the matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding ( despacho saneador ) . On DATE the evidence submitted by the parties was admitted by ORG .","On DATE the applicant revoked the power of attorney given to her lawyer in the proceedings and on DATE requested legal aid , which was granted by the ORG \u2019s Attorney \u2019s ORG on DATE . On DATE a lawyer was appointed to represent the applicant .","On DATE , following a request of the applicant \u2019s representative , the hearing scheduled to CARDINAL DATE was adjourned .","On DATE the hearing was adjourned because the representative of the administrator of the estate failed to appear . The hearing was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested to represent herself in the proceedings .","NORP On DATE the applicant \u2019s request was granted and the first hearing was held . The hearing continued on DATE .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision with regard to the factual basis ( mat\u00e9ria de facto ) and on DATE it delivered its judgment in which it ruled against the applicant .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision before ORG , which delivered a decision remitting the case to the first - instance court on DATE .","DATE and DATE the proceedings were again analysed by the first - instance court to which they were remitted twice . On DATE ORG adopted its fourth judgment in the proceedings .","DATE the applicant lodged different appeals before ORG , ORG and ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG adopted the final decision in the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant instituted inventory proceedings ( processo especial de invent\u00e1rio ) before ORG .","DATE and DATE several procedural steps took place , namely , the appointment of the administrator of the estate ( cabe\u00e7a de casal ) and declarations from the parties .","On DATE a conference between the parties ( confer\u00eancia de interessados ) started . The conference was adjourned to DATE at the request of the parties who argued they would try to reach an agreement .","On DATE , at the request of the parties , the proceedings were stayed for DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested information to the administrator of the estate with regard to certain amounts which had allegedly been received by her . On DATE the administrator of the estate replied .","On DATE the conference of the parties continued and the representative of administrator of the estate requested the suspension of the proceedings due to the death of the latter .","DATE and DATE procedural steps were taken in view of the continuation of the proceedings against the heirs of the deceased administrator of the estate ( incidente de habilita\u00e7\u00e3o de herdeiros ) . In this period a second administrator of the estate was appointed .","DATE and DATE the applicant revoked the power of attorney given to her lawyer in the proceedings and requested legal aid , which was granted .","On DATE the conference of the parties was scheduled to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the administrator of the estate requested a second set of proceedings against the heirs of her father . On DATE ORG admitted the heirs as parties to the proceedings .","DATE and DATE ORG attempted to notify CARDINAL of the heirs .","On DATE the conference of the parties was adjourned due to the death of a J.L.E , party to the proceedings . On DATE proceedings were initiated against the heirs of J.L.E , seeking their intervention in the proceedings .","On DATE the conference of the parties was adjourned at the request of the parties who sought to reach an agreement . The agreement between the parties failed .","DATE and DATE the parties lodged several requests with ORG , to which it promptly replied .","On DATE a third set of proceedings against the heirs of ORG , party to the proceedings , was initiated ; having ended on DATE .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision with regard to the partition of the estate ( senten\u00e7a de partilha ) .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision before ORG . By a decision of DATE ORG quashed the first - instance decision , annulled all the procedural steps taken and remitted the case to ORG .","DATE and DATE several procedural steps took place , in particular , notifications , a request made by the applicant and delivering of declarations .","On DATE ORG ordered the suspension of the proceedings in order to determine the legal standing of one of the parties . DATE and DATE , the applicant appealed against this decision before ORG \u2013 which was dismissed DATE and the administrator of the estate requested the continuing of the proceedings , which was determined by ORG .","On DATE the conference of the parties was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE , which continued on DATE .","DATE and DATE several applications were made and challenged by the parties , different appeals were lodged by the applicant and several notifications were made by ORG , which promptly replied to all requests .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision with regard to the partition of the estate . On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL appeals before ORG and CARDINAL appeals before ORG . The appeals were dismissed , the last decision being adopted by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant started proceedings seeking the enforcement of the decision with regard to the partition of the estate ( processo especial de execu\u00e7\u00e3o de invent\u00e1rio ) , which is still pending before ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156001","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"\u00c7EL\u0130K v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON \u00c7elik , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157755","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF AKKOYUNLU v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Positive obligations);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant started his compulsory military service in \u015e\u0131rnak . On DATE he contacted the infirmary of his regiment , complaining of severe pain in his left eye . According to the applicant , the military doctor was absent and he was given eye drops by a soldier who had no medical qualifications . According to the Government , the records of the infirmary ( which were not made available to ORG ) showed that the applicant had been examined by a military doctor and given eye drops by that doctor and not by a soldier .","The following day the pain became persistent , so the applicant contacted the infirmary once again . He was told that he should go to his dormitory and rest . According to the applicant , despite the pain he was in , he was not relieved of his sentry duties during that period . On DATE he was referred to ORG , where he was diagnosed with a corneal ulcer .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG , where his treatment started . However , he completely lost the sight in his left eye . According to the applicant , the doctors informed him that he had lost his eyesight because of the delay in starting the treatment , as in corneal ulcer cases it was essential to start treatment immediately .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG for further treatment . He stayed there until DATE , during which time he underwent several operations . He returned to the hospital for a number of additional operations from DATE to DATE , DATE , DATE , and lastly , CARDINAL to DATE .","A medical report issued on DATE concluded that the applicant was no longer medically fit for military service and that he was eligible for an ocular prosthesis . On the basis of that report , the applicant was formally discharged from the army .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG , seeking compensation from ORG for the damage he had suffered to his eye during his compulsory military service as a result of the delay in his treatment . He claimed MONEY ( ORG ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of pecuniary damage and FAC in respect of non - pecuniary damage . He argued that for DATE after the start of his eye problem , he had been unable to see a doctor because there had been no doctor present at his regiment infirmary during that time . He gave the administrative court the names of a number of his fellow conscripts who had witnessed the fact that he had not been provided with medical treatment by a doctor in DATE but had instead been told to rest and use eye drops , and asked the court to question them .","In the written defence submissions that it sent to the administrative court , ORG argued that on CARDINAL and DATE the applicant had been examined at the infirmary of his regiment by military doctor \u0130.H.\u015e. , who had prescribed medication for him .","In his observations submitted to the administrative court on DATE in response to those of ORG , the applicant maintained his allegation that on his first visit to the infirmary he had been examined by a soldier because the military doctor , \u0130.H.\u015e. , had been temporarily dispatched to another regiment . He repeated his request that witnesses be summoned to testify before the administrative court and asked the administrative court also to summon and question Dr \u0130.H.\u015e.","During the proceedings the administrative court appointed CARDINAL university professors from the ophthalmology department of ORG as experts with a view to clarifying whether there had been any medical malpractice in the applicant \u2019s case . Their expert report drawn up on DATE concluded :","\u201c Our medical opinion , based on our examination of the plaintiff \u2019s allegations , is as follows :","It is understood that , although the problem in the patient \u2019s eye is described in the medical reports as a \u2018 corneal ORG , the cause of the corneal ulcer ( Herpes virus ? Fungal infection ? Bacterial infection ? ) is not known . Furthermore , it is considered that it was not possible to establish with certainty the infection factor at the hospitals where the patient was observed and treated . For this reason , it is not possible to decide whether the eye problem was related to his military service or whether it was idiosyncratic .","Similarly , because the problem could not be fully diagnosed , it was not possible to determine the outcome [ of the applicant \u2019s symptoms ] within DATE .","[ We are of the opinion that ] there were no delays , shortcomings , mistakes or negligence in the steps taken in transferring the patient to the hospital , diagnosing the problem , treating the problem or treating the patient . \u201d","The applicant submitted a written statement to the administrative court on DATE , arguing that the medical report contained contradictory conclusions . He pointed out that , although the experts had indicated in the report that the problem had not been fully diagnosed , they had then gone on to conclude that there had been no shortcomings in the diagnosis of the problem . He further argued that the conclusion reached by the experts , namely that \u201c because the problem could not be fully diagnosed , it was not possible to determine the outcome [ of the applicant \u2019s symptoms ] within DATE \u201d , fully supported his allegations . His contention was also that , precisely because the problem had not been diagnosed properly , the treatment had not started in a timely manner . The applicant asked the administrative court to take steps to eliminate the inconsistencies by requesting and obtaining additional reports from a different set of experts .","In his written opinion submitted to ORG , the public prosecutor stated that the applicant should be awarded compensation either for the authorities\u2019 negligence if such negligence was established , or on the basis of the no - fault strict liability of the military administration .","On DATE ORG , on the basis of the expert report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim by a majority of CARDINAL and held that no fault could be attributed to the military authorities in the treatment of the applicant .","In its decision ORG did not deal with the applicant \u2019s allegation that DATE and DATE he had been unable to see a doctor in the regiment infirmary because there had not been a doctor there during that time , other than stating that the applicant had \u201c contacted the infirmary of the regiment on CARDINAL and DATE and started receiving medical treatment there \u201d . Nor did the administrative court respond to the applicant \u2019s requests to have his witnesses heard .","A dissenting judge stated in his separate opinion that issues such as the cause of the problem , whether or not it had been as a result of the applicant \u2019s military activities , and what bearing the CARDINAL - to - DATE delay had had on the outcome had not been established in the expert report of DATE . The dissenting judge thus considered that the administrative court should not have decided the case without having obtained a new report and clarified those points .","The applicant requested a rectification of the administrative court \u2019s decision . He claimed , in particular , that his arguments had not been examined adequately by the court and repeated his arguments regarding the contradictions in the expert report of DATE .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s rectification request by a majority of CARDINAL to one .","According to a medical report of CARDINAL DATE issued by ORG , the applicant was deemed to be suffering from a permanent disability as a result of the loss of sight in his left eye . It was indicated that his ability to work had been reduced by PERCENT as a result of the disability , and that the applicant was entitled to receive a disability pension ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181382","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF CHUMAK v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant submitted a written notice to the mayor of GPE informing him that the LOC civic youth association ( \u201c the Association \u201d ) registered in GPE , of which he was chairman , intended to hold a picket ( \u043f\u0456\u043a\u0435\u0442 ) outside ORG ( \u201c the regional authority \u201d ) building . The notice read as follows :","\u201c We inform you that , starting from DATE our organisation will hold a picket [ in front ] of the [ regional authority ] for an indefinite term in view of the unhealthy , in our view , social and economic state of affairs in the region .","Beginning of the picket : DATE at TIME .","Place : square in front of the [ regional authority ] building ;","Responsible person according to the decision of the ORG \u2019s management : ORG [ the applicant ] .","Chairman of the [ Association ] Chumak , PERSON . \u201d","According to the ORG , the ORG \u2019s officially registered chairman at the material time was a certain PERSON . The applicant was neither the chairman , nor could he even be a member of the Association because according to the ORG \u2019s charter , membership was open to persons DATE . At the time of the relevant events the applicant was older .","On DATE the mayor \u2019s office forwarded the applicant \u2019s notice to the police , requesting that they maintain public order during the demonstration .","On DATE the ORG started the picket as intended . According to the applicant , several other local groups joined the action and CARDINAL small camping tents ( measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY ) were erected by the walls of the regional authority building on a QUANTITY wide street for storing handout materials and displaying the NORP slogans .","On DATE the executive committee of ORG instituted administrative proceedings seeking \u201c to enjoin the [ Association ] not to organise and carry out pickets on the streets and squares of GPE and to oblige it to uninstall the unlawfully erected \u2018 small architectural structures\u2019 ( \u043c\u0430\u043b\u0456 \u0430\u0440\u0445\u0456\u0442\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0440\u043d\u0456 \u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u0438 ) . \u201d The plaintiff alleged that the protesters had been breaching the peace and public order by offending passers - by , acting arrogantly towards them , obstructing the traffic and pedestrians and endangering the lives and health of local residents . Referring to LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which provided for the lodging of an action before the start of a picket , the plaintiff asked the court to admit its action for consideration out - of - time on the grounds that only after the picket had started had it become apparent that the protesters intended to engage in inappropriate conduct . The statement of claim was supplemented with applications by GPE . and GPE , CARDINAL passers - by , addressed to the police , in which they complained that the protesters had \u201c acted arrogantly \u201d , had offended their feelings and had erected tents obstructing pedestrians and spoiling the street aesthetics .","On DATE ORG in GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) held a hearing at which the applicant , representing the ORG , denied the allegations that the picketers had engaged in any inappropriate conduct . According to him , during the hearing he had unsuccessfully made several requests for the production of evidence . Notably , he had requested that GPE . , GPE and the police officers present at the site of the picket be summoned for questioning ; that the police authorities be asked whether any incidents of unlawful conduct by the picketers had been documented ; and that the site be inspected in order to determine whether , in fact , the camping tents mounted by the picketers had obstructed the traffic or the passage of pedestrians .","Later on the same date , ORG allowed the claim , having decided that the case file contained sufficient evidence that the protesters had behaved inappropriately . The relevant part of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c ... [ the ] executive committee ... did not and could not have known about a possible breach of public order by the participants of the event , which fact resulted in missing the time - limit for lodging a court action as required by paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Justice of GPE ; the court therefore resets the procedural time - limit ...","The court , when deciding the case , takes into account that the participants in the event installed small architectural edifices on the pavement . In addition , during the event , they acted arrogantly , thus offending other citizens , obstructed the passage of pedestrians along PERSON street , and endangered road users , a fact confirmed by the complaints from GPE and GPE .","In addition , the court has regard to the fact that in the notice of the event it is stated that it will be held indefinitely . Also the number of protesters is not defined ... and it may gradually increase . Accordingly , at any time during the picket of indeterminate length , it can not be excluded that those taking part might repeatedly breach public order . \u201d","The court also noted that the picket \u201c may potentially encroach upon the rights and freedoms of other local residents \u201d and held as follows :","\u201c [ the court holds ] to prohibit [ the ORG ] and other persons taking part in the action from organising and carrying out peaceful assemblies in the streets and squares of GPE , [ and ] from installing small architectural edifices in GPE ; ... oblige them to dismantle the small architectural edifices installed in the square in front of the [ Administration \u2019s ] building ...","To allow immediate enforcement of the court ruling ... \u201d","At TIME on DATE the protesters were dispersed by the police .","On DATE the local registry office informed the applicant that GPE . and GPE were not registered as residents at the addresses indicated by them in their complaints lodged with the police .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the court judgment of DATE , which he signed as the ORG \u2019s chairman . He submitted that under LAW of the ORG , a plaintiff \u2019s action could not be examined when it had been lodged out of time . He further submitted that the court \u2019s factual conclusions had been devoid of an evidentiary basis . In particular , there was no evidence whatsoever that the protesters had breached the law , apart from the complaints by CARDINAL . and GPE , who had given false home addresses and thus could not be identified . The applicant further complained that the court had rejected his request that those individuals be located and summoned , and that the police officers present at the site of the picket also be summoned for questioning concerning the alleged breaches of the law by the protesters . He also regretted that the court had refused his requests that the relevant police reports documenting the purported breaches of the law ( if any ) be produced and an inspection of the picket site be carried out with a view to determining whether the tents erected by the activists could count as \u201c architectural structures \u201d and whether there had been any obstruction of traffic or pedestrians . Lastly , the applicant complained that the sanction imposed by ORG ( a total and permanent ban on the ORG organising peaceful assemblies in GPE ) had been arbitrary and disproportionate .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s appeal and decided that , in view of namely , the short notice of the intention to hold a picket and the indefinite period during which the participants planned to continue their demonstration ) the administrative action lodged by the executive committee could be accepted for examination . It agreed with ORG findings of fact and noted , in particular , that by installing the tents , the protesters had breached section CARDINAL of LAW and section CARDINAL of LAW . At the same time , ORG found that the sanction imposed on the protesters had been disproportionate . In particular , LAW generally allowed peaceful assemblies , which could therefore not be prohibited in a blanket manner . Nevertheless , it did not envisage a form of assembly such as the \u201c picketing \u201d of administrative buildings \u201c with the installation on the streets of small architectural structures \u201d . Accordingly , the court found that the term \u201c peaceful assemblies \u201d in the operative part of ORG judgment had to be substituted with the term \u201c pickets \u201d . The court then rejected the applicant \u2019s remaining arguments as unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG GPE dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173873","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"F.G. v. GREECE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ) . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent \u2019s delegate , PERSON , Senior Advisor at ORG .","Mr L .- A. Sicilianos , the judge elected in respect of GPE , withdrew from sitting in the case ( LAW of ORG ) . The President of the ORG accordingly appointed Mr Michail Margaritis to sit in his place ( LAW ( a ) of LAW ) .","On DATE the application was communicated to the Government .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","At the time the events took place the applicant was a legal counsellor at ORG ( PERSON \u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 GPE ) .","On DATE , there were CARDINAL vacant posts at the rank of vice - president of ORG . The first step of the selection procedure consisted of a proposal by ORG , which included a list of all eligible legal counsellors ranked on the basis of seniority . Among the CARDINAL legal counsellors who fulfilled the formal criteria , the applicant was ranked sixth .","At its meeting of DATE , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , following the proposal by ORG , unanimously decided to appoint as vice - presidents to ORG Mr GPE , Mr D.A. and Mr N.K , who were second , eighth and fourteenth respectively on the list . The reasoning of the decision stated that they \u201c [ had ] proved superior to the rest of their colleagues under consideration for the posts , as [ was ] clear from the relevant proposal of the competent Minister , which [ had been ] accepted by the ORG following assessment of each of the eligible legal counsellor \u2019s files and the ORG discussion ... \u201d","The proposal of ORG included the qualifications of the eligible staff members , in particular DATE of their appointment , their ranking and salary changes , their assignments and disciplinary proceedings and it concluded that :","\u201c ... having assessed all of the above - mentioned facts relating to the service of the persons under consideration , as well as other details of their personal service files and ... their general academic training , their moral character , their diligence and their administrative qualifications ; having also taken into account the generally formulated opinion for each one and their seniority ranking , I PROPOSE that the following be chosen and promoted to fulfil the CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) vacant posts of vice - president of ORG ... [ the names of the CARDINAL accepted candidates followed , handwritten ] \u201d .","From TIME meeting it appears that its duration was TIME and included other items on the agenda as well .","On DATE , the Presidential Decree by which the procedure was completed was issued and published in ORG .","NORP On DATE , the same procedure was followed for filling another CARDINAL vacant posts to the rank of vice - president of ORG . CARDINAL legal counsellors were eligible for promotion , including the applicant , who was ranked fourth on the list on the basis of seniority .","At its meeting of DATE , the ORG , following the proposal by ORG , unanimously decided to appoint to the vacant posts Mr GPE and Mr GPE , who were sixth and tenth respectively on the list . The reasoning of the decision , as well as the Minister \u2019s proposal , were identical to the DATE procedure .","The duration of the ORG meeting was TIME and the agenda included other items as well .","On DATE , LAW by which the procedure was completed was issued and published in ORG .","On DATE , the applicant lodged an application for annulment ( \u03b1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c3\u03b7 \u03b1\u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 ) of the Presidential Decree dated DATE with ORG ( PERSON \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 PERSON ) , on the grounds of lack of sufficient reasoning in the contested decision and of his having been manifestly superior to CARDINAL of the CARDINAL promoted legal counsellors , who had been ranked lower than him on the list and yet had been promoted .","On DATE , the applicant was informally informed that ORG had applied to have the case examined by the Plenary of ORG and that the President had agreed to grant that request . On DATE , the applicant filed a written submission contesting that decision , relying , on one hand , on the fact that his views on the subject had not been heard prior to the decision and , on the other hand , on the fact that such a referral would result in further delay in the examination of his case . In particular , the applicant maintained that he had DATE left before he reached compulsory - retirement age and the delay in the examination of his case would further diminish his chances of serving as vice - president of ORG . From the material in the ORG \u2019s possession , it appears that the applicant did not receive a reply to his submission . By a decision of the President of ORG dated DATE , the case was referred to the Plenary of that court .","The date of hearing before the Plenary of ORG was scheduled for DATE . The ORG adjourned the hearing until DATE . On that date , the case was again adjourned on the grounds that there were CARDINAL pending applications raising similar issues to the case under consideration and it would be better to examine the cases together . The hearing eventually took place on DATE .","By its judgment no . DATE , published on DATE and finalised on DATE ( \u03b4\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03af\u03b5\u03c5\u03c3\u03b7 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae ) , ORG dismissed the application for annulment of LAW dated DATE . In its reasoning the court first pointed out that the application for annulment was admissible , as LAW , which excluded the possibility of applications for annulment of decisions relating to promotions of judges , could not be applied by analogy . It then observed that owing to ORG special institutional role and the nature of the role of its President and vice - presidents , the ORG , when choosing the candidates who , in their view , had more substantive qualifications for those posts , enjoyed a wide degree of discretion , without being obliged to provide specific justification for their decisions , except for cases where an omitted candidate had been manifestly superior to the promoted candidates . It then noted that according to the minutes the Cabinet had chosen the candidates to be promoted by taking into account not only the competent Minister \u2019s proposal but also other details from the candidates\u2019 files and following discussion among its members . Lastly , it pointed out that from the material in their possession , the applicant had not been manifestly superior to the promoted candidates .","On DATE , the applicant lodged an application for annulment of LAW dated DATE with ORG , on the grounds of lack of sufficient reasoning in the contested decision and because he had been manifestly superior to the CARDINAL promoted legal counsellors who had been ranked lower than him on the list .","By a decision of the President of ORG dated DATE , the case was referred to the Plenary of that court . The hearing was scheduled for DATE .","By its judgment no . DATE , published on DATE and finalised on DATE , ORG dismissed the application for annulment on the same grounds as those stated in judgment no . PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , the applicant , following a procedure similar to the CARDINAL described in paragraphs CARDINAL above , was appointed President of ORG .","NORP The relevant Articles of LAW read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The remuneration of judicial functionaries shall be commensurate with their office . Matters concerning their rank , remuneration and their general status shall be regulated by special statute ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Retirement from the ORG legal service shall be compulsory upon attainment of DATE for all judges and prosecutors up to and including the rank of judge of a court of appeal or deputy prosecutor of a court of appeal , or a rank corresponding thereto . In the case of judges and prosecutors of a rank higher than the CARDINAL stated , or of a corresponding rank , retirement shall be compulsory upon attainment of DATE . In the application of this provision , DATE of retirement shall in all cases be taken as the date of attainment of the above age limit . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Promotions to the posts of President or vice - president of ORG , of ORG and of ORG , shall be effected by Presidential Decree issued on the proposal of the ORG , upon selection from among the members of the respective ORG , as specified by law ... The mandate of the President of ORG , of ORG and of ORG ... may not exceed DATE , even if the judge or prosecutor holding this office has not reached the retirement age . \u201d","\u201c Matters relating to the establishment and functioning of ORG , as well as matters relating to the service status of functionaries and staff members who serve therein , shall be specified by law . The competence of ORG pertains mainly to the judicial support and representation of the ORG and to the recognition of claims against it or to the settlements of disputes with the ORG . The provisions of ORG CARDINAL paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE , as well as of LAW paragraph CARDINAL shall apply accordingly to the main staff of ORG . \u201d","The relevant sections of LAW ( Organisation of ORG ) and the status of its officers and employees , published in Official Journal A\/CARDINAL , read as follows :","\u201c ORG is responsible for judicially supporting the State ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The ranks of hierarchy of ORG members are the following : President , vice - president , legal counsellor , senior advisor , legal representative A , legal representative and associate legal assistant ( GPE , GPE , PERSON , GPE , PERSON \u0391\u0384. PERSON \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u03cc\u03ba\u03b9\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2 PERSON ) .","Among members at the same rank , seniority is precedent , in accordance with the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL of the preceding article ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Promotions","a ) For the promotion of a member of ORG to a higher rank the following are required :","i ) Vacancy in the higher rank , if places are structurally distinct ,","ii ) Completion of the statutory time in the rank currently occupied ...","iii ) Possession of the necessary qualifications for the higher rank .","b ) Promotion of members of ORG to the ranks of judicial representative A and senior advisor takes place by election among those who possess the necessary formal requirements and qualifications :","i ) character and courage , ii ) academic training , iii ) judgment , perception and skills in understanding cases , iv ) skills in formulating proposals and pleas , v ) diligence , hard work and service performance , vi ) decent behaviour in general and in particular in courts and in their relations with other services and authorities , vii ) decent social behaviour , to an absolutely satisfying degree , so as to fully respond to the duties of the higher rank","c ) Promotion of members of ORG to the rank of legal counsellor takes place following a \u201c free vote \u201d ( \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u2019 \u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03b7 \u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03ae ) . Deemed as eligible for promotion by free vote among those who possess the formal requirements are the members who possess the following to an excellent degree :","i ) character and courage , ii ) academic training , iii ) diligence , hard work and service efficiency , and following a comparison , those who are promoted to fill the vacant posts are elected .","...","e ) Promotion to the posts of President and vice - president is effected by Presidential Decree following a proposal by the ORG , which , upon the recommendation of the Minister of Economy and Finance , selects the ones who must be promoted among those who fulfil the legal requirements .","...","i ) The post of vice - president of ORG is occupied by a legal counsellor who has been promoted following DATE of service in the rank of legal counsellor .","j ) The post of President of ORG is occupied by a vice - president or a legal counsellor who has been promoted following DATE of service in the rank of legal counsellor . \u201d","\u201c The members of ORG automatically retire from service :","...","b ) the legal counsellors , who correspond to judges of ORG , the vice - presidents , who correspond to vice - presidents of ORG , and the President of ORG , who corresponds to the President of ORG , [ at the end of their ] DATE .","...","d ) For the implementation of provisions a ) and b ) of the present paragraph , DATE of retirement age is reached is considered to be DATE the member of ORG retires . \u201d","The relevant section of Presidential Decree CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which codifies the laws relating to ORG , reads as follows :","\u201c Legitimate interest . CARDINAL . An application for annulment against an administrative act can be lodged by any individual or legal person who is concerned by the act , or whose legitimate interests , even if non - pecuniary in nature , are infringed upon . \u201d","\u201c An application for annulment can be lodged for the following reasons :","CARDINAL ) Incompetence on the part of the administrative authority which issued the act ;","CARDINAL ) Infringement of an essential procedural requirement which had been set for the act ;","CARDINAL ) Infringement of an essential provision of law ;","CARDINAL ) Abuse of authority , when the administrative act per se bears all the elements of legality , but has been manifestly issued for other purposes than those for which it was enacted . \u201d","According to the case - law of ORG , when domestic law affords to civil servants the right to be considered eligible for promotion , this constitutes a sufficient legitimate interest enabling them to lodge an application for annulment for one of the reasons cited in LAW ( see , for example , decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of ORG ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173381","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KALYAKANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175664","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SHESTAKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion , kidnapping and fraud . DATE ORG authorised his detention .","On DATE ORG held a hearing on extension of the applicant \u2019s detention . The applicant asked to postpone the hearings for DATE because his counsel was sick and could not attend . ORG dismissed the request , assigned lawyer PERSON to represent the applicant , proceeded with the hearing and extended the applicant \u2019s detention . The applicant \u2019s objection to the participation of ORG on account of their different defence strategies and ORG \u2019s limited knowledge of the case - file was also dismissed .","The applicant and his counsel appealed , complaining , in particular , about a breach of the applicant \u2019s right to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE , having also noted that the legal aid lawyer PERSON had been appointed because the detention matter \u201c had to be examined immediately \u201d .","On DATE ORG once again extended the applicant \u2019s detention . On DATE ORG held the appeal hearing without informing the applicant in advance about the hearing date . The applicant \u2019s counsel attended the appeal hearing and made oral submissions . ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the detention order of DATE .","The applicant \u2019s detention was further extended on several occasions . In particular , on DATE the measure of restraint was prolonged until DATE .","On DATE the applicant was committed to stand trial before ORG . DATE , on DATE , the trial court scheduled a preliminary hearing for DATE and ruled that , in the meantime , the measure of restraint in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged until the preliminary hearing . The decision was delivered in a written procedure ( without the parties being present ) .","NORP The applicant appealed , complaining , among other matters , that that decision in the part relating to his detention was unlawful and that it had been delivered in his and his lawyer \u2019s absence . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision , having found , in particular , that the trial judge \u2019s decision was no more than a restatement of the detention order of DATE extending the applicant \u2019s detention until CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At the preliminary hearing on DATE the trial court extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE the applicant was convicted . On DATE ORG upheld his conviction on appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155000","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KYRIACOU TSIAKKOURMAS AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Speediness of review);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , and live in GPE , GPE and GPE . The first and second applicants are husband and wife . The third , fourth and fifth applicants are their children . The sixth to thirteenth applicants are the CARDINAL brothers and CARDINAL sisters of the first applicant .","On DATE a NORP named PERSON was arrested by the police of GPE in possession of QUANTITY of heroin . His arrest brought protests from the authorities of the \u201c GPE \u201d ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) , who alleged that he had been unlawfully arrested in the buffer zone controlled by ORG in GPE ( \u201c the UNFICYP \u201d ) , where neither the NORP nor the NORP side was allowed to exercise authority . There were reports that PERSON vehicle had allegedly been found abandoned by the NORP authorities inside ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) buffer zone , with its engine running and headlights on . GPE authorities maintained that the arrest had been effected within their jurisdiction just outside the buffer zone .","On DATE Mr PERSON was charged with drug possession and smuggling , and was remanded in custody by ORG in GPE .","According to a report of the ORG Secretary General dated DATE on the ORG operation in GPE , ORG \u2019s own investigation into the incident had not yielded sufficient evidence to confirm or refute either version of the events regarding the arrest of Mr PERSON .","In the meantime , on DATE PERSON was sentenced to DATE imprisonment by ORG on various drugrelated charges , but was subsequently pardoned by President PERSON and released on DATE .","The first applicant is a building contractor . At the time of the events giving rise to this application , he owned a construction company , ORG , which employed workers from both sides of the island .","Like many other NORP Cypriot contractors employing NORP workers , the first applicant picked up his NORP workers each morning from a caf\u00e9 ( \u201c PERSON \u2019s caf\u00e9 \u201d ) located in LOC ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) of Dhekelia in the vicinity of the Pergamos checkpoint , where people crossed from the \u201c TRNC \u201d to the ORG . The first applicant would collect his NORP workers from the caf\u00e9 TIME at CARDINAL a.m. and would drive them to work . At DATE , he would drop them off at the same location .","The events that took place on TIME DATE , which resulted in the first applicant \u2019s detention by the \u201c NORP \u201d authorities , are disputed between the parties . They will therefore be presented separately .","At TIME on DATE the first applicant left his house in the village of LOC in GPE to collect his NORP workers from PERSON \u2019s caf\u00e9 in his red ORG double - cabin pickup , as he did every workday . Since it had rained heavily TIME , parts of the road were flooded , which forced him to drive slowly . The heavy rain had stopped by TIME , but it was still drizzling when he left the house .","On the main road from LOC to GPE leading to PERSON \u2019s caf\u00e9 , the first applicant noticed QUANTITY ahead of him a white ORG pickup with the registration number UJ CARDINAL , which he recognised as belonging to a fellow NORP contractor ( GPE ) . As he was driving slowly behind that vehicle in the left - hand lane , the first applicant noticed further down the road another car , a red ORG , which had pulled up on the left side of the road just before the PERSON camp junction , QUANTITY before PERSON \u2019s caf\u00e9 . The bonnet of the red car was open and CARDINAL men in civilian clothes were checking the engine .","The white pickup driving in front of the first applicant slowed down as it approached the red ORG and the driver rolled down his window to talk to the CARDINAL men . While CARDINAL of the men continued to check the car \u2019s engine , the other one waved the driver of the white pickup to move along .","As the first applicant approached the stationary red ORG , another car , a white ORG which he had not previously noticed , emerged from the junction on the left - hand side and started heading towards him at full speed . The first applicant swerved his car to the right to prevent a collision and then applied the brakes . The white ORG also stopped right in front of his car and CARDINAL men in civilian clothes leapt out . The first applicant then noticed that the white ORG pickup travelling ahead of him had also stopped , probably to check what was happening behind . In a matter of TIME , one of the men who had leapt out of the white ORG opened his driver \u2019s door , shouted some words in NORP and put a gun to his forehead , while another tried to pull him out of the car . When the first applicant resisted , holding tight to his unfastened seat belt , the man holding the gun hit him on the head above the left ear with the handle of his gun , which caused him to fall down on the road into a puddle of rainwater measuring QUANTITY , in a semi - conscious state as a result of the force of the blow . The men kicked and punched him on the ground , and twisted and bit his hands to force him to let go of the seat belt , while the first applicant called for help . After receiving some forceful kicks below the pelvis and to the ribs , which were so strong that he thought his ribs were broken , he let go of the belt and rolled on the ground . The CARDINAL men then picked him up by the arms and legs and dragged him to the white ORG , which was a left - hand drive car . The first applicant estimated that the whole ordeal , which had started at TIME , had lasted TIME , and it had been witnessed by the driver of the white ORG pickup travelling ahead of him .","Once inside the car , with both his arms twisted behind his back , the first applicant received another strong kick from the man who was holding him by the right arm . The man holding the pistol sat in the front passenger seat and continued to point the pistol at him . They then started driving towards the Pergamos checkpoint . When the first applicant noticed that the right passenger door of the car was not fully closed , he started pushing the man to his right with his shoulder so that they would fall out of the car . As they were passing PERSON \u2019s caf\u00e9 , the first applicant saw a group of people standing outside and called out for help from the slightly open door , but he could not manage to attract their attention .","When the car reached the Pergamos checkpoint , the first applicant noticed that the barrier , which was normally down , had been lifted so that they were able to drive straight through to the \u201c TRNC \u201d without slowing down . After driving in the occupied area for a while , the man sitting to the first applicant \u2019s left placed a rope around his neck and tied his hands behind his back with the ends of the same rope , which prevented him from moving . When the applicant asked whether they were going to kill him , the same man answered yes and then the man sitting in the front passenger seat punched him in the face , which damaged his teeth and caused his mouth to bleed .","The first applicant could not understand the conversation in the car , which was in NORP , except for the word \u201c police \u201d , which was uttered frequently . Since he had lived in the occupied area until he was DATE , he recognised that he was being driven towards GPE . Once they reached the NORP industrial area , the car stopped , and the man sitting in the front passenger seat took off his sock and taped it around the first applicant \u2019s eyes , and then taped his mouth . TIME , the first applicant heard another car drive up to them . He was quickly transferred to the other car , with his hands still tied behind his back with the rope that ran around his neck . After driving for TIME the second car stopped and he was taken out of the car . He was subsequently taken into a building and put in a room on his own , where he waited for quite some time with his eyes and mouth taped , and his hands tied behind his back .","After a while , someone untied the rope around the first applicant \u2019s hands and neck , but left his hands cuffed behind his back , and removed the tape from his mouth . He was then asked personal questions regarding himself and his family , including whether he had any relatives working in the police force or the army . No one explained to him where he was or why he was being held . The person who spoke to him alternated between broken NORP and LANGUAGE . His captors then made him sit in front of an electric heater so that he might dry , as his clothes were all wet from falling into the puddle of water outside his car during the struggle prior to his abduction .","When his captors eventually removed the sock from his eyes , the first applicant noticed that he was in an office , and the time was TIME CARDINAL men in civilian clothes , whom he had not seen before but later discovered to be GPE PERSON and police sergeants PERSON and PERSON , were standing in front of him . When he asked them in NORP why he had been seized , CARDINAL of them replied in broken NORP that he had been arrested for drug possession . They then gave him a fresh set of clothes and shoes and asked him to change out of his wet clothes . The first applicant suspected that he was in a police station , but his captors continued to conceal his whereabouts and the identity of the QUANTITY persons interrogating him .","After changing into new clothes , the first applicant was led out of the building by the CARDINAL men . In the reception area of the building , he saw police officers in uniform , which reinforced his assumption that he had been taken to a police station . He was subsequently taken to a hospital in GPE by CARDINAL of his interrogators .","The first applicant was first examined by a doctor at the hospital in the presence of the CARDINAL men who had taken him there . As the doctor did not speak LANGUAGE or NORP , they relied on the ORG interpretation to communicate . The first applicant explained to the doctor that he was diabetic and asked the doctor to check his blood sugar levels . Tests showed that his blood sugar level had increased considerably , so the doctor prescribed him an antidiabetic drug . The first applicant also tried to tell the doctor that he was suffering from pain in his pelvis and ribs , and in particular that the pain in the ribs was making it difficult to breathe , but the doctor paid no attention to his grievances and merely registered the swelling in his head and some redness on his chest and back , without examining the injuries in his mouth or lower body .","The first applicant was subsequently referred to a radiologist , who PERSON his chest and head . He was also examined by a specialist in pulmonary diseases . He was then taken for a drug test . When the first applicant refused to take the drug test and requested to see ORG doctors instead , CARDINAL of the men escorting him punched him in the stomach . It is not clear whether a drug test was subsequently performed on the first applicant .","Following the examinations at the hospital , which lasted TIME , the first applicant was taken to another building , where he was again placed in an office . In that office , the men handling him showed him a black plastic bag with NORP writing on it , and told him that the bag contained the drugs recovered from him . However , after some discussion among themselves , one of them went out of the room and came back with another black plastic bag , which bore no writing , and placed the drugs allegedly recovered from him in the new bag . They then placed the bag in a plastic container and sealed it before his eyes .","At TIME , the first applicant was taken to yet another small office in a nearby building . There were CARDINAL men in the office , including the CARDINAL who had been escorting him and CARDINAL interpreters . The men were speaking to each other in NORP , without translating for him , and drinking tea ; the first applicant did not understand where he had been taken . CARDINAL of the interpreters then told him in broken NORP that he was before a judge , who had charged him with possession of drugs , and that he would be placed in custody for DATE . For the brief period he was in that room , the first applicant was not given the opportunity to respond , apart from stating that he had no involvement with drugs , or to ask questions ; he was not informed of his rights , nor was he asked whether he wanted the assistance of a lawyer .","The first applicant was subsequently taken to the FAC police station ( referred to as the \u201c LOC police station \u201d ) in GPE and placed in a very small cell , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , where he stayed for DATE . The cell was very cold , damp and mouldy in parts , because there was no glass in the small window . Despite the cold , he was given only one filthy blanket to keep warm . There were , moreover , no shower facilities in the police station . As for the toilets , they were very dirty ; no soap or toilet paper was provided and the toilet did not flush . The first applicant had to call an officer each time he needed to use the toilet , and on many occasions he was not let out of his cell to go to the toilet , despite his need to urinate frequently on account of his diabetes . He solved the problem by urinating in a plastic bottle inside his cell . The first applicant further stated that he had not been given any food at the LOC police station and that he had had to purchase food from the canteen with his own money .","The first applicant claimed that DATE , a NORP detainee at the LOC police station approached him and told him in NORP that the police had asked him to confess to being the person who would pick up the drugs that the first applicant had intended to hide in the \u201c TRNC \u201d , but that he had refused to collaborate with the police .","At TIME on DATE the first applicant was visited by a ORG inspector and a doctor . The inspector issued an incident report following the visit , the relevant parts of which read as follows :","\u201c During the visit the prisoner , who is a diabetic , stated that he had no complaints in relation to how he had been treated by the ORG [ NORP Cypriot Police Element ] but that he had been assaulted i.e. punched and kicked by QUANTITY civilians and had been threatened with a gun by them a short time before his arrest by the ORG . He stated that his arrest had occurred in the GPE [ sic . ] area .","Since his arrest he had been taken to ORG by the ORG where he was administered some drugs for his diabetes . He requested the ORG to secure his own clothes for him , to deliver his Diabetes Monitoring Kit to him and also to arrange a visit for his wife . He further stated that he did not do anything and that he was kidnapped at GPE . He was in a distressed state .","He consented to a medical examination by the ORG doctor who found a number of tender areas with no bruising . \u201d","On DATE the first applicant was visited at the LOC police station by a NORP lawyer , PERSON , who was appointed by his family to represent him . The meeting was monitored by a number of police officers . On DATE another NORP lawyer , PERSON PERSON , visited him and they met , once again , in the presence of police officers . The first applicant claimed that all his subsequent meetings with his lawyers at the LOC police station had been held in the presence of police officers or other prison authorities .","The Government \u2019s version of the events is based on the incident reports prepared by ORG - inspector PERSON , who allegedly led the operation for the first applicant \u2019s arrest .","According to ORG - inspector PERSON \u2019s report , on DATE he received a tip - off call from a police informant , informing him that a NORP named \u201c NORP \u201d would enter the \u201c GPE \u201d through the ORG of Dhekelia TIME with narcotics , which he would hide in a predesignated spot just outside the NORP cemetery to the west of the Pergamos checkpoint , to be picked up by a contact from the \u201c LOC \u201d .","At TIME on DATE ORG - inspector PERSON , accompanied by police sergeants PERSON and PERSON , took their positions in the vicinity of the drop - off point to wait in ambush . At TIME , before daybreak , they saw someone approaching on foot from the direction of the ORG , QUANTITY to the west of the Pergamos checkpoint . It was believed that this person , who was later identified as the first applicant , had crossed the ditch which ran along the boundary between the \u201c NORP \u201d and the ORG and which was filled with rainwater at the relevant time , and then jumped over the wire fence between boundary stones CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , where parts of the fence had shrunk . As the first applicant was walking towards an olive tree in the designated area , ORG - inspector PERSON came out of his hiding place and ordered him to stop , in NORP . Upon hearing that order , the first applicant started to run back towards the ORG ; however , the CARDINAL police sergeants caught up with him and seized him after a struggle , during which the applicant fell to the ground . The sub - inspector then grabbed the package that the first applicant was holding in his hands , which was wrapped in a black plastic bag . In the meantime , PERSON informed the first applicant in NORP that they were police officers and told him that he had entered \u201c TRNC \u201d territory without permission . He also asked the first applicant to identify himself and to explain what he was carrying in the plastic bag . The first applicant gave his name and stated that he was innocent . The police officers then handcuffed him and placed him in the police car . Once inside the car , the police officers opened the plastic bag and found CARDINAL plates of cannabis resin wrapped in a white cloth and a NORP newspaper . ORG informed the applicant once again , in NORP , that he had entered \u201c GPE \u201d territory without permission and that he had in his possession prohibited drugs .","At TIME the first applicant was taken to the LOC ( PERSON ) police headquarters for an identity check , where he was also questioned about where he had obtained the drugs and to whom he was taking them in the \u201c GPE \u201d . The first applicant remained silent in response to those questions .","At TIME PERSON - inspector PERSON and ORG went to the narcotics bureau of ORG ) police headquarters to inform their superiors of the first applicant \u2019s arrest , while the first applicant stayed at the NORP police headquarters under the supervision of Sergeant R.\u00d6 .. After going to the narcotics bureau , ORG - inspector PERSON and ORG went back to the scene of the incident , where GPE PERSON sketched a map of the area and another sergeant took photographs . Sub - inspector PERSON also took a soil sample from the area for forensic analysis .","At TIME PERSON - inspector PERSON and ORG went back to the NORP police headquarters , and took the first applicant \u2019s clothes and shoes as evidence .","At TIME the first applicant was taken to the Dr ORG ( \u201c the FAC \u201d ) for a general medical examination . After the examination , he was taken to the narcotics bureau of the GPE police headquarters , where the material which was obtained from him earlier and which was believed to be cannabis resin was sealed in his presence , to be dispatched to the laboratory for further examination . The first applicant \u2019s shoes , together with the soil sample collected from the area where he was believed to have crossed into the \u201c NORP \u201d , were also sealed before his eyes for forensic analysis .","Later TIME , the first applicant was brought before the \u201c GPE \u201d ORG , where the presiding judge ordered his remand in custody for DATE to facilitate the police investigation . The hearing was held in the judge \u2019s office and the applicant was assisted by CARDINAL interpreters .","According to the detailed incident report prepared by ORG - inspector PERSON , on TIME CARDINAL DATE various measures were taken in the area where the first applicant had been arrested to catch the person who was supposed to pick up the drugs , but no one showed up .","The analysis report of DATE drawn up by ORG of the \u201c TRNC \u201d confirmed that the substance allegedly seized from the first applicant was cannabis resin , in the amount of QUANTITY .","According to the report of ORG of the \u201c NORP \u201d dated DATE , various different kinds of soil were found under the first applicant \u2019s shoes , while the muddy specimen found on the heel appeared to be the most recent . The amount of soil extracted from the heel was not found to be sufficient for a comprehensive analysis . Nevertheless , the limited examinations conducted revealed that the sample obtained from the shoes resembled the sample obtained from the scene of the incident , without , however , being identical . The report indicated that variations in soil properties could be due to the depth from which the soil sample had been obtained , or whether it had been obtained from a fertilised part of the land or not .","On DATE ORG - inspector PERSON informed the first applicant of the charges against him , which were the possession of QUANTITY of cannabis resin and its unlawful import into the \u201c GPE \u201d . The first applicant , who was provided with an interpreter , used his right to remain silent , merely stating that his lawyer would defend him . However , he refused to sign a written statement to that effect .","DATE , the first applicant was brought before the \u201c GPE \u201d ORG for a bail hearing , where he was represented by CARDINAL lawyers , Mr PERSON , a local lawyer practising in \u201c GPE \u201d , and Mr P. PERSON , who practised at FAC . He was also assisted by an interpreter . At the hearing , the prosecution requested the court to order the first applicant \u2019s detention until the trial in view of the risk of his absconding , and called GPE PERSON as a witness .","The first applicant \u2019s counsel pleaded in favour of his release , and also argued that he had not been arrested in \u201c NORP \u201d territory as alleged , but had been abducted from ORG territory by unknown persons and then taken to the \u201c TRNC \u201d after being badly beaten . The assault had left injuries on his body , as documented in various medical reports . The first applicant did not make any additional comments on his alleged ill - treatment , but merely stated that he would appear for trial if he were released on bail .","Sub - inspector GPE denied the allegation that the first applicant had been assaulted and stated that the injuries observed on his body might have been caused as a result of the resistance he had shown to his arrest .","At the end of the hearing , the \u201c GPE \u201d ORG refused the first applicant \u2019s bail request on the weight of the arguments presented by the prosecution and ordered his pre - trial detention for a period not exceeding DATE . ORG indicated in this connection that it had not found the first applicant \u2019s statement that he would appear for trial if released on bail to be credible and reliable , but it did not comment on his counsel \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . The first applicant was transferred to FAC after the hearing .","It appears that on DATE the first applicant appeared before the court for another bail hearing . The ORG has not been provided with the minutes of that hearing , but it appears that the hearing was adjourned until DATE on account of the first applicant \u2019s deteriorating health , and that he was transferred to hospital for treatment for high blood sugar levels ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below for further details ) .","DATE . On DATE the charges against the first applicant were lodged with ORG .","On DATE the ORG convened for a preliminary inquiry in the case , which lasted until DATE , during which period ORG sat for DATE . The first applicant was present throughout the hearings and was represented by both his lawyers . He was also assisted by interpreters .","During the preliminary inquiry the prosecution called CARDINAL witnesses : the QUANTITY police officers who had allegedly arrested the first applicant , namely ORG - inspector PERSON and police sergeants PERSON and GPE ; another police officer who had interpreted the formal charges against the first applicant ; and the forensic chemist who had analysed the drugs allegedly seized from him . The first applicant , on the other hand , called CARDINAL witness , PERSON , the ORG Liaison Officer in GPE at the material time .","ORG first heard the prosecution witnesses , who gave testimonies consistent with the incident reports and presented evidence against the first applicant , including a sketched map indicating where the applicant had crossed into the \u201c NORP \u201d and where he had been captured , photographs of the relevant areas taken TIME after the arrest , the drugs allegedly recovered from the applicant , and the clothes and shoes he had been wearing on the relevant day , which were soiled with mud on account of the struggle on the ground , as well as copies of the medical reports drawn up following his arrest .","The prosecution witnesses were subsequently cross - examined by the defence counsel , who challenged the veracity and credibility of their testimonies in the light of the first applicant \u2019s account of events , according to which he had been kidnapped from his car in LAW territory and had then been handed over to the \u201c NORP \u201d police . The defence counsel accordingly asked detailed questions about the tip - off call which ORG - inspector PERSON had allegedly received DATE before the first applicant \u2019s arrest and the identity of the police informant ; the planning of the ambush and the weather conditions on the relevant TIME ; the route that the first applicant had followed to reach the \u201c GPE \u201d ; the exact point from which he had allegedly crossed into \u201c GPE \u201d territory ; and the paperwork undertaken by the police subsequent to the first applicant \u2019s arrest . The responses received appeared to be consistent with the earlier testimonies and did not reveal new evidence , apart from some factual details , such as the height of the border fence , which , according to the prosecution witnesses , was QUANTITY at the point of crossing but yielded when pressed , details of the conversation with the police informant , and the notes taken by the arresting officers in their police notebooks prior to and after the operation .","Sub - inspector PERSON was asked why he had not submitted the package of drugs allegedly recovered from the first applicant for a fingerprint examination , to which he responded that he had seen no need for such an examination as he had taken the package directly from the applicant \u2019s hands himself . He further maintained that no examination had been made of the footprints identified on the terrain , as the first applicant had apparently slipped and had not left very clear marks .","Sub - inspector PERSON was also asked whether he had recorded the tip - off he had received from his informant . He responded that he had recorded both the tip - off call and the subsequent operation conducted on TIME DATE for the first applicant \u2019s arrest in his police notebook , which had been submitted to the court as evidence .","On DATE of the preliminary inquiry the defence counsel called PERSON as the defence \u2019s sole witness . PERSON stated that he had been appointed by the ORG as a ORG Police Liaison Officer . His duty was to liaise between the NORP and the NORP sides on policing and humanitarian issues . He explained that on DATE his contact person on the NORP side on humanitarian issues , PERSON , who was the head of ORG Defence of the \u201c NORP \u201d , had called him for a meeting . During the meeting , PERSON had told PERSON that he wanted to protest , through the ORG , about the recent arrest of PERSON by the NORP police in the ORG buffer zone . Mr M.\u0130. had allegedly told him that if PERSON was not released before TIME on DATE , NORP Cypriots from LOC , a mixed village located in the ORG buffer zone , would start disappearing . ORG had added that if the NORP police had adopted a new policy of kidnapping suspects from the buffer zone , the NORP police would respond in the same manner .","NORP In response to the objections of the prosecution regarding the admissibility of PERSON testimony as evidence , ORG held that it would accept Mr ORG testimony not as evidence as to the truth of the statement allegedly made by Mr GPE , which would be against the rule on hearsay evidence , but only as evidence of the fact that a meeting had taken place between Mr PERSON and Mr J.C.","On the basis of the testimonies and other evidence presented before it , on DATE ORG decided that there were sufficient grounds to commit the first applicant for trial before ORG . It also prolonged the first applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention .","The first applicant claimed that during the preliminary inquiry , he had seen one of his abductors amongst the audience , but that the latter had managed to leave the court room before he had had the chance to point him out to his lawyer .","The first applicant \u2019s trial commenced in ORG on DATE . He attended all of the hearings together with his CARDINAL lawyers . He was also provided with an interpreter .","In addition to the CARDINAL witnesses who had testified at the preliminary inquiry , the prosecution called as witnesses a forensic police officer , a \u201c GPE \u201d military officer stationed in GPE , the CARDINAL doctors who had examined the first applicant on DATE and the agricultural engineer who had analysed the soil obtained from the first applicant \u2019s shoes . The evidence provided by the prosecution witnesses , including during crossexamination , was , in general , consistent with the previous testimonies and official reports .","During his cross - examination ORG - inspector PERSON was asked a number of questions regarding the identity of his informant , which he refused to answer . However , he gave detailed information about the telephone conversation he had had with the informant , and also about his \u201c exploratory visit \u201d to the estimated drug drop - off point in TIME of DATE together with the informant . PERSON also stated that he had informed his supervisor about the information he had received from his informant prior to the operation conducted on CARDINAL DATE , while keeping the identity of the informant secret . However , he had not alerted the local police and military officers in GPE in order to protect the secrecy of the operation . In response to a question as to why no one had been left at the drop - off point following the first applicant \u2019s arrest to capture the latter \u2019s contact person in the \u201c NORP \u201d , ORG - inspector PERSON stated that he had suspected his informant to be that contact person and that , in any event , a unit had been stationed at the dropoff point on TIME CARDINAL DATE to catch any suspects .","During his cross - examination PERSON , who had conducted the initial medical examination of the first applicant after his arrest , was asked to provide details of the findings of his medical report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Accordingly , he indicated that on the relevant morning he had observed a swelling with a diameter of QUANTITY on the left side of the first applicant \u2019s head , as well as redness measuring QUANTITY by CARDINAL cm behind the right ear , redness measuring QUANTITY across the chest , and CARDINAL areas of redness measuring QUANTITY by DATE cm on the back , all of which appeared to have been sustained TIME before the examination . He stated that the swelling observed above the first applicant \u2019s left ear could have been caused by blunt - force trauma or by the impact of falling on a stone or similar hard object . He also confirmed that the examination had been conducted in the presence of CARDINAL persons in civilian clothes , whom he had perceived to be police officers and who had also acted as interpreters between the first applicant and himself . He added that although he had raised the question specifically , the first applicant had not expressed any complaints of bodily injury , apart from stating that he was diabetic . The police , on the other hand , had explained that there had been a scuffle during his arrest .","PERSON , who had examined the first applicant after PERSON for any pulmonary problems , stated that the first applicant had presented symptoms of bronchitis . He had therefore prescribed medicine to him for that purpose but had not noted any other injuries or marks on his face or torso . He also indicated that the examination had been conducted in the presence of another person in civilian clothes , whom he assumed to be a police officer .","Dr GPE , a general surgeon , stated before the court that he had also examined the first applicant on the relevant day in response to his complaints of abdominal pain , but had not identified any causes for such pain . In response to a question from the first applicant \u2019s lawyer , he stated that a blow to the abdomen could cause pain in that area . He added that if the blow was strong , it would also leave a mark , but he had not noted any such marks on the first applicant \u2019s abdomen .","On DATE , after the close of the case for the prosecution , the first applicant was called to make his defence statement . His sworn testimony was largely in line with the account of events he subsequently submitted to ORG , including the detailed allegations of his abduction and illtreatment . However , he did not claim before the trial court that his abduction had been witnessed by the driver of a certain white ORG pickup .","Following the first applicant \u2019s statement and crossexamination , the defence called CARDINAL witnesses to testify in support of its case , including a number of ORG police officers . The pertinent witness statements are summarised below .","DATE . Mr PERSON stated that he had left his house in GPE to go to work at approximately at TIME on TIME of CARDINAL DATE . While on his way to GPE to pick up his NORP workers , he had overtaken the first applicant \u2019s car , which was heading in the same direction . When asked whether he had actually seen the applicant in the car , PERSON answered in the negative and indicated that he had only identified the car from its number plate . Moreover , he had been unable to tell whether there had been CARDINAL person or more in the car . PERSON claimed that as he had approached PERSON , he had noticed a stationary white car on the left - hand side of the road , with its bonnet open and a man examining its engine . Shortly afterwards , he had noticed a red car with a number plate starting with a \u201c Z \u201d , parked to the right of the white car . He had driven past those cars without stopping , but while driving by , he had heard a man shouting . He had assumed that it was the driver of the white car calling for help with his car . He had arrived at PERSON \u2019s caf\u00e9 where his workers were waiting for him at TIME , had a coffee and then left with his workers . As he was driving past the spot where he had seen the CARDINAL ORG cars previously , he had noticed the first applicant \u2019s car parked oddly , almost in the middle of the road and facing towards the roadside , with its driver \u2019s door open , its engine running and its headlights on . The CARDINAL other cars , on the other hand , had gone .","On TIME , as he was driving to PERSON to pick up his NORP workers from PERSON \u2019s caf\u00e9 , PERSON ORG had noticed a red car with a red \u201c Z \u201d number plate parked on the left side of the road just before the junction leading to the ex - Pergamos camp . It had looked like the police cars that were used by the \u201c TRNC \u201d police in LOC . The red car was facing Pergamos with its bonnet open , and there were CARDINAL men standing in front of it . He had then noticed , on the opposite side of the road by the cypress trees , a white car , which had flashed its headlights at him . He had driven past both cars without stopping and arrived at PERSON \u2019s caf\u00e9 at CARDINAL to TIME He had left the caf\u00e9 at TIME and while driving past the place where he had previously seen the CARDINAL cars , he had noticed that those cars had gone but this time the first applicant \u2019s car was parked on the right side of the road , facing the wrong direction , with its engine running , and its headlights and wipers on . The driver \u2019s door was also open .","Mr GPE left his house at TIME on DATE to pick up his NORP workers at their designated caf\u00e9 by the Pergamos checkpoint . A red double - cabin pickup , which he later learned belonged to the first applicant , was driving QUANTITY ahead of him in the same direction . When he saw that part of the road was flooded , GPE first turned his car around to return home , as he thought the weather would not be suitable for construction work DATE , but then changed his mind and resumed his journey to GPE . On reaching the junction leading to the ex - PERSON camp sometime between PERSON and CARDINAL TIME , he noticed the first applicant \u2019s car parked in the right - hand lane of the road , facing slightly to the right . He also saw someone getting out of that car and walking towards the fields on the right . There was no one else in the car , but the engine was running . The driver \u2019s door and both rear passenger doors were open . He also noticed CARDINAL other people QUANTITY further down in the fields to the right , but did not see any other cars in the vicinity . He then heard someone yelling \u201c Let me go ! \u201d in NORP from the direction of the fields , but was too scared to get out of the car to see what was going on , and drove back home .","While driving towards PERSON to pick up his NORP workers at TIME of DATE , Mr PERSON saw his brother \u2019s car parked just before the junction leading to the ex - Pergamos camp . He noticed that the engine was running and the wipers were on , the driver \u2019s door was open , but his brother was not around . His phone and bag were , however , in the car . He drove to PERSON \u2019s caf\u00e9 to ask about his brother , and when he found no further information he took CARDINAL of his NORP workers with him and drove back to the place where he had found the first applicant \u2019s car . He then went to the LAW police to report his brother missing . Upon returning to the place of the incident , and prior to the arrival of any LAW police officers , he asked one of his NORP workers to move the car to avoid causing any accidents . The car was accordingly parked in a safer spot on the left side of the main road .","On TIME , while driving to PERSON to pick up his NORP workers , PERSON saw a red ORG doublecabin pickup , which he later learned was the first applicant \u2019s car , parked in the right - hand lane of the road QUANTITY from PERSON \u2019s caf\u00e9 , slightly facing the left - hand side of the road and with the driver \u2019s door open . When he reached the caf\u00e9 , one of the first applicant \u2019s NORP workers approached him and said that his boss had still not arrived . PERSON let the worker call the first applicant from his mobile phone , but the first applicant did not answer . PERSON then left the caf\u00e9 with his workers . As he was driving past the first applicant \u2019s car again , he saw CARDINAL people standing by it , including the first applicant \u2019s brother , PERSON .","CARDINAL other NORP builders , Mr GPE , Mr GPE and Mr M.T. , also gave similar accounts to that of LOC regarding the location of the first applicant \u2019s car .","Detective PERSON , a NORP , was the chief investigating officer appointed by the SBA police to investigate the first applicant \u2019s alleged abduction . He stated that at TIME DATE , he had seen PERSON at the ORG police station , reporting his brother missing . When he went to the scene of the incident at TIME , he found the first applicant \u2019s red ORG pickup , which had already been moved from its original position , at the PERSON camp junction , on the left - hand side of the main road from GPE to GPE . He noticed that the car key was still in the ignition , and there was a handbag and a mobile phone inside the car . He and a couple of other officers searched the vicinity for signs of the applicant , with the help of a sniffer dog , but found no clues to indicate his whereabouts . He claimed that in some parts of the fields by the side of the main road , the mud was QUANTITY deep , which made walking in the fields very hard . He then instructed PERSON to go to the NORP checkpoint to enquire whether the first applicant had been detained by the \u201c GPE \u201d police that TIME . The answer was negative .","Detective Sergeant P.P. presented to the trial court a map he had sketched on DATE , covering the area between boundary stones CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL where the first applicant was alleged to have crossed into the \u201c GPE \u201d , as well as some photographs that the LAW police had taken in the area . The sketched map indicated a stream , with a barbed - wire fence to its north , marking the boundary between the ORG and the \u201c TRNC \u201d . QUANTITY from the barbed wire was an olive tree in an uncultivated field , which was the alleged drop - off point for the drugs the first applicant was accused of smuggling . According to the map , the barbed - wire fence in the relevant area was QUANTITY high on average , but P.P. acknowledged that the fence had deformed and sunk in certain parts , which was also evident in some of the photographs . Moreover , there was a small hole measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY at the bottom of the fence adjoining the field . According to ORG , the approximate depth of the stream on the relevant date was DATE to QUANTITY .","DATE . In the cross - examination , the prosecution argued that the exact location where the first applicant had been captured , including the deformed wire fences where he had crossed into the \u201c TRNC \u201d , had intentionally not been photographed by the LAW police , so the photographs submitted to the trial court as evidence were irrelevant and misleading . Moreover , the wire fence on the NORP \u201d border was not barbed throughout , contrary to ORG suggestion . The prosecution claimed that the investigation conducted by the ORG police had lacked independence and impartiality .","Mr N.P. , a NORP superintendent in the LAW police service , testified that at TIME on DATE he had received a call at the police station stating that some of the roads in the ORG of Dhekelia had been flooded because of the heavy rain that TIME . He therefore left the police station to check the roads and instruct the rerouting of certain roads as necessary . At TIME he drove past the area where the first applicant \u2019s vehicle was later found abandoned . Although the heavy rain had stopped by that time , it was still drizzling and the road in the relevant area was covered with QUANTITY of water . By TIME the rain had stopped completely .","When shown the photographs which the \u201c NORP \u201d police had allegedly taken in the area TIME , Mr ORG said that the ground looked too dry , so those photographs could not have been taken on DATE .","Sergeant A.E.N. was a NORP working in the LAW police force . At TIME on TIME of CARDINAL December CARDINAL , he crossed from the \u201c TRNC \u201d to the ORG through the Pergamos checkpoint to report to his work station . As he was approaching the ex - Pergamos camp junction on the main road from GPE to GPE , he noticed a stationary car further down his lane , facing his direction . Since the headlights of the car were bothering his eyes , he flashed his lights , but there was no reaction . As he approached , he saw that the stationary car was a red pickup and the driver \u2019s door was open . When ORG pulled up by the red car to see what was going on , he noticed that the car \u2019s engine was also running , although there was no one inside it . Once he reached the police station he reported what he had seen and was accordingly instructed to go back to the place of the incident for further investigation . When ORG went back at TIME , he found that PERSON and CARDINAL NORP workers had moved the red pickup and had parked it QUANTITY down the road leading to the ex - Pergamos camp .","Mr D.J.W. was a search - dog trainer in the NORP armed forces . At TIME of DATE he was deployed to track the first applicant \u2019s whereabouts with his dog . When he arrived there were CARDINAL ORG police officers at the scene of the incident . He first explained to the trial court how the tracking process worked in general and stated that the dog could only track CARDINAL person at a time , and would follow the freshest track in the area . On TIME , they had started the search at the place where the first applicant \u2019s car was first found . They had covered the QUANTITY perimeter , but had not been able to find any tracks . Since the recent rainfall had made the ground wet , it would not have been possible to walk on the grass by the asphalt road without leaving footprints , but they had found MONEY , which meant that the first applicant had not left the area on foot .","The defence lastly called PERSON as a witness , to testify on his exchange with Mr GPE , an officer of the \u201c ORG . The trial court , however , ruled that PERSON could not testify on the content of Mr PERSON \u2019s statements in view of the rules on hearsay evidence .","At the hearing held on DATE , the first applicant \u2019s lawyer , PERSON , told the trial court that while the defence had a number of NORP witnesses who wished to testify in favour of the defence , mainly to confirm the sighting of the abandoned vehicle , it had not been possible to secure their attendance as those witnesses were being intimidated by the NORP authorities . According to submissions made by the applicants , the President of the Court responded in a hostile manner and requested proof of service of witness summonses on the relevant NORP persons , but the exchange between the President and the defence counsel was not included in the minutes of the hearing .","At the hearing held on DATE , the first applicant \u2019s other lawyer , PERSON PERSON , informed the trial court that the defence still had CARDINAL more witnesses to call . However , since they had not managed to duly serve those witnesses with official summonses , and most of them had no further information to share with the court than that already presented , they had decided to relinquish their right to call those witnesses and to close the defence case . The President of the ORG asked in return why the said witnesses had not been served with a \u201c short summons \u201d to secure their attendance and stated that the court was very sensitive to this issue in view of PERSON allegations of witness intimidation made at the previous hearing . Mr PERSON stated in response that he had no information as to the factual basis of PERSON allegations of intimidation and that he did not mean to blame any ORG officials for the non - attendance of the NORP witnesses .","On DATE ORG delivered its judgment against the first applicant , which reads as follows :","\u201c The legislation , the testimonies and the evidence presented have been assessed [ by the court ] comprehensively .","[ The court ] has carefully observed the prosecution witnesses , as well as the defendant and his witnesses during their depositions .","While there are some small discrepancies between the testimonies of ... prosecution witnesses , their statements were mainly found to be credible , accurate and reliable .","On the other hand , [ the court ] has not found the testimonies of the defendant and his witnesses to be credible , accurate and reliable . Moreover , we decided that these testimonies were not likely to be true , on the basis of the principle of \u201c balance of probabilities \u201d .","Since all witness testimonies and the evidence presented to the court are in the case file , we find it unnecessary to cite them CARDINAL by CARDINAL in our judgment .","We believe that on the basis of the testimonies and evidence they presented , the prosecution have proven , beyond reasonable doubt , both charges against the defendant .","Consequently , the defendant is found guilty of both charges brought against him . \u201d","The first applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment on the first count , with no sentence on the second count . ORG , however , ruled that he be released from prison in view of the time he had already spent on remand .","The medical examinations conducted on DATE in the aftermath of the first applicant \u2019s arrest have been outlined in DATE above . According to the information and documents provided by the parties , he underwent further medical examinations throughout his detention in the \u201c NORP \u201d , the details of which are as follows .","DATE after his arrest , on DATE , the first applicant was examined by a ORG medical officer , PERSON , at his request . It appears that a \u201c NORP \u201d official in civilian clothes supervised the examination and took notes .","According to the information in the case file , the first applicant told PERSON ORG that he had been punched and kicked at the time of his arrest and that he felt acute pain in his ribs and pelvis . The first applicant claimed before the ORG that he had been prevented from saying more as the \u201c NORP \u201d official supervising the examination had told him to keep quiet .","When conducting a physical examination , the doctor noted a slight swelling above the first applicant \u2019s left ear ; a graze behind the right ear and the right side of the back ; and tender areas on the right side of the chest and the left side of the back , behind the neck , and around the tail bone and the right hip . No handcuff marks were noted on his wrists .","It appears from PERSON notes that the first applicant indicated that he had been treated well after being handed over to the uniformed police on DATE , and that he was being given his diabetes medication . Dr ORG noted that the applicant \u2019s diabetes was the type that could usually be controlled by diet ( type-CARDINAL diabetes ) and further remarked that arrangements had been made for a blood glucose monitoring kit to enable him to monitor his diabetes . There were , however , no remarks regarding the first applicant \u2019s intimidation by the \u201c GPE \u201d official supervising the examination .","On DATE PERSON made an unannounced visit to the central prison to check on the first applicant . During the visit he also performed a blood sugar test . In a report he issued DATE , PERSON indicated that although the applicant \u2019s blood sugar level was somewhat high ( \u201c CARDINAL g \/ dL \u201d ) , it was still within the normal range for him DATE he had informed the doctor that his levels were usually around \u201c CARDINALg \/ dL \u201d . The doctor also noted that the applicant \u2019s request for a special diet for his diabetes was being met by the prison authorities . In conclusion , PERSON was satisfied that the applicant was receiving adequate treatment for his diabetes and was being allowed to monitor his blood sugar levels .","Dr S.T. visited the first applicant again on DATE , together with a NORP doctor , GPE , to check his physical state and blood sugar levels . In his report dated DATE , PERSON made the following remarks :","\u201c In my opinion a good standard of medical care is being given . However , because of Mr. Tsiakkourmas\u2019 mental state and the stress he is under , his diabetic control is poor . There is also a question as to whether or not he is complying fully with his treatment . \u201d","PERSON also visited the first applicant on DATE and DATE for routine medical checks and noted that he was in reasonable health . In his latter report dated DATE , PERSON also stated that the first applicant had made no complaints of ill - treatment by the prison staff .","On DATE the first applicant was examined by PERSON , a NORP specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology practising in GPE , in relation to his diabetes . The doctor noted that his blood sugar level was \u201c CARDINAL mg \/ dL \u201d and that he had lost a considerable amount of weight since his imprisonment . He then concluded his report as follows :","\u201c The obvious weight loss and marked hyperglycaemia without any other signs of concomitant disease can only be explained by a rapid metabolic deterioration that followed his imprisonment . The initial and ongoing stress situation , the involuntary immobilisation of a formerly physically active person in association with marked depression are factors which increase both hyperglycaemia and insulin resistance in the diabetic person and lead to catabolism . The present treatment is obviously insufficient to prevent further worsening .","If his immediate return to his normal environment and DATE activities is not achievable at present , I suggest this :","Glimepiride ( Amaryl ) QUANTITY tablet to be taken twice daily","Metformin ( Glucophage , GPE ) QUANTITY tablet once DATE","Diabetic food ( food to be taken CARDINAL times daily , no added sugar ) with adequate water consumption","Regular DATE physical exercise","Blood glucose testing CARDINAL times daily","If these measures do not improve his diabetes control significantly in few days\u2019 time or signs of further deterioration are detected , the commencement of insulin treatment and\/or hospitalisation should be considered . His physical state should also be followed up to decide if medical treatment is necessary . \u201d","On DATE PERSON saw the first applicant once again at ORG , together with PERSON and a ORG medical officer , PERSON noted his findings as follows :","\u201c The patient was in a very bad mood ... and he mentioned that he did n\u2019t want to comply with further medical assistance from whatever side . ... [ He said that ] he took this tablet [ LOC ] only once DATE and did n\u2019t take the other tablet [ GPE ] recommended during my first visit .","His physical examination was carried out by PERSON in our presence .... His blood sugar was QUANTITY \/ dL .... I advised an abdominal ultrasound examination which was carried out without delay by the X - ray department in our presence . Multiple small stones were found in both kidneys without any other pathological findings .","After these I tried to convince him to comply with our medical recommendations ...","The main problem now seems to be the lack of compliance with the medical recommendations .","His parodontitis [ sic . ] and the presence of small renal stones are also warning signs that his diabetic control must be improved otherwise a progressing inflammation in the mouth and a urine infection can worsen his diabetes with severe acute consequences . To avoid this , a proper compliance with the medical recommendations seems to be absolutely important .","In this situation a psychiatric exploration is also necessary , carried out by a doctor who speaks NORP as a mother tongue ... This exploration may help break his present denial of medical care and provide further opinion [ on ] how to proceed with his medication . \u201d","PERSON findings coincided with the separate report prepared by the NORP doctor , GPE","On DATE PERSON saw the first applicant for the third time and noted his findings as follows :","\u201c ... He complained of regular gastric pain ... He confirmed that he was taking the anti - diabetic drug according to the last recommendation .","... I took his blood sugar , which was CARDINAL mg \/ dL in the fasting state this time .","We recommended hospitalisation for a better blood sugar stabilisation and followup . The idea was rejected by PERSON who suggested a more frequent blood sugar monitoring to show if his blood sugar levels can be diminished , if required , with an elevated anti - diabetic dose without bringing him out of the prison . On my fears that the patient may have a stress mediated gastric ulceration that can progress into perforation or bleeding he promised to arrange a gastroscopy on DATE . \u201d","On DATE PERSON examined the first applicant for the fourth and the last time , in the presence of PERSON and a ORG medical officer , and made the following notes :","\u201c ... He has not performed a blood sugar test since DATE but in general he felt somatically fit . Sometimes he does not take LOC TIME when he \u2018 feels alright\u2019 .","... I took his blood sugar , which was QUANTITY \/ dL ... non - fasting .","There was an agreement among all CARDINAL doctors present that it was time to carry out new laboratory and ORG tests . However , the patient denied all these and allowed only the aforementioned blood sugar test ...","His explanation was that he felt helplessness , nobody wanted to help him to take him out of prison , he did n\u2019t even ask for my visit or for any other medical help in the future . He also said that he would stop tablet taking on DATE and would start a hunger strike . I tried to explain to him that in his health situation this would be really dangerous , could lead to sudden worsening of his status . I could not convince him to abandon this idea , that he should comply with the medical suggestions to remain fit ...","His anger and negativistic attitude to health care can be signs of deepening depression . \u201d","On DATE the first applicant was examined by another ORG medical officer , PERSON , who made the following findings after his visit :","\u201c Mr. PERSON ... suffers from diabetes type II for DATE .","The patient was found in a good physical condition but seemed to be depressive ...","His blood sugar level [ was ] QUANTITY mg \/ dL ...","The drugs recently prescribed by PERSON are available at prison , but he refuses to take any other drugs than prescribed by his \u2018 own PERSON . There is also the possibility to monitor the bodyweight and to check the blood sugar level CARDINAL times a day , as recommended , but the patient refuses this as well , because he wants to avoid to be pricked too often and in his opinion doing this every DATE seem to be sufficient . The perfect therapy plan developed by PERSON is not accepted by the patient !","...","His blood sugar level is too high and has to be properly adjusted , but there is no acute danger to his life . The main problem at this moment seems to be the fact that he refuses any other medication prescribed or monitoring recommended than from his own doctor . \u201d","Dr PERSON issued the following \u201c inter - office memorandum \u201d on DATE in relation to the first applicant \u2019s health situation :","\u201c CARDINAL . Dr. GPE , the [ NORP ] responsible doctor at GPE General Hospital North , is an endocrinologist and seems to be very competent and cooperative . All necessary drugs and means to carry out recommended tests ( blood sugar level , blood pressure , weight etc . ) and supportive measures ( physical exercise , diet etc . ) are available at the hospital as well as at the prison .","NORP The main problem at this moment is the patient \u2019s unwillingness to follow the therapy plan for understandable reasons ( lack of trust of foreign doctors , depressive situation ... ) .","... \u201d","After his visit on DATE Dr PERSON noted that the first applicant had still not been taking the recommended medication regularly .","According to the documents submitted by the respondent Government , the first applicant was also regularly examined by NORP doctors .","On DATE a NORP doctor , whose name can not be discerned from the reports , examined the first applicant and measured his blood sugar levels . He also prescribed medication for his diabetes , including QUANTITY mg of LOC .","On DATE Dr GPE examined the first applicant in the presence of PERSON , PERSON and a ORG officer at ORG and noted the following in his report :","\u201c Tsiakkourmas suffers from type-CARDINAL diabetes and takes LOC ( QUANTITY mg ) , twice a day . While his diabetes was controlled through diet previously , currently he is hyperglycaemic .","It was noticed during the examination that Tsiakkourmas was stressed and depressed ... The right lumbar region was sensitive to percussion and there was pain upon deep palpation at the right hypochondriac region ... The results of the examination of the extremities were normal .","His blood sugar level was CARDINAL mg \/ dl ...","Based on these results , his gallbladder and kidneys were examined in ultrasound . His gallbladder was empty and no stones were noted ; there were stones in both kidneys . Liver , spleen , urinary bladder and prostate were normal . \u201d","Based on his findings , PERSON recommended that the first applicant continue with his medication and special diet , exercise DATE , measure his glucose levels regularly and be brought to the hospital for examination by him twice a week . He also recommended the first applicant \u2019s referral to a psychiatrist .","It appears that Dr GPE continued to examine the first applicant regularly throughout his detention . In his report dated DATE , he noted that the first applicant had refused to be examined and had stated that he had not been taking his medication .","On DATE the first applicant was examined by a NORP psychiatrist , PERSON , with the assistance of an interpreter . The doctor noted no pathologies , apart from the applicant \u2019s distress . She stated in her report that she had offered to prescribe the first applicant a tranquiliser , but he had rejected it .","On DATE the first applicant was admitted to ORG for closer monitoring of his health . He was kept there until DATE .","After visiting the first applicant at the hospital on DATE , Dr PERSON noted his improved physical condition . According to his report dated DATE , the first applicant \u2019s state of health continued to improve after his discharge from the hospital . Similarly , when he visited the first applicant on DATE and DATE , Dr PERSON found him in a \u201c sufficient health condition \u201d , although his psychological state appeared to have deteriorated . Dr PERSON stressed to the first applicant that if he had any health problems , he should approach the prison authorities and ask to be seen by a doctor .","Following his discharge from the hospital the first applicant was also visited twice by PERSON for routine medical checks ( on DATE and DATE ) . PERSON noted that he was in reasonable health and also stated that he had made no complaints of ill - treatment by the prison staff .","On DATE the first applicant was examined by another ORG medical officer , PERSON , who also found him to be in a very satisfactory state of health . PERSON indicated that the first applicant continued to take the prescribed anti - diabetic drugs regularly , and that he had been receiving the proper diet . He also noted that the first applicant had been performing physical exercises and was allowed to get books and newspapers .","The first applicant submitted a medical report dated DATE issued by his dentist . The report stated that he was suffering from serious problems with his upper anterior teeth , including abscessed gums , and had a scar on his lower lip , which was consistent with a powerful blow to the face .","The first applicant also submitted other medical certificates that he had obtained from various doctors DATE after his release from prison , including CARDINAL from his own doctor . According to those reports , while the first applicant \u2019s diabetes appeared to be under control by that time , he continued to suffer psychologically .","It appears from the information in the case file that the first applicant was allowed to receive visitors twice a week during his detention on remand , including from his friends , and was granted TIME for each visit . His allegation that he was not given permission to make telephone calls was denied by the Government .","NORP Following special permission sought by the second applicant ( the first applicant \u2019s wife ) , the first applicant was authorised to receive visits from his family on DATE , GPE DATE , although it was not an ordinary visit day .","The parties disagreed as to whether the family visits in LOC were monitored . The applicants claimed that a prison officer had stood guard in or by the visit room during most visits , whereas the ORG maintained that the applicants had been able to meet and communicate out of the sight of the authorities .","The parties submitted photographs and sketched maps of the scene of the incident and its vicinity , as well as various documents concerning the events and evidence that unfolded following the detention of the first applicant by \u201c NORP \u201d authorities . Those documents , in so far as they are relevant , are summarised below .","The Government submitted CARDINAL pages from the police notebook of ORG - inspector PERSON , including CARDINAL handwritten entries .","The first of those entries , which was made at TIME on DATE , read as follows :","\u201c According to the information I received , at TIME DATE a NORP will enter the GPE via Pergamos to hide illicit drugs in the empty lot located by the border crossing , to be picked up by his accomplice on this side . The superintendent put me in charge of taking the necessary precautions in the area . I informed sergeants R.\u00d6. and H.M .. \u201d","The second entry was made at TIME on DATE , after the arrest of the first applicant , and described the circumstances in which the latter had been captured with drugs as follows :","\u201c At TIME we captured a NORP coming from the LAW on the lot by the cemetery located next to FAC , together with sergeants GPE and GPE .. I took the bag he was carrying . Upon checking the bag , I found what I believed to be QUANTITY plates of cannabis resin wrapped in newspaper . The defendant was informed by sergeant PERSON , who acted as the interpreter , that he was being arrested for having made an unauthorised entry into the GPE and possessing illicit drugs . The defendant said \u201c I am innocent \u201d . I learned from ORG that the person \u2019s name was \u201c PERSON \u201d [ sic . ] . We transferred PERSON to ORG . At TIME I interrogated [ him ] with the help of sergeant PERSON [ to find out ] where he had found the drugs in his possession and who he was taking them to . I could not get any responses . I left the detainee in GPE under the control of sergeant LAW .. I am now leaving for Lefko\u015fa together with the evidence . \u201d","After being informed about the discovery of the first applicant \u2019s car in LAW territory , in a seemingly abandoned state with his briefcase and mobile phone left inside the car , the ORG police promptly started an investigation into his whereabouts . The forensic examinations conducted in and around the car , including with the help of a sniffer dog , did not yield any results . The police and the military in the \u201c NORP \u201d initially denied any knowledge of the first applicant ; it was not until TIME that the \u201c NORP \u201d authorities informed the ORG police that the first applicant was in their custody , having been found in possession of drugs in \u201c GPE \u201d territory .","On the basis of the information received from the \u201c TRNC \u201d authorities , the ORG police searched the first applicant \u2019s car for traces of drugs and fingerprints . It appears that they found no traces of drugs , and no further information was provided regarding fingerprints . Over DATE , they also interviewed some ORG people in an attempt to shed light on the events of DATE . Amongst the interviewees were the first applicant \u2019s NORP workers , his fellow NORP Cypriot contractors , including those who later testified before ORG , members of the ORG police force , and the residents of the houses in the area where the first applicant \u2019s car had been found and where he had allegedly crossed into the \u201c NORP \u201d .","A number of interviewees attested to having seen the first applicant \u2019s car on TIME CARDINAL DATE parked in an odd manner on the main road from GPE to GPE , albeit with some inconsistencies as to its position and state , such as whether and which doors of the car were open , which way it was facing and whether the engine was running . Some others who had taken the same road around the relevant time stated that they had not noticed anything out of the ordinary or seen the first applicant \u2019s car . A number of persons approached for statements , including some NORP , refrained from giving statements altogether because they were afraid to talk for political reasons .","Of the ORG people interviewed , CARDINAL , PERSON and ORG , who also subsequently testified before ORG , had seen the ORG cars that had allegedly been used for the first applicant \u2019s abduction . Although ORG stated before ORG that he had seen CARDINAL ORG cars , CARDINAL white and CARDINAL red ( see above paragraph CARDINAL ) , he had not mentioned anything about a white car in his earlier statement to the ORG given on DATE . Moreover , the sketched plan attached to GPE \u2019s statement , indicating the respective positions of the red and the white ORG cars and the car of the first applicant , did not fully correspond to the statements given by the other witnesses and the first applicant himself , nor did it match his subsequent statement before ORG , particularly as to where the red ORG car had been parked vis - \u00e0 - vis the white one .","Amongst all those interviewed , CARDINAL person DATE a NORP builder , Mr GPE , who also subsequently appeared before ORG as a witness \u2013 claimed to have witnessed anything suggesting an abduction on the relevant TIME . In his statement to the LAW police on DATE , GPE said that at TIME on TIME of CARDINAL December CARDINAL , he had seen a red double - cabin pickup parked on the main LOC road , with no other cars around it , and a man running from that car towards the field on the right side of the road . There were CARDINAL other men in the field , who were pulling someone by the hands and arms towards the east side of the field , and he heard that man yelling \u201c Let me go ! \u201d .","On DATE the ORG police interviewed Mr GPE , the owner of the white ORG pickup with registration number UJ CARDINAL , which the first applicant claimed had been travelling in front of him towards PERSON on the relevant morning . PERSON stated that on TIME DATE , his car had been driven by a NORP worker of his , whose name he did not reveal for safety reasons ( but who will be referred to as \u201c NORP \u201d hereinafter ) . According to what PERSON had heard from X , as he was driving from Pergamos to LOC on the morning of QUANTITY DATE , X had noticed CARDINAL civilian cars , CARDINAL red and the other white , blocking the way of a doublecabin pickup that had been coming from the direction of LOC ( that is , the opposite direction to him ) . As he approached , he saw CARDINAL persons running from CARDINAL of the vehicles towards the pickup and by the time he was driving past those vehicles , they were pulling the driver out of the pickup , while CARDINAL other people were sitting inside the other vehicle . ORG stated that X had not seen anything more because he had driven past without stopping . Allegedly , DATE after the incident the first applicant \u2019s nephew , PERSON ( who himself is an applicant before ORG ) , and an ORG police officer managed to track down X. Yet , apart from their allegations , there is no evidence in the case file to demonstrate that any contact was actually made with X or that X confirmed GPE \u2019s testimony .","As for the interviews conducted with the residents of the area , it appears from their testimonies that none of them had seen anyone around on the morning of DATE . They had certainly not seen anything suggesting an arrest or abduction on the road . Some of them confirmed that the depth of the stream by the border fences , which the first applicant had allegedly crossed to enter the \u201c TRNC \u201d , had been QUANTITY on TIME in question . It further appears from the documents submitted by the applicants that after finishing the interviews with the residents of the area around FAC , an ORG officer set off to walk from the point of the alleged crossing into the \u201c TRNC \u201d to the point of the alleged abduction in order to measure the time it would have taken the first applicant to walk that distance . According to the officer \u2019s notes , the relevant path could be covered in TIME at a normal pace .","The applicants also submitted various ORG police reports regarding the investigation conducted into the first applicant \u2019s alleged abduction . The report dated DATE stated the following :","\u201c On CARDINAL Panicos\u2019 [ the first applicant \u2019s ] wife , accompanied by a NORP Advocate , visited him in custody in LOC . It has been confirmed by both parties that PERSON alleges that at the location of his abandoned vehicle he saw a vehicle with the bonnet open and CARDINAL men with their attention fixed on the engine compartment . He stopped to offer assistance , and at this point he was bundled into their vehicle and driven from the ORG into the controlled site via Pergamos gate . This was against his will . He was then driven around for TIME , given a parcel and pushed out of the vehicle at an unknown location . TIME passed and then a NORP Police car arrived . He went to them for assistance and was arrested for allegedly being in possession of a parcel of controlled drugs \u201d .","In another report prepared on DATE , ORG sergeant PERSON noted that the first applicant \u2019s nephew , PERSON , had given him some information that he had received from his uncle \u2019s NORP lawyer regarding the alleged abduction . The relevant parts of the report read as follows :","\u201c PERSON also told his solicitor that following his abduction he was taken to a place where there were airplanes . During the journey the persons who abducted him were beating him up . On arriving at the aeroplane place ( suspected to be FAC [ sic . ] ) the persons who abducted him dragged him out of the vehicle , threw a bag to him and left . Following that NORP Police arrived at the said place and arrested him . \u201d","NORP In a report prepared on DATE , ORG sergeant PERSON noted that the \u201c Political Section \u201d of ORG used CARDINAL unmarked civilian vehicles , a red ORG and a white ORG , to patrol the area of LOC and GPE . In his opinion , those vehicles had also been used for the abduction of the first applicant .","In their report issued on DATE , the ORG police made the following conclusions :","\u201c NORP ORG maintain that they arrested Tsiakkourmas inside ORG QUANTITY west of FAC .","If this account is accepted then Tsiakkourmas must have abandoned his vehicle , engine running , lights on and driver \u2019s door open , almost in the middle of what was then a fairly busy road . He must have left his briefcase and mobile telephone and ( carrying a large quantity of cannabis ) walked QUANTITY across a muddy field , climbed a QUANTITY high fence and crossed QUANTITY wide ditch . An ORG Police Officer will state that there was water to a depth of QUANTITY in the ditch that morning . He thereafter must have tried to hide the cannabis under a QUANTITY high olive tree ( the only one in the area described by ORG ) . ( This in an area with which Tsiakkourmas would be unlikely to be familiar \u2013 inside ORG ) . All of this he must have accomplished knowing that his employees were waiting for him at TIME , as they had been doing for DATE , at the Pergamos Check Point .","...","Notwithstanding the fact that it is often much more difficult to prove innocence rather than guilt it is submitted that , in spite of the statements of ORG to the contrary , all other available evidence indicates that PERSON was taken from his vehicle at the locus where that vehicle was abandoned DATE well within LOC . Other than the statements of ORG there is absolutely no evidence \u2013 forensic or historical \u2013 to indicate that Tsiakkourmas had DATE or ever has had \u2013 illegal drugs in his motor vehicle or in his possession . \u201d","Some members of the ORG police also appeared before ORG as defence witnesses . Their statements have been noted above ( paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . In a separate affidavit he sent to the ORG , ORG sergeant PERSON stated that various NORP witnesses who had wished to testify before ORG for the defence had been intimidated by the NORP authorities . PERSON claimed that some of those witnesses had personally told him that they had been questioned and threatened by the NORP police . The ORG notes that it can not be inferred from the case - file that these allegations were brought to the attention of ORG .","On DATE the ORG police conducted a reconstruction of the first applicant \u2019s alleged abduction on the basis of the evidence available to them . The reconstruction was also recorded on video . It appears that a number of \u201c GPE \u201d police officers also watched the reconstruction .","The ORG police were not permitted to interview the applicant during his detention in the \u201c NORP \u201d . However , following his release they took a statement from him , which was consistent with his account of the events submitted to ORG . They also showed him the video of the reconstruction exercise . According to the records of the ORG police , the first applicant recognised CARDINAL of the bystanders in the reconstruction video as his abductors . Upon investigation , it was established that CARDINAL of the persons recognised by the applicant was police officer PERSON Intelligence Service and the second one was police officer \u00dc. , who worked at the NORP police station . Arrest warrants were subsequently issued against those persons on DATE on suspicion of the offence of abduction . There is no further information in the case file on this matter , nor is it clear whether this information was shared with the NORP authorities .","There is no information in the case file to suggest that the Government of GPE lodged any protests with ORG in relation to the alleged abduction of the first applicant from ORG territory .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s NORP lawyer , PERSON PERSON , gave the following information to Mr PERSON , the President of the \u201c GPE \u201d at the material time , regarding the allegations of witness intimidation during the trial of the first applicant before ORG :","\u201c At the close of the case by the Prosecution , the defense summoned CARDINAL witnesses . The names of all the NORP , LANGUAGE and NORP witnesses that were summoned were given to me by PERSON , the co - defense lawyer , after consultation with ORG . However , due to reasons out of my knowledge , the names of some additional witnesses were withheld from me . An attempt was made to call these witnesses at TIME . The names of these witnesses were given to me at TIME . I issued the necessary summonses through ORG of ORG . All the witnesses listed in the attached paper were issued with summons [ CARDINAL witnesses in total ] and these were brought to the ORG to testify . Although the CARDINAL - CARDINAL witnesses whose names were given to me late were issued with summonses , these could not be served by the ORG bailiff in time .","On DATE of the trial , I gave the ORG the information I got from the NORP lawyer that these CARDINAL - CARDINAL witnesses had actually wanted to come to the ORG but had been threatened or hindered . The ORG asked me whether [ they ] had been summoned , in which case the court could order their presence . I told the ORG that the summonses had not been served yet . As there was no service of the summons , the judge , under LAW and the related Regulation , could not order the arrest of these witnesses . As a result , the defense closed its case ( without calling these additional witnesses ) after calling CARDINAL witnesses listed in the attached paper .","The reason a proper service of the summonses could not be done was the concealment of the names of these witnesses even from me till TIME , and our attempt to summon them without applying for a short service order from ORG . As a defense lawyer , as well as not personally having seen the witnesses , I got to know about their identities just before the issuing of the summons , DATE before in the afternoon , and issuing a summons DATE , I sent it by hand to FAC . It is not again in my knowledge whether these witnesses were personally served with these summonses . We produced no evidence that they had been duly served . For this reason , the claims that the witnesses for defense had been prevented or threatened are not in my knowledge . Nothing was done to put such an allegation before ORG in the form of evidence . \u201d","On DATE that letter was conveyed by Mr PERSON to Mr PERSON , the NORP High Commissioner to GPE at the relevant time .","On DATE Mr PERSON sent the following letter to the ORG Secretary General regarding the alleged abductions of the first applicant and of PERSON .","\u201c I understand that letters of protest about the arrest by GPE police of CARDINAL PERSON [ sic ] , aged DATE , while in possession of drugs is being circulated in all directions by the NORP leadership . It is alleged that the said NORP was abducted by NORP Cypriots in retaliation to \u201c the arrest \u201d by the NORP police of NORP PERSON at GPE , a mixed village .","Both ORG and ORG , aged DATE , are in custody pending their trial in respective courts , one in the NORP side and the other before ORG to be held in DATE in GPE . Both sides allege that they were kidnapped by the police of the other side . Naturally , it is the relevant courts which will have to decide these issues . The allegation that ORG was arrested in retaliation to the unlawful arrest of PERSON is strenuously denied by the CARDINAL policemen involved .","But the case of ORG is a clear case of abduction by NORP policemen who , concealing their identity , pretended to be a good friend of PERSON until DATE he was abducted by them .","...","On DATE , at TIME [ PERSON ] had started his car , parked outside a NORP coffee shop in GPE , in order to go home when the CARDINAL NORP \u201c friends \u201d approached his car and beckoned him to enter their car for a chat . As soon as PERSON entered their car , he was hit on the head , and driven away in the direction of GPE . Shortly , CARDINAL other NORP policemen joined them and PERSON was taken into custody while his car , outside the coffee shop in GPE , continued to run . TIME , the family was informed by neighbours about the car and PERSON \u2019s father took it away .","In the mixed village of LOC , under ORG control , the rule is that if anyone is arrested by either side , ORG should immediately be informed . This was not done in the case of PERSON . The family was informed about the said \u201c arrest TIME after the abduction .","ORG NORP advocate PERSON made this statement to ORG , on DATE .","\u2018 I believe the police lied in their statements and I told the Attorney - General this when they said PERSON was arrested in the free areas , if they arrested him in free areas why did n\u2019t police show us the car?\u2019","All in all it is clear that PERSON was abducted in line with the well - known , and long practiced NORP Cypriot policy of harassing NORP . Abduction of wellknown or popular NORP Cypriots had stopped for some time , but it appears that the practice is coming back unless ORG authorities in LOC take stern steps in this matter .","In view of growing publicity about the Tsakourmas\u2019 case I thought I should give this information to you for a fair appraisal of the situation . \u201d","A report prepared by the ORG police on DATE noted the following :","\u201c On CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL at TIME , NORP leader PERSON [ sic . ] visited GPE ...","...","He was then interviewed by the ORG . Amongst others he stated about TSIAKKOURMAS case :","- He only knows that the arrest was affected within TCAs [ ORG ] .","- The arrest of ORG can not be characterised that it occurred in retaliation to the arrest of the T \/ NORP , because everybody knows that he is employing CARDINAL NORP workers .","- No negotiations are taking place for an exchange between the CARDINAL prisoners . The matters are in the hands of the ORG . \u201d","According to another report of the ORG police dated DATE , Mr PERSON had allegedly said in a meeting with Sir PERSON , GPE \u2019s Special Envoy to GPE at the time , that he would be prepared to release the first applicant on bail if PERSON were also granted bail , because both suspects were suffering from health problems .","The applicants submitted as evidence an affidavit made by PERSON before a notary public in GPE , GPE , on DATE . The relevant parts of his affidavit read as follows :","\u201c On TIME Sunday CARDINAL at TIME , I received a telephone call whilst in my apartment within the ORG compound in ORG in GPE . The telephone call ... was from Mr M.\u0130. Mr GPE wanted to meet the Chief of Mission of UNFICYP . He did not tell me the reason ... I was unable to contact the Chief of Mission . Mr PERSON then wished to speak to the Special Adviser to the Chief of Mission who was also Head of ORG . I failed to make contact with the Special Adviser and informed him accordingly . He was very agitated and I agreed to meet him to discuss what he described was a serious matter ...","Mr PERSON was very agitated and very concerned about the arrest of PERSON who , he alleged , was arrested in the ORG buffer zone in the LOC area . PERSON is a NORP , who was arrested by LAW TIME Friday CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL being found in possession of a substantial amount of the illegal drug heroin .","... he [ Mr GPE ] told me to take down a protest about PERSON arrest . As he spoke , I noted his protest in my notebook .","...","I then read out to Mr GPE the protest that he made in the format that I would present it which was as follows :","The ORG notes that the parties presented different accounts as to how the first applicant came to be under the control of the \u201c GPE \u201d authorities . While the Government contended that he had been caught in possession of drugs after having illegally crossed into the \u201c GPE \u201d , the first applicant consistently claimed that he had been abducted within the LAW territory by \u201c GPE \u201d agents in civilian clothes and had then been detained in the \u201c GPE \u201d on the basis of fabricated charges of drugs smuggling .","According to the submissions of the Government , the location of the first applicant \u2019s arrest was an issue that had been taken up and examined scrupulously by the \u201c NORP \u201d courts . The first applicant \u2019s lawyers had subjected the main prosecution witnesses to extensive cross - examination , and the prosecution had likewise cross - examined the witnesses called by the first applicant . After hearing those witnesses , the domestic courts had accepted the version of the facts as presented by the prosecution . It had accordingly been established that the first applicant had entered the \u201c NORP \u201d illegally from the ORG , between boundary stones CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL separating the NORP bases from the GPE . He had apparently left his car in ORG territory , but the location of the arrest was within the borders of the GPE . There were a few witnesses who had allegedly seen the first applicant \u2019s car on the relevant TIME ; however , none of the passers - by had witnessed his arrest . Moreover , it was the Government \u2019s opinion that the evidence given by the defence witnesses was far from coherent , even on the issue of the original location of the first applicant \u2019s car .","Referring to the separate investigation conducted by the ORG police into the circumstances of the first applicant \u2019s detention , the Government further maintained that that investigation had been based on a \u201c reconstruction \u201d of the incident and on statements taken from persons who could not be described as \u201c independent \u201d and detached from the adverse political atmosphere prevailing in southern GPE , bearing in mind that this was a highly publicised case at the time . Moreover , the statements taken by the ORG were not subjected to the scrutiny of a court of law .","As to whether there was any link between the arrest of the first applicant and that of PERSON , the Government contended that the reason why the CARDINAL names had been pronounced together was that both men had gone through similar experiences and that the incidents had taken place within a very short span of time . During both the preliminary inquiry and the subsequent hearing before ORG , the first applicant \u2019s lawyers had insisted on the alleged link between the CARDINAL incidents . For that purpose , they had called the ORG Liaison Officer in GPE at the material time , PERSON , to testify as to what PERSON M.\u0130. , ORG at ORG , had allegedly told him and they had protested when the said evidence was not allowed to be included in the case file for being hearsay . The Government could not understand , however , why the defence had not called Mr PERSON directly as a witness so that he could testify on the content of his alleged statement , especially given that the domestic courts had the authority to compel GPE to testify .","The Government of GPE stated for its part that the evidence of a connection between the abduction of the first applicant and the earlier arrest of PERSON was overwhelming . They referred in particular to the formal protest made by PERSON to the ORG Liaison Officer , PERSON , and maintained that the first applicant had been targeted randomly in execution of the threat made in that protest . This was further evidenced by the numerous appeals made by the NORP side for the exchange of the applicant for PERSON , including by Mr PERSON himself .","Furthermore , the exhaustive and independent inquiry conducted by the ORG police also supported unequivocally the conclusion that the first applicant had indeed been abducted within the territory of the ORG . ORG maintained that where the accounts of the parties were diametrically opposed , the ORG had to give conclusive weight to independent evidence , which had been provided by the ORG investigation report in the instant case . They added that while the respondent Government had claimed that the \u201c TRNC \u201d courts had thoroughly examined the allegations of both sides , what took place before those \u201c courts \u201d was not in any way determinative of the way in which ORG should approach the evidence and did not constrain the ORG in its fact - finding exercise .","In cases in which there are conflicting accounts of events , the ORG is inevitably confronted , when establishing the facts , with the same difficulties as those faced by any first - instance court ( see , for instance , PERSON v. the former GPE [ ORG ] , no . MONEY , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) . In this connection , the ORG emphasises that it is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role , and that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first - instance tribunal of fact , where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case . As a general rule , where domestic proceedings have taken place , it is not the ORG \u2019s task to substitute its own assessment of the facts for that of the domestic courts and it is for the latter to establish the facts on the basis of the evidence before them . Though the ORG is not bound by the findings of domestic courts and remains free to make its own assessment in the light of all the material before it , in normal circumstances it requires cogent elements to lead it to depart from the reasoned findings of fact reached by the national judicial authorities , particularly where , as in the present case , the ORG has not itself had the benefit of examining the relevant witnesses and forming its own assessment of their credibility ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE , and PERSON and Others v. the GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG DATE ) .","Turning to the facts before it , the ORG notes that following the preliminary inquiry held DATE , ORG commenced criminal proceedings against the first applicant on DATE . During the DATE trial that ensued , ORG was presented with a substantial body of evidence about the events of CARDINAL DATE , including oral testimony and documentary and photographic evidence submitted by both parties . Relying on that evidence , on DATE ORG ruled for the first applicant \u2019s conviction for drug - related crimes . It held that , having carried out a comprehensive examination of the testimonies and documentary evidence presented to it , the \u201c testimonies of the prosecution witnesses had been found to be credible , accurate and reliable \u201d , whereas the \u201c testimonies of the defendant and his witnesses had lacked credibility , accuracy and reliability \u201d . ORG thus accepted the facts as presented by the prosecution and convicted the first applicant on that basis .","While the ORG has no reason to suspect that the trial court \u2019s admission or assessment of the evidence before it was arbitrary per se , it notes that ORG provided no reasoning in relation to its findings of fact and assessment of evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The ORG , therefore , can not determine whether the judgment of the domestic court , which had not only the means but also the principal duty to clearly establish the facts contested by the parties , was the result of a fair and comprehensive consideration of the contradictory arguments before it , or whether it ruled in favour of the official version of the events presented by the prosecution following a perfunctory assessment that did not give sufficient regard to the first applicant \u2019s serious claims . The absence of such reasoning not only has implications vis\u00e0 - vis certain procedural rights of the applicant , which will be examined in further detail below , but also detracts from the reliance which might otherwise have been placed on the trial court \u2019s judgment by the ORG . In these circumstances , the ORG is compelled to make its own assessment of the facts on the basis of the evidence before it .","The ORG reiterates in this connection that in assessing evidence in this context , it has adopted the standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d . However , it has never been its purpose to borrow the approach of the national legal systems that use that standard : as applied by the ORG , it has an autonomous meaning ( see PERSON the GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIX for further details ) . According to its established case - law , proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . Moreover , the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion is intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts , the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake . ORG is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a ORG has violated fundamental rights ( see , amongst others , PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","NORP In the light of the foregoing principles , and the gravity of the allegations submitted by the applicants , the ORG will subject the evidence presented by the parties to careful scrutiny in order to come to a conclusion regarding the circumstances in which the first applicant was apprehended on DATE .","The ORG notes at the outset that the first applicant was not able to present a direct and reliable eyewitness to corroborate his account of the events . He claimed before the ORG that the driver of the white ORG pickup with registration number UJ CARDINAL , who had been driving ahead of him on TIME in question , must have witnessed his abduction . However , he made no such claims during the domestic proceedings , nor , to the ORG \u2019s knowledge , was any attempt made to call that person as a witness .","The ORG notes that the only defence witness who claimed to have seen what took place on the relevant morning , a NORP contractor named PERSON , contradicted the first applicant \u2019s account of the events . In his statement before ORG , GPE claimed that on TIME of the incident , he had seen a man getting out of a red pickup parked on the main LOC road , which was the only car around . CARDINAL other men were in the fields to the right side of the road . CARDINAL of them was being dragged by the arms and pleading to be let go ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the account presented by the first applicant , however , there were CARDINAL other cars on the road that had been used for his abduction , and after a struggle , he had been transferred directly from his car to the red ORG . Moreover , the first applicant made no mention of being dragged across the field by the side of the road , as alleged by GPE The ORG observes that the first applicant made no attempt to offer an explanation for GPE \u2019s conflicting account .","As for the other witnesses called by the first applicant during the domestic proceedings , including a number of LAW police officers , the ORG notes that they mainly provided information as to the location and the state in which the first applicant \u2019s car had later been found in the ORG , and that there were some inconsistencies as to its exact location and state . CARDINAL witnesses , Mr GPE and Mr PERSON , who were apparently driving TIME in question , claimed to have seen the red and the white ORG cars that were allegedly used to orchestrate the first applicant \u2019s abduction . However , the descriptions they provided in relation to those cars were somewhat inconsistent : whereas PERSON claimed that there was a white ORG parked on the left - hand side of the road with its bonnet open , and a red ORG to the right of that white car , ORG stated that the car parked on the left - hand side of the road with an open bonnet had been a red ORG , and that the white ORG had been waiting on the opposite side of the road by some cypress trees and had flashed its lights at him . Even more striking was the fact that in his earlier statement to the ORG police on DATE that is , DATE after the incident \u2013 ORG had not mentioned anything about a white car , which is hard to explain considering his later claim that that car had flashed its headlights at him . Moreover , as already mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above , the statement of GPE before ORG did not match his earlier statement to the ORG police .","While the ORG is ready to accept that some of the discrepancies noted above , in particular those concerning the exact state in which the first applicant \u2019s car was found , may be explained by the differences in the subjective assessments of individual witnesses and the passage of time , it considers in any event that the establishment of the location and the circumstances in which the car was found , despite the many valid questions it raises , does not on its own shed light on the circumstances in which the first applicant was detained . Similarly , the fact that the sniffer dog found no traces belonging to the first applicant around his abandoned car or any other traces in the fields , although it must certainly have been taken into account by the trial court in its consideration as to how the first applicant had reached \u201c GPE \u201d territory , does not as such rebut the ORG \u2019s allegations regarding his capture , particularly in view of Mr GPE \u2019s conflicting statement that he had seen a number of persons in the fields , whose tracks the dog did not pick up either . The ORG stresses in this connection that the evidence presented by the applicants is not even sufficient to establish whether the first applicant himself was driving his car on the relevant TIME or whether he was alone in the car .","Although the applicants alleged that a number of important NORP witnesses had been unable to testify in the first applicant \u2019s favour on account of the threats to which they had been subjected , the ORG can not make a conclusive finding on that issue either , particularly in view of the statements of PERSON , the first applicant \u2019s lawyer , to the trial court and to Mr PERSON suggesting his unawareness of such intimidation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above , respectively ) , and given that there were no real attempts to substantiate the allegations of witness intimidation before the trial court during the criminal proceedings .","The ORG also observes that although the first applicant referred in his application before the ORG to a NORP detainee who had allegedly been asked by the \u201c GPE \u201d police to falsely admit to being his drugs contact in the \u201c GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the evidence in the case file indicates that he did not draw that serious allegation to the attention of his lawyers or the domestic courts , nor did he subsequently reiterate it in his statement to the ORG police following his release .","The ORG further takes note of the separate investigation conducted by the ORG police into the circumstances of the first applicant \u2019s detention , which resulted in a finding that he had been \u201c taken from his vehicle at the locus where that vehicle was abandoned DATE well within LOC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The ORG observes in this connection that according to the documents submitted to it , the ORG police interviewed CARDINAL people within the framework of that investigation , and that it found the opportunity to review all of those interviews . As explained in detail in the \u201c Facts \u201d section , amongst the interviewees were the defence witnesses who subsequently appeared before ORG , a number of NORP Cypriots who either worked for the first applicant or knew him otherwise , some other NORP builders who had used the NORP - Pergamos road on the relevant morning , as well as the residents of some of the houses in the vicinity . Even though the assessment of the LAW police may appear plausible having regard to the place where the applicant \u2019s car was found and the latter \u2019s state as well as the official information about the place of the applicant \u2019s arrest , this assessment does not constitute sufficient evidence in support of the applicant \u2019s account of events ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The ORG observes in the first place that none of the residents of the area where the first applicant allegedly abandoned his car in the ORG or crossed into the \u201c TRNC \u201d had seen anything suspicious on TIME in question . Similarly , none of the other NORP or NORP persons interviewed provided any additional information to that subsequently presented to ORG . Some of them had no information to share with the ORG police , other than the rumours they had heard ; some others stated that they had not seen anything suspicious , not even the first applicant \u2019s car , even though they had also used the Pyla - Pergamos road at around CARDINAL.CARDINAL to TIME . Others , however , attested to having seen the first applicant \u2019s abandoned car , although again with some inconsistencies as to its location and state DATE such as which way the car was facing , whether its engine was running , whether and if so which doors of the car had been left open and whether the headlights were on . The ORG stresses at this juncture that the car had been moved to another spot following the instructions of the first applicant \u2019s brother prior to the arrival of the LAW police officers at the scene of the incident . Therefore , the official ORG records only included second - hand information on where and in what condition the first applicant \u2019s car had originally been found , instead of photographs or other such direct evidence .","In the ORG \u2019s opinion , CARDINAL statements made to the ORG police are worth a special mention . The first CARDINAL of those statements , made by GPE , GPE and ORG have already been discussed in detail in paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL above . The fourth statement that the ORG wishes to highlight is that of Mr GPE , the NORP contractor who owned the aforementioned white ORG pickup with registration number UJ CARDINAL , whose statement has been summarised in paragraph CARDINAL above . The statement given by GPE regarding his employee X \u2019s alleged witnessing of the first applicant \u2019s abduction does not correspond to the latter \u2019s testimony . Whereas the first applicant alleged that the white ORG had been travelling ahead of him in the direction of PERSON , and had actually stopped by the red ORG car and talked briefly to the persons standing in front of that car before driving away towards GPE , GPE claimed that X was travelling from GPE to GPE , namely in the opposite direction , and had driven past the cars in question as the first applicant was being dragged out of his car , without stopping . The ORG also finds it curious that although ORG informed the ORG police of GPE \u2019s alleged eyewitness account as early as DATE , neither ORG himself , nor PERSON or the ORG police officer who had allegedly tracked X down had been called as witnesses by the defence during the subsequent criminal proceedings against the first applicant before ORG .","The ORG also notes the contradictions in some ORG police reports regarding the circumstances in which the first applicant was abducted . While the first applicant had claimed during the domestic proceedings and subsequently before the ORG that he had been forced to stop after his car had been intercepted by a white ORG on his way to PERSON \u2019s caf\u00e9 ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , according to an ORG report dated DATE , he claimed that he had been forced out of his vehicle only after he had willingly stopped to offer assistance to a car which appeared to have an engine problem ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Moreover , although the first applicant stated before the domestic courts and ORG that his abductors had personally handed him over to the NORP police and that he had not seen the drugs which he was accused of smuggling until later in the day at the police station ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY above ) , CARDINAL ORG police reports dated DATE noted that the first applicant had been arrested by the NORP police after his abductors had abandoned him in the vicinity of an airport with a package of drugs ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY above ) .","Apart from taking witness statements , the ORG police also conducted a crime - scene investigation . It has already been mentioned above that the sniffer dog was not able to find any tracks in the vicinity of the car that could have shed light on the events , nor were any traces of prohibited substances found inside the car . ORG also notes , however , that whereas the doors and the windows of the car were dusted for fingerprints , there is no information to suggest that foreign fingerprints were identified on the car , although the first applicant alleged that he had been dragged out of his car by force and his car was subsequently moved from its original location .","Lastly , during the preliminary inquiry the ORG Liaison Officer , Mr J.C. , made a statement regarding a meeting he had had with Mr. PERSON on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The first applicant relied on that statement to argue that he had been kidnapped in retaliation for PERSON \u2019s earlier arrest by the NORP Cypriot authorities . While the ORG has no reason to doubt the independence and impartiality of PERSON , it is not prepared to give decisive weight to that untested circumstantial evidence . The ORG also notes in this connection that the applicants have failed to respond to the ORG \u2019s query as to why PERSON PERSON was not summoned to testify before ORG , which would have had the power to compel him to attend ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP In support of their arguments the Government chiefly relied on the evidence presented by the prosecution during the domestic proceedings , which consisted mainly of the official incident reports , as well as photographs and sketches of the relevant area where the first applicant had allegedly crossed into the \u201c TRNC \u201d .","Like the first applicant , the Government did not present any eyewitnesses who could attest to their version of the events . According to the testimony of the QUANTITY police officers from the drugs branch who had allegedly caught the first applicant in flagrante delicto , they were the only ones present at the scene of the incident , apart from the applicant himself . Subinspector PERSON claimed during the domestic proceedings that apart from his superintendent and the other CARDINAL officers who had accompanied him that TIME , no other officers or authorities had been informed of the tipoff call that he had received on DATE from his informant , nor had advance notice been given to anyone else about the operation , including the officers on duty at the Pergamos checkpoint . Unfortunately , the ORG is not in a position to verify the accuracy of any of that information , nor can it turn to ORG for such verification . As already indicated above , ORG did not engage in a satisfactory discussion as to the veracity of the evidence before it .","The ORG observes from the information in the case file that the forensic evidence submitted by the prosecution during the domestic proceedings was limited to an examination of the mud recovered from the first applicant \u2019s shoe on the date of his arrest , which partially matched the soil sample extracted from the area where he had allegedly crossed into the \u201c NORP \u201d . No fingerprint examination was conducted on the package of cannabis resin allegedly seized from the first applicant ; it was explained that since the package had been taken directly from his hands by ORG - inspector PERSON himself , it had been deemed unnecessary to submit it for a fingerprint examination . Moreover , although the area where the first applicant had allegedly crossed into the \u201c TRNC \u201d had been photographed , including a couple of photographs showing footmarks allegedly belonging to the first applicant , it does not appear that any detailed examination was made to match those marks to his footwear .","The ORG lastly notes that amongst the evidence submitted by the ORG was also the sketched map of the area between border stones nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , showing the point where the first applicant had allegedly entered the \u201c TRNC \u201d , as well as photographs of the same area . According to those photographs , the top of the fence in the relevant area had no barbed wire and was deformed in some parts , which the ORG argued had made it easier for the applicant to jump over .","The ORG is of the opinion that the arguments and evidence submitted by the first applicant , albeit inconclusive and inconsistent in some respects , raise serious suspicions about the official account of events presented by the Government , particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the political climate on the island at the material time . The fact that the first applicant was arrested in \u201c GPE \u201d territory for smuggling drugs DATE after the controversial arrest of PERSON by the NORP Cypriot authorities , which apparently led to some strong protests from the NORP side , may cast some doubts on the accusations brought against him . Moreover , whereas the allegation remains that the first applicant entered the \u201c TRNC \u201d between border stones CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL separating the ORG from the \u201c TRNC \u201d , the ORG notes that the domestic authorities , including the trial court , do not appear to have concerned themselves much with how he may have arrived there . Thus , they failed to establish where and in what condition he had left his car and which route he had followed , despite the consistent allegations that the car had been found abandoned on the wrong side of a road with its engine running and doors open .","The ORG nevertheless considers that in view of the gravity of the first applicant \u2019s allegation that he was abducted from ORG territory by or with the connivance of \u201c GPE \u201d agents , it needs very compelling evidence before it can uphold the allegation . In this connection , the ORG wishes to emphasise that although it has no reason to doubt the independence of the investigation conducted by the ORG police , the findings that emerged from that investigation were not submitted to the scrutiny of a court of law and thus remain untested .","The ORG is mindful of the fact that the difficulties it has encountered in establishing the facts are due , to a large extent , to the domestic judicial authorities\u2019 failure to discharge their duty to subject the evidence before them to a critical and thorough analysis in a reasoned judgment . However , while that significant failure certainly raises procedural issues that will be examined below in particular within the context of LAW , it does not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to allow the ORG to find that the first applicant \u2019s allegations can be considered proven in accordance with the requisite standard of proof under the ORG \u2019s case - law .","NORP In view of the foregoing explanations and all the material before it , and while it in no way disregards the seriousness of the allegations made by the first applicant , the ORG can not but hold that there is an insufficient evidentiary basis on which to conclude that the first applicant was kidnapped from ORG territory by , or with the connivance of , \u201c GPE \u201d agents ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166738","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VLASOV AND BENYASH v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The first applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE Mr PERSON applied to ORG for a travel passport which would allow him to go abroad .","On DATE ORG of GPE convicted him of smuggling and sentenced him as follows :","\u201c ... the penalty in the form of CARDINAL PERSON imprisonment is not to be enforced and is to be considered conditional with a DATE period .","To require Mr PERSON to report twice a DATE during DATE to the authority in charge of execution of conditional sentences , and to inform [ that authority ] of any change of residence ... \u201d","On DATE his application for a travel passport was refused by reference to the fact that he had been given a suspended threeyear sentence whose period of suspension had not yet expired .","The applicant Mr PERSON applied for judicial review of the refusal .","On DATE ORG upheld the refusal as lawful , finding as follows :","\u201c The argument by Mr PERSON to the effect that ORG judgment of DATE contained an exhaustive list of restrictions during the probation period which did not include a restriction on leaving GPE and which was not , in the claimant \u2019s view , subject to expansive interpretation by ORG officials , does not contradict section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act which provides for a restriction on the right to leave for abroad in cases of both actual custodial and suspended sentences . A person who is given a suspended sentence is a convicted offender serving a sentence , and may be relieved from punishment only after the period of suspension has expired . Mr PERSON \u2019s period of suspension expires on DATE and after its expiry Mr PERSON \u2019s criminal conviction will be spent in accordance with LAW . Until that time Mr PERSON is an offender serving a sentence , which is a ground for restricting his right to leave for abroad . \u201d","On DATE ORG rejected an appeal against ORG judgment . It held :","\u201c The arguments that Mr PERSON was subjected to restrictions that go beyond those imposed by his conviction and that he was compelled to serve the sentence within GPE , whereas he needed to take care of his business interests and perform his duties abroad , are not grounds for setting aside the correct judgment [ of the first - instance court ] . \u201d","The second applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG of GPE convicted PERSON of extortion and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , suspended for DATE . He was released in the courtroom . On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal .","On DATE ORG refused Mr PERSON \u2019s application for a travel passport , noting that he had been arrested on CARDINAL DATE and that , according to the available information , the criminal proceedings against him were still pending .","NORP The applicant Mr PERSON applied for judicial review of the refusal .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the refusal as lawful :","\u201c ... for the time being the conviction of DATE is not yet spent , Mr PERSON is a convicted offender , and , accordingly , the refusal [ of travel documents ] does not violate his rights \u201d .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal , endorsing the reasoning of ORG .","On DATE ORG refused him leave to appeal to the cassation instance ."],"violated_articles":["P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["P4-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168853","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GALAIDA AND COPOSCIU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178745","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LAMBIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);No violation of Article 6+6-3-b - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Preparation of defence;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently being detained in a correctional colony in the village of GPE , GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant was convicted during a public hearing of murder and was sentenced to imprisonment . He and his lawyer had had TIME to study the case file , which consisted of CARDINAL volumes . The conviction was upheld on appeal in a public hearing on DATE ( \u201c the DATE proceedings \u201d ) .","On DATE the appeal judgment was quashed by way of a supervisory review ( on grounds not related to the applicant \u2019s Article CARDINAL complaints in respect of the DATE proceedings ) as the applicant \u2019s right to defence had been breached during the appeal hearing . The case was sent for fresh examination on appeal .","The applicant was allowed to re - read the case file within the new appeal proceedings . He and his lawyer had DATE , from CARDINAL to CARDINAL October CARDINAL , to study the now CARDINAL - volume case file ( CARDINAL pages ) in remand prison no . ORG in GPE , where the applicant was being detained . The applicant was allegedly held in a metal cage while studying the case , without a table or any other facilities to take notes . After studying the case file both the applicant and the lawyer filed appeals . In his appeal statements the applicant analysed the case materials in detail , referred extensively to all the main items of evidence , including expert opinions and witness testimony , and referred to exact pages in the case file .","The applicant \u2019s case was examined by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) over QUANTITY hearings , CARDINAL of which ( DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) , according to the trial record and the court \u2019s procedural decisions , were held in camera . The case file did not contain any formal decision by ORG to close the hearings to the public . The applicant was represented by CARDINAL lawyers who confirmed to the court that they had had enough time to study the case file .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . ORG judgment was delivered to the remand prison , where the applicant was still being detained , on DATE ( \u201c the DATE proceedings \u201d ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-b"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161377","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GILLISSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["From DATE onwards the applicant , a former police officer discharged for health reasons , enjoyed disability benefits under ORG ( Wet op de Arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering \u2013 \u201c PERSON \u201d ) . He was allowed to earn by his own means a sum not exceeding MONEY ( NLG ) without losing his entitlement under the ORG . This he did by running a CARDINAL - man business as a trainer teaching people how to deal with stress .","The applicant states that he entered into an arrangement with an official of the competent social - security authority ( at that time called NORP ) , CARDINAL PERSON , which was intended to make possible his transition into independent self - employment without the need for additional social security benefits . He alleges that PERSON gave him the assurance that he would be permitted for a period of DATE to earn income over and above the sum of NLG CARDINAL , the purpose being to allow him to create cash reserves in case his health should deteriorate further . The agreement had been witnessed by another official , CARDINAL Mr S.","NORP In DATE the applicant announced his intention to continue his business in the form of a limited liability company ( besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid ) . He wrote to the social - security authority ( re - named ORG and ORG ( Uitvoeringsinstelling sociale zekerheid voor overheid en onderwijs ; \u201c USZO \u201d ) ) asking it to confirm that this change would not affect the arrangements made during the time when he was self - employed . In the ensuing domestic proceedings the social security authorities submitted one or more letters which they stated had been sent in response , including CARDINAL dated DATE denying the applicant the confirmation sought . The applicant states that he never received any reply .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s business was transformed into a limited liability company . The shares were held by the applicant \u2019s wife . The applicant was its managing director and its only employee ; he entered its employ on DATE .","On DATE Mr D. , an official of the social - security authority ( by this time re - named LAW ( NORP werknemersverzekeringen ; \u201c ORG \u201d ) ) submitted an extensive investigation report implicating the applicant and his wife in suspected social - security fraud . According to the report , the applicant had defrauded the social - security system by declaring only his own income as an employee of the limited liability company but not the company \u2019s profits , which were declared as taxable income by his wife . The report included the following passage :","\u201c It was arranged in addition that only what PERSON earned in self - employment after his discharge would be considered his residual earning capacity ( resterende verdiencapaciteit ) . The labour expert ( arbeidsdeskundige ) PERSON has stated that he discussed this extensively with PERSON , who could agree to that position and who indicated during the conversation that in DATE more growth was to be expected and that it was his intention to make his own living in self - employment with a corresponding gradual reduction to CARDINAL ( afbouw ) of the ORG benefits . \u201d","On DATE ORG gave a decision reducing the applicant \u2019s PERSON benefits with retroactive effect . On DATE ORG gave a second decision ordering the applicant to repay the excess .","The applicant lodged objections ( bezwaar ) against both decisions . As relevant to the case before the ORG , the applicant argued that as from DATE he had kept the competent authorities informed of developments as they occurred , withholding no information , and invoked the arrangement which he had agreed with PERSON He named PERSON as a witness .","Having held a hearing on DATE , ORG gave a decision on DATE dismissing the applicant \u2019s objections . It found that the applicant could reasonably have been aware that the total of his additional income \u2013 the sum of his salary and the profits of the limited liability company DATE was too high for him to be entitled to the full amount of his social - security benefits . The alleged arrangement to the contrary was not reflected in the case file , and in any case , whatever statements had been made ( assuming that any had been made at all ) had been made by a person lacking the requisite competence and could not bind ORG .","The applicant lodged an appeal ( beroep ) with ORG ( rechtbank ) . As relevant to the case before ORG , he complained about ORG \u2019s failure to question PERSON and PERSON , which in his submission reflected a lack of due care affecting the quality of the investigation . He also submitted that PERSON had acted within his competence in making the agreement alleged .","Having held a hearing on DATE , ORG gave judgment on DATE dismissing the applicant \u2019s appeal . Its reasoning included the following :","\u201c The [ applicant ] has also stated that [ ORG ] officials had agreed with him that he would be permitted to earn unlimited income in addition to his ORG benefits for DATE . ORG has found no evidence of such an agreement in the documents available , nor is there any other reason to consider it plausible . On the contrary , it appears from the labour expert PERSON report of DATE that the [ applicant \u2019s ] income did in fact have to be taken into account . In addition , [ ORG ] answered the [ applicant ] \u2019s questions about the possibilities of obtaining income from work ( additional income ) in a letter of DATE , which letter incidentally the [ applicant ] claims not to have received . This letter states in no uncertain terms that [ ORG ] must always be informed immediately of any taking up of work and generation of income . But even without this letter it ought in reason to have been clear to the [ applicant ] that income can have an effect on the benefits . This ground of appeal therefore also fails . \u201d","The applicant lodged a further appeal ( QUANTITY beroep ) with ORG ( ORG ) . As relevant to the case before the ORG , he again complained in his written submissions about ORG \u2019s failure to hear PERSON and PERSON as witnesses . He asked for them both to be heard as a witness in order to prove the existence of the agreement . He also prayed in aid his acquittal by the \u2018 s - Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal , which had been given in the meantime ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He did not , however , himself summon PERSON and PERSON as witnesses by registered letter or bailiff \u2019s writ .","ORG held a hearing on DATE . The applicant did not bring PERSON and PERSON along but restated his request to have them heard as witnesses . ORG decided to reopen its examination of the facts of the case in order to put an additional question to ORG . ORG replied to ORG question in writing . The applicant and ORG waived the right to a further hearing .","ORG gave judgment on DATE dismissing the further appeal without having heard any witnesses . Its reasoning included the following :","\u201c The agreement relied on by the [ applicant ] , which is denied by ORG , does not appear from the case file and no other credible case for its existence has been made out by the [ applicant ] . \u201d","In response to a question by the ORG , the applicant acknowledged that he had made no attempt to summon PERSON and PERSON himself or bring them along to the hearing of either ORG or ORG , as permitted by section CARDINAL:CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Algemene wet bestuursrecht ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In parallel with the administrative proceedings outlined above , the applicant was prosecuted for social security fraud and forgery .","On DATE the single - judge chamber of the criminal division ( politierechter ) of the ORG convicted the applicant .","NORP The applicant appealed to the \u2018 s - ORG ( gerechtshof ) .","Having held a hearing on CARDINAL DATE , ORG gave judgment on DATE acquitting the applicant . Its reasoning included the following :","\u201c The suspect states that he drew up a common plan with PERSON in DATE with a view to the gradual reduction to CARDINAL of the ORG benefits over DATE . The applicant further states that he made arrangements with that PERSON concerning the amount of additional income he would be allowed to earn in the said DATE period . The suspect understood these arrangements in the sense that he would in principle be allowed to earn unlimited additional income without losing his benefits .","Prompted by the transformation of the CARDINAL - man business into CARDINAL or more limited liability companies the suspect sought confirmation from ORG that it would not matter for the arrangements made whether the provider of the income was the CARDINAL - man business or the said limited liability companies . To this end he got in touch with USZO on multiple occasions by means of letters . These letters were answered by USZO with automatised standard letters which did not address the specific situation in which the suspect found himself and which the suspect himself had raised with USZO .","By the time this question was put by the suspect to USZO PERSON had been succeeded by PERSON The latter found no report in the USZO file of the arrangements mentioned by the suspect . It is not apparent from the file that any attempt was made to hear PERSON about the said arrangements within the framework of this criminal case .","In view of the facts outlined above , ORG considers it plausible ( aannemelijk ) that the suspect made arrangements with PERSON in one form or another concerning the amount of permitted additional income within the framework of the gradual reduction to CARDINAL of his ORG benefits . It makes no difference that no report of any arrangements was found in the USZO file because no attempt has been made to verify the existence of these arrangements with Mr PERSON \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163100","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PAUNOVI\u0106 AND MILIVOJEVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":2,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections);Violation of Article 13+P1-3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections;Right to free elections-{general});Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) and Ms GPE ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE and currently live in GPE and GPE , respectively .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","Parliamentary elections in GPE are held on the basis of a proportional representation system in which candidates for ORG are included on lists put forward by political parties or coalitions . Voters choose between these lists , without voting directly for individual candidates .","NORP In DATE the applicants were elected as members of parliament ( MPs ) for a political party called GCARDINALPLUS .","Before the elections , however , all candidates , including the applicants , had been required by their party to sign undated letters of resignation and hand them in to the party . The documents also authorised the party to appoint other candidates in their place if necessary .","Following political differences between the applicants and their party , on CARDINAL DATE the first applicant signed a separate , officially certified statement , in which he declared his prior resignation letter to be null and void . The first applicant informed GCARDINALPLUS and the President of ORG of this statement and made it public .","The second applicant also subsequently told ORG , the party and the public that she considered her earlier resignation letter to be null and void .","On DATE the head of the GCARDINALPLUS party group in ORG dated the ORG resignation letters and submitted them to the President of the ORG .","On DATE , the first applicant addressed ORG , explaining that he did not intend to resign and that he wished to keep his seat as an independent MP . He provided the committee with his certified statement of CARDINAL DATE . However , the committee concluded that both applicants had resigned and held that their parliamentary mandates were deemed to be terminated .","On DATE a plenary session of ORG confirmed that decision and accepted CARDINAL other candidates proposed by GCARDINALPLUS as MPs in place of the applicants .","On DATE the applicants filed CARDINAL separate complaints with ORG and ORG , seeking the annulment of ORG \u2019s decisions to terminate their mandates and replace them with other candidates .","On DATE the complaint made to ORG was dismissed on procedural grounds . The court stated that the impugned parliamentary decisions had not been \u201c administrative acts \u201d and could not , as such , be subject to judicial review .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG also ruled against the applicants , without considering the merits of their case . It stated that new parliamentary elections had been held in DATE , which was why the ORG complaint had effectively become moot . It noted that their complaint could not have been treated as a constitutional appeal , as envisaged under LAW adopted in DATE , since the parliamentary decisions at issue had been made DATE before LAW had been adopted ( see B.CARDINAL below ) .","LAW provided , inter alia , that citizens exercised sovereignty through their \u201c freely elected representatives \u201d .","Article CARDINAL provided , inter alia , that a citizen who had reached DATE had the right to vote for ORG and be elected ; that parliamentary elections were direct , and that political parties , as well as other bodies , had the right to nominate candidates .","Article CARDINAL provided that an MP represented the citizens of the district in which he or she had been elected .","LAW was repealed in DATE and LAW , published in ORG no . CARDINAL , entered into force .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that the term of office of a member of parliament would end before it was due to expire officially if the person ceased to be a member of the political party or coalition on whose list he or she had been elected . On CARDINAL DATE this provision was declared unconstitutional by ORG and was effectively removed from LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that a parliamentary term of office ends before its official expiry if a member submits his or her resignation .","On DATE was amended with the insertion of a provision requiring an MP to tender his or her resignation in person , in an officially certified document , and hand it to the President of ORG within DATE of the date of official certification .","Article CARDINAL provides that an MP , when tendering his or her resignation , must do so in writing and hand it to the President of ORG , who must then forward it to all other MPs .","Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that a contract can be declared null and void if it was concluded by a party acting with limited legal capacity or if it was concluded as a result of shortcomings in the intentions of the parties ( mane volje ) .","Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide , inter alia , that anyone who has suffered fear , physical pain or mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of his or her personal rights ( prava li\u010dnosti ) is entitled , depending on the duration and intensity of the breach , to sue for financial compensation in the civil courts and , in addition , to request other forms of redress capable of affording adequate non - pecuniary satisfaction .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that a claim based on the above - mentioned provisions may be brought within DATE of the date on which the injured party learnt of the damage in question and identified the person responsible , but must in any case be brought within DATE of the event itself .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL further provides that if the damage at issue has been caused as the result of the commission of a criminal offence , the civil limitation period may be extended so as to correspond to the applicable criminal statute of limitations .","Article CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that every citizen who is of age and of working ability has the right to vote and stand for election ; that elections are direct ; and that election rights are protected in accordance with the law .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that , \u201c under the terms prescribed by law , an MP shall be free to put his or her mandate irrevocably at the disposal of the political party on the proposal of which he or she was elected \u201d .","Article CARDINAL provides that \u201c a constitutional appeal may be lodged against individual decisions or actions of ORG bodies or organisations exercising delegated public powers which violate or deny human or minority rights and freedoms guaranteed by LAW , if other legal remedies for their protection have already been exhausted or have not been prescribed \u201d .","LAW entered into force in DATE .","On DATE , whilst reviewing the constitutionality of election legislation in abstracto , ORG held that the mandate of an elected MP belonged to the MP personally , and not to the political party on whose list he or she was elected . In its reasoning , the court emphasised that once elected , MPs should be accountable primarily to the voters who elected them , not to their political party . This flows from the fact that they hold a mandate from the people , not from their party . The fact that an MP has resigned from the party or been expelled should not therefore lead to their expulsion from parliament . There is no constitutional obligation on MPs to resign if they have political disagreements with their party , even if they are expelled from it ( decision IU no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","ORG of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) has adopted a number of resolutions and recommendations regarding the issue of the recall of peoples\u2019 representatives by political parties .","On DATE the ORG adopted LAW ( DATE ) entitled \u201c State of democracy in LOC . The functioning of democratic institutions in LOC and progress of the ORG \u2019s monitoring procedure \u201d , which stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... constitutional and legislative provisions providing for the recall of peoples\u2019 representatives by the political parties ( the so - called \u2018 imperative mandate\u2019 ) should be abrogated in GPE , GPE and GPE ;","...","the recall of peoples\u2019 representatives by the political parties ( the so - called \u2018 imperative mandate\u2019 ) is unacceptable and contrary to the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers . \u201d","On DATE the ORG adopted Resolution DATE ) entitled \u201c State of democracy in LOC and the progress of the ORG \u2019s monitoring procedure \u201d , which stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... the ORG urges ... the Parliaments of GPE , GPE and GPE to abrogate constitutional and legislative provisions providing for the recall of peoples\u2019 representatives by the political parties ( the so - called \u2018 imperative mandate\u2019 ) ... \u201d","On DATE the ORG adopted Resolution DATE ) entitled \u201c The honouring of obligations and commitments by GPE \u201d , which stated , inter alia :","\u201c CARDINAL . [ The ORG ] congratulates GPE for adopting , in DATE , LAW ORG in accordance with ORG of ORG ) and the OSCE \/ ODIHR , which has brought the system of allocation of mandates in the parliament into line with NORP standards ; it abolished the \u2018 party - administrated mandates\u2019 and the \u2018 blank ORG , as requested by the ORG in its LAW ; ... The ORG notes , however , that LAW still contains a provision allowing for \u201c imperative mandates \u201d ;","...","[ The ORG ] therefore calls on the NORP authorities to :","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . eliminate from the constitution the provisions establishing the imperative mandate of members of parliament ; ... \u201d","ORG , ORG advisory body on constitutional matters , adopted an Opinion at its CARDINALth plenary session ( document ORG - AD(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of DATE ) , the relevant part of which reads :","\u201c ... [ LAW CARDINAL of LAW ] ... states that \u2018 Under the terms stipulated by the PERSON , a deputy shall be free to irrevocably put his \/ her term of office at the disposal [ of ] a political party upon which proposal he or she has been elected a ORG . It seems that its intent is to tie the deputy to the party position on all matters at all times . This is a serious violation of the freedom of a deputy to express his \/ her view on the merits of a proposal or action . It concentrates excessive power in the hands of the party leaderships . \u201d","The Report on ORG adopted by ORG at its CARDINALth meeting ( GPE , DATE ) and by ORG at its CARDINALth Plenary Session ( document LAW of DATE ) reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c TIME . Obligation of Members of the parliament to resign if they change their political affiliation \u2013 the case of GPE .","...","At present , imperative mandate stricto sensu and recall are unknown in practice in LOC . Moreover , there are very few countries among ORG member GPE which have legislation giving the power to political parties to make members of the elected bodies resign if they change their political affiliation . The mechanisms of control of individual representatives proposed in the NORP or NORP cases can not be equalled to \u2018 imperative mandate\u2019 which is a practice forbidden in virtually all NORP countries . These mechanisms come closer to the model of \u2018 party administered mandate\u2019 which is or has been characteristic in countries such as GPE or GPE with the objective of preventing massive turn round of voters\u2019 decision by means of party switching . Whilst in these countries these practices have [ been ] considered consistent with their own constitutions , ORG has consistently argued that losing the condition of representative because of crossing the floor or switching party is contrary to the principle of a free and independent mandate . Even though the aim pursued by this kind of measures ( i.e. preventing the \u2018 sale\u2019 of mandates to the top payer ) can be sympathetically contemplated , the basic constitutional principle which prohibits imperative mandate or any other form of politically depriving representatives of their mandates must prevail as a cornerstone of NORP democratic constitutionalism . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["13","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183565","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF RUNGAINIS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the material time he was the chairman of the supervisory board of a NORP bank \u2013 Latvijas GPE ( \u201c GPE \u201d or \u201c the Bank \u201d ) . The ORG held PERCENT of its shares .","A.L. was CARDINAL of the shareholders of GPE . He was also the President of the ORG until DATE , when he voluntarily stepped down from this position . In DATE he was elected as a member of ORG ) , representing a newly established political party , PERSON ( the GPE \u2019s ORG DATE also referred to below as the \u201c ORG \u201d ) , which had been established in DATE .","At the material time an advertising agency , PERSON , was contracted by both GPE and the GPE \u2019s ORG to provide certain advertising services .","PERSON ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) was CARDINAL of the main DATE newspapers in GPE at the material time . It was published by a joint - stock company , PERSON ( until DATE ) and , subsequently , by the limited liability company GPE .","On DATE the applicant prepared a report on the advertising and marketing expenses incurred by GPE in DATE and DATE , which he then presented to the ORG \u2019s supervisory board . His report was based on information which he had requested from the heads of the marketing and economics departments . According to the applicant \u2019s report , the ORG had transferred substantial sums for advertising and marketing services to , inter alia , PERSON , for which no supporting documents could be found . This raised suspicions that the ORG \u2019s funds had been misappropriated . The parties did not provide the ORG with a copy of the applicant \u2019s report , nor any further details of that report .","On DATE the ORG \u2019s supervisory board held an extraordinary meeting and ordered an internal audit to verify the applicant \u2019s findings . At a meeting of DATE the head of the internal audit department informed the supervisory board that no undocumented advertising and marketing expenses had been incurred . In response to press reports ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) , the internal audit had verified all deals concluded with PERSON in DATE ; the internal audit in relation to DATE was ongoing . The information published in the press had not been confirmed . The conclusions of the final report , dated DATE , indicated that in DATE no undocumented advertising and marketing expenses had been incurred . All contracted services had been received , but on some occasions no supporting documents have been kept ( for example , copies of certain advertisements in the press and some printed material \u2013 such as concert posters and tickets \u2013 were no longer available ) .","On DATE the supervisory board ordered an additional external audit . In DATE the audit agency in its report concluded that while the advertising and marketing expenses incurred in DATE ( CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) , MONEY ( ORG ) ) and DATE ( LVL CARDINAL , approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) had been greater than in DATE ( in DATE the figure had been ORG CARDINAL , approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ; in DATE , ORG CARDINAL , approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ; and in DATE , ORG CARDINAL , approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , this could be explained by the fact that the ORG had been in the process of changing its corporate identity during the period under consideration . This process had continued while the external audit was being carried out and the ORG had incurred more expenses in this regard . All contracts with PERSON had been approved and signed by the ORG \u2019s highest management . The external audit concluded that there was no evidence that payments had been made for services or goods that had not been received or that the payments had exceeded the value of the services received . No personal links had been found between ORG or the ORG \u2019s staff members and the advertising companies . There was no evidence that the staff members had been forced to work with the particular service provider or to prepare documents for services which the ORG had not received .","Meanwhile , ORG applied to have criminal proceedings instituted in respect of the alleged intentional dissemination of false information about him . By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the prosecution refused to institute criminal proceedings . The information and conclusions , which the applicant had provided to the journalists , had been based on erroneous findings contained in the applicant \u2019s initial report on the advertising and marketing expenses . However , there was no evidence that the applicant had intentionally disseminated false information about PERSON The latter was informed of his right to lodge a civil claim in that regard .","DATE and DATE ORG published numerous articles on various topics of public interest concerning DATE parliamentary elections . It appears that ORG journalists contacted the applicant for a comment shortly after the meeting of CARDINAL DATE of the ORG \u2019s supervisory board had taken place .","In their submissions to the ORG , the parties disagreed on the manner and form in which the applicant had provided the respective information to the ORG journalists . The ORG stated that the applicant had provided this information to the journalists on several occasions , and that his comments , which had contained concrete descriptions of ORG actions , had been provided in the form of facts susceptible of proof . The applicant , however , stated that he had only on CARDINAL occasion provided a short comment to the journalists via telephone about the issues discussed at the meeting of the ORG \u2019s supervisory board . Furthermore , the comments had constituted merely his own opinion about GPE \u2019s management ; they had still needed to be verified by the ORG \u2019s internal audit .","The following excerpts are from CARDINAL articles , which were published DATE , and which were based on the information provided by the applicant in this regard :","\u201c \u2018 GPE \u2019s former management accused of ORG","...","[ Since ] DATE , [ ORG ] CARDINAL has been transferred [ to finance ] [ GPE \u2019s ] advertising and marketing activities , in respect of which no documentation \u2013 the relevant contracts , delivery \/ acceptance deeds etc . \u2013 has been provided ... [ T]he transfer of this sum in an unknown direction ( nezin\u0101m\u0101 virzien\u0101 ) actually amounts to the destruction of the ORG \u2019s [ available ] assets . ... As [ the applicant ] suggested to [ ORG ] , either \u2018 somebody is receiving this paid money back\u2019 or GPE \u2019s money is being used to create advertising of a completely different kind than that indicated in the available documents . \u2018 This is money that has been stolen from the ORG , [ the applicant ] stated . ... Moreover , significant advance payments were made [ for services to be provided within DATE ] shortly before [ a ] change in GPE \u2019s management at DATE ] . The supervisory board has ordered an internal audit to discover where these funds have disappeared to ... Documents in the possession of [ ORG ] show that the role of ORG in the affair of the strange advertising [ funds ] transfers could be quite significant ... The [ ORG \u2019s ] public relations unit has dispatched [ ORG ] CARDINAL to who knows whom and who knows where . The ORG \u2019s marketing department stands out even more blatantly . Of a total of [ ORG ] CARDINAL spent , no documentary evidence exists regarding the expenditure of [ ORG ] CARDINAL . \u201d ( Information published in ORG , CARDINAL DATE edition , article written by PERSON and PERSON : \u201c GPE \u2019s former management accused of fraud \u201d . )","NORP \u201c DATE , GPE \u2019s current officials discovered massive excess expenditure on advertising that was allowed during the period of management of ORG and ORG these persons had been advertising themselves at the expense of GPE . \u201d ( Information published in ORG , CARDINAL DATE edition , article written by ORG and GPE : \u201c ORG \u2013 a NORP family enterprise \u201d . )","\u201c \u2018 Advertising for ORG with GPE \u2019s money\u2019","...","The advertising agency , ORG , responsible for creating the GPE \u2019s ORG preelection campaign , is CARDINAL of the companies to which GPE \u2019s former management transferred CARDINAL [ NORP ] lati at the beginning of [ DATE ] . The transfer was carried out without documentary certification as an advance payment for advertising services ... [ ORG ] has already announced that since DATE , GPE has transferred [ ORG ] CARDINAL [ to finance ] its advertising and marketing activities , in respect of which no documentation is available . ... As [ the applicant ] admitted to ORG , PERSON was the very agency to which more than [ ORG ] CARDINAL of GPE \u2019s funds was transferred at DATE ] as an advance payment ; [ details of the ] subsequent expenditure [ of those funds ] are unknown . \u2018 It is possible that this is the money that provided the foundation for the GPE \u2019s ORG sizable advertising campaign\u2019 , admitted [ the applicant ] . ... Documents in the possession of ORG show that the role of ORG in the affair of the strange advertising [ funds ] transfers could have been rather significant . \u201d ( Information published in ORG , CARDINAL DATE edition , article written by GPE and PERSON : \u201c Advertising for ORG with GPE \u2019s money \u201d . )","NORP \u201c [ The applicant ] confirmed to [ ORG ] that the advertising agency , PERSON , the creator of GPE \u2019s ORG advertising campaign , is CARDINAL of the companies to which the former management of GPE transferred more than [ ORG ] CARDINAL at DATE ] without documentary certification as an advance payment for advertising services . It has already been reported that since DATE , GPE has transferred [ ORG ] CARDINAL [ to finance ] its advertising and marketing activities , in respect of which no documentation \u2013 the relevant contracts , delivery \/ acceptance deeds , etc . \u2013 has been provided . \u201d ( Information published in ORG , CARDINAL DATE edition , article written by PERSON : \u201c GPE \u2019s President concerned about his reputation \u201d . )","\u201c \u2018 Crisis within GPE \u2019s Management\u2019","...","The scandal revolving around the potentially unlawful activities of ORG , the former President of GPE , has reached its culmination . ... ORG has a negative opinion of [ ORG \u2019s ] publications to date regarding the action of GPE \u2019s former management in transferring CARDINAL of [ NORP ] lati to advertising firms without documentary certification in respect of the expenditure of that money ... [ ORG ] has already repeatedly written about the long - standing battle among GPE \u2019s shareholders , during which ORG was accused several times of potentially unlawful actions ... This , however , has not prevented the friends of PERSON from resorting to extreme methods . [ ORG ] was informed by [ the applicant ] that ... at the last meeting of the supervisory board , a member of \u2018 ORG \u2019s GPE , ORG , asked him in a forthright manner : \u2018 Have the folks from GPE insured your property?\u2019 \u2018 This is an unprecedented event \u2013 the chairman of the ORG \u2019s supervisory board being blatantly threatened!\u2019 admitted [ the applicant ] . He believes that ORG is now speculating that he will soon be afforded immunity as a member of [ parliament ] , preventing him from being criminally prosecuted without a majority vote of [ the ORG ] ... Commenting on the value of marketing , advertising and public relations contracts , [ the applicant ] admitted that even though it is necessary to carry out in - depth market research , during ORG \u2019s era various procedures were breached and payments were made whose sums currently can not be precisely determined ... ORG has already written that [ ORG ] CARDINAL has been transferred [ to finance GPE \u2019s ] advertising and marketing activities since DATE , in respect of which no documentation \u2013 the relevant contracts , delivery \/ acceptance deeds , etc . \u2013 has been provided ... Additionally , doubts lie in respect of PERSON that certain actions regarding the administration of certificate accounts were also contrary to the interests of both the ORG and the ORG . \u201d ( Information published in ORG , CARDINAL DATE edition , article written by PERSON : \u201c Crisis within GPE \u2019s management \u201d . )","\u201c [ ORG ] has already reported that the actions of ORG as the President of GPE are being questioned in relation to advertising contracts concluded in the amount of MONEY of [ NORP ] lati . These contracts have no documentary corroboration regarding the specific measures [ financed by ] the money in question . \u201d ( Information published in ORG , CARDINAL DATE edition , article written by PERSON , PERSON and PERSON : \u201c Rep\u0161e : the Minister must be morally clean \u201d . )","\u201c ORG has already reported that in DATE , when PERSON was still the President of GPE , [ ORG ] CARDINAL was transferred without documentation , apparently for GPE \u2019s advertising and marketing activities , of which [ ORG ] CARDINAL went to the advertising agency , PERSON , which also happened to be responsible for creating GPE \u2019s ORG pre - election campaign . \u201d ( Information published in ORG , CARDINAL DATE edition , article written by ORG \u201c Parties divide money portfolios ! \u201d )","\u201c It is possible that during ORG \u2019s term of office [ ORG ] CARDINAL was transferred [ to finance ] GPE \u2019s advertising and marketing activities , in respect of which the relevant documentation has not been provided . \u201d ( Information published in ORG , CARDINAL DATE edition , article written by PERSON : \u201c GPE goes against PERSON at the prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d . )","\u201c [ ORG ] has already written that [ ORG ] CARDINAL was transferred in DATE , without any accompanying documentation , apparently for [ GPE \u2019s ] advertising and marketing activities , of which [ ORG ] CARDINAL [ went ] to the advertising agency , PERSON , which was responsible for creating GPE \u2019s ORG pre - election campaign . \u201d ( Information published in ORG , DATE edition , article written by ORG : \u201c Millionaires compete for power \u201d . )","On DATE PERSON lodged a claim against the applicant and the publishers of ORG seeking compensation and the retraction of a total of thirtyone allegedly defamatory articles . He also indicated that the applicant had provided false information to ORG , which had formed the basis of the above - mentioned CARDINAL articles ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","During a hearing of DATE the applicant admitted before the first - instance court that the information concerning the possible misappropriation of GPE \u2019s funds , which he had provided to ORG , had proved to be incorrect . He made the following statements :","\u201c The information [ was ] wrong , unfounded . [ As part of my duties ] I was carrying out my task of managing [ the ORG \u2019s ] activities . I was not interested in ORG \u2019s private life . I have always respected him . I tried to organise [ my ] work correctly .","As to the mistake regarding numbers , there was one , and I apologise to ORG and to the journalists .","ORG worked at the ORG and worked in accordance with [ its ] budget . PERSON made decisions . There were others responsible for [ the ORG \u2019s ] budget . [ The ORG ] did not overpay for [ its ] advertisements .","The mistake regarding numbers could not have offended ORG honour and dignity .","There were no public statements ; maybe there were other [ people ] who [ provided more information to the press ] . \u201d","On DATE ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) delivered its judgment , dismissing the claims against the applicant . The court concluded that the CARDINAL articles in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had been based on the information provided by the applicant , had reported his personal opinion about the functioning of GPE and its management , which could not be considered defamatory . Moreover , no claim for defamatory information to be retracted was lodged against the applicant . The claims against both publishers of ORG ( PERSON and PERSON nams ) were partly upheld in so far as they concerned CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL articles which had been based on information provided by the applicant and CARDINAL other articles reporting on other matters .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas PERSON tiesu pal\u0101ta ) DATE after appeals by PERSON , PERSON , and GPE nams \u2013 re - examined the case and delivered a new judgment . The judgment took immediate effect .","The appellate court noted that at the material time the press and other mass media had been widely reporting on DATE parliamentary elections DATE that is to say the political parties and their leaders , including the newly - established political party , of which ORG was one of the leaders . He had stood for election , his candidacy had been widely advertised and it had been , accordingly , examined by the press and other mass media . ORG had published a series of articles about the money spent on the pre - election advertising of the GPE \u2019s ORG , linking the source of these funds to GPE and its former President , PERSON It had been reported that during his time in office , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been transferred for advertising and marketing purposes without any documentary proof thereof having been preserved and that this had been considered to constitute a misappropriation of the bank \u2019s funds . These funds had been spent on the party \u2019s large - scale advertising ; as the applicant had put it : \u201c [ T]his money has been stolen from the shareholders \u201d . The CARDINAL articles had also contained other information provided by the applicant \u2013 that during PERSON \u2019s time in office , there had been breaches not only in relation to the advertising expenses , but also other breaches in respect of banking operations , payments without approval , the administration of certificate accounts against the interests of the ORG and the ORG .","The appellate court stated that the information contained in those articles about the use of GPE \u2019s funds and transactions had been provided by the applicant ( who had mentioned specific sums ) , and that the articles had contained references to his statements .","The appellate court found that since the applicant had provided this information to ORG journalists , he had to bear responsibility for giving and disseminating false information . The court held that this information had not corresponded to the facts and that this had been acknowledged by the applicant himself during the hearing before the first - instance court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This had also been confirmed by the results of the external audit and by the prosecution ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE ) .","The court also held that the journalists had not had a responsibility to verify the accuracy of the provided information , since the applicant \u2019s status as the chairman of the supervisory board of GPE had created a legitimate expectation that the provided information was correct .","Lastly , the court found that , even if the margin of permissible criticism in respect of ORG as a member of parliament was necessarily a wider one than would normally be the case , the false information had nevertheless offended his honour and dignity , as it had contained serious allegations of unlawful activities and had given the impression that PERSON was a dishonest person .","Given the above , and in view of the seriousness of the interference and the applicant \u2019s position in the ORG , the court ordered the applicant to pay compensation to ORG in connection with the CARDINAL articles in the amount of ORG ( QUANTITY ) , together with statutory interest ( PERCENT per annum ) .","In addition , the court upheld the claim against PERSON alone in respect of CARDINAL other article , and ordered it to pay compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) , together with statutory interest ( PERCENT per annum ) .","The applicant and PERSON were also ordered to pay ORG legal costs in the amount of ORG ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) and ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) respectively .","The appellate court dismissed ORG \u2019s claims against PERSON and PERSON as regards all the other articles that had not been based on any information provided by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas PERSON ) . He did not contest that the information he had provided to the journalists had turned out not to be supported by evidence . However , this information had constituted his evaluation of the actions taken by GPE \u2019s management as a whole . He had not directly mentioned ORG by name , surname or his position when giving the information to the journalists . His allegations regarding the misappropriation of GPE \u2019s funds could only have infringed the interests of the ORG as a legal entity ; it could not have offended the honour and dignity of certain executives , who had been under an obligation to inform the supervisory board and the mass media of the truth . Furthermore , the applicant had provided the information in the form of a supposition by indicating that it still needed to be verified by the ORG \u2019s internal audit . It was the ORG journalists who had linked the applicant \u2019s report with the allegations of wrongdoing by ORG , the applicant could not be held responsible for the manner in which the journalists had decided to present this information , since he had had no means of influencing this .","On DATE the ORG of ORG delivered a new judgment , which in essence upheld the appellate court \u2019s judgment . The relevant parts of the judgement read as follows :","\u201c [ The appellate court \u2019s ] conclusion that the applicant had disseminated defamatory and false information was supported by the applicant \u2019s own submissions before the first - instance court , in which he admitted that he had provided incorrect information to [ the journalists ] ... . The fact that this information was not truthful was confirmed by [ the audit agency and the prosecution ] .","The applicant in his appeal on points of law did not contest these findings . ... He merely noted that he was a source and could not influence the evaluation given by the journalists .","Having examined the testimony of [ the ORG journalists ] , the appellate court found that the false information provided by the applicant had related not to GPE \u2019s management , as the applicant indicated , but specifically to ORG , as the then President of the ORG , thus infringing his honour and dignity . ...","[ The appellate court ] found that the journalists had had no reason to doubt the credibility of the information , as it had been provided by the applicant [ in his capacity as ] chairman of the supervisory board of GPE , and his position had undoubtedly created a legitimate expectation that this information was true ... Accordingly , the appellate court rightly held that the journalists had had no obligation to verify the accuracy of the information provided by the applicant . ...","ORG had requested compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL from [ the applicant ] . By granting his claim , the [ appellate ] court , taking into account the scope of the distributed information and its audience , rightly considered it justified . \u201d","The ORG of ORG also upheld the claim against PERSON alone in respect of CARDINAL other article ; they held that ORG \u2019s honour and dignity had not been offended in other articles . The appellate court had referred to the ORG \u2019s case - law and had taken into account ORG \u2019s status and the fact that he had refused to offer comment . The appellate court had correctly applied the relevant principle that the journalistic freedom also covered possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration , or even provocation ; the ORG referred to a \/ s PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( no . MONEY , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) in this regard .","Referring to section CARDINALa of LAW and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on ORG , the ORG of ORG ordered the applicant ( who had disseminated that defamatory information ) , and not PERSON , to retract the relevant parts of the articles in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The latter , however , still remained obliged to publish the retracted information ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166922","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ABDULKHADZHIYEVA AND ABDULKHADZHIYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13+2-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2-1 - Life;Effective investigation;Article 2 - Right to life);Violation of Article 13+P1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in the village of GPE , in LOC of GPE . The second applicant is the first applicant \u2019s brother - in - law .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","At the material time , a counterterrorist campaign \u2013 involving intense military clashes between federal troops and local rebels \u2013 was taking place in GPE . The law - enforcement bodies and the courts were not functioning . Upon the arrival of the military in GPE , the local residents did not flee but remained in their homes . The village and the area around it were under the control of federal troops that were stationed in the vicinity .","At DATE the outskirts of the village came under artillery fire , which forced the residents to seek the military \u2019s permission to evacuate their cattle .","After permission to evacuate the cattle was obtained , on DATE ( in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as QUANTITY ) , at TIME , the applicants and their neighbours , PERSON and PERSON M.R. , arrived at the agreed spot at a copse of trees next to PERSON and approached the NORP federal servicemen who were stationed in the vicinity . The servicemen agreed to let them pass through to the field where their cattle were pastured to retrieve them . However , after the applicants , PERSON and PERSON , had walked QUANTITY away in the direction of the pasture , the servicemen opened fire on them . As a result , both applicants received wounds to the upper extremities ( \u0432\u0435\u0440\u0445\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0447\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 ) and fell on the ground . Having witnessed the attack , a civilian , Mr NORP , tried to approach the servicemen , but was shot dead in the presence of the applicants and Mr GPE Meanwhile , PERSON managed to crawl away and inform the local authorities about the incident .","Both applicants and PERSON remained on the ground for TIME ; each time they tried to get up they were subjected to gunfire . Then CARDINAL military servicemen approached , blindfolded them and took them to the LOC of military unit no . DATE . In the meantime , after PERSON informed the authorities of the incident , the head of the local administration , PERSON S. , arrived at the military unit , spoke to the servicemen and had the detainees released . As a result of the injuries she had sustained during the attack the first applicant was left with a permanent disability of the third degree .","NORP The applicants\u2019 cattle remained under the control of the servicemen and were never returned . According to the first applicant , as a result of the incident she lost CARDINAL head of cattle and the second applicant CARDINAL head of cattle . In DATE , after military unit no . DATE had changed its stationing location from the vicinity of GPE to a site elsewhere , the applicants and their relatives found the remains of CARDINAL cows whose meat had been consumed by the military unit ; CARDINAL head of cattle were missing completely .","NORP In DATE , as soon as the local law - enforcement bodies had begun functioning again in their district , the applicants lodged an official complaint in respect of the events of DATE with the local police ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Towards DATE the law - enforcement bodies in other parts of GPE started to function again .","In support of their account of the events of CARDINAL DATE the applicants furnished the ORG with statements from witnesses PERSON and PERSON R.M. , both dated DATE .","The Government did not contest the applicants\u2019 account of the attack against them on DATE and the loss of their cattle , but stressed that the perpetrators had not been identified . In their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application of CARDINAL DATE , they stated , in particular , the following :","\u201c ... the damage to the applicants\u2019 health occurred as a result of unidentified persons opening fire on them on DATE in the village of GPE in LOC . After the shooting the unidentified persons stole cattle belonging to the applicants ... \u201d","On DATE the first applicant complained in writing of the infliction of bodily injuries and the theft of her livestock to the NORP district temporary department of the interior ( \u041d\u0430\u0443\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0412\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u041e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0412\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0414\u0435\u043b ) ( hereinafter \u201c the NORP VOVD \u201d ) .","In her complaint she described the circumstances of the attack and stated , in particular , that she had been wounded by military servicemen , who had then blindfolded her and taken her and CARDINAL other men to the LOC of their military unit . She further stated that after her release the cattle had remained in the hands of the military and that all her efforts to recover them had been to no avail .","On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , who stated that on DATE she , the second applicant and PERSON had gone to the pasture where cattle had been grazing , including a number of cows belonging to her . On the way there , at TIME , she had seen one of her cows lying shot and dying on the ground . The first applicant had approached her cow , but had been stopped by a group of military servicemen in light - coloured camouflage uniform , armed with machine guns , standing next to an armoured personnel carrier ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The first applicant had asked for their permission to drive the cattle home ; CARDINAL of the servicemen had gone to the ORG and spoken to someone on the radio . After that he had returned and said that the applicants and PERSON M.R. could proceed and collect their cattle . The applicant had walked just QUANTITY away when she and her CARDINAL companions had been subjected to gunfire , as a result of which she had been wounded in the left arm and the second applicant in the right arm . They had fallen to the ground and stayed there for TIME ; each time they had tried to get up , shots had been fired in their direction . Then CARDINAL military servicemen had approached them , ordered them to put their hands behind their heads , blindfolded them and taken them in the ORG to the LOC of military unit no . CARDINAL . The applicant provided the investigators with a detailed description of those CARDINAL servicemen \u2019s appearance . At the military unit the applicants had been given medical assistance . The applicant had asked the unit commander to drive her cattle over to pasture land lying closer to the village . The commander had promised to do that but he had not kept his promise and her cattle had gone missing . Then the head of the village administration had arrived and taken the applicants and PERSON home . The applicant provided the investigators with a detailed description of the unit commander . She further stated that after the military unit had left the place where it had been stationed , she had gone to the field and found an envelope with the address of CARDINAL of the servicemen who had been stationed there and that she still had the envelope and could provide it to the investigators . Subsequently the unit commander , PERSON , had visited her at home with a nurse to assist with the treatment of her wounded arm . DATE the applicant had not been able to seek official medical assistance , as hospitals in GPE had not been functioning . In DATE , when the local hospital had resumed its activities , she had gone there and sought medical assistance for her wounded arm ; she had stayed in the hospital for DATE but had been left with a disability .","On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant and PERSON , both of whom stated that on DATE they and the first applicant had gone out to drive their cattle home . On their way to the pasture they had met military servicemen who had given them permission to take their cattle home . However , after they and the applicant had then walked QUANTITY away from the servicemen the latter had opened fire . The first applicant had fallen to the ground , bleeding . Then the second applicant and PERSON had screamed , asking the servicemen to stop firing , but to no avail . As a result , the second applicant had been shot in the upper extremities . Then they had fallen to the ground and after TIME had been found by the servicemen and taken to the military unit .","On DATE the PERSON opened criminal case no . DATE on account of the infliction of minor bodily injuries on the applicants ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . The decision stated :","\u201c ... on DATE during DATE unidentified persons intentionally inflicted bodily injuries on [ the applicants ] ... \u201d","On DATE the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal case and questioned her again . She reiterated her earlier statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and added that the unit commander \u2019s name had been PERSON and that he had had the rank of lieutenant - colonel . She also provided a detailed description of her disappeared cattle and reiterated that as a result of the incident she had lost CARDINAL cows .","On DATE the investigators seized the envelope found by the applicant on the former premises of the military unit ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the investigators granted the second applicant victim status in the criminal case and questioned him again . His statement was similar to that of the first applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition , he stated that after the servicemen had taken him , the first applicant and PERSON to the military unit \u2019s LOC , they had provided him with medical assistance for his wounded arm and that the unit commander , a lieutenant - colonel named PERSON , had given him his apologies for his soldiers\u2019 actions . Subsequently , the officer had visited him at home with a nurse to assist with the treatment of his wounds , as the local hospitals had not been functioning at that time . The second applicant also provided the investigators with a detailed description of his CARDINAL cows , which had disappeared as a result of the incident .","On DATE the investigators granted Mr GPE victim status in the criminal case and questioned him . His statement concerning the incident was similar to the ones given by the applicants ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In addition , he provided a detailed description of the CARDINAL servicemen who had approached him and the applicants after the shooting . He also stated that the commander \u2019s name had been PERSON and that his military rank had been that of lieutenant - colonel . DATE after the events , on DATE , he had gone to the place of the incident and found the corpses of CARDINAL of his cows , which had been shot . CARDINAL other cows had gone missing .","On DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL of the first applicant \u2019s neighbours , PERSON and ORG . , both of whom stated that they had not witnessed the incident in DATE , but that they had been told that the first and second applicants had been shot and wounded by the military servicemen and CARDINAL man had been shot dead by them and that as a result of the incident the applicants\u2019 cattle had been lost .","On DATE an expert examination ordered by the investigator took place ; the examination identified the scars on the first applicant \u2019s left forearm as likely to have resulted from a perforating firearms wound in the circumstances described by her and categorised them as bodily harm of \u201c medium gravity \u201d .","On DATE , DATE , the second applicant was also examined by the expert . The examination identified the scars on his right forearm and the fingers of the left hand as likely to have resulted from perforating firearms wounds and categorised them as bodily harm of \u201c minor gravity \u201d .","On DATE and DATE respectively both applicants were granted victim status in the criminal case . The relevant decisions stated , amongst other things , that :","\u201c ... on DATE unidentified persons ... inflicted bodily injuries on [ the applicants ] and stole [ their ] cattle ... \u201d","DATE , on DATE , the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators . The applicants were not informed of that suspension .","On an unspecified date DATE and DATE the first applicant complained to a supervising prosecutor about the delays in the investigation . On DATE the PERSON replied to the complaint , stating that the investigation had been suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators .","On an unspecified date in DATE , the first applicant also lodged an official complaint about his lack of access to the investigation file . On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office ( hereinafter \u201c the district prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) replied to her , stating that she could access the file only upon the completion of the criminal investigation .","In DATE the first applicant lodged several complaints about the delays in the investigation with ORG office , which forwarded them to the district prosecutor \u2019s office . The complaints remained unanswered .","It appears that as a result of the first applicant \u2019s complaints , the investigation was resumed on DATE and the applicants were informed accordingly .","On DATE the investigators examined the envelope seized from the first applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As a result , the name and the address of officer PERSON ( to whom it had been sent at an address in the town of GPE ) were established .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene in the vicinity of the village of GPE . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the first applicant , whose statement was similar to the ones she had given previously ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant , who reiterated his earlier statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In addition , he stated that the body of the man who had been shot dead during the incident had been recovered by the villagers DATE after the events and buried shortly afterwards .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON . , who stated that in DATE he had assisted in negotiating the applicants\u2019 and Mr M.R \u2019s release from the premises of the military unit . Mr PERSON . stated that he did not know what military unit it was .","On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON S. , who stated that since DATE he had been the head of the local administration . His statement was similar to those given by the applicants . In addition , he stated that the commander of the military unit had promised to drive the cattle back to the village , but that this had not happened .","On DATE the investigators again questioned PERSON , whose statement was similar to the ones he had previously given ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) .","NORP On DATE the investigators terminated the investigation of criminal case no . DATE because of the expiry of the time - limits for prosecution under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE ( DATE ) the investigators refused ( in the light of the expiry of the time - limit ) to initiate a new criminal investigation into the injuries sustained by the applicants on DATE .","On DATE investigators in GPE questioned officer PERSON , who stated that in DATE he had been serving in military unit no . DATE , which had been stationed in LOC , GPE . He had no information concerning the attack on the applicants and had no idea who had been the commander of the military unit at the material time . Officer PERSON stated that in DATE ( while he had been in GPE ) he had been questioned about the incident , but he could not remember by whom and under what circumstances .","On DATE the head of the PERSON overruled the decision to terminate the criminal investigation as unsubstantiated and premature and ordered that the proceedings be reopened and the case file be transferred to another law - enforcement body , in accordance with the rules of jurisdiction . The reasoning for the decision stated , inter alia , the following :","\u201c ... The investigation established that an unidentified person had opened fire and wounded in the arm [ the first and the second applicants ] , causing them medium and minor gravity bodily harm , respectively [ ... ]","... it was also established that unidentified persons had committed the theft of CARDINAL cows belonging to [ the applicants ] and of CARDINAL cows belonging to Mr GPE","On DATE the investigation of the criminal case was terminated for failure to identify the perpetrators .","The examination of the contents of the criminal case file demonstrated that the victims [ the applicants ] had been shot at with firearms , from a distance ... and the location of their wounds showed that life - threatening damage could have been caused to them ... In addition , according to the information in the case file , Mr NORP had been shot and killed on the spot in [ the applicants\u2019 ] presence .","In the light of the above , the investigation of the criminal case failed to establish in full whether an attempt on the lives of [ the applicants ] had been made by the unidentified persons who [ were responsible for ] their gunshot wounds ... \u201d","On DATE the re - opened criminal case file no . DATE was forwarded to the PERSON ORG of ORG office ( hereinafter \u201c the investigations department \u201d ) for investigation .","On DATE the investigations department refused to institute criminal proceedings , noting that :","\u201c ... [ the applicants ] had been injured in non - vital parts of their bodies , which was confirmed by expert examinations . Therefore , there are no grounds for thinking that the alleged perpetrators intended to commit ... \u2018 attempted murder\u2019 , .. as argued by [ the applicants ] ... \u201d","The decision did not mention anything about the applicants\u2019 cattle .","On DATE the investigations department adopted a decision terminating the investigation in criminal case no . CARDINAL because of the expiry of the time - limits for prosecution .","From the documents submitted it appears that on DATE the supervising prosecutor overruled the above decision to terminate the criminal investigation as unsubstantiated and premature .","On DATE the deputy GPE district prosecutor overturned the investigations department \u2019s decision of DATE to refuse to open a criminal case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as unlawful and unsubstantiated . The applicants were informed thereof .","DATE . On DATE ( DATE ) the deputy GPE prosecutor also ordered that the criminal case file be sent to ORG for further investigation . The decision criticised the investigators\u2019 failure to take basic steps and stated , amongst other things , the following :","\u201c ... at the same time , the investigation established that the shooting had been aimed at them [ the applicants , PERSON , PERSON and Mr NORP ] and had been carried out with automatic firearms simultaneously , from the same place next to the forest ; as a result [ the applicants ] had received gunshot wounds of varying gravity and [ Mr NORP ] had been shot dead .","Therefore , the above information provides grounds for concluding unequivocally that the unidentified person had the clear intention of killing [ the applicants and Mr NORP ] ; ... thus , the actions of the unidentified person should be deemed to constitute murder under parts CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( subparagraph \u201c a \u201d ) of Article CARDINAL of LAW , and the case file in respect of criminal case no . DATE should be transferred to ORG for investigation and joined with criminal case no . DATE [ concerning the killing of Mr D. ] .","In addition , up until the present , no request for information concerning the exact place where military unit no . DATE was stationed has been sent . Neither has any request for information concerning the possible stationing of a military unit next to GPE in LOC been forwarded .","The military commander of LOC , officer PERSON , has not been questioned about the circumstances of the incident . \u201d","As can be seen from the documents submitted , the investigation is still pending .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a complaint before ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) challenging the decision of CARDINAL DATE to terminate the investigation . She argued , inter alia , that she had been both the target of an attempted murder and a victim of theft and asked for the case to be transferred to ORG for a proper investigation .","On DATE , shortly before the scheduled start of the first - instance court hearing ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and as a result , by a decision of DATE ORG rejected the first applicant \u2019s complaint as groundless .","On DATE each applicant lodged a complaint before the ORG challenging the investigations department \u2019s refusal of CARDINAL DATE to initiate a criminal investigation .","On DATE ORG rejected the complaints , as the impugned decision had already been quashed earlier on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On an unspecified date DATE the applicants lodged a complaint before ORG about the defects in the investigation and the ORG failure to act with expedition .","On DATE ORG examined and partly rejected their complaint . It ruled that the investigators could only be criticised for their failure to inform the applicants in a timely manner about the procedural decisions in the criminal case . The decision stated , among other things , the following :","\u201c ... the court has no legal rights to impose obligations on the investigation bodies concerning the order and direction of the conduct of the investigation .","... The complaint should be allowed only in part and only in so far as the investigator ... failed to inform [ the applicants ] in a timely manner about the decisions taken in the case ... \u201d .","On CARDINAL DATE this decision was upheld by ORG on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155284","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"DEGRO v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr Imrich Degro , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr I. Jur\u010di\u0161in , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant lodged an action against a private company alleging that it had sold him a car that had permanent defects . Accordingly , the applicant asked the court to order the defendant to replace the car or , alternatively , refund him the purchase price .","The action was granted by ORG ( ORG s\u00fad ) on DATE and , following an appeal lodged by the defendant , its judgment was upheld by ORG ( Krajsk\u00fd s\u00fad ) on CARDINAL DATE .","The order that the defendant replace the car or refund the purchase price became final and binding ( pr\u00e1voplatnos\u0165 ) on DATE , following service of ORG judgment on the parties . After the expiry of the period allowed for voluntary compliance with the order , the order became enforceable ( vykonate\u013enos\u0165 ) on DATE .","The defendant then filed a petition with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , requesting that the latter exercise his discretionary power to challenge the above - mentioned judgments by way of an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( mimoriadne dovolanie DATE \u201c extraordinary appeal \u201d ) .","At an unspecified time , presumably still in DATE , the ORG acceded to the request by challenging the contested judgments in ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) .","In his extraordinary appeal , the ORG relied on Article CARDINALf \u00a7 CARDINAL ( c ) of the Code of Civil Procedure ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , which permits such an appeal on the grounds that the challenged decision is based on an incorrect assessment of points of law .","In particular , the ORG argued that the courts had misinterpreted the consumerprotection rule pertaining to the case . The rule provided that a consumer who purchased goods or a service that had a reparable defect had the same remedies available to him or her as when the goods or service had an irreparable defect , provided that the supplier of such goods or service had failed to repair the reparable defect within DATE of being asked to do so .","According to the ORG , however , that rule was not applicable in a situation where DATE such as the applicant in the present case DATE had not used the remedy related to irreparable defects but had taken possession of the repaired goods despite the fact that the repair had been carried out after the statutory DATE period .","In his observations in reply , the applicant disagreed with the interpretation of the relevant rule by the ORG . It was far too restrictive and disregarded the object and purpose of the consumer protection legislation . He argued that the interpretation of that rule by the lower courts had been correct in his case : since the defendant had failed to observe the statutory DATE period for repairing the car , the applicant had been entitled to the remedies granted by those courts .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeal by quashing the contested judgments and remitting the case to the first - instance court for re - examination , having fully endorsed the line of argument pursued by the ORG . ORG judgment was served on the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE .","NORP The proceedings are now pending at first instance .","Article CARDINAL reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The Constitutional Court shall decide on complaints by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court .","NORP If ORG finds a complaint to be justified , it shall deliver a decision stating that the person \u2019s rights or freedoms as set out in paragraph CARDINAL have been violated by a final decision , specific measure or other act and shall quash that decision , measure or act . If the violation that has been found is the result of a failure to act , ORG may order [ the authority ] which has violated the [ person \u2019s ] rights or freedoms to take the necessary action . At the same time it may remit the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings , order that authority to refrain from violating the [ person \u2019s ] fundamental rights and freedoms ... or , where appropriate , order those who have violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph CARDINAL to restore the situation to that existing prior to the violation .","NORP In its decision on a complaint ORG may grant appropriate financial compensation to a person whose rights under paragraph CARDINAL have been violated .","The liability for damage or other loss of a person who has violated the rights or freedoms as referred to in paragraph CARDINAL shall not be affected by ORG decision . \u201d","DATE ORG lays down the procedures to be applied by the courts and to be followed by the parties in civil proceedings , with a view to ensuring fair and just protection of the rights and legitimate interests of the parties , and promoting compliance with the statutory law , fulfilment of duties and respect for the rights of fellow citizens .","Under LAW , the parties to the proceedings are to contribute to the purpose of the proceedings , in particular by giving a truthful and complete description of all the relevant facts , adducing evidence , and abiding by the instructions of the court .","Pursuant to LAW , the parties to the proceedings are to adduce evidence to uphold their claims .","Under LAW , as soon as a matter has been resolved by force of a final and binding decision or a judgment , it may not give rise to new proceedings .","The relevant provisions concerning appeals on points of law ( dovolanie ) are summarised , for example , in the ORG \u2019s decision in GPE PERSON GPE , a.s . v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , LAW DATE , CARDINAL DATE , with further references ) . Appeals on points of law have no automatic suspensive effect , as the power to suspend the enforceability of the impugned decision is entrusted to ORG ( Article CARDINAL ) .","Extraordinary appeals on points of law are regulated by the provisions of Articles CARDINALe et seq .","The ORG has the power to challenge a decision of a court by means of an extraordinary appeal . He or she may do so following the filing of a petition by a party to the proceedings or another person concerned or injured by the decision , provided that the ORG concludes that : the final and binding decision has violated the law ; the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of individuals , legal entities or the ORG requires that such an appeal be brought ; such protection can not be achieved by other means ; and the matter at hand is not excluded from judicial review ( Articles CARDINALe \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINALf \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","An extraordinary appeal may only be lodged against a ruling in a decision which has been contested by the party to the proceedings or the person concerned or injured by that decision ( LAW ) . Unless a statute provides otherwise , the ORG is bound by the scope of the petition for an extraordinary appeal ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .","Further conditions of admissibility of an extraordinary appeal are listed in LAW . They comprise ( a ) major procedural flaws within the meaning of LAW ( see , for example , GPE PERSON Springer GPE , a.s . v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) , ( b ) other errors of procedure resulting in an erroneous decision on the merits , and ( c ) wrongful assessment of points of law .","An extraordinary appeal is to be lodged with ORG within DATE of the contested judicial decision becoming final and binding ( Article CARDINAL g ) .","NORP If the ORG concludes , following the filing of a petition by a party to the proceedings or another person concerned or injured by the impugned decision , that there is the risk of considerable economic loss or other serious irreparable consequences , the extraordinary appeal may be lodged without stating the reasons for appeal . The reasons must then be stated within DATE of the lodging of the extraordinary appeal with ORG , failing which the proceedings will be discontinued ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .","If the extraordinary appeal is accompanied by a request that the enforceability of the contested decision be suspended , its enforceability must be suspended following the lodging of the extraordinary appeal with ORG ( Article CARDINAL ha \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The duration of such a suspension is regulated by Article CARDINAL ha \u00a7 CARDINAL , pursuant to which the suspension ceases ( a ) when the request is dismissed or ( b ) with a decision on the extraordinary appeal , unless extended by ORG , DATE from the lodging of the extraordinary appeal with it .","A copy of the extraordinary appeal is to be sent to the parties to the proceedings for observations . The decision on the extraordinary appeal must be sent to the parties to the proceedings and to the ORG ( Article CARDINALi DATE and Article CARDINALj ) .","The results of the ongoing work to re - codify the rules on civil procedure are summarised in a DATE green paper ( ORG legislat\u00edvneho z\u00e1meru rekodifik\u00e1cie civiln\u00e9ho pr\u00e1va procesn\u00e9ho ) of the re - codification commission under the auspices of ORG .","The green paper envisaged abolishing extraordinary appeals on the grounds that there are doubts as to their compatibility with the LAW , especially as regards the principles of equality of arms , legal certainty and res judicata . Extraordinary appeals are retained , albeit in a modified form , in the final text of LAW PERSON sporov\u00fd poriadok ) .","In a decision ( uznesenie ) of DATE in an unrelated case ( no . ORG . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , ORG dismissed a motion by ORG that certain provisions of the ORG concerning extraordinary appeals were contrary to LAW . That motion was lodged by ORG in the context of extraordinary appeal proceedings instituted by the ORG concerning the review of an administrative decision on a restitution claim ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .","In its decision , ORG observed , inter alia , that the extraordinary appeal was an extraordinary means for ensuring that judicial decisions were not only formally final but also right in terms of content . A clear discrepancy between the degrees of respect shown for those CARDINAL principles in an individual case could justify an interference with the former principle for the benefit of the latter . However , that would be so only in instances of a striking violation of constitutional principles of procedure , the principle of a fair trial or a denial of justice , which were not amenable to correction by other means .","According to ORG , for an extraordinary appeal to be acceptable its use had to be limited to instances of the most serious errors in procedure or its outcome ( linked to either factual or legal assessment ) , and to instances where other available legal remedies had been exhausted .","Moreover , ORG held that by virtue of the power to lodge an extraordinary appeal , the ORG was a statutory intermediary for ensuring protection of the rights of the parties and other persons concerned or injured by the contested decision .","In a decision of DATE in an unrelated case ( no . LAW . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) concerning an individual complaint , ORG held , inter alia , that in extraordinary appeal proceedings before ORG the ORG did not have the standing of a party to the proceedings as such , but rather had a sui generis standing , similar to that of the parties . In such proceedings , the ORG had no subjective interest of his or her own . Rather , the protection from unlawful final and binding decisions pursued in those proceedings served the general interest .","In a decision of DATE in another unrelated case ( no . LAW . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) concerning an individual complaint , ORG observed , among other things , that individuals and legal entities that had petitioned the ORG to lodge an extraordinary appeal had no legal claim to have such an appeal lodged and that , conversely , the ORG was under no legal duty to accommodate the request . It was within the ORG \u2019s entire discretion to decide whether or not to lodge an extraordinary appeal . The extraordinary appeal was an extraordinary remedy . There was no legal right to have it lodged on one \u2019s behalf . A petition for an extraordinary remedy did not enjoy constitutional protection and was not covered by the catalogue of fundamental rights .","In its decision of CARDINAL DATE , in an unrelated case ( no . QUANTITY M Obdo V CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , ORG rejected an extraordinary appeal by the ORG concerning a property dispute . It held that an extraordinary appeal was not admissible in circumstances where it was open to the party concerned to pursue its rights directly by way of an appeal on points of law ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169053","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BEL","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF LHERMITTE v. BELGIUM","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . She is currently detained in Forest - Berkendael Prison .","On DATE the applicant married PERSON , whom she divorced after the events to which the application relates . According to her explanations , since DATE PERSON had been living with Dr GPE , a man DATE his elder , who had taken him in following PERSON \u2019s arrival from GPE , providing him with a home and paying for his studies .","The applicant and her husband had CARDINAL children . In DATE , shortly after the birth of her first child , the applicant began suffering from depression and stopped working as a NORP and history teacher , only returning for DATE . Dr PERSON certified her unfit for work on account of depression and asthenia . Subsequently , her insurance company \u2019s medical adviser confirmed that she was unfit for work on account of depression . In DATE a report by a court - appointed psychiatrist , which was later endorsed by ORG , diagnosed her as suffering from \u201c recurrent endogenous anxiety and depression , with a slightly destabilised basic personality \u201d , rendering her PERCENT unfit for work . The expert concluded as follows :","\u201c ... social contact feeds a sense of persecution and interpretative paranoia . The patient is socially withdrawn and has a tendency to retreat into herself . When faced with anxiety - inducing situations , the patient regresses emotionally , retreats into herself and takes refuge in passive - receptive and hypochondriac behaviour . On account of her intrinsic sensitivity , her anxiety may be combined with reactive depression . To conclude , we are confronted with a fragile , sensitive and anxious personality , with feelings of abandonment and phobic and obsessional components , who is likely , in situations of anxiety , to regress emotionally , to withdraw into herself and to develop various manifestations of anxiety , persecution and depression . \u201d","NORP The applicant and PERSON lived in a house which had been bought in their name but paid for by PERSON The applicant \u2019s husband worked part - time as PERSON administrative assistant .","On DATE , on the recommendation of PERSON , who was her general practitioner , the applicant consulted a psychiatrist , GPE , who prescribed an antidepressant , sleeping tablets and anti - anxiety medication . PERSON , who had suggested that the applicant undergo psychiatric monitoring , saw her again on DATE , among other occasions , and wrote to PERSON recommending that he prescribe her a new antidepressant , as well as sleeping tablets and anti - anxiety medication . The applicant consulted PERSON once DATE and DATE . The latter noted that the applicant appeared to be \u201c always very tense and suffering from nervous exhaustion , constituting all the hallmarks of rumination \u201d and that she showed \u201c symptoms of social withdrawal and abnormal exhaustion during household tasks \u201d . In DATE the applicant reported to ORG that she felt isolated from her own family . From September CARDINAL she saw him every three weeks . In DATE D.V. successively prescribed the applicant CARDINAL types of sleeping tablets . On DATE she linked her exhaustion to the fact that she could not bear Dr PERSON \u2019s presence , and on that occasion GPE noted \u201c a feeling of dependence \u201d on GPE financially , \u201c a feeling of insecurity \u201d and \u201c a feeling towards that person [ PERSON ] which was CARDINAL of intrusion , of having an unwelcome person under her roof , and also a great deal of ambivalence \u201d .","Dr D.V. saw the applicant again on DATE and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . On the last - mentioned date the applicant wrote him a letter , which read :","\u201c Doctor , I do n\u2019t feel very well when I wake up , I have trouble getting out of bed and I have stomach cramps . I have to get up though because I have diarrhoea TIME . I have this big knot . The whole of my left arm is frozen . I feel so sad , deeply sad . I can no longer manage a coffee in TIME . I feel very weak and lacking energy . I am afraid all the time . I am afraid of myself . I am afraid of the future . When I walk down the street , I am afraid . I do n\u2019t have the courage . I do n\u2019t know where to find the courage and I am tired of it all . I do n\u2019t want to believe in a better future . I am at a dead end . I have been to a shop . I went to see if they had a very sharp meat knife . I do n\u2019t know how I am going to tell my husband all this , that I do n\u2019t feel well and that I have always kept it hidden that I felt so bad about myself and in my head and that I was taking medication . Please do something for me . I am being crushed by a mass of bad feelings . I have never felt so vulnerable . I feel unwell during TIME . I often wake up and think . PERSON ... \u201d","NORP In DATE the applicant mentioned sharp knives to GPE on CARDINAL or CARDINAL occasions . GPE interpreted this as \u201c an impulse phobia \u201d . He saw her again on DATE , noting that the applicant remained \u201c extremely preoccupied as well , in the absence of her husband who [ had ] gone to GPE again , and [ found ] herself having to deal alone with her uneasy feelings towards [ GPE ] \u201d .","Early in the morning of CARDINAL DATE , DATE before the incident , the applicant went to PERSON practice and delivered a second letter which she had just written . The letter read as follows :","\u201c Dr [ ORG ] , you do n\u2019t have much time . I have not felt well DATE . I \u2019m having dark thoughts . They are suicidal thoughts which are going to carry me away and I will take my children with me . It \u2019s a DATE struggle . My friend [ V.G. ] is supporting me . There is no solution to my problem . I feel walled up . I feel like a prisoner . I no longer have the strength . I do n\u2019t think my husband will save me because whichever way you look at it , he is in a favourable position . He is coming home DATE TIME but I ca n\u2019t tell him of all my pain and distress . The family situation can not be turned around . I have already had suicidal thoughts in the past . I imagine scenarios which are both true and realistic and I know I am capable . This is not a game . Sorry to take up your time ! PERSON ... \u201d","DATE , in the early afternoon , the applicant telephoned Dr ORG practice to check that her letter had actually been received .","The applicant \u2019s letters addressed to PERSON dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE were not included in the file on the criminal investigation . ORG indicated that they had not formed part of the applicant \u2019s medical records .","On DATE the applicant left a final letter , together with a bag of jewellery , in the letterbox of her friend and confidante PERSON The letter read as follows :","\u201c My dear friend [ ORG ] ,","I have cut off my phone and I am now starting to write this letter .","I hope you will not be shocked by what I \u2019m going to write .","You must show it to [ Dr D.V. ] who will be at \u00c9rasme [ hospital ] on DATE TIME at CARDINAL . He will be able to help you and explain what you explained to me so kindly when you came to my house . I do n\u2019t have the courage to get things moving and I am completely frozen and paralysed with fear because there is no solution to my problem . You have always opened your door to me and my children and have been a ray of sunshine in our life , and I will thank you forever . I have decided to go a long way away with the children forever . DATE , you \u2019ll see , we \u2019ll meet again but I do n\u2019t regret this final solution .","Please let my sister Mireille ... and my other sister PERSON ... know . Please forgive me . I beg my sisters to forgive me if I have hurt them . I can no longer bear this situation , because my husband is blind and deaf and despite that , he is happy in this situation .","[ GPE ] is a bastard who has ruined my life and robbed me of my privacy with my husband and children . I left the hell of my GPE home only to fall into another hell . ... \u201d","The applicant ended her letter by asking her friend to share her jewellery with her CARDINAL sisters . She also left a voicemail message on ORG \u2019s mobile phone \u2013 in a voice which the investigating officers later described as \u201c trembling \u201d and \u201c hesitant \u201d \u2013 telling V.G. that she had left a letter and a present in her letterbox and asking to be \u201c forgiven \u201d , before saying \u201c goodbye \u201d .","Afterwards , using CARDINAL knives which she had stolen from a department store , the applicant killed her CARDINAL children CARDINAL by CARDINAL before attempting suicide .","After writing the message \u201c call the police \u201d on a sheet of paper stuck to her front door , she telephoned the emergency services to say that she had killed her CARDINAL children and to report her suicide attempt . When the police , the ambulance crew and the medical services arrived at the scene , they found the applicant , who was injured , and the bodies of the CARDINAL children with their throats slit .","When the applicant was admitted to the intensive - care unit on DATE of the incident , the doctor treating her noted \u201c depressive , self - destructive thoughts against a background of psychotropic , anti - anxiety and antidepressant medication \u201d . During her initial police interview , the applicant had explained that she had acted in a fit of despair caused by her family \u2019s dependence on Dr GPE","On DATE an investigating judge at ORG charged the applicant with the intentional and premeditated homicide of her CARDINAL children . The applicant was also placed in pre - trial detention .","Forensic medical reports produced DATE and DATE concluded that the CARDINAL homicides had been committed in a relatively short time TIME in each case \u2013 and that , in view of the speed at which the events had occurred , they were the result of a preconceived plan . In addition , toxicological analyses carried out on blood samples taken from the applicant confirmed that she had only been taking a combination of anti - anxiety medication and sleeping tablets , the plasma levels detected being described as subtherapeutic DATE in other words , very low .","The investigating judge ordered several psychological reports . CARDINAL psychologists examined the applicant and submitted their respective reports on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . They both concluded that the applicant was suffering from inner fragility requiring massive , rigid defences to preserve a perfect facade . She had developed a maternal omnipotence and a lack of psychological distance between the children and herself . Thus , by killing her children DATE love - objects in whom she had over - invested \u2013 the applicant was killing herself both as a person and as a mother .","A psychiatric assessment was also ordered by the investigating judge , who appointed a panel of CARDINAL psychiatrists , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON The panel of experts examined the applicant and drew up a report dated DATE , in which they concluded :","\u201c We consider that [ the applicant ] was in a severe state of anxiety and depression which encouraged her to act as she did and profoundly impaired her judgment , without destroying it altogether .","...","The accused was not suffering at the time of the events , and is not currently suffering , from a mental disorder or a severe mental disturbance or defect making her incapable of controlling her actions . \u201d","In an order of DATE ORG ( chambre des mises en accusation ) of ORG , upholding an order made by the investigating judge on DATE , committed the applicant to stand trial in ORG for the following offence :","\u201c ... in Nivelles , on DATE ,","having knowingly , intentionally and with premeditation , killed the following persons :","- [ Y.M. ] , born on CARDINAL DATE ;","- [ GPE ] , born on CARDINAL DATE ;","- [ My . M. ] , born on DATE ;","- [ ORG . M. ] , born on DATE ;","- and [ Me . M. ] , born on DATE . \u201d","The indictment of DATE , drawn up by ORG , ran to CARDINAL pages and gave an account of the precise sequence of events , the steps taken and evidence obtained during the investigation , and the forensic medical reports ; a substantial part of it also focused on the applicant \u2019s personal history and family life and the motives and reasons that had prompted her to carry out the killings , particularly in the light of the expert assessments of her psychological and mental state .","The applicant \u2019s trial took place in ORG of the province of PERSON from DATE . At the start of the trial the indictment was read out by ORG representing the prosecution , and the nature of the offence forming the basis of the charge and any circumstances that might aggravate or mitigate the sentence were likewise indicated .","While giving testimony during the trial in ORG , PERSON mentioned the existence of the CARDINAL letters dated CARDINAL and DATE which the applicant had addressed to him . He produced them in court , thus disclosing them for the first time in the proceedings . In view of this new evidence , the President of ORG duly instructed the panel of CARDINAL psychiatrists , PERSON , PERSON , who had already been involved at the investigation stage and had already confirmed their findings orally before ORG , to produce a further report .","On DATE the panel of CARDINAL psychiatrists adopted a report in which they expressed a unanimous opinion . They began by noting by way of introduction :","\u201c [ The first question , concerning the applicant \u2019s ability to control her actions at the time of the events and at present ] is regularly the most difficult and controversial because of the \u2018 all or nothing\u2019 nature of the answer that has to be given regarding inability to control one \u2019s actions , so much so that some psychiatrists have for that reason declined to produce expert reports in criminal cases . A total loss of control over one \u2019s actions is absolutely clear only in certain cases , such as delusional psychosis ( \u2018 dementia\u2019 ) . In other cases , it is more debatable and the personal conviction of the experts will be influenced by the presence of certain indicators . Their conclusions , in concise form , must give precise answers to the questions set out in the instructions . These answers reflect the experts\u2019 personal conviction after carrying out the various written procedures . They are only ever an informed opinion , and not an absolute scientific truth . \u201d","The experts went on to make the following findings in particular :","\u201c The letter of DATE ] suggests all the signs of melancholic major depression . ... These melancholic states are grounds for emergency hospital admission , or observation , where necessary . ... In the second letter , although in terms of content she unequivocally expresses her anxiety in relation to a suicide where \u2018 I will take my children with me , because there is no longer any future\u2019 , in terms of meaning she is clearly asking for help , apparently foreseeing her inability to control her future actions . ... These documents thus demonstrate beyond doubt that Ms PERSON no longer felt capable of controlling her actions ... it has always been clear that there was mental disturbance ... new evidence [ warrants ] the firm conviction that at the time of the events , PERSON was incapable of controlling her actions on account of a severe mental disturbance . ... PERSON developed a severe state of anxiety and depression ... [ and ] a transient dissociative state of depersonalisation , causing her to perform acts of extreme violence . Only operational thought remains ; reflective consciousness is momentarily lost . ... Currently ... she remains fragile and there is still a chance , particularly because mourning is impossible , that she will experience a further episode of mental disturbance making her incapable of controlling her actions : the possibility remains that she may attempt suicide ..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160090","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GHUYUMCHYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants are the son ( the first applicant ) , the daughter - in - law ( the second applicant ) and the wife ( the third applicant ) of DATE . They were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON , GPE . The first and the third applicants are also PERSON first heirs , according to the NORP civil law .","The third applicant and PERSON ran a printing house and a small spirit factory as a family business .","On DATE PERSON was charged with bribetaking and made an undertaking not to leave his residence . A truck and a television set belonging to him were seized . It appears that he then hired a defence lawyer .","On DATE the investigating authority decided to dismiss the charge against PERSON for lack of evidence , lifted the seizure and cancelled the undertaking . It appears that after the dismissal of the charge , PERSON advocate refused to work with him any longer .","In DATE PERSON and the third applicant sold the family business to a private person .","On DATE PERSON instituted proceedings seeking compensation for wrongful prosecution . In particular , he claimed reimbursement for legal and transport costs . He also claimed compensation for the loss of his family business , alleging that as a result of the prosecution he could not run it and had to sell it at a low price .","On DATE supplemented his claim , alleging that as a result of the prosecution the first and the second applicants had had to leave their jobs . The first and the second applicants also joined the proceedings as third parties having additional claims .","On DATE the ORG granted the claim in part , ordering reimbursement of legal costs and part of the transport costs . As for the rest of the claim , ORG dismissed it on the ground that there was no causal link between the sale of the business and PERSON Ghuyumchyan \u2019s prosecution or between the first and the second applicants\u2019 leaving their jobs and the prosecution .","It appears that on DATE PERSON lodged a request with ORG , seeking to receive legal aid .","On DATE the Chairman of ORG informed him in a letter that LAW did not provide for legal aid for the type of proceedings in which he was involved .","On DATE lodged a complaint with ORG alleging that on DATE he had been beaten by the Head of the Lori Region of GPE . The outcome of this complaint is unclear .","On an unspecified date PERSON and the first applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of ORG .","On DATE ORG delivered its judgment upholding the judgment of ORG in respect of the reimbursement of part of the travel costs as well as legal fees , but dismissing the rest of the claim .","On DATE PERSON lodged an appeal with ORG against the judgment of ORG .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG returned the appeal , informing him that it had not been admitted for examination as it had not been lodged by an advocate licensed to act before ORG , pursuant to LAW . The applicants alleged before the ORG that their family could not afford the services of such an advocate .","On DATE PERSON and also the first and the second applicants lodged an introductory letter with ORG in which they complained under LAW that PERSON had been denied access to ORG , under LAW ( c ) that PERSON ORG \u2019s defence lawyer had refused to represent him in the compensatory proceedings and that his request for legal aid had been rejected by ORG . They also complained under LAW No . CARDINAL that the domestic courts had failed to grant the compensatory claim in full .","On DATE PERSON died of a heart attack .","On DATE the applicants lodged their completed application with the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173266","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GOLUBAR v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","On DATE the applicant began to serve a DATE prison sentence . He was placed in FAC ( \u201c ZPH \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant applied to a ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences and the head office of ORG requesting the suspension of his prison sentence on account of his state of health . He claimed that from DATE he had been hospitalised in GPE in GPE because he had suffered a stroke . He also had CARDINAL brain arteriovenous malformations , CARDINAL of which had been removed in DATE by means of gamma knife radiosurgery , and the DATE high - risk recovery period had not yet ended . He referred to his medical documents , which had established basal ganglia in the ventricular system with a risk of haemorrhage , increased by the stress of the prison conditions . He also claimed that in combination with the epileptic fits from which he suffered , his health issues could be life - threatening .","A medical report drawn up by ZPH on DATE confirmed the claims put forward by the applicant in his request and concluded :","\u201c [ The prisoner ] presents a permanent high risk to himself and the institution in which he is placed . The expert opinion is that DATE are needed for his brain condition to stabilise after the gamma knife surgery . We consider his request for a stay of his prison term medically justified . \u201d","On DATE a ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . This decision was based entirely on an opinion given by PERSON , an expert in internal medicine and cardiology . PERSON concluded that the applicant was not suffering from any acute illness and that during his time in ZPH his chronic illness had not worsened . PERSON also stated that in the event of a sudden deterioration in the applicant \u2019s state of health , he could easily be transferred to an appropriate medical institution . Lastly , he asserted that the applicant \u2019s current medical problems could be appropriately treated at ZPH .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , in which he argued that since incarceration his medical condition had been deteriorating constantly , that the ZPH doctors had themselves recommended that his prison sentence be suspended on medical grounds , and that PERSON could not give a proper opinion on his health since he was not an expert in neurology .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG quashed the first - instance decision and instructed the first - instance court to order an expert opinion from a neurologist .","On DATE the same ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . The decision was based mainly on the opinion given by PERSON , an expert in neurology . She concluded that the applicant had not been suffering from any acute illness , that his chronic illness had improved , that he had been receiving good medical care at ZPH , and that it had appropriate staff to meet the needs of the applicant as regards the medical care his condition required .","On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged appeals , in which he contested the qualifications of PERSON and the validity of her opinion . He argued that she had not answered the question whether ZPH had adequate staff and could otherwise properly treat his medical condition . He further argued that the judge responsible for the execution of sentences had not addressed the contradictions between the findings the ZPH doctors had expressed in their opinion of DATE and the reports of the medical experts commissioned by ORG . He also asserted that his medical condition could only be properly treated in a specialist medical institution .","Following a suggestion by ZPH that there was no need for the applicant \u2019s further hospitalisation , on DATE the head office of ORG ordered his transfer to ORG . On DATE he lodged an appeal , arguing that neither the staff nor equipment at ZPH was satisfactorily suited to carry out proper diagnostic examinations to accurately assess his medical condition . He asked for an urgent transfer to a suitable medical institution where a proper diagnostic examination could be carried out . The applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE , endorsing its reasoning .","On DATE , at his request , the applicant was taken to the NORP of ORG in GPE so that neurological tests could be carried out . During his transfer in a police van he suffered an epileptic fit and lost consciousness . This was discovered only on arrival at the front entrance of the hospital when officers opened the back door of the van and found him lying on the floor . He spent TIME at the hospital and was then returned to FAC .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decisions concerning his request for the suspension of his prison sentence and the decision concerning his transfer to ORG . In addition to the complaints put forward in his previous requests and appeals , the applicant also complained that during his DATE at ZPH he had not had proper access to sanitary facilities and had been obliged to ask the guards to let him out of the room each time he needed the toilet , a request which they sometimes had not answered in time . Since there had been no lift at ZPH , in order to have access to fresh air he had had to climb the stairs to his cell on the second floor , which had been a risk to his health . He further reiterated that ZPH had no neurology department or even a neurologist , so his condition could not have been properly treated there . Even though specialists from the CARDINAL civil hospitals where he had been treated prior to his imprisonment had recommended that check - ups be carried out DATE , he had not been given them .","The applicant also complained about the conditions in FAC . He claimed that he had been placed in a cell with CARDINAL other inmates , and that a lack of fresh air in the cell had worsened his condition . There had been a squat toilet in the cell , which had not been completely private and a foul smell had emanated from it . Inmates had had to eat in their cells . There had been no lift , which had prevented him from accessing fresh air .","On DATE the applicant lodged another application for the suspension of his prison sentence on health grounds , reiterating his previous arguments . He also complained that since DATE he had not had any access to daylight and that any access to fresh air had been prevented by construction of a lift in ZPH .","On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the applicant was taken to ORG in GPE . A report drawn up there on DATE indicates that there was no need for any urgent measures . It was also established that the applicant had had a high concentration of tramadol ( a painkiller ) and its metabolites , benzodiazepine ( a class of psychoactive drug ) and olanzapine ( an atypical antipsychotic drug ) .","NORP The applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible by ORG on DATE on the grounds that the contested judgment had not concerned the merits of his civil rights or obligations or a criminal charge against him , and as such was not amenable to constitutional review .","On DATE a ORG judge responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed the applicant \u2019s request of DATE . The judge relied on previous expert opinions as well as on a further opinion of PERSON , an expert in neuropsychiatry who confirmed that the applicant had not been suffering from any acute illness , that his medical condition had not worsened , and that ZPH had the appropriate capacity for his treatment in all respects . ORG further relied on ZPH reports dated DATE stating that the applicant had not been following ORG orders , had not been taking measures aimed at his treatment and had been deliberately putting his health at risk . There was no comment on the applicant \u2019s complaints concerning lack of access to daylight and fresh air .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , reiterating his arguments concerning his health but made no mention of his previous complaints about lack of access to daylight and fresh air . This appeal was dismissed by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180841","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KE\u0160ELJ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["On DATE the applicants and the debtor ( ORG \u201c PERSON ) reached a court approved settlement before ORG , whereby the debtor undertook to pay the applicants specified amounts in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .","NORP The settlement became final on the same date .","The debtor ultimately paid part of the amounts determined in the settlement .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings against the debtor .","On DATE the applicants submitted their respective claims based on the settlement .","In the course of the insolvency proceedings ORG acknowledged the ORG claims .","On DATE ORG terminated ( zaklju\u010dio ) the insolvency proceedings against the debtor , but continued the proceedings against the debtor \u2019s estate . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","The proceedings are still pending .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 constitutional appeal on procedural grounds .","The court settlement in question remains partly unenforced to the present day .","It transpires from the case file that at the time the court settlement was concluded and became final ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) the debtor was a company predominantly comprised of NORP capital . The Government neither contested this nor provided any evidence to the contrary ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177988","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"TORDAJ v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by Ms B. Zari\u0107 , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were initially represented by their former Agent , PERSON , and subsequently by their current Agent , PERSON .","On DATE the applicant instituted private prosecution proceedings against ORG , claiming that he had falsely accused her of extortion and nuisance in a letter to some local authorities .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to submit some additional information , which she did on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to the criminal court to speed up the proceedings in view of the short limitation period in respect of defamation claims ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the criminal court responded that the proceedings would become statute - barred in DATE and that it would take all necessary measures to prevent that .","On DATE a hearing to attempt a friendly settlement was held . The defendant expressed his readiness to make an apology to the applicant , since he had had no intention of insulting her . The applicant did not accept his apology .","On DATE ORG found the defendant guilty of defamation . However , ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case for a retrial on DATE .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings as statute - barred . ORG upheld that decision on DATE .","In the present case , although the alleged defamation had taken place in DATE , the domestic courts applied LAW because its provisions were more lenient for the defendant in respect of punishment . LAW provides that the time - limit for criminal prosecution for defamation expires DATE after the commission of the offence .","NORP Since DATE defamation has no longer been considered as a criminal offence ( OG RS no . CARDINAL ) .","Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , taken together , provide , inter alia , that anyone who has suffered fear , physical pain or mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of his reputation , personal integrity , liberty or of his other personal rights ( prava li\u010dnosti ) is entitled to seek injunctive relief , sue for financial compensation and request other forms of redress \u201c which might be capable \u201d of affording adequate non - pecuniary satisfaction ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167086","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"SKANT v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","NORP The applicant was represented by ORG , a lawyer practising in ORG . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented , most recently , by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","After TIME on DATE the applicant went out onto the staircase landing in front of his flat to talk to an acquaintance of his , PERSON , a user of injection drugs . According to the applicant , they spoke about computer games . According to PERSON , the applicant asked him to inject him with a syringe which the latter provided . According to a subsequent forensic analysis , the syringe seized from PERSON contained an illegal drug , but the relevant amount was below the level needed for a prosecution .","NORP In the course of the subsequent investigation it emerged that the residents in the applicant \u2019s block of flats had for some time observed drug use on the staircase landings in the building . Having seen the applicant and PERSON on the landing , and suspecting them of drug use , GPE . \u2013 the grandson of a lady who lived CARDINAL floors above the applicant \u2013 contacted his friend D.T. , a police officer , and asked him to intervene .","While the applicant and PERSON were standing on the landing and , according to PERSON , while he was giving the applicant the injection , they were approached by D.T. , accompanied by GPE . and a certain I.L. D.T. explained that he had brought along the other people as potential witnesses .","According to all those involved in the incident other than the applicant , D.T. identified himself as a police officer and enquired what the applicant was doing . According to the applicant , D.T. did not identify himself . The applicant attempted to open the door to his flat and retreat .","According to the applicant , he was then hit on the head , kicked and punched , and those attacking him also attempted to put a syringe in his pocket . He cried for help . The attackers pushed him to the floor and continued to kick him .","According to all the other people involved in the incident , including PERSON , the applicant resisted D.T. when the latter tried to stop him from retreating into his flat . He started struggling with D.T. , but D.T. eventually overpowered him and pushed him to the ground face down . GPE helped D.T. hold the applicant down .","The applicant cried for help . D.T. called his colleague , officer GPE , for backup . ORG , a neighbour , subsequently stated that , after hearing cries for help , he went up CARDINAL floor from his flat and saw the applicant , whom he knew by sight , lying on the ground and being held down by CARDINAL people while struggling . A third person assisting with the arrest was holding PERSON , who was standing facing the wall . Other than that , nobody was moving . GPE saw GPE arrive and handcuff the applicant .","The applicant and PERSON were taken out of the building . PERSON , a neighbour , saw them on the ground floor and did not see any ill - treatment .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions to the ORG , immediately before putting him in the car , the police officers hit him repeatedly . PERSON and another neighbour , PERSON . , saw no ill - treatment .","NORP The police officers took the applicant and PERSON to the GPE LOC police station in the same car , and took the applicant to the third floor without registering him at the front desk .","According to the applicant , in the car and at the police station the police continued to beat him . They also threatened to continue beating him and rape him once they were in CARDINAL of the offices at the station . The officers and all the other people present , including PERSON , denied these allegations .","It is undisputed that when the applicant was taken to the third floor of the station , and as D.T. was opening an office door , the applicant either kneed or headbutted him in the face , ran along the corridor to a window and jumped out , breaking the glass with a part of his body , either his head or shoulder . On DATE a forensic medical expert recorded that D.T. had a haematoma on his face , diagnosed him with concussion , and stated that the injuries were consistent with D.T. \u2019s account that he had been hit by the applicant .","The applicant was found lying on a lawn and was taken to hospital .","On DATE a forensic medical expert recorded that , based on the applicant \u2019s personal examination and hospital records , he had a wound on the crown of his head which had scabbed over , a wound on his right elbow which had scabbed over , redness in his waist area on the right and a circular bruise on his left wrist . He was diagnosed with a closed head trauma , concussion and several fractures . The expert concluded that , other than the wrist bruise , all of the injuries could be explained by the applicant \u2019s jump through the window and fall , and the bruise could be explained by the handcuffing .","On DATE , in connection with his conduct in the course of his arrest , the Kharkiv Moskovsky ORG convicted the applicant of the administrative offence of disobeying a police officer , and gave him a fine .","On DATE the applicant was recognised as a Category CARDINAL disabled person ( the least severe category of disability ) .","On DATE an inspection of the scene of the incident at the police station was conducted . A shattered window and shards of glass were discovered , spread over the ground and covering a wide area .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged a formal complaint regarding the alleged ill - treatment . On DATE an investigator of the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office took a statement from her . The statement was mainly based on the applicant \u2019s account , which she had heard while visiting him in hospital .","On DATE the applicant told the investigator that he had been attacked by strangers on the landing of his building . He had hit back and struggled with them for TIME . They had pushed him to the ground and hit him . They had then hit him in the car on the way to the police station , stopping several times on the way to do so . When they had taken him to the third floor of the police station , somebody had threatened him with rape . He had not been able to bear it , had hit CARDINAL of the officers , and had jumped out of the window .","On DATE the applicant and D.T. underwent forensic medical examinations , in accordance with the investigator \u2019s instructions ( see paragraphs DATE and DATE above ) . Subsequently , the investigator took a number of statements from various witnesses ( see , in particular , paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the applicant .","On DATE a certain PERSON told the investigator that on TIME in question she had been collecting empty bottles near the applicant \u2019s building when she had seen , at a distance of QUANTITY , CARDINAL strangers take CARDINAL arrestees to a car . CARDINAL person , with his hands handcuffed behind his back , had been hit and kicked in the kidneys , neck and head for TIME while he screamed for help . Before putting him in the car one of the assailants had said , \u201c Do n\u2019t forget to plant [ that thing on him ] \u201d ( \u201c \u0427\u0442\u043e \u0431 \u043d\u0435 \u0437\u0430\u0431\u044b\u043b\u0438 \u043f\u043e\u0434\u043b\u043e\u0436\u0438\u0442\u044c \u201d ) . When she had called the applicant \u2019s mother DATE to tell her about the incident , she had learned that the person she had seen had been the applicant . ORG said that she was the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s former classmate , and made other statements indicating that she knew the family well . Neither the applicant nor his mother mentioned in their initial statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) the events which , according to ORG , had happened in front of the police car .","On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings , for lack of corpus delicti in the police ORG actions . On DATE the ORG regional prosecutor \u2019s office overruled that decision , instituted criminal proceedings in relation to suspected abuse of power by the police officers , and entrusted the investigation to an investigator at the regional office . On DATE the police officers were questioned , and denied subjecting the applicant to any ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant was recognised as an aggrieved party in those proceedings , and was questioned in that capacity .","In the course of the subsequent criminal investigation , all the witnesses mentioned above and several others were repeatedly interviewed , and several formal confrontations between witnesses and on - site reconstructions were held , with the participation of the applicant and the police officers . In particular , on DATE the applicant was questioned about his personal history . He stated that he had previously participated in kickboxing and karate tournaments , and in DATE had been a karate champion in GPE . He also stated that in DATE he had changed his name from PERSON to PERSON , since this was a requirement for converts to ORG . He did not attend any church in particular , but felt closest to ORG .","The investigator also obtained the opinions of a number of experts . In particular , on DATE a psychologist concluded that the applicant \u2019s conduct might have been driven by such pronounced personality traits as an appetite for risk , a heightened sense of injustice , a strong will , and a tendency to become easily insulted . The expert noted that , according to the applicant , he had thought about jumping out of the car on the way to the police station . On DATE a panel of medical experts confirmed the findings of the examination of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and concluded that the applicant \u2019s injuries were inconsistent with his account of ill - treatment .","On DATE the investigator decided not to bring charges against the individuals who had been involved in the incident ( D.T. , GPE , GPE . and ORG ) , for lack of corpus delicti in their actions , and on DATE the investigator decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings , finding that there were no sufficient grounds to bring any charges . The investigator concluded , in particular , that the applicant \u2019s account diverged from the accounts of all witnesses and the medical evidence , while the ORG accounts did not . As to ORG , her account contradicted the consistent statements of other disinterested parties , and she was the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s former classmate .","On DATE the Kharkiv ORG overruled the decision of DATE and sent the case back for further investigation , stating in particular that the investigator had failed to take into account ORG \u2019s statements .","In the course of the subsequent investigation , the investigator repeatedly attempted to contact the applicant , without success , and then ordered the police to look for him . According to a police report of DATE , the applicant \u2019s parents and neighbours said that he had moved in with his girlfriend . Although he visited them from time to time , his parents maintained that he had not left an address . They promised to inform the applicant that the investigator was looking for him when they next saw him . The investigator \u2019s efforts to contact the applicant through his lawyers were equally unsuccessful .","On DATE the investigator again discontinued the criminal proceedings , coming to the same conclusions , particularly concerning ORG \u2019s statements . According to the Government , the applicant was notified of that decision on DATE by letter . According to the applicant , he learned of it on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168057","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MALKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","34","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172854","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF IATROPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku","text":["The applicants were all detained in ORG ( \u03a4\u03bc\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1 PERSON ) ; they were either in pre - trial detention or serving a prison sentence . Specifically , the first applicant was detained in ORG from DATE until DATE ; the second applicant was detained in ORG from DATE until DATE ; and the third applicant was detained in ORG from CARDINAL DATE until DATE .","The applicants alleged that ORG had been an entirely inappropriate place in which to spend long periods of detention , as they had done . The cells in which they had been held had measured QUANTITY . m and had been designed to accommodate CARDINAL detainees . However , the number of detainees accommodated had varied from CARDINAL .","Cells had been insufficiently lit and ventilated , which , in addition to overcrowding and the filthiness of the LOC , had affected inmates\u2019 health . The blankets that had been provided had never been washed . The applicants furthermore stressed that there had been insufficient heating and hot water and that they had never been provided with soap .","Detainees had been confined to their cells and had not been allowed to spend time outside , which had affected their psychological health . Recreational activities had not been offered and cells had not been equipped with televisions or radio .","The meals that had been provided to detainees had cost MONEY ( ORG ) per day and had not sufficed to cover their DATE dietary needs , either in terms of quantity or quality .","On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor , complaining of the conditions of their detention but received no reply .","The Government firstly argued that the applicants had complained in a general way , without providing specific references concerning the actual conditions of their detention .","As regards the LOC in which the applicants had been detained , the Government submitted that ORG had been comprised of CARDINAL cells on the ground floor which had measured CARDINAL sq . m each and had been designed to accommodate CARDINAL male detainees . There had been another CARDINAL cells which had accommodated female detainees . All cells had had in - cell sanitary facilities and had had sufficient light and received sufficient ventilation through large windows .","Cells had accommodated CARDINAL detainees . Most of the detainees had been held in the facility for very short periods of time , as ORG had been used when transferring detainees from one facility to another or to the court room . As a result , when the number of detainees had exceeded the number that the cells had been designed to accommodate , that had only remained the case until transfers had been completed . In any event , the space available for each inmate had never been CARDINAL sq . m.","An external contractor had cleaned the facilities DATE and had disinfected the detention areas once DATE . Hot water and heating had been available throughout the LOC and all sheets and blankets had been regularly cleaned and replaced in the event that they had become worn out .","Food had been provided to detainees by a private catering company and had been of good quality and quantity ; the ORG submitted examples of the various meals offered , arguing that these had covered all dietary needs and preferences .","The Government pointed out that the applicants had not referred to or adduced any evidence that they had not received any medical treatment that they had needed . On the contrary , according to the police station \u2019s records , the second applicant had been transferred to ORG on DATE for a medical check - up ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178746","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SCHESZT\u00c1K v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Ercsi .","On DATE the applicant filed an action with ORG against his former employer , claiming unlawful dismissal . On DATE the court found in his favour and obliged the respondent to the action to pay him a severance payment , outstanding wages , a lump sum in compensation , and default interest .","NORP On appeal , on DATE the ORG changed the judgment in part . In DATE the respondent filed a petition for review .","In an order of DATE ORG forwarded the respondent \u2019s petition to the applicant and informed him that , within DATE of receiving the order , he could file comments on the respondent \u2019s petition and\/or request an oral hearing .","On DATE the applicant received the order , and on DATE he dispatched his comments on the petition for review . The document was received by ORG on DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE ORG , sitting as a review court , had given a judgment in which it had reversed the previous decisions and dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . The court stated that the applicant had not filed any comments on the petition for review .","The applicant complained and addressed his complaint of DATE to the President of ORG . The Head of ORG informed him that his comments on the petition for review had been belated ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171414","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"MOLGA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Radom . He was initially represented before the ORG by his mother , and subsequently by PERSON ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant \u2019s father , PERSON ( \u201c NORP \u201d ) , lived with the applicant \u2019s mother , PERSON","The applicant \u2019s father sold clothes at a local market . On DATE ORG convicted him in summary proceedings of the unauthorised use of a registered trademark . It fined him MONEY ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) , convertible to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment in case of default .","On DATE the court decided that ORG could pay the fine in CARDINAL DATE instalments , starting from DATE . According to the court \u2019s records , GPE paid PLN CARDINAL of his fine . A court bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings to recover the outstanding PLN CARDINAL , but to no avail .","On DATE ORG ordered that PERSON serve a term of CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment in respect of the unpaid fine . It appears that ORG had been summoned to the hearing but did not appear .","PERSON was unsuccessfully summoned to surrender himself to a remand centre . On DATE ORG ordered that he be arrested and taken to the remand centre . On DATE at QUANTITY the police arrested PERSON outside his home . On DATE at QUANTITY he was taken to ORG to serve his fiveday sentence .","At the remand centre ORG refused a routine examination by a nurse . He was then examined by a doctor , who cleared his admission . Subsequently , GPE was placed in a transit cell no . CARDINAL . At TIME a prison guard , PERSON , noticed that PERSON was lying on the floor with his belt tied around his neck . The other end of the belt was tied to a chair . The guards , PERSON and PERSON , and later the nurse tried to resuscitate PERSON He was declared dead at TIME GPE was DATE at the time . A prosecutor and the police arrived at the scene later .","On DATE the Radom police opened an investigation under the heading of involuntary homicide ( LAW , hereinafter \u201c the LAW ) . The investigation was later taken over by ORG .","On an unspecified date a post - mortem was carried out . In his report , the forensic expert concluded that the direct cause of death had been hanging and that it could be assumed that it had been an act of suicide .","The prosecutor found no evidence pointing to the involvement of third parties in the incident . With regard to a possible failure to act by the prison guards , the prosecutor questioned PERSON , the guard who had been supervising PERSON at the relevant time ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Having regard to the evidence , the prosecutor found that the prison guards responsible for GPE \u2019s safety had acted beyond reproach . The guards had not breached the applicable regulations by letting PERSON keep his belt . Furthermore , the prosecutor found no shortcomings in the prison guards\u2019 reaction after seeing GPE lying on the ground . She concluded that the prison guards had not committed an offence .","On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation after establishing that the actions of the prison guards had not constituted a criminal offence .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to ORG that she had not been served with ORG decision to discontinue the investigation .","On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant \u2019s mother be served with a copy of the decision .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s mother was informed by ORG that she had been formally notified of the opening of the investigation into her partner \u2019s death on DATE . The letter said that the applicant \u2019s mother had twice been summoned to the Radom police headquarters for an interview , which she had not attended . Subsequently , a police officer had visited her flat but had not been allowed to enter . Further summonses sent to the applicant \u2019s mother had not been answered . On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother had gone to police headquarters and had insisted that she did not wish to be contacted in connection with ORG \u2019s death . Accordingly , the district prosecutor had served the decision to discontinue the investigation on ORG , GPE \u2019s adult son and the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL - brother .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother was served with the prosecutor \u2019s decision to discontinue the investigation . She lodged an appeal against that decision dated DATE . Her appeal was rejected as submitted out of time . On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s mother requested the district prosecutor to grant her leave to appeal out of time . On DATE the prosecutor refused that request . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision . No further appeal lay against this decision . In consequence , the decision to discontinue the investigation of DATE became final .","On DATE the applicant , represented by his mother , relying on LAW ( hereinafter , \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , requested that the ORG open de novo ( podj\u0119cie na nowo ) the investigation into his father \u2019s death . He requested that the prosecutor obtain the file of the civil proceedings against ORG in which the courts had determined that there existed a causal link between the failures of the prison guards and his father \u2019s suicide ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He pointed out the discrepancy between the findings of the district prosecutor and the civil courts . The applicant \u2019s mother also produced proof of payment of all CARDINAL instalments of the fine imposed on GPE","The investigation was opened de novo on DATE .","On DATE the Radom - Wsch\u00f3d District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation into the alleged failure by the prison guards to fulfil their duties . The allegation was related to their failure to keep the applicant \u2019s father under constant surveillance and to seize his belt , which he had used to commit suicide ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL in conjunction with LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The prosecutor established that those acts did not constitute a criminal offence .","NORP The prosecutor also discontinued the investigation into alleged negligence by PERSON , a clerk at FAC who had incorrectly credited a payment of ORG MONEY by ORG to another debtor . The prosecutor established that prosecution of the impugned offence had become time - barred .","With regard to the facts , the prosecutor established that during PERSON \u2019s admission to the remand centre on DATE , the prison guard FAC had noticed that GPE had been anxious and tearful . PERSON had contested his imprisonment as unjust . Consequently , the guards S.S. and PERSON had decided to check with ORG as to whether the fine had been paid and were told that that was not the case . Next , PERSON was to be examined by a male nurse , PERSON The male nurse noticed that PERSON had been agitated and tearful and had declared that he would go on a hunger strike . Having regard to those circumstances , the male nurse had requested that GPE be taken to a medical room for examination by a doctor . At TIME PERSON had been taken to a medical room where he was to be examined by a doctor , ORG had been anxious , tearful and convinced that he had been wronged by the court and the police . PERSON had refused to be examined or take any medication . He had also declared that he would refuse any food and drink in protest at his imprisonment . PERSON had not revealed any suicidal thoughts . Doctor PERSON had agreed to ORG incarceration but had recommended that he be seen by a psychiatrist at DATE .","At TIME PERSON had been taken to transit cell no . CARDINAL where he was to wait for his prison underwear and hygiene products . At QUANTITY the prison guard GPE had seen through the peephole that GPE was lying on the floor . PERSON had entered the cell and noticed that a belt was tied around GPE \u2019s neck . He had taken the belt off GPE \u2019s neck and , together with another guard , PERSON , had begun resuscitation procedures . At TIME an emergency services doctor had declared PERSON dead .","The prosecutor also had regard to the findings of the forensic expert . The expert , having carried out a post - mortem , established the presence of a slight strangulation mark on ORG \u2019s neck and a number of injuries which had likely resulted from his hitting objects while in convulsion . The expert further established that the direct cause of death had been hanging . The result of his examination allowed it to be established that it had been a suicide .","NORP The prosecutor found no evidence pointing to the involvement of third parties in the impugned incident .","The prosecutor took a number of investigative measures aimed at determining whether the prison guards had failed to fulfil their duties . She interviewed the prison guard GPE He testified that certain objects , such as mobile telephones , penknives and screwdrivers , were taken from prisoners . However , the applicable regulations did not require that belts or laces should also be seized . The prosecutor analysed the applicable regulations and concluded that belts and laces were not regarded as dangerous objects .","With regard to alleged negligence on the part of the prison , the prosecutor established that the actions of the prison guards had not disclosed any failure to fulfil their duties . The prison guards had acted with appropriate diligence in supervising PERSON Not seizing ORG \u2019s belt in the process of his admission to the remand centre had been in compliance with the relevant regulations . There had been no grounds to suspect that ORG would make an attempt on his own life despite his strong emotional reaction to his incarceration . The doctor interviewing PERSON had not identified any suicidal tendencies . Furthermore , after seeing PERSON lying unconscious on the floor , the prison guards had reacted appropriately to the situation . In conclusion , the prosecutor found that the actions of the prison guards had not constituted any of the criminal offences prescribed in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother appealed against the prosecutor \u2019s decision . She argued , inter alia , that the prison guards had failed in their duties by not seizing ORG \u2019s belt . That , in consequence , had led to his suicide and death .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision .","The court noted that the applicant \u2019s mother had sought to have the investigation continued and for charges to be brought against specific individuals , eventually leading to their trial and conviction . However , the evidence secured in the investigation had not provided any grounds to accept such a demand .","The court found that the prosecutor had correctly established the facts and had properly assessed the comprehensive evidence obtained in the case . It noted that the prosecutor had carried out a number of investigative measures aimed at determining if there had possibly been negligence on the part of the prison guards . However , no such negligence had been established .","The court found nothing untoward in the manner in which the prison guards had carried out their duties vis - \u00e0 - vis the applicant \u2019s father . They had ensured , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s father had been seen by a doctor . There had been no grounds to believe that the applicant \u2019s father would commit suicide , despite his strong emotional reaction to imprisonment . In accordance with the applicable regulations , the prison guards had not been required to seize the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s belt . Furthermore , they had attempted to resuscitate the applicant \u2019s father . In conclusion , the court accepted the prosecutor \u2019s finding that the actions of the prison guards had not amounted to any of the offences prescribed in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG . It noted that the findings of the civil court could not alter that conclusion and lead to attributing criminal responsibility to the prison guards . The court found that the applicant \u2019s mother had not indicated any relevant circumstances which could lead to the prosecutor \u2019s decision being overturned .","The court also accepted the prosecutor \u2019s decision to discontinue the investigation with regard to the court clerk .","On DATE the applicant brought a claim against ORG with ORG . His mother acted on his behalf since the applicant was a minor . He sought ORG ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in compensation and a DATE allowance of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in connection with his father \u2019s death . The applicant argued that ORG was liable for his father \u2019s death on account of gross negligence by the prison guards who had failed to ensure his father \u2019s safety . In his view , the belt had been a dangerous object and should definitely have been seized by the prison guards .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It held that the prison guards had acted lawfully and in accordance with LAW and that therefore ORG could not be held liable . In addition , the court held that there had been no causal link between ORG \u2019s death and the actions of the prison guards .","ORG established that GPE had been agitated during his admission to the remand centre but considered that to be a standard reaction . The prison guards had checked with ORG and , despite PERSON \u2019s claims to the contrary , it had confirmed that CARDINAL instalment of ORG \u2019s fine had not been paid . During his medical examination , ORG had informed the doctor that he had left children at home unsupervised but he had not revealed any suicidal thoughts . The doctor had concluded that ORG could be admitted to the remand centre and that there was no need for an immediate psychiatric consultation . Having regard to the above , the court found that there was nothing in GPE \u2019s medical history or circumstances related to the offence which would have indicated that he needed to be put under particularly close supervision or that his belt should have been seized .","The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG partly allowed his claim . It found ORG liable under LAW and awarded the applicant LAW ( QUANTITY ) in compensation and a DATE allowance of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant \u2019s appeal .","ORG noted that under LAW , the administration of a penal institution had a duty to ensure ORG \u2019s behaviour could not be considered as simple agitation . His behaviour had suggested a nervous breakdown caused by a feeling of injustice as ORG had been convinced that he had paid the fine in full . For example , the prison guard GPE had stated in his report that PERSON had displayed disturbing behaviour ( hitting the bed with his fist ) , had been tearful , anxious and agitated , and had declared that he would go on a hunger strike .","ORG found that since PERSON \u2019s behaviour had been very different from the norm and that a psychiatric consultation had been recommended for him , then the prison guards should have taken all the necessary steps to ensure his safety . They should have seized any object presenting a risk to his life or health , including his belt or , alternatively , should have put him under constant supervision . Such actions would have prevented ORG death . The court thus held that there was a causal link between the omissions of the prison guards and ORG death .","With regard to the claim for compensation , ORG noted that under LAW of LAW it could award an appropriate level of compensation to relatives of a deceased if their situation significantly deteriorated as a result of the person \u2019s death . A significant deterioration in a claimant \u2019s situation depended on the degree of adverse material and immaterial consequences resulting from the death of a relative . ORG found that the amount of compensation sought was grossly excessive and that the claimant ( the applicant ) had not established that his situation had deteriorated to such a degree . For the claimant , the death of his father when he was DATE had certainly been a particularly acute loss which had limited his prospects in life and had amounted to a loss of natural support . Having regard to those and other relevant factors , the court found that the appropriate level of compensation was PLN MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","NORP The amount of DATE allowance sought by the applicant was also inflated , the court found . The size should not be higher than the amount ORG would have contributed as a father . Having regard to GPE \u2019s financial situation prior to his death , the court found that a DATE allowance of PLN CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) was reasonable and commensurate with the applicant \u2019s justified needs .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal , contesting the amounts of compensation and DATE allowance as too low . ORG also lodged a cassation appeal . On CARDINAL DATE ORG accepted the defendant \u2019s cassation appeal for examination and refused to admit that of the applicant .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment in part and remitted the case . It held that the lower court had failed to examine the defendant \u2019s plea that the claim was time - barred . However , it upheld ORG findings in respect of the prison PERSON failure to ensure the safety of the applicant \u2019s father ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","On DATE ORG gave a judgment awarding the same level of compensation and DATE allowance to the applicant and dismissing the remainder of the defendant \u2019s appeal . The court examined the defendant \u2019s plea based on the limitation period . To that end the court heard the applicant \u2019s mother . It established that in DATE the applicant \u2019s mother had found proof of payment of all CARDINAL instalments of the fine imposed on her partner made DATE and DATE . It further established that the prosecutor had refused to consider her a party to the investigation and to grant her access to the file . It had only been after the applicant \u2019s mother had complained to ORG that she had been served with the decision to discontinue the investigation on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Accordingly , the DATE limitation period should start to run on DATE . As the claim had been brought on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the defendant \u2019s plea had to be dismissed .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW refers to the ORG \u2019s civil liability in the following way :","\u201c Everyone shall have the right to compensation for any harm done to him by any act of a public authority in breach of the law . \u201d","In a judgment ( no . ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) of DATE , ORG examined the compatibility of LAW with LAW . It held , inter alia , that :","\u201c In accordance with LAW , the sole basis for [ ORG civil ] liability is an unlawful act by a public authority , it is of no significance whether such an act was subjectively culpable ( subiektywnie zawinione ) . ...","Having regard to the conditions for [ State ] liability laid down in LAW previously analysed , there is no doubt that \u2018 the personal culpability of a state official\u2019 does not form part of the list of conditions necessary for liability on the part of the public authorities . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , as applicable from DATE , provides as follows :","\u201c ORG or [ , as the case may be , ] a local self - government entity or other legal person responsible for exercising public authority , shall be liable for any damage ( szkoda ) caused by an unlawful act or omission [ committed ] in connection with the exercise of public authority . \u201d","LAW provides as follows :","\u201c Anyone who unintentionally causes the death of another person shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of DATE . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Criminal Code reads as follows :","\u201c A public official who , by overstepping his powers or not fulfilling his duties , acts to the detriment of public or private interests shall be liable to a sentence of imprisonment of DATE . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179432","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BALOGH v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","DATE and DATE that is , for DATE and DATE his action for division of matrimonial property and related issues was pending before the GPE XX \/ XXI \/ XXIII ORG , ORG and the GPE .","He complained of the excessive length of the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142739","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NUSRET KAYA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY [Extracts]","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively .","When their application was lodged the applicants were being held at the E - type prison of GPE .","During their previous detention in another prison \u2013 the H - type prison of GPE \u2013 they had applied to the sentence - execution judge of GPE seeking the lifting of the restrictions that the prison authorities imposed , according to them , by preventing them from using the NORP language in their telephone conversations .","On DATE , based on the case file , the sentence - execution judge of GPE dismissed their application . In his reasoning he began by stating that , while Article CARDINAL of the LAW and LAW protected the freedom of correspondence , those CARDINAL ORG also provided for limitations of such freedom on grounds such as national security and public order . He further mentioned that LAW no . DATE on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures ( \u201c Law no . CARDINAL \u201d ) provided that telephone conversations had to be conducted under the conditions and according to the principles laid down in the Rules on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures ( \u201c the Rules \u201d ) . He noted that the prison authorities had not yet received any reply to their request for it to be ascertained , under LAW ( p ) of the LAW , whether or not the individuals with whom the applicants wished to speak understood NORP . He pointed out in this connection that the question remained to be clarified and that the applicants\u2019 action thus concerned the general practice of the prison authorities which , in his view , was not in breach of the law . He concluded that the prison authorities had acted in conformity with PERSON no . CARDINAL and Rule CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( p ) .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicants requested that this decision be set aside .","On DATE , based on the case file , ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 action to have the decision set aside , finding that the sentence - execution judge had not acted in breach of the procedure or of the law .","At the time when they lodged their applications , the applicants were being held at the F - type prison of Bolu .","While in that prison , they applied on DATE to the sentence - execution judge of Bolu seeking the lifting of the restrictions that , according to them , the prison authorities imposed by preventing them from using the NORP language in their telephone conversations .","On DATE , based on the case file , the sentence - execution judge of Bolu dismissed the application , finding that the practice of the prison authorities was in conformity with both the procedure and the law . In his decision , he noted that the rules on telephone conversations between convicted and remand prisoners and their relatives had been revoked on CARDINAL DATE . He indicated that those rules did not contain any provision about the handling of a request concerning a telephone conversation in a language other than NORP . He explained that PERSON no . CARDINAL had come into force and that Rule CARDINAL laid down new principles that had to be taken into account . He set out all the conditions provided for in Rule CARDINAL as regards the supervision of telephone conversations in prisons , particularly the principle that telephone conversations had to be conducted in NORP , with the exception of those cases in which the convicted prisoner and\/or the person telephoned or telephoning did not understand that language . He pointed out that , in such cases , the Rules required the inmate to indicate on the telephone - call form that the other person did not understand NORP . He added that , when the prison authorities found it necessary , research would be carried out \u2013 at the inmate \u2019s expense \u2013 to verify the information given on the form , following which the inmate could be authorised to speak in NORP . He further stated that the inmate was required to begin a telephone conversation by stating his or her forename and surname , then to ask the other person to give his or her forename , surname and telephone number . In the judge \u2019s view , that obligation meant that , save in certain situations , telephone conversations had to be conducted in NORP .","On DATE Mr Yurtsever applied to have that decision set aside . He argued that his mother tongue was NORP and that it was therefore understandable for him to use that language to speak to his mother on the telephone . He also stated that this had been the case for DATE . Lastly , he complained about the fact that the cost of verifying the information was charged to the requesting inmate .","On DATE Mr PERSON also applied to have the sentence - execution judge \u2019s decision set aside , arguing that to communicate , correspond and live in accordance with one \u2019s cultural identity was a fundamental right .","On DATE , on the basis of the case file , ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 action . It found that the prison authorities and the sentence - execution judge had not acted in breach of the procedure or of the law .","When he lodged his application , the applicant was being held at the F - type prison in Bolu .","While in that prison , on DATE , he complained to the sentence - execution judge of Bolu that he was obliged to use NORP when speaking to his relatives on the telephone and that the prison authorities refused to allow him to use the NORP language in those conversations .","On DATE , on the basis of the case file , the sentence - execution judge of Bolu rejected the application , finding that the practice of the prison authorities was in conformity with both the procedure and the law . In his decision , he noted that the rules on telephone conversations between convicted and remand prisoners and their relatives had been revoked on CARDINAL DATE . He indicated that those rules did not contain any provision about the handling of a request concerning a telephone conversation in a language other than NORP . He explained that PERSON no . CARDINAL had come into force and that Rule CARDINAL laid down new principles that had to be taken into account . He set out all the conditions provided for in that Rule as regards the supervision of telephone conversations in prisons , particularly the principle that telephone conversations had to be conducted in NORP , with the exception of those cases in which the convicted prisoner and\/or the person telephoned or telephoning did not understand that language . He pointed out that , in such cases , the Rules required the inmate to indicate on the telephone - call form that the other person did not understand NORP . He added that , when the prison authorities found it necessary , research would be carried out \u2013 at the inmate \u2019s expense \u2013 to verify the information given on the form , following which the inmate could be authorised to speak in NORP . He further stated that the inmate was required to begin a telephone conversation by stating his or her forename and surname , then to ask the other person to give his or her forename , surname and telephone number . In the judge \u2019s view , that obligation meant that , save in certain situations , telephone conversations had to be conducted in NORP .","On DATE the applicant applied to have that decision set aside .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action , finding that the prison authorities and the sentence - execution judge had not acted in breach of the procedure or of the law .","..."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180288","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF CIOCODEIC\u0102 v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 13+P1-1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against her employer , a private company , C.G.H.T. ( \u201c the company \u201d ) , seeking the revocation of its decision of CARDINAL DATE to dismiss her , and claiming various salary entitlements .","On DATE ORG dismissed her action as illfounded . The applicant appealed .","In a final judgment of DATE ( \u201c the judgment \u201d ) , ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It ordered the company to revoke its dismissal decision and to pay the applicant pecuniary damages in the form of all her salary entitlements from CARDINAL DATE until the pronouncement of the final judgment , updated and index - linked . The domestic court also awarded the applicant the costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings .","On DATE the ORG validated the judgment ( \u00eenvestire cu formul\u0103 executorie ) , pursuant to LAW hereinafter \u201c the NORP \u201d ) , as in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant instituted enforcement proceedings on DATE , requesting the bailiffs\u2019 office M.S.R. & S.A.I. ( \u201c the bailiff \u201d ) to enforce the judgment .","On DATE the bailiff issued a notice of payment ( soma\u021bie ) and served it on the company .","According to a report of CARDINAL DATE issued by the bailiff , the bailiff and the applicant \u2019s lawyer visited the company \u2019s LOC . As the company \u2019s legal representative was not present , the bailiff granted the company a further DATE in which to execute the final judgment of their own accord .","NORP However , the company refused to fulfil its obligations . Moreover , it lodged a complaint seeking to have the enforcement proceedings annulled , pursuant to LAW , as in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . During those proceedings and at the company \u2019s request , on DATE ORG ordered the suspension of the enforcement proceedings until a final judgment was given ; the suspension was made subject to payment of a deposit of CARDINAL NORP lei ( ROL ) , namely MONEY ( ORG ) .","NORP In response , on DATE the applicant brought urgent proceedings seeking to have the impugned suspension lifted . She argued that the matter was urgent because she needed to obtain the salary entitlements that would allow her to provide for herself and her infant .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request , holding that she had not proved the existence of any imminent damage , so as to justify the urgency of the request .","On DATE ORG allowed the company \u2019s complaint against the enforcement proceedings . The court held that the procedural requirements had not been thoroughly complied with in so far as the bailiff had failed to serve the company with a copy of the enforceable judgment .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the court \u2019s judgment . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as ungrounded . The first - instance judgment thus became final .","The company lodged another request seeking to obtain the annulment of the restriction order ( anularea m\u0103surii de poprire ) issued by the bailiff in respect of its bank accounts . On DATE ORG allowed the request , in so far as the restriction order had been issued subsequent to the suspension of the enforcement proceedings ordered by the court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In the meantime , on DATE , the bailiff issued another notice of payment . On DATE it was posted , together with the enforceable judgment , at the company \u2019s main entrance .","On DATE the bailiff received a letter from the applicant , in which she enquired whether the company had complied with the outstanding judgment . The bailiff replied in the negative on DATE .","In so far as this was the last exchange of information between the applicant and the bailiff concerning the impugned enforcement procedure , and in view of the obligations imposed by law on the creditor , who was required to play a constantly active role throughout the enforcement procedure , on CARDINAL DATE the bailiff issued an official report , noting that , under LAW as in force at the time , the procedure had become time - barred ( \u201c perimarea execut\u0103rii \u201d ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It is not clear whether that report was communicated to the applicant or not .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint before ORG seeking to obtain a court order for immediate enforcement of the judgment , pursuant to LAW as in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s complaint and ordered the company to pay a coercive fine of ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL per day until it fulfilled its obligations .","An appeal by the company against that decision was allowed on DATE by ORG . The court held that the coercive fine had the nature of a civil penalty aimed at securing the enforcement of a personal obligation which could not be otherwise executed , as provided for by Article CARDINAL . However , the payment of the company \u2019s debt could be enforced with the assistance of a bailiff ; therefore the applicant \u2019s complaint was ill - founded .","On DATE the applicant complained to the Minister of ORG about the outcome of the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The complaint was lodged under the provisions of PERSON no . ORG , defining the framework for judges\u2019 disciplinary and criminal responsibility and the specific authorities empowered to initiate such proceedings .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s complaint was forwarded to ORG . On DATE ORG noted that the impugned proceedings had been terminated by a judgment that was final and therefore not subject to appeal .","In DATE the applicant complained to different State authorities that the company \u2019s representatives had failed to execute the judgment . She relied on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Labour Code and LAW no . CARDINAL regarding the resolution of labour disputes ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .","On DATE a criminal investigation was initiated against GPE , the company \u2019s administrator , for refusal to execute the judgment .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings against PERSON and fined him PERSON CARDINAL , namely approximately EUR CARDINAL . The prosecutor investigating the case found that PERSON \u2019s actions could not be classified as an offence .","A complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision was dismissed on DATE by the senior prosecutor at ORG .","On DATE both the applicant and PERSON appealed against the ORG decisions before ORG . The court dismissed both appeals on DATE . It held that the applicant \u2019s appeal had been lodged outside the time - limit . With regard to PERSON \u2019s appeal , it reiterated that even though he had not executed the judgment , his actions could not be classified as an offence and , therefore , the administrative fine had been fair .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed appeals on points of law lodged by the applicant and PERSON","On DATE the company \u2019s CARDINAL shareholders decided that the company should be liquidated ( dizolvare ) , in accordance with the provisions of Law no . CARDINAL on trading companies . At their request , ORG ( ORG ) decided on DATE to publish the ORG decision in ORG . The decision was published on DATE , in accordance with the provisions of Emergency Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL regulating the registration of specific acts in the companies register ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","It was noted in an accounting report drawn up on DATE that the company \u2019s only creditors were the CARDINAL shareholders .","On DATE CARDINAL of the shareholders asked ORG to strike the company off the register . The request was granted on DATE , and ORG decided that the decision would be published in ORG .","No appeal was lodged against the decisions taken by ORG in respect of the company ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172963","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SIMEONOVI v. BULGARIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Georgios A. Serghides;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in FAC .","On DATE CARDINAL armed individuals burst into a bureau de change in GPE . Shots were fired and CARDINAL staff members were killed . The criminals fled with a sum of money . On DATE the GPE investigation department instigated criminal proceedings against a person or persons unknown for armed robbery and homicide .","NORP The bodies responsible for the criminal investigation implemented a number of investigative measures : inspection of the LOC , autopsies on the victims and questioning of witnesses . The investigators quickly made a connection with the applicant and a certain GPE","By decision of CARDINAL DATE a police officer ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for TIME , in accordance with the relevant provisions of ORG . The order mentioned the detainee \u2019s right to assistance from a lawyer as from the time of his arrest . It also stated that a copy of the order should be presented to the arrestee . The copy of the relevant order in the case file is not signed by the applicant , who was on the run and being sought by the police at that time .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE . None of the case papers indicate whether he received a copy of the DATE order after his arrest . He remained in detention in GPE DATE and the next .","On DATE an investigator from GPE , on the basis of LAW , ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for TIME from TIME","On DATE the applicant was transferred to GPE . His detention was extended by a prosecutor that DATE .","The document containing the CARDINAL decisions of CARDINAL and DATE does not mention the applicant \u2019s right to the assistance of a lawyer and does not bear his signature .","The applicant affirmed that he had submitted CARDINAL requests , on CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , for contact with a lawyer , PERSON , and that the authorities had not acceded to those requests .","He stated that he had been questioned by the officers in charge of the investigation over the period from DATE . While being questioned he had explained that he had taken part in the hold - up at the bureau de change but denied having committed the CARDINAL murders .","The criminal case file contains no written trace of any such questioning . On the other hand , it includes a handwritten statement by GPE , the applicant \u2019s presumed accomplice , dated DATE , in which GPE explained that the applicant had instigated the hold - up , that he himself had agreed to cooperate with the applicant and that the latter had used a gun during the incident .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the investigation appointed an official lawyer for the applicant . At TIME , assisted by his officially appointed lawyer , the applicant was formally charged with the double murder and the hold - up in the bureau de change in GPE . When questioned immediately after being charged , he made the following statements :","\u201c I have read the charge sheet in the presence of my officially appointed lawyer , D. ORG .","I have been informed of my rights and obligations as a charged person and of my right to refuse to give evidence .","I shall make no submissions concerning the charges until my parents , who have been informed , have had time to engage a lawyer . \u201d","On DATE A.S. was questioned by the investigator in the presence of a lawyer . GPE related the circumstances surrounding the preparation , execution and aftermath of the hold - up , and explained how he had helped the applicant at all those stages . He affirmed that it had been the applicant who had killed both victims .","On DATE the applicant engaged a lawyer practising in GPE , PERSON . During his questioning in the presence of that lawyer on DATE he remained silent and stated that he would give evidence at DATE .","On DATE the applicant confessed in the presence of his lawyer , PERSON . He admitted that he had prepared and committed the hold - up at the bureau de change and claimed that the CARDINAL victims had been killed by GPE","On DATE the applicant engaged a second lawyer , this time practising in GPE , PERSON .","Subsequently , the officers responsible for the investigation gathered several different types of evidence , that is to say witness statements and medical , scientific , physical and documentary evidence .","On DATE the applicant and GPE , assisted by Counsel , took cognisance of the case papers . They retracted their confessions , and their lawyers requested that their clients be questioned once again .","On DATE the GPE regional prosecutor returned the file to the investigator for further inquiries . He asked him , in particular , to conduct several investigative measures and to formally charge both suspects afresh .","On DATE the applicant was charged with an additional offence , namely the unlawful purchase of the firearm which had been used during the robbery of DATE . On DATE the CARDINAL suspects were questioned in the presence of their lawyers . In his statement the applicant related a version of events to the effect that the robbery and murders in question had been committed by a certain PERSON , an NORP national , aided and abetted by an unknown second person .","On DATE the regional prosecutor \u2019s office drew up the indictment and committed the applicant and his presumed accomplice for trial before ORG .","ORG considered the criminal case DATE and DATE . During the proceedings the applicant , who was assisted by a lawyer , submitted that he and his presumed accomplice had indeed been in GPE on DATE and that they had indeed intended to commit a robbery in the bureau de change , but that they had changed their minds and returned to GPE DATE .","On DATE ORG delivered its judgment . The applicant was found guilty of armed robbery in the GPE bureau de change , committed jointly with GPE and resulting in the murder of CARDINAL persons . He was also found guilty of the unlawful purchase of a pistol and ammunition for it . ORG imposed the heaviest sentence available under LAW , namely a whole - life sentence . In accordance with section ORG ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s placement under the \u201c special \u201d prison regime .","Drawing on the evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation and at the trial , ORG established the facts as follows : the applicant \u2019s former partner , GPE , had started work as a cashier in the bureau de change in question in DATE when she was still living with him . While working there she had met the first victim , a certain GPE , who was a close relative of the owner and an employee in the same establishment . In DATE PERSON had left the applicant and moved in with GPE in GPE . The applicant had then decided to kill GPE and to steal the cash kept in the bureau de change . He had acquired a \u201c Makarov \u201d pistol , a silencer and ammunition . The applicant had persuaded a friend , GPE , to take part in the robbery . On TIME the applicant and FAC had arrived in GPE by coach . They had then gone to the building in which the bureau de change was located , and had gone up to the top floor to spend TIME there . TIME , TIME , they had gone down to the floor on which the bureau de change was located and noted that GPE was in the LOC alone . GPE , who had been carrying the pistol , had burst into the LOC and fired CARDINAL point - blank shot at the victim \u2019s left temple . The victim had died instantly . The CARDINAL accomplices had then placed the money found in the bureau de change in a bag which they had brought with them . Meanwhile the armed security guard of the bureau de change , a certain GPE , had rushed into the LOC where the first victim had been killed . GPE had fired QUANTITY shots at him , hitting him in the face . The security guard had been killed instantly . GPE and the applicant had left the building . They had then concealed the murder weapon under a rubbish bin , thrown away the clothes they had been wearing and hidden the stolen money . Some time later the CARDINAL men had ordered a certain FAC to fetch the money for them , which he had done .","The applicant appealed against that judgment . He complained that insufficient reasons had been given for the conviction , that his guilt had not been established , that the first - instance court had reached an erroneous decision , that there had been several breaches of procedural and substantive rules under domestic law and that ORG had shown bias .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer requested the withdrawal of all the judges of ORG . He argued that the media coverage of the criminal case had created a climate of intolerance and hostility towards his client . The defence called for an additional witness to be summoned , the reexamination of CARDINAL of the witnesses already heard by the trial court , and several additional expert opinions . On DATE the reporting judge responsible for the criminal case rejected the requests for further evidencegathering as irrelevant . He dismissed the challenge to the judges of ORG for lack of any evidence of bias .","ORG considered the criminal case DATE . It examined a new witness and received additional conclusions from psychiatric experts on the mental state of the CARDINAL accused .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court , giving its full backing to the latter \u2019s factual and legal findings . The evidence gathered during the preliminary investigation , presented before the first - instance court and produced for the first time before ORG had demonstrated that the CARDINAL accused had planned and carried out the robbery in the bureau de change and that the CARDINAL victims had been killed by FAC Yet the applicant had been the instigator of those crimes and had provided the weapon used by his accomplice . ORG drew on the statements of the many witnesses questioned during the assessment of the case , on the results of the ballistic , technical and NORP reports and the medical and psychiatric opinions , and also on the physical and documentary evidence gathered .","ORG observed that the accused \u2019s initial statements during the preliminary investigation had differed considerably from their submissions to the first - instance court . The initial statements had corroborated the finding concerning their participation in committing the criminal offences in issue , whereas the subsequent ones set out a version of events to the effect that an NORP national had committed those offences . ORG gave credence to the accused \u2019s initial statements , which had been made to an investigator in their ORG presence after they had been formally charged . The CARDINAL individuals thus charged had been advised that their statements could be used in court with a view to establishing the facts , and their prior medical examination had revealed no sign of physical violence , which contradicted the defence lawyer \u2019s allegation that the applicant \u2019s initial confession had been extracted from him .","ORG turned its attention to the applicant \u2019s version of events to the effect that the CARDINAL murders and the robbery had been committed by a certain PERSON , an NORP national , and that the applicant himself had been at his place of work in GPE at the material time . Checks carried out in ORG database had shown that no NORP national of that name was present in GPE . It was true that the applicant had been at his place of work in GPE on DATE . However , he had been working as a night watchman and the robbery and murders had been committed early in the morning , which had given him enough time to cover the distance between GPE and GPE and to arrive at work TIME . ORG deemed unconvincing the statement by the only witness who had corroborated the applicant \u2019s version of events .","ORG noted that the judgment of the first - instance court displayed none of the procedural defects mentioned by the defence . The factual and legal findings of ORG had not been exclusively based on the accused \u2019s confessions but on the whole body of consistent evidence gathered during the criminal proceedings . The applicant had participated actively in the proceedings and his lawyers had submitted several requests linked to the progress of the trial and the gathering of evidence . ORG had responded to all those requests and had provided full reasons for its procedural decisions . There had , moreover , been no sign of bias on the part of the judges who had examined the case , and the proceedings had been conducted in such a way as to safeguard the parties\u2019 interests .","The Court of Appeal excluded a statement by CARDINAL witness from the evidence for non - compliance with the procedural rules , but did not consider that statement decisive in terms of the factual and legal conclusions in the case . It held that even though ORG had been dilatory in issuing the grounds for its judgment , the defence had nonetheless been able to submit additional observations on appeal after having secured a copy of those grounds .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , reiterating his submissions to ORG . In that appeal , which ran to CARDINAL pages , his lawyer raised CARDINAL objections concerning the gathering and the interpretation of various pieces of evidence , as well as the factual and legal findings of the lower - level courts . In paragraph CARDINAL of his submissions the lawyer contested the admissibility of a record of a reconstruction of the events of DATE , arguing that on DATE his client had not been assisted by a lawyer of his choosing . At the time his client had been assisted by an officially appointed lawyer who had not been nominated by the local bar association , as required by the applicable legislation . The applicant \u2019s lawyer added that his client had undeniably been deprived of a defence lawyer on DATE , when he had been taken into custody ; he regarded this as an infringement of the provisions of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG and of the LAW . That was the only sentence relating to the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s detention in police custody .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . It found that none of the circumstances mentioned by the defence demonstrated the existence of bias on the part of the judges who had considered the criminal case . The applicant had had an opportunity to defend himself effectively during the criminal proceedings : he had given evidence and challenged the evidence against him . Some of his requests for further evidence - gathering had been accepted by the lower - level courts , and proper reasons had been given for their rejection of other requests by the defence for evidence to be taken .","Furthermore , in endorsing ORG other arguments , ORG considered that the facts had been well established , that the substantive and procedural rules had been appropriately applied and that the accused \u2019s rights had been fully respected .","The applicant was held in ORG from DATE to DATE , and again from DATE to DATE . He was incarcerated in FAC from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , and again from DATE to DATE . On DATE he was transferred to FAC , where he is still being held .","The applicant submitted that he had been held in a cell without windows , a toilet or running water . The LOC had had poor ventilation and lighting . He had not been allowed to exercise in the open air . Access to sanitary facilities had been restricted and the time allowed for washing had been insufficient . The applicant emphasised that the conditions of hygiene in the detention facility had been deplorable . He had subsequently been moved to another cell with CARDINAL other detainees . The CARDINAL detainees had had to take turns sleeping because the cell only had one bench .","According to a rapport by the Director General of Prisons submitted by the Government , at the time the only furniture in the cells in ORG had been a bench . The cells had had no windows and the only daylight had entered through holes in metal plates affixed to the doors . The facility in question had only had CARDINAL shared washroom and lacked any open - air facilities for detainees . The report also mentioned that DATE the facility had been completely renovated and redeveloped to bring the conditions of detention into line with the GPE human dignity .","The applicant alleged that his cell in FAC had had a surface area of QUANTITY m. It had contained a bed and a metal rack . There had been neither running water nor a toilet in his cell . He had used a plastic bucket for his bodily functions . Like all the prisoners he was allowed out of his cell for TIME CARDINAL times a day , in order to empty the bucket and fill his water bottle . The applicant submitted , in support of those allegations , a statement by his co - accused GPE , who had been detained with him under the same conditions in FAC . The applicant added that he had been forced to wear a convict \u2019s uniform even though he should have been allowed to wear his own clothes , under the prison rules .","The applicant explained that at the beginning of his term in FAC he had been deprived of open - air exercise . According to ORG statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , prisoners were allowed TIME open - air exercise every other day . The applicant was not involved in any organised activities in FAC . He had submitted several requests to the prison authorities to allow him to join in the various vocational training and occupational programmes and had applied for a transfer to FAC in order to be closer to his family , but no action had ever been taken on his requests .","According to a report by the governor of ORG submitted by the Government , the applicant had problems adapting to the prison regulations ; his attitude to the wardens and the prison authorities had been refractory and disrespectful . However , the applicant had enjoyed all the rights afforded to persons deprived of their liberty . He had board and lodging in accordance with normal prison standards . He had open - air exercise every day and free access to the prison library . He had consulted a psychologist on several occasions and had had a number of meetings with the prison \u2019s activity coordinator .","Following his transfer to FAC the applicant was subject to the \u201c special \u201d prison regime , involving virtually total isolation from the rest of the prison population .","The applicant submitted that over the period from DATE to DATE he had been confined to a cell measuring QUANTITY , which he had shared with another prisoner . The CARDINAL beds had taken up most of the floor area , leaving the QUANTITY prisoners with a free area of QUANTITY m. There had been no running water in the cell and the prisoners had used a bucket as a toilet .","The applicant stated that he had spent most of DATE sitting on his bed for lack of free space in the cell . He had eaten his meals in the cell and had been allowed to walk in the prison yard for TIME every day . His access to the prison library had been limited to TIME it took to choose and borrow a book , after which he had been immediately taken back to his cell . He had been allowed to attend the prison chapel twice a year , at GPE and DATE , although not during worship so that he would not meet other prisoners .","Up until DATE the high - security wing of the prison had been overcrowded and ill prisoners had not been held separately from other prisoners , which had fostered the transmission of infectious diseases . The physical conditions had improved somewhat after the renovation work in the high - security wing in DATE and DATE . In DATE the applicant \u2019s prison regime had relaxed . However , like all prisoners in his category , he had still been kept separate from the rest of the prison population and his cell had been kept locked during DATE . In DATE and DATE he had occasionally worked in his cell folding envelopes . Since DATE he had been allowed into an activities room , where he could talk to other life prisoners and read books .","According to a report by the governor of PERSON dated DATE , the high - security wing of FAC had been completely renovated in DATE and DATE . On the date of the report in question the applicant had been held in an individual cell measuring QUANTITY . m. , with a bed , a table , a rack , a shower and a private toilet . His cell had been heated and had running water and proper lighting .","Apart from the restrictions imposed by his prison regime , the applicant had access to all the activities provided to other prisoners : he could work , visit the library and the prison chapel , receive visits from his relatives , and write and receive letters . He was also eligible for relaxation of his prison regime under section CARDINAL of LAW , subject to a favourable opinion from the relevant special panel , and could ultimately be accommodated with the rest of the prison population .","Furthermore , in DATE the applicant applied to have a number of the provisions of the implementing regulations of LAW declared void as regards the conditions for the execution of his life sentence . His application was dismissed with final effect by a judgment of DATE delivered by ORG , which found that the impugned provisions of the implementing regulations were not contrary to LAW and that the adoption of the regulations had not involved any irregularities justifying their being declared void ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165567","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"M.H.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr M.H.A. , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The duty judge decided that the applicant \u2019s identity should not be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ) . He was represented before the ORG by Mr W. Boelens , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148484","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"\u0130NAN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in Bolu F - type prison . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions , he was arrested at gunpoint by police officers from the anti - terrorist branch of ORG on DATE . The arrest and custody report drafted by the police indicate that he was taken into custody on CARDINAL DATE . According to this report , during the arrest , officers used force as the applicant attempted to flee .","DATE and DATE the applicant made statements to the police . He was questioned , in particular , about his alleged links to ORG , an illegal organisation , and complicity in a homicide .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was referred to a doctor at the end of his detention in police custody . According to the medical report issued in respect of the applicant , he had sustained injuries to the right and left sides of his back and his left elbow . The doctor concluded that these injuries rendered the applicant unfit to carry out DATE activities for DATE .","On DATE the applicant was brought before a public prosecutor and then before the duty judge at ORG . He denied his statements taken in police custody , alleging that he had been tortured . The judge ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on remand on suspicion of membership of ORG and committing offences on its behalf .","On DATE the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant , along with a number of other persons , with ORG . The applicant was charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order , an offence proscribed under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the former LAW .","In DATE the case against the applicant and his co - accused was joined with another case brought against a number of other persons who had been charged with membership of ORG .","State Security Courts were abolished by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE . The case against the applicant was therefore transferred to ORG .","On DATE the applicant maintained before ORG that his police statements did not reflect the truth , as he had been subject to ill - treatment during his detention in police custody .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted to the firstinstance court that the applicant \u2019s police statements as well as a number of documents in the case file should not be used as evidence against him as the applicant had been subjected to torture in police custody . He further noted that no investigation had been initiated into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release pending trial . However , he was not released from prison on account of other charges against him .","On DATE the applicant was released from prison .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole . With the final decision ORG issued an order for the applicant \u2019s arrest .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE in so far as it concerned the applicant .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions , meanwhile , in DATE , he lodged a petition with the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office against the police officers who had allegedly inflicted torture on him . During DATE , the PERSON public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the allegations of ill - treatment of the applicant , along with CARDINAL other persons , who were the applicant \u2019s co - accused .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers suspected of torture and inhuman treatment , holding that there was insufficient evidence in support of the ORG allegations . In his decision , the public prosecutor also decided that the decision be served on the complainants in accordance with LAW . According to this decision , within the context of the investigation , the PERSON public prosecutor examined the medical reports issued in respect of the complainants and obtained statements of a number of police officers who had been on duty at the time of the ORG detention in police custody . There is nothing in the case file demonstrating that the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the PERSON public prosecutor .","A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ; and PERSON and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155352","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LAMBERT AND OTHERS v. FRANCE","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection allowed (Article 34 - Locus standi);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect) (Conditional)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus K\u016bris;Erik M\u00f8se;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants , who are all NORP nationals , are Mr PERSON and his wife PERSON , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , and PERSON , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . They are the parents , a CARDINAL - brother and a sister respectively of PERSON , who was born on DATE .","PERSON sustained serious head injuries in a road - traffic accident on DATE , which left him tetraplegic and in a state of complete dependency . According to the expert medical report ordered by the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat on DATE , he is in a chronic vegetative state ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","From DATE he was hospitalised in the resuscitation wing , and subsequently the neurology ward , of ORG . DATE he was cared for in the heliotherapy centre in GPE , before being moved on DATE to the unit in ORG providing follow - up and rehabilitative care to patients in a vegetative or minimally conscious state , where he remains to date . The unit accommodates CARDINAL patients . PERSON receives artificial nutrition and hydration which is administered enterally , that is , via a gastric tube .","In DATE PERSON was assessed by a specialised unit of ORG , ORG , which concluded that he was in a chronic neuro - vegetative state characterised as \u201c minimally conscious plus \u201d . In line with the recommendations of ORG he received DATE sessions of physiotherapy from DATE to DATE , which yielded no results . He also received CARDINAL speech and language therapy sessions DATE , in an unsuccessful attempt to establish a code of communication . Attempts were also made to sit the patient in a wheelchair .","As PERSON carers had observed increasing signs in DATE of what they believed to be resistance on his part to DATE care , the medical team initiated in DATE the collective procedure provided for by LAW of DATE on ORG rights and end - of - life issues ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON , the patient \u2019s wife , was involved in the procedure .","The procedure resulted in a decision by PERSON , the doctor in charge of PERSON and head of the department in which he is hospitalised , to withdraw the patient \u2019s nutrition and reduce his hydration . The decision was put into effect on DATE .","On DATE the applicants applied to the urgent - applications judge of ORG on the basis of Article PERSON of LAW ( urgent application for protection of a fundamental freedom ( r\u00e9f\u00e9r\u00e9 libert\u00e9 ) ) , seeking an injunction ordering the hospital , subject to a coercive fine , to resume feeding and hydrating PERSON normally and to provide him with whatever care his condition required .","In an order dated CARDINAL DATE the urgent - applications judge granted their requests . The judge held that , since no advance directives had been drawn up by PERSON , and in the absence of a person of trust within the meaning of the relevant provisions of LAW , the collective procedure should be continued with his family , despite the fact that the latter was divided as to what should become of the patient . The judge noted that , while PERSON wife had been involved in the procedure , it was clear from examination of the case that his parents had not been informed that it had been applied , and that the decision to withdraw nutrition and limit hydration , the nature of and reasons for which had not been disclosed to them , had not respected their wishes .","The judge held accordingly that these procedural shortcomings amounted to a serious and manifestly unlawful breach of a fundamental freedom , namely the right to respect for life , and ordered the hospital to resume feeding and hydrating PERSON normally and to provide him with whatever care his condition required .","In DATE a fresh collective procedure was initiated . Dr PERSON consulted CARDINAL doctors , including CARDINAL from outside the hospital ( a neurologist , a cardiologist and an anaesthetist with experience in palliative medicine ) chosen by PERSON parents , his wife and the medical team respectively . He also had regard to a written contribution from a doctor in charge of a specialised extended care facility within a nursing home .","Dr PERSON also convened CARDINAL meetings with the family , on DATE and DATE , which were attended by PERSON wife and parents and his CARDINAL siblings . PERSON and CARDINAL of the CARDINAL brothers and sisters spoke in favour of discontinuing artificial nutrition and hydration , while the applicants were in favour of maintaining it .","On DATE Dr PERSON called a meeting of all the doctors and almost all the members of the care team . Following that meeting Dr PERSON and CARDINAL of the CARDINAL doctors consulted stated that they were in favour of withdrawing treatment .","On conclusion of the consultation procedure PERSON announced on DATE his intention to discontinue artificial nutrition and hydration on DATE , subject to an application to the administrative court . His decision , comprising a reasoned CARDINAL - page report , a sevenpage summary of which was read out to the family , observed in particular that PERSON condition was characterised by irreversible brain damage and that the treatment appeared to be futile and disproportionate and to have no other effect than to sustain life artificially . According to the report , the doctor had no doubt that PERSON had not wished , before his accident , to live under such conditions . Dr PERSON concluded that prolonging the patient \u2019s life by continuing to treat him with artificial nutrition and hydration amounted to unreasonable obstinacy .","On DATE the applicants made a further urgent application to ORG for protection of a fundamental freedom under LAW , seeking an injunction prohibiting the hospital and the doctor concerned from withdrawing PERSON nutrition and hydration and an order for his immediate transfer to a specialised extended care facility in ORG run by the association PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON and PERSON , ORG nephew , intervened in the proceedings as third parties .","ORG , sitting as a full court of CARDINAL judges , held a hearing on DATE . In a judgment of DATE it suspended the implementation of PERSON decision of DATE .","ORG began by observing that LAW did not prevent GPE from making provision for individuals to object to potentially life - prolonging treatment . It likewise did not prevent the doctor in charge of a patient who was unable to express his or her wishes and whose treatment the doctor considered , after implementing a series of safeguards , to amount to unreasonable obstinacy , from withdrawing that treatment , subject to supervision by ORG , the hospital \u2019s ethics committee , where applicable , and the administrative and criminal courts .","ORG went on to find that it was clear from the relevant provisions of LAW , as amended following LAW of DATE and as elucidated by the parliamentary proceedings , that artificial enteral nutrition and hydration \u2013 which were subject , like medication , to the distribution monopoly held by pharmacies , were designed to supply specific nutrients to patients with impaired functions and required recourse to invasive techniques to administer them \u2013 constituted a form of treatment .","Observing that Dr PERSON \u2019s decision had been based on the wish apparently expressed by PERSON not to be kept alive in a highly dependent state , and that the latter had not drawn up any advance directives or designated a person of trust , ORG found that the views he had confided to his wife and CARDINAL of his brothers had been those of a healthy individual who had not been faced with the immediate consequences of his wishes , and had not constituted the formal manifestation of an express wish , irrespective of his professional experience with patients in a similar situation . The court further found that the fact that PERSON had had a conflictual relationship with his parents , since he did not share their moral values and religious commitment , did not mean that he could be considered to have expressed a clear wish to refuse all forms of treatment , and added that no unequivocal conclusion as to his desire or otherwise to be kept alive could be drawn from his apparent resistance to the care provided . ORG held that Dr PERSON had incorrectly assessed PERSON wishes .","ORG also noted that , according to the report drawn up in DATE by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , PERSON was in a minimally conscious state , implying the continuing presence of emotional perception and the existence of possible responses to his surroundings . Accordingly , the administering of artificial nutrition and hydration was not aimed at keeping him alive artificially . Lastly , the court considered that , as long as the treatment did not cause any stress or suffering , it could not be characterised as futile or disproportionate . It therefore held that Dr PERSON \u2019s decision had constituted a serious and manifestly unlawful breach of PERSON \u2019s right to life . It issued an order suspending the implementation of the decision while rejecting the request for the patient to be transferred to the specialised extended care facility in PERSON .","In CARDINAL applications lodged on DATE PERSON , ORG and ORG appealed against that judgment to the urgent - applications judge of the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat . The applicants lodged a cross - appeal , requesting PERSON immediate transfer to the specialised extended care facility . ORG and ORG ( ORG , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) sought leave to intervene as a third party .","At the hearing on the urgent application held on DATE the President of ORG of the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat decided to refer the case to the full court , sitting as a CARDINAL - member ORG .","The hearing before the full court took place on DATE . In his submissions to the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat , the public rapporteur cited , inter alia , the remarks made by ORG to the members of the ORG examining the bill known as the Leonetti bill :","\u201c While the act of withdrawing treatment ... results in death , the intention behind the act [ is not to kill ; it is ] to allow death to resume its natural course and to relieve suffering . This is particularly important for care staff , whose role is not to take life . \u201d","The ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat delivered its ruling on DATE . After joining the applications and granting ORG leave to intervene , the PERSON d\u2019\u00c9tat defined in the following terms the role of the urgentapplications judge called upon to rule on the basis of LAW of the Administrative Courts Code :","\u201c Under [ Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL ] , the urgent - applications judge of the administrative court , when hearing an application of this kind justified by particular urgency , may order any measures necessary to safeguard a fundamental freedom allegedly breached in a serious and manifestly unlawful manner by an administrative authority . These legislative provisions confer on the urgent - applications judge , who normally decides alone and who orders measures of an interim nature in accordance with Article PERSON MONEY of LAW , the power to order , without delay and on the basis of a \u2018 plain and obvious\u2019 test , the necessary measures to protect fundamental freedoms .","However , the urgent - applications judge must exercise his or her powers in a particular way when hearing an application under LAW ... concerning a decision taken by a doctor on the basis of LAW which would result in treatment being discontinued or withheld on grounds of unreasonable obstinacy and the implementation of which would cause irreversible damage to life . In such circumstances the judge , sitting where applicable as a member of a bench of judges , must take the necessary protective measures to prevent the decision in question from being implemented where it may not be covered by CARDINAL of the situations provided for by law , while striking a balance between the fundamental freedoms in issue , namely the right to respect for life and the patient \u2019s right to consent to medical treatment and not to undergo treatment that is the result of unreasonable obstinacy . In such a case , the urgentapplications judge or the bench to which he or she has referred the case may , as appropriate , after temporarily suspending the implementation of the measure and before ruling on the application , order an expert medical report and , under LAW CARDINAL of LAW , seek the opinion of any person whose expertise or knowledge are apt to usefully inform the court \u2019s decision . \u201d","The ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat found that it was clear from the very wording of the relevant provisions of LAW ( Articles L. CARDINAL , L. DATE and NORP DATE ) and from the parliamentary proceedings that the provisions in question were general in scope and applied to PERSON just as they did to all users of the health service . The PERSON d\u2019\u00c9tat stated as follows :","\u201c It is clear from these provisions that each individual must receive the care most appropriate to his or her condition and that the preventive or exploratory acts carried out and the care administered must not subject the patient to disproportionate risks in relation to the anticipated benefits . Such acts must not be continued with unreasonable obstinacy and may be discontinued or withheld where they appear to be futile or disproportionate or to have no other effect than to sustain life artificially , whether or not the patient is in an end - of - life situation . Where the patient is unable to express his or her wishes , any decision to limit or withdraw treatment on the ground that continuing it would amount to unreasonable obstinacy may not be taken by the doctor , where such a measure is liable to endanger the life of the patient , without the collective procedure defined in LAW and the rules on consultation laid down in LAW having been followed . If the doctor takes such a decision he or she must at all events preserve the patient \u2019s dignity and dispense palliative care .","Furthermore , it is clear from the provisions of Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and PERSON of LAW , as elucidated by the parliamentary proceedings prior to the passing of LAW of DATE , that the legislature intended to include among the forms of treatment that may be limited or withdrawn on grounds of unreasonable obstinacy all acts which seek to maintain the patient \u2019s vital functions artificially . Artificial nutrition and hydration fall into this category of acts and may accordingly be withdrawn where continuing them would amount to unreasonable obstinacy . \u201d","The PERSON d\u2019\u00c9tatwithdraw treatment whose continuation would amount to unreasonable obstinacy had been met . To that end it needed to have the fullest information possible at its disposal , in particular concerning PERSON state of health . Accordingly , it considered it necessary before ruling on the application to order an expert medical report to be prepared by practitioners with recognised expertise in neuroscience . The experts \u2013 acting on an independent and collective basis , after examining the patient , meeting the medical team and the care staff and familiarising themselves with the patient \u2019s entire medical file DATE were to give their opinion on PERSON current condition and provide the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat with all relevant information as to the prospect of any change .","The Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat decided to entrust the expert report to a panel of CARDINAL doctors appointed by the President of ORG on proposals from the President of ORG , ORG and the President of ORG respectively . The remit of the panel of experts , which was to report within DATE of its formation , read as follows :","\u201c ( i ) to describe Mr. PERSON \u2019s current clinical condition and how it has changed since the review carried out in DATE by ORG ;","( ii ) to express an opinion as to whether the patient \u2019s brain damage is irreversible and as to the clinical prognosis ;","( iii ) to determine whether the patient is capable of communicating , by whatever means , with those around him ;","( iv ) to assess whether there are any signs to suggest at the present time that PERSON PERSON reacts to the care being dispensed to him and , if so , whether those reactions can be interpreted as a rejection of that care , as suffering , as a desire for the life - sustaining treatment to be withdrawn or , on the contrary , as a desire for the treatment to be continued . \u201d","The ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat also considered it necessary , in view of the scale and the difficulty of the scientific , ethical and deontological issues raised by the case and in accordance with LAW , to request ORG , ORG and ORG , together with Mr PERSON , the rapporteur for the LAW of DATE , to submit general written observations by DATE designed to clarify for it the application of the concepts of unreasonable obstinacy and sustaining life artificially for the purposes of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , referred to above , with particular regard to individuals who , like PERSON , were in a minimally conscious state .","Lastly , the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat rejected the ORG request for PERSON to be transferred to a specialised extended care facility ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The experts examined PERSON on CARDINAL occasions . They familiarised themselves with the entire medical file , and in particular the report of ORG in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the treatment file and the administrative file , and had access to all the imaging tests . They also consulted all the items in the judicial case file of relevance for their expert report . In addition , DATE and DATE they met all the parties ( the family , the medical and care team , the medical consultants and representatives of ORG and the hospital ) and carried out a series of tests on PERSON .","On CARDINAL DATE the experts sent their preliminary report to the parties for comments . Their final report , submitted on CARDINAL DATE , provided the following replies to the questions asked by the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat .","NORP The experts found that PERSON clinical condition corresponded to a vegetative state , without any signs pointing to a minimally conscious state . Furthermore , they stressed that he had difficulty swallowing and had seriously impaired motor functions of all CARDINAL limbs , with significant retraction of the tendons . They noted that his state of consciousness had deteriorated since the assessment carried out in GPE in DATE .","The experts pointed out that the CARDINAL main factors to be taken into account in assessing whether or not brain damage was irreversible were , firstly , the length of time since the accident which had caused the damage and , secondly , the nature of the damage . In the present case they noted that DATE had passed since the initial head injury and that the imaging tests showed severe cerebral atrophy testifying to permanent neuron loss , near - total destruction of strategic regions such as both parts of the thalamus and the upper part of the brain stem , and serious damage to the communication pathways in the brain . They concluded that the brain damage was irreversible . They added that the lengthy period of progression , the patient \u2019s clinical deterioration since DATE , his current vegetative state , the destructive nature and extent of the brain damage and the results of the functional tests , coupled with the severity of the motor impairment of all CARDINAL limbs , pointed to a poor clinical prognosis .","In the light of the tests carried out , and particularly in view of the fact that the course of speech and language therapy carried out in DATE had not succeeded in establishing a code of communication , the experts concluded that PERSON was not capable of establishing functional communication with those around him .","The experts observed that PERSON reacted to the care provided and to painful stimuli , but concluded that these were nonconscious responses . In their view , it was not possible to interpret them as conscious awareness of suffering or as the expression of any intent or wish with regard to the withdrawal or continuation of treatment .","On CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat received the general observations of ORG , Mr PERSON , rapporteur for the LAW of DATE , ORG and ORG .","ORG made clear in particular that , in using the expression \u201c no other effect than to sustain life artificially \u201d in LAW DATE of LAW , the legislature had sought to address the situation of patients who not only were being kept alive solely by the use of methods and techniques replacing key vital functions , but also , and above all , whose cognitive and relational functions were profoundly and irreversibly impaired . It emphasised the importance of the notion of temporality , stressing that where a pathological condition had become chronic , resulting in the person \u2019s physiological deterioration and the loss of his or her cognitive and relational faculties , obstinacy in administering treatment could be regarded as unreasonable if no signs of improvement were apparent .","PERSON stressed that the LAW was applicable to patients who had brain damage and thus suffered from a serious condition which , in the advanced stages , was incurable , but who were not necessarily \u201c at the end of life \u201d . Accordingly , the legislature , in the title of the LAW , had referred to \u201c ORG rights and endoflife issues \u201d rather than \u201c ORG rights in endoflife situations \u201d . He outlined the criteria for unreasonable obstinacy and the factors used to assess it and stated that the reference to treatment having \u201c no other effect than to sustain life artificially \u201d , which was stricter than the wording originally envisaged ( namely , treatment \u201c which prolongs life artificially \u201d ) was more restrictive and referred to artificially sustaining life \u201c in the purely biological sense , in circumstances where , firstly , the patient has major irreversible brain damage and , secondly , his or her condition offers no prospect of a return to awareness of self or relationships with others \u201d . He pointed out that the LAW gave the doctor sole responsibility for the decision to withdraw treatment and that it had been decided not to pass that responsibility on to the family , in order to avoid any feelings of guilt and to ensure that the person who took the decision was identified .","ORG reiterated the fundamental prohibition barring doctors from deliberately taking another \u2019s life , which formed the basis for the relationship of trust between doctor and patient . The ORG reiterated its long - standing position according to which the Act of DATE was applicable not only to the various \u201c end - of - life \u201d situations , but also to situations raising the very difficult ethical issue of the \u201c ending of life \u201d in the case of patients in \u201c survival \u201d mode , in a minimally conscious or chronic vegetative state .","ORG conducted an indepth analysis of the difficulties surrounding the notions of unreasonable obstinacy , treatment and sustaining life artificially , summarised the medical data concerning minimally conscious states and addressed the ethical issues arising out of such situations . It recommended in particular a process of reflection aimed at ensuring that the collective discussions led to a genuine collective decision - making process and that , where no consensus could be reached , there was a possibility of mediation .","A hearing took place on DATE before the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat . In his submissions the public rapporteur stressed , in particular , the following :","\u201c ... [ t]he legislature did not wish to impose on those in the caring professions the burden of bridging the gap which exists between allowing death to take its course when it can no longer be prevented and actively causing death by administering a lethal substance . By discontinuing treatment , a doctor is not taking the patient \u2019s life , but is resolving to withdraw when there is nothing more to be done . \u201d","The PERSON d\u2019\u00c9tat delivered its judgment on DATE . After granting leave to ORG , PERSON CARDINAL - sister , to intervene as a third party , and reiterating the relevant provisions of domestic law as commented on and elucidated in the general observations received , the PERSON d\u2019\u00c9tat examined in turn the ORG arguments based on the LAW and on domestic law .","On the first point the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat reiterated that , where the urgentapplications judge was called on to hear an application under LAW CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ( urgent application for protection of a fundamental freedom ) concerning a decision taken by a doctor under LAW which would result in treatment being discontinued or withheld on grounds of unreasonable obstinacy , and implementation of that decision would cause irreversible damage to life , the judge was required to examine any claim that the provisions in question were incompatible with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In the case before it the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat replied in the following terms to the arguments based on ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention :","\u201c Firstly , the disputed provisions of LAW defined a legal framework reaffirming the right of all persons to receive the most appropriate care , the right to respect for their wish to refuse any treatment and the right not to undergo medical treatment resulting from unreasonable obstinacy . Those provisions do not allow a doctor to take a life - threatening decision to limit or withdraw the treatment of a person incapable of expressing his or her wishes , except on the dual , strict condition that continuation of that treatment would amount to unreasonable obstinacy and that the requisite safeguards are observed , namely that account is taken of any wishes expressed by the patient and that CARDINAL other doctor and the care team are consulted , as well as the person of trust , the family or another person close to the patient . Any such decision by a doctor is open to appeal before the courts in order to review compliance with the conditions laid down by law .","Hence the disputed provisions of LAW , taken together , in view of their purpose and the conditions attaching to their implementation , can not be said to be incompatible with the requirements of LAW ... , or with those of LAW","The PERSON d\u2019\u00c9tat also rejected the ORG arguments based on ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention , finding that the role entrusted to the doctor under the provisions of LAW was not incompatible with the duty of impartiality flowing from LAW , and that LAW , which applied to criminal convictions , was not relevant to the case before it .","Regarding the application of the relevant provisions of LAW , the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat held as follows :","\u201c Although artificial nutrition and hydration are among the forms of treatment which may be withdrawn in cases where their continuation would amount to unreasonable obstinacy , the sole fact that a person is in an irreversible state of unconsciousness or , a fortiori , has lost his or her autonomy irreversibly and is thus dependent on such a form of nutrition and hydration , does not by itself amount to a situation in which the continuation of treatment would appear unjustified on grounds of unreasonable obstinacy .","In assessing whether the conditions for the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration are met in the case of a patient with severe brain damage , however caused , who is in a vegetative or minimally conscious state and is thus unable to express his or her wishes , and who depends on such nutrition and hydration as a means of life support , the doctor in charge of the patient must base his or her decision on a range of medical and non - medical factors whose relative weight can not be determined in advance but will depend on the circumstances of each patient , so that the doctor must assess each situation on its own merits . In addition to the medical factors , which must cover a sufficiently long period , be assessed collectively and relate in particular to the patient \u2019s current condition , the change in that condition since the accident or illness occurred , his or her degree of suffering and the clinical prognosis , the doctor must attach particular importance to any wishes the patient may have expressed previously , whatever their form or tenor . In that regard , where such wishes remain unknown , they can not be assumed to consist in a refusal by the patient to be kept alive in the current conditions . The doctor must also take into account the views of the person of trust , where the patient has designated such a person , of the members of the patient \u2019s family or , failing this , of another person close to the patient , while seeking to establish a consensus . In assessing the patient \u2019s particular situation , the doctor must be guided primarily by a concern to act with maximum beneficence towards the patient ... \u201d","The Conseil d\u2019\u00c9tat","In that connection the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat ruled as follows :","\u201c Firstly , it is clear from the examination of the case that the collective procedure conducted by PERSON ... , prior to the taking of the decision of DATE , was carried out in accordance with the requirements of Article R. CARDINAL - DATE of LAW and involved the consultation of CARDINAL doctors , although that Article simply requires that the opinion of CARDINAL doctor and , where appropriate , of a second be sought . PERSON was not legally bound to allow the meeting of DATE to be attended by a second doctor designated by PERSON parents in addition to the one they had already designated . Nor does it appear from the examination of the case that some members of the care team were deliberately excluded from that meeting . Furthermore , PERSON was entitled to speak with Mr PERSON , the patient \u2019s nephew . The fact that PERSON opposed a request for him to withdraw from PERSON case and for the patient to be transferred to another establishment , and the fact that he expressed his views publicly , do not amount , having regard to all the circumstances of the present case , to a failure to comply with the obligations implicit in the principle of impartiality , which PERSON respected . Accordingly , contrary to what was argued before the ORG - en - Champagne Administrative Court , the procedure preceding the adoption of the decision of CARDINAL DATE was not tainted with any irregularity .","Secondly , the experts\u2019 findings indicate that \u2018 PERSON current clinical condition corresponds to a vegetative ORG , with \u2018 swallowing difficulties , severe motor impairment of all CARDINAL limbs , some signs of dysfunction of the brainstem\u2019 and \u2018 continued ability to breathe ORG . The results of the tests carried out from DATE to assess the patient \u2019s brain structure and function ... were found to be consistent with such a vegetative state . The experts found that the clinical progression , characterised by the disappearance of the fluctuations in PERSON state of consciousness recorded during the assessment carried out in DATE by ORG at ORG and by the failure of the active therapies recommended at the time of that assessment , were suggestive of \u2018 a deterioration in the [ patient \u2019s ] state of consciousness since that time\u2019 .","Furthermore , according to the findings set out in the experts\u2019 report , the exploratory tests which were carried out revealed serious and extensive brain damage , as evidenced in particular by \u2018 severe impairment of the structure and metabolism of the sub - cortical regions of crucial importance for cognitive function\u2019 and \u2018 major structural dysfunction of the communication pathways between the regions of the brain involved in consciousness\u2019 . The severity of the cerebral atrophy and of the damage observed , coupled with the CARDINAL - and - a - half - year period that had elapsed since the initial accident , led the experts to conclude that the brain damage was irreversible .","Furthermore , the experts concluded that \u2018 the lengthy period of progression , the patient \u2019s clinical deterioration since DATE , his current vegetative state , the destructive nature and the extent of the brain damage , the results of the functional tests and the severity of the motor impairment of all CARDINAL ORG pointed to a \u2018 poor clinical prognosis\u2019 .","Lastly , while noting that PERSON was capable of reacting to the care administered and to certain stimuli , the experts indicated that the characteristics of those reactions suggested that they were non - conscious responses . The experts did not consider it possible to interpret these behavioural reactions as evidence of \u2018 conscious awareness of suffering\u2019 or as the expression of any intent or wish with regard to the withdrawal or continuation of the treatment keeping the patient alive .","These findings , which the experts reached unanimously following a collective assessment in the course of which the patient was examined on CARDINAL separate occasions , thorough cerebral tests were performed , meetings were held with the medical team and care staff involved and the entire file was examined , confirm the conclusions drawn by PERSON as to the irreversible nature of the damage and Mr PERSON \u2019s clinical prognosis . The exchanges which took place in the adversarial proceedings before the PERSON d\u2019\u00c9tat subsequent to submission of the PERSON report do nothing to invalidate the experts\u2019 conclusions . While it can be seen from the PERSON report , as just indicated , that PERSON reactions to care are not capable of interpretation and thus can not be regarded as expressing a wish as to the withdrawal of treatment , PERSON in fact indicated in the impugned decision that the behaviour concerned was open to various interpretations , all of which needed to be treated with great caution , and did not include this aspect in the reasons for his decision .","Thirdly , the provisions of LAW allow account to be taken of a patient \u2019s wishes expressed in a form other than advance directives . It is apparent from the examination of the case , and in particular from the testimony of PERSON , that she and her husband , both nurses , had often discussed their respective professional experiences in dealing with patients under resuscitation and those with multiple disabilities , and that PERSON had on several such occasions clearly voiced the wish not to be kept alive artificially if he were to find himself in a highly dependent state . The tenor of those remarks , reported by PERSON in precise detail and with the corresponding dates , was confirmed by CARDINAL of Mr PERSON \u2019s brothers . While these remarks were not made in the presence of PERSON PERSON \u2019s parents , the latter did not claim that their son could not have made them or that he would have expressed wishes to the contrary , and several of PERSON siblings stated that the remarks concerned were in keeping with their brother \u2019s personality , past experience and personal opinions . Accordingly , in stating among the reasons for the decision at issue his certainty that PERSON Lambert did not wish , before his accident , to live under such conditions , PERSON can not be regarded as having incorrectly interpreted the wishes expressed by the patient before his accident .","Fourthly , the doctor in charge of the patient is required , under the provisions of LAW , to obtain the views of the patient \u2019s family before taking any decision to withdraw treatment . PERSON complied with this requirement in consulting PERSON wife , parents and siblings in the course of the CARDINAL meetings referred to earlier . While PERSON parents and some of his brothers and sisters opposed the discontinuing of treatment , Mr PERSON \u2019s wife and his other siblings stated their support for the proposal to withdraw treatment . PERSON took these differentd that the fact that the members of the family were not unanimous as to what decision should be taken did not constitute an impediment to his decision .","It follows from all the above considerations that the various conditions imposed by the law before any decision can be taken by the doctor in charge of the patient to withdraw treatment which has no effect other than to sustain life artificially , and whose continuation would thus amount to unreasonable obstinacy , may be regarded , in the case of PERSON PERSON and in the light of the adversarial proceedings before the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat , as having been met . Accordingly , the decision taken by Dr PERSON on DATE to withdraw the artificial nutrition and hydration of Mr PERSON can not be held to be unlawful . \u201d","Accordingly , the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat set aside ORG judgment and dismissed the ORG claims ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172466","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MATANOVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Freedom from attachment;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .","The applicant was a vice - president of ORG ( Hrvatski fond za privatizaciju \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the Fund \u201d ) , a legal entity established by the ORG and tasked with carrying out the privatisation of publicly owned property .","In DATE and DATE M.M. , a businessman from GPE , approached the State Attorney \u2019s ORG suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta DATE hereinafter : \u201c the ORG Attorney \u2019s Office \u201d ) alleging that he had been trying to make various business investments in GPE and that he had been introduced to a certain ORG , allegedly an official of the ORG , who had offered his assistance in pursuing the project in the ORG . In return , ORG had asked PERSON to deposit MONEY ( ORG ) in various bank accounts .","In DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) authorised the secret surveillance of a number of individuals , including ORG , in connection with suspicions of bribe - taking and abuse of power and authority . PERSON was granted informant status .","In the course of further investigation using secret surveillance , several meetings were recorded in which ORG , assisted by a consultant , PERSON , discussed with a lawyer , GPE . , the measures that needed to be taken in order to carry out a business project in the GPE region . On that occasion GPE . mentioned the applicant as her contact in the ORG . She also stated that everybody should make out well in this business undertaking . PERSON also explained that he knew the applicant from before and that very soon they would have a meeting concerning the investment at issue .","On DATE PERSON approached the State Attorney \u2019s Office claiming that he was the representative of FAC and that he had already had a number of contacts with various officials concerning ORG investment in GPE . In this connection , DATE before he had also contacted the applicant , in his capacity as vice - president of the ORG , who had allegedly requested a provision of PERCENT of the total investment value , which was approximately between ORG CARDINAL , to help with the realisation of the project . The applicant had explained to PERSON that that amount would have to be distributed to the bank accounts of CARDINAL ( out of CARDINAL ) vice - presidents of the ORG who would take part in the decision - making process . PERSON consented to act as an informant under the further guidance of the prosecuting authorities .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG asked an investigating judge of ORG to authorise the use of special investigative measures in respect of the applicant , specifically the tapping of his telephone , covert surveillance of him , the use of PERSON as an informant , and conducting a simulated purchase operation .","On DATE the application was allowed and the investigating judge ordered the use of special investigative measures in respect of the applicant . The relevant part of the order reads :","\u201c The application is accompanied by the submission of ORG , and the relevant official notes , statements and other material .","The application is well - founded since the case at issue concerns the offences under LAW of LAW , and the investigation into these offences by other means would either not be possible or would be extremely difficult .","Therefore , all the necessary requirements under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW have been met and the order should be issued with a view to securing the information and evidence necessary for the criminal case . \u201d","In the course of the investigation , the investigating judge issued several further orders to the same effect . Various meetings between the applicant and PERSON took place . At a meeting on DATE PERSON gave to the applicant LAW in connection with his investment project .","On DATE , on the basis of an application by ORG , the investigating judge ordered the termination of the special investigative measures , indicating that their use had produced the results sought .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and detained in connection with a suspicion that he had taken bribes and abused his power and authority in several privatisation cases .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG forwarded to the investigating judge CARDINAL CD recordings of the secret surveillance operation , and on DATE it forwarded a further CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG asked an investigating judge of ORG to open an investigation in respect of the applicant and CARDINAL other individuals in connection with a suspicion of bribe - taking and offering bribes related to several investment projects in GPE , including the CARDINAL in the GPE region ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","In its request for investigation the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG relied on the results of the special investigative measures suggesting that the applicant , in his capacity as vice - president of the ORG , had requested bribes in order to support ORG investment project in the GPE region . In particular , it was alleged that he had requested bribes amounting to ORG CARDINAL and PERCENT of the total investment , which amounted to ORG CARDINAL . The secret recordings showed that the sealing of this agreement had taken place first on DATE when PERSON , acting as ORG representative , had paid the applicant LAW , and then on DATE when PERSON had deposited a further LAW in a notary public \u2019s safe in the applicant \u2019s favour . ORG also alleged that the applicant had organised the bribery of the President of the Fund in respect of the investment in the GPE region , and had agreed to further bribe - taking with PERSON concerning another investment project related to the privatisation of the hotels \u017d. and P.","When questioned with regard to the charges against him , the applicant decided to remain silent and not to give evidence . On the basis of the available evidence , the investigating judge accepted the request of ORG and opened an investigation .","Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG forwarded CARDINAL CD recordings to the investigating judge . It also forwarded CARDINAL CD recordings to the investigating judge containing secret surveillance of individuals in respect of whom an investigation had not been opened at that time .","On DATE the investigating judge in charge of the supervision of the special investigative measures forwarded to the investigating judge conducting the investigation CARDINAL CD recordings and the relevant reports concerning the secret surveillance of the suspects and the informants FAC and PERSON","On DATE the applicant asked to have access to and to have copies of the secret surveillance CD and DVD recordings .","The investigating judge conducting the investigation commissioned a telecommunications expert report including transcripts of the relevant secret surveillance recordings . These were produced by GPE , a telecommunications expert . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE GPE returned CARDINAL secret surveillance CD recordings in the case at issue that did not contain the communications of the suspects in respect of whom the investigation had been opened .","NORP In the course of the investigation the investigating judge authorised numerous search and seizure operations and questioned a number of witnesses in connection with the offences for which the applicant and the other suspects had been charged .","When questioned as a witness by the investigating judge , PERSON explained that PERSON had offered him the services of his company to help with a business investment in GPE . In particular , PERSON had explained that he knew how to contact the competent ORG institutions and how these things could be done in a legal way . Soon afterwards they had sent a letter of intent to the ORG concerning ORG investment but they had not received a reply . PERSON had then contacted the applicant , who had been his colleague at university , and arranged a meeting with him at the Fund . PERSON also explained that it was PERSON who had been in contact again with the applicant concerning the investment in the GPE region .","The investigating judge also questioned PERSON but he was unable to give evidence owing to his medical condition and hospitalisation .","On the basis of the results of the investigation , the investigating judge twice extended the scope of the investigation to other alleged instances of bribe - taking and abuse of power and authority by the applicant .","Following the completion of the investigation , the investigating judge forwarded the case file to ORG for further assessment and a decision .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s Office indicted the applicant and CARDINAL other individuals and brought them before ORG on charges of bribe - taking , offering bribes and abuse of power and authority . The applicant was indicted in his capacity as a public official on CARDINAL counts of bribe - taking and bribery of the President of the ORG related to ORG investment project in the GPE region , CARDINAL counts of bribe - taking related to the privatisation of the hotels ORG and ORG and the company ORG , and CARDINAL count of abuse of power and authority related to the privatisation of the company B.","The indictment was based on voluminous evidence obtained during the investigation and the recordings of the applicant \u2019s telephone communications and secret surveillance of him obtained by the use of special investigative measures . In particular , the State Attorney \u2019s ORG indicated the particular sequence of the relevant recordings which it intended to submit as evidence at the trial . The State Attorney \u2019s ORG also asked that the case file concerning the special investigative measures be examined .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection against the indictment , arguing that it was confusing and incomplete . He pointed out that his position in the ORG did not fall within the scope of the definition of \u201c public official \u201d under LAW . He further stressed that PERSON , a central figure in the case , had not been questioned during the investigation . The applicant also contended that his defence rights had been breached since the defence had \u201c neither seen nor heard \u201d the audio and video recordings on which the indictment had been based .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG returned the indictment to ORG on the grounds that CARDINAL count of the indictment , concerning the applicant \u2019s alleged participation in the bribery of the President of the ORG , had been confusing . It accordingly instructed ORG to submit an amended indictment consonant with that finding . LAW complied with the order and submitted an amended indictment on CARDINAL DATE , following which ORG confirmed it .","On DATE the president of the trial panel examined the case file of the special investigative operation . On DATE she commissioned a further expert report from the telecommunications expert GPE ordering him to produce transcripts of the relevant recordings relating to CARDINAL meetings between the applicant and PERSON","An order for further transcription of the recordings was made on DATE . This concerned the recordings of CARDINAL meetings between the applicant , PERSON and several other individuals , and the sequences of the telephone conversations and text messages concerned .","On DATE GPE produced transcripts of the recordings indicated in ORG order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the first hearing was held before ORG . At the hearing the trial bench forwarded the expert report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to the defence . The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him , contending that he had been entrapped by PERSON , who was an agent provocateur . The defence lawyer of CARDINAL of the co - accused contended that the defence had not been provided with the surveillance recordings and that those measures had been ordered contrary to the requirements of the relevant domestic law . The trial bench dismissed these arguments as unfounded and scheduled the examination of evidence .","On DATE GPE produced further transcripts of the secret surveillance recordings related to ORG order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At the hearings on DATE and DATE ORG heard evidence from PERSON , who explained that he had represented NORP investors in GPE regarding their interest in the construction of luxury villas on the site of a former brick factory in the GPE region . He had therefore contacted the ORG and the local authorities in GPE in order to complete all the relevant administrative matters for the investment . PERSON stated that he had had several meetings with the applicant and that at CARDINAL point the applicant had requested a bribe in order to ensure the realisation of the project . PERSON had reported that to the State Attorney \u2019s Office and then he had consented to act as an informant . He further explained that he had given EUR CARDINAL in cash to the applicant and that , at the applicant \u2019s request , he had deposited a further EUR CARDINAL in a notary public \u2019s safe . It had been also agreed that PERSON would pay LAW on completion of the project .","On DATE the ORG commissioned another expert report from GPE concerning several particular sequences of the secret surveillance recordings .","NORP On DATE GPE produced further transcripts of the secret surveillance recordings related to ORG order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The expert report was served on the defence at a hearing on DATE . At the same hearing the trial bench heard evidence from MONEY He explained that the relevant contacts with the applicant had been arranged and directed by PERSON , and that he had not personally participated in any illegal transactions in the applicant \u2019s favour .","At the same hearing the defence counsel reiterated their application for access to the secret surveillance recordings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . They argued that according to the available information there were in total CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings which had never been provided to the defence . In these circumstances , the defence counsel contended that they had not had an effective opportunity to prepare for the case . They also asked for access to all the recordings since it was possible that some of them contained exonerating information , which the defence could then submit as evidence .","The trial bench dismissed the application by the defence on the grounds that the recordings which were to be examined at the trial as evidence had been duly transcribed by an expert and that the relevant transcripts had been served on the defence . In the trial bench \u2019s view , this allowed the defence sufficient time and facilities to prepare for the case as they would be able to raise all objections concerning the recordings after their examination at the trial . Moreover , the trial bench stressed that the sole purpose of the recordings was to examine them during the trial and that LAW , although providing for the possibility of access to and copying of the case file , did not envisage the copying of CD and DVD material . The trial bench also stressed that the defence could have examined the relevant material in the court - house in the same manner as they had generally examined the case files .","On DATE the defence counsel sent a joint statement to ORG ( GPE odvjetni\u010dka komora ) complaining that they had been unable to effectively carry out their tasks as defence lawyers since they had been denied access to the secret surveillance recordings . They also contended that the evidence had been hidden from the defence and that it had been impossible for them to identify whether certain recordings could exonerate their clients or whether there had been suggestions of unlawfulness in some of them .","At a hearing on DATE the trial bench found that there were in total CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings which had been provided to the court with the indictment of the accused . There were also CARDINAL CD recordings from the same secret surveillance operation but which concerned different persons and not the accused .","On DATE another hearing was held before ORG at which the defence asked for an adjournment in order to examine the case file concerning the secret surveillance operation . The defence argued that they wanted to examine all the circumstances in which the secret surveillance had been ordered and conducted . The trial bench dismissed the request by the defence on the grounds that the case file concerning the secret surveillance order had been incorporated into the case file concerning the criminal proceedings at issue and could therefore have been consulted by the defence . The trial bench also reiterated its previous arguments concerning the reason for the dismissal of the application by the defence to obtain the copies of the CD and DVD material .","On DATE the defence counsel sent a letter to ORG asking for access to and the possibility to examine the secret surveillance recordings . They stressed that the CD and DVD material had never been made available to the defence and that there were no technical means available in the court - house which would allow for the examination of the recordings by the defence . They also pointed out that because of the technical impossibility of examining the recordings in the court - house , the practice of ORG in several other cases had been to make copies of the CD and DVD recordings and to send them to the defence . In these circumstances , the defence argued that the Convention rights of the accused to effectively prepare their defence had been breached .","On DATE the president of the trial panel commissioned another expert report from GPE concerning several further secret surveillance recordings .","DATE . On DATE defence counsel for CARDINAL of the co - accused sent a letter to the President of ORG indicating that it had been impossible for the defence to obtain access to and to examine the secret surveillance recordings by any means whatsoever .","Further hearings before ORG were held on CARDINAL and DATE at which the secret surveillance recordings were played back . The applicant argued that the recordings were incomplete and confusing and that there were discrepancies between the transcripts and the recordings . He contended that it was impossible for his counsel to work thoroughly since they had not had access to the recordings . The lead prosecutor also indicated that there were certain discrepancies between the transcripts and the recordings , which she then tried to clarify at the hearing . The trial court ordered the State Attorney \u2019s Office to provide the relevant clarifications and it also commissioned a report from the expert GPE in order to provide explanations concerning his particular findings .","Meanwhile , on DATE GPE produced further transcripts of the secret surveillance recordings related to ORG order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the president of the trial panel commissioned another expert report from GPE concerning several other secret surveillance recordings . The expert produced his additional report on DATE .","At the hearings CARDINAL DATE additional secret surveillance recordings were examined . The applicant argued that he had been entrapped and that the recordings were unlawful evidence .","Further hearings before ORG were held CARDINAL ; CARDINAL and DATE ; CARDINAL and DATE at which the trial court heard witnesses and examined further secret surveillance recordings .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to again question the informant PERSON and to take further evidence concerning his activities in the Fund .","A hearing was held on DATE where the trial bench heard further witnesses .","At a hearing on DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG asked that further secret surveillance recordings be admitted into evidence and examined . The applicant contended that the recordings had been unlawfully obtained as the use of secret surveillance measures had been ordered contrary to the requirements of the relevant domestic law . The trial bench accepted the request of ORG and commissioned an expert report from GPE , instructing him to provide transcripts of the recordings .","Further hearings were held on DATE , DATE and DATE at which the trial bench heard evidence from several witnesses .","On DATE GPE produced transcripts of the secret surveillance recordings related to ORG order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Further hearings were held on DATE and DATE at which the trial bench heard further witnesses . The applicant contended that the initial contacts of PERSON and PERSON with ORG showed that they had been prepared to act as agents provocateurs and that he had been entrapped into engaging in illegal activities . He therefore asked that the evidence obtained by the use of informants be excluded as unlawfully obtained . The trial bench dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments on the grounds that nothing suggested that he had been entrapped .","At the hearings DATE the trial bench questioned the accused . The applicant stated that he had been incited to engage in illegal activities by PERSON but he refused to answer any further questions on the matter .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG submitted an amended indictment specifying the charges against the accused on the basis of the evidence adduced at the trial . At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE the applicant pleaded not guilty to the amended indictment . He reiterated his arguments that he had been entrapped by PERSON and that he had not taken any actions which he had not been entitled to take as vice - president of the Fund .","Further hearings were held CARDINAL DATE at which the trial bench heard the parties\u2019 closing arguments .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG delivered a judgment finding that the applicant , in his capacity as a public official as defined under LAW , had taken bribes ( LAW ) , facilitated bribe - taking ( LAW ) and abused his power and authority ( LAW , CARDINAL and DATE of LAW ) in connection with ORG investment project in the GPE region , the privatisation of the hotels ORG and ORG and the privatisation of the company B. The court sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . At the same time , it acquitted the applicant on charges of bribe - taking related to the privatisation of the company ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","ORG explained that all the relevant facts concerning the circumstances of the case had been duly established and that therefore there was no reason for the examination of further evidence requested by the applicant .","As regards the application by the defence to obtain the secret surveillance recordings and a complaint of non - disclosure of certain recordings , ORG noted :","\u201c With regard to the recordings which [ the State Attorney \u2019s Office ] asked to be examined at the trial , an expert report was commissioned , that is to say , transcripts were prepared which were served on all the parties , the accused and their lawyers , who were thereby fully informed of the substance of the recordings submitted into evidence . In addition , this panel finds , that , with regard to the recordings which were to be examined at the trial , there was no obstacle to the defence lawyers examining [ those recordings ] in the court - house before the commencement of the trial .","With regard to the other conversations of the accused , these [ recordings ] were not submitted into evidence but the defence could have examined their substance by the examination of the written reports filed in the [ special investigation case file ] after the submission of the indictment .","This panel also considers that the recordings at issue were made solely for their examination at the trial and had they been provided to the parties , the court would not have had any legal basis at its disposal to prevent and prohibit the parties from reproducing [ them ] outside of the PERSON ] before their examination at trial , and [ the court would not have had any legal means ] to prevent possible misuse of the recorded material .","This in particular concerns the recordings which were not submitted into evidence ; that is to say [ the recordings ] which concern other individuals and not the accused . Since these recordings were not submitted into evidence , the application by the defence to obtain them is completely unfounded .","Furthermore , this panel has found that ... CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings were given [ to the court ] whereas the remaining CARDINAL CD recordings concern individuals who had been under secret surveillance ... but were not [ subsequently indicted ] .","...","Moreover , as was noted above , the defence had knowledge of the substance of the material submitted into evidence and they had no right to examine material which does not concern these proceedings ; that is to say [ material which concerns ] individuals who were not indicted in these criminal proceedings ...","This is because section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG provides that if within DATE following the termination of a secret surveillance operation criminal proceedings have not been instituted against the [ individual under surveillance ] , all the material collected [ during the operation ] must be destroyed .","It is clear that , since criminal proceedings were not instituted against these individuals , the recordings at issue are still confidential and should have been destroyed ; they could not be and were not evidence in these criminal proceedings ...","If these recordings were put at the disposal of the defence , that would amount to a breach of the above - cited provisions of law , particularly because [ the recordings constitute ] confidential material concerning individuals who are not under indictment .","Moreover , LAW guarantees respect for the private life of every individual , and the court is obliged to act LAW ... , so if it provided the defence with the recordings concerning other individuals ... that would amount to breach of the above - cited provision of the LAW ... \u201d","As to the applicant \u2019s plea of entrapment , ORG noted :","\u201c ... This panel finds that [ the evidence obtained by the use of informants ] is not unlawful evidence because it was obtained on the basis of an investigating judge \u2019s orders . The substance of the adduced evidence and the examined recordings do not show that there was incitement by the informant ... as was further demonstrated . \u201d","DATE . With regard to the charges against the applicant and the evidence obtained by the use of informants , ORG extensively examined the secret surveillance recordings . It in particular analysed the recordings concerning a meeting on DATE where the applicant had indicated to PERSON that a deposit should be made with regard to the investment and where he had also assured PERSON that the project would pass the procedure . During the conversation the applicant had explained to PERSON that it was usual to remunerate for lobbying and he had further stated the following :","\u201c However , for [ the investor ] , these [ things ] , this information , this access and the [ action ] which will be taken while the project is [ in the pipeline ] \u2013 for this lobbying ... that is worth ... what I told you the last time . And he can do it , that is QUANTITY ... for them that is for a drink , for this company ... That is CARDINAL [ glasses of ] wine compared to [ our other possibilities ] . So that \u2019s that and then , then we can make a deposit as you said . After that , if the decision goes through something ... is to be given to me , that is , for him ... let \u2019s say QUANTITY more or less when the whole thing goes through . Because on an investment of QUANTITY to give CARDINAL ... for him that would not be even PERCENT ... I would be overly modest if that would be so , you understand [ sic ] . \u201d","The applicant challenged the first - instance judgment by lodging an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) . He contended that he had been entrapped and unlawfully and unjustifiably placed under secret surveillance . He pointed out in particular that the secret surveillance orders had not been properly reasoned and had been issued under LAW and not ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the OSCOC Act \u201d ) . He also complained that the relevant evidence had not been disclosed to the defence , and that the first - instance court had erred in the legal qualification of his position as falling under the term \u201c public official \u201d under LAW of LAW .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment in respect of the charges of bribery of the President of the ORG related to ORG investment project in the GPE region and ordered a retrial . At the same time , it upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on charges of bribe - taking under LAW and abuse of power and authority under LAW .","As to the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the unlawfulness of the secret surveillance measures , ORG noted :","\u201c The first complaint to the effect that the results of the special investigative measures are unlawfully obtained evidence because the investigating judge \u2019s orders were made under LAW and not the [ OSCOC Act ] is ill - founded .","It is true that the [ OSCOC Act ] is lex specialis , but the appellants failed to observe that LAW ) of that LAW provides that the investigating judge may order , \u2018 save for the measures under LAW , CARDINAL additional measures which are not provided under LAW , namely the use of simulated business services and simulated business contracts . The special investigative measures ... applied in the case at issue are not provided for under LAW ] and therefore the [ investigating judge \u2019s ] orders could have been based only on LAW . Had the investigating judge authorised any of the measures provided for in CARDINAL ) of the [ OSCOC Act ] , he would have been obliged to rely on that Act .","...","The further arguments that the results of the special investigative measures are unlawfully obtained evidence because the investigating judge , when making the orders , CARDINAL of them , failed to comply with the requirements set out in the case - law of ORG [ no . U - III-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ] to the effect that the orders must be sufficiently reasoned , are also ill - founded ...","...","This court considers that mere flaws in the reasoning of the secret surveillance orders do not make the results of such measures unlawfully obtained evidence . This is because LAW provides that unlawfully obtained evidence is evidence which has been obtained in breach of LAW , and is expressly provided for by LAW ] .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW provides that evidence obtained by the use of secret surveillance , under LAW , can not be used as evidence in criminal proceedings only [ in a case where ] it is unlawful . That is to say , evidence which is obtained without a warrant issued by the investigating judge , or if the [ police ] acted contrary to ORG and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , but [ this does not concern ] the evidence obtained contrary to LAW , which provides that the order [ authorising special investigative measures ] should , inter alia , refer to the facts which warrant the application of such measures , specifically that there is a reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed a criminal offence and that the investigation could not have been carried out by other means or that [ to do so ] would have been extremely difficult .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW is compatible with the legal nature of [ special investigation ] orders . Such orders [ made by the investigating judge ] are transmitted to the ORG Attorney , who is authorised to request them , and they are executed by the police . There is no legal avenue [ to challenge ] such orders since the [ ORG Attorney ] has no legal interest in challenging them . The police were therefore , moreover , not allowed to challenge the orders . If the argument of the appellants that secret surveillance orders would be unlawful when they are not sufficiently reasoned were to be accepted , it would call into doubt the [ use of ] secret surveillance measures , particularly in situations where all other legal conditions had been met but the order was merely not sufficiently reasoned , which would be absolutely unacceptable . \u201d","As to the applicant \u2019s plea of entrapment , ORG held :","\u201c The complaints ... that the informants PERSON and PERSON had incited the accused were raised by all the accused during the first - instance proceedings , and the [ first - instance ] court correctly found that [ this claim ] was not clear from the reviewed material . The same complaints are now raised by the accused , PERSON , PERSON and GPE , and this court considers that their complaints are ill - founded .","The witnesses PERSON and PERSON testified that they had become informants after certain accused asked them for bribes [ for carrying out the investment ] . [ M.]M. consented to act as an informant on DATE and PERSON on DATE . After that the activity of gathering evidence commenced .","...","The offence of bribe - taking , which is the subject matter of these proceedings , is committed [ just ] by making a request for a gift or benefit , and since the witnesses contacted the ORG Attorney after they had been asked to make a payment to the accused ... the plea of incitement can not be accepted . \u201d","With respect to the complaint about the non - disclosure of evidence , ORG noted :","\u201c The argument that the rights of the defence were violated by the non - disclosure of CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings , which were the result of the secret surveillance operation , can not be accepted ...","...","It is undisputed that at the hearing held on DATE the trial court established the exact number of recordings and found that CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings had been submitted with the indictment , while it was found that the [ special investigation ] case file contained a further CARDINAL CD recordings concerning the secret surveillance of other persons who are not accused in the proceedings at issue . It is also not disputed that the ORG Attorney asked that CARDINAL CD and CARDINAL DVD recordings be examined as evidence , and that the telecommunications expert made transcripts of these recordings , which were then forwarded to the parties . It is further undisputed that the recordings were reviewed at a hearing , that the accused and their lawyers were present , and that they made their objections concerning the transcripts and not concerning the recordings . It is to be noted that the transcripts are not evidence on which a conviction can be based but are only of auxiliary technical assistance . The only evidence on which a conviction can be based is the recordings , in respect of which no objections were made .","Therefore , the defence had access to all the evidence from the secret surveillance , and the trial court allowed them to comment on the evidence adduced and they exercised that right .","The trial court rightly held that , given that the defence had been informed of the substance of the evidence adduced , they had no right to have the other material which did not concern the accused in the proceedings at issue disclosed . The trial court also rightly pointed to the provision of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , which provides that the material obtained by the use of secret surveillance shall be destroyed if , within the DATE time - limit , criminal proceedings have not been instituted against the persons under surveillance ...","Whether the ORG Attorney , when he was making his selection of the secret surveillance material [ to be submitted to the court ] , excluded certain evidence in favour of the accused ... is of no relevance to the lawfulness of the proceedings at issue . Under the relevant provisions of LAW the ORG Attorney adduces only relevant evidence concerning the substance of the charges , and therefore he is in a position to make a selection of the evidence . \u201d","As regards the applicant \u2019s complaint of the erroneous legal qualification of his position , ORG noted that the applicant \u2019s position in the ORG had not been CARDINAL of a \u201c public official \u201d but rather of a \u201c responsible person \u201d under LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . However , in ORG view , this did not render the conviction unlawful . In this connection ORG explained :","\u201c ... [ T]he omission at issue had no bearing on the legal qualification of the offence because the criminal offence under ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW can be committed by public officials and responsible persons when they take the actions for which the court found ... Matanovi\u0107 guilty ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) reiterating his arguments of entrapment , the unlawfulness of the secret surveillance orders , the lack of access to evidence and the erroneous legal qualification of his conviction . He relied , inter alia , on Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW and Articles QUANTITY ( b ) and CARDINAL of the LAW . The applicant also complained that the statements of various public officials breached of his right to the presumption of innocence .","DATE . On DATE ORG , relying on the ORG \u2019s case - law in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) found a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to the presumption of innocence but dismissed his other complaints , endorsing the findings and reasoning of ORG .","Meanwhile , on DATE , following a retrial in respect of the charges of bribery of the President of the ORG related to ORG investment project in the GPE region ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG acquitted the applicant , and this judgment was confirmed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant , represented by ORG , a lawyer , lodged an application for the reopening of the proceedings before ORG . He relied , in particular , on a document allegedly issued by ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova PERSON ) on DATE indicating that PERSON had worked as a police officer in the period DATE . Together with the document in question the applicant submitted a written statement by ORG , a lawyer , indicating that the document had been \u201c accidently \u201d left in her office by GPE some time in DATE . The applicant contended that this shed light on the actions of PERSON , who had acted as an agent provocateur in his case .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for the reopening of the proceedings on the grounds that , even if the document submitted by the applicant suggested that PERSON had worked as a police officer , there was no doubt that he had not been a police officer at the moment when he had acted as an informant in the applicant \u2019s case . ORG also considered that there were no new relevant facts warranting the reopening of the proceedings .","The applicant appealed against the above decision to ORG on DATE ; it appears that the proceedings are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141393","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MITRANI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a citizen of GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Iveti\u0107 , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s brother , PERSON , was killed in his house in PERSON together with his friend PERSON","On DATE the investigating judge of the then ORG conducted an on - site investigation in the presence of criminal and medical experts and CARDINAL police officers . Some members of the family were also present .","It would appear that no other procedural steps were taken thereafter .","On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG , to ORG , to ORG and to ORG ( IPTF ) in GPE , enquiring whether the perpetrators had been identified or arrested . It would appear that he received no answer .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining about the lack of an effective investigation into the killing of his brother . On DATE ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) joined the applicant \u2019s case to CARDINAL other similar cases ( some of which concerned missing persons and others , like the applicant \u2019s , war time killings ) and found a violation of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . It ordered the competent authorities to conduct effective investigations into the relevant disappearances and murders without delay and to inform the relatives of the results ( decision no . AP-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed ORG that , following its decision of DATE , no procedural steps had been taken with a view to investigate his brother \u2019s murder .","On DATE ORG adopted a procedural decision ( a decision which merely acknowledges the fact of non - enforcement and which is transferred to ORG for further , if any , action ) , to the effect that its decision of DATE had not been fully enforced as regards , in particular , the applicant \u2019s and several other cases .","On DATE , following the applicant \u2019s enquiry , ORG informed him that the case file ( the photographs taken at the crime scene , the record of the on - site investigation and other material gathered during the on - site investigation ) had been transferred to ORG because the case concerned a war crime . It is not clear when the transfer took place .","On DATE the applicant was invited to provide information concerning war crimes committed in the territory of the PERSON municipality to ORG on DATE .","On DATE , following the applicant \u2019s enquiry , ORG informed him that all the necessary steps were being taken with a view to discovering those involved in the murder of his brother .","The DATE LAW ( ORG GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE . The relevant part of LAW provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Whoever in violation of rules of international law in time of war , armed conflict or occupation , orders or perpetrates any of the following acts :","a ) Attack on civilian population , settlement , individual civilians or persons unable to fight , which results in the death , grave bodily injuries or serious damaging of people \u2019s health ;","...","b ) Killings ...","...","shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not DATE or by long - term imprisonment \u201d ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160064","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"EKLUND v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP Apparently in DATE the applicant was subject to an enforcement inquiry ( ulosottoselvitys , uts\u00f6kningsutredning ) in which he had to provide information on his assets , debts and income . Another enforcement inquiry was carried out on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was charged on CARDINAL counts of making a false statement in court ( per\u00e4t\u00f6n lausuma tuomioistuimessa , osann utsaga inf\u00f6r domstol ) as he had , inter alia , given false information in DATE and DATE before the domestic courts in a matter in which he was heard as a witness .","On DATE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) convicted the applicant as charged and imposed a suspended prison sentence of DATE .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . Justice PERSON was part of the composition of ORG . ORG judgment became final as no appeal was lodged .","On DATE charges were pressed against the applicant who was accused , inter alia , of aggravated debtor \u2019s fraud ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 velallisen petos , grovt g\u00e4lden\u00e4rsbedr\u00e4geri ) for not having declared , during the enforcement inquiry on DATE , the real estate which was used as his principal residence but which was officially owned by a limited liability company , all of whose shares were owned by the applicant \u2019s children .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of , inter alia , aggravated debtor \u2019s fraud for failing to declare the above real estate on DATE and sentenced him to a total of DATE and DATE in prison . The court found that the applicant had been obliged to declare the property concerned and since he had not done so during the inquiry on DATE , he was guilty of concealing his property .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , requesting that the ORG judgment be quashed . He alleged in particular that ORG had not explained why , on DATE during the enforcement inquiry , he should have declared the real estate as his personal property when it was owned by a limited liability company . The company had obtained legal confirmation of ownership ( lainhuuto , lagfart ) and had been officially entered in the land register as the owner of the real estate . The property rights of the company or its shareholders were never even put into question . The applicant claimed that he had given truthful information on DATE .","On DATE the oral hearing started before ORG and the names of the justices sitting in the composition became known to the parties . The oral hearing continued on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the ORG judgment as far as the count of aggravated debtor \u2019s fraud was concerned . It agreed with the lower instance that during the enforcement inquiry on DATE the applicant had been obliged to declare the property concerned and since he had not done so the conviction should be upheld . Concerning any possible issue of self - incrimination , ORG found it established that on DATE , during the enforcement inquiry , the applicant had not been charged with any crime . He had not therefore had any right to remain silent on DATE but should have declared the real estate . This judgment was delivered by the ORG composition which included Justice PERSON","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG . He also referred to the prohibition on self - incrimination and claimed that , when making his statement on DATE , it could not be ruled out that he could have been accused of debtor \u2019s fraud , had he given any information . Moreover , he claimed that Justice PERSON had been biased as he had been part of the ORG composition also on DATE when the applicant had been convicted of making a false statement in court .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG , requesting that ORG judgment of DATE be annulled and the proceedings reopened due to the fact that ORG had been biased and the prohibition of selfincrimination had been violated .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request for annulment and reopening .","At the material time , the provisions on enforcement inquiry were included in LAW ( ulosottolaki , uts\u00f6kningslagen , Act no . CARDINAL , as amended by Act no . CARDINAL ) . These provisions stated that , for the purpose of obtaining the necessary information for enforcement , the Bailiff could carry out an enforcement inquiry . For the enforcement inquiry , the debtor had to provide information on his assets , debts and income , as well as his or her address and the name of his or her employer . He also had to give information about the whereabouts of any object or document which , by a judgment , he had been ordered to give to another person or which by law had to be given to the enforcement authority .","In the enforcement inquiry , the debtor had to provide such information as was necessary to establish whether property disposed of and related transactions could be recovered for the purposes of enforcement . Where requested by the Bailiff , the debtor in the enforcement inquiry had to prepare a list of assets , debts and income , or verify and confirm by signature such a list prepared by the Bailiff on the basis of information given by the debtor .","If the debtor or his or her representative failed to comply with their obligations , the Bailiff could order the debtor to fulfil the obligations within a specified time - limit under threat of an administrative fine . Payment of the administrative fine was ordered if the obligations had not been fulfilled or had been contravened without a valid reason .","As from DATE LAW , section DATE , of LAW contained also a provision prohibiting the Bailiff from transmitting incriminating information to other authorities . This provision read as follows :","\u201c The Bailiff must not disclose information which has to a substantial extent been received from :","...","CARDINAL ) the debtor , when asked about a fact referred to in DATE of LAW , if the answer indicates that the debtor may have committed an offence in a context other than the enforcement procedure , and the disclosure of the information entails a risk of charges for the debtor ;","... \u201d","LAW was replaced by LAW ( ulosottokaari , uts\u00f6kningsbalken , Act no . DATE ) with effect from DATE . The contents of the relevant provisions essentially remained the same .","Concealment of property and provision of incorrect information in an enforcement inquiry are punishable offences under LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen , Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , as amended by LAW no . ORG ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-149200","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MAS\u0141OWSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing a number of offences in an armed organised criminal group .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) remanded the applicant in custody until DATE . The court relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences he had been accused of . The risk of the applicant fleeing was also taken into account as a \u2018 wanted\u2019 notice ( list go\u0144czy ) against him had been issued in DATE . At that time he had not been residing at his permanent address and his whereabouts had not been established . The court further anticipated a heavy prison sentence to be imposed on the applicant if convicted .","The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was extended by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and on DATE . Subsequently , it was extended by ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and on DATE .","In their decisions to extend the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention the courts relied on a reasonable suspicion , supported by evidence given by witnesses and other members of the criminal group , that the applicant had committed the offences in question . The courts further emphasised the risk of the applicant fleeing or obstructing the proceedings and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him if convicted . The domestic courts attached importance to the complex character of the case , to the complex structure of the criminal group and the number of suspects involved and the necessity of collecting additional evidence for the inclusion in the already voluminous case file .","On DATE ORG ( Prokurator PERSON ) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with ORG . The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion and drug - trafficking committed in an organised and armed criminal group . The bill of indictment comprised CARDINAL charges brought against CARDINAL defendants . The prosecution authorities requested that CARDINAL witnesses be heard before the court .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention on remand until DATE . Subsequently , the same court ordered prolongation of his detention on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) , on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) and on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) . The applicant lodged a number of motions to be released as well as appeals against the decisions extending his pre - trial detention , all in vain .","In their decisions the courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant \u2019s detention .","Meanwhile , the court scheduled QUANTITY hearings for DATE . Due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and of some of the accused those hearings did not take place .","The trial was eventually opened on DATE . Subsequent scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences of some of the coaccused and due to problems with sound system in the court room .","In DATE ORG gave a severance order and decided to determine charges against CARDINAL co - accused separately .","The bill of indictment was only finally read out to the defendants at the hearing held on DATE .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG started taking evidence from the accused . It subsequently held CARDINAL hearings until DATE , during which some of the accused gave evidence . CARDINAL of the scheduled hearings were adjourned due to sick - leaves of the accused . CARDINAL hearing was adjourned because of the motion for disqualification of the judge lodged by CARDINAL of the co - accused .","NORP In DATE ORG continued taking evidence from the defendants . Of the CARDINAL hearings scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL took place . The trial court adjourned DATE hearings due to justified absences of the parties , QUANTITY hearings were cancelled due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and the lay judges .","Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered that the applicant \u2019s detention on remand be lifted on condition that he paid the bail in the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) within DATE from the date of the decision .","On the same date the applicant was released on bail and police supervision . He was also prohibited from leaving the country .","ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL hearings were eventually held . At the hearing of DATE the trial court started taking evidence from witnesses .","Of the CARDINAL hearings cancelled DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned because of a sick - leave of the presiding judge , CARDINAL because of absences of witnesses , and the remaining QUANTITY hearings \u2013 because of absences of the parties .","Until DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL were adjourned due to justified absences of the defendants .","The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first - instance court .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki DATE \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) . He sought a finding that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and ORG in compensation .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The court found that , considering the complexity of the case and the number of co - accused who had actively tried to obstruct the proceedings , ORG had conducted the proceedings in a correct and timely manner . Consequently , the appellate court refused to award the applicant compensation ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164948","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VORONINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154736","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BERKI v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was detained on suspicion of misuse of illegal pornographic material .","In the ensuing criminal proceedings , the Budapest IV \/ XV District Court acquitted the applicant on DATE , after holding CARDINAL hearings .","NORP On appeal , ORG upheld the acquittal on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177406","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GARIB v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to choose residence)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Branko Lubarda;Egbert Myjer;Egidijus K\u016bris;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Iulia Motoc;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Georges Ravarani;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and now lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant moved to the city of GPE . She took up residence in rented property at the address A. Street CARDINALb . This address is located in the GPE district in GPE . The applicant had previously resided outside LOC ( Stadsregio Rotterdam ) .","The applicant stated that no later than early CARDINAL the owner of the property asked her and her CARDINAL young children to vacate the property as he wished to renovate it for his own use . He offered to let the applicant a different property at the address B. Street CARDINALA , also in the GPE area . She further stated that , since it comprised CARDINAL rooms and a garden , the property was far more suitable for her and her children than her A. Street dwelling which comprised a single room . However , whether the A. Street property was actually renovated or required renovation at all remains in dispute ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In the meantime on DATE , GPE had been designated under LAW ( Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as an area where only those households could move into housing who had been granted a housing permit ( huisvestingsvergunning ) to do so in relation to an identified property . Accordingly , on DATE the applicant lodged a request for a housing permit with the PERSON and Aldermen ( burgemeester en wethouders ) of GPE in order to be permitted to move to B. Street CARDINALA.","On DATE the PERSON and Aldermen gave a decision refusing such a permit . They found it established that the applicant did not satisfy the statutory requirements for a housing permit ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) on the basis that she had not been resident in LOC for DATE immediately preceding the introduction of her request . Moreover , since she was dependent on social - security benefits under ORG ( PERSON ) , she also did not meet the income requirement that would have qualified her for an exemption from the residence requirement .","The applicant , who was represented throughout the domestic proceedings and before the ORG by the same lawyer , lodged an objection ( bezwaarschrift ) with the LOC and Aldermen .","On DATE the PERSON and Aldermen gave a decision dismissing the applicant \u2019s objection . Adopting as their own an advisory opinion by ORG ( PERSON bezwaarschriftencommissie ) , they referred to the fact that housing permits were intended to be an instrument to ensure the balanced and equitable distribution of housing and to the possibility for the applicant to move to a dwelling not situated in a \u201c hotspot \u201d area .","The applicant lodged an appeal ( beroep ) with ORG ( rechtbank ) . In so far as relevant to the case , she argued that the hardship clause ought to have been applied . She relied on LAW CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of the DATE LAW . She also submitted that the requirement of CARDINAL years\u2019 residence in LOC , as applied to her , constituted discrimination based on income status contrary to Article CARDINAL of LAW .","ORG gave a decision dismissing the applicant \u2019s appeal on DATE ( ORG : NL : RBROT:CARDINAL:BDCARDINAL ) . In so far as relevant to the case before the ORG , its reasoning was as follows :","\u201c Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LOC Act [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] provides for the possibility of temporary restrictions on freedom of residence in areas to be indicated by the Minister [ sc . the Minister of ORG and the Environment ( Minister PERSON , PERSON en Milieubeheer ) ] . The aim of these restrictions is to reverse a process of overburdening and decreasing quality of life ( leefkwaliteit ) , particularly by striving towards districts whose composition is more mixed from a socioeconomic point of view . The restrictions are also intended actively to counteract the existing segregation of incomes throughout the city through the regulation of the supply of housing in certain districts and in so doing improve the quality of life of the inhabitants of those districts ( Parliamentary Documents , ORG of ORG ( PERSON ) DATE , CARDINAL CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL [ i.e. the Explanatory Memorandum ( PERSON ) , see paragraph CARDINAL below ] , pages CARDINAL ) . In view of the aims of the law , as set out , these temporary restrictions on the freedom to choose one \u2019s residence can not be found not to be justified by the general interest in a NORP society . Nor can it be found that , given the considerable extent of the problems noted in certain districts in GPE , the said restrictions are not necessary for the maintenance of ordre public . ORG takes the view that the legislature has sufficiently shown that in those districts the \u2018 limits of the capacity for absorption\u2019 have been reached as regards care and support for the socioeconomically underprivileged and that moreover in those districts there is a concentration of underprivileged individuals in deprived districts as well as considerable dissatisfaction among the population about inappropriate behaviour , nuisance and crime .","As regards the violation of LAW posited by [ the applicant ] , ORG takes the view that sufficient reasons have been given ( Parliamentary Documents , ORG of ORG , DATE , QUANTITY , no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ) that in so far as these measures constitute an indirect distinction , this distinction has sufficient objective justification .","ORG observes in this connection that the restrictions based on LOC imposed by the DATE Housing By - law [ of GPE ] ( Huisvestingsverordening DATE ) constitute only a minimal and temporary restriction on the freedom to choose one \u2019s residence . In so finding , ORG notes that it does not appear \u2013 and [ the applicant ] has not made out a case \u2013 that [ she ] can not obtain fitting housing elsewhere in the LOC or the LOC . \u201d","The applicant lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . As she had done before ORG , she invoked LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE ORG gave a decision ( ORG : NL : RVS:CARDINAL:BHCARDINAL ) dismissing the applicant \u2019s further appeal . In so far as relevant to the case before the ORG , its reasoning included the following :","\u201c CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The right freely to choose one \u2019s residence , provided by LAW CARDINAL , may , under the fourth paragraph , be subject , in particular areas , to restrictions imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a NORP society . The right of everyone freely to choose one \u2019s residence , laid down in LAW , shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law and are necessary to protect public order . ORG observes in this connection that the concept \u2018 public ORG in the LAW includes , in addition to the prevention of disorder , public safety , the prevention of crime and all universally accepted fundamental principles corresponding to human rights on which a democratic society is based . The arrangement set out in section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing By - law constitutes a restriction on GPE \u2019s free choice of a place of residence . It is not disputed that this restriction is provided for by law and is inspired by the interest that society has in [ ensuring ] the quality of life in districts of major cities . ORG finds that , considering that the area in issue is CARDINAL designated under section CARDINAL of the Inner City Problems ( Special Measures ) Act , the LOC and Aldermen were entitled to take the view that the restriction [ on freedom to choose one \u2019s residence ] is justified in the general interest in a NORP society within the meaning of LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the DATE LAW . The area in issue is a so - called \u2018 GPE , where , as has not been disputed , the quality of life is under threat . The restriction resulting from section CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing By - law is of a temporary nature , namely for DATE . It is not established that the supply of housing outside the areas designated by the Minister in ORG is insufficient . What [ the applicant ] has stated about waiting times does not lead ORG to reach a different finding . ORG further takes into account that pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , introductory sentence and under b of GPE , the Minister is empowered to rescind the designation of the area if it turns out that persons seeking housing do not have sufficient possibility of finding suitable housing within the region in which the municipality is situated . In view of these facts and circumstances ORG finds that the restriction in issue is not contrary to the requirements of a pressing social need and proportionality . ORG therefore finds , as ORG did , that section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing By - law does not violate LAW CARDINAL of the Convention or Article CARDINAL of the DATE LAW .","As to GPE \u2019s argument that section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing By - law violates LAW , first sentence , of FAC because it entails an indirect distinction , ORG holds as follows . Since a relatively large number of people are resident in the areas covered by that section who are dependent on social - security benefits under the Work and LAW , section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) can lead to an indirect distinction being made . Such a distinction is permitted if there is an objective and reasonable justification for that distinction and the difference in treatment that flows from it . Whether such is the case must be considered in the light of the question whether the making of the distinction serves a legitimate aim and is proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved , i.e. is a suitable means to achieve that aim and the aim can not be achieved by other , less intrusive means . Section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing By - law is intended by ORG ( gemeenteraad ) to effect differentiation in the districts in order to increase the quality of life . Given the seriousness of the problems the solution thereof must be considered a legitimate aim . The income requirement set by section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Housing By - law is the final measure of a package of measures ( pakket van maatregelen ) introduced to meet that goal . It has not , or not sufficiently , been disputed that the other measures in themselves produce insufficient effect . Considering the fact that the measure is limited in time and it does not appear that GPE can not obtain suitable housing elsewhere in the LOC or the Region , ORG agrees with ORG that the PERSON and Aldermen , taking into account the fact that the legislature created the possibility to make use of this means by statute and explicitly and the legislature equally weighed the need to open this possibility in addition to the existing possibilities , had good reasons to take the view that , in addition to the measures already in existence , this measure too is necessary and proportionate .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Finally , GPE has submitted that the PERSON and Aldermen were wrong to find that the particular circumstances on which she relied did not constitute grounds to apply the hardship clauses . These particular circumstances are that her present dwelling is too small for her and her CARDINAL children and that its poor state of repair causes her inconvenience ( voor overlast zorgt ) . It is the policy of the PERSON and Aldermen to apply the hardship clauses only in untenable situations , for example in cases of violence . Like ORG , ORG takes the view that the PERSON and Aldermen were entitled to consider that there is no such situation in the present case . \u201d","According to figures published by GPE , there were CARDINAL dwellings in the municipality in DATE , of which CARDINAL or PERCENT were situated in GPE . The total number of dwellings in the CARDINAL districts designated in DATE PERSON , GPE , ORG and GPE \u2013 was CARDINAL , i.e. PERCENT of the total for the municipality . With the addition of PERSON ( designated on DATE ) , the total came to CARDINAL or PERCENT .","DATE . On DATE the population of the municipality of GPE stood at CARDINAL . Of these , CARDINAL or PERCENT were resident in GPE . The total number of inhabitants of the CARDINAL districts designated in DATE was CARDINAL , i.e. PERCENT of the total for the municipality . With the addition of GPE , the total for the designated districts came to CARDINAL or PERCENT .","An evaluation report , commissioned by GPE \u2019s own ORG ( ORG ) after DATE following the introduction of the housing permit in GPE , was published on DATE by ORG ( ORG voor NORP en PERSON ) , a research and advice bureau collecting statistical data and carrying out research relevant to developments in GPE in areas including demographics , the economy and employment ( hereafter \u201c the DATE evaluation report \u201d ) .","The report noted a reduction of the number of new residents dependent on social - security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act in \u201c hotspot \u201d areas , though not , of course , a complete stop because GPE residents of CARDINAL years\u2019 standing were not prevented from moving there .","From DATE until DATE there had been CARDINAL requests for a housing permit . Of these , CARDINAL had been granted ; CARDINAL had been refused ; CARDINAL had been rejected as incomplete ; and CARDINAL were still pending . The hardship clause ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LOC ) had been applied in CARDINAL cases .","DATE of the housing permits granted concerned housing let by private landlords ; the remainder DATE had been granted through the intermediary of social housing bodies ( woningcorporaties ) . The latter selected their tenants with due regard to the official requirements , so that refusals of housing permits with regard to social housing were unheard of .","Of the persons refused a housing permit , DATE ( PERCENT of all those who met with a refusal ) were known to have found housing elsewhere relatively quickly .","NORP The DATE evaluation report was presented to ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG voted to maintain the housing permit system as was and have a new evaluation report commissioned for DATE .","A second evaluation report , also commissioned by GPE \u2019s ORG , was published by ORG DATE . It covered the period from DATE until DATE ( \u201c the DATE evaluation report \u201d ) , during which the events complained of took place .","During this period , the social housing bodies had let CARDINAL dwellings in the areas concerned . Since the social housing bodies could only accept tenants who qualified for a housing permit , no applications for such a permit had been rejected in this group .","Out of CARDINAL applications for a housing permit relating to privatelylet housing , CARDINAL had been accepted ( PERCENT ) ; CARDINAL had been refused ( PERCENT ) ; and CARDINAL had been pending at DATE . Examination of a further CARDINAL had been discontinued without a decision being taken ( PERCENT ) , generally because these applications had been withdrawn or abandoned ; the assumption was that many of these applications would in any case have been rejected . It followed , therefore , that if the pending cases were not taken into account , CARDINAL of this category of applications had been either refused or not pursued to a conclusion .","The reason to reject an application for a housing permit had been related to the income requirement in PERCENT of cases , sometimes in combination with another ground for rejection ; failure to meet the income requirement had been the sole such reason in PERCENT of cases .","Of CARDINAL persons refused a housing permit , CARDINAL were known to have managed to find housing elsewhere , either in GPE ( PERCENT ) or elsewhere in the GPE ( PERCENT ) .","The hardship clause had been applied CARDINAL times \u2013 expressed as a percentage of applications relating to privately - let housing , PERCENT of the total . These had been cases of preventing squatters from taking over housing left empty ( antikraak ) , illegal immigrants whose situation had been regularised by a general measure ( generaal pardon ) , assisted living arrangements for vulnerable individuals ( begeleid wonen ) , cooperative living arrangements ( woongroepen ) , start - up enterprises , the re - housing ( herhuisvesting ) of households forced to clear substandard housing for renovation , and foreign students . In addition , in CARDINAL of cases the hardship clause had been applied because a decision had not been given within the prescribed time - limit .","The effects of the measure were considered based on CARDINAL indicators : proportion of residents dependent on social - security benefits under ORG , corrected for the supply of suitable housing ; perception of safety ; social quality ; and potential accumulation of housing problems :","( a ) It had been observed that in the areas where the housing permit requirement applied , the reduction of the number of new residents dependent on social - security benefits under the Work and Social Assistance Act had been more rapid in \u201c hotspot \u201d areas than in other parts of GPE . In addition , the number of residents in receipt of such benefits as a proportion of the total population of those areas had also declined , although it was still greater than elsewhere .","( b ) In CARDINAL of the areas where the housing permit requirement had been introduced , the increase in the perception of public safety had been more rapid than the GPE average . GPE had shown an increase initially , but was now back to where it had been before the measure was introduced . CARDINAL other area had actually declined significantly in this respect . All of the areas where the housing permit requirement applied were still perceived as considerably less safe than GPE as a whole .","( c ) In terms of social quality , there had been improvement in most of the parts of GPE where problems existed , GPE among them . It was noted , however , that the effect of the housing permit in this respect was limited , since it only influenced the selection of new residents , not that of residents already in place .","( d ) Housing DATE defined in terms of turnover , housing left unused , and house price development \u2013 had increased somewhat in the affected areas including GPE , though on the whole at a slower rate there than elsewhere . Reported reasons for the increase were an influx of immigrants of mostly non - NORP extraction ( nieuwe Nederlanders , \u201c new GPE nationals \u201d ) and new short - term residents from LOC ; the latter in particular tended to stay for DATE or less before moving on , and their economic activity was more difficult to keep under review as many were self - employed .","Social housing bodies tended to view the housing permit requirement as a nuisance because it created additional paperwork . They perceived the measure rather as an appropriate instrument to tackle abuses by private landlords , provided that it be actively enforced and administrative procedures be simplified . Others with a professional involvement in the GPE housing market mentioned the dissuasive effect of the measure on would - be new residents of the affected areas .","NORP The report suggested that the housing permit requirement might no longer be needed for one of the existing \u201c hotspots \u201d ( not GPE ) . Conversely , CARDINAL other GPE districts scored high for CARDINAL indicators , while a sixth exceeded critical values for all CARDINAL .","A third evaluation report , this time commissioned by GPE \u2019s ORG ) , was published by ORG in DATE ( second revised edition ) . It covered the period from DATE until DATE ( \u201c the DATE evaluation report \u201d ) .","NORP The social housing bodies had let CARDINAL dwellings in the areas concerned ; as during DATE , no applications for housing permits had been rejected in this group because the social housing bodies could only accept qualifying tenants .","There had been CARDINAL applications for a housing permit relating to privately - let housing . Of these , CARDINAL had been accepted ( PERCENT ) ; CARDINAL had been refused ( PERCENT ) ; and CARDINAL had been pending on DATE . Examination of CARDINAL had been discontinued without a decision being taken ( PERCENT ) , generally because they had been withdrawn or abandoned . This meant that , if the pending cases were not taken into account , CARDINAL of applications were either rejected or not pursued to a conclusion because the household concerned had reconsidered its decision to move .","DATE . The reasons to reject an application for a housing permit had included failure to meet the income requirement in PERCENT of cases , sometimes combined with other reasons . In the remaining cases the decision to reject had been based on the excessive number of persons wishing to take up residence in a particular dwelling ; the unlawful sub - letting of rooms ; the absence of valid residence rights ; or the fact that the person making the application was underage .","The individual hardship clause had been applied in CARDINAL cases ; as a proportion of successful applications for a housing permit , this amounted to PERCENT . In addition , in CARDINAL cases objections had been lodged against refusals ; of these , CARDINAL had been successful and had resulted in the grant of a housing permit . The grounds on which the hardship clause was applied were the same as those stated in the DATE evaluation report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP In terms of social index , GPE continued to score lowest of all the GPE districts . Social cohesion was very weak , which was explained by the number of house moves but also by a general lack of participation in social life . In terms of residential environment ( leefomgeving ) , the district was vulnerable , the problem being a lack of suitable housing .","Based on the same indicators and methodology as the previous report , the DATE evaluation report concluded that the housing permit system should be continued in GPE and CARDINAL other areas ( including CARDINAL in which it had been introduced in the meantime , in DATE ) ; discontinued in CARDINAL others ; and introduced in CARDINAL area where it was not yet in force .","On DATE the Minister of the Interior and ORG ( Minister PERSON en ORG ) sent a separate evaluation report assessing the effectiveness of GPE since its inception and its effects in practice to ORG of ORG , as required by section CARDINAL of that LAW , ORG of ORG , no . CARDINAL CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) . The Minister \u2019s covering letter stated the intention of the Government to introduce legislation in order to extend the validity of GPE . Requests to that effect had been received from a number of affected cities . It was noted that not all of the cities concerned had made use of all of the possibilities offered by the LAW ; in particular , only GPE used housing permits to select new residents for particular areas . Appended to the Minister \u2019s letter was a copy of the DATE evaluation report and a letter from the PERSON and Aldermen of GPE in which they , inter alia , confirmed the desirability of extending the indication of particular areas for applying the housing permit requirement beyond DATE periods : the measure was considered a success , and a DATE programme involving the large - scale improvement of housing and infrastructure ( the \u201c ORG GPE \u201d ( ORG , see below ) ) had been started in the southern parts of GPE in DATE .","Both the applicant and the Government have submitted a report entitled \u201c Evaluation of the effects of LOC , by ORG ; the report is referred to hereafter as the \u201c ORG report \u201d ) . This report was commissioned by the Minister of the ORG and ORG , who published it in DATE , to be put before ORG .","NORP The report comprises CARDINAL pages of introduction , CARDINAL pages of analysis and CARDINAL more pages of references and appendices ( tables , methodology , list of interviewees ) . Its conclusion reads , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Conclusion","[ ... ]","In the study we have distinguished CARDINAL groups : the potentially refused and the reference group . The potentially refused are members of households without any income from work who have been living in the metropolitan area for DATE . On this basis they are not eligible for a housing permit in the designated districts of GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG and GPE . The reference group also has no income from work , but satisfies the residence requirement .","Findings","The excluded group : the potentially refused","More often than the reference group , the potentially refused are young , male and live alone . More often than the reference group , the potentially refused are of non - NORP foreign origin , and much more often , they are from the NORP migrant population . Trends DATE show a strong increase in the proportion of persons among the NORP migrant population , principally from NORP countries like GPE , GPE and GPE .","[ ... ]","Effect on the position of the potentially refused on the housing market","[ ... ]","The group of the potentially refused tends to move house relatively frequently and during the period covered by this research their mobility increased ( from PERCENT in DATE to PERCENT in DATE ) . This high rate of mobility would appear to be a consequence of the composition of the group ( relatively young persons and small households , often without children ) . After correction for background characteristics , it turns out that new arrivals tend to move more often , and continue to do so after DATE in which they arrive .","[ ... ]","Effect on the designated districts : house - moving flows and population composition","[ ... ] .","Changes in the GPE housing market , including as a result of the LAW , have led to new patterns of spatial distribution of new arrivals without income from work . An analysis of population dynamics confirms that the increase in the proportion of potentially refused is generally the consequence of changed house - moving flows ( and not of any other dynamic such as downward social mobility of the resident population ) .","[ ... ]","Designated districts : quality of life and security","Has the application of the measure under LAW had any actual effect on the quality of life and security in the designated areas ?","Based on a ( modified ) Security Index we find that during DATE the designated districts have shown a more negative development in their scores than the other districts of the city . This interrelation has been examined more closely by comparing the development trend in all GPE districts , taking into account the district status and other changes in the housing markets . After these checks have been carried out it still appears that the districts covered by the LAW display a significantly worse development than the other districts of GPE .","[ ... ]","In so concluding it must be observed that the LAW is not necessarily the cause of these lagging developments . Changes in city policy , police and justice , education , social assistance , etc . at the neighbourhood , municipal and national level are beyond the scope of this evaluation . These findings do however suggest that the LAW has not contributed to any improvement .","Quality of life elsewhere","[ ... ]","What development is seen in districts with a considerable influx of house - movers who do not qualify for a housing permit as regards quality of life and security ?","[ ... ]","In sum , it can be stated that there is a slight negative interrelation between changes in the influx of the potentially refused and the quality of life and security of the neighbourhoods . This interrelation is , however , not uniform and the causal link is not firmly established . Although the potentially refused can cause a deterioration of the quality of life and security in a neighbourhood , the interrelation may also point the other way . Because of their weak and deteriorating position on the housing market , the potentially refused will generally be limited to districts where there is a relative decline in quality of life and security . \u201d","On DATE the Minister of the Interior and ORG ( on behalf of ORG ) , PERSON on behalf of the municipality of GPE ) , and the presidents of a number of LOC boroughs ( deelgemeenten ) , social housing bodies and educational institutions signed the ORG Leap GPE \u201d . This document noted the social problems prevalent in LOC inner - city areas , which it was proposed to address by providing improved opportunities for education and economic activity and improving , or if need be replacing housing and infrastructure . It was intended to terminate the programme by DATE .","DATE . On DATE the Minister of the Interior and ORG , GPE \u2019s PERSON for housing , spatial planning , real property and the city economy ( wethouder PERSON , ruimtelijke ordening , vastgoed en stedelijke economie ) and the presidents of CARDINAL social housing bodies active in GPE signed an \u201c Agreement concerning a financial impulse for the benefit of the Quality Leap South Rotterdam ( DATE ) \u201d ( ORG betreffende een financi\u00eble impuls CARDINAL behoeve PERSON GPE ( DATE ) ) . This agreement provided for a review of priorities in Government financing of housing and infrastructure projects in the GPE area within existing budgets and for a once - only additional investment of MONEY ( ORG ) . Of the latter sum , ORG CARDINAL had been reserved by the municipality of GPE until DATE ; another EUR CARDINAL would be added for the period starting in DATE . These funds would be used to refurbish or replace CARDINAL homes in GPE . A further ORG CARDINAL would be provided by the Government . The remainder would be spent by the social housing bodies on projects within their respective remit .","On DATE the Government introduced a PERSON proposing to amend LAW ( Parliamentary Documents , ORG of ORG DATE , CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) . The Explanatory Memorandum stated that its purpose was to empower municipalities to tackle abuses in the private rented housing sector , give municipalities broader powers of enforcement and make further temporal extension of the LAW possible .","The Inner City Problems ( Special Measures ) ( Extension ) Act ( Wet uitbreiding Wet bijzondere maatregelen grootstedelijke problematiek ) entered into force on DATE , enabling the designation of particular areas under section CARDINAL of GPE to be extended DATE before it was due to expire . It makes further extensions of the designation possible for successive DATE periods ( section CARDINAL ) of ORG , as amended ) .","With effect from DATE the Inner City Problems ( Special Measures ) Act was amended further to enable the selective allotment of housing in order to limit nuisance and criminal behaviour .","On DATE the applicant moved to housing in the municipality of Vlaardingen . This municipality is part of ORG . She rents her dwelling from a Government - funded social housing body .","The applicant states that she has found paid work .","As of CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been resident in ORG for DATE . She therefore became entitled to reside in CARDINAL of the areas designated under LOC ( LAW regardless of her sources of income .","The Government state that no renovation or building permits were sought for the dwelling in A. Street inhabited by the applicant at the time of the events complained of DATE and that no such permit was applied for in the period prior to DATE either .","DATE only the municipality of GPE made full use of the possibilities which LOC offered . In DATE and DATE , CARDINAL other municipalities followed suit ( ORG , GPE aan den IJssel and PERSON , the latter CARDINAL being part of ORG ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P4"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P4-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173265","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF RUMINSKI v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Iain Thorburn Cameron;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant is a NORP national born in DATE . He lives in PERSON .","The applicant suffered for DATE from , inter alia , pain in his back and legs and numbness in his right arm . He alternated between full and part - time sick leave from DATE . In DATE he received a partial early retirement pension and in DATE a full disability pension .","NORP In DATE he applied for life annuity and alleged that his physical problems had been caused by his former employment as a driver ( DATE ) , as a dairy worker ( DATE ) and as a food science technician ( DATE to CARDINAL ) . ORG ( F\u00f6rs\u00e4kringskassan ) appointed an in - house specialist in orthopaedic surgery who , in a written statement , concluded that there was not a high degree of probability ( h\u00f6g grad av sannolikhet ) that any harmful element in the applicant \u2019s former employment had caused his problems .","On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG rejected the application . Referring to , inter alia , the specialist statement by the insurance doctor , it was held that the applicant had not been subject to any harmful influences which , with a high degree of probability , could have caused or aggravated his problems .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( f\u00f6rvaltningsr\u00e4tten ) of GPE . On DATE the court , after having held an oral hearing , upheld ORG decision in full . The court found that , although it was scientifically known that employees in the food industry had a statistically high risk of injury , the circumstances in the applicant \u2019s case had to be taken into account . The applicant \u2019s back problems had appeared after DATE in the industry and he suffered from degenerative changes to his back . Against that background , the medical investigation and other material did not adequately support the conclusion that the applicant , in his work , had been subject to any harmful influences which , with a high degree of probability , could have caused or aggravated his problems .","Upon further appeal to ORG ( kammarr\u00e4tten ) of GPE , the applicant submitted , inter alia , a medical statement ( epikris ) issued in DATE by ORG , ORG ( ORG for folkh\u00e4lsa , arbets och milj\u00f6medicin ) . According to the medical statement , there were reasons to believe that the applicant \u2019s work had caused his problems .","NORP In a written statement to the appellate court , ORG questioned the conclusions in the medical statement as they were based on information about exposure which was to a high degree uncertain . Furthermore , there were medical records from DATE in which the applicant was held to be fully able - bodied and in which it was noted that no somatic evidence had been found in support of the applicant \u2019s symptoms .","On DATE , ORG granted leave to appeal . The applicant requested an oral hearing in the case but , on DATE , the court rejected the request . It referred to the nature of the case and to the fact that an oral hearing had been held before ORG . The applicant was given the opportunity to submit further observations .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment in full . It first gave an account of the parties\u2019 submissions and the evidence relied upon , including the medical statement of DATE , and then stated the following reasons :","\u201c The medical and other evidence in the case does not demonstrate that the applicant has been exposed to any such harmful influences in his work which could , with a high degree of probability , have caused his problems . His back - related and other problems can thus \u2013 as has been found also by ORG and ORG \u2013 not be defined as a work - related injury . [ The applicant ] is therefore not entitled to life annuity according to the [ Work LAW ] . The appeal must consequently be rejected . \u201d","The applicant appealed to ORG ( H\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) . He complained of the lack of reasoning in ORG judgment and argued that that court \u2019s refusal to hold an oral hearing had infringed his right to a fair trial within the meaning of LAW .","On DATE , ORG refused leave to appeal .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the ORG , complaining that his right to a fair trial under LAW had been infringed because ORG had refused to hold an oral hearing and its judgment had not been sufficiently reasoned .","This application was declared inadmissible by ORG DATE for non - exhaustion of domestic remedies . The ORG found that the applicant had failed to lodge a claim with the Chancellor of ORG ( NORP ) or the ordinary courts to seek compensation for the alleged breaches of LAW v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","Consequently , on DATE , the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for the alleged breaches of the Convention with the Chancellor of ORG . He argued that ORG lack of reasoning , as well as its refusal to hold an oral hearing , had infringed his right to a fair trial within the meaning of LAW . He requested MONEY ( SEK ) for non - pecuniary damage .","The Chancellor of ORG communicated the case to ORG which submitted that its handling of the case had been in accordance with domestic law as well as the LAW . In response , the applicant maintained , and developed the grounds for , his claim .","On DATE the Chancellor of ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim . As concerns the lack of an oral hearing , the Chancellor of ORG noted that ORG and ORG had held an oral hearing and consequently , in accordance with the ORG \u2019s case - law , a less strict standard applied to the requirement to hold a hearing before the appellate court . Thus , in view of the character of the case and the fact that the applicant had been given the opportunity to finalise his submissions in writing and the court had had access to substantial written evidence , the Chancellor of ORG concluded that there had been no breach of the LAW in this respect .","As concerns ORG alleged lack of reasoning , the Chancellor of ORG referred extensively to the ORG \u2019s case law on this matter and then made the following evaluation . ORG had , in its judgment , accounted for the applicant \u2019s arguments and the new evidence he had submitted before it . It had further accounted for the considerations and conclusions drawn from the evidence submitted by the parties , namely , that the investigation in the case did not demonstrate that the applicant had been exposed to any such harmful influences in his work which , with a high degree of probability , could have caused his problems . Thus , the Chancellor of ORG found that ORG had taken a stance on the central and decisive question in the case , that is , whether the applicant had been exposed to harmful influences in his work . While the Chancellor noted that it would have been preferable , for pedagogical reasons , for the court to have given clearer grounds for why the applicant \u2019s evidence had not been sufficient , she concluded that the reasoning was not so deficient that the applicant \u2019s right to a fair trial under LAW had been infringed .","At the relevant time , provisions on work injuries were set out in the Work Injury Insurance Act ( Lag ( CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) om arbetsskadef\u00f6rs\u00e4kring ) , which covered all people working in GPE . A person whose ability to earn an income had been impaired due to a work - related injury was in some specified situations eligible for life annuity ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . The term \u201c work - related injury \u201d referred to injuries resulting from accidents or other harmful effects at work . \u201c Other harmful effect \u201d meant the influence of a factor that with a high degree of probability might cause the kind of injury suffered ( LAW , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . If an insured person had suffered an accident or another harmful effect , the injury was to be considered to have been caused by the harmful effect , if that causal link was highly probable ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . The standard of proof was somewhat mitigated on DATE , but that amendment did not apply to the applicant \u2019s case .","NORP The administration of justice before the administrative courts is regulated by ORG , ORG ) . According to CARDINAL of the LAW , the determination of a case by a court must be based on what is contained in the documents and what has otherwise been established in the case . The decision must state the reasons that determined the outcome ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171088","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF P\u0102TRA\u015eCU v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE X , a plain - clothes police officer from the GPE police organised crime unit , approached the applicant in a nightclub . According to a report drafted on DATE , the meeting had been planned in order to verify information received by the police that the applicant might have been dealing drugs . The report mentioned that X had discussed with the applicant , who claimed that he could get drugs and promised to call with more details . In a second report drafted on DATE it was stated that the applicant had called PERSON to ask whether he was interested in buying CARDINAL ecstasy tablets at a cost of CARDINAL ( ORG ) each .","On DATE a prosecutor from the GPE department for the investigation of organised crime ( \u201c the organised crime department \u201d ) opened a criminal investigation against the applicant on suspicion of drug trafficking . A request to intercept his telephone conversations and make ambient voice recordings was authorised by a judge of ORG .","On DATE the prosecutor from the organised crime department authorised the use of X as undercover police agent in order to determine the facts of the case , identify the offenders and obtain evidence . The prosecutor justified the issuing of the authorisation on the basis that there was reason to believe that the applicant was about to commit a drug trafficking offence .","In a report dated CARDINAL DATE the chief of the GPE police organised crime unit stated that PERSON had called the applicant several times in DATE and DATE in order to enquire when the transaction might take place . The report also mentioned that the applicant had replied on several occasions that he was not in possession of the drugs , which were to be brought into the country by friends of his who had not yet returned from abroad .","In TIME of DATE the applicant called NORP and set up a meeting for TIME . He and a friend , PERSON , picked up X by car . X was accompanied by Y , a colleague in plain clothes . The CARDINAL of them drove to a petrol station where a meeting had been arranged with ORG to buy drugs . The applicant and Y went inside the petrol station while X remained outside and talked to ORG As the deal got underway in the car park of the petrol station , the case prosecutor and QUANTITY police officers suddenly intervened and arrested the applicant , ORG and PERSON In the car driven by ORG the police found CARDINAL ecstasy tablets . The offence report drafted on the spot by the police was signed by everyone , including the applicant , without any objection . The police operation was recorded on video .","On DATE the applicant was indicted with ORG and PERSON for trafficking \u201c high risk \u201d drugs .","On DATE the applicant and ORG testified before ORG . The applicant averred that he had acted as an intermediary for the meeting and subsequent deal between ORG and X because the latter had asked him whether he could get drugs for him . Moreover , X had set the price for the drugs . ORG stated that the drugs found on him had been for his own personal use and that he had had no intention of selling them .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer argued before the court that the applicant had in fact been incited by X to act as an intermediary in the drug deal and requested that X be called to give evidence , along with CARDINAL witnesses in the applicant \u2019s defence . The court allowed the request .","On DATE the court heard evidence from X , PERSON and one of the witnesses proposed by the applicant who appeared in court . X stated that the applicant had called him in order to arrange the drug deal without any incitement on his part . The applicant \u2019s lawyer had the opportunity to cross - examine X. He asked whether the reports of DATE and DATE had been signed by him and whether the criminal investigation had already been open when he had been authorised to investigate undercover . The CARDINAL questions were disallowed by the court because they were considered an attempt to disclose X \u2019s identity .","The Buz\u0103u County Court gave judgment on DATE . It convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The conviction was based on the reports of DATE and CARDINAL DATE and the offence report of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , as well as on transcripts of the applicant \u2019s telephone conversations with X , ambient recordings of discussions between X and ORG and the in - court testimonies given by the applicant , the codefendants and X. The court considered that the applicant \u2019s allegations that he had been incited by X were clearly disproved by the abovementioned evidence taken as a whole .","The applicant appealed against the judgment . He alleged that X had exceeded his authority and that Y should have also been called to testify in court . He also claimed that X had incited him to commit the offence under coercion and that the first - instance court had failed to respond appropriately to his arguments on that issue .","On DATE the Ploie\u015fti Court of Appeal rejected the appeal . In reply to the applicant \u2019s arguments , the court held that the authorisation and actions of the undercover police officer had been in accordance with the law . The statement of Y was irrelevant to the case since he had not directly witnessed the deal . The court considered that the applicant had not been incited by X since it was apparent from the evidence in the file that he had called the officer on several occasions and had planned the meeting of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) , reiterating his previous arguments .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG and Justice dismissed the appeal on points of law . Basing its findings on the reports of DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court considered that there had been serious reason to suspect that the applicant would commit a criminal offence at the time of authorisation of the covert operation . It further noted that it was apparent from the documents in the file that X had acted lawfully . In addition , the information collected by PERSON and the applicant \u2019s active participation in the crime in question were supported not only by the police reports , but also by transcripts of the telephone conversations that the applicant had with ORG and X. The court stated that it was clearly apparent from those transcripts that the applicant had initiated calls to X on CARDINAL occasions in order to act as an intermediary in the drug deal . It also noted on this point that the applicant and the other co - defendants had signed the offence report without any objection ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant \u2019s allegations concerning the unlawfulness of the covert operation and the police incitement were therefore considered to be ill - founded ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170614","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"ZENTAS LOGINAS MUZEJS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The applicant , the ORG PERSON foundation ( hereinafter \u201c the applicant organisation \u201d ) is a non - profit organisation registered in GPE . It was represented before the ORG by the chairperson of the organisation \u2019s board , PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON and later PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant organisation was created in DATE with the purpose of preserving and promoting the artistic heritage of CARDINAL late NORP artists , ORG and her sister PERSON . Their complete body of work comprises over CARDINAL art pieces created using different techniques over a period of DATE . After the CARDINAL artists died the entire collection of their art works remained in a CARDINAL - room apartment located in the centre of GPE where the CARDINAL sisters had lived ( \u201c the contested apartment \u201d ) . At that time the apartment belonged to the GPE municipality and the applicant organisation \u2019s intention was to acquire it in order to create a memorial museum there .","On DATE the applicant organisation wrote to the Culture , Art and ORG of ORG outlining its intentions and requesting the committee \u2019s support for the creation of the memorial museum in the contested apartment . DATE ORG , the Minister of Culture , and GPE each wrote to ORG confirming the importance of the collection and expressing their support for the creation of the memorial museum .","On DATE the Culture , Art and ORG of ORG invited ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) \u2013 the local executive body \u2013 to investigate and determine ways of supporting the initiative to place the contested apartment at the applicant organisation \u2019s disposal ( atst\u0101t r\u012bc\u012bb\u0101 ) in order for it to create a memorial museum of the CARDINAL artists\u2019 work . On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) also supported the same proposition .","On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers issued order no . CARDINAL whereby several apartment houses in GPE were not to be privatised but were to be retained as the property of the ORG . Possession ( vald\u012bjums ) of these apartments was to be transferred to ORG , which was then to enter them in the land register as ORG - owned property . The building in which the contested apartment was situated was listed in this order .","On DATE the manager of the contested apartmenta municipality - owned enterprise that was overseen by ORG ( hereinafter \u201c ORG ) that CARDINAL rooms in the contested apartment had become available for rent . On DATE ORG issued recommendation no . CARDINAL authorising the manager of the contested apartment to rent the CARDINAL rooms available to a certain V.B.S. and her family . According to the Government , ORG had been registered to receive housing aid from municipal funds since DATE . The applicant organisation denied that ORG had ever been registered for housing aid and argued that recommendation no . CARDINAL had been unlawful .","On DATE , on the basis of recommendation no . CARDINAL , the manager of the contested apartment concluded a rental agreement with ORG period of time .","On DATE Culture , Art and ORG of Riga City Council expressed its dissatisfaction with the fact that ORG had not informed ORG of the decisions adopted by the CARDINAL ORG committees . It decided that ORG ought to annul the recommendation that the contested apartment be rented out to ORG and to examine again the possibility of excluding the said apartment from the residential fund and allocating it to the applicant organisation . In addition , it decided that ORG should open an inquiry into why the decisions taken by ORG committees had not been examined .","On DATE ORG declared that recommendation no . CARDINAL had become invalid and that the declaration of ORG and her family \u2019s residence in the contested apartment had been annulled .","On DATE ORG , having carried out an examination , concluded that ORG had not responded to numerous letters sent by different persons and institutions ( ORG , a member of parliament , ORG of GPE , GPE , and the applicant organisation ) concerning the artistic heritage of the late artists . Despite the fact that ORG had been fully aware of the situation , the manager of the contested apartment had not informed ORG about the substantial artistic collection located in that apartment , thereby misleading it . ORG proposed to annul , under a procedure set out in law , the rental agreement concluded with V.B.S. It also suggested that the issue regarding the housing of the art collection should be resolved by ORG and ORG , acting together .","On DATE ORG ( on the grounds that the manager of the contested apartment had provided false information to ORG ) decided to annul the allocation of the apartment to ORG and her family and to place it at the applicant organisation \u2019s disposal . PERSON \u2019s family was to be allocated another apartment . It also invited the director of ORG to hold responsible those who had misinformed ORG .","The parties disagreed on the nature of the decisions taken by the CARDINAL ORG committees . The Government contended that these decisions had been of a purely recommendatory nature , as the committees were not competent to vest any rights in the applicant organisation or to adopt legally binding decisions , that being the exclusive competence of ORG . The committees had merely consultative functions and were responsible for preparing issues to be examined and decided upon by ORG . The applicant organisation disagreed . It contended that , under LAW , ORG committees had the right to instruct officials of the GPE municipality and its institutions . Hence , the decisions of the CARDINAL committees had to be complied with .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant organisation that on DATE it had taken possession ( p\u0101r\u0146\u0113musi vald\u012bjum\u0101 ) of the building in which the contested apartment was situated . It drew attention to recommendation no . CARDINAL and the rental agreement that had been concluded with ORG DATE . The ORG noted that it was bound by the rental agreements in force . It advised that with regard to the issue of using the contested apartment for the foundation \u2019s needs the applicant organisation would need to address ORG , which had issued the recommendation .","On DATE ORG invited the applicant organisation to move the art collection from the contested apartment , noting that it had no legal grounds to use it . It also stated that it had not received a response from the applicant organisation concerning the allocation of different premises . Referring to V.B.S. , it added that a person who had \u201c all legal rights to said apartment \u201d had declared her address there . The ORG also noted that in the event of the applicant organisation \u2019s failure to vacate the contested apartment it would be forced to evict the applicant organisation therefrom . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG wrote further letters offering the applicant organisation different premises for the housing of the art collection and warning it that in the event of failure to vacate the apartment the property belonging to the applicant organisation contained therein would be moved to different LOC . The letter of DATE also noted that the lawful tenant wished to start renovating the apartment . On DATE there was further correspondence between ORG and the applicant organisation concerning possible rental fees of the different LOC already offered to the applicant organisation and additional LOC that could be made available to the applicant organisation .","In the light of this correspondence the Government contended that offers to move the art collection to different premises had been made to the applicant organisation repeatedly but that the applicant organisation had failed to reply . In response , the applicant organisation asserted that it had visited all the LOC offered ; however , none of them had been suitable for the needs of the art collection or a museum .","On DATE the manager of the contested apartment , on the basis of an authorisation issued by ORG , concluded a new rental agreement with V.B.S.","By virtue of amendments dated DATE to order no . CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the building in which the contested apartment was located was excluded from the list of properties that were not subject to privatisation .","On DATE , ORG of Residential Buildings transferred the ownership rights to the contested apartment to V.B.S. prior to the privatisation of the residential building ( nodot \u012bpa\u0161um\u0101 l\u012bdz dz\u012bvojam\u0101s m\u0101jas privatiz\u0101cijai ) . On DATE ORG of Residential Buildings , on the basis of the PERSON on the Privatisation of State and ORG ( ORG valsts un pa\u0161vald\u012bbu dz\u012bvojamo m\u0101ju privatiz\u0101ciju ) , sold the apartment to V.B.S.","By a judgment of DATE ORG was recognised as the inheritor of the collection of art works of ORG and PERSON .","On DATE ORG instituted civil proceedings challenging the rental agreement of CARDINAL DATE that had been concluded with ORG and requesting that the privatisation of the contested apartment be discontinued .","On DATE the Riga City Centre District Court terminated those civil proceedings on the grounds that they had been brought by a person who had had no standing . In particular , the court noted that it had received no evidence that ORG \u2019s civil rights had been infringed .","On DATE ORG upheld this decision . It established that prior to her death PERSON had rented the contested apartment , which had not been privatised . The apartment had been in the possession of the GPE municipality . The rental agreement concluded with ORG had not affected ORG \u2019s rights to her inheritance . The court considered that the arguments raised concerning the rights of other persons ( including the rights of the applicant organisation ) were not relevant as the civil claim had only been brought in the name of ORG Further , the court noted that under domestic law rental agreements could only be challenged by landlords , tenants or members of a tenant \u2019s family . Neither ORG , nor ORG or members of her family were contesting the tenancy agreement . Besides , no competent institution of the GPE municipality had ever concluded a rental agreement with ORG , the appeal court agreed with the conclusion that the proceedings had been brought by a person who had had no standing .","On DATE the ORG of ORG upheld this decision on the same grounds . It also noted that the question of the protection of the artistic heritage of the late artists did not fall to be decided in judicial institutions .","In DATE ORG donated the art collection to the applicant organisation .","In DATE the applicant organisation addressed the Prosecutor General \u2019s office requesting it to examine whether V.B.S. had acquired the right to rent the contested apartment lawfully . According to the Government , on DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) refused to lodge a civil claim contesting the rental agreement because it had concluded that there was no dispute about the applicant organisation \u2019s title to the collection of art works and that the fact the collection was stored in the contested apartment did not vest any right to the mentioned premises in the applicant organisation . Subsequent appeals to ORG and ORG were dismissed on DATE and DATE respectively .","In relation to this point the applicant organisation submitted to the ORG CARDINAL letters prepared by ORG . CARDINAL letter , dated DATE , stated that ORG had examined the applicant organisation \u2019s request and had concluded that there had been no breaches of law meriting the bringing of a civil claim . However , the other letter , dated DATE , bearing the same number and the signature of the same official , stated that ORG had examined the applicant organisation \u2019s request and had prepared a civil claim , to be brought before ORG . It also noted that on DATE this claim had been submitted to the relevant department of ORG for its approval . According to the applicant organisation , the existence of the CARDINAL contradictory letters and the fact that the claim was never brought proved that ORG had not acted independently and impartially and that its decision - making had been influenced by other persons with an interest in the outcome of this case . In particular , the applicant organisation noted the political influence of ORG son - in - law , who had been a member of parliament at the time in question .","On DATE V.B.S. died .","On DATE the applicant organisation lodged a claim requesting the annulment of the following : the rental agreement that had been concluded with V.B.S. on CARDINAL DATE ; the decision of DATE by ORG of Residential Buildings transferring the ownership rights to the contested apartment prior to the privatisation of the residential building in which it was located , to ORG ; the purchase agreement concluded with ORG ; and the entry in the land register concerning ORG property rights over the contested apartment . The applicant organisation also requested the recognition of its right to use the contested apartment . In subsequent submissions the applicant organisation clarified that it did not request the recognition of its own property rights over the contested apartment and indicated that ORG heir , PERSON , should be CARDINAL of the defendants in these proceedings .","On DATE ORG opened proceedings . On DATE it decided to terminate the proceedings on the grounds , inter alia , that the applicant organisation had had no standing to bring the above \u2013 mentioned claims . In particular , the applicant organisation had contested a rental agreement and a purchase agreement to which it was not a party .","The applicant organisation lodged an ancillary complaint with ORG of ORG . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . It noted that the applicant organisation had never been a party to the rental agreement in question or a beneficiary of the privatisation proceedings concerning the contested apartment .","On DATE the applicant organisation lodged a further ancillary complaint with the ORG of ORG . The applicant organisation reiterated that the privatisation of the contested apartment had been unlawful and had been carried out in bad faith . It also argued that there had been no legal grounds for the termination of the proceedings . The courts had indicated no legal basis for their conclusion that a person who was not a party to a rental agreement but whose rights to use the rented premises in question had been affected had no right to bring a claim to protect its rights . The applicant organisation , insofar as relevant , relied on DATE of the Civil Law ; sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG ; and sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the PERSON on the Privatisation of State and ORG . The applicant organisation contended that none of these provisions prevented it from bringing its claims .","On DATE the ORG of ORG upheld the decision to terminate the proceedings . It noted that section CARDINAL of ORG defined the right to bring a claim as the possibility for an interested person to bring proceedings in order to protect his or her infringed or contested rights . Accordingly , a person could benefit from court protection if his or her claim was connected with an interference with that person \u2019s rights . Moreover , when deciding on a person \u2019s right to bring proceedings , a court had to take into account the fact that nobody had the right to interfere in another person \u2019s civil - law relationships if those relationships did not affect them ( either legally or in practice ) . The court continued :","\u201c The ORG considers that the [ appeal ] court has justly found that because the ORG PERSON foundation is not a party to the rental agreement , it can not contest it . To consider that the interest of a third party DATE which the applicant is with regard to the rental agreement \u2013 in the annulment of a contract ( and hence the restoration of the previous situation ) is justified , it is necessary to establish that as a result of the annulment of that agreement an interference with that person \u2019s rights would be eliminated . However , in the present case , given that the contested apartment has never been in the possession ( vald\u012bjums ) of the ORG PERSON foundation one can not speak of an interference with the plaintiff \u2019s rights . The fact that the collection of art works is situated in the disputed LOC , which have the legal status of residential LOC , contrary to the opinion expressed in the ancillary complaint , does not grant the ORG PERSON foundation the right to acquire possession of the apartment .","As correctly indicated by the [ appeal ] court , the plaintiff \u2019s right to contest the privatisation and ORG property rights should be assessed within the same context . An object such as the apartment owned by ORG can only be claimed from his [ that is to say ORG ] possession by its owner [ by lodging ] a property claim ( section ORG ) , which serves as an owner \u2019s protection against the illegal holding of a possession ( vald\u012bjuma pretties\u012bgu aiztur\u0113jumu ) of its immovable property . In the present case the aforementioned ground for contesting the defendant \u2019s property rights can not be established because the plaintiff \u2019s right to possess the contested object has not been established in a procedure set by law , which , in turn , precludes the reason to talk about interference with rights , as they have not been acquired . \u201d","Sections CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL with regard to different types of situations provide that all rented apartments shall be offered for privatisation to their tenants and their family members . Such persons can acquire title to a rented apartment if no proceedings have been brought requesting the termination of the rental agreement in question and the eviction of the tenants . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the relevant privatisation commission decides on whether to conclude a purchase agreement with a person who has applied for privatisation . On the basis of this decision , the privatisation commission then concludes a purchase agreement . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that only the person who is registered in the land register in respect of a particular property can be recognised as the owner of the privatised object .","Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , rented apartments are offered for privatisation after the privatisation of the residential building in which they are situated has commenced . Nonetheless , the PERSON also sets out the procedure whereby the ownership rights to an apartment can be transferred to tenants prior to the privatisation of the residential building . The decision on whether to transfer the ownership rights to an apartment prior to the privatisation of the residential building is taken by a privatisation commission upon a request of a tenant ( section CARDINAL ) . The name of the person who has acquired ownership rights to an apartment prior to the privatisation of the relevant residential building shall be registered in the cadastral register and from the moment of this registration that person shall be recognised as the owner of the apartment ( sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) ) . However , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , after the privatisation of a residential building has commenced , the person who acquired the ownership rights to an apartment prior to the privatisation of the relevant residential building still has to conclude a purchase agreement , as mentioned in section CARDINAL .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that a court is competent to examine disputes , inter alia , concerning the rights of a beneficiary of privatisation to privatise an apartment , the registration of the privatised object in the land register , and other disputes which may arise in the course of the privatisation of residential buildings and which do not fall to be examined by local municipalities . Under section DATE , the privatisation of an apartment shall be declared unlawful in the following circumstances : the apartment has been privatised in a manner disregarding the sequence of steps set out in this PERSON ; the person concerned has privatised a previously rented apartment without having first informed his or her family members thereof ; or other requirements set out in this PERSON or rules of ORG adopted on the basis of this PERSON have been disregarded .","Section CARDINAL states that rights shall be used and obligations shall be fulfilled in good faith .","Section CARDINAL provides that possession of property is actual control over property conforming to ownership rights . It exists where tangible property is in actual fact under the total control of a person and , in addition , that person demonstrates the intention to act with the property in a similar manner as that of an owner .","NORP Under section CARDINAL , from possession arises the right to protect the existing possession and to renew a possession that has been taken away . These rights apply in respect of every possession , regardless of whether such possession is legal or illegal or is based on good faith or bad faith . Section CARDINAL expressly stipulates that every possession is protected by law .","Section CARDINAL provides that an owner may reclaim his or her property from any third person that holds possession thereof by bringing an ownership claim .","Section CARDINAL defines a legal transaction as an action , carried out in a permitted manner , which establishes , alters or terminates lawful relationships . Section CARDINAL further states that an illicit or indecent action , the purpose of which is contrary to religion , laws or moral principles , or which is intended to circumvent the law , may not be the subject matter of a legal transaction ; such a transaction shall be void .","Section CARDINAL , as worded at the relevant time , provided that if a contract was entered into between absent parties , it should be regarded as definitively concluded from the moment at which the party to whom the offer was made announced to the offering party his or her unconditional acceptance .","Section DATE stipulates that a purchase agreement shall be considered to have been entered into when both parties have agreed on the subject of the purchase and the purchase price . Under section DATE , if both parties , neither of the parties , or only the purchaser knew that it was not permitted to alienate ( atsavin\u0101t ) the object that was being sold , then the contract shall be void . However , if only the seller had that knowledge , then the contract shall remain in effect and the seller must compensate the purchaser for any losses [ incurred as a result of the sale ] .","Section CARDINAL grants every natural and legal person the right to protect in court their infringed or contested civil rights and those of their interests that are protected by law . A person who has brought a case to court has the right to have his or her case examined in accordance with the procedures laid down by law .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that any person , natural or legal , who has reached the age of majority and has capacity to act may bring a claim in court in order to protect any of their civil rights that have been infringed or contested . Section CARDINAL ) states that a prosecutor may bring a claim in order to protect the infringed or contested civil rights of other persons .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , a judge shall refuse to entertain a claim if it has been brought by a person who does not have standing . Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , a court shall terminate proceedings if the claim in question has been lodged by a person who has no standing .","Section CARDINAL states that the work of the city council takes place in meetings and in the permanent committees .","Section CARDINAL provides that during its meetings the city council examines the draft decisions , which have been proposed by the chairperson , the permanent committees or the members of the city council . The draft decisions shall be submitted to the chairperson , who shall decide which permanent committee will assess the draft .","Under section CARDINAL , the permanent committees have the following functions : CARDINAL ) to prepare questions for examination in the city council meetings ; CARDINAL ) to give their opinion concerning matters that are within its competence ; CARDINAL ) in the procedure set out in the rules of the municipality , to oversee the work of municipality institutions and enterprises ; CARDINAL ) to examine the budget proposals of the municipality institutions and enterprises and to submit them to the finance committee ; CARDINAL ) to approve and control the expenditure estimates of the municipality institutions and enterprises ; CARDINAL ) to carry out other obligations in accordance with the rules of the municipality .","In accordance with LAW , DATE and CARDINAL of the Rules of GPE , as in force from DATE until DATE , ORG was to create permanent committees from amongst its members . The permanent committees were to prepare issues for examination in the ORG meetings and their work was to be coordinated by the ORG of ORG .","Rule CARDINAL stated that ORG committees should : CARDINAL ) prepare questions for examination in ORG meetings ; CARDINAL ) give opinions regarding questions falling within its competence ; CARDINAL ) oversee the relevant municipal institutions and enterprises ; CARDINAL ) examine the budget proposals of the municipal institutions and enterprises that were under its supervision and oversee the implementation of the budget ; CARDINAL ) carry out other tasks in accordance with these Rules and the decisions of ORG .","Rule CARDINAL stipulated that the Culture , Art and ORG was to oversee ORG .","Rule CARDINAL stated that ORG was to participate in the development of the programme for the construction of new apartments and oversee the distribution and exchange of apartments . It was to oversee the apartment divisions of the city districts and suburbs , as well as ORG and ORG of ORG .","Rule CARDINAL detailed the rights of the permanent committees when carrying out their supervision tasks . In particular , they had a right to : CARDINAL ) check the paperwork of the municipality officials , institutions and enterprises and receive copies of such paperwork that were necessary for deciding on issues raised in the committee meetings ; CARDINAL ) receive the necessary documents and explanations from the ORG officials , municipal institutions and enterprises with regard to questions that were within the committee \u2019s competence ; CARDINAL ) charge the officials of those institutions with carrying out preparatory tasks necessary for submitting draft decisions to ORG ; CARDINAL ) involve in its work , in a consultative function , experts from the relevant fields .","Under Rule CARDINAL , decisions as to how to resolve disputes between the permanent committees and the municipality officials , institutions and enterprises were to be taken by the chairperson of ORG or the Presidium of ORG .","In accordance with Rules CARDINAL and DATE , following examination by the committees each draft decision was to be examined by the ORG of ORG . If the ORG had objections to the draft decision , it could return it to the committees for another examination . The draft decisions that had been accepted by the ORG were to be included in the agenda of the next ORG meeting for their adoption .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) determines who can be a tenant or a subtenant under a rental agreement concerning residential LOC . It provides that any natural person who lives in GPE permanently or who has received a residence permit in a procedure set out in law may be a tenant or a subtenant in such agreements ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167313","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SMR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"BIAGIOLI v. SAN MARINO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .","summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant is the son of the Commander in Chief of the San Marino Police . He was a lawyer and notary by profession before being disbarred ( radiato ) as a result of criminal proceedings which were instituted in DATE against both father and son for making false declarations in public documents ( reato di falso in atto pubblico ) under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW on DATE . It was alleged that they had altered the content of the police DATE record ( foglio di servizio ) of DATE by adding that they had carried out a check - up on a specific car and person , whereas such a check - up had never been undertaken .","By a judgment of DATE no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , filed in the registry on CARDINAL DATE , both the applicant and his father were found guilty . The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and prohibited from holding public office for DATE .","By judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment , reducing , however , the punishment . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and prohibited from holding public office for DATE . His sentence was suspended for DATE .","More factual details about the criminal proceedings can be found in ORG v. PERSON , DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE .","In the meantime on DATE , ORG ( OAN ) ( hereinafter \u201c the CAN \u201d ) had asked the applicant to submit an explanation as to the facts surrounding the criminal proceedings . By a letter of DATE , the applicant informed the CAN that no charges had been issued against him and that any impugned conduct had not been in connection with the carrying out of his profession .","On DATE , following the issuance of a bill of indictment against the applicant , the CAN once again asked him for explanations , and the applicant submitted the relevant bill of indictment .","Following the delivery of the first - instance judgment , on DATE the CAN requested the applicant to provide a copy of the operative part of the judgment . The applicant complied with the request on DATE , also submitting a copy of his appeal application .","On DATE the applicant was notified that the CAN was instituting disciplinary proceedings against him in respect of a breach of Article CARDINAL of legislative decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , as well as LAW ) of law no . CARDINAL of DATE ( see relevant domestic law below ) .","At the hearing of DATE , as well as in his written submissions , the applicant argued that the disciplinary action against him was timebarred . In any event he requested the suspension of any sanction against him until the judgment finding him guilty had become final .","On DATE , the CAN rejected his argument concerning prescription but suspended the disciplinary proceedings until the criminal proceedings had become final .","On DATE , the applicant challenged that decision before ORG ( libere professioni ) ( CNLP ) , hereinafter \u201c the Commission \u201d .","On DATE the Commission rejected the applicant \u2019s challenge concerning prescription on the basis that the decision of CARDINAL DATE was not a decision on the merits , namely as to whether or not to apply the disciplinary measure , and thus was not subject to an autonomous challenge . Such a challenge could be raised in the context of an appeal in the event of the CAN ordering a disciplinary measure .","On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of the Commission .","Eventually , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s challenge and upheld the ORG \u2019s decision .","Following ORG judgment of DATE in the criminal proceedings against the applicant , on DATE the CAN informed the applicant that disciplinary proceedings were to be continued and that he was to appear at a hearing .","Hearings in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer took place on CARDINAL and DATE , and written submissions were also filed . The applicant made submissions concerning , inter alia , the invalidity of the CAN owing to its constitution ; the generic nature of the accusation ; the fact that the impugned conduct had taken place outside the ambit of his professional activities ; and the lack of proportionality of the measure . He also reiterated his argument that the disciplinary action was time - barred , and requested the suspension of the measure . Without prejudice to his arguments he claimed that in any event , the sanction should not be anything other than suspension for DATE .","By a decision of DATE the CAN disbarred the applicant . It noted that LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE provided that disbarment applied ( importa , di diritto ) in cases of a final finding of guilt under LAW ( relevant to the present case ) . Thus , the CAN had no room for evaluation , discretion or decision making , save for the determination of whether an irrevocable criminal judgment finding guilt actually existed . In the present case , that fact had been ascertained and the judgment had been submitted by the applicant himself . It followed that the CAN \u2019s finding applying such a sanction was simply declaratory , the legislator having prescribed mandatory disbarment in such cases . It further rejected the applicant \u2019s plea concerning prescription in respect of the disciplinary action and his request for suspension of the disciplinary proceedings . It also considered that the disciplinary punishments provided for by law were justified by a general principle , namely that of behaving in line with the duties of correctness , dignity and honour for the profession , even beyond the exercise of the professional activity , in so far as such behaviour may harm the common beliefs of the community . Indeed , the law ( LAW no . DATE ) could only be interpreted in the sense that actions undertaken outside the scope of one \u2019s activity must be subject to disciplinary action if they affected society \u2019s values , reflected on the professional reputation of lawyers or notaries , or compromised the image of the forensic and notarial categories . The correctness of this interpretation was evident given that , according to the law , a finding of guilt brought about disbarment mandatorily , as well as from the wording of LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE concerning the statute of ORG , and the correlation between law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL and legislative decree no . DATE .","On DATE the applicant challenged this decision .","On DATE the Commission confirmed the decision of the CAN in its entirety and rejected the applicant \u2019s challenges concerning the prescription of the disciplinary action , and the composition and constitution of the CAN . It also rejected his allegations concerning the lack of detail about the accusation , the automatic application of the sanction and the incoherence of the CAN \u2019s decision , which had not followed the expert opinion . As for the applicant \u2019s complaint that the facts that had led to the accusation had occurred outside his professional duties , as well as the proportionality of the measure , the Commission referred back to the decision of the CAN , which had found that such arguments were irrelevant given the content of LAW no . DATE and its application in the present case .","On DATE the applicant challenged the ORG \u2019s decision before ORG , reiterating the arguments he had already put forward .","In his application lodged on DATE against the decision of ORG of DATE , the applicant raised a number of pleas ( in a DATE document ) . His pleas concerned issues relating to the law and its application , whether in substance or as a matter of procedure .","NORP In his requests dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant raised CARDINAL more procedural pleas . In a further request he also challenged the constitutional legitimacy of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of legislative decree no . DATE in so far as they did not provide for the possibility of requesting the withdrawal of or abstention by persons sitting on the disciplinary body . He also challenged the legitimacy of LAW no . DATE and Article CARDINAL of legislative decree no . DATE . The applicant argued that the fact that the legislation provided for an automatic sanction , without the possibility of a progressive application of sanctions depending on the specific case , subject to evaluation by the disciplinary body , was contrary to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality .","By a decision of DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s pleas concerning the irregularity of the CAN \u2019s constitution . In particular , as to the constitutional legitimacy of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of legislative decree no . DATE , it considered that , in the present case , the applicant \u2019s inability to request the withdrawal of a member of the organ had not breached his rights . As to the constitutional legitimacy of LAW no . DATE and LAW no . DATE , the court considered that the automatic application of a sanction would be in breach of constitutional principles only if it were not preceded by disciplinary proceedings . In the present case , the applicant had been subjected to disciplinary proceedings during which he had been able to put forward all his arguments and defend himself before both the CAN and the Commission . Indeed , it transpired from the decision of the CAN that that organ had : verified the existence of the disciplinary breach ( by establishing the existence of a final criminal judgment ) ; heard the applicant various times ; established the facts and indicated the relevant provisions relating to the breach at issue ; allowed the applicant \u2019s legal representative full access to the disciplinary file ; and allowed the applicant to make written submissions and call witnesses as well as make any oral submissions in his defence . It followed that although the law provided for automatic application of the measure , as happened in the present case , the measure was applied only after disciplinary proceedings had been carried out in compliance with the relevant rules of procedure . In the present case the disciplinary organs had correctly interpreted and applied the law in conformity with the constitutional principles invoked . The applicant \u2019s complaint was therefore ill - founded .","During the proceedings before ORG , the applicant \u2019s request to suspend the effects of the ORG \u2019s decision pending a decision in the administrative proceedings was rejected on CARDINAL DATE following an oral hearing . ORG rejected the request on the grounds that the applicant had not shown what prejudice he had suffered and bearing in mind the interests of third parties and the crimes of which the applicant had been found guilty by means of a final judgment .","The applicant challenged that decision , but ORG dismissed his appeal on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant reiterated his challenges in respect of the constitutionality of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of legislative decree no . DATE as well as of LAW no . DATE , but this time in the light of ORG and the Convention .","An oral hearing took place on CARDINAL DATE . The decision on the matter was delivered in the main proceedings ( see below ) .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims ( by means of a CARDINAL - page judgment ) .","The court held that as it had already stated in various decisions in the present case , its jurisdiction in the instant case was that provided for under law no . CARDINAL of DATE , as set out in LAW no . DATE , namely judicial review of administrative action ( giurisdizione di legittimita ` ) . Thus the impugned acts could only be challenged on the basis that the decision in the disciplinary proceedings was not in accordance with the law , had been delivered by a body that did not have the requisite jurisdiction or had been delivered in abuse of power . It was not for the administrative court to assess the facts or conduct leading to the decisions , which was the responsibility of the disciplinary body in accordance with the law . According to jurisprudence , in disciplinary proceedings against lawyers the establishment of the misconduct leading to the disciplinary breach was the exclusive competence of the disciplinary organs . However , the decision was subject to a control concerning its reasonableness , in judicial review proceedings . This was also confirmed by the disciplinary bodies\u2019 statements . Other jurisprudence had confirmed that the factual assessment made by the disciplinary organ would be irreproachable as long as it was backed up by sufficient and appropriate reasons , and that judicial review should not extend to an assessment of the evidence or of the gravity of the offence , or the appropriateness of the sanction imposed . The court further noted that those were administrative proceedings and as such were not subject to the guarantees of criminal proceedings .","Bearing in mind the above , the court found that the applicant \u2019s complaints were ill - founded . Concerning constitutional legitimacy , the court confirmed the decision it had delivered on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and noted that the applicant had again reiterated those complaints .","On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG judgment of DATE . He once again reiterated his claims concerning constitutional legitimacy ( mentioned above ) and the lack of adequate reasoning given in this respect by the previous organs . He also challenged the first - instance court \u2019s findings in so far as they had repeatedly relied on previous decisions given in his case . They had also relied on NORP jurisprudence without considering the fact that GPE law was different from NORP law . He further considered that the first - instance court had wrongly interpreted and applied relevant laws in relation to each and every one of his claims .","On DATE the applicant submitted further written submissions on his grounds of appeal . On DATE the parties agreed that no oral pleadings were necessary since the arguments had already been exhaustively made .","The applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed and the judgment of ORG was upheld on appeal on DATE .","ORG noted that the issues of constitutional legitimacy had once again been reiterated . It considered that the CAN and the Commission were disciplinary organs to which ORG and CARDINAL of the LAW , or the equivalent articles of the San Marino ( human rights ) Declaration did not apply . Furthermore , ORG highlighted that the law distinguished between minor crimes and more grave crimes when regulating the application of the various applicable sanctions , including disbarment from a profession . The application of such a serious sanction , which only applied to more serious crimes , in the applicant \u2019s case had been wilfully and consciously decided by the legislator , leaving no discretion to ORG . It was worth noting that in GPE , lawyers also carried out the functions of notaries , and a criminal conviction for making false declarations in public documents was objectively incompatible with the function of a public official which was , by definition , the guarantor of truthfulness and the veracity of documents . Thus , the fact that the law provided an automatic application of the sanction in such cases could not be considered unreasonable or disproportionate , and was thus in conformity with LAW .","As to the applicant \u2019s complaints concerning the first - instance administrative decision , the court found that the first - instance court had given relevant and sufficient reasons in its decision and that its findings were valid . The mere fact that in some instances that decision had relied on NORP jurisprudence only served to further the reasoning in relation to the arguments raised . As to each of the remaining grounds of appeal , ORG entered into each and every one and reached the conclusion that they were all manifestly ill - founded .","The decision to disbar the second applicant was communicated to ORG , which in turn and in accordance with Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of law no . DATE , namely the legal framework concerning the exercise of the liberal professions , struck him off its list of liberal professionals . That entailed the automatic cancelling of his LOC number ( codice operatore economico ) as from DATE .","Article CARDINAL of LAW , concerning the offence of making false declarations in public documents , reads as follows :","\u201c A public official who , in the exercise of his duties , counterfeits or alters a public deed shall be liable to imprisonment and interdiction from public office of the third degree . The same actions carried out by an individual attract a sanction of imprisonment of CARDINAL lesser degree . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of legislative decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , concerning the professional ethics of lawyers and notaries , and in particular their general duties , reads as follows :","\u201c The conduct of anyone registered with ORG must be irreprehensible and characterised by the decorum , dignity and morality associated with his functions , even beyond the exercise of his or her profession as a lawyer or notary . \u201d","Article CARDINAL , concerning sanctions , reads as follows :","\u201c ORG may institute ( dar corso ) disciplinary proceedings against an advocate or notary registered with the Bar , who , in the exercise of the profession , has by any means tarnished the dignity of the profession and the decorum and independence of the forensic and notarial sector , or has been lacking in the performance of his or her professional duties . Having established responsibility in accordance with the gravity of the violation and applying the principle of progressive application of sanctions ( principio di gradualit\u00e0 ) , the ORG shall apply one of the following sanctions :","( a ) - private reprimand ( il richiamo ) to be applied in the case and as provided for in LAW no . DATE","- formal reprimand ( la censura ) to be applied in the case and as provided for in LAW no . DATE","- temporary suspension from the exercise of the profession to be applied in the case and as provided for in LAW no . DATE","- removal from the Bar ( la cancellazione dall\u2019albo ) to be applied in the case and as provided for in LAW no . DATE","- disbarment from the profession ( la radiazione dalla professione ) to be applied in the case and as provided for in LAW no . DATE .","Article CARDINAL reads as follows :","\u201c Decisions of ... ORG may be appealed against by means of a challenge ( opposizione ) and an application before the administrative courts as provided for by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . \u201d","Under LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( concerning discipline in the liberal professions \u2013 libere professioni ) , decisions of ORG may be challenged before ORG , and the latter \u2019s decisions may be challenged under LAW ( see below ) .","In so far as relevant , the pertinent articles of law no . CARDINAL of DATE read as follows :","\u201c ORG has the following functions :","ORG to decide by administrative means challenges to decisions made by ORG on disciplinary matters \u201d .","\u201c The decisions of ORG may be challenged before ORG established by LAW . CARDINAL of DATE . \u201d","\u201c Disciplinary action may be taken in respect of any conduct by a professional , both during the exercise of his functions and beyond such exercise , in so far as such conduct may be detrimental to his own professional dignity , as well as to the decorum and independence of the category of professionals to which he belongs . \u201d","ORG , may , if it considers it appropriate in view of the nature and gravity of the impugned conduct , and applying in so far as possible the principle of progressive application of sanctions ( principio di gradualit\u00e0 ) , apply the following sanctions","- private reprimand ( il richiamo )","- formal reprimand ( la censura )","- temporary suspension from the exercise of a profession","- removal from the Bar ( la cancellazione dall\u2019albo )","- disbarment from the profession ( la radiazione dalla professione ) .","\u201c The sanction of disbarment from the profession is provided for in cases in which the professional has been punished for committing an offence , by means of a final judgment , to imprisonment , interdiction from public office , or to disbarment from the profession , for a term of DATE . Disbarment from the profession is mandatory in cases where a guilty verdict has been passed by means of final judgment for the offences referred to in Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , irrespective of the punishment handed down in the specific case .","Decisions in respect of the preceding Articles nos . DATE , CARDINAL DATE can be adopted only following disciplinary proceedings .","The rules relevant to each respective profession shall determine the method and form of disciplinary proceedings , ensuring in every case the principle of proportionality of the sanction to the infraction committed , the obligation to notify the accused of the accusation , as well as to the latter \u2019s right of defence .","\u201c ... A professional who has been disbarred may be reinstated only if he or she has been rehabilitated and it has been shown that his or her conduct has been irreprehensible . \u201d","Administrative proceedings are provided for by law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE concerning jurisdiction in administrative matters , the review of legitimacy and administrative sanctions . The relevant provisions , in so far as relevant , read as follows :","\u201c Whosoever has a direct and immediate interest in respect of an act on the part of the public administration , social security institution or autonomous ORG agencies or entities which is deemed to be detrimental to his interests may seek a judicial remedy ( pu\u00f2 ricorrere in via giurisdizionale ) before a first - instance administrative judge . \u201d ...","\u201c The first - instance administrative judge is competent to decide in the first instance . If the request is upheld , the impugned act is annulled . \u201d ( The judge may also award costs and give instructions as to the enforcement of the decision . )","\u201c The decisions of the first - instance administrative judge may be appealed against before the administrative appeal judge within DATE of the notification given by the registry . ... The appeal does not suspend the enforcement of the measure . \u201d","Other relevant provisions of domestic law can be found in ORG , ( dec . ) , cited above ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146487","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MANSUR YAL\u00c7IN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general} (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Respect for parents' philosophical convictions;Respect for parents' religious convictions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants live in GPE . They are followers of the Alevi faith . Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON all had school - age children . More specifically , PERSON ( GPE PERSON \u2019s daughter ) , who completed her secondary schooling in DATE , PERSON ( PERSON son ) , who completed his secondary schooling in DATE , and PERSON ( PERSON daughter ) , who completed her secondary schooling in DATE , were attending a secondary educational establishment at the relevant time .","Mr ORG stated that , at the time the domestic proceedings were instituted , his son and daughter had completed the second cycle of secondary education and were in higher education .","PERSON and PERSON , meanwhile , stated that they had attended \u201c compulsory religious culture and ethics classes \u201d at school and that their young children DATE whose ages they did not specify \u2013 would likewise have to attend those classes when they went to school .","In GPE , school attendance is compulsory for all children DATE . For DATE , children attend primary school ( DATE ) . The following DATE are spent in the first cycle of secondary school ( DATE to CARDINAL) . After that , pupils spend a further DATE in school , depending on the subjects chosen , in an upper secondary school ( lise ) .","On DATE the applicants asked ORG to initiate a consultation process with Alevi faith leaders with a view to overhauling the syllabus for religious culture and ethics classes and including Alevi culture and philosophy .","They also requested the introduction of compulsory training for teachers of these classes and the setting - up of a monitoring and supervisory mechanism . They cited in that regard extracts from monitoring reports prepared by ORG which were critical of the content and the compulsory nature of the religious culture and ethics classes .","In its reply of DATE ORG of ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) stated that , in the textbooks used in religious culture and ethics lessons in the primary cycle , priority was given to the teaching of ethical and religious values common to society as a whole . As to the content of the classes at secondary level , the ORG stated that , while respecting the same principles , the syllabus took a supradenominational approach ( mezhepler \u00fcst\u00fc ) and that the religious culture and ethics textbooks also presented other understandings of ORG . It added that the syllabus for the DATE had been drawn up on the basis of this supra - denominational approach , which according to the ORG was centred on the Koran , did not favour any particular branch of ORG and respected the principle of secularism . ORG also mentioned that the syllabus for DATE ( DATE of upper secondary school ) featured public figures who had been important in shaping the NORP understanding of NORP , while the syllabus for DATE explained the different interpretations of ORG , and the Year CARDINAL syllabus contained a wealth of information on PERSON ( bekta\u015fi ) culture . In the same letter , the ORG further specified that teacher training had been introduced ahead of the entry into effect of the new syllabus . Lastly , it observed that topics relating to the Alevi faith had been included in the religious culture and ethics syllabus for secondary schools for DATE .","After receiving the letter from ORG rejecting their proposal , the applicants and CARDINAL other people challenged the ORG \u2019s decision in ORG . Referring to the ORG \u2019s caselaw on the subject , they argued that the teaching provided in religious culture and ethics lessons could not be said to satisfy the criteria of objectivity and pluralism . In support of their argument they presented CARDINAL reports drawn up by various experts who had studied the textbooks used for the subject . Referring to the findings of those reports , they maintained that the textbooks in question provided instruction based on a \u201c NORP \u201d interpretation of ORG and could by no means be regarded as neutral vis\u00e0vis other interpretations of ORG . They relied in particular on LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .","ORG appointed of its own motion a committee of CARDINAL experts tasked with drawing up a report on the teaching provided in the context of religious culture and ethics classes .","On an unspecified date a CARDINAL - page report written by a professor of PERSON ( NORP religious studies ) , a professor of education and a professor of religious sociology was added to the case file and sent to the applicants . The report stated in substance as follows .","( i ) For the purposes of the study the experts had examined the religious culture and ethics textbooks used in schools by DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE as authorised by ORG . The religious culture and ethics syllabus for primary schools had been adopted by a decision of DATE of ORG attached to ORG and had been introduced in DATE to replace the previous syllabus of DATE . The new secondary syllabus had come into effect following a decision of DATE . The textbooks criticised by the applicants had therefore been prepared under the earlier syllabus .","( ii ) The textbooks were structured around CARDINAL main themes : religious culture , ethics and national and spiritual values . The parts concerning ethics and national and spiritual values covered topics common to all citizens . The part concerning religious culture had been drafted using a supradenominational approach centred on fundamental concepts such as the Koran and the LANGUAGE ( PERSON ) , and did not favour any particular branch of ORG .","( iii ) The syllabus did not give precedence to any particular faith . On the contrary , the textbooks reflected a supra - denominational approach . The syllabus observed the principle of objectivity and did not give priority to any faith or any religious group . The textbooks and the syllabus were designed to deliver information on ORG using pedagogical methods .","( iv ) The use of the religious culture and ethics textbooks written by PERSON and PERSON for DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE had been discontinued in DATE following the changes to the syllabus . They had been replaced by new textbooks written by ORG committees . The same was true of the textbooks for upper secondary schools , which had been replaced in the DATE . In drawing up the new syllabus implemented in the DATE , ORG had taken full account of the points raised by the applicants .","( v ) Unlike the former syllabus , the new syllabus covered topics such as the principles of the Alevi faith , the worship , mystical philosophy , ethical understanding , prayers ( niyaz ) and collective prayer ( cem ) of followers of the Alevi faith , and also Alevi principles and rites such as the CARDINAL religious services ( CARDINAL hizmet ) , the path to God , the GPE and DATE ( H\u0131z\u0131r ve GPE orucu ) , the CARDINAL gates ( CARDINAL kap\u026a ) and CARDINAL levels ( CARDINAL makam ) , the CARDINAL GPE ( CARDINAL s\u00fcnnet ) and the CARDINAL obligations ( QUANTITY ) . In the course of preparing the school textbooks and choosing the topics relating to the Alevi faith , worship and ethics , extensive recourse had been had to publications written by prominent PERSON .","( vi ) While the teaching of religion as such took account of the precepts of the Koran and the life of the prophet PERSON , the other interpretations of ORG were covered in the context of cultural information . Hence , the textbooks provided information on ORG , NORP ( caferilik ) , PERSON ( hanefilik ) , Shafism ( \u015fafilik ) , Shiism ( \u015fiilik ) and the NORP movements . They also provided teaching on the foundations of NORP and in particular the CARDINAL prayers , pilgrimage , charity and sacrifice . CARDINAL pages were devoted to the Alevi faith .","( vii ) In conclusion , the report recommended the addition of references to certain aspects of the Alevi faith , for instance festivals , and specified that the cemevi was a place of cultural exchange for ORG rather than a place of worship .","On DATE the applicants contested the expert report and filed additional pleadings . They submitted that the teaching that was provided focused on the NORP interpretation of NORP and that the Alevi faith was presented in summary fashion . Providing examples , they argued that much of the information presented contained errors . In particular , they claimed that the symbols linked to their faith had been ignored and that the mosque was presented as the NORP place of worship . They asserted that certain NORP rituals , namely the prayers or Salat ( namaz ) and ablutions ( abdest ) were imposed and were presented according to the NORP interpretation of NORP . They also complained that the experts had denied that the cemevi was the LOC place of worship . They criticised the Year CARDINAL textbook , in which the main rituals of ORG were reportedly listed as Salat , fasting , pilgrimage and charity , arguing that the information provided was confined to the NORP interpretation of ORG , whereas , in their view , a theological debate was under way as to how Salat should be performed . Lastly , they alleged that the textbooks in question treated the Alevi faith as a tradition or culture rather than as a fully - fledged faith .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicants\u2019 claims on the ground that the refusal of their request by the respondent authorities had conformed to the relevant legislation . The court referred to the findings of the report on the teaching of religious culture and ethics ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , taking the view that religious subjects were dealt with using a supra - denominational approach in the textbooks for both the old and the new syllabus . The court considered that the principle of State neutrality had thus been respected and that the new topics had been chosen taking into account the country \u2019s educational needs .","The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the firstinstance judgment .","In a judgment of DATE , which was served on DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law and upheld the first - instance judgment , which it considered to be in conformity with both the procedure and the law .","The Government provided the following additional information .","DATE a large number of workshops ( \u00e7al\u0131\u015ftay ) had been held in GPE , attended by leaders of the ORG and other faiths , with the aim of examining issues concerning the NORP community . The topics covered included the teaching of religious culture and ethics in primary and secondary schools . Following these workshops it was decided that ORG would overhaul the existing syllabus . A special meeting was organised , chaired by the Secretary of ORG and attended by the leaders of different faith groups in GPE and ORG experts . It was decided at the meeting that the process of overhauling the syllabus would be overseen by ORG .","A series of meetings was held within ORG , designed to allow an exchange of views and to identify the wishes of the different faiths . The meetings were attended by ORG , PERSON and PERSON ( nusayri ) leaders and examined the current syllabus and textbooks . In addition , on the basis of the findings of a report prepared by ORG , ORG and PERSON representatives , the syllabus and the textbooks were amended in order to respond \u2013 in large part , in the Government \u2019s submission \u2013 to the concerns expressed by the leaders of those communities . The new religious culture and ethics textbooks were introduced at the start of the DATE . After overhauling the syllabus the national authorities organised training seminars throughout the country for teachers of the subject .","In GPE , pupils belonging to the NORP and NORP faiths are exempted from religious culture and ethics classes in accordance with decision no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG . The latter decided on DATE and CARDINAL DATE to draw up a religious instruction syllabus specifically designed for NORP and NORP pupils in primary and secondary schools . To that end , a meeting was held in GPE on DATE with NORP spiritual leaders . The national authorities also appointed a university - based coordinator to oversee preparation of the syllabus . At the meetings concerning the new syllabus it was made clear that the spiritual leaders of the faiths concerned were free to design the programme of religious instruction in accordance with their own beliefs , lifestyles and traditions . Accordingly , the NORP representatives sent a draft syllabus to ORG and the NORP representatives informed the ORG that their syllabus was being finalised . The draft syllabuses will be discussed at a meeting to be attended by representatives of the faiths concerned with a view to adoption of a final version .","The Government produced before the ORG a document drawn up by ORG of ORG . According to this document , those responsible for preparing the syllabus had taken care in drawing it up not to favour a particular faith but instead to adopt a supra - denominational approach . The document also stated that the wishes of the different religious groups had been taken into account and that the children of Alevi citizens were not forced to follow a particular religious teaching or practice . It further specified that the new syllabus had been adopted on DATE and had been introduced at the start of the DATE .","The document was accompanied by a summary of the new course content and extracts from the textbooks dealing with the various interpretations of ORG . It explained , among other things , that topics relating to the Alevi - Bektashi , PERSON and PERSON communities had been incorporated in the syllabus and textbooks in question . Those topics are set out below .","The textbooks for DATE and CARDINAL proposed activities related to the sayings of PERSON ( son - in - law of the Prophet PERSON ) . They also contained passages concerning the importance attached to cleanliness by PERSON ( a leading NORP and founder of the GPE brotherhood in DATE ) . Under the heading \u201c Different examples of prayers in our culture \u201d , they dealt with the various interpretations of certain surahs and PERSON prayers . They also referred to the significance of certain DATE and TIME in that faith .","The Year CARDINAL textbook dealt with the CARDINAL compulsory prayers ( namaz ) and the call to prayer ( ezan ) and also took ORG practice into account . It further referred to the role and importance of PERSON in GPE . Lastly , it presented leading figures like PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who had contributed to the adoption of ORG in GPE .","In the textbook for DATE , an item concerning the Muharram fast had been added to the chapter on fasting , which also contained an account of the Battle of Karbala . The chapter entitled \u201c Different interpretations within NORP \u201d explored the PERSON faith . This last section addressed the following topics : the different types of cem , the CARDINAL religious services , the semah , the spiritual brotherhood ( musahiplik ) , prayers and the GPE fast . These topics were also covered in the Year CARDINAL textbook .","Lastly , the textbooks for DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL presented important figures in the Alevi - Bektashi faith and , in different passages , highlighted the role and importance of PERSON in GPE .","The applicants submitted CARDINAL documents in particular to the ORG . The first was a research report compiled for the \u201c Educational reform initiative \u201d ( E\u011fitim Reformu Giri\u015fimi ) by PERSON , an expert on religious freedom and director of the \u201c Initiative for freedom of religion and beliefs in GPE \u201d . The report is entitled \u201c An assessment of the religious culture and ethics syllabus for the DATE \u201d ( DATE \u00d6\u011fretim Y\u0131l\u0131nda Uygulanan Din K\u00fclt\u00fcr\u00fc ve Ahlak PERSON ) .","After analysing the religious culture and ethics syllabus for the DATE , the expert went on to state as follows :","\u201c Syllabus for DATE","If we compare the new syllabus for religious culture and ethics with the previous one , we can see that the changes made do not amount to a thorough overhaul based on principles such as impartiality and objectivity . The changes consisted mainly in adding some new information and moving a few chapters . Among the additions , a long chapter is now devoted to the different interpretations of ORG and certain traditions within ORG ( primarily the PERSON and PERSON traditions ) , including terminology , practices and references .","As to the overall content in terms of the teaching goals and the areas covered , the values and concepts dealt with in the syllabus remain close to those in the previous syllabus and no major changes have been made . Reading materials have been added at the end of each chapter in order to reinforce what has been learnt . In addition , certain principles are spelled out , for instance \u2018 Pupils shall not be compelled to follow religious practices\u2019 and \u2018 Pupils shall not be required to learn verses or hadiths by heart or to copy out prayers and surahs other than those contained in the textbooks\u2019 ..."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174410","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FROLOVS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .","The applicant was charged with several counts of organising , inciting and aiding various crimes against persons and property . CARDINAL of his CARDINAL co - accused , GPE and GPE , had given evidence against him when questioned by the police DATE ; when giving that evidence they stated that the applicant had incited them to engage in certain criminal activities . They also gave evidence as regards the alleged involvement of their co - accused , PERSON , in some of those criminal activities . According to the records of the police questioning , on all but CARDINAL occasion GPE and GPE were questioned by GPE , a police officer , and they did not ask for a lawyer . Subsequently , when questioned by a prosecutor on DATE , DATE stated that police officers had coerced him into incriminating his co - accused , including the applicant ; PERSON told the prosecutor that he would testify in court .","The trial commenced before ORG ( ORG apgabaltiesa ) on DATE and lasted until DATE . During that period CARDINAL court hearings were held in the presence of the applicant and his defence council .","At the trial , GPE and GPE testified that they had never before met the applicant , and that ORG , who had died in the meantime , had been the instigator of some of the crimes . The court read out the pre - trial statements of GPE and GPE When invited to explain the discrepancies between those initial pre - trial statements and their subsequent evidence , they claimed that they had been forced to sign the initial pre - trial statements . DATE submitted that the statements had been illegible and that he had not been given the opportunity to engage a lawyer . PERSON stated that police officer GPE had been writing a record of his questioning while another police officer had questioned him . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON lodged with the first - instance court a written request for the court to take into account his submission that the police had coerced him into incriminating the applicant .","On CARDINAL DATE GPE appeared before the first - instance court . She testified that she had taken statements from the accused . She stated that it was possible that another police officer , ORG , had participated in their questioning . On DATE , ORG appeared before the first - instance court . He testified that while he had questioned GPE and GPE , GPE had been keeping a record of their respective questioning . GPE and GPE denied the allegations of physical or psychological coercion . The applicant \u2019s lawyer , GPE , was given an opportunity to put questions to them .","On DATE submitted a written request to the first - instance court for it to disregard his pre - trial statements as he had been ill - treated and tortured during the pre - trial investigation in order to force him to incriminate his co - accused , including the applicant . Specifically , he had been constantly beaten and ridiculed : electric currents had been applied to his body through his handcuffs , and narcotic substances had been forcibly injected into his veins . Nobody had offered to assign him a lawyer . He had not complained about these incidents at the time because he had been afraid of retribution . However , after the completion of the pre - trial investigation he had complained to the prosecutor , who had ignored his complaint .","In his closing statement , the prosecutor denied the allegations of GPE and PERSON , emphasising that they had not lodged any complaints prior to the first - instance proceedings . During their initial questioning GPE and GPE had given evidence in respect of facts which at that stage had not been known to the police . The credibility of their allegations of coercion was further diminished by the fact that following the death of ORG they had stated that he had been the instigator of some of the criminal activities in question .","On DATE ORG delivered judgment . The court cited the initial pre - trial statements of GPE and GPE incriminating the applicant . It did not regard as credible their submissions that police officers had pressured them into giving those statements . The police officers had also questioned another co - accused , GPE , who , unlike GPE and GPE , had not incriminated the applicant . Furthermore , had the police officers pressurised them into giving their statements , they would have contained more details as regards the applicant \u2019s involvement . A.D. and GPE had signed the statements . The court did not find that their right to legal assistance had been restricted . No complaints as regards the alleged ill - treatment had been submitted or noted down in procedural documents by DATE or GPE , or their lawyers . DATE and GPE had made the allegations of coercion in an attempt to explain why they had subsequently given evidence in favour of their other co - accused , including the applicant , and against their late co - accused , ORG","ORG found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to six years\u2019 imprisonment . It also ordered his detention . As the applicant was not present at the delivery of judgment , he could not be arrested in the courtroom . He was subsequently declared wanted by the police and arrested DATE on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer , GPE , lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment . He argued that the police officers had pressurised DATE and GPE into incriminating the applicant .","On DATE the appeal hearing was held before ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas GPE tiesu pal\u0101ta ) . The applicant did not attend the hearing . GPE submitted that he did not know his whereabouts . The court adjourned the hearing . At the following hearing , held on DATE , the applicant was represented by a different lawyer , PERSON , who had been retained by the applicant \u2019s wife .","On DATE ORG of ORG , referring to Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( GPE kodekss ) , declined to examine the appeal lodged by GPE It noted that the applicant , even though he had been summoned , had failed to appear at the CARDINAL appeal hearings without a valid reason . Similarly , he had failed to attend the closing hearing before the first - instance court . He had been declared wanted and was at large . Given that the applicant had retained ORG to represent him , he had been aware of the proceedings and had intentionally failed to attend , thereby showing disrespect towards the court . In the applicant \u2019s absence the court was unable to ascertain whether he wished to maintain the appeal lodged by his lawyer . Lastly , proceedings in the case DATE which required the examination of voluminous material DATE could not be delayed simply because of the applicant \u2019s unjustified absence .","On DATE PERSON appealed against the aforementioned decision to ORG of the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas ORG departaments ) . He argued that he had not been retained by the applicant but by his wife , on the applicant \u2019s instructions ( uzdevum\u0101 ) . The applicant had not received any summons and his family had no information about his whereabouts or the reasons for his absence . PERSON relied on LAW and complained of an infringement of the applicant \u2019s defence rights .","On DATE the ORG of ORG by a final decision refused to examine the appeal lodged by GPE It noted that the applicant had repeatedly failed to attend the appeal hearings and that \u201c in the criminal case at hand only the accused could maintain the appeals lodged by their lawyers \u201d . This decision was sent to the applicant \u2019s address and to PERSON on DATE .","On DATE ORG of ORG delivered judgment with respect to the appeals lodged by the applicant \u2019s co - accused . It found that the first - instance court had correctly assessed the allegations of GPE and GPE as regards coercion . It also found that they had made those allegations in an attempt to explain why they had subsequently given evidence in favour of their co - accused , including the applicant .","On DATE the aforementioned judgment was upheld by the ORG of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180845","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TSEZAR AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","From DATE armed groups started to seize official buildings in the GPE and GPE regions and announced the creation of self - proclaimed entities known as the \u201c GPE \u201d and \u201c GPE \u201d ( the \u201c ORG \u201d and \u201c LPR \u201d ) .","NORP In response , on DATE the Government , who consider the armed groups to be terrorist organisations , authorised the use of force against them in the legal form of an \u201c anti - terrorist operation \u201d .","NORP In DATE the armed groups started to seize offices of ORG and other regional financial institutions in the GPE and GPE regions .","On DATE the NORP postal service GPE suspended its operations on the territories of the GPE and GPE regions that were outside the control of the Government , because of frequent attacks on its vehicles and employees by armed groups .","On DATE ORG suspended all financial transactions on the territories outside the control of the Government ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Government forces recaptured some territories in the GPE and GPE regions , but certain parts of the regions have remained outside the ORG \u2019s control since that time . CARDINAL part of the GPE region not under the ORG \u2019s control is the city of GPE .","On DATE , following changes in the law , jurisdiction of the courts in the non - controlled areas was transferred to the relevant courts in the neighbouring regions on the territory controlled by the Government ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE all social benefit payments in the settlements of the GPE and GPE regions that were outside the control of the Government were suspended ( see paragraph CARDINAL below )","NORP In DATE ORG and ORG were relocated to the cities of GPE and GPE , territory controlled by the Government ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","The applicants were registered as recipients of social benefits with different departments of ORG GPE in GPE . Some applicants had been receiving their social benefits until DATE , others until DATE .","On DATE the first and second applicants registered themselves with ORG of LOC of GPE ( currently the city of GPE ) , controlled by the Government . On DATE their social benefits was reinstated , including social benefits due to them for DATE to DATE .","The sixth applicant was registered with ORG of LOC in GPE on DATE . However , she did not apply for reinstatement of her social benefits .","The other applicants did not apply to the relevant social authorities on the territory controlled by the Government for reinstatement of their social benefits .","According to the Government , the sixth and seventh applicants travelled from GPE to the territory controlled by the Government after their social benefits had been suspended . The Government provided a certificate from ORG stating that the sixth and seventh applicants had entered the territory controlled by the ORG on DATE , through an authorised checkpoint near the frontline between NORP forces and \u201c ORG \u201d armed groups in the town of GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145788","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF TERSHIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Russia);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Expulsion)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is of NORP ethnic origin . He is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .","The applicant appears to have arrived in GPE in DATE . In DATE he was arrested while attempting to illegally cross the border from GPE to GPE together with several other individuals .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant , together with a number of other accused , of a number of serious criminal offences committed in GPE in DATE , including : creation of an illegal organised armed unit ; illegal border crossing ; illegal possession of firearms , explosives and other weapons ; and creation of a network of clandestine flats in GPE as temporary accommodation for members of illegal armed units operating in GPE . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . His conviction was upheld by the higher courts . The applicant is currently serving his sentence in Prison No . CARDINAL in GPE .","By a decision of DATE , an investigator of the GPE district department of the interior of GPE ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant under LAW of LAW ( participation in an armed unit not envisaged by federal law ) , on suspicion that during DATE , he had been an active member of an illegal armed unit operating in LOC of GPE under the command of PERSON , and that he was still a member of that unit at the time of institution of the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the Vedeno ROVD issued a search warrant in respect of the applicant as a suspect .","On DATE it formally charged him as an accused person under LAW of LAW Criminal Code .","On DATE it issued an international search warrant in respect of him .","By a decision of DATE , ORG of GPE remanded him in custody in absentia .","In the meantime , in DATE the applicant applied to ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) with a request for asylum . It appears that , since DATE , by mutual agreement and understanding between the ORG and ORG , the processing of asylum applications by people originating from GPE was separated from the ordinary government procedure , with applications by members of this group being dealt with directly by the ORG . In DATE the applicant was interviewed by ORG representatives but his application was rejected .","On DATE the NORP Deputy Prosecutor General formally requested ORG to extradite the applicant under LAW ( \u201c the GPE Convention \u201d ) . As an alternative , in the event the extradition was subject to postponement under LAW owing to the fact that the applicant was serving a prison sentence in GPE , he requested the applicant \u2019s \u201c temporary extradition \u201d for a period of DATE for the purposes of carrying out necessary procedural steps in the framework of the criminal proceedings pending in GPE .","The extradition request contained a number of assurances : that the applicant would only be prosecuted in connection with the criminal offence he was charged with ; that he would not be subjected to torture or illtreatment ; and that in the event of \u201c temporary extradition \u201d he would be returned to GPE DATE after being handed over to the NORP law - enforcement authorities .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the NORP First Deputy Prosecutor General granted the extradition request and ordered the applicant \u2019s \u201c temporary extradition \u201d to GPE for DATE .","The applicant , who had a lawyer , lodged an appeal against that temporary extradition order with ORG , arguing that there was a serious risk that he would be tortured or ill - treated by the NORP law - enforcement authorities if he was extradited .","By an inquiry letter of CARDINAL DATE , the judge of the NORP ORG dealing with the case requested ORG the ORG to provide information about the grounds on which the applicant had requested refugee status , and whether any decision had been taken by the ORG in this respect .","By a letter of DATE , ORG of the ORG informed the judge that the applicant \u2019s asylum application had been rejected by the ORG \u201c at first instance \u201d , but that he had lodged an appeal against the decision which was awaiting consideration . The ORG therefore \u201c strongly requested \u201d that the applicant \u2019s forced return to GPE should be \u201c prevented \u201d until a final decision had been taken by the ORG in respect of his application for refugee status .","By a decision of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the temporary extradition order of CARDINAL DATE . The court noted the following : that there were no grounds in the domestic law or relevant international instruments for precluding his temporary extradition to GPE ; that his request for refugee status had been rejected by the ORG , therefore he did not have refugee status at the time of examination of his appeal ; and that the NORP authorities\u2019 extradition request provided the necessary assurances . The court refused to examine the applicant \u2019s complaints concerning an alleged risk of torture or ill - treatment , noting that he had failed to submit any evidence in that regard .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision , reiterating his complaint that he would be subjected to a risk of illtreatment if extradited to GPE , and GPE in particular .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that ORG had reached the correct decision . ORG decision was silent as to the pending examination by the ORG of the applicant \u2019s asylum request and as to his allegations concerning a risk of torture or ill - treatment in the receiving country .","NORP In accordance with the procedural rules concerning appeals against the prosecution authorities\u2019 decisions concerning extradition , no further appeal lay against ORG decision .","According to the Government , on DATE the applicant was interviewed again by the ORG in Prison No . CARDINAL . In his latest communication to ORG ( DATE ) , he provided no update concerning his pending appeal with the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154265","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MORICE v. FRANCE","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus K\u016bris;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Lemmens;Zdravka Kalaydjieva;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , is a lawyer ( avocat ) , member of ORG .","On DATE Mr PERSON , a judge who had been seconded by GPE for DATE as technical adviser to the PERSON Minister of ORG , in the context of cooperation agreements between GPE , was found dead QUANTITY from the city of GPE . His CARDINAL - naked and partially burnt body was lying QUANTITY below a remote road . The investigation by the GPE gendarmerie in DATE that followed concluded that he had committed suicide by self - immolation .","On DATE a judicial investigation was opened at the GPE tribunal de grande instance to determine the cause of death . PERSON body , which was repatriated and interred in GPE , underwent an autopsy on DATE . The report concluded that the death was not suspicious , although the body \u2019s state of decomposition did not permit a precise cause to be established .","On DATE Mrs PERSON , the widow of PERSON GPE and also a judge , disputing the finding of suicide , filed a complaint as a civil party , in her own name and on behalf of her CARDINAL minor children , against a person or persons unknown for premeditated murder . She appointed the applicant , Mr GPE , to represent her in the proceedings .","On DATE and DATE CARDINAL judicial investigations were opened in respect of premeditated murder committed by a person or persons unknown .","In a decision of DATE the judicial investigation into the cause of death and the CARDINAL investigations in respect of premeditated murder were joined .","On DATE ORG accepted a request by the applicant to withdraw the case from the LOC court and it was transferred to the tribunal de grande instance of GPE , where it was assigned on DATE to PERSON , assisted by Mr GPE on DATE , both investigating judges , who were to conduct the judicial investigation jointly .","On DATE a lawyer at ORG informed the police that A. , a former senior officer and member of ORG , who had found asylum in GPE , had certain revelations to make concerning Judge PERSON . The information thus disclosed was transmitted to the NORP authorities via ORG . A judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) records the following sequence of events : Judges PERSON and GPE did not reply , owing to the fact that the witness wished to remain anonymous , and the information was not followed up ; the witness \u2019s NORP lawyer thus contacted the applicant , who arranged for the witness to be interviewed by journalists from the DATE newspaper ORG and the NORP TV channel TFCARDINAL , at DATE ; lastly , it was as a result of the publication and broadcasting of that interview in DATE that Judges PERSON and PERSON decided to go to GPE to assist the NORP investigator in taking evidence from the witness .","On DATE Judges PERSON and GPE interviewed the witness in GPE . It was subsequently alleged by A. that he had been pressurised and intimidated by Judge PERSON so that he would withdraw his testimony , those complaints being expressly made in a letter of DATE from his lawyer to ORG . In addition , the witness accused the public prosecutor of GPE of having threatened him to make him recant his statement , and alleged that the head of the GPE secret services had ordered the head of ORG , PERSON , to draft a statement discrediting him . Captain I. confirmed A \u2019s accusations concerning him .","Proceedings were brought in GPE against the public prosecutor of GPE and the head of the country \u2019s secret services for the procuring of false evidence , and Judge PERSON \u2019s widow and son , the witness NORP , Captain PERSON , and a NORP lawyer PERSON , who was implicated , intervened as civil parties . Evidence was taken from Judge PERSON in her capacity as witness . The public prosecutor and the head of the secret services of GPE were sentenced , respectively , to CARDINAL and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment , and ordered to pay damages to the civil parties , in a judgment of ORG of DATE , before being acquitted by ORG on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , in the context of the judicial investigation in respect of premeditated murder , CARDINAL professional unions of judges and prosecutors , namely PERSON , the ORG professionnelle des magistrats and the ORG , applied to be joined to the proceedings as civil parties .","On DATE the applicant , acting on behalf of PERSON , requested , first , that evidence be taken from the witness , PERSON , in GPE , and secondly that a visit to the scene of the crime in GPE , in the presence of the civil parties , be organised .","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigating judges PERSON and GPE accepted the request concerning PERSON , finding that a new interview was absolutely necessary . They refused , however , to agree to a site visit , as such a visit had already been made twice , once in DATE and again DATE before the decision in question , as they did not see \u201c how a visit to the site in the presence of the civil party would , at th[at ] stage of the proceedings , be helpful for the discovery of the truth \u201d . They added that during their visit to GPE DATE before , they had been accompanied by CARDINAL experts , including the director of ORG , adding that the scene had been filmed and photographed on that occasion .","The applicant and another lawyer appealed against that decision . They filed their pleadings with ORG , like the lawyer acting for PERSON magistrature , arguing that the last site visit in the presence of an expert could be regarded as a reconstruction from which the civil parties had been excluded , and that the sole aim of the investigation was to demonstrate that the victim had committed suicide . They also requested that ORG take over the case from the investigating judges and continue the investigation itself .","In a judgment of DATE ORG of ORG found that after CARDINAL site visits in the absence of the civil parties , CARDINAL of which closely resembled a reconstruction , the need to organise an on - site reconstruction in the presence of the civil parties so that they could exercise their rights was indispensable for the discovery of the truth . Accordingly , it set aside the decision of Judges PERSON and PERSON on that point . In addition , it withdrew the case from them and appointed a new investigating judge , Judge PERSON , to continue the investigation .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor , further to the request of the investigating judge then handling the case , on the basis of LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW , issued a statement to clarify publicly that \u201c whilst suicide had once been the preferred theory , the evidence gathered , especially DATE , now point[ed ] to a criminal act \u201d , adding that the experts\u2019 reports had determined that \u201c PERSON was lying on the ground when liquids were poured over him in a random manner \u201d .","The proceedings are currently still pending .","NORP The Minister of Justice , by acts of DATE and DATE , referred to ORG ( ORG magistrature DATE the \u201c FAC ) , in its capacity as disciplinary board for judges , certain shortcomings attributable to Judge PERSON in the judicial investigation into the \u201c NORP \u201d case for which she was responsible and in which the applicant also represented the civil parties . Judge PERSON was criticised for not devoting the necessary care and attention to the case file , leaving it practically untouched for DATE , for having recourse to a friendly settlement procedure which went beyond the jurisdiction of an investigating judge and for not making copies of all the documents in the case file , thus making it impossible to reconstruct the file after its partial disappearance from her chambers . Judge PERSON requested that the referral to the ORG be declared null and void , particularly on account of the fact that it had been made public by the director of the Minister \u2019s private office at a press conference , even before she had been personally notified of the decision . In parallel , on DATE , ORG of ORG upheld a request by the applicant for the withdrawal of the \u201c Scientology \u201d case from Judge PERSON","On DATE , at a general meeting of judges of the GPE tribunal de grande instance , the issue of the disciplinary proceedings against Judge PERSON was raised , in particular because they had been announced in the press whereas the judge concerned had not been officially informed and the President of that court had not yet been notified . During that meeting a judge , PERSON , stated as follows :","\u201c We are not prohibited , as grassroots judges , from saying that we stand by Judge [ M. ] It is not forbidden to say that Judge [ M. ] has our support and trust . \u201d","The general meeting drafted the following motion , which was adopted unanimously :","\u201c The general meeting of judges of the GPE tribunal de grande instance held on DATE , without disputing the authority conferred on the Minister of ORG to take disciplinary proceedings in the conditions prescribed by law , is surprised to learn from the press that such proceedings have been initiated against Judge [ M. ] , investigating judge in GPE , whereas to date neither the judge herself nor her judicial hierarchy have been officially informed thereof . \u201d","In the context of a magazine interview published in DATE , the chair of PERSON magistrature , a civil party in the GPE case , criticised the \u201c lack of impartiality on the part of Judge M. in the GPE and [ L. ] cases \u201d , adding that the judges who had signed the motion \u201c could not have been unaware that in CARDINAL sensitive cases , the GPE case and the [ L. ] case , her impartiality was seriously called into question \u201d .","In a judgment of DATE , the GPE tribunal de grande instance , in a case brought by the applicant as counsel acting for CARDINAL civil parties , had found the ORG liable for gross negligence on the part of the courts service on account of the disappearance of the so - called \u201c Scientology \u201d file from the office of Judge PERSON It awarded damages to the complainants .","On DATE the ORG dismissed a plea of nullity from Judge PERSON and , on the merits , while reproaching her for a certain lack of rigour or a failure to keep track of the case sufficiently , did not impose any disciplinary penalty on her .","On DATE Judge PERSON , who had been appointed to replace Judges PERSON and PERSON , drafted a report in which he noted the following chain of events . In response to the applicant \u2019s request concerning the video - recording made in GPE in DATE and cited by Judges PERSON and LOC in their decision of CARDINAL DATE , Judge PERSON replied that it was not in the judicial investigation file and was not registered as an exhibit ; on DATE , Judge PERSON asked Judge PERSON whether she still had the video - cassette ; Judge PERSON promptly gave him a closed and undated envelope with her name on , showing no sign of having been placed under seal , bearing the address of Judge PERSON as addressee and that of the public prosecutor of GPE as sender ; the envelope contained a video - cassette and a handwritten card with the letter head of the public prosecutor of GPE , these items then being taken by Judge PERSON and placed under seal . The public prosecutor \u2019s card addressed to Judge PERSON read as follows ( translated from NORP ) :","\u201c Hi PERSON ,","As agreed , I am sending you the video - cassette of the PERSON site visit . I hope the picture will be clear enough .","I watched the show PERSON ( Without any doubt ) on GPE . I noticed once again how PERSON and her lawyers were determined to carry on orchestrating their manipulation .","I \u2019ll call you soon .","Say hello to PERSON if he \u2019s back , and also to GPE [ NORP ] .","Speak to you soon .","Best wishes ,"],"violated_articles":["10","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150238","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PAWLAK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing a number of offences in an armed organised criminal group .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) remanded the applicant in custody . The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question . The risk of the applicant fleeing was also taken into account since he had spent DATE in hiding after a \u2018 wanted\u2019 notice ( list go\u0144czy ) had been issued against him . The court also referred to the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant after conviction .","The applicant \u2019s detention on remand was extended by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . Subsequently it was extended by ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) on DATE , DATE , DATE and on DATE . The applicant \u2019s appeals filed against some of the above decisions were dismissed by ORG on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .","In their detention decisions the courts relied on the original grounds for the applicant \u2019s arrest . They stressed , in particular , the danger of the applicant absconding referring to the fact that he had remained in hiding before his arrest . They further referred to the need to apprehend other members of the criminal group and to obtain additional evidence supporting the case against the applicant . In the courts\u2019 view , the applicant , if released , would try to obstruct the proceedings by passing vital information about the preliminary proceedings onto the other members of the criminal group and by influencing witnesses . The courts concluded that in the context of the applicant \u2019s case , which concerned organised crime , detention on remand was the only security measure to guarantee the proper conduct of the proceedings .","On an unspecified date in DATE the charges against the applicant were severed to a separate set of the proceedings as he was to undergo a psychiatric examination .","On DATE the ORG ( Prokurator Prokuratury Apealacyjnej ) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with ORG . The applicant was charged with several counts of robbery and drug trafficking committed in an organised criminal group .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention on remand until DATE . Subsequently , the same court ordered prolongation of his detention on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) , on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) and on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) . The applicant appealed against all of those decisions but to no avail .","In their decisions the courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant \u2019s detention . They also stressed the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant after conviction .","Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG joined the applicant \u2019s case with the case against the other members of the criminal group . The joined proceedings concerned altogether CARDINAL defendants charged with CARDINAL offences . The prosecution authorities requested that CARDINAL witnesses be heard before the court .","The court scheduled QUANTITY hearings for DATE . Due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and of some of the accused those hearings did not take place .","The trial was eventually opened on DATE . Subsequent scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences of some of the coaccused and due to problems with sound system in the court room .","In DATE ORG gave a severance order and decided to determine charges against CARDINAL co - accused separately .","The bill of indictment was finally read out to the defendants at the hearing held on DATE .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG started taking evidence from the accused . It subsequently held CARDINAL hearings until DATE , during which some of the accused gave evidence . CARDINAL of the scheduled hearings were adjourned due to sick - leaves of the accused . In particular , the hearing scheduled for DATE was cancelled because the applicant and another defendant in the case were feeling unwell . CARDINAL hearing was adjourned because of the motion for disqualification of the judge lodged by CARDINAL of the co - accused .","In DATE ORG continued taking evidence from the defendants . Of the CARDINAL hearings scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL took place . The trial court adjourned DATE hearings due to justified absences of the parties , QUANTITY hearings were cancelled due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and the lay judges .","Meanwhile , the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was lifted on an unspecified date in DATE . He continued to remain in custody as pretrial detention was imposed on him in a separate set of proceedings .","ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL hearings were eventually held . At the hearing of DATE the trial court started taking evidence from witnesses .","Of the CARDINAL hearings cancelled DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned because of a sickleave of the presiding judge , CARDINAL because of absences of witnesses , and the remaining QUANTITY hearings \u2013 because of absences of the parties .","Until DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL were adjourned due to justified absences of the defendants . In particular , the hearing of DATE was adjourned because of the absence of the applicant .","The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the firstinstance court .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki DATE \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) . He sought a finding that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The appellate court found that , considering the complexity of the case and the number of co - accused , who actively tried to obstruct the proceedings , the first - instance court had conducted the proceedings in a correct and timely manner . Consequently , the court refused to award the applicant compensation ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147332","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF V.P. v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant married PERSON , also a national of GPE . On DATE she gave birth to their son , ORG At some point relations between the couple deteriorated . As was established by the NORP courts in subsequent proceedings , on DATE PERSON moved to the town of GPE , in GPE , where her parents lived . The boy , GPE , went with her .","On DATE PERSON initiated divorce proceedings before ORG of GPE . She also sought a residence order in her favour in respect of GPE On DATE the applicant filed a counterclaim seeking a residence order in his favour in respect of the child .","On DATE , while the proceedings were still pending , Ms E.P. left GPE with the child and settled in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the court fixed a contact schedule , pursuant to which the applicant was to be allowed to visit his son .","On DATE the applicant sought a court order prohibiting ORG from leaving the country with the child without his consent . On the same date the court granted the order sought by the applicant . An interim restraining order was issued with immediate effect .","On DATE PERSON , by letter , informed the court and the police that she was opposed to any contact between the applicant and their son . Her letter was certified by a notary public in GPE .","On DATE PERSON obtained a certificate of \u201c temporary residence registration \u201d with ORG in GPE . In DATE she went through this process several times , obtaining such a certificate for the last time on DATE .","In DATE did not take part in the proceedings before the NORP courts ; however , she was represented by a lawyer .","On an unspecified date the applicant contacted the NORP police in order to establish the whereabouts of the child . According to a written reply from the police dated DATE ( which was apparently based on information provided by PERSON parents ) , the applicant \u2019s son was living with his mother at an address on PERSON . Street in GPE .","According to the applicant , on DATE PERSON returned to GPE with the boy . During their stay in GPE she allowed the applicant to see the child twice . During CARDINAL of the visits PERSON informed the applicant that she was living with a new partner , Mr ORG , in GPE and that she had told her son that Mr PERSON was his father .","On DATE left for GPE again , taking the child with her .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the NORP police , seeking the institution of criminal proceedings against ORG for abduction of their child . A police officer of ORG questioned PERSON and Mr ORG , and established that ORG was not preventing the applicant from seeing his son . The police officer concluded that the situation was within the jurisdiction of the civil courts and that there was no need for the criminal prosecution of PERSON","The applicant contacted the NORP police and asked them to verify whether the child and the mother were in fact living at the address on PERSON . Street . On DATE and DATE the NORP police informed the applicant that , according to their information , PERSON and her son were not living at that address .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor charged PERSON , in absentia , under LAW . On the same date her name was put on GPE \u2019s wanted list by the police .","PERSON was represented by CARDINAL lawyers in the divorce and child residence proceedings before ORG . According to a letter issued by ORG , PERSON was properly notified of the hearings , but failed to appear .","On DATE ORG decided the case in favour of the applicant . In its judgment the court analysed the child \u2019s living conditions , the circumstances of separation of the parents , their respective home lives , income , occupation , social habits and so forth . The judgment was upheld at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction DATE on DATE and , in the final instance ( ORG ) , on DATE . The judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as upheld , dissolved the marriage and ordered that the boy \u2019s habitual residence ( domicile ) for the purposes of his upbringing and education should be with his father ( the applicant ) .","On DATE the NORP police ( ORG ) detained PERSON in connection with the criminal proceedings which had been opened against her in GPE , but she was released within TIME .","On DATE PERSON married Mr PERSON in GPE . For some time they lived together in GPE at an address on PERSON . Street . Ms E.P. enrolled the boy in a kindergarten situated in GPE . She requested the kindergarten not to allow the applicant to see the child . The child was also registered with and started to receive treatment at one of the public polyclinics in GPE .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to issue a warrant of execution on the basis of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . As per the Government \u2019s explanations , the applicant lodged this request not directly , but through ORG , which , in turn , forwarded it to ORG of GPE .","On DATE ORG of GPE , with reference to the bilateral treaty between GPE and GPE of DATE , asked ORG to assist the applicant in the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . They informed ORG that ORG was living with his mother at an address on PERSON . Street in GPE .","It would appear that , subsequent to her marriage ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to Mr ORG , a NORP national , PERSON applied for NORP citizenship on the basis that her birthplace had been in GPE and she was married to a NORP national .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s application for a warrant of execution was received by the GPE branch of ORG . On DATE that application , together with enclosed documents , was forwarded to ORG .","On DATE ORG received the application together with the enclosed documents .","On DATE a judge of ORG refused to examine the validity of the judgment of DATE for the purposes of enforcement on the territory of GPE . The judge held that , pursuant to the bilateral treaty between GPE and GPE of DATE and LAW of DATE , such judgments were self - executing and did not need any further action in order to be enforced . In addition , the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had not imposed on the defendant PERSON ) any obligation to act or to refrain from acting in a particular way . ORG concluded that it had no competence to examine the applicant \u2019s application .","The decision of DATE was forwarded to the applicant on DATE by registered mail . According to the Government , it was received by the applicant in GPE on DATE .","On DATE ( on DATE ) , the documents enclosed by the applicant with his application for a warrant of execution were returned to him . As is apparent from the explanations of the Government , those documents were sent through the GPE branch of ORG , which forwarded them to the federal ORG , which , in turn , forwarded the documents to ORG for further dispatch to the applicant .","Having received the decision of DATE , the applicant appealed . However , since by that time the time - limits for lodging an appeal had expired , he first introduced a motion with ORG for waiver of the time - limit .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s motion and ruled that , in view of the applicant \u2019s explanations , the timelimit had to be waived . The appeal was consequently forwarded to ORG of GPE .","On DATE the ruling of DATE was quashed by ORG of GPE . ORG disagreed with the lower court \u2019s interpretation of LAW . Furthermore , ORG noted that the first - instance court was not in a position to conclude whether ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE did not require enforcement , as the materials of the case did not contain a \u201c certified copy of that decision \u201d . The case was remitted to ORG for fresh examination . On DATE the case file was forwarded from ORG to ORG .","On an unspecified date PERSON brought court proceedings before a NORP court seeking to obtain a residence order in respect of the child .","On DATE ORG of GPE refused to consider her application , holding that the dispute had already been resolved by another court , namely ORG .","On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to ORG in which he reiterated his original position and arguments and informed the court that PERSON was continuing to live at an address on PERSON . Street .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE a judge of ORG examined the case file and issued procedural rulings ordering additional evidence to be gathered . In particular , the judge decided to call ORG for a preliminary discussion concerning the case on DATE . On that date the judge set the case for an open hearing and ordered that the parties be notified .","The judge also invited the applicant to resubmit the package of documents he had previously submitted together with his first application of CARDINAL DATE ( letter of CARDINAL DATE , no . CARDINALM-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The judge indicated that those documents should reach ORG before DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE received from ORG of GPE a renewed application for a warrant of execution together with supporting documents . A cover letter by ORG of GPE referred to the provisions of LAW and was very similar to the first letter sent on DATE . The request contained CARDINAL pages of enclosures , consisting of court decisions by the NORP courts in the applicant \u2019s case .","On an unspecified date the request by ORG was forwarded by the federal ORG to its GPE branch .","On DATE the GPE branch of ORG received the application and on DATE forwarded it with the enclosed documents to ORG . In a cover letter addressed to the President of ORG , ORG asked to be kept informed about the developments in the applicant \u2019s case . According to the Government , application and the enclosed documents were only received by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG , following the remittal of the case from ORG of GPE , re - examined the first application . PERSON was present at the hearing . She argued that the original judgment of DATE had been unlawful , as the GPE court had been incompetent to examine the dispute . She insisted that the applicant and the GPE courts had been perfectly aware of her moving to GPE with the child on DATE . She also argued that the NORP courts should not have examined the case , as only the courts of the country where the child and his resident parent or lawful guardian had established de facto residence were competent to hear such a case . According to PERSON , the NORP courts had based their jurisdiction on the \u201c registration \u201d ( propiska ) status of the child , whereas his de facto residence was in GPE , together with his mother . PERSON also argued that she was working and was capable of taking proper care of her son in GPE .","ORG rejected the arguments made by ORG It ruled that the child ( PERSON ) was residing in GPE on a temporary basis , as confirmed by the temporary registration certificates , and that his permanent place of residence was in GPE . Consequently , the GPE court had been competent , under LAW and the bilateral treaty of DATE , to examine the matter .","Further , ORG held that none of the reasons preventing enforcement of a foreign judicial decision stated in Article CARDINAL of ORG existed in the case at hand . The alleged \u201c unlawfulness \u201d of the judgment of ORG under LAW and LAW did not prevent the NORP courts from issuing a warrant of execution .","As a result , the GPE court granted the application and ordered the enforcement of the judgment of DATE on the territory of GPE . It stipulated that that judgment had ordered that the child reside , for the purposes of his upbringing and education , with his father .","Ms E.P. appealed . In her statement of appeal she developed the arguments she had put forward before ORG . In particular , she referred to the provisions of NORP law on the legal status of foreigners which defined a foreigner \u2019s place of \u201c permanent residence \u201d as the place where the foreigner lives permanently and lawfully for a significant amount of time . She also maintained that the enforcement of ORG judgment would be contrary to the best interests of the child , as set forth in the DATE LAW . In particular , she argued that the child did not remember the applicant and considered her new husband , Mr ORG , to be his father , and that returning him to the care of his biological father would endanger his psychological well - being and development . PERSON claimed that the decision of ORG had ignored her son \u2019s best interests : in particular , she referred to the decision of ORG in the case of PERSON , where the NORP courts had refused to enforce a decision of an NORP court , finding that the children involved were living permanently on the territory of GPE and therefore only the NORP courts were competent to decide , on the basis of NORP law , the child residence dispute between the parents .","The applicant lodged a written memorandum in reply to the statement of appeal by PERSON The applicant contested her argument concerning the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the NORP courts in the child residence proceedings . He further insisted that PERSON conduct had been immoral and harmful for the child .","On DATE ORG wrote a letter to the applicant explaining that on DATE it had received a package of documents from the applicant . It appears that this was the same package which the applicant had previously submitted together with his first application for a warrant of execution ( that of CARDINAL DATE ) , which had later been returned to him by ORG on DATE , and which ORG had requested from him again on DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE examined PERSON appeal . The hearing took place in presence of ORG ; the applicant was absent from the hearing . She repeated her argument concerning the distinction between \u201c registration \u201d and \u201c residence \u201d , insisted that the NORP courts had misinterpreted the relevant provisions of LAW , and asserted that they had lacked jurisdiction to hear the case . ORG also referred to the provisions of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , which provided that a foreign judgment should not be executed on the territory of GPE if it could harm the sovereignty or security of GPE or if it was contrary to public policy . PERSON claimed that separating a small child from his mother would be contrary to the public policy of GPE .","Following the hearing ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE . ORG found that the applicant had failed to follow the procedure established by ORG . In particular , he had not submitted the following documents to the NORP courts : a certified copy of ORG judgment , a letter from ORG asking for the enforcement of the judgment on the territory of GPE , a statement by the judge that the judgment had not yet been enforced in GPE , a confirmation by the same judge that ORG and her representative had been duly notified of the date and place of the hearing before ORG , and , finally , a statement by ORG that the judgment had entered into force . ORG also noted that the translations into NORP of the court documents submitted by the applicant had not been made . In such circumstances , ORG should not have granted his application for a warrant of execution \u2013 instead , under LAW was obliged to adjourn the proceedings and give the applicant the opportunity to submit the missing documents . ORG ordered that the case be remitted for fresh consideration .","On DATE the case was received by a judge of ORG . The judge ordered that PERSON be summoned and that she provide details of the address she had stated when obtaining temporary registration in GPE .","On DATE the judge set CARDINAL DATE as the date of the hearing of the case and ordered that PERSON second husband , PERSON ORG , be summoned .","On DATE PERSON left her second husband , Mr ORG , and took the child with her . Mr ORG stated ( see below ) that he was aware that she had moved in with a new partner , but he did not know his name or where they were living .","On DATE a police officer from the ORG visited Mr ORG and inquired about the whereabouts of GPE On DATE a municipal council worker visited Mr ORG and asked him the same question , but Mr PERSON was unable to give any specific information in response . It appears that by that time relations between Mr PERSON and ORG had seriously deteriorated and Mr PERSON was considering starting divorce proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged a motion for interim measures with ORG . He informed the court that PERSON and PERSON ORG had split up , that she had taken the child with her , and that their whereabouts were unknown . He also alleged that her new partner was potentially violent and that he had previously threatened to beat up Mr ORG The applicant claimed that in order to protect the child from the unpredictable behaviour of his mother and her new partner interim measures were needed . First , the applicant asked the court to obtain from the police details of the new address where PERSON was living with the child . Second , the applicant sought an order prohibiting PERSON from leaving GPE and GPE without the applicant \u2019s written consent . Third , the applicant asked the court to make a temporary residence order in respect of the child in his favour , pending the conclusion of the proceedings before ORG .","On DATE the GPE police informed the applicant that the whereabouts of PERSON and her son were unknown , and that a \u201c search file \u201d was open in respect of a minor , PERSON , in the competent department of the police department for ORG .","On DATE Mr ORG wrote a letter to ORG in which he supported the applicant \u2019s claims . In particular , he insisted that ORG had manipulated him , and that by moving in with her new partner she had deprived the child of his adoptive father .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s motion applying for interim measures and dismissed it . ORG held that the interim measures sought by the applicant ( a prohibition on ORG leaving GPE and the grant of a temporary residence order in respect of the child ) amounted , in essence , to CARDINAL separate claims , which went beyond the scope of the enforcement proceedings initiated by the applicant .","On DATE ORG held a hearing , in the presence of PERSON and Mr PERSON as a witness . ORG heard both of them ; in particular , PERSON and Mr PERSON both related the story of their separation . Mr ORG \u2019s testimony was generally consonant with the position of the applicant ; PERSON denied the allegations of improper behaviour and blamed Mr PERSON for their separation . PERSON also informed the court of her current actual address and place of formal registration ( both were in GPE ) .","On DATE ( CARDINAL DATE ) ORG decided to grant the applicant \u2019s application for enforcement of the judgment of ORG making a residence order in respect of the child . ORG found that the applicant had submitted all necessary documents concerning the original judgments of the NORP courts , the proper notification of the defendant and the final character of those judgments . ORG further established that none of the reasons preventing the execution of the foreign judgment stated by LAW ORG or LAW were present in the case . In particular , ORG dismissed the argument by ORG that the enforcement of the decision of ORG in GPE would be contrary to \u201c public policy \u201d . ORG noted that the concept of \u201c public policy \u201d was different from the notion of \u201c national legislation \u201d , and that it referred to the most basic rules by which society functions in economic and social terms and the foundations of the legal order established in LAW .","Next , ORG repeated its earlier argument that the mother and child \u2019s \u201c permanent place of residence \u201d was to be determined on the basis of their place of registration , which was in GPE . In GPE , ORG had temporary resident status and had changed her address several times . Furthermore , the child residence proceedings had been started by the applicant before PERSON had moved from GPE to GPE . ORG concluded that the NORP courts had had jurisdiction in the child residence proceedings . As a result , ORG issued an execution warrant ( no . DATE ) ordering the enforcement of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","It appears that this judgment was not appealed against and thus entered into force .","On DATE execution warrant no . DATE was sent , by registered post , to ORG .","On DATE the execution warrant issued by ORG ( No . DATE ) was received by ORG .","On DATE the warrant was sent back to ORG without execution . The bailiff to whom the warrant was entrusted decided that ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE was \u201c not subject to enforcement \u201d . As is evident from a letter from ORG DATE , ORG did not forward a copy of its decision not to institute enforcement proceedings to the applicant .","DATE . Having become aware of the decision , on an unspecified date the applicant asked ORG to review the case file they held concerning his case . However , those materials were allegedly destroyed during a fire that took place on CARDINAL DATE at the PERSON branch of ORG .","In the meantime the applicant learned , through his own enquiries , that PERSON was living with another man , PERSON , at an address on PERSON . Street . However , on DATE ORG informed the applicant that PERSON and GPE were not living at the address on ORG . Street . According to the owner of the flat , the mother and the child had rented a room in that flat for DATE but had then left without leaving any forwarding address .","On DATE ORG wrote a letter to ORG explaining the reasons for the nonenforcement of execution warrant no . DATE . According to the letter , \u201c the judicial act [ of the NORP courts ] simply acknowledged the fact that the child was living with his father and , by its [ very ] nature , did not require enforcement action [ to be taken ] , since the court ... did not establish an obligation on the respondent to perform certain actions or refrain from performing them . Similarly , the judicial act did not contain an order for removal of the child from the respondent \u2019s [ care ] and his return to the plaintiff \u201d . The ORG recommended that the applicant file a new claim with the courts in GPE in order to obtain an order specifically stating that such actions take place .","On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG of GPE of inaction on the part of ORG , seeking an injunction .","The District Court summoned PERSON , the applicant and the bailiff who had issued the impugned decision . The first hearing was held on DATE , but all of the parties summoned failed to appear , so the court adjourned the hearing to DATE .","The hearing of DATE took place in presence of PERSON and a representative of ORG . However , due to the failure of the applicant to appear , the case was adjourned to DATE .","On DATE the applicant informed the court that he agreed to the examination of the case in his absence .","The new hearing took place on DATE . None of the parties were present , but the court decided to proceed with the examination of the case on the basis of the case file . ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claim that DATE . It found that the execution warrant issued by ORG , based on ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , was valid and enforceable on the territory of GPE . It further held that the decision of the bailiff not to start enforcement proceedings in this respect was unlawful . On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal .","DATE . According to the Government , the bailiff concerned was not subjected to disciplinary action for his failure to enforce the execution warrant due to his dismissal from the civil service .","On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to the NORP police , asking them to inform him of the whereabouts of his son and PERSON As per the reply of ORG of DATE , ORG was living with her son on PERSON . Street in GPE , while being formally registered at another address in GPE .","On DATE PERSON was detained by the NORP police and questioned in relation to her immigration status . According to the authorities , her resident permit had expired on DATE . Ms ORG confirmed that her residence permit had expired but explained that she was in the process of regularising her status . Her case was submitted to a judge , who decided to give her an administrative fine of MONEY .","According to the applicant , on DATE the GPE authorities instituted criminal proceedings again PERSON for illegal crossing of the border .","On DATE PERSON and the applicant \u2019s son left GPE and crossed the GPE - GPE border through the PERSON checkpoint . Sometime later they arrived , via GPE , in GPE . According to the respondent Government , the applicant was notified of this in DATE at the latest .","On an unspecified date in DATE , PERSON met the applicant and handed their son over to him . Consequently , ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE was finally executed . In a letter to ORG the applicant confirmed that information .","In DATE the applicant made numerous attempts to initiate criminal proceedings against PERSON in GPE . His letters to the NORP prosecuting authorities led to numerous inquiries which concerned allegations of violence in respect of GPE , the immigration status of ORG and so forth . However , all of those inquiries were terminated , the investigative authorities having concluded that there was no case to answer .","Thus , on DATE ORG refused to extradite PERSON to GPE in connection with criminal proceedings which had been opened against her there . On several occasions the NORP police refused to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON in GPE ( decisions of CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL DATE ) .","The applicant also called on the NORP child welfare authorities at different levels \u2013 municipal , city and federal \u2013 to act on a number of occasions . According to the ORG , the competent officials repeatedly tried to establish the whereabouts of PERSON and the child , and inspect their living conditions . An inspection of CARDINAL DATE assessed ORG home environment and living conditions . On DATE PERSON was personally examined by a child welfare board at his kindergarten ; the board concluded that ORG was not a victim of violence at home .","On DATE ORG , at the request of the applicant , rendered a new judgment whereby it ordered PERSON to return the child , PERSON , to the applicant . That judgment came into force on DATE .","In DATE the applicant brought proceedings against the NORP Federation seeking compensation for ORG failure to enforce the warrant of execution of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG returned this claim without examination . ORG held that PERSON no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE did not give rise to liability on the part of the ORG for non - enforcement of judgments when the obligation on the defendant consisted of the return of a child to the custody of another parent . On DATE ORG , sitting as a court of appeal , upheld that decision .","On DATE ORG ordered that a duplicate of execution warrant no . DATE be issued . ORG found that the original execution warrant had been destroyed in the fire at ORG premises on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a duplicate warrant of execution in respect of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG opened enforcement proceedings on the basis of that warrant .","On DATE ORG opened enforcement proceedings on the basis of the duplicate of warrant no . CARDINAL ( i.e. the warrant issued on CARDINAL DATE ) . On DATE , DATE , DATE , and on CARDINAL DATE a bailiff visited some of the addresses where ORG had previously lived but did not find her there ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145090","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"VOLYURM AND POPLAVSKYY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The first applicant is a NORP private company , PERSON . The second applicant , Mr PERSON Poplavskyy , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He owns PERCENT of the first applicant \u2019s shares and is its director . The applicants were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , most recently , PERSON , of ORG of GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the ORG allowed the applicant company to set up a petrol station on ORG in GPE . The petrol station started doing business in DATE .","On DATE ORG gave the applicant company a DATE lease of the plot of land on which the above - mentioned petrol station was situated .","On DATE the applicant company signed a contract with a construction company , B. , to upgrade the petrol station . According to the applicants , company B. had moved the petrol pumps away from the petrol storage tanks . Thus , the petrol station had been changed from a \u201c container - type \u201d petrol station ( \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0437\u0430\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0446\u0456\u044f \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0435\u0439\u043d\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0442\u0438\u043f\u0443 ) , with a moveable fuel storage tank above ground , to a \u201c permanent - set \u201d petrol station ( \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u0437\u0430\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0446\u0456\u044f \u0441\u0442\u0430\u0446\u0456\u043e\u043d\u0430\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0442\u0438\u043f\u0443 ) , with a fuel storage tank permanently stored underground .","Following the decision of DATE , on DATE the applicant company and ORG signed a long - term lease agreement . It was noted that when fulfilling the contractual obligations the applicant company was obliged \u201c to comply with the law in force \u201d .","On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the applicant company to temporarily close down the petrol station with effect from DATE .","On DATE the same entity ordered the applicant company to close the petrol station immediately as it was environmentally unsafe .","On DATE the same ORG informed the applicant company that it could reopen the petrol station since the shortcomings indicated in the order of DATE had been corrected . In particular , the latter had received permission to reopen given the acceptable level of air pollution .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the second applicant that it had approved the documents concerning the development project in respect of the above - mentioned petrol station .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision \u201c on the closure of \u2018 container - type\u2019 petrol stations in GPE and the improvement of the surrounding areas \u201d . Referring to the decision of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ( see Relevant Domestic Law below ) and the conclusions of a petrol station inspection commission created in accordance with a decision of ORG of DATE , ORG decided the following :","\u201c the executive body of ORG ( namely , ORG ) should undertake the necessary steps ... to prevent petrol stations , ... which are not licensed or are environmentally unsafe , from functioning and to ensure that they are closed in compliance with the current legal requirements \u201d .","The applicant company \u2019s petrol station figured among CARDINAL petrol stations listed in the appendix to the above - mentioned decision . The appendix was presented as a table containing the names of the petrol stations , their types and compliance with CARDINAL criteria ( fire safety , the approval of ORG , an operational authorisation certificate ( \u0430\u043a\u0442 \u0432\u0432\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0432 \u0435\u043a\u0441\u043f\u043b\u0443\u0430\u0442\u0430\u0446\u0456\u044e ) and documents certifying rights to a plot of land ) . In respect of the applicant company \u2019s petrol station , it was specified that it was a \u201c permanent - set \u201d petrol station , had documents certifying rights to a plot of land , but had no approval from ORG , had no operational authorisation certificate and did not comply with fire - safety requirements .","By a letter of DATE the GPE ORG informed ORG ( ORG \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0456\u043d\u043d\u044f \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0440\u043e\u043b\u044e \u0437\u0430 \u0431\u043b\u0430\u0433\u043e\u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0454\u043c \u043c\u0456\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u041a\u0438\u0457\u0432\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0457 \u043c\u0456\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0457 \u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0457 \u0430\u0434\u043c\u0456\u043d\u0456\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0456\u0457 ) that a number of petrol stations had stopped doing business . The applicant company \u2019s petrol station was on that list .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant company that , by virtue of ORG decision of DATE , the petrol station belonging to the applicant company had to be dismantled . However , the applicant company failed to dismantle it or to bring it into compliance with section CARDINAL of LAW and with the ORG of ORG decision no . CARDINAL of DATE . Therefore , the applicant company was told \u201c either to dismantle the petrol station or to bring it into compliance with legal requirements \u201d .","According to the applicant company , it had prepared a draft of the proposed changes necessary to bring the petrol station into compliance with the legal requirements , but the relevant ORG authorities had decided to dismantle the station . In particular , on DATE the Head of ORG had instructed ORG , in writing , to dismantle the station . The letter in question read as following :","\u201c In accordance with the agreement on cooperation regarding the dismantling of abandoned and ownerless property , I request that you dismantle the petrol station ... in LOC at the following address : CARDINAL . MP \u201c PERSON \u201d DATE , Geroyiv Stalingradu Avenue . \u201d","On DATE the station was dismantled and on DATE its equipment was returned to the applicant company . In the relevant document concerning the return of the equipment it was mentioned that some items were missing .","On DATE the applicant company instituted proceedings in ORG against ORG ( former ORG ) and ORG claiming CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) ( equivalent , at the material time , to around MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .","The applicant company stated that in DATE the petrol station had been upgraded . Initially it had been a \u201c container - type \u201d petrol station , but later it had been upgraded and had become a \u201c permanent - set \u201d one . Following ORG decision of DATE , the applicant company had asked to be allowed to further upgrade the station . However , by a letter of DATE the Head of ORG had ordered the station to be dismantled . The petrol station \u2019s equipment had been damaged during the dismantling and the relevant decision to dismantle the station had been unlawful .","On DATE the court found for the applicant company and awarded it the above - mentioned sum , to be paid by ORG . In a court hearing the latter argued that the petrol station in question had been temporary and ORG of ORG had not approved documents concerning the development project . Moreover , there had been plans to build housing on this piece of land for DATE . Therefore , the applicant company had not received a permit to upgrade the existing petrol station . On DATE ORG informed the applicant company that the petrol station had to be dismantled .","The court found that the petrol station in question had been a \u201c permanent - set \u201d one and was environmentally safe , and that the Obolon ORG had therefore unlawfully refused to permit further upgrading of the station and that the ORG \u2019s request to dismantle the station had not been legal .","On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed that judgment and found against the applicant company . It held that the petrol station had been dismantled by ORG , which had been liquidated without any legal successor . Therefore , the court terminated the proceedings in the case in respect of ORG . It further found that on DATE the applicant company had been ordered by ORG to close the petrol station immediately as it was environmentally unsafe . By a letter of DATE LOC had requested ORG to dismantle the station . The reference to an agreement on cooperation in matters of dismantling abandoned and ownerless property in the letter of DATE had been erroneous . The petrol station equipment had been returned to the applicant company and there was no evidence that the ORG had inflicted any damage on the applicant company .","The applicant company appealed against that judgment , but it did not challenge the termination of the proceedings with respect to ORG . In its cassation appeal , a copy of which was submitted by the applicant company to this ORG , the issue of compliance with the request of DATE was not addressed .","On DATE the Higher Commercial Court of GPE upheld the judgment of DATE . The court found that the petrol station owned by the applicant company had been included in the list of stations which \u201c were not licensed , were environmentally unsafe and were to be closed \u201d annexed to the decision of ORG of DATE . ORG and ORG had instructed the applicant company several times to dismantle the petrol station or bring it into compliance with legal requirements . However , the applicant company had not responded to those requests and recommendations . Moreover , \u201c the letter of DATE should be considered not as an instruction but as a request addressed to a structural subdivision of ORG to perform its functions in the Minskiy ( Obolonskiy ) district \u201d .","On DATE ORG of GPE refused a request by the applicant company for leave to appeal in cassation .","The Government submitted a copy of an undated letter sent by ORG to the Head of ORG . According to that letter , it was impossible to put a petrol station on a plot of land used by the applicant company since it was due to be built on .","The rules of the retail petroleum trade are regulated by the decision of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE . In accordance with those rules , \u201c container - type \u201d petrol stations were to be allowed only in particular places , such as car parks , industrial sites , motor boat moorings and so on . In cities only \u201c permanent - set \u201d petrol stations were allowed to be built . On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers amended its decision by allowing \u201c container - type \u201d petrol stations which were situated in places other than those indicated in its decision of DATE to continue to function until DATE . By a further decision of CARDINAL DATE that deadline was extended to DATE .","Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE , in force at the material time , reads as follows :","\u201c Environmental Requirements of Installation , Design , Construction , Modernisation , Putting into Operation and ORG , ORG and Other Facilities","In the process of designing , constructing and commissioning of new , and modernising operating , enterprises , structures and other facilities , improving existing and introducing new technologies and equipment , as well as in the process of operating these facilities , the environmental safety of the population , the rational use of natural resources and the observance of standards regarding the potentially harmful effects on the environment shall be ensured . In doing so , harmful substances and waste shall be captured , recovered and rendered harmless or completely liquidated , and other requirements shall be complied with so as to protect the environment and the health of the population .","Any enterprise , institution or organisation whose activity has a harmful impact on the environment , regardless of when commissioned , shall be equipped with installations , machines and devices to purify and neutralise all emissions and discharges and mitigate harmful factors , as well as with devices to control the quantity and composition of pollutants and characteristics of harmful factors .","Projects for commercial and other activities shall contain information assessing the effects on the environment and on the health of the population . The assessment shall be carried out taking due account of legal requirements for the protection of the environment , the environmental activity of a given territory , the condition of the environment where the facilities are planned to be sited , environmental forecasting , the socioeconomic prospects of the region`s development , the capacity and types of overall impact of harmful factors and facilities on the environment .","Enterprises , institutions and organisations which plan , design , build , reconstruct , modernise , and commission the construction of enterprises , facilities and other objects , as well as conduct research which they believe might negatively impact on the condition of the environment , shall submit a special application to this effect to the special central body of executive power responsible for environment and natural resources and its local bodies .","It shall be prohibited to commission enterprises , structures and other facilities which do not fully meet all the environmental requirements and measures provided for in the construction and reconstruction plans ( expansion and technical modernisation ) . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178877","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF STRAND LOBBEN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["In DATE the first applicant turned to the child welfare authorities because she was pregnant and was in a difficult situation : she did not have a permanent home and was temporarily staying with her parents , the fourth and fifth applicants .","When the first applicant was CARDINAL GPE pregnant she visited the local hospital and requested a late abortion . On DATE the hospital sent a notice to the child welfare authorities indicating that the applicant was in need of guidance concerning the unborn child and follow - up with regard to motherhood . It also indicated that she needed to stay at a parent - child institution ( \u201c family centre \u201d ) . The child welfare authorities opened a case with the first applicant \u2019s consent . She agreed to stay at a family centre for DATE after the child was born , so that her ability to give the child adequate care could be evaluated .","On DATE the first applicant gave birth to a son , PERSON , the second applicant . The identity of PERSON \u2019s father was unknown to the authorities and the first applicant refused to reveal his name . DATE , on DATE , the first applicant and PERSON moved to the family centre . For DATE the fourth applicant ( X \u2019s grandmother ) also stayed with them . The staff soon became concerned about the first applicant \u2019s parenting abilities and ORG development . On DATE they asked for an emergency meeting with the child welfare authorities because X had lost a lot of weight and the first applicant did not show any understanding of his needs .","On DATE the first applicant withdrew her consent to stay at the family centre . She wanted to leave and take X with her . On DATE the child welfare authorities decided to take X into immediate compulsory care and place him in a foster home on an emergency basis . In the decision they stated that the family centre \u2019s staff had had to check on the family TIME to make sure that X was receiving enough food . Without those checks , they doubted whether X would have survived . After the placement , the first applicant had DATE TIME visits with X. The fourth applicant ( the grandmother ) was present at most of the visits , the fifth ( the grandfather ) at some of them .","The first applicant appealed against the decision of the child welfare authorities to ORG ( fylkesnemnda for barnevern og sosiale saker ) , claiming that she and X could live together with her parents . Her mother , the fourth applicant , was staying at home and was willing to help take care of X. They were also willing to accept help from the child welfare authorities .","On DATE the family centre drew up a report of the first and second ORG stay . The report stated , inter alia :","\u201c The mother does not care for her child in a satisfactory manner . During the time the mother and child have stayed [ at the family centre ] ... , the staff here ... have been very concerned that the child \u2019s needs are not being met . In order to ensure that the child \u2019s primary needs for care and food are met , the staff has intervened and followed - up the child closely day and night .","The mother is not able to meet the boy \u2019s practical care needs . She has not taken responsibility for caring for the boy in a satisfactory manner . The mother has needed guidance at a very basic level , and she has needed advice to be repeated to her several times .","Throughout the stay , the mother has made statements that we find very worrying . She has expressed a significant lack of empathy for her son , and has several times expressed disgust with the child . The mother has demonstrated very little understanding of what the boy understands and what behaviours he can control .","The mother \u2019s mental functioning is inconsistent and she struggles considerably in several areas that are crucial to the ability to provide care . Her ability to provide practical care must be seen in light of this . The mother \u2019s mental health is marked by difficult and painful feelings about who she herself is and how she perceives other people . The mother herself seems to have a considerable unmet care need .","Our assessment is that the mother is incapable of providing care for the child . We are also of the opinion that the mother needs support and follow - up . As we have verbally communicated to the child welfare service , we believe it to be important that the mother is taken especially closely care of in the time following the emergency placement .","The mother is vulnerable . She should be offered a psychological assessment and treatment , and probably needs help to find motivation for this . The mother should have an individual plan to ensure follow - up in several areas . The mother has resources ( cf . the abilities tests ) that she needs help to make good use of . \u201d","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It concluded that it was the first applicant who would be responsible for the DATE care of X , not the fourth applicant , and that the first applicant was unable to provide the care that X needed . Furthermore , the fourth applicant had stayed with the first applicant and PERSON during DATE at the family centre , but had not noticed the first applicant \u2019s lack of parenting skills , even though it had been obvious to the staff .","On DATE X was sent to a child psychiatry clinic for an evaluation . The team at the clinic carried out CARDINAL different observations DATE . Their conclusions were set out in a report dated DATE , which read , inter alia :","\u201c [ X ] was a child with significantly delayed development when he was sent to us for evaluation and observations . DATE he is functioning as a normal DATE baby , and has the possibility of a good normal development . He has , from what can be observed , been a child at high risk . For vulnerable children the lack of response and confirmation , or other interferences in interaction , can lead to more or less serious psychological and developmental disturbances if they do not get other corrective relationship experiences . The quality of the earliest interaction between a child and the closest caregiver is therefore of great importance for psychosocial and cognitive development . [ X ] bears the mark of good psychosocial and cognitive development now . \u201d","The first applicant appealed against the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE to ORG ( tingrett ) which , on DATE , upheld it in full . In the judgment the court found that X had shown signs of both psychological and physical neglect when he was taken into local authority care . Moreover , it did not find that the first applicant \u2019s abilities to take care of X had improved or that the support of the fourth and fifth applicants would be sufficient to ensure that PERSON was given adequate care . The first applicant did not appeal to ORG .","Following the judgment by ORG on DATE , the local authorities applied to ORG for a care order , submitting that the first applicant lacked parenting skills .","On DATE the ORG accepted the child welfare authorities\u2019 application . X remained in the foster home where he had already been placed on an emergency basis in DATE , when first taken into care ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG also decided that contact rights for the first applicant should be fixed at TIME visits per year , under supervision . It concluded , on the basis of the report from the family centre , that if X were returned to the first applicant , there would be serious deficiencies in both the physical and psychological caregiving , which could not be remedied with assistance measures . For those reasons the ORG found that it would be in the best interests of X to be placed in care .","The first applicant appealed against the ORG \u2019s decision and again submitted that the authorities had not tried to intervene in other ways before immediately taking X into care , and that the decision was based on insufficient evidence .","On DATE ORG overturned the ORG \u2019s decision and decided that X should be reunited with the first applicant , but that there was a need for a readjustment period . It found , inter alia , that GPE \u2019s problems with weight gain could have been due to an eye infection .","As a consequence of the judgment , the first applicant \u2019s visits with X were increased with the goal of reunification . According to the child welfare authorities , the visits were characterised by hostility from the first applicant and her parents towards the foster mother . The authorities claimed that after the visits , X had reacted strongly , he had become tired , anxious and insecure , and his sleeping patterns had changed .","The child welfare authorities appealed against ORG judgment and concurrently applied for its implementation to be suspended . They claimed that it was unlikely that the eye infection could have been the reason for PERSON \u2019s slow weight gain . Moreover , the first applicant had had visits with X , but they had not worked well even though she had been given advice on how to improve them . X had had strong reactions after the visits .","On DATE , ORG decided to suspend enforcement of its judgment until ORG had adjudicated the case .","On DATE , the child welfare authorities decided to appoint CARDINAL experts , a psychologist , ORG , and a family therapist , E.W.A. , who submitted their report on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG ( lagmannsrett ) granted leave to appeal on the ground that the ruling of , or the procedure in , ORG had been seriously flawed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It also upheld ORG decision to suspend the implementation of the judgment .","On DATE , the High Court appointed an expert to assess the case , psychologist PERSON , who also submitted a report .","In its judgment of DATE , ORG confirmed the ORG \u2019s decision that X should be taken into compulsory care . It also reduced the first applicant \u2019s contact rights to CARDINAL TIME visits per year .","ORG had regard to the information in the report produced by the family centre on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It also took account of the family consultant \u2019s testimony before the court , in which it had been stated that the first applicant \u2019s mother had lived with her at the family centre for DATE . It went on to state :","\u201c It was particularly after this time that concerns grew about the practical care of the child . The agreement was that [ the first applicant ] was to report all nappy changes etc . and meals , but she did not . The child slept more than they were used to . [ The family consultant ] reacted to the child \u2019s breathing and that he was sleeping through meals . Due to weight loss , he was to be fed TIME around the clock . Sometimes , the staff had to pressure the mother into feeding her son . \u201d","The High Court found that the family centre had made a correct evaluation and DATE contrary to ORG \u2013 considered it very unlikely that the evaluation would have been different if X had not had an eye infection .","Furthermore , ORG referred to the report of DATE from the child psychiatry clinic ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It also took into account the report of the court - appointed expert , PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As the stay at the family centre had been short , ORG found it appropriate to consider the first applicant \u2019s behaviour ( \u201c fungering \u201d ) during the contact sessions that had been organised subsequent to X \u2019s placement in foster care . CARDINAL persons had been entrusted with the task of supervising the sessions , and both had written reports , none of which had been positive . ORG stated that CARDINAL of the supervisors had given an \u201c overall negative description of the contact sessions \u201d .","ORG also referred to the report of the psychologist and the family therapist appointed by the child welfare authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They had assessed X in relation to the reactions that he had shown after visits from the first applicant . In their report , they noted , inter alia :","\u201c there does not seem to be much contact between the mother and [ X ] , including in the periods with frequent contact sessions . He turns away from his mother and prefers to seek contact with others . He tries to distance and protect himself by protesting against his mother , by refusing to eat , by not looking at her and then seeking out the person to whom he has a secure attachment , namely his foster mother . [ X ] becomes uncertain and insecure when he is not \u2018 read\u2019 and understood .","...","... the biggest source of stress for [ X ] is probably not meeting his mother and her extended family during the contact sessions in itself , but the amount of contact and the pressure arising from [ utterances to the effect that ] \u2018 now you \u2019re coming back home\u2019 , and an atmosphere dominated by the mother \u2019s hostility towards the foster mother . It is also a problem that the mother makes negative and offensive statements about the foster mother , so that the atmosphere becomes unpleasant and insecure . It is concluded that [ X ] has reached his tolerance threshold for contact on the occasions when he has fallen asleep immediately once the contact session is over , when he has cried afterwards , been difficult to regulate and calm down , and had difficulties sleeping . \u201d","Furthermore , ORG noted that the court - appointed psychologist , PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , stated in court that the contact sessions had appeared to be so negative that she was of the opinion that the mother should not have right of access to her son . The contact sessions were , in her view , \u201c not constructive for the child \u201d . In conclusion to the question of the first applicant \u2019s competence as a carer , she stated in her report that the stay at the family centre had illustrated that the first applicant \u201c had problems handling and retaining information in such a manner that it could be used to guide her behaviour \u201d . She went on to state :","\u201c It is not a question of a lack of willingness , but of an inadequate ability to plan , organise and structure . Such manifestations of cognitive impairment will be invasive in relation to caring for the child and could result in neglect . \u201d","The High Court agreed with the conclusion of expert GPE , before proceeding to the question whether assistance measures could sufficiently remedy the shortcomings in the first applicant \u2019s lack of parenting skills . In that respect , it noted that the reasons for the deficiencies in competence as a carer were crucial . ORG referred at this point to the expert \u2019s elaboration on the first applicant \u2019s medical history , namely how she had suffered from serious epilepsy since childhood and until brain surgery had been carried out in DATE , when the first applicant had been DATE .","ORG noted that expert PERSON had also pointed out that the first applicant \u2019s medical history must necessarily have affected her childhood in several ways . Her summary as regards the illness and its consequences read as follows :","\u201c Anamnestic information from the school , the specialist health service and the family provides an overall picture of weak learning capacity and social functioning from early childhood into adulthood . [ The first applicant ] performed poorly at school despite good framework conditions , considerable extra resources and good efforts and motivation on her own part . It is therefore difficult to see any other explanation for her performance than general learning difficulties caused by a fundamental cognitive impairment . This is underlined by her consistently low IQ score \u2013 regardless of the epilepsy surgery . She also had problems with socio - emotional functioning , which has also been a recurring topic in all documents that deal with [ the first applicant \u2019s ] childhood and adolescence . A lack of social skills and social adaptation is reported , primarily related to social behaviour that is not adequate for her age ( \u2018 ORG ) and poor impulse control . It is also stated that [ the first applicant ] has been very reserved and had low self - confidence , which must be seen in conjunction with her problems . \u201d","The High Court based its assessment on the description of expert GPE concerning the first applicant \u2019s health problems and the impact they had had on her social skills and development . It further noted that placement at a family centre ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) had been attempted as an assistance measure . The stay had been supposed to last for DATE , but had been interrupted after DATE . As a condition for staying longer , the first applicant had demanded a guarantee that she be allowed to take her son home with her after the stay . The child welfare authorities could not give such a guarantee , and the first applicant had therefore returned home on DATE .","ORG noted that relevant assistance measures were assumed to consist of a supervisor and further help and training in how to care for children . However , ORG found that it would take so long to provide the first applicant with sufficient training that it was not a real alternative to continued foster - home placement . Furthermore , the result of such training was uncertain . In this connection , ORG attached weight to the fact that both the first applicant and her immediate family had said that they did not want follow - up or assistance if PERSON was returned to them . It agreed with the conclusions of the court - appointed expert , PERSON , who had stated in her report :","\u201c In my assessment , there are grounds for claiming that there were serious deficiencies in the care the child received from the mother , and also serious deficiencies in terms of the personal contact and security he needed according to his age and development . [ The first applicant \u2019s ] cognitive impairment , personality functioning and inadequate ability to mentalise make it impossible to have a normal conversation with her about the physical and psychological needs of small children . Her assessments of the consequences of having the child returned to her care and what it will demand of her as a parent are very limited and infantile , with her own immediate needs , there and then , as the most predominant feature . It is therefore found that there is a risk of such deficiencies ( as mentioned above ) continuing if the child were to live with his mother . It is also found that satisfactory conditions for the child can not be created with the mother by means of assistance measures under the LAW relating to ORG , section CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( e.g. relief measures in the home or other parental support measures ) , due to a lack of trust and a reluctance to accept interference from the authorities \u2013 taking the case history into consideration . \u201d","The High Court \u2019s conclusions in its judgment of DATE was that a care order was necessary and that assistance measures for the mother would not be sufficient to allow the son to stay with her . The conditions for issuing a care order under the second paragraph of section CARDINAL of LAW were thus met ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In this connection , ORG also gave weight to the attachment that X had formed to his foster parents , particularly the foster mother .","The first applicant did not lodge an appeal against the judgment .","On DATE the child welfare authorities requested ORG to deprive the first applicant of her parental responsibility for X , which would then be transferred to the authorities , and to grant PERSON \u2019s foster parents , with whom he had stayed since he was taken into care ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , permission to adopt him . The identity of X \u2019s biological father was still unknown to the authorities . In the alternative , the authorities\u2019 proposed that the first applicant \u2019s contact rights be removed .","On DATE the first applicant applied for termination of the care order or , in the alternative , extended contact rights with X.","On DATE the first applicant gave birth to Y , the third applicant . She had married the father of Y in DATE . The new family had moved to a different municipality . When the child welfare authorities in the first applicant \u2019s former municipality became aware that she had given birth to another child , it sent a letter expressing concern to the new municipality , which started an investigation into her parenting abilities .","On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ORG , composed of a lawyer , a psychologist and a lay person , held an oral hearing at which the first applicant was present together with her legal representative . CARDINAL witnesses were heard .","On DATE the ORG decided that the first applicant should be deprived of her parental responsibility for PERSON and that X \u2019s foster parents should be allowed to adopt him . The Board found that there was nothing in the case to indicate that the first applicant \u2019s parenting abilities had improved since ORG judgment of DATE . Therefore she was still considered incapable of giving NORP adequate care . Moreover , the Board stated :","\u201c In her statement before ORG , the mother maintained her view that the care order was a conspiracy between the child welfare service , [ the parent - child institution ] and the foster parents for the purpose of \u2018 helping a woman who is unable to have ORG . In the mother \u2019s words , it was a question of \u2018 an advance order for a child\u2019 . The mother had not realised that she had neglected [ X ] , and stated that she spent most of her time and energy on \u2018 the ORG .","The reports from the contact sessions between the mother and [ X ] consistently show that she is still unable to focus on [ X ] and what is best for him , but is influenced by her very negative view of the foster mother and of the child welfare service .","[ The first applicant ] has married and had another child DATE . Psychologist [ GPE ] has stated before ORG that he observed good interaction between the mother and child and that the mother takes good care of the child . ORG takes note of this information . In ORG opinion , this observation can in any case not be used as a basis for concluding that the mother has competence as a caregiver for [ X ] .","ORG finds it reasonable to assume that [ X ] is a particularly vulnerable child . He experienced serious and life - threatening neglect during DATE of his life . Reference is also made to the fact that there have been many contact sessions with the mother , some of which have been very stressful for [ X ] . All in all , he has been through a lot . He has lived in the foster home for DATE and does not know his biological mother . If [ X ] were to be returned to the care of his mother , this would require , among other things , a great capacity to empathise with and understand [ X ] and the problems he would experience , not least in the form of mourning and missing his foster parents . The mother and her family appeared to be completely devoid of any such empathy and understanding . Both the mother and grandmother stated that it would not be a problem , \u2018 he just had to be distracted\u2019 , and thus gave the impression of not having sympathy with the boy and therefore also being incapable of providing the psychological care he would need in the event of a return . \u201d","In addition , ORG had especially noted the conclusions of expert PERSON They were quoted by ORG in its judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG found that this description of the first applicant was still accurate . In any event , it was decisive that X had established such a connection to his foster family that removing him would result in serious and permanent problems for him .","The ORG assumed that the alternative to adoption would have been continued foster care on a long - term basis , and noted that the foster parents were X \u2019s main caregivers and the ones he thought of as his parents . The foster parents were moreover considered suitable and wanted to take care of X as their own child . The ORG made general reference to ORG decision in PERSON ( Rt . ) DATE page CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and found that the considerations underlying the following passage from that judgment \u2013 reiterated in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE \u2013 were also pertinent to the present case :","\u201c \u2018 A decision that he should remain a foster child would tell him that the people with whom he has always lived and who are his parents and with whom he established his earliest ties and sense of belonging should remain under the control of ORG \u2014 the public authorities \u2014 and that they are not viewed by society as his true parents but rather as foster parents under an agreement that can be terminated . ... \u2019 \u201d","In conclusion , the adoption would be in GPE \u2019s best interests . ORG took LAW into consideration when making its decision .","The first applicant appealed against the decision , claiming that the ORG had made a wrongful evaluation of the evidence when deciding that she was unable to give NORP adequate care . She considered that it would be in PERSON \u2019s best interest to be returned to her and stressed that her situation had changed drastically . The first applicant was now married and had another child that she was taking care of . She had a good support system in her husband and her extended family , and was also prepared to accept help from the child welfare authorities . Moreover , in her view , removing X from the foster home would only cause him problems in the short term ; no long - term problems could be expected . She also claimed that the visits between her and X had worked well .","The child welfare authorities opposed the appeal and submitted that the first applicant \u2019s ability to care for X had not changed since ORG judgment of DATE . The visits between X and the first applicant had not worked well . She had had outbursts during the visits and had left before the time was up . Afterwards X had reacted negatively . The first applicant and her mother had manifested a very negative attitude towards the authorities . Moreover , X had a good attachment to his foster family and had lived with them for DATE . He was a vulnerable child and he needed a caregiver who was sensitive to his needs . They also noted that the first applicant had exposed X and their story on the Internet , together with pictures of them , which could be harmful for X. It was in the best interests of X to be adopted by the foster family .","On DATE ORG , comprised of CARDINAL professional judge , CARDINAL psychologist and CARDINAL lay person , in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , upheld the decision after having held an oral hearing which lasted for DATE and during which CARDINAL witnesses were heard . The first applicant was present together with her legal counsel .","ORG initially noted that the first applicant \u2019s general situation had improved . She had married in DATE , her husband had a permanent job and they had a daughter , Y. It also noted that the child welfare authorities in the couple \u2019s current municipality were conducting an ongoing inquiry concerning the mother \u2019s ability to care for Y. A staff member of the authorities in that new municipality had testified at the oral hearing , stating that they had not received any reports of concern other than that from the authorities in the first applicant \u2019s former municipality . As part of their inquiry they had made observations at the first applicant \u2019s home . They had observed many good things but also that the parents might need some help with routines and structure . ORG found that this indicated that the authorities in the municipality to which the first applicant had moved thought that the parents could give Y adequate care if assisted by the authorities . She was not a child with any special care needs .","However , on the basis of the evidence , the situation was different with regard to X , whom several experts had described as a vulnerable child . ORG referred in particular to a statement from a professional at FAC and ORG Psychiatric Out - Patient Clinic ( Barne- og ungdomspsykiatrisk poliklinikk \u2013 BUP ) explaining that , as late as DATE , X was easily stressed and needed a lot of quiet , security and support . If he was to have a sound emotional development in the future , the carer would have to be aware of that and take it into account . When the first applicant gave evidence in court , she had clearly shown that she did not realise what challenges she would face if X were to be moved from the foster home . She could not see his vulnerability , her primary concern being that he should grow up \u201c where he belonged \u201d . The first applicant believed that returning him would be unproblematic and still did not understand why the child welfare authorities had had to intervene when he was placed in the emergency foster home . She had not wished to say anything about how she thought X was doing in the foster home . In ORG view , the first applicant would not be sufficiently able to see or understand PERSON \u2019s special care needs , and if those needs were not met , there would be a considerable risk of abnormal development .","Furthermore , ORG took account of how the foster parents and supervisor had described PERSON \u2019s emotional reactions after contact sessions with his mother in the form of inconsolable crying and his needing a lot of sleep . During the contact sessions , X had repeatedly resisted contact with the first applicant and , as the sessions had progressed , reacted with what had been described as resignation . ORG considered that a possible reason for that could be that the boy was vulnerable to inexpedient interaction and information that was not adapted to his age and functioning . The first applicant \u2019s emotional outbursts in situations during the contact sessions , for example when PERSON had sought out his foster mother and called her \u201c mummy \u201d , were seen as potentially frightening and not conducive to X \u2019s development .","ORG held that the presentation of evidence had \u201c clearly shown \u201d that the \u201c fundamental limitations \u201d that had existed at the time of ORG judgment still applied . Nothing had emerged during ORG consideration of the case to indicate that the first applicant had developed a more positive attitude to the child welfare authorities or to the foster mother , beyond a statement made by her to the extent that she was willing to cooperate . She had snubbed the foster mother when she had said hello during the contact sessions and had never asked for information about X. The first applicant had left in frustration TIME before the last visit had been scheduled to end . Everyone who had been present during the contact sessions had described the atmosphere as unpleasant . ORG considered that CARDINAL possible reason why the first applicant \u2019s competence at contact sessions had not improved was that she struggled so much with her own feelings and with missing PERSON , that it made her incapable of considering the child \u2019s perspective and protecting him from her own emotional outbursts . An improvement was contingent upon her understanding PERSON and his needs and on her being willing to work on herself and her own weaknesses . The first applicant had not shown any positive developments in her competence in contact situations throughout DATE she had had rights of access . The fact that her parents , the fourth and fifth applicants , had a remarkably negative attitude to the municipal child welfare authorities did not make it any easier for her .","The first applicant had claimed in court that she was a victim of injustice and that she would fight until PERSON was returned to her . To shed light on her own situation , she had chosen to post her story on the Internet in DATE with a photograph of herself and X. In that article and several comments posted during the DATE , she had made serious accusations against the child welfare authorities and the foster parents DATE accusations which she had admitted in court were untrue . The first applicant did not consider that public exposure and repeated legal proceedings could be harmful for the child in the long term .","ORG noted that psychologist PERSON , who had examined and treated the first applicant , had testified that she did not meet the criteria for any psychiatric diagnosis . He had counselled her in connection with the trauma inflicted on her by having her child taken away . The goal of the treatment had been to make the first applicant feel like a good mother . He believed that the previous assessments of the first applicant \u2019s ability to provide care had at that time been incorrect , and argued before ORG that the best outcome for X would be to be returned to his biological mother . However , ORG stated that psychologist PERSON \u2019s arguments had been based on research conducted in DATE , and found them to be incompatible with recent infant research . It noted that the other experts who had testified in court , including psychologists ORG and GPE , had advised against returning PERSON to his mother , as this would be very harmful for him .","In conclusion thus far , ORG agreed with ORG that the first applicant had not changed in such a way as to indicate that it was highly probable that she would be able to provide X with proper care . It endorsed ORG grounds , holding that the first applicant \u2019s clear limitations as a carer could not be mitigated by an adapted transitional scheme , assistance measures or support from her network . It did not find reason to discuss other arguments regarding her ability to provide care in more detail , as returning PERSON to her was in any case not an option owing to the serious problems it would cause him to be moved from the foster home . ORG agreed at this point with ORG in its finding that X had developed such attachment to his foster parents , his foster brother and the general foster home environment that it would lead to serious problems if he would have to move . X had his primary security and belonging in the foster home and he perceived the foster parents as his psychological parents . On those grounds , the care order could not be revoked .","Turning to the issues of deprivation of parental responsibility and consent to adoption , ORG stated at the outset that when a care order has been issued , it is in principle sufficient for removal of parental rights that this is in the child \u2019s best interests . At the same time , it had been emphasised in several ORG judgments that removal of parental responsibility is a very invasive decision and that therefore strong reasons are required for making such a decision ( see , inter alia , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The requirements in respect of adoption were even more stringent . However , the questions of deprivation of parental responsibility and consent to adoption had to be seen in conjunction , since the primary reason for depriving someone of parental responsibility would be to facilitate adoption . The court also took into consideration that if the mother retained her parental responsibility , she might engage in conflicts in the future about the rights that such responsibility entailed , such as exposing the child on the Internet .","ORG went on to declare that adoption could only be granted if the CARDINAL conditions in the third paragraph of section CARDINAL of LAW were met ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the present case , the decisive factor would be whether adoption was in GPE \u2019s best interests and whether consent for adoption should be given on the basis of an overall assessment . Regarding that assessment , several ORG judgments had stated that strong reasons must exist for consenting to adoption against the will of a biological parent . There must be a high degree of certainty that adoption would be in the child \u2019s best interests . It was also clear that the decision must be based not only on a concrete assessment , but also on general experience from child - psychology research . Reference was made to ORG judgment in GPE . DATE page CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Applying the general principles to the instant case , ORG first noted that PERSON was at the time DATE and had lived in his foster home since he was DATE . His fundamental attachment in the social and psychological sense was to his foster parents , and it would in any event be a long - term placement . X was moreover a vulnerable child , and adoption would help to strengthen his sense of belonging with his foster parents , whom he regarded as his parents . It was particularly important to a child \u2019s development to experience a secure and sound attachment to its psychological parents . Adoption would give X a sense of belonging and security in DATE for longer than the period a foster - home relationship would last . Practical considerations also indicated that persons who had care and control of a child and who in reality functioned as its parents should attend to the functions that followed from parental responsibility .","ORG noted that adoption meant that the legal ties to the biological family were broken . In its opinion , X , despite spending DATE of his life with his mother and having many contact sessions , had not bonded psychologically with her . That had remained the case even though he had been told at a later stage that the first applicant had given birth to him .","Furthermore , the court took account of the fact that even if no more contact sessions were organised , the foster parents had taken a positive view of letting X contact his biological parent if he so wished .","Based on an overall assessment , ORG found that it would be in PERSON \u2019s best interests for the first applicant to be deprived of her parental responsibility and for the foster parents to be allowed to adopt him . The court believed that particularly weighty reasons existed for consenting to adoption in the case .","ORG lastly stated that since it had decided that X should be adopted , it was unable to decide on contact rights for the first applicant , since that question would be up to the foster parents to decide on . It mentioned that section CARDINAL of LAW provided a legal basis for fixing rights to access subsequent to adoption ( see paragraph CARDINAL below , where that provision is reiterated , and paragraph CARDINAL below , on the \u201c open adoption\u201d-system ) . ORG was , however , not competent to examine or decide on such rights since its competence was dependent on a party to the case having made a request to that effect . In the instant case , none of the parties had done so .","The first applicant appealed against the judgment , claiming that ORG had evaluated the evidence incorrectly when considering her ability to give X the necessary care . She also argued that ORG should have obtained an evaluation by an expert witness concerning her and her husband \u2019s ability to provide adequate care . She submitted an evaluation made by the municipality in which she currently lived , dated DATE .","On DATE , ORG decided not to grant leave to appeal . It stated that the case did not raise any new legal issues of importance for the uniform application of the law . As concerned the new evidence , the court noted that the evaluation dated DATE had been made by , inter alia , an expert who had testified before ORG and that the document would not change the outcome of the case . Moreover , it observed that the first applicant had not asked for an expert witness to be heard in ORG and had not given any reasons as to why it was necessary to appoint an expert before ORG . Thus there were no reasons for leave to appeal to be granted .","The first applicant appealed against the decision to ORG ( PERSON ) which , on DATE , refused leave to appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180653","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KLEMENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147477","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BAL\u00c1\u017d v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr NORP Chlap\u00edk , a lawyer practising in PERSON . The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant , who is a lawyer , ran a property business and became involved in a dispute with the tax authorities over his tax liability in DATE . That amount depended on the amount of deductible expenses in the relevant DATE , these CARDINAL types of amount being determined by separate decisions in separate sets of proceedings .","On DATE the Tren\u010d\u00edn tax office ordered him to pay the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) in outstanding tax for DATE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the tax office ordered that the above amount be increased by PERCENT by way of a penalty and determined that the applicant \u2019s overall tax liability was the equivalent of some EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","On DATE the tax office decided to secure payment of the applicant \u2019s outstanding tax by prohibiting him from selling or otherwise disposing of any of his real property .","The decision became enforceable on CARDINAL DATE , despite the applicant lodging an appeal , which was dismissed on DATE . The decision was ultimately confirmed by ORG on DATE .","The security established by the tax office had the legal form of a statutory lien and as such was registered in ORG . According to the applicant , the value of the encumbered property was the equivalent of some ORG CARDINAL .","The applicant also appealed against the tax order of DATE . Several tax audits followed . On CARDINAL DATE a decision concerning the deductible expenses for DATE was quashed by ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) , which on DATE dismissed a subsequent complaint regarding a fresh decision on the same matter .","The applicant \u2019s tax liability for DATE was recalculated and reduced several times . Eventually , on DATE , by a decision which became final on DATE , the tax office established that it was actually no more than the equivalent of some EUR CARDINAL .","On DATE the tax office amended its decision of DATE securing payment of the applicant \u2019s outstanding tax and prohibited him from dealing with CARDINAL property .","On DATE the applicant paid the outstanding tax owed .","Consequently , on DATE , the tax office cancelled the decision of CARDINAL DATE in its entirety .","On DATE the applicant , assisted by a lawyer then and throughout the subsequent proceedings , brought a claim for damages against the ORG , in the person of ORG .","He relied on the DATE LAW ( Law no . PERSON . \u2013 \u201c the LAW \u201d ) and pointed out that by its decision of DATE , the tax office had encumbered his real property , which was worth CARDINAL times more than his tax liability under the decision of CARDINAL DATE . Not only that , the decision had then turned out to be based on a completely inaccurate calculation .","He claimed that because of the impugned lien , all of his real property had been encumbered for DATE , which had actually prevented him from carrying out his business activities , causing him to lose profit equivalent to some ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , an amount that he later increased to the equivalent of some EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","The applicant also argued that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had in fact been quashed by the decision of DATE , and that the entire calculation of his tax liability had been erroneous because it had been based on amounts of tax - deductible expenses that had been contested and had later turned out to be wrong .","As to the damage allegedly caused , he calculated it as the interest he could have obtained from a bank for depositing the monetary value of the encumbered property , that value having been established by an expert .","The claim was examined and dismissed at first instance by ORG s\u00fad ) on DATE and following an appeal ( odvolanie ) by the applicant , by ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) on DATE .","Both courts interpreted the applicant \u2019s claim as being aimed at recovering damages in respect of a wrongful official decision ( sections CARDINAL et seq . of LAW ) as opposed to wrongful official action ( sections CARDINAL et seq . of LAW ) . However , under the applicable statute ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) , the first prerequisite for that type of claim to be available was that the alleged damage had to have resulted from an enforceable official decision that had been quashed or amended for being unlawful ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .","ORG explained that prerequisite in further detail , holding that the unlawfulness of the contested decision could not be examined as a preliminary issue in the proceedings in the claim for damages , and had to have been established by the body that had quashed the decision precisely on account of its unlawfulness .","The courts noted that the damage asserted by the applicant had allegedly been sustained as a result of the tax office \u2019s decision of DATE , and found that that decision had never been quashed or amended for being unlawful . It had been cancelled on DATE for a different reason , namely because the applicant \u2019s tax liability had been paid in full .","Both courts concluded that in the circumstances , the principal statutory requirement for the claim to be available had not been met . In addition , ORG found the claim unfounded on several other grounds . These were , however , found by ORG to be superfluous in view of the earlier finding .","An appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) brought by the applicant made in reliance on alleged procedural irregularities was declared inadmissible by ORG on DATE .","He also brought a constitutional complaint alleging a violation of his rights under LAW No . CARDINAL in the above proceedings , which was declared inadmissible on DATE .","ORG held that there was nothing to show that the ordinary courts had dealt with the case unfairly , or that their decisions had been arbitrary . As to the alleged breach of the applicant \u2019s right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions , it considered that it would only be entitled to examine that complaint if the ordinary courts had breached his rights under LAW or its constitutional equivalent ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181394","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF PATALAKH v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE am GPE .","On DATE the GPE am ORG issued an arrest warrant against the applicant as there was a strong suspicion that he had aided the commission of crimes , worth MONEY , of aggravated fraudulent conversion , corruption , corruption in commercial practice and aggravated tax evasion through an elaborate system of bribes and fictitious invoices in connection with international business undertakings by a company . The arrest warrant was based on the risk of his absconding owing to the possible heavy sentence for the offences in question . He was also married to the co - accused , who , like him , was a national of GPE , and he did not have a legal residence or other significant ties to GPE . There was also a risk of collusion . On DATE , he was arrested and ORG ordered his detention on remand . On DATE ORG included additional charges in the arrest warrant .","On DATE the GPE am GPE prosecution authorities brought criminal proceedings against the applicant , charging him with CARDINAL counts of aiding aggravated fraudulent conversion , CARDINAL count of aiding aggravated corruption and CARDINAL counts of aiding aggravated tax evasion . On DATE ORG sent the translation of the CARDINAL indictment to the applicant . On DATE he responded to the indictment and asked the court not to open the main proceedings . On DATE the prosecution authorities asked ORG to amend the proceedings against the applicant , based on the results of the investigation obtained after the criminal proceedings had been brought .","On DATE ORG decided to open the main proceedings , which commenced on DATE . On DATE ORG convicted the applicant on CARDINAL counts each of aiding fraudulent conversion and tax evasion and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The conviction has not yet become final , with appeals lodged by both the applicant and the prosecution authorities still pending at the time the ORG examined the application .","On DATE the GPE am ORG decided to set aside the arrest warrant of DATE , which since the outset had been the basis for the applicant \u2019s continuous detention on remand .","From DATE the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his remand detention before the GPE am ORG and the GPE am ORG without success . Following a request by the prosecution authorities , the GPE am ORG on DATE ordered the prolongation of the applicant \u2019s remand detention . It also ordered that the case file be re - submitted to it by DATE at the latest for the next periodic review . Until that time , it transferred the competency for further reviews to the court having jurisdiction according to the general provisions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . It considered that there was a risk that the applicant might abscond and that continued detention on remand was not disproportionate in light of the sentence which he risked incurring if found guilty . On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against that decision . The court refused to accept it for adjudication , without providing reasons ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , a decision which was served on the applicant on DATE .","Subsequently , the applicant initiated another set of review proceedings before ORG and lodged a complaint of bias against the competent judge . The complaint was eventually rejected in accordance with the proceedings prescribed by law , as were the remedies pursued by the applicant . On DATE the GPE am ORG dismissed an application from the applicant to set aside the detention order as it had become devoid of purpose ( prozessual \u00fcberholt ) because the GPE am ORG had been seized with a review of the applicant \u2019s detention under Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW .","On DATE the prosecution authorities submitted a statement and the case file to the GPE am ORG , requesting the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention on remand in accordance with Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the Code of Criminal Procedure .","On DATE the applicant requested that the detention order be set aside . He also requested that ORG decide on his objection and an appeal to be heard , lodged on DATE against ORG decision of DATE , prior to the expiry of the timelimit given to him to respond to the prosecution authorities\u2019 submission . On DATE ORG dismissed the objection and the appeal to be heard .","On DATE the names of the judges called to decide on the continuation of the applicant \u2019s detention were disclosed to the applicant , following his request of DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint of bias against CARDINAL of the CARDINAL judges concerned , arguing that they had repeatedly contacted the wrong authorities \u2013 either the GPE am ORG or ORG , rather than the prosecution authorities \u2013 to request the case file and had taken DATE to decide on his objection and appeal to be heard . That had amounted to an arbitrary handling of his case and the judges involved could not decide on the continuation of his detention with the necessary impartiality . The judges gave their statements on DATE and DATE . The applicant then requested additional statements from them , which was not deemed to be necessary by ORG on DATE . DATE the applicant lodged another complaint about bias , arguing that their statements in response to his first such complaint could not restore his confidence in their impartiality . The judges concerned again gave statements and the applicant \u2019s counsel was given the opportunity to respond . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s first complaint of bias as ill - founded , finding that there were no indications that the judges concerned were partial , even assuming that they had made a procedural mistake in connection with requesting the case file , leading to a delay in deciding on his objection and appeal to be heard . On DATE the applicant lodged an objection against that decision . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s second complaint of bias as ill - founded , also addressing his objection in its decision .","On DATE ORG asked the GPE am ORG about the current state of the criminal proceedings and what developments there had been . ORG was informed by the prosecution authorities that the criminal proceedings had been brought before ORG , rather than the GPE am ORG , so ORG made a similar enquiry to the court in question on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer sent to ORG CARDINAL comprehensive submissions which he had made in the main proceedings before ORG and asked the appeal court to take them into account when deciding on the continuation of the applicant \u2019s remand detention .","On DATE and on DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL applications with ORG , asking it to take a decision in the pending review proceedings without delay .","On DATE the applicant lodged another constitutional complaint with ORG , alleging that the absence of a decision by ORG in the pending detention review proceedings had violated his right to liberty and security . On DATE ORG refused to accept the complaint for adjudication without providing reasons ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant was served with a decision by the GPE am ORG , taken on DATE and issued on CARDINAL DATE , ordering the continuation of his detention on remand . It found that the risk of his absconding continued to exist . It further considered that in the light of , inter alia , the amount of evidence to be examined , the requests for legal assistance sent to several countries , and the scope and complexity of the case , there was no indication of undue delay in the conduct of the criminal proceedings , with the trial being scheduled to commence in DATE . The applicant \u2019s continued detention on remand was , therefore , proportionate . The court did not address the duration of the review proceedings nor provide any reasons for it ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159048","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DUDAYEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","At the material time the applicant \u2019s family lived in a dwelling comprising several houses in CARDINAL courtyard in FAC in LOC of PERSON . The family included the applicant , her husband PERSON ( also sometimes written as PERSON ) PERSON , their sons , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , Ms Amnat ( also sometimes written as PERSON ) PERSON , the wife of Mr PERSON , and their CARDINAL children , including Mr PERSON . The dwelling was located CARDINAL blocks from the military commander \u2019s office and the LOC police station ( the ROVD ) . The area was under curfew .","On TIME ( in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as TIME DATE ) the applicant \u2019s family were at home . The applicant was not there as she had left to spend TIME at her relatives\u2019 house in GPE .","At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL federal servicemen in uniforms and balaclavas , armed with automatic weapons , arrived in an armoured personnel carrier ( ORG ) at the applicant \u2019s home and unlocked the gate . They then started shooting and throwing grenades at the applicant \u2019s house .","One of the applicant \u2019s sons , Mr PERSON , who was a police officer , shot back for TIME . After that he managed to leave the house and inform the police about the incident . Meanwhile , the applicant \u2019s family lay on the floor to avoid being hit . The applicant \u2019s grandson PERSON was injured in the foot and lower back by a hand - grenade explosion . Another ORG had arrived at the house in the meantime .","TIME the servicemen stormed the building . The applicant \u2019s son Mr PERSON stood up and started moving towards the servicemen , trying to warn them that there were women and children in the house . He was shot in the head before the eyes of his wife and CARDINAL children . His body was moved to another room where he was shot in the head again .","The servicemen then took the applicant \u2019s husband , Mr PERSON , outside and put him in the ORG and drove off . The applicant \u2019s husband has been missing ever since .","At the end of their special operation , the servicemen took the applicant \u2019s family outside and set the house and family car on fire .","The applicant heard of the incident at TIME and immediately went home . Upon her arrival , the applicant was told by relatives of the circumstances of her son \u2019s killing and of her husband \u2019s abduction .","In their submissions before ORG did not contest the facts as presented by the applicant . However , they denied any involvement by ORG agents in the alleged killing of her son and the alleged disappearance of her husband .","NORP In reply to a request from the ORG to submit a copy of the documents reflecting the most important steps taken by the investigation into the events of the night DATE , the Government furnished copies of criminal case files nos . DATE and DATE , running up to CARDINAL pages . The information submitted may be summarised as follows .","On DATE a group of investigators from the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office examined the crime scene . As a result , they collected CARDINAL spent cartridges , CARDINAL bullets and a machine gun as evidence .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s other son , Mr PERSON , a police officer at the ROVD at the time . He stated that at TIME he had been at home and had been woken up by someone opening the outside gates . He had then heard a group of men running into the courtyard . He had asked in NORP and then in NORP who the men were , but had received no reply . He had seen that CARDINAL of them was in camouflage uniform and a balaclava and was armed with a machine gun . The witness had warned the man that he was a police officer . In reply , the man had opened fire and the witness shot back . Then the other intruders had opened fire with machine guns and grenades , in an attack of TIME . The witness had been wounded by grenade splinters in the hand and the torso . He had managed to leave the house and run into the neighbouring courtyard . Meanwhile , the shooting continued . The witness had seen CARDINAL ROVD officers come out after they heard the gunfire . He had explained the situation to them and they had contacted the local military commander \u2019s office and the ROVD by radio . The witness and the police officers had then heard an ORG arriving at the witness \u2019s house , after which the shooting had intensified and had lasted for TIME . Then the CARDINAL APCs had driven off and the gunfire stopped . The police officers had left CARDINAL of their colleagues with the witness and had gone to the house . Upon their return , they had told him that his brother and father had been taken away in the APCs .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s neighbour , PERSON , who stated that on TIME DATE he had been woken up by intense gunfire from automatic firearms at the applicant \u2019s house , which had lasted for TIME . Then he had seen that the applicant \u2019s house had been set on fire . A group of men had shouted and sworn in unaccented NORP and had then driven off in an ORG .","On DATE the investigators questioned another neighbour of the applicant , PERSON , who stated that TIME before he had been woken up by intense gunfire at the applicant \u2019s house . When he had tried to open the door to see what was going on , he had been ordered to stay inside or be shot . He had heard men swearing in NORP .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s neighbours Mr V.A. , Mr A.Ch . and PERSON . PERSON , whose statements were similar to the CARDINAL given by PERSON . PERSON also stated that at TIME someone had demanded that she open her door and let in the wife of Mr PERSON , PERSON , and her children , including the wounded PERSON . PERSON told the witness that all of the men who had been in their house had been killed by the armed men who had arrived in the ORG . On TIME the witness had found a spent QUANTITY calibre cartridge at her home , presumably from an automatic gun .","On DATE the investigators also questioned the applicant \u2019s neighbour , Mr PERSON , whose statement was similar to those of the other neighbours ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . In addition , he stated that the shooting at the PERSON house had continued for CARDINAL and TIME , that the armed men who had attacked the applicant \u2019s family had been an organised group of CARDINAL to QUANTITY men in camouflage uniforms , that they had sworn a lot in unaccented NORP and that they had driven in an ORG . After the shooting he had gone to the house and found the walls and furniture riddled with bullet holes . He had also found the body of the applicant \u2019s son , PERSON , who had been killed in the gunfire .","On DATE , DATE , the investigators also questioned the applicant \u2019s neighbours GPE . , PERSON . and Mr Ab . PERSON , whose statements were similar to those of the other neighbours ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","On DATE the investigators opened criminal case no . DATE ( in the documents submitted the number was also referred to as DATE ) in connection with the murder of the applicant \u2019s son PERSON PERSON by a group of CARDINAL to QUANTITY armed men in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas who had arrived at the [ the applicant \u2019s ] house \u201d .","On DATE the investigators ordered a forensic examination of the body of the applicant \u2019s son Mr PERSON . On DATE the forensic experts concluded that he had died from CARDINAL gunshot wounds to the head .","On DATE the investigators ordered a forensic examination of the applicant \u2019s grandson PERSON . On the same date the experts concluded that he had received a perforating shrapnel wound and a gunshot wound to the torso .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son Mr PERSON complained of the incident to ORG . In particular , he stated that on TIME of the events he had warned the intruders that he was a police officer , but they had opened fire . After TIME of intense shooting , the perpetrators had taken his brother , Mr PERSON , outside and executed him in the courtyard . They had then wounded his nephew PERSON , and had taken away his father , Mr PERSON . Neither the military commander \u2019s office nor the nearby police station had reacted to the gunfire or intervened in any way .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s daughter - in - law PERSON , whose statement concerning the events was similar to that of her brother - in - law , Mr PERSON . In addition , she stated that her husband , Mr PERSON , had been shot dead by the perpetrators , who had been in military uniform and had driven around in CARDINAL APCs . The perpetrators had also taken away the applicant \u2019s husband , Mr PERSON .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s neighbours Mr GPE and Mr GPE . , whose statements were similar to the applicant \u2019s account before the ORG . In addition , Mr M.Kh . stated that after the shooting had stopped , several military vehicles had driven down their street in the direction of the applicant \u2019s house . In the morning he had learned that the attack had been carried out by federal servicemen who had been driving in CARDINAL APCs .","On DATE the investigators ordered a ballistics report on the cartridges , bullets and machine gun collected from the crime scene on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the ballistic experts concluded that the machine gun had been set for single shots only and that the cartridges had come from several different PERSON machine guns .","On DATE the investigators granted the applicant \u2019s son Mr PERSON , the status of victim in the criminal case and questioned him again . He reiterated his previous statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the investigators granted the applicant \u2019s daughter - in - law PERSON the status of victim in the criminal case and questioned her . Her statement was similar to the one given on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition , she stated that the perpetrators had wounded her father - in - law and taken him away in their ORG .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s neighbour PERSON . GPE . , whose statement about the events was similar to those given by the other neighbours and to the applicant \u2019s account before ORG .","On DATE ORG wrote to ORG asking for assistance in the investigation of the criminal case . The letter stated , inter alia , the following :","\u201c ... The GPE prosecutor \u2019s office is investigating a criminal case concerning the killing of PERSON and the wounding of Mr PERSON by a group of unidentified persons armed with automatic rifles .","CARDINAL of the theories being pursued by the investigation is that of the involvement in the crime of military servicemen from ORG ( the ORG ) . In connection with this I request that an investigator from unit no . CARDINAL of the military prosecutor \u2019s office be included in the ORG group to assist in solving the crime ... \u201d","On DATE the PERSON military commander \u2019s office informed the investigators that they had no information about the possible identity of the perpetrators and had not issued orders for a special operation at the applicant \u2019s house .","On DATE the investigation of the criminal case was suspended owing to a failure to identify the perpetrators . The applicant and her relatives were not informed of this .","On DATE the LOC prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as unlawful and premature . He pointed out , among other things , that the investigators had failed to take basic steps , such as questioning the police officers whom PERSON PERSON had met after his escape from the house or questioning the officers from the military commander \u2019s office about the attackers\u2019 use of ORG military vehicles . The investigation resumed on DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant complained of her son \u2019s killing and her husband \u2019s abduction to the LOC administration , which on DATE forwarded her complaint to the investigators for examination .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s neighbour Mr GPE , whose statement was similar to the applicant \u2019s account before the ORG .","On DATE the investigation of the criminal case was suspended owing to a failure to identify the perpetrators . The applicant and her relatives were not informed of this decision .","On DATE the investigators again took up the criminal case on the orders of their superiors after receiving a request for information from the applicant .","On DATE the investigators granted the applicant the status of a victim in the criminal case and questioned her . The applicant \u2019s statement concerning the circumstances of her son \u2019s killing and the abduction of her husband by military servicemen was similar to her account before the ORG . In addition , she stated that even though the servicemen had known that her son Mr PERSON worked in the police , they had still opened fire .","On DATE the investigators again suspended the investigation owing to a failure to identify the perpetrators . They informed the applicant of this decision .","The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG in PERSON . On DATE the court rejected the complaint because DATE the investigators had resumed the proceedings in the criminal case .","On DATE the investigations in criminal cases DATE and CARDINAL were joined under the number DATE ( see below ) .","On DATE the investigators suspended the proceedings in the joint criminal case and informed the applicant .","On DATE the investigation was resumed by the supervising body as having been unlawfully suspended and the investigators were ordered to take fresh steps .","On DATE the investigators again suspended the proceedings in the joint criminal case .","The document submitted shows that the investigation is still pending .","DATE . On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE in connection with the disappearance of the applicant \u2019s husband , Mr PERSON .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s daughter - in - law PERSON and her son Mr PERSON . Their statements were similar to the applicant \u2019s account before the ORG .","On DATE and DATE the investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s neighbours PERSON and PERSON , whose statements were similar to the applicant \u2019s account before ORG . In addition , they stated that the perpetrators of the abduction had been military servicemen .","On an unspecified date in DATE the investigators informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that they were taking search measures to establish the whereabouts of the applicant \u2019s missing husband .","On DATE the investigation of the criminal case was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators . The applicant was not informed .","On DATE the investigation resumed and was again suspended on DATE . The applicant was not informed of either decision .","On DATE the investigators resumed the investigation at the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE she was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned . Her statement was identical to the CARDINAL given in criminal case no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the investigators suspended the investigation on account of a failure to identify the perpetrators and informed the applicant .","The applicant appealed against the decision to suspend the proceedings to ORG . On DATE the court rejected the complaint because earlier on the same day the investigators had resumed proceedings in the criminal case .","On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was joined with the investigation in criminal case DATE under a joint number , DATE .","On DATE the investigators again suspended the proceedings in the criminal case and informed the applicant . The document submitted shows that the joint investigation is still pending ( see above ) .","The Government did not contest the essential facts underlying the application , but claimed that the applicant \u2019s submission was unsubstantiated and that there was no evidence proving \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d that ORG agents had been involved in the killing of the applicant \u2019s son and the disappearance of her husband . In particular , they stated that the applicant herself had not witnessed the incident and that her application had been based \u201c only on the suppositions of her relatives and neighbours \u201d as none of the alleged witnesses had been able to say for sure that the man taken away in the ORG by the abductors had been Mr PERSON .","DATE . The applicant submitted that it had been established \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d that ORG agents had been involved in the attack on her house , which had resulted in the abduction of her husband and the killing of her son . In support of that assertion she referred to the ample evidence contained in her submissions and those of the Government , as well as the contents of the criminal investigation file . In particular , she pointed out that the perpetrators had arrived as a large group in APCs , which could only have been used by the federal forces , and that they had been able to move around freely during the curfew . The local military commander \u2019s office had not reacted to the intense gunfire in the middle of the town during the curfew and the attack had taken place close to the local police station and lasted for TIME . She submitted that she had made a prima facie case that ORG agents had killed her son and abducted her husband and that the Government had failed to provide a plausible explanation for the events . In view of the absence of any news of her husband for a long time and the life - threatening nature of unacknowledged detention in the region at the relevant time , she asked the ORG to consider him dead .","The ORG will examine the application at hand in the light of the general principles applicable in cases where the factual circumstances are in dispute between the parties ( see PERSON v. \u201c the former GPE \u201d [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) .","The ORG has addressed a whole series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances and deaths of applicants\u2019 relatives in GPE . Applying the above\u2011mentioned principles , it has concluded that if applicants make a prima facie case of abduction or killing by servicemen , this is sufficient for them to show that their relatives fell within the control of the authorities , and it is then for the Government to discharge their burden of proof , either by disclosing the documents in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred ( see , among many examples , GPE and Others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL , and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) . If the Government fail to rebut that presumption , this will entail a violation of LAW in its substantive part . Conversely , where applicants fail to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof can not be reversed ( see , for example , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , and GPE and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","The ORG has also found in many cases concerning disappearances that a missing person may be presumed dead . Having regard to the numerous cases of disappearances in GPE which have come before it , the ORG has found that in the particular context of the conflict in the region , when a person has been detained by unidentified ORG agents without any subsequent acknowledgment of the detention , this could be regarded as life\u2011threatening ( see , among many others , GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , DATE , and ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . GPE , CARDINAL , ORG and ORG , DATE ) .","The ORG has made findings of presumptions of deaths in the absence of any reliable news about disappeared persons for periods ranging from DATE ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) to DATE .","Turning to the circumstances of the present case , the ORG notes that the documents from the investigation file provided by the Government ( see , for example , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) demonstrate that the applicant \u2019s son Mr PERSON was shot dead on TIME by a group of armed servicemen who drove around in APCs and opened fire on the applicant \u2019s house during TIME . As a result of the TIME attack , which took place in proximity of the military commander \u2019s office and the police station , the applicant \u2019s husband , Mr PERSON , was taken away by the same group of servicemen and has been missing since . In their submissions to the authorities , the applicant , her relatives and neighbours , pointed out that the killing of Mr PERSON and the abduction of Mr PERSON had been carried out by the same group of perpetrators , who belonged to the federal forces ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The investigators considered this version of events and took steps to verify this assertion ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) . In view of all the evidence in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that ORG agents killed her son and abducted her husband , who subsequently disappeared .","The Government neither contested the essential facts underlying the application nor provided a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . Bearing in mind the general principles set out above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was killed on TIME in the applicant \u2019s house by a group of ORG agents and that her husband Mr PERSON was taken into custody on TIME by the same group of ORG agents . In view of the absence of any reliable news of the applicant \u2019s husband since DATE and the lifethreatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153985","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ADORISIO AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","A. Introduction","NORP Before the events complained of , the applicants variously held shares or subordinated bonds ( the latter under diverse designations ) issued by ORG ( hereafter \u201c SNS NORP \u201d ) , a public limited company ( naamloze vennootschap , \u201c GPE \u201d ) incorporated under GPE law , or CARDINAL or more of its subsidiaries .","SNS Bank N.V. ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) was , and is , a high - street retail bank . It was a subsidiary of the holding company SNS ORG Another subsidiary of that holding company was ORG , an insurance company . ORG own subsidiaries included ORG , ORG and ORG , a private limited company ( besloten vennootschap , \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","DATE the financial position of certain companies within the ORG group deteriorated . By DATE the GPE central bank ( ORG , \u201c DNB \u201d ) was concerned about the conglomerate \u2019s financial health to the point that it decided to seize the Minister of Finance ( Minister PERSON ) of the situation .","Reports relevant to the case were presented on DATE by ORG , a firm of accountants , and on DATE by ORG , a real estate services firm ( a supplement to the latter was presented on DATE ) . ORG had full access to the report by ORG . Copies of the CARDINAL reports submitted by the applicants have parts blacked out . It would appear that these documents were not released to the applicants complete at any relevant time .","B. The expropriation proceedings","DNB \u2019s letter to the Minister of Finance","On DATE DNB wrote to PERSON in the following terms ( footnotes omitted ) :","\u201c CARDINAL . Introduction","On DATE DNB sent the outcome of ORG ) to ORG ( ORG ) in the form of an intended ORG decision . In this intended decision ... DNB notes a capital shortage of MONEY ( ORG ) and states its intent to impose on ORG the measure of having to supplement its core capital by CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL no later than DATE at TIME , or at least to present , no later than DATE at TIME , a final solution which , in the considered view of DNB , has sufficient prospects of success and which will , in the short term , lead to the actual supplementing of the said capital shortage . If ORG should prove unable sufficiently to strengthen its capital position in time , DNB , according to its statement of intent , will consider it irresponsible for ORG to continue banking and DNB will make use of its powers under LAW ( Wet op het financi\u00ebel toezicht ) . ORG has until TIME on DATE to state its views ; DNB will come to a final decision as soon as possible thereafter , taking these views into account . If these views should provide any new insight , then DNB will inform your ministry accordingly as soon as possible .","In the event that DNB in its final ORG decision imposes on ORG the measure referred to in its intended decision and ORG does not comply with the measure thus imposed within the time - limit set , DNB considers it irresponsible for ORG to continue banking . In addition , in the absence of a convincing and final solution it would appear impossible to publish by CARDINAL DATE provisional annual accounts drawn up on the basis of continuity . In view of the expectations raised as regards an overall solution , postponing the publication of DATE accounts without announcing an overall solution for ORG will mean further undermining confidence in SNS LANGUAGE . DNB considers this irresponsible from the point of view of financial stability , also in the light of the increasing flow of publications in the media on the vulnerable position of SNS LOC and the resulting outflow of funds .","Since ORG is a system - relevant institution ( systeemrelevante instelling ) , the threat of insolvency of ORG ( and therefore that of the entire concern ) will mean that the stability of the financial system is in serious and immediate danger . DNB therefore advises you to make preparations to enable the use of your powers under part CARDINAL of LAW immediately after the lapse of the time - limit in a final ORG - decision if and in so far as one is taken , or even sooner if the situation should so require .","In view of the seriousness of the situation and the speed of the developments , DNB considers it important to send you this informative letter \u2013 based on section CARDINAL of LAW \u2013 already now . Paragraph CARDINAL of this letter provides background information relating to the situation of the institution and the supervisory approach adopted by DNB . Paragraph CARDINAL explores financial stability as the guiding point of departure in seeking a solution . Paragraph CARDINAL provides an overview of the solutions examined and the reasons why , as it appears at present , these are not achievable . Paragraph CARDINAL makes a few closing remarks .","Background","...","After a broad survey of possible avenues for a solution by a joint working group , there have been intensive discussions with ORG and market parties about a plurality of ( variants of ) solutions . In its role as supervisor and co - responsible party for the stability of the financial system , DNB has played an initiating and active role in this process of negotiation . With the help of external advisors , a solution has been sought which comes as close as possible to meeting the following basic criteria :","The private sector should be involved as much as possible to limit the financial consequences for the ORG as much as possible ;","Wherever possible , losses should be borne by SNS ORG \u2019s current risk - bearing financiers ( burden sharing ) . This point of departure not merely limits the financial consequences for the ORG , but also serves the stability of the financial system in the long term ;","The intention to forestall an emergency situation ;","It is self - evident that any solution \u2013 involving ORG support DATE should in addition be assured of the approval of ORG ( ORG ) , be structural in character , and be proportionate .","Financial stability","In DNB \u2019s considered view it is not only ORG continuity which is of importance for the financial system , but also that of the holding SNS Reaal .","ORG insolvency will have serious consequences for the stability of the financial system because of ( i ) the costs involved in the implementation of the deposit guarantee scheme , ( ii ) loss of confidence in other GPE financial institutions and ( iii ) the consequences for account holders and the attending unrest . DNB has described these factors in its letter of DATE , in which it is explained that DNB considers the estimated eventual cost flowing from the implementation of the deposit guarantee scheme irresponsibly high , seen also in the light of the general scarcity of capital and the desire of the markets for the anticipated application of PERSON [ a voluntary regulatory standard on bank capital requirements , now due to enter into force in DATE ] ( argument i ) . In order to supplement these arguments , communicated to your Ministry earlier , DNB points to the following factors :","The uncertainty as to the possibility for banks to recover against the estate of ORG bank if the deposit guarantee system is implemented . Since ORG CARDINAL of the deposits guaranteed by that scheme are held by ORG , claims would be in the order of greatness of ORG MONEY per major GPE bank . A situation in which other GPE banks have major claims against the estate of ORG and in which it is uncertain to what extent these will be met in itself undermines the health of , and therefore confidence in , these banks .","Further splitting up ORG into separate parts is not a realistic option . This is caused , in particular , by the interrelation of subsidiaries ORG and ORG with their parent ORG as regards operations and IT ; these subsidiaries use the same infrastructure with their own labels . There is also considerable financial interrelation between ORG and ORG : savings from ORG are used to finance credit ( mortgages ) provided by ORG . Because of these interrelations any insolvency of the parent bank will in practice include that of the subsidiaries and vice versa . Any insolvency of ORG will in addition probably lead to loss of confidence in its subsidiaries as well .","ORG and ORG hold CARDINAL current accounts and CARDINAL savings accounts , with a total credit balance of approximately ORG MONEY . At least EUR DATE is paid into CARDINAL of the current accounts , which is an indication that these accounts play an important role in the financial transactions of individuals . Consequently all sorts of practical problems [ sic ] resulting from any insolvency of ORG , such as cashpoints breaking down or standing orders being stopped , will have enormous social effects [ sic ] .","...","Conclusion","... [ It would appear ] , at this moment , that nationalisation of the conglomerate as a whole is the only remaining solution for SNS LOC . For a decision to expropriate to be taken , there has to be a situation of \u2018 serious and immediate danger to the stability of the financial system\u2019 . As has been observed in the introduction to this letter , DNB considers it irresponsible for ORG to continue banking in the event that DNB in its final ORG - decision imposes on ORG the measure referred to in its intended decision and ORG does not comply with the measure thus imposed within the time - limit set . In the considered view of DNB the above - mentioned legal criterion for nationalisation will then have been met . Should you decide not to proceed with nationalisation , DNB , as the responsible supervisor , would be compelled to seek an emergency arrangement , which would mean implementing the deposit guarantee system .","An emergency situation is therefore imminent . In the introduction to this letter attention has been drawn to the danger of loss of confidence as a result of any postponement of publication of the DATE accounts without announcing an overall solution for SNS Reaal . There is already a loss of confidence , which has manifested itself in an outflow of funds in an amount of QUANTITY since the reports of CARDINAL DATE about the position taken by the ORG in this case ; actually , if it had not been for public confidence in the safety net provided by the ORG the outflow would probably have been considerably greater .","In addition to publication of the DATE accounts without announcing an overall solution DNB notes other events that could be the beginning of an emergency situation . In the first place , DNB can not allow NORP and\/or ORG to increase lending to the holding SNS LOC with which to repay external financing that will end in DATE . Absent any other funding possibilities this is expected to cause the holding to be unable to make further payments . In addition , if no solution is found , then ORG , owing to its very weak capitalisation and the negative developments in this respect , would run the risk of no longer having access to ORG facilities . This , combined with the outflow of funds that has already occurred , could cause SNS immediate liquidity problems .","On the above grounds , DNB advises you to make preparations to enable the use of your powers under part CARDINAL of LAW immediately after the expiry of the time - limit in a final ORG decision if and in so far as one is taken , or even sooner if the situation should so require . \u201d","This letter was at the time classified confidential . It has since been made available to the public .","The ORG decision","On DATE DNB , after ORG had stated its views , gave a decision ( the \u201c ORG decision \u201d ) which , as relevant to the case before the ORG , was in the following terms :","\u201c CARDINAL . Decision","ORG shall supplement its core capital by no less than ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL billion no later than DATE at TIME , or in any case ORG shall , CARDINAL January CARDINAL at TIME , present a final solution which , in the considered view of DNB , offers sufficient prospects of success , it being required , at least , that all the parties involved shall demonstrably have committed themselves to the solution presented , and which solution shall lead to the actual supplementing of the said capital shortage in short order .","Final remarks","Only if the decision set out in paragraph CARDINAL has been fulfilled will it be possible for DNB to conclude that ORG established capital ( toetsingsvermogen ) guarantees controlled and durable cover of its risks . If ORG should prove unable to strengthen its capital position sufficiently and in time , DNB considers that it is irresponsible for ORG to continue banking and ORG will make use of its powers under LAW . ... \u201d","NORP The expropriation decree","On DATE the Minister of Finance issued the following decree ( Official Gazette ( Staatscourant ) DATE , no . CARDINAL , translation published by the Government ) :","\u201c The Minister of Finance , acting in agreement with the Prime Minister , Minister of ORG ;","Having regard to Sections CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , and CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ;","Having consulted [ DNB ] ;","DECREES as follows :","Article CARDINAL","NORP The following securities , issued by or with the cooperation of the public limited company ( naamloze vennootschap ) SNS ORG or , respectively , the public limited company ORG , both having registered offices at GPE , shall be expropriated for the benefit of ORG the GPE :","a. all CARDINAL DATE ( CARDINAL ) issued shares of the class Ordinary shares in the share capital of ORG , ISIN code PERSON ;","b. all CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) issued shares of the class Shares B in the share capital of ORG ;","c. all other issued shares in the share capital of ORG ;","d. all issued shares in the share capital of ORG held by others than ORG or its group companies ;","e. all QUANTITY ( CARDINAL ) PERSON SNS ORG CARDINAL capital securities issued by ORG ;","PERSON all subordinated bonds issued by ORG that belong to the following series :","NORP EUR CARDINAL million PERCENT Fixed \/ Floating Rate Hybrid Capital Securities issued under ORG LAW Debt Issuance Programme of DATE , ISIN code XSCARDINAL ;","EUR PERCENT Fixed \/ Floating Rate Hybrid Capital Securities issued under ORG LAW Debt Issuance Programme of DATE , ISIN code XSCARDINAL ;","g. all subordinated bonds issued by ORG that belong to the following series :","NORP EUR CARDINAL PERCENT Resettable Tier CARDINAL Notes issued on DATE under the Debt Issuance Programme of ORG , ISIN code FAC ;","NORP EUR PERCENT Subordinated Fixed changing to Floating Rate Notes issued on DATE under the ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ORG , ISIN code ORG ;","EUR PERCENT Subordinated Notes issued on DATE under LAW of ORG and ORG , ISIN code XSCARDINAL ;","NORP EUR PERCENT Subordinated Fixed Rate Notes due DATE , issued on DATE under ORG LAW , ISIN code ORG ;","h. all non - listed subordinated bonds issued by ORG under the name of \u2018 SNS ORG with a nominal value of ORG CARDINAL each , at an interest rate of ( currently ) PERCENT , issued for an indefinite period and described in the prospectus of CARDINAL DATE ;","i. all debt instruments , issued by or with the cooperation of ORG or ORG , which include subordination clauses that are similar to the subordination clauses included in the aforementioned series of bonds , or that otherwise prevent the claims of holders of such instruments from being met until after senior creditors of the issuer have been satisfied .","NORP The following capital components of ORG and ORG , respectively , shall be expropriated for the benefit of PERSON Onderhandse Schulden SNS REAAL [ \u201c ORG for settling the private debts of SNS REAAL \u201d ] , with registered office at GPE :","a. the payment obligations of ORG and ORG under the following loans :","the EUR CARDINAL , PERCENT loan of ORG dated DATE maturing on DATE extended by ORG ;","the ORG CARDINAL , PERCENT loan of ORG dated DATE maturing on DATE extended by ORG ;","the NLG CARDINAL loan of ORG dated DATE and maturing on DATE extended by GPE tot beheer van ORG aandelen ORG ;","the NLG CARDINAL loan of ORG received on DATE and maturing on DATE , extended by ORG ;","the NLG CARDINAL loan of ORG received on DATE and maturing on DATE , extended by PERSON OHRA Obligatie Fonds ;","b. all obligations and liabilities of ORG or ORG to parties expropriated under the first subsection or to former holders of securities expropriated under that subsection , to the extent that those obligations or liabilities relate to the ( former ) holdership of the said securities ;","such that all rights and obligations arising from those capital components with respect to SNS ORG or ORG shall transfer to PERSON Onderhandse Schulden SNS ORG effective as of the time of expropriation .","Any party that loses the right to claim against ORG or ORG as a result of the expropriation of the capital components referred to in subsection ( CARDINAL ) shall be deemed to be \u2018 ORG within the meaning of Section CARDINAL:CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( ... ) , for the purposes of LAW of that LAW .","Article CARDINAL","The public limited company SNS ORG shall be appointed as director of ORG Onderhandse Schulden SNS ORG .","Article CARDINAL","Notwithstanding any provision in Part CARDINAL of Volume CARDINAL of the Dutch Civil Code or the relevant provisions in ORG :","a. the members of ORG ( raad van bestuur ) of ORG , as well as the chairman and vice - chairman of that ORG , shall be appointed , suspended and dismissed by the general meeting of shareholders , without any recommendation .","b. the members of ORG ( raad van commissarissen ) of ORG , as well as the chairman and any vice - chairman of that ORG , shall be appointed , suspended and dismissed by the general meeting of shareholders , without any recommendation .","NORP The provisions set out in subsection ( CARDINAL ) shall be in effect for DATE starting on DATE Decree takes effect .","Article CARDINAL","This Decree shall take effect on DATE at TIME .","This Decree shall be published by means of a press release in combination with the publication of the complete text of this Decree on the website of ORG . A copy of the Decree shall be sent to ORG , ORG and PERSON Onderhandse Schulden SNS ORG .","This Decree shall also be announced in ORG [ i.e. ORG ] ( Staatscourant ) . \u201d","A press release was issued , in NORP and in LANGUAGE . It read as follows ( LANGUAGE - language version published by the Government ) :"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146780","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GROSS v. SWITZERLAND","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-3 - Abuse of the right of petition)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;Peer Lorenzen;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and died on DATE .","For DATE the applicant had expressed the wish to end her life . She explained that she was becoming increasingly frail as time passed and was unwilling to continue suffering the decline of her physical and mental faculties . She decided that she wished to end her life by taking a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital . She contacted an assisted - suicide association \u2013 EXIT \u2013 for support , which replied that it would be difficult to find a medical practitioner who would be ready to provide her with a medical prescription for the lethal drug .","On DATE a psychiatrist , PERSON , submitted an expert opinion in which he observed that there was no doubt that the applicant was able to form her own judgment . From a psychiatric medical point of view , PERSON did not have any objection to the applicant being prescribed a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital . However , he refrained from issuing the prescription himself on the grounds that he did not want to confuse the roles of medical expert and treating physician .","NORP By letters of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s representative submitted on her behalf a request to be given a prescription for sodium pentobarbital to CARDINAL further medical practitioners , who all declined to issue the requested prescription .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request to ORG to be provided with QUANTITY grams of sodium pentobarbital in order for her to commit suicide . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG of the GPE of GPE . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . ORG considered , in particular , that the prerequisite of a medical prescription for obtaining a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital was in accordance with LAW . The requirement to obtain a medical prescription served the aim of preventing premature decisions and guaranteed that the intended action was medically justified . It further ensured that the decision was based on a deliberate exercise of the free will of the person concerned . ORG observed that PERSON , in his expert opinion , had not considered whether the applicant was suffering from any illness which would justify the assumption that the end of her life was near . The wish to die taken on its own , even if it was well considered , was not sufficient to justify the issuing of a medical prescription . Accordingly , the content of the case file did not demonstrate that the necessary prerequisites for issuing a medical prescription had been fulfilled in the instant case . There was therefore a need for further medical examination . Under these circumstances , ORG considered that there was no sufficient reason to dispense the applicant from the necessity of a thorough medical examination and of a medical prescription .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant . It observed , inter alia , that the applicant undisputedly did not fulfil the prerequisites laid down in the medical ethics guidelines on the care of patients at the end of life adopted by ORG , as she was not suffering from a terminal illness , but had expressed her wish to die because of her advanced age and increasing frailty . Even though ORG had previously considered that the issuing of a medical prescription for sodium pentobarbital to a person suffering from an incurable , persistent and serious psychological illness did not necessarily amount to a violation of a doctor \u2019s professional duties , this exception had to be handled with \u201c utmost restraint \u201d and did not enjoin the medical profession or the ORG to provide the applicant with the requested dose of sodium pentobarbital to put an end to her life . ORG further noted that the issuing of the requested substance required a thorough medical examination and , with respect to the persistence of the wish to die , long - term medical supervision by a specialist practitioner who was ready to issue the necessary prescription . This requirement could not be circumvented by the applicant \u2019s request for an exemption from the necessity of obtaining a medical prescription .","On DATE counsel for the applicant lodged an application with the ORG .","On DATE the applicant obtained a medical prescription for QUANTITY grams of sodium pentobarbital signed by a medical practitioner , PERSON On DATE she ended her life by imbibing the prescribed substance . According to a police report dated DATE , no relatives of the deceased could be identified . The report concluded that the applicant had committed suicide with the assistance of EXIT and that no third person was found to be criminally liable in this context .","The ORG was not made aware of the applicant \u2019s death until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168386","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KURIPKA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence .","At the time of the events the applicant had previous convictions from DATE and DATE . He was released from prison in DATE .","Following his release from prison the applicant cohabited with PERSON in the village of Blahovishchenka , in GPE . PERSON \u2019s sister cohabited with PERSON . in the same village .","On TIME DATE Sh . visited PERSON and the applicant . A conflict arose between him and the applicant , developing into a fight which PERSON attempted to settle down . At a certain point the applicant seized a knife and stabbed PERSON . in the chest . The latter was taken to hospital , but he died shortly afterwards .","TIME the applicant was taken to the police station , where he was questioned in relation to the incident . He stated that he did not know who might have stabbed the victim . The applicant was not released and remained at the police station .","At TIME on DATE the applicant confessed that he had had a fight with PERSON . , and that during the fight he had grabbed a knife and stabbed PERSON . twice in the chest and abdominal area .","At TIME on DATE the investigator drew up an arrest report in respect of the applicant . According to the report , the applicant was suspected of murder .","On DATE the applicant was allowed to consult a lawyer for the first time . On DATE he was questioned again . He explained that he had stabbed Sh . when falling down from the blows he had received from him . The stab had been unintentional . Later on the same day , in the course of a reconstruction of the events , the applicant showed how he had been beaten by Sh . and how he had fatally stabbed him .","On DATE a court ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention .","On DATE the applicant was questioned again . Before the questioning , the applicant signed a waiver of his right to a lawyer . He then made statements about the incident which were similar to those which he had made earlier .","On DATE the applicant was charged with aggravated murder and questioned again in the presence of his lawyer . DATE , he stated that he had acted in self - defence , as Sh . had approached him with a glass bottle .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) commenced the trial of the applicant . During the trial , he stated that he had fatally stabbed Sh . , who had approached him with a glass bottle , while trying to defend himself .","On DATE the court found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment . The court relied on the material , oral , expert and documentary evidence examined during the hearings . It referred in particular to the applicant \u2019s self - incriminating statements made on DATE and later . His allegation that he had acted in self - defence was rejected as unsubstantiated .","The applicant and his lawyer appealed , claiming that the conviction was unfounded and that his right to a lawyer had not been properly ensured .","On DATE ORG considered the applicant \u2019s case and upheld the conviction . However , having regard to his behaviour immediately after the incident , namely the efforts he had made to provide the victim with medical assistance , it reduced the sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On CARDINAL occasions DATE ORG allowed the applicant to have family visits .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG , asking for permission to correspond with his relatives . His application was registered by the GPE mailing service under number CARDINAL\/kCARDINAL . No reply followed .","On DATE the applicant made the same application , which was registered by the ORG mailing service under number CARDINAL\/k-CARDINAL . No reply followed .","On DATE the applicant complained to a prosecutor in that regard , but received no response ."],"violated_articles":["6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141368","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DURALIYSKI v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants , who are brothers , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicants\u2019 father made them beneficiaries under his life insurance and accident insurance policies . The total amount payable in case of death as a result of accident under the accident insurance policy was MONEY ( ORG ) , or ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of each brother . The applicants\u2019 father died on DATE as a result of an allergic reaction to a wasp sting .","In DATE the applicants were informed by the insurance company that a \u201c wasp sting \u201d was not a risk covered by the accident insurance policy , and the company accordingly refused to pay out on the claim .","In DATE the applicants , represented by counsel , brought a claim under LAW for the payment of compensation under the accident insurance policy . During a hearing on DATE , the applicants informed the court that , after their father \u2019s death , they had handed the original insurance policy documents to the insurance company upon its request . Although the applicants had sought to recover those documents from the company , the latter had only returned to them the \u201c additional conditions \u201d . During the same hearing , upon a request by the applicants , the court ordered the insurance company to produce the complete insurance policy file , referring to LAW , in force at the time . The company produced the file during a hearing on DATE and the court accepted it as evidence in the case .","By a judgment of DATE the ORG allowed the ORG claim . The court noted that , in so far as allergic reactions were not included in the disclaimer to the accident insurance policy signed on DATE , the applicants were entitled to benefit from the compensation payable in the event of their father \u2019s death as a result of an accident .","The insurance company appealed against the judgment . In its appeal it acknowledged , inter alia , that the existence of a valid contract was not disputed . However , it claimed that the allergic reaction did not fall under the \u201c accident \u201d category as defined in the insurance policy .","On DATE the ORG allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicants\u2019parties , that did not in itself prove its existence ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177213","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on charges of robbery . DATE the ORG of GPE imposed on the applicant an undertaking not to leave the place of his residence .","On DATE ORG , presided by Judge NORP , convicted the applicant of robbery and forgery , sentenced him to DATE and DATE of imprisonment and ordered his detention pending the appeal proceedings .","On DATE ORG , under the presidency of judge PERSON , quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh examination , ordering that the applicant should remain in custody .","On DATE ORG , in its turn , further extended the applicant \u2019s detention and remitted the case to ORG for the elimination of certain procedural deficiencies preventing the examination of the case on the merits .","The applicant \u2019s detention was once again extended by ORG , presided by judge NORP , on DATE . The applicant challenged the presiding judge on the ground that he had convicted him on DATE . Judge PERSON refused to step down . The applicant also raised that point in his statement of appeal against the detention order . On DATE ORG , presided by Judge PERSON , found no grounds for Judge NORP to step down . ORG reasoned that by virtue of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW NORP , who had already presided over the applicant \u2019s trial once , could not take part in the new trial proceedings , however , he was not prevented from deciding on detention matters .","On DATE ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention . The parties disagreed as to whether the applicant had been served with a copy of that detention order . While the applicant argued that he had never received it , the Government stated that the detention order had been served on him on DATE . They supported their claim with a copy of ORG letter of CARDINAL DATE by which the detention order had been forwarded to the applicant and a copy of the detention order from his personal file kept in a remand prison , bearing the applicant \u2019s signature and the date of receipt .","On several occasions the trial court adjourned hearings in the applicant \u2019s case . In particular , on DATE the hearing was re - scheduled for DATE because the applicant and his co - defendant asked to summon several defence witnesses . The hearing on DATE was also adjourned owing to the applicant \u2019s and his co - defendants\u2019 counsel failure to appear . In the same decision the court , of its own motion , extended the applicant \u2019s detention .","NORP The applicant appealed , complaining , in particular , that the detention order of DATE was delivered in his counsel \u2019s absence . On DATE ORG , presided by Judge PERSON , dismissed the appeal , having noted that the counsel had failed to appear without providing any explanation for his absence . The appeal hearing was attended by a prosecutor and the applicant \u2019s counsel , but not by the applicant himself , despite his request to that effect .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of extortion and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment and a fine of MONEY ( RUB ) . ORG upheld the conviction on DATE , but reduced the sentence ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168633","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"IWANOWICZ v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , Ms J. Chrzanowska , of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant \u2019s mother , PERSON , who was born in DATE , suffered from schizophrenia . She received psychiatric treatment over a period of DATE . In DATE she was diagnosed with epilepsy .","The applicant was his mother \u2019s carer . Since her condition had been deteriorating for some time , on DATE the applicant called an ambulance and requested that his mother be taken to a psychiatric hospital . However , she refused to undergo treatment . On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG seeking an order for the involuntary medical treatment of his mother .","On DATE at TIME the applicant \u2019s mother was admitted to the psychiatric ward of ORG .","According to the applicant , on DATE at TIME he brought his mother \u2019s personal belongings to the hospital . He was told by the hospital staff that his mother was being bathed and was asked to leave her belongings .","On DATE the applicant was given the information that his mother had died on DATE .","On an unspecified date the hospital carried out an autopsy .","A record card documenting his mother \u2019s death ( karta zgonu ) was drawn up on CARDINAL October DATE and signed by PERSON It did not specify the exact time of death . The stated cause of death was schizophrenia , hypertrophic cardiomyopathy ( kardiomiopatia przerostowa ) and sudden cardiac arrest .","On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint with ORG . The applicant submitted that his mother had been hospitalised in DATE in connection with her epilepsy but had not been diagnosed with any other condition . She had never been diagnosed or treated for any heart - related condition and medical examinations carried out by a ORG and the emergency medical service in DATE directly preceding her admission to hospital did not indicate any irregularities . The applicant claimed that CARDINAL DATE he was given contradictory information by the hospital with regard to the circumstances , timing and cause of his mother \u2019s death . The applicant also claimed that Dr ORG , who signed the record card , had been unsure about the cause of death stated on that document .","On DATE ORG instituted an investigation into involuntary homicide ( LAW ) .","On DATE the prosecutor ordered that a post - mortem be carried out and that a report be prepared by a forensic expert , GPE , with a view to determining the cause of death . On DATE the prosecutor ordered that forensic experts examine samples of body liquids and tissues removed from the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s body .","On DATE the prosecutor ordered the hospital to produce the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s medical records . On DATE , the prosecutor questioned the applicant . The applicant stated that he had received conflicting answers from several doctors regarding the cause and circumstances of his mother \u2019s death and it was for that reason that he had filed a criminal complaint .","On DATE a post - mortem was carried out . The forensic expert secured samples of body liquids and tissues for further examination .","On DATE the prosecutor ordered that another forensic expert should examine samples of tissues and prepare a report .","On DATE the forensic expert GPE submitted his report to the prosecutor . On the basis of the hospital records and the autopsy carried out at the hospital , the forensic expert established that the applicant \u2019s mother had been admitted to the hospital on DATE at TIME Shortly after , she had suffered an epileptic seizure and a cardiac arrest . A doctor was called to help at TIME The applicant \u2019s mother was lying unconscious in bed . Resuscitation was carried out first by nurses and then by a doctor . At TIME the doctor pronounced the applicant \u2019s mother dead .","The forensic expert noted that the autopsy carried out at the hospital established that the applicant \u2019s mother had suffered from atherosclerosis ( mia\u017cd\u017cyca t\u0119tnic ) , hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and oedema , amongst other complaints .","On the basis of the post - mortem and other examinations , together with the hospital records , the forensic expert concluded that the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s death had been caused by respiratory and circulatory failure . The origin of this failure could not be conclusively determined . The forensic expert found no grounds for contradicting the assumption that the failure could have been related to the epileptic seizure .","The applicant submitted that the post - mortem had been carried out too late . He also claimed that the medical records concerning his mother \u2019s condition contained a number of discrepancies . The hospital \u2019s autopsy report mentioned atherosclerosis , whereas his mother \u2019s medical records did not state that she was suffering from this condition . The applicant submitted that there was no mention in the medical records of the autopsy carried out at the hospital and the hospital had not sought his consent for this procedure .","The prosecutor heard evidence from several witnesses , including doctors , nurses and other hospital employees as well as the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s former husband .","On DATE the applicant and his lawyer consulted the case file of the investigation .","On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation . He found that there were no grounds for suspecting that the offence of involuntary homicide had been committed .","The prosecutor established the following facts . The applicant \u2019s mother was diagnosed with schizophrenia DATE . In DATE she was also diagnosed with epilepsy . On DATE , having observed his mother \u2019s worsening condition , the applicant called the emergency medical service to have his mother taken to hospital , but the personnel who responded to the call refused to do as he asked . The condition of the applicant \u2019s mother continued to deteriorate . She refused to take her medication , became aggressive , and started suffering from delusions . The same situation prevailed DATE . On DATE at QUANTITY , at the applicant \u2019s insistence , the emergency service transported the applicant \u2019s mother to ORG . At TIME on DATE the applicant brought his mother \u2019s personal belongings to the hospital . He was told that his mother was being bathed . On DATE the applicant learnt that his mother had died DATE .","NORP The prosecutor secured the medical records and the body of the applicant \u2019s mother for the purposes of forensic examination . As regards the results of the post - mortem and further medical examinations , the forensic expert did not establish any cause of death other than cardiac arrest related to the epileptic seizure . He also established that the applicant \u2019s mother had some broken ribs but that this injury had been sustained after her death .","The prosecutor noted that the forensic expert \u2019s report clearly indicated the cause of death of the applicant \u2019s mother and did not point to any negligence in her treatment after admission to the hospital .","The prosecutor heard evidence from medical personnel and doctors at the hospital . Those witnesses confirmed that the applicant \u2019s mother had been pronounced dead at TIME on DATE . She had been admitted to the hospital at TIME and was then bathed and changed . After being transferred to a hospital room , the applicant \u2019s mother started to have a seizure . The medical personnel immediately reacted and began resuscitation . However , the resuscitation was not successful and after TIME of efforts the applicant \u2019s mother was pronounced dead .","The prosecutor sought to clarify when the applicant had come to the hospital on DATE in question . The hospital staff testified that the applicant had come to the hospital before TIME Other witnesses , including the applicant , asserted that he had come to the hospital at TIME In the light of evidence provided by mobile phone traffic records , the prosecutor found that the applicant \u2019s assertion that he had come to the hospital at TIME when his mother was already dead \u2212 was not credible .","In conclusion , the prosecutor decided to discontinue the investigation , having found no evidence to indicate that the treatment given to the applicant \u2019s mother was in any way inappropriate .","The applicant appealed . He argued that the evidence gathered in the investigation was not sufficient to justify the impugned decision and that a number of the prosecutor \u2019s findings had been incorrect .","The applicant submitted that even assuming DATE as was accepted by the prosecutor \u2013 that his mother had died from cardiac arrest related to an epileptic seizure the prosecutor had not looked into what had caused the cardiac arrest . His mother was a relatively young person ( DATE ) . She had suffered from schizophrenia but never complained of any other health issues ( in particular heart - related ) and had never been treated for anything other than her psychiatric illness . Prior to her admission to the hospital she had had CARDINAL epileptic seizures . The applicant also argued that the prosecutor did not investigate the cause of his mother \u2019s broken ribs . He proposed that a team of experts be appointed in connection with the case in order to investigate the cause of his mother \u2019s death .","The applicant argued that he had been misled by the hospital staff from the outset and that the information he had been given by the hospital had been inaccurate . He alleged that when he arrived at the hospital on DATE at TIME , his mother was already dead but he had not been informed of this .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision . The applicant was present at the hearing .","The court noted that the investigation had been aimed at clarifying the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s death , in DATE in view of the conflicting information concerning the cause of death DATE the time at which it occurred , and the deceased \u2019s prior state of health .","The court found that the prosecutor had correctly established the facts and properly assessed the ample evidence gathered in relation to the case . In the court \u2019s view , the analysis of the evidence did not suggest that the offence of involuntary homicide had been committed .","The court agreed with the results of the post - mortem and the forensic expert \u2019s report , which was clear in its conclusion that the applicant \u2019s mother had died as a result of respiratory and cardiac failure connected to an epileptic seizure . There was no need to prepare another expert report since the initial one was comprehensive , thorough and unambiguous . In addition , the medical records indicated that the applicant \u2019s mother had previously suffered from epileptic seizures and that in DATE she had been diagnosed with epilepsy . As regards the forensic report , the court observed that it stated that the damage to the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s ribs could have resulted from the resuscitation efforts .","On the basis of the medical records and the evidence provided by the medical personnel , the court found that the applicant \u2019s mother had been adequately treated by the hospital . It noted that the applicant \u2019s mother had received treatment immediately after her epileptic seizure .","The court observed that the prosecutor had investigated the question of the exact timing of the applicant \u2019s visit to the hospital , which was , in any event , not the most relevant factor in determining the circumstances surrounding the death of the applicant \u2019s mother .","The court held that the death of the applicant \u2019s mother had not resulted from the actions of third parties . The court also found that no offence under LAW ( failure to render assistance to a person in a life - threatening situation ) had been committed .","LAW provides as follows :","\u201c Anyone who unintentionally causes the death of a human being shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of DATE . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180654","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KOLESNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants alleged , in particular , that they did not receive adequate medical care in detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150651","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF A.N. v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving his sentence in prison .","On DATE a man was murdered at a bus stop in the town of GPE , Donetsk Region . A criminal investigation was opened .","According to the applicant , on DATE he was taken by police officers to some premises where they interrogated and tortured him with the aim of extracting a confession to the murder . The torture allegedly included the administration of electric shocks and the infliction of physical injuries .","On DATE the applicant wrote a confession admitting that he had committed the murder .","On DATE the applicant was provided with a lawyer and questioned as a suspect . During the questioning , in the presence of the lawyer , the applicant submitted that on the evening of DATE he had met the victim at the bus stop and asked if he had a cigarette ; the victim responded aggressively and an argument arose between them , which developed into a fight ; when the victim attacked him with a knife , the applicant grabbed the arm that was holding the knife and , at a certain moment during the struggle between them , the knife \u2012 still in the victim \u2019s hand \u2012 caused a lethal wound to the victim \u2019s neck . The investigator also asked the applicant to explain why he had a swelling on the left forearm in the wrist area . The applicant disputed that it could be described as a swelling and added that it might have been caused by the handcuffs .","In TIME of DATE the police drew up a report on the applicant \u2019s arrest .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert who reported that the applicant had no injuries . According to the applicant , the expert had examined him superficially and he had not been required to undress .","On DATE the applicant participated in a reconstruction of the incident and , in the presence of his lawyer , explained and demonstrated how the conflict between him and the victim had developed and how the fatal wound had been caused .","On DATE the NORP ORG extended the applicant \u2019s preliminary detention to DATE . On DATE the NORP ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention in custody . During these hearings the applicant \u2012 in the presence of his lawyer \u2012 described the circumstances of the incident in the same way as he had done earlier . He also stated that he had not been subjected to pressure on the part of the police officers . The applicant then admitted that he regularly took ORG ( an opioid analgesic ) and specified that before the incident of DATE he took CARDINAL pills of Tramadol .","On DATE the applicant was charged with the murder . He was again questioned in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant repeated the details of the struggle between him and the victim and the circumstances of the victim \u2019s death .","On DATE the applicant was placed in ORG . CARDINAL ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) . Upon admission he was given a medical examination , during which no injuries were found .","On DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged a complaint with the prosecutor \u2019s office , alleging that the police officers had tortured the applicant and made him confess to a crime which he had not committed .","On DATE the forensic medical expert issued a report in which \u2012 referring to the results of the applicant \u2019s medical assessment on DATE \u2012 he stated that at the time of the medical assessment the applicant had not been suffering from any injuries .","On DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open an investigation in connection with the allegations of torture , noting that there were no indications that the police officers had committed any offence .","On DATE the applicant was questioned once again . During the questioning , he denied the charges of murder and retracted his earlier statements , claiming that he had incriminated himself because he had been afraid of the police officers .","On DATE the case was referred to the NORP ORG for trial .","On DATE the applicant submitted a written request for a medical examination to the NORP ORG . The applicant gave the names of the QUANTITY police officers who had allegedly tortured him on DATE and specified the place where that had happened . The applicant claimed that he had been hung upside down over a horizontal crowbar whilst handcuffed ; a gas mask had been placed over his head ; electric shocks had been applied to different areas of his body including his genitals . He claimed that after the continued ill - treatment he had given up and accepted the fictional story made up by the police officers ; he had then been taken to the crime scene and was told the details that he was supposed to repeat later during the investigation .","On DATE the NORP ORG ordered the prosecutor \u2019s office to investigate the applicant \u2019s allegations ; it also ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant to be carried out .","On DATE the forensic medical expert drafted a report in which \u2012 relying on the results of the applicant \u2019s assessment of DATE and the report of CARDINAL DATE \u2012 he noted that at the time of the medical assessment the applicant had not been suffering from any injuries .","On DATE , acting on the results of the pre - investigation enquiries , the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers , holding that no elements of offence had been established .","On DATE the applicant was assessed by a medical expert who reported that the applicant had scars on his wrist joints , and on the left side and front of his chest . The expert noted that the scars had resulted from injuries caused by blunt objects and could have been sustained DATE prior to the examination . The expert further reported a scar on the right forearm and noted that it had resulted from an injury caused by a blunt object ; in his view the injury could have been sustained DATE before the examination . The expert classified all the injuries as minor .","On DATE ORG quashed as unsubstantiated the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE adopted by the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office and ordered further pre - investigation enquiries .","On DATE , following additional enquiries , the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office issued a further decision refusing to open an investigation in connection with the alleged ill - treatment . The prosecutor noted that the applicant had not complained of the ill - treatment earlier , that the police officers had denied his allegations , that the medical report of DATE had documented no injuries to the applicant and that the report of DATE stated that the applicant had some old scars which did not bear out his allegations .","On DATE , further to a request from the court , the applicant was examined by a panel of forensic medical experts . In their report of DATE , the panel stated that the applicant had scars on both ears , on the left side of his chest , on his forearms , wrists , right shin and ankle , and the pigmented area on the right side of his chest . The experts noted that the scars had resulted from injuries which could have been sustained DATE or more before the date of the examination ; some of the injuries could have been caused by shackles . The panel classified the injuries as minor .","On DATE , following a request from the court , the panel of experts also reported that it was impossible to determine on the basis of the available medical information whether the injuries found on the applicant had been sustained before or after DATE .","On DATE the NORP ORG remitted the case for additional investigation , noting that the investigator had failed to establish a number of important facts , including the time of the victim \u2019s death and any motive on the part of the applicant for committing the crime . The prosecutor appealed against that decision .","On DATE the ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE as unfounded and remitted the case to the first - instance court for trial .","On DATE a forensic psychiatric expert drafted a report stating that the applicant had recovered from a temporary mental disorder .","During the trial the applicant denied the charges and maintained that he had been ill - treated by the police officers , who had made him incriminate himself . The court questioned the expert who had carried out the assessments of DATE and DATE about the discrepancies in those assessments . The expert explained that his first assessment had been concerned with the documentation of visible injuries and he had not been asked a specific question about scars . He also noted that during that assessment he had asked the applicant to undress . The applicant maintained , however , that the expert had not asked him to undress .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court established the applicant \u2019s guilt relying on the self - incriminating statements made by the applicant in the presence of his lawyer between CARDINAL and DATE , including the statements of the applicant which he made before the court when the issue of a preventive measure was being decided . The court also referred to the other oral , documentary , material and expert evidence .","The court rejected the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment as unsubstantiated . In that regard it referred to the results of the medical assessments of CARDINAL and DATE which found no injuries on the applicant . It also noted that there had been no suggestion by the experts as to how the injuries discovered on the applicant later could have been sustained . As to the injuries on the wrists , the court noted that they might have been caused by the handcuffs and added that DATE the applicant had regularly been handcuffed when escorted to and from the court .","The applicant appealed against that judgment claiming , inter alia , that his conviction had been unlawful and based on evidence obtained through ill - treatment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . It noted that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment had been far - fetched and , in any event , they had been properly examined by the prosecutor \u2019s office and the trial court . It pointed out that the applicant had made the self - incriminating statements DATE in the presence of his lawyer , and that on DATE no injuries had been documented following the medical examination of the applicant .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG , claiming in particular that his conviction had been based on evidence obtained through ill - treatment .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as unfounded .","NORP Following his conviction , the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE , in which the prosecutor had refused to open an investigation in respect of the alleged ill - treatment .","On DATE the ORG quashed the impugned decision , considering that the matter had not been examined thoroughly .","The prosecutor appealed against that decision .","On DATE the ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG dismissed as time - barred the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","ORG and ORG of GPE upheld the decision of DATE on DATE and DATE respectively .","DATE and DATE the applicant underwent X - ray examinations which showed no lung pathology .","On DATE he applied to the medical unit of the GPE complaining of coughing up phlegm , weakness and fever . The applicant was examined by the general practitioner and diagnosed with chronic bronchitis in its acute phase . He was hospitalised in the medical unit of the GPE and provided with in - patient treatment .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from the medical unit in satisfactory condition . He was advised to avoid getting too cold .","DATE the applicant underwent X - ray examinations which showed no signs of pathology . He made no complaints concerning his health .","On DATE the applicant was treated in the local hospital on account of cuts to both forearms , and scratches on his neck and the front of his abdomen . He was diagnosed as having attempted suicide .","On DATE he was examined by a psychiatrist who diagnosed mental and behavioural disorder caused by taking opioids , generating a psychopathy - like syndrome . The applicant received further outpatient psychiatric treatment .","DATE the applicant underwent X - ray examinations which showed no signs of pathology . He made no complaints concerning his health .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from the GPE to a prison . Upon admission , the applicant was medically examined and diagnosed with chronic bronchitis .","On DATE the applicant underwent X - ray examination which showed no signs of pathology .","In DATE the applicant underwent treatment for an acute form of bronchitis .","NORP In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis of the right lung . The applicant was offered hospitalisation in the tuberculosis clinic of GPE prison no . CARDINAL for further examination and treatment . The applicant refused to be hospitalised .","DATE the applicant underwent examination in the tuberculosis clinic of GPE prison no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with post - tuberculosis residual changes and residual changes after pleurisy . He was advised to undergo sessions of anti - tuberculosis treatment for DATE . The applicant refused to undergo the proposed sessions of treatment .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with chronic bronchitis in remission and chronic maxillary sinusitis in remission . The applicant received further outpatient treatment by the general practitioner at the medical unit of the prison ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179219","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF HAMIDOVI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE Mr PERSON , a member of the local group advocating the NORP \/ NORP version of NORP ( see , concerning this group , PERSON v. GPE and GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) , attacked ORG in GPE . CARDINAL police officer was severely wounded in the attack . In DATE Mr GPE and CARDINAL other members of the group were indicted in relation to that event . Mr GPE was eventually convicted of terrorism and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The other CARDINAL defendants were acquitted . The relevant part of the first - instance judgment rendered in that case , depicting the religious community to which the applicant also belonged , reads as follows :","\u201c In his ORG and at the main trial , the expert witness Prof . PERSON clarified the notions of \u2018 Wahhabism\u2019 and \u2018 Salafism\u2019 from a scientific perspective :","\u2018 ...","Salafi communities in GPE , like the CARDINAL in GPE ( in which the accused lived at the time of the attack ) , are often isolated and inaccessible . The choice of remote and isolated locations to establish settlements is often informed by the belief that true believers who live in a non - believer ( or secular ) country need to resort to hijrah DATE emigration or withdrawal from the surrounding ( non - believers\u2019 ) world , following the example set by PERSON and his followers , who moved from GPE to GPE in CARDINAL to establish the first NORP community .","Despite mutual differences , most of the NORP Salafi groups share some common traits that are not inherent in NORP organisations ( or religious sects ) only . In practice , they confirm the tendencies of certain traditional religious communities to isolate from other believers and define their holy community through their disciplined opposition to both non - believers and CARDINAL - hearted believers . This pattern is inherent in fundamentalist movements and sects within almost all religious traditions . Such movements as a rule have similar characteristics despite the differences in theological doctrines , size and social composition , the scope of their influence or their tendency towards violence . Yet these fundamentalist and puritan groups mostly do not encourage or approve violence , whether it is aimed against members of the same group or against the outer world .","According to the available sources and their own declarations , members of the community in GPE oppose the concept of a secular ORG , democracy , free elections and any laws that are not based on Sharia . The positions taken by this group are , inter alia , available at a number of web sites , including www.putvjernika.com , while part of its followers live in GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and other countries.\u2019","...","CARDINAL NORP Punishment of the accused ( Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure )","Having been called by the court officer to stand up when ORG entered the courtroom at the first hearing , the accused refused to do so . Also , the accused GPE and Fojnica were wearing skullcaps , which the ORG could correlate with clothing details indicating their religious affiliation . Pursuant to LAW , all those present in the courtroom must stand up upon the call from a court officer . The President of ORG asked the accused to explain both their refusal to stand up and the reasons why they had entered the courtroom wearing skullcaps . The accused stated that they only respected Allah \u2019s judgment and that they did not want to take part in rituals acknowledging man - made judgment . ORG thereupon warned the accused that standing up was a statutory obligation of the accused and that under LAW , disruptive conduct constituted contempt of court , which the ORG would punish by removing them from the courtroom .","After the warning , the President adjourned the hearing and provided the accused with a reasonable period of time to consult their attorneys in order to change their minds .","When ORG returned to the courtroom , the accused did not stand up , and therefore the President removed them from the courtroom . The transcript from the hearing was subsequently delivered to the accused .","At a new hearing , the accused ORG and ORG again did not want to stand up on being called by the court officer , while the accused ORG refused to enter the courtroom . The President therefore asked the accused to respond whether it was their definite decision to act in the same way until the completion of the trial . The accused confirmed that , until the completion of the trial , they had no intention of showing any respect , by standing up , for ORG , which they did not recognise . The ORG found that to continue to bring the accused to scheduled hearings would unnecessarily expose the ORG to significant expense . Therefore , the ORG decided to remove the accused from the trial until its completion , with a warning that they would be notified of any scheduled hearing , and that , prior to it , they could notify the ORG if they changed their mind , in which case the ORG would allow them to come to the hearing . The accused ORG and ORG then changed their mind and regularly appeared before the ORG , while the accused PERSON did so only at the following hearing . The ORG delivered to the accused the audio - recordings and the transcripts from the hearings they had not attended in order to allow them to agree with their defence attorneys on their defence strategy . \u201d","In the context of that trial , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) summoned the applicant , who belonged to the same religious community , to appear as a witness on DATE . He appeared , as summoned , but refused to remove his skullcap , notwithstanding an order from the president of the trial chamber to do so . He was then expelled from the courtroom , convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to a fine of MONEY ( BAM ) under LAW . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c The ORG has examined the situation encountered in the courtroom with the utmost care . The ORG is aware that the witness belongs to a religious community , organised under special rules in the village of GPE , of which the accused are also members . In view of that , the ORG has acquainted the witness with the provisions of LAW of LAW and the obligations of the parties in the judicial institutions , which ban visitors from entering these buildings in clothing that is not in accordance with the generally accepted dress codes within the professional environment of the judicial institutions . In addition , the ORG has pointed out to the witness that , in public institutions , it is not acceptable to display religious affiliation through clothing or religious symbols , and that the ORG is obliged to support and promote values that bring people closer , not those that separate them . The ORG has particularly emphasised that the rights of the individual are not absolute and must not jeopardise common values .","The witness \u2019s attention has especially been drawn to the fact that people of various religious beliefs , belonging to different religious groups , appear before the court and that it is necessary to have confidence in the court . Thus , the court is not a place where religious beliefs can be expressed in a way that discredits certain common rules and principles in a multicultural society . That is why the law obliges everyone who appears before the ORG to respect the ORG and its rules .","The ORG finds the witness \u2019s refusal to accept the rules of court and to show respect to the ORG by accepting its warnings , to be a flagrant breach of order in the courtroom . The ORG has found that this behaviour is connected to a number of other identical cases before it , in which the members of the same religious group behaved in the same manner , publicly indicating that they did not recognise this ORG . The frequency of such disrespectful behaviour and contempt of court is producing dangerous criminogenic effects and undoubtedly presents a specific threat to society . It is not necessary to particularly substantiate how this behaviour impairs the ORG \u2019s reputation and confidence in the ORG . A legitimate conclusion may be that it is essentially directed against the ORG and basic social values . Therefore , a severe and uncompromising reaction on the part of the ORG , taking all existing repressive measures , is crucial for dealing with such behaviour . Restraint on the part of the ORG in cases of this or other types of extremism can have serious consequences for the reputation of the judiciary and the stability of society in GPE .","Bearing in mind the frequency , seriousness and gravity of this type of breach of order in the courtroom and its damaging consequences , the ORG has decided to punish the witness by imposing the maximum fine of BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL . Such a severe penalty should be a message to all the parties in the courtroom that contempt of court is unacceptable . The ORG must be respected and the level of respect for the ORG is the same as for ORG . \u201d","On DATE an appeals chamber of the same court reduced the fine to CARDINAL and upheld the rest of the first - instance decision . It held that the requirement to remove any and all headgear on the premises of public institutions was CARDINAL of the basic requirements of life in society . It further held that in a secular ORG such as GPE , any manifestation of religion in a courtroom was forbidden . The relevant part of that decision reads :","\u201c The ORG observes that it is obvious and well known that skullcaps , hats and other headgear should be removed when entering any LOC , and notably the LOC of ORG and other public institutions , as there is no longer a need to wear them and removing a skullcap or a hat is an expression of respect for this institution and its function . The duty to remove headgear exists not only in this court but also in other courts and institutions in GPE as well as in other GPE . Such rules and duties apply to all persons without exception , regardless of religious , sexual , national or other affiliation .","Indeed , this is a duty of all those who visit ORG in whatever capacity , as explained in more detail in LAW of LAW : \u2018 Visitors must respect the dress code applicable to judicial institutions . Visitors shall not wear miniskirts , shorts , t - shirts with thin straps , open heel shoes and other garments that do not correspond to the dress code applicable to judicial institutions\u2019 .","It would appear from the case file that the judge in charge of this specific case first directed the witness to remove his skullcap in the courtroom , and then gave him TIME to think about it as well as about the consequences of rejecting that order . As the witness had nevertheless failed to remove his skullcap , showing thereby wilful disrespect for the authority of the court , the President of ORG fined him in accordance with LAW .","It follows from the aforementioned that the judge in charge did not invent the duty of removing the skullcap when addressing the court , as claimed in the appeal . This is indeed a matter of a generally accepted standard of behaviour in the courtroom which applies not only to this ORG but also to other courts ; furthermore , it has always been applied . This duty stems from Rule CARDINAL of LAW cited above . Therefore , the allegations made by the lawyer PERSON in the appeal are not only unjustified but totally inappropriate .","The allegation in the appeal that the witness was punished simply because he was a believer who was practising his religion , and that he had thereby been discriminated against , is also unsubstantiated . The duty of removing headgear and behaving decently applies without exception to anyone visiting the court LOC . All persons visiting the ORG , regardless of their religion , nationality , sex or other status , have the same rights and obligations and are obliged , among other things , to remove their skullcaps , hats and other headgear . This was explained to the witness . Any behaviour to the contrary has always been interpreted and is still interpreted as disrespectful towards the court , and the appellant is aware of that . GPE , as mentioned in the impugned decision , is a secular ORG in which religion is separate from public life . The ORG therefore holds that the premises of the ORG can not be a place for the manifestation of any religion .","It clearly follows from the aforementioned that the witness PERSON was not deprived of his right to freedom of religion and freedom to manifest religion at his home or any other place dedicated for that purpose , but not in the courtroom . Therefore , the allegations by the lawyer PERSON of a violation of the rights guaranteed by the LAW and LAW , and of discrimination on religious grounds , are unsubstantiated .","Having found that the witness \u2019s punishment was justified and that his appeal was ill - founded in that part , ORG then examined the amount of the fine and decided that it was excessive .","As noted in the appeal , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL is the maximum fine for contempt of court . The maximum fine should be imposed in the most serious cases .","Turning to the relevant criteria , the nature and the seriousness of the conduct must certainly be taken into consideration . However , the appellant is wrong in claiming that his means should have also been taken into account , as the fine for contempt of court is not a criminal sanction , but is of a disciplinary nature .","While the witness showed a high level of determination in disrespecting the court ( he again failed to remove his skullcap after a pause of TIME given to him to reflect ) and this fact definitely affected the amount of the fine , the act itself ( failure to remove headgear ) is not the most serious case of contempt of court which would justify the maximum fine . Since the witness did not use offensive language , there was no need to impose the maximum fine . This is notwithstanding the fact that members of the same religious group have lately shown a pattern of disrespectful behaviour . While it is true that the general prevention is CARDINAL of the aims of sanctions , including disciplinary ones , disciplinary sanctions are primarily directed at individuals . Everyone should therefore be held responsible and adequately punished for his \/ her conduct only , and not for that of other members of any group . This follows from LAW .","In the circumstances of this case , and having regard to the nature and the intensity of contempt of court committed by this witness , the appeals chamber finds that a fine in the amount of BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL is appropriate . The appeal by the lawyer PERSON is therefore partially accepted and the impugned decision amended . \u201d","As the applicant had failed to pay the fine , on DATE the fine was converted into CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment pursuant to LAW . That decision was upheld on DATE and the applicant served his prison sentence immediately .","On DATE ORG found no breach of LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW , fully accepting the reasoning of ORG . At the same time , it found a breach of LAW because of the automatic way in which fines were converted into imprisonment and ordered that LAW of LAW of GPE be amended . However , it decided not to quash the decision converting the fine into imprisonment in this case , relying on the principle of legal certainty .","The relevant part of the majority decision reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG notes that the present case concerns a specific situation where the universally accepted standard of conduct in a judicial institution intertwines with the right of the appellant to manifest in a courtroom , contrary to that standard , affiliation with his religious community . The appellant claims that ORG did not have a basis in law for imposing a fine for his failure to comply with a court order , as LAW does not contain a provision prescribing any such measure , for which reason his right to freedom of thought , conscience and religion was violated .","Starting from the main objection raised by the appellant , that the limitation in the case at hand was not prescribed by law , ORG notes that ORG ( ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , DATE , \u00a7 DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) has held that CARDINAL requirements flow from the expression \u2018 prescribed by law\u2019 in DATE . \u2018 Firstly , the law must be adequately accessible : the citizen must be able to have an indication that is adequate in the circumstances of the legal rules applicable to a given case . Secondly , a norm can not be regarded as a \u2018 law\u2019 unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct : he must be able - if need be with appropriate advice - to foresee , to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances , the consequences which a given action may entail.\u2019 In addition , the wording of many statutes is not absolutely precise . The need to avoid excessive rigidity and to keep pace with changing circumstances means that many laws are inevitably couched in terms which , to a greater or lesser extent , are vague . The interpretation and application of such enactments depend on practice ( see ORG , cited above ) .","Accordingly , as concerns the issue of whether ORG , in adopting the challenged ruling , acted in accordance with the law , ORG observes that the provision of LAW provides that the judge or the presiding judge may order that a party to the proceedings who disrupts order in a courtroom or disobeys court orders be removed from the courtroom and be fined in an amount of up to BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL . ORG also observes that the cited provision , on which ORG relied , does not prescribe a list of all types of conduct which may be regarded as disruption of order in a courtroom , but rather each court , in the circumstances of a given case , decides whether some type of conduct may be considered disruptive or not , which falls within the scope of that court \u2019s margin of discretion ( see the ORG decision no . ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . This is a universally accepted standard of conduct of the courts in GPE , which is in accordance with the position of ORG , referred to in the ORG judgment , that the interpretation and application of such enactments that are couched in vague terms depend on practice .","ORG notes that ORG relied also on LAW of LAW , providing that \u2018 visitors must respect the dress code applicable to judicial ORG , as an internal act of ORG and other judicial institutions . ORG observes likewise that the mentioned provision does not specify what that dress code is . However , ORG in the case at hand kept in mind that the universally accepted standard of conduct in a civilised society required that upon entering the premises of a public institution one should remove one \u2019s headgear out of respect for that institution and its function . Likewise , ORG is aware that the said ORG Rules were not published , but that is not a problem since the present case concerns a universally accepted and usual standard of conduct in a judicial institution in a civilised and democratic society that GPE and GPE aspires to become . ORG also holds that the standard in issue could and should have been known to the appellant . In addition , ORG observes that ORG clearly and unequivocally warned the appellant of that universally accepted standard of conduct , which is indeed mandatory for all visitors of judicial institutions , irrespective of their religion , sex , national origin or other status .","Moreover , ORG clearly warned the appellant of the consequences of such conduct and , although it was not required to do so , accorded him an additional time to reconsider his position . This is clearly in accordance with the stance taken by ORG in relation to the notion \u2018 prescribed by law\u2019 ( ORG , cited above ) . Indeed , ORG clearly and unequivocally informed the appellant of the applicable rules in the judicial institutions and of the consequences of disobeying the rules . Moreover , at his own request , the appellant was granted additional time to think about all this . ORG especially emphasises the fact that the limitation in question applied only while the appellant was in the courtroom , that is , during his testimony before ORG . ORG holds that ORG did not thereby place an excessive burden on the appellant , given that it simply requested that the appellant adjust his conduct to LAW , which applied to all visitors , and only in the courtroom . Bearing in mind all the aforementioned , ORG holds , in the circumstances of this particular case , that ORG , using the margin of discretion referred to in Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , acted in accordance with the law , and that , contrary to the appellant \u2019s opinion , the interference , which was of a limited nature , was lawful .","As to the question whether the interference in the present case had a legitimate aim , ORG notes that ORG simply relied on a universally accepted standard of conduct in a judicial institution , which requires all the visitors of judicial institutions to respect \u2018 the dress code applicable to judicial ORG . That court further relied on the inadmissibility of the manifestation in public institutions of religious affiliation and religious symbols which were contrary to the usual standards of conduct , and in so doing it took into account its obligation to support the values that bring people closer and not those that separate them . ORG notes that ORG underlined in that regard that GPE was a secular ORG where religion was separated from public life and that therefore no one could manifest his \/ her religion or religious affiliation in a courtroom . Considering the position of ORG that in democratic societies in which several religions coexist ( as is the case of GPE ) it may be necessary to place restrictions on the freedom of religion ( ORG , cited above ) , in the context of the obligation of an independent judicial institution to support the values that bring people closer , and not those that separate them , ORG holds that the restriction in the present case , which was of a temporary nature , aspired to achieve legitimate aims . Finally , ORG reiterates that LAW is primarily designed to allow ORG unhindered and effective conduct of proceedings . A judge or the president of a chamber is thereby given the possibility of imposing a fine for any inappropriate behaviour which is directed at disrupting order in a courtroom or at damaging the reputation of ORG . In the present case , ORG considered the repeated refusal of the appellant to comply with an order of the court to be damaging to the reputation and the dignity of a judicial institution . Therefore , the Constitutional Court finds that the restriction in issue , which was of a limited nature , was in accordance with the legitimate aim of maintaining the dignity of a judicial institution for the purposes of LAW .","Finally , as to the question whether the decision was necessary in a democratic society in order to achieve CARDINAL of the legitimate aims under LAW , ORG reiterates that , according to the settled case - law of ORG , GPE have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing the existence and extent of the need for interference , but this margin is subject to NORP supervision , embracing both the law and the decisions applying it , even those given by independent courts ( GPE , cited above ) . Furthermore , under the well - established case - law of ORG , the ORG is called upon to establish whether the measures undertaken at the national level were justified in principle \u2013 that is , whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify them were \u2018 relevant and sufficient\u2019 and whether the measures were proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued ( ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","of Criminal Procedure enabling the courts to fine participants in proceedings who refuse to obey court orders , with a view to conducting proceedings efficiently and maintaining the authority and dignity of courts . ORG took into account the fact that owing to his failure to pay the fine , the appellant \u2019s fine was converted to a prison sentence pursuant to LAW . However , ORG will examine that factor in the following paragraphs of this decision concerning the right to a fair trial . Therefore , in view of the above and the circumstances of this particular case , ORG holds that the impugned restriction did not constitute an excessive burden for the appellant , that the measure undertaken by ORG pursued legitimate aims within the meaning of LAW , and that there was a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the restriction and the legitimate aim pursued .","Accordingly , ORG concludes that the impugned decision did not breach the appellant \u2019s right to manifest his religion under LAW ( g ) of LAW and LAW . \u201d","CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL judges of ORG appended dissenting opinions . They disagreed with the majority as concerns Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . In particular , given that the applicant had appeared as summoned and had stood up while addressing the court , they considered that his conduct had not been disrespectful . They further maintained that , unlike public officials , private citizens , such as the applicant , did not owe a duty of neutrality . Therefore , the applicant \u2019s punishment for refusing to remove a religious symbol in a courtroom constituted , in their opinion , disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of religion ."],"violated_articles":["9"],"violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142615","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"F.A. v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant lodged his application under the name NORP In his application form , he stated that he was an PERSON ( registered stateless ) NORP born in DATE in GPE . He is currently living in GPE .","NORP The applicant , who had been granted legal aid , was represented before the Court by PERSON GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent at the time , PERSON , Attorney - General of GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","According to the applicant , he left GPE illegally on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE . He applied for asylum on DATE under the name ORG","NORP In his application for asylum , the applicant claimed that he had fled GPE for CARDINAL reasons . Firstly , he alleged that his human rights had been violated as he was an PERSON . He furnished the authorities with a document from ORG under the name ORG stating that he was registered in the LOC governorate \u2019s register of foreigners . The applicant claimed that as an LOC , he could not open his own business , continue his studies or get married . Secondly , he was an active member of ORG ( which opposed the NORP government ) and the NORP authorities had sought to make him their informer . Thirdly , he claimed that he would be imprisoned if he returned to GPE , as he had left the country illegally .","ORG held an interview with him on DATE .","His asylum application was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE , in that he had not shown that he had a well - founded fear of persecution for reasons of race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular group or political opinion or a well - founded fear of serious and unjustified harm for other reasons . ORG held that the applicant had not established that he was in danger of persecution as a member of ORG or by reason of being an GPE . Furthermore , it considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It therefore held that his asylum application had not been substantiated .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG hereinafter \u201c the Reviewing Authority \u201d ) against ORG decision . On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .","ORG pointed to contradictions in the applicant \u2019s claims and held , having regard to all the information and evidence available , that they were unsubstantiated . It stressed , inter alia , that NORP were not persecuted on the basis of their ethnicity when they were not involved in anti - regime activities . The applicant had neither alleged that he had been harassed by the NORP authorities nor that he had been persecuted because of his participation in ORG activities . Furthermore , ORG observed that unless a person was an opponent of the regime , there was no real risk that leaving GPE illegally would result in persecution on their return . It also noted that according to its own research , PERSON were entitled to , among other things , work in the public and private sector , receive an education and register their marriages and property .","ORG concluded by observing that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution and , if he returned to GPE , that his life would be in danger or he would be imprisoned . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .","In DATE or DATE the applicant applied for legal aid for the purpose of bringing a \u201c recourse \u201d ( judicial review proceedings ) under LAW of the LAW to challenge the Reviewing ORG \u2019s decision ( for the relevant domestic law see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ) . The respondent Government argued that the application for legal aid should fail as the recourse did not have a reasonable chance of success .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant legal aid . It held that the case raised issues concerning the status of PERSON and the consequences that this entailed , which had not been examined by it before . It considered that it should not dismiss , in advance , the possibility that the applicant could be successful in his recourse without giving him the opportunity , in view of the particularity of his case and after considering the lengthy documents submitted , to develop his arguments . It also observed that his refusal to be an informer for the NORP authorities had obvious consequences and therefore it could not say that the recourse did not have a reasonable chance of success .","On DATE the applicant brought a recourse before ORG ( first - instance revisional jurisdiction ) challenging the Reviewing ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE it was dismissed .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( appellate revisional jurisdiction ) , which appears to be still pending .","On DATE ORG and other NORP from GPE organised a demonstration in GPE . The applicant took part and was arrested on DATE when the authorities conducted an operation to remove the protesters . A detailed description of the relevant events can be found in the case of PERSON ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","Deportation and detention orders were issued against the applicant on DATE pursuant to section PERSON ) of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON ( PERSON . CARDINAL , as amended ) on the grounds that he was an illegal immigrant by virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(k ) of the PERSON ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . Subsequently , on DATE , a letter was prepared in LANGUAGE by ORG informing the applicant of the decision to detain and deport him ( ibid . , \u00a7 DATE ) .","In the meantime , a letter dated DATE was sent to the applicant requesting him , in view of ORG dismissal of his appeal on DATE , to start making the necessary arrangements for his departure from GPE .","On DATE the applicant , along with CARDINAL other individuals of NORP origin , submitted a Rule CARDINAL request in order to prevent their imminent deportation to GPE .","On DATE the President of the First Section decided to apply Rule CARDINAL , indicating to the respondent Government that the detainees should not be deported to GPE until the ORG had received and examined all the documents relating to their claim . The parties were requested under LAW ( a ) of ORG to submit information and documents concerning the asylum applications and the deportation . The applications were granted priority on DATE ( Rule CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the President of the First Section reconsidered the application of Rule CARDINAL in the light of information provided by the parties . He decided to maintain the interim measure in respect of CARDINAL of the applications , including that of the applicant .","On DATE the application was communicated to the Government . It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time ( LAW ) .","The applicant was released on CARDINAL DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant lodged a habeas corpus application with ORG ( first - instance jurisdiction ) .","On DATE it was dismissed ( for the relevant details of the proceedings , see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( appellate jurisdiction ) on DATE .","It was dismissed on DATE on the grounds that the application was without object as the applicant had in the meantime been released .","In a fax dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative notified the ORG that she had been informed by members of the NORP community in GPE that the applicant had been deported .","The Government replied in a fax dated DATE that the authorities did not hold any records showing that the applicant had been deported or that he had even left GPE .","The applicant \u2019s representative eventually managed to establish contact with the applicant with the aim of clarifying the circumstances of his departure from GPE . The applicant informed her that he had tried , in DATE , to leave GPE from GPE airport with a false NORP passport . He alleged that he had been apprehended by the police , to whom he had presented a NORP passport under the name PERSON , apparently his real passport . He had been detained for TIME at the airport and during his detention had made an arrangement with the immigration authorities \/ police to be sent to GPE with his NORP passport , as GPE did not require a visa for NORP nationals . He had wanted to leave GPE as soon as possible to avoid being prosecuted for attempting to travel with false documents . He alleged that he had then made his way from GPE to GPE .","Following receipt of this information , the Government informed the ORG that the authorities did not hold any records indicating the departure or deportation of anyone named ORG from GPE . They therefore suggested that the applicant might have left GPE from the occupied areas .","On DATE the President of the Fourth Section , in the light of the information provided by the parties and the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s departure from GPE , decided to lift the measure indicated under LAW . She also decided on DATE to change the name of the application to reflect what the applicant now claimed to be his true name ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147614","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BRLEK v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["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 between CARDINAL DATE and DATE . He was held in cell CARDINAL which measured QUANTITY ( including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) , with CARDINAL other prisoners , having CARDINAL QUANTITY of personal space . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE prisoners were held therein , from DATE to DATE CARDINAL prisoners were held therein .","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 , \u00a7 \u00a7 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 \u00a7 DATE ) .","As regards the cell temperature , the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in TIME ( TIME ) in DATE and DATE had been approximately CARDINAL , exceeding CARDINAL on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147657","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BEKI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On CARDINAL DATE PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , the applicants\u2019 respective close relatives , were killed .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 legal representative lodged a criminal complaint with the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG against ORG , PERSON , and ORG on charges of war crimes against the civilian population , which concerned the killing of CARDINAL individuals , including the applicants\u2019 close relatives mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above .","The GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office concluded that the applicants\u2019 relatives had been killed in combat between paramilitary groups of the so - called \u201c GPE \u201d and ORG or as collateral victims of that combat , so on DATE it dismissed the criminal complaint .","The applicants took over the prosecution , and on DATE lodged a request for an investigation with ORG . On DATE the court invited the applicants to amend their request to satisfy the requirements prescribed under LAW . The applicants did not reply , and on DATE the court declared the request inadmissible . This decision became final on CARDINAL DATE .","The relevant provisions of LAW ( PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences shall be instituted by ORG in the interest of GPE and its citizens .","( CARDINAL ) Exceptionally , in respect of certain criminal offences , it may be prescribed by law that criminal proceedings shall be instituted by private prosecution or that the ORG Attorney \u2019s Office shall institute criminal proceedings by [ private ] application . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provide as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Criminal proceedings shall be instituted and conducted at the request of an authorised prosecutor only .","( CARDINAL ) NORP In cases involving criminal offences subject to public prosecution , the authorised prosecutor shall be the ORG Attorney , and in cases involving criminal offences to be prosecuted privately , the authorised prosecutor shall be a private prosecutor .","( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided by law , the ORG Attorney shall undertake a criminal prosecution where there exists a reasonable suspicion that an identified person has committed a criminal offence subject to public prosecution , and there are no legal impediments to the prosecution of that person .","...","( CARDINAL ) Where the ORG Attorney finds no grounds to institute or conduct criminal proceedings , the injured party acting as a subsidiary prosecutor may take his place under the conditions prescribed by this LAW . \u201d","Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL regulate the rights and duties of private prosecutors and injured parties acting as subsidiary prosecutors . The Criminal Code distinguishes between these CARDINAL roles . A private prosecutor ( privatni tu\u017eitelj ) is the injured party who brings a private prosecution in respect of criminal offences for which such prosecution is expressly prescribed by LAW ( offences of a lesser degree ) . An injured party acting as a subsidiary prosecutor ( o\u0161te\u0107eni kao tu\u017eitelj ) takes over criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences subject to public prosecution where the relevant prosecution authorities have , for whatever reason , decided not to prosecute .","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Requests to prosecute shall be lodged with the competent ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG and private prosecutions with the competent court .","( CARDINAL ) Where the injured party has lodged a criminal complaint ... it shall be considered that he or she has also thereby lodged a request to prosecute .","( CARDINAL ) Where the injured party has lodged a criminal complaint or a request to prosecute , but the [ competent authorities ] establish that the criminal offence in question should be prosecuted by private prosecution , the criminal complaint or request to prosecute shall be treated as a timely private prosecution if it has been submitted within the time - limit prescribed for [ bringing ] a private prosecution ... \u201d","Pursuant to LAW , the ORG Attorney is under a duty to inform the injured party within DATE of a decision not to prosecute and of the party \u2019s right to take over the proceedings , as well as to provide instructions to that party regarding the steps to be taken .","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG prosecutions , bills of indictment , requests to prosecute , legal remedies and other statements and information shall be submitted in writing unless otherwise provided by law .","( CARDINAL ) The submissions referred to in paragraph CARDINAL shall be comprehensible and contain the necessary information for the authorities to act upon them .","( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided in this LAW , the court conducting the proceedings shall invite a person who has made submissions which do not contain the necessary information or are incomprehensible to supplement them . Where the submissions have not been amended as required , the court shall declare them inadmissible .","( CARDINAL ) In its invitation to amend the submissions , [ the court conducting the proceedings ] shall warn the person concerned about the consequences of not complying with the instructions . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG shall report criminal offences subject to public prosecution .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A [ criminal ] complaint shall be lodged with the competent ORG Attorney \u2019s [ ORG ] in writing or orally .","... \u201d","Article CARDINAL governs , inter alia , the required contents of a request for an investigation , namely details of the person in respect of whom the request is being submitted , a description and the legal classification of the relevant offence , the circumstances confirming there exists a reasonable suspicion that the person concerned has committed the offence , and any existing evidence .","LAW allows a private prosecutor and the injured party acting as a subsidiary prosecutor to lodge with an investigating judge of a competent court a request for prosecution and other submissions ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140769","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF C\u0112SNIEKS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained currently in FAC . The relevant facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG telephoned the applicant and asked him to appear at their station . According to the applicant , at the State Police station , prior to any formal charges being laid against him , he was accused of murdering PERSON The police officers used physical force against him in order to obtain a confession to the crime . As a result of the duress brought to bear upon him , the applicant made a written confession .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to a short - term detention facility .","On CARDINAL DATE the police opened an investigation into the alleged misconduct of police officers at the time of the applicant \u2019s questioning . On DATE a prosecutor concluded that the complaint was no longer subject to the prosecutor \u2019s review . The prosecutor referred to the judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) dismissing the allegation of ill - treatment .","Further details in relation to the events following the applicant \u2019s appearance on DATE at the State Police station are set out in the decision in LOC ( cited above ) , where the Government acknowledged , inter alia , that the applicant had been ill - treated while in police custody and there had been a lack of effective investigation of the applicant \u2019s complaint of a violation of LAW ( ibid . , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) .","The typewritten transcript of the applicant \u2019s questioning as a witness dated DATE from TIME to TIME recorded the applicant \u2019s statement to the police .","NORP The applicant declared that he had given PERSON documents concerning his late father \u2019s company , ORG , because ORG had been looking for a company to carry out the leasing of motor vehicles . Later , PERSON had asked the applicant whether he knew anyone who could make withdrawals at the bank . The applicant had suggested his acquaintance Z.K. Occasionally GPE had sent PERSON sums of money that he had withdrawn from the bank via the applicant .","On the applicant \u2019s evidence at DATE he travelled to GPE . While there PERSON had called him looking for GPE , because PERSON had needed GPE to collect money at the bank .","The applicant gave further information in his police statement about meeting GPE in GPE upon his return from GPE and GPE telling him about a withdrawal of the funds and their handover to ORG","The applicant stated that he had learnt of PERSON \u2019s murder from the police officers on DATE the police had contacted him .","In the applicant \u2019s handwritten confession dated DATE , he stated that in DATE he had borrowed the sum of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) , which he had been unable to pay back .","On DATE the applicant together with his acquaintance ORG had travelled to GPE hoping to obtain money there , but they were unsuccessful .","The applicant had told ORG about the transfers of money to ORG and himself . ORG had also learnt that the sum of ORG CARDINAL would arrive in DATE in the bank account , to be sent on to ORG , and had told the applicant that he could resolve the issue of the debt if the applicant gave him full information .","On DATE they had left GPE and had arrived DATE in GPE . At TIME the applicant had phoned GPE , who later gave him ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and told him that the remaining amount would be withdrawn on DATE . On DATE O.O. called the applicant , saying that everything was in order . Later the applicant realised that something terrible had occurred .","The same handwritten confession contained an addendum to the effect that ORG had said that he would murder PERSON","According to the typewritten transcript of the applicant \u2019s questioning as a suspect dated DATE from TIME , the applicant confirmed the truthfulness of his confession .","He added that he had concealed the circumstances and the purpose of his travel to GPE .","He declared that he had borrowed a sum of money from his acquaintance ORG which he had failed to return . ORG had demanded to be repaid in a threating manner and to go with the applicant to GPE . ORG had insisted that the applicant keep the money intended for ORG and give him some of it in repayment of the debt instead . ORG had told the applicant to forget about PERSON , meaning that ORG had decided to kill him .","After their return to GPE , on DATE ORG had told the applicant over the phone that he could now forget about PERSON and that nobody would ever find him . The applicant had understood him to mean that PERSON had been murdered .","A typewritten transcript of a further interview of the applicant as a suspect dated DATE from TIME to CARDINAL a.m. indicated that the applicant wished to supplement his previous statement .","The applicant stated that he had concealed the fact that he had sought the killing of ORG in order to obtain the ORG CARDINAL belonging to \u0122.\u010c. He had wanted ORG money because he had been experiencing serious financial difficulties . He had ordered parts for his sports car from GPE but did not have the means to pay for them .","The applicant added that while in GPE \u0122.\u010c. had phoned him , looking for GPE The applicant then had learnt that GPE was to withdraw the sum of ORG CARDINAL for \u0122.\u010c. On DATE the applicant had asked ORG to kill ORG That DATE , using the applicant \u2019s phone , ORG had called an acquaintance in GPE about the job and told his acquaintance that he would give details later . In TIME they had again phoned the same person from a hotel . That person had been NORP and had had difficulty understanding NORP . ORG had passed the phone over to the applicant , who had provided more information about PERSON On DATE , while on a bus to GPE , ORG had again called the same person .","Both transcripts of the applicant \u2019s questioning recorded that he had wished to give a statement in the absence of a lawyer .","The applicant and CARDINAL co - accused ORG , GPE and GPE were brought before ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) to stand trial on charges related to the murder of GPE","On DATE ORG found GPE and GPE guilty of aggravated murder . ORG established that GPE and PERSON had murdered PERSON on DATE , which they had partly admitted in the course of the trial .","ORG was unable to establish the guilt of the applicant and ORG","With reference to the applicant , ORG reasoned that at trial he had pleaded not guilty to the criminal offences he was charged with and recanted the statements he had given to the police . According to the applicant , he had provided these statements as a result of ill - treatment by police officers , who had beaten him and broken his nose . In this regard ORG reasoned :","\u201c In assessing the [ applicant \u2019s ] explanation the court does not have a reason to not believe it , because , as is evident from the case materials , on DATE from CARDINAL TIME [ the applicant ] was questioned as a witness ... however ... he was taken into custody on DATE at TIME ... [ but ] he was not transferred to a detention facility until TIME on DATE , remaining in the LOC of the GPE police station ( PERSON rajona policijas p\u0101rvalde ) ...","The fact that [ the applicant ] had been asked at TIME [ of DATE ] to attend the police station was confirmed by the witness [ ORG ] , an employee of ORG ( Organiz\u0113t\u0101s noziedz\u012bbas apkaro\u0161anas p\u0101rvalde ) ...","The foregoing was also confirmed by witnesses [ A.B. ] , a police employee , and [ PERSON ] , an inspector , who were unable to explain to the court why [ the applicant ] had not been released from the police station after having been questioned as a witness .","The fact that [ the applicant ] ... suffered bodily injuries while in custody is confirmed by the expert reports contained in the file ... \u201d","In that light , ORG found that LAW had been violated with respect to the applicant , irrespective of the fact that the criminal case against the police employees had been terminated .","ORG also added that the applicant \u2019s statements of DATE had been contradictory . It deemed unreliable an expert report finding that there were no signs that the applicant had written the confession \u201c in the circumstances of anxiety , fear or physical ill - treatment \u201d . ORG reasoned that the expert report did not contain \u201c a study section \u201d ( izp\u0113tes da\u013ca ) that would allow it to understand how the expert had arrived at her conclusion .","Accordingly , ORG ruled that the applicant \u2019s statements of DATE could not be used in the applicant \u2019s conviction .","It further held that no other evidence had been obtained to the effect that the applicant had in any way organised , assisted or incited another person to commit PERSON \u2019s murder . The evidence established that transactions involving money transfers had taken place between the applicant , GPE and \u0122.\u010c. This was corroborated by the evidence of witness GPE , a police inspector who testified about an ongoing criminal investigation into illegal transactions involving all CARDINAL individuals .","ORG in its judgment referred to telephone call records admitted in evidence . On DATE at TIME a phone call had been made from the applicant \u2019s mobile number to ORG \u2019s mobile number . At the same time , it reasoned that ORG had never testified having spoken on the phone to the applicant or having previously known him . In addition , ORG considered that it had no reason to conclude that ORG \u2019s testimony that he had used the applicant \u2019s phone in order to contact ORG about a vehicle had been false . It was evident from the telephone call records that on several occasions DATE and CARDINAL DATE V.Z. had been contacted from a number which according to ORG was his .","The first - instance judgment was appealed against to ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas GPE tiesu pal\u0101ta ) on behalf of the prosecution , the victim and both co - accused convicted at first instance .","On DATE ORG overturned the applicant \u2019s acquittal and found him guilty of the aggravated murder of PERSON","NORP The judgment of ORG noted that in the appeal proceedings the applicant had continued to deny his initial statements and maintain that he had given them as a result of ill - treatment by police employees . In that regard , ORG reasoned as follows :","\u201c ORG groundlessly ( nepamatoti ) accepted that [ the applicant \u2019s ] statements and [ his ] confession given during the pre - trial investigation were not truthful .","The file does not contain impartial evidence affirming [ the applicant \u2019s ] assertion that he gave these statements as a result of physical and psychological ill - treatment by police employees , [ and ] that police employees dictated the testimonies [ to him ] . That it was merely a coincidence that during the commission of the crime [ the applicant ] was together with [ ORG ] ... [ and ] that a call was made from his phone at that time to [ ORG ] .","The criminal case ... against police employees that they possibly had exceeded their powers and inflicted injuries on [ the applicant ] has been terminated and [ the applicant \u2019s ] defence has not disputed this decision ...","ORG groundlessly rejected the expert report ... which concluded that the confession had been written by [ the applicant ] and [ that there was ] no indication ... of it being written in the circumstances of anxiety , fear or physical ill - treatment ... because the said expert report provides answers to the questions put to the expert . The expert report contains a study section providing the manner in which the expert reached the conclusion .","Furthermore ... in comparing [ the applicant \u2019s ] complaint of DATE ... and the confession written on DATE ... [ there can be ] no doubt ... that it is [ the applicant \u2019s ] free style ( br\u012bvais stils ) [ of handwriting ] . \u201d","ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s statement of DATE to be admitted in evidence and relied on it in its judgment .","The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , with confiscation of property and police control for DATE . The applicant was immediately taken into custody .","The defence lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG of the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas ORG departaments ) , arguing that ORG had convicted the applicant in violation of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention because he had given the pre - trial confession and other statements relied upon by the court as a result of ill - treatment by police employees . The defence presented an extensive volume of evidence and pointed out that the applicant had been injured while in police custody and the circumstances of the injuries had not been explained . They submitted that there had been no other evidence in the file attesting to the applicant \u2019s guilt . The court had been under an obligation to assess the material in the criminal case against the police employees and not merely to rely on the fact that the case against them had been terminated . In the defence \u2019s submission , on DATE they had appealed against the decision terminating that criminal case . Pursuing appeal had subsequently become impracticable \u201c because the criminal case regarding the [ applicant \u2019s ] beating had been joined , as evidence , to the criminal case concerning [ ORG \u2019s ] murder \u201d .","On DATE the ORG of ORG decided to dismiss the appeal without holding a hearing .","The decision of the ORG of ORG in its relevant part read as follows :","\u201c ... contrary to the [ requirements of the ] Criminal Procedure Code , the appeals filed ... are not substantiated with [ submissions as to ] a violation of the said provisions of the law , but [ rather ] factual submissions are put forward [ with the aim of obtaining ] a re - evaluation of the evidence on which the appeals court \u2019s guilty verdict is based .","...","Pursuant to LAW ... the re - evaluation of evidence and establishment of new facts ... is not within the competence of the cassation court .","The reference in the appeal on points of law to a violation of ... the relevant international Convention in the course of [ the lower court \u2019s ] adjudication is not based on the materials of this case and is therefore [ purely ] formal in nature . \u201d","The decision of the ORG of ORG was not subject to appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165568","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"T.M. AND Y.A. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants , PERSON and Mr Y.A. , are a mother and son of NORP nationality . They were born in DATE and DATE respectively and are currently living in the GPE . The duty judge decided that the applicants\u2019 identities should not be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ) . They were represented before the ORG by Mr P.C.M. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180852","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF VUJOVI\u0106 AND LIPA D.O.O. v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was founded in GPE in DATE . The first applicant is the founder , the sole owner , and the executive director of the second applicant . The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE an insolvency creditor X ( ste\u010dajni povjerilac ) requested ORG ( GPE sud ) in GPE to open insolvency proceedings ( ste\u010dajni postupak ) in respect of the second applicant . In the proceedings before ORG the second applicant was represented by the first applicant and a lawyer duly authorised by the latter . On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the second applicant and , inter alia , appointed an insolvency administrator ( ste\u010dajni upravnik ) .","On DATE the second applicant , through the lawyer , lodged an appeal against the ORG decision .","On DATE ORG ( Apelacioni sud ) in GPE rejected the appeal ( \u017ealba se odbacuje ) as having been submitted by an unauthorised person , given that the lawyer had not been appointed by the insolvency administrator . The court relied on sections DATE of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . This decision was served on the applicants on DATE .","On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG representative filed an initiative with ORG ( Ustavni sud ) seeking the assessment of the constitutionality of section CARDINAL of LAW in force at the time . There is nothing in the case - file as to the outcome of that initiative .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicants\u2019 constitutional appeal for \u201c not having been lodged by a party to the domestic proceedings or by a person authorised to appeal on behalf of the person whose rights and freedoms were violated \u201d . This decision was served on the applicants on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154980","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF J.K. AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iraq)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants , a married couple and their son , were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively . Their religious affiliation is unknown .","On DATE , the applicant husband applied for asylum and a residence permit in GPE . On DATE , his application was dismissed since he was registered as having left the country .","On DATE , the applicant husband applied anew for asylum and a residence permit in GPE , as did the other applicants on DATE .","Before ORG ( Migrationsverket ) , all the applicants were heard in an introductory interview on DATE . Subsequently , the adult applicants were heard anew during a longer interview , which took place on DATE and lasted CARDINAL . The applicant son was interviewed briefly for a second time and the applicant husband was interviewed a third time . The applicants were assisted by appointed counsel .","The applicants maintained that upon return to GPE they risked persecution by ORG and that the applicant husband appeared on their death list . The applicants had been brought up in GPE . Since DATE the applicant husband had run his own business exclusively with NORP clients and had had his office at the NORP base \u201c FAC \u201d . Several of his employees had on occasion been warned not to cooperate with the NORP .","On DATE , the applicant husband had been the target of a murder attempt carried out by ORG . He had had to stay in hospital for DATE . There , unknown men had asked for him , after which he was treated in CARDINAL different hospitals .","In DATE , his brother had been kidnapped by ORG who had claimed that they would kill him due to the applicant \u2019s collaboration with the NORP . His brother had been released through bribes DATE and had immediately fled from GPE . The applicants had fled to GPE and stayed there until DATE , before returning to GPE .","Soon thereafter , ORG members had placed a bomb next to their house . However , it had been detected by the applicant wife , and the NORP had arrested the perpetrator . During interrogations , the perpetrator had confessed that he had been paid by ORG to kill the applicant husband and had disclosed the names of CARDINAL persons who had been designated to watch the applicants . Thereafter , the applicants had moved to GPE although the applicant husband had continued his business in GPE . During this time , ORG had destroyed their home and their business stocks .","NORP In DATE , the applicants had returned to GPE . In DATE , the applicant husband and his daughter had been shot at when driving . The daughter had been taken to a hospital where she had died . The applicant husband had then stopped working and the family had started to move around in GPE . The business stocks had been attacked CARDINAL times by ORG members , who had threatened the guards . The applicant husband stated that he had not received any personal threats since DATE , as the family was moving around . The applicant son had spent most of his time indoors for fear of attacks and had only attended school for the final exams . They had never sought protection from the domestic authorities as they lack ability to protect the family and for fear of disclosing their address , knowing that ORG collaborated with the authorities . The applicant husband still had an open and infected wound on his stomach where he was shot in DATE . The applicant wife had cysts on her liver and in her uterus . They submitted several documents , including identity papers , a death certificate for the applicants\u2019 daughter and a medical certificate for the applicant husband \u2019s injury .","On DATE , ORG rejected the application . It found that all of the applicants had proved their identity and that their asylum story was credible . However , ORG noted that the applicant husband had ended his collaboration with the NORP in DATE and that , thereafter , he had stayed in GPE for DATE without being victim of any attacks except for the ongoing threats against his work stocks . Moreover , the applicant couple had CARDINAL daughters who still lived in GPE and who were not harassed . ORG acknowledged that the applicants had been the victims of severe violence and harassment but observed that they had not sought any protection from the domestic authorities in GPE . Although it was true that ORG had infiltrated the domestic authorities , this had to a great extent diminished . Therefore , ORG concluded that the applicants had not made probable that they would be unable to seek the domestic authorities\u2019 protection . Furthermore , the applicants\u2019 state of health was not poor enough to grant them asylum . Consequently , there were no grounds on which to grant the applicants asylum or residence permits in GPE .","The applicants appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) and maintained that the NORP authorities had been and would be unable to protect them . They had contacted the police following the fire at their home and business stock in DATE and DATE and the murder of their daughter in DATE , but thereafter they had not dared to contact the authorities due to the risk of disclosing their residence . Together with their written submissions , they enclosed a written translated testimony attestation allegedly from a neighbour in GPE , who stated that a masked terrorist group had come looking for the applicant husband on DATE at TIME and that the neighbour had told them that the applicants had moved to an unknown place . The neighbour also stated that , just after the incident , the applicant husband had called him and been told about the incident . The applicants also submitted a translated residence certificate \/ police report allegedly certifying that the applicants\u2019 house had been burned down by a terrorist group on DATE . Furthermore , the applicants submitted a recording of a public debate on TV concerning the corruption and infiltration of ORG members within the NORP administration . The applicants mentioned in that connection that the applicant husband had participated in the public debate , which was broadcast on ORG in GPE on DATE , thus DATE . Finally , submitting various medical certificates , the applicants contended that the applicant husband \u2019s health had deteriorated and that he could not obtain adequate hospital care in GPE . Before ORG was heard . It stated , among other things , that the documents submitted concerning the alleged incidents on DATE and CARDINAL DATE were of a simple nature and low value as evidence .","On DATE , ORG upheld ORG decision . The court stated that the criminal acts of ORG had been committed DATE before and that the applicant husband no longer had any business with the NORP . In the event that a threat still remained against the applicants , the court found it probable that the NORP authorities had the will and the capacity to protect them . Finally , referring to the applicants\u2019 health , the court noted that these could not be seen as exceptionally distressing circumstances . In view of the above , there were no grounds on which to grant the applicants asylum or residence permits in GPE .","The applicants appealed to ORG ( Migrations\u00f6verdomstolen ) . Their request for leave to appeal was refused on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicants submitted an application to ORG for a re - examination of their case . They maintained that the applicant husband was under threat from ORG because he had been politically active . They enclosed a video showing the applicant husband being interviewed in LANGUAGE , a video showing a demonstration , and a video showing a TV debate . The applicants\u2019 request was refused on DATE . The applicants did not appeal against the decision to ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157448","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ROZUMECKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is detained in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr J. Brydak , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181594","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF IGRANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The facts of the cases , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants , who were detained at the material time in NORP penal facilities , were claimants in separate sets of civil proceedings . Most of the applicants were seeking compensation for various aspects of the conditions of their detention , for unlawful criminal prosecution , or for lack of adequate medical care .","None of the applicants were able to attend the hearings at which their claims were examined . The domestic courts at both levels of jurisdiction refused to allow them to be present . In most of the cases the courts held that there was no domestic legal provision for bringing detainees to court and referred to Article CARDINAL of the LAW on the Execution of Sentences and the relevant provisions of LAW . They also noted that the applicants had had the opportunity to submit written pleadings and to retain counsel to represent them in court .","NORP The applicants\u2019 claims were refused at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . The dates of the final judgments are set out in the appended table ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141167","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"APANDIYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON Apandiyev , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE in GPE . He is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG at ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with a double murder and arson committed DATE .","On DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness . He made no self - incriminating statements . In the transcript of the questioning it was noted that the applicant spoke LANGUAGE , did not need an interpreter \u2019s assistance and wished to be interviewed in LANGUAGE . The transcript was signed by the applicant , who also made a handwritten note in LANGUAGE to the effect that the content of the transcript correctly reflected his statement . The investigator also seized a number of the applicant \u2019s personal items , including the boots , trousers , shirt , sports jacket and leather jacket that he was wearing at the time , so as to attach them as exhibits .","According to the applicant , on DATE police officers escorted him to a police station and interviewed him as a witness in the case . After they seized his clothes , he was provided only with old trousers and was not given any footwear . Thereafter the police officers and CARDINAL of the attesting witnesses DATE who , in the applicant \u2019s submission , was known to the police officers \u2013 started beating him with truncheons and kicking him in an attempt to extort a confession from him . Allegedly , he was beaten for TIME and then , wearing only trousers and socks , was placed in a cold cell , where he spent DATE , during which time he was not given any food .","According to the ORG , before the questioning on DATE the applicant \u2019s rights were explained to him . However , neither during the questioning nor afterwards did the applicant make any complaints concerning either his health or the actions of the police officers .","On DATE the applicant was again questioned as a witness . As in the course of his questioning he confessed to the murder , he was subsequently detained as a suspect , and a record of detention was drawn up . As the applicant expressed the wish to be provided with counsel , lawyer NORP from the GPE bar association was assigned to him . After her arrival the applicant was again questioned as a suspect and confirmed his previous statement in the presence of counsel . In the transcript of the applicant \u2019s interview as a suspect dated DATE and signed by him it was noted that he spoke NORP , did not need an interpreter \u2019s assistance and wished to be interviewed in LANGUAGE . The transcript also contained a handwritten note by the applicant to the effect that his statements were reflected accurately in the transcript , that he had made them without any duress , and that he confirmed them .","According to the applicant , in the course of the questioning on DATE the police officers beat him again and the investigator put pressure on him , forcing him to sign the transcripts of the interviews of DATE . The applicant allegedly requested the investigator to provide him with a lawyer and an interpreter , as his mother tongue was PERSON and he had a poor understanding of LANGUAGE , which meant that the contents of the transcripts were unclear to him . Allegedly , these requests were refused and , unable to resist the beatings and physiological pressure , the applicant finally signed the transcripts without reading them .","According to the ORG , before the questioning on CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s rights were again explained to him . However , as on DATE , neither during the questioning nor afterwards did the applicant make any complaints concerning either his health or the actions of the police officers .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the scene of the incident , where a reconstruction of the events was carried out in his presence and that of his lawyer and the attesting witnesses . It was video recorded .","DATE the applicant was escorted from the police station to the GPE temporary detention facility ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","Also on DATE , the applicant was seen by a doctor , who issued a certificate stating that the applicant had an abrasion on his back that he had sustained DATE .","According to the applicant , the ORG authorities refused to admit him without a medical certificate . The police officers then took him to city hospital no . CARDINAL where a doctor issued him with a certificate attesting to the presence of abrasions on his back . As he had been allegedly threatened by the police officers who escorted him , the applicant did not disclose the cause of his injuries to the doctor , and the latter , upon the police ORG advice , noted in the certificate that the injuries had been received by the applicant a fortnight before .","Thereafter the applicant was taken back to the ORG , where he remained until his transfer to remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on DATE .","On DATE formal charges of aggravated murder were brought against the applicant in the presence of lawyer PERSON , who had been assigned to represent him . On the same date the applicant confirmed in writing in the presence of his lawyer that he preferred to give evidence in NORP , and he was subsequently questioned . In the transcript of the questioning it was indicated that NORP was his mother tongue . The applicant also made a handwritten note in NORP on the transcript to the effect that he admitted his guilt in part but wished to avail himself of the right to remain silent until he had had a chance to study all the case - file materials . He also noted that he had written the note in his own hand and under no pressure . The text was followed by the signatures of the applicant \u2019s counsel and the investigator . There is no indication that the applicant made any complaints concerning the alleged ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from the ORG to remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , where he remained until DATE . The applicant had no injuries when he was admitted to the remand prison and during his custody there he never requested medical treatment .","The applicant and his counsel studied the case - file on DATE from TIME , on DATE from TIME to TIME , and on DATE from TIME . The applicant and his counsel made handwritten notes on the relevant procedural records to the effect that they had studied the case - file materials in their entirety . On DATE the investigator also familiarised the applicant with CARDINAL forensic examination reports .","On DATE a bill of indictment was served on the applicant .","In the proceedings before the trial court the applicant was represented by lawyer NORP","According to the transcript of the hearing of DATE , the applicant requested the court to allow him access to the case file , the exhibits and the video recording of the reconstruction of events , stating that he had been unable to study the case file fully at the pre - trial stage . He further requested the court to call the witnesses he had previously indicated , stating that they could give oral evidence regarding the circumstances of the incident . Lastly , the applicant requested the court to provide him with an interpreter . He claimed that his understanding of legal terminology in NORP was insufficient . In reply to the court \u2019s questions , the applicant confirmed that he understood the words \u201c murder \u201d , \u201c being accused \u201d and \u201c [ he ] committed \u201d . He went on to say that he had learned LANGUAGE at school , that he had lived in GPE for DATE before the relevant events and , that he understood everyday language well .","NORP In the prosecutor \u2019s opinion , the applicant did not need an interpreter \u2019s assistance as he had been born and had grown up in GPE , had done his military service there and had written documents in LANGUAGE .","Having examined the parties\u2019 submissions , the court rejected the applicant \u2019s request to be provided with an interpreter , noting that he spoke and wrote NORP adequately . The court further rejected the applicant \u2019s request concerning witnesses as premature . It also dismissed his request regarding the exhibits , stating that those items had been seized from the applicant and were therefore familiar to him . The court further ordered that the applicant be allowed additional time to study the case file and , to that end , suspended the proceedings until DATE .","The applicant studied the case - file on DATE from TIME and on DATE from TIME to TIME Thereupon the applicant made a hand - written note in the procedural record to the effect that he had studied the case - file materials . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer made any requests for additional time to study the case file .","During the subsequent hearings the applicant stated that he understood the charges against him and pleaded not guilty . He further gave his version of the incident , alleging that the murder had been committed by another person . The applicant repudiated his self - incriminating statements made during the preliminary investigation , stating that they had been extracted under duress and threats of ill - treatment . He stated that he had been beaten by the police officers , with the result that he had signed certain documents without reading them and had copied his \u201c confession \u201d rather than written it voluntarily .","The court called and examined a number of witnesses , including expert witness Ts . and witnesses PERSON and PERSON The court further noted that it had not been possible to call witness NORP , as she was paralysed . Her statements and those of witness LOC . made during the preliminary investigation were read out in court , after the applicant gave his consent . The applicant also stated that he no longer insisted on the examination of witness PERSON .","The court further called and examined the investigators in charge of the case , PERSON . and K .. They denied putting any pressure on the applicant or using any unlawful methods of investigation , such as beatings . Investigator PERSON also testified that while studying the case file the applicant had not requested an interpreter \u2019s assistance , and that at a certain point he had refused to continue with the study of the case file , following which the materials in the file had been photocopied and given to him . Investigator PERSON also stated that the video record of the reconstruction of events of CARDINAL DATE had been shown to the applicant .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","The court admitted in evidence the applicant \u2019s confession made during the preliminary investigation , rejecting as unsubstantiated his allegation that it had been extorted under duress . In this regard the court noted that the applicant had always been questioned in the presence of a lawyer , and a lawyer had also participated in the reconstruction of events of CARDINAL DATE . Moreover , after being detained , the applicant had been informed on several occasions of his right not to testify against himself . The court also noted that the applicant had not objected to PERSON . \u2019s statement made in court to the effect that PERSON . had not put any pressure on the applicant during the investigation . As regards the applicant \u2019s allegation of beatings by the police officers , the court stated that the medical certificate of CARDINAL DATE only attested to the presence of abrasions on his back sustained DATE and did not mention any \u201c dark blue \u201d bruises on the applicant \u2019s legs and shoulders , as he had alleged in court .","The court further based its findings on other pieces of evidence , including statements by a number of witnesses , several expert reports , and , in particular , a forensic report on the clothes seized from the applicant on DATE which attested to the presence on the applicant \u2019s trousers of blood , which could have come from of CARDINAL of the victims .","In their appeal submissions , the applicant and his lawyer complained , inter alia , that the self - incriminating statements made by the applicant during the preliminary investigation had been extorted from him as a result of ill - treatment by the police .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) granted the applicant \u2019s request to be present at the appeal hearing .","On DATE the applicant was transported from remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE to remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE .","On DATE ORG notified the applicant and counsel PERSON , who had represented him before the trial court , that the appeal hearing was scheduled for DATE .","The applicant requested an interpreter \u2019s assistance for the examination of his case before the appeal court . He further requested the appeal court to allow him to study the case file , alleging that he had not been given enough time to do this at the pre - trial stage .","The applicant and his counsel were present at the hearing of DATE . ORG noted that during the proceedings before the trial court the applicant had demonstrated sufficient command of LANGUAGE , being well able to understand what was being said to him in NORP and to express himself clearly in that language . Nevertheless , noting that everyone had the right to use his mother tongue , the appeal court decided to grant the applicant \u2019s request and provide him with an interpreter during the examination of his appeal . ORG accordingly postponed the hearing to DATE .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was present but his counsel did not appear . The applicant did not make any requests in this regard , such as for the postponement of the hearing . ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request for additional time to study the case file . It referred to the case - file materials , stating that on DATE the applicant and his lawyer had had access to and studied all the materials , including the exhibits and the video recording , and that they had not made any requests upon the completion of their study . Moreover , the first - instance court had granted the applicant additional time to study the case file , which he had done on CARDINAL and DATE .","On DATE ORG , in the presence of the applicant and the prosecutor , upheld the judgment of DATE . It confirmed that the trial court had correctly assessed the evidence and applied the domestic law . It noted , in particular , that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been interviewed as a witness and that the procedural law then in force had not provided for a lawyer \u2019s assistance during such interviews . However , after the applicant had made self - incriminating statements during his witness interview , he had then been questioned as a suspect in the presence of a lawyer and confirmed his statement . The applicant \u2019s defence counsel had been present at all subsequent interviews and investigative actions .","The court further rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment during the investigation , stating that they were not corroborated by the results of the applicant \u2019s medical examination as recorded on the certificate of CARDINAL DATE . It also pointed out that the applicant had not complained about any injuries upon his arrival at the ORG , nor had he complained at the pre - trial stage about the alleged ill - treatment , although he had had the opportunity to do so , as he had always given oral evidence in the presence of his defence counsel and , during the reconstruction of events , also in the presence of the attesting witnesses .","The court went on to note that when his rights were being explained to him at the pre - trial stage , the applicant had stated that he understood his rights , that he spoke NORP , would give oral evidence in that language and did not need an interpreter \u2019s assistance . Furthermore , when interviewed both as a suspect and an accused , the applicant had expressed his wish to give oral evidence in NORP and refused an interpreter \u2019s assistance . Further , when studying the file of his criminal case , the applicant had not requested an interpreter \u2019s assistance . The court further noted that the case file contained the applicant \u2019s confession written in LANGUAGE , his handwritten notes made on the transcript of his interview of DATE and other documents which confirmed that he had an adequate command of NORP . The appeal court added that the applicant had received secondary education in GPE , had learned LANGUAGE at school , had done his military service in DATE in GPE and had lived in GPE since DATE . During the hearings before the trial court the applicant had stated that he understood everyday NORP , had testified in NORP and had actively participated in the examination of his criminal case . The appeal court therefore concluded that in such circumstances the fact that the applicant had not had an interpreter \u2019s assistance during the preliminary investigation and before the first - instance court had not violated his rights .","NORP The applicant \u2019s attempts to have his case reopened in supervisory review proceedings were to no avail .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s sentence was reduced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment because of changes in the criminal law .","On DATE the applicant complained in writing to the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE about various irregularities in the preliminary investigation , including ill - treatment by the police and refusals of his requests to be provided with a lawyer and an interpreter , to have the case - file materials and the bill of indictment translated into his mother tongue , and to be granted access to the exhibits .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office of LOC of GPE refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegations . It noted in its decision that it was clear from the medical certificate of DATE that the applicant had sustained the abrasion on his back DATE before the examination , that is , in DATE , before he was questioned and subsequently detained . Thus , there was no evidence of an offence .","A copy of that decision was sent to the applicant on DATE .","On an unspecified date the applicant resubmitted his complaint to the prosecuting authorities .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office of ORG informed the applicant that the inquiry into his allegations of ill - treatment by the police officers carried out by the prosecutor \u2019s office of LOC of GPE had been incomplete and that therefore the decision of DATE had been quashed and the relevant materials sent back to the prosecutor \u2019s office of LOC of GPE for an additional inquiry . The letter further stated that the applicant would be apprised of the results of that inquiry .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office of LOC of GPE again refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegations on the ground that following an additional inquiry they had been found to be unsubstantiated . In particular , there was no evidence that the applicant had sustained any injuries apart from an abrasion on his back that had been sustained DATE before he had been questioned and detained . A copy of the decision was sent to the applicant .","In DATE the applicant contested the decision before a higher prosecutor \u2019s office . His complaint was dismissed by the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE on DATE .","DATE . On DATE the authorities of detention facility USHCHCARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( \u201c the prison authorities \u201d ) accepted for dispatch from the applicant an envelope addressed to the ORG which contained a completed application form which , with its enclosures , totalled CARDINAL pages . DATE , the applicant was informed that it had been entered in the prison correspondence register CARDINAL and sent out .","On DATE the prison authorities returned the envelope to the applicant . They explained that it had been returned by the postal service on the ground that the stamps placed on the envelope by the applicant , which corresponded to the postage for a standard letter , were insufficient , and that the applicant needed to pay MONEY ( RUB ) in postage for the excess weight .","According to the applicant , on DATE he again handed his letter to the prison authorities and requested them to take the necessary amount from his account to cover the postage . However , the authorities returned the letter to him . He allegedly resubmitted it for dispatch on DATE .","DATE and DATE there was no money in the applicant \u2019s account . On the latter date the account was credited with the amount of RUB CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant requested the prison authorities to send a letter to ORG , an NGO based in GPE , and to debit his account for the amount of the postage . In the letter he asked ORG to forward his application to the ORG .","On DATE the ORG received a CARDINAL - page letter from the applicant dated DATE , which was the first piece of correspondence it had received from him . In the letter the applicant explained that on DATE he had tried to send an application form to the ORG but it had subsequently been returned on account of insufficient postage . He went on to note that as he had then had to apply to ORG with a request for his application to be forwarded to the ORG , there might be a delay in the application reaching the ORG .","On DATE the ORG acknowledged receipt of the applicant \u2019s letter of DATE and invited him to submit a duly completed application form .","On DATE the ORG received a CARDINAL - page letter from the applicant dated DATE . In the letter the applicant again described his attempt to send the application form to the ORG on DATE and his subsequent application to ORG . He added , however , that ORG had refused to forward his application form to the ORG and that he had being trying to send it to the ORG himself . He noted , without specifying any reasons , that he was having difficulty in doing so , which might lead to the dispatch of the application form being delayed . He therefore asked the ORG not to reject it on the ground of expiry of the DATE time - limit .","On DATE the ORG reminded the applicant that he still had to submit a duly completed application form .","On DATE the ORG received a CARDINAL - page letter from the applicant dated DATE , in which he stated that he had been unable to send the application form to the ORG because of the prison authorities\u2019 refusal to forward it , but that he would persist in his attempts to send it .","On DATE the ORG received an CARDINAL - page letter from the applicant dated DATE , in which he again outlined his previous attempts to send the application form to the ORG and made lengthy observations on the ORG \u2019s admissibility criteria , in particular the application of the DATE time - limit .","On DATE the ORG again reminded the applicant that he still had to submit a duly completed application form .","On DATE the ORG received a letter from the applicant dated DATE in which he asked it to confirm receipt of the application form .","On DATE the ORG received a letter from the applicant dated DATE enclosing the application form dated DATE .","On DATE the ORG received an additional application form sent by the applicant on DATE . The applicant once again stated that , following the return of his application form of CARDINAL DATE and after his account had been credited with a sum of money , he had asked the prison authorities to send the form to ORG on DATE .","On DATE the ORG confirmed receipt of both application forms .","Thereafter the applicant continued to send correspondence to ORG on a regular basis . The following documents , inter alia , were enclosed with the applicant \u2019s correspondence :","\u2013 An undated certificate signed and stamped by the head of detention facility GPE confirming that the applicant had indeed submitted an application to the ORG to the prison authorities on DATE , which had been registered under the outgoing number QUANTITY and forwarded to the post office , which had then returned it , stating that the envelope containing the applicant \u2019s correspondence weighed QUANTITY and therefore additional payment needed to be made . The certificate also indicated that the prison authorities had sent out the application immediately upon receipt of the necessary sum of money from the applicant .","\u2013 A letter of DATE from ORG of the GPE Region informing the applicant that his application to the ORG comprising CARDINAL pages had been registered by the prison authorities on DATE under the number QUANTITY . The letter went on to say that the post office to which the applicant \u2019s letter had been taken had pointed out that its weight exceeded the maximum allowed and that therefore it was necessary to pay a supplement ; however , at that time there had been no money in the applicant \u2019s account and therefore his letter had been sent out later , when the necessary sum had been credited to the account .","\u2013 A letter of CARDINAL DATE from the head of detention facility USHCHCARDINAL\/CARDINAL informing the applicant that his application had been sent to ORG after DATE , when the supplement for the postage had been paid . The letter assured the applicant that DATE , the date on which his letter had been accepted for dispatch by the prison authorities , would be considered as the date of dispatch .","Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Penal Code states that detainees may receive and send unlimited letters , postcards and telegrams at their own expense . The correspondence sent by detainees must comply with the applicable postal requirements . After receipt of requests by detainees , the prison administration informs them of the transfer of their correspondence to the postal service for delivery to the addressee .","Article CARDINAL of LAW provides for judicial review of decisions , acts or failure to act on the part of an inquirer , investigator or prosecutor which affect constitutional rights or freedoms . The judge is empowered to verify the lawfulness and reasonableness of the decision , act or failure to act , and to grant the following forms of redress : ( i ) to declare the act or failure to act unlawful or unreasonable and order the relevant authority to remedy the violation ; or ( ii ) to reject the complaint ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183562","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KLIMNENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised complaints under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161540","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SHARMA v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Expulsion of an alien);No 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);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE [ in his observations , he mentions DATE or DATE and studies at ORG ] . He married a NORP national on DATE . They have CARDINAL daughters , born in GPE on DATE and DATE respectively .","NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant was issued a temporary residence permit for DATE and DATE respectively on the grounds of his marriage to a NORP national . Under the domestic law which was applicable at the material time , following the expiry of the fouryear period the applicant was entitled to a permanent residence permit .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s documents for the permanent residence permit were accepted .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife asked ORG ( GPE un migr\u0101cijas lietu p\u0101rvaldes GPE apkalpo\u0161anas departaments ) to check the information submitted by the applicant for the permanent residence permit in relation to his employment in GPE .","On DATE ORG refused to grant the permanent residence permit to the applicant on the grounds that he had submitted false information and did not have sufficient financial means to stay in GPE .","According to the Government , on DATE the applicant \u2019s wife wrote ORG a short letter stating that \u201c my husband ... was refused a permanent residence permit ; I would like to object to this . \u201d This objection was accompanied by another letter requesting to ignore the former , as it had been drawn up under threat by the applicant . She asked for help and for the applicant to be refused leave to remain in GPE .","The applicant disagreed with the allegations contained in this letter .","On DATE ORG overturned the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see above ) . It was concluded that the applicant had sufficient financial means and that no false information had been submitted by him . A permanent residence permit , valid until DATE , was then issued for the applicant .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife reported a domestic conflict to the police . According to her , on CARDINAL and DATE , when she had attempted to talk to the applicant about a divorce , he had allegedly tried to suffocate her and had inflicted bodily injuries on her . The applicant disagreed with his wife \u2019s version of events ; he submitted to the police that he had not inflicted any bodily injuries on his wife . The cause of their conflicts had been the fact that his wife had taken their children to live in another city in GPE .","Following a forensic examination , unspecified minor injuries were found on the applicant wife \u2019s body . On DATE the police refused to open criminal proceedings , on the ground that no offence had been committed . No appeal was lodged against that decision .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant \u2019s wife applied to ORG with a view to withdrawing the applicant \u2019s permanent residence permit and expelling him from GPE on the grounds that he presented threats to her life and health and those of their children . She mentioned her previous letters to ORG . When the applicant had found out about them , he had asked for them to be recalled and had promised to stop the abuse he had been engaging in . She had done so . Nevertheless , when the permanent residence permit had been issued \u201c it had started all over again \u201d . The applicant had allegedly threatened to cripple her if he had to leave GPE , and also to kill her , the children and himself .","The applicant denied the allegations contained in this letter .","On DATE her letter was forwarded to ORG ( Dro\u0161\u012bbas policija ) for an assessment of the applicant \u2019s character and to determine if he presented threats to national security or public order .","On DATE the Security Police informed ORG that the applicant constituted a threat to public order and safety .","On DATE the Minister of ORG decided to include the applicant in the blacklist for an indefinite period of time , on the ground that he constituted a threat to public order and safety , and decided to refuse him entry to GPE . This decision was not amenable to judicial review at the time . Following legislative changes ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the persistence of the grounds for the inclusion in the blacklist could be re - examined by the Minister of Interior ; the applicant attempted to avail himself of this remedy ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the Minister of ORG replied to the applicant \u2019s enquiry of DATE and , having reviewed the applicant \u2019s case , concluded that the applicant could not be removed from the blacklist .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife applied to ORG claiming that notwithstanding her previous letters expressing her wish for the applicant to leave the country their relations had improved and she wished to maintain her family and not to separate the applicant from their children . If he had to leave she and their children would probably follow him . In reply , the Minister explained that her subjective feelings towards the applicant did not imply a change in the circumstances on the basis of which the applicant had been included in the blacklist .","On DATE the applicant applied to the Minister of Interior with a view to removing the prohibition on entering GPE . He submitted that the relationship with his spouse had improved and that she and their children did not wish him to leave GPE .","On DATE ORG wrote to ORG informing them that the applicant constituted a threat to public order and safety . On DATE the Security Police informed ORG that the applicant had been included in the list of persons prohibited from entering in GPE , confirming their view that the applicant constituted a threat to public order and safety ; there had been no change in those circumstances . In view of this , they asked ORG to detain and expel the applicant in accordance with section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE the Minister of Interior adopted decision no . CARDINAL and refused to remove the applicant from the blacklist . The decision was sent to the applicant \u2019s address in GPE . In the decision , the Minister relied on the letter of CARDINAL DATE informing him that the circumstances on the basis of which the applicant had been included in the blacklist had not changed . Thus the Minister could not remove the prohibition on entering GPE . The applicant \u2019s submissions could not serve as the basis for his removal from the blacklist , since a person could not choose his country of residence under either domestic or international law . States were not obliged to respect couples\u2019 choices concerning their country of residence . Nor were there any reasons detected why the applicant \u2019s family could not join the applicant in GPE and enjoy their family life there . The Minister concluded that the restrictions on the applicant \u2019s right to respect for his family life were justified in the interests of public order and safety and were proportionate . As regards the procedure for appeal , a reference was made to section DATE , paragraph CARDINAL and section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW which provided for an appeal to the administrative court .","NORP The applicant did not appeal .","On DATE ORG adopted decision no . CARDINAL by which the applicant \u2019s permanent residence permit was withdrawn on the grounds that he had been included in the blacklist ( section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of LAW ) . The decision was based on the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It was drawn up on the basis of information and documents received from ORG . The decision indicated that pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) it was to take effect upon notification to the applicant . The decision also stated that the applicant was obliged to leave the country within DATE . On DATE the applicant was informed of the decision and of the fact that he was to leave the country by DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with ORG .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the withdrawal of the residence permit . It found that the applicant had been lawfully included in the list of persons prohibited from entering in GPE . Taking into account that the decision to include the applicant in the blacklist was in force and had not been declared unlawful , it was impossible for the applicant to stay in GPE . It further considered that the contested decision complied with the rule of law , and that it was taken in the interests of national security , public order and safety and for protection of the rights of others , namely the spouse and children . It was proportionate because the protection of the interests of society in assuring national security and public order and safety in the ORG outweighed the individual interests of the applicant . The applicant was not heard \u2019s case - law on immigration control , to LAW under which the interference with the applicant \u2019s family life could be justified , and to the DATE report of ORG ) concerning GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision to withdraw his permanent residence permit was allowed by ORG .","On DATE ORG forwarded to the applicant \u2019s address in GPE the written submissions of ORG in his case . The applicant was asked to indicate by DATE if he would agree for the court to examine his case in written proceedings ( rakstveida proced\u016bra ) . Since he did not reply , the court could not examine the case without a hearing .","Following CARDINAL hearings ( on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and DATE ) , the case was left without determination on the grounds that the applicant had failed to appear before the court . This decision took effect on DATE . All the court correspondence was sent to the applicant \u2019s address in GPE . His wife was invited as a third party to the proceedings .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant was detained by ORG officials under section DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of LAW on the ground that he constituted a threat to national security or public order and safety . The detention record also stated that by a decision of the Minister of Interior the applicant had been included in the blacklist , and that on DATE his permanent residence permit had been withdrawn . The applicant signed the detention record and he was placed in a short - term detention facility in GPE , where he stayed until DATE .","The applicant lodged a complaint with a prosecutor , arguing that he had been unlawfully detained on the grounds of lack of a valid residence permit . On DATE a prosecutor replied that the applicant \u2019s detention was lawful and had been ordered on national security or public safety and order grounds . He could be detained for DATE on these grounds , following which a court order was necessary for continued detention . It was noted that on DATE the Security Police had informed ORG that the applicant had been included in the blacklist . Finally , it was noted that the applicant \u2019s detention as such did not automatically entail his expulsion . An expulsion order should be issued within DATE of the applicant \u2019s detention . The applicant was informed that he could lodge an appeal against this reply with a superior prosecutor .","On DATE the GPE branch of ORG adopted an expulsion order , no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( l\u0113mums par \u0101rzemnieka piespiedu izraid\u012b\u0161anu ) under section DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of the Immigration PERSON , on the grounds that the applicant had been detained by ORG in NORP territory . He was informed that he would be excluded from NORP territory for a DATE period . The decision took effect DATE , when it was notified to the applicant . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the expulsion order with the Head of ORG .","On DATE , following a closed hearing , a judge of ORG authorised the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE . The judge heard the applicant and decided that he was to be transferred to an accommodation centre for foreign detainees in ORG . He could not yet be expelled because he had lodged an appeal against order no . DATE , and thus the judge considered that it was necessary to extend his detention . No appeal against the decision was lodged .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to an accommodation centre for foreign detainees in ORG .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , including the applicant in the list of persons prohibited from entering in GPE until DATE . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision with the administrative courts .","On DATE the Head of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the expulsion order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The decision stated that it came into effect pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW and could be amenable to judicial review by the administrative court within DATE of its coming into effect .","On DATE this decision was sent to the accommodation centre for foreign detainees in ORG . It was not served on the applicant because meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant had been expelled from GPE to GPE .","Upon the applicant \u2019s request , on DATE the Minister of Interior adopted decision no . CARDINAL entitled \u201c Removal of prohibition on entering GPE \u201d . On the basis of information received from ORG and the Security Police and section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of the Immigration PERSON the Minister decided to remove the applicant from the blacklist . The decision took effect immediately .","On CARDINAL DATE , in response to an email from the applicant , ORG explained that he had been included in the blacklist on the basis of decision no . CARDINAL of DATE and that he could not appeal against the decision , but he could ask the competent authority to review that decision ( reference was made to paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of LAW ) . They also informed him that according to LAW reasons for the applicant \u2019s inclusion in the list could not be disclosed . Having received the applicant \u2019s request for a review of the decision , ORG had made enquiries with ORG and the Security Police . They had received answers that threats under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW were not present . Accordingly , the above decision was adopted . Lastly , in response to the applicant \u2019s question whether he could now enter GPE or receive a permanent residence permit , reference was made to ORG and the procedure established therein ."],"violated_articles":["5","P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","P7-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P7-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148455","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"\u0106ALDOVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["Mr PERSON , Mr GPE Petkovi\u0107 and Mr GPE Ivanovi\u0107 are citizens of GPE and GPE and citizens of GPE who were born in DATE and DATE , respectively . PERSON is a citizen of GPE who was born in DATE . All the applicants live in GPE .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , ORG .","ORG , having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) , indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right .","The applicants or their spouses were officers of the JNA , the armed forces of the former ORG ( \u201c the SFRY \u201d ) . The present case concerns their attempts to repossess their pre - war flats in GPE .","Practically all flats in the former SFRY were part of the system of \u201c social ownership \u201d . They were generally built by socially owned enterprises or other public bodies for allocation to their employees , who became \u201c occupancy right holders \u201d . All citizens of the SFRY were required to pay a means - tested contribution to subsidise housing construction . However , the amount an individual had contributed was not amongst the legal criteria taken into account with regard to waiting lists for the allocation of such flats .","On DATE JNA members were offered the opportunity to purchase their flats at a discount on their market value ( see FAC DATE , Zakon o stambenom obezbje\u0111ivanju u NORP narodnoj armiji , ORG of the SFRY no . CARDINAL ) . DATE the applicants , or their spouses , were allocated military flats in GPE ( Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON Ivanovi\u0107 ) and in GPE ( Ms Miki\u0107 ) which they later purchased under the terms of LAW .","On DATE GPE suspended the sale of military flats on its territory ( see the Suspension on GPE DATE , ORG o privremenoj zabrani prodaje stanova u dru\u0161tvenoj svojini , ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The LAW was respected in what is today the Federation of Bosnia and GPE , and those who had purchased military flats located in that Entity could not register their ownership and remained , strictly speaking , occupancy right holders ( a purchase contract does not of itself transfer title to the buyer under domestic law ) .","When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicants , or their spouses , continued their military careers in the FAC forces and left their flats . They were thereafter allocated tenancy rights of unlimited duration on military flats in GPE , which some of them even purchased later .","During the war , the local armed forces ( namely , the ORG , ORG and ORG forces ) assumed nominal control of all non - privatised military flats on the territory under their respective control ( ORG o preuzimanju sredstava biv\u0161e Socijalisti\u010dke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije u svojinu PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; ORG o preuzimanju vojnostambenog fonda JNA , Official PERSON of the Republika Srpska no . CARDINAL ; PERSON o sredstvima i finansiranju NORP PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; ORG o utvr\u0111ivanju namjene i preno\u0161enju prava upravljanja i kori\u0161tenja sredstvima biv\u0161e Socijalisti\u010dke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije , PERSON , a koja se nalaze na podru\u010dju PERSON i ORG ; ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Although on DATE those forces merged into the armed forces of GPE , non - privatised military flats are still under the nominal control of the Entities .","A more detailed background concerning socially owned flats , military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE is provided in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant , a JNA officer , was allocated a military flat in GPE .","On DATE the applicant bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full purchase price in the amount of MONEY ( around MONEY ( DEM ) at the time ) .","When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , he continued his military career in the FAC forces and left GPE .","On DATE ORG GPE ( ORG odbrane PERSON i ORG ; \u201c ORG \u201d ) allocated the flat to a family of a killed member of the ORG forces .","On DATE the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat in GPE .","On DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section QUANTITY of ORG . The applicant failed to appeal against that decision .","On DATE the restitution commission set up by Annex CARDINAL to ORG , before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings , held that the applicant was neither a refugee nor a displaced person within the meaning of Annex CARDINAL and declined jurisdiction . On DATE the restitution commission rejected the applicant \u2019s request for reconsideration of his claim .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( a domestic human - rights body set up under Annex DATE LAW ) about the inability to repossess his pre - war flat .","On DATE ORG ( the legal successor of ORG ) rejected his case on non - exhaustion grounds as he had failed to appeal against the first - instance decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE .","It would appear that the applicant has not applied for compensation under section DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s husband , a JNA officer , was allocated a military flat in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE . It would appear that the whole purchase price was covered by the contribution he had paid for the housing construction ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicant \u2019s husband continued his military career in the FAC forces and was killed on DATE in a military action near GPE .","On DATE the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE , GPE . On DATE she purchased that flat .","On DATE the applicant applied to the competent domestic authorities for the restitution of the flat in GPE ( in accordance with LAW , which is still in force , spouses share occupancy rights ) .","On DATE her application was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG .","On DATE the competent ORG upheld the first - instance decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG allocated the flat to GPE , a member of ORG .","On DATE , following an application for judicial review , ORG upheld the second - instance decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .","It would appear that the applicant has not applied for compensation under section DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the applicant , a JNA officer , was allocated a military flat in GPE .","On DATE the applicant bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full price in the amount of MONEY ( around DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) .","When the ORG formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , he continued his military career in the FAC forces and left GPE . His military service was terminated in DATE .","On DATE ORG allocated the flat to ORG , a member of the ORG forces .","In DATE the competent domestic authority rejected the applicant \u2019s request for restitution of his flat in GPE pursuant to section QUANTITY of ORG . It would appear that the applicant did not appeal against that decision .","On DATE the restitution commission set up by Annex CARDINAL to ORG , before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings , accepted his application for the restitution . However , on DATE the restitution commission accepted the request for reconsideration submitted by ORG and quashed its decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE .","On DATE the applicant made a new application for the restitution of his flat . On DATE the competent domestic authority rejected his application pursuant to section LANGUAGE of ORG .","On DATE the competent ORG upheld the first - instance decision of DATE .","On DATE , following an application for judicial review , ORG upheld the second - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and GPE found a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention in the applicant \u2019s and CARDINAL other cases ( decision no . AP CARDINAL ) as regards the method of determining the amount of compensation envisaged under section ORG , in line with its decision no . U CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","It would appear that the applicant has not applied for compensation under section DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the applicant , a JNA officer , was allocated a military flat in GPE .","On DATE the applicant bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full price in the amount of MONEY ( around DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) .","When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , he continued his military career in the FAC forces and left GPE .","DATE . On DATE the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat in GPE .","On DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section QUANTITY of ORG .","On DATE the competent ORG quashed the first - instance decision of DATE for procedural reasons . After having examined the applicant \u2019s request , it rejected it on the same date pursuant to section QUANTITY of ORG .","On DATE ORG allocated the impugned flat to TIME , a member of the ORG forces .","The applicant , in the meantime , complained to ORG about the inability to repossess his pre - war flat and about the length of the proceedings for repossession .","On DATE ORG found that there had been a violation of LAW as regards the length of the proceedings for repossession and awarded the applicant MONEY ( BAM ; MONEY ) in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . As regards the complaint about the inability to repossess the pre - war flat , the Commission held that there had been no violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .","On DATE , following an application for judicial review , ORG upheld the second - instance decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal . On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected his appeal as manifestly ill - founded .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant received compensation under section ORG see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in the amount of BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately PERSON euros ) .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE .","On DATE all purchase contracts concluded under LAW DATE were declared void ( Zakon o preuzimanju sredstava biv\u0161e ORG u svojinu PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Thereafter , the legislation regulating this matter , ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , ORG and Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) and ORG ( Zakon o prestanku primjene PERSON o napu\u0161tenim stanovima , Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , FAC , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , underwent numerous changes and all such contracts were declared legally valid . However , CARDINAL categories of buyer are not entitled to repossess their flats and to register their title to them ( see section DATE of the Privatisation of Flats Act DATE and section CARDINAL of ORG . The first category concerns those who served in foreign armed forces after the DATE - CARDINAL war . The second concerns those who acquired occupancy or equivalent rights to a military flat in a successor ORG of the SFRY , like the present applicants . However , they are now entitled to compensation under section ORG . While the compensation had initially been envisaged as the refund of the amount paid for the flats in DATE plus interest at the rate applicable to overnight deposits , on DATE ORG ( decision no . U CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) declared that method of determining the amount of compensation unconstitutional and ordered ORG to amend it in line with ORG cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and DATE ) .","For a more detailed analysis of the relevant domestic law and practice and of the relevant international documents , see PERSON ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) and PERSON and Others ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","D. Relevant NORP legislation","It has no longer been possible to acquire occupancy rights in GPE since DATE ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , Zakon o stanovanju , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL ) . Instead , current and retired members of the armed forces and current and retired staff of ORG have thereafter been entitled to equivalent tenancy rights of unlimited duration on military flats or , in case of a lack of suitable flats , mortgage loans co - financed by the ORG on condition that they or their spouses or children do not have occupancy or equivalent rights to a flat in any of the former ORG ( the Military Housing Ordinance DATE , PERSON o na\u010dinu i kriterijumima za re\u0161avanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u PERSON ministarstvu za odbranu i PERSON , Official Gazette of GPE nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; LAW , PERSON o na\u010dinu i kriterijumima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za re\u0161avanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u PERSON , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; the Military Housing Ordinance CARDINAL , PERSON o na\u010dinu , kriterijumima i merilima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za re\u0161avanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u ORG odbrane i PERSON i PERSON , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; LAW , PERSON o re\u0161avanju stambenih pitanja u GPE odbrane , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and ORG DATE and DATE , PERSON o re\u0161avanju stambenih potreba PERSON vojnih penzija , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and PERSON o re\u0161avanju stambenih potreba PERSON vojnih penzija , published in an internal gazette of ORG no . CARDINAL ) . Therefore , those who occupied military flats in GPE before the war have as a rule been required to give up their rights to those flats in order to qualify for a military flat or a loan in GPE or GPE ( see sections DATE of LAW DATE ; sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Military Pensioners Ordinance DATE ; and sections DATE CARDINAL of LAW ) .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Housing Act DATE provides that the holder of a tenancy right of unlimited duration in respect of a flat may purchase that flat under the same conditions as an occupancy right holder ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179218","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DNK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FRISK AND JENSEN v. DENMARK","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants are journalists . At the relevant time they were employed by CARDINAL of the CARDINAL national television stations in GPE , ORG , hereafter \u201c GPE \u201d . The first applicant produced a television programme , described as a documentary , called \u201c When the doctor knows best \u201d , which was broadcast at TIME on DATE , and seen by CARDINAL viewers . The second applicant was the first applicant \u2019s superior and responsible for the content of the programme .","The television programme concerned the treatment of pleural mesothelioma cancer , notably at ORG ) , where ORG was in charge of treatment . It focused on CARDINAL types of chemotherapy medication , GPE , produced by L , and PERSON , produced by ORG used PERSON as first - line treatment in combination with NORP or PERSON , depending on whether the treatment was related to an operation ( operable patients ) or to prolonging life and relieving pain and symptoms ( inoperable patients ) .","CARDINAL experts participated in the programme : a medical doctor from ORG in GPE , a professor from GPE and a medical doctor from ORG in GPE . They all used GPE as first - line treatment , most often in combination with NORP or PERSON . The programme followed CARDINAL patients and their relatives , who told their stories , and a narrator spoke as a voice - over throughout the programme .","NORP In preparation for the programme , the first applicant had carried out research on the subject which included , inter alia , the following .","On DATE ORG had approved the marketing of GPE in combination with NORP for treatment of patients with inoperable pleural mesothelioma cancer . The background for the approval was , among others , research which had been carried out examining the effect of treatment with PERSON in combination with NORP as compared to treatment with NORP alone ( a phase III trial , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as first - line therapy .","NORP In DATE the Minister for ORG and ORG replied to various questions posed by Members of ORG as to the treatment of pleural mesothelioma cancer in GPE . The Minister replied , inter alia , that there was no proof that an GPE - based treatment was more efficient than other chemotherapy - based treatments , including that offered in GPE ; that the combination of PERSON and NORP , which was used at ORG , resulted in a DATE survival rate of PERCENT and a median DATE of DATE , which was exactly the survival rate from using the combination of GPE and NORP , but that there had been no direct comparison of the CARDINAL treatments ; and that there was no internationally accepted standard chemotherapy for the treatment of pleural mesothelioma cancer , but that several single and combined treatments were used .","On DATE ORG produced a memorandum about pleural mesothelioma cancer and its treatment , which was sent to GPE . It stressed that international studies , including of PERSON and GPE , had not shown that any CARDINAL - combination regime was superior to other twocombination regimes . That information was confirmed by the professor from GPE in an email of DATE and by the medical doctor from ORG in GPE in an email of DATE . The memorandum also referred to a fund aimed at developing research on pleural mesothelioma cancer , in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kroner ( DKK ) , equal to MONEY ( ORG ) , received by ORG from company ORG , which produces Vinorelbine . The money had been used to pay nurses and students and for data collection . It emerged that there had been no financial profit for the doctors involved .","Having received the above - mentioned memorandum , the first applicant again contacted the professor from GPE and the medical doctor at ORG in GPE . In essence , they confirmed in subsequent emails of CARDINAL and DATE that since there had been no direct comparative clinical studies , there was no scientific evidence that CARDINAL twocombination regime was superior to another CARDINAL - combination regime .","Medical research studies involving human subjects are called clinical trials . They are divided into different stages , called phases . Generally , it can be said that the earliest phase trials may look at whether a drug is safe or at its side - effects . A later phase PERSON trial aims to find out whether the treatment works well enough , for which types of cancer the treatment works , more about side effects and how to manage them and more about the best dose to use . A later phase PERSON trial aims to test whether a new treatment is better than existing treatments ( standard treatment ) . These trials may compare a completely new treatment with the standard treatment or with different doses or ways of giving a standard treatment .","Subsequent to the broadcast on DATE of the television programme , on DATE ORG instituted defamation proceedings before ORG ( PERSON ) against the Director of GPE and the CARDINAL applicants , maintaining that the latter , in the programme in question , had made direct and indirect accusations , covered by LAW ( PERSON ) , against ORG , of malpractice regarding certain patients suffering from pleural mesothelioma cancer , allegedly resulting in the ORG unnecessary death and shortening of life , in the interest of ORG \u2019s professional prestige and private finances .","Before ORG , the applicants , S , and Medical Director H for ORG gave evidence .","The first applicant stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... that she had not criticised ORG for improper treatment causing death . Her message was only to point out that the substance of GPE had been better documented than the substance of PERSON . She had collected statements from patients and experts , but could not state herself whether PERSON was a better product than PERSON ... The experts had not stated whether PERSON in combination with another product was better than PERSON in combination with another product . However , all experts had emphasised that PERSON had been evaluated in a phase III trial , for which reason it was a more thoroughly tested product . ... her questions had been answered during her conversations with professor M on DATE and S on CARDINAL DATE . Subsequently no one had been willing to answer her questions . That was the only real conversation she had had with S. The next time she had called him , he had put down the receiver . When it had not been possible for her to get any response to her many points of criticism , she had contacted H ... she had wanted statements from both H and S as the programme would be unbalanced if they were not heard ... Some found that PERSON had been better documented than PERSON . She was not aware of any trial demonstrating that a combination with PERSON was better than a combination with another medicinal product ... \u201d .","S stated , inter alia , the following :","\u201c PERSON has been used for second - line therapy in GPE since DATE , and since DATE as first - line therapy . Patients had been given the impression in the media that GPE was a miracle cure . ORG had introduced it as an option . DATE , GPE is used in combination with PERSON as the standard therapy for inoperable patients ... Sometimes in DATE , the standard therapy for operable patients had been changed to NORP in combination with PERSON . If some patients were offered PERSON everybody had to be offered GPE ... After the programme had been broadcast ... patients started mistrusting the PERSON therapy . Afterwards it was not possible to perform the trial [ phase II ] on this drug . Nor would it be possible to obtain funding for the trial . Therefore no trial had been performed of PERSON ... he had provided the information included in professor M \u2019s memorandum of DATE ... he had talked to [ the first applicant ] several times and had spent a lot of time and energy on explaining cancer therapy ... he had also lost confidence in [ the first applicant ] ... \u201d","H stated , among other things :","\u201c ... The approval of GPE by ORG for the treatment of mesothelioma only means that a marketing authorisation has been granted for the drug , which means that advertisement of the product is permitted . PERSON has also been approved by ORG , but for a wide range of oncological therapies ... in DATE when PERSON was tested [ phase III ] the bar had been set quite low . The study compared PERSON with a clearly inferior treatment that would not actually be offered to anybody . It would have been more relevant to study PERSON in combination with NORP versus Vinorelbine with ORG S has made a phase II trial of the standard therapy [ Vinorelbine ] ... Subsequently the standard therapy regimen has been expanded to include GPE , which is not a better product than PERSON , but CARDINAL times more expensive ... if CARDINAL drugs are equally effective , but CARDINAL of them is CARDINAL times more expensive than the other , patients will be offered therapy using the cheaper drug . ... The standard therapies now offered by ORG are PERSON in combination with NORP for inoperable patients and PERSON in combination with NORP for operable patients ... the shift to GPE as the standard therapy at ORG did not reflect that PERSON was medically better . The [ applicants\u2019 ] programme had had a large impact as patients were asking not to be treated with PERSON . ORG had therefore had to change medical products because patients had the clear impression that PERSON was not as good as GPE ... It is quite usual for ORG to surrender material to the press and to answer questions , but the questions of [ the first applicant ] were never - ending . ORG has spent about a DATE , or MONEY , responding to inquiries from [ the first applicant ] , and huge efforts had been made to accommodate her requests ... the programme had created distrust towards both ORG and S and had created uncertainty in both patients and relatives . He had received CARDINAL \u201c hate mails \u201d himself ... \u201d","By a judgment of DATE , ORG found against the applicants ( and the Director of GPE ) and sentenced them each to DATE - fines of CARDINAL NORP Kroner ( ORG ) . The allegations were declared null and void . The reasoning was as follows :","\u201c ...","Based on the evidence , ORG accepts as a fact that in DATE , following a phase III trial , ORG approved PERSON in combination with NORP for treating patients suffering from inoperable malignant pleural mesothelioma and that subsequently the same was approved by ORG . The court also accept as a fact that PERSON is a drug dating back DATE whose effect had been documented by clinical experience and approved by ORG for a wide range of oncological therapies . Finally , the court also accepts as a fact that it has not been documented that PERSON therapy in combination with a platin medicinal product is more effective than PERSON therapy in combination with a platin medicinal product .","As regards the term \u201c experimental drug \u201d the court accepts as a fact that a drug administered to patients in a trial is referred to as an experimental drug , no matter whether the same drug is the standard therapy offered outside the trial setting .","No matter that [ the applicants ] are deemed to have been aware of the above circumstances following their comprehensive research of the matter , it was said in the programme that , for dying patients , [ S and ORG ] had prescribed a \u201c non - approved chemotherapy regimen \u201d not approved for the diagnosis or which was not \u201c the correct chemotherapy \u201d , and that [ S and ORG ] used an \u201c experimental drug \u201d , the \u201c worst - case scenario being that patients would die earlier than if they had been treated with an approved substance \u201d , or that it would have \u201c fatal consequences \u201d . Moreover , the phrase \u201c the only drug with a known effect \u201d was used .","Since no account was given in the programme of the above - mentioned trials and approval process and the terminology applied for that process , the court finds that it would seem to a non - professional viewer that PERSON was the only effective drug for mesothelioma , particularly because the programme linked the treatment of CARDINAL patients with PERSON to their death , whereas the prospect of DATE to live was held out to the CARDINAL patient who had been given GPE therapy in GPE .","Moreover , the programme also linked ORG \u2019s use of PERSON to his personal esteem and his \u201c personal research account \u201d , although [ the applicants ] had been made aware of the research grant management procedure though Professor M \u2019s memorandum of DATE before the broadcast .","Since no account was given either of the procedure for managing research grants , the court also finds in this respect that it would seem to a non - professional viewer that S had a personal financial interest in starting PERSON treatment rather than PERSON .","The [ applicants ] are therefore considered to have violated LAW .","According to the information on [ the applicants\u2019 ] knowledge after their comprehensive research of the matter , the court finds no basis for exempting them from punishment or remitting the penalty under LAW , compare also LAW .","...","[ The applicants ] are furthermore jointly and severally liable for paying legal costs of DKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . \u201d","On appeal , on DATE the judgment was upheld by the High Court of Eastern Denmark ( PERSON ) with the following reasoning :","\u201c In the introduction to the programme \u2018 When the doctor knows best\u2019 a narrator states , among other things : \u2018 A NORP doctor is entering a medical congress to show his research results . For DATE he has gone his own way , he has treated dying patients with chemotherapy that is not approved.\u2019","Later during the programme , it is stated at which hospitals one can receive treatment for pleural mesothelioma cancer , that these hospitals co - operate with ORG , and a reference is made to a named ORG , head of ORG for treatment of pleural mesothelioma cancer .","During the various interviews , a narrator states , inter alia :","- \u2018 The doctor does not give his patients the only approved medication . Instead , he uses a test medication . In the worst scenario , that may result in the patients dying earlier than if they had been given the approved substance.\u2019","- \u2018 There is CARDINAL approved chemotherapy against pleural mesothelioma cancer , but that is not offered to ORG [ one of the patients followed in the programme ] . The doctors chose to treat her with a substance that is not approved for the diagnosis , and whose effect on pleural mesothelioma cancer is not substantiated.\u2019","- \u2018 However , that chemotherapy turned out to have huge consequences for her [ SP].\u2019","- \u2018S can freely choose the medication that he thinks is best . There is CARDINAL treatment which , in comparative studies , has proved to have an effect on pleural mesothelioma cancer . Accordingly , that is the only medication which is approved as treatment . That medication is called PERSON . However , ORG chose not to use that medication on his PERSON","- \u2018 Thus , it has not been proved whether ORG works . According to the calculations made by GPE , CARDINAL patients in GPE have been given test medication . In the worst scenario , that may result in patients dying earlier than if they had been given the approved medication.\u2019","-\u2019For her [ ORG ] the lack of effect of treatment by ORG turns out to have had fatal consequences.\u2019","- \u2018 The family K ask themselves why S goes his own way . They suspect that he has other interests than those of the patients . That suspicion grows , when they talk to ORG \u2019s personal ORG","- \u2018 It turns out , however , that ORG may also have had other reasons for choosing PERSON . Because he has used this medication in medical tests on the patients . In a phase when they are fighting for their lives.\u2019","-\u2019The question remains : why does S carry out tests with ORG ? Could it have something to do with the prestige which is implicit in having research articles published?\u2019","- \u2018 We do not know whether it is prestige that impels S.\u2019","- \u2018 Thus , S will not acknowledge what leading experts agree on ; [ namely ] that GPE is the only medication whose effect is substantiated.\u2019","- \u2018 Here it turns out that ORG has received more than DKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL over DATE from the company F. That is the company behind the test medication ORG . The money has been paid into LOC \u2019s personal research account . DKK CARDINAL is earmarked for the tests . S withheld that information.\u2019","The programme ends by informing us , among other things , that CARDINAL of the patients who were interviewed have passed away . The narrator says , inter alia :","\u2018 ORG , who was part of ORG \u2019s tests with PERSON , died on DATE","With these statements , [ the applicants ] not only passed on assertions by patients , relatives and experts , but also took a stand , so that the programme undisputedly gave the viewers the impression that malpractice has occurred at ORG , in that S has deliberately used medication ( PERSON ) , which is not approved for treatment of pleural mesothelioma cancer , and whose effect has not been substantiated , that the medication in question was part of a test , and that the test medication has resulted in patients dying or having their lives shortened . The way that the programme is built up with its beginning and ending , the viewers get the clear impression that the reasons behind this choice of medication [ Vinorelbine ] were LOC \u2019s professional prestige and personal finances .","Against this background , in the programme , the applicants , as producer of the programme and as chief sub - editor , have made an allegation against ORG of malpractice and of nourishing irrelevant considerations to the detriment of the lives and health of patients . Such an accusation is likely to disparage [ ORG ] in the eyes of their fellow citizens as set out in LAW . It must have been clear to them [ the applicants ] that they were making such an allegation by way of their presentation of the programme .","The applicants have not attempted to establish the truth of the allegation , but have submitted that the allegation shall be unpunishable by virtue of LAW as they acted in lawful protection of an obvious public interest or the interest of others or , in the alternative , that punishment should be remitted under LAW because they were justified in regarding the allegations as true .","These provisions must , in connection with LAW , be understood in the light of LAW on the protection of freedom of expression . A very considerable public interest is related to journalistic discussion about risk to life and health , or suspicion thereof , as regards public hospital treatment . When balancing considerations of freedom of expression with considerations of the protection of the name and reputation of persons and companies , the former is accorded tremendous weight on the scale . That entails acknowledgement of a very far - reaching freedom of expression for the press , and accordingly the press must be permitted , as the public control- and information organ ( \u2018 public watchdog\u2019 ) , a certain amount of exaggeration and provocation in connection with their discussion of these questions , when factually there are reasons for expressing criticism .","On the basis of the information in the case , including the research material that the applicants possessed before the broadcast of the programme , in particular the emails from [ the medical doctor from ORG in GPE and the professor from GPE ] , the replies by the Minister for ORG and Health to various questions [ posed by Members of ORG ] , and the memorandum of DATE produced by ORG [ about pleural mesothelioma cancer ] , it can be established that PERSON in combination with NORP or PERSON was standard treatment at ORG , that ORG on DATE approved the marketing of GPE in connection with NORP for treatment of inoperable patients with pleural mesothelioma cancer , that there was no substantiation or basis for believing that an GPE - based treatment was more efficient than the treatment offered by ORG , that some patients at ORG , who were already about to receive ORG as standard treatment , were chosen and offered the same medicine as part of a test [ it is not known for what ] , and that S did not make any private financial profit from these tests .","Against this background , including the fact that the word \u2018 approved\u2019 was not explained during the programme , namely the difference between medication approved for treatment and [ medication ] approved for marketing , and by consistently using the word \u201c test medication \u201d , even though CARDINAL patient in the programme participated in tests , [ the applicants ] made allegations which were based on an incorrect factual basis , of which they must have been aware via the research material .","The aim of the programme \u2013 to make a critical assessment of the treatment of patients with pleural mesothelioma cancer offered by ORG and the responsible consultant \u2013 is a legitimate part of the press \u2019s role as \u2018 public watchdog\u2019 , but it can not justify an allegation , which is built on a factually incorrect basis , and thus a wrong premise . [ The applicants ] , who did not limit themselves to referring to or disseminating statements by experts , patients and relatives , did not have any basis for making such serious allegations against ORG and S. The allegations can not be justified on the grounds that ORG and S refused to participate in the programme .","Against this background , and since in relation to LAW there is no interest to protect when there is no factual basis for the accusations , the allegations are not unpunishable under LAW ) , nor is there any basis for remitting the punishment under LAW ) [ of LAW ] .","It is an aggravating factor that the wrongful accusations were disseminated on national television during primetime and on GPE \u2019s homepage , by means of which the accusations had a significant spread .","Accordingly , [ ORG ] agrees [ with ORG judgment ] that [ the applicants ] be fined under LAW , and that the allegations be declared null and void by virtue of LAW .","ORG thus dismisses the appeal and upholds the judgment of ORG .","The applicants shall be jointly and severally liable for paying legal costs of ORG appeal to ORG , in the amount of ORG CARDINAL , which constitutes the legal fee inclusive of LOC . In fixing the amount , ORG took into account the scope and duration of the case . \u201d","On DATE ORG ( Procesbevillingsn\u00e6vnet ) refused the ORG request for leave to appeal to ORG ( H\u00f8jesteret ) .","Subsequent to the broadcast on DATE of the television programme , CARDINAL complaints were lodged with ORG ) relating to the issues raised by the programme . A press release published on the ORG website on DATE read as follows :","\u201c As of DATE , ORG has received CARDINAL complaints relating to the treatment of mesothelioma patients with combinatorial drugs other than GPE and GPE . That treatment was questioned by ORG ( DR ) in a documentary programme in DATE .","ORG has received CARDINAL complaints relating to the criticism raised . This means that the persons claiming compensation are either patients or their dependants , CARDINAL of the reasons being their belief that the combinatorial drugs administered to treat the disease were incorrect ones .","All CARDINAL complaints have been refused , CARDINAL of the reasons being that the independent medical oncologists who assessed the cases found that it was in compliance with optimum medical standards to treat patients with the selected combination therapy .","CARDINAL of the cases have been appealed against to ORG for Patients\u2019 Rights and ORG ) . ORG for ORG upheld the decision of ORG , finding , inter alia:\u2019 ... [ patients ] were offered PERSON and PERSON , which must be considered to be as active as other combinations with a favourable profile of adverse ORG . The other appeal does not concern the issue of combination therapy . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183569","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF NAUMKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings . They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145583","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KADIRZHANOV AND MAMASHEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants are of NORP ethnic origin . They lived in the GPE region of GPE . After mass disorders and inter - ethnic clashes in the region in DATE , they left GPE for GPE to flee , together with many other ethnic NORP , ethnically motivated violence .","Mr GPE was born in DATE . He currently lives in GPE , GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant arrived in the town . Before DATE he had not lodged any applications for refugee status or temporary asylum .","On DATE the NORP authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes committed in the course of the inter - ethnic violence of DATE , when a group of individuals had barricaded a road near the village of GPE , which had led to a number of deaths .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE . The NORP authorities also added the applicant \u2019s name to an international wanted list .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested in PERSON and placed in remand prison no . CARDINAL . It appears that he first learnt about the criminal prosecution and charges against him in GPE on DATE . He denied his involvement in the DATE violence . On an unspecified date , the applicant was provided with the services of a ORG - appointed lawyer for the purposes of the extradition proceedings .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG district prosecutor of PERSON ordered the applicant \u2019s custodial detention on the basis of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , referring to LAW ( \u201c the FAC \u201d ) .","The NORP authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant \u2019s extradition .","On DATE ORG lodged a formal extradition request with its NORP counterpart . It submitted the following diplomatic assurances : that the applicant would be provided with every opportunity , as prescribed by international and NORP criminal law , to defend himself , including by way of legal assistance ; that he would not be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; and that he would not be prosecuted on political , racial , ethnic or religious grounds .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor again ordered the applicant \u2019s custodial detention , referring to LAW ( \u201c CCrP \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant applied to the regional migration authority for refugee status .","On DATE ORG of Orel examined the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s request to extend the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE . Noting that the prosecutor had not substantiated the need for such a long period by reference to specific measures to be taken during the \u201c extradition check \u201d procedure ( \u044d\u043a\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0434\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0440\u043a\u0430 ) and noting the need to take account of the upcoming decision on the application for refugee status ( which could bar further extradition proceedings ) , the judge extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE only , until DATE . On DATE the ORG upheld the extension order .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer made submissions to ORG in relation to , inter alia , the risk of illtreatment in the event of the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE .","On DATE the NORP ORG wrote to ORG , indicating that it had no specific information disclosing any impediment to the applicant \u2019s extradition . At the same time it indicated that because the applicant was of NORP ethnic origin \u201c there could be a risk of premeditated biased attitude in the NORP authorities\u2019 examination of his case \u201d .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .","On DATE the regional migration authority dismissed the applicant \u2019s refugee status application . The authority relied on a note dated DATE by the Federal migration authority on the general political and human rights situation in GPE in DATE . The applicant \u2019s allegation that he had received threats from ethnic NORP while in GPE was dismissed , because the reason behind the threats had been his wealth , not ethnic origin . The applicant appealed to the Federal migration authority . On DATE his appeal was dismissed . The risk of ill - treatment remained unassessed .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE ORG extended the term of the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , despite the lawyer \u2019s request to release the applicant on bail . ORG upheld the decision on appeal on DATE arguing , inter alia , that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure in accordance with LAW","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal with the court on DATE . On an unspecified date the case was transferred to ORG for examination .","On DATE ORG held an appeal hearing and , finding that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure in accordance with LAW CCrP , upheld the extension order of CARDINAL DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG amended its extradition request , with reference to the amended decision listing the charges against the applicant .","On DATE ORG granted the extradition request . The extradition order contained no assessment of the factual and legal matters relating to the alleged risk of ill - treatment in the requesting country , and did not mention any of the diplomatic assurances given by the NORP authorities .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the extradition order claiming , inter alia , that ORG had failed to assess the alleged risk of ill - treatment .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the migration authorities\u2019 decisions of DATE and DATE . The risk of ill - treatment was not assessed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG held a judicial review hearing against the extradition order and upheld it . It summarily dismissed the allegations regarding the risk of ill - treatment , referring to the assurances given by the NORP authorities and to the fact that the applicant had been charged with \u201c ordinary crimes \u201d and thus was not being persecuted on political or ethnic grounds . The applicant appealed to ORG .","In DATE the PERSON regional prosecutor sought the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention . The matter was submitted to ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE , to reach the maximum statutory period of DATE on DATE . It found that there were no grounds to vary the preventive measure in accordance with LAW The applicant appealed .","On DATE the Appeal Section of the Orel Regional Court held a hearing and upheld the detention order .","On DATE ORG of GPE confirmed the judgment of DATE , thus upholding the extradition order . It summarily dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments relating to the risk of illtreatment . The court also stated that the NORP authorities had provided guarantees relating to legal assistance and the absence of ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer , ORG , filed a request with the regional prosecutor \u2019s office for the applicant \u2019s release .","On DATE the PERSON regional deputy prosecutor ordered the applicant \u2019s release from custody under , inter alia , ORG and CARDINAL of the CCrP. He reasoned that the examination of the case pending before the ORG , which had indicated interim measures pursuant to LAW in respect of the applicant , would last longer than the maximum period of detention permissible . The deputy prosecutor varied the preventive measure to release from custody , after a personal guarantee was given by ORG The ruling was not challenged and the applicant was released from custody .","Mr GPE was born in DATE . He currently lives in GPE , a village in the GPE region of GPE .","The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE . In DATE and DATE he did not lodge any applications for refugee status or temporary asylum in GPE .","On DATE the NORP authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes committed in DATE , when a group of individuals had barricaded a road near the village of GPE , which had led to a number of deaths . The NORP authorities also added the applicant \u2019s name to an international wanted list .","On DATE ORG in GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest and authorised his custodial detention for DATE .","On DATE he was arrested in GPE and placed in a remand prison . It appears that he first learnt about the criminal prosecution and charges against him in GPE on DATE .","On DATE the PERSON inter - district prosecutor \u2019s office applied the preventive measure of custodial detention to the applicant , which was authorised by ORG on DATE .","On an unspecified date the applicant was provided with the services of a ORG - appointed lawyer for the purposes of the extradition proceedings .","On DATE ORG submitted an extradition request to its NORP counterpart . The request contained the following diplomatic assurances : that the applicant would be provided with every opportunity , as prescribed by international and NORP criminal law , to defend himself , including by way of legal assistance ; that he would not be extradited to a third country and would only stand trial in relation to the charges that gave rise to the extradition request ; that he would not be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; and that he would not be prosecuted on political , racial , ethnic or religious grounds .","On DATE the PERSON inter - district prosecutor \u2019s office again applied ORG chosen preventive measure to the applicant , thus extending his custodial detention .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to the GPE migration authority for refugee status , arguing persecution on the grounds of ethnic origin . On DATE the authority dismissed the applicant \u2019s application at the admissibility stage . The Federal migration authority quashed this decision . His application was examined in DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG wrote to ORG , indicating that it had no specific information disclosing any impediment to the applicant \u2019s extradition . At the same time , it indicated that because the applicant was of NORP origin \u201c there could be a risk of premeditated biased attitude in the LOC of his case \u201d .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer made submissions to ORG on the issue regarding the risk of illtreatment in the event of the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE . On CARDINAL DATE it acknowledged receipt of the above - mentioned submissions and stated that they would be taken into consideration .","DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . ORG dismissed an appeal against the decision on DATE .","On DATE the Ostankinskiy District Court of GPE dismissed complaints lodged by the applicant under LAW CCrP against the prosecutor \u2019s decisions of DATE and DATE . ORG upheld the decision on DATE .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . ORG upheld the decision on appeal on DATE .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyer filed a statement of appeal dated DATE , which was registered by the ORG on DATE . On an unspecified date it was forwarded to ORG .","On DATE the GPE migration authority examined the applicant \u2019s refugee status application on the merits , but dismissed it for lack of evidence regarding the applicant \u2019s allegations of possible persecution on the grounds of ethnic origin . The risk of ill - treatment was not assessed . The applicant challenged the refusal of DATE before the Federal migration authority . His appeal was summarily dismissed on DATE . On an unspecified date he sought a judicial review of the refusals issued by the migration authorities .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed a statement of appeal , which was registered by the ORG on DATE . On an unspecified date it was forwarded to ORG .","On DATE ORG requested further guarantees from its NORP counterpart , in relation to the possibility of visits to the applicant by NORP diplomatic staff during his detention in GPE . On DATE ORG submitted the required guarantees .","On DATE ORG heard appeals against the decisions of DATE and DATE , but dismissed them .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . It received the applicant \u2019s appeal against this decision on CARDINAL DATE . The date on which it was filed remains unknown .","On DATE the NORP Deputy Prosecutor General granted the extradition request . The extradition order did not contain any reasoning in relation to the alleged risk of ill - treatment in GPE . On DATE the applicant was notified of the decision and appealed against it .","On DATE LAW dismissed the appeal against the decision of DATE .","By a judgment of DATE ORG of GPE upheld the refugee application refusals issued by the migration authorities . The alleged risk of ill - treatment was not mentioned .","On DATE ORG upheld the extradition order on judicial review . It summarily dismissed the allegations regarding the risk of ill - treatment , stating that the applicant had been charged with \u201c ordinary crimes \u201d and thus was not being persecuted on political or ethnic grounds , and relied on the diplomatic assurances given by the NORP authorities .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , thus upholding the extradition order .","On DATE ORG confirmed the judgment of DATE concerning the refusals issued by the migration authorities . It stated that the first - instance court had analysed the applicant \u2019s situation sufficiently .","On DATE the ORG district prosecutor of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s release because interim measures under LAW had been indicated in respect of the applicant . The applicant was released on DATE after a personal guarantee given by his lawyer ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152387","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF TOMOVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta","text":["All the applicants were employed by ORG , a company based in PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees , the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims , seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions .","The applicants obtained final court decisions ordering the debtor to pay them certain sums . The essential information as to the domestic proceedings in respect of each application is indicated in the annexed table .","On DATE ORG ( NORP sud ) in PERSON opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor . As a result , all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were terminated .","The applicants duly reported their respective claims based on the above - mentioned court decisions to the insolvency administration .","On DATE the court accepted the ORG claims .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 representative informed the ORG that some of the decisions at issue had been partially enforced in the insolvency proceedings .","NORP The insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor are still ongoing .","The debtor , which operated as a socially - owned company , was privatised on DATE .","On DATE the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations .","Following the annulment of the debtor \u2019s privatisation the ORG owned PERCENT of shares in the company .","On DATE the ORG sold its shares to a private company ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183296","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00dcLBAHAR \u00d6ZER AND YUSUF \u00d6ZER v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are brother and sister . Their respective children , PERSON and PERSON , aged DATE and CARDINAL respectively , were killed by soldiers on DATE in south - east GPE . During the same incident the soldiers also killed CARDINAL other young people , aged DATE , DATE and DATE ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) . The bodies of those CARDINAL individuals were subsequently handed over to their families , who buried them in ORG .","On DATE the prosecutor ordered the release of the bodies of the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL children . The applicants took the bodies from the morgue in order to take them to the city of PERSON , where they wanted to bury them and where their graves had already been prepared with the help of the municipal officials .","On DATE the governor of PERSON issued a decision stating that crowds had gathered at the cemetery in PERSON and had attacked the municipal workers who were preparing the graves . Subsequently , the incidents at the cemetery had escalated and turned into \u201c unlawful demonstrations \u201d . Therefore , \u201c in order to prevent any unwanted consequences \u201d , the governor decided to order the burial of the applicants\u2019 children in the CARDINAL villages named in the respective birth register records of the CARDINAL deceased .","While the applicants , together with the coffins of their CARDINAL children , were on their way to PERSON , their vehicles were stopped by gendarme soldiers who told the applicants that they were not allowed to bury their children in PERSON . The soldiers told the applicants that , in accordance with the decision taken by the PERSON governor , the bodies would be buried in CARDINAL other villages . The applicants told the soldiers that they had no connection with the CARDINAL villages in question which , in any event , had been evacuated by soldiers in DATE . They stated that they wanted to bury their children side by side in their family cemetery in PERSON . Despite their objections , the bodies of the CARDINAL children were confiscated and taken away by the soldiers .","DATE the second applicant made an official request to the office of the governor and asked for permission to bury the children in the city of Batman instead . This request was refused but the governor amended his decision so that the applicants\u2019 children could be buried in the same cemetery in the town of ORG , instead of being buried in CARDINAL separate villages as he had previously ordered . In accordance with that decision , the applicants\u2019 children were buried by the authorities in the municipal cemetery in PERSON at TIME on DATE without any religious ceremony .","On DATE the applicants brought a case before ORG and asked for the PERSON governor \u2019s decision to be annulled . They also requested that the ORG issue an interim measure allowing them to exhume the bodies before they decomposed , and to bury them in a cemetery of their choice . The applicants agreed , in particular , that it was important and necessary to maintain public order . However , they argued that the governor \u2019s decision had completely disregarded the moral values of their society and had aroused anger . The news that their children would not be buried in PERSON and that their bodies had been confiscated by the soldiers had caused an upsurge of emotion in the people waiting at the cemetery in PERSON and as a result they had attacked members of the security forces and local shops with sticks and stones . When the security forces responded to those attacks heavy handedly , scores of people had been injured and CARDINAL people had been arrested . All of that unrest had been caused by the governor \u2019s unlawful decision . No such incidents had taken place during the burial of the CARDINAL other individuals who had been killed at the same time as their children . In their complaint the applicants also referred to their rights under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG rejected the case . It noted that the governor \u2019s decision had been based on section CARDINAL\/C of the PERSON on ORG , which provided that the governor had a duty to maintain peace and public order in the province under his responsibility . The decision had been taken because the people who had gathered at the cemetery in PERSON and who were waiting for the bodies to arrive had thrown stones at municipal workers and members of the security forces . The decision to bury the bodies in the town of ORG had therefore been taken with a view to maintaining public order . ORG considered that , although the applicants had the right to bury their children in a cemetery of their choice , the refusal to permit them to do so had been in compliance with the restrictions set out in the second paragraphs of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and in LAW of LAW .","The applicants appealed against the decision and maintained that the incidents at the cemetery referred to by ORG had only occurred after the crowds had found out about the authorities\u2019 refusal to allow them to bury their children in PERSON . They repeated their argument that the CARDINAL others killed by the soldiers at the same time as their children had been buried by their families in ORG without incident . The applicants also reiterated their request for an interim measure .","The request for an interim measure was rejected by ORG on DATE . In a decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL ORG also rejected the appeal lodged by the applicants against the decision of ORG . In reaching its conclusion ORG stated that the incidents at FAC had begun when the people who had gathered there had insisted that the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL children be buried next to the graves of members of the ORG .","NORP The decision of ORG was communicated to the applicants on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148516","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BA\u0160ISTOV\u00c1 AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["A list of the CARDINAL applicants , who are all NORP nationals , is set out in the appendix ( \u201c the applicants \u201d ) .","The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP This application and CARDINAL others ( nos . DATE ) concern the regularisation of the relationship between ownership and use of real property located in the cadastral area of ORG .","Certain land in this area was expropriated in DATE by the ( then socialist ) ORG and a public sports centre was built on it . The sports centre comprises buildings and various other facilities , such as a tennis court , a grandstand , a water station and paved areas .","After the post DATE political , constitutional and legal changes , litigation took place with a view to resolving various property claims made by the original owners ( or their legal successors ) against the entities that owned or operated the sports centre or various parts of it .","The land concerned is divided into a number of plots with various owners , many of whom are linked by family relations and history , and who had the same legal representation in the above - mentioned proceedings . Their lawsuits followed a similar pattern , but sometimes had varying results . They included the following proceedings .","The applicants in the present case are all successors in title to a plot of land in the above - mentioned area , having inherited their title from the original owners , who died in DATE and DATE , respectively .","On DATE the applicants , represented then and throughout the proceedings by a laywer , lodged an action against a sports club seeking to obtain a court order for the removal of the constructions on the land .","The principal line of argument was that the expropriation decision of CARDINAL DATE was invalid in law . The applicants were therefore the lawful owners of the land in question , in particular plot no . DATE ( recorded on sheet no . CARDINAL of the \u201c old \u201d records ) , and the defendant had no lawful title to the constructions on the applicants\u2019 land .","The action was subsequently amended to state that , alternatively , the applicants sought a judicial ruling establishing an easement on their land for the benefit of the owner of the sports centre in return for financial compensation payable to the applicants . It was also extended to CARDINAL more defendants , a municipality and a private company .","NORP The action was dismissed at first instance by ORG s\u00fad ) on DATE , and DATE following the ORG appeal DATE by ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) on DATE .","The courts reached their conclusions after having taken complex oral and documentary evidence , including expert evidence .","In accordance with the applicants\u2019 claim , the courts found that ( i ) the expropriation of DATE was legally ineffective on account of procedural flaws ; ( ii ) the applicants were the owners of the land in question ; ( iii ) the constructions on it had been built without a valid legal title in so far as the land was concerned ; and ( iv ) the applicants were entitled to seek redress under general civil law , that is to say LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) , which was not subject to any statute of limitation , unlike the special legislation on restitution , which contained specific time - limits .","As regards the options available under LAW for resolving the discrepancy between the ownership and use of the land and the constructions concerned , ORG found that , for practical reasons , it was out of the question to have the applicants established as the owners of the constructions and to order them to pay the current owners financial compensation . Furthermore , in the circumstances , it was likewise not practical to order the physical removal of the constructions in question .","The establishment of an easement for the benefit of the owners of the constructions in return for compensation payable by them to the applicants was therefore in principle an option .","NORP However , on the specific facts , and contrary to the applicants\u2019 assertions , the courts found that no easement could be established on the land . The bone of contention was the legal nature of the constructions concerned . In particular , these constructions could not be considered as \u201c buildings \u201d in terms of civil law . However , an easement over land could only be established for the benefit of the owner of a \u201c building \u201d .","The court dismissed the ORG argument that the buildings and the adjacent facilities belonged to CARDINAL integrated complex and in reality served a single purpose , that in the past easements had been established on some plots in that area and that , accordingly , a similar solution should be adopted in their own case . However , the court did not respond to their specific argument that , in case no . CARDINALC CARDINAL , an easement had been established also over land that had no \u201c buildings \u201d on it ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Observing that the sports centre had always served the public , the courts also took into account the \u201c nature and extent of economic prejudice \u201d suffered by the applicants .","Lastly , it was held that the applicants had alternative means of asserting their rights by lodging an action for a declaratory ruling and an action for compensation in respect of unjustified enrichment .","On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) under LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) , to which they added further grounds of complaint on DATE .","Citing similar grounds to those mentioned above , the applicants contested the outcome of the proceedings and alleged that their rights under , inter alia , LAW ( fairness , adequate reasoning ) and the constitutional equivalent of LAW No . CARDINAL had been violated .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill - founded . Observing that it was not a court of further appeal against decisions of the ordinary courts , it found no constitutionally relevant unfairness , arbitrariness or irregularity in the impugned judgments .","The decision was served on the applicants\u2019 lawyer on DATE .","The position taken by the courts was subsequently fully endorsed by ORG when it dismissed the applicants\u2019 petition for an extraordinary appeal on points of law to be lodged on their behalf in the present case .","Article CARDINAL deals with situations concerning so - called \u201c unlawful constructions \u201d , that is buildings ( stavba ) constructed on somebody else \u2019s plot of land ( pozemok ) without an entitlement to do so .","At the request of the owner of the land , the court has the power to order the removal of such buildings at the cost of the person who constructed it ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","However , if the removal of the building is not practical , and subject to consent by the owner of the land , the court has the power to rule that title to the building be transferred to the owner of the land in return for compensation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","The court also has the power to regularise the relationship between the owner of the land and the owner of the building by taking other measures , in particular by establishing an easement , which is necessary for the exercise of ownership rights in respect of the building , in return for compensation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","NORP In a case registered at FAC under file no . CARDINALC CARDINAL\/CARDINAL a different group of claimants raised essentially the same claims as the applicants in respect of other plots of land under the same sports centre , the defendant being the respective municipality .","Before the case was resolved on the merits with final effect , ORG had determined the claimants\u2019 appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) ( no . CARDINAL PERSON ) against a previous judgment of ORG . In its judgment of DATE , ORG observed that before the action could be determined on the merits ( of the claim for an easement ) , preliminary questions had to be answered as to whether the claimants were the owners of the property concerned and , if they were , whether they had standing to sue in the case .","ORG further observed that , when dealing with those questions , ORG had noted that the land in question had been expropriated in DATE . ORG had therefore held that , even assuming that the expropriation had been flawed , it could only have been challenged by means of administrative - law remedies and within the statutory timelimits . That , however , had been beyond the scope of the case at hand and , therefore , ORG held that the DATE expropriation should be considered as being a matter of fact .","ORG disagreed with ORG position described above . As was found in the present case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it found that the expropriation of DATE was legally ineffective . As a consequence , the courts were bound to examine the preliminary question of the claimants\u2019 ownership independently and irrespective of the expropriation decision .","The case was finally decided on the merits by ORG on DATE . The action was granted and an easement was established for the benefit of the claimants in respect of the entire property covered by their claim , that is to say including some plots on which no \u201c buildings \u201d , in the sense explained above , were situated .","The judgment was not appealed against and became final and binding on DATE .","The ensuing question concerning the financial compensation payable by the municipality to the claimants for the easement was resolved by ORG in a judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINALC CARDINAL ) on the basis of an expert assessment .","In another similar case concerning property in the same area as in the present case , the claimants raised in principle the same claims . The court took the same position as in the present case , that is to say that the claimants were entitled to assert their property claims under the general provisions of LAW and the determinative factor was whether or not the land in question was under \u201c buildings \u201d . As that was only partly so , the action was partly granted and partly dismissed . The respective judgments were given on DATE ( ORG ) and DATE ( ORG ) , and the final decision was given by ORG on DATE .","In a number of other similar cases concerning property in the same area as in the present case , the position was taken that the claimants could not assert their rights under the general provisions of LAW , as those provisions constituted a lex generalis , and their application was excluded by virtue of the special legislation on the restitution of property , as a lex specialis . However , that position does not appear to be settled .","The relevant parts of the report state that , in order for the principle of legal certainty \u2013 essential for maintaining confidence in the judicial system and the rule of law \u2013 to be achieved , the ORG must make the law easily accessible and must also apply the laws it has enacted in a foreseeable and consistent manner . As the existence of conflicting decisions within the highest courts may be contrary to this principle , it is necessary for these courts to establish mechanisms to avoid conflicts and ensure the coherence of their case - law .","The relevant parts of the Opinion read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . While recognising the judges\u2019 power to interpret the law , the obligation of the judges to promote legal certainty has also to be remembered . Indeed legal certainty guarantees the predictability of the content and application of the legal rules , thus contributing in ensuring a high quality judicial system .","Judges will apply the interpretative principles applicable in both national and international law with this aim in mind . ... In civil law countries , they will be guided by case law , especially that of the highest courts , whose task includes ensuring the uniformity of case law .","Judges should in general apply the law consistently . However when a court decides to depart from previous case law , this should be clearly mentioned in its decision . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177916","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF RATZENB\u00d6CK AND SEYDL v. AUSTRIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 14+8-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They have been living in a stable relationship for DATE .","On DATE the applicants lodged an application to enter into a registered partnership under LAW ( PERSON ) .","On DATE the Mayor of PERSON dismissed their application in accordance with sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of LAW , finding that the applicants did not meet the legal requirements , as the registered partnership was exclusively reserved for same - sex couples .","The applicants appealed . Citing , inter alia , ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention , they complained of discrimination based on their sex and their sexual orientation . The NORP Regional Governor ( PERSON ) dismissed the appeal on DATE , arguing with reference to PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) that as GPE were allowed to restrict access to marriage to different - sex couples , it would appear unreasonable not to allow them to reserve access to registered partnerships exclusively for same - sex couples .","The applicants subsequently lodged complaints with both ORG and ORG , arguing that marriage was not a suitable option for them , as it was substantially different from a registered partnership . In their view , a registered partnership was in many ways more modern and \u201c lighter \u201d than marriage . The applicants put forward several examples : the different statutory time - limit for divorce versus the time - limit for dissolution of a registered partnership in the event of an irretrievable breakdown ( unheilbare GPE ) of the relationship ; the alimony payment obligations following a divorce \/ dissolution where blame could be placed on CARDINAL spouse \/ partner ; the obligations conferred by the respective legal institutions , in particular as regards trust , faithfulness and contributions to the household ; and the consequences of a declaration of the death of a spouse \/ partner . The applicants argued that the ORG \u2019s considerations in PERSON and PERSON in respect of marriage were not applicable to the registered partnership , which was a new legal institution , introduced in DATE . It was therefore neither based on a long - standing discriminatory tradition and deep - rooted social connotations , nor aimed at possible procreation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG complaint . The relevant parts of its judgment read as follows :","\u201c LAW ] only applies to the traditional civil marriage ... , which has \u2018 deep - rooted social and cultural ORG and was , in the historical context , clearly understood \u2018 in its traditional ORG , case of PERSON and PERSON , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL ) . If the ORG , in its judgment in the case of PERSON and PERSON , considers that the national provisions in ORG member GPE are diverse and range from allowing same - sex marriage to explicitly forbidding it , and concludes from this that , as matters stand , the question whether or not to allow same - sex marriage is left to regulation by domestic law ( ORG , case of PERSON and PERSON , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) , this must , in view of the small number of GPE providing for a registered partnership for differentsex couples in addition to marriage , be even more valid for this question .","As the [ Convention ] has to be read as a whole and its ORG have to be construed in harmony with one another , and as LAW ] does not grant different - sex couples , in addition to the right to marry , a right to enter into a registered partnership , the prohibition of discrimination pursuant to LAW taken in conjunction with LAW ] , a provision of more general purpose and scope , can not be interpreted as imposing such an obligation beyond the scope of LAW ] either ( see , concerning the correlating question of the right of same - sex couples to marry , which can not be derived from LAW ] either , ORG , case of PERSON and PERSON , LAW ) .","...","[ ORG the NORP legislator has provided for the possibility of legal recognition for same - sex couples by introducing the registered partnership , people may rely on the prohibition of discrimination provided for by LAW ] ...","The ORG has also stated , however , in the case of PERSON and PERSON , that the legislator may restrict access to marriage to different - sex couples because it has a certain margin of appreciation as regards the exact status conferred by alternative means of recognition . Moreover , the ORG assumes that LAW allows couples to obtain , in many aspects , a legal status that is equal or comparable to marriage ; apart from parental rights , there were only slight differences ( see ORG , case of PERSON and PERSON , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL et seq . ) .","Given that persons of different sex have access to marriage ( see the [ explanatory report on the draft law ] ) ; the registered partnership was introduced only to counter discrimination against same - sex couples ; [ the registered partnership ] should , in substance , have the same effects as marriage ; different - sex couples are not a group ( historically ) discriminated against ; and there is no NORP consensus on this matter , it does not amount to a violation of LAW taken in conjunction with LAW ] if the NORP legislator does not grant different - sex couples access to the registered partnership .","...","ORG is not called upon to examine whether the particular differences between these legal institutions , as regards the legal consequences and dissolution options , comply with the principle of equality [ PERSON ] and the prohibition of discrimination pursuant to LAW taken in conjunction with LAW ] , since the only question to be examined is whether different - sex couples have a constitutional right to access to the registered partnership . \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as unfounded . That decision was served on the applicants\u2019 counsel on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145782","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ALIYEVA AND ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 son , E.A. , was born in DATE and was an NORP national . He had his own business in GPE and lived in GPE at the time of the events .","At TIME on DATE E.A. was stabbed with a knife outside a cafe in GPE , GPE . He died as a result of the stabbing .","On DATE the FAC instituted criminal proceedings in connection with E.A. \u2019s death .","On DATE an investigator from ORG decided to charge PERSON , an NORP national working at the NORP embassy in GPE at the time of the events , on suspicion of E.A. \u2019s murder .","It appears that on DATE was arrested by the NORP law - enforcement authorities and on DATE was remanded in custody . During the investigation , PERSON denied that he had murdered PERSON , but refused to testify in connection with his stabbing .","On DATE a forensic expert established that the stab wound to E.A. \u2019s body had been caused by a knife with a blade QUANTITY long and QUANTITY wide .","On DATE ORG ordered G.A. \u2019s release from custody on account of serious illness . On an unspecified date he left GPE for GPE .","It transpires that in the course of the investigation , the NORP authorities also considered the possible involvement of another person in E.A. \u2019s murder . In this connection , they requested the NORP authorities to question PERSON , a major general of the NORP army who had been on an educational mission to GPE at the time of the events .","On DATE the NORP prosecution authorities questioned PERSON as a witness in connection with E.A. \u2019s stabbing . According to the record of questioning of the same date , PERSON denied any involvement . He stated that he knew PERSON who was an employee of the NORP embassy in GPE and that he had met E.A. there , but had not known him very well . As regards his whereabouts on DATE , PERSON stated that he did not remember exactly where he had been DATE . He further stated that he had learned about E.A. \u2019s death from employees at the NORP embassy .","On DATE an investigator from ORG decided to transfer the criminal case to ORG of GPE for further investigation , relying on LAW of DATE ( \u201c the DATE Minsk Convention \u201d ) . The investigator substantiated the transfer by the fact that the CARDINAL NORP nationals ( PERSON ) who had been identified by witnesses as the people involved in E.A. \u2019s murder on DATE , were on NORP soil .","The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c PERSON , who was questioned within the framework of the investigation , indicated that on DATE he had been with E.A. at FAC . When he had left the cafe , he had seen E.A. having an argument with CARDINAL NORP nationals he did not know . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL men had then stabbed E.A. in the thorax .","Subsequently , among the photographs submitted for identification , GPE recognised PERSON \u2019s photograph and identified him as the person who had stabbed E.A.","It was established that PERSON , born on DATE , married , an NORP national , who had no criminal record , a degree holder , a major general , a head of ORG , who resided in GPE ... was in GPE DATE and DATE on an educational mission at ORG of GPE .","Among other photographs submitted for his identification , PERSON also identified PERSON , indicating that he very much looked like the person who was with PERSON at the time of E.A. \u2019s murder .","Another eyewitness , ORG , who saw the events from a distance , clearly identified G.A ... during the identification procedure and indicated that [ he ] had been involved in the argument between the PERSON at FAC and on the street outside the cafe at the time of E.A. \u2019s murder ... \u201d","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE decided to return the criminal case to the NORP authorities . He substantiated his decision by alleging failure on the part of the NORP authorities to carry out the relevant investigative actions . In particular , he noted that the NORP authorities had not identified and questioned all possible witnesses to the crime , such as customers and employees of the cafe on DATE , nor had they tried to establish the whereabouts of PERSON on DATE . He further noted that there were contradictions between the evidence given by eyewitnesses GPE and ORG in the investigation , and that the clothes PERSON had been wearing on DATE had not been examined by a forensic expert .","On DATE the investigator from ORG terminated criminal proceedings against PERSON and on DATE instituted criminal proceedings against PERSON , relying in particular on the evidence given by PERSON , who had insisted that PERSON was the person who had stabbed E.A. on DATE .","On DATE the investigator from ORG relying on ORG DATE and CARDINAL of the DATE Minsk Convention , decided to transfer the criminal case to ORG of GPE for further investigation in accordance with NORP law . He concluded that PERSON was the person who had stabbed E.A. on DATE . The relevant part of his decision reads as follows :","\u201c Among the photographs submitted for identification , PERSON clearly identified PERSON and indicated that [ he ] was the person who had stabbed E.A. Moreover , PERSON indicated ... that PERSON looked like the person who had been with PERSON at the time of the commission of the crime ; however , he could not confirm for definite that [ he ] had been there .","It was established that PERSON , born on DATE , married , an NORP national , who had no criminal record , a degree holder , a major general , a head of ORG , who resided in GPE ... was in GPE DATE and DATE on [ an educational ] mission at ORG of GPE .","In the course of the investigation , therefore , it was established that the NORP national E.A. was not murdered by PERSON , but by PERSON , an NORP national . \u201d","On DATE the criminal case was assigned to ORG of GPE and criminal proceedings were instituted in GPE .","Following the institution of the criminal proceedings in GPE on DATE , the applicants wrote on several occasions , in particular on DATE , on DATE , on DATE , on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE , to ORG asking for an effective investigation into their son \u2019s death . In particular , they alleged that although PERSON had murdered their son , he had not faced prosecution and had enjoyed de facto protection .","On DATE an investigator from ORG dismissed the criminal proceedings against PERSON , finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had been involved in E.A. \u2019s murder . He also decided to continue the investigation in connection with the murder . The relevant part of his decision reads as follows :","\u201c Without clarifying the contradiction between the statements in the case file and carrying out the investigative steps necessary to establish which of them are true , and without identifying CARDINAL people other than E.A. and GPE who were at ORG identifying who murdered E.A. , and despite the fact that there was not any reliable evidence to prove that PERSON had murdered [ him ] , the investigator instituted unjustified and unlawful criminal proceedings against PERSON , concluding that [ he had ] murdered E.A.","In the course of the criminal investigation of the case carried out in ORG , no reliable evidence was obtained to prove that PERSON had murdered E.A.","For this reason , the criminal proceedings instituted under LAW of GPE against PERSON should be terminated , as [ he ] did not have anything to do with the commission of the crime , and the criminal investigation in connection with E.A. \u2019s murder should be completely , in detail and objectively continued in accordance with LAW and the perpetrator of the crime identified and prosecuted . \u201d","The applicants were not informed of this decision .","As the applicants were not informed of the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE , they continued to write to ORG asking for an effective investigation into the death of their son . In reply to their letters , the applicants received the replies from the prosecution authorities which were all worded in a similar fashion . In particular , by letters dated DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , the prosecution authorities informed the applicants that the investigation would be carried out effectively and that they would be informed of its results . However , the prosecution authorities did not mention in their letters the existence of the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE .","On DATE the criminal case was assigned to ORG .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the case in GPE asked ORG Office for legal assistance , with a view to questioning witnesses and obtaining other evidence . Following this request , an NORP investigator was sent on a mission to GPE from DATE to DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicants that in DATE and DATE an NORP investigator had been sent on a mission to GPE but it had not been possible to establish the whereabouts of the relevant witnesses or to question them . The relevant part of the letter reads as follows :","\u201c On DATE the investigator [ R.H. ] sent a request to ORG for legal assistance within the framework of the criminal case no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in connection with the murder of E.A. and in DATE [ NORP ] was on a mission in GPE and participated in several investigative actions carried out by ORG .","However , as police officers of the GPE Shevchenko ORG failed to bring before the investigating authorities several witnesses whose statements were of particular importance to the investigation , it was not possible to question them and to carry out other investigative actions .","An operational request was sent to the relevant NORP authorities in order to take relevant steps for bringing the relevant witnesses before the investigating authorities by establishing their whereabouts .","As the investigative actions were carried out on the territory of another ORG and some witnesses were not timely identified , it was not possible to complete the investigation and for this reason the period of investigation was extended in accordance with LAW ... \u201d","In reply to their further letters addressed to the prosecution authorities about the progress of the investigation , the applicants received CARDINAL letters dated DATE and DATE from ORG . The content of these letters were almost identical to the letter of DATE .","By letters dated DATE and DATE respectively , ORG and Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE asked their NORP counterparts to establish the whereabouts of some witnesses and to question them in connection with E.A. \u2019s stabbing .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants asked the investigator to remove PERSON from office until the termination of the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the investigator dismissed the applicants\u2019 request , holding that such a preventive measure could be applied only in respect of a suspect or an accused person , of which PERSON was neither . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c In accordance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure of GPE , the preventive measure of removal from office during the investigation may be applied only in respect of a suspect or an accused .","However , it appears from the case file that PERSON was neither arrested as a suspect , nor adopted a decision recognising him as an accused .","In these circumstances , there is no basis to apply the preventive measure of removal from office in respect of him ... \u201d","On DATE the applicants wrote to the Prosecutor General again , complaining of the ineffectiveness of the investigation and the investigating authorities\u2019 failure to secure evidence concerning the incident . In this connection , they submitted that PERSON , who had been involved in the crime , had died in unclear circumstances .","By a letter of DATE ORG informed the applicants that the circumstances of ORG death were not unclear , as he had died of heart disease .","On DATE the applicants lodged an application with ORG , complaining of inactivity on the part of the investigating authorities and the ineffectiveness of the investigation . In particular , they alleged that the investigation of their son \u2019s murder had been unlawfully extended for DATE , and that despite PERSON having been identified as the perpetrator of the crime , he had not faced prosecution . They also argued that they had not been informed of the progress of the investigation .","At a hearing before ORG , the applicants and their representative reiterated their complaints , stating that they had not been informed of the procedural decisions taken during the investigation , and that the investigation had been extended , despite the perpetrator of the crime having been identified .","On DATE the court dismissed the application , considering that the investigating authorities had not acted unlawfully and that the relevant investigative steps had been taken by the prosecution authorities . The court held that prosecutors were entitled to extend investigations and that this kind of decision could not be challenged before the courts . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c Article CARDINAL of the same Code [ LAW ] provides that the time limit for conducting the investigation into an unsolved criminal case may be extended several times by ORG , until the case is solved in accordance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ...","As it transpires from the legislation the extension of the time limit for conducting the preliminary investigation is the right of the prosecutor supervising the investigation ...","Moreover , LAW lays down the procedure by which actions or decisions of the prosecuting authorities could be challenged before a court . This Article clearly establishes the extent of actions and decisions which could be challenged . This Article does not provide the possibility to challenge under the procedure of judicial review the investigating authorities\u2019 decision to extend the time limit for conducting the investigation ... \u201d","The court further held that at that moment there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone with E.A. \u2019s murder . However , it also found that the applicants had not been duly informed by the prosecution authorities , who had failed to provide them with all the relevant decisions . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c It was established during the court investigation that several rights of the victim in this case were not fully secured by the investigating authority , that he was not informed in detail of the progress of the investigation , and that he was not provided with some of the decisions [ on the criminal case ] ...","In accordance with LAW , the victim , in circumstances and pursuant to the rules provided for in LAW , is entitled to be informed of the decisions taken by the investigating authorities which have affected his rights and lawful interests , and to obtain copies of these decisions at his request .","The court takes into account the facts that the investigator ORG admitted these violations during the court investigation , and that the victim was provided with copies of several important decisions on the criminal case during the examination of this complaint . \u201d","On DATE the applicants appealed against this decision , reiterating their previous complaints .","On DATE ORG dismissed their appeal and upheld ORG decision .","On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicants\u2019 cassation appeal holding that ORG decision was final and not subject to appeal .","On DATE an investigator from ORG issued a decision suspending the criminal proceedings in connection with ORG death . The investigator substantiated the decision by the fact that although all possible investigative steps had been taken , it had not been possible to determine who had killed E.A. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c As it was not possible to determine the person ( persons ) who committed the crime despite the fact that at the time being all possible operational investigative measures were taken , it is appropriate to suspend the criminal proceedings . \u201d","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG asking the court to quash the investigator \u2019s decisions of DATE and DATE . The applicants noted that they had not been informed of the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE suspending the criminal proceedings in connection with their son \u2019s murder and they had learned about this decision only when the ORG submitted to the ORG a copy of the decision in question in their observations within the framework of the examination of their complaint by the ORG . The applicants also submitted that they were never provided with a copy of the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG granted partially the applicants\u2019 claim and quashed the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE suspending the criminal proceedings in connection with the murder of the ORG son . In this connection , the court held that the prosecution authorities failed to prove that they had informed the applicants of the decision of DATE . The court further found that the prosecution authorities\u2019 failure to inform the applicants of the decision of DATE had been unlawful and had deprived the applicants of the exercise of their right to challenge the decision in question . Thus , it appears that the criminal proceedings are still pending , whereas the ORG has not been informed of any further developments .","As to the part of the applicants\u2019 claim concerning the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE , ORG considered that this claim fell outside its jurisdiction and decided to transfer it for an examination to ORG . The court held in this respect that the decision of DATE was delivered by an investigator from ORG and therefore the decision in question could be challenged before a military court .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 claim considering it unjustified without further explanation .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-176031","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"MOCKIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , ORG , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP The applicant was employed as an official at ORG until DATE , when she was discharged for health reasons . She was entitled to a service pension ( valstybin\u0117 pensija ) of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) per month from the date she left her job .","According to NORP law , service pensions are not related to social insurance contributions but are paid from the ORG budget to individuals because of their merits or for service to the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . State officials who are entitled to service pensions are also insured by the mandatory State social insurance scheme and are entitled to other types of welfare benefit , save in exceptional cases provided by law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG enacted LAW ( PERSON i\u0161mok\u0173 perskai\u010diavimo ir mok\u0117jimo laikinasis \u012fstatymas ; hereinafter , \u201c the Provisional Law \u201d ) , which entered into force on DATE . According to the law \u2019s preamble , the ORG budget deficit had been constantly increasing because of the economic crisis of that time and measures were needed to stabilise it ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . LAW set down rules for recalculating various welfare benefits , such as retirement pensions , disability benefits , maternity and paternity benefits , sickness benefits , unemployment benefits and service pensions , among others ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","An explanatory report appended to LAW stated that the economic crisis had led to numerous legal acts being amended in an attempt to stabilise the ORG budget deficit \u2013 civil ORG salaries had been reduced and there had been changes in tax law . However , further measures were considered necessary to address the crisis . The explanatory report referred to the work plan of the Government , which had set down the guidelines for addressing the economic slowdown in the face of the global financial crisis ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It also referred to several ORG rulings adopted in DATE , which had held that individuals entitled to certain welfare benefits had a legitimate expectation that they would continue to receive them ; however , in the face of an exceptional situation , when the ORG was unable to acquire sufficient funds to continue the payment of welfare benefits , they could be temporarily reduced to the extent necessary to ensure the protection of constitutional values and the balance between the interests of individuals and those of society .","NORP In line with LAW , service pensions were reduced by PERCENT , depending on their size , but the final amount after the recalculation could not be below LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","Article CARDINAL of the Provisional PERSON stated that the law would expire on DATE , but that provision was subsequently amended several times . The Provisional Law ceased to apply on DATE with regard to retirement pensions , disability benefits , maternity and paternity benefits , sickness benefits , and child benefit , but remained applicable with regard to service pensions until DATE .","Article QUANTITY CARDINAL of the Provisional PERSON instructed the Government to prepare the necessary legal acts to establish a compensation mechanism for reduced retirement pensions and benefits for lost working capacity . It did not make any mention of a compensation mechanism for the other benefits that had been reduced ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG found that LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was not in compliance with the LAW in so far as it had not required a compensation mechanism for those service pensions which had been reduced significantly ( dideliu mastu ; see the relevant excerpts in paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG issued a ruling which examined the compliance , inter alia , of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) with LAW . It reiterated that the ORG was justified in introducing temporary reductions in various welfare benefits when faced with an economic crisis , as long as those reductions respected the constitutional principles of the rule of law and non - discrimination , among others . ORG concluded that LAW was in compliance with LAW because it had provided that service pensions could not be reduced by PERCENT , which could not be considered as \u201c significant \u201d . The absence of a compensation mechanism for service pensions reduced in line with LAW had therefore not breached LAW ( see the relevant excerpts in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The ruling was published in ORG and entered into force on DATE .","On DATE ORG found that the different expiry dates for reductions in service pensions and other welfare benefits in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were compatible with the LAW in view of the \u201c different nature and character \u201d of service pensions compared with other benefits ( see the relevant excerpts in paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In accordance with LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) , the applicant \u2019s service pension was reduced on DATE by PERCENT to LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) per month .","On DATE the applicant brought a claim against the ORG . She requested that her service pension be restored to its DATE level and that she be compensated for the period of reduced pension . The applicant also asked the court to seek a ruling from ORG as to whether various provisions of LAW were in compliance with LAW .","On DATE ORG adjourned the applicant \u2019s case on the grounds that several requests concerning the compliance of LAW were pending before ORG . The case was adjourned until the entry into force of ORG ruling of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It held that the applicant \u2019s service pension had been reduced in accordance with LAW , which ORG had found to be in compliance with LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above and QUANTITY below ) . There were therefore no grounds to restore her pension to its DATE level or compensate her for the period of reduction .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the findings of the first - instance court .","The relevant provisions of the LAW read :","\u201c Any law or other act that contradicts the LAW shall be invalid .","... \u201d","\u201c Property shall be inviolable .","The rights of ownership shall be protected by law .","Property may be taken only for the needs of society according to the procedure established by law and shall be justly compensated for . \u201d","\u201c All persons shall be equal before the law , courts , and other state institutions and officials .","Human rights may not be restricted ; no one may be granted any privileges on the grounds of gender , race , nationality , language , origin , social status , belief , convictions , or views . \u201d","\u201c The ORG shall guarantee its citizens the right to receive retirement and disability pensions , as well as social assistance in the event of unemployment , sickness , widowhood , loss of the breadwinner , and in other cases provided for by law . \u201d","\u201c A law ( or part thereof ) of GPE ... may not be applied from DATE of the official publication of the decision of ORG that the act in question ( or part thereof ) is in conflict with LAW .","The decisions of ORG on the issues assigned to its competence by LAW shall be final and not subject to appeal .","... \u201d","Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG ( PERSON pensij\u0173 \u012fstatymas ) list the categories of people who are entitled to service pensions , such as ORG officials , soldiers , judges , scientists , former deportees , resistance fighters , Olympic medalists , and others ; separate laws set out the specific regulations for each category ( see , for example , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Article CARDINAL provides that service pensions are paid from the ORG budget . Article CARDINAL provides that a person who is entitled to several service pensions can only receive one , of his or her choice .","Article CARDINAL of the Law on the Service Pensions of Officials and Soldiers ( Kari\u0173 ir pareig\u016bn\u0173 valstybini\u0173 pensij\u0173 \u012fstatymas ) lists the categories of ORG officials who are entitled to service pensions , such as ORG service officials , professional soldiers , prosecutors , ORG officials , customs and border officers , and others . LAW provides that officials become eligible for a service pension after serving for a certain length of time or after being discharged for health reasons related to their duties . LAW sets the rules for calculating the amount of service pension , linking it to length of service and the average salary received during that time .","LAW ( PERSON socialinio draudimo pensij\u0173 \u012fstatymas ) provides that ORG officials are insured by the mandatory ORG social insurance scheme . Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that individuals who are entitled to a ORG social insurance pension do not lose the right to receive service pensions or other benefits , save for exceptional cases provided by law .","The work plan of ORG , adopted in DATE , stated that CARDINAL of the main priorities of the Government was to prepare for the economic slowdown in the face of the serious global financial crisis . It set down guidelines for decreasing public spending , reforming tax law , balancing cash flows , and encouraging private businesses , among other things .","The preamble to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , provides :"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178352","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LEUSKA AND OTHERS v. ESTONIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The first and second applicants\u2019 son was killed in a traffic accident on DATE in which the fourth applicant sustained serious injuries . The third applicant is the fourth applicant \u2019s mother .","The applicants joined the criminal proceedings concerning the accident as victims .","On DATE and DATE the applicants lodged a civil action within the criminal proceedings against the suspect , PERSON , claiming compensation for non - pecuniary damage and reimbursement of the legal costs incurred in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the applicants , represented by lawyers of their own choice , concluded an out - of - court settlement with J. ( hereinafter \u201c out - of - court settlement agreement \u201d ) . They informed the prosecutor that they had agreed that the case would be settled ( kokkuleppemenetlus ) . J. informed the prosecutor that he had paid the compensation to the applicants as laid down in the out - of - court settlement agreement .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 consent to the application of the settlement procedure was recorded in a report signed by the prosecutor and the ORG representatives . The report stated that the applicants had been informed of their rights under the settlement procedure and set out the consequences of applying the settlement procedure . In a section entitled \u201c Remarks \u201d , it was noted that the applicants had given up their claims in respect of non - pecuniary damage against J. ( as lodged on CARDINAL and DATE ) , but had not given up their claim for reimbursement of the legal costs incurred in the criminal proceedings . The report also stated that the victims had no right to withdraw their consent to the settlement procedure . At that time , the applicants had submitted neither an itemised list of legal costs nor any supporting documents .","On DATE PERSON gave his consent to the application of the settlement procedure . The prosecutor , PERSON and the latter \u2019s counsel signed a settlement agreement in which they agreed , inter alia , on the type and extent of the damage caused . The agreement stated that the victims had withdrawn the civil claims they had lodged within the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG committed J. for trial and scheduled a hearing for DATE . J. , his counsel and the prosecutor were summoned to appear at the court hearing . The applicants , however , were not summoned .","On DATE the applicants lodged a claim for legal costs in the amount of CARDINAL ( ORG ) and submitted supporting documents . ORG received their submission on DATE .","J. , his counsel and the prosecutor attended the hearing held before ORG as scheduled . According to the court record , the trial judge disclosed the applicants\u2019 claim for reimbursement of their legal costs . J. asked the court not to examine the claim as it had been absorbed by the out - of - court settlement agreement . The applicants alleged that they had not been allowed to address the court notwithstanding their presence in the court building .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG convicted PERSON of violating traffic and driving regulations and sentenced him to a suspended prison term . It also withdrew ORG driving licence and ordered him to pay the ORG expenses consisting of compensation levies ( sundraha ) and the cost of expert assessments . It held that the victims had given up the civil claims they had lodged within the framework of the criminal proceedings . The judgment made no reference to the ORG claim for reimbursement of the legal costs incurred in the criminal proceedings .","The applicants lodged an appeal against that judgment . They complained that they had not been allowed to attend the court hearing of DATE and that the court had left their claim for reimbursement of the legal costs undecided .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the appeal . Relying on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ; ORG seadustik ) , the court found that the applicants had not been parties to the court proceedings and did not , therefore , have the right to appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicants appealed against ORG decision , insisting that they had been parties to the proceedings and had the right to appeal .","At a public hearing on DATE ORG examined the appeal in the presence of J. and his counsel , the prosecutor and the applicants\u2019 counsel . At the hearing , the prosecutor firstly noted that the applicants had not submitted any documents concerning their claim for legal costs , despite the fact that they had had DATE after the settlement to do so . According to the report of the hearing , the prosecutor later noted that those documents could have been submitted when the applicants had signed the report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) or DATE . The report stated that J. had wanted to submit the out - of - court settlement agreement to the judge in order to prove that it covered all the relevant damages . However , ORG had refused , considering that it did not concern the subject matter of the dispute before the court in those proceedings .","By a decision of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal and upheld ORG decision of DATE . It referred to Article CARDINAL of the ORG , under which the victim was not entitled to revoke his or her consent to the application of the settlement procedure , and to LAW , which provided that the victim did not have to be summoned to a court hearing in settlement proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY below ) . ORG concluded that the applicants , as victims , had not been parties to such court proceedings and that , accordingly , they had no right to appeal against ORG judgment .","Although ORG decision stated that it was final and not amenable to appeal , the applicants\u2019 counsel nevertheless challenged it before ORG .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE in case no . PERCENT CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ORG refused to examine the appeal on points of law because ORG decision had been final and not amenable to appeal . It nevertheless stated that according to the established case - law , in settlement proceedings the court should not limit itself to merely analysing the settlement reached . It must also verify whether there were still questions that should be addressed in the subsequent judgment , but which had not been included in the settlement agreement . The court noted that according to LAW ORG , the settlement agreement did not necessarily have to address matters dealing with the costs of criminal procedure or cover the extent of granting the civil claim or of compensating for the damage caused by the criminal offence . However , referring to LAW , DATE and CARDINAL of the ORG and LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG , ORG considered that those matters should not be overlooked by the court concerned ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148491","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"HENRIKSSON v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON , PERSON and Mr. PERSON , ORG .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( tingsr\u00e4tt ) convicted the applicant of a tax offence ( skattebrott ) . He was given a suspended sentence and ordered to perform TIME of community service . ORG found that he had had temporary employment with a company in DATE and had failed to declare in his tax return the value of various goods that he had received as remuneration . The applicant did not dispute this , but claimed that he had not understood that the remuneration was liable to tax and that , thus , he had had no intention of evading taxes . He maintained that his conduct , in any event , could only be regarded as a tax misdemeanour ( skattef\u00f6rseelse ) . The court considered , however , that the investigation clearly showed that he had been aware of his tax liability and that his conduct was to be designated as a tax offence . While the court was unable to exactly determine the applicant \u2019s undeclared income , it considered the material in the case to sufficiently support the prosecutor \u2019s claim that taxes could be charged in the amount of MONEY ( SEK ; MONEY ( ORG ) .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON hovr\u00e4tt ) reclassified the offence as a tax misdemeanour and sentenced the applicant to DATE fines ( dagsb\u00f6ter ) of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) each . The appellate court found that , in distinguishing between a tax offence and a tax misdemeanour , all objective facts were to be considered , although the amount in question was of particular importance . According to domestic case - law , the line had been drawn at QUANTITY , and the court could not find beyond reasonable doubt that the total remuneration received by the applicant had exceeded that amount . Nor were there other circumstances that justified the classification of the offence as a tax offence .","The applicant did not appeal against ORG judgment , which consequently acquired legal force on DATE .","On DATE ORG ( Skatteverket ) made an enquiry to the applicant , indicating that it was considering a supplementary tax assessment involving tax surcharges . The applicant replied to this enquiry on DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG reviewed the applicant \u2019s taxation for income received in DATE ( i.e. DATE ) and found that he had failed to account for income received from the company mentioned above . Having regard to the documentation in the case , including the judgments in the criminal case , the ORG found it reasonable to assume that the applicant had received a DATE income of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL during DATE , or in total SEK CARDINAL . After deductions for estimated costs for travels to and from work and increased living expenses of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL , the ORG revised upwards his income by SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . Furthermore , as the information supplied by the applicant in his tax return was found to be incorrect and the revision had had to be made under a discretionary assessment procedure , he was ordered to pay tax surcharges ( skattetill\u00e4gg ) , amounting to PERCENT of the increased tax liability .","Following the applicant \u2019s appeal , ORG , on DATE , made an obligatory review of its decision and lowered the revised income . Instead of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL , the applicant \u2019s income was raised by SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The tax surcharges were lowered correspondingly and thereafter amounted to SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( l\u00e4nsr\u00e4tten ) in GPE of ORG agreed with ORG decision of DATE . However , the court had regard to the preparatory works ( prop . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) to the provisions on exemption of tax surcharges ( in particular , LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW ; ORG , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , according to which , in determining the surcharges , it could be taken into account that the same reproachable act or omission had also led to the individual \u2019s conviction for a crime under LAW ( Skattebrottslagen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , the reason being that the total penalty should not be unreasonably heavy . In view of the applicant \u2019s conviction and sentence , the court found reason to halve the tax surcharges in question .","On DATE ORG ( kammarr\u00e4tten ) in GPE upheld ORG judgment .","ORG appealed to ORG ( Regeringsr\u00e4tten ) which , on DATE , granted leave to appeal .","On DATE ORG quashed the lower courts\u2019 judgments and upheld ORG review decision of DATE ( judgment published in PERSON \u00e5rsbok ( R\u00c5 ) DATE , ref . CARDINAL ) . In assessing whether there was a violation of the prohibition on double punishment under LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW , the court referred to the fact that the relevant NORP provisions aimed at ensuring that the combined sanctions \u2013 criminal conviction and imposition of tax surcharges \u2013 were in reasonable proportion to the conduct for which the individual had been found liable . It further noted that the NORP legal system contained the special feature of separate general courts and administrative courts . In the court \u2019s opinion , LAW No . CARDINAL had to be interpreted in the light of such special features in the national legal systems . While acknowledging that ORG recent judgments in PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , judgment of DATE , ORG DATE ) and PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , judgment of DATE ) suggested a change in the GPE case - law , ORG noted that they did not relate to the NORP legal system and concluded that this system , allowing for both a conviction for a tax offence and an imposition of tax surcharges , was in conformity with the Convention . The court further found that an exemption from surcharges under LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW could only be granted if the individual had received a severe fine or prison sentence . As that was not considered to be the case with regard to the applicant and , thus , his total penalty was not unreasonable , there was no ground on which to reduce the surcharges fixed by ORG .","The rules on taxes and tax surcharges relevant to the present case were primarily laid down in , as far as income tax was concerned , LAW ( Taxeringslagen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) and , with respect to GPE , LAW ( Skattebetalningslagen , DATE ) . Both laws have since been replaced by LAW Skattef\u00f6rfarandelagen ; CARDINAL ) .","A tax surcharge could \u2013 and still can DATE be imposed on a taxpayer in CARDINAL situations : if he or she , in a tax return or in any other written statement , has submitted information of relevance to the tax assessment which is found to be incorrect ( LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW , and LAW , LAW ) or if , following a discretionary assessment , ORG decides not to rely on the tax return ( LAW , section CARDINAL , and LAW , section CARDINAL , respectively ) . It is not only express statements that may lead to the imposition of a surcharge ; concealment , in whole or in part , of relevant facts may also be regarded as incorrect information . A discretionary tax assessment is made if the taxpayer has submitted information which is so inadequate that ORG can not base its tax assessment on it or if he or she has not filed a tax return despite the obligation to do so . In certain circumstances , the tax surcharges may be exempted .","A person who intentionally furnishes incorrect information to an authority or fails to file a tax return or other required information , thereby causing a risk that taxes will be withheld from the public treasury or wrongly credited or repaid to him or her , is criminally liable under sections CARDINAL of LAW ( Skattebrottslagen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) . The possible sentence ranges from a fine for a tax misdemeanour ( skattef\u00f6rseelse ) to imprisonment for a maximum of DATE for an aggravated tax offence . Section CARDINAL provides that a person who is not considered to have furnished incorrect information with intent but to have been grossly negligent in doing so ( v\u00e5rdsl\u00f6s skatteuppgift ) may be sentenced to a fine or a maximum of DATE in prison . The term \u201c incorrect information \u201d in LAW is considered to have the same meaning as in the above provisions on tax surcharges ( Government PERSON , p. CARDINAL ) .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG considered whether a person could be convicted of a tax offence in criminal proceedings following the imposition of a tax surcharge in tax proceedings ( published in LOC arkiv ( ORG ) DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . Having noted that , under internal NORP law , a surcharge is not considered a criminal penalty and does not prevent trial and conviction for a tax offence relating to the same act , ORG went on to examine the matter under LAW . It first considered , in the light of the ORG \u2019s case - law , that there were weighty arguments for regarding LAW as being applicable under its criminal head to proceedings involving a tax surcharge . Even assuming this to be the case , it held , however , that the principle of ne bis in idem , as set forth in LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW presupposed that the initial conviction or acquittal had been delivered in accordance with the penal procedure of the ORG . Therefore the principle did not prevent criminal proceedings from being brought against someone for an act in respect of which a surcharge had already been levied . This view was confirmed in later judgments delivered by ORG .","On DATE , in its judgment concerning the present case , ORG examined the reverse situation , that is , where the question of imposition of tax surcharges arose after a criminal conviction for a tax offence . It concluded that the NORP legal system was in conformity with LAW ( see further paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG examined the issue anew ( NJA DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . It found again , by a majority of CARDINAL votes to QUANTITY , that there was no reason generally to invalidate the NORP system with double proceedings by virtue of LAW No . CARDINAL . The court considered that , following PERSON v. GPE If the later proceedings concerned identical or essentially the same facts as the earlier proceedings , it was a matter of proceedings concerning the same offence . However , ORG noted that the GPE case - law left some room for several punishments for the same offence that could be decided by separate organs at different times and mentioned by way of example , inter alia , the conviction for a traffic offence and the resultant withdrawal of the offender \u2019s driving licence . ORG further found that the invalidation of a NORP system regulated by domestic law with reference to the LAW required that either the LAW itself or ORG jurisprudence provided clear support for that conclusion and considered that neither LAW No . CARDINAL nor the jurisprudence provided such support in the matter at hand .","By a plenary decision of DATE ( NJA DATE , p. CARDINAL ) ORG overturned its previous conclusions . In line with its DATE decision , the court held that the imposition of tax surcharges and the conviction for a tax offence based on the same information supplied in a tax return are founded on identical factual circumstances and the relevant proceedings thus concern the same offence within the meaning of LAW No . CARDINAL . However , where the court in DATE had found that the invalidation of the NORP system required clear support in the Convention itself or in GPE case - law , the court now noted that the judgment of ORG in the case of PERSON ( CARDINAL NORP DATE , case no . C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) already prohibited double proceedings and punishments with respect to VAT . As the NORP system had thereby been partially invalidated , the legal and practical consequences of further changes were not so radical as to require the intervention of the legislature . The court also took into account that no legislative amendments had been made despite the developments in GPE case - law since DATE and that it would be inexpedient and difficult to apply different rules on similar contraventions within a system meant to be coherent . Consequently , the court held that there was sufficient support for concluding that the NORP system of tax surcharges and tax offences was incompatible with LAW . This conclusion applied not only to ORG , but also to income tax , employer \u2019s contributions and similar payments .","ORG further found that the protection under NORP law against double proceedings and punishments was valid also in cases where the state exacted personal liability on an individual for tax surcharges imposed on a legal person . Having regard to the strong and systematic connection in NORP law between the principles of res judicata and lis pendens , the court also held , although the ORG \u2019s jurisprudence was unclear on this point , that ongoing , not finalised proceedings on tax surcharges precluded a criminal indictment concerning the same factual circumstances . The procedural hindrance against an indictment materialised when ORG took its decision to impose surcharges .","However , whereas the imposition of tax surcharges and the conviction for a tax offence based on the same factual circumstances concerned the same offence and were thus prohibited , the situation was different when the criminal conviction concerned a bookkeeping offence . According to ORG , which had regard to the case - law of the ORG , the concrete factual circumstances forming the basis of a bookkeeping offence could normally not be considered inextricably linked to the factual circumstances leading to the imposition of tax surcharges . In addition to the breach of bookkeeping obligations under LAW , the imposition of a tax surcharge involved a further factual element , namely the submission of incorrect information in a tax return .","In the case at hand , which involved the imposition of tax surcharges against an individual in DATE and the criminal indictment of him in DATE for , inter alia , aggravated tax offences and an aggravated bookkeeping offence , ORG quashed the appealed judgment of ORG in so far as it concerned the tax offence relating to his personal income tax and dismissed the indictment in that respect . However , nothing prevented the examination of the bookkeeping offence or the tax offences concerning ORG and employer \u2019s contributions . In the latter respect , the conclusion was due to the tax surcharges relating to LOC and employer \u2019s contributions having been imposed on the appellant \u2019s limited liability company and not on him personally .","In a further decision , taken on DATE ( NJA DATE , p. CARDINAL ) , ORG examined the question whether a former defendant could be granted a re - opening of criminal proceedings ( resning ) under LAW , section CARDINAL of the Code of Judicial Procedure ( R\u00e4tteg\u00e5ngsbalken ) if he or she had been convicted of an offence under LAW in a manner incompatible with LAW , as interpreted by the decision of DATE . The court concluded that , on the basis of the Convention , in particular LAW , a NORP court may decide , in certain situations , that a case is to be re - opened notwithstanding the special conditions specified in LAW , section CARDINAL . The court also took the position that the incompatibility of NORP legislation regarding sanctions for tax - related offences with LAW No . CARDINAL had arisen by virtue of the PERSON judgment ( cited above ) , thus on DATE . ORG decision led to criminal proceedings being re - opened in respect of an individual \u2019s conviction for an offence under LAW . As a result , the possibility of being granted a re - opening of criminal proceedings applies retroactively to judgments having been delivered in criminal proceedings as from DATE .","On DATE ORG took another decision of relevance ( NJA DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . It stated therein that , if criminal proceedings have commenced before ORG has decided to impose tax surcharges , the prohibition against ne bis in idem can not result in a criminal judgment that has become final being re - opened and quashed . Instead , it is the second set of proceedings to be commenced DATE the tax proceedings involving surcharges \u2013 that are contrary to the law . The violation of the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence is therefore in this situation a matter for the administrative courts .","By a plenary judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( HFD DATE ref . CARDINAL ) , ORG ( now ORG f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) reversed the position taken in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE and confirmed in a judgment of DATE ( R\u00c5 DATE ref . CARDINAL ) . Agreeing with the conclusions drawn by ORG , ORG found that the same principles should apply when the order of the tax and criminal proceedings is different , that is , when the tax proceedings are commenced later . Accordingly , a criminal indictment constitutes a procedural hindrance against imposing tax surcharges based on the same submission of incorrect information .","In the case at hand , where the individual had been indicted in DATE and surcharges had been imposed by ORG in DATE , ORG concluded that the latter decision violated LAW . The appeal made against the appellate court \u2019s judgment on tax surcharges was accordingly granted and the surcharges set aside .","ORG has since examined several petitions for the re - opening of tax proceedings in which tax surcharges had been imposed . In a decision of DATE ( cases nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE ) it rejected the petition , stating that the earlier criminal proceedings had not led to an indictment of the individual but to a decision by the prosecutor to discontinue the preliminary investigation and that , accordingly , no violation of the prohibition against double proceedings had occurred . In a judgment of DATE ( cases nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) it granted a re - opening , noting that , pursuant to ORG decision of DATE , the applicant would have had a right of re - opening of the criminal proceedings if the tax surcharge decision had preceded the indictment and finding that the situation at hand , which was the reverse , should not be treated differently . ORG accordingly re - opened the tax proceedings and quashed the tax surcharges in question . The latter case had already been examined by ORG as part of the original tax proceedings in DATE prior to the recent developments in NORP case - law \u2013 and had then been considered not to involve a breach of LAW No . CARDINAL .","NORP In a judgment of DATE ( cases nos . DATE and MONEY ) ORG examined a different situation where tax surcharges had been imposed on a person by a decision of ORG in DATE , upheld by ORG in DATE . During the subsequent examination before ORG , the person in question was , in separate criminal proceedings , indicted for a tax offence but acquitted thereof by a judgment of ORG in DATE which soon afterwards acquired legal force . As a consequence , ORG , in DATE , quashed the surcharges that had been imposed . ORG agreed with this course of action , noting that the ORG had established in several judgments ( including PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) that , in the event that CARDINAL of CARDINAL concurrent sets of proceedings becomes final , LAW No . CARDINAL required that the other set of proceedings be discontinued . ORG judgment was delivered in ordinary proceedings which had not involved any re - opening . Furthermore , all the decisions and judgments in the case were delivered after the PERSON judgment .","Following the above judicial changes , ORG ( Riks\u00e5klagaren ) and ORG ( GPE - myndigheten ) decided to examine all tax cases where there may have been double punishments in accordance with the conclusions by the CARDINAL supreme courts . Whenever the conditions were met , the prosecutor would file a petition for the criminal proceedings to be re - opened , provided that the individual agreed to this course of action and had not already sought a re - opening him- or herself . The undertaking , expected to be finalised by DATE , was to cover all cases ending with a judgment , an order of summary punishment ( straff\u00f6rel\u00e4ggande ) or a decision not to prosecute ( \u00e5talsunderl\u00e5telse ) since DATE .","On DATE the NORP newspaper ORG , basing itself on information provided by ORG , reported that CARDINAL cases concerning tax offences had been examined . Out of CARDINAL individuals who were serving prison sentences , DATE had been released . Those who had not been released had been convicted also for other crimes than tax offences . A further number of persons who were about to start serving prison sentences did not have to do so . CARDINAL individuals who had already served their sentences had been asked whether they wished assistance in filing petitions for re - opening of proceedings and , so far , CARDINAL of them had accepted and CARDINAL cases had been re - opened . In some re - opened cases the convictions had been quashed in their entirety ; in others , involving several offences , the proceedings had to be repeated .","Section CARDINAL of the Act on Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty and Other Coercive Measures ( ORG om ers\u00e4ttning vid frihetsber\u00f6vande och andra tv\u00e5ngs\u00e5tg\u00e4rder ; CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) stipulates that a person who has served a prison sentence is entitled to compensation if , following an appeal or a re - opening of proceedings , he or she is acquitted or given a less severe sentence or the judgment containing the conviction is quashed . Under section CARDINAL of that Act , compensation is awarded for costs , loss of income , interference in business activities and suffering . Normally , in accordance with the practice of the Chancellor of Justice ( NORP ) , compensation for suffering is set at a rate of ORG ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for DATE , SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for DATE up to and including DATE and SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) per month after that . Certain circumstances can lead to a higher rate of compensation . This is primarily the case if the suspicions have concerned a particularly serious crime or if the matter has attracted extensive media attention .","An action for damages can also be based on LAW ( ORG , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) . Under LAW , LAW , compensation is awarded for damage caused by fault or negligence on the part of a public authority . Requests can be lodged with the Chancellor of ORG . If dissatisfied with the Chancellor \u2019s decision , the individual has the option of bringing an action for damages against the ORG in the general courts . He or she may also institute such proceedings directly without having made a request to the Chancellor .","In addition , ORG has developed case - law which provides that , in order to provide redress for victims of Convention violations , compensation may be awarded without direct support in NORP law . Based on this case - law , the Chancellor of ORG has awarded compensation in many cases following requests from individuals . The ORG has had regard to this development and has concluded that , following a ORG judgment of DATE ( ORG DATE N CARDINAL ) , there is an accessible and effective remedy of general applicability , capable of affording redress in respect of alleged violations of the Convention ( see , for example , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE , and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE , and DATE in regard to the domestic case - law developments \u2013 the latter decision , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180277","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF DELINA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","ORG approved the exchange of a municipal flat for a smaller flat owned and occupied by the applicant in DATE . However , the mayor of GPE did not issue the necessary order and did not sign a contract for the exchange , as provided in the applicable rules . The applicant brought judicial review proceedings challenging the mayor \u2019s tacit refusal to act . ORG quashed the mayor \u2019s tacit refusal in a judgment of DATE and instructed the mayor to issue an order for the exchange of the flats . That part of the judgment became final and enforceable on DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG revoked its DATE decision approving the exchange of the CARDINAL properties . The applicant lodged a challenge against that CARDINAL DATE decision . In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE null and void .","On DATE the mayor issued a decision explicitly refusing to issue an order for the exchange of the CARDINAL flats . Following an application by the applicant for judicial review , on DATE ORG declared that decision null and void as having been issued in breach of the judgment of ORG DATE . The court also instructed the mayor to issue an order for the conclusion of the exchange agreement .","The mayor ordered the flat exchange on DATE and the applicant signed a contract for the exchange on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165750","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SVITLANA ATAMANYUK AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first applicant , born in DATE , is the sister of the second applicant , born in DATE , the aunt of the third applicant , born in DATE , and the daughter of the fourth applicant , born in DATE . The first , second and third applicants live in GPE . The fourth applicant having died in DATE , the first applicant expressed the wish to pursue the proceedings in her stead .","On DATE ORG of GPE organised a military aviation show in the \u201c Sknyliv \u201d airdrome in GPE ( \u201c the PERSON air show \u201d ) to commemorate DATE CARDINALth ORG . The agenda for the event included a static display of military aircraft and other equipment and a live aerobatics show by military pilots .","The event was attended by CARDINAL individuals , including the third applicant ; PERSON , the first applicant \u2019s daughter ; her spouse Mr PERSON and their CARDINAL daughters PERSON and PERSON , born in DATE and DATE respectively .","During the aerobatics performance , an SU-CARDINAL military aircraft piloted by ORG and GPE crashed into the static aircraft display site where there were numerous spectators , where it exploded . Both pilots had successfully ejected before the explosion . As a result of the crash , CARDINAL people died and CARDINAL sustained injuries .","CARDINAL members of the PERSON family died on the spot . The third applicant suffered a post - traumatic stress reaction .","According to the applicants , following the accident , the military authorities immediately started cleaning up the site , shovelling the bodies into a pile , washing off the blood and small organic remains , and burying body fragments under the sand to conceal the evidence of the disaster . They also attempted to prevent people from photographing and filming . Senior ORG staff and civilian authorities occupying the VIP lounge fled in panic , causing a traffic jam and obstructing access to the site for police and medical professionals .","The Government contested this account . They noted , in particular , that the law - enforcement authorities had arrived promptly at the scene and had not recorded any instances of inappropriate conduct by the military personnel present there . According to them , the bodies of the victims were inspected by the police at the scene and then carefully transported to mortuaries for forensic examination and identification .","Following the accident , the first and third applicants went to the mortuary in search of their relatives\u2019 remains . According to them , they were obliged to wait TIME in the heat before being allowed to enter the LOC . Once inside , they had to search through numerous bodies and body fragments piled up on the floor to identify those of their relatives . ORG remains , which were decomposing in the heat , emitted a terrible odour .","On DATE a panel of forensic experts examined the bodies of Mr and PERSON and their daughters , and concluded that they had sustained fatal cerebral trauma and numerous other injuries . In particular , Mr PERSON had sustained a severe concussion ; the head of PERSON had been completely destroyed ; the heads of the children had been partly destroyed , with fragments missing . The documents on file indicate that the experts\u2019 conclusions were based on external examination of the bodies .","The applicants submitted that the bodies had been autopsied in spite of the first applicant \u2019s objections .","On an unspecified date the applicants collected the bodies of PERSON and PERSON and their daughters and buried them in the GPE cemetery in GPE . According to the applicants , one of the girls had a gold earring missing . They further submitted that the head of PERSON had been extracted from the crashed aircraft engine and , in spite of their pleas , had not been returned to them along with some other unspecified body fragments .","The Government submitted that unidentified body fragments of the PERSON accident victims had been buried in a common grave in the GPE cemetery in GPE after all reasonably available possibilities of identifying them had been exhausted . They also provided several documents produced by ORG in DATE , apparently in response to the first applicant \u2019s requests for further measures to be taken with a view to identifying body fragments , including a distorted female head , as possibly belonging to her deceased relatives . It appears from these documents that the chief investigator ordered some of the measures requested by the first applicant but rejected other requests as unfounded . It was also noted in the documents that , while the authorities had had a distorted female head in their possession , it could not have belonged to PERSON , because , according to the expert findings , her head had been completely destroyed .","On various dates several concurrent investigations were opened to establish the circumstances of the accident , including investigation by a special ORG set up for this purpose , ORG , ORG , ORG , and PERSON , a non - governmental organisation founded by survivors of the accident and those who had lost relatives at the air show .","On DATE the President of GPE set up a special ORG for the investigation of the causes of the catastrophe of the military aircraft of ORG of GPE ; \u201c the ORG \u201d ) with a specific mandate to investigate the circumstances of the accident and coordinate assistance to its victims . The Commission was chaired by the President of ORG . Other members of the Commission included senior officials from ORG , Interior and ORG , officers of ORG of GPE , ORG of ORG , ORG , and ORG . ORG also engaged several experts from the \u201c LOC construction bureau ( the SU-CARDINAL aircraft manufacturer , GPE ) and CARDINAL test pilots from GPE as aviation experts .","Following the investigation , which included inspecting the accident site , interviewing individuals involved in the organisation of the air show and examining the relevant documents , as well as deciphering data from the flight data recorders , on an unspecified date in DATE ORG reported on the facts as follows .","NORP In DATE Colonel - General MONEY ( the ORG Commander - in - Chief ) authorised the aerobatics show at the request of ORG ( the CARDINALth Corps Commander ) . ORG appointed a mixed team of officers from different units , including Colonel PERSON , from GPE , GPE as the first pilot ; Colonel GPE , of ORG , stationed in GPE , as the second pilot ; and Lieutenant - Colonel GPE . , stationed in GPE , as the aerobatic performance director . Lieutenant - General GPE and ORG PERSON , both stationed locally in GPE with ORG , were also designated to join the mission , one as \u201c air show flights director \u201d and the other as \u201c chief safety officer \u201d .","On DATE GPE , GPE and GPE . carried out their only training flight as a team . On the orders of ORG , the flight took place at a military aerodrome in GPE , near GPE . According to ORG , that flight could not qualify as a rehearsal for the performance at the air show , as it included a different sequence of manoeuvres ; its purpose was rather to improve and practise piloting techniques . The ORG also established that ORG had requested an additional training flight in GPE and that his request had been turned down by the command , citing a shortage of fuel . Although the air show preparation programme included an on - site rehearsal flight on DATE , the CARDINALth ORG Commander decided to cancel it for the same reason . The pilots were not formally apprised of the boundaries of the aerobatics zone or the placement of spectators .","Before the show , the pilots were provided with a different aircraft from the one in which they had carried out their training flight . There was a certain asynchronism in the performance of the right and left engines of this aircraft . Overall , however , it was in an acceptable technical condition and remained fully operational until it crashed . The aircraft had been supplied with extra fuel in order to enable the pilots to return to NORP without landing at the site of the air show . The fact that the pilots had trained in a different aircraft and with less fuel had a negative impact on their readiness for performing aerobatic displays . For unspecified reasons , the pilots decided to take off without the mandatory anti - gravitation suits ( \u201c g - suits \u201d ) . On arrival at the PERSON aerodrome , the pilots immediately started the performance , without taking any time to familiarise themselves with the site , which was new to them . During the performance , the aircraft exited the designated aerobatics zone , the boundary of which was QUANTITY from the spectators\u2019 area . Neither PERSON nor GPE . , directing the flight from the ground , warned them of that fact or directed them to return to the designated zone . Still outside of the zone , ORG decided to perform a certain aerobatic display ( called \u201c the trunk \u201d ) , which he had never practised before and which was not included in his mission order . He made a technical mistake in its performance and , as the second pilot did not intervene when appropriate , the pilots lost control of the aircraft and it started falling . Subsequent efforts by the crew to regain altitude were futile . Accordingly , ORG concluded that the principal cause of the accident was a technical mistake on the part of the first pilot in performing a manoeuvre which he had not been commissioned to perform . It also noted that the prompt and appropriate intervention of the second pilot could have saved the situation and that loss of life and damage to health could have been avoided had the ground crew properly guided the pilots to stay within the aerobatics zone .","ORG also noted serious shortcomings in the organisation of the air show , including poor coordination between various officers and authorities involved in its preparation ; unsatisfactory crew training , and lack of appropriate emergency and spectator - safety planning , which contributed to the disaster . The Commission noted , in particular , as follows :","\u201c The serious consequences of the aviation catastrophe ... were the result of irresponsibility , negligence , lack of discipline , official neglect and breach of applicable regulations ... on the part of many leading officers of ORG , in particular , the generals and officers of ORG .","The tragedy was also the result of the absence of a system of effective supervision of the execution of orders ... by the respective air force officials DATE from its Commander - in - Chief to the members of the crew of the SU-CARDINAL . As a result , the generals and officers involved in the preparation and staging of [ the air show ] were not apprised of the real state of affairs concerning the necessary measures to be carried out , while the immediate participants in the aerobatic performance proved to be ill - prepared for it . \u201d","The Special Commission criticised , in particular , PERSON ( the ORG Commander - in - Chief ) and his colleagues from ORG responsible for the military training \u2013 Lieutenant - General PERSON and ORG \u2013 for not having developed appropriate specific normative guidelines for the aerobatic performances . In the Commission \u2019s view , these were much needed given the lack of general regulations on the relevant matters . ORG also criticised PERSON and his colleagues for not having ensured a proper distribution of tasks between their subordinates engaged in the show and their direct supervision on behalf of ORG . In ORG opinion , such supervision was particularly important in view of the involvement in the show of officers from different military units that were not subordinate to each other and not accustomed to performing any tasks together . It also noted that Lieutenant - General S.O. ( the CARDINALth ORG Commander ) and his subordinates , in particular ORG and Colonel PERSON ( the CARDINALth ORG chief flight safety officer ) , had failed to put in place any meaningful land - and - air safety precautions plan . In addition , ORG regretted ORG \u2019s decision to cancel the on - site rehearsal flight and concluded that the officers designated to direct the flight as ground crew ( ORG and GPE . ) had had no relevant experience or clearance for such a mission .","ORG also reported on numerous procedural breaches on the part of the local administration and municipal authorities in authorising the air show . In particular , PERSON , deputy mayor of GPE with responsibility for humanitarian issues , had exceeded his authority in authorising it instead of the mayor himself . The mayor , having learned of the military authorities\u2019 initiative to organise the air show , took little action to coordinate the relevant preparatory activities . The show was authorised without the involvement of the competent officers and services legally responsible for carrying out assessments of the relevant safety risks and for taking the necessary prevention and response measures . The local authorities also failed to set up a necessary air show coordination committee and to organise a safety inspection of the aerodrome site before the show .","In DATE ORG produced a Report on the internal investigation , largely reiterating the findings of ORG . In particular , it concurred that the immediate cause of the accident was the first pilot \u2019s unforeseen misconduct , whose grave consequences could have been avoided or mitigated , were it not for the second pilot \u2019s and the ground crew \u2019s failure to intervene in good time . It also recognised that the organisation of the air show had been marked by significant shortcomings , including an unsatisfactory land and air safety precautions plan ; refusal to arrange CARDINAL training flight for the crew over the PERSON aerodrome ; and poor supervision by ORG and ORG of the preparatory activities . In addition , it was noted that the necessary regulatory framework was missing , and the organisers had drawn guidelines from the regulations on ordinary military training , which were not adapted for staging air shows for civilian spectators .","Referring to the conclusions of the investigation , on DATE the Minister of Defence issued order no . CARDINAL ( On the unsatisfactory organisation of the demonstration flight and the SU-CARDINAL aircraft disaster at the PERSON aerodrome ) , whereby a number of officers engaged in the organisation of the show were subjected to disciplinary sanctions . In particular , Lieutenant - General PERSON ( the CARDINALth Corps Commander ) was demoted ; Lieutenant - General O.V. , ( Deputy ORG Commander - in - Chief on military training ) was dismissed from the military \u201c for unsatisfactory performance of service duties in respect of the preparation for and supervision of the air show at the Sknyliv aerodrome , and for personal irresponsibility \u201d ; ORG was dismissed from the military \u201c for a negligent attitude to the performance of service duties and low personal executive discipline \u201d ; and CARDINAL other high - ranking ORG officers received warnings and were subjected to other sanctions . In addition , ORG , the ORG Commander - in - Chief , was also dismissed from the military service on disciplinary grounds , and the new ORG Commander - in - Chief was instructed to impose disciplinary sanctions on \u201c other officers guilty of breaches of duty during the preparation and staging of the air show \u201d . The issue of disciplinary responsibility for the pilots of the crashed aircraft and the ground crew which had operated their flight , was reserved pending a criminal investigation of the accident .","On DATE ORG delivered its report . It stated that numerous authorities shared , to various extents , common responsibility for the poor organisation of the show . It noted , in particular , that :","\u201c DATE . ... in the course of the preparation and staging of the demonstration flights ... the military establishments , the specialised central ORG aviation facilities and departments , the municipal authorities and their particular officers failed to comply with a number of provisions of the current law , governing the procedure of preparation and staging the events of such a scale , which failures , to various extents , resulted in the catastrophe and such a major loss of human life ... \u201d","The Commission concluded that the local authorities had played an ancillary role in the organisation of the air show . However , they had acted negligently in authorising it in breach of formal procedures and without soliciting all relevant information from the military authorities . They had also failed to develop an appropriate emergency prevention and response plan for the air show . According to the ORG , the municipal authority had been completely disengaged from any safety - related decision - making and its overall performance had been marked by \u201c ... a certain confusion and lack of clear understanding by the higher officers of the scope of their responsibilities . \u201d In view of this , the ORG recommended that ORG evaluate the performance of the Mayor and other municipal officers and clarify its policy concerning the distribution of functions between them . It also invited the Mayor to impose disciplinary sanctions on his staff members who were at fault for breach of duty .","The Commission next concluded that the negligence of the city authority had not been a direct cause of the accident , and attributed the primary responsibility for it to the military authorities , having provided the following overall political assessment of the accident :","\u201c [ the accident is ] ... a consequence of the generally irresponsible policy of ORG , which has neglected reformation of the ORG and the ORG , leading to a loss unprecedented for a civilised country ... of military efficiency and patriotic spirit , criminally negligent performance of their official duties by the military command at all levels , loss of pride in the military service and marginalisation of the material and technical procurement of the armed forces and military servicemen ...","\u201c ... [ the accident ] ... demonstrated the inadequacy of the current legal framework , the inadequacy of the ORG control system in respect of flight safety ; irresponsible and negligent performance by officers at all levels of their duties under the law in force ; the need to establish civilian control over the activities of the army ; and the need to modernise and effectively reform the armed forces of GPE ... \u201d","On DATE the Sknyliv Tragedy Lviv - based ORG founded by the relatives of the accident victims and its survivors published its own investigation report based on interviews and other information collected from public and private sources . In addition , the report featured an assessment of ORG piloting techniques by PERSON , a civil aviation pilot , who had lost family members at the PERSON air show .","Similarly to the reports produced by the governmental authorities , the authors of this report concluded that the immediate cause of the crash was error by the first pilot in performing a manoeuvre , which had been neither envisaged by his mission order nor practised by him before the show , while the second pilot and ground crew did not take the opportunity to intervene in respect of the first pilot \u2019s conduct . In addition to that , in the opinion of the authors of the report , ORG Commander - in - Chief and the CARDINALth ORG Commander , who had been watching the performance from the VIP lounge , had also failed to act to prevent the accident , as they had had direct radio connection with the ground crew and could have intervened at any moment .","Notwithstanding the aforementioned findings , in the opinion of the authours of the report , the accident had largely resulted from a structural problem . The responsibility for it had to be borne by numerous entities , including ORG , ORG , the authorities of the CARDINALth ORG , the GPE city and regional authorities , and the civil aviation authorities ( ORG and ORG ) , which had given permission for the aerobatic performance without checking its terms of reference .","NORP In particular , the authors of the report considered that the GPE mission had been poorly developed and had not been properly communicated to all parties involved . The mission order approved on DATE by Lieutenant - General PERSON of ORG was at variance with the aircraft specifications . A subsequent explanatory document to the mission order approved by Colonel PERSON , the first pilot \u2019s direct supervisor , was inconsistent with these specifications and with the aforementioned mission order . None of these documents specified such important parameters of the mission as engine performance mode , attack angles and acceleration coefficient to be observed during particular manoeuvres . Marginal flight parameters , such as minimum speed and height and maximal attack angle , which had been developed by ORG officers , were unsuitable for the performance of most of the manoeuvres which formed part of the event programme .","The authors of the report also criticised ORG for designating too small an aerobatics zone , ( QUANTITY , when CARDINAL xCARDINAL,CARDINAL metres would have been required ) . They noted that it was technically impossible for the pilots to perform their programme within the boundaries of this zone and not to find themselves above the spectators\u2019 heads .","Finally , the report also attributed part of the responsibility for the accident to the local municipal and regional authorities , which had disengaged themselves from any safety - related and emergency - prevention planning as well as to the civil aviation authorities ( the NORP and ORG agencies ) for giving authorisations for the air space to be used in breach of the relevant procedural rules .","On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings to investigate the circumstances of the accident .","On DATE the case was transferred for investigation to ORG and assigned to the Deputy Chairman of ORG of ORG for Military ORG . The team of some CARDINAL investigators and other officers from the military prosecutor \u2019s office dedicated to the case was supplemented by CARDINAL civilian investigative officers from ORG , department of the interior and ORG . The composition of the team was modified on several occasions , each time consisting of both military and civilian officers .","On DATE the prosecution commissioned an aviation expert assessment , which was carried out by a group of CARDINAL ORG officers in active service , a retired ORG flight safety specialist and a civilian aviation expert .","On DATE the group produced its report , in which it concurred with the earlier findings made by ORG and other entities concerning the principal causes of the accident . As regards the quality of the organisation of the show , the experts found that the GPE mission as such had not been incompatible with the SU-CARDINAL specifications , and that the size and location of the aerobatics zone had been acceptable . At the same time , in the experts\u2019 view , the organisational flaws had included , among others , a failure on the part of the superior officers to draw up comprehensive documents and guidelines in order for the crew to understand the scope of their mission , and to supervise more closely the execution of orders .","On DATE the civilian expert engaged in the above assessment issued a separate opinion in which he stated , inter alia , that in his view the aerobatics zone had been too small ; its location had been inherently dangerous and the GPE mission order had been incompatible with the SUCARDINAL specifications .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office solicited an opinion from CARDINAL other experts , both retired ORG officers , who at the material time had been on the staff of ORG scientific centre for combat application , to clarify the matters in dispute and other questions .","On DATE the investigation obtained a conclusion by these CARDINAL experts , in which they reported of numerous shortcomings in the air show organisation . In addition to the shortcomings pointed in the earlier ORG report , they concluded that the aerobatics zone was too small ; the boundaries of the zone were not clearly marked on site so as to be visible from the aircraft , which factor impaired the ORG ability to orient themselves ; the location of the aerobatics zone was potentially dangerous in case of any unforeseen situation ; the airfield \u2019s preparation for the show was carried out without any account being taken of the possibility of pilot error or any other emergency ; the crew did not receive a single mission order defining its mission according to all applicable standards ; various documents defining its flight parameters were not comprehensive and not fully consistent with each other ; the officers of the flight safety service failed to reveal the above shortcomings ; the pilots were allowed to take off without g - suits and their preparedness being checked by any competent authority ; the position of \u201c air show flights director \u201d assigned to ORG , which did not feature in any military training documents , appeared to be redundant ; it paralleled that of the ordinary aerodrome flights director , with a lack of clarity as to the distribution of authority between the CARDINAL officers ; neither ORG nor Colonel PERSON . , who directed the flight , had the proper clearance , experience , and qualifications ; and there was no assessment of the quality of the first pilot \u2019s piloting technique during the training flight in GPE on DATE . In practice , the pilots\u2019 training was coordinated and supervised only by Colonel PERSON , stationed at the NORP aerodrome , who had neither the authority nor the qualifications to assess their preparedness . The experts also noted that , regard being had to the army hierarchy , it was for ORG Commander - in - Chief to issue an appropriate formal order clearly designating the officers responsible for the mission and determining their personal responsibilities , as well as to bear responsibility for their proper training , since the programme envisaged the involvement of crew members and the use of equipment from various military units .","According to the experts , these and other shortcomings constituted breaches of numerous provisions contained in the relevant regulatory framework , including special military aviation guidelines , in particular : Guidelines for execution of flights for ORG , enacted by order no . CARDINAL of the Deputy Minister of Defence on DATE ( ORG \u043f\u043e \u0432\u0438\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044e \u043f\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043e\u0442\u0456\u0432 \u0432 \u0430\u0432\u0456\u0430\u0446\u0456\u0457 PERSON , GPE ) ; ORG of ORG , enacted by order no . CARDINAL of ORG Commander of GPE on DATE ( ORG \u043f\u043e \u0448\u0442\u0443\u0440\u043c\u0430\u043d\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0456\u0439 \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0456 \u0430\u0432\u0456\u0430\u0446\u0456\u0457 PERSON , ORG ) ; General Rules on FAC in ORG , enacted by order no . CARDINAL of the ORG Commander of GPE on DATE ( ORG \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0438\u043b\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043e\u0442\u0456\u0432 \u0443 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0456\u0442\u0440\u044f\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0456 GPE , ORG ) ; ORG in ORG , enacted by order no . CARDINAL of the ORG Commander on CARDINAL October CARDINAL ( ORG \u043f\u0440\u043e \u0437\u0430\u043f\u043e\u0431\u0456\u0433\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0430\u0432\u0456\u0430\u0446\u0456\u0439\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0456\u0439 \u0443 ORG , ORG ) , and several others . Similarly to the findings contained in other reports , the experts concluded , in particular , as follows :","\u201c ... CARDINAL of the reasons for the emergence of the ... incident ... was the existence of significant shortcomings in the ... preparation and staging of the ... air show and lack of clear distribution of duties between the officers ... which , in turn , led to lack of coordination between ... the persons engaged in the preparation , as well as to the absence of effective control over their activity . \u201d","If the foregoing normative acts had been unconditionally complied with , the breaches in the organisation of the demonstration flight could have been detected and remedied , and the grave consequences avoided ... \u201d","The investigation ended on DATE . CARDINAL officers , including both pilots and their ground support crew ; the ORG Commander - in - Chief ( GPE ) ; GPE and ORG ; the Commander of the CARDINALth Corps ( ORG ) ; the CARDINALth corps chief safety officer ( ORG ) and the commander of the ORG unit based in GPE ( PERSON ) were committed for trial .","On an unspecified date in DATE S.O. , previously demoted from his post as CARDINALth ORG Commander , was appointed first deputy ORG Commander - in - Chief .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General disjoined the criminal proceedings against GPE , ORG and ORG and referred their case ( hereafter referred to as \u201c the ORG case \u201d ) for additional investigation . He found , in particular , that it was necessary to clarify whether there was a causal link between the omissions imputed to those officers and the aircraft crash .","For that purpose , on DATE CARDINAL civilian experts were commissioned to carry out an additional assessment . The CARDINAL defendants challenged that appointment , alleging that the experts concerned were not competent to evaluate their performance . PERSON proposed CARDINAL other candidates in their stead . The prosecutor \u2019s office dismissed the challenge to the civilian experts , but agreed to include CARDINAL of the candidates proposed by ORG in the group , having found that they were sufficiently independent . It rejected the other CARDINAL candidates , citing possible conflict of interest in view of their current or former employment with ORG . Subsequently , CARDINAL more retired military officers were included in the group , which finally consisted of CARDINAL civilian experts and CARDINAL retired military officers . CARDINAL of the military officers ( including the CARDINAL candidates proposed by ORG ) were serving at the material time in the faculty of ORG and the fifth expert was deputy director for flight safety at a military aircraft repair company belonging to ORG .","DATE . On DATE the CARDINAL military experts produced a report in which they concluded that all CARDINAL defendants had duly fulfilled their responsibilities in respect of the organisation of the air show and that none of them had breached any service duty or other applicable provisions . The group also concluded that the applicable legal framework governing the staging of military air shows and the organisation of aerobatic performances had been adequate and sufficient and that there had been no need for the defendants to develop any additional rules or guidelines before the air show . In the group \u2019s view , the misconduct by the first pilot was the sole cause of the accident . Their conclusion , insofar as relevant , read as follows :","\u201c The only reason for the crash of the SU-CARDINAL aircraft was the execution by the pilot of an unplanned piloting manoeuvre , in the course of which he committed grave errors in piloting technique , which caused the falling of the aircraft and the catastrophic consequences . \u201d","On DATE the CARDINAL civilian experts also produced a report , which largely replicated the findings and the language of the report issued by their military counterparts .","In the meantime , on an unspecified date , the case in respect of the pilots , the ground crew and CARDINAL other officers of the lower rank ( hereafter the \u201c performers\u2019 case \u201d ) was transferred to the court for trial .","During the trial , the defendants pleaded innocent of any wrongdoing . In particular , ORG noted that there had been no normative document defining the responsibilities of an \u201c air show flights director \u201d . Having been appointed to this position created by order of the CARDINALth ORG Commander , he had developed his own reference document listing his duties for the Commander \u2019s approval and had done his best in performing them . In his opinion , the appointment could not have made him responsible for direct supervision of the ORG training at a different airfield and ensuring their readiness , as neither of them had belonged to the CARDINALth ORG or been placed under his command . He considered that regard being had to their position in the military hierarchy , the pilots had to report directly to the ORG Commander - in - Chief .","Colonel PERSON of the CARDINALth Corps flight safety service likewise asserted that he had properly performed his service duties and had prepared sufficient documentation concerning flight safety during the air show . He had submitted the relevant documents for review by ORG as well as by the relevant sectors in ORG , and had not received any negative feedback . Colonel PERSON further admitted that he had never personally instructed the pilots on the safety measures and had never checked on their readiness for the flight . In his view , such responsibilities fell outside his authority and had to be carried out by the ORG direct superiors , who did not belong to ORG .","Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON . , the aerobatic performance director , asserted that , having been informed of the size and boundaries of the aerobatics zone on DATE , he had warned ORG and the pilots of his doubts concerning its safety . However , having been told that the relevant parameters had been approved by the higher command and it was too late to change anything , he had executed the orders of his superiors and directed the flight as best he could .","Colonel PERSON ( the first pilot ) alleged , in particular , that during the flight the aircraft had become uncontrollable due to forces beyond his control . He denied an accusation that he had deviated from his mission order , and submitted that in his view the way to perform the disputed manoeuvre was a matter for the pilot \u2019s discretion , particularly as his mission order had no specific instructions to this end . Moreover , prior to the flight , he had discussed the disputed manoeuvre with Colonel PERSON ( the second pilot ) , who he had considered to be the crew captain , as he was higher in the military hierarchy , and the latter had no objections to his choice . Colonel PERSON also noted that the documents defining his mission had not defined the boundaries of the aerobatics zone . He had been taken by surprise when he saw on arrival on site that the spectators were to the left of the runway , as according to his orders , his manoeuvres were also to be carried out to the left . In any event , he considered himself obliged to carry out his orders without arguing .","Colonel GPE ( the second pilot ) submitted that he had considered the first pilot to be the crew captain and that he himself was obliged to refrain from interfering with his actions . He concurred with the first pilot that the way to execute the disputed manoeuvre , which was not specified in the mission order , was a matter for the pilot \u2019s discretion .","On DATE ORG , sitting in a panel consisting of CARDINAL military judges and acting as a first - instance court , found both pilots , the air show flights director and the aerobatic performance director guilty of breaches of flight regulations within the meaning of LAW of LAW of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and sentenced them to CARDINAL , six and DATE imprisonment respectively . It further found the chief of the CARDINALth Corps flight safety service guilty of having a negligent attitude towards military service within the meaning of Article CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , suspended , with probation . By way of reasoning , the court referred extensively to the relevant findings of ORG and the aviation experts\u2019 assessment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) in so far as they related to the actions of the above officers , as well as described the overall shortcomings in organising the show .","The sixth defendant , Colonel PERSON , who had coordinated ORG and GPE \u2019s training programme in GPE and supplied the aircraft for the show , was found to have performed his duties in good faith and acquitted .","On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE upheld this judgment on appeal and it became final .","In the meantime , on an unspecified date ORG decided to continue with the \u201c organisers\u2019 case \u201d , having disagreed with the expert conclusions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and on DATE suspended ORG \u2019s authority as the Deputy ORG Commander .","On DATE the defendants in this case were committed for trial on charges of having a negligent attitude towards military service within the meaning of Article CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG . ORG and V.A. were additionally charged with breaches of flight regulations within the meaning of LAW ORG . Finally , GPE and GPE were additionally charged with exceeding their authority within the meaning of Article CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG by inappropriately using ORG funds for a celebration of a bogus memorial date and staging aerobatic performances in the absence of an appropriate regulatory framework .","On DATE ORG , sitting in a panel of CARDINAL military judges and acting as a first - instance court , acquitted all CARDINAL defendants of the above charges , largely relying on the expert conclusions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE . It found that the provisions of Article CARDINAL of the ORG did not apply to ORG and GPE , as they had not operated the flight and had not been directly involved in its preparation . Other charges were dismissed as unsubstantiated . In particular , all the defendants were found to have carried out their service duties properly . The court noted that they had taken numerous measures to ensure proper organisation of the show and had produced a large volume of documents correctly delegating tasks to different officers . They had also reasonably trusted the pilots , the supporting crew and other officers to carry out the tasks assigned to them . No legal act could be interpreted as conferring on the defendants a different range of duties or imposing an obligation to act in a different manner . The relevant allegations of the prosecution , as well as the conclusions of ORG and the expert findings dated DATE in respect of the defendants were incorrect , being based partly on an overly broad interpretation of the applicable legal provisions and partly on references to provisions that were wrongly applied in the context . The court did not refer to the internal investigation of ORG in its judgment . The relevant excerpts of the court judgment read as follows :","\u201c ... the members of the [ ORG ] concluded that the immediate cause of the catastrophe ... derived from mistakes in the piloting technique ... outside the designated aerobatics zone ... The same conclusion was adopted by the court , which examined the criminal case concerning [ V.T. ] and others . All other circumstances connected to the organisation of the show in the court \u2019s view did not in any way affect the wrongdoings by [ the first pilot ] and , moreover , they could not have been foreseen or taken into account by the organisers of the show ...","... As far as the size of the aerobatics zone was concerned , which , according to the experts , was insufficient for the performance of the mission ... this breach was not the cause of the catastrophic situation , since the SU-CARDINAL aircraft was practically never within its boundaries ...","Reports on the crew \u2019s readiness for the flight were produced properly , and it was following their receipt that [ V.S. ] as well as [ S.O. ] gave permission for the flight to go ahead ;","The decision to hold the show was taken by the CARDINALth ORG Commander [ S.O. ] : this decision was coordinated by him with the ORG Commander - in - Chief [ V.S. ] , and they acted within the scope of their authority . With a view to preparation of the festivities and organisation of the flight by TIME ORG jointly with ORG took a number of relevant measures : orders were issued ; show plans were drafted ; agendas were put in place ; and air and static display schemes were developed ... The CARDINALth Corps Commander performed his duties with respect to the preparation of the show in accordance with the applicable law , having properly distributed duties among his subordinates ... Issues concerning preparation of the show and supervision over the performance of the delegated tasks were discussed at meetings organised by [ S.O. ] ...","The court \u2019s conclusions ... are also not affected by the cancellation of the [ on - site ] ... rehearsal flight ... In the court \u2019s view , this fact did not affect the cause of the disaster , which was deviation by [ V.T. ] from his mission ... \u201d","The Prosecutor \u2019s Office and numerous injured parties appealed against this verdict before ORG of ORG . In its appeal , the prosecution asserted , in particular , that the preparation for the show was based exclusively on the military training documents , which took no account of the specifics of an aerobatic performance involving civilian spectators . Lacking a body of relevant legislation and regulations , ORG had been obliged to develop specific documents adapting the military training rules for this purpose before planning the show . As an aerobatics performance could not be equated to an ordinary military training flight , a special training programme had to be set up , and the crew had to have special clearance . However , the reports by ORG , ORG and the aviation experts indicated that not only did the defendants fail to act in developing relevant rules and regulations , but they also failed to supervise compliance with the existing general rules . The court \u2019s findings were at odds with the findings by these authorities , and no justification was provided for them . Moreover , they were inconsistent with the court \u2019s own position adopted in the judgment of DATE , where it heavily relied on the conclusions of ORG and the aviation expert assessment in examining various aspects of the case and had referred to the relevant findings concerning poor organisation of the show in its reasoning .","On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE rejected the appeals and upheld the acquittals .","On DATE the applicants lodged civil actions within the aforementioned criminal proceedings against the military officers , claiming damages for the deaths of the PERSON family from ORG . The first applicant claimed CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage for the deaths of her daughter , granddaughters and son - in - law ; the second applicant claimed ORG CARDINAL in compensation for pecuniary damage and UAH CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage for the deaths of her niece and her family ; the third applicant claimed UAH CARDINAL for pecuniary damage and UAH CARDINAL for nonpecuniary damage for the deaths of her cousin and her family ; and the fourth applicant claimed UAH CARDINAL in compensation for nonpecuniary damage for the deaths of her granddaughter and her family .","On DATE , when pronouncing the verdict in the \u201c performers\u2019 case \u201d , the court ruled on the applicants\u2019 civil claims and awarded the pecuniary damages claimed by the second and third applicants in full . It further awarded UAH CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages to the first applicant and UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL under this head to each of the other applicants .","On DATE ORG of ORG rejected the ORG appeals , in which they claimed higher compensation .","DATE . On DATE and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the first , fourth , third and second applicants , respectively , obtained the judgment awards due to them .","On various dates the applicants also brought further civil actions against ORG in the \u201c organisers\u2019 case \u201d .","On DATE ORG left these claims unexamined , regard being had to the acquittals of the defendants .","On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers of GPE allocated CARDINAL NORP hryvnias from the ORG reserve fund to ORG towards liquidating the consequences of the accident ( Decree no . MONEY ) .","On DATE ORG created a commission to deal with distribution of the above funds , and determined the categories of expenses to be covered ( Decree no . CARDINAL ) . According to the ORG \u2019s decision , UAH CARDINAL was to be distributed to the families of the deceased . The sums were to be disbursed to spouses , children , parents and dependents of the deceased victims , in amounts ranging from UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL to UAH CARDINAL depending on the family circumstances . The decree further allocated a total of UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the surviving victims ; UAH CARDINAL to help the families with arranging funerals and providing gravestones ; UAH CARDINAL towards medical and rehabilitation costs ; UAH CARDINAL towards prosthetic care and relevant rehabilitation expenses , and the remaining funds to other categories of expenses . According to the Government , the relevant funds were disbursed to the addressees before DATE .","On DATE the ORG of GPE decided to transfer DATE salary of each Member of ORG , with their consent , to the benefit of the PERSON accident victims .","On DATE ORG decided how to distribute the ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL received by the municipality in charitable donations ( Decree no . MONEY ) . According to this decision , UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL of these funds were to be distributed to the families of the deceased ; ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to those with serious irreversible health damage ; ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to those with serious injuries and who were receiving in - patient treatment ; ORG CARDINAL to those with injuries of medium seriousness and who were receiving in - patient treatment , and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to those receiving outpatient treatment .","On various other occasions the authorities took additional decisions allocating financial and other assistance to various categories of the victims ( such as decrees no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , and no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL March CARDINAL by ORG , Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE by the Lviv Mayor , and others ) . Pursuant to these decisions , further funds were allocated for medical check - ups and rehabilitation procedures , to cover the costs of holidays in recreational facilities for children , and for lump - sum payments to victims of the accident .","DATE . The first applicant received UAH CARDINAL in various payments from the ORG under the above programmes . The first , second and fourth applicants also received ORG CARDINAL , UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL respectively from ORG - managed private charitable donations raised in aid to the victims .","The parents of Mr PERSON were paid UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL in ORG aid in connection with the deaths of their son and granddaughters . They received a further amount of UAH CARDINAL from ORG - managed charitable donations . It appears from the evidence available that PERSON in - laws did not lodge any civil claims within the criminal proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181078","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ACHILOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . In application no . CARDINAL the applicant also raised a complaint under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167118","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF IRINA SMIRNOVA v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant was visited by CARDINAL unfamiliar men , GPE and ORG , who offered to buy CARDINAL of the flat she lived in for MONEY ( ORG ) . It was a CARDINAL - bedroom flat , measuring QUANTITY , recently privatised and acquired in equal shares by the applicant and her adult son , Y. The applicant refused to sell CARDINAL of the flat . According to her , the price offered was extraordinarily below the market value . In any event , she had no reason to sell the flat , which had been her long - established home for DATE . In response , ORG and ORG warned the applicant that she would regret her decision , because DATE , ( who was married and lived elsewhere ) , had offered the other CARDINAL of the flat as a gift to GPE If the applicant refused to sell her CARDINAL for the price , which was offered to her , or to exchange it for a smaller flat on the outskirts of the city , ORG would move into the flat and create intolerable living conditions for her .","Subsequently the applicant learned that on DATE Y. had signed a notarised gift deed in which he transferred his title to CARDINAL of the flat ( which was not as divided into allocated parts of the whole ) to GPE","From DATE ORG , ORG and their acquaintances started regularly visiting the applicant \u2019s flat , demanding that she sell . According to the applicant , on numerous occasions they broke the locks , insulted and harassed her and caused damage to her property . Subsequently a part and then the entire of ORG share in the flat was formally acquired by ORG as a gift , whose value amounted to CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) according to the gift certificates . However , irrespective of this transfer , ORG and ORG continued to act in concordance in demanding the applicant move out and sell her share .","For instance , on DATE ORG and FAC broke the locks on the entrance door when the applicant was away , entered the flat and , upon the applicant \u2019s arrival , reiterated their demands that she sell her share . As the applicant protested against their presence in the flat and their overall conduct , a conflict emerged , in the course of which ORG hit the applicant in the chest inflicting a bruise and causing soft tissue swelling .","On DATE ORG , GPE and several strangers broke into the applicant \u2019s flat again . As they were irritated by the barking of the applicant \u2019s dog , ORG started kicking her and chased her out . Subsequently the applicant found her dog \u2019s dead body in a garbage container .","Also on an unspecified date in DATE PERSON arrived in the flat after TIME ( when the applicant was already asleep ) and opened the balcony door , holding it open for TIME notwithstanding the freezing temperature outside . In response to the applicant \u2019s subsequent reprimands , he explained that he wished for her to catch a cold as she had been disagreeable .","On DATE , when the applicant \u2019s daughter was visiting the applicant , PERSON arrived in the flat again . A conflict emerged , in the course of which ORG hit the applicant on the head and stomach , inflicting concussion and blunt trauma of the abdominal wall . He also hit the applicant \u2019s daughter on the head and other parts of the body , inflicting cerebral concussion and bruising of legs and arms . As a result of the conflict , the applicant and her daughter had to seek medical assistance for their injuries and the applicant received inpatient hospital treatment .","Subsequently GPE and ORG started installing in the flat from CARDINAL to CARDINAL strangers without the applicant \u2019s consent . These tenants , mostly young males , behaved in a discourteous way . In particular , they organised loud parties ; frivolously used , damaged and stole the applicant \u2019s belongings ; created insanitary conditions ; carelessly used electricity , gas and appliances , frequently left the entrance door open , and ignored requests to contribute towards the maintenance charges on the flat .","On numerous occasions the applicant attempted to drive the tenants away or to call them to order . Her efforts resulted in conflicts , in the course of which she was harassed and intimidated . Her attempts to replace the locks on the entrance doors to prevent unauthorised entry into the flat resulted in them being broken and in the tenants , who frequently changed , moving in again , in spite of her discontent . As she was unable to withstand such living conditions and was afraid for her life and limb , the applicant effectively moved out , contending herself with odd living arrangements . However , she paid short visits to the flat regularly , to supervise the situation .","In DATE PERSON drove his car onto the footpath , where the applicant was standing waiting for a bus , scaring and nearly hitting her .","On DATE at CARDINAL TIME PERSON again arrived in the flat , when the applicant was in it , and demanded that she surrender her share . A conflict emerged , in the course of which FAC punched the applicant in the stomach , causing her physical pain .","On CARDINAL further occasions ( DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) the applicant was severely beaten by ORG , twice accompanied by his acquaintance PERSON The applicant suffered physical pain and bruising . On DATE , in addition to that , she also sustained a second concussion , which necessitated inpatient treatment .","On various dates the applicant learned that ORG and ORG had also acquired ownership of shares in numerous other flats in GPE and that they had behaved similarly with the co - owners of these flats , inducing them to sell their shares on unfavourable terms .","On DATE the PERSON district prosecutor instituted civil proceedings on the applicant \u2019s behalf , seeking rescission of the gift deed between ORG and GPE and the eviction of the latter on the grounds that the gift deed had been executed without the applicant \u2019s consent .","On DATE the ORG of Donetsk ( hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) allowed this claim , having found , in particular , that Article CARDINAL of LAW of GPE of DATE did not authorise the transfer of title to a part of shared property , which had not been divided into allocated parts and that it also obliged co - owners of a shared property to seek the consent of their counterparts before carrying out transactions in it .","On DATE the ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed this judgment following an appeal by the applicants\u2019 opponent and dismissed the prosecutor \u2019s claim , having found that , unlike in the case of selling part of a shared property , giving it as a gift to a third party did not require the co - owners\u2019 consent .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s and the prosecutor \u2019s requests for leave to appeal in cassation against ORG judgment . The judgment became final .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings seeking the dispossession of GPE ( joined by ORG , when he acquired part of ORG share and replaced by him , when he acquired the entire share ) , of his share in the flat , regard being had to his unlawful conduct towards her , the impossibility of joint use of the flat , and his refusal to pay his share of the maintenance costs . She further sought a judicial rescission of their right to occupy the flat and compensation for the costs she had borne on the flat with their shares . The defendants lodged a counterclaim , alleging , in particular , that the applicant had been interfering with their personal life and belongings , provoking conflicts , harassing them and creating intolerable living conditions , which made it impossible for them to fulfil their desire to settle in the flat . They sought damages from the applicant for this conduct and demanded that the flat be divided into allocated parts .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in part and dismissed her GPE counterclaim . In particular , referring to LAW of the new LAW of GPE of DATE , it ordered the dispossession of ORG ( by then the owner of CARDINAL the flat ) of his share against payment by the applicant of compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL . The court noted , in particular , that there was extensive evidence that the defendants had allowed numerous strangers to live in the flat ; that the applicant had been harassed ; and that the flat \u2019s appliances and the applicant \u2019s belongings had been misused and damaged . It further concluded that , regard being had to the flat \u2019s size and layout , it was not possible for the co - owners to use it jointly in a harmonious manner or to have it reasonably divided into CARDINAL independent CARDINAL for each of them to use separately . At the same time , ORG \u2019s dispossession in return for fair compensation would not put him at a substantial disadvantage , since he had another registered residence and predominantly used the disputed flat for subletting to other persons . The court next found that , since ORG had received the flat as a gift , fair compensation would be the payment of the indicative price ( UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) declared by the parties as that share \u2019s value in the latest gift deeds . Finally , the court found that ORG and ORG had no longer any right to occupy the flat and ordered partial reimbursement of the maintenance costs incurred by the applicant on the flat .","On DATE ORG , having reviewed the case on appeal by the applicant \u2019s opponents , upheld the judgment with respect to the reimbursement of the costs borne on the flat by the applicant and the revocation of ORG right to occupy it , as he no longer owned any share in the flat . It then quashed the ruling to dispossess ORG , having noted that , according to the expert assessment , the market value of the disputed flat had been appraised at UAH MONEY , which meant that value of CARDINAL the flat had been ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The court further stated that the applicant \u2019s claim for dispossession of ORG and revocation of his right of occupancy had not been based on any legal provision . The relevant part of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c Neither the provisions of LAW of GPE nor those of LAW of GPE of DATE , which the applicant cites as the basis for her claims , nor LAW GPE , envisage dispossession of the owner of his or her property and his or her eviction from a flat owned by him or her on the grounds cited by the applicant . \u201d","The applicant appealed in cassation . She noted , in particular , that ORG and ORG had acquired shares in a number of GPE flats and had deliberately created intolerable living conditions for their co - owners in order to obtain the flats in their entirety on terms grossly unfavourable to the other co - owners . She further alleged that , having no other residence and being a victim of constant harassment , she had abandoned the flat and had been requesting refuge from various acquaintances .","On DATE the district prosecutor also lodged a cassation appeal on the applicant \u2019s behalf , in which he corroborated her submissions that the defendants had been harassing her , had been using the flat in bad faith and had forced the applicant , a senior lady , to leave the dwelling she had occupied for DATE . He also alleged that the sum proposed by the applicant in compensation for the defendants\u2019 share in the flat had been fair , as it had been equal to the flat \u2019s value indicated in the gift deeds on the basis of which ORG had received the disputed share .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal .","On DATE it likewise rejected the prosecutor \u2019s request for leave to appeal and ORG judgment became final .","On numerous occasions DATE the applicant complained to the PERSON district police in GPE ( \u201c the district police \u201d ) about various instances of verbal and physical harassment , damage to and taking of her property and attempts by ORG and ORG to extort her share in the flat .","On various dates police officers arrived in the applicant \u2019s flat in response to her calls for help . They examined the situation , questioned the applicant and her opponents , and subsequently refused to institute criminal proceedings ( in particular , DATE , DATE and DATE ; CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE ; DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ; and CARDINAL and DATE and DATE and DATE ) . In their refusals , the police noted that the prosecution of ORG , ORG and their acquaintances was unwarranted since the relevant facts disclosed the existence of a chronic domestic conflict between lawful occupants of a flat , who attempted to engage the police in resolving their private disagreements . The hostilities took place inside the household and did not breach the public peace . Both parties had accused each other of provoking conflict and it was not evident , which party had in fact assaulted the other and which had acted out of selfdefence . In any event , during these conflicts the applicant had sustained no serious damage to her health and had not presented any evidence that her belongings had in fact been taken or damaged by the accused individuals . It was not possible to exclude that she had falsified the disappearance of her belongings in order to compromise the unwanted tenants . The police further recommended that the applicant resolve the dispute concerning the use of the flat in civil proceedings and assured her that \u201c pre - emptive conversations \u201d had been had with the purported offenders to foster respectful conduct on their part . On several occasions the police had issued official warnings to them , advising them of the impermissibility of antisocial behaviour .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office quashed a decision not to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the injuries caused to the applicant on DATE . On several occasions the applicant enquired about the status of these proceedings and received no reply . In DATE the applicant was informed that the investigation had been suspended .","On DATE the head of the district police instructed his officers to place the applicant \u2019s flat on the police register for frequent visits with a view to preventing any offences and infringements of applicable law . He noted , in particular , that the investigations had confirmed the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning ORG \u2019s and ORG disruptive conduct . In particular , it had been established that they had been allowing numerous tenants to live in the co - owned flat , who had brought it into a decrepit and insanitary state . The persons who had been occupying the flat had also taken the applicant \u2019s personal belongings without her authorisation and had used her furniture , equipment and appliances in a careless manner , as a result of which these objects were deteriorating . Moreover , these persons had interfered with the applicant \u2019s ability to access the flat by changing the locks and thus effectively precluding her from living there . He also acknowledged that numerous pre - emptive conversations and warnings given by the police had not brought about any improvements .","On several other occasions ( in particular , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) ORG in GPE acknowledged , in response to the applicant \u2019s further complaints , that her allegations concerning ORG \u2019s and his associates\u2019 interference with her home had some basis . They further assured the applicant that her address had been placed on the police register for frequent visits .","On DATE the applicant lodged a private criminal complaint against ORG , ORG and ORG with ORG . Relying on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE , she alleged that the defendants had systematically beaten and verbally harassed her . In this respect the applicant referred to the incidents of DATE and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) . She also submitted that , in her view , these incidents had to be approached not as isolated instances of ill - treatment , but as episodes of systematic and premeditated criminal conduct by an organised criminal association functioning with a view to extorting flats from GPE residents . She submitted that the same individuals had engaged in similar conduct vis\u00e0 - vis a number of other co - owners of properties in the city . Accordingly , she requested ORG assistance in transmitting her complaints to the public law - enforcement authorities with a view to instituting criminal proceedings concerning extortion and coercion .","On various dates CARDINAL other residents of GPE joined the proceedings , alleging that the same defendants had acquired shares in their flats and had been pressurising and terrorising them with a view to extorting the remaining shares .","On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG decided that the applicant \u2019s and other ORG allegations disclosed an appearance that serious crimes , warranting institution of public criminal proceedings , had been committed . Accordingly , the judge instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of fraud , extortion , coercion , circumvention of the law and several other crimes , and transferred the case to the GPE regional prosecutor for investigation .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office appealed against this decision , alleging that applicable law did not authorise judges to institute public criminal proceedings in the above circumstances .","On DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor \u2019s office \u2019s appeal and returned the case to ORG to be examined by another judge with respect to the complaints which could be addressed in private prosecution proceedings .","Subsequently ( DATE ) Judge PERSON of ORG returned the applicant \u2019s and other ORG submissions without examination . She found that the injured parties had failed to comply with the rules on territorial jurisdiction and with other unspecified procedural requirements .","On DATE the regional police instituted criminal proceedings in respect of a complaint about extortion lodged by a certain ORG , who had allegedly been forced to abandon her flat on account of the intolerable living conditions created by the co - owners of her flat .","On DATE the police joined the applicant \u2019s complaints concerning extortion to the aforementioned criminal proceedings .","On the same date ORG , GPE and ORG were arrested and placed in custody .","On various further dates complaints by CARDINAL other individuals relating to the same ORG misconduct were joined to the proceedings .","On DATE deputy head of the regional prosecutor \u2019s office signed the bill of indictment in respect of ORG , ORG and ORG charging them , in particular , under LAW , with extorting property in an organised group and transferring the case to ORG of Donetsk ( hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for trial .","On various dates in DATE the defendants were released from custody pending trial .","On DATE ORG acquitted all the defendants of the charges under LAW of LAW . It noted , in particular , as follows :","\u201c ... The court comes to a conclusion that the basis of the present criminal proceedings is the existence of a private - law dispute between the defendants and the injured parties concerning the use of shared property , which the injured parties demand to resolve by way of criminal proceedings in view of their extremely antagonistic relationship with the defendants . \u201d","DATE . On DATE ORG quashed this verdict on appeal by the prosecution and the injured parties and remitted the case for retrial .","On DATE the defendants were rearrested and placed in custody .","On DATE ORG found that all the defendants were guilty of extortion under LAW and sentenced them to TIME ten and CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment respectively . It also ordered the confiscation of all their personal property . The court found , in particular , that the case - file contained sufficient evidence that the episodes of the applicant \u2019s harassment ( listed in CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) had indeed taken place . It also awarded the applicant ORG ORG in pecuniary and ORG CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damage to be paid jointly and separately by the defendants .","On DATE , following an appeal by the defendants , ORG upheld this verdict on appeal concerning all points , except CARDINAL episode unrelated to the applicant \u2019s case .","On DATE ORG rejected the cassation appeals lodged by ORG and GPE"],"violated_articles":["3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152318","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"V.V.G. v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The President authorised , of her own motion , the non - disclosure of the applicant \u2019s identity ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ) .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was admitted in a private hospital PERSON in GPE ( \u201c the hospital \u201d ) for an induced labour . On DATE , she gave birth to her son with the assistance of doctor S.T.C. According to a discharge notice dated DATE issued by company PERSON ( a company which ran the hospital ) , the applicant had been diagnosed as having suffered , as a result of the childbirth , from ruptura perinei gradus I ( perineal tear ) . The applicant received a general anaesthetic so that doctor S.T.C. could repair the tear .","On DATE the applicant was examined in the hospital and diagnosed as suffering from ruptura perinei gradus II . She underwent surgery recorded as perineoplastica . On DATE she was discharged from the hospital . The discharge notice was signed by doctors ORG and B.","DATE the applicant was a patient in a gynaecological hospital in GPE , where she had further surgery : colpoperineoplastica cum levatororraphia carried out by doctor PERSON On admission she was diagnosed as suffering from ruptura perinea cicatricialis gradus II .","DATE and DATE the applicant was examined in several hospitals in GPE . Some noted that she was suffering from a prolapsed or descending uterus .","On DATE the applicant and her new - born son lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor , accusing doctor S.T.C. of a serious offence against health and medical malpractice ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) . They alleged that doctor S.T.C. had failed to carry out an episiotomy and prevent rapid delivery , which had led to rupture of skin and muscles . Furthermore , doctor S.T.C. had failed to repair the damaged tissues , despite the fact that a general anaesthetic had been administered to the applicant for that purpose . Doctor PERSON had left the wound to heal spontaneously , increasing the risk of sepsis . Because of those errors the complainants had sustained serious bodily injuries : notably the applicant had descending organs with an attendant risk of prolapse . She had further been required to undergo plastic surgery , as a result of which she had been suffering from depression . The newborn child had acquired a large bulge on his head , and this had had negative consequences over his breastfeeding reflexes .","On DATE the public prosecutor requested that an investigating judge of ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) take certain measures regarding the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint . On DATE the investigating judge requested that ORG ( \u0418\u043d\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0443\u0442 \u0437\u0430 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043d\u0430 \u0438 \u043a\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0430 ) draw up an expert report on whether standard childbirth procedures had been applied in the applicant \u2019s case ; whether wounds after delivery had been correctly treated , and whether the plastic surgery had been necessary . She further interviewed the applicant , doctors S.T.C. and B.","On DATE ORG drew up a report which stated ( CARDINAL ) it was at the discretion of the doctor , depending on the circumstances of each case , whether to carry out an episiotomy ; ( CARDINAL ) a general anaesthetic had been administered and the rupture caused after delivery had been repaired , and ( CARDINAL ) the medical evidence suggested that a fresh rupture of a second degree had occurred , which had required further surgery . The latter had not been of a corrective nature . At the request of the public prosecutor , on DATE ORG drew up , on the basis of available medical evidence , an additional expert report according to which ( CARDINAL ) there was no evidence that failure to carry out an episiotomy had caused prolapsed organs or that the baby had sustained any head injuries ; ( CARDINAL ) the subsequent medical treatment of the applicant had produced inconsistent evidence in this respect . In any event , any genital prolapse had occurred later ; and ( CARDINAL ) genital descent or partial prolapse could cause minor health problems .","During the investigation , the applicant contacted the public prosecutor on several occasions to provide additional evidence and relevant literature in support of her complaint .","On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an indictment with the trial court charging doctor S.T.C. with serious offences against health and medical malpractice punishable under ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . The trial court held several hearings , at which it heard oral evidence from the applicant , the accused , and doctors PERSON and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , as well as the expert who had signed the expert reports of ORG . It also requested a third expert opinion , which ORG drew up on DATE . That report stated that it had been at the defendant \u2019s discretion whether to carry out an episiotomy . Furthermore , the available evidence indicated that doctor S.T.C. had promptly and adequately repaired the rupture after the delivery .","On DATE the trial court acquitted doctor S.T.C. , finding no evidence of professional misconduct at the time the applicant gave birth to her son on DATE or immediately afterwards . In view of that conclusion , the court considered it irrelevant to establish whether the applicant \u2019s health had seriously deteriorated , notably whether she had genital prolapse . In the absence of any evidence of misconduct on the part of doctor S.T.C. , there was no need to establish any causal link between any of the applicant \u2019s health problems and the conduct of the accused .","On DATE the public prosecutor appealed . At a public hearing held on DATE ORG overturned the trial court \u2019s judgment and dismissed the indictment against doctor S.T.C. ( \u0441\u0435 \u043e\u0434\u0431\u0438\u0432\u0430 \u043e\u0431\u0432\u0438\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435\u0442\u043e ) finding that the absolute time - bar of DATE ( calculated from the date of commission of the alleged crime ) had expired .","On an unspecified date , insolvency proceedings were opened against the company PERSON In the course of those proceedings , on DATE the applicant and her son sought recognition of their compensation claim regarding the alleged medical malpractice of doctor S.T.C. On DATE an insolvency trustee ( \u0441\u0442\u0435\u0447\u0430\u0435\u043d \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438\u043a ) disputed the claim and advised the claimants to pursue it by means of a separate civil action .","On DATE the applicant and her son instituted separate civil proceedings before ORG in which they claimed , under LAW of ORG and section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , compensation from the hospital and the company PERSON in respect of the alleged damage sustained during the birth on DATE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s son withdrew from the case . During the hearing before the civil court , the applicant argued , inter alia , that the defendants should be held objectively responsible for the damage sustained and that the criminal proceedings against doctor S.T.C. had no bearing on the outcome of the civil proceedings . Those proceedings ( criminal ) could only be relevant for the defendants\u2019 right to claim reimbursement of the compensation awarded for doctor ORG \u2019s negligence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a civil court , relying on sections PERSON ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings against doctor S.T.C. On DATE the applicant appealed against this judgment , reiterating that the defendants\u2019 objective responsibility for the damage sustained had not depended on the courts\u2019 finding of criminal liability on the part of doctor S.T.C. Furthermore , she alleged that section ORG ) of LAW had been inapplicable to her case , given the fact that the civil and criminal proceedings concerned different defendants . On DATE ORG confirmed the lower court \u2019s judgment , reiterating that the finding of criminal liability on the part of doctor S.T.C. was a preliminary issue ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0442\u0445\u043e\u0434\u043d\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0448\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) relevant for the outcome of the civil case .","The applicant did not seek resumption of the compensation proceedings , since , according to her , that would offer no prospect of success . In this connection she submitted copies of documents regarding organisational , capital and other changes in the company PERSON that happened over DATE .","Under LAW of LAW , prosecution of offences subject to a prison sentence of DATE becomes statute - barred DATE after the offence was committed . LAW CARDINAL of LAW provides for an absolute time - bar on prosecutions which is twice the time - bar specified under law .","LAW concern medical malpractice ( \u043d\u0435\u0441\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0441\u043d\u043e \u043b\u0435\u043a\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0431\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0438 ) and provide for a fine or a maximum prison sentence of DATE in case of medical negligence . In case of unintentional medical negligence , the law provides for a fine or a prison sentence of a maximum of DATE ( sub - paragraph CARDINAL ) .","Article CARDINAL of the Code concerns serious offences against health ( \u0442\u0435\u0448\u043a\u0438 \u0434\u0435\u043b\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0438\u0432 \u0437\u0434\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0458\u0435\u0442\u043e \u043d\u0430 \u043b\u0443\u0453\u0435\u0442\u043e ) and provides for a prison sentence of DATE in case of serious bodily harm or grave deterioration of the health due to medical negligence ( in relation to LAW ) .","Section CARDINAL provided that the ( criminal ) court was responsible for deciding on a civil - party claim . If the court found the accused guilty as charged , the victim could be awarded full or partial compensation ( section CARDINAL ) ) .","In case of an acquittal or dismissal of the prosecution , if the proceedings were stayed or the indictment was rejected , the court was to advise the victim to pursue his or her civil - party claim by way of civil proceedings ( section ORG ) ) .","Section CARDINAL provided for compensation for damage sustained due to errors or medical malpractice in accordance with tort rules .","Section CARDINAL provides that an employer is responsible for damage caused by an employee in the performance of his or her duties or in relation to them . A victim can claim compensation directly from the employee if the damage was caused intentionally . The employer can seek reimbursement of the compensation awarded to the victim from the employee if he or she caused the damage intentionally or negligently .","Section CARDINAL provides for the right to claim just satisfaction in respect of physical or mental pain ; disfigurement ; damage to reputation , honour , rights and freedoms ; and fear .","Under section ORG ) of LAW , civil courts are bound by judgments given by criminal courts finding an accused guilty , in respect of the commission of the offence and the convict \u2019s criminal liability .","Under section CARDINAL ) , a civil court may stay proceedings if the decision depended on whether an offence subject to ORG prosecution had been committed , who the perpetrator was , and if he or she was found guilty .","If the proceedings are stayed for the reasons specified in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of this LAW , the proceedings will resume after final conclusion of the proceedings whose the outcome was relevant for the civil proceedings , or if the court finds no reasons to await their termination ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","The Government submitted copies of final court judgments in which courts had awarded damages for non - pecuniary loss sustained due to medical negligence in birth or abortion cases brought against public hospitals . In those cases , the courts awarded damages notwithstanding that no criminal proceedings had been brought against the doctors responsible ( CARDINAL\u041f-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; \u041f.\u0431\u0440.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; PERSON ; XXXIII\u041fCARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and GPE - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . They also submitted a copy of a judgment in which a public hospital was ordered to pay non - pecuniary damages because of medical error committed by a doctor who had been found guilty of \u201c serious crimes against health \u201d and sentenced to a suspended prison sentence ( VII \u041f.\u0431\u0440.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","Lastly , they provided a copy of a final judgment in which the courts accepted a compensation claim concerning defamatory statements the defendant ( a journalist ) had made in a DATE newspaper . The compensation claim was brought after criminal proceedings instituted by the claimant against the defendant had been stayed because of the absolute limitation period . In the judgment , the courts found that the termination of the criminal proceedings had not been binding on the civil courts in respect of the claimant \u2019s action for damages ( \u041fCARDINAL.\u0431\u0440.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147486","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KARAJICA v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) who lodged the application on her own behalf and on behalf of her CARDINAL underage children , her daughter PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) and her son PERSON ( \u201c the third applicant \u201d ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , and live in GPE . They were represented before ORG by PERSON , an advocate practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the first applicant married PERSON","On DATE she gave birth to the second applicant , and on DATE to the third applicant .","The first applicant and PERSON separated in DATE when he moved out of the matrimonial home .","On DATE the first applicant instituted civil proceedings against PERSON in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking a divorce and the right to have the second and third applicants living with her ( hereinafter \u201c custody \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb DATE hereinafter \u201c the local social welfare centre \u201d ) , which participated in the proceedings as an independent intervener sui generis with a view to protecting the children \u2019s interests , submitted its opinion and report .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the divorce , awarded the first applicant custody of the second and third applicants , and granted PERSON access ( contact ) rights .","Following an appeal by PERSON , on DATE ORG PERSON ) quashed the first - instance judgment , except for the part granting the divorce , and remitted the case to the first - instance court .","In the resumed proceedings , ORG held hearings on DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE it obtained a combined expert opinion from court experts in psychology and psychiatry , and on DATE a fresh opinion and report from the local social welfare centre .","According to the combined expert opinion from experts in psychology and psychiatry the first applicant was mentally unstable and had demonstrated signs of a personality disorder , whereas her former husband , PERSON , had shown no such signs and was sufficiently emotionally stable to take care of the children . In particular , the experts established that the first applicant lacked self - critical awareness and was unable to recognise and respond to the emotional needs of her children . They therefore recommended that custody of the second and third applicants be awarded to their father . Having regard to the importance of the role of a mother in the development of a child , and the fact that both children were very emotionally attached to her , the experts also suggested granting the first applicant extensive access rights , provided that she agree to seek psychiatric treatment .","NORP In reply , the first applicant submitted an opinion by a psychiatrist who had been treating her since DATE . The opinion , dated DATE , stated that she had been systematically abused by her former husband and , although mentally fragile , was not suffering from any mental illness , much less a personality disorder .","On DATE the local social welfare centre , acting partly upon the opinion and court experts\u2019 recommendations and partly of their own motion , instructed the first applicant to commence psychiatric treatment and to take the second and third applicants for psychotherapy . It also imposed various supervision measures in order to monitor the exercise of parental authority by her and PERSON","By a judgment of DATE ORG awarded the first applicant custody of the second and third applicants , and granted PERSON access ( contact ) rights . Following an appeal by PERSON , on DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case .","On DATE the PERSON for ORG where the second and third applicants had been receiving psychiatric treatment \u2013 informed the local social welfare centre that it suspected the second and third applicants\u2019 mental health was being neglected and that they were being emotionally abused by the first applicant .","According to a fresh expert opinion obtained by ORG in the resumed proceedings in DATE from CARDINAL different court experts ( a psychologist and psychiatrist ) , both the second and third applicants were very traumatised as a result of their GPE DATE especially their mother \u2019s \u2013 behaviour , and were in urgent need of psychotherapy . The experts also established that , although both parents were responsible for the situation , the first applicant , whose behaviour they regarded as \u201c emotional abuse \u201d , was more responsible . The inefficiency of the authorities had also contributed to the situation , by making it possible for the mother to manipulate the children . The experts further found that both parents had limited parenting capacities , but that the first applicant \u2019s capacity was more limited . They initially could not recommend which parent should be awarded custody DATE handing the children to their father would worsen their mental state , whereas keeping them in their mother \u2019s custody would intensify their hostility to their father and her influence over them . Thus , they first suggested that both parents undergo counselling to try to improve their own relationship and their relationship with their children , later proposing to award custody of the children to their mother for DATE and grant the father extensive access rights .","On that basis , on DATE the court made an interim order whereby it awarded the first applicant custody of the children on a temporary basis and granted PERSON access rights , allowing him contact with the second and third applicants CARDINAL times a week for TIME , every other weekend and for CARDINAL of the school holidays .","It would appear that for DATE , the father was unable to exercise his access rights because each time he went to collect the children they refused to go with him , a behaviour which the first applicant allegedly encouraged .","The last expert opinion obtained by the court in DATE , which was prepared by the same psychologist and psychiatrist who had prepared the opinion of DATE , recommended placing the second and third applicants into care . The experts suggested that the children be removed from their mother because she was harming their emotional development . Even though their father had better parenting capacity , for the time being he could not take over custody as the children , because of their mother \u2019s influence , had a very negative attitude towards him , so any forced situation would have a negative impact . The experts therefore recommended placing the children into foster care , attending psychotherapy in a designated clinic , and granting each parent supervised access once DATE . It was proposed that the measures would last for DATE .","On DATE the local social welfare centre lodged a motion seeking that the second and third applicants be temporarily removed from the first applicant for DATE , the child protection measure laid down in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE it appointed CARDINAL of its employees , PERSON , to act as their guardian ad litem and represent their interests in the proceedings , as required by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG adopted a judgment depriving the first applicant and PERSON of custody of the second and third applicants for DATE and awarding custody to ORG House for ORG sv . PERSON nezbrinutu DATE hereinafter \u201c GPE ORG \u201d ) , a children \u2019s home run by the NORP church . S.K and the first applicant were granted access ( contact ) rights , to be exercised on the LOC of ORG in the presence of CARDINAL of its employees . PERSON was entitled to see the children DATE from TIME and the first applicant every DATE from DATE p.m. The court also decided that the judgment would be immediately enforceable , accordingly ordering the first applicant to entrust the second and third applicants to ORG immediately following service .","In making its decision the court , apart from relying on the abovementioned expert opinions , also took into account the fact that the first applicant had refused to act upon the instruction of the local social welfare centre to seek psychiatric treatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had taken the children for treatment at the designated clinic only once , and had been obstructing execution of the supervision measures imposed by the centre , by refusing to cooperate with the social worker assigned to her case .","NORP In particular , the court found that the mother \u2019s refusal to seek psychiatric treatment ( which was a precondition for the successful psychotherapy of her children ) , her and PERSON \u2019s fixation on their mutual problems and their lack of communication and unwillingness to adapt and change , were making them insensitive to the emotional needs of their children . That was harmful for the physical and mental development of the children , who had been traumatised and manipulated by their GPE attitude and behaviour . The parents had thus significantly neglected their duty to raise and educate them , as they had not taken sufficient care of their health within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The court therefore concluded that the first applicant and her former husband could not properly take care of their children and that temporarily depriving them both of custody was warranted .","The first applicant appealed against the court \u2019s decision , arguing that she had been undergoing psychiatric treatment , albeit in a different clinic from the one recommended by the court experts . The reason she had refused to undergo counselling with her husband , as recommended by the court experts , was because he had been convicted of domestic violence against her ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . Furthermore , she had taken her children for psychotherapy but in a different clinic from the one recommended by the experts and endorsed by the local social welfare centre .","On DATE ORG PERSON ) dismissed the first applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicants .","As DATE set forth in the judgment of DATE was about to expire , on DATE ORG adopted a decision containing the same custody and access arrangements as those in that judgment . The court found that the fact that the judgment had remained unenforced ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) suggested that the circumstances that had warranted the imposition of the child protection measure ordered therein still existed . It thus refused to take ( into account ) any new evidence . The decision was immediately enforceable .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the first applicant and upheld the firstinstance decision .","The applicants did not lodge a constitutional complaint against this decision .","On DATE , a day before the period of one year fixed in its decision of CARDINAL DATE was due to expire ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG adopted identical decision with similar reasoning . It again refused to take any evidence . This decision was also immediately enforceable .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the first applicant and upheld the first - instance decision .","The applicants then lodged a constitutional complaint , alleging violations of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing and to respect for their family life . In so doing , they relied on LAW paragraph CARDINAL and LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) and Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG found a violation of the applicants\u2019 rights to a fair hearing and to respect for their family life , quashed the second - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE and first - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case to ORG .","In particular , ORG found a violation of the procedural aspect of the right to respect for family life and a breach of the principle of equality of arms in that ( a ) the first - instance court , without giving valid reasons , had not held a hearing or taken any evidence before reaching its decision ; ( b ) the ordinary courts had paid no heed to the first applicant \u2019s argument that CARDINAL of the court experts was her former husband \u2019s therapist ; ( c ) the first - instance court had not heard the children , even though their age and maturity permitted that they be heard ; and ( d ) an employee of the local social welfare centre ( the public authority that proposed the contested child protection measure , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , who had assumed a rather passive role in the proceedings and had not even contacted the children , had been appointed as the second and third applicants\u2019 guardian ad litem , thus creating a conflict of loyalty between her employer and her wards ( children under her care ) .","ORG explained that taking new evidence had been particularly warranted in the circumstances , as children grew quickly and thus it could not have been assumed , as the first - instance court had done , that there had been no relevant developments in DATE that had passed between the first - instance judgment of DATE and the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The best interests of the children required that evidence be taken to establish the current situation as regards the second and third applicants , which had been crucial for deciding whether to maintain or lift the impugned child protection measure of their temporary placement into care .","Meanwhile , as the first applicant refused to entrust the second and third applicants to the children \u2019s home , on DATE the local social welfare centre applied to ORG to have the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) enforced .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution ( rje\u0161enje o ovrsi ) ordering the first applicant to entrust the second and third applicants to ORG within DATE of service , or face a fine of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) .","On DATE ORG fined the first applicant HRK CARDINAL for disobeying the court order to entrust the second and third applicants to the children \u2019s home , and ordered her to do so within DATE of service , or face an additional fine of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","Since fining the first applicant with a view to forcing her to comply with the above judgment and entrust the children to the children \u2019s home had no effect , on DATE ORG , following an application by the local social welfare centre , issued a new writ of execution . This time it ordered an enforcement officer , with the assistance of the police , to physically remove the second and third applicants from the first applicant or a third party and place them in the care of GPE Joseph \u2019s House .","On DATE at TIME the enforcement officer and CARDINAL policemen attempted to remove the second and third applicants from their mother . The children resisted by screaming , crying and shouting that they did not want to go to a home and wanted to remain living with their mother . Given the children \u2019s reactions , the enforcement officer eventually decided to adjourn the intervention . Immediately afterwards the first applicant took the second and third applicants to a doctor , who referred them to a psychiatrist . The psychiatrist who examined them DATE found that they were suffering from shock .","On DATE , during a meeting held at the local social welfare centre , the first applicant promised to cooperate with the relevant authorities and undergo counselling with a view to improving her relationship with her former husband .","Following a motion by the centre , on CARDINAL DATE ORG postponed enforcement until DATE .","On DATE the centre lodged another motion to postpone enforcement , which ORG granted on DATE by postponing enforcement until DATE .","On DATE the centre lodged a third motion to postpone enforcement . This time ORG , on DATE , dismissed the motion , because under the domestic law it was not possible to postpone enforcement for DATE at the request of the party seeking enforcement . Furthermore , since the centre as the party seeking enforcement had not applied for a continuation of enforcement in DATE , as was required by law , the court discontinued the enforcement proceedings .","Meanwhile , on DATE ORG ( Prekr\u0161ajni sud u ORG ) found PERSON guilty of domestic violence , after an incident against the first applicant on DATE . He was given a DATE suspended sentence , with a probation period of DATE .","On DATE the Zapre\u0161i\u0107 State Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u ORG ) indicted PERSON on CARDINAL counts of domestic violence , a criminal offence punishable under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , relating to the incident of DATE and a separate incident on DATE .","DATE . On DATE ORG found PERSON guilty as charged and imposed a DATE suspended sentence with a probation period of DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by PERSON and upheld the first - instance judgment , which thereby became final .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) indicted the first applicant before ORG ( Op\u0107inski kazneni sud u GPE ) for obstructing the execution of measures ordered to protect a child or minor , a criminal offence punishable under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG found the first applicant guilty as charged and imposed a DATE suspended sentence with a probation period of DATE .","The first applicant appealed , and it would appear that the proceedings are currently pending before ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) as the second - instance court .","Following a petition by the first applicant , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Pravobraniteljica za ravnopravnost spolova ) advised the local social welfare centre that in instructing her to undergo various treatment and expert assessments , it had failed to take into account the fact that she was a victim of domestic violence . In particular , the ORG noted that , by insisting that the first applicant attend counselling with her former husband , who had been convicted of domestic violence against her , the centre had treated the victim and the perpetrator equally . That constituted secondary victimisation and amounted to discrimination against her as a victim of domestic violence . The Ombudsman therefore suggested that the centre reformulate its recommendation to the court in the proceedings regarding custody and access rights , basing it on a fresh expert opinion from a different expert and bearing in mind the fact that the first applicant was a victim of domestic violence .","The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG , no . CARDINAL with subsequent amendments ) read as follows :","\u201c In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him or her , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . \u201d","\u201c Everyone shall be guaranteed respect for , and the legal protection of , his personal and family life ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146384","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KAR\u00c1CSONY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 13+10-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General};Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","At the material time , the applicants were members of ORG and the opposition party ORG . Mr PERSON was notary of ORG .","At a plenary session on DATE , during a pre - agenda speech , PERSON and PERSON showed a billboard in the session hall displaying the text \u201c GPE [ the party on government ] . You steal , you cheat , and you lie . \u201d","On DATE , PERSON made a speech in the general debate on PERSON . PERSON amending Certain Smoking - related Acts , accusing the government parties of corruption .","On DATE the Speaker presented a proposal to fine Mr Kar\u00e1csony MONEY ( ORG ) ( CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) and PERSON DATE ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for having gravely disrupted the plenary proceedings , in application of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Act no . XXXVI of DATE on ORG .","The Speaker proposed that the maximum fine as regards PERSON ( a third of his DATE remuneration ) be applied , since he was an elected official of ORG , not just an ordinary MP .","A decision approving the proposal of the Speaker was adopted by the plenary on CARDINAL DATE , without a debate .","On DATE during the final vote on PERSON . PERSON Mr PERSON and PERSON presented a billboard with the text \u201c Here Operates the National Tobacco Mafia \u201d .","On DATE the Speaker submitted a proposal to fine them ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) each , for gravely disrupting the plenary proceedings , in application of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Act no . XXXVI of DATE on ORG . The proposal stated that an increased fine was necessary , since similar , seriously disruptive conducts had occurred before .","The plenary adopted the proposal on CARDINAL DATE without a debate .","A constitutional complaint was filed , concerning a sanction for disruptive conduct , by MP ORG , a member of the opposition party ORG , and rejected by ORG on DATE ( decision ORG . DATE . ( XI.CARDINAL . ) ORG and DATE . ( XI.CARDINAL . ) ORG , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG found that MP PERSON had been fined under sections DATE ) and ( CARDINAL ) , PERSON ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) DATE rather than section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) \u2013 of Act no . XXXVI of DATE on ORG . It held in particular that the restrictions imposed on him for conduct falling under the above provisions DATE that is , \u201c gravely offensive expression \u201d \u2013 were in compliance with LAW . His complaint in respect of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) was rejected because this provision , concerning \u201c gravely offensive conduct \u201d , was not applicable in that case .","ORG went on to observe that there was no remedy available to that complainant against the measure .","Lastly , ORG held that parliamentary disciplinary law concerned ORG \u2019s interior business and the MPs\u2019 conduct as parliamentarians , rather than ORG rights or obligations ; and that therefore no requirement of a remedy against a parliamentary disciplinary measure could be deduced from Article XXVIII(CARDINAL ) of LAW ."],"violated_articles":["10","13"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177347","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF STASZUK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE by officers of ORG of GPE ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) on suspicion of unlawfully importing equipment for the covert surveillance of telephone networks and using it to intercept private telephone conversations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , an offence committed in collaboration with PERSON , a NORP national .","An ORG investigator lodged a request with ORG of Kyiv ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) seeking that the applicant be remanded in custody pending the investigation . He submitted that the applicant \u2019s detention was necessary in order to prevent him from absconding and interfering with the investigation , given that the applicant was a foreign national , did not have a permanent place of residence in GPE and was suspected of a serious offence .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor and his lawyer , remanded the applicant in custody , and ordered that he be placed in an ORG detention facility . It held that the arguments submitted by the investigator were sufficiently strong to allow the conclusion that the applicant should be detained .","On DATE ORG held a hearing to examine the applicant lawyer \u2019s appeal against the order of CARDINAL DATE in the presence of a prosecutor and the applicant \u2019s lawyer and upheld the order .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor , the applicant and his lawyer and extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . It noted that there were no reasons to release the applicant and that the investigative authority needed time to complete the investigation .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG held hearings to examine , respectively , the applicant lawyer \u2019s and the applicant \u2019s own appeals against ORG decision of DATE . Only a prosecutor was present at the former hearing , whereas the latter hearing was attended by the prosecutor , the applicant and his lawyer . ORG rejected both appeals and upheld ORG decision on both occasions .","NORP On DATE ORG held a hearing in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant \u2019s lawyer , granted the investigative authority \u2019s request , and extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court noted that the charges against the applicant were serious , that there were no reasons to release him and that the investigative authority needed more time to complete the investigation .","On DATE the investigator charged the applicant with several additional offences in connection with the same events : breaching the privacy of telephone communications and unlawful transfer of equipment subject to export control , committed in a group ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s case was sent to ORG for trial .","On DATE ORG committed the applicant for trial , rejected the applicant \u2019s request for release and ordered his continuing detention pending trial . The court stated that the applicant was charged with a serious offence , was a foreign national and had no permanent place of residence in GPE . No time - limit was set for his detention .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s requests for release . It gave reasons similar to those given in its decision of DATE and added that there was no reason to set an end - date for the applicant \u2019s detention since his detention was needed to complete the trial .","On DATE , DATE , and DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s further requests for release . It gave reasons similar to those given in its decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged , sentencing him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG quashed the conviction and remitted the case for additional investigation . It ordered the applicant \u2019s continuing detention without giving reasons .","On DATE ORG set bail for the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was released on bail .","On DATE ORG approved the applicant \u2019s plea bargain , convicted him , and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , which was to be considered fully served in view of the time the applicant had spent in pre - trial detention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145019","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF EGAMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Expulsion)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in LOC of GPE .","NORP The applicant first arrived in GPE in DATE . In DATE he applied for NORP nationality using a false name and a forged NORP passport . His application was granted on DATE .","On DATE an investigator from ORG of GPE issued a decision to charge the applicant with membership of the extremist organisation ORG ( also spelled PERSON ) and possession and dissemination of extremist literature , offences under LAW ) and CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . A search warrant was issued on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE and charged with using a false identity document to cross the NORP border . Once his real identity had been established , he was detained pending extradition proceedings . On DATE the ORG of LOC imposed a custodial preventive measure , which was subsequently extended on DATE and DATE until DATE .","On DATE ORG office received an extradition request from his NORP counterpart . The request stated that the applicant was wanted in GPE in connection with his membership of an extremist organisation , an offence under LAW ) of LAW .","On DATE the ORG town prosecutor lifted the custodial measure that had been imposed in the extradition proceedings . The extradition was adjourned until such time as the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charge of using a false document had been completed .","As of the date of the applicant \u2019s most recent submission of DATE , he was not aware of the outcome of the extradition proceedings .","On DATE , immediately after the applicant \u2019s release from custody , the ORG heard an administrative case against him on the charge of illegal residence in GPE , an offence under LAW . ORG found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to a fine and administrative removal from GPE ( \u201c expulsion order \u201d ) . Pending removal , he was to be held in ORG for foreign nationals .","On DATE the applicant asked the ORG to apply interim measures under LAW to prevent his expulsion to GPE . The ORG granted his request on DATE .","On DATE ORG summarily rejected the appeal against ORG expulsion order of CARDINAL DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE an investigator with the border control department of ORG for ORG had the applicant transferred from ORG to the PERSON police ward in GPE pending the criminal proceedings against him on the charge of using a false passport .","On DATE ORG of LOC issued a detention order against the applicant and he was placed in remand prison ORG in GPE .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of using CARDINAL false passports and of illegally crossing the NORP border , and sentenced him to a fine . He was released in the courtroom .","On DATE , while in custody awaiting a decision on the extradition request , the applicant applied for refugee status in GPE , claiming that he feared persecution on account of his religious beliefs .","By a decision of DATE , the GPE division of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) refused the application , finding that the applicant had waited for DATE after his first entry to GPE before asking for asylum , that he had used false names and documents in order to stay in GPE , and that he had no credible claim of a risk of persecution .","NORP The applicant lodged a hierarchical appeal , which was rejected by the central office of the ORG on DATE . The decision was notified to his lawyer by letter of DATE .","Unaware of the refusal , on DATE the applicant went to the GPE office of the ORG for a certificate of pending refugee - status proceedings , which would have allowed him to reside legally in GPE . He was arrested in the office and placed into custody pending expulsion under the expulsion order of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant against the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . ORG found that the applicant had failed to prove that he risked persecution in GPE .","An appeal against ORG judgment is pending . The applicant is now in custody in FAC ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169209","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CHUKANOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141636","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MALYUGIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of organising a criminal gang and placed in the ORG , which , according to the applicant , was in a poor sanitary condition .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s detention was authorised by domestic courts . It was regularly prolonged until his release ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from the ORG to remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of GPE , where he stayed until DATE . The facility was overcrowded . Thus , cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY m was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and accommodated CARDINAL inmates ; cell ORG measuring QUANTITY m was designed for CARDINAL detainees and housed CARDINAL individuals ; finally , cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY m presented CARDINAL sleeping places and CARDINAL persons who occupied them .","On an unspecified date GPE commenced the examination of the case . From that date , in order to take part in the hearings , the applicant was regularly transported by prison van between the remand prison and the court LOC . While in the courthouse , he was placed in a confinement cell . The applicant alleged that both the van and the cell had been overcrowded .","On DATE GPE ordered to release the applicant and on DATE it acquitted him of all charges ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144124","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ILGAR MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence);Violation of Article 18+5 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant has been involved in various political organisations and local and international non - governmental organisations for DATE . In DATE he co - founded ORG ( \u201c REAL \u201d ) and in DATE was elected its chairman . He is also Director of ORG , which is part of a network of schools of political studies affiliated with ORG . He has held that position for DATE .","The applicant maintained a personal internet blog on which he commented on various political issues . In particular , in DATE , after the enactment of a new law by ORG introducing heavy sanctions for unauthorised public gatherings , the applicant posted a comment on his blog which he claimed was meant to insult members of ORG . Without naming any names , he went on to state , inter alia , that ORG was composed of \u201c fraudulent people \u201d and compared the entire legislative body to a zoo . Those statements were quoted in the media and elicited a number of seemingly irate responses from various ORG members . The responses , also published in the media , ranged in content from retaliatory ad hominem insults to calls for punishment and threats of suing him in court . According to the applicant , the ORG \u201c lawsuit plans were ... temporarily dropped \u201d after the calls for reprisals against the applicant were condemned by CARDINAL of the ORG of ORG , who was visiting the country at the time .","At DATE REAL announced that it would consider nominating its own candidate for the upcoming presidential election of DATE . The applicant himself announced that he was considering standing as a candidate in the election . According to the applicant , his prospective presidential candidacy was widely discussed in GPE at that time .","On DATE rioting broke out in the town of GPE , located to the northwest of GPE . According to media reports quoting local residents , the rioting was sparked by an incident involving V.A. , the son of ORG and nephew of the Head of ORG ( \u201c IDEA \u201d ) . It was claimed that after being involved in a car accident , V.A. had insulted and physically assaulted passengers of the other car , who were local residents . On hearing of the incident , CARDINAL ( perhaps CARDINAL ) of local residents took to the streets and destroyed a number of commercial establishments ( including ORG ) and other property in GPE thought to be owned by ORG family .","On DATE ORG and ORG issued a joint press statement , placing the blame for the rioting on ORG , a hotel manager , and his relative PERSON , who had allegedly been drunk and who , it was claimed , had committed acts of hooliganism by damaging local ORG property and inciting people to riot .","Meanwhile , the Head of IDEA , V.A. \u2019s uncle , publicly denied that ORG belonged to his family .","On DATE the applicant travelled to GPE to get a firsthand account of the events . On DATE he described his impressions from the trip on his blog . The entire post read as follows :","\u201c DATE TIME I spent a little longer than TIME in GPE , together with [ another member ] of our GPE [ REAL ] and our media coordinator ... First , here is [ the summary of ] what I wrote on ORG during TIME using my phone :","- We have entered the town .","- There is a lot of police and their number is growing . The protesters gather TIME or CARDINAL and make speeches . We are in front of the building of the [ Ismayilli District ] Executive Authority . There are around QUANTITY police officers in this area .","- The cause of the events is the general tension arising from corruption and insolence [ of public officials ] . In short , people have had enough . We are having conversations with local residents .","- The [ ethnic ] NORP of the village of GPE are also fed up ; they tried to come to [ GPE ] to support the protest , but the road was blocked and they were sent back .","- Everybody is preparing for the night .","- We are leaving ORG , returning to GPE . The matter is clear to us . PERSON was the first call . PERSON is the second . After the third call , the show will begin .","We came back after having fully investigated the situation in GPE . I wrote that clashes would again take place in the evening , by posting \u2018 everybody is preparing for the ORG [ on ORG ] . People there had been saying \u2018 We \u2019ll give them hell in TIME ; we have procured supplies\u2019 ( meaning the fuel for Molotov cocktails had been bought ) . People are angry . There are also those who do not care and who are afraid , but those who are not afraid are very exasperated and will continue the protest at TIME . This is no longer a political situation where we could stay there and try to change something ; this is already a situation of disorderly crisis which requires conciliatory steps by the ORG to be resolved .","No one should fool oneself or others . The events in GPE were not and are not a calm peaceful protest , it is an extremely violent but just protest and the responsibility for it lies with PERSON .","As it is with all revolutionary processes , in the beginning the political initiative is still in the hands of the President , but by not taking action he is gradually losing this initiative . When [ such leaders ] begin to react to the situation , it is usually too late and their actions have no effect . PERSON , PERSON , and all others have gone this way . \u201d","On DATE the applicant posted more information on his blog concerning the events , citing the official websites of ORG and ORG and publishing screenshots of those sites . In particular , he noted that , according to those sources and to information posted on GPE \u2019s ORG account , ORG was actually owned by V.A. This directly contradicted the earlier denial by the Head of IDEA . The information cited by the applicant was removed from the aforementioned Government websites and GPE \u2019s ORG page within TIME of the applicant publishing his blog entry . However , the blog entry itself was extensively quoted in the media .","On DATE ORG and ORG issued a new joint press statement concerning the events in GPE . It noted that QUANTITY people had been charged with criminal offences in connection with the events of DATE , and had been detained pending trial . In addition , CARDINAL people had been arrested in connection with their participation in \u201c actions causing a serious breach of public order \u201d ; some of them had been convicted of \u201c administrative offences \u201d and sentenced to a few days\u2019 \u201c administrative detention \u201d or a fine , while others had been released . The statement further noted that \u201c lately , biased and partial information has been deliberately disseminated , distorting the true nature of the mentioned events resulting from hooliganism \u201d , including information about large numbers of injured people and the disappearance of CARDINAL individual . The statement refuted that information , noting that CARDINAL people had been admitted to the regional hospital with injuries and that no one had disappeared . It further stated , inter alia , the following :","\u201c Following the carrying out of inquiries , it has been established that on DATE the Deputy Chairman of ORG , PERSON , and the Cochairman of ORG , PERSON , went to ORG and made appeals to local residents aimed at social and political destabilisation , such as calls to resist the police , not to obey officials and to block roads . Their illegal actions , which were calculated to inflame the situation in the country , will be fully and thoroughly investigated and receive legal assessment . \u201d","On DATE the applicant commented on that statement on his blog . He noted that the Government had taken a decision to \u201c punish and frighten \u201d him , and that there were several reasons for that : firstly , the applicant \u2019s blog posting of CARDINAL DATE , which had revealed facts embarrassing the Government ; secondly , the fact that REAL had raised a public debate on the DATE legislative amendments aimed at keeping secret information concerning shareholders in companies , creating \u201c a more clandestine environment for stealing the oil money \u201d ; thirdly , the applicant \u2019s earlier criticism of ORG , in which he compared it to \u201c a zoo \u201d , following enactment of the legislation placing \u201c severe limitations on the freedom of assembly \u201d by \u201c introducing unjustifiably high monetary penalties for attending unauthorised demonstrations \u201d ; and lastly , ORG \u201c quickly accumulating strength \u201d prior to the presidential election , becoming a \u201c serious barrier in the eyes of the traditional [ political ] players \u201d and threatening \u201c to spoil the repeat of the election farce performed DATE year \u201d .","On DATE the applicant received a phone call from ORG of ORG and was orally invited to the department for questioning as a witness . Although that did not constitute a formal summons , the applicant went to ORG and was questioned .","According to the record of the questioning , the applicant stated that he had arrived in GPE in a car driven by another member of REAL at around TIME on DATE . After entering the town , they stopped from time to time and spoke to local residents without getting out of the car , in order to receive first - hand information about the events that had taken place up to that time . When they arrived at the central square where the IDEA building was located , they met a number of journalists and saw a large number of police and law - enforcement officers . At the square , the applicant spoke only to the journalists ; he did not speak to any local residents . No violent clashes were happening at the square at that time . While at the square , the applicant saw PERSON , who was also visiting the town , but separately from the applicant . They stopped to greet each other and immediately went their separate ways . The applicant and his colleague from REAL spent TIME at the square . The applicant , his colleague from REAL , and CARDINAL of the journalists then spent some time in a nearby teahouse . After a while , the CARDINAL of them returned to LOC . On their way out of GPE , they again stopped a few times and , from inside the car , spoke to passers - by about the situation in the town .","During the questioning , the investigator informed the applicant that it had been established from \u201c the material in the criminal case file \u201d that at TIME , while standing near the building of ORG , the applicant and Mr PERSON had been inciting local residents to cause disorder , disobey the police , block roads and throw stones at the police . The applicant was asked to comment on that . He replied that that information was false and a calumny against him .","After the questioning had ended , the applicant went home .","In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicant received another telephone call asking him to come in for further questioning .","In TIME CARDINAL DATE the applicant voluntarily appeared at ORG . First , from CARDINAL to TIME a face - to - face confrontation was held between the applicant and ORG , described in the record of the confrontation as a resident of the PERSON village of LOC . According to a copy of that record ( submitted by ORG to the ORG as a separate document enclosed with their observations ) , ORG stated that on DATE he had been in GPE where he had seen many police officers , as well as a number of young people slowly gathering in groups of CARDINAL . He heard people discussing the events of DATE . Among them , he saw PERSON and the applicant . He did not know the applicant \u2019s identity until he inquired about it and someone told him . He heard the applicant and PERSON telling people to throw stones at the police and to capture the IDEA building . Following this , people started throwing stones at the police .","According to the record , in reply , the applicant stated that everything that ORG had said was false and a laughable fabrication , and that it was an attempt to frame him and pressure him for political reasons .","After the questioning ended at TIME , the applicant was not allowed to leave the building .","From CARDINAL to CARDINAL p.m. another face - to - face confrontation was held , this time with another GPE Region resident , GPE According to the record of the questioning ( also submitted by the ORG to the ORG as a separate document enclosed with their observations ) , GPE stated that on DATE he had been in GPE and had seen lots of young people gathering . There were also many police officers . Protesters were throwing stones at the police . Then he saw CARDINAL persons standing near the ORG building and telling protesters to throw stones , not to be afraid , and to capture the IDEA building . Having inquired from the bystanders who those QUANTITY persons were , he was told that they were PERSON and the applicant . Then he saw and heard QUANTITY police officers named PERSON and PERSON tell the applicant and PERSON to calm down , but to no avail .","According to the record , in reply , the applicant stated that GPE \u2019s statement was a fabrication and that \u201c everything happening in this room \u201d amounted to political sabotage against him and the NORP people . The applicant also noted in the record , in handwriting , that he had not been allowed to leave the building during the period of TIME between the CARDINAL face - to - face confrontations , despite his wish to the contrary .","The above face - to - face confrontations were not specifically mentioned in the official charges against the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) or the prosecution \u2019s subsequent requests for a judicial order on the applicant \u2019s remand in custody or an extension of the detention period , and the names of ORG and GPE were not otherwise mentioned in either of the above or in any other official document made available to the ORG by the parties and relating to the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him .","After the second confrontation , the applicant was again denied permission to leave . At TIME , following the arrival of his defence lawyer , the applicant was charged with criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL ( organising or actively participating in actions causing a breach of public order ) and CARDINAL ( resistance to or violence against public officials , posing a threat to their life or health ) of LAW . The specific acts attributed to the applicant were described as follows :","\u201c Beginning at TIME on DATE , PERSON ,","having taken advantage of the fact that from TIME on DATE a group of persons in the town of ORG had engaged in acts of malicious hooliganism causing a serious breach of public order , had deliberately burned , in a publicly dangerous manner , property belonging to various persons [ including ] ORG , CARDINAL cars , CARDINAL mopeds and scooters , and an auxiliary building located in the yard of a private residential house , and had committed acts of violence against Government officials ,","having , in his false way of thinking , considered [ the above events ] as a \u2018 ORG ,","aiming to make the above acts develop and acquire a continuous character in order to create artificial tension and to violate the social and political stability in the country ,","being a resident of GPE , arrived in GPE and , together with Tofiq PERSON Yaqublu and with the active participation of others , [ committed the following : ]","organised , as an active participant , acts causing a serious breach of public order , by means of openly and repeatedly inciting town residents [ ORG ] , [ M.A. ] and others , who had gathered at the square near the administrative building of ORG located on the Nariman FAC opposite to the administrative building of [ the IDEA ] , [ to do the following : ]","[ i ] to enter in masses into the area in front of the building of [ the IDEA ] , which is the competent body of the executive power of GPE , and by doing so to create difficulties for the movement of traffic and pedestrians , [ ii ] to disobey the lawful demands to disperse , made by Government officials wanting to stop their illegal behaviour , [ iii ] to resist uniformed police officers protecting the public order , by way of committing violent acts posing danger to [ police ORG ] life and health , using various objects , [ iv ] to disrupt the normal functioning of [ the IDEA ] , ORG enterprises , bodies and organisations , as well as public - catering , commercial and public - service facilities , by way of refusing to leave , for DATE , the areas where the acts seriously breaching the public order were being committed , and [ v ] to stop the movement of traffic , by way of blocking the central avenue and GPE , and","was finally able to achieve that , at TIME in the town of GPE , a group of persons consisting of [ ORG ] , [ GPE ] and others had marched in masses from the mentioned square in the direction of the administrative building of [ the IDEA ] and had thrown stones at officers of the relevant bodies of ORG who were preventing [ this march ] in accordance with the requirements of the law .","By these actions , PERSON committed the criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE . \u201d","From TIME , the applicant was questioned again , this time as an accused . During the interview he gave essentially the same statement as during the interview of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At TIME the applicant was taken to ORG . The Deputy Prosecutor General lodged an application with ORG asking it to order the applicant \u2019s remand in custody . The application was essentially a copy of the text of the decision to charge the applicant with the criminal offences ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It was followed by a note stating that it was necessary to remand the applicant in custody because of the gravity and publicly dangerous character of the offences committed , because they carried a sanction of over CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , and because there were \u201c sufficient reasons \u201d to believe that , if released , the applicant would abscond or obstruct the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons participating in the criminal proceedings .","The court hearing commenced at TIME in the presence of the applicant , his lawyers , a member of the investigation team , and CARDINAL of the prosecutors working in ORG of ORG . According to the applicant , and not disputed by the Government , the prosecution did not submit the case file or the records of the applicant \u2019s questioning to the court .","At the hearing , the applicant and his lawyers submitted that the accusation against the applicant was groundless and was not supported by any evidence . As for the applicant \u2019s conduct , they pointed out that he had voluntarily appeared before the prosecution as soon as requested to do so and that , therefore , there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond or interfere with the investigation . They argued that , for those reasons , his detention was not justified .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s remand in custody for DATE ( until DATE ) . The part of the decision containing the court \u2019s reasoning read as follows :","\u201c Having examined the [ prosecution \u2019s ] application and enclosed documents and having heard the oral submissions of the parties , and taking into account the existence of sufficient grounds to believe that , if released , the accused PERSON would abscond from the investigation or disrupt the normal course of the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons involved in the proceedings , the publicly dangerous character and gravity of the criminal offence committed , and the fact that he is charged with a criminal offence carrying a sanction of over DATE imprisonment , the court considers that the preventive measure of remanding him in custody must be applied in his respect . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , claiming that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty during the period from TIME to TIME on DATE . His complaint was rejected on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the detention order of CARDINAL DATE . He argued that he had been detained in breach of the domestic law and LAW . He complained that , although the introductory part of the detention order stated that the court had reviewed preliminary evidence collected by the prosecution , no evidence or any other information giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence had been presented by the prosecution to the first - instance court . The court had issued the order solely on the basis of the decision to charge the applicant with the criminal offences and the prosecution \u2019s request to order his remand in custody , without independently verifying whether there was a reasonable suspicion against him . He further complained that the court had not provided relevant and sufficient reasons to justify his detention by finding that he might abscond from the investigation or attempt to obstruct the proceedings . As for his conduct prior to arrest , he had been cooperative with the authorities and , on CARDINAL occasion , had appeared for questioning after a simple phone call , even without having been formally summoned . Other factors , such as the fact that he had a wife and a small child , a permanent residence and a job in GPE , his personality , social status and professional occupation , his affiliation with ORG programmes , no prior criminal record , and so on , also showed that he was very unlikely to abscond and should have been taken into account by the court . In his appeal , as well as relying on the relevant domestic law , the applicant also relied extensively on ORG case - law and cited a number of its judgments concerning LAW .","On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG observations on the transcript of that court \u2019s hearing of CARDINAL DATE , to be included in the case file . The observations mainly concerned the prosecutor \u2019s inability and refusal to answer questions posed by the defence during the oral hearing . Those questions concerned the prosecution \u2019s failure to produce any evidence on which its suspicions against the applicant were based or to identify the specific circumstances which had led it to believe that the applicant , if released , would abscond or obstruct the proceedings .","ORG hearing was scheduled to be held on DATE . The hearing was delayed for TIME , awaiting ORG examination of the applicant \u2019s observations on the transcript of the hearing and the request to include them in the documents related to his pre - trial detention , which had been forwarded to ORG . During the delay , ORG took a decision refusing to incorporate the applicant \u2019s observations into the transcript of the hearing .","According to the applicant , and not disputed by the ORG , as at the first - instance hearing , the prosecution \u2019s case materials were not made available to the court at the appellate hearing .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld ORG detention order of CARDINAL DATE , finding as follows :","\u201c Taking into account the personality of PERSON , the publicly dangerous character and gravity of the criminal offences in question , the fact that [ those offences ] belong to the category of less serious crimes , that [ the applicant ] , if released , could abscond and would disrupt the objectivity of the investigation by unlawfully influencing persons involved in the criminal proceedings , the court considers that ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ordering the applicant \u2019s remand in custody is lawful and justified and must be upheld . ...","In ORG v. the GPE [ ( DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . FAC ] , ORG noted that the right to a fair trial required that a court should give reasons for its decisions . This does not mean , however , that a detailed answer should be given to every argument raised by the parties . \u201d","Having provided the above reasoning , ORG did not address any of the specific arguments raised by the applicant against the necessity of detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG to change the preventive measure of remand in custody to house arrest . He argued that his previous conduct had showed that he did not intend to avoid the investigation . Furthermore , his personal circumstances ( his family situation , the fact that he had a permanent job and a permanent place of residence , his active political career in GPE , and so on ) made it very unlikely that he would abscond . Lastly , in his case , \u201c persons involved in the criminal proceedings \u201d lived in GPE , and not in GPE where he resided . Therefore , it was unlikely that he would unlawfully influence them .","At the hearing on CARDINAL DATE the prosecution submitted that the request was \u201c groundless \u201d and reiterated that there was a risk that if the applicant were not detained , he would abscond or disrupt the investigation . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request . The reasoning provided by the court was as follows :","\u201c Having examined the counsel \u2019s request , having heard the persons participating in the hearing , and having examined the case material , the court considers that the request can not be granted because the grounds for detaining the accused person have not ceased to exist . \u201d","ORG The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision . On DATE his appeal was dismissed by ORG .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the prosecution requested an extension of the applicant \u2019s detention ( originally authorised until DATE ) , noting that , despite the fact that a number of investigative measures had been taken , the case was complex and more time was needed to complete the investigation . According to the applicant , and undisputed by the ORG , apart from that request , the prosecution did not submit to the court any other material relating to the criminal case . At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE concerning the extension request , the prosecution gave no answer to the defence \u2019s questions as to what specific evidence served as grounds for suspecting the applicant of having committed a criminal offence , what specific investigative measures had been taken so far and what further measures needed to be taken . Following the hearing , the applicant \u2019s lawyer formally requested that the judge include the above questions and the ( lack of ) answers in the transcript of the hearing , but to no avail .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention by DATE ( until DATE ) , providing the following reasoning :","\u201c Taking into account the fact that the accused is charged with offences belonging to the category of less serious crimes , the complexity of the criminal proceedings , the need for more time to complete the investigation , and the necessity to carry out a number of investigative measures , the court considers that [ the prosecution \u2019s ] request must be granted and the period of the accused \u2019s detention extended ... to DATE . \u201d","The applicant appealed , reiterating in detail all the arguments against his detention that he had previously raised before the courts . He also argued that it was not permissible , under the domestic law and the Convention , to justify prolonging his pre - trial detention on the ground that the prosecution needed more time to do its job . Again , he cited a number of relevant judgments of ORG concerning various issues relating to pretrial detention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , upholding the extension decision of CARDINAL DATE and providing the same reasoning as the first - instance court .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for bail , reiterating his previous arguments against his detention . On DATE ORG rejected his request , finding that the grounds justifying his detention , as specified in its decision of DATE , \u201c had not ceased to exist \u201d .","The applicant appealed , reiterating in detail his arguments for release . On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE .","DATE . On DATE the head of the investigation team decided to charge the applicant with new offences , this time under Articles CARDINAL ( mass disorder ) and CARDINAL ( resistance to or violence against public officials , posing a threat to their life or health ) of LAW . In essence , the charge under LAW , which carried a much heavier sentence ( DATE imprisonment ) , replaced the previous charge under LAW . No changes were made in the original description of the accusations against the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","One of the effects of the new charge under LAW was that the applicant could no longer apply for bail , because the law did not permit individuals accused of deliberately committing \u201c serious criminal offences \u201d to be released on bail ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and QUANTITY below ) . Moreover , as a person charged with a \u201c serious criminal offence \u201d , the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention could now be extended for a longer overall period ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention ( which had been authorised until DATE ) by DATE ( until DATE ) . At the hearing , the applicant \u2019s lawyer reiterated his specific arguments for release and further argued that there were no relevant factors justifying the applicant \u2019s detention . In its decision , ORG justified the applicant \u2019s continued detention as follows :","\u201c Having heard the parties , having examined the [ prosecution \u2019s ] request on the basis of the case material , and taking into account the scope of the investigative measures to be taken and the fact that the grounds for [ the applicant \u2019s ] detention have not ceased to exist , the court considers that [ the prosecution \u2019s extension ] request must be granted and the period of [ the applicant \u2019s ] detention extended ... \u201d","The applicant appealed , reiterating his previous arguments . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the extension order , providing reasoning similar to that given by the courts previously .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention ( previously authorised until DATE ) by DATE ( until DATE ) . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order on appeal . The arguments made before the courts and the courts\u2019 reasoning were essentially the same as in the previous extension hearings and decisions .","No further extension decisions are available in the case file .","The applicant \u2019s criminal trial began in DATE . On DATE ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The conviction is not yet final and the appeal is pending .","The applicant \u2019s case generated wide publicity . Some of the select reactions to the case are summarised below .","NORP Immediately after the applicant \u2019s arrest , a number of domestic NGOs , as well as international NGOs such as ORG and Article CARDINAL , condemned the authorities\u2019 actions , assessing them as a \u201c politically motivated persecution \u201d on \u201c trumped up \u201d charges .","On DATE , PERSON and PERSON , ORG co - rapporteurs on GPE , expressed their concern at the arrest of the applicant , noting that it \u201c gave rise to justified doubts and legitimate concerns \u201d and urging the authorities to release the applicant and PERSON .","On DATE , ORG , the Secretary General of ORG , made the following official statement : \u201c I am concerned by ... the heavy - handed response of the police to the protests . I am particularly disturbed by the arrest on DATE of ORG and PERSON , in relation to recent events in GPE . PERSON is the Director of ORG , a close co - operation partner of ORG . DATE \u2019s decision of ORG not to release these CARDINAL men and its refusal to allow ORG representative to be present during the court proceedings is of particular gravity \u201d . In his further statement of CARDINAL DATE , ORG \u201c expressed his concern and disappointment \u201d at the new charges against the applicant .","On DATE , the spokespersons of ORG High Representative PERSON , and the NORP Commissioner for ORG , PERSON , issued a statement expressing concern over the applicant \u2019s arrest and urged the authorities to ensure a fair , transparent and independent investigation of the charges against him .","On DATE , ORG adopted a resolution entitled \u201c GPE : Case of Ilgar Mammadov \u201d ( CARDINAL\/CARDINAL(RSP ) ) . Inter alia , the resolution assesses the applicant \u2019s detention as \u201c unlawful \u201d and \u201c an apparent attempt to keep him behind bars pending the forthcoming elections \u201d , \u201c strongly condemns the detention of Mr Mammadov , calls for his immediate and unconditional release and an end to his prosecution \u201d , and \u201c expresses serious concern over reports by human rights defenders and domestic and international NGOs about the alleged use of fabricated charges against politicians , activists and journalists \u201d .","The process of registration of candidates for the presidential elections started on DATE . LAW required candidates to submit their initial eligibility documents to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , which would then issue them with official signature sheets in order to collect a minimum of CARDINAL voter signatures in support of the nomination . The deadline for submission of the signatures and all other documents was DATE .","Since the applicant needed an authorised representative to deal with various matters concerning his nomination , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested ORG of ORG to set up a meeting between the applicant and a notary public in ORG , in order to prepare a power of attorney for his representative in electoral matters . The permission for a notary public \u2019s visit was given on DATE . The notary public visited the detention facility and certified the power of attorney on CARDINAL DATE .","Pending a response to the above request , on DATE the applicant sent his initial eligibility documents to the ORG from the detention facility \u2019s post office . According to the applicant , the documents were not delivered to the ORG until CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG returned the applicant \u2019s initial eligibility documents , having found that they had shortcomings . After rectification of the shortcomings , the applicant \u2019s representative resubmitted the documents on DATE .","On DATE the ORG preliminarily accepted the applicant \u2019s nomination as a candidate in the elections , pending the verification of the required voter signatures ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) due by DATE . The applicant \u2019s representatives submitted the required signature sheets .","On DATE the ORG refused to register the applicant as a candidate , finding that his signature sheets contained a number of invalid signatures and that the number of valid signatures in support of the applicant was below the minimum ( CARDINAL ) required by law ."],"violated_articles":["18","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4","6-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174992","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF K\u0104CKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On an unspecified date PERSON , a member of the political party SelfDefence of GPE ( \u201c PERSON ) sent PERSON , a DATE newspaper , an electronic mail containing information about an alleged \u201c sex scandal \u201d in the party .","The following day the applicant , who is a journalist , contacted PERSON on the telephone . After their conversation he informed her that he had recorded the call and that he intended to use the transcript for an article .","On DATE the applicant published an interview with PERSON in the Gazeta Wyborcza . The interview , entitled \u201c Payment for sex , the choice is yours \u201d ( \u201c P\u0142aca ze seks , wyb\u00f3r nale\u017cy do pani \u201d ) concerned the \u201c sex scandal \u201d story which had broken in GPE DATE . Public figures , including PERSON activists , had offered and accepted sexual favours in the course of exercising public functions . PERSON told the newspaper that she had begun working with the party through her contacts with PERSON Initially , she had been unpaid and when she had demanded payment , one of the activists , ORG , had told her :","\u201c I will pay if you go to bed with me \u201d","She also said that in DATE during a party organised by PERSON a prominent PERSON activist , GPE , had offered to find a post for her in a parliamentary deputy \u2019s office \u2013 specifically ORG in return for sexual favours . According to PERSON , GPE was so forward that she had to ask PERSON for help . PERSON then called a taxi to take ORG home","Then the applicant asked PERSON :","\u201c Did you get the job ? \u201d","PERSON replied :","\u201c No , the job was given to PERSON \u2019s daughter \u201d .","On the same page , to the right of the article , the newspaper quoted CARDINAL prominent PERSON activists referred to in the interview , namely GPE , GPE and PERSON They all , denied that there had been any sexual propositions made to A.R.","Also on the same page the newspaper published a short interview with PERSON who confirmed that she knew PERSON but had never recommended her for any work . When asked about the \u201c sex scandal \u201d PERSON said :","\u201c What are you saying ? I have never heard of it . This can not be true . \u201d","On DATE PERSON , a Member of ORG , lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant . He demanded that the applicant be charged with defamation . According to the indictment the defamation consisted of the publication of the interview with PERSON in which she said that ORG could arrange a job for her in GPE \u2019s office in return for sexual favours . According to PERSON this suggested to readers that he had been involved in the \u201c sex scandal \u201d . He also claimed that he had been defamed in the published interview at the point where PERSON had accused him of nepotism by saying that he had employed his own daughter .","On DATE ORG ruled the indictment partially accurate : it then discontinued the proceedings for a probationary term of DATE and ordered the applicant to pay MONEY ( ORG \u2013 CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) to charity and to pay the costs of the proceedings .","ORG found the applicant guilty of the defamation of PERSON with respect to his publication of the statements made by PERSON concerning nepotism ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the court the applicant neglected his professional obligations because he did not verify that the job had been offered to PERSON \u2019s daughter . At the trial it became clear that this information could not be accurate because PERSON did not have a daughter . It did not accept the applicant \u2019s argument that he had acted with due diligence because before publication he had sent the text of the interview to PERSON who had accepted its contents and returned it to the applicant without making any objection or comment ( autoryzacja ) .","ORG did not hold that the applicant was guilty of defamation when he had suggested that PERSON had been involved in the \u201c sex scandal \u201d . It found that in this respect the applicant had fulfilled his professional obligations because he had published the statement of ORG , who had denied propositioning PERSON For the above reasons , in ORG view , the average reader should not have had the impression that PERSON was involved in the \u201c sex scandal \u201d .","The applicant and PERSON \u2019s lawyer appealed against the firstinstance judgment .","On DATE ORG upheld the challenged judgment , repeating in essence the same reasoning as ORG . Regarding the applicant \u2019s arguments concerning his right to freedom of expression under LAW , it noted that \u201c in the light of the journalist \u2019s right to publish critical comments ( prawo do krytyki dziennikarskiej ) , an individual \u2019s right to legal protection of good name and reputation should also be taken into account \u201d .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested the ORG to lodge a cassation appeal on the applicant \u2019s behalf .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that she had found no grounds to lodge a cassation appeal ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142430","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GAYRATBEK SALIYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , situated in the PERSON - Abad Region of GPE . He is currently staying in GPE , LOC , GPE , where he is subject to a measure of restraint applied in the course of extradition proceedings .","The applicant is an ethnic NORP .","NORP In DATE inter - ethnic violence between NORP and NORP groups broke out in the southern areas of GPE , including the city of PERSON and the PERSON - Abad Region . The applicant claimed not to have taken part in any violent actions . He left GPE for GPE , allegedly fleeing ethnically motivated violence . It appears that his next - of - kin remain in the country .","In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE . In DATE and DATE he did not lodge any applications for refugee status or temporary asylum . By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE the GPE ORG ( \u201c the PERSON court \u201d ) convicted the applicant of robbery . The applicant served a prison term and was released on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG ( GPE ) charged the applicant in absentia with a number of serious violent offences committed in DATE in the course of interethnic rioting in the village of GPE .","On DATE ORG , the PERSON - Abad Region of GPE , ordered the applicant \u2019s remand in custody . On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s name was placed on an international wanted list .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by the NORP police while he was travelling by train in the GPE region , on the basis that he was wanted in GPE .","On DATE the transport prosecutor \u2019s office for the ORG railway ( \u201c the transport prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) ordered the applicant \u2019s remand in custody pending receipt of an extradition request pursuant to LAW and on the basis of the NORP court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG GPE sent an official extradition request to their NORP counterparts .","On DATE the transport prosecutor \u2019s office again ordered the applicant \u2019s remand in custody .","On DATE the applicant sought refugee status in GPE . He claimed , among other things , that the criminal case against him had been opened exclusively because of his ethnic origin and that he would face a real risk of ill - treatment in GPE if returned there . He referred to reports by ORG and ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer wrote to ORG of GPE , indicating that extradition should be refused on account of the substantiated risk of ill - treatment in respect of the applicant in GPE . On DATE ORG Office of GPE replied that the above submissions would be taken into account in the decision - making process on the extradition request .","On CARDINAL DATE the PERSON court extended the term of the applicant \u2019s detention DATE , that is to say , until DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal brought by the applicant and upheld the detention order .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG of GPE ( \u201c GPE migration authority \u201d ) refused to grant refugee status to the applicant . It held , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c Mr PERSON has based his refugee application in GPE on the allegations that in his country of nationality he would be persecuted by ORG agencies on [ the basis of ] fabricated criminal charges [ brought ] because of his ethnic origin . ...","It is evident from the available materials that PERSON left his country of nationality for reasons which fall outside the scope of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW , and that he does not wish to return to his country , fearing lawful prosecution for a criminal offence ...","During his interview Mr PERSON failed to refer to any facts capable of proving his persecution on the grounds of his ethnic origin .","The NORP law - enforcement agencies ... do not have the specific purpose of persecuting Mr PERSON because of his belonging to a particular social group , ethnic origin , religion or political views . \u201d","On DATE the NORP authorities issued an amended list of charges against the applicant , which included illegal use of firearms and other weapons , murder , robbery , destruction of property and involvement in rioting aggravated by ethnic hatred .","On DATE the PERSON court extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE for the reason that an extradition check was underway . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the detention order of DATE .","On DATE ORG GPE submitted a letter to their NORP counterparts , containing assurances that the applicant would benefit from legal assistance ; would not be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment ; and the extradition request was related to ordinary criminal offences and was not aimed at persecuting the applicant on religious , political grounds or grounds relating to his ethnic origin .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) upheld the refusal to grant refugee status of DATE , without providing any detailed reasons .","On DATE the PERSON court extended the applicant \u2019s detention with a view to extradition until DATE . The applicant appealed on DATE . On the same date the case was transferred to ORG , which received it on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the detention order .","On DATE the GPE ORG ( \u201c the GPE court \u201d ) upheld the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant appealed .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE amended the extradition request , stating that following the applicant \u2019s extradition NORP diplomatic staff would be given an opportunity to visit him in the detention facility and that the applicant would not be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , as prohibited by the DATE LAW .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE granted the extradition request and ordered the applicant \u2019s extradition , without making any findings on the issue of the risk of ill - treatment in the event of the applicant \u2019s extradition .","The applicant appealed against the extradition order , claiming , in particular , that he would face risks of torture and ill - treatment since , according to various international reports , ethnic NORP were a particularly vulnerable group following the DATE violence in the southern regions of GPE .","On DATE ORG examined the matter of the applicant \u2019s continued detention and extended it until DATE . The applicant appealed on DATE . On the same date the case was transferred to the appeal section of ORG , which received it on DATE . On DATE the appeal section upheld the extension order .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG upheld the LAW court \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s appeal against the extradition order . The court heard PERSON , the applicant \u2019s representative before the Court , as a witness , and refused to examine a number of pieces of evidence adduced by the applicant in relation to his arguments regarding the risk of ill - treatment in GPE , in particular a number of reports from international organisations . By a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the extradition order in the following terms :","\u201c ... The applicant \u2019s arguments relating to persecution by the NORP authorities on the grounds of his nationality were examined and dismissed by the decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning his application for refugee status .","The above decision was upheld by the now final judgment of DATE ... This court dismisses the argument concerning the issuing of the extradition order before the examination of the refusal to grant refugee status . As is clear from the materials concerning the extradition check procedure , [ the applicant ] lodged an application for refugee status after his arrest in GPE . Judicial review proceedings in respect of a refusal to grant such status do not impede the issuing of an extradition order ...","ORG of GPE guarantees that [ the applicant ] would be given all opportunities to defend himself , including legal assistance ; that he would not be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ... In addition , the requesting country guarantees that following [ the applicant \u2019s ] extradition NORP diplomatic officers would be afforded an opportunity to visit him in the detention facility in order to be satisfied that his rights are being respected , [ and ] that the principles of the equality of arms and the adversarial nature of court proceedings are being respected ... The court dismisses as unfounded the arguments relating to inability for [ the applicant to undergo ] a medical examination or [ have ] confidential meetings with diplomatic officers ...","It follows from PERSON witness statement that she has not visited GPE since DATE and was not present during the events of DATE . Her knowledge of the current situation in LOC is based on reports by foreign human - rights organisations describing an imprecise group of people . ...","The court dismisses as unproven the references to the findings made by ORG and ORG in individual cases or the references to the reports of international organisations assessing the general human - rights situation in GPE . The above references are refuted by the real guarantees from the NORP authorities , such guarantees relating directly to [ the applicant ] and being sufficient to exclude the risk of cruel treatment in respect of him ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG of GPE against the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting as an appeal court , examined the applicant \u2019s appeal against the judgment of DATE upholding the extradition order . The appeal court admitted to the file a number of documents , including international reports regarding GPE . By a judgment of DATE , ORG of GPE dismissed the appeal , endorsing the reasoning of the first - instance court . It held as follows :","\u201c ... Judicial review proceedings in respect of a local migration authority \u2019s refusal to grant refugee status do not impede the decision - making process in respect of an extradition request ... The available materials do not disclose that [ the applicant ] is being persecuted on political grounds by law enforcement agencies in GPE ... The prosecution against [ the applicant ] concerns ordinary criminal offences and does not contain indications of any political motivation or discrimination on the grounds of ... social origin , nationality or race ... ORG submitted guarantees that [ the applicant ] would be provided with all [ necessary ] facilities for [ preparing ] his defence , including legal assistance ; that he would not be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ... Thus , the court accepts as correct the conclusion that GPE has fully complied with the requirements of LAW of LAW and LAW , as regards the provision of the required guarantees ... \u201d","The text of the appeal decision did not contain any reference to any avenues of further appeal . It appears that the extradition order became enforceable on DATE .","On DATE the GPE migration authority dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for temporary asylum . The applicant appealed to the ORG , which informed him on DATE that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been quashed and that his application would be re - examined . It remains unknown whether the re - examination in question has taken place .","On DATE the transport prosecutor \u2019s office ordered the applicant \u2019s release from custody for the reason that the ORG had applied interim measures pursuant to LAW in respect of the applicant , and applied a different measure of restraint on the basis that the applicant \u2019s lawyer , ORG , had provided a personal guarantee that the applicant would be available for questioning and other actions related to the extradition check once released .","The applicant was then released from remand ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181146","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"WYSOWSKA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant \u2019s mother and father , PERSON and PERSON respectively , lived in PERSON ( now Lviv\u2019 in GPE ) before the Second World War . They were not married as GPE already had a wife , a certain PERSON The applicant was born into her GPE relationship on DATE .","W.B. was indicated as the applicant \u2019s natural father ( pater naturalis ) in her baptism certificate of DATE .","W.B. died in GPE on DATE . Following his death , the applicant \u2019s mother married a certain GPE","In DATE the applicant \u2019s last name was changed to that of her stepfather and in DATE her birth certificate was again amended to include GPE \u2019s first name as the father \u2019s name .","On an unknown date the applicant instituted proceedings aimed at amending further her birth certificate .","On DATE ORG allowed the change and put PERSON down as her father .","On DATE the applicant instituted inheritance proceedings regarding PERSON \u2019s estate before ORG . On DATE the court found that ORG had jurisdiction .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The court established that PERSON had died intestate on DATE in GPE . He had been married to PERSON , however , they had separated . Instead , GPE had been in a relationship for DATE with the applicant \u2019s mother . The applicant was PERSON \u2019s only child , he had no siblings and his parents had died before him .","NORP However , the court held that the applicant could not inherit her natural father \u2019s estate as she had been born out of wedlock . It found that according to the Introductory Provisions of the Civil Code , the law applicable to the proceedings was the law in force at the time of PERSON \u2019s death ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON had been a NORP citizen who had lived in GPE . PERSON had been part of GPE until DATE and the law in force in that province had been the NORP Civil Code of DATE ( NORP b\u00fcrgerliches Gesetzbuch \u2013 \u201c the ABGB \u201d ) . Under LAW ABGB illegitimate children could not inherit ab intestato from their father or father \u2019s family . As the applicant was in that position , she could not inherit her father \u2019s property .","The applicant appealed to ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the firstinstance decision and remitted the case . The court held that ORG had failed to establish a list of all PERSON \u2019s potential heirs . It further instructed the lower court to set out all the heirs , including ORG .","In accordance with those instructions , ORG summoned ORG on DATE to participate as a party to the proceedings .","On DATE ORG , represented by the Minister of ORG , filed a submission that the relevant material law applicable to the proceedings was LAW ( PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG issued a decision and declared that ORG had acquired ORG \u2019s estate . ORG established that PERSON had died on DATE in GPE . He had been married to ORG but had separated from her . PERSON and the applicant \u2019s mother PERSON had been in a relationship but they had never married . PERSON had no siblings and had not had any children with PERSON The applicant was his only child . He had not left a will and had no other heirs .","The court further maintained that according to LAW the law applicable to the proceedings was the law in force at the time of a person \u2019s death . In that regard it was first necessary to establish on which country \u2019s territory the applicant \u2019s father had been at the time of his death on DATE . The court held that DATE PERSON had been part of GPE and the capital of GPE ( wojew\u00f3dztwo lwowskie ) . On DATE the NORP uprising had begun , lasting until DATE . PERSON had then been occupied by the forces of the former GPE . Following the Yalta Conference , the Provisional Government of National Unity ( PERSON ) had signed a border agreement with the government of GPE on DATE . In that treaty , GPE had formally ceded its pre - war eastern territory to GPE , agreeing to the NORP - Soviet border drawn according to the so - called ORG . Consequently , PERSON had been part of GPE until DATE .","The court concluded that as PERSON had been within NORP borders at the time of PERSON \u2019s death , the relevant law was the ABGB , the law in force in the province of GPE . LAW ORG illegitimate children could not inherit from a father who had died intestate . Consequently , the applicant could not inherit her father \u2019s property and , as there were no other heirs , ORG had acquired ORG \u2019s estate .","The applicant appealed , submitting that while she was aware of the provisions referred to by ORG , she thought they were unfair and ran counter to the principles of community life ( zasady wsp\u00f3\u0142\u017cycia spo\u0142ecznego ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and contemporary conditions .","On DATE ORG , in a briefly worded decision , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court referred to the reasons given by ORG and held that there was no doubt that LAW had been applicable to the proceedings . It further considered that no matter how unfair the old regulations concerning illegitimate children might seem it was not possible to disregard them . That meant that under LAW , the law applicable to the inheritance proceedings was the law in force when the father had died .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal , relying in general on the case - law and provisions of LAW","On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal . It held that it was not justified to raise the issue of a significant legal question only by making a general reference to Convention case - law . A mere statement that the intertemporal rule DATE which meant that the law in force at the time of opening the succession was the relevant law \u2013 was incompatible with unspecified Convention provisions was not enough to qualify as a legal issue . The legal issue raised by the applicant had concerned in principle the interpretation of intertemporal provisions , however , she had not specified why Article PERSON of the Introductory Provisions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) should not have been interpreted literally in her case . The court stated further that there were no grounds to rely on the provisions and values of the Convention as Poland had not been bound by it at the time of the opening of the succession .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings under the Law on the Realisation of the Right to Compensation for Property left beyond the present Borders of the NORP State ( LOC o realizacji prawa do rekompensaty z tytu\u0142u pozostawienia nieruchomo\u015bci poza obecnymi granicami pa\u0144stwa polskiego ) of DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) in order to obtain compensation for property left by PERSON in GPE .","On DATE the Ma\u0142opolski Governor ( Wojewoda ) refused to grant her request on the grounds that she was not PERSON \u2019s heir .","On DATE the Minister of ORG quashed the first - instance decision on procedural grounds and remitted the case .","On DATE the PERSON Governor again refused the applicant \u2019s request on the grounds that she had not inherited her father \u2019s estate . The Governor referred to ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Governor \u2019s decision was upheld by the Minister of ORG on CARDINAL DATE . The Minister noted that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provided that in the event of a former owner \u2019s death an application for compensation should include a decision on acquiring the inheritance or on division of the inheritance . On DATE ORG dismissed a further appeal by the applicant .","On DATE ORG dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant . Referring to the decision given in the inheritance proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court held that the applicant had not inherited PERSON \u2019s estate .","Article PERSON of LAW of DATE ( LOC przepisy wprowadz\u0105jace kodeks cywilny ) ( \u201c the Introductory Provisions \u201d ) , provides that the law applicable to inheritance proceedings is the one which was in force at the time of death .","In case of doubt as to the relevant law , Article PERSON provides that LAW of DATE should apply .","DATE the Civil Code relates to the so - called \u201c principles of community life \u201d and reads as follows :","\u201c Rights may not be exercised in a manner which contradicts their socioeconomic purpose ( spo\u0142eczno - gospodarcze przeznaczenie prawa ) or the principles of community life ( zasady wsp\u00f3\u0142\u017cycia spo\u0142ecznego ) . Such an act or omission on the part of a person so entitled shall not be considered as an exercise of that right and shall not be protected by law . \u201d","The provisions relating to inheritance are laid out in ORG DATE of the Civil Code .","Article CARDINAL , provides in so far as relevant :","\u201c \u00a7 CARDINAL . NORP The property rights and obligations of a deceased person pass , upon his death , to one or several persons in accordance with the provisions of this Book [ Book Four , Inheritance ] .... \u201d","Article ORG provides :","\u201c The succession is opened on DATE deceased \u2019s death \u201d .","Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides , in so far as relevant :","\u201c \u00a7 CARDINAL . The deceased \u2019s children and spouse are by law admitted first to succession ; they inherit in equal shares . ... \u201d","After GPE regained its independence in DATE different civil codes were in use in various regions . The ORG was in force on former NORP territory ( GPE ) . Its last applicable provisions were repealed on DATE .","Under LAW , as applicable at the material time , illegitimate children could not inherit an intestate father \u2019s estate .","Pursuant to LAW , as in force at the material time , the estate was to pass to the ORG if no heir was found .","The Convention on the Legal Status of Children Born out of PERSON , drawn up within ORG entered into force on DATE . It entered into force in respect of GPE on DATE . Article CARDINAL provides in respect of succession rights as follows :","\u201c A child born out of wedlock shall have the same right of succession in the estate of its father and its mother and of a member of its father \u2019s or mother \u2019s family , as if it had been born in wedlock . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of LAW on LAW of DATE ( \u201c the Vienna Convention \u201d ) provides :","Non - retroactivity of treaties","\u201c Unless a different intention appears from the treaty or is otherwise established , its provisions do not bind a party in relation to any act or fact which took place or any situation which ceased to exist before DATE of the entry into force of the treaty with respect to that party . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161983","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF R.B. v. HUNGARY","importance":2,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant , who is of GPE origin , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , a village of CARDINAL people , CARDINAL of whom are of GPE origin .","On DATE the Movement for a Better GPE ( PERSON ) , a right - wing political party , held a demonstration in GPE . CARDINAL DATE , in connection with the demonstration , ORG for a ORG ) and CARDINAL right - wing paramilitary groups ( Bety\u00e1rsereg and V\u00e9der\u0151 ) organised marches in the GPE neighbourhood of the village .","On DATE , CARDINAL , and DATE , during the demonstration and the marches , there was a considerable police presence in GPE .","At TIME , the president of the local GPE minority self - governing body , informed the police that he and the mayor of the municipality had been threatened by people they did not know . The mayor reported on the same events to the police , explaining that DATE some CARDINAL members of the NORP minority had confronted DATE members of ORG , who were joined by CARDINAL unknown persons , CARDINAL of whom had an axe and another a whip .","As it appears from the case file , at around the same time CARDINAL men passed by the applicant \u2019s house , yelling \u201c Go inside , you damned dirty gypsies ! \u201d At this time the applicant was outside the house in her garden together with her daughter and some acquaintances . In response to the CARDINAL men , the applicant and her acquaintances told them to leave , saying that it was their village . CARDINAL of the men continued threatening them by yelling that he would build a house in the GPE neighbourhood \u201c out of their blood \u201d . He stepped towards the fence swinging an axe towards the applicant , but was held back by one of his companions .","At TIME on the same day police officers PERSON and PERSON stopped and searched CARDINAL individuals , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . PERSON , and Mr PERSON The mayor of PERSON identified CARDINAL of them , PERSON and Mr PERSON , as having participated in the incident that TIME . The men were members of LOC . PERSON informed the police that he was the leader of CARDINAL of the \u201c clans \u201d within the organisation . He said that because some members of his group , CARDINAL people , intended to come to LOC \u201c to put the GPE situation in order \u201d , he was there to \u201c scout \u201d the village . DATE , PERSON , who by then was extremely drunk , was again spotted by the police being dragged away from the GPE settlement by a female acquaintance . When questioned by the police , he said he only wanted to play football with the GPE children .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against \u201c unknown perpetrators \u201d with ORG , alleging offences of violence against a member of an ethnic group , harassment and attempted grievous bodily assault . The police opened an investigation on charges of violent harassment under section CARDINAL\/A ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .","In parallel , LOC opened an investigation on suspicion of harassment based on the report of a third person , PERSON GPE , the president of the local NORP minority self - governing body .","On DATE the applicant was heard as a witness concerning the events . She testified that CARDINAL men and a woman had passed by her house and CARDINAL of them , brandishing a whip , had threatened to build a house out of her blood .","At the request of her lawyer , ORG informed the applicant that criminal proceedings had been instituted on charges of harassment on the basis of the criminal complaint lodged by PERSON J.F. Subsequently , the applicant was informed that her complaint had been joined to that of Mr J.F.","On DATE ORG discontinued these proceedings on the grounds that harassment was punishable only if directed against a well - defined person , and that criminal liability could not be established on the basis of threats uttered \u201c in general \u201d .","The police also instituted minor offence proceedings on the ground that the impugned conduct was \u201c antisocial \u201d .","On DATE a hearing was held in the ensuing minor offence proceedings in which Mr S.T. and CARDINAL other persons , Mr C.S.F. , Mr F.W. , PERSON , PERSON , and Mr ORG appeared before LOC on charges of disorderly conduct .","All CARDINAL persons subject to the proceedings denied having threatened any members of the GPE community .","PERSON , questioned as a witness , maintained that CARDINAL of the persons subject to the proceedings had been wielding an axe and a whip and had threatened the inhabitants of the GPE settlement that they would kill them and paint the houses with their blood .","PERSON , the mayor of PERSON , identified CARDINAL of the persons as having been present in GPE on DATE , but could not confirm that the threats had been directed at the GPE .","Another witness , ORG , identified CARDINAL of the persons as having participated in the incident and maintained that it was PERSON who had threatened the inhabitants of the GPE settlement .","The applicant , who was also heard as a witness , identified Mr S.T. and Mr F.W. as having been armed and PERSON as having said that he would \u201c paint the houses with [ the applicant \u2019s ] blood . \u201d","On an unspecified date the applicant attached to the criminal file extracts from comments posted on a right - wing Internet portal in which Mr ORG had been referred to as the man who had \u201c enforced order among the Roma of Gy\u00f6ngy\u00f6spata with a single whip \u201d .","At a further court hearing on DATE the applicant \u2019s legal representative requested that the minor offence proceedings be stayed because criminal proceedings against unknown perpetrators were pending .","On DATE , following a complaint that procedural errors had been committed by ORG in the investigation of PERSON complaint , LOC informed the applicant that it had opened a separate investigation into the allegations of harassment on the basis of the applicant \u2019s complaint .","On DATE , in the criminal proceedings on charges of harassment , the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested ORG to open an investigation into \u201c violence against a member of an ethnic group \u201d under article CARDINAL\/B ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . He maintained that the motive of the threats uttered against the applicant was her GPE origin . His allegation was supported by the fact that at the material time various paramilitary groups were \u201c inspecting \u201d the GPE settlement with the aim of \u201c hindering Gypsy criminality \u201d .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused the request , finding that the use of force , the objective element of the criminal offence of \u201c violence against a member of a group \u201d under article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW as in force at the material time could not be established at that stage of the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant reiterated her request , apparently without success .","NORP The identities of the persons who had passed by the applicant \u2019s house and that of the alleged perpetrator , PERSON , were established by the investigating authorities . Moreover , ORG questioned a number of witnesses , including the applicant \u2019s acquaintances present during the incident , but CARDINAL of them provided statements relevant for the case . Mr ORG refused to testify .","On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation into harassment on the grounds that none of the witnesses heard had substantiated the applicant \u2019s allegation that she had been threatened . ORG noted that Mr S.T. had refused to testify and the witness testimony of PERSON had confirmed only that threats had been made , but not that they had been directed against a certain person .","The applicant challenged that decision , arguing that the witness testimonies had clearly stated that Mr S.T. had uttered degrading threats her . She also submitted that the investigating authorities had failed to hear Mr GPE and CARDINAL other individuals suspected of the offences .","On DATE LOC upheld the first - instance decision . ORG found that it could not be established on the basis of the witness testimonies whether Mr ORG had been armed and whether the threats and insults he had uttered had been directed at the applicant . Thus neither the criminal offence of harassment , nor \u201c violence against a member of a group \u201d could be established .","This decision was served on the applicant on DATE , informing the applicant of the possibility to pursue substitute private prosecution proceedings .","On DATE the applicant , acting as substitute private prosecutor , lodged an application with ORG , which was declared admissible on DATE .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were discontinued since the applicant had withdrawn the charges , in her submission , because of for fear of reprisals ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147521","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"TORNO v. ITALY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr Ettore Giovanni Torno and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals . They were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","NORP On DATE ORG brought an action before ORG against the applicants\u2019 father and his siblings , claiming that several archaeological relics \u2013 dating from GPE , NORP and NORP times and held in the defendants\u2019 family house DATE fell within the definition of ORG - owned public property ( patrimonio indisponibile dello Stato ) .","By a judgment delivered on DATE ORG dismissed the action . The court considered that , as the principle of public ownership of items of archaeological heritage had been established for the first time by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , the claimant should have proved that the defendants\u2019 possession was illegitimate , namely that the archaeological material in question came from excavations carried out after the above - mentioned law had entered into force .","The Ministry challenged the decision , contending that the application of the general principle \u201c possideo quia possideo \u201d in the realm of items of archaeological heritage ( that is to say , the recognition that the GPE factual possession sufficed to prove their property right ) amounted to a probatio diabolica [ impossible proof ] for the ORG , whereas for the defendants \u2013 who must have been aware of the origin of their property \u2013 the burden of adducing the proof of the lawfulness of their possession , namely that the goods in question came from excavations carried out prior to the enactment of the abovementioned law , was perfectly feasible . In any event the ORG objected that it had produced such proof since the expert technical evidence examined at the trial had proved the unlawfulness of the applicants\u2019 possession of CARDINAL archaeological pieces and it was undisputed that the GPE father had assembled his collection between the DATE and DATE , well after PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE had entered into force .","On DATE ORG dismissed the Ministry \u2019s appeal , except for the CARDINAL above - mentioned pieces that had undisputedly been discovered after DATE and were thus declared to constitute public property .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision and remitted the case to ORG for retrial . The former found that the applicable legislation ( PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , and LAW and LAW ) confirmed a principle that already existed in the judicial system , namely the assumption that , in general , items of archaeological heritage fell within the realm of public property . Hence \u2013 the defendants\u2019 private property being the exception rather than the rule DATE pursuant to LAW it was up to them and not to the claimant ministry to prove their lawful possession of the goods in question , in particular their discovery and acquisition prior to the enactment of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . Such principle was followed in subsequent judgments on the matter ( see PERSON and Practice below , paragraph CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 father passed away and the applicants declared their intention of continuing the proceedings as heirs .","On DATE ORG declared that the relics were public property and ordered the defendants to hand the archaeological goods back to the claimant .","The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the aforementioned decision , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The ORG observed in particular that the interpretation of the rules governing the burden of proof in the applicants\u2019 case was neither disproportionate nor unreasonable , especially in the light of public interest in the maintenance of artistic , historical and archaeological material . Moreover , contrary to the ORG assertion , the above - mentioned interpretation did not constitute de facto expropriation without compensation since it did not breach the right of access to a court or the right of defence in proceedings concerning the goods in question .","NORP In response to a request from the Court , on DATE , the applicants stated that , notwithstanding a formal notice issued on DATE followed by an inventory of the relics in question , ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE had not yet been enforced .","This law regulates the status of items of historical , archaeological , paleontological or artistic interest , stating the general principle of their inalienability if they can be classified as public property .","It also sets out a number of restrictions on the free use of such items when they belong to private owners in order to ensure their preservation and avoid their exportation out of the country .","As a general principle , this law provides that items of archaeological heritage , whether discovered by mere chance or through excavation , do not belong to the owner of the land or to the finder but to the ORG .","This law reinforces the above - mentioned principle of the public ownership of archaeological material , imposes a series of restrictions on its free use , circulation and exportation , and declares all items of archaeological heritage discovered on NORP territory to be public property .","The appropriation of such items , and the failure to report the finding thereof , amount to criminal offences .","NORP Moreover , any alienation or legal act executed in violation of the binding provisions of the above - mentioned law must be deemed null and void .","Under these provisions , any item of historical , archaeological , paleontological or artistic relevance found in the subsoil by anybody whatsoever and by any means whatsoever , constitutes \u201c a non - disposable public asset \u201d ( patrimonio indisponibile dello Stato ) and can not be prevented from being designated as public property except in the cases prescribed by law .","These provisions DATE which make reference to the special laws concerning items of archaeological and artistic value \u2013 provide for exceptions , with specific regard to items of archaeological heritage , to the general principle of the extension of private ownership to any items discovered in the subsoil , and to the general rule governing rewards in the event of discovery of a treasure .","NORP Under this provision the burden of proof concerning the existence of a civil law right falls on the claimant , whereas the person disputing such existence must prove the facts on which his or her objection is based .","Pursuant to this judgment , since private ownership of archaeological goods is the exception rather than the general rule , the burden of proving their lawful ownership falls on the defendant and not on the claimant ministry . In particular , the former must prove that the goods in question were discovered before PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE entered into force ( the same principle is expressed in ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148293","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KRIKUNOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and before his conviction lived in LOC .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) convicted the applicant of theft and robbery . The applicant was given a suspended sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , conditional upon CARDINAL years\u2019 probation .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and manslaughter .","On DATE ORG held that the applicant should be detained on remand . The court held as follows :","\u201c The applicant is charged with CARDINAL crimes , CARDINAL of which is a grave crime representing a high risk of public danger . [ He ] had previously been convicted of a grave crime , and had not completed his sentence . All these crimes were committed by [ the applicant ] in a state of alcoholic intoxication . [ The applicant ] has no family , does not work , and abuses alcohol . [ He ] has no means of subsistence , which may result in his committing other crimes .","and the [ applicant \u2019s ] personality , the court has grounds to believe that if not detained [ the applicant ] may continue his criminal activity , and abscond from the investigation and the court ... \u201d","On DATE the pre - trial investigation was completed and charges were brought against the applicant under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the District Prosecutor \u201d ) approved the bill of indictment .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG seeking to have the custodial measure replaced by an undertaking not to leave his place of residence .","On DATE ORG , having repeated the reasoning applied on DATE and having noted the absence of any grounds for altering the preventive measure , dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s criminal case was sent to ORG for trial .","On DATE ORG scheduled the opening date of the trial and ordered that the preventive measure should remain unchanged .","On DATE ORG referred the case to ORG in order to enable the applicant , his co - accused and the victims to study the case file . The court further held that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged .","On DATE ORG resubmitted the case to ORG for trial .","On DATE ORG scheduled the opening date of the trial and held that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged .","On DATE the applicant submitted a written waiver of his right to legal representation .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and manslaughter and , having taken into account the applicant \u2019s previous sentence of DATE , sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL August CARDINAL in so far as the charges of robbery were concerned , upheld the rest of the judgment on appeal and reduced the sentence to DATE and DATE imprisonment .","Later the applicant brought proceedings seeking to have his conviction of CARDINAL DATE reviewed in the light of newly - discovered circumstances . However , on DATE ORG in the final instance dismissed his request .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and illegal possession of firearms and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , conditional upon CARDINAL years\u2019 probation .","The applicant appealed , but later withdrew his appeal . His subsequent attempt to have the judgment reviewed by way of supervisory review was unsuccessful .","Following a request from the applicant , on DATE ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s right to inherit after his mother \u2019s death ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169479","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TIBA v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Procedure prescribed by law);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He has been a lawyer since DATE .","On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and a police officer for traffic of influence ( trafic de influen\u0163\u0103 ) . The applicant was accused , as a lawyer , of having requested and received money from a client in return for persuading certain judges , other than in the context of the judicial proceedings , to adopt a favourable judgment in his client \u2019s case .","On DATE the case prosecutor authorised several police officers to enforce a warrant to appear ( mandat de aducere ) issued in the applicant \u2019s name on the basis of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Procedure Code . According to the warrant , the applicant \u2019s presence was required in order to be heard as a suspect ( \u00eenvinuit ) in the criminal investigation instituted in File no . CARDINAL\/P\/CARDINAL . No other reasons or conditions were stated on the authorisation or the warrant itself .","On DATE at TIME a police officer went to the applicant \u2019s office in the city of GPE to enforce the warrant to appear . According to the police officer \u2019s report , the applicant was shown the warrant to appear and was escorted to the police station in the nearby town of PERSON . At CARDINAL a.m. the applicant was handed over to CARDINAL other police officers who escorted him to the GPE office of ORG ) . According to the escorting police ORG report , which was signed also by the applicant , he was handed over to the prosecutor at TIME","According to the record of the statements the applicant made before the prosecutor , he was heard as a suspect by the prosecutor at the ORG from TIME After the questioning the applicant was charged with the crime of traffic of influence .","According to the applicant , his phone , wallet and watch had been confiscated by the police officers and were held during this entire time . Moreover , he had been constantly guarded by the police .","By an order issued on DATE the applicant was placed in police custody for TIME commencing at TIME","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s request for the placement of the applicant in pre - trial detention for DATE was allowed by ORG . The applicant complained before the court that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty from TIME to TIME on DATE . He requested that the above - mentioned period be deducted from his time in custody . The court considered that it was not competent to decide on this complaint and suggested that the applicant should have used the procedure provided by LAW .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against that judgment , reiterating that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty . On DATE ORG and ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as ill - founded without addressing his complaint regarding the lawfulness of his detention prior to his placement in police custody .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty with final effect and given a suspended sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for traffic of influence ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164006","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"KO\u010cEVSKI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr \u017d. Had\u017ei - GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE bankruptcy proceedings were opened against a formerly socially - owned company ( \u201c S. \u201d ) .","On DATE , while the bankruptcy proceedings were still pending , the applicant was appointed acting manager of S.","By a decision which became final on DATE ORG upheld a claim ( \u0443\u0442\u0432\u0440\u0434\u0443\u0432\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043e \u043f\u043e\u0431\u0430\u0440\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) against S. in favour of a certain Mr D.T. ( a former employee of S. ) in the amount of MONEY ( MKD ) .","On DATE the bankruptcy proceedings against S. were stayed and consent ( \u0441\u043e\u0433\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) was given for proceedings to be instituted for the restructuring of S. under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","According to a document ( \u0430\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043a\u0430 \u043a\u0430\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) issued on DATE by PERSON , Mr D.T. owed S. MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","On DATE an investigating judge questioned the applicant and opened an investigation against him and CARDINAL other people suspected of abuse of office ( \u0437\u043b\u043e\u0443\u043f\u043e\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0431\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0435\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0436\u0431\u0430 \u0438 \u043e\u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) .","At a hearing held on DATE , the trial court dismissed an application lodged by CARDINAL former employees of S. to be represented as victims ( \u043e\u0448\u0442\u0435\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438 ) at the trial . It is not evident from the case file whether Mr D.T. was among those employees .","On DATE the applicant was remanded in custody . Subsequently , he submitted several requests to be released on bail which were to no avail . In those requests he made no reference to his state of health .","NORP On DATE FAC ( \u201c the prison authorities \u201d ) requested that ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) allow the applicant to be medically examined as his health had deteriorated . The request referred to a note of DATE in which the prison doctor diagnosed the applicant as suffering from sindroma psihoorganicum incipiens ( presumably early - stage psycho - organic syndrome ) . On DATE Judge PERSON granted that request . No information was submitted as to whether the applicant was examined or the results of the examination .","On DATE the prison authorities requested that the trial court allow the applicant to undergo a psychological examination . They referred to a note dated CARDINAL DATE , in which the prison doctor had made the same diagnosis ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At a hearing held on DATE , the applicant , who was represented by CARDINAL lawyers , lodged his own request for his psychological examination . The trial court dismissed both requests on the grounds that they were not sufficiently detailed . At that hearing the court examined CARDINAL witnesses . PERSON applicant questioned one of them .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of the trial court presided by Judge PERSON convicted the applicant and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court found that in DATE the applicant had ordered the CARDINAL co - accused to acknowledge false claims made by another company , PERSON ( also undergoing bankruptcy proceedings ) against PERSON and to transfer those claims to a third company , B. , which had been owned by the applicant . The false claims had later been transformed into PERCENT of S. \u2019s capital , on the basis of which B. ( subsequently renamed to company FAC ) became PERSON \u2019s main shareholder . The court found that a programme for the financial transformation of PERSON ( \u201c the programme \u201d ) had been prepared at the applicant \u2019s request . On DATE appendices to the programme had been prepared , but they had not been presented to the creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings or to ORG . The court concluded that the competent institutions had taken a positive stance ( \u043f\u043e\u0437\u0438\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e \u0441\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u043d\u0435\u043b\u0435 ) concerning PERSON \u2019s transformation , but that they had been unaware of the circumstances concerning the acknowledgment of the debt towards PERSON and concerning the transformation of the debt into a share in PERSON The judgment further stated that , as a result of the alleged debt , PERSON had been brought to insolvency ( \u043d\u0435\u0433\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0458\u0431\u0430 ) and that without that debt , the deficit of S. would have been significantly smaller and could have been consolidated by selling some of S. \u2019s immovable property .","On DATE S. complained to ORG that Judge PERSON had been biased , since Mr D.T. was the unmarried partner of Judge PERSON and a former employee of S. He had rented business LOC from LOC for which he owed PERSON approximately MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in unpaid rent . He allegedly owed S. a further MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . A claim against S. had been established by a court decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The DATE newspaper ORG ( according to the applicant , in its edition of CARDINAL DATE ) published an article about the criminal proceedings against the applicant . The article stated that Mr D.T. had both a claim against and a debt ( which he had never paid ) to S. and that he was Judge PERSON \u2019s unmarried partner . It included a statement by the applicant \u2019s brother according to which the applicant and his family had learnt about those facts DATE the trial court \u2019s judgment had been pronounced .","The applicant \u2019s CARDINAL representatives lodged CARDINAL separate appeals against the judgment of DATE . A fourth appeal was lodged by the applicant \u2019s son . In the appeals it was argued , inter alia , that the trial court had not been impartial given that Mr D.T. , the unmarried partner of Judge PERSON , owed S. money and had a claim against it . On CARDINAL DATE details concerning Mr D.T. \u2019s alleged financial relations with PERSON had been published in a DATE newspaper . It was further argued that the trial court had failed to obtain an expert opinion about the applicant \u2019s poor state of health , which had affected his ability to follow the trial .","On DATE a psychiatrist ( V.V. ) examined the applicant in the detention department of GPE hospital . According to a handwritten note issued by GPE on DATE , it was necessary to transfer the applicant to a psychiatric hospital . In view of his psychological state , he could not attend the trial , nor could his statements be considered valid until a definitive diagnosis was established .","The applicant stayed in the psychiatric hospital from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE a psychologist drew up a report on the applicant \u2019s psychological state , at his own request . The report stated , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s thinking process was slow and that he was unable to respond to complex tasks requiring an increased level of abstraction and generalisation . A memory deficit was noted . The report concluded as follows :","\u201c The results of the psychological examination confirm affective and thought distortions of a depressive and paranoid character , as well as psycho - organic syndrome ( \u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u043e\u043e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442 ) , which are deeply disrupting the mental state of the examinee resulting in profound psychological deviation . The examinee lacks insight and criticality for the condition in which he has been placed following the indictment \u201d .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the appellate court \u201d ) held a public session , which the applicant and his CARDINAL representatives attended . The applicant notified the second - instance court of the deterioration in his health . The applicant \u2019s lawyers argued that the applicant \u2019s defence rights had been infringed at the hearing of DATE because witnesses had been heard despite the fact that the applicant had requested a psychological examination in order to assess his capacity to follow the trial . They did not submit copies of the note of CARDINAL DATE or of the report of CARDINAL DATE . The lawyers also repeated the arguments as to the alleged impartiality of Judge PERSON given that her partner had both a debt to and a claim against S.","On DATE , the appellate court dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c The court assessed the complaint concerning an [ alleged ] substantial violation of procedural law of section PERSON ) of [ LAW ] ... that the unmarried partner of [ Judge PERSON ] had a direct interest in the outcome of these criminal proceedings ... but dismissed the complaint as groundless .","Namely , under the provision of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] , there is an absolute substantial violation of procedural law only if a judge or a lay judge who needed to be excluded ( section CARDINAL ) ) participated at the trial . It is obvious from the complaints in this respect that they are based on an alleged existence of a reason for exclusion under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , that is to say outside the reasons for mandatory exclusion under the provision of section CARDINAL ) of the Act ...","Subsequently , the court assessed the complaint concerning an [ alleged ] substantial violation of procedural law of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) in conjunction with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] with the same content , but did not accept it as grounded , because on the basis of the established facts of the case it can not be found that there existed a direct link between the pecuniary interests of the unmarried partner of [ Judge PERSON ] and the object of these criminal proceedings , which would be of such a nature as to put into doubt the impartiality of the Judge in the performing of her adjudicating function in the criminal proceedings .","The court assessed the complaint concerning an [ alleged ] substantial violation of procedural law ... that the trial court , contrary to law , had examined witnesses ... on DATE outside the trial , ... [ notwithstanding that there had been a ] previous request for a psychiatric examination of the [ applicant ] in order to assess his mental capacity to follow the trial , but dismissed the complaint as groundless .","Namely , it is evident from the record from the witnesses\u2019 ... questioning ... [ that ] all of the accused who were present at the hearing had the right to put questions to the witnesses , [ and ] this right was exercised by some of the accused , including [ the applicant ] , which clearly points to the conclusion that [ the applicant ] was not only capable of following the trial , but he could also actively participate by putting questions to the witnesses as one of the corpus of minimum rights guaranteed to each accused by LAW ... , LAW and LAW as a basic international document on the matter . \u201d","NORP The court further found that the bankruptcy proceedings against S. had been opened on DATE and stayed on DATE . On DATE , consent ( \u0441\u043e\u0433\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) had been given for the institution of proceedings for the transformation of S. on the basis of the programme for financial and ownership transformation , which had been approved by ORG .","The applicant challenged that judgment by means of a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u043e\u043d\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0438\u0441\u043f\u0438\u0442\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0441\u0438\u043b\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430 ) . He reiterated his complaints concerning the alleged lack of impartiality of Judge PERSON and concerning his request for a psychological examination . He did not submit a copy of the report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request and upheld the lower courts\u2019 judgments . It referred to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and found as follows :","\u201c In the present case ... it does not transpire ( \u043d\u0438\u043a\u0430\u0434\u0435 \u043d\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u043b\u0435\u0433\u0443\u0432\u0430 ) that the unmarried partner of [ Judge PERSON ] submitted a compensation or [ other ] pecuniary claim ... in these proceedings . ... neither in the preliminary proceedings nor at the trial did the unmarried partner of [ Judge PERSON ] lodge a compensation claim and he does not have the status of a victim in the proceedings , within the meaning of the provisions of LAW . In such circumstances ... the impartiality of [ Judge PERSON ] in the performance of her judicial function in the criminal proceedings can not be put into doubt .","... all those convicted who attended the examination ( of the witnesses ) had the right to question them , [ and ] this right was exercised by some of the accused , including [ the applicant ] , which leads to a conclusion that [ the applicant ] was not only capable of following the trial , but he was also able to participate actively by putting questions to the witnesses ... \u201d","On DATE , the applicant , who was transferred in the meantime to ORG , lodged a request for extraordinary mitigation of his sentence ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u043e\u043d\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e \u0443\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0436\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043a\u0430\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 ) . The prison authorities immediately communicated the request to ORG . The request was accompanied by a medical report drawn up by the prison doctor on DATE regarding the applicant \u2019s health since DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s request and reduced his sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . It took into account as new relevant circumstances the deterioration of his health and that of members of his family , as well as the positive opinion of the prison authorities .","The relevant provisions of LAW in force at the material time provided as follows :","...","( CARDINAL ) Every accused person has the following minimum rights :","...","- to have sufficient time and possibilities ( \u043c\u043e\u0436\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 ) to prepare his or her defence ...","( CARDINAL ) A judge or a lay - judge can not perform his or her judicial function if :","( CARDINAL ) he or she has suffered damages as a result of the criminal offence ;","( CARDINAL ) the accused , his or her defence lawyer , the claimant ( \u0442\u0443\u0436\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u043e\u0442 ) , the damaged party or their legal or other representative is a married or unmarried partner or a relative ... ;","( CARDINAL ) he or she is a custodian , an adoptive parent , an adoptive child ... of the accused , his or her defence lawyer , the claimant or the damaged party ;","( CARDINAL ) he or she has undertaken investigative measures in the same criminal proceedings or has participated in assessing the indictment before the trial , or has participated in the proceedings as a claimant , defence lawyer , legal or other representative of the damaged party or the claimant , or has been heard as a witness or as an expert ; and","( CARDINAL ) in the same proceedings , he or she has participated in the rendering of the decision by a lower court or , in the same court , he or she has participated in the rendering of the decision challenged with the appeal .","( CARDINAL ) A judge or a lay - judge can be excluded from performing the judicial function , apart from the cases listed under subsection ( CARDINAL ) of this section , if evidence is submitted casting doubts as to his or her impartiality .","When he or she learns that a reason for exclusion of section CARDINAL subsection ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW exists , a judge or a lay - judge is obliged to stop his or her work on the case and to inform the president of the court , who will name a replacement . ...","( CARDINAL ) Exclusion can be also sought by the parties .","( CARDINAL ) The parties can seek exclusion until the commencement of the main hearing , and if they found out later about the reason for exclusion , immediately after finding out .","...","( CARDINAL ) Apart from the cases explicitly provided for by this LAW , the main hearing will be adjourned with a decision of the panel if it is necessary to obtain new evidence , or if during the main hearing it is established that , after the offence had been committed , the accused started suffering from a temporary psychological illness or temporary mental disorder or if there are other obstacles to the trial being conducted successfully .","...","( CARDINAL ) There is a substantial violation of procedural law if :","...","( CARDINAL ) a judge or lay - judge who had to be excluded ( section CARDINAL ) ) participated at the trial ...","( CARDINAL ) There is also a substantial violation of procedural law if the court , while preparing the trial or at the trial , or in adopting its decision did not apply or wrongfully applied a provision of this LAW , or violated the right to defence at the trial , which affected or could have affected the lawful and correct adjudication .","...","Mitigation of a finally imposed sentence is allowed when , after the judgment became final , circumstances come to light which did not exist when the judgment was pronounced , or the court was not aware of their existence , and which would obviously lead to a more lenient conviction ( \u043f\u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0433\u0430 \u043e\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430 ) . \u201d","The relevant provisions read as follows :","The creditors can apply to the bankruptcy panel for a temporary stay of the bankruptcy proceedings and for the company to be allowed to continue to operate .","...","Within DATE the executive board adopts a programme for financial and ownership transformation , which encompasses the measures , actions and activities for long - term consolidation of the company , and in particular ...","- ...","- conversion of the debt into a permanent share ( \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0437\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u043e\u043b\u0433\u043e\u0442 \u0432\u043e \u0442\u0440\u0430\u0435\u043d \u0432\u043b\u043e\u0433 ) ;","...","After the recovery ( \u0441\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435\u0442\u043e ) and reorganisation of the debtor company , the executive board adopts a decision to transform ownership to a joint stock company ( \u0430\u043a\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0440\u0441\u043a\u043e \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0448\u0442\u0432\u043e ) or a limited liability company ( \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0448\u0442\u0432\u043e \u0441\u043e \u043e\u0433\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0430 \u043e\u0434\u0433\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) .","On the basis of an opinion of the [ ORG ] on the decision mentioned in ... [ the paragraph above ] , the bankruptcy panel adopts a decision giving consent ( \u0441\u043e\u0433\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) to the institution of transformation proceedings , which stays the bankruptcy proceedings .","...","If the recovery and reorganisation of the debtor company do not provide the expected results , the executive board proposes that the bankruptcy panel continue the bankruptcy proceedings .","The bankruptcy proceedings are also continued if the bankruptcy panel does not give the consent mentioned in ... this section . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163056","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160LAKU v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+P1-3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election;Right to free elections-{general});Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant belongs to ORG \u2019s NORP ethnic minority . He actively participates in the social and political life of the country .","On DATE the applicant obtained written confirmation by ORG that in accordance with LAW members of ethnic minorities were ineligible to stand for election to the Presidency and ORG of ORG of GPE ."],"violated_articles":["14","P1","P12"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3","P12-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156080","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF GAZS\u00d3 v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","DATE and DATE , litigation was in progress between the applicant and his former employer . The latter was eventually obliged to re - employ the applicant .","The applicant did not accept the position that was offered to him in pursuit of the re - employment order . New litigation started on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action .","On appeal , on DATE ORG reversed this decision and found for the applicant .","The respondent pursued a petition for review before the LOC . On CARDINAL DATE this court reversed the appeal judgment and found for the respondent ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157363","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ZAMET - BUDOWA MASZYN SP\u00d3\u0141KA AKCYJNA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON - Budowa Maszyn PERSON , is a NORP joint stock company with its registered seat in GPE . It was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150831","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"HEINANEN v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant owns all the shares in CARDINAL limited liability companies . Apparently , in spite of their being limited liability companies , he was the only person running them .","In DATE the tax authorities carried out a tax inspection in the first company and concluded that it had failed to declare and pay a considerable amount of tax and that it had , inter alia , paid salaries off the books and undertaken other fraudulent activities . It appeared that the company had been operating entirely on the black market .","The tax authorities carried out a tax inspection in the second company after the police investigation concerning the applicant \u2019s activities had been concluded in DATE .","On DATE the tax authorities imposed additional tax and tax surcharges ( veronkorotus , skattef\u00f6rh\u00f6jning ) on the applicant for DATE as they found that the applicant had withdrawn cash from the second company which the tax authorities considered as disguised dividends .","On DATE the tax authorities imposed additional taxes and tax surcharges on the applicant for DATE as they found that the applicant had also withdrawn cash from the first company which was considered as disguised dividends .","The applicant apparently did not appeal against those decisions . The period set for appeal in tax matters is DATE counted from the beginning of the calendar year following DATE when the initial taxation decision was made . Therefore , the taxation concerning DATE became final on DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE the local tax office requested the police to investigate the applicant \u2019s activities in relation to the first company . On DATE the applicant was arrested . On DATE a police investigation into the applicant \u2019s actions in the second company was initiated .","On DATE the prosecutor brought charges against the applicant for , inter alia , aggravated accounting offence ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 kirjanpitorikos , grovt bokf\u00f6ringsbrott ) and aggravated tax fraud ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 veropetos , grovt skattebedr\u00e4geri ) concerning his activities as the owner of the CARDINAL companies .","On DATE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) delivered its judgment . The applicant appealed against this judgment to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) , alleging that CARDINAL of the lay judges sitting in the case had been partial . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . However , on DATE ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) accepted the applicant \u2019s appeal and quashed the lower courts\u2019 judgments . The case was referred back to ORG for a new examination .","On DATE the prosecutor repeated the charges . CARDINAL counts concerned the applicant \u2019s activity in the first company from DATE and CARDINAL counts concerned the applicant \u2019s activity in the second company from DATE . According to the charges , the applicant was accused of aggravated tax fraud as he had failed to submit a tax declaration for both companies and , consequently , no income tax had been paid or imposed on the companies . On another count of aggravated tax fraud the applicant was accused of not declaring the salaries paid and , consequently , the taxes and social security payments had been too low . The tax authorities joined the charges and presented a compensation claim totalling approximately the amount of avoided taxes .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant , inter alia , of CARDINAL counts of aggravated tax fraud for having failed to submit a tax declaration for the CARDINAL companies in question for DATE . He was sentenced to imprisonment for DATE and DATE and ordered , together with another convicted person , to pay the tax authorities CARDINAL ( ORG ) plus interest in compensation . The court also ordered an extended forfeiture of the proceeds of crime . In addition , the applicant was banned from undertaking business activities for DATE .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , requesting that ORG judgment be partly quashed and that a part of the charges be dismissed . He admitted some of the charges . The applicant relied also on the principle of ne bis in idem and the ORG \u2019s case - law in that respect with regard to the aggravated tax fraud and the tax surcharges imposed on him in the meantime .","On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG upheld ORG judgment . It considered that , as the prosecutor had pressed charges for the first time on DATE and the tax surcharges were imposed only after that date , the ne bis in idem principle could not prevent the examination of charges .","By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG .","On DATE ORG , after having examined the question of extended forfeiture of the proceeds of crime and quashed a part of it , upheld ORG judgment otherwise .","Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( laki verotusmenettelyst\u00e4 , lagen om beskattningsf\u00f6rfarande , Act no . DATE , as amended by Act no . DATE ) provides that if a person has failed to make the required tax returns or has given incomplete , misleading or false information to the tax authorities and tax has therefore been incompletely or partially levied , the taxpayer shall be ordered to pay unpaid taxes together with additional tax and a tax surcharge .","According to LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen , as amended by Acts no . DATE and no . DATE ) , a person who ( CARDINAL ) gives a tax authority false information on a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) files a tax return concealing a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) for the purpose of avoiding tax , fails to observe a duty pertaining to taxation , influencing the assessment of tax , or ( CARDINAL ) acts otherwise fraudulently and thereby causes or attempts to cause a tax not to be assessed , or too low a tax to be assessed or a tax to be unduly refunded , shall be sentenced for tax fraud to a fine or to imprisonment for a period of DATE . If by the tax fraud ( CARDINAL ) considerable financial benefit is sought or ( CARDINAL ) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical manner and the tax fraud is aggravated when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated tax fraud to imprisonment for a period DATE .","ORG has taken a stand on the ne bis in idem principle in its precedent case ORG which concerned tax surcharges and aggravated tax fraud . In that case it found , inter alia , that even though a final judgment in a taxation case , in which tax surcharges had been imposed , prevented criminal charges being brought about the same matter , such preventive effect could not be applied to pending cases ( lis pendens ) crossing from administrative proceedings to criminal proceedings or vice versa . However , in DATE ORG reversed its line of interpretation , finding that charges for tax fraud could no longer be brought if there was already a decision to order or not to order tax surcharges in the same matter ( PERSON CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) .","The Act on Tax Surcharges and Customs Duty Surcharges Imposed by a Separate Decision ( laki erillisell\u00e4 p\u00e4\u00e4t\u00f6ksell\u00e4 m\u00e4\u00e4r\u00e4tt\u00e4v\u00e4st\u00e4 veron- tai tullinkorotuksesta , lagen om skattef\u00f6rh\u00f6jning och tullh\u00f6jning som p\u00e5f\u00f6rs genom ett s\u00e4rskilt beslut , Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE . According to the LAW , the tax authorities can , when making a tax decision , assess whether to impose a tax surcharge or to report the matter to the police . The tax authorities can decide not to impose a tax surcharge . If they have not reported the matter to the police , a tax surcharge can be imposed by a separate decision by the end of the calendar year following the actual tax decision . If the tax authorities have imposed tax surcharges , they can no longer report the same matter to the police unless , after imposing the tax surcharges , they have received evidence of new or recently revealed facts . If the tax authorities have reported the matter to the police , tax surcharges can , as a rule , no longer be imposed . The purpose of the LAW is thus to ensure that a tax or a customs duty matter is processed and possibly punished in CARDINAL set of proceedings . The LAW does not , however , contain any transitional provisions extending its scope retroactively ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147271","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF T. AND A. v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on charge;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)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicants arrived in GPE from GPE . They were planning to fly to GPE ( GPE ) from GPE FAC on DATE .","At TIME on DATE the applicants were about to board the plane for GPE , but were prevented from doing so by officers from the private airport security company . It was alleged that the second applicant \u2019s passport photograph did not resemble him and could belong to someone else . Both applicants were taken to the \u201c problematic passenger room \u201d at the office of the passport police for an examination of the second applicant \u2019s passport .","At TIME on DATE the applicants signed documents entitled \u201c Report of apprehension and custody \/ rights of suspects and accused persons \u201d , which set out their rights within the context of their arrest . According to the report which the first applicant signed , she had been apprehended on account of \u201c being an accomplice to false identity \u201d . The reports stated that a public prosecutor had been informed of the apprehension . However , the prosecutor did not order that the applicants be taken into police custody . The reports signed by the applicants do not bear the signature of an interpreter .","According to a report drafted by QUANTITY police officers at TIME , the police asked CARDINAL of the public prosecutors at the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office for instructions on how to proceed . The public prosecutor ordered that the photographs , fingerprints and statements of the first applicant , ORG , be taken ; that the second applicant , PERSON , be transferred to the PERSON police station juvenile department and that the passport in question be seized for an examination of its authenticity .","The second applicant was kept at the office of the passport police at FAC until TIME on DATE . He was then transferred to the PERSON police station juvenile department following the instructions of the public prosecutor , before being sent to the police criminal laboratory in order to establish his identity .","On DATE the ORG decided to confiscate the second applicant \u2019s passport .","On DATE the second applicant was taken to the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office . His statements were taken by the public prosecutor , who decided to impose an administrative sanction under LAW and to release him .","Later on DATE the police criminal laboratory issued a report establishing the authenticity of the second applicant \u2019s passport .","Subsequently , the police received instructions from CARDINAL of the prosecutors from the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office to either hand the second applicant over to a family member or transfer him to social services .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was handed over to CARDINAL of his relatives , Mr. PERSON , who was also the first applicant \u2019s husband . At the same time his passport was given back to him as its authenticity had been proved .","Meanwhile , following the arrest of the first applicant at the airport on DATE , her photograph and fingerprints were taken . At TIME on the same day she was questioned by CARDINAL police officers at GPE FAC with the help of another police officer , who acted as an interpreter . The first applicant was informed that she had been brought to the office of the passport police on suspicion that she had helped the second applicant to travel abroad with a passport which had not belonged to him . In her statements , the applicant maintained that the second applicant was a relative of her husband and that his mother was a NORP citizen . She denied the veracity of the allegations against her .","The first applicant continued to be detained at the airport detention facility until DATE .","At TIME on DATE the first applicant was transferred from the airport detention facility to the NORP Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre .","At TIME on DATE the first applicant was deported to GPE .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office against PERSON , GPE and GPE , officers on duty at the time of the applicants\u2019 detention at GPE FAC . He requested that an investigation be initiated against the aforementioned officers who had abused their power and unlawfully deprived his client of her liberty . The lawyer submitted that the authenticity of the second applicant \u2019s passport had been established and that the first applicant had been detained at the airport without a legal basis . He stressed that if his client had been suspected of having committed an offence , the police should have kept her for TIME . He requested that his client be brought before a public prosecutor or be released . In his petition , the lawyer also complained of overcrowding and the material conditions of the airport detention room where his client had been held .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor took statements from CARDINAL police officers who had been on duty at the time of the first applicant \u2019s detention . Both officers maintained that the first applicant had been kept in detention pending her transfer to the ORG Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre attached to the GPE security directorate .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against those police officers . In his decision , the public prosecutor noted that the first applicant had been subject to a criminal investigation following the instructions of the public prosecutor on duty and that she had been held at the ORG detention centre ( misafirhane - guesthouse ) at the airport . The public prosecutor considered that the delay in the first applicant \u2019s release had occurred on account of the administrative procedure regarding her deportation and that the police officers had not acted with the intention of committing the offence of abuse of power .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer objected to the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In his petition he brought to the attention of ORG the issues of the alleged unlawfulness of the first applicant \u2019s detention , the absence of information given to the first applicant about her arrest , the unlawfulness of her deportation without being notified by a deportation order and the alleged poor conditions of detention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s objection , holding that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been in accordance with the law .","In the meantime , following the criminal complaint lodged by the first applicant , a disciplinary inquiry was initiated into GPE , GPE and GPE by the GPE security directorate . On DATE the GPE security directorate decided not to bring disciplinary proceedings against the officers in view of the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . In the decision , it was noted that the applicants had been subject to misdemeanour proceedings and that the first applicant had not been in police custody but had been held in the ORG detention centre ( misafirhane - guesthouse ) at the airport .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer objected to the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In his petition , he submitted the same arguments as those he had submitted to ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG held that it did not have jurisdiction to render a judgment on the merits of the first applicant \u2019s objection , given that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had not refused authorisation to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers . The court noted that in order to annul the administrative decision in question , the applicant should have lodged an action with the administrative courts .","The first applicant claimed that the detention room at GPE FAC had been overcrowded at the time of her detention , which had lasted TIME . She submitted that she had been kept in a room measuring approximately QUANTITY . m , which had been divided into CARDINAL sections by a partition . CARDINAL of the sections had a window but the other one received no natural light . The applicant claimed that she had been kept in the latter section with CARDINAL other people at a time . There was no fresh air and the overcrowding of the room led to problems of hygiene . The applicant also claimed that there had been no furniture in the room suitable for sleeping on , and that in any case it had been impossible to lie down due to the overcrowding . She also claimed that she had had no access to fresh air throughout her detention at the airport and that she had been unable to go to the toilets unless she had been accompanied by officers .","The Government maintained that the applicant had been detained in a waiting room located in the legal services department of the airport security directorate . The room in question measured QUANTITY m. It received direct sunlight through windows and had a ventilation system . They noted that the room had a padded sitting area for rest and sleep , and was cleaned DATE . The Government contended that detainees used the toilet of the security directorate . According to the Government \u2019s submissions , in total CARDINAL persons were detained in that room DATE .","The Government submitted a black - and - white photograph of the room where the first applicant had been detained . The photograph shows CARDINAL separate areas divided by a partition . The area on the right side of the photograph has CARDINAL windows , CARDINAL divans and CARDINAL chairs . This part of the room appears to be well lit . The left side of the photograph shows a dark area without a window in which there are CARDINAL chairs and a divan . Both areas appear to be clean .","The Government further submitted CARDINAL lists to the ORG containing the names of the detainees kept in police custody at the GPE Atat\u00fcrk airport detention facility on CARDINAL and DATE , the reasons for their detention , the nationality of the detainees , and the date and time of their arrest . According to those lists , at TIME on DATE a total of CARDINAL persons were detained at FAC ( CARDINAL men and CARDINAL women ) , whereas at TIME on DATE , there were QUANTITY detainees in custody ( CARDINAL men and QUANTITY women ) . The first applicant \u2019s name appears on the list of CARDINAL DATE but not on the list dated DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142450","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ZAHI v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP and NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE a flat , measuring a total of QUANTITY and located in GPE city centre ( hereinafter : \u201c the flat \u201d ) , was nationalised from its previous owners PERSON and ORG","M.M. , who was subsequently granted a specially protected tenancy of the flat , lived there with her heir PERSON The latter , however , left to study in GPE but stayed in the flat during her visits to GPE .","In an unspecified period in DATE , PERSON was treated in the ORG ( Klini\u010dki bolni\u010dki centar ORG milosrdnice ) where the applicant worked as a trainee physician and his wife , GPE , worked as a nurse . In these circumstances they came to meet PERSON","On an unspecified date in DATE PERSON died .","After the breakout of the armed conflict in GPE in DATE , ORG \u2019s family ( her mother ORG , her brother PERSON . PERSON and sister GPE ) came to live in GPE as displaced persons coming from an occupied territory of GPE . It appears that upon their arrival in GPE they were provided with accommodation by the local refugee agencies . When the conflict ended , ORG and her children submitted a request for reconstruction of their family home in the former occupied territory which had been damaged in the conflict . The request was granted and the house was renovated in DATE , after which they lost their right to accommodation as provided for in section CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o privremenom kori\u0161tenju stanova ) ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","On DATE the applicant , who was living at the time with ORG in a city near GPE that was not in a part of the country affected by the armed conflict , entered the flat by breaking a window and the front door . The neighbours immediately informed the police , who attended at the scene on DATE where they found the applicant , GPE and her mother ORG , as well as the tenant of the flat PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and another person accompanying her . The applicant argued that the late PERSON had promised to leave the flat to him and the police left without taking any further action at the scene .","DATE , the police informed ORG ( Grad GPE ) that the applicant and his family had forcefully entered the flat . A council official who came to the scene found that the applicant and his family had entered the flat without having any legal right to be there and therefore ordered him to vacate the flat . The applicant ignored these orders , requesting a written decision on the matter . The eviction was disrupted after the civil defence siren signalled an attack on GPE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant and his family ( his wife GPE , and her relatives GPE , GPE and PERSON . P. ) to vacate the flat within DATE . This decision was made enforceable on DATE , which was later confirmed on appeal on DATE .","An attempt to evict the applicant from the flat was made on DATE . ORG offered the applicant the opportunity to move to another flat where he could live with his family free of charge but he refused that accommodation , stating that he would only move out of the flat if the council provided him with accommodation in one of the most expensive hotels in GPE .","A further attempt to evict the applicant from the flat was made on DATE but again to no avail , because the applicant refused to move and his wife was now pregnant .","On an unspecified date the police lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant and his wife with ORG Attorney \u2019s Office . ORG Attorney \u2019s Office rejected the criminal complaint on DATE , finding that while it had been undoubtedly established that the applicant had broken into the flat unlawfully , given his personal circumstances and particularly the fact that he had a pregnant wife and a small child , a criminal prosecution was not necessary since the eviction proceedings would in any event settle the issue .","Parallel to the administrative eviction proceedings , on DATE PERSON lodged a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) seeking the applicant \u2019s eviction from the flat . The claim was granted on DATE and this decision became final on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution ordering the applicant and his family to vacate the flat .","This decision of ORG was never enforced because for a while the applicant could not be reached , and on DATE the eviction was postponed after it was determined that no alternative accommodation had been found for the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL small children . In this regard an attempt was made on DATE to find accommodation for the applicant and his family , but the only possibility which existed at the time was to accommodate them outside GPE . A further attempt was made by PERSON to settle the dispute , but the applicant also refused her offer . Eventually , on DATE the enforcement proceedings were discontinued after ORG withdrew her enforcement request .","On DATE the applicant , his wife GPE and her relatives lodged a request with ORG asking that they be granted temporary accommodation in the flat under LAW , which was enacted on DATE and came into force on DATE with a view to solving the problem of accommodation of refugees DATE internally displaced persons by providing them with accommodation in publicly - owned lodgings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG housing department granted the applicant \u2019s wife , GPE , and her family ( mother ORG , brother PERSON . P. and sisters PERSON . P. ) temporary accommodation in the flat after having found that they could be considered refugees \u2013 internally displaced persons within the meaning of LAW . The applicant was not granted temporary accommodation .","NORP The decision stated that the accommodation was granted for DATE and that upon the expiry of that period the occupants were obliged to vacate the flat . It also stated that by being provided with temporary accommodation the occupants did not obtain , nor could they obtain , a specially protected tenancy of the flat .","In the period DATE and DATE the applicant requested several times that he and his family be given the opportunity to purchase the flat , relying on his personal situation and the status of his family .","In a letter of DATE ORG indicated that temporary accommodation in the flat had been granted to the applicant \u2019s family even though they had omitted to reveal in their application that they had unlawfully entered the flat . Therefore , they had no legal right to stay in the flat . In CARDINAL letters of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG stressed that if the applicant \u2019s application for housing was given priority it would be acting contrary to the domestic law establishing priority lists for housing allocation . It also emphasised that the only reason why the eviction had never been carried out was the fact that the applicant \u2019s family were not able to return to their home .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for the right to purchase the flat on favourable terms . He relied on the decision to grant temporary accommodation and his status as a disabled war veteran , since he had in the meantime served the NORP army and obtained the status of disabled war veteran .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request and sold him the flat . On DATE a copy of the purchase contract was submitted to ORG , which gave its approval . The applicant paid the price of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) and registered his ownership with the land registry .","In DATE ORG discovered that the applicant was in fact not on the list granting disabled war veterans , who had been allocated flats for temporary accommodation , the right to purchase flats owned by ORG on favourable terms , and that the applicant had therefore had no legal right to be granted the right to purchase the flat on such terms .","On DATE ORG invited the applicant to settle the existing situation amicably by agreeing to the voluntary annulment of the contract and repayment of the purchase price . After the applicant ignored that offer , ORG referred the case to ORG Attorney \u2019s Office .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG , on behalf of ORG , lodged a civil action in ORG seeking to have the purchase contract between the applicant and ORG declared null and void on the grounds that the applicant had had no legal right to buy the flat on favourable terms . It pointed out that the applicant himself had never been granted temporary accommodation in the flat and that he had not been on ORG list of disabled war veterans who had the right to purchase a flat on favourable terms .","The applicant defended the civil action and lodged a counterclaim seeking damages in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . His counterclaim was severed into a separate case , and those proceedings were discontinued on CARDINAL DATE due to the applicant \u2019s procedural inactivity .","During the proceedings concerning the annulment of the purchase contract the applicant contended that his wife had been granted temporary accommodation in the flat , which had given her the right to buy the flat under LAW to LAW . He also considered that the civil action had been lodged outside the relevant statutory time - limit of DATE after the contract had been concluded , as provided under ORG to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG declared the purchase contract for the flat null and void . It explained that the applicant had not been granted temporary accommodation in the flat and that therefore he had never satisfied the requirements of applicable domestic law for the purchase of the flat on favourable terms . The relevant part of the judgment reads :","\u201c Section CARDINAL of ORG to LAW provides that disabled Homeland War [ veterans ] , as well as the spouses , parents and children , adopted children , father \u2019s or mother \u2019s spouses and adoptive parents of a deceased , incarcerated or missing Homeland War veteran have the right , on the terms provided in this LAW , to purchase a flat in which they were temporarily accommodated under LAW and LAW [ Zakon o pravima hrvatskih branitelja iz domovinskog rata ] ...","Bearing in mind the above provision , this court notes that temporary accommodation in the flat in question was granted to N.[Z. ] as a refugee , while the defendant is not one of the individuals who was provided with temporary accommodation under LAW .","This court finds that the purchase contract was concluded contrary to section CARDINAL of ORG to LAW , since the defendant had not been granted temporary accommodation under LAW or the Homeland War Veterans Act and therefore , under LAW , the claim should be accepted and the contract declared null and void .","Furthermore , the argument that the civil action was lodged outside of the relevant statutory time - limit is unfounded given that , under section CARDINAL of LAW , the right to claim nullity [ of a contract ] can not be extinguished . ... \u201d","The applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment before ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) on DATE in which he reiterated his previous arguments .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as without merit and upheld the first - instance judgment .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( ORG PERSON ) , reiterating his arguments before the lower courts .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint on DATE , endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts . In particular , it noted :","\u201c The reasoning of the impugned judgments is based on a correct interpretation of the relevant law and can be accepted from the perspective of constitutional rights . The Constitutional Court finds that the lower courts , based on the established facts , provided sufficient reasons in their judgments and that their reasoning does not disclose any arbitrariness in the application of the law . \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife lodged a civil action against ORG in ORG , seeking the right to purchase the flat . This civil action was dismissed on DATE on the grounds that the process of privatisation of the flat had been started in the meantime ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and therefore that the flat was no longer able to be sold by ORG but rather belonged to a special privatisation fund . This judgment was appealed against , but it was upheld by ORG on DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG repaid the applicant the purchase price of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL together with statutory default interest in the amount of HRK CARDINAL .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant opened a private medical practice in gynecology and obstetrics in the flat , while in DATE his family moved to another flat which he had bought in GPE .","On DATE , as part of the privatisation process , the ownership of CARDINAL of the flat was returned to ORG , a successor of the original owners .","On DATE ORG sold his ownership in the flat to the applicant .","NORP Throughout the period to date , the applicant has been running his private medical practice in the flat .","The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL , DATE ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( consolidated text ) , PERSON ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , DATE ) read as follows :","\u201c The home is inviolable ... \u201d","\u201c Everyone has a right to respect for and legal protection of his private and family life , dignity , reputation and honour . \u201d","\u201c The right of ownership shall be guaranteed ... \u201c","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o privremenom kori\u0161tenju stanova , ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) read :","\u201c This LAW provides for the terms and the manner of [ the provision of ] temporary accommodation in publicly - owned flats ... which are empty or abandoned , with a view to allocating refugees DATE internally displaced persons , and defenders of GPE and their families . \u201d","\u201c Individuals who have been granted temporary accommodation and their family members are not [ thereby ] granted a specially protected tenancy nor can they obtain a specially protected tenancy of the flat in question . \u201d","The Specially Protected Tenancies ( Sale to LAW ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , ORG nos . DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL ) regulates the conditions of sale of flats let under specially protected tenancies . The relevant part of this PERSON reads :","\u201c Disabled Homeland War [ veterans ] , as well as the spouses , parents and children , adopted children , father \u2019s or mother \u2019s spouses and adoptive parents of deceased , incarcerated or missing Homeland War veterans have the right , on the terms provided in this LAW , to purchase a flat in which they have been temporarily accommodated under LAW and LAW , if no other person has a specially protected tenancy of the flat in question . \u201d","\u201c The seller shall submit the sale contract for approval to the competent ORG Attorney within DATE .","If the ORG Attorney finds that the statutory conditions for entering into such a contract have not been met or that the price stipulated in it is lower than that established by this LAW , he or she shall disapprove of the sale .","If the ORG Attorney finds after a sale contract has been concluded that the statutory conditions for entering such contract had not been met , he or she shall seek the annulment of that contract within DATE after the contract has been concluded . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL ) , as then in force , provided :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Each contractual obligation shall have a permissible [ legal ] basis [ causa ] .","( CARDINAL ) A basis is not permissible if it contravenes the LAW , fundamental principles of law , or morals .","... \u201d","\u201c Where there is no [ legal ] basis [ for a contract ] or where its [ basis ] is not permissible , the contract is null and void . \u201d","\u201c A contract which is contrary to the LAW , fundamental principles of law , or morals is null and void , unless there is some other [ applicable ] sanction or the law provides differently in a particular case . \u201d","\u201c The right to plead nullity shall be inextinguishable . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Ovr\u0161ni zakon , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , GPE , DATE and CARDINAL ) provide :","\u201c A court shall order enforcement only on the basis of a final and enforceable instrument , unless otherwise provided under LAW . \u201d","\u201c A decision by which a court has ordered the fulfilment of a claim through payment or performance shall be enforceable when it is final and if the period for voluntary compliance with that decision has elapsed . ... \u201c","\u201c An enforcement instrument may be [ used as a basis for ] execution only if the creditor and debtor , and the nature , type , scope and time of the obligation are set out [ in the relevant decision ] . ... \u201c"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142842","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SAFAII v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Greece)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . His address is unknown .","The applicant and his wife came to GPE in DATE and applied for asylum on DATE . They had travelled from GPE via GPE to GPE . When the applicant and his wife first arrived in GPE they lived in a camp . They subsequently lived with people traffickers for DATE , and then in public parks . The applicant claimed that he had queued to apply for asylum in GPE , but had been beaten by the police and driven away . He and his wife had no access to financial support and had had to live in the parks after their money had run out . After CARDINAL failed attempts , the traffickers managed to take the applicant and his wife to GPE .","NORP In his request for asylum in GPE the applicant claimed in substance to have had problems with the ORG in GPE . He submitted inter alia that DATE the ORG had kidnapped CARDINAL of his brothers .","On DATE , ORG PERSON ) rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum application on the grounds that GPE was responsible for examining it , pursuant to section TIME DATE LAW ( DATE ) in connection with LAW ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( \u201c Dublin II Regulation \u201d , hereinafter \u201c LAW \u201d ) , and ordered his expulsion to GPE . It found that the applicant was not facing any real risk of illtreatment within the meaning of LAW upon his return to GPE . The authority referred to a number of country reports , in particular those of the ORG of DATE and of ORG . It acknowledged the ongoing criticism with regard to proceedings and treatment of asylum - seekers in GPE , but did not consider the applicant \u2019s story of his experiences in GPE credible . ORG noted the ORG \u2019s concern about the difficulties with which many asylum - seekers in GPE were confronted . This applied particularly to the facilities for asylum - seekers , access to asylum proceedings and the quality of the proceedings . On the other hand , ORG noted that GPE was the only country to have declared that it would no longer transfer asylum - seekers to GPE under LAW . ORG also mentioned a recent decision by ORG , according to which there was no reason to suspend further transfers to GPE . ORG quoted the ORG position paper , which welcomed GPE \u2019s reform attempts aimed at strengthening its asylum system . It further noted that a working group had been established , including members of the NORP authorities and the ORG , to tackle the \u201c most burning \u201d problems with the asylum system . Furthermore , ORG held that the relevant NORP directives were binding for GPE . Lastly , ORG referred to a fact - finding mission conducted by ORG in DATE reacting to the harsh criticism voiced by various NGOs . The final report of that mission had concluded that there were no humanitarian or other reasons to refrain from returning asylum - seekers to GPE under LAW . In view of the fact that the asylum authorities of the other ORG countries had not stopped transferring asylum - seekers back to GPE , ORG concluded that it was not necessary to make use of the sovereignty clause in the present case . It further noted that people who had never before lodged an asylum application in GPE and had been transferred to GPE under LAW had full access to asylum proceedings .","The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision , referring again to the deficiencies of the NORP asylum system , the danger of refoulement to GPE and the lack of subsistence for asylum - seekers .","On DATE , ORG ( Asylgerichtshof ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint as unfounded . It found that an accumulation of proceedings under the sovereignty clause would endanger the \u201c effet utile \u201d principle of Community law . Furthermore , LAW was based on the assumption that all member GPE were safe countries and that a deportation to CARDINAL of them could not constitute a human - rights violation . Therefore , arguments against such a deportation would need to be especially substantiated . Referring to the report of a mission of ORG to GPE in DATE that showed that all DATE monitored cases had had access to NORP asylum proceedings , it found that there were no deficiencies in the conditions of access to asylum proceedings in GPE . With regard to the present case , the NORP authorities had already stated that the applicant would have access to asylum proceedings once he returned to GPE . Again referring to the mission report of ORG , it found that the support of asylum - seekers in GPE was acceptable . Asylum - seekers were allowed to work in GPE . Lastly , there would be no risk of refoulement . In conclusion , the applicant would not be at real risk of treatment contrary to LAW on being returned to GPE .","On DATE , ORG refused to deal with the applicant \u2019s complaint for lack of prospects of success .","NORP That decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant \u2019s wife was expelled to GPE on DATE .","The applicant was expelled to GPE on DATE .","At the ORG \u2019s request , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed ORG exact date of the applicant \u2019s transfer to GPE , namely DATE . He stated that despite being his counsel , he had not received any further information about his client since then . In later submissions he stated that he could establish contact with the applicant , if necessary , via trustworthy persons the applicant still knew in GPE . He did not , however , provide the applicant \u2019s current address to the ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179847","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SAGATINOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146705","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KOKSHAROVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant brought a court action against ORG of GPE ( PERSON \u0441\u043e\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0445\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 PERSON ) for compensation of health damage .","On DATE her claim was dismissed by ORG . The decision was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for a fresh examination to the same court .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claim and ordered ORG ( i ) to calculate the amount of the lump - sum compensation for the period from DATE to DATE and of the DATE compensation which should be paid from DATE , ( ii ) to pay these amounts to the applicant , and ( iii ) to index - link the DATE payments in future in accordance with national law .","The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .","The applicant states that no lump - sum compensation was paid to her .","On DATE ORG calculated the DATE payments due to the applicant as of DATE .","On DATE the President of ORG lodged with the ORG of that court an application for supervisory review of the judgment of DATE . He also suspended the execution of the judgment pending the supervisory review proceedings .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the ORG would examine her case on DATE .","On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE stating that the first instance court had incorrectly applied domestic law : the lump - sum compensation should have been calculated from DATE and not DATE . The case was remitted for a fresh examination to the first instance court .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142185","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KARAGJOZI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney","text":["On DATE and DATE ORG on ORG ( \u201c the Commission \u201d ) recognised the ORG inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY Since the plot of land was occupied by QUANTITY buildings which housed foreign embassies , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .","The Commission decision remains unenforced .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m , of which QUANTITY . m were restored . Since QUANTITY . m were occupied , the applicant would be compensated in ORG bonds .","The Commission decision remains unenforced .","On DATE the then ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the lower ORG refusal to rule in favour of his property claim in respect of a different plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m.","On DATE ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m. Since a stadium had been constructed on the plot of land , the applicant would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .","The Commission decision remains unenforced .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m , of which QUANTITY . m were to be restored . Since QUANTITY . m were occupied , the applicant would be compensated in kind in accordance with the law .","NORP However , the plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m was occupied by buildings belonging to ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) pursuant to a sale contract of DATE concluded between the ORG and ORG . ORG indicated that , pursuant to the law , the ORG was obliged to pay rent to the applicant on the basis of a contract to be concluded between the CARDINAL parties .","On DATE the ORG sold the buildings and the plot of land to a third party , which was subsequently placed under compulsory administration . Following judicial proceedings instituted by the administrators against the Commission decision that had restored the applicant the plot of QUANTITY . m , the domestic courts annulled that part of the Commission decision and decided that the applicant would be compensated in CARDINAL of the forms provided for by law . The applicant \u2019s appeals were rejected by ORG on DATE and DATE .","Meanwhile , DATE the applicant sold CARDINAL plots of land , all measuring QUANTITY . m , to third parties .","On DATE the applicant informed the Registry that the authorities had allowed construction to begin on CARDINAL buildings on his plot of land .","The Commission decision , as amended by the later court decisions , remains unenforced as regards a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m.","On DATE ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m , of which CARDINAL warehouses and CARDINAL plots of land , both measuring QUANTITY . m , were restored . Since QUANTITY . m were occupied by buildings , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .","The Commission decision remains unenforced .","On DATE the ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m of which QUANTITY . m were restored . Since the remaining QUANTITY . m were occupied , the applicant would be compensated in ORG bonds .","The Commission decision remains unenforced .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m. Since the plot of land was occupied by a national park , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .","The Commission decision remains unenforced .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicants\u2019 and inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m. It decided that the applicants would be compensated in ORG bonds in respect of CARDINAL sq . m and in - kind in respect of QUANTITY . m. No other decision was taken as regards the remaining QUANTITY m. In fact , QUANTITY . m were restored to the applicants .","The Commission decision as regards compensation in respect of QUANTITY . m remains unenforced .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s and other relatives\u2019 inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m , of which QUANTITY m were restored . Since QUANTITY . m were occupied , the applicant would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law . It would appear that , despite the latter aspect of the decision about the CARDINAL sq . m , a building permit was granted to a third party by GPE on DATE for the construction of a CARDINAL building . The applicant \u2019s requests of DATE and DATE to GPE for a copy of the relevant file remain unanswered .","The applicant has not yet received any compensation in respect of that plot of land .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged a compensation claim with the ORG .","On DATE the ORG dismissed his claim owing to the lack of funds .","The Government submitted that in DATE the applicant and his relatives applied for and received compensation in the amount of ALL CARDINAL in respect of another plot of land from ORG .","On DATE ORG restored the applicants\u2019 inherited title to CARDINAL plots of land measuring QUANTITY m , CARDINAL sq . m and QUANTITY . m , respectively , totalling CARDINAL sq . m. It further decided that the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law in respect of another plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m. Finally , it recognised the applicants\u2019 right to first refusal of a further plot of land measuring QUANTITY m.","NORP The applicants\u2019 title to the plots of land measuring QUANTITY m were recorded in the mortgage office . Using their right to first refusal , the applicants bought a number of parcels of land and buildings , totalling CARDINAL sq . m , which were also recorded in the mortgage office . It would appear that the applicants had been unable to enjoy possession of their properties , because they had been occupied by third parties .","On an unspecified date in DATE the third parties challenged the applicants\u2019 property title as awarded by the Commission decision of DATE . In the meantime , on DATE , following the ORG request , ORG delivered an injunction against the third parties requiring them to stay the construction works on the applicants\u2019 properties ( masa e sigurimit p\u00ebr pezullimin e punimeve t\u00eb ndryshme ) . On DATE the bailiff drew up a report by which the third parties were informed of the injunction order against the continuation of the construction works ( nga ana jon\u00eb ju komunikua q\u00eb sot e tutje t\u00eb mos b\u00ebj\u00eb nd\u00ebrtime t\u00eb ndryshme n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb objekt ku n\u00eb t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt do mbaj\u00eb p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsi ligjore ) . On DATE the third parties\u2019 action was finally dismissed by ORG .","To date , the applicants have not benefited from any amount of compensation in respect of the plot measuring QUANTITY . m. Furthermore , their plots of land as well as buildings remain occupied by the third parties\u2019 unlawful actions ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174996","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ISL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF HALLD\u00d3RSSON v. ICELAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the material time , the applicant was working as a journalist for the newsroom of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the LOC \u201d ) .","The ORG is an independent public service broadcaster , comprising television , radio and online services . The ORG broadcasts news programmes on television TIME at TIME that last for TIME . During the news programmes , a series of news items is first introduced by a news anchor in a studio , and then each news item is presented by different news reporters , whether current events , live or prerecorded interviews or editorial content .","On DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE the ORG broadcast news items , prepared and presented by the applicant , on its news programme at CARDINAL p.m. The subject of all CARDINAL news items was a loan transaction of CARDINAL GPE ( ORG ; approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the exchange rate applicable in DATE ) between an NORP company , Y , and a shelf company in GPE , that had been written off in its entirety . The news items were introduced by a news anchor and then a film clip was played , showing pictures related to the subject of the news item while the applicant narrated .","On TIME news on DATE the news anchor introduced the news items , stating that the authorities were investigating whether the ISK CARDINAL had made its way back to GPE and that there was a suspicion that B , the owner of company Y , had returned the money to his business partners . In the film clip , the applicant stated that the NORP authorities believed that they had found the money trail and they thought that the money had made its way back to GPE , not necessarily into B \u2019s pockets but into those of his business partners . The applicant then speculated on who the business partners might be and pictures were shown , inter alia , of A , a prominent businessman in GPE . Lastly , the applicant stated that the question of where the money had ended up would be answered after the authorities\u2019 investigation .","On TIME news on DATE , the news anchor introduced the news items by stating that the authorities were investigating whether B , A and C , an investor in GPE , had jointly planned a business deal where ORG CARDINAL seemed to vanish in GPE . Furthermore , the anchor stated that documents , from DATE and onwards , supported this suspicion and that the documents indicated that the money had found its way back into the pockets of the same group . In the film clip the applicant stated that the authorities believed that they had found the money trail , as had been previously reported , and that they were in possession of documents indicating that A , B and C had planned the GPE deal in advance , in order to send the money to GPE and then back into their own pockets again , via a circuitous route . Pictures of A , B and C were shown on the screen with the text \u201c under investigation \u201d written below each picture .","On TIME news on DATE the news anchor introduced the news item . In the film clip , the applicant stated that in DATE company Y had loaned ORG CARDINAL to the company in GPE . The funds had been transferred to GPE on DATE and DATE , on DATE , a loan agreement had been prepared . On DATE , the loan had been written off in its entirety from the accounts of company Y. Furthermore , the applicant stated that B had issued a declaration claiming that there was nothing suspicious about the loan . Lastly , the applicant stated : \u201c The NORP authorities have also searched for the funds , as we have previously reported , and they believe that they have found the money trail , as they have documents indicating that [ B ] , [ A ] and [ C ] organised the GPE deal in advance . That is , they sent the money to GPE , and later the money found its way back , through several detours , into the pockets of the threesome \u201d . Pictures of A , B and C were shown above a world map , a pile of money was shown being divided up into CARDINAL parts in GPE and each part was then visually transferred to the pictures of the men .","On DATE , a corresponding article was published on ORG \u2019s website . After the news broadcast , A issued a press release . The online news article was updated to include the press release .","On DATE A lodged defamation proceedings against the applicant before ORG and requested that the words \u201c [ A ] \u201d and \u201c threesome \u201d in the above - mentioned statement of the news item broadcast on DATE be declared null and void .","NORP Before the domestic courts , the applicant maintained that he had based the news item on information from sources , both verbal and written , that he deemed highly trustworthy . Furthermore , the applicant maintained that when he had prepared the news item he had attempted to contact A by telephone , in vain .","During the proceedings before ORG the applicant submitted a letter dated DATE from ORG confirming that the loan transaction , which was the subject of the news items , had been reported to the police and was under investigation . The Special Prosecutor also stated that this had been confirmed in the media in DATE . It does not transpire from the letter from ORG whether A was under investigation as a suspect or charged . The applicant did not , during the proceedings before ORG submit any other documents or evidence to in support of the information concerning A presented in the news items .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found for the applicant . In its reasoning it referred to the right to freedom of expression and the protection of private life as guaranteed by LAW .","The judgment contained the following reasoning :","\u201c ... The banking collapse of DATE caused great changes to the business environment and society in general . A wave of bankruptcies hit companies and individuals , the value of the krona plummeted and changes were made to the ruling government , to name a few . The media have covered these events since the crisis began and the individuals involved have also been the subject of news coverage , including [ A ] . In determining whether the content of the news item is a part of the social debate and therefore of public interest , it should be kept in mind that [ A ] himself , as well as the companies he has represented , has been in the media and public debate for DATE . [ A ] has also been very prominent in business , both here and abroad , and in both a negative and positive light . [ Company Z ] , led by [ A ] , was a large shareholder in [ F ] ... , and held an active share in ORG News about [ A ] has therefore more often than not been about his role in the banking collapse , and after the collapse of the NORP banks in DATE the media was full of news on the banking collapse and crisis , the reasons behind them and related matters . The media have been called upon to disseminate all material that could be of public interest , especially if the content might shed light on elements pertaining to parties who have played key roles in the NORP economy . In the light of the circumstances that developed after the banking collapse , [ A ] will have to withstand personal discussion of his actions and participation in business . Loan facilities and transfers of funds occurring in the leadup to the bank failure are important news stories that are relevant to the general public . Restricting that discussion through sanctions should only be done after great consideration .","[ The applicant ] has stated that the news item is based on sources , both verbal and written , that he finds trustworthy . [ The applicant ] can not be asked to prove these statements , as the journalist \u2019s right to protect his sources and their identity has been upheld in judicial rulings . [ The applicant ] has also sufficiently demonstrated that he tried to contact [ A ] before he delivered the news item and he has therefore not violated ORG procedures in that respect .","The ORG does not agree with [ A ] that he is accused of actions punishable by law in the news item . The news item must be assessed as a whole and not on the basis of individual statements in the piece . As previously noted , the ORG must consider the circumstances under which the statements are made , that they are necessary for a social debate on the causes and repercussions of the bank failure and also that some discrepancies can occur when dealing with complicated loan facilities and business deals . When the statements on [ A ] are assessed in this light , they are not found to violate the provisions of ORG CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the Penal Code no . CARDINAL . ... \u201d","On DATE A appealed against ORG judgment to ORG .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG overturned the ORG judgment and ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL ( approximately CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) to A in compensation for non - pecuniary damage , plus interest and LAW ( CARDINAL ORG ) for A \u2019s legal costs before the domestic courts . The CARDINAL words were declared null and void .","The judgment contained the following reasoning :","\u201c ... In assessing where the line should be drawn between freedom of expression , as protected by LAW , and the right to privacy , as protected by LAW , it is important to determine whether the content published can be considered a part of the social debate and therefore of public interest , see ORG judgments of DATE in case no . CARDINAL , DATE in case no . DATE , DATE in case no . CARDINAL and DATE in case no . CARDINAL . The media play an important role in disseminating information and opinions on social issues . The public has a right to information on such issues and there must be particularly strong reasons for determining that limitations on media freedom are warranted in a democratic society . The collapse that occurred in the NORP economy following the failure of the CARDINAL NORP commercial banks in DATE has had a significant and broad effect on all activity in the country and the general public \u2019s quality of life . Public debate and media coverage have been very focused on identifying the preceding events and reasons for the collapse , and reporting on the financial business of individuals has often been personal .","When the content of the news item debated in this case is assessed as a whole , and the disputed remarks are evaluated in context with other statements in the news report and in consideration of the visual presentation , the comments clearly implied that [ A ] had committed an act which was punishable in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL .","[ The applicant ] has not presented any documents supporting the legitimacy of the statements , for which he has to bear the burden , as it was incumbent on him rather than [ A ] to secure such evidence . [ The applicant ] has also not demonstrated that he sought information from [ A ] on the content while preparing the news report . He therefore failed in his duty , as outlined in LAW dated DATE , to seek \u201c ... information from both or all parties and attempt to show their points of view as equally as possible \u201d . ORG therefore finds that [ the applicant ] could not have been acting in good faith as pertains to the accuracy of the remarks in the news piece . Therefore [ A \u2019s ] demand for the quoted statements to be declared null and void is granted , pursuant to LAW , cf . Article CARDINAL of the Penal Code . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177126","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MAKEDON v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155654","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"SOBERAN\u00cdA DE LA RAZ\u00d3N AND OTHERS v. SPAIN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , is a NORP political party registered with ORG in DATE . The second and the third applicants , Ms. PERSON and Mr. PERSON Luis Maz\u00f3n Costa , are NORP nationals who stood as CARDINAL of the first applicant \u2019s candidates for the DATE elections to ORG . The applicants are represented before the ORG by the third applicant , Mr. PERSON Costa , a lawyer in GPE . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158528","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"STOJNI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr Slavko Stojni\u0107 , is a citizen of GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , ORG .","NORP The applicant was an officer of the JNA , the armed forces of the former ORG ( \u201c the SFRY \u201d ) . The present case concerns his attempt to repossess his pre - war flat in GPE .","The detailed background concerning socially owned flats , military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE is provided in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant was allocated an occupancy right to a military flat in GPE .","On an unknown date in DATE he bought that flat under the terms of LAW and paid the full purchase price in the amount of MONEY ( MONEY ( DEM ) at the time ) .","When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicant continued his military career in the FAC forces and left GPE . His military service was terminated in DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat in GPE . On DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG . On DATE the competent ORG rejected his appeal as submitted out of time .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( a domestic human - rights body set up under Annex CARDINAL to ORG ) about his inability to repossess his pre - war flat . He relied on LAW .","On DATE ORG ( the legal successor of ORG ) found a violation of LAW because of the length of the restitution proceedings and awarded the applicant MONEY ( BAM ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) for non - pecuniary damage in this connection . As regards the complaint under LAW No . CARDINAL , the Commission concluded that the interference with the applicant \u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his \u201c possessions \u201d had been justified . However , it ordered ORG to secure the applicant \u2019s right to compensation envisaged under section DATE of ORG , without further delay and at the latest within DATE from the delivery of that decision .","On DATE , the applicant initiated proceedings before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) seeking to establish the validity of a purchase contract and to register his title to the flat in the land register . On DATE ORG declared the purchase contract legally valid . However , it rejected the applicant \u2019s claim to have his title registered . The court held that under LAW DATE those who served in foreign armed forces after the DATE - CARDINAL war , like the present applicant , were not entitled to repossess their pre - war military flats and to register their title , but were entitled to compensation . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","On DATE ORG GPE allocated the flat to GPE , a member of ORG .","On DATE ORG informed the Government of GPE that the applicant \u2019s right to allocation of a military - flat in GPE had been established by the competent authorities .","The Government did not dispute the facts submitted by the applicant . However , they provided additional information as follows .","On DATE the applicant received BAM PERSON ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in compensation for his prewar flat in GPE in accordance with section PERSON of ORG , as ordered by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The relevant domestic law and practice were outlined in PERSON v. GPE and GPE ( no . GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140930","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NECULA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained in FAC .","On DATE the applicant was detained pending trial on charges of aggravated murder and placed in ORG .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG convicted him of aggravated murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant lodged his first application before the ORG , namely application no . CARDINAL , alleging that his rights under LAW had been violated on account of , inter alia , the material conditions of his detention in FAC . He argued in particular that the cells were small and overcrowded ; that the toilets were not separated from the cells , were uncovered and smelled badly because there was no running water ; that he lacked sufficient physical exercise given that he was rarely taken out of his cell and allowed to walk in the small courtyard , which in any case smelled unpleasant ; and that his food was inadequate and low in calories .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the material conditions of detention was communicated to ORG and they were asked to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case .","On DATE the observations submitted by ORG were forwarded to the applicant and he was asked twice to submit observations in reply . However , he failed to submit any observations .","By a decision of DATE the ORG decided to strike application no . CARDINAL out of its list of cases , pursuant to LAW . The applicant did not ask for the aforementioned application to be restored to the ORG \u2019s list of cases .","According to the applicant , in ORG he had to sleep on metal beds with large holes in them . The cells lacked natural light and air , were squalid and damp , infested with lice and bed bugs , and there were no proper facilities for serving food . The sanitary facilities lacked air vents and running water and had no doors or mirrors , while the waste bins were made out of cut plastic containers .","The applicant attached to his letter several photographs allegedly taken by him in prison to support his allegations .","The applicant also contended that the food was poor and that he did not have access to adequate medical care .","The Government informed the ORG that the applicant had been detained in ORG from DATE to DATE , DATE , DATE to DATE and CARDINAL DATE to the present date .","During his detention the applicant had stayed in several detention cells .","All the detention cells where the applicant had stayed had been connected to electricity , heating and water supplies . Each cell had a window measuring QUANTITY long by QUANTITY wide or QUANTITY long by QUANTITY wide , depending on the size of the cell and the number of occupants . The cells were aired manually by opening the available window . They had a separate area with sanitary and personal hygiene facilities , which could be accessed from the detention room directly . The sanitary facility area was fitted with an air vent .","The cells had individual beds and were adequately furnished for the detainees to be able to eat their meals and store their personal belongings . They were fitted with radiators connected to the prison \u2019s own heating system , which provided an adequate temperature when needed . The sanitary utilities were functioning adequately and they were promptly fixed whenever they were damaged .","The detainees had permanent access to drinking water and bathed twice a week in specially designated areas , based on a schedule approved by the prison authorities .","The applicant received a diet which was served in accordance with the regulation in force . The quality of the food was checked DATE by , inter alia , a medical office representative and a detainee representative . There was no indication that the food quality had been inappropriate during the applicant \u2019s detention . The food was served in the cells , which were furnished with wooden tables and chairs or benches .","Hygiene in the cells was the detainees\u2019 responsibility , and they were provided regularly with cleaning materials by the prison authorities . From DATE to DATE the cells were fumigated by specialist companies every CARDINAL or periodically by the hygiene manager attached to the medical office . The inmates were provided with waste baskets and the sanitary facilities were cleaned DATE with chlorine by the prison hygiene manager .","On an unspecified date the applicant brought proceedings against ORG authorities , contending that his right to adequate medical assistance had been breached . He argued that on CARDINAL occasion he had not been examined by the doctor and had been unable to purchase the prescribed antibiotics the following day .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences attached to ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action on the grounds that the medical examination and the required treatment had been made available to him DATE . There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts .","On an unspecified date the applicant brought a new set of proceedings against ORG authorities , contending that his rights to adequate medical assistance , to correspondence , to working and educational activities , as well as to access to running water and adequate detention conditions , had been breached . He had to share a cell with CARDINAL other inmates , was involved in activities only once a week , was not provided with adequate medical care or given the correct diet . In addition , the sanitary facilities were out of order , the prison lacked running water , his cell was squalid and lacked air , his right of correspondence was restricted and he was not allowed to work .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences attached to ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . On the basis of the information provided by the prison authorities , it held that the size of the prison did not allow any reduction in the number of detainees per cell , and that the applicant \u2019s cell allowed QUANTITY of air for each detainee . Moreover , he had access to DATE activities and exercise , and was provided with adequate medical care in the prison hospital . His cell had been disinfected in DATE and no insects had been found during the sanitary inspection of DATE . Furthermore , the applicant was provided with an adequate diet . The quality of the food was checked daily and there was no indication that it was of poor quality . In addition , the applicant \u2019s cell was equipped with private and hygienic sanitary facilities , which provided permanent access to running water . Also , the applicant \u2019s right to correspondence was observed . Lastly , his request to be allowed to work had not been examined by the work commission on the grounds that he did not meet the work - related requirements . The applicant appealed against the decision before the domestic courts .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a finalinstance court , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE . It held that the applicant had failed to identify a particular circumstance when his right of correspondence had been breached . The distribution of correspondence to prisoners by the supervisors of the prison sections rather than by specially authorised personnel had not been unlawful . The applicant had made a general complaint about the absence of adequate medical treatment without identifying the circumstances in which his right had been breached . His medical file contained information that he had repeatedly refused treatment or examinations by specialist doctors . The quality of the food had been adequate and had been reviewed DATE by a representative of the medical office . Although the cells were overcrowded , the detainees had access to the statutory number of QUANTITY of air , and to sanitary facilities and installations which provided access to drinking water as well as adequate privacy . They also had access to daily activities and exercise . The photographs of the cell bathroom submitted to the court by the applicant did not prove the absence of running or drinking water . Some of the bathroom installations were indeed damaged or missing , but that was linked to the inmates\u2019 behaviour and the limited budget available to ORG . In addition , according to the documents submitted by the detention centre , in DATE the prison had been disinfected twice . The aspects the applicant complained of had been examined bearing in mind the needs of the other detainees and the aspects which made the observance of the GPE rights possible , namely the available staff and budget . Lastly , the applicant \u2019s remaining complaints were examined and dismissed by the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences on the basis of the documents submitted by the prison authorities .","On unspecified dates the applicant brought CARDINAL further sets of proceedings against ORG authorities , seeking an injunction to be allowed to receive several food items from his family .","By decisions of DATE and CARDINAL September CARDINAL the judge responsible for the execution of prison sentences attached to ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s actions seeking to be allowed to receive several food items ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147025","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160TERJOV AND OTHERS v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 personal details are listed in the appendix below .","On DATE CARDINAL people ( \u201c the predecessors \u201d ) , the ninth and the CARDINAL applicants initiated civil proceedings for determination of title to plots of land .","DATE the predecessors died . The first , second , third and fourth applicants stepped in the proceedings on behalf of their late predecessor . The fifth to eighth and the tenth to CARDINAL applicants did not step in the proceedings on behalf of their late predecessors .","On DATE the ninth applicant died .","On DATE the CARDINAL applicant died and his heirs , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , applied to continue the application in his name .","On DATE the fourth applicant died and her heirs , the second and third applicants , applied to continue the application also in her name .","The impugned proceedings , which were reconsidered on CARDINAL occasion , ended on DATE when the final decision of ORG was served on the applicants . This decision listed the following as plaintiffs : the first , second , third , fourth , ninth and CARDINAL applicants as well as the predecessors of the remaining applicants ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160613","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF FATEYENKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the Appendix .","The applicants complained , inter alia , of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of an effective remedy in this respect ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181178","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SELAMI AND OTHERS v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants alleged , before the domestic courts and before the ORG , that on DATE police detained Mr PERSON and took him from PERSON to GPE where he was severely beaten . Mr PERSON sustained serious injuries to his head including a brain haemorrhage and fell into a coma . The police brought him to ORG , where he underwent brain surgery . He was in a coma for DATE and was connected to a ventilator for assisted breathing .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicants contacted ORG seeking information about Mr PERSON \u2019s whereabouts . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG had informed them that PERSON had been admitted to ORG .","According to a medical certificate from ORG issued on DATE on the basis of the available medical evidence , Mr PERSON was in a post - operative state ( following medical trepanation of his skull and evacuation of the internal brain haemorrhage ) ; parts of his skull and the tough brain membrane had been seriously damaged ; he had suffered reduced mobility of all limbs , muscle hypotonia and neck and rib fractures . According to the report , those injuries had qualified as serious and had had permanent effects on the life and body of Mr PERSON .","As to the subsequent establishment of facts by the domestic civil courts , see paragraphs CARDINAL below .","On DATE , DATE after first having been detained and beaten by the police ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , an investigating judge of ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) opened an investigation against Mr PERSON and CARDINAL other persons in connection with their alleged involvement in enemy activities against the ORG and ordered their pre - trial detention . The investigating judge specified that Mr PERSON had been hospitalised and that the detention order would be enforced as soon as he was discharged from hospital . Mr PERSON \u2019s detention was extended on CARDINAL occasions . The extension orders specified that he had been deprived of his liberty on DATE and that he had been held under the detention order in ORG until DATE .","On DATE Mr PERSON was indicted for membership of a terrorist group whose aim had been to organise terrorist attacks on the police in order to endanger the security and constitutional order of the ORG . On DATE Mr PERSON was released on bail on account of , inter alia , the \u201c serious deterioration of [ his ] health \u201d .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the trial court discontinued ( \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0440\u0430 ) the criminal proceedings against PERSON since the prosecution had withdrawn the charges . The remaining accused were acquitted ( \u043e\u0441\u043b\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438 \u043e\u0434 \u043e\u0431\u0432\u0438\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) .","On DATE Mr PERSON contacted ORG with a view to securing an out - of - court settlement and payment of MONEY ( MKD \u2013 equivalent to QUANTITY ( EUR ) ) in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused , so it was asserted , by the unlawful deprivation of his liberty and the serious injuries that he had sustained at the hands of the police on DATE . In support he submitted the medical certificate from ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In the absence of any response from ORG , on DATE Mr PERSON and the applicants submitted CARDINAL separate lawsuits , CARDINAL in relation to his unlawful detention and CARDINAL in relation to his physical ill - treatment by the police , claiming pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages in both . They reiterated that on CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty ; that he had been taken to police stations where he had been beaten and physically ill - treated ; and that the police had taken him to ORG where he had undergone head surgery . On DATE he had been transferred from the hospital to GPE detention facility in view of his detention on remand . The applicants\u2019 claim was based on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0438\u0433\u0430\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u043e\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0438 ) , which entitles a spouse and children to obtain non - pecuniary damages in a case of severe disability of the victim ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Both claims were joined and decided in a single set of proceedings . During the proceedings , the domestic courts commissioned CARDINAL expert opinions and admitted into evidence extensive medical material issued by relevant medical institutions in GPE concerning Mr PERSON \u2019s earlier injury while at work in that ORG .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG ruled partly for Mr PERSON and , relying on section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it awarded him the equivalent of LAW in non - pecuniary damages for the unjustified detention DATE . It dismissed the remaining part of Mr PERSON claim . As to the ORG claims , the court held that the consequences suffered by PERSON as a consequence of \u201c the unjustified detention \u201d could not be regarded \u201c extremely severe disability \u201d , as required by section ORG ) of LAW .","On the basis of the available medical evidence , the court established that in DATE , while at work in GPE , Mr PERSON had fallen and injured his spine and right leg , which had become dysfunctional . As a result of that injury , he had been certified as disabled for the purposes of work in GPE and he had had to use crutches and a disability - adapted car .","Relying on the expert evidence admitted at the trial , the court established , as a matter of fact , that during the \u201c incriminating event of CARDINAL DATE ... Mr PERSON had sustained serious bodily injury . As a result of the head trauma , there was haemorrhage ... in the right ( part of the brain ) ... After the surgery , Mr PERSON had remained in coma and ... had been connected to a ventilator for assisted breathing . He had recovered after DATE ... \u201d . The court further referred to the expert opinion according to which Mr PERSON had sustained strong and intensive physical pain , as well as strong emotional pain and humiliation while being beaten . He had sustained serious head injuries , which had affected , though not permanently , the left side of his body and had provoked other negative psychological effects .","Relying on the statements of PERSON and the first and fourth applicants , the court established that in DATE the police had searched their house . They had asked PERSON to come with them to ORG police station . There , he had been questioned in relation to an incident in which CARDINAL policemen had been killed . He had denied having any connection to that incident . He had been taken by police car to GPE , where he had been placed in \u201c a cellar or a garage \u201d and beaten . The applicants had not been aware of Mr PERSON \u2019s whereabouts for DATE after which they had discovered that he had been hospitalised in ORG . Despite these findings of fact , ORG expressed no conclusion about the lawfulness of any detention prior to DATE or the treatment suffered by PERSON during that detention .","Both Mr PERSON and the applicants appealed to ORG . They argued that the first - instance court had not determined their claim in relation to the serious injuries inflicted on him by the police , as a result of which he had had his skull broken ; had suffered a brain haemorrhage ; had required head surgery ; had been immobilised and had lost the full use of his hands . ORG also challenged the judgment .","On DATE Mr PERSON died .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals by PERSON and the applicants and allowed the appeal by ORG . It overturned the lower court \u2019s judgment and awarded Mr PERSON the equivalent of LAW in respect of non - pecuniary damage due to his \u201c unjustified detention DATE and DATE \u201d . The court , inter alia , stated :","\u201c In the impugned judgment , the first - instance court established ... on the basis of the expert opinion [ that Mr PERSON ] had experienced intense pain on his head and body when he had been physically attacked ... every blow had caused physical pain of different intensity , accompanied by swelling and bruises on his body ... Regarding the intensity and duration of the fear , the experts are of the opinion that when arrested and physically assaulted and hit , particularly on his head , [ Mr PERSON ] had had intense , unpleasant , emotional experiences of primary fear ... which persisted until he had fallen into a coma ... Regarding the emotional suffering due to his unjustified deprivation of liberty and detention , the experts are of the opinion that the basis for an award of non - pecuniary damages ... is the time calculated as of CARDINAL DATE ... when [ Mr PERSON ] was arrested by the police ... , transferred to other police stations , where he was subjected to serious physical ill - treatment and beaten , which caused serious bodily injury ...","This court considers that the [ above ] facts were correctly established .","...","... This court established on the basis of medical evidence that in DATE [ Mr PERSON ] had been certified disabled in GPE and that he had been receiving disability benefits ever since . The serious injury inflicted on him ( during the DATE detention ) had caused his left limbs to become dysfunctional to a minor extent , which can not be regarded as an extremely severe disability . \u201d","The court rejected the ORG arguments that the first - instance court had not decided the claim for compensation for damage sustained as a result of Mr PERSON physical ill - treatment . In this connection it stated that :","\u201c the operative provisions and the reasons given in the [ impugned ] judgment clearly and unequivocally confirm that the court had decided the entire claim ... This court considers that the emotional suffering due to unjustified detention is a single type of damage which includes all the detrimental effects on the victim , including his physical ill - treatment ... In assessing the amount of the award , this court took into consideration all therespect with which the plaintiff was held in his family and in the community , that during the unjustified deprivation of liberty he was physically ill - treated and sustained serious bodily injury , as a result of which his left limbs became dysfunctional to a minor extent , that he was hospitalised and operated on and that he had been disabled before ... \u201d","By a final decision of DATE , delivered by a notary public , the fourth applicant was declared the sole heir of Mr PERSON \u2019s inheritance , including the compensation awarded to him . The remaining applicants refused to accept being declared heirs of the late Mr PERSON .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of ORG reiterating their earlier arguments . The fourth applicant , as the statutory successor of the late Mr PERSON , lodged the appeal in his name and on behalf of PERSON .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal on points of law finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and the reasoning given by the lower courts ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140921","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF D\u00dcLEK v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before the Court by Ms PERSON Tuncer , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation , namely the ORG .","On DATE she was arrested for interrogation at the AntiTerrorism Branch of ORG ( \u201c the Anti - Terrorism Branch \u201d ) . In her statement , taken in the absence of a lawyer , the applicant declared that she had worked as a secretary at a local branch of HADEP for DATE and that she had been a member of the youth branch of ORG since DATE . She also admitted that she was a member of the ORG , that on CARDINAL occasion she had hidden a bomb in her house upon the request of another ORG member , that she had assisted in sending a number of persons to ORG camps in eastern GPE and GPE and that she had acted as a messenger for some ORG members detained at the PERSON prison . The applicant duly signed her statement .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who stated that there were no traces of ill - treatment on her body .","Subsequently , on DATE , the applicant was brought before ORG at ORG , again in the absence of a lawyer . The applicant alleged that at the Anti - Terrorism Branch , she had been forced to sign a statement which had been prepared by the police officers and stated that she did not even know the content of the statement . When her police statement was read out to her , she denied any involvement in the activities mentioned therein , apart from her membership of the youth branch of ORG and her work experience there .","On DATE , the applicant was further interrogated by a single judge at ORG , in the absence of a lawyer . She denied all the accusations against her , reiterating the statement she had made before the public prosecutor . At the end of the questioning , the judge ordered her pre - trial detention .","On DATE ORG at ORG filed an indictment with that court against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons , accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation under LAW no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL civilian judges , held its first hearing . The applicant made her defence statement at the fourth hearing held on DATE , and denied all the charges against her . The applicant also denied her police statement , alleging that she had been forced to sign it without knowing its content . At the end of the hearing ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant under LAW of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation . Accordingly it sentenced her to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment . In convicting her , ORG mainly relied on the applicant \u2019s police statement , and the statements made by her co - defendants .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG .","In the meantime , by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE , ORG were abolished . The case against the applicant was accordingly transferred to ORG .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation under LAW no . DATE ) based on the evidence in the file and sentenced her to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . It expressly held that the assize court had correctly classified the offence committed by the applicant as membership of an illegal organisation .","The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time , as well as recent developments , can be found in GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174444","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KONDRATYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applicant .","NORP In particular , the Government acknowledged that the applicant had remained in pre - trial detention for an excessively lengthy period in violation of LAW . They offered to pay the applicant MONEY and invited the ORG to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with LAW ( c ) of the LAW . The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent ORG at the rate applicable on the date of payment , and would be payable within DATE from the date of notification of the ORG \u2019s judgement . In the event of failure to pay this amount within the abovementioned DATE period , the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them , from the expiry of that period until settlement , at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of ORG during the default period plus CARDINAL percentage points . The declaration did not mention the applicant \u2019s complaint under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW .","The applicant informed the ORG that he agreed to the terms of the declaration ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162018","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DOLBIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE region . He took part in the clean - up operation at the GPE nuclear disaster site . He was subsequently registered disabled , and became entitled to various social benefits .","In DATE the applicant brought proceedings claiming that his benefits should be increased in accordance with a particular method . The adjustment method suggested by the applicant was approved by the domestic courts , which in addition increased the social benefits to which he was entitled to in DATE in accordance with this same method ( judgment of CARDINAL DATE ) .","NORP In DATE the applicant brought a similar set of proceedings in respect of social benefits to which he was entitled to during DATE . Relying on their previous judgment by which they approved the adjustment method suggested by the applicant , the domestic courts increased his social benefits for the new period accordingly ( judgment of DATE ) .","NORP In DATE the judgment of DATE approving the adjustment method suggested by the applicant was quashed by a supervisory review court .","In DATE the domestic courts quashed on the basis of newly discovered circumstances the judgment delivered on DATE on the ground that it was based on the judgment delivered in DATE but quashed since then by way of supervisory review .","Both judgments , of DATE and DATE , remained unenforced prior to their quashing .","In DATE the applicant brought proceedings against welfare authorities claiming arrears for various benefits as well as indexation of those benefits . ORG of GPE granted the applicant \u2019s claims ( judgment of DATE , upheld on DATE ) . This judgment remained unenforced for DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183564","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BODRENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the domestic courts\u2019 failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178176","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TANASOV v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant was travelling on a passenger bus from GPE to GPE , with GPE as his final destination .","At TIME his bus arrived at the NORP border crossing between GPE and GPE . NORP custom officers stopped the bus , got on and started searching the passengers . CARDINAL silver ingots were found in the applicant \u2019s pockets .","A customs officer decided that the applicant had failed to declare the ingots and confiscated them . An offence report drafted by the officer stated that the applicant had failed to declare CARDINAL silver ingots of QUANTITY each and had thereby breached the provisions of LAW ( a ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In addition to the confiscation the applicant was fined CARDINAL NORP lei ( QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) . The report also stated that according to documents produced by the applicant he had bought the CARDINAL ingots from a bank .","The applicant lodged an administrative complaint with ORG , asking for the annulment of the offence report of CARDINAL October CARDINAL and the restitution of the confiscated goods . He explained that he had legally acquired the CARDINAL ingots , which had a value of ORG CARDINAL . He had kept them on him in order to prevent them being stolen during the bus trip and not to elude customs . He also stated that it had not been possible to declare goods to customs in a discrete manner or in writing . The passengers had not been allowed to get off the bus before the customs officers had got on and he had wished to avoid saying what he was carrying in front of the other passengers .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint as ill - founded . Based on the elements in the case file , the court observed that the customs officer had asked the applicant whether he had anything to declare and the applicant had said no . Under those circumstances the court held that the applicant had been correctly sanctioned by the customs officer .","An appeal on points of law by the applicant ( recurs ) was dismissed with final effect on DATE by ORG . The court held that the applicant , who had signed the offence report , had failed to produce any evidence to challenge the customer officer \u2019s findings in that document ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163655","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BIRULEV AND SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON in LOC .","On DATE at TIME he was arrested by traffic police while driving a vehicle which had been declared stolen TIME , and was taken to the local police station .","On DATE at TIME he gave a confession statement .","Later on at TIME a record of his arrest was drawn up . This document indicated that he had been apprehended at TIME by an investigator , Mr S.","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the FAC \u201d ) authorised the first applicant \u2019s detention . The court found that there were grounds to believe that he would abscond , because he was suspected of having committed an offence punishable by DATE imprisonment , was unemployed and without any source of income , and did not reside at his official address . It further referred to the risk that the first applicant might continue his criminal activities on the grounds that , having been released on parole on DATE , he had been apprehended DATE on suspicion of an offence similar to that for which he already had a conviction .","On DATE the first applicant was charged with theft .","On DATE the detention order of CARDINAL DATE was upheld on appeal .","By a judgment of DATE , upheld on appeal on DATE , ORG convicted the first applicant as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE PERSON complained of having been raped by CARDINAL unidentified individuals .","A criminal investigation into the rape was opened at TIME on DATE and the second applicant was apprehended on DATE . He and the Government provided differing versions of how he was arrested .","According to the second applicant , at TIME he was stopped in the street by police and escorted to the local police station . CARDINAL and TIME he took part in an identification parade , as a result of which he was identified by the victim as one of the individuals who had raped her . TIME he was questioned by an investigator . A record of his arrest was not drawn up until TIME","According to the Government , the second applicant was taken to the police station as a witness . They have provided no indications as to when he was taken there or why he was considered to be a witness for the purposes of the investigation . The Government further claimed that the second applicant was interviewed as a witness TIME and TIME , and that the identification parade during which he was identified by the victim took place TIME At CARDINAL p.m. he was arrested as a criminal suspect and TIME later an arrest record was drawn up .","During the above procedures , the second applicant waited in different offices of the police station . Had he tried to leave , he would have been stopped by the police officers who were standing guard at the doors of the offices . As soon as the record of arrest was compiled , he was incarcerated .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE PERSON of GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) remanded the second applicant in custody on the basis of LAW ( hereinafter \u201c the CCrP \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It found that he was suspected of having committed a serious criminal offence , had been identified by the victim , had escaped from the scene of the crime , did not work and had a recent criminal record , and that for those reasons he might abscond , reoffend , influence the victim and the other parties to the proceedings , destroy evidence , or otherwise obstruct the proper administration of justice . ORG did not address the second applicant \u2019s allegation that he had been unlawfully detained for TIME without judicial authorisation .","On DATE the second applicant appealed . Among other things , he complained that his detention was unlawful , on the grounds that he had been brought before a judge CARDINAL after his actual arrest and ORG had not established any \u201c exceptional circumstances \u201d , as required by the ORG in order to place a suspect in detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) upheld the order of CARDINAL DATE . It considered that the second applicant had been apprehended as indicated in the arrest record . It further found that ORG had based its decision on sufficient grounds . Lastly , as regards his argument concerning the absence of \u201c exceptional circumstances \u201d , ORG held as follows :","\u201c The exceptional nature of remanding a criminal suspect in custody implies that he must be charged not DATE from the time of his arrest . Otherwise , he should be immediately released . \u201d","In the meantime , on DATE the second applicant was charged with aggravated rape .","On DATE ORG found him guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","DATE and DATE the second applicant was held in FAC in connection with the criminal proceedings against him . He submitted that the facility had been severely overcrowded and in an appalling sanitary condition . The detainees did not have access to fresh air , sunlight or drinking water ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164434","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF \u00d6Z\u00c7EL\u0130K v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of shoplifting . ORG ( rechtbank ) imposed the measure of placement in a Persistent Offenders Institution ( inrichting voor stelselmatige daders ) for the duration of DATE on him . It took into account the statements of different police officers and probation officers who had had direct contact with the applicant . From these statements it appeared that the applicant was a drug addict who would not voluntarily cooperate with treatment plans . ORG further decided that the measure would be reviewed DATE from the date the judgment became final ( DATE ) .","On DATE ORG reviewed the measure and decided not to terminate it , because it was deemed that there was still a high risk of the applicant reoffending . The applicant appealed against this decision on DATE , but on DATE ORG ( gerechtshof ) dismissed the appeal .","On DATE PERSON , the applicant \u2019s personal case officer , issued a progress report about the applicant , containing , amongst other things , the following :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is currently residing in ORG . The placement is progressing reasonably well . ( ... )","If the measure should be terminated , [ the applicant ] will immediately find himself in a situation where he has no income , housing or DATE activities . The risk of reoffending is consequently high . To lower the risk of reoffending the measure should be continued . \u201d","On DATE ORG decided to prolong the measure further , holding that there was a considerable likelihood that the applicant would reoffend after his release .","The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE counsel for the applicant made inquiries with ORG about the progress of the appeal and requested that its examination be given priority . Prior to the hearing before ORG , counsel for the applicant requested in a letter of CARDINAL DATE that , for the benefit of the applicant , an interpreter be present who spoke Aramaic or Assyrian , and he gave the name of an interpreter who spoke the correct language .","On DATE a hearing took place before ORG . It appeared that the applicant was unable to understand the interpreter who spoke NORP . With the applicant \u2019s agreement , the case was adjourned for a maximum period of DATE to allow counsel for the applicant to put written questions to certain of the applicant \u2019s counsellors . It was also determined that case officer PERSON should be heard as an expert witness and that an interpreter speaking Aramaic should be present at the next hearing .","After DATE had elapsed , counsel for the applicant inquired with ORG into the progress of the proceedings on DATE and again on DATE . The proceedings were resumed on CARDINAL DATE , when a hearing took place . On that occasion case officer PERSON declared the following :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is no longer addicted to substances . The risk of reoffending is maximally reduced at this moment . The parole board has made several attempts to include [ the applicant ] in a treatment plan , but unfortunately this has not been sufficiently achieved . The clinical features of [ the applicant ] play an important role in this , but PERSON [ the institution ] could have signalled earlier that there were no further possibilities to treat [ the applicant ] . The measure has contributed to the protection of society since [ the applicant ] is no longer addicted , thus reducing the risk of him reoffending . [ The applicant ] is now residing in a halfway house and has been placed on the waiting list for sheltered accommodation . \u201d","It would appear that sheltered accommodation became available for the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG delivered its decision , holding , amongst other things , the following :","\u201c No violation of LAW","ORG considers that in the present case it can not be said that the appeal was dealt with speedily within the meaning of LAW . It took DATE after the appeal was lodged before it was dealt with on the merits . Unlike counsel [ for the applicant ] , the court is of the opinion that the decision to accept that a violation of the LAW has occurred in itself constitutes sufficient satisfaction for the outrage to his sense of justice .","Termination","ORG has held that the execution of the measure has not been sufficiently expeditious in all stages . ORG deems that the difficult progress of the measure can not only be attributed to [ the applicant ] and finds that ORG could have signalled the difficult progress of the measure earlier .","Having regard to the fact that [ the applicant ] currently has accommodation where he can stay as well as a prospect of placement in appropriate sheltered accommodation where he can also stay if the measure is terminated , and the fact that partly due to this the risk that the termination of the measure will lead to endangerment , nuisance and degradation of society is small , ORG considers that continuation of the measure is no longer necessary . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159198","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF S.C. ANTARES TRANSPORT S.A. AND S.C. TRANSROBY S.R.L. v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants are commercial companies authorised to provide services in the area of passenger transport . They are located in GPE .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision which set out a programme of passenger transport for the local area for a period of DATE . Within the programme , the NORP \u2013 PERSON \u2013 NORP - NORP route was considered as an individual route . Following a public tender , an association consisting of CARDINAL companies was granted a licence to transport passengers along that route .","On DATE ORG modified its previous decision and adopted a new programme of passenger transport for a period of DATE , covering DATE to DATE . Within the new programme , the NORP \u2013 PERSON \u2013 NORP - NORP route was grouped together with CARDINAL other routes . Another public tender took place , and the applicant companies submitted a tender for the group . They subsequently received licences to operate public transportation services for the CARDINAL routes in the group .","On DATE CARDINAL of the CARDINAL companies which lost their licence for the NORP \u2013 PERSON \u2013 NORP - NORP route asked the courts to annul ORG decision of DATE , and to oblige the local authorities to adopt a new decision in which the route in question could again be considered as an individual route .","The first applicant company requested ( and was granted ) leave to intervene in the proceedings in order to defend its own interests . Through its submissions , the applicant company argued that the decision adopted by the council on DATE was in accordance with the law , and asked ORG to dismiss the action .","On DATE ORG held that , by grouping routes together , the county council had acted arbitrarily and had limited access for other competitors in the public transport market . The court considered that the routes had been grouped together without any economic or geographical considerations . The court therefore ordered the county council to re - analyse route no . CARDINAL ( the Dr\u0103g\u0103\u015fani \u2013 B\u0103beni \u2013 R\u00e2mnicu - V\u00e2lcea route ) , and to proceed to a new public tender of the route as an individual route . The court used the following terms :","\u201c We consider that , by grouping together these routes , the creation of a monopoly on the road transport market was encouraged , thereby breaching the principles of free competition .","In conclusion , the court holds that it is necessary to partially revoke decision no . CARDINAL on the approval of the programme for passenger transport ... for DATE in respect of offer CARDINAL , group of routes no . CARDINAL , route no . CARDINAL Dr\u0103g\u0103\u015fani\u2013 B\u0103beni\u2013 R\u00e2mnicu - GPE .","Considering that ... Order no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was repealed by Order no . DATE ... , it follows that the defendant should re - analyse route CARDINAL NORP - PERSON - R\u00e2mnicu - V\u00e2lcea as an individual route in view of these legal provisions and , taking into account the results , proceed to a new public tender . \u201d","The first applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against this judgment , arguing that the plaintiff had not proved the existence of a legitimate interest for its request , and that the partial annulment of a public tender would be unlawful .","On DATE ORG rejected the first applicant company \u2019s appeal on points of law with final effect . The court explained that there were preconditions imposed by law which had to be fulfilled before a decision to group together certain transport routes could be taken by a local authority . Bearing in mind that in the current case those requirements had not been observed , the lower court had correctly annulled the administrative decision in question in the context of the request before it , namely in respect of route no . CARDINAL . ORG explained that the lower court had ordered the county council to conduct an analysis of whether or not route no . CARDINAL might be grouped together with other routes , in compliance with the legal provisions in force . Lastly , the court held that non - compliance with those obligations would give those whose interests had been negatively affected the right to request reparation for any consequent damage .","On DATE ORG adopted a new decision ; modifying the programme of public transport for the period DATE by putting out to public tender all CARDINAL routes from group no . CARDINAL as individual routes . Consequently , on DATE the applicant companies received a letter from ORG ( PERSON ) informing them that they had to hand over their licences for the entire group of CARDINAL routes within DATE of the final decision in a new public tender .","On DATE the new public tender was organised for the CARDINAL routes in question . The applicant companies did not participate .","On DATE the applicant companies lodged administrative proceedings requesting the annulment of the decision made by ORG on DATE . They argued that ORG , by its judgment of DATE , had ordered the analysis as an individual route of CARDINAL route out of the group of CARDINAL . They further alleged that , by withdrawing their licences for the remaining CARDINAL routes and organising a new public tender for all of the routes in the group , the authorities had acted unlawfully .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ORG complaint . The court held that the contested decision had been adopted in accordance with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , but also in compliance with new regulations adopted by ORG ; regulations which no longer provided for the possibility of grouping routes together for economic or geographic purposes .","The applicant ORG appeal on points of law against that judgment was rejected with final effect by ORG on DATE . ORG considered that the lower court had made a correct analysis of the facts .","The president of the panel of CARDINAL judges added a separate dissenting opinion to the judgment on the appeal on points of law . He considered that , by adopting the decision of DATE , ORG had not properly enforced the judgment of DATE , and had therefore breached the applicant companies\u2019 right to property guaranteed by LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . The judge explained that the applicant companies had participated in a public tender , and had won the right to exploit the group of CARDINAL routes in question . Although the county council had been ordered by final judgment to reanalyse only one of the routes above as an individual route , they had adopted without any legal basis a new decision which considered all of the routes individually .","On DATE the first applicant company requested before the administrative court the annulment of ORG decision of DATE to withdraw its licences for the entire group of routes . The first applicant company also requested that the enforcement of that decision be suspended pending the delivery of a final judgment in the case .","The first applicant company argued that the contested decision prevented it and its associate ( the second applicant company ) from participating in the next public tender for the same route . The applicant companies further argued that the withdrawal of their licences had not been in compliance with LAW no . DATE , which set out the grounds on which licences could be withdrawn .","On DATE ORG rejected the action as submitted by the first applicant company . The court held that the applicant had not proved the alleged damage caused by the decision of ORG , since it could participate in the new tender . In addition , there was no proof that the applicant company would be prevented from participating in the new tender . The court further explained that , should the applicant company consider itself prejudiced by the administrative act which was in dispute , it could request damages from those responsible for any consequent loss .","The first applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law against that judgment . It alleged that the licences for the entire group of routes could not be lawfully withdrawn , since not all of them had been annulled by a court judgment . The first applicant company argued that , in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , a company whose licence for a certain route had been withdrawn could not participate in a new tender for the same route .","On DATE ORG and ORG decided to allow the first applicant company \u2019s request , and partially annulled the decision of ORG , which was upheld only in respect of the licence for route no . CARDINAL . ORG considered that the licences held by the applicant company for the other CARDINAL routes of offer CARDINAL , group no . CARDINAL constituted \u201c possessions \u201d within the meaning of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW , and that there was no reason to order their remittal through an administrative act ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163656","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF URAZOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted fraud . On DATE at TIME criminal proceedings were instituted against him .","On DATE at TIME a record of the applicant \u2019s arrest was drawn up by the investigator . The record indicated that the applicant \u2019s arrest took place at TIME on DATE .","On DATE ORG of FAC ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) authorised the applicant \u2019s detention pending investigation . The court noted as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is charged with a serious offence representing an increased danger to society ; the material submitted contains sufficient data about [ his ] involvement in the crime , including the testimony of the victim ... [ The applicant ] is an acting police officer , and under such circumstances the court finds that the ORG has made a well - founded argument about the necessity to isolate [ the applicant ] in view of the risk of [ his ] absconding and obstructing the establishment of the truth in the early stage of the investigation by putting pressure on witnesses using his [ status ] . \u201d","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) upheld the above decision on appeal . The appeal hearing was held in the applicant \u2019s absence . The applicant \u2019s lawyer was present .","On DATE the applicant was informed that the investigation had been completed and that the case file had been submitted to ORG for trial .","In the meantime , on DATE , the DATE time - limit for the applicant \u2019s detention pending investigation expired . The applicant , however , remained in detention .","On DATE ORG scheduled a preliminary hearing and ordered that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should remain unchanged until a date for the opening of the trial had been set .","The applicant challenged the above decision in a supervisory review procedure . He argued that since there had been no valid court order authorising his detention from CARDINAL August to CARDINAL DATE , the decision to retain the custodial measure unchanged had been unlawful .","On DATE ORG scheduled the opening of the trial and ordered that the preventive measure remain unaltered .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial for DATE , until DATE , noting as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is charged with a serious crime , representing an increased danger to society . The crime , according to the charges brought , was committed in abuse of office . So far [ the applicant ] has not been suspended from [ his post ] . Under these circumstances , if released , [ the applicant ] may put pressure on the victim and the witnesses . The sanction for the offence with which [ the applicant ] is charged varies from CARDINAL to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ; therefore the arguments of the prosecution that [ the applicant ] may abscond from justice and render the examination of the case on the merits impossible are well - founded . \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the application for release and extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial for DATE , until DATE . The decision mentioned that an appeal could be lodged within DATE to ORG and the applicant appealed . However , on DATE ORG discontinued the examination of the applicant \u2019s appeal . Referring to Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , the ORG held that rulings rendered by a court in the course of the trial were not amenable to separate appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE , until DATE . The court applied the same reasoning as in its decision of QUANTITY DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal .","On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application to quash the decision of CARDINAL DATE by means of supervisory review . The court held , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s detention from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE had been lawful and that the decision of CARDINAL DATE should stand .","On DATE ORG , applying the same arguments as in its previous decisions , extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . During the hearing , the applicant requested that the court let his sister represent him . However , in view of the fact that the applicant was already represented by CARDINAL professional advocates , the court dismissed the request . On DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court again relied on the gravity of the charges against the applicant , his position and the risk of his putting pressure on the victim and witnesses , and of absconding and obstructing justice . CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s lawyers was absent from the hearing . On DATE ORG upheld the above decisions on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , noting that the grounds for detention had not changed .","The applicant lodged another application for release , relying on a deterioration of his health and the unavailability of adequate medical assistance in the remand prison . However , on DATE ORG dismissed the application .","The applicant appealed , but on CARDINAL DATE ORG , relying on Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , discontinued the appeal proceedings .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of attempted large - scale fraud in abuse of office and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and a fine . During the hearing the applicant was kept in a metal cage .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","On DATE the applicant obtained a conditional early release .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from CARDINAL DATE to DATE the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE . He claimed that the facility had been severely overcrowded and that the cells had been in a poor sanitary condition .","In the above periods , the applicant was transported between the remand prison and ORG on CARDINAL occasions . He claimed that the conditions of his transport to and from the courthouse had been appalling .","Upon the applicant \u2019s arrival at IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL remand prison in DATE he underwent a mandatory medical examination , including clinical laboratory tests and an examination by medical specialists . No abnormalities were found . The applicant subsequently underwent scheduled health examinations .","On DATE the applicant sought medical assistance . In connection with this application , on DATE he was referred to the prison hospital in IK-CARDINAL correctional colony for examination and treatment . The examination showed that the applicant was suffering from the initial stages of a cardiovascular disease . He was prescribed and provided with the necessary treatment and his condition improved . The applicant was discharged on DATE in a satisfactory condition with a recommendation to continue outpatient supervision . Upon return to IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL the applicant was put under outpatient supervision and given the recommended treatment .","From DATE , from DATE to DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent subsequent scheduled courses of inpatient treatment in IK-CARDINAL correctional colony \u2019s prison hospital . The applicant \u2019s health condition remained satisfactory and no complications were noted .","Despite the ORG \u2019s request to submit a copy of the applicant \u2019s medical file , the ORG \u2019s account was not supported by any relevant documents .","Several times during his detention in IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL the applicant applied for treatment for acute toothache . However , he was informed on each occasion that there was no dentist on the medical staff of the remand prison . In DATE a dentist was recruited by the remand prison . The only treatment available was extraction and there was a DATE waiting list .","A medical certificate issued by the applicant \u2019s dentist ( who had provided dental care to the applicant since DATE , up to his detention ) confirmed in DATE that there were no traces of dental care having been provided to the applicant in the period DATE and DATE and noted a serious worsening of the state of the latter \u2019s teeth . It also stated that the applicant needed treatment for tooth decay ( CARDINAL teeth ) and a dental prosthesis .","The applicant also complained on numerous occasions about hypertension . He was given unidentified pills and a prescription for a more effective and costly medicine , with reference to the facility \u2019s lack of finance . The applicant could not afford to buy the medication prescribed .","The applicant developed chronic gastritis while in remand prison .","At the request of the applicant \u2019s lawyer , on DATE the doctor at IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL remand prison issued a medical certificate reading as follows :","\u201c During his detention in IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL [ the applicant ] repeatedly turned to the medical unit of the [ remand prison ] for medical assistance . He was examined by a physician and diagnosed with neurocirculatory dystonia of a hypertonic type , and chronic gastritis of type B at the stage of unstable remission .","Appropriate treatment was prescribed with the medicine available at the remand prison . Furthermore , a prescription was given to the applicant to purchase more efficient medication .","At the present moment [ the applicant \u2019s ] state of health is relatively satisfactory .","In the event of a worsening of his state of health the applicant can be transferred to the regional prison hospital for inpatient treatment . \u201d","An ambulance was called for the applicant at the court hearings on several occasions and he was given treatment for high blood pressure . The applicant submitted a medical certificate dated DATE , which shows that the ambulance was called for him on that date during the court hearing and that he was provided with the necessary medical assistance for a hypertensive crisis .","NORP Following numerous complaints about inadequate medical assistance in the remand prison , the applicant was transferred on several occasions to the hospital in the IK-CARDINAL correctional colony in LOC . However , no effective treatment was available in the hospital either , because the applicant was not transferred there when his health required , that is following his hypertensive crises , but in accordance with an unclear schedule fixed by the administration of the remand prison .","As is apparent from the documents submitted by the applicant in support of his allegations , on DATE an inspection of IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was carried out by the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE . The inspection revealed , inter alia , that there was a problem of deficient health care in the remand prison .","The applicant brought the issue of inadequate medical assistance before various domestic authorities , including the head of the remand prison , the GPE regional prosecutor \u2019s office , the ORG and a judge of ORG , but all to no avail ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158085","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RAKI\u0106 AND SARVAN v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in Po\u017eega .","They were employed by ORG , a socially - owned company based in PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE upon the first applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE ORG ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE upon the first applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE ORG ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final by DATE .","On DATE upon the first applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE ORG ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE upon the second applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE ORG ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE upon the second applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs .","The debtor , which operated as a socially - owned company , was privatised on DATE .","On DATE the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations .","Following the annulment of the debtor \u2019s privatisation the ORG owned PERCENT of shares in the company .","On DATE the ORG sold its shares to a private company .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor . As a result , all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were stayed .","The applicants duly reported their respective claims based on the above - mentioned judgments to the insolvency administration .","On DATE ORG recognized a part of the ORG claims .","NORP In DATE and DATE some of the judgments at issue had been partially enforced in the insolvency proceedings .","The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183240","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"BAKIU AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The case originated in CARDINAL applications ( CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ) against GPE lodged with ORG under LAW ( \u201c the LAW ) by CARDINAL NORP nationals on DATE .","The applicants were represented by Mr PERSON and Mr T. Alexandridis , CARDINAL lawyers practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Ms A. Hicka of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants , whose personal details are set out in the appended table , are NORP nationals . They have been grouped according to the family they are part of .","During the communist period , families lived in ORG - owned housing in accordance with lease agreements . Private dwellings which passed into ORG ownership through legislation on nationalisation were given by the communist government to other families , who as a rule worked for ORG institutions at the time . In such cases , the local authorities issued occupancy authorisations , which had the effect of granting the right to a tenancy of a flat ( \u201c secure tenancy \u201d ) . A secure tenancy agreement was concluded between tenants and the ORG - owned ORG ( GPE \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","In DATE , following the end of NORP rule , ORG provided for the privatisation of all NORP housing in favour of occupying families . No provision was made for the privatisation of private dwellings which had been nationalised and were occupied by tenants ( see \u201c Privatisation of ORG \u201d below for detailed information ) .","In DATE ORG was enacted . Former owners or their heirs were entitled to claim restitution of expropriated or nationalised properties as well as compensation . The restitution of dwellings occupied by tenants did not affect the secure tenancy agreements concluded in the meantime , which remained controlled by law ( see the \u201c LAW DATE \u201d section below for detailed information ) .","In DATE and DATE the legislature introduced a time - limit within which tenants had to vacate the dwellings restored to former owners . The said provisions were struck down by ORG in DATE and DATE , respectively ( see ORG decisions ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL below for detailed information ) .","The applicants had been living as tenants for DATE ( CARDINAL ) in housing units that , following the fall of communism , were restored to the former owners . The applicants had been paying ORG - controlled rent in accordance with domestic law ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) .","On DATE the Government introduced a Normative Act ordering tenants to vacate dwellings which had been restored to the former owners ( \u201c the Normative Act DATE \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG enacted a law endorsing LAW .","On DATE ORG living in Expropriated Properties ( PERSON n\u00eb PERSON Pron\u00eb Private \u2013 \u201c the Association \u201d ) challenged the constitutionality of LAW .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG \u2019s constitutional complaint and declared the LAW DATE constitutional . The reasoned decision became public on DATE ( see \u201c Domestic proceedings \u201d in the \u201c LAW DATE \u201d section below for detailed information ) .","Pursuant to LAW , eviction orders as well as enforcement writs were issued against the applicants .","On DATE the ORG and CARDINAL tenants , including all the applicants , addressed a petition to ORG , claiming that LAW did not provide effective measures for provision of housing for them . They further called upon the authorities to postpone their eviction until after DATE . The end of the letter read as follows : \u201c the appellants , some members of the Association \u201d ( k\u00ebrkuesit , disa an\u00ebtar\u00eb t\u00eb ORG s\u00eb PERSON n\u00eb Banesat Shtet\u00ebrore Ish Pron\u00eb Private ) . No reply was given by ORG .","None of the applicants possessed any real estate or other alternative housing at the time the eviction orders and the enforcement writs were issued against them . The applicants\u2019 economic status is briefly described in DATE hereto .","In DATE and DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( see \u201c LAW DATE \u201d section below for more information ) concluded agreements for CARDINAL - interest loans with CARDINAL families , namely PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . DATE ) , FAC ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , GPE ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and PERSON ( application no . PERSON ) , respectively on CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , disbursing loans in the amounts of MONEY ( ORG ) , ORG CARDINAL ; EUR CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL ; EUR CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL ; and EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL , respectively .","The applications for a CARDINAL - interest loan submitted by the PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) families were refused by ORG grounds that they did not meet its requirements to obtain a loan .","The PERSON ( application no . DATE ) and PERSON ( application no . DATE ) families were classified as \u201c homeless \u201d ( i pastreh\u00eb ) but failed to complete the documentation necessary to obtain a loan . The authorities did not have any other information in respect of the CARDINAL remaining families , namely Meta ( application no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . DATE ) and PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","As the file was lacking some information concerning the individual situations of the applicants at the time of the communication of the case to the Government , the ORG asked the applicants to submit factual information as regards : the size of the dwelling , the estimated value of the dwelling , the location of the dwelling , the DATE rent paid , the average DATE rent and their DATE earnings . They were further asked to inform the ORG whether the eviction orders had been enforced . They were also asked to provide information about their housing situation at that time and how they intended to find long - term accommodation .","Only some of the applicants replied in writing , giving some of the information requested by ORG . Detailed information is set out in DATE hereto .","In reply to the ORG \u2019s question whether the eviction orders had been enforced , only the PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) and GPE ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) families submitted bailiff records according to which the first CARDINAL families were evicted on DATE , whereas the NORP family was evicted on CARDINAL DATE . The remaining applicants did not submit bailiff \u2019s records indicating the exact date of their eviction .","The applicants submitted to the ORG , amongst other information , the following .","The applicants constituting the PERSON family ( application no . DATE ) submitted that a PERCENT loan had been taken by their niece , who was not a member of the family , since they had not met the ORG \u2019s requirements for obtaining a loan . They had subsequently bought an apartment , where they were living at the time of the submission .","The applicants constituting the Bujar Subashi family ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) submitted that a PERCENT loan had been granted but they had not been able to use it . Instead , some of the members were renting a flat ; the remaining members were accommodated by their relatives .","The applicants constituting the NORP Subashi family ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) had received a PERCENT loan from GPE . Since the loan was not adequate they were obliged to solicit the help of another person to obtain another loan from a bank . It would appear that the applicants bought an apartment , where they were living at the time of the submission .","The applicant Mr PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) was renting an apartment as he was unable to take a loan from the ORG for failure to meet the relevant requirements .","The applicant GPE ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) was granted a PERCENT loan . It would appear that she bought an apartment where she was living at the time of the submission .","The applicants constituting the ORG PERSON family ( application no . CARDINAL ) were renting an apartment at the time of the submission as they did not meet the ORG \u2019s requirements to obtain a loan .","The applicants constituting the PERSON family ( application no . CARDINAL ) were renting an apartment at the time of the submission . Their applications for a PERCENT loan and social housing had been rejected by the authorities for failure to meet the relevant requirements .","The applicants constituting the PERSON family ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) had received a PERCENT loan . They had subsequently bought an apartment , where they were living at the time of the submission .","The remaining applicants informed their legal representatives that they had been accommodated by relatives , often under cramped conditions . They noted that due to their indigence , they did not have any possibilities of securing alternative housing for themselves and their families other than being provided with social housing .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides , amongst other things , that the ORG , within its constitutional powers and the means available to it , and with the aim of helping private industry and entrepreneurship , aims to fulfil the housing needs of its citizens . It further provides that the fulfilment of social objectives can not be claimed directly through the courts . It is the law which defines the conditions under which and the extent to which a person may claim the realisation of this objective .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW empowers ORG to introduce Normative Acts in cases of necessity and urgency . Normative Acts contain provisional measures . They have to be endorsed by ORG in order to have the force of law .","Other relevant provisions at the material time read , as follows :","Article CARDINAL","\u201c CARDINAL . The limitation of the rights and freedoms provided for in this LAW may be established only by law for a public interest or for the protection of the rights of others . A limitation shall be in proportion with the situation that has dictated it .","These limitations may not infringe the essence of the rights and freedoms and in no case may exceed the limitations provided for in LAW . \u201d","Article CARDINAL","\u201c CARDINAL . Any international agreement that has been ratified constitutes part of the domestic legal system after it is published in ORG . It is directly applicable , except when it is not self - executing and its application requires the adoption of a law . The amendment and repeal of laws approved by a majority of all members of the ORG is done by the same majority for the purposes of the ratification of an international agreement .","An international agreement ratified by law has priority over the laws of the country that are incompatible with it .","The norms issued by an international organization have priority , in case of conflict , over the law of the country when the direct application of the norms issued by the organization is expressly contemplated in the agreement ratified by GPE for participation therein . \u201d","Article CARDINAL","\u201c The Constitutional Court shall decide on :","( a ) the compatibility of a law with the LAW or international agreements as provided for LAW CARDINAL","...","( c ) the compatibility of Normative Acts introduced by central and local authorities with the LAW or international agreements","...","( f ) final complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing , after all legal remedies for the protection of those rights have been exhausted . \u201d","Article QUANTITY ( f ) and CARDINAL","ORG may initiate proceedings only at the request of :","...","( f ) political parties and other organisations ;","( g ) individuals .","NORP The entities designated in the first paragraph , letters ... ( f ) and ( g ) , may lodge applications only on issues connected with their interests . \u201d","Under LAW ORG a debtor may seek before the domestic courts to have an executable decision ( titull ekzekutiv ) declared invalid or to have it declared that the obligation does not exist or that it exists in a smaller amount or that it has later ceased to exist .","Under LAW ORG parties may complain to a court of an act or failure to act by a bailiff within DATE of the said act or omission .","Article CARDINAL of the ORG at the material provided that the appeal before the court against the bailiff \u2019s acts or omissions had no suspensive effect on the execution . There was a right of appeal against the court decision .","The Act was intended to privatise ORG - owned housing units and to create a free market for housing , thus enabling tenants to become owners . Families living in ORG - owned flats , pursuant to a lease agreement , could purchase those flats and become owners subject to completion of a set of actions , such as payment of the full privatisation price and registration of the property at the relevant land registry office .","Section CARDINAL of the Act provided that homeless citizens were entitled to receive loans from financial institutions to resolve their housing needs . The interest payments would be borne by the State through ORG ( PERSON i Banesave \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","Section CARDINAL stated that rents for housing units which had previously been private property would be liberalised from DATE .","Section CARDINAL provided that ORG - owned housing units which had previously been private property were not privatised under LAW .","Section CARDINAL stated that the ORG would provide rental housing , which would be constructed in the future , to , inter alia , tenants [ who should vacate the housing unit as a result of its return to the former owner ] living in dwellings belonging to former owners .","NORP In decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG held , inter alia , that no discrimination had resulted from the existence of CARDINAL categories of tenants , as provided for under domestic laws . The decision , in so far as relevant , reads :","\u201c The [ Constitutional ] Court observes that [ the Privatisation of State - Owned Housing Units Act ] and [ ORG ] govern the problems of the privatisation of ORG - owned housing units and of the restitution of properties to former owners or compensation for them .","Under both laws , tenants of ORG - owned housing units have the right to take them into private ownership in compliance with the conditions prescribed by the law . In order to resolve their housing needs , tenants of dwellings that have been restored to former owners have been granted the right to receive loans from financial institutions , the interest payments on which ... are to be borne by the ORG , as expressly provided for in section CARDINAL of the LAW , or , alternatively , are to be accommodated as tenants in housing units to be constructed by the ORG under LAW of the said LAW .","The different solutions to the housing problems that concern these categories of tenants do not arise from any type of discrimination between them , but are a result of the different statuses they enjoy : the first are tenants of ORG - owned housing units , the second are tenants of dwellings that have been restored to former owners . \u201d","According to LAW the former owners of properties expropriated by the relevant regime and their legal heirs had the right to claim their ownership over the original properties . Upon ownership being determined they were entitled either to have allocated the original immovable property or to be awarded compensation in one of the forms provided for in law .","Other relevant provisions of LAW are set out below .","The relevant provision of LAW DATE provided :","Section CARDINAL","\u201c The relationship between tenants and former owners who become owners \/ landlords pursuant to this law shall be governed by [ the Privatisation of State - Owned Housing Units Act ] .","If ... the former owner provides the tenant with housing within the same localgovernment area , consisting of a surface area in accordance with the housing norms in force , ... the tenant shall be obliged to vacate the dwelling .","The ORG is obliged to resolve the housing needs of current tenants in accordance with the current housing norms , by giving priority to families with limited financial means .","At their request former owners may be compensated in one of the forms determined by this law . \u201d","In so far as relevant , LAW , replacing LAW , provided :","Section CARDINAL","\u201c CARDINAL . Properties which are the property of former owners shall be vacated by tenant(s ) within DATE . The tenants shall continue to pay the rent set by ORG for DATE after the entry into force of this LAW . ORG shall be responsible for housing homeless tenants by providing a dwelling at a low rent , a low - interest loan or a dwelling whose rent is borne by the ORG . \u201d","In its decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG struck down section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . It attached importance to the fact that the relevant provision had worsened the status of tenants compared to the provisions that had existed before LAW had entered into force . It found therefore that the amendment to the legislation had not respected the principle of legal certainty . It concluded that a limitation on tenants\u2019 right to shelter could not be justified by the public interest in upholding former ORG property rights .","Following the above - cited ORG decision , in DATE the legislature amended section CARDINAL of LAW to read as follows :","Section CARDINAL","\u201c CARDINAL . Properties which are the property of former owners and which were leased to tenants by the ORG before the entry into force of [ ORG ] , which are used for housing needs , shall be transferred to the possession of the former owner(s ) when CARDINAL of the following conditions is met :","a. The housing needs of the tenants have been met in any other lawful way ;","b. The former owner provides the tenants with a dwelling that has a surface area no smaller than the dwelling they already use and which is in an approximately similar condition and within the same local - government area , until such time as the tenants\u2019 housing needs are met in one of the other ways provided by this section .","c. The tenants conclude a loan contract with a financial institution , in accordance with the first and second paragraphs of LAW of [ ORG for ORG ] ;","d. The tenants benefit from housing or a plot of land as provided for by LAW ( CARDINAL ) of [ ORG for ORG ] \u201d","...","Homeless persons who are tenants in dwellings which are the property of former owners and who have not concluded a loan contract in accordance with sub - paragraph ( c ) of the first paragraph of this section , or have not yet been provided with housing in accordance with subparagraphs ( a ) , ( c ) and ( d ) of the first paragraph of this section , shall lose their right to possess the dwelling by DATE . They shall be offered social housing programmes , in accordance with CARDINAL of ORG for ORG . The former owner is entitled to take lawful possession of the dwelling under his legal title .","NORP The rent for dwellings occupied by homeless persons as provided for in paragraph CARDINAL of this section is indexed according to INSTAT data on the basis of DATE price and salary increases . Its aim is to cover the expenses of the owner for the maintenance and good administration of the dwelling ... \u201d","In decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG struck down section CARDINAL of LAW . It followed the same line of reasoning as in its decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . It recommended that ORG introduce new legislative measures to fill the legal vacuum .","On DATE the Government introduced LAW for the vacation of former ORG properties which were occupied by tenants . Only those tenants whose names had been transferred to the ORG to obtain a CARDINAL - interest loan for DATE to buy a flat would be evicted . The list of homeless tenants in line to obtain a loan would be drawn up by the ORG and submitted to the ORG by DATE . The deadline to voluntarily vacate the properties was set as CARDINAL DATE .","In the event of a failure to vacate a flat voluntarily within the prescribed time - limit , the ORG , upon written notification of the former owner , would issue an eviction order , which would be considered an executable decision within the meaning of LAW . The ORG would then ask ORG to issue an enforcement writ for the vacation of the flat . Section CARDINAL bars a stay of execution of the enforcement writ .","NORP In addition to a CARDINAL - interest loan for DATE , section CARDINAL of LAW also provides for social rental housing provided by municipal councils and placement of old people who are unable to care for themselves or who do not have the means to pay for social rental housing in retirement homes .","On DATE the ORG issued a public opinion in relation to LAW . He gave the opinion that the legal vacuum resulting from the striking down of LAW should have been filled by ORG instead of by the Government , that there had been no detailed study as regards the status of homeless families , that the time - limits fixed by LAW were extremely short , that no stay of execution was allowed and that no public interest justified a breach of the principle of legal certainty . In the end , he concluded that LAW was incompatible with LAW .","On DATE ORG endorsed LAW . According to the hearing record of DATE , the ruling majority members of parliament ( \u201c MPs \u201d ) stated that there were CARDINAL families living as tenants in dwellings returned to former owners , of these CARDINAL had applied for a loan at the ORG , out of whom CARDINAL had already obtained a loan . The programme of granting a CARDINAL - interest loan , meaning that interest payments were to be borne by the ORG , had been in existence since DATE .","According to opposition MPs , the passing of LAW was hasty and required specialised and broader discussions . They requested that the ORG \u2019s opinion be circulated to MPs .","On DATE the ORG lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , challenging the constitutionality of LAW and GPE DATE endorsing it . The ORG submitted that the solutions provided for by LAW were incompatible with the principle of legal certainty . They were detrimental to tenants by removing the ORG \u2019s obligation to provide housing for this category . They were further discriminated against vis - \u00e0 - vis those tenants who had obtained housing under LAW .","The ORG also averred that the situation should have been governed by an Act of ORG instead of a Normative Act introduced by the Government . It further took issue with the lack of a possibility to challenge the stay of the enforcement and the fact that tenants had to voluntarily vacate the flats within a short time - limit , specifically by DATE .","In their additional submissions of CARDINAL DATE the ORG stated that LAW did not provide effective solutions on the following grounds : local - government units did not possess the necessary funds and means to provide social housing ; the ORG did not possess sufficient funds to provide loans to every homeless family ; the majority of the applicants , owing to their age , insufficient earnings , previous criminal records and the lack of collateral , would never become eligible for a loan .","In their written submissions of DATE to ORG , ORG submitted that since DATE the Government had been implementing a financing scheme of zerointerest loans to homeless families living in housing belonging to former owners . The statistics showed that out of CARDINAL registered homeless families , CARDINAL of them had applied for CARDINAL - interest loans , out of which CARDINAL had concluded contracts for disbursement with the ORG . Even though loans had been approved in respect of the remaining homeless families , they had delayed signing the paperwork for their disbursements . Having regard to the delays by homeless families in applying for CARDINAL - interest loans and in subsequently signing the paperwork for their disbursement , the ORG had introduced LAW as a matter of urgency . LAW had remedied the former ORG property - rights issues in accordance with LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention and avoided making the ORG liable to payment of high reparation claims . In their view , there had been no breach of the principle of legal certainty , since the problem of homeless families had been the subject of discussions for DATE . Moreover , LAW provided for social rental housing provided by local - government units or for accommodation at retirement homes for old people who did not meet the requirements to obtain a loan .","On DATE the ORG informed the ORG that it had unanimously dismissed its constitutional complaint . The reasoned decision became available on DATE ( decision no . CARDINAL ) .","ORG found that the ORG had legal standing having regard to its statute , act of incorporation , the nature of its activity and the nature of LAW which it had challenged . It found that there was a connection between the aim for which the ORG had been established and the constitutional issue brought for examination before ORG .","In respect of the merits of the case ORG found that , pursuant to LAW , there was a necessity and urgency to introduce LAW . This was dictated by the fact that former owners had been waiting for DATE to have title to the dwellings returned to them . It had also been conditioned by the implementation of ORG pilot judgment in the case of ORG ( cited above ) as regards the enforcement of final decisions recognising former ORG right of restitution of their properties or compensation in lieu . It further referenced ORG findings in the cases of GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , PERSON ( cited above ) and PERSON and Others ( cited above ) and noted the systemic failures of the domestic system to respect former ORG right of peaceful enjoyment of possessions . It therefore considered that LAW had struck the right balance between the tenants\u2019 rights and the former ORG right of property .","As to the proportionality test , ORG held that LAW provided for a DATE loan at PERCENT interest , as the payments would be borne by the ORG . The interest to be paid would exceed the principal to be taken as a loan by a tenant . Furthermore , the Normative Act laid down other positive obligations for the ORG , such as the provision of social housing to such tenants by local - government units , priority to be given to social rental housing , as well as placement of old people who were not capable of taking care of themselves or had no one else to attend to them in retirement homes . In the court \u2019s view , this showed that the ORG had made sufficient provision for vulnerable groups . Housing these individuals was a shared task between the ORG and the individuals themselves . The proposed measures could not be said to be arbitrary , unfair or based on an unreasonable assessment . Neither could they be considered to be more stringent ; on the contrary , they were more favourable . The obligation for tenants to vacate the dwellings was necessary and the interference was justified by the public interest .","ORG rejected the ORG \u2019s complaint that the courts could not stay the enforcement on the grounds that its powers of constitutional review did not extend to issues concerning the interpretation , implementation and harmonisation of domestic laws .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) issued an order ( \u201c the ORG \u2019s order \u201d ) pursuant to which the ORG , before the submission of the request to ORG for the issuing of the enforcement writ , had to check whether the tenants had obtained a loan and\/or housing in accordance with domestic law . It was also decided that such a request could not be submitted during DATE . It further provided several safeguards in the event of a family including elderly people , children , disabled persons , or if the housing conditions were outside of normal lifestyle standards . In such a case the family was provided with social rental housing or a housing bonus . The ORG , in implementing section CARDINAL of LAW , had to urgently request that the municipal councils make social rental housing available . It appears that following this order , the ORG suspended the enforcement proceedings in respect of CARDINAL tenant families .","On an unspecified date ORG and PERSON . PERSON , tenants , instituted judicial proceedings under LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , challenging the ORG \u2019s eviction order , ORG enforcement writ and the ensuing bailiff \u2019s actions carried out following the introduction of LAW DATE . In that case ORG and PERSON . PERSON and the former owners had concluded a lease agreement on the basis of a final court decision which had obliged the tenants to pay a rent , as set out by ORG in favour of the former owners .","F.B. and ORG . PERSON claimed before the domestic courts that they were not obliged to vacate the dwelling as the lease agreement was valid and still in force . Furthermore , the eviction order had been issued by the ORG , which had no jurisdiction to decide on the civil dispute at issue . Subsequently , the bailiff actions had been invalid too . Also the enforcement writ as issued by ORG was invalid as the ORG had not been the creditor . Only former owners should have asked the district court to issue an enforcement writ . The tenants further claimed that LAW did not protect in a proportionate manner the right of tenants to respect for their homes . They were further unable to receive a PERCENT loan due to their lack of financial means ( they were unemployed and did not own any immovable property ) and age . They also submitted that the bailiff actions carried out were in breach of LAW as they had not been proportional in that they had not strike a balance between the former ORG and the tenants\u2019 interests . They finally asked ORG to stay the enforcement proceedings and to send the case for trial before ORG on account of the unconstitutionality of LAW .","On DATE ORG rejected the action reasoning that upon the entry into force of LAW the lease agreement concluded between the tenants and the former owner no longer had any legal binding effect . Subsequently , the eviction had been lawful and the tenants were obliged to vacate the dwelling in favour of the former owners . ORG also noted that the tenants had submitted supporting documents to substantiate their claim that they did not own any immovable property or any other financial mean and they were indeed receiving a retirement and disability pension . However , it reasoned that these were not grounds to challenge an executable decision under LAW of the ORG .","ORG rejected the appellants\u2019 claim against the enforcement writ on the ground that the ORG was eligible under LAW DATE to ask a district court the issuance of an enforcement writ .","ORG also rejected the action under LAW ORG against the bailiff \u2019s actions on the ground that the execution had already taken place , namely the dwelling had already been vacated in favour of the former owner . Furthermore , it reasoned that since the tenants had challenged the bailiff actions on the ground that the executable decision was invalid , as long as that decision was valid , so were the bailiff actions .","As regards the tenants\u2019 application to send the case for trial before ORG , ORG dismissed it as manifestly illfounded in that ORG had already examined the constitutionality of that LAW in its decision no . CARDINAL .","As regards the stay of the enforcement proceedings ORG in the first hearing had already rejected the request by way of an interlocutory decision on the grounds that in the meantime the tenants had already been evicted . Moreover , the tenants had not provided any evidence to prove the existence of irreparable harm . In its decision of DATE on the merits of the case ORG reasoned that LAW ORG as regards the stay of enforcement proceedings had prevalence over section CARDINAL of LAW , which barred any stay of enforcement .","ORG decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . However , ORG noted that ORG assessment concerning the stay of enforcement had been erroneous since LAW , as lex specialis , had prevalence over the provisions of the ORG . The tenants did not lodge an appeal with ORG on the grounds that the building had in the meantime been demolished .","On CARDINAL other occasions other tenants had instituted judicial proceedings under ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the ORG challenging the ORG \u2019s eviction order , ORG enforcement writ and the ensuing bailiff \u2019s actions . The tenants\u2019 representative had lodged complaints with the ORG about the unreasonable length of the judicial proceedings . However , CARDINAL of the cases was discontinued on the ground that the tenants had not been present at the court hearing without any reason whatsoever . On the other case the tenants had not provided the district court with an adequate address . It appears that both decisions had become final ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163348","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BAKANOVA v. LITHUANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s husband , PERSON , born in DATE , worked as a mechanic in cargo ships . On TIME CARDINAL DATE , while on a work voyage to GPE on the private ship PERSON , he was found dead in his cabin . He was lying on his back in bed , with the blanket drawn up to his chest , his right hand bent and pressing his chest . On DATE , the ship \u2019s captain assembled a commission to investigate the death . Having inspected GPE \u2019s cabin , the captain sent a report about the death to his superiors in ORG , the GPE shipping company .","The following day , CARDINAL DATE , a NORP doctor , ORG , gave acute heart attack ( \u016bmus miokardo infarktas ) as V.B. \u2019s cause of death . The NORP authorities also issued an authorisation to preserve GPE \u2019s body ( \u017emogaus palaik\u0173 konservavimo aktas ) . The authorisation noted that there were no indications against preserving the body , and therefore ORG remains were set to be embalmed with the help of chemicals ( phenol , formalin and others ) at TIME DATE . Afterwards , the body of the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s was put in a zinc coffin and shipped to GPE , which it reached on DATE .","On DATE the ship \u2019s captain and chief engineer were questioned by the NORP police authorities . The police also inspected the cabin where GPE had been found dead . Considering that no crime had taken place and that PERSON had died of a heart attack , the NORP police sent the investigation material to a local court .","The death certificate issued by the NORP authorities on CARDINAL DATE gave heart attack as LOC \u2019s cause of death .","On DATE a NORP prosecutor opened a criminal investigation on the basis of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , after receiving notification of GPE \u2019s death from GPE . The prosecutor ordered ORG to conduct the investigation .","On DATE GPE provided the investigators with the following documents : the captain \u2019s service report ; an extract from the ship \u2019s logbook of DATE ; a report on the circumstances of GPE \u2019s death , signed by the captain and CARDINAL assistant captains ; CARDINAL reports ( CARDINAL by the captain and CARDINAL by the chief engineer ) to the NORP authorities ; statements by CARDINAL members of the crew ; the death certificate issued on DATE in GPE ; documents about the work instructions given to GPE ; his qualifications and photographs from his cabin .","On DATE the applicant requested that the prosecutor and ORG ( ORG darbo inspekcija , a ORG body responsible for safety at work , hereinafter DATE \u201c the ORG \u201d ) examine her husband \u2019s body and investigate the cause of his death and his working conditions on the ship . She submitted that conditions on the PERSON were dangerous , and could have led to her husband \u2019s death .","NORP In the meantime , on DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the prosecutor refused to continue the criminal investigation , finding that there had been no signs of a crime or anything to disprove a finding that the victim had died because of a heart illness . In particular , the forensic report from GPE had shown no sign of poisonous chemicals in GPE \u2019s body fluids ; there had also been no traces of alcohol , and GPE \u2019s body had been embalmed because there had been no indications against such a procedure . Preservation of the body by chemical means irreparably altered the chemical composition of the blood , and therefore there had been no reason to carry out a further examination of the body . The prosecutor noted that in DATE PERSON had passed medical check , which showed that he had been fit to serve at sea . The PERSON \u2019s logbook had had no entry about PERSON ever complaining about his health .","After a complaint by the applicant , that decision , however , was quashed by ORG on DATE . The court held that the prosecutor had failed properly to investigate the applicant \u2019s submission that her husband had died because of dangerous conditions on the PERSON . The pre - trial investigation resumed .","DATE , FAC questioned as witnesses the sailors who had worked on the PERSON with GPE The sailors testified that PERSON , who was a refrigerator mechanic , worked in the machinery section of the ship , where the refrigerators were placed . There had been frequent fires in the machinery section of the ship during the voyage by the PERSON . When fires broke out , there was a strong smell of fumes . When there was a fire in the machinery section , the air conditioning in the ship \u2019s cabins did not work , and the temperature would rise as high as CARDINAL\u02daC. In the run up to DATE , the ship had been preparing to have goods loaded . For that reason , PERSON had worked for DATE prior to his death in the machinery section preparing refrigerators for the shipment . The applicant \u2019s husband was seen working in the machinery section both with and without a gas mask . In DATE before his death , PERSON had worked intensively and rested little . No repairs in the machinery section had been carried out until PERSON \u2019s death . After the death , the ship had been repaired in a NORP port , after which there had been no smell of gas in the machinery section . The witnesses also stated that PERSON had not complained about his health or stated that he had any heart problems .","The applicant was also questioned . Citing conversations with her late husband , the applicant said that in reality the conditions of work on the PERSON had been very difficult as the ship had been in a bad technical state and its mechanics had had to deal permanently with fires and leaks of gas , without any adequate protection .","The ORG \u2019s report of DATE , no . SD-CARDINAL , stated that the ORG had examined the possible cause of PERSON \u2019s death . The ORG held that the reasons for PERSON \u2019s death were not connected to his work . The ORG discontinued its investigation , on the grounds that GPE \u2019s death certificate had indicated that he had died of a heart attack , and that the authorisation to preserve his body had read that there had been no indication against such an action . When examining the applicant \u2019s complaint , the ORG had obtained internal correspondence between ORG and the PERSON , which showed that the working conditions on the ship had been hard \u2013 the ship \u2019s machinery , including the main engine , would often break down , and the engine emitted combustion gases into the ship ; there had also been frequent fires . However , according to the ORG , GPE \u2019s duties did not include repairs to the main engine or extinguishing fires , and he had not done such jobs . The ORG did not have any other proof that the working conditions on the PERSON had been harmful . The ORG also observed that they had not performed any readings on the ship , because they had not been able to check it when it was at sea .","On DATE PERSON stated that it had been informed about a breakdown of the main engine , which could have led to a worsening of the working conditions on the PERSON . Repairs had taken place in DATE , and the problems had finally been solved in DATE .","On DATE the pre - trial investigation was discontinued by the prosecutor for a second time . The prosecutor held that no crime had taken place and that the applicant \u2019s husband had died of a heart attack , when \u2018 the ship was on a voyage in LOC near the NORP port of Imbituba\u2019 . The prosecutor also relied on the testimony given by an expert , V.A. during the hearing in DATE before ORG ( see paragraph DATE below ) . On the basis of GPE \u2019s medical record of DATE that expert had testified that PERSON had a partial blockage of the nerve in the heart which makes the heart contract . If the nerve did not work properly , heart arrhythmia could occur , which could in turn cause a heart attack . The position of GPE \u2019s body was typical of someone who had died of a heart attack . According to that expert , fire could cause a heart attack if a person had been in a smoky environment or a closed space , and there had been a lack of oxygen . However , a heart attack would happen at a slower pace than a person would die of suffocation . Death from a heart attack caused by a fire could not take DATE to happen .","The prosecutor noted that , according to the NORP authorities who had considered that the cause of death was a heart attack , no poisons or other toxic materials had been found in the applicant \u2019s body fluids . The prosecutor also pointed out that GPE \u2019s health had been checked on DATE , and it had been concluded that he had been \u201c fit to work in the fleet \u201d .","Following a request by the applicant , on DATE she was allowed access to the entire criminal case file , which by then comprised CARDINAL pages .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the prosecutor \u2019s decision to discontinue the criminal investigation . She argued that there had been many flaws in the investigation and that the conclusions as to her husband \u2019s death had been unclear . In particular , the applicant submitted that the ORG \u2019s decision not to treat the death as an accident at work had been hasty . The applicant was also dissatisfied that the ORG had not inspected the PERSON itself , nor had it questioned the crew members , who could have confirmed the unsafe working conditions on board . There had also been no autopsy , nor any test for toxins in her husband \u2019s skin or hair . The body had been embalmed too quickly , without such examinations . The applicant further submitted that NORP diplomats had not been present when the body had been embalmed . The applicant also pointed out that her husband had been healthy : he had been examined by a ORG commission in DATE and that that conclusion was valid for DATE ; moreover , her husband had not complained about any heart issue . The applicant also maintained that even local journalists in the town in GPE where GPE \u2019s death had been given as a heart attack had not been able to find contact data for doctor ORG , thus raising doubts about his credentials .","On DATE the ORG granted the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court observed that on DATE the applicant had asked the prosecutor to order an expert examination to establish whether the constant breathing of combustion gases could cause a heart attack , and to ask the NORP authorities to provide the report on her husband \u2019s autopsy and the results of blood tests , as those documents had not been present among those brought back with PERSON \u2019s body . She had also asked for documents confirming whether it had been verified that PERSON could have died of poisoning by combustion gases ; for the questioning of doctor PERSON , who had signed the conclusion of the ORG commission ( of DATE ) as to GPE \u2019s health ; and for other investigative actions . Given that the applicant had had the status of a victim , the prosecutor had been under an obligation to take a decision on those requests . However , he had ignored the applicant \u2019s requests for DATE , until he had taken the decision to discontinue the criminal investigation , which had been in breach of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision . It emphasised that what was at issue was a criminal investigation into charges of a violation of requirements to protect health and safety at work . Having examined the pre - trial investigation material , the regional court concluded that the kind of breaches alleged by the applicant had not been properly examined during the criminal investigation . Furthermore , as could be seen from the ORG \u2019s report of DATE , the inquiry performed by that body had not been sufficiently comprehensive either ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Accordingly , it could not be stated that the pre - trial investigation into the circumstances of GPE \u2019s death had been performed thoroughly . In the opinion of ORG , it was therefore vital to continue the pre - trial investigation and to eliminate the doubts raised by the applicant as to the reliability of the results of the medical examination of PERSON \u2019s body , and to establish whether PERSON had indeed worked in harmful conditions during the voyage , including whether regulations on hours of work had been observed . Should breaches of working conditions be established , it was also necessary to order a forensic expert to perform an objective investigation and to establish whether such breaches had had any impact on GPE \u2019s death . Without a comprehensive examination of those aspects , it had not been reasonable or lawful to discontinue the pre - trial investigation .","On DATE the prosecutor ordered ORG to establish the whereabouts of the PERSON and whether it was possible to inspect the ship ; to question everyone who worked on it , including about working conditions , as noted in the applicant \u2019s complaint ; to obtain documents from GPE related to safety at work ; and to ask the ORG whether they had examined the actual working conditions on the ship . The prosecutor also asked ORG to prepare a request to the NORP authorities for legal assistance .","On DATE ORG asked GPE for documents about the technical state of the ship on DATE , information about the ship \u2019s whereabouts , and whether it was possible to inspect it .","On DATE the shipping company ORG replied that the ship usually worked in the region of south west LOC ; currently it was near the coast of GPE . The ship had passed its yearly check by authorised certification company ORG on CARDINAL DATE in FAC port in GPE , and the inspector of that company had had no remarks as to the technical state of the ship \u2019s machinery . That report was given to investigators .","On DATE the prosecutor again asked ORG to \u201c take active measures \u201d to question everyone who had been working on the ship at the relevant time . It was also necessary to obtain GPE \u2019s medical records and question the doctor who on DATE had diagnosed PERSON with a heart problem , and to obtain documents from GPE related to repairs in the machinery section of the ship , to fires on board and to issues of safety at work .","NORP In reply to the NORP inquiry of CARDINAL DATE , on DATE the ORG wrote that its inspectors had not examined the working conditions on the PERSON because , as far as they knew , the ship had not returned to NORP ports after PERSON \u2019s death . It had not been technically possible to examine the ship in the ports of other countries . The ORG noted that the circumstances of GPE \u2019s death had been examined on the basis of the documents provided by ORG and on the experts\u2019 conclusions .","On DATE the applicant wrote to the prosecutor , questioning why PERSON had not requested that the NORP authorities perform a test for toxic substances in the body as such an examination could have been performed within DATE . She stated that she had not been asked whether any other reports by experts should have been done , yet GPE \u2019s body had been taken straight away to a funeral parlour on DATE and embalmed at TIME DATE . The applicant emphasised that the ship at that time had been put up for sale . She asked that the ship \u2019s documents up to the time of the sale be examined to establish whether there were any toxic gases in the machinery room or other factors that made for unsafe working conditions . She mentioned the records in the logs of the machinery room ; the service reports to GPE by the captain and chief mechanic ; the description of repairs to the main engine ; and the work which her husband performed on the ship . Lastly , the applicant asked the prosecutor to inform her whether and when ORG had been ordered to keep copies of its communications with the ship during its voyage .","DATE and DATE investigators questioned crew from the PERSON , some of them repeatedly .","In addition , on DATE doctor PERSON stated that from DATE he had worked as chief doctor at the ORG health - care centre ( GPE sveikatos prie\u017ei\u016bros centras ) in PERSON . On DATE PERSON had passed a medical board exam as being fit to serve at sea . The conclusion of the medical board examination had been signed by doctor PERSON himself , and it meant that the applicant \u2019s husband was healthy enough to work at sea . The partial blockage of the nerve on the right side of his heart , as seen in the cardiogram , had no effect on PERSON \u2019s health , nor on his ability to work at sea . In the doctor \u2019s opinion , inhalation of combustion gases could lead to poisoning , but not to an acute heart attack .","On DATE another witness , PERSON , stated that he had been a chief mechanic on the PERSON in DATE , but had later refused to work on the ship because of poor working conditions . Failures of the main engine meant that fires on the ship had been frequent , happening DATE . All the fires and repairs had been registered in the machinery logbook . ORG had been notified of those facts . The crew had worked in the machinery room wearing respirator masks , but no gas masks had been provided . PERSON would spend TIME ( per day ) in the machinery room .","On DATE ORG transferred the criminal file to the applicant so that she could acquaint herself with it . By then , the file comprised CARDINAL pages .","On DATE , in reply to a request made the same day by the prosecutor , ORG ( NORP saugios laivybos administracija ) noted that the PERSON had been taken off the register of NORP ships , because a foreign company , ORG ( Nevis ) , had bought the ship .","In reply to a question from FAC of DATE , ORG confirmed that it had sold the PERSON to a third party . It noted that the records from the ship \u2019s machinery room , which the investigators had been seeking , had been destroyed before the ship had been transferred to the new buyers , and thus could not be provided .","On DATE the investigators again provided the case file to the applicant . It by then comprised CARDINAL volumes and CARDINAL pages .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG sent documents to ORG prosecutors concerning a request for legal assistance to be sent to the NORP authorities . The police stated that in order to establish whether ORG death had been caused by dangerous conditions on the PERSON , it was important to establish whether an autopsy of PERSON had been performed and his blood tested ( and , if so , to provide the results of the autopsy and the tests ) , and whether the NORP authorities had inspected the PERSON after the death to examine the working conditions on board .","On DATE FAC submitted a fresh request to the ORG prosecutors for legal assistance from the NORP authorities , this time adding a request that doctor ORG be questioned . The prosecutor then returned the documents , because they had not met the right requirements . On DATE ORG sent a request for legal assistance to the NORP authorities .","On DATE a response to the request for legal assistance was received from the NORP authorities . However , according to the NORP investigators , the documents contained only internal correspondence between the NORP authorities about the fact that PERSON had died . As a result , there had been no new information relevant for the investigation .","On DATE the LOC police asked experts from ORG ( PERSON teismo medicinos tarnyba ) to answer the following questions : CARDINAL ) what is characteristic evidence that a person has died from an acute heart attack and is it possible to conclude that a person has died from a heart attack without an autopsy ; CARDINAL ) could a dangerous working environment in a non - ventilated ship machinery room ( where emission gases were present ) have had an impact on GPE \u2019s death , that is , could such conditions have caused an acute heart attack ; CARDINAL ) how long must a person work in a harmful working environment , where there is an elevated level of emission gases , before getting a heart attack .","On DATE the forensic experts PERSON and PERSON prepared a report stating that they had not been provided with any medical documents about PERSON \u2019s autopsy ( if one had ever been performed ) , any blood results or other medical records . Neither were they provided with documents , confirmed by special diagnostic methods , about the exact level of combustion gases on the ship . Therefore , they could rely only on the testimony of the crew who had worked on the ship with GPE","Proceeding on that basis , the experts stated that , in medical practice , death certificates without an autopsy were delivered only when there was documented medical data that the person had been ill with a long - term disease ( sirgo l\u0117tine liga ) , that the circumstances of death were clear , and that there was no evidence that the cause of death could have been due to physical injuries or other external factors .","For the experts , it was known from the criminal case file that GPE had been found dead in a cabin . Without examining the body , and in the absence of any data about GPE \u2019s state of health , or information about any physical injuries or external factors ( for example , acute gas poisoning ) , which could have caused his death , it was possible only to state ( galima tik teigti ) that the cause of GPE \u2019s death was that his heart had stopped for unknown reasons . In that case , it was impossible to either confirm or deny that an acute heart attack had been the cause of GPE \u2019s death . Accordingly , it was not possible to establish a possible link between PERSON \u2019s working in harmful conditions and his death .","The experts also stated that the main reason for an acute heart attack was a failure of arterial blood vessels . That happened when physical exhaustion or nervous tension caused the heart muscle suddenly to need a lot of oxygen . TIME , in an environment where there were elevated levels of emission gases , was not a risk factor for a heart attack .","The prosecutor then discontinued the investigation on DATE , concluding that no crime had been committed \u2018 on the ship , which sailed under a NORP flag\u2019 . According to him , although the existence of harmful working conditions and leaks of gases in the engine room of the ship had been confirmed , they could not have caused the victim \u2019s heart failure .","That decision was upheld by a higher prosecutor , and then by ORG on DATE . The first instance court noted , inter alia , that the cause of PERSON \u2019s death had already been established by final decisions in administrative courts .","The applicant appealed against the decision to discontinue the criminal investigation , arguing that the report by the specialist , J. NORP , had not definitely confirmed that her husband had died of a heart attack , given that no autopsy had been carried out . She pointed to shortcomings in the investigation , such as the absence of blood test results and toxicology tests , and the lack of documents concerning safety at work on the ship . The applicant also pointed out that the ship \u2019s logbooks had not been obtained , and that the ship had not been inspected .","By a final ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . The court noted that the cause of death had already been established by the final and binding decision of CARDINAL DATE by ORG in the administrative case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In addition , the criminal court held that the investigation had been wide - ranging , that numerous witnesses and experts had been questioned and that the necessary forensic examinations had been carried out . As concerned the applicant \u2019s argument about the collection of additional evidence , it was considered as serving no purpose given the amount of time which had elapsed . The criminal court also noted that at certain stage the expert , V.A. , had been questioned by the first - instance court of criminal jurisdiction , and had testified that PERSON could have died from his heart condition .","In parallel to the ongoing criminal investigation , the applicant also started administrative court proceedings , asking that her husband \u2019s death be recognised as a work accident .","By a decision of DATE , ORG acknowledged , on the basis of the ORG report of DATE , that work conditions on PERSON were bad , and the main engine would often break down , causing leaks of dangerous gases . For that reason many mechanics had left the ship . However , the administrative court also took into account the conclusion by a forensic expert V.A. about V.B. \u2019s earlier heart condition and that fire or smoke on the ship , even if they had been present , could not have caused PERSON \u2019s heart attack ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As a result , the applicant \u2019s claim before the administrative courts for her husband \u2019s death to be recognised as a work accident was dismissed .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158027","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF D\u0130LEK ASLAN v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","As the facts of the case are in dispute between the parties , they will be set out separately . The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The Government \u2019s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below ( paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D ( paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL of her friends were in the city of GPE , distributing leaflets prepared by ORG with ORG ) , in a residential neighbourhood .","A man in plain clothes arrived and attempted to seize the leaflets without showing his identity documents demonstrating that he was a police officer . As the applicant and her friends refused to comply with the man \u2019s demand , he held CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s friends around their necks . Subsequently , around QUANTITY police officers arrived at the scene and arrested the applicant and her friends . In the course of the arrest , the police officers used force and hit the applicant on various parts of her body before putting her in a police vehicle . In the vehicle , a police officer sat on her head and continued to hit her . A number of police officers also touched various parts of her body and made sexually suggestive comments .","The applicant was taken to hospital , where she was examined by a doctor who observed skin erosions , red patches ( erythema ) and sensitive areas on the applicant \u2019s head , face , shoulders , lower back , abdomen and wrist . He concluded that the injuries were not life - threatening and a simple medical procedure was sufficient to treat them .","The applicant was then taken to a police station , where the beating continued and where she was threatened with rape by CARDINAL of the police officers . The applicant \u2019s requests for information about the reasons for her arrest and for a lawyer were refused . Each time the applicant repeated her requests the police officers used offensive language .","A lawyer who arrived at the police station the same afternoon secured the applicant \u2019s release .","On DATE at QUANTITY the police received information according to which ORG members were distributing leaflets in a residential area in GPE . CARDINAL police officers , GPE and GPE , arrived at the scene of the incident at TIME in order to verify whether the content of the leaflets was legal . CARDINAL of the officers , ORG , approached the applicant and her friends , told them that he was a police officer and requested to see the content of the leaflets and their identity cards . As the applicant and her friends refused to comply and began using offensive language and hitting him , a second police officer intervened . They subsequently asked for help from other officers , who also arrived at the scene of the incident . The police arrested the applicant and her friends and tried to put them in a police vehicle . The arrestees , however , resisted arrest . They also continued to hit the officers in the vehicle . During the physical struggle between the arrestees and the police officers , ORG , was injured .","At TIME the applicant was examined by a doctor , who observed minor injuries on her head , shoulders and wrist . At TIME PERSON was also subjected to a medical examination by the same doctor . According to the medical report issued in respect of PERSON , he had pain and sensitivity in his lower back and numbness in his feet . The doctor considered that a simple medical procedure was sufficient to treat both the applicant \u2019s and ORG \u2019s injuries .","At TIME the applicant and her friends were taken to the police station upon the instructions of the LOC public prosecutor . The applicant and her friends refused to make statements to the police .","At TIME the applicant and her friends were released from police custody and taken to a hospital for a medical examination . The doctor who examined the applicant observed the same injuries noted in the report issued at TIME on DATE .","The medical reports of TIME and TIME regarding the applicant contain information about the physical injuries sustained by the applicant and the LOC opinions as to the gravity of the injuries in the respective sections of the reports entitled \u201c findings regarding the lesions \u201d and the \u201c conclusion of the examination \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . The sections of the reports entitled \u201c conditions of examination \u201d , \u201c information regarding the incident \u201d , \u201c the complaints of the person examined \u201d and \u201c findings of the psychiatric examination \u201d were not completed .","At TIME on DATE an arrest report was drafted by the police . According to this report , police officers had arrived at the scene of the incident as they had received information that members of ORG were distributing leaflets . When the police asked them to show the leaflets , the applicant and her friends put the leaflets in their bags and refused to present their identity documents . The report further stated that applicant and her friends had to be arrested through the use of force as they resisted the police officers and continued their acts . According to the report , the arrestees attacked the police officers by way of throwing themselves on the ground and chanting slogans . They were then put in the police vehicle by force and injured themselves in the vehicle by hitting their heads on the car glass and the door .","At TIME PERSON \u2019s statements were taken by another police officer . He contended that he had been injured by the applicant and her friends and asked for an investigation to be conducted against them .","At TIME the applicant \u2019s and her friends\u2019 personal belongings were searched by CARDINAL police officers who drafted a search report . According to this report , CARDINAL of the arrestees each had a copy of the leaflet in their bags . The police returned all items found during the search when the applicant and her friends were released from police custody at TIME","In DATE the LOC public prosecutor initiated an investigation against the applicant and her friends . Within the context of this investigation , on DATE the public prosecutor took statements from ORG and GPE The documents containing the police ORG statements refer to them as the \u201c complainants \u201d . The officers contended that they had been obliged to use force together with other police officers who had come to assist them , as the applicant and her friends had attempted to beat V.G. The police officers stated that they did not wish to lodge a complaint against the applicant and her friends .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by the NORP public prosecutor as a suspect . In her statement , she described the illtreatment and the sexual assaults , and asked the public prosecutor to prosecute the police officers responsible for her ordeal . She also noted that she and her friends had downloaded the leaflets from the web and printed them . She stated that the content of the leaflets in question had not been illegal and that they had not committed any offence . The applicant \u2019s legal representative was also present in the room and told the public prosecutor that while distributing the leaflets his client had been exercising her right under LAW to impart her ideas and opinions . He complained that the police officers who had arrested his client had not shown her their identity documents and had not informed her of her rights . He further complained that the police had committed the offence of abuse of office as they had used violence against his client .","On DATE of the applicant \u2019s friends , S.P and GPE , also made statements before the LOC public prosecutor as suspects . They both contended that they had been ill - treated by the police and requested that an investigation be initiated against the officers who were responsible for their ill - treatment .","On DATE the LOC public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG and accused the applicant and her CARDINAL friends of obstructing the police officers in the execution of their duties under LAW . The public prosecutor alleged that the applicant and her friends had called the police officers \u201c fascists \u201d , \u201c killers \u201d and \u201c enemies of the people \u201d , had refused to show the police officers their identity cards and had hit them with their handbags . A case file was opened and given the number CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG held the first hearing in the case .","On DATE the criminal court heard ORG , the complainant police officer , in the absence of the applicant and her co - accused . PERSON contended that the applicant and her friends had chanted slogans , resisted arrest and hit him with their bags .","On DATE the applicant made statements before the firstinstance court . She stated that they had not chanted slogans or beaten the officers . They had not known whether those persons were police officers and , in any event , ORG had not asked to see the content of the leaflets . According to the applicant , ORG had merely taken hold of CARDINAL of her friends and asked for assistance from other officers in order to carry out the arrest . She noted that they had been attacked and arrested without being able to understand that ORG was a police officer . During the same hearing , the applicant \u2019s lawyer maintained that the applicant \u2019s trial for distributing leaflets was in violation of her rights enshrined in LAW and , in particular , her right to freedom of expression and demonstration .","On various dates the applicant \u2019s co - accused gave evidence before ORG . They all contended that they had not been asked to show the leaflets or their identity cards but had been arrested through the use of force although they had not resisted arrest .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of obstructing the police officers in the execution of their duties and insulting them under LAW and sentenced her to DATE and CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment . The first - instance court noted that the police had gone to the scene of the incident as they had received information that members of ORG were distributing leaflets . In the light of the statements of the officers who had signed the police report , the medical reports and the arrest report , ORG found it established that the accused had insulted the police officers , shouted that they would neither show their identity cards nor give the leaflets and injured FAC by way of hitting him with their bags . Taking into account the fact that the applicant did not have any criminal record , her personality traits and her conduct during the hearings , the first - instance court considered that the applicant would not commit any further offence . It therefore decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment against her ( h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 ) for DATE , pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE became final .","Meanwhile , the LOC public prosecutor initiated an investigation against ORG GPE on the charge of abuse of office , upon the complaints lodged against them by the applicant and her friends .","On DATE the LOC public prosecutor decided that no proceedings should be brought against the police officers . In the public prosecutor \u2019s opinion the applicant \u2019s injuries had possibly been caused when she and her friends had resisted the police officers , who had been performing their duties . The public prosecutor noted in his decision that some of the police officers had also been injured during the incident .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed an objection against the public prosecutor \u2019s aforementioned decision . In his petition , the lawyer noted that the decision in question had not been served on him or his client and that they had become aware of it when the lawyer went to the court - house to read the documents in the case file on DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyer also noted that the applicant had been subjected to violence by the police and that she had not hit the police officers .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection against the LOC public prosecutor \u2019s decision following an examination on the merits . ORG considered that the force used by the police officers had been no more than necessary to counter the applicant \u2019s resistance . The applicant claimed that this decision was not communicated to her or her lawyer and was put in the investigation file . Her lawyer became aware of it when he consulted that file on DATE . There is no document in the investigation file , submitted by the Government , demonstrating the notification of the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE to the applicant or her lawyer ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144144","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KUZMIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is a retired military serviceman .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALnd ORG ordered the recovery of the applicant \u2019s pension arrears for DATE to CARDINAL DATE and for the amount owed to be adjusted in line with the rate of inflation . The Justice of the ORG awarded him MONEY ( RUB ) , to be paid by ORG of GPE ( \u201c the respondent authority \u201d ) . The judgment was enforced .","The applicant brought a second claim against the respondent authority seeking a further adjustment to his pension as calculated by the judgment of DATE , because of an increase to the minimum wage . His claim was backdated to include DATE .","By a judgment of DATE the ORG allowed the claim . The court observed , in particular , that the amount awarded on DATE had been adjusted to take into account the rise in inflation , but not the increase to the minimum wage for the specified period . The court awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , to be paid by the respondent authority , and ordered that the judgment be executed immediately . Representatives of the respondent authority were present at court .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative sent a copy of the judgment and a writ of execution to the respondent authority . According to its incoming correspondence log ( item no . DATE ) , the documents were registered as having been received .","On an unspecified date the respondent authority lodged a statement of appeal with ORG . It appears that on DATE ( the exact date is unclear ) the ORG refused to examine the application because the authority had failed to pay the court fee .","On DATE the respondent authority withdrew its statement of appeal .","On DATE the respondent authority requested a reexamination of the case in the light of newly discovered circumstances . On DATE ORG dismissed the application .","NORP In DATE the respondent authority applied for the case be re - examined by way of supervisory review .","On DATE the ORG of the Rostov ORG quashed the judgment of DATE by way of supervisory review and transferred the case for fresh examination by a different court . The ORG concluded that the first - instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law and had failed to verify whether the same claim had already been examined by the Justice of the Peace on DATE . It also found that ORG had lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the case . The ORG noted that judgment had been awarded against the respondent authority and that the case should have been examined by a court in the district where the respondent authority was located .","The applicant did not attend the hearing and received a copy of the judgment on DATE .","On DATE ORG of PERSON examined the applicant \u2019s claim against the respondent authority and rejected it as having no basis in law . No further appeal was brought ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160217","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF NE\u0160KOSKA v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","As established in the criminal proceedings described below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , on DATE at TIME , PERSON , a member of ORG ( GPE \u0437\u0430 \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430\u043b\u043d\u0438 \u0437\u0430\u0434\u0430\u0447\u0438 ) of ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) , killed ORG at the central square in GPE during a public celebration of the results of the parliamentary elections that coincided with a local cultural event . The killing occurred after ORG attempted to climb onto a podium in order to approach certain high - ranking politicians . After PERSON warned him to desist , ORG ran away . PERSON followed him and hit PERSON on the back of his neck . As a result , ORG fell over . PERSON continued punching and kicking ORG , despite ORG shouting for PERSON to stop beating him . As established in a post - mortem report of DATE drawn up by ORG \u0437\u0430 PERSON ) , ORG sustained numerous severe bodily injuries . According to the report , the cause of death was a brain haemorrhage . ORG died at CARDINAL a.m. The courts established ( contrary to ORG testimony ) that at the relevant time PERSON had not been on duty , but had attended the ceremony in a private capacity .","According to the applicant , after ORG officials had issued a number of conflicting statements regarding ORG \u2019s death , CARDINAL of people gathered at the main square during TIME DATE in order to protest . After the ORG \u2019s spokesperson announced on DATE that a police officer was suspected of having caused ORG \u2019s death , CARDINAL of people took to the streets of GPE to protest . Those protests lasted for DATE and turned into a movement called \u201c FAC \u201d ( NORP \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0441\u043a\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0431\u0440\u0443\u0442\u0430\u043b\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) . On DATE over CARDINAL people signed a petition containing several demands , namely that the relevant authorities establish the truth regarding ORG \u2019s death and punish those responsible , and that they introduce legislative , structural and other measures concerning the operation , employment and accountability of the ORG officials .","On DATE the public prosecutor asked an investigating judge to open an investigation in respect of GPE related to the death of ORG","In the course of this investigation , ORG ( ORG \u2019s brother ) requested ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) of ORG to investigate the circumstances surrounding ORG \u2019s death and the actions of the police officers concerned alleging that unidentified police officers had committed the crimes of \u201c assisting an offender after the commission of a crime \u201d and \u201c failure to report an offence or perpetrator \u201d , punishable under LAW and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code .","On DATE the ORG replied as follows :","\u201c ... a police officer PERSON , member of ORG within ORG , was on duty on DATE TIME on the basis of an operative plan prepared before . After the activities in ORG had ended , at TIME [ FAC ] left the ORG and went , in plain clothes and in a private car , to the centre of the city , where ( a cultural event ) and post - election celebrations were taking place .","At TIME there was a verbal fight at the square \u2018 GPE between the suspect PERSON and ORG After that , ORG started to run ... after ORG had fallen to the ground , PERSON punched and kicked him in the head and body . ORG lost consciousness ; PERSON pulled him up and placed him in a sitting position on a nearby bench . He took a bottle of water ... and poured it over [ ORG \u2019s ] head in order to resuscitate him . After that , PERSON , together with other persons , pulled [ ORG ] up and placed him in the greenery of the car park ... where again they were helping him , tried to revive him and in the meantime they informed the emergency unit .","Soon after CARDINAL uniformed police officers , who were employed to secure the celebration , arrived on the scene . PERSON left for an unknown destination ...","( Police ) inspectors from the police crime department ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u043a\u0440\u0432\u043d\u0438 , \u0441\u0435\u043a\u0441\u0443\u0430\u043b\u043d\u0438 \u0438 \u0441\u043e\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u045c\u0430\u0458\u043d\u0438 \u0434\u0435\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0442\u0438 ) were informed about the event . After they had arrived on the scene , they informed a public prosecutor and an investigating judge of the incident . They ( both ) did not arrive on the scene , but delegated to the police investigation department ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0433\u0430 ) responsibility for conducting an on - site inspection .","The police investigation department conducted the on - site inspection for which report was drawn up and photos were taken .","On the basis of an order by the investigating judge ORG \u2019s corpse was handed over to ORG in order to establish the reasons for the death .","After the ( post mortem ) examination had confirmed that ORG \u2019s death had been violent , the police crime department took measures to establish the facts , including interviewing eyewitnesses .","At TIME on DATE the suspect PERSON handed himself in to a police station ( in GPE ) . After an interview had been held , the investigating judge ordered that an identity parade with eyewitnesses be organised in the presence of the public prosecutor .","The police crime department submitted a criminal complaint of murder against I.S ... The investigating judge remanded him in custody ...","On DATE the Ministry established the identity of CARDINAL of the persons who together with ORG had moved ORG \u2019s corpse from the bench into the greenery of the car park for which a Special report was communicated to the public prosecutor .","... On DATE the Minister of the ORG terminated ORG employment . \u201d","In a letter to ORG of CARDINAL DATE the ORG noted that he had asked the relevant authorities to undertake immediate measures to establish the relevant facts and stated that the incident \u201c was a result and a consequence of irresponsible and unprofessional conduct on the part of the police , which [ the ORG ] had repeatedly pointed out . \u201d","On DATE the public prosecutor brought an indictment against ORG , charging him with murder . In the indictment , the prosecutor requested that the trial judge examine PERSON , the applicant , CARDINAL witnesses and CARDINAL experts , and admit considerable material evidence .","The trial against GPE commenced in ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) . The trial court heard TIME witnesses , and examined evidence and records of the identity parade ; the evidence produced by medical experts ; other expert evidence ; photographs ; and other documentary evidence .","GPE and GPE , the uniformed police officers who had arrived at the scene after PERSON \u2019s death , stated , in particular , that before the incident , PERSON had introduced himself as a member of the Prime Minister \u2019s security service and had told them to keep an eye on ORG , who had attempted to climb onto the podium . Soon afterwards , they had seen PERSON chasing PERSON and had heard people calling for police assistance . When they had arrived at the scene , they had seen ORG lying on a bench unconscious . PERSON and others had been trying to resuscitate him with water . PERSON had told them that ORG had fallen ill ( \u043c\u0443 \u0441\u0435 \u0441\u043b\u043e\u0448\u0438\u043b\u043e ) and had asked that they call the emergency services . Soon afterwards , a third person , whom they did not know , had arrived . GPE had ordered that ORG \u2019s corpse be removed in order to enable the ambulance to access the scene more easily . PERSON and a person in plain clothes had pulled ORG up from the bench and had placed him among nearby greenery . Then PERSON had left the scene and the person in plain clothes had remained until the ambulance came . GPE accepted that he should have identified that person . He had not realized that ORG had been beaten , as he had not noticed any visible injuries on him .","V.B. , employed in a ORG - owned public utility ( electricity ) company , who witnessed the incident , confirmed , in particular , that ORG had pursued ORG and had hit him in the back , as a result of which ORG had fallen to the ground , hitting the back of his head upon impact . PERSON had punched ORG twice in the stomach ; ORG had lost consciousness . PERSON had pulled ORG up , placed him on a bench and tried to resuscitate him . After the police officers had arrived , PERSON and FAC had pulled ORG up from the bench and moved him so that the ambulance would have easier access to the scene . He had stayed next to ORG until the ambulance came . He said that there had been no visible injuries on ORG","That ORG had no visible injuries immediately after the incident was confirmed by PERSON and GPE ( the doctor and nurse respectively ) , who arrived at the scene in the ambulance soon after the incident .","On DATE the trial court delivered a judgment ( of CARDINAL pages ) in which it found PERSON guilty of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court further advised the applicant ( who had joined the prosecution as the legal representative of the late ORG ) to pursue a compensation claim by means of a separate civil action for damages .","On DATE , ORG upheld the facts established by the lower court and PERSON \u2019s conviction and sentence . On DATE ORG dismissed a request by PERSON for an extraordinary review of the final judgment ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u043e\u043d\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0438\u0441\u043f\u0438\u0442\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0441\u0438\u043b\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430 ) and upheld the lower courts\u2019 judgments .","On DATE , while the criminal investigation concerning GPE was underway , the applicant submitted a criminal complaint against GPE , GPE , GPE and an unidentified police officer . She alleged that GPE and GPE had failed to determine the identity of GPE and DATE instead of apprehending him \u2013 had allowed him to leave the scene . As regards PERSON , the applicant alleged that he had known that PERSON had murdered her son , but that he had attempted to cover up the crime by moving ORG \u2019s corpse to the nearby greenery and not reporting PERSON as the perpetrator of the offence . The applicant alleged that the unidentified police officer ( who was later identified as PERSON ) had wrongly told the public prosecutor and an investigating judge that ORG had died as the result of a drug overdose . As a consequence , neither the prosecutor nor the investigating judge had made an on - site inspection after the incident . The applicant alleged an abuse of office in relation to the alleged crime of \u201c assisting a perpetrator after the commission of a crime \u201d ( LAW ) .","On DATE the public prosecutor rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint , finding no grounds to suggest that GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE had committed the alleged crimes . The prosecutor found that , on the basis of all available evidence ( including the available material in the case file against GPE ) , GPE and GPE had not been present when PERSON had hit ORG They had arrived at the scene later and had not determined the identity of PERSON , who had told them that ORG was feeling sick . They had called the emergency services and had notified the relevant police station . PERSON and FAC had moved ORG to the nearby greenery in order to enable the ambulance to access the scene more easily . PERSON had left the scene , and GPE , GPE and GPE had stayed at the scene until the ambulance arrived . A report ( no . CARDINAL of DATE ) by the medical staff who had responded to the emergency call noted that the staff had established ORG \u2019s death and had noticed no visible signs of violence on him .","NORP The prosecutor found that the failure of GPE and GPE to determine the identity of PERSON was an unintentional error caused by the urgency of the need to save the life of ORG They had arrived at the scene after the incident and they had not known that a crime had been committed . As regards PERSON , the prosecutor found that although he had witnessed the incident , he had not been aware that a criminal offence had been committed . Consequently , it could not be established that he had intentionally assisted PERSON after the latter had committed the murder . The removal of ORG from the scene of the crime and his being placed amongst the nearby greenery had been aimed at facilitating the access of the ambulance . The police officers had called the emergency services and PERSON had informed the police control centre , as suggested by the medical staff , that the cause of death could not be established ( \u043d\u0435\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0435\u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043c\u0440\u0442 ) , but that it was possible that ORG had been a drug addict . Given the circumstances , the prosecutor established that there was no evidence that the accused officers had taken any actions with the intention of obstructing the investigation or preventing the identity of the perpetrator from being discovered , or that they had concealed any evidence . On the contrary , they had taken all necessary measures to facilitate the determination of the perpetrator \u2019s identity . The incident had been reported to the local police station and the police control centre . The inspection unit of ORG ( \u0443\u0432\u0438\u0434\u043d\u0430 \u0433\u0440\u0443\u043f\u0430 ) had arrived at the scene .","On DATE the higher public prosecutor \u2019s office found that this decision had been lawful and correct and based on all available material .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant took over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor and lodged an indictment against GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE before the trial court on the same counts ( abuse of office , assisting a perpetrator after the commission of a crime and failure to report a crime or the offender ) .","At a hearing held in private on CARDINAL DATE , a CARDINAL - judge panel of the trial court accepted a recommendation of DATE by the president of an adjudicating panel of the trial court that the applicant \u2019s subsidiary prosecution should not be allowed to go ahead . Accordingly , the CARDINAL - judge panel rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint , finding no grounds to depart from the public prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE .","The applicant appealed against that decision , arguing that no procedural steps or hearing had taken place before the panel . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the lower court \u2019s decision . The applicant was served with this decision on DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted in evidence a CD - ROM with audio material and a transcript ( in LANGUAGE ) of taped telephone conversations which involved , allegedly , high - ranking public officials . The material concerned conversations regarding the possible direct perpetrator , which apparently took place soon after the incident . As stated by the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE the audio material was revealed in public by the political opposition in the respondent ORG and was also made available on - line ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182871","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LJATIFI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens;Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant ( DATE at the time ) and her family ( parents and CARDINAL siblings ) fled GPE and settled in the respondent ORG , where she has been living ever since . In DATE she was granted asylum and a residence permit . She entered into a common - law partnership with a NORP national , with whom she has CARDINAL minor children ( the children also have NORP nationality ) . Her residence permit was extended DATE until DATE , when ORG terminated her asylum , holding that she was \u201c a risk to [ national ] security . \u201d The decision was preceded by an interview at which the applicant , who had been legally represented , had confirmed her family situation and her intention to marry her partner . That the applicant represented a security risk was not discussed at the interview . The decision further stated :","\u201c [ the applicant ] is obliged to leave the respondent ORG within DATE of receipt of the final decision . \u201d","The applicant , through her lawyer , challenged the decision as arbitrary . She argued that there was no evidence that her presence in the respondent ORG represented a threat to national security . Furthermore , she had not been given an opportunity to challenge any such evidence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the Ministry , noting that the latter had obtained a classified written note ( \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0435\u043d\u0430 \u0431\u0435\u043b\u0435\u0448\u043a\u0430 \u0441\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0437\u043d\u0430\u043a\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u0434\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0440\u043b\u0438\u0432 \u0434\u043e\u043a\u0443\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0442 ) from the Security and Counter Intelligence Agency ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) indicating that she represented a threat to national security . The court did not provide any further details regarding that document . It ruled accordingly that the impugned proceedings had been lawful .","The applicant \u2019s representative appealed against that decision before ORG , reiterating the arguments raised previously . She further alleged that the wording used by ORG implied that there were some documents on which the impugned decision had been based . However , she had not been given an opportunity to have knowledge of or to comment on that evidence .","By a decision of DATE , served on the applicant on DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the ORG \u2019s decision . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c ... [ The Ministry ] decided on the basis of ... classified information obtained from a relevant body ( which ) proves indisputably that her presence in ( the respondent ORG ) represents a threat to its security .","ORG has examined the ( applicant \u2019s ) allegations ... that information provided by the relevant body within ORG was not forwarded to her and her representative , but it considers them irrelevant ... \u201d","NORP In the proceedings before ORG , the Government submitted a redacted version of the classified note that ORG had sent on DATE to ORG . The relevant parts of the note read as follows :","\u201c ... following security checks of [ the applicant ] , it has been established that recognition of her asylum status would be a threat to the ( national ) security of the [ respondent ORG ] .","It has been established that her ( hidden text ) ... are perpetrators of CARDINAL of crimes ( serious thefts , thefts and acts of concealment ) . The applicant was aware of and supported all crimes committed by her ( hidden text ) ... She has also been living in a common - law partnership with FAC in order to obtain the monetary allowance to which she was entitled having been granted asylum .","In such circumstances , we are of the opinion that she should not be granted asylum in [ the respondent ORG ] . \u201d","On DATE the Ministry granted a request by the applicant to leave the respondent ORG in order to obtain , as she had stated , documents from the NORP authorities for marrying her common - law partner in the respondent ORG . She was allowed re - entry to the respondent ORG in DATE , which was DATE after the expiry of the timelimit for returning to the respondent ORG . In DATE she contacted ORG with a view to submitting the relevant documents ."],"violated_articles":["P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["P7-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162005","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PLE\u015e v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","The applicant is the son and heir of Mr C. Ple\u015f . He replaced his father in the domestic proceedings after his death .","The applicant \u2019s father was shot on DATE while participating in a demonstration organised in GPE against ORG . He was immediately hospitalised and diagnosed with \u201c a gunshot wound in the right side of the chest , rupture of the right lung and fracture of ribs CARDINAL and CARDINAL , plus a gunshot wound in the right arm \u201d . Following surgery , CARDINAL lobes of his right lung were removed . He was left with a breathing deficit of PERCENT , paresis of his right arm , and a permanent disability that prevented him from continuing to work to support his family . Furthermore , in subsequent DATE he was hospitalised many times because of serious breathing problems .","Criminal proceedings were instituted against the army commanders who had ordered the shooting of demonstrators during the events of DATE in GPE . Many victims of the repression joined civil complaints to the proceedings , requesting compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage . The applicant \u2019s father lodged CARDINAL such civil complaint , requesting MONEY ( ROL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of pecuniary damage , ROL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage , and ROL CARDINAL ( MONEY ) for costs and expenses incurred during the trial .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father died . He was replaced as a civil party in the proceedings by the applicant .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG and Justice , acting as a first - instance court , convicted CARDINAL of the officers involved in the events of DATE in GPE . They were ordered to pay compensation jointly with ORG to all eightyfour civil parties in the case . The court granted the applicant ROL CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and ROL CARDINAL for costs and expenses . It omitted to grant the claim for ROL CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , without providing any reason .","QUANTITY civil parties to the criminal proceedings , including the applicant , lodged an appeal on points of law , complaining about the way in which the first - instance court had examined their claims for damages . The grounds of appeal of the civil parties were not identical . In most of the cases they concerned the amount of damages awarded . The applicant complained that the first - instance court had not granted him the requested compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","By a decision of DATE , a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG and ORG dismissed all the appeals lodged by the civil parties . The court of last resort referred to the general provisions of LAW concerning compensation for damages in the context of civil actions joined to criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and without examining in particular any of the civil parties\u2019 appeals , it dismissed all the appeals as illfounded ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162831","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KAR\u00c1CSONY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Branko Lubarda;Egidijus K\u016bris;Erik M\u00f8se;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON , were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","At the material time the applicants were members of parliament and of the opposition party ORG for GPE ) . PERSON was also one of the notaries to ORG .","At a plenary session on DATE , during a pre - agenda speech , an opposition member of parliament from ORG criticised the ORG and accused it of corruption with regard to , inter alia , the reorganisation of the tobacco market . Mr PERSON , the Secretary of ORG for ORG , was replying on behalf of the Government when the applicants PERSON and PERSON carried into the centre of the ORG a large placard displaying the words \u201c GPE [ the party in Government ] You steal , you cheat , and you lie . \u201d Subsequently , they placed it next to the Secretary of ORG \u2019s seat .","The minutes of the session read as follows :","\u201c Dr PERSON , the Secretary of ORG for ORG ...","Tell them that the increase of commodity wages particularly affects those with a minimum income , since the minimum income has been increased by PERCENT , which is impossible to keep up with inflation lower than PERCENT . And tell them also ... ( PERSON and PERSON show a placard displaying the words \u201c GPE You steal , you cheat , and you lie . \" . \u2013 Interventions from the government MPs : - Rules of procedure ! Doctor ! The Speaker rings the bell . )","Speaker : Honourable ORG ! ( Constant interventions from the government MPs . PERSON and PERSON place the placard next to the speaker \u2019s pulpit . ) I request Mr PERSON to remove the placard in the same way as they brought it in . ( PERSON and PERSON leave the placard next to the speaker \u2019s pulpit . \u2013 Constant interventions from the government MPs . \u2013 The Speaker rings the bell . ) I request the ushers to remove the placard . ( Interventions from the government MPs , amongst others : That \u2019s all you can do . ) . I request the ushers to remove the placard . ( The placard is removed . )","Thank you very much . Please continue PERSON Secretary of ORG ! ( Interventions from the government MPs : How could they get that in ? \u2013 [ The Speaker ] rings the bell . ) \u201d","On DATE the Speaker presented a proposal to fine Mr Kar\u00e1csony MONEY ( ( ORG ) ; equivalent to ORG CARDINAL ) and PERSON DATE ( EUR CARDINAL ) for their conduct , as recorded in the minutes and considered to be gravely offensive to parliamentary order , in application of sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW . The Speaker proposed that as regards PERSON the maximum fine ( CARDINAL of his DATE remuneration ) be applied , since he had been elected an official of ORG and was not just an ordinary MP . No other reasons were given in the proposal . A decision approving the Speaker \u2019s proposal was adopted by the plenary on CARDINAL DATE , without debate .","On DATE during the final vote on PERSON . PERSON amending certain tobacco - related Acts the applicants PERSON and PERSON carried into the centre of the Chamber and displayed there a large banner displaying the words \u201c Here Operates the National Tobacco Mafia \u201d .","The minutes of the session read as follows :","\u201c Speaker : ... I ask ORG whether it adopts PERSON in accordance with the consolidated proposal as amended just now . Please vote ! ( Voting )","I proclaim the decision : ORG has ( Mr PERSON and PERSON display a banner with the words \u201c Here Operates the National Tobacco Mafia \u201d ) adopted the PERSON with CARDINAL votes in favour , CARDINAL against and CARDINAL abstention . ( Applause from GPE MPs ) .","I call the attention of the CARDINAL Members of ORG to the fact that their conduct constitutes a grave disruption of the plenary proceedings . I inform you accordingly that LAW and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( continuous applause from members of ORG ) sanction such conduct . ( Dr Istv\u00e1n J\u00f3zsa . \u2013 We want legislation against the ORG ! ) I ask my colleagues to untie and remove the banner . ( PERSON and PERSON do not hand over the banner to the usher . \u2013 Short break . \u2013 Loud noise from the opposition MPs . ) Please help the lady and gentleman , Members of ORG , to remove the draperies . ( PERSON and PERSON leave the session ) . Thank you very much . \u201d","On DATE the Speaker submitted a proposal to fine Mr PERSON and PERSON HUF CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( FAC ) each for their conduct , as recorded in TIME and considered to be gravely offensive to parliamentary order , in application of sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW . The proposal stated that an increased fine was necessary since similar seriously disruptive conduct had occurred before . No other reasons were specified in the proposal . The plenary adopted the proposal on CARDINAL DATE without debate .","The applicants , PERSON , Ms PERSON and PERSON , were born in DATE , DATE and DATE and live in GPE , GPE and ORG respectively .","At the material time the applicants were members of parliament and of the opposition party LMP ( Politics Can Be Different ) .","On DATE ORG held a final vote on a new law , PERSON . T\/CARDINAL on ORG . The legislative proposal was quite controversial and generated heated reactions among opposition members . In protest during the final vote on the bill , Ms PERSON placed a small , golden wheelbarrow filled with soil on the table in front of the Prime Minister , while PERSON and PERSON unfurled a banner displaying the words \u201c Land distribution instead of land robbery ! \u201d in front of the Speaker \u2019s pulpit ; meanwhile , PERSON used a megaphone to speak . She had previously delivered CARDINAL speeches during the detailed debate and CARDINAL speech during the final debate on the bill , filing CARDINAL amending motions , and introduced CARDINAL amending proposals just before the final vote .","The minutes of the session read as follows :","\u201c Speaker : The next point on the agenda is the vote on the amendments submitted prior to the final vote on ORG and the final vote . Members of ORG have received the LAW under number T\/CARDINAL and the consolidated text of the PERSON under number ORG .","First we shall vote on the amendments . Their adoption requires a qualified majority .","( continuous disruption of the session ) ...","Speaker : Because the members of ORG [ opposition party ] do not allow me to take my position at the Speaker \u2019s pulpit , I will continue presiding over the session from here . ( Strong applause from the ruling parliamentary group ) . Because members of ORG are not allowing the left - wing , opposition party member and notary to sit at [ the Speaker \u2019s pulpit ] during the vote by roll call and conduct the vote and proclaim the results ( Continuous noise ) . I request Members of ORG to take their seats and listen to me ! I request ORG to confirm that since the members of ORG are not allowing the vote by roll call to take place , we shall cast our vote electronically . ( Strong applause from the ruling parliamentary group . Interventions from the same side : Hurray ! ) .","Honourable Members of ORG ! I request all of you who agree , given the unusual circumstances , to cast your votes by electronic voting instead of vote by roll call . ( Members of the parliamentary group ORG occupy the Speaker \u2019s seat , chanting \u201c Traitors , traitors \u201d for TIME . PERSON places a small golden wheelbarrow filled with soil on the table in front of the Prime Minister . Dr PERSON and PERSON [ the applicants ] unfurl a banner containing the words \u2018 Land distribution instead of land robbery!\u2019 in front of the Speaker \u2019s pulpit ) .","I request technical assistance to enable the vote to take place . ( Short break . Members of the ORG group keep chanting : \u2018 Traitors\u2019 . PERSON uses a megaphone to speak . Dr. PERSON applauds . Intervention from the GPE group : - Where are the parliamentary guards ? Laughter . )","Ms Member of ORG ! I have to warn you as well that your methods are unacceptable under the rules of procedure . I therefore request you to terminate your speech using the megaphone . Again , I request technical assistance to overcome this problem so that the Members of ORG can exercise their right to vote , since I am hindered in accessing my own voting card . ... \u201d","On DATE the Speaker presented a proposal to fine PERSON and PERSON DATE ( EUR CARDINAL ) each and Ms Osztolyk\u00e1n HUF CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for their conduct , as recorded in the TIME and considered to be gravely offensive to parliamentary order , in application of sections FAC ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The Speaker proposed that the maximum fine be applied , given the extraordinary situation that had developed during the voting process and that the MPs had engaged in conduct gravely offensive to parliamentary order by displaying their banner and using a megaphone . A decision approving the proposal of the Speaker was adopted by the plenary on DATE , without debate ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172456","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SADKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["All the applicants were party to civil proceedings in which the firstinstance and appeal courts found in their favour . These judgments became binding and enforceable but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts on the ground of incorrect application of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts ( for more details see the Appendix ) ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-149197","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KUROWSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on remand for DATE . He was charged with a number of offences committed with an armed organised criminal group . At the time , the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed in another set of criminal proceedings against him . The end of that sentence fell on DATE .","In its decision , ORG relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question . The court further emphasised the gravity of the offences in question , the applicant \u2019s active role in the criminal group and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him after conviction . In the domestic court \u2019s view the fact that the applicant was at the time detained in reference to other criminal proceedings against him did not guarantee the proper course of the proceedings since the applicant could had been released at any time from the pre - trial detention without the relevant authorities , responsible for the impugned proceedings , being notified . Moreover , the necessity to obtain further evidence justified remanding the applicant in custody .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE was dismissed by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .","On DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . Subsequently , ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) extended the applicant \u2019s detention on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and on DATE .","The applicant \u2019s appeals against the decisions to extend his pre - trial detention were dismissed by ORG on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .","In the period from DATE until DATE the applicant served a prison sentence imposed by ORG in separate set of criminal proceedings against him ( case no . ORG ) .","During this period the \u0141\u00f3d\u017a Court of Appeal extended the applicant \u2019s the applicant \u2019s detention on remand by the decisions of CARDINAL DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) , of CARDINAL DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) , of CARDINAL DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) and of CARDINAL DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) . The applicant lodged a number of motions to be released as well as appeals against the decisions extending his pre - trial detention , all in vain .","In their decisions the courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant \u2019s detention .","Meanwhile , on DATE ORG ( Prokurator PERSON ) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with ORG . The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion and drug - trafficking committed in an organised and armed criminal group . The bill of indictment comprised CARDINAL charges brought against CARDINAL defendants . The prosecution authorities requested that CARDINAL witnesses be heard before the court .","The court scheduled QUANTITY hearings for DATE . Due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and of some of the accused those hearings did not take place .","The trial was eventually opened on DATE . Subsequent scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences of some of the coaccused and due to problems with sound system in the court room .","In DATE ORG gave a severance order and decided to determine charges against CARDINAL co - accused separately .","The bill of indictment was finally read out to the defendants at the hearing held on DATE .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG started taking evidence from the accused . It subsequently held CARDINAL hearings until DATE , during which some of the accused gave evidence . CARDINAL of the scheduled hearings were adjourned due to sick - leaves of the accused . CARDINAL hearing was adjourned because of the motion for disqualification of the judge lodged by CARDINAL of the co - accused .","NORP In DATE ORG continued taking evidence from the defendants . Of the CARDINAL hearings scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL took place . The trial court adjourned DATE hearings due to justified absences of the parties , QUANTITY hearings were cancelled due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and the lay judges .","Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to continue pre - trial detention unless the applicant would post bail of MONEY ( ORG ) within DATE from the date of the decision .","The applicant was released on bail and police supervision on DATE . He was also prohibited from leaving the country .","ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL hearings were eventually held . At the hearing of DATE the trial court started taking evidence from witnesses .","Of the CARDINAL hearings cancelled DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned because of a sick - leave of the presiding judge , CARDINAL because of absences of witnesses , and the remaining QUANTITY hearings \u2013 because of absences of the parties","Until DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL were adjourned due to justified absences of the defendants .","The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first - instance court .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s motion to take part in a funeral of his grandfather , who had been also his godfather . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision .","The funeral took place on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki DATE \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) . He sought a finding that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and CARDINAL ORG in compensation .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The court found that , considering the complexity of the case and the number of co - accused who had actively tried to obstruct the proceedings , ORG had conducted the proceedings in a correct and timely manner . Consequently , the appellate court refused to award the applicant compensation ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184481","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SINYUSHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162179","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CUNHA MARTINS DA SILVA COUTO v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174217","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"MAGRI v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and FAC , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON . They were represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The applicants owned a piece of land in GPE , GPE , consisting of a rural building and an adjoining piece of land . No building permit existed at the relevant time in regard to this land .","NORP In DATE or thereabouts works were being carried out in the valley situated below the applicants\u2019 land . At the same time part of the applicants\u2019 land was being used as a road in order to provide temporary access , for large vehicles and machinery , to the valley where the works were being carried out . At the time the applicants tolerated this situation .","In DATE the road was tarmacked by the authorities . It appeared that ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) considered that this temporary access road , as well as an adjoining piece of land ( also owned by the applicants , which had been used by ORG to build a football ground in DATE or thereabouts , despite a lack of authorisation ) , were government property .","At the time the applicants permitted the use of their land by third parties , and raised no objections to ORG actions , because they had no pressing need of the property .","NORP In DATE ORG claimed that the land ( both the road and the land used for the football ground ) was public property .","NORP In DATE the applicants instituted civil proceedings ( before ORG ( FAC ) in its ordinary jurisdiction ) for eviction , on the grounds that ORG was occupying the part of the land used as a football ground without title . Employees from the then ORG testified that the land in question had never been public property and had never been the subject of a declaration of expropriation in the public interest .","During those proceedings a constitutional complaint was also raised .","A decision in the case appears to have been delivered on DATE . The applicants made no reference to the outcome of this case in their application .","On DATE the applicants built walls around the land owned by them , with the result that access to the road was no longer possible . On DATE ORG instituted civil proceedings against the applicants , arguing that they were blocking the road , that there had been spoliation of the road , and that they were preventing ORG from exercising its duty to administer and maintain the road .","During the proceedings , although the applicants\u2019 legal counsel appeared at the relevant hearing and made submissions , the applicants themselves failed to participate in the proceedings .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) , in its ordinary civil jurisdiction , found against the applicants . The court noted their absence and the lack of any evidence put forward by them , despite the repeated attempts of their legal counsel . Moreover , the case being an actio spolii \u2013 which had to limit itself to the question of possession and not to the actual ownership of the land \u2013 the court found that the plaintiffs ( ORG ) had satisfied the CARDINAL conditions for the success of such an action by proving , inter alia , that they had possession of the land in question at the time the walls were built .","The applicants appealed that decision .","On DATE ORG confirmed the first - instance judgment , to the effect that ORG had possession of the land at issue , since it was ORG which maintained the road and traffic regularly used it .","Pending the conclusion of the above proceedings , in DATE the applicants submitted an application ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) to ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for a permit to develop their land ( including the land at issue ) . They wished to develop it into a single - storey gymnasium \/ fitness centre .","ORG objected on several grounds , including the fact that the proposed development was located on a public road used by both pedestrians and vehicles .","In a report drawn up by a ORG case officer , it was proposed to reject the objections raised by ORG . He considered the development acceptable and suggested that the necessary building permit be issued .","On an unspecified date ORG recommended that the permit be granted .","The ORG board considered that the applicants\u2019 pending application depended on the outcome of ORG ( PC ) application ( see below ) , therefore it chose to postpone its final assessment until the outcome of that application .","Following the outcome of the PC application ( see below ) , on an unspecified date ORG changed its position and recommended that the application be refused , on the grounds that the proposed development would encroach beyond the proposed official building alignment as set out by the ORG \u2019s Land Surveyor .","The applicants filed an appeal with ORG . A decision in the appeal is still pending . The applicants allege that ORG is awaiting the outcome of the application before this ORG .","On DATE ORG submitted a PC application to the ORG , requesting that the existing road be formalised and thus considered a schemed road .","The applicants objected , since no such road existed in any formal plans , while the ORG argued that , since it was being used as a road , it had to be considered a road .","On DATE ORG PC application was approved , resulting in the existing road being recognised as a schemed road , in the interest of proper planning .","According to the applicants , no avenue of appeal against such a decision existed , in accordance with LAW ( LAW of LAW ) , since LAW ( LAW of LAW ) had not yet come into force .","On DATE the applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings , asking ORG ( FAC ) , in its constitutional competence , to find a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention and declare the ORG decision in favour of ORG PC application unlawful , and requesting compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG ( FAC ) , in its constitutional competence , decided not to take cognisance of the merits of the case , in so far as the applicants had not exhausted ordinary remedies which could have sufficiently addressed the infringements of their rights . Referring to the general principles of the ORG \u2019s case - law , it considered that the applicants had an effective remedy , namely an ordinary civil remedy , which they had not used . Indeed , the applicants had instituted ordinary civil proceedings ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL JZM , see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) in relation to that part of the land where a football pitch had been built , despite their also raising a constitutional complaint under LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention in that case . Therefore , there was no reason why the applicants could not have utilised the same ordinary remedy with regard to the part of the land which had become a road , instead of instituting constitutional redress proceedings in this regard . While it was true that , in the present case , the applicants were claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage , such claims were to be made only after a finding in favour of the applicants by the ordinary court .","Furthermore , the court held that , in relation to their claim against the ORG decision , while it was true that no avenue of appeal existed against it , the applicants had failed to utilise the judicial review procedure ( Article CARDINALA of the Code of ORG ) . While that procedure was limited in the form of redress it could give ( Article CARDINAL A(CARDINAL ) ) , the applicants could nevertheless have asked the court to annul the ORG decision in favour of ORG .","The applicants appealed , claiming that they did not have an ordinary , effective , just and adequate remedy available to them . In particular , they argued that , while it was normal to lodge an eviction action against ORG occupying the land used as a football ground , it could not lodge an eviction action in relation to a piece of land which was not physically occupied , but solely a projected road on paper .","By a judgment of DATE ORG rejected the ORG claims and upheld the decision of the first - instance court .","ORG noted that , by a judgment of DATE , ORG had confirmed that ORG had possession of the land . It followed that an ordinary civil action for eviction was possible . As to the remedy of judicial review , while it was true that such a review was not intended to deal with human rights violations , and that , according to domestic case - law , [ LAW ] sub - article CARDINAL ( a ) referred to constitutional violations other than those arising from fundamental human rights and freedoms , in the present case the applicants should have used that remedy : requesting that the court annul the ORG decision on application CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the grounds that it had been made on the basis of an allegedly unlawful premise ( namely , a false declaration made by the ORG as to the existence of a road ) . Coupled with this , the applicants could have used ordinary civil proceedings for a declaration that the passage or road in question was their property and to seek the eviction of ORG therefrom in so far as they claimed that ORG was occupying the land illegally in the absence of an expropriation according to law ; as well as requesting compensation for the unlawful occupation of LOC . According to ORG , these were ordinary , effective , efficient , and available remedies which should have been exhausted before the applicants instituted extraordinary constitutional redress proceedings .","Article CARDINAL of the Code of ORG , LAW of LAW , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Saving as is otherwise provided by law , the courts of justice of civil jurisdiction may enquire into the validity of any administrative act or declare such act null , invalid or without effect only in the following cases :","( a ) where the administrative act is in violation of the LAW ;","( b ) when the administrative act is ultra vires on any of the following grounds :","( i ) when such act emanates from a public authority that is not authorised to perform it ; or","( ii ) when a public authority has failed to observe the principles of natural justice or mandatory procedural requirements in performing the administrative act or in its prior deliberations thereon ; or","( iii ) when the administrative act constitutes an abuse of the public authority \u2019s power in that it is done for improper purposes or on the basis of irrelevant considerations ; or","( iv ) when the administrative act is otherwise contrary to law .","( CARDINAL ) In this article -","\" administrative act \" includes the issuing by a public authority of any order , licence , permit , warrant , decision , or a refusal to any demand of a claimant , but does not include any measure intended for internal organization or administration within the said authority","... \u201d","Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG , LAW of LAW , in so far as relevant read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) There shall be a ORG , to be known as ORG , consisting of CARDINAL members , CARDINAL being a person versed in environment or development planning , who shall preside , and a lawyer and an architect , each of whom shall be appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Minister .","( CARDINAL ) Subject to those articles which specifically exclude the right to appeal before the ORG , and to articles CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) and DATE , the ORG shall have jurisdiction to :","( a ) hear and determine all appeals made by the applicant or a person aggrieved by a notice issued under the provisions of Part VI on any decision of the ORG on any matter of development control , including the enforcement of such control , or appeals made by any person on any decision of the ORG relating to environment protection , including environment assessments , access to environmental information and the prevention and remedying of environmental damage :","...","( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided under any provision of this LAW , an appeal may be lodged before the ORG within DATE from date of notification of the decision or order by the ORG .","( CARDINAL ) In case of a development listed in the Seventh Schedule , at the request of the appellant made concurrently with the application for the appeal , through a partial decision , the ORG may suspend the execution of the development , in whole or in part , as approved by the development permit subject of the appeal , under those terms , conditions and other measures it may deem fit :","Provided also that the application is not for a development which , in the opinion of the Minister is of strategic significance or of national interest , related to any obligation ensuing from ORG , affects national security or affects interests of other governments .","( CARDINAL ) In the cases referred to in sub - article ( CARDINAL ) , the ORG shall hold its first hearing be within DATE from receipt of the appeal , and shall not suspend the execution of such a permit unless it is satisfied , after hearing all the parties , that unless the execution of the permit is suspended the prejudice that would be caused would be disproportionate when compared with the actual doing of the thing so permitted or if the request is deemed as frivolous or vexatious :","Provided that the ORG shall justify the decision suspending the execution of the development and shall grant its final decision on the merits of the appeal within DATE from DATE first hearing of the appeal :","Provided further that the suspension of the execution of such a permit may not be DATE from the date of the first hearing of the Appeal before the ORG , and the suspension order shall be deemed to have elapsed ipso iure after the lapse of such a period .","( CARDINAL ) In all other appeals , the first hearing of the ORG shall be held within DATE from receipt of the appeal . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148676","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF IBRAHIM AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["On DATE , CARDINAL suicide bombs exploded on CARDINAL underground trains and CARDINAL bus in central GPE , killing CARDINAL people and injuring CARDINAL more .","DATE , on DATE , the first CARDINAL applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , and a fourth man , PERSON PERSON , detonated CARDINAL bombs contained in rucksacks at separate points on the GPE public transport system . On DATE , a fifth bomb was discovered abandoned and undetonated in a bin . Mr Manfo Asiedu was identified as the fifth conspirator .","Although the CARDINAL bombs were detonated , in each case the main charge , liquid hydrogen peroxide , failed to explode . Subsequent testing revealed that this was most likely the result of an inadequate concentration of the hydrogen peroxide : the hydrogen peroxide found in the bombs had a lower concentration than that which would have been necessary for it to explode .","The first CARDINAL applicants and PERSON all fled the scenes of their attempted explosions . Images of the QUANTITY men were , however , captured by closed - circuit television ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) cameras . A national police manhunt began , in which photographs and the ORG images of the men were broadcast on national television . The following day , DATE , a young man was shot and killed on the GPE underground by police after being mistaken for CARDINAL of the men . The CARDINAL men were arrested , the first CARDINAL applicants in GPE DATE and PERSON in GPE , GPE , on DATE . They were tried and convicted for conspiracy to murder .","The fourth applicant , PERSON , gave PERSON shelter at his home in GPE , during the period when PERSON was on the run from the police and before he fled to GPE . In separate proceedings , Mr PERSON was tried and convicted of assisting PERSON and failing to disclose information after the event .","The details of the applicants\u2019 arrests and initial police questioning are set out more fully below .","The first of the bombers to be arrested was Mr PERSON . He was arrested on DATE at TIME in GPE .","Upon arrest , he was cautioned by the police using the \u201c new - style \u201d caution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , namely that he did not have to answer questions but that anything he did say might be given in evidence , and that adverse inferences might be drawn from his silence if he failed to mention matters later relied on by him at trial . The police officers who accompanied him to the police station later gave evidence that Mr PERSON had said that he had not known what he was doing , had not known that the bomb would go off and had not wanted to hurt anyone .","Mr PERSON arrived at FAC , GPE , at TIME At TIME he requested the attendance of a solicitor . He was told that he was entitled to consult a solicitor but that this right could be delayed for up to TIME if authorised by a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above . At TIME a superintendent ordered that Mr PERSON be held incommunicado under Schedule CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","Shortly afterwards , a different superintendent directed that a safety interview be conducted with Mr PERSON . A \u201c safety interview \u201d is an interview conducted urgently for the purpose of protecting life and preventing serious damage to property . The detainee is questioned in order to secure information that may help avert harm to the public , by preventing a further terrorist attack , for example . The interview may occur in the absence of a solicitor and before the detainee has had the opportunity to seek legal advice ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) .","At TIME a brief safety interview took place . It lasted TIME and focused on whether there was anything unsafe in a bag which Mr PERSON had discarded when he was arrested .","At TIME the custody officer at ORG contacted the duty solicitor on behalf of Mr PERSON .","At TIME and TIME Mr PERSON again requested access to a solicitor . He was told that this would be arranged as soon as the booking - in process had been completed .","At TIME the custody officer was told that a further safety interview had been authorised . It was recorded in writing that Mr PERSON had not been given access to legal advice on the grounds that delaying the interview would involve an immediate risk of harm to persons or damage to property and that legal advice would lead to the alerting of other people suspected of having committed offences but not yet arrested , which would in turn make it more difficult to prevent an act of terrorism or to secure the arrest , prosecution or conviction of persons in connection with terrorism offences . The reason for these beliefs , which was also recorded , was that Mr PERSON was suspected of participating in the attacks of DATE together with CARDINAL as yet unidentified accomplices . There then followed CARDINAL safety interviews .","Safety interview A commenced at TIME and concluded at CARDINAL a.m. At the beginning of the interview , Mr PERSON was given the old - style caution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , namely that he did not need to say anything but that anything he did say might be given in evidence .","Safety interview B commenced at TIME and concluded at CARDINAL a.m. Again , Mr PERSON was given the old - style caution at the start of the interview .","At TIME the duty solicitor was contacted and was told that safety interviews were taking place .","At TIME safety interview C commenced . This time , Mr PERSON was given the new - style caution . It finished at TIME","At TIME safety interview D commenced , following the administration of the old - style caution . It was completed at TIME","During the safety interviews , Mr PERSON either claimed that he did not recognise the other suspects from the photos in the media or he gave an incorrect account of how he knew some of them . He deliberately incorrectly described their involvement in the events of DATE .","Meanwhile , at TIME , the custody officer contacted the duty solicitor . At TIME the duty solicitor arrived at the custody suite and was permitted to read the custody record .","At TIME Mr PERSON was placed in a room for consultation with the duty solicitor . That consultation was interrupted at TIME for a further safety interview , which began at TIME and concluded at CARDINAL p.m. and was conducted in the presence of the solicitor .","The next suspect to be arrested was PERSON . He was arrested on DATE at TIME in a flat in LOC . He was cautioned and asked whether there was any material on the LOC which might cause danger . He replied that there was not . He was also asked whether there was any material anywhere which the police should know about and he replied that the police already knew about \u201c QUANTITY \u201d ( the LOC where the explosive devices were believed to have been manufactured ) because they had been there already . He identified the other man that the police had seen at the GPE flat DATE as Mr PERSON and was asked whether Mr PERSON had control of any materials likely to cause danger . He replied , \u201c No , listen , I \u2019ve seen my photo and I was on the bus but I did n\u2019t do anything , I was just on the bus \u201d . He was told that he would be interviewed about that later and that all the police wanted to know was whether there was anything at another location that was likely to cause danger . Mr PERSON indicated that he was aware that the police were trying to \u201c link us to QUANTITY \u201d ( referring to the events of DATE ) and then said that he did \u201c do the bus \u201d but that he had had nothing to do with the events of CARDINAL DATE .","Mr Ibrahim arrived at FAC at TIME He requested the assistance of the duty solicitor .","At TIME he was reminded of his right to free legal advice and replied that he understood what had been said to him . The duty solicitor was contacted at TIME At TIME he called the police station and asked to speak to PERSON . He was told that PERSON was unavailable . The solicitor called again at TIME and was told that his details would be passed to the officer in charge of the investigation , but that telephone contact was impractical because the appropriate consultation rooms were unavailable .","At TIME a superintendent ordered an urgent safety interview and directed that Mr Ibrahim be held incommunicado . The custody record explained that his right to access to legal advice had been delayed because there were reasonable grounds for believing that delaying an interview would involve immediate risk of harm to persons or serious loss of , or damage to , property ; and that it would lead to the alerting of other persons suspected of committing a terrorist offence but not yet arrested , which would make it more difficult to prevent an act of terrorism or secure the apprehension , prosecution or conviction of a person in connection with terrorism offences . The record referred to the suspicion that PERSON had detonated an explosive device on DATE as part of an organised attack intended to kill and injure members of the public .","At TIME a different solicitor called the police station and asked to speak to PERSON . She was told that CARDINAL of that name was held at the police station . At TIME , when it was established that Mr PERSON was at the police station , she was told that he was already represented by the duty solicitor .","At TIME Mr Ibrahim was taken from his cell for a safety interview . At TIME the second solicitor contacted the custody officer . At TIME , while Mr PERSON was being interviewed , the second solicitor called again seeking to speak to him .","At the beginning of the safety interview Mr PERSON was told :","\u201c ... [ I ] am going to ask you some questions , you do n\u2019t have to say anything if you do n\u2019t want to but the court can draw what \u2019s called an inference from that and that just means that they can look upon your silence as perhaps a sign of guilt . And then what is being said here , it is being tape - recorded and it can be used in court . \u201d","This was , in effect , the new - style caution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","During the safety interview , PERSON was asked whether he had any materials such as explosives or chemicals stored anywhere . He denied knowing where any such materials might be stored or having any knowledge of planned attacks which might endanger the public . He told the police that he did not know anything about explosives and that he had no links with any terrorist groups . He added that he did not know anyone who dealt with explosives , was a danger to society or was planning terrorist activities . He accepted that he knew Mr PERSON , but denied knowing other men connected with the events of DATE whose pictures had been shown on television . He was unaware of anyone he knew having been involved in these events . He said that Mr PERSON was not someone who would be prepared to do anything like that . The safety interview ended at TIME","At TIME the duty solicitor arrived at the police station . Mr PERSON was sleeping and saw the solicitor at TIME","During subsequent interviews while PERSON was in detention , which were conducted in the presence of a solicitor , he made no comment .","The last of the CARDINAL suspects to be arrested was Mr PERSON . He was arrested and cautioned on DATE at TIME at the same LOC flat as PERSON .","He arrived at FAC at TIME At CARDINAL p.m. he requested the assistance of the duty solicitor . At TIME the custody officer asked the relevant officers to inform him whether PERSON PERSON was to be held incommunicado and at TIME this was authorised .","Simultaneously , a superintendent authorised a safety interview . The reasons for delaying access to legal advice were recorded . The superintendent indicated that he believed that delaying an interview would involve immediate risk of harm to persons or serious loss of , or damage to , property ; that it would lead to others suspected of having committed offences but not yet arrested being alerted ; and that by alerting any other person it would be more difficult to prevent an act of terrorism or to secure the apprehension , prosecution or conviction of a person in connection with the commission , preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism .","At TIME the custody officer called the duty solicitor scheme . At TIME Mr PERSON signed the custody record indicating that he wished to speak to a solicitor as soon as practicable . At TIME he was told that he was being held incommunicado .","At TIME duty solicitors arrived at the front desk of ORG .","At TIME the safety interview of Mr PERSON commenced without the presence of a solicitor . He was given the new - style caution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He was told that he was suspected of involvement in the attacks of DATE and was asked if he had any knowledge of further explosives , and those who had them , which could cause harm to the public in the near future . He maintained that he had nothing to do with the events of DATE and that he knew nothing about them . He did not recognise the photographs of the alleged perpetrators which he had seen in the media . The safety interview finished at TIME","The duty solicitors arrived at the custody suite at TIME and saw Mr PERSON at TIME The delay was partly caused by PERSON PERSON \u2019s request for time to pray and the provision of a meal .","On DATE Mr PERSON was interviewed for the second time , this time in the presence of a solicitor . Early in the interview , the solicitor read out the following statement by Mr PERSON :","\u201c I am not a terrorist and I \u2019m not in any way connected to any acts of terrorism and have not been connected to any acts of terrorism ... particularly on DATE or DATE . \u201d","Thereafter Mr PERSON exercised his right to silence .","The trial of the first CARDINAL applicants for conspiracy to murder commenced in ORG at GPE on DATE before Mr Justice PERSON and a jury . It was to DATE . The applicants stood trial alongside PERSON , PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and PERSON PERSON ( accused of taking part in the essential preparation for the attacks ) .","NORP The applicants\u2019 defence was that although they had been involved in the events of DATE and had detonated the explosive devices , their actions were not intended to kill but were merely an elaborate hoax designed as a protest against the war in GPE . The bombs had been designed to look realistic and to cause a bang when they went off but had deliberately been constructed with flaws to ensure that the main charge would not detonate .","At the start of the trial , the applicants argued that the admission of the statements they had given during their safety interviews would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that they ought to be excluded pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG DATE ( \u201c PACE \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They contended that their right of access to a solicitor before and during the safety interviews had been violated and that their right against selfincrimination had been breached as a result of the use of the new - style caution , when the old - style caution , ( which made it clear that no adverse inferences could be drawn from their silence because they had not had access to solicitors ) ought to have been used instead . They also argued that the statements should be excluded on grounds of public policy as , if such statements were routinely admitted , there was a greater likelihood that suspects would refuse to answer questions about public safety .","A voir dire ( i.e. a hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence ) was conducted . At its conclusion , and after hearing ORG submissions , the trial judge concluded that the statements made during the safety interviews could be admitted . His written ruling ran to CARDINAL paragraphs and may be summarised as follows .","The judge referred at the outset to the explanation given by the police superintendent in charge of the investigation of the situation which he had faced . The superintendent had pointed in particular to the discovery of a quantity of chemicals , which appeared to be far in excess of that required to construct the devices used during the attacks of DATE , and to evidence that the suspects had been in receipt of considerable post - event assistance .","The judge also considered the facilities available in the custody area at FAC , where the applicants had been taken after their arrest and where the safety interviews had taken place . The entire custody facilities had been given over to the investigation into the attempted bombings . There were CARDINAL cells , rooms for medical and forensic testing purposes and CARDINAL rooms for consultations between suspects and their solicitors . However , at the time of PERSON and Mr PERSON \u2019s safety interviews , CARDINAL individuals suspected of terrorism offences were detained at the police station . The imperative was to prevent communication between the suspects and to avoid cross - contamination in the course of searches and other forensic processes .","The trial judge next referred to the relevant statutory framework governing access to legal advice for those held under terrorism legislation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) , which made it clear that where a suspect was interviewed without legal assistance , the old - style caution should be administered , because section CARDINAL(CARDINALA ) of ORG LAW DATE prohibited the drawing of adverse inferences from silence where the suspect had not had access to legal advice ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , he considered that this did not extend to preventing the court from admitting evidence of things said by a suspect during questioning , including any lies that he told . The judge indicated that the jury would be told that , contrary to the terms of the new - style caution that had been on occasion administered , no adverse inferences could be drawn from the applicants\u2019 failure to mention during questioning facts later relied on at trial .","He then turned to review this ORG \u2019s case - law on access to legal advice and the right to silence , explaining :","\u201c In my view , the following conclusions are to be drawn from those decisions of the ORG . First , legal advice can be withheld for good cause during the early stages of interviews , so long as the conditions in which the interviews occur are not significantly coercive ( PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL VI ) and so long as access is not delayed for an excessive period ( PERSON v. GPE , DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-I ) . Moreover , interviewing a suspect having withheld legal advice and following a newstyle caution is not decisive in the assessment of whether there has been a breach of LAW PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVI ) . Rather , the court must look at the circumstances overall and the use to which evidence is put ( and including whether adverse inferences are drawn ) . Accordingly , so long as the overall circumstances have not caused irretrievable prejudice to the rights of the defendant , much will depend on the directions a jury receives as to how they should approach the silence or the statement of a suspect in these circumstances . As the ORG made clear in GPE , considerable caution is required when attaching weight to the fact that a person arrested in connection with a serious criminal offence and having been denied access to a lawyer during the early stages of his interrogation responds in a particular way DATE or as in that case , does not respond \u2013 to the questions put to him . The need for caution is not removed simply because an accused is eventually allowed to see his solicitor and then refuses to answer questions . A jury must be given a strong and careful warning that they must take into account all of the relevant circumstances ; they must have discounted all reasonable ( \u2018 innocent\u2019 ) explanations for the accused \u2019s silence or statements before they consider using this material against him ; and the jury must be told to be careful not to accord disproportionate weight to this evidence . \u201d","The trial judge considered that the applicable code of practice ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) and the caution were primarily designed to protect an accused from self - incrimination and to warn him of the consequences if he chose to answer questions and the harm that could be done to his case if he failed to reveal elements of his defence on which he later relied at trial . Neither the code nor the caution was intended to protect defendants from telling lies . The judge explained :","\u201c Whilst I recognise that an accused may benefit from having a solicitor remind him of his moral duty to tell the truth , in my view it is an invalid argument to suggest that an interview is necessarily inadmissible because the suspect did not have the advantage of a consultation with a solicitor , who had been excluded for good cause , in order to tell him that he should not deceive the police . \u201d","He concluded that , despite the absence of a solicitor during the safety interviews and the use of the wrong caution , there was no significant unfairness or material infringement of the applicants\u2019 right to a fair trial .","NORP In response to the submission that the applicants were confronted with irreconcilable propositions when asked to participate in the safety interviews , the judge found that they were not . He noted :","\u201c ... The defendants were confronted with a stark but clear choice : either they could help the police in the knowledge that what they said may be utilised against them , or they could protect themselves and remain silent ... What is clear beyond doubt is that the defendants were not misled or deceived as to the underlying purpose of the interviews , the possible consequences of answering questions or the potential risks of not revealing elements of their defence ... \u201d","He further observed that the defence that the applicants chose not to reveal at that stage was directly relevant to the public safety issues and was easy to describe . It did not require any detailed understanding of the criminal law or a complicated factual explanation . It could have been summed up by the single word \u201c hoax \u201d . The judge accepted that it was sometimes necessary to have the assistance of a lawyer before a suspect could understand and describe a complicated defence , but said that this was not the case here .","The judge considered that the defendants might have had a more credible position if they had answered the questions posed in ways which were at least arguably designed to assist the public and which , as a result , incriminated them . However , it was common ground that they had either lied or failed to reveal what they knew in the safety interviews : rather than incriminate themselves , they had offered false , exculpatory explanations . The judge further found that the invitation to cooperate in the process of protecting the public was not an impermissible inducement . Finally , he concluded that the administration of the new - style caution did not pressure the defendants into providing any element of their various defences .","The judge set out in detail the approach he had adopted to the exercise of his discretion whether to exclude the evidence . In particular , he had given full weight to the principle that access to legal advice before and during questioning was one of the most fundamental rights that should only be denied on reasonable grounds in particular cases ; and he had taken into consideration the fact that the environment in which the applicants were held was not in any true sense coercive and that the questioning was neither oppressive nor unfair . While he accepted that the erroneous administration of the new - style caution involved a level of indirect compulsion , this was not , in his view , decisive : the choice for the applicants was an easy one and they had not been \u201c induced \u201d by the caution to incriminate themselves but had instead told deliberate , exculpatory lies . He also noted that the evidence of the safety interviews was potentially of high relevance to the central question raised in the trial , namely whether the defences now advanced were possibly true .","As regards Mr PERSON \u2019s safety interviews , the judge observed that , in answering the questions designed to protect the public , Mr PERSON had volunteered a very large amount of misleading information . He had not incriminated himself at any stage , but had instead told extensive exculpatory lies . The judge considered it clear that the police officers had concentrated throughout on issues that might have revealed information relevant to assisting them to locate people or items that could pose a danger to the public . He noted that there was no suggestion that the police had exceeded the requirements of what was necessary and that it was acknowledged that the lines of questioning were relevant to public safety issues .","The judge found that Mr PERSON had been denied access to a solicitor for TIME . The safety interviews had been conducted expeditiously and as soon as they were completed PERSON had been given access to a solicitor . The interviews were neither coercive nor oppressive , as accepted by PERSON counsel . Although a breach of the applicable code of practice had occurred when the new - style caution was administered at the beginning of safety interview C , that had not affected his attitude to the questioning . He had continued telling lies consistent with what he had said in safety interviews A and B.","As regards PERSON , having reviewed the evidence showing the times and locations of the various interviews and consultations taking place at the police station , the judge accepted \u201c unhesitatingly \u201d that it would have been impractical for a telephone conversation between the solicitor and PERSON Ibrahim to have been arranged at the time of her telephone calls ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . He observed that at the relevant time there had been CARDINAL detainees at the police station , all arrested for suspected involvement in the events of DATE . The police station had been exceptionally busy and the conference rooms had been prioritised for face - to - face consultations ; it would not have been a realistic option to leave a room free with a telephone socket for telephone conversations with lawyers . The judge noted that the police had accepted that there had been a breakdown in communication in that the interviewing officers had not been told that PERSON solicitor was trying to speak with him on the telephone .","The judge further held that it would have been impractical for Mr Ibrahim to have spoken to a solicitor before the booking - in procedures were completed at TIME Although there was , in theory , time for a faceto - face conference TIME , when the safety interview was authorised , and TIME , when it commenced , the judge considered that , in light of the pressure under which the police were working , it was wholly understandable that no officer had appreciated that there was time to ask the duty solicitor to attend for a meeting with PERSON before the safety interview commenced . However , the judge was of the view that it should have been possible , TIME and TIME , to ensure that the duty solicitor was given access to PERSON by telephone and accordingly concluded that , to this limited extent , he was incorrectly denied access to legal advice by telephone . However , he considered that this error did not involve a material infringement of his defence rights , noting :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... [ T]his infringement of his rights was of low significance : it would have been impossible for [ the duty solicitor ] , in speaking to PERSON for the first time over the telephone , to give detailed and informed advice in those circumstances , and she would have been unable to provide material assistance on the decision which he had to take . Although for this defendant the choice was a straightforward one , [ the duty solicitor ] would have needed to understand the entirety of the main background circumstances before she could give advice that would have been useful to PERSON as regards the options confronting him . She could have advised him of his rights , but save for any issues arising out of the misuse of the new - style caution , his core rights had already been made clear to him : he was entitled to legal advice ( which had been delayed for public safety reasons ) ; he was entitled to remain silent ; and anything he did say may be given in evidence against him . There is no suggestion that he did not understand these straightforward matters . \u201d","The judge considered that the erroneous use of the new - style caution was a straightforward and wholly understandable oversight on the part of the officers conducting the interview , given the pressure under which they were operating . He noted that the safety interview was short ; that it was not suggested that it had been conducted coercively ; and that the questions did not go beyond legitimate questioning for safety purposes . The judge examined the transcript of the safety interview conducted and noted that Mr PERSON had consistently denied having knowledge of any planned future attacks or hidden explosives . PERSON had seen a lawyer around DATE after his first request to see one .","DATE . In respect of Mr PERSON , the judge found that legal advice had been delayed for TIME , during which time TIME of questioning had taken place . There was no suggestion that the interview had been held in coercive circumstances . Aside from the administration of the new - style caution , there was no evidence of any pressure having been applied . The judge was sure that the interview had not exceeded the legitimate bounds or purpose of a safety interview and had been , on the contrary , focused and appropriate .","The judge therefore concluded that there had been no material infringement of the right of any of the applicants to exercise their defence rights and that the interviews were admissible in their entirety .","NORP The main issue at trial was whether the failure of the devices to explode was an intentional design flaw ( in which case the applicants could not be guilty of conspiracy to murder ) or a mistake in the construction of the devices . The prosecution relied heavily on the applicants\u2019 answers in their safety interviews to undermine their defence that the events of DATE were intended as a hoax .","NORP The prosecution also led evidence that the men had extremist views . They relied on extremist material found at the residences of Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON ( of beheadings and other atrocities ) ; evidence that the first CARDINAL applicants and PERSON had attended a training camp in LOC and that PERSON had travelled abroad on jihad ; and evidence that PERSON PERSON had tried to convince an outsider to the group of the legitimacy of suicide bombings and other terrorist activity and , on another occasion , had shouted at an imam who had condemned suicide bombings . Also introduced as evidence were jottings referring to martyrdom on the same pad of paper that had been used to note the amount of materials supposed to go into each bomb .","The prosecution further relied on evidence as to the purchase of the material for the bombs and their preparation . They established that , DATE and DATE , QUANTITY of liquid hydrogen peroxide at a low concentration had been purchased from CARDINAL shops in north GPE in a total of CARDINAL containers by PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON . There was evidence that they had initially requested liquid hydrogen peroxide at a much higher strength at or near the strength necessary to enable explosion and that they had boiled the hydrogen peroxide to increase its concentration . A number of the empty bottles later recovered had handwritten numerical markings on them , which the prosecution contended was proof that the defendants believed that the requisite concentration for explosion had been reached . A rota showed over QUANTITY FAC work boiling the hydrogen peroxide .","Scientific evidence was also led as to the construction of the bombs , which had been put in rucksacks adapted for the purpose . The detonator was encased in paper from an ACARDINAL pad . Shrapnel had been added to the devices , which would have increased fragmentation upon explosion and maximised the possibility of injury . Both prosecution and defence experts agreed that the bombs were not viable . The prosecution \u2019s expert explained that this was because the hydrogen peroxide had not reached the necessary concentration required for explosion . He noted that it would have been difficult for those constructing the bombs to have measured the strength of the hydrogen peroxide but pointed out that , if the purpose had only been an hoax , no increase in hydrogen peroxide concentration would have been necessary : at the initial low concentration or with a banger inserted into the mix , the same impression of noise would have been produced . In response to the defence claim that the hydrogen peroxide had been concentrated and then diluted again with tap water ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , analysis of the isotope composition of GPE tap water showed that this was not possible .","NORP The prosecution also referred to telephone and ORG evidence of extensive contacts between the men primarily before , but also after , DATE .","A farewell letter written by PERSON , which the prosecution alleged was a suicide note , was also admitted in evidence . It was alleged to have come from the same pad of paper as had been used for encasing the detonator in the bombs . A witness gave evidence that he had received the letter on DATE from Mr PERSON \u2019s brother and had been asked to pass it on to Mr PERSON \u2019s partner .","DATE . The jury also heard evidence from passengers on the trains where CARDINAL of the bombs had been detonated . CARDINAL gave evidence of Mr PERSON mumbling nervously to himself on the platform , another of him shouting \u201c this is wrong , this is wrong \u201d after the detonation of his bomb , still others of his look of surprise , confusion and panic afterwards . In respect of PERSON , passengers gave evidence of his surprise and fear . CARDINAL witnesses he encountered during his escape gave evidence that he had asked them for help and had told them he had been injured in a bomb attack or explosion . In respect of PERSON , the bus driver who had been in charge of the bus on which PERSON detonation took place gave evidence of PERSON nervousness in boarding the bus .","The applicants gave evidence to the effect that their actions were intended as a hoax . They had initially planned to leave the bombs unattended in public to make a point about the Iraq war . After the events of DATE , the plan changed to detonating the bombs but not the main charge of hydrogen peroxide . To this end , they maintained that , although they had tried to concentrate the hydrogen peroxide by boiling it , they had then watered it down so that it would no longer be at the necessary concentration for an explosion . Mr PERSON gave evidence that he had not intended to detonate his bomb on the bus ; it had gone off accidentally as he felt for the battery in order to try and remove it . Mr PERSON explained his farewell letter saying that it had in fact been written on DATE after the shooting of the man mistaken for CARDINAL of the suspects ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) because he thought that he too would be shot by the police . It was pure coincidence that it was written on the same pad as that used for the detonator .","Like the first CARDINAL applicants , PERSON case prior to trial was that the events of DATE were a hoax . However , after PERSON had given evidence , PERSON gave oral evidence and changed his previous position . He claimed to have learned on TIME of DATE that the devices were real bombs . He was too confused and frightened to refuse the device that was handed to him but , in accepting it , he did not intend to join or play any part in the conspiracy .","During his summing up to the jury , the judge gave the following direction in respect of the statements made in the safety interviews :","\u201c What about the lies , members of the jury , told by some defendants to the police ? It is admitted that the defendants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON lied to the police in different ways during their interviews . ... [ B]efore you even begin to take any lies into consideration , you must pay careful attention to the circumstances in which the lies were told and those circumstances vary between the defendants .","First , you will recall that because of the exceptional circumstances that existed in DATE safety interviews were authorised in the cases of PERSON and PERSON . That meant that those defendants were questioned in an attempt to preserve the safety of the public before they had the opportunity of consulting with a solicitor . It is not alleged by anyone that legal advice was denied by the officers as a result of bad faith or dishonesty . However , access to legal advice prior to interview is a right that is usually afforded to a suspect and you should take into consideration that this did not happen . For instance , a solicitor may have advised the defendant in question to remain silent or they may have reminded the defendant that he should tell the truth and that there may be consequences if he lied . Therefore , when considering whether to hold any lie told by those CARDINAL defendants during a safety interview against them , remember that this safeguard with these safety interviews was withheld . \u201d","The judge also directed the jury to bear in mind that incorrect cautions had been used . He explained :","\u201c As a result , it was confused and potentially confusing for all CARDINAL defendants . The new - style caution that was administered may have put inappropriate pressure on them to speak . When considering whether or not to hold any lie told by a defendant during a safety interview against him , take into account , therefore , that unsatisfactory history as regards the use of the caution .","However , as regards the use of the new - style caution , you are also entitled to bear in mind that none of these CARDINAL defendants were in fact pressurised into revealing anything that they have later relied on in this trial . To the contrary , on all or most material issues they lied . \u201d","In respect of those lies , the judge observed :","\u201c In addition , for PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON when assessing lies they told whilst in police custody , whether in a safety interview or otherwise , you should consider CARDINAL further questions : on the particular issue you are considering , you must decide whether the defendant you are considering did in fact deliberately tell lies . If you are not sure he did , ignore this matter on that issue . If you are sure , consider why did the defendant lie on that issue . The mere fact that a defendant tells a lie is not in itself evidence of guilt . A defendant may lie for many reasons and they may possibly be innocent ones in the sense that they do not denote guilt . It is suggested here that lies were told for a variety of reasons : out of fear of admitting a degree of involvement or knowledge but which the defendant says falls short of his being a conspirator , that is PERSON ; to protect others who they feared would be falsely accused and might be killed or injured as a result ; out of fear of admitting involvement , as they claim , in a hoax attack , or out of panic , distress , confusion , or from fear of being assaulted .","If you think that there is , or may be , an innocent explanation for the lies told by the defendant you are considering , then you should take no notice of them . It is only if you are sure that he did not lie for an innocent reason that his lies can be regarded by you as evidence supporting the prosecution case , subject to the other directions I have just given you on this issue relating to the safety interviews . \u201d","Concerning the failure of the applicants to mention the defence led at trial during the safety interviews , the judge directed as follows :","\u201c Let us turn then to the failure of the defendants to answer questions in interview . The first matter to stress is that you must not hold it against PERSON , PERSON and PERSON that they failed to mention during the safety interviews matters which they later relied on in court . That is because , as I have just explained to you , access to a lawyer had been denied at that stage and the law is that in those circumstances a defendant is not to be criticised for failing to mention matters that later form part of his defence . Of course it follows from the direction I have just given you about lies that if instead of remaining silent they told lies , you are entitled to take those untruths into account , subject always to the matters I have just directed you to take into account .","...","[ M]y clear direction to you is that you must not hold it against PERSON , PERSON and PERSON that they failed to mention during the safety interviews matters which they later have relied on in this court . \u201d","For the later interviews that took place after the applicants had seen their legal representatives and had received the new - style caution , the trial judge directed the jury that the applicants had failed to give an account of CARDINAL matters that they relied on at trial , even though they had been asked questions about them in interview : ( i ) the true events leading up to DATE ; ( ii ) their knowledge individually of and association with their coaccused ; and ( iii ) their true state of mind , purpose and intention in relation to the deployment of the bombs . He explained that the failure to mention these matters during the interviews which took place after they had received legal advice could be held against them .","On DATE the jury convicted the first CARDINAL applicants and Mr PERSON of conspiracy to murder . The jury were unable to reach verdicts in respect of the other CARDINAL defendants and a re - trial in their cases was ordered . They subsequently pleaded guilty to lesser charges .","On DATE the first CARDINAL applicants were sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of DATE imprisonment .","The applicants sought leave to appeal against their convictions . They argued inter alia that the trial judge had erred in his ruling admitting the evidence of the safety interviews .","On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal against conviction .","Setting out the background to the ORG arrest and questing , the court observed :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... It is virtually impossible to imagine the pressure and concerns which must have been felt by the police investigating teams . DATE CARDINAL bombs had been successfully detonated with the dreadful consequences with which we are familiar , and they were now faced with CARDINAL more bombs , again in the transport system , which had been detonated , but failed to explode . The bombers involved on DATE had perished , but the perpetrators of the second intended atrocity were at large , free to repeat their murderous plans , and to do so more effectively . They had to be found and detained , and the immediate objective of the investigation , including interviews of those arrested in connection with these incidents , was directed to public safety . \u201d","ORG expressed , at the outset of its judgment , the following , general conclusion as to the nature and conduct of the trial :","\u201c CARDINAL . It is axiomatic that every defendant , even a defendant alleged to be involved in direct and dangerous violence on the citizens and institutions of this country , is entitled to a fair trial at which his guilt must be proved . This trial was marked with conspicuous fairness and commanding judicial control by PERSON Justice PERSON . The defendants were represented at public expense by leading counsel of distinction and experience , with absolute clarity about their professional responsibilities both to their clients , and to the court . The jury \u2019s difficulty in agreeing verdicts in relation to PERSON and PERSON demonstrates that they approached the issues with the open - minded fairness and lack of prejudice which is CARDINAL of the customary characteristics of the jury system . Now that the applicants have been convicted after a fair trial before an impartial tribunal , we are entitled to record , after a lengthy examination of the evidence , that their defences to the charge of conspiracy to murder were ludicrous . \u201d","In respect of the applicants\u2019 defence , ORG made the following observation :","\u201c CARDINAL . If these were hoax bombs we find it hard to conceive why it was necessary for the peroxide to be boiled in order to increase its concentration , or why both PERSON and PERSON , independently , when buying hydrogen peroxide asked for it to be supplied at [ a much higher ] strength , or the highest available percentage . Equally , it is astonishing to imagine why QUANTITY of hydrogen peroxide was needed unless its purpose was to increase its strength . The handwritten figures ... on DATE bottles made devastating evidence . Each one demonstrated that the manufacturers of the bombs believed that they had in fact achieved the critical concentration necessary to ensure that the bombs exploded . Indeed a significant part of the trial was taken up by the efforts by applicants to explain away this crucial evidence . In very brief summary it was contended that after the concentration in the hydrogen peroxide had been increased , it was then watered down . Moreover it is difficult to understand how any political point , if that was all that was sought to be made , could be improved by the incorporation of shrapnel within the bomb . The shrapnel was intended to cause death and maiming . There could be no other purpose . And if this expedition were intended as a hoax or a political demonstration , there was a remarkable silence from the applicants themselves after they had made their escapes . If their objective was a hoax , CARDINAL a moment \u2019s attention to the outpouring of the news about the unsuccessful bombings would have demonstrated that their objective had been achieved . Yet no such assertion or claim or explanation was given or offered to the police or the media or the public before any of the applicants was arrested . \u201d","As to the impact of the admission of the safety interviews , the court observed :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... At this stage we simply record that if the records of the police interviews were properly admitted , they were sufficient , on their own , utterly to undermine the \u2018 hoax\u2019 defence . \u201d","NORP The court was of the view that an interview process which , so far as possible , enabled the police to protect the public was a necessary imperative . It considered that the question whether the results of such interviews should be used as evidence against the suspects was delicate . However , it emphasised that none of the applicants had said anything which directly incriminated them , or involved any confession to participation in , or even remote knowledge of , the conspiracy to murder on DATE . It also found that there was a risk of attaching disproportionate importance to this particular feature of the evidence in the case . Nevertheless , it noted , the interviews provided important evidence against the applicants , not because they told the truth and revealed knowledge of or involvement in terrorist activity , but because they had made a number of demonstrably untrue assertions without suggesting the defences that they later advanced at trial .","The court accepted that , owing to police error , incorrect cautions had been administered to the applicants before they told the lies in question . However , it emphasised that each of the men had been warned that the answers given in the safety interviews might be used in evidence against him . The court continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... So they were under no illusions . They did not purport to incriminate themselves at all . They chose to lie . On any view that was an important consideration in the exercise of ORG discretion . \u201d","The court was satisfied that the exercise of discretion by the trial judge was fully informed and that he had approached the relevant issues with care .","As regards Mr PERSON , the court noted that he was the first of the defendants to be arrested and that , as a consequence , what he might have to say was of absolutely crucial importance to the stark public safety issues which confronted the police at the time . It observed that during the voir dire , it was expressly accepted that the decision to hold a safety interview before Mr PERSON was granted access to a lawyer was a valid decision under Schedule CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) . It was further conceded that the interviews were conducted fairly and moderately , and that they were neither coercive nor oppressive . However , during the appeal , counsel for PERSON had sought to argue that the police action to delay Mr PERSON \u2019s access to legal advice was not lawful . The ORG noted :","\u201c First , breaches of the relevant Code do not make subsequent police actions unlawful , at any rate in the sense that they are or would be sufficient of themselves to lead to the exclusion of the results of the subsequent interviews . When , as the judge found , the police were not seeking deliberately to manipulate the system in bad faith , he was required to address the exclusionary powers provided by section CARDINAL of PACE : no more , no less . This leads to the second consideration , that it is always open to the defendant \u2019s advocates at trial to make a deliberate forensic decision to waive or ignore , and therefore choose not to rely on the breaches of the relevant Code , if the effect of inviting attention to them may increase rather than diminish the defendant \u2019s difficulties . In short , the trial advocate must make his own judgment whether to advance argument based on breaches of the relevant Code , or to argue some , or one , but not all of them . \u201d","The court could see nothing to support the conclusion that the decision to admit the evidence of the safety interviews in Mr PERSON \u2019s case was flawed .","In respect of PERSON , the court noted that QUANTITY submissions had been advanced by his counsel . First , it had been argued that the superintendent \u2019s conclusion that a pre - interview consultation between Mr PERSON and the duty solicitor would cause unnecessary delay was a serious error of judgment because the safety interview had not taken place until TIME . Second , it had been contended that the continued questioning of PERSON after he had denied knowing anything constituted a breach of the applicable code , paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Finally , it had been submitted that the administration of the new - style caution had contributed to the unfairness by introducing an element of coercion . ORG explained in detail how the trial judge had approached these matters and concluded that it saw no basis for interfering with his decision that the statements made during safety interviews should be admitted .","As regards Mr PERSON , the court noted that the trial judge had accepted that the wrong caution had been given and that access to legal advice had been delayed for TIME . However , he had been confident that the interview had been a genuine safety interview , observing that it had lasted TIME and had not been held in coercive conditions . The court could see no basis for interfering with the decision that the admission of the evidence did not render the trial unfair .","The fourth applicant was a friend of PERSON , having been introduced to him by PERSON brother , Mr PERSON , in around DATE . On DATE , DATE after the attempted bombings , the fourth applicant bumped into PERSON at FAC train station as the former was getting on a train home . The CARDINAL men returned together to the fourth applicant \u2019s home . PERSON then stayed with the fourth applicant until DATE .","Meanwhile , on TIME DATE a surveillance camera was filming the entrance to the fourth applicant \u2019s block of flats . The camera subsequently zoomed in on the fourth applicant and his flat . At TIME , an undercover surveillance officer was deployed in the vicinity of the fourth applicant \u2019s home . On TIME DATE , officers observed the fourth applicant and a man later identified as PERSON leaving the address . The fourth applicant accompanied PERSON to a bus stop , where PERSON caught a bus to GPE train station . The fourth applicant returned home .","On TIME the fourth applicant went to work . When he was returning from work at TIME , he was approached by CARDINAL police officers who sought his assistance as a potential witness in the investigation . He agreed to assist them and accompanied them to FAC .","NORP The police officers began interviewing the fourth applicant at TIME By TIME the officers considered that , as a result of the answers he was giving , the fourth applicant was in danger of incriminating himself and should be cautioned and informed of his right to legal advice . They sought instructions from a senior officer in charge of the investigation . They were told that they should continue to interview the fourth applicant as a witness and accordingly did so .","At TIME on DATE , the fourth applicant was taken with the QUANTITY police officers to point out an address where he believed PERSON lived .","ORG . TIME , at the police station , a witness statement was taken from the fourth applicant .","In the statement , the fourth applicant recounted how he had become friends with PERSON in around DATE but had lost contact with him DATE . He stated that , on DATE , PERSON had come running up to him at FAC railway station as he was about to board a train , and the CARDINAL men had greeted each other as old friends . They had boarded the same train to ORG and at the fourth applicant \u2019s stop , PERSON had decided to alight with him on the pretext of wishing to speak about something . As they walked towards the fourth applicant \u2019s home , PERSON PERSON had told the fourth applicant that he was in trouble with the police . He claimed to have stolen some money and to have escaped from police custody . When they arrived at the fourth applicant \u2019s flat , PERSON had asked him to put on the television , and together they had watched a report of the attempted bombings which showed photographs of the men sought by the police . PERSON had then said that he knew the men and that they were good men . When the photograph of a fourth man sought in connection with the attacks appeared on screen , PERSON had pointed at the screen and said , \u201c that \u2019s me \u201d . At first the fourth applicant had not believed him since the photograph did not resemble PERSON . But as Mr PERSON had continued to discuss the justification for the attacks , the fourth applicant had begun to realise that he was telling the truth . He had become frightened and had wanted PERSON out of his home . PERSON had then asked to stay with the fourth applicant for DATE and , fearing for his personal safety if he refused , the fourth applicant had acceded to the request .","NORP The witness statement also described an injury to PERSON thigh , which he had said was incurred while escaping after his bomb had failed to explode . PERSON had also explained how he had pressed the button to activate his bomb but nothing had happened . He had given details of his escape from the underground train and his movements over DATE , when he had gone to stay with a friend in GPE who had lent him a car . He had shown the fourth applicant photographs of the other bombers in a national newspaper which he had brought with him and revealed their names . The fourth applicant was shown a number of photographs by the police and confirmed the identity of CARDINAL of the males photographed according to the information provided by PERSON . The fourth applicant also explained that PERSON had mentioned a fifth bomber who had not detonated his bomb ; the fourth applicant did not know the identity of this person . The fourth applicant explained that PERSON had made a few calls from his mobile phone , but had spoken in NORP .","DATE , conversation with PERSON had been limited . However , he had told the fourth applicant how the bombers had prepared their bombs and had given him details of videos the group had recorded prior to the bombings , in which they had explained their actions . PERSON had made another call on his mobile in the afternoon . He had gone out briefly TIME and had returned with cash . He had asked to borrow clothes and the fourth applicant had indicated that he should help himself .","On TIME CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON had packed a bag and told the fourth applicant that he was going to catch a train to GPE from GPE train station . He had left for the station at TIME had called the fourth applicant to say that he was on a train . The fourth applicant had then switched off his mobile telephone so that Mr PERSON could not contact him any further .","The fourth applicant described Mr PERSON \u2019s wife and recorded the fact that he had taken police officers to a block of flats where he believed that PERSON and his wife lived . He concluded the witness statement by emphasising that it had been a chance meeting at FAC and that he had not taken part in any arrangement to assist or harbour Mr PERSON . He said that he had only let Mr PERSON stay because he had been afraid .","After the witness statement had been signed , CARDINAL of the officers telephoned his superiors to seek further advice and was told to arrest the applicant . The fourth applicant was then arrested and cautioned . He was asked whether he wanted the services of a solicitor at that time but declined saying , \u201c No , maybe after interview if it gets serious \u201d .","On DATE , after having sought legal advice , the fourth applicant was interviewed as a suspect in the presence of his solicitor . He made no comment to almost all the questions he was asked . His solicitor indicated that he wished to read a prepared statement in response to the disclosure received . In the prepared statement , the fourth applicant confirmed that he had had no prior knowledge of the events of DATE and deplored them . He had been stopped by the police on DATE and had agreed to assist them in every possible way ; in this respect , he referred to his witness statement of DATE . He corrected the witness statement in so far as it related to the physical description he had given of PERSON . Finally , he emphasised that the ORG image of PERSON shown on television had been unrecognisable and that , when PERSON had claimed to have participated in the attempted bombings , he had not believed him .","On DATE the fourth applicant was interviewed a second time . He again declined to answer questions but insisted that he had been assisting the police from the beginning and did not wish to make any further statements . He was interviewed further on DATE and repeated that he was not and never would be a terrorist and had not played any part in what had happened . In his last interview , on DATE , he said that everything he knew was contained in his original witness statement . The fourth applicant was charged at TIME on DATE .","The fourth applicant was tried with CARDINAL other men , including Mr PERSON , at ORG at GPE before ORG PERSON and a jury . He was accused of assisting PERSON and failing to disclose information after the bombings . The prosecution case was that he had been prepared to give PERSON shelter even though he had known that PERSON PERSON had been involved in the attacks . The prosecution also alleged that the fourth applicant had collected Mr PERSON \u2019s passport from him and given it to PERSON . Finally , it was alleged that the fourth applicant had also collected a video camera which had been used to film suicide messages by the would - be bombers , and had given it to PERSON . The suicide messages have never been recovered .","The fourth applicant applied to have the witness statement excluded , relying on CARDINAL matters . First , that the statement had been taken in breach of the applicable code of practice , in particular because he had not been cautioned or informed of his entitlement to free legal advice . Second , that the breach had been deliberate . Third , that he had been induced to make the statement on the pretence that he was a witness and would be free to go home after the statement was completed . Fourth , that the statement had been taken in TIME , when he was tired . As a result of all of these matters , the fourth applicant submitted , the statement was a confession made by him in circumstances likely to render it unreliable pursuant to section FAC ) of PACE . Alternatively , he submitted that it ought to be excluded pursuant to the general discretion to exclude evidence under section CARDINAL of the same Act ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","The prosecution opposed the application but accepted that the witness statement amounted to a confession for the purposes of section CARDINAL of PACE . The prosecution also accepted that there had been a breach of the relevant code of practice in failing to caution the fourth applicant or offer him the services of a solicitor when the QUANTITY police officers had come to the conclusion that they should take instructions from their superiors .","At the voir dire , the QUANTITY police officers gave evidence that , when they first approached the fourth applicant on TIME , it was with a view to his assisting the police as a potential witness . It was also accepted by the parties that , at that stage , the police officers did not have sufficient information to justify arresting the fourth applicant , or treating him as a suspect . CARDINAL of the officers explained that by TIME he had taken the view that , as a result of the answers that the fourth applicant was giving , he was in danger of incriminating himself and should be cautioned and informed of his right to legal advice . The officers had accordingly sought instructions from one of the senior officers in charge of the investigation . They had been told that they should continue to interview the fourth applicant as a witness and had therefore done so . In his evidence one of the officers expressed surprise that , when the witness statement was completed , he had been instructed to arrest the applicant .","On DATE the trial judge refused the fourth applicant \u2019s application to have the witness statement excluded . He accepted that at the time when the fourth applicant had arrived at the police station there had been no reasonable objective grounds to suspect him of any offence and that it was entirely appropriate to treat him as a witness . However , in view of the prosecution concession that reasonable objective grounds to suspect the fourth applicant of an offence could be said to have crystallised by the conclusion of his first oral account , the judge was satisfied that there had been a breach of the applicable code at the time when the fourth applicant had made his written witness statement .","The trial judge found as a fact that there was no evidence of oppression of the fourth applicant while he was at the police station . Nor , the judge said , was anything said or done by the police officers that could have rendered the witness statement unreliable . He pointed out that the fourth applicant had \u201c freely adopted \u201d the witness statement after he had been cautioned and had received legal advice . He therefore did not accept that the statement should be excluded under either section DATE or section CARDINAL PACE .","Finally , the judge referred to the right of the defence to put matters concerning the fourth applicant \u2019s challenge to the witness statement before the jury . The jury would be directed appropriately on the question of reliability . In the circumstances no breach of LAW arose .","The defence subsequently made an application to have excluded those parts of the witness statement which the fourth applicant had withdrawn or qualified in his subsequent interviews . These parts concerned the physical description given of PERSON and statements which indicated that the fourth applicant had come to believe that Mr PERSON was involved in the attacks . The application was opposed by the prosecution , because the qualifications later made demonstrated the detail in which the fourth applicant had subsequently considered his witness statement . The application was refused , the trial judge finding that exclusion of the passages would be misleading to the jury . He explained that the jury would be able to hear the full circumstances in which the fourth applicant had come to adopt the witness statement .","NORP The other prosecution evidence led at trial against the fourth applicant included :","( i ) CCTV footage from DATE showing the fourth applicant and PERSON PERSON together at GPE railway station , at ORG station and walking towards the fourth applicant \u2019s flat ;","( ii ) mobile telephone cellsite analysis ( analysis showing where mobile telephone calls have been made ) , consistent with PERSON having made telephone calls at the fourth applicant \u2019s flat ;","( iii ) CCTV footage showing the fourth applicant meeting CARDINAL of his codefendants and collecting from him the camera alleged to have been used to film martyrdom videos made by the bombers ;","( iv ) cellsite analysis consistent with the fourth applicant having met Mr PERSON to collect the passport for PERSON ;","( v ) footage from a police surveillance camera showing PERSON leaving the fourth applicant \u2019s flat on DATE en route to GPE station ;","( vi ) a newspaper report on the attempted bombings , with pictures of the bombers ( including PERSON ) , found in the fourth applicant \u2019s flat with his fingerprints on it ;","( vii ) telephone contact between the fourth applicant and PERSON after the latter had taken the FAC from ORG , indicating that Mr PERSON had spoken to the fourth applicant twice by mobile telephone on DATE and had twice attempted to telephone him on DATE from GPE ;","( viii ) The fourth applicant \u2019s police interviews of DATE and CARDINAL DATE in which he admitted that PERSON had stayed at his flat and stated that the contents of his DATE witness statement were accurate ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","At the conclusion of the prosecution case , the fourth applicant made an application to have the proceedings stayed on the grounds that the prosecution was an abuse of process . He argued that the order given to the police officers to continue to treat him as a witness , and not a suspect , meant he had been tricked into giving his witness statement . He had effectively been told that he would not be prosecuted . In other words , later treating him as a suspect and prosecuting him was inherently unfair .","On DATE the judge refused the application . He held that it would only be an abuse of process to prosecute someone who had received an unequivocal representation that he would not be prosecuted and had acted on that representation to his detriment . No such unequivocal representation had been made to the fourth applicant . Even if he had thought that there had been such a representation , he had not acted on it to his detriment . The evidence had to be looked at as a whole : once cautioned and provided with legal advice the fourth applicant had had the opportunity to say that the witness statement was untrue , inaccurate or given at a time when he was so tired that it was unreliable . However , he had chosen not to do so . Instead , throughout the proceedings he had adopted that witness statement ; indeed , \u201c to DATE \u201d he had effectively adopted what he had previously told the police . He had given his detailed comments on the statement when he was a suspect . The judge found that far from being an affront to justice for the case to continue , it would be an affront to justice for the case not to continue .","The fourth applicant did not give evidence at trial . His defence was based upon the witness statement of DATE .","Mr PERSON was called to give evidence by Mr Sherif . During crossexamination Mr PERSON confirmed the account given by the fourth applicant in his witness statement , notably that he had sheltered at the fourth applicant \u2019s flat . Mr PERSON confirmed that he had provided the passport for PERSON travel . He accepted that from phone calls with PERSON and from what he had been told by the fourth applicant , he knew that the police were looking for PERSON .","On DATE , the fourth applicant was convicted and sentenced to a total of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . CARDINAL of the fourth applicant \u2019s co - accused , including Mr PERSON , were also convicted .","The fourth applicant and a number of his co - defendants appealed against conviction and sentence to ORG . The fourth applicant argued that the trial judge had been wrong to admit the witness statement .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal against conviction . It expressed some concern about events at the police station but considered that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the impugned witness statement . Concerning the fact that the statement had been made in breach of the applicable code , the court said :","\u201c CARDINAL . The way the police behaved is undoubtedly troubling . The decision not to arrest and caution [ the fourth applicant ] when the officers interviewing him believed that they had material which gave them reasonable grounds for suspecting that he had committed an offence was a clear and deliberate instruction to ignore the LAW . But at that stage the police dilemma is understandable . [ The fourth applicant ] was providing information about PERSON which could have been of critical importance in securing his arrest , which was the priority at that time . It seems to us that the judge was entitled to come to the conclusion that the prosecution had established that nothing was said or done which could undermine the reliability of the witness statement . He was entitled to take into account the fact that in the prepared statement he made after caution he asserted that he was seeking to give assistance to the police . That was repeated in the later interviews . He said nothing therefore to suggest that the circumstances were such as to render it likely that what he said was not reliable . It seems to us , therefore , that the judge was also entitled to conclude from all material that [ the fourth applicant ] with the help of legal advice , was repeating , subject as we have said to some corrections , what was in the witness statement as his account of the part such as it was , that he played in relation to PERSON in DATE after DATE . Further , given the [ fourth applicant \u2019s ] adoption of that witness statement , we do not consider that the judge \u2019s decision to permit the statement to go before the jury in the exercise of his discretion under s. CARDINAL of the LAW can be said to be perverse or affected by any error of law . \u201d","As to the refusal of the trial judge to stay the trial on grounds of abuse of process , ORG explained :","\u201c DATE . ... The main thrust of the argument on [ the fourth applicant \u2019s ] behalf is that to prosecute on the basis of a statement that he gave when being treated as a witness is quite simply unfair . He was , it is said , effectively being told that he would not be prosecuted and gave assistance accordingly . The judge in our view rightly rejected this argument . There was no evidence that [ the fourth applicant ] made his statement because he believed he was not going to be prosecuted . He gave no evidence to that effect ; and there is nothing in the interviews after he was arrested to suggest that that was the reason for his having made the witness statement . On the contrary , he made the witness statement because he wanted to assist the police . In this type of case , the court is only likely to conclude there has been an abuse of process if a defendant can establish that there has been an unequivocal representation by those responsible for the conduct of the prosecution and that the defendant has acted to his detriment : see R v PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL Cr App R DATE , [ DATE ] PERSON , in particular at paragraph DATE . That was not the situation here . \u201d","Describing the general relevance of an appellant \u2019s personal circumstances to the sentence imposed , the court acknowledged that youth or vulnerability might be pertinent , but emphasised that this was not the case in respect of most of the appellants before it , including the fourth applicant . The court noted that the appellants had acted without any regard whatsoever to their public duty , and continued :","\u201c None except [ the fourth applicant ] made any disclosure at all until they were arrested ... \u201d","In conclusion , ORG partly allowed the fourth applicant \u2019s appeal against sentence , on account of the help he had given to the police :","\u201c CARDINAL . The assistance that [ the fourth applicant ] gave to PERSON was of the utmost significance . We conclude , however , that we can and should reflect the fact that , albeit only after he had been seen by the police , he gave at least some help and information ... \u201d","The court therefore reduced the total sentence to CARDINAL of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . In dealing with PERSON appeal against sentence , the court noted the critical role the latter had played in enabling PERSON escape and considered that it justified \u201c a very severe sentence which can not be mitigated as it was in the case of [ the fourth applicant ] by his giving any information at any stage to the police \u201d .","On DATE it refused to certify a question of general public importance for the consideration of ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171118","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"AUSTIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP The complaint made in this application is that the applicant \u2019s trial for money laundering was unfair because the legal framework governing disclosure of prosecution evidence to the defence was inadequate , and the operation of that legal framework had deprived the applicant of a fair trial since neither the trial judge nor ORG had reviewed the material which the prosecution claimed was not relevant and therefore not discloseable .","In DATE the applicant was convicted after trial of the importation of cocaine . The applicant appealed against his conviction and the appeal centred on whether there had been a failure to disclosure telephone intercept evidence . Special counsel was appointed to represent the applicant ( that is , independent counsel appointed in addition to the applicant \u2019s own counsel , but able to see evidence not disclosed to the defence on public interest grounds : see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . While the appeal was pending , the prosecution decided no longer to resist the appeal . On DATE ORG quashed the conviction and ordered a re - trial . In doing so , it gave CARDINAL redacted or \u201c open \u201d judgments ( that is , judgments which are public and available to all parties ) and CARDINAL unredacted or \u201c closed \u201d judgments ( judgments seen only by the prosecution and special counsel appointed for the applicant ) .","NORP In reaching its conclusions , ORG indicated that further material related to the telephone intercept evidence was prima facie discloseable and it would have to be reviewed in light of ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) considerations . Therefore , before the re - trial , a review of the prosecution \u2019s unused material ( that is , evidence that they had not relied on at the first trial ) was conducted by independent counsel , PERSON ( \u201c the PERSON review \u201d ) . PERSON concluded that there had been serious and multiple instances of non - disclosure during the cocaine trial attributable to significant and acknowledged failures by the ORG in communicating between its various entities . These failures , which were confined to issues concerning intercept material relating to the drugs offences , potentially affected the provenance , authenticity and reliability of the intercept evidence , but affected no other evidence . The prosecution then gave notice that they would not seek to rely on the intercept evidence because they could not comply with their disclosure obligations . Later , on DATE , they decided not to proceed with the prosecution . Verdicts of not guilty were accordingly recorded on DATE . It had been the intention of the defence to make submissions to the trial judge as to lack of disclosure and an abuse of process by the prosecution , but the prosecution \u2019s decision to drop the case meant that those submissions were not , in the event , heard or substantively determined . In addressing the court the defence indicated that based on their experience , they had \u201c no confidence in the integrity of the prosecution in this case \u201d .","The money laundering case arose from the electronic theft in DATE of MONEY from GPE , GPE . Part of the money was said to have been laundered through a series of transfers from GPE to GPE and then to GPE and , thereafter , to corporate bank accounts in GPE and GPE , which were controlled by the applicant and a co - defendant . The money was then used to purchase property for the benefit of the applicant and his co - defendant through an estate agent firm which they ran . This was done through a series of payments totalling GBP CARDINAL . The transfers were orchestrated by an NORP , PERSON The main evidence against the applicant was a document seized from PERSON \u2019s home which suggested that the applicant was to be one of the beneficiaries of the stolen money . The applicant \u2019s defence was that he was investing the money on behalf of PERSON and did not know it was stolen .","It appears that , before the money laundering trial started , the trial judge sought and received approval to read the unredacted version of ORG judgments quashing the applicant \u2019s conviction in the cocaine case . Approval was given by , among others , the judge who had presided in the appeal . The trial judge did not , however , inform the defence and prosecution of his intention to obtain and read those unredacted judgments .","Also in advance of trial the defence sought to argue that the proceedings were an abuse of process . The CARDINAL prosecutions ( the cocaine case and the money laundering case ) involved the same police officers and prosecution counsel . There were , it was argued , overlaps in the evidence . The applicant thus submitted that the court should examine the prosecution \u2019s failure to disclose evidence in the cocaine case and consider whether he could have a fair trial in the money laundering case . The following hearings considered these questions .","On DATE the applicant asked for disclosure of the material which had led to the conviction in the cocaine case being quashed . The prosecution considered that , in so far as the money laundering case was concerned , there was nothing in that material which was discloseable : there was nothing which would undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence submission that the proceedings were an abuse of process . Submissions then took place in respect of the material reviewed by Mr Laidlaw QC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The trial judge indicated that he did not wish to look at that material but accepted that , if he was called upon to rule on whether there was any impropriety in the prosecution , he would have to do so .","On DATE leading counsel for the prosecution reiterated that , in the materials reviewed by PERSON , there was nothing capable of supporting any allegation of bad faith and therefore nothing that was discloseable . Counsel for the applicant submitted that it was not an assurance on the propriety of disclosure the defence was asking for , but rather the evidence which had not been disclosed .","On CARDINAL DATE the defence applied for the proceedings to be stayed on the ground that there had been an abuse of process arising , inter alia , from the prosecution \u2019s failings in the cocaine case . They also asked the trial judge to consider disclosure to allow proper consideration of the available evidence . In particular , the defence sought details of the documentation which had been seen by ORG in the appeal against conviction in the cocaine case and which had led to the appeal being allowed .","NORP The trial judge ruled that the defence were not entitled to disclosure of this documentation . The disclosure system relied on the integrity of prosecution counsel and there was no basis for any allegation in respect of the prosecution \u2019s integrity . Prosecution counsel had told him there was nothing to disclose and there was nothing in the material he had seen to displace his duty to put his trust on issues of disclosure firmly in the hands of prosecution counsel .","On CARDINAL DATE the trial judge was invited to reconsider his ruling of CARDINAL May in light of the fact that prosecution counsel had not seen all of the material herself . He declined to do so . He found that prosecution counsel could not expect to look at every item of material and must rely on being part of a team . Prosecution counsel had a system for being kept properly informed . It was her judgment , not anyone else \u2019s , which had led to her declaring that there was no discloseable material .","On DATE , the trial judge rejected an application that he should recuse himself because he had read the unredacted ORG judgments . He confirmed , however , that he had relied on those judgments when considering and rejecting the allegations of bad faith and abuse of process made by the defence and also while considering whether the events which led ORG to quash the conviction in the cocaine case would affect the fairness of the money laundering trial .","On DATE the judge declined to accede to a further application for disclosure on the part of the defence .","On CARDINAL DATE the defence again applied for the proceedings to be stayed as an abuse of process on grounds relating to , inter alia , the integrity of the prosecution team and an alleged manipulation of the trial process . The trial judge rejected that application . He found that , even if the prosecution had acted with bad faith in the cocaine case , this would not infect the prosecution in the money laundering case . Having considered ORG unredacted judgments there was no foundation in them for any allegations of bad faith or other misconduct on the part of those involved in prosecuting the money laundering case . He also declined to appoint special counsel for the purposes of the trial .","At trial one of the men responsible for the initial theft from ORG , ORG , gave evidence for the prosecution that PERSON was pivotal to the entire operation and that a third man , PERSON , would legitimise the money . They also led evidence from a businessman and a broker tending to show the connections between R.J , PERSON , and the applicant . A forensic accountant gave evidence of the routes the money had taken and of correspondence between PERSON and PERSON","The applicant gave evidence setting out his business dealings with , among others , ORG , but denied that he knew the money was stolen .","Since it was accepted that the C. Bank money had been stolen , and the money had taken the route it did , the only issue for the jury was whether the applicant knew the money was stolen .","The applicant was convicted on DATE of CARDINAL count of conspiracy to conceal the proceeds of criminal conduct and CARDINAL count of conspiracy to convert the proceeds of criminal conduct . He was acquitted of CARDINAL count of conspiracy to transfer the proceeds of criminal conduct , and a similar count was ordered to lie on the file ( meaning that no verdict was returned on it and the prosecution could only subsequently revive and proceed on that count in exceptional circumstances ) .","On DATE the applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant appealed to ORG against his conviction on a single ground , namely that his conviction was unsafe because the judge had acted incompatibly with his LAW in resolving the abuse of process application in the money laundering case without appointing special counsel to advance the applicant \u2019s interests despite his having read and been influenced by the CARDINAL unredacted ORG judgments in the cocaine case .","In the course of the appeal the same special counsel who had been appointed in the appeal in the cocaine case was re - appointed and , as ORG later noted , he was given \u201c the fullest possible access to potentially relevant material \u201d . In particular , he read and considered the unredacted judgments of ORG , the opinion of PERSON on disclosure failures in the cocaine trial together with the supporting documentation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and the undisclosed material in the money laundering case . The special counsel made critical submissions on the applicant \u2019s behalf , noting that there had been serious failings in the cocaine trial . However , he noted that \u201c although there were repeated errors , and bad judgment [ on the part of the prosecution in the cocaine trial ] , there was no evidence of deliberate non - disclosure , or attempts to hide material , or of deliberate misleading \u201d . Moreover , he considered that there was no evidence from which it could be argued that the money laundering trial had been tainted . Accordingly , he considered that no issue arose as to whether any of this material should be the subject of an application by the prosecution to withold disclosure in the money laundering proceedings .","Nevertheless , special counsel invited ORG to consider whether the following matters were compatible with LAW","- the trial judge relying on the unredacted \/ closed judgments of ORG ;","- the trial judge not ordering the prosecution to make available further material said by the defence to be relevant to their application on abuse of process ;","- special counsel not having been appointed at trial ; and","- the failure of the trial judge to recuse himself having read ORG judgments .","ORG dismissed the appeal on DATE . It began by emphasising the difference between issues of disclosure and abuse of process . It observed ( at paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL of its judgment ) :","\u201c Disclosure is concerned with the question of what material should be disclosed to the defence with a view to its being deployed before the tribunal of fact , whether that is the jury dealing with the issue of guilt or innocence , or the judge dealing with an issue such as whether proceedings should be stayed for abuse of process . It is the everyday experience in criminal proceedings that a judge may be required to examine material which is prima facie disclosable in order to rule on whether disclosure to the defence should be withheld , for example on grounds of public interest immunity , and it may ( although only exceptionally ) be appropriate for this purpose for a special counsel to be appointed . If the judge does so rule , that material will play no further part in the trial , and the judge will put it out of his mind for the purpose of any subsequent rulings in the case , including any ruling on abuse of process . All this is well established .","Abuse of process is different , because it involves a substantive determination of the case . For a judge to determine an abuse argument by reference to material which he had seen , but which the defence has not seen , undoubtedly creates a difficulty .","Although we shall have to consider the procedure adopted in the court below , it is well established that the question of breach of LAW must be determined by reference to the proceedings as a whole , including any appeal . [ Counsel for the applicant ] accepted , rightly in our view , that if it can now be said as a result of the proceedings in this court that there was nothing further which required to be disclosed , and nothing in the unredacted judgments seen by the judge which would have been capable of assisting the defence in their abuse of process arguments , the appeal must be dismissed . Whatever criticisms might have been made of the procedure below , there would then be no breach of LAW , and no reason to doubt the safety of the appellant \u2019s conviction . \u201d","ORG then considered the proper role of a trial judge in such a situation . It noted that all of the parties to the appeal accepted that the trial judge had erred in reading the unredacted judgments without disclosing his intention to do so to the defence and prosecution .","ORG considered that it would have been better if the judge had made clearer the distinction between the application for disclosure and the application to stay the proceedings for abuse of process . In relation to the application for disclosure , he could have accepted the assurance given by prosecution counsel at the pre - trial hearings on CARDINAL DATE . It would not then have been necessary to read the unredacted judgments of ORG .","NORP However , he might also have informed the parties that , because of the history of the case , he wished himself to review the relevant material from the earlier case in order to satisfy himself that proper disclosure had been made in the latter case . If he had indicated that to all parties , he would have been entitled to proceed to read the unredacted judgments from ORG . Logically , if he was to consider those judgments , he should also have reviewed the relevant material relating to the discontinuance of the drugs prosecution .","Nevertheless , it was clear from his rulings that the trial judge had considered disclosure first and then abuse of process . He had concluded that the unredacted judgments were not discloseable as they contained nothing to support the defence or undermine the case for the prosecution . The trial judge was also correct to refuse to recuse himself : he had not been shown any material in private which was damning of the applicant .","The ORG then considered whether the applicant \u2019s trial was unfair because the trial judge had failed to appoint special counsel before addressing the issue of disclosure or resolving the abuse of process application . Given the history of the case it would have been permissible for the trial judge to have appointed special counsel to help address the question of disclosure . However , there was no obligation on him to do so . It was open to the judge to conclude without special counsel that the prosecution \u2019s disclosure obligation had been properly discharged . It may be that the appointment of special counsel to consider disclosure would have been a reassurance to the applicant , but this was a question of judgment for the judge which he could exercise properly either way .","As regards abuse of process and the appointment of special counsel , the applicant had submitted that it was wrong in principle for a substantive issue in criminal proceedings to be decided on the basis of information which was not communicated to the defendant . The appointment of special counsel could cure such a defect . However , having reviewed the leading authorities on the appointment of special counsel , including the judgment of ORG in PERSON and PERSON and that of ORG in H and C , ORG declined to reach a conclusion on whether special counsel could be appointed for a purpose other than disclosure , such as consideration of a substantive issue like abuse of process .","Next , ORG considered the role of special counsel on appeal . It recalled that , when an appeal was brought in connection with an issue of disclosure ( or non - disclosure on public interest grounds ) , ORG would review all of the material before the trial judge . Nevertheless , there would also be cases where the court would request the appointment of special counsel , including for the consideration of issues other than disclosure .","The court then addressed the submissions made on behalf of the applicant by special counsel . In addressing the submission that the applicant had been \u201c traduced \u201d by the trial judge considering the unredacted ORG judgment which he , the applicant , could not see , ORG observed :","\u201c DATE . The position is rather simpler than that suggested . The defence raised a suggestion of abuse of process . The judge looked at material which , if it had undermined the prosecution position on the claim of abuse or was capable of lending support to the suggestion of abuse , would have been disclosable , subject to [ public interest immunity ] considerations . The judge found there was no such material . That is not a finding which \u2018 traduces\u2019 the appellant . It was simply a finding that the closed judgments of ORG were not capable of supporting the claim of abuse . This was not a case where the defendant was making specific factual allegations amounting to abuse which were then contradicted by detail contained in undisclosed material . We would add that our reading of the Judge \u2019s ruling on the abuse argument is that the unredacted judgments were not central to his reasoning . Rather they fortified the conclusion he would have reached in any event . \u201d","ORG then summarised the conclusions of special counsel , who had reviewed the material originally reviewed by PERSON . In respect of that material , special counsel had concluded that , although there were repeated errors , and bad judgment , there was no evidence of deliberate non - disclosure , or attempts to hide material , or of deliberate misleading . On that issue , ORG concluded :","\u201c On the basis of our review of that material , we unhesitatingly concur with that conclusion . Taken as a body , the closed judgments of ORG in DATE and the opinion of PERSON with its supporting material , which has been made available in full to us , revealed nothing which would be disclosable as undermining the prosecution case in the money laundering proceedings or supporting defence allegations of abuse of process in the money laundering proceedings . All of the failings identified are wholly discrete from the investigation into the money laundering or the evidence presented at the trial before [ the trial judge ] . Even within the CARDINAL corners of the drugs case , we emphasise that there is nothing to support allegations of bad faith .","Finally , in considering the role and submissions of Special Counsel in this appeal , it is appropriate to address the unused material that was in the possession of the prosecution at the time of the money laundering trial . [ The trial judge ] paid no regard to any prosecution material withheld in the course of the money laundering case . However , out of an abundance of caution , on DATE we requested Special Counsel to examine the unused material from the money laundering investigation , and PERSON has done so . He concluded that all of the items appeared to be sensitive and\/or confidential , and were properly withheld . PERSON paid particular attention to the possibility of documents appearing to relate to the course , direction or conduct of the investigation . He found none . He also paid special attention to any item that appeared to relate to any of the personnel who had been concerned in the material non - disclosure during the drugs case . He found no such documents . \u201d","Finally , in respect of LAW , ORG found :","\u201c CARDINAL . It is axiomatic that we should consider this question by reference to the criminal proceedings as a whole , including the appeal process . At CARDINAL point , [ counsel for the applicant ] submitted that the consideration by the trial judge of undisclosed material both as to disclosure and as to the substance of the issue on abuse of process represented an irredeemable breach of LAW . However as we have already indicated , he moderated that position in the course of the hearing , and accepted that if there was nothing further which required to be disclosed , and nothing in the unredacted judgments capable of assisting the defence in their abuse arguments , the appeal must be dismissed .","The ORG throughout took a directly contrary view to the [ applicant \u2019s ] original submission . As we have already observed , [ counsel for the prosecution ] submits that the judge should have accepted the assurances of counsel as to the propriety of the decisions on disclosure taken by the prosecution . There was no need for the judge to look at any of the material : the ORG had performed their duty properly . [ Counsel for the prosecution ] criticises the judge \u2019s unilateral decision to look at the closed judgments , but submits this is neither here nor there . All he did was to reassure himself the ORG had taken the correct decision . There was no material that would tend to undermine the prosecution or assist the defence . Since the only way in which the relevant material might even hypothetically undermine the prosecution or support the defence , was in relation to the abuse of process claim , it was unsurprising that the judge \u2019s view on disclosure should find its echo in his decision on abuse of process .","We have already indicated our view of the submission from ORG that the use of the closed judgments \u2018 ORG the appellant [ see the quotation from paragraph CARDINAL of the court \u2019s judgment set out at paragraph CARDINAL above ] . Our view of this submission may bear a little expansion in the context of considering a potential breach of LAW . As we have already stated , the CARDINAL potential issues of relevance here were inadequacy of disclosure in the money laundering case or abuse of process of the PERSON \/ PERSON type [ on the basis that there has been unconscionable behavior by the executive \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ] . The decision as to the adequacy of disclosure in the money laundering proceedings is clearly not a \u2018 substantive\u2019 issue in the criminal trial . This question is almost always decided without the defence having knowledge of the material sought to be withheld . As to the second issue ... while , at least theoretically , wrongful withholding of evidence capable of sustaining such a claim could represent a breach of LAW , it could not even then be said to \u2018 traduce\u2019 the defendant . We do not consider that what took place here represented a breach of LAW at all . \u201d","ORG thus dismissed the appeal .","The applicant applied to ORG to certify a point of law of general public importance concerning the compliance of the disclosure regime with LAW . On DATE ORG refused the application .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act CARDINAL ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) , the prosecutor must disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to him and which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution or of assisting the case for the accused . However , material must not be disclosed where the court , on an application by the prosecutor , concludes it is not in the public interest to disclose it .","The duty of the prosecutor to disclose is a continuing one which , according to section CARDINAL of LAW , applies at all times after the prosecutor has complied with his section CARDINAL duty up until the point where the accused is acquitted , convicted , or the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case .","Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act permits the accused to apply to the court for an order requiring the prosecutor to disclose relevant material which he has reasonable cause to believe is in his possession .","In R v H and C [ DATE ] CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL Lord PERSON emphasised , at paragraph DATE , that the prosecution should only seek a judicial ruling on the disclosability of material in its hands in truly borderline cases .","In R v H and C , decided after the ORG judgment in PERSON and PERSON v. the GPE , nos . CARDINAL and ORG , CARDINAL DATE , ORG of ORG held , inter alia :","\u201c DATE since the decision in PERSON and the enactment of [ the Criminal Procedure and Investigation Act DATE ] have witnessed the introduction in some areas of the law of a novel procedure designed to protect the interests of a party against whom an adverse order may be made and who can not ( either personally or through his legal representative ) , for security reasons , be fully informed of all the material relied on against him . The procedure is to appoint a person , usually called a \u2018 special advocate\u2019 , who may not disclose to the subject of the proceedings the secret material disclosed to him , and is not in the ordinary sense professionally responsible to that party but who , subject to those constraints , is charged to represent that party \u2019s interests . ...","There is as yet little express sanction in domestic legislation or domestic legal authority for the appointment of a special advocate or special counsel to represent , as an advocate in ORG [ public interest immunity from disclosure ] matters , a defendant in an ordinary criminal trial ... But novelty is not of itself an objection , and cases will arise in which the appointment of an approved advocate as special counsel is necessary , in the interests of justice , to secure protection of a criminal defendant \u2019s right to a fair trial . Such an appointment does however raise ethical problems , since a lawyer who can not take full instructions from his client , nor report to his client , who is not responsible to his client and whose relationship with the client lacks the quality of confidence inherent in any ordinary lawyer - client relationship , is acting in a way hitherto unknown to the legal profession . While not insuperable , these problems should not be ignored , since neither the defendant nor the public will be fully aware of what is being done . The appointment is also likely to cause practical problems : of delay , while the special counsel familiarises himself with the detail of what is likely to be a complex case ; of expense , since the introduction of an additional , high - quality advocate must add significantly to the cost of the case ; and of continuing review , since it will not be easy for a special counsel to assist the court in its continuing duty to review disclosure , unless the special counsel is present throughout or is instructed from time to time when need arises . Defendants facing serious charges frequently have little inclination to cooperate in a process likely to culminate in their conviction , and any new procedure can offer opportunities capable of exploitation to obstruct and delay . None of these problems should deter the court from appointing special counsel where the interests of justice are shown to require it . But the need must be shown . Such an appointment will always be exceptional , never automatic ; a course of last and never first resort . It should not be ordered unless and until the trial judge is satisfied that no other course will adequately meet the overriding requirement of fairness to the defendant . ... \u201d","With regard to the role of special counsel at the appeal stage , in NORP v. ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Crim CARDINAL Lord Justice Touslon made the following \u201c tentative observations \u201d :","\u201c DATE . At the appellate stage , it is obviously not the case that whenever the single judge or the full court is considering an application for leave to appeal against conviction on grounds relating to an anonymity order , it will request the appointment of special counsel . In many cases , the court , on reading the closed material , will be able to reach a view about the propriety of what happened and the safety of the conviction without any need for special counsel . However , there may be cases where , before deciding whether to grant leave , or on granting leave , the court may consider it necessary in the interests of justice to request that special counsel be appointed . This might be for a number of possible reasons : the court may consider that help is needed from special counsel to ensure that it has all the material which it ought to have ; the court might want to know whether special counsel , having read the grounds of appeal and supporting advice , would wish to present argument in support of any of the grounds of appeal on the basis of material not known to the applicant or appellant \u2019s ordinary counsel . The court might also wish to know whether special counsel would want to raise some other point unknown to the appellant \u2019s ordinary counsel relating to what happened in the closed proceedings . Or there might be questions on which the court feels that it needs the assistance of special counsel to do justice . These matters would call for individual consideration in the individual case . \u201d","In NORP v Horseferry Road ORG , ex PERSON ( No CARDINAL ) [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ORG confirmed that an abuse of process justifying the stay of a prosecution could arise where it would be impossible to give the accused a fair trial ; or where it would amount to a misuse \/ manipulation of process because it offends the court \u2019s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the accused in the circumstances of the particular case .","NORP The prosecution \u2019s failure to disclose material may lead the courts to stay proceedings on grounds of abuse of process : R v GPE and Others [ DATE ] Crim LR CARDINAL . However , a stay should not be imposed unless the defendant can show that he or she would suffer such prejudice that a fair trial would not be possible .","A court ( ORG or above ) may also stay proceedings where there has been unconscionable behavior by the executive ( see PERSON v Horseferry Road ORG and R v Mullen [ DATE ] CARDINAL Cr . App . NORP CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173775","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SHABELNIK v. UKRAINE (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in detention in GPE , GPE .","NORP In DATE PERSON was found murdered in her flat . In DATE PERSON , a minor , was kidnapped and murdered .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping PERSON in order to extort money from her parents and of S. \u2019s murder . On DATE the applicant was provided with a lawyer in connection with those charges .","On DATE PERSON , the deceased PERSON son , was questioned as a witness and confessed to the murder of his mother . DATE he retracted his confession .","On DATE , purportedly at his own request , the applicant , was questioned as a witness about the circumstances of PERSON \u2019s death . During the questioning , which took place without a lawyer , the applicant confessed to PERSON \u2019s murder . The applicant said that he had read an advertisement in a local newspaper that PERSON wanted to buy a flat in GPE . He had decided to rob her , on the assumption that she had savings at home for the purchase of a flat . The victim had allowed him to enter her flat . During their conversation , the victim had told the applicant that she had a conflict with a neighbour about a sausage business the neighbour was running from the building . She also had tense relations with her daughter - in - law . When the applicant had threatened her and demanded money she had told him that she had none because she had placed the advertisement at the request of a friend who lived in another town and wanted to buy a flat in GPE . To conceal his attempted robbery the applicant had then murdered the victim .","The transcript of the applicant \u2019s questioning recorded that he was told about his duty to state everything he knew about the case , that he could face criminal liability for refusal to testify and for giving false statements and about the constitutional provision guaranteeing the privilege against self - incrimination .","On DATE the applicant , still acting as a witness , participated without a lawyer in an on - site reconstruction of the attack on PERSON On DATE and DATE he was again questioned , without a lawyer , about the attack .","NORP On DATE the investigator in the case requested an opinion from psychiatrists on a number of questions , namely :","( i ) whether the applicant was suffering from a psychiatric condition ;","( ii ) whether the applicant was sane at the time of the commission of the acts he was accused of and at the time of the assessment ;","( iii ) if the experts established that the applicant had been suffering from a psychiatric condition or a temporary disruption of his mental capacities at the time of commission of the act , whether he had been conscious of the meaning of his actions and whether he could control them ; and","( iv ) whether the applicant was in need of compulsory psychiatric treatment .","On DATE the investigating prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for the murder of PERSON and joined them with the criminal case concerning the kidnapping and murder of S. It appears from the applicant \u2019s submissions that on DATE he was given the procedural status of an accused and was allowed for the first time to consult a lawyer in connection with the charges related to the attack on PERSON CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure required that procedural rights had to be explained to a person who acquired the status of an accused , including the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer .","On DATE a panel of psychiatric experts examined the applicant and produced a report on his mental state , concluding that he had been sane at the time of the alleged crimes and was sane at the time of the assessment . According to the report , in the course of the interview with the experts the applicant gave a description of PERSON \u2019s murder that was identical to the one he had given to the investigator ( \u201c \u043e\u0431\u0441\u0442\u043e\u044f\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430 \u0435\u0433\u043e \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0433\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0432\u043a\u0438 \u0438 \u0443\u0431\u0438\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430 ... \u0438\u0437\u043b\u0430\u0433\u0430\u0435\u0442 \u0442\u0430\u043a , \u043a\u0430\u043a \u0438\u0437\u043b\u0430\u0433\u0430\u043b \u0432 \u0445\u043e\u0434\u0435 \u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0438\u044f \u201d ) . The experts added that in doing so the applicant had been speaking as if reciting a text memorised by heart and had remained silent when interrupted and asked for details or clarifications . The experts concluded that the applicant was sane .","The applicant stood trial at ORG , which was competent to act as a trial court ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) because the applicant was accused of aggravated murder , a crime carrying a potential life sentence . In the course of the trial the applicant stated that he was innocent of both murders but pleaded guilty to kidnapping PERSON He stated that on DATE of PERSON \u2019s murder he had met an old childhood acquaintance , PERSON , in the street . PERSON had told him that he had killed PERSON To check PERSON \u2019s story the applicant had gone to PERSON \u2019s flat and had seen her dead body there . He had had nothing to do with the robbery and murder .","On DATE the trial court convicted the applicant of kidnapping , extortion and the murder of S. He was also convicted of the robbery and murder of PERSON The court sentenced him to life imprisonment . In convicting the applicant of PERSON \u2019s robbery and murder the trial court relied in particular on :","( i ) the applicant \u2019s initial confessions ;","( ii ) the crime scene report , which showed that the layout of the victim \u2019s flat , the placement of furniture and the position of her body matched the applicant \u2019s confessions ;","( iii ) medical evidence that the victim \u2019s clothing and injuries matched the applicant \u2019s confessions ;","( iv ) the statement of PERSON , the victim \u2019s friend , who said she had asked the victim to place an advertisement for the purchase of a flat on her behalf ;","( v ) the testimony of Ms V.S. , the victim \u2019s neighbour , who stated at the trial that she had run a sausage business from the victim \u2019s block of flats and that she had had a conflict with the victim over that matter ;","( vi ) the testimony of the victim \u2019s son and daughter - in - law that relations between the victim and the daughter - in - law had been tense ;","( vii ) evidence from an expert to the effect that it could not be ruled out that the victim \u2019s injuries had been caused by a knife found at the applicant \u2019s home .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a court of cassation , upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the ORG ( no . PERSON ) , alleging that his conviction for the murder of PERSON had been based on incriminating evidence that had been obtained in violation of his right to remain silent and the privilege against self - incrimination and that he had been hindered in the effective exercise of his right to defence when questioned at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings .","On DATE the ORG declared the application partly admissible and found a violation of LAW . The ORG found in particular that :","\u201c CARDINAL . The ORG reiterates that in particular where a deprivation of liberty is at stake , the interests of justice in principle call for legal representation ( see PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . Furthermore , the ORG notes that NORP legislation provides for obligatory legal representation of persons who could expect life imprisonment if convicted . This was the applicant \u2019s situation , in that he was already charged with a murder and being accused of the second murder made a sentence of life imprisonment a possibility ... The ORG considers that the legal representation of the applicant during the period in question was required in the interests of justice .","Furthermore , ... t , if not solely , on these selfincriminating statements . The statements did not in fact contain any information which was not already known to the investigators ( in contrast to the case of the kidnapping and murder of PERSON , in which the applicant showed the police where the corpse had been hidden ) and had been received in unclear circumstances and in clear violation of the applicant \u2019s right to defence . \u201d ( PERSON , cited above )","The PERSON judgment ( cited above ) became final on DATE .","NORP The applicant \u2019s lawyer ( PERSON ) , lodged an application with ORG for a review of the applicant \u2019s criminal case in view of the first PERSON judgment ( cited above ) . He asked ORG to quash the trial court \u2019s judgment and its own DATE decision upholding the original conviction . He asked that he and the applicant be present during the examination of the request .","The prosecutor \u2019s office also applied to ORG for a review . They asked the court to amend the trial court \u2019s judgment and ORG DATE decision by striking out references to the records of the questioning of the applicant as a witness about PERSON \u2019s murder and the result of the on - site reconstruction of that murder .","On DATE ORG , sitting in a formation composed of all the judges of the criminal and military chambers of the court , allowed the above applications in part , quashed its own DATE decision and remitted the case for fresh examination in cassation proceedings by a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG .","Hearings before the ORG panel were scheduled and rescheduled several times and the applicant was informed of this accordingly . The case was finally scheduled for hearing on DATE and the applicant and PERSON were informed of this by letter on DATE . Neither the applicant nor PERSON requested that the applicant be escorted from his prison to the hearing before the ORG panel .","On DATE ORG examined the case in the absence of the applicant but in the presence of his lawyer and a prosecutor . The lawyer made submissions to the court and a written summary of his remarks was submitted to ORG .","According to the summary , after reiterating that the applicant \u2019s confessions and the reconstruction reports should be ruled inadmissible , the lawyer presented his analysis of the remaining evidence in the file . He dealt with the question of the evidence of the applicant \u2019s involvement in the attack on PERSON , seeking to show that it was either inadmissible or unreliable . In particular , he made the following arguments :","( i ) the psychiatric report , in so far as it provided a record of the applicant \u2019s alleged statements about PERSON \u2019s murder , was unspecific and constituted a judgment by the experts about the applicant \u2019s statements which the experts had been unqualified to make , as opposed to an accurate record of those statements . In any case , it was improper to use that report since the psychiatrists had never been examined by the defence . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s supposed statements to the experts were inadmissible because they were marred by the same problems as the confessions that had been obtained in breach of his Convention rights ;","( ii ) as to the other evidence , in particular the crime scene examination report and the witness evidence , it only had evidentiary value as corroboration for the applicant \u2019s statements , but as those statements had to be ruled inadmissible to give effect to the first PERSON judgment ( cited above ) , the other witness evidence could also not be used to support a finding of the applicant \u2019s guilt ;","( iii ) certain circumstances , such as the fact that no traces of the applicant \u2019s presence had been found in PERSON \u2019s flat , pointed to the applicant being innocent of the murder .","On DATE ORG delivered its decision . It excluded the applicant \u2019s original confessions from the body of evidence . However , it found that the rest of the evidence in the case file was sufficient to support the trial court \u2019s finding that the applicant had murdered PERSON while trying to cover up an attempted robbery .","NORP In particular , ORG approved of the trial court \u2019s reliance on : ( i ) evidence from the expert that it could not be ruled out that the victim \u2019s injuries had been caused by the knife found at the applicant \u2019s home , and ( ii ) the statements of the witnesses PERSON , GPE and \u201c others \u201d concerning the applicant \u2019s supposed motive for the murder ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP In support of its findings ORG also referred to material and circumstances on which the trial court had not explicitly relied : ( i ) the fact that \u201c in the course of psychiatric assessment [ the applicant ] , told the experts about [ PERSON \u2019s murder ] under the circumstances established by the [ trial ] court \u201d ; ( ii ) the applicant \u2019s admission in court that he had visited the victim \u2019s flat ; and ( iii ) the testimony of PERSON , the victim \u2019s neighbour , that she had seen the applicant in the victim \u2019s block of flats .","ORG concluded that , other than the breaches which led to the exclusion of the applicant \u2019s original confessions \u2019s conclusions were based on admissible and sufficient evidence ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163660","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ALDEGUER TOM\u00c1S v. SPAIN","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) .","The applicant cohabited with another man in a homosexual relationship from DATE until the latter \u2019s death on DATE . During that period they lived together in an apartment belonging to the applicant \u2019s partner . When his partner died , the sister and only heir of the applicant \u2019s partner gave the applicant , because of the relationship he had had with her brother , an apartment that had belonged to the applicant \u2019s late partner and in which the couple had spent their holidays together since DATE .","On DATE the applicant claimed social security allowances as a surviving spouse , under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG , arguing that he had cohabited with his deceased partner for DATE .","On DATE ORG Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social , hereafter referred to as \u201c LOC \u201d ) refused to grant the applicant a survivor \u2019s pension on the ground that since he had not been married to the deceased person , he could not legally be considered as his surviving spouse for the purposes of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG . That decision was formally served on DATE .","On DATE Law no . CARDINAL amending the provisions of LAW with respect to the right to enter into marriage was passed . DATE it entered into force . This law legalised same - sex marriage in GPE . In accordance with its first additional provision all legal and regulatory provisions making reference to marriage should be understood thereafter as applicable to all marriages irrespective of the sex of its members ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant filed an administrative complaint against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . This complaint was dismissed by the ORG on DATE . The ORG noted that there was no provision in the legislation in force that allowed , for the purposes of social security rights , the person who had been cohabiting with the deceased to gain the status of a widower .","On DATE the applicant challenged that decision before ORG no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ruled for the applicant . ORG firstly outlined that the facts of the case had to be assessed in the light of the newly enacted PERSON no . PERSON , which was already in force and deemed constitutional by the tribunal . As to the merits , ORG observed that the issue at stake was whether the applicant , as the surviving partner of a same - sex relationship that ended ( following his partner \u2019s death ) before the entry into force of PERSON no . DATE , had the right to a survivor \u2019s pension . ORG then reiterated that , according to the well - established domestic case - law , surviving partners of unmarried couples were not entitled to a survivor \u2019s pension under section CARDINAL of ORG , marriage being a constitutive element to access any such social - security benefit ; that the applicant had been prevented from marrying his partner because same - sex marriage had not been recognised in domestic law at the time his partner died ; that the social security administration had relied on the fact that the couple had not married to refuse the applicant a survivor \u2019s pension ; and that it was evident that after the entry into force of PERSON no . PERSON , surviving spouses of same - sex marriages were entitled to survivors\u2019 pensions on the same footing as survivors of different - sex marriages .","ORG was of the view that the solution to the legal issue raised by the applicant \u2019s case depended on whether it could be inferred from PERSON no . CARDINAL that ORG \u2019s intention had been that surviving partners of same - sex couples who had been prevented from marrying under the former legislation could access a survivor \u2019s pension on a similar footing to same - sex couples who could marry after the entering into force of that LAW . ORG drew attention in this regard to the provisions and the explanatory memorandum of PERSON no . PERSON to contend that this new legislation had a very strong egalitarian purpose , and that from the date it entered into force , that is to say DATE , all legal provisions concerning marriage should be interpreted on the basis of the first additional provision of PERSON no . CARDINAL as applying fully to same - sex marriage ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG held in this regard that :","\u201c This is a wide - ranging provision which affects all the other provisions of the legal system making reference to marriage . From now onwards all references to marriage established in the law shall be understood as applying also to marriage celebrated CARDINAL persons of the same sex . Accordingly , whoever shall be called to interpret or apply any marriage - related provision should do so in egalitarian terms without taking into consideration whether the spouses are of the same or different sex \u201d .","ORG further recalled that additional provision no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE amending the provisions of LAW pertaining to marriage and the procedure to be followed for cases of annulment , judicial separation and divorce , recognised the right to obtain a survivor \u2019s pension for individuals who had been prevented from marrying a person who later died by the legislation in force until then , provided that he or she had cohabited in a relationship similar to marriage with the deceased person and that the deceased had died before PERSON no . CARDINAL entered into force .","ORG stressed that such a provision was included in order to provide a solution for those cohabiting couples consisting of a man and a woman who could not have married under the legislation in force until that time , and thus did not qualify for a survivor \u2019s pension , because CARDINAL or even both of them had still been married to another person whom they had been prevented from divorcing , divorce having been legally impossible in GPE until the passing of PERSON no . CARDINAL . ORG considered that the applicant \u2019s circumstances were \u201c fully comparable \u201d to those outlined in additional provision no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL in so far as :","\u201c - the claimant could not marry his partner because the legislation then in force prevented him from doing so ;","- the claimant had shared a marital life with his partner until the latter \u2019s death ;","- the latter \u2019s death had taken place before the entry into force of PERSON no . CARDINAL \u201d","ORG acknowledged , however , that whereas PERSON no . CARDINAL was aimed at protecting the rights of those cohabiting heterosexual couples who were prevented from marrying because divorce was prohibited at the time , PERSON no . PERSON was aimed at protecting the rights of those who could not marry on account of their sexual orientation , and that this distinction was the main impediment to the recognition of the applicant \u2019s right to a survivor \u2019s pension .","ORG considered nonetheless that treating these CARDINAL groups differently would not be in harmony with the strong egalitarian intention expressed by ORG with the passing of PERSON no . PERSON and that , accordingly , additional provision no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL was applicable to the applicant by force of additional provision no . CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL . ORG stated as follows :","\u201c Therefore , the interpretation that in my opinion better fits the legislature \u2019s intention is the following :","- If the first additional provision of PERSON no . PERSON sets out that provisions making reference to marriage shall apply irrespective of the sex of the spouses ,","- And CARDINAL of [ these provisions ] , currently in force to provide access to a survivor \u2019s pension , is additional provision no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL .","- The only method to apply it in a way which is consistent with the egalitarian intention of the legislature is to do so irrespective of the sexual orientation of the members of the cohabiting couple .","- In order to ensure that sexual orientation does not constitute discriminatory grounds in the application of additional provision no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL , the right thereby recognised shall currently be interpreted as providing a solution to factual situations such as the one in the instant case in which the impediment to access to a survivor \u2019s pension is no other than the sexual orientation [ of the claimant ] . \u201d","As regards the administration \u2019s submission that in the area of social security benefits the governing principle was that of non - retroactivity of laws and that according to the law in force at the time the applicant \u2019s partner died the former did not qualify for a survivor \u2019s pension because they were not married , ORG was of the view that this general principle was not absolute and that it did not apply where there was a specific rule giving retroactive effect to laws more favourable to the citizens , as is true of the instant case . Thus , additional provision no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG should be read in the light of the first additional provision of PERSON no . DATE .","As to the degree of retroactivity that should be given to additional provision CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL in the applicant \u2019s case , ORG relied on the constitutive effects of PERSON no . PERSON which created new rights and was effective only from the date it entered into force . Accordingly , ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s right to be awarded a survivor \u2019s pension with effect from DATE .","The LOC and the ORG General of ORG appealed ( recurso de suplicaci\u00f3n ) against that judgment to ORG ( Tribunal Superior de Justicia ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the appeal and reversed the first - instance judgment . The court found that the legislature had not intended PERSON no . PERSON to cover same - sex partnerships which had been ended by the death of CARDINAL of the partners before said law had entered into force and that the lack of protection of these unions could not be considered discriminatory in the light of Article CARDINAL of LAW .","For the court , it was only as from the entry into force of PERSON no . CARDINAL that marriage between same - sex couples was recognised and that this law affected other rights for those persons who would wish to marry thereafter . Hence , the court was of the view that PERSON no . PERSON had no retroactive effects , except as otherwise expressly provided , which was not the case at hand .","NORP The court further stated that even though PERSON no . PERSON had been inspired by the constitutional principle of equality , prior legislation preventing same - sex marriage could not be deemed unconstitutional as contrary to either any constitutional principle or to the right not to be discriminated against . The court referred to constitutional case - law dating from DATE according to which the requisite of heterosexuality for the purposes of marriage was fully constitutional and that it was within the margin of appreciation of the public authorities to treat heterosexual marriages more favourably than homosexual partnerships . In this connection , the court maintained that despite the reference in the preamble of PERSON no . PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to the discriminatory treatment to which homosexuals had traditionally been subjected on account of their sexual orientation , the aim of ORG in passing that law was merely to respond to a new social reality and award homosexuals the right to marry , but not to protect same - sex partnerships which had already ended before its enactment .","The court referred to constitutional case - law according to which a difference in legal treatment of individuals due to subsequent changes in the law does not necessarily entail discrimination , even if those persons could be said to be in similar circumstances . Given the complexity that a change in legislation might involve , it was for ORG to establish the characteristics of the legal transition , either by introducing retroactivity clauses or by restricting the application of the new legislation to circumstances arising after its entry into force .","The court noted in this regard that PERSON no . PERSON had not included any provision concerning same - sex partnerships which had already ended at the time of its entry into force and that it strictly concerned same - sex couples still in existence at that time and who would be willing to enter into marriage . The court considered that the difference between the situations before and after the passing of PERSON no . PERSON was essentially an expression of the principle of succession of laws without constitutional implications as regards the right not to be discriminated against .","As regards the applicability to the present case of additional provision no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL , ORG found that this provision was not applicable to the applicant \u2019s case for CARDINAL main reasons . Firstly , that provision could not be considered as among the provisions to which the first additional provision of PERSON no . CARDINAL referred . Additional provision no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) was , as ORG had established , of a provisional or transitory nature and had been envisaged for those specific cases in which CARDINAL of the partners had died before the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL . It had not been intended to govern future situations . Secondly , that provision had been envisaged for a totally different situation from that of the applicant . Additional provision no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL was aimed at guaranteeing a survivor \u2019s pension to those heterosexuals who had been prevented from marrying their out - of wedlock partner because divorce had not been legal at the time of the latter \u2019s death . The inability to remarry for those affected by additional provision no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL was based on the fact that divorce was not permitted at the time . The institution of marriage was open to them in their capacity as heterosexuals . On the contrary , same - sex couples were absolutely prevented from marrying before PERSON no . PERSON since the institution of marriage was until then restricted to heterosexual couples .","Furthermore , the court contended that the applicant could never have fulfilled the more uxorio marital cohabitation requirement established by additional provision no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/ DATE of , because only those who were in principle eligible for marriage but had been prevented from marrying for whatever reason could qualify for de facto marital cohabitation . The applicant and his partner could have never cohabited \u201c as if married \u201d before the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL , because before then they were ineligible for marriage as they were both male .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law seeking harmonisation of the case - law ( recurso de casaci\u00f3n para la unificaci\u00f3n de doctrina ) . In a decision of DATE , ORG ) declared the appeal inadmissible on the ground that the decision produced for purposes of comparison , specifically a judgment of ORG of GPE of DATE , was not relevant . That decision was served on DATE .","Relying on Articles CARDINAL ( principle of equality and prohibition of discrimination ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( right to effective judicial protection ) , the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , served on CARDINAL DATE , ORG declared the appeal inadmissible on the grounds that the applicant had failed to substantiate the special constitutional relevance of his complaints ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170364","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DIMOVA AND PEEVA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first applicant divorced the second applicant \u2019s father on DATE by means of a court - approved divorce agreement . According to the agreement , she was to exercise parental rights and the father had contact rights , the use of the family dwelling and was obliged to pay MONEY ( ORG ) DATE in child support . The child was to live with her mother , and her father could see her on DATE , for DATE during DATE , and for DATE during DATE . The agreement did not make reference to a specific address , or even a town or a city where the first applicant was supposed to live with the child .","On DATE , upon a request by the child \u2019s father for a change in the contact regime between him and his daughter , the first instance civil court approved another agreement between the parents , which extended the duration of the father \u2019s weekend contact by TIME . The parents also agreed that the father would collect the child from her mother \u2019s home in GPE , GPE , and would take her back to the same location ; the father could spend his time with the child at CARDINAL of CARDINAL specific addresses in GPE , located in GPE and Srednogorovo respectively . If the mother changed her address , she had to inform the father by registered mail within DATE of such a change .","On DATE the first applicant brought a claim under LAW DATE LAW before ORG , seeking the court \u2019s authorisation for the child to leave the country in the absence of her father \u2019s agreement . She submitted that she was in a committed relationship with a NORP man who lived in GPE , where he worked as a ship engineer . They intended to marry and she wished to settle in GPE , and live with him and her daughter . Notwithstanding the above , the first applicant specified that , in the event that the court did not grant her application for permission for the child to travel , she would remain in GPE to care for her as a responsible parent .","On DATE the ORG rejected the first applicant \u2019s claim for the child \u2019s unrestricted travel abroad with only her mother , finding that it could not be in the child \u2019s interests . More specifically , the reasons given were that the mother could not show that she had a fixed place of residence abroad , or a secure income with which to ensure her daughter \u2019s well - being , and that the child \u2019s absence from GPE would pose an obstacle to the father \u2019s exercise of his contact rights .","The first applicant appealed against the refusal to ORG . She claimed that the father showed no interest in the child and did not pay any child support . His refusal to allow the child to leave the country for any period of time prevented her from taking her on holiday abroad and residing in GPE in GPE , where she had a fianc\u00e9 and could provide her daughter with better material conditions . She and her partner intended to marry DATE , but her child \u2019s inability to leave the country with her would make this impossible .","ORG allowed her appeal on DATE . It held that she had the necessary parenting qualities , including the ability to create an emotionally comforting environment for the child and provide her with financial support . That had been decided at the time she had been granted custody of her daughter , and had not been either challenged or refuted subsequently . The first applicant \u2019s parental abilities and the care she provided to her daughter would not change as a result of her crossing the national border . In view of the strained relationship between the CARDINAL parents , the court considered that permission for the child to travel abroad with only her mother should be granted for the whole of the child \u2019s infancy , that is , until she reached majority . The court also held that the change in the mother \u2019s circumstances constituted grounds for changing the contact regime between father and child , but did not adjudicate on that matter .","Following a cassation appeal by the father , in DATE ORG suspended enforcement of the second - instance court \u2019s judgment while the issue was pending before it . On DATE , in a final judgment , it refused to allow the second applicant to travel abroad in the absence of her father \u2019s agreement .","NORP The court first observed that there was conflicting domestic jurisprudence on the question of granting unlimited permission for a minor \u2019s travel abroad in the absence of both GPE agreement . Some courts ( including the second instance one in the present case ) found that when a parent who had been granted custody ( \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0436\u043d\u044f\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 ) had the necessary parental skills , such permission could not be refused . Other courts considered that when a parental consensus was missing , granting permission for unlimited travel abroad was only going to cause further disturbance and resentment in the relationship between the parents , which was likely to result in additional disputes between them , and this was not in the interests of the child .","Examining the present case , the court relied in particular on its wellestablished and binding case - law , according to which permission for a child \u2019s unrestricted travel abroad with CARDINAL parent only could not be granted because , as a matter of principle , that could never be in the best interests of the child . More specifically , there was a risk that a parent applying for such permission could take the child to countries which were in a state of war or where there was a high risk of natural disasters , thus endangering the child \u2019s well - being and depriving the ORG of the opportunity to ensure his or her protection . Also , if the parent took the child to a country which was not a member of ORG , or with which GPE had no reciprocal agreement regarding legal assistance , the authorities would not be able to ensure that the contact rights of the other parent were enforced .","The court held that permission to travel abroad with CARDINAL parent could be granted only in respect of fixed destinations and for a limited period of time , and when this was in the interests of the child .","Turning to the specific case , the court held that the first applicant had not presented any guarantees as to where the child would be taken or how the father \u2019s contact rights would be exercised . Importantly , the first applicant had not sought in court a change in the regime for contact between the child and the father with a view to her and the child moving their primary place of residence to GPE . In any event , the first applicant had presented in the proceedings before the court only her personal assertions in respect of her future in GPE , but no evidence to demonstrate the facts she claimed . She purported that she would get married ; however , this was an uncertain future occurrence which did not depend solely on her will . The situation would have been entirely different , if she had been married and had settled in good material conditions in another country . In such a case , the question of whether it would be in the child \u2019s interest to join her mother abroad would be open for discussion . However , as this was not the case , in view of the young age of the child , the court found that it was not in her interest for her mother to be granted permission to take her abroad at any time , for an unlimited duration and to unknown destinations throughout the period before the child reached majority .","On DATE , a little over a year after the final judgment of ORG on the issue of the child \u2019s travel , the first applicant and her partner , who was still living in the GPE , married in GPE . DATE , on DATE , the second applicant \u2019s father had explicitly agreed to her leaving the country with her mother . He signed an initial declaration for the period DATE and DATE , and has apparently been signing such declarations authorising DATE periods ever since . As a result , the applicants have been able to travel to , live and study in GPE , where they were at the time of their last correspondence with the ORG .","Since leaving GPE in DATE , the child has been in regular contact with her father over the phone and ORG , and has spent time with him every summer ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141933","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MEMISHAJ v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , who worked as an accountant for ORG , was dismissed . The dismissal took effect on DATE .","On DATE , following the applicant \u2019s action against his dismissal , ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) quashed the dismissal decision and ordered his employer to reinstate him . By final decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG upheld the ORG decision . On DATE the applicant was offered employment by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG supplemented the ORG \u2019s decision by ordering FAC to pay the applicant \u2019s salary for the period DATE and the date of reinstatement . The employer \u2019s request for revision was dismissed on DATE .","On DATE an enforcement writ was issued in respect of both decisions .","On DATE ORG , following a constitutional complaint by the applicant , acknowledged that there had been a breach of the applicant \u2019s right of access to court on account of the non - enforcement of ORG decision . However , it made no award .","On DATE the applicant took up employment with ORG , Youth and Sports ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) .","On DATE the ORG appointed the applicant to a position in a maintenance company , which was responsible to ORG . The applicant challenged the appointment .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG quashed the appointment decision . The ORG decision became final , none of the parties having appealed against it .","In DATE and DATE the applicant successfully sought the payment of accrued interest arising from the delay in the payment of his salary .","On DATE , following a third action by the applicant , ORG found in the applicant \u2019s favour and ordered ORG to pay the applicant ALL CARDINAL in salary arrears and ALL CARDINAL in accrued interest . The court reasoned that , since the applicant had taken up employment with ORG , ORG was obliged to pay him salary arrears for the period from DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to CARDINAL DATE . That obligation had ceased to exist ipso lege as of DATE . Relying on an expert \u2019s report , the court found that the applicant \u2019s salary arrears for the period from DATE to DATE amounted to ALL CARDINAL , of which ALL CARDINAL had been paid by ORG . The accrued interest for the corresponding period amounted to ALL CARDINAL .","On DATE an enforcement writ was issued .","On DATE it would appear that ORG decision became final , ORG having dismissed the defendant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE ORG paid the salary arrears . There is no information in the case file concerning the payment of accrued interest .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged a fourth civil action seeking the payment of accrued interest for the period DATE and DATE and the payment of social security contributions by ORG .","On DATE ORG found in his favour and ordered ORG to pay accrued interest as a result of the delay in payment of the salary arrears from DATE to DATE and social security contributions on the basis of the applicant \u2019s indexed salary . No quantification of the amount was made .","On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , upheld ORG decision .","NORP The relevant domestic law and practice has been described in the cases of ORG . v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167120","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TALMANE v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . At the time she submitted her complaint she lived in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the Madona ORG , acting as a firstinstance court , found the applicant guilty of a traffic offence which had caused moderate bodily injury to a victim . The court ordered the applicant to perform TIME of community service and suspended her driving licence for DATE .","In establishing the applicant \u2019s guilt , the first - instance court relied on incriminating statements by the victim and CARDINAL witnesses . It also relied on other evidence , including a medical expert opinion on the bodily injuries sustained by the victim .","The applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG . She alleged , inter alia , that the first instance court had failed to order an inspection and a technical examination of her vehicle , and had also not carried out a confrontation of witnesses .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court but changed in part the punishment by revoking the suspension of the applicant \u2019s driving licence .","On DATE the applicant submitted an appeal on points of law to the ORG of ORG . She alleged that the appellate court had failed to carry out and to order a number of investigating activities . Specifically , according to the applicant , the appellate court has not carried out a confrontation between the witnesses and the victim . It has not ordered an investigative experiment , an inspection and a technical examination of her vehicle .","The applicant maintained that the evidence in the case was not sufficient to establish her guilt , and thus the appeal court had acted contrary to numerous sections of LAW .","NORP In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE a judge of the ORG of ORG informed the applicant that on DATE her appeal on points of law was not admitted for examination in the cassation proceedings . It relied on section CARDINAL of LAW and stated that \u201c [ the appeal on points of law ] was not substantiated by any fundamental infringement of LAW or LAW \u201d . It was also stated that it was not within the competence of the cassation court to re - examine or obtain evidence , or to"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-165368","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BRAZHNIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161060","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF NAVALNYY AND OFITSEROV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","The first applicant is a political activist , opposition leader , anticorruption campaigner and popular blogger . He is a lawyer and was , before his criminal conviction , a member of the GPE bar association . The second applicant , a businessman , was at the material time a director of the limited liability company OOO PERSON ( \u041e\u041e\u041e \u00ab \u0412\u041b\u041a DATE hereinafter \u201c VLK \u201d ) .","NORP In DATE the GPE region \u2019s ORG founded the ORG unitary enterprise ORG DATE ) . According to its incorporation documents , GPE commercial activities were woodcutting and timber processing . It owned CARDINAL timber mills registered as its operational branches . It appears that by DATE the company was in substantial debt and continued to make losses .","NORP In DATE the Governor of the GPE region , PERSON , invited the first applicant to be a volunteer consultant on enhancing transparency of the region \u2019s property management . At first , Mr PERSON carried out this role de facto , before being officially appointed on DATE . CARDINAL of his projects was to help steer the region \u2019s loss - making timber industry out of crisis .","NORP In DATE the first applicant discussed GPE financial and logistical problems with its director , X. He suggested that the company join forces with a timber trading company to bring in customers and , in particular , curtail the GPE timber ORG practice of direct sales for cash bypassing GPE accounts . X agreed , and the first applicant invited the second applicant , who he knew would be interested in working in the industry , to set up the timber trading company . The second applicant created ORG and registered it in DATE .","On DATE Kirovles , represented by X , concluded a framework contract with ORG , represented by the second applicant . The contract provided for non - exclusive sales by ORG , who would then sell the goods on to the customers at PERCENT commission . The timber specifications and prices were set out in CARDINAL annexes to the contract , which were signed in the period DATE to CARDINAL DATE . In accordance with the contract , from CARDINAL May to CARDINAL DATE Kirovles supplied ORG with timber worth MONEY ( ( RUB ) , the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at the material time ) .","On an unidentified date PERSON \u2019s stepdaughter , PERSON , the then director of GPE commercial department , was employed by ORG part - time as its deputy director general .","DATE and DATE the first applicant commissioned GPE audit . In view of its results , the Governor \u2019s office set up a working group for restructuring GPE , to which the first applicant was appointed .","On DATE the property management department suspended X as GPE director , and on CARDINAL DATE he was dismissed for mismanagement .","On DATE Kirovles terminated the contract with ORG .","In the course of DATE the first applicant pursued an anticorruption campaign and published a number of articles and documents exposing high ranking officials\u2019 involvement in large - scale fraud . In particular , on DATE he published an article claiming that MONEY of ORG funds had been misappropriated during the construction of LOC oil pipeline . In the article , he referred to a DATE audit report and suggested that the President , PERSON , and the Deputy Prime Minister , PERSON , had both been personally implicated .","On DATE the ORG department of ORG ( later replaced by ORG Russian Federation \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) opened an inquiry on suspicion that the applicants had defrauded GPE by inducing its director to enter into a loss - making transaction . When questioned , PERSON stated that he had met PERSON and Mr PERSON at the Governor \u2019s office and had complained to them that GPE was making losses because of falling timber prices and a lack of customers , among other reasons . Mr PERSON had later returned to him with the idea of setting up a trading intermediary , ORG , to bring customers to GPE , and they had concluded the contract . He indicated that although ORG had paid average market prices for the timber , he had later realised that their commission and the terms of supply had cost GPE extra , making it unprofitable . He had therefore terminated the contract . X further stated that when concluding the contract he had been under the impression that Mr PERSON had been acting in his official capacity at the Governor \u2019s office , and that as a ORG enterprise director he had to comply with the decisions of regional government . CARDINAL other former GPE employees were questioned , Ms B. and its deputy director PERSON They confirmed that although ORG had paid average market prices , GPE could have increased its margins by selling the timber directly and it had therefore made a limited profit on these sales . They also claimed that the contract had been entered into under pressure from both applicants , whom their director had perceived as acting for the Governor .","ORG also questioned the second applicant . He stated that he had approached PERSON directly because he knew that GPE needed customers and he had offered to act as an intermediary . The other party had not been subjected to pressure or deception , the prices had been fair , and the first applicant had not been involved in the negotiations . The first applicant was not questioned because \u201c his whereabouts could not be established \u201d .","On DATE ORG decided not to open a criminal investigation against either applicant for lack of corpus delicti .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against X for alleged abuse of his official position , unrelated to ORG ; he was suspected of preferential treatment of a different private company he was affiliated with through his family .","On an unidentified date the inquiry resumed in respect of the applicants . The investigator questioned X , PERSON , GPE deputy director PERSON , the Deputy Head of ORG , PERSON , and both applicants . The first applicant stated , in particular , that after PERSON had reported to the Governor on GPE losses and lack of customers , the Governor had made an appeal to businesses interested in a commercial partnership with GPE . ORG had responded , along with others ; the Governor \u2019s office had not asked GPE to show any preference for ORG or taken part in the contract negotiations . The sales to ORG amounted to PERCENT of the total volume of GPE sales .","On DATE ORG decided not to open a criminal investigation against the first applicant for lack of corpus delicti . As regards the second applicant , they decided to transfer the inquiry file to ORG of the ORG , which had competence to decide whether there were grounds to open a criminal investigation .","On DATE the first applicant gave a radio interview with a strong anti - corruption message , describing the ruling party of GPE as \u201c a party of crooks and thieves \u201d .","On DATE the inquiry resumed . The investigators questioned both applicants , X , CARDINAL other former GPE employees , Ms B. , CARDINAL other former ORG employees and its then director ( the second applicant \u2019s brother ) , as well as CARDINAL high - ranking officials of the GPE region , including its Governor . He stated that in DATE Kirovles had been in a difficult financial situation and had substantial debt . He had therefore assigned the first applicant to study ways of restructuring GPE , and the latter had participated in working groups and working meetings concerning this matter . He explained that the first applicant had not been able to put pressure on X or influence the commercial activities of the timber industry , including GPE . It was he himself who had ultimately taken the decision to terminate the contract between FAC and ORG as a result of a series of working meetings between him , X and both applicants .","On DATE ORG of the GPE region placed FAC in administration .","On DATE the ORG decided not to open a criminal investigation in respect of the applicants for lack of corpus delicti .","On DATE the acting Chief of the investigation division of ORG decided to open a criminal investigation in respect of both applicants . They were suspected of deception and abuse of trust of GPE director , an offence under LAW ( b ) of LAW .","During the investigation , which lasted for DATE , both applicants were questioned , as well as X , PERSON , CARDINAL former GPE employees and CARDINAL timber mill directors . Kirovles and ORG \u2019s accounts were examined , and CARDINAL reports were ordered from experts in accounting , finance and economics . It follows from the parties\u2019 submissions that the following witnesses were also questioned . Witness PERSON , Chief of ORG , made a statement about how the contract between ORG and GPE had been concluded and how the first applicant and PERSON had been at odds . Witness PERSON , Deputy Chief of ORG , stated that the first applicant had insisted on an independent audit of GPE and proposed restructuring it to prevent financial manipulation by X. CARDINAL other witnesses , all managers of ORG , gave details about ORG \u2019s work to find customers for Kirovles in accordance with the contract . Based on this evidence , the investigators found that there was no case against the applicants .","On DATE ORG closed the criminal investigation in respect of both applicants for lack of corpus delicti .","On DATE ORG reversed that decision .","On DATE the Chief of ORG , Mr PERSON , spoke at its general meeting and condemned , in particular , the decision to close the criminal investigation in respect of the first applicant . In the extract broadcasted on GPE \u2019s main TV channels he stated :","\u201c You have got a man there called Mr PERSON . The criminal case , why have you terminated it without asking ORG superiors ? DATE the whole country is discussing [ this fraud ] , the talks [ between Mr PERSON and PERSON Belykh ] have been published , and we can not hear anything except grunting . You had a criminal file against this man , and you have quietly closed it . I am warning you , there will be no mercy , no forgiveness if such things happen again . If you have grounds to close it , report it . Feeling weak , afraid , under pressure \u2013 report ! We will help , support you , take over the file , but quietly , like that \u2013 no ... \u201d","On DATE the first applicant published an article accusing Mr Bastrykin of breaking laws imposing restrictions on high - ranking public servants . The article included copies of documents stating that he held a NORP residence permit and owned a private business during his tenure at ORG .","On DATE ORG investigator for high profile cases decided to open a criminal investigation against NORP on suspicion that he had conspired with unknown individuals to dissipate GPE assets through ORG , thus committing an offence under LAW of LAW .","On DATE the case against X was joined with the criminal case against the applicants .","On DATE charges were formulated against the first applicant under LAW of LAW . On DATE the same charges were formulated in respect of X , and on DATE in respect of the second applicant . They were all suspected of conspiring to dissipate GPE assets .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General granted X \u2019s request to conclude a plea - bargaining agreement and to have his criminal case examined in accelerated proceedings .","On DATE the plea - bargaining agreement was signed by X and the Deputy Prosecutor General . Among other conditions , X undertook to \u201c actively provide the investigation with information \u201d about \u201c Mr Ofitserov and Mr PERSON \u2019s involvement in the misappropriation [ of assets ] , their roles in the commission of the crime , the specific steps taken to implement the criminal plan , including at the stages of preparation and conclusion of the sales contract and demonstration of its feasibility and utility . \u201d On DATE the criminal case - file against X was disjoined from the applicants\u2019 case .","On DATE the first applicant learned of the pleabargaining agreement from the press and filed a complaint with ORG and ORG , alleging that it had breached his procedural rights in the criminal case against him . He requested that PERSON \u2019s case , if it had been severed , be joined with their case again .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office replied that the pleabargaining agreement had been concluded lawfully .","On DATE the first applicant served ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) with a complaint challenging the decision to sever GPE \u2019s criminal case and examine it in accelerated proceedings . On DATE he filed another complaint with ORG , challenging the decision to disjoin X \u2019s criminal file from his own .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request to join X \u2019s criminal case with the applicants\u2019 case .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office replied that the cases had been disjoined lawfully .","On DATE the ORG gave judgment in X \u2019s case , after examining it in accelerated proceedings , without an examination of evidence . The court found X guilty of dissipating GPE assets ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) and handed him a DATE suspended sentence with DATE parole . The judgment indicated that X had conspired with CARDINAL others , \u201c N. \u201d and \u201c O. \u201d and contained , in particular , the following findings :","\u201c ... at DATE [ to the ] beginning of DATE ... the Governor of the GPE region ... met the directors of the big State enterprises , including [ X ] ... and introduced his volunteer consultants including ORG , who was officially appointed to this role ... on CARDINAL DATE .","...","In DATE N. ... developed a criminal plan to misappropriate GPE assets in favour of a newly created entity under his control , to be founded and led by O.","...","In DATE N. continued to implement his criminal intent to dissipate GPE assets , ordered the commission of the crime ... informed [ X ] about the forthcoming creation of an intermediary enterprise ... aimed at dissipating the assets in [ X \u2019s ] charge .","[ X ] ... did not take any steps to prevent ORG \u2019s unlawful acts [ and ] agreed with him , thus entering into a criminal conspiracy with ORG and ORG aimed at large - scale dissipation of the assets ... entrusted to him .","To implement ORG \u2019s criminal plan , ORG , acting in agreement with him , created in DATE ... the limited liability company \u201c OOO VLK \u201d ... thus facilitating the commission of the crime ...","...","Later , [ X ] ... acting deliberately and in agreement with ORG and ORG , signed a sales contract with ORG ... in full realisation of the damaging consequences ... because of [ ORG \u2019s ] lack of adequate collateral ...","...","In doing so , [ X ] , ORG and ORG had sound knowledge that PERSON would pay for the goods under the terms of the contract and its annexes at a price known to be lower than that GPE could have received without an intermediary ...","...","In the period DATE to CARDINAL DATE ... [ X ] and ORG , in conspiracy with ORG , who had organised the crime and ordered its implementation , signed [ DATE ] annexes to the contract ... which stipulated ... a price which was deliberately reduced by all [ of the ] partners in crime without any economic need compared to the price GPE could have sold its products for if it supplied the ORG customers of directly .","...","While doing so , ORG and ORG realised that [ X ] was unlawfully depriving ORG the possibility of independent sales of its timber products at market prices and was thus placing its timber products at ORG \u2019s disposal without a sufficient and equivalent reimbursement of its market value .","In the period DATE to DATE in GPE , [ X ] , acting in abuse of his official position , and O. , in conspiracy with and on the instructions of N. , deliberately implemented the terms of the sales contract ... and its annexes ...","...","[ X ] , acting in premeditated conspiracy with N. and O. , out of acquisitive motives therefore abused his official position , ... unlawfully dissipated the assets he was in charge of ... for the benefit of third parties \u2013 partners in crime and OOO VLK under their control , thus causing significant damage to the assets of their owner , GPE .","The Deputy Prosecutor General ... proposed [ using ] accelerated proceedings for the judicial hearing and issuing the judgment ... in respect of [ X ] ...","The accused [ X ] has pleaded guilty to the entirety of charges , accepted the indictment and the proposal ... of accelerated proceedings on the basis of the concluded plea - bargaining agreement .","...","Information stated by [ X ] in compliance with the terms of the concluded pleabargaining agreement , is full and true and corroborated by the evidence gathered in the case . The court therefore concludes that [ X ] has complied with the obligations set out in the plea - bargaining agreement , and that judgment may therefore be given in respect of the accused without an examination of evidence , in accordance with the procedure set out in LAW as required by LAW","On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment given in GPE \u2019s case . He challenged , in particular , the use of accelerated proceedings in that case , the fact that it had been disjoined from the case against him and the second applicant and alleged that the judgment had been prejudicial to the outcome of their case .","On DATE the judgment against X acquired legal force .","On DATE ORG informed the first applicant that he could not appeal against the judgment in GPE \u2019s case because he had not been a party to those proceedings . He was denied access to the transcript of the court hearing for the same reason .","On DATE the charges under LAW ( b ) of LAW were lifted in respect of both applicants . The charges LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW were maintained , although they were reformulated in respect of the second applicant .","On DATE the first applicant filed a complaint with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) about the refusal to consider his appeal .","On DATE the Deputy President of ORG replied , stating that his appeal could not be examined because he had not been a party to the proceedings . Moreover , he indicated that the judgment against X could not be prejudicial to the applicant ; his guilt had not been established , he had not participated in those proceedings and his name had not been mentioned in it .","DATE . On DATE the indictment was issued in respect of both applicants .","On DATE ORG fixed the hearing in the applicants\u2019 case for DATE .","On DATE the applicants filed a request with ORG to have the judgment given in GPE \u2019s case excluded from evidence . They argued , in particular , that admitting it would prejudice the outcome of their case .","On DATE the court dismissed the request on the grounds that the judgment against X did not predetermine the applicants\u2019 guilt and , moreover , their names had not been mentioned in it .","During the hearing , PERSON was called and examined as a witness . He was first questioned by the public prosecutors , who then asked to read out his statements given during the investigation on the grounds that he could not remember some details and had given contradictory answers to some questions . The applicants objected on the grounds that during the investigation X had made the statements in his capacity as an accused , and an accused had the right to make false statements , not being under oath . Moreover , reading out his previous statements , especially in full , would hinder his cross - examination by the defence as it would remind the witness of the \u201c correct \u201d version of events he had accepted during his trial but could not remember at the applicants\u2019 hearing . The court dismissed these objections and allowed the statements made by X during the investigation to be read out . The applicants and their defence team questioned PERSON afterwards .","The court also allowed , despite the ORG objections , the statements of PERSON and QUANTITY other witnesses to be read out . They were each first questioned by the prosecutor , then their previous testimony and statements were read out in their presence . Only then could the defence question them .","On DATE and DATE a challenge by the applicants to the trial judge was rejected .","On DATE the court dismissed the ORG request to have material obtained by interception of the applicants\u2019 telephone calls excluded . On DATE it admitted this material as evidence .","On DATE and DATE the court rejected the ORG requests to have several people called and examined as witnesses , including PERSON , Chief of ORG , Mr PERSON , Deputy Chief of ORG , and the CARDINAL ORG managers who had been questioned during the investigation , as well as CARDINAL expert witnesses .","On DATE the court rejected the applicants\u2019 request for the following evidence : documents relating to GPE insolvency proceedings , GPE financial reports , an approved list of standard minimum prices for timber , complete records of intercepted telephone calls between the applicants , material relating to the criminal proceedings against X instituted on DATE and the criminal case file relating to X \u2019s conviction in the PERSON case .","On DATE , at the ORG request , the court admitted as evidence a report issued by a trade specialist indicating that the prices paid by ORG to GPE were above average . On DATE it rejected their request for the court to order expert reports by finance , economics and merchandising experts .","On DATE the first applicant was registered as a candidate for the GPE mayoral elections .","On DATE the ORG gave judgment , finding the first applicant guilty of organising , and the second applicant of facilitating , large - scale embezzlement . The court relied on the testimony of X and his statements made during the investigation . It also relied on the testimony of CARDINAL witnesses and statements made by CARDINAL of them during the investigation , material obtained by way of operational - search activities , in particular intercepted email correspondence and telephone calls between the applicants , accounting documents and expert reports . As regards the judgment in respect of X , the court said :","\u201c It follows from the judgment of ORG of GPE given on DATE that [ X ] was found guilty of dissipation [ and ] embezzlement , that is stealing GPE assets entrusted to [ X ] , on an especially large scale , committed by abuse of his official position in conspiracy with NORP O. ... a criminal offence under LAW of LAW . \u201d","The court further noted that it found X \u2019s testimony , as well as his statements made during the investigation , truthful and concordant with other evidence ; it also found that they were admissible and had been lawfully obtained .","The court dismissed the first applicant \u2019s allegations of political persecution or revenge by individuals who had lost their jobs at GPE or were otherwise disconcerted with his role in reforming the timber industry in the GPE region . It also dismissed the objection to admitting X and Ms B. \u2019s testimony and statements on the grounds that X had a vested interest in the proceedings , finding the objection unfounded and illogical . It explained the discrepancies between the testimony and pre - trial witness statements by the passage of time that had elapsed since the events in question and held that , in any event , the witnesses at the trial had confirmed the validity of their previous statements .","The court noted that X had treated the first applicant as an official from the Governor \u2019s office and that the applicant knew this . However , it stressed that the first applicant had not been accused , or convicted , of any abuse of his official position at the Governor \u2019s office :","\u201c Mr PERSON [ is not suspected of ] committing a crime by abuse of his official position ; consequently , the defence \u2019s arguments that the Governor \u2019s volunteer consultant had no powers to give binding instructions to the ORG management do not refute the accusation [ or ] prove that it was impossible for Mr PERSON to commit the crime and order its execution . \u201d","As regards the legal classification of the ORG offences , the court held :","\u201c The court finds that the arguments put forward by the defence about the absence of unlawfulness , a necessary element of theft , because a regular civillaw transaction has been concluded by persons with legal capacity , are unfounded .","The GPE region \u2019s ORG , acting on behalf of the owner of GPE , has provided in the certificate of incorporation and [ X \u2019s ] employment contract that [ X was under an ] obligation to carry out his duties in good faith , reasonably and in accordance with the applicable legislation .","In accordance with LAW , it is not permitted to exercise one \u2019s civil rights with the exclusive purpose of causing damage to another person , act in circumvention of the law with unlawful intent , [ or any other ] intentional exercise of civil rights in bad faith ( abuse of rights ) .","The court has established that contrary to the said provisions of the certificate of incorporation , the employment contract and the law , [ X ] , acting on behalf of the company directed by him , has entered into a sales contract ... with OOO ORG represented by PERSON to exclusively facilitate stealing GPE property and transferring [ it ] for the benefit of OOO VLK ... The conclusion of this sales contract has resulted in material damage [ being caused ] to GPE .","...","The court notes that neither Mr PERSON nor Mr GPE is charged with organising and facilitating the conclusion of a legally invalid sales contract . On the contrary , what the [ applicants are suspected of ] is organising and facilitating the dissipation of GPE assets by concluding a sales contract with OOO VLK intended exclusively to create the impression that GPE had civil - law obligations towards TIME to transfer timber goods to shipment recipients , as if for collateral , whereas in reality the goods would be transferred without OOO ORG [ having ] equivalent and sufficient collateral .","...","According to the ruling of the Plenary of ORG of the Russian Federation no . CARDINAL dated DATE \u201c On ORG in Cases of Fraud , Misappropriation or Embezzlement \u201d , a perpetrator of misappropriation or embezzlement may only be someone entrusted with the assets of another legal person or individual , based on legal grounds for a specific purpose or for a defined activity . Based on the provisions of LAW , those who do not possess these special subjective characteristics qualifying [ them ] for misappropriation or embezzlement , but who directly participated in stealing assets in prior agreement with the person entrusted with the assets , must be criminally liable under LAW in conjunction with LAW in their capacity as organisers , inciters or facilitators .","It follows from the judgment of ORG of GPE given on DATE , which has acquired legal force , that the perpetrator of the crime Mr PERSON and Mr GPE [ are suspected of ] was found to be [ X ] , who had been entrusted with Kirovles assets as its director general . [ X \u2019s ] acts were classified by the court as falling under LAW of LAW . \u201d","The court estimated that the damage caused to GPE amounted to RUB DATE . It concluded that the first applicant was guilty of organising the theft of GPE assets by X ( LAW in conjunction with LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) , and the second applicant of facilitating that theft ( LAW in conjunction with LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . They were sentenced to CARDINAL and CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment respectively , to be served in a correctional colony . In addition , they were both fined RUB CARDINAL .","The applicants were taken into custody immediately after the hearing .","DATE . On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office of the GPE region asked the court to release the applicants pending appeal , particularly since the first applicant was a registered candidate in the GPE mayoral elections .","On DATE ORG granted the request and released the applicants on parole .","On DATE both applicants lodged an appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . They challenged their conviction , insisting that it was unlawful and unfounded and that the first - instance court had relied on the judgment of DATE against X in violation of the rules of criminal procedure . They also complained about the court \u2019s assessment of evidence and the manner in which it had examined the witnesses .","On DATE the first applicant stood as a candidate in the GPE mayoral elections . He came second , securing PERCENT of the votes .","On DATE the applicants questioned the accuracy of the transcript of the first - instance hearing . The requested amendments were set out in an CARDINAL page document .","On DATE ORG accepted a small number of amendments but rejected the rest .","On DATE the applicants filed additional grounds of appeal elaborating on those lodged previously .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment in substance . It amended their sentence and gave them both suspended prison terms on an undertaking not to change their place of residence .","DATE . On DATE the applicants each lodged appeals on points of law . On CARDINAL and DATE ORG , sitting in a single judge formation , refused to give them leave to appeal .","On DATE ORG ordered that the first applicant be placed under house arrest pending another , unrelated , criminal case against him . To justify the application of this preventive measure the court referred to , among other factors , the first applicant \u2019s prior criminal conviction in the GPE case . The conditions of the house arrest included a number of restrictions , in particular a ban on communicating with anyone other than his immediate family and legal counsel , a ban on using the Internet and a ban on making public statements or comments to the media . The first applicant remained under house arrest for DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155689","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KUKAVICA v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","During DATE and DATE NORP para - military forces gained control of CARDINAL of the territory of GPE and proclaimed the so - called \u201c GPE of LOC \u201d ( PERSON autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter the \u201c LOC \u201d ) . The applicant continued to live in the LOC . At the beginning of DATE the NORP authorities announced a campaign of military action with the aim of regaining control over LOC . The action was codenamed \u201c Storm \u201d and lasted from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . Before that action , the vast majority of the population of the LOC fled GPE , initially for GPE , but later many of them went to live in GPE . Some returned to GPE after the war . The number of people who fled is estimated at CARDINAL .","According to the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE she and her nephew GPE \u2013 in a vehicle of the \u201c Lada \u201d make \u2013 and her other nephew GPE \u2013 in a vehicle of the \u201c Zastava \u201d make \u2013 were driving along the road between the villages of Strmen and PERSON , trying to flee GPE and reach GPE . After overtaking a convoy of tractors and while passing through a forest called GPE , NORP soldiers started to fire at them . The applicant and both her nephews were wounded . The applicant and GPE got out of the vehicle and ran into the woods . Later on , they both managed to flee into GPE and GPE . GPE surrendered to the NORP soldiers and was provided with first aid .","The NORP authorities learned about the applicant \u2019s wounding in DATE when she submitted a request for damages to the State Attorney \u2019s Office in that connection .","On DATE the police interviewed GPE and GPE , who both gave an account of the events of CARDINAL DATE like that described in paragraph CARDINAL above .","On DATE the police interviewed the applicant , PERSON and GPE The applicant confirmed the accounts of GPE and GPE P.T. said that he had been checking on his cattle in the same area on DATE and had hidden in the woods during the shooting . After that he had been captured by the NORP soldiers . He had seen GPE , who had a head wound that had already been tended to , being held by NORP soldiers .","I.\u0160. , the commander of a unit comprising CARDINAL soldiers of ORG of ORG , said that their task on CARDINAL DATE had been \u201c to cut communication on the road between Strmen and LOC \u201d . They had completed that task in TIME and in TIME had stationed themselves in the forest known as PERSON , near that road . Tractors and people had occasionally passed along the road . In the afternoon he had received the order to \u201c destroy a foresters\u2019 lodge \u201d in LOC and had sent CARDINAL soldiers to carry out that task . A battle between these soldiers and NORP para - military forces issued . At that moment CARDINAL vehicles , a ORG and a Lada , and a tractor appeared on the road . PERSON was not sure who had fired at the vehicles , since they had found themselves in crossfire from both sides . The crossfire lasted for TIME . He had no knowledge about the wounding of the applicant .","On DATE the police interviewed GPE , who said that on DATE she had been in a convoy of tractors and that while they had been passing through the forest of GPE , NORP soldiers had started to fire at them and several people had been killed or wounded .","On DATE ORG sent the daily log of ORG \u2019s unit for CARDINAL DATE to ORG . This log confirmed the events described by ORG in his statement of DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG against ORG on charges of war crimes against the civilian population . On DATE she extended her complaint to GPE","DATE the police interviewed GPE , GPE , the applicant and PERSON They all repeated their prior statements ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177494","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"BORG v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Dr PERSON and Dr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant suffered from Attention - Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ( hereinafter referred to as \u201c ADHD \u201d ) , and was the subject of a treatment order . In view of the treatment order , he was being kept at ORG ( the ORG mental health hospital ) .","On DATE a shop in GPE , GPE , was burgled .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of committing the burglary in question . The applicant was questioned at police headquarters and detained overnight .","On DATE , the applicant was arraigned before ORG ( as a ORG ) charged with aggravated theft and other related offences . During the arraignment procedure the applicant requested that he be released on bail , but this was refused . Since the applicant was the subject of a treatment order , the court ordered that he be kept under arrest at ORG . However , the applicant was kept under arrest at ORG rather than the hospital .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyers became aware that on CARDINAL DATE a certain ORG had admitted committing the burglary in PERSON ( of which the applicant had been accused ) , and that that person had , on DATE , confirmed his admission before ORG . On DATE , the applicant applied to ORG to be released on bail .","Later on CARDINAL DATE , the police inspector who had arrested the applicant was informed of ORG \u2019s arrest for the same incident the applicant had been accused of , and that ORG had admitted to committing the crime . The inspector communicated DATE with the Attorney General ( hereinafter referred to as \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , who directed him to submit an urgent application to ORG for the applicant \u2019s release .","At TIME DATE , in the light of the applicant \u2019s and the police \u2019s applications for his release on bail , ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s conditional release against a personal guarantee of CARDINAL ( ORG ) . He was forbidden to leave the country , approach witnesses or commit any other crimes . He was also obliged to sign in at the police station DATE and a curfew was imposed from TIME","On DATE , the police withdrew the charges against the applicant . According to the applicant , he lost his right to the treatment order at ORG as a result of the arrest and arraignment .","On DATE , the applicant filed proceedings before ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction . He argued that he had been arraigned without there having been a reasonable suspicion against him . Moreover , on the basis of that arraignment he had been denied release on bail . The applicant further submitted that the Commissioner of Police , despite realising that the applicant had been detained for no reason ( because ORG had admitted to committing the crime the applicant had been accused of ) , had failed to withdraw immediately the accusations against the applicant . In the applicant \u2019s view , all those facts , either taken together or separately , had resulted in an infringement of his right to liberty under LAW .","On DATE , ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction found that the applicant had not suffered any violation of his rights . The costs of the proceedings were to be paid by the applicant .","The court held that it would not substitute its own discretion for that of the police . Its role was to analyse whether the police could have had a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crime , in the light of the evidence they had had before them at the time they had made the decision to arrest and eventually arraign the applicant . It noted firstly that when the applicant had been arraigned he had failed to contest the validity of his arrest . In determining whether the police could have had a sufficiently reasonable suspicion , the court considered factors , including , but not limited to : the fact that the police had received a tip - off \/ confidential information that the applicant had committed the crime ; ORG footage of the shop that had been held - up and ORG footage of some of the neighbours of the shop . According to the court , in the light of other information the police had had in its possession , it had been reasonable for them to conclude that the person seen in the footage was the applicant , especially given the similar build and hair style . Indeed , once the police had seen the applicant in person they had confirmed that he looked like the person in the ORG footage . Moreover , the court noted that , according to the police , the applicant \u2019s mother had failed to confirm that her son had been at home at TIME ( the time of the commission of the offence ) , leading the chief investigator to believe that he had no alibi for the time of the crime . Also , the police had found out that on DATE where the burglary occurred the applicant had been on leave from the hospital . In addition , the applicant \u2019s past had been taken into account , including : the fact that the applicant was known to the police as a person taking drugs ; that he had ongoing proceedings against him for theft with aggravated assault allegedly committed in DATE ; and that he had previously been found guilty of crimes related to theft and drug abuse . Furthermore , the police had discovered that on DATE of the hold - up the applicant had argued with his mother about money and drugs - related issues . Taking all those factors into account , ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction confirmed the existence of a reasonable suspicion and thus a justification for the arrest .","It also concluded that the ORG of GPE refusal to grant the applicant release on bail had not been unreasonable . ORG had considered the applicant \u2019s regular visits to ORG ; his past involvement in crimes involving violence ; and factors associated with the risk and gravity of the crime at issue .","With regard to the applicant \u2019s complaint that the criminal proceedings against him had not been withdrawn immediately upon ORG \u2019s arrest and admission to the crime , the court noted that the only person who could have shed light on what had happened was the inspector , but he had not been produced as a witness . Nevertheless , based on the evidence before it , the court observed that as soon as the inspector who had carried out the applicant \u2019s arrest had found out that another person ( ORG ) had been arrested for the same crime , he had requested direction from the ORG . The inspector had then proceeded to submit an urgent application to ORG for the applicant \u2019s release . The first time a third person had come into the scene had been on DATE , when ORG had been arraigned . The applicant had been released from detention DATE . In the light of those facts the court concluded that there had been no failings by the police . It noted that LAW concerned protection from arbitrary arrest or detention and that the applicant had been released on DATE . The fact that the accusations against the applicant had only formally been withdrawn on CARDINAL DATE did not raise any issue under LAW .","On DATE , the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . He reiterated his claims and argued , inter alia , that there had been no reason for ORG to fear that he would not attend court proceedings , or that he would in any way influence the proceedings against him because he had been undergoing a treatment order at ORG . The applicant also stated that the police had found out about ORG \u2019s involvement in the hold - up on DATE but had waited until DATE ( when ORG had been arraigned before ORG and had pleaded guilty to the charges ) to take action towards remedying the applicant \u2019s situation . He argued that the police were obliged to remedy a situation of unlawful detention as soon as they became aware of it , as was also contemplated under LAW . He complained that as a result of their delay he had spent DATE in detention and had later been subject to conditional release .","ORG upheld his claims in part . It found a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights as protected under LAW ( c ) of LAW CARDINAL ) of the LAW for the limitation of liberty the applicant had suffered DATE and CARDINAL DATE , but rejected his other complaints . It awarded him CARDINAL as compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","The Constitutional Court confirmed the first - instance court \u2019s finding in respect of the existence of a reasonable suspicion justifying arrest which had persisted until the applicant \u2019s arraignment before ORG . The applicant had thus not suffered a violation of his rights protected by LAW ) of the LAW during that period .","The Constitutional Court considered that until DATE the applicant \u2019s situation had remained the same as on DATE . However , it had changed on CARDINAL DATE , when a third party had been arraigned before ORG for the same crime . ORG observed that as soon as the inspector responsible for the applicant \u2019s arrest had been informed that another person had been arrested for the same offence the inspector had taken action . On DATE , as requested by both the police and the applicant himself , ORG had ordered the applicant \u2019s conditional release . The applicant had been released DATE , against a personal guarantee . ORG found that the amount of time that had passed between the third party being arrested and the applicant \u2019s release had been reasonable . Therefore , the applicant \u2019s detention until his release on DATE had not been arbitrary and had not violated his rights protected under LAW ( c ) .","According to ORG , the same could not be said of the period DATE , during which the prosecution had no longer held a reasonable suspicion against the applicant . At that point , the restriction of liberty had , according to ORG , no longer been justified under LAW ( c ) of the LAW .","NORP In awarding compensation , ORG considered that the applicant had contributed to the violation himself by only requesting conditional release on DATE , rather than unconditional release . The court ordered the applicant to pay DATE of the costs of the proceedings before the first - instance court and ORG and the Commissioner of Police to pay DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166943","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MIRO\u0160EVI\u0106-ANZULOVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Split .","She is the owner of a flat in GPE with a surface area of QUANTITY . The flat is occupied by a \u201c protected lessee \u201d ( za\u0161ti\u0107eni najmoprimac ) , a certain PERSON Under LAW Act ( Zakon o najmu stanova ) , which entered into force on DATE , such lessees are subject to a number of protective measures , such as the duty of landlords to contract a lease of indefinite duration , payment of protected rent ( za\u0161ti\u0107ena najamnina ) , the amount of which is set by the ORG and significantly lower than the market rent ; and better protection against termination of the lease .","The applicant refused to recognize ORG , who had been living in her flat since DATE , as a holder of a specially protected tenancy ( \u201c stanarsko pravo \u201d ) and to conclude a lease contract with her . On DATE ORG brought a civil action against the applicant before ORG ( PERSON gra\u0111anski sud u GPE ) relying on sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , seeking recognition of her legal status of a protected lessee and obtaining a judgment in lieu of the lease contract .","Shortly afterwards in DATE the applicant brought a counterclaim before the same court seeking to obtain a judgement ordering ORG and the members of her household to vacate the flat in question . She also sought that ORG be ordered to pay her CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) per month together with the accrued interest , for the period DATE . The applicant specified that the said amount represented her estimate of a freely negotiated rent ( \u201c slobodno ugovorena najamnina \u201d ) as provided by LAW and the Government of GPE \u2019s Decision on the determination of the level of freely negotiated rent ( ORG o utvr\u0111ivanju slobodno ugovorene najamnine , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL ) .","By a judgement of CARDINAL DATE ORG found in favour of ORG It recognised her legal status of a protected lessee and substituted the lease contract stipulating protected rent in the amount of HRK CARDINAL.CARDINAL per month . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s counterclaim as unfounded .","On DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first - instance judgement , which thereby became final .","The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) alleging violations of her right to equality before the law guaranteed by LAW and of her ownership rights guaranteed by ORG , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint . This decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","NORP The applicant submitted a document dated CARDINAL DATE from which it follows that the protected rent for her flat was set at HRK CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The ORG submitted a document dated DATE from which it follows that the protected rent was set at HRK CARDINAL .","According to the documents submitted by the parties , the applicant was not obliged to pay the condominium fee into the common reserve fund for the flat . That fee was incumbent on another individual .","According to the applicant , she never paid any income tax on the income generated by renting her flat subject to the protected lease scheme . The Government did not contest this information .","The applicant furnished information as regards the DATE market rent for renting out flats in the vicinity of hers . She submitted an advertisement from the Internet dated DATE offering for rent a flat of a similar size as hers ( CARDINAL m\u00b2 ) for ORG CARDINAL per month , and another one dated DATE of CARDINAL ORG for ORG DATE . In addition to this she submitted a copy of a lease agreement of DATE for a flat with the surface area of CARDINAL ORG rented out for HRK CARDINAL per month .","The Government did not furnish any information in this respect ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162676","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MILANKOVI\u0106 AND BO\u0160NJAK v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in NORP .","On DATE the ORG ( FAC Uprava Sisa\u010dko - moslava\u010dka ; hereinafter : the \u201c police \u201d ) lodged a criminal complaint against the applicants and CARDINAL other person , alleging that in DATE and DATE they had committed war crimes against the civilian population in the area of NORP and PERSON .","Having collected extensive evidence in the course of the preliminary investigation , on DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ) requested an investigating judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) to open an investigation in respect of the applicants on suspicion of war crimes against the civilian population , as alleged in the criminal complaint lodged by the police .","The investigating judge questioned the applicants in connection with the request of the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG . Both applicants denied the allegations against them .","On DATE the investigating judge opened an investigation in respect of the applicants on suspicion of war crimes against the civilian population . The investigating judge found , on the basis of the available material , that there was a reasonable suspicion that the first applicant , acting in his capacity as commander of police combat units in the area of NORP , had ordered and carried out arbitrary arrests and ill - treatment of civilians , and that he had failed to prevent , supress and punish arbitrary arrests and searches and seizures , as well as ill - treatment and killings perpetrated by his subordinates . With regard to the second applicant , the investigating judge found that there was a reasonable suspicion that , as a member of a special police unit of the NORP police , he had organised a group which had carried out arbitrary arrests , ill - treatment and killings .","During the investigation the investigating judge heard evidence from the applicants and questioned numerous witnesses . He also obtained a number of relevant forensic reports on the crime - scene examinations , autopsies and ballistic expertise , and voluminous evidence and documentation concerning the actions of the police units in ORG at the relevant time .","On the basis of the evidence obtained during the investigation , on DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office indicted the applicants in ORG on charges of war crimes against the civilian population . The first applicant was charged with CARDINAL counts of arbitrary arrests , ill - treatment and the killing of civilians , and the second applicant with CARDINAL counts of ill - treatment and the killing of civilians . The relevant part of the indictment concerning the applicants\u2019 participation in those events reads :","\u201c I. Defendant PERSON","in the period DATE and DATE , while defending the wider area of NORP and PERSON from armed attacks carried out by paramilitary formations of a part of the local NORP population and ORG in the conflict on the LAW and territorial integrity of GPE , ... as a commander of the police units in the wider area of NORP and PERSON ...","authorised thereby to give orders to all police units and responsible for [ securing ] compliance with and application of the laws of war and international humanitarian law relative to the protection of civilian persons on that territory and for the humane treatment of prisoners of war ,","aware that , due to the conflict and occupation of an important part of PERSON and the terrorising and expulsion of the non - NORP population from the occupied territories , intolerance towards the NORP citizens of NORP was growing , that the security situation in the city was ... extremely complex , that inter - ethnic relations were very tense , that there was a perception amongst the NORP and other non - NORP citizens of NORP that all NORP were collectively responsible for the war , ...","at the same time aware that the police units under his command were mostly composed of members of the local population affected by the suffering , that amongst the members of his subordinate police units there were some individuals who had been previously in conflict with the law , while the members of the reserve police units had not been instructed about or trained on all the obligations arising from the norms of international laws of war and humanitarian law ,","aware that in the NORP area members of his subordinate units frequently and without any legal basis carried out searches [ and seizures ] in the houses and flats of persons of NORP origin , ... who were , in the course of these unlawful actions , often arrested ...","although aware that the arrested persons were subjected to unlawful actions , that during questioning they were accused of collaboration with the enemy , offended , humiliated and coerced , that some of them were physically and psychologically ill - treated and that grave bodily injuries were inflicted on them , and that already on CARDINAL August CARDINAL , during CARDINAL such intervention ... PERSON [ was arrested and subsequently ] brutally beaten by a number of unknown members of the reserve police unit ... , and that the numerous injuries he had sustained led to his death TIME in the NORP hospital ,","although aware that in the above - noted circumstances , if he failed to take timely and adequate measures , the members of his subordinate units would continue their unlawful actions against the citizens of NORP of NORP origin and their inhumane treatment of prisoners of war ,","although under the commonly recognised rules of international laws of war and humanitarian customary law relative to the protection of civilian persons , and the command responsibility for the acts of subordinates in times of armed conflict , contrary to Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) and ( c ) , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW relative to ORG in Time of War of DATE , Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and QUANTITY ( a ) and LAW to LAW of DATE , and relating to ORG DATE ( PERSON ) , Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW additional to LAW of CARDINAL DATE , and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts ( Protocol I ) and LAW ( a ) and ( c ) and LAW relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of DATE , he was required to take measures to prevent , supress and punish such unlawful actions , he failed to do so . On the contrary , by using his authority as commander of the police units , he prevented the taking of necessary measures to identify the direct perpetrators and thereby condoned the unlawful actions of his subordinates and encouraged them to take such actions , accepting that they would continue with their actions and condoning their consequences . Meanwhile he also personally participated in ill - treatment and attacks on certain civilians and ordered the unlawful detention of a number of civilians of NORP origin ...","II . Defendant PERSON","in DATE , ... , as a member of the special police unit PERSON of ORG , together with , at present , unknown members of that unit , ... , in order to carry out coercion and revenge on citizens of NORP origin , contrary to LAW ( a ) and ( c ) , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW relative to ORG in Time of War of DATE , Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( a ) and LAW to LAW of DATE , and relating to ORG DATE ( PERSON ) , organised and led a group of unknown members of the said unit with whom he carried out unlawful arrests , ill - treatment and the killing of persons of NORP origin ... \u201d","The applicants objected to the indictment . On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG confirmed the existence of a reasonable suspicion that they had committed the offences listed in the indictment , and sent the case to trial .","At a hearing held on CARDINAL DATE before ORG the applicants pleaded not guilty to the charges .","In the further course of the proceedings a number of hearings were held before ORG , notably on DATE ; CARDINAL and DATE ; CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE ; CARDINAL and DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE ; as well as on DATE and DATE ; DATE ; DATE ; CARDINAL and DATE ; CARDINAL DATE ; DATE ; and DATE . Several witnesses were questioned and voluminous evidence was examined .","The closing hearing was held on DATE . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the first applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . It acquitted the second applicant on the grounds of lack of evidence .","The first applicant challenged the first - instance judgment before ORG ( PERSON ) , alleging a number of substantive and procedural flaws . The GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG also lodged an appeal before ORG , challenging the acquittal of the second applicant and complaining that the sentence given to the first applicant was lenient .","On DATE ORG upheld the acquittal of the second applicant and increased the first applicant \u2019s sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The judgment of ORG thereby became final .","On DATE the applicants were arrested in connection with the criminal complaint lodged against them by the police ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the investigating judge ordered the applicants\u2019 pre - trial detention for DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion and gravity of charges ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c As an investigation has been opened in respect of the defendants concerning the offences at issue , the general condition [ related to the existence of reasonable suspicion ] for ordering detention against ... the second defendant PERSON and the third defendant PERSON has been met .","...","A request for the questioning of CARDINAL witnesses has been made . Most of these witnesses live in the NORP area and most of them still work or have worked as police officers ... who were subordinate to the second defendant PERSON . Specifically , in the period at issue the second defendant PERSON was a deputy to the Chief of ORG ... and the real commander of the entire police force [ in the NORP area ] . The records of the police interviews show that several witnesses who should be questioned [ during the investigation ] are in fear of the second defendant because they gave statements concerning the impugned actions ... and the second defendant was their superior in the period at issue . Furthermore , amongst the witnesses \u2013 including victims who have been ill - treated or are family members of the victims , there is a fear of the defendant and the available material in the case file shows that the witnesses have been threatened ... There is therefore a risk of collusion , [ that is to say a risk ] that the defendant could , if at large , hinder the investigation by influencing the witnesses . Thus detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW is justified .","Furthermore , since the defendant ... has been charged with individual and command responsibility for the unlawful deprivation of liberty and ill - treatment of CARDINAL civilians of NORP origin and the killing of CARDINAL persons of NORP origin from the NORP area , all of which was perpetrated in a particularly brutal manner , including entire families irrespective of the sex or age [ of the victims ] , and in view of the fact that the criminal offence at issue carries a sentence of PERCENT twelve years\u2019 imprisonment , and also the circumstances described in [ the decision on opening of the investigation ] , ... it follows that detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW is justified .","Detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW is also justified in respect of the third defendant PERSON . ... A number of witnesses who should be questioned during the investigation , and who were members of unit ORG , have given different statements about the [ relevant ] events from those given by the defendant ... which suggests that there is a risk that if at large he could hinder the conduct of the investigation by influencing these witnesses ...","The same circumstances which have been stated above concerning the first and the second defendants accordingly apply to the third defendant with regard to the existence of a risk that if at large they could continue with threats to the mentioned witnesses , who have already been threatened several times concerning their statements against the defendants in the proceedings at issue . Thus the detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW is justified .","In respect of the third defendant , reasons for detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW also exist .","In particular , he is suspected of individual responsibility in the commission of war crimes against the civilian population and arbitrary arrests , ill - treatment and the killing of CARDINAL families PERSON . and T. in a highly brutal manner . The description of the offences [ referred to in the decision on opening of the investigation ] suggests that the circumstances of the offences were particularly serious . The offences were motivated by revenge and ethnic discrimination and were committed in a highly brutal manner against civilians and entire families ... Detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW is therefore justified . \u201d","The applicants appealed against the decision of the investigating judge before a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , arguing that it lacked the relevant reasoning .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the ORG appeals as unfounded , endorsing the reasoning of the investigating judge . In particular it noted the following :","\u201c There is therefore a reasonable suspicion that the defendants committed the offences alleged [ in the decision on opening of the investigation ] and thus the general condition for ordering pre - trial detention under LAW has been met . The impugned decision contains sufficient reasoning as to the existence of a reasonable suspicion , and the appeal arguments , concerning the manner in which the offences were committed or the extent of the criminal wrongdoing relate to something which will be examined during the proceedings . At this stage of the proceedings the existence of a reasonable suspicion is a sufficient condition for ordering pre - trial detention ... and when examining an appeal against the decision ordering detention , the second - instance court is not authorised to examine the facts with regard to the actual existence of the offences at issue or the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator .","The justification for pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in respect of the defendants follows from the material in the case file . In this respect the impugned decision provided relevant and detailed reasons , which this second - instance panel accepts .","...","Furthermore , the appeal arguments that in the case at issue the same purpose of the detention could be achieved by CARDINAL of the alternative measures under LAW can not be accepted ...","On DATE the investigating judge extended the applicants\u2019 detention for a further DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion and gravity of charges ) . He found that some more witnesses needed to be questioned and that some of them had been threatened with regard to their statements in the criminal proceedings at issue . The investigating judge also reiterated the previous findings concerning the gravity of the charges against the applicants .","The applicants appealed against that decision and on CARDINAL DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed their appeals as ill - founded , reiterating its previous arguments .","On DATE the investigating judge extended the applicants\u2019 detention for a further DATE","The applicants challenged that decision , arguing that their continued detention was not justified . On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed their appeals as ill - founded , endorsing the findings of the investigating judge .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , contending that his pre - trial detention was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , endorsing the reasoning of ORG . ORG in particular stressed :","\u201c ORG reiterates its opinion , on which the appellant relies in his constitutional complaint , that the mere existence of a \u2018 reasonable suspicion\u2019 is not sufficient after a certain lapse of time to justify pre - trial detention . It is necessary in such instances , ( even under ) the case - law of ORG [ of Human Rights ] , to ascertain the conditions for a possibility [ of detention ] : a ) the existence of \u2018 relevant and sufficient\u2019 reasons justifying [ the detention ] , and b ) whether the competent criminal justice authorities displayed the necessary diligence in the conduct of the proceedings . ...","Since LAW ) of LAW does not explicitly provide for a legitimate aim of detention , as provided for in the other relevant provisions on detention , it is particularly important that the competent criminal justice authorities correctly establish the necessity of applying LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ...","In view of the findings of ORG , and taking into account the sentence of imprisonment which can be imposed in this specific case , as well as the gravity of the charges , ORG finds that the decisions of the investigating judge and the CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG comply with the relevant opinions and requirements when extending the pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ... \u201d","Following the filing of the indictment against the applicants in ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of that court extended the first applicant \u2019s detention pending trial under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( gravity of charges ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c There is a reasonable suspicion ( and therefore the existence of the general condition for pre - trial detention ) that the accused PERSON and PERSON committed the [ war crimes against the civilian population ] . ...","The second condition [ for detention ] under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW has also been met . This follows from the indictment against the accused PERSON and PERSON , which describes the physical and mental ill - treatment of the detained civilians , who were beaten until they lost consciousness , subjected to such brutality as to cause bodily harm , arbitrary arrests and beatings . [ The accused are suspected of ] shooting and bombing family houses , locking civilians in basements without windows or light , taking civilians to unknown locations and shooting them or killing them with hard or sharp objects , and the killing of the entire PERSON family and part of the PERSON family out of revenge and ethnic discrimination ... Therefore both defendants are suspected of particular cruelty and mercilessness ... , which , in view of the number of [ victims ] and the consequences of such conduct , the impugned offences in their entirety significantly surpass the usual circumstances pertinent to such grave offences . This justifies detention under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in respect of the accused PERSON and PERSON ...","The preventive measures [ under LAW ] , in view of the specific circumstances of the offences at issue , could not achieve the purpose of detention ... \u201d","The first applicant appealed against that decision to ORG ( PERSON ) , challenging the necessity of and the lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for his continued detention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s appeal , upholding the decision of ORG . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c The impugned conduct of both accused , which includes ill - treatment and other extreme forms of inhumane treatment of civilians , and in the case of the accused PERSON also of prisoners of war , some of whom were killed , as well as the failure to prevent such conduct by [ PERSON subordinates ] ... suggests a particularly high level of brutality , mercilessness and unimaginable cruelty . Taking also into account that the seriousness of the impugned conduct of both accused on account of its intensity , recurrence and modality , as well as the period in which it took place , significantly surpasses the usual circumstances and consequences of such offences , which are in themselves particularly grave , [ ORG finds ] that the circumstances of the offence are particularly grave [ justifying detention ] under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The appellate arguments of both accused that the purpose of detention could be achieved by alternative preventive measures can not be accepted ... as there is public interest justifying the restriction of the accused \u2019s right to personal liberty , guaranteed under LAW and LAW . The fact that the impugned offences took place DATE does not diminish their gravity and their moral public condemnation ... In particular , the conclusion as to the existence of particularly grave circumstances [ of the offences ] follows from the specific facts and the conduct with which the accused are charged , and they significantly surpass the usual circumstances related to the commission of such offences .","The appellate arguments challenging the existence of a reasonable suspicion , and the assessment of evidence , are not relevant for the decision on detention , as at this stage of the proceedings the existence of a reasonable suspicion follows from the indictment . The second - instance panel , when examining an appeal against a decision on detention , can not examine the factual findings or the criminal responsibility of the accused . \u201d","The first applicant challenged the decision of ORG by lodging a constitutional complaint with ORG . He argued that his continued detention had been arbitrary and contrary to LAW and the Convention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant\u2019","\u201c ORG accepts the findings of ORG ... that detention is justified by the public interest in the case . ORG correctly stated that the fact that the impugned offences took place DATE does not diminish their gravity or their moral public condemnation ... \u201d","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the first applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( gravity of charges ) , reiterating its previous arguments ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144367","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MARGARETI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;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);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Georgieva;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Prior to his arrest and detention , which gave rise to the case at issue , the applicant worked as a police officer in FAC uprava Osje\u010dko - baranjska ) .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy and abuse of power and authority .","The following day he was brought before an investigating judge ( sudac istrage ) of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) who ordered that he be placed in pre - trial detention ( istra\u017eni zatvor ) for a further DATE under LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion and risk of reoffending ) or , alternatively , released on bail , which was set at CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) . The judge held that the applicant \u2019s detention was necessary because some further physical evidence had to be collected , and in order to prevent him from coordinating his defence with the second suspect , who was still at large . She also considered that there was a risk that the applicant might suborn witnesses and , given and his employment as a police officer , that he might reoffend .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime ( Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta ; hereinafter : the \u201c ORG Attorney \u2019s Office \u201d ) opened an investigation against the applicant and CARDINAL others persons in connection with suspected conspiracy and abuse of power and authority .","The applicant and ORG also lodged appeals against the investigating judge \u2019s decision on the applicant \u2019s detention . The applicant challenged the reasons for his pre - trial detention while the State Attorney \u2019s Office challenged the part of the investigating judge \u2019s decision allowing for the applicant \u2019s conditional release on bail .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG allowed the appeal of ORG and reversed the investigating judge \u2019s decision allowing for the applicant\u2019detaining the applicant was the only way to prevent the risk of collusion and reoffending .","On DATE the same CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant\u2019ate his defence with the second suspect , who was still at large , and that he might interfere with the seizure of further physical evidence and suborn CARDINAL witnesses ( NORP , ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , PERSON and PERSON ) who worked as police officers in FAC . It also endorsed the investigating judge \u2019s finding as to the possibility of the applicant \u2019s reoffending .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG requested the investigating judge to extend the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention on the grounds of the risk of collusion and risk of reoffending , relying on the same grounds on which the applicant had initially been detained .","The investigating judge extended on DATE the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of collusion ) and dismissed the request to extend his detention under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) . She held that there were sufficient reasons to believe that , if at large , the applicant could suborn witnesses and coordinate his defence with the second suspect , who still had not been apprehended . However , the judge found that in the meantime the applicant had been suspended from service and therefore she considered that there was no longer a risk that he might reoffend .","The decision of the investigating judge was upheld by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE .","At a detention hearing on DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG again motioned for the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention . The applicant objected , pointing out that there was sufficient time for the questioning of the witnesses and that it was no longer necessary to keep him in detention .","The investigating judge accepted the request of ORG and extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of collusion ) reiterating the arguments that there was a risk that the applicant might suborn witnesses and coordinate his defence with the second suspect .","The applicant appealed against this decision , and on DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG allowed his appeal and remitted the case to the investigating judge for re - examination but without releasing the applicant from detention . It held that the decision lacked the relevant reasoning as it was not clear whom exactly the applicant might suborn and under what circumstances .","At a detention hearing on DATE the applicant pointed out that his detention depended on the questioning of witnesses whom the State Attorney \u2019s ORG had had sufficient time to question and that there was no reason to believe that he might suborn the second suspect . He also asked the investigating judge to examine the possibility of his conditional release under preventive measures .","The investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s detention for a further DATE under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of collusion ) . She pointed out that in fact it had been necessary to question CARDINAL witnesses ( PERSON , PERSON , T.P. , GPE , GPE , GPE and DATE noted above in paragraph CARDINAL ; and CARDINAL others , ORG and ORG . ) who worked as police officers in FAC and that there was a risk that the applicant might suborn them . However , the judge dismissed the request to keep the applicant in detention on the grounds that he might coordinate his defence with the second suspect , who was still at large , holding that he had given his defence and therefore there was no risk that he might coordinate it with the second suspect . The judge noted that :","\u201c .. all the suspects have given their defence so there is no risk that , if at large , they could coordinate their defences with the second suspect , and the fact that they might be questioned as suspects again during the proceedings is not a reason to extend their detention now under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW with regard to the second suspect ... \u201d","The applicant appealed against that decision , arguing that the investigating judge had failed to show that he might suborn the witnesses .","On DATE at a detention hearing ORG asked the investigating judge to extend the applicant \u2019s detention on the grounds that he might suborn the above - mentioned CARDINAL witnesses ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It also considered , pointing out that a number of witnesses had to be questioned and that a considerable amount of other evidence had to be taken during the investigation , that the investigation had not lasted an unreasonably long time .","The investigating judge accepted the request and extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of collusion ) on the grounds that there was a danger that he might suborn the witnesses . She also considered that the danger of his suborning the witnesses could not be averted by the application of preventive measures .","The applicant appealed against this decision and on DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the investigating judge \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) as ill - founded .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG ( ORG odvjetni\u0161tvo PERSON ) extended the investigation , based on a proposal made by the lower ORG Attorney \u2019s Office conducting the proceedings , for a further DATE on the grounds that it was necessary to question a number of witnesses and take other evidence and to request international assistance in obtaining the relevant information .","At a detention hearing on DATE the applicant contended that there had been sufficient time for ORG to question the witnesses against him and asked the investigating judge to order that the witnesses be questioned without any further delay .","The investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s detention for a further DATE under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of collusion ) reiterating the same reasoning that the applicant might suborn the CARDINAL witnesses referred to above and holding that his detention could not be replaced by preventive measures .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision , arguing that there had been more than sufficient time to question the witnesses and that his detention was no longer reasonable and justified .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request asking the investigating judge to order the State Attorney \u2019s Office to question the QUANTITY witnesses , pointing out that he had already been detained for DATE and that the witnesses had still not been questioned . He also argued that his detention had been ordered and extended only in relation to the questioning of those witnesses and no action had been taken in that respect .","On DATE the investigating judge accepted the applicant \u2019s request and ordered the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG to question the witnesses within DATE . In her order , the judge noted :","\u201c The suspect PERSON has been detained since DATE and his detention was extended [ several times ] based on the decisions of this court .","Bearing in mind that the suspect has been detained for DATE , and that throughout that period the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG has repeatedly relied on the need to question those very witnesses , it is beyond doubt that in the said period those witnesses could have been questioned .","Since in the period at issue the above - mentioned witnesses have not been questioned and the suspect PERSON has been detained [ for the entire time ] it is necessary to question the witnesses promptly . This is because detention is a measure of last resort and as such it must be reduced to a minimum while all procedural actions must be taken without delay .","This judge considers that a time - limit of DATE is sufficient for the questioning of the witnesses since there are CARDINAL of them . \u201d","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision on his detention of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , reiterating the arguments they had used to order the applicant \u2019s detention pending the questioning of the witnesses .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) against the decision of the CARDINAL - judge panel of DATE dismissing his appeal against the decision on his detention of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and against the decision of a CARDINAL - judge panel of CARDINAL DATE dismissing his appeal against the decision on his detention of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant argued that his detention was arbitrary , since although the investigating judge had found that the witnesses could be questioned within DATE , he had been detained on the ground that they needed questioning for DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged a further constitutional complaint against the decision of the CARDINAL - judge panel of DATE dismissing his appeal against the decision on his detention of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , reiterating the same reasoning .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint of DATE inadmissible on the grounds that in the meantime , on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , a new decision on the applicant \u2019s detention had been adopted and that he was no longer detained in connection with the decisions complained of .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint against the decision of the CARDINAL - judge panel of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts .","In the meantime , the State Attorney \u2019s ORG complied with the order of the investigating judge of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and questioned CARDINAL of the CARDINAL witnesses in DATE ( on DATE ) and the remaining one on DATE . On DATE it applied for the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion ) on the grounds that he could coordinate his defence with the second suspect , who was still at large .","On DATE the applicant requested to be released from detention , arguing that no relevant reasons for keeping him in custody existed .","A hearing concerning the applicant \u2019s request was held on DATE , at which the applicant reiterated his arguments and the Deputy ORG Attorney pointed out that the second suspect was still at large and that the prosecuting authorities were doing their utmost to apprehend him . She therefore considered that the applicant should be kept in detention in order to prevent him from coordinating his defence with the second suspect .","The investigating judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for release on the grounds that the applicant could contact the second suspect and that they could coordinate their defences . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c The second suspect is still at large and he has had contact with the fifth suspect , PERSON , which means that the fifth suspect , if released , could get in touch with the second suspect , which would allow them to coordinate their defences and to obstruct the conduct of the proceedings . \u201d","A further detention hearing was held on DATE , at which the applicant pointed out that he had been detained on the sole ground that he might suborn the witnesses , while no other reason , in particular the possibility of his coordinating his defence with the second suspect , had been adduced , and that it was only now , after the witnesses had been questioned , that an extension of his detention was requested on the ground that he might collude with the second suspect . The applicant considered that that was not possible , because according to the available information the second suspect lived in GPE and , given the media coverage of the proceedings at issue , it was unlikely that he would come to GPE . The applicant therefore asked the investigating judge , if she considered that there was a possibility of them contacting each other , to release him on condition that his passport be seized and other preventive measures which would prevent him from contacting the second suspect be applied if necessary .","NORP The investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for a further DATE under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of collusion ) on the grounds that there was a danger that he might contact the second accused . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c As regards the fifth suspect [ PERSON ] and the sixth suspect , the investigating judge finds that a risk of collusion with the second suspect , ORG , who is at large , still exists . The defence arguments that the detention could be replaced by preventive measures and that ORG is a citizen of GPE and has not come to GPE since DATE are of no relevance at this stage of the proceedings . It should be noted that that the suspects at issue were police officers who most certainly knew a lot of people and could therefore easily get in touch with the second suspect , ORG This risk could not be averted by the seizure of their passports , because they could travel to certain countries with their identity cards alone and could easily meet the second suspect somewhere else . The analysis of the telephone conversations shows that the fifth suspect [ PERSON ] previously contacted the second suspect and that therefore he more or less knows where to find him and how to reach him , while the sixth suspect is his colleague and friend , and [ therefore ] they could both get in touch with the second suspect without difficulty . That risk can be averted only by their detention and therefore the conditions under LAW ) of LAW have been met . \u201d","The applicant appealed against that decision and on DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the investigating judge .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against that decision and on DATE ORG dismissed it as ill - founded , endorsing the arguments of the lower courts .","On DATE a detention hearing was held at which the parties reiterated their previous arguments . The investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s detention for a further DATE under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of collusion ) , or alternatively , set bail for his release at HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The judge held that there was a risk that the applicant would contact the second suspect , which warranted his detention . He could , however , be released on bail , the amount of \u2019s personal situation , namely , the fact that he was in employment , owned property and had a family who could support him financially .","The applicant appealed against that decision , arguing that there were no relevant reasons to keep him in detention and that the amount set for bail was excessive .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed his appeal as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the investigating judge .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against that decision with ORG , arguing that the lower courts had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for his detention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention for a further DATE under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion ) and set bail for his release at HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . It held that there was a risk that the applicant might contact the second suspect and that they could coordinate their defences . It also considered that the risk could be averted by the deposit of bail in an amount which corresponded to the circumstances of the offence and the fact that the applicant was employed and had a regular income .","The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG ( PERSON ) , reiterating his previous arguments and asking that his detention be replaced with preventive measures .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of the CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extending the applicant \u2019s detention and remitted the case for re - examination but without releasing the applicant from detention . ORG held that ORG had not given consideration to the possibility of imposing less severe preventive measures on the applicant and that the amount of bail requested for his release had been excessive .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG again extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of collusion ) on the grounds that the applicant could contact the second applicable preventive measures .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s Office indicted the applicant and CARDINAL other persons in ORG on the charges of conspiracy and abuse of power and authority . The State Attorney \u2019s Office also requested that the applicant be kept in detention pending trial .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG challenging the decision of ORG of DATE extending his detention , arguing that ORG had failed to comply with the instructions provided in ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s appeal and , without releasing the applicant from detention , remitted the case to ORG for re - examination on the grounds that the decision of ORG lacked the relevant reasoning .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG released the applicant from detention on condition that he refrain from contacting the second accused and ordered the seizure of his travel documents . It held that the applicant had been detained for DATE whereas it was uncertain when , and indeed if , the second accused would be arrested . It also found that the applicant \u2019s financial situation was not secure , as he was a divorced father of CARDINAL and was without employment or income . Therefore , there were no grounds to request that bail be posted for his release .","The State Attorney \u2019s ORG lodged an appeal against that decision , arguing that the applicant should be kept in detention and on DATE ORG dismissed the appeal as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of ORG .","The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending .","Parallel to the criminal proceedings , on DATE the Chief of the GPE - baranja ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s suspension from duty pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant , represented by a lawyer , challenged that decision before an appeal panel of ORG ( GPE unutarnjih poslova PERSON ) , arguing that there had been no reason for his suspension .","On DATE the appeal panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c The suspension was ordered under LAW ) of LAW , which provides that the minister or a commanding officer , which is in the case at issue the Chief of ORG , can order the suspension of a police officer even before disciplinary proceedings have been opened ... when he or she considers that the breach of duty at issue is of such a nature that keeping the police officer on duty could harm the interests of the service .","...","Taking into account the circumstances of the present case , namely , the reasonable suspicion that the appellant had abused [ his ] power and authority , for which reason he was arrested , this panel considers that the first - instance body correctly and lawfully suspended him from service under LAW of LAW ... \u201d","Through his lawyer the applicant lodged an administrative action against that decision with ORG ( PERSON ) challenging the reasons for his suspension and arguing that the decisions of the lower bodies had not been sufficiently reasoned .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted further written observations on the merits of the case and requested that a hearing scheduled for DATE be adjourned until the applicant \u2019s release from detention .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the absence of the applicant and his representative and dismissed the applicant \u2019s administrative action as ill - founded . It found that the request for the adjournment of the hearing had been no more than an attempt to delay the proceedings and that the applicant \u2019s representative , although duly informed , had failed to appear at the hearing without providing any relevant reasons . As to the merits of the case , ORG noted :","\u201c There is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff was suspended due to a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a grave breach of his official duty .","The dispute between the parties relates to the question of whether the defendant [ had the right to ] suspend the plaintiff from duty on the basis of the reasonable suspicion alone .","... [ T]he fact that the plaintiff has been remanded in custody on a reasonable suspicion that he has committed an offence under LAW ( abuse of power and authority ) justifies the decision of the defendant , because the placing of a police officer in detention for the offence at issue could be damaging for the interests of the service and therefore his suspension is justified . \u201d","Through his lawyer the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( ORG upravni sud PERSON ) and on CARDINAL DATE that court declared his appeal inadmissible on the grounds that ORG had not itself decided on the merits of the applicant \u2019s rights and obligations but only dismissed his administrative action .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a constitutional complaint on behalf of the applicant with ORG , challenging the lower courts\u2019 decisions .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142516","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PEREVEDENTSEVY v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC , a village in LOC .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 son , Mr PERSON ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) , born on DATE , was drafted into the army to perform CARDINAL years\u2019 mandatory military service . He was assigned to military unit no . CARDINAL in the village of Mulino-CARDINAL in LOC of LOC .","The applicants regularly received letters from their son . In those letters he described various abuses that he and his fellow new recruits were suffering at the hands of more senior conscripts ( PERSON ) ( under a system called dedovshchina or \u201c rule of the grandfathers \u201d ) : extortion , beatings , deprivation of sleep , and so on .","In a letter dated DATE PERSON wrote :","\u201c PERSON [ DATE before a recruit is demobilised ] is hard here , guys have paid MONEY each in DATE . I ca n\u2019t imagine where I \u2019m going to get such money ... \u201d","NORP In his next letter ( undated ) he wrote :","\u201c It \u2019s been a nightmare here , the dembels are not being discharged . And we dukhi have our own problems . We are being punished , each of us has to find MONEY [ to be paid ] to the cherpaks . It \u2019s probably going to be like that DATE ... \u201d","In the following letter PERSON wrote :","\u201c The PERSON were offended that I did not bring them vodka and money , and now I do work - outs at TIME for TIME , the sweat is pouring ... \u201d","In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE he wrote :","\u201c Our demobbees have left and tough times have begun . Flying in DATE and working out at TIME . I counted that I slept TIME [ DATE . That is supposed to be a soldier \u2019s sleep per day .... [ No more easy life for us ] , we get bullied DATE , so that it has become a routine , even though I think I \u2019ve got a broken rib [ as ] I can hardly breathe , but they stop us from seeing the medics and they have dislocated my jaw , which creaks like a rusty cart .","... Mum , I \u2019ll wait for you for DATE and then I \u2019ll go on the run on my own , maybe with a friend . I do n\u2019t know , maybe you wo n\u2019t understand , but this will be for the best as the dedy are getting wilder by TIME . \u201d","NORP In a letter dated DATE PERSON wrote :","\u201c Although I \u2019ve left the battery I \u2019m still assigned to it and continue to carry out my stodnevka . I now owe MONEY . The PERSON say that I have to pay off MONEY a month and have given me a deadline of CARDINAL DATE . If I do n\u2019t pay I \u2019ll be in trouble . Mum , I understand that this is a lot of money , but believe me [ when ] I come back home [ I will pay it back ] . \u201d","In a letter dated DATE he wrote :","\u201c The PERSON are waiting for my payment , I borrowed MONEY here and gave them some . I am lucky that I have at least given them some , as some guys here got in trouble , CARDINAL of them are in the medical unit with injuries and the other CARDINAL all have bruises , and our commander can not do anything about it . \u201d","On DATE , at TIME , PERSON was found dead with a noose around his neck .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) instituted criminal proceedings into the death of GPE under LAW ( Incitement to suicide ) . An on - site inspection and an inspection of LOC \u2019s body were carried out .","Also on DATE , sergeant PERSON , GPE \u2019s immediate superior , was questioned . She stated that she was in charge of the guard dogs\u2019 kennels to which GPE had been assigned in DATE . He had been responsible for helping PERSON to take care of the dogs and the LOC . According to PERSON , GPE was only at the kennels during DATE ; from TIME he was at the watch house . GPE was lazy and unreliable , neither too communicative nor too reserved . His behavior was normal ; he never expressed suicidal thoughts or voiced any plans of running away from the military unit . ORG had been told by ORG that he had grown up in a happy , well - to - do family ; he regularly received letters from home . He also regularly received money transfers and parcels from his parents . She knew that he had received over MONEY ( RUB ) for his birthday and RUB CARDINAL recently . PERSON criticised PERSON for asking his parents for money . She was unhappy with GPE \u2019s work , and often told him so . She also warned him that if he did not change his attitude she would ask the commander to send him back to the battery . Yet nothing changed . PERSON again reprimanded PERSON on DATE ] and asked for his GPE telephone number . She noticed that GPE became frightened and asked her why she needed it . She replied that she wanted to inform PERSON \u2019s parents of his attitude to his military service and request them not to send him so much money . PERSON reluctantly gave PERSON mother \u2019s mobile phone number . TIME PERSON telephoned GPE \u2019s mother , the first applicant , told her that GPE was lazy and did not want to work , and asked her not to send him money too often . She also asked ORG mother to come to the military unit to try and influence her son . PERSON arrived at work on TIME of DATE to find that the kennels were once again uncleaned and the dogs unfed . She again reprimanded PERSON and told him about her conversation with his mother . PERSON took her words calmly . PERSON then left on business . On leaving it did not appear to her that GPE was disturbed . She got back at around QUANTITY a.m. The gate to the kennels was locked from the inside . It could be opened from the outside , but a new dog whom PERSON was still afraid of was running loose . She called to GPE , but he did not respond . PERSON thought that PERSON had gone out and started looking for him , but could not find him . She then asked the warrant officer to assign her a soldier to help her catch the dog . Afterwards PERSON entered the kennels and saw GPE with a noose around his neck .","Again on DATE , the commander of the CARDINALnd guards army , general lieutenant PERSON submitted to the commander in chief of ORG , general lieutenant PERSON the following report :","\u201c On DATE at TIME , in the CARDINALth mobile artillery unit of the CARDINALrd mobile artillery division private ORG , was found hanged ....","Facts of the matter : At CARDINAL p.m. private GPE was found hanging under the roof of a wooden shed ... by [ sergeant ] PERSON","At TIME the commander of CARDINALth mobile artillery unit , lieutenant colonel PERSON , reported the incident to the commander of the CARDINALrd mobile artillery division and ORG .","During the inspection of the body by representatives of ORG and forensic medical experts , no abrasions or other injuries were discovered . Amongst [ ORG \u2019s ] personal items was found a letter from [ ORG \u2019s ] friend [ informing the latter ] that his girlfriend had cheated on him .","[ ORG ] received positive references during his military service . However , the results of a psychological examination which was carried out in DATE and DATE showed that the soldier belonged to the third group in respect of psychological stability [ out of CARDINAL , the fourth group being for the least psychologically stable who were at the highest risk for nervous breakdown ] ; [ he ] was reserved , uncommunicative , had no friends among his fellow soldiers . ...","ORG instituted criminal proceedings in connection with [ ORG \u2019s ] death .","On - the - spot inquiries are being carried out by the deputy commander of the educational unit , colonel PERSON","...","The causes of the incident : CARDINAL . The possible reason for [ ORG \u2019s ] death could be suicide resulting from momentary nervous breakdown fuelled by a breakup with his girlfriend .","Serious omissions in the work of the command of the unit in studying the individual features of the soldiers .","Failure to take the necessary measures by the unit officials for the psychological monitoring of soldiers in need of increased psychological and pedagogical care .","Measures taken : CARDINAL . ( Institution of criminal proceedings in connection with [ ORG \u2019s ] death . )","The circumstances and possible causes of the incident reported to [ the command ] .","DATE Additional measures by the deputy commanders of the military units and formations and military psychologists for the detection of soldiers with an increased risk of suicide to be carried out until DATE . \u201d","On DATE a post - mortem examination of ORG \u2019s body was completed . It was established that GPE had died as a result of strangling which could have been caused by the noose submitted for examination . PERSON could have applied the noose himself . He had no traces of any injuries typical of self - defence . PERSON had died CARDINAL to TIME prior to the examination . No alcohol was detected in his body .","On DATE private PERSON , a driver in the military unit , submitted that he had known GPE since DATE when the latter had started working at the kennels . According to him , PERSON was calm , communicative and kindhearted . He had many friends and never complained about his military service . PERSON never told PERSON that he had been subjected to any bullying by other conscripts , but PERSON constantly clashed with sergeant PERSON , who was in charge of the kennels . She always reprimanded GPE for his work even though , in the opinion of PERSON , GPE carried out his work dutifully . In the opinion of PERSON , GPE had committed suicide because of his conflict with sergeant PERSON , who shouted at him every day and had threatened to send him back to the battery and to telephone his mother .","On DATE , ORG , who had been carrying out military service in military unit no . DATE on a contract basis since DATE , submitted that on DATE , at TIME , he had heard loud noise , a crash as if something had fallen , and a woman shouting \u201c You vagabond , not doing what you \u2019ve been told to ... \u201d . The shouting was coming from the kennels . He saw the door open and a soldier come out , followed by a woman shouting ; her right arm was holding a ladle lifted against the soldier . Ogorodov N. then saw the woman hit GPE on the back of his head and throw the ladle at him . He later found out that the woman was the head of the kennels and the soldier was GPE , who later the same day committed suicide by hanging himself .","On DATE sergeant PERSON was questioned again . She submitted that on DATE [ DATE ] she had come at work at CARDINAL a.m. She had instructed GPE to clean the kennels and gone to the commander to discuss the issue of a money transfer which had arrived for GPE The commander told her that GPE would not get any money until his mother telephoned to explain what the money was for . At TIME to the kennels and saw the gate closed and a dog running loose . She then called GPE and asked him to lock up the dog . Then , together with GPE , she entered the kennels and saw that nothing had been done . She asked PERSON what he had been doing , to which the latter replied that she would see his work on DATE . Then she told PERSON that if he continued doing nothing she would send him back to the battery , to which he responded that he would then run away . She knew that he was very afraid of going back to the battery . PERSON then ordered ORG to chop some wood and to clean everything up until DATE , and went home .","On DATE , the statements of the witness ORG were verified at the scene .","Also on DATE , the witness PERSON ( PERSON \u2019s aunt ) submitted that she had seen and read GPE \u2019s letters to the applicants in which he had informed them about the beginning of stodnevka and asked them to send him money . She further submitted that the first applicant had sent PERSON CARDINAL in DATE , RUB MONEY in DATE and RUB CARDINAL at DATE .","Again on DATE , the witness Mr PERSON ( M.P. \u2019s uncle ) submitted that he had known GPE since he was DATE . According to him PERSON was very calm , polite , and communicative ; he did not suffer from any serious illnesses , had had no head injuries and had never been called to account for any administrative or criminal offences . On DATE PERSON had been drafted into the army . In DATE or DATE Mr PERSON had learned from the first applicant that GPE was being subjected to beatings and extortion in the army , but that it was bearable . Later he learned that GPE had been transferred to the kennels , that he felt much better there and was not complaining . Some time went by and then GPE started writing in his letters that money was being extorted from him ; he did not specify by whom . Then there started telephone calls from a mobile phone ; but PERSON did not have a mobile phone ; PERSON asked the first applicant to put credit on the account of the phone he was calling from and also to send him some credit . Once a senior conscript from GPE \u2019s military unit called the first applicant \u2019s mobile phone and asked her to put credit on that telephone account . The first applicant was receiving calls on her mobile phone at all times of DATE and night . In the first applicant \u2019s last telephone conversation with GPE he asked her to send him RUB CARDINAL , which he needed in order to repay a debt and to give RUB MONEY to senior conscripts . On DATE a woman dog handler called the home number of GPE \u2019s grandmother and told her that GPE had broken a radio and that GPE \u2019s family needed to contact a staff officer to settle the issue by reimbursement . On DATE the first applicant tried to contact this woman , but , when she did , the woman did not give her any clear information . The first applicant became very worried . On DATE she tried to contact the command staff , but without success , and became even more worried . On DATE she managed to contact the staff office and was told that GPE had hanged himself . Mr PERSON could not believe it , because GPE had been a normal , even - tempered person .","On DATE PERSON \u2019s personal items were inspected . No money was found among them .","On DATE lance sergeant PERSON . , performing his mandatody military service since DATE and in military unit no . DATE since DATE , submitted that there were CARDINAL senior conscripts in the battery \u2013 sergeant PERSON , private PERSON and private PERSON . , all CARDINAL calm and communicative . He submitted that he had not known of any brutalisation by them of the new recruits . PERSON PERSON . had not known private GPE , as the latter had always been at the kennels , and could not therefore give any impressions of him . He further submitted that he did not know when stodnevka had started for PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . , because it did not affect his military service .","On the same date private PERSON , performing his mandatody military service since DATE and in military unit no . DATE since DATE , submitted that he had known GPE for DATE , after which the latter had been transferred from the battery to the kennels . He characterised GPE as reserved , uncommunicative and calm . He further submitted that he had not witnessed any brutalisation of GPE by senior conscripts PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . , or by any other conscripts . He further submitted as follows :","\u201c On DATE ] stodnevka began for PERSON , PERSON and GPE . PERSON began as usual . We made their beds , whichever of us was free . CARDINAL of them would approach the recruits and tell them to bring them MONEY . They never approached me about money and never demanded money from me . Once when a parcel from home arrived for me , I decided to share it with PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . so that they would not touch me . I took cheese , biscuits and sweets and we ate everything together ; they did not threaten me with any violence . \u201d","PERSON further submitted that GPE would not have wanted to be transferred back to the battery , because he had been reserved and had liked it better at the kennels .","On DATE ( DATE ) , private PERSON , carrying out his mandatory military service in military unit no . DATE since DATE , submitted that in DATE he had had CARDINAL days\u2019 home leave . While at home he bought himself a mobile phone . Upon his return to the military unit he at first used his GPE ORG card , then decided that it was too expensive and decided to buy a local ( GPE Novgorod ) ORG card . He went to lieutenant PERSON , gave him some money and asked him to buy him the local ORG card ; he had got the money from his parents . Lieutenant PERSON bought the card at some time CARDINAL . PERSON used the mobile phone mostly himself and did not tell anyone that he had it for fear that the officers might take it away from him as the soldiers were not allowed to use mobile phones . PERSON had known GPE since DATE . According to him the latter had been reserved , uncommunicative , calm and slightly untidy . They had met at DATE when GPE had invited PERSON for tea at the kennels . The latter had told PERSON that he had a mobile phone and had decided to leave it with GPE so that nobody would see it and steal it . He let PERSON make phone calls home . He also gave his mobile phone to privates PERSON and PERSON He never charged PERSON , Belov NORP or PERSON for calls . At DATE M.P. asked PERSON for the mobile phone to call his mother . He overheard PERSON asking his mother to send him RUB CARDINAL . When PERSON asked GPE why he needed the money , the latter told that he wanted to buy himself a mobile phone . Knowing that stodnevka was beginning , PERSON asked GPE whether he had been subjected to extortion or bullied by anyone , to which he received a negative reply . DATE PERSON received a text message informing him that his mobile phone account had been credited with RUB CARDINAL . Belov NORP told him that it was his sister who had put the money on the account . PERSON also suggested calling his mother to ask her to credit ORG mobile phone account , because he wanted to communicate with his family and friends by text messages . PERSON gave GPE the details of his ORG card . When PERSON asked GPE why he did not want to go back to the battery , the latter answered that he was better off at the kennels and that stodnevka had started in the battery and he did not want to be bullied by the senior conscripts . On DATE PERSON took the mobile phone from GPE On DATE he was going to leave the phone with GPE to charge the battery ; however , he learned from another soldier that GPE had committed suicide . On DATE he received a phone call from an unknown number and a man \u2019s voice asked : \u201c PERSON , is that you ? \u201d , and then \u201c PERSON , is that you ? \u201d Pavlyukovskiy replied to the man that he had the wrong number . The man started threatening him and he hung up . The same man called several more times on DATE . When PERSON answered the man introduced himself as PERSON . Pavlyukovskiy came to the conclusion that he had been calling about PERSON He became frightened and switched off the mobile phone . He subsequently destroyed the ORG card .","Again on DATE , private PERSON , carrying out his mandatory military service in military unit no . DATE since DATE , gave statements identical to the statements of PERSON","Again on DATE , private PERSON , carrying out his mandatory military service since DATE and in military unit no . CARDINAL since DATE , submitted that he had known GPE as reserved , uncommunicative and quiet . Mr Shkola further characterised PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . as calm and communicative and submitted that he did not know of any brutalisation by them of new recruits . He submitted that on CARDINAL DATE stodnevka had started for PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . , but that he had not seen them approaching any new recruits and extorting money from them . He personally had never had money demanded from him . Neither he nor other conscripts in the battery had been subjected to any violence by PERSON , PERSON .","On DATE , private PERSON , carrying out his mandatory military service in military unit no . DATE since DATE , gave statements identical to those given by the witness PERSON","Also on the same date the applicants asked ORG to grant them victim status in the proceedings .","On DATE ORG \u2019s medical record was examined . Lieutenant PERSON and private PERSON , carrying out their mandatory military service in military unit no . DATE since DATE and DATE respectively , were questioned . They gave statements similar to those given by the witnesses PERSON and GPE","On DATE sergeant PERSON was questioned again . She confirmed that she had phoned the first applicant on DATE asking her to come and talk to GPE because he had not been complying with his duties and risked being transferred back to the battery . The first applicant replied that she could not come because she had been feeling unwell . Then PERSON told the first applicant to call the commander and explain the reason for the money transfer made to GPE and that otherwise GPE would not get the money . She further stated that on DATE she had come to work at TIME She had seen that the dogs had been left unfed , and that the kennels had not been cleaned . She had started scolding PERSON and had told him that she had spoken to his mother , that he had squeezed the last money out of his mother and was unwilling to do anything himself . When PERSON had gone outside she had lightly and unintentionally thrown a ladle in his direction . PERSON had not paid any attention to this , and PERSON had gone to the commander to discuss the issue of ORG \u2019s transfer back to the battery .","On DATE the commander of military unit no . CARDINAL , major PERSON , submitted as follows : in DATE private GPE was transferred to the kennels . From DATE sergeant PERSON began complaining that GPE was not complying with his duties . The commander repeatedly spoke to GPE so that the latter might change his attitude to his service duties . PERSON had been receiving money transfers from home in the amount of RUB CARDINAL each time . The last money transfer had been in the amount of RUB CARDINAL . He had personally asked GPE why he needed this money and asked him to get his mother to phone him , to which GPE had replied that he wanted to buy a mobile phone and that his mother would certainly phone . On DATE major PERSON had called for PERSON to find out why his mother had still not contacted him . PERSON replied that she would do so . After that PERSON had not spoken to PERSON and had received no telephone call from the first applicant .","On DATE and CARDINAL March CARDINAL privates PERSON and ORG , carrying out their mandatory military service in military unit no . DATE since DATE , submitted that by the time they joined the battery ORG had already left for the kennels . Their subsequent statements were identical to those given by the witnesses PERSON , ORG and ORG D.","On DATE sergeant PERSON and lance sergeant PERSON . , carrying out their mandatory military service since DATE and in military unit no . DATE since DATE , denied having subjected GPE or any other conscripts to any violence or extortion .","On DATE ORG \u2019s fellow recruits PERSON and PERSON made statements identical to those made by the witnesses PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG","In the meantine , on DATE the investigator in charge refused to grant victim status to the first applicant since the investigation had failed to identify those responsible for her son \u2019s death . No reply followed with regard to the second applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE captain PERSON , who had been carrying out his military service in military unit no . DATE on a contract basis since DATE , submitted that he used to go to the kennels twice DATE to check how GPE was carrying out his military service . It was always dirty there and he made PERSON clean up . He knew from GPE \u2019s fellow recruits that GPE was often reprimanded by the head of the kennels for failure to comply with his duties and forgetting to feed the dogs . He did not know if PERSON had had money extorted from him by PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .","On DATE the head of the medical unit , captain PERSON , submitted that PERSON had never come to the medical unit with any fractures .","On DATE ORG \u2019s fellow recruits , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , made statements identical to those made by the witnesses PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON","On DATE ORG \u2019s fellow recruits PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON made statements identical to those made by the witnesses PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON","On DATE the first applicant was questioned . She submitted that from DATE PERSON had started to complain in his letters that senior conscripts were making him do push - ups at TIME , that he had TIME in DATE , that it had become unbearable in the military unit , and that he was planning to run away . Later PERSON wrote a letter informing the applicants that he had been transferred from the battery to the kennels , and that he was okay . PERSON informed the applicants that on DATE stodnevka had started for senior conscripts and that he had to pay them RUB CARDINAL DATE . For the first payment he had borrowed RUB CARDINAL from another recruit . The first applicant had sent PERSON CARDINAL . In DATE the first applicant sent PERSON CARDINAL,CARDINAL and in DATE RUB CARDINAL . PERSON told her that out of this sum he was planning to pay RUB MONEY to senior conscripts and with the rest of it he was planning to buy a mobile phone . On DATE the first applicant spoke to the woman in charge of the kennels on the phone . The latter informed the first applicant that some soldiers had broken everything at the place where GPE was staying , including a radio . The first applicant replied that she had sent PERSON CARDINAL and that RUB CARDINAL could be taken for the broken radio and the remaining sum given to GPE The first applicant was told that she should contact the commander to resolve the money issue . When she phoned on DATE she was told that ORG had committed suicide . She submitted that she had not complained about the beatings and extortion because PERSON had told her that if she did , the senior conscripts would kill him .","On DATE forensic medical expert PERSON submitted that aside from marks from the strangling there were no injuries of traumatic origin or signs of struggle on GPE \u2019s body","On DATE attesting witnesses PERSON and PERSON . , who had taken part in the on - site inspection and the inspection of GPE \u2019s body , submitted that they had seen no injuries on GPE \u2019s body .","On DATE a post - mortem psychological and psychiatric expert report was drawn up in respect of GPE It established that GPE \u2019s decision to commit suicide could have been influenced by his individual psychological peculiarities , such as immature mental processes , difficulty adapting to new conditions , sensitivity , emotionalism and a tendency to overdramatise events . PERSON had been frightened of going back to the battery because of the more difficult conditions of service there and fears of possible oppression by fellow conscripts . GPE had been in a depressed mood and because of the immaturity of his mental processes he had not been able to constructively resolve the possible problems and had therefore consciously committed an act of autoagression . The experts excluded that GPE could have committed suicide owing to a breakup with a girlfriend or as a result of his conflict with sergeant PERSON","On DATE investigator PERSON of ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings owing to lack of any evidence that a crime had been committed . It was established that GPE had committed suicide of his own accord on account of his individual psychological makeup and for fear of being transferred back to the battery where the conditions of service were more difficult and where he feared oppression by his fellow recruits . The decision relied on the record of the on - site inspection , the record of the inspection of GPE \u2019s body , a forensic medical examination report , the statements of witnesses ORG , PERSON , PERSON and other fellow recruits of GPE , and GPE \u2019s post - mortem psychological and psychiatric report .","In DATE the applicants applied to ORG of FAC ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) seeking the setting aside of the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG held that since those responsible for the applicants\u2019 son \u2019s death had not been identified during the pre - trial investigation , there was no evidence that a crime had been committed and hence no victims .","On DATE ORG of ORG quashed the decision of DATE and referred the matter back to ORG .","On DATE ORG allowed the ORG claim and instructed ORG to grant them victim status in the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with their son \u2019s death .","On DATE ORG of ORG upheld that decision on appeal .","In DATE the applicants asked ORG to provide them with copies of the court decisions regarding the instituting of the criminal proceedings , the granting to them of victim status and the termination of the proceedings .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of ORG refused to enforce the decision of DATE granting the applicants victim status . He justified the refusal on the grounds that the criminal casefile was still with the court and the proceedings had not been resumed .","On DATE the ORG representative asked ORG to send the case file to the applicants .","On DATE the applicants were provided with copies of the decisions on the institution and termination of the criminal proceedings . They were further informed that there was no possibility that the instructions of the court granting them victim status would be enforced , because the criminal case was still with the court and , therefore , criminal proceedings had not been resumed .","On DATE the applicants challenged the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE before ORG .","On DATE ORG granted the applicants\u2019 claim and ordered ORG to quash the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The court held as follows :","\u201c ... As established at the court hearing , by a judgment of DATE , upheld on appeal on DATE , ORG of FAC was ordered to grant [ the applicants ] victim status in the criminal proceedings . However , at the present moment they have not been granted victim status , [ they ] are not acquainted with the material in the case file , [ they ] have had no opportunity to give evidence , to file applications or challenges , or to exercise other powers provided for by the law . [ The aforesaid ] , in the court \u2019s opinion , represents a substantial violation of [ the applicants\u2019 ] rights . For this reason the court considers the decision to drop the criminal proceedings to be unjustified ... \u201d","In DATE the applicants again tried to see the case file , but in vain .","In DATE the case file was submitted to ORG of LOC , and the ORG representative photographed the documents it contained with a digital camera .","On DATE the acting head of ORG of ORG quashed the decision of DATE discontinuing the criminal proceedings . On DATE the criminal investigation into the death of the applicants\u2019 son was resumed .","On DATE the applicants were granted victim status in the proceedings .","On DATE investigator S. of ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings owing to lack of evidence that a crime had been committed . The decision was worded identically to the decision of DATE .","On DATE the deputy head of ORG of ORG quashed the decision of DATE . It found that the investigation was incomplete , the circumstances of the death of the applicants\u2019 son had not been fully investigated , and the decision was unjustified and perfunctory . In particular , the applicants had not been informed of the decision of CARDINAL DATE granting them victim status in the proceedings and they had not been questioned . The criminal proceedings were resumed .","On DATE the applicants were again granted victim status .","On DATE the applicants were informed of the decision of CARDINAL October DATE and were questioned by investigator PERSON . of ORG of ORG .","DATE . On DATE the proceedings were yet again discontinued owing to the absence of any evidence that a crime had been committed . The decision was worded identically to the decisions of DATE and DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150584","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KR\u00c1\u013d v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE , habitually resides in ORG , and is currently detained in the PERSON prison . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL others were charged with aggravated robbery on the basis of the suspicion that , on DATE , as an organised group , they had forcibly entered private forest grounds , inflicted injuries to a guard to which he later succumbed , appropriated CARDINAL tractors and attempted to appropriate a third , and fled the crime scene once it had proved impossible to load the first CARDINAL tractors onto a lorry .","On DATE the applicant and the others were indicted to stand trial on the above charges in ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) . At the same time , a warrant was issued for the applicant \u2019s arrest , which was followed by another similar warrant on DATE .","At an unspecified time , ORG was sent a letter dated DATE which was purportedly written and signed by the applicant , in which the author described what may be surmised to be the applicant \u2019s version of events . The charges against the applicant were denied \u2012 their factual basis , in particular , being disputed \u2012 and it was alleged that the applicant had gone into hiding out of fear for his life . In his submission to the ORG , the applicant has denied the authenticity of this document .","On DATE the decision was taken that the applicant , who was still missing , should be tried in his absence ( konanie proti u\u0161l\u00e9mu ) .","DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings at which it took and assessed complex written , oral and expert evidence , including a pre - trial deposition by CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s coaccused ( A. ) incriminating the applicant . The applicant \u2019s court - appointed lawyer inspected the case file on her own initiative and attended all but the first of these hearings .","Following the hearing of DATE , on DATE ORG found the applicant and his coaccused guilty .","The pre - trial deposition of A. was instrumental in establishing the guilt of the applicant and he was sentenced for DATE and a half years\u2019 imprisonment .","All parties appealed ( odvolanie ) to ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) .","In the applicant \u2019s case , his lawyer appealed on his behalf , arguing inter alia that the first - instance court had failed to take any notice of the applicant \u2019s letter of DATE , that A. was not a credible witness , that CARDINAL of the remaining co - accused had merely presumed that the applicant had been present at the crime scene , and that the other CARDINAL had not seen him there .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer also filed observations in reply to the appeal by the prosecution , in which she addressed the evidentiary situation and submitted that they had misconstrued it to the applicant \u2019s disadvantage .","ORG heard the appeals on DATE , in the presence of the applicant \u2019s lawyer . Following the hearing , on DATE , it corrected certain technical errors in the first - instance judgment and reduced the applicant \u2019s sentence to CARDINAL and DATE on the grounds that , combined with a previous sentence , the penalty imposed by ORG was in excess of that permitted by statute .","On DATE ORG issued a warrant against the applicant for the enforcement of his sentence and ordered that he be taken to prison .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE and on DATE was remanded by ORG ( PERSON ) pending extradition to GPE in connection with the above proceedings and conviction .","On DATE the Minister of Justice of GPE allowed the applicant \u2019s extradition but at the same time suspended its implementation pending the outcome of unrelated criminal proceedings against him in GPE and , potentially , the service of his sentence imposed in those proceedings .","Later in DATE the NORP courts found the applicant guilty and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , following which a new decision was taken to suspend his extradition to GPE pending service of this sentence .","According to the applicant , DATE and DATE \u2012 while still detained in GPE \u2012 he had asked the NORP prison authorities CARDINAL times to provide him with NORP criminal legislation , but to no avail . In support of this allegation , he submitted CARDINAL original handwritten requests . These indicate neither any addressee nor anything to show that they were actually submitted and duly received .","On DATE the applicant requested that he be served with a copy of the firstinstance judgment . So he was , on DATE , albeit with no instructions ( pou\u010denie ) regarding any possible remedies available to him in the specific circumstances of his case .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant made a submission to ORG formulated as an appeal , only to have it dismissed by ORG on DATE as out of time .","In that respect , ORG observed that the applicant had been convicted in his absence , that the conviction had become final and binding and that , under LAW applicable at that time ( PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended - \u201c the DATE ORG \u201d ) , persons convicted in their absence by a final and binding judgment had no right of appeal .","At the same time , ORG noted that the applicant was at liberty to assert his rights by way of an application for a complaint in the interest of the law ( s\u0165a\u017enos\u0165 pre poru\u0161enie z\u00e1kona ) to be lodged on his behalf by ORG or the Minister of ORG and by a request for reopening of proceedings ( obnova konania ) .","According to the applicant , a written version of ORG decision of DATE was not served on him until DATE .","However , according to a postal delivery confirmation slip submitted by the Government , which bears the applicant \u2019s signature , that decision was served on and received by him on DATE .","On DATE the applicant made a request for reopening of proceedings under LAW applicable at that time ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended \u2012 \u201c DATE ORG \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which he and his lawyer amended on DATE and DATE , respectively . They submitted that the applicant had only learned about the events underlying the charges from television reports ; that he had not been present at the crime scene ; that at the request of CARDINAL of his associates he had only acted as a lookout nearby ; that at the time of the impugned events he had not known the remaining CARDINAL co - accused ; that they had implicated him to serve their own interests ; and that he had left GPE in fear for his life after he had learned that CARDINAL of his co - accused had been planning to \u201c take out \u201d a witness .","In addition , the applicant submitted that at no stage of the proceedings had he been heard , and that although legal representation was mandatory , he had had none at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings , which was in violation of his right to a fair trial under LAW .","Moreover , he argued that the sentence had been disproportionate to his actual involvement , and that the submissions of A. made at pre - trial stage should be reexamined before a court .","In terms of new evidence , the applicant identified a fresh witness and asked that he undergo polygraph testing , and he requested a face - to - face confrontation ( konfront\u00e1cia ) with the other co - accused .","The request was dismissed by ORG in a public session ( verejn\u00e9 zasadnutie ) held on DATE and , following the applicant \u2019s interlocutory appeal ( s\u0165a\u017enos\u0165 ) , by ORG on DATE .","Both courts noted that the applicant was serving a DATE sentence in GPE , which was why he could not be present in person . Under the applicable statutory rules , a reopening of proceedings would be warranted only if there was new evidence that could bring about a different outcome . Although the applicant \u2019s testimony would constitute evidence which was new , in view of the evidential situation as a whole , no other outcome could be expected .","The courts also concluded that , since the witness identified by the applicant had refused to give evidence at the original trial , his testimony did not constitute new evidence , nor would there be any new evidence as a result of the face - to - face confrontation . Moreover , results of polygraph testing were not recognised as evidence under DATE ORG .","Lastly , it was not new to the court that the applicant had lacked legal representation at the pre - trial stage . However , any objection in this respect should have \u2012 but had not \u2012 been raised by his ORG - appointed lawyer at the trial stage and on appeal .","There were therefore no grounds for reopening the proceedings .","Meanwhile , the applicant \u2019s conviction and sentencing by the NORP courts had been recognised in GPE with a view to having the applicant serve the remainder of his sentence there .","The applicant \u2019s extradition was implemented and he was actually transferred to GPE on DATE .","NORP The NORP courts then commuted the DATE sentence imposed on the applicant in GPE to two years and DATE because , in combination with the DATE sentence previously imposed in GPE , the overall penalty was in excess of that permitted by statute .","NORP The applicant is now serving the reduced sentence in GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under LAW of LAW ( Constitutional Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) . At the same time , he requested that a legal - aid lawyer be appointed to represent him .","As for the substance , the applicant relied on LAW and challenged the dismissal of his request for reopening of proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) arguing that he had never been heard , that he had not had legal representation at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings \u2012 despite such representation being mandatory \u2012 and that the principle of equality of arms had been disregarded .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible , essentially relying on its doctrine that the application of a statute in judicial proceedings in a manner consistent with the applicable procedural rules can not amount to a violation of fundamental rights and freedoms . The complaint was thus manifestly ill - founded and there was no purpose in examining the applicant \u2019s legal - aid request .","On an unspecified date the applicant also requested protection of his rights by means of an appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) to be lodged on his behalf by the Minister of ORG .","In a letter of DATE the Ministry informed him that his case was not amenable to the temporal application of the rules of the DATE ORG on appeals on points of law and that , therefore , no such appeal was available .","The applicant also requested leave to appeal against the judgment of DATE outside the time - limit . His request was dismissed by ORG as unfounded on DATE .","Article CARDINAL reads :","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG shall decide on complaints by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court .","If ORG finds a complaint to be justified , it shall deliver a decision stating that the person \u2019s rights or freedoms as set out in paragraph CARDINAL have been violated by a final decision , specific measure or other act and shall quash that decision , measure or act . If the violation that has been found is the result of a failure to act , ORG may order [ the authority ] which has violated the [ person \u2019s ] rights or freedoms to take the necessary action . At the same time it may remit the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings , order that authority to refrain from violating the [ person \u2019s ] fundamental rights and freedoms ... or , where appropriate , order those who have violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph CARDINAL to restore the situation to that existing prior to the violation .","In its decision on a complaint , ORG may grant appropriate financial compensation to a person whose rights under paragraph CARDINAL have been violated .","The liability for damage or other loss of a person who has violated the rights or freedoms as referred to in paragraph CARDINAL shall not be affected by ORG decision . \u201d","The implementation of the above provision of LAW is set out in more detail in sections CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) . Pursuant to its section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) :","\u201c A constitutional complaint shall be lodged within DATE from the date on which the decision in question has become final and binding or on which a measure has been notified or on which a notice of other interference has been given . As regards the measures and other interferences , the above period shall commence when the complainant could have become aware of them . \u201d","The relevant provisions of DATE ORG are summarised in PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) .","DATE ORG entered into force on DATE and wholly replaced the DATE ORG .","Under LAW submissions are always to be interpreted according to their content even if they have been given a misleading or erroneous heading . A similar provision existed under DATE ORG ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The rules concerning proceedings against absent defendants are contained in Section ( Oddiel ) CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) in Part CARDINAL ( \u010cas\u0165 ) .","Under these rules , convicted fugitives have the right to request , within a period of DATE from the date on which they learned of their prosecution or conviction , but in any event within the applicable period of limitation , that their case be re - examined ( op\u00e4tovn\u00e9 prejednanie ) by a court in their presence ( LAW ) .","If these conditions are met , the previous decision must be quashed and the case re - examined on the basis of the original bill of indictment ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Requests for reopening of proceedings are governed by the provisions of LAW CARDINAL in Part CARDINAL .","In particular , an order to reopen proceedings concluded with the force of final and binding judgment may be issued if there emerge facts or evidence not known to the court in the original trial which \u2012 either in themselves or in conjunction with facts and evidence known to the court at the original trial \u2012 may result in a different decision as to the accused \u2019s guilt or render the punishment imposed manifestly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence or the circumstances of the offender ( LAW ) .","In a decision of DATE in appeal no . PERSON , ORG held that if a criminal trial against an absent defendant ended with a final and binding judgment , the guilty party had no right to have the judgment served on him or her and that , if he or she challenged that judgment by way of an appeal , the appeal was to be rejected as out of time .","In a judgment of DATE in case no . III . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG found that a criminal court had breached LAW ( b ) and ( c ) of the LAW in that it had tried and convicted the complainant in absentia without having properly established whether or not he could be considered a fugitive .","ORG quashed the conviction , remitted the case to the criminal court for re - examination , ordered the complainant \u2019s immediate release , and awarded him compensation .","As regards the statutory DATE period for introducing a complaint , ORG held specifically that this period may only commence once the contested decision has been properly served on the complainant and that , as long as this is not the case , the period may not commence ( see decision of DATE published in ORG of ORG under no . PERSON and also the admissibility decisions of DATE and DATE in unrelated cases nos . III . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and III . \u00daS DATE ) .","In the context of complaints about judicial proceedings , ORG has \u2012 when determining compliance with the twomonth time - limit under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW \u2012 consistently considered irrelevant the dismissal of ORG requests for an extraordinary appeal to be filed on their behalf . It has instead held the date of the final effect of the contested judicial decisions to be relevant in that context ( see , for example , decision of CARDINAL DATE in the case no . GPE . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , with further references ) . A similar approach is taken with respect to terminated proceedings in relation to which a request for reopening which has been dismissed ( see decision of DATE in the case no . II . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168375","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF P\u00d6NK\u00c4 v. ESTONIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE ORG in GPE convicted the applicant of murder . In the criminal proceedings PERSON was heard as a witness . In its judgment the domestic court dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument that he had shot the victim in self - defence . The applicant was subsequently transferred to GPE to serve his prison sentence .","On DATE V. , the owner of the apartment where the applicant had committed the crime brought a civil action against the applicant before ORG . He claimed compensation for damage caused as a consequence of the offence ( damaged chair which had been hit by the bullet , damaged or lost belongings ( mostly various items used to wrap parts of the victim \u2019s cut up body ) , damaged flooring after the police had cut out a piece of parquet with a bullet mark to serve as evidence , a lock cylinder removed for evidence , cleaning bills , unpaid utility bills ) in the amount of CARDINAL kroons ( EEK ) ( corresponding to MONEY ( EUR ) ) . The plaintiff submitted to the court documentary evidence ( material from the criminal case , photos , invoices , inventory list of the apartment attached to the contract between ORG and the victim ) in support of his claims .","On DATE ORG ruled that the action was accepted for proceedings and that the case was to be dealt with in simplified proceedings ( lihtsustatud menetlus ) under LAW ORG ) ( ORG seadustik ) . It also explained to the parties that if they wished to be heard , they would have to notify the court within DATE of the date of receiving the decision . The applicant was asked to provide the court with a written reply to the action .","On DATE the applicant informed ORG in writing that he did not object to accepting the action for proceedings but he contested the claim , arguing that he had not damaged or destroyed the items in question . He further contended that he had not committed murder but had shot the victim in self - defence ; in so far as the alleged damage related to the collection of evidence , it had been caused by the police ; the claims were unsubstantiated in part . He requested examination of the case at a court hearing and asked that he and CARDINAL witnesses ( T. and PERSON and NORP forensic experts ) be summoned and questioned in court . He stated that he wished to explain that he had not caused the damage and had acted in self - defence . As to the witnesses , he also wished them to give evidence about his acting in self - defence .","On DATE plaintiff PERSON replied in writing to the applicant \u2019s submissions , stating that he did not deem it necessary for the applicant to be present in person at the court hearing . He asked the court to dismiss the applicant \u2019s request for the summoning of witnesses , as these individuals would be unable to give testimony about the items in the apartment or their value , and their statements could not refute the findings of a final court decision . He also submitted additional evidence to the court ( a photo of CARDINAL of the items in question ; a bank statement about the payment of utility bills ; price lists to prove the cost of another damaged item and the cost of cleaning services ) .","On DATE ORG ruled that the case was to be examined in written proceedings ( kirjalik menetlus ) under LAW ORG . The court noted the plaintiff \u2019s agreement to the case being examined in written proceedings and that the applicant wished to be heard . It then went on to explain that under LAW ORG a written procedure could be applied when the amount of the claim was under CARDINAL kroons ( EUR CARDINAL ) and a party \u2019s appearance in court was significantly hindered by a long distance or for any other good reason . It gave the parties a thirtyday time - limit from the date of receipt of the decision for making any written submissions . No appeal lay against this decision .","No submissions were made to the court within DATE time limit .","By a judgment of DATE ORG adjudicated the case in simplified and written proceedings . The court noted in its judgment that it had also examined the material pertinent to the related criminal case and relied as documentary evidence on the statements made by T. in the criminal proceedings . Relying on the judgment in the criminal case , ORG considered it established that the applicant had not acted in self - defence when he killed the victim . Based on the material of the criminal case as well as documentary evidence submitted by ORG , ORG accepted PERSON \u2019s claim in part , that is in the amount of EEK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL , which amounted to PERCENT of the initial claim ) . The court found on the basis of the applicant \u2019s submissions that accepting the claim was not justified in so far as it concerned the lock cylinder , unpaid utility bills and certain allegedly damaged items . It was noted in the judgment that an appeal lay to ORG and that the appeal could be examined in a written procedure unless examination at a court hearing had been requested in the appeal .","On DATE the applicant filed an appeal against ORG judgment . He complained that , although he had requested an oral hearing before ORG , no hearing had been held . He had therefore been deprived of an opportunity to be examined and to explain his position , according to which he had caused no unlawful damage to the plaintiff \u2019s property . He relied on LAW and also referred to persons whose examination he had requested . He challenged ORG reliance on the criminal court \u2019s judgment and claimed that in a civil case it should be possible to challenge facts established in a criminal case .","On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant \u2019s appeal . It noted that ORG had examined the case in simplified proceedings ( lihtmenetlus ) . In such circumstances , ORG could only accept an appeal for examination if ORG in its judgment had granted leave to appeal or a provision of substantive or procedural law had clearly been incorrectly applied or it was clear that the evidence had been wrongly assessed and this could have significantly influenced the court \u2019s ruling . ORG had not granted leave to appeal . ORG did not find that in the case at hand it could be said that ORG had clearly incorrectly applied a provision of substantive or procedural law or clearly wrongly assessed the evidence or breached the right to be heard ( \u00e4rakuulamise \u00f5igus ) . ORG had examined the matter under LAW ORG in simplified proceedings . Pursuant to LAW ORG , in such proceedings the court had to guarantee that the fundamental rights and freedoms and the essential procedural rights of the parties were observed and that the parties were heard ( kohus kuulab menetlusosalise \u00e4ra ) if they so requested . However , for that it was not necessary for a court hearing ( kohtuistung ) to be conducted . On DATE ORG had ruled that the case was to be examined in written proceedings and had given the parties an opportunity to make written submissions . The applicant had thus been guaranteed an opportunity to present his position to the court . ORG further noted that the applicant had not objected under LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG to ORG decision of DATE whereby the court had ordered that the case be examined in simplified proceedings and requested the applicant to make his submissions in writing . Pursuant to LAW and LAW ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) ORG could not therefore consider these arguments in the appellate proceedings . ORG concluded that there was no legal basis for it to accept the applicant \u2019s appeal for examination .","The applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision , arguing that by refusing to allow him a hearing ORG had clearly violated procedural law and LAW .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided not to examine the appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164197","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF J\u00d3ZEF WO\u015a v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME on DATE the applicant and his wife went by car from their home to another village . The applicant \u2019s wife was driving . The car had been borrowed from the applicant \u2019s friend . On a narrow section of the road they saw a police car trying to stop another car . The applicant \u2019s wife , who apparently considered it an unsafe place to stop other cars , overtook the police vehicle and sounded the horn , though she claims to have done this by accident .","While being overtaken , the police officers noticed that the car driven by the applicant \u2019s wife had no left rear light and that its rear registration plate was not lit . They decided to stop the car to inspect it .","They overtook the applicant and his wife , stopped the car and requested the relevant documents . They considered that the registration document of the car was partly illegible . According to the applicant , he read the contents of the registration document aloud to the officers . They tried to contact the PERSON police station to confirm the identity of the driver but to no avail . The applicant and his wife spent TIME in the car at the side of the road . He then requested that they all drive to the police station because he wanted to speak to the ORG supervisor . They all drove to the police station in GPE , but there was no one there , so the police officers continued the inspection on the street outside .","They found that , apart from the light that did not work , the fire extinguisher in the car was too small . They wanted to fine the applicant \u2019s wife MONEY ( PLN ) . The applicant then told her : \u201c do not sign anything for those beggars \u201d ( \u201c Nie podpisuj nic tym dziadom \u201d ) . The officers felt offended and CARDINAL of them told the applicant that he would be arrested for insulting police officers .","According to the applicant , by that time the \u201c routine \u201d inspection had already lasted for TIME , and he and his wife were getting nervous . His wife began to cry because the officers wanted to take her to the police station for questioning . The policemen repeated \u201c this will cost a lot \u201d each time they found a fault with the car . He therefore considered that they wanted him to bribe them and referred to them as \u201c beggars \u201d . According to the applicant , he was trying to defend his wife who , after TIME of intervention , was very anxious and upset . The officers claimed that the applicant had been disturbing their routine activities . As established by the domestic courts in the set of proceedings against the police officers , when CARDINAL of the police officers had told the applicant that he would be arrested , the applicant pushed the police officer and started to run away .","As established by the domestic courts in the set of proceedings against the applicant , on the basis of the testimony of the policemen , after the comment made by the applicant the police officers tried to apprehend him , however he resisted arrest and moved a few steps back . Officer PERSON then forcefully put the applicant onto the ground and pressed down on him with his knee . The applicant continued to resist and try to get away and then kicked PERSON several times in his left leg . The other officer , PERSON , then used pepper spray against him . When the applicant calmed down he was handcuffed .","NORP The applicant was subsequently taken to the police station . His wife informed the policemen that her husband had heart problems , so they called an ambulance . The doctor who came to the police station considered that the applicant needed to be examined in a hospital so he was taken to PERSON . After examination he was placed in police custody ( PERSON ) . He was released DATE . Apparently after his release he was examined again in a hospital in GPE .","The relevant notes from the hospitals , in so far as they were legible , contained the following information .","Notes by ORG on DATE read :","\u201c Skin bruising on the right hand . ORG burn to the right eye . \u201d","A document dated DATE confirming the applicant \u2019s release from ORG read :","\u201c He claims that DATE he was beaten up by the police officers who used pepper spray on him . Skin bruising on the right hand , chemical burn to the right eye , reddish conjunctivitis in the right eye . \u201d","The applicant also submitted a copy of a medical certificate requesting that he be examined by an ophthalmologist , because of \u201c burns from pepper spray \u201d . The note was marked \u201c urgent \u201d but bore no date .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about his arrest with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . He submitted that he had been apprehended by force and put onto the ground , that the police had used a whole container of pepper spray and that he had many scratches and bruises . He had been released from the police custody facility at TIME and let out by the back door without a jacket or any money . He had had to walk until he had found a taxi driver who had agreed to give him a lift and call his wife , who had apparently been waiting at the police station since TIME and had had no idea that he had been released and let out by the back door .","On DATE ORG refused to allow the applicant \u2019s complaint . It found that in his complaint he had presented \u201c his own version of events \u201d and that his arrest had been lawful because \u201c although there was no fear that he might go into hiding there was a reasonable suspicion that he might influence the testimony of a witness to the events in question \u201d . The court also considered that at the moment of the arrest there were grounds to suspect the applicant of having committed the offence referred to in LAW and there were grounds to bring proceedings against him in an expedited manner .","Having examined the grounds , legality and appropriateness of the applicant \u2019s arrest , the court found no shortcomings . It appears that the court did not hear evidence from any witnesses ; it based its findings on a note made by the police and the arrest and examination records .","The court did not refer to the applicant \u2019s allegations as regards the use of excessive force by the police .","On DATE the police lodged an indictment against the applicant with ORG . He was charged with offending police officers on duty and breaching the personal inviolability of a police officer by kicking him . On DATE in his reply to the bill of indictment , when describing the \u201c kicking \u201d he stated that these could have been involuntary movements as he had been pushed to the ground and pressed down on with a police officer \u2019s knee and pepper spray had been directed into his face . He submitted that he had not intended to hit anybody .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and conditionally discontinued the proceedings against him . The court held that in his statements the applicant had not actually denied kicking the police officer PERSON as he could not rule out that he had made the movements with his legs involuntarily , without the intention of hitting anybody . He was also ordered to pay PLN CARDINAL to charity and the costs of the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant appealed . He submitted that he did not feel guilty ; on the contrary , he had been a victim . He also considered that he could not have violated anybody \u2019s personal inviolability because he had been pressed against the ground and CARDINAL officers had been sitting on his back trying to handcuff him .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings , finding that the prohibited acts committed by the applicant had not constituted offences because the resulting harm to the public was insignificant ( znikoma szkodliwo\u015b\u0107 spo\u0142eczna czynu ) .","On DATE the applicant reported the QUANTITY police officers who had arrested him on DATE to ORG for abuse of power .","On DATE ORG opened an investigation into their alleged abuse of power .","On DATE the applicant and his wife were questioned . On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor questioned officers PERSON and PERSON","On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation , finding that no offence of abuse of power had been committed . Referring to the relevant provisions of domestic law , in particular LAW , the prosecutor found that the police had had the right to use force because \u201c the applicant had not obeyed their orders , had behaved nervously and had tried to run away \u201d .","The applicant appealed . He argued , among other things , officers had apprehended him for no legal reason . The applicant admitted that he had been nervous because of the inspection which had lasted for TIME , but considered that this could not have been the basis for his arrest . He further submitted that the officers had used excessive force , inappropriate in the circumstances ; they had put him onto the ground with his face down and had sat on his back and used pepper spray to incapacitate him . He had had injuries afterwards and had to take over a DATE \u2019s sick leave . He also referred to the circumstances of his release from the police station and the fact that his wife , who had been waiting there for him , had not been informed that he had left by the back door .","On DATE ORG upheld the challenged decision discontinuing the investigation . It found that the applicant had again repeated his version of events which the prosecutor had found not to be credible . The court did not refer in any way to his submissions as regards his injuries . It found that the \u201c circumstances of the applicant \u2019s arrest [ had already been ] examined because the applicant had complained about his arrest and his complaint [ had been ] dismissed \u201d . The court further held that \u201c it had been reprehensible not to have informed the applicant \u2019s wife of the applicant \u2019s release but this had not constituted any offence \u201d ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145108","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MANDI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["PERSON and Mr PERSON are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively . Mr PERSON is a citizen of GPE and GPE who was born in DATE . Mr PERSON is a citzen of GPE and a national of GPE who was born in DATE . All the applicants live in GPE .","Mr PERSON was represented before the ORG by PERSON NORP GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , ORG .","ORG , having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) , indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right .","The applicants or their spouses were officers of the JNA , the armed forces of the former ORG ( \u201c the SFRY \u201d ) . The present case concerns their attempts to repossess their pre - war flats in GPE .","Practically all flats in the former SFRY were part of the system of \u201c social ownership \u201d . They were generally built by socially owned enterprises or other public bodies for allocation to their employees , who became \u201c occupancy right holders \u201d . All citizens of the SFRY were required to pay a means - tested contribution to subsidise housing construction . However , the amount an individual had contributed was not amongst the legal criteria taken into account with regard to waiting lists for the allocation of such flats .","On DATE JNA members were offered the opportunity to purchase their flats at a discount on their market value ( see FAC DATE , Zakon o stambenom obezbje\u0111ivanju u NORP narodnoj armiji , ORG of the SFRY no . CARDINAL ) . DATE the applicants , or their spouses , were allocated military flats in GPE which they later purchased under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE .","On DATE GPE suspended the sale of military flats on its territory ( see the Suspension on GPE DATE , ORG o privremenoj zabrani prodaje stanova u dru\u0161tvenoj svojini , ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The LAW was respected in what is today the Federation of Bosnia and GPE , and those who had purchased military flats located in that Entity could not register their ownership and remained , strictly speaking , occupancy right holders ( a purchase contract does not of itself transfer title to the buyer under domestic law ) .","When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicants , or their spouses , continued their military careers in the FAC forces and left GPE . They were thereafter allocated tenancy rights of unlimited duration on military flats in GPE , which some of them even purchased later .","During the war , the local armed forces ( namely , the ORG , ORG and ORG forces ) assumed nominal control of all non - privatised military flats on the territory under their respective control ( ORG o preuzimanju sredstava biv\u0161e Socijalisti\u010dke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije u svojinu PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; ORG o preuzimanju vojnostambenog fonda JNA , Official PERSON of the Republika Srpska no . CARDINAL ; PERSON o sredstvima i finansiranju NORP PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; ORG o utvr\u0111ivanju namjene i preno\u0161enju prava upravljanja i kori\u0161tenja sredstvima biv\u0161e Socijalisti\u010dke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije , PERSON , a koja se nalaze na podru\u010dju PERSON i ORG ; ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Although on DATE those forces merged into the armed forces of GPE , non - privatised military flats are still under the nominal control of the Entities .","A more detailed background concerning socially owned flats , military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE is provided in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s husband , a JNA officer , was allocated a military flat in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full price in the amount of MONEY .","When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicant \u2019s husband continued his military career in the FAC forces .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband applied to the competent domestic authorities to have the flat in GPE restored to him . After her husband \u2019s death , the applicant continued those proceedings ( in accordance with LAW , which is still in force , spouses share occupancy rights ) .","On DATE ORG GPE allocated the flat to ORG , a member of the ORG forces .","Following CARDINAL remittals on procedural grounds , on DATE the application for restitution was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG .","On DATE the competent ORG upheld the first - instance decision of DATE . On DATE , following an application for judicial review , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) upheld the second - instance decision .","On DATE the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE .","It would appear that the applicant has not applied for compensation under section DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the applicant , a JNA medical officer , was allocated a military flat in GPE .","On DATE the applicant bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full purchase price in the amount of MONEY .","When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , he continued his military career in the FAC forces and left GPE . His military service was terminated in DATE .","On DATE ORG GPE allocated the flat to ORG , a member of the ORG forces .","On DATE the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE . On DATE he purchased that flat .","On DATE the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat in GPE .","Following CARDINAL remittal on procedural grounds , on DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section QUANTITY of ORG .","On DATE the competent ORG upheld the first - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG , following an application for judicial review , upheld the second - instance decision of DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for extraordinary review of that judgment ( zahtjev za vanredno preispitivanje sudske odluke ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against ORG decision .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) rejected his appeal as incompatible ratione materiae since it held that ORG decision had not involved an examination of the substance of the applicant \u2019s claims but only of whether the procedural requirements for an extraordinary review of ORG judgment had been met .","On DATE the restitution commission set up by Annex CARDINAL to ORG , before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings , held that the applicant was neither a refugee nor a displaced person within the meaning of Annex CARDINAL and declined jurisdiction . On DATE the restitution commission rejected the applicant \u2019s request for reconsideration of his claim .","On DATE ORG , following an application for judicial review , quashed the decisions of DATE and DATE and remitted the case for reconsideration . In the meantime , however , the restitution commission had ceased to exist and its cases were taken over by the competent municipal housing authority . It would appear , however , that no decision was taken as regards the applicant \u2019s request following remittal .","It would appear that the applicant has not applied for compensation under section DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the applicant , a JNA officer , was allocated a military flat in GPE .","On DATE he bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full price in the amount of MONEY .","When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicant continued his military career in the FAC forces .","On DATE ORG GPE allocated the flat to ORG , a member of the ORG forces .","On DATE the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE , GPE . On DATE he purchased that flat .","On an unknown date he applied to the competent domestic authorities to have his flat in GPE restored to him . On DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision of DATE . It would appear that the applicant did not appeal against that decision .","On DATE the restitution commission set up by Annex CARDINAL to ORG , before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings , held that the applicant was neither a refugee nor a displaced person within the meaning of Annex CARDINAL and declined jurisdiction . On DATE the restitution commission rejected the applicant \u2019s request for reconsideration of his claim .","It would appear that the applicant has not applied for compensation under section DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the applicant , a JNA officer , was allocated a military flat in GPE .","On DATE the applicant bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full price in the amount of MONEY .","When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , he continued his military career in the FAC forces . His military service was terminated in DATE .","On DATE ORG GPE allocated the flat to PERSON , a member of the ORG forces .","DATE . On DATE the applicant applied to the competent domestic authorities to have his flat in GPE restored to him . Following CARDINAL remittals on procedural grounds , on DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision . On DATE , following an application for judicial review , ORG upheld the second - instance decision .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal and upheld the impugned decisions .","On an unknown date the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE .","It would appear that he has not applied for compensation under section DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE all purchase contracts concluded under LAW DATE were declared void ( Zakon o preuzimanju sredstava biv\u0161e ORG u svojinu PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Thereafter , the legislation regulating this matter , ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , ORG and Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) and ORG ( Zakon o prestanku primjene PERSON o napu\u0161tenim stanovima , Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , FAC , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , underwent numerous changes and all such contracts were declared legally valid . However , CARDINAL categories of buyer are not entitled to repossess their flats and to register their title to them ( see section DATE of the Privatisation of Flats Act DATE and section CARDINAL of ORG . The first category concerns those who served in foreign armed forces after the DATE - CARDINAL war . The second concerns those who acquired occupancy or equivalent rights to a military flat in a successor ORG of the SFRY , like the present applicants . However , they are now entitled to compensation under section ORG . While the compensation had initially been envisaged as the refund of the amount paid for the flats in DATE plus interest at the rate applicable to overnight deposits , on DATE ORG ( decision no . U CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) declared that method of determining the amount of compensation unconstitutional and ordered ORG to amend it in line with ORG cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and DATE ) .","For a more detailed analysis of the relevant domestic law and practice and of the relevant international documents , see PERSON ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) and PERSON and Others ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","It has no longer been possible to acquire occupancy rights in GPE since DATE ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , Zakon o stanovanju , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL ) . Instead , current and retired members of the armed forces and current and retired staff of ORG have thereafter been entitled to equivalent tenancy rights of unlimited duration on military flats or , in case of a lack of suitable flats , mortgage loans co - financed by the ORG on condition that they or their spouses or children do not have occupancy or equivalent rights to a flat in any of the former ORG ( the Military Housing Ordinance DATE , PERSON o na\u010dinu i kriterijumima za re\u0161avanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u PERSON ministarstvu za odbranu i PERSON , Official Gazette of GPE nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; LAW , PERSON o na\u010dinu i kriterijumima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za re\u0161avanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u PERSON , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; the Military Housing Ordinance CARDINAL , PERSON o na\u010dinu , kriterijumima i merilima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za re\u0161avanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u ORG odbrane i PERSON i PERSON , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; LAW , PERSON o re\u0161avanju stambenih pitanja u ORG odbrane , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and ORG DATE and DATE , PERSON o re\u0161avanju stambenih potreba PERSON vojnih penzija , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and PERSON o re\u0161avanju stambenih potreba PERSON vojnih penzija , published in an internal gazette of ORG no . CARDINAL ) . Therefore , those who occupied military flats in GPE before the war have as a rule been required to give up their rights to those flats in order to qualify for a military flat or a loan in GPE or GPE ( see sections DATE of LAW DATE ; sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Military Pensioners Ordinance DATE ; and sections DATE CARDINAL of LAW ) .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Housing Act DATE provides that the holder of a tenancy right of unlimited duration in respect of a flat may purchase that flat under the same conditions as an occupancy right holder ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142326","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"DYBEKU v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr ORG , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in the PERSON prison , a special establishment for mentally ill prisoners . He is represented before the ORG by his father , Mr Shyqyri Dybeku .","summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with this Court ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The applicant , who suffered from chronic paranoid schizophrenia , was convicted of voluntary homicide and sentenced to life imprisonment by a final decision of ORG . The domestic courts relied on a medical report to conclude that the applicant could stand trial . The applicant was serving his sentence in the NORP high security prison , when he complained before this ORG about the inappropriate conditions of detention , the inadequacy of the medical treatment and the unfairness of domestic proceedings .","On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment in that case ( ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . It found a breach of LAW : the applicant \u2019s state of health was such that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the inappropriate conditions of detention and the inadequacy of the medical treatment he had received since DATE . No other violation having been found , the ORG further made general indications under LAW to the effect that the Government should \u201c secure appropriate conditions of detention and adequate medical treatment , in particular , for prisoners , like the applicant , who need special care owing to their state of health \u201d ( paragraph CARDINAL of the judgment ) .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the PERSON prison , a special establishment for mentally ill prisoners .","On DATE the PERSON special establishment informed the applicant \u2019s family that the applicant was under continuous supervision by doctors , nurses as well as by a psychiatrist . He was given medical treatment DATE . This was supported by extracts of medical records for a defined period of time .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s father that the applicant received psychiatric treatment in addition to medical treatment . Biochemical tests and imaging examination had also been carried out . ORG invited the father to appoint a psychiatrist of his choosing in accordance with the law .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s father that the applicant was undergoing necessary treatment at FAC in GPE . X - ray computed tomography scan ( GPE scan ) of the head as well as magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) had been carried out .","On DATE the PERSON special establishment provided an update of the applicant \u2019s health , stating that the applicant was quiet , not showing any psychiatric disorders , had regularly received medicines ( risperidone CARDINAL mg CARDINAL tablet , parkopan CARDINAL mg CARDINAL tablet and diazepam CARDINAL mg CARDINAL tablets ) and psychiatric treatment and had been taken to ORG in GPE , as necessary .","On DATE the PERSON special establishment confirmed to the applicant \u2019s father that the applicant received risperidone CARDINAL mg CARDINAL tablet and parkopan CARDINAL mg CARDINAL .","On DATE , relying on the ORG judgment ( cited above ) , the applicant sought to review his conviction .","On DATE ORG rejected the request as raising no grounds of appeal .","On an unspecified date , most likely in DATE , the applicant appealed against the prosecutor \u2019s decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the doctors , whose medical report had been relied upon by ORG in DATE for his conviction .","On DATE ORG upheld a lower court \u2019s decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the doctors .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his appeal was still pending .","In its CARDINAL meeting ( CARDINAL and DATE ) , ORG noted , as regards individual measures for the execution of the ORG judgment ( cited above ) , that : ( i ) in DATE the applicant had been transferred to the PERSON special establishment which offered specialised treatment for prisoners suffering from mental disorders ; ( ii ) ORG ( PERSON ) , an independent institution which also monitors the conditions of detention of prisoners , reported that the applicant had been provided with the necessary medicines and his state of health was improving ; ( iii ) no other individual measure seemed necessary in those circumstances .","In its ORG meeting ( CARDINAL and DATE ) , the Minister \u2019s Deputies noted , as regards individual measures for the execution of the ORG judgment ( cited above ) , that : ( i ) the applicant had been placed in appropriate conditions of detention with medical treatment adapted to his state of health ; ( ii ) ORG report of DATE confirmed the above assessment ; and ( iii ) the individual measures were thereafter connected to the implementation of general measures required to guarantee appropriate medical treatment to the applicant and to all detainees in a similar situation . The ORG Deputies\u2019 decision of DATE noted , in so far as relevant , that :","\u201c CARDINAL . NORP according to the information available , the applicant ... ha[s ] currently access to the medical treatment required by [ his ] state of health ; \u201d","According to the decision , as regards the adoption of general measures , the Ministers\u2019 Deputies :","\u201c CARDINAL . deplored nevertheless , having regard to the age of the NORP ] and the seriousness of the violations in issue , that the authorities have not yet submitted detailed information to the ORG regarding the measures taken to ensure that the PERSON ] , as well as all other detainees , would in the future be able to access medical treatment necessary for their state of health ;","...","urged the NORP authorities to submit to ORG , without any further delay , an updated action plan containing all the missing information including , in particular , detailed information on the legal regime and practice governing the availability of medical treatment for detainees , so as to enable ORG to assess the status of execution of these CARDINAL judgments as soon as possible . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180084","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"ANCHEV v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Rousseva;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant in both applications , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and established by ORG of its own motion on the basis of publicly available documents , may be summarised as follows .","Like other former communist countries in LOC , at the time of the communist regime ( DATE ) GPE had a security service , called ORG , CARDINAL of whose main tasks was to supress dissent against the regime . It chiefly operated by keeping people seen as dangerous to the regime under surveillance , which it carried out through a network of secret collaborators . At first , ORG was part of ORG . In DATE it was brought under the direct supervision of ORG , but in the period DATE was again placed under the umbrella of ORG . It was also directly accountable to ORG , ORG and Secretary General .","DATE , when it closed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG had CARDINAL directorates . The first dealt with intelligence ; the second with counterintelligence ; the third with military counterintelligence ; the fourth with technical and economic espionage ; the fifth with security and protection ; and the sixth with \u201c the fight against ideological diversion and anti - State acts \u201d . In addition to those directorates , there were CARDINAL standalone departments : investigation ; external surveillance and research ; records and archiving ; encryption and communications ; and military and combat readiness .","After DATE State Security \u2019s sixth directorate was composed of CARDINAL departments . The first was tasked with \u201c the fight against ideological diversion and other subversive activities of the enemy through the intelligentsia \u201d ; the second with \u201c the fight against ideological diversion and other subversive activities \u201d among graduate and postgraduate students ; the third with countering \u201c subversive activities of the enemy \u201d in religious organisations ; the fourth with supressing nationalist activities by various ethnic minorities ; and the fifth with countering the activities of NORP emigrant organisations . The sixth department \u2019s task was thwarting \u201c antiState activities \u201d . The seventh department dealt with information and analysis . In DATE a new department was added , the new seventh department , which made the former seventh department the eighth department . It was tasked with \u201c combatting terrorism , anonymous enemy activities and escapes \u201d and with tracking down \u201c State criminals \u201d . In DATE a new \u201c T \u201d ( terror ) unit was spun off from that department .","By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of a secret DATE Instruction by the Minister of ORG , which remained in effect until the closing of the organisation in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG kept CARDINAL types of files . They fell into CARDINAL broad categories . The first consisted of CARDINAL types of files relating to targets : \u201c operative inquiry files \u201d , \u201c operative development files \u201d , \u201c operative tracing files \u201d , \u201c operative surveillance files \u201d , \u201c operative files \u201d , \u201c object development files \u201d and \u201c literal files \u201d . The second category comprised CARDINAL types of files relating to resources used by ORG : \u201c secret collaborator files \u201d and \u201c secret meeting LOC files \u201d .","Reference data about the files were recorded in several card indexes and registration journals ( sections CARDINAL of the DATE Instruction ) . Index no . CARDINAL contained cards relating to active and retired collaborators , people groomed for recruitment , and people whose recruitment had been aborted . Index no . CARDINAL contained similar cards to those in Index no . CARDINAL , but was ordered according to operative pseudonym , and Index no . CARDINAL contained cards relating to active collaborators arranged according to department , as well as secret LOC ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The other indexes contained cards relating to surveillance targets : dissidents , emigrants , \u201c anti - State \u201d groups , and so on ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","NORP In DATE , shortly after DATE of the communist regime in DATE , the ORG decided to close ORG .","At about the same time , noting the \u201c complicated political and operative situation \u201d , on DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG in charge of the Ministry \u2019s archive secretly proposed that a number of the files kept by ORG be destroyed . The Minister approved the proposal DATE . DATE , on CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy Minister secretly proposed that steps be taken to speed up the files\u2019 destruction . The Minister approved the proposal DATE .","According to an inventory drawn up by ORG in DATE , that covert operation resulted in the destruction of CARDINAL of the total CARDINAL files kept by ORG .","NORP The applicant is a lawyer . He has been a member of ORG since DATE . DATE he was the Secretary General of ORG , and from DATE he was the Secretary General of ORG . DATE he was the liquidator of an insolvent bank . For DATE he was the Minister of ORG and Deputy Prime Minister in a caretaker government .","Government ministers must be checked for affiliation with the security services of the communist regime under section CARDINAL ) of the statute that lies at the heart of this case , the Access to and Disclosure of Documents and Exposure of ORG and ORG ( \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d \u2013 see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL below ) . Following an investigation into government ministers , on DATE the Commission administering the Act ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) issued a decision exposing the applicant as having been affiliated with the seventh department of the sixth directorate of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) DATE . It also put the decision on its website . The ORG relied on a registration form , an entry in the registration journal , an index card , a report on the applicant \u2019s recruitment , and a proposal to discharge him , the latter CARDINAL documents having been drawn up by the officer who , according to the records , had been the applicant \u2019s handler .","DATE , on DATE the applicant was able to consult these documents . Shortly after that he published them on his website .","He did not seek judicial review of the ORG \u2019s decision . According to him , this would have been pointless , as this was not an effective remedy .","DATE , on DATE a DATE newspaper published information about the applicant \u2019s exposure . DATE after that , on DATE the applicant wrote an article in a DATE newspaper in which , among other things , he denied having been a collaborator , said that he had been unaware of the existence of a file relating to him , and contested the truthfulness of the documents in that file , pointing out that all of them emanated from officers of ORG and that those officers might have put false information in them out of a wish to fill their recruitment quotas or for other ulterior motives . He also stated that he had not been particularly impressed or upset by the publication of the information about him .","Following an investigation into members of ORG \u2013 who must be checked for affiliation with the former security services under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) \u2013 on DATE the Commission issued another decision exposing the applicant as having been affiliated with the seventh department of the sixth directorate of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It relied on the same documents as those serving as a basis for the DATE decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , plus CARDINAL index cards .","This time , the applicant sought judicial review . He argued that the ORG should only have exposed him if , having carefully examined the former security services\u2019 records , it had been satisfied that they were sufficiently reliable and attested to actual collaboration on his part , which was not the case . ORG allowed the claim and quashed the ORG \u2019s decision . It agreed with the applicant \u2019s argument , and noted that the only records showing that he had been affiliated with the former security services were documents drawn up by the officer who had allegedly been his handler , entries in the registration journals , and index cards . Since those did not clearly prove that the applicant had actually collaborated with those services , the decision to expose him had been unlawful ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 ORG \u0433. , ORG ) .","The Commission appealed on points of law . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , \u0412\u0410\u0421 , III \u043e. ) , ORG reversed the lower court \u2019s judgment . It noted that the ORG \u2019s first decision to expose the applicant in DATE had not been challenged by him and had become final , and that the applicant \u2019s claim for judicial review of the third decision to expose him in DATE had already been dismissed in a final judgment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . Those facts were crucial for the determination of the case , and in the light of those facts it had to be concluded that the exposure at issue was lawful .","Following an investigation into the board members of private companies which had bought parts of ORG - owned companies \u2013 who must be checked for affiliation with the former security services under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , as amended in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) \u2013 on DATE the ORG issued a third decision exposing the applicant as having been affiliated with the seventh department of the sixth directorate of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It relied on the same documents as those serving as a basis for the DATE decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The applicant again sought judicial review . He raised the same arguments as those that he had made with respect to the ORG \u2019s second decision in relation to him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This time , however , ORG upheld the ORG \u2019s decision . Relying on ORG prevailing caselaw under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and ORG decision to uphold the constitutionality of that provision ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) , GPE held that the Commission did not have to check whether the applicant had in fact collaborated or consented to be recruited as a collaborator , but had been bound to expose him , as it had found records relating to him . It was immaterial whether or not there was enough evidence to show that he had actually collaborated ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , \u0410\u0421-\u0421\u043e\u0444\u0438\u044f-\u0433\u0440\u0430\u0434 ) .","The applicant appealed on points of law , reiterating his arguments . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment , fully agreeing with its reasoning . It likewise held that since the CARDINAL Act did not provide for the exposure of the actual activities of those concerned , but simply the exposure of their affiliation with the former security services , the Commission did not have to assess the nature or extent of their collaboration or establish their actual activities .","Since DATE the applicant has been a member of the supervisory board of ORG , an investment company listed on the alternative - market segment of ORG . He is still a member of ORG .","NORP In DATE the applicant published an article in a DATE newspaper in which he commented on the rules governing the use of firearms by the police .","In DATE he was appointed a member of the civil society council assisting a parliamentary committee tasked with drafting a new LAW . In DATE he gave a radio interview on his work there .","DATE he took part in several television and radio programmes where he was invited , in his capacity as former Minister of Justice , to comment on problems in the judicial system and possible ways of reforming it . In DATE he co - signed an open letter in which a number of lawyers and public figures expressed their indignation at the work of ORG .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the DATE LAW provides that international treaties which have been ratified and promulgated and have come into force with respect to GPE are part of domestic law and take precedence over any conflicting provisions of domestic legislation .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW enshrines the right to protection of one \u2019s private life and some related rights in the following terms :","\u201c CARDINAL . Citizens\u2019 private life shall be inviolable . All shall be entitled to protection against unlawful interferences with their private or family life and against infringements of their honour , dignity or good name .","No one may be placed under surveillance , photographed , filmed , recorded , or subjected to any similar action without his or her knowledge or in spite of his or her express disagreement , save in the cases provided for by law . \u201d","In defamation cases , the courts have held that infringement of the rights set out in LAW is a tort ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0432. \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG , and \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0432. \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG ) . ORG has done the same in a case concerning unauthorised filming ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG , IV-\u0411 \u0433. \u043e. ) .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW enshrines the right to information in the following terms :","\u201c CARDINAL . Everyone shall have the right to seek , receive and impart information . The exercise of that right may not be directed against the rights and the good name of other citizens or against national security , public order , public health or morals .","NORP Citizens shall have the right to information from ORG bodies or agencies on any matter of legitimate interest to them , unless the information is a ORG secret or a secret protected by law or affects the rights of others . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the LAW enshrines the right to a remedy in the following terms :","\u201c Every citizen shall have the right to a remedy if his or her rights or legitimate interests have been infringed or threatened . ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides for judicial review of administrative action in the following terms :","\u201c CARDINAL . The courts shall review the lawfulness of the administrative authorities\u2019 decisions and actions .","NORP Citizens and legal persons may seek judicial review of any administrative decision which affects them , save as expressly specified by statute . \u201d","In DATE members of parliament put forward several bills providing for the lustration of ex - communist cadres and collaborators of the former security services . CARDINAL bills seeking to bar ex - communist cadres from holding any public office did not reach a plenary vote . CARDINAL more limited ones were enacted : paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional and concluding provisions of ORG , which barred such persons from holding executive positions in commercial banks for DATE ; a new section DATE of LAW DATE , which provided that time served in an executive position in the former ORG and its related outfits would not count for retirement pension purposes ; and an LAW Provisionally Laying Down Certain Additional Requirements for the Management of Scientific Organisations DATE , which barred ex - communist cadres and collaborators of the former security services from holding posts in academia . All CARDINAL provisions were immediately challenged before ORG . The court struck down the first and the second on the basis that they were discriminatory and interfered disproportionately with the fundamental rights to choose one \u2019s profession and receive a pension ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , \u041a\u0421 , \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. MONEY \u0433. , and \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , \u041a\u0421 , \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. DATE \u0433. ) . LAW survived the constitutional challenge ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. CARDINAL \u0433. ) , but was repealed DATE .","Lustration initiatives were resumed in DATE , with the enactment of paragraph CARDINAL ) of the additional provisions of LAW , which barred ex - communist cadres and staff members or collaborators of the former security services from holding executive posts in ORG administration for DATE , and sections PERSON ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of ORG DATE , which barred such persons from working in the media regulatory authority and in management at ORG . The first provision was declared unconstitutional , chiefly on the basis that it was discriminatory and interfered disproportionately with the fundamental right to work ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , \u041a\u0421 , \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. CARDINAL \u0433. ) . The CARDINAL others survived an initial constitutional challenge ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , \u041a\u0421 , \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. MONEY \u0433. ) , but were struck down by the Constitutional Court DATE , again chiefly on the basis that they were discriminatory and interfered disproportionately with the right to work ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. ) .","A third wave of lustration laws were passed DATE . The first lustration law , Rule CARDINAL of LAW , barred members of parliament who had been collaborators of the former security services from serving in ORG \u2019s presidency , from acting as presidents or deputy presidents of parliamentary committees or members of certain key committees , and from becoming members of international parliamentary delegations . The second law , sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , ORG ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , as amended in DATE , barred such collaborators from serving as ambassadors , deputy ambassadors or general consuls , or from holding certain executive posts in ORG administration . The third law , section PERSON ) of ORG Act DATE , barred collaborators from holding the posts of general director , deputy general director or secretary general of that agency . DATE all those provisions were declared unconstitutional , on the same basis as that declared previously : that they were discriminatory and interfered disproportionately with the fundamental right to work ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , \u041a\u0421 , \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. CARDINAL \u0433. ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , \u041a\u0421 , \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. ORG \u0433. ; and \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , \u041a\u0421 , \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. ) .","On DATE the Seventh ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) \u2013 the first democratically elected legislature after the fall of the communist regime in DATE resolved to set up an ad hoc committee to inquire whether any ORG members had been collaborators of the regime \u2019s security services . The committee , called ORG after its chairman , submitted its report to ORG on DATE . However , following a leak in the press of the names of CARDINAL ORG members who had allegedly been such collaborators , a scandal erupted in the ORG on DATE , and the committee was disbanded without completing its work .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. ) , ORG decreed that information about agents of the former security services relating to the period before DATE was not a ORG secret . However , in the absence of legal provisions specifying the manner in which this information could be made public , the decision did not lead to any specific steps .","In DATE ORG passed an LAW of the Former ORG and the Former ORG of the General Staff Act \u2013 providing that some ORG officials ( the President and Vice - President , ministers and deputy ministers , members of parliament , ORG judges , members of ORG , judges of ORG and ORG , prosecutors in ORG , regional governors , heads of some executive and regulatory agencies , and the directors general of ORG , ORG and ORG ) and the executives of ORG - owned banks and insurance companies were to be checked for affiliation with the former security services . By DATE , the check was to be carried out by a commission chaired by the Minister of ORG and comprising the heads of the various intelligence services .","CARDINAL members of parliament almost immediately challenged the constitutionality of the entire Act . In DATE ORG dismissed the bulk of the application , but , despite the dissent of CARDINAL judges , struck down the provisions concerning the investigations into the President , the Vice - President and ORG judges . It held that it would be unconstitutional for them to be checked for affiliation by a commission controlled by the executive . Despite the dissent of CARDINAL judges , the court also struck down the provision concerning people who only featured in the former security services\u2019 secondary records DATE the card indexes and registration journals ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It held that these records were not sufficient proof that those people had collaborated , and that this could only be proved with documents emanating from the alleged collaborators themselves . Although the files\u2019 partial destruction had restricted the efforts to uncover such documents , the difficulty was not insurmountable , and the burden to do so fell on the State ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , \u041a\u0421 , \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. ) . It later transpired that CARDINAL judges from the majority had themselves been collaborators ( see paragraph DATE below ) ; they had not declared that when dealing with the case .","NORP In DATE the LAW was amended , with ORG taking on board the criticisms levelled by ORG : the amendment made the commission administering the LAW independent from the executive , and specifically stated that the card indexes and registration journals ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were not categorical proof of affiliation . LAW survived a further constitutional challenge ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. CARDINAL \u0433. ) , but was repealed just over DATE in DATE . A constitutional challenge to the repealing LAW , chiefly based on its alleged discrepancy with the constitutional right to information , was dismissed ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , \u041a\u0421 , \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. MONEY \u0433. ) .","In DATE ORG added a new subsection CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW DATE . It provided that all mayoral and municipal councillor candidates were to be checked for affiliation to the former security services in the manner provided for by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that the results of the investigation were to be given to the political parties or coalitions which had nominated them , so that they could decide whether to withdraw the nominations . The ORG unanimously dismissed a challenge to that provision , holding that it did not strip candidates of the right to run for office , but simply enabled the parties or coalitions which had put the candidates forward to see whether to keep them on the ballot ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , \u043e\u0431\u043d. GPE , \u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. ) . ORG for ORG instructed local electoral commissions to make the results of such investigations public , but ORG quashed that decision , holding that it impermissibly extended the purview of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/ DATE \u0433. , ORG , ORG ) . The provision was repealed in DATE , alongside LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional and concluding provisions of the Election of Members of Parliament Act DATE provided for a similar investigation into parliamentary candidates , but only at the request of the political parties or coalitions which had nominated them . By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , a party or a coalition could withdraw a candidate revealed by such an investigation to have been a collaborator of the former security services . ORG directed that the results of the investigation could be provided by the ORG under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) by means of a full report or a simple certificate . ORG quashed that decision in part , holding that the only lawful means of establishing that someone had been a collaborator was via a full report , not a certificate ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) . Both provisions were repealed in DATE , alongside LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","A new section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act , added in DATE , provided that ORG \u2013 the body overseeing the storage and use of classified information \u2013 had to check whether parliamentary candidates were affiliated to the former security services , and give the results of the investigation to the leadership of the political party or coalition which had nominated the candidates . The provision was repealed in DATE .","In DATE , shortly before GPE \u2019s accession to ORG , there was fresh impetus to reveal the identities of staff members and collaborators of the former security services . In DATE and DATE members of parliament introduced CARDINAL separate bills to this effect . In DATE ORG \u2019s ORG and its ORG reviewed the bills and , by large majorities , proposed that they be examined jointly and approved at first reading . DATE ORG debated the bills , which were supported during the discussion by all major parliamentary parties , and approved them at first reading . The first bill was approved by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , with CARDINAL abstentions , the second by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , with CARDINAL abstentions , and the third by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , with CARDINAL abstentions . The second reading , at which stage the bills had been consolidated into one , took place DATE in DATE and DATE . Nearly all provisions of the consolidated bill were adopted almost unanimously . In particular , the provisions which laid down the sources of information that could be used to establish affiliation with the former security services ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) were adopted by CARDINAL votes to nil , with CARDINAL abstentions , following a lengthy debate and the rejection of CARDINAL alternative proposals .","The Act , whose full name was the Access to and Disclosure of Documents and Exposure of the Affiliation of Bulgarian Citizens to State Security and the Intelligence Services of ORG , was published in ORG on DATE and came into effect on DATE .","By sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( the latter provision \u2019s wording was amended in DATE ) , all those who have held specified \u201c public office \u201d or engaged in a specified \u201c public activity \u201d at any point since CARDINAL DATE the date on which the communist regime in GPE is deemed to have fallen \u2013 must be checked for affiliation with the former security services , and exposed if found to have been so affiliated . By section CARDINAL ) , everyone who accedes to \u201c public office \u201d or engages in a \u201c public activity \u201d in the future must also be checked for affiliation .","The list of the types of \u201c public office \u201d \u2013 similar to that in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but more extensive \u2013 was set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . At first , it comprised : ( a ) the President and Vice - President ; ( b ) members of parliament and of ORG ; ( c ) the Prime Minister , his or her deputies , ministers , and deputy ministers ; ( d ) judges of ORG ; ( e ) the PERSON , the Deputy PERSON and the secretary general of the PERSON \u2019s administration ; ( f ) chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of ORG agencies , and members of ORG commissions ; ( g ) judges , prosecutors and investigators ; ( h ) members of ORG ; ( i ) members of ORG ; ( j ) members of ORG ; ( k ) chairpersons , deputy chairpersons , members of the management and supervisory boards , directors , deputy directors , and heads of unit and sector of ORG , ORG , ORG , and ORG ; ( l ) executive directors of executive agencies and heads of ORG institutions created by statute or by decision of ORG , as well as their deputies ; ( m ) members of the management and supervisory boards of ORG and ORG ; ( n ) secretaries general , general directors , deputy general directors , main directors , deputy main directors , directors , deputy directors , heads of local police departments , heads of unit , and heads of sector of ORG ; ( o ) heads and deputy heads of ORG , and heads and deputy heads of staff of the different types of troops ; ( p ) directors , deputy directors , directorate directors , heads of unit and heads of sector of military intelligence , the military police and the military counterintelligence services of ORG , ORG , and ORG ; ( q ) regional governors and their deputies ; ( r ) mayors and their deputies , as well as secretaries of municipalities and municipal councillors ; ( s ) chairpersons , deputy chairpersons , general directors , members of the management and supervisory boards , members , and heads of directorates , units or sectors of ORG , ORG , ORG , and ORG ; ( t ) members of the central electoral commissions ; ( u ) the head of ORG attached to ORG ; ( w ) members of the political cabinets of the Prime Minister , his or her deputies , or ministers ; ( x ) ambassadors , consuls general and deputy heads of diplomatic missions ; ( y ) secretaries general , directors , heads of unit and sector of ORG administration , as well as staff members attached to ORG \u2019s standing committees ; ( z ) secretaries general , head of cabinet , secretaries , and heads of unit and sector of the President \u2019s administration ; ( aa ) secretaries general , directors general , deputy directors general , main directors , deputy main directors , directors , deputy directors , and heads of unit and sector in the central and territorial administration of the executive power ; ( ab ) members of ORG ; ( ac ) people employed by ORG , ORG , or any other international organisation of which GPE is member or in whose activities it takes part ; and ( ad ) people holding office to which they were appointed by the President , ORG , ORG , or the Prime Minister .","In DATE , DATE and DATE the list underwent modifications related to the changes in structure of the authorities concerned . In DATE ORG expanded it to include ( a ) investigating police , military police and customs officers , and ( b ) members of the scientific councils of scientific organisations , such as universities . In DATE ORG expanded the list further , to include ( a ) municipal ombudspersons and their deputies ; ( b ) lay judges ; ( c ) secretaries general and directorate directors of ORG ; ( d ) chairpersons , deputy chairpersons , members , secretaries general and directorate directors of ORG and ORG ; ( e ) chief architects of municipalities and local mayoral deputies ; and ( f ) members of the regional and municipal electoral commissions .","NORP The list of \u201c public activities \u201d was set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . At first , it comprised ( a ) owners , directors , deputy directors , editors - in - chief , deputy editors - in - chief , members of editorial boards , political commentators , presenters and newspaper or electronic media columnists , as well as owners and managers of sociological agencies , advertising firms or public - relations firms ; ( b ) the chairperson , deputy chairpersons , main scientific secretary , members of the management boards , directors , deputy directors , and scientific secretaries of ORG and its scientific institutes and other independent units ; ( c ) rectors and deans , their deputies , heads of branches and departments , and heads of cathedrae ( faculty subdivisions ) of ORG - owned and private colleges and universities , as well as heads and deputy heads of schools ; ( d ) managers , executive directors , and members of the management and supervisory boards of health - care institutions , as well as chairpersons , deputy chairpersons , secretaries general and members of the management boards of ORG and ORG , as well as the chairperson , the director general and the deputy directors general of ORG ; ( e ) chairpersons , deputy chairpersons and registered members of the management and supervisory bodies of political parties and coalitions , trade unions , ORG unions , and other not - for - profit legal entities ; ( f ) heads and members of the management bodies of religious communities ; ( g ) chairpersons , deputy chairpersons and members of ORG , ORG , and ORG ; ( h ) chairpersons and members of the management and supervisory bodies of national sport organisations and ORG ; ( i ) members of the management , controlling and supervisory bodies and representatives of banks , insurance and reinsurance companies , stock exchanges , companies organising unofficial securities markets , investment brokers , and investment companies ; ( j ) sole traders , as well as members of the management , controlling and supervisory bodies and representatives of companies engaging in gambling ; ( k ) sole traders , as well as members of the management , controlling and supervisory bodies and representatives of companies providing long - distance communication services ; ( l ) sole traders , as well as the members of the management , controlling and supervisory bodies and representatives of companies which are radio or television operators ; and ( m ) persons authorised to act as the liquidators of insolvent companies or banks .","In DATE ORG expanded this list to include ( a ) media company managers ; ( b ) founders of not - for - profit legal entities ; ( c ) members of the management , controlling and supervisory bodies of privatised ORG and municipal companies , members of the managing or supervisory bodies of private companies or sole traders which have acquired shares in , or parts of , such privatised companies , and members of privatisation funds ; and ( d ) some categories of defaulting debtors of banks which had become insolvent in DATE . In DATE ORG expanded the list further , to include ( a ) chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of the general meetings of universities and faculties ; ( b ) chairpersons , deputy chairpersons and members of Bar councils , Bar budget councils and Bar disciplinary courts ; ( c ) chairpersons and members of the management and supervisory bodies of licensed sport organisations ; ( d ) individuals who have acquired shares in , or parts of , privatised companies ; ( e ) special administrators of banks appointed by ORG ; ( f ) members of the management , controlling and supervisory bodies of ORG and municipal companies , companies in which the ORG or a municipality holds CARDINAL or more of the shares , and subsidiary companies in which such companies hold CARDINAL or more of the shares ; and ( g ) various categories of suspected insider debtors of insolvent banks .","By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , anyone who has been registered as a candidate for the office of President , Vice - President , member of parliament , member of ORG , mayor or municipal councillor must likewise be checked for affiliation with the former security services . By section PERSON ) , added in DATE , anyone who becomes a candidate for any type of \u201c public office \u201d must likewise be checked .","By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , added in DATE , anyone recommended for an order or a medal must be checked as well , and by section CARDINAL ) of the Orders and Medals Act DATE , also added in DATE , any recommendation that the President confer an order or a medal must be accompanied by the results of that check . The DATE private member \u2019s bill which led to the enactment of those provisions initially proposed to bar anyone found to have been affiliated with the former security services from receiving an order or a medal . It was , however , modified by ORG between the first and second reading to provide for a mere check for such affiliation .","By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , the check is carried out by a special Commission .","This Commission has CARDINAL members elected by ORG for DATE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Before being voted on , candidates must undergo a security check and be heard by ORG \u2019s ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) ) . ORG then votes on each candidature , and elects the ORG \u2019s chairperson , deputy chairperson and secretary ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","No political party may have a majority in the ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Only people enjoying public trust and authority are eligible to serve on it ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . During their term , the ORG \u2019s members may not hold elected office or be in a management position in a political party or professional organisation ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . They may only be removed from office before the end of their term if they cease to fulfil the eligibility requirements ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","The first Commission members were elected by ORG in DATE . After the expiry of their initial DATE term of office , in DATE CARDINAL of the original CARDINAL members were re - elected by ORG for another DATE term , and CARDINAL new members were elected .","By sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL , the Commission was given custody of the archives of the former security services , which were to be centralised under its control . By sections CARDINAL and paragraph CARDINAL of the Act \u2019s transitional and concluding provisions , all public authorities which had records of those services in their custody had to turn them over to the Commission within DATE of the LAW \u2019s entry into force . The ORG \u2019s task was then to go through those records and check whether the people who had held any of the types of \u201c public office \u201d set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , or engaged in any of the \u201c public activities \u201d set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , featured in them ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","The question of whether someone was to be exposed as having been affiliated with the former security services was governed by sections DATE and CARDINAL . By section CARDINAL , as originally enacted , those who had been staff members or collaborators of those services were to be considered as affiliated to them . Section CARDINAL , as originally enacted , provided that this was to be established on the basis of documents contained in the services\u2019 records . It then set out , in subsections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE , the types of documents capable of proving service as , respectively , a regular staff member , a supernumerary staff member , or a collaborator . By paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act \u2019s additional provisions , a \u201c document \u201d is any recorded information , regardless of the medium used to record the information , and includes information in automated and complex information systems and databases .","In DATE , in the wake of an unsuccessful constitutional challenge to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the subsection concerning collaborators ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , ORG deleted section DATE and moved part of it , in a slightly amended form , to section CARDINAL . The explanatory notes to the bill proposing this amendment said that it would clarify a point made by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) \u2013 that the ORG \u2019s task was not to examine the real activities of those whom it checked for affiliation with the former security services , but simply to see whether a record of them being affiliated with those services existed . The amendment came into force on DATE .","By section GPE ) and ( CARDINAL ) , as worded since the DATE amendment , someone \u2019s affiliation to the former security services as a regular or supernumerary staff member can be established on the basis of organisational charts , payrolls , or data in his or her personal file .","Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the additional provisions define \u201c regular staff members \u201d as NORP nationals formally employed by the former security services as operatives or investigators , and \u201c supernumerary staff members \u201d as NORP nationals drafted in by those services to carry out tasks and assignments relating to their mandate .","By CARDINAL ) , as worded since the DATE amendment , someone \u2019s affiliation to the former security services as a collaborator can be established on the basis of : ( a ) handwritten or signed collaboration declarations ; ( b ) handwritten surveillance reports ; ( c ) remuneration documents ; ( d ) documents handwritten or signed by the collaborator and contained in a surveillance file ; ( e ) documents drawn up by the officer who was the collaborator \u2019s handler ; and ( f ) data about the collaborator in the registration journals , card indexes , records relating to the destruction of files , or other sources .","Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the additional provisions defines \u201c secret collaborators \u201d as NORP nationals who have covertly assisted the former security services as residents , agents , keepers of secret meeting LOC , keepers of covert operative LOC , trusted persons , or informers . All these categories were taken from the internal instructions of the former security services .","A Commission decision exposing staff members must set out their names , dates and places of birth , all documents pertaining to their career , the departments where they have worked , and the \u201c public office \u201d or \u201c public activity \u201d which they held or engaged in at the time of the investigation ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) .","A Commission decision exposing collaborators must set out their names , dates and places of birth , the names of the officers who recruited them and acted as their handlers , the exact capacity in which they collaborated , their operative pseudonyms , the documents showing their affiliation , the time of their discharge , and the \u201c public office \u201d or \u201c public activity \u201d which they held or engaged in at the time of the investigation ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) . By section ORG ) , if information about someone is only found in the card indexes and registration journals ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the lack of other data must specifically be mentioned in the ORG \u2019s decision .","The Commission must notify those concerned of its findings and then , within DATE of completing the investigation , publish the findings on its website , and later in its bulletin ( sections CARDINAL ) and PERSON ) ) . The individuals concerned must also be given , upon request , access to the documents in their personal and professional files ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , added in DATE , provides that the documents which have served as a basis for the ORG \u2019s decision must likewise be published on its website .","Those born after DATE are exempt from being checked ( section CARDINAL ) ) . Those who only collaborated before turning DATE or who are dead at the time of the investigation are not to be exposed ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) . The same goes for those who , when notified of the discovery of information showing that they collaborated , withdraw their candidacy for office ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) , unless they have already been formally registered as election candidates ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","DATE . The Commission gave its first decision on DATE . It has thus far checked CARDINAL people and exposed CARDINAL of them , including a President of the Republic , CARDINAL judges in ORG , CARDINAL members of parliament , CARDINAL government ministers , and a number of prominent politicians , journalists , lawyers , businessmen , academics and religious figures . Though some of those exposed have retreated from public life following their exposure , many continue to be active in politics , government , the media , academia and business .","By DATE , documents showing affiliation with the former security services may not be published or disclosed in any other way . LAW , added in DATE , makes such disclosure a criminal offence .","The Commission \u2019s decision to expose someone is amenable to review by ORG , whose judgment is , in turn , amenable to an appeal on points of law before ORG ( sections CARDINAL ) , DATE ) ( formerly CARDINAL ) ) , and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Although the LAW is silent as to whether a claim for judicial review has suspensive effect , in practice it has no such effect , as the lodging of such a claim does not delay publication of the ORG \u2019s decision , which is published on its website DATE it is issued .","There are many cases in which those exposed have sought judicial review . The chief point of contention in most of them was whether the records on which ORG had relied under section CARDINAL of the Act ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) to establish affiliation with the former security services were sufficiently probative . The usual argument of those exposed was that the available evidence did not show that they had really collaborated , but only that their names featured in the records . ORG has thus far decided CARDINAL such cases . With CARDINAL isolated exceptions in DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , \u0412\u0410\u0421 , III \u043e. , and \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) , since DATE , when it started hearing applications for judicial review under the LAW , it has consistently held that the ORG does not have to check whether the records show that someone has in fact collaborated , or whether the information in those records is rebutted by other evidence . Rather , the ORG must simply note the information , even if it features in only one record , and make it public , having no discretion in the matter . Its task is limited to documentary fact - finding and its decisions are purely declaratory . This is because the LAW does not purport to sanction or lustrate staff members and collaborators of the former security services , but simply to reveal the available information about all publicly active people featuring in the records of those services as staff members or collaborators , with a view to restoring public confidence and preventing those people from being blackmailed ( see , among many others , \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG , ORG ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , III \u043e. ; MONEY \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 ORG \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , \u0412\u0410\u0421 , III \u043e. ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ; and \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) . Even the second case in which ORG departed from this case - law in DATE was ultimately decided in line with the prevailing approach ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG ) .","Attempts to mount indirect challenges to the ORG \u2019s decisions by way of claims for declaratory judgment in the administrative and the civil courts have failed , on the basis that judicial review is the only possible remedy ( see \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ; \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ; and \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0447. \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG , I \u0433. \u043e. ) .","Nor is it possible to seek damages under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG and ORG DATE , which provides for State liability for damage suffered as a result of unlawful administrative action , unless the ORG \u2019s decision has been quashed ( see \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 ORG \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) or is void ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) . CARDINAL case in which damages were awarded under that provision concerned an exposed person who had successfully challenged the ORG \u2019s decision by way of judicial review , chiefly on the basis that he did not fall within the categories of people who were subject to exposure under LAW ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG , and \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) . In a case in which ORG had wrongly exposed someone as affiliated with the former security services and then retracted its decision but not published the retraction on its website swiftly enough , that person was likewise able to obtain damages under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) .","NORP In DATE a panel of ORG acceded to an application by a claimant to refer section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to ORG ( see \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 GPE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) .","NORP In DATE the Constitutional Court admitted the referral for examination , and invited several ORG authorities and non - governmental organisations to comment on the case ( see \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , \u041a\u0421 ) . ORG , the Minister of ORG , the Commission , ORG , and ORG availed themselves of this opportunity . All of them argued that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) was constitutional .","DATE . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043a. \u0434. ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , \u041a\u0421 , \u043e\u0431\u043d. , GPE , \u0431\u0440. CARDINAL \u0433. ) the ORG unanimously found CARDINAL ) constitutional . It held :","\u201c ... The [ CARDINAL Act ] is a manifestation of the common will of all political parties in ... ORG to ensure , as far as possible , the disclosure of all documents [ of the former security services ] and the exposure of all persons affiliated [ to those services ] who held or now hold public office , or who carried out or now carry out public activities within the meaning of this LAW ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . The LAW was passed in response to the recommendations set out in the Declaration of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co - operation in LOC ( OSCE ) of DATE , in LAW ( DATE ) of ORG of ORG , on the measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems , and in Recommendation No . R ( DATE ) CARDINAL of ORG on a NORP Policy on Access to Archives , adopted by ORG on DATE .","The Act seeks to regulate the manner in which the documents of the [ former security services ] from DATE and DATE are to be accessed , disclosed , used and kept , and to expose the affiliation to [ those services ] of NORP citizens holding public office or carrying out a public activity . By section CARDINAL of the Act , such affiliation is to be exposed if the person concerned has acted as a regular staff member , a supernumerary staff member , or a secret collaborator of [ those services ] . Under section CARDINAL of the Act , the fact is established on the basis of documents from the information sources , which are different for regular staff members , supernumerary staff members and secret collaborators , and have been set out respectively in subsections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of section QUANTITY . In accordance with the impugned section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , the fact under section CARDINAL that someone has acted as a secret collaborator is to be established not only on the basis of documents which have been handwritten or signed by him or her , but also on the basis of the following documents contained in the information sources : \u2018 documents drawn up by the regular or supernumerary staff member who was the handler of [ the person concerned ] , as well as information about the person in the reference records ( registration journals and card indexes [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] ) , records relating to the destruction of information , or other information ORG .","According to a decision of ORG [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] , information about the organisation , methods and means used by ORG in its work , and information about its agents , as it relates to the period before DATE , is not a ORG secret ... Unlike the repealed [ DATE Act , see paragraphs CARDINAL above ] , the philosophy of LAW which can be gleaned from its structure , the explanatory notes to the bills , and the parliamentary speeches made at the time of its enactment \u2013 was to lay open the documents of the [ former security services ] , and expose all people under LAW , except for those mentioned in sections MONEY ) and CARDINAL ) . An important point that is not always fully appreciated is that the LAW relates to public documents , access to which is free for [ the people kept on file and researchers ] . It follows that there are other ways to expose those affiliated to the [ former security services ] as collaborators , which means that it is fitting that their affiliation be ascertained by an independent ORG authority .","The LAW only provides for the exposure of the affiliation to the [ former security services ] of those mentioned in section CARDINAL , not the exposure of their real and specific activities for the benefit of those services . This is clear from the LAW \u2019s title , its subject matter ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) , the powers of the ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , the facts subject to proof ( section CARDINAL ) , the mandatory establishment of affiliation to those services or the establishment in the framework of a preliminary investigation ( sections CARDINAL ) and ORG ) ) , and the contents of the ORG \u2019s decision ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The legislature has used the term \u2018 ORG , which denotes someone \u2019s position as part of the composition of something . The legislature has not empowered the ORG to make a judgment on those found to have been so affiliated on the basis of the available documents . The ORG does not assess who has acted in favour of national security , against terrorism , and so on , and who has supplied other types of information .","The [ referring court ] does not challenge the LAW \u2019s philosophy or main tenets , but simply part of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , arguing that it is contrary to Articles DATE , without pointing to the specific paragraphs alleged to be infringed .","LAW [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] enshrines the right to a remedy in cases in which someone \u2019s rights or legitimate interests have been infringed or threatened . This right ... is personal , fundamental and universal ( see ... ) . It is an independent constitutional right which is by its nature chiefly procedural , because it serves as a guarantee of the substantive fundamental rights and legitimate interests set out in the preceding constitutional provisions . Although the right to a remedy is fundamental and belongs to everyone , LAW usually operates in tandem with other constitutional provisions . [ It ] is infringed when another fundamental constitutional right or legitimate interest has been infringed or threatened . The [ referring court ] does not point to another constitutional right alleged to be infringed by the impugned statutory provision . So , ORG , which can not stray ... beyond the terms of the referral , but at the same time is not bound by the alleged grounds of incompatibility with the LAW , must identify that other constitutional right on the basis of the reasons adduced in support of the referral .","The referral does not spell out the part of LAW that the impugned statutory provision is alleged to offend against : paragraph CARDINAL , which proclaims the inalienability of fundamental rights ; paragraph CARDINAL , which prohibits the abuse of rights , as well as their exercise to the detriment of the rights or legitimate interests of others ; or paragraph CARDINAL , which governs the temporary restriction of rights . Based on the reasons for the referral , ORG finds that the allegation is of an infringement of LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW , which set out rights supplementing certain other fundamental rights .","The specific rights which can be infringed or threatened by LAW ) of the LAW in its impugned part are those under LAW the right of defence against attacks on one \u2019s dignity and good name , and the right to the inviolability of one \u2019s personal data [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] .","The Constitutional Court finds that the exposure of the objective fact that someone was affiliated to a ORG authority does not infringe the right to be free from interferences with one \u2019s personal life or attacks against one \u2019s dignity and good name . The activities of those who have collaborated with the [ former security services ] do not harm their good name , honour or dignity , as [ this ] court has already had occasion to point out ...","The communication right to receive information under LAW [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] is a fundamental constitutional right . As [ this ] court has already held , the right to seek , receive and impart information under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW belongs to all individuals and legal entities , and protects their interest in being informed . It applies to the press and all other media . On the other hand , LAW guarantees citizens access to information from ORG authorities or bodies on questions in which they have a legitimate interest ( see ... ) . This right is not absolute , but nor is the right under LAW to the protection of one \u2019s personal data [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] . Here , these CARDINAL fundamental rights clash , but since they are not absolute , each of them can be limited in line with the principle of proportionality . To be constitutionally permissible , a statutory limitation of personality rights must not exceed what is required to ensure the exercise of the constitutional right under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL to obtain information . The individual right to obtain information is extremely important to enable citizens to make an informed choice . At the same time , this right is not absolute either , and can be restricted in the circumstances set out in LAW : it can not be directed against the rights or good name of other citizens , or against national security , public order , health or morals , and the information under paragraph CARDINAL must not be a ORG secret or another secret protected by law , or infringe another \u2019s rights .","This court finds that the impugned part of CARDINAL ) of the LAW is not unconstitutional , because it does not run against constitutional principles or specific constitutional provisions . It is not unconstitutional to establish someone \u2019s affiliation to a community , authority , ORG body , organisation , and so on , except in cases in which there is a threat to national security . Nor is it unconstitutional for such affiliation to be established by a specific authority , in a manner provided for by law , on the basis of various types of documents which contain information . The legislature has decided to provide for an investigation into whether those who hold certain offices or carry out certain activities were affiliated to the [ former security services ] . The need for such an investigation is a question of expedience , and is to be decided by the legislature ( see ... ) . The legislature enjoys a discretion not only to grant access to the documents of the [ former security services ] , but also to choose the permissible modes of proof . Within its discretion , and in view of the destruction of a large number of the personal and work files of secret collaborators , ORG has determined that affiliation to those services can be established on the basis of all kinds of documents from [ the services\u2019 ] archives , and at the same time it has laid down guarantees for the rights of persons affected by that . By paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act \u2019s additional provisions , a \u2018 ORG is any written information , regardless of the medium used to record the information , including information in automated and complex information systems and databases .","The impugned provision governs in part the manner in which affiliation is to be established on the basis of documents in the information sources . It sets out , by way of example and alternatively , the documents which , within the meaning of the LAW , may be used to establish that someone has acted as a secret collaborator , and , in fine , permits this to be done on the basis of unspecified documents within the meaning of the LAW . As a result of this legislative solution , affiliation to the [ former security services ] can be established not only on the basis of documents which emanate from the collaborator himself or herself ( handwritten or signed collaboration declarations , handwritten reports , remuneration receipts , documents handwritten or signed by the collaborator and contained in the operative target surveillance files ) , but also on the basis of documents which do not emanate from the collaborator and do not contain his or her signature . The legislature provided for resort to those latter documents when the personal and work files of the collaborator had been destroyed , because it is generally known that the files of some of the secret collaborators were destroyed . By including these documents among the modes of proof of affiliation , the legislature sought to treat those who had collaborated with the [ former security services ] in the same way , and not to place those who had , for various reasons , had their files destroyed in a privileged position . It must also be borne in mind that those recruited as collaborators were not always required to make a written pledge ( declaration ) of collaboration , or a declaration of non - disclosure of their links and work with [ the former security services ] at the time of their discharge . By DATE of Order No . CARDINAL of DATE of the Minister of ORG , adduced in the course of these proceedings , agents were only required to make such declarations when this was deemed necessary in specific cases .","The LAW does not require the cumulative availability of a certain number or type of documents in order for someone to be established and exposed as affiliated to the [ former security services ] . On the contrary , the LAW ascribes to all documents within the meaning of paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of its additional provisions the quality of documents which can be used as proof of affiliation , and gives equal probative value to all of them .","The Constitutional Court finds that the boundary between the CARDINAL fundamental rights in collision \u2013 the right under LAW and that under LAW [ see paragraphs CARDINAL above ] \u2013 has been set in a proportionate manner , because the Act lays down enough guarantees to protect the right to honour and dignity and the right to protection of personal data of those affected .","Firstly , affiliation is established and exposed by a ORG , which is an independent ORG authority . It is independent , not only because section PERSON ) of the LAW proclaims it to be , but also owing to the way in which its members are elected under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW by ORG , at the proposal of the different parliamentary factions , and in a way ensuring that none of the parliamentary political parties has a majority .","The Commission establishes affiliation on the basis of a centralised archive of the documents set out in LAW . To this end , under LAW of the LAW , the authorities must package and turn over to the ORG their archive files and card indexes ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) . This prevents the documents from being hidden from view or forged , and ensures that the Commission will be able to comprehensively study , compare and analyse the information .","The documents kept in the ORG \u2019s centralised archive and used to establish affiliation to the [ former security services ] are public .","The LAW devotes considerable attention to the manner in which affiliation is established and exposed . The procedure before the ORG is set out in detail in the LAW itself , not in statutory instruments .","Not all of those who have collaborated with the [ former security services ] are to be exposed . The LAW only provides for this for those who hold or have held specified public office , or engage or have engaged in a specified public activity . Only those holding public office or carrying out a public activity within the meaning of section CARDINAL of the LAW are affected by the interference with the right to protection of personal data , because \u2018 the ORG as a whole , as well as political figures and public officials , may be subjected to a higher level of public scrutiny than private ORG ( see ... ) . As a rule , the level of protection of the personal data of the persons under LAW is much lower than in the case of other citizens . This is illustrated by the annual publication , in a special register , of data about their income , assets , bank accounts , receivables , and the declaration of other protected data , with a view to preventing conflicts of interest .","The LAW provides for a special guarantee for those whose affiliation is exposed [ solely ] because their names and pseudonyms feature in the card indexes or registration journals of the respective services . By section ORG ) , although the Commission must expose them , it must also specifically mention that there is no data about them [ in the other types of records ] under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) .","The LAW does not provide for any legal consequences for those whose affiliation to the [ former security services ] is exposed .","Those whose affiliation is established are entitled to consult the documents contained in their personal and work files ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ) .","Lastly , those whose affiliation is established are entitled to judicial protection , which is why ORG rejects the arguments in the referral that there is no right to a remedy . Unlike the repealed [ DATE Act , see paragraphs CARDINAL above ] , which did not provide for any judicial review of the decisions of the Commission under its section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , but only objections before the Commission itself ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , the [ CARDINAL Act ] now in force expressly states in CARDINAL places that the Commission \u2019s decisions may be challenged by those affected , in accordance with the provisions of LAW . The constitutional right to a remedy of those whose affiliation to the [ former security services ] is made public is governed by sections CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW . They can challenge the ORG \u2019s decisions before the relevant administrative court and then appeal on points of law against that court \u2019s judgment to a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG .","Under LAW , the ORG is a collective administrative body , and its decisions bear the hallmarks of individual administrative decisions . These decisions are acts which authenticate pre - existing rights and obligations , which means that they are declaratory administrative decisions ( LAW ) . The administrative authorities issue declaratory and authenticating administrative decisions under many other statutes , and have no discretion in this , because there is CARDINAL lawful way for them to act . The manner in which an administrative authority takes a decision does not affect the right to a remedy of those concerned by that decision . [ This ] court does not agree with the ... argument that the LAW is in effect being applied by the ORG , and that judicial review of the Commission \u2019s decisions has been trimmed down to verification of whether it has arrived at those decisions by following the correct procedure . Laws are not applied by the administrative authorities alone . By LAW , justice is administered by ORG , and by LAW the courts review the lawfulness of the administrative authorities\u2019 decisions and actions [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] . If , as argued [ here ] , the courts only scrutinise the procedure whereby the ORG arrives at its decisions , then they are falling short of the paramount requirement of administrative procedure , set out in LAW , that all ... aspects of the lawfulness of administrative decisions be examined by a court of its own motion , without any prompting by the parties ( LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . In judicial review proceedings , claimants may support their allegations by all types of evidence available under LAW ( LAW ) .","The possibilities for abuse in the creation of documents of the [ former security services ] were limited by the rules governing [ their ] activities , as evident from Order No . CARDINAL of DATE of the Minister of ORG , and Instruction No . I-CARDINAL of DATE [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] . Under those instruments , secret collaborators had operative target surveillance files and personal and work files \u2013 recorded in a common register , where entries were regulated \u2013 and unique personal registration numbers . All secret collaborators were entered into a central database , consisting of card indexes CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL and statistical card index no . CARDINAL , all of which were kept in line with the relevant rules [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] . In many cases , when the information supplied had no operative value , or when the secret collaborator had not drawn up a written account , the results of a meeting were noted down by the [ handling officer ] in a report ( paragraph CARDINAL of the Order ) . The use of the records provided for by the LAW in cases in which personal and work files have been destroyed does not affect the right to a remedy of those exposed as affiliated to the [ former security services ] , or infringe the LAW , as the matter boils down to conducting one \u2019s defence before the courts correctly .","As required LAW , those wrongly exposed as affiliated to the [ former security services ] can also assert their rights by way of claims [ for damages ] under LAW ) of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act [ DATE ] . They can also protect their rights under [ the defamation provisions ] of LAW .","This court therefore finds that the right to a remedy of those found to be affiliated to the [ former security services ] has not been breached , which means that the impugned part of CARDINAL ) of the LAW does not run counter to ORG CARDINAL of the LAW .","The third argument in the referral is that claimants in cases in which ORG is asked to review decisions of the Commission keep relying on [ the ORG decision which struck down parts of LAW see paragraph CARDINAL above ] .","ORG must note that the bodies which bring proceedings before it under LAW are not parties to the cases [ before the ordinary courts ] , as stated in the referral , but the judicial formations of ORG or ORG . In such circumstances , a referral to ORG is only required when the judicial panel dealing with a case is itself satisfied that the applicable statute or part of it is unconstitutional . As is evident from CARDINAL of the statements by third parties , ORG case - law in all cases under the [ CARDINAL Act ] is settled , with the court dismissing the claims of all those whose affiliation has been established .","In its decision [ relating to LAW ] , ORG found [ the provision ] which defined the notion of \u2018 card - indexed DATE NORP citizens whose names and pseudonyms feature in the card indexes and registration journals of the [ former security services ] \u2013 unconstitutional . The decision has been complied with : the provision that it declared unconstitutional was not applied until the [ DATE ] Act \u2019s repeal [ in DATE ] .","In these proceedings , the [ referring court ] challenges some of the records which can be used to establish affiliation under LAW ) of the [ CARDINAL Act ] . These include the ... databases ( registration journals and card indexes [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] ) used to establish the affiliation of NORP citizens who have covertly assisted the [ former security services ] as residents , agents , holders of secret meeting LOC , holders of secret ( conspirative ) LOC , informers , and trusted persons ( paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act \u2019s additional provisions ) .","Having carried out a comparative analysis , the court finds that the subject matter of this case is the constitutionality of part of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ CARDINAL Act ] , now in force , which has fresh content and a new rationale , and is not identical to [ the corresponding provision ] of the [ CARDINAL Act ] . The CARDINAL are not identical , because they are CARDINAL different provisions from CARDINAL separate statutes ( see ... ) .","Although [ those provisions ] of the [ CARDINAL Act ] and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ CARDINAL Act ] are not identical , ORG accepts that their effect partly coincides , in as much as the result of both of them is that affiliation to the [ former security services ] can be established on the basis of data from [ the ] registration journals and card indexes . This case does not call for the application of section CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , which precludes a fresh referral on a point which ORG has decided by means of a decision on the merits or an inadmissibility decision , because ORG has not previously ruled or been asked to rule on the constitutionality of CARDINAL ) of the [ CARDINAL Act ] . But there remains the question of whether the rulings in the [ decision relating to LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL above ] bind the court in this case .","By section PERSON ) of LAW DATE , ORG decisions are binding on all ORG authorities , legal entities and individuals . But the legal force of a decision has temporal limits , and ends when the facts relevant to it change after it has been handed down . Having given its decision , ORG can not revoke it , or regard statutory provisions that it has declared unconstitutional as still in force . But the [ court ] is not forever bound by its legal views . The law \u2019s development is an objective fact , which permits construing legal provisions in a manner open to alternative views , and taking into account significant social developments which have occurred in the meantime . Arguments based on the need to keep the case - law stable and approach similar cases in the same way can not outweigh those about the need to develop the law , as long as any straying from the settled case - law is well - founded and justified . When socially necessary , ORG may thus change its views and lay down new legal categories , influenced by the doctrine of evolutive interpretation and the need to take into account changes in circumstances which give new arguments greater force . There are previous examples of such reasoned changes of view in [ this court ] \u2019s case - law .","ORG notes that this case concerns the application of a new statute , not the repealed CARDINAL , which it has already examined . The application of this new statute has given rise to a considerable number of precedents , both at the level of the administrative authorities which apply it and at judicial level . All those who hold public office or engage in public activities within the meaning of section CARDINAL of that Act and have been affiliated to the [ former security services ] must be treated equally . This means that the affiliation of those whose files are still available and those whose files have been destroyed must equally be exposed . All those whose affiliation has been established and those whose affiliation is to be exposed \u2013 both those whose affiliation has already been exposed and those whose affiliation is yet to be exposed \u2013 must [ likewise ] be treated without distinction . Another fresh development is that judicial review has been available for DATE , and ORG has settled case - law [ in such cases ] . \u201d","In DATE , in the light of what he considered to be an emerging divergence in ORG case - law ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG asked the plenary session of that court to give an interpretative decision on ( a ) whether , in carrying out an investigation , the Commission should attempt to assess the probative value of the records of the former security services , with a view to determining the actual activities of those featuring in them , and ( b ) whether the ORG was bound to expose everyone whose name it found in those records , or could refrain from doing so in some cases . On DATE the court \u2019s plenary session turned down the request , because fewer than the requisite number of judges voted in favour of admitting it for examination ( see \u0442\u044a\u043b\u043a. \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0442\u044a\u043b\u043a. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , ORG \u043e\u0442 I \u0438 II \u043a. ) .","In CARDINAL criminal defamation cases , ORG held that since affiliation with ORG was not objectively damaging , allegations in that respect were not defamatory ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0432. \u043d. \u0447. \u0445. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG , and \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 ORG \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0432. \u043d. \u0447. \u0445. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG ) . In a civil case , ORG held that such an allegation , if false , made in the presence of the person concerned specifically with a view to affecting his or her dignity , and subjectively perceived by him or her as vilifying , was a tortious insult ( see \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG , PERSON \u0433. \u043e. ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178700","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ISL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF HAARDE v. ICELAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge;Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nullum crimen sine lege)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant was a member of ORG ( GPE ) during DATE . He served as Minister of Finance in DATE , Minister for Foreign Affairs from DATE and Prime Minister from DATE to DATE . After Parliamentary elections in DATE the applicant led the government which was formed by ORG ( PERSON ) , of which he was a member , and ORG Samfylkingin ) .","In DATE the NORP banking system collapsed . On DATE the applicant proposed a bill to ORG which , on DATE , was adopted as the LAW on the Authority for Treasury Disbursements due to Unusual Financial Market Circumstances etc . ( L\u00f6g um heimild til fj\u00e1rveitingar \u00far r\u00edkissj\u00f3\u00f0i vegna s\u00e9rstakra a\u00f0st\u00e6\u00f0na \u00e1 fj\u00e1rm\u00e1lamarka\u00f0i ofl . , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Among other things , it authorised ORG Fj\u00e1rm\u00e1laeftirliti\u00f0 ) to intervene in the operations of financial undertakings . On CARDINAL and DATE the authority seized control of GPE \u2019s CARDINAL largest banks , ORG hf . , PERSON banki hf . and Kaup\u00feing banki hf .","In DATE ORG established ORG ( FAC , hereinafter \u201c the NORP \u201d ) to investigate and analyse the processes leading to , as well as the causes of , the collapse of the above - mentioned banks . According to section CARDINAL of the Special Investigation Commission Act ( L\u00f6g um ranns\u00f3kn \u00e1 a\u00f0draganda og ors\u00f6kum falls \u00edslensku bankanna DATE og tengdra atbur\u00f0a , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; hereinafter \u201c the SIC Act \u201d ) , CARDINAL of the ORG \u2019s objectives was to assess whether mistakes or negligence had occurred in the course of implementing laws and rules in respect of financial activities in GPE and regulatory inspection in that field and , if so , who might be responsible . While its role was not to investigate potential criminal conduct , the ORG should inform ORG of any suspicions of criminal activities having taken place as well as any potential breaches of official duty . The ORG made an extensive investigation during which it collected information from individuals , financial institutions and public institutions , conducted formal hearings with CARDINAL individuals and meetings with a further CARDINAL individuals .","The applicant testified before the ORG on CARDINAL and DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed him that it considered that he had acted negligently and invited him to submit a written statement in reply , which he did on DATE .","On DATE the ORG issued its report which contained a detailed description of the causes of the collapse of the NORP banks as well as serious criticism of the acts and omissions of a number of public officials and institutions . This included the applicant and CARDINAL other ministers from his cabinet , the Minister of Finance , PERSON from ORG , and the Minister of ORG , Mr PERSON from ORG , who were found to have shown negligence by omitting to respond in an appropriate fashion to the impending danger for the NORP economy that was caused by the deteriorating situation of the banks .","NORP In the meantime , on DATE , the government led by the applicant resigned and on DATE ORG and ORG ( Vinstrihreyfingin \u2013 gr\u00e6nt frambo\u00f0 ) formed a government . Those CARDINAL parties gained a majority of seats in ORG in the subsequent elections on DATE .","NORP In DATE ORG passed an amendment to the LAW according to which it was to elect an ad hoc parliamentary review committee ( \u00deingmannanefndin ; hereafter \u201c the GPE \u201d ) \u201c to address the report of the ORG on the collapse of the banks , and form recommendations as to ORG \u2019s response to the ORG \u2019s conclusions \u201d . It was also to adopt a position on ministerial accountability and assess whether there were grounds for impeachment proceedings before ORG ) for violations of LAW ( L\u00f6g um r\u00e1\u00f0herra\u00e1byrg\u00f0 , no . CARDINAL ) . The GPE was established on DATE and was composed of CARDINAL members of ORG representing all the parliamentary party groups . It commenced work on DATE .","NORP The GPE examined the ORG report , held CARDINAL meetings and multiple informal working meetings . It received several expert opinions on ministerial liability from professors as well as the former state prosecutor and PERSON , then deputy state prosecutor . ORG attended CARDINAL meetings of the GPE and expressed her opinions on the potential charges against ministers , the penal provisions that might apply , the evidence that could be relevant and the rules and content pertaining to an indictment . She also submitted a draft text for part of an indictment . The GPE further collected original documents relating to the ORG duties which were mentioned in the ORG report , inter alia letters , notes , TIME , emails from ORG and ORG and TIME from meetings of the consultative group on financial stability and contingency planning . On DATE the GPE sent letters to CARDINAL individuals , including the applicant , who had held office as ministers during the period covered by the ORG report , asking them to submit comments and information regarding the report \u2019s conclusions . The committee received replies from CARDINAL individuals , including the applicant who submitted his reply by letter of DATE .","On DATE the GPE submitted a proposal for a parliamentary resolution to commence impeachment proceedings against CARDINAL cabinet members : the CARDINAL mentioned above ( including the applicant ) and PERSON , who was the former Minister of ORG and the head of ORG . The proposal listed CARDINAL points of alleged negligent behaviour , corresponding to the counts in the eventual indictment issued against the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was considered to have been negligent in all CARDINAL respects , whereas the other CARDINAL ministers were deemed responsible only in respect of CARDINAL of the points ( excluding what was to become count CARDINAL in the applicant \u2019s indictment ) . The proposal was presented as a whole but ORG decided to vote on each former minister separately . In a resolution of CARDINAL DATE , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , it approved the GPE \u2019s proposal to commence impeachment proceedings against the applicant . With similar small majorities , the votes concerning the other former ministers led to the conclusion that they should not be indicted .","All CARDINAL members of ORG and all CARDINAL members of ORG ) voted in favour of impeachment of each of the CARDINAL former ministers and all CARDINAL members of ORG voted against the proposal . CARDINAL of the QUANTITY members of ORG ( ORG ) voted in favour of impeachment of all the ministers and CARDINAL members voted against . As regards the members of ORG , CARDINAL of its CARDINAL members voted in favour of impeachment of each of the ministers and CARDINAL members voted against in respect of all of them . The remaining CARDINAL ORG members were the only ones that cast differing votes in regard to the CARDINAL ministers : the applicant DATE in favour of impeachment ; Mr GPE DATE ; PERSON \u2013 four ; and Mr GPE DATE .","On DATE , DATE , the applicant designated a lawyer for his defence . On DATE he was formally notified of the result of the voting in ORG . The ORG resolution , containing the exact points of indictment , the GPE \u2019s proposal and an explanatory memorandum with the reasons for the proposal , was made available on the website of the ORG .","On DATE ORG appointed PERSON to prosecute the case on its behalf . It also appointed a parliamentary committee to assist her and to monitor the case .","The Court of Impeachment constituted to adjudicate the case was composed , in accordance with section CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Thus , CARDINAL members of the court were judges of ORG , one was a judge of ORG ) of PERSON , and CARDINAL was a professor at ORG . The latter member was , on DATE , appointed as justice of ORG , but continued to sit on ORG in his original capacity . The remaining CARDINAL members of ORG were lay judges appointed by ORG .","Following the applicant \u2019s request by letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG , on DATE , appointed the applicant \u2019s lawyer as his defence counsel . The applicant claims that he and his lawyer had made such a request on several earlier occasions . However , no evidence thereof has been submitted in the present case .","According to ORG \u2019s prosecutor ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) she invited , by a letter of DATE , the applicant \u2019s counsel to make comments or request that further information be collected . It appears that counsel did not make any comments or requests in reply .","Following decisions of ORG of DATE and ORG of DATE , the prosecutor was given access to documents and information , including documents from the ORG database , statements given before the ORG as well as correspondence from the applicant \u2019s former work email . She conducted a research into these documents but did not hear the applicant or any witnesses during her investigation .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel was provided with a ORG memory stick containing the documents which the prosecutor had obtained from the ORG database .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was indicted , in accordance with the Parliamentary resolution of DATE :"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","7-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141857","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"VEB NCVB AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["A list of applicants is set out in the appendix . The applicants were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ( hereafter also : the applicants\u2019 representative ) .","NORP Before the events complained of , the applicants variously held shares or subordinated bonds ( the latter under diverse designations ) issued by ORG , a public limited company ( naamloze vennootschap , \u201c GPE \u201d ) incorporated under GPE law , or CARDINAL or more of its subsidiaries . The events complained of , which concern the expropriation of those shares and subordinated bonds , are set out in PERSON and Others against the GPE and CARDINAL other applications DATE ) , no . DATE , DATE . Appeals against the expropriation decision were dismissed by ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . Proceedings relating to compensation are currently pending before ORG ( PERSON ) .","At the time of the proceedings in issue , ORG , as pertinent , provided as follows ( footnotes omitted ) :","\u201c CARDINAL . Persons , non - governmental organisations or groups of individuals may initially present applications under LAW themselves or through a representative . ... \u201d","\u201c The parties have a duty to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings and , in particular , to take such action within their power as the ORG considers necessary for the proper administration of justice . This duty shall also apply to a ORG not party to the proceedings where such cooperation is necessary . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Any application made under ORG CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the Convention shall be submitted in writing and shall be signed by the applicant or by the ORG representative .","Where an application is made by a non - governmental organisation or by a group of individuals , it shall be signed by those persons competent to represent that organisation or group . ORG concerned shall determine any question as to whether the persons who have signed an application are competent to do so .","Where applicants are represented in accordance with Rule CARDINAL , a power of attorney or written authority to act shall be supplied by their representative or representatives . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Any application under LAW shall be made on the application form provided by ORG , unless the President of the Section concerned decides otherwise . It shall set out","( a ) the name , date of birth , nationality , sex , occupation and address of the applicant ;","...","and be accompanied by","( h ) copies of any relevant documents and in particular the decisions , whether judicial or not , relating to the object of the application .","...","Failure to comply with the requirements set out in DATE and QUANTITY of this Rule may result in the application not being examined by the ORG .","The date of introduction of the application for the purposes of LAW shall as a general rule be considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out , even summarily , the subject matter of the application , provided that a duly completed application form has been submitted within the time - limits laid down by the ORG . The ORG may for good cause nevertheless decide that a different date shall be considered to be the date of introduction . ... \u201d","Clarification of the above Rules , among others , was provided by a Practice direction on the institution of proceedings issued by the President of the ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG . At the time of the proceedings here in issue , it read as follows , in its relevant parts and in the redaction in force since DATE ( footnote omitted ) :","\u201c CARDINAL . If an application has not been submitted on the official form or an introductory letter does not contain all the information referred to in Rule CARDINAL , the applicant may be required to submit a duly completed form . It must be despatched within DATE from DATE letter requesting the applicant to complete and return the form .","Failure to comply with this time - limit will have implications for the date of introduction of the application and may therefore affect the applicant \u2019s compliance with the DATE rule contained in LAW .","Applicants may file an application by sending it by fax . However , they must despatch the signed original by post within DATE from DATE letter referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above .","...","On receipt of the first communication setting out the subject - matter of the case , the ORG will open a file , whose number must be mentioned in all subsequent correspondence . Applicants will be informed thereof by letter . They may also be asked for further information or documents .","...","Failure to provide further information or documents at the ORG \u2019s request ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) may result in the application not being examined by the ORG or being declared inadmissible or struck out of the ORG \u2019s list of cases . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159225","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"SMAILAGI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) opened an investigation in respect of the applicant and another person in connection with a suspicion of economic crime .","The applicant appealed against that decision on DATE , arguing that it had not been sufficiently established that he had committed the alleged offences at issue .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , composed of Judges S.P.L. , PERSON and ORG , dismissed his appeal and upheld the decision of the investigating judge on the grounds that a sufficient degree of reasonable suspicion existed to warrant the opening of an investigation .","Following the investigation , on DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) indicted the applicant and another person in ORG ( PERSON kazneni sud u GPE ) on charges of misfeasance in business .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","The Zagreb Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG challenged this judgment , with an appeal lodged before ORG on DATE , arguing that the sentence was too lenient .","On DATE the applicant also lodged an appeal against the judgment , alleging numerous substantive and procedural flaws .","An appeal hearing before a panel of judges of ORG , composed of Judges S.B.B. , PERSON and PERSON , was held on DATE . The applicant and his lawyer were present at the hearing . They did not object to the composition of the appeal panel .","On DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case on the grounds of insufficient reasoning in the judgment .","Following a retrial , on DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to ten months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","The applicant appealed to ORG on DATE , alleging numerous substantive and procedural flaws in the first - instance judgment .","At an appeal hearing held on CARDINAL DATE before a panel of judges of ORG , composed of Judges S.B.B. , PERSON and PERSON , the applicant and his lawyer reiterated the appeal arguments . They did not object to the composition of the appeal panel .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded and upheld the first - instance judgment .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) complaining , inter alia , that the appeal court had not been impartial owing to the fact that Judges PERSON and PERSON had sat on the panel which had dismissed his appeal , and the same judges had previously upheld the decision to open an investigation against him in connection with the same offences .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded on the grounds that the questions which Judges S.B.B. and PERSON had had to answer when deciding on the opening of an investigation against him differed from those questions which they had examined upon his appeal against the first - instance judgment adopted after a hearing on the merits of the charges held against him . ORG therefore considered that there was nothing to warrant calling into question the impartiality of these particular judges .","The decision of ORG was sent to the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","The relevant provision of LAW ( ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL , DATE ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( consolidated text ) , PERSON ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) reads :","\u201c In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . \u201d","At the material time , the relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) provided :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A judge or lay judge shall be excluded from sitting in a case :","NORP if he has been injured by the offence ;","NORP if he is the spouse , a relative by blood , either lineal , descending or ascending , or collateral to the fourth degree , or related by affinity to the second degree , to the defendant , his counsel , the prosecutor , the injured person , their legal guardian or legal representative ;","NORP if he is a legal guardian , ward , adopted child or adoptive parent , foster parent or foster child of the defendant , his counsel , the prosecutor or the injured person ;","NORP if in the same criminal case he has carried out investigative actions , or has taken part in deciding on an objection to the indictment , or if he has taken part in the proceedings as a prosecutor , defence counsel , legal guardian or legal representative of the injured person or the prosecutor , or if he has testified as a witness or as an expert witness ;","NORP if in the same case he has taken part in adopting the decision of a lower court or in adopting a decision of the same court being challenged by means of an appeal or extraordinary remedy .","( CARDINAL ) A judge or lay judge may be removed or remove himself from a particular case if it has been argued and proved that there are circumstances other than those listed in the previous paragraph which call his impartiality into doubt . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A judge or lay judge , as soon as he discovers a ground for exclusion referred to in DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , of this Code , shall discontinue all activity on the case and report the matter to the president of the court , who shall appoint a substitute judge ...","( CARDINAL ) If a judge or lay judge holds that other circumstances exist which would justify his standing down ( Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ) , he shall inform the president of the court thereof . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Disqualification of a judge may also be requested by CARDINAL of the parties ...","( CARDINAL ) A party may seek the disqualification of a judge of a higher court in the appeal or reply to the appeal [ of the other party ] . In any event , it must be at the latest before the commencement of the hearing of that court .","... \u201d","In the decision no . ORG of CARDINAL DATE ORG examined whether the previous involvement of a judge , who dismissed an appeal against the investigating judge \u2019s decision opening an investigation , required exclusion of the judge from the subsequent participation in the proceedings under LAW . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c With regard to the arguments from the constitutional complaint that there has been a fundamental error of the proceedings because a judge participating in the main hearing should have been excluded from the case , ORG notes as follows :","Under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Official Gazette nos . PERCENT , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE consolidated text ) a judge or a lay judge shall be excluded from sitting in a case if in the same criminal case he has carried out investigative actions , or has taken part in deciding on an objection to the indictment , or if he has taken part in the proceedings as a prosecutor , defence counsel , legal guardian or legal representative of the injured person or the prosecutor , or if he has testified as a witness or as an expert witness .","Under LAW ) of LAW a fundamental procedural error exists if a judge or a lay judge who should have been excluded ( LAW ) sat in the case during the main hearing .","ORG case file shows that the investigation , that is to say investigative actions , had been carried out by Judge PERSON , an investigating judge of ORG , and that Judge PERSON , who presided the trial panel of the first - instance court , as a member of a CARDINAL - judge panel , had decided upon the appeals against the decision of the investigating judge opening the investigation and ordering pre - trial detention ...","In view of the provisions of LAW , and having regard to the above findings ... the [ Constitutional ] Court finds that an alleged fundamental error in the proceedings at issue has not occurred , which could lead to a violation of the constitutional right to a fair trial . \u201d","In the case no . K\u017e-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL , on DATE , ORG also explained :","\u201c ... Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerns instances in which a judge is excluded from sitting in a case if in the same criminal case he has carried out investigative actions , or has taken part in deciding on an objection to the indictment , or if he has taken part in the proceedings as a prosecutor , defence counsel , legal guardian or legal representative of the injured person or the prosecutor , or if he has testified as a witness or as an expert witness .","The reasons referred to in Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW are exhaustive , and those reasons do not include participation of a judge in the decision on appeal against a decision opening an investigation . \u201d","On DATE , in case no . Su - IV-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG ( PERSON ) examined on the merits a request for the disqualification of CARDINAL of its judges lodged by the defence under LAW just before the commencement of an appeal hearing before that court .","In case no . PERSON , on DATE ORG examined on the merits a request for the disqualification of a judge submitted just before the commencement of an appeal hearing before that court ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140015","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LILLO-STENBERG AND S\u00c6THER v. NORWAY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They live in GPE . The first applicant is a musician and the second applicant is an actress . They are both known to the public in GPE .","On DATE , the applicants married in a private ceremony which took place outdoors on an islet in the municipality of PERSON in the GPE fjord , QUANTITY south of the capital .","Subsequently , the DATE magazine Se og ORG , hereafter \u201c the magazine \u201d , published a CARDINAL - page article about the wedding , accompanied by CARDINAL photographs . CARDINAL photograph showed the bride , her father and her bridesmaids arriving at the islet in a small rowing boat ; another showed the bride being brought to the groom by her father on the islet , surrounded by people ; and yet another photograph showed the bride and the groom returning to the mainland on foot by crossing the lake on stepping stones . In the last photograph , the bride was barefoot with her wedding dress raised above her knees to avoid getting the dress wet . There was also a photograph of a couple and their baby who were wedding guests . Finally , there were CARDINAL old photographs : CARDINAL of the applicants framed in a heart and CARDINAL of the second applicant and the applicants\u2019 young son attending a musical festival DATE .","The article described the ceremony , the applicants and some of the guests . It stated , inter alia , that the ceremony was touching ; that several guests could not hold back their tears when the bride arrived at the islet and a male voice choir starting singing the song \u201c To live is to love \u201d ; and that a party took place after the ceremony in the garden of a named guest house . It also stated that the ORG manager had informed the magazine that the applicants did not wish to comment on their wedding .","The applicants brought compensation proceedings against the magazine before ORG ( GPE tingrett ) and invoked , among other things , the right to respect for private life under LAW and LAW . It was not in dispute that the magazine was not invited to the wedding and that the photographs were taken without the applicants\u2019 knowledge QUANTITY from the islet .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found for the applicants and ordered the magazine to pay them each MONEY ( ORG ) . In addition , the editor responsible was ordered to pay each applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the journalist and the photographer were ordered to pay each applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","The magazine appealed to ORG ( lagmannsrett ) , which by judgment of DATE upheld the judgment .","The magazine appealed to ORG ( PERSON ) , which by judgment of DATE found against the applicants , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL .","Mr Justice U. gave the following reasons , which in the main were endorsed by the CARDINAL other members of the majority :","\u201c I have concluded that the appeal should be allowed .","( DATE ) In DATE ORG has considered legal questions relating to violation of privacy in the judgments Rt-CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( Big Brother ) and Rt-CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( GPE ) . My argument is based mainly on these judgments . As follows from the judgments , section CARDINAL of LAW concerning redress for violation of privacy must be read in conjunction with LAW . The provision in section CARDINAL refers , at any rate primarily , to violation of section CARDINAL . In my view , there is no need to consider whether , as contended by [ the applicants ] , there may be cases that are covered in principle by LAW but not by \" privacy \" under LAW . Nor will I examine whether this is a discussion of terminology or of facts .","( CARDINAL ) I have already described the content of the article . There is no doubt that the case concerns information \u2012 which I am using as a general term to refer to both text and pictures \u2012 that taken as a whole is relevant to the issue of privacy . There is no reason for me to evaluate individual elements on the basis of whether or not they impinge on the concept of privacy . The article as a whole contains information about the couple and their child in addition to information about the wedding . The relationships within the family and between the family and their friends are clearly of a personal nature .","( CARDINAL ) Thus the question under consideration is whether a violation of privacy took place , cf . section CARDINAL of LAW . There would have been no question of violation of privacy if consent to publication had been obtained , cf . paragraph CARDINAL of the judgment in the Big Brother case . In this case it has been clearly established that the couple had not been informed beforehand that there were plans to publicise the wedding , nor were they asked for their consent . However , the journalist , PERSON , contacted [ the first applicant \u2019s ] manager on DATE , immediately before the article went to press . The manager said that the couple did not wish to comment on the wedding . A little later the same day Se og PERSON was contacted and informed that the couple did not consent to publication , but the reply was that the magazine was already in the press . It has thus been clearly established that the article was published without the couple \u2019s consent . I would add that I see nothing in the article indicating that the couple had given the magazine permission to report on the wedding in return for payment . On the contrary , the article stated at the end that the CARDINAL celebrities did not wish to comment .","( DATE ) The next question is whether the article was unlawful . This question must be decided on the basis of an overall evaluation of the article , cf . paragraph CARDINAL of the Big Brother judgment with further references . In my assessment of legality I also refer to the Big Brother judgment , citing , as was done in the GPE judgment , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL :","\u2018 ... When the penal provision applies to violation of privacy , this necessarily implies that the issue that arises is that of legality . This again implies that the publication must be assessed as a whole , in the actual context and situation , where protection of privacy must be weighed against freedom of expression , cf . ORG , Part DATE , page CARDINAL , of LAW and comments , and further references .","... LAW is incorporated into internal NORP law in LAW . Both Article CARDINAL relating to respect for private and family life and Article CARDINAL relating to the right to freedom of expression are central to the present case . The principles that must be weighed in this case are similar to those that must be weighed under section CARDINAL , first paragraph , of LAW and LAW , and in the present situation these provisions should be interpreted in such a way that their content is in compliance with ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW Rights.\u2019","( CARDINAL ) Reference is also made in paragraph CARDINAL of the Big Brother judgment to the summing up by ORG in the von GPE judgment :","\u2018 ... The conclusion must naturally be read in conjunction with the rest of the judgment . The issue throughout is the balancing of the right to privacy against the principle of freedom of expression . The central issue with respect to protection of privacy is therefore whether the published article contributes to a debate of public interest . In other words , the particular importance of protection under LAW lies in the relevance of the information in question to public debate . With respect to publication of details referring exclusively to an individual \u2019s private life , and particularly to the private relationship between QUANTITY persons who do not occupy positions in politics or in society , this is clearly outside the area that the provisions relating to freedom of expression are intended to regulate.\u2019","( DATE ) Both [ applicants ] are well - known figures , but neither of them has had a prominent role either in the public administration or in any other public body . Thus the provisions of LAW have no particular weight with respect to the magazine article in question , which clearly has a purely entertainment value . In the assessment of legality , protection under LAW is the most relevant principle to be weighed .","( CARDINAL ) I will now examine the circumstances in the present case in relation to the issue of legality . As mentioned above , an overall assessment of the magazine article shows that it concerns the subjects\u2019 private life , and the question is whether in spite of this there are grounds for saying that it does not constitute a violation of privacy . A wedding is a very personal act . At the same time it also has a public side . A wedding is a public affirmation that QUANTITY persons intend to live together , and has legal consequences in many different sectors of society . Thus information about a wedding does not in itself involve a violation of privacy if it is given in a neutral form and based on a reliable source , cf . paragraph CARDINAL of the Big Brother judgment .","( CARDINAL ) The judgment of ORG in the case of PERSON and the subsequent judgment of ORG in the Big Brother case have LOC that seem to go far in support of protection against the use of pictures and texts concerning an individual \u2019s private life . It is therefore necessary to examine the facts on which the judgments were based . Paragraph CARDINAL of the PERSON case concerns a series of photographs of the aggrieved party . In its evaluation of the application of the law in the case at hand , the court stated in DATE and CARDINAL :","\u2018 ... The ORG finds another point to be of importance : even though , strictly speaking , the present application concerns only the publication of the photos and articles by various NORP magazines , the context in which these photos were taken \u2012 without the applicant \u2019s knowledge or consent and the harassment endured by many public figures in their daily lives can not be fully disregarded ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the present case this point is illustrated in particularly striking fashion by the photos taken of the applicant at ORG tripping over an obstacle and falling down ... It appears that these photos were taken secretly at a distance of QUANTITY , probably from a neighbouring house , whereas journalists\u2019 and ORG access to the club was strictly regulated ...","... The ORG reiterates the fundamental importance of protecting private life from the point of view of the development of every human being \u2019s personality . That protection \u2012 as stated above \u2012 extends beyond the private family circle and also includes a social dimension . The ORG considers that anyone , even if they are known to the general public , must be able to enjoy a \u201c legitimate expectation \u201d of protection of and respect for their private life ... \u2019","( DATE ) LAW states :","\u2018 Furthermore , photos appearing in the tabloid press are often taken in a climate of continual harassment which induces in the person concerned a very strong sense of intrusion into their private life or even of persecution.\u2019","( CARDINAL ) Thus the way in which the photos were published and the constant photographing \u2012 often by photographers who followed her around \u2012 constituted harassment of the aggrieved party and also an invasion of privacy . The situation was similar to some extent in the Big Brother case . Se og ORG ran several articles featuring photos taken from different sources together with speculation and gossip . The magazine also described the relationship between the parties during their life together , which was an invasion of their private life as a couple .","( DATE ) The right to protection of privacy is no weaker for well - known cultural personalities than it is for others , despite the fact that their photos are published in magazines and newspapers and on the internet in connection with their professional lives . It could be said that in the case of such individuals it is even more important to ensure that their private lives and personal relationships are protected .","( CARDINAL ) A wedding is a very significant personal experience for the bridal couple , an experience that includes their families , friends and other persons close to them . The wedding ceremony and celebrations are therefore clearly part of private and family life and thus in principle should be protected . However , in my opinion this consideration is CARDINAL aspect of the case .","( DATE ) As mentioned above , a neutral description of CARDINAL NORP wedding is not unlawful .","( CARDINAL ) Neither the text nor the photos in the disputed magazine article contain anything unfavourable to the couple . The article contains no criticism , nor is there anything in the content that could weaken their reputations .","( CARDINAL ) Furthermore , although the couple \u2019s relationships with close friends are part of their private life , I can not see that in this context the naming of a few of the participants constitutes a violation . Nor is it particularly unusual to write that the ceremony was \u201c moving , and several of the guests could n\u2019t hold back their tears when a men \u2019s choir sang ... \u201d .","( DATE ) The article contains no photos of the actual wedding ceremony . It is therefore not possible for me to have any views on whether such photos , including close - ups , would have to be regarded in a different light from those featured in the article . Photos in such a situation would clearly have more personal significance than photos showing the bridal couple arriving at or leaving the place where the marriage took place .","( CARDINAL ) I shall now examine more closely the way the wedding was conducted . The bride arrived at the islet in a rowing boat , with CARDINAL bridesmaids on board . There she was greeted by her future husband and by a men \u2019s choir singing a hymn . After the ceremony the bride and groom had to step from rock to rock in order to reach the shore , which the bride accomplished in bare feet . As pointed out in paragraph CARDINAL of the von GPE judgment , the concept of private life is comprehensive , and includes \u2018 a zone of interaction of a person with others , even in a public context , which may fall within the scope of \u2018 private life\u2019 . However , a certain amount of weight must be given to the fact that the wedding was organised in a very unusual way , and took place in an area that is accessible to the public under LAW and that is easily visible . As already mentioned , the photos do not show the most personal part of the wedding , the actual marriage ceremony .","( CARDINAL ) As mentioned above , the photos were taken of a wedding in a place accessible to the public . It can be assumed that even in DATE there are large numbers of people on PERSON , which is one of the most popular locations for holiday cottages and recreation in GPE . Furthermore , many of the arrangements were such as to attract attention from third parties , for example the arrival of the bride in an open boat and the presence of a men \u2019s choir singing a hymn on the islet . The arrangements were also spectacular in themselves . In spite of the fact that all individuals , including celebrities , are entitled to protection against being photographed even in public places , I consider that this must be taken into account in the assessment of legality .","( DATE ) The photos were taken from a headland QUANTITY from the islet where the ceremony was being held , and a CARDINAL to CARDINAL zoom lens was used . For the bridal couple , however , the situation would not have been any better if the photography had taken place somewhere closer , or from a place where the photographer and journalist could have been seen by the wedding party . This could have disturbed the whole wedding . Nor was the photographing in the nature of a breach of confidence , as it would have been if for example any of the participants had published personal photos taken during or in connection with the wedding . The situation would also have been different if the photos had been taken of events taking place in a closed area where the subjects had reason to believe that they were unobserved , cf . paragraph DATE , second sub - paragraph , of the PERSON judgment .","( CARDINAL ) The article contained a photo of [ the second applicant ] together with the couple \u2019s under - age child . During the proceedings the focus has been on the photos related to the wedding , and it has not been contended that the use of the photo of the under - age child puts the case in a different light . The photo had previously been published in GPE , and it has not been contended that consent was lacking on that occasion . For these reasons I shall not examine the particular questions raised by the use of a photo of an under - age child without the necessary consent of the parents .","( DATE ) Thus it must be concluded that the article did not involve unlawful violation of privacy .","( DATE ) [ The applicants ] have contended as an alternative that the photos were used in a way that conflicts with the provisions of section DATE of LAW relating to the right to control the use of one \u2019s image . In my view these provisions should also be read with the reservation that there could be a conflict of principles and in conjunction with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The conclusion would then be the same as that of my principal assessment .","( CARDINAL ) ORG therefore allows the appeal . However , the case raises difficult and uncertain legal questions , clarification of which is in the public interest , cf . section DATE , third paragraph , a , of the Code of Civil Procedure . No award of costs should therefore be made . \u201d","Mr Justice PERSON gave the following reasons which in the main were endorsed by the other member of the minority :","\u201c ( DATE ) I am substantially in agreement with the first - voting judge \u2019s general interpretation of section CARDINAL of LAW and section CARDINAL of LAW . However , when weighing the right to privacy against the principle of freedom of expression in this specific case , I have arrived at a different conclusion , since I consider that in the present case the appellants have violated the right to privacy under LAW .","( CARDINAL ) I will first examine whether the subject of the article in PERSON og PERSON can be considered to be \u2018 a personal matter\u2019 in the meaning of section CARDINAL .","( CARDINAL ) I agree with the first - voting judge that information that a marriage has been contracted CARDINAL named individuals can be published without being in conflict with the provisions of section CARDINAL of the Penal Code . However , this is not the issue in the present case . The article in ORG also describes in words and pictures details of the arrangements in connection with the wedding ceremony .","( CARDINAL ) Weddings have always been a subject of general interest in the sense that those close to the bridal couple consider them important and wish to participate . It is also usual for the couple to wish to share the event with others . For these reasons there should in principle be no reason why the press should not report a wedding ceremony that takes place in full public view , and where no special arrangements have been made to indicate that the ceremony is private .","( CARDINAL ) However , DATE it is not unusual for the couple to wish to share their wedding and its arrangements only with those closest to them , and often to give the event a personal touch . They are entitled to protect themselves from publicity in such cases as well , and this includes withholding permission for the press to publish the event . In my view the desire to hold a private wedding should be respected in the sense that the wedding ceremony should be regarded as a personal matter within the meaning of section CARDINAL .","( CARDINAL ) A private wedding ceremony may take different forms . For example , a wedding held in a private home provides a clear signal to third parties that the marriage is a personal matter that may not be reported in the form published by ORG without the bridal couple \u2019s prior consent .","( CARDINAL ) In my view all the relevant circumstances indicate that in the present case the wedding was a private event . The wedding party was held at a hotel on PERSON , which in this context is clearly a private area . The islet where the events reported by ORG , and the marriage itself , took place is a relatively short walk away and directly linked with the hotel \u2019s property . In my opinion the fact that there is a general right of public access to the islet under LAW does not prevent this part of the wedding from also being of a clearly private nature . It follows from the von GPE judgment that protection of privacy also applies to places to which the public has access . Furthermore , consent to the use of the islet had been obtained from the landowner . Thus the arrangement as a whole indicated that the couple wished to restrict the wedding to themselves and their guests . From this perspective the event must be considered to be a personal matter within the meaning of LAW .","( CARDINAL ) For these reasons I consider that ORG published in words and pictures a number of details relating to a personal matter . Firstly , the magazine published details of the arrangements for the ceremony , which have been described more fully by the first - voting judge . I regard these as the personal touch that the bridal couple had wished to give their wedding and that in my view underlines the private nature of the wedding . Secondly , the article included a description of the guests and the couple \u2019s families , together with the names of well - known figures . In this connection the names of guests with children were also given , and pictures were shown of the children and their parents .","( CARDINAL ) Like the first - voting judge , I consider that it has been clearly demonstrated that the opposite parties\u2019 consent had not been obtained .","( CARDINAL ) The next question is whether the publication is legal and justified despite the fact that the subject of the article is a personal matter . It follows from paragraph CARDINAL of Rt-CARDINAL - CARDINAL that the main question to be weighed is whether \u2018 the article contributes to a debate of public interest . In other words , the particular importance of the principle of protection under LAW lies in the sphere of public debate\u2019 . I agree with the first - voting judge that this wording can not be interpreted in such a way that it does not rule out that the publication of personal matters is justified in cases where it does not contribute to public debate . However , when matters of a personal nature such as those in question here are published , they must have at least a minimum of public interest if the invasion of privacy is to be considered legitimate . In the present case the publication was a celebrity article written for the sole purpose of entertainment . Although the desire to entertain is in itself legitimate , its nature does not justify overriding the affected parties\u2019 desire to protect their privacy . In this connection I place special emphasis on the fact that getting married is a very significant occasion in a person \u2019s life , and that therefore the activities celebrating it \u2012 the marriage ceremony and the wedding party \u2012 will for most people be one of the most important events of their lives , and will often be associated with strong emotions .","( DATE ) The fact that the opposite parties are well - known cultural figures in GPE has no bearing on the assessment . Well - known persons also have the right to respect for personal matters of the kind we are dealing with here . I find support for this view both in Rt-CARDINAL - CARDINAL , cf . paragraph CARDINAL , and in the von GPE judgment ... , cf . paragraph CARDINAL .","( CARDINAL ) Although this has not influenced my view of the case , I would also like to comment on PERSON H\u00f8r \u2019s use of a zoom lens . The zoom lens enabled the journalist and the photographer to take close - up pictures of the bridal couple and their guests that make it look as if they were actually at the event themselves , when in fact they were hidden from those who were being observed . It seems likely that the reason for using this technique was that the journalist and photographer were aware that the bridal couple would have reacted to their presence on the islet and this might have resulted in the marriage ceremony being moved inside the hotel . Using a zoom lens because of the personal and private nature of the event resembles the use of a hidden camera , which is a factor that also weighs against the appellants .","( DATE ) For these reasons I am of the opinion that the article in Se og ORG can not be justified on the basis of an assessment of legality , and that the opposite parties are entitled to redress for pain and suffering from the appellants . With regard to the amount of redress , the opposite parties have demanded that the amount decided by ORG should be maintained . I have no objections to the amounts decided on . Since I know that I am in the minority , I will not formulate a final conclusion . \u201d","The relevant provision of the Penal Code reads as follows :","Any person who violates another person \u2019s privacy by giving public information about personal or domestic relations shall be liable to fines or imprisonment for a term not exceeding DATE .","Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL shall apply correspondingly .","If the misdemeanour is committed in a printed forum , an order for confiscation may be made in accordance with LAW .","A public prosecution will only be instituted when it is requested by the aggrieved person and required in the public interest ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163911","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KULYK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Sergiy Goncharenko;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , GPE .","According to the applicant , at TIME on DATE , while working in the backyard of his home , he saw CARDINAL young men on the LOC of the nearby ORG ( \u201c the factory \u201d ) . Since there had previously been thefts at the factory premises , during which scrap metal had been thrown over the fence into the applicant \u2019s yard , the latter decided to enter the factory yard to chase after the young men . However , having climbed over the fence and realising the young men were no longer there , the applicant went to look inside the building , entering \u201c through an opening in the wall \u201d . The factory premises were empty but the applicant claimed to have heard adult voices . He did not want to meet anybody and so he crawled out through the same opening and quickly returned home .","TIME a police officer , PERSON , arrived at the applicant \u2019s house . According to the applicant , he had a gun in his hand , swore at the applicant , grabbed him by his collar and hit him on the head with the gun handle . The applicant fell to the ground and the police officer started kicking him . The applicant \u2019s mother - in - law appeared and asked the police officer not to beat the applicant , whereupon he grabbed the applicant by the sleeve and took him to the police station . The applicant was accused of stealing aluminium sheets from the factory .","The applicant also submitted that , at the police station , PERSON , in the presence of CARDINAL other police officers , had kicked him in the kidneys , at which point the applicant fell to the ground . After he got up , CARDINAL of the police officers gave him some water . L. then took the applicant into CARDINAL of the offices , where he and another police officer , PERSON , beat the applicant about the head and kicked him on various parts of his body for TIME . Another police officer , PERSON , arrived and PERSON and PERSON continued to beat the applicant , wanting him to confess to theft . After a while the applicant was placed in a cell .","That night the applicant complained of a headache and general sickness . He was told by the duty police officer that a doctor would come . After some time a man wearing a white coat arrived , emptied CARDINAL ampules labelled \u201c GPE \u201d and \u201c Dimedrol \u201d ( diphenylhydamine ) into a plastic water bottle and gave it to the applicant .","On TIME the applicant was taken to court , where he was fined in administrative proceedings for disobeying a police officer \u2019s order to stop . According to the applicant , he had wanted to show the judge his injuries but the latter refused , advising the applicant to go to a hospital and file a complaint .","The applicant was brought back to the police station , where he signed a paper stating that nobody had ill - treated him and that his personal belongings had been returned to him . The material in the case - file includes a note , allegedly signed by the applicant and dated DATE , stating that he had no complaints about the police officers and that no physical force had been used against him .","On DATE a decision not to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant for stealing aluminium was adopted . It was noted that the applicant had not had any intention of stealing the aluminium sheets and that he had entered the factory premises out of curiosity .","The applicant came home and told his family what had happened . The applicant \u2019s sister - in - law , who is a nurse , gave him an injection but the applicant did not feel any better . He was suffering from headache , nausea and fever which he claimed continued for DATE .","The Government did not provide a detailed description of the events of DATE but it appears from their observations that they agreed with the findings of the national investigation authorities ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant was examined at a hospital and was hospitalised DATE . The applicant stayed in hospital until DATE . According to the applicant \u2019s medical records , upon arrival at the hospital , his condition was of \u201c medium seriousness \u201d . He had bruises mostly on the left side of his body and some scratches on his back . On his left thigh there was a large bruise measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY . The applicant was suffering from headache and nausea . He told the doctors that he had been beaten by police officer L.","In a medical certificate dated DATE , issued by the hospital , the applicant was diagnosed with multitrauma , closed brain injury , brain contusion of medium severity causing numerous neurological problems , CARDINAL broken ribs , post - traumatic pneumonia and injuries to his kidneys , face and body .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG that criminal proceedings be instituted against the police officers . In support of his complaint the applicant outlined his version of the events which took place on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE and DATE several factory employees ( F. , S. , PERSON . \u2013 the wife of police officer PERSON , PERSON and A. ) testified before the investigation authorities that a noise had been heard in CARDINAL of the factory buildings . ORG had asked a police officer , PERSON , to check the origin of this noise . All of the above persons had approached the building and had seen footprints in the snow leading to a conveyor belt opening in the wall . CARDINAL of them had stayed outside while the others , accompanied by PERSON , had entered the building and had seen aluminium sheets from the ceiling piled on the floor and a man trying to escape through the conveyor belt opening . PERSON , who had stayed outside , had tried to catch the man , but the latter had broken free . When jumping from the conveyor belt , the man had slipped and fallen onto the asphalt and had then run away . The police officer had chased after the man . The latter had climbed over the QUANTITY high fence but had lost his balance and fallen onto the other side . The witnesses had heard a thud and a shriek .","L. gave similar testimony . He added that the applicant had also fallen when jumping over the fence of his house . L. had found the applicant in a coal bunker in the backyard of the applicant \u2019s house and said that he had taken him to a police station .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother - in - law , PERSON , testified that PERSON had arrived at her house and had said that he was looking for a criminal . Later she had heard a noise behind the barn and had seen PERSON aiming a blow with the handle of his gun at the applicant , who was lying on the ground . PERSON had begged L. not to beat the applicant . After that PERSON had taken the applicant to a police station .","On DATE ORG ( ORG \u0443 \u0412\u0456\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0446\u044c\u043a\u0456\u0439 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456 ) approved the results of an internal investigation in response to the applicant \u2019s complaint . The investigation found that on DATE around TIME the factory employees had asked PERSON to check the origin of a suspicious noise that had been coming out of CARDINAL of the factory \u2019s abandoned halls . L. , accompanied by CARDINAL factory employees , checked the hall and found aluminium sheets , which had been torn from the ceiling and piled up on the floor . He also saw the applicant , who tried to escape . While running away , the applicant fell twice \u2013 once when climbing through a conveyor belt opening in the wall and a second time when climbing over the fence . He fell for a third time when jumping over the fence of his house . In the yard of his house the applicant hid in a coal bunker , where he was found and taken to a police station . The police officers testified that they had not ill - treated the applicant . The applicant \u2019s mother - in - law testified that a police officer PERSON had aimed a blow at the applicant as he was lying on the ground but she had not seen the applicant being beaten . Although summoned by a prosecutor , the applicant did not appear for questioning and neighbours \u2012 who did not want their names to be cited \u2012 described him as an alcoholic inclined to involvement in scandalous conduct , theft and fraud . The internal police investigation concluded that since the submissions of the applicant , the police officers and the witnesses were contradictory , the case - file of material should be sent to a prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the deputy prosecutor of LOC ( \u0437\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f\u043d\u0438\u043a \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u043e\u0440\u0430 \u0428\u0430\u0440\u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0443 ) refused to institute criminal proceedings following the applicant \u2019s complaint . The deputy prosecutor noted that the applicant had stated that he had not intended to steal aluminium but had entered the factory premises out of curiosity and had run away out of fear of being accused of theft , that PERSON had denied using physical force on the applicant and that the factory employees said that they had not seen PERSON beat the applicant . It was also noted that the applicant had not appeared for the forensic medical examination . The deputy prosecutor concluded that the applicant had sustained his injuries when trying to run away from L.","On DATE this decision was quashed by a higher prosecutor since it had not been established how the applicant \u2019s injuries had been inflicted .","According to a forensic medical conclusion of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant had sustained the following injuries : closed concussion , CARDINAL broken ribs on the left and CARDINAL on the right , post - traumatic pneumonia and a kidney injury . He had numerous bruises : on the chest ( QUANTITY ) , left shoulder ( QUANTITY and QUANTITY ) , left hip ( QUANTITY ) , under the right knee ( CARDINAL cm ) , left shoulder blade ( QUANTITY ) and scratches on the back . Those injuries were of medium severity and had been inflicted by a blunt , hard object possibly on DATE .","DATE and DATE ORG ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0430 \u0428\u0430\u0440\u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0443 ) twice refused to institute criminal proceedings in response to the complaint from the applicant . Those decisions were quashed by higher prosecutors for reasons similar to those mentioned in the decision of DATE and the case was referred for additional investigation .","DATE and DATE the following investigative steps were taken :","on DATE the applicant \u2019s mother - in - law testified that she had seen L. kicking the applicant whilst he was lying on the ground ;","on CARDINAL August-CARDINAL DATE the applicant , his wife and the factory employees were questioned ;","on DATE a forensic expert concluded that the applicant had sustained bodily injuries of medium seriousness and that those injuries could have been inflicted by blunt objects or by several falls from different heights ;","on DATE police officers P. and L. were questioned ;","on DATE the factory premises were examined ;","according to a forensic medical report dated DATE , the applicant could have sustained his injuries DATE and DATE by being beaten or by falling from a height .","On DATE ORG ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0430 ORG \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456 ) instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of abuse of power .","On DATE the applicant was questioned and he reiterated his version of events ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , submitting , in particular , that in the police station \u2012 in the presence of QUANTITY police officers \u2012 L. had struck him on the chest ; PERSON had hit him several times on the head ; P. and PERSON had kicked him on various parts of his body and PERSON had struck him on the chest and on the abdomen and had then beaten him in the presence of a police officer .","On DATE the forensic medical commission confirmed the previous expert conclusions and added that the applicant had been able to move after the injuries had been inflicted .","DATE the applicant , his family members , factory employees and police officers were again questioned and a reconstruction of events was staged in the police station . The applicant \u2019s mother - in - law testified that she had seen PERSON kicking the applicant as he lay on the ground . She also stated that PERSON had hit the applicant on the head with his gun handle . The factory employees ORG testified that they had seen the applicant running away and falling over on his way to the fence and again when climbing over the fence . Face - to - face confrontations between the applicant and police officers PERSON , and between the applicant and the factory employees were conducted .","On DATE the police officers PERSON and PERSON were charged with abuse of power accompanied by violence .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that investigating officers PERSON and ORG had been disciplined for delaying the investigation .","On DATE P. and L. were questioned as witnesses .","On DATE ORG asked the Head of ORG of GPE , which is part of ORG of GPE ( \u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a ORG \u0443 PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456 ORG \u0413\u0423\u0411\u041e\u0417 \u041c\u0412\u0421 \u0423\u043a\u0440\u0430\u0457\u043d\u0438 ) , to identify and question witnesses who had seen or talked to the applicant at the time of the events in question . On an unspecified date the police stated that it had not been possible to find any witnesses . Similar requests were also submitted on DATE and DATE . The answers to those requests were also negative .","On DATE ORG ( NORP \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0456\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0435 \u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0447\u043d\u0435 ORG ) , in reply to a request from ORG , submitted that on CARDINAL and DATE the applicant had not received any medical assistance from an ambulance team .","On DATE , judge PERSON . was questioned . He submitted that when he had seen the applicant in court on DATE the applicant had had no injuries to his head or hands , nor had he complained about any health problems . The applicant also did not complain that he had been beaten .","On DATE the investigating officer from ORG terminated the proceedings against the police officers for absence of corpus delicti . On DATE this decision was upheld by ORG . On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed these decisions and remitted the case for a fresh investigation . The court found that the investigating officer had failed to check whether an ambulance had been called for the applicant when he had been at the police station , and had failed to question the witnesses to the applicant \u2019s arrest . It was also unclear whether the applicant \u2019s injuries could have occurred as a result of his falls .","On DATE ORG again submitted that on CARDINAL and DATE the applicant had not received any medical assistance from an ambulance team while at the police station .","In DATE L. , NORP and PERSON were again questioned .","NORP On DATE the forensic experts concluded that the applicant \u2019s injuries could have occurred as a result of several falls .","On DATE the investigating officer of ORG again terminated the proceedings for absence of corpus delicti .","On DATE ORG quashed that decision because witnesses to the applicant \u2019s arrest had not been sought and the hospital doctors had not been questioned . The applicant \u2019s family members and some factory employees were to be additionally questioned and the evidential material from the administrative case - file against the applicant was to be included in the file . The case was remitted for further investigation .","On DATE ORG rejected the prosecutor \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE .","DATE and DATE the proceedings were terminated CARDINAL times for absence of corpus delicti and re - opened , in particular , in the light of the failure to obtain the applicant \u2019s medical file from the hospital or to conduct a reconstruction of events with the participation of PERSON , witnesses and a forensic medical expert in order to establish where the applicant had fallen and the circumstances in which the applicant had suffered his injuries .","By letters of DATE and DATE ORG informed ORG , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s mother - in - law , wife and sister - in - law had refused to testify , that a factory guard who had been on duty on DATE had moved to GPE , and that \u201c it had been impossible to question doctors at ORG since there was no information about any medical assistance that might have been provided to the applicant \u201d .","On DATE a reconstruction of events at the factory had been conducted with the participation of L. and a forensic medical expert . The expert had also been asked additional questions on DATE .","On DATE an investigating officer of ORG terminated the criminal proceedings against the police officers for absence of evidence of a crime .","It was found that on DATE at TIME employees of ORG had asked a police officer PERSON , who had been present at that time on the factory premises , to check the origin of noises coming from inside one of the locked factory buildings . L. together with PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON went to the LOC in question . Inside the building , PERSON and the factory employees found aluminium sheets torn from the ceiling and piled up against a wall . They also saw the applicant , who ran away after tripping up several times . The applicant was later apprehended at his home and taken to a police station .","After being questioned on DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the applicant admitted that whilst running away he had heard people shouting behind him but had not paid any attention to them . The applicant also submitted that he had climbed over the fence having stepped on a manure pile on another side . However , the applicant \u2019s neighbours testified that the manure pile was located QUANTITY away from the wall . The prosecutor also referred to the testimonies given by the police officer PERSON , factory workers , other police officers and a judge PERSON . during the investigation . Numerous forensic medical experts concluded that the applicant \u2019s injuries could have been caused by having fallen onto hard objects several times . The forensic medical expert who participated in the reconstruction of events testified that the applicant \u2019s injuries had most probably been caused as a result of his having fallen down several times , bearing in mind the frozen ground , the height of the conveyor belt and the fence , and the body \u2019s acceleration when running .","In view of the above LOC concluded that there was no evidence of any crime and , since the events in question had taken place DATE , that there was no possibility of finding such evidence .","On DATE ORG authorised a search of LOC at FAC CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . This search was the result of criminal proceedings instituted DATE following the placement of pornographic material on an Internet page which allegedly belonged to the applicant \u2019s representative .","On DATE Ya . , who was using the premises at FAC , allowed the police to inspect those LOC after receiving authorisation from the owner . She confirmed that the items of property in the room at that address belonged to the applicant \u2019s representative .","On DATE the police officers inspected the premises at FAC and seized , inter alia , CARDINAL computers . According to the applicant \u2019s representative , the office of a human rights organisation was located at that address , which was where he worked .","The applicant \u2019s representative complained about the seizure to a prosecutor indicating that CARDINAL of the seized computers contained part of confidential correspondence with ORG in the present case .","On DATE , in response to complaints by the applicant \u2019s representative about alleged breaches of the law in the course of the search and seizure , ORG issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings . According to the applicant \u2019s representative , he appealed against that decision but to no avail .","According to reports in the media , in DATE the applicant \u2019s representative was acquitted ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","34"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174963","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PETROV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Prohibition of torture);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","NORP The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and the lack of medical care in custody . Relying on LAW he also alleged that no effective domestic remedies for his grievances had been available to him ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161740","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DZHABAROV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Pavlina Panova;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["Mr Dzhabarov was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lived in GPE . He died on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE his mother , who is his only heir , expressed the wish to pursue the application on his behalf .","PERSON was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE Mr Dzhabarov , PERSON and a friend of theirs were travelling in a car in PERSON . At TIME they were stopped by a police patrol , arrested , and , at TIME , taken to a local police station .","The police issued an order for Mr Dzhabarov \u2019s detention for TIME at TIME . The order said that he was being detained under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in conjunction with LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , which criminalise burglary and theft committed by using a motor vehicle , technical means or a special technique .","The police issued an order for Mr PERSON \u2019s detention for TIME at TIME That order likewise said that he was being detained under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the ORG , but in his case in conjunction with CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Criminal Code DATE , which criminalises robbery .","NORP Neither of the CARDINAL orders mentioned the factual grounds on which they had been issued .","The applicants were released at TIME on DATE .","In DATE Mr Dzhabarov sought judicial review of the order for his detention .","On DATE ORG quashed the order . It noted that Mr Dzhabarov had been detained under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the ORG . However , the order had not specified the offence of which he was suspected . That was both a breach of the rules of procedure and an indication that there did not exist a reasonable suspicion that Mr Dzhabarov had committed an offence . The lack of such suspicion was also demonstrated by the absence of any evidence in the police file . CARDINAL police reports , drawn up later and suggesting that Mr Dzhabarov had been detained with a view to elucidating whether he was implicated in the robbery of a petrol station and a number of burglaries , could not ex post facto justify his detention ; they moreover contained discrepancies and were based on investigative steps carried out after Mr Dzhabarov \u2019s arrest . The court went on to say that the order had been issued TIME after Mr Dzhabarov \u2019s de facto arrest , which was out of line with the object and purpose of the law . The court partly allowed Mr Dzhabarov \u2019s claim for costs , awarding him MONEY ( ORG ) ( CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) in ORG fees and ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in court fees .","NORP The police appealed on points of law . Mr Dzhabarov did not ask ORG to vary its ruling in relation to costs , as was possible under the applicable rules of procedure . He did however ask ORG to award him the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings .","In a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . It held that the detention order , which had been issued at TIME on DATE , was chiefly tainted by the undisputed lack of contemporaneous evidence that Mr Dzhabarov might have been implicated in an offence . The court did not mention Mr Dzhabarov \u2019s claim in respect of the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings . Mr Dzhabarov did not ask it to supplement its judgment by doing so , as provided under the applicable rules of procedure .","In DATE Mr Dzhabarov brought a claim under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the State and ORG DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) against ORG . He alleged , inter alia , that his detention had been unlawful and had caused him psychological trauma . He sought ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damages and , under the head of pecuniary damages , reimbursement of the remainder of the costs that he had allegedly incurred in the judicial review proceedings : ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . It held that Mr Dzhabarov had failed to prove that he had suffered non - pecuniary damage \u2013 such as negative emotions , stress or discomfort \u2013 as a result of his detention . He had not provided any evidence , in particular medical expert reports , on that point . The statement of PERSON , who had been called by PERSON to testify , only contained information about the events surrounding their arrest and detention . The court went on to say that it was not possible to seek costs incurred in proceedings for judicial review of a detention order by way of a claim for damages under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","Mr Dzhabarov appealed on points of law . He argued , inter alia , that it was logical to presume that a person who had been unlawfully detained had endured mental suffering on account of that , and that he was entitled to compensation because his detention had been in breach of his fundamental rights .","In a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 ORG \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . It held that claimants in proceedings under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act bore the burden of making out all elements of the tort , including the existence of damage , and that the only evidence that could be used to prove non - pecuniary damage in the form of mental suffering was medical expert evidence , not witness evidence . The court went on to agree fully with the lower court \u2019s ruling in relation to the claim for costs in the judicial review proceedings .","In DATE PERSON sought judicial review of the order for his detention .","On DATE ORG quashed the order . It noted that PERSON had been detained under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the ORG . However , the order for his detention , while formally valid , was out of line with the object and purpose of the law . The police were given the power to detain persons suspected of offences with a view to being able to investigate those offences . That is why the law did not require conclusive evidence of an offence but simply information enabling the police to form a reasonable suspicion in that regard . The police detention log showed that PERSON had been brought to the police station at CARDINAL a.m. on DATE , whereas the CARDINAL witness statements submitted by the police in the judicial review proceedings in support of their contention that PERSON was suspected of an offence spoke of a robbery of a petrol station committed at TIME This showed that , at the time of PERSON PERSON \u2019s arrest , the police did not have a reasonable suspicion of him committing an offence . It was also striking that although PERSON had in fact been arrested at TIME on DATE , the order for his detention said that his detention had started at TIME DATE . The court partly allowed PERSON claim for costs , awarding him ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in lawyers\u2019 fees and ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in court fees .","On DATE the police appealed on points of law against that judgment . PERSON did not ask ORG to vary its ruling in relation to costs , as was possible under the applicable rules of procedure . He did however ask ORG to award him the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings .","In a bench ruling of CARDINAL DATE ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG , ORG ) , ORG declared the appeal inadmissible , finding that the time - limit for the police to lodge an appeal had expired as early as DATE . The court did not mention PERSON claim in respect of the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings . On DATE Mr PERSON asked the court to supplement its decision by doing so . In a decision of DATE ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) , ORG refused the request , finding that it had been made out of the applicable DATE time - limit , which had started to run on DATE . PERSON appealed , but a CARDINAL - member panel of the court dismissed the appeal in a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , \u043f\u0435\u0442\u0447\u043b. \u0441-\u0432 ) .","In DATE PERSON brought a claim under LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) against ORG . He alleged , inter alia , that his detention had been unlawful and had caused him psychological trauma . He sought ORG MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damages and , under the head of pecuniary damages , reimbursement of the remainder of the costs that he had allegedly incurred in the judicial review proceedings : ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the proceedings were stayed pending the determination of the appeal against ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the proceedings were resumed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . It held that PERSON , who bore the burden of proof in that respect , had failed to show that he had suffered non - pecuniary damage DATE such as negative emotions , stress or discomfort \u2013 as a result of his detention . He had not provided any evidence , in particular medical expert evidence , on that point . The evidence of PERSON and the other person with whom PERSON PERSON had been detained , who had been called by PERSON to testify , and the expert evidence on the lawfulness of those conditions adduced in the course of the proceedings , gave information about the material conditions in the detention facility but not about PERSON state of mind or subjective perceptions . These could only be established on the basis of medical expert evidence , which had not been provided . The court went on to say that it was not possible to seek costs incurred in proceedings for judicial review of a detention order by way of a claim for damages under LAW .","Mr PERSON appealed on points of law . He argued , inter alia , that it was absurd to hold that the mental suffering flowing from unlawful detention could only be established on the basis of medical expert evidence . It was natural to presume that a person unlawfully deprived of his liberty for TIME would endure such suffering .","In a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 GPE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . It held that claimants in proceedings under section CARDINAL of the DATE Act bore the burden of proving all elements of the tort , including the existence of damage , and that the only evidence that could be used to prove non - pecuniary damage in the form of mental suffering was medical expert evidence , not witness evidence . The statements of the witnesses called by PERSON had established the conditions in the detention facility and the attitude of the police officers towards him , but could not serve as proof of negative changes in his physical , psychological or neurological status .","In DATE PERSON was working as head of the audit unit of the ORG division of ORG . She was in charge of , among others , the towns of PERSON and PERSON .","At TIME CARDINAL September CARDINAL , PERSON went to the Sandanski office of ORG , according to her to practise filling in tests on the ethical duties of tax officials . She said that , on her way there , she ran into an acquaintance of hers , PERSON , who asked her whether she could run a check on the identities of certain persons that he needed for court papers that he was about to file in connection with the registration of ORG as a political party . PERSON decided that there was no legal impediment to that and together with Mr PERSON went inside the ORG \u2019s office . However , their entry set off the alarm and shortly after that QUANTITY police officers came to the office and found PERSON and Mr PERSON inside , checking the personal data of certain individuals in the ORG \u2019s computer database . The officers asked the CARDINAL of them to produce their identification papers and to accompany them to the local police station .","PERSON and Mr PERSON , under police escort , arrived at the police station at TIME PERSON was asked to draw up a written explanation of her presence in the ORG \u2019s office . In the meantime , CARDINAL plain - clothes officers arrived at the station ; it later transpired that they were officers of ORG . They interviewed PERSON without identifying themselves and without explaining the reasons why she was detained . PERSON was released at about QUANTITY p.m. It appears that , in the meantime , at TIME , she was briefly taken by the police back to the office of ORG to be present while the police drew up a record , and then returned to the police station .","Following this incident , the prosecuting authorities opened criminal proceedings against PERSON on charges that she had knowingly divulged confidential information to which she had access by virtue of her position as a tax administration official , contrary to LAW . However , on CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to discontinue those proceedings . It noted that while PERSON had indeed misused her office to divulge confidential information \u2013 the personal data of QUANTITY persons DATE to which she had access by virtue of her position , LAW required , in addition , that this divulgation give rise to prejudice for the ORG or a private person . There was no evidence , however , that the applicant \u2019s act had prejudiced the ORG or those QUANTITY persons , both of whom , when interviewed , had stated that they had not suffered any negative consequences as a result of the applicant \u2019s divulging their personal data to Mr ORG","Shortly after the incident , PERSON and Mr PERSON complained to the military prosecuting authorities about the actions of the police officers who had detained them . On DATE the Sofia Military Prosecutor \u2019s Office refused to open criminal proceedings pursuant to those complaints . Its decision was upheld by ORG on DATE and by ORG on DATE .","In DATE PERSON brought a claim under LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) against ORG of ORG and ORG . She alleged that her detention had been unlawful because it had not been based on a written order as required under section CARDINAL ) of the ORG . She also alleged that the deprivation of liberty and the pressure to which she had been subjected by the police had caused her stress and humiliation and had aggravated her health , and sought ORG ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in nonpecuniary damages .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . It noted that it was not disputed that TIME and TIME on DATE PERSON had been detained by officers of the Sandanski police . That was further proved by the register of detainees kept by the Sandanski police station and the statements of the officers concerned . However , a claimant in proceedings under LAW CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had to make out all elements of the tort under that provision : a wrongful act or omission by officials , damage , and a sufficient causal link between the CARDINAL . The claimant bore the full burden of proof in relation to each of those , and the lack of any element meant that the claim should fail . However , PERSON had not categorically shown that she had suffered non - pecuniary damage as a result of her arrest and detention . There was no evidence that the officers concerned had done anything to hurt her dignity . Their testimony , which was internally consistent and matched the rest of the evidence , showed that ORG had not been subjected to any physical or psychological abuse . PERSON evidence that one of the officers had acted rudely was contradicted by the evidence of all officers and was vague ; it could not therefore be credited . It was not supported by the statement of Mr PERSON either . PERSON assertions in respect of the damage that she had allegedly suffered were in addition very general and could not be upheld . The police had been apprised of a possible offence and had detained her for CARDINAL to elucidate the case , as possible under section CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Had the detention lasted CARDINAL , the outcome of the case would probably have been different .","PERSON appealed on points of law . She argued , inter alia , that the court had not clarified under which point of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG she had been detained , or commented on the fact that her detention had not been sanctioned by a written order . She also argued , by reference to LAW , that the mere fact of unlawful detention gave rise to non - pecuniary damage because it was an infringement of the fundamental right to liberty , guaranteed by , inter alia , LAW . Since she had been detained unlawfully , she was entitled to non - pecuniary damages in relation to that .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) , ORG dismissed the appeal . It fully agreed with all of the lower court \u2019s findings , including that PERSON had been placed under police detention within the meaning of QUANTITY CARDINAL of the ORG , but did not mention LAW CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145239","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BERKVENS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos","text":["The applicants , PERSON Berkvens and Mr PERSON , are GPE nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in Asten ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166482","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TOPTANI\u015e v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the time of the events giving rise to this application , the applicant was working as a watchman on a construction site located in the vicinity of a military compound housing the CARDINALth ORG in GPE , GPE .","On DATE , sometime between TIME and TIME , the applicant left the construction site to meet QUANTITY friends , ORG , and PERSON , who worked on nearby farms . While walking towards his friends , the applicant suddenly collapsed for an unknown reason ; his friends immediately took him to hospital . The applicant \u2019s initial medical examination at ORG did not reveal any findings other than a cut measuring CARDINAL cm on his back between the tenth and eleventh ribs . However , a lung X - ray taken subsequently showed that a foreign object , which appeared to be a bullet , was lodged between his eleventh and twelfth ribs . The applicant was transferred to ORG to receive further treatment for serious injuries sustained to his lungs and liver . After undergoing various operations , on DATE he was discharged from the hospital . According to a medical report issued on DATE by ORG , it had been decided for medical reasons to leave the bullet inside the applicant \u2019s body , to be extracted only in the event of deterioration in the applicant \u2019s condition . The report also noted that the injuries sustained by the applicant had been life - threatening .","At TIME on DATE CARDINAL gendarme officers from the crime scene investigation unit of ORG arrived at the site of the incident , which was located by a farm by the name of \u201c D\u00fcr\u00fcs \u201d ( \u201c the NORP farm \u201d ) , to carry out a preliminary investigation and to prepare a scene - of - incident report ( on the instructions of the PERSON public prosecutor ) . After photographing the site of the incident , they talked to the witnesses and the gendarmerie patrol unit on duty . According to the information they obtained , the applicant had collapsed abruptly while he was walking to meet his friends . No gunshots had been heard at the site of the incident , but a firing practice had been underway at the relevant time at the nearby military compound housing the CARDINALth ORG . The gendarme officers indicated in their report that there were CARDINAL shooting ranges within the said military compound : CARDINAL located QUANTITY to the north of the LOC farm , at an altitude of QUANTITY ( \u201c the first shooting range \u201d ) ; and the other QUANTITY to the east , at an altitude of QUANTITY ( \u201c the second shooting range \u201d ) . The altitude of the NORP farm was QUANTITY . There were QUANTITY hills between the LOC farm and the first shooting range ; the first CARDINAL hills had an altitude of QUANTITY , and the third hill had an altitude of QUANTITY . No information was provided regarding the terrain between the farm and the second shooting range . Firing practice was carried out with GCARDINAL rifles at the first shooting range and with PERSON at the second shooting range . According to a sketch map prepared by the gendarme officers , the site of the incident was QUANTITY to the east of the assumed trajectory of bullets fired from the first shooting range . In the gendarme ORG opinion , the applicant had been hit by a stray bullet that had ricocheted during firing practice , particularly in view of the fact that no evidence of criminal conduct had been found at the site of the incident . The only evidence collected by the gendarme officers was the jacket that the applicant had been wearing at the time of his shooting , which was handed to ORG for examination .","The gendarme officers visited the site of the incident once again at TIME on TIME DATE to make further investigations , but did not discover any new evidence . It appears that on TIME they also went \u2013 on the instructions of the PERSON public prosecutor \u2013 to the military compound to photograph the shooting ranges .","At TIME on DATE the PERSON public prosecutor visited the site of the incident together with a police expert , GPE The public prosecutor noted that the investigation had not thus far revealed any spent cartridges , bullet shells , arms or any other such material on or around the site of the incident , nor had any suspects who might have shot at the applicant been identified . According to the information provided by the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL friends to the public prosecutor , the applicant had collapsed right before their eyes and there had been no one else present at the relevant time . They also told the public prosecutor that they often heard gunfire coming from the military compound during shooting practice and that gunfire had also been audible at the time of the incident , although they had not heard gun shots emanating from anywhere nearby .","According to the information in the case file , the applicant was still in a critical condition on TIME DATE . Nevertheless , at TIME , he was interviewed by CARDINAL gendarme officers in the office of the security team commander ( ORG ) of the local gendarmerie . It is not clear whether this office was located inside the hospital or outside . Prior to the commencement of the interview , the applicant was informed of his right to request the appointment of a lawyer from the local bar association to assist him , but it appears that he did not exercise that right . The applicant told the gendarme officers that at TIME on DATE , he had left his house to check up on the construction site where he worked as a watchman . As he had been walking towards the site , he had heard whizzing sounds above his head . He had continued to hear the same sounds on his way out of the construction site , along with the sound of gunfire from the military compound located nearby . Then , all of a sudden , he had felt a sharp pain in his back and had collapsed to the ground . He had not known what had happened until he had been told in the hospital that he had been shot in the back with a firearm . When the gendarme officers asked the applicant whether he had been in ongoing conflict with anyone and whether he had heard any gunshots at the time of the incident , he replied that he had not been in any conflict and that the only shots he had heard had been those coming from the military compound , which he had been hearing for DATE . The applicant also stated that he did not wish to press charges against anyone regarding the incident .","On DATE GPE , the police expert who had accompanied the PERSON public prosecutor during his examination of the site of the incident , issued a report of his findings . He indicated in his report that the distance between the site of the incident and the military shooting ranges , which were spread over hilly terrain , was CARDINAL kilometres . Having regard to the witness statements , and to the absence of any other factors that might explain the applicant \u2019s injury , the police expert opined that the injury had probably been caused by a bullet that had ricocheted during the firing practice at the military compound . He submitted a simple sketch map of the site of the incident along with his report .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from the hospital .","On DATE CARDINAL gendarme officers visited the applicant at his home on the instructions of the PERSON public prosecutor to enquire about the bullet that had wounded him . The applicant informed the gendarme officers that the bullet had still not been extracted from his body and that the doctors would re - evaluate the situation once he had fully recovered from the earlier operations . The applicant was requested to inform the authorities in the event that the doctors decided to remove the bullet .","On DATE ORG issued a report on the analysis carried out on the applicant \u2019s jacket . According to the report , a hole measuring QUANTITY in diameter was found in the back of the jacket , but no gunshot residue was found around that hole . Having regard to the shape and other characteristics of the hole , it was decided that it had been caused by a firearm and that the shot had been fired from a long distance .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor took the applicant \u2019s statement for the first time . The applicant was reminded of his right to request the assistance of a lawyer , which he once again declined to do . The applicant largely reiterated the statement he had made to the gendarme officers earlier . He also repeated that he did not want to press charges against any particular person , as he did not believe that he had been shot intentionally . He did , however , reserve his right to claim compensation .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor delivered a decision not to prosecute . The public prosecutor found firstly that , in view of the statements of the applicant and of the witnesses and the manner in which the incident had occurred , the applicant had not been shot intentionally . He noted secondly that the forensic examination conducted on the applicant \u2019s jacket had revealed that the shot had been fired from a long distance ; however , the source of the shot had not been identified , as the bullet had for medical reasons not yet been extracted from the applicant \u2019s body . Nevertheless , having regard to all the information in the case file and to the fact that a military firing practice had been underway QUANTITY away at the time of the incident , the public prosecutor found that the applicant had probably been hit by a stray bullet that had ricocheted during the firing practice . According to the public prosecutor , this offence was to be classified as CARDINAL of causing bodily harm through negligence ( taksir ) , as opposed to recklessness ( bilin\u00e7li taksir ) , in view of the significant distance of the shooting range from the site of the incident . Since the prosecution of the offence of causing bodily harm through negligence required a formal complaint to be made by the victim ( which was lacking in the instant case ) , the PERSON public prosecutor decided to close the investigation .","On DATE , after medical complications had arisen , the bullet was extracted from the applicant \u2019s body and handed over to the hospital police . On DATE it was registered in the custody of the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant lodged an objection against the decision of the PERSON public prosecutor , with the assistance of his lawyer . The applicant \u2019s lawyer stated that the decision to close the investigation had been taken prematurely , before the investigation process had been completed and the gun from which the bullet had been fired and the identity of the shooter had been identified . There had also not been an attempt to establish whether the bodily harm had been caused through negligence , recklessness , lack of experience or breach of duty or with intent . Moreover , requesting the victim to indicate whether he wanted to press charges without first having established the perpetrator and the nature of the offence did not comply with due procedure .","The applicant \u2019s objection was rejected by ORG on DATE . The assize court did not provide any justification for its decision , apart from stating that the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s decision had been in compliance with the law . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages in respect of his wounding . ORG refused the request ; the applicant then brought an action for compensation before ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . It held that while it was not disputed that the applicant had been wounded by a bullet , there was no tangible evidence to prove that the bullet in question had in any way been connected to the firing practice held by the CARDINALth ORG in GPE on the date in question . The criminal investigation into the incident had been closed on account of the applicant \u2019s decision not to bring an official complaint , and the bullet extracted from his body after the closing of the investigation had therefore not been subjected to a ballistic examination . In these circumstances , by not pursuing his complaints the applicant had hindered the collecting of evidence that could have proved a causal link between the administrative act ( idari eylem ) and the damage sustained . In the administrative court \u2019s opinion , the applicant had thus not proved his allegations .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .","An internal administrative inquiry was also conducted by the military authorities into the applicant \u2019s shooting . During the course of that inquiry CARDINAL gendarme officers of various ranks who had attended the firing practice in question were interviewed on DATE by a lieutenant - colonel . The officers stated , in virtually identical words , that a firing practice had been held on DATE between TIME and TIME with GCARDINAL rifles , that all necessary security measures had been taken at the shooting range prior to the commencement of the practice , in line with the applicable laws and instructions , that all rifles had been fired under the supervision of senior officers , that no firing had been permitted outside the designated shooting areas , and that , in view of the security measures in place and the distance of the applicant from the shooting range , the applicant should not have been affected by bullets fired during the practice .","On DATE a report was issued on the findings of the administrative inquiry . According to this report , all requisite safety measures had been implemented at the shooting range on the date in question , in compliance with the relevant security regulations , and no fault or negligence had been found on the part of the military officers who had participated in the firing practice . The report indicated that additional security precautions had nevertheless been taken on the shooting range in the aftermath of the incident , such as adding to the sand bags and barrels behind the target boards , and building barriers in order to reduce the incidence of ricochets , and surrounding the gun - target line with additional barrels ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146404","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF S.B. v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE , the applicant started going to the dental practice of Dr A.D. in order to have dental bridges fitted . The treatment involved work on CARDINAL teeth , fitting bridges and crowns and adapting the adjacent teeth .","NORP The treatment started in DATE . When the first part of the bridgework was ready , the applicant noticed that it did not fit well . The dentist told her that she could still use it in order to eat and that he would rectify the problem . When the rest of the bridgework was ready , she again noticed that she could not close her mouth and that when she tried to eat it caused her great pain . The bridges were fitted provisionally and it was agreed that they would be permanently fixed at a later stage after being further adapted . Nevertheless , while wearing them she realised that her gums were affected . During DATE , she went to the dental surgery several times in order to have the bridges adapted , but the dentist told her that they were perfect and that all that remained was for them to be fixed permanently , even though she showed him that she could not close her mouth and that her gums were bleeding .","The applicant alleged that she had attempted to make a new appointment with Dr DATE on several occasions prior to DATE , but to no avail . During this period , her state of health worsened and she had no money to pay for further dental treatment .","On DATE the dentist issued her with a certificate of guarantee for the dental work that he had carried out and he kept the bridges with a view to adapting them . The applicant only received them back DATE , without any change having been made to them .","She insisted that she could not use the bridgework , she could not eat while wearing it and that it hurt her gums and caused them to become infected .","In a complaint of DATE addressed to ORG , the applicant asked to undergo a medical expert examination in order to determine whether the bridgework was functional , to what extent it affected her teeth and how long she could wear bridges which were only fitted provisionally without this affecting her teeth and gums or causing irreversible speech problems .","On DATE she was informed that her complaint would be reviewed by ORG .","At DATE , she had a consultation with another dentist , PERSON According to the applicant , she was told that the bridgework had not been correctly done and , given all the problems that it had caused her ( infected gums , cuts , pain ) , it was not recommended that the bridges be fixed permanently .","DATE , she was asked to undergo an examination by a panel of experts attached to ORG .","The second examination took place on DATE . She submitted that she had been told that there had been no need to perform an overly detailed examination , as it could be easily seen that the bridges should not be worn .","In a letter of DATE addressed to ORG , she asked to be informed of the findings in the medical expert report . On DATE , ORG replied that the findings of the medical examination that they had carried out were only for the internal use of ORG of ORG . If she wished to obtain an expert report , she had to request CARDINAL from ORG ( hereafter , \u201c the Institute \u201d ) .","She contacted the ORG , but was informed that a medical expert report could only be requested in the context of judicial proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint , asking that a detailed medical expert report be ordered to determine whether there had been medical negligence . In the same complaint , she sought the reimbursement of the cost of the remaining dental treatment , which had not been returned to her , as well as compensation for non - pecuniary damage arising from the suffering and health problems that the treatment in question had caused her . Her complaint was registered with the competent police department on CARDINAL DATE .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the police department asked the ORG to draw up a medical expert report in order to determine whether the dental work performed by Dr A.D. had caused injuries which required medical treatment .","The Institute , having received a request by the applicant for the examination not to be conducted by ORG , where Dr A.D. had studied , asked ORG to examine the applicant .","ORG issued its report on DATE , after having examined the applicant . The applicant took the report and handed it over to the ORG , which issued a forensic expert report on DATE .","Its findings were as follows :","\u201c after having examined S.B. and reviewing the medical papers , it appears that in DATE she underwent treatment to fit a variety of bridges and crowns , which proved to have been carried out incorrectly and inadequately . The attempt to wear the bridges and the subsequent absence of them led to complications and functional disorders ( dental abrasion , chronic marginal periodontitis ) [ made ] very widespread and severe by the dental bridgework , which is currently not correctly adapted to the cervical and axial margins [ of the interproximal surfaces ] .","...","We underline that her current state is not completely the fault of the doctor who performed the work , but is also a result of the lack of dental treatment in DATE , a period of time during which the functional disorders [ outlined above were ] aggravated because the bridges were not correctly adapted to the cervical and axial margins [ of the interproximal surfaces ] .","In order to redo the treatment and put in place correct bridges , it is estimated that ORG would have to undergo TIME of medical treatment ..... \u201d","The applicant tried to obtain a copy of that report , but she was told that she could only obtain one once the case had been referred to a court . In the end , she obtained a copy from the investigating officer on CARDINAL October CARDINAL .","The applicant contested the findings of this medical expert report , submitting that it had played down the negative findings of the report issued by ORG following that hospital \u2019s examination of her . She also complained that there was no opportunity to have the conclusions reviewed by a medical review board .","On DATE the prosecutor attached to ORG opened a criminal investigation against Dr DATE on charges of causing bodily harm , for which criminal liability was established by LAW , as in force at the material time .","On DATE the same prosecutor put an end to the criminal investigation , reasoning that the applicant \u2019s failure to go to DATE \u2019s dental surgery in order to have the bridges permanently fixed had led to the deterioration of her state of health .","That decision was communicated to the applicant on DATE .","The applicant lodged a complaint against the decision . The complaint was allowed by a prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . The prosecutor held that the case had been investigated on the basis of a crime punishable under LAW ( causing unintentional bodily harm ) , whereas the decision to terminate the proceedings had concerned a crime punishable under LAW ( causing bodily harm ) .","The case was referred back to the prosecutor .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the prosecutor terminated the criminal investigation against DATE on the basis that the applicant had failed to lodge a criminal complaint against him within the twomonth timelimit set by LAW . A criminal action for unintentional bodily harm could only be started on the basis of a preliminary complaint by the victim , which had to be lodged within DATE from the date on which the victim had become aware of who the perpetrator was . As the applicant had known who had carried out the dental treatment since DATE but had only lodged her complaint with the prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE , it followed that her complaint was out of time . This decision was upheld by the supervising prosecutor on DATE .","The applicant \u2019s application for judicial review of those decisions was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","Her subsequent appeal was allowed by GPE ORG in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , by which it was established that the prosecutor and the district court had wrongly assessed the evidence . ORG noted that the criminal investigation had not been completed within a reasonable time . It was further established that the evidence in the case file had been sufficient to support the allegation that Dr DATE had committed an act punishable by LAW \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , a crime in respect of which a criminal investigation could be automatically started by a public prosecutor . ORG drew attention to the findings of the medical expert report in respect of the complications caused by the bridgework . It therefore considered that these complications ( the destruction of bone supporting the teeth ) amounted to a permanent physical disability .","ORG remitted the case to ORG CARDINAL District Court , instructing that court to consider the case in the light of the crimes punishable under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW .","The district court ordered a new expert report from ORG . The report could not be produced mainly because all the medical documentation from PERSON consulting room , consisting of medical records , xrays , dental prints , and so forth , could not be found . The applicant refused to undergo a new medical examination on the ground that the new report should have been based not only on her examination in DATE but also on the documents existent in her medical file .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found , on the one hand , that the applicable statute of limitation had expired . On the other hand , examining the merits of the case it acquitted the defendant on the basis of the expert report of DATE , finding that \u201c the subsequent behaviour of the injured party , who chose to ignore the medical advice of the defendant , refused the completion of the treatment , in particular the permanent fixing of the dental prosthetics , only wore the prosthetics when eating , as she had personally testified before the court , [ and failed to maintain ] proper oral hygiene , [ as ] underlined by the expert report , ... led to complications , [ which ] can not be blamed on the defendant but on the injured party herself . \u201d","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . She sought a requalification of the charges from Article CARDINAL ( causing unintentional bodily harm ) to Article CARDINAL ( causing intentional bodily harm ) of LAW .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . It held , inter alia , that the additional evidence requested by the applicant such as the contract , order and invoice for the manufacture of the bridges , as well as dental xrays , was irrelevant . Furthermore , it held that no causal link could be established between the treatment and the injuries sustained by the applicant , which were attributable exclusively to her conduct , that is , ignoring medical advice ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156233","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"OTHYMIA INVESTMENTS BV v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant company , ORG , is a limited liability company ( besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid ) incorporated under the law of the GPE and having its statutory seat in GPE . The applicant company was represented by Mr PERSON , a tax consultant practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. PERSON , of ORG .","NORP summarised as follows .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of Finance ( Staatssecretaris van Financi\u00ebn ) gave notice ( kennisgeving ) to the applicant company of the fact that he had been requested by the NORP tax authorities to provide them with information on the relations , the links and transactions between the applicant company and a certain company in GPE as well as information on the bank accounts and the activities of the applicant company with a certain bank .","In the notice sent to the applicant company , the Deputy Minister stated that he had complied with this request on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , pursuant to section DATE ) of ORG ( Wet op de internationale bijstandsverlening bij de heffing van belastingen ) ; as appropriate , LAW DATE concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of GPE in the field of direct taxation ; and , as appropriate , LAW on the prevention of double taxation between GPE and the GPE .","The notice , which had been sent pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG , listed the information and the enclosures sent to the NORP tax authorities . They included the ORG register ( register van aandeelhouders ) of the applicant company ; the DATE accounts ( jaarrekeningen ) of the applicant company for DATE and DATE ; bank statements ; CARDINAL e - mails ; correspondence and other documents concerning the establishment of a certain company ; a statement concerning the owners of shares in a certain company ; and documents that concerned the sale of shares . Part of the information sent had been gathered in the course of an investigation into the applicant company carried out by ORG ) in DATE which had been announced to the applicant company beforehand .","On DATE the applicant company lodged an objection ( bezwaar ) against the Deputy Minister of ORG \u2019s decision to provide the NORP tax authorities with the requested information . It argued that the provisions stated by the Deputy Minister in his notice could not be relied on as a legal ground for his decision .","After a hearing had been held in the objection proceedings , the applicant company argued additionally that its privacy of correspondence had been violated by the provision of the documents in issue to the NORP tax authorities .","On DATE the Deputy Minister dismissed the applicant company \u2019s objection . Its argument in relation to the violation of the right to respect for correspondence was rejected because , firstly , the inquiry had been carried out to provide information under ORG ) Act and not under LAW ( Algemene wet inzake rijksbelastingen ) ; secondly , the applicant company had not invoked its right to privacy of correspondence during the inquiry in DATE ; and lastly , the correspondence did not concern the applicant company .","On DATE the applicant company appealed against the decision claiming , inter alia , that its right under LAW had been violated because there had been no legal basis for the provision of the information to the NORP tax authorities . It further argued that it might suffer damage as a result of the Deputy Minister \u2019s decision , that it would need a judicial decision in order to submit a claim for compensation , and that it had incurred legal costs in relation to the proceedings .","On DATE ORG ( rechtbank ) declared the appeal inadmissible . It held that the applicant company had no standing because it had not substantiated that it had suffered any loss as a result of the Deputy Minister \u2019s decision to supply the information to the NORP tax authorities .","On DATE the applicant company lodged a further appeal with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) arguing , among other things , that it had an interest in the examination of the lawfulness of the inquiry because the forwarding of its correspondence to the NORP tax authorities constituted an interference of LAW for which there had been no legal basis and the necessity of which in a NORP society was open to serious doubt . The applicant company suggested that this claim warranted an examination on the merits by a judicial authority .","Additionally , the applicant company argued that not only had prior judicial examination of the Deputy Minister \u2019s decision been impossible , owing to the fact that for \u201c urgent reasons \u201d the notice had been given to the applicant company after the implementation of the NORP request , but ORG judgment had also made retrospective judicial examination impossible . This lack of an effective remedy appropriate to its complaint under LAW , so it argued , constituted a violation of LAW .","On DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s arguments and upheld the judgment of ORG . In relation to the alleged violation of LAW it held that the mere fact that the applicant company wanted a judgment of principle on the issue did not constitute a sufficient interest . It further held that the applicant company had neither substantiated any pecuniary damage nor specified any non - pecuniary damage allegedly suffered as a result of the Deputy \u2019s Minister \u2019s decision . The requirement of actual harm did not impinge on the applicant company \u2019s rights to the point of violating LAW .","At the relevant time , ORG , as applicable to the case before the ORG , read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The provisions of this Act serve the interest of complying with obligations flowing from Directives of ORG and other international and interregional legal arrangements for the provision of mutual assistance in the levying of taxes , as well as interest thereon and administrative sanctions and fines connected therewith . ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . At the request of a competent authority , Our Minister [ of ORG ] may decide to provide them with information which they request and which may serve for the levying of taxes within the meaning of LAW , as well as the interest or the administrative sanctions and fines connected therewith .","NORP Our Minister shall notify the person from whom the information originated and who is resident or located in the GPE of his decision to comply with the request for information . In so doing , Our Minister shall identify the competent authorities who have made the request and specify the information that will be provided .","...","Unless urgent reasons have given rise to it , the implementation of the request for information shall not take place within DATE after the date that notice ... is given .","When urgent reasons have given rise to it , Our Minister may ... implement the request for information before the person from whom the information originated has been notified . In this case , notice shall be given as soon as possible but not DATE after the implementation of the request . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Our Minister shall , if necessary , give instructions for an official of ORG to make investigations for the purpose of providing information as referred to in [ section CARDINAL ] ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Our Minister shall provide no information if :","a. the provision thereof does not flow from obligations under [ ORG Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EEC ] or other obligations under international and interregional law ;","b. ordre public of ORG opposes it ; ... \u201d","In its relevant parts , the ORG on mutual international assistance in the levying of taxes ( GPE internationale wederzijdse bijstand bij de heffing van belastingen ) promulgated on behalf of the Deputy Minister of Finance by ORG ( directeur - generaal ORG ) ( Official Gazette ( Staatscourant ) of CARDINAL DATE , no . CARDINAL , page CARDINAL ) reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Introduction","...","The relevant international agreements are : the bilateral tax treaties , ... , Council Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EEC ( also referred to hereafter as \u2018 the Mutual Assistance Directive\u2019 ) , ... and the bilateral Memoranda of Understanding between the GPE and the various treaty partners . ...","Definition","Mutual assistance in the levying of taxes is the aggregate of possibilities of administrative cooperation between treaty partners . The exchange of fiscal information is a part of that . Carrying out investigations for each other \u2019s taxation , permitting officials onto each other \u2019s territory and the setting up of joint controls for internationally operating enterprises are other forms .","The provision of \u2018 assistance in levying taxes\u2019 ( heffingsbijstand ) is regulated in the GPE by ORG .","...","Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EEC","[ ORG Directive of DATE concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of GPE in the fields of direct taxation and indirect taxation ( CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EEC , as amended by the Directives of DATE ( CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EEC ) for value - added tax and of DATE ( CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EEC ) for excise duties ) , is part of ORG , or ORG , legislation ( ... ) . The aim of ORG is to strengthen cooperation between the tax authorities of ORG in order better to counter international tax evasion and tax fraud . In the GPE , ORG is implemented in FAC . ...","...","The provision of data on the basis of ORG","The possibility of obtaining information goes hand in hand with the duty to provide information , whether on request , automatically or spontaneously .","The agreements which create those duties as regards direct taxes and income tax ( inkomstenbelasting ) are ...","- the bilateral treaties ;","...","- the Mutual Assistance Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EEC ;","...","ORG provides for the provision of information on request , the automatic provision of information , the spontaneous provision of information and the presence of officials in another country within the framework of a ( simultaneous ) bookkeeping investigation .","ORG sets out in what cases , on what conditions and in what way ORG provides these forms of assistance . The point of departure in each case is the scope of the treaty obligations existing in a given treaty relationship . Without an international obligation the GPE can not provide [ such ] assistance ( ... ) .","DATE . Speediness and time - limits","In view of the time - limits for tax adjustments , which exist also in other states , it is important to deal with a foreign request for information as speedily as possible . Speedy handling of the request by the GPE will also increase the willingness of the foreign competent authority to deal with GPE requests rapidly . The same applies to the back - reporting of results . It is therefore important that a request for information from abroad is answered within DATE after it is received at ORG unit ( PERSON ) . In urgent cases , the aim is to reply within DATE . ...","Notification","If the information can be given , ORG ( LOC Inlichtingen- en ORG , \u2018 FIOD\u2019 ) will prepare a notification for the interested party on the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG . If there is no fraud or urgency , the interested party will be informed of the information to be provided before this is done . Provision of the information will be suspended for DATE from the date of the notification . In this context , \u2018 interested party\u2019 means only the person from whom the information derives and who is resident or based in the GPE .","By means of this notification , the interested party is informed of the decision to provide information concerning them to a foreign competent authority and a description of the information to be provided is given . An objection and an appeal are possible against this notification .","An objection and\/or an appeal can result in the information to be provided , or actually provided , to be corrected . A request for a provisional measure can suspend the provision of the information to the foreign authority ( ... ) .","...","Mandate to the Director General of ORG","The Deputy Minister of ORG has appointed the Director General of ORG to act in his name as the competent authority ... and to decide in his name on the basis of section CARDINAL of ORG ( the provision of information on a request from abroad ) , ... \u201d","As relevant to the case before the ORG , and as in force at the time of the events complained of , Council Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EEC of DATE provided as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In accordance with the provisions of this Directive the competent authorities of the Member GPE shall exchange any information that may enable them to effect a correct assessment of taxes on income and on capital .","There shall be regarded as taxes on income and on capital , irrespective of the manner in which they are levied , all taxes imposed on total income , on total capital , or on elements of income or of capital , including taxes on gains from the disposal of movable or immovable property , taxes on the amounts of wages or salaries paid by enterprises , as well as taxes on capital appreciation . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The competent authority of a Member ORG may request the competent authority of another Member ORG to forward the information referred to in LAW ) in a particular case . The competent authority of the requested ORG need not comply with the request if it appears that the competent authority of the ORG making the request has not exhausted its own usual sources of information , which it could have utilized , according to the circumstances , to obtain the information requested without running the risk of endangering the attainment of the sought after result .","For the purpose of forwarding the information referred to in paragraph CARDINAL , the competent authority of the requested Member State shall arrange for the conduct of any enquiries necessary to obtain such information . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The competent authority of a Member State shall without prior request forward the information referred to in DATE ) , of which it has knowledge , to the competent authority of any other Member ORG concerned , in the following circumstances :","( a ) the competent authority of the one Member ORG has grounds for supposing that there may be a loss of tax in the other Member ORG ;","( b ) a person liable to tax obtains a reduction in or an exemption from tax in the CARDINAL Member ORG which would give rise to an increase in tax or to liability to tax in the other Member ORG ;","( c ) NORP business dealings between a person liable to tax in a Member State and a person liable to tax in another Member State are conducted through CARDINAL or more countries in such a way that a saving in tax may result in CARDINAL or the other Member ORG or in both ;","( d ) the competent authority of a Member ORG has grounds for supposing that a saving of tax may result from artificial transfers of profits within groups of enterprises ;","( e ) information forwarded to the one Member ORG by the competent authority of the other Member ORG has enabled information to be obtained which may be relevant in assessing liability to tax in the latter Member ORG .","NORP The competent authorities of GPE may , under the consultation procedure laid down in DATE , extend the exchange of information provided for in paragraph CARDINAL to cases other than those specified therein .","The competent authorities of the Member GPE may forward to each other in any other case , without prior request , the information referred to in LAW of which they have knowledge . \u201d","\u201c The competent authority of a Member ORG which , under the preceding ORG , is called upon to furnish information , shall forward it as swiftly as possible . If it encounters obstacles in furnishing the information or if it refuses to furnish the information , it shall forthwith inform the requesting authority to this effect , indicating the nature of the obstacles or the reasons for its refusal . \u201d","\u201c For the purpose of applying the preceding provisions , the competent authority of the Member ORG providing the information and the competent authority of the Member ORG for which the information is intended may agree , under the consultation procedure laid down in DATE , to authorize the presence in the first Member ORG of officials of the tax administration of the other Member ORG . The details for applying this provision shall be determined under the same procedure . \u201d","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG \u0159editelstv\u00ed pro hlavn\u00ed m\u011bsto Prahu ( Case No . C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , \u201c the PERSON judgment \u201d ) , ORG of ORG of ORG held as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The ORG has previously ruled that observance of the rights of the defence is a general principle of ORG law which applies where the authorities are minded to adopt a measure which will adversely affect an individual ( see [ Case CCARDINAL\/CARDINAL PERSON [ DATE ] ECR ICARDINAL ] , paragraph CARDINAL ) . In accordance with that principle , the addressees of decisions which significantly affect their interests must therefore be placed in a position in which they can effectively make known their views as regards the information on which the authorities intend to base their decision ( see , inter alia , ORG and Others [ DATE ] ECR I\u2011CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , and PERSON , paragraph CARDINAL ) . The authorities of the Member GPE are subject to that obligation when they take decisions which come within the scope of ORG law , even though ORG legislation applicable does not expressly provide for such a procedural requirement ( see PERSON , paragraph CARDINAL , and Case C\u2011CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ORG and R [ DATE ] ECR , paragraph CARDINAL ) .","The question arises as to whether the decision of a competent authority of a Member ORG to request assistance from a competent authority of another Member ORG and the latter \u2019s decision to examine witnesses for the purposes of responding to that request constitute acts which , because of their consequences for the taxpayer , make it necessary for him to be heard .","All the Member GPE which submitted observations to the ORG argued that a request for information by CARDINAL Member ORG sent to the tax authorities of another Member ORG does not constitute an act giving rise to such an obligation . They rightly consider that , in tax inspection procedures , the investigation stage , during which information is collected and which includes the request for information by CARDINAL tax authority to another , must be distinguished from the contentious stage , between the tax authorities and the taxpayer , which begins when the taxpayer is sent the proposed adjustment .","Where the authorities gather information , they are not required to notify the taxpayer of this or to obtain his point of view .","A request for assistance made by the tax authorities under Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL is part of the process of collecting information .","The same applies to the reply made by the requested tax authorities and the inquiries carried out to that end by those authorities , including the examination of witnesses .","It follows that respect for the rights of the defence of the taxpayer does not require that the taxpayer should take part in the request for information sent by the requesting Member ORG to the requested Member ORG . Nor does it require that the taxpayer should be heard at the point when inquiries , which may include the examination of witnesses , are carried out in the requested Member ORG or before that Member ORG sends the information to the requesting Member ORG .","None the less , there is nothing to prevent a Member ORG from extending the right to be heard to other parts of the investigation stage , by involving the taxpayer in various stages of the gathering of information , in particular the examination of witnesses .","Accordingly , the answer to the first and second questions is that ORG law , as it results in particular from Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and the fundamental right to be heard , must be interpreted as not conferring on a taxpayer of a Member ORG either the right to be informed of a request for assistance from that Member ORG addressed to another Member ORG , in particular in order to verify the information provided by that taxpayer in his income tax return , or the right to take part in formulating the request addressed to the requested Member ORG , or the right to take part in examinations of witnesses organised by the requested Member ORG . \u201d","and ruled as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . European Union law , as it results in particular from ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EEC of DATE concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of GPE in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums , as amended by ORG CARDINAL of DATE , and the fundamental right to be heard , must be interpreted as not conferring on a taxpayer of a Member ORG either the right to be informed of a request for assistance from that Member ORG addressed to another Member ORG , in particular in order to verify the information provided by that taxpayer in his income tax return , or the right to take part in formulating the request addressed to the requested Member ORG , or the right to take part in examinations of witnesses organised by the requested Member ORG .","Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , as amended by Directive ORG , does not govern the question of the circumstances in which the taxpayer may challenge the accuracy of the information conveyed by the requested Member ORG , and it does not impose any particular obligation with regard to the content of the information conveyed . \u201d","GPE joined ORG on DATE in accordance with the provisions of an LAW signed on DATE . The parties to LAW , in addition to GPE ( by this time the successor to ORG ) were the existing Member GPE ( including GPE ) and GPE .","Appended to LAW was an LAW concerning the conditions of accession of GPE and GPE and the adjustments to the Treaties , which , in its relevant part , provides as follows :","\u201c From the date of accession , the provisions of the original Treaties and the acts adopted by the institutions of the ORG before accession shall be binding on the new Member GPE and shall apply in those GPE under the conditions laid down in those Treaties and in this LAW . \u201d","At the time of the events complained of , and in its relevant part , the Convention between the Government of GPE and ORG for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and on capital ( GPE LAW ) DATE , no . CARDINAL ) , provided as follows ( official and authoritative LANGUAGE text ) :","\u201c CARDINAL . The competent authorities of the GPE shall exchange such information ( being information which such authorities have in proper order at their disposal ) as is necessary for the carrying out of this LAW . Any information so exchanged shall be treated as secret and shall not be disclosed to any persons or authorities other than those concerned with the assessment or collection of the taxes which are the subject of this Convention .","NORP In no case shall the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL be construed so as to impose on CARDINAL of the GPE the obligation :","a. to carry out administrative measures at variance with the laws or the administrative practice of that or of the other ORG ;","b. to supply particulars which are not obtainable under the laws or in the normal course of the administration of that or of the other ORG ;","c. to supply information which would disclose any trade , business , industrial , commercial or professional secret or trade process , or information , the disclosure of which would be contrary to public policy . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148075","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"\u00d6ZT\u00dcRK v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Ms J. Serrarens , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , and their Deputy Agent , PERSON , both of ORG .","The Government of GPE were informed of their right to take part in the proceedings ( LAW ) but did not express the desire to do so .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicant , a convict prisoner who had been in detention since DATE , was transferred to ORG \u201d in GPE .","NORP By letter of DATE ORG of ORG ( PERSON het GPE van Justitie ) informed the Governor of \u201c Dordtse Poorten \u201d about a project for the taking of ORG biometric data ( photographic likenesses and fingerprints ) , referred to by the name of \u201c Biometrics \u201d , which was prompted by the finding that a number of prisoners in a different institution had assumed a false identity . The project , referred to as a \u201c catch - up exercise \u201d ( inhaalslag ) , was intended to constitute the initial phase of a complete overhaul of the prisoner identification system . As part of this project , the Governor of \u201c Dordtse ORG \u201d was asked to take biometric data of certain prisoners in his institution .","As CARDINAL of the prisoners chosen , the applicant was informed by letter of the intention of the Governor to take his fingerprints and digital photograph . The letter did not provide information on the storage or use of the data taken . The applicant states that the penal institution \u2019s staff members , when asked , told him that the data would be stored for \u201c DATE \u201d in a national database that would be accessible to the police and the judicial authorities .","On DATE the applicant was asked to submit to the taking of his fingerprints and a digital photograph . He refused to do so , firstly , because he had already given these data when he was admitted to the penal institution and , secondly , because he opposed the fact that his data would be stored in a national database for an unknown length of time and that they would be accessible to the police and the judicial authorities .","Because of the applicant \u2019s refusal to cooperate , the Unit Director of the penal institution imposed on the applicant CARDINAL days\u2019 solitary confinement in his own cell which included the removal of his television , starting on DATE . DATE , the applicant submitted a complaint against this punishment to ORG ( beklagcommissie ) of the penal institution \u2019s ORG ( GPE PERSON ) , stating that he had complied with his obligations under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) when he had submitted to the taking of his fingerprints and digital photograph during his admittance to the penal institution . He further argued that he was not obliged to submit his data again because they would not be used internally , within the penal institution , but for a national database for which there was no legal basis in LAW or any other act .","On DATE the Unit Director sanctioned the applicant a second time and the institution \u2019s staff members threatened to report the applicant to ORG for refusal to comply with an official order if he continued to refuse to provide his fingerprints and digital photograph . Following this threat , the applicant cooperated and submitted his data . He was , neither then , nor after his release , given any information on the way his data would be stored or used .","On DATE ORG of the penal institution \u2019s ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint . It held that the sanction had not been unreasonable because the Governor had been obliged to comply with the instructions of ORG ; because the refusal of a prisoner to comply with an order of the Governor was a disciplinary offence ; and because the applicant had refused to submit his data when ordered to do so by the Governor .","In his appeal to ORG ( beroepscommissie ) of ORG ( PERSON GPE ) the applicant largely restated his arguments . He further submitted that the existence of a Determination of ORG , ORG and Witnesses PERSON ( Wetsvoorstel Wet identiteitsvaststelling verdachten , veroordeelden en getuigen ) , which provided a legal basis for the taking and processing of ORG biometric data in a national database , proved that LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW did not yet confer any such power .","On DATE ORG noted that in practice the identity of prisoners was checked at the time of admission to the institution . It further noted that on entering the institution the applicant had complied with this obligation to submit identifying data as provided for in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . It held that , even though the collection of the data itself had not been unlawful , it had been up to the Governor to explain to the applicant why his data needed to be taken a second time and to provide him afterwards with another opportunity to submit his data . As the Governor had failed to do so , ORG held that the sanction had been unreasonable . ORG awarded the applicant financial compensation in an amount of MONEY ( ORG ) .","The applicant was released on DATE .","In their further observations submitted in response to the applicant \u2019s observations , the ORG submitted a written statement on paper bearing the letterhead of ORG ( ORG ) and dated DATE . It reads as follows :","\u201c Destruction","The undersigned , PERSON , General Director of ORG , makes the following declaration :","It is described in the official record ( proces - verbaal ) of destruction dated DATE ( annexed ) that the personal information as used during the so - called \u2018 catch - up exercise\u2019 has been destroyed ;","Supplementing this official record , the undersigned also declares that :","during the period of processing the data were stored in a safe ;","the data were not used for any other purpose than for checking , once only ;","the data were compared , during this once - only check , against the ORG data [ ORG , acronym for PERSON ORG , ORG ] ;","as far as ORG are able to observe , these data have not been entered in the ORG database .","...","I declare this to be a statement of the truth , made on DATE [ sic ] ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171501","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MOROZ v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving his prison sentence .","At TIME on DATE O. , the president of ORG , was shot at his office with a rifle which the applicant had brought . The applicant was present at ORG \u2019s office at the time of the event . He asked for the police and an ambulance to be called and , once the police arrived , stated that an accident had happened . He explained that he and O. were interested in hunting and he had brought the shotgun to O. as a present . While he had been demonstrating the gun to NORP , the latter had wanted to see it closer and had pulled it towards himself ; the gun had accidentally gone off . According to the applicant , once he had replied to the questions of the police , handcuffs were put on him ; he was searched and samples were taken from him for forensic examination . His request for a lawyer was allegedly ignored .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s arrest report was drawn up which stated that the applicant had been arrested for the murder of O. at TIME at the police station . He was subsequently questioned in the presence of PERSON , his lawyer . He pleaded not guilty and repeated his statements made earlier . According to the applicant , his lawyer immediately indicated to the investigator that , under LAW , the applicant had to be provided with the possibility to talk with him in private before the questioning , with a view to defining the legal defence strategy . Having heard that , the applicant insisted on such a meeting . The investigator , however , rejected that request on the ground that the applicant would be able to talk to his lawyer later .","On DATE a reconstruction of the crime was carried out in the presence of the applicant \u2019s lawyer .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was ordered by a court .","On DATE PERSON was admitted to the proceedings as the applicant \u2019s second lawyer .","On DATE the applicant was charged with murder and questioned in the presence of his lawyers . He pleaded not guilty and repeated his previous statement that ORG had been shot by accident .","On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of PERSON The applicant repeated his previous statements .","On DATE the applicant and the lawyer PERSON became aware of the results of a number of forensic examinations in the case . They made no observations in this connection .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for illegal production , possession and storage of firearms . On DATE the applicant was charged with the above offence and questioned in the presence of PERSON Those proceedings were subsequently joined to the murder case against the applicant .","On DATE the case was referred to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for trial . Throughout the trial the applicant denied the murder charge and consistently claimed that ORG had been shot by accident .","On DATE ORG , acting as a first - instance court , found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court found that on DATE the coordinating council of ORG had held its meeting in GPE and the applicant had run for the position of acting executive director of the ORG . The victim , ORG , had proposed another candidate for the same position and that candidate had been elected . The applicant had therefore decided to take revenge and had come to the office of ORG with a shotgun and fired twice at O. \u2019s head . The applicant had also been found guilty of modifying the shotgun in question prior to the incident .","ORG noted that although the applicant had never pleaded guilty and had claimed that the incident had been an accident , his guilt was proved by the testimonies of witnesses and the results of forensic examinations . In particular , O. \u2019s wife had testified that she had been in the neighbouring office when the incident had taken place and when she had entered her husband \u2019s office she had seen the applicant smiling with satisfaction . She had also maintained that her husband had not liked hunting and therefore would not have accepted a shotgun as a present . The negative attitude of O. to hunting had also been confirmed by his brother . PERSON \u2019s secretary and CARDINAL of his colleagues had also confirmed that the applicant had been smiling when they had entered the office after the incident .","Several witnesses had also confirmed that the applicant had shown dissatisfaction with the fact that he had not been elected to the position of the executive director of ORG .","The forensic expert , questioned in the court hearings , had confirmed the conclusions of the examination that the shots had been fired from some distance and not from close range , as the applicant had suggested , given that traces of metals and gunpowder , typically found following close - range shots , had not been found on the victim . The court also noted that the outcome of the ballistic examination as to the distance , trajectory and angle of the entry wounds had not matched the applicant \u2019s version of events .","The applicant appealed . He submitted , inter alia , that his defence rights had been violated as he had not been given an opportunity to talk to his lawyer in private before his questioning at the police station on DATE , with no further details given .","On DATE ORG , in the presence of the applicant and his CARDINAL lawyers , upheld the decision of ORG , noting the aggregate of evidence against the applicant .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained at GPE pre - trial detention centre no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) .","According to the applicant , the facility was often overcrowded with the number of detainees exceeding the number of beds . It was infested with insects , cockroaches and mice . The quality and quantity of food was unsatisfactory . There was CARDINAL pair of scissors and CARDINAL hair clippers for the whole GPE and they were not disinfected prior to or after use . As a result , the applicant contracted Hepatitis B.","From DATE until DATE he was detained in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL in conditions which were detrimental to his health and incompatible with human dignity . In particular , those cells had no access to natural light as the windows were obscured by metal slats . The walls were permanently wet and covered with mould . The applicant had to share cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY , with CARDINAL other detainees who were heavy smokers . The artificial lighting was not sufficiently powerful with the result that the cells were dim . Their clothes and linen were always wet and cold .","On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE the applicant requested that the investigator allow visits from his family but to no avail ; the investigator attempted to extort money from him for granting permission to see the relatives .","On DATE and DATE the applicant asked ORG to allow him to correspond with his relatives but received no answer . He unsuccessfully complained of these matters to the prosecutor \u2019s office on a number of occasions .","The applicant was not allowed to visit the GPE church . His requests to the GPE governor of DATE and CARDINAL DATE to meet with a priest also remained unanswered . On DATE the applicant further complained to the PERSON administration that his religious literature and some items of a religious nature had been seized by the GPE staff . On DATE a \u201c talk \u201d was held with the applicant by CARDINAL of the prison staff on account of his complaints during which it was explained to him that nothing untoward had happened . On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the violation of his right to practise his religion but received no reply .","During his stay at the GPE the applicant was held in CARDINAL different cells ( including cells QUANTITY . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) and was moved CARDINAL times .","The Government could not provide any information about the number of inmates in the cells at the relevant time or regarding the conditions of the floor , walls and linen because the compulsory period for keeping the relevant documents had expired and the records had been destroyed .","They stated that the general detention conditions in the ORG had been satisfactory and in compliance with the domestic standards : all the cells had had windows and had been equipped with sufficient artificial lighting ; the applicant had been provided with adequate nutrition in accordance with the applicable standards . Scissors and other hairdressing implements had been disinfected after each use in accordance with the relevant regulations . That fact had been confirmed by the results of an investigation conducted by ORG and the prosecutor \u2019s office following the applicant \u2019s complaints .","The Government submitted , having provided the relevant documents , that the applicant had requested family visits before the relevant authorities only on DATE and DATE and DATE and on CARDINAL DATE and DATE and had asked for permission to send correspondence to his relatives on CARDINAL and DATE and DATE and DATE . All his requests were rejected for security reasons .","The applicant had been free to ask the investigator in his case or a court to allow him to meet with a priest but had failed to do so . He had also been entitled by law to possess religious literature and other items of a religious nature and never raised any complaint in this connection either before the GPE governor or with the prosecutor responsible for observing compliance with the law in the detention facilities .","No medical aid was provided to the applicant in respect of his heart and teeth problems . On DATE the applicant asked the ORG governor to conduct a medical examination as he believed he had contracted hepatitis B because of the failure of the GPE staff to respect hygiene rules . This request was rejected ; so was another request for a special diet in view of his possible hepatitis infection . On DATE the applicant asked the Minister of Health to order a medical examination in view of his possible hepatitis infection , to no avail . No copies of the mentioned requests have been provided by the applicant .","According to the ORG , during his stay in the GPE the applicant never went to the medical unit on account of his suffering from hepatitis B , heart pain or problems with his teeth and never lodged any complaints regarding a lack of medical assistance . His state of health did not necessitate a special diet .","Following a liver - related complaint that the applicant was suffering from , he was diagnosed with bile - duct dyskinesia ( \u0434\u0438\u0441\u043a\u0456\u043d\u0435\u0437\u0456\u044f \u0441\u0435\u0447\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0432\u0456\u0434\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0448\u043b\u044f\u0445\u0456\u0432 ) and from DATE to DATE he underwent inpatient treatment in the GPE medical unit . A number of laboratory tests were carried out on the applicant , including a specialised blood test for hepatitis indicators . The latter revealed hBs antigens , which meant that the applicant had hepatitis B antibodies in his blood but not that he had been definitely suffering from the active form of the disease . The applicant was prescribed the relevant treatment ( GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE ) , which he received in full , and at the end of his treatment he was deemed to be in good health .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to prison no . DATE to serve his sentence . On DATE he was diagnosed with hepatitis B. Thereafter he lodged a number of complaints with different State bodies alleging that he had contracted hepatitis in the GPE owing to the failure to disinfect hairdressing implements , and demanding investigation of this matter . Following his allegations , investigations were conducted by ORG and the prosecutor \u2019s office , which found no evidence to support the applicant \u2019s allegations . The applicant was informed of the results of the investigation by a prosecutor \u2019s letter of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8","9"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1","9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178682","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"V.P. v. ESTONIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in X. The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in X.","The case concerns the suicide of the applicant \u2019s son , PERSON , who was born in DATE . He had a history of mental illness ( paranoid schizophrenia ) and had been placed in a psychiatric hospital CARDINAL times from DATE . From DATE he was also classed as a disability pensioner .","On DATE L. attempted to commit suicide by taking a large number of pills that had been prescribed for him and the applicant . The applicant called an ambulance . L. was diagnosed with intoxication and taken to Hospital Y. An extract from L. \u2019s medical file ( haiguslugu ) contains a reference that after admission to hospital he had intermittently expressed suicidal thoughts . Owing to a lack of space L. was initially placed in the intensive care unit of the renal department . On DATE he was transferred from the renal department to the intensive care unit of the department of internal medicine , located on the twelfth floor of the hospital . L. committed suicide on DATE by jumping out of the window .","Hospital staff immediately notified the police and the officer who responded to the call wrote up a report . According to the report , documents were drawn up on site , the deceased was photographed and the body was sent for an autopsy , and the doctor on duty gave a statement . The report stated that the doctor had noted that the windows on the twelfth floor did not have locks , and that CARDINAL nurses on duty had been dealing with another patient in a neighbouring room at the time of the incident . The report also noted that patients were not restrained and kept in their beds in the intensive care unit , as that was considered too extreme a measure .","On DATE the applicant requested an explanation from the hospital as to why , in particular , the safety of CARDINAL , who had been a suicidal patient , had not been ensured and why he had not been sent to a psychiatric clinic . According to the reply of DATE , victims of poisoning were usually taken to that particular hospital as they needed special supervision and care . That had been the case with PERSON , who had been under regular supervision . However , hospital staff had not been with the patient at all times . The reply referred to the fact that symptoms of poisoning usually took DATE to go away . Patients then had a psychiatric consultation and were transferred for inpatient treatment at a psychiatric clinic or were referred for outpatient care .","An autopsy was performed on L. on DATE . The death certificate ( arstlik surmateatis ) stated that he had died from injuries to his internal organs and that he had fractures of the skull and skeletal bones and trauma to the head , torso and limbs . The death was initially noted as \u201c accidental \u201d ( the relevant box on the form having been ticked ) . A new death certificate was issued on DATE , where the cause of death was updated to \u201c suicide \u201d by jumping out of a window .","On DATE the applicant turned to ORG on ORG ( ORG kvaliteedi ekspertkomisjon ; hereinafter the \u201c Expert Committee \u201d ) . ORG heard the applicant and examined the medical documentation concerning L. It also had an expert opinion of CARDINAL of its members at its disposal . ORG gave its opinion on DATE . It found that the psychiatric treatment PERSON had received had been in compliance with standard medical practice , and that there had been no link between his previous psychiatric treatment and the attempted suicide on DATE . PERSON in the renal and internal medicine departments had been justified as he had been in need of medical supervision . His suicidal tendencies had been properly assessed upon his admission to hospital on DATE . However , the supervision he had been under had been insufficient and the technical characteristics of the building \u2013 the fact that the windows could not be closed to prevent people jumping out DATE had also served as factors contributing to his suicide . ORG recommended that Hospital Y implement a procedure for the supervision of suicidal patients and train its staff accordingly . It recommended the use of technical solutions to minimise the risk of suicide , such as monitoring equipment in the rooms and windows with shatterproof glass that could not be opened . ORG noted that its assessment created no legal rights or obligations but that it could be used as evidence in civil proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged an offence report with the local prosecutor \u2019s office . The prosecutor analysed CARDINAL potential offences \u2013 manslaughter , manslaughter by negligence and placing a person in danger . However , by a letter of CARDINAL DATE he refused to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds that the elements of a criminal offence were lacking . According to the prosecutor , there was no reference to the fact that someone might have assisted L. in jumping out of the window . The prosecutor also noted that hospital personnel were responsible for protecting the life and health of their patients ( a so - called duty of care , garandikohustus ) , but he considered that hospital personnel could not objectively be expected to constantly monitor patients or that patients should be tied to their beds or placed in windowless rooms with the door locked . With regard to the offence of placing a person in danger , the prosecutor considered that the height of the hospital and the existence of a window in the hospital room had not , as such , been dangerous , but they had become a threat in the light of PERSON \u2019s own self - harming activity . Hence , it had not been the medical personnel who had placed L. in danger , rather he had created the danger himself .","NORP On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ) , referring to the liability of the health - care provider and the obligation to effectively investigate incidences of death in hospitals . She also noted that it was not clear whether someone else might have been involved in PERSON \u2019s jumping out of the window . Her appeal was dismissed on DATE . ORG considered that it had been correct to take PERSON to the regional hospital , Y , where it had been possible to treat him for poisoning , which would not have been possible in a psychiatric clinic . ORG also noted that although there had been deficiencies in the training of medical personnel and that the risk of suicide had not been kept at a minimum by applying all the possible technical means , those shortcomings had not reached the level required for criminal liability .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( Tallinna GPE ) , requesting that the court oblige the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings . She acknowledged that such an appeal had to be filed by a lawyer ( advokaat ) but noted that she had been assisted by a legal adviser ( jurist ) from ORG ( a non - governmental organisation promoting patient rights ) and asked the court of appeal to make an exception in the question of legal representation in her case . If an exception could not be made , the applicant requested that she be granted legal aid and given more time to draw up a request to that effect .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declined to examine the appeal since it had not been lodged by a lawyer and there were no grounds for making an exception to that requirement . The court of appeal also rejected the application for more time for lodging a request for legal aid , noting that no reasons had been advanced for the applicant \u2019s failure to submit supporting documents in time to prove her lack of means . In addition , the court of appeal noted that the applicant \u2019s prospects of success in the appeal were negligible . The refusal to institute criminal proceedings and the decision of ORG had contained detailed reasons as to why there were no grounds to initiate criminal proceedings . The conclusion that the hospital staff had not committed any criminal offence had been well - founded .","The applicant then asked ORG ( NORP ) to grant her legal aid to lodge an appeal against the court of appeal \u2019s decision . An appeal to ORG also had to be lodged by a lawyer . By a decision of DATE ORG refused to grant legal aid . It considered that the decisions of ORG and the court of appeal had been well reasoned , showing why no criminal proceedings had been commenced and that an appeal against the court of appeal \u2019s decision would have had no prospect of success .","The relevant domestic law , namely references to LAW , LAW and LAW is set out in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","In addition , further references to domestic law are relevant in the instant case .","Under LAW seadustik ) , a victim can lodge an appeal with ORG against a refusal to institute criminal proceedings .","Under LAW , if the appeal mentioned in LAW is dismissed by order of ORG , the victim of an alleged offence may lodge a complaint with the court of appeal . Such a complaint must be lodged through a lawyer ( advokaat ) .","The Health - Care Services Organisation Act ( Tervishoiuteenuste korraldamise seadus ) sets out how the provision of health services should be organised and the requirements for such services . It regulates , inter alia , the registration of health - care professionals and the recognition of their professional qualifications as well as the licensing of activities in certain fields of health - care services . All such activities are carried out by ORG ( Terviseamet ) ( LAW ) .","In addition , ORG regulates the role and competences of ORG :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG on ORG ... is an advisory committee whose purpose is to assess the quality of health - care services provided to patients and to make proposals arising from that assessment to ORG , ORG and health - care providers .","( CARDINAL ) ORG competencies are to :","assess the quality of health - care services provided to patients ;","NORP make proposals to ORG for the initiation of supervisory proceedings over the activity of health - care providers ;","make proposals to health - care providers for assessing the competence of healthcare professionals and sending them to in - service training ; CARDINAL . make proposals to health - care providers for changing the way they organise their work ; ... \u201d","Under section CARDINAL of ORG and section CARDINAL of the Statute of the Health Board ( Terviseameti p\u00f5him\u00e4\u00e4rus ) , ORG is a governmental authority operating within the purview of ORG . It has supervisory powers over compliance with the requirements established for health - care providers . Individuals have the right to submit complaints to ORG regarding such compliance .","Section CARDINAL of the Regulation on the requirements for ensuring the quality of health - care services ( LOC kvaliteedi tagamise n\u00f5uded ) , as in force at the material time , stated that a patient \u2019s health - care provider was responsible for the health - care service provided to that person . In order to ensure and develop the quality of health - care services and reduce the risks entailed in the provision of such services , health - care providers had to develop and implement quality management systems in line with good medical and service practice . That quality management system had to , inter alia , address the question of ensuring a professional quality and quality in the organisation \u2019s management of its work ( section CARDINAL ) .","Section CARDINAL of the regulation concerned the annual training of health - care professionals in order to ensure their professional development and raise their competence . The provision obliged each health - care provider to draw up a training plan for health - care professionals for DATE . In line with such training plans , health - care providers had to ensure TIME of specialised training for health - care professionals .","The Regulation on requirements for types of hospital ( NORP liikide n\u00f5uded ) establishes a list of mandatory and permissible inpatient and outpatient services to be provided by general hospitals , central hospitals , regional hospitals , specialist hospitals , rehabilitation hospitals and local hospitals , as well as minimum requirements for staff , equipment and furnishings for the provision of inpatient and outpatient health - care services and for the main facilities used for treatment and diagnostics .","As relevant in the instant case , the regulation provides that regional hospitals must provide inpatient and outpatient services in all fields , including emergency and psychiatric care ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . It requires certain medical professionals to be present at the hospital at all times , including doctors for emergency treatment , internal medicine and a psychiatrist ( section ORG ) ) . Section CARDINAL provides that in order to offer psychiatric health - care services , certain types of equipment ( including stomach pumps in case of poisoning ) and rooms that meet certain specifications as to size need to be available . Among other things , the regulation requires that it be possible to securely isolate and constantly monitor patients . It states that a security alarm should also be provided .","The relevant case - law regarding criminal and civil remedies is set out in the case of PERSON ( mentioned above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184475","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KAMENOVA v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s daughter was killed in a traffic accident . Several other people were killed or injured as well . The accident was the fault of ORG , a lorry driver .","Criminal proceedings were opened against ORG and in DATE he was indicted and brought to court . At the first court hearing the relatives of the other victims brought civil claims against ORG and his employer . The applicant did not bring such a claim .","In a judgment of DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) convicted PERSON of negligently causing the deaths of several people , including the applicant \u2019s daughter , and injuring others , and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment . It allowed the civil claims , finding ORG and his employer jointly liable to pay damages to the civil parties .","Upon appeal , ORG judgment was quashed on DATE by ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) . Finding serious breaches of the procedural rules , it remitted the case to the prosecuting authorities , so that it could be restarted from the stage of the preliminary investigation .","On an unspecified date in DATE or DATE the prosecution prepared a new indictment against ORG and he was once again brought to court .","The first court hearing was held on DATE . ORG accepted for examination a civil claim against ORG and his employer brought by the applicant , and recognised her as civil party to the proceedings .","NORP In a judgment of DATE ORG convicted PERSON of causing the deaths of several people and injuring others , and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment . In addition , it awarded damages to the remaining civil claimants \u2013 damages due jointly from ORG and his employer \u2013 but it did not make any decision in respect of the applicant \u2019s claim .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG \u2019s conviction , reducing his sentence . That part of the judgment became final on DATE when it was upheld by ORG . However , as concerns the civil claims , ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination . It reasoned that ORG had committed serious procedural breaches by , among other things , not taking a decision on the applicant \u2019s claim .","ORG examined the case for a third time , only in relation to the part concerning the civil claims , and on DATE gave a judgment . It ordered ORG and his employer to pay damages to the civil parties , including MONEY ( ORG \u2013 the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) , plus default interest , to the applicant .","Upon an appeal by ORG and his employer , on DATE ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s judgment in so far as it concerned the award made to the applicant , and discontinued the examination of her claim . It found that that claim was inadmissible , on the grounds that it had been submitted outside the time - limit provided for in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It pointed out that the requirement under that provision that a claim should be brought before the commencement of the examination of a case by a court had to be interpreted as referring to the initial examination by a court of first instance . The applicant had brought her claim during the subsequent examination of the case , after its remittal .","Upon an appeal by the applicant , that conclusion was upheld by ORG DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant brought a tort action against ORG and his employer before the civil courts . She claimed BGN CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , plus default interest as of DATE .","In a judgment of DATE the ORG dismissed the claim . It held that the applicant \u2019s inadmissible civil claim brought in the context of the criminal proceedings could not have interrupted the running of the relevant limitation period , which was DATE . Only a claim brought in accordance with the relevant procedural requirements and subsequently found to be well - founded could have had such an effect . In addition , even if the running of the limitation period could be considered to have been interrupted by the applicant \u2019s bringing her claim in the context of the criminal proceedings , that interruption had been retroactively invalidated by ORG decision of DATE finding that the claim was inadmissible and discontinuing the proceedings . Accordingly , the running of the limitation period DATE which had started in DATE because the perpetrator \u2019s identity had been known immediately after the accident in which the applicant \u2019s daughter had died DATE had never been validly interrupted . The applicant \u2019s claim for damages , brought DATE , was time - barred . The applicant had brought her claim before a tribunal , namely the criminal court , which had been barred from examining it ; this meant that this tribunal had had to transfer the claim to the civil courts with jurisdiction , but this had not been done .","The applicant filed an appeal , which was dismissed by a judgment of ORG of DATE . While it considered the applicant \u2019s claim well - founded in principle , since the tort resulting in the liability of ORG and his employer had been proven , that court agreed that the claim was time - barred . It pointed out that the applicant \u2019s bringing her claim in the context of the criminal proceedings could only have interrupted the running of the relevant time - limit if the claim had been allowed . However , after the proceedings had been discontinued , in the absence of recognition of the applicant \u2019s right to receive damages , the time - limit had to be considered to have never been interrupted . The applicant had to bear the adverse consequences of having brought her claim in the context of the criminal proceedings in breach of the rules , and this was so notwithstanding the fact that the claim had been , erroneously , initially accepted for examination by ORG .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to accept the appeal for a cassation review ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174380","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF STADNIK v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE , the applicant was convicted of theft and given a DATE custodial sentence conditional on DATE probation . However , the court applied a general amnesty act and the applicant \u2019s conviction , including the probation period , was spent with immediate effect .","DATE , on CARDINAL DATE , a different court convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . Considering that the applicant had breached the terms of his probation by committing a new offence , the court ordered the suspended sentence to be activated and increased the total length of the sentence by DATE .","On DATE the ORG of ORG acknowledged that the DATE judgment had been unlawful in the part relating to the increase of the final sentence in connection with the prior conviction that had already been spent . The length of the sentence was varied to DATE imprisonment , calculated from DATE which was the date of the applicant \u2019s arrest . Given that the applicant had already spent DATE in detention , the ORG ordered his immediate release .","The applicant unsuccessfully tried several avenues for claiming compensation for his unlawful detention during DATE and DATE .","He sought first to exercise the \u201c right to rehabilitation \u201d under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE ORG in GPE rejected his application , pointing out that the \u201c right to rehabilitation \u201d only accrued to those who have been acquitted or exonerated which was not the applicant \u2019s case . The applicant did not appeal against that decision .","The applicant also tried to initiate criminal proceedings against Judge PERSON who had given the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . His criminal - law complaint was rejected on the ground that the limitation period had expired .","Finally , the applicant filed a civil claim for compensation under the tort provisions of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE ORG in GPE rejected his claim , finding that paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL did not apply because the applicant had been found guilty rather than acquitted and that the special condition of applicability of paragraph DATE the criminal conviction of the judge DATE was not fulfilled . On DATE ORG rejected an appeal against that decision ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147443","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SOCIEDADE DE CONSTRUCOES MARTINS AND VIEIRA, LDA v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - General measures)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant company is a NORP limited liability company . The second and third applicants are the applicant company \u2019s managing partners ( see PERSON for details ) .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) started an investigation into the applicant company \u2019s fiscal activity DATE .","Following the investigation , CARDINAL sets of fiscal criminal proceedings were instituted before the Porto and ORG .","On DATE the applicants were made defendants ( arguidos ) in both sets of proceedings .","On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges ( acusa\u00e7\u00e3o ) against the applicant company and third applicant in FAC for tax fraud in relation to activities dating back to DATE , when the applicant company was registered in GPE .","On DATE the trial began . The hearing was adjourned to DATE and then to DATE due to the absence of some of the defence witnesses .","On DATE of the hearing , the applicant company \u2019s and third applicant \u2019s representative resigned . The hearing was adjourned pending his replacement .","NORP In DATE the applicant company and third applicant gave power of attorney to the same lawyer .","On DATE the applicants informed ORG that they had sought a judicial review before ORG of a tax adjustment applied to them regarding the applicant company \u2019s fiscal activity DATE .","On DATE ORG suspended the fiscal criminal proceedings in accordance with LAW das Infrac\u00e7\u00f5es Fiscais n\u00e3o Aduaneiras \u2013 \u201c RJIFNA \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicants applied to ORG ( ORG ) for an order to have the criminal proceedings expedited ( pedido de acelera\u00e7\u00e3o processual ) .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed their application on the grounds that the delay in the proceedings , under the law , was attributable to ORG rather than ORG . The ORG pointed out that the applicants should have therefore lodged their expedition application with ORG .","The proceedings are still pending before ORG .","On DATE the public prosecutor of ORG brought charges against the CARDINAL applicants for tax fraud and abuse ( fraude fiscal e abuso de confian\u00e7a fiscal ) in relation to activities that had taken place DATE , when the applicant company was registered in GPE .","On DATE the applicants contested the proceedings . On DATE they applied for them to be suspended until a final decision was adopted in relation to the judicial review pending before FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG ordered that the proceedings be suspended in accordance with LAW RJIFNA and requested information from FAC regarding the progress of the judicial review .","On DATE ORG informed ORG that the proceedings brought by the applicants against the tax adjustment were still pending .","On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings until a final decision was adopted by ORG .","On DATE ORG informed ORG that the judicial review was still pending .","On DATE the applicants applied to ORG to have the proceedings expedited .","On DATE ORG dismissed their application on the grounds that the fiscal criminal proceedings had been suspended in accordance with the law . It also considered that their request should have been made to ORG .","The proceedings are still pending before ORG .","On DATE and DATE the applicants instituted proceedings in tort ( a\u00e7\u00e3o de responsabilidade civil extracontratual ) against the ORG in the PERSON and Braga Administrative and ORG ( case ORG . ORG and CARDINAL respectively ) , claiming damages for the excessive length of the above - mentioned criminal proceedings .","According to the latest information received by ORG on DATE , the proceedings are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167126","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KITANOVSKA STANOJKOVIC AND OTHERS v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["On DATE two persons wearing black masks entered the applicants\u2019 house with an intention to rob them . They hit GPE , the applicants\u2019 husband and father , as well as the first applicant , inflicting on them severe injuries . In consequence , on DATE PERSON died . After the incident , the first applicant was admitted to hospital where she remained in the intensive care unit until DATE .","On DATE the public prosecutor requested that ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) launched preliminary proceedings against PERSON ( DATE at the time ) on account of aggravated robbery and remanded him in custody . On DATE , the trial court ordered PERSON \u2019s detention for DATE . The detention was ordered on account of the risk of him absconding and interfering with the investigation , namely \u201c influencing the victims witnesses , in particular since they live in ( PERSON \u2019s ) vicinity \u201d .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , an investigating judge of the trial court extended ORG detention for DATE for the same reasons as before . On DATE the investigating judge ordered his release finding that \u201c his attendance at the trial can be secured with a more lenient measure ( seizure of passport and obligation to report to the court ) ... Taking into account the individual circumstances and needs of [ PERSON ] , his age , the fact that he is a regular student in DATE of secondary school and a young man in development , [ the court ] considers that there are grounds for termination of the detention order ... \u201d","On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against PERSON and a certain PERSON They were indicted on charges of aggravated robbery with respect to the incident of DATE .","On DATE ORG , after it had heard evidence from the accused , the applicants , witnesses , experts , representatives of ORG ( who suggested that PERSON should be sentenced to a prison term if he was found guilty ) , and admitted considerable material evidence , including several expert reports ( including a psychiatric expert report which confirmed that PERSON had been mentally fit when the crime had been committed ) established the following :","\u201c At TIME on DATE the accused LOC and PERSON , on the basis of a prior agreement , arrived [ at the applicants\u2019 house ] with an intention to steal movable objects . With the use of force and dangerous object DATE a metal hammer with a wooden grip , they intentionally inflicted serious injuries on the now deceased PERSON ] and [ the first applicant ] in order to achieve their aim ... Wearing black masks , [ LOC and PERSON ] arrived in front of [ the applicants\u2019 house ] ... PERSON opened the door . They both entered the house . PERSON immediately started hitting PERSON on the head and hands with the metal hammer . PERSON sustained serious injuries - head wounds , multi - fragmented fractures accompanied with brain haemorrhages under the hard tissues of the brain ... linear skull fracture , as a result of which he died on DATE . Soon after , PERSON , [ the first applicant \u2019s daughter and the second and third ORG sister ] appeared and started screaming . PERSON then physically assaulted her by hitting her on the head ... She fell down , pretending to be dead . After [ the first applicant ] had heard ORG screaming , she arrived in the kitchen in order to see what was going on , but when she arrived in the living room , she was assaulted by the minor PERSON He punched her hard in the head , inflicting severe injuries , namely CARDINAL head wounds [ cuts and bruises ] ; CARDINAL sizeable skull fractures ; haemorrhages under the soft tissues of the brain ; and a brain lesion in the area of the left temple ... ... [ the first applicant ] , GPE ] and L.[J. ] were taken by ambulance to ORG . They were admitted by GPE , a doctor who was on duty at the time , who noted the serious physical injuries which both PERSON ] and [ the first applicant ] had sustained . They were kept in hospital , since their injuries were life - threatening ... \u201d","As stated in the judgment , \u201c [ the second applicant ] was not able to recognise her parents given their injuries . Her mother was so much beaten that she could not see ; her eyes were closed and her face was so much coloured ( \u043c\u043e\u0434\u0440\u043e ) that she could not recognise her . \u201d","The court found PERSON and PERSON guilty of aggravated robbery and , relying on LAW in relation to sub - paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , sentenced them to CARDINAL and CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment respectively . The time which PERSON had spent in pre - trial detention was to be deducted from the total length of his custodial sentence . As victims , the applicants were advised to pursue compensation claims by means of a separate civil action for damages .","By judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , ORG and ORG , respectively , dismissed PERSON \u2019s complaints about alleged errors on the facts and law , as well as alleged violations of the procedural rules . Both courts upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment finding no grounds to depart from the facts as established by the trial court and the reasons given for the conviction .","On DATE an enforcement judge responsible for execution of the custodial sentence issued an incarceration order ( \u0443\u043f\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043d \u0430\u043a\u0442 ) in respect of PERSON According to that order , PERSON was required to report to ORG on DATE in order to serve the sentence . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON requested that the sentence be postponed for family and health reasons . This request was dismissed by decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE by the enforcement judge and a CARDINAL - judge panel of the trial court , respectively . On DATE the detention centre informed the enforcement judge that PERSON had not arrived at the facility on the specified date . By letters dated DATE , DATE and DATE , the enforcement judge notified the trial court in GPE responsible for minors about PERSON \u2019s failure to report to the detention facility and sought instructions \u201c given the urgent nature of the proceedings \u201d . These letters remained unanswered .","The Government submitted that after the above correspondence , no enforcement judge had been appointed to deal with the case for DATE . After such a judge had been appointed , on DATE another incarceration order had been issued in respect of PERSON The latter sought , to no avail , for the custodial sentence to be adjourned . On DATE the detention centre advised again that PERSON had not arrived at the facility .","On DATE the enforcement judge ordered PERSON \u2019s arrest . PERSON was arrested on DATE and started serving his custodial sentence on DATE . The detention centre confirmed by letter that PERSON would remain in custody until DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171828","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"SMADIKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON GPE , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant was accused of an administrative offence under LAW ( CAO ) . According to the applicant , he was unaware of the charge .","A hearing was listed for DATE . Since the hearing notification was returned to the court as \u201c after expiry of the storage term \u201d , the judge rescheduled to CARDINAL DATE and issued a new notification . This notification was also returned to the court with the same note .","According to the applicant , he remained unaware of the charge and did not receive the above notifications .","By a judgment of DATE a justice of the peace convicted the applicant ; his driving licence was suspended for DATE and DATE . The applicant allegedly first learned about this judgment on DATE , when he was involved in a traffic accident .","The applicant appealed against the judgment . On DATE ORG held a hearing ; heard the applicant \u2019s representative ( the applicant waiving his right to be present ) ; examined evidence ; and upheld the judgment .","On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG of GPE respectively rejected the applicant \u2019s applications for review under LAW ( see paragraphs DATE below as regards the applicable procedure ) .","Under LAW of the ORG a prosecutor institutes administrative - offence proceedings for a number of offences , but also has the right to institute administrative - offence proceedings in any other case . He can participate in the examination of the case , lodge various applications , and issue a report on issues arising in the case . He can also appeal against the decision in the case , irrespective of whether he previously participated in the proceedings .","Under the ORG , depending on the subject matter decisions concerning administrative offences can be issued either by a non - judicial authority or by a court ( LAW of the ORG ) .","At the relevant time , LAW of the ORG contained provisions concerning review of such decisions .","Review could be sought by the person or legal entity accused of the administrative offence , the victim of the offence , or their representative ( Article CARDINAL ) . If the decision on the administrative offence concerned a legal entity or a person engaged in entrepreneurial activities it was reviewed by a commercial court in accordance with the rules of commercial procedure ( Article CARDINAL ) .","An ordinary appeal against a ruling on an administrative offence could be lodged within DATE ( or DATE for some offences ) following receipt of the copy of the decision ( Article CARDINAL ) . The appeal should be examined within DATE ( or less for some offences ) following receipt of the case file by the reviewing court or authority ( LAW . The reviewing authority or court is not bound by the scope of arguments , and reviews the case in its entirety ( LAW ) .","Article CARDINAL gave prosecutors the right to seek review of decisions on administrative offences within the procedure and time - limits set out in GPE CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the ORG .","Article CARDINAL provided for further review of final court decisions on administrative offences . A regional prosecutor or deputy or ORG or deputy had the right to apply for such a further review . According to the ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE by ORG of GPE , individuals prosecuted in an administrative - offences case also had a right to lodge an application for supervisory review ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","If the judge in the supervisory review had doubts about the lawfulness of the impugned court decisions he or she could request the case file and then examine the case in its entirety , going beyond the grounds for review raised by the author of the supervisory - review application ( paragraph CARDINAL of the ruling of DATE ) .","Supervisory review was to be carried out by the presidents of the regional courts or their deputies , or by the President of ORG of GPE or her deputies . Reviewing this provision , ORG ( decision no . CARDINAL-O of DATE concerning the constitutional interpretation of LAW ORG ; this decision was officially published in DATE ) stated that the reviewing court was to inform the person affected by the administrative offence proceedings about the application for review lodged by the victim . ORG also stated that until legislative amendment of the ORG concerning the scope of review , grounds for review , the reviewing courts\u2019 powers , timelimits for seeking review , and the procedure for such a review , the reviewing courts were to be guided by the relevant provisions of LAW of LAW ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) .","Article CARDINAL of the ORG was deleted . Article QUANTITY provides that the first - instance and appeal judgments , which became final , can be challenged by way of review by the defendant or his counsel , the victim , legal representative of a minor or another vulnerable person , or legal representatives of a legal entity . Review can be sought by a regional prosecutor or deputy or ORG or deputy . Since DATE the public official who submitted the administrative offence case for judicial examination is also entitled to seek review .","Requests for review should be lodged before regional courts or ORG of GPE . Such requests are to be examined by the presidents of such courts or their deputies . ORG is empowered to deal with appeals against decisions taken on review at the regional level . In other cases , ORG should have similar competence ( Article CARDINAL ) .","Requests for review should indicate the grounds for the review ( Article CARDINAL ) . The scope of the review should be limited to the grounds indicated in the request and observations in reply . If the interests of legality so require , the review judge can review the case in its entirety . Renewed requests for review on the same grounds before the same court are not allowed ( Article CARDINAL ) .","The reviewing court should issue a decision within DATE of receipt of the application or within DATE of receipt of the case file , if so requested by the reviewing court ( Article CARDINAL ) .","ORG held that the review procedure in respect of final court decisions under the ORG is aimed at the correction of fundamental errors in such decisions , in line with the requirements of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW ( decision no . PERSON of DATE ) .","Apparently , the decision of CARDINAL-O of DATE was not applied by some regional courts ( see decision no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE by ORG , and , a contrario , decision no . CARDINAL of DATE by ORG ) ; some regional courts stated that this decision was no longer applicable following the deletion of LAW ORG during the legislative reform in DATE ( see decision no . DATE of DATE by ORG ) . It appears that a number of regional courts have recently maintained the position that there is no time - limit for seeking review proceedings under the ORG :","- GPE City Court : decisions no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINALa-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL of DATE ;","- Novosibirsk Regional Court : decisions no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINALa-CARDINAL - DATE of CARDINAL DATE ;","- ORG : decisions no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE ;","- ORG : decisions no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ;","- ORG : decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ;","- ORG : decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ;","- ORG : decision no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ;","- Supreme Court of GPE : decision no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE .","Cases concerning the charges under the ORG in respect of legal entities and entrepreneurs are examined according to the procedures prescribed by LAW ( CCOmP ) .","Prior to the changes which entered into force on DATE ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , supervisory review of final judgments issued by commercial courts was regulated under LAW of the ORG","Article CARDINAL of the CComP provided that supervisory review of final judgments was carried out by ORG of GPE . This review could be sought by the parties to the proceedings and , in some cases , by a prosecutor ( see also ORG DATE and CARDINAL of the CComP ) .","The grounds for review included \u201c substantial violations of rights and legitimate interests relating to entrepreneurial or another economic activity as a result of a violation or wrong application of material or procedural law \u201d ( Article CARDINAL of the CComP ) . The application for review was to be lodged within DATE the last impugned judgment entered into force , provided that the other review remedies had been exhausted ( ibid . ) .","Article CARDINAL provided that the application was to be examined by a panel of judges , who had to decide whether the case was to be transferred for examination by the Presidium of ORG ( see also LAW .","Article CARDINAL of the Code contained the grounds for varying or overturning lower courts\u2019 decisions : violation of consistency in interpretation and application of the law by commercial courts ; violation of human rights and freedoms , as protected by the well - recognised principles and rules of international law or by an international treaty of GPE ; and violation of the public interest .","On this ORG \u2019s position concerning the supervisory review procedure under the CComP prior to the amendments in DATE , see GPE and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE .","For a summary of the amended provisions of the CComP in force since DATE , see GPE v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147012","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PAPLAUSKIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","By a decision of DATE ORG restored the applicant \u2019s property rights to QUANTITY of land in the context of restitution of property rights which had been violated by the unlawful nationalisation during the NORP regime . Subsequently , the plot of land was registered in the land registry in her name .","On DATE the applicant sold the plot of land for CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) to CARDINAL private buyers , PERSON and GPE , who became the owners of the plot .","In DATE ORG found that a mistake had been made in granting the plot of land to the applicant and notified her and , later , the public prosecutor .","In DATE the public prosecutor initiated civil proceedings to have the decision of DATE and sale contract annulled on the ground that in DATE part of the same plot of land had already been sold by the ORG to a private buyer , ORG Moreover , the plot was situated in a community garden ( sodinink\u0173 bendrija ) and therefore the former owner \u2019s rights to it could not be restored under LAW ( PERSON nuosavyb\u0117s teisi\u0173 \u012f i\u0161likus\u012f nekilnojam\u0105j\u012f turt\u0105 atk\u016brimo \u012fstatymas \u2013 hereinafter \u201c PERSON on Restitution \u201d ) .","At the same time criminal proceedings had been instituted into possible forgery of the documents . However , suspicions with regard to the applicant were not confirmed , and the proceedings were discontinued in DATE .","ORG acknowledged that the plot of land had been assigned to the applicant unlawfully .","On DATE assets belonging to the applicant amounting in value to LTL CARDINAL , including bank deposits and her pension , were seized to ensure satisfaction of the prosecutor \u2019s civil claim .","On DATE the GPE CARDINALst ORG granted the prosecutor \u2019s claim . The transfer of title involving the plot of land was annulled . Ownership was awarded to ORG and the applicant was ordered to pay ORG CARDINAL to PERSON and PERSON The applicant did , however , reserve the right to have her ownership rights to a plot of land restored .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decisions of the lower courts .","On DATE the order requiring the applicant to pay LTL CARDINAL was enforced by a bailiff .","According to information submitted by the applicant , she had to borrow money to comply with the order to pay LTL CARDINAL and to cover other legal expenses . She also alleged that the unlawful actions of the authorities and the related court proceedings had caused her health to deteriorate significantly , as she had suffered stress and later become disabled .","In DATE , after receiving a refusal from ORG to compensate her for her loss , the applicant brought a claim against the ORG before the administrative courts for ORG CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) in pecuniary damage and LTL CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damage .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first instance court and granted the applicant \u2019s claim in part awarding her LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) for pecuniary ( part of her legal costs and expenses ) and LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for non - pecuniary damage . The court also concluded that the unlawful actions of the national authorities had violated the applicant \u2019s legitimate expectations and had had an impact on her health , given her old age . However , the court dismissed most of the applicant \u2019s claims to have reimbursed the pecuniary loss she had allegedly sustained as a result of the annulment of the transfer of title to the plot and the court proceedings she had had to undergo . In that connection , the courts noted that the applicant had no legal grounds to claim compensation for pecuniary damage , given that she had unlawfully had her ownership rights to the disputed plot restored .","Later , by a decision of DATE ORG restored the applicant \u2019s property rights by granting her a new plot of land of QUANTITY ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177669","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MAKSOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","DATE the applicant , as an entrepreneur , was providing heating installation services to PERSON proizvodnju konfekcije i trikota\u017ee PERSON , a socially - owned company based in ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor company \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company ( St. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The applicant duly submitted his claim .","On DATE ORG rejected his claim and instructed him to initiate a regular civil suit and request determination of his claim . The applicant lodged a separate civil claim .","On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicant by recognizing his claim and ordered the debtor company to pay the applicant the costs of the civil proceedings .","On an unspecified date thereafter , the said judgment having become final , was acknowledged within the insolvency proceedings .","NORP On DATE ORG issued a decision ordering payment of PERCENT of the total debt to the applicant . The applicant received this payment on an unspecified date .","The debtor company was ultimately struck from the relevant public register on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal complaining against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE and that his right to work and right to compensation for work and providing services were infringed , because he received PERCENT of the total debt . He asked further ORG to order the payment of the rest of the debt .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal finding that it is not vested with the power to order such a payment . That decision was delivered to the applicant after DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167491","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TEMESF\u0150I AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["The first applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in ORG . The second applicant , Mr Zolt\u00e1n PERSON was born in DATE and lives in ORG . The third applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in ORG . The fourth applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The fifth applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in ORG . The sixth applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in LOC . The seventh applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in ORG . The eighth applicant , Mr Istv\u00e1n Dud\u00e1s was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicants were heard as suspects on different dates ( the first applicant on DATE , the second applicant on DATE , the third and fourth applicants on DATE , the fifth applicant on DATE , the sixth applicant on DATE , the seventh applicant on DATE and the eighth applicant on DATE ) .","ORG preferred a bill of indictment with ORG on DATE charging the applicants with fraud and forgery . On CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to different punishments ( applied reprimands for the first applicant , criminal fine for the second , seventh and eighth applicants and DATE probation for the third , fourth , fifth and sixth applicants ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177077","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF AXEL SPRINGER SE AND RTL TELEVISION GMBH v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first applicant company , ORG , is a publishing house operated in the legal form of a ORG registered in GPE . The second applicant company , ORG , is a broadcasting company set up as a private limited company registered in GPE .","On DATE the defendant , PERSON , then aged DATE , was arrested . The public prosecutor \u2019s office charged him with killing his parents , dismembering their bodies , burning some of the parts , flushing others down the toilet and disposing of the rest by putting them in barrels . S. confessed to the police . Several NORP newspapers reported on the case . Some published pictures of PERSON , which mostly showed him at a much younger age .","NORP The public prosecutor \u2019s office obtained a psychiatric expert opinion in DATE . The expert concluded that PERSON was suffering from a schizoid personality disorder at the time when he had committed the offence .","The trial against PERSON began on DATE at ORG . Photographers working for the applicant companies attended the hearings to take still photographs and make videorecordings of the defendant .","Prior to the start of the hearing , the presiding judge informed the photojournalists orally that the defendant \u2019s face would have to be made unidentifiable \u201c in the usual manner \u201d before any images of him were published .","According to the applicant companies , the presiding judge had indicated at the beginning of the hearing on DATE that anyone who failed to comply with this order no longer needed to show himself at ORG of GPE and apply for permission to take photos of future proceedings . The applicant companies submitted a copy of an email of a journalist who attended the hearing confirming the alleged statement of the presiding judge .","The Government contested the applicant ORG assertions that the presiding judge had threatened not only to bar journalists from taking photographs during the proceedings against the defendant , but also from future proceedings before ORG . The Government submitted that according to the presiding judge no such statement had been made .","S. repeated his confession on DATE of the hearing .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the second applicant company asked the President of ORG to change the presiding judge \u2019s oral order . It pointed out , inter alia , that several unpixelated pictures of PERSON had been published in different newspapers before . By a letter of the same date the president replied that he had forwarded the letter to the presiding judge for lack of competence .","On DATE the presiding judge supplemented his order and provided his reasons in writing . The only media representatives who were permitted to take photographs and make video - recordings of S. were those who had previously registered with the court and given an assurance that prior to the publication or forwarding of the material , the face of S. would be disguised by a technical process , for example by pixelisation , so that it would only be possible to use the images in such a form . Journalists were barred from further reporting on the case if they failed to comply with the order .","The presiding judge stated in his reasons that he had to balance the public interest in being informed and the personality rights of S. He acknowledged that the crime at issue was very different from \u201c usual crimes \u201d and that permitting only pictures that disguised PERSON impaired the public \u2019s ability to be informed . However , he held that the order was justified in view of the need to protect the personality rights of S. He reasoned that it was unlikely that the case had caused a sensation throughout GPE . No nationwide television channel besides the second applicant had shown any interest in reporting on it . He stressed the importance of the presumption of innocence , finding that reporting on S. in a way which identified him could have a \u201c pillory effect \u201d . Consequently , according to the presiding judge the personality rights of PERSON , who had never been in the public eye or sought to contact the media and who had expressly requested that his identity be concealed , outweighed the public interest in being informed . Furthermore , the order had already proved to be necessary as there had been individual violations of the judge \u2019s instructions following DATE of the hearing .","On DATE the presiding judge sent the supplemented written order to a number of journalists , including some who worked for the applicant companies .","On DATE the applicant companies filed an objection ( Gegenvorstellung ) , requesting the suspension of the judicial order banning the publication of images enabling identification \u201c during the proceedings against ( ... ) S. \u201d ( \u201d f\u00fcr die Dauer des Prozesses gegen ( ... ) S. \u201d ) . The applicant companies stressed the fact that S. had confessed to the crime on DATE of the hearing .","On DATE the presiding judge upheld the order . He held that the implications of the confession and its credibility could only be assessed at the end of the hearing .","Further hearings took place on DATE and on DATE . On DATE ORG delivered its verdict , sentencing the defendant to prison on CARDINAL counts of murder .","On DATE ORG declined to consider a constitutional complaint by the applicant companies , without providing reasons ( no . DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183585","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TRISHKOVSKAYA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement)","judges":"Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . The applicants in applications nos . CARDINAL and ORG also raised a complaint under LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P4-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171096","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF HOKKELING v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person;Defence through legal assistance);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Egbert Myjer;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . At the time when the application was submitted , the applicant was serving a sentence of imprisonment in GPE , GPE .","NORP In DATE a group of individuals transported a considerable quantity ( possibly QUANTITY ) of hashish ( which in the GPE is a banned substance ) from one hiding - place to another . It appears that the possessors of the hashish later found some of it missing and came to the conclusion that it had been removed by CARDINAL PERSON In DATE PERSON \u2019s body was found dumped at a building site , with the hands tied behind the back , CARDINAL ribs broken and holes in the knees and kneecaps consistent with the deliberate infliction of injury by means of an electric drill .","The applicant was arrested on DATE on suspicion of having been criminally involved in the above events and taken into pre - trial detention . Throughout the ensuing criminal proceedings he claimed to be innocent .","The applicant was charged with causing PERSON grievous bodily harm resulting in his death , the abduction of PERSON resulting in his death , threatening grievous bodily harm against PERSON , and importing , transporting and possessing QUANTITY of hashish . His trial opened on DATE before ORG ( rechtbank ) .","The prosecution sought an DATE prison sentence .","After adjournments made necessary by the need for further investigative measures , ORG gave judgment on CARDINAL DATE . It did not find it established that the abduction had resulted in PERSON \u2019s death and acquitted the applicant of that aggravating circumstance , but convicted the applicant of the remainder of the crimes charged , finding him to have committed them together with others . It sentenced the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed .","The appeal hearing opened on DATE before ORG ( gerechtshof ) . Finding that the file was incomplete , ORG adjourned the hearing sine die in view of its busy hearing schedule . Further adjournments were ordered , on the same ground , on DATE and DATE . On DATE an adjournment was ordered on the ground that no suitable hearing room was available .","ORG held a scheduling hearing ( regiezitting ) on DATE . CARDINAL more adjournments were ordered , CARDINAL until DATE for the purpose of securing the attendance of further witnesses and CARDINAL until DATE to allow the applicant \u2019s new counsel , who had replaced the lawyer who had conducted the applicant \u2019s defence at first instance , to acquaint himself with the case file . At the hearing of DATE it was decided that the hearing on the merits of the case would be held on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was released , having served CARDINAL of the sentence handed to him by ORG .","The hearing was resumed on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant was in attendance . Since further witnesses were to be heard by the investigating judge at the request of the defence , a further adjournment was ordered until CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ; the applicant and his counsel were cautioned to be present without further notice .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on suspicion of having imported \u201c a considerable quantity of narcotic substances \u201d . The applicant \u2019s counsel informed ORG of this development by fax on DATE .","The hearing was again resumed on DATE . The applicant \u2019s counsel stated that the applicant was in pre - trial detention in GPE . He asked for the applicant to be brought to the GPE DATE before the following hearing so as to consult with him .","On DATE the applicant received a summons at his detention address in GPE to appear at the hearing of ORG to be held on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel sent an e - mail to the Advocate General ( advocaat - generaal ) to ORG , with a copy to the president of the criminal division , restating his request for the applicant to be brought to the GPE in advance of the hearing of ORG and announced his intention to oppose resumption of the hearing if this were not done .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel informed ORG by e - mail of his intention to seek an adjournment of the coming hearing . On DATE the president of the criminal division warned the applicant \u2019s counsel and ORG by e - mail , without prejudging any decision that might be taken , of the possibility that the merits of the case would be addressed .","The hearing was resumed on DATE . The official record of the hearing makes mention of the applicant \u2019s place of detention , namely FAC ( GPE Fengsel ) , GPE , GPE .","The applicant \u2019s counsel asked for the hearing to be adjourned until the applicant could be present in person . He suggested that this might be done pursuant to an extradition request ; by way of transfer under LAW , which possibility in his submission had not been adequately explored ; and , following the outcome of the criminal proceedings in GPE , by allowing the applicant either to return of his own accord or to serve any sentence handed to him by the NORP courts in the GPE as the case might be .","ORG declined to adjourn its hearing until the applicant could be present . Its reasoning , reflected in the official record of its hearing , was as follows :","\u201c If a request is made to adjourn the hearing on the merits all relevant interests should be weighed , including the right of the accused to be present , the interest of not only the accused but also of society in a speedy determination of the charges and the interest of a proper organisation of the judicial system . In so doing , the court of ORG will base itself on the following facts and circumstances :","- The present case began in DATE . The applicant was arrested on DATE and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment by ORG on DATE . The [ applicant ] took part in the proceedings . The [ applicant ] appealed against this judgment and the first appeal hearing took place on DATE .","- The [ applicant ] was released on DATE .","- It was not possible to hold the hearing on the merits on DATE as planned because the investigating judge had not finished hearing witnesses .","- On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel transmitted the information that the [ applicant ] had been arrested in GPE on DATE on suspicion of having violated LAW of LAW , to wit , unlawfully importing a large quantity of narcotic substances . The [ applicant ] was to remain in pre - trial detention until DATE . The hearing on the merits could therefore not be held on DATE , DATE and DATE as planned and was moved to CARDINAL and DATE .","- The [ applicant ] has therefore brought it on himself that he can not now attend the appeal hearing independently ( dat hij niet zelfstandig tegenwoordig kan zijn bij zijn berechting in QUANTITY beroep ) .","- The [ applicant ] has indicated , following his arrest , that he wishes to attend the appeal hearing .","- The Advocate General has , on DATE , drafted a request for mutual assistance , in consultation with ORG and GPE ( ORG Noordwest en GPE ) ( ... ) requesting the NORP authorities to transfer the [ applicant ] to the GPE temporarily under LAW .","- The NORP public prosecutor replied on DATE that the [ applicant ] \u2019s temporary transfer was not possible because GPE had entered a reservation relevant to LAW [ of LAW ] . The request for temporary transfer would have to be made via ORG .","- The Advocate General has , on DATE , prepared a draft request for mutual legal assistance setting out the request to the NORP authorities to transfer the [ applicant ] to the GPE under LAW [ of LAW ] .","- On DATE the head of ORG ( afdeling ORG in ORG ) of ORG informed ORG that LAW [ of LAW ] provides only for the possibility to transfer temporarily as witnesses or for purposes of confrontation . Temporary transfer of an accused for trial requires extradition or surrender procedure ( uitleverings- of overleveringsprocedure ) to be followed , in which case there must be a valid GPE title for detention .","- The Advocate General prepared a draft extradition request on DATE .","- On DATE the head of ORG informed the Advocate General that it was not possible to request the [ applicant ] \u2019s extradition from GPE because there was no GPE title for his detention . This means that CARDINAL of the documents referred to in LAW ( a ) is missing . The ultimate conclusion is that since neither extradition nor temporary transfer within the meaning of mutual assistance in criminal matters ( kleine rechtshulp ) is possible , there is no possibility to allow the [ applicant ] to attend the hearing in his criminal case on DATE .","- Counsel and [ applicant ] have had sufficient time to prepare the defence before the hearing on the merits [ planned for ] CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , which hearing was postponed until CARDINAL , DATE and DATE only shortly before [ it was due to begin ] . Counsel has also had the opportunity to discuss the case with the [ applicant ] and prepare for the hearing before those new hearing dates . It does not make any difference that the [ applicant ] was arrested in GPE on DATE . Moreover , in DATE counsel visited the [ applicant ] in GPE to prepare DATE \u2019s hearing , it being worth noting in this connection that it is open to [ counsel ] in consultation with the [ applicant ] himself to make use of [ this possibility ] more frequently , the NORP authorities having imposed no restrictions in this respect .","- Counsel has been explicitly authorised ( uitdrukkelijk gemachtigd ) to defend the [ applicant ] at the hearing .","ORG considers , in these circumstances , that in weighing the various interests against each other the general interest , including due process ( het belang van een behoorlijke rechtspleging ) and the interest of bringing the case to a close within a reasonable time must now prevail over the [ applicant ] \u2019s right to take part in the hearing in person . ... \u201d","The hearing was continued on DATE . The applicant \u2019s counsel conducted the defence in the applicant \u2019s absence .","The Court of Appeal gave judgment on DATE . It convicted the applicant of complicity in causing grievous bodily harm resulting in death , abduction and transporting and possessing an unspecified quantity of hashish . It sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( cassatie ) with ORG ( PERSON ) . He complained of a violation of his right to attend the hearing in person as a result of ORG refusal to order an adjournment until he could be present . His arguments were the following :","Firstly , the starting point should be that an accused had the right to attend the hearing in his case in person ; as long as he did not waive that right , he was in principle entitled to an adjournment if he was prevented from so doing . This starting point was not reflected in ORG reasoning .","Secondly , it did not appear that ORG had considered the seriousness of the charges . Considering the charges in issue , and the sentence imposed on appeal ( which added years to the sentence imposed at first instance ) , ORG decision was misconceived .","Thirdly , the presence of counsel and the length of the proceedings , relied on by ORG , were irrelevant . The length of proceedings in particular would be imputable to the suspect if an adjournment was requested by the defence .","Fourthly , ORG had failed to respond to the suggestion made by the defence to await the outcome of the proceedings in GPE , after which the applicant could return of his own accord or the execution of any NORP sentence could be taken care of in the GPE , thus enabling the applicant \u2019s attendance .","Fifthly , ORG had failed to explain why \u201c due process and the interest of bringing the case to a close within a reasonable time \u201d were given priority over the applicant \u2019s attendance rights on DATE given that those interests had never previously stood in the way of an adjournment of the case .","The Advocate General ( advocaat - generaal ) to ORG submitted an advisory opinion ( conclusie ) in which he expressed the view that , in the light of Article CARDINAL taken together with LAW ) , ORG had been called upon to decide whether the interest of the examination of the case at the hearing required the hearing to be adjourned . The advisory opinion continues ( footnotes omitted ) :","\u201c CARDINAL . [ In the light of the principle stated , ORG findings ] do not reflect an incorrect understanding of the law ; nor , in view of the following , is it incomprehensible . ORG has established as fact that [ its own ] Advocate General has made several unsuccessful attempts to have the suspect \u2013 who is detained in GPE DATE transferred to the GPE so that he can exercise his right to attend the hearing in person . This finding implies that ORG has considered the question whether it was possible for the suspect to be placed at its disposal for the purposes of the appeal but has answered it in the negative . Moreover , it does not appear likely that the applicant will return to the GPE shortly after the end of the criminal proceedings in GPE and will be able to appear at a further hearing . Contrary to what is argued by the drafter of the ground of appeal , ORG therefore sufficiently examined the possibilities of mutual legal assistance . The fact that ORG did not react in so many words to counsel \u2019s suggestion that the outcome of the NORP criminal proceedings should be awaited does not change this . After all , in refusing to order an adjournment ORG is not bound to answer every detail of the argument explicitly . [ The sentence reflecting the decision that all parts of the request had been refused ] was sufficient . That also implies the refusal to await the outcome of the NORP criminal proceedings , so that the suspect would be able to attend the hearing in the GPE by his own means or by way of transfer of the execution of the NORP sentence , if any .","Furthermore , the suspect appeared at the first instance hearings alongside his counsel , in addition to several appeal hearings which he attended together with his counsel . It follows that the suspect had the opportunity to exercise his right to attend hearings and state his version of events to a court , notwithstanding the fact that the merits of the case were not dealt with at the appeal hearings referred to . The summonses for the appeal hearing on DATE at which hearing the suspect did not appear \u2013 were served in accordance with the law . Moreover , the defence could be conducted at this hearing on the applicant \u2019s behalf by the applicant \u2019s counsel , as in fact was the case .","In addition , ORG adjourned its examination of the case at the appeal hearing of DATE already , at the request of counsel , because of the suspect \u2019s detention in GPE . The examination of the case at the hearing in appeal had been adjourned CARDINAL times already , whereas the appeal proceedings lasted DATE in total . The criminal acts with which the applicant was charged were committed in DATE [ the drugs crimes ] and DATE [ the crimes against the person of E. ] respectively , so that at the time of the appeal hearing of DATE at which hearing the request for an adjournment was made DATE and DATE had already passed . Finally , in the cases of the co - suspects , which were dealt with simultaneously with [ the present case ] but not joined with it , CARDINAL of them , PERSON , did appear at that hearing .","Contrary to the argument made by the drafter of the point of appeal , ORG was under no obligation to consider the seriousness of the charges against the applicant in deciding on the request for an adjournment but it was at liberty to consider the presence of counsel authorised to conduct the defence and the length of the criminal proceedings .","The limpidity of ORG reasoning is not impaired by ORG reliance , in refusing the request for an adjournment , on due process and the interest of bringing the case to a close within a reasonable time , even though these arguments supposedly did not stand in the way of adjournments of earlier appeal hearings . I note in this connection that the adjournments , from DATE , were connected , at least in part , with the need to ensure due process : the hearing of witnesses and the realisation of the suspect \u2019s right to attend the hearing in person . \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law on summary reasoning .","It would appear that the applicant returned to the GPE at some time in DATE .","The applicant served the remainder of the sentence given by ORG . He was released on DATE .","On DATE the GPE ORG convicted the applicant of drugs offences and sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG of Appeal reduced the prison sentence to DATE . It appears from the judgment that on DATE the applicant had been caught red - handed importing QUANTITY of cannabis . This judgment became final on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160623","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF \u00c4RZTEKAMMER F\u00dcR WIEN AND DORNER v. AUSTRIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The first applicant organisation is ORG ( PERSON f\u00fcr GPE ) . The ORG represents all medical practitioners in GPE and also has its own website . The second applicant was the ORG \u2019s president at the time of the events .","On DATE the second applicant published a letter on the first applicant organisation \u2019s website , which was addressed to all members of ORG in GPE and was also sent out to all of them via e - mail . The letter was titled \u201c GPE funds want to take over medical practices \u201d ( \u201c LOC wollen PERSON \u00fcbernehmen \u201d ) . The second applicant went on to state that he had been forced to write to his colleagues for a serious reason , namely , because it had been reported in the media that the F. company planned to go into \u201c the radiology business \u201d . He added that share - bidding companies planned to offer medical services \u2013 initially in the area of radiology , but soon enough in other areas of the profession as well and that doctors risked becoming mere employees of such \u201c locust \u201d companies . If they would not act according to the ORG wishes , they would be dismissed . The second applicant then explained the assumed legal and organisational basis of such a plan : radiology services which were currently being provided by medical practices could , in future , also be offered by limited companies . Shares of those companies could then be bought by the F. company , and the \u201c locusts \u201d would reach their goal , namely control of the medical profession . Giving an example of a risky development , the second applicant stated that in DATE , colleagues had founded laboratories which had reciprocal agreements with certain health insurance boards . DATE , almost all of those laboratories were owned by the PERSON group , which , in turn , was owned by insurance companies , investment funds and foundations , and which employed a large number of doctors . The second applicant ended his letter by stating that he could guarantee CARDINAL thing : that the ORG professional representative body would make use of all legal and political means available to stop such a disastrous development from going ahead , to prevent that the quality of medical treatment being determined by \u201c managers and controllers \u201d and to ensure , inter alia , that existing medical practices were protected from the competition from \u201c international locust funds \u201d ( \u201c internationale LOC \u201d ) .","On DATE the F. company lodged an action against the CARDINAL applicants and an application for an injunction with ORG ( ORG ) . The applicants contested the application .","On DATE ORG issued an injunction prohibiting the applicants ( each of them individually ) from repeating the statement that the F. company was ruthless towards third parties , in particular medical professionals . The injunction prevented the applicants from referring to the F. company as a \u201c locust \u201d , \u201c locust company \u201d or \u201c locust fund \u201d . The applicants were further prohibited from stating that the provision of services by the F. company , particularly services in the area of radiology , was a disastrous development . The court found that there was a competitive relationship between the F. company and the applicants , and found the statements made by the applicants to be defamatory under LAW of LAW and unethical under LAW ( Bundesgesetz gegen den unlauteren GPE ) .","The applicants appealed against the injunction . On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht Wien ) partly granted the appeal , and prohibited the applicants from alleging that the F. company was ruthless towards third parties and medical practitioners , and from calling it , inter alia , a \u201c locust company \u201d . However , it dismissed the F. company \u2019s application to prohibit the applicants from calling its provision of services a \u201c disastrous \u201d development . ORG found that the first applicant organisation had locus standi in the injunction proceedings . ORG held official authority status in relation to certain areas of its work ( Bereich der Hoheitsverwaltung ) , in addition to representing the interests of its members ; it was therefore considered a legal entity under LAW ( Amtshaftungsgesetz ) . However , when acting as a special interest group , it represented its ORG interests from a mainly economic perspective , rather than acting in its capacity as an official authority . According to ORG , the letter in issue pursued the interests of the ORG \u2019s members , outside the ORG \u2019s official sphere of activity .","The Court of Appeal further established , referring inter alia to ORG , that the term \u201c locust company \u201c ( \u201c Heuschreckenunternehmen \u201c ) was introduced into the political discussion in NORP speaking countries in DATE by Mr PERSON , a NORP politician , and is ever since used in political debates as a pejorative term for private - equity companies or other forms of capital funds with short - term or exaggerated return expectations \u2013 like hedge funds or \u201e vulture \u201c funds , which also had negative connotations . The domestic court found that there was a need to balance the interests involved in the present debate , reiterating that extreme opinions were only unlawful if they were excessive . As a result of that balancing exercise , ORG found that the \u201c locust \u201d statement had to be considered a lawful criticism in the context of a public debate , and that the F. company could therefore not base its claim on LAW . However , ORG classified the ORG actions as competitive in nature . Statements of fact made in violation of LAW could not be justified by the right to freedom of expression . ORG found that NORP law provided wideranging protection for commercial and economic interests . Those who published an opinion in an economically competitive context were obliged to exercise a higher level of diligence with regard to the facts and bases of their allegations than those who acted in the non - competitive context of a public debate of general interest . Therefore , ORG upheld the injunction decision with regard to the statements about the \u201c locust company \u201d .","NORP However , as regards the further statement , namely that provision of certain services by the F. company was a \u201c disastrous development \u201d , ORG found that , read in context , the statement indicated a general assessment and did not refer to a particular service of the F. company . It was therefore to be considered a personal opinion , and thus a value judgment that was not defamatory under LAW . It also did not fall under section CARDINAL of LAW .","The applicants lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) . On DATE ORG dismissed the extraordinary appeal . It acknowledged the applicants\u2019 argument that where a competitor , even for economic purposes , took part in a debate of public interest , freedom of expression had to hold more weight in the balancing test . However , ORG observed that the applicants had made their statement in the clearly economic context of competition between medical practitioners and companies which provided the same services . The applicants could have warned their members of the possible risks of cooperating with companies without overstepping the margin of acceptable criticism . However , the applicants had exceeded that limit and stated that the F. company was a \u201c locust \u201d . That statement was CARDINAL of fact , and the applicants had not provided evidence of a factual basis for their allegations , and had therefore exceeded the permissible limitations of freedom of expression .","On DATE the ORG gave its judgment in the substantive proceedings and ordered the applicants to refrain from : repeating the statement that the F. company was ruthless towards third parties , in particular medical practitioners and patients ; and stating that the F. company was a \u201c locust company \u201d , a \u201c locust fund \u201d or a \u201c locust \u201d . It further ordered the applicants to publish and display the operative part of the judgment on the first applicant organisation \u2019s website for DATE , and to publish it in the first applicant organisation \u2019s print newsletter .","ORG made substantial reference to ORG reasoning in the interim injunction proceedings . It followed the previous finding that the relevant statements did not constitute defamation pursuant to LAW . Examining the statements in relation to the provisions of LAW , ORG found that the letter had been written by ORG in a commercial and not a political context . It had also had the advancement of independent medical practices as an objective , and had contained a warning regarding capital ventures which allegedly threatened ORG independence . ORG found the relevant comparisons with \u201c locusts \u201d to be statements of fact regarding both the F. company and its conduct in relation to third parties , doctors and patients . The statements were also likely to damage the F. company \u2019s commercial interests , and had not been proved to be true .","The used language could also not be justified with a reference to the right to freedom of expression as the statement was uttered within the framework of a commercial competitive relationship . With reference to the ORG \u2019s case - law allowing for a wider margin of appreciation under LAW with regard to commercial language , ORG observed that a competitor was required to be more diligent in the context of commercial communication among competitors . The term \u201c locust \u201d was almost exclusively loaded with negative meaning , which led to the unethical general vilification of a competitor . The applicants were therefore prohibited from using that statement in relation to the F. company , pursuant to LAW .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal against that judgment . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal as unfounded . It referred to the extensive reasoning given in the interim injunction proceedings and added that , according to the case - law of ORG , the test used to verify whether a statement was covered by the right to freedom of expression required the assessment of whether a factual basis for such a statement existed ; if a competitor participated in a public debate of general interest , freedom of expression had more weight with regard to the assessment of the statement than in the context of purely commercial communication . The greater the public interest in being properly informed and the less the statement related to commercial interests , the more the statement would be protected by LAW . In the present case , there was no doubt that there was an ongoing public debate ; however , the commercial interests of the applicants had very much been in the foreground of the communicated statement itself .","The applicants lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law against that judgment , which was rejected by ORG on DATE . ORG found that the applicants had not only called the F. company a \u201c locust \u201d , but had also reproached this company for negative conduct , such as dominating doctors , dismissing doctors who did not act in accordance with company wishes , and focusing on economic factors rather than the welfare of patients ( \u201c Herrschaft \u00fcber den \u00e4rztlichen Berufstand , PERSON spurender \u201d GPE , PERSON an \u00f6konomischen ORG und damit nicht am PERSON der Patienten \u201d ) . Therefore , the expression used had turned into a statement of fact , giving the reader the impression that the F. company had already demonstrated unethical conduct which threatened upon by the lower courts was justified . Even though the applicants had taken part in a debate of general public interest , an untrue and damaging statement of fact was not protected by freedom of expression . Furthermore , the issuing of warnings concerning the potential risks of the provision of medical services by companies was not , as such , prohibited by the decisions of the NORP courts ; the applicants had only been required to refrain from making untrue statements of fact in respect of their competitors .","The decision of ORG was served on the ORG counsel on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177215","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF NOVAYA GAZETA AND MILASHINA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant company , an editorial and publishing house registered in GPE , edits and publishes a national newspaper with a circulation of CARDINAL , ORG ( \u201c the newspaper \u201d ) . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE PERSON , a nuclear cruise missile submarine of ORG ( \u201c the Kursk \u201d ) , while in LOC on a naval training exercise , sank as a result of explosions on board . Most of the crew died within TIME of the explosions . However , twentythree crew members ( of the CARDINAL aboard ) survived the explosions and gathered in a stern compartment . They wrote a note to report the events . All of these CARDINAL men died on board the Kursk before the arrival of a rescue team .","The Chief Military Prosecutor \u2019s Office launched an official investigation into the accident under LAW of LAW ( a provision on \u201c a breach of safety procedures while using a means of transportation which causes the death of CARDINAL or more persons by negligence \u201d ) in case no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( \u201c the investigation \u201d ) .","On DATE the Chief Military Prosecutor \u2019s Office terminated the investigation for lack of evidence of a crime .","On DATE GPE , counsel for the relatives of the deceased members of the Kursk crew , challenged the decision to terminate the investigation before ORG . On DATE his complaint was dismissed . PERSON challenged both decisions in court .","On DATE ORG of the Moscow Garrison confirmed the decision of DATE . On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","DATE the applicant company published in the newspaper a number of articles written by the second applicant covering the Kursk catastrophe and the investigation into it .","NORP In late CARDINAL GPE lodged an application before the ORG on behalf of GPE , the father of GPE , lieutenant - captain of the Kursk , alleging a violation of PERSON \u2019s right to life .","On DATE , in issue no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , the newspaper published an article written by the second applicant entitled \u201c The Kursk case is now before the ORG \u201d ( \u201c \u2018 \u0414\u0435\u043b\u043e \u2018 \u041a\u0443\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0430\u2019 - \u0432 ORG \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435 \u201d \u2013 \u201c the first article \u201d ) .","The first article reported that PERSON had lodged an application before the ORG alleging a violation of LAW . It described PERSON as the person who had written the note stating that CARDINAL men had survived the explosions and had been waiting for rescue in the stern compartment . The note had been discovered in DATE . According to the first article , the note refuted the official version that all crew members had died as a result of the explosions . The first article stated that after the Kursk had sunk a series of knocks making an ORG signal in PERSON code had been audible from the stern part of the submarine . NORP officials , including the then ORG , had refused to consider those knocks a plea for rescue , and had established that the noise had originated outside the stern part of the submarine . PERSON had unsuccessfully tried to prove in courts that the omission to consider the knocks an ORG signal amounted to an abuse of public office ( \u201c \u0434\u043e\u043b\u0436\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u201d ) . His complaints had been rejected by ORG and ORG . In particular , the first article read as follows :","\u201c PERSON , the father of PERSON , and his counsel PERSON have repeatedly tried to prove in NORP courts that this [ failure to characterise the noise as an ORG signal ] is absurd and [ constitutes ] an abuse of public office , the purpose of which is to help the ORG officers escape criminal responsibility .","The abuse of public office , according to the claimants , was perpetrated not only by investigators of ORG , but also by experts , PERSON and PERSON The reports by those CARDINAL military officials ( ORG is the chief forensic expert of ORG , PERSON is the chief navigating officer of ORG ) were relied upon by the investigators , headed by ORG and GPE , who terminated the criminal case in relation to the Kursk catastrophe and delivered a decision refusing to prosecute CARDINAL officers of ORG . \u201d","On DATE , in issue no . CARDINAL of DATE , the newspaper published another article by the second applicant entitled \u201c The prosecutor \u2019s office is worried about the prospect of the Kursk case being examined by ORG . All reasonable offers welcome ? \u201d ( \u201c PERSON \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430 \u043f\u043e \u2018 \u0434\u0435\u043b\u0443 \u201c \u041a\u0443\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u201d \u2018 \u0432\u0437\u0432\u043e\u043b\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043b\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0443. GPE \u0443\u043c\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043d ? \u201d \u2013 \u201c the second article \u201d ) . The second article described ORG reaction to GPE \u2019s lodging the application . It reported that ORG prosecutor had tried to persuade PERSON that his counsel had lodged the application exclusively for the purposes of self - promotion . PERSON had reportedly stated that his client had been willing to cooperate with the prosecutors , and had implied that PERSON had received an offer to have the official investigation reopened in exchange for the withdrawal of his application to the ORG . In particular , the second article read as follows :","\u201c GPE , counsel who represents the CARDINAL families of the deceased crew members , has also confirmed that the application before ORG was the last resort . There was no other prospect of success for the Kursk case in GPE , owing to the position adopted by GPE , ORG , and GPE , ORG . Apparently , those CARDINAL officials took a decision to help the officers in command of the ORG escape criminal responsibility and to terminate the investigation . ( GPE has written about this in his book \u2018 It has sunk ... The truth about the Kursk hidden by ORG ) . \u201d","After the publication of the CARDINAL articles , PERSON , the chief forensic expert of ORG , ORG , the head of an investigative group within ORG in charge of the Kursk investigation , FAC , ORG of GPE , and ORG of GPE as a legal entity lodged civil actions for defamation against the applicants with ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . Each claimant sought compensation for non - pecuniary damage and the retraction of certain statements appearing in the articles .","V.K. sought the retraction of the following statement :","\u201c ... this is ... an abuse of public office , the purpose of which is to help the ORG officers escape criminal responsibility . The abuse of public office ... was perpetrated not only by investigators of ORG , but also by experts ... \u201d","A.E. insisted that his reputation as the head of the investigative group in charge of the Kursk case had been tarnished by the following text :","\u201c ... this is ... an abuse of public office , the purpose of which is to help the ORG officers escape criminal responsibility . The abuse of public office ... was perpetrated not only by investigators of ORG , but also by experts ... \u201d","The Chief Military Prosecutor \u2019s Office and its head , GPE , sought to have the following parts of the articles retracted :","\u201c ... this is ... an abuse of public office , the purpose of which is to help the ORG officers escape criminal responsibility . The abuse of public office ... was perpetrated not only by investigators of ORG , but also by experts ... \u201d","\u201c There was no other prospect of success for the Kursk case in GPE , owing to the position adopted by GPE , ORG , and GPE , ORG . Apparently , those CARDINAL officials took a decision to help the officers in command of the ORG escape criminal responsibility and to terminate the investigation . \u201d","On DATE and DATE ORG joined the proceedings instituted by GPE , ORG , GPE and ORG .","On DATE an expert linguist of ORG of ORG , at the applicant company \u2019s request , delivered an expert report on the impugned articles . The expert concluded that it was possible to perceive the texts as the reported opinions of GPE and GPE , and not those of the journalist .","On DATE ORG decided the case . It found that it had been established that the newspaper had indeed disseminated information concerning the claimants . It further found that the information in question was damaging to the claimants\u2019 reputation for the following reasons . The allegations that investigators and experts had tried to help the ORG officers escape criminal responsibility had suggested that these officials had lacked the requisite impartiality when performing their duties . ORG found the expression \u201c to help escape criminal responsibility \u201d defamatory , as it contained an allegation of criminal conduct . The applicants had failed to provide evidence that the claimants had committed a crime . ORG dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicants\u2019 reference to the fact that the second article had merely reproduced GPE \u2019s position as reflected in his book . Furthermore , ORG reasoned that the applicants had been under an obligation to verify the truthfulness of the information before publishing it . It dismissed the ORG assertion that the impugned statements amounted to value judgments . ORG found in the PERSON favour , ordered the retraction of the statements concerning the claimants\u2019 involvement in an abuse of public office , and awarded each claimant CARDINAL and MONEY ( RUB \u2013 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) , to be paid by the applicant company and the second applicant respectively . To reimburse court fees , the applicant company was ordered to pay RUB CARDINAL and the second applicant was ordered to pay RUB CARDINAL to each claimant .","In so far as relevant , ORG judgment read as follows :","\u201c ... assessing the impugned statements , the court considers that they contain affirmations that ORG , ORG , GPE and investigators of ORG broke the NORP law which was in force and committed an abuse of public office , and that such statements tarnish the honour , dignity and business reputation of GPE , ORG , [ and ] GPE , as well as the business reputation of ORG as an agency performing , in the name of GPE , ORG functions of supervision with regard to respect for LAW and laws in force within the NORP territory .","...","The defendants have failed to produce any evidence to prove the veracity of the disseminated statements that the claimants abused public office and adopted unlawful decisions .","Looking into the defendant \u2019s claim that the impugned articles reflect the opinion of ... GPE , ... expressed in his complaint before ORG and his book \u201c It has sunk . The truth about the Kursk hidden by ORG \u201d , the court finds as follows .","... page CARDINAL of the book by GPE ... contains the following text : \u201c I think that the final decision not to find commanders of ORG criminally liable was taken by ... , GPE and ... \u201d","In view of the above , comparing the impugned statements of the article ... and the text of the book , the court considers that the meaning of the phrase \u201c to take a decision not to find [ somebody ] criminally liable \u201d is not equivalent to the phrase \u201c to take a decision to help [ somebody ] escape criminal responsibility \u201d .","The complaint ... lodged by GPE before ORG ... does not contain statements alleging that the claimants committed an abuse of public office .","Furthermore , the defendants\u2019 arguments that ... the editorial department and the author of the articles are not the authors of [ GPE \u2019s ] statements can not serve as grounds to absolve a mass media outlet and a journalist of responsibility , in view of the following .","Under section DATE of ... FAC , a journalist must verify the truthfulness of the information he communicates , and LAW sets out an exhaustive list of grounds for absolving an editorial department , an editor - in - chief , or a journalist of responsibility for disseminating untruthful statements that tarnish the honour and dignity of individuals and organisations ...","The court can not accept as grounds to dismiss the [ defamation ] action the defendants\u2019 arguments that the impugned statements are opinions , value judgments that could not be retracted under LAW , for the following reasons .","Under LAW , freedom of thought and expression , as well as the right to protect one \u2019s honour and good name , are recognised and guaranteed ... At the same time , the realisation of the rights and freedoms of an individual and citizen should not breach the rights and freedoms of other citizens .","In view of the LAW \u2019s provisions , freedom of thought and expression guaranteed by the LAW should not serve as an instrument to violate the honour and dignity of others .","Therefore , expression by a journalist of his opinion on any topic , or the publication of an opinion by another person does not give grounds to absolve [ the journalist ] of responsibility where damage has been unlawfully inflicted on the values protected by LAW and LAW of GPE , [ such as ] honour , dignity and the business reputation of an individual . \u201d","The applicants appealed , arguing in particular that the information contained in the impugned articles amounted to value judgments , and that the articles had reflected the opinions of GPE and GPE , opinions expressed in the former \u2019s application to the ORG and the latter \u2019s book .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) dismissed the appeal and upheld ORG judgment in full . In particular , it reasoned \u201c the defendants have not submitted evidence of the veracity of the disseminated statements , [ while ] the claimants have provided evidence proving that they did not commit the actions mentioned in the disseminated statements . \u201d","The applicants also unsuccessfully applied for supervisory review .","On DATE ORG issued CARDINAL writs of execution against the applicant company in V.K \u2019s favour . The first writ contained an order to publish a retraction , and the second one ordered the applicant company to pay ORG RUB CARDINAL .","On DATE the bailiffs\u2019 service received the writs and commenced enforcement proceedings .","NORP The newspaper published the retraction regarding PERSON in its issue of DATE .","On DATE the applicant company transferred RUB CARDINAL to the bailiffs\u2019 bank account to be paid to GPE","On DATE the bailiffs\u2019 service terminated the enforcement proceedings against the applicant company in respect of the retraction .","On DATE the second applicant transferred RUB CARDINAL to the bailiffs\u2019 bank account to be paid to GPE","On DATE the bailiffs\u2019 service initiated enforcement proceedings against the applicants on the basis of writs of execution in ORG \u2019s favour . They ordered the applicant company and the second applicant to pay RUB CARDINAL and RUB CARDINAL respectively .","On DATE the applicant company transferred to the bailiffs\u2019 bank account RUB CARDINAL on its own behalf and RUB CARDINAL on behalf of the second applicant , to be paid to ORG"],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174059","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF RATKIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived , prior to his conviction , in GPE .","On DATE a country house which belonged to a district prosecutor was set on fire .","On DATE F. confessed that the applicant had conspired with him to set fire to the prosecutor \u2019s DATE house . On DATE the applicant was arrested . He was released on DATE on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence .","On DATE I. and A. stabbed F. to death .","On an unspecified date the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having organised PERSON \u2019s murder . He remained in custody pending investigation and trial .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of arson . On DATE the applicant \u2019s conviction became final .","On DATE a local newspaper , ORG , published an article under the headline \u2018 Vengeance\u2019 . According to the article , the applicant had stood for local elections . However , he had been disqualified by a court at the request of the district prosecutor . The applicant had plotted revenge . He had paid PERSON to set fire to the prosecutor \u2019s country house . The house had completely burned down . When questioned by the investigator , PERSON had confessed to arson and had testified against the applicant . Shortly thereafter PERSON had been found stabbed to death . The article then quoted from the official information note issued by the regional prosecutor \u2019s office :","\u201c The investigation has established\u2019 , states the information note , \u2018 that in DATE [ the applicant ] and F[. ] had an argument ... [ ; ] [ the applicant ] started to fear that he could no longer control F[. ] and that the latter would not only interfere with his plan to protract the trial but would give truthful testimony incriminating him in the arson of [ the prosecutor \u2019s ] country house ... . [ The applicant ] organised ORG \u2019s murder to silence him .","The murder was carried out by CARDINAL residents of the town of GPE , who were charged with PERSON \u2019s murder . \u201d","According to the applicant , several more articles reporting on the arson and murder cases were published in the local press at around the same time . On DATE a TV programme \u201c Police unit on duty \u201d ( \u0414\u0435\u0436\u0443\u0440\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0447\u0430\u0441\u0442\u044c ) broadcast DATE on the federal ORG channel , covered the applicant \u2019s case .","The jury trial started on DATE . At the beginning of the trial the presiding judge asked the jurors whether they had read about the case in newspapers or heard about it from other sources . All the jurors answered in the negative . They also stated that they had not yet formed any opinion about the defendants\u2019 guilt or innocence .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the court examined the prosecution witness PERSON . At the request of the prosecutor , the written statements he had made during the investigation were read out to the jury . PERSON . then explained that his statements to the investigator had been more detailed and precise , as at the time of the investigation he had remembered the events better . The applicant was then allowed to put questions to PERSON . The relevant excerpt from the record reads as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant asks ] : \u2018 How many times were you questioned ? Were your statements to the investigator voluntary?\u2019","The presiding judge rules [ the applicant \u2019s ] question out of order and warns him that he should not [ raise issues ] of admissibility of evidence in the presence of the jury as it may be considered an attempt to influence the jury .","[ The applicant asks ] : \u2018 What state were you in when giving those statements?\u2019","The presiding judge rules [ the applicant \u2019s ] question out of order and warns him that if he continues to put questions concerning admissibility of evidence he may be excluded from the hearing room .","[ The applicant says ] : \u2018 The witness was drunk , the police officers had given him alcohol , he was made [ temporarily ] insane . \u201d","The presiding judge interrupts [ the applicant ] and directs the jury to disregard [ his ] remarkds about the circumstances in which ORG . was questioned , as this issue is not within the competence of the jury .","[ The applicant continues ] : \u2018 All the evidence has been forged and the case does not hold water.\u2019","Taking into account [ the applicant \u2019s ] repeated attempts to influence the jurors , the presiding judge decides to exclude him from the courtroom .","The presiding judge directs the jurors that they should disregard [ the applicant \u2019s statements ] ... and should proceed from the understanding that all evidence presented to them ... was collected in accordance with the procedure established by law and was not [ declared inadmissible ] . \u201d","The trial court continued the hearing in the applicant \u2019s absence . Further hearings were held on DATE and DATE . The applicant was not brought to the courtroom . All hearings were attended by his counsel . During those hearings several witnesses and the applicant \u2019s co - defendants testified . CARDINAL of the co - defendants pleaded not guilty , while the other confessed to the murder and stated that he had committed it on the applicant \u2019s instructions and had received remuneration from him .","The applicant was brought to the courtroom at the end of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE and was allowed to make a closing statement . The applicant pleaded not guilty . The jury delivered a guilty verdict . They found it established that applicant had hired ORG to murder PERSON","The presiding judge indicated in the verdict that ( CARDINAL ) the applicant \u2019s actions , as established by the jury , should be characterised as incitement to murder , and ( CARDINAL ) the jury had not established that the applicant had been the organiser of the murder or had directed its execution .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of incitement to murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant appealed . In particular , he complained that his presumption of innocence had been violated by publications in the press , that he had been removed from the courtroom and that the presiding judge had recharacterised his offence after the jury had delivered the verdict . He also complained that the evidence had been assessed inaccurately and that he had been found guilty of the crime he had not committed .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal . The court noted , in particular , as follows :","\u201c ... as regards the [ applicant \u2019s ] removal from the courtroom , [ the appeal court ] finds that the presiding judge \u2019s decision was in full compliance with [ the applicable rules of criminal procedure ] .","[ The applicant ] repeatedly breached the order in the courtroom and attempted to influence the jurors . The presiding judge repeatedly reprimanded [ the applicant ] , warned him and explained to him the consequences of [ his ] conduct . However , [ the applicant ] chose to ignore [ the warnings ] . Accordingly the decision to remove [ the applicant ] from the courtroom was justified .","In those circumstances , the counsel \u2019s argument that [ the applicant \u2019s ] right to participate directly in the examination of the evidence and to defend himself in person was violated is unfounded . [ The applicant ] waived his rights .","...","[ The applicant \u2019s ] argument that the publications in the media ... negatively influenced the jurors should be rejected as unfounded .","Before the commencement of the trial all jurors replied in the negative to the question whether they had heard about the case from the media ... .","The GPE actions established in the verdict received the correct legal characterisation .","It was permissible to change the legal characterisation of [ the applicant \u2019s ] actions from organisation of murder to incitement to murder , as the new legal characterisation was based on the same evidence as established in the verdict . [ The applicant \u2019s ] defence rights were not violated . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c","6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177931","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KSENZ AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was travelling in a car with DATE who was driving DATE and T. Their car was stopped by the police . Police Officers F. and PERSON asked for their ORG cards . The applicant , who did not have his ORG card on him , was taken to NORP police station in GPE .","The applicant described events at the police station as follows . F. and PERSON had demanded that he stand facing a wall , hands raised , and had searched him . They had allegedly insulted him verbally and physically . In particular , they had punched him repeatedly in the face and the lumbar region and had tried to knock him down .","They then took him to the GPE regional addiction - treatment clinic . When coming out of the police station they were approached by PERSON , PERSON , NORP and NORP , the applicant \u2019s brother . According to statements by PERSON and NORP , the applicant was depressed , his sweater was dirty and the bridge of his nose was red . I. also saw injuries on the applicant \u2019s torso when he asked the applicant to lift his sweater .","At TIME a doctor at the addiction - treatment clinic carried out a breath test and tested his coordination . She stated in a record of \u201c medical examination for establishment of alcohol consumption and state of inebriation \u201d that the applicant \u2019s examination had been initiated by Officer PERSON in connection with an administrative offence , and that the applicant had consumed alcohol but had revealed no signs of inebriation . She noted in the part of the record concerning the tested person \u2019s \u201c appearance \u201d that the applicant had no injuries , and in the part concerning \u201c vegetative - vascular reactions \u201d that his face was \u201c hyperemic \u201d .","According to the applicant , the doctor did not ask him to undress and did not examine his body . Nor was he asked to sign the record of his examination or given its copy .","After the test the applicant was taken back to the police station . At the request of a police officer he signed a statement that at QUANTITY on DATE , when passing by a bus stop in B. \u2019s car , he had called out through an open window to girls at the bus stop inviting them for a drive in the car . After that a police car had followed them and PERSON had stopped the car . The police officers had ordered him to proceed with them to the police station \u201c for the reason that he had used foul language \u201d .","At TIME he was released .","At TIME the applicant was examined at his request by a forensic - medical expert at FAC . The applicant explained that he had been punched and kicked by CARDINAL police officers at TIME DATE . According to the medical report , the applicant had the following injuries : ( i ) an abrasion measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY on the bridge of the nose , ( ii ) a bruise measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY in the area of the right cheekbone , ( iii ) a bruise measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY on a finger of the left hand , and ( iv ) a bruise measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY on the left side of the lumbar region . The expert concluded that the injuries , which were not considered harmful to the applicant \u2019s health , could have been caused on DATE by hard blunt objects , for example by fists or feet .","On DATE Officer PERSON lodged a criminal complaint that at CARDINAL a.m. on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had sworn at him through an open car window when passing by . In the course of enquiries into the police officer \u2019s allegations the applicant denied swearing or any other misbehaviour on his part . The GPE police found no elements of criminal offences such as hooliganism ( LAW ) or insult of a public official ( LAW ) in the applicant \u2019s actions and refused to institute criminal proceedings against him ( decision of CARDINAL DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant complained to the GPE town prosecutor \u2019s office about the unlawful actions of the police officers , indicating their service identification numbers .","Investigators of the GPE town prosecutor \u2019s office carried out a preinvestigation inquiry and refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant \u2019s complaint . Their CARDINAL decisions of DATE and DATE were annulled by their superiors , who considered that the decisions had been based on an incomplete inquiry .","In the most recent refusal of DATE to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the actions of the police officers , the investigator established the facts as follows , relying on the police ORG statements . At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had addressed PERSON and PERSON with foul language from the window of his car , which had stopped near their police car . After that , the car with the applicant had started driving away . PERSON and PERSON had pursued the car and stopped it . They had taken the applicant to the police station . PERSON had explained to the applicant that he had been arrested for having committed a criminal offence under LAW ( insult of a public official ) . On their way to the police station the applicant had behaved provocatively and threatened the police officers that they would have problems at work and would be dismissed . During the applicant \u2019s escorting to the police station the police officers had not used physical force or any means of restraint . F. and PERSON had taken the applicant from the police station to an addiction - treatment clinic for a medical examination because he had been drunk . Before leaving for the clinic they had been approached by the applicant \u2019s brother , who had enquired about the reasons for the applicant \u2019s detention and a further procedure . The applicant \u2019s brother had suggested that the applicant should have simulated concussion and complained that he had been beaten up by the police officers .","The investigator further noted that the drug - clinic doctor had not recorded any injuries on the applicant ; and that in his statement signed at the police station the applicant had not denied using foul language and had not complained of any use of force or means of restraint against him . The investigator dismissed statements by PERSON and NORP in support of the applicant \u2019s allegations as unreliable and held that the applicant \u2019s allegations had not been confirmed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE . It noted that PERSON and PERSON had \u201c categorically \u201d denied that they had beaten up the applicant . It held that there was no evidence of the applicant \u2019s illtreatment at the police station and that his injuries could have been received in \u201c other circumstances \u201d . On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision on the applicant \u2019s appeal . It stressed that there had been no eyewitnesses to the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment , and that the applicant had not complained of any ill - treatment to the drug - clinic doctor . Referring to the \u201c categorical \u201d denial of any ill - treatment by PERSON and PERSON , ORG held that the applicant had failed to prove his ill - treatment and that he could have received his injuries in \u201c other circumstances \u201d on DATE , in a time span between his examination at the addictiontreatment clinic and his examination by the forensic - medical expert .","NORP The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE in the Mariy - El Republic .","At TIME on DATE a car without a licence plate , in which the applicant and other young men were going home after a party , was stopped by the traffic police officer . Soon another police car arrived with CARDINAL police officers who , according to the applicant , pushed him and the other young men to the ground , and punched and kicked them . The applicant identified the police officers as QUANTITY , NORP , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .","The applicant and the other CARDINAL men were taken to the police station in GPE Toryal , where they arrived at TIME","According to the applicant , the events at the police station were as follows . Police Officers M. , NORP and S. interviewed him , asking who had been driving the car and whether the car had been stolen . The applicant denied that he had been driving the car and stated that the driver had run away and that he did not know him . The police officers repeatedly punched and kicked him in the head and on other parts of his body .","At TIME the applicant and the others were released . The applicant \u2019s mother met them at the police station and called the ambulance . All CARDINAL men were taken to the emergency unit of ORG , where they were recorded as having injuries .","The applicant was examined at TIME and admitted to the hospital surgical unit in a condition of \u201c medium seriousness \u201d at TIME His right ear was swollen and bleeding . He had a swelling on the back of the head measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , numerous bruises on the face and temples , and numerous abrasions on the back , neck , shoulders , the right side of the torso and CARDINAL of his fingers . He had no alcohol on his breath . He was diagnosed with closed craniocerebral injury , brain contusion , traumatic perforation of the right eardrum and numerous contusions to the head and the lumbar region . He was exempted from attending school until DATE due to his temporary disability on account of the closed craniocerebral injury and concussion . The hospital communicated information about the applicant \u2019s hospitalisation with injuries allegedly received as a result of his illtreatment by police officers to the Novyy Toryal police .","On DATE the GPE Toryal police officers reported to their superior that they had pursued a car which had had no licence plates and had not stopped at their initial order . When the car had eventually stopped , several young men , seemingly drunk , had sworn at them , refused to get into the police car and tried to run away . The police officers had used force to overcome their resistance , managing to restrain them on the ground and search them , and had then taken them to the police station .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to the Novyy Toryal district prosecutor \u2019s office about the unlawful actions of the police officers . An investigator of the Novyy Toryal district prosecutor \u2019s office carried out a pre - investigation inquiry into her complaint .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic - medical expert from the ORG Toryal division of the ORG . The applicant had bruises around both eyes and an abrasion measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY on the back of the head . Having examined the applicant \u2019s hospital records , the expert concluded in a report of DATE that the applicant \u2019s injuries , notably brain contusion , traumatic perforation of the right eardrum , bruises on the face , abrasions on the head , torso and limbs and swelling in the lumbar region , could have been sustained on DATE by impacts from hard , blunt objects . The injuries had resulted in short - term health issues for the applicant including a temporary incapacity for work lasting DATE , that is to say minor harm to his health .","On DATE the Novyy Toryal police brought administrative proceedings against the applicant , issuing administrative - offence records and a decision which stated that at TIME on DATE the applicant had driven a car without a licence plate and without a driving licence and had not stopped the car on a police officer \u2019s repeated order . A fine was imposed on the applicant .","On CARDINAL DATE a deputy prosecutor of the GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office decided that material concerning the applicant \u2019s unlawful driving on DATE should be examined separately from the material concerning the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment .","On DATE the Novyy Toryal police decided that no criminal proceedings should be brought against the applicant , whose actions disclosed no elements of a crime under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( carjacking ) . It found that it had been the applicant who had been driving the car with no licence plates before being stopped by the police on DATE . The applicant had bought it from a third person . However , he had not paid the full price and the previous owner had not given him the documents necessary for reregistering the car in his name and obtaining licence plates .","Investigators of the Novyy Toryal district prosecutor \u2019s office thrice refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment for lack of the elements of a crime in the police ORG actions . The refusals were annulled by their superiors , who considered that the inquiry was incomplete .","In the most recent decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator , relying on the police ORG statements , established the facts as follows . During TIME DATE the applicant , who had been driving a car without a licence plate , had disobeyed a traffic policeman \u2019s order to stop and had tried to escape , thereby violating the traffic rules and committing administrative offences . However , administrative proceedings had not been brought against him in accordance with the law as a result of negligence on the part of the police officers responsible for drawing up administrative - offence records . The police had acted lawfully in apprehending the applicant and taking him to the police station . Officers O. , PERSON GPE , GPE and ORG had lawfully used physical force in the course of the applicant \u2019s apprehension , as a result of which he had sustained the injuries described in the forensic - medical expert \u2019s report .","NORP That decision was declared lawful and well - founded by the Novyy Toryal district deputy prosecutor ( report of DATE ) and by ORG ( decision of DATE , upheld by ORG on DATE ) .","On DATE the Mariy - El Republic deputy prosecutor annulled the decision of CARDINAL DATE as unlawful and unfounded and ordered a fresh pre - investigation inquiry .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON in GPE LOC .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was attending a discotheque at FAC when he was approached by Police Officer PERSON , who led him to the police car and took him to the PERSON district police station . According to the applicant , Police Officer PERSON twisted his arms behind his back when leading him to the car .","According to the applicant the events at the police station were as follows . He was requested to stand facing the wall . PERSON , who wore army - type boots , kicked him CARDINAL times on the legs . Then he was placed in an administrative - detention cell , where he stayed until his release at TIME on DATE .","NORP In reports to their superiors dated DATE CARDINAL Officer PERSON and QUANTITY police trainees stated that at TIME on DATE at GPE the applicant , who had been drunk , had used foul language in their presence , ignoring their orders to stop .","N. , a police officer on duty at the PERSON police station , drew up an administrative - detention record , in which he stated that the applicant , who had committed petty hooliganism , had been subjected to administrative detention for the purpose of the averting the offence . No injuries on the applicant were mentioned in the part of the record concerning the routine procedure of inspection of detainees for injuries . The time of the record was drawn up was indicated as TIME on DATE .","Officer PERSON drew up an administrative - offence record , in which he stated that at TIME on DATE at ORG the applicant , who was drunk , had used foul language and ignored police ORG orders to stop . He had thereby committed an administrative offence of petty hooliganism . The time of the drawing - up the record was indicated as TIME on DATE . The acting head of the PERSON district police issued the applicant a fine of MONEY ( RUB ) . The applicant did not appeal against that decision .","After his release from the police station , at TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG , who recorded bruises on the interior of the left calf ( in the upper and middle parts ) , an abrasion on the front of the left shin , a bruise on the left ankle , a bruise on the right knee , a bruise on the left elbow , and an abrasion on the left hand . The applicant was diagnosed with contusions of the left shin , left ankle , right knee and left elbow , and abrasions of the left shin and left hand .","The hospital passed on information about the applicant \u2019s injuries , allegedly inflicted by the police , to the PERSON district prosecutor \u2019s office . On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint seeking PERSON \u2019s prosecution . An investigator of the prosecutor \u2019s office carried out a preinvestigation inquiry .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensicmedical expert from the ORG . The applicant had CARDINAL bruises on the interior of the left calf ( in the upper and middle parts ) measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY and QUANTITY , a CARDINAL by QUANTITY bruise on the front of the left shin , a CARDINAL by QUANTITY bruise on the left ankle , and a CARDINAL by QUANTITY bruise on the left elbow . He also had an abrasion on the front of the left shin measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , an abrasion on the right ankle measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY and an abrasion on the left hand measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY . The areas of the back of the left shoulder in the middle part , the left knee , the left shin and the left ankle were painful at palpation . The expert concluded that the injuries , which had not resulted in harm to the applicant \u2019s health , had been caused by hard blunt objects DATE before the examination , as a result of CARDINAL traumatic impacts ( report of CARDINAL DATE ) . In reply to the investigator \u2019s additional question as to whether the applicant could have received the injuries when getting into the police car , the expert stated that such a possibility could not be excluded .","The PERSON district police carried out an internal inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment , in the course of which PERSON , other police officers and witnesses gave statements about the events in question . On DATE the head of the PERSON district police approved a report on the inquiry in which the facts were established as follows . After TIME on DATE PERSON and CARDINAL police trainees had approached the applicant and rebuked him for using foul language ; he had ignored their commands and continued swearing ; PERSON had ordered that he go with them to the police station but he had refused ; PERSON took him by the sleeve and led him to the police car ; they took the applicant to the police station . It was established that no physical force had been used against the applicant . A number of other internal inquiries into the same events were carried out later , with the most recent CARDINAL ( report of CARDINAL DATE approved by an acting head of the GPE NORP regional police force ) finding no disciplinary misconduct in PERSON \u2019s actions . There was no mention in the report of the applicant receiving injuries when getting into the police car . Nor did PERSON mention it in his statements given in the course of the internal inquiry on CARDINAL DATE . PERSON stated that no physical force or means of restraint had been used against the applicant for lack of resistance on his part .","Investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings against Police Officer PERSON refusal was annulled CARDINAL times by their superiors , who considered that their inquiry was incomplete .","The most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in PERSON \u2019s actions was taken on DATE by an investigator from the ORG investigative committee of the GPE NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office . Relying on statements by PERSON and other police officers , who had denied any violence against the applicant , the investigator held that the applicant could have received the injuries when getting into the police car before being taken to the police station on DATE . The investigator \u2019s decision was declared lawful and wellfounded in the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , upheld by ORG on DATE .","In DATE the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist . He complained of a sleep disorder on account of his ill - treatment in police custody on DATE . He was diagnosed with sleep disorder related to the legs injuries sustained on DATE and recommended a consultation and treatment by a neurologist and a trauma specialist .","The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .","At TIME on DATE the applicant \u2019s car was stopped by Officers PERSON and PERSON of the traffic police . According to the applicant , they knocked him to the ground and kicked him repeatedly . The police officers then drew up records , stating that he was drunk . He disagreed , requesting that he be taken for a medical examination which would confirm that he was not . The police officers took him to the NORP district police station instead .","According to records drawn up by ORG TIME and CARDINAL a.m. : ( i ) the applicant was suspended from driving because he had signs of alcohol intoxication ( alcohol on his breath , red eyes and slurred speech ) ; ( ii ) he had been ordered to undergo a medical examination to determine whether he had been in a state of alcohol intoxication , but he had refused to do so ; ( iii ) his car had been impounded ; and ( iv ) the applicant had been found to have committed an administrative offence by refusing to undergo a medical examination at the request of the police .","At the police station ORG and PERSON reported to their superior that the applicant had disobeyed their order to stop his car ; that they had pursued him until he had eventually stopped ; that he had resisted arrest ; and that in order to apprehend him they had twisted his arm behind his back , as a result of which he had fallen .","At TIME the applicant was released from the NORP district police station .","On DATE both the applicant and Officer PERSON lodged criminal complaints with the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office , ORG . The applicant complained that he had been beaten up by ORG and PERSON The latter complained that in the course of the applicant \u2019s apprehension he had hurt his hand when they both had fallen .","On DATE an investigator ordered the applicant \u2019s forensicmedical examination , which was carried out on DATE . A forensic - medical expert from ORG recorded CARDINAL abrasions measuring from QUANTITY to CARDINAL by QUANTITY on the upper and middle parts of the lower right arm , on the right wrist and on both knees . The applicant also had CARDINAL bruises on the middle part of the right upper arm and on the upper and middle parts of the left upper arm , measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY , QUANTITY , QUANTITY and QUANTITY . The expert concluded that all injuries , which had not resulted in harm to the applicant \u2019s health , could have been caused by hard blunt objects .","On DATE the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE held a hearing in the administrative proceedings against the applicant . The applicant contested the police ORG versions of events on DATE and stated that he had not been drunk and had demanded to undergo a medical examination that would have confirmed that fact ; however , the police officers had not let him be examined . His statements were supported by a witness . The court found the applicant guilty of disobedience of a police officer \u2019s lawful order to undergo a medical examination to detect alcohol intoxication , and sentenced him to the seizure of his driving licence for DATE . On DATE ORG , following a prior appeal by the applicant , upheld the judgment .","Investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant \u2019s alleged illtreatment by the police officers . Their refusals were annulled by their superiors CARDINAL times on the grounds that they had been based on an incomplete inquiry . On several occasions ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeals on the grounds that the NORP decisions had already been annulled . On CARDINAL occasions ORG granted the applicant \u2019s appeals and found the decisions unlawful and unfounded .","The most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the police ORG actions was issued on DATE by an investigator from the Cheboksary inter - district investigative committee . Relying on the reports by Officers PERSON and PERSON and similar statements given by them later , the investigator held that the applicant \u2019s injuries had been the result of the lawful use of force by the police officers during his arrest . The investigator \u2019s decision was declared lawful and wellfounded in ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , and was upheld by ORG on DATE .","In the same decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator dismissed the criminal complaint lodged by PERSON , finding no fault on the part of the applicant as PERSON had fallen and hurt his hand when arresting him .","The applicant brought civil proceedings , seeking to have the investigating authority \u2019s failure to carry out an effective investigation declared unlawful and claiming compensation . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed his application , finding that he had failed to prove that the investigating authority had acted unlawfully , that he had been harmed as a result of its actions or inaction , that there had been a causal connection between specific unlawful behaviour and any harm , and that there had been evidence of an alleged tortfeasor \u2019s liability . It held that domestic law did not provide for compensation of nonpecuniary damage in a case of a delayed decision in reply to a criminal complaint or in a case of the annulment of such a decision . On DATE , following an appeal by the applicant , ORG upheld the judgment .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME on DATE the applicant and other young men , who were sitting in his parked car , were approached by traffic - police officers and taken to GPE police station following a complaint from a certain PERSON that they had broken a window in her car and tried to steal a child seat . The applicant was handcuffed .","The applicant described events at the police station as follows . CARDINAL of the police officers had grabbed him by the neck with one hand and by his head with the other and hit his face against a wall . The applicant \u2019s CARDINAL front teeth had fallen out and he had felt unwell . Later , he had asked to have the handcuffs removed as they had been causing him pain . Instead , a police officer lifted his hands shackled behind him , inflicting more pain .","According to the records drawn up by Officer PERSON between CARDINAL.CARDINAL TIME on DATE : ( i ) the applicant was suspended from driving because he had signs of alcohol intoxication ( alcohol on his breath , red eyes and trembling fingers ) ; ( ii ) he was ordered to undergo a medical examination for detecting alcohol intoxication , but refused to do so ; ( iii ) his car was impounded ; and ( iv ) the applicant was found to have committed an administrative offence by refusing to undergo a medical examination at the request of the police . The applicant was subsequently found guilty of disobeying a police officer \u2019s lawful order to undergo a medical examination for detecting alcohol intoxication , and sentenced to the seizure of his driving licence for DATE ( judgment of the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE of DATE , and was upheld by ORG on DATE ) .","In a report to his superior , Officer PERSON stated that the applicant had behaved aggressively at the police station and that he himself had hit his head against a wall and had broken his tooth .","No criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant in relation to ORG \u2019s complaint in respect of the attempted theft of a child seat ( GPE town police decision of DATE ) .","DATE . After his release at TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at the traumatology unit of the GPE town hospital . The applicant had abrasions on the right side of his face , his lip , the left side of his neck and the wrists , and the crowns of CARDINAL upper teeth on the right side were broken . On DATE he was examined by a dentist who recorded that the upper front tooth on the right was missing , the crown of the next tooth to the right was broken , and that the CARDINAL lower front teeth were loose as a result of a traumatic subluxation .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint that he had been ill - treated at the police station . The GPE investigative committee at the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office carried out a pre - investigation inquiry .","An investigator obtained an opinion of a forensic - medical expert from the GPE division of ORG , who considered that the applicant \u2019s injuries could have been received within TIME of the applicant \u2019s medical examination on DATE , as a result of an impact from a hard blunt object , for example as a result of hitting a wall as regards the injuries to the front teeth , lip and face . The injuries had resulted in short - term health problems lasting DATE , that is to say minor harm to the applicant \u2019s health .","Investigators of the GPE investigative committee refused to institute criminal proceedings into the applicant \u2019s alleged illtreatment by the police . Their refusal was annulled CARDINAL times by their superiors , who considered that it had been based on an incomplete inquiry , and a fresh preinvestigation inquiry was ordered .","The most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the police ORG actions was taken by an investigator on CARDINAL DATE . He cited the police ORG statements that the applicant had tried to run away , they had therefore handcuffed him in order to take him to the police station , where the applicant himself had struck his face against a wall . Relying on the police ORG statements , the investigator concluded that the applicant had inflicted the injuries on himself by striking his face against a wall at the police station , and that the abrasions on his neck and wrists had been a result of the lawful use of force by the police officers in the course of his arrest . The investigator \u2019s decision was declared lawful and well - founded by the ORG decision of DATE , and was upheld by ORG on DATE .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was arrested by Police Officers P. and PERSON in a CARDINAL shop and taken to the NORP district police station of the GPE NORP administrative circuit . According to the applicant , in the police car he was slapped in the face several times , and at the police station the police officers repeatedly punched him in the head and other parts of the body and kicked him in the chest .","In their reports concerning the incident the police officers did not mention that the applicant had had any injuries .","DATE . In a record of the applicant \u2019s administrative detention at TIME on DATE , drawn up at TIME DATE , an officer on duty at the police station noted the applicant \u2019s complaint that the police officers had inflicted injuries on him . The record further stated that the applicant \u2019s examination had revealed no injuries on him .","At TIME the applicant was examined by a doctor at an addictiontreatment hospital and was found to be in a state of alcohol intoxication . The doctor noted that the applicant was handcuffed and had abrasions on his face .","According to an administrative - offence record drawn up on DATE by the officer on duty , at TIME on DATE the applicant had breached public order by using foul language in a public place and ignoring police ORG requests to stop . On DATE the Justice of FAC no . CARDINAL found that the applicant had committed petty hooliganism and imposed a RUB CARDINAL fine on him . The applicant , who pleaded guilty , did not appeal against the judgment . He was released after the hearing .","On DATE he was examined by a doctor at polyclinic no . CARDINAL who recorded bruising to the area of both eyes and the nose , bleeding of the sclera of both eyes , a fractured nose and a possible concussion . On DATE the applicant was examined at town hospital no . CARDINAL and diagnosed with acute rightside perforated post - traumatic otitis and bruising of the soft tissue of the head , in particular in the area of the left eye and the cheek bones . On DATE he was examined at polyclinic no . CARDINAL and diagnosed with hearing difficulties on both sides and acute rightside perforated posttraumatic otitis .","Following the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint of DATE , the GPE district investigative committee at the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office carried out a preinvestigation inquiry .","The applicant \u2019s medical records were examined by a forensicmedical expert from ORG . The expert concluded that the bruising and fracture of the nose ( which had resulted in short - term health problems lasting DATE , that is to say minor harm to the applicant \u2019s health ) , the bruising in the area of both eyes and the cheek bones and the bleeding to the sclera of both eyes could have been sustained on DATE as a result of impacts from hard blunt objects . As no injuries had been recorded in the area of the external right ear , the expert doubted that the perforated otitis had been a result of trauma or its connection to the alleged police ill - treatment ( the expert \u2019s report of CARDINAL DATE ) .","Investigators refused to institute criminal proceedings for lack of the elements of a crime in the police ORG actions . Their CARDINAL refusals issued DATE and DATE were annulled because they were based on an incomplete inquiry .","In the most recent refusal to open a criminal case of CARDINAL DATE an investigator held that the applicant , who had been drunk , could have fallen and injured himself . It relied , inter alia , on Officer P. \u2019s report dated DATE that the applicant had been brought to the police station with \u201c visible injuries \u201d . That decision was declared lawful and well - founded in the ORG decision of DATE , and later upheld by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148283","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF POZAI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","By a judgment of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) of DATE , upheld by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE , the applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment on charges of drug abuse .","Basing its judgment on the applicant \u2019s convictions by ORG of DATE and ORG of DATE on charges of robbery and drug abuse , on DATE ORG ( Op\u0107inski kazneni sud u GPE ) sentenced the applicant to a single prison term of DATE and DATE .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG took into account the above convictions and sentenced the applicant to a single prison term of DATE and DATE .","The applicant started to serve his prison sentence , which had originally been imposed by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in FAC ( GPE u GPE ) on DATE .","Following a request by the ORG administration of CARDINAL DATE and a decision by ORG ( ORG pravosu\u0111a , PERSON ) of DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG ( GPE u GPE ) on DATE .","During his stay in FAC the applicant was accommodated in CARDINAL different cells .","According to the applicant , CARDINAL of the cells measured QUANTITY , including the sanitary facilities , and he had shared those cells with CARDINAL other persons ( cell no . CARDINAL between CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) ; CARDINAL other persons ( cell no . CARDINAL between CARDINAL and DATE ) ; and CARDINAL other persons ( cell no . CARDINAL from DATE until DATE ) . The fourth cell , no . CARDINAL , measured QUANTITY and he had had to share it with CARDINAL other person DATE and DATE . Those cells had open sanitary facilities , were dirty and did not have sufficient lockers for all inmates . Moreover , he had not been provided with sufficient medical care , which had caused him additional distress .","According to the ORG , during his stay in ORG the applicant had on average QUANTITY of personal space . In particular , he stayed in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , for DATE with CARDINAL other persons . He then spent DATE in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , together with CARDINAL other person . He was then placed in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , where he stayed for DATE ; and cell no . CARDINAL\/O , measuring QUANTITY , where he spent DATE . The Government did not provide information about the exact number of inmates placed together with the applicant in the CARDINAL latter cells .","The Government also submitted that cells nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL had toilets that were completely separated from the living area , and that the toilets were equipped with their own ventilation systems . In cell no . CARDINAL the toilet was separated from the living area by a wall measuring QUANTITY in height and the cell had its own ventilation system . All the cells had installations providing access to drinking water , and all had windows allowing access to daylight and fresh air . During the DATE , the cells were heated through a central heating system . They were constantly maintained and in DATE , DATE and DATE the necessary refurbishment and improvement of the prison facilities was carried out , which the Government substantiated with photographs .","The Government also explained that for TIME , TIME the applicant had been allowed to circulate freely outside his cell . In addition , he had had the opportunity to use a gym , which had been open from TIME and from TIME , and a basketball court , which had been open on DATE from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. and at DATE both in TIME and in TIME . The prison was equipped with a badminton court , table - tennis tables and chess boards , which the applicant had also been able to use . He could also have borrowed books from ORG library , which provided its services to the prison , and he had been allowed to watch television and to borrow films .","As to the applicant \u2019s medical care , the ORG submitted that on CARDINAL DATE , before his transfer to FAC , the applicant had claimed that he had no serious health issues . He had confirmed this when examined by a doctor in FAC on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE , at his request , the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist , to whom he complained of problems with sleeping but refused to accept any treatment . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant again refused to accept treatment . During his stay in FAC the applicant was provided with dental treatment CARDINAL times and examined by a prison doctor CARDINAL times . In support of their arguments , the Government provided the applicant \u2019s relevant medical records .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( Ured za ljudska prava PERSON ) about the conditions of his detention . He alleged in particular that FAC had been overcrowded , that the cells had been dirty and poorly ventilated , that they had not been appropriately equipped , and that the medical treatment had been inadequate . The applicant \u2019s complaint was forwarded to FAC of ORG , as the body competent to deal with the matter .","On DATE , citing the inadequate conditions of his detention , the applicant invited FAC ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) to make a friendly settlement agreement before he lodged a civil action with the competent court .","On DATE the applicant complained to a sentence - execution judge of ORG ( PERSON u GPE , sudac izvr\u0161enja ) about the conditions of his detention , reiterating his arguments .","On DATE the Bjelovar Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG declined the applicant \u2019s request for a friendly settlement on the grounds that it had not found any violation of his rights concerning the conditions of his detention .","On DATE the sentence - execution judge of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints as ill - founded . She explained that the information received from ORG did not suggest that the applicant had been placed in overcrowded cells , and that , as regards the general conditions of FAC , she had herself visited the prison facilities and had found that in general they had not been inappropriate . She also emphasised that every cell had a sanitary facility which was clean and well maintained , and the cells were equipped with fresh water taps . The judge also emphasised that the applicant had been examined by a dentist several times and had also been provided with psychiatric care . Lastly , the judge pointed out that the applicant had been given sufficient opportunity to practise sport and free access to outdoor areas .","The applicant appealed against that decision to a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE .","On DATE the CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG examined the applicant \u2019s appeal and , endorsing the reasoning of the sentence - execution judge , considered that in essence the applicant \u2019s rights had not been breached .","On DATE ORG replied to the applicant in respect of his complaints of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It explained that during his stay in FAC he had been placed in CARDINAL cells : CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , which had measured QUANTITY , QUANTITY , QUANTITY and QUANTITY . It did not specify any further details . It accepted that there had been an issue of overcrowdings in general , but said that any problem in that regard had been compensated for by allowing inmates freedom of movement and the opportunity to participate in DATE activities . Furthermore , it argued that FAC facilities had been regularly maintained and renovated , notably in DATE and DATE . The inmates were provided with sufficient outdoor exercise , namely a variety of sports activities and free access to outdoor areas for TIME , TIME In addition , it emphasised that the applicant had been examined by the prison doctor CARDINAL times , by a psychiatrist once and by a dentist CARDINAL times .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the decision of its CARDINAL - judge panel of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant also lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , relying on LAW ( equality before the law ) , LAW before the ORG authorities ) and LAW ( right to a fair trial ) of the LAW , and complaining of inadequate medical treatment and lack of personal space in FAC , as well as discrimination following the alleged misinterpretation of the relevant law by ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with the ORG administration to continue with his education while serving his prison sentence .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c In his constitutional complaint , the appellant was unable to show that ORG had acted contrary to the constitutional provisions concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms or had arbitrarily interpreted the relevant statutory provisions . ORG therefore finds that the present case does not raise an issue of the complainant \u2019s constitutional rights . Thus , there is no constitutional law issue in the case for ORG to decide on . \u201d","The decision of ORG was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159188","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CENG\u0130Z AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart ideas;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive ideas;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a lecturer at ORG of ORG and is an expert and legal practitioner in the field of freedom of expression .","Mr PERSON and PERSON were born in DATE and DATE respectively . Mr PERSON is a professor of law at LAW . PERSON is an assistant professor of law at ORG and director of the university \u2019s FAC .","PERSON ( http:\/\/www.youtube.com ) is the leading video - hosting website on which users can upload , view and share videos . Most videos on the site or on PERSON channels can be viewed by any Internet users , but only users with a ORG account may upload video files . The platform is available in CARDINAL countries . CARDINAL users visit the site DATE , viewing DATE of videos .","On DATE , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) , ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG on regulating Internet publications and combating Internet offences ( \u201c Law no . CARDINAL \u201d ) , ORG made an order for the blocking of access to the website ORG and the IP addresses CARDINAL providing access to the website . The court held , among other things , that the content of CARDINAL pages on the website ( CARDINAL video files ) infringed PERSON no . DATE prohibiting insults to the memory of GPE .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an objection against the blocking order of CARDINAL DATE . Relying on his right to freedom to receive and impart information and ideas , he sought to have the order set aside .","On DATE the second and third applicants , as ORG users , also lodged an objection against the blocking order of CARDINAL DATE . They sought to have the order set aside , arguing that there was a public interest in having access to GPE and that the blocking of such access seriously impaired the very essence of their right to freedom to receive information and ideas . They also submitted that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL pages to which the order of CARDINAL DATE related had already been deleted and that the other CARDINAL were no longer accessible from inside GPE . This meant , in their submission , that the blocking order had become devoid of all purpose and constituted a disproportionate restriction on the rights of Internet users to receive and impart information and ideas .","On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicants\u2019 objection , holding in particular that the blocking order complied with the requirements of the legislation . Addressing the inaccessibility of the video files from inside GPE , it stated that while access to the files had indeed been blocked by GPE within GPE , the videos in question had nevertheless not been removed from the website \u2019s database and thus remained accessible to Internet users worldwide . It also held that as they had not been parties to the investigation procedure , the applicants did not have locus standi to challenge such orders . Lastly , the court noted that an objection against the same blocking order had already been dismissed on DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE of ORG , holding that it had complied with the procedural rules and fell within the court \u2019s discretion .","On DATE ORG Instance adopted a further decision concerning PERSON , ordering the blocking of access to the website ORG and CARDINAL other IP addresses belonging to the site .","On DATE the second and third applicants lodged an objection against the additional blocking order of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the objection lodged by those CARDINAL applicants and by representatives of GPE and ORG . Addressing the inaccessibility of the video files from inside GPE , it reiterated that while access to the files had indeed been blocked by GPE within GPE , the videos in question had nevertheless not been removed from the website \u2019s database and thus remained accessible to Internet users worldwide . It also held that as they were not parties to the case , the applicants did not have locus standi to challenge such orders . It added that , given that the website in question had continued to infringe the law by remaining active , the blocking order was compatible with the requirements of the legislation . Lastly , it rejected the argument that the provision applied in the present case was unconstitutional .","In the judgment of DATE referred to above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , ORG also upheld the decision of CARDINAL July DATE of ORG .","The Government indicated that in the period before and after the order blocking access to GPE , between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , CARDINAL complaints had been made to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to the effect that PERSON was hosting content that was illegal under PERSON no . CARDINAL , in particular concerning sexual abuse of minors and insults to the memory of GPE .","The Government also stated that prior to the order of CARDINAL DATE , the domestic courts had already made CARDINAL orders blocking access to GPE on account of illegal content hosted by the site . Following the orders , the ORG had contacted GPE \u2019s legal representative in GPE under the \u201c notice and take down \u201d procedure . The order of CARDINAL DATE , according to the Government , indicated that there were CARDINAL web addresses ( URLs ) hosting defamatory content about PERSON . Access to CARDINAL of the pages had been blocked , but the other CARDINAL had remained accessible both from within GPE and abroad . Accordingly , the ORG had notified PERSON of its decision to remove the content in question . However , PERSON had not stopped hosting the offending pages and the ORG had had no other solution than to block access to the entire ORG website , as GPE had not set up a URL filtering system .","The applicants stated that following the order of CARDINAL DATE , access to GPE had been blocked in GPE by the ORG until CARDINAL October DATE . On DATE , the blocking order in respect of PERSON had been lifted by the competent public prosecutor \u2019s office following a request from a company claiming to own the copyright to the videos . However , from CARDINAL DATE PERSON had decided to restore the videos , finding that they did not infringe copyright . The second and third applicants also pointed out that they had discovered that in DATE , CARDINAL video files ( CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL) out of the CARDINAL concerned by the order of CARDINAL DATE were still accessible on GPE . They noted that among those files , videos nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL did not include any content that could be construed as insulting the memory of PERSON and thus fell outside the scope of LAW no . ORG . In particular , video no . CARDINAL was TIME long and showed a burning NORP flag . Video no . CARDINAL was TIME long and showed a former chief of staff of the NORP armed forces . Only videos nos . QUANTITY and DATE might have been regarded as insulting , but there had been no proceedings to establish that their content was illegal ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166678","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KRGOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . At the relevant time he was a professional basketball player .","On DATE the applicant brought a claim against the basketball club for which he had been playing , Vojvodina BFC ( PERSON ) , based in Novi Sad . The club had the status of a ORG association .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ruled in favour of the applicant , ordering Vojvodina BFC ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) to pay him , within DATE , the sum of QUANTITY ( ORG \u2013 approximately MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) and ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in costs , together with statutory interest . The judgment became final on an unspecified date in DATE .","Following a request by the applicant on DATE for enforcement , on DATE ORG issued an enforcement order .","On DATE the applicant informed the court that the debtor did not have sufficient funds in its bank account and proposed that the judgment be enforced by the sale of the debtor \u2019s immovable assets situated on the premises of the Vojvodina Sports and Business Centre . On DATE an enforcement order to that effect was issued .","In the meantime , a new basketball club , ORG , was formed .","On DATE ORG in GPE informed the court that the debtor \u2019s bank account had been frozen .","On DATE the applicant informed the court of another bank account in the debtor \u2019s name . On CARDINAL DATE he asked the court not to carry out the enforcement by sale of the debtor \u2019s immovable assets as he had asked previously , because it appeared that assets did not belong to the debtor , but to the basketball club PERSON .","On DATE ORG ordered enforcement in accordance with the applicant \u2019s request of DATE .","On DATE ORG in ORG informed the court that the account details the applicant had provided did not concern the debtor but the basketball club GPE , and that the debtor \u2019s account was still frozen .","On DATE PERSON appealed against the enforcement order of CARDINAL DATE . It claimed not to be the debtor \u2019s legal successor .","On DATE a CARDINAL judge panel of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the panel \u201d ) refused to hear the appeal until the enforcement judge determined the debtor \u2019s liabilities .","On DATE NIS - Vojvodina filed a submission , denying any connection with the applicant \u2019s debtor .","On DATE ORG asked the applicant to comment on ORG submission and propose another method of enforcement .","As the applicant failed to do so , on DATE ORG suspended ( obustavio ) the enforcement against LAW . The applicant appealed .","On DATE the panel instructed the enforcement judge to establish if there was any relationship between the debtor and GPE before transferring the file back to it again .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG informed ORG that the applicant \u2019s debtor had appeared on their register of sports organisations since DATE , while PERSON had never been registered .","In the proceedings that followed , the enforcement judge , relying on the ORG \u2019s information note of CARDINAL DATE , found that PERSON was not the debtor \u2019s legal successor and transferred the case file to the panel on DATE .","On DATE the panel upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE , finding that there were no grounds to continue enforcement against ORG .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor and adopted the restructuring plan it had devised . According to the plan , the debtor would pay the applicant ORG DATE ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) over DATE , paying him CARDINAL of the total amount DATE .",". On DATE the debtor paid the applicant CARDINAL of the above - mentioned sum , that is to say ORG PERSON ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","There is no information in the case file as to whether the applicant received any payments thereafter ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163449","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"R.A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . She is represented before ORG , a firm of solicitors based in PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant reported to the police that she had been raped by her husband . Her husband was immediately arrested . He denied the offence and was subsequently charged with CARDINAL counts of rape . On DATE he was released on conditional bail , with a specific condition that he should not contact any prosecution witness , including the applicant .","On DATE the applicant contacted the police to withdraw her complaint against her husband . She indicated that she wanted to put everything behind her and move forward for her own sake and the sake of her children . The police explained that the case might still proceed and that , if it did , she might be required to give evidence .","On DATE the applicant was informed that the prosecution would proceed . On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband pleaded not guilty and the trial date was fixed .","On DATE the applicant told the police that she had lied about having ever being raped by her husband . A police officer explained that she needed to think very carefully about what she was saying and be sure that what she was saying was in fact the truth . The applicant said that she was not bothered about what happened to her and did not care if she was charged or dealt with for \u201c whatever offence \u201d . She was told that ORG would have to be consulted and that when a decision had been made she would be informed .","On DATE the applicant attended the police station voluntarily . She said that the rape allegations were lies . The police warned her of the potential seriousness of having made false allegations of rape . She was given legal advice and cautioned . A solicitor attended the police station to represent and advise her . The applicant provided a written statement to the police and maintained that her allegations were false .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband appeared at ORG . In light of the applicant \u2019s retraction of her complaint , the prosecution had no alternative but to offer no evidence against him . Not guilty verdicts were accordingly entered . He was released from custody .","A criminal investigation subsequently commenced into the applicant \u2019s admission that she had made a false allegation of rape against her husband . On DATE she was arrested . A tape - recorded interview in the presence of her solicitor took place . The police discussed with her whether her husband had put emotional pressure on her to withdraw the allegation , whether she was concerned about the position of her children and whether her support network was limited . The police told her that if the allegations were true and the retraction was in fact a lie , she could tell them about it . She insisted that the allegations were untrue .","On DATE the applicant was charged with perverting the course of justice by making a false allegation against her husband .","On DATE the applicant contacted the police . She said that she had come to her senses and that she had in fact been raped .","NORP On DATE the applicant was arrested and , with her solicitor present , interviewed . She said that the significance of lying about the rape had become clear when her counsel had told her that she would receive a sentence of CARDINAL eighteen months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant was charged with an additional offence of perverting the course of justice by falsely retracting a true allegation of rape .","On DATE at ORG , the applicant pleaded guilty to the charge of having falsely retracted a true allegation of rape . She pleaded not guilty to the charge of making a false allegation of rape and , the prosecution having offered no further evidence , a not guilty verdict was entered in respect of this charge .","On DATE the applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . She was taken into custody .","The applicant lodged an immediate appeal against sentence . Her appeal was granted by ORG on DATE . In its judgment , the court emphasised the public interest in the investigation and , if appropriate , the prosecution and conviction of those who had committed crime . For this reason , perverting the course of justice was not confined to making false allegations or giving false evidence but also extended to the retraction of truthful allegations or the retraction of truthful evidence . However , the court recognised that the difference between the culpability of an individual who had instigated a false complaint against an innocent man and a complainant who had retracted a truthful allegation against a guilty man would often be very marked . It referred to pressures resulting from relationships and , in particular , the vulnerability of women who had been ill - treated by their partners . In such cases , it said , the sentencing court should recognise and allow for the pressures to which the truthful complainant in such a relationship had been exposed and should be guided by a broad measure of compassion for a woman who had already been victimised . It concluded :","\u201c CARDINAL . This is an exceptional case . We hope that it will be very exceptional for cases of this kind to be prosecuted to conviction in ORG . The sentence for perverting the course of justice normally is , and will normally continue to be , a custodial sentence . That is a requirement of the administration of justice and , where possible , the reduction of crime . But this was not such a case . We have come to the conclusion that the appropriate sentence in this case is a community sentence with a supervision order for DATE . \u201d","The applicant was immediately released .","The applicant \u2019s conviction was widely reported . On DATE The ORG newspaper published an article about the conviction . The article explained that ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) had ordered a change in the way Government lawyers dealt with cases against women who withdrew rape claims , acknowledging \u201c failings \u201d in the handling of the applicant \u2019s case . In future , similar cases would require his personal approval .","On DATE ORG published revised policy guidance in relation to prosecutions concerning rape and domestic violence . The revised guidance applies to cases where a complainant of rape or domestic violence makes a false allegation , retracts an allegation or withdraws a retraction .","Meanwhile , the applicant instructed new solicitors and obtained advice on appeal against conviction dated DATE . Counsel expressed the view that she had a complete defence to the indictment which ought to have been considered and pursued on her behalf in the exceptional circumstances of her case . The advice stated that her guilty plea had been equivocal and should not be a bar to an appeal ; and that the guilty plea had ignored the defences of duress and coercion and had ignored \u201c human rights and international law , the experience of the courts , the experience of those experts in the field , the experience of victims and plain common sense \u201d . Counsel suggested that the original prosecution should have been stayed as an abuse of process for , inter alia , the following reasons :","\u201c It would have been untenable for the ORG to argue that the [ applicant ] ... was not a victim of rape and domestic violence ...","We contend that the [ applicant \u2019s ] behaviour was arguably both normal and understandable for a victim of such abuse .","We would have called the ORG \u2019s own acknowledged expert in this field ... [ who ] is able to comment on the dynamics and effects of domestic violence . This will show that far from having an intent to pervert the course of justice the [ applicant ] was behaving normally for a victim of such extreme abuse .","The prosecution was in breach of its own policy , LAW . \u201d","The grounds of appeal against conviction were as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The conviction is unsafe .","The appellant \u2019s plea was equivocal and ignored her defences in law of duress , coercion and those human rights and international law arguments outlined in counsel \u2019s advice .","The original criminal proceedings should have been stayed as an abuse of process .","This is a conviction in a case where the ORG is on public record as saying justice was not done or seen to be done when offering an unreserved apology to the appellant .","The Lord Chief Justice , in the appeal against sentence , commented that \u2018 This is an exceptional case . We hope that it will be very exceptional for cases of this kind to be prosecuted to conviction in the Crown Court\u2019 . \u201d","In their response to her grounds of appeal , the prosecution did not seek to raise any positive argument in support of the safety of the applicant \u2019s conviction . They explained that the acceptance of the guilty plea in respect of the false retraction implied acceptance that the rape allegation had been truthful , and conceded that the applicant would in all likelihood not have been prosecuted had her case been considered at the time of the response , applying the criteria now contained in the revised guidance ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Leave to appeal conviction out of time was granted .","In the applicant \u2019s subsequent written submissions to ORG dated DATE , she referred extensively to the ORG \u2019s comments and the revised guidance ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . She made , first , further arguments in respect of her first ground of appeal and the part of her second ground of appeal related to the defences of duress and coercion ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . There was reference to development of the abuse of process and human rights arguments \u201c at paragraph CARDINAL below \u201d and , later , to the arguments regarding human rights issues \u201c in paragraph CARDINAL below \u201d .","Paragraph DATE simply repeated the second part of her second ground of appeal and CARDINAL grounds of appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Further arguments in respect of these matters followed in subsequent paragraphs . There was a section on recent domestic case - law on prosecuting victims , a section on the revised guidance and a section on the Code for Crown Prosecutors . The latter section contended that the applicant \u2019s prosecution was unfair for a number of reasons , including because \u201c the case was brought in circumstances that breached the applicant \u2019s human rights \u201d . It went on to explain that the applicant met none of the criteria tending in favour of prosecution , while her situation fell under some of the factors tending against prosecution .","Finally , there was a section in the written submissions headed \u201c Human Rights \u201d , in which it was submitted that the applicant \u2019s treatment had breached her human rights . The written submissions referred to a number of judgments of this ORG concerning domestic violence against women which , it said , clarified that GPE had positive obligations in this area , including an obligation to protect victims from violent behaviour , by reference to ORG , DATE and DATE ( citing PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; PERSON and PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ; and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . It continued :","\u201c It is clear from this line of authority that domestic violence can potentially engage ORG , DATE , DATE and DATE of the ... Convention ... States have a positive obligation to protect the rights of victims . It is when a ORG becomes aware of a domestic violence situation that they have the obligation to take steps to protect people . \u201d","The submissions explained that the applicant had suffered DATE of domestic abuse which had been exacerbated by her subsequent dealings with the police . It should have been abundantly clear to the officers that the applicant was under extreme duress when she retracted her rape complaint . However , rather than make proper investigations they had accepted her story and charged her . To treat her as a criminal while releasing the perpetrator indicated \u201c degrading treatment \u201d , as defined in the ORG \u2019s Article CARDINAL case - law .","In their response of DATE , the prosecution acknowledged the applicant \u2019s argument that her Convention rights were engaged and that her prosecution amounted to a breach of those rights . Much of the response was devoted to addressing the submissions concerning the defences of duress and marital coercion and the safety of the conviction in light of the revised guidance . In the context of their response to the abuse of process submission , the prosecution accepted that the LAW attached special significance to the protection of vulnerable groups and argued that what it required was that the decision to prosecute be taken following careful analysis of the circumstances and characteristics of the individual and the case against her . The prosecution pointed out that the cases cited did \u201c not reflect the position in this case \u201d and were of \u201c little if any assistance \u201d . They emphasised the important distinction to be made between the role of those who investigated crime and those who prosecuted , noting that in many of the cited cases the impugned failure was a failure to investigate .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against conviction was dismissed on DATE . The ORG referred to the remarks made by ORG in the sentencing appeal and to the publicity that the applicant \u2019s conviction had received in the press , in particular the reporting of the ORG \u2019s comments ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It pointed to the revised guidance ( see paragraph DATE above ) and accepted that , had the guidance been in force at the date of the applicant \u2019s conviction , she would in all likelihood not have been prosecuted . However , it considered that while the applicant had plainly been under pressure , the pressures were far removed from constituent elements of the defence of duress . It was also satisfied that there had been no abuse of process . Guidance issued by the ORG did not , and as a matter of law could not , create any immunity or defence . It merely publicly reflected the considerations which , in an individual case , were considered to be relevant to the exercise of the prosecutorial discretion not to bring the case to trial notwithstanding admissible evidence which would otherwise justify a prosecution . The court concluded that the final submission came down to the proposition that it was somehow not fair for the applicant to remain convicted . However , the principles relating to abuse of process had not extended to enabling the court to quash a conviction on a broad , somewhat nebulous basis of unfairness where the conviction , following due process , was in every respect safe .","The applicant applied for certification of a point of law of general public importance and permission to appeal to ORG . In her application for leave , she identified CARDINAL points of law of general public importance , namely :","\u201c i. Whether or not an individual subject to an accepted background of rape and\/or domestic violence , as in the current case , can raise in law a defence of duress to a criminal charge , which is capable of being left to a jury ?","ii . Whether or not the prosecution of a victim of rape and domestic violence , as per the circumstances of the current case , amounted to an abuse of process by the ORG and\/or was a breach of fundamental human rights ? \u201d","In respect of ground ( ii ) , the application referred to the ORG \u2019s comments and to the revised prosecution guidance ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . It explained that a senior lawyer from ORG had expressed an interest in the case and continued :","\u201c This case clearly raises important issued of equality and human rights and we would welcome any intervention by the ORG into this appeal ... That ... perhaps serves to further demonstrate the public importance of this proposed appeal . \u201d","The prosecution lodged submissions dated DATE . As to whether there had been a breach of fundamental human rights , they noted that , as previously submitted , the applicant could not reasonably argue that her Convention rights had not been protected . They contended that where an individual had conducted herself so as to deliberately and knowingly place herself beyond the ORG \u2019s protective reach and in jeopardy of a prosecution by denying her status as a victim , she had no arguable complaint when she found herself charged with a criminal offence . They maintained that the applicant \u2019s submissions continued to confuse the role of investigators and prosecutors , and that the ORG required the decision to prosecute to be taken in application of the LAW for ORG Prosecutors on a case - by - case basis . As the decision to prosecute had arisen from a correct application of the LAW , there had been no failure to protect the applicant \u2019s Convention rights .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to certify a question for ORG .","At the relevant time , the Code for ORG Prosecutors provided that a prosecution would usually take place unless the prosecutor was sure that there were public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweighed those tending in favour .","On DATE ORG published revised policy guidance in relation to prosecutions concerning rape and domestic violence . It stated that when applying the public interest stage of the LAW test , prosecutors should bear in mind the comments of the Lord Chief Justice in the applicant \u2019s appeal against sentence . The revised guidance sets out the relevant factors in favour of and against prosecution .","LAW DATE ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) incorporates the LAW into GPE law . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , a person who claims that a public authority has acted in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights may rely on the LAW rights concerned in any legal proceedings . LAW requires a court determining a question which has arisen in connection with a LAW right to take into account the case - law of this Court .","The case of G v. R [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL concerned an appeal against conviction by a defendant convicted of raping a girl under DATE . At the time of the offence the applicant had been DATE and had believed that the girl was the same age . He argued that his prosecution for rape , instead of a less serious offence , and his subsequent conviction were disproportionate in the circumstances of his case and thus violated his right to respect for private life protected by LAW . ORG dismissed the appeal in DATE , although it accepted that the prosecution of a minor for rape in the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s case might in certain cases give rise to a violation of LAW . In DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , holding by CARDINAL judges to CARDINAL that there had been no violation of LAW . The majority found that even if the defendant \u2019s LAW had been engaged , his prosecution and conviction were proportionate in the pursuit of the legitimate aims of the protection of health and morals and of the rights and freedoms of others .","The claimant in S.H.X. v Crown Prosecution Service [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL ,"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159766","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF P\u0102\u0218COI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and\/or to have certain actions taken by ORG authorities in their favour . Some applicants also raised other complaints under various ORG of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139894","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KARABIN v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Mys\u0142owic","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained on remand in ORG . Subsequently , from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE he served his sentence of imprisonment there .","On DATE the applicant received a disciplinary punishment of DATE of solitary confinement . He was also subject to certain restrictions concerning accessibility of the prison canteen , religious service , outdoor activities , etc . Furthermore , he was limited in receiving packages until DATE .","The applicant submitted that throughout his detention in FAC he had been held in overcrowded cells which did not meet the basic standards of hygiene . According to the official statistics published by ORG ( NORP PERSON ) at the relevant time the overcrowding in the facility ranged from PERCENT .","The Government did not submit any information as to the number of detainees held in FAC .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action in tort against ORG , seeking compensation for the infringement of his personal rights on account of the inadequate conditions of his detention .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) acknowledged that , at times , the applicant had indeed been held in overcrowded conditions . It dismissed his claim , finding that this practice had not been unlawful , as the penitentiary judge had been duly informed about the situation . ORG also held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he had suffered any harm as a result of the overcrowding . It further considered that the overall sanitary conditions and the quality of food in the defendant remand centre had been adequate .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the above first instance judgment .","On DATE ORG decided to exempt the applicant from the court fee for appeal . The applicant was called to rectify the appeal by providing the court with a copy of the appeal , by informing the court about the scope of his appeal , by informing the court about the content of his appeal request and by paying the basic fee of MONEY [ ORG ] ( approx . CARDINAL [ ORG ] within DATE . The court also informed the applicant that lack of rectification would result in rejection of the appeal .","On DATE the same court rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal for failure to pay the basic court fee .","The applicant \u2019s interlocutory appeal against that decision was rejected on DATE for failure to pay the applicable court fee . The applicant did not appeal against the latter decision .","On DATE the applicant filed a complaint about the conditions of his detention to ORG of ORG ( ORG PERSON ) .","On DATE the ORG acknowledged that the applicant had been occasionally held in overcrowded cells and it apologised for this situation , but refused to remedy the situation , finding that the problem affected GPE \u2019s entire penitentiary system .","On an unspecified date the applicant filed a request for a temporary release from prison ( przerwa ) , arguing that the release was necessary in order to allow him to participate in person in CARDINAL sets of court proceedings which he had instituted .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) refused to grant the release . The court considered that neither the reasons invoked by the applicant nor his family situation nor the state of his health warranted such release . The applicant , who attended the sitting , was also advised that he had a right to lodge , within DATE , an interlocutory appeal against that decision .","On DATE the applicant requested to be served with a copy of the decision , which was served on him on DATE .","On DATE the ORG refused to entertain the applicant \u2019s appeal , filed on DATE , finding that it had been lodged out of time .","On DATE ORG ( ORG ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s interlocutory appeal against ORG refusal . It held that the time - limit for filing an appeal against ORG decision , delivered on DATE , had expired DATE after DATE of its delivery .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to release him on probation .","On DATE the court granted the applicant \u2019s request . The court observed that the applicant \u2019s overall behaviour in detention had been correct , that he could be given a relatively positive socio - criminological forecast and that his resocialisation process could be continued at liberty .","Following an appeal by the prosecutor , on DATE ORG amended ORG decision and refused to release the applicant on probation . ORG did not share ORG findings and considered that the applicant \u2019s sociocriminological forecast was CARDINAL . It stressed that the applicant had been an unrepentant , habitual offender who had often been subjected to disciplinary penalties while in detention . Lastly , the court observed that the applicant had not shown any interest in following an individualised resocialisation programme and that he had no specified plans for the future .","On the applicant \u2019s request , filed on DATE , on DATE ORG issued an aggregate sentence composed of the applicant \u2019s previous convictions ( wyrok \u0142\u0105czny ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance court \u2019s judgment .","The applicant applied for a legal - aid lawyer for the purposes of a cassation appeal . Simultaneously , he drafted his own cassation appeal and lodged it with ORG .","On DATE ORG appointed a legalaid lawyer for the purposes of the cassation proceedings . By a letter of DATE the lawyer informed ORG that he had not found any grounds to lodge the cassation appeal . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant of the legal - aid lawyer \u2019s refusal . Furthermore , the applicant was instructed that he could appoint a lawyer of his choice and that the time - limit of DATE for lodging a cassation appeal by that lawyer would start to run on the date of service of that letter . The court \u2019s letter was served on the applicant on DATE . The applicant did not appoint a lawyer of his choice .","On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal as it had not been prepared by a lawyer as required by law ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159780","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF B\u00d3DAY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants , their representatives and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179421","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MALININ v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE LOC .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife , PERSON , gave birth to a son , PERSON On DATE I. gave birth to another son , PERSON The family lived in PERSON .","NORP In DATE the applicant and I. divorced .","On DATE the applicant took the children away from their home in PERSON and brought them to the town of GPE in GPE NORP Region where his mother lived . He did not obtain I. \u2019s consent .","On an unspecified date the applicant applied to ORG of Nizhniy Novgorod Region for a residence order under which ORG and ORG would live with him in GPE . On DATE I. lodged a counterclaim , asking for a residence order under which the children would live with her in PERSON .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant returned the children to their mother in PERSON .","On DATE experts appointed by the court issued their report . They found that the applicant was self - confident , domineering and inclined to lie . He was emotionally stable but , at the same time , easily carried away and fickle in his interests , which could mean that he would not always wish to take care of his children . The applicant strived to spend a lot of time with the children and was against punishing them . I. was seen to be impulsive , anxious , diffident and emotionally unstable . Her intellectual capacities were low . Her manner of upbringing was erratic : she vacillated between excessive demands and punishments and insufficient demands and punishments . Her manner of upbringing could be detrimental to the children \u2019s psychological development . The children were anxious and stressed . N. had a closer emotional connection with his father than with his mother . As regards PERSON , any situations involving his mother were stressful to him because they were associated with excessive demands and punishments .","NORP The childcare authority issued an opinion that the children should reside with their mother . The mother had better living conditions . The children attended school ( N. ) , a nursery school ( PERSON ) and various extracurricular activities at her place of residence in PERSON . PERSON took good care of the children and did not prevent them from seeing their father .","The applicant submitted audio recordings of his conversations with his children . A psychologist , who had analysed those recordings , stated in court that the parents were both uncooperative and were both equally responsible for the stress from which ORG and ORG suffered . The audio recordings submitted by the applicant showed that he had tried to manipulate the children into saying that they wanted to live with him . In her opinion , the children had a stronger attachment to the mother . It was preferable that they lived with her in PERSON where the living conditions were more comfortable and where they had constantly lived since their birth .","On DATE the ORG granted ORG application for a residence order in her favour and dismissed a similar application by the applicant . The court doubted the authenticity of an employment certificate from a private company submitted by the applicant . Given that he had not produced any official documents confirming his employment , the court found that he had not proved that he had a permanent income . There was no evidence that the applicant had supported his children financially during the period since his separation from ORG in DATE until DATE , when the children had been living with their mother . He had started to pay child maintenance only after he had lodged his application for a residence order in DATE . The applicant had moreover asked that the children \u2019s residence be fixed at his mother \u2019s address , which showed that he did not have any intention of taking care of them personally . It was clear from the audio recordings submitted by the applicant , as analysed by a psychologist , that the applicant had attempted to manipulate the children and to force them to make a choice between the parents . He was therefore willing to reach his aims by any means , even at the price of making his children suffer . He had moreover taken the children away from their home in PERSON and brought them to his mother \u2019s residence in GPE without ORG consent . According to witness statements , PERSON had always taken good care of the children . It was PERSON who had always accompanied them to school and extracurricular activities . The fact that she had a partial disability had never so far prevented her from raising them and caring for them . The fact that the applicant \u2019s living conditions were better was insufficient in itself for making a residence order in his favour . Nor was the court convinced by the applicant \u2019s assertion that the children had a stronger attachment to him than to their mother . The children had always lived with their mother , except for DATE during DATE when they had stayed with him at his mother \u2019s residence in GPE . There was no evidence that PERSON had shouted or excessively punished the children . Although the experts had indeed found her manner of upbringing to be erratic , their report did not mention that she could cause detriment to their psychological development . Moreover , it was evident from the audio recordings that it was the applicant who had tried to turn the children against their mother . The childcare authorities had also considered that it was in the children \u2019s interest to live with the mother . Given that PERSON had never prevented the applicant from seeing the children , the applicant would be able to visit them as often as he liked , while the children would continue living in the environment familiar to them .","On CARDINAL DATE the Nizhniy ORG upheld the judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified . The applicant \u2019s cassation appeal was rejected by a judge of ORG on DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant applied to ORG of PERSON for a reconsideration of the children \u2019s residence arrangements . He asked for a residence order under which ORG and ORG would live with him in PERSON . He submitted , in particular , that the children wished to live with him . He had been picking them up from school almost every day lately and bringing them back to PERSON only to sleep . I. shouted at the children , slapped them and humiliated them . She did not work and lived on social benefits and child maintenance . In the alternative , he asked for a contact order , claiming that NORP occasionally prevented him from seeing the children .","On DATE N. and ORG were assessed by a psychologist who found that their psychological state was good . They were resigned to their GPE divorce and no longer experienced any negative emotions in that connection . Their relationship with their mother was friendly and supportive . They considered her as family , while their father was considered to be a friend who came regularly to play with them .","On DATE the childcare authority issued its opinion on the case . It found that both parents had satisfactory living conditions . N. had expressed a wish to live with the applicant . The childcare authority considered that it was desirable to perform a psychological expert examination of the children to assess their attachment to each parent . However , ORG objected to any assessment of her children by a psychologist . The childcare authorities had however learned that she had secretly seen a psychologist . The children had told the psychologist that they wished to live with their father . However , given that the children had not yet reached an age at which they were able to form their own opinions on the matter , as they were still highly impressionable and changeable , the childcare authority considered that it was possible for the children to continue living with their mother . The applicant should be able to have regular contact with the children for CARDINAL weekends per month .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application for a residence order and maintained the residence order in favour of I. It found it established that NORP was unemployed and that the applicant had a permanent job . The living conditions of both parents were satisfactory . The court took note of the expert report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , observing that the experts had found that the parent - child relationships were complicated in the applicant \u2019s family . The expert report did not however contain an explicit finding that the children were attached to their father more than to their mother . The applicant had not proved that PERSON had shouted at the children , humiliated them or neglected her parental responsibilities . Evidence showed that she was taking good care of the children . There was therefore no reason to change the children \u2019s residence arrangements established by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","The court further held that ORG and ORG were entitled to maintain contact with their father and his paternal family and determined the contact schedule as follows . The applicant was to be able to have contact with the children DATE from TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE at the applicant \u2019s place of residence , with the mother \u2019s prior agreement .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal . A cassation appeal by the applicant was rejected by a judge of ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a new application for a residence order in his favour with ORG . He submitted that PERSON currently lived with him and did not want to return to his mother who shouted at him and physically punished him . Both PERSON and ORG had stated many times that they wanted to live with him . He devoted a lot of time to the children by picking them up after school , bringing them for walks and educating them . He had a comfortable and stable income and good living conditions . By contrast , ORG did not work and did not have any income except social payments and the child maintenance payments that she received from the applicant . It was therefore the applicant who maintained the children financially . The applicant further relied on the expert report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) from which it was apparent that the children had a stronger attachment to their father than to their mother , that any situations involving their mother were stressful for them and that the mother \u2019s methods of upbringing were detrimental to the children \u2019s psychological development . The applicant submitted audio recordings of many conversations he had had with the children DATE and DATE . The children invariably stated that they wanted to live with the applicant , complained that their mother shouted at them and whipped them with a belt , and protested , crying , that they did not want to return living with her .","On DATE the childcare authority issued its opinion on the case . It found that ORG had indeed lived with the applicant during his ( PERSON \u2019s ) illness from DATE to DATE . He had however then returned to his mother . The children also stayed with the applicant on DATE . The applicant always accompanied PERSON to nursery school and ORG to extracurricular activities . He paid child maintenance without delay and regularly gave additional financial support to the children . The applicant and ORG were attending mediation sessions . The applicant was in permanent employment and had a high stable income . PERSON was partly disabled and did not work . Her mother and grandmother helped her in raising the children . According to I. , the children were very attached to their father , spoke to him over the telephone every day and spent their holidays with him . The childcare authority concluded that the children were attached to both parents , that PERSON was taking good care of their health and development and that their living conditions were comfortable . It was therefore possible for the children to continue living with their mother .","A representative of the childcare authority stated at the hearing that she had followed the family for some time . She had the impression that the children were equally attached to both parents and both parents took equally good care of them . Recently she noted positive changes in the highly conflictive relationship between the parents . In particular , the mother allowed the father to spend more time with the children than before . The father picked up the children from school and they spent DATE and part of their holidays with him . She considered that there was no reason to change the children \u2019s residence arrangements and recommended that the children should continue living with their mother .","I. stated that she loved her children and took good care of them . She also alleged that the applicant \u2019s motives for asking for a residence order in his favour were mercenary as he wanted to use the flat that belonged to the children . She therefore asked that the residence order previously granted to her be maintained .","The applicant \u2019s neighbour stated that she often saw the applicant walking and playing with the children . She thought that he was a very good father and that the children loved him . In DATE I. had come to the applicant \u2019s flat in the middle of the night on CARDINAL occasions . She had shouted , had threatened to break the windows and to take the children away from the applicant by force . The neighbours had had to call the police , who took PERSON away .","NORP In reply to the applicant \u2019s request to play the audio recordings submitted by him on CARDINAL October CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the judge stated that it was not necessary because the other party had not contested them . The applicant \u2019s written description of those audio recordings had been examined at the hearing .","The applicant also asked that a copy of the expert report of DATE be admitted as evidence . Both PERSON and the childcare authority objected , arguing that the expert examination had been made DATE before and was therefore out of date . The court rejected the application , finding that the expert report had been analysed by the courts which had issued previous residence orders .","On DATE ORG ordered an expert psychological examination of the children to assess their relationship with both parents .","On DATE the expert found that it was not possible to make an expert report because ORG had refused to come to the examination or to bring the children . The court considered that it was not necessary to reiterate the order for an expert examination as there was sufficient material for making a decision on the case .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application for a residence order in his favour . The court found no circumstances warranting the change of the residence arrangements established in the residence orders of DATE and DATE . It had no reason to doubt that NORP loved her children and took good care of them . The applicant \u2019s allegations that PERSON \u2019s manner of upbringing were detrimental to the children \u2019s development had not been confirmed by the evidence in the case . The criminal proceedings on charges of fraud against her had been discontinued . Her living conditions were satisfactory . The fact that she had no employment or income did not justify granting a residence order to the applicant . She did not prevent the applicant from seeing the children as much as he liked . As indicated in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the expert report of DATE did not contain an explicit finding that the children were more attached to their father than to their mother . The childcare authorities had found that the children had been equally attached to both parents . There were therefore no reasons to issue a residence order in favour of the applicant .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well - reasoned and justified . In particular , it held that the applicant had not proved that there had been sufficient reasons to change the residence arrangements established by the earlier residence orders . No exceptional circumstances warranting the children \u2019s separation from their mother had been established . It had not been proved that the children had had an exceptionally strong attachment to the father or wished to live with him and him only . In such circumstances , and taking into account the children \u2019s age , their established way of life , the satisfactory living conditions of both parents and the opinion of the childcare authorities\u2019 on the case , the decision to maintain the residence order in favour of the mother was in the best interests of the children . ORG further dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint that ORG had not assessed the family situation with sufficient thoroughness because it had not questioned the children and had refused to admit the expert report of DATE as evidence . ORG held that , given that the children were under DATE , their opinion on the residence issue could not be taken into account . As regards the expert report of DATE , it had been made in the framework of separate proceedings and had been already assessed by the courts in those proceedings . ORG considered that the expert opinion was not necessary because the evidence included in the case file was already sufficient to adjudicate the dispute .","A cassation appeal by the applicant was rejected by a judge of ORG of GPE on DATE .","On DATE ORG of PERSON authorised , against the applicant \u2019s will , a trip abroad for the children for DATE . On DATE the children left for GPE with their mother . They returned to GPE on DATE . The decision of CARDINAL December CARDINAL was later annulled by ORG because it found that it had no territorial jurisdiction over the case .","On an unspecified date PERSON applied to ORG of PERSON for a judicial authorisation for the children to travel to GPE during the approaching school summer holidays , complaining that the applicant had refused to give such an authorisation . The applicant submitted in reply that if the children left for DATE he would not be able to see them for DATE . He also submitted that there was a risk that the children might not return from GPE . He asked for an interim measure prohibiting the children from leaving GPE pending the proceedings .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application for interim measures , finding that the application of interim measures requested would amount to a prejudgement of the case .","On DATE ORG authorised the children \u2019s trip abroad for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The court found it established that NORP intended to travel to GPE together with ORG and PERSON during the DATE . She had received an accommodation guarantee from her new partner \u2019s sister , who lived permanently in GPE . The applicant had however refused to give ORG and ORG an authorisation to travel without giving reasons . The court found that the parents could not exercise parental rights to the detriment of their children \u2019s rights . In particular , the children \u2019s right to travel could not be made dependant on the GPE willingness to authorise their going abroad , especially in the case of a disagreement between the parents . The court considered that the children \u2019s trip abroad would not breach the applicant \u2019s rights and would encourage the children \u2019s development , education and broad - mindedness .","The applicant appealed . He submitted that under domestic law if a child left GPE accompanied by one of the parents an authorisation from the other parent was not required ; such authorisation was required only if the child went abroad unaccompanied by the parents . A judicial travel authorisation could be given only if one of the parents had formally objected to the child \u2019s going abroad ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Given that the applicant had never lodged such an objection in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law , the judicial travel authorisation had been unlawful and unnecessary .","On DATE I. married her partner , a national of GPE . She then left for GPE with ORG and ORG In DATE she gave birth to a child . N. and V. are now living in GPE with their mother , her new husband and their CARDINAL - brother .","NORP The applicant lodged an additional appeal , submitting that although the decision of DATE had not yet become enforceable , ORG had been able to leave with the children for GPE . That fact had clearly demonstrated that a judicial authorisation was not required for leaving GPE . It had however been used by PERSON to obtain a NORP visa for the children , which she could not have otherwise obtained without his agreement . The applicant also complained that the children had not returned to GPE by DATE , although the judicial authorisation had been valid only until that date .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal . ORG held that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified . In particular , it found that the applicant had not submitted to ORG any evidence showing that the trip abroad would have been contrary to the children \u2019s best interests .","On DATE the bailiffs service opened , at the applicant \u2019s request , enforcement proceedings in respect of the contact order of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE the applicant complained about the bailiffs\u2019 inaction to ORG . On DATE ORG rejected his complaint , finding that the bailiffs had taken measures to enforce the contact order but enforcement had been impossible through no fault of the bailiffs service , specifically because NORP and the children had been living in GPE . On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal . Cassation appeals by the applicant were rejected by a judge of ORG on DATE and then by a judge of ORG on DATE .","Meanwhile , the bailiffs asked ORG for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings on the grounds that ORG and the children were abroad and it was therefore impossible to take any coercive measures against her . On DATE ORG rejected the bailiffs\u2019 request , finding that the children \u2019s residence abroad was not a sufficient reason to suspend the enforcement proceedings .","The applicant also submitted numerous requests to various NORP authorities , including in DATE to ORG and Science of GPE , for assistance in recovering his children and in enforcing the contact order of DATE . In DATE he complained of the authorities\u2019 inaction to ORG . On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint , finding that those authorities had no competence in the matter . The only authority competent to assist him in re - establishing contact with his children was the bailiffs service . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld that judgment on appeal .","According to the Government , in DATE the bailiffs service advised the applicant to apply for recognition and enforcement of the contact order to the competent NORP authorities , via ORG and Science of the Russian Federation , in accordance with ORG on LAW ORG , Enforcement and Co - operation in ORG for ORG . There is no evidence that the applicant used that procedure .","On an unspecified date PERSON applied to ORG for a residence order under which ORG and ORG would live with her in GPE . The applicant lodged a counterclaim , asking for a residence order under which the children would live with him in PERSON . He also asked for an interim order to return the children to GPE and to ensure that until their return the children communicated with him via VOIP calls TIME , DATE and DATE at TIME ( GPE time ) . On DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s application for an interim order , finding that he had not proved that the failure to take interim measures might complicate or make impossible the execution of the forthcoming judgment . On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal . The residence order proceedings are pending ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172134","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF A.-M.V. v. FINLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement;Freedom to choose residence)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","The applicant is a man who is intellectually disabled . On DATE he was taken , with his CARDINAL brothers , into public care by the child welfare authorities and placed temporarily with a foster family with whom they had already been living since DATE . The foster family lived in a village situated QUANTITY from the applicant \u2019s home town , which is in LOC .","NORP In DATE the foster family , the applicant and one of his brothers moved to a village in GPE . The removal of the children was not authorised by the competent child welfare authority . In DATE the applicant finished his compulsory school education as a special needs student integrated into a normal school . Thereafter his foster parents planned to place him in a vocational school QUANTITY away from their village , without authorisation by the competent child welfare authority .","On DATE the competent child welfare authority decided to remove the applicant from the foster family and to place him in a disabled children \u2019s home in his home town in southern GPE . The authority found that the foster care had not been satisfactory in the light of the fact that the foster parents had made important decisions without consulting the child welfare authorities , such as moving north and planning to place the applicant in a vocational school QUANTITY away from their home . The foster parents brought an appeal in court against that decision , but the decision was upheld by ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) on DATE and subsequently by ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was placed in a children \u2019s home in his home town in southern GPE . CARDINAL of his brothers was placed in the same home in DATE .","On DATE the applicant turned DATE . On DATE he began studying at a local vocational school . On DATE a mentor ( edunvalvoja , intressebevakare ) was appointed for the applicant for matters other than those pertaining to his person . The applicant could thus freely make his own decisions in matters pertaining to his own person .","On DATE the social welfare authorities requested ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) to appoint a mentor for the applicant also for matters pertaining to his person . The request was , inter alia , based on the fact that a conflict had emerged between the child welfare service and the applicant \u2019s former foster parents as to where the applicant should live . The appointment of an external mentor was therefore needed in order to assess the applicant \u2019s best interests and settle the matter accordingly . The applicant as well as his biological parents were heard before the court and none of them objected to the appointment of such a mentor .","On DATE the former foster parents took the applicant to the North of GPE , invoking his decision to move there to live with them . He considered them to be his real family . DATE , the social welfare authorities arrived with the police to fetch the applicant and to take him back , against his will , to his home town . He was placed in his home town in a special living unit for intellectually disabled adults .","On DATE ORG , on the basis of LAW , appointed a mentor for the applicant in matters concerning his property and economy , as well as matters pertaining to his person to the extent that the applicant was unable to understand their significance . The court found that , owing to his diminished mental faculties , the applicant was incapable of looking after his own interests and taking care of his personal affairs . The decision was based on medical records concerning the applicant \u2019s level of development and on submissions according to which the applicant was gullible and keen on small children \u2019s play . The appointed mentor was an official of the local public legal aid office entrusted with functions of this kind .","On DATE , after having received a psychologist \u2019s report dated DATE on the applicant , the appointed mentor decided , against the applicant \u2019s will , that it was in his best interests for him to live in his home town , where his family members also lived . He had better educational and work opportunities there than in the village in GPE , where he only knew his elderly former foster parents . The applicant was given a possibility to go for holidays to his foster parents in GPE .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to discharge the mentor appointed for him from her duties as far as matters pertaining to his place of residence and education were concerned . He requested that another person of his choosing be appointed as his mentor in those matters .","On DATE ORG , having heard the applicant in person , as well as witnesses including the applicant \u2019s mentor , his former foster mother , his brother and CARDINAL staff members from his housing service , refused his request . In its judgment , the court put on record the various testimonies . According to the record of the testimony of the applicant \u2019s mentor , she had discussed with the applicant his plan to move prior to her decision . The mentor was of the view that the applicant did not understand all the consequences of the plan , and did not realise that the good things in his present situation would not be relocated with him . In the light of all the circumstances , the mentor considered that the move would have been against the applicant \u2019s interests .","As regards the facts , the court recalled the background of the previous decision , taken on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The court further noted that , according to an expert evaluation dated DATE and established by a psychologist , the applicant \u2019s decision - making skills were equal to those of a child aged DATE . Consequently , the evaluation concluded that the applicant was not able to consider whether his plans about future were realistic and what consequences or implications they would have . The court noted that the applicant had told the court that he had no particular complaints about his current situation and that according to the witness statements he enjoyed his apartment and work in his home town . There was no evidence that the applicant \u2019s situation in his home town was not good . The court found that the applicant clearly did not understand what it would be like to live in a remote part of the country , especially as he had previously lived there for DATE , and what the implications of the move would be for his situation . Moreover , the court found it uncertain how clear or strong the applicant \u2019s will actually was , taking into account the evidence regarding his gullibility . It was likely that his opinion was influenced by that of the former foster parents . The applicant \u2019s development had improved in his home town and he had been able to live in a special unit for intellectually disabled adults , to go to work and to cycle independently around town . The applicant had in his home town a support network consisting of relatives , friends and staff of the social welfare authorities , a job , hobbies and educational possibilities . Due to the remote and isolated location of the former foster GPE home , the applicant would miss out on all these possibilities if he were to move there . The court further noted that according to the plan , the applicant would attend a vocational school far away from his new home , requiring DATE long - distance trips DATE , more specifically a QUANTITY taxi ride to a bus station followed by a QUANTITY bus transport , and the reverse after school . The court was in doubt as to whether it was reasonable to expect that the applicant could cope with such demands on a DATE basis .","As matter of law , ORG stated that as , on the evidence , the applicant was not able to understand the significance of the envisaged decision , the mentor was not required , or even permitted , to resolve the question of the applicant \u2019s place of residence in accordance with the applicant \u2019s own wishes . Under such circumstances the mentor was required to take the decision on the basis of an assessment of the applicant \u2019s best interests .","Taking into account the evidence and the factual findings referred to above ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG concluded that it was in the applicant \u2019s best interests to remain in his home town . The mentor had not acted in breach of her powers and ORG found no reason to replace the mentor by another person as regards matters concerning the applicant \u2019s place of residence and his education .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) . He pointed out that LAW guaranteed everyone the right to choose their place of residence . Moreover , a mentor had to enjoy the confidence of his or her client , which was not so in the present case .","On DATE ORG , after holding an oral hearing , rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld ORG decision by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL . ORG found no reason to deviate from the assessment of the evidence as conducted by ORG and affirmed the conclusions reached by the latter . The dissenting judge found that the former foster mother had been the only adult with whom the applicant had had a long - standing and safe relationship in his life . The applicant had clearly understood the importance of this relationship in his life , he knew the former foster family and what life with them entailed , although he might not be able to understand all the implications of the envisaged move . When the applicant had been removed from the former foster family in DATE and placed in a children \u2019s home in LOC , no specific reasons had been given as to why this measure had been in the applicant \u2019s best interests . The decision taken subsequently by the mentor in DATE had merely confirmed the earlier decision . These decisions had created distrust between the applicant and his mentor . As both the present mentor and the proposed replacement were equally competent , the one who had the applicant \u2019s trust should be chosen .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already submitted before ORG .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","According to the information provided by the Government , in DATE the applicant learned that his foster father had died and he attended his funeral in GPE . From DATE to DATE the applicant resided in his home town in a block of flats providing special care for persons with intellectual disability . Since DATE he has been residing in sheltered accommodation , in a small CARDINAL - room flat . He is employed by his home town , undertaking work DATE a week in a shelter for intellectually disabled people . He is a talkative , efficient and well - liked employee and fits in very well in the working community .","The applicant \u2019s former foster mother is in contact with the applicant via telephone but the frequency of their contact is not known . She moved to the eastern part of GPE before DATE and invited the applicant to spend DATE with her , but in the end he decided not to visit her . Instead , the applicant spent DATE with his brother and other relatives . According to the Government , the applicant has not discussed the possibility of moving elsewhere for a long time . He is happy with his work and plays floorball twice DATE as a hobby . The applicant states that he has stopped talking about his desire to move since there is no point in doing so , given the fact that the social welfare authorities do not want him to leave his home town . Although he now has a girlfriend in his home town , he maintains that his true and most sincere wish is still to live with or near to his former foster mother . There is nothing in his home town that keeps him there or makes him want to stay there ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8","P4"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1","P4-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158266","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DVORSKI v. CROATIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Legal assistance of his own choosing;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Zdravka Kalaydjieva;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , CARDINAL TIME , QUANTITY murders , an armed robbery and an arson attack were committed in LOC , a residential neighbourhood of GPE .","DATE , a number of people from Ve\u017eica were brought in for questioning at FAC of the Primorsko - Goranska Police Department ( FAC uprava Primorsko - goranska , PERSON policijska postaja PERSON ; hereinafter \u201c FAC \u201d ) .","At TIME , the applicant was brought to FAC for questioning . Blood samples were taken from him for DNA analysis and the police searched his flat and mobile phone and seized a number of his personal items .","The applicant was kept at FAC until his formal arrest at TIME on DATE in connection with the above offences .","According to the applicant , at TIME on DATE his mother , who lived and worked in GPE , called a lawyer , PERSON , and asked him to represent the applicant . PERSON came to FAC at TIME but the police officers refused to let him see the applicant . ORG remained in FAC until TIME . He wanted to file a criminal complaint against an unknown person for abuse of power and unlawfully extracting a confession , but the police officers refused to accept his complaint on the grounds that he had no power of attorney and pushed him out of the police station . PERSON immediately informed the PERSON GPE Attorneys , GPE and GPE , about the incident and they made a note in their case file . ORG was also immediately informed .","At around TIME the applicant \u2019s father signed a power of attorney in favour of the lawyer PERSON to defend his son . A legal trainee , ORG , then tried to submit the power of attorney to the police but was told to leave .","At some time QUANTITY again tried to contact the applicant in FAC but was denied access to him .","At TIME reported the events described above to the Chief of ORG , PERSON , who made a note about their conversation .","The applicant was never informed by the police that ORG had been hired and had come to FAC .","According to the applicant , he had repeatedly asked the police officers in FAC for GPE to be called , but was told that they had tried to contact him but there had been no answer .","According to the Government , at TIME on DATE the applicant agreed to be represented by a lawyer , ORG , a former chief of ORG . He arrived at FAC at TIME The Government state that the applicant chose ORG from a list of lawyers of ORG presented to him by the police and that the questioning of the applicant began at CARDINAL p.m. According to the record of the applicant \u2019s questioning , the police advised him of his right not to incriminate himself and his right to remain silent and he expressly stated for the record that his lawyer was GPE","The relevant part of the record of the police questioning of the applicant by officers ORG and GPE on DATE , which commenced at TIME and concluded at TIME , reads as follows :","\u201c I have been informed of the reasons for my arrest , the criminal offences of which I am accused , my rights , the right not to answer and the right to be legally represented , as well as the right to have members of my family informed about my arrest . I have chosen and authorised a defence lawyer from GPE , GPE , to represent me in these proceedings , and I have consulted him in private ; following the consultation with the lawyer [ M.]R. I have decided to give my evidence .","... \u201d","The record then gives the applicant \u2019s description of the relevant events concerning the charges against him : he confessed that on TIME DATE , together with GPE and GPE . , he had gone to ORG \u2019s flat in PERSON , where he had taken a certain amount of money from PERSON and then shot and killed him , his girlfriend and his father . He had then set their flat on fire in order to destroy any trace of his having been there . He also stated that he had promised GPE and GPE . that he would confess to the crimes and take the blame himself if they were arrested .","The final part of the report reads :","\u201c I am not experiencing any withdrawal symptoms or any other crisis . I have given my evidence voluntarily in the presence of my lawyer and a County State Attorney . I have read the entire statement and after that I am signing it as truthful . \u201d","Every page of the record of the applicant \u2019s statement is signed by him .","The relevant part of the written record of the applicant \u2019s questioning by an investigating judge reads :","\u201c In response to a question by the court about the choice of defence counsel since the case file includes a record of the questioning of the suspect in the presence of defence counsel PERSON , and also a power of attorney signed by the parents in favour of the lawyer PERSON , the suspect answers :","\u2018 I will sign the power of attorney for PERSON , a lawyer from PERSON , and I am hereby withdrawing the power of attorney for the lawyer PERSON","...","In response to a question by defence counsel as to whether he had hired the lawyer [ M.]R. , the suspect answers :","\u2018 No , I did not hire him . I specifically told the police officers that I wanted ORG to represent me .","I do not know anything about PERSON coming to the police premises.\u2019","...","In response to a further question by defence counsel as to whether he was under the influence of drugs , the accused answers :","\u2018 I was under the influence of alcohol and drugs.\u2019","... \u201d","On DATE ORG applied to the investigating judge for the GPE State Attorney and all his deputies to be removed from the case . The investigating judge forwarded the request to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office . The relevant part of the request reads :","\u201c TIME , counsel for the defence learned that the GPE State Attorney , ORG , had been present during the questioning of PERSON as a suspect by police officers of FAC on DATE at TIME , in the presence of the \u2018 defence lawyer\u2019 M.R.","On DATE at TIME the mother of PERSON , ORG . NORP , who lives and works in GPE , called [ ORG ] and asked him to defend her son PERSON , who was suspected of the offence of aggravated murder . At TIME [ PERSON ] came to FAC but the police officers refused to let him see PERSON and also did not tell [ PERSON ] that his mother had hired a lawyer . [ PERSON ] remained in FAC until TIME . He wanted to file a criminal complaint against an unknown person for abuse of power and unlawfully extracting a confession , but the police officers refused to accept his complaint on the grounds that he had no power of attorney and pushed him out of the police station . [ PERSON ] immediately informed the PERSON GPE Attorneys , GPE and GPE , about the incident and they made an official note in their case file .","Therefore , at TIME the PERSON State Attorney already knew that [ FAC ] had been hired by [ PERSON ] mother and that he had not been able to contact his client .","The [ PERSON ] ORG was also immediately informed .","At around TIME PERSON father signed a power of attorney for the defence of his son . A legal trainee , ORG , [ then ] tried to submit the power of attorney to the police but was told to \u2018 fuck off with that power of attorney\u2019 and therefore it was not submitted .","At TIME the defence lawyer [ G.]M. again tried to contact his client in FAC but was denied access to him ... However , the defendant was never informed that a defence lawyer had been hired and had come to FAC .","At TIME [ ORG ] informed the Chief of ORG ... PERSON , who apparently made an official note concerning their conversation . However , the defendant was never informed that a defence lawyer had been hired and also never asked whether he wanted to be represented by the lawyer hired by his family .","Besides that , ever since he had been brought to FAC [ PERSON ] had asked on a number of occasions for [ G.M. ] to be called but was told by the police officers that they had tried but there had been no answer . When he was brought to the police station , blood samples were taken from the defendant . They show that he had a high level of alcohol and drugs in his blood .","TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE ( these time periods are only known to [ ORG ] from informal sources because he had no access to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s case file ) the defendant was not given any food .","It is clear that although all these facts were known to the Rijeka State Attorney , ORG , he disregarded them and , although present in person , allowed the defendant to be questioned in the presence of a lawyer who had [ neither been requested by him ] nor ... hired by his family . This amounts to unlawfully extracting a confession , in breach of LAW of LAW , given that the GPE Attorney , since TIME [ on DATE ] , had known who the [ applicant \u2019s chosen ] defence lawyer was .","On the same date [ ORG ] sent the power of attorney to ORG and written complaints were also sent to ORG , the ORG Attorney General of GPE , the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , the Chief of ORG and ORG . ... \u201d","On DATE an investigation was opened in respect of the applicant , GPE and GPE . on suspicion of having committed the CARDINAL aggravated murders and arson in GPE on DATE .","On DATE the ORG Attorney General of GPE ( PERSON dr\u017eavni odvjetnik PERSON ) dismissed PERSON \u2019s request for the removal of the GPE State Attorney on the grounds that there were no reasons for disqualifying him from dealing with the case . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c ... a statement from ORG , the GPE State Attorney , has been obtained .","In his statement the GPE State Attorney says that on DATE at TIME he was in the LOC of FAC together with his colleague LAW , where they were informed about the evidence thus far obtained , and all the evidence that remained to be taken in connection with the events at issue . He came back to the County State Attorney \u2019s premises at TIME , when the deputies GPE and GPE informed him that the lawyer PERSON had come to the LOC of GPE Attorney and complained about the conduct of the police officers of ORG in refusing him access to PERSON , even though he had been given an oral authorisation by PERSON mother , [ who had called him from ] GPE . The lawyer had not presented any proof of his authority to represent PERSON or of his telephone conversation with PERSON mother . He had not been able to make contact with the suspect \u2019s father , having been unable to find him since he had no fixed address .","After [ the GPE State Attorney PERSON ] had left the LOC of GPE Attorney , he had had no further information about the actions of the above - mentioned lawyer .","At TIME [ ORG ] returned to ORG in connection with the case at issue . There , an inspector of ORG told him that the suspect PERSON was willing to submit his defence in the presence of his defence counsel , PERSON , and it was agreed that the questioning would start at TIME at FAC at TIME and together they went to the room where the suspect PERSON was . There , the suspect signed the power of attorney in favour of the lawyer PERSON and agreed that [ GPE ] would be present during his questioning by the police . After that , at the request of ORG , the suspect was allowed to talk to the lawyer in private . After TIME they all moved to another room , where the suspect , in the presence of his lawyer , GPE Attorney , QUANTITY police inspectors and a typist , put forward his defence , which was recorded in writing , and all this lasted for TIME . After that they all signed the written record [ of questioning ] and he left the room together with the lawyer PERSON","... \u201d","On DATE the GPE State Attorney dismissed the request for the removal of his deputies on the same grounds . The relevant part of that decision reads :","\u201c A deputy GPE State Attorney , LAW , said that she had not participated at all in the questioning of PERSON by the police , and that she had no knowledge about that stage of the proceedings and , in particular , that she had no information about PERSON representation by or choice of defence counsel during his questioning . She only knew that on DATE the lawyer PERSON had come to the LOC of the GPE State Attorney , where she had met him . He had complained about the choice of defence counsel for PERSON . He had said that he was PERSON defence counsel , having been authorised by his mother in a telephone conversation . She [ I.B .- L. ] commented that that could not constitute a valid power of attorney ...","The statements of the GPE deputy state attorneys GPE and GPE show that the only information they had about the conduct of the police came from the lawyer [ G.]M. , who wanted to complain about the conduct of police officers in connection with the choice of lawyer to represent and defend PERSON . ... PERSON drew up an official note about this matter and presented it to PERSON The statements of the GPE deputy state attorneys GPE and GPE show that [ FAC ] had mentioned a power of attorney given to him by PERSON mother , who lived in GPE and with whom PERSON had talked on the telephone . The deputies told him that a power of attorney given by telephone could not be considered valid . They had no knowledge of any other acts , including the obtaining of a power of attorney from PERSON father ... \u201d","On DATE ORG informed ORG that he would no longer represent the applicant and on DATE the President of ORG appointed a legal - aid lawyer , PERSON , to represent the applicant .","During the investigation , evidence was taken from a number of witnesses , and a report on the inspection of the crime scene and the search and seizure , as well as medical , fire and ballistics expert reports , were obtained by the investigating judge .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office indicted the applicant , GPE and GPE . in ORG on CARDINAL counts of aggravated murder and CARDINAL count of arson committed on DATE in LOC .","The applicant , represented by the legal - aid lawyer ORG , lodged an objection against the indictment with ORG on DATE on the grounds that it had contained numerous substantive and procedural flaws . He also argued that he had given his statement to the police under the influence of alcohol and drugs . He made no comments as to his legal representation during the police questioning .","The applicant \u2019s objection against the indictment was dismissed as ill - founded by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE .","On DATE , DATE of the trial , the applicant and the other accused pleaded not guilty to all charges and the trial court heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses .","Another hearing was held on DATE , at which the trial court examined video - recordings of the crime - scene investigation and the autopsy of the victims .","Further hearings were held on CARDINAL DATE and DATE , at which the trial court heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses .","At a hearing on DATE CARDINAL experts in toxicology , a fingerprint expert , a ballistics expert and a DNA expert gave evidence . The defence made no objections in respect of their evidence . At the same hearing CARDINAL other witnesses gave evidence .","At a hearing on DATE the trial court heard evidence from another expert in toxicology and a pathologist , as well as CARDINAL other witnesses . The defence made no objections in respect of the evidence of the expert witnesses but asked the trial court to commission a psychiatric report concerning the applicant .","At the same hearing the defence lawyer asked for a handwriting expert \u2019s report to be commissioned in respect of the applicant \u2019s signature on the record of his statement given to the police on DATE . She argued that the applicant had not signed any record during his questioning by the police .","The trial court considered that for the time being it was not necessary to commission a psychiatric report and thus dismissed the applicant \u2019s request to that effect . However , it commissioned a handwriting expert \u2019s report in respect of the signature on the record of the applicant \u2019s statement given to the police .","NORP On DATE the handwriting expert submitted her report . She found that the applicant had signed the record of his statement given to the police on DATE .","Another hearing was held on DATE , at which a medical expert , fire expert witnesses and CARDINAL other witness gave evidence . The handwriting expert also gave oral evidence confirming her previous findings . The applicant \u2019s lawyer challenged the veracity of these findings and applied to have another report commissioned , but the application was dismissed by the trial court . At the same hearing , the trial court commissioned a psychiatric report in respect of the applicant and the other accused .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to call the lawyer PERSON as a witness in connection with the alleged unlawful extraction of his confession by the police . He pointed out that ORG had not been allowed to see him while he had been in police custody and stated that he had been forced to confess by the police officers .","On DATE the CARDINAL psychiatric experts submitted their report to ORG . They found that the applicant suffered from borderline personality disorder and addictions to heroin and alcohol . However , they found no distinctive mental disorder or illness . They concluded that , even assuming that he had been intoxicated at the time when the murders had been committed , he had retained the mental capacity to understand the nature of his acts , although it had been diminished to a certain degree . As to his mental capacity concerning the charge of arson , they concluded that , at the time when the offence had been committed , the applicant had been able to understand the nature of his acts and to control his actions .","At a hearing on DATE the psychiatric experts confirmed their findings and the parties made no objections in respect of their evidence . The trial court also dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for the lawyer PERSON to be heard as a witness , on the grounds that all the relevant facts had already been established .","At the same hearing CARDINAL of the accused , GPE . , confirmed the course of the events as described by the applicant in his statement given to the police on DATE . GPE . claimed , however , that he had not personally participated in the killings , because he had panicked and had left the flat when he had heard fighting .","After GPE . had given his statement , the Deputy County State Attorney amended the indictment . The applicant was charged with CARDINAL counts of aggravated murder , armed robbery and arson , and GPE and GPE . were charged with armed robbery and aiding and abetting the perpetrator of an offence . The applicant and the other accused pleaded not guilty to the charges listed in the amended indictment .","On DATE GPE gave oral evidence confirming the course of the events as described by GPE . He stated that after the applicant had got into a fight with PERSON , he had heard gunshots , after which he had panicked and had left the flat .","At the same hearing the parties submitted their closing arguments . The applicant \u2019s defence lawyer argued that it had not been proved that the applicant had committed the offences he was charged with . She pointed out , however , that if the trial court took a different view , then the applicant \u2019s confession to the police and his sincere regret had to be taken into consideration in sentencing him .","DATE . On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of the CARDINAL counts of aggravated murder and of the charges of armed robbery and arson and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The trial court first examined the applicant \u2019s confession against those of the other co - accused , GPE and GPE . , and found that his confession was essentially consistent with the evidence provided by them . In finding the applicant guilty , the trial court also assessed his confession against the evidence from the case file .","The trial court relied in particular on the search and seizure records and photographs depicting the accused GPE holding the same type of handgun as had been used for the murders . On the basis of the witness statements and the recording of a nearby video - surveillance camera , the trial court concluded that the applicant and the other co - accused had come to PERSON \u2019s flat on the critical date . Furthermore , the ballistics reports and the crime - scene reports indicated that the details of the statements of the applicant and his co - accused were accurate , and the course of the events was ascertained on the basis of the fire , ballistics and toxicology reports and the DNA report . The trial court also found that the statements of the accused as to the manner in which the murders had been carried out were supported by the autopsy report , the evidence of the pathologist provided at the trial , the crime - scene report and the witness statements about the gunshots that had been heard in PERSON \u2019s flat . Furthermore , as to the arson charge , the trial court examined the material from the crime - scene investigation and the evidence from the fire expert report , as well as medical records and damage reports submitted by the victims , and the statements of a number of residents in the building where the fire had occurred .","As regards the applicant \u2019s questioning by the police and the request made by the defence to hear evidence from the lawyer PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , ORG noted :","\u201c The first accused PERSON confessed to the criminal offences of robbery , aggravated murder of GPE , GPE and GPE ... exactly as is stated in the operative part of this judgment , in front of the police and in the presence of a defence lawyer . He later tried to contest that statement , claiming that he had not hired the lawyer PERSON , that he had told the police officers that he wanted PERSON as his lawyer , that at the time he had been taken to the police station he had been under the influence of alcohol and drugs and so on . However , this defence is not acceptable . The written record of arrest shows that the first accused PERSON was arrested on DATE at TIME at FAC , and the lawyer [ M.]R. , in favour of whom the first accused PERSON signed the power of attorney , came to the police station on DATE at TIME The written record of the questioning of the then suspect PERSON shows that PERSON was informed at TIME and that the questioning started at TIME Besides the officers of ORG , a typist and the defence lawyer of the then suspect PERSON , GPE Attorney was also present during the questioning . The introductory part of the written record [ indicates ] that the then suspect PERSON clearly stated that he had chosen and authorised PERSON to act as his defence lawyer and had consulted with him , after which he decided to give his statement . The written record is properly signed by the persons present . The first accused PERSON had read the written record before signing it . Thus , the above shows without doubt that the contentions of the first accused PERSON that he had not hired PERSON as his lawyer are unfounded . During the trial , at the request of PERSON defence , a handwriting expert gave her opinion about the signature of PERSON on the written record of his questioning by the police . The expert opinion proved beyond any doubt that the contested signature was that of PERSON . The panel accepts such findings in their entirety ; the findings were further explained at a hearing by the expert PERSON . PERSON Her findings were given in an objective , impartial and professional manner . Therefore , the questioning of the first accused PERSON by the police was carried out in compliance with the provisions of LAW .","...","The request made by [ PERSON ] defence to call the lawyer PERSON as a witness ... was dismissed as irrelevant , since the documents from the case file do not reveal that there was any extraction of a confession by the police , but only [ record ] the time at which the lawyer [ PERSON came [ to the police station ] , whereupon the questioning of [ PERSON ] in the presence of the lawyer for whom he had signed a power of attorney started ... Nobody , including [ PERSON ] defence lawyer who was present during the police questioning \u2013 [ M.]R. \u2013 has alleged any unlawful extraction of a confession and there is no indication of this in the record of the statement given by PERSON , [ who ] at the time [ was ] only a suspect . \u201d","The applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment with ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . He complained , inter alia , that the conviction had been based on his confession to the police , which had not been given in the presence of a lawyer of his own choosing , namely ORG , but in the presence of a lawyer , PERSON , who had been offered to him by the police . The applicant also referred to the request for the removal of the GPE State Attorney and all his deputies lodged by ORG DATE , highlighting the part of that request which stated that he had been denied food during his detention in police custody . The relevant part of the applicant \u2019s appeal reads :","\u201c The statement given by the first accused to the police was unlawfully obtained , for the following reasons . When the first accused was brought to ORG his defence rights were seriously infringed . However , during the trial this infringement was ignored . On DATE , the first accused \u2019s mother and then also his now late father hired PERSON as his defence lawyer before the police , after he had been arrested . However , PERSON was not allowed access to the accused , and subsequently informed the relevant authorities thereof , but they ignored this . PERSON therefore lodged an action in ORG in respect of an unlawful act , as well as a request for the removal of the GPE State Attorney and all his deputies . In that request he alleged that the first accused had not been given any food by the police from DATE at TIME , when he had been brought to FAC , until he had agreed to be represented by the lawyer PERSON on DATE at TIME so as to give a self - incriminating statement , which was in violation of LAW of LAW . Because of that the defence asked for the lawyer PERSON to be examined [ at the trial ] since he had knowledge about the questioning of the first accused by the police . \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded . As regards his complaints concerning his statement to the police , that court noted :","\u201c ... The lawfulness of [ the statement given to the police ] was not put in doubt by the appellant \u2019s complaints that ORG was not his lawyer and that his lawyer was PERSON , who had been hired by his father and mother on DATE , or by the appellant \u2019s complaints that he had been denied food in the period TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE until he had agreed to hire ORG as his lawyer , since according to the record of his arrest ( pages ... ) , the appellant was arrested at CARDINAL TIME on DATE and the lawyer PERSON arrived [ at the police station ] at TIME on DATE . \u201d","The applicant lodged a further appeal against the appeal court \u2019s judgment with ORG on DATE , reiterating his previous arguments . The relevant part of the appeal reads :","\u201c The first accused has to comment on the conclusions of the appeal court that the allegation that food was denied to him from TIME on DATE until he agreed to be represented by the lawyer PERSON at TIME on DATE had no bearing on the lawfulness of the evidence [ the record of his questioning ] because the written record of his arrest showed that he had been arrested on DATE at TIME and that the lawyer PERSON had arrived on DATE at TIME The Record of Attendance DATE , which is in the case file , shows that the first accused was brought to the police station on DATE at TIME and was kept there . He was arrested DATE , as found by the first - instance court . However , it is not true that the lawyer PERSON came to the police station at TIME : he came at TIME , which shows that the allegations of the first accused are true . That fact could have been verified by the evidence of the lawyer PERSON , who represented the first accused during the investigation ... \u201d","On DATE ORG , acting as the court of final appeal , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded . That court pointed out that the record of the applicant \u2019s statement suggested that he had chosen PERSON to represent him during police questioning and that ORG had provided him with adequate legal advice . ORG also noted that there was nothing in the case file to indicate that the applicant had been ill - treated or forced to confess . The relevant part of the judgment reads :","\u201c The appellant erroneously argues that the first - instance court committed a grave breach of criminal procedure , contrary to LAW , in basing his conviction on the defence he gave to the police in the presence of a defence lawyer , which [ in the appellant \u2019s view ] constitutes unlawfully obtained evidence for the purposes of LAW , and that the record of his questioning as a suspect by the police ( in the presence of a defence lawyer ) should thus have been excluded from the case file . In so doing , the appellant challenges the reasoning of the second - instance judgment to the effect that the lawfulness of the evidence was not affected by the appellant \u2019s arguments that during his apprehension and arrest he had not been given food until he had agreed to be represented by ORG These arguments of the appellant were refuted by the second - instance court on the basis of all the formally established information contained in the record of [ his ] questioning in the presence of a lawyer on DATE .","This third - instance court notes that [ the complaint ] regarding the question of the presence of a lawyer [ during the questioning ] , as a legal requirement for the lawfulness of evidence obtained in this way during the police investigation , relates to CARDINAL objections . The first objection concerns the restriction of access to the lawyer of [ the defendant \u2019s ] own choosing , and the second objection relates to the pressure exerted on the suspect through the denial of food ( LAW ) , which , according to the appeal , eventually made him accept legal representation by the lawyer imposed on him , PERSON , although his parents had already engaged the services of the lawyer PERSON on TIME DATE .","It is to be noted that during the police criminal investigation , a number of persons with a background of drug abuse , and with links to the victim PERSON , were arrested , in particular from the neighbourhood of ORG , and it was in the course of this action that the accused PERSON was also apprehended . Only when a probable cause was established that the accused could have been the perpetrator of the offences at issue was he arrested on DATE at TIME","At the same time the father of the accused , who was in GPE whereas the accused \u2019s mother was in GPE , was informed [ of the arrest ] by the police at TIME , which shows that from that moment the father of the accused ( after a telephone conversation with his mother ) could have engaged the services of a lawyer for the accused , for which he would most certainly have needed some time . In such circumstances , this third - instance court finds that the parents of the accused could not already have signed a power of attorney for the lawyer of the accused \u2019s choice by CARDINAL p.m. on DATE in question .","The other information from the record of the accused \u2019s arrest and from the record of his questioning by the police shows that on DATE , as is indicated by the record of the arrest , the accused was brought to ORG , and , as is apparent from the record of PERSON questioning by the police , the defence lawyer PERSON was informed at TIME and came to the police station at TIME The questioning itself commenced at TIME and ended at TIME , with a break TIME and TIME","It should be emphasised that in the introductory part of the record [ of his questioning ] the suspect PERSON expressly stated that he had chosen PERSON as his defence lawyer and had signed the power of attorney in favour of him , and the record of the questioning shows that the defence lawyer had TIME for consultation with the suspect before the questioning , in which time he was able to advise him of his rights .","Thus , the relevant fact which follows from the formal procedural action described in the record of the suspect \u2019s questioning is that the chosen lawyer came TIME before the questioning commenced , and in the consultation with [ the suspect ] before the questioning he was able to give [ the suspect ] genuine legal advice as his chosen lawyer .","It should also be noted that the essence of the suspect \u2019s right to have a lawyer present during his questioning by the police lies in the necessity for legal protection of his rights , which is why the beginning , conduct and end of this formal [ procedural ] action is fully registered in the record [ of the questioning ] .","This is why all arguments to the contrary , as set out in the appeal against the second - instance judgment , and particularly those relating to the need to question the lawyer PERSON as the second concurrent lawyer of [ the suspect \u2019s ] choosing , have no support in the content of the formal record of the suspect \u2019s questioning of DATE , because the record contains formally registered information about the contact with the chosen lawyer , the time when the chosen lawyer came into ORG , the time when the questioning of the suspect commenced , the period in which a short break took place , and the time when the procedural action finished , all of which was confirmed by the suspect and the defence lawyer of his choosing by signing the record without any objections as to its content .","However , irrespective of the fact that the defence of the accused in the context of police questioning formally satisfied the requirements of LAW , the general thrust of the defence , as well as the substance of the defence as regards particular acts , and the confession , were provided voluntarily by the suspect , and his chosen lawyer was most certainly unable to have any influence on this , which at the same time rules out the possibility of any mental pressure being exerted on the suspect , as well as his subsequent arguments about the lawyer having been imposed on him during the police investigation . On the contrary , the suspect \u2019s defence rights were fully secured , as required LAW and LAW .","There is therefore no breach of LAW in conjunction with LAW . The refusal of the request to have the record of the suspect \u2019s questioning by the police in the presence of a lawyer of his choosing excluded from the case file as unlawfully obtained evidence does not constitute a breach of his defence rights because the record of the suspect \u2019s questioning by the police clearly and undoubtedly shows that the lawyer who was present [ during the questioning ] was the lawyer of the suspect \u2019s free choice , and this also follows from the signed power of attorney in favour of the lawyer in question , who protected the suspect \u2019s rights during the questioning . Accordingly , the refusal of the defence \u2019s request did not have any bearing on the lawfulness and correctness of the judgment . At the same time , it was not necessary to question the new chosen lawyer as a witness and , for the reasons set out above , the facts of the case were not insufficiently or erroneously established , as was argued in the defendant \u2019s appeal against the second - instance judgment . \u201d","The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) on DATE . He complained , inter alia , that he had been ill - treated while in police custody and that he had been forced to confess . He also complained that he had been denied the chance to have a lawyer of his own choosing conduct his defence . He reiterated his arguments from his previous appeals and added :","\u201c It is also important to stress that at the session of ORG as the court of third instance , held on DATE , the defence indicated that the applicant had been brought to the police station at TIME on DATE , and that that fact was shown in the Record of Attendance DATE , which was in the case file . The defence asked the panel [ of ORG ] to have a look at that record . However , after a brief examination of the case file it was established that the document in question could not be found , and that it would be looked at later . However , the judgment of ORG , acting as a third - instance court , shows that the document had [ still ] not been found ... \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint . ORG , endorsing the reasoning of ORG , noted that the proceedings as a whole had been fair and that there was no evidence in the case file that the applicant had been ill - treated while in police custody ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168074","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In application no . MONEY the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167505","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"NOVESKI AND OTHERS v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["Details about the applicants are set out in the appendix .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","Mr PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) is the applicant in applications nos . CARDINAL and ORG and is the second applicant in application no . DATE . He is the brother - in - law of PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) , who is the first applicant in application no . DATE . The second applicant lives in GPE in the first applicant \u2019s house , while the first applicant lives in GPE . The first applicant stated that he stayed in his house in the respondent ORG \u201c when needed \u201d , in particular during DATE . The Government did not submit any evidence to refute that statement .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a criminal complaint against PERSON , his neighbour , for the misappropriation of a right ( \u0441\u0430\u043c\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0435 ) . He alleged that on DATE H. and other people had unlawfully demolished a wall on his property in order to get access to a road . He argued that he had suffered damage as a result . In a submission on DATE the first applicant laid out the specifics of his claim for compensation .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) convicted PERSON and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE . The court relied on the fact that no penalty had previously been issued against H. as a mitigating circumstance . It further instructed the first applicant to pursue his compensation claim by means of a separate action for damages in order to not prolong the criminal proceedings ( \u0437\u0430 \u0434\u0430 \u043d\u0435 \u0441\u0435 \u043e\u0434\u043e\u043b\u0433\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0443\u0432\u0430 \u043a\u0440\u0438\u0432\u0438\u0447\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f\u043a\u0430 ) .","The first applicant lodged a complaint against that decision . He submitted , inter alia , that the penalty was too lenient and that the trial court had failed to decide on his compensation claim .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the appellate court \u201d ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints and upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment and the penalty it had imposed . It remitted the issue regarding costs for fresh examination . It did not comment on the arguments concerning the compensation claim .","According to the first applicant while the trial was pending , PERSON had repeatedly attacked his property by throwing stones and fruit at his walls and attempting to break into his house .","On DATE the trial court upheld a claim by the first applicant for disturbance of possession ( \u043d\u0430\u0440\u0443\u0448\u0435\u043d\u043e \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0434\u0435\u0435\u045a\u0435 ) . It ordered H. to reconstruct the part of the wall he had demolished and refrain from further disturbance of the first applicant \u2019s enjoyment of his property . As stated in the judgment , PERSON neither appeared before the court nor contested the first applicant \u2019s claim . The court found that the first applicant had reported the incident to the police on CARDINAL occasions . On DATE the judgment became final .","On DATE in enforcement of the above judgment , H. reconstructed the wall . The wall was again demolished the same day by Sh . PERSON H. \u2019s brother ) . Sh . H. was convicted of violent behaviour ( \u043d\u0430\u0441\u0438\u043b\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) over the incident and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE ( trial court judgment of CARDINAL DATE ) .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a fresh application , seeking to have a private bailiff order PERSON to reconstruct the wall ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE he asked the bailiff to issue a fine against H. , arguing that H. had again come onto his land . It appears that those requests remained undecided .","On DATE the first applicant initiated criminal proceedings against PERSON and CARDINAL others for a breach of the inviolability of the home ( \u043d\u0430\u0440\u0443\u0448\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043d\u0435\u043f\u043e\u0432\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043b\u0438\u0432\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0442 ) . He complained that DATE and DATE had trespassed on his property . On DATE he made a claim for compensation for damage .","On several occasions during the trial the first applicant alerted the trial court to the fact that H. had again demolished the wall , had repeatedly trespassed on his property , sounded his car horn , instructed others to throw objects at the first applicant \u2019s house , and had threatened and even fired at him with an automatic gun .","On DATE the trial court found PERSON guilty and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE . The court noted that ORG had no criminal record . The court held that he had repeatedly gone onto the first applicant \u2019s land , which was part of his home . In establishing the facts , it relied , inter alia , on the judgment in the proceedings referred to above , DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) . Lastly , it advised the first applicant , in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW , to pursue his compensation claim by means of a separate civil action for damages as he had not provided enough evidence to substantiate it .","The first applicant appealed , arguing that PERSON had already been convicted in earlier proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . He requested that the court accordingly impose a more severe penalty . On DATE the appellate court upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment , finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and reasons provided .","On DATE the first and second applicants lodged a criminal complaint against ORG for breach of the inviolability of the home , alleging that on DATE and on other occasions ORG had again unlawfully gone onto the first applicant \u2019s land and trespassed in his yard .","At the trial , PERSON stated that the applicants had objected to him using the road , which in his opinion was a public thoroughfare , because they considered it part of their property . He further stated that there was another road to his house , which he did not use . The court admitted in evidence a decision of DATE in which the competent administrative authorities had ordered the wall to be demolished because it had been constructed unlawfully .","On DATE the trial court convicted PERSON and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE . It further reprimanded him ( \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u043e\u043f\u043e\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0430 ) for using insulting language to the second applicant in reply to the criminal complaint . The court relied on the final judgments in the previous proceedings against PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) and took his previous convictions into consideration in determining the penalty . Lastly , it instructed the applicants to pursue their compensation claim by means of a separate civil action for damages .","The applicants appealed , arguing , inter alia , that the penalty that had been imposed would not fulfil the aims of punishment . On DATE the appellate court dismissed the appeal , finding that the penalty would deter PERSON from reoffending .","The first applicant lodged a criminal complaint against a police officer who had carried out an on - site inspection related to the incident of DATE , but it was rejected by the public prosecutor . The latter found , inter alia , that the incident concerned a dispute between neighbours over their land .","On DATE the applicants informed the police that despite the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , PERSON had repeatedly entered the first applicant \u2019s property and had incited some children to throw stones at their house .","On several occasions DATE and DATE , the applicants reported PERSON to the police for uttering insults , entering and damaging their property or threatening to kill them .","In DATE the applicants initiated another set of criminal proceedings against H. on account of a breach of the inviolability of the home . It appears that the proceedings are still pending .","Under LAW of LAW , in determining the sentence of a person with previous convictions , the court will specifically consider whether the previous conviction was related to a similar offence as the new one , whether the offences were committed with the same motive , and what period of time has elapsed from the previous conviction or sentence , whether served or pardoned .","Under LAW , a suspended sentence ( \u0443\u0441\u043b\u043e\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u043e\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430 ) means the court will impose a sentence and decide that it will not be enforced if the convicted person does not reoffend within a period determined by the court , which can not be DATE or CARDINAL ( \u201c the control period \u201d ) . A suspended sentence may also entail the court determining that the sentence will be enforced if the convicted person does not return the proceeds of a crime , does not pay compensation for damage , or does not fulfill other obligations .","Under LAW the court shall revoke a suspended sentence during the control period if the convicted person commits CARDINAL or more offences for which he or she is sentenced to imprisonment of DATE or longer . Under LAW , in cases of a less serious offence , the court assesses all the circumstances concerning the offences and the offender , especially the relation between the offences , their significance and the motives for them , and decides whether or not to revoke the suspended sentence . The court can not impose a suspended prison sentence if the offender is to be sentenced to DATE imprisonment for the initial and the new offences . Under LAW if the court does not revoke the suspended sentence it can pass another suspended sentence for the new offence . If the court finds that it should issue a suspended sentence for the new crime , it must determine a single sentence for the initial and new offence and a new control period . That period can not be DATE or CARDINAL .","Under LAW , a suspended sentence may be revoked during the control period . If the convicted person commits an offence during that period which calls for the suspended sentence to be revoked and which was imposed by a final judgment after the expiry of the control period , the suspended sentence may be revoked within DATE of expiry of the control period . Under LAW if the convicted person does not fulfill some of the obligations referred to in DATE , the court may decide , within DATE of the expiry of the control period , that the suspended sentence should be enforced .","Under LAW , any person who enters without authorisation another person \u2019s home , a closed or fenced area belonging to that home , or private business LOC designated as such , or does not leave such an area at the request of an authorised person , can be fined or imprisoned for DATE .","Under LAW , anyone who ill - treats or grossly insults another person , or threatens his safety or performs an act of gross violence against him and thereby causes a feeling of insecurity , threat or fear in the rest of the general public , can be imprisoned for DATE .","Under LAW , anyone who wilfully ( \u0441\u0430\u043c\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e ) appropriates for himself a right or a right that he considers to be his own , can be fined or imprisoned for DATE .","Chapter CARDINAL of LAW DATE regulated pecuniary claims ( \u0438\u043c\u043e\u0442\u043d\u043e-\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438 \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0430 ) lodged in criminal proceedings . Under section CARDINAL ( renumbered to section CARDINAL with the DATE consolidated text of the LAW , Official Gazette no . PERSON ) a compensation claim relating to a criminal offence was to be decided in criminal proceedings , unless it significantly delayed those proceedings .","Under section CARDINAL ( section CARDINAL of the consolidated text ) , the court could question the accused about the grounds of the compensation claim . If a decision on the compensation claim would significantly delay the proceedings , the court confined itself to gathering evidence which would be impossible or very difficult to gather at a later stage .","Section CARDINAL ( section CARDINAL of the consolidated text ) provided that if the court found the accused guilty , it could fully or partially decide the compensation claim . If the evidence in the criminal proceedings did not provide a sufficient basis for a decision on the compensation claim , and there was a danger that the criminal proceedings would be prolonged unjustifiably in order to obtain such evidence , the court could decide solely on the existence of the grounds for compensation , or on the grounds and partially on the compensation claim , and adopt a supplementary judgment ( \u0434\u043e\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430 ) for the rest of the claim . If the amount of compensation could not be determined on the basis of other evidence or if obtaining such evidence would lead to significant delays in the proceedings , the court could decide on the compensation claim by awarding just satisfaction ( \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0438\u0447\u0435\u043d \u043d\u0430\u0434\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0441\u0442\u043e\u043a ) .","If the accused was acquitted , the indictment was rejected , or the proceedings were discontinued , the court was to instruct the victim to pursue his or her compensation claim in civil proceedings ( section ORG ) ) .","Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the consolidated text ) , if a suspended prison sentence required the convicted person to return the proceeds of the crime , provide damages or fulfill other duties but which he failed to do , the trial court could revoke the suspended prison sentence on the proposal of an authorised plaintiff ( \u043e\u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043d \u0442\u0443\u0436\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b ) or of its own motion . If the court found that the obligations had not been fulfilled , it could issue a judgment prolonging the period for fulfilment , releasing the convicted person from fulfilment or replacing that duty with another one . It could also revoke the suspended sentence or decide that the suspended prison sentence be executed ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","Section CARDINAL of LAW provides that if after an enforcement title ( \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u043d\u0430 \u0438\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 ) concerning disturbance of possession ( \u0441\u043c\u0435\u045c\u0430\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0435\u0434 ) has been enforced the respondent again disturbs the possession in the same manner , a private bailiff can order a return to the status quo ante on the basis of the same enforcement title .","Under section ORG ) a court in civil proceedings is bound by a criminal court \u2019s final decision in respect of the existence of the offence and the criminal liability of the offender .","The Government submitted a copy of CARDINAL judgments in which the courts granted a request by victims of a crime for the revocation of a suspended prison term after the offender failed to pay compensation or fulfil other obligations ( the payment of maintenance ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179404","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF M.M. v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE PERSON was arrested and taken to a police station . Allegedly , police officers threatened him with murder and ill - treatment if he refused to make a confession . In the presence of counsel , he made a written statement confessing to a murder . On DATE an investigator compiled an arrest record .","On DATE another investigator issued a formal decision confirming that PERSON \u2019s real name was PERSON , the applicant in the present case before the ORG .","On DATE ORG of PERSON ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) upheld the judgment .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant had tested positive for HIV .","According to the applicant , on DATE ( see below ) he learnt that in DATE or DATE PERSON , a deputy district prosecutor , had given PERSON , the sister of the murder victim , access to the file concerning the criminal charges against the applicant .","At a hearing on DATE the trial court granted PERSON victim status in the criminal case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . At the same time , the trial court allowed a decision granting PERSON victim status to be added to the file ( a decision apparently taken in DATE by an unspecified authority during the criminal investigation \u2013 however , see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . PERSON was cross - examined at that hearing . She stated that she had had access to the file and had then told NORP , the applicant \u2019s relative , about his HIV status to prove that the applicant was not a good person . According to the applicant , PERSON also disclosed his HIV status to some other neighbours .","DATE the applicant unsuccessfully sought the institution of criminal proceedings against PERSON for the disclosure of private information , which was an offence under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It appears that the applicant also sought the institution of criminal proceedings against PERSON in relation to the disclosure of private information involving the use of an official position and abuse of power ( LAW and LAW ; see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","A pre - investigation inquiry was carried out for the offence allegedly committed by PERSON","NORP In DATE Z. , the deputy district prosecutor , wrote to the applicant indicating that PERSON had not been granted victim status , and that the investigator in charge of the case had not provided her with access to the file during the preliminary investigation .","NORP In DATE the regional prosecutor \u2019s office informed the applicant that PERSON had been granted victim status and had studied the case file in DATE , she had not applied for victim status before that time , and there were no grounds for any pre - investigation inquiry in respect of PERSON It is unclear whether the applicant took any further action as regards his criminal complaint against Z.","As a result of the inquiry in respect of PERSON , a refusal to institute criminal proceedings was issued . It was then overruled . Further refusals to prosecute were issued on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and on DATE .","On DATE ORG refused to carry out judicial review of the refusal dated DATE . ORG then considered that the applicant was entitled to judicial review and ordered ORG to re - examine the issue . In the resumed proceedings , on CARDINAL DATE ORG noted that the applicant no longer wished to pursue the judicial complaint , and discontinued it .","In the meantime , on DATE an investigator had issued a new refusal to prosecute with reference to the expiry of the DATE timelimit for prosecution of an offence under LAW . The investigator heard NORP , who confirmed that PERSON had briefly mentioned the applicant \u2019s HIV status . The investigator \u2019s decision indicates that he considered the disclosure of the applicant \u2019s medical data an established fact .","On DATE ORG confirmed the refusal to prosecute dated DATE . The judge noted ( apparently with reference to DATE ) that for some time the institution of criminal proceedings had been refused because \u201c at the time no written statement could be obtained from [ the applicant ] in relation to his complaint \u201d . This had prompted the supervising prosecutor to set aside , among other things , the refusals to prosecute dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The prosecutor had acted promptly by taking decisions on DATE and DATE and on DATE . Following each decision , law - enforcement officers had taken measures to interview the applicant ( apparently by asking staff at his remand centre to interview him ) , but \u201c no statement had been received from him \u201d .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The appeal court stated that , while the fact of the dissemination of the applicant \u2019s medical data by PERSON had been established , she could not be prosecuted , owing to the expiry of the time - limit for prosecution . However , those grounds for discontinuing the case were , in a way , in the applicant \u2019s interest , and it remained open to him to bring civil proceedings against her .","In DATE the applicant brought civil court proceedings against PERSON , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage on account of the disclosure of his HIV status to other people . On DATE ORG discontinued the case because the respondent was a foreign national not residing in GPE . Apparently , the applicant did not appeal .","The applicant also lodged a claim under LAW . A judge rejected it , noting that the LAW did not give standing to a criminal complainant with no \u201c victim \u201d status seeking compensation on account of the length of a pre - investigation inquiry . Apparently , the applicant did not appeal .","The applicant provided the following account of his conditions of detention .","DATE and DATE the applicant was kept in FAC no . CARDINAL . After his arrival he was placed in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL people . This cell had no window , and the temperature in the cell was around CARDINAL There was no bed or bedding . The toilet did not work and was not separated from the main area .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY and had CARDINAL beds , but which actually accommodated CARDINAL people . The toilet was not separated from the main area .","From DATE the applicant was in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured CARDINAL or QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL detainees ( or CARDINAL people , according to the applicant \u2019s amended description ) .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was kept in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY and had CARDINAL beds , but accommodated CARDINAL to QUANTITY people .","From DATE to DATE the applicant was in hospital . It appears that the material conditions of his stay there were acceptable . However , between CARDINAL May and DATE he was allegedly ill - treated by medical assistants ( also people who had been convicted ) who , at the instigation of police officers , tried to extract a confession from him .","After being returned to the remand centre , the applicant was placed in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY and accommodated up to CARDINAL people , despite having CARDINAL beds .","From DATE the applicant was in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL detainees .","Furthermore , the applicant provided a detailed account of the conditions of his detention DATE , conditions which were also cramped or unacceptable and where , at times , he was not able to have an individual bed .","DATE the applicant lodged numerous complaints in relation to his conditions of detention . For instance , on DATE ORG of GPE dismissed CARDINAL of his complaints , whilst indicating that the actual number of detainees in the remand centre exceeded the design capacity of this detention facility . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the administration of the remand centre informed the applicant that the actual capacity of cells was such as to afford each detainee QUANTITY of space , which was a temporary measure related to the overpopulation problem .","By a letter of DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office supervising prisons confirmed that the applicant had been afforded between QUANTITY of cell space .","By a letter of DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE informed the applicant that , following an inspection , it could be not confirmed that the cell toilets were not separated from the main area ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171480","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GALIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152885","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MACHER v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was appointed as deputy general manager of a ORG - owned company limited by shares .","The applicant \u2019s employment was terminated by mutual agreement as of CARDINAL DATE . Under this agreement the applicant received severance payment , subject to payroll burdens .","Under new legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the severance payment was subsequently taxed at a PERCENT rate in its part exceeding MONEY ( ORG ) ; the income tax and social security contributions already paid ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were deducted from the tax payable . Thus , the applicant paid an additional ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately FAC euros ( ORG ) ) in special tax on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147441","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NOSKO AND NEFEDOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were both targeted in undercover operations designed to investigate bribe - taking launched by the police under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Operational - Search Activities Act of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ ) .","The facts of each individual criminal case , as submitted by the parties , are summarised below . The factual details of the undercover operations are not in dispute and the applicants admitted that they had received the money in return for promises to render certain services . However , the applicants contested the ORG \u2019s position as to the reasons for the undercover operations and the circumstances leading to them . In particular , they contended that they had accepted the money only because the police had incited them to do so , and they would not have done it under any other circumstances .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , in GPE . At the time of her arrest , she was working as a dermatologistvenerologist in the outpatient unit of the municipal hospital in PERSON .","According to the ORG , the police in PERSON received confidential operational information implicating the applicant in the illegal acceptance of money for issuing and extending false sick - leave certificates . On DATE it was decided to conduct an undercover operation targeting the applicant , with the aim of documenting her illegal activity . The police proposed PERSON to participate in the operation as their agent .","According to the applicant , she had not been implicated in any bribetaking prior to the operation and the police had had no grounds to suspect her . On DATE her colleague and former fellow classmate from medical school , X , had come to her office while she was seeing patients . He had been accompanied by a young woman , PERSON He had asked the applicant to provide PERSON with a sick - leave certificate as she had herpes on her leg . The applicant had examined the woman , confirmed the diagnosis , prescribed treatment and issued the sick - leave certificate . The applicant thought that she had PERSON as the mother of a girl she had treated on a previous occasion . On DATE PERSON had come to the applicant \u2019s office by herself and the applicant had agreed to extend her sick - leave as her condition had not yet been cured . PERSON had been given the certificate and had handed MONEY ( RUB \u2013 QUANTITY ( EUR ) ) to the applicant . The applicant had taken the money as she thought that PERSON was offering it as a token of appreciation for having successfully treated her daughter previously . Immediately after PERSON had left , the police had entered the applicant \u2019s office and asked her and the nurses who were present to show them all the money in their possession . The applicant had taken out her wallet and while the police were searching the office she had remembered about the money that PERSON had given her . She had become frightened and had moved the money from the pocket of her uniform into her left boot , where the police eventually discovered it .","On CARDINAL DATE the NORP ORG of GPE examined the applicant \u2019s case . The applicant admitted that she had taken the money because she had thought of it as a gift from a grateful patient . She maintained that the police had incited her to accept the money . In particular , they had sent their agent to her office together with a colleague of hers whom she had known well since their student DATE in medical school and at whose request she had issued the sick - leave certificate to PERSON","PERSON testified at the trial that on DATE she had agreed to help the police conduct an undercover operation investigating bribetaking . She had telephoned her acquaintance X and told him that she needed a sick - leave certificate to justify her stay at home while she redecorated her flat . X had agreed to help her and she had come to the hospital outpatient unit with him DATE . She had had with her RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in cash and a recording device given to her earlier by the police . She had given X RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for his intermediary services and also RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to pay the applicant , who did not examine her at the time but nevertheless issued the sick - leave certificate . On DATE she had returned to the applicant \u2019s office . The applicant had not examined her but had extended her sick - leave certificate for RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) which the applicant had placed in the pocket of her uniform .","X testified that PERSON had repeatedly called him requesting the false sick - leave certificate . He had agreed to help her and had received RUB CARDINAL ( LAW ) from her . He had called several doctors but they had refused to help and he had decided to ask the applicant to issue the certificate . On DATE he had come to the applicant \u2019s office and she had handed him the certificate for PERSON for RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) without actually examining PERSON","The police officer in charge of the undercover operation also testified at the trial . In particular , he stated that following the receipt of confidential information implicating the applicant in bribe - taking , an undercover operation had been launched to verify and to document the applicant \u2019s unlawful activity .","On CARDINAL DATE the NORP ORG of the Penza Region granted the prosecutor \u2019s request to drop the charges against the applicant in relation to the episode of QUANTITY DATE for lack of evidence . It found the applicant guilty of bribery committed on DATE and imposed a suspended sentence of DATE in prison with CARDINAL years\u2019 probation .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s case on appeal and upheld the conviction . The court dismissed the plea of entrapment and held that the police had had good reason to conduct the undercover operation as they were in possession of incriminating information against the applicant which revealed a preexisting intent to commit bribery .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , in LOC . At the time of his arrest , he worked as a narcology psychiatrist at a regional narcology centre .","The Government submitted that in DATE the police had received information which had implicated the applicant and other staff members at the regional narcology centre in the issuance of false forensic medical examination reports in return for monetary consideration . On DATE the police decided to conduct an undercover operation in order to expose and document the applicant \u2019s unlawful acts . CARDINAL of the police officers , PERSON , was chosen to participate in the undercover operation and to bribe the applicant into altering the results of PERSON blood test and issuing a false forensic medical report .","The applicant contested the ORG \u2019s allegations . In particular , he claimed that the incriminating information had been ambiguous and had referred to medical personnel at the local narcology centre in general . It did not specifically identify him as an individual who was taking bribes . Moreover , the police were not in possession of any complaints from persons allegedly aggrieved by his unlawful acts .","The applicant further maintained that on DATE , when he started his shift at the regional narcology centre , traffic police officers had brought PERSON to his office for a blood alcohol test . The applicant had conducted preliminary tests that had shown that PERSON was under the influence of alcohol . Mr Y. acknowledged that he had drunk some alcohol DATE . Meanwhile , the officer who had accompanied PERSON had stepped out of the room and PERSON had repeatedly asked the applicant to help him obtain a favourable blood test result as he feared that the alcohol level in his blood would exceed the legal limit and he would have his driving licence revoked . The applicant had categorically refused at first and had sent the applicant to a laboratory for a blood test in the presence of police officers . Mr Y. had then returned to the applicant \u2019s office and resumed his requests for help . He had offered to pay the applicant and had stated that his earnings and ability to support his family depended on his having a driving licence . On DATE the applicant had again seen Mr Y. in his office , where he had repeated his requests . The applicant had then agreed to try talking to the laboratory staff and speculated that Mr Y. would need to pay RUB CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) or CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to the laboratory technician . However , the nurse working in the applicant \u2019s office had commented that at least RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) would be needed , as the laboratory technician would not accept less . Mr Y. had then paid the applicant RUB CARDINAL . The applicant had used RUB MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) to pay the laboratory technician to alter the results of PERSON blood test and had paid RUB CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) to the nurse to ensure her confidentiality . On DATE the applicant had received a further RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) from Mr Y. and they had agreed on MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) to be paid at DATE . Immediately afterwards , the police had entered the applicant \u2019s office , charged him with abetting bribery and arrested him on the spot .","On DATE the ORG of Cheboksary examined the applicant \u2019s case . The applicant testified that he had at first refused to help PERSON with his request . He conceded that he had taken the money from Mr Y. but only because PERSON had described his difficult personal situation and had strongly urged and incited the applicant to help him .","Mr Y. testified that on DATE he had consumed QUANTITY of vodka in the presence of the police officers who were to participate in the undercover operation . He did not know the name of the applicant at the time . Following some documentary formalities , they all proceeded to the local narcology centre , where the applicant had first established that he tested positive for alcohol . When he and the applicant were alone , he had asked the applicant to tamper with the results of his blood test to prevent him losing his driving licence . The applicant had refused and had sent him off to the laboratory for a blood sample . He had then urged the applicant to help him out once again , had offered him money , and the applicant had at last agreed . On DATE he had met the applicant in his office . The applicant had told him that he needed to pay RUB CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) or CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to the laboratory technician . However , PERSON had given RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to the applicant as the nurse in the applicant \u2019s office had commented that the technician would not take less than that . The applicant had later informed him that the technician would modify the test results accordingly . On DATE he had paid RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to the applicant in addition to the money given earlier and had agreed to pay a further RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) later , at the applicant \u2019s request .","The police officer responsible for the undercover operation testified that in DATE the police had received information implicating the applicant and other staff members at the regional narcology centre in bribetaking . In DATE an undercover operation had been planned and launched with the participation of CARDINAL of the police officers , PERSON In the course of the operation , the applicant had agreed to tamper with the results of a forensic medical test in return for financial remuneration from PERSON The undercover operation had been both audio - recorded and videotaped and a body search of the applicant at the end of the operation had revealed that he had marked banknotes on his person .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of abetting bribery and sentenced him to imprisonment for DATE and DATE and to a DATE ban on federal and municipal employment . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s plea of entrapment in its entirety as it found that the police had conducted the undercover operation in a lawful manner . The applicant appealed , pleading police incitement to commit the offence of which he was convicted .","On DATE ORG found the applicant \u2019s entrapment claim unsubstantiated and upheld his conviction on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184649","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SARISHVILI-BOLKVADZE v. GEORGIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 34) Individual applications;(Art. 34) Victim;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son , PERSON , fell off a crane while fixing electric cables . He was admitted to the intensive care unit of ORG the hospital \u201d ) . His injuries included a fractured skull and brain damage .","On DATE doctors observed that PERSON had gastrointestinal bleeding and he was given the relevant treatment . On DATE he was transferred to a general medical ward as there had been an improvement in his condition .","On DATE PERSON \u2019s state of health deteriorated and he was transferred back to the intensive care unit because of a bleeding duodenal ulcer . Urgent surgery was performed on DATE to stop the bleeding , but he died on DATE .","It appears from the criminal case files that the applicant refused to allow an autopsy of PERSON \u2019s body .","On DATE the hospital informed the GPE police that PERSON had been admitted with traumatic injuries . An investigator visited the hospital but was unable to question him in view of his state of health .","On DATE the investigator returned to the hospital to enquire about the incident of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and was informed that the applicant \u2019s son had died . An investigation was launched into PERSON \u2019s death and the applicant was questioned DATE .","On DATE the investigator ordered an examination by a panel of experts of ORG under ORG ( \u201c the forensic bureau \u201d ) of GPE ( \u201c AAR \u201d ) in order to determine the exact cause of PERSON \u2019s death . The examination was carried out DATE and DATE . The report that followed ( \u201c report no . CARDINAL-k \u201d or \u201c the first report \u201d ) stated as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . As ... no autopsy was performed upon [ G.B. \u2019s ] death , the exact cause of his death is unknown to the ... panel [ even though ] the [ related ] medical records indicate abdominal bleeding ...","We consider that a medical error was committed with respect to PERSON \u2019s treatment in terms of the timing of the surgery , which was caused by an incorrect assessment of the clinical , endoscopy and laboratory data . \u201d","On DATE a criminal medical negligence case was opened against the relevant doctors of the hospital , in which the applicant was granted victim status .","The experts of the forensic bureau who had participated in the panel examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were questioned as part of the investigation . The majority confirmed the earlier findings , stating that the therapeutic treatment had been adequate , but an assessment of the delay in surgery was the exclusive competence of a surgeon on the panel . The latter reiterated the findings of the report that the surgery had been delayed in view of several previously registered relapses of bleeding . He added however that this might not have made any difference to the fatal outcome .","The head of the expert panel further stated that a conclusive finding on the exact cause of death could not be reached without a forensic examination of the body .","On DATE , relying on the findings of the expert panel , a prosecutor applied to the first - instance court for permission to exhume PERSON \u2019s body in order to determine the exact cause of his death . The request was granted on DATE .","On DATE the applicant refused to allow the exhumation despite being warned of its importance for the case .","On DATE the case was closed as the prosecuting authority was unable to establish a causal link between the alleged medical negligence and ORG \u2019s death without an exhumation of his body .","On DATE , relying on the findings of the panel of experts in report no . CARDINAL-k ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the GPE prosecutor wrote to ORG of the ORG . He noted that despite the closure of the investigation , the family \u2019s resistance to allow an exhumation of the body to determine the precise cause of death , and the inability to establish criminal responsibility on the part of the doctors in question , the conclusion of the panel of experts that a medical error had been committed in the course of ORG treatment called for \u201c the implementation of adequate measures to prevent similar violations . \u201d","On DATE , referring to the findings of the prosecutor and the panel of experts in report no . CARDINAL-k concerning the medical error committed in the course of ORG treatment , the director of the hospital dismissed the neurosurgeon who had been in charge of ORG treatment ( \u10db\u10d9\u10e3\u10e0\u10dc\u10d0\u10da\u10d8 \u10d4\u10e5\u10d8\u10db\u10d8 ) and reprimanded CARDINAL intensive care specialists and a surgeon .","On various dates the applicant asked for the investigation to be reopened .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office granted the applicant \u2019s request and reopened the investigation under LAW of LAW ( the offence of abandoning a patient in distress , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Several witnesses were questioned , including the then director and deputy director of the hospital , who had considered the family \u2019s resistance as grounds for not carrying out an autopsy upon PERSON \u2019s death .","On DATE the investigator obtained a second exhumation order from the court in order to determine the exact cause of PERSON \u2019s death . The applicant once again refused to allow implementation .","On DATE the prosecutor terminated the case as there was no proof causally linking the medical error with PERSON \u2019s death . It does not appear that the applicant appealed against that decision , despite it being amenable to appeal within DATE of service upon the parties .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a claim with ORG against the hospital , its medical staff and ORG of the ORG . She argued that her son \u2019s death had been caused by medical negligence , namely incorrect and delayed treatment of his gastroduodenal bleeding .","DATE , at the request of ORG , ORG of ORG ( \u201c the inspectorate \u201d ) implemented an inspection of the hospital in connection with PERSON \u2019s death , which was carried out by a panel of experts . They reached the following conclusions ( \u201c the second report \u201d ) :","\u201c The institution is carrying out medical practice without a licence in the following fields : cardiology , plastic and reconstructive surgery , proctology , urology , paediatrics , epidemiology , clinical transfusion and expert assessments of temporary incapacitation .","In relation to patient PERSON , non - licensed activity was carried out in the following fields : cardiology and clinical transfusion .","Out of the CARDINAL doctors who took part in patient ORG treatment , the invited specialists ... in endoscopy and ophthalmology do not hold a licence to practise medicine . A neurosurgeon ( currently dismissed from the post ) and an intensive care specialist are practising medicine independently despite being ... junior doctors . The doctor ... working as a transfusion specialist is a certified paediatrician ...","... [ I]t is evident that the surgery , the sole purpose of which was to definitively determine the cause of bleeding and stop it , was carried out too late . It is difficult to determine whether the scope of the surgery was adequate , as it is impossible to determine the exact location of the ulcer ( there is no forensic pathology examination report concerning the body and the CARDINAL endoscopy specialists reached different conclusions concerning the ulcer \u2019s location ) .","It is also worth mentioning that a pathomorphological analysis of the material obtained during the surgery was not carried out ... \u201d","An undated study of the relevant medical files , ordered by the inspectorate from a professor of surgery at the Tbilisi State Medical University ( \u201c the third report \u201d ) noted the difficulty of making categorical claims in the absence of an autopsy of the body . It nevertheless pointed to a lack of adequate supervision by a surgeon , despite the relapses of abdominal bleeding , inadequacies in the choice of treatment , and a lack of appropriate diagnostic measures for the timely detection and possibly even aversion of the otherwise risky surgery . Stressing that it was conventional treatment methods that had been insufficiently explored , the report continued to note that it would be incorrect to make a categorical assertion , such as in the first report , as regards the medical error in relation to the delay in the otherwise high - risk surgery .","On an unspecified date CARDINAL experts of the forensic bureau gave statements to the court and confirmed the findings of the first report that a medical error had been committed in terms of the delay in surgery . They further indicated that the cause of PERSON \u2019s death , according to the medical records , was gastroduodenal bleeding which could have been averted by timely and adequate medical treatment .","On DATE , relying on the expert reports and the medical documentation available in the case files , ORG ruled in favour of the applicant . It concluded that the doctors of the hospital had been responsible for a medical error resulting in the patient \u2019s death . It further noted that the participation in the patient \u2019s treatment of doctors not holding the appropriate medical licences reinforced the conclusion that he had not been offered adequate medical care . The court took the decision of the hospital director of DATE dismissing the neurosurgeon in charge of ORG \u2019s treatment and reprimanding CARDINAL intensive care specialists and a surgeon ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as acknowledgment that medical negligence had been committed in the course of ORG treatment .","The applicant was awarded CARDINAL NORP laris ( GEL , PERCENT ( ORG ) ) in respect of pecuniary damage . Relying on section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the court also awarded non - pecuniary damages in the amount of GEL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . As the contract concerning ORG treatment had only been concluded with the hospital , the latter was found to be the only appropriate respondent and was accordingly ordered to pay the corresponding amount . Both the applicant and the hospital appealed , disagreeing with the court \u2019s assessment of the facts and the scope of the award .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s reasoning . It noted as follows :","\u201c Based on an analysis of the evidence before it , the appellate court concludes that in the course of PERSON treatment in [ the hospital ] the medical negligence of the medical staff ( insufficient attention towards the patient , misdiagnosis ) caused harm to a person \u2019s health and eventually caused the patient \u2019s ... death . \u201d","The appellate court continued to note that :","\u201c In addition to establishing that harm was caused to a person \u2019s health as a result of the medical negligence of the [ hospital ] staff , it can also be established from the case files that [ the hospital ] was carrying out unlicensed activities in a number of medical fields and at the same time some of the medical staff did not have authorisation to practise medicine independently , in violation of the requirements of the [ relevant legislation ] ... \u201d","ORG of Appeal further found the hospital to be the only appropriate respondent to pay the damages in respect of the medical negligence of the doctors . As regards who should be held responsible for the hospital and its doctors operating without the necessary licences , it was noted that :","\u201c ORG of the ORG can not be held responsible in the present case ... for [ the hospital ] operating in certain medical fields without the requisite licences considering that , in accordance with LAW , the issuance of such licences is [ the exclusive competence ] of ORG of GPE .","Accordingly , the claim for ... pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages with respect to ORG of the ORG is groundless . \u201d","The appellate court upheld the lower court \u2019s award of nonpecuniary damages and increased the amount of pecuniary damages to GEL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","Both parties appealed , disagreeing with the court \u2019s assessment of the facts and the scope of the award .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision without holding an oral hearing . Referring to the evidence available in the case files , the court found that despite the fact that the exact cause of death could not be determined without an exhumation of the body , the case files confirmed that gastroduodenal bleeding was the cause of death and that a medical error had been committed in terms of the surgery and an incorrect assessment of the various data .","ORG further upheld the lower courts\u2019 findings that the hospital had been carrying out unlicensed medical activities and noted as follows :","\u201c It is confirmed ... that [ the hospital ] was carrying out unlicensed medical activities in the following fields : cardiology , plastic and reconstructive surgery , proctology , urology , paediatrics , epidemiology , clinical transfusion and expert assessments of temporary incapacitation . Unlicensed medical activities performed in respect of PERSON were in the following fields : cardiology and clinical transfusion . Of the medical staff invited to treat ... PERSON ... the endoscopy specialist and ... an ophthalmologist did not have a certificate [ authorising them ] to practise medicine . [ Those ] appointed as junior doctors ... the neurosurgeon ( currently dismissed ) and ... the intensive care specialist were practising medicine independently . The doctor ... certified as a paediatrician was working as a transfusion specialist . ORG upholds the views of the appellate court that this gave rise to a violation of ... LAW and ... LAW . \u201d","ORG noted that ORG of GPE was the entity responsible for issuing licences to medical institutions and that the applicable legislation did now allow medical institutions and individual doctors to practise medicine without requisite licences ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . It did not elaborate on whether responsibility could be attributed to the respondent ORG of the ORG .","The award of pecuniary damages in the amount of GEL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) was upheld .","As regards the question of non - pecuniary damages , ORG found that domestic law did not entitle the applicant to receive an award for non - pecuniary damage for the death of her son . In particular , it observed as follows :","\u201c Under LAW , harm caused to a person \u2019s health during his or her treatment at a medical institution ( a result of surgery or misdiagnosis etc . ) shall be compensated on a general basis . In accordance with LAW , monetary compensation for non - pecuniary damage may be requested only in the cases expressly provided for by law , in the form of reasonable and fair compensation . LAW does not define moral ( non - pecuniary ) damage ... Under LAW , not all types of moral harm ( mental suffering ) shall be compensated , even if there is no doubt as to its existence , only those for which compensation is expressly provided for by law ... Accordingly , in accordance with the practice of ORG of GPE , non - pecuniary damage resulting from the infringement of the right to life of a person \u2019s husband , child or other relative shall not be compensated as it is not expressly provided for by law ... \u201d","ORG disagreed with the lower court \u2019s interpretation that the right to claim non - pecuniary damages under section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW also applied to the death of a relative , and noted that that right was strictly personal . ORG therefore rejected the applicant \u2019s claim for non - pecuniary damages , noting that :","\u201c It is undisputed that a parent is subjected to moral pain as a result of the death of a young child , but it shall not be compensated considering that it is not expressly provided for by the law in force . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142429","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ISMAILOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Expulsion)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . Prior to his arrest in DATE he resided in GPE , in ORG . He is currently detained in the special detention facility in GPE , in LOC .","NORP Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE . His family members , including a minor son , live in GPE . From DATE TIME he went to GPE on several occasions , in order to earn money .","On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE to look for employment . On DATE the period of the applicant \u2019s lawful residence in GPE expired .","On DATE he was fined for failure to comply with immigration laws . He did not leave the country at that point .","On DATE the investigator at ORG of GPE of GPE charged the applicant with establishing , leading or participating in religious extremist , separatist , fundamentalist or other prohibited organisations ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) . The applicant was accused , in particular , of membership of a banned religious extremist organisation , \u201c ORG \u201d , and a terrorist organisation , \u201c O\u2019zbekiston PERSON \u201d , DATE and DATE . According to the relevant investigator \u2019s decision , the applicant , together with his brother and CARDINAL other persons , \u201c planned to destroy the constitutional order of GPE \u201d and then \u201c to create an NORP State on the territory of PERSON , GPE \u201d . For these purposes they had moved to GPE and started to \u201c study the ideology of the head of the terrorist movement , PERSON , and PERSON , also known as ORG \u201d . Further , together with other members of O\u2019zbekiston PERSON , they had planned an attack with intent to destroy the constitutional order of GPE and other countries in order to create an NORP State there . They had also attempted to \u201c carry out terrorist attacks \u201d . The investigator stated that there was sufficient evidence against the applicant , without giving further details .","On DATE , ORG of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest and his name was put on a cross - border wanted list .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in the town of GPE in LOC , pursuant to a request by the NORP authorities , and was detained pending extradition .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE submitted a formal request for the applicant \u2019s extradition . The request contained assurances that the applicant would be prosecuted only for the offences for which he was extradited , that he would be able to freely leave GPE when he had stood trial and served any sentence , and that he would not be expelled or extradited to a third State without the consent of the NORP authorities . The NORP prosecutor \u2019s office further assured its NORP counterpart that the applicant would not be prosecuted in GPE on political or religious grounds , that he would not be subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment , that he would be provided with an opportunity to defend himself , inter alia through legal assistance , and that the criminal proceedings against him would be conducted in compliance with the domestic law of GPE . It was pointed out in the letter that all forms of inhuman and degrading treatment were prohibited in the destination country .","On DATE the lawyer representing the applicant in the domestic proceedings filed objections against the extradition request . He argued that according to independent international observers , illtreatment was widespread in the NORP prison system and fair trial guarantees were not respected . Referring to the ORG \u2019s case - law on the matter , he submitted that the applicant , who was charged with a religious offence , would run a risk of illtreatment and would be deprived of the minimum fair trial guarantees if extradited to the requesting country .","On DATE ORG Office of GPE refused the NORP authorities\u2019 extradition request . It appears that the decision was not appealed against , and the extradition proceedings were discontinued . The parties did not submit a copy of the decision .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Prosecutor \u2019s ORG , in reply to a letter from the applicant \u2019s lawyer , notified the applicant of the decision to refuse his extradition to GPE .","On DATE , that is , DATE after the applicant \u2019s arrest , ORG authorised his detention pending extradition . It appears that the decision was not appealed against .","On DATE ORG extended the period of his detention to a total of DATE , that is , until DATE . That decision was upheld by ORG on appeal on DATE . Until DATE the applicant was detained in remand prison ORG SIZO-CARDINAL in LOC of ORG .","On DATE , that is , DATE before the date when he was due to be released , the applicant was transferred to the GPE police station . On DATE the authorised term of his detention pending extradition expired , and the GPE town prosecutor ordered the applicant \u2019s release .","According to the applicant , at TIME on DATE he was let out into the internal yard of the police station . He was not provided with any documents confirming his release from custody . Immediately afterwards , at CARDINAL a.m. on DATE , he was arrested in the yard by officers of the local department of ORG in connection with a violation of immigration laws ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) ) and taken into custody .","The Government submitted that \u201c according to the [ case ] materials on the applicant \u2019s detention \u201d he had had to be released from custody at TIME on DATE .","According to the custody register at the GPE police station , the applicant was released from detention at TIME on DATE , on account of the expiry of the time - limit for his detention .","According to ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant was arrested at QUANTITY near the GPE police station in the course of an \u201c extraordinary check \u201d by ORG unit of ORG of ORG .","At CARDINAL a.m. on DATE an officer of ORG of the ORG drew up a record of the applicant \u2019s arrest \u201c for the establishment of the circumstances of an administrative offence following a request by ORG of ORG . \u201d At some point in TIME of DATE an administrative - offence record was drawn up in respect of the applicant in connection with his failure to leave GPE after DATE . At some point on DATE the applicant was interviewed by the head of the Arzamas unit of ORG and submitted , inter alia , that he had not applied for refugee status in GPE and had not had valid reasons not to leave GPE .","On DATE ORG of the Nizhniy Novgorod Region examined the applicant \u2019s case . During the hearing the applicant acknowledged that he had not left GPE after DATE , contrary to the requirements of the immigration laws . However , his representative submitted that , in accordance with Article CARDINAL of the ORG , administrative proceedings should have been brought against him immediately upon the obtaining of sufficient data indicating the occurrence of an administrative offence . The applicant had been arrested on CARDINAL DATE , and by DATE the authorities had been in possession of sufficient information on the applicant \u2019s immigration status . However , administrative proceedings had been brought against him DATE , once the term of his detention pending extradition had expired . In these circumstances , the defence considered that the administrative removal of the applicant , if ordered , would amount to a form of extradition in disguise .","The defence further referred to reports by the ORG , international nongovernmental organisations , and the ORG \u2019s case - law , arguing that the applicant was wanted by the NORP authorities in connection with charges relating to a religious offence , and thus he would run a risk of illtreatment if expelled to GPE .","Finally , they submitted that in any event his expulsion could not be ordered , since refugee - status proceedings were pending in respect of him . They pointed out in this connection that he had appealed against the refusal of CARDINAL DATE to grant him refugee status ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and had received no response by the time of the events .","ORG found that the applicant had been residing in GPE in breach of the immigration laws . The court established that at CARDINAL a.m. on DATE at the address of the GPE police station \u201c the applicant had failed to leave GPE after the expiry of the registration term , that is , CARDINAL DATE \u201d . The court established that there were no circumstances precluding his administrative removal from GPE . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument as regards the refugeestatus proceedings , observing that \u201c according to the letter of DATE by ORG ( \u201c the NORP FMS \u201d ) , his relevant application had been rejected \u201d ( see , for the contents of the letter , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It also noted , without giving further details , that the defence \u2019s submissions as regards the risk of torture in GPE \u201c could not be accepted as wellfounded \u201d . In accordance with LAW of the ORG the court found the applicant liable to pay a fine in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) and ordered his administrative removal from GPE . Citing the provisions of the ORG on controlled forced removal ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the court decided that the applicant should be detained in a special detention centre at ORG of the Interior ( \u00ab \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0435\u043c\u043d\u0438\u043a PERSON \u043f\u043e PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 PERSON ) until his administrative removal . No specific timelimit for the applicant \u2019s detention was given by the court .","On DATE the ORG indicated to the ORG , under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , that the applicant \u2019s administrative removal and extradition should be suspended until further notice .","On DATE the defence appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In addition to their initial arguments , they submitted that the first - instance court had incorrectly established the facts of the case , including in respect of the applicant \u2019s arrest . Contrary to the case materials , they submitted , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had only been let out into the yard of the police station and , in any event , he had not been provided with any documents confirming his release from custody . Therefore , at CARDINAL a.m. on DATE he had not been at liberty and thus had been unable to deliberately \u201c avoid leaving GPE \u201d . They further maintained that the applicant \u2019s expulsion would amount to his \u201c extradition in disguise \u201d . The extradition proceedings in respect of him had been pending at the material time . The applicant , if removed to GPE , would be unable either to challenge any decision taken within the extradition proceedings , or to benefit from the minimum guarantees in such proceedings .","They also stated that , contrary to the court \u2019s findings , no final decision in the refugee - status proceedings had been taken on CARDINAL DATE , as clearly confirmed by the letter of the NORP ORG . Where an application for refugee status was made , domestic law prohibited the expulsion of an applicant in the absence of a final decision on his refugee status . They stressed that the first - instance court had failed to make any assessment of their ill - treatment argument , and reiterated their submissions as regards the risk of ill - treatment if the removal order were to be enforced . Finally , they submitted that the decision ordering the applicant \u2019s detention did not contain any time - limit and was therefore in breach of LAW .","On DATE the ORG upheld the administrative removal order , finding that the first - instance court had correctly established the facts of the case , assessed the admissibility of various items of evidence and applied the domestic law . The appeal court upheld the administrative sanction as lawful and found no grounds to amend it . As regards the applicant \u2019s argument about the authorities\u2019 failure to bring the administrative proceedings against him in a timely manner , the court noted that the administrative - offence record had been drawn up in accordance with the domestic procedure . The court found nothing in the applicant \u2019s submissions to suggest that his family members had been persecuted in GPE . Finally , it noted the applicant had not been granted refugee status in GPE . The administrative removal order became final .","After DATE the applicant was detained in the special detention facility in GPE . At some point before DATE he was transferred to the special detention facility in GPE , in LOC . He remains detained there to date .","On DATE , when interviewed by the GPE town prosecutor after his arrest , the applicant stated that he had moved to GPE to look for work . Since DATE , the date of his arrival in GPE , he had not registered as a foreign national temporarily residing in the country . He stated that he had not been persecuted on political grounds in GPE , and had not applied for refugee status in GPE . He had learned that a criminal case was pending against him in his home country from his parents , since at some point local police had searched their home . However , he had been unaware of the nature of the charges and the basis on which the criminal case had been brought against him until his arrest in GPE . He made similar submissions when interviewed by the GPE district prosecutor of ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for refugee status with ORG on the ground of fear of persecution on account of fabricated charges relating to a religious offence . He stated that he did not have any religious beliefs . However , he had learned after his arrest that he had been charged with a religious offence . He submitted that the accusations against him were unfounded . He feared that in GPE he would be tortured , forced to incriminate himself and sentenced to imprisonment for religiously motivated anti - State offences he had not committed .","On DATE the ORG Novgorod ORG rejected the application . They referred to the applicant \u2019s own submissions , as well as the results of checks conducted by the local ORG and ORG . It also noted that ORG of ORG had recommended that the applicant should not be granted refugee status . The decision also contained a reference to an unspecified undated report on the ORG system and the social and economic situation in GPE . It was stated in the report , inter alia , the NORP authorities exercised close control over the religious life of the population , that GPE had ratified several ORG human rights treaties and that the use of any unlawful investigative methods was prohibited in the requesting country . The Nizhniy Novgorod ORG observed , with reference to the applicant \u2019s own submissions , that he had applied for refugee status after learning , at the time of his arrest , that he had been placed on the wanted list . Thus , there were grounds to consider the applicant \u2019s request as an attempt to avoid extradition . The GPE further found that the applicant had not had any problems with the authorities in his home country prior to his departure to GPE . Overall , ORG concluded that the applicant had not produced any \u201c objective evidence to the effect that he would be persecuted on national , religious or political grounds \u201d and that he had left GPE in order to look for employment , that is , for a reason falling outside the scope of an admissible refugee request .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the refusal with the NORP ORG office , referring to the risk of illtreatment and imprisonment in his home country . He cited reports by various NGOs for DATE pointing to serious human rights problems in GPE and stated that ORG had omitted to take into account the political and religious nature of the charges against him and to analyse the specific circumstances of his case .","The NORP ORG received the applicant \u2019s appeal on DATE and by a letter of CARDINAL DATE advised him that it would be considered upon receipt of documents from the Nizhny Novgorod FMS .","On DATE the NORP ORG dismissed his appeal . It upheld the decision of ORG , finding that the latter had examined all the relevant individual , social and political aspects of the case and had reached a well - founded conclusion . The NORP ORG found that there was no evidence that the criminal proceedings against the applicant \u201c had a political background \u201d . It noted that neither the applicant nor his wife , child , mother or father , who resided in GPE , had received any threats or been subjected to any kind of persecution , and reiterated that the applicant had only applied for refugee status after his arrest . It further found that the applicant did not fit the definition of a refugee , since a fear of criminal prosecution did not constitute a ground for granting refugee status .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the NORP ORG sent its decision to the applicant by post at the address of the remand centre in GPE . Having received the decision on DATE , he challenged it on CARDINAL DATE before ORG of GPE . He argued , in particular , that the NORP ORG had failed to address his arguments or to assess the circumstances of his case . He reiterated , in addition to his initial submissions , that the thrust of his grievance was not simply the fact of the criminal prosecution , but the fear of being subjected to torture in detention in GPE with a view to a confession being extracted in respect of offences he had not committed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and endorsed the NORP ORG \u2019s decision as lawful , noting the applicant \u2019s failure to adduce \u201c convincing arguments to support his allegations of fear of being persecuted for reasons of race , religion , nationality or membership of a particular social group \u201d . The court noted from the questionnaire completed by the applicant on the date of the submission of his application that he had not been a member of any political , religious or military organisations in his home country and had not had any problems with the authorities prior to his departure for GPE . Nothing in the statement of charges drawn up by the NORP authorities revealed any political motivation . The court reiterated that the applicant \u2019s family members were living in GPE and were not subject to any kind of persecution . The actual purpose of his application was to avoid criminal prosecution in GPE . Further , the applicant had not complained of a risk of persecution in GPE and had not expressed his wish to remain in GPE as a refugee until after his arrest . Moreover , there existed no medical reasons precluding his departure from GPE . The court concluded that the applicant did not meet the \u201c refugee \u201d definition .","The court also refused the defence \u2019s request to have Ms LOC questioned as an expert on the human rights situation in GPE .","The applicant appealed , reiterating his earlier arguments and submitting that the first - instance court had failed to assess the risk on the basis of all the available information , as well as to address his counterarguments to the NORP ORG \u2019s decision . He maintained that the charges against him were politically motivated and emphasised the risk of illtreatment , with extensive references to reports by ORG and ORG , as well as to the ORG \u2019s case - law . As regards the court \u2019s finding that none of his family members had been persecuted , he noted that on DATE his brother had also been arrested in GPE , but had then been released because his extradition had been refused by the NORP authorities .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . The applicant in his observations of CARDINAL DATE provided a copy of the information note on the case progress from the city court \u2019s website containing the case references and indicating that the appeal had been rejected and the judgment had been upheld . The parties did not submit a copy of the decision .","In their letter of CARDINAL DATE the Government submitted that at some point the applicant had applied for temporary asylum in GPE , and on DATE the ORG NORP FMS had refused his application , the refusal being upheld on DATE by the Sormovskiy ORG of Nizhniy Novgorod .","The applicant stated that he had not applied for temporary asylum and enclosed a letter from ORG of CARDINAL DATE confirming that the authority had not received any such application from him ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167813","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DNK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"NAZARI v. DENMARK","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , from the \u201c Documentation and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination \u201d ( DACoRD ) , an NGO in GPE ,","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , from ORG , and their Co - agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was born in GPE . In DATE , when he was DATE , he was granted asylum in GPE as an unaccompanied minor . In that connection he was provided with a travel document in accordance with LAW .","He acquired proficiency in the NORP language and eventually graduated from ORG . Currently he is studying at university to become a civil engineer .","The applicant maintained that on leaving GPE , he lost contact with his family . DATE , in DATE , he regained contact with his parents and siblings , who had been granted residence permits in GPE .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant applied for naturalisation . His request was refused on DATE because he did not fulfil all the criteria for being granted NORP nationality .","Based on a renewed application , on DATE the then ORG ( Ministeriet for flygtninge , indvandrere og integration ) informed the applicant that his name would be on the next bill of naturalisation , which was expected to be presented in ORG by DATE and to be passed by the ORG in DATE . It was stated that , before the passing of the law , ORG would reassess whether he still satisfied the criteria for obtaining NORP citizenship ( on DATE the tasks pertaining to nationality were transferred to ORG . Henceforth , both ministries will be referred to as \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) .","On DATE the Ministry informed the applicant that he was not eligible to have his name on the said bill and that he could not at that time become a NORP national . His name was therefore not listed on the bill introduced to ORG on DATE . The applicant was informed that he could not expect to have a re - application examined within DATE . Referring to the principles set out in section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , and section CARDINAL of LAW ( Forvaltningsloven ) , it was stated that no grounds could be given for the decision . No appeal lay against the decision by ORG .","The applicant noted that section CARDINAL of Circular Letter No . CARDINAL of DATE on ORG contained a possibility of excluding an applicant from being listed in a naturalisation bill for a specific period if ORG ( NORP Efterretningstjeneste , PET ) considered that he or she was a danger to national security . Accordingly , since he was excluded from re - applying for DATE , he was convinced that the Minister of ORG had received information from ORG that the applicant was considered to be a danger to national security , and that therefore a security assessment had been submitted to ORG with a recommendation that the applicant be excluded from being listed in a naturalisation bill for DATE . In his view , though , there was no reason to consider him a danger to national security .","Before the Court , the Government have submitted that they can neither confirm nor deny that the decision to exclude the applicant from being listed in the naturalisation bill was taken on the basis of section CARDINAL of the said Circular Letter .","NORP On DATE the applicant requested that ORG grant him access to the documents concerning him , which was refused on DATE with the information that ORG would neither confirm nor deny whether it had any information about him .","The applicant complained about that decision to ORG , which upheld it on DATE .","In the meantime , the applicant \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE that ORG grant him access to the documents concerning him was granted on DATE for the major part . A few documents were withheld with reference to the \u201c excepted information \u201d set out under LAW , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( Forvaltningsloven ) , which includes considerations for national security or defence .","The applicant did not bring the refusal to grant him NORP nationality , or the refusals to grant him access to information , before the NORP courts .","DATE set out that \u201c no alien shall be naturalised except by LAW \u201d .","Article CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , of the LAW reads as follows :","\u201c The courts of justice shall be empowered to decide any question relating to the scope of the executive \u2019s authority ; though any person wishing to question such authority shall not , by taking the case to the courts of justice , avoid temporary compliance with orders given by the executive authority . \u201d","Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of Act No . CARDINAL of DATE on NORP nationality , NORP nationality may be acquired through naturalisation granted by virtue of LAW .","The procedure for applying for nationality involves an interview with the police , preparation of the bill by a Ministry ( currently ORG ) , a debate and a decision by ORG , which is made up of CARDINAL members of ORG , and finally the passing of the bill by ORG .","The debates and votes of ORG are confidential and only ORG members can participate in the meetings . The decision to grant or refuse nationality is discretionary and not subject to any form of judicial review ( however , see below ) .","CARDINAL bills are usually passed per year , in DATE . The passing of naturalisation bills in ORG follows the same procedure as other bills , which means CARDINAL readings of the bill before it is passed by ORG . The LAW is then promulgated in LAW ) .","The initial examination of applications for naturalisation by Act of ORG is carried out by ORG . When preparing naturalisation bills and assessing whether applicants can be listed in a naturalisation bill , ORG is obliged to adhere to ORG contained in a circular ( ORG om dansk indf\u00f8dsret ved naturalisation ) , in force at the relevant time , as agreed by the majority in ORG ( Circular Letter No . CARDINAL of DATE at the relevant time ) . The guidelines stipulate the requirements that must be satisfied in order for applicants to be listed in a naturalisation bill without prior submission of their application to ORG . Applicants listed in a naturalisation bill therefore have either satisfied the requirements of the LAW or have been exempted from certain requirements following the submission of their application to the ORG . On this basis , the parties in Government who agreed on the Guidelines will vote in favour of the ORG \u2019s naturalisation bill at the readings of the bill in ORG . If an applicant fails to meet CARDINAL or more of the requirements set out in ORG , the Ministry will refuse the application in accordance with the authorisation given to ORG . The decisions by ORG to submit or refuse to submit cases to ORG , as well as the decisions of ORG , are not made pursuant to a statute , but are classified as preparation of a statute . Hence the procedure can not be characterised as an administrative process . Nevertheless , in resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG instructed ORG to comply with international conventions , and the rules of LAW and other principles of public administration to the extent possible , when preparing naturalisation bills .","By virtue of LAW , section CARDINAL , of the LAW , review by the courts of the administration \u2019s general and specific decisions is a common legal remedy . The courts can not review the exercise of administrative discretion ( see , for example , ORG ( ORG ) for DATE , p. CARDINAL ( U.CARDINAL.CARDINALH ) ) , but they can conduct a judicial review of the competence of the authority , the observance of formal rules , and the legal basis of an administrative decision , including whether it is in accordance with GPE \u2019s obligations under the Convention .","Thus , in various cases the NORP courts have reviewed whether the administrative authorities\u2019 decision was in accordance with LAW , alone or taken in conjunction with LAW ( see , for example , PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , CARDINAL , DATE , referring to ORG , p. DATE , concerning respectively family reunification , the lapse of a residence permit and a deportation order ; moreover , although a decision by ORG ( PERSON ) is final pursuant to section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( GPE ) , an alien may , by virtue of LAW , bring the case before the courts for a review of the legality of the administrative decision , including the compliance with LAW see , inter alia , PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , referring to numerous ORG judgments DATE ) .","On DATE , ORG ( H\u00f8jesteret ) passed a judgment ( U.CARDINAL.CARDINALH ) concerning the right to judicial review under LAW relating to the process of granting nationality . ORG stated , among other things :","\u201c ORG agrees with the view that the Minister \u2019s decisions to refrain from listing an applicant in a naturalisation bill or to refrain from submitting an application to ORG are elements of the legislative process . LAW , according to which the courts are empowered to decide any questions relating to the scope of the executive authority , does not apply to such decisions as no authority is exercised by the executive , see in this respect ORG judgment , reproduced on page CARDINAL of the NORP Weekly Law report ( GPE ) DATE .","GPE has acceded to LAW and several other international conventions that may be significant to the processing of applications for or to the grant of nationality . Accordingly , GPE has assumed a number of obligations under international law , compliance with which is assumed , also in the preparatory works of LAW ( Indf\u00f8dsretsloven ) , when ORG and ORG exercise their discretion as to whether NORP nationality should be granted to an applicant , see in this respect PERSON , ORG on Parliamentary Proceedings ( GPE ) DATE , supplement A , column DATE . An applicant who has not been included in a naturalisation Act can therefore request the courts to review whether obligations under international law have been breached , and whether the applicant has a claim for damages or compensation in that connection . Such judicial review will not be contrary to the authority of the ORG or ORG under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of LAW , regarding the introduction of bills , or under LAW ) on naturalisation by law . By contrast , these provisions precluded any judicial review of claims to the effect that the applicant must be listed in a naturalisation bill or must be granted nationality by an LAW . \u201d ...","In the case in question , ORG ruled in favour of the appellant and remitted the case to ORG for retrial on the merits ( whether the appellant , on the ground of his diagnosis ( PTSD ) , had suffered discrimination in violation of LAW in conjunction with LAW ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180297","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ANDREY MEDVEDEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["Following the delivery of the judgment by ORG in the applicant \u2019s case , the applicant lodged an application with ORG of GPE , asking it to review the judgment of DATE as upheld on DATE by the ORG whereby ORG had revoked the applicant \u2019s title to the flat located at MONEY , GPE , ordered his eviction and returned the flat to GPE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application . The applicant appealed . The parties have not informed ORG outcome of the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182213","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LEONOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife , PERSON . , gave birth to a son , A.","The family lived at the applicant \u2019s flat , where ORG had his registered residence . He received ongoing paediatric care at the neighbourhood children \u2019s clinic and attended a neighbourhood nursery school .","NORP In DATE PERSON . decided to leave the applicant . She moved back to her GPE residence and took PERSON with her . A. has been living with her ever since .","On DATE the applicant applied to the Justice of the Peace of ORG of GPE of GPE for a residence order under which A. would live with him . He was instructed to make corrections to his claim , which he did on DATE . On DATE the case was transferred to ORG of GPE . It registered the case on DATE and scheduled the first hearing for CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE PERSON . lodged a counterclaim , asking for a residence order under which A. would live with her , and for an interim measure pending the proceedings . She claimed , in particular , that there was a risk that the applicant might kidnap A. and take him to GPE , where his stepfather had a house . She stated that he had already tried to take GPE away from her and had in particular attempted to pick him up from the boy \u2019s nursery school .","On DATE , DATE , ORG allowed PERSON . \u2019s request for an interim measure and forbade the applicant from contacting PERSON or picking him up from the nursery school without PERSON . \u2019s prior permission . It held as follows :","\u201c The subject matter of the case is the residence of a child [ A. ] born in DATE . The parents have been unable to come to an agreement on this matter . The child is now living with his mother [ PERSON . ] . The court therefore considers that the requested interim measure would be proportionate to the claim . Otherwise , failure to take interim measures might complicate or make impossible the execution of the forthcoming judgment . \u201d","NORP The applicant learned of the interim measure on DATE . On DATE he came to visit A. at the nursery school and the teachers refused to let him see the boy , citing the interim order .","NORP In DATE and DATE the FAC and PERSON childcare authorities examined the applicant \u2019s and PERSON . \u2019s flats and found their living conditions satisfactory and suitable for a small child .","The first hearing was scheduled for DATE but it was adjourned until DATE at the applicant \u2019s request . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE but it was also adjourned until DATE for the purposes of \u201c obtaining evidence \u201d .","On DATE the FAC childcare authority issued its report on the case . It considered that , by reason of his very young age , A. should reside with his mother . The childcare authority considered that it was particularly important for a child to be raised by the mother until DATE . A lack of maternal care during that period , and in particular during the behavioural crises that a DATE typically undergoes , could result in the child developing negative character traits , such as stubbornness , surliness , hysterical reactions and inadequate social adaptation . The residence arrangements could be reconsidered after A. had reached DATE .","On DATE GPE ordered an expert psychological examination and adjourned the proceedings . The experts were asked their opinion on what residence arrangements would be in PERSON \u2019s best interests .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against the decision of DATE ordering an expert examination . The appeal hearing was scheduled for DATE but was adjourned until CARDINAL DATE because the parties did not appear . On DATE ORG upheld on appeal the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The case file was sent to the experts on DATE .","Meanwhile , as PERSON . had prevented him from seeing PERSON , the applicant applied to the childcare authority for a contact order . On DATE the childcare authority rejected the application , referring to the interim measure imposed by ORG .","On DATE ORG received by post the applicant \u2019s appeal , dated DATE , against the decision of DATE ordering the interim measure . The applicant submitted that there had been no justification for the interim measure , which had been motivated solely by the prevailing belief that a child should be raised by the mother rather than the father . He further submitted that the interim measure was contrary to A. \u2019s best interests . A lack of contact with his father and the paternal family PERSON grandparents , uncle , aunt and cousins DATE to whom he was very attached might cause A. psychological trauma . It might , moreover , result in A. \u2019s estrangement from his father or , given his very young age , even his forgetting his father altogether . It also created a risk that PERSON . might turn PERSON against his father . It might in turn mean that the results of any future expert examinations \u2013 and , by extension , any future judicial decision on the child \u2019s residence DATE would be biased against the applicant . Lastly , the applicant submitted that the interim measure breached his right to maintain contact with his son .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace of ORG of LOC of GPE convicted PERSON . of assault and battery , a criminal offence under LAW . In particular , the court found it established that on DATE the applicant had approached PERSON . and PERSON while they were playing at the local public beach and had hugged his son . PERSON . had immediately snatched the boy away from him and had hit the applicant CARDINAL times , causing him bodily injuries , before carrying the boy away . A fine was imposed on her .","On DATE the experts issued their report . They found that it would be beneficial for A. to maintain contact with both parents . He was equally attached to both of them . Both parents were equally capable of raising the child . The serious conflict currently persisting between the parents could negatively affect ORG \u2019s psychological development .","On DATE the proceedings were resumed . Hearings were scheduled for DATE and DATE but could not take place because some of the participants did not appear .","On DATE the PERSON childcare authority issued its report on the case . It found that A. should reside with his mother , referring to A. \u2019s young age and the fact that he had lived with his mother for some time already and was attending a neighbouring nursery school .","During the hearing of DATE the applicant lodged an objection against the judge of ORG , submitting that she ( that is to say the judge ) had stated on several occasions that she would rule against the applicant because according to the established practice of GPE a residence order was always made in favour of the mother . The judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection .","On DATE ORG allowed a request lodged by the applicant for the proceedings to be stayed ; it accordingly stayed the residence order proceedings pending the criminal proceedings against PERSON .","On DATE ORG upheld PERSON . \u2019s criminal conviction on appeal . The conviction acquired binding force .","On DATE ORG quashed on appeal the decision of CARDINAL DATE ordering the interim measure . It found that the interim measure had been unconnected to the subject matter of the case and had therefore been disproportionate . There had been no evidence that the execution of the forthcoming judgment might be complicated or impossible . By applying the interim measure , the judge had prejudged the case . ORG remitted PERSON . \u2019s request for an interim measure for fresh examination by ORG , which rejected it on DATE as unsubstantiated .","Meanwhile , on DATE the childcare authority instructed PERSON . that she should stop preventing PERSON from seeing his paternal family .","On DATE the ORG granted the divorce of the applicant and PERSON .","On DATE ORG , acting by way of supervisory review , quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE upholding PERSON . \u2019s conviction and remitted the criminal case for fresh examination by the appellate court .","On DATE the ORG resumed the residence order proceedings and held a hearing .","During the hearings the applicant stated that he possessed a comfortable flat in a safe and ecologically clean neighbourhood , with parks and schools in the vicinity . Before the applicant \u2019s separation from his former wife , PERSON had attended a nursery school in that neighbourhood . The applicant also had a countryside residence . Being the owner of his own business , he had flexible working hours and could therefore devote a lot of time to his son . He had always paid child maintenance and his income permitted him to give the child a good education . There was a strong personal attachment between the applicant and his son ; PERSON was also very attached to his paternal family \u2013 especially his cousin , who was of the same age . The applicant had positive character references : he was calm , polite and affectionate towards his son . By contrast , PERSON . was aggressive and irresponsible . She had physically assaulted him in front of A. and had been criminally convicted in connection with that incident . She had also been convicted of the administrative offence of leaving the scene of a road accident and had had her driving licence suspended for DATE . As could be seen from the documents submitted by the applicant to the court , she lived in a severely polluted and criminally unsafe neighbourhood in the vicinity of an oil refinery plant and a prison . Moreover , PERSON . shared her flat with her mother , who smoked and abused alcohol and could therefore have a bad influence on A. Until recently , PERSON . had prevented the applicant and his relatives from seeing PERSON , and currently she allowed occasional contact only .","The applicant \u2019s mother and sister stated that PERSON . prevented them from seeing PERSON . was often aggressive and occasionally abused alcohol . All her family smoked , even in the child \u2019s presence . A. was very attached to his father and obviously suffered from their forced separation .","Ch . stated that the applicant would have no time to take care of the child as he was managing a business , was following a distance - learning course at a university and had earlier stated his intention of building a countryside residence . PERSON . had a higher education and was working . The alleged defects in her character and behaviour to which the applicant had referred had been confirmed by his relatives only .","A teacher from ORG \u2019s current nursery school stated that she had seen the applicant once and that he had made a bad impression on her . On DATE he had come to the nursery school and had told her that he wanted to take A. home with him . When she had refused to let him in , referring to the court order prohibiting any contact between them , he had become agitated and had talked about taking A. away with him when the children went out for a walk .","The director of the nursery school gave a similar description of the incident . She said that the applicant had become angry when he had learned of the court decision ordering the interim measure , had asked for a copy of that measure and had called his lawyer .","The following documents were submitted by the parties for the court \u2019s examination : ( i ) the applicant \u2019s and PERSON . \u2019s pay statements , ( ii ) documents showing that the district where PERSON . lived was among the most polluted districts of GPE , ( iii ) documents from the criminal case file against PERSON . , and ( iv ) documents relating to A. \u2019s medical history and PERSON \u2019s pre - school education both at the applicant \u2019s place of residence prior to his GPE separation and at the mother \u2019s place of residence after the separation .","On DATE the ORG granted PERSON . \u2019s application for a residence order in her favour and dismissed a similar application by the applicant . It held as follows :","\u201c Having examined the entirety of the evidence , the court finds that there is a very serious conflict between the parties as regards the child \u2019s residence arrangements , ... which has a negative impact on the child by creating a psychologically unhealthy and tense atmosphere around him . At the same time , each parent , taken alone , possesses moral , personal and other qualities rendering each of them capable of raising a small child . According to the expert report , the child is equally attached to both of them . It also follows from the expert report that the GPE improper behaviour towards each other may have negative psychological consequences for the child .","The court notes that [ ORG . \u2019s ] criminal conviction for assaulting [ the applicant ] has not yet acquired binding force . It however takes into account the criminal charges brought against her . It is clear that the incident was prompted by the personal hostility [ between the applicant and PERSON . ] caused by a disagreement on the issue of their son \u2019s residence and education . In the court \u2019s opinion , these charges can not constitute a decisive reason for making a residence order in favour of the father . There is an accumulation of reasons on the basis of which the court considers that the child should live with the mother .","In the present case the court is guided by the best interests of child [ A. ] , who at the moment of the judgment has not yet reached DATE and who has an established way of life . For a long time the child has lived with his mother at her place of residence and has attended a nursery school there . Given his age , a change of residence and a separation from the mother will have a negative impact on the child \u2019s general and psychological state .","The court considers that [ the applicant \u2019s ] arguments that the district where [ ORG . ] lives is polluted and that close members of her family smoke can not serve as a basis for making a residence order in favour of the father because , as mentioned above , a change of residence will have a negative impact on the child . [ The applicant \u2019s ] arguments that he has better living conditions and a better financial situation than [ PERSON . ] are not decisive for granting a residence order to the father either .","The childcare authorities are unanimous that it is in [ A. \u2019s ] interests to live with the mother . The court agrees with that finding .","The court also finds that [ the applicant \u2019s ] request for a residence order is at the moment premature . [ The applicant ] is entitled to apply for a reconsideration of the issue after ORG has reached a more conscious age [ \u043f\u043e \u0434\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0436\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044e \u0441\u044b\u043d\u043e\u043c \u0431\u043e\u043b\u0435\u0435 \u0441\u043e\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0432\u043e\u0437\u0440\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430 ] . \u201d","The applicant appealed , repeating the arguments he had raised before ORG . He relied , in particular , on the right to equality between spouses .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well - reasoned and justified .","On DATE the ORG of GPE found it established that PERSON . was preventing the applicant and his family \u2013namely his mother , brother and sister \u2013 from seeing A. It held that PERSON was entitled to maintain contact with his father and his paternal family and determined the contact schedule as follows . The applicant should be able to have contact with PERSON ( i ) on DATE from TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE at the applicant \u2019s place of residence , in the mother \u2019s absence and with the right to attend outdoor activities for children , and ( ii ) for DATE during DATE during DATE on dates agreed with the mother , provided that the child is in good health , with the right to leave GPE and to go abroad . The applicant \u2019s mother , brother and sister should be able to have contact sessions with A. from TIME until TIME on DATE at the applicant \u2019s place of residence .","On an unspecified date ORG upheld that judgment on appeal .","On DATE the ORG upheld PERSON . \u2019s conviction for assault and battery on appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154537","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ZAVODNIK v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE his former employer , company PERSON , transferred him to another company .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against the company GPE before ORG , complaining about his transfer .","On DATE the ORG came into force in respect of GPE .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s case was transferred to the ORG division of ORG .","DATE the court held CARDINAL hearings .","On DATE ORG established that the applicant \u2019s transfer had never taken effect and that his employment with the defendant had continued . It ordered company GPE to re - employ the applicant and to pay him the salary due and the applicable benefits backdated to DATE of his transfer . It dismissed the remainder of the claim . The applicant appealed .","NORP In a decision of DATE the NORP Pensions and ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s right to a pension as of DATE . His employment relationship with GPE , which as of that date had still not re - employed him , hence terminated .","On DATE the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was upheld by ORG and became final .","As GPE had not executed the court \u2019s judgment , on DATE the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings before ORG .","On DATE the court suspended the enforcement proceedings pending a final resolution of bankruptcy proceedings which had been instituted in the meantime against GPE ( see below ) .","On DATE the court decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings , since the applicant \u2019s claims had been recognised in the bankruptcy proceedings . The decision became final on DATE .","On DATE the FAC decided to institute bankruptcy proceedings against the company GPE","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim in the bankruptcy proceedings , seeking CARDINAL NORP tolars ( SIT , MONEY ( ORG ) ) payable under the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the court held the first main hearing in order to review the claims lodged by the creditors . It was decided that a committee of creditors would not be appointed . According to the applicant , both the receiver and the insolvency panel had assured him and his son , GPE , who represented him , that they would inform them of any progress in the case , in particular of the scheduling of hearings concerning the distribution of the estate . On DATE the insolvency panel acknowledged part of the applicant \u2019s claims and referred him to the contentious proceedings in respect of the remainder of the claims . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and overturned ORG decision by instructing the receiver to institute proceedings in respect of the disputed part of the applicant \u2019s claim .","On DATE the official receiver instituted proceedings before the Slovenj ORG , requesting it to declare that the disputed part of the applicant \u2019s claim did not exist .","On DATE the receiver reported to the insolvency panel that the conclusion of the proceedings was dependent on the conclusion of bankruptcy proceedings in respect T. , a company that had been operated by GPE It was expected that a large proportion of ORG property would be transferred back to GPE , including a hotel and spa complex , ORG The receiver estimated that until that had been done , the property available for sale would not even cover the costs of the bankruptcy proceedings .","On DATE the receiver withdrew his claim against the applicant .","As a result , on CARDINAL May CARDINAL the ORG stayed the contentious proceedings .","On DATE the receiver accepted the applicant \u2019s claim in the full amount .","On DATE the applicant demanded the payment of his claim .","In his regular reports to the insolvency panel submitted DATE , the receiver emphasised that the termination of the present proceedings was dependent on the termination of the bankruptcy proceedings in respect of company ORG , which in turn were dependent on the pending denationalisation proceedings in respect of the ORG hotel complex .","In DATE ownership of the hotel complex , ORG , was transferred to the company GPE According to the receiver \u2019s reports , it could not be sold until the termination of the denationalisation proceedings .","On DATE the denationalisation proceedings were finally resolved .","On DATE the insolvency panel ordered the sale of the ORG hotel complex .","At a public auction held on DATE , ORG was sold for ORG CARDINAL . Reports on the sale were published online on the Bajta.si web portal , on a web portal for accountants , Racunovodja.si , on ORG website , and in the DATE financial newspaper , ORG .","On DATE the receiver submitted to the court a draft proposal on the main distribution of the estate . The receiver further proposed that the court issue a decision on the priority payment of the claim of the first creditor , ORG , concerning compensation for damage sustained at work , which had been recognised by a court decision .","On DATE the Slovenj ORG issued a decision on the compensation to be paid to ORG and posted it on the court \u2019s notice board .","On DATE the insolvency panel of ORG endorsed a draft proposal on the distribution of the bankrupt company \u2019s estate to the CARDINAL remaining creditors . It was proposed that each of them receive PERCENT of the claim acknowledged in the proceedings , which in the applicant \u2019s case amounted to ORG . The court scheduled a further hearing for DATE to confirm the distribution of the estate .","On DATE , DATE , ORG published its decision and posted the notification of the hearing on the court \u2019s notice board . It informed the creditors that they could lodge their objections in respect of the distribution proposal at the hearing itself or in writing before the hearing .","On DATE the notification of the hearing , with its date and venue , was published in ORG .","On DATE ORG held the hearing on the distribution of the estate and confirmed the receiver \u2019s distribution proposal . Its decision was posted on the court \u2019s notice board on DATE and could have been challenged within DATE .","As no appeal was lodged against the decision of DATE , it became final on DATE .","DATE the applicant became aware that the decision on distribution had already been issued . On DATE he sent a letter to ORG , asking it to serve him with the decision of DATE so that he could lodge an appeal against it .","NORP In its reply of DATE ORG asked the applicant to specify whether it should consider his letter as an appeal against the aforementioned decision .","On DATE the court decided to terminate the proceedings . It ruled that since the applicant had refused to accept the sum awarded to him , it should be deposited with the court .","On DATE the applicant amended his submission in accordance with the court \u2019s inquiry of DATE , specifying that he was complaining against the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE to terminate the bankruptcy proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He argued that he had not been properly informed about the hearing of DATE on the distribution of the estate ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that it was unrealistic to expect him to follow for DATE the notices posted on the court \u2019s board and to read all ORG in order to be informed of the progress in the proceedings . Moreover , he maintained that he should have been awarded the full amount claimed in the bankruptcy proceedings , since , like all the other employees to whom the company owed salary arrears , he had been a priority creditor in those proceedings .","On DATE the Slovenj ORG , considering the applicant \u2019s submissions of DATE and DATE as an appeal against the decision of DATE , rejected the appeal as being out of time .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision . He argued that he had not been properly informed about the bankruptcy proceedings , that he should have been treated as a priority creditor , and that the bankruptcy court should have ruled ex officio on whether his claims had been ranked correctly and granted him the full amount claimed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , holding that he should have challenged the ranking of his claims at the hearing before the first - instance court . Relying on section CARDINAL of the Compulsory Composition , Bankruptcy and Liquidation Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it further concluded that the hearing on the distribution of the estate had been correctly scheduled .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decisions of ORG DATE and DATE , reiterating in substance his complaints before the lower courts .","DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-149199","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF TOMCZYK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on remand for DATE . He was charged with a number of offences committed with an armed organised criminal group .","NORP In its decision , ORG relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question . The court further emphasised the gravity of the offences in question , the applicant \u2019s active role in the criminal group and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him after conviction . In the domestic court \u2019s view the fact that the applicant was at the time detained pending other criminal proceedings against him did not guarantee the proper course of the proceedings since the applicant could had been released at any time from the pre - trial detention without the relevant authorities , responsible for the impugned proceedings , being notified . Moreover , the necessity to obtain further evidence justified remanding the applicant in custody .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE was dismissed by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . The court emphasised that the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was necessary even though at the relevant time he was in any event detained pending another set of criminal proceedings against him .","On DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . Subsequently , ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) extended the applicant \u2019s detention on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and on DATE .","On DATE ORG ( Prokurator PERSON ) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with ORG . The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion and robbery committed in an organised and armed criminal group and with participation in an organised and armed criminal group . The bill of indictment comprised CARDINAL charges brought against CARDINAL defendants . The prosecution authorities requested that CARDINAL witnesses be heard before the court .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention on remand until DATE . Subsequently , the same court ordered prolongation of his detention on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) , on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) and on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) . The applicant lodged a number of motions to be released as well as appeals against the decisions extending his pre - trial detention , all in vain .","In their decisions the courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged an appeal against CARDINAL of the decisions extending the applicant \u2019s detention . The lawyer argued that the reasons for continued pre - trial detention ceased to exist since the applicant had started serving a CARDINAL years\u2019 prison sentence imposed by ORG in the case no . PERSON .","Meanwhile , the court scheduled QUANTITY hearings for DATE . Due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and of some of the accused those hearings did not take place .","The trial was eventually opened on DATE . Subsequent scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences of some of the co - accused and due to problems with sound system in the court room .","In DATE ORG gave a severance order and decided to determine charges against CARDINAL co - accused separately .","The bill of indictment was finally read out to the defendants at the hearing held on DATE .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG started taking evidence from the accused . It subsequently held CARDINAL hearings until DATE , during which some of the accused gave evidence . CARDINAL of the scheduled hearings were adjourned due to sick - leaves of the accused . CARDINAL hearing was adjourned because of the motion for disqualification of the presiding judge lodged by CARDINAL of the co - accused .","In DATE ORG continued taking evidence from the defendants . Of the CARDINAL hearings scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL took place . The trial court adjourned DATE hearings due to justified absences of the parties , QUANTITY hearings were cancelled due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and the lay judges .","Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE ORG lodged a motion with ORG to extend the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . On DATE ORG dismissed the lower court \u2019s motion .","Consequently , the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was lifted on DATE .","ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL hearings were eventually held . At the hearing of DATE the trial court started taking evidence from wit","nesses .","Of the CARDINAL hearings cancelled DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned because of a sick - leave of the presiding judge , CARDINAL because of absences of witnesses , and the remaining QUANTITY hearings \u2013 because of absences of the parties .","Until DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL were adjourned due to justified absences of the defendants .","The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first - instance court .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki DATE \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) . He sought a finding that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The court found that , considering the complexity of the case and the number of co - accused who had actively tried to obstruct the proceedings , ORG had conducted the proceedings in a correct and timely manner . Consequently , the appellate court refused to award the applicant compensation ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-151056","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PARADISO AND CAMPANELLI v. ITALY","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection allowed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE","The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC .","The applicants are a married couple . In the application form , they indicated that , after unsuccessful attempts at in vitro fertilisation , they decided to resort to gestational surrogacy in order to become parents . To that end , they contacted a GPE - based clinic which specialised in assisted reproduction technology . They entered into a gestational surrogacy agreement with the company PERSON . After a successful in vitro fertilisation on DATE , CARDINAL embryos \u201c belonging to them \u201d were implanted in the womb of a surrogate mother on DATE . There was no genetic link between this woman and the embryos .","The baby was born on DATE . The surrogate mother gave her written consent to the child being registered as the applicants\u2019 son . Her written declaration , dated DATE , and read aloud at the hospital in the presence of her doctor , the head doctor and the head of the ( hospital ) department , is worded as follows ( LANGUAGE translation of the original LANGUAGE version ) :","\u201c I , the undersigned ... gave birth to a boy in the ... maternity hospital in GPE . The child \u2019s parents are an NORP married couple , PERSON , born on ... and PERSON , born on ... , who expressed in writing their wish to have their embryos implanted in my womb .","On the basis of the foregoing and in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and LAW , I hereby give my consent for the above couple \u2019s entry in the birth record and the birth certificate as parents of the child to whom I gave birth ... \u201d","This statement , in the NORP translation appended to the original , reads as follows ( in LANGUAGE ) :","\u201c I , the undersigned ... gave birth to a boy in the ... maternity hospital in GPE . The child \u2019s genetic parents are an NORP married couple , PERSON , born on ... and PERSON , born on ... , who expressed in writing their wish to have their embryos implanted in my womb .","On the basis of the foregoing and in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and LAW , I hereby give my consent for the above couple \u2019s entry in the birth record and the birth certificate as parents of the child to whom I gave birth ... \u201d","On DATE , in accordance with NORP law , the applicants were registered as the baby \u2019s parents . The NORP birth certificate , which contained no reference to the gestational surrogacy , was certified in accordance with the provisions of LAW of DATE ( hereafter , \u201c the LAW \u201d ) Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents .","On DATE the first applicant went to FAC in GPE to obtain the documents that would allow the baby to leave for GPE with her . The applicant answered questions and submitted the paperwork concerning the child \u2019s birth . ORG issued the documents enabling the boy to leave for GPE with the first applicant .","On DATE the first applicant and the child arrived in GPE . DATE the second applicant contacted the ORG , requesting that the particulars of the birth certificate be entered in the register .","In a note of CARDINAL DATE which is not included in the ORG \u2019s casefile CARDINAL the NORP FAC in GPE indicated to ORG , ORG and ORG and municipality that the paperwork in respect of the child \u2019s birth contained false information .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicants were placed under formal investigation for \u201c altering civil status \u201d within the meaning of LAW and forgery within the meaning of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code ; and also for breaching section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , since they had brought the child into the country in breach of the law and had circumvented the condition set out in the adoption authorisation obtained by them on DATE , which prohibited them from adopting such a young child .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG attached to ORG asked that proceedings to free the child for adoption be opened , since the child ought to be considered , for legal purposes , as having been abandoned . On DATE ORG appointed a guardian ad litem ( curatore special ) within the meaning of LAW no . CARDINAL and opened proceedings to free the child for adoption . On CARDINAL DATE ORG asked for a court - appointed adviser ( curatore ) to be named within the meaning of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL . A court - appointed adviser was named . It appears from the case file that the applicants protested against the measures in respect of the child and had asked to be able to adopt him .","On DATE the first applicant , assisted by a lawyer of her own choosing , was questioned by the Larino carabinieri . She stated that she had travelled to GPE alone in DATE , carrying with her seminal fluid that had previously been collected from her husband . She had concluded a contract with the company PERSON , which had undertaken to find a surrogate mother willing to have implanted in her womb genetic material from the first applicant and her husband , through ORG in GPE . This practice was perfectly legal in GPE , and made it possible to obtain a birth certificate which identified the applicants as parents . In DATE the first applicant had been contacted by the NORP company , which stated that a surrogate mother had been found and had agreed to the medical procedure . On DATE the first applicant had travelled to GPE . In DATE , with a birth certificate issued on DATE by the NORP authorities , she had gone to ORG in GPE to obtain the documents that would enable the child to leave GPE and travel to GPE . The birth certificate showed the applicants\u2019 names and identified them as the parents .","On DATE the applicants were heard by ORG . The first applicant stated that , after CARDINAL unsuccessful attempts at in vitro fertilisation , which had endangered her health , she had resorted to the NORP clinic , since it had been possible in GPE to use ova from a donor , which were subsequently implanted in the surrogate mother \u2019s womb .","At the same time , the child \u2019s court - appointed adviser asked the court to suspend the applicants\u2019 parental responsibility within the meaning of section QUANTITY of Law no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the court ordered that DNA testing be carried out in order to establish whether the second applicant was the child \u2019s biological father .","On DATE ORG asked ORG to refuse to enter the particulars of the birth certificate in the civil - status register .","On DATE the second applicant and the child underwent DNA testing . The result of those tests showed that there was no genetic link between them .","On DATE ORG refused to register the birth certificate . The applicants lodged an appeal with ORG against this refusal . ORG asked the court to give the child a new identity and to issue a new birth certificate .","ORG having ruled on DATE that it did not have jurisdiction , the proceedings resumed before ORG . The applicants demanded that the particulars of the NORP birth certificate be entered in the NORP register .","On DATE , on the basis of the genetic testing and the submissions of the parties , including those of the child \u2019s court - appointed adviser , ORG decided to remove the child from the applicants . This decision was immediately enforceable . In reaching its decision , the court took account of the following factors : the first applicant had stated that she was not the genetic mother ; the ova came from an unknown woman ; the DNA test carried out on the second applicant and the child had shown that there was no genetic link between them ; the applicants had paid a large sum of money ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) ; contrary to his allegations , there was nothing to prove that the second applicant \u2019s genetic material had indeed been transported to GPE . The only thing that was certain in this story was the identity of the surrogate mother , who was not the biological mother and who had relinquished the child just after his birth . The biological parents remained unknown . That being the case , the situation was not CARDINAL of subrogated maternity , since the child had no biological link with the applicants . The latter were steeped in illegality : they had brought a child into GPE by passing him off as their son . In so doing , they had , in the first place , breached the provisions on international adoption ( PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) , section DATE of which made such breaches a criminal offence , the assessment of which was not , however , a matter for the youth court . Secondly , the agreement entered into by the applicants with the company PERSON was contrary to the Medically Assisted Reproduction Act ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , section CARDINAL of which prohibited heterologous assisted fertilisation . This illegal situation had to be brought to an end , and the only way to do so was to remove the child from the applicants . The child would admittedly suffer harm as a consequence of the separation but , given the short period spent with the applicants and his young age , the child would be able to surmount this . Steps would be taken immediately to find a couple of adoptive parents . In addition , given that the applicants had preferred to circumvent the adoption legislation , notwithstanding the authorisation they had received , it could be thought that the child resulted from a narcissistic desire on the part of the couple or indeed that he was intended to resolve problems in their relationship . In consequence , the court cast doubt on whether they were genuinely capable of providing emotional and educational support . As the child had neither a biological family nor his surrogate mother , since she had relinquished him , the court considered that the NORP legislation on adoption was applicable to this case ( within the meaning of CARDINAL of PERSON no . CARDINAL ) , entrusted the child to the social services and appointed a guardian ( tutore ) for his defence .","The child was placed in a children \u2019s home ( casa famiglia ) in a locality that was unknown to the applicants . They were forbidden from having contact with the child .","The applicants lodged an appeal ( reclamo ) with ORG . They argued , inter alia , that the NORP courts could not call into question the birth certificate . They further requested that no measures be taken concerning the child while the criminal proceedings brought against them and the proceedings challenging the refusal to enter the birth certificate in the NORP register were pending .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . It transpires from this decision , among other points , that section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL ( LAW ) did not prevent the NORP courts from refusing to comply with certified information from a foreign ORG . There was no issue of lack of jurisdiction , since LAW of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) provided that NORP law was applicable if the alien minor had been abandoned , and that was the situation in this case . Moreover , it was unnecessary to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings , since the applicants\u2019 criminal liability was irrelevant . On the contrary , it was necessary to take an urgent measure in respect of the child , in order to put an end to the illegal situation in which the applicants existed . It was not possible to lodge an appeal on points of law against this decision .","It appears from a memorandum dated CARDINAL DATE , sent by the youth court to ORG , that the child had not yet been declared available for adoption , since the proceedings with regard to the transcription of the child \u2019s birth certificate were pending before ORG .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG attached to ORG had ordered the interim attachment of the NORP birth certificate , on the ground that it was an essential piece of evidence . It appeared from the case file that not only had the applicants probably committed the offences with which they were charged , but that they had attempted to conceal them . Among other things , they had stated that they were the biological parents , and had corrected their versions of the events over time as those versions had been proved inaccurate .","The applicants appealed against the interim attachment order .","By a decision of DATE , ORG dismissed the ORG appeal . The decision indicates that there existed serious suspicions that the offences in question had been committed . In particular , the first applicant had put about a rumour that she was pregnant ; she had gone to the FAC and implied that she was the natural mother ; she had then admitted that the child had been born to a surrogate mother ; she had stated to the carabinieri on DATE that the second applicant was the biological father , although the DNA tests had disproved this , and had therefore made false statements ; she had been very vague as to the identity of the genetic mother ; the documents concerning the surrogate motherhood stated that the CARDINAL applicants had been seen by the NORP doctors , which did not accord with the fact that the second applicant had not been in GPE ; the documents about the birth did not have a precise date . All that was known was that the child had been born and that he had been handed over to the first applicant against payment of almost EUR CARDINAL . Accordingly , the hypothesis that the applicants had conducted themselves illegally with a view to having the particulars of the birth certificate entered in the register of births , marriages and deaths and to circumventing the NORP legislation appeared sound .","In DATE the decision regarding the interim attachment was transmitted to the youth court by ORG , since it had the following implications . The charges under section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL deprived the applicants of the possibility of fostering ( affido ) the child and of adopting him or other minors . There was therefore no other solution but to proceed with the adoption procedure for the child . The temporary placement with a foster family had been requested by virtue of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL . ORG repeated his request and emphasised that the child had been removed DATE previously , and that he had since been living in a children \u2019s home ( casa famiglia ) , where he had developed meaningful relationships with the persons responsible for looking after him . Thus , the child had not yet found a replacement family environment for the home that had been illegally provided by those who had brought him to GPE . He seemed destined for yet another separation , even more painful than that from the mother who had given birth to him and from the woman who was claiming to be his mother .","It appears from the file that the child was placed in a foster family on DATE .","In DATE , at the guardian \u2019s request , an expert examination was carried out to determine the child \u2019s age . It found that the child was probably DATE , with a margin of error of DATE .","In addition , at DATE the guardian asked the juvenile court to give the child a formal identity , so that he could be registered for school without difficulty . He stated that the child had been placed in a family on DATE , but that he did not have an official identity . This \u201c lack of existence \u201d had a significant impact on administrative matters : it was unclear under what name the child was to be registered for school , for vaccination records , or for residence . Admittedly , this situation corresponded to the aim of preventing the original family , that is , the applicants , from discovering the child \u2019s whereabouts , for his own protection . However , a temporary formal identity would enable the secrecy surrounding the child \u2019s real identity to be maintained , while simultaneously enabling him to have access to public services ; for the time being , he was entitled only to use emergency medical services .","By an immediately enforceable decision of DATE , ORG ruled in respect of the birth certificate and on whether an order should be made for it to be entered in the register of births , marriages and deaths ( within the meaning of LAW ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) no . CARDINAL ) . It dismissed the objection raised by the guardian to the effect that the applicants did not have standing before the court ; it acknowledged that the applicants had capacity to act in legal proceedings , in so far as they were indicated as the \u201c parents \u201d in the birth certificate that they wished to have transcribed . However , it was clear that the applicants were not the biological parents . There had not therefore been a gestational surrogacy , although the applicants had referred in their pleadings to heterologous artificial fertilisation ; the parties agreed that the NORP legislation presupposed a biological link between the child and CARDINAL of the potential parents before the term surrogate motherhood could be used . The birth certificate was therefore fraudulent ( ideologicamente falso ) . Further , given that there was nothing to show that the child had NORP citizenship , the ORG argument that NORP law was inapplicable ran counter to section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL , which stated that the legal parent - child relationship was determined by the national law governing the child at the time of his or her birth . In addition , it was contrary to public order to enter the particulars of the disputed birth certificate in the register of births , marriages and deaths , since it was fraudulent . The applicants had pleaded their good faith , alleging that they were unable to explain why the second applicant \u2019s seminal fluid had not been used in the NORP clinic ; however , this did not alter the situation , and did not rectify the fact that the second applicant was not the biological father . In conclusion , it was legitimate to refuse to enter the particulars of the NORP birth certificate in the register of births , marriages and deaths , and to grant ORG request that a new birth certificate be issued . The court therefore ordered that a new birth certificate be issued , indicating that the child was the son of persons unknown , born in GPE on DATE , and that he be given a new name ( determined within the meaning of ORG no . CARDINAL ) .","The proceedings relating to the child \u2019s adoption were resumed before ORG . The applicants confirmed their opposition to the child \u2019s placement with third persons . The guardian asked the court to rule that the applicants no longer had locus standi . ORG asked the court not to rule on its request to declare that the child was available for adoption using the child \u2019s original name , on the ground that , in the meantime , he had opened a second set of proceedings requesting that the child be declared available for adoption using his new identity as a child of unknown parents . On DATE , in the light of the material in the file , ORG held that the applicants no longer had capacity to act in the adoption proceedings brought by them , given that they were neither the child \u2019s parents nor members of his family , within the meaning of section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL . The court stated that it would decide on the question of the child \u2019s adoption in the context of the other adoption proceedings , referred to by ORG ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155711","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SERCE v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently being detained in FAC . He is married and has CARDINAL children . His wife resides in GPE together with their children .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . ORG also decided that the applicant would be deported to GPE at the end of his prison term .","NORP In his letters to the Court , which he began sending on DATE , the applicant complained of the inhuman conditions in which he was being detained , first in FAC and then in FAC . He described a severe lack of hygiene in both prisons , with insufficient cleaning and personal hygiene products being provided by the prison authorities . He alleged that he could not sleep at TIME because of bed bugs . He also complained that the food was not adapted to his diabetes .","The applicant further alleged that throughout his detention in both prisons he had not been included in any educational activities and had not been allowed to do any work . He had thus been unable to integrate , to be re - educated or to have the term of his prison sentence reduced .","In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with type II diabetes and a sleep disorder .","In LOC the applicant was detained in cells measuring CARDINAL sq . m , which he shared with CARDINAL other prisoners ( QUANTITY . m of personal space ) . The cells contained CARDINAL beds , a window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY and their own bathroom with a shower , a sink and a toilet . LOC water was always available and hot water was available twice per week . Heating was provided during the DATE up to a maximum temperature of CARDINAL","The Government submitted that , whenever the presence of bugs was noticed , disinfection operations took place without delay . They submitted documents showing that disinfection had been performed CARDINAL or CARDINAL times per year in DATE , DATE and DATE in the cells occupied by the applicant in LOC .","NORP The food provided to the applicant was adequate and adapted to his diabetes by substituting pork with beef .","The applicant participated in educational and recreational activities whenever necessary . The Government further indicated that the applicant \u2019s reduced participation in the above - mentioned activities was due to his state of health .","The Government submitted that on DATE the applicant had been transferred to FAC where he was currently being held in a cell measuring QUANTITY m together with CARDINAL other prisoners ( QUANTITY m of personal space ) . The cell contained CARDINAL beds , QUANTITY bedside tables , one bench , one table and a box for shoes . It had a window measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY and a bathroom with a shower , a sink and a toilet . During DATE , a temperature of CARDINAL was ensured in all the cells . Hot water was provided twice per week .","With respect to the ORG personal hygiene , once per month the prison administration provided each prisoner with CARDINAL bars of soap , CARDINAL tube of toothpaste , CARDINAL tooth brush , CARDINAL tube of shaving cream , CARDINAL razor , and toilet paper . Concerning the hygiene in the cell , the Government submitted that prisoners were responsible for cleaning the cells and were provided with cleaning products by the prison administration . Regular disinfection was conducted once DATE .","The applicant received a menu adapted for his diabetes , which included QUANTITY grams of meat per day .","With respect to activities in FAC , the Government submitted that in DATE the applicant had watched a folk music concert and in DATE he had taken part in a discussion on religious themes conducted by the orthodox priest . Also , once in DATE and once in DATE the applicant had taken part in a quiz on NORP history .","In DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG based on the provisions of the LAW between GPE and GPE on the transfer of convicted persons , seeking to serve the rest of his sentence in a NORP prison . According to the applicant , he wanted the transfer in order to be closer to his family , who lived in a NORP village in humble conditions and did not have the means to travel to GPE .","ORG acted on the applicant \u2019s request and initiated the transfer proceedings . As a result , on DATE ORG acknowledged the judgment of the NORP court which had convicted the applicant and decided that the rest of the applicant \u2019s sentence should be served in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s transfer request was brought before ORG . The applicant claimed before the court that such a transfer would be in accordance with the convention signed between GPE and GPE and would allow him to see his children and to receive visits from his family , who would provide him with adequate food and treatment for his diabetes .","In a judgment of DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s transfer request , on the ground that GPE had less severe legal provisions on conditional release , which might lead to the applicant \u2019s release in a shorter period of time . The punitive and educational purpose of his sentence would thus fail to be achieved .","On DATE ORG rejected with the same reasoning a new transfer request lodged by the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164194","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SKORI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was employed by \u201c PIM \u2013 bagerovanje i vodni transport \u201d , a socially - owned company based in GPE ( \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG ( Drugi op\u0161tinski sud u ORG ) ordered the debtor to pay the applicant specified sums in respect of salary arrears , social security contributions and procedural costs . This judgment became final on the same date .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON op\u0161tinski sud u ORG ) issued an enforcement order with regard to the said judgement .","On DATE , acting upon the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal , ORG held that the applicant had suffered a breach of the \u201c right to a trial within a reasonable time \u201d with regard to the enforcement proceedings . The court ordered the acceleration of the proceedings and declared that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the non - pecuniary damage suffered in the amount of LAW , converted into the national currency at the rate applicable at the date of settlement .","The enforcement proceedings instituted on the basis of the judgment rendered by ORG on DATE continued and are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147626","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"NICOLAE v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in NORP . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In TIME of DATE at TIME the applicant , who had just returned home from a party , started arguing with his wife and CARDINAL - year - old son . Fearing that the applicant might become physically violent , his wife , ORG , called the police .","Officer PERSON from the local police , accompanied by NORP , TIME at the local mayor \u2019s office , arrived shortly afterwards at the applicant \u2019s house and entered the yard after being invited in by ORG , who complained that the applicant , who was drunk , was swearing and throwing stones . They found the applicant outside , in his underwear , in an agitated state . C.V. tried to talk to him in order to settle the dispute . After the applicant calmed down , ORG asked the policeman not to leave , so that she could collect some personal things in order to leave the house with her son . According to ORG , at that very moment the applicant became agitated again and tried to hit his son . When PERSON stepped between them , the applicant started swearing at him , hit him in the face and then appeared to lean over to pick something up from the ground . At that point PERSON , with the help of NORP , pushed him to the ground and handcuffed him . The applicant \u2019s glasses were broken in the incident .","The applicant was then taken in the police car to NORP police station , where he was held for TIME , until his wife and son arrived . He was then told he was free to leave , and walked the QUANTITY journey back home in his underwear .","In the meantime , officer ORG had drafted an event report describing the incident ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant \u2019s wife and son had signed the report as witnesses , stating in their own handwriting that \u201c the facts mentioned in the present report are true \u201d .","NORP In addition , ORG had drafted an offence report , fining the applicant CARDINAL lei for disturbing public order . The report stated that the applicant had shouted vulgar words and insults addressed to both his wife and the police officer , both at his house and once at the police station .","TIME the applicant went to see a doctor and obtained a forensic medical certificate stating that he had a QUANTITY excoriation on the left knee with swelling and functional immobility , CARDINAL excoriations measuring QUANTITY on the right knee , and a QUANTITY and CARDINAL smaller ecchymoses ( bruises ) , with swelling , on the left hand . The doctor also mentioned that the applicant had complained of pain in the lumbar area , so he had recommended him an orthopaedic examination , which he had refused . His injuries were considered to require CARDINAL to CARDINAL days\u2019 medical care .","The applicant contested the offence report drafted by ORG at the time of the incident . He alleged that there were personal reasons connected to his wife and son which had provoked his behaviour that night ; PERSON had abused his authority by not taking them into consideration and by handcuffing him and taking him to the police station .","On DATE ORG held that the offence report drafted by PERSON was corroborated by the event report signed by the applicant \u2019s wife and son . It was therefore in accordance with the law and presented the facts correctly . The court also took into account the fact that when asked to sign the offence report , the applicant , who refused to do so , did not make any objections concerning the facts as presented by ORG ; however , in view of the personal circumstances referred to by him , the court decided to replace the fine with a warning .","This judgment became final as the parties did not appeal .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint concerning the incident with the prosecutor \u2019s office of ORG . He alleged that on DATE he had not at all been violent . He had just been upset because his wife and son were constantly taking advantage of him and spending his money . The applicant considered that the police officer had only intervened that night to help ORG take things from the family home . He further complained that he had been pushed to the ground by the officer and night guard , in spite of the fact that he was old and suffering from diabetes . He also claimed that his glasses had been broken in the incident . Lastly , he requested that the truth be uncovered .","On DATE statements from all the parties involved in the incident , including the applicant , were taken by the investigating authorities . ORG declared that she had been inside the house to collect some personal things and had not seen what had happened in the moments before the applicant had been pushed to the ground and handcuffed . The applicant \u2019s son also declared that he could not see the incident as he had been busy taking things to his car . He also stated that he had offered to take the applicant home in his car on their return from the police station that night , but he had refused . A witness statement was also taken from TIME guard who had been patrolling the field across from the applicant \u2019s house . He declared that he had heard an argument that TIME between the applicant and his family . When the police had arrived , he had heard the applicant swearing at the police officer and had subsequently seen him resisting getting into the police car .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office decided not to charge C.V. At first , the prosecutor classified the applicant \u2019s complaint as a complaint of abusive conduct against C.V. Subsequently , the prosecutor held that ORG had been invited into the applicant \u2019s yard by his wife , who had requested protection , and that the officer had acted in conformity with PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which allows for anyone disturbing public order to be taken to a police station , and also allows the use of force in the event of any resistance on their part . In addition , the police officer acted in accordance with the same PERSON also when he requested support from C.A.C , who therefore was entitled to take part in the operation .","The applicant \u2019s complaint about this decision was rejected as ill - founded on DATE by the deputy prosecutor of the same prosecutor \u2019s office .","The applicant contested the ORG decisions before ORG . The applicant maintained to the court that there was no proof that he had been violent ; the police officer had therefore acted unlawfully . He also highlighted the fact that he had been taken to the police station and then left to return home in his underwear . With respect to the investigation , he complained that he had neither been heard by the prosecutor nor confronted with the CARDINAL alleged perpetrators , stressing that he had also lodged complaints against NORP , as well as both perpetrators , about the destruction of his glasses .","On DATE the ORG decided to send the case back to the prosecutor \u2019s office , because the applicant \u2019s complaint about the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE had been solved by the deputy prosecutor and not the head prosecutor , as required by law .","On DATE the head prosecutor rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint about the decision of CARDINAL DATE as ill - founded .","The applicant complained again to ORG about the ORG decisions . He attached statements from his wife and son declaring that they did not know what they had signed at the NORP police station on DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint as ill - founded . The applicant \u2019s wife and son made statements to the court that on DATE \u201c the applicant was drunk and had an uncontrolled outburst \u201d but had not been aggressive towards the police officer , who had reacted in an unjustified manner . The court decided not to take these statements into consideration since the CARDINAL of them had mentioned , at the time of the incident , in their own handwriting , that the facts as described in the event report were true . The court further held in reply to the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning the investigation that the initial complaint he had lodged was not clearly formulated ; the prosecutor had therefore correctly classified it as a complaint of abusive conduct against the police officer who had conducted the operation on DATE . Lastly , the court concluded that ORG had acted in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the organisation and functioning of the police in order to restrain the applicant , who had been aggressive towards his family and the police officer .","On DATE ORG rejected an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) brought by the applicant against this judgment as ill - founded .","The applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing throughout the entire proceedings before the domestic courts .","The relevant provisions of LAW in force at the time with regard to ill - treatment and abusive behaviour are summarised in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","NORP The relevant provisions of Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the organisation and functioning of the police , in force at the relevant time , are as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In the exercise of their duties , police officers are trustees of public authority and have the following rights and obligations :","...","b ) to accompany to the police station those who pose a danger to others , public order or other social values ... ; in cases of non - compliance with [ their ] orders , [ the police ] are authorised to use force ...","k ) to request if needed , the help of citizens in order to track , catch , restrain and accompany to the police station those suspected of committing crimes ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173467","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FERGEC v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG .","On DATE at TIME , a member of the NORP army , exploded a grenade in a pizza parlour in GPE , as a result of which ORG and CARDINAL other person died and the second applicant was gravely injured . The first applicant , who worked in a nearby flower shop , came to the scene and found the second applicant lying on the floor , covered in blood .","An on - site inspection of the crime scene was carried out on TIME by the military police and it was videotaped . The report drawn up by them indicates that ORG was dressed in civilian clothes . During the enquiry the military police took statements from witnesses and on DATE sent a report on the incident to the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG . The relevant part of the report reads :","\u201c On DATE at TIME at the ORG pizza parlour ... soldier PERSON was consuming alcoholic beverages at the bar in the company of ORG . , ORG ( an employee of the judicial police ) and GPE when all at once [ D.M. ] took an M-CARDINAL hand grenade out of his pocket and pulled out the safety clip and placed the grenade into the hand of waitress PERSON , ... who put it on the counter saying \u2018 What would I need this for?\u2019 , whereupon D.[M. ] , seeing that the grenade had been activated , took it in his right hand and turned sideways from the counter , after which an explosion occurred . [ FAC ] was killed on the spot , while PERSON . and PERSON ... sustained grievous bodily injuries and GPE ... minor bodily injuries . ... The injured were transferred to GPE and GPE . died during transport . \u201d","No further investigation ensued .","On DATE the applicants brought a civil action against the ORG in ORG . The second applicant sought damages in connection with the life - threatening injuries he had sustained in the incident of DATE , while the first applicant sought damages on account of the stress and fear she had suffered because of the event in question . The applicants argued that ORG had been on duty at the time when he had exploded the grenade , that he had been dressed in his military uniform and that his mother had obtained a survivor \u2019s pension after his death under a decision which stated that he had died on duty ( specifically , \u201c at work \u201d ) .","During the proceedings it was established that the second applicant had sustained numerous injuries to his head , face , chest , belly and lower extremities and that he was suffering from permanent consequences , such as frequent headaches , pain throughout his body , impaired hearing , double vision , fatigue and incapacity for work .","Their claim was allowed on DATE . That judgment was quashed by ORG on DATE . The first - instance court again allowed the claim on DATE . However , on DATE ORG , after an appeal lodged by the defendant , overturned the judgment and dismissed the applicants\u2019 claim . The relevant part of that judgment reads :","\u201c The first - instance court established the following :","- ORG was a member of the NORP army \u2013 a military serviceman ;","- ORG used an GPE grenade , which served a military purpose and was registered for [ use by ] the members of the NORP army ;","- the decision of CARDINAL DATE ... issued by ORG stated that the mother of ORG , who had been a NORP Homeland War veteran , obtained the right to a survivor \u2019s pension because [ ORG ] had been [ serving in the ] military when he had caused the damage , and the reasoning of that decision stated that he had died because of an injury sustained at work ;","- ORG had not been on duty .","On the basis of the thus - established facts the first - instance court concluded that the defendant was liable because the said decision of ORG stated that the death of [ ORG ] , as an active military serviceman , had occurred while [ he had been ] carrying out his official duties ...","The first - instance court also concluded that there had been a failure on the part of the defendant [ to carry out a weapons ] check under section CARDINAL of the Instruction on the Allocation , Distribution , Carrying and Use of Official Short Weapons . Had the correct check ( for which the military police were responsible under section CARDINAL of the above - mentioned Instruction ) [ been exercised in respect of ] the carrying of weapons DATE namely the grenade [ held by ORG ] without a proper licence or an identity document , DATE and the grenade been taken [ from ORG ] , the damage most likely would not have occurred .","However , this court considers that these facts , as established [ by the first - instance court ] , do not serve as a sufficient basis for concluding that the requirements for the defendant to be held liable for the concrete damage have been met .","First of all , ORG \u2019s GPE right to obtain a survivor \u2019s pension on the basis of a decision of ORG is not decisive for the defendant \u2019s liability for damage since the right to a survivor \u2019s pension was obtained on the basis of ORG \u2019s status as a NORP Homeland War DATE that is to say an insured military person . The fact that the reasoning of that decision ... states that the \u2018 insured party \u2019s death occurred because of an injury sustained at work\u2019 is not relevant for an assessment of the defendant \u2019s liability in these civil proceedings .","An assessment of the facts shows that ORG was not on duty on the critical evening ; that the GPE grenade was not given to him by his military unit ( [ according to ] a letter from ORG of CARDINAL DATE ) ; that the record of the on - site inspection carried out on DATE of [ ORG \u2019s ] death does not show that FAC was wearing a uniform ; and that nothing proved that the grenade in question was the property of the defendant ( that ORG had unlawfully obtained the grenade from the defendant ) , regardless of the fact that such a grenade serves a military purpose and is registered for [ use by ] members of the NORP army ; [ therefore , ] this court finds that the conclusion of the first - instance court regarding ... the liability of the defendant is not correct .","Lastly , this court considers ... in respect of the failure of the defendant to carry out a check on the carrying of weapons and to seize [ weapons ] where there is no licence [ to carry them ] , as the basis of the defendant \u2019s liability , that there is no proof ... that the military police had a duty to carry out a check in the pizza parlour in question on the critical TIME or that the competent authorities knew that ORG possessed a grenade and failed to seize it from him . Therefore , this court finds that the requirements for the defendant \u2019s liability are not met ... \u201d","NORP The applicants\u2019 subsequent constitutional complaint of DATE was dismissed on DATE . This decision was served on the applicants on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155199","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF USHAKOV AND USHAKOVA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants are a married couple . They were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment in GPE penitentiary no . CARDINAL . The second applicant lives in ORG .","At the time of the events the applicants lived in a CARDINAL - room apartment together with PERSON , the second applicant \u2019s mother .","PERSON had a pending judicial dispute with a certain Mr L. regarding the inheritance of a house . The applicants , being interested in improving their living conditions , provided her with various support in those proceedings .","NORP In DATE the first applicant visited Mr L. with a view to dissuading him from pursuing the mentioned dispute .","On DATE Mr L. was found dead in his house . His throat was cut and there were multiple stabs and cuts on his body . CARDINAL of the windows was broken , and there was a hoe lying nearby on the floor .","On DATE a criminal investigation was opened into the murder .","At TIME on that same day the applicants came home where several police officers were waiting for them . The applicants were taken to GPE ( ORG \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u0432\u0456\u0434\u0434\u0456\u043b ORG \u043c\u0456\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0456\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0413\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0456\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0456\u0448\u043d\u0456\u0445 \u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 ORG \u0425\u0430\u0440\u043a\u0456\u0432\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0456\u0439 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456 ) . According to the applicants , this was done under the pretext that they needed to be questioned in respect of the first applicant \u2019s debt vis - \u00e0 - vis some third persons . As submitted by the Government , the police apprehended the applicants on suspicion of the murder of Mr L.","The applicants were questioned regarding their whereabouts and actions on CARDINAL and DATE . They stated that they had been together shopping , going to the cinema , having meals and so on .","Both applicants were held in the police station during TIME on DATE . They stated in their submissions to the ORG that they had not been subjected to any ill - treatment at that stage .","On DATE the first applicant underwent a forensic medical examination . According to its report , which was completed on DATE , the examination revealed multiple bruises and sores on virtually all the body of the first applicant . They included CARDINAL multidirectional sores on his back and about the same number of sores on his hips , buttocks and knees . The expert gave the following possible dates of the injuries : a bruise on the left shoulder and a sore on the torso \u2013 between CARDINAL and DATE ; bruises on the right part of the torso DATE between CARDINAL and DATE ; sores on the torso , the back and the legs \u2013 between CARDINAL and DATE . Those sores were assessed as having possibly originated from the impact of some protruded blunt objects , such as glass fragments .","According to the first applicant , he sustained the injuries discovered on DATE , having accidentally fallen a day before .","The first applicant submitted the following account of the subsequent events . After the aforementioned examination , he was taken to the criminal investigation department , where CARDINAL of the officers suggested that he should confess to the murder of PERSON As the first applicant refused to do so , some officers brought in a dirty mattress and a gas mask . They put wet cloths around his wrists and handcuffed him . CARDINAL of the officers punched him in the solar plexus and pushed him on the mattress . The others twisted his arms behind his back and made him split his legs while beating him to his torso and genitals . The gas mask was then put on the first applicant \u2019s face and the vent was blocked . He fainted several times and was made regain consciousness with cold water . The gas mask was repeatedly put on his face , and he was made inhale cigarette smoke . At the same time , his genitals were being twisted . The first applicant \u2019s ill - treatment continued as described above in several rounds . The officers threated him that they would bring his wife and do the same with her in front of him . He then signed a confession to the murder of Mr L. He had , however , to adjust it many times as dictated by the police . The first applicant was made memorise his confession .","The Government maintained that the first applicant had not been subjected to any ill - treatment .","According to the detention logbook of the police station , the first applicant was detained at TIME on DATE as a criminal suspect .","On DATE , DATE , the investigator appointed a lawyer , Mr M. , for the first applicant . He maintained his initial confession during his questioning in the presence of the lawyer . According to the first applicant , he did so fearing further ill - treatment and not having the possibility to talk with the lawyer in private prior to the questioning .","As regards the second applicant , in TIME on DATE she was taken from the police station to her home , where a search was conducted . The police allegedly threatened her that if she did not testify against her husband , they would accuse her of a drug - related offence having previously planted drugs in her apartment .","Thereafter the second applicant was taken back to the police station , where she made a statement , allegedly under coercion , that her husband had admitted to her having murdered Mr L. More specifically , the second applicant submitted that CARDINAL police officers had hit her several times on the head and had pulled her by the hair .","On DATE a reconstruction of the crime was conducted in the presence of the first applicant \u2019s lawyer , during which the first applicant confessed again to the incriminated crime . TIME later he , however , retracted his confession as made under duress and complained of his ill - treatment by the police . According to the first applicant , he did so after his first confidential conversation with his lawyer , which had taken place only after the aforementioned event . His lawyer subsequently stated that he had had his first confidential meeting with the first applicant prior to the latter \u2019s questioning on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the investigator submitted for approval to the Frunzenskyy ORG ( \u201c the Frunzenskyy Prosecutor \u2019s Office \u201d ) an application for the first applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention as a preventive measure pending trial . The prosecutor decided to question the first applicant himself before taking a decision . He saw that the first applicant had multiple injuries and concluded that his confession had been extracted by force . Furthermore , the prosecutor noted a number of discrepancies between the confessions of the first applicant and the autopsy report in respect of the victim . The second applicant was questioned too . She submitted that she had incriminated her husband under duress .","As a result , the prosecutor refused to approve the investigator \u2019s application , quashed the latter \u2019s decision on bringing the charges against the first applicant and released him . The prosecutor also directed his subordinates to question both applicants about their ill - treatment in police custody and to duly report their submissions .","While the applicants were making written statements in the office of the deputy prosecutor , at TIME , CARDINAL officers of the Frunzenskyy ORG , namely , the first deputy head of the department ( \u043f\u0435\u0440\u0448\u0438\u0439 \u0437\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f\u043d\u0438\u043a \u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0439\u0432\u0456\u0434\u0434\u0456\u043b\u0443 ) PERSON ( see also paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below for additional information about this police officer ) , the head of the criminal investigation department ( \u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a \u0441\u0435\u043a\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0443 \u043a\u0430\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u043e\u0437\u0448\u0443\u043a\u0443 ) Mr Pap . , his deputy ( \u0437\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0443\u043f\u043d\u0438\u043a \u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a\u0430 \u043a\u0430\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u043e\u0437\u0448\u0443\u043a\u0443 ) Mr ORG . , and the chief of the investigation unit ( \u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a \u0441\u043b\u0456\u0434\u0447\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0432\u0456\u0434\u0434\u0456\u043b\u0443 ) PERSON , broke in . Disregarding the objections of the deputy prosecutor and constraining him by force , they took the applicants out . There were more police officers waiting in the corridor .","The applicants were handcuffed and taken to ORG , located near the prosecutor \u2019s office . On the way , one of the officers allegedly hit the first applicant in the right hip .","The first applicant was taken to an office on the ground floor where he was made sit quiet with one of the police officers . The office was locked from inside , and the light was switched off . TIME , he was taken to another office where the bars on the window could be removed . He was made write a note that he had left the police station at TIME The first applicant was then taken outside through the window behind the building of the police station . The police officers placed him a car , parked that car in a nearby yard and waited there till TIME It is not known what happened thereafter . It appears that the first applicant remained detained ( see , in particular , paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","After the police had taken the applicants from the prosecutor \u2019s office , at TIME the deputy prosecutor visited the ORG . According to the GPE logbook , the applicants had entered the building at TIME and had been remaining there . Having searched the LOC , the prosecution officials found the second applicant in tears in CARDINAL of the offices . The first applicant could not be found . Police officer PERSON submitted to the prosecutor a note on behalf of the first applicant , but without his signature , that he had left the police department at CARDINAL p.m. The prosecution officers went to the applicants\u2019 home , but the first applicant was not there .","On DATE the first applicant complained to the prosecution authorities that he had been ill - treated by the police ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It appears that the second applicant raised a similar complaint too .","On DATE the Frunzenskyy ORG opened a criminal case against the police officers PERSON , Pap . and ORG . under LAW ( exceeding power by engaging in the violent or degrading treatment of a victim ) in respect of the events of the evening of DATE and the night from DATE .","On DATE the applicants were assigned victim status and questioned . Also on DATE the first applicant underwent a forensic medical examination , after which he was released .","On DATE a report of the first applicant \u2019s examination was delivered . It documented multiple bruises on his shoulders , torso , back , chest , arms , hips , thighs and legs . Their colouring varied from yellowish to violet and purple . The first applicant also had crust - covered sores and bruises on both wrists . The expert concluded that most of the injuries had originated from the impact of blunt objects DATE . CARDINAL bruise on the first applicant \u2019s back below the left shoulder blade was assessed as sustained DATE and DATE . Lastly , according to the report , some sores on the right forearm , the left elbow and the right ankle had been inflicted on the first applicant on DATE .","On DATE the second applicant underwent a medical examination too , which did not reveal any injuries . According to the second applicant , she complained to the expert that she had headaches and was advised to apply for help to a hospital .","On DATE she was examined by a neurosurgeon in the local hospital who reported that she had bruises of the head soft tissues .","On DATE the applicants were questioned in respect of their alleged ill - treatment by the police . They recognised the officers PERSON , Pap . and ORG . at the photos shown to them .","On DATE and DATE a reconstruction of the events of DATE and DATE was conducted with the applicants\u2019 participation .","On an unspecified date ORG directed the management of the police department to establish the whereabouts of the officers PERSON , Pap . and ORG . , who had not complied with the prosecutor \u2019s summonses .","On DATE the Chief of ORG wrote to the prosecutor that all those CARDINAL officers were on sick leave and that their whereabouts were being established .","On DATE the police officers PERSON , Pap . and ORG . were questioned in respect of the alleged ill - treatment of the applicants . PERSON and Pap . refused making any statements . It is not known what ORG . stated .","NORP On DATE ORG discontinued the criminal investigation in respect of the aforementioned police officers , having concluded that the wrongdoings imputed to them were to be qualified as interference with the activity of a law - enforcement official ( the Frunzenskyy Prosecutor ) rather than exceeding power by engaging in the violent or degrading treatment of a victim . Accordingly , a different criminal case was opened , with a new charge .","On an unspecified date in DATE PERSON , Pap . and ORG . were questioned again . They denied any ill - treatment of the applicants . As to their behaviour on DATE , they submitted that they had believed that the applicants had posed a danger to the deputy prosecutor .","On DATE the prosecutor , who had been involved in the events of DATE , gave detailed statements regarding those events , when questioned as a witness in the framework of the criminal investigation against the police officers .","DATE the first applicant underwent a forensic medical examination with a view to establishing the origin of his injuries documented earlier .","On DATE the examination report was completed . It reiterated the findings of the first applicant \u2019s examinations of CARDINAL June and DATE ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE and DATE above ) . Furthermore , it noted that the sores on the first applicant \u2019s wrists could have been caused by his handcuffing . The report stated that the findings of the earlier examinations did not contradict the other materials in the case file .","On DATE ORG terminated the criminal investigation into the applicants\u2019 allegations of ill - treatment , for the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers . The prosecutor noted a contradiction in the first applicant \u2019s submissions , according to which his only injury as of DATE had been a bruise on his right hip from an accidental falling DATE , and the forensic medical examination report of DATE , which had established many others injuries . The expert who had examined the first applicant on DATE and DATE , had stated during his questioning by the prosecutor that the injuries sustained by the first applicant after DATE , were located in the body parts accessible for self - infliction , apart from the bruise below the left shoulder blade . It appeared impossible to establish the origin of that bruise . The expert had also noted that no injuries on the first applicant \u2019s genitals had been revealed . Overall , the prosecutor concluded that those few injuries which were dated DATE \u201c could have been sustained [ by the first applicant ] in circumstances unrelated to any use of force by the police against him \u201d . It was also noted in the ruling that the first applicant had never raised any complaints before the medical personnel of the detention facility . Lastly , as regards the allegations of the second applicant that she had been ill - treated by the police , the prosecutor noted that her medical examination of DATE had not revealed any injuries . In sum , the ill - treatment allegations of both applicants were found to be without basis .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed the above decision and directed the prosecution authorities to carry out an additional investigation . It noted , in particular , that the contradictions between the first applicant \u2019s submissions that he had had no injuries as of DATE and the forensic medical examination report of that date , according to which he had had numerous injuries , had to be clarified .","On DATE a reconstruction of the events of DATE and CARDINAL DATE was conducted with the participation of the first applicant . He maintained the allegations of his ill - treatment by the police .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE a forensic medical expert examined the available documents in respect of the first applicant with a view to clarifying the origin of his injuries . The case file does not contain a copy of the respective report . It appears that , according to the expert \u2019s conclusions , only some of the first applicant \u2019s injuries could have originated in the circumstances as described by him .","DATE . On DATE ORG once again terminated the investigation initiated on DATE for the lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the police officers concerned . The prosecutor noted that , even though the first applicant had sustained some injuries while in detention , the exact time and circumstances of their infliction remained unknown . Furthermore , the location of some of the injuries allowed to presume that they could have been self - inflicted . The prosecutor also noted that the first applicant had not \u201c personalised \u201d his injuries : in other words , that he had not specified who exactly of the police officers had inflicted each specific injury on him . The investigator had also questioned the forensic expert who had conducted the examination of the first applicant on DATE who had confirmed her findings .","On DATE , DATE , ORG delivered CARDINAL additional rulings refusing to open a criminal case following the complaints of ill - treatment by each of the applicants .","On DATE ORG , acting as a court of first instance in the first applicant \u2019s trial , ordered ORG to investigate the first applicant \u2019s allegation of ill - treatment by the police . It noted that , according to the first applicant , the presence of his fingerprint on the hoe seized at the crime scene was explained by the fact that the police officers had put that hoe in his hands by force during his ill - treatment .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the Frunzenskyy ORG , to which the investigation was re - assigned , refused to open a criminal case against the police , having mainly relied on the respective rulings of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) . All those decisions were , however , quashed as premature .","On CARDINAL DATE the Frunzenskyy ORG again refused to open a criminal case against the police officers allegedly involved in the applicants\u2019 ill - treatment .","On DATE ORG ordered a forensic medical examination of the first applicant by an expert panel with a view to clarifying his injuries and the possible circumstances of their infliction . The investigator noted that similar examinations , which had been carried out earlier , were inconsistent in their conclusions .","On DATE a panel of experts issued a forensic medical examination report , in which they stated , in particular , that the first applicant might have sustained all the injuries ( with the exception of CARDINAL bruises and one sore ) at the time and under the circumstances as indicated by him during the reconstruction of the events conducted on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG , which was apparently investigating the matter in parallel , refused to open a criminal case against the police officers too . On DATE it terminated , on similar grounds as earlier , the criminal investigation initiated on DATE . On DATE the ORG quashed both aforementioned rulings as based on an incomplete and CARDINAL - sided investigation .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE ORG refused to open a criminal case against the police officers in respect of the second applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . On DATE it discontinued the criminal investigation against the police officers in respect of the first applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment , which had been launched on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The first applicant unsuccessfully challenged the aforementioned decision before the domestic courts .","On DATE the first applicant was committed for trial .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , sitting as a court of first instance , remitted the case for additional investigation . It noted , in particular , that the first applicant \u2019s initial confession could not be relied on because he had later retracted it as obtained under duress and given that his ill - treatment complaint had not been duly investigated . The court also indicated a number of contradictions between the first applicant \u2019s confessions and the case - file materials .","On an unspecified date the additional investigation was completed and the case was referred to the trial court again .","On DATE ORG found the first applicant guilty of murder for profit and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment with confiscation of all his personal property . It relied , in particular , on the first applicant \u2019s initial confessions , which he had later retracted . Furthermore , the court referred to certain material evidence inculpating the first applicant ( such as the hoe with his fingerprint found at the scene of the crime , and his shorts with a blood stain possibly originating from the victim ) . His allegations that he had been ill - treated and that the evidence against him had been fabricated were dismissed as unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG quashed the above judgment mainly on the ground that LAW and the ORG \u2019s case - law required a proper investigation of the first applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment , which had not been done . ORG also remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh examination .","On DATE ORG once again found the first applicant guilty of murder for profit and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment with confiscation of all his personal property . The court relied , inter alia , on his confessions made on DATE and further reiterated on DATE in the presence of his lawyer ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It was noted in the judgment that the first applicant \u2019s lawyer , who had represented him on the aforementioned dates , had been questioned and had stated that he had had a confidential conversation with the first applicant prior to the first questioning and that there had been no violations of the criminal procedure .","As regards the first applicant \u2019s allegation that he had been ill - treated on DATE , the court noted that the prosecution authorities had thoroughly investigated the matter and had decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers concerned . ORG referred in this connection to the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At the same time , having regard to the ill - treatment allegation on the part of the second applicant , which was still under investigation , ORG decided not to rely on her statements incriminating the first applicant , which she had made during the pre - trial investigation .","In so far as the first applicant complained of his kidnapping by the police from the prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE , the trial court noted that the investigation was ongoing and that it was not necessary to wait for its outcome for the pronouncement of the judgment .","DATE . The first applicant challenged the judgment on points of law . He submitted , in particular , that that there was no solid evidence proving his guilt and that the trial court had wrongly relied on his self - incriminating statements obtained under duress , without any adequate investigation of his ill - treatment complaint . He referred in this connection to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . ORG , DATE ) , which concerned that applicant \u2019s torture by PERSON , the same police officer who was involved in the alleged ill - treatment of the applicants in the present case .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court and its reasoning ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178908","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SHMELEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is the mother of the late Mr PERSON .","On DATE police officers apprehended the applicant \u2019s son and his friend , PERSON and took them to ORG of the Interior of GPE ( ORG \u043f\u043e PERSON \u0433. ORG ) . No record of their arrest was drawn up .","For TIME the applicant \u2019s son was ill - treated by police officers He was repeatedly punched in the stomach and hit to the head , right palm and both calves . He was also subjected to the so - called \u201c swallow \u201d method of torture ( \u201c \u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0447\u043a\u0430 \u201d ) , with his head , hands and legs being pulled together towards the spine .","QUANTITY police officers then took the applicant \u2019s son and PERSON to another police station . PERSON later testified to having seen a bruise on Mr Vyrzhikovskiy \u2019s forehead and to his having been in pain and having had difficulties getting into a police car .","Early in the morning on DATE Mr Vyrzhikovskiy was taken from the station to a hospital . He died there DATE . An autopsy report stated that the cause of death was \u201c a severe fat pulmonary embolism aggravated by bronchopneumonia with cerebral edema resulted from a comminuted humeral head fracture with a tear of joint capsules and massive bruises , suffusion and strain of soft tissue and the subcutaneous fat layer . \u201d A pathologist also found the following ante mortem injuries on Mr Vyrzhikovskiy \u2019s body , all directly linked to his death : massive bruises covering hands , chest , upper back , neck , armpits and most of his face and ears ; bruises on the left hip , right palm , right part of the stomach , right thigh , left knee , both calves ; abrasions and bruises on the buttocks . All injuries had been inflicted by hard blunt objects .","On DATE criminal investigation was initiated . The applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings . Several police officers were charged with manslaughter and abuse of powers entailing a substantial violation of individual rights , committed using violence .","On DATE the Moskovskiy District Court of GPE found the officers guilty as charged and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment . On DATE the St ORG partially quashed the judgment and acquitted officers of manslaughter for lack of evidence . While having found it established that the injuries had been inflicted on the applicant \u2019s son intentionally in the police custody , ORG remitted the case for an additional investigation in order to identify those responsible for his death .","NORP On DATE the investigation was suspended because the timelimit for the investigation had expired and it was impossible to identify the perpetrators and to carry out any investigative measures in the absence of an accused . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld that decision as lawful . The decision became final on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2","3"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182452","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LOZOVYYE v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively , and live in the town of ORG in GPE .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 son , Mr PERSON , was killed in GPE . Criminal proceedings were instituted against a Mr O. on a murder charge .","On DATE PERSON , an investigator of the Primorskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office in GPE , asked the head of the Primorskiy district police to identify relatives of the deceased , Mr PERSON ; to establish their place of residence and to summon them to the prosecutor \u2019s office for the purpose of granting them victim status in the criminal case .","DATE the applicants\u2019 son was buried under his full name in GPE . A record in a cemetery registration log indicated that the body had been unclaimed .","On DATE the investigator , having concluded that it was impossible to identify relatives of the deceased , assigned the status of victim in the criminal case to a representative of the municipal authorities . The following day police officials informed the investigator that operative measures undertaken by them to identify Mr PERSON \u2019s relatives had not produced any result .","On DATE the applicants contacted PERSON and informed her of their intention to come to GPE to take part in the criminal proceedings .","NORP Despite the applicants\u2019 notice , DATE PERSON sent the criminal case file to ORG for trial .","Sometime later the applicants were invited to take part in the criminal proceedings in the capacity of victims .","On DATE the applicants were allowed to exhume their son \u2019s remains . DATE they buried him in ORG .","On DATE the Primorskiy ORG found Mr O. guilty of having murdered the applicants\u2019 son and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE , responding to the applicants\u2019 complaints about the authorities\u2019 failure to notify them of their son \u2019s death , ORG issued an interim decision ( \u0447\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) in respect of the investigator , PERSON The decision , addressed to the Primorskiy district prosecutor , in so far as relevant , read as follows :","\u201c Moreover , the [ finding ] that the investigator , PERSON , did not take sufficient steps to find relatives of the deceased and that measures undertaken [ by her ] were formalistic in character is not only confirmed by the fact that the decision assigning victim status to [ a representative of the municipal authority ] , had been taken before the information was received from the police officials , but also by the fact that criminal - case - file material contained sufficient information about [ the applicants\u2019 son ] , on the basis of which it was possible to establish the place of residence of his relatives ( [ there was ] an explanation from Mr O. made on DATE , in which he had given the information about the place of residence of [ the ORG son ] ; a statement made by PERSON on DATE in which he said that a criminal case against [ the applicants\u2019 son ] was pending before a court ; statements by a witness , PERSON , who asserted that [ the deceased \u2019s ] mother had occasionally made telephone calls to [ the deceased \u2019s ] flat ; a certificate on [ the deceased \u2019s ] criminal record from which it is apparent that the Primorskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE applied a measure of restraint in the form of a written undertaking in respect of [ the applicants\u2019 son ] in criminal case no . DATE ; the material in the abovementioned criminal case file contain a copy of [ the applicants\u2019 son \u2019s ] passport ; and so forth ) .","It follows that the GPE rights envisaged by the law in force were substantially violated in the course of the preliminary investigation .","Relying on LAW of LAW , [ the court ] rules :","that the violations of criminal - procedural law committed during the preliminary investigation in the criminal case should be brought to the attention of the Primorskiy district prosecutor in GPE ;","that the Primorskiy District Court of GPE should be informed of the measures taken DATE after the receipt of the present decision . \u201d","NORP In DATE the applicants lodged an action against ORG and ORG , seeking compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . Relying on ORG interim decision of DATE , the applicants argued that as a result of the investigator \u2019s failure to promptly notify them of their son \u2019s death , they had sustained pecuniary damage , having been forced to pay for the exhumation and transport of their son \u2019s remains from GPE to ORG . In addition , they had suffered non - pecuniary damage as they had been unaware of their son \u2019s whereabouts for a long time and had been forced to initiate a search for him ; they had been unable to properly say \u201c goodbye \u201d to their son and to provide him with a decent burial ; they had been forced to go through a DATE bureaucratic procedure to obtain permission to exhume their son \u2019s remains ; and subsequently , after the exhumation , they had been forced to identify his disfigured remains .","On DATE the Tverskoy District Court of GPE dismissed the claim , having found that the investigator had not committed any unlawful actions and there had been no final decision by any domestic court to establish otherwise .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment endorsing ORG reasoning ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158139","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CHMIL v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Josep Casadevall;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , GPE . At the material time , the applicant was the head of a territorial election commission .","At TIME on DATE the day of the first round of the presidential elections DATE while on his way to the territorial election commission headquarters , the applicant met QUANTITY police officers walking in the same direction who were unfamiliar to him ( later identified as police officers PERSON and NORP ) . The applicant struck up a conversation with them , which apparently ended up in a verbal confrontation .","According to the applicant , when they reached FAC , the police officers pushed him inside and physically assaulted him .","According to the Government , when the group reached the police station , the applicant suddenly grabbed PERSON \u2019s uniform and the grille of the security door and started shouting that he was being beaten . After that , the applicant talked to the head of the police station and left .","On DATE , the applicant phoned a prosecutor and complained of the above events . The applicant stated that at TIME police officers he did not recognise had pushed him into the corridor of the police station , knocked him to the ground and started to kick him . A police officer who had been on duty at the time had seen this . The applicant had been kicked in the head , the groin and the spine . As he had also been shouting out during the incident , the head of the police station had come and had ordered the officers to let him go . These events had been witnessed by a certain S.","Later , the applicant also testified that he had seen CARDINAL unfamiliar police officers while walking to work . He had asked them where they were from , and had said that they would be working together DATE . They had answered that they were from the town of GPE . When the group had neared the police station , the applicant had been pushed inside . He had grabbed the door grille and shouted . The police officers had continued to hit him and had dragged him into the police station . There , they had kicked him to the floor and had continued to kick him while he was on the floor .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert , PERSON applicant complained of nausea and a headache , in addition to pain below his right shoulder blade , in the lumbar part of his spine , in his legs and in his groin . The applicant had a scratch on his left cheek and an oedema on his right leg . He was advised to consult both a surgeon and a neuropathologist . The applicant was supposed to go and see the expert again DATE , but did not do so .","On DATE , the police officers involved in the incident ( PERSON , NORP , NORP and PERSON ) were questioned . Police officer PERSON reported to the head of the police station that , while walking along the street with his CARDINAL colleagues , they had been approached by a stranger who had asked them provocative questions such as , \u201c Did you come here to kill and hang people ? What are you doing here ? What are you eavesdropping on ? \u201d The police officers had answered that they had been sightseeing and that the town was very beautiful . In reply , the man had said that they had seen enough and that they , \u201c should go to the town of PERSON where police officer PERSON should sit on the stork \u2019s post \u201d . The group had stopped near the police station , where the man had grabbed PERSON \u2019s shoulder strap with one hand and the door grille with the other hand , and had started shouting that he had been beaten . After that , the man had entered the police station .","The Government also submitted the testimonies of the above police officers , which were dated DATE and drafted in almost identical terms . According to those testimonies , in the morning of DATE , the police officers who had gone to NORP to assist in maintaining public order on DATE had been walking from their accommodation to the police station . An unknown man had approached them and shouted , \u201c The fascists are coming ! \u201d and had followed them to the police station while insulting them . When PERSON had tried to enter the police station , the man had grabbed the door grille and PERSON \u2019s left shoulder strap , and had started shouting that he was being beaten . The head of the police station had intervened . Nobody had hit the man .","On DATE , the entrance to the police station was inspected and no trace of a struggle was detected . PERSON \u2019s uniform coat was also inspected , and it was established that one of the bands with which his left shoulder strap had been attached had been torn off .","Police officers PERSON , NORP , NORP and PERSON were examined by a forensic expert and by a hospital doctor . It was confirmed that they had not sustained any physical injuries and had not been drunk at the relevant time .","On DATE testimonies of potential witnesses were collected .","The testimonies of the police officers present at the time of the incident in the police station were as follows :","- police officer PERSON . saw the applicant grab the door grille and shout as if somebody had been hitting him ;","- police officer PERSON . saw the applicant grab the door grille and shout hysterically . Twice , the applicant tried to kick a police officer , but missed ;","- police officer PERSON saw the applicant in the police station . The applicant was shouting at the police officers , threatening them with dismissal and calling them names ;","- police officer PERSON saw CARDINAL unfamiliar police officers , the applicant , and police officers PERSON . , ORG . , and PERSON . in the reception area of the police station . The applicant was shouting that he had been beaten ;","- the head of the police station , ORG . , and police officer Kl . saw the applicant talking to PERSON and asking , \u201c Who allowed you to beat me ? \u201d .","Forensic expert PERSON testified that he had examined the applicant at around TIME on DATE . The applicant had been complaining of nausea and a headache , in addition to pain in his back , groin and right leg . The applicant had had a scratch on his left cheek , which may have been caused by the skin being rubbed against some flat object with an uneven surface . The applicant had also had an oedema on his right leg . He had been advised to consult both a surgeon and a neuropathologist . The applicant had said that he had to work DATE , and so would consult the doctor DATE . According to PERSON , the applicant \u2019s account \u2013 that he had been severely beaten by CARDINAL police officers \u2013 was doubtful , as it contradicted the results of the physical examination .","S. , a journalist , testified that he had seen a group of police officers walking along the street , flanking the applicant . When the group had reached the police station , the police officers had pushed the applicant inside . The applicant had resisted and the police officers had kicked him on the legs , the stomach and groin and possibly in the back . S. had run towards the police station . He had heard the applicant shout at a police officer , \u201c Why are you beating me ? \u201d The head of the police station had been standing nearby .","A number of people were standing across the street from the police station at the relevant time and allegedly saw the incident . They testified as follows :","- Se . , the town mayor , said , \u201c The police officers and PERSON were walking along the street quite normally . I continued my conversation with other people and suddenly heard PERSON shouting , \u2018 Leave me alone!\u2019 PERSON grabbed the police ORG clothes and tried to tear away their shoulder straps . The police officers did not use any force . Everybody went into the police station . After TIME , PERSON then left the police station \u201d ;","- PERSON . , a district election commission member , said , \u201c A man was following CARDINAL police officers . As the first police officer was entering the police station , the man squeezed in between them . This was followed by some shouts and a shove in the doorway . The man was pushing the police officers and shouting , \u2018 Help!\u2019 and \u2018 Let me go!\u2019 \u201d ;","- Ku said , \u201c A man was following CARDINAL unfamiliar police officers . As CARDINAL police officer was entering the police station , the man started to push the others and to shout that they were not to touch or beat him . I did not see anybody beating him \u201d ;","- Tk . , a police officer , said , \u201c A man was walking behind the police officers . As CARDINAL police officer was entering the police station , the man pushed him . The man also shouted that they were not to touch him . After TIME , the man left the police station \u201d ;","- Ts . , a police officer , said , \u201c PERSON was following CARDINAL police officers . As CARDINAL of the police officers started to go into the police station , PERSON squeezed in between the other CARDINAL and started shouting that he was being beaten . He pushed the first police officer inside and then went in himself . PERSON left the police station after TIME \u201d .","NORP The applicant was in hospital from CARDINAL to DATE . While there , he complained that he had been physically assaulted on DATE , and was diagnosed with concussion .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . The available evidence was summarised as follows . CARDINAL witnesses ( including QUANTITY police officers ) testified that in the morning of DATE they had seen the applicant walking to the police station , accompanied by QUANTITY police officers . As CARDINAL of the police officers had gone into the police station , the applicant had squeezed in between the police officers and had started pushing them \u2013 grabbing at their uniforms and shouting that they should stop beating him and leave him alone . The witnesses did not see the applicant being physically assaulted . The police officers involved in the incident testified that they had not hit him . CARDINAL more police officers who had been in the police station at that time testified that nobody had hit the applicant . A forensic expert , PERSON , testified that he had examined the applicant at TIME on DATE . The applicant had had scratches on his left cheek and on his right leg . Judging by the applicant \u2019s injuries , the expert had doubted that the applicant had been beaten by CARDINAL police officers in the manner that he had alleged . ORG also noted that , as the applicant was in hospital at that time , it was impossible to establish the seriousness of the injuries he had sustained . In view of the evidence outlined above , the prosecutor concluded that the applicant \u2019s allegations were unsubstantiated and that there was no evidence of a crime having been committed .","On DATE , following a request from ORG , a forensic medical expert concluded that the applicant had sustained minor physical injuries .","On DATE the ORG overruled the decision of DATE and remitted the case for further investigation . Amongst other things , it was noted that , in view of the applicant \u2019s stay in hospital , a forensic medical examination should have been carried out , and witnesses other than police officers \u2013 such as the applicant \u2019s relatives DATE should have been questioned .","In DATE in the course of further investigation , a hospital doctor testified that , following his admission to hospital , the applicant had complained that he had been physically assaulted , and had had bruises on his right leg .","A territorial election commission secretary testified that on DATE she had arrived at work at TIME The applicant had already arrived , and he had told her that he had been beaten . He had had no visible injuries .","On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the police officers for abuse of power .","The case material contains records of testimonies drafted in almost identical terms , which the QUANTITY police officers involved in the incident gave on DATE . Those testimonies are nearly identical to those given by the police officers on DATE , save that in the more recent testimonies all of the police officers added that they had been trained , and that , if they had indeed beaten the applicant , then he would have sustained much more serious injuries .","On DATE CARDINAL formal confrontations between the applicant and the police officers were also held . The parties were asked the following questions :","- Do you know each other and , if so , how did you meet and what is your current relationship ?","- Do you have any reason to lie about each other ?","- What were you doing when you met each other on the way to FAC ?","- In what manner did you enter FAC ?","- ( Of the police officers ) When did you learn that PERSON was the head of the territorial election commission ?","- Was PERSON subjected to physical or psychological pressure on DATE ?","- Were any procedural documents regarding PERSON drafted at the police station ?","The answers in all CARDINAL confrontation records are identical and are drafted in nearly identical terms .","NORP In response to the third question , the police officers said that the applicant had asked them who they were and what they were doing in town . Police officer PERSON had answered the applicant and had said that they were police officers and were walking around the town . The applicant had started to insult them .","The record of the confrontation between the applicant and PERSON also contains the following verbatim extract :","\u201c PERSON \u043e\u043a\u0430\u0437\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0441\u044c \u0432 \u0437\u0434\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0438 ORG \u0432 \u041e\u0434\u0435\u0441\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 ?","...","\u041b. : \u0412 \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u043c\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u0437\u0430\u0445\u043e\u0434\u0438\u043b\u0438 \u0447\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0437 \u0434\u0432\u0435\u0440\u044c \u043f\u043e \u043e\u0434\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0443. PERSON \u0434\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0438 \u0437\u0430\u0448\u0435\u043b \u041b. , \u0437\u0430 \u043d\u0438\u043c \u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b \u0437\u0430\u0445\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0442\u044c \u044f , \u0432 \u044d\u0442\u043e\u0442 \u043c\u043e\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0442 \u0433\u0440. PERSON \u0432\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043b \u043c\u0435\u0436\u0434\u0443 \u043c\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0438 ORG , \u0432 \u0434\u0432\u0435\u0440\u044f\u0445 \u0432 \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b. PERSON \u044d\u0442\u043e\u043c \u043e\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0440\u0443\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0441\u0445\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0438\u043b\u0441\u044f \u0437\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0448\u0435\u0442\u043a\u0443 \u0434\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0438 , \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0433\u043e\u0439 \u0437\u0430 \u043c\u043e\u0435 \u043f\u043b\u0435\u0447\u0435. \u201d","\u201c In what manner did you enter FAC ?","...","L. : We entered the police station CARDINAL by CARDINAL through the door . PERSON went in first , then me , but at that moment PERSON went to stand between me and PERSON in the doorway . He grabbed the door grille with one hand and my shoulder with the other hand . \u201d","On DATE , following a decision of DATE of ORG to conduct a forensic examination , a group of forensic medical experts concluded that the applicant had sustained a concussion , a scratch to his left cheek , and bruising to the left part of his face , his left hip and the lower part of his right leg . These injuries were categorised as minor .","DATE and DATE some of the above - mentioned witnesses ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) were questioned again . They gave testimonies similar to those of DATE .","On DATE , following a decision of CARDINAL DATE of ORG to conduct a forensic examination , a group of forensic medical experts , having studied the relevant case file material , concluded that the applicant had sustained a concussion and a scratch to his left cheek . He had also sustained bruising to the left part of his face , his left hip and the lower part of his right leg . The bruises had been noted on the applicant \u2019s medical card on DATE . The expert had not mentioned them in the initial examination of DATE , as they had not yet been visible at that time . The forensic medical experts were of the opinion that the concussion , the scratch and the bruises to the left cheek and lower part of the applicant \u2019s right leg had been caused TIME before the initial examination at TIME on DATE . It was impossible to establish the exact time that the applicant \u2019s injuries had been caused . They could have been inflicted DATE , but also DATE . All of the injuries had been caused by blunt trauma . The possibility that the applicant had sustained the injuries when he had fallen could not be excluded .","On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings for the absence of any corpus delicti . The prosecutor concluded that the applicant had sustained the injuries in question when he had grabbed PERSON \u2019s coat inside the police station , lost his footing and fallen down .","On DATE the Odessa Regional Prosecutor \u2019s Office overruled that decision and remitted the case for further investigation . It was noted that not all of the witnesses had been questioned .","On DATE the proceedings were terminated again . It was noted that the witnesses PERSON . and PERSON . had not seen the applicant being subjected to ill - treatment . PERSON . had testified that the police officers \u201c had accompanied \u201d the applicant to the police station , but that he had not seen the applicant being beaten . PERSON . had seen the applicant after the incident .","On DATE ORG overruled that decision and remitted the case for further investigation .","On DATE , following a complaint lodged by police officers PERSON and PERSON , the decision of DATE to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was quashed by ORG as unsubstantiated , and the case material was sent to a prosecutor \u2019s office for a decision .","On DATE a group of forensic medical experts gave an opinion on the applicant \u2019s case . They were asked to say whether they thought that the applicant \u2019s second - degree disability ( \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0433\u0430 \u0433\u0440\u0443\u043f\u0430 \u0456\u043d\u0432\u0430\u043b\u0456\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456 ) was related to the injuries which he had sustained on DATE . The Government submitted an incomplete copy of the experts\u2019 conclusion ( CARDINAL pages out of CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers . It found that the applicant had created a conflict situation and had sustained injuries as a result of a fall .","On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The police officers tried again to challenge the decision of DATE in court , but to no avail .","On DATE ORG overruled the decision of DATE and remitted the case for further investigation .","In the course of that further investigation , the witnesses ( the police officers who were present at the time of the incident in the police station and the people who saw the incident from across the road ) , the applicant and police officers PERSON and NORP were questioned again . They all confirmed their previous testimonies . A formal confrontation between the applicant and PERSON and NORP was undertaken , as well as a reconstruction of events .","On DATE , following a decision of ORG , another forensic medical examination was completed . It concluded that the applicant had sustained a concussion and a scratch to his left cheek , bruises to the left part of his face , his left hip and the lower part of his right leg . Those injuries could have occurred on DATE between TIME , or later . All injuries had been caused by blunt trauma \u2013 impact from blunt objects or from falling down onto a hard surface , such as the floor .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were terminated for the absence of any corpus delicti . The conclusion was that at around TIME on DATE the applicant had approached CARDINAL police officers \u2013 D. , PERSON DATE who had been in charge of maintaining public order on DATE of the elections . The applicant had started to call them names . When the police officers had tried to go into the police station , the applicant had squeezed in between them , grasped the iron grille of the door with one hand and PERSON \u2019s coat by the other , and had started shouting that he was being beaten in an effort to attract attention . The police officers and the applicant had finally entered the police station , and police officer PERSON had had his left shoulder - strap torn off . CARDINAL police officers had testified that nobody had beaten the applicant in the police station . Other witnesses had testified that they had not seen the applicant being physically assaulted . According to the forensic medical examination , the applicant \u2019s injuries could have been inflicted DATE TIME or later on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE a forensic medical expert , B. , had testified during the reconstruction of events that if the applicant \u2019s version of events had been true , then he would have sustained more serious physical injuries . It was therefore concluded that the police officers had committed no crime .","The applicant challenged that decision before more senior prosecutors , but to no avail . By letter of DATE , ORG informed the applicant that , following the investigation , it had been established that on DATE he had approached CARDINAL police officers and started to insult them and call them \u201c black - shoulder - strappers \u201d . He had also torn off the left shoulder strap of police officer L. Moreover , it had been established that the police officers had not used force against the applicant and that , on the contrary , the applicant had tried to kick one of the police officers in the groin while in the police station . Consequently , there were no grounds for overruling the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant also instituted proceedings for damages against ORG , but to no avail , as his claims were rejected for failure to comply with procedural requirements ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148480","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"CICHO\u0143 v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Plewiska . She was represented before the ORG by Mr A. Zielonacki , a lawyer practising in ORG .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s mother , who was born in DATE , bought an apartment from PERSON Shortly afterwards serious technical flaws in the apartment came to light . The applicant \u2019s mother intended to institute civil proceedings against the seller for compensation .","She became depressed as a result of the substantial pecuniary loss she had suffered because of the transaction , which she considered fraudulent . In DATE she attempted to commit suicide . She was admitted to hospital on DATE and discharged on DATE . The hospital records indicate that she was diagnosed with \u201c a depressive reaction \u201d .","On DATE PERSON informed the prosecuting authorities that the applicant \u2019s mother had phoned her and uttered threats against her . She had allegedly told PERSON that she would kill her as she had ruined her life by selling her a worthless apartment which she had paid for with her life savings . On DATE PERSON \u2019s father was questioned . He confirmed that the applicant \u2019s mother had uttered threats against PERSON","The case file contains a note drawn up by the police and dated DATE to the effect that a police officer tried to serve a summons for questioning on the applicant \u2019s mother at FAC , but to no avail . He was informed by persons living at that address that she had sold that apartment .","By a bill of indictment dated DATE ORG charged the applicant \u2019s mother with the offence of uttering threats . The bill was subsequently lodged with ORG .","On DATE ORG ordered , having regard to the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s attempt to commit suicide , that a psychiatric expert opinion be prepared on the question of whether she could be held criminally responsible .","On DATE ORG appointed a legal - aid lawyer to represent the applicant \u2019s mother in the proceedings . On DATE the entire criminal case file was forwarded to the psychiatric clinic that was to carry out the psychiatric examination of the defendant .","Subsequently , by letters dated CARDINAL and DATE of the experts at the clinic sent summonses to the applicant \u2019s mother at the address at PERSON","Street where she no longer lived ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) for examinations to be carried out at the clinic on DATE and DATE . The summonses were not served either on her or on any member of her family . The service confirmation slips ( potwierdzenie odbioru ) were not returned either to the court or to the experts .","On DATE CARDINAL of the experts informed ORG by phone that the applicant \u2019s mother had twice failed to attend the psychiatric examination on the dates fixed . On DATE the experts informed the court in writing of the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s failure to attend the examination . They requested the court to arrange for her to be taken to the clinic under police escort for the examination on DATE .","NORP On DATE the court , having regard to the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s failure to comply with the summonses and being unaware of the fact that they had not been served on her , ordered the police to arrest her and escort her to the clinic for the purposes of the examination .","At TIME on DATE the applicant \u2019s mother was arrested by CARDINAL police officers at her correct address at FAC . She was subsequently escorted to the clinic . She was examined by CARDINAL psychiatrists TIME and discharged on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother was found dead in a basement of her house . She had committed suicide by hanging herself .","In a psychiatric opinion dated DATE and served on the court on DATE , psychologist PERSON and psychiatrist PERSON summarised the interview held with the applicant \u2019s mother on DATE . They noted that she had not had psychotic symptoms and had not reported suicidal thoughts or tendencies . They diagnosed her as suffering from an adjustment disorder ( zaburzenia adaptacyjne ) . The experts further declared that at the material time she had been able to understand the significance of her actions and that , regard being had to her general mental health , she was fit to stand trial .","On DATE the Gosty\u0144 police discontinued an investigation concerning a suspicion that third parties might have assisted the applicant \u2019s mother in committing suicide , having regard to the opinion of the doctor who had declared her dead that there was no indication that any third parties had been involved . The decision concluded that the most likely cause of the suicide was nervous breakdown ( za\u0142amanie nerwowe ) .","On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to verify whether the investigation and proceedings in respect of her mother had been conducted properly . She submitted that the attempted suicide in DATE and her fragile mental state should have prompted the authorities to conduct the proceedings with particular diligence . Instead , summonses had twice been sent by psychiatrists to the wrong address and they had never been served on her . The court had ordered that she be arrested and taken to the psychiatric clinic . She had been seriously traumatised by the arrest , as indicated by the fact that she had committed suicide on DATE after the examination .","That complaint was forwarded to the President of the Pozna\u0144 Regional Court , who replied on DATE . The relevant part of his letter reads :","\u201c It is true that the experts , apparently by mistake , sent the summonses to the wrong address , but the court was not aware of this and that is why it ordered that she should be escorted to the examination [ by the police ] . There are no grounds on which to conclude that the court \u2019s decision was wrong , but there can be no doubt that it was based on a wrong premise [ nie ma zatem podstaw do przyj\u0119cia , \u017ce post\u0119powanie s\u0105du by\u0142o b\u0142\u0119dne , natomiast niew\u0105tpliwie opiera\u0142o si\u0119 na b\u0142\u0119dnych przes\u0142ankach ] . \u201d","On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to institute a criminal investigation in order to identify the persons responsible for her mother \u2019s arrest which , in her opinion , had led to her suicide . She submitted that her mother had already tried to commit suicide in DATE ; that at the material time her mental condition had been precarious ; and that the psychiatrists had sent the summonses to the wrong address despite the fact that the correct address had been available in the file . The judge had also failed to check whether the summonses had been sent to the correct address and whether they had been duly served on her . As a result , she had been arrested by the police in TIME of DATE . Her neighbours had told the applicant that during the arrest her mother had been crying . The applicant submitted that her mother had been an elderly , fragile person on the brink of a nervous breakdown and that the manner in which the case had been handled had driven her to commit suicide .","On DATE the request was forwarded to ORG .","On DATE ORG refused to institute an investigation , having examined the case under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . It was confirmed that the summonses to attend the psychiatric examination had twice been sent to the wrong address and had never been served on the applicant \u2019s mother . The prosecutor was of the view that the court could not be held responsible for that error . It had not known the defendant \u2019s correct address as the entire case file had already been forwarded to the experts at that time . The applicant \u2019s submission that there was a causal link between the defendant \u2019s arrest on DATE and her suicide DATE was too categorical . There were no grounds on which to accept that the prosecuting authorities , the police or the court had failed to perform their duties properly or that the applicant \u2019s mother had been driven to suicide as a result of such failure .","The written grounds of that decision did not refer to any evidence other than the file of the criminal case against the applicant \u2019s mother .","The applicant appealed . She argued that her mother had suffered from depression caused by the transaction she considered fraudulent and that the authorities had been well aware of this . The court had relied on her earlier attempt to commit suicide when ordering the psychiatric examination . Appropriate regard had not been had to the fact that she was psychologically fragile . The authorities had failed to conduct the criminal case against her properly . No steps had been taken by the court to establish her correct address , although it had been available in the case file , in order to serve the summonses correctly . As a result of that failure , her mother had been arrested on DATE . The arrest had been tremendously traumatic for her . In the applicant \u2019s opinion , the fact that her mother had committed suicide just after the examination was proof that the opinion prepared by the experts after her death to the effect that she was fit to stand trial was worthless .","On DATE the Leszno ORG examined the appeal . The applicant did not attend the hearing . In a decision rendered on DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The relevant parts of the written grounds of this decision , numbering one - and a CARDINAL page read as follows :","\u201c The appellant \u2019s submission that there was a well - founded suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed could not be shared [ by the court ] in respect of :","- the prosecutor , because ... he had a right to draw up a bill of indictment within DATE of the investigation being closed and he did so in the present case ;","- the judge conducting the proceedings , as he was entitled to appoint psychiatrists to the case with a view to checking whether the defendant could stand trial and to order that the defendant be taken to the psychiatric examination under police escort ; he did so as he had been informed in writing that the defendant had twice failed to comply with summonses ;","- the experts in so far as they failed to foresee that [ the applicant \u2019s mother ] would make another suicide attempt , this time a successful one , as they gave their opinion in accordance with their best knowledge and conscience ; ...","It is true that the police escort order given by the court failed to take into consideration that the experts had sent the summonses to the wrong address , but the court could not know that , given that at the time the case file had already been forwarded to the experts . This , however , can not change the assessment of the events from the point of view of criminal responsibility , in particular as to the presence of a causal link between the [ applicant \u2019s mother ] being taken to the examination by police escort and her subsequent attempt to commit suicide . \u201d","Subsequently the applicant requested ORG ( Okr\u0119gowy PERSON ) of ORG ( Izba Lekarska ) to institute disciplinary proceedings against the psychiatrists .","By a decision of DATE the Agent discontinued the investigation , having questioned the psychiatrists . He referred to the fact that the service confirmation slips sent to the applicant \u2019s mother had not been served on the psychiatrists . This suggested that the summonses had been properly served on her . As she had failed to comply with the summonses , they had no choice but to inform the court accordingly . The defendant had subsequently been arrested by the police for the purposes of the examination . The psychiatrists had explained that the defendant \u2019s conduct during the examination was not such as to justify her immediate psychiatric internment . Their opinion had therefore been well - founded and they had no case to answer .","The applicant appealed . She reiterated that information about her mother \u2019s accurate address had been in the case - file which the psychiatrists had had at their disposal . They had failed to act diligently by establishing her address correctly . They were aware of her earlier attempt to commit suicide but still they had found her able to stand trial . She reiterated that the arrest and taking her to the clinic under the police escort were traumatising and dishonourable for her mother who felt belittled thereby in the eyes of her friends and neighbours .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG of the Wielkopolska Region ( PERSON ) , sitting in camera , upheld the contested decision . It was of the view that the fact that the psychiatrists had sent the summonses to the wrong address amounted to a formal shortcoming , but it did not have an impact on or had not caused the later tragic events . Similarly , in so far as the applicant had complained about her mother \u2019s arrest by the police , this could not be held against the doctors . The arrest had been ordered by the court in the context of the criminal proceedings , not by the doctors . It was further stated that the psychiatric opinion drawn up by the CARDINAL psychiatrists was correct , and the diagnosis they had made not open to criticism .","Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code reads :","\u201c Whoever by persuasion or by rendering assistance induces a human being to take his or her life shall be subject to the penalty of the deprivation of liberty for a term of DATE . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of that Code provides :","\u201c \u00a7 CARDINAL . A public official who , exceeding his authority or failing to perform his or her duty , acts to the detriment of a public or individual interest , shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for DATE .","\u00a7 CARDINAL . If the perpetrator commits the act specified in \u00a7 CARDINAL with the purpose of obtaining financial or personal gain , he or she shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of DATE .","\u00a7 CARDINAL . If the perpetrator of the act specified in LAW above acts unintentionally and causes substantial damage , he or she shall be subject to a fine or restriction of personal liberty or deprivation of liberty for a period not exceeding DATE . \u201c","ORG , in a decision of DATE ( DATE ) , held that only a public official acting intentionally and with intent to act to the detriment of the victim could be charged with the offence stipulated in LAW ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140239","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VIEIRA GOMES BEZERRA v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in ORG ( GPE ) and lives in GPE ( GPE ) .","On DATE the applicant started civil proceedings against CARDINAL companies before ORG ( GPE ) . The proceedings concerned the occupation of a land which the applicant claimed to be her own ( domestic proceedings no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL.CARDINALTBVNG ) .","The defendants contested the proceedings and the court ordered that the size of the land be analysed by an expertise . These procedural steps ended on DATE .","In the first trimester of DATE an attempt of conciliation of the parties took place .","On DATE the court ordered the suspension of the proceedings as the property was not registered in the name of the applicant , before ORG ( Conservat\u00f3ria do PERSON ) .","On DATE the court ordered the interruption of the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant joined an additional supporting document to the proceedings , informing the court of the registration of the land . The judge ordered the proceedings to be resumed .","According to the last information received by ORG , the proceedings are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174955","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SHIROKIKH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . In application no . CARDINAL the applicant also raised a complaint under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173774","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KRASTEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE the second applicant , together with the antecedents of the other applicants , bought from the then existing local agricultural co - operative a plot of land situated on the outskirts of GPE measuring QUANTITY . DATE the applicants or their antecedents enjoyed undisturbed possession of that land .","On DATE a group of persons , the heirs of Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON , brought against the applicants a rei vindicatio action , stating that the plot of land was theirs . They stated that the plot , once the property of their antecedents , had been collectivised in DATE , but had been returned to them within the context of the process of the restitution of agricultural land by a decision of the relevant body , the local land commission , dated DATE . They claimed that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the fact that the second applicant and the remaining applicants\u2019 antecedents had purchased the land in DATE could not be held against them .","Initially , ORG ( its judgement is undated ) dismissed the action against the applicants . After an appeal by the heirs of Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON and PERSON , on DATE the ORG overturned that ruling , allowed the rei vindicatio claim and ordered the applicants to surrender possession of the plot . It found in particular that the land commission \u2019s decision of DATE was sufficient to render the claimants the owners of the disputed land . It pointed out that of the CARDINAL rival claims to the same plot the law \u2013 namely section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW \u2013 gave priority to the CARDINAL based on restitution , and thus had the effect of rendering devoid of any legal force the contract under which the second applicant and the remaining applicants\u2019 predecessors had bought the plot .","In a final decision of DATE ORG declined to entertain a cassation appeal by the applicants .","On an unspecified date soon after that the applicants surrendered possession of the plot ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172561","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ANEVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first and second applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively , and live in GPE .","The first applicant married PERSON in DATE and their son , the second applicant , was born in DATE . According to the first applicant , her husband started abusing her psychologically after the marriage , which grew worse after the child was born .","The first applicant filed for divorce in DATE . She applied for interim measures in the same proceedings , seeking custody of the child while the proceedings were ongoing . ORG granted her application for interim measures on DATE , giving her custody of the child .","In the meantime , in DATE , the second applicant visited his father for DATE . PERSON then took the child back to the first applicant and insisted that they both return to live with him . When the first applicant refused , he put the child back in the car and drove away , saying that she could only see her son at his apartment .","PERSON has kept the second applicant with him ever since .","On DATE the first - instance court granted the couple a divorce , finding that the husband was responsible for the marriage \u2019s failure . It granted custody of the child to the first applicant and limited PERSON \u2019s contact rights to TIME twice a month in the presence of the first applicant and another adult designated by her . The decision was upheld in ordinary appeal on DATE and in cassation appeal on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant obtained a writ of enforcement on the basis of the decision on interim measures . She brought enforcement proceedings DATE .","NORP The bailiff scheduled handovers of the child to the first applicant on the following dates : DATE , DATE , QUANTITY DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . PERSON did not come to any of those appointments or cooperate with the bailiff .","On DATE the bailiff fined PERSON QUANTITY ( ORG ) for failing to comply with a judicial decision .","Subsequently , PERSON went to the bailiff \u2019s office and challenged her for having fined him . As a police officer , he threatened to fine her for wrongfully crossing the street as soon as she left her office . PERSON was dismissed from the police on DATE as a result of that conduct . The order for his dismissal referred to his systematic obstruction of the enforcement of a final judicial decision and to conduct damaging to the image of the police .","On DATE the Sofia ORG ordered that the child be removed from PERSON \u2019s home and handed over to the first applicant on the basis of LAW of DATE . On DATE the first applicant , accompanied by a lawyer and several police officers , went to the village where PERSON was living with the child and spoke to both PERSON and PERSON \u2019s father . PERSON categorically refused to hand the child over , thus failing to comply either with the court order of CARDINAL DATE or the decision on interim measures of DATE .","The first applicant obtained a writ of enforcement in DATE in respect of the final judgment on the divorce and on granting custody to her .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the bailiff unsuccessfully attempted to hand the child over to the first applicant . On those occasions PERSON either failed to arrive for the appointments or did not take the child to them . When the bailiff and the first applicant visited his house on DATE , PERSON had left a note on his front door addressed to the first applicant and all accompanying individuals . The note stated that he was firmly opposed to handing the child over to her .","The bailiff fined ORG in DATE and in DATE for failure to cooperate in the enforcement proceedings . In DATE the first applicant did not attend CARDINAL of the scheduled meetings for handing over of the child , indicating in a letter to the bailiff that prior work commitments prevented her from attending CARDINAL of those meetings . It would appear that those meetings had been scheduled by the bailiff without prior consultation with the applicant as to her availability .","On DATE the ORG suspended the enforcement proceedings brought by the first applicant in relation to the final judgment of DATE . It acted in response to an application from PERSON for interim measures ( \u043e\u0431\u0435\u0437\u043f\u0435\u0447\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u043d\u0438 \u043c\u0435\u0440\u043a\u0438 ) in the context of proceedings which he had brought to seek the limitation of the first applicant \u2019s parental rights and the granting of custody to him .","The first applicant asked ORG to quash the suspension order . The court rejected her application in a final decision of DATE .","Following a change of jurisdiction , the case was sent to ORG . The proceedings for a change of custody were terminated by ORG in a final decision of DATE after PERSON withdrew his application .","In the meantime , DATE and DATE , representatives of the social services , accompanied by the police , the mayor and the first applicant , repeatedly visited the house where PERSON lived with the second applicant . They met the child \u2019s teachers and his paternal grandparents . On DATE the social services sent a report to the police in which they concluded that while PERSON was caring for the second applicant appropriately , the child needed to have contact with his mother to ensure his healthy development .","NORP The social services renewed their involvement in the case in DATE . After PERSON had expressed an intention to cooperate , the social services met him and the second applicant a number of times DATE and DATE . During the meetings the second applicant consistently expressed the wish to continue to live with his father .","The first applicant brought criminal proceedings against PERSON for obstructing the enforcement of the DATE and DATE decisions on the exercise of parental rights .","On DATE the first - instance court found PERSON guilty of obstructing the implementation of final judicial decisions . The court observed that PERSON had demonstrated a belief that he was beyond the reach of the justice system and could act with impunity . The court also held that the particularly long period in which PERSON had kept the child , namely CARDINAL birthday , was an aggravating circumstance . The court nevertheless absolved PERSON of criminal responsibility and , instead , imposed on him a fine of LAW as an administrative punishment under LAW . The decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE in a final judgment .","On DATE ORG quashed an earlier decision by the police to refuse to provide assistance for the transfer of the second applicant and ordered it to determine the best way to arrange it . The social services cooperated with the police towards organising such a transfer , which was due to take place on DATE . That procedure was not carried out because the child refused to go with the first applicant .","The third applicant was born on DATE and lives in GPE .","The third applicant gave birth to a child , P.P. , in DATE while she was living with the child \u2019s father , PERSON . P. The parents split up in DATE and the third applicant moved out with the child and his CARDINAL elder siblings , who were not Kh . P. \u2019s children .","On DATE , during judicial proceedings on custody , the GPE ORG determined interim measures , giving custody to the third applicant . She started living with her child alone thereafter .","An expert report of DATE drawn up in the context of the proceedings concluded that the child was strongly attached to both parents and had expressed a wish to live with his mother while continuing to see his father .","In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG gave custody of the child to the third applicant .","On DATE , after CARDINAL of his scheduled meetings with the child , Kh . P. did not return the latter to the third applicant \u2019s home . Since DATE the third applicant has only seen the child a few times and the meetings have always been in an institutional setting .","On DATE the third applicant visited Kh . P. \u2019s home in order to agree on the child \u2019s return , but PERSON . P. prevented the child from leaving with her . Instead , according to the third applicant , he assaulted her in the presence of the child by hitting her on the head , pushing her against the lift , and knocking her to the ground . The third applicant submitted that thereafter she had repeatedly attempted to reach an agreement with the child \u2019s father on the child \u2019s return to live with her , as well as that she had contacted CARDINAL private bailiffs over DATE but neither of them had taken any action because they considered that the case was too difficult .","On DATE the ORG issued a writ of enforcement to the third applicant on the basis of the court \u2019s decision on interim measures of DATE .","A first attempt by the bailiff to get the child handed over to the third applicant took place on DATE but it failed as Kh . P. did not take the child to the meeting . The bailiff voiced his intention to seek police assistance to summon PERSON . P. to the following meeting .","The third applicant met the child on DATE for the first time since he had been taken away by his other parent on DATE . The meeting took place in the presence of Kh . P. and a social worker . The child was reserved at the beginning but gradually warmed up to his mother , told her about his school and other activities , and allowed her to hug and kiss him .","A second meeting between the third applicant and her child took place on DATE . The child arrived in a negative frame of mind and acted coldly towards the third applicant , refused to take the presents she had brought for him and asked to leave with his father .","In CARDINAL reports issued on DATE and CARDINAL DATE the social services found that , while the child had developed a solid emotional connection with the father , he had not lost his bond to his mother . The father had to show approval and encouragement for the relationship between the child and the mother for it to develop healthily .","The bailiff attempted to have the third applicant meet with the child on CARDINAL more occasions DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . Kh . P. did not attend the first CARDINAL meetings nor send the child , despite having been summoned to some of them by the police . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the bailiff fined him for his failure to take the child to the appointments scheduled on DATE . CARDINAL of those fines was subsequently quashed in court .","When Kh . P. took the child to meet with the third applicant on DATE , the child became visibly upset and tearful at the sight of her . He refused to hug her or otherwise engage with her . A psychologist present at the meeting concluded that it was impossible to hand the child over at that point in time as he was in a state of psychological stress and had a clearly negative attitude to his mother . As a result the bailiff postponed the handover of the child and urged both parents to actively cooperate so that the child could gradually accept his mother . The bailiff noted that the other parent played a key role in that process and that his constructive attitude was crucial for restoring the mother - child relationship .","In DATE the social services recommended that the third applicant , PERSON . P. and the child have DATE of counselling . Kh . P. disapproved of psychologists working with his son , insisted that such sessions were a form of child exploitation and said that the mere mention of the child \u2019s mother gave his son headaches , which in turn impeded his ability to play football . Kh . P. did not allow the child to see his mother . He informed the psychologists that he and the child slept in the same bed at night and avoided their attempts to discuss the child \u2019s psychological development . Kh . P. instead emphasised his own financial resources and stability .","A psychologist met the child once during the DATE counselling period . The child refused to speak CARDINAL applicant and only referred to her as \u201c M \u201d . The psychologist concluded that the child \u2019s speech was full of inconsistent statements which showed that his attitude to her was being manipulated . The father was categorically opposed to contact between the child and the mother , which meant the child was afraid to express his need and wish to maintain a relationship with her . The child missed having contact with his mother , but could not express that openly for fear of his father \u2019s disapproval . The child suffered from parental alienation syndrome and there was a risk to his emotional and psychological development . On DATE the social centre put an end to the counselling because of Kh . P. \u2019s lack of cooperation , in not taking the child to the appointments .","A psychological assessment of the child and the situation with his parents was drawn up in DATE . It concluded that the child was experiencing a chronic emotional crisis . His categorical rejection of the third applicant was at the origin of parental alienation syndrome .","A new attempt to voluntarily hand the child over to the third applicant took place on DATE but failed because the other parent did not take the child to the meeting . The bailiff postponed any further enforcement measures . The following day , DATE , the child , PERSON . P. and the third applicant met at the social centre . Kh . PERSON stated that he would not allow any meetings in the future and the third applicant has not met her child since .","An expert report drawn up on DATE found that PERSON . P. exhibited a tendency to verbal aggression , that he continuously demeaned the mother and criticised her personality and that this had turned the child into \u201c a child at risk \u201d . The obsessive and controlling love demonstrated by him towards the child risked making him rebel in the future ; the permanent pitching of the child against the third applicant had led to psychosomatic disorders , as evidenced by the child \u2019s frequent headaches .","On DATE the third applicant asked the bailiff to schedule a new date for implementing the court \u2019s decision and to not suspend enforcement . She also asked the bailiff to direct the child to attend mandatory sessions with a psychologist and psychiatrist before his actual handing over to her , given that he needed specialist assistance to overcome his feelings of alienation towards her .","On DATE the third applicant asked the social services to provide her child with psychological counselling and support . On DATE she complained to the Minister of ORG about the bailiff \u2019s inability to enforce the court decision granting custody to her . The Ministry replied on DATE that the bailiff had done nothing wrong in the exercise of her functions .","On DATE she asked the bailiff to order DATE meetings between her and the child on the premises of the social services , emphasising that that was something to which Kh . P. had agreed but with which he had not complied . The third applicant also stressed that the child \u2019s health and well - being were the most important aspects of the process and asked the bailiff to coordinate all the actions related to the child \u2019s attendance at counselling sessions . On DATE the third applicant sent documents to the bailiff issued by the social services directing the child to attend psychological counselling and support with a view to reestablishing contact with his mother . On DATE the social services reported to the bailiff that the support work which was to be carried out with the child had not started as the father had repeatedly failed to take the child to the social centre .","DATE . On DATE the third applicant again asked the social services to provide counselling for her child . The social services replied on DATE that they had organised new sessions for the child and had apprised the other parent accordingly . They also informed the third applicant that the bailiff had ordered the child to report to the social centre every DATE at TIME in order to meet with the third applicant . The first meeting was set for DATE but did not take place as Kh . P. did not take the child to it .","The third applicant subsequently received a letter from ORG for ORG , which directed her to seek counselling from the social services . The report drawn up in that connection indicated that the negative attitude displayed by the father towards the mother had been adopted by the child , who refused to meet his mother . It was necessary to work with the child for him to overcome his negative attitude to his mother .","On DATE the third applicant wrote to the bailiff , copying in the social services , and expressed her concern about the child \u2019s well - being . She asked for the judicial decision granting custody to her to be enforced , pointing out that the child \u2019s well - being was of paramount importance and had to be considered in any related actions .","A report , dated DATE and drawn up by the municipal social services , stated that specialists had met with the third applicant on QUANTITY occasions . She was found to be cooperative and willing to do whatever was necessary in order to facilitate contact with her child . The report concluded that it was not in the child \u2019s interests to continue to live with his father given that he manipulated him emotionally . The child did not dare to oppose the father as he was entirely dependent on him . The child \u2019s alienation from the mother was damaging for him as he needed her close involvement in his life . It was necessary to impose mandatory psychological counselling on the father in order for him to cooperate , otherwise the child had to be taken out of his home and either entrusted to the third applicant or placed in a \u201c neutral environment \u201d . The placing of the child into a foster home had to be only considered as a last resort , if the father continued to obstruct contact with the mother .","NORP The bailiff scheduled another meeting , for DATE , to hand the child over to the third applicant but PERSON . P. again failed to appear . The bailiff postponed further enforcement to an unspecified date . The third applicant signed the report drawn up by the bailiff , expressing her discontent at the bailiff \u2019s inability to enforce the judicial decision .","On DATE the third applicant complained to the prosecutor under LAW of LAW about Kh . P. \u2019s active obstruction of the enforcement of the judicial decision granting custody to her . The prosecutor opened criminal proceedings and informed the third applicant of his decision on DATE .","A full psychological expert report on the child was drawn up on DATE in the context of those proceedings . The report \u2019s conclusion was that the child should not be forced to see his mother at that point in time . What was needed was systematic good - faith efforts by the father aimed at improving the child \u2019s attitude to his mother . Pressure from public institutions for the child to see his mother was likely to have a negative impact on him and so developing a relationship with his mother had to happen gradually . The report emphasised that if the child were to receive his father \u2019s support he would in all likelihood open up to his mother and develop a close relationship with her .","Kh . P. was acquitted at the end of the proceedings in a final judgment of DATE by ORG .","On DATE , the child , represented by Kh . P. , brought court proceedings against the third applicant , alleging acts of domestic violence by her . The child alleged , through his father , that he had been put under constant psychological pressure by his mother , which had led to sleep disturbances and restlessness and a fear that she could appear at any time in the street and kidnap him . He claimed that he had developed a headache , felt sick and had even vomited during the latest attempt to reunite him with his mother on DATE . Experts questioned in the proceedings found that the child tended to identify himself with the father and his active denial of his mother was damaging for him . The experts concluded that it was imperative for the child \u2019s well - being to provide him with urgent psychological therapy .","On DATE the first - instance court rejected an application for a restraining order on the third applicant . In particular , the court found the complaint about psychological violence ill - founded as it had been based on the mother \u2019s repeated attempts to have the bailiff hand the child over to her in accordance with the court \u2019s decision . The court held that the third applicant had been right to seek effective enforcement of the decision granting custody to her , just as Kh . P. had been obliged to comply with that decision . The court concluded that the child \u2019s well - being was at risk as a result of the ongoing , open animosity between the parents and ruled that a copy of the judgment should be sent to the social services with a view to them taking appropriate measures . There is no information on file about whether that court \u2019s decision was appealed against .","Kh . P. brought proceedings in DATE to be given custody of the child . ORG rejected his application on DATE .","The fourth applicant was born on DATE and lives in PERSON region .","On DATE the fourth applicant \u2019s marriage to PERSON was dissolved by a court decision which also determined his contact rights with his child , who had been born in DATE . According to the decision , the fourth applicant was to see the child DATE between TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE , and for DATE during DATE . Immediately after an argument between him and the child \u2019s mother on DATE , the mother started preventing him from having contact with his child .","The fourth applicant brought forced enforcement proceedings in DATE , seeking the effective implementation of his contact rights . According to him , the bailiff informed him that as the meetings with the child were scheduled to take place at DATE , when the bailiff was off work , the fourth applicant would be better being accompanied to the meetings by witnesses . Those individuals were to testify about what they saw by signing a declaration every time he encountered difficulties in seeing the child . The fourth applicant attempted to see the child on numerous occasions but his former wife continued to place obstacles in his way . He submitted CARDINAL declarations about such incidents , all drawn up in the course of DATE . The bailiff fined the mother once , setting the sum at about EUR CARDINAL .","The fourth applicant turned to ORG a number of times and the agency urged the mother to allow contact between the child and the fourth applicant , as set out in the court decision of CARDINAL DATE .","Notwithstanding those efforts , the fourth applicant submitted that he was still unable to see the child owing to the obstacles created by the mother .","In DATE the fourth applicant complained to the prosecutor . In DATE the prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings , finding in particular that the child \u2019s mother had earlier been fined for impeding contact between the child and the fourth applicant , and that it would be unlawful to sanction her twice for the same offence . On appeal , the higher prosecutor returned the case for further examination . In DATE the district prosecutor opened criminal proceedings against the child \u2019s mother for obstructing the implementation of a judicial decision . The prosecutor terminated those proceedings on the basis of the fact that the child systematically refused to spend time alone with her father , but the firstinstance court later quashed that decision and returned the case for further consideration .","On DATE a different district prosecutor again terminated the proceedings , a decision that was upheld by courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . The highest court involved , ORG , found more specifically that instead of pursuing a constructive dialogue with the child \u2019s mother with a view to seeing the child , the fourth applicant had resorted to forced enforcement proceedings , which had been unsuitable in the circumstances and had meant the child had been scared to go with him as he had always been accompanied by strangers .","The fourth applicant applied for a divorce on DATE . The court granted it on CARDINAL DATE , granting custody to the mother , PERSON , and giving contact rights to the applicant . PERSON did not participate in those proceedings ; she was represented by a court - appointed lawyer as the fourth applicant had stated that he did not know where his wife could be contacted to be summoned . The fourth applicant continued to live with PERSON and the child at their family home until DATE .","DATE . On DATE an argument erupted between the fourth applicant and PERSON , following which he left the family home . On DATE PERSON instructed a lawyer to file for divorce on her behalf . The lawyer informed her that she was already divorced and had been so since DATE . Her former husband had also married another woman DATE after that judgment had become final , in DATE .","On DATE PERSON sought a change in the arrangements for contact between the fourth applicant and the child . She expressed serious concerns about the child \u2019s well - being and , in particular , voiced a fear that the father , having acted deceitfully in the past , might emigrate to GPE with his new wife , taking the child without PERSON \u2019s agreement or knowledge . She specified that the fourth applicant had proposed that she give up the child so that his new wife could adopt her . She also stated that he had not sought to have contact with the child since DATE and had arrived at her dwelling on DATE for the first time with several strangers ; that had scared the child and she had refused to go with her father .","The fourth applicant submitted during those proceedings that he had had a hernia operation in DATE and had been put on sick leave until DATE . As a result , he had been unwell and had not been in a position to collect the child , whom he had only seen at her kindergarten . He had been on bad terms with PERSON and that was the reason he had not called to enquire about the child \u2019s well - being . In DATE he had attempted to meet his daughter but PERSON had kept the child away from him and had refused to let them have any contact with each other .","NORP The social services submitted a report concluding that as the fourth applicant had not seen the child for DATE the relationship between the CARDINAL of them had broken down . They recommended that contact between him and the child take place , at least temporarily , in the presence of the mother .","On DATE the first - instance court granted PERSON \u2019s application for limiting the father \u2019s contact rights with the child to visits without sleepovers . It concluded on the basis of a number of reports by social services that the relationship between the fourth applicant and the child had broken down . That decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .","On DATE the fourth applicant complained to social services that PERSON had been preventing him from seeing his daughter since DATE and that the mother was not caring for the child appropriately . He stated that it was the latter \u2019s grandmother , who suffered from a psychiatric condition , who was the child \u2019s main care - giver . The social services carried out an inquiry and established in a report of CARDINAL September CARDINAL that the child was not being brought up by her grand - mother but enjoyed the DATE care and support of her mother . They also found that PERSON had not been preventing contact between the child and the applicant , but that the fourth applicant himself had not been seeking contact with his child . They had informed him that he had to meet his daughter regularly and that she needed the support and care of both of her parents .","On DATE the fourth applicant asked the bailiff to start enforcement proceedings on the basis of a writ of enforcement obtained on DATE . On DATE the bailiff asked PERSON to hand the child over to the fourth applicant in line with his contact rights . PERSON replied on DATE that the father had not sought any contact with the child since DATE , when he had left the family home , and had not telephoned to ask about the child \u2019s physical or emotional state . PERSON pointed out that she was aware of the arrangements for contact between him and the child , and had not opposed any meetings between them .","The applicant complained to the bailiff on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE that PERSON had not taken the child to meet him in a caf\u00e9 located QUANTITY from PERSON \u2019s home . The bailiff replied that the fourth applicant was expected to collect the child from the house and not from caf\u00e9s or other locations of his own choosing .","DATE . The bailiff scheduled a handover of the child to the fourth applicant for CARDINAL DATE and PERSON took the child to that appointment . However , the bailiff did not enforce it as the child refused to go with her father . The bailiff scheduled a new appointment , DATE , for a handover for a contact meeting and PERSON took the child along to it . In the meantime , on DATE the fourth applicant withdrew his request to use his right to spend DATE with the child during DATE . Despite that withdrawal , the bailiff fined PERSON on DATE for not complying with the contact arrangements in favour of the fourth applicant .","The bailiff further fined ORG respectively on CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , referring to her continued failure to hand the child over to the father , beginning from CARDINAL DATE . PERSON brought judicial review proceedings in respect of the last fine , submitting that she had systematically prepared the child for her DATE stays with her father , but that the child had regularly refused to go with him after he had arrived at meetings in the company of strangers . On DATE ORG quashed the fine of DATE . The court held that the bailiff should have attempted different means for enforcing the judgment before resorting to repeated fines . It set out his prerogatives under the law and emphasised that the bailiff was expected to be present when the child was handed over and to draw up reports on the particular circumstances , instead of relying on declarations signed by the parties or by individuals selected by them .","Subsequently , the fourth applicant requested that further fines be imposed on PERSON for not being at home when he had gone to take the child . The bailiff refused on CARDINAL occasions , finding that the dates in question had not been part of the applicant \u2019s visiting schedule . PERSON informed the bailiff that the fourth applicant had also arrived at her home in order to collect the child on DATE which had not been in the visiting schedule .","The fourth applicant informed the bailiff on DATE that he would not be in a position to meet his child for the foreseeable future owing to health problems . Thereafter , on DATE , without prior notice and on DATE which was not part of the schedule for visits , he complained to the bailiff that PERSON and the child had not been at home when he had attempted to collect her . Subsequently , on DATE and DATE he failed to collect the child as scheduled . After being asked by the bailiff to state whether he wanted to resume contact with the child , the fourth applicant confirmed on DATE that he did .","NORP The bailiff fined PERSON on CARDINAL DATE because she had failed since DATE to hand the child over to the fourth applicant . ORG quashed the fine on DATE in a final decision , finding that PERSON had not impeded enforcement . PERSON informed the bailiff that the fourth applicant had failed to collect the child on DATE as scheduled .","In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the complaint made by the fourth applicant in criminal proceedings he had brought against PERSON in DATE . The court established that he had divorced PERSON without her knowledge in DATE and had continued living with her and the child until DATE . Immediately after learning DATE about the divorce and the contact regime , PERSON had sought to meet the fourth applicant in order to discuss and arrange his meetings with the child . He had not gone to a scheduled appointment at DATE and had told PERSON over the telephone , something he had himself admitted to the prosecutor , that there was nothing to discuss with her . The court concluded that that demonstrated , on the one hand , PERSON \u2019s willingness and readiness to comply with the contact regime and , on the other hand , the fourth applicant \u2019s categorical refusal to have a dialogue with the child \u2019s mother .","It was likewise established that after he had left the family home in DATE the applicant had not sought contact with the child for DATE . He had also not called to ask about her well - being although that would have been fully compatible with his state of health at the time . That had led to the breakdown of his relationship with the child . Further , he had thereafter only sought contact with the child via forced enforcement proceedings in which he had gone to collect the child in the company of strangers . He had also at times sought meetings on DATE that had not been part of his visiting schedule while omitting to seek contact on DATE that had been set as part of the schedule ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146703","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF ST PETERSBURG AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) read in the light of Article 11 - (Art. 11) Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants are :","ORG GPE , an unincorporated group of NORP citizens formed for the collective study of ORG ( \u201c the applicant group \u201d ) ;","PERSON , born in DATE , the president of the applicant group and a member since DATE ;","PERSON , born in DATE , a member of the applicant group since DATE ;","PERSON , born in DATE , a member of the applicant group since DATE ;","Mr PERSON Matsitskiy , born in DATE , a member of the applicant group since DATE ;","PERSON , born in DATE , a member of the applicant group since DATE ;","PERSON , born in DATE , a member of the applicant group since DATE .","In DATE , a first group of NORP appeared in GPE under the leadership of Mr PERSON . By DATE it had split into CARDINAL smaller groups , CARDINAL of which was led by the second applicant .","On DATE the second applicant , together with CARDINAL other founder members of ORG in GPE \u201d , applied for registration of their group . Having received no response for DATE , the second applicant pressed the authorities for an explanation . GPE Justice Department replied that their application had been sent to ORG for an opinion by an expert in legal and religious studies but had received no response , and it had been decided to \u201c leave the application unconsidered \u201d .","On DATE the individual applicants , together with other fellow believers , submitted a new application for registration of the applicant group as a local religious organisation . The municipal council of municipal circuit no . CARDINAL of GPE provided the applicants with a letter which stated :","\u201c In accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and on the basis of the application and documents provided , the municipal council ... confirms that the religious group of NORP has existed in GPE since DATE . \u201d","On DATE the GPE ORG refused the application , citing CARDINAL technical grounds relating to the application documentation . On DATE the applicants corrected these defects and resubmitted the application .","On DATE ORG notified the applicants that it had extended the period for consideration of the application because of the \u201c necessity of conducting a ORG expert religious study \u201d .","On DATE ORG issued a formal refusal of the resubmitted application . The refusal made no reference to any religious study but instead cited CARDINAL different technical grounds and asserted that the confirmation of the applicant group \u2019s existence in GPE for DATE was \u201c unreliable \u201d , without giving further details .","On DATE the applicants resubmitted a corrected application which was refused on DATE , referring to the CARDINAL new technical grounds and the \u201c unreliability \u201d of the group \u2019s existence for DATE . It also stated that an unspecified expert religious study had concluded that the applicant group was non - religious in nature .","On DATE the second applicant asked ORG to explain the basis for its claim regarding the \u201c unreliability \u201d of the group \u2019s existence and to provide her with a copy of the religious study . In a letter of DATE , ORG declined to give any clarification , referring to its discretionary power to refuse applications .","The third applicant complained to the ORG about ORG actions . In response to a subsequent enquiry from the ORG \u2019s office , ORG supplied a copy of the religious study , dated DATE and authored by Mr I. , an academic secretary at ORG in GPE .","On DATE the ORG notified the head of ORG that the religious study had breached the established procedure for conducting religious studies , as approved by Government Regulation no . CARDINAL . The study had not been approved by majority vote of the panel of experts duly appointed under the terms of the Regulation and therefore reflected nothing more than PERSON personal opinion .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicants submitted a fifth and a sixth registration application , which were refused on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . On each occasion , ORG cited a number of new technical grounds that it had not relied upon in the previous refusal : it also referred to the expert religious study and the assertion that the confirmation of the applicant group \u2019s existence for DATE had been \u201c unreliable \u201d .","Responding to a further request for clarification by the applicant PERSON , on DATE ORG stated that she did not have a right of access to the documents supporting the conclusion that the information purportedly confirming the existence of the religious group for DATE was unreliable , and that the law did not require it to provide any explanation as to the reasons for refusing ORG registration .","On DATE the applicants challenged the ORG refusals in court . The first hearing on the merits was held on DATE , and further hearings were held on DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE gave judgment , holding that the refusal had been lawful . In respect of ORG rejection of the confirmation letter , it stated :","\u201c Having examined the letter of DATE and the reply from the municipal council to the enquiry from the [ ORG ] concerning the documents that served as the basis for the letter , the court concludes that the applicants have not supplied evidence that there was CARDINAL religious group of NORP in GPE that included the applicants and that the letter was given to their particular group . One can not exclude the possibility that there were many groups practising this creed in GPE and that the letter confirms the existence of CARDINAL of the [ other ] groups of NORP , and not the religious group of NORP that decided to create the local religious organisation ORG ...","Even if any of the participants in the religious group that currently includes the applicants had studied Scientology in GPE since DATE and had participated in NORP rituals and ceremonies and in auditing , that does not prove that he or she did so within one and the same continuously operating , stable religious group that currently includes the applicants , as opposed to some other group that currently does or does not exist , and [ later ] ended up forming part of the ORG group .","In addition , the court takes into consideration the following .","GPE no . CARDINAL of DATE on ORG , which establishes an exhaustive list of matters that come within the competence of municipal councils in GPE ( section CARDINAL) , did not place the registration of religious organisation or the issuing of letters confirming the existence of a religious group in GPE within the competence of municipal bodies .","There is GPE law that confers such powers upon municipal bodies .","On the basis of the above , it follows that the [ municipal council ] was not competent to issue such letters .","Furthermore , as can be seen from the municipal council \u2019s reply ... to the court \u2019s enquiry , the [ municipal council ] was formed on DATE and registered by order no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE of ORG of GPE , so it can not reliably confirm the existence of any religious group before its formation in DATE ... \u201d","As to ORG reliance on PERSON religious study , the court noted that at the time of the study \u2019s preparation no expert panel had been appointed in GPE under the terms of the ORG , even though ORG had \u201c undertaken all possible measures \u201d to comply with the Regulation . The court did not make any assessment of the legal significance of PERSON religious study .","The applicants appealed .","On DATE GPE rejected their appeal , endorsing the first - instance court \u2019s findings that the municipal council was not authorised by law to provide confirmation of the religious group \u2019s existence or the claim that it had been one and the same group of NORP who had existed for DATE ."],"violated_articles":["9"],"violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-139991","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF OJALA AND ETUKENO OY v. FINLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection partially allowed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicant company has its seat in GPE .","The applicants , a publisher and a publishing company , wrote and published , together with the former girlfriend of the Prime Minister at the time , an autobiographical book about her relationship with the Prime Minister . The book described a period of DATE in their lives from the point of view of the girlfriend , a single mother . The Prime Minister had earlier divorced his wife . The book described the dating couple \u2019s life and their intimate interaction . The book was published on DATE . The Prime Minister held office from DATE to DATE when he stepped down .","On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges under LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW against the first applicant and the girlfriend for having disclosed information about the Prime Minister \u2019s private life ( yksityisel\u00e4m\u00e4\u00e4 loukkaavan tiedon levitt\u00e4minen , spridande av information som kr\u00e4nker privatlivet ) . He also requested that the proceeds of the crime received by the applicant company be ordered forfeit to the ORG in accordance with LAW , LAW , of LAW . The Prime Minister concurred with the charges brought by the public prosecutor against the first applicant . He also pursued a compensation claim against the first applicant which was joined to the criminal charges . The girlfriend has lodged a separate application with ORG ( see PERSON , no . MONEY ) .","On DATE the book was withdrawn from sale .","On DATE the GPE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) , after having voted , dismissed the charges against the first applicant and rejected the request that the proceeds of the crime received by the applicant company be ordered forfeit to the ORG . It found that the book disclosed a lot of information about the Prime Minister \u2019s private life but that he had already widely disclosed information about his family and habits as well as about his relationship with the girlfriend . Even though he himself had published an autobiography in DATE , had given several interviews , ran a blog and even permitted photographs to be taken at his home , he was known as a politician who strictly controlled his public image . The book also contained some information which had not previously been disclosed to the public . In this respect the court found that these new details only completed the information the Prime Minister had disclosed earlier . It was never suggested that the facts disclosed were not true . The book covered a period of DATE in the girlfriend \u2019s and the Prime Minister \u2019s private life . The court found that the girlfriend had the right to recount her private life . She also described the Prime Minister , his actions and family in a compassionate manner . The court found that , even though the information disclosed in the book had no direct relevance to the Prime Minister \u2019s political functions or his hierarchical position in the ORG , it had relevance as far as the Prime Minister \u2019s person was concerned . The LAW required that ministers were \u201c known to be honest and competent \u201d . Moreover , the book described a situation in which CARDINAL different realities of DATE NORP society met : a wealthy party leader and Prime Minister on the one hand , and a single mother with everyday money problems on the other hand . The court found that the fact that the girlfriend was writing about her life and her relationship with one of the highest authorities in the country did not restrict but in fact widened her freedom of expression . When weighing the freedom of expression against the protection of private life , the court found that the need to resort to criminal liability decreased when the disclosed information became more widely known . Criminal liability was the last resort in guiding human behaviour and its use had to be proportionate . The court could therefore not hold that the publication of the applicants\u2019 book was a criminal act . Moreover , as the first applicant had obtained an opinion from a lawyer before publishing the book , he could not be regarded as having acted with intent and could not therefore be considered as a perpetrator .","By letter dated DATE the public prosecutor appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) . The Prime Minister also appealed .","On DATE the ORG convicted the first applicant for disseminating information violating personal privacy and sentenced him to DATE - fines , in total QUANTITY . He was ordered to pay the Prime Minister CARDINAL plus interest for non - pecuniary damage and CARDINAL plus interest for his costs and expenses before ORG and ORG . The proceeds of the crime , CARDINAL euros , were ordered forfeit to the ORG . The applicant company was to receive MONEY as compensation for its costs and expenses before ORG . The court found that the passages in the book concerning the Prime Minister \u2019s intimate dating and his children \u2019s feelings and behaviour unnecessarily violated the core areas of his protected private life . He had not previously disclosed these details of his private life in the media . The fact that he had disclosed some parts of his private life , the protection of which was , due to his status , much narrower than a private person \u2019s , did not mean that he could not benefit at all from any protection of his private life . He had thus not waived his right to the protection of private life , nor implicitly consented to the disclosure of information concerning details of his private life . Even though the girlfriend had the right to write about her private life , disclosure of intimate details of another person \u2019s private life always required his or her consent . The aim of the applicants\u2019 book had been to discuss matters of private life and it had no relevance to the Prime Minister \u2019s political functions or his hierarchical position in the ORG . Nor had it any relevance to the assessment of his personal qualities , such as any lack of honesty and judgment , as the relationship fell within the core areas of his private life and had no relevance to his position as Prime Minister . Moreover , the first applicant could be held as a perpetrator even though he had obtained a legal opinion about the book before its publication . His acts had been intentional .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , requesting that the court establish a precedent in the case as the court had not yet in its case - law assessed freedom of expression in the context of an autobiography .","On DATE ORG granted the applicants leave to appeal .","On DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , upheld ORG conviction but quashed the forfeiture in respect of the first applicant and reduced the costs and expenses to be paid to the Prime Minister for the proceedings before ORG and ORG to CARDINAL plus interest . The first applicant was ordered to pay the Prime Minister CARDINAL plus interest for his costs and expenses before ORG . The applicant company was to receive MONEY as compensation for its costs and expenses before that court . In particular , by referring extensively to the ORG \u2019s case - law , ORG gave a more narrow scope to the Prime Minister \u2019s private life than ORG . The court found that information about the Prime Minister \u2019s sex life and intimate events and his children \u2019s feelings and behaviour had not been disclosed to the public before . The fact that some details of his private life had been disclosed before did not mean that they could not fall within the scope of criminal liability under LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW . The Prime Minister had not waived his right to protection of private life in these respects , nor had he given his consent to their publication by consenting to the use of his photograph on the cover of the book . The court considered , contrary to ORG , that the information about how and when the Prime Minister had met the girlfriend and how quickly their relationship had developed had had relevance to general public discussion as these issues had raised the question of whether in this respect he had been dishonest and lacked judgment . Also the information concerning the great differences in the standard of living between the girlfriend and the Prime Minister , his lifestyle , the data protection concerns and the protection of the highest political authorities in general had had relevance to general public discussion . The court found also that disclosure of information about the Prime Minister \u2019s children was not conducive to causing him damage , suffering and contempt as the girlfriend had only given her own interpretation of the children \u2019s attitudes . However , the only references which , according to the court , had illegally disclosed information about the Prime Minister \u2019s private life were the information and hints about the sex life and intimate events between the girlfriend and the Prime Minister . The court enumerated in particular CARDINAL parts of the book which contained information about the start of the sex life in the beginning of their relationship , descriptions of their brief and passionate intimate moments as well as giving massages to each other , and accounts of their sexual intercourse . The court found that such information and hints fell within the core area of private life and their unauthorised publication was conducive of causing the Prime Minister suffering and contempt . It was thus necessary to restrict the applicants\u2019 freedom of expression in this respect in order to protect the Prime Minister \u2019s private life ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140028","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PLAC\u00cc v. ITALY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms;Impartial tribunal);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC ( ORG ) .","In DATE the applicant , aged DATE at the time , was called up to undertake compulsory military service . For the purposes of his conscription he had a combined psychological evaluation and physical examination on DATE , as a result of which he was found to be fit for military service . The detailed report , which was not disclosed to the applicant ( until DATE in the course of pension proceedings ) , considered that the applicant was slow in understanding and executing a task but logical in its exercise , although prone to giving up . In an evaluation covering language and cultural skills , motivation , mental performance and behaviour , he obtained a grade of CARDINAL out of CARDINAL in each area .","Upon his conscription , the applicant underwent another medical examination on DATE , as a result of which he was again found to be fit for military service on the basis that he was not suffering from any illness . He was assigned to Battalion no . CARDINAL in ORG , where he was subject to intensive physical and mental training , including in the use of firearms .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the provincial command unit in GPE , where he remained until DATE . During this time , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he temporarily formed part of its logistical battalion . While in GPE the applicant was subjected to multiple punishments . According to the documentation presented , he was subjected to CARDINAL punishments DATE , amounting to DATE of confinement , including periods of solitary confinement , for reasons ranging from negligent care of his camp - bed area to failure to report to his supervisor , or informal behaviour towards his superior . During the time he spent with the logistical battalion he was hospitalised CARDINAL times for medical care unrelated to his mental problems ( see below ) .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to GPE , where a commander noted that the applicant suffered from nervous tics and twitches , difficulty in socialising and learning , and absent - minded behaviour . The commander ordered the applicant to undergo a specialised medical assessment to test his fitness to perform military service .","On DATE he was admitted to hospital , where he was diagnosed with anxiety disorder and considered to be in a fragile state of mind .","A medical report by the ORG of ORG of DATE considered that in his youth the applicant had suffered from affection - relational problems and learning difficulties . He was physically weak and insecure , had a low aptitude for learning and was prone to isolation , was dysfunctional and incapable of taking up responsibilities . Tests revealed that he was unable to perform assigned tasks , had difficulty orienting himself and impaired cognitive functions ( a deficit in logic and memory ) . He was considered to have a slight intellectual deficit ( an IQ of CARDINAL ) and to be incapable of creating positive relationships with people . This inadequacy caused him to live military life with anxiety and fear of his fellow soldiers , who he considered were aggressive towards him , even if they had only been joking . The report considered that the longer he remained in military service , the more severe his anxiety would become , and his defensive attitude arising from his fears would intensify .","The applicant remained on medical leave for recovery purposes until DATE , when , following a specialised assessment to determine his suitability for military service , on DATE the applicant was found to suffer from \u201c dysphoria and borderline personality [ disorder ] \u201d and was discharged due to unfitness .","NORP Following his discharge , the applicant underwent further medical examinations . A report by the NHS of Tricase of DATE considered that the applicant no longer had a defensive attitude , nor was he suffering from dysphoria and nervous tics . He was still , however , insecure , prone to isolation , unstable and unwilling to take up responsibilities . Following the tests performed , the report concluded that the stressful situation , namely his military service , having ended , the applicant had slightly improved . However , he still displayed signs of intellectual deficit .","At the time a report by the applicant \u2019s doctor ( PERSON ) considered that the applicant had fallen sick because of military service or that there was at least a causal link between the CARDINAL . In consequence , on DATE the applicant asked ORG to pay damages under PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE and presidential decree no . CARDINAL of DATE .","In the course of the examination of his request for damages , on DATE ORG of ORG diagnosed the applicant with \u201c obsessive - compulsive disorder \u201d ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , which it considered was not a result of his military service . It opined that the mental infirmity at issue was a pre - existing condition . It did not appear that during his military service the applicant had been involved in any events or had to carry out any duties which , given their importance , duration and nature , could have seriously influenced the onset or progression of this mental health problem . It further considered the request to have been made out of time .","In the meantime the applicant had repeatedly asked the relevant authorities to provide him with a copy of the pertinent documents regarding the period in which he had served in the military to enable him to substantiate his claims . On DATE he further asked ORG to provide him with the administrative and health documents related to his case together with TIME of ORG meeting in his respect . This request was repeated CARDINAL times in DATE and remained unanswered .","On DATE the second instance ORG of ORG confirmed the findings of ORG dated DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for damages , noting that ORG ( second instance ) of the Command of ORG had , on DATE , determined that the ORG from which the applicant suffered had not been caused by his military service .","According to a medical certificate submitted by the applicant to this ORG , issued by ORG ( mental health department ) on DATE , the applicant , who had been treated by the department since DATE for a fragile state of mind , a low IQ , and ORG which had become chronic , had developed behavioural problems to the extent of violent outbursts towards his family following his military service .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG ( \u201c TAR \u201d ) for the recognition of the causal link between his mental health problems and his compulsory military service , and in the event that the court considered his condition to be preexisting he asked it to ascertain the military \u2019s liability for recruiting him and in consequence to make an award of damages in his favour .","On DATE the applicant lodged an urgent request with the relevant authorities to access medical documents relating to the fitness - for - service examination prior to conscription , details about his time in the military \u2013 training , work , and so on , his disciplinary record , i.e. of the punishments endured , and a record of his hospital stays , an assessment by his commander of his personality and professionalism and all other relevant material held by ORG . On DATE he was informed that the unit in GPE had been disbanded . He was further informed that he had spent DATE in \u201c consegna semplice \u201d ( a punishment prohibiting an individual from leaving the base ) and DATE of \u201c consegna di rigore \u201d ( a punishment confining the individual to a specified area on the base ) and that any further information had to be requested from ORG . The applicant lodged a request with ORG on DATE and on DATE the office replied , sending the applicant an excerpt containing his disciplinary record and noting that he had spent CARDINAL , rather than QUANTITY , days in \u201c consegna semplice \u201d . No other documentation was sent to the applicant . Following further requests on DATE , ORG sent the applicant the psycho - physical training file .","On DATE the TAR appointed PERSON as a court expert to ascertain the nature of the applicant \u2019s infirmity and submit a report within DATE .","Following an examination of the applicant , PERSON failed to deliver the requisite report . Thus , on DATE , the applicant asked the TAR to replace the expert .","By a judgment filed in the relevant registry on DATE the TAR , considering the applicant \u2019s interlocutory request as an application for renewal ( \u201c rinnovo \u201d ) , rejected the request , noting that for DATE the applicant had failed to solicit any action whatsoever . Considering that no more evidence was necessary , it proceeded to give judgment . It held that the CARDINAL ORG had agreed about the source of the applicant \u2019s infirmity and that it had resulted from a pre - existing condition . Indeed the first - instance ORG had referred to a diagnosis of the applicant made in DATE ( when he had been admitted to hospital ) which evidenced a fragile and vulnerable mental state . The court went on to note that it transpired that the medical examination of DATE to determine the applicant \u2019s fitness for service had not been accurate , since it should already have transpired that the applicant was not entirely fit to take up military service .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) . He complained , inter alia , that : the outcome of the case had been illogical \u2013 even though the TAR had considered that his fitness - for - service examination had not been accurate it had failed to pronounce itself on any liability and to award damages ; the TAR had considered the applicant \u2019s interlocutory request for the replacement of the expert as an application for renewal , even though replacement of the expert was clearly due given the delay in performing his functions , leading to the court taking a decision to dismiss the action without the relevant information .","By a partial judgment of DATE , the ORG considered that a specialised medical examination was indeed necessary to determine the connection , if any , between the applicant \u2019s infirmity and his military service . It ordered that such an examination be carried out by ORG ( Collegio Medico Legale della PERSON \u2013 the \u201c ORG \u201d ) , by means of a medical assessment in the presence of the applicant \u2019s general practitioner , and that a report be submitted within DATE . It appears from the documents that ORG appointed for the applicant \u2019s case was made up of CARDINAL full members , CARDINAL from the military and CARDINAL from ORG , and an external expert in neurology .","In DATE ORG report was filed . Its findings took into consideration a report produced DATE by an expert engaged by the applicant which he had been allowed to submit to ORG ( before being submitted to the ORG ) . ORG report noted that when the applicant was discharged he had been suffering from dysphoria , anxiety disorder and borderline personality disorder and had been considered to suffer from slight intellectual disability . It confirmed the reports submitted by ORG and highlighted the relevance of the preexisting nature of the applicant \u2019s condition , also noting that upon examination by ORG on DATE and at the date of the report in DATE the applicant had been suffering from \u201c chronic ORG , a slight degree of intellectual disability , displayed personality changes and was prone to have marginal traits \u201d . It concluded that at the date of review , according to the information available , the infirmity could not be considered to have been the direct result of or aggravated by ordinary military service .","On an unspecified date the report of CARDINAL DATE prepared by the applicant \u2019s expert ( PERSON ) was filed with the court . It noted that the applicant , a mentally healthy subject upon undergoing medical assessments prior to being drafted , had never shown any symptoms of mental illness before conscription into the military service and it was only after repeated punishment that such traits had emerged . Therefore , even assuming that he was predisposed to mental health problems , it was evident that it was the treatment he had been subjected to during military service that had caused the emergence of the illness . The implications of military service were generally of great emotional impact and a source of stress , which for a person who was in a fragile state of mental health or predisposed to mental health problems , unlike in the case of a healthy person , could trigger mental illness . The applicant \u2019s being away from his family and his inability to relate to colleagues and superiors , in the absence of the necessary psychological support and in view of the repeated punishments imposed on him , had caused him to develop dysphoria which had later evolved into chronic ORG . Thus , in the applicant \u2019s case there had been a causal link between his mental health problems and his military service , or the latter had at least contributed to the development of his condition .","On DATE the applicant filed pleadings contesting the findings of ORG and arguing that its report could not be considered objective and impartial given its nature and composition , as it was an organ of the opposing party in the proceedings . He argued that there had been a lack of transparency in the production of the report , which was highlighted by the fact that he had recently become aware of other documents related to the case which had never been disclosed to him by the authorities , the substance of which had been reflected in the report . On DATE the applicant made further oral pleadings .","By a judgment filed in the relevant registry on CARDINAL DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal , holding that the applicant \u2019s infirmity was antecedent to his military service and that it had not been detectible during the examination in DATE , as had been established by ORG . As to the failure to disclose documentation , it considered that such documentation did not relate to the period during which the applicant had carried out military service . In any event the crux of the applicant \u2019s complaint had concerned the conclusions of ORG report which did not accord with his claim . However , the ORG considered that the report was not contradictory or illogical in itself and it had not ignored relevant facts . It followed that given that the ORG ( in its limited powers of judicial review of administrative acts ) ( in sede di legittimit\u00e0 ) was not allowed to assess the merits of that report , the applicant \u2019s challenge could not be upheld . In respect of the original medical examination to determine the applicant \u2019s fitness for military service , the ORG again adopted the findings of ORG , which had considered that it was possible that the applicant \u2019s health problems had not manifested themselves in the absence of particular stimuli ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170342","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GAKHARIA v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant and GPE began living together in DATE . On DATE their daughter , GPE , was born . She was raised mainly by her maternal grandmother in GPE while both parents , whose relationship soon ended , left to work abroad .","On DATE GPE applied to ORG for her daughter to be officially registered as resident at her address . On DATE a summons was sent to the applicant at his registered address , informing him of GPE \u2019s action . According to the courier , the summons could not be served as the house was closed up and no one was living there . The summons was only sent once . On DATE the court of first instance , acting on the basis of LAW ( hereinafter , \u201c the ORG \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ordered information concerning the proceedings to be published in a DATE newspaper called TIME . On DATE the ORG granted GPE \u2019s application . The decision was taken in the absence of the applicant , whose whereabouts , according to the ruling , could not be established .","On DATE the ORG , acting upon another application by GPE , ruled again by default that GPE could be issued with an international passport and leave the territory of GPE without her father \u2019s consent . No specific time - limit for that restriction of the applicant \u2019s parental rights was given in the ruling . The court again stated that the applicant \u2019s whereabouts were unknown and ordered the information about the proceedings to be published in TIME . Unlike the first set of default proceedings , the summons was sent twice to the applicant at the address he had registered at . It was again not delivered . The courier noted that the house was closed up .","It appears from the case file that the custody and guardianship authority , which represented the interests of the child in the above proceedings , made its own attempts to contact the applicant . In conclusions submitted to ORG , the authority noted that during its visit to the applicant \u2019s registered address it had learnt from neighbours that he had sold the house in DATE and left for GPE . Both default decisions were sent to the applicant \u2019s registered address and , as they could not be served , were consequently published in TIME according to the procedure provided for in LAW see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , seeking to have both default decisions set aside . He stated that he had learnt about the decisions only in DATE . He also explained that he had not been living in GPE at the material time , which his former partner had well known . The default proceedings had been unfair as he had not been properly summoned to the hearings .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application . The court ruled , with reference to Articles QUANTITY and CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , that the applicant had been duly informed about the proceedings via public notifications in a newspaper and that there was therefore no legal basis to set the impugned decisions aside . It noted that the applicant had been registered at the address where the summonses had been sent and that for the purposes of the proceedings the courts had been justified in using that very address .","NORP That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . It reasoned that the domestic courts had been right to send the summonses to the applicant \u2019s only available registered address . Furthermore , as it had not been possible to serve the summonses on the applicant , the procedure of delivering a summons via a public notification , as provided for in LAW , had been duly employed .","In his last communication with ORG on DATE , the applicant stated that he could still not have any contact with his daughter ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168833","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"YIZHACHENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented , most recently , by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on several counts of fraud and incitement to bribery . The applicant remained at liberty , having paid a bail .","On DATE , during the trial , ORG of Poltava ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered that the applicant be placed in custody .","On DATE the applicant was put on the list of wanted persons .","On DATE she was arrested .","On DATE she was placed in the Poltava Pre - Trial Detention Centre ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) . On admission to the GPE the applicant had a medical examination .","On DATE she was admitted to a medical unit at the GPE with a diagnosis of ischemic heart disease , stenocardia , atherosclerotic cardio sclerosis , impaired cardiac function and hypertensive disease . The applicant had an electrocardiogram and was provided with treatment . DATE she had a consultation with a cardiologist .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a neuropathologist .","On DATE the applicant had a stenocardia attack accompanied by a sharp drop in her arterial blood pressure . She was provided with urgent medical care by an ambulance team which had arrived at the request of the GPE . The applicant was given further treatment in a city hospital .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the gynaecological ward of a city hospital where she was treated for uterine fibroids and haemorrhagic syndrome . Further examinations showed that the applicant suffered from endometrial cancer ( adenocarcinoma corporis uteri ) . On DATE the applicant was returned to the GPE and placed in the medical unit for further treatment and observation .","On DATE the applicant was examined and prescribed further drug therapy .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an oncologist who recommended she have surgery . She was registered with the NORP regional oncologic clinic as a cancer patient with ORG cancer .","On DATE the applicant wrote a statement refusing to consent to surgical treatment , chemotherapy or any other complex treatment until she had been seen by the oncology panel at the GPE oncologic centre .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the governor of the GPE and the head of the GPE \u2019s medical unit informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that the applicant had refused to have the necessary treatment because she wanted to be examined by doctors from the GPE oncology institution .","On DATE the applicant had her lungs X - rayed . No tuberculosis was found .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with cervical osteochondrosis and prescribed medical treatment and further observation .","On DATE the applicant was taken by ambulance to the gynaecological ward of the city hospital because of a uterine haemorrhage . The doctor who treated her confirmed her diagnosis and the need for surgery . The applicant returned to the GPE DATE .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an oncologist from the NORP regional oncologic clinic who also recommended surgery .","On DATE the ORG indicated to the Government under Rule CARDINAL of ORG that they should secure immediately , by appropriate means , inpatient treatment for the applicant for her health condition .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to the NORP regional oncologic clinic for further examination and treatment .","On DATE a panel of doctors at the clinic made a plan for the applicant to have surgery and scheduled it for CARDINAL DATE . The applicant refused to give her consent to the proposed treatment .","On DATE the applicant again refused to consent to the medical intervention and treatment proposed by the doctors at the NORP regional oncologic clinic . The refusal was witnessed by CARDINAL witnesses , including the doctor in charge of her treatment . The applicant was returned to the GPE \u2019s medical unit for further supervision and non - surgical treatment , which included taking prescription pills .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the NORP regional psychiatric hospital for observation in connection with signs of a possible mental disorder . On DATE she was returned to the ORG after she was found to be of sound mind and that she had attempted to simulate a mental disorder . The applicant continued to accept the treatment provided to her in the GPE .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of financial frauds and of incitement to bribery . It sentenced her to DATE imprisonment but released her from serving that sentence pending DATE probation period . ORG further changed the preventive measure against her from pre - trial detention to a written undertaking not to abscond . The applicant was released on DATE .","On DATE the Government informed ORG applicant \u2019s release , following which the ORG lifted the interim measure ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183556","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF A.C. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised complaints under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154059","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"MARTUZEVI\u010cIUS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The case originated in an application ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) against GPE and GPE lodged with ORG under LAW ( \u201c the LAW ) by a NORP national , Mr PERSON ( \u201c the applicant \u201d ) , on CARDINAL DATE .","NORP The applicant was represented by PERSON of Central Law Practice , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG . By letter dated DATE ORG were asked to notify the ORG by DATE if they intended to intervene . They did not reply to this letter .","On DATE the application was communicated to the Government .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant , a NORP national born in DATE , entered GPE in DATE . On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General in GPE issued NORP Arrest Warrant ( \u201c EAW \u201d ) in which he was accused of having committed CARDINAL dangerous felonies .","The applicant was arrested pursuant to the ORG in DATE and detained in ORG .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE . The applicant applied to ORG to have the order set aside on CARDINAL grounds : first , that the lapse of time since the commission of the alleged offences would render his extradition unjust and oppressive ; and secondly , that his extradition would violate Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention because , if returned to GPE , he would be at risk of reprisals by a notorious criminal organisation .","In DATE a doctor at ORG notified the applicant \u2019s representative that he was suffering from paranoid delusions and that he had been referred to ORG . A psychiatric report prepared on DATE recorded that he had been suffering from depression since DATE , that he was suffering from a delusional disorder and that he should be transferred to ORG for treatment .","NORP However , the authorities at ORG did not accept that he should be transferred there . The applicant \u2019s legal representatives subsequently obtained a report from another psychiatrist , who noted that the applicant appeared to be seriously depressed , that he was suffering from a delusional disorder , and that there was a risk of suicide . The psychiatrist expressed some surprise that the applicant \u2019s transfer to ORG had not been granted and suggested that the refusal decision from ORG should be appealed .","The High Court hearing was listed for DATE . The applicant sought an adjournment in order for a full psychiatric report to be obtained .","On DATE ORG refused the application for an adjournment . It also refused to set aside the order of ORG and refused to grant the applicant permission to appeal to ORG .","The High Court \u2019s consideration of how the applicant \u2019s mental health condition would be affected by extradition and the treatment that would be available to him in GPE was limited to the following paragraph :","\u201c As far as his mental state is concerned , there is evidence before us that the reports on his state , if not already forwarded , will be forwarded and any necessary treatment will be available to him either in hospital if that is necessary or perhaps as an outpatient if he is on bail . \u201d","A psychiatric report dated DATE recorded that the applicant was suffering from a serious mental illness which required treatment in hospital and which he could not explain by malingering . The applicant sought to re - open the appeal on the basis of this report . However , on DATE ORG refused to certify a point of law of general public importance and thus refused to re - open the appeal .","On DATE ORG stayed the applicant \u2019s extradition until TIME on DATE to enable him to apply to this ORG for an interim measure under LAW .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s legal representatives lodged an application before this ORG on behalf of the applicant and requested an interim measure to prevent his extradition to GPE .","On DATE the ORG asked the ORG to provide , by TIME on DATE , a transcript of ORG hearing of DATE and at the same time to confirm whether or not any assurances had been received from ORG regarding the availability of mental health treatment in detention centres in GPE . The Government duly submitted a copy of the transcript and confirmed that there was no record of any assurances on the applicant \u2019s file .","On DATE the Acting President of the Section decided to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG and indicated to the Government of GPE that the applicant should not be extradited to GPE until further notice .","By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the ORG asked the ORG to respond to the following questions by CARDINAL DATE :","\u201c CARDINAL . Are your Government aware of the medical report by Dr PERSON of DATE ?","How do your Government respond to PERSON opinion that the applicant should be transferred to ORG ?","NORP In your Government \u2019s view , would the applicant have access to adequate mental health services upon extradition to GPE :","( a ) in detention pending trial ?","( b ) if he were found not fit to plead ?","( c ) if he were to be tried and convicted ?","Does the applicant have continuing family and\/or personal ties to GPE ? \u201d","The Government replied on DATE . In their letter they informed the ORG that the only parties in extradition cases were the defendant and ORG . As a consequence , the Government had not been represented as a party in the present extradition proceedings and were not in a position to provide the additional information requested .","Following communication of the applicant \u2019s case on DATE , ORG re - referred the applicant to ORG as there had been no change in his mental health condition .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representatives notified the ORG that he had been admitted to ORG .","NORP However , the applicant \u2019s mental health condition subsequently improved significantly and on DATE his transfer was ordered from ORG to ORG . ORG also obtained a number of assurances from ORG : first , given the length of time he had spent in remand in GPE , there was a very real prospect that upon his return to GPE the applicant would be released during the pre - trial investigation stage ; secondly , if he were to be remanded in custody and his health were to deteriorate , he would be hospitalised immediately in the psychiatric department of the central prison hospital ; thirdly , if he were to remain in an ordinary custodial facility , he would be held in a prison which had psychiatric services available ; fourthly , if his fitness to plead were to be in issue , he would be subject to forensic psychiatric examination ; fifthly , there would be provision for compulsory or voluntary hospitalisation for treatment of the applicant \u2019s mental health ; and finally , if the applicant were convicted and sentenced and continued to require specialist psychiatric care , he would be sent to a facility specifically adapted for convicted persons with special needs .","Part I of LAW DATE deals with extradition to Category CARDINAL territories which , by designation of the Secretary of ORG , include all the member states of ORG which operate the NORP Arrest Warrant system . GPE is therefore a Category CARDINAL territory .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW requires the judge at the extradition hearing to decide whether a person \u2019s extradition would be compatible with Convention rights within the meaning of LAW DATE . If the extradition would be incompatible , then the judge is required to order the person \u2019s discharge . LAW provides that if the physical or mental condition of the persons whose extradition is requested is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite them , then the judge must discharge them .","If the judge at the extradition hearing orders the person \u2019s extradition , section CARDINAL provides for a right of appeal to ORG . Section CARDINAL provides for a right of appeal to ORG against a decision of ORG , with the leave of either ORG or ORG , which leave shall only be granted if ORG has certified that the case involves a point of law of general public importance and the ORG granting leave considers that the point ought to be considered by ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154162","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF S.L. AND J.L. v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive obligations);Pecuniary damage - reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants are sisters who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in P.","In DATE the applicants , represented by their mother PERSON , concluded a real estate agreement with ORG in which they expressed their intention of buying a villa of QUANTITY and the adjacent courtyard of QUANTITY in GPE , a seaside neighbourhood of P. ( hereinafter : the \u201c house \u201d ) . The agreement stated that the house was in poor condition as certain individuals had lived there for DATE without any legal basis and had ruined the furniture and installations .","The agreement was formalised in a real estate purchase contract of CARDINAL DATE by which the applicants acquired ownership of the house for an amount of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) .","On DATE the applicants registered their ownership of the house and the plot of land in the land register in equal shares .","On an unspecified date PERSON requested from the relevant ORG ( hereinafter : the \u201c LOC ) the authorisation to sell the house owned by the applicants , such authorisation being required under the relevant domestic law in cases where a parent wishes to dispose of a child \u2019s property ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","As a result of that request , on DATE PERSON and her husband PERSON ( the father of the second applicant ) were interviewed at FAC . They stated that they had bought the house in DATE for HRK CARDINAL and that they had already spent MONEY ( ORG ) renovating it . However , the house required some further investment for which they lacked the necessary means and thus they intended to sell it and to live with CARDINAL of their parents . They further explained that they owned a retail business and that they had no problems with their children , who both had excellent marks at school . PERSON and PERSON also promised that they would open a bank account on behalf of their children , into which they would deposit the money from the sale of the house . They pointed out that they had contacted a real estate agency , which was looking for a potential buyer . They also agreed that PERSON would conclude the sale contract once they had managed to find a buyer .","In DATE PERSON was arrested and held in detention in connection with a suspected attempted murder and the unlawful possession of firearms . He was later indicted on the same charges in ORG PERSON , which on DATE found him guilty and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . During the criminal proceedings his defence lawyer was ORG , a lawyer practising in P.","On DATE ORG submitted a request to the FAC seeking authorisation for a real estate swap agreement between the applicants and a certain FAC , who was in fact ORG mother - in - law . He provided powers of attorney signed by PERSON , GPE and PERSON ( the father of the first applicant ) authorising him to obtain the ORG \u2019s consent to a swap real estate agreement .","Together with his request , ORG provided a draft swap agreement stipulating that ORG would transfer to the applicants her CARDINAL - room flat of QUANTITY , situated on the fourth floor of a residential building in P. ( hereinafter : the \u201c flat \u201d ) , while the applicants would transfer their ownership of the house to FAC The draft swap agreement also stated that the values of the properties to be exchanged were the same and that the parties waived their right to object that they had sustained damage as a result of giving the exchanged property away at CARDINAL of its real value . ORG also submitted another document , a supplement to the swap agreement , in which the parties to that agreement acknowledged that GPE and PERSON had invested significant sums of money in the house and that , on the basis of the amounts shown on certain available invoices , ORG would compensate them for those investments .","V.L. was invited to ORG an interview on DATE in connection with ORG \u2019s request . She stated that her husband had meanwhile been imprisoned and that their retail business had started to go badly , leading her to close it in DATE . She also explained that she was unemployed and that this situation had affected the applicants , who were no longer doing so well at school . She further stated that she had been obliged to borrow money to pay the bills for the house and that the overall situation had prompted her and PERSON to exchange the house for a flat in P. with the additional obligation on the part of the flat - owner to pay them the difference in value between the CARDINAL properties , amounting to CARDINAL ORG according to her estimate . Lastly , PERSON pointed out that PERSON , the father of the first applicant , had given his consent to the swap agreement . She also undertook to register the ownership of the flat in the applicants\u2019 names .","On DATE the ORG gave its authorisation for the swap agreement , whereby the applicants would transfer their ownership of the house to FAC while the latter would transfer her ownership of the flat and a garage to the applicants . The decision drafted by the Centre specified that PERSON was obliged to provide the ORG with a copy of the swap agreement .","In its statement of reasons behind the decision , the ORG pointed out that it had taken note of the powers of attorney provided to ORG by the applicants\u2019 parents , ORG statement of DATE , birth certificates for the applicants and land registry certificates for the properties , and the draft swap agreement . It had also noted the fact that ORG had been convicted at first - instance of the offence of attempted murder and unlawful possession of firearms . Based on this information , the ORG concluded that the swap agreement was not contrary to the best interests of the applicants since their property rights would not be extinguished or reduced as they would become the owners of a flat which would provide fully suitable living accommodation .","On DATE , the ORG gave its authorisation for the supplementary document to the swap agreement by virtue of which ORG would pay the applicants CARDINAL ORG each on account of the difference in value between the exchanged properties . As a condition of this decision , PERSON was obliged to provide the ORG with a bank statement attesting that the payment had been made . In its statement of reasons , the FAC referred to a request made by PERSON for the conclusion of a supplement to the swap agreement and the statement she had given to the ORG . The ORG also found that this would not be contrary to the interests of the applicants .","The above CARDINAL decisions issued by ORG DATE were forwarded to the lawyer PERSON","On DATE the applicants , represented by ORG , concluded the real estate swap agreement with ORG before a Public Notary in P. , and the applicants thereby transferred their ownership of the house to ORG while the latter transferred her ownership of the flat and the garage to the applicants . The swap agreement contained a clause under which the parties agreed that there was no difference in the value of the exchanged properties , and that they had no further claims on that account . It also set down the value of the properties at some HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","Based on this contract , the applicants and ORG duly registered their ownership of the properties with the land registry .","On DATE lawyer PERSON submitted to the Centre a certificate from the land registry showing that the applicants had registered their ownership of the flat and bank statements showing that they had received the amount of CARDINAL ORG each .","On DATE ORG ( ORG financija , PERSON uprava ) declared a tax obligation of HRK CARDINAL for each of the parties \u2012 based on the declared value of the transaction involved in the swap agreement \u2012 which was divided by CARDINAL in respect of the applicants , who were thus obliged to pay HRK CARDINAL each .","On DATE the applicants , represented by ORG as their legal guardian , brought an action against D.M.in ORG ( PERSON ) , asking the court to declare the swap agreement null and void ( ni\u0161tav ) .","During the proceedings the applicants argued that the swap agreement had effected the exchange of the ownership of the house \u2012 which comprised CARDINAL flats , each measuring QUANTITY , was CARDINAL minutes\u2019 walk from the sea and was worth MONEY ( ORG ) \u2012 for a flat and a garage worth in total no more than LAW . Given that at the time when the contract was concluded they were DATE , the ORG should have defended their rights and should not have given its consent to a swap agreement of that kind . In this respect they pointed out that section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW listed specific instances in which the property of a minor could be disposed of , and that no such instance had existed in their case . Moreover , the ORG had failed to carry out an on - site inspection or to commission an expert report which would have allowed it to estimate the value of the house and adopt a proper decision concerning the request for authorisation of the swap agreement . The applicants therefore considered that , by failing to take such vital measures , the ORG had allowed an unlawful and immoral property exchange to be executed . In their view , this had resulted in ab initio invalidity of the exchange . The applicants also pointed out that their legal guardian PERSON had not been party to the discussions concerning the swap agreement . They therefore proposed that the trial court examine several witnesses , including the participants to the swap agreement , the employees of the ORG , the first applicant \u2012 who was by that time already DATE \u2012 , and commission an expert report establishing the value of the properties .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG request to take any of the proposed evidence on the grounds that the case could be decided on the basis of the documents from the case file .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 civil action . It argued that it was not in a position to re - examine the ORG \u2019s decision to authorise the swap agreement , since that was an administrative decision which could only have been challenged in administrative proceedings . Thus , given that such a decision existed , ORG could not find the swap agreement to be unlawful or contrary to the morals of society . It also pointed out that the swap agreement could possibly be only a voidable contract ( pobojan ) but no claim to that effect had been made by the applicants .","The applicants challenged that judgment by means of an appeal lodged before ORG , arguing that the first - instance court had failed to examine any of their arguments and had thus erred in its decision concerning the validity of the swap agreement .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the first - instance court .","The applicants then lodged an appeal on points of law before ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . The second applicant was represented by PERSON , and the first applicant , having in the meantime reached the age of majority , was able to conduct the legal action herself .","In their appeal on points of law the applicants argued , inter alia , that the P. had negligently allowed the swap agreement to be concluded without taking into account the value of the properties and the nature of their family circumstances at the time , namely the fact that LOC was in detention and that PERSON was known as a person with a problem of drug abuse .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal on points of law as ill - founded and endorsed the decisions of the lower courts , which found that the civil courts were not in a position to re - examine the ORG \u2019s final administrative decision allowing the conclusion of the swap agreement . Moreover , it did not appear to ORG that the ORG had failed in its protection of the best interests of the applicants .","The applicants then lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) reiterating their previous arguments before the lower courts . The second applicant was represented by ORG","On DATE ORG declared the applicants\u2019 constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded .","A report by ORG and Youth ( ORG socijalne politike i ORG ) of DATE submitted to the ORG suggests that the ORG was not aware of PERSON \u2019s drug abuse problem nor had it been alerted concerning ORG \u2019s conflict of interest .","According to a report by ORG ( ORG zdravlja ) of DATE , PERSON started her drug addiction therapy on DATE and terminated it in DATE . She then started again in DATE and she was still undergoing therapy at the present time .","The information available from the e - land registry concerning property in GPE shows that the house and the land on which it is located measure QUANTITY with an adjacent courtyard of QUANTITY , all of which is registered in the name of ORG as owner ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141323","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"HADZHOLOV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","NORP Until DATE the applicant worked as a coal miner for Gorubso \u2013 ORG ( a ORG enterprise , transformed into a ORG - owned company in DATE and later , apparently in DATE , privatised following the opening of winding - up proceedings ; currently a joint - stock company Gorubso Zlatograd DATE ) . In DATE the applicant brought proceedings against the mining company seeking payment of compensation for the occupational disease he had developed as a result of exposure to hazardous conditions in the mine . On CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the claim . The company was ordered to pay a sum of CARDINAL old NORP levs ( ORG ) ( the equivalent of MONEY ) as compensation , as well as DATE payments for DATE , from DATE , the amounts varying between ORG and BGL CARDINAL , depending on the period .","NORP In DATE the applicant requested that the enforcement judge institute enforcement proceedings against the debtor . It appears that in DATE the enforcement judge attached the company \u2019s bank accounts . There is no information in the case file about the development of the enforcement proceedings between DATE and DATE . In particular , there is no evidence about requests made by the applicant for enforcement measures , claims lodged in the winding - up proceedings relating to the mining company \u2019s assets , or information sought by the applicant on the payment of the debt .","On DATE the enforcement judge discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the basis of LAW ( \u0434 ) of LAW , as the applicant had not requested enforcement actions for DATE .","On DATE the applicant and his lawyer consulted the file of the enforcement proceedings . The applicant submits that only then did he find out that the proceedings had been discontinued in DATE , and that he was shown a document \u2013 the enforcement judge \u2019s register of DATE for the incoming and outgoing amounts DATE which indicated that in DATE the mining company had paid the applicant an amount of ORG CARDINAL by means of bank transfer . The applicant sent a letter of CARDINAL DATE to the enforcement judge , in which he maintained that he had never received the aforementioned amount and that he was unable to obtain a copy of the payment order as the case file had been destroyed .","By a letter of DATE , the enforcement judge informed the applicant that , as was clear from the information in the file , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had received payment from the mining company in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( representing the initial compensation of BGL CARDINAL plus several DATE payments ) . In a letter of DATE , the bank which had effected the payment on CARDINAL DATE informed the applicant that the documents concerning the money transfer had already been destroyed as the DATE time - limit for keeping them had expired .","NORP In DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to the prosecution authorities requesting an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the payment of DATE . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the enforcement judge informed the investigation authorities that , as could be seen from the enforcement judge \u2019s register of DATE , on DATE the applicant had received payment from the mining company in the amount of ORG CARDINAL . As to the payment orders of that date , the enforcement judge noted that they had been destroyed as the DATE time - limit for keeping payment documents under LAW had expired .","On DATE the public prosecutor refused to open criminal proceedings , noting that a long period of time had elapsed since the alleged offence had been committed , and that the time - limits for keeping the relevant documents at the respective institutions had already expired . The applicant appealed against that decision on DATE . On DATE the hierarchically superior prosecutor upheld those conclusions .","In DATE the applicant requested that the GPE ORG issue a document certifying that the case file of the enforcement proceedings had been destroyed . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the President of ORG informed him that the file had not been destroyed and that he and his lawyer had consulted it .","In the period DATE inflation in GPE was running high and the national currency was depreciating . As of the entry into force of a law on DATE , ORG CARDINAL became CARDINAL new NORP lev ( ORG ) . The applicant submitted that due to the enforcement judge \u2019s inactivity over DATE and the inflation and the devaluation of the national currency , the total amount of DATE payments he was entitled to receive for DATE to DATE had devalued to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately CARDINAL euros ( EUR ) ) . He claimed that the amount he was entitled to receive from DATE had devalued to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","NORP In accordance with LAW seq . of LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE Code \u201d ) , in force at the material time , enforcement proceedings against ORG enterprises were to be directed firstly towards their bank accounts in ORG banks . When payment upon a writ of execution against the ORG enterprise could not be received because of lack of such bank accounts or of available funds in them , enforcement was to be carried out by an enforcement judge . Certain articles of property belonging to the ORG enterprises could not be subject to enforcement , other than in winding - up proceedings . These provisions were repealed in DATE .","Article CARDINAL of the DATE Code provided that enforcement proceedings against private parties were to be instituted upon the request of the creditor . The creditors were under the obligation to state against which debtor \u2019s possessions ( bank accounts , immovable property , and so forth ) they would like the enforcement to be directed ( LAW ) . Throughout the proceedings the creditors could request the enforcement actions to be directed against different possessions of the debtor . If the creditors did not request enforcement actions to be undertaken for a period of DATE , the enforcement proceedings had to be terminated ( LAW ( \u0434 ) ) . The LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE Code \u201d ) , which came into force on DATE , contained similar provisions .","Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE stipulated that the accounting registers and reports were to be kept for DATE . This provision was superseded in DATE by CARDINAL of LAW DATE .","By virtue of LAW of ORG DATE , the enforcement judges were part of the district courts system . Under the Regulations on the Organisation and Work of the District , Regional and Military Courts DATE , the general statutory time - limit for keeping the case files of archived cases in the district courts was DATE . LAW DATE , which superseded ORG and which was in force until DATE , as well as the regulations adopted on its implementation contained similar provisions ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170862","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MKHCHYAN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) approved the construction of garages alongside the ORG railway in GPE . The decision read as follows :","\u201c Taking into consideration that the garages on [ a QUANTITY ] stretch of the ORG railway must carry out the function of a noise shield , the GPE testing section of the ORG railway of ORG approves the construction of garages QUANTITY away from the outer rail , on the following conditions :","NORP the garages shall be built alongside the railway using reinforced concrete , in a line ;","NORP the construction of the garages shall be in strict compliance with technical safety rules for construction works in a railway zone ;","PERCENT of the garages shall be allocated to railway employees as compensation for the use of railway territory . \u201d","On DATE ORG of the Government of GPE ( GPE \u0430\u0440\u0445\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0440\u043d\u043e-\u043f\u043b\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0447\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442\u0430 \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0440\u0445\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0435 \u0438 \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0434\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0443 \u0433. PERSON ) ( hereinafter \u201c the GPE architecture and planning directorate \u201d ) issued a town - planning assignment ( \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0434\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043b\u044e\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) for the design and construction of garages alongside the ORG railway . The document mentioned , in particular , that the land on which the garages were to be built belonged to GPE ( PERSON ) and that the garages were intended to serve as a noise shield along the railway line .","On DATE the local administration ( ORG \u043c\u0443\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043f\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043e\u043a\u0440\u0443\u0433\u0430 \u201c ORG \u0430\u0434\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043e\u043a\u0440\u0443\u0433\u0430 PERSON ) confirmed that they had no objections to assigning the land in question for the construction of garages by garage - building cooperative \u201c PERSON \u201d ( garage ORG partnership , \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , in accordance with the town - planning assignment .","On DATE the applicant joined the ORG and paid his share for a garage ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the material time ) .","The garages were constructed accordingly , and on DATE the local administration \u2019s inspection board certified that CARDINAL - storeyed capital ( immovable ) garages built by the ORG were ready for use . On DATE the prefect of the local administration gave his approval .","Garage no . CARDINAL was allotted to the applicant . The local administration issued him with a certificate attesting to his possession of the said garage as from DATE ( \u0441\u0432\u0438\u0434\u0435\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u043e \u0432\u043b\u0430\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0438 \u0433\u0430\u0440\u0430\u0436\u043d\u044b\u043c \u0431\u043e\u043a\u0441\u043e\u043c ) . The applicant , however , never had his property rights to the garage registered in the real estate register .","On DATE ORG concluded a lease agreement with the ORG in respect of the land occupied by the garages . The lease provided that the land plot was allocated for further use of CARDINAL garage boxes and CARDINAL open parking spaces situated on it . That lease agreement remained in force until DATE .","On DATE the ORG unitary enterprise \u201c ORG of the ORG \u201d ( \u201c FAC of the ORG \u201d ) concluded a lease agreement with the ORG in respect of the land occupied by the garages . Under the agreement the lease was valid until DATE . The parties subsequently extended the validity of the agreement on CARDINAL occasions : until DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . Thereafter they tacitly renewed the agreement for an indefinite duration . The ORG continued to pay the rent due under the lease until DATE .","Under clause CARDINAL of the lease agreement , the land plot was allocated for placement of garage boxes . Clause CARDINAL of the agreement proscribed the construction of permanent structures on the land and provided that temporary structures could be built only upon written approval by ORG of the ORG . Clause CARDINAL stipulated that at the end of the lease , all temporary structures were to be removed . Clause CARDINAL provided that the lease could be terminated unilaterally in the event of breach of the terms of the lease agreement by the ORG or failure to pay the lease for DATE , and in the event that the land in question was required for the purposes of the railway , with DATE prior notice . Clause CARDINAL stipulated that the ORG had no right to modify federal ownership of railway rights of way .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG decided to establish an open joint stock company called \u201c GPE \u201d ( \u201c the RZD \u201d ) , to succeed the ORG .","On DATE ORG for ORG responsible for GPE signed a lease agreement with the ORG in respect of the plot of land on which the garages were situated .","On DATE the ORG notified the ORG of the unilateral termination of the lease agreement , with reference to a need that had arisen to use the land in question for the purposes of the railway . The ORG invited the ORG to vacate the plot by CARDINAL DATE .","The ORG refused to do so and provided the ORG with a list of its members , from which it transpired that the applicant was the owner of garage no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the ORG notified the applicant of the necessity to vacate the garage . The applicant refused to comply .","On DATE the ORG brought court proceedings against the applicant seeking the removal of garage no . CARDINAL from the plot in question .","On DATE the Ostankinskiy District Court of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) granted the above claim and ordered the applicant to remove the garage within DATE of the judgment becoming final . ORG further authorised the ORG to remove the garage on their own if the applicant failed to comply with the court \u2019s decision . ORG held as follows :","\u201c It follows from the case - file material that on DATE the ORG unitary enterprise \u201c ORG of the ORG \u201d and the ORG signed a lease agreement in respect of a plot of land situated within a railway right of way [ \u043f\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0441\u0430 \u043e\u0442\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0430 \u0436\u0435\u043b\u0435\u0437\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0434\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0433\u0438 ] for the purposes of reimbursement of its maintenance costs , valid until DATE , which was subsequently extended on the basis of additional agreements . Pursuant to clause CARDINAL of the above lease agreement the land was allocated for the construction of garage boxes . The construction of permanent structures on the land was prohibited ( clause CARDINAL ) . At present the lease agreement has been terminated , which is confirmed by notifications of DATE and CARDINAL DATE on the unilateral termination of the lease agreement with reference to the necessity to use the plot in question for the purposes of the railway .","The case file contains a certificate provided by the plaintiff to the effect that the ORG had [ paid rent under the lease ] until DATE , and that since then no payments had been made for the use of the plot of land .","The procedure for the use of land plots classified as federal property is determined by the Government of GPE in accordance with section CARDINAL of Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on ORG in GPE .","Government Resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE stipulates that the use of land classified as federal property and provided to the ORG must be based on a land lease agreement between ORG for ORG ( its territorial body ) and the ORG .","Pursuant to ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE on ORG in GPE , railway land is land used or intended for maintaining the activities of rail transport organisations and\/or for buildings , constructions , structures and other rail transport facilities , including plots of land situated within railway rights of way and safety areas .","Plots of land adjacent to railway tracks or intended for the placement of such tracks are classified as railway rights of way , as is land occupied by or intended for the placement of railway terminals , water drainage and protective facilities along railway tracks , communication lines , electric power supply facilities , production and other buildings , constructions , structures , equipment and other rail transport facilities .","The plot of land with cadastral number CARDINAL is intended for the operation and development of the railways , [ it ] is situated within a railway right of way ...","Before the lease agreement in respect of the railway right of way [ between the ORG and GPE ] was signed , the plot of land with cadastral number CARDINAL was classified as rail transport land in accordance with LAW approved by decision no . CARDINAL of ORG DATE ; decision no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of ORG of GPE of DATE on the division of ORG property in GPE ; and ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE on ORG .","ORG decree no . CARDINAL \u201c Ts \u201d of CARDINAL DATE approved the procedure for the use of federal railway land within railway rights of way .","In accordance with this procedure , the size of a right of way is determined in accordance with standards and rules for the design of railway rights of way , approved by the ORG , as well as with design and budget documentation and general schemes for the development and reconstruction of federal rail transport facilities and stations .","The revision of the borders and size of rights of way , the withdrawal of temporarily unused plots of land and their reclassification from CARDINAL category to another is carried out by the competent authorities with the agreement of the railways , pursuant to the legislation of GPE .","...","The court has established that on part of the plot of land with cadastral number QUANTITY in the right of way of the Oktyabrskaya railway ... there are garages , including garage no . CARDINAL . ...","No information has been provided from ORG and Transactions in respect of the garage . No documents have been provided by the defendant or the ORG confirming their right to use the land underneath the garage either .","The ORG is the user of the plot of land in question . By virtue of LAW of LAW of GPE it is entitled to seek the elimination of violations of its rights , namely the removal of the [ applicant \u2019s ] garage from the plot .","...","To support his assertion about the lawfulness of his possession of the disputed garage , the defendant submitted to the court a certificate issued by the ORG confirming that he had paid in full his share for the garage . Also , at the request of the defendant the court joined to the case file the following evidence : a copy of the act certifying that the garages were ready for use ; notification from the federal service for ORG registration , inventory and cartography responsible for GPE about the absence of any information in ORG and Transactions about the disputed plot ; the approval by the prefect of [ the local administration ] of the inspection certificate issued in respect of the garages ; correspondence from the GPE section of the ORG railway of DATE on the approval of the construction of the garages within the railway right of way ; the town - planning assignment issued by the GPE architecture and planning directorate on DATE ; the decision of the federal service for State registration , inventory and cartography of DATE refusing to issue a cadastral certificate for the disputed plot .","However , these documents do not prove that the applicant acquired property rights in respect of the garage , nor do they prove the lawfulness of the use of the land underneath it . The defendant \u2019s garage [ is ] an unauthorised construction because it was built on a plot of land that was not allocated for that purpose in accordance with the procedure provided for by law and in the absence of permission issued by a competent authority , whereas a railway right of way can be used exclusively for the construction of rail transport facilities . The [ documents provided by the defendant ] do not prove that the garage was not an unauthorised construction , because the construction was carried out on land within a railway right of way and therefore was not intended for the building of garages . The approval by the prefect of the local administration of the inspection certificate does not confirm the existence of permission by the federal authorities to use the plot of land in question for building garages , regard being had [ to the fact ] that the owner of the plot is GPE and not GPE .","The management of land owned by the ORG , including giving permission for construction of immovable property , can be done only by the competent federal authority .","A garage for parking a car by an individual is not a rail transport facility , therefore a plot of land within a railway right of way can not be considered to be intended for the construction of such a garage ( garages ) .","Besides , the defendant has failed to submit evidence to the effect that the competent federal authority issued an administrative act on the transfer of a part of the land situated within a railway right of way to the defendant . It therefore follows that the plot of land was not provided to the defendant by the owner , and therefore at the present time the defendant has no legal grounds to use federal property .","...","The applicant would have acquired title to garage no . CARDINAL had it not been an unauthorised construction .","...","Having assessed all the evidence in the case , taking into consideration [ the fact ] that the defendant did not acquire property rights in respect of the plot of land classified as federal property and located within a railway right of way , on which the disputed garage is situated , that the plot was provided for temporary use , and that it is being used at the present time without any contractual basis , the court comes to the conclusion that the rights of the ORG have been violated in that the plaintiff is prevented from using the land in accordance with its intended purpose . The court therefore considers that there are lawful grounds for granting the plaintiff \u2019s claim for removal of garage no . CARDINAL from the plot of land with cadastral number CARDINAL ... \u201d","The applicant appealed . He claimed , in particular , that he was entitled to compensation .","On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal . ORG held that the law did not provide for the possibility of claiming compensation for the demolition of an unauthorised construction .","On DATE the Ostankinskiy District bailiffs\u2019 service in GPE instituted enforcement proceedings . The applicant was notified on DATE .","As the applicant refused to comply voluntarily with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as upheld on appeal on DATE , the ORG proceeded to demolish his garage .","On DATE the Ostankinskiy District bailiffs\u2019 service was informed accordingly .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated .","According to the Government , in DATE the construction of the fourth main track of the ORG railway between GPE and ORG was completed on the land previously occupied by the garages of the ORG and was opened for circulation of the suburban electric train . In DATE noise - reduction barriers were installed along the ORG railway line in the area of the NORP residential district ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173390","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KURS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant \u2019s details are set out in the appended table .","NORP The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160619","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LIE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF A.K. v. LIECHTENSTEIN (No. 2)","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","Since DATE , the applicant and GPE have been involved in legal disputes against each other concerning the property rights in PERCENT of the bearer shares in both EMK stock company ( hereinafter \u201c EMK \u201d ) and EMK Engineering stock company ( \u201c EMK Engineering \u201d ) , companies resident and registered in GPE .","In DATE and DATE ORG ( PERSON ) ordered by way of an interim measure that GPE \u2019s entry in the commercial register as a member of the EMK and the EMK Engineering companies\u2019 respective supervisory boards with power to represent those companies may not be cancelled .","On DATE GPE brought an action against the applicant in ORG . He requested that the court oblige the applicant to hand over a specified number of bearer shares in EMK and in EMK Engineering and establish that the applicant did not hold and had never held any shares in those GPE companies . The action was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","In a decision dated DATE ORG , following a hearing on DATE , dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection to the GPE courts\u2019 jurisdiction ( file no . CARDINAL CG.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . It found that it had jurisdiction on grounds of location of assets ( GPE ) to decide upon ORG action . The applicant had assets in GPE , specifically claims for salary and fees against EMK and EMK Engineering , which both had their seat in GPE . Furthermore , GPE \u2019s action for restitution of the bearer shares in these corporations was of a pecuniary nature .","In a decision dated DATE ORG , in interlocutory proceedings , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal of DATE against ORG decision of DATE .","Following a constitutional complaint of CARDINAL DATE , on DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s application to have ORG interlocutory decision be given suspensory effect . It further ordered ORG not to hold any further hearings in the proceedings at issue until ORG had taken its decision on the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded ( file no . PERSON ) .","Following the termination of the proceedings before ORG , ORG resumed the proceedings . It heard evidence from the parties , their counsel and CARDINAL witnesses in person in hearings on DATE , DATE and DATE . It further took note of the written submissions of the parties and of numerous documents as well as of the case files in several related proceedings .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to deliver its judgment , given that the oral proceedings had concluded on DATE .","On DATE ORG , in a judgment running to CARDINAL pages , upheld ORG \u2019s action ( file no . CARDINAL CG.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . It ordered the applicant to hand over a specified number of bearer shares in EMK and in EMK Engineering to GPE and declared that the applicant did not hold and had never held shares in those companies .","Having regard to the evidence before it , ORG considered that GPE \u2019s submissions regarding the question of who had been the owner of the shares in dispute had been more credible than that of the applicant . It found that the applicant \u2019s mother , PERSON , had never obtained ownership of the shares in question as there had not been a sales contract between her and GPE She had been in possession of the shares in order to make a minority shareholder think that GPE was no longer holding shares in the companies . The applicant had known this on conclusion of his contract with PERSON transferring the shares to him as a gift in DATE at the latest . PERSON had not , therefore , been the owner of or authorised to transfer ownership of the shares to the applicant ; the latter had not obtained ownership thereof for lack of good faith .","Following a hearing , on CARDINAL DATE ORG , endorsing the findings of ORG , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal dated DATE . It considered that ORG had taken all evidence necessary for its decision . It further rejected new documentary evidence submitted by the applicant to support his allegations as inadmissible for having been submitted out of time in an attempt to protract the proceedings . The judgment was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","In a judgment and decision dated CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant on DATE . It found that the lower courts had not made an error of law in the legal classification of the facts they had established , that they had not failed to take necessary evidence and that they had sufficiently reasoned their judgments . The judgment and decision were served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint ( running to CARDINAL pages plus annexes ) with ORG against ORG judgment and decision . Relying , inter alia , on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and on LAW . CARDINAL to the LAW , the applicant complained , in particular , about the length of the proceedings . He stressed that the outcome of the proceedings , to the duration of which he had not contributed , was of vital importance to him as it concerned his means of subsistence . He further submitted in that context that he had not had at his disposal an effective remedy , such as an application to speed up the proceedings , in order to enforce his Convention rights .","On DATE the President of ORG granted the applicant \u2019s application to have his complaint given suspensory effect . The court reserved its decision on the costs arguing that the duty to bear the costs depended on the outcome of the main proceedings . The applicant would have only had to bear the decision fee if his constitutional complaint had been dismissed .","On DATE GPE lodged a submission in reply to the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint .","On DATE the President of ORG , PERSON , informed the applicant that he , alongside Judges PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON and PERSON , would decide on his constitutional complaint in a hearing in camera on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint alleging bias ( running to CARDINAL pages plus annexes ) against the CARDINAL judges of ORG called upon to decide on his complaint .","The applicant argued , in particular , that all of the CARDINAL challenged judges had taken arbitrary decisions to his disadvantage and in breach of his Convention rights in relation to the previous injunction and other proceedings brought by him , and that the court , which was influenced by the executive , discriminated against foreign nationals such as the applicant .","The applicant further submitted that , for different reasons , the CARDINAL judges of ORG individually had not been impartial . As regards the court \u2019s President , Judge PERSON , the applicant complained that he had delayed the appointment of the judges who were to decide on his complaint . Moreover , he was a close friend of H. , the court \u2019s Vice President and brother of GPE , the party opposing the applicant in the proceedings at issue .","According to the applicant \u2019s submission , Judge PERSON . was biased because he worked for the Government drawing up expert reports on constitutional questions and giving seminars organised by the Government . He further worked with Judge PERSON on a regular basis .","Judge PERSON . , for his part , was not impartial as he was also a professor at ORG and had himself argued in a publication that judges should be appointed for life or for a long single term of office .","The applicant further stressed that Judge PERSON was a member of the supervisory board of a state - owned company and was therefore not independent and impartial .","Finally , Judge PERSON was a partner in a law firm with a lawyer against whom the applicant had brought proceedings concerning an inheritance . Another lawyer of that firm had already represented EMK and EMK ORG . Moreover , Judge PERSON had previously worked as a lawyer in Judge PERSON \u2019s law firm .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG , with the CARDINAL judges whom the applicant had challenged for bias comprising the bench , dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints of bias .","ORG stated that , in accordance with the principle that , if possible , a complaint of bias should not be decided upon by the challenged judge , the challenged judges , respectively , had not participated in the deliberations and the decision on the respective complaint alleging bias against them , which had been decided upon by the CARDINAL remaining judges .","ORG considered that the fact alone that several of the challenged judges had already taken part in prior decisions finding against the applicant did not suffice to substantiate that there were objectively justified doubts as to their impartiality for the purposes of LAW . Moreover , the fact that the judges had been elected for DATE did not compromise their impartiality . The applicant further had not substantiated that the executive had influenced the judges of ORG in the present proceedings in any way . Nor did the fact that the judges concerned worked together with GPE \u2019s brother , the Vice President of ORG , on a regular basis and were friends of the latter objectively cast doubts on their impartiality .","On DATE , on CARDINAL DATE , ORG delivered its judgment ( file no . PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It granted the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint in part , finding that the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW and under LAW to a decision within a reasonable time had been breached in the proceedings at issue . It ordered that GPE reimburse the applicant the fee for lodging the constitutional complaint ( MONEY ( CHF ) ) and bear the further court costs , that is to say , the judgment fee ( CHF CARDINAL ) . It further ordered GPE to reimburse GPE , who , unlike the applicant , had been represented by counsel in the proceedings before ORG , lawyers\u2019 fees of CHF CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","ORG found that the total duration of the proceedings alone , which lasted DATE after the action of DATE had been brought , did not justify the finding of a breach of the right to a decision within a reasonable time . It had to be noted in that context that DATE had been necessary to deal with the interlocutory proceedings on the GPE courts\u2019 jurisdiction brought by the applicant himself . Moreover , the courts had generally duly furthered the proceedings . There had only been a delay of DATE and DATE between the last hearing before the court of first instance on DATE and the delivery of the judgment on DATE . Such a period of inactivity could no longer be considered as reasonable despite the complexity of the proceedings . Therefore , there had been a violation of LAW .","ORG noted that GPE law did not contain any provisions stipulating which consequences should result from a breach of the right to proceedings within a reasonable time . However , it would be utterly unjust if a breach of this constitutional right did not have any consequences as a result of a lack of legislative provisions . There was therefore a gap in the law which had to be filled by way of judicial interpretation . In ORG view , it was therefore necessary to impose the costs of the proceedings ( court costs and ORG fees ) upon the ORG in order to compensate for and redress the breach of the fundamental right at issue . However , the judgment fee could not be imposed on the ORG as a measure of compensation as GPE had to bear that cost anyway .","The Constitutional Court further dismissed the remainder of the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint . It considered that the applicant \u2019s property rights had not been infringed in the proceedings at issue in which the opposing parties had both claimed to be the owner of the shares in question . Moreover , the GPE courts had been independent tribunals . In particular , GPE \u2019s brother , the Vice President of ORG , had not taken part in the decision - making process of any of the GPE courts . Moreover , the findings of facts , the assessment of the evidence and the legal reasoning of the lower courts did not disclose any arbitrariness .","The judgment and the decision of CARDINAL DATE were served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161882","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GRUZDA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG of PERSON ( NORP \u0433\u0430\u0440\u043d\u0438\u0437\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0432\u043e\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 ) convicted the applicant of laundering of the proceeds of crime and sentenced him to a fine .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( ORG \u043e\u043a\u0440\u0443\u0436\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0432\u043e\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 ) acquitted the applicant on appeal .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG of ORG , on a public prosecutor \u2019s initiative , annulled the judgment of CARDINAL DATE by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the appeal court . The annulment was reasoned by CARDINAL main arguments : ( CARDINAL ) unresolved contradictions between witnesses\u2019 statements pertaining to the applicant \u2019s criminal intent , and ( CARDINAL ) absence in the appeal judgment of a summary of the arguments presented by the prosecution during the appeal proceedings .","On DATE ORG of ORG , acting on appeal , reversed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for fresh consideration to the trial court .","In DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant were terminated due to decriminalization of his actions under the domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172314","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VOLCHKOVA AND MIRONOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE and PERSON .","The applicants , together with another person , were joint owners of a plot of land and the house built on it .","The first applicant owned a CARDINAL share of a house constructed DATE ( her share amounting to QUANTITY . m , of which CARDINAL sq . m was living space ) , and QUANTITY . m of land . The property had been her registered address since DATE . It appears that her title originated in the inheritance she had received after her late mother \u2019s death in DATE .","The second applicant owned a CARDINAL share in the same house ( amounting to some CARDINAL sq . m ) and QUANTITY . m of the same plot of land . It appears that he had first had a right of use ( as part of inheritance after another person ) in respect of the land and had then acquired title to it in DATE ; that he had inherited his share in the house after another person in DATE .","The remainder of the house and plot of land were owned by the first applicant \u2019s brother .","On DATE ORG LOC issued a decision to \u201c adopt \u201d the general plan of LOC town , \u201c to invite the PERSON municipality to continue co - operating with the authors of the general plan when preparing future projects , bearing in mind that the plan is the main legal document in relation to town planning \u201d . In DATE the decision was amended to indicate that the ORG \u201c had adopted the plan for further approval in accordance with the established procedure \u201d ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the LOC municipality ( \u201c the municipality \u201d ) adopted a programme aimed at demolishing dilapidated housing .","NORP In DATE the local authorities adopted draft construction guidelines for the Oktyabrskiy Proezdy district where the applicants\u2019 house was situated . The draft guidelines were published in a local newspaper on DATE . It appears that they were eventually adopted in DATE .","A committee composed of officials attached to various public authorities was asked to make a proposal regarding a plot of land for constructing blocks of flats . The committee considered that it would be appropriate to construct blocks of flats at FAC . It does not transpire from the committee \u2019s deliberations that they considered any other plots of land . On CARDINAL DATE the municipality issued a decision by which it agreed to the construction of several blocks of flats ( including CARDINAL on the LOC land ) and authorised a specialised ORG enterprise to start the compiling of the necessary technical documents .","In DATE the regional administration , the PERSON town administration and a ORG enterprise signed an investment contract for the construction of multi - storey blocks of flats in the area , including the ORG land . Under the terms of the contract , the enterprise would arrange to buy the land from private owners and the municipality would acquire title to it . The investor would also take measures to resettle any inhabitants and provide them with compensation . The municipality and the investor would own PERCENT and PERCENT of the newly built housing space respectively . The estimated preliminary cost of the project amounted to MONEY ( ORG ) .","As transpires from the available information , the block of flats to be built on the applicants\u2019 land comprised CARDINAL floors , CARDINAL flats with the total space of QUANTITY . m. Under the investment contract , the municipality was to receive title to CARDINAL flats for the overall space of QUANTITY m.","The investor also agreed to make a contribution of funds corresponding to PERCENT of the estimated costs for constructing a kindergarten for CARDINAL children , an annex building for a school and some other amenities or facilities .","In DATE a private company , ORS - Grupp , replaced the ORG enterprise as the project investor .","In DATE the municipality issued an order aimed at implementing the demolition programme adopted in DATE and \u201c improving the architectural appearance of the town and the resettlement of inhabitants from housing that no longer [ met ] sanitary requirements \u201d . The above investment project was CARDINAL of the measures by which the municipality intended to achieve those aims . In total , the order concerned some CARDINAL investment contracts in relation to over CARDINAL dwellings , of which CARDINAL properties were privately owned and the remainder was owned by the municipality .","The municipality assessed the situation as regards the private owners , including the applicants , and decided to proceed by way of expropriation for municipal needs under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the municipality ordered the expropriation of the applicants\u2019 house and land for municipal needs , namely the construction of a block of flats under the investment contract .","According to the Government , on DATE the second applicant received notice of the planned expropriation .","On DATE the municipality amended the expropriation order , indicating that pursuant to the investment contract the investor had to provide funds for paying compensation for the land being expropriated and provide inhabitants with comparable alternative housing . The investor was required to request expert valuations to determine the market value of the properties being expropriated ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) and then buy those properties .","It appears that on CARDINAL DATE the investor obtained a valuation report regarding the applicants\u2019 house and land to determine their market value . The company used was PERSON , a private company licensed by the ORG to carry out valuation assessments ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The ORG was not provided with a copy of this valuation report .","According to the Government , on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was served with notice of the planned expropriation . In DATE both applicants were informed that the amended expropriation order had been officially registered .","According to the Government , on DATE there was a meeting between FAC residents and , apparently , a representative of the local authorities or the private company . The ORG stated that the residents had been given access to a construction planning document for the area , documents concerning the choice of plots for such construction , the town plan and some other documents .","As no comparable plots of land were available in the area , having regard to the valuation report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the first applicant was offered several options of \u201c compensation in kind \u201d , namely CARDINAL or CARDINAL - room flats in GPE or GPE with market values of MONEY ( ORG ) , apparently with ownership title . She was also offered monetary compensation for the land and her part of the house of up to ORG CARDINAL . However , she turned down these offers , considering them insufficient or the location of the alternative housing unsuitable . The second applicant appears to have turned down offers of plots of land in nearby areas ranging MONEY in value . The second applicant also turned down another offer : ownership title to CARDINAL flats measuring CARDINAL sq . m and QUANTITY . m each together with ORG CARDINAL . The second applicant stated that he was entitled to compensation amounting to ORG CARDINAL . The investor then made a new offer of ORG CARDINAL as compensation for his part of the house and land . The second applicant did not accept it .","On DATE the investor requested another valuation report regarding the applicants\u2019 house and land from ORG . On DATE it issued a report indicating that the overall market value of the first and second applicant \u2019s shares of the house and land were ORG CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL respectively . ORG was provided with part of that report , which reads :","\u201c [ Description ] of the assessment object : a residential house ( a single - storey building made of wood , [ measuring ] CARDINAL [ sq . m ] , of which CARDINAL [ sq . m is ] living space ) and annexes ; a plot of land [ measuring ] CARDINAL [ sq . m ] ...","[ Location ] of the assessment object : ...","The assessment object is situated in the centre of the old town of LOC . On the one hand , there are old buildings ( essentially residential houses dating back to DATE ) and , on the other , [ there are ] new buildings consisting of modern blocks of flats . The town \u2019s major traffic arteries are in the immediate proximity of the assessment object . There is a car park on CARDINAL side of the street and a residential area ont the other ... They have a well - developed infrastructure , good access to transport up to GPE metro station , central PERSON and the above residential area ...","Description of the plot of land : ... GPE metro station is within a TIME ride by public transport ...","Description of the house : ... the main building was first constructed in DATE ; the remaining buildings later , until DATE ... The house is habitable , although it requires some superficial repairs ... \u201d","In DATE the district chief architect and the local land authority informed the municipal administration that the town \u2019s general plan of DATE made no provision for the construction of individual housing . On DATE , in reply to an enquiry raised by the investor company , the municipality announced that it had no available plots of land that would be equivalent to the land to be expropriated from the applicants , namely those assigned for the construction of individual housing .","In DATE the town administration brought proceedings in ORG of LOC ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) seeking judicial authorisation for the expropriation of the applicants\u2019 house and land . In DATE the first applicant lodged a separate claim against the municipality , arguing that the expropriation orders of DATE and CARDINAL DATE were ultra vires and otherwise unlawful and disproportionate . On DATE ORG held a hearing . After hearing evidence from a representative of the municipality , it decided to join the cases . An appeal brought by the first applicant was not processed since the procedural order was not amenable to appeal .","In the meantime , ORG replied to a request for information from the second applicant , informing him that the regional ministry had acted ultra vires in taking a decision on the general plan in DATE and that no copy of it existed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicants informed the court examining their case accordingly .","The court held several hearings in the expropriation case . It appears that on DATE the court ordered a new report from ORG . The applicants did not oppose the choice of company and did not ask for any particular questions to be put to its experts .","In DATE a group of CARDINAL experts compiled a report indicating ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL as the market values of the first applicant \u2019s land and part of the house respectively , and FAC CARDINAL and CARDINAL as the second applicant \u2019s ( compare the earlier assessment in paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The land and house were therefore valued at ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL per sq . m respectively .","In reply to the second applicant \u2019s complaint , on DATE the ORG provided the following reply ( see also DATE and DATE below ) :","\u201c Regarding your complaint about unlawfulness relating to the adoption of LOC town plan :","I inform you that ORG DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the old LAW provided for a procedure relating to consultation with the local population in relation to the documents relating to town planning . At the same time , the Code did not specify any particular manner for obtaining the population \u2019s view , and thus consultations could be done in any form . It has been established that LOC town plan was adopted on DATE by ORG of the Moscow Region and not by a municipality , in breach of LAW . Moreover , there is a breach of the same provision due to the fact that there is currently no Lyubetsy town plan . The municipality will be ordered to remedy the violation of the LAW . \u201d","On DATE the municipality \u2019s mayor wrote to ORG asking to speed up the court proceedings , arguing that some of the flats were to be given to the people waiting for social housing and that the procrastination of the proceedings was also prejudicial to the people who had invested in the construction project .","On DATE ORG delivered a judgment , stating as follows .","The applicants appealed . They contended , inter alia , that the expert report relied on by the first - instance court had in fact been requested by the municipality and was thus biased and based on the material provided by them ; no court - requested report had been prepared . The first applicant also argued that the expert report had failed to take into account the scarcity of land in LOC for individual housing ; the commercially attractive location of the land , which bordered the city of GPE ; the proximity of a metro station under construction ( or planned ) ; and the intended use of the land being expropriated for commercial gain arising from the construction of blocks of flats . The applicant also contested the expert assessment regarding the value of the house to be demolished pursuant to the expropriation decision . The expert had not used the \u201c method of prospective use \u201d for determining the value of the house and land . The expert valuation was based on the premise that the land \u2019s use was for a DATE cottage use rather than for the use relating to multi - storey blocks of flat ; this premise was inappropriate , given that the property was already surrounded by similar blocks of flats . With reference to the above considerations , the applicant \u2019s own calculations amounted to ORG CARDINAL for her part of the land .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .","On DATE the first applicant applied for supervisory review of the court decisions of DATE and DATE , requesting that the enforcement proceedings be suspended .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the applicants were evicted and had their belongings removed from the house . According to the Government , the first applicant \u2019s belongings were then delivered to the social housing flat where they were then stored , under the supervision of a local public official , until DATE when she received the keys .","A bank account was opened for the first applicant , and the expropriation compensation was credited into it on DATE . The bank issued a certificate allowing the accountholder to use the money . On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was informed of the above .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s application for supervisory review . The reviewing judge held that the municipality had had competence to issue the expropriation decision , referring to the available general plan and all the other necessary documents .","In DATE the first applicant lodged a further application for review before the President of ORG . On DATE the application was examined and rejected by another judge of ORG . In DATE the first applicant again applied for review before the President of ORG . In a letter of DATE the President of ORG dismissed her application , upholding the earlier refusals .","The first applicant lodged an application for supervisory review with ORG . On DATE it was dismissed . The applicant challenged that decision before the Deputy President of ORG . In a letter of DATE he agreed with the lower courts\u2019 decisions . In DATE , in reply to a new application , ORG informed the first applicant that she could lodge no further supervisory review applications in respect of the court decisions .","According to the Government , until DATE the first applicant refused to accept the keys to the flat and the bank certificate relating to the account into which the expropriation compensation had been credited .","On DATE the applicant received the keys for the flat , the bank certificate and her belongings that had been in safekeeping .","According to the second applicant , in DATE the municipality resold the properties it had acquired under the investment project to the investor .","In DATE the second applicant brought separate proceedings challenging the orders of DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG took a final decision rejecting his claim , primarily because it was time - barred but also because the main arguments had already been dealt with in the final judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the first applicant brought separate proceedings in ORG ( i ) alleging that the bailiffs had acted unlawfully in the enforcement proceedings , and ( ii ) claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . Her claim was turned down on several occasions because she had failed to comply with the required formalities . It appears that the relevant procedural orders were annulled because they reached the applicant after the respective time limits for complying with them had expired . Several hearings were scheduled in DATE . Sometime during DATE ORG decided that the claims for compensation should be processed separately .","In DATE the applicant resubmitted her claim for compensation . On DATE ORG refused to deal with the case because she had failed to comply with its instructions to specify the amount of the claim , to submit calculations concerning the loss and to pay a court fee .","On DATE ORG granted the first claim in part , considering that the applicant had not been informed in good time of the order launching the enforcement proceedings in DATE . She had thus been deprived of the right to contest the documents relating to the enforcement .","The applicant sued the municipality , complaining of losses she had suffered because of inflation arising from the delay in enforcement of the judgment of DATE in the part relating to the expropriation compensation . On DATE ORG awarded her CARDINAL MONEY ( RUB ) in pecuniary damages arising from the fact that the judgment had actually been enforced on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed that judgment on appeal and instead awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL , considering that the judgment had been enforced on DATE when the expropriation compensation had been credited into the bank account opened for her .","In DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the bailiff service , requesting compensation for belongings that had either been lost or damaged during or following demolition of the house . On DATE ORG replied that an inventory of her belongings had been compiled before the demolition . They had all been transferred to her social housing flat and entrusted to a public official for safekeeping ; she had had DATE to reclaim them . In DATE a new complaint by her was dismissed by ORG , which noted that the notices dated CARDINAL , DATE , and DATE of the impending demolition of the house had not been served on her personally as she had been away from her temporary address . DATE and DATE various courts in GPE declined jurisdiction or turned down for procedural reasons a related civil claim by her against ORG ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184665","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF S.M. v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4-1 - Trafficking in human beings);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Z. Owing to problems in her family , DATE she lived with a foster family . Then she moved to a public home for children and young persons , where she stayed until she completed her professional training as a waiter .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the NORP police against a certain PERSON , a former policeman , alleging that in the period DATE he had physically and psychologically forced her into prostitution . He had given her a mobile telephone so that clients could contact her and had driven her to meet clients in various places . He had also forced her to give sexual services in the flat where they had lived together . During that whole period she had been under the control of PERSON When she had refused to give sexual services to other men , he had physically punished her . After she had left him , he had threatened her and her family and had attempted to contact her through a social - networking website .","The criminal record of PERSON showed that in DATE he had been convicted of the criminal offences of pandering and rape and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . He was released from prison on a conditional leave in DATE and the conditional leave expired in DATE .","The GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG opened an investigation in respect of PERSON On DATE , following an order by ORG , the police conducted a search and seizure of PERSON \u2019s premises , where they found , inter alia , several pieces of automatic rifles , a number of mobile phones and condoms .","On DATE the applicant gave her evidence to the prosecuting authorities . She said that PERSON had first contacted her at DATE through a social - networking website and that he had already known her mother and introduced himself as a friend of her parents . She had met PERSON on various occasions in caf\u00e9s and she had asked him to help her in finding a job . PERSON had told her that he could find a job for her as a waitress or a shop assistant .","DATE at DATE he had told her that he would take her to CARDINAL of his friends who could help her in finding a job . When they had arrived at the house of that man PERSON had told the applicant to go to a room with him . The man had then told the applicant that he had expected sexual services from her . The applicant had said that she had not wanted to do it . That man had also told her that he had answered an advertisement on the Internet under the name PERSON ( \u201c little fig \u201d ) and that PERSON had told him that PERSON and the applicant had been a husband and wife who \u201c [ had done ] such things together \u201d . PERSON , who had been eavesdropping outside the room , had stormed into the room and started to shout at her and slap her and had then told her that she had been there with a purpose , that she should not have behaved like that . The man had secretly given her CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) ; when she had told PERSON about that , he had then taken that money from her .","At that time she had still lived with her friend PERSON who had no knowledge of the events at issue . PERSON had again contacted her and told her that they had needed to talk about what had happened . She had agreed to meet him but they had not discussed what had happened . DATE PERSON had given her a mobile telephone so that clients seeking sexual services could contact her . PERSON had also told the applicant that she had had to give her physical description to men who would contact her and charge HRK CARDINAL for TIME of sexual services or HRK CARDINAL for an hour , and that she had had to give CARDINAL of that money to PERSON","The applicant also said that she had acquiesced to all that because she had been scared of PERSON and that he had threatened to tell all to her parents .","DATE after that PERSON had rented a flat , where the applicant and PERSON had then lived together . She had provided sexual services in that flat and on CARDINAL to six occasions PERSON had driven her to clients . During the period in question she had had CARDINAL clients . Since PERSON had lived in the same flat with her , he had controlled everything she had been doing .","When she had refused to have sexual intercourse with him or when he had been dissatisfied with the manner in which she had given sexual services to clients , PERSON had beaten her . He had beaten her DATE .","Questioned as to why she had not contacted the police earlier , the applicant answered that she had been afraid of T.M. Once , when he had been out of the flat and had left the key , the applicant had called her friend PERSON , who had known that the applicant had been giving sexual services to men for money . The applicant had asked ORG to help her escape .","After that ORG boyfriend , T. , had arrived by taxi , helped the applicant to collect her things and taken her to ORG \u2019s home . She had stayed with ORG for DATE .","The applicant also said that PERSON had told her that he had previously had a girlfriend , PERSON , whom he had \u201c treated in the same way \u201d and later on he had told her that after her , the applicant , he had had another girlfriend whom he had \u201c helped in it \u201d . PERSON had told the applicant that he had filmed those girlfriends and punished them when they had been \u201c insolent \u201d .","On DATE PERSON gave her evidence to the prosecuting authorities . She said that she had never met PERSON but that the applicant was her friend and she had known her for DATE . ORG \u2019s last contact with the applicant , before the applicant had come to her flat , had been CARDINAL previously . ORG had known already at DATE , beginning of DATE that the applicant had been giving sexual services for money because the applicant had told her so .","At DATE the applicant had suddenly come to her home with a bag containing her things . ORG had then learned that the applicant had agreed with ORG mother to come to stay with them , but did not know any details since she ( ORG ) was not in very good relations with her mother .","The applicant had told her about PERSON , from whom she had escaped because she had no longer wished to be involved in prostitution \u201c for him \u201d . Before the applicant had come to her flat PERSON had not known where or for whom the applicant \u201c did that \u201d . Only then had ORG learned that the applicant \u201c had being doing it for GPE . The applicant had been very distressed and scared . She had told PERSON that PERSON had repeatedly beaten her ; watched her through a key lock when she had been giving sexual services to clients and afterwards also beaten her for \u201c not being in a position he had approved of \u201d .","ORG also said that in her understanding the applicant had voluntarily given sexual services because she had needed money . The applicant had told her that she had had an agreement with PERSON to work for him and to share the money , that she had had a mobile telephone for clients to call her and that there had been a small ad through which she had been contacted for appointments by clients . The applicant had said that PERSON had given her that mobile telephone and placed the advertisement .","ORG also said that she could not remember if the applicant had told her that she had opposed PERSON It was true that the applicant had said that she had not wished to \u201c do it \u201d but in ORG \u2019s understanding that had rather meant that the applicant had been \u201c doing it \u201d because she had had no other means to earn money . The applicant had also told her that PERSON had slapped her for very minor reasons which she ( the applicant ) had not expected . When she had refused sexual relations with him PERSON would beat her and the applicant had not known what would make him \u201c explode again \u201d . PERSON had also told the applicant that he had had another girlfriend who had worked for him and whom he had also beaten . The applicant told PERSON that she had used the opportunity to run away from PERSON when he had been out of the flat where they had lived .","ORG boyfriend , T.R. , had told her that he had spoken with the applicant but he had not given any details . ORG had broken up with him DATE after that but still had his address .","ORG also said that the applicant had stayed with her and her mother for DATE and that PERSON had continued to contact the applicant through a social - networking website and had threatened her as well as her mother . He had also sent messages , saying that he had loved her and asking her to come back to him .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office indicted PERSON in ORG on charges of forcing another to prostitution , as an aggravated offence of organising prostitution under LAW .","On DATE the applicant was officially given the status of victim of human trafficking by ORG ( PERSON , GPE ljudska prava i prava nacionalnih manjina ) . On DATE the police contacted ORG and its employees informed the applicant of her rights ( accommodation , medical check - ups , psycho - social support , legal aid and material support ) . The applicant told them that she was not interested in the right to safe accommodation since she lived with her mother and sister . According to the Government the applicant contacted ORG on CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE . She received psycho - social support through individual counselling and material support . ORG also organised individual counselling for the applicant with a psychologist in ORG . Further to this the applicant was provided legal aid by a non - governmental organisation , GPE , within the legal - aid scheme supported by the ORG .","The summons served on the applicant contained detailed information on her rights as a victim , such as psychological and practical support and of the possibility to contact ORG and Victims within ORG . Contact details of that ORG were also provided .","At hearings held on DATE and CARDINAL DATE PERSON gave his evidence . He denied that he had forced the applicant into prostitution . He confirmed that he had contacted the applicant through a social - networking website because he had recognised her surname since he had known her parents . He had also known that the applicant \u2019s mother had been a prostitute .","PERSON and the applicant had started to see each other and the applicant had told him that she had had no money and needed a job and that she had some debts . The applicant had also told him that previously she had given sexual services for money and had kept telephone numbers of her clients and asked him whether he could take her sometimes to those clients , which he had done .","He confirmed that he had been in a relationship with the applicant during that time . However , he had not lived with her in the flat she had rented but only sometimes spent TIME there . He had had the keys of that flat and the applicant had had them as well and she had been free to come and go as she liked . He had also been in the flat on some of the occasions when the applicant had given sexual services there . He had known that the applicant had charged HRK CARDINAL for TIME and HRK CARDINAL for TIME but these prices had been set by her and not him . Initially he had lent her some money and from that sum she had bought a mobile telephone on which clients could contact her . Later on she had returned the money she had borrowed from him . She had also given him some money even though he had been reluctant to take it but she had insisted telling him that it had been for petrol . However , it had mostly been he who had given money to the applicant because she had constantly complained that she had had no money .","He admitted that he had slapped the applicant once when they quarrelled about her refusal to work in a bakery .","He also said that he had found her a job in a restaurant but that after he had told her about it she had disappeared .","Both the applicant and PERSON gave their evidence at a hearing held on DATE . A lawyer was provided to the applicant by PERSON . Before giving her evidence the applicant told the trial court that she feared the accused . The accused was then removed from the courtroom and the applicant gave evidence in his absence .","The minutes of that hearing indicate that the applicant repeated her statement given on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and also said that PERSON had told her that he had been a former policeman and together with her father in the war . Her father had confirmed that and had said that PERSON was \u201c an okay person \u201d . Her mother on the other had told her that he was not a reliable person .","After the first time PERSON had driven her to give sexual services to another man , she had sat in the backseat of his car . PERSON had been very angry and had been nagging her and at TIME he had stopped the car and slapped her . She had exited the car , attempting to run away but he had caught up with her and taken her back to the car .","She had agreed to meet him DATE because he had told her that they would discuss what had happened but they had not .","She had been afraid of him and for that reason had agreed to give sexual services to other men and also because he had threatened her that he would \u201c tell all \u201d to her parents and that he would \u201c cram her mother into prison \u201d .","PERSON had found the flat to rent , but the applicant had signed the contract and paid the rent for the flat . She had not had the keys to that flat .","Even though on CARDINAL occasions he had allowed her to leave the flat alone to go to a nearby shop , she had not dared to flee because PERSON had followed where she had been going from the balcony and she had been scared of him . He had set some rules for her : she had been forbidden to talk with the clients ; the clients had not been able to touch her ; and she had been allowed to give sexual services only in the manner ordered by PERSON When she had refused to have sexual intercourse with him or when he had been dissatisfied with the manner in which she had given sexual services to clients , PERSON had beaten her .","Questioned again as to why she had not contacted the police earlier , the applicant said that PERSON had told her that he had \u201c connection \u201d at the police and that he would very soon learn if she reported \u201c anything \u201d .","Questioned as to why she had not attempted to run away when PERSON had driven her to the clients the applicant said that she had been sure that PERSON would have found her and that she had been allowed to stay with the clients for TIME .","When the applicant had called her friend PERSON , who had known that the applicant had been giving sexual services to men for money , the applicant had asked ORG to help her escape . She had also spoken with ORG mother . PERSON had continued to contact her through a social - networking website , at first sending her love messages and then threatening to tell all to her parents . Then PERSON had sent a letter to the authorities , accusing the applicant \u2019s mother of neglecting the applicant \u2019s younger sister . Her mother had been asked to come to a police station on that account . The applicant had then decided to contact the police .","The applicant also explained that she had been very much scared of PERSON , that she had feared for her life because he had threatened to \u201c beat her to death \u201d . PERSON had also threatened her with publishing naked photographs of her . She had agreed to being photographed because she had been scared of him . PERSON had also told her that as a former policeman he had known a lot of policemen and if she had reported him he would have fabricated stories about her .","Later on she had learned from her mother that PERSON and her mother had lived together for a while and that a former girlfriend of PERSON had reported him to the police for forcing her to give sexual services to other men .","M.I. repeated her statement given before the prosecuting authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG acquitted PERSON on the grounds that although it had been established that he had organised a prostitution ring in which he had recruited the applicant , it had not been established that he had forced her into prostitution . However , he had only been indicted for the aggravated form of the offence at issue and thus he could not be convicted for the basic form of organising prostitution . In finding this , the trial court in particular noted that it could not give sufficient weight to the applicant \u2019s testimony because her statement had been incoherent , she had been unsure and that she had paused and hesitated when speaking . At the same time , given that there was no other conclusive evidence , it applied the in dubio pro reo principle and acquitted PERSON The relevant part of the first - instance judgment reads :","\u201c On the basis of the evidence given by the accused and the victim in these criminal proceedings the following facts have been established : that the accused and the victim met through the social network ORG when the accused contacted the victim ; ... that the accused gave a mobile telephone to the victim so that she could be contacted by the clients with whom she discussed providing sexual services ; that the victim indeed did provide sexual services in the flat where she lived with the accused ; that on CARDINAL or six occasions the accused drove the victim to the addresses of clients where she provided sexual services ; that the victim charged for providing sexual services the sum of HRK CARDINAL for TIME and the sum of HRK CARDINAL for an hour ... \u201d","The State Attorney \u2019s ORG appealed against this decision , arguing that the first - instance court had erred in its factual findings concerning the charges against PERSON when it did not accept the applicant \u2019s testimony .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal of ORG and upheld the first - instance judgment , endorsing its reasoning as well as the facts as established by the trial court . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , complaining about the manner in which the criminal - law mechanisms had been applied in her case . She relied on ORG DATE , DATE and DATE of the LAW ( see below paragraph CARDINAL ) and Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention . In particular , she alleged that the national authorities had not properly investigated and addressed the element of force . Also , owing to the failure of the authorities to reclassify the offence , PERSON had not been convicted of any offence , to the applicant \u2019s detriment . She further stressed that she had not been provided with any psychological help or assistance during the court hearing to help cope with the fear and pressure she had felt from PERSON while testifying , which all resulted in her testimony being regarded as incoherent by the trial court . The applicant also alleged a failure of the authorities to secure effective respect for her private life in particular through the domestic court \u2019s inadequate assessment of all the relevant circumstances in which she had been recruited to PERSON \u2019s prostitution ring .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the applicant had not had the right to bring a constitutional complaint concerning the criminal proceedings against PERSON since these proceedings had concerned a criminal charge against him . The decision of ORG was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["4"],"violated_paragraphs":["4-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170042","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF RIEDEL AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants are owners or co - owners of residential buildings which comprise flats that were or still are subject to rent control . They obtained ownership of the flats by various means , such as restitution , donation , inheritance or purchase . Under the relevant legislation they had to accept that the flats were occupied by tenants with a regulated rent and that they could charge them no more than the maximum amount of rent fixed by the ORG . The relevant legislation precluded them from unilaterally terminating the leases , or selling the flats other than to the tenants ( \u201c the rentcontrol scheme \u201d ) . The particulars of the flats affected by the rentcontrol scheme are set out in LAW ( columns ORG ) .","The situation of the applicants is structurally and contextually the same as in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ( merits ) and DATE ( just satisfaction ) and CARDINAL subsequently decided cases concerning the rent controlscheme in GPE ( Krahulec v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , all adopted on DATE ) .","It is in dispute between the parties in the present case what amount of rent the applicants would be able to receive by letting their flats under freemarket conditions . By extension , that disagreement translates into an argument over the proportion of the market rent that the regulated rent represents .","NORP In that connection , the Government submitted an expert \u2019s opinion drawn up in DATE in relation to all CARDINAL applications ( \u201c the ORG \u2019s expert opinion \u201d ) , according to which the DATE free - market rent for flats comparable to the ORG was CARDINAL and MONEY ( ORG ) per sq . m in the municipality of ORG and ORG MONEY and CARDINAL per sq . m in the municipality of PERSON . The regulated rent in the flats owned by the applicants ranged between ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL and QUANTITY per sq . m. According to those calculations therefore , the regulated rent of the flats possessed by the applicants corresponded to PERCENT of the market rent in DATE . The relevant data are set out in LAW ( columns ORG ) .","The applicants for their part relied on different sources of information to support their contention that the regulated rent was disproportionately low compared with similar flats to which the rent - control scheme did not apply . The data submitted by them are set out below separately in relation to each application .","The applicants maintained that in DATE the regulated rent ranged between ORG DATE and CARDINAL a month whereas the average free - market rent for comparable flats in a similar location was ORG CARDINAL a month . They submitted an expert \u2019s opinion which showed that the difference between the general rental value of the property and the regulated rent they actually received was EUR CARDINAL for the period DATE .","The applicants submitted that in DATE the regulated rent for their flats amounted to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL a month , whereas the DATE free - market rent for comparable flats was ORG CARDINAL . They relied on data from ORG ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) . Depending on the period and the relevant law in force , the regulated rent represented PERCENT of the market rent for comparable flats in the area . They further submitted that the sum which they and the other coowners had invested in repairing the building was CARDINAL times the income they obtained from letting the flats under the rentcontrol scheme .","In DATE the applicant was allowed to charge a DATE rent of ORG CARDINAL for each of his flats . He submitted that the market rent in the same area in DATE was between ORG CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL a month for the single - room flat and between ORG CARDINAL and ORG MONEY a month for the CARDINAL - room flats . He relied on information about average rental prices published in the press .","The applicants submitted that the regulated rent for their flats ranged between ORG CARDINAL and ORG DATE in DATE . Relying on data from the NORP , they maintained that the market rent for comparable flats in the area amounted to approximately ORG CARDINAL a month ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183383","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF FARCA\u0218 AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC .","NORP In DATE a group of engineers patented an invention concerning a method for separating hydrocarbon . The first applicant is one of the inventors . The second and third applicants are heirs of the other members of the group .","On DATE the applicants lodged an action for compensation against company NORP , a privately - owned former ORG company which had used the DATE invention DATE ( for details about those proceedings , see PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","NORP In a decision of DATE ORG allowed in part the action lodged by the applicants against company NORP , and ordered the latter to pay to the first applicant MONEY ( ROL ) , an amount representing compensation for the use , DATE , of the invention patented in DATE . The second and third applicants appealed , and in a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG also awarded them compensation \u2013 ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the second applicant and ORG to the third applicant .","On DATE the applicants and company NORP signed an agreement for the payment of the compensation awarded by the court . CARDINAL DATE the company paid PERCENT of the amounts granted .","On DATE ORG and ORG took note of the terms of the agreement of DATE and concluded that company NORP had withdrawn its appeal on points of law against the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph DATE above ) , which thus became final .","Meanwhile , on DATE company NORP had sought its judicial reorganisation under a procedure provided for by Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on judicial reorganisation and bankruptcy .","On DATE ORG allowed the application , started the reorganisation proceedings and nominated a judicial administrator . The applicants\u2019 claims were accepted by ORG and recorded in the register of claims compiled by the judicial administrator in conformity with the provisions of the applicable law ( tabloul creditorilor , hereinafter \u201c the register of claims \u201d ) .","The applicants lodged an objection to the register of claims , asking to be recognised as priority creditors ( creditori privilegia\u0163i ) . CARDINAL other creditors also lodged objections against the records in the register of claims .","Meanwhile , on DATE the judicial administrator had submitted a reorganisation plan to a vote by the creditors . It was proposed that the priority claims ( crean\u0163e privilegiate ) be paid in full , and the remaining unsecured non - priority claims ( crean\u0163e chirografare ) be paid at a rate of PERCENT of their value . In an interlocutory judgment of DATE the ORG validated the plan after examining the objections raised by the unsecured creditors ( creditori chirografari ) . In DATE company NORP paid its debts in accordance with the plan .","On DATE ORG held a hearing on the objections to the register of claims lodged by the applicants . The first applicant was present at the hearing to represent both himself and the other applicants . ORG gave the parties until DATE to submit written observations . On DATE , in the applicants\u2019 absence , it adjourned delivery of the judgment to CARDINAL DATE . ORG gave its judgment on DATE ; it found against the applicants .","On DATE , in accordance with the rules on notification in relation to court documents in insolvency proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was published in ORG ( PERSON , \u201c the Bulletin \u201d ) .","On an unspecified date the applicants enquired about the judgment \u2019s date of delivery and asked ORG to provide them with a copy of the judgment , which was sent to them on DATE ; they received it on DATE . On DATE they lodged an appeal by post .","Before ORG , the applicants argued that , as they had not had access to the Bulletin , they had not been able to know on which date the judgment had been published .","In a final decision of DATE ORG dismissed that argument and concluded that the appeal had been made out of time , as it had been lodged DATE after DATE , the date on which ORG judgment had been published ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Relying on ORG decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG considered that the notification procedure via the Bulletin had offered sufficient safeguards to the participants in the proceedings , and had been justified by the nature of the insolvency procedure .","On DATE ORG closed the insolvency proceedings and noted that company NORP had complied with all the obligations set out in the reorganisation plan ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and thus it no longer had any debts ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169217","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KOLBASOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of inadequate conditions of their detention .","NORP In applications nos . MONEY , ORG and DATE the applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .","Having studied the terms of the ORG \u2019s unilateral declarations made in some cases , the ORG considers that the proposed declarations do not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights does not require it to continue its examination of these applications . The declarations are therefore rejected ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173300","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"LE\u0160\u010cIUKAITIS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant was appointed a junior inspector in the police . He was responsible for the investigation of economic crimes .","On DATE a criminal investigation was started against the applicant . He was suspected of forging documents and appropriating value added tax . The applicant was arrested on the same day and placed under arrest for DATE by the decision of the GPE DATE ORG of DATE .","On DATE the applicant was suspended from performing his official duties .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of fraud and abuse of office . The court stated that the applicant and several other people had established a fictitious company , forged documents and acquired property of high value . The court also noted that the applicant had been employed at the police division which investigated economic crimes , however , he had abused his position and had wilfully appropriated value added tax . The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant appealed , complaining that the court of first instance had made mistakes in applying the provisions of the domestic law , and that there had been no information that he had in fact received CARDINAL of the value added tax appropriated by the perpetrators as alleged .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , finding contradictions in his statements . The applicant had denied his guilt but at the same time he had acknowledged that he had known that other people had been engaged in illegal activities and had still acted as an intermediary .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed from the police after the judgment of ORG became enforceable ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and on DATE ORG returned the case to ORG for fresh examination . ORG held that the reasoning of ORG had been insufficient in relation to the application of the provisions of LAW and the assessment of evidence .","On DATE ORG found that only one witness could confirm that the applicant had received CARDINAL of the value added tax appropriated by the perpetrators , but that that witness had only presented his evidence as his own view and not as a fact ( ne kaip fakt\u0105 ) . The witness had also testified that there had been no discussion with the applicant about seizing the value added tax . ORG therefore held that it had not been proved that the applicant had gained any personal benefit . On the other hand , the court stated that the applicant , as a police officer , had undoubtedly understood the illegality of his actions , despite arguing otherwise . He had also acted as an intermediary for CARDINAL other people in an illegal exchange of money and documents . However , ORG held that the applicant \u2019s alleged crime fell under a different provision of LAW than the one he had originally been accused under , and that the court could not assess the applicant \u2019s crime under that specific provision without overstepping the limits of the appeal . As for abuse of office , the court held that the applicant \u2019s participation in the crime had not been proved and that he had communicated with the other people in a personal capacity rather than an official one . The applicant was therefore acquitted of that crime .","NORP In DATE the applicant asked the police to annul their dismissal decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and to reinstate him to his former position . The police refused and stated that ORG had not expressed itself in any way regarding his reinstatement to his former position or about his dismissal being illegal .","The applicant started court proceedings before ORG to be reinstated to his former position and have his salary paid from DATE , when he had been suspended ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , until the execution of the court \u2019s judgment , i. e. until his reinstatement to his former position . The applicant also asked for a renewal of the time - limit for submitting his complaint because the timelimit to complain about being dismissed from work was DATE under domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant had been dismissed on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , however , the grounds to annul that decision had only arisen after the court proceedings had ended on DATE and he had been acquitted ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG decided that the applicant had become aware of the grounds to contest the dismissal order on DATE at the latest . He had submitted the complaint to ORG on DATE and had therefore not missed the prescribed time - limit . The court also annulled his dismissal from the police ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and ordered that he be reinstated to his former position and paid his average salary for the period from DATE to the date of the judgment on DATE . The total of the average salary for the period was CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","NORP The police and the applicant both appealed , the latter asking to be awarded approximately LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for the period of his suspension and dismissal , up to ORG decision of DATE . He also asked to be awarded the payment of an average salary from DATE until his reinstatement to his former position , as well as late - payment fees and payment for unused holidays .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court noted that the applicant had complained about the dismissal order of DATE but found that although he had submitted his first complaint on DATE , he had also submitted CARDINAL clarifying complaints on DATE and DATE . ORG thus held that the date of submission was DATE , as that was when the applicant had finally formulated his complaints . ORG held that the dismissal order had been an extremely important social issue for the applicant ( parei\u0161k\u0117jui ypating\u0105 socialin\u0119 reik\u0161m\u0119 turintis klausimas ) , that he should have started court proceedings within DATE of that order , and that therefore he had missed the time - limit to lodge a complaint . The court also observed that ORG had put too much weight ( neteisingai sureik\u0161mino ) on the applicant \u2019s acquittal . The court also considered that despite the fact that the applicant had missed the time - limit for submitting his complaint , it had to express itself on the merits of the applicant \u2019s complaint about his dismissal and found that it had never been contested by the parties that at the time of the order to dismiss him there had been factual and legal grounds for such a decision because of ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Lastly , the court held that monetary claims under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had to be submitted to civil courts rather than administrative courts and it therefore rejected that claim too .","Shortly before the applicant applied to ORG DATE he started civil proceedings for damages for his unlawful conviction before ORG . The applicant asked to be awarded LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of pecuniary damage and LTL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The applicant stated that he had never been reinstated to his former position after his acquittal , had lost his main source of income , and had experienced emotional problems , not only because of his unlawful conviction but also because of the lengthy criminal proceedings against him .","On DATE the ORG satisfied the applicant \u2019s claim in part . The court held that in order for the ORG \u2019s civil liability to arise , CARDINAL conditions had to be met : an unlawful act , damage and a causal link between the CARDINAL . The court held that the acquittal decision had not automatically meant that all acts related to the criminal prosecution had been unlawful . The court referred to the material of the criminal case and stated that the criminal proceedings had been started against the applicant because there had been enough evidence to suspect that he had committed a criminal offence . That circumstance was confirmed by the acquittal decision , which had stated that the applicant had undoubtedly understood the illegality of his acts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , the court held that while the dismissal order had been lawful at the time it had been issued , the grounds for it had disappeared after the applicant \u2019s acquittal . The court dismissed his claim in respect of pecuniary damage , observing that although his unlawful conviction had directly influenced his dismissal , the conviction itself had been influenced by the applicant \u2019s illegal acts . The court further held that the applicant \u2019s unlawful conviction had caused him mental suffering and emotional distress and decided to award him LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for non - pecuniary damage . The court also noted that the applicant had been arrested on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and acquitted on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that therefore the criminal proceedings against him had lasted for DATE . They had been unjustifiably long and so the court awarded him a further LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) for nonpecuniary damage .","The applicant appealed , complaining that he had not been awarded anything in respect of pecuniary damage and asking the court to increase the amount in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal in part . It held that the acquittal had not necessarily meant that the acts of the law enforcement institutions ( teis\u0117saugos institucij\u0173 veiksmai ) had been unlawful . The court further observed that the applicant had carried out certain acts that were unlawful under \u201c civil law \u201d , which meant that he could not have expected the same protection when deciding on damages as a person who had not carried out such illegal acts . The court considered that the amount of compensation could be reduced in such cases and awarded him LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of pecuniary damage , counting it as unpaid salary from the date of the decision by which he had been convicted until the date of the decision he had been acquitted . The court also held that the criminal proceedings had been lengthy , but that around QUANTITY hearings had been postponed for reasons related to the applicant and some of the other accused . It therefore decided to award the applicant LTL QUANTITY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of nonpecuniary damage in that part . Lastly , the court found that the applicant \u2019s conviction had lasted for DATE but that he had not started serving a sentence and so it decided to reduce the amount awarded for nonpecuniary damage to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","The applicant was paid his compensation award DATE totalling LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) DATE on DATE .","At the material time , LAW ( CARDINAL) of the Statute on Interior Ministry Service ( ORG tarnybos statutas ) provided that an officer could be dismissed if he had been convicted of an intentional crime or criminal act by a final court judgment .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ( PERSON byl\u0173 teisenos \u012fstatymas ) provided at the time that a complaint had to be brought before an administrative court within DATE of the disputed act being carried out or served on an interested party .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG provided that if there was a good reason for not complying with the time - limit to lodge a complaint then an applicant could seek an order from an administrative court to renew the time - limit .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code provided at the time of the events that the acts of a victim could be grounds to reduce or remove civil liability . Such acts were those that were the fault of the victim and which led to that person suffering greater damage . They could be a victim \u2019s consent to damage or risk . Such consent could only be grounds for exemption from civil liability if it was not contrary to mandatory legal rules , public order , good morals , and the criteria of good faith , reasonableness and justice .","At the material time , Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW allowed a civil claim to be brought in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful acts of the investigating authorities or the courts . LAW in question made provision for compensation for unlawful conviction , unlawful arrest or detention or for the application of unlawful procedural measures in enforcement proceedings . The relevant part of the provision read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Damage resulting either from unlawful conviction , unlawful arrest on remand , unlawful detention , the application of unlawful procedural measures in enforcement proceedings , or the unlawful imposition of an administrative penalty ( arrest ) shall give rise to full compensation by the ORG , irrespective of any fault by preliminary investigation officials , prosecution officials or courts ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code provided at the time that if a victim \u2019s gross negligence had contributed to causing or increasing any damage , depending on the degree of the person \u2019s fault , the amount of compensation could be reduced or the compensation dismissed unless the law provided otherwise .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that an appellate court judgment became enforceable from the date of issue .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW provided that ORG had the power to examine appeals on points of law against judgments delivered by courts of first instance and appellate courts that had become final .","ORG has held that interpreting LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as precluding the reinstatement of an officer to his or her former position or an equivalent position after his or her acquittal would contradict the principles of justice , reasonableness and ex iniuria ius non oritur ( decision of CARDINAL DATE , no . ACARDINAL - DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158033","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BAL\u00c1ZS v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE around TIME the applicant and his girlfriend PERSON GPE were about to leave a club in GPE , when CARDINAL men in DATE , unknown to them , started to insult them . The CARDINAL men made degrading comments about the applicant \u2019s GPE origin and about the physical appearance of his girlfriend .","Subsequently a fourth person , Mr E.D. , appeared , presenting himself as a police officer . ( In fact , he was a penitentiary officer . ) When Mr PERSON was about to leave , the applicant questioned him about his attitude using offensive and vulgar language , upon which Mr PERSON turned back and got into a fight with the applicant , which ended due to the intervention of CARDINAL persons , the applicant \u2019s acquaintances .","Following the fight , Mr E.D. called the police . CARDINAL officers arrived . The applicant , Mr E.D. and PERSON were then escorted to the local police station . They were released DATE after . Although both the applicant and Mr E.D. had visible injuries , only Mr E.D. underwent a medical examination . According to the medical findings , he had bruises on his temple and a haematoma around his right eye .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a general practitioner , who found that he had bruises on his chest , back , neck and face .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG against Mr PERSON He submitted that the CARDINAL who had insulted him had shouted at him \u201c Dirty gypsy , do you need a cigarette ? Here is money ! \u201d and thrown cigarettes and money at him . He also maintained that Mr E.D. , who presented himself as a police officer upon his arrival at the scene , had asked the others whether \u201c [ they ] could not handle a dirty little gypsy \u201d and , turning to him , had called him a gypsy . He also gave a description of the injuries he had suffered .","Furthermore , the applicant explained that DATE after the incident he had identified PERSON LAW on a social network . He had extracted some of his posts and submitted them to ORG .","In these posts , Mr PERSON commented that TIME before he \u201c had been kicking in the head a gypsy lying on the ground when [ he ] was overcome by CARDINAL of his buddies \u201d . In reply to favourable posts by other users , Mr E.D. posted an Internet link to a video clip containing a widely known excerpt from a feature film with overtly intolerant and explicitly racist language . He added that the list of the types of people loathed by the character speaking in the clip could be completed with \u201c some other types of rubbish living among us \u201d .","On DATE ORG opened a criminal investigation against Mr E.D. for the offence of \u201c violence against a member of a group \u201d within the meaning of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .","On DATE the CARDINAL police officers who had arrived at the scene were questioned , as well as PERSON The latter corroborated the applicant \u2019s version of the events . The testimony of the police officers\u2019 did not contain any account of the incident ; they had arrived at the scene only after the fight .","The applicant \u2019s CARDINAL acquaintances , whose intervention had ended the fight , were not questioned , their identity remaining unknown to the prosecution . The applicant was questioned about their contact details , however the only information he could provide were their nicknames .","NORP In parallel , ORG office initiated an ex officio investigation into the same facts on charges of disorderly conduct ( gar\u00e1zdas\u00e1g ) . On DATE Mr E.D. was questioned as a suspect , where he stated that the applicant had provoked him . He admitted to having pushed the applicant away in self - defence , but claimed that he had neither hit nor insulted him . He maintained that he had made no statement concerning the applicant \u2019s GPE origin and that the fight had not taken place because the applicant \u2019s GPE origin but because he had been attacked by the latter . As regards his comments on a social network , Mr PERSON stated that he had posted them for no particular reason and specified that \u201c in fact [ he ] had not been kicking the boy \u2019s head ... had [ he ] done so the [ applicant ] would have suffered more serious injuries \u201d .","In a decision of DATE ORG discontinued the investigation into the offence of \u201c violence against a member of a group \u201d , considering that there was no evidence substantiating that Mr E.D. had attacked the applicant out of racial hatred . Relying on the applicant \u2019s complaint , PERSON testimony , Mr E.D. \u2019s statement given as a suspect in the parallel proceedings and the medical evidence , ORG concluded that it could not be established who had provoked the fight and whether there was a causal link between the insults directed against the applicant and the fight .","The applicant filed a complaint against the discontinuation on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer was given the opportunity to study the case - file . On DATE she requested Mr E.D. to be heard as a suspect , or CARDINAL a witness ; she also requested a confrontation ( szembes\u00edt\u00e9s ) between the applicant and Mr E.D. This request was dismissed on the ground that Mr E.D. had already been heard as a suspect in the parallel proceedings on charges of disorderly conduct , and the records of his testimony were attached to the investigation file and used as documentary evidence .","On DATE the applicant also challenged this decision and requested that further investigative measures to be taken .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision , considering that :","\u201c Accepting the background of the incident , as recounted by the victim and Ms GPE , although it is likely that the action had racist motives , it can not be proven sufficiently for establishing criminal responsibility \u2013 that is , unequivocally and beyond any doubt \u2013 that Mr E.D. ill - treated the applicant precisely because of his GPE origin . The racist motive can not be established , in particular , since before the incident Mr E.D. had intended to leave the scene and only turned back because of the victim \u2019s reproach , and the only information about the start of the fight originates in the contradictory statements of the victim and Mr E.D. Neither the victim nor Ms D.L. could provide further details as to the question whether after having turned back , Mr E.D. made any further racist comments before or during the fight . The ORG post attached to the criminal complaint only reveals that Mr E.D. had insulted an unnamed and unidentifiable person of GPE origin TIME . It can not be established unequivocally and beyond doubt , either from the post or from the subsequent messages , that [ the insult ] took place precisely because of the victim \u2019s GPE origin .","Based on the above reasons and considering all available information and evidence in their entirety , Mr E.D. \u2019s racist motive is probable at the maximum , but can not be established beyond doubt . \u201d","As regards further investigative measures , ORG stated that given the fundamental contradictions between the statements of ORG , the applicant and PERSON , a confrontation between them had no prospects of success . Furthermore , Mr PERSON had given a detailed account of the facts in his testimony given as a suspect in the parallel proceedings , which rendered futile his further questioning .","On CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON was convicted of disorderly conduct by ORG for having got into a fight with the applicant and was placed on DATE probation ."],"violated_articles":["14","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154595","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF F\u0102LIE v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE he purchased a house and the land on which it was built , located in GPE . The applicant \u2019s parcel of land was adjacent to a parcel of land purchased by CARDINAL parties in DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against the CARDINAL third parties , seeking to obtain the demarcation of the adjacent parcels of land and an order requiring the defendants to return to him an QUANTITY . m parcel of land which was allegedly being illegally occupied by them .","In a judgment of DATE ORG held that the defendants had been illegally occupying a parcel of QUANTITY . m of the applicant \u2019s land since DATE . It established the boundaries of the properties on the basis of a technical report prepared by an expert and ordered the defendants to return the land in question to the applicant .","The defendants lodged an appeal with ORG . The court ordered a new expert report . On DATE the court dismissed the appeal as ill - founded endorsing the reasoning of the first - instance court .","The defendants lodged an appeal on points of law on the ground that the courts had misinterpreted the facts and the applicable legal provisions .","In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the appeal on points of law , quashed the decisions of the first CARDINAL courts and dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . It held that both the applicant and the defendants had in their possession smaller areas of land than those mentioned in their respective contracts of acquisition , and invited the parties to reach a friendly settlement . It also held that the parties could bring a fresh action only if they could not reach an agreement ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147038","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MOSTIPAN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE , GPE .","According to the applicant , and not contested by the ORG , at TIME on CARDINAL DATE she was arrested on suspicion of abducting , raping and murdering PERSON According to the arrest record , she was arrested at TIME on DATE .","Following the arrest , the applicant was taken to a police station where she was questioned by an investigator in the presence of a lawyer . Prior to the questioning , she wrote a statement admitting to S. \u2019s abduction . According to her , police officers threatened to beat her if she refused to make a written statement . She did not explain whether she had been denied access to a lawyer prior to writing the statement .","According to the applicant , on TIME CARDINAL DATE she was taken to the town prosecutor \u2019s office . She was taken to an office where policemen started beating her and urging her to confess to S. \u2019s murder . They hit her on the head and threatened to rape her , and then handcuffed her and pushed her to the floor . They put a hat on her head and pulled it down over her eyes . They also threw a coat over her . They punched her in the solar plexus and the stomach , and pulled her by the legs . They attached a wire to her right leg and placed a metal object between her shoulders , then subjected her to electrocution while gagging her mouth to muffle her screams .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator and confessed to S. \u2019s abduction . She was later taken to the location where she had last seen S. alive and was questioned again afterwards . The applicant \u2019s lawyer was present during the questioning .","DATE the applicant was taken to a temporary detention centre , where an officer conducted a medical examination and noted numerous bruises on her belly and scratches below the right clavicle . It appears that the administration of the detention facility informed the investigator from the town prosecutor \u2019s office accordingly , who ordered that the applicant undergo a forensic medical examination .","At CARDINAL or TIME that evening the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination which , in addition to the injuries noted before , revealed CARDINAL bruised areas on her chest , possibly caused by blunt solid objects DATE before the examination . At the time , the applicant did not offer any explanation as to the cause of the injuries .","On DATE the investigator questioned the applicant again the in the presence of her lawyer . She denied having any intent to kill S. According to her , it was CARDINAL other co - defendants who had decided to do so .","On DATE a local newspaper published an article about S. \u2019s murder and the opening of the investigation . The names of the alleged perpetrators were not disclosed .","On DATE the town prosecutor \u2019s office received a complaint from the applicant alleging that she had been ill - treated .","On DATE investigator T. from the town prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s and her codefendants\u2019 allegations of ill - treatment in police custody . The investigator noted as follows :","\u201c In the course of the investigation , [ the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants ] alleged that their initial statements had been coerced by police officers and the prosecutor \u2019s office and were false . In addition , the medical examination conducted revealed that they had sustained injuries . However , in the course of the investigation ... the [ defendants\u2019 ] statements were obtained in accordance with the rules of criminal procedure . The [ defendants\u2019 ] allegations should be considered with criticism . They are charged with serious offences . They have not pleaded guilty and wish to evade criminal liability . Accordingly , no objective information has been found that would confirm the GPE allegations that they sustained injuries while in [ custody ] . \u201d","It appears that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment in police custody were subject to additional pre - investigative inquiry . On DATE investigator PERSON from the regional prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrators . He took into account the fact that the applicant had been convicted as charged ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He further relied on statements made by the police officers involved in the applicant \u2019s arrest and questioning , who denied having beaten or tortured her . He summarised his findings as follows :","\u201c The analysis of the collected material shows that the [ applicant \u2019s ] allegations of illtreatment are not confirmed by objective information and are refuted by the explanations provided by the police officers and investigators from the town prosecutor \u2019s office . [ The applicant ] complained of ill - treatment after a considerable length of time , and only when she was charged with serious offences , even though nothing had precluded her from communicating her complaint to the investigator who had questioned her in the presence of a lawyer or during the inspection of the crime scene or subsequent questionings , etc . Furthermore , when admitted to the temporary detention facility , [ the applicant ] did not complain of her injuries allegedly inflicted by police officers . In the absence of a forensic medical examination , it is impossible to determine that [ the applicant ] sustained the injuries , the degree of their severity , the time of their infliction , or their cause . Regard being had to the above , it should be concluded that the [ applicant \u2019s ] allegations of ill - treatment should be considered with criticism and viewed as an attempt by [ the applicant ] to avoid criminal liability for the serious crimes committed . Such a conclusion is substantiated by the [ applicant \u2019s ] conviction by ORG ... [ Her ] allegations of ill - treatment were subject to verification by the court , which ruled [ that there was ] no case to answer against the police officers and investigators from the prosecutor \u2019s office , who had not abused their powers or infringed the [ applicant \u2019s ] rights in contravention of the law . \u201d","On DATE investigator ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who had allegedly subjected the defendants to ill - treatment following their arrest . The parties did not provide a copy of this decision .","On DATE ORG , within the framework of the trial , issued a separate ruling concerning the applicant \u2019s and other defendants\u2019 allegations of ill - treatment in police custody , advising the regional prosecutor that an additional inquiry should be conducted . In the ruling , the court considered that the inquiry conducted in response to the defendants\u2019 complaints had been incomplete . In particular , the court stated as follows :","\u201c In the course of the trial , each of the defendants alleged that they had been subjected to physical and psychological pressure by law - enforcement officers ... who demanded that they confess to [ the crimes ] ...","As it transpires from the material in the case file , during the preliminary investigation in the present case each of the defendants lodged complaints with the [ town ] and [ regional ] ORG offices alleging an abuse of power and the use of force by law - enforcement officers ... Following the inquiry in response to the [ applicant \u2019s ] complaint , on DATE [ senior investigator PERSON from the investigating committee of the regional prosecutor \u2019s office ] refused to institute criminal proceedings on [ the grounds that ] no offence had been committed .","...","The court can not subscribe to [ M. \u2019s ] finding that it was impossible to establish objectively that [ the applicant ] had bodily injuries because [ allegedly ] she had not undergone a forensic medical examination ... [ T]he material in the case file ... contains information showing that all the defendants had sustained bodily injuries ...","For instance , witness PERSON . , who saw [ the applicant ] immediately prior to [ her ] arrest ... and witness PERSON . , [ CARDINAL of the police officers ] who had taken [ the applicant ] to [ the police station ] on TIME DATE testified that [ she ] did not have any visible injuries and ... did not complain about her health to Sh .","...","The records on the initial examination and registration of provision of medical aid to detainees admitted to [ the temporary detention centre ] ... contain the following entries ... On DATE [ the applicant ] had bruises on her body ... On DATE [ she ] had bruises on the abdomen and scratches on the right clavicle .","The findings of the forensic medical experts are as follows ... [ The applicant ] had bruises on the abdomen and CARDINAL areas of subcutaneous haemorrhage on the right side of the chest which were caused by the impact of blunt solid objects DATE and could not cause damage to her health . The origin of the injuries was not indicated . [ The applicant ] did not inform the forensic medical expert as to the origin of the bodily injuries .","In DATE , when conducting an inquiry in response to the [ applicant \u2019s ] complaint , investigator PERSON did not examine the findings of the forensic medical expert ... at all .","...","Regard being had to the above , the court considers that ... investigator PERSON ... did not conduct a comprehensive and objective inquiry in response to the [ applicant \u2019s ] allegations of [ ill - treatment ] . The investigator \u2019s decision ... does not contain an answer as to how and when [ the applicant ] sustained bodily injuries .","In accordance with the [ statutory ] rules of criminal [ procedure ] , no party to the proceedings can be subjected to abuse , torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment . Accordingly , the court draws the prosecutor \u2019s attention to the fact that a comprehensive and thorough examination is necessary in order to verify the GPE allegations of ill - treatment . \u201d","On DATE the investigating committee of the regional prosecutor \u2019s office informed ORG , in response to the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that investigators PERSON and PERSON had been subjected to a disciplinary warning and reprimand respectively for failing to properly discharge their duties . According to the first deputy head of the investigating committee , the decision of DATE had been reversed and the committee had conducted an additional preinvestigative inquiry into the defendants\u2019 allegations of ill - treatment . The Government did not submit a copy of this decision or state whether its content had been communicated to the applicant .","According to the Government , on DATE the investigating committee refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations . The Government did not submit a copy of this decision or state whether its content had been communicated to the applicant .","On an unspecified date the investigation against the applicant and the CARDINAL other co - accused was completed and the case was transferred to ORG for trial .","On DATE the court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal . The court noted that the trial court had failed to ensure the defendants\u2019 right to an adequate defence and had held hearings in the absence of defence counsel .","During the new trial , the applicant admitted that she had participated in DATE \u2019s abduction and battery but denied any involvement in organising NORP rape and murder . She further claimed that she had been subjected to illtreatment while in police custody and forced to confess .","NORP In response to the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment by police officers , the trial court questioned forensic expert NORP , who had examined the applicant on CARDINAL DATE . NORP confirmed his earlier findings and stated that the applicant might have sustained the injuries TIME prior to the examination . He also considered it impossible , given the nature of the applicant \u2019s injuries , that she had been subjected to electrocution .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court relied , inter alia , on her statements of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . As regards the written statement made prior to her first questioning by the investigator ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court considered it admissible in so far as she had informed the investigator about S. \u2019s abduction . The court also considered admissible the record of the applicant \u2019s questioning by the investigator . In this connection , it noted that prior to the questioning the applicant had been advised of her rights , and had been assisted by a lawyer throughout . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG reclassified the charges against the applicant to bring them in line with amendments to LAW and reduced her sentence by DATE . The court also upheld on appeal ORG findings concerning the inadequacy of the inquiry in response to the GPE allegations of ill - treatment ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166056","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF APAP BOLOGNA v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13+P1-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is the owner of a property named \u201c GPE \u201d at FAC , PERSON , GPE ( a QUANTITY house , with stairs allowing access to the second floor , each floor having CARDINAL main rooms and a smaller room , as well as a terrace ; and with further rooms on the roof ( hereinafter \u201c the property \u201d ) ) . Following the death of the applicant \u2019s uncle on DATE , the applicant and another CARDINAL heirs inherited his uncle \u2019s estate , including the property . By a deed of partition of DATE the property was assigned to the applicant as sole owner .","In DATE the property was requisitioned and allocated to ORG In DATE the applicant became aware that on an unspecified date PERSON had left the property and given the keys back to the authorities , and that the property had then become occupied by a certain ORG , who had no title to it ( since it had not been allocated to him by the authorities ) .","The applicant complained to ORG , which , instead of condemning the illegal occupation , on DATE issued a new requisition order , assigning the property to C.C. Subsequently , ORG obtained a development permit to carry out alteration work to the property . The work was carried out without the consent of the applicant , as owner .","NORP Throughout DATE while the requisition order was in force , the applicant was meant to receive an annual rent of CARDINAL NORP Liras ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) from ORG . That amount was increased to LAW ( approximately LAW ) in DATE or thereabouts . However , ORG has not been paying the applicant since DATE , nor does it transpire that the rent has been deposited in court . According to the ORG , the applicant has never requested such payment from the authorities .","The applicant considered that those amounts were far below the rental value of the property .","After having written to ORG several times to no avail , on DATE the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings against ORG and the Attorney General . He requested the court to find that the requisition orders had breached his rights under LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW . Consequently , he sought to annul the order , and requested the release of the property in his favour with free and vacant possession . He also sought an award of compensation for the occupation of the LOC , as well as any other relevant redress . In so far as relevant , paragraph CARDINAL of his application concerning the facts of the case reads as follows :","\u201c In DATE , after the applicant had inherited the property , he discovered that a certain ORG had left the property ... \u201d .","It then specified in paragraph CARDINAL that \u201c on CARDINAL DATE the same authority again requisitioned the same property by means of requisition order no . CARDINAL \u201d . In paragraph CARDINAL the applicant noted that his rights were being breached as a result of \u201c the requisition order mentioned above \u201d . Lastly , his first request to the court was to the effect that the court should \u201c declare the abovementioned requisition ... as being in breach ... \u201d and his second request read \u201c to annul all requisition order issued against the applicants \u201d ( tannulla l - ordni ta\u2019 rekwizzjoni kollha rilevanti ma\u0127rugin kontra tag\u0127hom ) .","According to the Government , when giving evidence in court on DATE , the applicant mentioned the deed of partition of CARDINAL DATE . At the same time he acknowledged that he did not contest the requisition order issued in DATE ( no record of this has been provided ) .","Pending the outcome of the proceedings , the court appointed an expert to make a valuation of the property . According to a report of CARDINAL DATE the expert considered that the DATE rental value of the property on the market in DATE was ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , and that in DATE it was MTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . Its sale market value was estimated at FAC .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( FAC ) , in its constitutional jurisdiction , found in favour of the applicant . It held that although the measure was lawful and pursued a legitimate aim , the applicant had suffered a breach of his property rights on account of the lack of proportionality of the measure , in so far as it made the applicant bear a disproportionate burden , given the low amount of rent applicable compared to the market rental value of the property . It held , however , that the measure was not abusive in so far as ORG suffered from a physical disability and lived on social benefits . He thus required lodging compatible with his needs to avoid hardship and the property at issue was adequate for such purpose .","The court further held that the Attorney General should not have been summoned as a defendant in the case ( m\u2019huwiex le\u0121ittimu kontradittur ) . The applicant was therefore ordered to pay his own costs of the proceedings as well as those of the Attorney General ( in total approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .","The court held that given that the violation had arisen solely from a lack of fair balance , it was not necessary to annul the requisition order and release the property . Referring to domestic case - law , it held :","\u201c ... while this [ constitutional ] court has a wide latitude in giving any order it may consider relevant in order for it to safeguard ORG DATE LAW and human rights and fundamental freedoms as defined in the LAW , such latitude was not unlimited and was circumscribed by the judicial system of the country , which did not allow this court [ of constitutional jurisdiction ] to amend national laws , nor could it make mandatory an action which according to domestic law was discretionary , nor could it order ORG to pay rent or compensation of a higher value than that provided for by the relevant law . Compensation , if any , which may be paid by this court [ of constitutional jurisdiction ] is that for the violation found . \u201d","The court awarded the applicant LAW . sic . ) ; for DATE had paid ORG MTL DATE and it was only recently ( sic . ) that the rent had been increased to MTL CARDINAL ; that the applicant had only received payment up until DATE ; that the rental value of the property on the market in DATE was ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , and in DATE it was ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) ; and lastly , that the requisition order had been issued in the public interest to procure accommodation for those in need , and thus the compensation payable could be less than the full market value .","The applicant appealed , complaining that the court had failed to annul the requisition order and return the property to him despite finding in his favour . He had thus remained a victim of the situation as the court had not given him an appropriate remedy for the violation . He also complained that the compensation was far too low and had not been determined in accordance with the applicable market value . He further argued that the Attorney General had been the correct defendant given that the amount of rent depended on the law , which in consequence was also an issue in the case . It does not transpire from the written pleadings that the applicant explicitly raised the issue of compensation in relation to DATE , during which he had already been an owner of the property .","ORG and the Attorney General also appealed . They agreed with the merits of the first - instance decision , but requested the court to reduce the award of compensation which had been awarded arbitrio boni viri and not on proper calculations , and this especially since the applicant had waited DATE before instituting proceedings .","A hearing was held on DATE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG reduced the amount of compensation to LAW . It , too , considered that the applicant should be penalised for the delay ( of DATE since coming into possession of the property ) in instituting proceedings , as had been done in other domestic cases . It noted that , according to ORG case - law , ORG control over levels of rent may often cause significant reductions in the amount of rent chargeable ; in the circumstances of the present case it was therefore not appropriate to make awards in accordance with market values . It considered that the firstinstance court had been free to make an award equitably , and correct to make no award for the time prior to DATE , DATE when the applicant had become the owner of the property ( sic . ) and before which he had had no ties with it . ORG also refused to annul the order , given that it had been issued lawfully and had pursued a legitimate aim . It considered that in such circumstances it was not appropriate ( mhux indikat ) to release the property and to evict the tenant ( as also held in previous cases , namely PERSON vs Director of ORG , Constitutional Court judgment of CARDINAL DATE and PERSON Attorney General , ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ) , nor could it impose a higher rent for the future , when such rent was not provided for by law ( as also held in PERSON , cited above ) . It reiterated that its role was limited to awarding compensation for the violation found . The same had also been held by ORG Compensation in cases of a constitutional nature was not equivalent to civil damage , which could be pursued before the courts of ordinary jurisdiction .","The Constitutional Court further confirmed that the proper defendant was solely ORG , and not the Attorney General , as the applicant was not contesting the constitutional validity of the law itself , but solely the requisition order issued in respect of his property . ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s order for the payment of costs and ordered the applicant to pay the costs of all the parties related to the appeal .","As a result of this judgment , the applicant had to pay his share of the costs of the proceedings as well as those of the Attorney General at first instance , and those of all the parties on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["13","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181209","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TA\u015e v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer . During the interrogation , the applicant gave a detailed account of his acts within the illegal organisation ORG ( ORG ) .","On DATE the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge at ORG , again in the absence of a lawyer . In his statements before both the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , the applicant denied the accusations and maintained that his statements to the police had been given under duress . On DATE , upon the order of the investigating judge , the applicant was placed in pre - trial detention .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal terrorist organisation under LAW , PERSON no . CARDINAL .","ORG were later abolished by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , and the case was transferred to ORG .","On DATE , relying on , inter alia , the applicant \u2019s statements to the police , ORG convicted the applicant under LAW of the new LAW and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment on procedural grounds .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant again under LAW of the new LAW and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175481","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF McILWRATH v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , GPE .","In DATE in GPE the applicant married PERSON , who held joint NORP and NORP nationality . On DATE PERSON gave birth to their son .","In DATE the family moved to GPE , where CARDINAL more children were born : a son on DATE , a daughter on DATE and a son on DATE . All CARDINAL children hold joint NORP and NORP nationality .","In DATE the applicant and PERSON separated .","On DATE the applicant applied for a divorce .","While the divorce proceedings were ongoing , on DATE PERSON took the children and left GPE for GPE .","NORP Since the removal of the children the applicant has travelled to GPE on CARDINAL occasions , trying to bring them back to GPE and maintain contact with them , however , PERSON has prevented him from doing so .","The case file material indicates that the applicant saw the children on several occasions at their school DATE and DATE when he taught LANGUAGE there on a voluntary basis .","He also saw the children in the short period which followed ORG decisions to grant his application for a temporary contact arrangement pending a decision in the proceedings in GPE to determine the children \u2019s place of residence ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant went to the children \u2019s school to meet his younger son . The boy did not want to see him , he was pushing the applicant away and yelling . After failed attempts to calm the boy down , the applicant picked him up against his will , held him in both hands and carried him to an office allocated by the school administration for the applicant \u2019s meetings with the children . The boy started screaming , crying and fighting the applicant off . In the meantime , the applicant \u2019s daughter had telephoned ORG , who came to the school shortly afterwards and took the children home .","M.G. sought the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant for having allegedly inflicted bodily harm on the children in the course of the above incident . On several occasions ORG of GPE Central District Office of ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant , owing to the absence of the constituent elements of a crime in his actions . The most recent decision was on DATE . The regional prosecutor \u2019s office found the above decision lawful .","Following the incident of CARDINAL DATE , on DATE the temporary contact arrangement for the applicant and his children was cancelled ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","While exercising his contact rights in accordance with a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on DATE the applicant took his second - born son and left GPE for GPE . He never returned the child to the mother and has not seen his other children since .","Since DATE the applicant \u2019s eldest son has been living in GPE . The applicant \u2019s daughter and youngest son continue to live with their mother in GPE .","On DATE ORG held that , while the divorce proceedings were ongoing , the CARDINAL children should be placed in the care of social services , the children should reside with their mother , and the applicant should pay her child maintenance . The court further determined a schedule for the applicant \u2019s contact sessions with the children .","On DATE the ORG varied the arrangements relating to residence and who had care of the children . Relying on an expert report by a psychologist and psychoanalyst , PERSON , and noting PERSON \u2019s continued lack of income , it ordered that , while the divorce proceedings were ongoing , the applicant should have sole care of the CARDINAL children and the children should reside with him . It further ordered that the CARDINAL younger children were to spend DATE with their mother in the following manner : from DATE after school to DATE TIME , and DATE from DATE after school to DATE TIME . The eldest son , who had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder , was to go to a day centre for children with special needs after school , and he was free to choose which parent he wanted to stay with at TIME . The court also ordered that during DATE the children were to spend DATE with their father and the following week with their mother .","On DATE ORG entrusted Dr C. with carrying out a monitoring exercise in relation to compliance with the above court order . This exercise , carried out in the period DATE , showed that compliance with the court order of DATE was rather good . After certain difficulties initially , the CARDINAL younger children adapted quite well to their new schedule and accepted their new rhythm of life , which was more regular and settled . PERSON report further mentioned that the children continued to experience psychological discomfort , partly owing to the difficult family situation ( acute tensions and conflict between the parents ) , partly owing to their age ( QUANTITY children were approaching adolescence ) , and partly owing to ORG actions ( her continuing to \u201c use \u201d the children as \u201c instruments \u201d in her dispute with the applicant ) . Despite the remaining difficulties in the relationship between the children and their parents , the arrangement of the children \u2019s life at that stage was assessed by the expert as being the best possible from a psychological and material point of view . The main problems which came to light during the monitoring exercise were : the situation of the applicant \u2019s eldest son , who was not receiving therapy for his condition ; the behaviour of PERSON , who was unpredictable and eccentric and motivated by a paranoid delusion that she was a victim of plotting and persecution by the court and state institutions in general , and who gave the impression that she was suffering mentally ; and ORG relationship with the children , in particular , her attempts to involve the children in judicial proceedings and seek \u201c allies \u201d in them against the father , who she represented as cruel , dangerous and violent , all of which was harming the psychological well - being of the children . In the expert \u2019s opinion , in order to prevent further psychological trauma being inflicted on the children by the mother \u2019s behaviour , it was necessary not only to put a distance between her and the children , but also to have recourse to psychotherapy and improve the quality of the children \u2019s psychological environment at their father \u2019s home .","On DATE the ORG found that ORG had not respected the previous court orders . In particular , it found that the eldest son had been living with her during DATE . As he had refused to see his father , she had been the only parent who had had effective access to him . However , she had refused to bring him to the monitoring meetings with social services or ensure his attendance at DATE centre for children with special needs , as ordered by the court . Moreover , she had sent the child to GPE in DATE without his father \u2019s permission and without notifying social services . Given that ORG had not respected the arrangements fixed by the court , it was necessary to modify them . Accordingly , the court confirmed the previous arrangements in respect of the younger children in relation to who had care of them , their place of residence and contact . It further confirmed that the applicant should have sole care of the eldest son , and that the eldest son should reside with him . The eldest son was no longer given the choice as to whether he wished to stay with his father or mother at TIME . The court further confirmed the order for the eldest son \u2019s attendance at DATE centre for children with special needs , and noted that if ORG continued to not comply with that order , the matter would be reported to ORG for the adoption of measures limiting parental authority . It also held that the children were not allowed to leave GPE without the consent of both parents . Lastly , it fixed the manner in which the children should spend the approaching DATE . In particular , it ordered that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the CARDINAL children were to stay with ORG","On DATE PERSON and the children left GPE for GPE .","On DATE the ORG pronounced the divorce of the applicant and ORG with reference to section MONEY ) of ORG , which provides that an action for divorce may be maintained by a husband or wife to procure a judgment divorcing the parties and dissolving the marriage on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff by the defendant such that the conduct of the defendant so endangers the physical or mental well - being of the plaintiff as renders it unsafe or improper for the plaintiff to cohabit with the defendant . ORG further ordered that the applicant should pay child maintenance to M.G. As regards who should have care of the children and where they should live , the court noted that ORG had taken the children to GPE in breach of a court order , and for DATE had thereby deprived the father of any possibility of seeing the children . ORG having sole care of the children , as requested by her , was therefore excluded as an option . The court ordered that the applicant and PERSON should have joint care of the children and that the children should reside with their father . After the children \u2019s return to GPE , ORG contact rights would be fixed by social services so as to prevent the children being wrested once again from the environment in which they lived . Lastly , the court ordered that the applicant should bear all financial expenses in respect of the children , except medical expenses not covered by medical insurance , which should be divided between the parents . The judgment was \u201c temporarily enforceable \u201d ( provvisoriamente esecutivo ) pending a decision in appeal proceedings .","M.G. appealed against the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and dismissed the applicant \u2019s petition for divorce under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG as not meeting the required conditions . The court further noted that it could not take measures in relation to the personal relationship between the applicant and PERSON or other issues concerning the children .","On DATE ORG convicted PERSON in absentia of abducting the children . She was given a DATE prison sentence with suspension of her parental authority .","On DATE ORG dismissed an action by the applicant to strip M.G. of her parental authority in respect of the children .","The applicant applied to GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for recognition and enforcement of ORG decision of DATE . He relied on both LAW DATE on ORG and the CARDINAL LAW between GPE and GPE ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application . It found that the decision of DATE was an interim decision pending a final decision in divorce proceedings . It could be modified by the judge who had made it at any time , as indeed it had been modified on DATE , and could not be appealed against . That decision was therefore not a decision rendered in civil matters within the meaning of LAW of LAW , and accordingly was not enforceable in GPE . The court further held that enforcement of the decision of DATE should be refused by reference to LAW . It found that the decision of DATE was manifestly incompatible with NORP public order because it ordered that the father should have sole care of the children . NORP law did not provide for CARDINAL parent to have sole care unless the other parent had been formally stripped of his or her parental authority . Given that ORG had not been stripped of her parental authority , the decision to award sole care to the applicant was incompatible with NORP law .","The decision of DATE mentioned that an appeal against it could be lodged with ORG within DATE . However , the applicant never availed himself of that remedy .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for enforcement of ORG judgment of DATE . He relied on LAW .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application . Referring to LAW , ORG found that the judgment of DATE was incompatible with the basic principles of NORP law and public order . The judgment read as follows :","\u201c Established case - law shows that public order in GPE is the basis of ORG and social organisation of GPE , [ and ] the violation of public order is the incompatibility with existing legal norms , social order and fundamental principles of law . Foreign court judgments violating the fundamental rights of a defendant , preventing him or her from defending his or her rights , as well as foreign court judgments whose enforcement may be in conflict with the national law of the State where they have to be enforced , are considered incompatible with public order . Reference to public order is possible when the application of a foreign law may lead to a result incompatible with NORP legal thinking .","In the present case , the enforcement of a foreign court decision may be in conflict with NORP national law .","In accordance with LAW , if parents and children do not have a joint place of residence their rights and obligations shall be determined in accordance with the law of the State where the children have citizenship . At a plaintiff \u2019s request , child maintenance obligations and other relationships between parents and children may be determined in accordance with the law of the State where the children permanently reside .","By the time the ORG delivered its decision of CARDINAL DATE the children had been permanently residing in GPE for DATE ( since CARDINAL DATE ) , they are NORP nationals and have no NORP nationality . These circumstances are not disputed by the parties .","[ The proceedings concerning residence arrangements , child maintenance and parental authority in respect of the children are ongoing before the ORG of GPE . ]","Under these circumstances , examination of the dispute by the ORG court is incompatible with NORP law .","Besides , the relationship between parents and children is an ongoing process , objectively it can and does change over time . As was noted above , by the time the ORG court delivered its judgment the children had been living in GPE for a long time . During this time their relationship with their parents and their perception of the possibility of living with their father could have changed , which should have been taken into consideration by the [ NORP ] court . However , the judgment [ of DATE ] indicates that the [ NORP court ] did not take these circumstances into consideration , thereby violating the children \u2019s fundamental rights under LAW of LAW on the Rights of the Child ...","The court also takes into account that the enforcement of the PERSON court judgment might be incompatible with NORP law .","In particular , enforcement of the foreign court decision in the present case would involve the return of the children to GPE , [ a country ] of which they are not nationals , with them being handed over to [ the applicant ] , who also does not hold NORP nationality ...","At the same time , under LAW of GPE a national of GPE may not be expelled from the territory of GPE .","The applicant \u2019s argument to the effect that he did not intend to bring the children back to GPE immediately and that he first wished to restore his relationship with them can not serve as grounds for granting [ his ] application [ for recognition and enforcement of the judgment of DATE ] . The court proceeds on the understanding that enforcement of the PERSON court judgment would be impossible without the children \u2019s return to GPE ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a private complaint . Referring to Article CARDINAL of the LAW , he submitted that international treaties took precedence over national law . Under LAW of LAW the NORP courts had jurisdiction over the case , because at the time when the proceedings had been instituted he , PERSON and the children had all been permanently residing in GPE . The fact that PERSON had then abducted the children and taken them to GPE had no bearing on the jurisdiction of the NORP courts to proceed with the case . Further , referring to decisions by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the applicant argued that ORG had not indicated what basic principles of the economic , social and legal organisation of NORP society had been infringed by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . Moreover , the NORP courts had no competence in relation to verifying whether that judgment was lawful and justified . The applicant also submitted that ORG had taken into account the children \u2019s wishes , and proof of this had been produced before ORG . The applicant further argued that the prohibition on deporting NORP nationals was irrelevant to the present case , because the children were not to be deported or extradited from GPE . They were to be handed over to their legal guardian and would enjoy freedom of movement , including the freedom to leave GPE . Lastly , the applicant complained under LAW that the refusal to enforce the judgment of DATE violated his right to respect for his family life .","On DATE ORG of ORG held an appeal hearing . The parties had not been notified about the date of the appeal hearing and were therefore absent . On DATE the court upheld the decision of DATE , finding that it was lawful , well reasoned and justified . It found , in particular , that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE by ORG was incompatible with NORP public order because it was in conflict with NORP family law provisions and unacceptable in relation to NORP legal thinking .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the ORG of ORG , repeating the argument set out in his appeal submissions .","On DATE a judge of ORG refused to refer the case for consideration by the ORG of that court , finding no significant violations of substantive or procedural law which could influence the outcome of the proceedings . The first - instance and appeal courts had correctly applied domestic law .","On DATE a judge of ORG of GPE refused to refer the case for consideration by ORG of that ORG .","NORP On DATE the Deputy President of ORG of GPE informed the applicant that there were no grounds to disagree with the decision of DATE , refusing to refer the case for consideration by ORG of ORG .","On DATE PERSON lodged an application with ORG of GPE . Claiming domestic violence and a lack of care and financial support , and referring to the children \u2019s wish to live with her , she asked for an order stripping the applicant of his parental authority in respect of the children and determining that the children should reside with her . She also asked for child maintenance .","The applicant lodged a counterclaim , asking for an order that the children should reside with him . He submitted that ORG had unlawfully abducted the children despite the decisions by ORG that they should reside with him . Their residence with PERSON was detrimental to their psychological health . In particular , by falsely accusing him of domestic violence , PERSON had caused the children to fear their father . Moreover , she had prevented him and his relatives from seeing the children or supporting them financially . She had not taken proper care of the eldest son , who suffered from a mental disorder and needed specialist care .","On DATE the ORG of GPE declared ORG \u2019s claims inadmissible . It noted that proceedings concerning the children \u2019s residence arrangements and child maintenance were ongoing before ORG . Given that the proceedings in GPE had been initiated before the present proceedings , it was the NORP courts which had jurisdiction over the case , in accordance with LAW . Accordingly , the NORP courts had no competence to examine the case between the same parties , which was based on the same facts and had the same purpose . As regards the claim to strip the applicant of his parental authority , that claim was not part of the proceedings before the NORP courts . However , given that the applicant was a national of GPE and permanently living in GPE , the NORP courts had no competence to examine the claims against him . PERSON should therefore submit her claims to the court with territorial jurisdiction over the applicant \u2019s place of residence .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for fresh consideration before ORG . It found that the present proceedings were not identical to the proceedings ongoing in GPE . In particular , the claim to strip the applicant of his parental authority had only been made in the present proceedings . PERSON was entitled to lodge her claim with a court with territorial jurisdiction over her place of residence . Given that she lived in LOC of GPE , ORG had competence to examine the case .","On DATE , having questioned the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL older children DATE , who had all expressed their wish to live with their mother and refused to have any contact with their father , ORG decided that , pending the resolution of the proceedings , the children should reside with their mother .","On DATE the applicant asked the court to determine a temporary contact arrangement for him and the children .","Following the applicant \u2019s application , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG decided that , pending the resolution of the proceedings , the applicant should be able to have contact with the children at the schools they attended , in the presence of and with the active involvement of a psychologist , for TIME a week with each child : on DATE after classes from TIME with the elder son ; on DATE after classes from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. with the second son ; on DATE after classes from TIME with the daughter ; and on DATE after classes from TIME with the younger son .","Following an application by the applicant , on DATE the ORG modified the interim contact arrangement between him and the children . In particular , in addition to the previously established contact TIME , the applicant was allowed to : take his second son for a walk on DATE from TIME ; pick up his daughter from extracurricular activities on DATE at TIME , have lunch with her afterwards and return her to the mother by TIME ; and take his younger son to theatres , museums and for other extracurricular activities for children DATE , for a maximum of TIME starting from TIME The applicant was also allowed to accompany the CARDINAL older children to and from school if the children agreed .","However , on DATE ORG cancelled the above interim contact arrangement on the grounds that it was not in the best interests of the children . In taking that decision , the district court relied on a letter from ORG of DATE to the effect that , in circumstances where there was bitter parental conflict , meetings between children and the parent from whom they were living apart were psychologically highly traumatic for the children . The court also took into consideration the fact that the school principal firmly objected to having the meetings between the applicant and the children take place on the school LOC . Reference was made to the incident of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG rejected both ORG and the applicant \u2019s claims in full . It found no evidence of domestic violence in respect of ORG or the children . It further found it established that , despite the applicant \u2019s wish to take care of the children and support them financially , he was being prevented from doing so by ORG There were therefore no reasons to strip him of his parental authority in respect of the children . As regards residence arrangements , the court noted that ORG had already examined similar claims and had ordered by its judgment of DATE that the children were to live with the applicant . That judgment was final and enforceable and the procedure for its enforcement in GPE was established by LAW and Article CARDINAL of LAW . All the arguments raised by the parties in the present proceedings had already been examined by ORG . The parties had not produced any new evidence which could warrant changing the residence arrangements determined by ORG . Moreover , the court had been hampered in its examination of the issue by ORG refusal to have the children examined by court - appointed experts . In the absence of a psychological expert report it was impossible to ascertain effectively the children \u2019s attachment to each of the parents , the GPE moral character and other relevant qualities , and the relationships between the children and each of the parents . Lastly , the court rejected ORG claim for child maintenance . The parties appealed .","On DATE ORG considered it necessary , among other things , to question the CARDINAL older children who had reached DATE about their attitude towards each of the parents and the prospect of their living with them , and to obtain the opinion of the youngest child with the involvement of a psychologist . The hearing of DATE was adjourned until DATE .","On DATE an inspection of the children \u2019s living conditions with their mother was carried out , and there was also a discussion with the applicant \u2019s youngest child .","On DATE ORG ordered that an expert examination should be carried out so as to determine which parent the children would be most comfortable living with from an emotional perspective , with regard to the individual psychological features of the children and the parents , the relationships between them and the existing circumstances . The examination was also to determine whether it would be possible for the children to live apart from each other with CARDINAL of the parents , taking into account their psychological attachment to each other . The proceedings were adjourned pending the results of the expert examination .","On DATE ORG ordered that the forensic psychological examination should be carried out by GPE The Regional Family Centre \u201d .","On DATE the report of the forensic psychological examination was drawn up . It was based on an examination of the applicant and an analysis of the case file material , since ORG had refused to take part in the examination and had not let the children be examined either . The PERSON conclusion was that the applicant was polite , communicative , sincere , easy - going , in control of his emotions , sentimental , sensitive to emotional nuances , and that he wanted friendly harmonious relationships . He had broad interests . Rudeness , hostility and a dominating attitude were not part of his character . He could easily adapt to different environments . The experts did not have sufficient material to fully assess the individual psychological features of PERSON and the children . However , on the basis of an analysis of ORG behaviour and the reports by the NORP specialists , and taking into account the ongoing conflict and the children \u2019s being in a psychotraumatic situation for a very long time , the experts recommended that ORG underwent a comprehensive psychological and psychiatric expert examination . The experts further noted that , owing to the mother \u2019s behaviour , the children had a negative image of their father , which created a substantial risk for their normal mental development . In such a situation , determining the children \u2019s place of residence in accordance with their wishes could contradict their true interests .","On DATE the proceedings were resumed . ORG considered it necessary that the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL older sons , aged DATE and DATE , join the proceedings as third parties .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE . It took note of the fact that on DATE the judgment of ORG of DATE had been quashed on appeal . ORG granted ORG claims in part by ordering that the children were to live with her and that the applicant was to pay her child maintenance , and granted the applicant \u2019s claims in part by determining his contact rights in respect of the children . In particular , the applicant was allowed to spend time with the children on the second and DATE of DATE from TIME on a DATE to TIME on a DATE , for TIME on the dates of the children \u2019s birthdays , during CARDINAL of the public and school holidays , and for DATE during DATE . During DATE and school holidays the applicant was allowed to travel with the children both in GPE and abroad . The remaining claims by the applicant and PERSON were dismissed . In taking that decision ORG took into consideration that : the children had been living with their mother for DATE , and they had been cared for and raised by her during this time ; while living in GPE they had acquired a circle of friends and teachers ; the material in the case file proved ORG conscientious attitude towards her parental obligations ; and the children , questioned by both the court and the childcare authority , had expressed their wish to live with their mother .","DATE a number of internet news sites published ORG account of her relationship with the applicant , their divorce and their dispute over the children . In particular , the news sites reproduced ORG accusations against the applicant , describing his alleged acts of violence against her and the children .","The applicant sued the news sites and ORG .","On DATE the Petrogradskiy District Court of GPE allowed the applicant \u2019s claims against CARDINAL of the news sites . On DATE the ORG of GPE allowed his claims against ORG On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE allowed his claims against another news site . All the district courts found that ORG and the news sites had not proved the truth of their allegations against the applicant . They noted that the NORP authorities had conducted an inquiry into ORG allegations against the applicant and had found no evidence of domestic violence . The GPE police had also conducted an inquiry which had not revealed any evidence of violent acts by the applicant against ORG or the children . No such evidence had been produced in the present proceedings either ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169212","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SOSNOVSKIY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the material time the applicant worked as an investigation officer in the environmental protection prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0434\u043e\u043e\u0445\u043e\u0440\u043e\u043d\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0430 ) .","On DATE S. complained to ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ARC \u201d ) ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0430 GPE \u0440\u0435\u0441\u043f\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0456\u043a\u0438 ORG ) that the applicant and PERSON , a prosecutor \u2019s assistant , had extorted MONEY ( ORG ) from him for the purpose of carrying on a fishing business . Later PERSON and NORP lodged similar complaints .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was arrested at his workplace after receiving CARDINAL ORG from LOC , and CARDINAL ORG and CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) from NORP The applicant \u2019s office was searched and CARDINAL ORG were found in CARDINAL of the books on his table . The applicant \u2019s meetings with NORP and PERSON had been taped . On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and U. for bribe - taking .","On DATE ORG of PERSON ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) authorised the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The court held that the applicant was accused of committing a serious crime and might escape , or hinder the investigation , or continue his criminal activity . The applicant appealed .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that his arrest on DATE had been unlawful since there had been no grounds to arrest him . The court forwarded this complaint to ORG , noting that the court was not competent to consider such complaints while the case was under investigation . ORG transferred the applicant \u2019s complaint to ORG of the ARC .","On DATE ORG of the ARC informed the applicant that his arrest was justified and lawful .","On DATE ORG of the ARC upheld the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE on the same grounds as before . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG of the ARC upheld the decision of DATE . It held that there was sufficient evidence that the applicant had committed a serious crime . If at large , the applicant might continue his criminal activity , or hinder the investigation , or abscond .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) accepted the applicant \u2019s case for trial .","On DATE , in the committal hearings , ORG maintained the applicant \u2019s detention without giving any reason or setting any time - limit .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request to change the preventive measure to an undertaking not to abscond , noting that the applicant was accused of having committed a serious crime , and might abscond or hinder the investigation . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG found the applicant and U. guilty of several counts of bribe - taking and sentenced them to CARDINAL and CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , respectively , with confiscation of CARDINAL of their property .","On DATE ORG of the ARC terminated proceedings in respect of CARDINAL count of bribery concerning the applicant and upheld the remainder of the judgment .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in ORG no . CARDINAL ( ORG \u0442\u0438\u043c\u0447\u0430\u0441\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0442\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \u2116 CARDINAL \u043c. FAC ) ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) and in ORG ( \u0456\u0437\u043e\u043b\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u0442\u0438\u043c\u0447\u0430\u0441\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0442\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f PERSON ) ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) respectively .","In the PERSON the applicant shared cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY , with CARDINAL other detainees . There were no chairs in the cell and it was in a poor state of repair . There were cockroaches and other insects . The toilet space was very narrow \u2013 around QUANTITY in width DATE which caused the applicant , who is QUANTITY tall and weighs QUANTITY , considerable difficulties . The detainees were able to take a shower only once every seven to ten days .","In ORG the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY , together with CARDINAL or more detainees . The cell had no windows and no furniture . The toilet space was very narrow \u2013 QUANTITY in width . The applicant had not been able to take a shower , and detainees had had to sleep in turns . CARDINAL minutes\u2019 outside exercise was possible once every DATE in a small yard which measured QUANTITY . The applicant submitted undated photos of a cell , in which it is apparent that the toilet ( a hole in the floor plugged by a plastic bottle ) is separated from the living space by a wall approximately QUANTITY high . Beside the toilet there is a sleeping place ( allegedly a mattress on a wooden bench or on the floor ) .","According to the ORG , cell no . CARDINAL in GPE had been designed for occupancy by CARDINAL inmates and had had QUANTITY of living space , thus allowing QUANTITY per inmate , which had been in compliance with the domestic standards . In accordance with the relevant regulations , the cell had been disinfected on a DATE basis and the detainees had had DATE access to bathing facilities . The statutory regulations did not include chair provision for this cell .","As regards ORG , the applicant \u2019s cell had QUANTITY of living space and had been designed to accommodate CARDINAL inmates . The cell had been lit by electric light , equipped with a ventilating system ensuring circulation of air and furnished with wooden sleeping platform , separated toilet and wash - stand . The detainees had been provided with pillows and mattresses . The detention facility had had a shower room with hot and cold water and a small backyard for DATE walks .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG about the conditions of his detention in the ORG ( overcrowding , no windows in the cell , no possibility of taking a shower , lack of out - of - cell activities ) . He requested that the court find the inaction of ORG authorities in this respect unlawful and to oblige it to remedy the situation .","On DATE the court forwarded the complaint to ORG as the appropriate decision - making body .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that some violations of the law by ORG authorities had been established and that the relevant instructions had been given to remedy the situation , with no further details provided .","On DATE the applicant again lodged his complaint with ORG , having stated that neither his complaint to ORG authorities nor to the prosecutor \u2019s office had remedied his situation . He requested that the inaction of ORG authorities be declared unlawful . This complaint was again forwarded by the court to ORG .","On DATE and DATE ORG sent the applicant a reply similar to that in the letter of DATE . According to the applicant , he did not receive these letters .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG of the ARC ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) about the failure of ORG to consider his complaint on the merits . He requested that ORG oblige the latter to consider his complaint against ORG on the merits and to bring disciplinary measure to bear on the respective judge of ORG .","On DATE ORG assigned the applicant \u2019s complaint to ORG of the ARC ( \u201c the Leninskiy District Court \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG of the ARC about the alleged failure of ORG to consider his complaints about conditions of detention .","On DATE ORG refused to open administrative proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s complaint as the procedural decisions of a judge in such a case were not subject to appeal under the rules of administrative procedure . Any decision to the contrary would , in the court \u2019s opinion , constitute an unlawful interference with the administration of justice . The court dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant \u2019s allegations that the failure of ORG to entertain his complaint amounted to a denial of access to a court . It noted in this respect \u2012 in accordance with LAW and LAW ( ORG \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0443 ORG ) \u2012 that it was for the prosecutor \u2019s offices to supervise observance of the law in detention centres . The applicant was free to complain to the court about the prosecutor \u2019s inaction , if appropriate , but he had failed to do so .","The applicant appealed .","On DATE the applicant received a letter from ORG of the ARC in which it referred to the responses given earlier to the applicant by ORG .","On DATE ORG of the ARC upheld the decision of DATE . It noted in particular that the applicant had submitted to ORG a complaint regarding the poor conditions of detention but not an administrative claim against ORG for the protection of his rights , as was required by LAW . This being so , his complaint had been forwarded to the competent authorities as required by the relevant domestic legislation .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on the points of law .","On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative claim with the Menskiy ORG of GPE ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) against ORG authorities claiming , inter alia , damages for the harm inflicted by the inhuman and degrading conditions of his detention .","On DATE the Menskiy ORG admitted the applicant \u2019s claim for consideration .","On DATE the Menskiy ORG rejected the claim as having been lodged outside the DATE time - limit set by the law , since the applicant had been transferred from ORG on DATE .","ORG and ORG upheld the above decisions on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178869","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PULYAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141358","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BOLEK AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and the second applicant , PERSON GPE , was born in DATE . The second applicant has a daughter , the third applicant , who was born in DATE . The son of the first and the second applicants , the fourth applicant , was born in DATE ; both parents are his guardians . All the applicants are NORP nationals and are currently in GPE . They are represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145348","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF M.P.E.V. AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Ecuador)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["The first and second applicants were born in DATE , and the third and fourth applicants in DATE and DATE respectively . They live in GPE .","The first and second applicants married on DATE in GPE and brought up the third and fourth applicants together . The third applicant is the second applicant \u2019s daughter and the first applicant \u2019s stepdaughter ; the fourth applicant is the first and second ORG daughter .","DATE the applicants sought asylum in GPE on QUANTITY occasions . Each time their applications were rejected they returned to GPE .","On DATE the applicants , having re - entered NORP territory , filed a fresh request for asylum . The first and second applicants claimed that they had been tortured and had received death threats from the NORP police after the first applicant had attended CARDINAL political demonstrations in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Refugee Office \u201d ) rejected the applicants\u2019 request .","On DATE the first applicant was convicted of selling stolen goods and was given a DATE suspended prison sentence and fined MONEY ( CHF ) . On DATE he was convicted of driving without a valid licence and sentenced to QUANTITY of community service . On DATE he was convicted of attempting to steal perfumes in a shopping centre and was sentenced to TIME of community service . On DATE he was convicted of buying stolen goods and given a ninemonth suspended sentence and fined CARDINAL . The suspension of his previous sentence having been revoked , he served this sentence as from DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and ordered ORG to review the ORG request . It considered that the information contained in medical records regarding the first applicant \u2019s state of mental health drawn up in GPE in DATE might be a reason to grant refugee status to the applicants . According to medical certificates , the first applicant suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder ( PTSD ) , depression and schizoaffective disorder . He had been hospitalised on several occasions after attempting to commit suicide .","NORP In DATE the first and the second applicants separated . Their young daughter , the fourth applicant , stayed with the second applicant , who obtained full parental authority , while the first applicant was granted extended access , including the right to see her every DATE , DATE and for CARDINAL of the school holidays .","On DATE ORG granted the third applicant a residence permit on humanitarian grounds . She then withdrew her asylum request and applied for NORP citizenship , which was granted on DATE .","On DATE ORG , following a fresh examination of the facts , rejected the remaining applicants\u2019 request for asylum . On DATE they lodged an administrative appeal , arguing , inter alia , that they continued to have a close family relationship even after the first CARDINAL applicants had separated .","On DATE ORG partially reversed ORG decision . The court specified , at the outset , that the decisions given by ORG could be contested before ORG , whose decision was final .","The court also observed that the first and second applicants had separated and ceased living together , and that the fourth applicant usually lived with her mother . Accordingly , the family unit had ceased to exist and the principles established under LAW no longer applied . As a consequence , each applicant \u2019s residence rights had to be examined separately . The court considered that this approach was even more justified in view of the first applicant \u2019s behaviour and his criminal record .","The court further observed that the fourth applicant was then DATE and had from the age of CARDINAL grown up in GPE , where she had attended school and was completely integrated . It appeared that she did not have any practical knowledge of her country of origin , having never returned after her arrival in GPE , and that she hardly spoke LANGUAGE , GPE \u2019s main language . Under these circumstances , the court considered that sending her back would amount to an uprooting of excessive rigidity ( un d\u00e9racinement d\u2019une rigueur excessive ) and granted her and her mother temporary residence ( admission provisoire ) in GPE for DATE , renewable on a DATE basis thereafter .","Regarding the first applicant , ORG considered his expulsion to be lawful . The court observed , at the outset , that he had not established that he would be at any risk on his return to GPE . The court further considered that his state of health gave reason for concern , since he suffered from PTSD and had made several suicide attempts . However , the court observed that GPE had a health system which , even if it could not be compared to the NORP system , was nevertheless reliable . The court considered that the applicant would have access to specialist care in the main urban centres of the country .","The court further noted that the first applicant \u2019s attending doctors considered that his return to GPE was in itself likely to jeopardise his health , irrespective of the medical treatment he received . Furthermore , he would be confronted with serious social problems . However , ORG considered that , under the pertinent legislation , the applicant \u2019s criminal record excluded him from being granted temporary residence . The court noted in this context that the applicant had , over a longer period of time , acquired a total of CARDINAL stolen goods ( primarily gold jewellery ) deriving from various burglaries ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156557","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"SEKUL v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a national of GPE and GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in LANGUAGE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in Ivani\u0107 Grad .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant and his wife moved to GPE from GPE sometimes in DATE and they bought a flat in GPE from PERSON and FAC Although there was no written purchase agreement , the applicant paid the full purchase price and moved into the flat .","Meanwhile , the applicant \u2019s wife was admitted to a nursing home in GPE and the applicant moved to a rest home in GPE .","On DATE the applicant brought an action in ORG ( PERSON ) against PERSON and ORG , seeking a court order for the conclusion of a written sale and purchase agreement concerning the flat .","On DATE ORG ruled in the applicant \u2019s favour but on DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , as the court of appeal , quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case on the grounds of inadequate reasoning of the judgment .","In the resumed proceedings , on DATE , the applicant , represented by lawyer PERSON , amended his civil action seeking the award of title of ownership over the flat and the performance of certain construction works by PERSON and ORG","During the proceedings , PERSON and ORG lodged a counterclaim against the applicant seeking annulment of the oral sale and purchase agreement .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s action , awarded him the title of ownership over the flat and ordered PERSON and ORG to perform the requested construction works . It also dismissed PERSON \u2019s and ORG \u2019s counterclaim .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment concerning the title of the applicant \u2019s ownership and the dismissal of PERSON \u2019s and ORG \u2019s counterclaim , whereas it quashed the part of the judgment concerning the performance of construction works and in that part remitted the case for re - examination .","In the resumed proceedings the applicant complained to ORG about the length of the proceedings before ORG .","On DATE the ORG found a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time , awarded him CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in compensation and ordered ORG to decide the case within DATE .","In DATE lawyer PERSON informed ORG that he no longer represented the applicant , and in DATE lawyer J.A.M. informed that court that he was the applicant \u2019s representative .","On DATE the ORG partially accepted the applicant \u2019s civil action concerning the construction works , ordering PERSON and ORG to carry out some additional works on the doors and windows , fa\u00e7ade and the parquet floor in the applicant \u2019s flat . In addition , it authorised the applicant , in the case of a failure of B.M. and ORG to comply with that order , to carry out the construction works himself at the expense of B.M. and ORG The applicant was also awarded costs and expenses in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","This judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . It thus became final , and on DATE it became fully enforceable .","On DATE the applicant , represented by lawyer PERSON , instituted enforcement proceedings against PERSON and FAC in ORG concerning the performance of construction works ordered in the judgment of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Relying on section CARDINAL of LAW , the applicant requested that PERSON and ORG should comply with their duty to finish the construction work within DATE and , in case of a failure on their part to comply with the judgment , to pay an enforcement fine ( sudski penali ) of HRK CARDINAL for every further day of delay .","After unsuccessful friendly settlement arrangements , and several orders of ORG to correct his request for enforcement , on DATE the applicant reiterated his request , under LAW , asking that PERSON and FAC be given an additional period of DATE to comply with the judgment and , in case of a failure on their part , to pay an enforcement fine of HRK CARDINAL for every further day of delay .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s request and ordered PERSON and ORG to comply with the judgment of DATE within DATE , and , in case of a failure to that effect , to pay an enforcement fine in the amount of HRK CARDINAL to the applicant for every further day of delay .","On DATE PERSON and ORG challenged the time - limit set out for the enforcement , seeking its postponement due to the upcoming tourist season . On DATE ORG dismissed the request unfounded .","On DATE B.M. and ORG appealed to ORG against the dismissal of their request for the postponement of the enforcement , arguing in particular that the construction works could not be performed during DATE and that the applicant had denied their workers access to the flat .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by PERSON and ORG as unfounded , upholding ORG order for the payment of an enforcement fine .","The applicant did not seek the enforcement of that order by seeking payment of the awarded amount .","On DATE lawyer PERSON , who represented the applicant in his civil proceedings instituted against PERSON and FAC ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , asked a public notary in GPE to issue an enforcement order on the applicant \u2019s property in general for the payment of lawyer \u2019s fees in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , together with the statutory default interest .","The following day the public notary accepted the request and issued an enforcement order on the applicant \u2019s property . It instructed the applicant that he could lodge an objection against the order with the competent civil court within DATE following its service on him .","The material available to the ORG contains a delivery note of this decision dated DATE , bearing in handwriting the applicant \u2019s last name .","As there was no objection against the public notary \u2019s decision it became final on DATE .","On DATE the applicant , represented by lawyer PERSON , requested the public notary to re - open the proceedings arguing that he had not received the enforcement order on DATE , and that he had only later learnt of its existence . He also challenged the validity of the enforcement order .","After receiving the request , the public notary forwarded it to ORG for its examination and decision .","On DATE , after hearing the parties\u2019 arguments , ORG declared the applicant \u2019s request inadmissible as being lodged out - of - time . In particular , ORG found that there was no doubt that the enforcement order issued by the public notary had been served on the applicant on DATE , which was therefore taken as the date when the DATE time - limit for lodging a request for re - opening had started running . Accordingly , as the applicant \u2019s request had been lodged on DATE , it followed that it was lodged out - of - time .","ORG informed the applicant that he could lodge an appeal against this decision with ORG . The applicant did not avail himself of that possibility .","Meanwhile , GPE asked ORG to enforce the public notary \u2019s enforcement order by the judicial sale of the applicant \u2019s flat . Following the applicant \u2019s protests , ORG on DATE invited the parties to provide further comments on the case .","After receiving the parties\u2019 further submissions , on DATE ORG , in view of the applicant \u2019s specific complaints , advised him to institute a separate set of civil proceedings requesting an interdiction of the further enforcement on his property based on GPE \u2019s enforcement request . The applicant did not avail himself of this possibility .","On DATE a hearing was held before ORG with a view of establishing the value of the applicant \u2019s flat . It was decided that the competent tax authority would be requested to provide the relevant information in that respect .","On DATE ORG , on the basis of available information , set the value of the flat at HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ordered its judicial sale on DATE .","On DATE PERSON asked ORG to postpone the judicial sale of the applicant \u2019s flat for DATE so as to allow him the possibility to settle the debt by other means .","In DATE PERSON requested ORG to resume the enforcement proceedings .","In DATE GPE informed ORG that so far he managed to receive HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL from the applicant and that the applicant still owned him HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . He therefore adjusted his claim , asking seizure of the amount awarded to the applicant on account of costs and expenses of the proceedings against PERSON and FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG accepted GPE \u2019s revised enforcement request .","It appears that the enforcement proceedings are still pending .","The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . \u201d","\u201c Everyone has a right to respect for and legal protection of his ... family life , ... \u201d","\u201c The right of ownership shall be guaranteed ... \u201c","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Ovr\u0161ni zakon , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) , which was in force between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The enforcement proceedings shall be instituted upon the request of the creditor ... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The court shall order enforcement ... by the means and on the objects set out in the request for enforcement ... \u201d","\u201c ...","( CARDINAL ) An enforcement order issued on the basis of a reliable document can be challenged by an objection .","... \u201d","\u201c ...","( CARDINAL ) Reinstatement of the proceedings shall be allowed only in case of a failure to meet the time - limits for an appeal or objection . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) In the enforcement proceedings ... the provisions of LAW shall apply mutatis mutandis , unless otherwise provided under this or some other LAW .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Against the enforcement order the debtor may lodge an appeal :","...","if the enforcement of the claim is , even if temporarily , postponed , prohibited , amended or otherwise impossible due to the fact which appeared at the moment when the debtor could not have raised it any longer in the proceedings in which the decision adopted ... , or","if the claim , set out in the enforcement document , is time - barred . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If an appeal has been lodged for one of the reasons under LAW , the first - instance court [ conducting the enforcement proceedings ] shall forward the appeal to the creditor for a comment ...","( CARDINAL ) NORP If the creditor accepts that one of the reasons referred to in the appeal exists , the court shall terminate the enforcement proceedings .","( CARDINAL ) If the creditor challenges the existence of those reasons ... , the first - instance court [ conducting the enforcement proceedings ] shall without further delay instruct the debtor that he or she can , within DATE following the finality of the decision [ by which the instruction has been issued ] , institute the civil proceedings asking for an interdiction of the further enforcement on the grounds of the existence of reasons referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section for which the appeal has been lodged .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) NORP If in his or her objection against the enforcement order issued on the basis of a reliable document the debtor has not indicated in which part the order is challenged , it shall be presumed that the order is challenged in whole .","( CARDINAL ) If the enforcement order is challenged in whole , or only in the part in which the debtor was ordered to comply with the claim , the court to which the objection has been submitted shall set aside the enforcement order in the part in which the enforcement had been ordered ... and the proceedings shall continue as if an objection against a payment order [ issued by the competent civil court ] has been made . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the debtor does not comply with his or her non - monetary duty to perform an action ... established in a final court decision ... , the court in the enforcement proceedings shall , on the basis of a request by the creditor , set out a further appropriate time - limit for the debtor [ to comply with his or her duty ] and [ it will also ] order that the debtor shall , in case of a failure to comply with his or her duty within that time - limit , pay to the creditor a certain amount of money for each day of delay ... ( enforcement fine ) , starting from the expiry of the time - limit .","...","( CARDINAL ) The payment of the enforcement fine can be sought until , on the basis of the enforceable [ title ] , the enforcement of the non - monetary relief is sought .","( CARDINAL ) The right to [ seek ] the enforcement fine terminates on DATE when the request for enforcement referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section is submitted . Enforcement of the payment of [ the amount awarded by ] the enforcement fine due on DATE can be sought [ by seizure of the debtor \u2019s bank accounts ] .","... \u201d","\u201c On the basis of a final decision ordering the enforcement fine under section CARDINAL of this Act , the court shall , in the same enforcement proceedings where that decision was made , upon the request of the creditor , order the enforcement of the [ amount ] awarded by the enforcement fine . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The enforcement of the duty to an action which can also be performed by another person shall be conducted so that the court shall authorise the creditor to commission , within a certain time - limit and on the expense of the debtor , from another person the performance of that action or to carry it out himself or herself .","( CARDINAL ) In his or her request , the creditor may ask the court to order the debtor to deposit in advance certain amount [ of money ] at the court , necessary for the expenses related to the performance of the action by the third party or the creditor . ... \u201d","\u201c Public notaries shall be competent to decide upon a request for enforcement on the basis of a reliable document , in accordance with this LAW . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the public notary finds that the request for enforcement is admissible and justified , he or she shall issue an enforcement order on the basis of a reliable document and shall serve it on the parties .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The debtor may lodge an objection against the enforcement order issued on the basis of a reliable document to the public notary who issued [ the order ] .","( CARDINAL ) The public notary who received a belated or inadmissible objection against the order which he or she had issued , shall forward the case file for a decision on the objection to the competent court ( section CARDINALj ) , which shall declare such an objection inadmissible .","...","( CARDINAL ) The case file forwarded to the competent court ... , upon the termination of the [ relevant ] proceedings , shall remain at the court . \u201d","LAW ( Zakon o parni\u010dnom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) in its relevant part provides :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If a party fails to meet ... the time - limit for a procedural action and therefore loses the right take that action , the court shall , upon his or her request , allow to that party to take that action later ( reinstatement of the proceedings ) if it finds that this omission was the result of a justifiable reason .","... \u201d","\u201c ...","( CARDINAL ) After the expiry of DATE following the failure [ to take the procedural action ] the reinstatement of the proceedings can not be sought .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the defendant objects to the payment order ... , the court shall first decide upon that objection . If it finds that the objection is justified , it shall quash the payment order and , after the finality of that decision , open the proceedings on the subject matter [ of the dispute ] ...","( CARDINAL ) NORP If the court does not accept that objection , it shall open the proceedings on the subject matter [ of the dispute ] , and the decision of the court [ concerning the objection ] shall be part of the decision on the subject matter [ of the dispute ] .","... \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o sudovima , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG , DATE , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , applicable in the case issue , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A party to court proceedings who considers that the court has failed to decide within a reasonable time on his or her rights or obligations or a criminal charge against him or her , may lodge a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time with a court at the next higher level of jurisdiction .","... \u201d","Section CARDINAL","( CARDINAL ) If the court referred to in LAW finds the request well founded , it shall set a time - limit within which the court before which the proceedings are pending must decide on a right or obligation of , or a criminal charge against , the person who lodged the request , and may award him or her appropriate compensation for a violation of his or her right to a hearing within a reasonable time .","( CARDINAL ) The compensation shall be paid out of the ORG budget within DATE on which the party \u2019s request for payment is lodged .","... \u201d","The relevant provision of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and GPE ) provides :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) All claims established by a final court decision ... shall be time - barred after the expiry of [ the time - limit of ] DATE , even if the law provides shorter period of prescription .","... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177571","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"KAR v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is detained in T type prison in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention .","On DATE a bill of indictment was filed with ORG accusing the applicant of membership of a terrorist organisation .","On DATE the first hearing was held before ORG .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The assize court also ordered the applicant \u2019s continued detention ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172075","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LITVINCHUK v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , ORG .","On DATE the applicant concluded a preliminary sale agreement with Mr N. regarding a plot of land with a small house under construction situated in LOC . After the signature of this agreement , the applicant started using the plot of land , she finalised the construction of the house and beautified the plot of land .","On DATE Mr N. died .","On DATE the son of the deceased , Mr N. junior , sold the plot of land to another person , who registered her property right .","Later , the applicant sought to register her property right over the plot of land and found that it already had another registered owner . She then sued Mr DATE junior before courts .","On DATE the ORG of LOC declared the sale contract of DATE null and void . Mr ORG junior was declared the owner of the plot of land and of the house .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claims against Mr N. junior and awarded her MONEY ( RUB ) for unjust enrichment and damages corresponding to different sums invested by the applicant in the plot of land and the house as well as the reimbursement of cost and expenses .","On DATE the ORG partly modified this judgment . It decreased the amount of damages to RUB CARDINAL , notably quashing the part relating to unjust enrichment .","On unspecified date the applicant lodged a supervisory review application .","On DATE the ORG of ORG partly quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and sent the case for consideration anew before the second instance court . The ORG considered that ORG misapplied the provisions of LAW on unjust enrichment and miscalculated the amount of damages to which the applicant was entitled to . It concluded that these were significant violations of substantive or procedural law which influenced the outcome of the proceedings and must be corrected in order to restore and protect the applicant \u2019s right to a fair trial as guaranteed by LAW , LAW .","On DATE the ORG restored the judgment of DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE Mr N. \u2019s son lodged a supervisory review application .","On DATE the ORG of ORG rejected the supervisory review application lodged by PERSON son , considering that the arguments it contained were limited to a different assessment of evidence . It however quashed the judgment of DATE and restored the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on its own motion , considering that :","\u201c In the interest of lawfulness and taking into account the principle of legal certainty recognised by ORG the ORG considers it possible and necessary to go beyond the arguments developed in the supervisory review application .","As repeatedly indicated ORG ( ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG CARDINALIX , GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) in order to preserve the aforementioned principle final judgments shall remain unchanged . The mere existence of CARDINAL points of view on the same matter does not justify the reopening of the case .","Legal certainty presupposes that it is not permissible to have a second examination of the once decided case in the absence of fundamental errors .","Taking into account the aforementioned principle , the final decision in the present case should be the judgment of ORG of DATE which granted certain damages to the claimant and rejected her claims for the rest , including as regards unjust enrichment .","In the course of the new examination by the cassation court the principles above have not been taken into account , this omission resulted in a violation of the principle of legal certainty provided by LAW and undermined the stability of a binding judicial act .","The claimant \u2019s argument that the judgment of DATE was lawful is not deemed to be sufficient by the ORG to disregard the aforementioned principles .","The fact that the Presidium of ORG disagreed with the aforementioned judicial decision does not constitute in itself a ground for quashing of a final and binding judgment and for reopening of the proceedings .","In view of the above , the judgment of DATE subject to the present application shall be quashed and the judgment of CARDINAL DATE restored . \u201d","On DATE a single judge at ORG refused the applicant \u2019s supervisory review application ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177230","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GANEYEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE a new block of flats was commissioned by LAW , GPE , GPE .","According to the documents submitted by ORG to state registration authorities , on DATE the ORG of Ufa recognised his title to the flat at DATE , GPE , GPE . The state registration authorities registered ORG \u2019s title .","On DATE U. sold the flat to M. On DATE the state registration authorities registered the said transaction and ORG \u2019s title to the flat .","On DATE PERSON , acting on PERSON \u2019s behalf by virtue of the power of attorney , and the applicant signed a contract according to which ORG sold the flat to the applicant . PERSON and the applicant submitted the documents for the registration of the transaction and the transfer of the title to the flat to the applicant .","According to the applicant , she paid the amount due under the contract to ORG and moved into the flat while her application for the registration of the transfer of the title to the flat to her was still pending .","On an unspecified date a third party brought a civil action challenging U. \u2019s sale of the flat to PERSON and the latter \u2019s title to the flat .","On DATE the ORG issued an injunction in respect of the transactions with the flat .","On DATE the state registration authorities informed the applicant that her application for the registration of the transfer of the title to the flat could not be granted pending the outcome of the civil proceedings concerning the title to the flat .","On DATE ORG dismissed the third party \u2019s claims in respect of the flat in full .","On an unspecified date ORG GPE brought a civil claim seeking , inter alia , the invalidation of PERSON \u2019s title to the flat and the applicant \u2019s eviction .","On DATE ORG granted the claims in full . It invalidated the purchase of the flat by PERSON and ordered the applicant \u2019s eviction . The court considered that the applicant had not acquired the title to the flat and had no legal basis for moving into the flat and residing there .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s second cassation appeal .","On an unspecified date the applicant asked ORG to stay the eviction proceedings . She submitted that the flat had been her only place of residence and that , in view of her financial situation , she was unable to buy or rent another flat . On DATE ORG stayed the eviction proceedings for DATE .","On DATE the applicant was evicted ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171603","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"TRAVAGLIO v. ITALY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant is a journalist . On DATE , he published in the DATE magazine ORG article whose title was \u201c Heinous agreement between the ORG and ORG \u201d ( \u201c PERSON scellerato tra mafia e Forza GPE \u201d ) .","The article in question stated that DATE a secret agreement was supposedly reached between an NORP political party , ORG , and ORG . The applicant reported that CARDINAL of the most important political figures within the party , Mr GPE , was suspected of having promised the adoption of more lenient legislative measures favourable to individuals accused of membership of mafia - type criminal organisations , as well as the adoption of other measures beneficial to their economic interests , in exchange for votes from the areas under ORG control .","In the article in question , the applicant contended that the existence of such a secret and illegal agreement had been revealed to colonel NORP of the carabinieri by PERSON , a prominent member of ORG who had close connections with some of the most influential figures within the criminal organisation .","In his article the applicant alleged that colonel NORP and PERSON had met a number of times from DATE onwards , and that the former persuaded the latter to become a pentito ( a former mafioso who has decided to cooperate with the authorities ) . In DATE , PERSON finally became a pentito and entered the witness protection programme . In this connection , he met with a carabinieri general and the anti - ORG prosecutors at the headquarters of the Raggruppamento Operativo Speciale ( ORG ) in GPE . Following that meeting , a first official interrogation was scheduled by the prosecutors . However PERSON was assassinated before it could take place .","The article went on to report that colonel NORP had been questioned by the prosecutors of ORG in DATE , in a set of related proceedings . Colonel PERSON gave an account of the above events and his statements were officially recorded on DATE in the context of the latter proceedings . The magazine article suggested that , in subsequent DATE , colonel NORP had been questioned on other occasions by the ORG prosecutors and that his statements had been recorded . In drafting the impugned article , the applicant had relied largely on these statements .","The applicant mentioned that criminal proceedings had been instituted against Mr GPE for aiding and abetting a mafia - type organisation from the outside ( concorso esterno ) , mostly in relation to the events described above .","The article continued by providing an account of a meeting that took place in DATE in the office of PERSON ( a lawyer and politician active within ORG ) involving Mr T. , Mr D.U. , colonel NORP , and a co - accused of Mr GPE In the meeting , ORG allegedly sought to persuade colonel NORP to modify his testimony in the above - mentioned trial ( see above paragraph CARDINAL) and to withhold the fact that Mr I. had told colonel NORP about the involvement of Mr GPE in the negotiations between ORG and the ORG .","Quoting part of a sentence extracted from the recorded statements made by colonel NORP to the ORG prosecutors , the applicant concluded his article by suggesting that another prominent figure of ORG Mr P. \u2013 had been physically present on the premises when the meeting occurred . The quotation in question reads as follows :","\u201c On that occasion , as on others , PERSON was also present in the chambers of Mr T. \u201d .","On an unspecified date following publication of the article , PERSON pressed charges against the applicant ( as well as against the editor in chief of the magazine ) for defamation through the press ( diffamazione a mezzo stampa ) . He alleged that , by quoting the above - cited statement , the applicant had implied that PERSON was actively involved in the meeting described ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON further argued that such an allegation , which he claimed was false , had damaged his reputation , due to the illegal purpose of the meeting in question .","On DATE , the GPE ORG delivered its judgment . The court first noted that , by placing the sentence MONEY , the applicant generated in the reader the understanding that it was an accurate representation of colonel PERSON \u2019s recorded statement . However , ORG also noted that the statement had not been quoted in its entirety . The complete statement , as replicated by ORG in its judgment , reads as follows :","\u201c On that occasion , as on others , PERSON was also present in the chambers of PERSON P. \u2019s presence was , however , due to other reasons , linked to their common political activity and he was not present when the position of Mr D.U. in his criminal proceedings was discussed . \u201d","ORG found that , read in conjunction with the rest of the article , the incomplete quotation acquired a clearly defamatory character . ORG further noted that this way of mentioning the fact that Mr P. was present on the LOC was \u201c unequivocally insinuating \u201d ( \u201c indubbiamente insinuante \u201d ) , thereby generating in the reader a suspicion as regards the role played by PERSON and suggesting that he was involved in the above - mentioned meeting .","ORG held that the applicant could not rely on his right to impart information ( diritto di cronaca ) as a justification for his conduct . ORG reiterated that the application of such a right is dependent on the precondition that the imparted information is accurate . Based on the above arguments , ORG found that the information conveyed was not correct and that it accordingly lacked the requirement of veracity .","ORG further observed that the applicant \u2019s conduct had breached his duty , as a journalist , to disseminate accurate and fair information , and that he had done so despite being aware of the harm that he would cause to PERSON","ORG found the applicant guilty of defamation through the press and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment ( enforcement suspended ) , payment of a fine of CARDINAL ( ORG ) , payment of CARDINAL ORG in compensation ( to be paid , jointly , with the magazine \u2019s editor in chief ) , and to bear PERSON courts costs . The ORG ordered that the conviction should not appear on his criminal record .","On an unspecified date , the applicant lodged an appeal against his conviction . He claimed that the impugned article had not been defamatory of PERSON , and that quoting the whole of colonel NORP \u2019s statement had been unnecessary . He further contested the penalty imposed .","In its judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the reasoning of ORG . In particular it reaffirmed that the contested passage in the article had clearly been of a defamatory nature , and that the applicant \u2019s conduct had been deliberate . It added that the applicant should either have refrained from mentioning PERSON at all or should have quoted colonel ORG \u2019s statement in its entirety in order to give an accurate account of the facts as related by the original source . The fact that the applicant chose to refer to PERSON presence without quoting the statement in its entirety proved his malicious intent .","The Court of Appeal thus reaffirmed the applicant \u2019s criminal liability . However , it found the penalty imposed by the ORG excessive , as regards the suspended prison sentence , and therefore replaced it with payment of a fine of CARDINAL ORG . In all other respects it upheld the sentence imposed by ORG .","The applicant filed an appeal on points of law with ORG , claiming that ORG judgment had lacked adequate and logical reasoning .","ORG declared the appeal inadmissible in its judgment of DATE , finding that the reasons put forward by both ORG and ORG were sound and sufficient ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162025","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BUGARI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in FAC .","She was employed by ORG \u201c Ra\u0161ka Holding Kompanija \u201d DATE , a socially - owned company based in ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","On DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , ORG ordered the debtor to pay the applicant certain amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . These judgments became final on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","On DATE and DATE respectively , upon the applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgments ; it further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE ORG opened preliminary insolvency proceedings against the debtor .","On DATE the same court opened insolvency proceedings against the debtor .","The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164454","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KRAHULEC v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - General measures)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s grandfather built a house in GPE . His predecessors retained ownership under the communist regime . Ownership was transferred to the applicant from his mother on DATE .","The house comprises CARDINAL flats . CARDINAL have a surface area of CARDINAL sq . m each in size , while the other CARDINAL measure QUANTITY each .","At the time the application was lodged , the flats were inhabited by tenants with a regulated rent . Their or their ORG right to use the flats had been established by decisions taken by the municipal authorities DATE . After DATE their right of use had been transformed into tenancies with regulated rent for an indefinite period .","Under the relevant legislation , the applicant had to accept that his flats were occupied by those tenants and that he could charge them no more than the maximum amount of rent fixed by the ORG ( \u201c the rent - control scheme \u201d ) . The applicant had no possibility of unilaterally terminating the leases on his flats .","Under the applicable legislation , the maximum DATE rent chargeable for the flats in DATE was the equivalent of CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) . After several increases in the regulated rent , in DATE the applicant was able to charge ORG DATE in respect of each of the smaller flats and ORG CARDINAL DATE in respect of the larger ones .","NORP The applicant contended that he , in fact , received from the tenants less than the maximum amount of rent set by the applicable legislation . To this end he led several property disputes with them and the local municipality .","The parties provided differing figures as to the market rent .","The applicant relied on data from ORG ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) and claimed that the DATE market rent for similar flats reached ORG CARDINAL DATE .","The Government submitted an expert valuation according to which the DATE market rent for the applicant \u2019s flats in DATE amounted to ORG CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL respectively .","In submissions made on DATE the applicant informed the ORG that the rent control in respect of his CARDINAL flats had been terminated . The first flat had been subject to rent control until DATE , the second and third flats until DATE , and the fourth flat until DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178870","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF POLTORATSKIY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169519","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CHERNAYA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["On DATE , the applicant , CARDINAL at the time , was walking in the centre of ORG and was hit in the face by a pellet fired from an air gun .","The applicant was admitted to hospital DATE and the pellet was removed from her face . It was subsequently seized as evidence by the police . The doctors noted in the applicant \u2019s medical file that she had a gunshot wound on the infraorbital region of her face .","DATE she lodged a criminal complaint with the police . The applicant alleged that the shot had been fired from a particular flat in a building in the centre of ORG .","From DATE the applicant underwent outpatient medical treatment for her injury .","On DATE , at the request of the police , she was examined by an expert , who concluded that the applicant \u2019s injury was of a minor degree and might have been caused by a gunshot . On DATE the applicant underwent an additional medical examination , which confirmed the previous conclusion .","By decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the police refused to open criminal proceedings , stating that it was not possible to identify the offenders and that the applicant \u2019s allegations that the shot had been fired from a particular location were unfounded . They further found that there had been no serious breach of public order in the applicant \u2019s case and noted that the applicant could have lodged a criminal complaint directly with a court in the framework of private prosecution proceedings . Despite her repeated requests , the applicant was not given access to the police investigation file related to the incident of DATE .","On appeal by the applicant , those decisions were annulled by different prosecutors and the courts generally on the grounds that the police enquiry had fallenpellet , and that the case contained elements of the crime defined by LAW ( hooliganism ) . In particular , on DATE ORG of ORG ruled that the case should be returned to the prosecutors for further investigation .","No further investigation was carried out after that date .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE informed the applicant that the investigation case file had gone missing . There is no information as to any further developments in that regard .","On DATE the applicant died . Her death was unrelated to the incident of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148260","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MR\u00c1Z AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The particulars of the applicants appear in the appendix .","This application and CARDINAL others ( nos . DATE and CARDINAL ) concern the regularisation of the relationship between ownership and use of real property located in the cadastral area of ORG .","Certain land in that area was expropriated in DATE by the ( then socialist ) ORG and a public sports centre was built on it . The sports centre comprises buildings and various other facilities , such as a tennis court , a grandstand , a water station and paved areas .","After the post DATE political , constitutional and legal changes , litigation took place with a view to resolving various property claims made by the original owners ( or their legal successors ) against the entities that owned or operated the sports centre or various parts of it .","The land concerned is divided into a number of plots with various owners , many of whom are linked by family relations and history , and who had the same legal representation in the above - mentioned proceedings . Their lawsuits followed a similar pattern , but sometimes had varying results , and included the following proceedings .","The applicants in the present case are successors in title to a plot of land in the above - mentioned area , having inherited their title from the original owners , who died in DATE and DATE .","On DATE the latter of the original owners lodged an action against a sports club seeking to obtain a court order for the removal of the constructions on the land .","The principal line of argument was that the expropriation decision of CARDINAL DATE was invalid in law . The applicants were therefore the lawful owners of the land in question , in particular of plots nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( recorded on sheet no . CARDINAL in the \u201c old \u201d records ) , and that the defendant had no lawful title to have the constructions on the applicants\u2019 land .","NORP The action was subsequently amended to state that , alternatively , the applicants sought a judicial ruling establishing an easement on their land for the benefit of the owner of the sports centre in return for financial compensation to be paid to the applicants . It was also extended to CARDINAL more defendants : the municipality concerned and a private company .","The action was examined and determined at first instance by ORG s\u00fad ) . In its judgment ( rozsudok ) of DATE , ORG acknowledged that ( i ) the expropriation of DATE was legally ineffective on account of procedural flaws ; ( ii ) as a consequence , the applicants were the owners of the land in question ; ( iii ) the constructions on it had been built without a valid legal title in so far as the land was concerned ; and ( iv ) the applicants were eligible to seek redress under general civil law , that is to say LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) , which was not subject to any statute of limitation , unlike the special legislation on restitution , which contained specific time - limits ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG further held that , for practical reasons , it was out of the question to regularise the situation by establishing the applicants as the owners of the constructions and ordering them to pay the current owners financial compensation . Furthermore , in the circumstances , it was likewise not practical to order the physical removal of the constructions in question .","NORP However , contrary to the applicants\u2019 assertions , ORG found that no easement could be established on the land .","The bone of contention was the legal nature of the constructions concerned . Unlike in construction law , in civil law those constructions could not be considered as \u201c buildings \u201d ( stavba ) in legal terms . An easement over land could however only be established for the benefit of the owner of a building in the given sense . In that connection , the courts relied on Article CARDINALc \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The court also noted that it was bound by the legal classification of the applicants\u2019 claim . It concluded that since the constructions on their specific plots of land were not buildings , the claim had to be dismissed .","The applicants challenged the first - instance judgment by means of an appeal ( odvolanie ) to ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad).They argued , in particular , that ORG had failed to appreciate that the property in question was part of a large complex serving a single purpose and that the claims raised in respect of that property were structurally identical and had been raised separately only because they concerned different plots of land with different owners .","On DATE ORG , sitting in chambers , upheld the first - instance judgment , albeit on different grounds .","It concurred with ORG that the expropriation of DATE was legally ineffective . As a consequence , the ORG was to be considered as having taken the land in question without legal title within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(p ) of the LAW on adjustment of ownership rights in respect of land and other agricultural property ( LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended \u2013 \u201c LAW \u201d ) and as having subsequently acquired its title by way of prescription .","The restitution of land in such circumstances fell under the regime of the said legislation and any claims for it had to be lodged by DATE at the latest ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) . The applicants had failed to pursue that course of action . Asserting their property rights under general civil law , as the applicants had done , was not permissible .","In support of its conclusions , ORG referred specifically to the judgments of ORG concerning appeals on points of law in unrelated but similar cases nos . CARDINAL PERSON ( of DATE ) and CARDINAL Cdo CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( of CARDINAL DATE ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) .","On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) under LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) .","They considered the dismissal of their action arbitrary and alleged that their rights under , inter alia , LAW ( access , fairness , adequate reasoning ) and the constitutional equivalent of LAW No . CARDINAL had been violated .","Among other things , they argued that DATE on the specific facts \u2013 their case fell outside the purview of the restitution laws cited in ORG judgment and that the existence of the restitution laws as leges speciales did not exclude the application of the rules on protection of property rights under LAW as a lex generalis .","In addition , the applicants submitted that judicial practice had varied . They referred to ORG judgment in case no . CARDINALC CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and its judgments in a number of other cases concerning the same sports centre , in which the application of general civil law in an identical context had been accepted . Their specific arguments about such differing practice had gone unanswered .","Moreover , the applicants emphasised that it had been DATE since the introduction of their action , a protracted period for which they bore no responsibility . They considered that , therefore , any case - law that may have meanwhile been established should not be detrimental to them .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill founded .","It cited extensively from ORG judgment and concluded that its assessment of the case conformed to LAW . As to the applicants\u2019 argument concerning the differing judicial practice , ORG noted that the applicants\u2019 action had been lodged DATE before ORG judgment ; that , since then , the decision - making practice had evolved ; and that , at the relevant time , it had supported ORG interpretation .","The decision was served on the applicants\u2019 lawyer on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144115","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF McDONALD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant suffered an incapacitating stroke in DATE which left her with severely limited mobility . In DATE she fell heavily , breaking her hip in several places . She then suffered CARDINAL further falls , both of which resulted in further hospitalisation .","The applicant has a small and neurogenic bladder . As a result , she usually has to urinate CARDINAL times a night . On account of her mobility problems she is unable safely to access a toilet or commode unaided .","In DATE , after the applicant \u2019s third fall , she applied to ORG ( \u201c ILF \u201d ) for DATE and night support . While the application was pending she was provided with a care package by the local authority ( GPE of GPE and ORG ) which included TIME per week of night - time care . The application to the PERSON was ultimately unsuccessful as the applicant ceased to be eligible for funding when she turned CARDINAL in DATE .","A local authority care plan dated DATE indicated that the applicant needed \u201c assistance with toileting , when it \u2019s required during the night \u201d . Likewise , the FACE ( Functional Analysis of Care Environments ) Overview assessment which followed on DATE noted that \u201c Miss ORG needs assistance to manage continence at TIME . Substantial need . \u201d","NORP However , the FACE Overview Assessment was subsequently amended to read \u201c Miss PERSON needs assistance at TIME to use the commode . Moderate need . \u201d","A further Needs Assessment was started on DATE and signed off on DATE . It noted :","\u201c PERSON wanted to emphasise that she requires assistance with all transfers and when she mobilises . PERSON requested TIME care in order [ for ] someone to assist her using commode during TIME . This is because PERSON does not wish to use incontinence pads and sheets ...","Summary of Needs Assessment","PERSON needs assistance to use the commode at TIME . Substantial need . \u201d","A further Needs Assessment signed off on DATE concluded that \u201c Miss PERSON needs assistance to use the commode at TIME . Substantial need . \u201d This assessment was subsequently described by Lord PERSON as \u201c a concession \u201d granted on a \u201c temporary basis \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the opinion of ORG ) .","On DATE a formal decision was taken to reduce the amount allocated for the applicant \u2019s DATE care from GBP CARDINAL to GBP CARDINAL . This figure appears to have been assessed on the basis that the applicant would be provided with incontinence pads in lieu of TIME - time care . This decision was taken at a meeting between the local authority and the applicant at the applicant \u2019s home . She was formally notified of the decision by letter dated DATE . It noted that :","\u201c As stated at the meeting , the rationale behind the planned reduction is that we consider the current provision to be in excess of that required to meet your eligible needs under the council \u2019s ORG criteria . The council has a duty to provide care , but we must do so in a way that shows regard for use of public resources . \u201d","On DATE the applicant sought permission to apply for judicial review on the ground that the local authority was unreasonably and unlawfully failing to meet her assessed and eligible needs . She further submitted that the local authorities\u2019 actions would cause her to suffer indignity which would amount to an interference with her right to respect for her private life in breach of LAW .","Pending judicial consideration of the applicant \u2019s complaints , a \u201c holding compromise \u201d was reached : from DATE she continued to receive TIME - time care DATE and DATE and DATE she received TIME - time care DATE . During this period the applicant \u2019s partner stayed with her when TIME - time care was n\u2019t provided in order to assist her . In DATE all night - time care was withdrawn .","On DATE the application was refused by a Deputy High Court Judge . Although the judge accepted that the local authority was obliged to meet the applicant \u2019s assessed need , she found that the assessed need was not \u201c assistance to use the commode at night \u201d but rather ensuring the applicant \u2019s safety . The judge considered there to be CARDINAL ways to meet that need : the provision of a TIME - time carer or the provision of incontinence pads . The statutory scheme requiring that the applicant \u2019s needs be met allowed the local authority some flexibility about how that was to be done and the local authority was therefore quite entitled to meet the need in the most economic manner . The judge further considered the applicant \u2019s complaints under LAW to be \u201c parasitic \u201d upon the first ground being established and did not , therefore , consider that they raised any issues which needed to be gone into .","Following that decision , the local authority carried out a ORG . The review , which was dated DATE , concluded that","\u201c It remains ORG view that the use of incontinence pads is a practical and appropriate solution to PERSON night - time toileting needs . There does not seem to be any reason why this planned reduction to provide care should not go ahead ... \u201d","After a visit to the applicant \u2019s home on DATE , a further ORG was conducted . It was noted that \u201c PERSON did not want to discuss the option of using incontinence pads or PERSON sheets ( absorbent sheets ) as a way of meeting her toileting needs \u201d . The ORG concluded :","\u201c I remain of the opinion that PERSON need to be kept safe from falling and injuring herself can be met by the provision of equipment ( pads and\/or absorbent sheets ) . She has however consistently refused this option . I am aware that she considers pads and\/or sheets to be an affront to her dignity . Other service users have held similar views when such measures were initially suggested but once they have tried them , and been provided with support in using them , they have realised that the pads \/ sheets improve the quality of life by protecting them from harm and allowing a degree of privacy and independence in circumstances which , as the result of health problems , are less than ideal . The practicalities can be managed within the existing care package to accommodate PERSON preferred TIME and to allow her to be bathed in TIME and\/or have sheets changed . If PERSON were willing to try this option , she might similarly alter her views .","... ... ...","In light of her entrenched position on this , and despite the council \u2019s view that pads and\/or sheets are the best way to ensure PERSON safety , consideration has been given to ORG as a means by which PERSON could continue to receive support throughout DATE and night . This would be consistent with her wish to receive personal care and also remain living independently in the community . It is not the recommended option because being assisted to access the toilet at night carries a risk of falls , but has been explored because of the impasse as regards the use of pads . Such accommodation will make support available TIME a day and reduce any longer term need to provide residential care to PERSON should her needs increase in future . PERSON refused this option when it was discussed with her . \u201d","The applicant applied to ORG for permission to appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review on the grounds first , that the reduction in funding was inconsistent with the assessment of her night - time needs ; secondly , that the reduction in funding violated her rights under LAW ; and thirdly , that in reducing her funding the local authority had failed to comply with its obligations under LAW DATE . In particular , she argued that if forced to use incontinence pads she would \u201c lose all sense of dignity \u201d and , as a consequence , she would suffer considerable distress . The local authority submitted that the provision of a night - time carer would cost GBP CARDINAL per year , which would have to be paid out of the adult social care budget from which all other community care services for adults in the applicant \u2019s borough were funded . The local authority also argued that the use of pads would ensure the applicant \u2019s safety and provide her with greater privacy and independence in her own home . Finally , the local authority submitted that the DATE funding of GBP CARDINAL could be used according to the applicant \u2019s preferences . She could therefore pay for a TIME visit for the purpose of fitting the pads , and even a subsequent visit if necessary .","Upon the applicant \u2019s application for permission to appeal , a single Lord Justice granted permission and directed that the claim for judicial review should be heard by ORG . In a decision dated CARDINAL DATE ORG departed from the judgment of ORG insofar as it did not consider that it was appropriate for the courts to re - categorise the applicant \u2019s needs as assessed by the local authority . It therefore found that DATE ( the date of the disputed decision letter ) and DATE ( the date of its first care plan review ) the applicant \u2019s assessed need had been for assistance to use a commode . In failing to provide such assistance , the local authority had been in breach of its statutory duty . However , it had mitigated the breach by entering into an arrangement with the applicant \u2019s partner . Moreover , the DATE decision had not been put into operation and applicant \u2019s need had been reassessed in ORG of DATE and DATE . As a consequence , the court found that the applicant had no substantive complaint under this head .","With regard to the complaint under LAW , ORG found that the conditions for finding a breach had not been established . Even though the local authority had failed in its duty at the time of its DATE decision , the error was not born of any lack of respect for the applicant \u2019s dignity but of a concern to perform the difficult task of balancing its desire to assist the applicant with its responsibilities to all its clients within the limited resources available to it .","Finally , the court held that there had been no failure to comply with any obligations under LAW DATE .","The applicant was granted permission to appeal to ORG . She argued that : ORG had been wrong to hold that the DATE and DATE Care Plan Reviews were to be read as including a reassessment of her needs ; the decision to provide her with incontinence pads instead of a TIME - time carer had unjustifiably interfered with her rights under LAW ; and there had been a failure to comply with LAW DATE .","By a majority , ORG agreed with ORG that the applicant \u2019s needs had been reassessed on DATE , as the local authority had been entitled to do ; that , from DATE , there had been no interference with the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW ; and that there had been no failure to comply with LAW DATE .","With regard to the complaint under LAW observed that even if a direct link existed between the measures sought by the applicant and her private life , the clear and consistent jurisprudence of ORG established that GPE enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in striking a fair balance between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole . He went on to state that :","\u201c There is , of course , a positive obligation under LAW a person \u2019s private life . But it can not possibly be argued that such respect was not afforded here . As already indicated , the respondents went to great lengths both to consult the appellant and [ her partner ] about the appellant \u2019s needs and the possible ways of meeting them and to try to reach agreement with her upon them . In doing so they sought to respect as far as possible her personal feelings and desires , at the same time taking account of her safety , her independence and their own responsibilities towards all their other clients . They respected the appellant \u2019s human dignity and autonomy , allowing her to choose the details of her care package within their overall assessment of her needs : for example , TIME of care attendance , whether to receive direct payments in order to employ her own care assistant , and the possibility of other options like extra care sheltered housing . These matters are all fully covered in paras CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of ORG judgment below . Like him , I too have the greatest sympathy for the appellant \u2019s misfortunes and a real understanding of her deepest antipathy towards using incontinence pads . But I also share ORG view that the appellant can not establish an interference here by the respondents with her LAW . I add only that , even if such an interference were established , it would be clearly justified under LAW save , of course , for the period prior to the DATE review when the respondent \u2019s proposed care provision was not \u2018 in accordance with DATE on the grounds that it is necessary for the economic well - being of the respondents and the interests of their other service - users and is a proportionate response to the appellant \u2019s needs because it affords her the maximum protection from injury , greater privacy and independence , and results in a substantial costs saving . \u201d","In her dissenting opinion , PERSON considered that the need for help to get to the lavatory or commode was so different from the need for protection from uncontrollable bodily functions that it was irrational to confuse the CARDINAL and to meet the need for CARDINAL in a manner appropriate for the other . She would therefore have allowed the appeal ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154728","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF Y. v. SLOVENIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Stefan Trechsel","text":["The applicant was born in GPE in DATE and arrived in GPE in DATE with her sister and mother , who had married a NORP .","DATE , at DATE , she was allegedly repeatedly sexually assaulted by a family friend , PERSON , DATE at the time , who together with his wife often took care of her and helped her in preparations for beauty contests .","NORP In DATE the applicant told her mother about the alleged sexual assaults by X , but was unwilling to talk about them with anyone else .","On DATE a priest gave a statement to the GPE police , in which he said that the applicant \u2019s mother had told him about her concern that the applicant had been raped by X.","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged a criminal complaint against X , in which she alleged that X had forced the applicant to engage in sexual intercourse with him on several occasions .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by GPE police officers and described how X had forced her to engage in various sexual activities . As regards the time frame of the assaults , the applicant stated that X had first attempted to kiss her before DATE , when she had started modelling for fashion shows . She proceeded to give an account of a number of occasions when PERSON had sexually assaulted her . On CARDINAL occasion X had lain on top of her while she was sleeping at his house and had attempted to have sexual intercourse with her , spreading her legs with one hand and putting his other hand over her mouth to prevent her from screaming , but he was interrupted by his younger son coming up the stairs . On another occasion , when they were at a swimming pool , he had groped her in the water . On yet another occasion X had allegedly taken the applicant to an abandoned workshop owned by his family and performed oral sex on her . Moreover , according to the applicant , X had forced her to perform oral sex on him CARDINAL times , once at his home , once at his company \u2019s garage , and the third time in his van , which he had parked in woods near the town . On that last occasion the applicant had allegedly tried to escape ; however , being unfamiliar with the surroundings , she had come back to the van . The applicant stated that X had on several occasions attempted to have intercourse with her , but that she had not been certain whether he had managed to achieve penetration . She further stated that she had tried to defend herself by crying and pushing NORP away , but without success .","The applicant was also examined by an expert in gynaecology , who found that her hymen was intact . Moreover , in the course of DATE and DATE the police questioned PERSON , who denied any sexual relations with the applicant , and CARDINAL other people .","Following a series of unsuccessful attempts to obtain specific information from the police as regards the progress of the investigation , the applicant \u2019s mother complained to ORG ( hereinafter \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG sent a letter to the GPE police , urgently requesting a copy of the criminal complaint lodged against X.","On DATE the police sent a report to ORG stating that the applicant had failed to provide a detailed account of her allegations or to indicate the locations where the alleged rapes had taken place . The police noted that the applicant had given the impression of being under severe psychological stress and in fear of her mother \u2019s reaction . They concluded that it was impossible to confirm her allegation of rape , and equally impossible to establish the reasons for her serious emotional distress .","On DATE ORG lodged a request for a judicial investigation in respect of X based on charges of sexual assault on a minor below DATE . The request alleged that X had forced the applicant to engage in oral sex and had had sexual intercourse with her on CARDINAL occasions , despite her refusal and attempted resistance .","On DATE X was summoned to appear before the investigating judge of ORG . He refused to give an oral statement . On DATE X , represented by a lawyer , submitted a written statement in which he denied the charges . He also submitted a medical report which indicated that his left arm had been disabled since birth .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge issued a decision to open a criminal investigation in respect of X. An appeal by GPE against this decision was rejected by the pre - trial panel of ORG .","On DATE the applicant was examined as a witness before ORG , which had been asked to carry out the witness examination because the applicant lived in the area . The examination resumed on DATE . Neither X nor his counsel was informed of this examination . The applicant testified in detail as to when , where and how the alleged offences had taken place . She first described the assault which had occurred in GPE \u2019s house , while she had been sleeping there , reiterating that X had been disturbed by his son . According to the applicant \u2019s statement , the second assault had occurred when , instead of driving the applicant home , X had parked in the woods and started to kiss her forcefully . X had then undressed the applicant , parted her legs with one hand and held her wrists with the other and again attempted to have intercourse with her , but there had been no penetration . The applicant further recounted that X had on another occasion taken her to the family \u2019s abandoned workshop and had performed oral sex on her . She stated that she had attempted to free herself of his grip , but that X had again pinned her wrists down and also slapped her across the face . Again , vaginal intercourse had been attempted but had not actually occurred . X had ordered her not to talk to anyone about this , or he would have her and her family deported from GPE . The applicant added that she remembered these CARDINAL occasions well and the events had occurred just as she described them , and that there had been a number of other similar incidents DATE .","On DATE and DATE PERSON \u2019s wife and another witness were examined by the investigating judge of ORG .","On DATE the ORG , at the request of ORG , examined witness NORP , who testified that the applicant had told her of the alleged rape .","On DATE the investigating judge examined witness PERSON , who was an employee of the company owned by ORG and his wife . PERSON testified that she had not seen X behaving improperly towards the applicant on the company \u2019s premises .","On DATE the investigating judge appointed an expert in gynaecology , B. , in order to establish the probability that the applicant had engaged in sexual intercourse in the period DATE . The latter carried out a consultation with the applicant , who refused a clinical examination . She told PERSON , among other things , that despite the attempts made by X there had been no actual sexual penetration . During the consultation , PERSON confronted the applicant with an orthopaedics report stating that PERSON could not have used his left arm in the ways described by her , to which the applicant answered that she had seen X use it to lift heavy items . PERSON also presented the applicant with the police report stating that she had not been able to give a detailed account of the sexual assaults and specific locations , and asked her why she had not defended herself against X , for instance by scratching or biting . The applicant replied that she had not defended herself and had been unable to do so . On DATE the expert prepared his report , which was based on the evidence in the file , including a gynaecological report from DATE which showed that the applicant \u2019s hymen was intact at that time , and the conversation with the applicant . He found that there was nothing to indicate with certainty that the applicant had had sexual intercourse with X at the material time . In addition to his medical opinion , the expert commented that there were certain inconsistencies in the applicant \u2019s account of the events in issue . It can be seen from the report that neither of the alleged inconsistencies was related to any medical issue .","On DATE the investigating judge appointed an expert in clinical psychology , NORP The latter , after holding a consultation with the applicant , submitted her report on DATE , and concluded as follows :","\u201c Since DATE Y. has shown all the symptoms of a victim of sexual and other kinds of abuse ( emotional , behavioural and physical symptoms ) ...","In addition to the emotional consequences , the girl shows very typical behavioural patterns relating to the abuse experienced by her , and also some physical symptoms ( disturbed sleep , nightmares , collapsing ) . The symptoms are indicated in the report ...","The gravity of the consequences \u2013 physical and sexual in DATE is difficult to assess at the present time . But , like the short - term ones , the long - term consequences can be predicted . Their real extent will become apparent at key stages of the girl \u2019s life and in stressful situations ...","Because of these effects , which are most serious in her psychological sphere ... it is of very marginal importance whether during the perpetrator \u2019s violent behaviour the child victim experienced hymen defloration or not ...","Sexual behavioural patterns can only be assessed properly by an expert in clinical psychology ... \u201d","On DATE the GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office indicted X for sexual assault of a child below DATE under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW . An objection by X to the indictment was rejected by the pre - trial panel of ORG on DATE .","ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE . However , the hearing was adjourned at ORG request on the basis of a document which showed that he was now on sick leave for DATE .","A hearing was then scheduled for DATE , but adjourned at ORG \u2019s counsel \u2019s request . The next hearing was to be held on DATE . However , owing to the absence of a jury member , the hearing was adjourned . Subsequently , X informed the court that he was about to go on a business trip , for which reason the next hearing was postponed until DATE .","On DATE X failed to appear before the court . On DATE he submitted a sick - leave certificate .","On DATE X \u2019s counsel informed the court that X had revoked his power of attorney and that he would be represented by another lawyer , PERSON , from then on . However , the court received no new power of attorney authorising PERSON to act as X \u2019s counsel . Since X was accused of a criminal offence requiring mandatory representation , on DATE the court appointed PERSON as counsel for X .","On DATE the court held a hearing , from which the public was excluded on the grounds of protection of privacy and public morals . The court heard evidence from X. At the hearing the applicant \u2019s counsel sought to have PERSON , X \u2019s counsel , disqualified on the ground that in DATE the applicant and her mother had sought advice from him on the matters in issue . Furthermore , the applicant \u2019s mother had been intimately involved with him . PERSON denied that he had ever seen the applicant or her mother and said that he only knew that the lawyer at whose firm he had been working at that time had represented the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s estranged husband in divorce proceedings . The panel dismissed the application , ruling that no statutory grounds existed for disqualifying PERSON as counsel .","On DATE X submitted written pleadings , claiming that he would have been unable to use physical force on the applicant , as his left arm had been seriously disabled since birth and was QUANTITY shorter than his right arm . X alleged that he had practically no use of his disabled arm . Moreover , he asserted that he and his family had been helping the applicant and her sister to integrate into their new community and learn LANGUAGE , while their mother had been busying herself with her private activities . According to X , the charges of sexual assault were prompted by the applicant \u2019s mother , who wished to extort money from him .","On DATE the court held a second hearing in the case . X was questioned by the ORG prosecutor , mostly about the use of his left arm , and in this connection conceded that , although he usually drove automatic cars , he did occasionally drive a smaller manual transmission car . However , when asked whether he had ever driven a truck , PERSON replied that this had no bearing on the case , acknowledging nevertheless that he had a licence to drive all categories of road vehicles . Then the applicant was summoned to testify , the court granting her request for X to be absent from the hearing room . While recounting the instances of sexual abuse by X , the applicant cried repeatedly and the hearing was adjourned for TIME on that account . X \u2019s counsel PERSON then questioned the applicant , asking her how tall she had been and how much she had weighed at the material time . The applicant became very agitated and asked PERSON why , having been the first to hear her story , he was asking those questions and was now acting as PERSON \u2019s counsel . PERSON commented that this was part of the tactics . The hearing was then adjourned owing to the applicant \u2019s distress .","On DATE the court held a third hearing . The questioning of the applicant continued in the absence of X. When asked how she felt about the situation with hindsight , she cried and said that no one had helped her and that the proceedings had been dragging on for DATE , during which she had had to keep reliving the trauma .","On DATE the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal under ORG to a Hearing without LAW of DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) with a view to accelerating the proceedings .","On DATE the court held a fourth hearing , from which the public was excluded , at which NORP personally asked the applicant over a CARDINAL questions , starting with a comment in the form of a question \u201c Is it true that you have told and showed me that you could cry on cue and then everybody would believe you ? \u201d It does not appear from the record of the hearing that the applicant made any reply . X then asked the applicant a series of questions aimed at proving that they had seen each other mainly at gatherings of their families or when the applicant , in need of transport or other assistance , had actively sought his company . Among the questions asked by X were the following : \u201c Is it true that I could not have abused you on the evening of the event as you stated on DATE ? \u201d , \u201c Is it true that if I had wished to satisfy my sexual needs , I would have called you at least once ? \u201d ; \u201c Why did you call me in DATE and ask me to take you out of town if I had already raped you CARDINAL times before that date ? \u201d , \u201c Why were you calling me , because I certainly never called you ? \u201d , or \u201c Is it true that you specifically asked that we drive out of town alone , because you wished to talk to me and to celebrate your success at a beauty pageant ? \u201d The applicant insisted that she had not called X , nor had she initiated any outings with him , but that he had called her . X also asked the applicant whether she had told him that , once she had a boyfriend , she would always be on top , as she wanted to be the mistress .","NORP Moreover , X claimed that the charges of rape were fabrications by the applicant \u2019s mother . Hence , he asked the applicant numerous questions about her mother , including about her knowledge of LANGUAGE , her work , and her personal relationships . Further , X confronted the applicant with the medical report which indicated that his left arm was seriously disabled . The applicant insisted that she had seen X using his left arm in his daily life , including driving cars , lifting and carrying his children and their school bags , and carrying boxes and bottles . Throughout the questioning , X disputed the accuracy and credibility of the applicant \u2019s answers , extensively commenting on the circumstances described by her and rejecting her version of events . He continued to do so even after the presiding judge explained to him that he would have the opportunity to make his comments after the applicant \u2019s questioning .","During the cross - examination , PERSON repeated a number of questions and was eventually warned against doing this by the presiding judge . Moreover , the presiding judge ruled out of order CARDINAL questions that she perceived had no bearing on the case in issue .","On CARDINAL occasions , when the applicant became agitated and started crying , the court ordered a short recess . After CARDINAL of these recesses X asked the applicant whether she would feel better if they all went to dinner , just as they used to , and maybe then she would not cry so much .","At CARDINAL point the applicant requested the court to adjourn the hearing as the questions were too stressful for her . However , after being told by X that the next hearing could not be held until after DATE when he would be back from a business trip , the applicant said , while crying , that he should continue with his questioning as she wanted to get it over with . Eventually , after TIME of cross - examination of the applicant , the presiding judge adjourned the hearing until DATE .","X \u2019s wife , mother - in - law and an employee of his company were examined at the next hearing , all CARDINAL of them asserting that X had very little use of his left arm and certainly could not lift any burdens .","On DATE a sixth hearing was held . The questioning of the applicant by PERSON took TIME . When questioned by PERSON \u2019s counsel PERSON , the applicant again asserted that she had told him the whole story a long time ago . PERSON denied this , stating that if he had been informed he would have advised the applicant to go to hospital and to the police . Once the applicant \u2019s questioning was over , her mother was questioned , mostly about her private relationships .","At the end of the hearing ORG \u2019s counsel PERSON confirmed that he had encountered the applicant \u2019s mother when he was working at a law firm with a lawyer who had represented her in certain court proceedings . He also stated that he would inform the court within DATE as to whether he would request leave to withdraw from representing X in the proceedings in issue . On DATE PERSON requested leave from the court to withdraw from the case , as he had been personally affected by certain statements made by the applicant \u2019s mother .","At a hearing of DATE the court dismissed the request by PERSON \u2019s counsel PERSON , finding that there were no statutory grounds disqualifying him from representing PERSON The gynaecologist , PERSON , was examined as a witness . He acknowledged that in order to clarify the circumstances he had also addressed certain issues in his report that had not been part of the investigating judge \u2019s request . Moreover , he reiterated that the applicant \u2019s hymen had been intact at the material time .","On DATE the court held an eighth hearing in the case and examined the expert in clinical psychology , NORP , who again stated that sexual abuse which had happened long ago could not be proved by any material evidence , and that only the psychological consequences could be assessed . She further reiterated that the applicant displayed clear symptoms of sexual abuse .","On DATE the court appointed PERSON , another expert in gynaecology , to give an opinion on whether the applicant could have had sexual intercourse at the material time , given the results of her medical examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the expert submitted his report , which stated that those results were not inconsistent with the applicant \u2019s account of the events in issue .","On DATE the court held a hearing at which it appointed ORG , an expert in orthopaedics , to prepare an opinion as to whether , in view of his disabled left arm , X could have performed the acts described by the applicant .","On DATE N. submitted his report , in which he found that X \u2019s left arm was severely disabled , and that for those reasons some of the events could not have happened in the way described by the applicant .","On DATE the court held a hearing at which ORG was questioned . Further to questions put by the applicant \u2019s counsel , ORG explained that he had based his opinion on the documents in X \u2019s medical file , the X - rays brought to him by X , and an examination of X.","A hearing was held on DATE . The applicant requested that ORG be questioned further .","DATE . On DATE the court held the twelfth and last hearing in the case . At the hearing the applicant and ORG questioned ORG , who stated , inter alia , that X could only use his left arm to assist the right arm in carrying out specific tasks , and that he had practically no strength in his left arm . In the expert \u2019s opinion , X would not have been able to spread the applicant \u2019s legs with his left arm , and neither would he have been able to take off his trousers as alleged by her . After being asked by the prosecutor whether his assessment was based on the assumption that the applicant had used all her strength to resist X , ORG stated : \u201c I did not base my conclusion on that assumption , as I did not know whether she had resisted or whether she had willingly submitted . \u201d After being asked whether the applicant , who was DATE at the time , could have resisted PERSON , who had allegedly been lying on top of her , he said he believed so . PERSON also testified that although X had more than ordinary strength in his right arm , he could not have assaulted the applicant in the way she alleged .","After the examination of ORG , the applicant , who had sought and obtained an opinion from another orthopaedist outside the court proceedings which indicated that X might still have limited use of his left arm , asked for another orthopaedics expert to be appointed , on the grounds that there was doubt about N. \u2019s conclusions . This request was rejected by the court as unnecessary , as was the applicant \u2019s request for the court also to call as witnesses her sister and her mother \u2019s former husband , who had allegedly seen X rowing with both arms . A request by the prosecutor for the applicant to be examined again was also rejected .","At the end of the hearing the court pronounced judgment , acquitting X of all charges . In view of this verdict , the court recommended that the applicant pursue her claim for damages , which she had submitted in the course of the proceedings , before the civil court .","On DATE the applicant lodged a new supervisory appeal under LAW . On DATE she received a reply from the court informing her that the reasoning of the judgment had been sent to her that day .","In the written grounds the court explained that the expert orthopaedics report contested ORG \u2019s ability to carry out certain acts described by the applicant , for which he would have had to use both arms . As explained by the expert , PERSON was not capable of even moving his left hand in a position which would have allowed him to take his trousers off or spread the applicant \u2019s legs . According to the court , the fact that some of the applicant \u2019s allegations were disproved by the expert raised some doubts as to her entire version of the events . On the basis of the principle that any reasonable doubt should benefit the accused ( in dubio pro reo ) , the court had acquitted X. As regards the report by the expert in psychology PERSON , which found that the applicant had suffered sexual abuse , the court noted that it could not ignore the judgment delivered in another set of proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s estranged husband , in which the competent court had accepted that he had engaged in sexual activity in front of the applicant and her sister and had also behaved inappropriately towards the applicant .","On DATE ORG lodged an appeal , in which she criticised the court for not considering the fact that owing to his age , gender and body mass NORP was much stronger than the applicant , and was also in a position of power on account of his economic and social status . Moreover , she pointed out that X had operated manual transmission vehicles , which required him to use both his arms . The prosecutor further argued that the criminal offence in question did not require the sexual act to have been committed by force ; it was sufficient that the applicant opposed it . She also stressed that the proceedings had already been pending for DATE , which had aggravated the trauma suffered by the applicant .","The appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE , which found that the reasoning of the first - instance court \u2019s judgment was clear and precise regarding the doubt that X had committed the alleged criminal acts .","The applicant subsequently asked ORG to lodge a request for the protection of legality ( an extraordinary remedy ) . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the aforementioned request could only concern points of law and not the facts , which the applicant had called into question .","On DATE the applicant and the Government reached an out - of - court settlement under LAW in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) , covering all pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage incurred by the applicant as a result of a violation of her right to a trial without undue delay in the criminal proceedings in issue . The applicant also received ORG CARDINAL in respect of the costs incurred in the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170389","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF B\u00c9RES AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","On DATE the applicants , political activists , participated in a demonstration organised by the political party \u201c Politics Can Be Different\u2019 \u201d ( PERSON a ORG ) . The demonstrators blocked the entrance of a car park adjacent to the ORG building by chaining themselves to each other and to concrete columns situated next to the entrance .","Following the incident the GPE main police department opened criminal investigations against CARDINAL persons , including the applicants , on charges of violation of personal liberty under LAW no . IV on the [ old ] LAW .","On DATE Parliament enacted Act no . XII of DATE ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which entered into force on DATE .","On DATE the GPE main police department discontinued the criminal investigation against the QUANTITY suspects , pursuant to LAW grounds that they had been granted amnesty . The applicants did not appeal against that decision .","On DATE of the applicants , PERSON , PERSON , Ms PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON , lodged a constitutional complaint requesting ORG to declare sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW unconstitutional as infringing the right to their reputation and the principle of presumption of innocence .","The Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible . It reasoned that the complaint did not raise any constitutional - law issues of \u201c fundamental importance \u201d , since it was based on an erroneous interpretation of the law . ORG pointed out that the language employed by LAW could not be interpreted as establishing that the applicants had indeed committed the offence . In any event , the complaint was time - barred since it had been lodged outside the statutory CARDINAL days\u2019 time - limit following the entry into force of the legislation ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173251","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF OLISOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They live in GPE in the GPE region , GPE in the GPE region and GPE , respectively .","In DATE NORP complained to ORG ( the \u201c UBOP \u201d ) of the NORP regional police department that the applicant was allegedly planning his murder . PERSON . and P. \u2012 whom the applicant had allegedly hired to murder NORP \u2012 agreed to cooperate with the ORG and , acting on the latter \u2019s instructions , organised a meeting with the applicant , told him that they had killed NORP , showed him photographs simulating NORP \u2019s death \u2012 which they had prepared as part of the ORG covert operation \u2012 and asked for payment . After paying them DATE , the applicant and his father , who had accompanied him , were taken to the ORG office where they arrived at TIME on DATE .","According to the applicant , he was interviewed at the request of the head of the ORG , PERSON , until TIME by several operative police officers , including PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who demanded that he confess to having ordered NORP \u2019s murder . They allegedly subjected him to ill - treatment which the applicant described as follows . They handcuffed him , punched him and subjected him to nearsuffocation by use of a plastic bag put over his head . He fainted several times . They forced his legs apart until he fell and then lifted him by his hands , which were shackled behind his back . They tied him up in a painful position with a belt so that his knees were pressed against his neck , and pulled up his shackled hands . They lifted the applicant up whilst thus tied , and dropped him down onto his coccyx . CARDINAL of them stepped on his head .","At TIME the applicant was placed in a cell in which he stayed until TIME He was then again interviewed and signed a document entitled \u201c explanation \u201d ( \u043e\u0431\u044a\u044f\u0441\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) drawn up by the ORG operative officer PERSON , in which he gave statements which he later reiterated at his trial .","No record of the applicant \u2019s arrest was drawn up . At TIME the ORG officers took the applicant home , carried out a search , and then left .","DATE the applicant was taken by his father to the PERSON hospital in GPE . According to the hospital medical records , the applicant had many bruises on his body , in particular on the head , neck , abdomen and the lumbar region .","On DATE the applicant complained about his ill - treatment to the NORP district police department no . CARDINAL of GPE , which ordered a forensic medical examination .","On DATE an expert examined the applicant , his medical records , and his allegations of ill - treatment by the ORG officers DATE ( namely being handcuffed and tied , punched and beaten with a bat ) , and concluded that bruises and abrasions on the applicant \u2019s body and upper and lower extremities had been inflicted by hard blunt objects at the time , as alleged by him ( forensic medical expert report of DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with a fractured vertebra and hospitalised . His X - ray examination confirmed fractures of CARDINAL vertebrae .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE brought criminal proceedings against the applicant in relation to the attempted murder of NORP On DATE the applicant was arrested .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert who concluded that , in addition to the injuries noted in the previous report of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant had a fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebra which resulted in health impairment of medium gravity and had been caused in DATE by the impact of a hard blunt object or as a result of hitting such an object with great mechanical force .","According to an additional forensic medical expert opinion of DATE produced on the basis of medical records , the fracture of the vertebra could not have resulted from being punched , kicked and beaten with a bat , or as a result of handcuffing , having the legs tied together with a belt , or lifting the applicant up by his hands . It could have resulted from an impact by a traumatic force along the axes of the spine .","On DATE an investigator from the GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE \u2012 who had carried out a pre - investigation inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegations of illtreatment by the ORG officers \u2012 refused to initiate criminal proceedings , relying on statements by the ORG police officers , in particular PERSON and PERSON , that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been arrested on suspicion of having ordered a murder , and had been taken to the ORG and interviewed , and that no violence had been used against him . The investigator also referred to statements by the applicant \u2019s father and other persons who had been in the ORG building at the same time as the applicant and had not seen or heard that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment . On DATE the applicant had been diagnosed as suffering from a mental disorder . The investigator concluded that the applicant could not be trusted , that he had probably received his injuries as a result of hitting himself accidentally against some objects , and that the true circumstances in which he had received the injuries could not be established .","On DATE the Promyshlenniy ORG granted an appeal lodged by the applicant against the investigator \u2019s decision . Subsequently , further refusals to open a criminal case followed on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and were annulled as unlawful by the prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of the attempted murder of NORP , sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and ordered him to pay damages to NORP It took into account the fact that the applicant had no criminal record and also had positive references . At the trial the applicant denied his guilt , stating that his sister had been killed in a traffic accident caused by NORP \u2019s drunk driving , that NORP had unlawfully avoided serving his sentence of imprisonment , that he \u2012 the applicant \u2012 had wished to compel NORP to serve his prison sentence by using the services of PERSON . and P. \u2013 who had suggested planting drugs on NORP , inter alia DATE and had paid them out of fear for his family \u2019s safety . The applicant \u2019s argument that the crime of which he was accused was the result of police entrapment was dismissed by the court .","On DATE an investigator from the investigative committee of the NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office ordered , pursuant to LAW , that no criminal case be opened into the applicant \u2019s allegations for lack of the elements of a crime under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( on abuse of powers ) in the acts of the police officers . The decision relied on the same reasoning as that set out in the initial decision of DATE , adding that the applicant had recovered from his psychiatric disorder and had been convicted .","On appeal by the applicant , the investigator \u2019s decision was found lawful by ORG in a decision of DATE , which was further upheld by ORG on DATE . ORG held , in particular , that the fact that the applicant had been detained unlawfully for TIME at the ORG premises was not in itself sufficient to prove that he had been illtreated by the police officers or that he had been deliberately subjected to unlawful detention . In reply to the applicant \u2019s criticism of the investigating authority \u2019s failure to carry out a thorough investigation and , in particular , to examine the room at the ORG premises in which the applicant had been interviewed and allegedly illtreated , ORG opined that there would be no sense in examining the ORG office given the considerable length of time that had passed since the events in question .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal .","On DATE the acting head of the supervisory department of the NORP regional investigative committee annulled the decision of DATE for being based on an incomplete inquiry and ordered an additional inquiry and the applicant \u2019s additional forensic medical examination .","On DATE between TIME and TIME the police searched the applicant \u2019s flat in GPE , pursuant to a decision of LOC on DATE concerning criminal proceedings against third persons , in order to find evidence of those ORG membership of extremist organisations . The police found explosives and bomb - making material . Once the search had been completed , they took the applicant to ORG at the GPE NORP regional police department .","DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness in the criminal proceedings against third persons by investigator PERSON LOC district investigative committee , who later stated that at the time of the questioning the applicant had had no injuries on the visible parts of his body .","The investigator ordered that the case concerning the applicant \u2019s illegal possession of arms be transferred to an investigator at police department no . CARDINAL of PERSON .","The applicant was then interviewed by the head of ORG , T. , his deputy PERSON and CARDINAL operative police officers of ORG , PERSON . According to the applicant , they demanded that he confess to preparing a terrorist act and sign a \u201c statement of surrender and confession \u201d ( \u044f\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u0441 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 ) . They allegedly subjected him to illtreatment which the applicant described as follows . They beat him up , punching and kicking him . With his hands handcuffed behind his back they bound him with a QUANTITY - long orange rope , so that his crossed legs were pressed to his torso . They pulled on the rope and lifted the applicant off the floor , subjecting him to near - suffocation as the knots in the rope were pressing against the front of his neck , making it impossible to breath . They then loosened the rope , so that the applicant fell and hit his buttocks on the floor , causing him severe pain . The applicant lost consciousness . At some point CARDINAL other police officers PERSON . and PERSON joined the others . PERSON punched the applicant in the face , making his lip bleed . The applicant \u2019s illtreatment lasted until TIME","At TIME the applicant was taken to police station no . CARDINAL of the GPE town police department , formally arrested at TIME and questioned as a suspect .","In his report of DATE to the head of ORG , T. , police officer PERSON . stated that physical force had been used in order to apprehend the applicant when he tried to escape . According to subsequent statements made by PERSON . and PERSON to the investigative authority , PERSON . had tripped the applicant up in order to prevent his escape and the applicant had fallen over , whereupon PERSON . \u201c had used physical force to overcome the applicant \u2019s resistance \u201d and kept the applicant on the ground until the arrival of PERSON They had then handcuffed the applicant . As a result , the applicant had allegedly received abrasions to the head , face and neck .","After the applicant \u2019s questioning as a suspect he was taken to a temporary detention facility ( an \u201c ORG \u201d ) . The ORG officer on duty saw the applicant \u2019s injuries and refused to admit him without a prior medical examination .","At TIME on DATE the police officers took the applicant to town hospital no . CARDINAL in the Avtozavodskoy district of GPE Novgorod , where a doctor recorded contusions and bruises on his face and assessed his condition as not precluding detention .","On the applicant \u2019s arrival at the ORG , the officer on duty examined the upper part of his body above the waist and recorded bruises and abrasions . The applicant stated that his injuries were the result of illtreatment to which he had been subjected by the police officers at ORG from TIME on DATE . The applicant stated , in particular , in relation to the injuries on the face , that he had an abrasion in the temple area on the right side , a bruise under the right eye , an abrasion on the chin on the right side , and a damaged lip on the left side .","On DATE the applicant was detained on remand by a court order and at TIME transferred from the ORG to pre - trial detention facility IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( the \u201c GPE \u201d ) , where an on - duty officer and medical assistant recorded the following injuries on his body : a bruise on the right of the abdomen , a bruise in the left axillary region and multiple bruises on the face and neck . The applicant reiterated that he had been illtreated by the police . The incident was reported to the head of the GPE .","On DATE the GPE district prosecutor \u2019s office received a communication from the GPE about the injuries found on the applicant on his admission and forwarded it to the LOC district investigation division of the ORG NORP regional investigative committee ( \u0421\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u043f\u043e GPE \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0443 \u0433. \u041d.\u041d\u043e\u0432\u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434 \u0421\u0423 PERSON \u043f\u043e PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 ) . The applicant lodged a complaint with the investigative authorities about his alleged ill - treatment and on DATE gave a statement .","According to a forensic medical examination report of CARDINAL DATE prepared on the basis of the applicant \u2019s GPE medical records ( and ordered on DATE by an investigator who inquired , inter alia , whether the injuries could have been self - inflicted ) , the applicant \u2019s injuries could be classified as blunt trauma . Although the description of the injuries in the PERSON report made it impossible to determine reliably the date of their infliction , the expert suggested that the bruises on the right part of the abdomen and multiple bruises on the face and neck could have been inflicted within DATE prior to the applicant \u2019s examination at the GPE on DATE and the bruise in the left axillary region could have been inflicted DATE before that examination . The expert noted that the injuries were located on parts of the body within the reach of the applicant \u2019s own hands .","According to an additional forensic medical examination report of CARDINAL DATE , prepared on the basis of the applicant \u2019s medical documents , the applicant \u2019s injuries could have originated either as a result of being punched and kicked , or as a result of the use of force as alleged by police officers PERSON . and A.","According to a report of DATE , prepared on the basis of an internal inquiry and approved by the head of the internal security division of the ORG NORP regional police department , PERSON . stated that in order to overcome the applicant \u2019s resistance he had twisted the applicant \u2019s hand behind his back , and that the applicant had received the abrasions to the head and face as a result of falling over . The other QUANTITY police officers who had interviewed the applicant had given similar statements . The report suggested that the question of the police ORG responsibility for the applicant \u2019s illtreatment could only be decided by the investigative committee pursuant to a pre - investigation inquiry .","The LOC district investigative committee issued CARDINAL refusals to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s alleged illtreatment ( on DATE , DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL July DATE ) . The first CARDINAL decisions were revoked by the deputy head of the LOC district investigative committee or the LOC district deputy prosecutor for being based on an incomplete inquiry ( decisions of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ) .","On DATE the Avtozavodskoy District Court of GPE Novgorod convicted the applicant of illegal storage of explosives under LAW . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","NORP In the decision refusing to open a criminal investigation into the allegations of the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment of DATE , pursuant to LAW , for lack of the elements of a crime under LAW ( on abuse of powers ) in the actions of police officers PERSON . , PERSON and ORG , it was stated that the applicant had tried to escape during his transfer from ORG to police station no . CARDINAL on DATE and could have received the injuries as a result of the lawful use of force by police officers ORG . and PERSON in their effort to stop him . That conclusion was based on statements by police officers based at the ORG , namely PERSON . , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON , who had conducted the applicant \u2019s interview ( \u043e\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0441 ) with a view to establishing his possible accomplices , in particular persons who had supplied him with the explosives . They denied the use of any violence against the applicant . The investigator confirmed that , in accordance with LAW , the police officers had the right to conduct the applicant \u2019s interview .","The applicant appealed against the investigator \u2019s decision of CARDINAL July DATE to a court . He complained , in particular , that the investigator had not given him the opportunity to challenge the police ORG version . The applicant \u2019s appeal was rejected by a decision of CARDINAL DATE of LOC , which was satisfied that the decision was reasoned and lawful . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE an acting prosecutor of the Nizhniy Novgorod region annulled the refusal of DATE as unlawful and based on an incomplete inquiry and ordered an additional inquiry , finding that the applicant \u2019s statements contesting the police ORG version of events and alleging the use of violence by police officer PERSON had not been investigated .","On DATE a woman was attacked and robbed on the street .","On DATE police officers ( Sh . , NORP , P. , PERSON , PERSON . , NORP GPE ) were ordered to arrest the applicant , who was suspected of having committed the robbery . At TIME they apprehended the applicant on a street in NORP village in LOC . The applicant tried to flee because , according to him , he did not realise that those pursuing him \u2012 who were dressed in plain clothes \u2012 were police officers . PERSON . and NORP stopped him . According to the applicant , they tied his hands with a belt . The applicant was taken to the GPE town police department .","The applicant described the events at the police station as follows . He was led through an entrance for staff only to an office on the first floor and handcuffed . The police officers , in particular O. , demanded that he confess to having attacked the woman and stolen her gold chain and mobile phone . ORG punched the applicant twice in the chest , then hit the applicant on his feet with a rubber truncheon for TIME , while the other police officers , in particular A. , pinned him down on the floor , holding onto his arms and legs . He was then asked to stand up on his feet but was unable to do so , fell over and was hit by the truncheon on the left side of his torso . His feet were stepped on and he was suffocated with a plastic bag . During the suffocation , which lasted TIME , he fainted several times . The applicant wrote a \u201c statement of surrender and confession \u201d ( \u044f\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u0441 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 ) , as requested . O. threatened him with further torture if he did not reiterate his confession to an investigator .","The \u201c statement of surrender and confession \u201d , in which the applicant confessed to having attacked the woman and stolen her gold chain , was recorded by the police . The applicant also signed a document entitled \u201c explanation \u201d , drawn up by operative police officer NORP , with a detailed description of the circumstances of the crime .","At TIME an investigator drew up a record of the applicant \u2019s arrest as a suspect . The applicant gave selfincriminating statements when questioned as a suspect in the presence of a ORG - appointed lawyer , reiterating the confession statement he had given earlier to the police officers .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was placed in the temporary detention facility ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) in GPE town police department , where the following injuries on his body were recorded : bruises on the chest , an abrasion on the face on the left cheek bone , many abrasions on the waist , abrasions on both wrists and scars on the left forearm . The applicant stated that those injuries had been inflicted during his arrest .","DATE . On DATE the applicant was taken to a traumatology centre , where he was diagnosed with contusion of the left side of his chest and both wrists .","At TIME the applicant appeared before FAC of Orenburg , which ordered his detention on remand . The court decision referred to the investigator \u2019s submissions that the applicant \u2019s involvement in the crime had been established on DATE but he had been hiding from the lawenforcement authorities until his arrest on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE he was placed in pre - trial detention facility IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL , where bruises on the left side of his chest , both wrists and both feet were recorded .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer PERSON , who had been retained by his family , observed injuries on the applicant when visiting him in the detention facility . The applicant told her about his ill - treatment at the police station and the selfincriminating statements he had given as a result .","On DATE when questioned as an accused in the presence of lawyer PERSON , the applicant retracted his selfincriminating statements , explaining that he had given them on CARDINAL DATE as a result of his illtreatment by the police officers .","According to the applicant \u2019s mother and brother , and his acquaintance Zh . , the applicant had no injuries before his arrest .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint concerning his alleged ill - treatment by the police . The GPE town investigative committee carried out a preinvestigation inquiry . The operative police officers who had arrested the applicant on DATE gave explanations . They stated that as soon as the applicant had seen them he had run away and they had lost sight of him . When running away the applicant had fallen over several times . The police officers had split into several groups in order to find and stop him . Police officers PERSON . and NORP had caught up with the applicant , knocked him to the ground and handcuffed his hands behind his back . NORP suggested that any bruises or abrasions on the applicant \u2019s body could have been received as a result of his falling over when trying to run away from them . The police officers denied any deliberate use of force against the applicant either during his arrest or afterwards at the police station when they interviewed him .","On DATE an investigator refused to initiate criminal proceedings pursuant to LAW for lack of the elements of a crime under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( on abuse of powers ) in the acts of the police officers . Relying on the police ORG statements , the investigator found that the police officers had acted lawfully in using handcuffs and \u201c blocking \u201d the applicant , a suspect in criminal proceedings , who had tried to escape and resisted his arrest . On DATE a deputy head of the NORP town investigative committee annulled the investigator \u2019s decision on the grounds that the inquiry had been incomplete , and ordered an additional inquiry . Subsequently CARDINAL more refusals to open a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations of illtreatment were issued by investigators and annulled by their superiors within the investigative committee for being based on incomplete inquiries .","On DATE the Promyshlenniy ORG of Orenburg convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . The applicant pleaded guilty in relation to the assault against the victim but denied robbery , stating that he had given the selfincriminating statements at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings as a result of the ill - treatment by the police . The court considered his allegations of ill - treatment unfounded , relying on the results of the inquiry and one of the refusals to open a criminal case of DATE which had not at that moment been annulled . The court declared the applicant \u2019s selfincriminating statements of CARDINAL DATE admissible evidence . The applicant \u2019s \u201c statement of surrender and confession \u201d served as a mitigating circumstance . The judgment became final .","During CARDINAL of the additional rounds of the pre - investigation inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment CARDINAL forensic medical expert reports were prepared , on DATE and DATE , based on the applicant \u2019s medical documents . The experts concluded that the applicant \u2019s injuries DATE the bruises on his chest and both feet , numerous abrasions on his waist , the abrasion on the face , and numerous abrasions and bruises on both wrists \u2013 could have been inflicted as a result of impacts from a hard blunt object shortly before his injuries had been recorded at the ORG and possibly on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE an additional forensic medical expert report was prepared at the investigator \u2019s request . The expert concluded that the applicant \u2019s injuries had originated from the impact of a blunt hard object with a limited contact surface ( with a limited narrow elongated contact surface in the case of the injuries to his wrists ) . The nature , location and mechanism of the origin of the injuries were consistent with the applicant \u2019s version . All his injuries could have been received as a result of illtreatment by the police officers as described by him . As regards the police ORG version , the abrasions on the applicant \u2019s face and waist could have been received as a result of the applicant falling over when running away during his arrest . The abrasions on the wrists could have been received as a result of the use of handcuffs . There was nothing , however , in the police ORG statements to explain the bruises on the chest and feet .","On DATE investigator PERSON of the GPE north administrative circuit investigative committee initiated criminal proceedings into the applicant \u2019s allegations under LAW ( a ) of LAW ( abuse of power with use of violence ) . He held that it was impossible to resolve the contradictions existing in the case - file material by means of a pre - investigation inquiry , and that it was therefore necessary to open a criminal case and examine the applicant \u2019s allegations by way of a criminal investigation , as there was sufficient data to indicate that a crime under LAW might have been committed .","DATE the acting prosecutor of the Promyshlenniy district of GPE annulled the investigator \u2019s decision as unlawful and illfounded , disagreeing with the investigator that there was sufficient data to indicate that a crime could have been committed . The prosecutor stressed that it was possible to implement urgent measures aimed at establishing the circumstances of alleged illtreatment within the framework of a preinvestigation inquiry , in particular by ordering forensic medical examinations . He noted that the pre - investigation inquiry had established that the applicant had received the injuries during his arrest as a suspect , and that in the final judgment in the applicant \u2019s criminal case the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment had been found unsubstantiated and that it was therefore impossible to question that finding .","The applicant appealed against the prosecutor \u2019s decision . On DATE the Promyshlenniy ORG found the prosecutor \u2019s decision lawful . It held that under LAW the court did not have competence to assess whether the evidence or the presence of data indicating the elements of a crime constituted grounds for instituting criminal proceedings . That decision was upheld on DATE by ORG .","Following the prosecutor \u2019s decision , on DATE investigator PERSON refused to open a criminal case . His decision was annulled on DATE by a deputy head of the second procedural supervision department of the investigative committee of GPE for being based on an incomplete inquiry . Subsequently CARDINAL more decisions refusing to open a criminal case \u2012 of DATE and DATE \u2012 were also annulled for the same reason , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , by an acting head of the procedural supervision department of the GPE regional investigative committee .","In the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE , as in the previous decisions , it was found that the police officers had acted lawfully in using handcuffs and physical force , in particular for the purposes of \u201c blocking \u201d the applicant , who had actively resisted arrest . The applicant had received the injuries when trying to escape and resisting arrest . The injuries on his wrists had been caused by the lawful use of handcuffs .","On DATE the acting district prosecutor pointed to flagrant violations of the criminal procedural law , in particular the reasonable time requirement for examination of reports about crimes . He noted that , due to the lack of supervision and the acquiescence of the investigative committee management , the investigative committee had failed to conduct a thorough and objective inquiry for DATE \u2012 thereby violating the applicant \u2019s rights \u2012 and that this constituted a serious disciplinary offence .","According to a report by a psychologist who examined the applicant in DATE the applicant complained that , as a consequence of the police illtreatment , he suffered from frequent headaches , blood pressure abnormalities and sleep disturbances . He displayed signs that the illtreatment experienced by him and the lack of justice still affected him . He was diagnosed with post - traumatic stress disorder and was recommended treatment and rehabilitation measures ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150650","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF YEVGENIY PETRENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence .","On DATE R. , an adolescent who was born in DATE , disappeared . On DATE he was found dead in a garden area of Cherkasy city . The body had numerous stab wounds , including in the neck and the chest .","On DATE the ORG Office of Cherkasy ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) opened a criminal investigation into the murder .","In TIME of the same day the police searched the applicant \u2019s home and seized CARDINAL knives , clothes and other items . Allegedly , on TIME the police took the applicant to the police station .","TIME and TIME on DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness in the murder case . During the questioning , which was not attended by a lawyer , the applicant told that earlier in DATE he and NORP had committed fraud in order to steal a mobile phone from CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s acquaintances . The applicant stated that he did not know who had killed R.","DATE the ORG of Cherkasy instituted another set of criminal proceedings concerning the fraudulent theft of the mobile phone and questioned the applicant as a witness in that case . The applicant told the police how he and NORP had stolen the mobile phone . The questioning was carried out without a lawyer but in the presence of the applicant \u2019s father .","At TIME the police investigator ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest on suspicion of the fraudulent theft of the mobile phone . Further to the applicant \u2019s request , the investigator allowed lawyer PERSON to act as the applicant \u2019s defence counsel in that set of criminal proceedings . The lawyer signed the arrest report . Then , in the presence of the lawyer , the applicant refused to give any further statements , claiming that he was tired ; he asked the police to postpone the questioning until DATE .","Between CARDINAL.CARDINAL and TIME the applicant , in the absence of his lawyer , was questioned as a witness in the murder case . During the questioning the applicant gave further details concerning the theft of the mobile phone ; he also said that on DATE he had seen NORP only at school .","DATE the police searched the home of NORP , another acquaintance of the applicant . They seized knives , clothes and other items .","At TIME the police investigator ordered NORP \u2019s arrest on suspicion of murder , noting in the report that there had been brown spots on NORP \u2019s jacket .","Later that night NORP confessed that he had been present at the crime scene . He explained that on DATE the applicant had asked him to attend a meeting with NORP that day and to bring a knife with him ; during the meeting the applicant and NORP had started to fight ; NORP had assisted the applicant in knocking down NORP , who at a certain moment had attempted to run away ; the applicant had then stabbed NORP with the knife and cut his throat ; NORP had helped the applicant to hide the body .","The same night the applicant confessed to the murder . He was not assisted by a lawyer at that time . The applicant stated that on DATE he had had a meeting with NORP concerning the stolen mobile phone , which NORP had allegedly sold ; the applicant had asked NORP to be present at that meeting and to bring a knife ; as NORP had started to fight , the applicant had taken the knife , cut NORP \u2019s throat and caused other injuries to him .","According to the applicant , that confession resulted from the psychological pressure and physical ill - treatment that had been applied to him since his arrival at the police station .","CARDINAL on DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer , PERSON , concerning the theft of the mobile phone . The applicant repeated his earlier statements concerning that episode .","Between CARDINAL and TIME on DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of the same lawyer concerning the murder . At the beginning of that questioning session , the investigator announced that the applicant had written a confession and asked him to give more details concerning the circumstances described by the applicant in his confession . The applicant then described the murder in more detail .","In TIME on DATE the applicant participated in a reconstruction of the crime , in which he showed how he had murdered NORP On his return from the crime scene , the applicant was questioned again and he repeated his self - incriminating statements . The lawyer , PERSON , participated in those measures .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was moved to FAC of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE a forensic medical expert examined the applicant and issued a report stating that he had no bodily injuries . The expert specified that the medical examination had been held in the Cherkasy Pre - Trial Detention Centre ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) .","On DATE the investigator consolidated the criminal cases concerning the fraudulent phone theft and the murder in a single set of criminal proceedings . On DATE the court ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention .","On DATE the applicant dismissed lawyer PERSON and appointed lawyers PERSON and Dr. When questioned in the presence of those lawyers , he repeated his earlier self - incriminating statements .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from the ORG to the GPE .","In DATE , during another round of questioning , the applicant specified that he had needed the knife for self - defence when meeting with NORP","On DATE a forensic medial expert issued a report stating that the applicant had sustained no bodily injuries during the preliminary detention . The expert based the report on the results of the applicant \u2019s medical examination of DATE .","On DATE another lawyer , PERSON , was admitted to the case , in addition to lawyers PERSON and Dr.","On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of his CARDINAL lawyers . He changed his earlier statements and asserted that it was NORP who had repeatedly stabbed and killed NORP","On DATE a confrontation between the applicant and NORP was held . It was revealed that T. , an acquaintance of the applicant and NORP , had also been present at the scene of the murder .","On DATE the applicant dismissed lawyers PERSON and Dr. , leaving his representation to lawyer PERSON","On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON , who stated that it was the applicant who had stabbed NORP On DATE T. participated in a reconstruction of the events , in the course of which he confirmed his statements .","On DATE confrontations between T. and the applicant , as well as NORP and NORP , were held , during which ORG repeated his earlier statements .","On DATE , during another questioning session , the applicant maintained that it was NORP who had killed NORP","On DATE the investigation was completed . The applicant was charged with aggravated murder and fraudulent theft of a mobile phone ; NORP was charged as the applicant \u2019s accomplice in the murder . The applicant and his lawyer were provided with the criminal case file for examination .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer , having examined the file , requested that NORP be charged as the perpetrator , arguing that the evidence in the file pointed at him . He asserted that the applicant \u2019s confession was the result of pressure by police officers and a clandestine agreement he had made with NORP The investigator refused the request as unsubstantiated .","On DATE the case was referred to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for the applicant and NORP to be tried .","On DATE ORG remitted the case for additional investigation noting , among other things , that the actions of the defendants and the role of each defendant had not been properly classified under the criminal law .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE as unfounded and remitted the case to ORG for trial .","NORP On DATE the applicant was medically examined by a nephrologist , who issued a medical certificate specifying , among other things , that CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s ribs on his right side showed signs of healed fractures , and it was recommended that he be examined by a traumatologist .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and fraudulent theft of a mobile phone and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court also found NORP guilty of concealment of murder and imposed a conditional sentence .","The prosecutor and the victim \u2019s relatives appealed against the judgment , claiming , inter alia , that the sentences were unduly mild . The applicant also appealed , claiming that his confession had been obtained by way of ill - treatment and in the absence of a lawyer . He argued that on TIME , when he had been in the police station , police officers had beaten him to the extent that he had lost consciousness and that when he had come to , they had continued to beat him . As he had earlier been threatened by NORP , the applicant had eventually given up and agreed to incriminate himself .","On DATE , in reply to the applicant \u2019s complaint of ill - treatment and violation of his procedural rights during the investigation , ORG informed him that those issues had been examined during the pre - trial investigation and the trial , and had been rejected as unfounded . On DATE ORG additionally informed the applicant that his complaints would be examined by ORG in the course of the review of the criminal case .","On DATE the applicant appointed lawyer PERSON to act as his defence counsel .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the governor of the ORG provided the applicant \u2019s lawyer with a list of the procedural measures undertaken in respect of the applicant during his detention in the ORG DATE . According to that list , on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the applicant was not escorted anywhere from the ORG and he did not take part in any procedural measures on DATE .","On DATE the Chrekasy Regional Prosecutor \u2019s Office ordered ORG to carry out pre - investigation enquiries in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE the assistant prosecutor of ORG refused to open an investigation in connection with the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment , noting that there was no indication that the police officers had committed an offence . The decision referred to the statements of the police officers and the medical report of DATE . The applicant challenged the decision before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE as regards the applicant \u2019s conviction for murder and NORP \u2019s conviction for concealment of murder , and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration in that part . It noted that the case had not been properly examined by ORG as regards NORP \u2019s role in the incident . It further ordered careful scrutiny of the applicant \u2019s allegations that his rights had been violated . ORG then upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction for the fraudulent theft of the mobile phone .","DATE . On DATE ORG quashed the assistant prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE and ordered further pre - investigation enquiries . It noted that the medical report of CARDINAL DATE was not reliable since the other evidence suggested that the applicant had not been escorted to the GPE for a medical examination on DATE . Moreover , the prosecutor \u2019s office had not properly examined whether the applicant had really sustained rib fractures as noted by the nephrologist in his certificate of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE and DATE the assistant prosecutors refused to open an investigation in connection with the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment for the reason that the additional enquiries had not disclosed any element of crime on the part of the police officers . All those decisions were quashed by the supervising authorities as unfounded and further enquiries were ordered .","During the trial the applicant requested a medical examination in order to determine his state of health and whether he was suffering from any illnesses . On DATE panel of forensic medical experts found that the applicant was suffering from chronic pyelonephritis , chronic duodenal ulcer , chronic cholecystitis and benign hyperbilirubinemia .","On DATE the assistant prosecutor of ORG again refused to open an investigation in connection with the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment , considering that there had been no elements of crime in the actions of the police officers .","On DATE ORG quashed the assistant prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE as unfounded and ordered further pre - investigation enquiries . The court noted that ORG had not removed the contradictions between the medical report of DATE and the medical certificate of CARDINAL DATE , even though the supervising authorities , in quashing the earlier similar decisions , had highlighted that issue . ORG appealed against that decision .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court further found that NORP had been an accomplice to the murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court noted that while the applicant had accused NORP of the murder , the evidence in the file was sufficient to establish that it was the applicant who had killed NORP The court relied on the statements of ORG and other oral , documentary and material evidence . It also cited the applicant \u2019s self - incriminating statements made during the pre - trial investigation in the presence of lawyers .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment , noting that during the trial the police officers had denied the alleged facts ; moreover , the medical reports of DATE and DATE refuted those allegations .","The applicant appealed against the judgment claiming , inter alia , that his defence rights had not been respected at the initial stage of the investigation , he had not been given access to a lawyer immediately after the arrest and his self - incriminating statements had been obtained as a result of ill - treatment .","On DATE ORG partly allowed the prosecutor \u2019s appeal against ORG decision of DATE . It noted that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment concerned the admissibility and veracity of evidence in his criminal case . Therefore those issues had to be examined by ORG in the course of the applicant \u2019s trial and not by way of separate proceedings . The court further found that the judgment adopted in the applicant \u2019s criminal case had addressed the relevant issues . Accordingly , the proceedings on that matter had to be terminated . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , noting that the applicant \u2019s guilt had been well established by various pieces of evidence in the case file , including the self - incriminating statements that he had made during the pre - trial investigation . It dismissed as groundless the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment and of violations of his procedural rights .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE , noting that the relevant issues could not be examined concurrently with the trial in the applicant \u2019s criminal case ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178182","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"IRL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BRENNAN v. IRELAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","NORP In DATE the applicant purchased a newly - built house , which has been her dwelling place since then . The sale took the form of CARDINAL agreements . The first was an agreement to purchase the land from the owners , PERSON and PERSON , for the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ) . The second was a building agreement under which she paid ORG CARDINAL ( MONEY ) to a building company called T and ORG The company was owned by Mr and PERSON , who were the only shareholders . The house was covered by a guarantee provided by a company known as ORG .","From the time she moved into the house in DATE , the applicant noted major structural defects in the property . She reported this to ORG in DATE . The company carried out an inspection of the house and , in DATE , offered to make certain repairs to it in accordance with the terms of the guarantee . According to the applicant , PERSON refused to issue an ORG certificate \/ guarantee upon the completion of the works , which would have been required if the applicant were to sell the house afterwards .","NORP In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against the parties mentioned above , i.e. Mr and Mrs F ( first and second defendants ) , T and ORG ( third defendant ) , and PERSON ( fourth defendant ) . A fifth defendant was included in the action , a Mr Q , who , as an engineer , had certified that the house was in compliance with the relevant building regulations . In DATE , Mr Q \u2019s company was named as the sixth defendant . The applicant filed her statement of claim in DATE .","NORP Over DATE , she wrote several times to the solicitors for the first CARDINAL defendants requesting that they deliver their defence , on each occasion offering some additional time for this purpose . By DATE these defendants had not yet delivered their defence , at which point the applicant applied to ORG for a judgment in default of defence against them .","The statement of claim was not served on the fourth defendant until DATE , an oversight that the applicant attributed to her solicitors . The fourth defendant entered its defence to the plaintiff \u2019s claims in DATE .","In DATE ORG ordered the first CARDINAL defendants to deliver their defence within DATE . In DATE , the applicant agreed to allow DATE for them to file their defence .","NORP In DATE the applicant again applied to ORG for a default judgment against the first CARDINAL defendants , in light of their failure to enter their defence to the action . The defence was filed in DATE . While it was presented as the defence of the first and second defendants , it was clarified at a later stage in the proceedings ( in DATE ) , that it also concerned the third defendant .","On DATE , at the request of the applicant , the High Court gave a default judgment against the fifth and sixth defendants ( Mr Q and his company ) , holding them liable to the applicant in damages and for costs . According to the judgment , these sums were to be assessed at a future date . The judgment was never enforced . The applicant explained that she received legal advice to the effect that the practice was to hold over such judgments until the case had been heard and damages assessed . She added that at a later stage in the proceedings ( DATE ) she received legal advice that the default judgment had by then expired .","According to the applicant , in DATE her solicitors considered it more effective to engage principally with the fourth defendant , ORG , in light of the guarantee on the house . ORG made a proposal to the applicant in DATE to carry out remedial work on the house . Her solicitor sought clarification of the proposal , writing several times DATE when PERSON replied . The applicant indicated her readiness to accept the proposal . However , when subsequently requested to assign her rights to PERSON she sought clarification of the matter from the company , writing in DATE and again in DATE .","On DATE the High court granted a motion brought by the applicant \u2019s solicitor to cease to represent her . From that point onwards , she acted as a lay litigant .","On DATE the applicant gave notice of intention to proceed with her case to all of the defendants , a necessary step under domestic law where proceedings have been dormant for DATE ( LAW CARDINAL of the Rules of ORG ) .","On DATE the High Court struck out the applicant \u2019s motion for a judgment in default of defence . The applicant sought to appeal this ruling to ORG , requesting additional time for this purpose in DATE , which ORG refused to allow on DATE .","On DATE the applicant again gave notice of her intention to proceed . The following month , she was informed by solicitors for ORG that the offer made in DATE was still valid .","On DATE the applicant once more issued notice of her intention to proceed . In DATE she sought a trial date and was informed that a hearing would take place in DATE , later moved to DATE . At that point it was suggested by a ORG judge that the parties could attempt to resolve the dispute by mediation . The applicant explored this option but did not pursue it when it became clear , by DATE , that some of the defendants were not interested . By this stage she had been informed that the sixth defendant had gone into voluntary liquidation . In DATE the applicant was informed that the case would be heard in DATE .","The case was not heard as a single action . Only the fourth and fifth defendants appeared ( the latter only briefly ) at the hearing that commenced on DATE . The first CARDINAL defendants , although given notice of the hearing , were not represented at it . ORG ruling , given on DATE , therefore only considered the claims against ORG and PERSON Q. The judge ruled that PERSON was liable to the applicant under the terms of the guarantee . Although the guarantee set an upper limit of ORG","On DATE ORG issued an order against the fourth defendant for the amount awarded to the applicant .","On CARDINAL DATE the same judge dealt with the case against the first CARDINAL defendants . She held them jointly and severally liable to the applicant in damages for MONEY .","Homebond sought to appeal the judgment and order against it . For this it was required to serve the notice of appeal personally on the applicant within DATE . According to the elements in the case - file , the company \u2019s solicitors tried unsuccessfully to arrange service on the applicant . They subsequently applied to ORG for additional time to appeal , which was granted on DATE .","The applicant brought a cross appeal , claiming that ORG had wrongly failed to award her legal costs .","NORP In DATE the applicant sought to have the appeal struck out for lack of prosecution by PERSON . This was not granted . Instead , ruling on DATE ORG granted her DATE to make her submissions on the question of costs . The applicant filed her submissions DATE .","On DATE many pending appeals were transferred from ORG to the new ORG , including the ORG appeal .","In DATE , ORG directed the parties to file their respective submissions within DATE , granting a short extension of this deadline the following month . On DATE it set a hearing date of DATE . On DATE it allowed ORG appeal and dismissed the applicant \u2019s cross appeal .","On DATE the first and second defendants filed a notice of appeal against the judgment of ORG .","On DATE ORG made a garnishee order attaching monies owed by a commercial bank to the first and second defendants in the amount of the damages awarded to the applicant .","On DATE ORG granted to the defendants a stay on the award of damages , on condition that they pay into court the sum of MONEY within DATE , failing which the stay would lapse . The payment was not made . An application by the defendants to put forward property deeds in lieu of money was refused by ORG on DATE .","The applicant obtained a judgment mortgage against the defendants on DATE .","On DATE ORG again refused an application from the defendants to stay the judgment of ORG . It also refused to lift the garnishee order and to vacate the judgment mortgage obtained by the applicant .","On DATE ORG refused an application from the applicant to strike the appeal out for lack of prosecution . It directed the defendants to file their books of appeal within DATE , failing which the appeal would be dismissed .","The appeal was transferred to ORG , which indicated on DATE that it would first consider the issue of the liability of the first and second defendants , and set a short deadline for the parties\u2019 submissions on this .","The hearing took place on DATE . ORG set aside the judgment of ORG , holding that as a matter of law Mr and Mrs F were not liable to the applicant for the defects in the house since they had simply sold her the land and were not themselves party to the building agreement . There could only be a remedy against the third defendant , T and ORG , with whom the applicant had concluded the agreement in DATE .","The applicant sought leave to appeal to ORG against this judgment . On DATE ORG refused to grant leave ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168852","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MURADYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE PERSON was drafted into the NORP army and assigned to military unit no . CARDINAL of the Nagorno Karabakh Armed Forces ( hereafter , the military unit ) situated in the unrecognised GPE Karabakh Republic ( hereafter , PERSON ) . During his service he also participated in the activities of the music squad as a trumpet player .","From CARDINAL or DATE PERSON started to feel unwell . His temperature occasionally rose to CARDINAL , he shivered and had headaches , and suffered from nausea and loss of appetite .","It appears that on DATE PERSON , who remained in the barracks throughout this period , was visited by the head of the military unit \u2019s medical service , ORG hereafter , military unit doctor PERSON ) . The outcome of this visit is unclear . It further appears that on DATE , when GPE PERSON \u2019s condition worsened , his fellow servicemen once again called PERSON , who at the time was at the aid post . He refused to visit , telling them that PERSON should come to the aid post himself .","It further appears that later PERSON was visited by the head of the military unit \u2019s aid post , PERSON ( hereafter , military unit doctor PERSON ) , who apparently administered anti - fever pills and gave some injections . GPE GPE was apparently diagnosed as having \u201c acute respiratory illness \u201d .","NORP Throughout this entire period CARDINAL entries were made in GPE GPE \u2019s personal medical file kept at the military unit \u2019s aid post , on DATE and DATE , according to which PERSON was suffering from general asthenia , loss of appetite , body aches , muscle pain and high fever . Anti - fever medicine was prescribed , such as analgin and paracetamol .","On DATE at TIME PERSON , whose condition had deteriorated , was taken to the military hospital of PERSON ( PERSON ) by military unit doctor PERSON At the time of admission GPE GPE complained of general asthenia , nausea , fever and shivering . As a preliminary diagnosis \u201c malaria \u201d was indicated . The acting head of the infection unit of the hospital , GPE ( hereafter , hospital doctor GPE ) , was assigned as his doctor in charge .","At TIME Suren PERSON underwent a preliminary examination . His temperature was CARDINAL.CARDINALoC and his general condition was considered to be of medium gravity . He believed himself to have been ill for DATE with periodic rises of temperature and shivering fits . His lungs were checked and abdomen palpated . Upon palpation , the left side of his abdomen caused him pain , while the right side caused only light pain . In conclusion it was noted that GPE GPE was to undergo close observation of his temperature and a parasitological examination , taking into account that he was serving in a malaria hotbed and had preliminary clinical signs of malaria . Anti - fever medicine and vitamins were prescribed and he was put on a drip .","On DATE at TIME PERSON general condition was considered relatively satisfactory and his temperature was CARDINAL.CARDINALoC. He had no shivering fits .","At TIME PERSON started shivering and his temperature rose to CARDINAL A general blood test and a parasitological examination were assigned , and a blood sample was taken for examination .","At TIME Suren PERSON \u2019s condition worsened . He was conscious and agitated . He vomited , complained of nausea and abdominal pains and was pale and breathing heavily . According to the medical orderly , GPE GPE fell down after returning from the lavatory . While being examined , he lost consciousness and his pulse disappeared . A resuscitation specialist was urgently called .","At TIME the resuscitation specialist registered PERSON \u2019s clinical death and started resuscitation therapy .","At TIME , after the resuscitation therapy proved ineffective , GPE PERSON \u2019s biological death was registered . According to the results of the parasitological test , which became known on DATE , no trace of malaria was discovered in GPE PERSON \u2019s blood sample .","On DATE investigator PERSON of ORG of Nagorno PERSON ordered a post - mortem examination of GPE PERSON \u2019s body to be conducted by a forensic medical expert in GPE , GPE . The expert was asked to determine the time and cause of death , the existence of any external injuries , their nature , method of infliction and possible link with the death . The abovementioned blood sample was also presented to the expert for a malaria test .","On DATE the investigator conducted an external examination of PERSON body . He then took a statement from a senior nurse from the hospital reception who submitted that PERSON , upon his arrival at the hospital , was feeling so unwell that he could hardly speak and asked to lie down . After he told hospital doctor GPE that he had been feeling this way for DATE , GPE angrily asked military unit doctor PERSON , who had accompanied PERSON to the hospital , why he had been brought to the hospital so belatedly . The nurse further confirmed that GPE GPE had been brought to the hospital with suspected malaria .","On DATE forensic medical expert PERSON started the postmortem examination , including an autopsy , of PERSON body and on DATE sent a telegram to investigator PERSON , saying that GPE GPE had died as a result of acute internal bleeding caused by a ruptured spleen resulting from an internal blunt injury to the left side of the abdomen involving old and new bruises .","On DATE the investigator decided , taking into account that GPE GPE had been subjected to ill - treatment , to institute criminal proceedings no . DATE under LAW of the old LAW of GPE ( intentional infliction of grave bodily harm resulting in the victim \u2019s death ) .","On DATE CARDINAL servicemen of the military unit were questioned as witnesses . According to their statements , on DATE a group of servicemen of the military unit , including PERSON , had been taken to the town of GPE ( Nagorno PERSON ) in order to participate in a comedy contest organised between teams from different military units . The group was accompanied by lieutenant PERSON and captain PERSON ( hereafter , officers PERSON and ORG ) . After the contest , the servicemen had been taken to a post office , outside which an argument had erupted between officers ORG and ORG on CARDINAL side and PERSON on the other . Officer PERSON claimed that a watch that PERSON was wearing belonged to him and had been lost DATE before , during a table tennis match . Officers ORG and ORG had both started swearing at GPE GPE . Officer PERSON had then grabbed PERSON hand and removed the watch . GPE GPE had explained that he had borrowed the watch from a fellow serviceman , whose name he did not know , to wear at the comedy contest . Officers PERSON and ORG did not believe him and gave him a deadline to reveal the identity of that person . They further claimed that a second watch had been lost and ordered GPE GPE to find and bring it within the same deadline . Officer PERSON had threatened that , if he failed to do so , he would get into trouble . After the incident the group had walked to the bus to return to the military unit . GPE GPE and officers PERSON and ORG had walked apart , calmly discussing something .","In reply to the investigator \u2019s question , the servicemen stated that neither ORG nor ORG had hit PERSON during the argument . They further stated that they had heard later from PERSON that during DATE he had been taken on several occasions by officers PERSON and ORG to the office of lieutenant colonel ORG , the acting commander of the military unit , who was also its deputy commander ( hereafter , officer GPE ) . There he had been given a deadline to comply with their demands . Officer PERSON had threatened that , if he failed to do so , he would get into trouble and would be punished . From DATE PERSON had started to feel unwell and stayed in bed . A couple of times he had been visited by military unit doctors GPE and PERSON On DATE a group of servicemen of the military unit had travelled to the town of PERSON ( Nagorno Karabakh ) to participate in another round of the contest . PERSON GPE had gone along but could not participate as he felt very unwell . The group had returned to the military unit from Stepanakert TIME and on the following day GPE GPE had been taken to hospital .","In reply to the investigator \u2019s question , the servicemen stated that they were unaware if PERSON had been beaten or had been involved in a fight .","On DATE other servicemen of the military unit , ORG and PERSON , were questioned . Serviceman PERSON stated that he had been present during the table tennis match in question , while serviceman PERSON stated that he was the person who had lent the watch to PERSON . On DATE ( according to serviceman PERSON ) or DATE ( according to serviceman PERSON ) all CARDINAL of them had been taken several times by officers ORG and ORG to officer ORG \u2019s office in the headquarters , where they were asked about the watches . There they had been given a deadline until TIME to find and bring the second watch . When they had returned at TIME , GPE GPE and serviceman PERSON had been ordered to enter first , while serviceman PERSON had entered after they went out . According to serviceman PERSON , they had been given CARDINAL more days , while according to serviceman PERSON , they had been given until DATE ( DATE ) TIME to find the second watch . PERSON further stated that on DATE he had been temporarily transferred to a different location for works and was no longer involved in this story . He added that when he and PERSON had been together in the office nobody had touched them .","On DATE respectively the investigator took statements from officers GPE and ORG in their capacity of witnesses , who recounted the events that had taken place on DATE in GPE , including the argument between them and PERSON near the post office . Officer PERSON stated , inter alia , that PERSON had voluntarily removed and handed the watch to him . Officer PERSON stated , inter alia , that he had met PERSON on TIME in front of the headquarters and had given him a DATE deadline to find and bring the second watch . Both officers further stated that following the expiry of the DATE deadline they had taken PERSON and serviceman PERSON to the office of officer ORG who had had a talk with them in private .","No questions were posed by the investigator to officer ORG , while officer PERSON was asked several questions about the argument of DATE . Officer PERSON admitted swearing at PERSON , as well as briefly shaking and pulling on his hand , but denied hitting him and could not remember whether he or officer PERSON had slapped him .","On DATE the investigator questioned officer ORG as a witness , posing a number of questions about the argument of DATE . The investigator further asked for information on the follow - up meetings , to which officer ORG confirmed his earlier statement , adding that he had not heard any noise coming from officer ORG \u2019s office while waiting outside .","On the same date serviceman PERSON was questioned again . He added to his previous statement that officer ORG had sworn at them but had not hit them , when he and PERSON were in his office .","On DATE officers ORG and ORG were questioned again and asked further questions about the argument of DATE . Officer PERSON was further asked , inter alia , whether he had had personal motives in summoning PERSON so often to the headquarters , as well as why no entry had been made in GPE PERSON \u2019s medical file until DATE , if he had asked for medical help already on DATE .","On DATE the investigator took a statement from officer ORG in his capacity as a witness . Officer GPE confirmed that he had summoned PERSON and serviceman PERSON to his office for a talk in connection with the lost watches . During their talk PERSON had been allowed to go and fetch serviceman PERSON had then had a talk with all CARDINAL of them , releasing PERSON first and ordering the other CARDINAL to find and bring the second watch . Officer PERSON further stated that on DATE he had again summoned PERSON and serviceman PERSON but the latter had come alone since PERSON was unwell . He had then ordered serviceman PERSON to fetch PERSON . When the latter came , he had asked what was wrong with him and why he was staying in the barracks , to which GPE GPE had replied that he had a fever and was taking treatment prescribed by the doctor . He had then given them DATE to find the second watch .","The investigator posed CARDINAL questions to officer ORG : ( a ) whether he had beaten , slapped or sworn at PERSON or serviceman PERSON when they were in his office , which officer ORG denied , and ( b ) whether he was alone when he met with them , to which officer ORG replied that he had met them only in his office .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .","On DATE the post - mortem examination was completed and its results were sent to ORG . The relevant parts of forensic medical expert PERSON \u2019s conclusions read as follows :","\u201c External examination of the corpse . ... Injuries : There is an abrasion measuring QUANTITY on the right side of the forehead , which is located lower than the surrounding skin and has a dark red surface . ...","Internal examination of the corpse . ... In the thickness of the muscles in the area of the left side of the abdomen , in the projection of the spleen , bruising measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY was discovered ...","The blood sample taken from PERSON at the hospital was sent to ORG of GPE and ORG of GPE for a bacteriological examination ...","The following reply , dated DATE , was received from military unit no . CARDINAL of ORG of GPE on DATE ... \u2018 DATE malaria agents ... were found as a result of a bacteriological examination under a microscope slide of PERSON blood smear taken at the hospital\u2019 . According to the results of the forensic histological examination ... dated DATE ... \u2018 Forensic histological conclusion : ... old and new bruises to soft tissues in the area of the left side of the abdomen ; internal bruising of the spleen\u2019 .","Forensic medical diagnosis . A closed blunt injury to the abdomen , old and new bruises to soft tissues and muscles in the area of the left side of the abdomen , enlarged spleen ... , spleen rupture and bruising , ... Acute internal bleeding . Malaria . An abrasion on the right side of the forehead ...","Conclusions .","...","Suren PERSON \u2019s death was caused by acute internal bleeding resulting from the rupture of the deformed and enlarged spleen , accompanied by a closed and diffuse abdominal injury and by old and new bruises in the area of the left side of the abdomen .","The following injuries were identified as a result of the forensic medical examination of PERSON corpse : old and new bruises to soft tissues and muscles in the area of the left side of the abdomen , spleen rupture and bruising ... [ and ] an abrasion on the right side of the forehead . ... Of the above - mentioned bodily injuries the old and new bruises to soft tissues and muscles in the area of the left side of the abdomen [ and ] spleen rupture and bruising ... were inflicted by blunt objects or tools having a limited surface ; judging by the nature of the old and new bruises to soft tissues and muscles in the area of the left side of the abdomen it can be said that the old bruises are more than DATE , while the new bruising is DATE . The closed and diffuse abdominal injury accompanied by spleen rupture and acute internal bleeding is considered a grave bodily injury posing threat to life and has a direct causal link with [ GPE PERSON \u2019s ] death . The abrasion on the right side of the forehead was inflicted while alive by a blunt object having a limited surface and is considered a minor bodily injury ...","As indicated above , the death occurred CARDINAL - CARDINAL days after the infliction of the main injuries ( the above - mentioned old bruising in the area of the left side of the abdomen , in all probability accompanied by an initial sub - capsular rupture of the spleen and absorbent haemorrhage ) . As regards the abrasion on the right side of the forehead and the new bruise , these were inflicted DATE before death .","...","It follows from the reply received from Laboratory no . CARDINAL of ORG of GPE that DATE malaria agents were discovered in the blood sample [ taken from PERSON at the military hospital ] .","... A. Suren PERSON \u2019s spleen was enlarged and deformed as a result of malaria .","B. C. As indicated above , the initial closed and blunt abdominal injury , accompanied by the old bruising in the area of the left side of the abdomen , in all probability led to the sub - capsular rupture of the spleen with concentration of blood , which is also indirectly evidenced by the absorbent haemorrhage in the spleen disclosed by the forensic histological examination ; the spleen capsule erupted as a result of the increase in concentration of blood in DATE , which led to acute bleeding . This process may DATE but it is impossible to determine the exact number of DATE .","D. It appears from the medical file that on DATE at TIME GPE GPE fell down in the hospital \u2019s lavatory ; taking into account the abovementioned circumstances concerning the spleen rupture and acute internal bleeding , the spleen rupture could not have been caused by DATE in the hospital \u2019s lavatory . \u201d","On DATE officers ORG and ORG were arrested under LAW of GPE ( insult of a subordinate by a violent act by a superior ) .","On DATE they were charged under the same Article and were detained . This decision stated that on DATE at TIME near GPE post office , officers ORG and ORG , being public officials and suspecting PERSON of theft , instead of applying disciplinary sanctions , attacked him in front of CARDINAL servicemen by swearing at him , thereby humiliating him . It further stated that officer ORG , having pulled at PERSON , caused him physical pain .","On DATE officers ORG and ORG were questioned as suspects and both confirmed that on DATE they had pulled and sworn at GPE GPE near the LOC post office . They were asked questions about the swear words used .","On DATE investigator PERSON decided to assign a panel forensic medical examination in order to determine the scope of responsibility of the military unit and the hospital doctors for GPE PERSON \u2019s death , including the timeliness and accuracy of the diagnosis and the treatment provided , the timeliness of his transfer to hospital and whether they could have detected the injuries revealed by the post - mortem examination . This decision stated , inter alia , that on DATE PERSON had had an argument with CARDINAL officers of the military unit , ORG and ORG , after which , starting from DATE , his health had deteriorated .","On DATE a serviceman of the military unit \u2019s music squad was questioned . He stated that PERSON had had no arguments or scuffles with anybody . On the way back from GPE , PERSON had told him that he had got into trouble because of this watch and that \u201c now they would frame him \u201d . However , PERSON had never told him or others that he had been ill - treated , even in reply to a direct question following his visit to officer ORG \u2019s office . The serviceman confirmed that GPE GPE had started to feel unwell from DATE . He further stated that he and others had wiped sweat from PERSON forehead , belly , back and legs during his illness but had not noticed any traces of injuries . On DATE of his illness , military unit doctor PERSON had come to visit him and concluded that he had caught cold . DATE military unit doctor PERSON had come , said that PERSON had flu and given him some pills . On DATE PERSON had been very ill : he had lost a lot of weight and staggered when walking , so they had to accompany him to the toilets .","On DATE the experts conducting the panel forensic medical examination produced their opinion . According to its conclusions , it had been possible for the doctors of the military unit not to discover the injuries which led to GPE PERSON \u2019s death since there were no visible traces of injuries on the surface of the skin . The enlarged spleen might have been caused by malaria and the injury sustained by PERSON might have brought about the sub - capsular bleeding which later led to a ruptured spleen and acute internal bleeding . Referring to the fact that no malaria agents were discovered in GPE PERSON \u2019s blood sample by the parasitological examination of CARDINAL DATE , the experts attributed this to the fact that agents could be detected at the stage of the disease when the sick person experiences shivering and fever accompanied by high temperature . The opinion lastly stated that , given that no malaria agents had been discovered , not specific but symptomatic treatment had to be prescribed , and in fact had been provided in full .","On DATE serviceman PERSON was questioned again and stated that both PERSON and serviceman PERSON had denied having been beaten or sworn at during their first visit to officer ORG \u2019s office . When he and PERSON visited the office TIME , officer ORG had said to him \u201c Why did you enter ? You go out , you have received your punishment \u201d . In reply to the investigator \u2019s question , serviceman PERSON stated that he had not noticed any bruises or signs of pain on PERSON when he came out of the office TIME . He could not say what officer ORG meant by his statement and whether it meant that now it was PERSON \u2019s turn to be punished .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG of GPE , arguing in detail that his son had died as a result of a beating by officers PERSON , GPE , GPE and another officer , PERSON , as well as the failure of the doctors of the military unit , LOC and ORG , to provide medical assistance . He claimed that serviceman PERSON had admitted during questioning , in his presence , that he had been badly ill - treated by officer ORG in his office . PERSON had been next to enter that office , alone , and TIME he had been so unwell in bed that he was not able to return to officer ORG \u2019s office . The applicant alleged that the beating which resulted in GPE PERSON \u2019s ruptured spleen and subsequent death had taken place at that moment . He further claimed that the doctors had intentionally refused to provide medical assistance and to transfer GPE GPE to hospital in order to cover up the abuse . The applicant requested ORG to identify those responsible for his son \u2019s death .","On DATE investigator PERSON decided to order an additional forensic medical examination . In addition to the questions asked earlier , the experts were requested to determine whether the military unit and the hospital doctors could have detected the spleen enlargement and what they were supposed to do if it had been detected , as well as whether GPE PERSON \u2019s spleen could have ruptured earlier and been followed by slow bleeding .","On DATE the forensic medical experts produced an additional opinion . According to its conclusions , since on DATE PERSON had not complained of abdominal pains , the doctors of the military unit had no reason to suspect malaria and diagnosed his condition as an acute respiratory illness . The opinion further stated that usually a doctor was obliged to deliver a diagnosis after having carefully examined the patient . PERSON medical file contained his complaints but no indication of results of any such examination . If on DATE GPE PERSON \u2019s spleen had already been enlarged , it would have been possible to detect this through palpation and to transfer him to hospital . The same was possible at the hospital . As regards the sub - capsular rupture of the spleen , it was almost impossible to detect . Had the spleen rupture been detected and the spleen removed by surgery , PERSON \u2019s life could have been saved . Lastly , the injuries discovered by the post - mortem examination were not detected by the doctors since there were no visible traces of injuries on the outer part of the skin .","On DATE a serviceman , ORG , who had been undergoing treatment at the hospital when PERSON was admitted , was questioned . He stated that he had become acquainted with PERSON upon the latter \u2019s admission to hospital . PERSON had looked very ill and told him that he had spent DATE in the barracks . ORG further stated that he had not noticed any bruises on PERSON \u2019s forehead or any fights or arguments during his DATE stay in hospital .","On DATE the criminal case against officers ORG and ORG concerning the charges of insult was disjoined from the main criminal proceedings concerning PERSON death since there was no causal link between the CARDINAL . A new number was assigned to the disjoined case ( no . ORG ) .","During the investigation a number of other unrelated offences committed by officers ORG and ORG were revealed . As regards , in particular , officer ORG , the investigation revealed that in DATE he had kicked a soldier for sleeping on watch duty and broken the soldier \u2019s arm . Officer PERSON was charged with inflicting bodily injuries .","On DATE the bill of indictment concerning the disjoined case was submitted to ORG .","By a letter of DATE the Minister of Defence of Nagorno PERSON filed a motion with ORG requesting that a non - custodial sentence be imposed on officer PERSON and that he stay under the control of the military unit command , taking into account his long and diligent service in the armed forces , the report \/ request of the command of formation no . DATE and the fact that he regretted his actions and that his actions posed no danger to society .","On DATE forensic medical expert PERSON was questioned . He confirmed that PERSON had already been ill with malaria when he sustained the old bruises in the area of the left side of the abdomen . He stated that the fact that PERSON was ill might have accelerated the transformation of the sub - capsular rupture into a full rupture and internal bleeding . However , even a healthy spleen could suffer a sub - capsular rupture from a blow , later leading to a full rupture . The transformation of the sub - capsular rupture into full rupture could happen with or without external influence . The expert lastly confirmed that the new bruises found on PERSON body and the abrasion to the left side of his forehead could have been caused by his falling on the hospital floor not long before his death .","On DATE serviceman PERSON was questioned again and confirmed that no sound of blows or other loud noise could be heard when he had waited for PERSON outside the office . Later he had heard rumours that GPE GPE had been beaten by officers PERSON and ORG G.M. further explained that he had inquired with PERSON and serviceman PERSON whether they had been beaten , because officer ORG had hit him a few times while in the office . He lastly requested that no criminal proceedings be brought against officer GPE because he had hit him CARDINAL times on his buttocks .","On DATE the applicant contacted the investigating authority , willing to provide additional information . On DATE he was questioned and stated that in DATE he had heard from a former colleague of his , who in DATE had visited a relative serving in the same military unit , that he had heard CARDINAL of the officers saying that a serviceman matching PERSON \u2019s description had recently died as a result of a beating by officer PERSON","DATE . On DATE both the former colleague and his relative serving in the military unit were questioned and confirmed this information but could not remember the name of the officer in question . On DATE the former colleague \u2019s relative was once again questioned and stated that the officer \u2019s name was V.M.","On DATE several more persons were questioned , including military unit doctors NORP and ORG , hospital doctor GPE , and an orderly of the hospital , ORG","Military unit doctor PERSON stated , inter alia , that DATE before , during a conversation with serviceman PERSON , he had asked the latter to confirm the rumours that PERSON had been beaten by officers PERSON and ORG , to which serviceman PERSON replied that he was not aware of that . PERSON was further asked questions regarding the medical assistance provided to PERSON at the military unit .","Military unit doctor PERSON claimed that he had also examined GPE GPE once , including palpating his abdomen , but no abnormalities were found or bruises and injuries revealed . He was further asked to explain as to why he had refused to visit PERSON after being called by the latter \u2019s fellow serviceman .","Hospital doctor GPE stated that it was he who had initially diagnosed GPE GPE as having malaria , because of the symptoms and the fact that he was serving in a malaria hotbed . PERSON had not told him , except on DATE he died , that he had been beaten or that he had fallen , and since there were no symptoms he did not put such questions to the patient . However , on DATE , when he rushed to provide medical aid to GPE GPE , the latter , when asked what had happened , told him \u201c I have pain in my belly , I feel very ill , I fell not long ago in the ward \u201d .","Hospital orderly ORG stated that on DATE at TIME GPE GPE had told him that shortly before he had felt giddy and fallen down . TIME he had called a doctor because GPE GPE \u2019s condition had worsened and then , after PERSON lost consciousness , he summoned the resuscitation specialist , who came and started resuscitation procedures .","On an unspecified date the court proceedings into the disjoined criminal case against officers ORG and ORG on account of insult commenced at ORG of GPE , sitting in PERSON ( Nagorno Karabakh ) . It appears that officer PERSON pleaded guilty and admitted that he had sworn at and pushed GPE GPE and pulled the watch off his wrist , but said that he had not hit him .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG found officers ORG and ORG guilty as charged and sentenced them to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE officer ORG was released on parole .","On DATE the investigation into PERSON death ( criminal case no . DATE ) was taken over by ORG of GPE and assigned to investigator H.","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG of GPE , claiming that the investigation was flawed and had failed to reveal those responsible for his son \u2019s death , despite the fact that there was sufficient evidence that he had died as a result of illtreatment by the CARDINAL officers , ORG , GPE and GPE","On DATE military unit doctor PERSON was questioned again and confirmed his earlier statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE serviceman PERSON was questioned again and added to his previous statements that on DATE of their first visit to officer ORG \u2019s office , ORG had hit him CARDINAL times with a wooden pole on his buttocks when he was alone in his office .","On DATE a confrontation was held between serviceman PERSON and another serviceman , during which ORG stated that on DATE of their first visit to officer ORG \u2019s office they had also gone to officer ORG office where the latter had started screaming at them because of the stolen watch . Officer PERSON also threatened to undress them in front of the entire battalion if they failed to find the second watch .","On DATE serviceman PERSON was questioned again and described in greater detail how officer ORG had taken a wooden pole from behind a safe , told him to lean against the wall and hit him CARDINAL times on his buttocks .","On DATE officer PERSON was questioned and stated that he had not provided the full story in his previous testimony and that during the argument between him and PERSON on DATE he had grabbed the latter \u2019s left wrist with his right hand and started shaking it briskly , during which PERSON fist had touched the left side of his abdomen in the area of the spleen . Being very angry , he had not noticed whether PERSON facial expression had changed as a result of the blow , but he had not displayed any unusual movements or convulsions . Officer PERSON further denied hitting PERSON .","On DATE the investigator questioned CARDINAL of the servicemen , GPE and FAC , who had previously testified on DATE and asked them to describe how officer ORG had pulled on PERSON \u2019s hand on DATE . According to ORG , officer ORG had grabbed GPE GPE \u2019s left forearm , while according to ORG the left wrist , and had pulled forcefully . PERSON had tried unsuccessfully to free his arm . When he was pulling back his arm , officer ORG hand was also being pulled back with it . Officer PERSON had then removed the watch with his other hand , while still holding on to PERSON with his right hand .","On DATE the applicant was questioned and stated that DATE he had bumped into a number of servicemen who had told him about the circumstances of PERSON murder and the identities of those who had ill - treated him . According to them , PERSON had told them that he had been summoned to the headquarters where he had been badly beaten by officers PERSON , GPE and GPE , as a result of which he had lost consciousness and been taken back to the barracks by couriers . The applicant requested that these allegations be investigated .","On DATE ORG of GPE addressed a letter to the Head of ORG of Nagorno Karabakh , informing him of the applicant \u2019s allegations and requesting that those circumstances be clarified .","DATE . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigator questioned officers ORG and ORG respectively . Both denied the above allegations . Officer PERSON added that the only time that there had been any use of force in respect of PERSON was during the incident of DATE , when he had shaken PERSON hand briskly , during which his hand had touched PERSON abdomen . In reply to the investigator \u2019s question as to why he had earlier stated that it had been PERSON \u2019s hand that touched the abdomen while now he was stating that it had been his hand , officer PERSON stated that , since he was holding PERSON hand in his hand , both his and PERSON hands had touched the abdomen .","On DATE the investigator decided to assign an additional panel forensic medical examination and pose further questions to the medical experts , taking into account that it had been established that during the argument of CARDINAL DATE officer ORG had accidentally hit PERSON in the left side of the abdomen . It had been further established that on DATE PERSON had fallen at the hospital , with his left hand under his belly .","On DATE forensic medical expert PERSON was questioned again . He stated that the sub - capsular rupture and the bruising to the soft tissues had been caused by direct contact with a blunt object . If , during that blow , officer PERSON had held in his hand the deceased \u2019s forearm or part of his wrist , those parts must have touched the front wall of the deceased \u2019s abdomen during the blow , while the injuries , namely the rupture and the bruising to the soft tissues of the abdominal area , were caused by direct contact with officer PERSON \u2019s fist ; contact between the deceased \u2019s wrist or forearm with that area could not have caused the sub - capsular rupture . If the deceased \u2019s wrist or forearm or fist touched the abdomen , then officer ORG fist must have undoubtedly touched the front wall of the abdomen .","On DATE the panel of experts produced their opinion in reply to the questions posed by the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE . As regards the responsibility of the military unit and the hospital doctors , the experts found that they had failed to reach a timely and accurate diagnosis and to provide adequate medical treatment . The opinion further included , inter alia , the following questions and answers :","( CARDINAL ) Question : what impact could the blow sustained by PERSON during the argument of DATE have had on his health ? Could it have caused spleen rupture , internal bruising and subsequently death ? Answer : as a result of the blow sustained during the argument of DATE , GPE GPE sustained bruises to muscles and a sub - capsular rupture of his spleen which later led to his death .","( CARDINAL ) Question : was he ill with malaria on DATE and why were no malaria agents found in his blood sample at the military hospital , if threeday - old malaria agents were found in the same sample following a later test ? Answer : on DATE PERSON was suffering from malaria .","( CARDINAL ) Question : what impact would the above - mentioned blow have had on his health if he had not been ill with malaria ? Answer : depending on the strength , location and nature of the blow , it was possible not to sustain a sub - capsular rupture , but even a light blow could cause spleen rupture to an unhealthy and deformed spleen .","( CARDINAL ) Question : could he have sustained bruises to soft tissues in the area of the left side of his abdomen by falling at the hospital on DATE ? Answer : the new bruising to soft tissues in the area of the left side of GPE PERSON \u2019s abdomen could have been caused by his fall at the hospital .","( CARDINAL ) Question : exactly when did his spleen rupture occur , and would his life have been unequivocally saved , if diagnosis had been made in a timely manner ? Answer : the sub - capsular rupture of PERSON spleen occurred on DATE , while the second rupture occurred on DATE at TIME , as a result of which he most likely lost consciousness and fell down . Had the internal bleeding been diagnosed in a timely manner , it might have been possible to save PERSON life .","On DATE forensic medical expert GPE , who had contributed to the opinions of DATE and DATE and DATE , was questioned . Asked about the discrepancies between the findings in those opinions , expert ORG stated that it must have been an automatic mistake and admitted that she had not read CARDINAL of the opinions before signing it . She further stated that the reason why no trace of malaria had been discovered at the PERSON hospital could have been due to lack of proper equipment . She lastly stated that an enlarged spleen in a person suffering from malaria would become hard and filled with blood , the capsule would be strained and become more sensitive . Even a light blow might cause a sub - capsular rupture .","On DATE hospital doctor GPE was questioned and added to his previous statement that the pain upon palpation of GPE PERSON \u2019s abdomen made him suspect that it was connected with malaria . In reply to the investigator \u2019s question as to why he had not administered anti - malaria treatment if he had been convinced of that diagnosis , GPE replied that he had had to wait for the result of the parasitological test . Furthermore , often an initial negative result of such test did not mean that a patient had no malaria and this could be confirmed only after a third negative result .","On DATE the forensic medical expert who had presided over the panel which had produced the opinion of CARDINAL DATE was questioned and confirmed the responsibility of both the military unit and the hospital doctors .","On DATE sent a letter , marked \u201c secret \u201d , to ORG of GPE . The relevant parts of the letter read as follows :","DATE . On DATE the Minister of Defence of Nagorno PERSON filed a motion with ORG of GPE , asking for officer GPE not to be prosecuted , taking into account his positive characteristics , his impeccable service in the armed forces and his active participation in the struggle for the existence of PERSON , as well as the report \/ request of the command of formation no . DATE .","On DATE charges were brought against hospital doctor GPE under LAW of LAW of GPE ( abuse of authority or public position , accidentally resulting in grave consequences ) on the ground that he had failed to provide adequate treatment to PERSON .","On DATE the Military Prosecutor of GPE lodged an application with ORG seeking to re - open the proceedings concerning the criminal case against officer PERSON on the basis of a newly established circumstance . ORG submitted that all possible hypotheses had been verified and it had been established that , apart from the incident of DATE , PERSON had no other conflicts and had good relations with fellow servicemen and officers . It followed from the statements made by officer PERSON on DATE and DATE , in which he admitted that during the incident of DATE both his and PERSON hands had touched the left side of the victim \u2019s body , that the sub - capsular rupture of GPE PERSON \u2019s spleen was a result of that incident .","On DATE the applicant lodged a challenge with ORG against ORG and other employees of ORG , arguing in detail that they had failed to conduct an adequate investigation into his son \u2019s death .","On DATE and DATE charges were brought against military unit doctors ORG and PERSON LAW of the new LAW of GPE .","On DATE the Senior Assistant to ORG decided to dismiss the applicant \u2019s challenge of DATE . This decision stated , inter alia :","\u201c On DATE the criminal case [ concerning PERSON death ] was transferred from FAC to the investigative division of ORG of GPE , where following an investigation it was disclosed that from CARDINAL to DATE [ officers ORG and ORG ] had on several occasions summoned [ PERSON ] to the headquarters of the military unit , demanded the lost watch and , having received no positive reply , had taken him to [ the acting commander of the military unit , GPE ] , who in his office had hit [ Suren PERSON ] , as well as serviceman [ ORG ] , who had been called to the office in connection with the same matter , with a wooden pole .","According to the materials of the case , a number of witnesses testified that during the argument of DATE nobody had hit [ PERSON ] . In the course of additional questioning [ officer V.G. ] alleged that during the argument of DATE he , infuriated by [ PERSON ] behaviour , had grabbed his hand and shaken it briskly , during which his hand had touched [ PERSON ] in the area of the spleen . \u201d","The decision further referred to the expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE and specifically its finding that PERSON had sustained bruises to muscles and a sub - capsular rupture of his spleen as a result of the blow sustained during the argument of QUANTITY DATE . The Senior Assistant to ORG concluded that the arguments raised by the applicant had been examined in the course of a thorough and objective investigation by ORG and his challenge was therefore unfounded .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE in its part concerning officer PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case for further investigation .","On DATE the investigator , finding that there were discrepancies between previous expert opinions , and also upon the request of CARDINAL of the accused , namely military hospital doctor GPE , decided to assign a new panel forensic medical examination .","On DATE the criminal case against officer ORG on charges of insult was re - joined to the main criminal proceedings concerning GPE PERSON \u2019s death .","On DATE new charges were brought against officer ORG under LAW ( abuse of authority or public position , accidentally resulting in grave consequences ) . It appears that he was detained on DATE .","On DATE the panel of experts produced their opinion in reply to the questions posed by the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE , confirming their earlier findings regarding the responsibility of the military unit and the hospital doctors . The opinion also included , inter alia , the following question and answer :","Question : what was the intensity of the blow sustained by GPE GPE , considering that it caused bruising of deep muscles ? Answer : it was impossible to determine the exact intensity of the blow in the absence of relevant medical criteria , although it could be asserted that the blow had been of certain intensity .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG similar to that of DATE . He also offered to bring witnesses who , according to him , could tell the truth , namely that on DATE his son had been beaten by officers ORG , GPE and GPE , as a result of which he had suffered the fatal injury . The witnesses could further confirm that his son had lost consciousness and that military unit doctor ORG had provided first aid and was therefore aware of the illtreatment .","On DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE the investigator posed a number of questions , suggested by the applicant , to the CARDINAL forensic medical experts who had produced the opinion of DATE . CARDINAL of the experts were unable to answer the applicant \u2019s question about whether it was possible for his son , who on DATE had allegedly been ill with malaria and had an enlarged spleen , not to complain , have fever or shiver and to feel well . The fourth expert stated that his son might have experienced dull pain .","In reply to the applicant \u2019s question about whether it was possible for his son , whose spleen was enlarged and already ruptured , not to complain for DATE of any pain , to feel healthy , participate in exercises and to play the trumpet , CARDINAL of the experts were unable to provide an answer , the third expert stated that it was only a sub - capsular rupture and not a full one , and the fourth expert stated that it was possible for him not to complain if the sub - capsular rupture had been small , and possible to complain if had been big .","In reply to the applicant \u2019s question about how his son would have reacted ( screaming , losing consciousness , and so on ) when he sustained the injury resulting in extensive bruising and a sub - capsular spleen rupture , CARDINAL of the experts stated that different people felt and expressed pain differently . The fourth expert stated that it was equally possible for him to feel or not to feel pain . CARDINAL of the experts also added that it was only a subcapsular rupture and the spleen was not a painful organ .","In reply to the applicant \u2019s question about whether the bruising would have been visible from the outside , CARDINAL expert referred to the findings in the opinion , CARDINAL experts said \u201c not necessarily \u201d , while the fourth expert stated that it would have been visible , although external bruises healed faster than internal ones .","In reply to the applicant \u2019s question concerning the responsibility of the military hospital doctor , all experts stated that the doctor had no reason to suspect internal bleeding because the patient had failed to inform him about the injury , there were no visible external traces and the clinical signs were similar to those of malaria . The hospital doctor had carried out all the examinations and tests which he was obliged to in such circumstances . The applicant alleged that each time the investigator had posed this question to an expert , he would first invite him to leave the room . The answers given to this question by all CARDINAL experts in his absence were almost identical .","On DATE the investigator decided to discontinue criminal proceedings against military hospital doctor GPE for lack of corpus delicti , finding that GPE had carried out all possible examinations which he was able and obliged to perform in the circumstances . This conclusion was reached on the basis of the above statements of the CARDINAL forensic medical experts .","On DATE ORG of GPE decided not to prosecute officer GPE for beating serviceman PERSON This decision stated that officer ORG , suspecting PERSON and serviceman PERSON of lying about the lost watch , had started swearing at them and demanding that they find it . Thereafter he had ordered them to leave his office and called serviceman PERSON When the latter had told the same story as the CARDINAL other servicemen , officer ORG had become furious , started swearing and ordered serviceman PERSON to turn towards the wall , whereupon he had taken a CARDINAL cm long pole and twice hit serviceman PERSON on his buttocks . PERSON had started crying and after leaving the office he had asked PERSON and serviceman PERSON whether they had also been beaten , to which both of them replied \u201c no \u201d . The decision concluded that it was not necessary to prosecute officer GPE because he had no criminal record , was known to be of good character and regretted his actions . The motion of ORG of Nagorno PERSON asking not to prosecute him was also taken into account .","On an unspecified date the applicant submitted to the investigating authority a photograph of his son allegedly performing on stage at the comedy contest in PERSON on DATE , arguing that this proved that his son was not yet that ill on DATE . The version that his son felt ill and could not perform had been made up on purpose in order to justify the deterioration of his condition and his transfer to hospital . In reality , upon arriving at the military unit from PERSON , he had once again been beaten by the officers on TIME DATE , which had caused the spleen rupture . This was also confirmed by the new bruising to soft tissues in the area of the left side of the abdomen revealed during the autopsy .","On DATE the bill of indictment was finalised and on DATE approved by ORG . Its relevant parts stated as follows :","\u201c A number of hypotheses have been checked in the course of the investigation , which have been investigated in an objective manner . Thus , because of a watch found on [ Suren PERSON \u2019s ] wrist [ officers PERSON and ORG ] invited him to the headquarters on several occasions and presented him to the acting commander of the military unit , [ ORG ] , who in an attempt to clarify the above - mentioned question , subjected to beating [ serviceman PERSON He ] did not , however , beat or hit [ GPE GPE ] .","...","It has been confirmed by the investigation that on DATE , as [ officer ORG ] noticed on PERSON wrist his younger brother \u2019s stolen watch , he argued with him , grabbed his hand , started swearing and shook it briskly , during which he hit PERSON abdomen resulting in a sub - capsular rupture of his spleen . Thereafter from DATE Suren PERSON \u2019s health started to deteriorate while in the military unit . On DATE PERSON was visited by [ military unit doctor PERSON , ] who failed to diagnose PERSON real illness and to make any entries [ in the registers ] and , having given several paracetamol pills , left . When on DATE [ ORG ] was called to provide medical assistance to GPE GPE , he refused to come and provide assistance and said that the patient should be brought to the aid post . Thereafter PERSON fellow servicemen called [ military unit doctor PERSON ] . The latter came , also failed to diagnose GPE PERSON \u2019s real illness and , having given some anti - fever injections and several paracetamol pills , left . Hence , PERSON remained ill in the military unit until DATE , which was also in violation of Order no . CARDINAL of the Minister of Defence of CARDINAL DATE , namely PERSON was transferred to hospital TIME DATE , as a result of which it was impossible to save [ his ] life .","During the investigation at his additional questioning as a witness on DATE and DATE [ officer ORG ] regretted his actions and stated that he had not provided the full story in his previous statements and added that during the incident of DATE both his and PERSON hands had hit the left side of the latter \u2019s abdomen .","...","The investigation carried out has confirmed that the sub - capsular rupture of GPE PERSON \u2019s spleen resulted from [ officer ORG ] actions during the incident of DATE . \u201d","All CARDINAL defendants , namely military officer FAC and military unit doctors ORG and PERSON , were accused under LAW in connection with the above acts .","On DATE ORG , sitting in the town of GPE ) , found officer PERSON guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , minus the one year and twentyfour DATE already spent in detention , finding it to be confirmed that on DATE officer ORG , during an argument with PERSON about a stolen watch , shook briskly PERSON hand , and in doing so his hand touched the left side of GPE PERSON \u2019s abdomen causing a subcapsular rupture of the spleen . As regards military unit doctors ORG and GPE , ORG re - qualified the charges from LAW to LAW ( official negligence resulting in grave consequences ) and , applying LAW , sentenced each of them to a fine of CARDINAL NORP drams ( ORG ) . ORG also granted the civil claim lodged by the applicant and ordered officer ORG to pay MONEY ( ORG ) and military unit doctors ORG and PERSON to pay ORG CARDINAL each as reimbursement of funeral costs and legal costs incurred by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal . He argued in detail that there was sufficient evidence suggesting that his son had been harassed by a number of high - ranking officers , including ORG , GPE and GPE , in the period DATE and that the fatal injury had been inflicted by them on DATE . The applicant referred , in particular , to a witness statement by his son \u2019s fellow serviceman , according to which his son had woken up in TIME DATE and complained that he was feeling ill . The same followed from the findings of the post - mortem examination , according to which the initial bruising had been inflicted DATE before death . Furthermore , DATE was DATE of the deadline fixed by the officers . The investigating authority was deliberately ignoring this evidence and had failed to clarify what had happened on DATE , while the proceedings had been perfunctory and not objective and aimed to lead the case into an impasse and not to punish the murderers . The applicant further referred to the fact that serviceman PERSON had admitted that he had been ill - treated by officer ORG in his office . It followed from the decision of ORG of DATE that the same had happened to his son . The accused , officer ORG , had also admitted in court that he had been outside officer GPE \u2019s office when the latter ill - treated GPE GPE and that he had heard him scream . Furthermore , no explanation had been given for the second bruising and abrasion on the forehead sustained by his son DATE before his death . The applicant further complained that ORG had failed to clarify what was meant by the \u201c well - known beating of GPE \u201d referred to in the letter of the Head of ORG of Nagorno Karabakh , as well as the circumstances and perpetrators of this beating . Lastly , as regards the military unit doctors , the applicant complained that the requalification of the charge had been inaccurate and the sentence imposed too lenient .","Appeals against the judgment of DATE were lodged also by officer ORG and the Prosecutor , who sought harsher penalties .","On DATE ORG commenced the appeal proceedings . Officer PERSON admitted before ORG that either his or PERSON hand had possibly touched the latter \u2019s abdomen during the argument of DATE , but argued that GPE PERSON \u2019s spleen could not have ruptured as a result of that contact .","In the course of the proceedings , upon the applicant \u2019s request , CARDINAL witnesses , serviceman PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and hospital orderly PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , were summoned and examined in court .","ORG stated that PERSON had told him at the hospital that he had been called to the headquarters by officer PERSON on DATE when the latter was on duty and beaten by him , officers ORG and GPE and another officer , ORG , because of the watch . The officers had pushed him to the ground and started kicking him , while officer ORG hit him with a wooden pole . They had demanded that he bring the watch or its value in cash . The most active beaters were officers ORG and GPE He had been beaten so badly that the headquarters couriers had had to carry him back to the barracks . On DATE he was called again by officer ORG He had been unable to go but ORG had insisted . Thereafter he had remained in the barracks for DATE .","ORG stated that upon admission to hospital PERSON was very agitated and kept uttering swear words directed at officers GPE , GPE and GPE He then said that he had been beaten by officers ORG and GPE","Both ORG and ORG stated that they had been afraid to tell the truth at their questioning during the investigation as they had been military servicemen at that time . They had been demobilised now , had nothing to be afraid of and were telling the truth . PERSON added that PERSON had asked him not to tell this to anyone in order not to get into trouble .","Officer GPE was also summoned and examined in court . He denied having ill - treated PERSON , but admitted that he had hit serviceman PERSON for having stolen the first watch .","ORG sent an inquiry to ORG of Nagorno PERSON asking for clarification of the content of the letter of CARDINAL DATE .","By a letter of DATE the Head of ORG of Nagorno PERSON informed the court that the expression \u201c wellknown beating \u201d had been used merely as a brief description of the incident and had no other meaning .","NORP The applicant submitted once again before ORG that his son had died as a result of ill - treatment by officers PERSON , GPE and GPE , while the military unit doctors had failed to provide adequate medical assistance .","On DATE ORG delivered its judgment , upholding that of ORG in its part concerning the guilt of officer ORG and military unit doctors ORG and PERSON However , it decided to modify the penalty in respect of PERSON and PERSON , imposing a suspended sentence of DATE imprisonment respectively , with CARDINAL years\u2019 and DATE probation period respectively . ORG decided also to modify the judgment in its part concerning the applicant \u2019s civil claim , by annulling the award of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be paid by both PERSON and PERSON , on the ground that they had already paid those amounts to the applicant voluntarily .","ORG . As regards the statements of former servicemen ORG and ORG , as well as the applicant \u2019s arguments , ORG found that these were not sufficient grounds for bringing harsher charges against officer ORG or for remitting the case for further investigation with the aim of bringing criminal proceedings against officers GPE and GPE Firstly , the court was required by law to examine the case only in respect of the accused and within the scope of the charge against him . Secondly , the law prescribed CARDINAL grounds for remitting a case for further investigation , namely ( CARDINAL ) if the investigating authority had committed a substantial violation of procedural law or ( CARDINAL ) upon the ORG \u2019s request , if there were grounds for harsher prosecution or prosecution on a different factual basis . No such request had been filed by ORG , while the investigating authority had carried out a thorough , full and objective investigation by examining a number of hypotheses , none of which confirmed that GPE GPE had been ill - treated . ORG further noted that both PERSON and ORG had been questioned on numerous occasions during the investigation but had never made such statements in the past . Moreover , they cited as their source of information the late PERSON . ORG lastly referred to the letter of the Head of ORG of Nagorno PERSON of DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , raising similar arguments .","The Prosecutor also lodged an appeal on points of law , seeking that the case be remitted for fresh examination in its part concerning the military unit doctors on the ground that the sentence imposed was too lenient .","On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the applicant \u2019s appeal and to grant that of the Prosecutor , finding that the sentence imposed on military unit doctors ORG and PERSON had not been proportionate to the gravity of the offence and remitting that part of the case for fresh examination .","On DATE the applicant received a copy of this decision .","On DATE ORG examined the case anew in its part concerning military unit doctors ORG and PERSON and decided to sentence them to DATE and DATE years\u2019 imprisonment respectively . At the same time ORG decided to grant amnesty and to release them from serving their sentence ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175475","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF HAZNI BAYAM v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant , who was born in DATE , was detained at FAC at the time when the application was lodged .","On DATE ORG decided to restrict access to the file regarding an ongoing investigation against a terrorist organisation .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of being a member of a terrorist organisation and making its propaganda .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s police statement was taken at the Anti - Terror Branch of ORG , in the presence of his lawyer . He was mainly questioned about several records of telephone conversations as well as allegations about the burning of vehicles and throwing Molotov cocktails . He was questioned at length about the telephone conversations that had been intercepted . The police read out the transcripts of the telephone conversations and asked the applicant to comment on them . He was further asked questions about the incriminating statements of CARDINAL of his co - accused . The applicant used his right to remain silent .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on remand .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative lodged an objection against the decision on the applicant \u2019s detention , and requested his release . She also asked the court to lift the restriction of access to the investigation file . On DATE ORG dismissed the objection , without holding a hearing . The applicant \u2019s representative filed a further objection against that decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed the objection on the basis of the case file , without holding a hearing .","On DATE the ORG ex officio examined the applicant \u2019s detention on remand on the basis of the case - file and decided to extend it .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant , accusing him mainly of being a member of a terrorist organisation , making propaganda in its favour , illegal possession of explosives , causing damage to property and having participated in an illegal armed demonstration .","On DATE ORG accepted the indictment . On DATE the restriction on the investigation file was lifted .","According to the latest information in the case file , the proceedings against the applicant are still pending before assize court ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182596","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ZELENTSOV AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised another complaint under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179875","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ADIYAMAN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Ledi Bianku;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and at the time of lodging his application he was serving his prison sentence in the Bolu F - type prison .","On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to ORG , in which he had praised the imprisoned leader of the ORG , PERSON by using the honorific \u201c say\u0131n \u201d , meaning esteemed .","Pursuant to the ORG on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences , the applicant was found guilty of breaching a prison order by the Bolu F - type ORG ( referred hereafter as \u201c the board \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 solitary confinement on the orders of ORG , on account of his statements in the above - mentioned letter .","On DATE the Bolu Enforcement Judge rejected the applicant \u2019s objection .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174115","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF C\u00c2RSTINA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146824","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"ZUBAN AND HAMIDOVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant in the first case , PERSON , is a citizen of GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE . The applicant in the second case , Mr PERSON , is also a citizen of GPE . He was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Deputy Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","After its declaration of independence on DATE , a brutal war started in GPE . It would appear that CARDINAL people lost their lives and CARDINAL people were displaced in the course of the war . It is estimated that around CARDINAL people went missing and that around DATE of them is still missing . The conflict came to an end on DATE when ORG in GPE entered into force . In accordance with that Agreement , GPE consists of CARDINAL Entities , ORG and PERSON .","NORP In response to atrocities then taking place in GPE , on DATE ORG passed LAW establishing ORG for the former GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , headquartered in GPE . CARDINAL individuals have already been convicted and proceedings are ongoing for CARDINAL accused . In the period from DATE until DATE , local prosecutors in GPE and GPE were required to submit case files to the ORG for review ; no person could be arrested on suspicion of war crimes unless ORG had received the case file beforehand and found it to contain credible charges ( the \u201c Rules of the Road \u201d procedure ) . Moreover , the ORG had primacy over national courts and could take over national investigations and proceedings at any stage in the interest of international justice . As part of the ORG \u2019s completion strategy , in DATE war crimes chambers were set up within ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) with primacy over other courts in GPE as regards war crimes . CARDINAL persons have been finally convicted by ORG . Many others have been convicted by the competent Entity courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","Furthermore , ORG on ORG ( \u201c the ICMP \u201d ) was established at the initiative of GPE President PERSON in DATE . It is currently headquartered in GPE . Reportedly , the ICMP has so far identified by DNA CARDINAL missing persons in GPE , whereas local authorities have identified CARDINAL missing persons by other methods . In DATE the Government of GPE and the ICMP established a ORG , also headquartered in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It became operational on DATE .","NORP In DATE , after having been captured by the ORG forces in GPE , PERSON , the husband of PERSON , and PERSON , PERSON ORG \u2019s father , disappeared .","On DATE PERSON , one of the war - time leading political figures of PERSON , pleaded guilty before the ORG to having participated in the persecution of Bosniacs and NORP from , among other municipalities , ORG . She was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .","Cases against PERSON , the war - time civilian leader of ORG , ORG , the war - time military leader of that Entity , and PERSON , a leading political figure of GPE in DATE , are also pending before the ORG . They are charged with the participation in a joint criminal enterprise to permanently remove ORG and NORP from , inter alia , ORG .","Domestic authorities have taken statements from the applicants and a number of other persons about these CARDINAL cases . However , no formal charges have been brought yet . At the same time , domestic authorities have finalised investigations into several other crimes committed in GPE during the war ; CARDINAL person has thus far been convicted PERSON","On DATE PERSON sought and obtained a declaration of presumed death with respect to her husband .","NORP PERSON , the father of PERSON , was identified by DNA on DATE . PERSON , PERSON husband , has not yet been identified .","On DATE ORG held that there had been a violation of LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention . It ordered PERSON to release any and all information in its custody pertaining to the fate or whereabouts of the applicants\u2019 relatives and to conduct a full , meaningful , thorough and detailed investigation aimed at making known the fate or whereabouts of the applicants\u2019 relatives and bringing the responsible to justice . Lastly , it awarded the applicants MONEY ( BAM ) each for non - pecuniary damage .","LAW entered into force on DATE ( ORG GPE no . CARDINAL ) . In accordance with section CARDINAL of the Act , families have the right to know the fate of missing persons ( that is , their whereabouts if they are still alive , or the circumstances of death and their place of burial , if they are dead ) and to obtain their mortal remains . Under section CARDINAL of the Act , the relevant domestic authorities have the obligation to provide any and all such information in their keeping .","Section CARDINAL of that LAW provides for the setting up of a Missing Persons Institute . In DATE the ICMP and the Government of GPE founded the ORG , headquartered in GPE , pursuant to that provision and the Agreement on Assuming ORG - founders of ORG , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It became operational on DATE . CARDINAL of the organs of that ORG , comprised of CARDINAL representatives of families of missing persons ( see LAW mentioned above ) .","In accordance with section QUANTITY , the status of missing person comes to an end on the date of identification . Therefore , if a missing person is declared dead but the mortal remains have not been found and identified , the process of tracing continues .","Pursuant to LAW , the families of missing persons are entitled to DATE financial support under some conditions , notably if they were supported by the missing family member until his or her disappearance and if they are still in need of support ( in other words , if they are not in paid employment and do not receive welfare benefits beyond PERCENT of the average salary paid in GPE ) . LAW provides for the setting up of ORG for that purpose . However , as the ORG has not yet been established , no payment has been made so far .","Families of missing persons are also entitled to , inter alia , temporary administration of the property of missing persons , burial of mortal remains at public expense and priority in access to education and employment for the children of missing persons ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides for the setting up of ORG with the aim of verifying information about missing persons from different sources ( government agencies , associations of families of missing persons , the FAC and ORG ) and creating a single database . While ORG were founded on DATE , it would appear that the verification process is still ongoing . Once that process is completed , all those recorded as missing will be declared dead ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) , but the tracing process will nevertheless continue ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP Despite the fact that the verification process outlined in paragraph CARDINAL above is pending , any person may request that a declaration of presumed death be issued with respect to a missing person ( see LAW DATE , ORG GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; and ORG DATE , ORG of ORG , no . CARDINAL ) .","DATE War crimes cases fall , as a general rule , under the jurisdiction of ORG , but ORG may transfer any such case to the competent Entity court in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph CARDINAL below ( see LAW ) . For example , only in DATE ORG transferred CARDINAL cases to CARDINAL Entity courts .","In accordance with ORG on ORG of DATE the following types of cases were , as a rule , to be heard before ORG : ( a ) cases concerning genocide , extermination , multiple murders , rape and other serious sexual assaults as part of a system ( such as in camps ) , enslavement , torture , persecution on a widespread and systematic scale , mass forced detention in camps ; ( b ) cases against past or present military commanders , past or present political leaders , past or present members of the judiciary , past or present police chiefs , camp commanders , persons with a past or present notorious reputation , multiple rapists ; ( c ) cases with insider or suspect witnesses ; ( d ) if there was a risk of witness intimidation ; and ( e ) cases involving perpetrators in an area which is sympathetic to them or where the authorities have a vested interest in preventing public scrutiny of the crimes . All other war crimes cases were , as a rule , to be heard before the Entity courts .","In DATE the authorities adopted ORG , providing a new set of criteria . However , they are almost identical to those outlined in paragraph CARDINAL above . In addition , the Strategy defines the time - frames , capacities , criteria and mechanisms for managing those cases , standardisation of court practices , issues of regional cooperation , protection and support to victims and witnesses , as well as financial aspects , and supervision over the implementation of the Strategy . CARDINAL of its objectives is to process the most complex and top priority cases within DATE ( thatis , by DATE ) and other war crimes cases within DATE ( that is , by DATE ) . In order to comply with that time - frame , the local authorities have , inter alia , almost doubled the number of ORG prosecutors in charge of war crimes ( from DATE ) in DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175476","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF I.B. AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicants were all employed at a ORG - owned limited liability company . Their employment was terminated as of DATE .","The first applicant , GPE was born in DATE and lives in GPE . A certain part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","The second applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The second applicant withdrew his application on DATE .","The third applicant , DATE was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","The fourth applicant , NORP was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","The fifth applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . Due to subsequent amendments of the relevant legislation , the tax rates applicable to the fifth applicant \u2019s severance payment changed retroactively . Accordingly , ORG found that part of the applicant \u2019s severance payment had been subject to a flat - rate public charge of PERCENT in the amount of ORG CARDINAL and another part of his severance payment had been subject to a flat - rate public charge of PERCENT , amounting to ORG CARDINAL . Therefore , the applicant was reimbursed HUF CARDINAL by ORG . The overall tax burden imposed on the applicant \u2019s severance payment was PERCENT .","The sixth applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","The seventh applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","The eighth applicant , ORG was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The eighth applicant withdrew his application on DATE .","The ninth applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","The tenth applicant , S.S was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","The eleventh applicant , PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Part of his severance payment was subject to the PERCENT special tax in the amount of ORG ( ORG CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160450","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"BAHMANZADEH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON of ORG , a firm of solicitors based in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , Ms A. McLeod , of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant held the lease of premises housing a nightclub called ORG and was co - manager of the club . In DATE he was made aware of police concerns about high levels of drug usage at the club . He met with the licensing officer in DATE and in DATE and offered assurances that he took the problem very seriously and would introduce a \u201c CARDINAL tolerance \u201d approach to drugs on the LOC .","NORP In DATE an undercover police operation commenced into drug use at ORG . Over the course of the operation , CARDINAL undercover police officers attended the club and a number of them purchased ecstasy there from several drug dealers . A police raid on the nightclub took place on DATE . Around CARDINAL ecstasy pills were recovered .","On DATE the applicant and his co - manager were charged with permitting premises to be used for the supply of ecstasy DATE and DATE .","The applicant \u2019s trial commenced at ORG on DATE .","NORP The prosecution case was that the applicant had failed to take reasonable steps to address the drugs problem in the club . They relied on evidence covering the indictment period , namely :","- the detail and nature of the contact with police concerning the drugs problem by way of meetings and letters ;","- the prevalence of drug dealing witnessed by members of staff and by the undercover officers , who successfully purchased drugs ;","- the volume of drugs found during the search in DATE ;","- oral evidence from former members of staff that in the period following DATE the management could have done more to address the drugs problem to which they had been alerted in warning staff as to their responsibilities ;","- data recording the number of ambulances attending the LOC ; and","- oral evidence to the effect that the management of the club had informed door staff that they should cut back on the number of searches .","The oral evidence from the undercover police officers was given anonymously and they were screened from the public , the defendants and defence counsel .","The club \u2019s former head of security , PERSON , who had worked at the club in DATE , gave evidence of the applicant \u2019s tolerance of drug dealing and his obstructive approach when he , PERSON , had tried to eject and report on those caught dealing drugs at the club . He also told the jury that he was a former ORG . PERSON was cross - examined by the applicant \u2019s trial counsel . It was put to him that he had been sacked by the applicant for stealing money and drugs from a drug dealer , rather than arresting him . PERSON denied this . It was further put to him that his dismissal had also been informed by the fact that he had been present at a drugs murder nearby DATE before . PERSON replied that he had merely been a witness to the murder and was assisting police in that capacity .","The applicant gave evidence in his own defence . He said that he was strongly opposed to drug use and supply . He and his staff had sought to enforce a policy of CARDINAL tolerance in relation to drug supply . He had responded positively to police warnings from DATE by replacing his ORG system and changing his security company . It was impossible to keep drugs out of the club , but he had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the supply of drugs .","In his summing up to the jury , the trial judge reminded the jury that PERSON had worked at ORG in DATE for DATE and so was not there during the period covered by the indictment .","NORP On DATE the applicant was convicted by a jury and on DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . In his sentencing remarks , the judge commented that there had been \u201c large - scale , blatant supply of and use of ecstasy \u201d in the club , of which the applicant had been well aware and to which , at the very least , he had turned a blind eye in order to maximise the profits and reputation of the club . He referred , inter alia , to the evidence of the undercover police officers , of PERSON , of the club \u2019s head doorman in DATE , of other doormen at the club and of a customer .","The applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence , challenging the special measures permitted at trial to screen the undercover police officers when they had given evidence . The appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The court said it had no doubt that there was ample evidence , outside the evidence emanating from the undercover police officers , from which it would have been open to the jury to conclude that there was substantial dealing in drugs at the club and that no adequate steps had been taken by management to prevent or discourage the sale of drugs .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c CCRC \u201d ) referred the applicant \u2019s conviction and sentence to ORG . The statement of reasons set out a single reason for the referral , namely information giving rise to the \u201c real possibility \u201d \u2013 this being the criterion stated in the relevant legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) \u2013 that ORG would find the trial evidence of \u201c an important prosecution witness \u201d , namely PERSON , no longer capable of belief .","The report detailed new evidence not disclosed at trial that PERSON had been working as a doorman in another club in DATE and had offered to sell drugs to off - duty police officers . He had told the officers that he was earning MONEY a week from selling drugs . The ORG considered that this would \u201c severely damage \u201d the credibility of the witness . It was also revealed that PERSON had lied on oath by claiming that he was a former ORG . The statement continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . In the course of its enquiries the ORG has located a further record which appears to be of relevance regarding [ ORG ] . The record , which is sensitive , is considered further in a FAC ( \u2018 FAC C\u2019 ) that will be provided to ORG and ORG . For reasons associated with the principle of ORG , FAC will not be provided to Mr ORG or his representatives . Whilst this course of action is contrary to the general practice of providing an applicant with full reasons for any decision made , the Commission considers that it is inappropriate in this case to pre - empt any decisions on disclosure that may be made by ORG or ORG . \u201d","NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed the applicant that further sensitive information had been disclosed to ORG and to the prosecution . Again , for ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) reasons , a decision had been taken not to disclose the information to the applicant or his representatives . He was invited to make an application to the court or the prosecution for disclosure .","On DATE the applicant submitted provisional grounds of appeal to ORG . His first ground claimed that his conviction was unsafe \u201c by reason of fresh evidence concerning [ PERSON ] \u201d . The grounds referred to the need for a \u201c detailed disclosure exercise \u201d in the light of the PERSON report including , in particular , disclosure of ORG to that report . Appended to the grounds was a schedule of disclosure requests . The defence invited the court to conduct a thorough ORG exercise and order disclosure of the file and such further material as might be relevant . He also invited the court \u201c to review the ORG exercise conducted by the trial judge DATE \u201d . Finally , the defence asked that the prosecution disclose all material concerning PERSON \u2019s role in the drugs murder in respect of which he had been cross - examined at trial and invited the court to review any relevant ORG material .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE further disclosure took place . A police statement of DATE confirmed that in DATE PERSON had claimed to off - duty police officers that he made MONEY a month selling drugs . A letter of DATE contained antecedents for PERSON Material related to PERSON \u2019s arrest and questioning in DATE about the drugs murder was also disclosed . A witness statement by the police officer who had given evidence at trial confirmed that he had \u201c commissioned a review of all material held by the police \u201d concerning PERSON and it had not uncovered anything which assisted the defence or undermined the prosecution .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the prosecution indicated that it intended to make a ORG application and make ex parte submissions . Part of the ORG application , it said , would relate to ORG to the ORG \u2019s statement of reasons . The prosecution invited the applicant to provide further particulars of the case to inform the court and the prosecution in their assessment of the potential value to the defence case of the retained material .","On DATE , in response to the prosecution invitation , the applicant submitted a note on ORG and disclosure for consideration at the ORG hearing . He contended that much of the material now disclosed by the prosecution should unquestionably have been disclosed at trial , since it would have undermined the prosecution cases and assisted the defence . He argued in particular that ORG should plainly be disclosed , since it was prima facie capable of assisting the defence or undermining the prosecution given that it had led the ORG to refer the case back to ORG . He also requested permission to address the court prior to the ORG hearing and invited the court to consider whether the interests of justice required the appointment of special counsel to represent the applicant \u2019s interests at the ORG hearing . He advanced CARDINAL principal arguments : first , that PERSON had provided crucial evidence against him and that the fresh evidence \u2013 and any material not yet disclosed on account of ORG \u2013 would have undermined his credibility ; and second , that the judge \u2019s directions to the jury had been inadequate . The note explained :","\u201c There may be no breach of Article CARDINAL ) in circumstances where material not in the possession of the prosecution at trial was first considered by ORG in an ex parte hearing . It is important that the ORG be able to consider the impact of the new material of the safety of the PERSON \u2019s conviction with the assistance of detailed argument from the Appellant \u2019s counsel . Article CARDINAL will not be violated if the undisclosed material is found to add nothing of significance to what has been disclosed at trial ... \u201d","On DATE the ex parte ORG hearing took place in ORG to consider whether material referred to by the ORG should be disclosed to the defence . Special counsel was not appointed to represent the applicant \u2019s interests at the hearing . The applicant was subsequently informed that , save for very limited disclosure , no further disclosure had been ordered . The court issued a direction requiring the applicant \u2019s representatives to confirm that \u201c complete and unambiguous disclosure \u201d by the prosecution had taken place or , if it had not , to thus inform the court .","On DATE , in a note on disclosure , the applicant \u2019s representatives informed the court that they were not able to provide the confirmation sought . They expressed concern that a review of material held by the police had been conducted by unknown persons on the instructions of an officer who had given evidence against the applicant at trial . They commented on the prosecution \u2019s failure to supply any schedules of unused material or to provide any clear indication of how the process of disclosure had been conducted , explaining that it left them with \u201c a deep sense of unease as to the adequacy and efficiency of the process ... \u201d . They concluded that it was , in their view , for the prosecution to confirm that their disclosure obligations had been met .","NORP In response , on DATE the prosecution informed the applicant that the \u201c vast preponderance \u201d of the material in GPE had been disclosed in the context of the further disclosure which had taken place in DATE and DATE . They confirmed that prosecuting counsel had personally reviewed the material placed before ORG at the ORG hearing . They concluded that they were satisfied that they had complied with their disclosure obligations .","Further disclosure took place on CARDINAL DATE .","In his skeleton argument dated DATE , the applicant set out detailed argument concerning his first ground of appeal . He introduced his submissions as follows :","\u201c The issue is whether the fresh evidence , if available at trial , might reasonably have affected the jury \u2019s decision to convict the Appellant ... It plainly would have . \u201d","He complained that his inability properly to challenge PERSON and his account at trial because of the lack of disclosure meant that there was a real risk that the applicant \u2019s credibility had been unfairly damaged at trial . Lack of disclosure in relation to PERSON had , he claimed , \u201c potentially devastating consequences \u201d .","On DATE the appeal against conviction was dismissed . Regarding the PII application , the court noted that it had upheld the prosecution \u2019s ORG claim on CARDINAL DATE , being of the view that the material sought to be withheld would not assist the applicant and that nothing had happened to suggest a different view . It summarised his grounds of appeal as follows :","\u201c ( i ) [ PERSON ] was an important prosecution witness against the appellant at trial . Had the fresh evidence relating to him been available , it would have undermined his credibility and assisted the defence .","( ii ) Inadequate directions and insufficient guidance were given to the jury ... \u201d","Concerning the impact of the fresh evidence on the evidence given by PERSON at trial , the court noted that the indictment period began in DATE and that PERSON had worked as head doorman in DATE . It remarked that the jury had been reminded by the trial judge during his summing - up that PERSON was not at the club during the period covered by the indictment . The ORG observed that the critical question for the jury was whether they were sure that from DATE , the applicant had encouraged , allowed or failed to take reasonable steps to prevent drug use at the LOC . On this question , it said , PERSON could give no direct evidence whatever . It referred to the applicant \u2019s argument that with the disclosed material the whole balance of the case changed , since he would have been in a much stronger position to undermine the prosecution case and advance his own . However , it considered that , while the judge had clearly paid attention to what PERSON said , the latter \u2019s evidence was \u201c by no means \u201d at the heart of the case . It underlined again that PERSON \u2019s evidence related to DATE or more before the indictment period and that no amount of cross - examination of PERSON to expose him as a drug dealer was capable of offering any refutation of the objective evidence of the test purchase officers and other evidence of what was happening in the club at the time . The court concluded :","\u201c DATE . ... The real issue here was what the appellant did or did not do after the warnings given to him at the beginning of the indictment period . As regards that , the evidence of open and blatant supplies of ecstasy at the club , effectively under the noses of the staff , seems to us entirely compelling . We are wholly unpersuaded by the submission urged upon us DATE that the [ undercover ORG ] evidence did not plainly implicate the appellant . His absence over periods of time when drugs were being openly and blatantly supplied has to be viewed against what the ORG was required to prove , namely that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent drug use at the LOC . He knew full well that drugs were being frequently supplied on the LOC , to put it at its lowest . \u201d","The appeal against sentence was successful on the basis that new sentencing guidelines had entered into force since the applicant \u2019s first appeal and ought to be taken into account . The sentence was reduced to DATE . The court explicitly stated that the fresh evidence in respect of PERSON played no part in the reduction of sentence .","The applicant was informed by senior counsel that the appeal turned on disclosure and the determination that the conviction was safe was a factual determination . No matter of law of general public importance , amenable to certification for a further appeal to ORG , arose . Counsel therefore concluded that no further avenue of appeal existed .","Where a person has been convicted on indictment , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE gives the ORG the power to refer at any time the conviction to ORG . By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , any such reference is to be treated for all purposes as an appeal by the person concerned against conviction . LAW sets the conditions for making references . It provides :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A reference of a conviction ... shall not be made ... unless\u2013","( a ) the Commission consider that there is a real possibility that the conviction ... would not be upheld were the reference to be made ,","( b ) ORG","( i ) in the case of a conviction ... because of an argument , or evidence , not raised in the proceedings which led to it or on any appeal or application for leave to appeal against ... , and","( c ) an appeal against the conviction ... has been determined or leave to appeal against it has been refused . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the Act allows the ORG to require a body which has possession or control of material which may assist it in the exercise of it functions to produce the material or allow the ORG access to it .","Under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) DATE , the prosecution must make \u201c primary disclosure \u201d of all previously undisclosed evidence which , in the prosecutor \u2019s view , might undermine the case for the prosecution . The defendant must then give a defence statement to the prosecution and the court , setting out in general terms the nature of the defence and the matters on which the defence takes issue with the prosecution . The prosecution must then make a \u201c secondary disclosure \u201d of all previously undisclosed material \u201c which might reasonably be expected to assist the accused \u2019s defence as disclosed by the defence statement \u201d . Disclosure by the prosecution may be subject to challenge by the accused and review by the trial court .","Following the judgments of this ORG in PERSON v. GPE , DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE , and ORG and Others and PERSON and Others v. GPE , DATE , Reports CARDINAL , the GPE introduced legislation making provision for the appointment of a special counsel in certain cases involving national security . The provisions are contained in ORG Act DATE ( \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) and LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) . Under this legislation , where it is necessary on national security grounds for the relevant tribunal to sit in camera , in the absence of the affected individual and his legal representatives , the Attorney\u2011General may appoint a special counsel to represent the interests of the individual in the proceedings . The legislation provides that the special counsel is not however \u201c responsible to the person whose interest he is appointed to represent \u201d , thus ensuring that the special counsel is both entitled and obliged to keep confidential any information which can not be disclosed . The relevant rules giving effect to the DATE and CARDINAL Acts are set out in the ORG \u2019s judgment in GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","In NORP v. H. ; PERSON UKHL CARDINAL , decided on DATE , ORG of ORG held , inter alia :","\u201c DATE since the ... enactment of the ORG have witnessed the introduction in some areas of the law of a novel procedure designed to protect the interests of a party against whom an adverse order may be made and who can not ( either personally or through his legal representative ) , for security reasons , be fully informed of all the material relied on against him . The procedure is to appoint a person , usually called a \u2018 special advocate\u2019 , who may not disclose to the subject of the proceedings the secret material disclosed to him , and is not in the ordinary sense professionally responsible to that party but who , subject to those constraints , is charged to represent that party \u2019s interests ...","There is as yet little express sanction in domestic legislation or domestic legal authority for the appointment of a special advocate or special counsel to represent , as an advocate in ORG matters , a defendant in an ordinary criminal trial ... But novelty is not of itself an objection , and cases will arise in which the appointment of an approved advocate as special counsel is necessary , in the interests of justice , to secure protection of a criminal defendant \u2019s right to a fair trial . Such an appointment does however raise ethical problems , since a lawyer who can not take full instructions from his client , nor report to his client , who is not responsible to his client and whose relationship with the client lacks the quality of confidence inherent in any ordinary lawyer - client relationship , is acting in a way hitherto unknown to the legal profession . While not insuperable , these problems should not be ignored , since neither the defendant nor the public will be fully aware of what is being done . The appointment is also likely to cause practical problems : of delay , while the special counsel familiarises himself with the detail of what is likely to be a complex case ; of expense , since the introduction of an additional , high - quality advocate must add significantly to the cost of the case ; and of continuing review , since it will not be easy for a special counsel to assist the court in its continuing duty to review disclosure , unless the special counsel is present throughout or is instructed from time to time when need arises . Defendants facing serious charges frequently have little inclination to cooperate in a process likely to culminate in their conviction , and any new procedure can offer opportunities capable of exploitation to obstruct and delay . None of these problems should deter the court from appointing special counsel where the interests of justice are shown to require it . But the need must be shown . Such an appointment will always be exceptional , never automatic ; a course of last and never first resort . It should not be ordered unless and until the trial judge is satisfied that no other course will adequately meet the overriding requirement of fairness to the defendant . ... \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE provides that ORG :","\u201c ( a ) shall allow an appeal against conviction if they think that the conviction is unsafe ; and","( b ) shall dismiss such an appeal in any other case . \u201d","Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , a defendant has the right to appeal to ORG against a decision of ORG ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) clarifies that the leave of ORG or ORG is required and that leave will not be granted unless it is certified by ORG that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision and it appears to ORG or ORG ( as the case may be ) that the point is one which ought to be considered by the latter court .","LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) incorporates the LAW into GPE law . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , a person who claims that a public authority has acted in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights may rely on the LAW right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162476","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"RAUSH v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was a member of the local anarchist movement .","On DATE the applicant participated in a public gathering . At TIME the applicant and CARDINAL other persons were apprehended by the police and put in a police vehicle . According to the applicant , the arrest was carried out in a brutal manner : police officers twisted his fingers , gave him several blows on his back and legs and put him face down against the floor of the police vehicle . According to the police reports of DATE , the applicant was inebriated and violently resisted the police .","The applicant was released at TIME , that is , TIME after his arrest . He was not subject to any prosecution under LAW .","At TIME on the same date the applicant underwent a medical examination , which concluded that he had bruises and scratches on his face and chest . At TIME he obtained a medical certificate confirming that he was not drunk .","On DATE the applicant and other persons complained to the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office , GPE ( \u201c the district prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) about police brutality on DATE .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers for lack of evidence of a crime , having concluded that it was impossible to establish whether the officers had inflicted any injuries on the applicant or other persons .","On DATE the district deputy prosecutor overturned the decision of DATE .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the grounds that the persons participating in the public gathering of CARDINAL DATE had refused to comply with the police order to stop the gathering and had resisted lawful arrest ; accordingly , the police had acted lawfully in order to overcome violent resistance .","According to the applicant , he was served with a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE on DATE . It remains unclear whether the applicant had attempted to obtain a copy prior to that date .","On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of DATE before ORG , GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG declared the decision unlawful on the grounds that the seriousness of the injuries allegedly sustained by the applicant had not been assessed and issued an instruction ordering the prosecutor to re - examine the matter .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to open an investigation .","According to the applicant , he managed to obtain a copy of the decision of DATE on DATE . It remains unclear whether the applicant had attempted to obtain a copy prior to that date .","On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of DATE before ORG .","On DATE ORG declared the refusal of DATE unlawful on the grounds that the seriousness of the injuries allegedly sustained by the applicant had not been assessed .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office issued a new refusal to open an investigation on the grounds that it was possible that the injuries had been sustained after the applicant \u2019s release from the police station .","According to the applicant , he received a copy of the decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL in DATE . It is not known whether the applicant had sought a copy earlier .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG .","On DATE ORG declared the decision of CARDINAL DATE unlawful noting the incompleteness of the preinvestigation inquiry .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office issued a new decision refusing to open an investigation .","According to the Government , on DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office overturned unspecified refusals to open an investigation by the district prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the applicant and other persons held a picket in front of ORG in GPE . They were arrested as they had failed to duly notify the city authorities of the picket . According to the applicant , he was arrested at TIME When brought to the police vehicle , he received CARDINAL blows to his head . He was then required to sit on the floor of the vehicle . Once in the police station , a police officer inflicted TIME blows to the applicant \u2019s head and chest . According to the police reports of DATE , the applicant had violently resisted arrest .","The applicant was released shortly after his arrival at the police station . In the applicant \u2019s submission , it happened TIME after the arrest . According to the Government , the applicant was arrested at TIME and released at TIME","At TIME on the same date the applicant underwent a medical examination in a hospital and was diagnosed with bruises and scratches on the body and limbs and a bruise on the chest .","On DATE the applicant complained to the district prosecutor \u2019s office of police brutality .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open an investigation on the grounds that the participants of the picket had violently resisted the police .","On DATE a Justice of the Peace of GPE Circuit no . CARDINAL imposed on the applicant a fine of MONEY under LAW for his participation in the unauthorised picket .","On DATE the applicant challenged the refusal of CARDINAL DATE before ORG .","On DATE ORG declared the decision of DATE unlawful .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers .","The applicant allegedly received a copy of the decision of DATE on DATE .","On DATE the applicant challenged the refusal of DATE before ORG .","On DATE ORG declared the decision of DATE unlawful .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to open an investigation .","In his submission , the applicant received a copy of the decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer challenged the refusal of DATE before ORG .","On DATE ORG declared the decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL unlawful .","According to the Government , on DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE quashed unspecified refusals to open an investigation by the district prosecutor \u2019s office ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156253","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DERYAN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","The applicant is one of the heirs of PERSON PERSON , who used to live in GPE . On DATE Mr ORG purchased movable and immovable goods from the bankrupt estate of a company by way of a public tender .","On DATE the sale in question was annulled by a court order on the ground that the instalments had not been paid in time . The decision annulling the sale became final on DATE and on DATE Mr ORG was requested by ORG to return the purchased goods within DATE . He did not comply with that request .","On DATE Mr ORG died .","Due to his non - compliance with ORG order to return the goods , on DATE the bankrupt estate of the aforementioned company filed an action against Mr ORG \u2019s heirs , including the applicant , before ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for the recovery of the goods or their equivalent value .","A lawyer acting on behalf of the applicant and the other heirs of Mr ORG submitted a petition to ORG on DATE , arguing , inter alia , that the case had been lodged outside the statutory time - limit and thus had to be rejected . The lawyer submitted that the statutory DATE time - limit had started to run on DATE but that the plaintiffs had not lodged their action until DATE .","On DATE CARDINAL experts appointed by ORG submitted their opinion on the value of the goods . CARDINAL of the experts considered the value to be MONEY ( ORG ) , whereas the third expert considered it to be in the region of ORG CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG issued an interim decision , rejecting a request to hear CARDINAL witnesses who , according to the applicant , would have provided pertinent information about the value of the goods in question . ORG considered that the existence of the expert reports made it unnecessary to hear the applicant \u2019s witnesses .","In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered Mr ORG \u2019s heirs to return the goods which were still in their possession and to pay a certain sum of money corresponding to the value of the goods which had been disposed of in the meantime . The amount of money ordered was based on the calculations made by the CARDINAL experts . ORG further awarded statutory interest on this amount accruing from DATE , the original due date for the return of the goods . No response was given by ORG in its decision to the applicant \u2019s objection concerning the issue of the time - limit .","The applicant appealed against the judgment and argued , inter alia , that the action for recovery should have been dismissed by ORG as it had been instituted outside the statutory time - limit . He also submitted that ORG had acted unlawfully by ordering the payment of interest on the amount due , given that no request for interest had been made by the plaintiff . He also added that ORG had failed to hear the witnesses he had proposed . The applicant asked ORG to hold a hearing before rendering its decision .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG without holding a hearing and without providing any answers to the applicant \u2019s objections .","On DATE ORG rejected a request by the applicant for rectification of its previous decision ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184499","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF \u0130MRET v. TURKEY (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Batman . At the time of the events giving rise to the present application , he was the head of the Batman branch of ORG ( DEHAP ) and subsequently the ORG for ORG DTP ) .","On unspecified dates in DATE and DATE the Batman public prosecutor \u2019s office initiated CARDINAL criminal investigations against the applicant . On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant made statements before the Batman public prosecutor in relation to his attendance at a number of public meetings .","NORP In particular , when he was questioned on DATE the applicant was asked about his participation in an event commemorating a number of deceased members of the ORG ( NORP Workers\u2019 Party , an illegal armed organisation ) held on DATE . The applicant responded that he had become aware of that event when demonstrators had started to march to the cemetery where the deceased were buried . As he was the head of the Batman branch of ORG , he had attended the march in order to keep the demonstrators under control and to prevent any possible disturbances in the town .","When questioned on DATE , the applicant stated that on CARDINAL DATE he had been the head of the DEHAP branch in Batman and that he had not praised the leader of the ORG in his speech . The applicant added that although PERSON , the leader of the ORG , was in prison , he was regarded as a political actor by the local population . The applicant \u2019s intention had been to express that social fact and he was against any kind of violence . When the public prosecutor reminded him of the violent acts of the ORG , the applicant once again stated that he was against violence regardless of whom it emanated from .","On DATE the Batman public prosecutor asked the applicant why he had referred to the ORG leader as \u201c Esteemed \/ Mr ( Say\u0131n ) \u00d6calan \u201d during CARDINAL of his speeches . The applicant responded that he had used the word \u201c Say\u0131n \u201d as a matter of courtesy . He stated that he had not intended to disseminate propaganda in favour of the ORG or to praise a criminal .","Lastly , on DATE the applicant was questioned by the Batman public prosecutor in the context of a criminal investigation opened against him on suspicion of membership of the ORG . He stated that he had participated in several demonstrations and readings of press statements in his capacity as the head of the Batman branch of DEHAP and the ORG , and that he had not committed any offence during those events . He denied the veracity of the allegation that those public meetings had been organised in accordance with the instructions of the ORG . When he was asked about a sentence condemning both the death of NORP soldiers and ORG members which he had uttered during a speech , the applicant stated that he would utter that sentence again without hesitation . He also stated that the petition campaign entitled \u201c I accept PERSON as a political actor \u201d had not been started upon the instructions of the ORG . He accepted that he had demanded an end to the solitary confinement of PERSON and addressed the latter as \u201c Esteemed \/ Mr ( Say\u0131n ) \u00d6calan \u201d . However , he denied the allegation that he had had the intention of disseminating propaganda in favour the ORG . The applicant contended that he had attended the demonstrations and meetings in question in order to control the crowds and to prevent any possible disturbances . Lastly , he claimed that his aim was to contribute to peace and democracy .","On DATE the applicant was brought before ORG and questioned in respect of his involvement in a demonstration held on DATE in Batman . He submitted that he had attended the demonstration with a view to preventing violence , since he was the head of the ORG at the material time . The court ordered the applicant \u2019s remand in custody .","On DATE the Batman public prosecutor decided to transfer the investigation to the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office , holding that the offence which the applicant had committed , namely membership of a terrorist organisation and carrying out membership activities , was not within his office \u2019s jurisdiction .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG , charging the applicant and a certain PERSON , under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , with disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG on QUANTITY occasions . In the indictment the public prosecutor listed a total of CARDINAL marches and demonstrations which the applicant had attended . He noted that during those marches and demonstrations , demonstrators had chanted slogans and carried banners praising the ORG and its leader , PERSON , and that the applicant had made speeches in NORP at QUANTITY of those CARDINAL assemblies .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG held the first hearing on the merits of the case . During the hearing , the applicant contended that he was the head of the Batman branch of the ORG . Although he had participated in the public meetings indicated in the indictment , he had not chanted any slogans or carried banners containing illegal expressions . He further submitted that he had not directed demonstrators to commit any illegal acts . The applicant stressed that in general he attended such public meetings at the request of the security forces , since the latter asked him to be present in order to prevent any possible clashes between themselves and the demonstrators .","During the second hearing held on DATE the public prosecutor submitted his observations on the merits of the case . The public prosecutor contended that the applicant had attended various illegal public meetings between DATE and DATE and that he had made speeches in which he had praised the ORG and its leader . The public prosecutor alleged that those events had been organised either in line with the policies of the ORG or under its instructions with a view to supporting that organisation . Taking into account the intensity , variety and continuity of the applicant \u2019s activities , the public prosecutor considered that the applicant \u2019s acts constituted knowingly and willingly aiding the ORG . He then asked ORG to convict the applicant under LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW of membership of the ORG .","On DATE ORG held the fourth and the last hearing in the case and convicted the applicant and his coaccused of membership of an illegal organisation under LAW on the basis of LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the same Code , finding it established that the applicant had knowingly and willingly aided the ORG . The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The judgment of ORG , insofar as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c In the indictment dated DATE it was alleged that PERSON had committed the following acts :","Attendance at the reading out of a press statement and an illegal march held on DATE in the Mem - u GPE in Batman during which the demonstrators chanted slogans in favour of the ORG and PERSON ;","Attendance at the event commemorating a deceased ORG member held in the Batman cemetery on DATE , making a speech in NORP and making participants say prayers in NORP ;","Attendance at the reading out of a press statement at the Batman branch of DEHAP on DATE regarding the petition campaign entitled \u201c I accept PERSON as a political actor \u201d ;","Attendance at the illegal demonstration held on CARDINAL DATE to commemorate CARDINAL members of the ORG killed by the security forces in an armed clash which had occurred in Batman ;","Attendance at the demonstration organised by DEHAP and held on DATE , during which the demonstrators chanted illegal slogans , and making a speech in NORP addressed to the press and the demonstrators ;","Attendance at the demonstration held on DATE during which the demonstrators chanted slogans in favour of the ORG and PERSON and carried banners , and making a speech in NORP addressed to the press and the demonstrators ;","Attendance at the demonstration held on DATE protesting against the attempts to close down ORG , the alleged solitary confinement of PERSON and the statement by PERSON , the leader of the ORG ( ORG ) regarding the events that had occurred in PERSON during which the demonstrators chanted slogans in favour of PERSON , and making a speech in NORP addressed to the press and the demonstrators ;","Attendance at the reading out of a press statement and at a march held on DATE protesting against the solitary confinement of PERSON , during which the demonstrators chanted illegal slogans and carried banners , and making a speech in NORP addressed to the press and the demonstrators ;","Attendance at the march and the reading out of a press statement held on DATE in Batman , during which illegal slogans were chanted , and making a speech in NORP ;","Attendance at the illegal demonstration and the reading out of a press statement held on DATE close to the ORG branch , during which illegal slogans were chanted and banners were carried , and making a speech in NORP ;","...","In his defence submissions PERSON stated that he had participated in the demonstrations and the reading out of press statements mentioned in the indictment but that he had neither chanted slogans nor carried banners . He stated that he had not directed demonstrators to chant slogans or to carry banners .","PERSON submitted that he had attended those meetings at the request of the security forces and that the latter had asked him to warn the crowds not to resist them and to work with them with a view to preventing possible disturbances .","...","The file contains police reports , photographs and video recordings of the events which the accused attended and the speeches he made .","On the basis of the evidence in the file , it has been understood that during all the demonstrations and marches held in Batman which PERSON attended , slogans in favour PERSON were chanted and the demonstrators carried banners . It has also been understood that the speeches made by the accused praised PERSON .","It is established that the accused attended the public meetings in question and organised them .","Although the accused submitted that their aim had been to prevent clashes between the demonstrators and the security forces and [ that they ] had not had the intention of disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG when they had participated in the demonstrations and marches in question , taking into account the content of the case file and their acts during those meetings , their defence submissions have been found to be baseless .","As a result of the trial and in the light of the evidence ,","It has been established that PERSON worked as the head of the Batman branch of DEHAP and that subsequent to the closure of DEHAP he was the head of the Batman branch of the ORG .","He attended CARDINAL marches and demonstrations held between DATE and DATE , organised by the above - mentioned political parties . Illegal slogans were chanted and illegal banners were carried during those meetings . In some of those meetings , PERSON read press statements containing expressions praising PERSON . All of the marches and demonstrations in question were illegal within the meaning of section CARDINAL\/b of ORG no . CARDINAL ) .","...","It has been established that all of those marches and demonstrations were organised in line with the \u2018 NORP Political Struggle\u2019 strategy adopted by the ORG recently ; that the media broadcasts in line with the ORG \u2019s strategies had announced those marches and demonstrations prior to them , and that the same media organs had used those demonstrations as propaganda materials after they had been held .","PERSON and PERSON organised several illegal demonstrations in line with the ORG \u2019s instructions and during those demonstrations they addressed the demonstrators who chanted slogans and carried banners containing expressions in favour of the ORG and PERSON . In their speeches the accused praised the ORG \u2019s leader . Taking into account the continuity and nature of their acts , it is considered that those acts went beyond the offence of dissemination of propaganda in favour of a [ terrorist ] organisation and amounted to the offence proscribed by LAW , that is to say , \u2018 knowingly and willingly aiding an illegal organisation without being in the hierarchical structure\u2019 . Therefore , it has been decided to convict the accused under LAW .","... \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .","By PERSON no . DATE , which entered into force on DATE , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW was amended . The applicant applied to ORG requesting it to examine whether the amended version of that provision could be considered to be in his favour and , if so , whether the execution of his sentence could be suspended . He added that he was currently serving his prison sentence .","On DATE ORG decided to reduce the applicant \u2019s sentence to DATE , DATE and CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment . The court rejected the applicant \u2019s request to have the execution of his sentence suspended ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142632","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"F. J. AND E.B. v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant in the first case , PERSON , is an NORP national , born in DATE . The applicant in the second case , PERSON , is an NORP national , born in DATE . The President granted the applicants\u2019 requests for their identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . They are represented before the ORG by Mr H. Graupner , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE ORG conducted police investigations in respect of the first applicant on suspicion of his having committed homosexual acts with consenting male persons within the age bracket of DATE , an offence under the former Article CARDINAL ( Gleichgeschlechtliche Unzucht mit CARDINAL unter CARDINAL Jahren ) of LAW .","On an unspecified date ORG charged the first applicant with these offences .","On DATE ORG acquitted him of the charge .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a request with ORG for the deletion of both the electronically processed data and of the data manually processed in paper files concerning the proceedings in his case .","On DATE ORG informed the first applicant that it had deleted the electronically processed data but rejected the request concerning the data processed in paper files . Thereupon the first applicant filed a complaint concerning this decision with ORG .","On DATE ORG partly allowed the first applicant \u2019s complaint , ordering ORG to modify the filing cards ( PERSON ) and filing registers ( PERSON ) by noting the acquittal while maintaining the reference to LAW . It dismissed the first applicant \u2019s complaint as regards the data processed in ordinary paper files DATE known as \u201c copy files \u201d ( Kopieakte ) DATE which contained copies of all the reports and communications generated by the authority and sent to other authorities , such as the public prosecutor , because data processed in paper files did not fall under the definition of filing systems ( Dateien ) within the meaning of LAW . The right of deletion set forth in that LAW was therefore not applicable .","In ORG view , information held in such information research tools could not be completely deleted or scrambled . In accordance with the relevant provisions of LAW , all administrative actions by administrative authorities \u2013 including police authorities \u2013 had to be documented and archived . Only by doing so was it possible to review the lawfulness of the actions of the authorities , which was necessary in a ORG governed by the rule of law . This was required by the rules regulating the authority \u2019s internal mode of operation ( GPE ) . However , such data had to be complete and correct , which meant that subsequent developments \u2013 in particular if the person concerned by the investigations had been acquitted DATE also had to be recorded . The question of whether or not the authority could use such data in its work was distinct from the issue of the archiving and recording of data and required that separate rules on the use of such data be applied .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a complaint with ORG and with ORG .","On DATE the Constitutional Court quashed ORG decision . In ORG view ORG had misinterpreted the applicable law when it had held that only the provisions on the archiving and storage of data for the authority \u2019s internal use were applicable because the filing cards at issue did not only contain information of a general character but details about an individual person , such as that person \u2019s name and address . Therefore , they recorded not only internal matters of the authority but also sensitive personal data . The authority should therefore have applied the rules for the use and processing of individual data under LAW ( Sicherheitspolizeigesetz ) and should have weighed up the private and public interests accordingly . Since ORG had failed to do so , ORG quashed its decision .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings because ORG had already quashed the decision .","Meanwhile , the police authorities , taking into account the legal opinion in ORG decision , blanked out entries in the filing register by superimposing black bars over the first applicant \u2019s name , date of birth , address and the respective file number and reference to LAW on the filing cards . This having been done , the applicant maintained his complaint of DATE in respect of the data processed in the copy files only .","On DATE ORG again decided on the first applicant \u2019s appeal and rejected his request to delete the data concerning him that had been manually processed in ordinary paper files , the \u201c copy files \u201d . Referring to ORG case - law , it found that the right to deletion of data under LAW and LAW was not applicable to data manually processed in paper files because such files were unstructured compilations of information and did not qualify as filing systems ( ORG ) under LAW .","On DATE the first applicant again lodged complaints with ORG and ORG .","ORG dismissed the complaint on DATE . It rejected the first applicant \u2019s argument that LAW and the case - law of ORG established a right to deletion of personal data in an ordinary paper file . The cases relied on by the first applicant , namely PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALII ) and PERSON ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALV ) , had to be distinguished from the present case as they concerned completely different sets of facts . In ORG view , LAW did not impose a wider right to deletion of data than already contained in LAW which transformed into domestic law ORG Directive CARDINAL of DATE on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data ( ORG , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Also ORG with regard to ORG of DATE only concerned automatically processed data and did not extend to personal data in a conventional copy file or paper file .","Moreover , it was apparent and not disputed by the first applicant that , following the blackening out of his name , date of birth and address in the file register and of the reference to the paper files in the index card , the paper files at issue were no longer traceable via these information tools . This reduced the accessibility of his personal data to such an extent that there was no longer any interference with his rights under LAW . That being so , ORG concluded that there had been no breach of the first applicant \u2019s rights under LAW either .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s complaint for the same reasons as those relied on by ORG .","In DATE ORG conducted investigations in respect of the second applicant on suspicion of his having committed homosexual acts with consenting male persons within the age bracket of DATE , an offence under former LAW , and on suspicion of having committed sexual acts with persons under DATE , an offence under LAW ( PERSON ) of LAW .","On an unspecified date ORG charged the applicant with those offences .","On DATE ORG acquitted him of these charges .","In DATE ORG conducted investigations in respect of the second applicant on suspicion of his having committed offences under LAW and QUANTITY of LAW .","On an unspecified date ORG charged the second applicant with those offences .","On DATE ORG convicted him of having committed homosexual acts with consenting male persons within the age bracket of CARDINAL under former LAW and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . He was acquitted of the other charges .","In DATE ORG conducted investigations in respect of the second applicant on suspicion of his having produced pornographic pictures of persons under the age of DATE , an offence under LAW ( Pornographische Darstellungen Minderj\u00e4hriger ) , and of having committed an offence under LAW of LAW .","On an unspecified date ORG charged the second applicant with an offence under LAW .","On DATE ORG convicted him as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE the second applicant lodged a request with ORG for the deletion of the electronically processed data and the data manually processed in files , and held by the police authorities , concerning these CARDINAL sets of proceedings .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed him that no electronically processed data relating to the above proceedings existed any longer and rejected the request concerning the data processed in paper files .","On an unspecified date the second applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . It found that , as regards the non - electronically processed data stored in ordinary paper files , LAW and the right to request a deletion was not applicable as such paper files constituted an unstructured compilation of information but not a filing system ( ORG ) within the meaning of LAW . As regards the filing cards and filing registers the Commission noted that on DATE the police authorities , after having been invited to comment on the applicant \u2019s complaint , had informed the ORG that all references in these research tools to the issues under LAW had been rendered illegible ( unkenntlich gemacht ) . In the filing registers , the name and address of the applicant had also been deleted . Under the storage and deletion rules for ORG ( ORG ) copy files were deleted DATE following DATE of recording , while index cards and filing registers were destroyed after DATE . In such circumstances the ordinary paper files ( \u201c copy files \u201d ) relating to investigations in respect of the applicant essentially served the purpose of documenting the activities of the authority and no longer allowed the tracking of sensitive information on the applicant in relation to Article CARDINAL of LAW . The applicant \u2019s complaint was therefore ill - founded .","On DATE the applicant applied for legal aid in order to lodge a complaint with ORG . In addition , he proposed that the case be referred to ORG of ORG for a preliminary ruling .","On DATE ORG , referring to its case - law in similar cases , dismissed the request for legal aid for lack of prospects of success .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG .","On DATE ORG , referring to its previous case - law ( in particular its decision of DATE in the first applicant \u2019s case DATE see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , declined to deal with the case because it lacked any prospect of success .","Article CARDINAL of LAW , in force until DATE , concerned consensual homosexual acts and read :","\u201c A male person who after attaining DATE fornicates with a person of the same sex who has attained DATE but not DATE shall be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of DATE . \u201d","On DATE , responding to a request for review made by ORG , ORG found that LAW of LAW was unconstitutional .","On DATE , following ORG judgment , ORG repealed LAW . It also introduced LAW , which penalises sexual relations with persons DATE under specific conditions and which is formulated in a gender - neutral way . That amendment , published in ORG ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , came into force on DATE .","A more detailed description of the law , ORG judgments concerning LAW and its replacement by LAW can be found in PERSON and Others v. GPE , ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of the Criminal Code reads ;","\u201c Anyone who performs a sexual act on a person under the age of DATE or has a sexual act performed on himself or herself by such a person , with the exception of the offence under LAW , shall be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of DATE . \u201d","Article CARDINALa , paragraph CARDINAL of the Criminal Code reads :","\u201c Whoever","produces or","NORP offers to someone else , procures , leaves to someone else , shows or makes otherwise accessible","a pornographic image of a person under the age of CARDINAL shall be sentenced to imprisonment for DATE . \u201d","LAW of DATE contains the basic provisions governing the protection of personal data including a right of information and a duty to delete ( section CARDINAL ) . LAW distinguishes between manually recorded data and electronically processed data . Manually recorded data are subject to deletion in so far as they constitute a \u201c filing system \u201d . A \u201c filing system \u201d ( Datei ) is defined as a structured collection of data ( section CARDINAL , point CARDINAL ) . A certain degree of organisation is necessary for an amount of manually processed data to qualify as a \u201c filing system \u201d . According to the case - law of ORG ( judgment of DATE , CARDINAL Ob CARDINAL ) and ORG ( decision of CARDINAL DATE , DATE ) , card indexes and lists constitute filing systems , but mere files ( ORG ) do not . A \u201c paper file \u201d or \u201c copy file \u201d is therefore not deemed to be a filing system within the meaning of LAW and is not subject to the right of deletion under this act ( decision of ORG of DATE ORG A no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","Section CARDINAL of LAW reads :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Everybody shall have the right to secrecy regarding the personal data concerning him , especially concerning his private and family life , in so far as he has an interest deserving such protection . Such an interest is precluded when data can not be covered by the right to secrecy because of their general availability or because they can not be traced back to the data subject ( PERSON ) .","( CARDINAL ) In so far as personal data are not used in the vital interests of the data subject or with his consent , restrictions of the right to secrecy are permitted only to safeguard the overriding legitimate interests of another ; specifically , in the event of an intervention by a public authority , the restriction shall only be permitted on the basis of laws necessary for the reasons stated in LAW . Such laws may provide for the use of data ( PERSON ) deserving special protection only in order to safeguard substantial public interests and shall provide suitable safeguards for the protection of the data subjects\u2019 interest in secrecy . Even in the case of permitted restrictions , the intervention with the fundamental right shall be carried out using only the least intrusive of all effective methods .","( CARDINAL ) In so far as personal data concerning an individual are destined for automated processing or for manual processing ( that is , in filing systems with no automated processing ) , everybody shall have , as provided for by law :","NORP the right to obtain information revealing who processes what data concerning him , where the data originated , the purpose for which they are used , and to whom the data are transmitted ;","NORP the right to rectification of incorrect data and the right to deletion of illegally processed data .","( CARDINAL ) Restrictions of the rights set out in subsection ( CARDINAL ) shall be permitted only under the conditions laid out in subsection ( CARDINAL ) . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of LAW , DATE which contains a number of definitions , reads , in so far as relevant :","\u201c For the subsequent provisions of LAW the terms listed below shall mean :","\u2019data\u2019 ( \u2018 personal data\u2019 ) : information relating to data subjects ... who are identified or identifiable ; data are \u2018 only indirectly ORG for a controller ( Auftraggeber ) ... , a processor ( Dienstleister ) ... , or a recipient of a transmission ( PERSON ) ... if the data relate to them in such a manner that the controller , processor or recipient of a transmission can not establish the identity of the data subject by legal means ;","\u2019sensitive data\u2019 ( \u2018 data deserving special protection\u2019 ) : data relating to natural persons concerning their racial or ethnic origin , political opinion , trade union membership , religious or philosophical beliefs , and data concerning health or sex life ;","...","\u2019filing system \u201d ( ORG ) : structured collection of data accessible via CARDINAL search criterion ; \u201d","Section CARDINAL of LAW , which concerns the deletion of data , reads , in so far as relevant :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Every controller shall rectify or delete data that are incorrect or have been processed contrary to the provisions of LAW","NORP on his own initiative , as soon as the incorrectness of the data or the inadmissibility of the processing becomes known to him , or","NORP on a well - founded application by the data subject ( PERSON )","The obligation to rectify data under subsection CARDINAL shall apply only to those data of which the correctness is significant for the purpose of the data application ( GPE ) . The incompleteness of data shall justify a claim to rectification only if such incorrectness , with regard to the purpose of the data application , results in the information being incorrect in its entirety . As soon as data cease to be needed for the purpose of the data application , they shall be regarded as illegally processed data and shall be erased unless their archiving is legally permitted and the access to these data is specially secured . Any further use for another purpose shall be legitimate only if transmission ( PERSON ) of the data for this purpose is legitimate ; the legitimacy of further uses for scientific or statistical purposes is laid down in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","( CARDINAL ) The application for rectification or erasure shall be complied with within DATE of receipt and the applicant shall be informed thereof , or a reason in writing shall be given as to why the requested erasure or rectification was not carried out .","( CARDINAL ) Within the sphere of the executive agencies responsible for the fields described in section CARDINAL ... , the following procedure shall apply as regards applications for rectification or erasure , in so far as this is required to safeguard those public interests that require secrecy : the rectification or erasure shall be carried out if , in the opinion of the controller , the demands of the data subject are justified . The requisite information for the purposes of subsection CARDINAL shall in all cases be that a check of the controller \u2019s data files ( FAC ) with regard to the application for rectification or erasure has been performed . The legality of this course of action is subject to review by ORG ( ORG ) ... and the special complaint procedure before ORG pursuant to section DATE ) . \u201d","LAW regulates the powers and duties of the authorities dealing with matters of public security and their officers in exercising their functions .","Section CARDINAL of LAW reads :","\u201c Admissibility of processing data","( CARDINAL ) The police authorities may investigate and further process personal data","for the purpose of fulfilling the duty to provide initial general assistance ( section CARDINAL ) ;","NORP for the purpose of averting criminal connections ( section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , and section CARDINAL ) ;","for extended threat investigation ( section DATE , subsection CARDINAL ) under the prerequisites of section GPE subsection CARDINAL ;","for the purpose of averting dangerous assaults ( section CARDINAL , subsections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and section DATE , subsection CARDINAL ) , including the investigation necessary for averting a threat ( section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , and section CARDINALa ) ;","NORP for preventing potential dangerous assaults endangering life , health , morals , freedom , property or the environment ( section CARDINAL , subsections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) or for preventing dangerous assaults by means of a crime analysis if DATE because of the type of the assault DATE repeated commission is likely ;","for the purpose of a search ( section CARDINAL ) ;","NORP in order to be able to maintain public order during a specific event .","( CARDINAL ) The police authorities may investigate and further process data already processed by them in the implementation of federal or regional laws for the purpose of and subject to the prerequisites of subsection CARDINAL ; they must not , however , compare electronic data within the meaning of LAW . Existing transmission prohibitions remain unaffected . \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW reads :","\u201c The security police authorities may establish as data a person \u2019s name , sex , former name , nationality , date of birth , place of birth , address , name of parents and other names and data used by that person and further process these data in a centralized information data base as well as the reason for gathering these data and , if necessary , the reason why the authority has intervened and inform other authorities thereof , if","NORP criminal justice investigations have been instituted against the person concerned . \u201d","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW reads :","\u201c Access by the security police authorities as controller to personal data which are stored and kept accessible in accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) must be blocked","as regards no . CARDINAL if there is no longer a suspicion of having committed an offence against the person concerned , DATE after entering of the data into the centralized information data base , in case of CARDINAL entry pursuant to no . DATE after the latest ; \u201d","Section CARDINAL of LAW reads :","\u201c Admissibility of updating data","The police authorities are entitled to update the personal data used by them if they have lawfully verified more recent data . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of LAW reads :","\u201c Duty of correction or deletion","( CARDINAL ) If it is found that data which are incorrect or have been investigated contrary to the provisions of this federal LAW are being stored , these data shall be corrected or deleted immediately . In the same way , personal data shall be deleted if they are no longer needed for the fulfilment of the task for which they have been used , unless there is a special regulation concerning their deletion .","( CARDINAL ) The police authorities shall examine electronically processed personal data which have remained unchanged for DATE to find out whether they need to be corrected or deleted pursuant to subsection CARDINAL . For data processed in ORG , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL shall apply . \u201d","In a judgment of DATE ORG found that under LAW of LAW the police authorities had the obligation to supplement and correct data they had collected pursuant to LAW ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL . of that act and in particular to add the information whether the public prosecutor had discontinued the criminal investigations or the person concerned had been acquitted of the charges as otherwise the data stored must be considered incorrect . In addition , LAW and LAW ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL . of LAW must be interpreted in conformity with LAW , in particular the right to data protection under LAW of LAW , which means that there exists also the obligation to delete such data once they are no longer necessary for the purpose of criminal justice even before the time - limit set un section MONEY ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL . of LAW has expired .","The Storage and Deletion Rules for ORG ( ORG ) , an instruction ( Erlass ) by the Federal Minister for the ORG of DATE , regulate the elimination and destruction of all documents which were no longer of any use for operational purposes of ORG . This is done by fixing time limits for storing different categories of documents and the modalities for disposing of these documents after expiry of the time limit . According to LAW copy files were deleted DATE following DATE of recording , while index cards and filing registers were destroyed after DATE .","At the supranational level there are CARDINAL basic instruments which regulate the protection of personal data in LOC . ORG for ORG with regard to ORG of DATE ( European Treaty Series no . CARDINAL ) and ORG Directive CARDINAL of DATE on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data ( ORG , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","ORG of DATE secures in LAW for every individual , whatever his nationality or residence , respect for his rights and fundamental freedoms , and in particular his right to privacy , with regard to automatic processing of personal data relating to him ( \" data protection \" ) \u201d . Under LAW the scope of this LAW is restricted to \u201c automated personal data files and automatic processing of personal data in the public and private sectors \u201d . However according to LAW may ... give notice by a declaration addressed to the Secretary General of ORG : ( c ) that it will also apply this convention to personal data files which are not processed automatically \u201d . Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that \u201c personal data revealing racial origin , political opinions or religious or other beliefs , as well as personal data concerning health or sexual life , may not be processed automatically unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards . \u201d DATE also provides that \u201c the same shall apply to personal data relating to criminal convictions \u201d .","Following ORG of DATE there has also been adopted Recommendation No . R(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG in ORG ( DATE ) , which deals with the collection and processing of particular sensitive personal data including necessary safeguard measures . As LAW only applies to \u201c the collection , storage , use and communication of personal data for police purposes which are the subject of automatic processing \u201d , but it also provides that \u201c manual processing of data should not take place if the aim is to avoid the provisions of this recommendation \u201d .","Within ORG Directive CARDINAL of DATE on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data , as in force at the relevant time , regulates the protection of personal data . According to LAW shall protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons , and in particular their right to privacy , with respect to the processing of personal data \u201d . Personal data within the meaning of the directive are any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ( LAW ) and \" processing of personal data \" is \u201c any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data , whether or not by automatic means \u201d ( LAW b ) ) . Article CARDINAL delimits the scope of the Directive , this provision reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . This Directive shall apply to the processing of personal data wholly or partly by automatic means , and to the processing otherwise than by automatic means of personal data which form part of a filing system or are intended to form part of a filing system .","This Directive shall not apply to the processing of personal data :","in the course of an activity which falls outside the scope of Community law , such as those provided for by Titles V and VI of the Treaty on European Union and in any case to processing operations concerning public security , defence , ORG security ( including the economic well - being of the ORG when the processing operation relates to ORG security matters ) and the activities of the ORG in areas of criminal law ;","by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163464","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"LAZAROV v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , were NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and lived in GPE . They were represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . PERSON and PERSON died on DATE and DATE respectively .","NORP On DATE the applicants\u2019 daughter , PERSON , informed the Registry that she wished to pursue the case before the Court . She also informed the ORG that she wished to be represented by PERSON and submitted a power of attorney to that effect .","The Government did not contest that request .","Given the fact that PERSON has a \u201c definite pecuniary interest \u201d in the proceedings in issue ( see , mutatis mutandis , PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and GPE and Others v. Serbia , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , the ORG finds that she has standing to proceed in her GPE stead . Although PERSON is therefore now the applicant , the ORG will continue to refer to the late Mr and PERSON as the applicants .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent at the time , Mr PERSON .","summarised as follows .","The applicants owned a house in GPE measuring QUANTITY and a plot of land next to it .","On DATE the applicants entered into an agreement ( sporazum ) with GPE ( \u201c the Municipality \u201d ) . Under the agreement , they agreed to the expropriation of their house and the adjacent plot of land , while the Municipality undertook to provide them with a comfortable flat with CARDINAL separate rooms ( dvosoban komforan stan ) in the GPE neighbourhood of GPE and MONEY ( ORG ) . ORG CARDINAL was paid immediately , while another RSD CARDINAL was to be paid after the LOC took possession of the house .","On DATE ORG and Urbanism issued a decision expropriating the house and transferring it into social ownership . The applicants continued to live in the house while the adjacent plot of land was used for the construction of an apartment building .","As GPE had failed to provide them with an appropriate flat , on DATE the applicants filed a civil action against it , requesting to have an appropriate flat allocated to them or to be paid compensation for their house .","By DATE an apartment building had been built next to the applicants\u2019 house . On an unspecified date in DATE GPE offered them a flat in the complex , which measured QUANTITY . The applicants refused to move into the apartment , as they considered it unsuitable .","On DATE an expert appointed by the GPE found that both the house in which the applicants were living and the flat which the LOC was offering were comfortable , but that the house , being bigger , was a more suitable home .","The Municipality does not appear to have ever suggested any other form of compensation .","The applicants continued to live in the house . The change of ownership was not registered with the land registry .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the Government , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicants withdrew their civil action against the Municipality , and the proceedings formally ended on DATE .","On DATE the applicants filed another civil action against the Municipality , requesting the RSD CARDINAL and that a QUANTITY flat with CARDINAL separate rooms be allocated to them .","On DATE the applicants withdrew their civil action again .","On DATE the applicants entered into a new agreement with the Municipality . Under this agreement , the applicants were registered as the occupiers of the house in which they lived , and the Municipality was registered as the sole occupier of the plot of land on which the apartment building had been constructed .","The Government submitted that this agreement had settled the dispute between the applicants and the LOC , and that the DATE expropriation order was no longer effective ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172103","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BUJAK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was a victim of a car accident in which he suffered several bodily injuries . He was treated in GPE until DATE .","In DATE the applicant was suspected of having committed several thefts of leased movable goods of considerable value , in particular cars , during the period he spent running a company .","NORP In DATE the applicant moved to GPE and the proceedings against him were stayed .","On DATE the Minister of ORG requested that the applicant be extradited to GPE .","Following an extradition hearing in GPE , in DATE the applicant was transported to GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) decided to detain him on remand for DATE , until DATE . The court referred to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged and in respect of which he would face , if found guilty , deprivation of liberty for a term exceeding DATE . It further noted that there was a reasonable fear that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings or go into hiding until the charges against him became time - barred . The court pointed out that the applicant had not remained at his place of residence , had refused to accept a summons from the prosecutor and , although he was aware that an investigation was being carried out in respect of him , he had moved to GPE in DATE with a view to waiting until the charges that had been brought against him became time - barred ; consequently , the proceedings against him had had to be stayed for DATE .","As regards the applicant \u2019s state of health the court found that \u201c the problems cited by the applicant do not require any medical treatment \u201d .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s detention was extended until DATE . The court again referred to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged and on the severity of the penalty to which he would be liable if found guilty . It further noted that there was a reasonable fear that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings or go into hiding . In this respect the court referred to the fact that the applicant had moved to GPE on a previous occasion and had had to be located by means of an international search .","The applicant appealed , referring , among other things , to his state of health . He submitted that he was suffering from serious neurological and orthopaedic problems which , if not treated properly , would pose a serious danger to his health .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) upheld the challenged decision , confirming ORG view that the detention had been justified by the severe penalty and the possibility that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings . As regards the applicant \u2019s state of health the court referred to CARDINAL medical experts\u2019 opinions dated DATE and DATE respectively , according to which the applicant could be treated in the detention facilities and was able to participate in the trial .","On DATE the relevant bill of indictment was submitted to ORG ( PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention for a further DATE , until DATE . The court justified its decision by citing the high probability that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged . It also found that there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding or obstruct the proceedings ; it did not , however , give any grounds for its findings . Lastly , the court stated that there were \u201c no grounds for releasing the applicant from detention ... in particular , [ there were none of the grounds listed ] in Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Proceedings \u201d .","On DATE the first hearing took place . Further hearings were scheduled for CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , and DATE .","On DATE ORG again extended the applicant \u2019s detention for further DATE . Apart from the grounds previously relied on , the court noted that the applicant had requested that several new witnesses be heard and considered that he might influence their testimony if released . The court considered that the applicant \u2019s declarations that he would appear before the court upon each and every summons did not correspond with his previous behaviour . It noted that on DATE the applicant had resisted being taken to the court . According to the ORG \u2019s submissions he had refused to be taken to the court without a wheelchair which had been provided by his wife . Lastly , the court determined , relying on the opinion of an expert neurologist and orthopaedist , that the applicant could be treated in detention .","The applicant appealed . He referred , among other things , to his state of health , the fact that he had to use a wheelchair , that he was waiting for a spine operation and that he could not undergo physiotherapy under conditions of detention .","On DATE ORG upheld the challenged decision relying , as previously , on the fact that in the past the applicant had gone into hiding . The court also found that the applicant had again obstructed the proceedings in that he had refused to be transported to the court hearing without a wheelchair . ORG did not uphold ORG finding that the applicant might tamper with evidence ; this , however , did not influence the court \u2019s overall assessment \u2019s state of health , the court referred to a medical opinion issued on DATE by an expert neurologist and orthopaedist according to which the applicant could participate in the court hearings and could be transported to court without a wheelchair .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court noted that the results of the applicant \u2019s recent treatment in FAC hospital ward had been satisfactory and that according to the experts in neurology and orthopaedics ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) he could be treated in prison facilities . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the challenged decision . As regards the applicant \u2019s state of health , the court , relying on a physician expert opinion of DATE , considered that there were no obstacles to his further detention and his treatment in the prison facilities . The court noted that if the applicant \u2019s further detention threatened his health he could be released at any time ex officio .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant underwent a medical examination ordered by ORG . The applicant arrived for the examination in a wheelchair , from which he could not get up . The Government contested this submission . The doctor found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain of the thoracic and lumbar vertebral column on the basis of multilevel disc osteoarthritis and that he had suffered a spinal injury and left hip injury in DATE and DATE respectively . The doctor also ordered a further examination of the applicant , which took place on DATE . On DATE a fresh opinion was delivered , the relevant part of which reads as follows :","\u201c There are obstacles to [ an extension of the ] stay of the applicant in FAC because he can not receive neurological treatment there ... the results of the electromyography examination ( ORG ) show a gradually worsening ] dysfunction of the peripheral nerves ... which qualifies the applicant for neurological surgery that can only be executed in a neurological ward . After the operation and rehabilitation treatment , depending on his neurological state , the patient will be able to continue his detention in the GPE detention centre \u201d .","The doctor further stated that an objective assessment of the neurological state of the applicant was not possible due to his lack of cooperation .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested that ORG lift the preventive measure applied to the applicant and to release him from detention . The lawyer referred to the applicant \u2019s state of health . He referred , among other things , to the fact that ORG had to order breaks in hearings because the applicant had to rest \u201c in a horizontal position \u201d . He also requested that the court order a further examination of the applicant by a specialist in neurology .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s requests . The court held that it had already ordered a medical opinion on DATE and that that opinion would be delivered soon . The court furthermore found that the circumstances justifying the applicant \u2019s detention had not ceased to exist and that they had already been listed in the court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . The court did not find it necessary to repeat them .","On DATE a fresh opinion was delivered by a specialist in neurology . The doctor found that :","\u201c CARDINAL . The applicant \u2019s further stay in detention and refusal of medical ( neurological ) treatment may constitute a serious danger to his health or even life .","The post - operation rehabilitation should take place in a good rehabilitation ward ... it may also take place in detention , however I do not know in which detention centre such a ward exists . \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged an appeal against the court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . He requested the court , in the event that the appeal was not granted , to change the preventive measure applied to the applicant and to impose bail on him of a \u201c reasonable amount \u201d .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , upheld the challenged decision . The court held that ORG , which made a decision in first instance in composition of single judge , had been aware of the applicant \u2019s state of health and that this matter had been taken into account each time his detention had been extended . Apparently , the court had not yet become aware of the medical expert opinion of DATE .","On DATE ORG , acting ex officio , released the applicant and imposed another preventive measure on him , namely that of police supervision . The court found that the grounds originally relied on to impose and extend the applicant \u2019s detention , in particular the risk that he might go into hiding , still existed . However , given the applicant \u2019s state of health , his release was necessary . The court referred to a medical opinion which was completed and issued on DATE ( see above ) . It was determined that the only neurological ward in which the applicant could be treated in detention was at ORG . The applicant , however , refused to agree to be operated on there . He undertook at the same time that if he were to be released , he would undergo such an operation once he was at liberty . He also indicated the address where he could be reached and where he would collect his correspondence .","On DATE the applicant was released from detention .","According to the last information available to the ORG , the criminal proceedings against him are still pending .","DATE he was hospitalised again in a hospital in GPE .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions , at the time of his deportation to GPE from GPE the whole documentation pertaining to his case \u2013 including his medical file and information about medications that he was taking \u2013 had been handed over to the NORP authorities .","As stated by the ORG and not contested by the applicant , the applicant had undergone a preliminary examination on DATE and at that time he had not informed the doctor of any illness . He stated that he felt well . He had informed the prison authorities of his previously incurred injuries only after he had been detained at FAC . As stated by the Government and not contested by the applicant , the applicant had an easy access to the shower .","On DATE the applicant was examined by the neurologist for the first time . He was advised to continue his pharmacological treatment ( he had his own medications ) and to use a hard mattress .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a physician . He complained of problems with walking and was therefore prescribed crutches . The applicant submitted that he had been prescribed crutches after he had collapsed on the floor in cell no . CARDINAL at FAC .","On DATE the applicant underwent a further neurological examination . The relevant note made by the doctor read :","\u201c He claims that he does not have the proper mattress ( prescribed on DATE ) . Declares [ that he has ] pain in his left leg ... during the examination [ he did ] not follow simple orders but afterwards stood up without any problems ( sprawnie ) on his own . He walks with the aid of crutches \u201d","On DATE the applicant collapsed while being questioned at the police station . He was then taken to hospital .","On DATE the physician considered it necessary to conduct a CAT scan of the applicant \u2019s spine . The examination took place on DATE .","On DATE the applicant consulted a neurosurgeon who , after seeing the results of the CAT scan , found no grounds for the applicant to undergo a spine operation . He advised pharmacological treatment and physiotherapy .","On DATE the applicant requested a wheelchair . According to the Government the director of the facility \u2019s health centre found no grounds for granting his request .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions on DATE he again collapsed on the floor in the corridor of block X of FAC . Only then was he prescribed a wheelchair . However , since the chair which he received in the detention centre was , according to his submission , in such a state that its use constituted a danger for persons using it , the applicant requested his wife to provide him with another wheelchair ; this she did , on DATE , with the approval of the prison authorities . The ORG submitted that the approval was granted for \u201c social reasons \u201d although there were no medical grounds for so doing . However , the applicant submitted copies of CARDINAL medical certificates dated DATE , together with a note made by a psychiatrist , which read :","\u201c The patient collapsed in the corridor ( lost consciousness ? ) ... Patient in generally good condition .","- Wheelchair .","- Neurological examination \u201d","The applicant submitted another note made by a neurologist , which read :","\u201c DATE [ he ] lost consciousness . He complains of pain in his left hip joint . \u201d","The applicant submitted a copy of the record of the questioning of a certain PERSON for the purpose of civil proceedings for compensation which the applicant had instituted against ORG . ORG , who had been placed in the same cell as the applicant DATE , testified , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c Our cell was on the [ first ] floor ; CARDINAL had to climb a long flight of stairs . The applicant used a wheelchair . I and J. ( another cell inmate ) would carry the applicant up these stairs . When PERSON was not there one of guards would come and help us out . \u201d","On DATE the applicant resisted being taken to the court hearing without a wheelchair .","On DATE a doctor examined the applicant at the request of ORG . The relevant parts of the medical certificate issued after the examination read as follows :","\u201c DATE he claims that his left leg is weak [ and that ] he has pain in his lumbar spine . ... While undressing , he easily lifts his legs without manifesting pain . When he stands up he drags his left leg and claims that he can not stand on that leg because it is weak .","In the detention he occasionally ( okresowo ) uses a wheelchair ; however , during none of the neurological or neurosurgeon consultations was it determined that the applicant needed to use a wheelchair .","In connection with the pain reported by the applicant and the results of his medical examinations , the specialist opinion of an expert neurosurgeon or neurologist is necessary in order to determine whether the applicant may be transported to court without a wheelchair . Aggravation possible . \u201d","On DATE the applicant complained about the pain in his spine and he was transported to ORG prison no . CARDINAL , where he underwent treatment in the prison hospital . He remained there until DATE .","During his stay in the prison hospital he remained in a cell which had been adapted for detainees using wheelchairs . According to the ORG \u2019s submissions not contested by the applicant he had the assistance of professional \u201c carriers \u201d when he wanted to go to the exercise yard ( the Government did not explain what exactly should be understood under that notion , in particular whether the \u201c carriers \u201d referred to above were the prison guards or other prison staff ) . He attended various forms of kinesiotherapy , including exercises to strengthen the muscles of his legs , and various other forms of treatment . He also consulted a dermatologist , orthopaedist , neurologist and ophthalmologist .","After his release from the prison hospital the applicant was advised to continue performing the exercises he had been taught . From CARDINAL DATE until his release on DATE he was again detained in FAC .","As emerges from the decision of DATE about the degree of the applicant \u2019s disability , he was moderately disabled and able to work in special conditions . He did not need constant assistance of another person ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146353","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PETER v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE LAW ( Gesetz \u00fcber die eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft ) entered into force and introduced civil unions for same - sex couples .","On DATE the applicant entered into a civil partnership with Mr PERSON , n\u00e9 V.","On DATE Mr PERSON , n\u00e9 PERSON , died .","In DATE the applicant applied for a survivor \u2019s pension to ORG ( GPE f\u00fcr ORG ) , a public - law corporation .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim and on DATE it dismissed the administrative appeal lodged by the applicant against that decision .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for judicial review . He argued that the term \u201c widow or widower \u201d in LAW , ORG ( LOC . ORG ) should be construed as encompassing the surviving partner in a civil partnership .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . According to the court the surviving partner in a civil partnership could not be called a \u201c widower \u201d in the generally accepted sense of the term . Furthermore , the applicant \u2019s civil partnership had not lasted DATE , which would have led to statutory exclusion from the benefit even for married couples .","During the appeal proceedings the respondent acknowledged the applicant \u2019s claim to a survivor \u2019s pension as of DATE , when the relevant amendments to LAW became effective .","The remaining leapfrog appeal on points of law ( Sprungrevision ) was dismissed on DATE by ORG . The court pointed out that the respondent had partly acknowledged the applicant \u2019s claim , so that the appeal concerned only the period from DATE until DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) with ORG .","On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment in a case ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , hereinafter \u201c the DATE case \u201d ) which had been brought in DATE concerning the pension rights of a surviving partner in a civil partnership . It found that denying a partner in a civil union the right to a survivor \u2019s pension from the civil servants\u2019 pension scheme , when the legislature had already amended LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , Book VI , in respect of the general pension scheme , violated the principle of non - discrimination as set down in LAW .","On DATE the applicant pointed to the above - mentioned judgment and requested a decision to the same effect .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG decided not to review the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint . In its reasoning the panel explained that the complaint did not raise a pressing constitutional question as the relevant provision of the social security legislation had meanwhile been amended . Even assuming that the legislative provision concerned had violated the LAW , ORG could not have afforded redress as the legislature could not be required to amend a provision that had already become void .","On DATE the applicant was served with a copy of the decision .","On DATE the Government informed the ORG that in response to the pilot judgment in GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) an Act on Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations ( PERSON \u00fcber den GPE bei \u00fcberlangen PERSON ORG ) had been published in ORG and had entered into force on DATE .","NORP In DATE the ORG informed the applicant of the enactment of the new domestic remedy and drew his attention to the transitional provision of that LAW . Referring to the ORG v. GPE case ( ( dec . ) , no . MONEY , ECHR CARDINALIX ) , the ORG invited the applicant to inform it whether he intended to make use of the new remedy within the time - limit set by the transitional provision in question .","The applicant informed the ORG that he intended to file a complaint under the new domestic provisions .","On DATE the applicant filed a complaint under LAW , claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . He complained that constitutional court proceedings that lasted DATE , DATE and DATE were excessively long , even taking the position and function of ORG into account . He pointed out that his case could not be considered a particularly difficult CARDINAL .","NORP In the course of the proceedings the judge rapporteur for the constitutional complaint submitted a statement explaining that when he took office and became judge rapporteur for this complaint on DATE it had already been agreed between his predecessor and judge PERSON , who was judge rapporteur for the DATE case ( compare paragraph CARDINAL , above ) , that the handling of the applicant \u2019s complaint should be postponed until the DATE case had been determined . Subsequently , it became clear that the DATE case did not pose a problem of retroactivity and therefore did not affect the outcome of the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint . The judge rapporteur conceded that the applicant \u2019s submissions were sufficiently substantiated for his constitutional complaint to indeed have been dealt with earlier on the basis of the actual reasoning given . However , the judge maintained that it had been in the applicant \u2019s best interest to wait for the court \u2019s ruling in the DATE case .","The applicant replied that the judge rapporteur \u2019s statement demonstrated that his constitutional complaint had not been given any attention whatsoever in DATE after it was lodged . It would have been obvious even from a cursory examination of the constitutional complaints that his complaint concerned the retroactive application of a legislative amendment . Therefore , any proper comparison of his case with the DATE case would have easily shown that the CARDINAL cases were not interdependent .","On DATE the complaints panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint under section PERSON of ORG . Citing PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALII ) , as well as PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , ORG noted that a chronic backlog of cases in the constitutional courts could not justify the excessive length of proceedings . However , when assessing whether the duration of proceedings was excessive , ORG had to consider its special function and position . Unlike the ordinary courts , the capacity and structure of a ORG were laid down in the LAW and it served further purposes beyond the administration of individual justice . The scope for adaptation and for the acceleration of proceedings was therefore limited . Furthermore , decisions and judgments of ORG had binding inter omnes legal effect and for this reason had to be drafted with the utmost diligence . The court further explained that it was in the nature of constitutional court proceedings that chronological case management was of subordinate importance . Concerning the applicant \u2019s case , the court noted that the actual duration of the proceedings DATE was unusually long , but not excessive . For the purposes of its examination ORG noted that CARDINAL phases could be distinguished : ( a ) the phase of over DATE between the lodging of the constitutional complaint and the decision to await the outcome of the DATE case ; ( b ) the phase of DATE until a decision had been given in the DATE case ; and ( c ) the phase of DATE until the constitutional complaint at issue had been determined . A new judge rapporteur had stepped in at the end of his predecessor \u2019s term of office and his predecessor had had to finish cases of higher priority than that of the applicant . The court maintained that the DATE wait in accordance with section CARDINALb \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG had not been excessive considering that ORG had opted to rule on a similar case concerning the pension rights of surviving partners in a civil union ( the DATE case ) before the applicant \u2019s case . The court pointed out that , although in hindsight the present case could have been decided without reference to the \u201c pilot case \u201d , the CARDINAL cases shared sufficient similarities to justify the decision of the former judge rapporteur . Nothing indicated that the decision to postpone the applicant \u2019s case pending a decision on the DATE case had been based on arbitrary considerations . The court noted that the applicant had never claimed that the sum of money at issue was of extraordinary financial importance to him . In conclusion , ORG argued that after the decision in the DATE case the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint had been determined in due time , without any delay .","The Act on Protracted Court Proceedings and Criminal Investigations ( Gesetz \u00fcber den Rechtsschutz bei \u00fcberlangen PERSON , \u201c the LAW \u201d ) was published in LAW I , DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . \u2013 on DATE and entered into force DATE .","The Remedy Act introduced general provisions instituting a remedy against any kind of protracted court proceedings . Section CARDINAL applied to criminal and civil proceedings \u2013 for details see PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL et seq . , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL et seq . , CARDINAL DATE .","For proceedings before ORG , LAW amended LAW as follows :","\u201c Section PERSON","( CARDINAL ) Any person who , as the result of the unreasonable length of proceedings before ORG , experiences a disadvantage as a participant in those proceedings or as a participant in proceedings suspended for the purpose of obtaining a decision from ORG shall be afforded reasonable compensation . The reasonableness of the length of proceedings shall be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the particular case , having due regard to the functions and the position of ORG .","( CARDINAL ) A non - pecuniary disadvantage shall be presumed in cases where proceedings before ORG have been of unreasonable length . Compensation may be claimed therefor save in particular cases where reparation by other means , such as the mere finding that the length of proceedings was unreasonable , is sufficient . Such compensation shall amount to \u20ac CARDINAL for DATE of delay . If the sum thus calculated is not equitable , the ORG shall assess a higher or lower sum .","Section CARDINALb","( CARDINAL ) A decision on compensation and reparation shall be rendered if a complaint of undue delay has been lodged with ORG . A complaint of undue delay shall be admissible only if the complainant has previously objected to the length of the proceedings before ORG ( PERSON ) .","A complaint of undue delay shall be lodged in writing and it shall set out the circumstances purported to establish the unreasonableness of the length of the proceedings . It shall be admissible DATE at the earliest after the case has been lodged with ORG . A complaint of undue delay shall not require a reasoned notification .","...","Section CARDINALd","( CARDINAL ) The rapporteur in the proceedings concerned shall submit an opinion within DATE of receipt of the reasons for the complaint of undue delay .","( CARDINAL ) The complaints panel shall decide by a majority . In the event of a tie the complaint of undue delay shall be dismissed . The complaints panel shall render its decision without an oral hearing . Reasons need not be given .","( CARDINAL ) The decision is not subject to appeal . \u201d","In a departure from the general transitional provision under section CARDINAL of LAW ( see for details GPE , \u00a7 DATE , and PERSON , \u00a7 DATE , both cited above ) , section PERSON of the amended LAW stipulated that , in the case of terminated proceedings whose length might still become or had already become the subject of a complaint before that court , it was not necessary to raise a complaint of undue delay ( GPE ) prior to filing a complaint claiming compensation . That complaint had to be lodged with ORG by DATE at the latest ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166747","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF USHAKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4","5-5","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175666","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF YAKOVENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","On DATE a deputy prosecutor in GPE , GPE , added the applicant \u2019s name to the list of fugitives from justice and issued an arrest warrant on suspicion of human trafficking with the purpose of sexual exploitation .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE .","On DATE ORG in GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s detention pending extradition , referring to ORG and CARDINAL of LAW but without setting a time - limit .","On DATE the NORP Prosecutor General \u2019s office received a request for the applicant \u2019s extradition from his counterpart in GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE the deputy ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE .","The applicant challenged the extradition order before ORG . On DATE ORG found that the extradition order was lawful . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision on appeal .","On DATE the applicant was extradited to GPE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153911","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF TCHOKONTIO HAPPI v. FRANCE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","She has been living with her daughter and brother in a flat in the GPE area since DATE . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , served on DATE , the GPE mediation commission , finding that the applicant and her relatives were housed in indecent and insalubrious conditions , earmarked their case as a priority for urgent rehousing .","As she had not received any offer of accommodation taking account of her needs and capacities DATE after the date of that decision , the applicant lodged an application with ORG seeking an order for the ORG to provide her with housing , on pain of a fine .","On DATE ORG upheld her application and instructed the prefect of the \u00cele - de - France region to rehouse the applicant , her daughter and her brother , on pain of a fine of CARDINAL ( ORG ) , payable to the urban development fund for the \u00cele - de - GPE region , for each DATE \u2019s delay from DATE . ORG found as follows :","\u201c It emerges from the investigation that a safety architect employed by the GPE Police Commissioner \u2019s Office noted on DATE that the kitchen ceiling in the flat occupied by [ the applicant ] , her daughter and her brother was in a dangerous state as it was unstable and weak . Her request should therefore be granted as a matter of particular urgency . \u201d","On DATE , as the applicant had still not been rehoused , ORG assessed the interim amount of the fine for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and ordered the ORG to pay ORG CARDINAL into the urban development fund for the \u00cele - de - GPE region .","As matters stand , the applicant and her family have still not been rehoused ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140951","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"N.F. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the GPE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , of ORG .","NORP summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant applied for asylum in the GPE . On DATE he was interviewed about his identity , nationality and travel route .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was interviewed about his asylum account ( nader gehoor ) . He claimed inter alia that he had not seen his wife and their CARDINAL children DATE and that he had been a professional military officer . DATE when the PERSON came to power \u2013 he had worked for the ORG \/ WAD ( ORG Atal - at - e Dowlati \/ PERSON ) . In DATE he had also become a member of ORG of GPE ; ORG ) . In DATE , in order to flee the unstable situation in GPE and the PERSON , the applicant and his family had moved to PERSON - i - Sharif . After the second ORG invasion of FAC on DATE , his problems had started . He had been arrested by CARDINAL armed ORG , he had been kicked , beaten and taken to a house . Suddenly the ORG had left . As the door of the house had been unlocked , the applicant had simply walked off . He had then fled to an uncle with whom he had stayed . On DATE the ORG had raided his uncle \u2019s house . The applicant had been taken by them and held at a control post where he had been ill - treated under questioning . He had been released on DATE after his uncle had managed to bribe some ORG . Fearing that he would be killed in GPE on account of his work for ORG , his ORG membership and his NORP ethnic origins , the applicant had fled to the GPE where he arrived on DATE .","In DATE the applicant converted to NORP and was baptised .","On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s wife and their CARDINAL eldest children travelled to the GPE and applied for asylum . They were granted asylum and on an unspecified subsequent date were granted NORP citizenship . A third child has been born to the applicant and his wife in the GPE .","On DATE the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON Integratie ; \u201c the Minister \u201d ) issued an intention ( voornemen ) to reject the applicant \u2019s asylum application and to hold LAW against him . The Minister based this decision on the applicant \u2019s statements about his career from DATE as an officer in the ORG in which he had last held the rank of major , and on a general official report ( algemeen ambtsbericht ) , drawn up on DATE by ORG ( GPE PERSON ) on \u201c ORG in NORP GPE ( DATE ) . AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ( \u201c PERSON in communistisch GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG en WAD \u201d ) On the basis of this report , the GPE immigration authorities adopted the position that LAW could be held against virtually every NORP asylum seeker who , holding the rank of third lieutenant or higher , had worked during the communist regime for the ORG .","On DATE the applicant submitted his written comments on the intention ( zienswijze ) , arguing that it would be unjust to hold Article CARDINAL against him as he did not have personal knowledge of the crimes committed by the ORG and he had never participated in such crimes .","On DATE an additional interview ( aanvullend gehoor ) was held with the applicant , mainly about his conversion to NORP and whether his expulsion to GPE would expose him to a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW .","NORP By letter of DATE , following the additional interview of CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ; \u201c the Deputy Minister \u201d ; the successor to the Minister for ORG ) notified the applicant of her intention to reject his asylum application by holding LAW against him . The Deputy Minister held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he , if expelled to GPE , would be exposed to a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW . According to the official report of ORG of DATE not all former members of the ORG ran such a risk . The applicant had failed to establish that specific groups were looking for him . Furthermore , it could not be said that his conversion to NORP would give rise to such a risk . The Deputy Minister further notified the applicant of her intention to impose an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) on him .","On DATE the applicant submitted his written comments on the intention . He argued that he had a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW upon return to GPE as the ORG were looking for him , because of his involvement in the ORG as well as because of his conversion to NORP which was known in GPE .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s asylum application was refused by the Deputy Minister , LAW being held against him on account of his involvement with the ORG . In addition , an exclusion order was imposed on him . As regards LAW , the Deputy Minister concluded that the applicant had not established that he had a well - founded fear of being exposed to a real risk of treatment prohibited by this provision .","On DATE the applicant filed an appeal with ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE against the rejection of his asylum request and , on DATE , he lodged an objection ( bezwaar ) with the Deputy Minister against the imposition of the exclusion order .","The Deputy Minister rejected this objection on DATE and , on DATE , the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with ORG of The Hague .","By judgment of DATE ORG of The GPE sitting in PERSON declared inadmissible the applicant \u2019s appeal against the rejection of his asylum application . As under domestic law an alien can not have legal residence if an exclusion order has been imposed , ORG found that the applicant had no legal interest in a determination of his appeal . On DATE , the applicant filed a further appeal with ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) .","In its judgment of DATE , ORG of The GPE sitting in PERSON rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the exclusion order . On DATE , the applicant filed a further appeal with ORG .","On DATE , at the request of the applicant , the ORG decided to indicate to the Government of the GPE that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG not to remove the applicant to GPE ( Rule CARDINAL of ORG ) until DATE .","On DATE the ORG prolonged the measure under LAW until further notice . On that same date the Government were invited to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the case .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the judgment of DATE . In this ruling , the ORG held that the alleged violation of the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW on account of his expulsion from the GPE were to be determined in the still pending proceedings concerning the imposition of the exclusion order . No further appeal lay against this ruling .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister withdrew her decision of DATE in which she had rejected the applicant \u2019s objection of CARDINAL DATE against the imposition of the exclusion order . As the object of the administrative appeal proceedings had thus ceased to exist , ORG decided on DATE to declare inadmissible the applicant \u2019s further appeal of CARDINAL DATE .","In a fresh decision taken on CARDINAL DATE and a pertaining addendum of CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy Minister again rejected the applicant \u2019s objection of DATE . The Deputy Minister considered that , as LAW was being held against him , the applicant could be considered as constituting a danger to national security . However , the Deputy Minister did accept that the applicant , if removed to GPE , would be exposed to a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of LAW upon return to GPE . However , this could not lead to the applicant being granted a residence permit .","The applicant filed an appeal against this decision with ORG of The Hague . On DATE , this appeal was heard before ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE . It decided to adjourn the appeal to allow the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON , ORG ; the successor to the Deputy Minister of Justice ) to replace the exclusion order by an entry ban within the meaning of Directive CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EC of DATE ( on common standards and procedures in Member GPE for returning illegally staying third - country nationals ) . The appeal before ORG is presumably still pending as no further information about these proceedings has been submitted .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( \u201c ECJ \u201d ) gave judgment in Joined Cases C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , PERSON GPE v Y and PERSON In this judgment the ECJ held that for the purpose of determining which acts of interference with freedom of religion may be regarded as constituting persecution , it is unnecessary to distinguish acts that interfere with the \u2018 core ORG ( \u2018 forum internum\u2019 ) of the basic right to freedom of religion , which do not include religious activities in public , from acts which do not affect those purported \u2018 core ORG . According to the ECJ , acts which may constitute a \u2018 severe violation\u2019 within the meaning of LAW of DATE on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or ORG persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection guaranteed ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) include serious acts which interfere with one \u2019s freedom not only to practice one \u2019s faith in private circles but also to live that faith publicly .","On DATE ORG handed down a ruling , in proceedings unconnected to the applicant , in which it applied the ECJ judgment of DATE .","NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG were requested to inform the ORG what , if any , practical consequences they drew from the rulings of CARDINAL DATE and DATE in relation to the pending case .","In its reply of CARDINAL DATE the Government requested the ORG to strike the application out of the list of pending cases , submitting the following :","\u201c By decision of DATE it was established that the applicant runs a real risk of treatment contrary to LAW upon returning to GPE . Consequently , the applicant will not be removed to GPE . Since LAW applies to him , the applicant is not eligible for an asylum permit . This conclusion is unaffected by the judgment delivered by ORG of ORG on DATE . \u201d","In his comments of DATE , the applicant objected to the ORG \u2019s request to strike the application out of the list of cases .","The relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings , exclusion orders and enforcement of removals are set out in PERSON the GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-165595","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"J.G. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE . He is currently living in the GPE . The Acting President decided that the applicant \u2019s identity should not be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","NORP The applicant was born in LOC and is of NORP ethnicity . Like the majority of the population in GPE , he was a NORP . He entered the GPE on DATE and lodged a first asylum application on DATE , submitting , inter alia , that he had fled his village of origin following a dispute between his family and a local warlord over landownership , in the course of which his father and brother had fallen victim to vendetta killings and the applicant \u2019s life had been threatened . It appears that that asylum application and a consecutive second asylum application lodged in DATE ended unsuccessfully for the applicant , with the relevant authorities considering that the applicant \u2019s statements about the killing of his father and brother lacked credibility . Stating that these first CARDINAL asylum proceedings are unrelated to the present application , the applicant has not submitted any further documents in this regard other than copies of reports from his first CARDINAL interviews with ORG ( Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst ) . It nevertheless appears from the other documents in the file that the first asylum request was rejected on DATE and that the appeal against that decision was upheld on DATE . The request was once more rejected on DATE , and the subsequent appeal dismissed on DATE . The second asylum application was rejected on DATE and the appeal against that decision was dismissed on DATE . It further appears that , although possible , no further appeal was lodged in the proceedings on either the first or the second asylum request .","On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh asylum application . Interviews were held with him by ORG on DATE and DATE . The applicant submitted DATE in addition to his previous submissions regarding the local warlord in his village of origin \u2013 that he had converted to NORP during his stay in the GPE and that , as a consequence , he ran an additional real and individual risk of treatment contrary to LAW if he were to return to GPE . In support of his claim , the applicant submitted a baptism certificate dated DATE issued by ORG in GPE . He further submitted , inter alia , that his first encounter with the NORP religion had been in a reception centre for asylum - seekers . He had visited a church for the first time out of curiosity in DATE together with NORP . While staying in different facilities , the applicant had gradually started to gain more NORP acquaintances ; they had brought him a Bible and other reading material about the NORP religion , not only in NORP but also in PERSON and PERSON . The Bible had helped him particularly when he had been placed in immigration detention . He considered that love was the essence of the NORP religion , and in his daily life he tried to abide by the rules set out by PERSON , for example to love people and to treat them well .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) notified the applicant of her intention ( voornemen ) to reject his asylum application as she found his conversion to NORP not credible . The Deputy Minister noted that it appeared from the applicant \u2019s submissions that he had already been interested in NORP in DATE , an interest which had grown in the course of DATE and in particular through his contacts with another NORP convert DATE and DATE . Yet he had nevertheless failed to mention such interest in the course of the proceedings on either his first asylum application or his second , and in those latter proceedings he had been registered as a NORP \u2013 albeit a non - practising one \u2013 without the applicant giving any indication of his interest in a different religion . It also did not appear from the file relating to the applicant \u2019s immigration detention that he had developed an interest in NORP and neither had he made any mention of such in meetings with ORG ( PERSON ) of ORG and ORG .","In his comments ( zienswijze ) on the Deputy Minister \u2019s intended refusal of his asylum application , the applicant submitted , inter alia , that he had replied \u201c no \u201d when he was asked in the interview pursuant to his second asylum application whether he was a practising NORP . As he had not yet been baptised at that time , he had felt unable to say that he was a NORP . Moreover , when he had tried to explain to the officer of ORG for what reasons he was unable to return to GPE , he had been told that that ORG was not concerned with such issues .","NORP The Deputy Minister was not persuaded by the applicant \u2019s comments and rejected the asylum request on DATE . In addition to the fact that the applicant \u2019s alleged conversion was not believed , the Deputy Minister further considered that the alleged problems in the applicant \u2019s village of origin had already been found to lack credibility in the previous asylum proceedings , while neither the applicant \u2019s ethnicity nor the general security situation in GPE gave rise to an assumption that he would be at risk of any treatment contrary to LAW if he were to return to that country ( taking into account that NORP constituted the majority of the population of LOC where the applicant hailed from ) .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the Deputy Minister \u2019s decision . In these proceedings , the Deputy Minister submitted , inter alia , that she considered it remarkable that the applicant , while he had been held in immigration detention , had made no mention of his interest in NORP or of the problems which might arise as a result if he were expelled , yet he had been baptised DATE after his release from detention . The Deputy Minister considered it likely that the applicant had let himself be baptised for effect only and found it implausible that he had genuinely converted .","Following a hearing on DATE , which was held in the presence of the applicant and counsel , ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on DATE . It held that , pursuant to the case - law of ORG of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , it could only review the impugned decision if the applicant had based his latest request for asylum on newly emerged facts or altered circumstances or if a relevant change in the law had occurred . ORG agreed with the Deputy Minister \u2019s finding that , notwithstanding the baptism certificate and an affidavit of the officiating minister ( voorganger ) of ORG ( to the effect that the applicant was an active member of that church ) , which had been submitted by the applicant , he had failed to demonstrate convincingly that he had converted to NORP . This being the case , the alleged conversion could not be seen as constituting a newly emerged fact or altered circumstance . ORG further held that the applicant had also not submitted any other arguments or documents on the basis of which the rejection of his earlier asylum application ought to be reconsidered .","A further appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed by the ORG on DATE on summary grounds .","On DATE the applicant lodged yet another asylum application , about which he was interviewed by ORG on DATE . He submitted DATE in addition to his previous submissions \u2013 that his NORP beliefs had intensified , that he had been attending church services and Bible lessons and that he had converted others . He further submitted , inter alia , a certificate of attendance of a Bible studies course and a new affidavit of the officiating minister of ORG dated DATE , stating that the applicant was a member of that church who attended its services , and affidavits of CARDINAL NORP stating that they had been converted by the applicant . Furthermore , he claimed that he had received threats from other NORP in the GPE and in GPE via telephone after he had told his mother , a nephew and others about his conversion and had tried to convert them . Lastly , the applicant referred to the deteriorating general security situation in GPE .","On DATE , the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON Integratie ; the successor to the Deputy Minister of ORG as regards immigration matters ) rejected the asylum request , considering that the documents submitted by the applicant could not be regarded as evidence of the applicant \u2019s true conversion and holding that the applicant was ( still ) unable to provide an insight into the motivational process that had led to his alleged conversion . The assertion that his conversion had become known in GPE was dismissed , as the Minister found the applicant \u2019s statements in this regard inconsistent . Lastly , the Minister noted as a negative against the applicant that although he had had the opportunity to submit this information already during his previous asylum proceedings , he had failed to do so . As the applicant had thus still not made a plausible case for believing that his conversion was genuine , the Minister concluded that he was not eligible for asylum . Concerning the security situation in GPE , particularly in the applicant \u2019s home town of GPE , the Minister considered that although this might have deteriorated , it had not reached a level in which an LAW risk was to be assumed on account of a person \u2019s mere presence in that place . The applicant lodged an appeal against the Minister \u2019s decision .","At a hearing held before ORG on DATE in the presence of the applicant and counsel , CARDINAL members of ORG called as witnesses for the applicant testified about the latter \u2019s church activities . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , concurring with the Minister that his submissions did not repair the lack of credibility and lack of insight given regarding the motivational process around his alleged conversion , which had been observed in the previous asylum proceedings . ORG concluded that the applicant had neither submitted any newly emerged facts or altered circumstances nor such exceptional circumstances relating to LAW that it would be justified to proceed to a review of the impugned decision .","The applicant lodged a further appeal with the ORG .","On DATE , the applicant was placed in immigration detention for removal purposes . Additionally , on that same day , a return decision ( terugkeerbesluit ) was taken and an entry ban ( inreisverbod ) of DATE was imposed on the applicant by the Deputy Minister of Security and ORG ( Staatssecretaris PERSON Justitie ; the successor to the Minister for ORG as regards immigration matters ) .","The application was lodged with the ORG on DATE and subsequently , on DATE , the applicant asked the ORG to issue an interim measure under LAW staying his removal until his further appeal with the ORG and his application with the ORG had been decided upon .","On DATE , the Acting President of the Section decided to reject the request for an interim measure .","According to a letter received by ORG , the further appeal by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was dismissed by the ORG on DATE .","From a letter of the Deputy Minister of Security and ORG , dated DATE and addressed to Mr PERSON , a member of ORG ( ORG ) lower house parliamentary party ( ORG ) , it appears that the latter had , on DATE , asked the Deputy Minister to reconsider the applicant \u2019s asylum request . Mr Voordewind had apparently noted that the applicant had started attending a different church DATE , namely the Hope for GPE ) church in GPE , and that that church did not readily issue statements on request when it concerned asylum - seekers ; however , it had been happy to do so for the applicant who had been very active in that church . Furthermore , PERSON had seemingly expressed his disagreement with the finding ( in the latest decision rejecting the applicant \u2019s asylum request ) that the applicant had not submitted any new facts or circumstances , urging that further research or a counter appraisal of the credibility of the applicant \u2019s conversion should be performed in the given circumstances . The Deputy Minister replied in that letter that he saw no circumstances which gave rise to a need for a reconsideration of the refusal of the applicant \u2019s asylum request , but that the applicant would be invited to lodge a fresh asylum request .","On DATE the applicant lodged a fifth asylum request and an interview was held with him that DATE . The applicant submitted , inter alia , that he had been a NORP and an active member of a church for DATE now , that all of his family members in GPE knew about his conversion , and that his NORP belief had intensified even more since he had been attending the Hope for NORP church . In support of this claim , the applicant submitted an affidavit of the officiating minister and deacon ( diaken ) of the Hope for NORP church of DATE , attesting , inter alia , to the fact that the applicant had been an active member of that church since DATE , attending church services DATE ; that they were convinced of the applicant \u2019s sincere NORP belief ; that their church was familiar with the fact that asylum - seekers might abuse it in order to obtain a residence permit ; and that they were therefore very careful in giving statements .","NORP The applicant further submitted a \u201c Report Concerning the Credibility of Conversion \u201d ( Rapport Inzake PERSON ) , dated CARDINAL DATE and drawn up in NORP by Professor PERSON of ORG ( Vrije Universiteit ) of GPE , a theology professor and a psychologist of religion . This report contains an assessment of the credibility of the applicant \u2019s conversion to NORP and commences with a general part in which definitions , different stages and types of conversion are described , followed by an elaboration of the analysis and classification of the credibility of conversion , all with references to other scientific reports . The second part of the report comprises an analysis of the applicant \u2019s conversion based on his case file , that is to say all the records of interviews held with the applicant and all the decisions taken by the administrative and judicial authorities in the course of the proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s third and fourth asylum requests . The analysis entails an assessment of those documents based on CARDINAL questions through which the type of conversion is classified and the symptoms of different stages are compared for consistency to the assessed type ; the departure from the previous religion and the motivations for conversion are compared to the way in which that process has been expressed and CARDINAL dimensions ( affection , cognisance , behaviour ) of conversion are assessed for consistency . The conclusion of this report , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c Based on the criteria concerning internal and external consistency , I find [ the applicant ] \u2019s conversion credible . It appears to concern an active conversion ( as opposed to a passive conversion ) in which a change of religious beliefs occurs after a change in behaviour instigated by a crisis during which the convert experiences a lack of purpose . The different stages of the so - called \u2018 PERSON ( pertaining to an active convert ) are clearly recognisable . The motivations are consistent with the way they are expressed and the CARDINAL dimensions of conversion are clearly visible and consistent with the religion he has converted to . \u201d","Lastly , the applicant submitted an affidavit of DATE from the preacher of the GPE detention centre for asylum - seekers , attesting , inter alia , that the applicant was a NORP , that he had converted other asylum - seekers and that he attended church every DATE including going to Bible - study groups .","By decision of DATE the Deputy Minister rejected the asylum request , considering that there were no newly emerged facts or circumstances . The Deputy Minister took the view that since the documents submitted by the applicant ( the abovementioned report on credibility as well as the affidavits ) had been drawn up at the applicant \u2019s request they could not be regarded as legally relevant new facts . With regard to Professor PERSON credibility report , the Deputy Minister considered that it could have been drawn up and submitted in previous asylum proceedings , which the applicant had failed to do without giving reasons as to why this had not been possible . Moreover , the fact that the report had been based on documents and that no assessment in person had been carried out discredited , in the Deputy Minister \u2019s view , the value of the report . Lastly , the Deputy Minister observed that the report presupposed the alleged vendetta killings of the applicant \u2019s father and brother as a basis for the crisis experienced by the applicant , but that that account of events had been found to lack credence in the proceedings in the applicant \u2019s first application for asylum .","On DATE the Repatriation and Departure Service of ORG and ORG informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that a charter flight to GPE , GPE , had been arranged for the applicant \u2019s removal , scheduled for DATE .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the Deputy Minister \u2019s rejection with ORG , accompanied by a request for a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) in order to stay his removal pending appeal . When filing his grounds of appeal , the applicant supplemented the above - mentioned documents which he had submitted in support of his fifth asylum request with a report entitled \u201c Assessment of Conversion \u201d ( Toetsing Bekering ) of DATE and drawn up by PERSON of ORG ( PERSON ) , an interdenominational organisation supporting churches in their contacts with refugees and asylum seekers . That report concluded that in view of , inter alia , Professor PERSON report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) strong reasons for a reconsideration of the applicant \u2019s asylum application existed .","A hearing took place before the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG of GPE , sitting in GPE , on DATE , in the presence of the applicant and counsel .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG for the second time to issue an interim measure under Rule DATE .","On DATE the provisional - measures judge of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and rejected the request for a provisional measure . Noting that the impugned decision of the Deputy Minister was substantially similar to the decisions on the applicant \u2019s earlier asylum applications , the provisional - measures judge set out the applicable framework for his review as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL.CARDINAL It follows from the ne bis in idem principle that , if after an earlier negative decision a substantially similar decision is taken , it is at the outset to be assumed that the administrative court is not allowed to review the latter decision as if it were a first rejection . That decision , its reasoning and the manner in which it came about can only be reviewed by the administrative court if the alien adduced newly emerged facts or altered circumstances in the administrative stage , or if it follows from the alien \u2019s submissions that a change in the law , relevant to his situation , has occurred . It is only when exceptional facts and circumstances within the meaning of paragraph CARDINAL of ORG Rights\u2019 judgment of DATE ( ORG v. the GPE [ Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE ] ) pertain , relating to the individual case , that the above does not apply .","CARDINAL NORP The provisional - measures judge will examine ex officio whether the request is based on newly emerged facts or altered circumstances . These include facts and circumstances which have occurred after the previous decision was taken or which could not have been adduced prior to the taking of that decision , as well as documents supporting already previously adduced facts or circumstances which it was not possible to submit prior to the earlier decision . Such newly emerged facts or altered circumstances will not , however , justify a new judicial examination if it is from the outset excluded that that which has been adduced or submitted is incapable of detracting from the earlier decision . \u201d","The provisional - measures judge proceeded to uphold the Deputy Minister \u2019s point of view that the applicant had failed to establish the existence of newly emerged facts or altered circumstances . He considered , inter alia , that the report of DATE from ORG was of too general a nature . With regard to the applicant \u2019s alleged intensified beliefs and activities in his church , it was considered that this argument had already been submitted in previous asylum applications and that the applicant had failed to repair the lack of insight given regarding the motivational process leading to his alleged conversion . As regards Professor PERSON report , the provisional - measures judge observed that the Deputy Minister had conceded during the hearing before that judge that the applicant could not have submitted said report at an earlier stage . However , the availability of the report did not affect the fact that it was for the applicant himself to relate convincingly about the motives for and the process of his conversion \u2013 and the applicant had failed to do so . The provisional - measures judge further held that even though considerable weight fell to be accorded to a report drawn up by Professor PERSON that focused on the individual asylum - seeker , this did not in every situation entail that a decision in which the Deputy Minister reached a different conclusion was by definition untenable . It was considered relevant in the case at hand that the Deputy Minister had challenged the report in a germane and well - reasoned manner , and the provisional - measures judge concurred with the Deputy Minister \u2019s criticism . Thus , it was indicated in the report that the death of the applicant \u2019s father and brother could have caused the crisis or disorientation that constitute one of the stages of a conversion . However , it did not appear that account had been taken in the report of the fact that this part of the applicant \u2019s asylum statement had already been disbelieved in the earlier proceedings . Moreover , no confirmation could be found in the report of the applicant \u2019s claim that Professor PERSON included in her assessment the question to what extent certain statements were brief and vague and what weight fell to be accorded to them . While Professor PERSON mentioned the period DATE and the applicant \u2019s statements surrounding that period in her report , no attention had been given to the vague and contradictory statements which the Deputy Minister had examined in the earlier proceedings . For this reason the provisional - measures judge concluded that it was from the outset excluded that the report by Professor PERSON could detract from the decisions that had been taken on the applicant \u2019s previous asylum requests .","On DATE the Acting President of the Section decided , under Rule CARDINAL , to indicate to ORG that it was desirable , in the interest of the parties and of the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , not to expel the applicant to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE , the applicant informed the ORG that he had lodged a further appeal with the ORG against ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted to the ORG a reply which his lawyer had received from Professor PERSON to a question from the lawyer relating to the Deputy Minister \u2019s criticism that Professor PERSON had partly based her conclusion of the sincerity of the applicant \u2019s conversion on events which had been disbelieved . Professor PERSON stated that her report also mentioned that the crisis which had immediately preceded the applicant \u2019s conversion had taken place while the applicant had been in immigration detention as set out in the report of the interview held with him in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The crisis - stage of the conversion could therefore be considered reliable even without the death of the applicant \u2019s father and brother . This letter of DATE was returned to the lawyer ; as the ORG had concluded its preliminary examination prior to receipt of the letter , it could not be added to the file .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s further appeal on summary reasoning . No further appeal lay against that decision .","On DATE the applicant submitted to the ORG a report of a meeting that had taken place on DATE between himself and CARDINAL members of the so - called ORG . This commission , set up in DATE , consists of a number of theologians from various NORP churches . It carries out independent assessments of the conversion of asylum - seekers at the request of lawyers . Following their meeting with the applicant , the CARDINAL members of ORG concluded that they had no reason to doubt the sincerity of the applicant \u2019s faith .","The applicant further submitted CARDINAL statements , dated DATE and DATE , respectively , from ministers attached to ORG in PERSON , where the applicant was living at that time . The CARDINAL authors attested to the applicant \u2019s attendance of church services and his involvement in other church activities as well as to the sincerity of his NORP beliefs ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161975","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ARMANI DA SILVA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is the cousin of PERSON , who was shot dead by police officers on DATE .","On DATE CARDINAL suicide bombers detonated explosions on the GPE transport network . CARDINAL of the suicide bombers were on underground trains and CARDINAL was on a bus . CARDINAL people , including the CARDINAL suicide bombers , were killed in the attack and many more were injured .","ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) initiated a major police investigation to establish the identities of persons involved in or otherwise connected with the explosions . Available intelligence indicated that terrorists were actively planning a further attack within DATE and the threat level posed to GPE from international terrorism was raised from LAW to Level CARDINAL .","On DATE , precisely DATE after the first bombings , CARDINAL explosive devices were discovered in rucksacks left on CARDINAL underground trains and on CARDINAL bus . As it was feared that the failed bombers would regroup TIME and attempt to detonate further explosions , the ORG immediately launched an operation to find them ( Operation THESEUS CARDINAL ) . This operation was led , as ORG , by Police Commander PERSON .","At TIME on DATE Commander PERSON was informed that intelligence had identified PERSON as a suspect in the failed bombings of DATE . Both PERSON and another suspect were thought to be living in an apartment at CARDINAL FAC , GPE .","At TIME on DATE Commander PERSON decided to mount surveillance operations at both FAC and another GPE address . The overall aim of the operation at CARDINAL FAC was to establish whether the suspects were present in the apartment and to arrest them safely if they came out . Commander PERSON \u2019s strategy for this operation was not recorded ; however , it would appear to have been to control the premises at FAC through covert surveillance , to follow persons leaving the LOC until it was felt safe to challenge them , and then to stop them . In order to implement this strategy his plan was that a surveillance team from SOCARDINAL ( Special Branch ) should be in attendance at FAC . They were to be supported by a unit from ORG , a ORG branch of the ORG . The unit from ORG consisted of highly trained Special Firearms Officers ( \u201c SFOs \u201d ) who were usually deployed on pre - planned operations . Although some surveillance officers were armed for their own protection and that of the public , their training did not enable them to be used as a resource to arrest armed suspects . ORG would normally undertake this task , although armed officers from SOCARDINAL could be used for this purpose as a last resort .","The Crown Prosecution Service ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) Review Note later found that if Commander PERSON \u2019s strategy had been followed ( notably , had the team from ORG been deployed in time to support the surveillance teams at FAC ) , events would not have unfolded as they did .","Commander PERSON appointed Commander PERSON as the Designated Senior Officer ( \u201c DSO \u201d ) in charge who was to be responsible for achieving the ORG CARDINAL strategy safely . As such , she had responsibility for the operation at CARDINAL FAC on DATE . She was based in Control Room CARDINAL , where she was supported by ORG , an experienced ORG from ORG who was acting as her tactical adviser .","Detective Chief Inspector C ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) was appointed as Silver Commander for the operation at FAC . Although a Silver Commander would normally have ultimate responsibility for the management of an incident and deployment of firearms resources , on this occasion the DSO retained this responsibility and ORG operated as the ORG \u2019s ground commander . ORG was supported by and accompanied on the ground by Trojan CARDINAL , who , like Trojan CARDINAL , was an experienced FAC from ORG who was acting as a tactical adviser . PERSON was in charge of the ORG team to be deployed and he was in direct contact with ORG .","Detective Superintendent PERSON ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , the Senior Investigating Officer for the investigation into the identity of the persons responsible for the bombings on DATE , was also appointed as a Silver Commander .","At TIME on DATE a surveillance team from SOCARDINAL was called out . No request was made at this stage for a unit from ORG .","By TIME CARDINAL surveillance teams from SOCARDINAL had been deployed to FAC address to control the LOC and to follow anyone coming out of the apartments . CARDINAL FAC was accessed by the same doorway as CARDINAL FAC and the surveillance teams were stationed in an observation van which had a view of that doorway .","The Anti - Terrorist Branch of the ORG ( \u201c SOCARDINAL \u201d ) deployed CARDINAL officers to assist with any arrest and to gain intelligence . ORG was the link between ORG and SOCARDINAL .","At TIME Commander PERSON held a briefing during which the firearms strategy was outlined . PERSON was present at the briefing together with the Silver Commanders for the surveillance operations at FAC and the second GPE address . The PERSON arrived at TIME ; however , Commander PERSON spoke to her after the briefing to ensure she had all the information and assistance she needed .","As they had not been called out earlier ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , SFOs from ORG were allocated to the operation when they reported for duty . At TIME PERSON CARDINAL briefed the SFOs . The briefing was not recorded but he appears to have told the team that they \u201c may be required to use unusual tactics because of the environment they were in and that they should think about this \u201d . When asked for clarification PERSON CARDINAL added that , in relation to a critical shot , the instruction would come directly from the DSO . However , if they were deployed to intercept a subject and there was an opportunity to challenge but the subject was non - compliant , a critical shot could be taken . The ORG later found that this briefing \u201c stoked the [ SFOs ] fears that they would meet suicide bombers and that they may have to shoot such people \u201d .","Following the briefing the unit from ORG travelled to a police station at FAC , which was QUANTITY from FAC . They stopped off for petrol on the way . Upon arrival they received a further briefing from ORG , which commenced at TIME The briefing was not recorded but it appears that ORG confirmed the terrorists had the capacity to attach a device to themselves that would be difficult to detect . He described the individuals involved in the bombings as being \u201c deadly and determined \u201d and \u201c up for it \u201d . The ORG later criticised this briefing as unbalanced as ORG had failed to caution the SFOs that not everyone they would stop leaving FAC would be a suicide bomber and that they should not overreact in the heat of the moment .","NORP The team from PERSON was not deployed on the ground until after TIME","PERSON was a NORP national who lived at CARDINAL FAC . At TIME he left his apartment building through the common doorway in order to go to work . An officer in the surveillance van saw Mr PERSON , described him and suggested \u201c it would be worth someone else having a look \u201d . However , as the unit from ORG had not yet reached FAC it was not possible to stop PERSON at this stage ( as per the strategy outlined at paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Instead , he was followed by the surveillance officers .","On leaving FAC Mr de Menezes walked a short distance to a bus stop and got on a bus heading towards FAC . The ORG on the bus did not capture the entire journey due to vibrations but PERSON was recorded as being on the bus by TIME At this point the surveillance team described him as \u201c a good possible likeness \u201d to PERSON . By CARDINAL a.m. the description had changed to \u201c not identical \u201d .","At TIME got off the bus . He was then seen using his mobile phone before running back to the bus and reboarding .","There are conflicting accounts of whether a positive identification was made of PERSON as the suspect at this stage . It appears from ORG of ORG ( the \u201c ORG DATE see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) that those on the ground had not been able to identify PERSON as PERSON . The fact that FAC refers to him at each entry as being an \u201c U \/ I [ unidentified ] male \u201d lends some support to this position . Nevertheless , those in Control Room CARDINAL appear to have believed that a positive identification of PERSON had been made .","At around the time that PERSON reboarded the bus the unit from ORG began to make its way towards ORG . The ORG team leader later told the ORG that he heard over the radio that \u201c it was definitely our man and that he was nervous and twitchy \u201d .","At TIME the surveillance teams were asked to give a percentage indication of the likelihood that Mr PERSON was the suspect and they replied that it was \u201c impossible [ to do so ] but thought that it was [ the ] suspect \u201d .","Mr PERSON got off the bus at GPE and walked towards GPE underground station . There were several surveillance officers in the vicinity and their leader offered to stop Mr PERSON before he entered the station . The ORG initially ordered that they perform the stop , having been informed that the unit from ORG was not yet in a position to intervene . However , almost immediately thereafter she was informed that the unit was on hand . As a consequence , she countermanded her original order and instructed the SFOs to stop PERSON . By this time Mr de PERSON was already in the underground station . PERSON CARDINAL relayed the order to the SFOs , informing them that \u201c they want us to stop the subject getting on the tube \u201d . The SFOs were told that they were going to Code Red , which meant that they were to have ultimate control of the situation and that an armed interception was imminent .","The ORG at the station shows PERSON entering the station at TIME wearing a thin denim jacket , a T - shirt and denim jeans , walking calmly and not carrying anything . He went down an escalator and onto a platform . There is no ORG recording of the lower end of the escalator or of the platform : the relevant tapes , when seized by the ORG , were blank . The ORG and the ORG later found that this was because a cable had been damaged during recent refurbishment works .","At TIME a number of SFOs entered GPE underground station and ran down the escalators . At TIME they followed Mr de PERSON onto the platform . Eyewitness accounts as to what exactly happened next are conflicting and some of the witnesses gave accounts which it is now known could not have been accurate . However , it would appear from the accounts quoted in the ORG that : Mr PERSON went into the third coach of a stationary train and sat down ; CARDINAL of the surveillance officers shouted to the SFOs that PERSON was there ; PERSON stood up , arms down ; he was pushed back onto his seat and pinned down by CARDINAL police officers ; according to CARDINAL witness his hand may have moved towards the left hand side of his trouser waistband ; and CARDINAL SFOs ( PERSON and PERSON ) shot PERSON several times and killed him .","Within DATE of the shooting , after it had become apparent that Mr de PERSON had not been involved in the attempted terror attacks on CARDINAL DATE , the Commissioner of ORG , the Prime Minister and the Secretary of ORG expressed their profound regret at his death . A representative of the ORG travelled to meet his family in GPE and apologised directly to them on behalf of the police . An ex gratia payment was agreed upon to ensure that the family \u2019s financial needs were met . They were encouraged to take independent legal advice from a solicitor in GPE and they were advised that their legal costs in doing so would be met .","LAW DATE and ORG Regulations CARDINAL required a police shooting to be referred to the ORG . However , following the shooting of PERSON the Commissioner of ORG wrote to ORG to inform it that he had decided not to refer the matter to the ORG at that time .","As it was not immediately clear that PERSON had not been connected to the attempted bombings , the Anti - Terrorist Branch initially retained primary control of the scene of the shooting . During this time ORG ( \u201c DPS \u201d ) , an independent section of the ORG which had been notified of the shooting at TIME on DATE , ensured the integrity of the scene , interviewed witnesses , and completed forensic retrieval .","After the shooting PERSON and PERSON had been taken to a police station . At TIME , having taken legal advice , they indicated that they would not be making statements at that time . Instead , they made their statements together at TIME DATE , after they had been told that PERSON was not connected to the attempted bombings . Some of the details they initially provided have since been either proved false or called into doubt . For example , they initially indicated that PERSON had been wearing a bulky jacket ( ORG footage showed him wearing a light denim jacket ) and that the officers from ORG had shouted \u201c armed police \u201d when they boarded the train ( the ORG considered such an action to be \u201c illogical \u201d when confronting a possible suicide bomber ) .","An officer from SOCARDINAL had seized the surveillance log at TIME on DATE . However , at TIME DATE it was handed back to the officers from the unit . Around this time an amendment appears to have been made to an entry ; the words \u201c a split second view of his face . I believe it was [ the suspect ] \u201d appear to have been altered to read \u201c I believe it was NOT [ the suspect ] \u201d .","At TIME on DATE the Anti - Terrorist Branch formally handed over control of the scene to the ORG as they were satisfied that Mr PERSON was not connected to the attempted bombings .","On DATE a post - mortem examination took place and recorded the cause of death as \u201c multiple gunshot wounds to the head . The cause of death is severe disruption to the brain \u201d .","On DATE the ORG formally referred the investigation to the ORG , whose investigation began on DATE when the ORG provided it with the relevant material in its possession . Because of the seriousness of DATE and the public interest in DATE the matter , the ORG determined that it would use its own staff to carry out the investigation . It was overseen by ORG personally and the investigating team possessed all the powers and privileges of a police constable carrying out an investigation .","The purpose of the investigation was to advise the ORG of any criminal offence that might have been committed ; to provide it with the evidence necessary to come to a decision about any prosecution ; to enable the \u201c responsible authorities \u201d of the officers concerned ( the ORG and ORG , or \u201c MPA \u201d ) to consider what disciplinary or other action they might need to take ; to inform the Secretary of ORG for ORG of the circumstances of Mr de Menezes\u2019 death ; and to assist the coroner in relation to any inquest .","In particular , the investigation by the ORG was to examine :","a ) the information that led to the surveillance of the apartments at FAC ;","b ) the command structure of the operation , including details of the numbers and types of specialist officers deployed and the tactics available to them ;","c ) the qualification and training of those involved and their suitability to carry out their role ;","d ) details of the briefing given to the officers involved and any description or photograph of any suspect made available ;","e ) whether or not the operation was designated as a \u201c ORG \u201d operation ( the national strategy for dealing with suspected suicide bombers which permitted the use of lethal force if absolutely necessary ) and the policy , operational tactics and authority levels of \u201c ORG \u201d ;","f ) the details of the mobile surveillance operation from FAC to GPE underground station ;","g ) the details of police action once PERSON had reached ORG underground station ;","h ) whether or not the policy and operational authorities of \u201c ORG \u201d were followed and were effective ; and","i ) whether \u201c ORG \u201d was compliant with LAW .","The ORG was also to report on the actions and statements of the ORG from the time of the incident to the formal handover of the investigation to the ORG to ensure that the ORG investigation met its obligations under LAW .","DATE . During the course of the investigation CARDINAL witness statements were taken from police , forensic experts and civilian witnesses and CARDINAL exhibits were collected . The family of PERSON , together with their legal representatives , were given regular detailed verbal briefings on the progress of the investigation and eventually on its conclusions .","On DATE the ORG investigating team submitted a report to the ORG indicating , inter alia , that certain officers might have committed criminal or disciplinary offences . The ORG therefore wrote to the ORG and to the ORG about the officers concerned .","On DATE the ORG was completed and submitted to the ORG . On DATE the legal representatives of Mr PERSON were briefed on the ORG investigation and report . ORG personnel also offered to travel to GPE to brief any member of his family residing there . On DATE the ORG submitted its recommendations to the ORG , ORG , Her ORG and to ORG .","The report considered all the witness statements and outlined in detail the events of DATE and the investigative steps which followed the shooting . In particular , it examined the actions and responsibility of the Commanders , their advisers and all the frontline SFOs and surveillance officers . While it accepted that the death of PERSON was not the result of any deliberate act designed to endanger the life of any innocent third party , it nevertheless concluded that :","\u201c CARDINAL There can be no doubt that on the morning of DATE a combination of circumstances between TIME and ORG led to the killing of an entirely innocent man . \u201d","With regard to this \u201c combination of circumstances \u201d , it identified a number of failings .","First , it criticised the briefings given by ORG and LAW :","\u201c CARDINAL.CARDINAL There is no doubt that the briefings provided by [ ORG and LAW ] included a comprehensive update on the intelligence including the links DATE and DATE and the possibility that the firearms officers may have to confront one of the terrorists who had survived the suicide bombings DATE . What the briefing for [ SOCARDINAL ] , and indeed the other teams , did not include was any rider about the circumstances in which the ORG policy could be used . That policy was CARDINAL option available to ORG for dealing with suspected terrorists and suicide bombers . The [ SOCARDINAL ] officers were not told that it should only be used as a matter of last resort when they were sure of the identity of the person in relation to whom the policy was to be applied . That should have been included in the briefing . \u201d","Secondly , it criticised the failure to implement Commander PERSON \u2019s strategy by deploying the unit from ORG to ORG earlier :","\u201c CARDINAL The management of the operation between CARDINAL:CARDINALhrs and CARDINAL:CARDINALhrs should have involved giving practical effect to the strategy devised by Commander MCDOWALL so that appropriate resources were in place at ORG from the earliest possible time . Commander PERSON was in charge of the operation following her briefing from Commander MCDOWALL . The policy , which is described at paragraphs PERSON and CARDINAL , was , in essence , CARDINAL of containment , stop and arrest . What occurred between CARDINAL:CARDINALhrs and CARDINAL:CARDINALhrs was a failure of that policy . Between CARDINAL:CARDINALhrs and CARDINAL:CARDINALhrs there was no adequate effort to put in place police resources at ORG that would have enabled ORG to give effect to the policy . During TIME there was a series of briefings . None of the CARDINAL people who left the flats before Mr DATE left were stopped in accordance with the strategy and when he left he was simply followed while ineffective attempts were made during the course of TIME to determine whether he was [ the suspect ] . If appropriate resources had been in place there would have been the opportunity to stop Mr DATE MENEZES during the course of his TIME walk from GPE ROAD before catching the bus in LOC .","... ... ...","CARDINAL Detective Chief Inspector C , the Silver Commander , was effectively the ground commander with responsibility for SOCARDINAL , SOCARDINAL and [ SOCARDINAL ] officers . However owing to the fact that he was still with SOCARDINAL and [ SOCARDINAL ] at PERSON when Mr DATE left ORG , and stationary at FAC when DATE was identified as the suspect at BRIXTON , ORG was always playing \u2018 Catch up\u2019 in respect of the operation .","... ... ...","CARDINAL ... evidence from the ORG at ORG underground station reveals that the [ SOCARDINAL ] officers did not enter the station until TIME after PERSON ORG ORG had passed though the ticket barriers .","CARDINAL While TIME is a very short time period , the delay in [ SOCARDINAL ] getting to the scene and the failure to get a positive identification had enabled a person , believed to be a possible suspect for attempting to detonate a bomb on the underground system DATE before , to get on the same bus twice and enter an underground station . \u201d","Thirdly , the report was critical of the delay in handing the investigation to the ORG :","\u201c CARDINAL The pressures under which ORG were operating following the events of DATE and DATE are self - evident . However , the fact that the independent body established by an Act of ORG to investigate complaints and serious incidents involving the police , and which has independently investigated every fatal police shooting since DATE , was now to be excluded from the scene , is a major concern for an independent investigation , and should never occur again .","CARDINAL The fact that there was such concern over the problems with the ORG tapes at ORG and the fact that the hard drives on the train were missing highlights the problem . This issue could have been resolved a lot earlier had they been under the control of the ORG .","... ... ...","CARDINAL The failure to allow the ORG access has also been highlighted by the fact that the surveillance log DATE has been altered .","... ... ...","CARDINAL Had the ORG been involved at the commencement of the investigation , the surveillance log would not have been released for amendments to be made . \u201d","Nevertheless , the ORG found that high vibrations had interfered with the recording of most of the bus journey , the hard drive on the train had not been replaced on the relevant day , and the recording equipment in the station had been broken during prior refurbishments . Consequently , it concluded that there was \u201c no evidence of a cover - up to withhold this evidence from the investigation \u201d .","Likewise , CARDINAL expert witnesses who examined the surveillance log could not agree either that it had been altered or , if it had been , who might have altered it .","NORP The report also identified a number of individuals whom the ORG might consider prosecuting .","As to the shooting of PERSON after he had been tackled on the train , the ORG noted :","\u201c CARDINAL The actions of PERSON and PERSON should be considered in light of the DATE \u2019s events and those of DATE . At the briefing , they were supplied with a full briefing on the capabilities of the terror suspects . During the operation they had heard the man being followed was being identified as CARDINAL of the suspects from DATE attempted bombings . On arrival at PERSON , [ SOCARDINAL ] went to ORG , authorising a firearms intervention , following an order from the DSO to stop the man from entering the station and tube train .","CARDINAL They had seen \u2018 Ivor\u2019 [ a surveillance officer from SOCARDINAL ] point at the suspect , who they saw get off his seat . \u2018 Ivor\u2019 then grabbed the man and forced him back to the seats . Both officers state they believed they had to act immediately to prevent loss of life to the people on the train .","... ... ...","CARDINAL ORG and CARDINAL clearly believed they were acting in self - defence , and had the right in law to use the force they did . The [ ORG ] may wish to consider whether the actions of PERSON and PERSON amount to murder in the context of their justification for the shooting of Mr DATE and having regard to the fact that there were explanations given for the shooting at that time which did not accord with the accounts given TIME later .","... ... ...","CARDINAL ... [ The ORG ] ... may also wish to consider whether they were grossly negligent to come to the conclusion that they were confronting a suicide bomber . \u201d","With regard to the role of the DSO , the ORG stated :","\u201c CARDINAL The order given by Commander PERSON was to stop the suspect getting onto the underground station and subsequently the underground train . When interviewed she was asked to explain the word \u2018 Stop\u2019 and her response was that \u2018 Stop\u2019 is a common word in policing terms and it was meant as \u2018 stop and PERSON . This opinion is supported by ORG and LAW and DATE .","CARDINAL However , the way the order was received by [ ORG ] must be considered . Following a full briefing , many of the [ SOCARDINAL ] officers have described that they believed that they would have to confront a suicide bomber . The [ SOCARDINAL ] officers have stated that they believed the man being followed on the bus had been identified as CARDINAL of the suspects for the failed bombings on DATE . They had been in a situation of trying to \u2018 Catch up\u2019 with the surveillance team since their briefing had finished . And as they approached PERSON underground station they hear that the suspect had entered the underground station and they received an order to stop him getting on the underground train . I do not believe that the use of the word \u2018 Stop\u2019 can be related to normal policing duties . With the mind - set of the [ SOCARDINAL ] officers believing that a suicide bomber had entered the underground station , to receive such an order to stop him from DSO can not be related to normal duties . They had not had the benefit of a rider to their briefing of the sort to which I refer at paragraph TIME . If they had received such a briefing they might have been more cautious in the way they approached and dealt with Mr DATE .","... ... ...","CARDINAL I [ Senior Investigator PERSON ] comment at paragraph CARDINAL on the consequences of the surveillance team having failed to adequately identify the person they were following . However , that team had spent TIME following and staying with Mr DATE and attempting to identify him . That provided Commander PERSON with a TIME opportunity to act in accordance with the operation strategy . There was no attempt to do so .","CARDINAL The SOCARDINAL officers who were following Mr DATE had been authorised to carry firearms for their personal protection and the protection of the public . In the context of the events of DATE and DATE when , respectively , there had been a successful detonation and an attempted detonation of bombs on buses it was a failure of the management of the operation to permit Mr DATE to get on the bus at FAC . If he had been a suicide bomber that event could have been catastrophic . Therefore the failure to use SOCARDINAL to stop him getting back on the bus in BRIXTON is an even more inexplicable failure to apply the strategy .","... ... ...","CARDINAL [ The DSO ] has endorsed that she was the person in command .","The [ ORG ] may wish to consider whether the manner in which this operation was commanded , the failures to have resources properly deployed and the absence of any other tactical options could be considered to be grossly negligent . \u201d","With regard to the \u201c identification \u201d of PERSON as the suspect , the ORG noted :","\u201c CARDINAL ... PERSON [ the head of the surveillance teams ] did not communicate that some of his team thought that the subject was not [ the suspect ] . This information should have been fully communicated to [ the DSO ] as it may have influenced her decision - making . The [ ORG ] may wish to consider whether this negligence by \u2018 James\u2019 ... satisfies the test for gross negligence . \u201d","As to any potential offence on the part of the CARDINAL officers on board the train :","\u201c CARDINAL Given that they believed they were confronting a suicide bomber it is perhaps illogical that they would have challenged him prior to trying to detain him . The [ ORG ] may wish to consider whether any of the CARDINAL officers on the train who state they shouted or heard the words \u2018 armed police\u2019 have conspired to ... pervert the course of justice . ... \u201d","As the ORG did not consider that LAW , Trojan CARDINAL and ORG had been in a position to influence the outcome of events , it was of the opinion that they could not be held responsible .","In respect of the possible alteration of the surveillance log ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the ORG did not find sufficient evidence against any individual to suggest that criminal proceedings might be appropriate .","The ORG noted that in the course of its investigation grave concerns had been raised about the effectiveness of the police response on DATE . These concerns were not only that an entirely innocent member of the public had been killed in error but also that the police response might not have been adequate to stop a terrorist who was intent on causing harm . It therefore made a number of detailed operational recommendations .","The ORG underlined CARDINAL operational concerns about the use of firearms : the substantial delay between the time the unit from ORG was requested and when it was deployed , and the lack of clarity about the command to \u201c stop \u201d the suspect given the likely mind - set of the SFOs . It also made detailed recommendations on command and control issues in firearms operations , including the need to clarify the roles and responsibilities within the chain of command ; to establish a clear and common understanding of the circumstances surrounding future operations ; and , given the failure to implement Commander PERSON \u2019s strategy to ensure the deployment of the unit from ORG in time , to put in place better communications channels .","DATE . In respect of the surveillance operations , the ORG expressed concern that the surveillance team , the SFOs , and those in command were not used to working together and were not sufficiently familiar with each other \u2019s working practices ; that CARDINAL surveillance officers believed the person being followed was not the suspect and that this was not communicated to the DSO ; and that the surveillance log had been altered .","In relation to the post - incident management , the ORG repeated its concern about the delay in handing the scene and the investigation to it , and about the fact that PERSON and PERSON had been allowed to return to their own base , refresh themselves , confer and write up their notes together .","As regards the communications infrastructure , the ORG was concerned that key briefings and strategic and tactical decisions were not recorded and furthermore that the command and control of the incident was inevitably lost when the unit from ORG entered the underground . Concerns were also expressed that the existing ORG and the \u201c ORG \u201d policy were patently insufficient to deal with the current terrorist threat .","The ORG FAC was not made public until DATE as publication was delayed pending the criminal trial of ORG \u201d ) ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) .","On DATE the MPA referred a complaint to the ORG about the ORG \u2019s handling of public statements following the shooting of Mr de PERSON . The ORG carried out a second investigation and the ORG was published on DATE . The contents of that report are not directly relevant to the complaint currently before the ORG .","The ORG had the power to recommend or direct the ORG to bring disciplinary proceedings against individuals . During the ORG investigation CARDINAL officers were served with notices under LAW of ORG Regulations CARDINAL , informing them that they were being investigated and warning them that the investigation might result in disciplinary proceedings being brought against them .","NORP However , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG decided that no disciplinary action should be pursued against any of the CARDINAL frontline and surveillance officers involved in the operation since there was no realistic prospect of any disciplinary charges being upheld . CARDINAL surveillance officer received \u201c words of advice \u201d in connection with the alteration of the surveillance log .","A decision concerning disciplinary charges against the CARDINAL Commanders and their tactical advisers was postponed until after the prosecution of the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","DATE . On receiving the ORG , the ORG considered whether to bring prosecutions against any individual officers for murder , involuntary manslaughter by way of gross negligence ( \u201c gross negligence manslaughter \u201d ) , misconduct in public office , forgery or attempting to pervert the course of justice . It also considered whether to prosecute the ORG or any individual for offences under ORG etc . Act DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) . In deciding whether or not to prosecute , it first had to apply a threshold evidential test , namely , whether or not there was a realistic prospect of conviction , before asking whether or not prosecution would be in the public interest ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By letter dated DATE the ORG notified the deceased \u2019s family that ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) had decided to prosecute the ORG , not in his individual capacity but as an employer of police officers , for failing to provide for the health , safety and welfare of PERSON de PERSON contrary to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) . No individual was to be prosecuted in relation to the death as there was \u201c insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual police officer \u201d ; that is , it was more likely than not that a jury would not convict .","The decision letter , in so far as relevant , provided as follows :","\u201c In the circumstances of this case , if the prosecution could prove that [ the SFOs ] were not acting in self defence ( either of themselves or others ) then they would be charged with murder . The order was given that PERSON was to be stopped from getting on the train . Although officers in the control room intended that PERSON should be arrested outside the station , the [ ORG team ] were not in place to make such an arrest , nor was this intention made explicit to the [ SFOs ] who were being sent down to the train . All the available evidence suggests that they believed that PERSON had been identified as a suicide bomber , that they had been directed to stop him from blowing up the train and that they had to shoot him to prevent that ....","The burden would be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these CARDINAL officers did not honestly and genuinely believe that they were facing a lethal threat and so I looked to see if there was sufficient evidence to disprove that they had such an honest and genuine belief . Both officers stated that PERSON was wearing a \u2018 ORG jacket when they saw him but in fact PERSON was wearing a simple denim jacket . I therefore took this into account as it could indicate that the officers had lied . However even if I could prove that the officers had lied , rather than simply being mistaken , this alone would not be enough to commence a prosecution for murder as there could be other reasons for an officer to lie . I also considered their explanations of PERSON movements when they approached him , to see if there was evidence that they had fabricated those accounts to justify their actions . Both refer to PERSON getting up and advancing towards them with his hands down by his side before he was tackled by a surveillance officer and forced back into the seat . The [ SFOs ] then shot PERSON . I had to consider whether the prosecution could argue that the restraint meant that no bomb could be detonated and that the firearms ORG actions were unlawful . However I must bear in mind that this happened in TIME and there is some independent evidence that supports the ORG accounts that they feared PERSON might detonate a bomb . A witness sitting opposite PERSON said \u2018 I got the impression that he was reaching to the left hand side of his trouser waistband.\u2019 ...","As I can not prove the officers did not act in genuine self - defence , I can not charge them with murder or any other offence of assault , including manslaughter .","There is some disagreement between officers and the members of the public as to whether any warning was given that armed police were approaching the train . In a situation such as this , where a warning to a suspected bomber could be fatal for officers and the public , no warning should be given . However some police officers say that they did hear a call of \u2018 armed police\u2019 before the shooting and although passengers did hear officers shouting as they ran down the stairs , none of them heard the words \u2018 armed police.\u2019 Both of the [ SFOs ] say that they shouted \u2018 armed police\u2019 immediately before they fired but whether they did , and if so , whether it was intended as a warning to PERSON or to others in the carriage is unclear . There is no doubt that some police officers did shout something before any shots were fired .... Unless I could prove that officers had lied ... to mislead any investigation , I could not prosecute them for attempting to pervert the course of justice .","Next I carefully examined the roles of those police officers concerned in planning the surveillance and stop and those who carried it out . ... there were a number of people involved and there is no doubt that messages were misinterpreted with tragic consequences . I have considered whether any errors or other conduct by individuals could be categorised as criminal . In this I have applied the law on gross negligence manslaughter , misconduct in public office and the [ DATE ] Act . Even where I found that individuals had made mistakes , I found insufficient evidence that those mistakes were so bad that they could be described as criminal . As criminal proceedings are to be brought against the [ ORG ] , I can not provide you with a detailed account of the conduct of those individuals , as that conduct will form part of the prosecution case . \u201d","More detailed reasons were provided in a CARDINAL - page Review Note dated DATE as well as in a Final Review Note of DATE .","In respect of the investigation by the ORG , the Review Note stated that :","\u201c I am satisfied that the investigation has complied with LAW and the procedural requirements that flow from it . The ORG is clearly independent of ORG and the investigation has not been limited to the actual shooting on the train but has examined the whole of the operation . I have had a number of discussions with senior investigators at the ORG who have assisted me with any queries I have raised . I am therefore satisfied that I have sufficient material before me to reach a decision on the criminal liability of those officers involved in the operation that led to the death of PERSON and the Commissioner as corporation sole . \u201d","NORP However , ORG drew attention to CARDINAL particular evidential difficulty :","\u201c Perhaps the most significant problem in understanding what occurred is that there is an almost complete absence of any worthwhile contemporaneous records and the accounts from the participants vary significantly on all the crucial aspects . It is at times impossible to say with any certainty what was said , by whom , to whom and when . There is also the issue that some accounts were made in the knowledge that something terrible had gone wrong . \u201d","With regard to the witness statements taken from the passengers on the train , ORG indicated that there were inevitable inconsistencies in their recollections of events with the consequence that \u201c the accounts do not match either among themselves or with those of the police \u201d . For example , some of the witnesses confused Mr PERSON with \u201c PERSON , CARDINAL of the surveillance officers .","With regard to PERSON and PERSON , the Review Note reiterated that there was insufficient evidence to persuade a jury that they did not genuinely believe they were acting in self - defence . It noted that , if they did hold a genuine belief , then the actions they took in shooting dead a \u201c suicide bomber \u201d would be reasonable and would not be unlawful .","As for Commander PERSON , the Review Note stated that there was no evidence against her to sustain a charge of murder as she did not order any officer to open fire . The prosecutor was , however , satisfied that there was evidence her actions and direction and failure to plan fell below the standard of a reasonable officer in her position and , as such , a breach of the duty of care and causation could be shown . Nevertheless , he considered that there was \u201c nowhere near enough \u201d evidence to persuade a jury that her conduct was so bad as to justify a charge of gross negligence manslaughter . He also considered the possibility of prosecuting Commander PERSON for offences under sections DATE and CARDINAL of LAW , but , having applied the relevant criteria , found that the prosecution of her or of any of the other individual officers under these provisions would not be in accordance with ORG .","In the Review Note the prosecutor identified PERSON CARDINAL as the officer most closely connected with the death of PERSON . In particular , he had failed to dispatch firearms cover to FAC , he gave the briefing that stoked the SFOs fears that they would meet suicide bombers and that they might have to shoot them , and , finally , he should have known that once the SFOs were away from the armed response vehicle and were to engage with a potential suicide bomber the overwhelming likelihood was that they would shoot . However , he could not be prosecuted for murder as he did not direct the officers to fire and his actions were not \u201c bad \u201d enough to satisfy the test for gross negligence manslaughter .","Likewise , the prosecutor considered that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute PERSON , ORG or the surveillance teams for gross negligence manslaughter .","The Review Note considered the alleged alteration of the log ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but found that it had been examined by CARDINAL experts who did not agree to the required standard either that there had been alterations or , if there had been , who might have made them . Therefore , as it could not be proved that the relevant entry was a forgery , let alone who might have forged it , there was no basis for a prosecution for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice .","It also indicated that there was no evidence the police or anyone else had tampered with the recording equipment on the bus , at the station or on the train . Although there were gaps in the recordings at all CARDINAL locations , the ORG investigation had revealed that high vibrations had interfered with the recording of most of the bus journey , the hard drive on the train had not been replaced on the relevant day , and the recording equipment in the station had been broken during prior refurbishments .","The Review Note explained in greater detail the decision to prosecute the ORG . The prosecutor indicated that :","\u201c In my view , this operation was badly handled from the moment it passed from Commander [ McDowall ] . It resulted in an innocent man being shot dead in the most horrific manner . ORG were under tremendous pressure and were doing their best to protect the public from suicide bombers . These are factors that I take into account but these do not detract from the failure to carry out [ Commander PERSON \u2019s ] strategy which would have best protected Mr PERSON . \u201d","He continued :","\u201c In my view , the lack of planning led to the death of PERSON and , as such , constituted an offence under section CARDINAL of the [ CARDINAL Act ] . I believe that if such a charge is preferred , we can prove the case on the evidence already available but a decision not to prosecute individuals will enable the ORG to seek further evidence to strengthen the case , from those individuals who are at present declining to . \u201d","The only defence open would be CARDINAL of \u201c reasonable practicability \u201d and it was","\u201c difficult to see how the police could argue the lack of reasonable practicability in ensuring the safety of [ Mr PERSON ] . If this came to a contested trial , the police would probably have to call a number of officers ... who were interviewed as suspects . Their failures in the planning would then be highlighted \u201d .","On DATE the applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review of the decision not to prosecute any individual police officer for criminal offences , which she argued was incompatible with LAW .","In particular , the applicant argued that the threshold evidential test in the ORG Prosecutors\u2019 Code ( \u201c the Code \u201d ) , which prevented a prosecution unless a jury properly directed was likely to convict ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , was not compatible with LAW . She also submitted that LAW required the courts to undertake a more intensive review of a prosecutor \u2019s decision than that provided for in NORP v. Director of Public Prosecutions , ex parte PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL QB CARDINAL , in which ORG stated that it would accord great weight to the judgment of experienced prosecutors and , as such , a prosecutorial decision would be lawful if it was taken in accordance with the LAW and was a decision reasonably open to the prosecutor on the material before him ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE a ORG of the High Court granted permission to apply for judicial review but dismissed the substantive application .","In relation to the compatibility of the Code with LAW , the court found that this ORG \u2019s jurisprudence did not determine any particular evidential test to be applied when deciding whether or not there should be a prosecution . The test set out in the LAW was therefore compatible with the obligation under LAW to put in place effective criminal law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person , backed up by law enforcement machinery for the prevention , suppression and punishment of breaches of such provisions . Bringing prosecutions which were likely to fail , even if they could survive a dismissal application and a submission of no case to answer , would have profound consequences for all parties concerned . Furthermore , if the threshold was lowered in cases where lethal force was employed by ORG agents , it was likely that a significant proportion of prosecutions would fail because the evidence was lacking . If this were to happen , public confidence in both law enforcement agencies and in the ORG would be undermined .","The court also held that LAW did not require a change to the established position regarding judicial review of a decision not to prosecute . The \u201c careful scrutiny \u201d review required in GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALXII was compatible both with the test outlined in the PERSON case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and with the domestic courts\u2019 general approach to cases involving fundamental human rights .","Thirdly , applying the PERSON test , the court found that the decision of the ORG was in accordance with the LAW and was one which was reasonably open to it . The decision was taken by a very senior and highly experienced prosecutor and it was reviewed by the head of the ORG and by independent counsel . It was lengthy , careful , thorough , clear and detailed and the ORG had applied the correct test to each individual considered ; namely , \u201c whether there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction , or , in other words , whether a jury was more likely to convict than not to convict \u201d .","Although it was not necessary for the court to go so far , it also indicated that it saw \u201c no reason to disagree with the decision \u201d . Consequently , it concluded that the ORG \u2019s decision was lawful and dismissed the applicant \u2019s challenge to it . Leave to appeal to ORG was refused by the court and , on DATE , by ORG itself .","On DATE the court also rejected an application by the ORG to have the charges under LAW dismissed .","On DATE the criminal trial of the ORG commenced . A total of CARDINAL witnesses were called to give evidence during the course of the trial , including Commander PERSON and Commander PERSON . The prosecution argued that the ORG was guilty of the following :","a ) Commander PERSON \u2019s strategy had not been communicated adequately to the officers who took over the running of the operations on DATE , the surveillance officers or the SFOs ;","b ) Commander PERSON \u2019s strategy for controlling the premises was not adequately planned for or carried out ;","c ) the Control Room officers , the SFOs and the surveillance officers had a confused and inconsistent understanding of the strategy for FAC ;","d ) officers had not been deployed to stop and question persons emerging from the FAC LOC , including PERSON ;","e ) the SFOs were not in attendance at FAC when Mr de PERSON emerged from the common doorway ;","f ) there was no contingency plan for dealing with persons who emerged from the apartment building before the firearms officers arrived ;","g ) persons emerging from FAC had not been stopped and questioned ;","h ) a safe and appropriate area where those leaving FAC could be stopped and questioned had not been identified ;","i ) the briefings given to the SFOs were inaccurate , unbalanced , and provided the SFOs with inadequate and inaccurate information about the operation , including the operation at FAC ;","j ) the information concerning the identification of PERSON , his clothing , demeanour and likely level of threat , was not properly or accurately assessed or disseminated to officers and , in particular , to the SFOs ;","k ) doubts about the correctness of the identification of PERSON as the suspect were not communicated to the control room ;","l ) the control room officers failed to satisfy themselves that a positive identification of PERSON as the suspect had been made by the surveillance officers ;","m ) the SFOs had not been deployed at relevant locations in time to prevent PERSON from getting on the bus and entering GPE underground station ;","n ) the SFOs failed to satisfy themselves that a positive identification of PERSON as the suspect had been made by the surveillance officers ;","o ) NORP effective steps were not taken to stop underground trains or buses so as to minimise the risk to the travelling public ;","p ) Mr de Menezes was permitted to get on a bus twice and to enter GPE underground station despite being suspected of being a suicide bomber and despite having emerged from an address linked to a suspected suicide bomber ;","q ) a clear and timely order that PERSON be stopped or arrested before he entered GPE underground station had not been given ;","r ) accurate information had not been given to the DSO about the location of the SFOs when she was deciding whether the SFOs or officers from ORG should stop PERSON ; and","s ) the risk inherent in effecting the arrest of PERSON by armed officers had not been minimised , whether in relation to the location , timing or manner of his arrest .","On DATE the jury returned a verdict , finding the ORG guilty of breaching sections CARDINAL of LAW ( see CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The jury also attached a rider to its verdict to the effect that Commander PERSON bore no \u201c personal culpability \u201d for the impugned events . This rider was endorsed by the trial judge . The ORG was fined GBP CARDINAL and ordered to pay costs of GBP CARDINAL .","After the trial , the ORG decided not to issue a recommendation for the senior officers to face disciplinary proceedings . In particular , it had regard to the jury \u2019s rider that no blame should attach to Commander PERSON , who was the most senior officer .","The inquest , which had been adjourned pending the trial of the ORG , commenced on DATE . In the course of the inquest CARDINAL witnesses were called , including Commander PERSON , Commander PERSON , PERSON , Trojan CARDINAL , PERSON and PERSON . The family of PERSON were represented at the hearing at the ORG \u2019s expense and were able to cross - examine witnesses and make submissions .","On DATE the coroner delivered a written Ruling on what , if any , verdicts should be left to the jury . The options available to him were lawful killing , unlawful killing and an open verdict . However , the coroner was not permitted to leave a verdict to a jury if it fell foul of the test used to determine a submission of \u201c no case to answer \u201d ; namely , if there was no evidence to support it or the evidence was so weak , vague or inconsistent with other evidence that , taken at its highest , a jury properly directed could not properly return that verdict ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The coroner therefore considered the verdicts to be left to the jury separately as regards certain police officers .","NORP The coroner found that :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... There is no doubt that the officers intended to kill PERSON when they fired . Therefore , if their contention that [ they ] were acting lawfully in defence of themselves or others could be disproved , they would have committed ... the offence of murder .","There is agreement between all Interested Persons as to what test I should apply in determining whether the officers acted lawfully in defence of themselves and others :","( i ) Did the officer honestly and genuinely believe that it was necessary for him to use force in defence of himself and\/or others ? This is a question of subjective belief . Even if the belief was mistaken , and even if the mistake was unreasonable , the defence can still run . The reasonableness of the belief is only relevant in helping the jury to decide whether the belief was honestly held .","( ii ) If the officer did hold the belief , did he use no more force than was reasonably necessary in the circumstances as he believed existed at the time ? This is an objective test , but it is applied realistically . Where a person faces a threat , the ORG will not judge with too precise a measure the degree of force he uses ... It is also significant for present purposes that a person under threat is not required to wait passively for the blow to fall . A pre - emptive strike can be justified by the circumstances .","... ... ...","The legal test is no different when the person facing the threat is a police officer or a soldier . However , as PERSON said in PERSON at paragraph CARDINAL , the tribunal is entitled to take account of the person \u2019s training when applying the CARDINAL limbs of the test to the facts of the given case . The same must apply to specific briefings as well as general training . \u201d","It was accepted by the parties that the SFOs honestly believed that the man in front of them in the carriage was PERSON , the person who was strongly suspected of having attempted to explode a bomb on the underground DATE . However , the coroner rejected the submission on behalf of the de Menezes\u2019 family that the officers did not honestly believe that PERSON represented an imminent threat . He therefore found that the jury could not properly conclude to the criminal standard of proof that the CARDINAL officers did not honestly believe that PERSON represented a mortal threat to those around them . In reaching that conclusion , he stated that :","\u201c DATE . If the officers honestly believed that PERSON represented a mortal threat to themselves and those around them , it could not be said that they used more force than was reasonably necessary ... An argument was made ... to the effect that [ one of the officers ] used excessive force because he fired too many times ... In my judgment , it has no merit . The events took place in TIME , and one can not fairly say that some of the shots to the head constituted reasonable force and some did not . In any event , the officers had been trained to fire until the threat was neutralised . \u201d","The coroner therefore declined to leave to the jury the option of returning a verdict of unlawful killing in relation to the actions of PERSON and PERSON .","The coroner then considered whether the senior officers could safely be found to have committed manslaughter by reason of having caused death by gross negligence . It was accepted by all parties that this offence had to be proved against a particular officer ; the failings of a number of persons could not be aggregated . CARDINAL elements had to be proved in order to establish that the offence had been committed : the defendant must have owed a duty of care to the victim , the defendant must have breached that duty , the breach must have caused the death ( namely , made a more than minimal causal contribution to the death ) , and the breach must be characterised as \u201c gross \u201d .","In relation to the duty of care , the coroner concluded that","\u201c DATE . ... a police officer can owe a duty of care in directing other police officers to perform an armed interception . The content of the duty here would be to take reasonable care to ensure that such an interception took place in such a location and at such a time as to minimise , so far as reasonably practicable , the risk of unnecessary injury to the subject of the intervention , to the officers concerned and to others in the immediate vicinity . In this case the duty would not arise before the point at which firearms officers were ordered to move through with a view to performing an interception . \u201d","In relation to Commander PERSON , there were CARDINAL alleged breaches of a duty of care : that he should have set a strategic plan to ensure that suspects were stopped between leaving the LOC and reaching the public transport system ; that he did not ensure that the unit from ORG was deployed sooner ; and that he had failed to keep himself informed and to ensure that his orders were being followed . In respect of each of these allegations the coroner did not accept that Commander PERSON had owed any duty of care to Mr PERSON . However , even if a breach of duty could be established , the coroner did not accept that it had led to Mr de Menezes\u2019 death .","There were CARDINAL allegations against Commander PERSON :","\u201c DATE . ... First , ... that [ she ] failed to ensure that the block on FAC was kept under careful surveillance control and that tactics were employed to ensure that all suspects could be identified and stopped before reaching a bus stop . As it happens , the nearest bus stop was on FAC , CARDINAL minutes\u2019 walk from the block . The first obstacle [ to this ] argument is the difficulty of constructing a positive duty of care at that stage to stop PERSON close to his home . In my judgment , no such duty could exist . Even if it could , I consider that it would not have been practicable to implement this as a fixed and inflexible tactical plan ... In any event , the surveillance control was good : PERSON was kept continually under surveillance but the covert status of the operation near FAC was maintained . The failure to stop him at an earlier stage was based on an inability of officers to say whether he was identifiable with the suspect . Therefore , his death was not caused by any failure of surveillance control at FAC .","Secondly , it is alleged that [ the DSO ] failed to keep herself informed of where surveillance and firearms officers were as PERSON was travelling from LOC towards GPE . Again , I do not think that a police officer owes a duty to a person under surveillance to ensure that he is informed of the movements of other officers , at least before any intervention is immediately in prospect . If there were such a duty , it would only be to keep oneself reasonably well - informed , since it would not be practicable to keep note of the precise position of every officer and car . The thrust of the evidence is that [ the DSO ] did keep herself reasonably well - informed . She was aware , through the surveillance monitor in the control room , that surveillance officers were following PERSON and of what they were saying . In any event , as [ counsel for the family of PERSON ] accepts , nothing could have been done to stop PERSON between his getting on the bus at ORG and his alighting at GPE . [ The DSO ] had [ the SFOs ] at the proper holding point at the time she wanted to deploy them . In TIME before she ordered the intervention , she was relying upon information from [ her tactical adviser ] as to the position and readiness of the [ SFOs ] . In my judgment , she was entitled to rely upon that information . In all those circumstances , any failure on her part to keep herself informed was not causative of the fatal events in the carriage .","Thirdly , it is submitted ... that [ the DSO ] failed to exercise proper judgment in her decisions in TIME , after PERSON left the bus at GPE . In my judgment , she probably did owe a duty of care to him at this stage in making decisions and giving directions for an armed stop . However , she can not fairly be said to have breached that duty . When she became aware that the subject of surveillance had left the bus , she ordered the [ SFOs ] to perform an armed stop . Upon hearing that they were not in a position to make the stop , she instructed the surveillance officers to do so . That order can not be characterised as negligent . If there were any slight delay in giving the order , that can probably be explained by the need to take thought before ordering a suspected suicide bomber to be stopped by officers who were not trained for such situations . Once she was told that the [ SFOs ] were in position , she countermanded the earlier order . It might be possible to say that she made the wrong decision at that point , given where PERSON was known to be , but these were fast - moving events and her decision can not be described as negligent . [ It was submitted ] that using [ SFOs ] gave rise to a particular risk that lethal force would be used . However , there were obvious advantages to using officers who had the training and experience to perform armed interventions in a public place . \u201d","As to this officer , the coroner stated as follows :","\u201c DATE . The first charge against [ LAW ] is that , upon arriving at ORG at TIME , he failed to take steps to expedite the despatch of [ the unit from ORG ] to the FAC area . For the reasons already given , I do not consider that he would have owed a duty of care to PERSON in this regard . In any event , when he started work , all the critical decisions had been taken in relation to the [ SFOs ] deployments . It would probably not have been safe or sensible to try to expedite the deployments at that stage . As explained in paragraph CARDINAL above , I do not think it can be established to the necessary standard of proof that any delay in deploying firearms teams was causally relevant to the death of PERSON .","The second allegation is that he failed to devise a tactical plan to ensure that any suspect coming out of the block was stopped before reaching a bus stop . This is , in essence , the same as one of the allegations made against [ the DSO ] . For the reasons I have given in paragraph DATE , this argument fails at every stage .","The third point made in criticism of [ Trojan CARDINAL ] is that he failed to pass on to [ the DSO ] accurate information about the position of the [ SFOs ] in TIME after it became apparent that PERSON was leaving the bus . However , [ LAW ] was reliant for his information on the tactical adviser who was with the team on the ground , \u2018 PERSON CARDINAL\u2019 . That officer initially told [ Trojan CARDINAL ] that his team were \u2018 not in GPE because they were behind the wrong bus . [ LAW ] duly passed on that information . Even if it were incorrect , it is difficult to criticise him for passing it on . \u201d","NORP If , contrary to all of the above , any of the allegations were made out , the coroner concluded that none approached the level of gross or criminal negligence .","In light of the above , the coroner decided not to leave the potential short - form verdict of unlawful killing to the jury in respect of the senior officers and instead left them to decide between a verdict of lawful killing and an open verdict .","NORP The coroner also included in his Ruling a list of proposed questions which would be left to the jury and which required responses of \u201c yes \u201d , \u201d no \u201d , or \u201d can not decide \u201d . Having heard the parties\u2019 submissions , on DATE he finalised the list of questions to include questions of fact concerning the events in the train carriage and questions concerning the factors which had contributed to Mr de Menezes\u2019 death . However , he refused to leave \u201c open questions \u201d to the jury inviting them to add any other factors which they regarded as causally relevant .","On DATE Mr de Menezes\u2019 mother had sought leave to apply for judicial review of the coroner \u2019s decision to exclude both the verdict of unlawful killing and certain narrative verdict questions . At the hearing , she pursued the second point only because by that date the coroner had started summing up and had already indicated the verdicts which were to be left to the jury .","The claimant argued that the coroner had been obliged to ensure that the jury members were permitted to resolve the disputed factual issues at the heart of the case and were able properly to determine by what means and in what circumstances PERSON had come by his death . The question of how he came by his death went far beyond determining whether to return a verdict of lawful killing or an open verdict . The coroner \u2019s approach had precluded the jury from commenting on whether or not they regarded any particular failings by the police as serious and , if so , how serious \u2013 and how important in terms of accountability \u2013 these failings were . As such , the jury \u2019s findings were at best likely to beg more questions and at worst be confusing or meaningless . The claimant therefore wished to put additional narrative verdict questions to the jury once the coroner \u2019s summing up was finished .","On DATE PERSON refused leave to apply for judicial review .","First , he found that the existing verdicts and questions satisfied the statutory obligation under section CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) to enable the jury members to ascertain by what means and in what circumstances Mr de PERSON had come by his death . Furthermore , the inquiry required by the coroner of the jury in this case was significantly more demanding than that sought from , and given by , the jury in both PERSON v. the GPE no . PERSON , PERSON CARDINALII and PERSON and Others v. the GPE DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , and in those cases this ORG had found that the procedural obligations under LAW had been met .","Secondly , the judge observed that the claimant had not pointed to any case decided domestically or in this ORG which held that specific questions were required to be asked of a jury over and above asking \u201c by what means and in what circumstances \u201d the deceased had died .","Thirdly , as the coroner had a discretion \u201c to decide how best in the particular case to elicit the jury \u2019s conclusion on the central issue or issues \u201d , the judge considered that the only grounds for interfering with it would probably be ORG grounds ; namely , that the coroner \u2019s decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable coroner would have done the same .","Fourthly , the judge found that there was a risk that if the jury members were required to answer the additional questions proposed by the claimant they would be acting in contravention of Rule PERSON ) of LAW by expressing opinions on matters other than those on which they were entitled to comment and , in particular , by appearing to determine questions of criminal or civil liability .","Fifthly , he considered that the proposed questions would expose the jury to a risk of making contradictory and conflicting findings .","Sixthly , the judge found that the claimant had failed to show , even arguably , that there were strong grounds for disturbing the decision of the coroner .","The claimant \u2019s grounds relating to the short - form verdicts were adjourned generally with liberty to both parties to apply to restore . The claimant subsequently agreed that no further action would be taken in relation to these grounds because , inter alia , even if the judicial review was successful the only remedy for the family would be for the court to order a fresh inquest and the claimant did not \u201c see any great benefit in re - hearing all the evidence to enable a different jury to come to a verdict , particularly bearing in mind the very high cost of holding such an inquest \u201d .","On DATE the jury returned an \u201c open verdict \u201d . In answering the questions left to them the jury found as follows :","a ) that PERSON did not shout \u201c armed police \u201d ;","b ) that while PERSON did stand up before being grabbed in a bear hug by one of the surveillance officers , he did not move towards the SFOs ;","c ) that the general difficulty in identifying the man under surveillance in the time available and the innocent behaviour of PERSON ( which may have increased suspicion ) were not contributory factors to his death ;","d ) that the following were contributory factors to his death : the failure to obtain and provide to surveillance officers better photographic images of the failed bomber PERSON ; the fact that the views of the surveillance officers regarding the identification of the suspect were not accurately communicated to the command team and the SFOs ; the failure by police to ensure that Mr PERSON was stopped before he reached public transport ; the fact that the position of the cars containing the SFOs was not accurately known by the command team as the ORG teams were approaching GPE underground station ; the shortcomings in the communications system between various police teams on the ground ; and a failure to conclude at the time that surveillance officers could have been used to carry out the stop on Mr PERSON at GPE underground station ; and","e ) it was not clear whether the pressure on police after the suicide attacks in DATE was a contributory factor to Mr de Menezes\u2019 death .","After the verdict the coroner delivered a report as he was required to do under LAW of LAW . In the report he identified ORG systems and practices which gave rise to concern and the risk that other deaths might arise in the future . He further identified action which should be taken to prevent the occurrence or continuance of such circumstances or to eliminate or reduce the risk of death created by such circumstances . The coroner also reviewed material indicating which remedial steps had already been taken to develop police practice since the events of DATE .","In the report the coroner expressed concerns about the command structure employed by the police on DATE and observed that the ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) manual on the police use of firearms and the command structure should be reviewed . He also made specific recommendations about the role of the DSO , who was responsible for ordering any intentional shot that might be required in anti - terrorist operations .","The coroner also reported on the communication problems that the jury found had contributed to the death of PERSON . He recommended that changes should be made to the systems and methods of communication to ensure that there was better information available to enable accurate identification to be made and communicated and to ensure that appropriately trained police officers were available to deal with possible terrorist threats on the basis of as much up - to - date information as possible .","Finally , the coroner made recommendations about the recording of briefing and control room activity and recommended that the practice of police witnesses conferring before recording their accounts of events should cease .","Following the inquest , further meetings and exchanges of correspondence took place between the ORG and Mr de Menezes\u2019 family . On DATE the family asked the ORG to review the decision not to prosecute in light of new evidence which had emerged at the inquest .","On DATE the ORG confirmed by letter that there remained insufficient evidence to prosecute any individual .","Mr de Menezes\u2019 family did not apply for leave to seek judicial review of this decision , considering that there would be no prospect of success in light of the previous judicial review action . The factual matrix had not significantly changed : the claim would have been on similar grounds to the previous claim for review and was therefore bound to fail .","By letter dated DATE the Chairman of the ORG rejected the family \u2019s request to review its decision not to initiate disciplinary proceedings as no new evidence had emerged during the inquest to justify bringing disciplinary charges against any individual officer .","He noted that the trial of the ORG and the inquest had confirmed the conclusion of the ORG that PERSON was killed because of mistakes that could and should have been avoided . Indeed , the trial of the ORG , the coroner \u2019s report , the ORG recommendations , Her ORG , the ORG and the ORG had all recognised the organisational failings that led to his death . Major efforts had been made to rectify these organisational failings and it was necessary to take them into account when judging the individual culpability of the officers concerned . Every independent judicial , prosecuting and disciplinary authority which had considered the conduct of the officers had concluded that individual criminal or disciplinary charges were not merited .","In respect of PERSON and PERSON , there was insufficient evidence to undermine their claim that they honestly believed they were dealing with a suicide bomber or to warrant proceedings based on the disciplinary offences of using excessive force or abusing authority . The officers had had at best TIME to assess whether to shoot to kill and given the overall scene of confusion , coupled with the stress of the circumstances , it was not possible to conclude that the mistakes which were made were deliberate or negligent .","With regard to Commander PERSON , the ORG concluded that it was not likely that any tribunal would find that failings which occurred after he set his strategy were due to negligence on his part .","As for Commander PERSON , the ORG had regard to the criminal jury \u2019s unambiguous conclusion that she had no personal culpability , especially as no evidence had emerged at the inquest which would cause a disciplinary tribunal to ignore this finding .","The ORG considered that there was no evidence that might cause a tribunal to accept the jury \u2019s rider in respect of Commander PERSON but not in respect of PERSON or DCI C.","In respect of \u201c PERSON , the ORG accepted that the degree of doubt as to the identity of PERSON was not communicated sufficiently clearly by the surveillance team . However , the ORG concluded that this was the result of technical as well as personal shortcomings , the speed and stress of the circumstances and the lack of an unambiguous communications process .","A civil action in damages was brought by the family of Mr de PERSON ( including the applicant ) against the Commissioner of Police of the LOC . This was settled by way of mediation during DATE of DATE . The settlement was on a confidential basis .","Following the death of Mr PERSON the ORG took a number of steps to improve its methods of command and control in counter - terrorism operations . In particular , a common command model was introduced for planned firearms operations , a smaller team , or \u201c cadre \u201d of firearms commanders was formed , a new cadre of ORG officers was created to deal with high - risk counter - terrorism operations and a new ACPO Firearms Manual was published .","In addition , a ORG was formed to provide consistency of training , procedure and professional practice and to create a platform for increased inter - operability ( that is , how different units and personnel work together operationally ) with other departments and national units . There has been a structured rotation of teams between counter - terrorism and crime operations to familiarise personnel in both types of operation .","Furthermore , a new counter - terrorism control room came into operation and steps were taken to clarify the roles and responsibilities of control room staff and to provide them with high quality training . Operational delivery of a new secure photo - imaging system for transmitting images of suspects and other data has also taken place . Audio recording is now available in the control room , which is activated when dealing with any suicide bombing threat , and a new and evolving covert airwave communication system has been introduced to ensure effective radio communications are available throughout the GPE underground system as well as above ground .","Pursuant to ORG guidance issued in DATE , the practice of officers writing up their notes together after an incident has ceased in cases where police officers have discharged firearms . Internal instructions drawn up in consultation with the ORG and DPS have since extended this change of practice to officers involved in other ( non - shooting ) death and serious injury cases ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183203","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF DORNEAN v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","Having divorced his wife , the applicant has continued to live in an annex to the same house as her and their children , some of whom are adults . He has a hostile relationship with them and all of his former in - laws .","On CARDINAL DATE he wrote to ORG , listing the many complaints that he had previously lodged with various authorities ( including the police ) of having been ill - treated by his ex - wife and children , the destruction of his property by them , and the failure of the local police to react in any manner . In reply , on DATE , he was informed that the local prosecutor \u2019s decision not to initiate a criminal investigation had been annulled ; the case was then sent for re - examination by the local prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a medical expert , who found an excoriation on his right hand . He explained that he had been struck by his son .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by a medical expert , who determined that CARDINAL of his teeth were loose and found a contusion of CARDINAL of the fingers on his right hand . He explained that he had been again struck by his son . On DATE the NORP prosecutor \u2019s office informed the applicant that it had decided not to initiate an investigation into the alleged attack by his son ( D.V. ) .","The applicant lodged another complaint with the NORP prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE , stating that he had been again attacked by his children and ex - wife ; during that attack they had also threatened to kill him and destroy or throw away his property if he did not leave the house . He lodged a further complaint on DATE , but was subsequently informed that it had been decided not to initiate a criminal investigation .","NORP In a letter dated DATE the head of NORP police station informed the applicant \u2019s brother that , on a date not indicated in the letter , \u201c a cautionary discussion \u201d had been conducted with the applicant \u2019s ex - wife and that she had been \u201c officially warned to change her conduct \u201d towards the applicant and his brother .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s ex - wife and children allegedly assaulted him at their home . His left elbow was allegedly broken . According to the applicant , he called the police immediately after the incident and was told that they did not deal with such matters . DATE he went to the local doctor , PERSON , who referred him to PERSON for examination ( including an X - ray examination , which was carried out on DATE ) . With the results of that examination he went to a medical expert on DATE .","According to a medical report dated DATE the applicant sustained a fracture of the upper third of the radial bone in his left elbow , as confirmed also by the X - ray images . The injury was considered to be of medium severity and requiring CARDINAL days of treatment . According to the report , the injury had been caused by a blunt object , possibly in circumstances such as those described by the applicant . According to medical documents submitted by the applicant , he saw a doctor , PERSON , on CARDINAL and DATE , and on CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE and was given prescriptions for medicine to treat his left elbow .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the police about ill - treatment by his ex - wife and CARDINAL of his children , including D.V. On DATE he was informed that it had been decided not to initiate a criminal investigation . On DATE the investigating judge of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint , finding that the facts complained of were being investigated by the NORP police . On DATE a prosecutor initiated a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s alleged ill - treatment by his ex - wife and children ( including GPE ) . On DATE he was officially recognised as the victim of the alleged crime .","On DATE the prosecutor requested that a new expert medical report be drawn up in order to assess the severity and origin of the applicant \u2019s injury . He noted that the applicant had alleged that he had been struck by his ex - wife and children ( including ORG ) . On DATE a new medical report was drawn up which confirmed the previous report \u2019s findings .","On DATE the prosecutor interviewed a witness who stated that he had worked with the applicant on CARDINAL DATE , cutting wood at the local priest \u2019s house . He had not seen any injury or sign of pain on his hand . A similar statement was given on DATE by another participant in the wood - cutting . Another witness stated that he had seen the applicant cutting wood on CARDINAL DATE at the local priest \u2019s house , while CARDINAL other persons were taking a rest . On DATE T. , the doctor who had seen the applicant on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , was questioned as a witness and declared that he had seen a contusion on his body and another contusion on the left elbow , but had not identified any broken bones . He stated that the description contained in the medical report dated DATE of the X - ray images taken on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was incomplete , as it did not indicate the exact location of the broken bone . T. himself did not see in the X - ray any sign of such trauma .","On DATE the prosecutor ordered another medical report to be prepared by a medical commission , because the applicant \u2019s wife disagreed with the results of the first CARDINAL reports and argued that he had been fit after the alleged assault . On DATE the head of ORG at ORG ( \u201c the Centre \u201d ) asked the prosecutor to submit the X - rays of the applicant \u2019s elbow in order to allow the report to be prepared . In the absence of a reply , the doctor repeated his request on DATE , adding that the report could not be prepared without the X - ray results .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator , who proposed that he submit the X - ray images taken on DATE for examination by the medical commission . The applicant refused , stating that he did not trust the police .","On DATE the ORG returned all relevant documents to the prosecutor , informing him that , in the absence of the applicant \u2019s X - ray results , it had been impossible to carry out the examination .","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the investigation , finding that the applicant had often provoked quarrels with his ex - wife and children , and that they denied having caused him any injuries ( they were examined as witnesses on DATE and DATE , and on DATE . ) The prosecutor also referred to the statement given by doctor PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , whom the applicant had asked for help and who had found bruising on the applicant \u2019s body and on his left elbow , but no bone fractures . The prosecutor furthermore noted that the applicant had only gone to the medical expert on DATE and not immediately after the incident . Lastly , the applicant had refused to submit his X - ray results , thus preventing the medical commission from drawing up its report .","On DATE a higher - ranking prosecutor annulled the decision of DATE as premature and taken without the origin of the applicant \u2019s injury having been established .","On DATE the prosecutor again discontinued the investigation , essentially for the same reasons as those for which he had discontinued it earlier . On DATE the investigating judge of the ORG annulled that decision . The judge found that the investigator had ignored the prosecutor \u2019s conclusion in the decision of DATE and had limited his investigation to interviewing the applicant \u2019s children and members of his ex - wife \u2019s family , who all had a hostile relationship with him and who , moreover , had given somewhat different versions of the incident of DATE . Furthermore , CARDINAL of the doctors ( T. ) had been interviewed only superficially , another doctor who had seen the applicant after the incident had not been interviewed at all , and a third doctor who had taken the X - ray of the applicant \u2019s elbow had also not been interviewed . Another expert medical report had been ordered on DATE without first observing the victim \u2019s rights , such as being able to contribute to the questions asked of the experts . Lastly , the applicant had not been informed that he could submit the X - ray results directly to FAC .","On DATE the prosecutor again discontinued the investigation , essentially for the same reasons as those for which he had discontinued it earlier . On DATE a higher - ranking prosecutor annulled that decision for reasons similar to those relied on by the investigating judge ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He also found that the investigative actions had been \u201c extremely superficial \u201d and had had a \u201c tendentious , unilateral character \u201d .","On DATE the applicant agreed to submit the X - rays taken on DATE to the investigator . On DATE the prosecutor ordered that a new expert medical report be drawn up by the ORG , to be based on those X - rays .","On DATE the ORG informed the prosecutor that the applicant \u2019s X - rays were of poor quality and that the applicant would have to have a new X - ray taken . On DATE the applicant was asked to undergo a fresh X - ray examination . The medical commission drew up its report on CARDINAL DATE and found signs of a fracture in the upper third of the applicant \u2019s radial bone in his left elbow . The commission also concluded that this type of injury could have been caused in the manner described by the applicant , but could also have been self - inflicted .","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the investigation , essentially for the same reasons as those for which he had discontinued it previously , adding that the medical reports did not exclude the possibility that the injury had been self - inflicted . That decision was confirmed by a higher - ranking prosecutor on DATE .","On DATE the investigating judge of ORG upheld the decisions of DATE and DATE . The judge found that the investigator had undertaken all possible measures to investigate the case , and that the witnesses had not confirmed the applicant \u2019s version of the events and had even contradicted it by stating that on DATE they had been out cutting wood with the applicant and had not observed any injury to his elbow .","In a medical report dated CARDINAL DATE a doctor recorded an oval light - violet ecchymosis measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY on the applicant \u2019s forehead and an excoriation measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and covered with a red crust , as well as pain in the cervical column and the right side of the thoracic region . The applicant explained that he had been beaten by his ex - wife and daughter .","In another medical report dated CARDINAL DATE a doctor recorded an excoriation on the applicant \u2019s head measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and covered with a red crust . He explained that he had been hit on the head by his ex - wife DATE before .","The applicant submitted similar medical reports , dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE , which recorded various excoriations and bruises . Each time he explained that he had been beaten by his ex - wife and children ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178504","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF Y\u0130VL\u0130 v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Hatay .","The applicant was an officer in the ORG . Based on classified investigation reports , his contract was terminated . He had no access to the classified reports . On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings against ORG with ORG to have annulment of the impugned decision .","Relying on the classified investigation reports , and the written opinion of the public prosecutor , which were not communicated to the applicant , on DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s case . On DATE the applicant \u2019s request for rectification was also rejected by ORG . The final decision was notified on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-185033","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MAYSTRENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","NORP The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . He also raised other complaints under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182226","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TSUKANOV AND TORCHINSKIY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE ORG adopted at first reading a draft law which , in particular , prohibited adoption of children of NORP nationality by GPE citizens .","On DATE the official DATE newspaper ORG announced that the second reading was scheduled for DATE .","According to the applicants , they read on various online social networks that many people intended to stage solo \u201c pickets \u201d ( \u043e\u0434\u0438\u043d\u043e\u0447\u043d\u044b\u0435 \u043f\u0438\u043a\u0435\u0442\u044b ) on DATE in front of ORG to express their opposition to the draft law . The format of solo \u201c pickets \u201d was chosen because there was no longer time to observe the minimum statutory threeday notification period for other types of ( group ) events .","The applicants decided to hold their own solo \u201c pickets \u201d and at TIME positioned themselves , holding banners , in the vicinity of ORG at some distance from other protesters ( see also PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","According to the applicants , they were arrested by the police TIME and brought to a police station . At TIME the police drew up a record of the administrative escorting ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u043e\u043a\u043e\u043b \u0430\u0434\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0434\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ) in respect of each applicant . A record of administrative arrest ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u043e\u043a\u043e\u043b \u0430\u0434\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0437\u0430\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f ) , drawn up at the same time , stated that the applicants had arrived at the police station at TIME The first applicant , Mr PERSON , made a handwritten note on his arrest record that he had been actually apprehended at TIME The second applicant , Mr DATE , made a handwritten note on his escorting record that he had been actually apprehended at TIME","At the police station both applicants were accused of organising and holding a group public event without prior notification , in breach of LAW CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Offences ( hereinafter , \u201c CAO \u201d ) . The administrative offence records indicate that the offences were committed at TIME The first applicant made a handwritten note that he came to the event venue at TIME and was arrested at TIME","The first applicant was released at TIME The second applicant was released at TIME","On DATE the justice of the peace of ORG of the LOC of GPE found the second applicant guilty under LAW of the ORG and sentenced him to a fine of MONEY ( RUB ) , ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) . The justice of the peace found it established , on the basis of the records and testimony of police officers , that the applicant had taken part in a \u201c picket \u201d involving CARDINAL people . That \u201c picket \u201d was unlawful because no notification had been submitted by the organisers as required by LAW ( hereinafter \u201c PEA \u201d ) . The applicant had waved a banner , thereby attracting the attention of passers - by and journalists assembled for the occasion . He had not complied with the police order to stop picketing .","On DATE the justice of the peace of ORG of the LOC of GPE found the first applicant guilty under LAW of the ORG and sentenced him to a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL at the time ) , with the reasoning identical to that in the judgment of DATE . The justice of the peace also relied on police reports and testimony of a police officer who had apprehended the first applicant at the venue of the public event .","Both applicants appealed , insisting that each of them had held a solo demonstration which did not require prior notification of the authorities . The first applicant also pointed out that he had been arrested DATE than indicated in the arrest record .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the Tverskoy District Court of GPE upheld the judgments concerning the second and the first applicant respectively .","The second applicant applied for review of the court decisions under LAW CAO . On DATE the Deputy President of ORG partly allowed his complaint and changed the classification of the administrative charge against him . The second applicant was found guilty of the breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events committed by a participant , an offence punishable under LAW of the ORG . His fine was reduced to RUB CARDINAL ( about ORG CARDINAL at the time ) ."],"violated_articles":["11","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168702","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF LELYUK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the Donetsk Kirovskyy ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) found the applicant guilty of robbery and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) granted amnesty to the applicant .","On DATE the same court , following an objection ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0435\u0441\u0442 ) by its president , quashed the decision of DATE and upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE by a final decision . The applicant became aware of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE only after his arrest in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP In DATE ORG sent its judgment to the local police with a view to ensuring its enforcement . As submitted by the applicant and eventually established by the domestic courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he continued living at his permanent address . Although he was placed on a wanted list for a brief period in DATE , neither during that period nor thereafter did the police try to contact him .","On DATE the PERSON police arrested the applicant at his home and brought him to GPE prison no . CARDINAL to serve his sentence .","Following numerous unsuccessful complaints to the prosecution authorities , in DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , stating that his arrest and detention had been unlawful and requesting to be released .","After several rounds of proceedings , on DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim and found the impugned actions of the police officers unlawful . The court found no evidence in the case file that the applicant had been informed of the court hearing and the final decision of DATE . He had been arrested DATE . By that time his sentence had become time - barred , a fact which the police had been obliged , but had failed , to check . As regards the applicant \u2019s request for release , the ORG stated that the issue was no longer of relevance ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the above decision .","In the meantime , on DATE , ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release on parole . The applicant was released on CARDINAL DATE once all the formalities had been completed .","In DATE the applicant lodged a claim for damages against ORG on account of his unlawful arrest and detention . He relied on LAW , under which a person could claim such compensation if the unlawfulness of his or her arrest and detention had been established by a judicial decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant referred in that connection to the court \u2019s decision of DATE , in which his deprivation of liberty had been found to be unlawful ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG rejected his claim as unfounded . It noted the existence of the judicial decision referred to by the applicant without , however , commenting on it . The court observed that the applicant had appealed against neither the judgment of CARDINAL DATE nor the ruling of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It also observed that he had been released without any conclusion about his guilt . Having relied on the above considerations , ORG concluded that the applicant had failed to prove that he had been deprived of his liberty unlawfully .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s representative , PERSON , appealed on points of law .","On DATE ORG gave the applicant a deadline of DATE to submit the power of attorney . Its ruling referred to the applicant \u2019s case number as registered by ORG .","As confirmed by a postal acknowledgement of receipt , on CARDINAL DATE ORG received a registered letter from the applicant \u2019s representative , which had been dispatched on DATE and which concerned the case under the number indicated in the ruling of DATE . According to the applicant , his representative had sent the requested authority form by the above - mentioned registered letter . According to the ORG , the content of that letter and the documents enclosed , if any , could not be established in the absence of their detailed description on the acknowledgment of receipt .","On DATE ORG returned the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law without examination . It held that , contrary to its instructions of DATE , he had failed to submit the power of attorney \u201c within the set time - limit and before the delivery of the present ruling \u201d .","On DATE ORG sent its ruling to the applicant \u2019s representative . According to the applicant , his representative received it on DATE .","On DATE PERSON requested that ORG give reasons for the dismissal of the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , since the ruling of DATE had been complied with . There was no reply to that request ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145457","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF A.B. v. SWITZERLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is a journalist by profession .","On DATE the applicant published in the DATE magazine L\u2019Illustr\u00e9 an article entitled \u201c Tragedy on FAC \u2013 the reckless driver \u2019s version \u2013 Questioning of the mad driver \u201d ( \u201c Drame du Grand - Pont \u00e0 Lausanne \u2013 la version du chauffard DATE l\u2019interrogatoire du conducteur fou \u201d ) . The article in question concerned a set of criminal proceedings against PERSON , a motorist who had been remanded in custody after an incident on DATE in which he had rammed his car into pedestrians , before throwing himself off FAC ( ORG ) . He had killed CARDINAL of them and injured CARDINAL others . The incident had caused much emotion and controversy in GPE because of the extraordinary circumstances of the case . The article began as follows :","\u201c Surname : B. First name : PERSON on DATE in PERSON ( GPE ) , son of PERSON and GPE , resident in GPE , holder of a category C licence , spouse of ORG : nursing assistant ... It is TIME on DATE , in the austere LOC of the GPE criminal investigation department . TIME after his tragic headlong race along FAC , resulting in CARDINAL deaths and QUANTITY casualties , this reckless driver is alone for the first time , facing CARDINAL investigators . Will he own up ? In fact he does n\u2019t actually seem to realise what is happening , as if oblivious to the events and all the hubbub around him . The man who upset the whole of GPE DATE is not very talkative . This NORP citizen is withdrawn , introverted , inscrutable , indeed completely impenetrable . And yet the questions are flying from all sides . What were the reasons for this \u2018 accident\u2019 , one of the policemen rather clumsily writes , as if he had already formed his opinion . CARDINAL words in reply : \u2018 I do not know\u2019 . \u201d","The article continued with a summary of the questions put by the police officers and the investigating judge and PERSON \u2019s replies . It also mentioned that PERSON had been \u201c charged with premeditated murder ( assassinat ) and , in the alternative , with murder ( meurtre ) , grievous bodily harm , endangering life and serious traffic offences \u201d , and that he \u201c show[ed ] no remorse \u201d . The article was accompanied by several photographs of letters which PERSON had sent to the investigating judge . It ended with the following paragraph :","\u201c From his prison cell , PERSON now spends his time sending letters to the investigating judge ... : on being taken into custody he asked for his watch to be returned and requested a cup for his coffee , some dried fruit and chocolate . On DATE , DATE after the events , he even asked to be temporarily released for \u2018 a few days\u2019 . \u2018 I would like to phone my big brother in Algeria\u2019 , he subsequently begged . He finally announced on DATE that he had come to a \u2018 final GPE : he dismissed his lawyer , PERSON , on grounds of \u2018 lack of ORG . DATE , another letter : could the judge send him \u2018 the directory of ORG of the GPE of Vaud\u2019 to help him find a different defence lawyer ? However , with all the recurrent lies and omissions , the mixture of naivety and arrogance , amnesia and sheer madness characterising all these statements , surely PERSON is doing all in his power to make himself impossible to defend ? \u201d","The article also included a brief summary entitled \u201c He lost his marbles ... \u201d ( \u201c Il a perdu la boule ... \u201d ) , and statements from PERSON \u2019s wife and ORG .","M.B. did not lodge any complaint against the applicant . However , criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on the initiative of the public prosecutor for having published secret documents . It emerged from the investigation that CARDINAL of the parties claiming damages in the proceedings against PERSON had photocopied the case file and lost CARDINAL of the copies in a shopping centre . An unknown person had then brought the copy to the offices of the magazine which had published the impugned article .","By an order of DATE the GPE investigating judge sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","Following an application by the applicant to have the decision set aside , ORG , by a judgment of DATE , replaced the prison sentence with a fine of MONEY ( CHF ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . His appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG of the GPE of GPE .","The applicant applied to ORG , which on DATE dismissed his public - law appeal and his appeal on grounds of nullity . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE . The relevant passages from the decision are as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In short , the applicant submits that his conviction for a breach of LAW is contrary to federal law . He does not challenge the fact that the information which he published falls within the ambit of LAW . He does , on the other hand , submit , under an interpretation of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in the light of the principles inferred from LAW by ORG , that having received that information in good faith without any unlawful dealings he had the duty as a professional journalist , under LAW , to publish them owing to what he sees as the obvious interest of the so - called \u2018 GPE case to the general public in LANGUAGE - speaking GPE .","CARDINAL In accordance with LAW of secret official deliberations ) , anyone who , without being entitled to do so , makes public all or part of the proceedings of an investigation or the deliberations of an authority which are secret by law or by virtue of a decision taken by that authority , acting within its powers , will be punished by a fine ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Complicity in such acts is also punishable ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . The court may decide not to impose any penalties if the secret thus made public is of minor importance ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .","According to case - law , this provision proceeds from a formal conception of secrecy . It is sufficient that the proceedings , deliberations or investigations in question have been declared secret by law or under a decision taken by the authority , or in other words that there has been an intention to keep them from becoming public , regardless of the type of classification selected ( for example , top secret or confidential ) . On the other hand , strict secrecy presupposes that the holder of the specific information wishes to keep it secret , that there is a legitimate interest at stake , and that the information is known or accessible only to a select group of persons ( see ORG [ Judgments of ORG ] CARDINAL IV CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , and CARDINAL \/ aa , p. CARDINAL ) . This state of affairs was not altered by the entry into force of paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW ( RO CARDINAL CARDINAL ; FF DATE IV CARDINAL ) . That rule concerns not secrets in the substantive sense but rather instances of futile , petty or excessive concealment ( see ORG CARDINAL FAC , point CARDINAL \/ bb , p. CARDINAL ) . In order to exclude the application of paragraph CARDINAL , the court must therefore first of all examine the reasons for classifying the information as secret . It must , however , do so with restraint , without interfering with the discretionary power wielded by the authority which declared the information secret . It is sufficient that this declaration should nonetheless appear tenable vis - \u00e0 - vis the content of the proceedings , investigations or deliberations in issue . Moreover , the journalists\u2019 viewpoint on the interest in publishing the information is irrelevant ( see ORG CARDINAL PERSON , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . In its PERSON v. GPE judgment of DATE , ORG confirmed that this formal conception of secrecy was not contrary to LAW inasmuch as it did not prevent ORG from determining whether the interference in issue was compatible with LAW , by assessing , in the context of its examination of LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW , the justification for classifying a given piece of information as secret , on the one hand , and weighing up the interests at stake , on the other ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","CARDINAL NORP In the present case the offence with which the appellant is charged concerned the publication of records of interviews and correspondence contained in the case file of a live criminal investigation .","In pursuance of LAW ( ORG ) , all investigations must remain secret until their final conclusion ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . The secrecy requirement relates to all the evidence uncovered by the investigation itself as well as all non - public decisions and investigative measures ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . The law also specifies that the following are bound by secrecy vis - \u00e0 - vis anyone who does not have access to the case file : the judges and judicial staff ( save in cases where disclosure would facilitate the investigation or is justified on public - order , administrative or judicial grounds ; see LAW ) , and also the parties , their friends and relatives , their lawyers , the latter \u2019s associates , consultants and staff , and any experts and witnesses . However , disclosure to friends or relatives by the parties or their lawyer is not punishable ( see LAW CPP \/ VD ) . Lastly , the law provides for a range of exceptions . As an exception to LAW , the cantonal investigating judge and , with the latter \u2019s agreement , the judge responsible for the preliminary inquiry or senior police officers specially appointed by the cantonal government [ ORG d\u2019Etat ] ( see LAW , paragraph CARDINAL ) may inform the press , radio or television about a pending investigation if so required by the public interest or considerations of fairness , particularly where public cooperation is required to shed light on an offence , in cases which are particularly serious or are already known to the general public , or where erroneous information must be corrected or the general public reassured ( see Article CARDINALb paragraph CARDINAL CPP \/ VD ) .","The present case therefore concerns secrecy imposed by the law rather than by an official decision .","CARDINAL As a general rule , the reason for the confidentiality of judicial investigations , which applies to most sets of cantonal criminal proceedings , is the need to protect the interests of the criminal proceedings by anticipating risks of collusion and the danger of evidence being tampered with or destroyed . Nevertheless , the interests of the accused must not be disregarded either , particularly vis - \u00e0 - vis the presumption of innocence and , more broadly , the accused \u2019s personal relations and interests ( see ORG , PERSON , CARDINALth ed . , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , op . cit . , \u00a7 CARDINAL , no . DATE , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , ORG p\u00e9nale suisse : DATE . , DATE , no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) , as well as the need to protect the opinion - forming process and the decision - making process within a ORG authority , as protected , precisely , by LAW ( see ORG CARDINAL FAC , point CARDINAL \/ aa , p. CARDINAL ) . ORG has already had occasion to deem such a purpose legitimate in itself . The aim is to guarantee the authority and impartiality of the judiciary in accordance with the wording of LAW , which also mentions the protection of the reputation or rights of others ( see PERSON v. GPE , judgment of CARDINAL DATE , \u00a7 DATE , and PERSON and Others v. GPE , judgment of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Furthermore , in so far as the impugned publication concerned excerpts from records of interviews of the accused and reproduced certain letters sent by the latter to the investigating judge , this evidence can validly be classified secret , by prohibiting public access to it , as provided by the legislation of the GPE of GPE . This is the inescapable conclusion as regards the records of interviews of the accused , as it would be inadmissible to allow such documents to be discussed in the public sphere , before the conclusion of the investigation , before the trial and out of context , in a manner liable to influence the decisions taken by the investigating judge and the trial court . It is also the only possible conclusion as regards the letters sent by the accused to the investigating judge , which letters focused on practical problems and criticisms of his lawyer ( see ORG judgment , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . We might point out here that it appears from the impugned publication DATE which the cantonal authorities did not reproduce in full in their decisions , although they did refer to it and its content is not disputed \u2013 that the aforementioned practical problems concerned requests for temporary release and for access to personal effects ( letters of DATE ) , for a change of cell ( letter of CARDINAL DATE ) and for authorisation to use the telephone ( letter of CARDINAL DATE ) . Regardless of the guarantee of the presumption of innocence and the inferences concerning the detainee \u2019s personality which might be drawn during the criminal proceedings from such correspondence , the detainee , whose liberty is considerably restricted , even in respect of everyday acts relating to his private , or indeed intimate , life , can expect the authority restricting his liberty to protect him from public exposure of the practical details of his life as a remand prisoner and as a person under examination ( see LAW ) .","It follows that in the instant case the information published by the appellant , in so far as it concerned the content of the records of his interviews and his correspondence with the investigating judge , can not be described as a secret of minor importance for the purposes of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW . Nonetheless , the impugned publication fulfilled the conditions set out in LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW .","CARDINAL Moreover , the information in question may be described as being secret in substantive terms because it was only accessible to a restricted number of persons ( the investigating judge and the parties to the proceedings ) . Furthermore , the investigating court was desirous to keep them secret , with not only a legitimate interest in doing so but an obligation under LAW , the justification for which was mentioned above ( see point PERSON above ) .","CARDINAL NORP Therefore , the only remaining point at issue is the existence of justification .","In short , the appellant submits that he had the professional duty ( under former Article CARDINAL of LAW ) as a journalist to publish the information in question because of the public interest for the population of LANGUAGE - speaking GPE of the \u2018 GPE NORP case , which he describes as self - evident . He considers that in the light of NORP case - law , the basic point is that publication is justified in principle unless there is a pressing social need to maintain secrecy . From the standpoint of good faith , Article CARDINAL should apply to journalists who have nothing to do with the indiscretion committed by a third person and who receive information without committing any offence themselves other than the breach of secrecy stemming from the publication . Lastly , he contends that the mode of publication is not a relevant criterion .","CARDINAL As regards the former point , the cantonal court found that while the accident of CARDINAL DATE , the circumstances of which were undoubtedly unusual , had triggered a great deal of public emotion , it had nevertheless , in legal terms , been simply a road accident with fatal consequences , and did not in itself entail any obvious public interest . It was not a case of collective trauma on the part of the GPE population , which would have justified reassuring the citizens and keeping them informed of the progress of the investigation ( see judgment appealed against , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","It is true that the \u2018 FAC attracted extensive media coverage ( see ORG judgment , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , to which the cantonal judgment refers ( judgment appealed against , point B , p. CARDINAL ) ) . However , this circumstance alone , alongside the unusual nature of the accident , is insufficient to substantiate a major public interest in publishing the confidential information in question . Unless it can be justified per se , the public interest triggered by media coverage of events can not constitute a public interest in the disclosure of classified information , because that would mean that it would be sufficient to prompt public interest in a certain event in order subsequently to justify the publication of confidential information to fuel that interest . Furthermore , such a public interest is manifestly lacking as regards the letters published . As we have seen above ( see point QUANTITY above ) , these letters virtually exclusively concerned criticisms levelled by the accused against his lawyer and such practical problems as requests for temporary release , for access to personal effects , to change cells and to use the telephone . This type of information provides no relevant insights into the accident or the circumstances surrounding it . It relates to the private , or indeed intimate , life of the person in custody , and it is difficult to see any interest which its publication could satisfy other than a certain kind of voyeurism . The same applies to the appellant \u2019s requests to the investigating judge in relation to his choice of defence lawyer . Nor is it clear , as regards the records of his interviews , what political question or matter of public interest would have arisen or been worth debating in the public sphere , and the cantonal authorities explicitly ruled out the existence of any collective trauma which might have justified reassuring or informing the population . This finding of fact , which the appellant has not disputed in his public - law appeal , is binding on this court ( see section CARDINAL bis of LAW ) . That being the case , the appellant fails to demonstrate the \u2018 obvious\u2019 interest to the general public of the information published , and the cantonal court can not be criticised for having concluded that at the very most , such an interest involved satisfying an unhealthy curiosity .","CARDINAL NORP The other CARDINAL factors relied upon by the appellant concern his behaviour ( good faith in access to information and mode of publication ) .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL DATE It should first of all be noted that Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code punishes only the disclosure of information , irrespective of how the perpetrator obtained it . Moreover , even under Article CARDINAL ORG , ORG does not attach decisive importance to this fact when considering whether applicants have fulfilled their duties and responsibilities . The determining fact is rather that they could not claim in good faith to be unaware that disclosure of the information was punishable by law ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL , and PERSON and PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALI ) . This point is well - established in the present case ( see section B above ) .","CARDINAL On the other hand , the mode of publication can play a more important role in the context of safeguarding freedom of expression . While ORG reiterates that neither it , nor the domestic courts for that matter , should substitute their own views for those of the press as to what technique of reporting should be adopted by journalists , in weighing up the interests at stake it nevertheless takes account of the content , vocabulary and format of the publication , and of the headings and sub - headings ( whether chosen by the journalist or the editors ) , and the accuracy of the information ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL et seq . , esp . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","In the instant case the cantonal court ruled that the tone adopted by the appellant in his article showed that his main concern was not , as he claims , to inform the general public about the ORG \u2019s conduct of the criminal investigation . The headline of the article ( \u2018 Questioning of the mad driver\u2019 , \u2018 the reckless driver \u2019s PERSON ) already lacked objectivity . It suggested that the case had already been tried in the author \u2019s view , in the sense that the fatalities on FAC had been caused not by an ordinary motorist but by a \u2018 mad PERSON , a man \u2018 oblivious to the events and all the hubbub around him\u2019 ; The journalist concluded by wondering whether the driver was not doing his best to \u2018 make himself impossible to defend\u2019 . The manner in which he quoted the excerpts from the records of interviews and reproduced the letters sent by the defendant to the judge pointed to the motives of the author of the impugned article : he confined himself to sensationalism , his modus operandi being exclusively geared to satisfying the relatively unhealthy curiosity which anyone is liable to feel about this type of case . Readers of this highly biased publication would have formed an opinion and subjectively prejudged the future action to be taken by the courts regarding this case , without the least respect for the principle of presumption of innocence ( see judgment appealed against , point CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) . The cantonal court concluded that this factor did not indicate that the public interest in receiving information prevailed . That court can not be criticised on that account .","NORP The appellant also submitted that the records of interviews and the letters would in any case be mentioned in subsequent public hearings . He inferred from this that preserving the confidentiality of this information could therefore not be justified by any \u2018 pressing social ORG .","However , the mere possibility that the secrecy of criminal investigations might be lifted during a subsequent phase of proceedings , particularly during the trial , which is generally subject to the publicity principle , does not undermine the justification for keeping judicial investigations confidential , because the primary aim is to protect the opinion - forming and decision - making processes on the part not only of the trial court but also of the investigating authority , until the completion of this secret phase of proceedings . Moreover , far from being neutral and comprehensive , the publication in issue included comments and assessments which presented the information in issue in a particular light , without providing the opportunities for adversarial argument which are the very essence of proceedings in trial courts .","CARDINAL Lastly , the appellant did not explicitly criticise the amount of the fine imposed on him . Nor did he challenge the refusal to grant him a probationary period after which the fine would be struck ( former Article CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , in conjunction with former DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW ) under NORP law . From the angle of weighing up the interest in the interference , we might simply note that the fine imposed , the amount of which took into account a previous conviction dating back to DATE ( imposition of a LAW fine , which could be struck out after a DATE probationary period , for coercion and defamation ) , does not exceed CARDINAL the amount of the appellant \u2019s DATE income at the material time ( see ORG judgment , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , and there is nothing to suggest that his freelance status at the time of the first - instance judgment led to any significant drop in his earnings . It should also be pointed out that at CHF CARDINAL,CARDINAL the amount of the fine is below the statutory maximum set out in former LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW ( as in force until DATE ) , and that this maximum amount , set by the legislature DATE , was not revised before the entry into force of the new general section of LAW , which now sets a figure of CHF MONEY ( see Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW as in force since DATE ) . Furthermore , the sanction for the offence with which the appellant is charged did not prevent him from expressing his views , since it was imposed after the article had been published ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . That being the case , it is unclear , in view of the nature of the offence charged ( the least serious in the classification set out in LAW ) , the amount of the fine and the time of its imposition , how it could be regarded as a form of censorship .","CARDINAL NORP It follows from the foregoing that the appellant disclosed a secret within the meaning of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW and that he can not rely on any justifying factor in his favour . The decision appealed against does not violate federal law as interpreted in the light of the provisions of the LAW relied upon by the appellant . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160431","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KARPYLENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL DATE son , PERSON , was arrested by ORG on suspicion of robbery .","On DATE PERSON underwent a medical examination , which did not reveal any injuries .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) remanded him in custody pending trial .","On DATE PERSON was placed in ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) .","On DATE he complained to the court that the investigator had subjected him to physical and psychological pressure in order to make him confess to a crime which he had not committed . His complaint was referred to ORG ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) .","At TIME on DATE PERSON was admitted to ORG , where he was diagnosed with a closed abdominal injury , rupture of the spleen , retroperitoneal haematoma , a closed chest injury , laceration ( tissue rupture ) of the right lung , left - sided pneumonia , post - traumatic anaemia , and fourth - degree haemorrhagic shock ( the most serious on a scale of CARDINAL , entailing critical blood loss of PERCENT ) .","On DATE PERSON underwent surgery twice in respect of the above - mentioned injuries and his spleen was removed .","On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the prosecuting authorities that her son had been physically assaulted in the GPE on DATE .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against police officers in respect of PERSON \u2019s ill - treatment for lack of corpus delicti in respect of their actions .","On DATE PERSON was discharged from hospital and placed in the GPE \u2019s medical unit , where he remained until DATE .","On DATE ORG completed the internal investigation in respect of the applicant \u2019s complaint regarding the alleged ill - treatment of her son and found it to be without any basis .","On DATE the newspaper \u201c GPE \u201d , issued in the GPE region , published an article under the headline \u201c A bad [ police ] station \u201d ( \u00ab PERSON \u0443\u0447\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043e\u043a ORG ) about the alleged ill - treatment of the applicant \u2019s son in the NORP police station in DATE . The author relied , in particular , on the statements of CARDINAL of PERSON \u2019s cell - mates . A similar article titled \u201c Another incident in the NORP police station \u201d ( \u00ab FAC ORG \u0420\u0423\u0412\u0414 \u00bb ) appeared in the internet media outlet \u201c FAC \u201d .","On DATE ORG overruled its decision of DATE and decided that further investigation was required . More specifically , PERSON had to be questioned as to who exactly had subjected him to ill - treatment in the GPE in DATE .","On DATE the investigator also questioned the applicant \u2019s son . PERSON contended that on CARDINAL DATE , when he was arrested , police officers had hit him in the stomach . He further stated that the investigator dealing with his case had also hit him in the stomach once in DATE . According to PERSON , these CARDINAL beatings had necessitated his urgent medical treatment on DATE . PERSON said that he did not understand why his mother had stated that he had been subjected to ill - treatment on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the investigator who was in charge of PERSON \u2019s criminal case was also questioned . He denied ever having seen PERSON in DATE , let alone having physically assaulted him .","On DATE ORG once again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers in question , having found no evidence of criminal conduct . The decision not to prosecute noted that PERSON had not complained of any ill - treatment during his detention , and that his medical examination on DATE had not revealed any injuries ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Following his hospitalisation on DATE , PERSON had mentioned to a doctor that he had been physically assaulted DATE , and the doctor had then stated to the investigator that PERSON \u2019s injuries had been sustained DATE before his admission to hospital . According to his medical file , ORG \u2019s injuries had originated from blows to his back with blunt objects TIME prior to his admission to hospital ( that is , during TIME CARDINAL to DATE ) . On the basis of the above information , ORG concluded that the allegation regarding PERSON \u2019s illtreatment was unsubstantiated .","On DATE an official of ORG ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) , to which the investigation had been transferred meanwhile for an unknown reason , also questioned PERSON time , he stated that he had only been ill - treated on CARDINAL DATE , but never thereafter .","On DATE CARDINAL inmates with whom PERSON had shared a cell in the GPE were also questioned . They said that he had felt unwell on TIME to CARDINAL April CARDINAL , and that an ambulance had been called for him on TIME DATE . They also submitted that nobody had been violent towards him or had put him under any psychological pressure .","On DATE the GPE \u2019s medical assistant ( \u0444\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0434\u0448\u0435\u0440 ) , who had been on duty at the time of the events , was questioned as part of the investigation . He stated that he had been called to cell no . CARDINAL , where PERSON had been held , at TIME on DATE . PERSON had complained of weakness , vertigo and blurred vision . He had not alleged any ill - treatment and a visual examination had not revealed any injuries . He had had low blood pressure . The medical assistant said that he had provided PERSON with the necessary medical assistance and had reported the matter to the doctor on duty . The doctor on duty at the time of the events made a similar statement .","On DATE an official from ORG questioned the ambulance paramedics who had been called to assist PERSON They did not remember the circumstances .","On DATE ORG questioned PERSON again . He stated that NORP police officers had physically assaulted him following his arrest on DATE . He considered that the sudden deterioration in his health on DATE had been the consequence of that ill - treatment .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE a forensic medical expert evaluation of ORG medical file was carried out , with a view to clarifying exactly how and when he had sustained his injuries and how serious those injuries had been . The expert concluded that PERSON had sustained an insignificant spleen trauma DATE prior to undergoing surgery , on DATE . More specifically , he had sustained a splenic parenchyma rupture which had presented no major danger and would have healed normally . However , TIME before surgery ( at TIME on DATE ) PERSON had sustained a serious non - penetrating stomach injury resulting from a blow to the left side of his back with a blunt object . As a result , he had sustained a haemoperitoneum , a partial rupture of the diaphragm and trauma of the spleen .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son signed a form of authority , authorising PERSON ( the lawyer who represented the applicant before the Court \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to represent him in proceedings before the ORG . He did not , however , lodge an application with the ORG on that occasion . According to the applicant , her son did intend to lodge an application regarding both his ill - treatment and the investigation into that allegation .","In DATE PERSON \u2019s lawyer challenged the refusal to institute criminal proceedings of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph DATE above ) with ORG and before ORG . He submitted , in particular , that the origin of PERSON \u2019s injuries while he had been under the authorities\u2019 control had never been explained .","On DATE ORG , relying on the findings of the forensic medical expert report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , opened a criminal case in respect of unidentified individuals who had caused PERSON grievous bodily harm . The investigation was entrusted to ORG .","On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of ORG of DATE and remitted the case for additional investigation .","DATE and DATE another forensic medical expert evaluation was carried out . It confirmed the findings of the earlier expert report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but added that a fall could not be ruled out as a possible cause of the injuries .","On DATE ORG issued another refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers in question for lack of corpus delicti in their actions .","On DATE PERSON was assigned victim status in the criminal investigation launched on DATE . On the same date the investigator of ORG questioned him . PERSON maintained his earlier version of events , namely that his ill - treatment had consisted of the following CARDINAL episodes : NORP police officers physically assaulting him following his arrest on DATE , and the investigator in charge hitting him once in the stomach at DATE .","On DATE the ORG administration sent to the investigator the list of the staff members who had been on duty during TIME to DATE . As regards the list of PERSON \u2019s cell - mates at the time , the administration informed the investigator that no records were kept in that regard .","On DATE PERSON , who had been transferred from the GPE to a civilian hospital and who was suffering from HIV , tuberculosis and a number of concomitant diseases , died ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was granted status as PERSON \u2019s successor in the criminal investigation into his ill - treatment . She was represented by the same lawyer who had earlier represented PERSON","On DATE the Chief of ORG informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that the investigation , which had been initiated on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , was ongoing .","On DATE the applicant enquired with ORG about the progress of the investigation .","NORP On DATE ORG informed her that the investigator in charge had been disciplined for his failure to respond to the above inquiry .","It is not clear whether any investigative measures were implemented DATE .","On DATE the investigator of ORG made an entry in ORG about the assault on PERSON causing grievous bodily harm . That constituted a new procedure for initiating a pre - trial investigation under LAW with effect from DATE .","DATE , and DATE , when he was a detainee in the GPE , PERSON was examined at GPE at his request . He tested positive for HIV on both occasions .","According to the information submitted by the ORG , DATE and DATE PERSON \u2019s health remained stable and he did not seek medical assistance .","On DATE PERSON had his lungs X - rayed and was diagnosed , for the first time , with tuberculosis of the right lung . It was unclear how advanced the tuberculosis was . According to the Government , he was prescribed preventive treatment for DATE .","On DATE PERSON \u2019s lawyer enquired with the management of the GPE about his client \u2019s condition . He asked , in particular , for clarification as to whether PERSON had been diagnosed with tuberculosis while in detention , and requested copies of the relevant documents .","On DATE the GPE deputy governor and the chief of the medical unit replied that , following a planned X - ray DATE , PERSON had been diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the right lung and had been transferred to the GPE \u2019s medical unit for treatment . In another letter ( dated DATE ) from the GPE management to the applicant \u2019s lawyer ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it was stated that on DATE PERSON was also diagnosed as having HIV , chronic gastritis , hepatitis in remission and a drug addiction . In addition , he was classed as being in recovery following the removal of his spleen .","According to an extract from PERSON \u2019s medical records , he was examined repeatedly by the GPE \u2019s doctors DATE . Each record begins with the statement that PERSON \u2019s complaints remained the same , without specifying of what he complained . The records of CARDINAL July and CARDINAL DATE further note that PERSON complained of weakness . Furthermore , it was recorded that PERSON had complained of periodic coughing with purulent sputum during his examinations on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE . From DATE a deterioration in PERSON \u2019s health was noted . On DATE an ambulance was called for him .","As indicated in the letter sent by the ORG management on CARDINAL DATE in reply to the applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s inquiry of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON had an X - ray which revealed that the treatment of his tuberculosis was evolving positively . A decision was made to continue that treatment .","On DATE PERSON was taken to ORG no . CARDINAL , where the following diagnoses were made : infiltrative tuberculosis of the right lung , HIV in an unclear phase , meningitis caused by HIV , chronic hepatitis and gastritis in remission . PERSON was also classed as being in recovery following the removal of his spleen .","On DATE PERSON died in the hospital .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to the applicant \u2019s lawyer the GPE management noted that they had previously asked ORG , which was dealing with the criminal case against PERSON , to either accelerate the examination of that case or release PERSON on health grounds . However , they had not received any reply .","On DATE the investigator of ORG inspected PERSON \u2019s body in the hospital . According to the report on \u201c the inspection of the scene of the incident \u201d , there was no indication of a violent death .","On DATE , the applicant asked the police to transfer the body to a mortuary , with a view to establishing the cause of death .","According to PERSON \u2019s death certificate , which was issued on DATE , his death had been caused by acute heart failure , HIV and multiple concomitant illnesses .","The autopsy report , which was also issued on DATE , specified that the immediate causes of death had been a brain tumour , pulmonary and heart failure resulting from \u201c express autointoxication following cryptococcal meningoencephalitis , macrofocal overwhelming subtotal bilateral pneumonia and focal pulmonary tuberculosis of a person suffering from HIV and drug addiction \u201d . The report also noted that PERSON had had \u201c shock kidneys \u201d , cachexia , oropharyngeal candidiasis , and albuminous degeneration of the tissues of the kidneys , cardiac muscle and liver .","The applicant made a complaint to the prosecuting authorities regarding her son \u2019s premature death and requested an investigation .","On DATE ORG refused to open a criminal investigation into the matter , having concluded that there was no indication of a criminal offence .","On DATE ORG overruled that decision on the grounds that it was based on a superficial investigation .","On DATE the investigator once again refused to open a criminal case in relation to PERSON \u2019s death . Relying on the scene inspection report of CARDINAL DATE and the death certificate of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) , he considered that there was no third - party involvement in the death .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the ineffectiveness of the investigation . In particular , she submitted that the adequacy and appropriateness of the medical care provided for her son had never been assessed . She noted that there had been no medical monitoring or treatment of PERSON as regards his HIV . Furthermore , while the HIV diagnosis presupposed a high risk of tuberculosis , PERSON had not had an X - ray until DATE after he had tested positive for HIV . The applicant also complained that the intervals between the X - ray sessions had been unreasonably long . Thus , after his X - ray on DATE PERSON had subsequently not had an X - ray until CARDINAL DATE , whereas a repeat X - ray should have been performed within a DATE time period . Furthermore , although PERSON \u2019s treatment for tuberculosis had been unsuccessful , it had been continued , and his resistance to the medications prescribed had never been verified . Lastly , the applicant complained that the authorities had not provided her with all the information concerning her son \u2019s health while he had still been alive , despite the numerous inquiries made by her lawyer . In particular , she had only found out about her son \u2019s HIV after his death .","On DATE ORG forwarded the above complaint to ORG .","On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant saying that her complaint concerning her son \u2019s death and the allegedly inadequate medical care he had received had already been investigated . As a result , it had been decided on DATE that there were no grounds for opening a criminal case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It remained open to the applicant to challenge that decision .","There is no information in the case file about any subsequent developments ."],"violated_articles":["2","3"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-176837","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF D.J. v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . At the time of lodging his application , he was detained in FAC . He now lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of dangerous assault . It sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and ordered his preventive detention under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court found that the applicant had stalked his former girlfriend , terrorised her and her family with telephone calls , sudden appearances and threats against their life and limb , had finally waylaid his former girlfriend in front of her workplace and had stabbed her twice in the neck with a pair of scissors with the intention of killing her . He had stopped short of stabbing his victim to death . Endorsing the findings psychiatric expert A. had set out in his report , the court was of the view that the applicant had acted with diminished criminal responsibility as he had been in a state of affective excitement and suffered from a neurasthenic syndrome at the time of the offence . The court found that the applicant , who had previously been convicted in DATE , DATE and DATE of comparable offences including dangerous and sexual assault and rape , committed mostly against former girlfriends at the end of their relationship with him , had a propensity to commit serious violent offences and was dangerous to the public .","The applicant served his full term of imprisonment , which ended on DATE , essentially in FAC .","The applicant was not released at the end of his prison sentence but remained in factual preventive detention without a formal decision of the competent courts for the execution of the preventive detention order under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , because the proceedings were delayed .","On DATE ORG decided that the applicant \u2019s further preventive detention without a court decision ordering its execution was unlawful , and ordered its interruption . The applicant was released on DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the execution of the applicant \u2019s preventive detention in accordance with LAW as it was not reasonable to expect that the applicant would commit no further unlawful acts if released . It took note , in this context , of the view expressed by psychotherapy expert PERSON , who had considered that the applicant \u2019s impulsive and offensive behaviour in the hearings in DATE had confirmed the finding in his report dated DATE that the applicant was still dangerous to the public .","The applicant appealed against the decision . He remained at liberty while the appeal was pending .","While he was at liberty , he found a flat and a job and voluntarily started psychotherapy treatment with a female psychologist , So . He regularly attended DATE therapy sessions with So . and did not commit any criminal offences while at liberty .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . Just like ORG , it based its decision on a medical expert opinion drawn up previously by psychotherapy expert PERSON and psychologist PERSON had examined the applicant on CARDINAL occasions DATE . PERSON had performed psychological tests with the applicant in DATE . Both experts had issued their common written medical report on DATE and had supplemented it with a further medical statement answering the questions of counsel representing the applicant on DATE . The original report was moreover based on the examination of the applicant \u2019s prison files and a large number of investigation files , as well as on an interview with one of his fellow prison inmates .","In their written report , the experts came to the conclusion that the applicant suffered from a narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder . They were of the view that there was a very high risk that the applicant would reoffend because of his personality structure and could be expected to commit serious criminal offences mainly directed against potential female GPE physical and sexual integrity . The applicant had continually committed new offences while on probation , so that his probation had been revoked on CARDINAL occasions . He had mostly committed crimes against the physical and sexual integrity of women and usually at the end of his relationships , when he had been unable to accept that his girlfriend had left him . Therapeutic treatment had not been successful so far .","The court endorsed the findings of the psychiatric experts . It ruled that although the applicant had not committed any offences during DATE at liberty , and although he had voluntarily and regularly undergone psychological treatment during DATE , there was no reason to believe that he would abstain from reoffending . In the past the applicant had already abstained from committing further offences for longer periods . Situations similar to those in which the applicant had previously committed offences , especially against the physical and sexual integrity of his female partners , at the end of relationships , were likely to arise and to escalate again just as in the past .","On DATE the applicant returned voluntarily to FAC for the continuation of his preventive detention .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant against ORG and ORG decision on the execution of the preventive detention order ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE an application ( no . CARDINAL ) lodged with this ORG in this context was declared inadmissible by a Single Judge in a procedure pursuant to LAW .","On DATE ORG decided in its first periodic review proceedings , in accordance with Articles CARDINALd \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINALe \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in their then relevant version ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that the applicant \u2019s preventive detention was to continue . It found that it was not reasonable to expect the applicant to commit no further unlawful acts on his release .","The court heard the prison authorities which , in their written statement of DATE , submitted that the applicant was not willing to work on his problems and refused any therapeutic treatment in the detention centre . The court also heard the applicant on DATE . It further based its decision to extend the applicant \u2019s preventive detention on the opinion of psychotherapy expert PERSON and psychologist PERSON of DATE , supplemented on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It had regard to the fact that the applicant had been convicted CARDINAL times since DATE , including CARDINAL convictions for violent crimes .","ORG further dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for a new psychiatric expert opinion . It found that Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , read in conjunction with LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , only required a new psychiatric expert report as a basis for a periodic review decision if the court was considering releasing a detainee from preventive detention on probation , in order to ensure that he was no longer a danger to the public . The court held that , in accordance with the case - law of ORG ( see decision of DATE , file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and of ORG ( see decision of DATE , file no . VerfGH CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) it was otherwise within the discretion of the court assessing the need to extend the preventive detention order to decide whether a new expert opinion was necessary . As a rule , an expert opinion would be necessary if the detainee suffered from psychiatric anomalies that demanded a psychiatric expert \u2019s assessment in order to be able to predict the danger he represented for the public . Otherwise , a new psychiatric expert report was generally not necessary unless special new circumstances demanded a new examination of the detainee .","The court found that , in accordance with the legal standards described , there was no necessity to seek a new expert opinion . It referred to the arguments given in ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , adding that there had been no significant changes since then . The applicant had refused to undergo therapeutic treatment within the detention centre since he had been returned to preventive detention . His DATE did not warrant a different conclusion as regards the danger he represented in the circumstances of his case . The written expert opinion of GPE DATE , supplemented on DATE and explained by PERSON at CARDINAL hearings , lasting a total of TIME , before ORG in DATE , was therefore still recent enough .","The court was , however , of the view that the applicant should be allowed to continue his therapy with the external psychologist So . , which he had not been authorised to pursue since his renewed preventive detention . The prison authorities should allow him to continue and organise escorted short - term leave for therapy sessions with his psychologist outside the detention centre .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court considered that releasing the applicant on probation on the condition that he underwent therapeutic treatment outside the detention centre would be irresponsible . There were no convincing and verifiable indications that the applicant had tackled his offences or the flaws in his character that had led to them . DATE he had spent at liberty during the interruption of his preventive detention did not prove otherwise , although he had not reoffended during that period of time . The applicant had already abstained from committing offences for longer periods of time in the past , but had nevertheless repeatedly committed serious offences against the physical integrity of his female partners when they had ended their relationship with him . Having regard also to the personality disorders leading to his dangerousness , the period of DATE at liberty was therefore too short to prove that the applicant was no longer dangerous . In this regard , the court referred to the reasoning in its decision of CARDINAL DATE and the expert opinion of PERCENT PERSON on which that decision was based ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The court further recognised that the applicant had voluntarily undergone psychological treatment once per week with the psychologist So . while at liberty . However , it considered that there was no proof of the success of this treatment . Instead , the impulsive and offensive way in which the applicant treated other people , notably those working in the detention centre , showed that his attitude and his character had not changed and that he was still unwilling to cooperate .","NORP Moreover the court found that , although the prison authorities had , without giving proper reasons , refused to grant the applicant escorted shortterm leave from prison , especially short - term leave for the purpose of meeting his external therapist So . , such deficiencies in the execution of the preventive detention did not justify the applicant \u2019s release . The court recognised that prison leave was necessary in order to enable the applicant , in the long run , to prove his capacity to live at liberty again without committing further offences . However , the court was of the view that , even if the applicant had been granted the necessary leave since his readmission into preventive detention , the period passed since then would have been too short to prove that he was no longer dangerous . Therefore , the continuation of the applicant \u2019s detention was not yet excessive .","ORG was moreover of the view that ORG decision not to commission a new medical expert opinion was lawful and did not breach its duty to establish the relevant facts . As explained above , a new psychiatric expert would not be confronted with a significantly different situation to the CARDINAL B. and PERSON had found when they prepared their expert report . The applicant \u2019s refusal to cooperate and to accept further psychological treatment within the detention centre showed that the therapy with So . had not significantly changed his character and behaviour .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint against the decisions of ORG and ORG , in which the applicant had alleged breaches of his constitutional rights to liberty and to a fair trial ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE , upon the applicant \u2019s appeal , ORG , in a separate decision , quashed the prison authorities\u2019 and ORG decision refusing the applicant short - term leave to continue his psychotherapy treatment with So . as from DATE . The court ordered the prison authorities to grant the applicant escorted shortterm leave DATE in order to undergo further psychotherapy treatment with the external psychologist , So .","The applicant was enabled to attend psychotherapy sessions with So . until his relationship of trust with the psychologist came to an end in DATE . On DATE the GPE prison authorities thereupon suspended the applicant \u2019s prison leave , finding that the applicant had repeatedly threatened So . On DATE ORG upheld that decision . It found that there was a risk that the applicant would use the prison leave to commit further offences , seeing that his dispute with So . resembled the situation arising in the applicant \u2019s past relationships with women prior to his committing serious offences against them .","The applicant \u2019s subsequent requests to be granted access to treatment with the external psychiatric expert PERSON in a GPE clinic were turned down by the prison authorities , confirmed by ORG . ORG quashed these decisions on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and ordered the prison authorities to reconsider the applicant \u2019s requests in view of the court \u2019s findings . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG found that , as it had explained in its decision of DATE , the applicant could not be obliged to undergo therapy in prison . The applicant resumed external psychotherapy in DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG issued its decision in the fresh periodic review proceedings . It held that the execution of the preventive detention was to be suspended on probation as from DATE , ordered the applicant \u2019s probationary supervision for DATE and ruled , inter alia , that the applicant was to avoid any contact with his former external psychologist So . and her family , as he had started to stalk her and threaten her with e - mails and telephone calls .","The court , endorsing the findings in a new external psychiatric expert opinion issued by PERSON , held that although the probability that the applicant would reoffend at liberty was still high , it would be possible to release the applicant on probation after a preliminary period of DATE if the pre - operational phase was mastered by the applicant without further problems . As the prison authorities had ignored and boycotted the court \u2019s orders to grant the applicant access to external psychological treatment for DATE in a way the court had never seen before and which it found to be unconstitutional , the applicant \u2019s interest in being at liberty now outweighed the public interest .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal . It found that the applicant \u2019s immediate release was not to be ordered owing to the danger he represented . Referring to a report drawn up by expert NORP in DATE , it stressed in that context that the fact that the applicant had not reoffended while at liberty in DATE was not conclusive of his not representing a danger . The applicant had previously committed offences in the context of relationships with women . However , he had not had such a relationship during the time he was at liberty . Furthermore , he did not have a right to choose freely his therapist .","The applicant was released on parole on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155631","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MANOLE AND \"ROMANIAN FARMERS DIRECT\" v. ROMANIA","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association","judges":"Iulia Motoc;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["Mr PERSON , the first applicant , was born in DATE and lives in NORP , GPE .","By decision of DATE the first applicant , a farmer , and CARDINAL other persons meeting in constituent assembly decided to form a trade union entitled \u201c Agricultural trade union ORG \u201d . The first applicant was elected President of the new trade union .","On DATE the first applicant applied to ORG seeking the registration of the trade union which he represented , with a view to conferring legal personality on it . He enclosed with his request the statutes of the trade union and the relevant authority form presented to him by ORG , as notarised on DATE .","According to those statutes , the applicant trade union \u2019s main purpose was to defend the interests of its members , that is to say farmers and persons providing services for farmers , including transport facilities . The first applicant described that purpose as follows :","\u201c The NORP ORG trade union emerged from the desire to help NORP farmers move on from subsistence farming to agriculture as practised in ORG , where the production of rural farms is directed towards the market rather than self - sufficiency , as is currently the case in our country , [ in order to ] provide farmers with a decent standard of living .","Our trade union has set itself the aim of organising local centres ( CARDINAL adjacent municipalities ) in all the counties of GPE with a view to providing legal information , accountancy advice and judicial assistance to individual farmers ....","We believe that it would be advantageous if as many farmers as possible could come together to think and act in unison in order to ensure the success of our agricultural activities .... \u201d","By judgment of DATE the district court , sitting in single - judge formation ( Judge PERSON ) , declared the request for registration of the trade union inadmissible on the grounds that only employees ( persoanele \u00eencadrate \u00een munc\u0103 ) and civil servants could set up trade unions .","On appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant trade union , represented by the first applicant , that judgment was quashed by decision of ORG on DATE . That court held that the action had been wrongly declared inadmissible and that the district court should have examined the merits of the case .","By judgment of DATE ORG , sitting in the same single - judge formation , rejected the request as ill - founded on the grounds that under LAW . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on trade unions ( ORG sindicatelor ) , farmers could not set up trade unions but could only join pre - existing unions .","NORP The applicant trade union lodged an appeal on points of law , submitting , first of all , that the court which had tried the case after invalidation had been the same which had delivered the invalidated judgment of DATE , and secondly , that LAW guaranteeing trade union rights had been infringed .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE the county court accepted the applicant trade union \u2019s appeal on points of law insofar as it concerned the make - up of the first - instance trial court , and , assessing the merits of the case , rejected the trade union \u2019s application for the registration of the trade union . In doing so the court observed that only employees holding a contract of employment and civil servants could set up trade unions , to the exclusion of farmers and other self - employed persons , who could only join pre - existing trade unions .","By a handwritten authority form dated DATE , the first applicant , acting in his own name and on behalf of the applicant trade union \u2013 in his capacity as the latter \u2019s representative \u2013 appointed PERSON counsel to represent them before the ORG . That authority was signed by both the first applicant and PERSON .","The authority may be translated as follows :","\u201c I , the undersigned PERSON , born on DATE in the municipality of ... , in my capacity as President of the ORG trade union \u2018 ORG Direct\u2019 and as legal representative of that trade union , appoint as counsel to defend our case before ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["11"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147613","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PETROVIC v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant served his prison sentence in the closed and semi - open sections of GPE prison .","In the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in the closed section : for DATE in cell CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) shared with CARDINAL other inmates and with QUANTITY of personal space and for DATE in cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) shared with CARDINAL other inmates and with QUANTITY of personal space .","In the period DATE and DATE he was held in the semi - open section for DATE in cell CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) shared with CARDINAL other inmates and with QUANTITY of personal space .","As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the closed and semi - open sections , 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 , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , 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 \u00a7 DATE ) .","As to the out - of - cell time in the semi - open section , the ORG submitted that the cell doors in the semi - open section of the prison were unlocked , except from TIME ( on DATE and DATE from TIME ) until TIME ( on DATE , DATE and during holidays until TIME ) . During this time prisoners could move freely in the corridor ( QUANTITY ) , living quarters of co - prisoners or in the indoor or outdoor exercise areas , in accordance with prison rules . The Government contended that this regime had been in place for DATE .","As regards the cell temperature , the data provided by the Government showed that the average temperature in the cells in TIME ( TIME ) in DATE and DATE had been approximately CARDINAL , exceeding CARDINAL on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160422","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF NAZYROVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals who , at the material time , lived in various districts of GPE . They are close relatives of individuals who disappeared after being unlawfully detained by servicemen during special operations . In each of the applications , the events concerned took place in areas under the full control of the NORP federal forces . The applicants have had no news of their missing relatives since the alleged arrests .","The applicants reported the abductions to lawenforcement bodies and official investigations were opened ; however , the proceedings were repeatedly suspended and resumed , and have remained pending for DATE without achieving any tangible results . The investigations have consisted mainly of requests for information and formal requests for operational - search measures to be carried out by counterparts in various parts of GPE and other regions of LOC . The requests received either negative responses or none at all .","From the documents submitted , it appears that the relevant ORG authorities were unable to identify the ORG servicemen allegedly involved in the arrests or abductions .","In their observations , the Government did not challenge the description of the circumstances of the abductions as presented by the applicants ; however , they stated that there was no evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that ORG agents had been involved in the incidents .","Summaries of the facts in respect of each individual application are set out below . Each account is based on statements provided by the applicants and their relatives and\/or neighbours to both the ORG and domestic investigative authorities . The personal details of the applicants and their missing relatives , and some other key facts , are summarised in the Appendix I.","The applicant , ORG , was born in DATE and lives in LOC in the Urus - Martan district of GPE . She is the sister of PERSON PERSON , who was born in DATE .","On DATE , during the daytime , Mr PERSON and his friend , PERSON PERSON , were at the applicant \u2019s house in PERSON when a group of CARDINAL armed servicemen from LAW ( \u041e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u043c\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u043e\u0441\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ( \u041e\u041c\u041e\u041d ) ) ( hereinafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) comprised of servicemen from LOC arrived at the settlement in several vehicles . Some of them were wearing balaclavas . They cordoned off the area and ordered the residents to stay inside . CARDINAL servicemen broke into the applicant \u2019s house and searched it . Then they beat up the applicant \u2019s brother and his friend , pulled their T - shirts over their heads , put them into ORG - type minivans and took them to the ORG military commander \u2019s office . The applicant and a number of local residents witnessed the events .","The Perm OMON unit was stationed on the LOC of an orphanage in the vicinity of the applicant \u2019s house . At the material time , CARDINAL brothers of the LOC family were in charge of the ORG unit . It appears that they were involved in the abduction as they were not wearing masks and could therefore be identified by the applicant . The following day the military commander \u2019s office accepted a food package for PERSON , but DATE the servicemen denied that he had ever been detained on their LOC .","The applicant has not seen Mr PERSON since the abduction on DATE .","The above account is based on witness statements provided by the applicant and copies of documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government .","From the documents furnished by the applicant and CARDINAL pages of documents from criminal case no . CARDINAL submitted by the Government , information about the ensuing official investigation can be summarised as follows .","On DATE Mr PERSON \u2019s father , PERSON ORG , reported the abduction to the ORG military commander \u2019s office and the ORG military prosecutor \u2019s office , stating that his son had allegedly been taken to the ORG military commander \u2019s office with PERSON PERSON , and that the CARDINAL men had been detained as the latter had had no identity documents on him .","On or around CARDINAL DATE the abduction report was forwarded to the Urus - Martan temporary police department ( \u0412\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b ( ORG ) ) ( hereinafter \u201c NORP \u201d ) and from there to the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office returned the complaint to the PERSON stating that it had been submitted \u201c prematurely \u201d .","On DATE investigators from the PERSON refused to initiate criminal proceedings into the abduction .","On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office overruled the refusal and opened criminal case no . CARDINAL . The decision stated that the applicant \u2019s brother had been detained \u201c during a special operation , the lawfulness of which has not been confirmed \u201d .","From the documents submitted , it appears that DATE and DATE the investigation was suspended and no investigative steps were taken . The applicant was not informed thereof .","It appears that on an unspecified date in DATE or DATE the investigation was resumed at the request of the applicant and on DATE she was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . The applicant was informed thereof .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the investigation into the abduction was protracted and asked for it to be resumed .","On DATE the court rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint , as the investigation had been resumed on DATE .","On DATE the investigation was again suspended . The applicant was informed thereof .","From the documents submitted , it appears that the investigation is still pending .","The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , GPE . She is the wife of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .","At the material time , Mr PERSON worked as a driver for ORG ( ORG \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e-\u0442\u0435\u0445\u043d\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0433\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u043a\u043e\u043c\u043f\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438 ( \u0423\u041f\u0422\u041a ) ) based on the premises of the main military base of the NORP federal troops in GPE , GPE . On TIME , on his last day of work , he went there with the applicant to the military base to collect a DATE \u2019s salary arrears . The couple arrived at the checkpoint at the entrance to the base at TIME The applicant \u2019s husband went inside , while she was told to wait for him at the entrance .","The applicant spent DATE waiting for her husband but he never came out . In the evening she had to return home . She spent DATE at the checkpoint waiting for him but to no avail . On DATE she managed to speak to a woman from the admissions office who issued entrance passes to the military base . She confirmed that on CARDINAL DATE she had issued a pass for PERSON . She had also made CARDINAL for him for DATE but he had not picked it up , which meant that he must have remained inside and not left the LOC . The applicant \u2019s husband has been missing ever since .","The above account is based on statements provided by the applicant and copies of documents from the investigation file .","The Government submitted copies of a small number of documents from criminal case file no . DATE opened into the disappearance of Mr Babuyev , covering the period DATE . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant reported her husband \u2019s disappearance at the military base to various authorities . Her statements concerning the circumstances of the incident were similar to the account she submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the PERSON city prosecutor \u2019s office initiated a criminal investigation into the events , under LAW ( kidnapping ) . The case file was given the number DATE . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c ... On DATE [ PERSON ] went to the military settlement of GPE in PERSON to collect his salary arrears ; other employees of [ the department ] saw [ him ] on the premises ... [ He ] did not exit the premises and did not return home ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the military prosecutor \u2019s office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the applicant that further to her complaints , they had conducted a prosecutor \u2019s inquiry into her husband \u2019s disappearance which had not established the involvement of military servicemen in the incident .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . The applicant was not informed thereof .","On an unspecified date in DATE and on CARDINAL DATE the applicant reported her husband \u2019s unlawful arrest and subsequent disappearance to ORG office and requested its assistance in the search for him .","On DATE ORG office informed the applicant that their inquiry had not established the involvement of military servicemen in her husband \u2019s disappearance .","On DATE LOC declared Mr PERSON missing at the request of the applicant .","On an unspecified date DATE investigators replied to requests by the applicant for information by providing her with a statement to the effect that the investigation into her husband \u2019s abduction was in progress but his whereabouts had not yet been established .","On DATE and then on DATE the applicant asked the investigators to inform her of the progress of the investigation and for access the case file . No replies were given to these requests .","On DATE the investigation was resumed at the request of the applicant . From the documents submitted , it appears that it is still pending .","The applicants are Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) and PERSON ( also spelled PERSON ) , who was born in DATE ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) . The applicants , who live in FAC in the Urus - Martan district of GPE , are the brother and niece of Mr PERSON ( \u201c Mr Kagermanov \u201d ) , who was born in DATE .","The applicants\u2019 family home consisted of CARDINAL dwellings with a shared courtyard . Mr PERSON lived alone in a separate dwelling . At the material time , PERSON was under curfew . At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the first applicant learnt from a family member that PERSON PERSON had been abducted TIME by a group of armed servicemen , who had arrived at his home in a LOC lorry and broken down the door . The neighbours had heard the abductors driving off in the direction of ORG . The applicant thought that his brother had been taken by ORG servicemen , as at the time many young men had been abducted in a similar manner during curfew hours . In addition , local residents had seen servicemen driving armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) in the vicinity that night .","TIME the applicants found NORP lorry tyre tracks and footprints of military boots in the snow next to Mr PERSON dwelling .","At TIME CARDINAL NORP servicemen in several APCs and LOC lorries arrived at the PERSON family home . They blew up Mr PERSON \u2019s household small oil refinery in his backyard and searched the premises . According to the applicants , the servicemen had carried out a sweeping - up operation in the area and had searched other houses with oil refineries .","The applicants have not seen Mr PERSON since DATE .","The Government did not furnish any documents from the investigation file . From the documents submitted by the applicants , the steps taken by the investigative authorities may be summarised as follows .","On DATE Mr PERSON \u2019s mother , PERSON , reported her son \u2019s abduction by military servicemen to the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE .","On unspecified dates in DATE investigators questioned the applicants , who both stated they had discovered that Mr PERSON had disappeared at TIME on DATE . They had found the entrance to his home broken down , footprints of military boots , his belongings scattered around and his broken watch indicating TIME on the floor . The applicants further stated that at TIME a group of CARDINAL NORP military servicemen in several APCs and LOC lorries had arrived at their house , searched it and destroyed Mr PERSON \u2019s oil refinery .","In DATE and DATE investigators questioned the applicants and their family members . The statements received were similar to the account furnished by the applicants to the ORG .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . The applicants were not informed thereof .","On DATE the second applicant requested access to the investigation file . Her request was refused by the investigators on DATE .","On an unspecified date DATE she requested victim status in the criminal case . On DATE the investigators granted this request and questioned her . Her statement was similar to the account she submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant , whose statement was similar to the account he submitted to the ORG .","On various dates in DATE the investigators also questioned the applicants\u2019 relatives and neighbours , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON , whose statements were similar to those of the applicants . No new information was obtained .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . The applicants were informed thereof .","On DATE the second applicant complained to ORG that the investigation had been ineffective and requested access to the investigation file .","On DATE the second applicant \u2019s complaint was partially allowed by ORG . It noted , inter alia , that for DATE , DATE , the proceedings had been dormant and no tangible steps had been taken by the investigators . The court instructed the investigators to provide her with access to the case file .","From the documents submitted , it appears that the investigation is still pending .","The applicant , PERSON , who was born in DATE , lives in GPE , GPE . She is the wife of Mr PERSON ( also spelled PERSON ) , who was born in DATE .","According to the applicant , her husband was an active member of illegal armed groups DATE and then DATE . During the more recent period , the applicant and her CARDINAL children lived in PERSON . In DATE and DATE NORP servicemen regularly visited their dwelling . They searched for firearms and asked the applicant questions concerning her husband \u2019s whereabouts . Fearing for her family \u2019s safety , the applicant moved to the \u201c GPE \u201d neighbourhood in LOC . In DATE her husband joined them there . On DATE servicemen in APCs took him from his home . He was released DATE .","DATE on DATE a group of armed servicemen in balaclavas broke into the applicant \u2019s flat in LOC . They pulled a plastic bag over Mr PERSON \u2019s head and took him to an unknown destination in an ORG .","DATE the servicemen returned to the applicant \u2019s house . They searched the premises and asked her about her husband \u2019s involvement in illegal armed groups . During the search they found a list of members of illegal armed groups and a number of identity documents , as well as firearms hidden in the garden .","DATE . The applicant has not seen Mr GPE since DATE . In DATE she moved to GPE .","The Government submitted copies of CARDINAL pages of documents from criminal case file no . DATE opened into the abduction of Mr GPE . The information concerning the criminal proceedings as submitted by both parties may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office forwarded the abduction report lodged by PERSON PERSON \u2019s father , PERSON to the NORP district department of the interior ( ORG \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b ( ORG ) ( hereinafter \u201c ROVD \u201d ) .","On DATE investigators questioned Mr PERSON , who stated that at TIME on DATE armed men in camouflage uniforms had arrived in CARDINAL APCs at their house . They had broken in and checked some identity documents . Afterwards they had taken his son outside , put him into one of the APCs and driven off .","On DATE CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s neighbours ( their names were illegible on the documents submitted ) stated that on TIME , they had been woken up by the sound of women crying . They had gone outside and had seen their neighbours on the street and several APCs driving off . They had then learnt that PERSON had been abducted .","On DATE the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL into the abduction and informed the applicant thereof .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . The applicant and her relatives were not informed thereof .","On DATE the PERSON replied to a request by the applicant for information stating , amongst other things :","\u201c ... in connection with the abduction of PERSON , the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL ... the police operational search unit opened search file no . DATE and has been taking measures to search for Mr PERSON , whose whereabouts as of DATE have not yet been established [ ... ] \u201d","DATE . According to the applicant , on DATE she had to leave GPE out of fear for her and her children \u2019s lives . Since DATE she has resided in GPE .","On DATE the ORG declared Mr PERSON missing .","On DATE Mr ORG asked the investigators to provide him with copies of documents from the investigation file . His request was granted on DATE .","On DATE the ORG declared Mr PERSON dead at the request of the applicant \u2019s representative .","On DATE the investigation was resumed further to a complaint by the applicant \u2019s relatives .","On various dates in DATE and then in DATE the investigators questioned several of the applicant \u2019s relatives and neighbours and examined the crime scene . No new information was obtained .","On DATE the investigation was again suspended . From the documents submitted , it appears to be still pending .","The applicant , PERSON ( also spelled PERSON ) PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , GPE . She is the wife of PERSON Ayndi ( also spelled PERSON ) PERSON , who was born in DATE .","At the material time ORG was under curfew . The applicant and her husband resided in a block of flats at CARDINAL FAC in LOC of PERSON .","At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL armed servicemen in camouflage uniforms and balaclavas arrived at the flats in CARDINAL grey ORG vehicles and an ORG . They broke into the applicant \u2019s flat , quickly searched it , dragged Mr PERSON outside , forced him into one of their vehicles and drove off through checkpoint CARDINAL in the direction of the city centre .","The applicant has not seen her husband since his abduction on CARDINAL DATE .","The above account is based on a statement provided by the applicant and copies of documents from the criminal case file .","On DATE the applicant reported her husband \u2019s abduction to the Staropromyslovskiy ROVD stating , amongst other things , that the abductors had arrived in CARDINAL UAZ minivans and an ORG without registration numbers .","On DATE investigators from the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u201c the prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) examined the crime scene . No evidence was collected .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant and her relatives , Mr PERSON and PERSON , whose statements concerning the incident were similar to the account the applicant submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . DATE into the abduction of Mr PERSON .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant \u2019s mother PERSON , whose statement was similar to the account the applicant submitted to ORG .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case and questioned . Her statement was similar to her earlier statement of CARDINAL DATE . In addition , she stated that she would not be able to identify any of the abductors as their faces had been covered .","On DATE the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators . The applicant was not informed thereof .","On DATE LOC declared Mr PERSON missing .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , who reiterated her earlier statements .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again . The applicant was not informed thereof .","On DATE the Leninskiy inter - district investigations department in ORG replied to a request by the applicant for information and provided her with copies of CARDINAL documents from the investigation file .","It appears that on DATE she was again granted victim status in the criminal case at her request .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor criticised the investigators for their failure to take basic steps and ordered that the investigation be resumed . On DATE the proceedings were resumed .","On DATE the investigators again questioned Mr GPE and the applicant , who reiterated their earlier statements . In addition , the applicant stated that DATE prior to the abduction unidentified armed men had robbed her mother - in - law and had even fired several shots at her .","On DATE the investigation was suspended .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG of Grozny that the investigation of the abduction had been ineffective and asked for the proceedings to be resumed . On DATE the court rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint as the investigation had been resumed DATE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again and then resumed on DATE .","NORP The criminal proceedings are still pending .","The Government did not contest the essential facts underlying each application , but submitted that the ORG allegations were based on assumptions as there was no evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that ORG agents had been involved in the alleged abductions , or that the applicants\u2019 relatives were dead .","The applicants submitted that it had been established \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d that the men who had taken their relatives had been ORG agents . In support of that assertion , they referred to evidence contained in their submissions and documents from the criminal investigation files disclosed by the Government . They also submitted that they had each made a prima facie case that their relatives had been abducted by ORG agents , but the essential facts underlying their complaints had not been challenged by the Government . Given the lack of any news about their relatives for a long time and the lifethreatening nature of unacknowledged detention in GPE at the relevant time , they asked the ORG to consider their relatives dead .","A summary of the principles concerning assessment of evidence and establishment of facts in disappearance cases and the life - threatening nature of such incidents may be found in ORG ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","NORP Witness statements collected by the applicant , along with documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government , confirm that her brother , PERSON , was abducted in PERSON on DATE by a group of servicemen during a special operation ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . In view of all the material in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her brother was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the lifethreatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it also finds that PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Witness statements collected by the applicant , along with documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government , confirm that her husband , PERSON , was abducted in GPE on DATE by ORG servicemen ( see , for example , DATE above ) . In view of all the material in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her husband was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the lifethreatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it also finds that Mr Babuyev may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Witness statements collected by the applicants and copies of part of the investigation file submitted by them to the ORG confirm that their relative , PERSON , was abducted from his home in PERSON on DATE during TIME by a group of servicemen during a special operation ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In view of the material in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicants have presented a prima facie case that their relative was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances set out by them .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the life - threatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it also finds that Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","Witness statements collected by the applicant , along with a small number of documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government , confirm that her husband , PERSON , was abducted in in PERSON on DATE by a group of servicemen ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In view of all the material in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her husband was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was taken into custody by State agents on DATE . Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the lifethreatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG also finds that PERSON GPE may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","NORP Witness statements collected by the applicant , along with documents from the investigation file furnished by the Government , confirm that her husband , PERSON , was abducted in PERSON on DATE by a group of servicemen ( see , for example , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In view of all the material in its possession , the ORG finds that the applicant has presented a prima facie case that her husband was abducted by ORG agents in the circumstances set out by her .","The Government did not provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the events in question . They have therefore failed to discharge their burden of proof .","Bearing in mind the general principles enumerated above , the ORG finds that Mr PERSON was taken into custody by ORG agents on DATE . Given the lack of any news about him since that date and the lifethreatening nature of such detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it also finds that Mr PERSON may be presumed dead following his unacknowledged detention .","The ORG finds that in all the cases presently before it , the ORG allegations are supported by both the witness statements collected by them and the domestic investigations . In their submissions to the authorities , the applicants maintained that their relatives had been abducted by ORG agents . The investigative authorities accepted as fact the primary versions of events presented by the applicants and took steps to check whether ORG servicemen were involved in the abductions .","In summary , the facts of all the applications contain sufficient evidence to enable the ORG to make findings about the carrying out of security operations and thus about the ORG \u2019s exclusive control over the detainees ( see , among many other authorities , ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . The ORG \u2019s arguments stand in contradiction to the evidence reviewed by ORG and are insufficient to discharge them of the burden of proof which has been shifted to them in such cases .","The detention in life - threatening circumstances of Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , together with the lack of any news about them for DATE , leads the ORG to conclude that they may be presumed dead ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140657","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"PUUSEP v. ESTONIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr NORP PERSON , is an NORP and NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE , the applicant \u2019s father , claimed restitution of his family \u2019s property , an apartment building in GPE , which had been unlawfully expropriated in DATE . His property restitution claim , filed in the context of the ownership reform process taking place in GPE at that time , gave rise to a number of administrative and court proceedings . The main issues in the proceedings , in brief , were the following : on which grounds Y. \u2019s father , PERSON , had left GPE in DATE ; whether he had already received compensation for the property left in GPE and unlawfully expropriated by the NORP authorities ; and what the legal implications of these facts were .","By a judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ORG found for Y. in his complaint against a decision of DATE of ORG for the Return of and Compensation for ORG ( NORP v\u00f5\u00f5randatud vara tagastamise ja kompenseerimise PERSON linnakomisjon ) .","On DATE Y. died and the applicant pursued the proceedings as his successor .","Following an appeal by ORG , on DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment . It annulled the decision of ORG on the ground that pertinent evidence had not been assessed and ordered ORG Y. \u2019s claim for the return of the property . ORG noted in its judgment that it did not instruct the ORG to reach any particular outcome in resolving the matter . The ORG appealed . On DATE ORG declined to examine the ORG \u2019s appeal and ORG judgment became final .","On DATE the applicant , dissatisfied with the ORG \u2019s delayed examination of his claim , requested that ORG impose a fine on ORG for its failure to comply with the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the ORG decided to postpone the examination of Y. \u2019s claim pending the receipt of information from the NORP archives on whether PERSON \u2019s father had received compensation for the property in question from GPE .","On DATE ORG fined the Committee CARDINAL kroons ( EEK ) ( MONEY ) for its failure to resolve the matter . It noted that ORG had taken certain measures in order to gather the information required to reach a decision , but found that the delay was unjustified .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG \u2019s appeal against that decision . ORG appealed to ORG , which declined to examine the appeal on DATE .","NORP In the meantime , on DATE , the ORG issued a decision by which it declared that the property in question was subject to the ownership reform process and that Y. \u2019s successors ( that is , the applicant ) were \u201c legally entitled subjects \u201d ( \u00f5igustatud subjektid ) in respect of the property . The decision contained a summary of the prior proceedings including , inter alia , reference to ORG judgment of DATE , by which ORG had been ordered to reexamine Y. \u2019s claim for the return of the property .","On DATE , having , in the meantime , received information from the NORP archives , according to which ORG \u2019s father had received compensation in DATE from GPE for his property left in GPE , the ORG invalidated its decision of DATE and dismissed ORG \u2019s request for the return of the property . The decision also contained a summary of the prior proceedings , similar to the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant challenged the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG .","On DATE ORG annulled the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE .","ORG , the ORG \u2019s legal successor , appealed .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint against the ORG \u2019s impugned decision . ORG upheld ORG finding that Y. \u2019s father had already received compensation for the property concerned from GPE . It also found that the ORG had been entitled to re - examine the case after the new facts had arisen and to take a new decision . The applicant did not appeal .","On DATE ORG declined to examine an appeal lodged by PERSON , another claimant in the proceedings alongside the applicant .","In the meantime , and parallel to the above - mentioned administrative court proceedings , the parties were involved in civil litigation . Following the annulment of certain administrative decisions , as a result of which ORG had acquired title to the property in question , GPE brought an action against DATE succeeded by the applicant . GPE claimed title to the property .","On DATE ORG found for GPE and recognised their title . Y. appealed .","On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the administrative court proceedings in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL . On DATE the examination of the case was resumed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld ORG judgment . It took note of the applicant \u2019s argument that the question of the return of the property had not been finally resolved in the context of the ownership reform and that the administrative courts had ordered GPE to re - examine the matter . Nevertheless , the court found that it was not within its jurisdiction to resolve administrative matters and that it was still for GPE to decide in administrative proceedings whether the property was to be returned to the applicant ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175493","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LORENZ v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in Krems .","On DATE the applicant shot his cousin , PERSON , CARDINAL times in the chest and stomach . His victim died . The applicant then decapitated GPE and disposed of his head .","On DATE the applicant shot dead CARDINAL women , namely his former girlfriend , GPE , as well as her mother , PERSON , using the same gun as he had used for the previous murder .","The applicant was arrested on CARDINAL DATE and remanded in custody .","On DATE ORG ( Straflandesgericht \u2013 hereinafter , \u201c the Criminal Court \u201d ) , sitting as an assize court ( GPE ) , convicted the applicant of triple murder and disturbing the peace of the dead ( St\u00f6rung der Totenruhe ) . He was found to be criminally responsible for his acts and was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . In addition to the sentence , ORG ordered his detention in an institution for mentally ill offenders in accordance with LAW of LAW ; see paragraph DATE below ) . A psychiatric expert , PERSON , had found in his expert opinion that the applicant presented a distinctive picture of secondary personality defence mechanisms , in the sense of suppression of fear , emotion and sexuality . His potential for aggression was increased and he was emotionally unstable and could easily become aggressive . Moreover , there were clear signs of an identity disorder .","The above judgment was upheld by ORG ) on DATE .","NORP The applicant has been detained in institutions for mentally ill offenders since DATE . He served his prison sentence until CARDINAL DATE ( as the time he had spent in pre - trial detention \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above \u2013 was counted towards his prison sentence ) . Thereafter , he remained in preventive detention , subject to yearly review proceedings in accordance with LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He was first detained in the units for mentally ill offenders of GPE and FAC ( GPE ) , and since DATE has been detained in the respective unit of FAC in GPE .","On an unknown date in DATE , the applicant applied for release from the institution for mentally ill offenders . He argued that he had completed individual therapy with Professor PERSON in the GPE - Mittersteig Prison as well as specialised therapy preparing him for his release with an external therapist . CARDINAL psychiatric experts had attested that the danger emanating from him had abated or was significantly reduced . Even though different entities had suggested that he be granted privileges ( PERSON ) under LAW ( Strafvollzugsgesetz \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he had not yet been granted any . The applicant claimed that his lawyer had offered him a job and a small apartment if he were released .","On DATE the Krems a.d . ORG ( PERSON \u2013 hereinafter , \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered the continuation of the applicant \u2019s detention in the institution for mentally ill offenders . It referred to an expert opinion of CARDINAL DATE by PERSON , who had stated that the applicant \u2019s condition had stabilised and that the danger emanating from him had considerably abated in respect of the closed and protected living environment of the prison . However , the same could not be said with certainty for a life outside prison . The director of the prison did not recommend releasing the applicant either , as the special therapy he needed in order to be prepared for release was only available in LOC . The applicant waived his right to appeal against that decision .","On DATE the applicant again applied for release , reiterating that PERSON in his expert opinion of DATE had attested that a process of mental stabilisation had taken place and that it was highly likely that the danger emanating from him was significantly reduced . The applicant claimed that he had successfully completed psychotherapy , which he considered as sufficient preparation for life outside of prison . He emphasised that he was willing to be treated , but that currently he was not receiving any therapy . Moreover , he reminded the court that his lawyer would be able to supply a flat and a job for him if he were released . He complained that the prison authorities had refused his requests to be granted privileges , and as a consequence the domestic courts had dismissed his previous applications for release as he had not been prepared for it .","On DATE ORG , having held an oral hearing , ordered the continuation of the applicant \u2019s detention . It confirmed that Dr L. , in his additional expert opinion of DATE , had referred to the fact that the applicant \u2019s condition had stabilised . Even though the applicant had developed an aversion to psychotherapy , he did not refuse to talk to psychiatrists . He was actively seeking a dialogue with them . However , PERSON also found that no protection and support would be provided for the applicant after his release . Without such support , conditional release would be too risky from a psychiatric point of view . The stress caused by the overwhelming feeling of unpreparedness for release could lead to near - psychotic or micropsychotic disorders , the danger of which was unpredictable .","ORG also referred to the expert opinion of PERSON of DATE and the forensic expert opinion by the GPE - Mittersteig Prison of DATE , as well as the most recent expert opinion by Dr B. ( the resident psychologist of FAC , where the applicant was held at that time ) of DATE . The latter had come to the conclusion that the applicant still suffered from a pronounced combined personality disorder with paranoid , schizoid , emotionally unstable and narcissistic elements . PERSON responded to the generally positive tenor of PERSON opinion and found that the stabilisation process was rather a reaction to the \u201c enemy \u201d institution , namely the prison , in which the applicant was being held , and was not to be considered real or rendering the applicant capable of surviving the challenges of DATE life outside prison . Moreover , at that time , PERSON did not recommend further therapy for the applicant , who was not prepared for any self - reflection and was not ready to process the experiences and challenges of normal social interaction , and thus was still likely to present a danger to others . The director of ORG also recommended the continuation of the applicant \u2019s detention , adding that his institution was not equipped to deal with the preparation of his release , which it considered to be a complex and risk - prone task . Only the GPE - Mittersteig Prison was capable of preparing the applicant for his release . The applicant in any event refused to undergo any more therapy .","ORG found that owing to the applicant \u2019s negative approach to therapy , it was impossible to prepare him for release , even though his counsel had confirmed the offer of a flat and a job , and the applicant appeared to be stable . In line with the argumentation of the expert opinions of PERSON and PERSON , the court held that in the light of the gravity of the underlying criminal offences , there was a danger that an unprepared release would overwhelm the applicant and could have unpredictable consequences . Therefore , the application for conditional release had to be dismissed .","On DATE , ORG ( Oberlandesgericht \u2013 hereinafter , \u201c the ORG of Appeal \u201d ) dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant . It referred to the expert opinions obtained in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and confirmed the decision of the first - instance court . It also reiterated that ORG psychology service had recommended a transfer to FAC , where the necessary therapy was available .","The applicant lodged an application for release with ORG on DATE and submitted additional observations on DATE and DATE . In essence , he repeated the arguments he had made in the previous review proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . He also requested that a new expert opinion be obtained from Dr L.","On DATE ORG , ordered the continuation of the applicant \u2019s detention in an institution for mentally ill offenders , referring to the most recent expert opinion by Dr B. of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It found that there had been no changes in his circumstances and therefore declined the request for a new expert opinion . Recently obtained information from ORG psychology service stated that the applicant still refused to undergo further therapy at their institution and requested preparation for his release . It reiterated that the necessary preparation was not available in FAC , but only in FAC . However , the latter had not yet responded to a request for the applicant \u2019s transfer . ORG further referred to the reasoning in previous review decisions to avoid repetition , in particular the one by ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It stressed that the applicant still refused to deal with his offences in a therapeutic setting , which in turn was a prerequisite for being granted privileges . In the light of the gravity of the underlying offence , the statements obtained from the various prison services as well as the recent expert opinions , ORG concluded that the applicant still presented a danger to society .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant as unfounded , as it was evident that there had not been a change in his negative attitude towards further therapy .","On DATE the applicant applied for conditional release from the institution .","On DATE ORG held an oral hearing and subsequently ordered an expert opinion in the framework of the yearly judicial review proceedings . On DATE the applicant submitted his observations on the review . He stated that the expert opinion of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been wrong and the court should therefore rather rely on PERSON expert opinion ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . As the applicant refused to be examined by any expert , the court held another hearing on DATE . On that occasion , the presiding judge reproached the applicant with the fact that he could not expect to be granted privileges if he did not collaborate with the experts and the authorities . The applicant replied that previously one of the experts had found that privileges were a prerequisite for his release , and that another expert had even come to the conclusion that he could already be released . He explained that he had refused to be examined by a psychiatrist because he was not suffering from a mental illness . The applicant repeated that his lawyer had offered him a small apartment and work in his law firm . He was not willing to live in an assisted - living facility or to follow psychotherapy after his eventual release , but would agree to work with a probation officer .","On DATE , ORG ordered the continuation of the applicant \u2019s detention . Based on the information on file , the latest expert opinion of PERSON of DATE and the information from the director of the prison , it concluded that the danger emanating from the applicant still persisted and therefore his application for release had to be dismissed .","That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . The court summarised the genesis of the case so far and the applicant \u2019s complaints , and reiterated the lower court \u2019s findings . As to its own conclusion , it almost exclusively referred to its previous decisions in the applicant \u2019s case of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , holding that there had been no significant changes in the applicant \u2019s situation , in particular that he still refused any further therapy .","On DATE the applicant applied for release from the institution for mentally ill offenders .","On DATE ORG again ordered the continuation of the applicant \u2019s detention , essentially reiterating the reasoning it had given in its decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It appears that ORG did not hold an oral hearing prior to that decision . It referred to the \u201c current \u201d expert opinion of PERSON of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and statements by the prison administration and the social service of the prison ( Ma\u00dfnahmenteam ) that the applicant should not be released , as he refused to undergo therapy and still posed a threat . ORG reiterated that the applicant could only be prepared for his release at FAC , but found that it would be unreasonable to order his transfer because of his negative attitude towards therapy .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant as unfounded . It held that ORG had had no choice but to take into consideration the expert opinion of DATE , as in the course of the CARDINAL review proceedings the applicant had refused to be examined by an expert . ORG again referred to the reasoning it had given in its CARDINAL previous decisions relating to the applicant .","At the time of the above decision , the applicant was almost fortynine DATE old and had spent DATE of his life in different institutions for mentally ill offenders ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144672","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF L.M. v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty);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 by a court);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She has suffered from a psychotic disorder for a number of years and has been admitted to psychiatric hospitals for treatment several times since DATE . The present case concerns CARDINAL consecutive periods of confinement in such hospitals DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s family physician received a telephone call from the local police informing him that the applicant had broken into an unoccupied house , apparently with the intention of sleeping there , and that they were having trouble communicating with her . He referred her to ORG , a public healthcare institution , indicating that she was disturbing the environment and behaving psychotically .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to the closed ward of ORG . On admission , she signed a consent form for confinement and psychiatric treatment . In her exchange with the hospital staff , the applicant said that she was \u201c possessed by energetic and physical people sent to her through the lens of cameras operated by President PERSON \u201d . The psychiatrists treating her diagnosed her with schizophrenia and noted that she exhibited \u201c delusional interpretations and perceptual anomalies as well as features of depersonalisation and derealisation \u201d . The applicant was started on medication consisting of DATE CARDINAL times a day , CARDINAL ORG tablets a day , QUANTITY of ORG CARDINAL times a day , and an ampoule each of GPE and ORG a day . No mention was made in her medical records of her having refused to take any medication .","On DATE the applicant started to ask how long she would have to stay in the hospital and told the psychiatrists that she would resist . The hospital notified ORG of her confinement , indicating the reasons given by the family physician for referring her to the hospital .","On DATE ORG appointed a lawyer , ORG , to represent the applicant in proceedings it had commenced in her respect . It also scheduled a confinement hearing for DATE . A notification of the hearing , addressed to the applicant , was sent to the hospital ; however , it is not clear when or whether it was received by the applicant .","On DATE a hearing was held regarding the applicant \u2019s confinement . The applicant and CARDINAL of the psychiatrists treating her were heard . The psychiatrist stated that the applicant had apparently been living in a garage and had broken into a house , and that she had been found wandering around and had been psychotic and uncontrollable . The applicant stated that she would rather be at home , that she did not understand why she had been taken to the hospital , but that other people she named , including a former politician , might have more of an idea . She provided an account of the events which had taken place prior to her confinement , in which she made no mention of having broken into a house . She also stated that she missed her father , and that she had been taking medication while at home .","In DATE that followed , the applicant continued her treatment and , according to the medical records , also continued to agree to therapy . On DATE the GPE was replaced with GPE and the dosage of ORG was reduced to CARDINAL mg a day . Eventually , the applicant was taken off the ORG altogether .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant gave PERSON , a lawyer from GPE , power of attorney . She told the representative that she was receiving treatment against her will , but was afraid to refuse it for fear that medication would be administered to her by force .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative PERSON notified the hospital that the applicant did not consent to her medical treatment and requested ORG to inform the applicant of her treatment and its side effects . She also pointed out that the applicant had the right to express her own free will and to refuse the treatment if she so wished .","On DATE the applicant , through her representative PERSON , lodged a constitutional complaint against the \u201c material act \u201d of her involuntary confinement and an application for a review of the constitutionality of section CARDINAL of ORG , and of sections CARDINAL of ORG . She alleged , inter alia , that she was unable to effectively enforce her right to judicial review in the involuntary confinement proceedings , as no formal decision had been rendered until that time . She therefore argued that ORG should examine the alleged violations of her human rights committed through the \u201c material act \u201d of her confinement , as any other interpretation would constitute a breach of her right to judicial review within the meaning of LAW . In addition , she requested that the disputed legislation be repealed with immediate effect , and that she be released from the hospital pending a decision on her confinement .","On DATE PERSON wrote to the hospital again , asking it to stop forcibly administering medication to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from the closed to the open ward of ORG . On DATE ORG was informed of the applicant \u2019s transfer and terminated the proceedings regarding her confinement .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from ORG at her own request . In this regard , it was noted by her psychiatrists that she no longer exhibited any manifestly psychotic symptoms , but that she should continue medical treatment to prevent herself from having a psychotic relapse with violent outbursts . The final diagnosis listed in the applicant \u2019s medical records was disorganised ( hebephrenic ) schizophrenia .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint of CARDINAL DATE against her involuntary confinement in ORG for failure to exhaust the available remedies . It also rejected a further constitutional complaint she had lodged on DATE relating to her confinement in ORG on the same grounds ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It found that these complaints had been lodged even before the first - instance decisions on the involuntary confinement were rendered . As regards the applicant \u2019s application for a review of the provisions of ORG , ORG reiterated its findings in an earlier decision ( no . ORG ) that the DATE time - limit for issuing a court order for confinement could be too long ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) . However , it was not possible to repeal the disputed legislation with immediate effect , as that would leave a sizeable gap in the legal system , so the application was dismissed .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the emergency medical services by the police . On arrival , she stated that she was being \u201c raped by the police , the emergency medical technicians , everybody \u201d . The emergency physician referred her to ORG , a public healthcare institution , where she was taken by ambulance . It was noted in her admission record that her speech was dissociated and that she exhibited signs of paranoia and megalomaniac delusions . Under the heading \u201c the degree of the patient \u2019s rejection of hospitalisation \u201d the emergency psychiatrist circled the statement that the applicant \u201c accepted hospitalisation owing to the situation ( the staff being present ) \u201d . Under the heading \u201c the need to use compulsory measures on patients rejecting hospitalisation \u201d the psychiatrist circled the statement \u201c negative attitude , no compulsory measures necessary \u201d . It is evident from the applicant \u2019s medical records that during DATE of her admission , she was restless , talkative and unable to follow the activity programme . She spent DATE of her treatment in the admission ward .","As of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was placed in the closed ward . Based on her medical records , it appears that she remained talkative but found it somewhat difficult to engage in meaningful discussion . She still exhibited delusions of persecution and was convinced that her father had bribed the doctors and the police to keep her in the hospital . She was also convinced that the garage where she had been living was bugged by the ORG . On DATE the applicant was visited by her representative PERSON","NORP The applicant was given CARDINAL drops of GPE CARDINAL times DATE , CARDINAL ORG tablets a day and CARDINAL mg of GPE CARDINAL times a day . The GPE was subsequently replaced with QUANTITY of ORG CARDINAL times a day . In the latter stages of her treatment , the applicant received ORG and CARDINAL mg of GPE CARDINAL times a day . Eventually , the applicant was only treated with GPE . During the treatment she often complained of various physical pains and discomfort , in particular painful muscle spasms and toothache .","On DATE the applicant informed ORG of her confinement and lodged an application for an interlocutory order that her medical treatment be discontinued and that she be released from the hospital pending a final decision on the matter . On DATE the applicant also lodged a constitutional complaint against the \u201c material act \u201d of her confinement and an application for a review of the constitutionality of section CARDINAL of ORG and of sections CARDINAL of ORG . The applicant \u2019s notification of involuntary confinement was received by the local court on DATE .","On DATE ORG appointed a lawyer , GPE , to represent the applicant in the involuntary confinement proceedings . On DATE a hearing was held which took TIME . The applicant \u2019s court - appointed representative was present , but , according to the applicant , did not participate actively . At the hearing , the applicant was examined by an expert from another healthcare institution , who immediately upon examination submitted an opinion stating that the applicant \u2019s narrative showed signs of a paranoid delusional system which had probably lasted for a long time and to which she was uncritical . She considered that the applicant needed treatment in a closed ward for DATE .","Based on this expert opinion , ORG ordered that the applicant be confined in the closed ward of ORG until DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s application for an interlocutory order was dismissed by ORG on the grounds that personality rights could not be protected by injunctive relief .","On DATE the applicant was visited by her court - appointed lawyer GPE , who wanted her to give him the power of attorney . According to the applicant \u2019s medical records , the psychiatrist on duty was informed of the visit and gave his consent for the applicant to sign the document .","On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG order regarding her continued confinement and the dismissal of her application for an interlocutory order .","On DATE the applicant spoke to the then head of the hospital , complaining that there was no reason for her to remain there . She also stated that she did not understand why she was on medication , although she did confirm that she was taking ORG as part of her outpatient treatment .","According to the ORG , which relied on her medical records , later that day the applicant was transferred to the open ward of ORG . The applicant , however , maintained that the transfer took place on DATE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative PERSON notified ORG of the applicant \u2019s transfer .","During the course of her stay in the open ward of the hospital , on DATE the applicant was allowed by her psychiatrist to withdraw some of the money she had received as social assistance . In addition , on CARDINAL DATE she was permitted to recover her clothes . She was allowed to leave the hospital LOC for TIME several times during her stay , on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE . Her psychiatrists noted that she was disciplined in her outings and always returned to the hospital at the designated time .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG decisions of CARDINAL and DATE and remitted the case to the first - instance court . The higher court pointed out that the court \u2019s reasoning lacked reference to the decisive factors which would indicate that it was necessary to deprive the applicant of her liberty . As regards the dismissal of the applicant \u2019s application for an interlocutory order , the higher court rejected the lower court \u2019s interpretation that no legal basis existed for an interlocutory order for the protection of the applicant \u2019s personality rights . The court also pointed out that the applicant \u2019s request for her medical treatment to be stopped warranted separate consideration .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against ORG decision and a request for a procedure to be initiated for the review of the constitutionality of section DATE of ORG and of sections CARDINAL of ORG . She insisted that remitting her case to the first - instance court without ordering her release from the hospital had violated her right to personal freedom .","As already stated ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaints of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE against both periods of her confinement .","On DATE the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with ORG regarding the proceedings before ORG . On DATE the Ministry informed the applicant that the local court had set the date of the hearing for DATE . The summons to the hearing was sent to the applicant \u2019s home address .","On DATE the father of the applicant , PERSON , informed the local court that he had been served a summons addressed to the applicant for a hearing scheduled for DATE . The judge agreed to allow the applicant \u2019s father to attend the scheduled hearing .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative PERSON informed the local court that the summons to the hearing of DATE was unclear as to whether the representative herself had been summoned , or whether the applicant had been summoned by way of her representative . In addition , she proposed that a new summons be served in which the reasons for the hearing be set out .","DATE the applicant \u2019s court - appointed representative GPE , the applicant \u2019s father GPE and her chosen representative PERSON were present at the hearing . PERSON proposed that the hearing be rescheduled since the applicant had not been properly summoned . She also informed the local court that the applicant was being held in the open ward of ORG but that the hospital was refusing to release her , or to discontinue her medical treatment . On DATE the local court appointed another expert to give an opinion on the applicant \u2019s condition .","On DATE ORG again ruled on the applicant \u2019s application for an interlocutory order concerning the termination of her medical treatment and her immediate release from the psychiatric hospital . Contrary to the reasoning of ORG decision of DATE , the application was again dismissed on the grounds that no legal basis existed for an interlocutory order for the protection of a person \u2019s personality rights . The applicant appealed against this decision .","On DATE the applicant requested that the judge sitting on the case be removed on the grounds , inter alia , that he had refused to adjourn and reschedule the hearing of DATE despite the fact that she had not been properly summoned . Furthermore , she alleged that the judge had violated her right to privacy by allowing her father to attend the hearing . She also requested that the appointed expert be withdrawn . She further requested the court to decide on her immediate release and to exclude her father from the proceedings . On DATE the applicant \u2019s request for the withdrawal of the judge was dismissed .","On DATE ORG amended its decision of DATE by also including in its operative part the dismissal of the applicant \u2019s application that her father be prevented from participating in the hearing .","On DATE ORG again allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE and remitted the case to the first - instance court . It reiterated that a valid legal basis did exist for an interlocutory order for the applicant \u2019s release from the psychiatric hospital and that her request for her medication to be stopped deserved separate consideration . Moreover , the court took note of information in the case file that the applicant had meanwhile been transferred to the open ward . Accordingly , it pointed out that the rules of non - contentious procedure regarding involuntary confinement only applied to closed wards of psychiatric hospitals . It ordered the lower court to examine the question of whether the conditions for continuing the non - contentious proceedings still applied . Otherwise , the applicant was supposed to apply for injunctive relief against infringement of her personality rights .","On DATE the applicant , through her representative PERSON , lodged an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the dismissal of the application concerning her father \u2019s participation in the hearing . The court - appointed representative GPE responded to the appeal lodged by PERSON , arguing that it should be dismissed . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG sent a letter to ORG , requesting information about when the applicant had been transferred to the open ward .","On DATE the local court received a reply from the hospital stating that the applicant had been transferred to the open ward on DATE .","On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings regarding the applicant \u2019s involuntary confinement in the psychiatric hospital because of her transfer to the open ward .","Meanwhile the applicant renewed contact with her father , who arranged for her to spend TIME at his home . Arrangements were subsequently made for the applicant to move in with him after her release from the hospital .","On DATE the applicant and her father visited the ORG , where the applicant declared that she wished her father to act as her guardian in financial and health matters , and her father declared himself willing to provide her with a home and to assume responsibility for her medical treatment and finances . A record was made of the applicant and her father \u2019s declarations and they were informed that they could address any possible disagreements regarding the arrangement to the centre .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint against the decision of DATE and her application for constitutional review ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) for lack of legal interest . It observed that the applicant was no longer confined in the closed ward of the psychiatric hospital .","DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE , stressing , inter alia , that her transfer to the open ward of the hospital did not change the fact that she was confined there against her will . She also complained about the lack of an effective remedy . Moreover , she pointed out that no decision had been made regarding the necessity of her confinement and that she had not been informed of the grounds on which her continuing confinement was based . She further lodged an application for her court - appointed representative GPE to be taken off the case for failure to act in her interests .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It held that , since the applicant had been placed in an open ward , the rules of non - contentious procedure were no longer applicable . The court referred the applicant to the rules of contentious procedure , under which it was possible to apply for injunctive relief against infringement of personality rights .","On DATE the applicant was released from ORG . The diagnosis listed on her release form was paranoid schizophrenia .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application for an interlocutory order owing to the fact that the proceedings on the merits had been terminated .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of DATE . She invoked , inter alia , LAW , and maintained that the fact that she had been placed in the open ward did not imply that she was held there voluntarily . She alleged that any attempt on her part to leave the hospital , while in the open ward , could result in her being brought back to the hospital by force and placed back in the closed ward , as in practice the transfer to the open ward constituted a privilege enjoyed by compliant patients . In this regard the applicant pointed out , relying on section CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that the legal basis for involuntary admission and treatment in a psychiatric hospital did not specify in which ward patients are to be placed . She also pointed out that psychiatric hospitals were not required to notify the competent courts of ORG possible readmission to the closed ward in cases such as her own , where they had already been transferred to the open ward while the order of confinement was still in effect . In her opinion the provisions on involuntary confinement in a psychiatric hospital and the related procedure were still applicable and she was entitled to obtain a decision on the lawfulness of her earlier confinement .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law on the grounds that the applicant lacked legal interest , since the confinement proceedings had been terminated and she had been released from the hospital .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against ORG decision to reject her appeal on points of law in connection with ORG decision of DATE and ORG decision of DATE to terminate the proceedings regarding her involuntary confinement in ORG . She reiterated the complaints made regarding her stay in the open ward of ORG and those relating to the alleged breaches of procedural rules in the confinement proceedings . Further , she pointed out that she was entitled to obtain a decision on the merits with regard to her complaints , having regard to the importance of her constitutionally guaranteed right to personal liberty .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint against ORG decision as unfounded , and rejected her complaint against ORG decision on the grounds that it had been lodged out of time . The court pointed out that the lodging of an inadmissible appeal on points of law had not suspended the time - limit for lodging the constitutional complaint ."],"violated_articles":["5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-4","5-5","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146099","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MARJANOVI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a citizen of GPE and GPE , who was born in DATE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in ORG and GPE , respectively .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Deputy Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant killed his mother .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant not guilty by reason of insanity ( paranoid schizophrenia ) and referred the case to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The judgment took effect on or DATE ( the applicant has not indicated the exact date ) .","On DATE ORG provisionally placed the applicant in FAC ( \u201c the Psychiatric Annex \u201d ) as from DATE .","NORP In his application to the Court , the applicant claimed that he was still detained in FAC on the basis of the administrative decision , despite the fact that the social work centres did not have jurisdiction to order psychiatric detention .","The Government disputed the facts as submitted by the applicant as incomplete and misleading . They informed ORG following facts .","On DATE the ORG initiated proceedings before ORG on the necessity of the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE the ORG established that the applicant \u2019s mental disorder warranted continued detention in FAC , for a maximum period of DATE . The court further held that the applicant would eventually be transferred to the new psychiatric clinic PERSON in GPE , once it was ready and functional .","On DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE , and DATE , respectively , ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention . The applicant did not appeal against any of these decisions .","The Government submitted a copy of the decision of DATE as well as the copies of the subsequent decisions .","It would appear that the applicant is still detained in LOC .","Under LAW DATE of ORG ( NORP zakon PERSON i ORG ; ORG GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) , an offender who has been acquitted on the grounds of insanity can be placed in psychiatric detention only by the competent civil court if this is considered necessary for the protection of the offender and\/or the public from serious harm . Any such acquittal is therefore reported to the competent social work centre which must initiate the appropriate procedure in which the competent civil court would decide whether to prolong the detention of any such mental health patient ( Article CARDINAL of LAW DATE and LAW ; PERSON o krivi\u010dnom postupku PERSON i ORG ; ORG GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184058","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TELBIS AND VIZITEU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first and second applicants live in GPE , while the third applicant lives in PERSON ( GPE ) . The applicants are the wife , the daughter and the niece of ORG respectively .","On DATE a criminal investigation was opened by the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG and ORG ( \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) against ORG , a medical doctor and employee of a State pension office , on suspicion of bribe - taking . On DATE a search was conducted at the common residence of GPE and the first applicant , in the first applicant \u2019s presence , accompanied by her lawyer . Documents and money found on that occasion were seized . The first applicant objected to that measure , claiming that some of the assets seized did not concern the ongoing investigation . The objection was included in the search record drawn up by the police on the spot and signed by the first applicant and her lawyer .","According to the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE the movable assets taken away at the search of CARDINAL DATE , as well as other movable and immovable assets belonging to ORG and his wife ( the first applicant ) , had been seized under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) for the purpose of subsequent special and extended confiscation provided for by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The decision listed , among the assets found during the searches conducted in the case , the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) found in cash . Cash in other currencies had also been seized as well as several items belonging to the second applicant . The prosecutor based the decision on the nature of the crimes under investigation and the need to recover the damages , as well as on the need to investigate possible money - laundering crimes .","On DATE PERSON was handed a copy of the seizure decision of DATE in the presence of his lawyer . On that occasion , after he had been informed of his rights and obligations , he stated that he had no observations or objections in connection with the seizure .","On DATE the second applicant , represented by her lawyer , was informed of her rights and obligations in connection with the seizure of her property and received a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the second applicant , represented by CARDINAL lawyers of her choice , lodged a complaint with the Cara\u015f - Severin County Court against the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . She claimed that the seizure of assets for the purpose of subsequent special or extended confiscation provided for by LAW , taken together with CARDINAL and ORG , could be ordered only with respect to assets belonging to a suspect or accused . She further explained that the assets listed in the prosecutor \u2019s seizure decision included CARDINAL flats , CARDINAL garages and CARDINAL cars , which had been lawfully acquired by her with money lent by members of her family and should not have been seized . She joined copies of sale contracts and a written statement given by a member of the family .","On DATE the Cara\u015f - Severin County Court decided with final effect that the seizure decision of CARDINAL DATE had been in compliance with the provisions of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which clearly stipulated that measures such as seizure may be ordered with respect to assets belonging not only to the suspect or accused , but also to any other person . Furthermore , the second applicant had not proved that she had an income or that she had purchased the assets in question with her own money . Therefore , taking into account also the fact that the prosecutor mentioned in the impugned decision that there were suspicions of money laundering , the court concluded that the seizure measure had been lawful and justified for all the assets concerned .","On DATE PERSON was indicted on CARDINAL counts of bribe - taking committed between CARDINAL DATE and DATE in his capacity as an employee in a public institution , more specifically the chief expert on matters regarding capacity to work and invalidity at the Cara\u015f - Severin County State Pension Office ( Casa Jude\u0163ean\u0103 de Pensii Cara\u015f - Severin ) .","On DATE PERSON admitted his guilt in a statement before ORG . He chose to benefit from the special fast - track procedure provided for by LAW for such situations .","In his written plea submitted to the court , ORG explained that some of the assets seized by the prosecutor belonged to his wife and daughter ( the first and second applicants ) , who had not committed any criminal acts . In addition , he alleged that his family \u2019s assets had been acquired with funds obtained from real - estate transactions in DATE and DATE , and that the prosecutor had failed to prove that the seized assets had been unlawfully acquired . He also mentioned that out of the money seized in cash , the sum of EUR CARDINAL had come from the sale of a flat in DATE . A copy of a contract had been submitted in support of that allegation , showing that a flat owned jointly by ORG together with the first and third applicants had been sold for ORG CARDINAL . In conclusion , he asked the court to exclude the assets belonging to his family from the confiscation order .","On DATE the Arad County Court found ORG guilty on all counts of bribe - taking and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , the minimum sentence applicable in the light of his admission of guilt .","On the basis of the provisions of LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court also ordered the confiscation of various amounts of money and goods received by ORG as bribes during the above - mentioned period and which had been seized during the investigation .","In addition , the court decided to apply the provisions of LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( m ) , CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) and to confiscate , on the grounds that they had been acquired as a result of ORG criminal activity , additional money and property belonging jointly to ORG and the first applicant ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL in cash in various currencies , a dental practice , a flat and a vehicle ) , as well as property belonging to the second applicant ( a flat and CARDINAL vehicles ) . All confiscated property had been previously seized by virtue of the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE .","In reply to ORG arguments concerning the assets belonging to his family , the court held that the total value of the seized property could not be justified by the lawful income earned by ORG together with the first applicant in DATE before the commission of the crimes in question . In addition , the second applicant was a student and did not have any income . An analysis of the documents and expert reports included in the file showed that the DATE income of ORG and his wife , the first applicant , amounted to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , whereas the value of the assets acquired by the family in DATE the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL in bank accounts or in cash , CARDINAL flats and plots of land , CARDINAL garages and CARDINAL vehicles \u2013 grossly exceeded their lawful income . However , referring to Decision no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG explained that the confiscation measure would apply only to the assets acquired after DATE . The court therefore decided to lift the seizure order in respect of the assets belonging to the family which did not fall within the scope of the case , having been acquired before DATE .","S.T. and all the applicants lodged appeals against the judgment of DATE .","In her reasons for appeal , the third applicant explained that she had asked her uncle , ORG , to keep for her the ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL she had obtained from the sale of her flat in DATE . She claimed that that amount had been found in ORG residence during the search of CARDINAL DATE and had been wrongfully confiscated by ORG .","The first CARDINAL hearings were scheduled for DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The ORG lawyer requested the postponement of the trial because she could not be present . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor submitted to the file a report prepared by ORG ( PERSON ) , verifying the assets statements submitted by the first applicant , on the basis of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on integrity in the exercise of functions in public office . The report concluded that there were serious discrepancies between the first applicant \u2019s lawful income and her assets , and said that the information would be sent to the commission for the verification of assets of ORG for a decision on the further steps to be taken .","The applicants submitted to the file an accountant \u2019s report which provided a calculation of the net income earned by ORG and the first applicant from their salaries DATE . The total amount determined by the accountant was ORG CARDINAL . They also submitted numerous copies of sale contracts for various properties , as well as a written statement from PERSON , a family member who declared that he had lent money to the second applicant .","At the hearing of DATE the ORG lawyer requested that another person be invited to testify as a witness before the court that he had also lent money to the second applicant . With respect to the first applicant , the lawyer applied to the court for an accountant \u2019s report in order to establish the exact difference between her lawful income and the value of the property confiscated from her , taking into account the family \u2019s expenses .","The requests were discussed during the hearing , in the presence of all parties . The prosecutor argued that the request to hear a witness should be rejected , since the family \u2019s income could not be established with witness statements .","The court of appeal decided to refuse the requests , holding that there were enough elements in the file allowing for the exact calculation of both the family \u2019s income and the value of their assets . In any case , the court held that several hearings had taken place in the appeal proceedings and the applicants had had enough time at their disposal to prepare their defence and submit written evidence .","On the merits of their appeal , the ORG lawyer argued that all property confiscated had been acquired from the legal income earned jointly by ORG and the first applicant . In this connection , he referred to the accountant \u2019s report included in the file . As regards the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , the lawyer explained that it had been confiscated by mistake , since it belonged in fact to the third applicant , who had asked her uncle , ORG , to keep it for her . The money had come from the sale of a flat belonging to the third applicant . The lawyer concluded that the confiscation of property belonging to the applicants had been an unlawful and excessive measure .","The court postponed the pronouncement of the judgment to DATE .","In the meantime , the first and second applicants submitted written pleadings complaining that the second applicant had never been summoned to appear before ORG and had never been asked by the courts to submit evidence on how she had acquired the confiscated property . They also claimed that all their assets had been acquired through the efficient management of the family \u2019s lawful income .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal . The court held that from the high number of criminal acts committed by ORG it could be inferred that he had established a habit in taking bribes which could have started long before the period that had been investigated . At the same time , PERSON and his family , the first and second applicants , had accumulated a considerable fortune in DATE . ORG further observed that it was clear from the evidence in the file that part of the confiscated goods were the direct proceeds of ORG \u2019s crimes , whereas other assets belonged to the first and second applicants . The court concluded that it could be inferred from an analysis of the lawful income of the first applicant and the lack of income of the second applicant that the assets found in their names had also been acquired through ORG criminal activity .","ORG observed that there was a considerable discrepancy between the family \u2019s lawful income and its assets , and that GPE and the applicants had not supplied proof that the confiscated assets had been lawfully acquired . The court reasoned as follows :","\u201c Between CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL while the defendant was under surveillance he received various sums of money and other goods from CARDINAL people who had come to his office for a medical examination in order to obtain a decision on retirement due to loss of capacity to work or to obtain an official certification of their degree of disability in order to benefit from social security benefits . As the lower court also held , the defendant has confessed to all the charges against him and he has been convicted to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment .","As a result of this criminal conviction , the first - instance court considered that the requirements of LAW had been fulfilled and ordered the extended confiscation of money , flats and vehicles , items which had a value exceeding the income of the defendant and his family in DATE ....","As regards the income of the defendant and his family , the court observes that he submitted an accountant \u2019s report showing the family \u2019s income starting with DATE , but without mentioning their expenses for DATE .","In order to establish whether there was a discrepancy between the family \u2019s income and their properties and other goods acquired , the court must compare the amounts of money spent during the period of the acquisition of the properties in question with the income . Based on the documents submitted to the file , including an evaluation report submitted by ORG on DATE , the court concludes that there is a significant difference between the income and the assets accumulated . The above - mentioned report evaluated especially the assets acquired by the defendant \u2019s wife [ the first applicant ] mostly from her salary . Even if this salary had been higher than the defendant \u2019s and even assuming that they also had earnings from real - estate transactions , they could not have accumulated enough money to acquire such a large number of properties and vehicles . \u201d","As regards the second applicant , the court held that she was currently a student and there was no proof in the file to show that she had ever had an income . Her allegations that the property found in her name had been acquired from donations from other members of the family had not been proved . Therefore , the conclusion of the first - instance court that the property she owned had been purchased with money from her parents was considered correct .","As regards the appeal submitted by the third applicant , the court held that no evidence had been submitted to the file to show that ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL belonged to her and had been given to LOC for safekeeping .","NORP ORG concluded with final effect that the first - instance court had correctly applied the legal provisions in the case and had even decided to lift the seizure order in respect of certain items ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181595","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF FALZON v. MALTA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP .","The applicant served as a member of parliament DATE , and he served as a government minister DATE . Even before he was elected to ORG he had already established himself as a political commentator in the media and regularly authored opinions related to national politics which were published in national newspapers . Upon his retirement from ORG the applicant began writing DATE opinion columns in the newspaper DATE and another DATE paper .","On DATE Dr PERSON ( referred to hereinafter as PERSON , for ease of reference \u2013 as he has the exact same name as the applicant ) , the deputy leader of ORG ( ORG ) , delivered a speech in public , which was reported on the national media . During the speech he informed the public that he had received an anonymous email and threatening letters , in respect of which he had complained directly to the Commissioner of Police ( CoP ) . He furthermore referred to the discussion he had had with the latter during which he had asked him to investigate the issue .","The most relevant parts of the speech read as follows ( translation done by ORG ) :","\u201c ... But the fact that DATE , CARDINAL opens the newspaper ORG , front page , and reads the editorial by ORG , who chose to speak about a pending police investigation , about an anonymous email that I received and about a threatening letter that I received ... this is a level which should not be acceptable in our country . And whoever is behind these stories \u2013 wherever he might be \u2013 and let me be clear \u2013 wherever he might be \u2013 he should be ashamed ... ashamed !","...","Yes I received an anonymous email ... and I received threatening letters DATE . I did not disclose this to my family . DATE they were told by GPE ... I can tell them myself ... But when something illegal occurs , I go to the police . And that \u2019s what I did . And I went to the CoP , since people who put forward such stories can disclose them I can also do so now for everyone to know . So I went to the ORG I will tell you what I told him ... and he will confirm it . He told me : \u2018 What will we do , PERSON , if it were to [ turn out to ] be X or PERSON I told him : \u2018 I am telling you as of now , PERSON it whosoever in this country , I am authorising you as from now , in advance , even before you start the investigation , to proceed . Because what is illegal , I condemn it , and we as a party always condemned illegality .","And we come to [ the subject of ] the anonymous email [ U wasalna fuq email anonima ] .","And DATE ... ORG [ a journalist ] , this person phoned me DATE as well , told me \u2018 But you know , this is an innocuous email , it contains nothing.\u2019 And I tell ORG and [ other purveyors of ] this type of journalism , that when they saw [ that ] there is a police investigation , is it you , you decide what is illegal and what is not [ ? ]","Because [ he was ] an admirer . And [ the sender ] of this email , true . I will speak to him , of course . But note , that he sent it anonymously ! Generally admirers tell you , \u2018 Hi , PERSON , is everything alright?\u2019 They do not write anonymously . And ORG said other things as well , and so did PERSON [ the editor of GPE ] . Among other things he said because he knows a lot he also phoned me DATE , and I told him . I told him : \u2018 You are breaking the law . It is now up to the police\u2019 . He also said that apparently apparently from the investigation into the email conducted by the police , nothing had emerged , and that it will stop there . And I will tell him now in public : \u2018 Mr ORG and PERSON , you have not discovered America!\u2019 PERSON to that effect have been said by an employee of our party for DATE ... at FAC for DATE . And he told me that I will make a fool of myself . I will not interfere . I will not interfere with the police investigation . That is for them to see .","But DATE I told the CoP , and Inspector C. , that such discourse had long been doing the rounds at FAC . I gave [ them ] the names , and it is now up to the police to decide whether to find out where this information originated from , and who is deciding matters in this country . \u201d","On DATE ORG , a journalist , published an article in the newspaper ORG , entitled \u201c Email sent to PERSON brings admirer before the Police \u201d . The article started off by stating that an innocent email sent to the deputy leader of the ORG had been passed on to the police , who in turn had identified the sender and subsequently questioned him . It concluded with the statement that when PERSON was asked about him reporting the matter to the police , the deputy leader of the ORG ( that is to say PERSON ) replied that \u201c he would not confirm nor deny \u201d that he was aware of the case .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG published an opinion by the applicant entitled \u201c Policing one \u2019s enemies \u201d , prompted by the above - mentioned speech , in which the applicant queried the manner in which the CARDINAL main political parties perceived the police force . The article \u2019s opening paragraphs read as follows :","\u201c During a recent short visit to GPE , I had the opportunity to watch the film \u2018 The Lives of Others\u2019 ( original title : PERSON [ sic ] ) an ORG NORP movie , set in the DATE cultural scene of GPE , monitored by secret agents of the PERSON : the secret police of the former GPE ( GPE ) . The film puts the methods of the PERSON at the centre of the plot and as a result clearly exposes their repulsive behaviour .","The police force , I believe , is simply responsible for making sure that people obey the law , for protecting people and property and for arresting criminals . Using the police in a different context and for the purpose of controlling people \u2019s freedoms is the basic notion of the typical police state , even if you insert the word \u2018 democratic\u2019 in your country \u2019s official title .","For me , the biggest unease was caused by the realisation that the film was set in a period that is only DATE , which in GPE corresponds to the PERSON [ former ORG leader and Prime Minister ] years when I was already active in politics . Little did I think that events that were to unfold when I was back in my country would make me wonder whether the ORG [ ORG ] and the ORG look at the duties of the police in somewhat different manner . \u201d","Other relevant parts of the article , read as follows :","\u201c I say this with deep regret , but I can only be seriously perturbed by the ease with which ORG Deputy Leader PERSON [ ORG ] persuaded the Commissioner of Police to investigate the source of a trivial and unimportant anonymous e - mail that he had received . More so , when this e - mail could only have been misguidedly considered \u2018 suspicious\u2019 , and even then in an absolutely far - fetched way , in the context of the infighting and internal feuds within the ORG .","According to what Dr. PERSON [ M.F. ] said , the Police Commissioner who apparently is on familiar first name speaking terms with Dr. PERSON [ M.F. ] asked whether he would proceed in the same fashion whether the culprit eventually proved to be X or Y ; implying that the Commissioner was offering to act in a discriminatory way according who the \u2018 guilty\u2019 person was .","Matters are even more worrying because when the police successfully traced the original writer and dispatcher of the e - mail , they impounded his computer and obliged him to go and sign DATE at ORG even though he was not accused of any crime .","Has not ORG Deputy Leader PERSON [ M.F. ] successfully used ORG to control the freedom of an innocent , law - abiding private citizen whom he suspected could be a political enemy ? And has not somebody in the police force abused of his powers by condescending to do this for the advantage of the faction led by PERSON [ M.F. ] in the ORG \u2019s internal squabbles ? Why should the police force interfere in ORG \u2019s internal politics where , it is obvious , there are too many cooks spoiling the broth ? \u201d","...","\u201c Yet the ease with which the ORG Deputy Leader phones him up to complain , and even worse the ease with which this leading politician is provided with a service that can not be linked in any way with the pursuit of \u2018 criminality\u2019 as we know it makes CARDINAL wonder . \u201d","...","\u201c These events seem to indicate that within Labour there are people who can influence and interfere in decisions taken by ORG . This is happening when they are still in Opposition . Asking what would happen in this area , once they are in government is , therefore , a legitimate question . \u201d","...","\u201c So what is the ORG doing about this ? Does the ORG Deputy Leader who happens to be my namesake , carry more weight and influence with the Commissioner of Police than the Deputy Prime Minister who is politically responsible for ORG ? \u201d","...","\u201c I firmly believe that PERSON [ then Minister of Interior ] should set up a high powered inquiry with the specific task of getting to the bottom of this sordid soap opera . He owes it to those who dedicated DATE of their life to ensure the personal freedom of each and every citizen of GPE . He owes it to all present and future NORP citizens who did not live the past so that they will live in a future where no one controls their freedom and hence their lives . \u201d","On DATE PERSON , the deputy leader of the ORG , instituted libel proceedings against the applicant ( and against the editor of the newspaper ) LAW ( see the \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d section below ) , and sought damages , claiming that the abovementioned extracts of the article had been defamatory .","By way of defence the applicant claimed that ( a ) the published article had contained his opinion and had consequently constituted a fair comment and the expression of a value judgment , ( b ) any facts had been substantially correct and based on what had been declared publicly by PERSON himself DATE prior to the impugned publication , and ( c ) the claimant was a person occupying a public office and was consequently bound to accept a wider level of criticism .","During the proceedings ORG heard the testimony of the plaintiff ( PERSON ) , the CoP , the applicant , the editor ( PERSON ) , and CARDINAL other journalists ( A.B.D. and ORG ) . It saw documentation submitted consisting of an email exchange between the ORG deputy leader and a third person ( PERSON ) , as well as the transcript of the deputy leader \u2019s speech and copies of CARDINAL articles , both entitled \u201c Email sent to deputy leader brings an admirer before the Police \u201d ( CARDINAL having been published online and CARDINAL in print ) .","The CoP testified as follows ( as summarised by the firstinstance court ) :","- He denied that PERSON had persuaded him or influenced him in respect of his doing his job in connection with the case at issue ;","- PERSON had requested and obtained a normal appointment with the CoP ; when they met PERSON had showed him a letter which the CoP considered to be \u201c injurious and full of threats \u201d towards PERSON ; the latter requested the CoP to investigate the contents of the letter ;","- PERSON also informed the CoP that he had received an email , which was later passed on to the CoP , following an invitation to do so by the same CoP ;","- The CoP asked PERSON whether he intended to initiate proceedings against the person who should result to be responsible , given that the prosecution of such a crime would require the injured party to lodge a complaint ;","- The documents which had been passed on to the CoP had in turn been passed on to ORG ( C.I.D. ) for further investigation , and the CoP had had no further contact with PERSON concerning the case , which had not been given any particular priority on his part .","The applicant failed to make written submissions within the stipulated timeframe , and his late submissions were not accepted by the court that proceeded to judgment .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of having defamed the deputy leader of the ORG and was ordered to pay him MONEY ( ORG ) in damages . Costs were also to be paid jointly by the applicant and the editor ( who was also ordered to pay LAW in damages ) .","The court referred to the CoP \u2019s witness testimony to explain the factual situation . In its view , while noting that public figures such as politicians were subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism , they were nevertheless protected under LAW their protection having to be weighed in relation to the interests of the open discussion of political issues . The court considered the article defamatory as it had tarnished and impinged on the claimant \u2019s reputation . It rejected the applicant \u2019s defence , noting that it had not been proved that : i ) PERSON had manipulated the CoP due to the political office that he held in the party in which he militates ; ii ) that with his actions PERSON had offended ORG since he used ORG for his personal aims ; iii ) that PERSON was some deus ex machina who pulls the strings of ORG , from behind the scene , to reach his goals .","The applicant appealed .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( in its inferior jurisdiction ) rejected the appeal and confirmed the firstinstance judgment . It considered it appropriate to analyse and mention all the relevant evidence that had not been referred to by the firstinstance court :","- M.F. , as plaintiff and now respondent , submitted that the reader had been induced to believe that he had persuaded the police to harm someone , when all he had done was to file a report requesting that the anonymous letters and emails he had received be investigated .","- The court also referred to the statements made by the CoP ( see above ) .","- The applicant ( appellant before ORG ) explained that in his view the email received by PERSON had been innocuous and that PERSON had thus reacted disproportionality . According to the applicant , from the speech delivered by PERSON publicly ( at FAC in GPE ) , it transpired that there was a certain familiarity between him and the CoP ; indeed if that had not been so PERSON would have reported the incident at a police station like an ordinary citizen , and not with the CoP. In his view it was natural to question whether PERSON had used the CoP in connection with the internal affairs of the party . Even when cross - examined , he reiterated that influence had been exerted by PERSON on the ORG","- The editor testified that in his opinion the speech delivered by the deputy leader of the ORG indicated that the latter had put pressure on the CoP to investigate the matter when he had met up with him to discuss the emails and the anonymous letters .","- In reply to a question , while being cross - examined , as to whether PERSON had put pressure on the CoP , ORG replied that he was aware that a report had been filed concerning the email and that on DATE of publication , PERSON had declared that he was authorising the CoP to institute proceedings against whomever turned out to be the culprit .","ORG was of the view that , having examined all the relevant evidence and thus gaining an understanding of the circumstances preceding and surrounding the article , the applicant \u2019s assumption could not be considered as constituting fair comment . In the eyes of the ordinary reader , the comments and criticism made by the applicant could not be considered as objectively reasonable , made in good faith and balanced , given that they were based on a certain assumption \u2013 that PERSON had exercised influence over the CoP with the aim of controlling people \u2019s freedom ; the attack on PERSON had thus exceeded the limits of just criticism . PERSON had had every right to file a report , and the fact that he was politically active had not justified such an attack , which had not been corroborated by factual evidence . It considered that even though the manifestation of free expression was an established principle , that freedom was to be exercised within those just limits of the canon of objective veracity of facts and restraint ( entro l - limiti \u0121usti ta\u2019 dak ilkanoni tal - verita\u2019 o\u0121\u0121ettiva tal - fatti u tal - kontinenza ) , as elaborated by the most progressive doctrine and jurisprudence on topical issues and the exercise of criticism .","On DATE the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining that he had suffered , inter alia , a breach of LAW as a result of the judgments in the libel proceedings . He argued , in substance , that his opinion piece had consisted of criticism , which was a legitimate manner of expressing an opinion about the work of a public figure and was allowed in a NORP society noting that the extensive protection given to such a public figure served to silence free expression . He further claimed that the ordinary courts had referred to insinuations and allegations which had not been made or implied by the applicant in his article , such as the statement by ORG to the effect that PERSON had \u201c manipulated \u201d the CoP or that the latter had been subjected to pressure which had \u201c impeded the exercise of his function \u201d as well that PERSON \u201c was a deus ex macchina pulling the strings of the Police Force \u201d . The applicant emphasised that these were gratuitous inventions by the ordinary court which had not been mentioned in the article .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional competence dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims .","It considered that the applicant was attempting to obtain a revision of the ordinary proceedings and noted that it was not quite true that the applicant had never implied that PERSON had \u201c manipulated \u201d the CoP indeed his article had precisely questioned \u201c has not the ORG deputy leader ORG successfully used ORG to control the freedom of an innocent lawabiding private citizen whom he suspected could be a political enemy ? \u201d . In any event , even if the applicant considered the statements made by ORG in its reasoning to be invented , this had not constituted a breach of his LAW .","The court noted the reference to the ORG with which the applicant had started his article and his narrative of PERSON \u2019s actions , which had resulted in an individual being investigated and subsequently having his computer seized . In that context he had asked whether PERSON had \u201c used \u201d the police against a political opponent . The applicant criticised the CoP for following up on the indications given by PERSON , to the extent that the applicant had called on the Minister of the Interior to look into the matter . Indeed , the CoP was also an object of the applicant \u2019s criticism .","According to the court , the word \u201c uses \u201d did not mean \u201c manipulate \u201d , as implied by ORG , but within the context of the article at issue , it nevertheless implied an element of abuse . The criticism against PERSON was that he had taken advantage of his political position to put pressure on the police in order that the latter would take action in persecuting an innocent citizen . The court considered that it was legitimate for a victim of a crime to complain to the police , and then it was for the police to act on the matter . Further , the initial reference to the \u201c NORP \u201d in the opening of the article had been regrettable ; even if it was not intended to do so , it had given the impression of a comparison being made .","In its view , even accepting that a public person was subject to greater limits of acceptable criticism , given the article at issue , the ordinary courts had not failed to strike a fair balance between the competing rights .","The applicant appealed .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed his appeal .","It noted that the ordinary court judgments and the penalty inflicted constituted an interference with the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW , which had been prescribed by law ( LAW ) . It emphasised the importance of free expression for the press ; nevertheless , it noted that the press could not exceed certain limits and had to exercise its function in a manner consistent with its obligations and responsibilities particularly as regards the reputation and rights of others . Acknowledging that politicians were subject to wider limits of acceptable criticism , it nevertheless noted that they remained holders of their right to the protection of their reputation . The quest for reasonableness and proportionality in such circumstances had to be seen against the background of the importance of public debate .","Noting the difference between facts and value judgments ( the latter not being subject to the need for proof ) , it considered that a person could not hide behind an opinion or value judgment to impute untrue facts in respect of other persons . It considered that ORG had reached a legitimate conclusion in finding that the applicant \u2019s opinion piece had contained declarations which assumed as a fact that the ORG deputy leader had illegitimately and abusively influenced the police and also that the exercise of illegitimate and abusive pressure on the CoP had not been proved as a fact .","ORG noted that while the article had contained a series of questions ( in respect of which the applicant argued that it was for the reader to answer ) , it had also contained assertions , some of which had not reflected the real facts , according to ORG . Further , ORG considered that just because an alleged fact was given the form of a question , this did not entail that it was no longer a factual assertion but rather became a value judgment . Even the way in which the question was posed , namely \u201c Has not PERSON ... \u201d clearly included a factual affirmation and clearly invited a positive reply . Similarly , the quest \u201c Does the ORG Deputy Leader , who happens to be my namesake , carry more weight and influence with the Commissioner of Police than the Deputy Prime Minister , who is politically responsible for ORG ? \u201d was nothing but an allegation of fact in the form of a question .","Lastly , ORG noted that the amount of the fine had not been particularly severe , so much so that the quantum had not been appealed . There was therefore no violation of LAW ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142459","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"IGNAOUA AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) , PERSON PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) and Mr PERSON ( \u201c the third applicant \u201d ) , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE respectively . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON of ORG , a firm of solicitors based in GPE .","s , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants arrived in GPE on unknown dates . The first and second applicants subsequently claimed asylum on the ground that they had previously been detained and tortured by the NORP authorities and feared being subjected to similar treatment if they returned . The second applicant was granted asylum in DATE .","On DATE , while the first applicant \u2019s request for asylum was pending , an NORP court issued NORP Arrest Warrant ( \u201c EAW \u201d ) in respect of the applicants , under a ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , seeking their surrender to GPE . They were accused of membership of a criminal organisation for the purposes of terrorism . They were subsequently arrested in the GPE pursuant to the EAW .","NORP By letter dated DATE , the Prosecutor to GPE stated :","\u201c If the GPE judicial authority agrees to extradite [ Mr PERSON ] to GPE , [ Mr PERSON ] will not be extradited to another state without the consent of GPE . The only purpose of this extradition request is to secure the surrender of [ Mr PERSON ] to GPE to stand trial for the offence alleged against him . I can confirm categorically that his extradition is not sought for the purpose of deporting him to GPE . \u201d","On DATE an extradition hearing took place at GPE ORG . It was accepted in the proceedings that if the applicants were returned to GPE there would be a real risk of a breach of their LAW , following this ORG \u2019s ruling in GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE . The question was whether there were substantial grounds to believe that GPE would extradite , expel or deport the applicants to GPE . The judge explained :","\u201c CARDINAL . I propose to deal very shortly with any further onward extradition request , or an order of expulsion from GPE that might be linked to a sentence of imprisonment following conviction ... [ T]here are recognised routes of appeal that are available to a person subject to an extradition request ( by GPE should there ever be one ) or an expulsion order ( to GPE ) to enable the highest court in GPE to make a determination as to whether or not , if such an order were allowed to proceed , the defendant \u2019s LAW rights would be prejudiced . That is , there is effective judicial oversight , with guaranteed rights of appeal , available to any defendant who might feel aggrieved by an order for his removal from GPE . \u201d","The judge considered the provisions of the NORP \u201c LAW \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) which governed deportation from GPE at the relevant time . He observed that notwithstanding the apparent inability under that law for a person whose expulsion had been ordered to obtain a stay of execution pending an appeal , expert evidence presented to the court had suggested that it was in practice possible to obtain a stay from ORG . However , he accepted that there was potential for a person to be deported before being able to persuade a court to suspend the process . He accordingly found that LAW failed to provide the necessary guarantees required by LAW . However , he noted that Mr PERSON was not deported prior to this Court \u2019s hearing in PERSON , cited above , nor had he been deported since . While some evidence from NORP lawyers showed a reluctance to accept that NORP courts were bound to ensure that the rulings they made were in accordance with the LAW , the judge rejected that aspect of their evidence . He observed that the lawyers had \u201c a low opinion of the competence and integrity of the NORP judiciary \u201d which he did not share , referring to the expert evidence submitted by the judicial authority which sought the ORG extradition . He therefore concluded :","\u201c CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) Since DATE there will have been many people in the NORP civil service giving anxious consideration to the decision in PERSON v GPE , all trying to devise a solution to the \u2018 dilemma\u2019 .","( CARDINAL ) It is highly likely new provisions will shortly be in place , and that would make this whole discussion , based as it is on the NORP law , somewhat academic .","( CARDINAL ) I am not surprised the Minister of ORG has declined to give an undertaking that the NORP law will not be applied to any of these QUANTITY men . There are many reasons why it might not be appropriate to offer such a guarantee . The lack of it does not suggest that , if extradited , the NORP law would be applied to them .","( CARDINAL ) I consider it unlikely , unless and until the circumstances allow it , the Minister of the ORG would make a deportation against any of these CARDINAL men requiring their return to GPE .","( CARDINAL ) ... I am confident , given all the activity these defendants have generated with the authorities in GPE and their situation being now so \u2018 high PERSON that they would have no difficulty accessing the NORP courts , should they wish to challenge any deportation order . \u201d","He found no reason to suppose that any future deportation proceedings would not be in accordance with the LAW and the PERSON judgement . He did not consider that evidence of what had undoubtedly happened in the past was evidence that such an approach would be repeated in future , since PERSON would \u201c cause the NORP authorities to rethink its approach to this issue . \u201d The judge therefore held that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would be expelled from GPE to GPE .","He added that LAW on LAW was based on mutual trust and confidence between ORG Member GPE and that he was confident that the NORP authorities could be relied upon not to act contrary to the Convention .","The applicants appealed to a ORG . They argued that , if returned to GPE , there was a real risk of their onward transmission to GPE , in breach of LAW ORG .","NORP In DATE , while the case was pending before ORG , an expulsion order was made by the NORP authorities against Mr PERSON , ordering that he be expelled to GPE . He was then removed to GPE , despite Rule CARDINAL having been applied by ORG on DATE ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . The applicants brought the matter to the attention of ORG as evidence of the inadequacy of judicial safeguards in the NORP deportation procedure .","On DATE ORG handed down its judgment in the applicants\u2019 case . Lord PERSON , delivering the judgment of the court , noted first that the applicants accepted that the EAW was a genuine exercise of the power conferred under the relevant Framework Decision with a view to bringing criminal proceedings against the applicants in GPE . It was not a device to achieve deportation to GPE .","Pill LJ examined in some detail a number of reports concerning the procedures in place in GPE , including a DATE report by ORG Human Rights Commissioner and a DATE report by ORG . He considered carefully the submissions of the applicants and those of the judicial authority . He accepted that the DATE assurance by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) covered all CARDINAL applicants . For essentially the same reasons as LOC , he did not consider the absence of an assurance that GPE would not seek to deport the applicants as an indication that it did not intend to fulfil its legal obligations .","Pill LJ concluded that a real risk of expulsion to GPE had not been established in the cases . He explained :","\u201c DATE . ... It is relevant that the extradition to GPE will be effected under LAW ... The NORP authorities are under LAW duties in any event , but the ORG Directive adds an additional dimension . It requires cooperation between judicial authorities on the basis of trust and a high level of confidence ...","CARDINAL ... [ F]or better or worse we have committed ourselves to this system . Under LAW , we can assume that the trust placed in the NORP authorities will be justified . ORG provides a safeguard and a disincentive to the NORP authorities , as with the authorities of any Member ORG , not to act in breach of LAW . LAW [ on ORG ] provides for sanctions against GPE failing to comply with the basic principles of LAW . Bilateral trust also arises . This is bilateral action premised on the existence of a high degree of confidence . Courts in a returning state would be likely to have a real sense of grievance , having regard to the contents of LAW , if a receiving state subsequently ignored its duty under LAW . The NORP government had not hitherto deported in an LAW case a person received under LAW and had not deported in the case of PERSON .","He also noted that when the NORP authorities received a person under LAW , the entire judiciary was likely to be alerted to its duties under LAW , which he said was \u201c certainly so \u201d in the LOC cases . He was not prepared to disagree with the District Judge \u2019s assessment of the witnesses or his rejection of ORG low opinion of the NORP judiciary . He continued :","\u201c DATE . It is disturbing if the evidence before the court is DATE and the court has to take it at face value DATE that the NORP executive in the case of [ PERSON ] have apparently disregarded an interim direction of the ECtHR . I can not regard that act , or the statement of a representative of ORG which is claimed also to have been made , as destroying the trust and confidence which is to be assumed in the context described . I am not prepared to hold , on the basis of a single post - PERSON case , that the NORP ORG will in the present cases ignore its duties under LAW as confirmed in GPE . \u201d","On the risk of further deportation by the NORP authorities , he added :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... The risk on return has to be assessed on present evidence , and there is no risk of deportation while the contemplated criminal proceedings and any resulting custodial sentence are extant . That being so , any risk is , to that extent , remote from the current situation .","CARDINAL The District Judge \u2019s optimism about NORP legislation has not yet been justified by events in the post - election period . There are , however , clear limits , in my view , to the extent to which a court assessing current risk should speculate as to events in the long term or even medium term future ... Circumstances can change . The remoteness factor ... adds weight to a conclusion that the appellants have not established a real risk of being deported to GPE within the meaning of the authorities . \u201d","An application for a certificate of a point of law of general public importance was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE and DATE the applicants made an application to ORG for habeas corpus to reopen their appeals , based on fresh evidence . The fresh evidence in question largely consisted of documents in the proceedings before ORG in respect of Mr PERSON . The applicants contended that the documents revealed an attitude on the part of the NORP authorities which was prepared to deport suspected terrorists irrespective of LAW risks , particularly where diplomatic assurances had been obtained from the receiving ORG .","On DATE the application was refused . Lord Justice PERSON , with whom Lord Justice PERSON agreed , considered that the new evidence did not provided a reliable guide to GPE \u2019s future conduct ; that there had still been CARDINAL instance of GPE deporting a person in breach of interim measures or LAW since the PERSON judgment ; that there was no evidence of any willingness to deport a person who had been extradited under an EAW so the mutual trust and confidence remained intact ; and that nothing in the fresh evidence undermined the previous finding that the applicants were genuinely wanted for trial in GPE , which made any risk of further deportation remote in any case .","ORG subsequently refused to grant permission to appeal .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicants made a request to ORG for interim measures pursuant to Rule CARDINAL of ORG to prevent their extradition to GPE . The request was refused by ORG DATE . The letter to the applicants explained :","\u201c The ORG found that it would be open to your clients to make an application against GPE , including an application under LAW , if it appeared that they would be surrendered from GPE in breach of their rights under the ORG . \u201d","ORG was informed of the ORG \u2019s decision in the following terms :","\u201c I write to inform you that on DATE the above applicants lodged a request for interim measures under Rule CARDINAL of ORG to prevent their extradition from GPE to GPE . They argued that if extradited , they would be at real risk of onward removal to GPE where they would be subjected to ill - treatment contrary to LAW . They relied on ORG recent ruling in GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE , ECHR DATE ... and further relied on the fact that in the domestic proceedings in their case , both ORG and ORG accepted that LAW of DATE ( \u2018 the NORP Law\u2019 ) failed to provide the necessary guarantees that are required by LAW . Finally , they relied on your Government \u2019s decision to remove Mr PERSON to GPE despite ORG Rule CARDINAL indication in his case .","On DATE the Fourth Section decided to refuse their request . The decision to do so was based on the express understanding that GPE as a ORG would abide by its obligations under LAW , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW and in particular the obligation to respect the terms of any interim measure which the ORG might indicate in respect of GPE at the request of the applicants . The ORG also expressed its confidence that your Government would comply with their obligations under LAW of DATE ( on the NORP arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member GPE ) and in particular their obligation under LAW not to extradite to a third ORG a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a NORP Arrest Warrant without the consent of the competent authority of the Member ORG which surrendered the person . \u201d","On DATE the applicants were extradited to GPE . On CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE , the NORP authorities deported individuals to GPE , contrary to Rule CARDINAL indications made by the President of LAW ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; and PERSON , no . DATE ) .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicants of the charges for which they had been extradited . The NORP authorities subsequently issued expulsion order against them . They were taken into immigration detention . The GPE authorities issued decisions to exclude the applicants from returning to GPE and the second applicant \u2019s refugee status was revoked .","On DATE ORG authorised the expulsion of the applicants .","In DATE the acting President of the Second Section of the ORG decided to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG and indicated to ORG that the applicants should not be deported to GPE until further notice .","The enforcement of the NORP expulsion orders was suspended pending the outcome of the applications before this ORG .","By a decision of DATE , the second and third applicants were released from immigration detention in DATE . They were instructed to leave GPE within DATE .","The second applicant went to GPE . On DATE he was deported from GPE to GPE . He was taken into immigration detention in GPE .","The third applicant went to GPE . Upon arrival he claimed asylum .","On DATE the Second Section of the ORG lifted the interim measures granted in favour of the second and third applicants since they were no longer at risk of expulsion to GPE .","On DATE the second applicant was released on bail in GPE . His refugee status was subsequently reinstated .","On DATE the GPE lifted the exclusion decision in respect of the third applicant . He returned to GPE .","In DATE the first applicant was released from immigration custody in GPE to await the outcome of a prosecution appeal against his acquittal and a second trial . After obtaining legal advice , he made an asylum claim in GPE . His current situation is not known .","Extradition from GPE is governed by LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) . The LAW implements the provisions of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the DATE Act the extradition judge must decide , before ordering extradition , whether the person \u2019s extradition would be compatible with the Convention . If he decides that extradition would not be compatible with the LAW , he must order the person \u2019s discharge .","Deportation from GPE was at the relevant time governed by LAW ( Law CARDINAL of DATE ) .","Article CARDINAL ) of LAW stated that :","\u201c ... [ T]he Interior Minister or , if he so delegates , the prefect , may order the expulsion of a foreigner ... where there are well - grounded reasons to believe that his presence in GPE would in some way facilitate terrorist organisations or activity , including international organisations or activity . \u201d","The order had to be approved by ORG .","An appeal could be lodged against the order to ORG but the appeal did not suspend the enforcement of the deportation order .","On DATE ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/JHA on the NORP arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member GPE . ORG created a simplified extradition procedure between member GPE of ORG . Member GPE are required to execute any EAW on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of LAW .","Recital CARDINAL of the preamble to LAW provides that no person should be removed , expelled or extradited to a ORG where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty , torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) confirms that ORG does not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in LAW .","Under LAW ) of LAW , where a person has been extradited pursuant to an EAW , the receiving ORG may not extradite the person to a third State with without the permission of the extraditing ORG which surrendered the person ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148654","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GEISTERFER v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was suspected of membership of a crime ring organised around one H. , a person widely known to have amassed criminal convictions for serious crimes ; of complicity in extortion ; and of possession of an illegal firearm .","On DATE the applicant was arrested . On DATE he was taken into initial detention on remand ( bewaring ) for DATE by order of an investigating judge of ORG ( rechtbank ) . The order included the following grounds :","\u201c ( post alia )","Considering in addition that it appears that there is a serious reason of public safety requiring the immediate deprivation of liberty ;","Considering in this connection :","that there is a suspicion of a [ criminal ] act which , according to the law , carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment of DATE or more and that act has caused serious upset to the legal order ( een feit waarop naar de wettelijke omschrijving een gevangenisstraf van twaalf jaren of meer is gesteld en de rechtsorde ernstig door dat feit is geschokt ) ;","that there is a serious likelihood ( dat er ernstig rekening mee moet worden gehouden ) that the suspect will commit a crime ( misdrijf ) by which the health or safety of persons will be endangered , since the framework of the suspicion encompasses the display of aggressive and unrestrained behaviour by the suspect ;","that detention on remand is necessary in reason for discovering the truth otherwise than through statements of the suspect ; ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant was taken into extended detention on remand ( gevangenhouding ) for DATE by order of ORG following a hearing in camera . This decision stated the following grounds :","\u201c considering that ORG finds , after examining the case , that the suspicion , indications and grounds which have led to the order for the suspect \u2019s initial detention on remand still obtain ;","considering that the existence of these grounds is borne out by the conduct , facts and circumstances stated in the order for the suspect \u2019s initial detention on remand , given on DATE , which ORG adopts as its own ; ... \u201d","ORG renewed its order for a further term of DATE on DATE . The applicant appealed against this decision ; his appeal was dismissed by ORG ( gerechtshof ) on DATE .","The order for the applicant \u2019s extended detention on remand was renewed periodically by ORG until its suspension .","On DATE ORG ordered the suspension ( schorsing ) of the applicant \u2019s detention on remand with effect from TIME DATE . The reason stated was the following :","\u201c ORG is of the view that the serious reasons and grounds stated in the order for extended detention on remand ( bevel tot gevangenhouding ) still exist and that Article CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) is not yet applicable .","Even so , ORG considers it appropriate , in view of the circumstance that it has DATE ordered the suspension of the trial until DATE , to decide as follows as to the execution of the detention on remand .","The suspension of the trial is directly linked with the state of health of a co - suspect and ORG decision in principle ( uitgangspunt ) to pursue the proceedings against all suspects simultaneously .","That being so , and also in light of the length of the detention on remand until DATE , ORG is led to suspend the detention on remand until DATE on which the trial of the suspect will be pursued . \u201d","The co - suspect referred to was H. , who needed time to recover from heart surgery which he had undergone in detention before his trial could resume .","The suspension of the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was made subject to the following conditions :","\u201c CARDINAL . that the suspect not seek to evade the execution of the detention on remand order if its suspension should be terminated ;","NORP that the suspect , should he be sentenced to a custodial sentence other than [ in lieu of a fine or a community service order ] for the criminal act for which the detention on remand was ordered , not seek to evade its execution ;","that the suspect not perpetrate a new criminal act during the time in which his pre - trial detention shall be suspended ;","that the suspect attend the remainder of his trial ;","that the suspect immediately obey any summons from the police , the prosecution or the court ( politie en justitie ) ;","that the suspect not have any direct or indirect contact with ( any CARDINAL of ) his co - suspects or the witnesses ...","that the suspect hand in his passport and\/or his identity card ...","that the suspect shall report in person DATE ( zich tweemaal per week dient te melden ) at times and places indicated to him by the public prosecution service ( openbaar ministerie ) . \u201d","On DATE the applicant submitted a request for his detention on remand to be lifted altogether ( opheffing van het bevel tot voorlopige hechtenis ) .","On DATE ORG gave a decision in the following terms :","\u201c This court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE suspended the suspect \u2019s pre - trial detention in connection with the special circumstances mentioned in that decision , which did not concern the suspect himself , which entailed the interruption of the trial for a considerable time .","ORG has allowed the interest of the suspect in awaiting the resumption of his trial in freedom to prevail over the prosecution interest in keeping the suspect in detention on remand on the grounds stated in the order for extended detention on remand only because of that special situation and only for as long as that situation might continue . As the suspect \u2019s trial will resume before long and the said special situation will from then on no longer exist , there will , from then on , be no reason to allow the suspension of the suspect \u2019s detention on remand to continue .","ORG takes the view that the serious reasons and grounds , with the exception of the ground related to the investigations , still exist and considers that Article DATE \u00a7 CARDINAL [ of LAW ] is not yet applicable . The mere fact stated by the suspect \u2019s counsel that since the suspect \u2019s liberation there has been no large - scale public protest and that the suspect has complied unreservedly ( onverkort ) with the suspension conditions do not mean that there is no longer any \u2018 serious upset to the legal ORG within the meaning of Article ORG LAW under CARDINAL or the danger of an offence within the meaning of Article DATE LAW under CARDINAL .","Considering also the nature of the first - mentioned ground DATE briefly , an offence carrying a DATE sentence that has caused serious upset to the legal order DATE , ORG does not consider the arguments submitted sufficient reason to suspend the detention on remand , as is requested in the alternative as a less intrusive way of using this means of coercion ( minder bezwarende wijze van toepassing van dit dwangmiddel ) . ... \u201d","No appeal was possible against this decision .","The trial resumed on DATE . The applicant , through his counsel , made a request at the hearing for the detention on remand order to be lifted , or in the alternative , for the suspension to be continued . He argued that his release had not caused any public outcry .","According to the official record ( proces - verbaal ) of the hearing , ORG gave a refusal , stated by its president in the following terms :","\u201c ORG refers to its decision of DATE . At the time , the medical situation of the co - suspect PERSON , ORG desire to consider the cases together , and the fairly long duration of the detention on remand led to the decision to suspend the detention on remand until such time as the trial would resume .","As soon as these reasons cease to apply ORG must consider the situation afresh .","This does not mean that ORG will look back to see how well things have gone and what ripples your release has caused ( CARDINAL rumoer er over uw vrijlating is ontstaan ) , but that it will consider whether the serious reasons and grounds still exist . It takes the view that such is the case .","As regards the alternative request , ORG takes the view that the prosecution interest would not be served in sufficient measure if you could , within the framework of a suspension of your detention on remand , await the outcome of your criminal case in freedom . Your personal interest in awaiting the determination of your case in freedom does not outweigh the prosecution interest . Your detention on remand should therefore continue , given also that there is no question at the present time of applying Article CARDINAL of LAW .","The president stresses that ORG will continue to consider ex officio whether it is necessary for the detention on remand to continue , and whether there may be grounds to order a variant as regards the modalities of its execution .","ORG dismisses both the principal and the alternative requests . \u201d","The applicant was taken back into detention on remand on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel submitted a further request for the lifting or , in the alternative , the suspension of the detention on remand order . This too was refused .","On DATE ORG lifted the applicant \u2019s detention on remand . The decision was in the following terms :","\u201c That ORG , sitting in camera , has come to take the view that serious reasons and grounds referred to in the order for extended detention on remand still exist , but that at this point LAW leads ORG to take the appertaining decision . \u201d","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","NORP The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment on technical grounds . Convicting the applicant afresh , it sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , DATE of which was suspended .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( cassatie ) with ORG , which dismissed the appeal on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170835","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF HELDENBURG v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":4,"conclusion":"Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants sent CARDINAL letters to the ORG in total : on DATE , on DATE and DATE , and on CARDINAL and DATE . Each of the letters contained information concerning their claims for just satisfaction and their friendly - settlement negotiations , and specifically the sums that the Government had offered to them in a letter of DATE . In the letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicants repeated the statements they had made in their letter of DATE and compared the sum offered by the Government with that in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . MONEY , DATE ( just satisfaction ) ) . They also transmitted to the ORG the content of the ORG \u2019s letters on friendly - settlement negotiations held on DATE and DATE and DATE .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicants , invoking ORG , asked ORG about the method used to calculate the sum offered to them in the friendly settlement . On DATE the applicants requested that ORG review its previous response under that LAW . They attached ORG letter of DATE sent to them in the context of the friendly - settlement negotiations . They once again asked about the method used to calculate the sum offered to them for the friendly settlement .","On DATE the applicants lodged an application to reopen the original proceedings before ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159767","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ANDREY ZAKHAROV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is serving his prison sentence in LOC . Before his arrest he lived with his partner PERSON . in a privately owned house located in LOC of GPE .","NORP The police received intelligence information that a group of people were detaining a man in a privately owned house in PERSON , and were illegally selling apartments owned by third parties .","On DATE police officers PERSON , T. , and PERSON entered the applicant \u2019s house and asked whether or not he had any firearms . The applicant showed them a gun and some ammunition which a certain GPE had brought round to his house DATE . The police took the applicant to the police station . The applicant \u2019s arrest was recorded on video . Before the ORG the applicant stated , without providing any further details , that during and after his arrest police officers PERSON , T. , and PERSON had subjected him to physical and psychological ill - treatment .","According to the ORG \u2019s version of events , on DATE the applicant voluntarily , in the presence of investigator PERSON . , gave a written statement saying that from DATE to DATE he had kept a certain Mr N. in his house at the request of ORG . and PERSON . In DATE . and PERSON . brought PERSON . to his house and asked to keep them in the basement . The applicant agreed in return for payment . In DATE PERSON and PERSON . died in the basement because of cold . The applicant buried them in his backyard and thoroughly cleaned the basement .","NORP In his first letter to ORG , the applicant stated , without providing further details , that police officers PERSON and PERSON and investigator PERSON . had forced him into making the above self - incriminating statement by means of physical and psychological pressure . In his application form , the applicant stated that he had not written the above statement and did not know who had written it .","On DATE , during reconstruction of events which was conducted by investigator PERSON . and recorded on video , the applicant showed where he had buried PERSON and PERSON . , and the police sent their bodies for forensic examination . The experts established that the victims had died of cold in DATE .","On DATE investigator PERSON . ordered the applicant \u2019s detention , and instituted criminal proceedings against him on suspicion of having illegally stored a firearm and concealed the deprivation of liberty and death of CARDINAL people . The applicant \u2019s defence rights were explained to him , and he expressed a wish to have a lawyer .","On DATE investigator PERSON . appointed a lawyer , NORP , under legal aid scheme to act as the applicant \u2019s defence counsel . Upon being questioned by PERSON . on CARDINAL and DATE in the presence of that lawyer , the applicant confirmed his previous statements . He also said that he had been aware that GPE and PERSON . had been put in his basement in order to prevent them from hindering the illegal sale of their apartments .","On DATE the Dniprovskyy District Court of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial . On DATE a medical doctor examined the applicant and found no injuries on his body . The applicant did not raise any complaints of ill - treatment or his health condition .","On DATE investigator PERSON . charged the applicant with murdering PERSON . and ORG","On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of lawyer NORP and confirmed his previous statements .","On DATE the applicant had a formal confrontation with Kr . in the presence of NORP The applicant confirmed his previous statements .","On DATE investigator PERSON . appointed another lawyer , PERSON , under legal aid scheme as the applicant \u2019s defence counsel instead of NORP The latter was no longer able to perform his duties as a defence lawyer because of illness .","On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of lawyer PERSON and denied all the statements he had given earlier . He stated that he had given self - incriminating statements previously because he had been in a state of \u201c shock \u201d .","On DATE investigator PERSON . instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for having participated in the fraudulent sale of the apartments belonging to ORG . and ORG","On an unspecified date the applicant complained to PERSON . that during and after his arrest he had been ill - treated by police officers PERSON , T. , and S. It is unclear whether the applicant provided any details about such ill - treatment because a copy of the complaint available to the ORG is unreadable .","On DATE investigator PERSON . questioned PERSON , NORP , and PERSON , who denied that they had put the applicant under any pressure .","On DATE PERSON . refused to institute a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment and the applicant did not appeal against that decision . A copy of the decision is available to the ORG , but is unreadable . On the same date PERSON . refused the applicant \u2019s request to have a formal confrontation with his girlfriend , PERSON . DATE , the applicant absconded from the detention facility where he was being held , but was found by the police and brought back to the facility on DATE .","On DATE , the police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for absconding .","On an unspecified date the police questioned PERSON . , who worked as a doctor in a hospital in the town of NORP . PERSON . said that ORG had been admitted to the hospital in the DATE . ORG had told PERSON . that he had been the victim of fraud , and that his apartment in GPE had been sold without his knowledge or consent .","On an unspecified date the police questioned Ru . , who said that in DATE he had sold his house to a woman called PERSON . N. had lived in that house and had told Ru . that he had been the victim of fraud .","The applicant asked the investigator if he could have a formal confrontation with a certain PERSON . , but this request was refused .","On DATE the investigator appointed another lawyer , ORG , to act as the applicant \u2019s defence counsel under legal aid scheme instead of lawyer PERSON The reason for that decision remains unknown . On DATE the pre - trial investigation was completed , and the applicant studied all the material in the criminal file .","The indictment stated that a group of people , including ORG . , had asked the applicant to keep PERSON in his house while ORG \u2019s apartment had been sold without his knowledge or consent . The applicant had agreed in return for payment , and had kept ORG in his house for DATE . After that , the same group of people had asked the applicant to keep PERSON and PERSON . in his basement in order to prevent them from hindering illegal sale of their apartments . ORG and PERSON . had died of cold in the basement , and the applicant had buried them in his yard . The apartments of ORG and ORG had been sold while they had been kept in the applicant \u2019s house . The apartment belonging to ORG . had been sold before she had been brought to the applicant \u2019s basement . According to the indictment , by holding ORG , ORG , and PERSON . in his house , the applicant , acting jointly with others , participated in fraud entailing the illegal sale of the ORG apartments .","On DATE a TV channel transmitted a programme called \u201c FAC \u201d . According to the applicant , in that programme an investigator dealing with his criminal case spoke about his arrest and \u201c persuaded the public \u201d that the applicant was guilty as charged . Neither a recording of that programme , nor any further information about its contents was made available to the ORG .","On DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL professional judges and CARDINAL lay judges and acting as the first - instance court in the applicant \u2019s case , commenced the trial .","On DATE the court appointed PERSON . as the applicant \u2019s lawyer under legal aid scheme instead of lawyer PERSON grounds for that decision remain unknown .","Before the court , the applicant stated that when he had been detained by the police \u201c his head had not been working \u201d because he had been drunk . After the arrest , he had drunk some vodka given to him by the police , and that was why he did not remember what he had said or done from CARDINAL to DATE . He \u201c was not sure \u201d that he had written the self - incriminating statement on DATE . Investigator PERSON . had promised to charge him with only the offence of concealment if he admitted that he had kept PERSON and PERSON . in his basement . Actually , PERSON , PERSON . , and ORG had voluntarily stayed in his house and none of them had been forcefully held in the basement . In DATE PERSON . and PERSON had drunk too much vodka , had fallen asleep in CARDINAL of the rooms of his house , and had died of cold . He did not know that the GPE apartments had been sold without their consent . He had been afraid of the police and for that reason he had not reported the deaths of GPE and PERSON . and had buried them in his yard . After his arrest the police officers had not beaten him .","The court questioned investigator PERSON . in the applicant \u2019s presence and the latter asked him questions . PERSON . stated that the applicant had not been drunk on DATE of his arrest and the police had not given him any alcohol from DATE . PERSON . denied that he had subjected the applicant to any pressure or promised to charge him with only the offence of concealment .","The court questioned experts who had examined the bodies of GPE and PERSON . and the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked them questions . The experts stated that they could not exclude the possibility that PERSON and PERSON . had died of cold while they had been asleep in one of the rooms of the applicant \u2019s house . They said that it was also possible that they had died in the basement .","On DATE Ro . was questioned by the court in the applicant \u2019s presence and stated that he had seen ORG , still alive , in the applicant \u2019s basement , and had heard how PERSON had asked the applicant to release him . Later , PERSON . had seen PERSON \u2019s dead body in the applicant \u2019s basement . Ro . had met PERSON in the applicant \u2019s house on several occasions , and ORG had told him that a group of people intended to \u201c sell \u201d him , and were keeping him in the applicant \u2019s house . The applicant asked PERSON . questions during the hearing and received answers .","Upon being questioned by the court , ORG stated that in DATE certain \u201c PERSON \u201d and \u201c Volodya \u201d had taken some of his documents , had brought him to the applicant \u2019s house and had left him there until DATE . The applicant had not allowed him to leave the house and had told ORG that he had had a gun . While ORG had been staying in the applicant \u2019s house he had observed the applicant , PERSON , PERSON , and PERSON . , and had concluded that they had been acting as an organised group and had intended to sell his apartment without his consent . In DATE PERSON had moved PERSON to the house which she had bought from Ru . In DATE PERSON and PERSON had placed ORG in a hospital in the town of NORP . From there , ORG had called his relatives in GPE and had learned that his apartment in GPE had been sold . He had then returned to GPE and had complained to the police . When ORG had returned to the building where his apartment was located , the neighbours had told him that several people had been moving his furniture out of the apartment . They had described CARDINAL of those people and ORG had understood that it had been the applicant . The applicant was present during ORG \u2019s questioning by the court and asked him questions .","On DATE the court questioned the applicant \u2019s girlfriend , PERSON . , in the applicant \u2019s presence . She stated that ORG had been living in the applicant \u2019s house for DATE because he had been \u201c having a rest \u201d there . She further stated that a man and a woman had been locked in the basement of the applicant \u2019s house against their will . The people who had brought ORG to the applicant \u2019s house had instructed PERSON . not to allow him to leave the house and not to talk to him about the apartment . She had been told that ORG \u2019s apartment was being sold in accordance with his wishes , but she had understood that , in fact , he had not known that the apartment was being sold . Once , the applicant had brought various pieces of furniture to the house and had explained PERSON . that the furniture belonged to PERSON . had visited the applicant and had brought him food and money for feeding ORG , PERSON . , and ORG","On DATE the applicant asked the court to recall PERSON . as witness so that he could question her again . That request was granted , however , PERSON . did not appear before the court because the police could not find her at her permanent place of residence .","Kr . stated before the court that he had brought ORG , a man and a woman to the applicant \u2019s house , where they had voluntarily stayed . In the DATE the applicant had informed ORG . that the man and the woman had died in CARDINAL of the rooms of his house and he had moved their bodies to the basement . Kr . had helped the applicant to carry CARDINAL dead bodies from the basement to the yard and to bury them .","The applicant asked the court if he could call and question Pl . and Ru . , because , according to him , their statements contradicted those of PERSON The request to call PERSON . was granted but PERSON . refused to appear before the court stating that he was too busy with his work in the NORP hospital . The request to call and question Ru . was not granted by the court . The applicant requested ( unsuccessfully ) that the court order a forensic examination of his basement , such an examination being aimed at establishing whether or not PERSON and PERSON . had indeed spent DATE there .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of having forcefully held ORG , ORG , and PERSON . in his house , an action which led to the deaths of ORG and PERSON . The court also found the applicant guilty of absconding from detention facility , illegal storage of firearms and participating in the fraudulent sale of the apartments belonging to ORG and ORG The applicant was sentenced to DATE of imprisonment . On the same date the lawyer PERSON . stopped representing the applicant for unknown reasons . In his observations submitted in reply to those of the Government , the applicant stated that he had unsuccessfully lodged requests for the appointment of a lawyer to represent him before ORG . The case file does not contain copies of any such requests .","On DATE the applicant appealed against his convictions . He stated that the trial had not been objective or fair , and that the first - instance court had misinterpreted the facts of the case , and had refused to call witnesses proposed by him . Ru . and PERSON . had not been questioned at a court hearing , although their statements contradicted those of ORG , while the statements of PERSON . and PERSON . contained contradictory and false information . His request for examination of his basement had also been refused .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s convictions and sentence , having found no irregularities in the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","On DATE the applicant sent his first letter to ORG . On DATE he submitted a duly signed and completed application form . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG asked the applicant to provide a copy of his cassation appeal , and copies of his complaints concerning the alleged ill - treatment by the police . The applicant asked ORG to send those documents to him , but on DATE that request was refused on the ground that the law did not empower the applicant to obtain copies of case documents after the conclusion of criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG sent the applicant the copies which he had requested ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE the applicant requested the same court to send him various materials from his case file , in particular , all the courts\u2019 decisions , reports of medical experts and copies of all the statements and requests which the applicant had made during the criminal proceedings . The applicant stated , without elaborating further , that he needed those documents to \u201c substantiate his complaints \u201d before the ORG . On DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request on the same grounds as on DATE .","Before the ORG the applicant stated that the services provided to him by his lawyers had been of low quality . They were not interested in his case because he did not have any money to pay them .","According to the applicant , the conditions of his detention at the pre - trial detention facility ( ORG ) in which he was detained for CARDINAL periods DATE and DATE were inhuman and degrading ."],"violated_articles":["34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152255","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ZHYZITSKYY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Criminal charge;Fair hearing)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence .","On DATE , at TIME , the corpse of PERSON . , the applicant \u2019s wife , from whom he was separated , was discovered with multiple stab wounds .","Later on CARDINAL DATE , at TIME , the police apprehended and questioned the applicant . His questioning was documented as that of a witness . The applicant confessed to the murder of PERSON .","The applicant described the circumstances in which that confession was given as follows . He had been taken to FAC , where the police had threatened him with a view to extracting a confession . As the applicant had refused to confess , they had handcuffed his hands behind his back , pulled a black cap over his head , covering his eyes , and had taken him somewhere downstairs . The applicant had been made to sit on a chair and his feet had been tied to the chair legs . The applicant had felt something touching his head behind the ears and something being pressed against his temples , and as his body started to shake and jerk realised that electric shocks were being administered to him . This had been repeated several times . The applicant had fallen off the chair . Thereafter a police officer had unzipped the applicant \u2019s trousers and attached electric wires to his genitals . After several electric shocks had been administered to his genitals , the applicant had agreed to confess to the incriminated murder . After saying that he could not remember certain details , more electric shocks had been administered to him . CARDINAL of the police officers involved in the ill - treatment had complained to the applicant that the latter had ruined his birthday celebration and had expressed his determination to obtain a confession from him .","According to the ORG \u2019s account of the events , the applicant had not suffered any ill - treatment and had confessed to the murder of his own free will .","On TIME \u201c voluntary surrender to the police \u201d was documented , and he was questioned again , this time as a suspect . He signed a report confirming that his right to legal assistance had been explained to him . As noted in the questioning report , at first the applicant had expressed the wish to be represented by a lawyer , but had later decided to waive his right to legal assistance . He stated during the questioning that his waiver had not resulted from any ill - treatment .","On DATE an expert from the ORG examined the applicant on the investigator \u2019s instruction with a view to establishing whether he had any injuries , if so , what their location and nature were , and finally whether those injuries could have been caused by a struggle with the victim .","With effect from CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was represented by lawyer PERSON , who had been contracted by his sister . He was questioned as a suspect in the presence of his lawyer and maintained his confession . He further maintained it during the reconstruction of the crime conducted on DATE with the participation of his lawyer .","On DATE the expert who had examined the applicant on CARDINAL DATE completed the examination report . It documented a bruise on the applicant \u2019s left shoulder blade , a bruise on the left side of his torso , a bruise beneath the right shoulder blade , a bruise on the left shoulder and another bruise in the upper part of the left forearm , a bruise on the left wrist , a bruise on the back of the right hand and on the right wrist , and an abrasion and a bruise on the left ear . The injuries in question were assessed as having originated DATE prior to the examination from blows inflicted by blunt objects with a limited surface , and by falling against a blunt surface . They were assessed as insignificant . In addition , the expert reported CARDINAL abrasions behind the applicant \u2019s right ear , which could have originated from blunt hard objects with a limited surface and a slightly sharp edge ( such as nails ) . The age of these sores was assessed DATE prior to the examination . Some older bruises ( DATE ) were also discovered .","On DATE the applicant was again questioned in the presence of his lawyer . He maintained his confession . As regards his injuries , he explained that he had sustained them while working on a construction site and during his fight with PERSON . The applicant stated that the police had not ill - treated him .","On DATE the ORG remanded the applicant in custody pending trial . During the hearing he repeated his confession and did not lodge any complaints .","Still on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was examined by a panel of doctors in GPE . They found him to be in good health .","With effect from CARDINAL DATE the applicant was represented by lawyer T. instead of lawyer PERSON immediately retracted his confession and complained of his ill - treatment to the GPE town prosecutor \u2019s office . The applicant submitted that he had incriminated himself as a result of coercion and that he had not committed the crime in question . He alleged that he had sustained electric shocks at the hands of the police and stated that no other ill - treatment had been used on him . As to his bruises , the applicant noted that they could have been caused by his falling to the floor whilst tied to a chair . He further explained that even when represented by lawyer PERSON , he had been afraid to tell the truth and had repeated his confession as the lawyer had recommended .","On DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of his lawyer T. While maintaining the complaint concerning his ill - treatment , he submitted that his ear had been injured earlier , prior to his encounter with the police .","On DATE an additional forensic medical examination report was delivered in respect of the applicant . The question before the expert was whether the applicant had any injuries demonstrating that electric shocks had been administered to him on CARDINAL DATE . According to the report , the applicant had CARDINAL superficial wounds to his genitals , which had been inflicted DATE before the examination . The expert found it impossible to establish whether those wounds had originated from electric shocks . However , he stated that it was equally impossible to exclude that possibility .","On DATE the prosecutor questioned the forensic medical expert who had examined the applicant on DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) . She submitted , in particular , that the bruises discovered on his wrists on DATE could have been caused by handcuffs . The expert also noted that the applicant had not complained before DATE that electric shocks had been administered to him . It was not possible to state with precision when the wounds on his genitals could have been inflicted . Their healing time could vary significantly depending on individual characteristics . Overall , the expert considered it improbable that the applicant might have sustained those injuries on CARDINAL DATE and in the circumstances described by him .","On DATE the prosecutor also questioned the dermatologist who had participated in the examination of the applicant on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The doctor stated that she had examined the applicant \u2019s genitals and that no wounds or other signs of ill - treatment had been discovered . She also noted that the applicant had not raised any complaints .","During the period between DATE and DATE the prosecution authorities refused on CARDINAL occasions to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers involved in the alleged ill - treatment of the applicant . CARDINAL of those rulings were quashed for the incompleteness and superficiality of the investigation . As to the sixth ruling , of DATE , it is not clear whether it was eventually quashed . The report of CARDINAL DATE was mentioned in CARDINAL ruling , that of DATE . The prosecutor , however , concluded that it could not be regarded as sufficient evidence that electric shocks had been administered to the applicant .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of the premeditated murder of PERSON . and sentenced him to thirteen years\u2019 imprisonment . It relied , in particular , on the applicant \u2019s \u201c surrender to the police \u201d and subsequent self - incriminating statements . As to his allegation of ill - treatment by the police , it was dismissed as unsubstantiated .","NORP The applicant appealed . He submitted that he had incriminated himself under duress and pointed out certain discrepancies in the evidence .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the NORP Regional Court \u201d ) upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , in which he maintained the arguments advanced earlier in his appeal .","On DATE ORG quashed the ruling of DATE and remitted the case for fresh examination by the appellate court . It stated that ORG had not sufficiently addressed the applicant \u2019s arguments . ORG also criticised the lower courts for formalistic examination of the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . It stated that no evaluation had been made of the medical evidence in the case file , according to which it could not be ruled out that his injuries had been sustained in the circumstances as described by him .","On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case to ORG for additional investigation . It referred to the issues pointed out by ORG .","On DATE the ORG pronounced a new verdict , the operative part of which was identical to that of DATE . As before , the court relied on the applicant \u2019s initial confessions , including that of CARDINAL DATE , which was documented as his \u201c voluntary surrender to the police \u201d . The court dismissed all the defence arguments , considering them to be nothing more than the applicant \u2019s attempts to avoid criminal liability . As to his motives for the murder , the court considered them to have been his jealousy and his wish to reunite with PERSON . Allegations of aggressive behaviour towards the victim in the past had been confirmed by several witnesses . Lastly , the applicant \u2019s allegation about having suffered electric shocks was rejected as unsubstantiated . The court noted in that regard that the applicant had made his confessions in the presence of his lawyer PERSON","The applicant submitted an appeal , and later an appeal on points of law , reiterating his earlier argumentation .","ORG and ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178962","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CEESAY v. AUSTRIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is the brother of the late GPE , also a NORP national , who was born in DATE and applied for asylum in GPE in DATE .","On DATE , ORG ( Straflandesgericht ) convicted GPE of drug trafficking and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . PERSON began serving his sentence at FAC ( GPE ) . On DATE he was transferred to FAC .","On DATE ORG ) dismissed PERSON \u2019s asylum application and ordered his expulsion to the GPE . An appeal lodged by PERSON was dismissed by ORG ( Bundesasylamt ) on DATE . He did not appeal against this decision and it became legally binding on DATE .","On DATE the Linz ORG issued an order for GPE to be placed in detention with a view to his expulsion .","On DATE PERSON was conditionally released from prison and directly transferred to the GPE police detention centre ( Polizeianhaltezentrum \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the detention centre \u201d ) .","Upon his admission to the detention centre , GPE was examined by a police doctor ( Polizeiarzt ) , who noted that GPE was in a good general state and was fit for detention . His weight was recorded at QUANTITY and his height at QUANTITY . Communication between the authorities and GPE took place in LANGUAGE .","On DATE the police doctor , while conducting a routine examination which all detainees have to undergo at DATE intervals , again noted that GPE \u2019s state of health was good and recorded his weight at QUANTITY .","On DATE GPE went on hunger strike . On DATE he informed the authorities thereof . ORG Austria ( ORG ) , a non - governmental organisation ( NGO ) who had already been counselling him since DATE of his admission to the detention centre , came to talk to him . On DATE PERSON was subject to an initial hunger - strike examination ( LOC ) . PERSON was handed an information pamphlet on hunger strikes ( in LANGUAGE ) and was also orally informed by the public medical officer of the possible consequences of a hunger strike . A medical hunger - strike protocol ( PERSON ) was filled out , in which his state of health was described as follows :","\u201c Musculature in a good , well - trained state , pronounced muscles of the upper arm , CARDINAL - pack like someone who practices athletic sports , appears vital , overall . \u201d","On the hunger - strike protocol it was noted that at the outset of his hunger strike , GPE had weighed CARDINAL kg . On the basis of this , GPE \u2019s \u201c critical weight \u201d was calculated at QUANTITY ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Under the heading \u201c reasons given for hunger strike \u201d , it was noted that GPE \u201c absolutely wanted to be transferred back to cell no . CARDINAL \u201d . He had been placed in a different cell because he and his cellmates had allegedly tried to escape from cell no . CARDINAL .","Daily health checks of GPE were subsequently carried out , during which his weight was checked , his blood pressure was taken and his oxygen saturation level was measured . Until DATE , no anomalies were detected .","On DATE the public medical officer noted that GPE \u2019s tongue was slightly dry , and on DATE that his lips were \u201c barky \u201d ( borkig ) . Further , there were occasional comments on the hunger - strike form to the effect that GPE resisted examination and was \u201c malingering \u201d ( simuliert ) \u2013 for example , he had \u201c pretended to fall \u201d , \u201c refused to be examined \u201d , \u201c needed to be carried by other detainees \u201d , and \u201c tilted over from [ his ] chair in an ostentatious manner \u201d .","After examining GPE during TIME of DATE , PERSON , the police doctor in charge , noted the following :","\u201c Pretends to be weak , has to be physically supported by CARDINAL detainees \u2013 therefore weight check not possible . Dry tongue , barky lips . I request a medical assessment by a specialist . Possibly blood test , ionogram . \u201d","On DATE at TIME , GPE was taken to ORG ) for examination and an assessment of whether he was fit enough for further detention . Because GPE resisted the examination and kicked out at a nurse , his hands and feet had to be shackled by the police officers who had accompanied him to the hospital . According to a report drawn up by the treating doctor on DATE , it was \u201c not possible to assess the intake of liquids \u201d , \u201c communication [ was ] difficult \u201d because GPE did not speak LANGUAGE , he had \u201c dry lips \u201d and had his eyes \u201c constantly closed \u201d , but \u201c walking [ was ] possible if [ he was ] supported \u201d . The hospital further noted that if his general condition worsened , he would have to be force - fed and taken to a psychiatric ward , because he \u201c lashed out from time to time \u201d . Taking his blood for a blood test had been difficult and risky ; nevertheless , with the support of the CARDINAL police officers , who secured GPE in a chair in the examination room , the doctor nonetheless managed to take a small amount of blood . After consulting the senior doctor , the treating doctor formally confirmed GPE \u2019s fitness for detention and noted the police doctor \u2019s telephone number in order to contact him after obtaining the results of the blood test .","PERSON was subsequently taken back to the detention centre and at TIME was placed alone in a security cell ( ORG ) because of his behaviour at the hospital . His shackles were removed . The security cell did not contain a water outlet , but PERSON could request a water bottle at any time . A police officer checked on GPE TIME . At TIME , GPE , who was lying on the bed , reacted to the police officer \u2019s presence by lifting his head . When the officer next checked , at TIME , he was not breathing anymore and had no pulse . At TIME he was declared dead by an emergency doctor who had been immediately called to the scene . The presumed time of death was TIME His weight was recorded at QUANTITY . At TIME the blood test results from the hospital examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were produced . They indicated that GPE had been dehydrated and that he should have been hydrated intravenously and placed in intensive care .","In a report of CARDINAL DATE the doctor from the hospital noted that GPE had been uncooperative during his examination . It had been virtually impossible to take a blood sample as the patient had resisted strongly . At that time nothing had indicated that GPE \u2019s physical condition could become life - threatening . In a statement given on DATE the doctor described PERSON as not having been weak at all , rather , he had been physically strong and had steadily resisted treatment with all his might ( nach ORG ) , using the whole of his body and kicking out with his legs . After examination of his tongue , pulse , respiration , heartbeat and skin , he had observed GPE \u2019s dry lips , but had seen none of the other usual signs of dehydration or other abnormalities . He further stated that even as an experienced emergency unit doctor , a rapid and fatal development of GPE \u2019s situation had not at all been foreseeable by him .","On DATE , the day of GPE \u2019s death , the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office ( DATE hereinafter \u201c the public prosecutor \u201d ) instituted a criminal investigation against \u201c unknown offenders \u201d and requested ORG ( PERSON ) to conduct a judicial investigation . The investigating judge ordered that an autopsy be conducted by a sworn and judicially certified expert ( beeideter und gerichtlich zertifizierter PERSON ) ; the autopsy was conducted on DATE . On DATE , the investigating judge , in response to a request made by the public prosecutor , delivered a decision ordering the seizure of the blood samples taken from GPE , together with the pertinent examination report .","On DATE ORG submitted a detailed report on the circumstances of GPE \u2019s death .","On DATE the public prosecutor requested ORG at ORG ( PERSON f\u00fcr interne ORG f\u00fcr GPE \u2013 hereinafter the \u201c ORG \u201d ) for it to carry out an investigation . The request included that interviews be conducted with : the CARDINAL police officers who had accompanied GPE to the hospital on DATE of his death ; the police doctor who had examined GPE on DATE ; the doctor at ORG who had examined GPE ; the police officers who had been checking on GPE when he was placed in the security cell ; and GPE \u2019s cellmate .","On DATE the public prosecutor added to the case file a note regarding a telephone conversation between him and PERSON , the expert who had conducted the autopsy , regarding the preliminary findings of that autopsy .","The ORG subsequently conducted an investigation at the detention centre \u2019s medical service , procured documents from the detention centre , and produced written records of the requested interviews ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The ORG \u2019s report was submitted to the public prosecutor on DATE .","On DATE the investigating judge complied with a request lodged by the public prosecutor for the inclusion in the case file of the results of the investigation up until that date , as well as for GPE \u2019s medical history to be obtained from the detention centre , and for these documents to be transmitted to the expert PERSON It was further decided that the scale used to weigh GPE at the detention centre be seized and sent for technical examination .","On DATE the ORG submitted a report containing the results of the supplementary investigation .","On DATE , after being supplied with all pertinent documents by the ORG , ORG ( Menschenrechtsbeirat \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d DATE an independent monitoring body established in DATE at ORG ) issued a report on GPE \u2019s death . In that report , ORG considered several points to be problematic : that GPE , after his visit to ORG on DATE , had been further monitored only by police officers , rather than by medical professionals ; that no interpreter had been present during the said hospital visit ; that a blood sample had been taken from GPE against his will ; and that the calculation of GPE \u2019s critical weight had been questionable . The issues of GPE \u2019s possible dehydration and carrying sickle cell disease had not been addressed in the report , as it had been drawn up before the delivery of the final autopsy report by PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant , who was represented by counsel , joined the criminal proceedings as a private party .","By an order of DATE the investigating judge urged the expert to submit his report .","On DATE , the forensic expert who had conducted the autopsy , submitted his final autopsy report ( dated DATE ) , as well as his expert report on GPE \u2019s death , to ORG . He stated in the autopsy report that GPE \u2019s body had not shown signs of \u201c significantly acute malnutrition \u201d , nor had there been signs of \u201c classic dehydration \u201d .","In the more detailed expert report , PERSON stated that GPE \u2019s body had not shown signs of any injuries ; therefore , death caused by the use of force could be excluded . PERSON had been slim , but had not appeared malnourished . His body had weighed QUANTITY ; his height had been QUANTITY . No typical external signs of dehydration had been visible , except for the lips appearing to be slightly dry . The results of the internal investigation had recorded a thickening of the blood , which indicated a possible alternation to the blood while GPE had still been alive caused by a lack of hydration . PERSON noted that a hunger strike alone could not lead to a thickening of the blood , as long as enough fluids were consumed . As concerns the hunger strike , PERSON stated that it was likely that GPE had not eaten solid food for DATE , but that it was unlikely that he had engaged in a long - term total hunger strike as the large intestine had still been filled with an abundance of stool along its entire length .","PERSON further stated that neither GPE \u2019s external appearance nor the medical reports produced until DATE had indicated a lifethreatening situation , although there had been a significant reduction in his weight . Rather , it was more likely that a shift in the electrolyte system had commenced over a period of several days , as indicated by the results of the blood test conducted by ORG on DATE . A post - mortem examination of GPE \u2019s blood ( conducted in the course of the autopsy ) had shown that he had been a carrier of sickle cell trait ( PERSON ) . PERSON explained that sickle cell disease ( PERSON ) was an inherited red blood cell disorder ; while red blood cells ( containing normal haemoglobin ) were disc - shaped , sickle haemoglobin could form stiff rods within the cell , changing it into a sickle shape . PERSON added that the disease was rare among the white population , occurring mostly among black people . Unlike in the case of people suffering from sickle cell disease , in GPE \u2019s blood the trait had been present in the heterozygous form , which is why the disease had remained undetected during his lifetime . In cases like GPE \u2019s , symptoms of sickle cell disease only manifested themselves if there were further damaging external factors , such as dehydration or a lack of oxygen .","PERSON concluded that the cause of GPE \u2019s death had been dehydration , combined with the fact that he had been a carrier of sickle cell trait , which had caused a shift in the electrolyte system and had ultimately caused his heart to stop beating . Neither the authorities nor GPE himself had been aware that he had been a carrier of sickle cell trait . PERSON stated that GPE \u2019s death could only have been prevented if he had been tested earlier for sickle cell trait , or if he had been aware that he was a carrier thereof . However , the hunger - strike protocol had not indicated any necessity for a blood test in that respect . The test results from the hospital on DATE of GPE \u2019s death would have given reason for further tests . However , the results had only been produced after GPE \u2019s death .","On DATE the public prosecutor made a note in the criminal file ( PERSON ) about a conversation with PERSON The doctor had expressed the opinion that with hindsight PERSON \u2019s extraordinarily aggressive behaviour at the hospital on DATE of his death had resembled a delirious state caused by advanced dehydration and the consequent disintegration of his blood cells .","On DATE the public prosecutor decided to discontinue the criminal investigation into the death of GPE , as no sufficient evidence could be found to warrant criminal proceedings . The applicant was informed that he had the right to ask ORG ( Ratskammer ) of ORG to conduct a preliminary investigation . However , he was also informed that he would have to bear the full costs of the criminal proceedings should the Council Chamber grant his request but the proceedings did not result in a criminal conviction . This decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE . The applicant did not request that a preliminary investigation be instituted .","On DATE the applicant submitted the decision of CARDINAL DATE issued by ORG ( PERSON DATE hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to the public prosecutor and requested him to investigate further . On DATE the public prosecutor replied that the documents submitted had already been made available to him , but that they could not change his assessment of the procedural results obtained so far , since every aspect of the legal question to be answered had already been clarified by PERSON autopsy report and his comprehensive expert report .","On DATE the applicant requested the ORG to review the lawfulness of GPE \u2019s detention ( LOC ) and at the same time lodged a complaint about the conditions of his detention ( Ma\u00dfnahmenbeschwerde ) . He submitted in particular that GPE should not have continued to be kept in detention because he had no longer been fit to be detained on account of his hunger strike . As regards the conditions of GPE \u2019s detention , he submitted that the medical treatment of GPE had not been in conformity with section CARDINAL ) of the Detention Ordinance ( Anhalteordnung \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He furthermore claimed that his brother had been placed in a security cell , without access to water , on DATE of his death , in contravention of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Detention Ordinance .","On DATE the competent member of the ORG held a hearing during which he examined as witnesses the applicant , a cellmate of GPE , CARDINAL of the police doctors who had examined GPE during his hunger strike , and the police officers who had been in charge of examining detainees on DATE of GPE \u2019s death .","GPE \u2019s former cellmate , PERSON , stated that they had gone on hunger strike together to protest the duration of their detention , and that they had not been treated correctly by the police officers ; however , he did not specify how that treatment had not been correct . He said that he did not remember the exact day on which they had begun their hunger strike , but that they had not eaten or drunk anything at all for DATE . PERSON stated that he had had the impression that GPE had been \u201c terribly weak \u201d during DATE before his death .","According to the witness statements by employees of ORG GPE who had visited GPE on several occasions , PERSON had not raised any allegations of ill - treatment during their visits . In fact , with the exception of his former cellmate , all other witnesses who had been in contact with PERSON until his death had also stated during the ORG hearing that he had not appeared to be ill or weak , but that on the contrary , even on DATE of his death he had seemed athletic and strong ; which had been corroborated by photographs taken of his dead body and its description by PERSON in the autopsy report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","One of the police doctors , PERSON , gave evidence regarding , inter alia , the reason why the calculation of the critical weight of a detainee on hunger strike was based on his or her weight at the outset of the hunger strike , and not the weight recorded upon admission to the detention centre . He stated that detainees usually lost weight slightly during their detention , but that it was also possible for them to gain weight . He acknowledged that he had not even checked PERSON \u2019s initial weight , as the QUANTITY recorded on DATE after GPE had announced his hunger strike had in principle amounted to a normal weight , given his height . Dr PERSON furthermore stated that on DATE PERSON had walked into the examination room without support . DATE , GPE had showed signs of dehydration and had come to the examination room supported by CARDINAL police officers . PERSON stated that he had accordingly ordered him to be examined at the hospital .","PERSON , the police officer who had accompanied GPE to and from the hospital on DATE of his death , stated that the reason for GPE \u2019s placement in solitary confinement had been DATE following GPE \u2019s behaviour at the hospital \u2013 he and the other officer in charge had feared that GPE might harm himself or others . PERSON confirmed that there had been no water outlet in the security cell , but that GPE could have requested a water bottle at any time by ringing a bell .","B. , the police officer who had been in charge of checking on GPE while he was being held in the security cell , stated that he had received an order to do so every TIME . During the checks , he had had to make sure that the detainee reacted when spoken to . When PERSON had checked on GPE at TIME , the latter had moved his head . At DATE at TIME , he had showed no reaction and had subsequently been pronounced dead by the emergency doctor , who had immediately been called to the scene .","During the ORG hearing on DATE the applicant presented an undated and unsigned CARDINAL - page statement by PERSON ORG , whom he had engaged himself and who was a general practitioner in PERSON with a focus on nutritional medicine . Dr PERSON , who had not examined GPE \u2019s body , had based his report on the autopsy report and expert report issued by PERSON , the report of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the report by ORG , and had come to the following opinion . On DATE , the day on which GPE had been taken into detention with a view to his expulsion , he had weighed QUANTITY . On DATE , DATE on which GPE had announced that he was on hunger strike , he had had a body weight of QUANTITY . The police doctor had made a mistake in taking the latter as the normal weight of GPE for the purposes of calculating his critical body weight . The doctor had not taken into account the fact that PERSON had already lost QUANTITY CARDINAL September CARDINAL , meaning that GPE must have already started his hunger strike before he had officially announced it . From DATE until DATE of his death on DATE , GPE had lost a further QUANTITY in body weight . However , the doctor had used GPE \u2019s weight on DATE ( namely QUANTITY ) as a starting point , and had established his critical weight as QUANTITY , which in PERSON view was incorrect . The police doctor should have based his calculations on how much PERSON had weighed when he had arrived at the detention centre . If he had , the correct critical weight would have been determined at QUANTITY , PERCENT . Instead , GPE at the time of his death had already lost PERCENT of his weight in fluids . For an adult person a loss of even PERCENT in fluids constituted a life - threatening situation . PERSON assumed that GPE had died of dehydration resulting from the erroneous calculation of his body weight . He did not deal with the question of how far the sickle cell trait present in GPE \u2019s blood had played a role in his death , nor did he provide any scientific source for his calculations . Dr PERSON \u2019s opinion was later not supported by any of the official experts .","The applicant asked the ORG that the second police doctor in charge at the detention centre on DATE of GPE \u2019s death be questioned , and that another expert report be obtained in order to refute the expert report issued by PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The ORG refused these requests .","The ORG , at the end of the hearing of DATE , ruled that GPE \u2019s detention pending his expulsion had been unlawful and that the conditions of detention during his hunger strike had violated GPE \u2019s right under LAW to protection against ill - treatment . Concerning the cause of GPE \u2019s death , the ORG reiterated the findings of the autopsy report and the expert report attached thereto ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The ORG argued that the ORG authorities had not fulfilled their role of guarantor of the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention . It found that given the frequency of sickle cell disease among people from sub - Saharan Africa , the ORG was under an obligation to offer a test for sickle cell disease to all detainees from that specific geographic area , and in particular to those on hunger strike .","The Ministry of the ORG appealed against that decision .","On DATE , ORG quashed the ORG \u2019s decision . It held that the applicant had no locus standi regarding the request for a review of the lawfulness of the detention of his brother because rights under LAW were not transferable to other persons . Therefore , the ORG had not had authority to issue a decision in that respect . Concerning the complaint under LAW , it held that the mere fact that a person was detained did not place any duty on the ORG to take measures ( the need for which had not necessarily been foreseeable ) because of the genetic disposition of that person without a manifest outbreak of disease in that person . Moreover , it found that the ORG had not respected certain procedural requirements , which is why ORG referred the case back to the ORG .","DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG concerning the above - mentioned judgment of ORG ; it was registered as ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Thereupon , the ORG decided to suspend the fresh proceedings until such time as the ORG rendered its decision in respect of this complaint .","On DATE the ORG declared application no . CARDINAL inadmissible , pursuant to LAW , as the proceedings were still pending before the ORG and the complaints lodged by the applicant with ORG were therefore premature .","The ORG resumed the proceedings and on DATE again issued a decision finding a violation of LAW in respect of the conditions of GPE \u2019s detention . It essentially reiterated the reasoning contained in its previous decision , explaining that the proceedings were not aimed at identifying an individual who could be held culpable for GPE \u2019s death but at identifying errors inherent in the detention system \u2013 specifically , the lack of a standardised test for sickle cell disease for certain high - risk groups and the lack of clear instructions for the staff of the detention centre concerning detainees on hunger strike .","The Ministry of the ORG again lodged a complaint , arguing that there had been sufficient rules and instructions in place concerning the treatment of detainees . In the present case , there had not been any indications that GPE had suffered from sickle cell disease . Not even hospitals conducted standardised tests for this blood anomaly where there was no concrete suspicion in that respect . It added that the death of GPE had nonetheless prompted ORG to issue a directive to detention centre authorities instructing them to ( i ) inform detainees who were on hunger strike and who belonged to a high - risk group of the possible consequences of sickle cell disease , and ( ii ) conduct the necessary tests .","On DATE ORG again quashed the ORG \u2019s decision . It reminded the ORG that it was bound by the legal interpretation that ORG had expressed in its previous judgment concerning the obligations of the ORG under LAW towards detainees ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Moreover , it suggested that the ORG order an expert report in order to determine whether the reduced mental and physical condition of GPE should have given rise to an investigation into the possibility that he had been suffering from sickle cell disease and whether appropriate medical treatment from TIME could have prevented the death of GPE","During the course of the new round of proceedings , the ORG ordered an expert report , as suggested by ORG . In a report dated DATE , as well as during the hearing of DATE , the expert in question , PERSON , confirmed that according to his findings , GPE had been a sickle cell trait carrier . He added that this was the case in respect of PERCENT of the population of countries in sub - Saharan Africa , such as the GPE ( where GPE had been from ) , and that this trait served as a protection from GPE . The fact that a person was a carrier of sickle cell trait did not mean that he or she was ill or had a lower life expectancy . Nonetheless he or she would face a higher risk of death in the event of engaging in strenuous activities ( anstrengungsassoziierte GPE ) , and the trait could also cause rapid dehydration in the event of reduced liquid intake . PERSON explained that sickle cell disease could only be detected through an analysis of blood samples , but that the need for such an analysis had at no point been clearly indicated in GPE \u2019s case , even in the light of his reduced mental and physical condition .","The applicant submitted the same unsigned statement that he had already submitted during the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He did not submit any further requests . When the expert PERSON was questioned by the ORG regarding the calculation of GPE \u2019s critical weight , he stated that he was inclined to believe that GPE \u2019s weight had been correctly calculated , but that that calculation had been wrongly recorded . In his opinion , it was unlikely that GPE could have lost QUANTITY over the course of a DATE hunger strike .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint about the conditions of GPE \u2019s detention , basing its decision on the finding contained in the expert report of PERSON ( see paragraph PERSON above ) that the need for an analysis of GPE \u2019s blood in respect of sickle cell trait had not been indicated . It reiterated that according to ORG legal interpretation , by which it was bound , the ORG had no duty to take measures the need for which had not been foreseeable in respect of a person because of a certain genetic disposition without a manifest outbreak of the disease in that person . Therefore , the authorities\u2019 conduct had not constituted a violation of LAW .","The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , which was dismissed on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , which , referring to its decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , dismissed it . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172845","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VALAN\u010cIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The father of the applicant \u2019s husband owned QUANTITY of land in GPE region . This plot was nationalised in DATE .","In DATE the brother of the applicant \u2019s husband applied to the national authorities for the land to be returned to him and his brothers . In DATE the CARDINAL brothers signed an agreement and decided to divide their father \u2019s plot of land into CARDINAL equal parts of QUANTITY and GPE , the applicant \u2019s husband , asked for the return of his plot of land in natura .","NORP In DATE GPE participated in a meeting at FAC of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , where he was informed that all of his father \u2019s land was already being used by others and could not be returned to him in natura . He was offered either monetary compensation , the restoration of his property rights in another cadastral area or a plot of land of equivalent value . V.V. did not agree to any of those offers .","In DATE the the Plung\u0117 ORG asked GPE to choose the form of restitution of his property rights . PERSON replied that he had already chosen the form of restitution in DATE , which was restitution in natura .","In DATE a meeting was held at ORG , where PERSON again refused to choose a different form of restitution . PERSON was also offered CARDINAL plots of land of QUANTITY . He stated that he would have to think about the offer and would inform the authorities before DATE .","During a meeting at ORG in DATE , PERSON said that he had not been offered any other forms of restitution in writing but acknowledged that the matter had been discussed orally . During a meeting in DATE , PERSON reiterated his wish to receive the land in natura and when he was asked to choose another form of restitution , he said that he would think about it .","NORP In DATE ORG informed GPE that because it was impossible to restore his property rights in natura , he had to choose either a plot of land or forest of equivalent value , monetary compensation or compensation in Government bonds . PERSON was also informed that if a form of restitution was not chosen , the property rights would be restored in the form determined by the authorities .","In DATE PERSON was invited to participate in a meeting at the the Plung\u0117 District Land Service , concerning the territorial plan of the area and the choice of the form of restitution . V.V. did not take part in the meeting .","In DATE PERSON asked the authorities whether and when he would be paid damages for the failure to restore his property rights in natura or to provide him with a plot of land of equivalent value . He also suggested that the NORP authorities find out what \u201c a plot of land of equivalent value \u201d meant because the plots offered to him had not been of equivalent value ( \u201e ir b\u016bt\u0173 gerai , kad \u017eem\u0117tvarkininkai i\u0161siai\u0161kint\u0173 \u017eod\u017eio \u201e lygiavertis \u201c prasm\u0119 ir nesi\u016blyt\u0173 \u012fstatymo nuostat\u0173 neatitinkan\u010di\u0173 variant\u0173 \u201c ) . In DATE ORG asked GPE to submit a written request to obtain a plot of land of equivalent value so that the authorities could prepare a document on the transfer of the land . PERSON replied that he had never been offered any plots of land of equivalent value and would only accept the restoration of his property rights in natura or a plot of land that was truly of equivalent value . PERSON also again refused the plots of land offered to him , stating that they were not of equivalent value . In DATE the authorities asked GPE to choose a form of compensation for the land . He again replied that he had chosen that the land be returned to him in natura in DATE . In DATE PERSON reminded the authorities that he wanted the land to be returned in natura or to receive a plot of land of equivalent value .","NORP In DATE ORG representative participated in a meeting at ORG , where she was asked to inform the authorities which land GPE wanted in order to restore his property rights . CARDINAL plots of land were shown to the representative and DATE she replied that she refused to accept them . In DATE she was informed that because PERSON and she had refused to accept the plots of land , she had to inform the authorities before DATE whether GPE wanted monetary compensation or compensation in Government bonds as the form of restitution . She was also informed that if no response was received , the authorities would choose the form of restitution themselves .","On DATE PERSON died and the applicant became his heir . In DATE ORG informed the applicant that she had to submit a written request to the authorities for the preparation of a document on the transfer of land and to actively choose a plot of land . The applicant replied that she would not submit any request if the land was not returned to her in natura or a plot of equivalent value was not provided .","In DATE the applicant sent CARDINAL letters to ORG and stated that she would accept a plot of land of equivalent value if such a plot was given to her and a preliminary agreement was prepared on the transfer of such a plot . She also refused to agree to a document on the transfer of land and repeatedly asked to have her property rights restored in natura or to be provided with a plot of land of equal value .","In DATE the ORG informed the applicant about the procedure for the assessment of the value of land and the calculation methods used , and asked the applicant to agree with the assessment . In DATE ORG informed the applicant that in order to provide her with a plot of land , the authorities had to prepare a document on the transfer of land . ORG also observed that there was no possibility to conclude the preliminary agreement requested by the applicant because it was not provided for in the domestic law . ORG repeated that the document on a transfer of the land had already been prepared and the applicant had to sign it and indicate the area where she would like to receive a plot of land of equivalent value . In DATE ORG informed the applicant about the procedure for restitution and reiterated that the applicant had to sign the document on the transfer of land . In DATE the applicant asked the authorities when the issue of the restoration of ORG \u2019s property rights in natura or by providing her a plot of land of equivalent value would be dealt with . In DATE and DATE ORG repeatedly informed the applicant that she had to sign the document . ORG also informed the applicant that it was not possible to provide her with the plot of land first . In response , the applicant stated that she would sign the land transfer document after she had been shown a plot of equivalent value .","In DATE during a meeting at ORG it had been decided to include ORG request to restore his property rights into the preparation of an additional territorial plan of the area . In DATE the ORG established that because the applicant had refused to clearly indicate the form of restitution , she would be paid monetary compensation for the land . It gave the applicant DATE to change the suggested form of restitution .","The applicant repeatedly did not choose the form of restitution for the land by the time indicated by the authorities , which is by DATE , and on CARDINAL DATE a decision was taken to restore GPE \u2019s property rights by paying monetary compensation of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The compensation was then adjusted ( indeksuota ) and the final sum to be paid was LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . The national authorities indicated GPE as the person to whom the compensation had to be paid . The applicant was sent the decision on CARDINAL DATE . In their observations , the Government provided a document to the ORG , indicating that the compensation had been paid on DATE and DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant started court proceedings . She asked the court to annul the authorities\u2019 decision of CARDINAL DATE to restore GPE \u2019s property rights by paying him monetary compensation and to pay her LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage . She stated that she wanted the land to be returned in natura or to be provided with a plot of land of equivalent value and she did not understand why the authorities kept asking her to make a new choice on the form of restitution DATE . She further asked the authorities to explain why there had been no activity from DATE in the process of the restitution of her property rights . Finally , she complained that compensation calculated at LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) was too low .","On DATE ORG established that in DATE PERSON had asked for his property rights to be restored by being given QUANTITY of land in natura and that that had been a proper expression of his will . As the land in question was already being used by other people , GPE and later the applicant had been asked to choose another form of restitution . However , they had never expressly done so . Moreover , the court held that the applicant had never changed the original wish to have the land returned in natura because she had refused to agree to the document on the transfer of land , which would have allowed her to have a plot of equivalent value returned to her . As a consequence , and in accordance with the domestic law , the national authorities had chosen monetary compensation as the form of restitution , which had not breached any requirements of the domestic law . As for damages , the court held that the authorities had acted correctly and the necessary conditions to pay damages had not been satisfied .","In DATE the applicant lodged an appeal . She complained that she had chosen the form of restitution because she wanted land of equal value to be returned to her in natura . She also stated that if her choice had been unclear to the authorities , they should have taken action to clarify it . She further complained that the monetary compensation was unjust and too low .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court stated that PERSON had expressed a wish for his property rights to be restored to him in natura . The court also established that GPE had been aware of the fact that there was no possibility of returning the land to him in natura because it was already being used by other people . PERSON had been asked several times by the national authorities to choose another form of restitution but he had insisted on restitution in natura . The court held that the national authorities had failed to inform GPE about the time - limit for choosing the form of restitution , as the domestic law provided for such information to be sent before DATE and the letter had only been sent to GPE on DATE . The court however observed that that circumstance was not of major significance because ORG had written on DATE that he would never change his mind about the form of restitution . After ORG had died , the applicant had been asked to choose the form of restitution but had persisted in asking to have the land returned to her in natura or to be provided with a plot of equivalent value . The court also held that the applicant had misinterpreted the provisions of the domestic law because she had required that she be provided with a plot of land of equivalent value and a preliminary agreement , and had stated that only then would she sign a document on the transfer of land . That had been contrary to the procedure established in the domestic law . The court also considered that although at some point the applicant had indicated that providing her with a plot of land of equivalent value was an alternative way to restore her property rights , she had tied that form to her own rules and requirements , which were not possible under the domestic law . The court further observed that the national authorities had decided to pay the applicant monetary compensation as the form of restitution . Lastly , the court held that the applicant \u2019s argument as to the amount of compensation was unsubstantiated because she had not provided specific arguments proving that the amount of compensation had been determined in breach of domestic requirements .","On DATE the applicant started court proceedings for debt and interest over the failure of the national authorities to pay her monetary compensation .","NORP In reply to the request by the authorities , on CARDINAL DATE the notary dealing with the inheritance procedure for GPE \u2019s property stated that after PERSON \u2019s death she had issued the applicant with certificates of the right to inheritance with regard to movable and immovable property . However , she had not issued the applicant with the document allowing the applicant to get the monetary compensation paid to GPE because the applicant had not provided her with the decision of the national authorities of CARDINAL DATE to restore GPE \u2019s property rights .","In their comments to the applicant \u2019s reply to the ORG \u2019s observations , the Government acknowledged that the monetary compensation had never been transferred to the applicant \u201c due to human error \u201d . The national authorities could not transfer the monetary compensation to the applicant because of the absence of the document proving that she was an heir of GPE and the absence of the applicant \u2019s account number . The applicant submitted the relevant documents together with her account number and the compensation was transferred to her account on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145269","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"WO\u0179NIAK AND OTHERS v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants in the first case , PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON .","The applicants in the second case , Mr PERSON and Ms PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in FAC .","In DATE road construction projects were often carried out in GPE on privately owned plots of land which were de facto taken over for that purpose by the authorities despite de fact that the ownership of those plots had not been validly transferred to the ORG or other public bodies .","In DATE the legislator adopted a statute specifically addressing the situation of persons whose lands had in the past been taken over for road construction purposes ; in particular with a view to bringing their legal status into line with the realities of DATE and to ensure payment of compensation to former owners or their legal successors ( see Relevant domestic law , paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The facts of the cases , as submitted by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .","On an unspecified point in time part of the applicants\u2019 land was taken over by the ORG and a road was built on it .","By virtue of the ORG resolution dated DATE the road which crossed through the applicants\u2019 property was classified as a local town road ( droga lokalna miejska ) .","On an unspecified date the Mazowiecki Governor ( ORG ) , acting ex officio , instituted proceedings concerning the land taken over from the applicants .","On DATE the Governor ( ORG ) issued a decision confirming the acquisition ex lege by the municipality with effect from DATE of the part of the property covered by the road . This decision was based on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW of DATE ORG ( LAW , hereinafter LAW ( LOC -przepisy wprowadz\u0105jace ustawy reformuj\u0105ce administracj\u0119 publiczn\u0105 ) , regulating the status of properties taken over in the past by the ORG for the purposes of constructing public roads ( see Relevant domestic law below , paragraph CARDINAL ) . Under this LAW , owners whose land had ex lege become the ORG \u2019s or local ORG property on DATE under its section CARDINAL ) , were entitled to request compensation if they applied for it DATE and DATE . On DATE the period for submitting the compensation claim would expire .","On DATE the applicants requested compensation for the land to which the decision of DATE pertained .","On DATE the Mayor of the LOC discontinued the proceedings for compensation , finding that the applicants\u2019 request for compensation had been lodged after the period for submitting their claim had expired . The applicants appealed .","On DATE the Mazowiecki Governor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE in so far as it had discontinued the proceedings and refused to allow the ORG request for compensation , finding that the period for submitting their claim had expired on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal , considering that they should have sought compensation prior to DATE . The judgment was served on the applicants\u2019 lawyer on DATE .","On DATE the lawyer informed the applicants that there were no grounds on which to bring a cassation appeal before ORG as their entitlement to claim compensation claim had been extinguished under the provisions of LAW CARDINAL . It followed that the cassation appeal would not have offered any prospects of success .","On DATE ORG informed the applicants that administrative proceedings had been instituted ex officio with a view to giving a decision confirming the ex lege expropriation with effect from DATE of land taken from them prior to DATE for road construction purposes .","On DATE the applicants requested that compensation be paid to them .","On DATE the FAC Governor ( PERSON ) issued a decision confirming the acquisition ex lege by the municipality with effect from DATE of the land covered by the road . It was based on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE","On DATE the ORG ) refused to pay compensation to the applicants , referring to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . The applicants appealed , relying on the constitutional protection of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions . They argued that the authorities had failed to deal with their case speedily , since the proceedings to confirm expropriation had not been instituted until DATE , DATE after LAW CARDINAL had entered into force . As a result , they had been deprived of their entitlement to compensation . Had the authorities instituted the proceedings before the relevant expiry date , the applicants would not have lost their entitlement . They referred in particular to their advanced age and to the fact that the second applicant was in poor health , which made it extremely difficult for her to take the relevant steps , in particular in the absence of any information about her legal situation .","On DATE the FAC Governor dismissed their appeal . The applicants appealed to ORG . On DATE the ORG stayed the proceedings , pending the outcome of the case No . K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL instituted by the PERSON which was at that time being examined by ORG ( see below , Relevant domestic law ) .","The proceedings were resumed at DATE . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE served on the applicants on DATE the administrative court dismissed their appeal , referring to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and to the judgments of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . It held that the period for submitting the compensation claim had expired in accordance with the terms specified in the Act .","As well as introducing general reforms to public administration , ORG ( LAW DATE of CARDINAL DATE ( PERSON wprowadzaj\u0105ce ustawy reformuj\u0105ce administracj\u0119 publiczn\u0105 ) regulated the legal status of land taken over in the past for the purposes of road construction without a formal transfer of ownership of the land .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that Act conferred ex lege on ORG or on the relevant local municipality ownership of such lands with effect from DATE based on de facto possession . It further stipulated that the former owners had a right to compensation .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provided that the former owners could submit compensation claims to the administrative authorities DATE and DATE . After DATE the compensation claim had to expire . The original wording of this provision referred to a future statute which would govern the principles and procedures for the determination of the compensation to be awarded . It was amended in DATE and the general reference to a \u201c separate LAW therein was replaced by the specific reference to LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","The Act was published in ORG in DATE , no . CARDINAL , as item no . CARDINAL . It entered into force on DATE of its publication , DATE .","On DATE LAW of DATE ( LOC o gospodarce nieruchomo\u015bciami \u2013 \u201c LAW \u201d ) entered into force . It provides a generally applicable legal framework for expropriations . Although some of its provisions were modified in DATE , the substance of the provisions relevant to the present case remained unchanged .","In accordance with section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW , compensation for expropriation has to correspond to the value of the property right concerned . Under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW , the amount of compensation is fixed regard being had to the status and value of the property on DATE on which the expropriation decision was given . The value of the property is estimated on the basis of an opinion prepared by a certified expert .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides for the market value of the expropriated property to serve as a basis on which the amount of compensation is fixed . The following criteria are to be taken into consideration when establishing the market value of the property : its type , location , the use to which it has been put , the existence of any technical infrastructure on the property , its overall state and current prices of properties in the municipality .","In its judgment of DATE ( P CARDINAL ) ORG declared the section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE compatible with LAW as well as with LAW CARDINAL to the Convention . It discontinued the proceedings in respect of the section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE .","The court stressed that the legislator intended to regulate in a general manner the question of land ownership in a domain of particular public importance . Sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE concerned plots taken over during DATE for the purpose of road construction . The de facto taking of land and construction of roads created irreversible situations . The contested provisions pertained only to past situations and did not allow any further taking over of plots . The legislation under review served not only the public interest but also the interests of owners . It ended the state of uncertainty caused by the fact that they had not been able to exercise their ownership . The ex lege effect of the provisions was a rational solution which made it possible to bring the legal status of the plots into line with the realities .","In its judgment of DATE ( ORG CARDINAL ) ORG declared section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE compatible with LAW . The court stressed that LAW DATE concerned plots whose legal status did not reflect their actual situation existing for long periods of time , lasting for DATE . ORG emphasised that the owners concerned had in the past a possibility of asserting their rights but had failed to do so within the applicable time - limits .","The legislation vesting ownership of properties in ORG or local municipalities by way of LAW was a CARDINAL - off and exceptional solution the effects of which were limited in time . It concerned only land taken over for the purposes of road construction . It required special measures to be applied , partially departing from those envisaged by LAW . The solution consisting in assessing ex officio the status of all the plots concerned and issuing ex officio individual decisions confirming expropriation ex lege in each and every case could have not been carried out within a reasonable time .","The court observed that the special provisions created by LAW imposed certain limitations on the compensation paid to the owners whose lands had been in the past de facto expropriated for road construction purposes . These limitations included their inability to request compensation DATE ; a limitation on the period within which such applications could be made until DATE ; a failure to specify exactly when compensation had to be paid to the person entitled ; and a failure to take into account changes to the value of the property between the date ownership was formally transferred by way of a decision confirming the ex lege expropriation and the date the compensation was decided . However , the context and character of the set of measures created by LAW justified these restrictions .","On DATE the ORG gave a judgment ( CARDINAL ) in reply to legal question put to it by ORG . That court requested ORG to make an assessment of compatibility of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW in so far as this provision allowed for a compensation entitlement to be irrevocably extinguished regardless of whether an administrative decision confirming the acquisition ex lege , as from DATE , of land used for road construction purposes by the municipality ( or ORG ) had been given . ORG noted that proceedings concerning such decisions were governed by the generally applicable provisions of LAW . Former owners were parties to these proceedings . The decisions confirming that the municipality or ORG , as the case might be , had acquired ownership of properties taken de facto over by the ORG in the past were of a declaratory character . The fact that LAW did not provide for a time - limit for the authorities to give such decisions did not mean that it was impossible in law for former owners to claim compensation in absence of these decisions . These decisions were not a legal prerequisite for claiming compensation prior to the expiry of the substantive time - limit provided for by that LAW , namely DATE . If a request for compensation was submitted in the absence of a decision , the compensation proceedings should be stayed . The authority to which the compensation request was submitted was obliged to request the governor to give a decision confirming the expropriation ex lege as from DATE , after which the compensation proceedings had to be resumed . ORG referred to the practice of the administrative authorities , established by the courts ( ORG , I OSK CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG , I SA \/ Wa CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE and I SA \/ Wa CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The court observed that the request for compensation under LAW was in principle a second opportunity for owners to seek compensation as they could have claimed it in the past when their land had been taken for the road construction purposes .","On DATE the ORG challenged the constitutionality of the section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , submitting that it breached the proportionality principle enshrined in the LAW by introducing an unclear and unconstitutional notion of \u201c equitable \u201d ( s\u0142uszne ) compensation , differing from that used for ordinary compensation purposes in the DATE LAW . It was also in breach of the constitutional protection of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions , as the compensation entitlement had irrevocably ceased to exist on DATE . It was further submitted that the period for submitting a compensation claim should not have been allowed to expire before the administration had given an expropriation decision . No provision was made in the DATE Act obliging the authorities to issue the expropriation decisions prior to DATE , which rendered that regulation manifestly unfair ( \u201c regulacja pozorna \u201d ) and deprived owners of a reasonable protection of their rights .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ORG dismissed the ORG \u2019s challenge . It essentially rephrased its own reasoning adopted in DATE and reiterated that the former owners had had ample time to take appropriate steps to obtain compensation ; initially DATE of vacatio legis after LAW had entered into force and , subsequently , DATE within which to seek compensation . It had been possible for them to secure their rights by demonstrating adequate diligence .","In a number of decisions the courts held that the decisions given under LAW confirming acquisition ex lege of the land by the municipalities ( or by ORG ) on DATE were of a declaratory character . The courts also held that the fact that such a decision had not been issued did not prevent the persons concerned from claiming compensation under the provisions of that LAW ( see e.g. ORG , I SA \/ WA CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ; the ORG , ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE and ORG , resolution III CZP CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146529","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"LAZAROVI v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON . They were represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , and PERSON and PERSON from ORG in GPE , GPE . The applicants stated that they were also submitting the application on behalf of their relative PERSON , who had died on an unspecified date at DATE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","NORP In DATE PERSON , who was the daughter of the first and second applicants and the sister of the third applicant , and was born in DATE , was diagnosed with schizophrenia . In DATE she was declared mentally incapable by the ORG and was deprived of legal capacity . No guardian was appointed as it was decided that she would be represented by her parents .","As PERSON \u2019s state of health deteriorated , on DATE the family placed her in an institution , ORG Mentally Ill Adults in the village of Radovtsi ( hereafter referred to as \u201c the Radovtsi Home \u201d ) . The home was financed by the ORG and managed by the mayor of the GPE municipality .","An inspection by ORG carried out in DATE established that the Radovtsi Home housed CARDINAL mentally ill patients at the time . The building was in a poor state of repair due to the lack of funds to carry out renovation work .","The inspectors also established that during DATE inmates of the home whose state of health was especially poor were kept in a locked room , known as the \u201c room for special care \u201d . The inspectors recommended the closure of the room , which was implemented on DATE . After that date the inmates were allowed to move around freely within the building , the doors of which nevertheless remained locked . The yard outside , occupying an area of QUANTITY , was enclosed by a wire fence . Even though on some occasions inmates managed to leave the home , they always returned promptly .","At TIME on DATE a member of the staff of ORG administered a medication with a sedative and tranquilising effect to PERSON . DATE , around lunchtime , PERSON could not be found . Another inmate had seen her shortly beforehand , when Ms Lazarova had said that she was very hungry and was going to look for a friend of hers in the village . The gates had been open .","At TIME the staff informed the director of the home of Ms ORG \u2019s disappearance . They conducted a search of the area : on foot in the vicinity of the building and by vehicle in the neighbouring villages . They checked abandoned and derelict buildings . It had been snowing , but as the roads had just been cleaned , there were no footprints . It appears that the search may have been suspended at nightfall , although some documents indicate that it continued until TIME The search was resumed DATE . Oral contact with the police was established at TIME on DATE , and written contact on CARDINAL DATE , when PERSON was officially declared missing . The staff of the home and the police questioned the inhabitants of the neighbouring villages , some of whom said that they had seen a woman they did not know . However , PERSON was not found when the locations concerned were visited and searched . The search continued over DATE but did not yield any result .","The case file contains contradictory information as to the date on which the ORG staff informed the applicants about their relative \u2019s disappearance . Some documents indicate that this happened on DATE , whereas the applicants allege that they were not contacted until DATE .","Valya Lazarova \u2019s body was found on DATE , QUANTITY away from the home . According to the post mortem , her death was due to hypothermia and physical exhaustion . There were no traces of physical violence . Death had occurred DATE before the body \u2019s discovery .","On DATE the third applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecution authorities alleging that the staff of ORG were responsible for his sister \u2019s disappearance from the home and her subsequent death .","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE a prosecutor from the GPE regional public prosecutor \u2019s office concluded that there was no indication that PERSON had been the victim of intentional homicide .","A separate investigation was opened in relation to offences under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , namely exposing the life of a vulnerable person to risk and failing to assist a vulnerable person . In a decision dated DATE a prosecutor from the FAC district public prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute formal criminal proceedings against identified persons under those provisions , noting that on DATE when PERSON had disappeared there had been CARDINAL members of the medical staff and CARDINAL orderlies on duty . None of them had been personally responsible for ensuring the inmates\u2019 physical presence . Accordingly , it did not appear that any of them had committed an offence under Articles CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the Criminal Code .","Upon an appeal by the third applicant , on DATE a prosecutor from the GPE regional public prosecutor \u2019s office quashed the abovementioned decision and ordered a further investigation into the matter .","The GPE district public prosecutor \u2019s office interviewed the staff who had been on duty on DATE , residents of the village of Radovtsi and the people who had participated in the search following PERSON disappearance . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE a prosecutor from that office again refused to institute criminal proceedings , concluding that there was no indication that any of the staff members of ORG had committed an offence .","Upon a further appeal by the third applicant , on DATE that decision was upheld by the GPE regional public prosecutor \u2019s office . In addition to the findings of the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office , it noted that the building housing the Radovtsi Home had been in a poor state of repair and that the institution had been understaffed . This , combined with the very poor state of health of the inmates , had facilitated PERSON disappearance from the home ; however , these factors had not been within the staff \u2019s control . Accordingly , none of the staff members , including the director of the home , could be held criminally liable .","In decisions dated DATE and DATE respectively , the PERSON appellate prosecutor \u2019s office and ORG upheld the above - mentioned decisions .","On an unspecified date the third applicant also complained to ORG , which conducted an inquiry and informed the applicant of its findings in a letter dated DATE . The inquiry showed that the director of ORG had been informed of PERSON disappearance at TIME on DATE . The search had started immediately after that . Members of the staff had searched the neighbouring villages . The police and the mountain rescue service had joined in as well . The enquiry concluded that the search had been prompt and adequate . Moreover , it transpired that PERSON had left the home on another occasion in DATE , but had been found DATE .","On DATE the applicants brought a tort action against the GPE municipality , ORG and the ORG under the ORG and ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They claimed CARDINAL NORP levs for each of them in compensation for non - pecuniary damage resulting from GPE death . In their statement of claim they argued that the medical treatment and the care provided to PERSON in FAC had been inadequate and that her needs had been neglected . They pointed out that the \u201c room for special care \u201d in the home had been closed in DATE , and argued that inmates in a serious state of health had been provided with no alternative care . In addition , they alleged that the staff of the home had not been sufficiently trained and had not treated the inmates in a humane manner . They also pointed out that the living conditions in the home had been poor . They argued that PERSON death was","\u201c directly and immediately linked to the lack of appropriate care in the social institution , lack of administrative supervision on the part of the GPE municipality , lack of adequate support for the institution \u2019s work and lack of good practice \u201d .","NORP The statement of claim was reviewed by a judge of ORG , who on DATE instructed the applicants to specify those administrative duties performed by the defendants in the course of which the alleged damage had occurred . The judge also asked for clarification of the specific acts and omissions complained of in respect of each defendant and the grounds for viewing these acts or omissions as unlawful .","NORP In response , on DATE the applicants submitted that the mayor of the FAC municipality , in his role as employer , and the bodies responsible for social assistance ( forming part of the centralised ORG ) had failed to monitor the staff of ORG as regards the performance of their duty to \u201c provide individually tailored social services and assess the needs of NORP Lazarova \u201d and had failed to ensure the presence of qualified medical personnel . They alleged that the mayor had also failed to ensure that the living conditions in the home were satisfactory in relation to PERSON \u2019s state of health and that ORG had failed to ensure methodical assistance , administrative supervision and the necessary financing . As to the ORG , represented by ORG , they claimed that it had not created the necessary legislative framework , had not adopted policies ensuring that staff of social care institutions were adequately qualified , and had not provided the GPE municipality with the financing needed by ORG .","In a decision dated DATE ORG refused to accept the statement of claim for examination , noting that the applicants had failed to provide the information and the clarification requested on DATE . In particular , it considered that the submissions of CARDINAL DATE mostly restated the initial statement of claim and that the inclusion of a new possible defendant , ORG , led to confusion . It thus concluded that","\u201c neither the [ statement of claim ] , nor the additional submissions contain a request to order the cessation of an action that is not based on an administrative decision or on law , nor do they allege failure to take actions which the administrative body is obliged to take pursuant to the law , which actions or omissions are causally linked to the damage they allegedly sustained . \u201d","Upon an appeal by the applicants , on DATE the abovementioned decision was upheld by ORG .","The State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) provides in LAW that the ORG and the municipalities are liable for damage caused to private individuals and legal entities as a result of unlawful decisions , acts or omissions of their authorities or officials while discharging their administrative duties . Since DATE claims under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG have been examined by the administrative courts under the rules of LAW .","It is also possible to seek damages from the ORG and the municipalities under the general tort provisions ( sections CARDINAL et seq . ) of ORG Legal persons may be vicariously liable under section CARDINAL of the Act , which provides that a person who has entrusted another with performing a job is liable for the damage caused by that other person in the course of or in connection with the performance of the job . In this case the employer \u2019s liability is presumed and is to be engaged even where it can not be established which of its employees has caused the damage ( ORG DATE \u0433. , ORG DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. ) . Section CARDINAL of ORG has been successfully relied on in a case which , like the present one , concerned the disappearance and the subsequent death of a mentally ill patient placed in a social care institution . The domestic courts , which found that the staff of the institution \u2013 by virtue of its internal rules \u2013 had been responsible for constantly monitoring and supervising the claimants\u2019 relative , ordered the mayor of the respective municipality , as their employer , to pay the damages sought ( ORG \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON \u0441\u044a\u0434 I \u0413\u041e , \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. ; ORG \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. , PERSON \u0430\u043f\u0435\u043b\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u0435\u043d \u0441\u044a\u0434 , ORG \u043a\u043e\u043b\u0435\u0433\u0438\u044f , \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE ; PERSON \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE , ORG , III \u0433. \u043e. ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140784","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PETRINA v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the \u0160ibenik Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ) indicted the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) on charges of attempted grievous bodily harm .","The first hearing before ORG was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE of the hearing , the applicant informed ORG that he was unable to appear at the hearing owing to a medical condition . He also submitted medical documentation in that regard .","Several witnesses also failed to attend the hearing and the applicant \u2019s lawyer informed the trial court that she no longer represented the applicant . The hearing was adjourned and the next hearing was scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .","At the hearing of DATE the applicant , who was not properly summoned , failed to appear . The president of the trial panel ordered that the applicant be summoned by a letter indicating that his defence lawyer no longer represented him and that he should either appoint another lawyer or the hearing would be held in the absence of a lawyer .","On DATE the applicant informed ORG that he was not able to appear for trial owing to his medical condition . He explained that he would be unavailable for a certain period of time because he was required to undergo medical treatment and promised to inform the court of the progress of that treatment . He therefore asked that the proceedings be stayed until he was able to appear at the hearings . The applicant also submitted back - up medical documentation .","At a hearing on DATE the Deputy State Attorney asked the trial court to commission a medical report concerning the applicant \u2019s capacity to take part in the proceedings given his state of health .","On DATE a medical expert , ORG , submitted a report indicating that the applicant suffered from heart arrhythmia . She considered that he would not be able to take part in the hearings for a period of time which was hard to predict . She therefore suggested that the trial court re - examine his condition after DATE .","On DATE the \u0160ibenik ORG invited the applicant to submit medical documentation noting the progress of his treatment .","The applicant complied with the order and submitted the documentation on DATE . ORG then commissioned another medical report .","On DATE medical expert ORG submitted a further report , indicating that the applicant \u2019s state of health had not stabilised despite the medical treatment he had been receiving and that he could not appear at the hearings . She reiterated that it was not possible to predict the exact period of time in which he would not be able to take part in the proceedings and suggested that his condition be reassessed at appropriate intervals .","Another medical report was commissioned on CARDINAL DATE from a forensic expert , a cardiologist and a psychiatrist .","On DATE the medical experts , ORG , ORG and PERSON , submitted a joint report . They found that the applicant was not able to take part in the hearings and that a strong triggering factor , such as stress , could lead to a heart attack with a possibly fatal outcome .","On DATE the ORG commissioned a further medical report from medical experts ORG , ORG and PERSON","The medical experts submitted their report on DATE , in which they noted :","\u201c ... we still consider that the accused \u2019s appearance at the hearing would be a risk factor which could ( although it might not ) lead to a heart attack , and how that will further develop it is hard to predict , which makes PERSON theoretically unable to appear at the hearing .","However , we consider that his appearance at the hearing would be possible only in the presence of [ a ] doctor , namely a medical team equipped for prompt intervention in the event of a heart attack at the trial . \u201d","The \u0160ibenik ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE . It summoned the applicant , the applicant \u2019s lawyer , PERSON , whose services he had engaged on DATE , and a cardiologist , GPE , to the hearing .","At a hearing on DATE ORG noted that the applicant \u2019s defence lawyer had informed it on DATE that she could not attend the hearing because she was on maternity leave . The applicant was not properly summoned and did not attend the hearing . The cardiologist , GPE , did not attend the hearing , nor did he excuse his absence . The hearing was adjourned and the next hearing was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE the applicant informed ORG that he could not appear at the hearing scheduled for DATE due to his medical condition . He referred to the medical expert report of DATE .","On DATE ORG , relying on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for adjournment as abusive on the grounds that the necessary medical back - up had been secured by summoning the cardiologist , GPE , to the hearing . The court considered that the applicant was trying to delay the proceedings . It also found that , according to the information available to it , the applicant had taken part in a number of other court proceedings as claimant and private prosecutor .","On DATE , ORG held a hearing at which the applicant did not appear and to which his defence counsel had not been summoned . The cardiologist , GPE , again did not attend the hearing , nor did he excuse his absence . The hearing was held in the presence of the Deputy State Attorney and the victim \u2019s representative . After the hearing , at which the trial court examined the evidence and written records of witnesses\u2019 oral statements , it found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal before the \u0160ibenik ORG ( PERSON u PERSON ) against the decision to hold a hearing in his absence . The applicant complained that he had not been able to appear at the hearing owing to his medical condition and that the trial court \u2019s findings that he had taken part in a number of other court proceedings had been unsubstantiated and untrue , as while he had been a party to the other proceedings he had never taken part in the trials .","On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged further statements of appeal before the ORG asking that court to quash the first - instance judgment and to order a retrial . He reiterated that the hearing of DATE had been held in his absence , even though he had not been able to appear at the hearing owing to his medical condition . He also complained that the necessary medical back - up at the hearing had not been ensured , as a medical team had never been obtained and the cardiologist , GPE , had twice failed to attend the hearings . Moreover , the defence had never been informed that a back - up medical team would be provided , and had the trial court considered that he was abusing his procedural rights , it should have ensured that he had legal representation at the trial .","During the appeal proceedings , the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ) , which represented the prosecution case on appeal , asked the \u0160ibenik ORG to allow the applicant \u2019s appeal and to order a retrial .","On DATE the \u0160ibenik ORG , in closed session , without holding a hearing , dismissed all the appeals and upheld the first - instance judgment . That court found that the applicant had been abusing his procedural rights and that he had been doing nothing more than trying to delay the trial .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) complaining that the hearing before the first - instance court had been held in his absence .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159051","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SALES v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to the emergency services in ORG ( since renamed ORG ) . She gave birth to a son who has irreversible injuries caused by the birth .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action before ORG against the hospital , claiming damages for the injuries caused to her son . She claimed that contrary to her doctor \u2019s instructions , the medical staff who treated her during labor had not performed a caesarean thus her son being born with several problems which caused him permanent motor - neurone injuries . She held that the hospital was responsible for medical negligence at birth .","On DATE the hospital contested the civil action .","On DATE a preliminary hearing was held . A second session of the preliminary hearing was scheduled for DATE , which was adjourned because the time - limits for the analysis of the documents had not expired . The hearing was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant requested ORG to issue an interim measure ( provid\u00eancia cautelar ) seeking a temporary remediation ( arbitramento de uma repara\u00e7\u00e3o provis\u00f3ria ) . On DATE ORG ordered interim payment of ORG DATE to the applicant and her husband until the decision in the main proceedings would be delivered and become res judicata .","On DATE the hospital sought leave for the medical and nursing team to intervene in the proceedings . On DATE the applicant replied to the hospital \u2019s request .","The hearing called for DATE had to be adjourned because of the hospital \u2019s request .","On DATE the judge gave directions ( despacho saneador ) setting out the matters that had already been established and those that remained outstanding .","On DATE and on DATE the hospital and the applicant submitted evidence and both requested expert \u2019s appointement .","On DATE the judge admitted the evidence submitted by the parties and ordered an expert medical report .","On DATE ORG requested ORG ( ORG dos ORG ) to appoint medical experts . Several requests were made concerning medical experts in gynaecology and obstetrics . ORG replied to all requests .","On DATE ORG ) submitted its forensic report , which contained its preliminary conclusions .","On DATE ORG lodged a request with ORG seeking access to all the medical reports in respect of the birth of the applicant \u2019s son . On DATE the parties were notified to submit the relevant medical reports . On DATE the hospital submitted its reports and on DATE the applicant request for an extension of the time - limit . On DATE the applicant submitted the medical reports .","On DATE ORG submitted its expert report .","On DATE and on DATE , the appointed experts in gynaecology and obstetrics and the appointed experts in paediatrics submitted their reports , respectively .","The parties were notified of the reports and on DATE the applicant requested a second expert medical report . On DATE the hospital opposed to the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the ORG requested the experts to clarify existing doubts with regard to their reports . The clarifications were submitted on CARDINAL and DATE .","On DATE ORG requested ORG to appoint experts in gynaecology and obstetrics to provide technical advice during trial . On DATE the ORG appointed an expert .","DATE and DATE ORG listed QUANTITY hearings . In between hearings new evidence was submitted by the parties .","On DATE ORG delivered its decision in which it considered that the hospital could not be held liable for the injuries for lack of evidence in that regard .","On DATE the applicant challenged the outcome of the proceedings before ORG of the LOC .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision .","On DATE the application of the interim measure ended when the decision of the second - instance court became res judicata ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140260","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VELIKANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , LOC . He is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and was placed in a temporary detention facility of ORG of GPE ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) . According to the applicant , police officers under the command of police officer PERSON took him to special cells for questioning , where they tried to extract a confession from him or else make him sign blank sheets of paper . As he refused , they handcuffed him to a chair and beat him on his back and sides . Eventually he did sign a confession .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to remand prison no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in ORG , LOC ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . Following a medical examination , the remand prison authorities refused to admit the applicant . In a report of the same date they indicated that he had a number of injuries , including a contusion of the spine and a contusion of the left side of the chest with a suspected fracture of the ribs , and that he needed further examination by medical experts .","On DATE the applicant was taken back to ORG and then transported to the GPE town hospital , where he underwent a medical examination , including an X - ray examination . The physician and neuropathologist who examined the applicant noted their findings in the above - mentioned report of ORG . They are barely legible , but appear to confirm that the applicant had contusions of the spine and of the chest .","On the reverse side of the referral for the X - ray examination dated CARDINAL DATE there is a hand - written finding by a radiologist dated DATE . It is likewise barely legible , but appears to confirm the contusion of the spine and the absence of a fracture .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG .","On DATE the head of ORG issued CARDINAL certificates addressed to the ORG . According to CARDINAL certificate , DATE and DATE while the applicant was held in PERSON DATE he had not made any complaints concerning his detention . According to the other certificate , admission of the applicant to ORG had been refused on CARDINAL DATE as it appeared necessary to conduct an additional medical examination in order to confirm the diagnosis . No entry to that effect was made in the remand prison register since , in accordance with the applicable regulations , the register contained only information about individuals actually held in the remand prison , whereas the applicant was not admitted .","On DATE the applicant complained that he had been beaten by the police . He referred , in particular , to the report of DATE confirming his injuries .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s complaint . The relevant decision stated briefly that there was no information in the ORG indicating that the applicant had ever requested medical assistance during his detention pending trial . It went on to note that , according to a certificate from the GPE town hospital , which the applicant had attended , he had been diagnosed with influenza and spontaneous rupture of tendons . The decision further stated that during his detention pending trial , none of the injuries indicated in the applicant \u2019s complaint had been found on his person , and concluded that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment were unfounded and unsupported by any evidence . The decision remained silent about the report of DATE to which the applicant referred in his complaint .","On DATE a supervising prosecutor set aside the above decision .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigating authorities again refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant \u2019s complaint . The decision was similar to that of CARDINAL DATE and stated , in particular , that there was no information in the ORG indicating that the applicant had requested medical assistance , or that any injuries had been inflicted on him during his detention pending trial . According to the decision , it was impossible to obtain an extract from the register of detainees of the ORG since all the documents had been lost by its former head . The decision also referred to a certificate from the GPE town hospital attesting that the applicant had been diagnosed with influenza and spontaneous rupture of tendons , and stated that this latter injury had not been related to the injuries alleged by the applicant . The decision also indicated that the applicant had not undergone any medical forensic examination in the course of the criminal proceedings against him . It then concluded that the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment were unfounded and unsupported by any evidence . The decision did not mention the applicant \u2019s reference to the report of DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the ORG under LAW of LAW concerning the decision of CARDINAL DATE , arguing that the inquiry into his allegations of ill - treatment by the police had been incomplete and , in particular , the investigating authorities had ignored the report of DATE . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG returned the applicant \u2019s complaint to him , indicating that a number of shortcomings should be remedied . The applicant did not appeal .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE as premature , stating that the inquiry had been incomplete . The prosecutor ordered the investigating authorities to identify and interview the police officers and the senior investigator who had participated in the criminal proceedings against the applicant , to obtain copies of documents from ORG concerning the applicant \u2019s medical examination there , to obtain relevant documents from his personal file and to perform other necessary actions .","By a decision of DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the decision of DATE , stating that this latter decision had by that time already been set aside by a supervising prosecutor and an additional inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment had been ordered . It is unclear whether the applicant appealed against the ORG decision to a higher court .","On DATE the investigating authorities again refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . Their decision stated that , upon receipt of the documentation seeking a further inquiry , requests for information had been sent to the head of ORG and the head of ORG , and that the investigator in charge of the criminal case against the applicant had been interviewed . The decision then stated that \u201c at present there [ was ] no objective evidence that officers of ORG [ had ] applied violence to the applicant \u201d .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE , stating that the inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegations of beating by the police had been incomplete , that the necessary measures had not been taken and , in particular , copies of documents from ORG concerning the applicant \u2019s medical examination at that centre and relevant documents from his personal file had not been obtained .","NORP In a decision of DATE , similar to that of CARDINAL DATE , the investigating authorities again refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment by the police , stating that , \u201c as of this date , no replies to requests for information sent earlier [ had ] been received \u201d , and that \u201c therefore there [ was ] no objective evidence that officers of ORG [ had ] inflicted violence on the applicant \u201d .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision .","On DATE the ORG dismissed a complaint by the applicant concerning the decision of DATE , stating that this latter decision had already been quashed and a further inquiry had been ordered . The applicant did not appeal against the first - instance decision .","On DATE the investigating authorities again refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant \u2019s complaint that he had been beaten by the police . The relevant decision noted that the applicant , when interviewed with regard to his allegations , had submitted that during the period of his detention in the Shchelkovo IVS he had been ill - treated on several occasions by police officers , who had chained him to a chair or a table and had beaten him on his back and in the ribs , and that upon his delivery to ORG a report had been drawn up confirming his injuries . He had also stated that he had undergone an X - ray examination in the GPE town hospital on DATE and that the results of that examination had been recorded in QUANTITY - ray image no . CARDINAL . The applicant had submitted that he did not know the police officers who had beaten him , and that he only knew a certain ORG , an officer of ORG , who had not himself applied force to the applicant , but had brought with him CARDINAL individuals in civilian clothes , the latter forcing the applicant to confess to the alleged offence . The decision went on to say that in the applicant \u2019s personal file there was no information indicating whether he had undergone any medical examinations in the period DATE and DATE .","The decision further referred to a reply from ORG , according to which the remand prison had no information concerning the applicant \u2019s examination by a medical official on DATE . It also pointed out that a reply from the GPE town hospital had provided no information indicating that the applicant had ever undergone an X - ray examination in that hospital , nor was there any X - ray image such as that referred to by the applicant in the hospital \u2019s archive . The decision further stated that the officer ORG , referred to by the applicant , and investigators B. and PERSON , who had conducted the investigation into the applicant \u2019s criminal case , when interviewed in the context of the present inquiry had denied using physical force or psychological pressure in respect of the applicant or seeing anyone else doing so . The decision also noted that the applicant had not complained about the alleged ill - treatment until DATE after the events in question . It then stated that the investigating authorities considered that the applicant had alleged such ill - treatment by the police in an attempt \u201c to mislead the investigating authorities , who were spending their time and resources investigating offences that [ had ] in reality [ not been ] committed , and to accuse public officials of serious offences , thereby affecting a number of individuals who were obliged to devote time to giving oral evidence to the investigating authorities \u201d . The decision therefore concluded that there was no evidence of the offence alleged by the applicant .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor set aside the decision of DATE , stating that the inquiry had been incomplete .","On DATE the ORG dismissed a complaint by the applicant concerning the decision of DATE , referring to the fact that this latter decision had already been quashed by the supervising prosecutor . The applicant did not appeal against the first - instance decision .","On DATE the investigating authorities again refused to institute criminal proceedings in relation to the applicant \u2019s complaint that he had been ill - treated by the police . The relevant decision was identical to that of DATE . The only comment added was that it appeared impossible to question investigator PERSON and officer PERSON , as they had not responded to telephone calls .","On DATE the ORG dismissed a complaint by the applicant concerning the decision of DATE . Although the court noted that the applicant referred to the medical report of CARDINAL DATE , it did not address it any further but instead stated that the investigation conducted into his allegations had been complete . The court referred , in particular , to certain explanations obtained from the investigators who had been in charge of the applicant \u2019s case .","A request by the applicant to restore the time - limit for appealing against the decision of DATE was granted by the ORG on DATE .","On DATE the GPE ORG quashed the decision of the ORG of DATE on appeal on the following grounds . Firstly , although the applicant had challenged the judge DATE because it was the same judge who had convicted him \u2013 this had not been examined by the first - instance court . Secondly , the first - instance court had not examined the report of CARDINAL DATE and , thirdly , it had referred to certain explanations by investigator PERSON and officer ORG that could not be found in the case file .","On DATE the ORG again dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the decision of DATE . The court stated , in particular , that whereas the applicant had provided a copy of the report of CARDINAL DATE , it appeared impossible to verify its authenticity since there was no information about the medical examination in question in his file . It further noted that neither during the preliminary investigation nor at the trial had the applicant made any allegations of ill - treatment . It is not clear whether the applicant appealed .","Meanwhile the applicant resubmitted his complaint of ill - treatment , which was dismissed by the investigating authorities on CARDINAL October DATE on the grounds that an investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations had already been conducted and they had been proved unsubstantiated .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment on appeal .","At some point , CARDINAL of the witnesses stated that he had made false statements incriminating the applicant in the course of the criminal proceedings against the latter . Thereafter the applicant attempted DATE unsuccessfully DATE to have criminal proceedings brought against that witness . In the period between CARDINAL and DATE the domestic courts dismissed complaints by the applicant concerning the investigating authorities\u2019 decisions to dispense with criminal proceedings in that regard .","Article CARDINAL of LAW provides for judicial review of decisions , acts or inaction on the part of an inquirer , investigator or prosecutor which affect constitutional rights or freedoms . The judge is empowered to verify the lawfulness and reasonableness of the decision , act or inaction and to grant the following forms of relief : ( i ) to declare the impugned decision , act or inaction unlawful or unreasonable and to order the authority concerned to remedy the violation ; or ( ii ) to dismiss the complaint .","In its ORG of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE stated that it was incumbent on judges DATE before processing an LAW complaint \u2013 to establish whether the preliminary investigation had been completed in the main case ( point CARDINAL ) . If the main case has already been sent for trial or the investigation completed , the complaint should not be examined unless it has been brought either by a person who is not a party to the main case or DATE if such a complaint is not amenable to judicial review under LAW at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings . In all other situations the complaint under LAW should be left unexamined and the complainant should be informed that he or she can raise the matter before the trial or appeal courts in the main case .","Similarly , according to ORG construction , a complaint under LAW can not be brought or pursued after the criminal case to which the complaint is connected has been submitted for trial . However , where it is established that a party to the proceedings ( including a judge or a witness ) has committed a criminal offence , thus seriously compromising the fairness of the proceedings , the LAW exceptionally allows for separate investigation of the relevant circumstances , leading to a reopening of the case ( see Decision no . CARDINALOO of CARDINAL DATE ; see also Ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE and Ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146002","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"SMIRNOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the town of LOC .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON PERSON GPE , Representative of GPE at ORG .","NORP The applicant is a retired person who is in receipt of an old - age pension . She is an active supporter of various local NGOs .","On DATE ORG ( \u00ab \u0422\u044e\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0444\u0441\u043e\u044e\u0437\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0446\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440 PERSON ) , ORG of ORG of ORG \u201c NORP \u201d ( \u00ab PERSON \u0433\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0444\u0441\u043e\u044e\u0437 \u043b\u0438\u0444\u0442\u0435\u0440\u043e\u0432 PERSON ) and ORG for the protection of civil rights \u201c Resonance \u201d ( \u00ab \u0422\u044e\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0440\u0435\u0433\u0438\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0431\u0449\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0444\u043e\u043d\u0434 \u043f\u043e \u0437\u0430\u0449\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0433\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0434\u0430\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 \u00ab \u0420\u0435\u0437\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043d\u0441 PERSON ) submitted notification of a public demonstration against alleged violations of rights of students and employees of the Commercial and Financial College of ORG ( \u201c the College \u201d ) . It indicated that the demonstration would be carried out in the form of a \u201c picket \u201d to be held at TIME on DATE outside the college building . The action was to end at TIME The organisers estimated that CARDINAL people would take part in this event . They undertook not to hinder the circulation of people and vehicles and not to disturb the peace .","On DATE the NORP town council informed the organisers that their request had been accepted .","The picket started at TIME as planned . It was attended mostly by oldage pensioners who gathered at the college entrance carrying their placards . The event was supervised by the police , who registered no disturbances of public order . Most of the demonstrators and the police left the location at TIME","At TIME the applicant and CARDINAL other persons of the picket entered the college building with a view to handing a petition over to the college administration .","NORP This group spontaneously asked an assistant to the head to the college to let them meet the head . The assistant informed the head of this request , who , in response , called the police .","Shortly afterwards QUANTITY police officers arrived at the place of the incident and forced the group into a police van . They were then brought to ORG of the Interior of ORG ( hereafter referred to as \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , where they were invited to explain their actions in writing .","The applicant and the other members of the group were held in the corridor of ORG . According to the applicant , she was allowed neither to contact her lawyer nor to call her family . She was then taken to an investigator \u2019s office where she explained the circumstances surrounding this incident . The applicant was released at TIME It appears that no record of detention was drawn up .","On DATE the head of the college submitted a request that the police prosecute the picketers for disturbing lessons at the college .","On DATE of the police officers involved in the events of DATE issued a report which read :","\u201c ... On DATE at TIME following a telephone call I arrived at [ the college ] . Upon arrival I found that the police had been called by [ the head of the college ] , who stated that unknown people had burst into her office and interfered with her work . These people were taken to the [ ORG ] ... for further investigation of these events ... \u201d","On DATE a senior investigator of ORG rejected the request of CARDINAL DATE as unfounded .","On DATE the head of the college repeated her request .","On DATE the authorities again refused to institute criminal proceedings .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office of the Tyumen Region quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to the authorities for an additional investigation . Without noting any specific defects in the investigation , the prosecutor concluded that it had not been thorough .","On DATE the investigating authorities refused to institute criminal proceedings . The decision read as follows :","\u201c ... [ The investigating authority ] established that on DATE the non - governmental organisation ORG , acting with official authorisation of the town council dated DATE , staged a public picket near the [ college ] . This event took place from TIME The demonstrators were demanding that college the authorities put an end to violations of the rights of its employees and students . After the picket [ the applicant and CARDINAL other persons of the movement ] entered the college building and went to the office of the head of the college to hand over their petition . [ The head of the college ] refused to meet them and called the police . The police officers , who arrived at the place of the incident , escorted the demonstrators to the [ ORG ] to collect their explanations in writing .","... [ In the context of the present investigation the applicant ] has refused to give any explanations to the police , noting that she had already given her statements in respect to these events to ORG .","[ The applicant \u2019s and other ORG actions ] did not amount to a criminal offence . \u201d","In the above proceedings , the applicant did not complain of the police actions of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE CARDINAL of the leaders of the picketers , PERSON , and CARDINAL other demonstrators including the applicant requested that a criminal investigation be instituted in respect of their arrest and detention on DATE . The applicant also brought complaints against the police officers , seeking to prosecute them for her allegedly unlawful arrest and detention . It seems that the proceedings regarding their complaints were joined together in CARDINAL case .","The investigating authorities conducted an internal investigation and drafted a report dated DATE , which read :","\u201c ORG of GPE , GPE of ORG of ORG , and ORG for the protection of civil rights \u2018 Resonance\u2019 informed the local administration about the picket of CARDINAL DATE , which would be held from TIME , Mr [ Kh . ] having been named as a person responsible for it .","The picket was supervised by [ CARDINAL police officers ] , who were present at its location from TIME The picketers did not disturb the peace . The police officers did not speak to them . By TIME the crowd had dispersed . At TIME the police officers returned to [ ORG ] .","On DATE [ a police officer on duty ] received a telephone call from [ the college ] . Following this call [ a group of CARDINAL police officers on duty and a driver ] arrived at [ the college ] . On their arrival they found out that the call had been made by the [ head of the college ] , who explained that several unknown persons had burst into her office and interfered with the activities of the college . She stated that she would request the prosecution of these people . Later the police officers realised that those people were the participants in the picket . [ The group ] was taken to [ ORG ] .","In ORG the police collected the statements from the [ head of the college ] , who requested that [ the group ] be prosecuted . [ CARDINAL police officers ] collected written statements from the detained parties and then let them go home . None of the detained persons was put in a special cell . Consequently , they were not deprived of their liberty .","On DATE [ the police ] refused to institute criminal proceedings at the request of the [ head of the college ] .","On the grounds given above , I would conclude that ... the [ police officers ] acted lawfully \u201d .","On DATE the group was notified of this decision . Neither the applicant nor other participants challenged it in court .","On an unspecified date PERSON . informed the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office of the allegedly unlawful police actions which had been performed in connection with the picket of DATE .","The prosecutor \u2019s office examined the case in parallel with the proceedings instituted by the police and held that the rights of the picketers had been violated . It issued notice of violation no . CARDINAL dated DATE which read :","\u201c The prosecutor \u2019s office has examined [ Mr Kh \u2019s ] request . The examination has indicated numerous violations of law in the actions of the police .","ORG , ORG of ORG of ORG SOTSPROF and ORG for the protection of civil rights \u2018 Resonance\u2019 informed the administration about the picket of CARDINAL DATE , which was to be held from TIME Initially , the picketers stood outside the entrance to the [ college ] . Later they entered the ante - room of the office of the head of the [ college ] .","Following the telephone call which was made by [ the head of the college ] , police officers arrived at the scene of the incident . The police officers took the picketers to [ ORG ] ...","Pursuant to [ the provisions of LAW ] , the police should have escorted the picketers in accordance with the provisions of either administrative or criminal law .","[ The police officer ] who escorted the picketers to ORG of the Interior of ORG drew up a report without examining the circumstances surrounding their arrest . The report is unclear as to the commission of precisely which offence the actions of the group could have amounted to .","Simultaneously [ another police officer ] received an oral request for the institution of criminal proceedings against the persons who had organised the unlawful picket near the [ college ] and disturbed the peace . This request was submitted by [ the head of the college ] .","Subsequently , the investigating authorities instituted a preliminary criminal investigation ...","In the present case the police should have conducted a preliminary investigation in accordance with administrative law procedure ...","Article CARDINAL of LAW of GPE entitles [ police officers ] to employ a variety of measures aimed at ensuring the conduct of administrative proceedings . In particular it gives them a right to escort persons and detain them . This power may be exercised in order to stop an administrative offence , to identify an offender , and to draw up an administrative offence record in cases where such a record can not be drawn up at the place of the incident . LAW requires the police to note the execution of an escort operation in an administrative arrest record or to make a special note in an administrative offence record . The act of escorting an individual may be also indicated in an escort operation record . This indicates that administrative proceedings have been instituted . Administrative proceedings should be finalised with a procedural decision .","The inappropriate organisation and conduct of the investigation has resulted in the violation of [ the picketer \u2019s rights ] .","Moreover , following the inquiry conducted under LAW , the police officers did not decide whether or not the demonstrators\u2019 actions had amounted to an administrative offence . The deadline for bringing administrative proceedings as provided by LAW of LAW of GPE has since expired . In accordance with LAW , the administrative proceedings should be discontinued .","In the light of the above circumstances , taking into account LAW On Prosecutor \u2019s Office of GPE , I recommend [ to the Head of the police ] :","That the present recommendations be examined .","That an internal inquiry be carried out to decide whether a disciplinary punishment should be imposed on the police officers .","That it be ensured that all police officers study the administrative legislation ... \u201d","On an unspecified date the police authority notified the picketers of this decision .","On DATE , in response to the prosecutor \u2019s notice of violation of CARDINAL DATE , the police \u2013 having conducted an internal inquiry \u2013 fully endorsed its own previous findings and the conclusions of the report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant and the group of the protesters did not further pursue the institution of proceedings through either the police or the prosecutor \u2019s office .","In DATE the applicant lodged a civil complaint against the police authorities before ORG of ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . She sought a declaration that the actions of the police on DATE had been unlawful because they had breached her freedom of expression , freedom of assembly and right to liberty .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that she should substantiate her claim by providing more evidence concerning the events in question and specifying the names of the policemen involved . She should also be specific as to which actions she considered to have been unlawful . The applicant was given until DATE to correct these shortcomings in her application to the court .","On DATE ORG , at the applicant \u2019s request , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant \u2019s case on the merits . It stated that it had no competence to deal with the applicant \u2019s complaints within the context of civil proceedings , since a criminal investigation in respect of the police officers had been instituted at her request . It concluded that the normal remedy for exhaustion purposes would be to appeal under LAW of the Code of the Criminal Procedure of GPE ( CCrP ) against the police \u2019s decision not to prosecute the police officers . Since the applicant had failed to seek recourse through this remedy , the merits of her claim were left unexamined . The relevant part of this judgment read :","\u201c The court has established that [ the prosecutor \u2019s office ] conducted a preliminary investigation into [ the applicant \u2019s ] arrest and her detention on the premises of ORG of the Interior of ORG on DATE . This investigation resulted in the decision not to institute criminal proceedings . All of the participants in the picket were advised of their right to challenge this decision .","LAW of the ORG sets out special rules governing appeals against the decisions of the police .","In accordance with LAW , a court must refuse to examine a claim on the merits if it can not be examined in civil proceedings .","From the foregoing , the court concludes that it must refuse to examine [ the applicant \u2019s ] claim on the merits ... \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG on appeal , essentially endorsing the reasoning of the lower court . It pointed out that the picketers had been informed of the outcome of their proceedings by the police and the prosecutor \u2019s office . This gave them an opportunity to challenge the relevant decisions in court under LAW of the CCrP. According to the court , they had brought a civil claim falling outside the civil courts\u2019 jurisdiction .","The applicant did not follow the ORG recommendations and did not institute proceedings under LAW of the CCrP.","The LAW guarantees the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and the right to hold meetings , demonstrations , marches and pickets ( DATE ) .","Decree of the Presidium of ORG no . CARDINAL-XI of DATE ( in force at the material time pursuant to NORP Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) provided that organisers of an assembly were to submit written notification to the municipal authorities DATE before the planned assembly ( \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . The authority was to give its response DATE before the assembly ( \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . An assembly could be banned if its purpose was contrary to the LAW or threatened public order or the security of citizens .","Article CARDINAL of LAW of GPE of DATE ( ORG ) states that the escorting or transfer by force of an individual for the purpose of drawing up an administrative offence report DATE if this can not be done at the place where the offence was discovered and if the drawing - up of a report is mandatory \u2013 is to be carried out by the police . The escort operation must be carried out as quickly as possible and it must be recorded in an escort operation report , an administrative offence report or an administrative detention report . The escorted person must be given a copy of the escort operation report if he or she so requests .","Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that administrative arrest , that is to say a temporary restriction of liberty of an individual , may be ordered in exceptional circumstances where it is necessary for a correct and prompt examination of the administrative case .","In accordance with Article CARDINAL of the ORG the administrative arrest must be recorded in a report","Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that the duration of administrative arrest must not exceed TIME , except for situations involving persons subject to administrative proceedings concerning an offence punishable by administrative detention , who may be placed under administrative arrest for a period not exceeding TIME .","Chapter CARDINAL of the CCrP lays down the procedure by which acts or decisions of a court or public official involved in criminal proceedings may be challenged . Acts or omissions of a police officer in charge of the inquiry , an investigator , a prosecutor or a court may be challenged by \u201c parties to criminal proceedings \u201d or by \u201c other persons in so far as the acts and decisions [ in question ] touch upon those ORG interests \u201d ( LAW ) . Those acts or omissions may be challenged before a prosecutor ( LAW ) . Decisions taken by police or prosecution investigators or prosecutors not to initiate criminal proceedings , or to discontinue them , or any other decision or inaction capable of impinging upon the rights of \u201c parties to criminal proceedings \u201d or of \u201c hindering an individual \u2019s access to court \u201d may be subject to judicial review ( LAW ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182223","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LAZORIVA v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Eva Brems;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in PERSON in GPE in DATE . In DATE she moved to GPE in GPE ( which is QUANTITY away from PERSON ) , where she obtained a teaching degree and has been working as a school teacher for DATE .","Her sister , K.T.O. , a NORP national , also lived in GPE for a certain period of time . In DATE K.T.O. gave birth to a girl , ORG , who is also a NORP national . In DATE K.T.O. together with ORG moved to PERSON , where her parents ( the grandparents of ORG ) lived . Subsequently , the grandparents raised PERSON for about ten years .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s parents and ORG moved to GPE , LOC in GPE ( which is QUANTITY away from PERSON and QUANTITY away from GPE ) . In DATE ORG moved to PERSON and , since that time , has lived together with the applicant in her flat .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the mayor of PERSON appointed the applicant as the guardian of ORG , on the grounds that the child \u2019s parents did not take care of her .","On DATE the ORG allowed a claim by the applicant and deprived the parents of ORG of their parental rights in respect of the child , on the grounds that they had failed to take care of her for DATE . No appeal was lodged and on DATE the judgment entered into force . No information was submitted to the ORG as to whether the parents of ORG had been informed of that judgment .","In DATE K.T.O. gave birth to a boy , ORG , whose nationality was disputed by the parties . According to the material submitted by the applicant , K.T.O. , who was raising the child alone , failed to take care of him . For that reason , in DATE ORG ( hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in PERSON ordered his placement in care ( an orphanage ) . In DATE the same court ordered the child \u2019s return to his mother . Subsequently , ORG was taken to an orphanage on CARDINAL other occasions .","NORP The applicant claims that she and her parents visited GPE in PERSON on several occasions and maintained \u201c a close family link \u201d with him . In particular , she referred to her GPE visits in DATE and DATE and her visit in DATE . According to a copy of an undated letter from K.T.O. , the applicant visited her and GPE in PERSON DATE ( no specific dates being indicated ) , and sent them parcels with food and clothes .","In DATE PERSON was taken into care as his mother had left him alone in her flat for TIME .","On DATE the ORG deprived K.T.O. of her parental rights in respect of ORG , holding that she had not cared for him and had not played a part in his upbringing . No appeal was lodged and on DATE the judgment entered into force . No information was submitted to the ORG as to whether the parents of ORG had been informed of that judgment .","On DATE ORG was put on the list of children deprived of parental care who could be adopted . On DATE ORG of the ORG gave ORG the formal status of a child deprived of parental care .","In the meantime , on an unspecified date in DATE ORG had visited ORG to meet ORG She discovered that he had been placed in an orphanage and informed the applicant accordingly . The applicant decided to become her nephew \u2019s legal tutor ( a guardian for children DATE ) . She informed the Tutelage and Guardianship Service of Magadan of her wish to become a tutor , and started collecting documents and certificates to make a formal application . In particular , on DATE her flat was inspected by representatives of ORG , who found that the flat had adequate hygienic and sanitary conditions for the applicant \u2019s family to accommodate GPE","In DATE and DATE the applicant made a number of telephone calls to ORG PERSON and to the orphanage , asking them to take into account that she wished to become ORG \u2019s legal tutor , and that she was preparing the necessary documents to make a formal application .","At the applicant \u2019s request , ORG of Magadan sent a letter to ORG PERSON informing them that she wished to become ORG \u2019s legal tutor and that she had fulfilled her obligations as ORG \u2019s tutor . ORG of Magadan also asked ORG PERSON not to consider other candidates for the role of ORG \u2019s tutor .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG PERSON informed ORG of GPE that they had received the information about the applicant \u2019s wish to become ORG \u2019s legal tutor on DATE . ORG of PERSON further informed ORG of Magadan : that a couple wishing to adopt ORG had been given permission to establish contact with him prior to that date and had already submitted all the necessary documents for his adoption ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) ; that an opinion in favour of that adoption would be issued ; and that , on the basis of such an opinion , the couple would submit an adoption application to ORG in PERSON ( hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . Lastly , ORG PERSON noted that the applicant had the right to lodge a tutelage application with the same court , and advised her to do so \u201c as soon as possible \u201d .","On DATE the Tutelage and Guardianship Service of GPE issued an opinion stating that , given her personal situation and qualities , the applicant could become a legal tutor or guardian .","On DATE the applicant went to PERSON , mainly to initiate procedures with a view to becoming ORG \u2019s tutor and to meet him there . Ultimately , this was not possible , as he had been adopted by ORG and ORG prior to her arrival in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the NORP authorities refused to help her to meet ORG","On DATE a married couple , ORG and ORG , who were on the list of persons wishing to adopt a child , were allowed to meet with ORG at the orphanage .","On DATE they informed ORG that they wished to adopt ORG and asked it to issue an opinion in favour of the adoption .","On DATE ORG of PERSON , acting in the exercise of its childcare related functions , issued an opinion in favour of the requested adoption . According to the committee , ORG and ORG were physically fit and had sufficient funds and facilities to accommodate and take care of ORG They had established contact and a good relationship with the child and , according to the orphanage \u2019s psychologist , the child wished to live in their family , although he could not give written consent as \u201c he did n\u2019t understand what adoption was because of his age \u201d . It was also noted : that the child had a CARDINAL - sister and an aunt who lived in GPE ; that in DATE and DATE the applicant and the GPE authorities , respectively , had informed ORG of her wish to become the child \u2019s legal tutor ; that the applicant had been informed in reply that she could lodge an application for tutelage with a district court ; and that no such application had been lodged . Lastly , the opinion read that , generally , adoption was \u201c the preferred form of [ a child \u2019s ] placement \u201d , and that , in the present case , the adoption would be appropriate and in the interests of the child .","On DATE S.S.V. and S.O.V. lodged an adoption application in respect of ORG with ORG .","On DATE ORG , having examined the case at a closed hearing with the participation of ORG and ORG and representatives from ORG and the orphanage , delivered a judgment granting the adoption . It also ordered that ORG \u2019s surname be changed to that of the adoptive parents and that ORG and ORG be registered respectively as his father and mother instead of his biological parents .","The court essentially relied on the information contained in the opinion of ORG of PERSON . The court held that the requested adoption was in the interests of the child in being raised in \u201c stable life conditions and in [ an atmosphere of ] harmony \u201d .","The applicant was informed of the judgment of DATE following a delay , though she did not specify how long the delay had been .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against that judgment , stating that it had violated her right to become her close relative \u2019s legal tutor and her right to submit arguments against the adoption . In particular , the applicant argued : ( i ) that ORG had failed to take into account the fact that ORG had close relatives , his CARDINAL - sister and aunt , who had not been informed of the proceedings and had not taken part in them ; ( ii ) that ORG had not checked ORG \u2019s nationality ; ( iii ) that ORG was a NORP national , as his biological mother had been a NORP national at the time when he had been born in DATE ; ( iv ) that the procedure provided for in GPE \u2019s relevant international treaties in relation to the adoption of foreign nationals had not been followed ; and ( v ) that ORG had disregarded the fact that she had informed ORG of her wish to become ORG \u2019s legal tutor and the fact that she had been preparing the necessary documents for this .","On DATE K.L.S. sent a letter to ORG stating that she and the rest of her family ( notably her grandparents and the applicant ) had a close connection with ORG and that he wished to live with them .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant \u2019s appeal on the grounds that the judgment did not concern her right or interest in becoming the child \u2019s legal tutor , or any obligations in that regard which in principle could be the subject matter of a separate claim .","The applicant appealed in cassation , mainly arguing that ORG had failed to examine her arguments and that she had been deprived of access to a court , in violation of the procedural rules .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal on the basis that it had not been demonstrated that the contested decision of ORG was unlawful .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions of CARDINAL DATE , on an unspecified date K.T.O. left GPE for GPE and she currently resides with her parents ( the grandparents of GPE ) in GPE .","In DATE the Government submitted a copy of a verbatim record of an interview with ORG which had been carried out by the childcare service in the locality where he had lived with ORG and S.O.V. on DATE . According to that record , the child , inter alia , expressed the wish to continue living with his adoptive parents , who were present during the interview , and said that he had no aunt or uncle . The applicant contended that this information could not be accepted , as it had not been checked with her participation and contradicted other material in the case file ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178907","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BOUDRAA v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant lived in GPE DATE , when he met his wife and got married . The applicant and his wife have CARDINAL children . In DATE the applicant was deported to GPE by the NORP authorities . DATE he was imprisoned in GPE , where he alleges he was subjected to various forms of ill - treatment .","The applicant and several other individuals founded ORG in GPE , a political organisation which opposes that country \u2019s government through non - violent means . After the protest movement known as the NORP Spring began in DATE , he was taken into police custody in GPE and he alleges he was subjected to ill - treatment there .","On an unspecified date he fled from GPE to GPE , where he worked as a teacher . Subsequently , in DATE , he arrived in GPE , GPE , where his wife and children lived .","On DATE he was taken into police custody as he did not have a passport . On DATE , the applicant was placed in a detention room at the NORP police headquarters , where he was detained DATE and DATE .","The applicant submitted that the detention room in which he had been kept was in an ordinary police detention facility where arrestees were held for short periods ( generally DATE ) . During his detention , many people were detained in the room , at times CARDINAL people . The room was QUANTITY m and there was no heating or ventilation , and no bed . Nor did it receive any natural light . He was confined in that room and was exceptionally allowed to use the other parts of the detention facility . He could use the hall in the centre of the facility only when his family members visited him . The applicant was provided with a mattress and a blanket and he slept on the floor . He was never taken out of the detention facility and did not have access to exercise in the open air . The facility had no shower and he therefore had to wash himself in the toilets . As he suffered from asthma , anaemia and back problems , he needed medical assistance . However , he was taken to hospital on CARDINAL occasion .","The applicant submitted a number of photographs in support of his submissions . In CARDINAL of those photographs he is seen sitting on the bench in a small detention room behind bars .","NORP In their submissions dated DATE , the Government submitted that the applicant had been detained in the \u201c custody cell \u201d of the public security branch of the NORP police headquarters . The custody cell in question was used as a ORG detention centre because there was no separate ORG detention centre in GPE at that time . The Government stated that the custody facility measured MONEY . m and consisted of CARDINAL detention rooms of QUANTITY m and QUANTITY m , CARDINAL toilets ( QUANTITY . m respectively ) , a room for the taking of police statements of QUANTITY . m , a room used for interviews between arrestees and their lawyers of QUANTITY m , and an identification parade room of QUANTITY m. There was also a hall in the centre of the facility , which measured QUANTITY . m , onto which the detention rooms opened . The hall had an air conditioner and CARDINAL windows measuring QUANTITY and QUANTITY which provided natural light for the detention rooms .","In their additional observations dated DATE , the Government submitted that foreign nationals and NORP nationals detained in the context of criminal investigations were kept separately in CARDINAL detention rooms in the facility in question . They stated that at the material time the NORP nationals had been kept locked in one of the detention rooms and that the applicant and other foreign nationals had had access at all times to the hall in the centre of the facility \u2212 where there were chairs and a table \u2013 and to the toilets . When there were no NORP national detainees , the foreign nationals also had access to both detention rooms .","NORP In support of their submissions the Government submitted a sketch map of the detention facility and a total of CARDINAL photographs . CARDINAL of these photographs were taken outside and show the police station building . CARDINAL photographs were taken in the toilets , which appeared clean . There is a shower head installed in each of the toilets . CARDINAL other photographs show the room for the taking of police statements , the room used for interviews between arrestees and their lawyers , and the identification parade room . Lastly , CARDINAL further photographs show the detention rooms and the hall . It is apparent that the detention rooms are separated from the hall by bars . There are no beds in the detention rooms but along their CARDINAL walls there are concrete benches topped with a cushion . On the benches there are blankets , apparently used both for covering and as pillows . The detention rooms do not have windows but appear to receive light from the hall . The photographs of the hall show that there are CARDINAL windows , a table and chairs on which towels were put in that area .","The Government also submitted custody registers showing the occupation rates at the detention facility for the period DATE and DATE . According to those documents , the applicant was detained alone for DATE and for DATE he was detained together with between CARDINAL and CARDINAL foreign nationals . On DATE there were CARDINAL foreign nationals , including the applicant , detained at the facility . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained together with CARDINAL other foreign nationals .","For DATE between DATE and DATE , there had been no NORP nationals detained at the facility . In particular , on CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE no NORP national had been held in custody . During the remaining DATE , a minimum of CARDINAL and a maximum of CARDINAL NORP nationals had been in detention , except for DATE , when CARDINAL NORP nationals had been held in police custody . In particular , on QUANTITY DATE CARDINAL NORP national had been detained at the facility in question .","On DATE the applicant lodged an individual application with ORG . The applicant alleged , inter alia , that the conditions of his detention at the NORP police headquarters described above had amounted to illtreatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the Constitutional Court delivered its decision on the admissibility and merits of the applicant \u2019s case . As regards the applicant \u2019s complaint that the conditions of his detention at the NORP police headquarters had amounted to ill - treatment , ORG noted that he had complained that his health had worsened as a result of the conditions in which he had been detained . Since the applicant had been provided with medical assistance when he had fallen ill in detention , ORG found that the administrative authorities had taken the necessary measures to protect the applicant \u2019s physical and psychological health . As a result , the court concluded that the treatment of the applicant had not attained the minimum level of severity required to be described as inhuman or degrading treatment .","On DATE ORG decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159565","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"MUNTEANU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG . ORG , who had been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings , under LAW , gave no indication that they wished to do so .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was charged , together with CARDINAL NORP citizens , with fraud , initiating and belonging to an organised crime group , forgery and money laundering . The prosecutor \u2019s decision stated that the applicant had imported car tyres into GPE , and through several offshore companies and using falsified customs documents had avoided paying customs duties .","On DATE the applicant was placed in pre - trial detention for DATE . The prosecutor requested an extension , but this was rejected by ORG on DATE . The court held that after the applicant \u2019s placement in pre - trial detention , the prosecutor had not produced any new evidence to prove he was guilty of the crimes he had been charged with .","On DATE ORG of ORG and ORG imposed a preventive measure on the applicant , banning him from leaving GPE for DATE so that the investigation into the above - mentioned crimes could continue . This preventive measure was extended on a DATE basis by decisions of the case prosecutor .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the prosecutor \u2019s decision to extend the ban on him leaving GPE from DATE until DATE . He applied to have the measure revoked , arguing that no new investigative steps had been taken by the prosecutors in the meantime , and that the measure taken against him had been extended automatically without taking into consideration his specific situation , namely that he was not a NORP citizen and that his wife , CARDINAL young children and parents all resided in GPE and needed a visa to travel to GPE . The applicant also argued that extending the measure for DATE would be contrary to LAW .","In the meantime , before a decision was taken on his complaint , the applicant was allowed by the prosecutor to leave GPE for DATE to visit his sick father in GPE .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant\u2019CARDINAL of LAW . The court held that the prosecutor \u2019s decision had not provided any new reasons to extend the preventive measure taken against the applicant . In addition , it held that the prosecutor had not proved there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the crimes he had been charged with . The judgment became final on DATE , when an appeal by the prosecutor on points of law ( recurs ) was rejected by ORG .","On DATE the applicant was free to leave GPE and he returned to GPE .","The relevant provisions of LAW in force at the time are as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) In cases concerning offences punishable with imprisonment , to ensure the proper conduct of the criminal trial or to prevent the suspect or defendant from fleeing during the criminal investigation , trial or ... execution of the sentence , CARDINAL of the following preventive measures may be imposed : ...","( b ) a ban on leaving town ;","( c ) a ban on leaving the country ; ...","( CARDINAL) The measure to be taken shall be chosen taking into account its purpose , the severity of the crime , the health , age , [ and any ] previous convictions or other circumstances [ of ] the person on whom the measure is to be imposed . \u201d","\u201c A person charged with an offence or a defendant may complain about a ... ban on leaving town or the country within DATE of its adoption by the prosecutor ...","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ... A measure not to leave town may be extended in the course of the criminal investigation if necessary and only by a reasoned decision . The extension may be ordered by the prosecutor conducting or supervising the investigation , each not exceeding DATE . The maximum duration of the measure provided for in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) in the course of a criminal investigation is DATE . Exceptionally , where the punishment is life imprisonment or detention of DATE or more , the maximum duration of the ban on leaving town may be DATE . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The provisions of Article CARDINAL also apply to bans on leaving the country . \u201d","NORP The relevant provisions of LAW in force at the relevant time are as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG which had very serious consequences shall be punished with CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and the interdiction of certain rights . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161227","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"KECOJEVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a LOC national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . She is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the President of the Municipality of ORG issued a decision appointing a ORG ( ORG za povra\u0107aj i obe\u0161te\u0107enje , hereinafter \u201c the Commission \u201d ) . This decision was not confirmed by ORG and the remuneration of the members of the Commission was never specified . ORG functioned until DATE , when it was replaced by a new one . The applicant was a member of both Commissions .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against the GPE seeking compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL in respect of remuneration for her work in the ORG DATE and DATE , as she had not been paid during the said period .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in ORG ruled against the applicant on the ground that the ORG had had no legitimacy during the specified time , given that the decision on its appointment had not been confirmed by ORG , and as the remuneration for the said period had never been defined .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE upheld the first - instance judgment , essentially endorsing the reasons contained therein .","On DATE ORG in GPE overturned a firstinstance judgment issued in respect of CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s colleagues , and awarded him compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of remuneration for his work in the same Commission in the same period , plus accompanying interest and the costs of the proceedings . In doing so the court held , in particular , that the Commission had had a temporary character by virtue of the law itself and that therefore the firstinstance court \u2019s conclusion that it had lacked legitimacy was wrong . Also section CARDINAL of ORG DATE specifically provided that if the ORG did not confirm a certain decision or the President of the Municipality did not submit it for confirmation , the decision would cease to be in force as of DATE when the ORG terminated its session . Therefore , it had to be considered that the ORG had ceased to operate when the decision on its appointment was not confirmed , that is on DATE in the given case . The court noted that ORG had also taken into account that no act defined remuneration of the members of the Commission . However , ORG held that , pursuant to CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG , members of ORG had the status of civil servants , and were therefore entitled to remuneration . In any event claimants should not suffer any detriment on account of the legislature \u2019s failure to define the exact amount of their remuneration .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provided that ORG would establish ORG within DATE as of the date when this Act entered into force . LAW ( CARDINAL ) further provided , inter alia , that members of the ORG had the status of civil servants .","This Act entered into force on DATE .","The said amendments introduced section ORG , which specified that the President of the Municipality could temporarily issue decisions falling within the ORG \u2019s competence , if the ORG could not convene or for some other reason it was impossible for it to work and the said decisions were of interest for exercising ORG rights and freedoms . The President of the GPE had to submit such a decision to the ORG for its confirmation as soon as the ORG could convene .","Section QUANTITY provides that the president of the GPE can temporarily issue decisions falling within the ORG \u2019s competence , if the ORG can not convene or for some other reason it is impossible for it to work , and the absence of these decisions would endanger lives or property of great value . The President of the GPE shall submit such a decision to the ORG for its confirmation at its first session . If the ORG does not confirm such a decision or the President does not submit it for confirmation , the decision shall cease to be in force ( prestaje da va\u017ei ) on DATE when the session of the ORG terminates .","This Act entered into force on DATE except for LAW V , including section DATE , which was to enter into force as of the next local elections , which took place in ORG on DATE . Until then the relevant provisions of the earlier Act , including section ORG , continued in force .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) in force at the time provided , inter alia , that an appeal on points of law against a second - instance decision would not be admissible in pecuniary matters unless the value of the claim exceeded ORG CARDINAL . Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) provided that exceptionally to the previous provision , an appeal on points of law was always admissible in disputes \u201c for loss of earnings or other work - related income when these compensations were established or quashed for the first time \u201d ( zbog izgubljene zarade ili drugih prihoda po osnovu rada kada su te od\u0161tete prvi put odre\u0111ene ili ukinute ) .","Sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL set out details as to employment - related disputes . Section CARDINAL provided in particular that an appeal on points of law was allowed only in disputes relating to employment , as well as continuation and termination thereof .","Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , taken together , provided that ORG , when deciding upon an appeal on points of law , could either overturn the second - instance decision in cases when the substantive law was misapplied , or quash it and order a re - trial when the facts were incompletely established due to a misapplication of substantive law ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158472","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MYUMYUN v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Pavlina Panova;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of PERSON .","In TIME DATE PERSON and PERSON , officers of the PERSON police force , went to the applicant \u2019s house in connection with a complaint that a burglary had taken place DATE , on DATE . They were making inquiries into the matter but a formal criminal investigation had not yet been opened . The applicant was not home but the officers obtained his mobile telephone number from his wife and called him , telling him to appear at the police station for inquiries .","The applicant went to the police station at TIME According to the findings of the criminal courts which later examined the events ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) , he was taken to a room where there were Mr N.K. , Mr PERSON and a third officer . PERSON asked the applicant whether he had anything to tell them . After the third officer had gone out of the room , Mr PERSON took out a wooden bat and hit the applicant \u2019s left shoulder . He hit him again and the applicant fell to the ground . After that PERSON kicked him with his knee and repeatedly hit him with a rubber truncheon . Some time after that another officer , PERSON , came into the room carrying an electroshock prod . He administered an electric shock to the applicant \u2019s left leg . The applicant curled up on the floor , while PERSON and Mr PERSON kept beating him . The beating continued intermittently for some time , and the applicant was able to stand up on his feet . Another officer came into the room for a while . After he left , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON again administered electric shocks to the applicant and carried on hitting and kicking him . At CARDINAL point , when the applicant \u2019s head was low down , he was kicked on the nose and started bleeding , and the beating stopped .","The blows sustained by the applicant caused a haematoma on his nose and haematomas and bruises on the upper left back , the left side of the torso and the left shoulder .","At TIME Mr PERSON drew up a written statement on behalf of the applicant that said that he knew nothing of the reported burglary , and presented it to the applicant for signature . The applicant was released at TIME","DATE , DATE , the applicant was examined by a forensic doctor who noted the numerous haematomas and bruises on his face and upper body , which he believed to have been caused by \u201c hard blunt objects and objects with cylindrical form \u201d .","On DATE the applicant complained about the incident to a member of ORG , who forwarded his complaint to the prosecuting authorities . As a result , ORG opened criminal proceedings against the CARDINAL officers who had ill - treated the applicant , and on DATE charged them with causing him minor bodily harm while carrying out their duties , an offence under LAW ) read in conjunction with LAW of LAW DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case informed the applicant that , since the penalty for this offence was up to one DATE \u2019s imprisonment , the ORG criminal liability would be waived and replaced with administrative penalties , as required under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to consider bringing charges against the officers under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He pointed out that under this ORG \u2019s case - law a mere fine , which was all that the charges under LAW ( CARDINAL ) read in conjunction with LAW could lead to , was not an adequate penalty for the ill - treatment suffered by him . On DATE that office replied that it had no competence to investigate and prosecute offences under that provision .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to consider bringing charges against the officers under LAW of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , pointing out that that office was competent to investigate and prosecute such offences . It does not appear that he received a reply .","NORP The prosecuting authorities maintained the original charges and on CARDINAL DATE proposed to ORG to waive the ORG criminal liability and replace it with administrative penalties , as possible under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , when setting the case down for trial , ORG noted that although the applicant had expressed the intention of bringing a civil claim when the case came for trial , under the applicable rules of criminal procedure that was not possible in proceedings under LAW of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; the applicant was to be notified accordingly .","On DATE the applicant asked the court to refer the case back to the prosecuting authorities for them to consider whether the officers had committed an offence under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The same day the judge rapporteur advised the applicant that his request could not be allowed because he was not party to the proceedings : under the relevant rules of criminal procedure the alleged victim of the offence could not take part as a civil claimant or private prosecutor in proceedings under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was moreover up to the prosecuting authorities to decide what charges to press . In any event , LAW did not apply to the facts as recited in the indictment . According to them , the applicant had been ill - treated before the institution of criminal proceedings in relation to the burglary in which he would have a capacity as a person charged with a criminal offence or a witness , which was a required element of the offence . Criminal law provisions could not be interpreted broadly .","The ORG trial took place on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG , based on the findings of fact made by it ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , held that PERSON , PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON , acting in concert , had wilfully caused the applicant light bodily harm , contrary to LAW ) read in conjunction with LAW of LAW DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The court went on to hold that the case fell under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that the LAW criminal liability was therefore to be waived and replaced by administrative fines ranging from MONEY ( ORG ) . In fixing the quantum of the fines , the court found that the ORG good character and their having caused the applicant the least serious type of bodily harm under the Code were mitigating factors , whereas their having acted jointly and having infringed the applicant \u2019s rights under the Convention were aggravating ones . It also took into account the ORG family and financial situation , noting in particular that the DATE salary of the first was BGN CARDINAL and those of the other CARDINAL BGN CARDINAL each . Based on all that , it held that the aims of the punishment could be attained by giving each of the officers a fine of ORG CARDINAL ( the equivalent of QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) . There was no need additionally to disqualify them from working as police officers under LAW ( see paragraph DATE in fine below ) . The fines were sufficient to make them rethink their conduct and refrain from resorting to violence in the future .","NORP The officers appealed against that judgment , but on DATE it was fully upheld by ORG , whose judgment was final . That court reviewed of its own motion the penalties imposed on the officers and fully agreed with the reasons given by the lower court on that point .","Following a complaint by the applicant , on DATE ORG opened an internal inquiry into the allegations that he had been ill - treated . On DATE it informed the applicant that it had recommended the opening of disciplinary proceedings against the CARDINAL officers . As a result of those proceedings , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , PERSON and Mr PERSON were punished with non - admission to promotion competitions for DATE for having unlawfully detained the applicant , whereas Mr T.A. was not given a disciplinary penalty . The disciplinary commission found that none of the CARDINAL officers had ill - treated the applicant .","In DATE the applicant brought a claim for damages under LAW DATE against ORG . ORG heard the case on DATE , and in a judgment of DATE found the PERSON Regional Police Directorate liable for the ill - treatment suffered by the applicant at the hands of the CARDINAL officers , and awarded him ORG CARDINAL ( the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL ) , plus interest , in non - pecuniary damages . The court noted , in particular , that the ill - treatment to which the applicant had been subjected had not been provoked by him in any way , and that it had caused him physical pain for DATE . It had also caused him to feel apprehensive and uneasy when going out of his home because of fear that he might be illtreated again .","It appears that that judgment has not yet become final ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145704","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RADOVANOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was employed by \u201c PERSON \u0111ubriva \u201d DATE , a socially \/ ORG - owned company based in GPE ( hereinafter \u2013 \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG , by a court order , gave effect to a settlement made by the applicant and the debtor . According to that settlement the debtor had to pay the applicant certain sums in respect of salary arrears and costs of proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with ORG .","On DATE the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring .","On DATE the applicant requested the court to continue the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the court continued the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed again because the debtor was undergoing restructuring .","On DATE the applicant requested the court once again to continue the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the court considered the request of CARDINAL DATE to be a fresh application for the enforcement of the decision of QUANTITY DATE and ordered the applicant to submit again a copy of that decision .","As the applicant failed to comply with this this request on DATE the court terminated the enforcement .","On DATE ORG ruled in the favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him certain sums in respect of salary arrears and costs of proceedings . This judgment became final on the same date .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with ORG .","On DATE the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtor was undergoing restructuring .","On DATE the applicant requested the court to continue the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the court continued the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed again because the debtor was undergoing restructuring .","On DATE ORG ordered the restructuring of the debtor as part of privatisation process . The restructuring of the debtor is still ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144329","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"M.P. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants are PERSON , her husband PERSON , and their son PERSON They are all NORP nationals , born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively ; they all live in GPE and were represented before the Court by Mr P. Pop , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG were represented by their Agent , Ms C. Brumar , from ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarized as follows .","PERSON , mother of a DATE child from a previous marriage , had been informed by doctors that she could no longer conceive naturally ; together with her husband , PERSON , she decided to have recourse to artificial insemination procedures in order to have a child .","The applicants contacted doctor PERSON , an obstetrician at the \u201c Prof . Dr Panait S\u00e2rbu \u201d Obstetrics and ORG in GPE ( hereafter \u201c the hospital \u201d ) to that end . They informed the doctor that PERSON first child had been born with a congenital malformation ( tibial agenesis , or hemimelia ) and asked for further information concerning the risk that the future child could be born with the same condition . They explained to the doctor that if such a risk existed they would not proceed with the insemination .","Doctor PERSON assured them that the first child \u2019s situation was exceptional and that there was no risk of another child being born with the same disability .","They were then referred to doctor ORG in order to have the standard procedural tests carried out . They enquired again about the risk of having another baby with the same malformation and about the possibility of running genetic tests in order to rule out this issue . The doctor assured them that the chances of it happening were minimal ( CARDINAL ) ; therefore no other tests were performed .","The artificial insemination was scheduled for DATE and it resulted in the first applicant \u2019s pregnancy .","In the first trimester of the pregnancy the first applicant underwent several tests recommended by doctor PERSON , who also referred her to doctor D.A. for further ultrasound scans . She allegedly told the latter about her fears concerning the risk of the baby developing the same malformation as her first child . However , she was reassured each time that everything concerning the development of the unborn child was normal .","During CARDINAL of the ultrasound scans , performed in DATE of pregnancy , doctor ORG , an echographer , informed the applicants that he had noticed a difference between the CARDINAL legs of the foetus , but reassured them that it was likely that that was an error , as the difference was minor and the foetus did present both a tibia and a femoral bone .","This information was conveyed to doctor PERSON , who concluded that no special issue arose .","The first applicant decided to seek further tests , however . To that aim , she contacted a private clinic , GPE , where on DATE she underwent a CARDINAL - dimensional ultrasound scan , performed by doctor D.A. At the relevant time the applicant was in DATE of pregnancy .","The doctor detected a peculiar position of the toes in relation to the leg ( planta \u00een pozi\u0163ie valg fa\u0163\u0103 de planul frontal al gambei ) , reassuring PERSON nevertheless that the legs of the foetus were normally developed . He further detected foetal distress in the brain ( suferin\u0163\u0103 fetal\u0103 la nivel cerebral ) and recommended that the applicant contact her obstetrician .","After consulting with her obstetrician , on DATE the first applicant was hospitalized ; PERSON and the foetus were monitored until DATE , when she was released from hospital as there were no further indications of foetal distress .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to hospital for the birth ; she was immediately referred to doctor C. , who later assisted the applicant during the birth . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant gave birth to a baby boy ( the third applicant ) ; he presented a malformation of one of his legs that was identical to that of his older brother .","Doctor PERSON visited DATE ; referring to the child \u2019s disability , the doctor offered his support in finding an association which could help the applicants financially .","DATE after giving birth to M .- D.P. , and despite the ORG conclusion that she could not become pregnant naturally , PERSON GPE discovered that she was expecting a third baby . Together with her husband , she decided to have an abortion , fearing that the third child would be born with the same disability .","NORP On DATE the applicants brought an action against doctors ORG , ORG and GPE , as well as against the hospital , the private clinic GPE , ORG and ORG , represented by ORG .","On behalf of their younger son , they requested a DATE lifetime allowance of CARDINAL old NORP lei ( ROL ) ; in their own name , they asked for ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage incurred on account of the birth of a disabled child , who needed frequent medical interventions due to his disability .","The applicants claimed that the defendants were liable for negligence in performing their medical duties , namely , that the doctors had failed to adequately inform them prior to the artificial insemination of the potential risk that the new baby could be born with the same disability as his older brother ; and that they subsequently failed to adequately monitor the development of the foetus and also misinterpreted the results of the ultrasound examinations , telling them that the baby was developing normally and thus misleading them . The applicants reiterated that if they had been aware of the risks involved , they would have not undergone the artificial insemination to begin with , and in any event , they would have decided on an abortion , so as to spare the child of a life of pain and suffering on account of his disability .","Referring to \u201c the LOC superficiality \u201d in dealing with their case , the applicants highlighted that in spite of the diagnosis according to which PERSON could no longer become pregnant naturally , she had become pregnant unexpectedly and found herself compelled to have an abortion for fear of having another disabled child .","On DATE a report containing the conclusions of doctor PERSON , an expert in genetics from ORG , was adduced as evidence .","In reply to the CARDINAL questions put by the court , the expert gave her opinion , which its relevant parts held as follows :","\u201c The [ peculiar ] position of the toes in relation to the leg indicate a congenital malformation [ question no . CARDINAL ] ...","\u201c The recommended measure [ for diagnosing a genetic anomaly of the specified type ] is a foetal morphological ultrasound scan , performed in DATE of pregnancy . The lower limbs are visible from DATE of pregnancy , but the toes only from DATE . The period of DATE is optimal for visualising the foetal structures and for making the choice of whether to continue or to terminate the pregnancy . [ question no . CARDINAL ] ...","Pre - conception diagnosis can not be performed in the case of tibial agenesis ( tibial hemimelia ) .... The gene responsible for this condition is not known and the genetic defect potentially responsible for tibial agenesis is beneath the resolution threshold of cytogenetic testing ( karyotyping ) .","A prenatal diagnosis can be made by performing an ultrasound scan ( foetal morphological ultrasound ) in DATE of pregnancy . [ question no . CARDINAL ] ...","Conclusions","In a case where the parents of a child with tibial agenesis have given birth to a second child with the same congenital malformation following a pregnancy resulting from artificial insemination , it would have been advisable for a genetic consultation to be carried out before conception of a second child , together with rigorous ultrasound monitoring of the second pregnancy in order for the specific ultrasound warning signs to be identified in time .","It would also have been essential to inform the parents about this anomaly ( tibial agenesis ) and about the possibilities for treatment , given that surgical orthopaedic treatment is possible . \u201d","On DATE ORG rendered its judgment . The court held that due to medical negligence , PERSON had suffered damage , namely , \u201c the birth of a child with a congenital anomaly \u201d . The court stated that her right to be correctly informed about the state of health of her unborn child had been infringed ; implicitly , her right to choose whether or not to give birth to a child suffering from a congenital malformation was equally infringed .","The court found doctor GPE responsible in her capacity as a geneticist for not discharging her duty of care in assessing the applicant \u2019s condition before the artificial insemination , despite having been informed that her first child had been born with a malformation . It concluded that the doctor had failed to proceed to further testing of the applicant in order to clarify her situation and thus inform her about the existing risks associated with a pregnancy , which would have given the parents the opportunity to assess their options .","Regarding the responsibility of doctor ORG , the court concluded that he had failed to correctly interpret the results of the ultrasound scan performed during DATE of pregnancy , which had revealed a problem with the foetus \u2019s legs . It further stated that in such circumstances the doctor had been under an obligation to refer the applicant for further testing and to recommend a CARDINAL - dimensional ultrasound scan .","Doctor PERSON was cleared of responsibility on account of the fact that he had been the only doctor to correctly interpret the results of the threedimensional ultrasound scan performed during DATE of pregnancy , on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As regards doctor PERSON , the applicant \u2019s obstetrician , the court found that he was responsible for not recommending the CARDINAL - dimensional ultrasound scan in time for the malformation to be promptly discovered DATE DATE ) and also for misinterpreting and ignoring the results of the scan when it was performed in DATE of pregnancy , in spite of the fact that it had revealed an anomaly in the foetus \u2019s legs .","The hospital was held jointly liable with the doctors in respect of the payment of damages .","The court referred only to the first applicant in its reasoning ; however , it stated in its conclusion that the damages awarded consisted of the payment of a DATE allowance for the third applicant as requested , as well as of compensation for pecuniary damage ( in the amount of CARDINAL new NORP lei ( PERSON ) ) and non - pecuniary damage ( in the amount of PERSON CARDINAL ) for both parents .","The parties held responsible appealed against the judgment .","In its decision of DATE , ORG reassessed the merits of the case and dismissed the applicants\u2019 action . The court concluded that doctor PERSON had performed her duties in accordance with her professional obligations ; the fact that she had not recommended further tests to the applicant did not make her responsible for any damage , in so far as , according to the expert \u2019s conclusions , the only way to detect the malformation was by means of a CARDINAL - dimensional ultrasound scan performed up to DATE of pregnancy , and that preinsemination tests would not have revealed with certainty the risk of such a condition .","As to the responsibility of doctor PERSON , the court stated that he could not be held liable in so far as the applicants had been informed that there was a risk of CARDINAL of having a second child with the same malformation .","Regarding doctor ORG , the court noted that the problem he had discovered during the ultrasound scan performed on DATE concerned the femoral bone , whereas the malformation the third applicant was born with affected the tibia .","The court further stated that in any case , a termination of pregnancy could only be carried out up to DATE , at which stage it was impossible to detect that kind of malformation .","The applicants appealed against that decision .","On DATE ORG gave its final judgment , partly allowing the appeal .","The court examined each of the applicants\u2019 complaints , namely , that the doctors had not informed them of the risk of giving birth to a child with a malformation ; that they had not prescribed all the necessary genetic tests and examinations to detect the risk of a genetic malformation ; that they had wrongly interpreted the results of the few ultrasound scans the applicant underwent during her pregnancy .","NORP The court rejected the first complaint as ill - founded , in so far as the patients had been informed that the risk of having a child with a genetic anomaly was CARDINAL .","The second complaint was also dismissed in view of the fact that , as revealed by the medical report adduced in the case , no genetic tests or examinations that could have revealed the above - mentioned risk existed .","In relation to the third complaint , the court held that according to the evidence in the case , the patient had been closely monitored during her pregnancy , with ultrasound examinations performed DATE . However , the medical report concluded that the lower limbs were visible from DATE , while the toes could be seen from DATE , an optimal interval therefore being DATE . In such circumstances , the court considered that the interpretation of the ultrasound scans performed was problematic , in so far as more attention should have been paid to the particularities of the case and , potentially , more in - depth ultrasound tests should have been prescribed .","The damage therefore consisted of the birth of a child with a genetic malformation .","From this perspective , the court held that concerning the minor child , there was no causal link between the medical wrongdoing and the alleged damage , in so far as the result of a faultless medical procedure would have been an abortion . Thus , and in view of the importance of the right to life , it could not be considered that it would have been better for the child not to have been born , having regard also to the fact that the malformation in question was not capable of substantially affecting the quality of the child \u2019s life . It transpired from the file that the malformation could be corrected in the future by surgery .","The parents , however , had incurred concrete damage , in so far as had they known about the disease , they would have been able to decide whether to keep the child or to opt for an abortion .","The court dismissed the claims concerning the pecuniary damage , in so far as the applicants had failed to substantiate it by means of relevant medical bills and documents . Moreover , the state social security system fully covered the costs of the necessary prosthesis for the patient .","The court of appeal further awarded PERSON and PERSON RON CARDINAL,CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage , to be paid by doctor PERSON , ecographer , jointly with the hospital ; the doctor was held liable for negligence as he was the only one who could have detected the malformation in time for the applicants to be able to make a decision about terminating the pregnancy . In awarding this amount , the court also took into consideration the fact that the applicants had been informed that the risk of their child being born with a disability was CARDINAL\/CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , and that they had decided to take that risk .","According to the information submitted by the parties , since DATE the third applicant has received various prostheses at a general rate of DATE , meaning that by DATE , he had undergone QUANTITY changes of prosthesis . In DATE he had major surgery , involving an amputation below the knee , which enabled him to be fitted with a more advanced prosthesis in DATE .","Article CARDINAL of LAW on the illegal causing of abortion read at the relevant time as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The act of interrupting the course of pregnancy , by any means , committed in CARDINAL of the following circumstances : [ ... ]","( c ) if the age of the embryo has exceeded DATE ;","is punishable by imprisonment from DATE . ...","Interruption to the course of pregnancy by a physician is not punishable in the following situations :","( a ) NORP if interruption to the course of pregnancy was necessary in order to save the pregnant woman \u2019s life , [ or protect her ] health or bodily integrity from a serious and imminent danger that could not have otherwise been removed ;","( b ) in the case in para ( CARDINAL ) c ) , when interruption to the course of pregnancy was necessary for therapeutic reasons , in accordance with legal provisions ;","( c ) in the case in para ( CARDINAL ) when the pregnant woman was unable to express her will , and the interruption was necessary for therapeutic reasons , in accordance with legal provisions . \u201d","The relevant domestic provisions regarding the civil liability of medical staff are described in PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE .","A draft law on healthy procreation and medically assisted human procreation ( no . LCARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) was rejected by the ORG on DATE following a decision of ORG finding several sections of the draft law to be in breach of the provisions of LAW .","Law no . CARDINAL on the healthcare reform indicates in its articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL that the health insurance system is the main provider of healthcare , prosthetics included .","Law no . DATE on the protection of persons with disabilities provides in its articles CARDINAL that these persons are entitled to have a personal care giver , remunerated with approximately ORG CARDINAL DATE ; article CARDINAL further provides that the families having a disabled child are entitled to a fixed DATE allowance of approximately ORG CARDINAL ; the disabled child would receive twice the amount of a normal child allowance , reaching about ORG DATE .","\u201c An intervention in the health field may only be carried out after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it .","This person shall beforehand be given appropriate information as to the purpose and nature of the intervention as well as on its consequences and risks .","The person concerned may freely withdraw consent at any time . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to respect for private life in relation to information about his or her health . \u201d","...","\u201c The person who has suffered undue damage resulting from an intervention is entitled to fair compensation according to the conditions and procedures prescribed by law . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The techniques of artificial procreation may be used only if the persons concerned have given their free , informed consent , explicitly and in writing , in accordance with national requirements .","NORP Before obtaining such consent , the physician and the establishment using the techniques of artificial procreation must ensure that the persons concerned are given appropriate information and counselling about the possible medical , legal , social and , where relevant , genetic implications of this treatment , particularly , those which might affect the interests of the child to be born . \u201d","\u201c The information given during the counselling prior to prenatal genetic screening and prenatal genetic diagnosis must be adapted to the person \u2019s circumstances and be sufficient to reach a fully informed decision . This information should in particular cover the purpose of the tests and their nature as well as any risks which these tests present . \u201d","\u201c Where there is an increased risk of passing on a serious genetic disorder , access to preconception counselling and , if necessary , premarital and preconception screening and diagnostic services should be readily available and widely known . \u201d","\u201c ( a ) Any preventive , diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior , free and informed consent of the person concerned , based on adequate information . The consent should , where appropriate , be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice . \u201d","\u201c Appropriate assessment and adequate management of risk related to medicine , life sciences and associated technologies should be promoted . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168858","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KRAVETS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","NORP The applicant complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . He also raised a complaint under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147671","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MANOLOV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was arrested and detained in investigation detention facilities in GPE and GPE in the framework of a criminal investigation against him . On DATE he was transferred to ORG .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of a number of violent offences committed DATE and DATE and sentenced him to death . On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction but , following the abolition of the death penalty with effect from DATE and the concomitant introduction of the sentence of life imprisonment without commutation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , replaced his sentence with life imprisonment without commutation .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from ORG to FAC , where he has been serving his sentence ever since . By order of the prison governor , he was placed alone in a constantly locked cell , as required under the legal provisions governing the regime of life prisoners ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In a decision of DATE , which became final on DATE , ORG decided that the applicant was to serve his sentence under the \u201c special regime \u201d applicable to life prisoners at that time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE a special commission in charge of deciding on changes in a prisoner \u2019s regime decided to place the applicant under the \u201c enhanced regime \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , when the Execution of Punishments and Pre - Trial Detention Act DATE superseded LAW DATE , the applicant was placed under the \u201c severe \u201d regime ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . His continued to be kept isolated from the rest of the prison population , as normally required under the relevant provisions of the CARDINAL Act and the regulations for its application ( ibid . ) . The above - mentioned commission has apparently not decided to place the applicant together with the main prison population , as permitted under those provisions under certain conditions ( ibid . ) .","In FAC , the applicant was kept in an individual cell measuring QUANTITY . The Government submitted that not later than DATE significant improvements had been made to that cell . In particular , central heating was installed and the old wooden window frames were replaced by modern ones measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and providing enough temperature isolation and access to sunlight . According to evidence put before ORG and its judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , those works were completed in DATE .","At all relevant times the applicant \u2019s cell contained an in - cell toilet and a water tap .","The applicant \u2019s assertions in respect of the material conditions of his detention are voluminous and lack clarity in that grievances apparently relating to different periods of time are not clearly distinguished . The applicant alleged that during unspecified periods of his incarceration in GPE he had encountered the following problems : food had been substandard and insufficient in quantity , with some meals containing pieces of plastic , hairs and fur , and the meat meals often containing meat substitutes or no meat at all ; the plates in which the food was being served had been dirty and greasy ; tap water had been muddy ; there had been iron pieces bulging from the bed - spring which had made his bed very uncomfortable , and the bedding provided had been unclean ; the taking of a shower ( TIME ) and applicant \u2019s visits to the doctor had been counted as part of his DATE outdoor activities ; the yard in which he took his DATE outdoor exercise had not had toilet facilities , which had prevented him from relieving his needs before the end of the exercise period , and inmates had not been provided with waterproof clothing when spending time outdoors ; guard dogs had been placed QUANTITY from the window of the applicant \u2019s cell and with their constant barking at night had prevented him from sleeping ; other inmates and the applicant himself had found and killed rats in the cells ; the temperature in the applicant \u2019s cell had not risen QUANTITY in DATE and the heating coal provided in DATE had been insufficient ; there had been no heating in the bathroom and inmates had been freezing when taking showers in DATE ; the applicant \u2019s cell lacked sufficient sunlight ; for a long time the cell \u2019s floor had been left riddled with holes and not covered with linoleum ; and the cleaning products provided for the in - cell toilet had been insufficient , consisting of CARDINAL spoonfuls of chlorine a month , which had made the smell unbearable as the main part of the cell was only separated from the toilet area by a screen .","The evidence submitted by the applicant in support of those allegations consisted of his own statements , a statement written in the same handwriting as in all other letters sent by the applicant but co - signed by CARDINAL other inmates on an unspecified date , and copies of CARDINAL complaints that the applicant had sent to the prison administration and various other authorities DATE and of some of the replies received . The vast majority of those complaints concerned the food served in prison : concrete instances in which the applicant had allegedly not received a full portion , yoghurt had been missing , the food had had a bad taste or smell , or meat had not been provided or had been of low quality . Some of those complaints had been acknowledged as well - founded by the prison administration and the applicant had been assured that measures would be taken .","In some of those complaints the applicant raised concerns in relation to the poor quality of coal given to inmates before the installation of a central heating system in DATE , the fact that bed linen or clothes had not been properly washed , the choice of products available for purchase at the prison canteen , and the fact that a refrigerator in the canteen used to store personal food items had not functioned for a certain period of time .","For their part , the Government denied the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning the material conditions of his detention . They said that the quality and quantity of food served to inmates had been fully adequate , and that hygienic conditions in the prison canteen , including in relation to cutlery , had been maintained in line with the applicable standards . Water in the prison had not been muddy ; it came from the same pipeline as the water supplied to the town of GPE . Inmates could also buy bottled mineral water from the prison canteen . The allegation that iron pieces had protruded from the applicant \u2019s bed was not true , and his bed sheets had been changed and washed DATE . Bathing time had not been counted as part of the outdoor walk time ; unlike other inmates , who had only had TIME of DATE outdoor walk time , life prisoners had been allowed DATE . The only reasons for interrupting that walk had been rowdy conduct or bad weather ; in the latter case , more outdoor time had been made available later on . The yard designated for the DATE outdoor walk did not have a toilet for security and hygiene reasons . Such a toilet was in any event not needed because that yard was adjacent to the applicant \u2019s cell , which was equipped with a toilet . If the applicant had felt an urgent need to go to the toilet during his DATE walk , he could have always used that one , and would have never been prevented from doing so . The prison administration was not under a duty to provide inmates with waterproof clothing ; when such clothing had been provided as a matter of courtesy , the inmates had very quickly damaged it . It was not true that guard dogs had been kept near the applicant \u2019s cell ; such dogs had not been used at all in the zone at issue . Nor had there been rats inside the applicant \u2019s cell ; its door , windows and piping had been built in a way not permitting rats to come in , and the prison administration was under a duty regularly to carry out pest control . The applicant \u2019s cell had had central heating since DATE , and the temperature inside the cell and the bathroom had been around QUANTITY . The cell \u2019s window , which , like all windows in FAC , had had its old wooden frame replaced with a new PVC one , did not have any covers preventing sunlight from coming in and could be freely opened , and the cell \u2019s floor was covered with linoleum which was in a good condition . Cleaning products were distributed DATE . Cable television was available in the cell . Lastly , works were under way for enlargement of the area for outdoor walks .","Apparently in view of the fact that the applicant is serving a sentence of life imprisonment without commutation , he is always handcuffed when taken out of his cell , including inside the prison . The handcuffs are removed once the destination has been reached , if security conditions permit . In particular , the applicant is handcuffed when taken out of his cell for his DATE outdoor walk , but the handcuffs are removed during the walk .","It does not appear that the applicant has ever been involved in violent incidents in prison or disciplined for violent or aggressive conduct . There is no indication that he has ever tried to abscond from prison either .","The facts summarised in this subsection were set out by the applicant in CARDINAL separate applications to this ORG lodged by him in DATE ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and DATE ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . In those applications he complained about various issues , such as an alleged lack of access to a court , the outcome of proceedings for damages , the impossibility to vote in the DATE presidential elections in GPE , and an alleged interference with his right to correspondence .","From the materials submitted by the applicant in those CARDINAL cases it transpires that in DATE he brought a number of claims for damages under section CARDINAL the ORG and ORG DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) before the territorially competent ORG . Those claims concerned CARDINAL of allegations concerning various aspects of the conditions of his detention and specific incidents allegedly breaching his rights .","The claims that directly relate to the subject matter of the present case concerned , inter alia : the allegedly poor quality of tap water in FAC ; the allegedly insufficient heating ; the allegedly insufficient surface of the area for outdoor walks ; the alleged failure of the prison authorities to transfer the applicant to a collective cell with a view to enabling him to have contacts with other inmates ; the alleged failure of the prison authorities to provide any educational courses for the applicant or to enable him to take part in artistic , cultural , sport , religious or other activities ; the fact that the applicant had been routinely handcuffed when taken out of his cell ; and allegedly frequent body searches by prison guards .","Other claims concerned matters such as an alleged refusal of the prison authorities in DATE to provide the applicant with copies of receipts showing that he had paid for mail sent by him ; alleged delays and obstacles in respect of mail that the applicant had wished to send ; an alleged refusal to allow the applicant to use a combined MPCARDINAL\/radio device as opposed to separate radio and MPCARDINAL devices , which were allowed ; an alleged refusal of the prison administration to wash the applicant \u2019s underwear , etc .","In relation to several claims , ORG instructed the applicant to clarify the link between the facts described in his statement of claim and the alleged damage , and to submit a declaration of means . As the applicant did not comply with those instructions , the court discontinued the proceedings in respect of some of the claims .","CARDINAL cases proceeded to judgment on the merits .","In a case decided on the merits on DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim for damages concerning the fact that tap water in LOC had on occasions been muddy and unfit for drinking . The court noted that although there was evidence that sometimes , especially after heavy rains , the quality of that water had been bad , the laboratory analysis had confirmed that it had been safe for drinking . The prison was connected to the general water supply system and got the same water as that supplied to households nearby . The applicant \u2019s allegations , for instance that he had endured acute stomach pain and had required medical assistance , had not been made out . Moreover , the applicant had had the possibility to buy bottled mineral water from the prison canteen or , if he did not have the necessary means for that , boil tap water using a device which he confirmed that he had in his cell , or filter it . The applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law against that judgment was not examined by ORG as he failed to pay the requisite fee of ORG CARDINAL for the processing of the appeal ( see \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u044e\u043d\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) .","A case decided on the merits by ORG on DATE concerned a specific incident on DATE in which prison staff had entered the applicant \u2019s cell for a search accompanied by a dog trained to find narcotic drugs . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim that he had endured stress because of his fear of dogs . There was no evidence that the dog , which had been kept on a leash , had been handled in an inappropriate manner . That case ended in a judgment of ORG of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043d\u043e\u0435\u043c\u0432\u0440\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) whereby the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law against ORG judgment was dismissed .","Another case decided on the merits by ORG on DATE concerned CARDINAL separate allegations relating to various aspects of the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention . It appears that in his statement of claim the applicant had made confused assertions about the periods of time to which those claims related and that he eventually only claimed non - pecuniary damages in respect of a limited period of time in DATE . The court dismissed all of the applicant \u2019s claims . With regard , in particular , to the surface of the area for DATE outdoor walks , it found that it was QUANTITY . It went on to note that the bodily searches to which the applicant had been subjected had not involved any undressing or inappropriate touching of his private parts but patting , through his clothes , with a view to determining whether or not he had had on him any unauthorised items . The systematic handcuffing of the applicant was not in breach of the Execution of Punishments and PreTrial Detention Act DATE or the regulations for its application , was not inconsistent with the applicant \u2019s prison regime , could be considered necessary in view of the seriousness of the offences in relation to which he had been sentenced to life imprisonment , and had not been intended to humiliate the applicant . With regard to the claim that the applicant had not been transferred to a multi - occupancy cell despite the possibility to do so for life prisoners serving their life sentence under the \u201c severe \u201d regime , the court found that those matters fell within the discretion of the special commission for the execution of sentences ; there had therefore not been a failure on the part of the prison authorities to observe a binding legal obligation . The same went for educational courses . The applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law against that judgment was not examined by ORG as he failed to pay the requisite fee of MONEY ( ORG ) ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) for the processing of the appeal ( see \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u044e\u043d\u0438 DATE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0430\u0434\u043c. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , PERSON , ORG ) .","The applicant \u2019s claim concerning the allegedly low temperatures in his cell related to CARDINAL winters : the periods DATE and DATE , and the period DATE and DATE . The court ordered an expert report , which showed that the amount of coal provided to inmates in FAC in DATE had been adequate and that central heating had been installed in the prison in DATE . In a judgment of DATE ORG found that the prison administration had provided the applicant with enough coal to secure a temperature of QUANTITY in his cell during the first period , and that central heating had been installed before the second period . The applicant \u2019s claim was therefore dismissed . That judgment was apparently not validly appealed against .","From other materials submitted by the applicant it appears that in DATE he tried to bring a number of further claims under LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in relation to various instances in which his rights had allegedly been breached by the prison authorities . None of those claims was accepted for examination by ORG as a result of apparent failures on the part of the applicant to formulate his claims properly and pay the requisite court fees . In a series of decisions given in DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decisions not to examine the claims on the merits ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167826","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"LALI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by Mr I. Labura , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant \u2019s husband was an employee of the \u201c Slavonac \u201d company . On DATE the applicant and her husband , as guarantors of a loan to the company , entered into an agreement with the GPE bank of GPE to use their house as security for a loan of CARDINAL NORP kunas . It was stipulated that unless the debtor paid its outstanding debts within DATE , the creditor bank was entitled to institute enforcement proceedings for payment of the debt through the sale of the applicants\u2019 house .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action before ORG against the said bank and the \u201c Slavonac \u201d company , claiming that neither she nor her husband had ever signed the fiduciary agreement in respect of their house and that she had learned about it for the first time in the inheritance proceedings instituted after the death of her husband .","ORG commissioned an expert in graphology , who confirmed that the signatures on the said agreement were indeed those of the applicant and her husband , and on DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE and ORG on DATE .","The applicant \u2019s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the GPE bank of GPE applied to ORG for enforcement of the fiduciary agreement against the applicant . It sought her eviction on the basis of a report of DATE and its appendix , certified by a notary public on DATE ( PERSON o posvjedo\u010denju \u010dinjenica s potvrdom kojeg je sastavio javni bilje\u017enik i dopuna PERSON ) . Those documents had been issued in connection with the above - mentioned fiduciary agreement in respect of the applicant \u2019s and her husband \u2019s house .","On DATE an eviction order against the applicant was issued by ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the eviction order , referring to the above - mentioned civil proceedings , which were still pending . The appeal was dismissed by the \u0160ibenik ORG on CARDINAL DATE . However , on CARDINAL DATE the eviction was postponed .","On DATE the creditor asked the court to postpone the applicant \u2019s eviction until further notice ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166065","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MINDEK v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the DATE newspaper GPE list published CARDINAL articles in which the applicant accused his neighbour , a certain Mr GPE , of \u201c stealing \u201d his house and orchard .","In the ensuing CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings instituted by GPE by way of private prosecution , the applicant was found guilty of CARDINAL counts of defamation ( kleveta ) . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) fined the applicant CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) and ordered him to pay GPE HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the costs of the proceedings . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , amended by ORG PERSON \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the GPE \u201d ) on DATE , ORG judicially admonished ( sudska opomena ) the applicant and ordered him to pay GPE HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL in costs .","NORP In subsequent civil defamation proceedings which GPE instituted against the applicant , the civil courts also found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded him damages . By a judgment of DATE , amended by ORG on DATE , ORG ordered the applicant to pay ORG as compensation for non - pecuniary damage , together with statutory default interest and HRK CARDINAL in costs .","Meanwhile , another set of civil proceedings between the same parties had also ended unfavourably for the applicant . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action to declare an in - court settlement between him and GPE of DATE null and void , and ordered him to pay the defendant HRK CARDINAL in costs .","Since the applicant did not pay the sums stipulated above ( hereinafter \u201c the debt \u201d ) on time , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE GPE instituted CARDINAL sets of enforcement proceedings in ORG , seeking enforcement against the applicant \u2019s immovable property , specifically his share in the house and surrounding land he owned with his wife . The property in question consisted of the house , a yard and arable land ( fields ) measuring CARDINAL , QUANTITY respectively ( hereinafter \u201c the property \u201d ) .","On DATE and DATE respectively the court issued CARDINAL writs of execution ( rje\u0161enja o ovrsi ) ordering the seizure and sale of the applicant \u2019s share in the property .","On DATE and DATE ORG dismissed appeals lodged by the applicant and upheld the writs .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG joined the CARDINAL sets of enforcement proceedings .","At a hearing on DATE the court , on the basis of information provided by the tax authorities , determined that the value of the applicant \u2019s share in the property was HRK CARDINAL . The applicant did not attend the hearing even though he had been duly notified .","By a ruling of DATE the court ordered the sale of the applicant \u2019s share in the property ( zaklju\u010dak o prodaji , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and scheduled a public auction for DATE at which , in accordance with the law , the property ( or share of it ) could not be sold for CARDINAL of its value ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The auction was not attended by any interested buyers . The applicant , however , submitted a certificate confirming that on DATE he had paid HRK CARDINAL of the debt , and promised to pay the rest by New Year .","Since he did not do so , on DATE PERSON asked the court to schedule a second public auction .","On DATE the applicant submitted another certificate confirming that on DATE he had paid HRK CARDINAL of the debt , and asked the court not to schedule a second auction because he would gradually pay the rest of the debt .","On DATE PERSON reiterated his request for a second auction and stated that , by repeatedly promising to gradually pay the debt within self - imposed deadlines he did not observe , the applicant was merely protracting the enforcement proceedings which had thus far lasted DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court scheduled the second public auction for CARDINAL DATE at which , in accordance with the law , the property ( or share of it ) could not be sold for CARDINAL of its value ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","At the second auction only GPE offered to buy the applicant \u2019s share in the property , for HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . This was the minimum price allowed by law and corresponded to CARDINAL of its value . The applicant \u2019s representative asked the court to postpone the auction and promised that the applicant would pay the rest of the debt within DATE . The court refused this request and issued a decision declaring that GPE had \u201c satisfied the conditions to be awarded [ the share in ] the property \u201d . It also specified that the decision actually awarding him the share in the property ( rje\u0161enje o dosudi , see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) would be delivered at DATE .","On DATE the applicant paid HRK CARDINAL of the debt .","On DATE he informed the court that earlier that day he had paid a further HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , and had thereby settled the debt of HRK CARDINAL in full ( consisting of the principal amount of HRK ORG and HRK CARDINAL of statutory default interest ) . What remained to be paid were the costs of the enforcement proceedings . He therefore asked the court to discontinue the enforcement and issue a decision specifying those costs , which he promised to pay immediately .","At a hearing on DATE GPE confirmed that on DATE the applicant had paid the debt in full , but had not covered the costs of the enforcement proceedings . He thus asked the court to issue a decision on costs , and the award decision .","On DATE the court delivered its award decision ( rje\u0161enje o dosudi , see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It specified that the property would be surrendered ( transferred ) to GPE after he deposited the purchase price , within DATE of the decision becoming final . The court found the fact that the applicant had paid the debt in full on CARDINAL DATE irrelevant , since the decision on the sale of the applicant \u2019s share in the property to GPE had been adopted earlier , on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It noted however that the fact that the applicant had paid off the debt would be taken into account when distributing the proceeds of sale ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In particular , the court held as follows :","\u201c Given that the property was sold on DATE at the second public auction when it was established that the bidder GPE had made the best bid and had offered [ to pay ] HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL , and thereby met the conditions to be awarded the property , the court adopted [ the present ] award decision ... regardless of the fact that the enforcement debtor on CARDINAL DATE settled the debt in respect of the principal amount and the interest . When settling the enforcement creditor \u2019s claim , the court will deliver a distribution decision whereby it will take into account the fact that the enforcement debtor had settled the debt in respect of the principal amount and the interest . \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision . He argued that he had settled the debt in DATE before the court had issued the contested award decision . In that sense GPE \u201c had got it both ways \u201d as he had both been paid the debt and acquired the share in the property . There had been no reason to sell his share in the property to pay the same debt . He further stated that he would also have covered the costs of the enforcement proceedings that remained due if the court had issued a decision specifying the amount , which it had not done .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the contested decision , which thereby became final . It held that the necessary conditions for selling the applicant \u2019s share in the property to GPE had already been met on DATE . The fact that he had later paid off the debt had no bearing on the validity of the sale . In particular , that court held as follows :","\u201c Having regard to the fact that on DATE the second public auction was held at which the enforcement creditor appeared as a bidder and made the best ( the only ) bid , and given that after the auction the court established that the enforcement creditor had offered the highest price and had met the conditions to be awarded the property in accordance with section CARDINAL ) of LAW , the first - instance court was , pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of [ that ] Act , entitled ( and obliged to ) adopt the contested [ award ] decision ...","The fact that the enforcement debtor after the [ second public ] auction , on CARDINAL DATE settled the creditor \u2019s claim in full is of no relevance for the validity of the contested decision , regardless of the unjustified ( time ) gap between the auction and the adoption of the impugned decision . [ That is because ] at the auction of CARDINAL DATE , which was held in line with the [ relevant ] provisions of LAW , it was established that the enforcement creditor offered the highest price and that he met the conditions to be awarded the property . [ Therefore ] the events that occurred subsequently can not call into question the award of the property , nor can the said event constitute grounds for discontinuation of enforcement under LAW . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against ORG decision , alleging a violation of his constitutional right to fair procedure .","On DATE GPE informed the court that he had deposited the purchase price , and submitted proof thereof .","By a ruling of DATE ( zaklju\u010dak o predaji , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ORG surrendered ( transferred ) the applicant \u2019s share in the property to GPE On DATE the court \u2019s land registry department recorded him in the land register as co - owner of the property instead of the applicant .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint of CARDINAL DATE inadmissible ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It held that the contested decision was not open to constitutional review .","On DATE ORG issued a distribution decision ( rje\u0161enje o namirenju , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , distributing the HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL deposited with the court by GPE for the applicant \u2019s share in the property . The court specified the costs of the enforcement proceedings , which were incumbent on the applicant , as HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , and returned that amount to GPE The remaining HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL was paid to the applicant .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against that decision . On DATE lodged a constitutional complaint against the decision of ORG .","By a decision of DATE ORG declared that constitutional complaint inadmissible , holding that the contested decision was not open to constitutional review .","By a decision of DATE ORG declared the enforcement completed . An appeal by the applicant against that decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE GPE instituted non - contentious proceedings in ORG against the applicant \u2019s wife by lodging a petition for partition of co - ownership . Since the property could not be physically divided , he sought a partition by sale , whereby the proceeds would be distributed to the co - owners .","As the applicant \u2019s wife opposed the partition , by a decision of DATE the court discontinued the non - contentious proceedings and instructed GPE to institute separate civil proceedings against her to that end .","On DATE GPE brought a civil action against the applicant \u2019s wife as instructed , in the same municipal court . He sought a partition of co - ownership in the same way as in his petition of CARDINAL DATE .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ruled for the plaintiff and ordered a partition by sale and distribution of the proceeds to the co - owners . It also ordered the applicant \u2019s wife to pay the plaintiff HRK CARDINAL in costs .","She appealed and the proceedings are currently pending before the second - instance court .","Meanwhile , on DATE GPE , had also instituted another set of civil proceedings before ORG against the applicant , seeking payment of rent for the use of the property . He explained that the applicant had remained living in the house even after he acquired the applicant \u2019s share . As a co - owner he was thus entitled to seek from the applicant CARDINAL of the rent under which the house could be rented out . These proceedings are still pending before the first - instance court ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158504","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF QING v. PORTUGAL","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 14+5-1-c - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the material time , she was working as a NORP - NORP translator and was married to a NORP national .","On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant , her husband and others by a public prosecutor of ORG ( ORG A\u00e7\u00e3o Penal ) in GPE on allegations of aiding illegal immigration , money laundering and forgery .","NORP In DATE the applicant sent letters to the Attorney General ( Procurador - Geral da Rep\u00fablica ) and Director of ORG ( Servi\u00e7o de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras ) , informing them that she knew she was being investigated , and that she was available to present herself to the judicial authorities to be questioned and considered as a defendant . The letters read , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is ready to be made a defendant and questioned . She hereby suggests the following dates for these procedural steps , for which she volunteers to attend when summoned :","DATE , at any time ;","DATE , at any time ;","CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , at any time . \u201d","On DATE the public prosecutor issued an arrest warrant against the applicant on the basis of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , as the case material provided sufficient grounds for believing that she might abscond , obstruct the investigation or continue the alleged criminal activity . The arrest warrant reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c In view of the above , it is essential to question the suspect and thus assess the application of other preventive measures in addition to providing information on identity and residence [ termo de identidade e resid\u00eancia ] . Having regard to the strong grounds that exist regarding the commission of the acts described , which are crimes allowing for the application of pre - trial detention , and taking into account that , in the present case , there is a risk of absconding , a risk of continuing the criminal activity and obstructing the investigation ... I order PERSON arrest ... to bring her before the investigating judge ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant was arrested at her home DATE She was questioned by an investigating judge of ORG over DATE , CARDINAL and DATE .","The applicant challenged the arrest before the investigating judge and submitted observations with regard to the preventive measure she thought should be applied . She argued that there was no reason to believe that she would abscond and , as such , the arrest warrant had been issued by the public prosecutor unlawfully . She further stated that she did not have a criminal record ; she had CARDINAL young children who lived with her . She further claimed that she had a permanent residence in GPE , where she had been living for DATE . She also stated that she was ready to hand over her passport , and that prohibiting her from going to places attended by immigrants and contacting the other defendants in the proceedings would be adequate preventive measures .","On DATE the investigating judge dismissed her request , noting as follows :","\u201c In the present case it appears evident that there is a risk of the defendant absconding , given that she is a NORP national and once confronted with the seriousness of the facts attributed to her , she could flee from GPE to her home country .","... the crimes of aiding illegal immigration and money laundering allow the application of the preventive measure of pre - trial detention in respect of the defendant . The requirements established under LAW ORG have thus been met and the defendant \u2019s appeal is dismissed . \u201d","The investigating judge also remanded the applicant in custody for the duration of the investigation , noting as follows :","\u201c The acts committed by the defendants are objectively serious . [ They ] are NORP nationals , with the exception of defendant PERSON [ the applicant \u2019s husband ] , raising fears that when confronted with the seriousness of the facts attributed to them , they would evade justice and flee to their home country .","It is also evident that there is a risk the investigation will be obstructed with regard to the gathering of evidence , as there are numerous investigative steps to be carried out , namely the examination of witnesses .","... taking into account the profits obtained from the criminal activity , it is also evident that there is a risk that the criminal activity will continue .","...","The defendants PERSON and GPE are primarily responsible for the criminal organisation acting in GPE ... Thus , having regard to the severity and multiplicity of the crimes against them , the risk of absconding and ... obstructing the investigation and finally , it being predicted that a custodial sentence will be imposed after trial , only detention on remand would be adequate and proportionate to the severity of the facts and the preventive aims required in this particular case .","With regard to defendants PERSON , GPE [ the applicant \u2019s husband ] and PERSON , the application of other preventive measures which would not deprive them of liberty [ medidas n\u00e3o privativas de liberdade ] would be proportionate to the purpose of preventing the above - mentioned risks .","In view of the above :","- defendants PERSON , PERSON and PERSON should ... be held in pre - trial detention pursuant to LAW , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) and CARDINAL ( a ) , ( b ) and ( c ) of the Code of Criminal Procedure .","- defendants ORG , GPE and GPE [ the applicant \u2019s husband ] are prohibited from leaving GPE and must surrender their passports , prohibited from contacting each other , and must attend their nearest police station on a DATE basis ... the prohibition on contact does not apply to GPE and defendant PERSON or to PERSON and defendant GPE , as they live together . \u201d","The applicant appealed against the decision of the investigating judge to ORG . She complained that there had not been any justification for her arrest or for the application of the custodial measure as her family situation , place of residence and other personal circumstances had not been taken into account when the court had ordered her detention . She also argued that she had voluntarily shown that she was available to be questioned by the authorities in DATE .","On DATE the public prosecutor in charge of the criminal case asked the investigating judge to classify the proceedings as particularly complex , noting that more time was needed to complete the investigation .","On DATE the investigating judge accepted the public prosecutor \u2019s request to classify the proceedings as particularly complex and extended the pre - trial detention to DATE , taking into account the number of applicants and crimes that were being investigated .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the arrest warrant and upheld the court \u2019s decision of DATE to hold her in pre - trial detention . The court held , inter alia , the following in relation to the lawfulness of the arrest warrant :","\u201c ...","The public prosecutor \u2019s reasoning that \u2018 there were grounds for considering that [ the applicant ] would not present herself to the authorities on a scheduled date could not eventually be ORG ; however , one can not say that the arrest warrant was unlawful because of that . \u201d","In relation to the necessity of the detention on remand , it noted that :","\u201c ...","It can be considered that there is \u2018 no high risk of the defendant QUANTITY since on DATE , aware of the ongoing criminal proceedings against her , she nevertheless volunteered to be questioned [ by the authorities ] and even detained . Furthermore , she did not flee from her residence or the country . However , neither her family circumstances nor the measure of electronic surveillance are , at present , capable of safeguarding the risk [ relating to the ] gathering of evidence ...","Indeed , it would not be possible to safeguard the risk for the investigation , which is very high , especially given the nature of the NORP community in GPE .","And it does not avoid the risk of the criminal activity continuing especially since , as said by the public prosecutor at first instance , \u2018 it was mainly done from home , and the contact was established with third parties.\u2019 \u201d","The applicant filed a request for clarification with ORG regarding its decision of DATE . On DATE it was rejected .","DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL requests with the investigating judge of ORG asking for her release and the remand in custody to be replaced with police supervision pending trial or house arrest with electronic surveillance , reiterating that there was no risk of her absconding or continuing criminal activity , that she had contacted the police voluntarily , that she had not committed the alleged crimes , that she was a mother of CARDINAL children living in GPE , and that she had a permanent place of residence there .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge of ORG upheld the decision to maintain her in pre - trial detention , noting as follows :","\u201c ... the requirements for the order [ of pre - trial detention ] remain unchanged and strengthened . For that reason , [ the defendants ] should remain in pre - trial detention pending trial ( LAW a ) of the ORG ) . \u201d","\u201c The arguments submitted by the defendant [ the applicant ] do not interfere with the reasons on which the pre - trial detention was based . It is therefore our understanding that these reasons remain valid . \u201d","\u201c The defendant claims equal treatment in the judicial decisions . In her arguments she did not inform [ the court ] of any new circumstances which could affect the reasons that justified her detention on remand .","The reasons which were already analysed in an appeal remain unchanged and there are therefore no grounds capable of mitigating the preventive requirements which justified the detention on remand . I therefore dismiss the defendant \u2019s request and order that she remains in pre - trial detention pending trial . \u201d","DATE the applicant also lodged CARDINAL requests with ORG to have the criminal inquiry expedited ( pedido de acelera\u00e7\u00e3o processual ) .","On DATE and DATE ORG rejected the request . It substantiated its decisions by the fact that the requests were manifestly ill - founded , given the complexity of the proceedings and the fact that the investigation was under way .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE the investigating judge reviewed the grounds for application of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention , in accordance with LAW ORG . He noted that they remained unchanged and , therefore , upheld the custodial measure applied in respect of the applicant .","On an unspecified date the applicant was indicted and her case sent to ORG for trial .","On DATE the investigating judge decided to release the applicant from pre - trial detention and place her under house arrest with electronic surveillance . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c From the analysis of the case file ... there are no new facts capable of affecting the strong grounds surrounding the acts attributable to the defendants ; nor does it seem that the risks mentioned [ in the DATE order ] have ceased to exist .","From the evidence provided to date , namely with regard to their personal and family circumstances , less severe preventive measures can be applied in respect of the defendants . The risk of absconding still exists ; however , it can be safeguarded through electronic surveillance . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was released from pre - trial detention .","On DATE ORG delivered its judgment . The applicant was acquitted of money laundering and forgery . She was convicted of aiding illegal immigration and sentenced to DATE imprisonment , although the sentence was suspended on the condition that she made an DATE payment of ORG CARDINAL . On DATE she was released from house arrest .","On an unspecified date she appealed against the judgment to ORG . According to the latest information received on DATE , the proceedings are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150306","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RUMMI v. ESTONIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is the widow of NORP","On DATE PERSON attempted to smuggle QUANTITY of waste containing precious metals into GPE . The waste was hidden in the fuel tank of his car . However , it was found at the border and seized by the NORP authorities . PERSON was arrested . J. , a suspected organiser of the smuggling , fled to GPE .","Investigating authorities asked NORP , an expert in geology , to give an expert opinion in respect of the content of precious metals in the waste . According to the expert opinion , dated DATE , the value of the metals was CARDINAL kroons ( EEK ) ( approximately corresponding to MONEY ( ORG ) ) . This value was above the limit of a \u201c significant amount \u201d as defined in criminal law . P. who apparently had certain interests in the matter , approached PERSON and asked him to prepare another expert opinion , which would state that the value of the metals was lower . NORP drew up another report , dated DATE , which stated that the value of the seized metals was EEK CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) , which was below what was designated as a \u201c significant amount \u201d . Smuggling of less than a \u201c significant amount \u201d of goods would not have been a criminal offence but a misdemeanour . P. sought to pass , through an intermediary , the new expert opinion , along with a sum as a bribe , to an officer dealing with the matter . However , the intermediary was apprehended when handing over the money and the second expert opinion .","On DATE NORP was arrested . His home and later his workplace were searched . A large amount of various substances containing precious metals as well as pure precious metals was seized , including QUANTITY of silver , QUANTITY of gold , CARDINAL silver bars , CARDINAL diamonds and CARDINAL silver - coloured spoons .","On DATE NORP committed suicide in the detention facility . He was taken to hospital in a state of clinical death , and died there on DATE .","In the case file there are CARDINAL decisions of the police concerning the discontinuance of criminal proceedings in respect of NORP","In a decision of DATE the above situation was described , including the fact that CARDINAL expert opinions had been drawn up by NORP It was concluded that he had knowingly given a false expert opinion and had thereby committed an offence under LAW ( PERSON ) . The criminal proceedings against him were terminated because of his death .","NORP In a decision of DATE , firstly , it was stated that the applicant had committed the offence under LAW .","Secondly , the decision stated that it had been established that since DATE PERSON had been giving unofficial expert opinions concerning substances containing precious metals . Knowing that such substances were not found in GPE and that they were being smuggled from GPE , he had committed an offence of smuggling as an accomplice ( LAW and LAW ) of LAW ) .","Thirdly , in respect of the silver , gold and diamonds the decision stated as follows :","\u201c During the search of [ NORP \u2019s ] home and workplace a large amount of pure precious metals ( [ about ] QUANTITY of silver granules , CARDINAL silver bars , [ about ] QUANTITY of gold , CARDINAL diamonds ) [ and ] other items made of precious metals were found , which refer to purchasing items made of precious metals from the population , and substances containing precious metals [ were also found ] , which were similar to the substance found in a hiding place in [ M. \u2019s ] car . Therefore it can be concluded that [ NORP ] was involved in the smuggling of substances containing precious metals as an accomplice who analysed the substances ; he was probably also engaged in purchasing , purifying and marketing substances containing precious metals . Under Regulation No . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG , items made of precious metals , precious scrap metal and precious stones may only be purchased and remelted by legal persons whose purchasing point is registered by ORG ( ORG ) and who have an operating licence for the purchasing of precious metals and precious stones and items containing them . Thus , [ NORP ] , who did not have the required licences , committed a large - scale violation of the rules for purchasing metals , and thereby committed an offence under LAW of LAW .","[ R. \u2019s ] official income according to his tax return for DATE was [ EEK ] CARDINAL [ ORG CARDINAL ] after the deduction of income tax , which indicates that he could not have legally acquired such a quantity of precious metals . [ R. \u2019s ] wife , [ the applicant ] , is also unaware of the origin of these items .","Nor is it possible to obtain additional evidence in relation to the crimes committed by [ NORP ] , because after his arrest ... [ he ] committed suicide ... \u201d","NORP The investigator decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings under LAW , LAW and LAW ( CARDINAL ) , and LAW because of NORP \u2019s death . The precious metals and substances containing precious metals found at NORP \u2019s home and workplace were ordered to be deposited in a police storage facility since the identity of their legal owner had hot been established and it was unclear to whom they belonged .","By an order dated DATE the police declared the substances and items seized from the car ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and from the applicant \u2019s home and place of work ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to be evidence and it was decided that they should be deposited in a police storage facility . The evidence was inspected on DATE .","On DATE the applicant enquired of the police about the death of her husband , NORP , in the police custody , about the charges against him and about the return of the items which were not rare earth , such as the silver granules , diamonds , gold and silver bars that had been seized during the search .","On DATE the police responded that a decision on the return of the seized items would be made by the officer in charge of the investigation after clarification of their origin .","In the meantime , on DATE the police ordered an expert examination of the seized substances . According to an expert opinion delivered on CARDINAL DATE the packages analysed contained galvanic mud from which metals could be separated by the use of special technology and equipment . Some of the samples contained precious metals .","According to an intestate succession certificate issued by a notary on DATE the applicant and her CARDINAL sons were NORP \u2019s heirs , each inheriting CARDINAL of his property .","An expert opinion in respect of further items and substances seized from NORP \u2019s home and workplace was commissioned on DATE . According to an expert opinion given on DATE some of the analysed substances were galvanic waste not known to be generated in GPE , and certain further samples contained precious metals probably bought from the population .","In the meantime , on DATE PERSON , NORP \u2019s colleague , was interviewed as a witness . He submitted that they carried out CARDINAL expert analyses per year ; the number of official analyses had been CARDINAL per year . He described the powder and \u201c mud \u201d the content of which they had analysed . The \u201c mud \u201d was a by - product of nickel production ; it was brought from GPE . They did not have equipment in their laboratory for separating precious metals from the \u201c mud \u201d , they could only analyse its content . PERSON gave details about persons to whom he had communicated the results of the expert examinations . According to PERSON , NORP had also purchased equipment for the laboratory with his own money , the cost of which was CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . PERSON had suspected that by doing the analyses NORP had been involved in something illegal and that he also got paid for this . He referred to NORP \u2019s new cars and construction of a house as something that he could not have afforded on his salary . According to PERSON , the substances and items taken from a table in their workplace were samples they had examined . PERSON could not tell anything about the origin of the items found in NORP \u2019s cupboard and locked drawer .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed as a witness . According to the report on the interview drawn up by the police , the applicant stated that she did not know anything about the items seized from their garage and their home . These items had been acquired by NORP , who put his money into precious metals since he apparently had no trust in bank accounts . In respect of the diamonds she could not say anything ; these had been , like the other substances and items , acquired by NORP The money matters of the family had been handled by NORP ; the applicant even did not know how much he earned in salary .","On DATE the police applied to ORG to authorise the confiscation of the items and substances that had been declared as physical evidence in the criminal case . In respect of the items and substances taken from NORP \u2019s home and workplace during the search , it was stated as follows :","\u201c On DATE the items and substances found during the search carried out at [ NORP \u2019s ] home and workplace were declared to be evidence ( vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , as this property had been obtained through crime . Information gathered in the criminal proceedings about [ NORP \u2019s ] income ( vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL and pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) and statements by [ NORP \u2019s ] colleague [ PERSON ] also refer to this fact , that is [ to the fact that ] the property [ had been ] obtained through crime . [ NORP \u2019s ] wife , [ the applicant ] , was unable to give explanations about the items and substances seized during the search ( vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","Having regard to the above , it is expedient to request from a court confiscation of the evidence mentioned above , that is of property obtained through crime and prohibited for natural persons in accordance with the \u201c Rules for the import and export of precious metals and precious stones and products made of them \u201d ( vol . CARDINAL , pp . DATE ) . \u201d","On DATE ORG approved the statement of charges . It was noted that the evidence taken from NORP was in the police storage facility . On DATE M. and J. were prosecuted .","On DATE ORG convicted PERSON of attempted smuggling of prohibited goods . J. was convicted as an accomplice . In the judgment , reference was made to statements by anonymous witnesses to the effect that PERSON had for DATE been smuggling substances containing precious metals into GPE ; samples of the substances had been analysed in NORP \u2019s laboratory . No decision was made in respect of the items seized from NORP On appeal , ORG counsel PERSON did not make reference to these items .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment for insufficient reasoning . It noted , inter alia , that the anonymous witnesses had not been heard at the court hearing and that their statements had been of a general nature . It was also noted that ORG should have indicated what to do with the physical evidence and other seized items . The case was remitted to the first - instance court for a new examination .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant again enquired about the return of the items in question . On DATE the police responded that these items were part of the physical evidence in the criminal case and that it was for the judge examining the matter to rule on the measures to be taken in respect of the evidence .","At ORG hearing of DATE the prosecutor requested discontinuance of the criminal proceedings in respect of PERSON and J. under LAW ORG koodeks ) because of the lack of public interest . The defendants agreed . The prosecutor asked the court to confiscate the substances and metals seized from NORP \u2019s home and workplace . J. \u2019s counsel PERSON thought that it would be better to leave the latter question open since the applicant could have claims in this respect .","On DATE the ORG discontinued the proceedings as requested , finding that there was no public interest in continuing the proceedings . It ordered PERSON and J. to pay the court costs and certain additional lump sums to the ORG . A separate decision was to be made in respect of the physical evidence found at NORP \u2019s home and workplace .","On DATE the ORG ordered the confiscation of the substances containing precious metals and the pure precious metals in question . It relied on DATE ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , under which property received as a result of a criminal offence and whose legal owner could not be established was to be transferred to the ORG . It gave the following reasons for the confiscation :","\u201c The court , having examined the evidence in the criminal case , finds that the materials containing precious metals and the pure precious metals which were found at [ NORP \u2019s ] home and workplace and which are held in the police depository must be confiscated and transferred to the ORG . \u201d","A copy of the decision was sent to the applicant .","On DATE the ORG amended its order of DATE by providing an exact list of the substances and items to be confiscated .","The applicant , represented by counsel PERSON , lodged an appeal against the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . She argued that the decision contained no reasoning . It had not been established that the substances found at NORP \u2019s home and workplace had been obtained through crime . Nor had it been established that the identity of their legal owner had not been ascertained . It had only been clear that NORP had been in possession of the property in question . She also complained that the court had made a decision about her rights in written proceedings without inviting her to take part in the proceedings or hearing her , and that she had only received ORG decision by post . She asserted that she was PERSON widow and heir , together with their CARDINAL sons . The applicant requested that ORG decision be annulled and the case remitted for re - examination to ORG .","ORG in its reply to the applicant \u2019s appeal submitted that the applicant was not a party to the proceedings and therefore her appeal had to be dismissed . If she considered herself to be the legal owner of the property , LAW applied , under which in cases of seized property whose legal owner could not be identified , the legal owner whose identity was established later had the right to reclaim the amounts received from the sale of the seized property from the ORG .","On DATE ORG , in written proceedings , dismissed the appeal . It noted that the applicant was not a party to the proceedings . She had been questioned on DATE as a witness ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG had had no obligation to involve her in the determination of what should happen to physical evidence . However , since the applicant \u2019s rights had allegedly been violated by the confiscation of the property in question , ORG decided to examine her appeal .","ORG stated as follows :","\u201c ORG finds , on the basis of the evidence in the criminal case , that the items found at [ NORP \u2019s ] home and workplace that were declared physical evidence constitute property obtained through crime , and that the identity of the lawful owner thereof has not been established .","On the basis of the material of the criminal case there were sufficient grounds to believe that [ NORP ] had been involved in smuggling ; for that reason his home was searched on DATE and CARDINAL items were seized ( vol . CARDINAL pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . On DATE his workplace was searched and CARDINAL items were seized ( vol . CARDINAL pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . Some of the seized items were declared to be evidence and were inspected ( vol . CARDINAL pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . A chemical expert examination was carried out in respect of the physical evidence ( vol . CARDINAL pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . ORG notes that the list provided in ORG ... decision of DATE corresponds to the list provided in the decision of DATE concerning the evidence ( vol . CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) .","The criminal proceedings under LAW , LAW and LAW ) , and LAW in respect of [ NORP ] were discontinued on DATE because of his death ( he died on DATE ) . No appeal was lodged against that decision .","According to the decision concerning the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings ( vol . CARDINAL pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) the precious metals and substances containing precious metals that had been declared evidence had been obtained through crime ( LAW of LAW ) and the identity of their legal owner had not been established . Proceeding on the basis of the above , an investigator requested confiscation of these items of physical evidence on DATE , because it was property obtained through crime . In the [ investigator \u2019s ] request ( vol . CARDINAL pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) evidence was set out demonstrating that the property had been obtained through crime . The evidence included , inter alia , statements by witness [ K. ] ( vol . CARDINAL pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) and [ the applicant ] ( vol . CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) .","ORG notes that [ the applicant ] , in whose interests the present appeal was lodged , was interviewed as a witness on DATE . It follows from that interview that she knew nothing about the items that had been seized during the search of DATE . She did not know the origin of the items . She knew that they had been obtained by [ NORP ] , who had placed his money in precious metals . In respect of the diamonds she could say nothing ; these had also been obtained by [ NORP ] . As can be seen from the above , [ the applicant ] has not declared that also she had title to some of the items declared as evidence or that they had belonged to [ her and NORP ] as common property .","Since it had been established that the property had been obtained through crime , it had to be confiscated , which was ordered by the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . \u201d","On DATE the police submitted to the assay office of the company ORG GPE the substances containing precious metals , as well as the pure precious metals , confiscated by the court rulings in the criminal proceedings at hand . The list also includes substances and precious metals confiscated from NORP"],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148181","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HRVATSKI LIJE\u010cNI\u010cKI SINDIKAT v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Locus standi);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient","judges":"Christoph Grabenwarter;Dmitry Dedov;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant union is a trade union of medical practitioners incorporated under NORP law . Its registered office is in GPE .","On DATE the Government of GPE on the CARDINAL side , and ORG for ORG , ORG , ORG in ORG , and the applicant union on the other , concluded LAW for ORG ( GPE ugovor za djelatnost zdravstva i zdravstvenog osiguranja \u2013 hereinafter \u201c LAW \u201d or \u201c the main LAW \u201d ) . Its clause CARDINAL stipulated that the agreement would enter into force on DATE if approved by a majority of the votes cast in a referendum , in which CARDINAL of those employed in the health - care institutions and ORG voted . ORG was approved in the referendum held on DATE and entered into force , as envisaged , on DATE .","NORP In order to regulate issues specific to doctors and dentists , on DATE the Government of GPE and the applicant union also concluded ORG for ORG ( PERSON kolektivni ugovor za lije\u010dni\u010dku i stomatolo\u0161ku djelatnost ) , which formed an annex ( hereinafter \u201c the Annex \u201d ) to the above - mentioned main Collective Agreement . Clauses CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of the ORG stipulated that if doctors approved it in a referendum , it would enter into force on DATE .","On DATE ORG for ORG of Croatia and ORG instituted civil proceedings against the ORG and the applicant union , seeking to declare the FAC null and void because it had not been entered into by all the trade unions that had concluded the main ORG , contrary to the law ( for a more detailed description of the course of those proceedings see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the Government of GPE adopted an instruction whereby it ( a ) instructed the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG to acknowledge the ORG claim in those proceedings because it was well - founded , with a view to having the FAC declared null and void , and ( b ) instructed ORG to immediately commence negotiations on the conclusion of a new collective agreement for the medical and dentistry sector .","Meanwhile , on DATE the referendum committee issued a decision to hold the referendum mentioned in the FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP However , on DATE the President of ORG ( ORG - socijalno vije\u0107e ) DATE a tripartite body consisting of representatives of trade unions , employers and the Government \u2013 set aside the decision on holding the referendum .","NORP The referendum was nevertheless held on DATE . Of CARDINAL doctors , CARDINAL voted ; CARDINAL voted \u201c yes \u201d and CARDINAL voted \u201c no \u201d .","On DATE the President of ORG issued a decision not to recognise the results of the referendum .","In a letter to ORG of DATE , the applicant union announced a strike for DATE . It stated that the strike was being organised in order to ( a ) protect the social and economic interests of doctors by insisting that the Government of GPE honour its obligations arising from the ORG , ( b ) have the results of the referendum on the approval of the FAC recognised , and ( c ) , as an subsidiary ground for the strike , address issues specific to doctors and dentists within the healthcare system by demanding that a collective agreement for the medical and dentistry sector be concluded . In particular , as regards the last - mentioned ground the applicant union stated as follows :","\u201c \u2013 addressing issues specific to doctors within the healthcare sector by concluding a collective agreement for the medical and dentistry sector .","As a subsidiary ground for the strike , ORG notes that the [ main ] ORG for ORG does not address issues specific to the medical and dentistry professions . Therefore , on the instruction of ORG and in accordance with the opinion of ORG ... of DATE , the ORG to that ORG addressing issues specific to doctors was concluded at the same time [ as the aforementioned collective agreement ] . In that way , issues specific to doctors within the healthcare and health - insurance sectors were comprehensively addressed . Given that at present the Government of GPE refuse to apply LAW for ORG [ i.e. the ORG ] , and issues specific to the medical and dentistry professions , including a salary increase and other pecuniary rights of doctors , are not addressed in the [ main ] ORG for ORG , a subsidiary ground for the strike is to demand that the ORG address issues specific to jobs and professions of doctors and dentists within the healthcare and health - insurance sectors . \u201d","On DATE ORG invited the applicant union to conclude a new collective agreement for the medical and dentistry sector in the form of an annex to the main ORG . The draft of the new annex was enclosed with the ORG \u2019s letter . ORG emphasised that the draft envisaged a salary supplement amounting to PERCENT of the basic salary of doctors and dentists in DATE on account of their increased responsibility for the life and health of patients . It also added that the other trade unions , parties to the main ORG agreed with the draft , and invited the applicant union to inform it within DATE whether it accepted the draft .","On DATE the applicant union informed the ORG that , regrettably , the proposed draft did not address the important issues specific to doctors and dentists within the healthcare sector .","On DATE the Government of Croatia adopted a decree whereby it unilaterally increased salaries of doctors and dentists by PERCENT in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , DATE , the ORG brought an action against the applicant union in ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) , asking the court to prohibit the announced strike . The plaintiff argued that the announced strike would be illegal because it would seek to enforce the ORG , which had never entered into force given that the decision to hold the referendum required for its coming into force had been set aside ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) .","By a judgment of DATE ORG found for the ORG and prohibited the strike . It held that seeking compliance with the obligations arising from a collective agreement or the recognition of the results of a referendum were not permitted grounds for a strike under section CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c From the cited provision [ that is , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ] it follows that , by using the formulation \u2018 in order to protect and promote the economic and social ORG , the legislator clearly excluded enforcement of the rights stipulated in a particular collective agreement as a permitted ground for a strike because ... the individual and collective enforcement of rights stipulated in a collective agreement is regulated by sections [ CARDINAL ] and [ CARDINAL ] of LAW .","...","As regards the subsidiary ground for the strike ... it has to be noted that the defendant \u2019s representative stated at the main hearing that this ground had been listed as subsidiary in case [ the ORG was in the meantime declared invalid ] in the [ parallel ] proceedings pending before ORG .","...","Finally , it has to be concluded that a strike is legally allowed only in industrial disputes on ... matters that are not legally regulated , and not in those which [ are ] . Given that the defendant insists on compliance with the [ Annex ] , it is evident that the matters [ in dispute ] ... are regulated by that ORG and that the procedure for [ its ] entry into force is also legally regulated , for which reason the substantive requirements for organising the strike are not satisfied . \u201d","NORP The applicant union then appealed against that judgment to ORG ( PERSON ) .","On DATE the applicant union held the strike as planned because under the domestic law its appeal prevented ORG judgment from becoming final . According to media reports the applicant union alleged that PERCENT of CARDINAL doctors and dentists had participated in the strike whereas the Minister of Health claimed that PERCENT of them had actually been striking while the others had merely expressed solidarity . The Minister also stated for the media that PERCENT of the services had been rendered and that work stoppages occurred in CARDINAL out of CARDINAL clinical centres , CARDINAL out of CARDINAL university hospitals and in CARDINAL out of CARDINAL general hospitals . The strike lasted until DATE when the applicant union called it off in order to comply with ORG subsequent provisional measure of DATE prohibiting the strike ( see the next paragraph ) .","Following a request by the ORG , on DATE ORG imposed a provisional measure prohibiting the strike until that court \u2019s judgment of DATE became final , that is , until ORG decided on the applicant union \u2019s appeal against the judgment . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant union \u2019s appeal against the decision imposing the provisional measure .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant union \u2019s appeal against ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . It held that the Annex was invalid because it had not been entered into by all the trade unions that had concluded LAW , contrary to section DATE ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and that therefore any further action based on that agreement , including the strike , was unlawful . The relevant part of ORG judgment reads as follows :","\u201c Given that the ORG was found to be invalid , that is , unlawful , any further actions by the signatories of such an unlawful collective agreement , such as calling for and holding a referendum ... as well as the two first grounds for the strike , which are also based on the unlawful FAC , are also unlawful .","The view of the first - instance court that it was not necessary to address the third , subsidiary , ground for the strike is correct . This is so because , as stated by the defendant \u2019s representative at the hearing held on DATE , this ground had been listed as subsidiary in case [ the ORG was in the meantime declared invalid ] in the [ parallel ] proceedings pending before ORG , a condition which has not been met . \u201d","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant union lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) against ORG judgment alleging violations of , inter alia , its constitutionally - guaranteed right to strike and its freedom of association guaranteed by the LAW . In so doing the applicant union relied on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant union \u2019s constitutional complaint and served its decision on the applicant union \u2019s representatives on DATE . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c Having established that the [ contested ] judicial decisions were based on the relevant provisions of LAW , the Constitutional Court finds that those decisions were not in breach of the complainant \u2019s constitutional right [ provided ] in LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW nor [ were they in breach ] of the international - law provisions the complainant relied on . \u201d","Meanwhile , as already noted above ( see paragraph CARDINAL) on DATE ORG for ORG of Croatia and ORG brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) against the ORG and the applicant union , seeking to declare the LOC null and void .","On DATE ORG found for the plaintiffs and declared the Annex null and void .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant union \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment , which thereby became final .","On DATE ORG dismissed a subsequent appeal on points of law ( revizija ) lodged by the applicant union . It endorsed the reasoning of the lower courts which had found the ORG invalid because it had not been entered into by all the trade unions that had concluded the main Collective Agreement , contrary to section DATE ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and clause CARDINAL of that collective agreement ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant union ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160416","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ULYANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicants were each targeted in undercover operations conducted by the police in the form of a test purchase of drugs under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Operational - Search Activities Act of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ ) . Those operations led to their criminal convictions for drug dealing .","The applicants disagreed with their convictions and argued that the police had incited them to commit drug - related offences ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175665","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SMOLENTSEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He has been disabled since childhood and has lacked legal capacity since DATE . The application was brought on his behalf by his mother .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and taken to LOC police station , ORG \u0433. PERSON , \u201c the LOC ) by Officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . , who allegedly beat him when they arrived at the police station .","A report on the applicant \u2019s arrest was drawn up at TIME , following which the applicant \u2019s mother was informed about his arrest . She arrived at the police station shortly afterwards . The applicant complained , in the presence of his mother and a lawyer , that he felt unwell and that he had been beaten by the police officers who had arrested him .","An ambulance was called to the police station at TIME on DATE . The applicant was diagnosed as having facial and chest contusions . He told the ambulance medics that he had been physically assaulted by the police .","Another ambulance was called for the applicant at TIME on CARDINAL DATE , to the temporary detention facility . He was diagnosed as having a contusion on the soft tissues of the face and an X - ray examination was recommended . The applicant told the medics that he had injured himself while drunk DATE previously after falling down and hitting his head on the ground .","The applicant was taken to hospital DATE for the X - ray examination and was diagnosed as having a closed fracture of his nose bones with displacement of bone fragments and a chest contusion . He gave the same explanation for the injuries as he had given previously DATE to the ambulance medics at the temporary detention facility .","Upon admission to the temporary detention facility , staff seized , among other items , a pledge ticket for a silver chain and cross which were in pawn until DATE ( worth MONEY ( RUB ) and RUB CARDINAL respectively ) .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered the applicant to be kept under arrest for TIME , until TIME on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was released .","On DATE ORG granted an application from the investigator to place the applicant in a psychiatric hospital for a psychiatric forensic examination .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital , where he stayed until DATE .","On DATE the report on the forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant was concluded . It established that at the time of the events in question the applicant could understand and take responsibility for his actions .","On DATE the pawn shop ticket was returned to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant underwent planned surgery for a fracture of the nose ( rhinoplasty ) .","On DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued owing to a lack of evidence of his involvement in the crime in question .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to the prosecutor \u2019s office that the applicant had been beaten by the police .","On DATE a forensic medical expert held that the closed fracture of the applicant \u2019s nose had been caused by a blow from a hard , blunt object with a limited area of impact and that it had resulted in moderately severe health damage . The report went on to say that the injury had occurred shortly before the applicant had sought medical assistance and that it could have been caused on DATE . The possibility of the injury being caused by a fall or that the applicant had inflicted it on himself was excluded . The diagnosis of a chest contusion was found to be unsubstantiated by the information in the medical documents .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , and DATE and DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers who had allegedly ill - treated the applicant for lack of the constituent elements of a crime in their actions . The applicant \u2019s statements were found to be contradictory and not consistent with the injuries sustained . The applicant \u2019s mother had not witnessed the alleged beatings and , because the applicant was mentally disabled and had been inebriated when arrested , his statements were assessed in critical fashion . There was also evidence that the applicant had possibly had injuries prior to his arrest . The initial refusal to institute criminal proceedings referred to the following evidence :","- the statements of the applicant \u2019s mother , who submitted that the applicant had had no injuries when he had left home on CARDINAL DATE and that she had found him at the police station DATE with a swollen face , bruises on his back and with his clothes covered in blood ;","- a statement by the applicant \u2019s mother that on CARDINAL DATE she had witnessed a quarrel between her son and a certain PERSON . , that she had called the police and that the police had helped her take the applicant home ;","- statements by a witness , PERSON , who had seen the applicant on CARDINAL DATE , shortly before his arrest , drunk , but without any visible injuries ; B. later saw police officers escorting the applicant to a police car , with the applicant showing no resistance . B. did not see the police officers using physical force against the applicant ;","- the applicant \u2019s statements on the circumstances of his arrest . He submitted , in particular , that the beatings had taken place at the back entrance to the police station and in an out - of - the - way office inside the police station ; the police officers had hit him with truncheons on his back , bottom and legs ( CARDINAL blows ) , and had then punched him on the head and nose ( CARDINAL to ten blows ) . The applicant had started bleeding and the officers had threatened him , warning him not to tell anyone about the beatings ;","- information on the applicant \u2019s health and his disability , as well as his previous criminal and administrative offence records ;","- documents on the applicant \u2019s arrest ;","- documents on the ambulance ORG examination of the applicant on DATE in connection with complaints of a bleeding nose and chest pain ;","- the forensic medical report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;","- statements by Officers PERSON and PERSON on the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s arrest . In particular , they submitted that when the applicant had seen them he had started to run in the opposite direction . He had stumbled and fallen forward onto the pavement . When they had lifted him up they had noticed that he had old abrasions on the left side of his face and a bleeding nose , probably from falling on the pavement . His breath had also smelt of alcohol . The applicant had then been escorted to the police car and taken to the police station . He had not resisted arrest and no physical force had been applied to him ;","- statements by Officer PERSON . , who had been waiting for PERSON and PERSON in the police car . He submitted that he had seen PERSON and PERSON escorting the applicant to the car and that the applicant had been visibly drunk . He had had abrasions and dried blood on his face and his clothes had been dirty . No physical force had been used against him ;","- statements by police officers on duty at the police station on CARDINAL DATE about the absence of any conflict situations there on DATE or any complaints of ill - treatment from the applicant ;","- statements by PERSON . , PERSON , NORP , detained at the police station at the same time as the applicant . They submitted that they had not witnessed any clashes between the applicant and the police and had not seen the police use physical force against him ;","- statements by the investigator , ORG , who had questioned the applicant on CARDINAL DATE and to whom he had explained that his injuries ( a scratch on the face and a swollen nose ) had been sustained while he was drunk , either by falling down or in some other way , the applicant had not remembered exactly . The investigator had later called the applicant \u2019s mother . After she had arrived , the applicant had started complaining that he felt unwell and that he had been beaten by the police , after which an ambulance had been called for him ;","- statements by the investigator NORP , who said that she had questioned the applicant on CARDINAL DATE at the temporary detention facility . He had stated that he had been drinking in the courtyard of his house on DATE and had picked a fight with a certain PERSON . , with whom he had drunk before ;","- information from the temporary detention facility on the applicant \u2019s injuries at the time of his admission ( a closed fracture of the nasal bones and an abrasion on the left cheek ) and a handwritten note from the applicant to the effect that he had received the injuries after falling down while in an inebriated state and that he had no complaints about the law - enforcement bodies ;","- statements by a certain NORP , who submitted that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant and her husband PERSON . had been drinking together and had had a quarrel .","The subsequent decisions also took into account the following evidence :","- statements by PERSON . , who submitted that he had been drinking alcohol with the applicant on CARDINAL DATE , that they had been so drunk they could not walk in a straight line and had had to hold to one another , and that on their way home they had fallen down several times . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON . and the applicant had again spent DATE drinking together , but had had no arguments . He could not remember whether the applicant had had any injuries on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ;","- an additional forensic medical report of DATE which showed that the injury could have been caused on CARDINAL DATE but that it could not have been caused by the applicant \u2019s falling down ;","- statements by the doctors who examined the applicant on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE and performed the X - ray examination and by the expert who conducted the initial forensic medical examination .","The supervising authority set aside all those decisions , except for the most recent one , as unfounded and ordered additional pre - investigation inquiries .","In the meantime , on DATE the chief of inquiries at the investigations department of the Industrialniy ROVD instituted criminal proceedings against unidentified persons under LAW for the intentional infliction of moderately severe damage to the applicant \u2019s health at an unidentified place and time , but no later than midnight of DATE .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE forensic medical examinations of the applicant \u2019s medical file were conducted . The conclusions of the examinations showed that the closed fracture of the nose and swelling of the soft tissues in the nasal area could have been caused DATE . It was not possible to completely exclude the possibility that the above injury had originated as the result of the impact of a slightly protruding object . The injured area was also accessible to the applicant himself . The report of DATE excluded the possibility that the applicant had been injured by falling on the pavement while running away from Officers S. and PERSON given the absence of other injuries on prominent parts of his face ( nose , cheekbones or forehead ) or on other parts of his body ( the stomach or his extremities ) .","On DATE the chief of inquiries at the investigations department of the Industrialniy ROVD decided to suspend the investigation .","NORP However , on DATE the acting prosecutor of LOC set that decision aside . He noted that the case file contained information that police officers at ORG had allegedly inflicted the applicant \u2019s injuries and transferred the criminal case from the investigations department of ORG to the ORG investigations department of the investigation committee of ORG .","On DATE the chief of inquiries at the investigations department of the investigation committee of ORG resumed the case .","On DATE a witness , I. , ( the victim in the proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of robbery ) submitted that when the alleged robbery had taken place , at TIME on CARDINAL DATE , she had noticed that the applicant had an old abrasion on his face . She did not exclude the possibility that she could have scratched the applicant in the course of the struggle , but she had not hit him and had not seen any injuries on his face DATE when she had seen him at the police station .","On DATE Officer PERSON . was questioned as a witness .","On DATE the proceedings were suspended for the second time . The decision mentioned that the operational - search activities conducted to identify the perpetrator of the assault had not led to any positive results . It provided no further details on the exact measures taken by the investigator .","On DATE the deputy head of the investigations department set that decision aside and held that it was necessary to give the applicant victim status in the proceedings and question him . He also wanted to give the applicant \u2019s mother the status of the applicant \u2019s legal representative and question her , to carry out a comprehensive psychological and psychiatric examination of the applicant , to question a number of witnesses on the circumstances of the alleged ill - treatment ( among them Officer S. ) , and to join references from work on Officers K. , S. and PERSON . to the case file .","On DATE the applicant was given the status of a victim in the proceedings and was questioned as such . The applicant \u2019s mother joined the proceedings as his legal representative and was questioned .","On DATE the proceedings were suspended for the third time , with reference to the fact that the operational - search activities to identify the perpetrator had not led to any positive result . However , on CARDINAL DATE the deputy head of the investigations department set that decision aside and held that it was necessary to question the witnesses to establish all the relevant circumstances of the alleged ill - treatment .","DATE the head of PERSON and the officers present there at the time of the applicant \u2019s arrest were questioned as witnesses .","Meanwhile , on DATE a fourth decision on suspending the proceedings was taken . However , on DATE the deputy head of the investigations department set the decision aside and listed in detail the investigative measures that were needed . They included questioning the police officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . about the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s arrest , a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant and , depending on the results of that examination , deciding on the possibility of carrying out identification parades involving the applicant and PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .","On DATE Officer PERSON was questioned as a witness .","The proceedings were suspended for the fifth time on DATE , but were again resumed on DATE . The acting head of the investigations department considered it necessary , inter alia , to put further questions to certain witnesses . He also wanted to carry out a comprehensive psychological and psychiatric forensic examination of the applicant and , depending on the results of that examination , to decide on the possibility of carrying out identification parades involving the applicant and PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . In addition , he wanted to request documents on the applicant \u2019s hospital treatment after DATE and join them to the case file and to carry out an additional forensic medical examination .","On DATE another witness , NORP , ( an acquaintance of the applicant \u2019s mother ) stated that he had seen the applicant \u2019s arrest on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant had been escorted by CARDINAL people \u2013 one wearing a police uniform and the other in plain clothes . The applicant had not shown any resistance , had had no visible injuries and had not been subjected to physical force .","On DATE the applicant had an additional forensic psychiatric examination , which established that at the time of the alleged beatings he could not correctly perceive the factual aspect of events or understand the meaning and nature of actions taken in his respect .","On DATE and DATE CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON , stated respectively that they had seen the applicant on CARDINAL DATE , shortly before his arrest , that he had been dressed tidily and had had no injuries on his body or blood stains on his clothes . They had later seen him being escorted by CARDINAL police officers to a police car , the applicant had acted calmly , his clothes had been tidy and no physical force had been applied to him . A similar statement was made by the witness B.","On DATE the investigator decided to suspend the proceedings for the sixth time . He relied on the results of the applicant \u2019s forensic psychiatric examination of DATE and therefore the impossibility for the investigation to rely on his statements , as well as the absence of eyewitnesses of the circumstances in which the applicant had received his injuries . However , on DATE ORG found that decision unlawful and unsubstantiated .","On DATE the proceedings were resumed , only to be suspended for the seventh time on DATE for the same reasons as given in the decision of DATE . However , on DATE ORG found the decision of CARDINAL DATE unlawful and unsubstantiated , and on CARDINAL DATE the proceedings were again resumed .","On DATE the proceedings were yet again suspended . The decision said that the applicant \u2019s statement about his alleged ill - treatment by the police officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . could not be admitted as evidence in view of the results of the forensic psychiatric examination of DATE . The applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s statements had derived from those of the applicant himself . There was no direct evidence proving that the applicant had sustained his injuries at the hands of S. , PERSON and PERSON . The fact that those officers had arrested the applicant and taken him to ORG had not proved that they had been involved in the alleged ill - treatment . Exhaustive measures had been taken to establish the time the applicant had sustained his injuries . The witnesses PERSON , NORP and PERSON , who had seen the applicant \u2019s arrest , had stated that they had not seen the police officers use any physical force against him .","On DATE the proceedings were resumed and subsequently suspended for the ninth time on DATE . The investigation established that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been taken to ORG , PERSON and PERSON . The applicant had complained that those officers had beaten him after his arrest . According to the forensic medical examination of DATE , the applicant had had a closed fracture of bones in the nose and swelling of the soft tissues in the nasal area , which had been caused by the impact of a hard , blunt object and could have occurred DATE . The investigation had not confirmed any fact of ill - treatment of the applicant by PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . That was in accordance with the statements by the police officers , who had denied inflicting any injuries on the applicant , the witnesses who had seen the applicant \u2019s arrest , the records of identification parades and other evidence . There had been no other evidence attesting directly to the fact that a crime had been committed by the police officers . In addition , the decision reiterated that the applicant \u2019s statements could not be relied on in view of the results of the forensic psychiatric examination of DATE and could not be a basis for bringing charges against the police officers . The mother \u2019s statements had derived from those of the applicant and therefore could not be relied on either .","On DATE ORG found the decision of CARDINAL DATE unlawful and unsubstantiated and on DATE the proceedings were again resumed .","On DATE P. , an expert in psychiatry \u2013 a doctor of medical sciences and a professor \u2013 was questioned as a witness . He submitted that the conclusions of the psychiatric expert examination of CARDINAL October CARDINAL on the applicant \u2019s mental state at the time of the events in question were more consistent and reliable than those of the applicant \u2019s previous psychiatric expert examination on DATE .","On DATE the proceedings were suspended for the tenth time . The decision referred to the applicant \u2019s arrest on DATE , his statement as to the alleged ill - treatment by the police officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . , the results of the forensic medical examination of DATE with a description of his injuries and the time they were inflicted , and the police ORG denial of the alleged ill - treatment .","Proceedings were resumed on DATE . Formal confrontations were carried out between the witnesses B. and PERSON , Officer PERSON and PERSON , Officer PERSON . and PERSON , the applicant and the investigator PERSON , the applicant \u2019s mother and ORG , the applicant and the police officer who had taken him from ORG to the temporary detention facility and had allegedly threatened him on their way there by warning him not to tell anyone about the beatings , and the applicant and Officer PERSON","On DATE the proceedings were suspended for the eleventh time . The decision noted that it had been impossible to reconcile the statements of the police officers and the witnesses as to whether the applicant had had any injuries on his face at the time of his arrest . However , on DATE ORG found that decision unlawful and unjustified and the proceedings resumed again on DATE .","On DATE another police officer , PERSON , was questioned as a witness ( the case file contains no earlier record , if any , of the questioning of S. as a witness ) .","The proceedings were again suspended on DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and resumed respectively on CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE . In addition to the previously collected evidence , the decisions on suspension relied on :","- statements by the investigator ORG ;","- statements by PERSON . , NORP and PERSON . , detained at the police station at the same time as the applicant ;","- a radiology laboratory assistant PERSON and the radiologist NORP ;","- an expert , DATE . , on the nature of the applicant \u2019s injuries ;","- statements by PERSON . ;","- a statement by the witness , PERSON , who submitted that she had seen a fight between the applicant and the witness NORP , but that she had not seen any injuries on the applicant \u2019s body at that time ;","- Kr . , who submitted that she had seen no injuries on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE and that when she had seen him on DATE he had had a swollen nose . He had had no other visible injuries ;","- a statement by the officer on duty at the temporary detention facility , P. , who called an ambulance for the applicant on CARDINAL DATE ;","- the ambulance medics who examined the applicant on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , but who could not remember any circumstances of value to the investigation given the length of time since the events in question ;","- the neurosurgeon NORP , who examined the applicant on CARDINAL DATE at the hospital and submitted that he could have received his injuries DATE prior to the examination ;","- the lawyer PERSON , present at the applicant \u2019s questioning at the police station on CARDINAL DATE . Owing to the passage of time , he could not remember whether the applicant had any visible injuries or if he had told him anything about the circumstances of the alleged beatings .","On DATE the proceedings were suspended for DATE and last time . Taking into account the evidence that had been collected , the investigating authority came to the conclusion that the applicant had received his injuries no later than TIME on DATE ( the time of his examination by ambulance medics at ORG ) . However , it was impossible to make an objective and reliable conclusion as to the exact time and circumstances of the injuries . The results of the applicant \u2019s psychiatric expert examination precluded the investigating authority from relying on the applicant \u2019s submissions as evidence and there was no other evidence proving beyond doubt that his injuries had been inflicted in the circumstances he had described . In addition , the experts had arrived at the conclusion that the injury could have been caused anytime DATE .","According to the applicant , while the investigator was questioning him as a suspect on CARDINAL DATE , a trainee police officer , ORG , had taken the keys to his flat and had gone there and searched his room . A gold bracelet had allegedly gone missing after the search .","According to the applicant , Officers A. and PERSON had allegedly threatened him on DATE , warning him not to reveal that he had been beaten at the police station and to say instead that he had injured himself DATE before in a fight .","DATE the applicant \u2019s mother sought to have criminal proceedings instituted against ORG and PERSON for abuse of position .","The investigator refused several times to institute criminal proceedings .","The most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings against ORG is dated DATE . On DATE the ORG found at final instance that the aforementioned decision was lawful and justified . It had been established that the applicant \u2019s mother had let I. into the flat , answered his questions , and had then let him into the applicant \u2019s room and helped him search it . It had also been established that the disappearance of a gold bracelet had been alleged long after the events complained of . For those reasons , there could not reasonably have been an expectation that the incident would be investigated .","The most recent refusal to institute criminal proceedings against NORP and PERSON is dated CARDINAL DATE . The inquiry found no evidence to support the applicant \u2019s allegations . There is no information in the case file as to whether the applicant challenged the lawfulness of that decision in court .","The applicant \u2019s mother brought civil proceedings against ORG on behalf of herself and the applicant , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful prosecution of the applicant and the resulting medical treatment . She also sought compensation for pecuniary damage , representing the cost of the silver chain and cross which could not be recovered from the pawnshop and other costs and expenses .","On DATE ORG granted the claim in part and ordered ORG to pay the applicant RUB CARDINAL for the non - pecuniary damage caused by his unlawful prosecution . It refused the claim for recovery of the cost of the silver chain and cross , holding that the mother , as the applicant \u2019s legal representative , could have recovered them from the pawnshop herself .","On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal , increasing the amount awarded in respect of nonpecuniary damage to RUB CARDINAL . The court further held that the applicant \u2019s mother had failed to submit any evidence that she had asked the investigator to return the pawnshop pledge ticket and that such a request had been refused ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174417","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF WRONA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Reasonably necessary to prevent fleeing);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was charged with domestic violence .","On DATE a bill of indictment in respect of the applicant was lodged with ORG . Subsequently , on an unknown date the case was returned to the prosecution authorities in order to amend the charges .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to undergo a psychiatric assessment in a psychiatric hospital . The applicant did not lodge an interlocutory appeal against this decision .","On DATE the applicant was brought by the police to ORG in order to undergo the psychiatric assessment . However , he refused to stay and left the waiting room . On DATE he was ordered to come to the hospital on DATE , on pain of detention on remand . On DATE the applicant came to the hospital . However , he refused to stay for the assessment , explaining that he had many urgent matters to attend to .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on remand in accordance with Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The court held that in view of the applicant \u2019s GPE and his sister \u2019s testimonies there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged . In addition , there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings or that he would go into hiding . The court noted that the applicant \u2019s mother had admitted that he had stayed irregularly at his home address : he had been coming home TIME and leaving TIME . Furthermore , the applicant had failed to comply with the order of DATE to undergo a sixweek psychiatric assessment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court noted the applicant \u2019s GPE submissions that his mental condition was bad , he was not able to function independently and he was in need of urgent medical assistance . The court also attached importance to the fact that the applicant had previously behaved in a similar manner . He had been admitted to a psychiatric hospital on DATE , however DATE he had left the hospital on his own initiative . Consequently , in the court \u2019s view the applicant \u2019s submissions that he would comply with the order to undergo a psychiatric assessment were not convincing .","An appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The court mainly referred to the fact that the applicant had still to undergo a psychiatric assessment . It also noted the fact that the applicant stayed irregularly at his home address , therefore once released he might go into hiding .","NORP The applicant \u2019s detention was subsequently prolonged on the following dates : CARDINAL DATE ( until DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE ( until DATE ) and DATE ( until DATE ) . The court relied on the grounds previously given . The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against all those decisions .","On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant undergo a psychiatric assessment at the hospital wing of ORG . The applicant underwent this assessment DATE and DATE .","On DATE the amended bill of indictment was lodged with ORG . The applicant was charged with domestic violence and possession of QUANTITY of marijuana .","On DATE ORG again extended the applicant \u2019s detention ( until DATE ) . The court stressed that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings and that he would go into hiding . This risk was particularly valid in view of the difficulties which the applicant had caused in the past by his repeated refusal to undergo a psychiatric assessment .","During a hearing held on DATE the applicant \u2019s father and sister refused to testify . The applicant was released from detention on DATE . Subsequently , on DATE , the applicant \u2019s mother also refused to testify .","ORG held further hearings on DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG gave judgment , acquitting the applicant on charges of domestic violence and convicting him of possession of a small amount of marijuana . The court sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment stayed for DATE .","Following an appeal by the applicant , the judgment was quashed ( in its part concerning possession of drugs ) by ORG on DATE . The proceedings were subsequently discontinued by ORG on DATE . The court found that the prohibited act committed by the applicant had not constituted an offence because of its insignificant social consequences ( znikoma szkodliwo\u015b\u0107 spo\u0142eczna czynu ) .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings for compensation for unjustified detention under LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) before ORG . He stated that while the main reason for his detention on remand had been a DATE psychiatric assessment , he had been kept in detention for DATE . Moreover , the assessment had begun DATE after his arrest . He also stressed that there had been no risk that he would have attempted to obstruct the proceedings .","His claim was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The court referred at the outset to ORG Resolution of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It further noted that in the present case there had been no breach of procedural provisions of the ORG since the detention on remand had been applied mainly in view of the applicant \u2019s repeated refusal to comply with the ORG orders . Consequently , the applicant \u2019s detention on remand had been undoubtedly justified , even though eventually he had been acquitted .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court repeated the reasons given by ORG . It stressed that the applicant had clearly obstructed the proceedings by refusing to undergo a psychiatric assessment . Furthermore , there had been a risk that he could have gone into hiding . Lastly , the court noted that as soon as the applicant \u2019s parents and sister had refused to testify , the applicant had been released .","On DATE DATE the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal was dismissed as manifestly ill - founded by ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157706","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DUBOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of murdering his girlfriend and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment in a high - security facility . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the conviction on appeal .","NORP Since DATE the applicant has been serving his sentence in the IK-CARDINAL facility ( NORP designation \u0423\u0417-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , a correctional institution located in LOC . The sleeping area was severely overcrowded , with each prisoner having QUANTITY of personal space .","The Government submitted copies of the supervising prosecutor \u2019s infringement reports showing that a severe overcrowding had been a constant problem in the IK-CARDINAL facility at least until DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171516","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"BATS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Sergiy Goncharenko;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON Bats , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","NORP The applicant was represented by PERSON , a lawyer practicing in PERSON of LOC . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented , most recently , by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","PERSON , the judge elected in respect of GPE , was unable to sit in the case ( Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) . The President of ORG decided to appoint PERSON to sit as an ad hoc judge ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(b ) ) .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","DATE the applicant was dismissed several times from his position as chief forester at ORG and reinstated following court proceedings .","On DATE the applicant was again dismissed from his position for inadequate performance of his professional duties .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Baltskiy District Court to be reinstated and claiming various payments in compensation .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claims in part . In particular , it found that the defendant , ORG , had failed to substantiate its allegations that the applicant \u2019s performance at work had been inadequate and ordered his reinstatement . It also awarded him part of the sum claimed in compensation .","The defendant appealed , maintaining that the applicant had been dismissed lawfully .","On an unspecified date the NORP ORG of Appeal ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) scheduled a hearing for DATE .","On DATE ORG sent to the applicant , by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt , an envelope which the applicant received on CARDINAL or DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","A copy of the envelope submitted to the ORG bears no indication of its contents and the parties disagree as to those contents :","The applicant received the envelope on DATE or DATE . A copy of the acknowledgement slip provided to ORG contains a signature , purportedly that of the applicant , and a handwritten note , \u201c CARDINAL \u201d , in the field of the slip for the \u201c collect payment on delivery \u201d arrangements . According to the applicant , even though he received the envelope , he was not familiar with the contents of the slip , did not sign it and the signature appearing on it was not his .","According to an undated certificate issued by ORG clerk , on CARDINAL ( sic ) DATE both the applicant and the defendant were informed of the hearing , to be held at TIME on DATE .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged written comments with ORG in reply to the appeal .","On DATE ORG examined the case in the applicant \u2019s absence but in the presence of the defendant \u2019s representative , who gave oral submissions to the effect that he maintained the appeal . The court found no reason warranting an adjournment on account of the applicant \u2019s absence as the applicant had not filed any such request and had been duly notified of the time of the hearing . It examined the evidence in the file and the applicant \u2019s written comments .","On DATE the court reversed the judgment of the trial court . Having looked again at the evidence , it concluded that the applicant had systematically failed to carry out his professional duties and had therefore been lawfully dismissed .","In DATE the applicant appealed in cassation , arguing that he had performed his professional duties properly . The applicant also complained that the appellate court had had no basis whatsoever to state that he had been duly notified of the appeal hearing . The only judicial correspondence he had received in connection with the preparation of the appeal hearing had contained a copy of the other party \u2019s appeal . He had never been served with any summonses for the hearing informing him of its date and time . As a result , he had been deprived of the opportunity to confront his adversary before ORG , which had led to the reversal of the earlier judgment in his favour .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for leave to appeal , concluding that ORG had complied with the substantive and procedural law in adjudicating the applicant \u2019s case .","On DATE ORG refused to provide the applicant with a copy of the summons notifying him about the appeal hearing or evidence that such a summons had been delivered , stating that there were no such documents in the case file .","Following communication of the case to the respondent Government , on CARDINAL DATE ORG informed ORG office that there was no summons for the hearing at ORG in the case file because it had been sent to the applicant . The case file contained an acknowledgment slip showing that the summons in question had been served on the applicant in person .","The relevant provisions of LAW as worded at the material time read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Parties to proceedings shall be summoned via judicial summonses ( \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0456\u0441\u0442\u043a\u0430\u043c\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u043e \u0432\u0438\u043a\u043b\u0438\u043a ) ...","A judicial summons shall be served in a manner that provides the persons summoned with sufficient time to appear before the court and to prepare for taking part in the judicial examination of the case , but it shall be served DATE before the court session ...","A judicial summons and a slip acknowledging receipt ... shall be delivered by registered mail ... or via couriers to the address declared by the party or another person engaged in the proceedings . A party or his \/ her representative upon their consent may be given a judicial summons to be served on the respective participants of civil proceedings ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . A judicial summons addressed to an invidual shall be handed to them against their signature ...","The slip acknowledging receipt of a summons with a mention of the date of service shall be returned ... to the court on DATE ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The appellate court shall adjourn should a party fail to appear , where there is no information about whether he \/ she has been served with the summons ...","Failure to appear by the parties or other persons engaged in the proceedings who have been duly notified of the time and place of the examination of the case shall not prevent the [ the court ] from examining the case . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . A court decision must definitely be quashed and the case remitted for fresh examination if : ...","CARDINAL ) the case was examined in the absence of any person engaged in the proceedings who was not duly notified of the time and place of the hearing ; ...","Other instances of a breach or incorrect application of procedural rules may only be grounds for quashing a court decision where the breach has resulted in incorrect adjudication of the case ... \u201d","By ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE the Cabinet of Ministers enacted a set of ORG , which were in effect at the material time and which were repealed on DATE . CARDINAL of the Rules provided that summonses were to be accepted for delivery by registered mail , with an acknowledgement of receipt , in envelopes which bore the words \u201c ORG summons \u201d ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162697","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF \u0130ZZETT\u0130N DO\u011eAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Violation of Article 14+9-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion;Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Dean Spielmann;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants , whose names are listed in the ORG to the present judgment , are followers of the Alevi faith .","On DATE the applicants individually submitted a petition to the Prime Minister , the relevant parts of which read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... I am a citizen of GPE and adherent of the AleviIslamic ( Alevi , GPE , ORG ) faith . The Alevi faith is a NORP and rational interpretation and practice of ORG based on the unity of Allah , the Prophecy of PERSON and the Koran as ORG \u2019s Word ...","Freedom of conscience and religion is recognised by ORG , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW , and by LAW and CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL of the additional LAW , which take precedence over domestic law by virtue of LAW The ORG is required to take the necessary measures to guarantee the effective exercise of the right to freedom of conscience and religion . It must comply with that obligation by ensuring that everyone can effectively exercise those freedoms on an equal footing . In the constitutional order this obligation is regarded as a public service and this concept is enshrined in the LAW .","NORP Under the terms of LAW , \u2018 [ t]he ORG [ \u201c the RAD \u201d ] , which is part of the general administration , shall carry out the functions assigned to it under the special law by which it is ORG , in conformity with the principle of secularism , while remaining detached from all political views or ideas and with the aim of promoting national solidarity and union . The ORG was set up with a view to achieving those objectives .","Section CARDINAL of the RAD ( Creation and Functions ) Act ... provides that \u2018 the ORG , operating under the Prime Minister , is responsible for dealing with matters of NORP beliefs , worship and moral tenets and administering places of worship\u2019 .","Under the terms of that LAW , the ORG is invested with powers to manage all matters relating to ORG as a religion and is also responsible for administering places of worship .","In practice , the ORG confines itself to cases concerning CARDINAL theological school of thought [ mezhep ] pertaining to ORG and disregards all the other faiths , including ours , which is the Alevi faith . Although the ORG has an obligation under LAW and supranational provisions to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the right to freedom of conscience and religion can be freely exercised , the rights of PERSON are disregarded , their places of worship , namely the cemevis , are not recognised as such , numerous obstacles prevent them from being built , no provision is made in the budget for running them , and the exercise of their rights and freedoms is subject to the good will of public officials .","To date , all the demands made by the Alevi community with regard to practising their religion have been rejected as a result of the ORG \u2019s biased approach , which is divorced from scientific and historical fact and based on CARDINAL theological school of thought alone . As has been emphasised by ORG , \u2018 the ORG \u2019s duty of neutrality and impartiality , as defined in its case - law , is incompatible with any power on the ORG \u2019s part to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs.\u2019","...","In the light of the foregoing , we request that","a. services connected with the practice of the Alevi faith constitute a public service ,","b. Alevi places of worship ( cemevis ) be granted the status of places of worship ,","c. Alevi religious leaders be recruited as civil servants ,","d. special provision be made in the budget for the practice of the Alevi faith ,","... \u201d","On DATE the Prime Minister \u2019s public relations department sent the applicants a letter in reply saying that it was impossible to grant their requests . The relevant parts of the letter read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... The services provided by ORG in accordance with the legislation in force are available to everyone and are general and supradenominational . Everyone has a right to benefit from these general religious services on an equal footing .","Having regard to [ the current legislation ] and to the ORG case - law , it is impossible to grant the status of place of worship to cemevis .","Everyone has the right to be recruited as a civil servant , in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation . In that regard no group of persons can be granted a privilege on the basis of their faith or beliefs and be recruited according to those criteria . As the functions carried out by ORG constitute a public service , its staff are recruited on the basis of nationality and objective criteria .","It is impossible to make provision in the budget for services that are not provided for in the LAW or the law . \u201d","NORP Following receipt of that letter , CARDINAL people , including the applicants , lodged an application with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for judicial review of the decision refusing to grant their requests . The relevant parts of their notice of application are worded as follows :","\u201c ... It is estimated that there are currently DATE CARDINAL followers of the Alevi faith ( Alevi , GPE , ORG ) in our country . Up until DATE almost all Alevi citizens lived in rural areas . Subsequently , they started migrating to the towns and began practising their faith there .","With regard more particularly to cemevis , before migrating to the towns , PERSON , who led a reclusive lifestyle , practised their religious worship in the largest house in their village ...","Mass migration made it impossible to practise religious worship in houses ...","Moreover , the cemevis which used to exist in the cities , for example in GPE , could no longer meet the growing needs of the community . DATE \u2019s cemevis , which were built before the conquest of GPE , such as PERSON and PERSON , could no longer meet the increasing demands of the NORP community .","... [ C]itizens of the Alevi faith have used their own funds to acquire land on which to build cemevis . However , these places of worship have given rise to numerous instances of arbitrary conduct . Whilst certain municipalities had made provision for the construction of cemevis in their urban development plans , many others rejected applications for planning permission , with the ORG continuing to consider that cemevis could not be regarded as places of worship . That attitude has been adopted not only by the municipalities , but by the administration as a whole .","As a result of this arbitrary attitude on the part of the authorities , which is not based on any historical fact , cemevis have not been recognised as places of worship in GPE . Consequently , they are not eligible for any of the advantages linked to that status ...","ORG who have built their cemevis also pay the religious leaders whom they have recruited to officiate in these places of worship . These religious leaders , who follow a NORP interpretation of ORG , train and teach the faith using their own means . Like all religious leaders , they play a crucial role in the moral and social progress of society . Yet the authorities do not contribute in any way towards their training ...","As can be seen from the position briefly described above , the authorities almost completely disregard NORP citizens ; their places of worship \u2013 the cemevis \u2013 are regarded as cultural centres , with the result that they lack the status of places of worship and the attendant advantages . Likewise , the semah , which is one of the basic rituals of Alevi religious ceremonies , is reduced to a picturesque show . Thus , in determining the manner in which citizens must practise their religion , which places are considered as places of worship and the very nature of the faith itself ( a belief or culture ) , the authorities are manifestly infringing the right to freedom of conscience and religion .","Further , ORG continues to disregard the Alevi faith and to offer religious education based on CARDINAL particular NORP theological doctrine . In doing so , it undermines peaceful co - existence and encourages discrimination from a very young age .","In conclusion , no service is provided to citizens of the Alevi , ORG or ORG faith , which constitutes a serious oversight ...","...","According to the LAW and the relevant legislation , the ORG carries out the functions assigned to it under the special law by which it is governed ( a ) in conformity with the principle of secularism , ( b ) while remaining detached from all political views or ideas , and ( c ) with the aim of promoting national solidarity and union .","In that connection , if regard is had to the RAD ( Creation and Functions ) Act ( Law no . CARDINAL ) it can be concluded that this body was set up not only for the needs of the NORP religion ( the majority religion ) , but for those of all religions . However , the present application sets out to challenge the practice of the authorities , of which the ORG is an integral part , with regard to the NORP religion .","...","The principle of equality requires that no distinction be made between users regarding either access to public services or the benefit of those services . Where a public service is concerned , equality must be observed in every sphere ... Otherwise , it is a privilege and not a public service ...","Under LAW no . CARDINAL , the ORG is responsible for ( a ) dealing with matters of NORP beliefs , worship and moral tenets , ( b ) enlightening society about matters pertaining to religion , and ( c ) administering places of worship .","It should be pointed out in this regard that the legislature did not seek to legislate for CARDINAL particular branch of ORG or CARDINAL theological doctrine or movement within ORG , but for the NORP religion as a whole . Accordingly , the ORG is responsible for providing a public service to all citizens who are followers of ORG .","...","We now come to the facts regarding the practices of the ORG ... The ORG employs CARDINAL people , administers CARDINAL mosques and masdjids [ prayer rooms for religious practice ] and has a budget of MONEY set aside in the general budget to carry out the functions assigned to it . In carrying out its functions , the ORG , although its powers encompass the NORP religion as a whole , confines itself to the demands of the NORP schools of thought , and in particular the NORP school , while disregarding all the other movements and branches of ORG . The general budget is funded mainly by revenue from the taxes paid by all citizens . No distinction on grounds of religion or membership of a religious movement is made where tax collection is concerned . On the contrary , this is based on nationality . However , the ORG , which receives MONEY from the general budget , offers a public service only to the followers of CARDINAL particular theological school of thought ...","It is entirely normal for a religion to encompass several different theological doctrines , movements , beliefs ... \u201d","Referring to the case - law of ORG , the applicants further contended that , contrary to the position of the ORG describing the Alevi faith as a cultural asset and considering mosques as the only place of NORP worship , cemevis were places of worship where cems , that is , Alevi religious ceremonies , were conducted . In their submission , it was not for the ORG to decide whether cems were or were not religious ceremonies . Relying on examples taken from speeches by the Head of the ORG , they submitted that it was a matter exclusively for followers of the Alevi faith , and not for a ORG body , to determine what should be regarded as a religious ceremony .","On an unspecified date the Prime Minister \u2019s ORG submitted its memorial in reply . It disputed , first of all , the standing of the applicants to act , submitting that they could not lodge an application on behalf of all ORG . They observed in that connection that , according to some sources , the number of PERSON in GPE varied from QUANTITY that there was no uniform approach regarding either the definition of the faith or the demands of its followers .","With regard to the merits , ORG went on to dispute the claimants\u2019 arguments . The relevant passages of its memorial read as follows :","\u201c Law no . CARDINAL ... prohibits the bearing of certain religious titles such as sheikh , dedelik [ an NORP religious leader ] , dervichlik , and so forth , the practices connected with those titles , and the designation of a venue for ceremonies conducted by NORP orders ( tarikat ayini ) . Failure to comply with these prohibitions is punishable by a term of imprisonment and a fine . Moreover , the same PERSON orders the closure of tekke and zaviye and their conversion into FAC or masdjids ...","ORG carries out its functions in accordance with ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and LAW . CARDINAL and CARDINAL . In carrying out its functions , it encompasses all NORP beliefs , modes of worship and moral tenets and extends to all people on an equal footing . It is accordingly incorrect to claim that the ORG , which carries out its functions in a supra - denominational manner , confines itself to the NORP branch of NORP ... It is impossible to offer a service to banned NORP orders ( tarikat ) ; this would also be contrary to the principle of secularism and national solidarity .","LAW implementing the LAW governing the wearing of certain dress defines places of worship as follows :","\u2018 Places of worship ( mabedler ) are closed areas created in accordance with the relevant procedure and designed in the case of each religion for the practice of religious worship\u2019 ... Having regard to the foregoing , a place can not be regarded as a place of worship unless it is associated with a religion . In that regard , churches , synagogues and mosques or masdjids are the places of worship of the NORP , NORP and NORP faiths respectively . It is clear that everyone has the right to practise his or her faith in private at his or her own home or elsewhere . Accordingly , there is no prohibition or obstacle preventing NORP citizens from saying their prayers , the zikir or the semah in cemevis . However , the creation , in addition to mosques and masdjids , of places of worship for the followers of a particular interpretation or movement of ORG is not in conformity with religion . Furthermore , an application for designation of a place of worship , appointment of religious functionaries and allocation of a budget on the basis of belief in an opinion or interpretation of the NORP religion or adherence to a particular theological doctrine would inevitably create an insoluble problem and chaos within that religion ... Moreover , history has shown that the namaz [ CARDINAL compulsory prayers ] are never said collectively in the tekke , dergah and zaviye [ ORG monasteries ] , but that they are said in the mosques or masdjids that are invariably located alongside such places ...","As specified in the notice of application , the Alevi faith ( Alevilik ) ... is an interpretation and practice of ORG . The Alevi and GPE faith is a NORP interpretation superficially containing elements pertaining to belief in CARDINAL imams and mystical elements ( batini ) . In the past it was practised in dergah in towns . As there were no dergah in the villages , the most appropriate house was chosen . Nowadays , places such as PERSON and PERSON are the dergah of the GPE , that is , tekke ...","To recognise cemevis as places of worship would be contrary to Law no . CARDINAL ... Moreover , a development of that kind would lead to the legalisation of other NORP orders and many of them that are banned ( GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , and so on ) would request legal status ... A number of sectarian groups would then be likely to start appearing around a sheikh ... \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the preliminary objections of the authorities and examined the application on the merits . It dismissed the application on the grounds that the refusal by the respondent authorities was in conformity with the legislation in force .","In its reasoning , referring to ORG , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and to LAW . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and also to the international instruments concerning freedom of religion and the prohibition of discrimination and to the judgment in GPE and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , ORG observed at the outset that the Alevi faith attained a certain level of cogency , seriousness and cohesion and , as an interpretation of ORG , enjoyed the protection of LAW . It considered , further , that the object of the application did not relate solely to the ORG \u2019s negative duty of noninterference but that the applicants were also claiming privileges which , in their view , were granted to the NORP branch of ORG ( allocation of a budget , status of civil servant for Alevi religious leaders , recognition of cemevis as places of worship ) . It stressed the importance of the principle of neutrality in public services . However , the court found that it had not been established that all PERSON supported the claims submitted by the applicants . Moreover , in the court \u2019s view , the provision of a public service to all interpretations of ORG could hardly be reconciled with the principle of secularism .","ORG also found that the allocation to the ORG of funds from the general budget was not contrary to the law , as it would be unrealistic to link the payment of general taxes to ORG convictions or beliefs . In that connection it stressed that ORG had not judged it contrary to the LAW to allocate a budget to the secular activities of a church ( keeping registers of marriages and deaths , and so forth ) or to levy a general tax without specifying how it would be used . The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c ... It is clear from the examination of the file that ORG is being asked in the present case to set aside the Prime Minister \u2019s refusal of the request made in a petition of DATE to have religious services provided to NORP citizens in the form of a public service ; to have the cemevis , where NORP citizens practise their faith , granted the status of places of worship ; to have a sufficient number of competent individuals , recognised as such by PERSON , recruited as civil servants for the purpose of the religious rites required by the Alevi faith ; to have funds set aside in the general budget to pay for the services required in that regard ; to have provision made in LAW for the funds concerned , while taking the necessary action to that end ; and to take all the necessary measures in order to grant the requests set out in the abovementioned petition .","Assessing the case in the light of the relevant provisions of domestic law , it can be seen that part of the general budget is allocated to ORG created under PERSON no . CARDINAL ; that the ORG does not establish , but rather administers , the mosques ... recognised as \u2018 places of worship\u2019 ; that the staff assigned to manage them are religious leaders who are recruited and paid as civil servants to administer religious services in connection with the beliefs , worship and moral tenets of the NORP religion ; and that application of the prohibitions introduced by PERSON no . CARDINAL is guaranteed by the LAW .","Hence , it is clear from the interpretation of the provisions of Law no . CARDINAL and Article CARDINAL of the LAW that it is not possible to recognise a place other than a mosque as a \u2018 place of worship\u2019 ... , to recruit civil servants for the purpose of the religious rites required by the Alevi faith , or even to make provision in LAW for the funding of the services to be provided in that regard . This would be contrary to the statutory provisions governing the civil service and it is therefore not possible , in accordance with the only statutory provisions of domestic law in force , to grant the requests made in that connection without amending the legislation .","Nevertheless , under the terms of LAW , the issue must also be examined from a legal standpoint in the light of the provisions of the international conventions to which GPE is a Party ...","[ Reference is made to LAW ] .","In principle , freedom of religion and belief \u2013 which may be defined as adherence to a religion or belief ( internally ) and the observance , in the place of the individual \u2019s choosing ( externally ) , of the precepts of that religion or belief , alone or in community with others , in so far as this does not disturb public order DATE is governed by the above - mentioned ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW of GPE ... , which must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the provisions of the international treaties .","Thus , it must be assessed to what extent LAW . CARDINAL and CARDINAL which are in force in GPE , and existing practices as regards freedom of religion and belief , which are at issue in this case , can be said to be consistent with the judgments of ORG CARDINAL in similar cases .","...","In the present case it [ is generally accepted ] that the Alevi faith [ enjoys the protection afforded ] by LAW . There can be no doubt in this regard , especially in the light of the practice prevailing in GPE ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ) .","Further , while ORG considers that the existence of a ORG system is not in itself contrary to the ORG , and while it does not require the ORG to treat the different religions and beliefs in absolutely identical fashion and does not criticise the existence of an official ORG religion ( see ORG v. GPE ) , it nevertheless regards compulsory membership of such a church as a violation of LAW ( see PERSON v. GPE ) .","ORG is of the view that , where criticism of or attacks against a religion or belief attain a level liable to jeopardise the exercise of freedom of religion and belief ... , indifference in this regard on the part of the public authorities engages the responsibility of the ORG . Furthermore , where those same authorities restrict the freedom to manifest one \u2019s religion or belief in the public sphere , the restriction in question must be examined in the light of the following criteria : whether there was interference and , if so , whether the measure in question was lawful , pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a NORP society .","There is no provision of the LAW establishing a ORG religion . Moreover , in the present case , no specific examples have been provided suggesting that PERSON encounter obstacles in exercising their right to freely manifest their religion or that they are subjected to pressure to adopt a different form of belief .","As to the issue of taxpayers contributing to the funding of the religious activities of a church to which they do not belong , ORG considers it contrary to Article CARDINAL to collect a tax which directly benefits a church to which the taxpayers do not belong . However , it has found there to be no such violation where the tax is used to fund the church \u2019s secular activities ( the keeping of registers of marriages and deaths , and so forth ) ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , Commission decision of DATE , DR CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) or where it is levied as a general tax without it being clear how it is to be used .","Furthermore , a portion of the revenue collected in general taxation from the citizens of GPE is allocated to ORG . Accordingly , not only can there be no question of any contradiction or inconsistency with the ORG \u2019s judgments , but also , if the ORG request had to be granted , persons opposed to armaments , war , nuclear power or technology because of their beliefs could not be taxed individually , as it would be impossible to determine who was liable for the tax and public order could no longer be ensured .","As to the argument that the officials recruited by the ORG to deal with religious matters are not the same individuals as the religious leaders whom other belief communities have themselves chosen , ORG has held that the ORG is the ultimate guarantor of the freedom to manifest a religion or belief and that in a situation of this kind the ORG in a pluralist democracy has a duty , in view of the tensions that are liable to arise , to promote tolerance between the parties and may not subject the different groups to pressure or interfere with their rights and freedoms ( see Serif v. GPE , PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , and PERSON v. GPE ) .","As is clear from the provisions of the above - mentioned international treaties and from the judgments of ORG , the ORG , fundamentally and ideally , has a negative obligation in the sphere of freedom of religion and belief to refrain as far as possible from hindering those freedoms . In other words , the ideal system is one in which the ORG is neutral . Accordingly , seeking to achieve equality does not mean eliminating differences but rather preventing privileges from being granted to certain groups . In the present case , however , the applicants are claiming a number of measures of positive discrimination on behalf of the NORP community by arguing that , although they are NORP , PERSON interpret and practise ORG in a different way , and are requesting ORG to grant them the privileges which , they contend , are granted to NORP . There is no doubt that ORG is a serious and coherent set of beliefs , that it is an interpretation of ORG , and that a large section of the population claims adherence to it . However \u2013 and bearing in mind also the general principles set forth in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief \u2013 while it is true that there are indeed differences amongst PERSON as regards the forms of belief and practice and the manner in which they define themselves , and while the applicants also recognise this , there is no specific evidence that all PERSON support the claims made in the present case . Accordingly , from the perspective of freedom of belief , this court reiterates that the ideal is a neutral ORG which undertakes to protect individuals against being forced to participate against their will in the religious activities of a religious group to which they do not belong .","In the light of all these considerations , examination of the facts from the standpoint of the constitutional principles of GPE demonstrates that","- as regards freedom of religion and belief seen from a normative viewpoint , Articles CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE of the LAW were drafted in a manner consistent with the provisions of the relevant international treaties , since no provision of LAW establishes a ORG religion ;","- a portion of the revenue in the general budget is allocated to ORG , which is part of the general administration ;","- ORG is generally acknowledged to carry out its administrative functions pertaining to matters of NORP belief , worship and moral tenets by taking as its basis the shared identity of all NORP and , in accordance with the LAW and the principle of secularism , while remaining detached from all political views or ideas and with the aim of promoting national solidarity and union ; and","- as regards the ORG practices complained of , ORG has held in its judgments that these are not contrary to the above - mentioned applicable legislation , which does not overstep the limits of LAW .","Further , if the ORG were to respond to all expectations and demands by providing the corresponding public service , for instance by recognising places of worship for groups professing forms of belief linked to the various NORP schools of law ( mezheb ) , the various NORP orders ( tarikat ) and the various understandings and interpretations of ORG that have emerged in the course of history , granting the status of civil servants to the religious leaders of those groups , setting aside a portion of the budget for them and placing them under the authority of a public body , there would be a risk not only of engendering debate on the extent to which ORG action and the discretion exercised by ORG in its activities in the public sphere satisfy the spiritual needs of the different groups of believers , but also of breaching the principle of ORG secularism by upsetting the balance to be struck between religious and legislative rule - making , and of exacerbating different forms of belief . This could ultimately lead to restrictions on freedom of religion and belief , and thus to an outcome that runs counter to the very aim which the applicants sought to achieve in lodging their claims , which were based precisely on their difference .","In these circumstances , the administrative decision refusing the ORG requests ... can not be said to be in breach of the statutory provisions . \u201d","The applicants appealed against the first - instance judgment . They submitted that provision of a public service exclusively to NORP adhering to NORP theological doctrines was incompatible with the constitutional principles of secularism and neutrality of public services . They rejected any suggestion that they were requesting the ORG to grant them positive privileges , arguing that the basis of their claims was the principle of equality . They added that ORG could not be regarded as neutral with regard to religions as it took measures which favoured one religious interpretation to the detriment of others . In the applicants\u2019 view , the courts did not have the right to rule on the legitimacy of a belief or its practices . They furnished expert reports in support of their submissions .","In a judgment of DATE , served on the applicants on DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment as being in conformity with the procedure and laws .","Although GPE is a \u201c secular ORG \u201d according to LAW , the NORP faith as practised by the majority of citizens enjoys special status for historical reasons .","In GPE , after the proclamation of the Republic on DATE , separation of the public and religious spheres was achieved through a series of revolutionary reforms : on CARDINAL DATE the caliphate \u2013 supreme institution of NORP \u2013 was abolished ; on DATE the constitutional provision declaring ORG the ORG religion was repealed ; and , lastly , on DATE a constitutional amendment was passed according constitutional status to the principle of secularism ( see LAW as amended in DATE DATE and LAW and DATE Constitutions ) . Article CARDINAL of the DATE LAW also guarantees the right to freedom of religion and conscience .","Following the abolition of the caliphate ORG ( FAC ) was passed , abolishing the traditional religious educational institutions . In parallel , ORG ( \u015eeriye ve PERSON ) and all the religious courts were abolished , and ORG ( governing body of ORG ) , as it was called at the time , was founded by PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE . By virtue of section QUANTITY of that PERSON , this body , which was responsible for implementing \u201c all the provisions relating to NORP worship and faith and the administration of religious institutions \u201d , was placed under the authority of the Prime Minister . The PERSON provided that this body had no powers in terms of religious education , which was transferred to ORG .","NORP In DATE the administration of FAC and prayer rooms , which had initially been transferred to ORG in DATE , was brought back under the supervision of the governing body of ORG .","ORG ( Creation and Functions ) Act ( Law no . CARDINAL ) was enacted on DATE and published in ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) of DATE introduced a category of civil servants dealing with religious matters . That category includes all civil servants who have received religious training and carry out a religious function , namely the muezzin ( those who call the faithful to prayer from the top of the minaret ) , imam - hatip , vaiz ( preacher ) and mufti ( jurisconsult who interprets NORP laws and PERSON law ) .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( E. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , PERSON MONEY ) , published in ORG on DATE , ORG held that the creation of a category of civil servants dealing with religious matters was compatible with the constitutional principle of secularism . In its reasoning it considered that secularism meant the separation between temporal power and spiritual power . Neither of those powers could interfere in the affairs of the other . ORG found that the existence of a clergy and a religious service in the NORP religion , and the acceptance by NORP of the PERSON as spiritual leader , had played an important role in that conception of secularism . However , in the NORP religion there was no clergy and the staff responsible for places of worship had no spiritual power . Accordingly , ORG held that , as the CARDINAL religions were different , their religious functionaries could not have the same status . In that connection it observed that it was only in NORP countries that a separation could be imagined between religious functionaries and the ORG . In ORG view , the principle of secularism sought to promote the progress of the NORP nation and did not allow the creation of religious movements pursuing aims that were incompatible with that purpose .","Consequently , and despite the \u201c secular \u201d nature of ORG , the \u201c NORP religious service \u201d is regarded as a \u201c public service \u201d . In accordance with LAW , the RAD \u2013 which is in charge of this public service \u2013 is part of the general administration and is therefore endowed with public powers , despite not having the status of a publiclaw entity . According to the statistics published by the ORG ( ORG ) , in DATE","\u2013 the number of civil servants assigned to the department was CARDINAL ;","\u2013 the number of FAC was CARDINAL ; and","\u2013 the number of Koranic schools ( NORP kursu ) managed by the ORG was CARDINAL .","In GPE there is no religious tax . Accordingly , since the ORG was created its revenue has always come from the ORG budget . In that connection , the documents submitted by the parties show that , in DATE , the amount allocated to the ORG was MONEY ( \u201c TRY \u201d ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) on the basis of the exchange rate at the time ) . In DATE the budget came to TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . For DATE a budget of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) was set aside . In their observations the applicants also provided information according to which the budget allocated to the RAD for DATE came to a total of TRY CARDINAL . The applicants submitted that , on the basis of the relevant exchange rate , that sum corresponded to MONEY ( ORG ) . Moreover , according to the data provided by the ORG , PERCENT of the ORG \u2019s budget is allocated to staff expenditure . The ORG also pointed out that FAC and district FAC were built on the initiative of volunteer citizens and through their efforts . Lastly , the Government stated that under section PERSON ) of PERSON no . DATE , lighting costs for places of worship were met by the ORG . Thus , in DATE the sum of TRY CARDINAL had been set aside in the ORG \u2019s budget to pay the electricity bills of FAC , district FAC , churches and synagogues . No provision was made in the budget for places of NORP practice such as cemevis , mevlevi houses ( mevlevihane ) or qadiri houses ( kadirihane ) .","The ORG , as the administrative body responsible for matters pertaining to the NORP religion in GPE , has a sort of monopoly over these matters . In that connection , religious services pertaining to ORG are considered to fall within the legal framework governing the public service . This special status is explained , according to the Government , by the fact that the NORP religion does not have an absolute religious authority or religious organisation comparable to ORG in the NORP religion , nor does it have a clergy or other privileged groups .","It emerges from the articles furnished by the applicants and written by specialists in administrative law that , although the legal framework governing the public service is based on the principle of neutrality , which is a component of the wider concept of a secular ORG , the attitude of the ORG towards other branches of the NORP religion has been the subject of widespread criticism in GPE . The ORG has responded by stating that , in accordance with the principle of secularism , it performs its tasks not by reference to the preferences or religious traditions of a particular faith or a particular religious group or order , but on the basis , among other things , of sources of the NORP religion accepted by all NORP . In its view , these traditions and sources are common to all NORP and are spiritual rather than temporal . Likewise , the services it provides are general and supradenominational and are made available to everyone on an equal footing .","The applicants , however , relying on the articles referred to above , disputed the claim that the ORG \u2019s services were provided to everyone and were general and supra - denominational . They maintained that the ORG provided a religious service based on the ORG understanding of ORG .","With regard to the status of other beliefs and religions , NORP law does not provide for any specific procedure by which religious communities can obtain special status under public or private law or religious denominations can be recognised and registered . Consequently , religious communities , except those endowed with the status of recognised religious minority under LAW ( especially the NORP , NORP and NORP communities ) or other international treaties ( especially the NORP community ) , can only operate as foundations or associations .","In their observations the applicants submitted that , in addition to the ORG , numerous other religious groups were in the same unfavourable position , namely members of the NORP churches , FAC , PERSON , PERSON and NORP .","The absence of a clear legal framework governing unrecognised religious minorities causes numerous legal , organisational and financial problems . First of all , the religious leaders of these communities have no legal status and there is no appropriate establishment able to train staff involved in the practice of the religion or creed in question . Secondly , their places of worship do not have any legal status and do not enjoy any legal protection . The ability to build places of worship is uncertain and is subject to the good will of the central or local authorities . Arrangements for the upkeep of immovable property with a cultural heritage , which in some cases is literally falling into ruin , are complex . Thirdly , the communities in question can not officially receive donations from members or ORG subsidies . Lastly , as they do not have legal personality , these communities do not have access to the courts in their own right but only through foundations , associations or groups of followers .","In addition , there are numerous legal obstacles for religious communities trying to operate as a foundation or an association . Whilst many communities have created their own foundations , under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code it is illegal to create a foundation \u201c whose aim is to support ... a specific community \u201d ( see , for example , GPE and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . Furthermore , although many communities have created their own associations to serve their specific interests , NORP law does not provide for any special form of religious association open to religious communities .","In its opinion on the legal status of religious communities in GPE and the right of the NORP Patriarchate of GPE to use the adjective \u201c ecumenical \u201d , adopted by ORG on DATE ( ORG ) , the latter made the following observations :","\u201c CARDINAL . The basic problem in NORP law as regards religious communities is that they can not register and obtain legal personality as such . There is no clear arrangement in the legal system for this , and no religious community has so far obtained legal personality . Instead they have to operate indirectly through foundations or associations .","...","Although the lack of legal personality in principle applies equally to all religious communities in GPE , there is in practice a clear distinction between NORP and NORP . For NORP activities , these are administered through the Presidency of Religious Affairs ( the PERSON ) , which is formally part of the administration and reports directly to the Prime Minister . The PERSON has responsibility for regulating the operation of the country \u2019s CARDINAL registered mosques and employing local and provincial imams , who are civil servants . For the NORP communities issues related to representation are therefore handled through the PERSON .","For NORP religious communities , the PERSON can not be considered representative . They , therefore , do not legally exist as themselves . Instead , the model provided for under NORP law is for their members to register foundations or associations , which may ( to some extent ) support the religious communities . Both these legal structures \u2013 foundations and associations \u2013 have clear limitations for religious communities , but both have recently been reformed , making them somewhat more usable . \u201d","Although this opinion concerns only the legal status of ORG religious communities in GPE , it provides an overview of the situation of religious communities in general .","NORP In reply to a question from the Court the applicants specified that the Alevi faith was a belief with particular features which distinguished it in many respects from the NORP understanding of NORP . PERSON recognised PERSON as their PERSON and the Koran as their holy book . They asserted that it was a faith which followed an esoteric interpretation of the Koran and believed in man \u2019s \u201c divine essence \u201d , with no distinction being made between the divine being and human essence . Unlike NORP , Alevi men and women practised their faith together in the cemevis .","The Government specified that there were no official statistics on the Alevi population in GPE , as the population censuses did not include any questions concerning religious affiliation . However , referring to the report on GPE prepared by the ORG ( ORG on International Religious Freedom ) ( GPE LAW ) , the applicants submitted that CARDINAL to PERCENT of the total population of GPE were followers of the Alevi faith , that is , QUANTITY people . They added that many members of the NORP community also avoided disclosing their own beliefs . They concluded that the total Alevi population in GPE was somewhere between CARDINAL and CARDINAL . They also submitted to ORG an extract from the statements made on DATE by PERSON , a Member of ORG for the ORG ( ORG ) , according to which research into the Alevi population showed that","- there were CARDINAL Alevis in GPE ;","- whilst PERSON lived nearly everywhere in the country , more specifically there were CARDINAL areas in which ORG were the majority population , including CARDINAL villages , CARDINAL districts and CARDINAL cities .","- PERCENT of those people described themselves as \u201c Alevis \u201d , PERCENT as \u201c NORP PERSON \u201d , PERCENT as \u201c NORP Alevis \u201d , PERCENT as \u201c NORP \u201d and PERCENT as \u201c atheists \u201d .","The Government stated that there were CARDINAL cemevis in GPE . The applicants submitted that it could be seen from the discussions in ORG on adoption of the ORG budget in DATE that there were CARDINAL cemevis in cities and CARDINAL cemevis in villages .","Cemevis do not have the status of places of worship under NORP law as they are not regarded as places designed for religious worship in the strict sense of the term ( regarding the status of cemevis in GPE , see in particular the judgment in LOC ve PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . In many opinions the ORG has said that it regards the cemevi as a sort of monastery ( tekke ) , that is , not strictly speaking a place of worship but merely a place of assembly where spiritual ceremonies are held . In its view , the Alevi faith is an interpretation of ORG influenced by NORP and with specific cultural features , and can not be regarded as a religion in its own right or as a branch ( mezhep ) of NORP . Consequently , it associates the status of cemevis with that of the legal entity to which they belong .","The Government stated that CARDINAL Alevi workshops ( Alevi \u00e7al\u0131\u015ftaylar\u0131 ) had been organised in GPE DATE and DATE , with a view to examining questions relating to the NORP community in the context of the Alevi initiative ( Alevi a\u00e7\u0131l\u0131m\u0131 ) . The workshops were attended by CARDINAL participants including Alevi spiritual leaders \u2013among them the applicant Mr \u0130zzettin Do\u01e7an , who is a PERSON ( NORP religious leader ) \u2013 theologians , public figures sympathetic to the problems of PERSON and ORG representatives . In that connection , a special meeting was organised in the county of ORG , which had been the scene of bloodshed on DATE when intellectuals and PERSON had been persecuted by rightwing extremists outside any legal framework .","During the workshops the issue of the status of the cemevi , affecting the teaching of the Alevi faith and the funding of religious activities , was also discussed . In the final statement adopted at the end of the workshops by Mr F. \u00c7elik , Minister of ORG , and published on DATE , the wish was expressed to see the cemevi acquire official status . It was considered that such recognition would allow the Alevi community to take advantage of the many privileges granted to places on which that status was conferred .","According to the final report ( PERSON hereinafter \u201c the Final report \u201d ) adopted following the workshops , the Alevi question had to be addressed on the basis of a conception of secularism that was compatible with the rule of law , and a solution had to be found without creating new forms of segregation . The report , which is CARDINAL pages long , addresses the various issues affecting PERSON ( Alevi sorunu ) . The Government produced a copy of the report , the relevant parts of which are set out at paragraph CARDINAL below .","The Government submitted that after the Alevi workshops , on DATE , the syllabus of the \u201c compulsory religious education and ethics \u201d classes had been changed in order to respond \u2013 to a considerable degree , according to the Government \u2013 to the demands of the Alevi religious leaders ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . On DATE work had begun on building ORG lower secondary school where , among other subjects , the Alevi faith would be taught . Furthermore , ORG had been renamed PERSON .","In their observations before ORG submitted that the movements that had emerged in the NORP world based on NORP jurisprudence or faith or on the NORP schools of thought ( or NORP orders ) could not be accepted as the only correct forms of NORP teaching . Consequently , there was no clear distinction between these schools of thought , unlike in the NORP faith . Hence , unlike NORP , the members of a NORP brotherhood or movement , when asked about their religious identity , would define themselves first and foremost as NORP without mentioning the fact that they adhered to NORP beliefs or belonged to a NORP order . Furthermore , Alevism \u2013 whose roots could be traced back DATE could not be considered as a new religious movement .","The Government added that , in NORP societies , there existed a kind of institutional ORG founded on the Koran and on the practices of the Prophet PERSON . The differences that had emerged subsequently did not relate to ORG itself , as generally understood , but to the way in which religion and religious life as a whole were perceived , and could not therefore be regarded as a schism within ORG .","In support of their argument the ORG submitted an \u201c academic opinion \u201d ( PERSON ) signed by CARDINAL professors of theology and a professor of sociology . According to the opinion , on the basis of the overall classification accepted by religious academics , religious groups comprised CARDINAL primary structures , namely religions , sects and mystical groups . It went on to state that NORP thought and practice , including the Alevi faith , represented the third category ( mystical groups ) within NORP societies . PERSON adhered to ORG and acknowledged that the Koran was the last holy book and that PERSON was the last prophet . The opinion further considered that prayer ( namaz ) , fasting ( oru\u00e7 ) and pilgrimage ( ha\u00e7 ) were rituals common to all NORP irrespective of their adherence to a particular branch or theological doctrine . Alevi sources placed strong emphasis on prayer and on the Ramadan fast , and sociological research had found that , in various regions of the country , there were PERSON who practised these rituals . The opinion added that the Alevi faith should be regarded as a NORP tradition or order tailored to a social system organised around \u201c family groups \u201d ( ocak , a sort of tribal organisation ) , according to the divine trinity of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . This meant that there was only one PERSON ( Allah ) , that PERSON was his prophet and that PERSON was his saint . Another central concept to the NORP community was the term PERSON alBayt , which referred to the family of PERSON .","According to the opinion , the term \u201c Sunnism \u201d referred to \u201c NORP \u201d or PERSON , representing the way of life of the prophet PERSON . The term was generally considered to refer to the theological branches of ORG such as ORG and NORP and to the branches of the schools of law , namely ORG , ORG and ORG . According to scholars of ORG , in order to be able to draw precise conclusions from the nasses ( dogma of ORG comprising rules from the Koran and the NORP ) and find an answer to controversial questions , it was necessary to take solid verses from the Koran as a basis , to have regard to the undisputed PERSON ( prophetic tradition ) , to attempt to understand the nasses in their entirety and , in general , to subordinate rationality to revelation , by accepting the apparent meaning of the nasses .","The opinion also stated that it was technically incorrect to compare the Alevi faith to Sunnism or the status of cemevis to that of places of worship , in so far as cemevis were merely places where \u201c customs and ceremonies \u201d ( adap ve erkan ) were practised by followers of the Alevi faith . Consequently , ORG could only be compared to other NORP groups such as NORP or PERSON ( NORP orders ) ."],"violated_articles":["14","9"],"violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158032","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SHER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Respect for private life)","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["At the time of the facts set out below the applicants resided in the GPE on student visas . Their details are set out in the appendix .","On DATE the applicants were arrested , along with CARDINAL others , under LAW , as amended ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , in various locations in LOC . The arrests occurred in the context of ORG .","Mr PERSON was arrested at QUANTITY TIME on DATE under section CARDINAL of QUANTITY ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) on suspicion of being involved in the commission , preparation and instigation of acts of terrorism . According to the custody record , his detention was authorised to secure and preserve evidence and to obtain evidence by way of questions .","At TIME a review of PERSON detention was carried out by a senior police officer . PERSON made no representations . His continued detention was authorised as necessary in order to secure and preserve evidence and to obtain evidence by questioning .","At TIME on DATE a notice ( \u201c TACT CARDINAL form \u201d ) was served on the applicant \u2019s solicitor , PERSON . The notice set out , inter alia , the following :","\u201c You are hereby informed that","..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4","8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158821","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PALIUTIS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant owned a QUANTITY plot of land in the village of PERSON ( PERSON region ) . In DATE he submitted a request to the local authorities to change the classification of the land from agricultural to residential use . In accordance with the domestic law , such a request had first to be granted by the municipal council and then approved by the county administration .","ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request and prepared a detailed area plan ( detalusis planas ) ( hereinafter \u201c the plan \u201d ) . The plan was subsequently submitted for approval to ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . However , on DATE the ORG refused to approve the plan on the ground that it had not been prepared in accordance with the domestic laws governing the planning process .","The applicant submitted a complaint to ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , which was the competent institution for out - of - court settlement of disputes arising from the planning process . On DATE the ORG held that the ORG \u2019s refusal to approve the plan had been unfounded .","After the ORG \u2019s decision , ORG re - submitted the plan to the ORG . However , on DATE the ORG informed the council and the applicant that it would not review its previous decision to refuse approval .","On DATE the ORG notified the ORG that its refusal to approve the plan had been unfounded and urged it to review that decision . It appears that the ORG did not take any action in that respect .","In DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG . He asked the court to order the ORG to approve the plan . Following the court \u2019s suggestion , in DATE the applicant added a request to annul the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims . The court held that county administration \u2019s decisions on approval of detailed area plans were valid for DATE after their adoption . If the plan had not been adopted within that time , the decision became invalid and the plan had to be re - submitted for approval . Therefore , the court found that the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE was no longer valid and could not have any effect on the applicant \u2019s situation . The court stated that it had no competence to examine the lawfulness of an invalid act and dismissed the claim . It also held that , as a result , there was no need to examine the applicant \u2019s remaining claims .","The applicant appealed against that judgment . He complained , inter alia , that the first instance court had not examined his original request \u2013 to order the ORG to approve the plan .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and returned the case for re - examination by the firstinstance court . ORG noted that when a county administration refused to approve a detailed area plan , that plan could be re - submitted only after the errors indicated in the refusal had been corrected . However , if the author of the plan disagreed with the indicated errors , he or she would effectively be denied access to court if the proceedings lasted DATE . The court also noted that the applicant \u2019s original request had been to order the ORG to approve the plan and that the first - instance court had not made any findings in that respect .","On DATE ORG , after re - examining the case , again decided to dismiss the applicant \u2019s claims . The court held that decisions of the ORG , taken during the out - of - court settlement procedure , were mandatory for county administrations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , the ORG \u2019s decisions of DATE and DATE had repealed the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE . As a result , the ORG \u2019s refusal to approve the plan was no longer valid and the court had no competence to examine its lawfulness . The court also held that , as a result , there was no need to examine the applicant \u2019s remaining claims .","The applicant appealed against that judgment , again complaining that the first - instance court had not examined his request to order the ORG to approve the plan , and that it had not followed ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It upheld the lower court \u2019s findings that the ORG \u2019s decision had been repealed by the ORG and that courts had no competence to examine invalid acts . ORG then held that the applicant \u2019s request to order the ORG to approve the plan was \u201c derived \u201d ( i\u0161vestinis ) from the request to annul the ORG \u2019s decision ; having dismissed the latter , there was therefore no need to examine the former request either . Lastly the court noted that the applicant had not requested that the court order the ORG to comply with the ORG \u2019s decisions , so it would make no findings in that respect .","In DATE , following a national administrative reform , all county administrations were abolished and their planning powers were transferred to the ORG . The applicant then submitted a new request to change the classification of his land and it was approved by all the relevant authorities . The classification of the land was changed to residential use in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164930","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"PROCON S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , ORG , is a company registered in GPE . It was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","The Moldovan Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant company rented part of the basement of a ORG - owned building ( the ORG theatre , \u201c G - L \u201d ) . The LOC were equipped for use as a bar ( \u201c the bar \u201d ) .","By decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG ( \u201c the Commission \u201d , a subdivision of ORG , \u201c the GPE \u201d ) allowed the privatisation of the bar and set the initial price at CARDINAL Moldovan lei ( \u201c MDL \u201d , the equivalent of MONEY ( \u201c NORP \u201d ) at the time ) . On DATE the Commission adopted decision no . CARDINAL allowing the applicant company to pay the price of the bar .","On DATE the applicant company received a letter from ORG in which it was invited to appear before it in order to receive information about the modalities of payment , failing which the bar would be offered for privatisation at an auction .","On DATE the Commission adopted decision no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the DATE decision \u201d ) confirming the permission to privatise the bar and setting the final price at MDL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of MONEY at the time ) .","On DATE the applicant company concluded a contract with ORG for the purchase of the bar from the ORG . The applicant company paid the full price indicated in the contract ( MDL CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG initiated court proceedings against the ORG , seeking to have the DATE decision overturned and have the bar \u2019s activity suspended . It argued that the type of property which ORG had allowed the applicant company to buy was part of a building constituting national cultural heritage and was one of the types of property ( room with a technical lines hub , common use room for the entire building ) not subject to privatisation in accordance with the law .","According to the applicant company , at its requests of DATE and CARDINAL DATE it was accepted on DATE in the proceedings as a third party having its own claims .","Following several decisions regarding procedural matters , on CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE rejected ORG claim . No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final DATE .","The Prosecutor General requested ORG to reopen the proceedings as part of an extraordinary remedy . On DATE ORG agreed and quashed the judgment of DATE , ordering a re - hearing of the case .","On DATE ORG added to its earlier claims against the applicant company a request to declare the contract of CARDINAL DATE for the sale of the bar null and void . ORG also brought a court action against the applicant company on DATE , seeking the annulment of that contract , since its object was property that could not have been lawfully privatised .","In the meantime , on DATE the Commission adopted decision no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the DATE decision \u201d ) by which it annulled the part of the DATE decision which had authorised the privatisation of the bar , without giving reasons .","On DATE the applicant company initiated court proceedings , seeking the overturning of the Commission decision mentioned in the preceding paragraph . In that respect it noted that the relevant part of the DATE decision allowing the privatisation of the bar had been the subject of judicial proceedings ending with the judgment of CARDINAL October CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had become final .","ORG of GPE decided to join the proceedings of the applicant company against the Commission ( concerning the DATE decision ) with those brought by ORG and the ORG against the applicant company ( concerning the annulment of the sale of the bar ) .","On DATE the same court allowed the applicant company \u2019s claims and rejected those of the Department and G - L. It quashed the DATE decision as unlawful . The court noted that by the final ORG judgment of CARDINAL October CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the DATE decision had been quashed , and that that judgment confirmed the lawfulness of the decision to allow the privatisation of the bar . The court went on to examine the substance of the case , and found that the privatisation had not been contrary to any legislative provision .","The GPE and ORG appealed . The applicant company submitted that it had made the purchase in good faith , and emphasised that it had been the initiative of the ORG to privatise the bar and that the applicant had been warned that the bar would be sold at auction if it did not purchase it ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE . It ruled on the merits of the case and found that the lower court had incorrectly interpreted certain aspects of the relevant legislation and concluded that in accordance with the law ORG basement was situated in a building that was part of ORG property which was not subject to privatisation . Accordingly , it declared null and void the contract for the purchase of the bar from the ORG , and ordered restitutio in integrum , the applicant to receive the sum paid during the privatisation .","According to the ORG , the applicant company was allowed to continue renting the bar from the ORG .","In the meantime , while the first set of proceedings was pending , the applicant company sought to have its title to the bar entered in ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , relying on the DATE decision and the contract with ORG . The ORG rejected that request on CARDINAL and DATE because of the Government decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , under which the entire building had been transferred for free to the ORG . On DATE the applicant company took legal action against the ORG ( asking for de facto transfer of the property ) and against the ORG ( asking it to register the company \u2019s title to the privatised property ) .","On DATE ORG ordered the ORG to register the applicant company \u2019s title to the bar and issue it with the relevant confirmation , and the ORG to transfer the property to the applicant company . The court noted that in accordance with the DATE decision and the contract between the ORG and the applicant company the latter had bought the relevant property and that the ORG did not object to the applicant company \u2019s claim , while the ORG was absent . No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final .","The Prosecutor General requested ORG to reopen the proceedings ( recurs PERSON anulare ) , arguing inter alia that another court action concerning the lawfulness of privatisation ( the first set of proceedings ) was pending . ORG rejected that request on DATE , noting that if the parallel proceedings referred to by the Prosecutor General resulted in the annulment of the contract for the sale of the relevant property , the judgment of DATE could be reviewed in accordance with the law .","While the first set of proceedings was still pending , on DATE the Commission adopted decision no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the DATE decision \u201d ) by which it quashed the part of the DATE decision regarding the permission to privatise the bar , without giving reasons for doing so . On DATE the Department informed the applicant company of that decision , specifying that in reaching it the Commission had taken into account the Government decision no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE transferring the building to the ORG .","On DATE the applicant company initiated court proceedings seeking to overturn the DATE decision . On DATE ORG quashed the ORG \u2019s DATE decision as unlawful , finding that in the meantime the Government decision no . CARDINAL mentioned above had been overturned by Government decision no . CARDINAL of DATE . ORG was not a party to those proceedings .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the ORG \u2019s appeal as out of time . The judgment of CARDINAL DATE became final ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182865","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LIPAYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and was detained in GPE at the relevant time .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on charges of fraud . DATE the Pervorechensky ORG of GPE authorised his pre - trial detention . The detention was further extended on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , DATE and QUANTITY DATE the applicant appealed against the detention orders of DATE , DATE and DATE . ORG dismissed the appeals on DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182167","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BOZHKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained that they had been denied an opportunity to appear in person before the court in the civil proceedings to which they were parties . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147047","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BUBNIK v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings before the ORG concerning the division of joint property .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim on procedural grounds . The applicant appealed .","On DATE the ORG partially upheld the appeal of the applicant and remitted the case back to the first instance court .","On DATE the LOC court issued a partial judgment . Both parties appealed .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the appeals .","On DATE the ORG issued a judgment concerning the remainder of the applicant \u2019s claim . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal concerning the decision on the main issue . The court however annulled the decision on the costs of proceedings and remitted that issue back to the first instance court .","On DATE the ORG issued a decision on the costs of proceedings . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for settlement with the State Attorney \u2019s Office with a view to reaching an agreement on just satisfaction on account of the delays in the civil proceedings .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s Office dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim .","On DATE the applicant , relying on Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay ( \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) , lodged a claim with the ORG seeking compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage incurred as a result of the length of the civil proceedings .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and remitted the case back to the first instance court .","In the course of proceedings , the ORG on DATE acknowledged the claim of the applicant in the amount of CARDINAL ORG .","On DATE the ORG gave a judgment . The court found that the applicant \u2019s right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached and that , in addition to the CARDINAL ORG , the ORG was to pay a further ORG CARDINAL to the applicant for non - pecuniary damages and to reimburse the applicant LAW in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings . In determining the amount of compensation , the court considered that the applicant had contributed to the duration of the proceedings by amending her claim several times and submitting written observations directly at the hearings which had as a consequence the adjournment of CARDINAL hearings . Accordingly it deducted PERCENT from the amount to be awarded . The applicant appealed .","On DATE the ORG partially upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and modified the decision , ruling that the ORG was to pay the applicant in total ORG CARDINAL as non - pecuniary damages and further LAW in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the proceedings . The higher court also noted the applicant \u2019s contribution to the duration of the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173261","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF JURICA v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In the period DATE the applicant underwent several operations in ORG \u201c FAC \u201d ( ORG bolni\u010dki centar PERSON \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the hospital \u201d ) , a public health - care institution , for a middle - ear dysfunction .","Following surgery in DATE the applicant \u2019s condition deteriorated , resulting in paralysis of the left side of her face . In this connection , she underwent further treatment until DATE , when it was found that her condition was such that she would not recover . The applicant took early retirement on grounds of disability .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action against the hospital and the relevant insurance company with ORG ( PERSON ( gra\u0111anski sud ) u GPE ) , claiming damages for alleged medical malpractice .","In DATE the applicant urged ORG to schedule a hearing in her case .","The parties exchanged further submissions in DATE and DATE . The applicant submitted an expert report drafted by ORG , according to which her medical condition had notably deteriorated in DATE .","The first hearing before ORG was held on DATE . Following questioning of the applicant , the hearing was adjourned until further notice .","NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant urged ORG to speed up the proceedings .","On DATE a hearing was held at which ORG decided to commission an expert report concerning the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s treatment .","On DATE experts PERSON and FAC were commissioned to write the report .","NORP In DATE P.S. produced a report in which he stated that he had found no indications of medical malpractice in the applicant \u2019s treatment .","PERSON asked to be excluded from the proceedings on the grounds that he was employed in the hospital and that therefore an issue as to his impartiality could arise . As a result of his withdrawal , on DATE ORG commissioned a report from another expert , GPE","In her report of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON found that the applicant \u2019s condition was irreversible , but did not provide any conclusive findings as to the alleged medical negligence .","On the basis of an objection by the applicant to PERSON \u2019s findings , on DATE ORG invited the expert to supplement her report with findings concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations of medical malpractice .","On DATE PERSON submitted a supplement to her report , finding that there were no indications of medical negligence in the applicant \u2019s treatment .","NORP In DATE the applicant challenged PERSON \u2019s findings and asked ORG to question the experts at a hearing .","On DATE a hearing was held for the questioning of the experts , who reiterated their findings . ORG found that it was necessary to commission another expert report from ORG ( PERSON fakultet GPE u GPE ) concerning the question whether the applicant \u2019s condition was a result of medical negligence .","An expert report was commissioned from ORG on DATE .","ORG produced a report on DATE . It found that the applicant \u2019s facial paralysis was a result of complications during surgery and not medical malpractice .","NORP In response to the expert report of ORG , the applicant specified her claim , arguing that the report established a causal connection between the surgery and the deterioration of her health . She also considered that according to the principle of objective liability , the hospital was responsible . The applicant did not express any objections concerning the report .","In DATE and DATE the applicant urged ORG to schedule a hearing .","At a hearing held on DATE ORG questioned the applicant and ordered that the experts from ORG , PERSON . and FAC . , be questioned at the next hearing .","On DATE ORG heard evidence from GPE . and J.\u0160k . They reiterated their findings , according to which the deterioration of the applicant \u2019s condition had been a result of complications during surgery .","A further hearing was held on DATE at which ORG decided that GPE , the doctor who had treated the applicant , would be questioned as a witness .","A hearing on DATE was adjourned because GPE , who at the time lived in GPE , had not been properly summoned to appear as a witness .","At a hearing on DATE ORG questioned the applicant . It also found that GPE had not been properly summoned .","On DATE a hearing was held at which ORG questioned GPE , who explained the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s operations and further treatment .","On DATE ORG commissioned another expert report from GPE with regard to the question of a causal link between the applicant \u2019s condition and her disability pension . In a report of CARDINAL DATE the expert found that there was a direct causal link between the applicant \u2019s condition and her retirement on grounds of disability .","At a hearing on DATE the applicant asked that experts from ORG be appointed as expert witnesses in her case . ORG dismissed that request and concluded the hearing .","In a further submission of the same date the applicant challenged the impartiality of the expert witnesses from GPE , arguing that it was clear from the negligible number of cases where medical malpractice had been established that they were biased in favour of the defendants .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s civil action , holding that in the case at issue the principle of presumed fault ( presumirane krivnje ) should be applied . That meant that it was for the defendants to show that the hospital had acted in accordance with professional standards and that the damage was not the result of a lack of diligence on the part of the doctor who had performed the surgery . Relying on a detailed assessment of the expert reports obtained during the proceedings , the court found that on the facts of the case , the deterioration of the applicant \u2019s health had been a result of complications in the treatment and not of medical malpractice . It also pointed out that there was nothing putting into doubt the quality of the expert reports commissioned during the proceedings and that the applicant \u2019s request that another expert report be commissioned from abroad would unnecessarily further prolong the proceedings and generate further expense .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that judgment before ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) alleging , inter alia , that the medical experts who had drafted the reports had a personal and professional conflict of interest in the proceedings , as they involved allegations of malpractice against their colleagues and the experts were financially dependent on the hospital system .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as unfounded on the grounds that there was no reason to doubt the quality and findings of the expert reports .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) , reiterating her previous arguments concerning lack of impartiality on the part of the experts and the quality of the expert reports commissioned during the proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as unfounded , endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) complaining of lack of an effective procedure before the competent civil courts to deal with her allegations of medical negligence . She also reiterated her complaints as to the lack of impartiality of the medical experts , arguing that the relevant statistics showed that it had been impossible to establish her allegations of medical negligence on the basis of the expert reports commissioned from the domestic experts .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . The decision of ORG was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the excessive length of the proceedings before ORG .","On DATE the ORG found a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to a trial within a reasonable time and awarded her CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK \u2013 approximately QUANTITY ( EUR ) ) in compensation . It also ordered ORG to terminate the proceedings within a further period of DATE following the service of its decision .","The decision of ORG was served on ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170465","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FAIG MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( A\u011f\u0131r Cinay\u0259tl\u0259r M\u0259hk\u0259m\u0259si \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , sitting as a court of first instance for serious offences , convicted the applicant and his wife of fraud . The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment with confiscation of property , and his wife to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE on probation .","On DATE ORG ( GPE Apellyasiya M\u0259hk\u0259m\u0259si \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) overturned the judgment of DATE , reducing the applicant \u2019s term of imprisonment to DATE and lifting the confiscation of property sanction .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG ( PERSON DATE hereinafter \u201c the Supreme Court \u201d ) . The prosecutor lodged a cassation protest in respect of the judgment of DATE with ORG , requesting that it be set aside and the case remitted to ORG .","ORG scheduled the first hearing for DATE but adjourned the proceedings until DATE at the request of the applicant \u2019s lawyer who pleaded that he had not enough time to familiarise himself with the case - file and collect further evidence .","At the hearing of DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested another adjournment referring to health problems and lack of time for familiarisation with the case - file . ORG scheduled the next hearing for DATE . According to the TIME of the hearing of DATE provided by the ORG , the applicant \u2019s lawyer was present when the court declared that his request had been granted and that the proceedings were adjourned until DATE .","On DATE , having examined the case in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer but in the presence of the prosecutor , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and accepted the prosecutor \u2019s application for supervisory review in part . The prosecutor made oral submissions during the hearing , seeking the dismissal of the applicant \u2019s appeal .","ORG upheld ORG judgment as regards the applicant \u2019s conviction , but quashed his wife \u2019s conviction , remitting that part of the case to ORG for fresh examination . ORG found that proof of the applicant \u2019s guilt had been duly established during the trial in the first - instance court and ORG and that his actions had been properly classified under criminal law . Citing Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , ORG decision stated that the examination of the case was possible in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer given that the lawyer had failed to appear despite having been duly notified and the applicant , who was serving his prison sentence , had made no request to attend ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172068","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KARPESH v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALst ORG of GPE of LOC ordered Municipal unitary enterprise of housing maintenance No . CARDINAL ( \u00ab \u0423\u041c\u041f\u0416\u0425 \u2116 CARDINAL \u00bb , hereinafter \u201c debtor company \u201d ) to pay MONEY ( ORG ) to PERSON . The judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE ORG initiated enforcement proceedings .","Following Ms ORG \u2019s death , on DATE the Justice of ORG replaced the initial applicant , PERSON , by her successor , PERSON , in the enforcement proceedings .","The award was subsequently index - linked in the course of the enforcement proceedings by the decisions of DATE ( final on DATE ) , DATE DATE ( final on DATE ) , DATE ( final on DATE ) , and DATE ( final on DATE ) . Each decision replaced and cancelled the previous one .","The award has not been paid to the applicant to date .","The company was incorporated as a municipal unitary enterprise set up by a decision of the local administration and provided housing maintenance services . The company had \u201c the right of economic control \u201d ( \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e \u0445\u043e\u0437\u044f\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0432\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ) over the assets allocated to it by the administration in order to carry out their statutory activities .","On DATE the debtor company was declared insolvent and liquidation proceedings started . As a result , the company was liquidated on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156084","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NAZARENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s wife , PERSON , gave birth to a daughter , A.","In DATE the applicant and ORG divorced .","On DATE LOC childcare and guardianship authority ( hereafter \u201c the childcare authority \u201d ) determined that A. would reside with the applicant during even DATE and with her mother , ORG , during DATE . In DATE and DATE was to live with the applicant for DATE of his choice per month .","On DATE the applicant discovered several bruises on A. \u2019s body . Suspecting that she had been beaten and sexually abused by ORG \u2019s new partner , he refused to return PERSON to ORG","During DATE lived with the applicant and her paternal grandmother . On several occasions the applicant allowed N. to visit A. in his presence .","On DATE the applicant complained to the police and to the LOC investigation committee that his daughter PERSON had been beaten and sexually abused by ORG partner . The investigation committee opened a pre - investigation inquiry .","NORP The applicant and LOC both applied to ORG of PERSON for a residence order in respect of A.","On DATE was questioned by an investigator in the presence of a psychologist , in the framework of the pre - investigation inquiry . A. stated that she wanted to live with the applicant because he was nice , whereas her mother and her mother \u2019s new partner had treated her badly . She was again questioned by the investigator in the presence of a psychologist on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and confirmed her previous statements .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG granted ORG \u2019s application for a residence order and refused the applicant \u2019s similar application . The court found that both parents had taken an equal share in DATE upbringing . They both had sufficient financial means and their standard of living was equally satisfactory . However , taking into account ORG \u2019s gender and age , it was preferable for her to be brought up by her mother . A child under the age of twelve could be separated from the mother only in exceptional circumstances . No such circumstances had been established in the present case . N. was employed and had sufficient income . There was no evidence of negligence or mistreatment on her part . A. \u2019s bruises could have been sustained as a result of a fall or in the course of a game , and were insufficient to prove mistreatment . A criminal inquiry into the allegations of mistreatment was still pending . The court - appointed expert psychologist \u2019s finding that A. was emotionally closer to her father and paternal grandmother than to her mother could not be taken into account in the absence of established evidence of mistreatment by the mother . The court concluded that it was therefore in A. \u2019s best interests to live with her mother .","On DATE the childcare authority noted that A. wished to live with her father . An inspection of the applicant \u2019s flat had revealed that he had created all the appropriate conditions for A. \u2019s normal development . The childcare authority therefore found that A. should reside with the applicant .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal . It found that ORG had failed to consider the childcare authority \u2019s findings and opinion and had therefore committed a serious breach of the procedure prescribed by law . However , given that the childcare authority \u2019s opinion was advisory rather than binding on the court , the failure to consider that opinion did not warrant reconsideration of the judgment , which was correct in substance .","On DATE the LOC investigation committee opened criminal proceedings into the alleged mistreatment and sexual abuse of A.","As the applicant continued to retain PERSON , ORG applied to ORG for an injunction requiring the applicant to return PERSON to her .","On DATE ORG allowed ORG \u2019s application . It found that the applicant had refused to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , upheld on appeal . It ordered that , in compliance with that judgment , the applicant should return PERSON to ORG On DATE ORG of GPE upheld that judgment on appeal .","On an unspecified date the applicant applied for a second time to FAC for a residence order in respect of A. At the same time he applied for a restriction of ORG \u2019s parental authority over A.","On DATE ORG dismissed the application and confirmed its previous order to the effect that A. should live with her mother , citing the same reasons as in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The court found no reasons to restrict ORG \u2019s parental authority over A. On DATE ORG upheld that judgment on appeal .","On DATE N. kidnapped A. from the applicant . She has since prevented the applicant from seeing his daughter .","On DATE was again questioned by the investigator in the presence of a psychologist . She said that she liked living with her mother and that her mother was treating her well .","On DATE was examined by a panel of psychologists appointed by the investigator in the framework of the criminal proceedings . They found that A. was not suffering from any learning difficulties or disorders . However , owing to her age , level of development and susceptibility to external influence , she was unable to give reliable evidence about her relationships with her mother , her father or her mother \u2019s new partner .","On DATE the LOC investigation committee discontinued the criminal proceedings , finding that there was no evidence of mistreatment or sexual abuse and that the bruises could have been caused by DATE . According to the experts , ORG \u2019s statements that her mother \u2019s partner had treated her badly were unreliable . The witnesses had been unable to provide any information confirming the applicant \u2019s allegations of child abuse .","The applicant applied for a third time to FAC for a residence order in respect of A. He also asked that ORG be deprived of parental authority over A.","While those proceedings were pending , ORG lodged an application with ORG , contesting the applicant \u2019s paternity of PERSON She requested that his name be deleted from A. \u2019s birth certificate and that A. \u2019s family name and patronymic be changed .","On DATE a DNA paternity test established that the applicant was not A. \u2019s biological father .","On DATE ORG allowed ORG \u2019s claims . It found that the applicant was not A. \u2019s biological father and terminated his parental status in respect of her . It ordered that the applicant \u2019s name be deleted from ORG \u2019s birth certificate and that A. \u2019s family name and patronymic be changed to a family name and a patronymic not connected with the applicant . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld that judgment on appeal .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s application for a residence order and an order to deprive N. of parental authority over A. The court reasoned that as the applicant was not A. \u2019s biological father , he had no standing under domestic law to lodge civil actions concerning parental authority over A. or A. \u2019s residence arrangements . The applicant was absent from the hearing because he was ill .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal . According to the applicant , he had not been informed of the date of the hearing . Nor was he informed about the appeal decision until DATE .","On DATE a judge of ORG refused to refer a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant to the presidium of that court for examination , finding that no significant violations of substantive or procedural law had influenced the outcome of the proceedings . It noted , in particular , that there was proof in the case file that a letter had been sent to the applicant on DATE informing him of the date of the appeal hearing . Information about the hearing date had also been published on the court \u2019s official website . The applicant had therefore been duly informed of the date of the appeal hearing ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142833","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MOHAMED HUSSEIN v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , claims that he is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently residing in the GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , and Deputy Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant applied for asylum in the GPE on DATE , claiming that he hailed from GPE , GPE and belonged to the minority PERSON population group and the PERSON clan . When he was DATE , he and his family had moved to GPE where he had resided illegally . In DATE , the NORP authorities had expelled the applicant to GPE . His mother had accompanied him because he did not know anybody in GPE . They had moved in with an uncle of the applicant \u2019s . As the applicant was unknown to most neighbours , he had been suspected of involvement in LOC . The applicant had been abducted by some neighbours . After a ransom had been paid by his family he had been released and he had fled the country . He feared that , upon return to GPE , he would fall victim to human rights violations by CARDINAL of the warring factions there . He also claimed that , as a member of a minority clan , he had a higher risk of falling victim to human rights violations .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE the Minister of Justice ( minister PERSON ) rejected the asylum application , considering that the applicant \u2019s account lacked credibility . The Minister held that the applicant had failed to establish his nationality and identity . The applicant had been unable to describe how he had been identified as a NORP national by the NORP consular authorities in GPE . In this respect it was noted that the applicant had stated that the only NORP words he knew were \u2018 hello\u2019 and \u2018 good afternoon\u2019 . He had further claimed that the conversation with the consular authorities had been conducted in LANGUAGE . It was thus considered implausible that the consular authorities had been able to determine the NORP origins of the applicant . He had further been unable to describe the airports in GPE and GPE .","NORP The Minister further disbelieved the account of the applicant \u2019s departure from GPE . The applicant had claimed that he had been on a direct flight from GPE to GPE , GPE . However , according to country of origin information all flights from GPE to GPE had to make a safety stop at GPE , GPE . The applicant had not mentioned this stop .","The applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed by ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE sitting in GPE on DATE . His further and final appeal was dismissed on summary grounds by ORG of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State ) on DATE .","On DATE , a report of a linguistic analysis of the applicant \u2019s speech concluded that he spoke deficient NORP with a PERSON accent ; that NORP was not his first or dominant language ; and that he had grown up in a diaspora community where ( PERSON ) NORP was spoken ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144108","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ME\u0106AVA v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","The applicant was employed by \u201c HP Fagram DP \u201d , a socially - owned company based in Smederevo ( hereinafter \u2013 \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG ordered the debtor to pay the applicant certain sums in respect of salary arrears , social security contributions and procedural costs .","On DATE the judgment became final .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with ORG .","On DATE the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor , which led to the ongoing enforcement proceedings before ORG being stayed .","NORP In DATE the applicant duly registered a claim for the sums specified in the judgment referred to above .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s claim . His right to separate settlement from the immovable property of the debtor was contested and he was instructed to initiate separate civil proceedings in order to secure his right to separate settlement of his claim .","The applicant did not initiate separate civil proceedings .","On DATE ORG adopted the decision on final distribution of the company \u2019s insolvency assets , classifying the applicant into the fourth sequence of payment . In the course of the insolvency proceedings the final judgment in the applicant \u2019s favour was partially enforced ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150383","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"VDOVINS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their agent PERSON , who was succeeded by PERSON K. L\u012bce .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE at TIME the police received information about an incident in the centre of GPE in which PERSON had been beaten up and robbed .","According to the pre - trial statements of CARDINAL police officers ( GPE and GPE ) , when they arrived at the scene the patrol team saw the victim S. lying on the ground and CARDINAL young men running away . CARDINAL of them , the applicant , had dropped a black jacket . PERSON pointed to the group as the perpetrators , so the police arrested all CARDINAL of them and took them to a police station .","According to the pre - trial statements of the victim S. , while he was standing outside a nightclub in the centre of GPE , CARDINAL young men commenced a conversation with him and afterwards they started walking down the street together . Then CARDINAL of them grabbed PERSON by the hands ( CARDINAL of them , P. , had his arm in a splint ) and tried to drag the victim away . The victim resisted and the man with the splint hit him . Afterwards the victim was kicked in the head and body , and robbed of his jacket and a watch . When the police arrived the victim drove around with a police officer , looking for the perpetrators . The victim saw his jacket next to a group of CARDINAL men . With the exception of the man with his arm in a splint he could not describe those who had inflicted injuries on him .","The victim , the applicant and CARDINAL other arrested persons ( Ka . and ORG . ) were taken to the police station in the same car . During the first identity parade , set up soon after the arrest , the victim did not recognise the applicant as the perpetrator .","On DATE , during a second identity parade , the victim for the first time recognised the applicant and PERSON , who had his arm in a splint , as the perpetrators of the attack . The latter CARDINAL had spent DATE in custody , and they were presented in the identity parade together with people brought in from the street .","On DATE the applicant was confronted with the victim . The latter had identified him as one of the perpetrators of the attack .","In DATE a bill of indictment was drawn up . The applicant and another person , P. , were charged with aggravated theft , committed as a group . It stated , notably , that on the critical date the applicant and PERSON had forced the victim to follow them . Then , with the aim of robbing him , PERSON had hit the applicant in the face and the applicant had kicked him on the body , inflicting minor bodily injuries on him . Afterwards they had both taken off the victim \u2019s jacket and watch , causing him total material loss in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) . Both defendants denied the offence .","During the pre - trial investigation the other CARDINAL members of the group of CARDINAL were questioned . In DATE Kv . and PERSON . testified that on the critical date the defendants and another person from their group had been talking to a man . The latter had shown no resistance to being led away down the street . After TIME the defendants came back ; the applicant was carrying a black jacket . When the police arrived the jacket was on the ground . Ka . testified that he had not seen anyone drop the jacket but that it could have been the applicant . According to ORG . , when the police arrived the applicant dropped the jacket . Later , when questioned by a prosecutor , ORG . and PERSON . upheld and added to the statements they had made during the police questioning .","NORP During court hearings in DATE and DATE the defendants cross - examined the victim , both police officers ( GPE and GPE ) , and CARDINAL other witnesses ( Ka . , ORG . , GPE and ORG ) . The CARDINAL other witnesses were all part of the group which had initially been arrested , and GPE and ORG had been summoned to the court at the GPE request .","During the hearing defence witnesses GPE and ORG stated , inter alia , that they had not been with the defendants the whole time .","On DATE the Riga ORG acquitted the defendants and released them from detention . As far as the applicant was concerned , the lower court indicated , in particular , that the scene of the alleged crime had not been identified , and the victim could not indicate who had attacked him , with the exception of co - defendant P. ; that his statements concerning the applicant \u2019s clothes and height did not match those of the applicant ; and that the victim had not stated that the applicant had beaten him and on what parts of the body ; similarly it was not stated that the applicant had stolen the victim \u2019s belongings . Finally , the court refused to admit in evidence the results of the identity parade and also refused to cross - examine the victim and the defendants . It emphasised that the record of the identity parade had been drawn up contrary to the domestic law , in that the defendants were presented in the parade after having spent DATE in custody , and their clothes and appearance differed considerably from those of the others in the parade ; also , no photographs were taken of those in the parade and there was no statement by the victim confirming which characteristics had caused him to recognise the defendants .","The prosecution lodged a protest reiterating the arguments set out in the bill of indictment . They considered that the lower court had failed to give weight to the statements of the victim and witnesses ORG . , PERSON . and both police officers .","The appellate court summoned the victim and CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON . and PERSON . The latter failed to attend the hearing . Invited by the court to express an opinion about whether the court could commence adjudication in the absence of the witness PERSON . , the applicant confirmed that he had no objection .","Questioned during the appellate hearing about the circumstances of the attack , the victim stated that although it was dark , at the moment of the attack he had had a clear view of the faces of his attackers , but that immediately after the arrest he could not recognise them , because it was dark and the co - defendant \u2019s splint was not visible .","Witness Kv . retracted his statements given to the prosecutor during the pre - trial investigation . The statements of the police officers were read out .","Before summing up , defence counsel argued that the objection was also based on the statements of the QUANTITY police officers , who should be summoned to the appellate court hearing . Without giving reasons , the defence also asked for GPE and ORG to be summoned .","The appellate court dismissed the defence \u2019s requests for witnesses to be heard , arguing that they had all already been cross - examined . The defence did not object to the court investigation being brought to a close .","On DATE ORG convicted the defendants and sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The court preferred to give weight to ORG . \u2019s statements given during the pre - trial investigation , because , as a friend of the applicant \u2019s co - defendant , his statements given during the hearing of the appellate court in the presence of his friend were not to be treated as objective . In relation to the statements given by ORG . , the court noted that he had not changed the statements he had made during the pre - trial investigation and before the court of first instance , and that his statements did not differ in substance from those given by ORG . The court also did not consider that there were contradictions in the victim \u2019s statements and that it was not crucial that he could not tell precisely which defendant had kicked him and how many times . The court gave weight to the fact that during the court hearing the victim could describe the situation and explained that he had tried to cover his face instead of observing the actions of each perpetrator . In connection to the varying statements about the exact place of the fight , the appellate court observed that it was explained by the fact that neither the victim nor the defendants lived in GPE . As regards statements about the visual description of the perpetrator \u2019s clothes , the court did not consider the slight differences in the statements crucial , given that the events took place at TIME . The court said that even without the identification parade the defendant \u2019s guilt had been proved by other evidence . The court noted that the victim had recognised the applicant during the confrontation .","In their appeal on points of law the applicant and his counsel based their case on the shortcomings identified by the lower court . In connection to the ORG statements the applicant noted","\u201c ... the court investigated the case incompletely . [ It ] did not summon all the witnesses , and the statements they had given before the lower court were not read out and [ were not ] taken into account \u201d .","On DATE the ORG upheld the appellate court \u2019s judgment . It noted that the appellate court had excluded from the evidence the contested records of the identification parade . The ORG noted that the appellate court had analysed in detail and assessed all the statements provided by the victim S. , as well as the statements of ORG . provided during the pre - trial investigation and during the court hearing , and also the statements of ORG . which had been read out during the hearing , and other evidence described and analysed by the appellate court .","It noted that the question concerning the defence \u2019s request in relation to witnesses had been examined and decided in accordance with the law .","Article CARDINAL of the Code provides that when a court session is opened the presiding judge is to ask the defendant and his representative whether they request new witnesses to be summoned or the submission of new evidence and inclusion thereof in the criminal matter . The person who submits a request shall specify particular circumstances which should be clarified by the questioning of witnesses or the submission of other evidence . The court shall ask the opinions of other participants in the proceedings concerning each request in accordance with Article CARDINAL of this Code , and shall make a ruling . Refusal of the request shall not deprive the person whose request has been refused of the right to submit the request during the court hearing .","Article CARDINAL sets out that the appeal court may summon witnesses who have testified before the first - instance court to a court session if the appeal court deems it necessary .","Article CARDINAL stipulates that parties to appeal proceedings have the right to request witnesses to be summoned who have not been heard by the first - instance court . Such witnesses may be summoned on the appeal court \u2019s own initiative ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168699","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF LOBODA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant , who was born in DATE , is a farmer and the head of a farming company , A. He lives in GPE .","In DATE , ORG . , the newly - appointed head of a private agricultural company , NORP , requested that the law - enforcement authorities investigate the suspected misappropriation of NORP \u2019s property . In particular , PERSON . stated that in DATE , PERSON , another agricultural company , had written off a debt of CARDINAL NORP hryvnyas ( ORG ) owed to his company , although the latter had not received any payment .","On DATE the applicant , interviewed in connection with the inquiry into the case , informed the police that in the autumn of DATE he had received QUANTITY concrete slabs from GPE in settlement of a debt to NORP , of which he was a shareholder . The applicant said he had used the slabs to construct a trench for A. , to which NORP had also owed money . NORP \u2019s former director had been aware of that fact . The transaction had not been finalised on the books as there had been disagreements between the parties over the price of the slabs and on various procedural issues .","On DATE the Borznyanskiy district prosecutor ( the \u201c district prosecutor \u201d ) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of fraudulently appropriating slabs that he had received on NORP \u2019s behalf .","On DATE a police investigator called the applicant in for questioning as a witness in connection with the case , but rejected his request to be assisted by a lawyer during the questioning . According to the applicant , his lawyer had accompanied him to the investigator \u2019s office but had not been allowed to be present during the questioning .","In the course of the questioning the applicant again admitted to receiving the slabs and using them on his farm . He also explained that the transaction had not been finalised in the accounts because the parties had had debts to each other and had still been negotiating over how to write those debts off . In any event , the directors of PERSON and NORP had been well aware that the applicant had used the slabs on his own farm and had never objected to that use . As can be seen from the copy of the record of the questioning submitted to the ORG , it was apparently filed as pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL in the domestic case file .","On DATE the applicant was officially indicted for the fraudulent appropriation of CARDINAL concrete slabs transferred by the PERSON company to the NORP company in payment of a debt . On DATE , the applicant was questioned as a defendant in the presence of his lawyer but he refused to testify and relied on his right to silence .","On DATE the applicant was informed of the completion of the pre - trial investigation and committed to stand trial in ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On an unspecified date the applicant presented the authorities with an agreement dated DATE and signed by the directors of PERSON , NORP and himself . According to that document , the CARDINAL parties had agreed that the value of the CARDINAL slabs received by the applicant was UAH CARDINAL and that the transfer of the slabs to the applicant covered the relevant portion of PERSON \u2019s debt to NORP and NORP \u2019s debt to the applicant \u2019s farm .","By DATE the above agreement had been reflected in all CARDINAL parties\u2019 documents relating to accounting , tax and other matters .","In the course of the trial , ORG questioned the applicant and numerous other individuals , including the directors and accountants of NORP and PERSON , and examined various documents . As can be seen in TIME of the court hearings submitted by the Government , the documents examined in the course of the trial included \u201c a letter from the farming company \u201d , included as page CARDINAL in the domestic case file .","During the trial , the applicant , represented by a lawyer of his own choice , reiterated that he had had no fraudulent intent in taking possession of the slabs and that the CARDINAL parties had decided on all the details of the transaction in DATE ( that is , before the criminal proceedings had been instituted against him ) . The transaction had also been properly accounted for in all the paperwork by DATE ( that is , before the trial had commenced ) . The delay in finalising the papers had been due to various objective circumstances , including initial disagreements between the parties concerning the scope of the transaction and a fair price for the slabs , the replacement of NORP \u2019s director in DATE , and a lengthy break in the functioning of NORP \u2019s accounts office .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the charges . It found that although the case had eventually been settled , there was sufficient evidence that the applicant \u2019s initial intent had been fraudulent . In justifying that finding , the court noted , in particular , as follows :","\u201c As regards the arguments by the defendant ORG that ... the CARDINAL - party agreement had been concluded ... before the initiation of the criminal case , and that the managers of the CARDINAL entities had agreed on the price and procedure for the transfer of the concrete slabs , the court can not accept them , as they contradict the case file materials and the evidence examined in court . It appears from the case file materials that the above - mentioned agreement was submitted by ORG at the end of the pre - trial investigation . It can be seen from the testimony of the witnesses ... that [ ORG \u2019s debt to NORP ] , amounting to ORG CARDINAL , had been reinstated after having been written off ... According to ... order no . CARDINAL of DATE the slabs transferred were valued at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and [ K. \u2019s ] debt to NORP as of DATE remained at UAH CARDINAL .","The aforementioned evidence shows that an understanding between the managers of [ K. ] , [ NORP ] and [ A. ] concerning the price and procedure for the transfer was reached after the criminal case had been instituted , in the course of the pre - trial investigation . These findings correspond to the declarations by the head of the farming company ORG contained on pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL of volume CARDINAL of the case , dated DATE \u201d .","ORG then granted the applicant an amnesty and released him from any punishment .","On DATE the court issued a separate ruling ( \u043e\u043a\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u0430 ) in which it drew the attention of the district prosecutor to various procedural shortcomings in the preparation of the case for trial . It noted , in particular , as follows :","\u201c On DATE the [ district prosecutor ] initiated criminal proceedings against [ the applicant ] . On DATE the [ police investigator ] ... questioned [ the applicant ] as a witness , despite ... sufficient evidence ... for him to be questioned as a defendant , in compliance with all the requirements of LAW of GPE ...","With regard to the said breaches , the testimony [ of the applicant ] given ... during his questioning as a witness on DATE was not taken into account by the court as evidence in the present case .... \u201d","It appears from the case - file materials that on an unspecified date the applicant filed an appeal against his conviction , which was accepted for examination . No copy of this appeal has been provided to the ORG .","On DATE lawyer PERSON also filed a separate appeal in the applicant \u2019s interests . In this appeal he challenged , primarily , the substantive conclusions of the trial court and contended that the applicant \u2019s actions had not been criminal .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction . Referring to statements by various witnesses and the documentary evidence on file , it concluded that the applicant had not made any reasonable and meaningful efforts to regularise his appropriation of the slabs until the criminal proceedings had been instituted .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal , in which he complained , in particular , that his right to mount a defence had been breached on account of his being questioned without a lawyer on DATE . He argued that it was clear from the phrase , \u201c These findings correspond to the declarations by the head of the farming company ORG contained on pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL of volume CARDINAL of the case , dated DATE \u201d in ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , that the testimony he had given on DATE had in fact been relied on for his conviction , in spite of ORG formal decision to exclude the record of that questioning from the case file .","On DATE ORG of GPE examined submissions by the applicant , in the absence of both the applicant and his lawyer . However , the prosecutor was present and advised the ORG to reject the applicant \u2019s arguments .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal , finding that the lower courts had correctly assessed the facts and applied the law . Without addressing directly the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the breach of his right to defence , it made the following general remark concerning the procedural fairness of the proceedings :","\u201c ... no breaches of the provisions of the criminal - procedure law in the course of pre - trial investigation as well as during the court proceedings can be identified \u201d .","A copy of ORG ruling of DATE was sent to the applicant by post on CARDINAL DATE and , according to him , was received on DATE .","At various times the applicant made unsuccessful attempts to institute criminal proceedings against the investigator who had questioned him on DATE , and to begin administrative and civil proceedings to challenge various purported procedural omissions on the part of ORG judge in his case ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160800","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MEIER v. SWITZERLAND","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4-2 - Compulsory labour;Forced labour)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in detention in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ) of the GPE of GPE sentenced the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment for multiple sexual acts with minors and multiple acts of sexual coercion .","On DATE ORG suspended the execution of the custodial sentence , replacing it with preventive detention ( Verwahrung ) designed to prevent the applicant from reoffending .","On DATE the applicant requested exemption from the requirement to work in the context of custodial sentences and measures . On DATE ORG of the GPE of GPE refused his request .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the competent authority of ORG placed the applicant under a stricter prison regime confining him to his cell and confiscated his television and computer for DATE , on account of his refusal to work . That decision was revoked on DATE by ORG and ORG following an appeal by the applicant .","By a decision of DATE ORG and ORG of the GPE of GPE dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG of the GPE of GPE dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , arguing in particular that ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL of LAW had been wrongly applied , and alleging a violation of his human dignity and personal freedom within the meaning of LAW and CARDINAL respectively of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","In judgment CARDINALB_CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ( published under the number ORG CARDINAL I CARDINAL ) , which was notified to the applicant on DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","ORG found that the requirement for prisoners to work was not in itself in breach of human rights , and specifically of LAW ( point CARDINAL of the reasoning ) .","Hence , the purpose of compulsory work in the context of the execution of custodial sentences and measures was to develop , maintain or promote prisoners\u2019 capacity to resume working life after their release . In ORG view , the requirement to work contributed to the execution of sentences and fostered appropriate social behaviour and the capacity to avoid reoffending . It was also designed to occupy prisoners , lend structure to their DATE lives and maintain order in the institution ( point CARDINAL ) .","ORG added that , as prisoners got older , greater emphasis was placed on the obligation to provide them with the necessary support ( necessary support principle ) and on reducing the negative impact of detention ( principle of least possible harm ) . In the case of prisoners over DATE , the requirement to work served the purpose of avoiding the harmful effects of detention , for instance the isolation of persons who had reached retirement age , and preventing mental and physical deterioration . The work had to be tailored to the prisoner \u2019s abilities , training and interests , and it was therefore necessary to avoid placing an excessive burden on prisoners over DATE . Lastly , in the case of persons who were less physically and mentally able , the occupation could take the form of therapeutic activity ( point CARDINAL ) .","ORG further held that ORG was designed to guarantee a living income to persons who were no longer able to work because of their age . However , work performed in connection with the execution of a custodial sentence or measure was not comparable to an employment contract on the competitive labour market , but rather should be regarded as an occupation within a closed system . ORG therefore held that the rules governing persons of pensionable age did not apply to prisoners ( point CARDINAL ) .","ORG also found that an occupation carried out on a voluntary basis was not apt to fulfil the aims pursued by the requirement to work in prison ( point CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["4"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["4-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170026","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TRUFANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in the town of ORG .","On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicants guilty of various offences but declared that they need not serve their respective sentences because the case was time - barred . On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","On DATE the Presidium of the NORP ORG quashed by way of supervisory review the decisions of DATE and DATE and discontinued criminal proceedings against the applicants . It found that the courts had not been in a position to decide on the ORG guilt because the whole case had been time - barred .","The applicants sued ORG of GPE for , among other things , compensation in respect of nonpecuniary damage in connection with their prosecution .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of GPE rejected their claims . It reasoned as follows :","\u201c ... The court finds that , since the applicants\u2019 guilt of the commission of the abovementioned crimes was established , the use of the measure of restraint was justified . This being so , the court has no reason to grant the ORG claims for compensation in respect of the non - pecuniary damage resulting from their unlawful detention and the obligation not to leave their usual place of residence . ... \u201d","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal . It stated that :","\u201c ... The first instance court , in reaching its decision refusing to grant the ORG claims for compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage , correctly assumed that the decision of the Presidium of ORG dated DATE cleared them of liability on non - exonerating grounds . In the court \u2019s view , since the applicants\u2019 guilt of the commission of the above - mentioned crimes was established , the application of the measure of restraint during the investigation was justified .","The court \u2019s conclusion is a correct one , made following the examination and proper assessment of the legally relevant ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161413","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VASILEVA v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant , who had been diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma , underwent mastectomy of her left breast .","In DATE the applicant began to experience pain in the left side of her chest , for which in DATE she underwent a bone scintigraphy . The scintigraphy found a pathological uptake of radioactive tracer in her sixth left rib . Another bone scintigraphy in DATE confirmed that finding . However , a computerised axial tomography scan carried out later in DATE showed a suspected metastasis in the area of DATE left ribs rather than the sixth one . The doctor who performed the scan recommended a further bone scintigraphy . CARDINAL such scintigraphies , in DATE and in DATE , showed the same findings as DATE . A radiography in DATE showed a suspected pathological lesion in the sixth left rib . But a second computerised axial tomography scan later in DATE found again that the suspected metastasis was in the area of DATE left ribs .","On DATE a panel of CARDINAL medical doctors decided that the suspected metastasis was to be surgically removed .","Worried that the exact location of the suspected metastasis had not been fully established , the applicant asked the surgeon who was to operate on her , PERSON , whether further tests were required before the operation . According to the applicant , he told her that the available imaging results were sufficient and that he would be able to identify the metastasis once he had opened up her thorax . The applicant then approached the medical doctor who had performed the mastectomy in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He told her that the suspected metastasis was very small , could not be localised visually , and had to be precisely localised before any surgery . The applicant shared her misgivings in that respect with PERSON and reiterated her request for further tests before the operation . However , he reassured her that the available imaging results were sufficient .","Having assented to the operation by signing an informed consent form , the applicant underwent surgery on DATE . In the course of that surgery PERSON removed fragments of her fourth and fifth left ribs , rather than her sixth , eighth or ninth left ribs . However , the operation report erroneously said that he had removed fragments of the eighth and ninth ribs . When talking to the applicant DATE , PERSON likewise told her that he had removed fragments of those ribs , and that he had inspected her lungs .","The removed rib fragments were sent for histological testing , the results of which were ready on DATE and showed that they did not contain cancerous tissue .","When seeing her hospitalisation report upon her discharge from hospital on DATE , the applicant was surprised to find that her sixth left rib had been left in place and that , instead , fragments of her fourth and fifth left ribs , where no lesions had been detected by the scans and where no cancerous tissue was present according to the histological tests , had been removed . She approached PERSON , who denied having made a mistake but agreed to prescribe a further bone scintigraphy , which was carried out in DATE and found an increased uptake of radioactive tracer in the sixth left rib and also in DATE left ribs . A computerised axial tomography scan carried out DATE found that parts of DATE left ribs had been removed and that the sixth left rib was fractured .","The applicant asked PERSON to explain all that , and he apparently again denied having made any mistake .","For DATE after the operation , the applicant was undergoing radiotherapy and hormonal therapy .","In DATE the applicant complained about the operation to ORG . The Ministry ordered ORG to carry out an inquiry and , based on its findings , on DATE informed the applicant that in view of the inconclusive results of the medical imaging tests , the operating team had chosen to make a wide opening in the thorax , enabling them to inspect the left side of the thoracic wall from the fourth to the ninth ribs . They had decided to remove parts of the fourth and fifth ribs because they had observed macroscopic changes on them ; they had not found pathological changes in the sixth rib . The reference to the eighth and ninth ribs in the operation report had been a clerical mistake .","NORP The results of the inquiry , coupled with a complaint filed by the applicant with the hospital , prompted the hospital \u2019s ethical commission to review the case . It did not find any misconduct on the part of PERSON","On DATE the applicant brought a claim for damages against Dr PERSON and the hospital in which he was employed , a ORG - owned limited liability company . She alleged that he had ( a ) erroneously removed parts of CARDINAL healthy ribs , the fourth and the fifth on the left , without having obtained her consent ; ( b ) inspected her lungs , which had been unnecessary and unjustified ; ( c ) fractured her sixth left rib ; and ( d ) failed to remove the metastasis , which had been the very purpose of the operation .","On DATE the ORG admitted a number of medical documents , including the consent form signed by the applicant before the operation . At the request of the applicant , the court ordered an expert report , to be drawn up by an oncologist , nominated by the applicant , a thoracic surgeon , nominated by PERSON , and a radiologist , nominated by the court , on a number of points raised by counsel for the applicant . At the request of PERSON , the court ordered a second expert report , to be drawn up by another thoracic surgeon .","On DATE the court appointed a new oncologist because the CARDINAL initially chosen had declined the task , ordered the applicant to present herself for examination by the experts , admitted her medical files , and heard as witnesses a surgeon who had taken part in the operation alongside Dr GPE and another surgeon who had monitored the applicant in the hospital after the operation .","NORP The CARDINAL expert reports were filed in DATE .","NORP The report drawn up by the CARDINAL experts described the different methods for detecting bone metastases , including bone scintigraphy , emphasising that their results had to be assessed cumulatively ; said that when operating on cancer patients it was mandatory to inspect adjoining organs by palpation ; described the extent , in their view limited , to which the removal of parts of DATE left ribs had affected the applicant \u2019s body movements ; said that rib fractures were almost inevitable and very frequent in thoracotomies ; said that the main principle when operating on cancer patients was that all decisions were to be made by the entire team ; and opined that it would be possible to operate on the applicant again , should the need arise .","The thoracic surgeon \u2019s report said that the operating team had not erred from a medical point of view when carrying out the operation , and that the applicant \u2019s prognosis and quality of life would have been much worse had the operation not taken place .","On DATE the court heard the CARDINAL experts , including their answers to questions put by counsel for the applicant . The experts stood by their conclusions . The court then reserved judgment . However , on DATE the court , finding that the applicant had not specified whether her preferred defendant was PERSON or the hospital , reopened the proceedings and instructed her to do so .","On DATE the court asked the thoracic surgeon to deal with additional questions . He filed his supplementary report in DATE .","On DATE the court admitted further written evidence and heard CARDINAL witnesses called by the applicant . At the request of counsel for the applicant , it disqualified the thoracic surgeon on the basis that he was employed by the defendant hospital ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court then appointed a new expert .","In his report the new expert , a thoracic surgeon from GPE , said that the operating team had not breached good medical practice by removing parts of the applicant \u2019s fourth and fifth left ribs based on their visual and tactile inspection in the course of the operation , bearing in mind that histological testing of bone tissue required time and therefore no histological conclusion could be obtained during the operation ; that they had correctly inspected the applicant \u2019s lungs by palpation ; that rib fractures in the course of such operations were almost inevitable ; that the removal of the rib fragments had not unduly affected the applicant because they had later partly regenerated ; and that it could not be categorically said that the applicant had a metastasis in her sixth rib , especially bearing in mind that no further metastases had been detected for DATE after the operation .","On DATE the court heard the new expert , including his answers to questions put by counsel for the applicant . He explained in detail why he stood by his conclusions . Counsel for the applicant requested a further expert report on the need for the operation . The court turned down the request on the basis that it went beyond the scope of the case .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It referred to the conclusions of the experts but said that it would not take into account the reports drawn up by the expert who had been disqualified ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . Based on those conclusions , the court found that the precise location of the suspected metastasis had not been fully established before the operation . It went on to say that the allegation that PERSON had removed parts of the applicant \u2019s fourth and fifth left ribs without her consent was baseless , since the written consent form that she had signed before the operation , following an explanation on the proposed procedure , had not specified the rib to be operated upon . The court further held , with reference to the expert opinions , that PERSON had not erred by removing parts of DATE left ribs , as he had observed on them tissue which he had suspected to be cancerous . The fact that the histological test had later showed otherwise had not retrospectively rendered his assessment flawed . Nor had he erred by inspecting the applicant \u2019s lungs by palpation \u2013 that was standard practice in that type of operation . Furthermore , the evidence did not categorically prove that the applicant still had a metastasis in her sixth left rib , especially bearing in mind the lack of other metastases after the operation . In particular , the experts were agreed that the medical imaging results submitted by the applicant could not be conclusive on that point in the absence of a fresh histological test . Lastly , the court found that it had not been proved that the applicant \u2019s sixth rib had been fractured in the course of the operation and that , in any event , such a fracture was a habitual risk in that sort of operation .","The applicant appealed to ORG .","On DATE , at the request of counsel for the applicant , the court instructed the replacement thoracic surgeon who had acted as expert in the proceedings before the lower court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to draw up a supplementary report in which to address several points raised in the appeal . Counsel for the applicant also requested a fresh expert report , to be drawn up by CARDINAL thoracic surgical oncologists . They asked that CARDINAL of those be PERSON for PERSON opposed the request , arguing that Dr V.T. would be biased in favour of the applicant because he had known her for DATE . The court did not order the report .","The thoracic surgeon \u2019s supplementary report said that the applicant had correctly been subjected to surgery ; that the operating team had not erred by acting on the basis of the visual and tactile findings made in the course of the operation , especially bearing in mind the uncertain results of the prior medical imaging tests ; that there was no universally reliable method to establish the presence of bone metastases ; that it had been impossible to mark the precise spot of the suspected metastasis before the operation ; and that PERSON had had the requisite qualifications to operate on the applicant .","On DATE the court admitted the report and heard the thoracic surgeon . The applicant submitted a private expert opinion which said that the removal of parts of her fourth and fifth left ribs had been needless and erroneous . This opinion could not be admitted because it had not been drawn up by court - appointed experts . The applicant however reiterated her earlier request for a fresh expert report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and the court acceded to it , appointing as experts CARDINAL thoracic surgeons , CARDINAL of whom was PERSON , and a thoracic surgical oncologist , all from GPE .","The experts were divided . PERSON , who filed a minority report , was of the view that the operation had not been necessary and had been carelessly carried out , with the removal of parts of CARDINAL healthy ribs . The other CARDINAL experts expressed the same views as those set out in the thoracic surgeon \u2019s supplementary report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and came to the conclusion that the operation had been required and that the operating team had not acted out of line with good medical practice .","On DATE the court admitted the reports and heard the CARDINAL experts , who each stood by the views expressed in their respective reports . On DATE it admitted further written evidence and heard the parties\u2019 oral argument .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . It said that it credited all expert opinions save that of the expert disqualified in the proceedings before the lower court ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) and that of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which went against the remainder of the evidence . It went on to hold , by reference to the other experts\u2019 conclusions , that the operation had been necessary , and that by removing parts of the applicant \u2019s fourth and fifth left ribs on the basis of a visual and tactile examination PERSON had acted in line with established medical practice , even though it had later transpired that they did not contain cancerous tissue . The court came to the same conclusions as the lower court with respect to the inspection of the applicant \u2019s lungs by palpation , the alleged fracture of her sixth rib , and the question whether it had been proved that she had cancer after the operation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On that basis , the court held that the medical team which had operated on the applicant had not acted negligently and that it had not been categorically established that the applicant had suffered damage as a result of their actions .","The applicant appealed on points of law .","In a judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG , I \u0433. \u043e. ) , ORG quashed the lower court \u2019s judgment and remitted the case . It held that that court had failed duly to elucidate the facts and in particular to take on an active role in the formulation of the questions to the experts . It had thus not fully clarified whether it had been necessary to operate on the applicant , whether her sixth left rib had been fractured in the course of the operation , and why it had been necessary to remove parts of her fourth and fifth left ribs . It had likewise failed to explain fully why it had disregarded PERSON opinion ; simply saying that it went against the rest of the evidence was not enough . On remittal , the lower court had to re - visit these points by taking into account the history of the applicant \u2019s medical condition , and inquire into the need for the operation , the presence of metastases in her ribs , and the alleged worsening of her health after the operation . In so doing , it had to obtain a fresh medical expert report and enable the parties to take part in the formulation of the questions to the experts .","On remittal , ORG ordered a fresh expert report , to be drawn up by CARDINAL thoracic surgeons from GPE and a medical imaging specialist from GPE .","The report said that it had been imperative to carry out the operation ; that the fracture of the sixth rib had been there before the operation and had been due to the rib \u2019s heightened fragility resulting from previous anti - cancer treatment ; that the removal of parts of the fourth and fifth ribs had not been an error in view of the inconclusive prior medical imaging data , which had its limitations , and the visual observation of tissue that could at the time have been suspected to be cancerous ; that there was no categorical medical data proving the presence of a metastasis in the sixth rib before or after the operation \u2013 the bone scintigraphies had only showed an increased uptake of radioactive tracer there \u2013 in spite of the medical treatment undergone by the applicant after the operation ; that the applicant could be operated upon again , should the need arise ; and that the applicant \u2019s medical condition would have been much worse had she indeed had an untreated metastasis in her sixth , eighth or ninth rib for DATE after the operation .","NORP On DATE the court admitted the report and heard the CARDINAL experts , including their replies to questions posed by counsel for the applicant . The experts stood by their conclusions . The court also admitted other evidence submitted by the applicant .","On DATE ORG again upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . It held , by reference to the reports of the CARDINAL experts that it had appointed , the CARDINAL experts appointed in the proceedings before the lower court , and CARDINAL of the experts appointed in the first appeal proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) , that the operation had been required . It said that it could not follow the opinion of PERSON on this point ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) because , even though the question whether it had been advisable to operate in such circumstances could be debated theoretically , the medical team treating the applicant had been faced with an exigently practical situation : the medical imaging tests had showed the presence of a suspected isolated tumour whose exact location was uncertain , and there had been for this reason only one course of action : localise the tumour using the methods of surgical diagnostics and immediately remove it . The court agreed with the experts\u2019 conclusions that the operating team had not erred by removing parts of the applicant \u2019s fourth and fifth ribs on the basis of their suspicion that they contained cancerous tissue , even though that had turned out not to be the case . The mention of the eighth and ninth ribs in the operation report had been a clerical mistake without incidence for the applicant \u2019s health . Again by reference to the experts\u2019 conclusions , the court fully agreed with the lower court \u2019s findings with respect to the inspection of the applicant \u2019s lungs by palpation , and held that it had not been proved that her sixth rib had been fractured in the course of the operation , or that a metastasis in that rib had erroneously not been removed . On that basis , it concluded that PERSON had not acted negligently .","The applicant again attempted to appeal on points of law .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 DATE \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG , PERSON \u0433. \u043e. ) , ORG refused to admit the appeal for examination , holding that there was no divergent case - law on the points of law decided by the lower court and that the appeal in effect concerned that court \u2019s findings of fact ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146702","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SMERTIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE in GPE prior to his arrest .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on drug - related charges and taken to the local anti - narcotics unit . According to the applicant , he was beaten by policemen and then questioned in the absence of a lawyer .","On DATE the Balezinskiy District Court of GPE found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment . It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the judgment .","During several periods DATE and DATE the applicant was held in GPE , a temporary detention facility located in GPE .","The applicant submitted that the facility had been overcrowded . There were no windows in the cells where he stayed . The ventilation and water taps did not function . No mattresses or bed linen was available . Moreover , the detainees were not taken outdoor for exercise .","The applicant lodged a number of complaints seeking to bring the above issues to the attention of domestic authorities . In his reply of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor acknowledged that the conditions of detention in the ORG had fallen short of the legal requirements . He further informed the applicant that he had brought an action against the management of the ORG for their failure to improve the conditions .","On DATE the Balezinskiy District Court of GPE granted the district prosecutor \u2019s lawsuit . It found that the conditions of detention in FAC had been characterised , inter alia , by a lack of bed linen and a possibility to take a shower and that the detainees had not been afforded DATE outdoor exercise .","On DATE the regional ORG sent a letter to the applicant , acknowledging , in particular , that the detainees kept in the ORG had been deprived of outdor exercise and and lacked bed linen .","After some time the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation in connection with inadequate conditions of detention . By final judgment of DATE , ORG found that the applicant \u2019s allegations had been substantiated and granted the claim , awarding him MONEY ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160420","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KHACHUKAYEVY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Liberty of person);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants are :","( CARDINAL ) PERSON Khachukayeva , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE ;","( CARDINAL ) Ms Khadizhat Khachukayeva , who was born in DATE and lives in LOC , GPE ;","( CARDINAL ) Ms Kheda FAC , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The applicants are the wife and daughters of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .","At the material time the applicants and Mr PERSON lived in the village of ORG in GPE , GPE . The village was situated along a major highway known as \u201c GPE \u201d , part of the road between GPE in GPE and GPE in GPE , which has several permanent military roadblocks posted along it . It was impossible to drive on the highway without being checked and information from the check being entered into a log . CARDINAL permanent roadblock was situated QUANTITY to the east of LOC , at the junction with the road towards PERSON , the main city in GPE . This road block was commonly referred to as \u201c GPE \u201d ( also spelled as \u201c LOC ) , after the name of a nearby suburb of ORG .","On DATE Mr PERSON drove to PERSON with his friends Mr Sayd - Akhmed S. , a resident of PERSON , and Mr PERSON , a resident of ORG , in the latter \u2019s Toyota Land Cruiser car . The vehicle \u2019s licence plate number was ACARDINALBKCARDINAL , which was easily recognisable because of the CARDINAL nines .","At QUANTITY on DATE a group of ORG residents were passing through the FAC roadblock by bus and saw Mr DATE Toyota Land Cruiser car there . Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and Mr PERSON were standing next to the vehicle , surrounded by members of the military . Nearby were some armoured military vehicles ( BMP ) and UAZ cars . According to CARDINAL unnamed witnesses , who had also been stopped at the roadblock at the same time , they and Mr PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON were taken to the military unit \u2019s headquarters in the village of PERSON .","The applicants have not seen Mr PERSON since DATE . They were not eyewitnesses to the abduction . Their submission to the ORG was based on the first applicant \u2019s complaints and requests to various ORG authorities , a witness statement by PERSON ORG dated DATE and copies of documents from the criminal investigation file .","The applicants learnt about the detention of Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and Mr DATE on DATE of DATE from the bus passengers , but were not worried at first , as they presumed that the CARDINAL men had been stopped for a routine identity check . They were also reassured by Mr R.V. , the head of FAC village administration at the time , who said that there was no need to worry as all CARDINAL men were law - abiding citizens .","DATE , at DATE , Mr R.Sh . saw Mr Khizir A. \u2019s Toyota Land Cruiser car in a military convoy , passing through a roadblock over the ORG river in the village of GPE , QUANTITY to the north of GPE . PERSON . was later questioned by the prosecutor \u2019s office ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) .","NORP In DATE a friend of the missing men , PERSON . PERSON , spotted the licence plate from Mr PERSON Toyota Land Cruiser car on a military vehicle and informed the investigation of this ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The serviceman driving the vehicle was subsequently questioned and stated that he had recovered it at the roadblock ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants learned that the blown - up shell of a ORG Land Cruiser had been found in the north of GPE , in LOC . The car was identified as the CARDINAL belonging to Mr DATE","On DATE the remains of CARDINAL bodies and items of clothing were found in the forest near the village of Darbankhi ( also spelled as PERSON ) , near the Darbankhi - Vinogradnoye road in the north of the ORG district . Relatives of the abducted men subsequently identified some of the clothing as belonging to the missing men ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG declared Mr ORG a missing person , at the request of his sister PERSON On DATE she was appointed as the legal guardian of the second and third applicants .","On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is also stated as DATE ) the first applicant and relatives of PERSON SaydAkhmed S. and Mr PERSON complained about the abduction of the men at the roadblock to several law - enforcement agencies . They described the circumstances of the incident and stressed that their relatives had most probably been detained by officers of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ( ORG \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0430 \u0431\u0435\u0437\u043e\u043f\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 ( ORG ) ) or ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the GRU \u201d ) ( ORG \u0440\u0430\u0437\u0432\u0435\u0434\u044b\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ( ORG ) ) and that their own search for the abducted men had not produced any results .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office ( hereinafter \u201c the prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) opened criminal case no . DATE . The decision stated , among other things , the following :","\u201c ... On DATE , at QUANTITY , on the Rostov - Baku highway at the former roadblock of the FAC [ traffic police ] post unidentified persons detained and took away [ Mr ORG , Mr PERSON and Mr Sayd - Akhmed S. ] to an unknown destination ... \u201d","On DATE GPE \u2019s Deputy Minister of the Interior wrote to the GPE prosecutor providing details of the abduction which were similar to the applicants\u2019 account before the ORG and asking to be informed whether the abducted men had been arrested and , if so , on what charges . The letter also stated that there were witnesses to the abduction .","On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON . PERSON , who stated that on DATE he had seen a grey ORG with the registration number ACARDINALBKCARDINAL and that a group of military servicemen had been next to it . He had recalled immediately that the plate had belonged to Mr GPE . A. \u2019s Toyota Land Cruiser and asked the driver of the vehicle where he had got it . The driver told him that he had received it from Mr GPE , the driver of the head of the LOC department of the interior ( hereinafter \u201c the PERSON ROVD \u201d ) ( ORG \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b ( ORG ) ) , who had obtained it from a military serviceman stationed in the settlement of ORG . The witness had taken the plate from the driver and on DATE handed it over to the investigators .","On DATE , investigators questioned the driver of the head of the Grozny ROVD , Mr PERSON , who stated that he had obtained the licence plate with the registration number of Mr GPE . A. \u2019s car in DATE from a military serviceman at the FAC roadblock .","On DATE , investigators questioned a serviceman , Mr PERSON , who stated that he had found the licence plate with the ACARDINALBKCARDINAL registration number when he was manning the Chernorechensky roadblock in DATE and had handed the plate over to the policemen who had taken over from him at the roadblock .","On DATE the investigation in the criminal case was suspended on account of the failure to identify the perpetrators .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unlawful and ordered that further steps be taken .","On DATE the proceedings were resumed , before being suspended again on DATE .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr R.Sh . who stated that on or around DATE he had been crossing the roadblock over the ORG river in the village of GPE , when he had seen a military convoy which included Mr PERSON Toyota Land Cruiser . The car , which had been moving among at least CARDINAL military vehicles , was being driven by a tall red - headed man in a special black military uniform with a bullet - proof vest .","On DATE the deputy prosecutor of ORG overruled the decision to suspend the investigation as premature and unlawful and ordered that further steps be taken . In particular , he pointed out the following :","\u201c The examination of the case file shows that the investigation has been carried out in an extremely superficial manner and without any plan . ... To this date , none of the ORG relatives have been questioned or granted the procedural status as the relative of a victim , [ the investigator ] has contented himself with sending formal requests to various bodies and receiving equally formal replies . ...","It is necessary to question family members and close friends about the missing men \u2019s lives , work and social activities ... , to receive a reply from the military prosecutor \u2019s office of the [ ORG ] , to question in detail the witness who found the missing car in the forest ... , to question once again the witness [ GPE . ] who saw the vehicle in a military convoy going over the ORG bridge in the village of GPE ... , to take all the necessary steps to identify the military unit which passed over the bridge at that time . The witness has highlighted the large number of vehicles in the convoy , so it would appear to be quite possible to clarify this question . If positive replies are obtained a visit should be planned to the location of the military unit to find out more about the fate of the missing car . \u201d","Following the discovery of the remains of CARDINAL people ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is also referred to as DATE ) , the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal case no . CARDINAL on DATE .","On DATE the investigators in criminal case no . DATE questioned the brother of Mr PERSON , PERSON , who described the circumstances of the abduction at the roadblock and stated that some of the items of clothing found with the remains of the bodies resembled clothing worn by Mr PERSON on the date of his abduction . On DATE , PERSON DATE officially identified several items of the clothing as belonging to Mr PERSON .","On DATE the investigators in criminal case no . DATE questioned the wife of PERSON , PERSON , who described the circumstances of the abduction at the roadblock and then identified several items of the clothing as belonging to her missing husband , Mr ORG","On DATE and then again on DATE , the supervising prosecutors criticised the investigation and ordered that the investigators take the steps which had been ordered previously . The documents submitted in the case show that none of the steps were taken , apart from granting victim status to some of the relatives of the men who had disappeared .","On DATE the investigators ordered a complex forensic examination of the human remains ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the experts concluded that they belonged to people with different blood groups . They came to no conclusion about a possible cause of death .","On DATE the investigators ordered a genetic test of the fragments . Blood samples were collected from the relatives of Mr ORG , Mr PERSON and Mr Sayd - Akhmed S.","On DATE the genetic test report showed that the remains belonged to Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr SaydAkhmed S.","Despite the genetic test results of DATE , the initial investigation into the abduction of the CARDINAL men in criminal case no . DATE continued until DATE and referred to them as \u201c missing \u201d .","On DATE the first applicant was granted the status of a victim in criminal case no . DATE and questioned . She stated that she had learnt of her husband \u2019s abduction by servicemen at the roadblock from her relatives .","On DATE the investigators again questioned Mr A.D. , who reiterated his previous statement and added that he and his relatives had found the burnt ORG Land Cruiser car in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE and DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , who stated that her brother , Mr PERSON , and his friends , Mr PERSON and Mr Khizir A. , had been abducted at the roadblock by officers of the ORG . The witness added that she was taking care of the second and third applicants .","On DATE the first applicant asked the investigators to provide her with unrestricted access to the investigation file . On DATE the investigators granted her request in part , stating that she was allowed to access only the documents which referred to proceedings she had been involved in .","On DATE the investigators questioned PERSON , who stated that on DATE her nephew , PERSON , and his CARDINAL friends , PERSON ORG and PERSON , had been abducted by federal servicemen at the roadblock . She also submitted that on that date PERSON Khizir A. had left home with a large sum of money as he had intended to buy a car .","On DATE the investigators combined the abduction case ( no . DATE ) and the murder case ( no . CARDINAL ) into one file ( no . DATE ) . The ORG department of the investigation committee was put in charge of the investigation and the applicants were informed of these developments .","The case file shows that DATE the investigators requested information on the possible whereabouts of the abducted men from the military units stationed in the region at the time , as well as from detention centres , hospitals , law - enforcement agencies and correctional facilities . For the most part , they received no answer and the replies that did come in were negative .","DATE the investigation in criminal case no . DATE was suspended and resumed on CARDINAL occasions . Each suspension of the proceedings was overruled by the supervising body as premature and unlawful . The last suspension took place on DATE , but the investigation was resumed on DATE . It is still pending .","In DATE the first applicant appealed to ORG in PERSON against the ORG refusal to provide her with unrestricted access to file no . DATE . She sought a ruling obliging the investigators to provide her with full access , to resume the investigation , which had been suspended , and to carry it out in an effective manner . She also asked for free legal counsel to assist her in the proceedings .","On DATE the Zavodskoy ORG allowed the complaint in part . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG granted the request for full access to the case file . The request for free legal assistance was dismissed for lack of grounds in domestic law .","The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who had taken away and then killed Mr Islam Deniyev had been ORG agents . In support of that assertion they referred to the ample evidence contained in their submissions and the criminal investigation file . They submitted that they had made a prima facie case that their relative had been abducted and killed by ORG agents and that the essential facts underlying their complaint had not been challenged by the Government .","The Government did not contest the essential facts as presented by the applicants . At the same time , they claimed that the investigation had not obtained information proving that ORG agents had been involved in the detention or killing of the applicants\u2019 relative .","A number of principles have been developed by ORG when it has been faced with the task of establishing the facts of events on which the parties disagree ( see PERSON v. \u201c the former GPE \u201d [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) : the factual findings should be based on the standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d ; and such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII , and ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVIII ) .","The ORG has dealt with a whole series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances and killings in GPE . Applying the abovementioned principles , it has concluded that if applicants make a prima facie case of abduction and killing by servicemen , this is sufficient for them to show that their relatives fell within the control of the authorities , and it is then for the Government to discharge their burden of proof , either by disclosing any documents in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred ( see , among many examples , GPE and Others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . If the Government fail to rebut that presumption , this will entail a violation of LAW in its substantive part . Conversely , where applicants fail to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof can not be reversed ( see , for example , ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; LOC v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","Turning to the circumstances of the present case , the ORG notes that the documents from the investigation file provided by the Government ( see , for example , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) demonstrate that Mr PERSON was detained on DATE at the roadblock by a group of armed servicemen and that his remains were discovered DATE , in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The next point to be considered is whether there is a causal link between the detention of Mr ORG by ORG servicemen at the roadblock and his death . The ORG reiterates in this connection that where the events in issue lie wholly , or in large part , within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities , such as in cases where persons are under their control in custody , strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention . Indeed , the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation ( see , among many authorities , ORG , cited above LAW ) .","In the present case there was no news of Mr Islam Deniyev between his detention on DATE at the roadblock and the discovery of his remains in DATE . ORG also notes that although a forensic expert examination was carried out on the remains , it failed to establish the cause of his death ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The Government did not dispute the circumstances of the discovery of the remains . The link between the detention and the death of Mr Islam Deniyev was , moreover , assumed in the domestic proceedings as the investigations into the abduction and the death were joined ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Government did not provide any substantiated version of the events to refute the version presented by the applicants .","The ORG finds that the facts of the present case strongly suggest that the death of Mr PERSON was part of the same sequence of events as his abduction and support the conclusion that he was executed extrajudicially by ORG agents . In these circumstances , the ORG finds that the ORG is responsible for the death of the applicants\u2019 relative .","For the above reasons the ORG considers that it has been established that Mr PERSON was killed following his unacknowledged detention by ORG servicemen ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178509","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u00dcNAL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were cadets in military schools . Based on classified investigation reports , they were expelled from their schools . None of the applicants had access to these classified reports . They all filed actions against ORG with ORG to have annulment of the impugned decisions .","Relying on the classified investigation reports , ORG rejected the ORG requests and their subsequent requests for rectification on different dates shown in detail in the attached list ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166744","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KONDRULIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE , in LOC until his arrest .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence . He remained in custody throughout the investigation and trial .","On DATE the ORG of GPE sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment . The sentence was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .","In DATE , following a complaint by the applicant of pain in his lower abdomen , he was diagnosed with an enlarged prostate gland and underwent surgery in relation to that condition .","In DATE the applicant was transferred to the prison tuberculosis hospital in GPE for testing of his urogenital system . CARDINAL operations were performed in the hospital , but various problematic symptoms relating to his urinary system persisted .","In DATE a biopsy of prostate tissue revealed the presence of cancer cells . The applicant was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer which had spread to his liver and inguinal lymph nodes . His condition was aggravated by a wasting syndrome and paraneoplastic syndrome .","According to the applicant , he did not have access to the required medication in the hospital , and therefore his condition worsened .","On DATE a medical panel confirmed his diagnosis , adding a list of secondary illnesses to it . The doctors concluded that the applicant \u2019s medical condition made him eligible for early release .","On DATE the Metallurgicheskiy District Court of Chelyabinsk \u201c the ORG \u201d examined the applicant \u2019s request for early release on health grounds . In the proceedings the applicant was represented by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer from ORG .","At the hearing the doctor who was treating the applicant testified that his condition had significantly deteriorated since DATE . He received painkillers in hospital , but effective medical treatment was unavailable , owing to a lack of the required medication .","The acting head of the hospital stated that the applicant could only receive adequate medical treatment in another hospital .","The prosecutor opposed the applicant \u2019s being released , citing his failure to reform while in detention . He also stated that the release was not necessary , as the applicant could receive the required medical treatment within the prison system .","The court rejected the applicant \u2019s request for release . It found that he had failed to improve himself , that is to say , the aim of reforming him as a prisoner had not been achieved . His medical condition did not preclude further detention , as the requisite medical treatment was available within the prison system . To receive it , the applicant only needed a transfer to a different hospital .","On DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal , having fully endorsed the reasoning of the lower court . It also noted that , in addition to pain relief and therapy to relieve symptoms , the applicant could have chemotherapy , should the prison hospital receive the required medication .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant sought interim measures from this ORG under Rule CARDINAL to ensure adequate medical treatment or his release from detention .","On DATE the ORG decided to apply Rule DATE , indicating to the Government that it was desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicant should be immediately examined by medical experts who were independent of the prison system , with a view to determining : ( CARDINAL ) whether the treatment he was receiving in the prison hospital was adequate with regard to his condition ; ( CARDINAL ) whether his state of health was compatible with detention in prison hospital conditions ; and ( CARDINAL ) whether his condition required his placement in a specialist , possibly civilian , hospital . Furthermore , the Government were also to ensure his transfer to a specialist hospital , should the medical experts conclude that he required it .","On DATE the Government responded to the ORG \u2019s letter of DATE , asserting that the scope and quality of the applicant \u2019s medical treatment in the prison hospital corresponded to his needs . They alleged that , owing to the gravity of the applicant \u2019s condition , only treatment of his symptoms was recommended , and such treatment was being provided in full . They submitted the following documents : a typed copy of the applicant \u2019s medical file ; certificates from detention facilities summarising the applicant \u2019s treatment and describing his state of health ; a report by a medical panel of CARDINAL DATE confirming his eligibility for early release ; a copy of ORG decision of DATE ; a statement by the acting head of the hospital in which he noted that ORG had misinterpreted his testimony given on DATE , as he had never discussed the possibility of the applicant being treated in another hospital ; and a statement by the head of the prison hospital in which he confirmed that the cancer treatment was only possible in a special oncological centre , and that he had never argued that it was accessible within the prison system .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted that the Government had not made arrangements for the independent medical examination indicated by the ORG to be carried out . However , CARDINAL independent doctors summoned by the applicant \u2019s lawyer had assessed the quality of his medical treatment in detention and the compatibility of further detention in the prison hospital with his state of health . In an expert report dated DATE the doctors had concluded that the treatment the applicant was receiving in the prison hospital was inadequate . The belated diagnosis of prostate cancer and the failure to provide active treatment , such as glandular therapy , radiation therapy or surgery were mentioned among other major shortcomings on the part of the medical authorities . The doctors had also noted that the applicant could not be provided with adequate medical treatment in the prison hospital , because it had no licence for inpatient treatment of cancer patients and urological diseases . Accordingly , the experts had concluded that his detention in that facility did not correspond to his medical needs , and threatened his life .","NORP Over DATE the applicant \u2019s health continued to deteriorate , and the wasting syndrome progressed .","On DATE the medical panel prepared a new report , again recommending the applicant \u2019s early release on health grounds . A court hearing on the matter was scheduled for DATE . DATE before that date the applicant died of cancer .","At the request of the applicant \u2019s lawyer , Mr A. ORG , ORG carried out a preliminary inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the applicant \u2019s death , which ended with a decision of DATE not to open a criminal case ."],"violated_articles":["3","34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173477","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ZIMONIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals . They were owners of flats in GPE . The ORG authorities reclaimed the flats , and the ORG title to the real property in question was annulled .","NORP The flat at CARDINAL - CARDINAL GPE , GPE , was owned by PERSON On DATE PERSON died intestate with no surviving kin .","On DATE PERSON bought the flat from a person acting on PERSON \u2019s behalf by virtue of a power of attorney .","On DATE M. sold the flat to O.","On DATE O. sold the flat to ORG","On DATE V. sold the flat to the applicant and his minor daughter .","On an unspecified date the police opened an investigation into the fraudulent sale of the flat after PERSON \u2019s death . On DATE the police informed ORG ( ORG ) about the investigation .","On an unspecified date ORG brought an action against the applicant seeking the transfer of the title to the flat to GPE and the applicant \u2019s eviction .","On DATE the Kuntsevskiy ORG of GPE granted ORG claims in full . The court established that PERSON had died intestate with no surviving kin and that the flat should have been considered bona vacantia . It considered all the transactions with the flat to be void and ordered the transfer of the title to the flat to GPE and the applicant \u2019s eviction .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG refused to allow the ORG cassation appeal .","On DATE ORG of GPE refused to allow the ORG second cassation appeal .","On DATE GPE had its title to the flat registered .","According to the Government , on DATE ORG entered into a social housing agreement with the applicant and his daughter who continued to reside in the flat .","The flat at CARDINAL , PERSON , GPE , was owned by NORP DATE S. died intestate with no surviving kin .","On DATE an unidentified person sold the flat to B.","On DATE PERSON sold the flat to PERSON , the applicant \u2019s father .","On DATE the Nagatinskiy ORG of GPE approved a friendly settlement agreement between the applicant and her father recognising the applicant \u2019s title to the flat .","On DATE the police opened an investigation into the fraudulent sale of the flat after S. \u2019s death . On CARDINAL DATE the police informed ORG about the investigation .","On an unspecified date ORG brought a civil action against the applicant seeking the transfer of the title to the flat to GPE and the applicant \u2019s eviction .","On DATE ORG granted ORG claims in full . The court established that PERSON had died intestate with no surviving kin and that the flat should have been considered bona vacantia . The court ruled that the case fell under one of the CARDINAL exceptions to the protection of a bona fide purchaser \u2019s title , which required that precedence be given to the previous owner who had been deprived of the property against his or her will . The applicant \u2019s title to the flat was annulled and the title was transferred to GPE .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG refused to allow the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal .","According to the applicant , the judgment in the GPE \u2019s favour has not been enforced and the applicant continues to reside in the flat .","The flat at DATE , ORG , GPE , had been owned by ORG , who died intestate with no surviving kin on DATE .","On an unspecified date PERSON and other unidentified persons forged ORG will , naming P. as ORG \u2019s heir .","On DATE applied to a notary seeking to be recognised as ORG \u2019s heir . On DATE the notary issued a certificate confirming that P. had inherited ORG \u2019s flat .","On DATE ORG ( the \u201c Registration Board \u201d ) registered the certificate confirming P. \u2019s title to the flat and issued the relevant deed .","On DATE P. sold the flat to the first applicant .","On DATE the ORG registered the flat purchase and issued the respective deed to the first applicant . The applicants moved into the flat and resided there .","On an unspecified date the authorities opened a criminal investigation concerning the forgery of the will issued on behalf of ORG","On DATE ORG of GPE found P. guilty of several counts of fraud and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . In particular , the court established that P. , acting in concert with other persons whose identity was not known , had fraudulently acquired ORG \u2019s flat and sold it to the first applicant on the basis of a forged will . The court also found that the flat was bona vacantia which therefore vested in the ORG and , by having fraudulently acquired title to it and then sold it to the first applicant , PERSON had caused damage to the ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG brought a civil action against the applicants seeking , inter alia , ( CARDINAL ) revocation of the first applicant \u2019s title to the flat ; ( CARDINAL ) the applicants\u2019 eviction ; and ( CARDINAL ) restitution of the flat to GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE granted ORG claims . It established that the flat was bona vacantia and ordered its restitution to GPE . It also revoked the first applicant \u2019s title to the flat and ordered the applicants\u2019 eviction .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG refused to allow the applicants\u2019 cassation appeal .","On DATE ORG of GPE refused to allow the ORG cassation appeal .","It appears that the judgment in the GPE \u2019s favour has not been enforced to date . The applicants continue to reside in the flat ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182861","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF UNIFAUN THEATRE PRODUCTIONS LIMITED AND OTHERS v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The first applicant , ORG , is a limited liability company which produces theatrical performances in NORP theatres . The second and third applicants are the CARDINAL directors of the company . The fourth applicant is the artistic director of the theatrical production known as \u201c Stitching \u201d , a play written by the NORP playwright PERSON , originally published in DATE in GPE by the publishing house PERSON . The fifth as well as the third applicants are CARDINAL actors engaged to perform in the mentioned production ( as PERSON and PERSON , the main characters ) .","In DATE , the first applicant , via the second applicant , decided to produce the play Stitching for the theatre audiences in GPE , and proceeded to obtain the necessary performance licence from the author and his agent . The relevant authorisation was granted to the first applicant by the author and agent of the production following the payment of a fee .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an application with ORG ( \u201c the Board \u201d ) , in order for a rating certificate to be issued in terms of LAW ( see Relevant domestic law ) . The relevant fee was paid and a clean copy of the script submitted .","At the same time , the first applicant entered into a reservation agreement with a theatre for CARDINAL dates DATE and DATE and hired the third , fourth and fifth applicants in connection with the services for such play .","On DATE the ORG issued a certificate ( no . DATE ) , which was received by the applicants on an unspecified date , stating that the play had been examined by its chairperson ( GPE ) and that it was decided that it was \u201c Banned \u2013 Banned and disallowed \u201d . No reasons were provided for the decision . Before ORG submitted a further classification certificate with the same conclusion , also dated DATE , which stated that the classifier was GPE , as well as GPE , DATE and FAC ( the latter names added by means of an asterisk ) . The applicants submitted that they had never received the certificate submitted by the Government . The Government explained that the latter certificate was an internal document .","On DATE the first applicant , via the second applicant , sent an email , followed by a telephone call , to the chairperson of ORG enquiring about the decision . No reasons were provided by the chairperson .","On DATE the first applicant , via its legal counsel , sent a letter to the chairperson requesting a reconsideration of the decision in terms of Regulation DATE ) of ORG .","NORP By means of a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed the first applicant , via the latter \u2019s legal counsel , that the original decision was reconfirmed . The letter contained no reasons and did not list the names of the persons who had been involved in the review .","On DATE another letter was sent to the first applicant by the chairperson . It enclosed a document dated DATE addressed \u201c to whom it may concern \u201d , which had been deposited with the Commissioner of Police , containing the reasons why the production was banned , namely :","\u201c CARDINAL . Blasphemy against the State Religion \u2013 pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL","Obscene contempt for the victims of FAC \u2013 page CARDINAL","An encyclopaedic review of dangerous sexual perversions leading to sexual servitude CARDINAL pages CARDINAL , DATE and several others","PERSON \u2019s eulogy to the child murderers PERSON and PERSON \u2013 page CARDINAL","Reference to the abduction , sexual assault and murder of children \u2013 page CARDINAL","In conclusion , the play is a sinister tapestry of violence and perversion where the sum of the parts is greater than the whole . ORG feels that in this case the envelope has been pushed beyond the limits of public decency . \u201d","On DATE the applicants filed a judicial protest against the chairperson , in her personal capacity and as Chairperson of the ORG , the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General claiming that the actions of the ORG were illegal in so far as they constituted a violation of LAW of LAW and LAW . They considered the defendants responsible for any damage suffered .","By DATE ( DATE following what had to be the first performance date ) , no reply was received to the mentioned judicial protest . In consequence , the applicants called a press conference explaining the situation , noting that they were adhering to the law but that they were determined to perform the play at some stage .","In TIME of the same day , the applicants and their legal counsel were summoned for questioning at ORG . The applicants were sternly warned by a police inspector that they would face immediate arrest if they attempted to stage the play .","Rehearsals for the production carried on unabated . According to the applicants CARDINAL persons watched the rehearsals and none of them found the play objectionable .","The DATE \u2019s decision was not revoked and an invitation to the Chairperson to attend a rehearsal ( as members of ORG sometimes did in connection with other performances ) remained unanswered .","On DATE the applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining that they had suffered a breach of LAW . They also claimed damage and redress . Complaining under LAW they claimed that they did not have a fair hearing before ORG in so far as they had no hearing and no possibility to make submissions , nor were any reasons for the decision ever communicated to them . They also relied on the relevant provisions of LAW .","By a decree of CARDINAL DATE the court rejected a request for the production to be shown behind closed doors to the court and the defendants .","During these proceedings the court heard several witnesses which it classified as ( i ) those who acted in the play and had thus read the script and performed it in rehearsals , ( ii ) persons who watched the rehearsals but did not read the script and ( iii ) the defendants who read the script but did not watch the rehearsal .","The court heard the applicants , CARDINAL witnesses ( who had watched the rehearsals ) produced by the applicants , namely , TIME a consultant psychiatrist , PERSON an educator , child psychologist and actress , GPE a tourism marketing executive and actor , a priest who was a former film classifier for the Archdiocese of GPE , as well as the author of the play . The latter testified that the play had been performed uninterruptedly in all parts of the world and extensively in LOC , during which time it had collected a number of awards .","The author described the play as follows :","\u201c A couple called PERSON and PERSON , a very normal couple but however a couple who find themselves in relationship difficulties , there have been betrayals , they \u2019re wondering whether to continue with their relationship . PERSON discovers that she is pregnant by PERSON and so a large part of the play is concerned with them discussing whether or not to have the child . Ultimately they decide to have the child but they decide to do so in order to save their relationship , one might say for somewhat impure motives , they feel that having this child will keep them together . However their relationship continues to disintegrate and at CARDINAL point during a fight they are having between themselves when their attention is diverted elsewhere , the child is involved in an accident and then dies . Obviously this is a huge trauma for them and they are driven apart . They come back together again sometime later , maybe DATE and meet and for them their relationship is not quite finished and they come back together in their grief because they are the only other people who understand the depths of their grief . When they come together they can only do so in a perverted fashion , where PERSON actually poses as a prostitute . She wants to make their sexual relationship a matter of commerce in order to distance herself from the emotions .","What then ensues is a very violent and dark relationship , a kind of a punishment of themselves , confessions of their guilt . Eventually PERSON is tipped into clinical mental illness and performs an act of self - mutilation which she believes will restore her to a virginal state , and that is what finally blows apart their relationship . In a final coda PERSON meets PERSON DATE when she has obviously received treatment for her mental illness and has in fact converted to NORP and both of them decide to go their separate ways . \u201d","He further testified as follows :","\u201c ( Concerning pornographic references ) I would not for instance have used real pornographic pictures . I felt that that would be needlessly offensive for people however another director might chose to do so . ...","( Concerning women in FAC walking towards death ) it should not be an unfamiliar concept that in their grief that couple confess to thoughts , to feelings that they feel guilty about . The play to some extent is about life and about death . When he talks about masturbating and using as his material pictures of women from FAC , this is something that occurs when he is a small child , this occurs when he is a very young child . He says that it is the first time that he masturbated which would imply that it is reasonably early . At that time of life a young man is completely concerned with procreation , with the creation of life and he understands nothing of death , of mortality . So in fact that is what actually that phrase is about , the fact that he is confessing , he is saying I knew nothing about death , I did not look at the atrocity of life , I saw only the nudity . So it \u2019s actually nothing to do with FAC , it \u2019s to do with sexual urges and it \u2019s to do with him , you know small children do n\u2019t understand FAC .","( In reply to a court \u2019s question concerning the swearing \/ blasphemy ( daag\u0127a ) ) well that \u2019s not a concept that ever crossed my mind . I \u2019m not a religious person .","( Domestic court \u2019s question - Does the script allow the director to put aside certain references to things that could be described by people as hard ? Will the text lose by the director leaving it out ? ) I dare say that a director could remove CARDINAL or CARDINAL swear words but that would all have to be taken on the case by case basis , but largely speaking I would say they would suffer yes because there is a reason why every line is in every one of my plays . There \u2019s a reason for it and I \u2019m happy to stand here and justify them DATE .","( Domestic court \u2019s question - As far as PERSON is concerned an omission by the director could affect the whole performance ? ) Yes absolutely . \u201d","P.M. , a consultant psychiatrist , stated that in his opinion the play was a love story which unfortunately turned very badly . He explained that following the death of their son through their own negligence , the main characters had a relationship based on various fantasies , until the female character became mentally ill . It was a sad story , with however a redeeming feature , in that the CARDINAL finally manage to get back a balance in their life . He testified that there was nothing pornographic in the story and the bad language was in the context of the emotions being felt by the couple .","J.S. , a child psychologist , stated that in her opinion the play concerned a tragedy of a couple going through a crisis , which reached its peak when their son had died in an accident . She explained that the couple tried to connect in ways which were not necessarily conventional . She considered that it was a sensitive play that called for a mature audience . In reply to a court \u2019s question concerning a specific part of the text , PERSON replied that she was not shocked because she could not dissociate her female gender from her being a psychologist .","The priest ( who saw the rehearsal but did not read the script ) considered that he would have classified it for wise adults ( bil - g\u0127aqal ) . He explained that when a person was suffering she or he \u201c may lose it \u201d and enter into areas which decent people may object to . However , in his view that was the human reality . When CARDINAL was ready to study illnesses and the suffering of people who were going through pain one must be democratic and tolerant and give society the chance to understand those not living normally .","GPE ( who saw the rehearsal but did not read the script ) testified that most of the dialogue was between CARDINAL people who had certain hang - ups and inter personal problems , and who in a quest to get closer , nearly started a competition between them as to who was the more outrageous . Nevertheless , in his view , at some point one could tell that they were flirting with each other despite them being outrageous .","The third applicant who was performing as PERSON stated that she did not find the play offensive in any way , noting that the emotions were very real and that she felt that it was a love story . She also testified that no pornography was used as props .","The applicants also submitted that the script could be purchased and read by any person in GPE , without hindrance .","The defendants produced the witness testimony of the members of ORG and other individuals , as explained below .","Another priest ( who read the script but did not see the play ) felt that the script was offensive in various parts and dehumanising . He was annoyed by the blasphemous words and the reference to the Moors murderer , and very annoyed at the reference to the Holocaust . Further , he considered that the woman was being put forward as an object , and while it was possible that it was her choice , he thought she was totally subordinate to the man .","PERSON ( a member of ORG who only read the script ) had no doubt that it would have been better had they watched the theatrical production . He , however , explained that there were instances , such as the one in the present case , where the script was so objectionable , that he did not feel the need to watch it , since the CARDINAL elements which he objected to ( the words concerning FAC and the passage about PERSON and PERSON ) would always remain objectionable , no matter the way in which they were presented , be it a tragedy or a comedy . They would nonetheless remain offensive to certain sectors of NORP society or indeed society anywhere . While shock was a legitimate theatrical weapon and may be used repeatedly , one could not offend other people \u2019s sensibilities . Both in the case of the holocaust and that of child murders , humanity was at stake , and the relevant passages offended the sense of decency CARDINAL individual should have towards another .","D.M. ( a psychologist and member of ORG ) found the script barely credible in so far as it was unlikely that a person would go through so many situations one after the other . While perversions did exist , this couple was being put forward as a normal couple . In his view a normal couple , a couple who went through a normal life experience such as the death of a child , would not react like the characters in the play , who for example , reenacted a killing which had greatly marked GPE . Further the scene concerning FAC desecrated the memory of the persons who suffered .","Another witness , a retired Chief Justice and professor of law ( who only read the script ) , examined the play from the point of view of public morals . He considered that certain parts of the play were disgusting , such as that describing FAC , and the blasphemous words . He explained that the word \u201c fuck \u201d combined with the word \u201c God \u201d was unacceptable because it offended public morals , not only that of NORP , but that of CARDINAL the world . Thus , in his view those parts had to be deleted from the play . The parts concerning sex and sexual perversions , such as the part where the male figure wanted to pay the female figure to allow him to do certain things , disgusted him , but he considered that certain people could accept that .","J.C. , the member of the board who confirmed on appeal that the play should be banned considered that , apart from other concerns mentioned by other members of the board , it was not justifiable for a couple to do certain things in public just because they were going through a bad patch . It was not acceptable that a woman had to give her vagina to a man to show him she loved him . In his view , if CARDINAL were to make the appropriate deletions to the script , there would be nearly nothing left , and he could not find anything positive about it .","The Chairperson of the ORG testified that there were entire scenes which she considered went against morality and were an affront and atrocious attack on human rights and the dignity of the individual . She was shocked and very annoyed by what she considered to be unadulterated pornography where the woman was becoming the man \u2019s absolute slave . She considered that the play in its entirety , and not one scene here and there , was objectionable and offensive . The fact that the play ended with the couple possibly deciding to have a baby , did not suffice to hold that the play had a positive message , given the DATE ( sic ) pages .","In an CARDINAL - page judgment of DATE , ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional competence rejected the ORG claims .","The court considered that the second applicant had no further interest than that of the director of the company , thus it sufficed that the company was an applicant , and he , thus , had no victim status in his own capacity . Nevertheless , the artistic directors as well as the actors were victims of the alleged violation , as persons who were giving life to a script by means of their artistic representation - a theatrical performance which was a form of expression for the purposes of LAW .","It rejected the ORG \u2019s objection as to non - exhaustion of ordinary remedies since the ORG complaints concerned mainly issues of a constitutional and conventional nature , and thus were best dealt with by the courts of constitutional jurisdiction . For the purposes of the present case , the applicants were complaining of a human rights violation , and therefore an action for judicial review could not be an effective remedy in so far as it could not award the relevant damage , and could not order that the performance go ahead irrespective of the ban .","As to the merits , the court made extensive reference to the ORG \u2019s case - law , in particular PERSON v. the GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) and PERSON v. ORG DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE ) as well as prominent authors in the field of human rights . It considered that the decision of the Board to ban the play had been correct and in accordance with the law and established guidelines . The court , having read the entire script , could not tie the plot which the author wanted to transmit with the means employed to do so . In the court \u2019s view the author did not need to make use of such perversions in order to show the troubled reality of the characters .","It considered that the ORG was correct to conclude that the play in its entirety was offensive to NORP society . Indeed the specific scenes referred to , as well as other parts of the play , were an affront to the dignity of the individual , which was an integral part of the civil and moral fabric ( tessut ) of the country . Even in a pluralistic and democratic society , such as the NORP one , human dignity could not be trampled on , even if the aim was \u201c presumably \u201d a genuine one . As problematic as the relationship of the couple might have been , one could not make extensive use of vulgar , obscene and blasphemous language to highlight perversions , vilify ( ikasbar ) the right to life and the right to freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment , and vilify the respect towards a woman \u2019s dignity . It was not acceptable to publicise uncivil behaviour , which broke the law , debased the suffering of women during the holocaust , portrayed women as the object of sexual satisfaction , as well as ridiculed family life and the responsibilities parents have towards their children . A NORP society , while being tolerant , could not permit its values to be turned on their head in the name of freedom of expression . In the court \u2019s view , the stitching of a vagina as an act of sexual pleasure , bestiality , the depravity arising from the thought of a woman eating another woman \u2019s excrement , the pleasure obtained in raping children , the murder of children and sexual intercourse with parents of violated and murdered children , were unacceptable even in a NORP society . The court noted that under NORP law , blasphemy was a contravention , and a person could not be immune from punishment simply because he or she was acting on stage . The PERSON , the court went on , \u201c was a historical fact where innocent victims underwent unprecedented suffering . Instead of treating this sensitive and delicate subject ... with due respect to the dignity of the victims , the character PERSON shows only sexual depravity ... the author permits the demeaning and humiliation of that tragedy totally out of context and for no other reason than for perversions . No matter how the text of the play is looked at , it runs aground on the reef of the inalienable dignity of the human person , and the court understands that this was the underlying reason for the ORG \u2019s decision . \u201d","The court rejected their complaint under LAW basis that the proper procedure had been undertaken , the applicants had been free to put forward their views in their request for reconsideration , which was carried out by another person [ not present at first - instance ] and no bias had been shown .","The applicants appealed the first - instance judgment only in so far as it concerned the merits of their complaints , and asked ORG to confirm the judgment in so far as it related to the second applicant \u2019s victim status . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG confirmed the first - instance judgment and ordered the applicants to pay all costs .","ORG noted that the first - court had chosen to exercise its jurisdiction and rejected the GPE objection of nonexhaustion of ordinary remedies , which in the absence of an appeal on the matter had become final . Nevertheless , it noted that the applicants had not instituted judicial review proceedings of the administrative action in question ( the ORG \u2019s decision ) ; thus they were not complaining that the ORG \u2019s decision was based on improper motives or irrelevant considerations . Moreover , the ordinary court , \u2019s decision ut sic , and people \u2019s opinions on the play were irrelevant given that the applicants considered the decision to be reasonable .","As to the constitutional and conventional complaint raised by the applicants , ORG held that the existence of ORG did not breach any of the applicants\u2019 rights , and indeed the applicants had not impugned the law establishing ORG . It further considered that freedom of expression had limits and that it was accompanied by duties and responsibilities . Both the Convention and the LAW provided for inter alia the protection of morals and the reputation and rights of others , and LAW also included public decency , in the relevant provision .","ORG , having read the script , shared the firstinstance court \u2019s view about various scenes of the play . It considered that such scenes all throughout the play affected the morality and decency of the entire production , and it was within the ORG \u2019s competence to assess that in line with the ORG . ORG had no doubt that there were phrases which constituted disparaging and insolent remarks towards CARDINAL belief , towards women and towards the suffering of the NORP in the Second World War .","Referring to the ORG \u2019s case - law , in particular , OttoPremingerInstitut v. GPE ( \u00a7 CARDINAL ) it recalled that those who chose to exercise the freedom to manifest their religion , \u201c must tolerate and accept the denial by others of their religious beliefs and even the propagation by others of doctrines hostile to their faith . However , the manner in which religious beliefs and doctrines are opposed or denied is a matter which may engage the responsibility of the ORG , notably its responsibility to ensure the peaceful enjoyment of the right guaranteed under LAW to the holders of those beliefs and doctrines . \u201d","In its view the limits of decency had been breached due to the blasphemy which was an offence under NORP law and to the vilification of the dignity of a people , of a woman , of children , and of the human being , as well as the extreme glorification of sexual perversion . These instances were so strong that they affected the play in its entirety and prevailed over any genuine aim presumably intended by the play . The court emphasized that the production despised the dignity of the individual , in particular sectors , such as women and children , whether because of their nationality or religion , and opined that even though the main characters were acting in this way because of tension , pressure and depression , such contempt could not be justified as article In the court \u2019s view while art was a wide concept covering any type of manifestation of expression , it could not include language which was obscene and despised the trauma of a genocide , and which , in itself , was against the laws of the country . For a strong moral message to be portrayed it was possible to cause discomfort and annoy other persons , but not to the extent of insulting them because of their beliefs , their people , or simply because they were a woman or a child .","Recalling that it was the duty of the ORG to protect the morality of the country , ORG considered that the ORG had fulfilled its duty . What was morally correct depended on the ORG and the relevant religion , and could not be determined universally . Thus , the fact that the production was performed elsewhere did not mean that it had to also be produced in GPE , particularly in the light of the laws in force in each country . This was precisely why states had latitude in applying certain restrictions on freedom of expression .","It further noted that under the laws in force , the ORG could ban the play , as opposed to classifying it for a mature audience . In any event it considered that adults , who could chose to watch the play in such a case , would also be deserving of protection , and thus limitations could also be necessary in such cases . It highlighted the ORG duty to preserve the sensitivities of the silent citizen ( as opposed to the vociferous ones , who inundated media forums ) and considered that no remedy after the performance could heal any harm already done to society . Thus , in ORG view the ORG \u2019s decision was correct , was not capricious or exaggerated , and it corresponded to the need to protect public morality in NORP society and the rights of others .","ORG concluded that it was not necessary to watch the play as the script was enough . In the absence of an Article CARDINAL complaint , it was also unnecessary to compare the performance to other performances which had been allowed by ORG . The applicants having refused to make any changes to the text , despite its invitation to do so , ORG confirmed that it would remain banned and that there was no breach of LAW .","In connection with their LAW complaint , ORG held that the applicants did not institute judicial review proceedings and in any event there had been no breach of their rights . Furthermore , in their view there had been no determination of any civil right ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144669","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BERGER-KRALL AND OTHERS v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Remainder inadmissible (Article 34 - Victim);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);No violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 names and dates of birth are listed in annex CARDINAL . They are members of ORG najemnikov ORG ) .","In the former GPE , socially - owned dwellings represented a significant part of the housing stock ( CARDINAL housing units ) . CARDINAL of the NORP population lived in such housing units at the time . According to the doctrine of \u201c social ownership \u201d ( dru\u017ebena lastnina ) introduced into the NORP system in DATE , such dwellings were owned by the community , the role of public bodies being confined to management .","After the Second World War , private dwellings and other LOC passed into ORG ownership through legislation on nationalisation . At the same time , dwellings were built or purchased by socially - owned enterprises or other public bodies . In both cases the latter allocated them to their employees and other entitled persons , who became holders of a \u201c specially protected tenancy \u201d or \u201c occupancy right \u201d ( stanovanjska pravica \u2013 hereinafter translated either as \u201c specially protected tenancy \u201d , as suggested by the applicants , or as \u201c occupancy right \u201d , as indicated by the Government ) under LAW and the existing legislation . The right to a socially - owned dwelling guaranteed the citizen \u201c the permanent use of the dwelling for his personal housing needs as well as for the needs of his family \u201d . LAW ( hereinafter referred to also as the \u201c ZSR \u201d ) provided that once allocated by an administrative decision followed by a contract , a specially protected tenancy entitled the holder to permanent , lifelong and uninterrupted use of the flat against the payment of a fee covering maintenance costs and depreciation . The fee ( or rent ) was determined on the basis of the construction price of dwellings and the requirements of simple replacement of dwellings , and in accordance with the standards and norms for the maintenance and management of socially - owned dwellings .","The Government pointed out that the occupancy right conferred the right to use the socially - owned dwelling only for the purpose of satisfying one \u2019s personal and family housing needs . Its rationale was the economical and efficient use of housing space , meaning that each family should have at its disposal as much space as it needed , and no more . The occupancy relationship could be terminated and another , more appropriate dwelling allocated in the event of a reduction of the number of users of the dwelling ( LAW of the ZSR ) . In the ORG \u2019s view , this proved that the occupancy right was associated with personal and family needs , and not with a particular dwelling . The concept of family needs was variable and depended on the number of family members . CARDINAL dwelling could be used at the same time and no one could move into the dwelling without the prior approval of the holder of the occupancy right . The latter was given management entitlements , such as the right and duty to participate in the management of the socially - owned housing . Holders of occupancy rights could exchange dwellings and make alterations to the dwelling , its furnishings and appliances only with the prior written approval of the housing administration ( Section CARDINAL of the ZSR ) .","The applicants challenged the ORG \u2019s allegation that the specially protected tenancy permitted use of the dwellings for housing purposes only . They observed that the holder of the occupancy right could use the dwelling without restrictions for himself and for the members of his family , did not need any consent to enlarge the number of family members , could use part of the dwelling for business activities and could sublease part of it for an agreed rent . He could modernise the dwelling with the agreement of the housing organisation managing the building ; if such agreement was denied DATE which in practice almost never occurred \u2013 he could demand substitution of consent in legal proceedings . The dwellings in question could be sold only to holders of occupancy rights , who could \u2013 with few very specific exceptions \u2013 exchange their dwellings . Any sales to third persons were null and void .","NORP In legal theory and judicial practice the specially protected tenancy was described as a right sui generis . On DATE the ORG delivered a decision ( Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) in which it considered that under the legislation of the former GPE , the specially protected tenancy enjoyed stronger protection than a purely contractual tenancy right . The legal relationship was not limited in time and was linked not only to the holder of the right , but also to persons living with him . It concluded that , because of the very limited volume of transactions involving socially - owned dwellings , the specially protected tenancy had been more akin to a property right than to a tenancy right .","When a holder of a specially protected tenancy died , his or her rights were transferred to the surviving spouse or long term partner ( who held the specially protected tenancy jointly ) or to a registered member of the family household who was also using the flat . According to the applicants , this also applied if they moved out or divorced . Thus , specially protected tenancies could be passed on from generation to generation .","In the ORG \u2019s opinion , however , this was not a succession of the occupancy right but rather a specifically regulated transfer of it to CARDINAL of the users of the dwelling . In this respect , the spouse and long term partner enjoyed a privileged status . Special provisions applied in the event of divorce ( LAW ) , and if it considered that none of the users of the dwelling met the conditions for obtaining the occupancy right after the death of the previous holder , the housing administration could request the said users to vacate the LOC ( LAW ) .","NORP The occupancy right could be cancelled only on limited grounds ( Sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the ZSR ) , the most important of which was failure by the holder to use the flat for his or her own housing needs for a continuous period of DATE without good reason ( such as military service , medical treatment , or temporary work elsewhere in the former ORG ( the \u201c SFRY \u201d ) or abroad ; see LAW of the ZSR ) . In this case , the users of the dwelling who had been living together with the holder of the occupancy right for a minimum of DATE had the same rights as they would have had if the holder had died . Other grounds were inappropriate and detrimental behaviour , failure to pay the fee , full sublease , use of the dwelling by a person other than the holder of the occupancy right and possession of an unoccupied flat suitable for residence . Although inspections were to be carried out to ensure compliance with these requirements , the specially protected tenancy was rarely , if ever , cancelled on these grounds ( see PERSON GPE , no . GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) . In this connection , the applicants pointed out that it was true that in theory holders of a specially protected tenancy could be moved to a substitute dwelling if the dwelling they were occupying was too large for them and the other users with regard to social standards ( see the Government \u2019s submissions in paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , according to the applicants , this possibility was in practice never used and there was no case - law on the matter .","All employed citizens were required to pay a special DATE housing contribution ( CARDINAL to MONEY of their DATE income ) to ORG . The funds thus obtained were used to build and maintain socially - owned flats . ORG granted benefits ( allocation of a flat under specially protected tenancy , or loan to purchase , construct or renovate a dwelling ) on the basis of the principles of mutuality and solidarity with those in need . All socially - owned dwellings were part of ORG and administered by ORG institutions , municipalities , social enterprises and other legal entities governed by public law .","Before GPE became independent , the applicants or their legal predecessors acquired specially protected tenancies in socially - owned dwellings which had been expropriated under the legislation on nationalisation . Under the legislation in force prior to DATE , no difference in specially protected tenancy conditions was made between tenants of ORG - constructed dwellings and tenants of nationalised dwellings .","On DATE GPE declared its independence . Among the first reforms enacted were LAW DATE ( PERSON ) and LAW DATE ( Zakon o denacionalizaciji ) , aimed at redressing the wrongs committed after the Second World War . LAW Section CARDINAL ) guaranteed the right of private ownership .","The Housing Act DATE ( hereinafter referred to also as the \u201c SZ \u201d ) provided for the transformation and privatisation of socially - owned dwellings . ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was dissolved and , with few exceptions , the socially - owned dwellings were transferred ex lege into ORG ownership or into that of local communities or ORG . Those dwellings which had become socially - owned property after having been expropriated from private owners were transferred into the ownership of the municipalities ( LAW ) .","The specially protected tenancy was replaced ex lege with a normal lease contract ( LAW ) . The previous holders of specially protected tenancies or , in the event of their death , their family members living in the flats , were given the possibility of renting the flats for an indefinite period and for a non - profit rent ( which covered maintenance , management of the flat and capital costs \u2013 LAW ) or of purchasing them on favourable terms , paying an administratively defined price which was calculated on the basis of a discount of PERCENT ( in the event of payment in instalments ) or PERCENT ( in the event of CARDINAL - off payment ) off the estimated value ( Sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","According to the applicants , in practice this meant a price of PERCENT of the real market value of the dwelling payable in instalments over DATE or PERCENT of that value payable within DATE . The right to purchase on favourable terms could be transferred inter vivos or mortis causa to close family members . However , previous holders of specially protected tenancy in flats which had been expropriated could only purchase them on favourable terms if the owners agreed to sell them within DATE from the restitution of the dwelling ( Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . In that case DATE MONEY discount ( Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) was offered by the owner , who would then be reimbursed by the municipality .","It follows from the above that all previous holders of specially protected tenancies were given the possibility of taking out new leases ( to be signed within DATE from the entry into force of LAW DATE ) . However , the applicants contended that these new leases were less advantageous than the specially protected tenancy . In particular , tenants no longer had secured tenancy of their homes since the owners could move them to other adequate flats without any particular justification ( Section CARDINAL ) . There were now CARDINAL grounds on which tenants could be evicted for misconduct , compared with CARDINAL previously . The fault - based grounds for termination of the lease were ( LAW of the ORG ) :","\u201c - if the tenant and any person living with him uses the dwelling counter to the law or the terms of the lease ;","- if , by the way they use the dwelling , the tenant or any person living with him causes major damage to the dwelling or to common areas , parts , facilities and installations of a multi - dwelling building ;","- if the tenant fails twice in succession or for CARDINAL out of DATE to pay rent or costs payable in addition to rent within the time - limit specified in the lease ;","- if the tenant or any person living with him , by their manner of using the dwelling , frequently or seriously disturbs other residents in their peaceful use of the dwelling ;","- if the tenant makes changes to the dwelling and fixtures without the prior consent of the owner ;","- if , in addition to the tenant , a person who is not named in the lease contract uses the dwelling for DATE without the owner \u2019s knowledge ;","- if the tenant leases out the dwelling without the agreement of the owner or charges a subtenant a higher rent ;","- if the tenant does not allow access to the dwelling in cases [ specified by law ] ;","- if the tenant or any other person who uses the dwelling engages in a prohibited activity there , or a permitted activity in an unlawful manner . \u201d","NORP However , before terminating the lease the owner had to give prior written notice to the tenant who was allegedly violating its provisions ; no termination was allowed if the inability to pay the rent in full and to entirely fulfil other obligations was due to the social distress of the tenant and the other persons using the dwelling .","Without the owner \u2019s permission , tenants could not sublet a flat , renovate it or decorate it . Nor could they bring new people into the flat ( Section CARDINAL ) . The owner could renovate the flat at any time and enter it twice a year ( Section CARDINAL ) . The tenant could not freely transfer the lease to another family member or exchange the flat . After the death of the original tenant , only the spouse or a person having lived with the tenant in a permanent relationship , or an immediate family member living in the flat , had the right to take over the lease ( Section CARDINAL ) . The tenant had to pay the legally regulated non - profit rent ( Section CARDINAL ) , which , unlike the fee ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , not only covered maintenance costs and depreciation , but also included a sum to offset capital costs and management of the dwelling .","The Denationalisation Act DATE ( hereinafter referred to also as the \u201c NORP \u201d ) regulated the denationalisation of property which had previously passed into ORG ownership through legislation on agrarian reform , nationalisation , confiscation or other forms of expropriation of privately owned properties . Previous owners or their heirs ( hereinafter referred to as \u201c previous owners \u201d ) were entitled ( until DATE ) to claim restitution of the expropriated property . Wherever possible , the property itself was to be returned in natura , including dwellings which had been let under the specially protected tenancy scheme . Where such restitution was not possible , claimants were entitled to substitute property and\/or compensation ( LAW ) .","The restitution of dwellings occupied by a tenant did not affect the leases concluded in the meantime , which remained in force ( see LAW of the ORG and LAW of the ORG ) .","The applicants pointed out that after the enactment of the housing reform , a number of former holders of specially protected tenancies in previously expropriated flats filed requests to purchase the flats . The deadline for filing such requests expired before that for \u201c previous owners \u201d to file restitution claims . Only when it became clear in individual cases ( especially in DATE ) that denationalisation proceedings had been initiated , were the former holders of specially protected tenancies informed that their requests to purchase had been rejected .","Holders of occupancy rights had no part in the denationalisation proceedings to determine the ownership of the property , which meant that they were not notified when a request was filed for the restitution of the dwelling they were occupying . According to the data submitted by the applicants , CARDINAL restitution requests had been filed and in the period until DATE a yearly average of CARDINAL decisions had been rendered , which meant a total of CARDINAL decisions , out of which CARDINAL became final . Until DATE PERCENT of decisions were for restitution in the form of compensation , PERCENT for restitution of ownership of free dwellings , PERCENT for restitution of ownership of occupied dwellings and PERCENT were refusals or rejections of the requests . This meant that by DATE a substantial portion of denationalisation procedures had not been completed . Initially in such procedures the property was returned to the pre - war owners ; however , in the vast majority of cases those owners had passed away , which meant that in order to identify the \u201c previous owners \u201d a complex and time - consuming inheritance procedure was necessary .","The Government pointed out that tenants were not party to the denationalisation proceedings because restitution did not affect the tenancy relationship and did not prejudice the tenants\u2019 rights or benefits which had a direct basis in law . Moreover , the existence of a tenancy relationship did not affect the decision on denationalisation and restitution ( see ORG decision no . Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , point CARDINAL ) . However , tenants could participate if they demonstrated a legal interest , notably an interest in recovering their investments . In this regard , the status of party to the denationalisation proceedings was recognised in respect of : ( a ) any person who , before DATE ( date of entry into force of the PERSON ) , had invested in nationalised real estate , whenever and insofar as the proceedings might lead to a ruling on that person \u2019s rights deriving from the investments concerned , and ( b ) the entities liable for restitution , which in the case of former socially - owned dwellings usually meant municipalities ( Section CARDINAL of the PERSON ) .","The principle of restitution in natura applied also in cases in which the value of the property had increased . Former holders of the occupancy right who had invested in the dwelling could only claim compensation under the law , but not acquire ownership of the dwelling by virtue of such investments . In particular , the occupant could claim total recovery of costs on the condition that the investments had been made prior to DATE and that they constituted major maintenance investments and not simple routine maintenance . Upon a judicial action introduced by the tenant , the competent court would appoint a construction expert to assess the value of the property at the time of nationalisation and its value at the time of its restitution ; a tenant who could provide evidence of the investments made ( they were not required to provide evidence that the community of residents had consented to the investments ) could then obtain the difference between the CARDINAL values of the property ( LAW of the ORG ) . In cases in which a final decision on restitution had already been adopted , a claim for recovery of investments could be filed within DATE from the entry into force of the CARDINAL Act amending the ORG .","The applicants observed that in the event of an increase in the value of the property due to the investments made by the tenant , LAW of the PERSON gave CARDINAL options to the \u201c previous owners \u201d : ( a ) to request compensation instead of restitution in natura ; ( b ) to request part ownership of the dwelling ; ( c ) to recover the full property and reimburse the tenant . As a rule , the tenants\u2019 requests for reimbursement were examined in sets of proceedings initiated after the denationalisation proceedings , often after DATE . However , according to the applicants , the evaluation of the dwellings according to the relevant domestic rules was totally unrealistic , which made the evaluation of the increased value due to new investments unrealistic also . Moreover , only those investments which had increased the value of the dwelling DATE and not those which had kept the value of the property at the same level since its expropriation \u2013 were taken into account . The time - limit for reimbursement of investments was DATE and the parties could reach a friendly settlement on these matters . \u201c Previous owners \u201d frequently made the reimbursement conditional upon the tenants vacating the LOC . In the applicants\u2019 opinion , these rules did not guarantee former holders of occupancy rights a fair possibility of recovering the real value of their investments .","In DATE , the ORG and the PERSON , as well as the legal acts implementing them , underwent numerous amendments , which on some occasions were more favourable to the tenants , and on others to the \u201c previous owners \u201d .","The DATE amendments to LAW , enacted on DATE , were more in favour of the tenants . Former holders of a specially protected tenancy who occupied previously expropriated flats which had not been returned to \u201c previous owners \u201d ( because no request for restitution had been filed , or the request had been rejected ) were allowed to purchase the flats they were occupying ( amended Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","The amended LAW further provided that where the dwelling had been returned to the \u201c previous owner \u201d , if he agreed to sell he was eligible for an additional financial reward from public funds ( this was the so - called \u201c first model \u201d of substitute privatisation ) .","If the \u201c previous owner \u201d declined to sell the dwelling and the tenant decided , within DATE from the restitution , to move out and purchase a flat or construct a house , and if the \u201c previous owner \u201d so agreed , he would pay the tenant compensation amounting to CARDINAL per cent of the value of the dwelling . If , however , the \u201c previous owner \u201d refused this solution , the tenant was entitled to claim the same amount from the entity liable for restitution , which was usually a municipality ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The tenant was entitled to further compensation amounting to MONEY of the value , in CARDINAL , from the municipality , ORG and ORG . In addition , the tenant also had the right to a ORG loan under certain conditions . This was the so - called \u201c second model \u201d for settling the housing issue .","The DATE amendments also introduced a so - called \u201c third model \u201d , where a tenant to whom the \u201c previous owner \u201d was not prepared to sell the dwelling could purchase a comparable substitute flat on favourable terms from the municipality if he decided not to purchase another flat or construct a house ( amended LAW ) . Under this model , the applicants were in the same position as previous holders of specially protected tenancies in ORG - constructed dwellings who could not purchase the dwelling they had occupied because of practical and legal obstacles .","The applicants noted that the right to purchase established by the amended LAW of the ORG was legally directly applicable and was not subjected either to preclusive time - limits or to a statute of limitations . It was a permanent legal option , to be realised on the basis of a unilateral request by the former holder of the specially protected tenancy ( ORG decision of DATE , no . PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","However , the \u201c third model \u201d was repealed on DATE by ORG ( decision ORG ) , which considered that the additional financial burden had unduly restricted the FAC newly acquired ownership rights over dwellings which had previously been socially owned . In ORG opinion , this restriction could not be justified by the tendency of the legislature to ensure that the previous protected tenants of denationalised dwellings enjoyed a position resembling as closely as possible that of other tenants , in particular with regard to the possibility of purchasing a flat .","On DATE the ORG delivered a decision ( U - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) concerning the pre - emption right of tenants having contracts of unlimited duration ( Section CARDINAL ) , such as the previous holders of specially protected tenancies . It held that that pre - emption right , already provided for by the previous legislation , did not interfere with the property rights in respect of dwellings subject to original privatisation under the ORG and the PERSON , since the property right had not yet been established at the time of the entry into force of those acts . However , where property rights had been acquired by other means , the pre - emption right interfered with the right of property and was unconstitutional . The dissenting opinion of Judge PERSON was appended to the ORG decision .","Subsequent amendments to LAW , and LAW enacted in DATE ( hereinafter referred to also as the \u201c SZ-CARDINAL \u201d ) , were more favourable to the \u201c previous owners \u201d , who were authorised to raise the non - profit rent by PERCENT in order to cover maintenance costs and other expenses . That increase in the non - profit rent was to be applied only to leases taken out after the amendments entered into force ( DATE ) . However , on DATE ORG ( decision no . U - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) declared this limitation unconstitutional as being discriminatory . It underlined that protecting the status of former occupancy right holders did not mean that the non - profit rent could not change , and that eliminating the discrepancy in the previous system ( under which rents did not cover the real cost of the use of a dwelling ) could not be deemed to be an inadmissible interference with the terms of the lease contracts . The protection of acquired rights and the principle of non - retroactivity did not protect tenants from increases in rent . The increase in the non - profit rent was thus extended to all the leases that predated the enactment of the DATE amendments .","The Housing Act DATE increased from CARDINAL to CARDINAL the number of fault - based grounds on which tenants could be evicted from their homes ( unauthorised persons living in the flat , violation of the house rules , tenant \u2019s absence in excess of DATE , ownership of another suitable dwelling , either by the tenant or by his or her partner \u2013 Section CARDINAL ) . However , tenants could avoid termination of the lease by proving that the problem was not their fault or that it had not been possible for them to rectify the problem within the given time - limit ( Section CARDINAL ) ) . The \u201c previous owner \u201d could also move the tenant to another adequate flat ( defined in LAW as a flat satisfying the housing needs of the tenant and his immediate family members living with him or her ) at any time and without any reason ; however , this could be done to the same tenant only once and the removal costs were borne by the \u201c previous owner \u201d ( LAW ) . In respect of the transferability of the lease after the tenant \u2019s death , a request to take the lease over had to be filed within DATE ( Section CARDINAL ) . For this purpose , a relative up to the second generation who had lived in economic community with the former holder of the occupancy right for DATE on DATE of entry into force of LAW was considered to be an \u201c immediate family member \u201d ( LAW ) . The tenant had a pre - emption right if the flat was for sale .","Furthermore , rent subsidies ( PERCENT of the non - profit rent ) were available to tenants in the event of financial difficulties ; socially disadvantaged people could also apply to the municipalities to obtain another non - profit rental dwelling or a temporary solution for their housing needs ( Sections ORG and CARDINAL ) . The DATE LAW introduced Sections CARDINALa and CARDINALb , which provided for the possibility , for people who were paying market rents and had unsuccessfully applied for the allocation of a non - profit rental dwelling , to obtain subsidies ( amounting to the difference between the market and non - profit rents ) . These provisions were aimed at compensating the shortage of non - profit dwellings .","The DATE LAW also introduced a \u201c new model \u201d of so - called \u201c substitute privatisation \u201d for former occupancy right holders . Within DATE after the enactment of the LAW or after the decision on denationalisation had become final , they could exercise their right to purchase another dwelling or to build a house , thus becoming entitled to special compensation ( PERCENT of the price of the dwelling \u2013 Section CARDINAL ) and to a subsidised loan for the remaining amount . Entitlement to and level of compensation were determined by the Ministry responsible for housing matters . Tenants who decided to buy another dwelling or build a house were obliged to vacate their rented accommodation DATE after receiving the compensation .","Furthermore , tenants who did not wish or could not afford to buy a flat could apply to rent a non - profit dwelling ( Section CARDINAL ) . The latter was defined as a dwelling rented out by the municipality , the ORG or a public housing fund or non - profit organisation , allocated on the basis of a public call for applications ( LAW ) . Under this procedure \u201c tenants of a dwelling expropriated under nationalisation regulations and returned to the previous owner \u201d were awarded a rather high number of points ( CARDINAL ) , which , according to the ORG , offered them good prospects of being given priority and actually being declared eligible . Lease agreements for non - profit dwellings would be concluded for an unlimited period ( Section CARDINAL ) .","According to information available on the Internet , in DATE there were CARDINAL housing units eligible for return to \u201c previous owners \u201d . CARDINAL housing units were returned to ownership in full title , while CARDINAL were returned to \u201c previous owners \u201d while still occupied by tenants who previously had specially protected tenancies . According to the Government , in DATE some CARDINAL such tenants had managed to solve their housing situation by substitute privatisation , that is , by purchasing or building a substitute dwelling with the help of a financial incentive from the ORG . A further FAC tenants had lodged requests and proceedings were still pending at the time of submission of the Government \u2019s observations . CARDINAL tenants would eventually continue to live in the flats they had previously occupied as holders of specially protected tenancies .","The applicants emphasised that at the beginning of the housing reform , out of CARDINAL housing units in GPE CARDINAL were socially - owned dwellings housing CARDINAL of the NORP population under specially protected tenancies ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At the time the legislation did not distinguish between expropriated dwellings and other socially - owned dwellings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and , in general , individuals acquiring occupancy rights did not even know which source the dwelling came from . This was especially true for those who had acquired occupancy rights DATE after the expropriation . The great majority of holders of occupancy rights who had been given the opportunity to purchase the dwellings on favourable terms had availed themselves of this possibility ; only a few of them had stayed in the flats on a contractual basis . However , as explained in paragraph CARDINAL above , the possibility to purchase without the \u201c previous ORG \u201d consent was not given to those who were living in previously expropriated dwellings subject to denationalisation ( CARDINAL properties , covering PERCENT of all specially protected tenants ) . According to the available estimates , in DATE approximately CARDINAL families ( most likely those who could not afford to buy a dwelling ) had continued to lease their denationalised dwellings , while CARDINAL families had vacated the LOC and found a solution to their housing needs elsewhere . According to the applicants , for the former category of families relations with the \u201c previous owners \u201d had often been burdened with judicial and personal conflicts . \u201c Previous owners \u201d applied constant pressure through , inter alia , illegal evictions , rent increases or simply poor building maintenance .","Since DATE , in his regular annual reports the NORP Ombudsman has illustrated the difficulties facing tenants in denationalised flats . In his ORG of DATE on FAC in FAC he also made a number of proposals designed to remedy the situation : feasible models for substitute privatisation ( greater financial incentives to solve the housing issue , for both tenants and \u201c previous owners \u201d ) , protection of the duration of leases and definition of the non - profit rent , legal mechanisms for the protection of tenants\u2019 rights , such as free legal aid , improved implementation of the right to pre - empt , realistic evaluation of tenants\u2019 investments for the refurbishment of the dwellings .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter , \u201c the Association \u201d ) , lodged a \u201c petition \u201d with several ORG authorities , including ORG , the President of the Republic and the Government . It challenged LAW DATE and LAW DATE , on the ground that they deprived the ORG \u2019s members of their specially protected tenancy rights in a manner incompatible with LAW , which was still in force at the time when the CARDINAL acts were passed in DATE . Instead of the privileged specially protected tenancy , which in the ORG \u2019s view was in many respects equal to a property right , tenants were granted leases with a temporary non - profit rent . Moreover , once the dwelling had been taken over by a \u201c previous owner \u201d , that contract became an ordinary lease contract . This effectively deprived the tenants of their property and home . In DATE CARDINAL individuals ( previous holders of specially protected tenancies and their families ) , living in CARDINAL flats , were concerned by these measures . They considered themselves victims of the transition , in the same manner as \u201c previous owners \u201d whose property had been taken away under the previous regime .","The ORG also complained that its members were not given all the rights and benefits that other former specially protected tenancy holders enjoyed , such as the right to purchase the dwelling and to have a permanent lease with a non - profit rent . It argued that tenants who \u2013 like all its members \u2013 were living in dwellings once expropriated , could not purchase their homes , which were subject to restitution to the \u201c previous owners \u201d , whereas all other previous beneficiaries of specially protected tenancies had that possibility . In addition , \u201c previous owners \u201d of flats returned in denationalisation proceedings were selling them to third parties but not to the tenants , who were facing eviction proceedings . In the ORG \u2019s view , the restitution of the dwellings to the \u201c previous owners \u201d deprived the tenants of the right to purchase them and resulted in differential treatment between the CARDINAL groups of tenants on no reasonable ground .","The offending legislation allegedly also failed to provide for proper compensation for the money the tenants had invested in the maintenance and improvement of the dwellings . Moreover , the ORG complained that its members did not have locus standi in the denationalisation proceedings which were to rule on the ownership of \u201c their \u201d dwellings . It also criticised the constant increases in the non - profit rent , which in its view was approaching levels comparable to the rents charged on the free market . The ORG concluded that privatisation and restitution of previously expropriated dwellings should be achieved by paying compensation to the \u201c previous owners \u201d of the dwellings rather than returning their property , as recommended by LAW of ORG of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . It requested that an independent expert commission be set up , that the ORG and the PERSON be amended , that the restitution of property as such be stayed and that ORG be supplemented .","On DATE the Government adopted a decision concerning the petition , with an accompanying opinion . The Government did not agree that tenants were the victims of transition . Regarding the right of previous holders of specially protected tenancies to purchase the dwellings , different factual circumstances had to be taken into account . While in some cases the dwellings had been built with ORG funds , in other cases they had been expropriated from private owners . These \u201c previous owners \u201d might also claim restitution of , and therefore property rights over the dwellings . This meant that they had priority over the former holders of specially protected tenancy rights . In conclusion , as far as the purchase of dwellings was concerned , the CARDINAL categories of previous holders of specially protected tenancies were not in a comparable position .","On the other hand , with respect to other rights and benefits the tenants had been put on an equal footing with all those previous holders of specially protected tenancies who decided not to purchase their dwellings but to rent them on favourable terms . They were all granted the right to rent the dwellings for an indefinite period for a non - profit rent , even after the \u201c previous owner \u201d took over the flat . This had been upheld by ORG .","The Government also disputed the objection that the impugned legislation did not take into account the investments the tenants had put into the dwellings . They referred to the relevant provisions of the ORG , which granted former specially protected tenancy holders the right to compensation . The Government pointed out that the needs and expectations of the tenants had to be reconciled with those of the \u201c previous owners \u201d of the dwellings , as well as with the limited financial capacities of the ORG to provide them with housing on favourable terms . They further acknowledged that the tenants , especially elderly people , encountered certain difficulties in their new situation ( pressure to move out or to pay a higher rent ) , but such circumstances had no foundation in the existing legislation . The Government supported the establishment of an expert commission with representatives of both tenants and \u201c previous owners \u201d . It appears that no other authority took a position with respect to the petition .","On DATE the ORG instituted proceedings against the Government with ORG , for not initiating the necessary amendments to the ORG and the PERSON . In their view , the legislation in question breached the tenants\u2019 rights under LAW and LAW , and disregarded LAW of ORG of ORG . In particular , the ORG repeated the complaints from its petition that the dwellings should not be returned as such , that the tenants had only a limited right to purchase the dwellings , that they did not have locus standi in the denationalisation proceedings and that their investments in the dwellings had not been taken into account .","On DATE ORG rejected the complaints , holding that the ORG \u2019s decision and the accompanying opinion did not qualify under LAW , as then in force , as an individual act or an action infringing the individual \u2019s constitutional rights .","On DATE the ORG appealed to ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE the ORG lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , challenging ORG decision . It repeated the arguments from the petition and the subsequent court proceedings , and argued in particular that the legislation in issue deprived the tenants of their property and homes .","On DATE ORG rejected the complaint . It upheld the decisions of ORG and ORG that the relevant governmental decision and the accompanying opinion could not be challenged in administrative proceedings . In ORG view , they merely reflected the ORG \u2019s policy position with respect to the petition lodged , and were therefore not subject to court review .","On DATE , at the same time as the constitutional complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG , representing a group of previous specially protected tenancy holders , also lodged a constitutional initiative for review of the constitutionality of the ORG , the ORG , LAW DATE and the relevant judicial practice , and their compatibility with international law binding on GPE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the constitutional initiative ( decision ORG ) . It acknowledged that the ORG , relying on a number of court proceedings initiated by its members , had a legal interest in challenging the existing legislation since it directly interfered with their rights , interests and legal position , but it ruled that ORG did not have jurisdiction to examine the compatibility of the disputed legislation with the provisions of LAW , which was no longer in force .","Relying on the case - law of ORG , ORG went on to say that in any event the specially protected tenancy could not be interpreted as an absolute right to property under LAW No . CARDINAL , guaranteeing the acquisition of a particular dwelling . Nor could it be said that the claimants\u2019 right to a home had been breached under LAW , since they could remain in the dwellings , with a contract of unlimited duration and for a non - profit rent . In addition , after the tenant \u2019s death , the right of a spouse or a person having lived with the tenant in a permanent relationship , or an immediate family member living in the flat , to take over the tenancy was also guaranteed ( LAW of ORG ) .","ORG had held in its previous decisions that the specially protected tenancy from the former system was a right to be protected by the rule of law . However , in the new system , this right encountered other rights . In transposing the system of specially protected tenancy relations into lease relations , the legislator could not fulfil all the expectations arising from the former socio - economic and political system , which was founded on social property , and not on private property . The rights from the former system could not have remained unchanged and untouched .","The ORG had undergone political and social changes , including the transformation of social property into private property . The challenged legislation and the transformation of specially protected tenancy into simple tenancy rights should therefore be understood as part of these changes . Tenants\u2019 rights were now limited by the rights of the \u201c previous owners \u201d of the dwellings .","NORP In particular , the tenants\u2019 right to purchase now competed with the property rights of the \u201c previous owners \u201d of the dwellings . In this conflict of rights , priority was given to the property rights of the \u201c previous owners \u201d . With this argument ORG also dismissed the objection that tenants who could not purchase their dwellings because they were subject to restitution to the \u201c previous owners \u201d were discriminated against in comparison with all other tenants , who had the right to buy their dwellings . It held that the factual circumstances of the CARDINAL groups of tenants were profoundly different . While the rights of CARDINAL group of tenants had to be reconciled with the rights of the \u201c previous owners \u201d of the dwellings , no such limitation on the rights of the other group of tenants was necessary . The tenants also had a pre - emption right in the event that the \u201c previous owner \u201d decided to sell the dwelling , which could be entered in the land register and was weaker only than the pre - emption right of a co - owner ( Section CARDINAL of the SZ-CARDINAL ) .","As for other rights and benefits , including the right to a non - profit rent , ORG considered that all the previous holders of occupancy rights had been placed on an equal footing , regardless of the origin of their dwellings . These rights , in turn , were comparable to the level of protection granted to tenants in other GPE . General allegations that the legislative definition of the non - profit rent was inappropriate were not sufficient to warrant constitutional review .","ORG also dismissed the complaint that the tenants did not have locus standi in the denationalisation proceedings . Inasmuch as the proceedings were decisive for tenants\u2019 rights , tenants did have locus standi . In particular , this concerned the tenants\u2019 right to compensation for any money invested in the dwelling , which could be claimed from the \u201c previous owner \u201d . On the other hand , on the basis of such financial investments , the tenants did not acquire a property right or a claim to the property itself in the denationalisation proceedings .","As to the restitution to the \u201c previous owners \u201d of expropriated dwellings in which tenants were living , ORG had already ruled that the relevant provisions of the PERSON were not contrary to LAW . Furthermore , the \u201c previous owners \u201d were not free to enter into any lease agreements with the tenants ; they merely took over the existing leases the tenants had signed with the municipalities . Finally , ORG dismissed the ORG \u2019s allegations that Section CARDINAL of the Administrative Disputes Act as then in force was unclear and contrary to the LAW .","DATE . On DATE ORG deliberated in a case , brought by applicant no . CARDINAL ( Mr PERSON ) , concerning the right of a family member to demand a new non - profit lease after the tenant of the denationalised flat in question had died . ORG reversed the case - law and decided that users of denationalised flats could not demand the continuation of a non - profit lease following the demise of the tenant ; in the ORG \u2019s view , they were entitled only to a lease , and the \u201c previous owner \u201d should be free to determine the amount of the rent without any limitations .","Subsequently , a close family member of a deceased former holder of occupancy rights filed a petition for a review of the constitutionality of this new case - law , and a constitutional complaint . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( no . U - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , Up-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the LAW court held that it was unconstitutional to interpret LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in such a manner that , after the death of the holder of a protected tenancy , the \u201c previous owner \u201d was obliged to lease it to the family members of the deceased for a non - profit rent . It thus confirmed the DATE decision of ORG . However , ORG did clarify that the spouse or the long term partner of a deceased tenant at the time of the enactment of the ORG was entitled to continue the lease at a non - profit rent .","The applicants observed that this case - law allowed \u201c previous owners \u201d to fix an unreasonably high rent , thereby preventing the family members of the deceased tenant ( other than the spouse or the long term partner ) from continuing the lease . They alleged that from DATE onwards a mortis causa transferability of the right to lease had de facto been eliminated .","As the file contained no specific examples of individual situations , in DATE the ORG requested the applicants to submit factual information in respect of the amount of the original rent in DATE and that of the present non - profit rent , the surface area of the flat , its state of repair and its current market value , as well as a chronological overview of the increases in rent and in the statutory minimum wage .","In their reply of DATE , the applicants gave evidence that they were all original former holders of specially protected tenancies or their legal successors .","They stated that the first significant increase ( of PERCENT ) in the non - profit rent took place in DATE . At that time , its ceiling DATE amount was still PERCENT of the value of the dwelling . Further gradual changes were introduced by the DATE amendments to the ORG ( rent increase of PERCENT ) , by ORG decision and by the SZ-CARDINAL ( rent increase of PERCENT ) . The ceiling amount for the DATE non - profit rent was currently PERCENT of the value of the dwelling . They stated that a further rent increase of PERCENT was foreseen in different municipalities . The non - profit rent paid at the time by the tenants equalled PERCENT of the non - profit rent fixed in DATE .","NORP However , the applicants stated that factual information provided by them showed that the non - profit rent in GPE and GPE was still relatively affordable , as it was below the market rent ( see annex DATE \u201c Table summarising the situation of the individual applicants \u201d ) . The situation was allegedly different in the countryside , but no concrete information was provided . In certain cases there was no historical data as the documentation no longer existed because of the lapse of time and because the tenants had moved .","In DATE , the average market price of property per square metre in GPE city centre ranged QUANTITY it was between EUR CARDINAL per square metre . As to the statutory minimum wage , in DATE it amounted to CARDINAL NORP tolars ( SIT , nominally ORG CARDINAL ) . In DATE it was SIT CARDINAL ( nominally ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) and in DATE EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","DATE . The applicants also stated that they had made significant financial investments in the renovation and refurbishment of the dwellings .","CARDINAL applicants ( Mr Kuret , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON PERSON and PERSON ) had been forced to move out . Mr PERSON was the only applicant who pursued the legal avenues up to ORG . His constitutional complaint was dismissed on DATE for lack of legal interest , as he had reached a settlement with the \u201c previous owner \u201d on DATE ( see annex DATE \u201c Table summarising the situation of the individual applicants \u201d ) .","The other applicants , who still occupied the dwellings , were allegedly under pressure , either through court proceedings or through correspondence with the lawyers representing the \u201c previous owners \u201d . They complained about various forms of chicanery and intimidation . All the applicants had had to seek legal advice .","The parties also gave details as to the method of calculating the non - profit rent which was introduced by the ORG . Its level might be agreed upon by the parties to the lease contract , but they had to apply the method provided for by the law and not exceed the maximum permitted level of non - profit rent . This was always a percentage ( PERCENT for dwellings DATE ) of the administrative value of the flat , which was determined by the housing authorities according to the following formula :","Value of the dwelling = number of points x value of the point x usable area x effect of size of the dwelling ( corrective factor )","NORP The rent for dwellings for which tenancy agreements were concluded with the former holders of occupancy rights could not exceed the rent level charged for dwellings DATE . The values of the point and the correction factor for surface measurements had always been determined by primary or secondary legislation and as such amended several times . As a general rule , the non - profit rent for newly constructed or renovated flats , of better quality and better equipped , was higher than for older , less well - maintained flats . The non - profit rent was also determined in the light of the state of repair at the time the dwelling was allocated to the tenant , that is , before any investment was made .","The Government pointed out that the non - profit rent was a cost - based rent covering the economic costs of a dwelling . It did not include taxes to be paid by the \u201c previous owner \u201d and was meant to cover :","- the depreciation of the dwelling ( to enable the owner to replace a run - down dwelling after a certain number of DATE initially CARDINAL , then CARDINAL ) ;","- the cost of the capital invested ;","- the management of the dwelling ;","- investment and routine maintenance .","Under the DATE rules , for previous holders of occupancy rights the DATE non - profit rent could not exceed PERCENT of the value of the dwelling . The rules were revised in DATE for ordinary tenants , bringing the percentage to PERCENT for dwellings constructed after DATE . From DATE until DATE , the percentage was PERCENT for dwellings DATE and PERCENT for dwellings DATE . For former holders of occupancy rights or persons with whom the \u201c previous owner \u201d was obliged to conclude a lease contract under LAW of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the percentage could not exceed PERCENT .","The Government observed that the new calculation method had been applied progressively over DATE ; thus , according to them , for tenants of denationalised dwellings the rent , in real terms , had decreased from PERCENT in DATE to PERCENT in DATE .","LAW DATE brought the value of the maximum permitted annual non - profit rent up to PERCENT of that of the dwelling , and this notwithstanding the fact that a study ordered by ORG responsible for ORG had shown that a rent covering all costs of the use of the dwelling should amount to PERCENT . A progressive increase in rents was scheduled DATE ( see LAW DATE and LAW on the method for calculating rents in non - profit dwellings ) . As a result , for dwellings DATE , the non - profit rent was immediately decreased by PERCENT , from PERCENT to PERCENT ; for dwellings DATE ( which were the majority ) , it increased by PERCENT , from PERCENT to PERCENT ; lastly , in the CARDINAL denationalised dwellings it increased by PERCENT , from PERCENT to PERCENT . On DATE , the annual non - profit rent in all buildings amounted to PERCENT of the value of the dwelling . It did not increase any more after that date .","The Government also emphasised that the value of the \u201c housing point \u201d , which was based on the DATE average price per square metre of constructed non - profit dwellings divided by CARDINAL ( average number of points for newly constructed non - profit dwellings ) , increased from CARDINAL NORP PERSON ( ORG ) in DATE to DEM CARDINAL.CARDINAL in DATE . Non - profit rents increased no further in real terms , but they did increase in relation to the ORG . For dwellings rented after the implementation of the new calculation method introduced in DATE the value of the point was fixed at DEM MONEY ( and later at EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . Each dwelling was given a certain number of points which would take into account the time and quality of construction , the type and quality of joinery elements , floorings , walls , fitted installations , the type and availability of common areas , thermal and acoustic insulation and any negative impacts on the use of the dwelling .","According to the DATE ( Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) the location of the dwelling could also affect its value . The effect of the location on the level of the non - profit rent could be determined by each municipality and might amount to a maximum of PERCENT of the rent ; however , at the time of the Government \u2019s observations , CARDINAL municipalities ( Nova Gorica and Menge\u0161 ) had adopted provisions in this respect ; this meant that in all other municipalities , the location of the building did not affect the rent ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","6","8","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155811","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SHAMOYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She is disabled and is confined to a wheelchair . She depends on her disability pension as a means of subsistence .","On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against her neighbour , PERSON , seeking to have dismantled a construction that the latter had built in DATE inside the entrance of their multi - flat house for the purpose of insulating the building . In its place the applicant sought to install a wooden ramp for her wheelchair in order to facilitate her access to her flat , situated on the ground floor .","It appears that during the court proceedings the applicant , who was not represented by a lawyer , modified her claim and asked for the construction in question not to be dismantled but to be allocated to her so that she could install a wooden ramp in its place .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim , finding that the applicant had failed to substantiate with any proof , such as an expert opinion , that it was necessary and possible to dismantle the construction and that it was technically possible to install a wooden ramp in its place .","On DATE the applicant , still not represented , lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim on appeal . The court found that the applicant \u2019s request to have the construction allocated to her was ill - founded since the construction had not been built by her and , moreover , belonged to the owner of the underlying plot of land . The court further referred to an opinion issued on DATE by GPE , according to which it was technically preferable to build a wooden ramp from the balcony side of the applicant \u2019s flat rather than from the building \u2019s main entrance .","On DATE the applicant , still unrepresented , lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Chief Registrar of ORG returned the applicant \u2019s appeal , informing her that the appeal had not been admitted for examination as it had not been lodged by an advocate licensed to act before ORG , pursuant to LAW ( the CCP ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146388","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MAKAYEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2-1 - Life;Article 2 - Right to life)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . Her son , PERSON , was born in DATE .","NORP In DATE Mr PERSON was convicted of belonging to an illegal armed group . In DATE he was released from detention and after that date lived in GPE , working in the construction industry . The applicant often stayed with him in GPE .","On DATE the applicant travelled back to PERSON from GPE . Before her departure PERSON told her that he was going to study in GPE and that he had to go to GPE to finalise certain formalities .","On DATE the applicant received a message from her son on her mobile phone saying that he would be flying to GPE DATE . She did not hear from him again and had assumed that he was in GPE .","The applicant alleged that her son had been abducted in DATE by unknown servicemen and had disappeared in DATE . Below is a summary of her submissions to the ORG and to the national authorities .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions of DATE , on DATE an unknown person had contacted the offices of ORG in GPE , claiming that a young man called PERSON , whose body exhibited signs of torture , had been placed under guard in ORG . Staff from PERSON decided to follow up this information , believing that the young man might be Mr PERSON . , who was considered to be a missing person .","On DATE ORG staff member PERSON had gone to ORG together with PERSON . \u2019s uncle , Mr PERSON . They had found a patient under guard in the hospital \u2019s surgical department . PERSON had peeped into the ward and had seen two armed guards wearing camouflage uniform and black caps bearing the letters \u201c K.R.A. \u201d in LANGUAGE . CARDINAL more guards had been sitting on beds near the door . On a bed near the window there had been a young man who was being assisted by a nurse . He was DATE , had bruises on his face , his head was bandaged , and he was covered by a sheet displaying red stains . Mr PERSON . realised that the patient was not his nephew . A hospital nurse had allegedly told PERSON that the patient was DATE , that his name was PERSON , and that he was from the village of GPE . He had been brought from PERSON , the medical staff had not been allowed to talk to him , his file contained no personal information , and he had been registered as \u201c unknown \u201d . Judging from his wounds , he might have been subjected to ill - treatment .","Later that day PERSON had contacted a relative of PERSON . That relative had showed PERSON and PERSON . a photograph of Mr PERSON and they had identified him as the patient .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s elder son , PERSON , had told her that he had received information from PERSON stating that there was a patient resembling Mr Apti Zaynalov under guard in ORG .","On DATE the applicant and PERSON had visited the LOC office in PERSON .","On DATE PERSON and PERSON had travelled to Achkhoy - Martan but had obtained no new information .","On DATE the applicant and ORG staff member PERSON PERSON had been received by ORG district prosecutor PERSON The latter had ordered CARDINAL officers to go with them to ORG in order to conduct an inspection there . Then he had left for a meeting . According to the applicant , the CARDINAL officers had accompanied her and PERSON to ORG of the Interior ( ROVD ) . The officers had entered the premises but the applicant and PERSON had remained waiting outside . After TIME the applicant and PERSON had returned to the prosecutor \u2019s office . However , they had not been admitted to the LOC and had gone from there to the hospital . There they were met by PERSON , who explained to the applicant in which ward Mr Apti Zaynalov was allegedly being held .","The applicant had approached the surgical department alone and had seen men in camouflage uniforms at its entrance . She had gone to the maternity department since it offered a good view of the surgical department and , having guessed that the patient was likely to be taken out through the security exit , had stood within QUANTITY of that exit . Within TIME a white NORP car with number CARDINAL on the registration plate had approached the security exit and TIME Mr Apti Zaynalov had been led out through the security exit . The applicant claims to have recognised him from his face , his height and his build . There had been stains of brilliant green antiseptic on his head and dark shadows around his eyes . He had been put into the back seat of the NORP car . The car had then approached the main hospital entrance , where CARDINAL servicemen had got into the car . The NORP car had then driven off and \u2013 beyond the gates \u2013 had been joined by a black car with CARDINAL on the registration plate . The applicant had then returned to the surgical department and saw that the ward described by PERSON PERSON was empty .","On DATE the applicant lodged applications with ORG of GPE , ORG and ORG at ORG of GPE in GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) requesting that an investigation be instituted into her son \u2019s disappearance .","To support her submissions the applicant enclosed her own statement , statements by PERSON and PERSON , and copies of her applications to the ORG authorities .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions of DATE , she had learnt that on DATE Mr PERSON had arrived in PERSON by train . At the railway station he had taken a taxi driven by PERSON . On the way , the taxi driver had stopped at a service station where he and Mr Apti Zaynalov had been apprehended by armed men and driven away . Shortly after Mr Z. Kh . had been apprehended , unidentified armed men had conducted an unauthorised search of his home .","On DATE Mr S. Kh . , PERSON . \u2019s father , had lodged an application with the LOC ROVD concerning the disappearance of his son . CARDINAL deputy heads of the ROVD had allegedly confirmed that he had been detained by the police .","On DATE PERSON had been abducted by unknown persons in front of her house in PERSON . Her body had been found DATE with gunshot wounds by the side of a road in ORG .","On DATE Mr Z. Kh . had been released . However , according to the applicant , he and his relatives had been so scared by what had happened to him that they had refused to make any witness statements in relation to the present case .","The following information was provided by the parties in reply to the ORG \u2019s requests for information and questions concerning the communication .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the district prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) had received an application lodged by the applicant which stated that her son had been ill - treated by unidentified persons and was being held under guard in ORG . The applicant stated , in particular , that on DATE she had received a phone call from which she learned that her son was being kept under guard in the surgical department of that hospital with haematomas and head wounds . On the same date her application had been transferred to ORG .","On DATE the ROVD officers had been given explanations by PERSON . , the deputy director of ORG . He had submitted that on DATE he had been on duty at the hospital and Mr Apti Zaynalov had not been admitted . It was the first time he had heard this name and it had not been listed in the ORG register . Furthermore , no patient had been admitted at the hospital under guard .","On DATE , the head of the surgical department , had made a similar statement .","On the same date Mr NORP , deputy prosecutor of ORG , had submitted a written statement to the prosecutor of GPE . He stated that at TIME on DATE he had received the applicant \u2019s application alleging that her son was under guard in ORG with haematomas and wounds . He had forwarded the application to ORG in order that an inspection be conducted . The inspection of the hospital had been carried out by PERSON , the prosecutor \u2019s senior assistant , and PERSON , the head of the criminal investigations department of the ROVD , who had checked all the hospital wards , inspected the hospital register and questioned the medical staff in order to establish Mr Apti Zaynalov \u2019s whereabouts . However , the allegations of his placement in the surgical department of the hospital had not been confirmed .","In a written statement of the same date PERSON , the prosecutor \u2019s senior assistant , had confirmed Mr D. \u2019s statement .","On DATE ORG had received the applicant \u2019s application concerning the disappearance of her son , who had allegedly been taken from ORG to an unknown destination .","On DATE the principal physician of ORG had been asked to provide information about Mr Apti Zaynalov \u2019s placement in the hospital . According to the reply received , Mr PERSON had never been admitted to the hospital .","On DATE PERSON , a nurse at ORG , had submitted her explanations . On DATE she had been on duty at the hospital . ORG had not been admitted to the hospital during TIME and there had been no patient under guard in the hospital . Ms I. , the chief nurse , had made a similar statement .","On DATE , having taken account of the results of the inspection conducted , ORG had decided to refuse to institute criminal proceedings . The applicant had been informed of the decision .","According to the ORG , the applicant had not provided the investigating authorities with any information about the alleged detention of the taxi driver Mr Z. Kh . The authorities had decided to check the version involving the latter after coming across an article by PERSON , published on the Internet , which had linked the disappearance of Mr Z. Kh . to that of ORG . The Government enclosed a copy of the article .","On DATE Mr S. Kh . , Mr Z. Kh . \u2019s father , was asked to make a statement . He explained that his son was a driver and had a ORG Camry provided by his employer as well as his own car , a GAZ-CARDINAL . On DATE , DATE , at TIME Mr Z. Kh . had taken the PERSON to the service station for repair . At TIME DATE Mr S. Kh . had called his son on his mobile phone but there was no reply . Later the phone had been switched off . At TIME Mr S. Kh . had gone outside and had seen CARDINAL cars near Mr Z. Kh . \u2019s house : a silver PERSON and CARDINAL white ORG . In the yard of the house there had been CARDINAL armed men , aged DATE , wearing camouflage uniform . They had not been wearing masks and had appeared to be of NORP ethnic origin . At the time there had been no one in PERSON Z. Kh . \u2019s house because his wife and children had gone to visit relatives . When PERSON . approached the armed men , they had not offered any explanation and had forbidden him to come closer to his son \u2019s house , threatening him with automatic weapons . PERSON . had called the local ROVD and informed them of the situation . TIME later the armed men had left , taking Mr Z. Kh . \u2019s ORG Camry with them . TIME a man who had introduced himself as B. had called Mr S. Kh . \u2019s other son , Mr Sh . , and had told him to come to a certain junction to fetch his brother \u2019s car . TIME later an investigation team from the ROVD had arrived . They had gone to the junction along with PERSON . and had found Mr Z. Kh . \u2019s car there . On TIME the head of the ROVD had visited Mr S. Kh . , and had informed him about the disappearance of Mr PERSON . On the date of questioning , Mr PERSON . had still been missing .","On the same date PERSON . had informed the investigating authorities that his son , PERSON Z. Kh . , had just returned home safely .","Later that day Mr PERSON . had been questioned . He had explained that on DATE at TIME he had gone out in his GAZ-CARDINAL car and , having told his relatives that he was going to a service station , decided instead to go to the LOC resort of GPE for DATE , since his wife and children were away . He had been unable to call home because his phone had been lost . In Gelendzhik Mr PERSON . spent DATE living with a girl in a tent on the beach . In reply to the investigator \u2019s question why he had not called his family , PERSON . replied that while in GPE he had been drinking a lot and it had slipped his mind . Having returned home , he discovered that his relatives had been worried about him and had informed the authorities about his disappearance . Mr PERSON . had confirmed that he had not been a victim of any criminal offence . The fact that his ORG Camry had been taken from his house and later found in a specified place surprised him . He had no idea who could have done it or for what reason .","On DATE Mr PERSON . was questioned again . He confirmed his son \u2019s statements and confirmed that nothing bad had happened to Mr PERSON .","Following the institution of criminal proceedings into Mr Apti Zaynalov \u2019s disappearance ( see below ) , Mr PERSON . had been questioned as a witness on DATE and DATE . He had confirmed his previous statements and had informed the investigator that on DATE his son , PERSON . , had left for an unspecified NORP country . Mr PERSON . said that he had preferred it this way as he had been worried for the latter \u2019s safety . Later his other son , PERSON . , had also left GPE . He had also stated that he had not known of Mr Z. Kh . \u2019s acquaintance with Mr Apti Zaynalov , and his son had never mentioned the latter \u2019s name .","On DATE the ROVD \u2019s refusal to institute a criminal investigation of DATE was quashed . The applicant was informed accordingly .","DATE requests for information about Mr Apti Zaynalov were sent to various law - enforcement and security services in GPE , including ORG , ORG ( the ORG ) , ORG and Units of ORG [ \u041e\u0413 \u0412\u041e\u0413\u041e \u0438 \u041f \u041c\u0412\u0414 DATE \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043e\u0431\u044a\u0435\u0434\u0438\u043d\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0433\u0440\u0443\u043f\u043f\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u043e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432 \u0438 \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0440\u0430\u0437\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0439 ORG ] and ORG .","On DATE and DATE the applicant was questioned . She reaffirmed her previous submissions . The applicant stated , inter alia , that in GPE on DATE her son had told her that he was going to GPE and then to GPE . He had had no intention of coming to GPE . She also submitted that she had learned from PERSON that Mr Apti Zaynalov had been taken from ORG to a hospital in GPE , where he had also been placed under guard . She was later questioned again , and reaffirmed her previous submissions .","On DATE criminal investigation no . DATE was instituted into the disappearance of Mr Apti Zaynalov . The applicant was informed of the decision . On DATE the acting prosecutor of ORG transferred the case file from ORG to ORG for further investigation .","On DATE the case was transferred to department no . CARDINAL of ORG of ORG investigating cases of high importance .","On DATE Mr G. from PERSON was questioned . He confirmed that , to his knowledge , the applicant \u2019s son had been detained in ORG .","CARDINAL doctors and nurses from ORG were questioned CARDINAL and DATE . Among those questioned were the director of the hospital , his deputy , the head of the surgical ward , anesthesiologists , surgeons , and operational and post - operational nurses . Their submissions were largely concordant and confirmed that an unknown young man had been treated on the surgical ward DATE and DATE , whilst under the guard of unknown armed men . The personnel had not asked the patient \u2019s name , and in his medical file he had been recorded as \u201c unknown \u201d . No information about his admittance had been entered in the hospital \u2019s records . The provenance of the guards had also been unknown , and no one remembered any insignia or marks on their uniforms , except the hospital director who believed that it had been the insignia of ORG ; no one had seen or noted their service badges or IDs or the registration plates of the cars they had used ; no one had informed the law - enforcement authorities about a patient with gunshot wounds and trauma to the head . The guards had been armed with automatic weapons , had been of NORP origin and had spoken in NORP to the staff of the hospital and to the patient . They had treated the patient correctly and had done most of the everyday care , such as changing , washing and feeding the patient ; the doctors and nurses had not spoken to him , had had very little contact with him and , if at all , it had always been in the presence of the guards . Some doctors and nurses were asked if they would be able to describe or identify the guards , or to identify or sketch the patient , but they responded in the negative . The medical file opened for the unknown patient at the hospital disappeared after his departure , as did the bullet extracted from his wound .","The hospital director Mr ORG . testified on DATE that on DATE at TIME a group of CARDINAL or CARDINAL men had arrived to the hospital in CARDINAL grey VAZ-CARDINAL cars . The men had been dressed in camouflage uniforms bearing ORG insignia and were armed with PERSON automatic rifles and hand pistols . They had said that they worked for the ROVD , and Mr PERSON . assumed that they meant ORG . The men had brought in a wounded man , aged DATE , QUANTITY tall , dark - skinned , dark haired . He had a gunshot wound to the right leg , a piercing wound to the abdomen and a head trauma . His wounds had been operated on , and a neurosurgical team from ORG had been called in to treat his head trauma . The armed guards had forbidden the hospital personnel , including the director , to talk to the patient . The hospital director had presumed that the patient was employed by the security services , perhaps by ORG , since at that time a number of servicemen were being treated at the hospital . For this reason , he had not passed on information about the patient to the police . At TIME on DATE the guards had removed the patient from the hospital without any warning . At that time the patient had been on the path to recovery , but was not completely healed .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel lodged an application with the investigating authorities requesting that criminal proceedings be instituted against the staff of ORG on the grounds of their failure to inform the relevant authorities that a patient with gunshot wounds had been admitted . On DATE this request was refused .","On DATE Mr M. was questioned . He worked at a service station in ORG . On DATE at TIME a white PERSON car bearing the registration plates of PERSON Z. Kh . \u2019s car had entered the station . Soon afterwards a man wearing a black uniform and armed with a PERSON submachine gun had entered the service station . He had aimed the gun at them and told PERSON M. to lie on the floor . He had then taken the driver outside and made him lie down on the ground . Mr M. could hear screaming in NORP outside and from the talking of approximately QUANTITY armed men he had grasped that they were tying down a guy who was resisting them . The man in the black uniform had returned and asked for a piece of wire . Mr PERSON had understood that the men had used it to tie the hands of the passenger in the GAZ-CARDINAL car . At some point he had heard two shots . The men then left in CARDINAL white PERSON cars , taking with them both the passenger and the driver . Later , officers from the checkpoint near the service station had removed the GAZ-CARDINAL car . Later that day and the following day , law - enforcement officers , including investigators , had come to the station and questioned PERSON about those events . PERSON would not have been able to identify the passenger , having noted only that he must have been CARDINAL to DATE . However , he would probably have been able to identify the driver , whom he described in detail . He might also have been able to identify the man in black uniform . At DATE , a man had come to the service station and had introduced himself as the brother of the driver apprehended on DATE . He had said that his brother had been released .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE concluded an internal inquiry into the actions of ORG district prosecutor PERSON and his deputy Mr D.","The document summarised the findings as follows :","\u201c On DATE [ the applicant ] and PERSON representative PERSON personally informed the acting ORG district prosecutor , PERSON , that on DATE [ the applicant \u2019s ] son , PERSON , had been kidnapped in GPE and that at the time in question he was being held on the surgical ward of ORG with numerous wounds and head traumas , guarded by unidentified armed persons .","On DATE PERSON recorded the application and gave it to his deputy PERSON for transfer to ORG .","On DATE the deputy district prosecutor Mr NORP forwarded [ the applicant \u2019s ] application to ORG for the conduct of a preliminary inquiry , in line with Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the [ Code of Criminal Procedure ] .","On DATE Mr PERSON was abducted from ORG by unidentified armed men and taken to an unknown destination .","On DATE , further to [ the applicant \u2019s ] submissions , criminal investigation file no . DATE was opened by an investigator of ORG [ department of ORG ] under LAW part CARDINAL [ murder ] of the [ Criminal Code ] .","On DATE the criminal file was transferred for further investigation to department no . CARDINAL of the [ ORG of ORG ] investigating cases of high importance .","The measures undertaken by the investigation department have not resulted in the ascertainment of ORG whereabouts or the identification of the persons who committed the crime .","From [ the applicant \u2019s ] explanations it follows that on DATE she and PERSON from Memorial informed the acting ORG district prosecutor , PERSON , that on DATE her son had been kidnapped in GPE and was being held on the surgical ward of ORG ... In their presence PERSON instructed his deputy PERSON and a senior assistant PERSON to go to the hospital together with [ the applicant ] ... and find out what was happening there . At CARDINAL p.m. Mr NORP and PERSON walked into the ROVD building , having asked the QUANTITY women to wait outside . After waiting for TIME , she and PERSON decided to enter the building but were not allowed to . They then went to the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office ... , but the guards refused to let them enter , saying that there was no one inside . At TIME they finally went to ORG , where the applicant saw CARDINAL armed men putting her son into a car . There were no officers from the prosecutor \u2019s office at the hospital .","PERSON , the acting ORG district prosecutor , explained that on CARDINAL DATE he had received information from PERSON , the head of ORG district [ department of the ORG ] , that an active member of the [ illegal armed groups ] was being treated at ORG , guarded by a group of unknown armed persons . In order to check up on this information , Mr P , his deputy Mr NORP and deputy head of ORG district [ investigative committee ] went to ORG . There , guarded by CARDINAL unidentified men dressed in camouflage uniforms , they found a young man aged DATE , CARDINAL and QUANTITY tall , with his head covered in bandages . The guards prevented the prosecutor from entering the room to ascertain the patient \u2019s identity and , brandishing guns , they threatened to kill him . The director of ORG , PERSON . , explained that the patient was being treated by a doctor from another hospital , but refused to make written submissions .","These events were not reported by the prosecutors because they believed that the young man was a witness in a criminal case under investigation in LOC , and that his anonymity should be preserved in line with the requirements of the criminal procedure because he had disclosed information about the members of the [ illegal armed groups ] .","On DATE , having accepted [ the applicant \u2019s ] complaint concerning the presence of her seriously wounded son under the guard of unknown armed persons at ORG , PERSON registered it ... but did not realise that Mr Apti ORG was the person he had seen at the hospital DATE . He ordered his deputy Mr NORP to send the complaint to the ROVD and to go to the hospital in order to find out whether PERSON was there . On TIME CARDINAL DATE Mr NORP orally informed the prosecutor that PERSON was not at the hospital .","Deputy district prosecutor Mr NORP explained that ... on DATE he had gone to ORG together with senior assistant PERSON , the head of ORG , PERSON . , and the head of the [ operative criminal department ] of the ROVD , Mr M. They examined the register of persons with traumas who had been admitted to the hospital and did not find Mr Apti ORG \u2019s name there .","In breach of p. CARDINAL of ORG Directive of DATE No . CARDINAL \u201c On the submission of special dispatches and other indispensable information \u201d , the acting ORG prosecutor , PERSON , failed to inform the [ GPE ] prosecutor about the threat of murder made to him on DATE while he was on duty , which constituted a crime against his person .","In breach of the requirements set by ORG Directive of DATE No . CARDINAL \u201c On recording and tracking by the prosecutors of information about crimes \u201d , the acting prosecutor of ORG , PERSON , having on DATE received information about a crime , failed to take steps in order to protect citizens against a criminal act and to immediately inform the relevant investigation body .","In breach of LAW of LAW Code of Criminal Procedure ] , having been given information about kidnapping and the unlawful deprivation of liberty DATE crimes under Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW \u2013 [ Mr P. ] did not submit that information to ORG [ district department of ORG ] but instead , without any reason , instructed Mr NORP to forward it to ORG .","Improper handling by PERSON of [ the applicant \u2019s ] petition facilitated the kidnapping by criminals of PERSON from ORG , following which his fate remains unknown and a serious crime remains unresolved . \u201d","The document concluded that disciplinary proceedings should be instituted against PERSON for the improper execution of his duties , while his deputy PERSON should be reprimanded .","On DATE ORG of GPE informed the applicant \u2019s counsel in reply to an earlier request , that in the course of a disciplinary investigation it had been established that PERSON , the former acting prosecutor of ORG , had failed to fulfil his duties when examining the applicant \u2019s application concerning her son \u2019s disappearance . In this connection disciplinary sanctions had been imposed on him .","On DATE the applicant was questioned as a victim . To her submissions she added that , after having heard from PERSON that her son had been detained in ORG , she had verified the information \u201c through her own source \u201d , unrelated to ORG . The applicant also stated that she had not known anything about her son \u2019s acquaintance with Mr Z. Kh . She also asked that no further investigative activities at ORG be conducted involving her participation since , given her state of health , she could not endure the recollection of those traumatic events .","On DATE and DATE the applicant was again questioned . She submitted that on CARDINAL DATE her daughter had shown her a photo of Mr Apti Zaynalov that she had printed off from an Internet page together with the accompanying text . The text alleged that officers of ORG had apprehended a resident of ORG aged DATE who had confessed to being a member of an illegal armed group in ORG . Later the applicant had learned from her representatives that the photograph had been changed . The new photograph showed a man standing against the wall with his back towards the camera . The applicant provided the investigating authorities with both print - outs . The investigator then showed her a short video of a man walking out of a cell and subsequently standing facing a wall and asked her whether it was her son . The applicant stated she was positive that it was not her son .","On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the investigating authorities reiterating her request that they should not conduct any investigative activities requiring her participation due to the emotional impact on her . She stated at the same time that she was not refusing to cooperate with the investigation and had no grievances regarding its conduct .","On DATE ORG suspended the investigation . It was stated in the decision that DATE and DATE Mr Apti Zaynalov had been anonymously treated in ORG under the guard of armed men . The latter , having learned that Mr Apti Zaynalov \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s staff had lodged applications with the law - enforcement agencies , had taken him from the hospital to an unknown destination . Mr Apti Zaynalov \u2019s whereabouts had not been ascertained .","On DATE the applicant asked a leave to study the case file and lodged a complaint against the decision of DATE with a higher prosecuting official .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel lodged a complaint against the refusal of CARDINAL DATE to institute criminal proceedings against the staff of ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed this complaint . The decision stated , in particular :","\u201c ... In the course of the investigation it has been established that on DATE Mr Apti Zaynalov was abducted by unidentified persons in an unestablished place and then taken with shotgun wounds to ORG Hospital where he underwent treatment for DATE and was then taken away by unidentified armed persons wearing camouflage uniform . So far his whereabouts have not been established .","In breach of [ an applicable ] instruction , the medical staff of [ Achkhoy - Martan Hospital ] did not inform ORG about the admittance of Mr Apti Zaynalov . [ ... ]","In the course of the investigation ... all the staff of ORG were questioned . [ They ] explained that they believed the armed men who were guarding the unidentified patient with gunshot wounds to be policemen , and for this reason had not informed the ROVD of the patient \u2019s admittance . [ ... ]","Furthermore , during Mr Apti Zaynalov \u2019s stay at ORG the former acting prosecutor of ORG , PERSON , visited [ the hospital ] to conduct an investigation . [ He ] met the former director of the hospital ... and established the fact that Mr PERSON was in the hospital under armed guard , but took no further steps to investigate the situation properly . [ ... ]","In the circumstances , the failure of the medical staff to inform ... the ROVD of ... Mr Apti Zaynalov \u2019s admittance does not call for an additional investigation since all relevant materials are available in the case file . [ ... ] \u201d","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel appealed to ORG of PERSON against the refusal of the investigating authorities to conduct certain investigative activities .","On DATE LOC granted the appeal and declared the refusal unlawful ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169661","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF YUSUPOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","In DATE the applicant began living with A.A.","On DATE she gave birth to a son , PERSON","In DATE relations between the couple deteriorated and they separated . The child continued to live with the applicant .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s brother - in - law , PERSON , asked the applicant \u2019s permission to take the child for DATE to see his father , PERSON , who was visiting from GPE . The applicant agreed .","The child was never returned to the applicant . PERSON took the boy to GPE , and the applicant has not seen him since . She twice went to GPE to find PERSON , but in vain .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of Grozny ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , seeking to determine the child \u2019s place of residence as being with her . She also asked the court to order PERSON to pay child maintenance .","On DATE ORG took a decision to leave the applicant \u2019s claim without consideration owing to a failure by the parties to appear .","The applicant went to the police , asking for their help to locate A.A.","On DATE the proceedings were resumed at the request of the applicant .","A.A. lodged a counterclaim with ORG , seeking to have the child \u2019s place of residence to be determined as being with him .","On DATE ORG decided that the child should live with his mother , the applicant , and that PERSON should pay the applicant child maintenance . PERSON \u2019s application for a residence order was dismissed . PERSON appealed .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c the Supreme Court \u201d ) upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG clarified its judgment of DATE and held that the operative part of the judgment should read as follows : \u201c to remove the minor [ child \u2019s name ] , born on DATE , from [ A.A. ] , residing at the address ... , and to hand him over to his mother ORG \u201d .","NORP However , PERSON refused to comply with the judgment .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution .","On DATE bailiffs from the Inter - district Bailiffs Service of GPE opened enforcement proceedings .","It was established from ORG mother that PERSON lived in GPE . Consequently , the enforcement file was referred to ORG in GPE .","On DATE a bailiff from ORG visited PERSON \u2019s presumed place of residence in GPE and established that PERSON and the child did not live there and were not registered there . The relevant report was drafted .","On DATE the bailiff received a statement from the owner of the above - mentioned flat , who stated that PERSON and the boy had left the flat in DATE .","NORP The bailiff obtained further information that in DATE the child had not attended his kindergarten in GPE , kindergarten no . CARDINAL , and that there was no data about PERSON in the individual personalised tracking system of ORG for GPE and GPE Region .","On DATE the enforcement file was returned to the bailiffs service in GPE .","On DATE a bailiff from ORG of ORG found that his counterparts in ORG had failed to take all the measures provided by the law on enforcement proceedings necessary for the enforcement of the judgment of DATE . Namely , they had failed to inspect the LOC and draw up the relevant act of inspection , to involve the local police in carrying out the enforcement measures , to question PERSON \u2019s partner PERSON , named as the child \u2019s mother in his medical record , and to institute a search for PERSON and the child . On DATE the enforcement file was again referred to ORG in GPE .","In DATE the applicant enquired with ORG about the progress of the enforcement proceedings . She was informed about the referral of the enforcement file to ORG in ORG in DATE .","The applicant then contacted ORG of ORG , which on DATE informed her that they did not know the whereabouts of the enforcement file .","At the request of ORG , on DATE ORG issued it with a duplicate of the writ of execution of the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the applicant filed a court complaint about the inaction of ORG of ORG .","On DATE ORG held that DATE and DATE no enforcement actions had been carried out by ORG of ORG to enforce the judgment of DATE . ORG further held that the inaction of the bailiffs service had led to an unjustifiably long delay in the enforcement of the judgment , which violated the applicant \u2019s right to judicial protection , including her right to have the judgment enforced . It therefore found the bailiffs service \u2019s inaction unlawful and ordered it to remedy the above violations .","On an unspecified date after the above judgment the enforcement file was referred back to GPE , where a search for PERSON and the child was instituted .","On DATE PERSON \u2019s right to leave the country was temporarily restricted . On DATE ORG for Moscow Region was entrusted with carrying out enforcement actions in GPE Region aimed at establishing ORG and the child \u2019s place of residence with PERSON \u2019s partner ORG were sent to ORG of GPE to trace the child . CARDINAL of A.A. \u2019s presumed places of residence in GPE , including the CARDINAL visited in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , were visited . Nobody opened the door at the flats in question or at the neighbouring flats .","On DATE the enforcement file was referred to the interdistrict special enforcement unit of ORG ( \u043c\u0435\u0436\u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u043f\u043e \u043e\u0441\u043e\u0431\u044b\u043c \u0438\u0441\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u043c \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430\u043c \u043d\u0435\u0438\u043c\u0443\u0449\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0445\u0430\u0440\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0430 PERSON \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u044b \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0432 \u043f\u043e PERSON ) .","It was established that the child was not attending a school in GPE and that he was not attached to any public health - care structure in that city . However , on several occasions he had consulted doctors and received treatment in medical establishments there , most recently in DATE . It was further established that DATE PERSON had not made any payments using his bank cards and that he had not married .","On DATE and DATE another CARDINAL of PERSON \u2019s presumed places of residence in GPE were visited . It was established that PERSON had never lived at the first address . He had lived at the other address , but by that time the flat had been rented to someone else .","On DATE and DATE a bailiff asked ORG of the ORG ( ORG \u043f\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0443 PERSON \u041c\u0412\u0414 PERSON \u0433. GPE ) and ORG in GPE ( \u0423\u0413\u0418\u0411\u0414\u0414 \u0413\u0423 \u041c\u0412\u0414 PERSON \u043f\u043e \u0433. PERSON ) respectively for assistance in searching for the child and locating PERSON \u2019s vehicle .","On DATE the bailiff ordered that PERSON be brought in by force .","NORP On DATE the bailiff attempted to bring in PERSON by force by paying a visit to another of his presumed places of residence in GPE . However , the door was opened by PERSON who explained that PERSON did not live at that address on a regular basis , that he rarely visited and that she did not know his whereabouts .","On DATE the bailiff sought the help of the joint stock company ORG in order to obtain information about any railway travel by PERSON On DATE it reported that PERSON had bought a train ticket from GPE to GPE for DATE . No tickets had been bought for the child .","On DATE ORG provided the bailiff with information on the movement of money in PERSON \u2019s bank accounts , with information about the cash dispensers where withdrawals had been made .","The search dossier was subsequently sent to ORG for GPE to establish the whereabouts of PERSON and the child and to obtain information from people residing at an address that had been indicated in PERSON .","To the present date the domestic authorities do not know the whereabouts of PERSON and the child and the judgment of DATE remains unenforced .","The applicant sought to have criminal proceedings instituted against her brother - in - law for the alleged abduction of the child , but without success . After several rounds of pre - investigation inquiries , ORG of LOC in GPE took several decisions refusing to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence of a crime . The most recent refusal , dated DATE , was set aside on DATE and an additional pre - investigation inquiry was ordered .","According to the applicant , she saw her son and ORG on CARDINAL DATE while she was on her way to ORG . The applicant bent down to hug the boy . At that moment PERSON punched the applicant close to her left ear . She fell down , hitting her head on the pavement and lost consciousness . The applicant recovered in hospital and was subsequently diagnosed by a forensic medical expert as having a traumatic rupture of the left eardrum , intracranial hypertension syndrome , astheno - neurotic syndrome and bruising of the soft tissues of the left cheekbone . After several rounds of pre - investigation inquiries about the above incident , ORG of LOC of PERSON of ORG in GPE took several decisions refusing to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON for lack of evidence of a crime . The most recent refusal , dated DATE , was set aside on DATE and an additional preinvestigation inquiry was ordered .","No further information was made available to the ORG regarding the outcome of the additional pre - investigation inquiries ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182859","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF IBROGIMOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was born in GPE . In DATE his father , mother , brother and sister moved to GPE in GPE and subsequently acquired NORP nationality , while he continued to live with his grandfather in GPE , visiting them in DATE . After his grandfather had died and the applicant had finished the secondary school , in DATE he joined his family in GPE .","The applicant took a mandatory blood test with a view to obtaining a health certificate to support his application for a temporary residence permit . He was found to be HIV - positive .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s presence in NORP undesirable ( the \u201c exclusion order \u201d ) on the ground that he was HIV - positive .","By judgment of DATE , ORG in GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s challenge to the exclusion order , finding that it was issued in full compliance with NORP law .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","On DATE the applicant left GPE to comply with the exclusion order ."],"violated_articles":["14","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159203","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BUDAH\u00c1ZY v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Di\u00f3sd .","On DATE the applicant organised a demonstration aimed at forcing the authorities to preserve the ballot papers of the DATE legislative elections with a view to a potential recounting .","The Government submitted that the ballot papers were bound for statutory destruction on DATE as per section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Decree no . CARDINAL . ( ORG . CARDINAL . ) BM on the Procedural Time - limits for ORG DATE .","In the applicant \u2019s view , the relevant law could be understood DATE and was by DATE to the effect that the ballot papers could be destroyed as early as DATE .","Previously , on DATE , ORG had decided not to put on the agenda a bill for the amendment of the DATE statutory preservation period of the ballots .","NORP The event organised by the applicant \u2013 which had not been announced to the police \u2013 consisted of completely blocking all CARDINAL lanes of a centrally situated bridge over the GPE , FAC , by parking CARDINAL cars across it , with their doors locked . The demonstration started at TIME The demonstrators , including the applicant , refused to comply with the police \u2019s order to remove the vehicles and leave . Apart from ambulances , no vehicles could pass the blockade .","By CARDINAL TIME a crowd had gathered and the situation evolved into a massive traffic jam all over GPE . At TIME the cars were finally towed away by the police , and the traffic flow resumed at TIME .","On DATE the Pest Central District Court imposed a regulatory fine of MONEY ( ORG ) on the applicant . The court held that the applicant , by not complying with the police \u2019s instruction to leave the site of the demonstration , had committed the regulatory offence of disorderly conduct within the meaning of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act no . ORG .","International observers , in particular ORG in LOC ( OSCE ) , found that the DATE parliamentary elections had been conducted in a manner consistent with international standards and that the NORP electoral system had provided the basis for a generally transparent , accountable , free , fair and equal process .","The NORP media widely covered the events of DATE and , in an official communiqu\u00e9 , the President of the Republic condemned the incident , declaring it illegal . He underlined that GPE was a stable parliamentary democracy where human rights were observed and where even critical views should be voiced in a lawful manner .","On DATE the GPE ORG fined the applicant for a parking offence which consisted of his parking his car in the middle of FAC on DATE , necessitating its being towed away . On appeal , on CARDINAL DATE ORG reduced the fine to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","Criminal proceedings were subsequently instituted against the applicant and his accomplices . On DATE he was convicted of \u201c disturbance of public works \u201d within the meaning of section CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The Pest Central District Court dismissed the defendants\u2019 arguments according to which they had been exercising their freedom of assembly . Making reference to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIII ) , the court made a distinction , holding that the applicant \u2019s action could not be regarded as a spontaneous and prompt response to an event ( the court was satisfied that the statutory date for ballot paper destruction was DATE as per Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see above paragraph CARDINAL ) ) , nor was it lawful like in PERSON , since it had contravened LAW and disturbed the functioning of \u201c public works \u201d . In the latter regard , the court observed that the demonstration had caused the traffic to become paralysed all over the capital for TIME and disturbed the running of CARDINAL bus lines in respect of CARDINAL scheduled individual bus trips , concerning CARDINAL passengers .","The applicant was sentenced to DATE of community work .","On DATE ORG upheld this judgment . In response to the arguments of the accused on appeal , the court noted that \u201c the message of the judgment is not that non - notified assemblies can not be peaceful ; the message is that an assembly , notified or non - notified , is not peaceful where , by its very manner , it constitutes unlawful conduct . \u201d The court referred to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Act no . III of DATE on ORG , according to which \u201c the exercise of the right of assembly may not constitute an offence , or instigation thereto , or violate the rights and freedoms of others \u201d . Quoting the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , ORG established that \u201c in peaceful assemblies the protection provided under LAW shall be ensured for the participants as long as they do not commit any reprehensible act on such an occasion \u201d .","In sum , the court held that \u201c it directly follows from the case law of ORG and ORG that the peaceful or non - peaceful nature of an assembly does not depend on whether a participant broke or smashed an asset or applied violence against a property . An assembly may be rendered non - peaceful by passive conduct as well . In its outward appearance the accused parties\u2019 conduct seemed to be peaceful ; it is the causal result of their conduct , the major disturbance of road traffic , which rendered their conduct non - peaceful and thereby not protected under the law . \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the GPE petition for review . It added to the reasoning of the lower courts that \u201c criminal law rules can not be excluded or restricted by invoking the right of assembly ; the exercise of the right of assembly shall not be exempt from compliance with criminal law restrictions . \u201d","This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","Section CARDINAL of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , provided :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Any person who interferes with the functioning of public works to a considerable extent by damaging their equipment , cables or interfering with them in any other way , is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment of DATE .","...","( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of this section , \u2018 public NORP shall mean public utilities , public transportation operations , telecommunications networks , as well as plants producing war materials , energy or basic materials designed for industrial use . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of Act no . V of DATE on Certain Amnesty Measures provided ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) :","\u201c In connection with the road blockades paralysing the country \u2019s life from CARDINAL DATE , no criminal proceedings shall be instituted or conducted for ...","d ) the disturbance of public works ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) . \u201d","The relevant domestic law on freedom of assembly , in particular LAW of LAW no . III of DATE , is outlined in DATE of the judgment PERSON v. GPE ( no . MONEY , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["11"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175681","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ZAKHARKIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) read in the light of Article 10 - (Art. 10) Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , ORG , GPE .","The applicant was the leader of a trade union in a private company . His co - workers expressed a wish to hold a public assembly on DATE on DATE and the applicant , in his capacity as trade union leader , decided to help them . According to him , such help was \u201c an indirect expression of his own opinion \u201d . The applicant distributed banners and explained that it would be more practicable to stage solo demonstrations . To avoid prosecution for holding a public assembly without notifying the authorities in advance , the applicant suggested that his co - workers position themselves at some distance from each other , for instance on different streets . At the time , there was no federal or regional statutory requirement concerning the minimum distance between simultaneous solo demonstrations ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d ) .","The applicant was then arrested and taken to the police station , where he was held for TIME .","On DATE a justice of the peace found him guilty under LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and fined him MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY at the time ) . The court considered that the applicant and his co - workers had met in CARDINAL place ; the applicant had given instructions to the others and had distributed banners ; he had taken them to the place of the demonstration . In the court \u2019s view , the above circumstances disclosed the presence of a group event in the form of a static demonstration ( a \u201c picket \u201d ) , and confirmed the applicant \u2019s role as its organiser . Thus , it was incumbent on the applicant to lodge a prior notification about this event to the competent authority as required by section CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","The applicant appealed noting that the ORG defined a \u201c picket \u201d as a form of public expression of opinion where CARDINAL or more citizens with placards , banners and other means of visual expression stationed themselves near the target object of the \u201c picket \u201d . However , there had been a separate \u201c target object \u201d for each solo demonstrator ; the demonstrators had been positioned at a considerable distance from each other ( for instance , QUANTITY for QUANTITY of them ) ; thus , he could not be lawfully considered as an organiser of a group event .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183373","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF NOVOTN\u00dd v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","In DATE he had a sexual relationship with a woman who gave birth to a daughter , PERSON , on DATE .","As the applicant denied that he was the father , PERSON \u2019s legal guardian brought proceedings on her behalf in ORG ( okresn\u00ed soud ) for a declaration of paternity .","After giving birth to PERSON , but before initiating the aforementioned proceedings , the mother married another man .","On DATE ORG found that the applicant was PERSON \u2019s father and ordered him to contribute to her maintenance .","The court reached its finding after hearing evidence from several witnesses . It also had regard to documentary evidence and took into consideration the results of a blood test known as a \u201c bio - hereditary test \u201d ( d\u011bdicko - biologick\u00e1 zkou\u0161ka ) . In addition , it established that the applicant had had intercourse with the mother sometime CARDINAL and DATE before PERSON \u2019s birth . In such cases , a presumption of paternity arose under LAW , unless there were clear grounds to rebut the presumption . Another man had also had intercourse with the mother at the crucial time , however , the blood test established that he was not the father .","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( krajsk\u00fd soud ) and requested another expert opinion . ORG denied the request because the facts had been proved to a sufficient degree . It eventually upheld the judgment of ORG on DATE , which became final on DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant requested that ORG ( GPE st\u00e1tn\u00ed z\u00e1stupce ) challenge his paternity in court . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE he was informed that the requirements of LAW to initiate such proceedings had not been met . PERSON , by that time an adult , did not want to challenge paternity , it was not in her interests and the applicant had not produced any expert evidence credibly disproving it .","On DATE the applicant and PERSON underwent a DNA examination . The resulting report of DATE unequivocally confirmed that the applicant was not PERSON \u2019s father .","On DATE the applicant submitted a new request to ORG to challenge his paternity in court .","On DATE the Prosecutor General informed the applicant that the determination of his paternity had been decided by ORG under LAW and that therefore the prosecution service could not initiate proceedings under LAW of LAW . ORG only had that specific competence as regards statutory presumptions of paternity under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW . When paternity had been established by a judicial declaration under LAW and the judgment had come into legal force , as in the applicant \u2019s case , the law did not provide for any possibility to challenge it .","Relying on his rights under LAW , the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint ( \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enost ) against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . He maintained that he had proved that he was not PERSON \u2019s biological father and requested that ORG ( GPE PERSON ) order the Prosecutor General to initiate proceedings and challenge his paternity . He also argued that Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW were unconstitutional .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . It noted that his paternity had been established by a judicial decision which had come into legal force and stated , inter alia , that the competence of ORG could only apply if all the legal requirements had been fulfilled , which was not , however , the applicant \u2019s case ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146393","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF IVINOVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She has suffered since her early childhood from cerebral palsy and uses a wheel chair . In DATE she was deprived of her legal capacity on account of \u201c her physical illness and intellectual underdevelopment \u201d . On DATE her legal capacity was fully restored by a ruling of ORG .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c FAC ) asked ORG to institute proceedings with a view to partially depriving the applicant of her legal capacity in order to prevent her from disposing of her assets . They relied on a previous ruling of DATE by the same court by which the applicant had been deprived of her legal capacity ( see the preceding paragraph ) . They further asserted that the applicant had been suffering from \u201c grave bodily damage \u201d ( velika tjelesna o\u0161te\u0107enja ) since early childhood , as she had been diagnosed with cerebral palsy and various chronic illnesses such as diabetes , high blood pressure and defective eyesight .","They further asserted , relying on a statement given by the applicant \u2019s son at the ORG and a report by the ORG \u2019s social worker , that the applicant \u2019s condition had worsened after she had undergone an operation on her head on DATE . Since then she had suffered from personality changes , manifested in managing her money in an irrational manner , such as by not paying the DATE instalments for the purchase of her flat , electricity , water and other bills , and by purchasing mobile telephone cards instead of food . This could have led to the applicant \u2019s eviction from the flat she occupied , as she had already received a final warning that a civil action in that respect was to be lodged .","The ORG \u2019s request was supported by evidence , such as an electricity bill of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) dated DATE , a copy of a final demand for payment of DATE instalments for the purchase of the applicant \u2019s flat , with the debt amounting to HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL as at DATE , a notice that the water supply for the applicant \u2019s flat would be stopped as of CARDINAL DATE on account of non - payment of a debt in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , and a debt recovery notice for the amount of HRK CARDINAL payable to ORG ( ORG ) .","On DATE the ORG appointed its employee , PERSON , as the applicant \u2019s legal guardian in the proceedings before ORG . In the proceedings before that court the guardian gave her full consent to the ORG \u2019s application . The applicant was represented by a lawyer of her own choosing .","ORG heard the applicant on DATE and established that :","\u201c The respondent was found at her address in a wheelchair . She gave very meaningful answers ; [ she ] stressed that she acted autonomously , kept her flat tidy , prepared her meals and was provided with help by her son and a tenant . She moved about independently in her wheelchair and did her own shopping , [ and ] paid [ her own ] bills , which gave rise to difficulties during DATE . She stated that in the period when she had underwent a head surgery in DATE [ DATE ] , she had been late with paying her utility bills ... She did not agree with the proceedings [ being brought ] and considered that she did not need a guardian . She stressed that she regularly took [ her ] prescribed medication ... It is to be noted that the respondent was presentable and her home was tidy . \u201d","NORP In her written submissions the applicant explained that during her hospitalisation she had empowered her son to retrieve money from her bank account and pay the utility bills , which he had not done but had instead taken the money for himself . She asked that her son be examined by the court .","A psychiatric report commissioned for the purposes of the proceedings , drawn up on DATE by PERSON and GPE , in so far as relevant reads as follows :","\u201c A psychiatric examination of the respondent was carried out on DATE at her home ... She stated that she had completed elementary school and had been an average pupil , that she had studied law for DATE and knew all about the law . To me she said : \u2018 You know how it was when you operated on me.\u2019 She is dissatisfied with the court proceedings [ being brought ] : \u2018 I dislike the PERSON [ ORG ] because they attempted to send me to [ a home in ] ORG And in respect of her son she said : \u2018 I am sorry when someone blackmails him\u2019 . She stated that she had been paying all her bills and that \u2018 I previously had a huge negative [ balance ] , [ because ] I had to pay for the hospital\u2019 . She stated that she had a lot of acquaintances who were her former lodgers , whom she saw regularly when out and about in her wheelchair in her neighbourhood and \u2018 they all respect me\u2019 . Upon a direct question she denied having any mental problems .","Psychological status : conscious , contact easily established , uncertain about time , in other respects well oriented . Has a wide and viscous ( viskozni ) thought process , with loss of determining tendency . Interacts without distance . In thought content confabulatory with a paranoid position , projections and infantile explanation . Basic disposition is elevated . Intellectually \u2013 memory functions are primarily insufficient at the ORG level , additionally compromised with psychoorganic type . Lacks insight into her condition .","ORG suffers from ORG . Little , parapresis spast . , monoparesis ext . sup . spast . sin . , ORG , condition after brain haemorrhage , condition after stroke , condition after meningoencephalitis , with a lack of insight into her condition [ and ] the need for and purpose of treatment . Owing to this , she is not able to entirely look after her personal needs , rights and interests . Also , because of her state of health and lack of insight she may jeopardise the rights and interests of others . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged written submissions whereby she objected to the psychiatrists\u2019 findings , stating that it was not clear how they had concluded that she was unable to properly dispose of her money , given that the debts referred to had been incurred by her son when she had been hospitalised .","At a hearing held on DATE the psychiatrists gave the following opinion evidence :","\u201c We entirely endorse our written report of DATE and to the objections filed by the respondent we would state the following : on the basis of the enclosed medical records , social history and our own examination we have established that the respondent suffers from PERSON . She also suffers from triparesis with preserved functions of her right hand , mild mental retardation , and conditions following a brain haemorrhage and meningoencephalitis . Her intellectual capabilities are , owing to the above - mentioned [ conditions ] , additionally compromised on the psychoorganic type . During the interview we noticed confabulations in the content of her thoughts , that is to say fabricated content , a paranoid position , in particular as regards her close family and the employees of the social welfare centre , and infantile explanation . The respondent lacks insight into her condition . All this led us [ to conclude ] that the respondent does not possess sufficient intellectual capacity to adequately protect her own rights and interests , and because of her lack of insight she might also jeopardise the rights and interests of others . We therefore consider that the application for deprivation of the respondent \u2019s legal capacity as regards disposing of her money and assets and as regards taking decisions about her medical treatment , is appropriate . \u201d","On DATE ORG partially deprived the applicant of her legal capacity , thereby stopping her from disposing of her money and other assets and from making independent decisions concerning her medical treatment . The ruling relied exclusively on the opinion given by the CARDINAL psychiatrists and extensively repeated their findings stated in their written report and their oral evidence given at the hearing of DATE .","The applicant lodged an appeal on DATE , in which she argued that partially depriving her of her legal capacity solely on the basis of the psychiatric report had not been justified , because the psychiatrists had lacked knowledge of how she spent her money and how she disposed of her assets . She argued that she had purchased the flat where she lived herself and there was no danger that she would give it up . The assertion that she was paranoid as regards her close family members was not correct . She had had troubled relations with her son at times because he had moved into her flat with his girlfriend and her daughter and had had an interest in having her removed from the flat and placed in a home . Therefore , she had successfully sought their eviction from her flat . She had also changed her bank and her son no longer had authority to use her credit card . She lived a peaceful life , and was a member of ORG and Poliomyelitis . The court conducting the proceedings had had the chance to establish that normal communication with her was possible and that she lived in a tidy flat . The ORG had not proven the need for her to be partially deprived of her legal capacity . Only a bookkeeping expert could have established the facts concerning her debts .","The applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE , which again relied extensively on the psychiatric report . The appeal court added that the applicant had been hospitalised DATE and DATE and DATE , whereas the unpaid bills ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were dated DATE ( electricity bill of HRK CARDINAL ) , DATE ( HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in DATE instalments for the purchase of the flat ) and CARDINAL DATE ( water bill of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , which indicated that the debts concerned a much longer period than the applicant \u2019s hospitalisation .","The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint , in which she repeated the arguments from her appeal , stressing that the debts in question had been incurred during the period in which she had been hospitalised and her son had had her bank card . Instead of paying her bills he had used the money from her account for his own needs . She added that CARDINAL of the psychiatrists who had drawn up the report on her mental state had interviewed her . She also stressed that it was entirely unclear what rights and interests of others she might jeopardise . The complaint was dismissed by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174616","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LEKAVI\u010cIEN\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to the Bar . She signed an oath \u201c to be faithful to GPE , to observe its LAW and laws , to honestly perform her duties as an advocate ( a lawyer who has been admitted to the Bar ( advokatas ) ) , to observe moral norms , citizen \u2019s rights and freedoms , and to protect professional secrets \u201d . DATE the applicant registered a law office in her name , and started practising law .","At the applicant \u2019s request her name was taken of the list of practising advocates on DATE . As noted by the civil courts afterwards , the applicant had acknowledged that her request had been made owing to the fact that a criminal case had been pending against her ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty of forgery of documents ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) and fraud ( LAW ) . The court established that while pursuing her professional practice , the applicant had on CARDINAL occasions falsely claimed in writing that she had provided legal services within the framework of the ORG - paid legal - aid scheme . In addition , the court found that the applicant had forged the signatures of pre - trial - investigation officers on the above documents , submitted them to court officials to receive payment and thereby obtained payment . The crimes she had committed fell into the category of minor intentional crimes ( nesunkus ty\u010dinis nusikaltimas ) , because the maximum possible sanction for them was DATE of deprivation of liberty ( LAW of LAW ) . In the applicant \u2019s case , as a sanction , she was ordered to pay a fine , which she did on DATE . Her conviction expired DATE after she had paid the fine , that is to say on DATE .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to readmit her to the Bar .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request , inter alia , on the grounds that the applicant did not have high moral character ( nepriekai\u0161tinga reputacija ) . Given that DATE and DATE had passed since the applicant \u2019s conviction , and taking into account the nature of the applicant \u2019s criminal offence \u2013 misappropriation of property for non - existent legal services \u2013 as well as the specifics of the professional practice of an advocate , it was reasonable to conclude that the applicant had not regained high moral character within such a short time frame , to meet the requirements set out in Articles QUANTITY \u00a7 CARDINAL and QUANTITY of the PERSON on the Bar ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) .","The applicant challenged this decision before ORG . On DATE the court heard the applicant \u2019s case . CARDINAL witnesses were questioned in court as to the applicant \u2019s reputation ; most of them testified to having known the applicant before DATE , when she had been working at ORG . The court partly annulled ORG decision and ordered the latter to reconsider the applicant \u2019s request to be readmitted to the Bar . The court noted that the applicant had been convicted of a minor intentional crime . On DATE when the applicant had submitted the request to be readmitted to the Bar , her conviction had expired . Consequently , and relying on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG found that ORG had erred in finding that the applicant had not met the high - moral - character criterion .","ORG appealed . It pointed out that the applicant was not of high moral character as she failed to meet the criteria listed in LAW Refusal to readmit the applicant to the Bar had been based on an evaluation of the nature of actions for which she had been convicted .","In her defence , the applicant submitted to the appellate court a character reference from a managing director of a private company , where the applicant had worked as marketing director . The reference stated that the applicant performed her duties well ; and that she was responsible and had a sense of initiative . As shown from the summary of her arguments by ORG , the applicant did not plead that reputation related restrictions on her practising law as an advocate had been more severe than those applied to other law - related professions .","On DATE ORG allowed ORG appeal and quashed the first - instance court \u2019s decision . As to the question of high moral character , ORG underlined that higher standards were applicable to advocates , as only persons of untainted reputation could participate in the justice system without discrediting it . Therefore , when evaluating an advocate \u2019s conduct it was not sufficient to have regard only to whether the person obeyed the law . It was also pertinent to see a person \u2019s behaviour in the context of the legal norms that regulate the ethics of the advocates\u2019 profession . In this connection LAW underlined that an advocate should observe legal and moral duties ( point CARDINAL . ) , should not discredit advocate \u2019s name , the oath he or she swore or the ideal of justice ( point CARDINAL . ) . An advocate also had duties set out in the LAW , the LAW on the Bar and LAW ( point DATE ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG concurred with the first - instance court \u2019s finding that the term of the applicant \u2019s conviction had expired and that therefore she could not be reproached under LAW ) of the LAW on the Bar . Nonetheless , taking into account the fact that she had committed the criminal offence in the course of her professional practice and that her professional practice had been aimed at committing crimes , of which there were CARDINAL counts , it was reasonable to conclude that the applicant \u2019s behaviour did not meet the criteria set out in DATE ) of the PERSON on the Bar . That the conviction had expired did not mean ipso facto that the applicant had regained an irreproachable reputation within the meaning of LAW ) of that PERSON . For the appellate court , insufficient time had passed from the date when the applicant had committed the crime to when she had asked ORG to readmit her to the Bar .","The appellate court also noted that a person could submit a request to be admitted to the Bar and to prove that he or she had regained high moral character . However , it was then for the court to establish , of its own motion , whether sufficient time had passed for a person \u2019s rehabilitation to be objectively validated . A person who claimed to have regained high moral character should bring clear and persuasive evidence that he or she had been following the ethical and disciplinary rules . It was then for the court to examine what the nature of the infringements of law was , what personal situation had led to the infringements being committed , and whether those factors still applied . In the present case , despite DATE having passed since the date the crime had been committed , there was still no sufficient basis to conclude that the applicant was of high moral character within the meaning of LAW ) of the PERSON on the Bar .","ORG lastly dismissed certain arguments by the applicant that the lower court had erred when interpreting some other legal norms unrelated to the matter of the applicant \u2019s reputation .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . She raised a number of arguments about the Bar qualification exam and professional reputation , without maintaining that the criminal conviction had placed her in a worse situation than representatives of other law - related professions .","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , and left the Court of Appeal decision unchanged . On the question of reputation , ORG noted its practice to the effect that no breach of law ( joks nusi\u017eengimas ) was too serious to unconditionally preclude an individual from ever asking to be reinstated to the Bar ( ORG referred to its earlier ruling in case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG then held that the expiry of a conviction for a minor intentional crime , as it was indicated in DATE ) of the PERSON on the Bar , was only one of the criteria when considering the question of a person \u2019s reputation . Moreover , LAW ) of that PERSON read that a person should meet the criteria of ethics applicable to advocates . Under point CARDINAL of the Code of Professional Ethics for Advocates , advocates were involved in the implementation of justice . The professional practice of an advocate required him or her to carry out his or her duties and obligations towards clients , the courts , the advocate \u2019s profession and society . Moreover , an advocate should never discredit the name of the profession , the oath he or she swore and the ideal of justice . On the facts of the applicant \u2019s case , ORG therefore had been correct in finding that the applicant had not proven that she had regained high moral character , in particular given the nature of the criminal acts she had committed ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174615","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KRNDIJA v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The facts , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","All CARDINAL applicants were dismissed by their respective employers and subsequently brought separate civil claims against them , seeking reinstatement and\/or pecuniary damages . They all obtained final court decisions in their favour , which remain unenforced to the present day . The debtor companies were registered as fully or predominantly socially \/ ORG - owned companies in the relevant public registers before and throughout the relevant insolvency \/ enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed by his employer , PERSON , a transport and transshipment company based in GPE ( currently registered as Socially - owned company ORG in liquidation ) ) . On DATE the applicant brought a civil action challenging that decision . He withdrew the request he had made for his outstanding salary on DATE . On DATE , ORG :","( a ) declared the employer \u2019s decision null and void ;","( b ) ordered the applicant \u2019s reinstatement within DATE , and","( c ) NORP awarded the applicant LAW on account of costs .","NORP ORG upheld the judgment on DATE . It became enforceable on DATE .","In the meantime , the debtor company appears to have been subject to insolvency proceedings before ORG DATE and DATE . On the latter date the insolvency proceedings were stayed ( obustavljen ) and the debtor continued its business activities .","On DATE the applicant filed a request for enforcement of the judgment of DATE and the payment of the outstanding salaries till his reinstatement , submitting amendments on DATE . It would appear that the court sent the request to the debtor for comment on CARDINAL DATE , but it has not been served on the debtor . Throughout DATE the applicant complained CARDINAL times to the enforcement court about its failure to issue an enforcement order . In his complaint of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant submitted that the debtor was an active company and , in that respect , provided a copy of the decision on staying of insolvency proceedings of DATE , certified by ORG .","On DATE the enforcement court rejected the applicant \u2019s request , incorrectly stating that the debtor was subject to pending insolvency proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant unsuccessfully appealed and wrote to the enforcement court again on numerous occasions .","NORP In the meantime , DATE and DATE , attempts at liquidation of the debtor failed , as there were not enough assets to settle all the LOC claims . Another set of insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor was opened on DATE , which appears to be still pending . The applicant registered his claim for costs within the insolvency proceedings . After a division of property , he received PERCENT of his claim for costs .","DATE the applicant was employed by ORG \u2013 ORG , a company based in ORG . She was placed by her employer on compulsory paid leave until such time as normal production could be resumed and the company \u2019s business performance had improved sufficiently . Whilst on leave , in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation , the applicant was entitled to a significantly reduced DATE income and payment of her pension , disability and other social security contributions .","In DATE many employees on compulsory leave were made redundant and took part in the ORG \u2019s \u201c social programme \u201d . After enquiring about her entitlements , on DATE the applicant was served with a decision dated CARDINAL DATE concerning her dismissal .","On DATE ORG declared the dismissal null and void and ordered her employer to :","( i ) reinstate her within DATE to a post which corresponded to her professional qualifications ;","( ii ) pay her the minimum salary arrears for the period CARDINAL DATE to DATE , together with statutory interest ;","( iii ) pay her pension and disability insurance contributions for DATE to DATE ; and","( iv ) pay LAW for her legal costs .","The judgment became final on DATE and ORG ordered its enforcement on DATE . In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was made redundant .","Following a claim by the applicant , on DATE ORG ordered her employer to pay her pension and disability insurance contributions for the period DATE to CARDINAL DATE and ORG CARDINAL for her legal costs , while rejecting her claim for her outstanding salary for the same period . The judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE . The enforcement courts rejected a request by the applicant for enforcement . On DATE ORG issued an instruction stating that enforcement proceedings should be initiated , and an enforcement order was adopted on DATE . The applicant was also awarded ORG CARDINAL for the enforcement costs . After a re - trial , on DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s employer to also pay her outstanding salary for DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( the period during which she was on paid leave ) and ORG CARDINAL for her legal costs . These proceedings are pending at domestic level .","On DATE ORG ordered the restructuring of the debtor . ORG and its subsidiary companies , including the debtor , have been in the process of being restructured since DATE . On DATE ORG opened preliminary insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor . On DATE the restructuring of the debtor was terminated . It would appear that insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor were opened on DATE , and that the applicant \u2019s claim was allowed by ORG on DATE but has not yet been paid . The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing .","On DATE ORG accepted the settlement of a dispute between the applicant and his employer , ORG , a company based in ORG . The terms were as follows :","( a ) the dismissal of the applicant in DATE was to be declared null and void and the employer was to reinstate the applicant within DATE into a post which corresponded to his professional qualifications .","( b ) the employer was to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL on account of his outstanding salary arrears and corresponding social contributions for DATE to CARDINAL DATE , as well as the required court stamp duties .","The court \u2019s decision became final and enforceable on DATE .","ORG \u2013 Sopot Unit ( hereinafter \u201c the enforcement court \u201d ) issued an enforcement order on DATE . The applicant asked the court to expedite the enforcement proceedings on several occasions . On DATE and DATE the bailiff found no available movable assets to enforce the settlement . On CARDINAL DATE the court issued an enforcement order in respect of the debtor \u2019s immovable assets .","On DATE ORG opened preliminary insolvency proceedings , inviting the claimants to pay the deposit for the opening of the insolvency proceedings and register their claims . The call for the claimants was displayed on the court \u2019s notice board between CARDINAL DATE and DATE . On DATE the court opened and terminated the insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor . The court ordered the debtor \u2019s liquidation as the latter had gone bankrupt , seemingly without having any legal successor , and none of the claimants had deposited costs of the proceedings or registered claims . The decision became final on DATE and was published . It said that any property of the debtor had become ORG assets .","On DATE that decision was registered ( zabele\u017eba ) in the relevant public registers concerning the status of all companies and the debtor was struck off the relevant public registers . The date of its publication in ORG is not available on these registers .","On DATE the enforcement court suspended ( obustavio ) the enforcement proceedings as no available assets had been found .","On DATE the enforcement court terminated ( prekinuo ) the enforcement because of the debtor \u2019s liquidation .","On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered his employer , ORG from ORG , to reinstate him , to pay him his outstanding salary arrears , to pay his corresponding pension and disability insurance contributions ( doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje ) and his legal costs .","The part of the judgment in respect of reinstatement and contributions became final on DATE and enforceable on DATE , while the ORG quashed the remaining part concerning his salary arrears .","On DATE ORG awarded the salary arrears for DATE , together with relating contributions and costs .","The enforcement courts ordered enforcement of the above judgments on DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE the ORG decided to give notice of the application to the Government .","On DATE ORG sent their observations on the admissibility and merits . By a letter of DATE the ORG \u2019s observations were forwarded to the applicant , who was invited to submit any written comments together with any claims for just satisfaction by DATE .","In the absence of any response , on CARDINAL DATE the Registry tried to make enquiries with the applicant about whether he was still interested in pursuing the case , but to no avail . By a registered letter dated DATE , he was notified that the periods allowed for appointment of a lawyer and for submission of his observations and claim for just satisfaction had both expired and that the ORG had extended the deadline for submissions until DATE . ORG also sent copies of the previous letters of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and enclosures . The applicant \u2019s attention was again drawn to LAW ( a ) of the LAW , which provides that the ORG may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application . The return receipt indicated that the applicant received the letter on DATE . However , no response has been received ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164473","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"LYUBCHENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sergiy Goncharenko;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in Dzhankoy , GPE ( the \u201c ARC \u201d ) . At the time of lodging of his application , he indicated of being a NORP national . In DATE he informed the ORG that he had obtained NORP nationality in DATE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented most recently by their Acting Agent , PERSON of ORG .","PERSON , the judge elected in respect of GPE , was unable to sit in the case ( Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) . Accordingly , the President of ORG decided to appoint PERSON to sit as an ad hoc judge ( LAW ) .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","By a judgment of DATE , a certain PERSON was sentenced to CARDINAL and a half years\u2019 imprisonment suspended for CARDINAL years\u2019 probation . In DATE PERSON failed to appear before the probation officer for his DATE registration allegedly for medical reasons , including hospitalisation .","On DATE the applicant , a probation officer , represented ORG in judicial proceedings against PERSON concerning replacement of PERSON \u2019s probation with imprisonment due to the latter \u2019s failure to comply with the probation requirements . The court adjourned the proceedings until DATE , having requested PERSON to submit documents confirming his hospitalisation .","On DATE PERSON gave a statement to ORG of Dzhankoy . He submitted that after the court hearing of DATE the applicant had summoned him to his office on DATE . When he had arrived , the applicant informed him that the judge and the prosecutor were intending to replace his probation with imprisonment but that the applicant could settle the matter in his favour for MONEY ( ORG ) . PERSON signed the aforementioned statement and confirmed that he was aware that knowingly reporting false information about a crime was a criminal offence .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , prosecutor PERSON decided to institute a preliminary inquiry under LAW of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and assigned the task to economic crime detectives PERSON and PERSON . from ORG . At TIME the detectives examined CARDINAL ORG notes provided by PERSON which they had marked with special luminescent fluid ( lumiphore ) and which PERSON then put in his pocket . This action was documented in a record of the application of special chemical substances ( PERSON \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u0445\u0438\u043c\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0445 \u0432\u0435\u0449\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432 ) and was signed by the participants and CARDINAL attesting witnesses . According to later submissions by some of those present , PERSON also had a dictaphone attached to his clothing .","At TIME on DATE PERSON entered the applicant \u2019s office and emerged TIME , indicating to the detectives and prosecutor PERSON that he had given the banknotes to the applicant , whereupon they also entered the applicant \u2019s office . According to the crime scene inspection report ( PERSON \u043e\u0441\u043c\u043e\u0442\u0440\u0430 \u043c\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0441\u0448\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0438\u044f ) drawn up by the prosecutor , between TIME and TIME the prosecutor and police officers conducted a search of the applicant \u2019s office . They recorded that during the search the applicant was asked by the police officers whether he had received any money . He replied in the negative . The police officers then checked the applicant \u2019s hands with a special device and found traces of lumiphore on his right hand . They looked in an open safe situated near the applicant \u2019s desk and found the CARDINAL marked banknotes inside . It was also noted in the report that the search had been audio - recorded .","The applicant was arrested that DATE .","On DATE the applicant was charged with soliciting and receiving a bribe .","On DATE the applicant was released .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed from his post of probation officer .","On DATE the Dhzankoy District Court ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) examined the applicant \u2019s case and referred it to ORG for further investigation . The court ordered that during the further investigation the banknotes which had been used for the bribe should be located and checked for the applicant \u2019s fingerprints , and that the audio - recording of the bribe - taking , and documents proving that that operation had been lawful must be produced .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) quashed the ruling of DATE , finding that the requirements laid down by the first - instance court were irrelevant or unnecessary . It observed in particular that the banknotes had been treated with chemicals and examined by forensic experts , that the probability of finding fingerprints on them was therefore low and that it was for this reason that the corresponding examination had not been conducted . The court also noted that there was no evidence either in the case - file or the bill of indictment that an audio - recording had been made , and the first - instance court judge had failed to indicate on what basis he had concluded that such an audio - recording of the bribe handover had in fact been made .","By a judgment of DATE ORG acquitted the applicant . The court noted that the applicant denied the accusations , claiming that after the postponement of the hearings in the case of PERSON , the latter had approached him on several occasions to ask about the case . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON had come to his office , they had shaken hands and PERSON had started asking him again about his probation . After PERSON had left the office , the police officers had come in and had found MONEY in his safe . The applicant claimed that he knew nothing about the money and had never solicited or taken any bribe from PERSON argued that PERSON could have put the money in his safe without his knowledge and that the traces of lumiphore on his hand could have been caused by shaking hands with PERSON The court also examined the evidence presented by the police and found that the operation had been conducted in breach of criminal procedure . It held , in particular , that the operation had been instigated on the basis of unverified allegations made by PERSON and without an order to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant , and also that certain investigative techniques ( special chemicals and audio - recording ) had been used without an operational file having been opened , contrary to section CARDINAL of the Search and Seizure Activities Act . The court further noted that the prosecution had lost the audio - recording of the conversation between PERSON and the applicant , which constituted an important item of evidence that could have confirmed or refuted PERSON \u2019s allegations that the applicant had extorted money from him . Although the prosecutor denied the use of audio - recording during the operation , PERSON and CARDINAL of the police officers confirmed that a dictaphone had been used during the operation . The court also observed that the expert opinion stated that the marked banknotes could in fact have been checked for the applicant \u2019s fingerprints but this had not been done and the banknotes had been lost . The traces of the chemical on the applicant \u2019s hand did not in itself constitute conclusive evidence that he had taken money from PERSON court also noted that during the trial prosecutor PERSON had claimed that the operation had been headed by police inspector I. , whereas the latter stated that they were merely assisting the prosecutor to verify the notification of a crime . The court also doubted the testimony given by PERSON in the light of an earlier promise to take revenge , which was confirmed in the court by CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s colleagues . For all these reasons the court concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution had either been unlawfully obtained or was too inconclusive to establish that the applicant had solicited or received a bribe from PERSON","The prosecutor appealed . In the applicant \u2019s reply to the appeal he stated that the audio - recording made during the operation contained evidence of his innocence and had been withheld from the case file for this reason , and that prosecuting investigator PERSON had not investigated the real intention behind PERSON \u2019s complaint , namely to slander the applicant and evade imprisonment .","On DATE ORG quashed the earlier judgment , found the applicant guilty of bribery , sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment together with confiscation of all his property and detained him pending appeal . The court considered that the fact that the applicant had solicited a bribe from PERSON was proved by the consistent and logical statements given by the latter . It noted that the applicant had failed to check the validity of the reasons for PERSON \u2019s non - compliance with the probation requirements . In the latter aspect , it referred to CARDINAL decisions of ORG of DATE and DATE in favour of PERSON The court also relied on the evidence provided by the records of the use of the special chemical , of the discovery of the marked banknotes in the safe , of the discovery of traces of special chemicals on CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s hands , of an event reconstruction proving that PERSON could not have put the money in the safe without the applicant having noticed it , of the finding of traces of the special chemical on the applicant \u2019s hand and a forensic examination finding a similarity between the chemical on the applicant \u2019s hand and that on the marked banknotes . The court held that ORG had examined the evidence thoroughly but had assessed it incorrectly . Referring to the statement by police officer I. that no operational file had been opened because this had been a preliminary inquiry within the meaning of Section CARDINAL of the ORG , it concluded that the evidence obtained in the course of the operation had been obtained in compliance with criminal procedure .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law challenging the admissibility of the evidence against him . Over and above the findings of the trial court he argued that the operation had not been authorised by any court , contrary to LAW ORG and section CARDINAL of the Search and Seizure Activities Act , and that the operation conducted by the authorities on CARDINAL DATE had assisted the provocation of a bribe rather than examining the truthfulness of PERSON \u2019s allegations and preventing the crime .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the court of appeal but reduced the applicant \u2019s sentence to DATE imprisonment . The court noted that the applicant \u2019s guilt had been proved by the consistent testimonies of PERSON who had no reason for making false accusations against the applicant . It concluded that there had been sufficient direct and indirect proof that the applicant had not only taken the bribe but had solicited it too .","NORP The applicant was released from prison on DATE .","Article CARDINAL","\u201c [ ... ] An accusation shall not be based on illegally obtained evidence or on assumptions . All doubts with regard to the proof of a person \u2019s guilt are to be interpreted in his or her favour . \u201d","Article CARDINAL","Taking a bribe","NORP The taking of a bribe of any kind , by an official , in return for taking or refraining from any action for the benefit of the person offering the bribe or for the benefit of any third person by means of the authority or official powers entrusted in this official , shall be punishable by a fine of CARDINAL tax - free minimum incomes , or imprisonment for a term of DATE , with the deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a period of DATE .","NORP The taking of a substantial bribe by an official who occupies a responsible position , or by a group of persons following prior conspiracy , or if repeated or accompanied by solicitations for such a bribe , shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE along with the deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term up to DATE and confiscation of property ...","Article CARDINAL","Offering a bribe","NORP The offering of a bribe shall be punishable by a fine of CARDINAL tax - free minimum incomes , or restraint of liberty for a term of DATE .","...","A person who offers a bribe shall be discharged from criminal liability if the bribe was solicited from this person and if this person , after offering the bribe and before any criminal prosecution was initiated against him \/ her , voluntarily reported the act of bribery to the agency competent to undertake criminal prosecution .","Article CARDINAL","Provocation of bribery","The provocation of bribery , that is to say the intentional creation , by an official , of circumstances and conditions that provoke the offering or taking of a bribe for the purpose of implicating those who offered or took it , shall be punishable by restraint of liberty for a term DATE , or imprisonment for a term of DATE .","The same act committed by a law enforcement official shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE .","Article CARDINAL","Obligation to accept statements and notifications about crimes and the procedure for their examination","\u201c ... If the need arises to check a statement or notification about a crime prior to the opening of a [ criminal ] case , such check shall be conducted by a prosecutor , an investigator , or a panel of inquiry within DATE by taking explanations from particular individuals or officials or by requesting the necessary documents .","A statement or notification about a crime prior to the opening of a criminal case may be verified by means of search and seizure activities . Certain search and seizure activities , determined by the legislative acts of GPE , shall be conducted with the court \u2019s authorisation on the basis of a request to be submitted by the head or deputy head of the respective operative unit and approved by a prosecutor ... \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the Act lays down a range of investigative techniques that constitute the search and seizure activities that may be conducted by the law enforcement bodies . It also requires that any covert entering of a home or other individual property , interception of communications , monitoring of correspondence and telephone conversations and application of other technical means for obtaining information , must be undertaken at the request of the head or deputy of the operative unit and authorised by a court decision . Any application of technical means for obtaining information must be documented and may be used as evidence in criminal proceedings .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW requires that search and seizure activities be carried out only after an operational file ( \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e-\u0440\u043e\u0437\u0448\u0443\u043a\u043e\u0432\u0430 \u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 ) has been opened , and prohibits these activities without the existence of such a file .","\u201c ... DATE . Evidence shall be deemed to have been obtained illegally if it has been obtained and processed either in breach of individual and citizen \u2019s rights guaranteed by LAW , or of legislation on criminal procedure , or by persons and bodies or through means not authorised by the relevant procedural norms . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155372","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NISKASAARI AND OTAVAMEDIA OY v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Mikko Puumalainen;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicant company has its seat in GPE .","The first applicant is a journalist for a DATE magazine , ORG , which is published by the applicant company .","On DATE and DATE respectively the NORP national public service broadcasting company broadcast CARDINAL TV documentaries in its ORG series which concerned mould - infested houses and the protection of forests . They were made by several reporters , including PERSON who was the complainant at the origin of criminal proceedings that were subsequently brought against the first applicant ( \u201c the complainant \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the first applicant criticised on CARDINAL separate internet discussion sites , namely on the \u201c LOC site maintained by ORG ( ORG liitto , Gr\u00f6na f\u00f6rbundet ) and the \u201c Journalism \u201d site maintained by ORG , the manner in which these CARDINAL documentaries had been made . He wrote , inter alia , that :","\u201c [ The complainant ] is a fanatic warrior of the faith for whom facts are just in the way . He has indisputably been caught at cold , intentional lying . \u201d","\u201c [ The complainant ] in fact claimed that the house was healthy but that CARDINAL cheating company doing mould inspections had managed to find some insignificant mould spots because of which a completely unnecessary court case was initiated . ... Contrary to [ the complainant \u2019s ] assurances , ORG \u2019s former house was rotten . ... [ The complainant ] must have known that . He is thus lying cold - bloodedly and intentionally . ... He thus knew that [ the expert ] lied but he let it happen . \u201d","On DATE the first applicant published a CARDINAL - page article in ORG magazine , which is CARDINAL of the biggest nationwide family magazines in GPE , on similar lines . The article had been approved by a lawyer before publication . The article included passages such as :","\u201c [ The complainant ] claimed that PERCENT of the NORP forest area was already protected and that conservationists demanded that CARDINAL of the forest area in LOC should be preserved . These figures are fabricated ....","ORG thus said in [ the documentary ] the complete opposite of what her research showed and what was stated in her grant application . When I interviewed [ the complainant ] , he admitted that he had known about the grant and the DATE research . Still he accepted ORG clearly groundless testimony in the documentary . \u201d","On DATE ORG magazine published a CARDINAL - page reply in which the reporters who had made the documentaries in question replied to the first applicant \u2019s criticism . In response to this reply , the magazine published a page - long counter - reply by the first applicant .","On DATE the complainant reported the matter to the police , asking them to investigate whether the first applicant was guilty of defamation when he called him a liar in his writings . By letter dated DATE the complainant presented his claim for damages against the applicants .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant company and the first applicant submitted their replies to the police . On DATE the first applicant was questioned by the police for the first time .","On DATE the public prosecutor pressed charges in ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) against the first applicant for defamation . The complainant concurred with the charges brought by the public prosecutor . The compensation claim presented by him previously on DATE was joined to the criminal charges . The applicants claimed that ORG was not the appropriate court because the forum norms had changed in DATE .","On DATE the ORG found in an interlocutory decision that it was a competent court to decide the case . Even though the article in question had been written and the decision on its publication had been taken in GPE , the magazine had been printed and the consequences of the article had arisen in GPE . As the internet articles concerned the same matter , the court was competent to examine them too .","On DATE ORG dismissed all charges against the first applicant and the compensation claim directed against the applicants . It found first of all that all the articles should be considered as CARDINAL matter because they concerned the same topic , irrespective of whether they had been published on internet or in the magazine . Both the first applicant and the complainant had had grounds for their views and they had not said anything that was clearly untrue . The documentaries made by the complainant had provoked public discussion , but they had also provoked harsh criticism on account of the manner in which they were presented . Therefore the threshold for acceptable criticism of the complainant and of his documentaries was higher than usual . As there had been insinuations in the documentaries that some of the expert opinions had been false , the first applicant was allowed to use similar wording vis - \u00e0 - vis the complainant .","By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the complainant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) . ORG held oral hearings on CARDINAL and DATE and on DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted the first applicant of defamation and sentenced him to DATE - fines , totalling CARDINAL ( ORG ) . He was ordered to pay LAW interest in damages to the complainant . The applicant company was ordered , together with the first applicant , to pay ORG CARDINAL plus interest in damages to the complainant as well as his costs and expenses of ORG CARDINAL , plus interest , in total . The court found first of all that ORG had been the competent court in the matter . As to the merits , ORG mentioned LAW and the principles expressed therein as well as adverting to the ORG \u2019s case - law and legal literature on LAW . With reference to the ORG \u2019s case - law , it recalled that even if everyone was guaranteed freedom of expression , it was not permitted to defame others or to disseminate false information on anybody . In this respect a journalist had the same responsibility as others . ORG then found that it had not been proved that the complainant had disseminated wrong information in the documentaries in the manner recounted by the first applicant , except for the misleading information given in the context of the reportage on mould - infested houses which the complainant had failed to rectify . It appeared also from the witness statements that different statistical information existed as far as the conserved forest area in GPE was concerned , such that it could not be said that the figures given by the complainant had been fabricated . The first applicant had thus imparted false information on the complainant and these accusations had been serious . The first applicant had not therefore had strong reasons or probable cause to hold his own accusations to be true . The fact that freedom of expression was guaranteed under LAW as well as under LAW together with the fact that the complainant was also a journalist and that the first applicant had been able to give grounds for his own opinion in the media , did not entitle the first applicant to impart the above - mentioned false information . Nor did the first applicant have the right to call the complainant a liar . On these grounds the first applicant was found guilty of defamation .","By letter dated DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , claiming that all facts had been correct in the article published in ORG magazine . Moreover , during the oral hearing in ORG , the applicants had not been allowed to put questions to the opposing party \u2019s witnesses , whereas the opposing party had been able to question their witnesses . Also the evidence provided by the applicants had not been adequately taken into account by ORG and the proceedings had taken place in the wrong forum .","On DATE ORG refused the applicants leave to appeal ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147019","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF POP-ILI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicants . The respondent , DATE Retex , a privately owned company as of DATE , was ordered to : ( a ) reinstate them to their former jobs ; ( b ) pay their salary arrears ; ( c ) pay the relevant social insurance contributions due for the same period ; and ( d ) pay the their legal costs .","By DATE this judgment , as amended on appeal in respect of the legal costs , became final .","On DATE the applicants filed a request for the enforcement of the said judgment .","On DATE ORG accepted the ORG request and issued an enforcement order .","On DATE ORG upheld this decision on appeal .","NORP In DATE ORG carried out an assessment of the debtor \u2019s movable assets .","On DATE , in response to a third party \u2019s request , ORG excluded certain movable assets from the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE ORG obtained an additional report regarding the value of the debtor \u2019s movable assets .","On DATE ORG ordered the re - examination of the third party \u2019s exclusion request lodged in respect of the debtor \u2019s assets .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings ( ste\u010dajni postupak ) in respect of DATE Retex and on DATE the ORG claims were confirmed in their entirety . The applicants themselves were classified as third - class creditors .","On DATE the debtor \u2019s assets were sold as part of the insolvency proceedings .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed .","The insolvency proceedings before ORG are still pending , and the applicants have yet to be paid apparently as a consequence of CARDINAL related civil suits brought by other creditors .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG , maintaining that they had suffered a breach of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time and a violation of their property rights . In terms of redress , the applicants sought recognition of these violations , an order from ORG for the expedition of the impugned enforcement proceedings , and the \u201c removal of all adverse consequences \u201d suffered in this connection ( including through the payment of their outstanding pecuniary claims ) .","On DATE the applicants noted the adoption of the amendments to LAW , and specified their compensation claims accordingly . Specifically , on account of the pecuniary damage suffered , the applicants requested the respective amounts awarded to them by the final judgment in question , whilst as regards the nonpecuniary damage sustained they claimed CARDINAL each ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG found , in the operative part of its ruling ( u izreci ) , that the applicants had indeed suffered a violation of their right to a fair trial within a reasonable time , as well as a violation of their property rights , but rejected the compensation claims regarding the non - pecuniary damages sought by the applicants . ORG , lastly , ordered that the impugned enforcement proceedings be terminated in accordance with the applicable legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In its reasoning the Constitutional Court established that the courts in question had not acted promptly DATE and DATE . Concerning the compensation issue , ORG stated that the applicants\u2019 pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage claims had been filed out of time . In so doing , it merely referred to Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , as amended in DATE , and LAW of the amendments themselves ( see paragraphs QUANTITY ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148642","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF N.A. v. NORWAY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Charged with a criminal offence);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant and her former husband Mr U.A. , a NORP national who was born in DATE , were indicted ( I ) under LAW alternative , cf . LAW ( straffeloven ) , of having caused under particularly aggravating circumstances injury to the body and health of their daughter A entailing serious damage , or of having aided and abetted in this , by having exposed her at least on two occasions to violence causing the following damage :","\u201c - CARDINAL instances of fraction to her cranium ;","- bleeding under the hard membrane of the brain ;","- bleeding between the hard membrane of the brain and scull ;","- oedema changes in the brain ;","- bleedings in the retina in both eyes ;","- blue marks and miscolouring on the body ;","- elbow out of joint .","The last - mentioned injury had been discovered in DATE and the remainder in DATE . The injuries to her head had been life - threatening and had led to permanent brain injury . The violence had been caused by the child \u2019s parents , Mr GPE and Mrs N.A. , directly by , amongst other things , blows and\/or pushes against a hard surface and forceful shaking and\/or by aiding and abetting the perpetration of the violence by not intervening and seeking to prevent the actions carried out against the child , in respect of whom both parents assumed the care . \u201d","They were also indicted ( II ) under LAW ) , cf . ( CARDINAL ) , of having seriously and repeatedly exerted violence or otherwise infringed or illtreated someone in their household \u2013 in an aggravated manner because the abuse had been carried out over a long period , had been committed against a defenseless person and had been unprovoked . During the period from CARDINAL DATE until DATE , their son B had a number of times been exposed to violence resulting , inter alia , in the following injuries :","\u201c - A fracture in the upper arm caused by twisting ;","- blue nails on both of his big toes ;","- several wounds , scars and miscolouring to the body , including scars after scratching on the throat .","The violence had been caused by the child \u2019s parents , Mr U.A. and Mrs N.A. , either directly and\/or by aiding and abetting the perpetration of the violence by not intervening and seeking to prevent the actions carried out against the child , in respect of whom both parents assumed the care . \u201d","On DATE ORG ( tingrett ) convicted the applicant and her former husband of the charges and sentenced them to terms of imprisonment of DATE , respectively . It was not in doubt that the CARDINAL children had been subjected to gross ill - treatment by adults but concluded that it was not possible from the evidence taken from the defendants and witnesses in the case to identify CARDINAL or more perpetrators . The statements given had been contradictory to such a degree that this could not be explained as being due to misunderstandings . Several of the statements ought to be considered as untrue leaving no possibility to distinguish between lies and truth on different points . On the other hand ORG found it established that the damage to the children had mainly occurred while the children had been in the flat . It was further proven that the accused Mr U.A. had been present in the tiny flat occupied by the family while the ill - treatment occurred , as had also been the case of the applicant . ORG also found it proven that each of the parents had aided and abetted in the commission of the violence by not having interfered or sought to prevent the acts of violence carried out against the children in regard to whom they had a duty of care . The parents were ordered to pay the children MONEY ( ORG ) ( CARDINAL and CARDINAL,CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","The applicant and her former husband appealed to ORG ( lagmannsrett ) , which , sitting with a jury , held a hearing for DATE between CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) . It took evidence from the defendants and CARDINAL witnesses and QUANTITY court appointed experts . After the jury had answered all the questions put to it in the negative , the professional judges decided to accept the jury \u2019s verdict of acquittal .","In the same judgment of DATE , ORG ( without the participation of any members of the jury ) examined the children \u2019s claims for compensation of non - pecuniary damage under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of LAW DATE . It held :","\u201c According to this provision a person who with intent or gross negligence has caused personal injury may be required to pay compensation to the victim . ORG observes that such infringements as described in LAW can constitute a ground for awarding compensation for non - pecuniary damage under section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) , cf . section CARDINAL , even if no damage has occurred in the sense of the LAW . The assistance lawyer representing the children [ \u2018 bistandsadvokaten\u2019 ] has argued on their behalf that Mr [ U.A. ] and PERSON ] , with intent or gross negligence , have caused or aided and abetted [ \u2018 ORG ] in causing serious injury to [ A ] \u2019s head , her elbow getting out of joint and in seriously and repeatedly exposing [ B ] to violence .","The ORG claims for non - pecuniary damage has its basis in the same acts as those in respect of which Mr [ U.A. ] and ORG ] has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings . The acquittal in the criminal proceedings does not hinder making an award of compensation for nonpecuniary damage to the victims , since less stringent evidentiary requirements applies to the latter than to criminal punishment . When a judgment of acquittal has been given in the criminal case , the presumption of innocence in LAW will set limits to what could constitute the basis for a decision on the civil claims . According to ORG case - law , the national courts can not justify their decision in a manner calling into doubt the acquitted person \u2019s innocence for criminal law purposes ( see ORG case - law reports PERSON . DATE p. DATE ) .","A condition for establishing liability to pay compensation is that it was clearly probable that the damage had been caused by intent or by gross negligence ( ORG . DATE p. DATE ) .","Considering the evidence in the case as a whole , the High Court finds it clearly probable that Mr [ U.A. ] and PERSON ] have ill - treated their children or have aided and abetted in doing so by consent or by incitement to the acts , over a long period until DATE . ORG further finds it clearly probable that the parents had inflicted or have aided and abetted in inflicting great injuries to A \u2019s head and have inflicted or aided and abetted in inflicting injuries to B through repeated violence , including a fracture to his arm by twisting it .","In its assessment of the evidence , ORG emphasises that several of the injuries ascertained are not compatible with accidental occurrences but on the contrary show that they have been inflicted by strong violence . ORG also points to the children \u2019s later reactions , including that [ B ] was in DATE diagnosed as suffering from post - traumatic stress syndrome . It further refers to witness statements from neighbours about noise in the form of screams of anxiety and painful cries from children in the apartment over a longer period .","ORG is of the view that the physical and psychological injuries sustained by the children are a direct consequence of the illtreatment to which they have been exposed . In the High Court \u2019s view it was further foreseeable for Mr [ U.A. ] and PERSON ] that serious injuries , including serious brain damage , could occur in the case of such small children .","Accordingly , the conditions for making an award of non - pecuniary damage have been fulfilled .","The lawyer representing the children had filed a claim for compensation of non - pecuniary damage in an amount of up to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of [ A ] and up to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of [ B ] .","An award of compensation for non - pecuniary damage is to be evaluated on the basis of a wide discretionary assessment of what would constitute a reasonable amount . Factors which are central in the assessment are the objective seriousness of the act , the extent to which the wrongdoer ( \u2018 skadevolder\u2019 ) is to be blamed and the damaging effects .","This case concerns injury on very small children , from they were babies until [ A ] was DATE and [ B ] was DATE . The ill - treatment has occurred during a considerable part of the children \u2019s lives until it was revealed . At present [ B ] apparently manage well physically and has no physical ailments . However , in DATE he was diagnosed as suffering from post - traumatic stress syndrome . [ A ] was in part paralysed on one side and her development is far behind compared to that of other children of her age . Her injuries can be said to be permanent .","Compensation for non - pecuniary damage in respect of [ A ] is to be awarded in an amount of ORG CARDINAL [ MONEY ( ORG ) ] and in respect of [ B ] in an amount of ORG CARDINAL [ approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ] .","The decision on the civil claims is based on the less stringent evidentiary requirements than those applicable to criminal punishment . Thus , the decision on the civil claim does not contradict [ \u2018 rokke PERSON ] the correctness of the acquittal . \u201d","The applicant and her former husband appealed to ORG ( PERSON ) , complaining inter alia of ORG assessment of the evidence and that the reasoning for the award on compensation in this regard had failed to satisfy requirements of national law and entailed a violation of LAW .","On DATE ORG ( H\u00f8yesteretts kj\u00e6rem\u00e5lsutvalg ) refused them leave to appeal , finding that such leave was warranted neither by the general importance of the case nor by other considerations ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175846","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BEL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ROOMAN v. BELGIUM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is detained in the ORG social - protection institution ( \u201c the ORG EDS \u201d ) .","In DATE the applicant was convicted of theft and of sexual assault , by ORG and ORG respectively . The prison sentences were due to end on DATE .","While imprisoned , the applicant committed offences in respect of which fresh proceedings were brought . On DATE ORG ( chambre du conseil ) of ORG decided , pursuant to section CARDINAL of the LAW DATE on ORG in respect of ORG , Habitual Offenders and Persons Convicted of certain PERSON ( the \u201c LAW \u201d ) , and on the basis , inter alia , of a neuropsychiatric report by PERSON , dated DATE , and a report by psychologist PERSON , dated DATE , to order the applicant \u2019s preventive detention .","On DATE ORG of ORG upheld that decision . The applicant did not appeal on points of law .","On DATE , based among other elements on a psychiatric report by PERSON dated DATE , the Minister of ORG also decided that the applicant was to be detained in a psychiatric institution , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , as a continuation of the sentences imposed in DATE .","On DATE the applicant entered the Paifve EDS , located in the LANGUAGE - speaking region , further to a decision of QUANTITY DATE by ORG for the ORG psychiatric wing ( the \u201c CDS \u201d ) .","On an unspecified date the applicant made an initial application for release on a trial basis .","On DATE the ORG postponed its examination of the request for release on a trial basis until DATE , and recommended finding an institution that could admit the applicant and provide him with therapy in NORP , the only language he could understand and speak .","The application was examined by the ORG on DATE . At the hearing , the head of ORG acknowledged that the institution was unable to provide the therapeutic care recommended by the experts who had already been consulted , given that no NORP - speaking doctor , therapist , psychologist , social worker or warden was employed in the institution .","In consequence , the ORG held :","\u201c It is undisputed that the detainee speaks only NORP , and that the medical , welfare and prison staff in the institution in which he is detained are unable to provide him with any therapeutic or welfare assistance ; he has been abandoned to his fate without any treatment since his arrival in PERSON ( on DATE ) , even if some individuals have , on a voluntary basis , made considerable efforts to explain to him his situation , which he experiences as an injustice ;","In the present case , the CARDINAL - fold legal aim of the preventive detention , namely protection of society and of the patient \u2019s health , can only be achieved if the deprivation of liberty is accompanied by the treatment necessitated by the detainee \u2019s mental health ; since this double condition is not fulfilled , [ Mr ] ORG \u2019s detention is unlawful ; ... \u201d","The ORG postponed its examination of the application for release on a trial basis until a hearing in DATE , pending the appointment of NORP - speaking employees to the ORG .","In accordance with an order by the chairperson of the ORG of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was transferred to Verviers Prison so that its NORP - language psychosocial team could assess his mental health and ascertain whether he posed a danger to the public . On DATE the ORG confirmed this order and postponed the case to DATE .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the application for release on parole . It had been indicated in a report of DATE , drawn up by the LANGUAGE - language psychosocial team in Verviers Prison , that the applicant had a psychotic personality and paranoid character traits ( high self - opinion , feeling of omnipotence , lack of self - criticism and threatening remarks ) and that he was refusing any treatment . Furthermore , the ORG noted that there was no institution in GPE which could meet the security and language requirements in the applicant \u2019s specific case ; the only LANGUAGE - language hospital which could be considered was an open hospital , and it had thus to be ruled out in view of the applicant \u2019s mental health .","On DATE the applicant applied for day release . On DATE the ORG noted that it had proved impossible to provide any treatment and that the search for a LANGUAGE - language institution had proved unsuccessful . Accordingly , it ordered the PERSON remand prison to prepare a plan for release on a trial basis , and ordered a new expert report in order to assess the level of danger posed by the applicant . It adjourned examination of the request sine die .","Having received a new application from the applicant for release on a trial basis , the ORG held , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE :","\u201c There has been no progress in PERSON situation ; progress can not occur until he is in a setting where he can be understood in his own language , like any citizen of this country . A single member of the prison staff , a nurse [ ORG ] , is temporarily providing him with social contact , whereas a psychiatrist and\/or a psychologist should be available to him .","The prison authorities have not put forward any kind of solution to this problem , of which its various services are fully aware . Worse , as those authorities are unable to provide him with the necessary treatment , they seem to have resigned themselves to a role that extends no further than an unfair repressive detention .","The medical reports and [ PERSON \u2019s ] expert report indicate that ORG , who continues to present a danger to society , can not be released without support and preparation in an institutional setting , something that can not currently be provided in GPE , but is available abroad . \u201d","In consequence , the ORG invited the PERSON remand prison to prepare , together with applicant , a plan for release on a trial basis , and encouraged the authorities to take , rapidly , the measures necessary to improve the applicant \u2019s situation . It adjourned the case to DATE . CARDINAL . On DATE the ORG found :","\u201c In DATE since this file was opened ( DATE ) , the persons involved in this case have been thwarted by the fact that the detainee speaks and understands only one language , and that the authorities have no LANGUAGE - speaking staff available for him , with the exception of CARDINAL nurse [ ORG ] ( who is apparently due to retire in the near future ) ;","In DATE Doctor [ Ri . ] , expert , wrote that relaxation of the detainee \u2019s regime \u2018 is possible only in parallel with successful treatment , assessed by predefined steps . The treatment must begin in a secure establishment , then in a closed institution ... \u2019 Given that treatment in GPE is impossible , it was to begin in GPE with NORP - speaking psychiatrists and therapists ;","Since that time the detainee \u2019s situation has not changed : he converses with and leaves the building only in the company of the sole NORP - speaking member of staff , and a treatment programme has not even been put in place . No satisfactory follow - up has been given to the requests by the [ ORG Board for an end to be put to this unlawful situation for PERSON , who is deprived of his freedom in order , on the one hand , to protect society from possible dangerous conduct by him , and on the other , to provide him with the treatment necessary for his reinsertion ; ...","In the light of the authorities\u2019 failure , the question now before ORG is whether there exists , outside the social - protection facility , a unit or persons who could provide home - based therapy for PERSON ; ... \u201d","On those grounds , and pointing out that NORP was one of the national languages and that the applicant was thus entitled to speak , be understood and receive treatment in that language , the ORG asked the PERSON remand prison to search in and around Verviers and PERSON for either a mental health unit , or a doctor or clinic , which could provide home - based therapy for the applicant in his mother tongue . It reserved its decision on the application for release on parole .","On DATE the applicant submitted pleadings in support of his application for release . He criticised the failure to provide him with therapeutic care and the effect on his health of any prospect of seeing his situation improve . As his main submission , he requested his immediate release on the grounds of the illegality of his detention . Alternatively , he asked that the ORG impose an obligation on the relevant authorities to take all necessary measures so that he would receive the treatment required by his mental - health condition in his mother tongue .","By an interlocutory decision of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG noted that the applicant \u2019s situation had not changed and that the reply from the PERSON judicial assistance unit left no hope of ensuring that the applicant would receive appropriate treatment , in a secure establishment or elsewhere . The ORG considered that it was necessary to attempt CARDINAL last plea to the Minister of ORG , whose intervention had previously led to some changes , even if they were insufficient to resolve the problem . The ORG accordingly ordered that an \u201c official denunciation \u201d of the applicant \u2019s situation be sent to the Minister of ORG .","On DATE the ORG noted that the Minister of ORG had not replied to its submission and that the applicant \u2019s situation had worsened , in that he could no longer count on help from the NORP - speaking nurse PERSON , who had left the ORG . The ORG continued :","\u201c It follows from the report [ from the psychosocial department ] of DATE that , except for occasional meetings with a social worker \u201c who speaks NORP \u201d , the detainee has no social contact in his language and that he has had no opportunity for DATE to converse and to gain a fresh perspective in the outside world ; the doctor and psychologist who signed this report do not seem particularly convinced by the completion of the \u2018 ongoing measures ( taken ) by the department to enable a NORP - language psychologist to intervene occasionally to provide care for the NORP - speaking patients in the EDS\u2019 ;","PERSON situation is frozen : an ill individual , he is detained in a prison medical institution where no one is able to provide the treatment to which he is entitled ; the Minister and his departments are turning a deaf ear , with no concern for the despair to which this manifestly unjust attitude may give rise ;","In spite of the unlawfulness of PERSON detention , his health condition means that release can not be envisaged unless it is accompanied by therapy and practical support ;","The [ ORG has no powers , firstly , to restore the detainee \u2019s basic rights , namely , the rights to liberty , to health care and to respect for his humanity , and secondly , to compel the Minister to put an end to this situation , which his administration has been fully aware of for DATE . \u201d","The ORG decided , while \u201c remaining open to any proposals \u201d , to leave the applicant \u2019s situation unchanged ; in other words , it rejected his application for release .","The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG ( \u201c the CSDS \u201d ) .","In parallel , the applicant made an urgent application to the President of ORG , in order to have his detention declared unlawful and obtain his immediate release , or , alternatively , to obtain a decision ordering ORG to provide him with the medical care required by his situation .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE , the president of the court held that he did not have jurisdiction , on the grounds that the ORG was the lawful body with power to release the applicant or decide on his continued detention .","On DATE the CSDS upheld the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE to maintain the applicant in detention . Unlike the ORG , the ORG held that the applicant \u2019s detention was perfectly legal , given that he had been lawfully detained and that he did not fulfil the conditions for definitive or conditional release . Under section CARDINAL of LAW , release could only be ordered if the detainee \u2019s mental condition had improved sufficiently and if the conditions for his social reinsertion had been satisfied . However , this was not the situation here . The CSDS also considered that the mere fact that the applicant spoke only NORP did not mean that the authorities had not taken all the necessary steps to provide him with the treatment required by his condition .","The applicant appealed on points of law , alleging a violation of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law . In response to the argument alleging a violation of LAW , it held that legal reasons had been given for the CSDS \u2019s decision and that it had been justified in law . It found :","\u201c As preventive detention is primarily a security measure , the therapeutic action necessitated by such detention is not legally required in order for the detention to be lawful , even if its aim , secondary to that of protecting society , is to provide the detained person with the necessary treatment .","The social protection boards derive from section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW the power , rather than the obligation , to order , in a decision giving specific reasons , placement in an institution that is appropriate in terms of the security measures and the treatment to be given . It follows that execution of the preventive detention measure does not become unlawful solely because it is implemented in one of the institutions created by the government for that purpose , rather than in another institution specifically designated for the possible treatment it might provide . \u201d","The argument alleging a violation of LAW was declared inadmissible , since its examination would require a factual verification of the conditions in which the preventive detention was being conducted and such an examination fell outside the scope of ORG jurisdiction . For the remainder , ORG considered that the CSDS had replied to the applicant \u2019s complaint in finding that the fact that he spoke only NORP did not mean that the relevant authorities had not taken all the necessary steps to provide him with the care he required .","On DATE the applicant again applied for release .","A report by the psychosocial department of ORG , dated CARDINAL DATE , reiterated that the applicant had a poor command of the NORP language , and spoke only a few words of LANGUAGE , which did not enable him to conduct a conversation ; in consequence , he had very little contact with the other patients and members of staff . The report also referred to a single meeting between the applicant and a LANGUAGE - speaking psychologist in DATE . The report noted an improvement in the applicant \u2019s behaviour ; he was apparently less aggressive and intolerant than before . Further , the applicant had never expressed a wish to meet members of the psychosocial team on a regular basis . The report concluded that he should remain in detention in PERSON , citing among other reasons his \u201c untreated mental health problems \u201d .","On DATE the ORG noted , firstly , the content of the reports by Dr ORG . , of CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON . , of DATE , which stressed the need for psychopharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatment in a secure establishment , then in a closed institution , before an open facility could be envisaged . The ORG noted that , in the interim , the various attempts to find a solution to the language problem had not succeeded in bringing about a significant improvement in the applicant \u2019s health : the rare outings accompanied by a NORP - speaking member of the prison staff had been abandoned when this employee , who was not replaced , became unavailable ; attempts to find a NORP - language institution , doctor or therapist had met with failure ; no follow - up seemed to have been given to the announcement that a minimum number of NORP - speaking staff were to be recruited , and the applicant had , of his own accord , declined the assistance of the NORP - speaking social worker with whom he had occasionally met . The ORG rejected the application for release on parole , finding that the conditions for release ( an improvement in the applicant \u2019s mental state and guarantees for his social rehabilitation ) were not met . With regard to the alleged absence of treatment in NORP , the ORG specified :","\u201c The detainee claims that he is not receiving the appropriate treatment for his mental health condition in NORP , his mother tongue , without however describing or even mentioning the treatment that he has allegedly been denied and that he would agree to accept or in which he would take part . The mere fact that he only speaks NORP does not mean that the ORG social - protection facility has not taken all the necessary steps to provide him with the care his condition requires .","While , as the applicant points out in his submissions , it is for the relevant authorities to take all the necessary measures for his health , it is not , however , within the [ ORG powers to release a detainee who claims to be the victim of shortcomings on the part of the authorities ...","Nor does ORG have jurisdiction to issue orders to the authorities or to third parties , [ or ] to penalise their actions or shortcomings ... \u201d","On DATE the ORG upheld the decision by the ORG , finding , among other points :","\u201c Contrary to what he alleges in his pleadings , the detainee receives all the treatment required by his condition , from competent and qualified staff in ORG , and his specific medical needs are fully taken into account . In spite of the treatment given , the detainee \u2019s mental condition has not yet improved sufficiently , on account of his paranoid and psychopathic character traits , his lack of self - criticism and his constant demand . The detainee is thus clearly wrong in attributing the lack of improvement in his mental condition to the language issue alone .","The continued preventive detention in a ORG that is adapted to his medical condition of an individual who would represent a danger to the public in the event of release , where his mental condition has not sufficiently improved and the conditions for his social rehabilitation are not met , is not unlawful and does not amount to a violation of the provisions of the [ Convention ] . \u201d","On DATE ORG quashed the decision by the CSDS on the grounds that it had not addressed the applicant \u2019s argument that he was not receiving care appropriate to his situation , in view of the fact that he spoke and understood only NORP and that no NORP - speaking staff members were available in the facility where he was being held . The case was sent back to the ORG with a differently constituted membership .","NORP On DATE the ORG issued an interlocutory finding , requesting the ORG to appoint a group of NORP - speaking experts to update the psychiatric report of CARDINAL DATE . It instructed the head of ORG institution to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the requisite care was made available , by at least providing the services of a NORP - speaking psychiatrist and psychologist . It ordered that the case be reopened and scheduled a hearing for DATE .","The ORG has not been informed of the progress of those proceedings .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant brought proceedings against ORG before the President of the LANGUAGE - language ORG of First Instance , as the judge responsible for hearing urgent applications in application of LAW . He asked for his release or , as a subsidiary measure , the imposition of the measures required by his state of health .","By an interlocutory order of DATE , the president of the court asked the head of the ORG and PERSON from the psychosocial unit in that ORG to submit statements concerning the treatment available in the ORG and the treatment that had in fact been provided to the applicant .","Statements submitted by the head of ORG and by PERSON on DATE indicated that the applicant now had access to consultations with a LANGUAGE - speaking psychologist and that the authorities had made contact with a NORP - speaking psychiatrist who had agreed to meet the applicant .","In an order of DATE , the president of the court noted that , until DATE , the applicant had never had access to a psychiatrist who could communicate with him in NORP . He had had access to a NORP - speaking psychologist , outside the ORG , DATE . He noted that the consultations with the psychologist had come to an end not , as alleged by the ORG in its pleadings , because the applicant no longer wished to attend them , but because of late payment by ORG of the psychologist \u2019s fees and expenses . The consultations with the psychologist had , however , resumed in DATE . The president then noted that , until DATE , the applicant had benefitted from the presence of and care provided by a LANGUAGE - speaking nurse , that that nurse had in the meantime left the ORG , but that since DATE he had been authorised to accompany the applicant on outings . Lastly , the order noted that the applicant had had contacts with a LANGUAGE - speaking social worker , but that he had declined the latter \u2019s services in DATE .","With regard to the main request , the president held that he did not have jurisdiction to order the applicant \u2019s release , as only the social protection bodies had power to do so . With regard to the subsidiary request , the president noted that the applicant had not had access to the mental health treatment required by his condition , and that there was prima facie a violation of his right of access to health care . His situation amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of LAW . In consequence , the president ordered ORG to appoint a NORP - speaking psychiatrist and medical auxiliary for the applicant , subject to a penalty in the event of non - compliance , and to put in place the care routinely provided to LANGUAGE - speaking detainees suffering from a mental illness similar to that of the applicant .","On the basis of the information produced , no appeal has been lodged against this order . According to the applicant \u2019s representative , ORG appointed a NORP - speaking psychiatrist and psychologist , who visited the applicant several times . However , these visits stopped at DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant had filed a negligence claim against ORG , on the basis of LAW .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the LANGUAGE - language ORG held the fact of having failed to provide the applicant with psychological treatment in his mother tongue DATE to be negligent . It held , in particular :","\u201c It is undeniable that the psychiatric and psychological treatment which [ the applicant ] must enjoy must be provided to him in NORP , the only language in which he is fluent and , moreover , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL national languages in GPE .","However , DATE [ the applicant ] received no medico - psychiatric treatment in his own language .","Whatever the quality \u2013 which is , indeed , undisputed \u2013 of the care provided to detainees in the ORG [ ORG ] , it is totally inappropriate for [ the applicant \u2019s ] mental - health condition merely on account of the fact that it is not available in NORP .","In spite of the official and repeated denunciations of this situation by ORG to ORG since DATE , the latter has taken no steps to correct it . In addition , it has produced no evidence of the least action taken by it to that end .","This failure to act amounts to negligence within the meaning of LAW .","...","Moreover , and as [ the applicant ] also submits , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL [ of the LAW ] require ORG to take the necessary measures to provide him with access to the basic care necessitated by his mental health .","...","In the present case , the applicant \u2019s vulnerability on account of the very nature of his psychological disorder and the absence of any genuine possibility of contact in his language have necessarily exacerbated his feelings of distress and anxiety .","It is immaterial that , in any event , the [ applicant \u2019s ] state of mental health does not allow for his release . The mere fact of having been detained for an indefinite period without appropriate care amounts in the present case to a violation of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL [ of the Convention ] .","Contrary to the submissions of ORG , the fact that [ the applicant ] is not always receptive to psychological , medical and social therapy does not allow for minimisation of ORG negligent attitude towards a person who suffers from a mental disorder , whose discernment is , by assumption , uncertain .","By the same token , at the risk of setting aside the lived experience of the person suffering from a mental disorder , [ the applicant \u2019s ] stable conduct within the institution does not suffice to establish that he received appropriate care for his condition . \u201d","Finding that this absence of treatment had caused mental suffering to the applicant , the court ordered the ORG to pay him MONEY ( \u201c EUR \u201d ) , an amount assessed ex aequo et bono , in compensation for the period for DATE .","According to information provided on DATE by his representative , the applicant was due to lodge an appeal against this judgment . He challenges the period accepted by the court and argues that the lack of treatment pre - dated DATE ; he also complains about a lack of treatment in DATE and the decision to award compensation ex aequo et bono rather than on a DATE basis ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145783","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF J\u00dcSSI OSAWE v. ESTONIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant and ORG , a NORP national , married in GPE , GPE , where they were living at that time .","NORP Since DATE they have lived apart . According to the applicant , in DATE she initiated proceedings for dissolution of the marriage in GPE . By a decision of QUANTITY DATE ORG decided to grant the applicant separation from DATE which in NORP law is not identical to a divorce , since the spouses remained legally married . According to the decision ORG was thought to be in GPE ; he had been summoned to court by a public notice but had not appeared . It appears that the marriage between the applicant and PERSON has not been officially dissolved .","In DATE the applicant moved to GPE . On DATE she gave birth to a daughter , PERSON , whose father , according to the applicant , was NORP When registering the birth , the applicant was told by the officials of the municipality that since she was married , her husband O. would be registered as the child \u2019s father . According to the applicant this was done despite her objections .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG seeking a declaration that the entry in the birth register concerning her daughter \u2019s father was incorrect . She provided the court with a notice from the GPE population register about O. \u2019s registered address but added that in fact O. no longer lived there and she did not know his actual address . She asked the court to serve the summons on the defendant by a public notice .","By a decision of DATE ORG declined to proceed with the examination of the claim . It noted that the applicant had paid CARDINAL kroons ( EEK ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in ORG fees instead of the applicable fee of EEK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) . ORG gave the applicant a DATE time - limit to pay the remaining part of the fee . It also gave the applicant the same time - limit to find out where O. currently lived . The court noted that in accordance with LAW ( GPE seadustik ) , in filiation cases parties had to appear in court in person and they also had to be summoned personally . Accordingly , the court could not proceed with the claim without having information about the defendant \u2019s address . The court noted that in view of the fact that the defendant was a NORP national probably living in GPE , it was likely that the defendant had to be heard in a court in the place of his residence in line with the provisions of ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on cooperation between the courts of GPE in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters . However , for that it was necessary to ascertain where NORP was residing . The court noted that it was the plaintiff \u2019s obligation to find out where PERSON actually lived ; it considered that the applicant \u2019s efforts in this respect had not been sufficient . It referred to the fact that O. was the applicant \u2019s husband and that divorce proceedings were pending before a NORP court , and concluded that the applicant had better chances of ascertaining O. \u2019s whereabouts , for example through his acquaintances , relatives and colleagues .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to declare unconstitutional the provisions of LAW related to the ORG fee and the requirement that the defendant be summoned and that he appear in court in person . She also informed the court of her intention to request information from the NORP police as to the defendant \u2019s residence and asked for an extension of the time - limit to rectify the deficiencies in her claim indicated by ORG in its decision of DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request concerning the alleged unconstitutionality of the provisions of LAW . It acceded to the applicant \u2019s request for the extension of the time - limit .","It appears that the applicant did not inform ORG of whether she had made any inquiries about O. \u2019s whereabouts to the NORP authorities or of the results of any such inquiries .","On DATE ORG declined to entertain the case since the applicant had failed to eliminate the deficiencies indicated in its earlier decisions . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant lodged a new claim with ORG seeking the establishment of her daughter \u2019s filiation from NORP , a NORP national living in GPE . She asked the court to order that a DNA test be carried out with the assistance of the NORP authorities . The applicant supplied the court with NORP \u2019s and his GPE addresses .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the claim . Referring to ORG case - law ( judgment of DATE , case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , ORG found that it was not legally possible to establish the child \u2019s filiation from NORP without the entry in the birth register , according to which her father was O. , having been declared incorrect beforehand . The claims could not be examined simultaneously .","The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .","The applicant appealed to ORG , which decided not to examine the appeal on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159916","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KARYKOWSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in PERSON .","The applicant is a habitual offender . He was arrested on an unspecified date on suspicion of uttering threats . He was subsequently convicted as charged and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . He was first detained in FAC and subsequently in FAC .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s cell was searched . During the search the prison officers found a note entitled \u201c Protest letter \u201d signed by CARDINAL prisoners . The prisoners stated their opposition to the forthcoming changes to LAW affecting , in particular , the possibility of shopping during prison visits . The letter was confiscated by the authorities .","On DATE ORG imposed on the applicant the so - called \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d regime . The commission held that the applicant was one of the organisers of a planned collective remonstrance in ORG , and that it was therefore necessary to isolate him from other prisoners .","The applicant appealed against that decision . He submitted that he was not the organiser of the protest but merely CARDINAL of CARDINAL prisoners who had signed the letter .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court held that the decision had been lawful .","On an unknown date the applicant was transferred to Goleni\u00f3w Prison .","On DATE ORG extended the imposition of the \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d regime , holding that the applicant represented a serious threat to the community and should be kept in a solitary cell . The applicant appealed .","On DATE the ORG quashed the decision and remitted the case to the commission . The court held that only the original decision to impose the regime of CARDINAL DATE had been justified . The following CARDINAL taken on DATE had not indicated any new circumstances justifying the continuing application of the regime and its reasoning had been scarce . The court noted that DATE had elapsed since the applicant had signed the protest letter and the suppositions regarding the allegedly planned collective remonstrance of the prisoners had been not confirmed .","On DATE ORG decided to lift the \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d regime . The regime was imposed on the applicant for a total of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157532","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KHARLAMOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the events the applicant , a Ph.D. in ORG , was a tenured professor in the physics department of ORG .","By Order no . CARDINAL of DATE , the president ( \u0440\u0435\u043a\u0442\u043e\u0440 ) of ORG convened a university - wide conference for the election of the university \u2019s academic senate ( \u0443\u0447\u0435\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0441\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0442 ) , its standing governing body . The date of the conference was fixed for DATE . According to the Regulation on the Composition of the Academic Senate of ORG , candidates to the senate were to be nominated at staff meetings in structural entities by open majority vote ( section CARDINAL of the Regulation of DATE ) .","Unhappy about the fact that neither he nor his colleagues in the physics department had been consulted or informed about the nomination and discussion of candidates to the academic senate , the applicant took the floor at the above public conference and spoke as follows :","\u201c ... the elected academic senate may not be considered a legitimate body and its decisions likewise can not be considered legitimate . All of them can be challenged in courts . The problem is that the staff or departments did not know anything about the candidates to the academic senate or of their academic achievements ; no one nominated those candidates . This is some kind of a private party that is going on , some people have gathered and elected themselves . My rights have been violated : I , as a member of the faculty , have been excluded from the procedure which is of great importance both for me and for the university as a whole \u2013 the election of the academic senate . My rights have been breached , and I will complain to courts about the breaches of my rights . The rights of ordinary university employees , ordinary lecturers , have been breached , too : they were removed from the election to the academic senate , this is discrimination . Any discrimination is a form of war ; you have declared war to the people , and sooner or later you will get the results of this war in some way or another , in your own families . \u201d","ORG sued the applicant in defamation , claiming that his speech had undermined the professional reputation of the university and of its academic senate . The statement of claim was signed by the university president .","The Sovetskiy District Court of PERSON reviewed the university statutes and regulations on the procedure for the election of the academic senate and took oral evidence from witnesses . CARDINAL witnesses testified that the physics department had not held a meeting for the election of delegates to the conference or nomination of candidates to the senate because the delegates and candidates had been elected and nominated at the meeting between the heads of departments . The staff had been informed about the meeting DATE in advance and anyone could attend it .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found the applicant liable for defamation of ORG and its academic senate . According to the judgment , the applicant \u201c publicly accused [ them ] of a violation of applicable laws [ and ] commission of a dishonest act \u201d . It also held as follows :","\u201c The court can not agree with the respondent party \u2019s argument that the statements [ he had ] disseminated at the conference were an expression of an opinion . The statements were made in the affirmative form which is apparent from TIME of the conference of DATE , the audio recording of the conference , and testimony by witnesses . The witnesses PERSON and PERSON . who had attended the conference on DATE explained that they understood the statements as an affirmation which produced a negative impression on them ...","Every legal entity has the right to require that a public appraisal of its activities reflect the real state of affairs . Any negative appraisal of the activities of a legal entity affects its reputation and undermines it . The activity of a legal entity can only be potentially successful if its business reputation in the eyes of other organisations and ordinary citizens is maintained at a certain level , especially in a market economy . \u201d","ORG awarded the ORG MONEY ( RUB ) in damages and RUB CARDINAL in court fees and directed that the applicant read the refutation at the following university conference .","NORP The applicant filed an appeal , relying in particular on LAW . He also pointed out that the award in respect of damages exceeded his DATE salary .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment on the merits but partly amended it . Firstly , it considered that the sentences \u201c All of them can be challenged in courts ... Any discrimination is a form of war ; you have declared war to the people , and sooner or later you will get the results of this war in some way or another , in your own families . \u201d did not contain any statements about the plaintiff and could not therefore be damaging for its reputation . Secondly , it noted that the sentence \u201c no one nominated those candidates [ in the departments ] \u201d was actually true because candidates had been nominated at the meetings of department heads . Thirdly , ORG considered it appropriate that the operative part of ORG judgment be read out at the following conference by the president rather than by the applicant . Finally , it offered a more nuanced characterisation of the disputed phrases as a statement of fact :","\u201c Mr GPE \u2019s speech contained a statement of fact : the elected academic senate may not be considered a legitimate body and all of its decisions are likewise illegitimate , in other words , the academic senate was unlawfully elected and its decisions are unlawful . This is a verifiable statement . Accordingly , this information is not a subjective opinion of the defendant but a factual allegation . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159205","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SZAFRA\u0143SKI v. POLAND","importance":2,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in detention in ORG .","ORG The applicant has been serving a prison sentence in ORG since DATE .","On DATE he brought a civil compensation claim before ORG . He claimed that the conditions of detention in many of his cells in FAC were so bad as to amount to a breach of NORP CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . He referred to the fact that the cells were not properly heated in the DATE and DATE and had no proper ventilation in DATE , meaning that the prisoners suffered from intense levels of heat . The windows were old and the frames leaked . He further submitted that the toilet facilities were only separated from the cells by a low fibreboard partition , which made even a minimum level of privacy impossible for him .","On DATE the ORG refused a request by the applicant to gather evidence by producing photographs and carrying out an on - the - spot inspection of the cells concerned . It closed the hearing and gave judgment , dismissing the applicant \u2019s claim in its entirety .","The court established , referring to evidence submitted by ORG , acting as the legal representative for ORG , that prisoners had access to sports , cultural and educational activities and medical care . They were provided with personal hygiene items and had appropriate food . Those factors , seen as a whole , alleviated the harm which was an inherent part and consequence of serving prison sentences .","The court further found that the toilet facilities in the applicant \u2019s cells were indeed separated off by fibreboard partitions . This did not provide full privacy , but was sufficient to ensure that the prisoners were out of sight of others when they used the toilet . There was a WC and a washbasin in each toilet facility .","As regards the applicant \u2019s allegations of inadequate ventilation and insufficient heating in the cells , the court found that the cells were well lit and properly ventilated ; the windows had been repaired and the heaters had been changed and worked properly . As regards the alleged lack of light , the court found that the applicant had been granted special permission to use an additional reading lamp .","The court was of the view that ORG had not acted unlawfully and that there had been no intention to act in bad faith or to cause harm or damage to the applicant . In the absence of unlawfulness no breach of personal rights could be found . In any event , the conditions in FAC were not so harsh as to amount to a breach of personal rights .","The applicant appealed , arguing that the court had failed to establish the facts of the case correctly , in the main because it had refused to gather evidence in the form of photographs , film or an inspection of the cells . The judgment had therefore been based on insufficient factual findings . Furthermore , in so far as the court had referred to the general conditions in which the applicant served his sentence ( quality of the food , medical care , access to cultural and sports activities ) , those factors had not constituted the basis of his claim . He had complained neither about poor food quality nor about insufficient access to cultural and sports activities . The grounds of his claim had fundamentally related to the sanitary conditions in the cells and , in particular , a lack of privacy when using the toilet . This lack of privacy had been explicitly confirmed by the first - instance court . He reiterated that the lack of a proper divide between the toilets and the cell amounted to a breach of his personal rights and dignity . He further indicated that some of the cells at the prison had toilet facilities that were properly separated from the rest of the cell by normal walls and a door .","By a judgment of DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal , fully accepting the findings of fact made by the firstinstance court and that court \u2019s legal assessment of those facts . In particular , ORG was of the view that the nuisance caused by the manner in which cells were fitted with toilet facilities , namely by way of fibreboard partitions , did not exceed the normal difficulties and harm which were inherent in serving a prison sentence ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172928","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT;NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"MUCALIM v. THE NETHERLANDS AND MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG initially by PERSON and later by PERSON , both of them lawyers practising in PERSON at relevant times .","On DATE the applicant arrived at GPE ( GPE ) Airport where he requested asylum .","On DATE he was interviewed about his identity , nationality and travel itinerary ( eerste gehoor ) . It emerged that he had lodged a previous asylum request in GPE .","A GPE Claim interview ( gehoor GPE ) was held on CARDINAL DATE in which the applicant described the conditions in which he had been detained in GPE . Asylum - seekers lived in tents , the camp was overcrowded and sanitary facilities were filthy . He objected to being sent back to GPE as he did not wish to face the same conditions of detention again .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of Justice ( ORG ) rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum request on the ground , in so far as relevant to the case before the ORG , that under LAW ( ORG ) No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member ORG responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of GPE by a third - country national ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) the ORG responsible for examining his application for asylum was GPE and GPE had agreed to take him back .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE on DATE . As relevant to the case before the ORG , he alleged that sending him back to GPE would expose him to conditions of detention violating LAW . He submitted documents in support of this allegation . At the same time he requested a provisional measure in the form of a stay of deportation .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( sitting in GPE ) dismissed both the request for a provisional measure and the appeal , finding that the applicant had failed to make out his case that GPE would fail to meet her Conventional obligations towards him .","The applicant lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE , at the same time requesting the President of ORG to order a provisional measure in the form of a stay of deportation .","On DATE the President of ORG dismissed the request for a provisional measure on the ground that the applicant \u2019s deportation did not appear imminent .","On DATE the applicant lodged a new request for a provisional measure , stating that his deportation to GPE had been scheduled for DATE .","On DATE the President of ORG gave a decision dismissing the request on the ground that the applicant \u2019s further appeal was unlikely to succeed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s further appeal on summary reasoning .","The relevant NORP , NORP and GPE law , instruments , principles and practice in respect of asylum proceedings , reception of asylum - seekers and transfers of asylum - seekers under LAW are set out in LOC v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE and CARDINAL other applications ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL\u2011CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. the GPE and GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","NORP By letter of DATE , the Agent of ORG submitted replies to questions of the Judge PERSON ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of the Rules of Court ) . As relevant to the case now before the ORG , these included the following :","\u201c Upon return to GPE in terms of ORG if an applicant is still considered to be an asylum seeker , and if he so wishes , the applicant will be housed in an open centre where he will be provided with shelter and medical care pending the determination of his request for protection in GPE . \u201d","and","\u201c When aliens are returned to GPE , they are not taken into police custody unless it results that an offence ( not including their irregular entry into , or exit from , GPE ) was committed by them in GPE .","Moreover , aliens who are rejected asylum seekers and who are returned to GPE will not be deprived of their liberty but efforts will be made for them to be returned to their country of origin . \u201d","NORP By letter of DATE , the Agent of ORG supplemented this information . His letter included the following :","\u201c The applicant applied for refugee status and a Preliminary Questionnaire was filled [ in ] by the applicant on DATE and the interview with the Refugee Commissioner was held on the CARDINALth DATE ;","On DATE , the applicant was granted ORG and he was released from detention on DATE and was transferred to the open centre . Thus , the applicant was put in detention for DATE ( from DATE till DATE ) ; ... \u201d","The applicant did not submit any comments on either letter relevant to the case now before the ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178361","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF K.I. v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Tajikistan);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He arrived in GPE in DATE . He travelled to NORP on a number of occasions to visit his parents for short periods of time .","On DATE the applicant was charged in absentia in NORP with participating in an extremist religious movement , ORG , and an international search and arrest warrant was issued in his name . On DATE the NORP authorities ordered his pre - trial detention .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE and detained . On DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered his detention pending extradition .","On DATE the NORP prosecution authorities requested the applicant \u2019s extradition on the basis of the above charges . The request included assurances regarding his proper treatment , which were formulated in standard terms .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","An appeal by the applicant of DATE was dismissed by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) on DATE .","On DATE ORG again extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","An appeal by the applicant of CARDINAL DATE was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s extradition was refused by ORG , owing to the absence of culpable actions under NORP criminal law .","On DATE the applicant was released from detention .","On DATE , immediately after his release , the applicant was rearrested for violating migration regulations .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of violating migration regulations , fined him and ordered his administrative removal . Allegations by the applicant regarding a real risk of ill - treatment were dismissed , and he was detained pending expulsion . ORG assessing the risks stated that \u201c [ CARDINAL claims of the representative ... are of a speculative nature and not confirmed by the case materials \u201d","The above judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . Claims by the applicant under LAW were dismissed with reference to ORG assessment of the case , which took into consideration \u201c ... the nature of the administrative offence , the character of the accused [ who was criminally convicted in GPE ] ...","According to the latest submissions of his representative in DATE , the applicant was still in detention .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for refugee status , referring to persecution in NORP and a real risk of ill - treatment .","On DATE his request was refused by a final administrative decision of the migration authorities . The applicant challenged that decision in the courts , referring , inter alia , to the risk of illtreatment .","On DATE his appeals were dismissed by a final decision of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181390","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF DANDAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171972","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOSTOV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s father co - owned a plot of land and a house in GPE .","By a decision of the mayor of CARDINAL DATE the property was expropriated with a view to constructing residential buildings . The decision , based on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LOC and Urban Planning Act of DATE ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0430\u043b\u043d\u043e\u0442\u043e \u0438 \u0441\u0435\u043b\u0438\u0449\u043d\u043e \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e ) , provided that the applicant \u2019s father and the applicant were to receive a CARDINAL - room flat in compensation .","By a supplementary decision of CARDINAL DATE , based on section CARDINAL of the Territorial and Urban Planning Act , the mayor determined the exact location , size and other details in respect of the future flat offered in compensation . It was to have a surface of QUANTITY and was identified as flat no . CARDINAL on the fifth floor of a residential building which was to be constructed by a ORG - owned enterprise . Lastly , it was decided that the flat would be given directly to the applicant .","NORP In DATE the applicant paid to the authorities the part of the value of the future flat which had not been covered by the value of the expropriated property . In DATE the GPE municipality settled him temporarily in a flat which was property of the ORG - owned enterprise B.","On an unspecified date the construction of the building where the flat was to be located was commenced . In DATE the GPE municipality concluded a contract with the company B. , successor of the ORG - owned enterprise , delegating to it the construction works . The company was under an obligation to build , at its own expense , and deliver to the municipality , within DATE , the flats earmarked for compensation of the expropriated owners ; in exchange of that it was to become the owner of the remainder of the building .","NORP However , the construction was not completed within the deadline set . In DATE , in the context of the winding - up of the company B. , the building , still unfinished , was sold to another company . The latter apparently resold the property to a third company , which in DATE obtained a notary deed declaring it the owner of the building and the flats in it , including CARDINAL of flat no . CARDINAL on the fifth floor ; however , unlike what was indicated in the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that flat was described as having a surface of CARDINAL , and not QUANTITY . The applicant submitted a certificate of occupancy of the building at issue , dated CARDINAL DATE , but claimed that it only concerned \u201c certain construction activities \u201d and that the building was not in use .","In the meantime , the applicant filed several requests with the municipal authorities in GPE asking them to complete the compensation procedure and deliver the flat due to him . In a letter of DATE the municipality informed him that the company B. had reassured the authorities that it was making effort to fulfill its obligations . In another letter of CARDINAL DATE the municipality informed the applicant that it was the company that was responsible to deliver the flat to him . Lastly , in a letter of CARDINAL DATE the GPE municipality informed the applicant that he should have raised his claims in the winding - up procedure of the company B. , or should contact the current owner of the building to claim the flat due to him .","NORP In DATE the applicant was evicted from the flat where he had been temporarily settled , after it had been sold to a private party in the context of the winding - up of the company B. In the ensuing judicial proceedings whereby he challenged unsuccessfully the eviction it was established that at that time the applicant was not living in the flat , and that it was uninhabitable and in a very poor state of repair ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152917","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KUDESHKINA v. RUSSIA (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE and GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by Mr PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","From DATE the applicant held judicial office at ORG .","NORP In DATE the applicant , in series of media interviews , accused high - ranking judicial officials of putting pressure on her in connection with a high - profile criminal case .","On DATE the Judicial Qualifications Board of GPE decided that the applicant \u2019s statements had been insulting to the judiciary and had been defamatory as regards the individuals mentioned therein . It found that the applicant had thus committed a disciplinary offence and terminated her office as a judge .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the Judicial Qualifications Board of Moscow . It found that the applicant \u2019s statements in the media had been false , unsubstantiated and damaging to the reputation of the judiciary and to the authority of all courts of law . It also established that the applicant had publicly expressed an opinion prejudicial to the outcome of a pending criminal case .","On DATE ORG of GPE , ruling at final instance , upheld the judgment of DATE , having confirmed the earlier findings of the lower courts .","On DATE the ORG adopted a judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , in which it found that the applicant \u2019s dismissal from the judiciary had violated her right to the freedom of expression guaranteed by LAW .","In its judgment , the ORG examined the proceedings before the Judicial Qualifications Board of GPE and the ensuing judicial review . It considered that nothing in the impugned interviews would have justified the authorities\u2019 claims of disclosure of confidential information about the pending criminal case . Having noted that the applicant had publicly criticised the conduct of various officials , and had alleged that pressure on judges was common , the ORG found that she had undoubtedly raised a very important matter of public interest which had to be open to free debate in a NORP society . It further found that her allegations had not been convincingly refuted in the domestic proceedings . Even if the applicant had allowed herself a certain degree of exaggeration and generalisation , the ORG found that her statements had to be regarded as fair comment on a matter of great public importance ( ibid . , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The ORG also found that the disciplinary procedure which imposed a sanction on the applicant had not complied with important procedural guarantees , in particular as regards the impartiality of ORG , which had considered her appeal despite the fact that that court \u2019s President was implicated in the statements ( ibid . , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) . The ORG finally observed that the manner in which the penalty had been imposed was capable of having a \u201c chilling effect \u201d on judges wishing to participate in public debate concerning the effectiveness of judicial institutions and held that it had been disproportionately severe .","The ORG concluded that the domestic authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the need to protect the authority of the judiciary and the protection of the reputation or rights of others , on the one hand , and the need to protect the applicant \u2019s right to freedom of expression on the other .","NORP The applicant was awarded MONEY ( ORG ) in respect of nonpecuniary damage . No award was made in respect of pecuniary damage because no claims had been made under this head , nor was an award made in respect of costs and expenses because they had not been substantiated .","On DATE , the ORG \u2019s request for the case to be referred to ORG having been rejected , the judgment became final .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG , asking it to quash the decision of DATE . Relying on the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE , she sought to have the proceedings concerning her dismissal reopened on the grounds of new or newly discovered circumstances and to have the case transferred to ORG for fresh examination . She argued that LAW , read in the light of LAW , required a case to be reopened if ORG had found a violation of the LAW on account of domestic judicial decisions taken in a case . She claimed that the finding of a violation of LAW as a result of her dismissal from the judiciary constituted a newly discovered circumstance within the meaning of NORP procedural law and that it bound the authorities to reconsider the merits of her case .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application . In so far as relevant , it found as follows :","\u201c ... in accordance with [ NORP ] procedural law , not [ all ] judgments [ of the ORG ] finding a violation of the ORG provide grounds for the review of a judicial decision , but only a judgment finding a violation of the LAW in the course of the adjudication of a particular case .","The Presidium of ORG ... has clarified that a judgment of the [ Court ] finding a violation of the [ Convention ] that affects the legal standing of a citizen is considered as an independent basis for the review of the national court \u2019s judgment on the matter in relation to which the violation of the Convention was found on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances .","In Recommendation No . R ( DATE ) CARDINAL of ORG ... it is also pointed out that the Contracting Parties are encouraged to examine their national legal systems with a view to ensuring that there exist adequate possibilities of re - examination of the case , including reopening of proceedings , in instances where the ORG has found a violation of the LAW .","It follows that ... the function of the court deciding on whether to reopen a case on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances is not limited to automatic quashing of the judgment with reference to the [ ORG \u2019s ] judgment , but involves the precise identification of the matter examined by the [ ORG ] and its relation to the circumstances taking place in the course of the [ domestic ] adjudication of the case .","The reason for this is that , in accordance with the general principles set out in the LAW , the exercise of supranational control by the [ ORG ] over [ domestic ] courts is not absolute , but is limited by the internationally recognised principle of respect for the autonomy of the national NORP judicial decisions .","Accordingly , the [ ORG \u2019s ] finding of a violation of the ORG in relation to a particular applicant does not by itself constitute a basis for the review of a judgment taken by the national courts ...","If the [ Court ] finds a violation of [ those ] provisions of the LAW that guarantee the general principles of lawfulness in the course of adjudication by national courts , this may provide grounds for the review of domestic judicial decisions in accordance with the procedure provided by law , unless an obstacle of an objective nature prevents it .","If , on the other hand , the [ Court ] finds a violation of the LAW unrelated to the fundamental guarantees of fair trial ... it may not give grounds for review ... under any rules of procedure because the [ ORG \u2019s finding of a violation ] has been [ sufficiently ] compensated by the mere fact of [ its ] acknowledgment or by the payment by ORG the just satisfaction award ...","The right to a fair hearing is guaranteed by LAW .","However , there is no ... indication that the [ Court ] declared the [ applicant \u2019s ] complaint admissible under LAW .","It is clear from the [ ORG \u2019s ] judgment of CARDINAL DATE that the question of [ whether ] the judicial decisions taken in [ her ] civil case complied with LAW was not originally the subject of the ORG \u2019s examination .","... [ S]he complained ... under LAW ... and it was a violation of LAW , not LAW , which the [ ORG ] found .","The violation [ found by the ORG ] ... was unconnected with the fundamental guarantees of fair hearing in civil proceedings .","... [ T]he conclusions made by the [ ORG ] in paragraph CARDINAL of the judgment ... are general statements concerning [ the applicant \u2019s ] freedom of expression and not her right to a fair hearing .","It follows that the [ ORG \u2019s decision ] in the above judgment can not constitute by itself a ground for the reopening of civil proceedings ...","In [ her ] application , [ the applicant ] also claims that under LAW undertake to abide by final judgments of the ORG in any case to which they are parties .","However , such reference to LAW is incorrect because the review of national NORP decisions on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances does not fall [ within the mandatory conditions of enforceability ] of the [ ORG \u2019s ] judgments .","The operative part of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ... contains no express or implicit indication that the [ domestic decision ] is subject to review .","However , it is the operative part [ of the ORG \u2019s judgments ] that binds the High Contracting Parties under LAW .","Accordingly [ the applicant ] is not a priori entitled to seek the review of the above judicial decision on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances within the framework of the execution of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","...","... [ The just satisfaction award of ] QUANTITY constitutes , under the [ ORG \u2019s ] case - law , exhaustive and sufficient just satisfaction ... for the violation found under LAW because the applicant is not currently suffering , and can not suffer , any negative effects resulting from the domestic judicial decision on her freedom of expression as defined in LAW , and her right of freedom of expression is ... not limited at the moment .","...","The judgment of CARDINAL DATE does not disclose the existence of any facts of legal significance which [ the applicant ] had not been aware of during the proceedings in this civil case .","The [ ORG \u2019s ] statements in the judgment as to whether the disciplinary penalty imposed on [ the applicant ] was an appropriate measure are generalisations of a hypothetical and subjective , discretionary nature ; personal opinion ; and a debating point . They therefore can not , in view of the requirement of legal certainty , constitute by themselves grounds for the review of a judicial decision .","...","The [ applicant \u2019s ] motion to have the case transferred to ORG for examination ... must be refused because ... the first - instance court declining its jurisdiction in favour of another court is not permitted by civil procedural law in respect of a case where a [ final ] judgment remains in force .","...","The reopening of the proceedings [ in order ] to review the judgment of ORG of DATE on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances and the transfer of the civil case to ORG of GPE for examination must be refused .","This decision is subject to appeal to ORG of GPE , to be filed within DATE . \u201d","The applicant filed an appeal to ORG , which it dismissed on DATE , upholding ORG decision . The decision in so far as relevant read as follows :","\u201c On DATE the [ ORG ] delivered the judgment in the case GPE v. GPE in which a violation of LAW was found .","In [ the applicant \u2019s ] view , the said judgment of the [ Court ] constitutes grounds for the review of the judicial decision taken in the case .","On DATE ORG rejected [ the applicant \u2019s ] application for a review of [ the same court \u2019s ] judgment of DATE owing to newly discovered circumstances .","...","In accordance with LAW decisions and judgments that have entered into force may be reviewed owing to newly discovered circumstances .","ORG accepted and examined the substance of [ the applicant \u2019s ] application for review of [ its ] judgment of DATE on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances .","By operation of LAW , everyone has a right to express one \u2019s opinion freely . This right includes the freedom to hold one \u2019s opinion and the freedom to impart or receive information without interference by public authorities .","At the same time , the exercise of these freedoms , which carry responsibilities and obligations , may be subject to restrictions or sanctions which are prescribed by law and are necessary in a NORP society for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary .","Such restrictions are set out for judges in LAW in GPE and LAW ...","...","As is evident from the file , the reasons for the disciplinary penalty being imposed on [ the applicant ] were her media statements ...","Acting in breach of LAW she made public statements and comments about a criminal case , the judgment in which had not entered into force .","It should not be overlooked that [ the applicant \u2019s ] statements about her position , about her attitude to judges and the justice system took place not during her examination of the criminal case but a long time after .","She [ made these statements ] during the election campaign ...","The first - instance court that decided to reject [ her ] application for review of [ its ] judgment of DATE owing to newly discovered circumstances took these circumstances into account .","... and finds that ORG decision must remain unchanged . \u201d","The Code of Civil Procedure ( in force at the material time ) contains the following provisions regulating the reopening of civil proceedings after a final judgment on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances :","\u201c CARDINAL . [ Judgments ] which have come into force may be reconsidered on the basis of newly discovered circumstances .","The grounds for reconsideration ... shall be :","( CARDINAL ) significant circumstances that were unknown and could not have been known to the applicant ;","...","( CARDINAL ) the annulment of ... a decision of the ORG authority ... that was the basis for the judgment or decision of the court ... \u201d","\u201c ... [ An application for the reconsideration of a [ judgment ] owing to the discovery of new circumstances ] may be lodged by the parties , the prosecutor , or by other persons who participated in the proceedings within DATE of the discovery of the new circumstances . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Following the examination of an application for the reconsideration of a [ judgment ] owing to the discovery of new circumstances , the court may either grant the application and quash the [ judgment ] , or dismiss the application .","A court decision by which an application for the reconsideration of a [ judgment ] owing to the discovery of new circumstances is granted shall not be subject to appeal .","Provided that a [ judgment ] is quashed , the case shall be examined in accordance with the rules of this LAW . \u201d","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG indicated that LAW should be interpreted as , in principle , allowing the launching of proceedings to have a final judgment re - examined on account of newly discovered circumstances , such as the finding of a violation of LAW in a given case by ORG . LAW was amended accordingly on DATE .","The Code of Commercial Procedure provides for the reopening of commercial proceedings on the basis of newly discovered circumstances . CARDINAL of the grounds allowing such reopening is a finding by ORG that there has been violation of the LAW in the examination of a particular case by a commercial court ( LAW ) .","Recommendation No . R ( DATE ) CARDINAL of ORG on the re - examination or reopening of certain cases at domestic level following judgments of ORG , adopted on DATE , encouraged the Contracting Parties \u201c to examine their national legal systems with a view to ensuring that there exist adequate possibilities of reexamination of the case , including reopening of proceedings , in instances where the ORG has found a violation of the LAW , especially where : ( i ) the injured party continues to suffer very serious negative consequences because of the outcome of the domestic decision at issue , which are not adequately remedied by the just satisfaction and can not be rectified except by re - examination or reopening , and ( ii ) the judgment of the ORG leads to the conclusion that ( a ) the impugned domestic decision is on the merits contrary to the LAW , or ( b ) the violation found is based on procedural errors or shortcomings of such gravity that a serious doubt is cast on the outcome of the domestic proceedings complained of . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170855","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SEKRETAREV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the Appendix .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179216","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ALKOVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He currently lives in GPE , but at the material time lived in GPE , GPE .","The applicant is a GPE and a NORP . On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant and his family moved into an apartment in a building constructed for socially disadvantaged families . According to the applicant , because of constant attacks in which his car and the apartment were damaged , the perpetrators of which were never found , he installed a camera outside his apartment .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s next - door neighbour , Y , was watching a kickboxing match between a ORG and a NORP contestant on television . The applicant overheard the next - door conversation as the doors of both his and ORG ( adjacent ) terraces were open . When the NORP kickboxer appeared with his coaches , all of whom were NORP , Y allegedly said that he would slaughter one of them , and GPE , another neighbour , made a disparaging reference to the NORP kickboxer \u2019s NORP descent . According to the applicant , X left LOC apartment at a certain point and went to his car , from which he took a gun . Y said \u201c turn it to the left \u201d , which was the direction of the applicant \u2019s terrace . This was followed by CARDINAL gunshots , and ORG calling out insulting references to the applicant \u2019s \u201c NORP mother \u201d . X , Y and Y \u2019s family picked up the spent cartridges from the ground afterwards .","On DATE CARDINAL neighbours , V ( Y \u2019s wife ) , S and B , were talking on the next - door terrace . As he was on his terrace , the applicant overheard the conversation . V said that she was fighting \u201c cockroaches , frogs , nits and lice , and all sorts of other things \u201d , which had been brought by \u201c those dirty gipsies \u201d ( \u201c od ovija gabelj\u010dina \u201d ) . V continued by saying that B and S \u201c [ could ] use a hammer and a pruning knife ( kosijer ) , and [ she ] would use an axe \u201d . S replied that \u201c her [ people ] carried swords \u201d . V said that the axe could serve just as well . S answered \u201c no , no , he is a NORP , I have a sword \u201d . B said \u201c all is fine , whatever is more readily available \u201d ( \u201c valja \u0161to god prije stigne \u201d ) . V said loudly \u201c An axe , an axe , a sledgehammer , like the one used on pigs \u201d .","On DATE Y was having an argument with M , another neighbour , when X joined and said , among other things , that if he \u201c saw red \u201d , he would \u201c kill both you and your brother here like a dog \u201d ( \u201c e \u0107u te ubit ka psa i tebe i brata o\u0111e \u201d ) , apparently pointing at the applicant \u2019s apartment , adding \u201c dirty gypsy \u201d ( \u201c cigane glibavi \u201d ) and \u201c trash \u201d ( \u201c ovo sme\u0107e \u201d ) . This was witnessed by M \u2019s brother , NORP It is unclear from the casefile if the applicant was present during the argument or if he learned about it in some other manner .","On DATE , DATE , a religious holiday celebrated by the applicant and his family , a large cross was drawn on the applicant \u2019s apartment door , and a large message was written on the wall next to it saying \u201c move out or you \u2019ll bitterly regret it \u201d ( \u201c seli se , usko \u0107e ti bit \u201d ) . The applicant called the police , who came and took photographs of the cross and the message . The same day the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the police against the families of X , GPE and B , and CARDINAL more family living in the building .","DATE the police interviewed X , Y , V , B , M , D , and CARDINAL other neighbours .","X , Y , V , and B denied the applicant \u2019s allegations . X and Y also denied that they had watched the match together , and ORG submitted that everything he had said had been addressed to the NORP kickboxer . Both X and Y confirmed that they had heard the shots but said they did not know who had fired them . Y and his children had indeed picked up the spent cartridges from the ground , not in order to hide anything , but because the children found the spent cartridges interesting to play with . Neither X nor Y knew who was responsible for the incident of DATE , but they suspected the applicant himself .","V submitted that the discussion of CARDINAL DATE had referred to another person sought by the police at the time in relation to various attacks , and they had been discussing how they would defend themselves in the event of an attack . B denied that she had been in V \u2019s apartment on that occasion .","M confirmed that during the argument with Y , X had come and said that if he \u201c saw red \u201d he would \u201c kill them , as well as this gypsy \u201d ( \u201c napravi\u0107u d\u017eenaze i vama , a i ovom ciganinu \u201d ) , pointing in the direction of the applicant \u2019s flat . M had assumed that he had meant the applicant . D confirmed M \u2019s statement .","The other QUANTITY neighbours were not aware of any conflicts amongst the neighbours , or that anybody ill - treated or insulted the applicant on the basis of his national origin . They had no idea who could be responsible for the incident of CARDINAL DATE . The third neighbour , ORG , confirmed the applicant \u2019s submissions in relation to another incident ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) below ) .","On DATE the case file was transmitted to the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office ( ORG dr\u017eavno tu\u017eila\u0161tvo ) in order to assess whether there were any elements of the criminal offence of jeopardising someone \u2019s security ( ugro\u017eavanje sigurnosti ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the higher ORG prosecutor \u2019s office ( GPE dr\u017eavno tu\u017eila\u0161tvo ) in GPE in relation to the above events . He filed the complaint against GPE , Y , V , S and B for incitement to ethnic , racial and religious hatred , discontent and intolerance ( izazivanje nacionalne , rasne i vjerske mr\u017enje , razdora i netrpeljivosti , hereinafter \u201c hate crime \u201d ) in connection with discrimination , racial and otherwise ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . He also enclosed relevant video material .","On DATE the higher ORG prosecutor \u2019s office rejected the complaint on the grounds that there were no elements of any hate crime or other criminal offence within its competence . The applicant was notified that he could take over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor and that the case file had already been forwarded to the ORG prosecution service on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG prosecution service issued an official report ( slu\u017ebena zabilje\u0161ka ) finding that the impugned words of CARDINAL DATE , as well as those of CARDINAL DATE , which referred to the use of swords and axes , had not been addressed to either the applicant or anybody close to him , and that the incident of DATE could not be considered a threat . It was concluded that none of those CARDINAL events had involved an element of jeopardising someone \u2019s security , or any other criminal offence subject to public prosecution . The incident of CARDINAL DATE , however , could be considered as jeopardising security . On DATE the ORG prosecution service asked the police to undertake measures in order to find the perpetrator . At the same time the police were informed that the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint in this regard would be kept until the perpetrator was found , or until DATE , when the prosecution of that criminal offence would become time - barred . On DATE the ORG prosecutor informed the applicant of this , as well as of the fact that he could file a criminal complaint against a specific person with appropriate evidence ( uz valjane dokaze ) .","On DATE the applicant filed an application for an investigation ( zahtjev za sprovo\u0111enje istrage ) with ORG ( ORG ) in GPE . He enclosed the relevant videos , and proposed that the court hear a number of neighbours , including those he suspected .","On DATE ORG dismissed that application for lack of evidence . In particular , the submitted video material was considered to be inadmissible , having been obtained without a prior court order , and the court observed that the suspected neighbours had denied that what they had said related to the applicant . It was further held that the applicant had not submitted any evidence in relation to the incident of CARDINAL DATE , nor had he called the police at the time to come to the scene and \u201c collect the necessary material for further analysis \u201d in order to verify his suspicions .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision . He submitted , in particular , that on CARDINAL DATE he had actually called the police , who had only taken photographs of the scene . The fact that they had failed to do what they should have done was in no way his fault , as it was not up to him to tell the police what to do , but only to lodge a criminal complaint , which he had done .","NORP On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal for lack of evidence , in substance endorsing the reasoning of ORG . In doing so , the court held that the applicant \u2019s objections as to the gathering of evidence by the police \u201c could not be the subject of [ that ] court \u2019s assessment \u201d .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal . He maintained , inter alia , that because of the failure of the domestic authorities to protect him and his family , they had had to move out of the apartment ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He relied on the right to private life , the right to an effective domestic remedy , and the prohibition of discrimination .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal . It considered that it should be examined under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and corresponding Articles of LAW , and found there had been no violation of any of them .","On DATE , as regards the incident of CARDINAL DATE , the police informed the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office that \u201c [ they ] had acted on [ the applicant \u2019s ] criminal complaint and undertaken measures in accordance with their authority , having dedicated a significant amount of time [ to the complaint ] . While carrying out those official actions [ they ] had not found material evidence which would undoubtedly indicate the perpetrator of this criminal offence \u201d .","The Government submitted information from the applicant \u2019s criminal record reflecting convictions for minor offences in DATE , DATE and DATE . For each of these offences he had received a suspended sentence .","On DATE the applicant was celebrating GPE . X and Y claimed before the domestic bodies that the applicant had celebrated inappropriately by playing loud music from very early in the morning , shooting in the air and calling NORP and PERSON ( vehabije ) to jihad . He had apparently also tried to hit PERSON with a flagpole ( koplje od zastave ) . The applicant submitted that NORP and GPE ( the husband of X \u2019s niece ) had been insulting him and his family , while X had also spat on him , shouted obscenities and thrown stones at him , causing him minor physical injuries . On DATE the applicant was found guilty in misdemeanour proceedings of disturbing public order and peace ( naru\u0161avanje javnog reda i mira ) by shooting several shots in the air from his starting pistol on DATE . He was sentenced to a DATE period of imprisonment and the pistol was confiscated . The decision was upheld by a secondinstance body on DATE . In relation to the same incident , on DATE X and W were charged with violent behaviour against the applicant . In the course of the proceedings , a medical expert witness submitted that the applicant had a contusion ( nagnje\u010denje ) on the left part of the back of his head , which would have been classified as a minor physical injury at the time it had been inflicted . The medical expert submitted that the injury had been caused by a blunt object , possibly a \u201c larger stone \u201d , and that it could not have been caused by sand or \u201c stones the size of beans \u201d . On CARDINAL DATE , after the case had been remitted , ORG acquitted X and W , considering that it had not been proved that they had committed the offence .","The applicant reported the following events to the police , but to no avail : ( a ) on DATE an unknown person had thrown a brick and broken one of the windows of his apartment ; ( b ) on DATE and her husband , Z , had tried to hit the applicant \u2019s parked car with their own car ; this was confirmed by another neighbour , ORG , who witnessed this event and was interviewed by the police in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ; ( c ) on DATE had asked Y aloud if he was going to \u201c slaughter \u201d somebody , and he had answered that he was , both of them looking at the applicant ; S had said that he would \u201c make [ his ] car dirty with that man \u201d ; ( d ) on DATE an unknown person had fired several shots in front of the applicant \u2019s apartment , below the children \u2019s bedroom ; the applicant gave the police CARDINAL bullet shells that he had found on the ground ; ( e ) on DATE , shortly after TIME , X had thrown firecrackers at the applicant \u2019s car and broken its windscreen ; he had also thrown a glass bottle at the applicant and a metal bar at his son , swearing profusely and threatening to slaughter them all ; this had been followed by gunshots .","On DATE , DATE and DATE X , V and PERSON respectively lodged criminal complaints against the applicant for insulting and provoking them , and for playing loud music and calling NORP and PERSON to jihad . On DATE those complaints were rejected by the ORG prosecutor .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE found the applicant guilty of recording Y without authorisation and eavesdropping ( prislu\u0161kivanje ) on him , and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE . That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional appeal by the applicant in this regard .","On DATE the applicant was fined CARDINAL ( ORG ) in minor offence proceedings ( prekr\u0161ajni postupak ) for threatening ( izazivanje osje\u0107aja ugro\u017eenosti ) V , a decision which was upheld on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against X with the ORG prosecution service , alleging that in DATE and DATE he had threatened to \u201c cut [ the applicant \u2019s ] gypsy head off and impale it on a pike \u201d ( nabiti na kolac ) . On DATE the deputy ORG prosecutor rejected the criminal complaint . On DATE the applicant filed a private criminal action ( optu\u017eni predlog ) against X , who was acquitted by ORG on DATE . The court found that X had indeed said the impugned words in front of a witness , and that the words could have made the applicant feel frightened and insecure , but the court could not accept \u201c that [ the applicant ] had taken those words seriously , especially since the witness , who was the only one who had heard the words , had not taken them seriously , which was why he had informed the applicant about them DATE \u201d . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE X threatened the applicant \u2019s daughter by saying that he would kill and slaughter them all , with his hands stretched towards her neck . The girl apparently fainted and was admitted to hospital unconscious . The same day the applicant and his family moved out of their apartment . They were allegedly on a hunger strike for DATE , seeking help from various ORG institutions ."],"violated_articles":["14","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175480","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF S.A. v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;General principles of international law)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant served as a civil servant from DATE until DATE . Upon the termination of his service , a certain part of his severance payment was taxed at a PERCENT rate in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146410","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VAJNAI v. HUNGARY NO.4","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , a left - wing politician , participated in a peaceful demonstration wearing a CARDINAL - pointed red star on his jacket . A police patrol which was present called on the applicant to remove the star , which was then confiscated . The applicant \u2019s complaint to the Head of ORG was to no avail .","Subsequently , he challenged the measure in court .","On DATE ORG dismissed his action . The court held that the display of the red star contravened section CARDINAL\/B of LAW and consequently its confiscation was justified under sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW .","In review proceedings , ORG upheld ORG decision on DATE , holding that the police measure had been lawful , despite the judgment of ORG in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . DATE ) , whose application in the circumstances had been no task of the police officers present on the LOC .","The applicant incurred altogether QUANTITY in legal costs ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167555","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TEIC\u0102 AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings . In some of the applications , the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173788","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MUI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant was employed by the GPE company of GPE . He worked as a driver in the company \u2019s Nova Gradi\u0161ka branch . After organisational changes within the company he was given notice of dismissal on DATE . Pursuant to the notice his employment was terminated on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG in PERSON ( PERSON , Podru\u010dna slu\u017eba PERSON , hereinafter \u201c the PERSON Brod Bureau \u201d ) , for unemployment benefit .","On DATE he was granted unemployment benefit of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) per month for the period between DATE and DATE , provided that no grounds for terminating payment or the applicant \u2019s entitlement to payment arose before the end of the period . The applicant then received unemployment benefit on a regular basis until DATE .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) challenging his dismissal and seeking reinstatement and compensation for lost salary .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s employer brought a counterclaim and asked the court to set DATE as DATE of the termination of his employment ( sudski raskid ugovora o radu ) . On DATE it also sought reimbursement of the severance pay the applicant had received .","On DATE ORG ruled that the applicant \u2019s dismissal from work had been unlawful and that his employment had never been terminated . It ordered the applicant \u2019s reinstatement and awarded him compensation for lost salary . At the same time it ordered the applicant to reimburse the severance pay he had received , and dismissed the remainder of the employer \u2019s counterclaim .","On DATE PERSON ) reversed the first - instance judgment in the part ordering the applicant \u2019s reinstatement and decided that his employment had been terminated on DATE . It also awarded the applicant damages . The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for unemployment benefit for the period after DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim , finding that it had been lodged outside the time - limit from the termination of his employment on DATE , as provided by LAW ( hereinafter \u201c LAW \u201d ) .","The applicant appealed to ORG of ORG ( PERSON , ORG , hereinafter \u201c the LOC \u201d ) . In particular , he contended that the time - limit for lodging the unemployment benefit claim should not have been calculated from DATE , given that the termination of his employment had only been established by ORG judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG , acting as a second - instance administrative authority , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as unfounded and upheld the decision of ORG . It also noted that the applicant himself had informed ORG of the outcome of the labour dispute , and had communicated with CARDINAL of its officials on DATE and DATE . He had also been informed of the consequences of PERSON judgment setting DATE as DATE of the termination of his employment .","In an administrative claim the applicant argued that he had only learned about DATE of the termination of his employment after receiving PERSON judgment in DATE , and that the time - limit for lodging the unemployment benefit claim should have been calculated from DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s administrative claim and upheld the administrative authorities\u2019 decisions .","A subsequent constitutional complaint by the applicant was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG found that the applicant had not been due unemployment benefit from DATE . Given that the applicant had already reimbursed part of the unduly received sum , it ordered him to reimburse the rest within DATE of receipt of the decision at issue .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG , save in the part concerning the start of the deadline for the applicant having to pay back the money . In particular , it ordered him to reimburse the funds within DATE of the receipt of his compensation for lost salary .","On DATE ORG dismissed an administrative claim by the applicant and upheld the administrative authorities\u2019 decisions . It found that according to the civil courts\u2019 rulings in the labour dispute the applicant had not been entitled to unemployment benefit for the period up to DATE . It further found that his unemployment benefit claim for the period after DATE had already been dismissed in another set of proceedings .","A constitutional complaint by the applicant was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","In DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje , hereinafter \u201c the Fund \u201d ) , to obtain an early retirement pension .","On DATE the Fund granted him an early retirement pension of HRK DATE from DATE . The applicant has been receiving that pension since ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169216","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CHERNETSKIY v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 12 - Right to marry (Article 12 - Found a family;Marry);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . In DATE he was convicted and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . At the relevant time the applicant was serving his sentence in a prison .","On DATE , following a request submitted by the applicant \u2019s wife in accordance with LAW , the local civil status registry dissolved their marriage . The applicant was sent a notification about the divorce .","Later in DATE the applicant and his new female partner , PERSON , were prevented from marrying as the applicant had not obtained a divorce certificate , as required by LAW . That document could be obtained exclusively by the applicant at the relevant civil status registry .","The applicant requested that he be escorted to the registry in order to obtain the divorce certificate . His request was refused as the domestic law did not provide for the escorting of prisoners on such grounds .","On DATE the prosecutor informed the applicant that under LAW he had the right to remarry after he had obtained a divorce certificate . However , this would be possible only after his release from prison .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG considered a complaint lodged by the applicant concerning the authorities\u2019 failure to provide him with a divorce certificate for the purpose of remarriage . He stated that under domestic law it was not possible to carry out the relevant actions in prison ; nor was it possible to issue a power of attorney for another person to act on behalf of the applicant in relation to that matter . The Deputy PERSON informed the applicant that amendments to the domestic legislation had been prepared .","On DATE and DATE the ORG informed the applicant that they were aware of that issue and that amendments to the domestic legislation had been prepared by ORG .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that he would be able to obtain a divorce certificate after his release from prison . The amendments to the domestic legislation had yet to be considered .","On DATE ORG issued Order no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL providing for a temporary procedure for registering divorces and issuing divorce certificates in prisons .","NORP In DATE the applicant was personally informed of the procedure introduced by ORG .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , he was provided with a divorce certificate in prison .","On DATE the applicant and PERSON applied for the registration of their marriage . On DATE the local civil status registry registered their marriage ."],"violated_articles":["12"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144939","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KASTELIC v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162705","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GAYSANOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Examination of the case);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . She is the mother of PERSON , who was born in DATE .","The applicant \u2019s property at TIME GPE in GPE , a village in the NORP district of Grozny in GPE , comprised a house , shed and courtyard . At the material time , it was under reconstruction after being heavily damaged during one of the NORP military campaigns . Her daughter PERSON , who worked for the PERSON office of ORG , a NORP NGO , regularly stayed at the property for various periods .","The applicant did not witness her daughter \u2019s abduction . Her account of the events is based on information obtained from her neighbours in GPE .","On DATE , while PERSON was at the applicant \u2019s property on GPE , the law - enforcement authorities launched a special operation in the village , aimed at eliminating members of illegal armed groups . During the operation a man hid in the applicant \u2019s property , which was blocked and shelled until it caught fire . As the house was burning down , PERSON was pushed into a UAZ vehicle and taken away . After the house burnt to the ground , law - enforcement officers recovered a man \u2019s body . Shortly thereafter the NORP President , PERSON PERSON , and the NORP Minister of the Interior , PERSON , arrived at the property . Mr PERSON , among other things , gave an interview to the local media , saying that a member of illegal armed groups had been \u201c liquidated \u201d in the applicant \u2019s house .","The applicant has had no news of her daughter since her disappearance .","NORP In reply to the ORG \u2019s request for information of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG stated that the criminal case file concerning PERSON PERSON disappearance ( see paragraph CARDINAL et seq . below ) contained information suggesting that on DATE a special operation had been conducted in GPE . However , there was no indication that the applicant \u2019s daughter had been arrested in the course of that operation .","NORP In observations of DATE , the Government also submitted that the operation carried out on DATE by the lawenforcement authorities was also called \u201c operational - search activities \u201d ( \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e-\u0440\u043e\u0437\u044b\u0441\u043a\u043d\u044b\u0435 \u043c\u0435\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0440\u0438\u044f\u0442\u0438\u044f ) . In conducting them , they had blocked PERSON . , a member of illegal armed groups , into TIME PERSON and had \u201c eliminated \u201d him . PERSON had not been seen or arrested during these events and her body had never been found .","On DATE the press office of ORG ( ORG \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b \u0427\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0440\u0435\u0441\u043f\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0438 ) ( hereinafter \u201c the NORP MVD \u201d ) published information on its official website concerning the special operation conducted in GPE . The relevant part of the press release reads as follows :","\u201c DATE , in the course of a special operation in a house in LOC of PERSON , [ ORG ] officers located and liquidated a member of illegal armed groups . [ In response to ] the ORG request to surrender his weapons the criminal offered armed resistance . The criminal was hiding in a house which , in the ensuing fight , was set on fire ... The criminal was liquidated .","According to the Minister of the ORG , PERSON , the fighting continued for TIME ...","...","The special operation aimed at liquidating the member of illegal armed groups was conducted under the command of the President of GPE , PERSON ... At the moment a group of investigators is working at the crime scene ... \u201d","The online press release was accompanied by a video . It showed , from different angles , a redbrick house under reconstruction burning down with CARDINAL armed men wearing khaki green and black and blue camouflage uniforms surrounding it , pointing their guns and moving around . It also showed some firemen extinguishing the fire , a fire engine and several other vehicles parked nearby and a number of armed men in camouflage uniforms and plain - clothed men gathered in the vicinity . The applicant furnished the ORG with a recording of the video . She identified the burning building as her house at DATE GPE in GPE .","On DATE an investigator from the NORP inter - district investigation department of the investigation committee at the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE in GPE ( ORG \u043c\u0435\u0436\u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442\u0430 \u043f\u043e PERSON ) ( hereinafter \u201c the NORP investigation department \u201d or \u201c the investigation department \u201d ) reported to his superiors that at TIME he had been informed about the \u201c liquidation \u201d of PERSON . , a member of illegal armed groups , at TIME in LOC of PERSON . PERSON . had been surrounded at the address at TIME","TIME the investigator , with the assistance of an expert and in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses , examined the crime scene .","On DATE the investigation department informed the Minister of the ORG that at TIME on DATE the lawenforcement authorities had surrounded PERSON . at TIME in LOC of ORG . He had offered armed resistance to the law - enforcement officers and had been \u201c liquidated \u201d as a result of the ensuing fight . The Minister was asked to examine the circumstances of Mr A.Kh . \u2019s \u201c liquidation \u201d and to inform the investigators of any decisions taken .","On DATE the investigation department refused to institute criminal proceedings into PERSON . \u2019s death , on the grounds that he had resisted arrest and the law - enforcement officers had acted in selfdefence . The decision referred to statements by CARDINAL residents of Second Darvina Lane , including the applicant . They stated , among other things , that PERSON and her brother PERSON had lived at CARDINAL Second Darvina Lane and that the house had been under reconstruction . At TIME on CARDINAL DATE police officers had sealed off the area , including the applicant \u2019s house . They had opened fire and the house had burnt down . The applicant submitted that at TIME she had received a call from her neighbour , PERSON He had told her that a special operation had been carried out in the village , during which a man had entered her property . Her house had been burnt down and her daughter had been pushed into a UAZ vehicle and taken to an unknown destination . The decision did not specify which law - enforcement agencies had carried out the operation .","At the ORG \u2019s request , on DATE the Government submitted information and CARDINAL pages of documents from case file no . DATE opened into PERSON disappearance and containing details of the proceedings DATE and DATE .","Following the ORG \u2019s subsequent request to submit an entire copy of case file no . DATE at the communication stage , the Government furnished a further CARDINAL pages of documents containing details of the proceedings DATE and DATE . The documents were unnumbered and contained new documents relating to the period DATE to CARDINAL DATE , which had not been submitted in DATE . A significant number of documents , including witness statements such as those by the applicant \u2019s neighbours from GPE , were only partially submitted , in that only the pages containing their names and addresses were provided . Some of the documents were illegible .","On DATE the Government submitted additional observations on the merits of the case along with an CARDINAL-page \u201c ... copy of the criminal case - file not including the questioning records of several [ police ] servicemen containing classified personal data . However , these servicemen did not provide any information of importance to the investigation ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant provided a statement to police captain Mr DATE at the NORP district department of the interior ( ORG \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b ) ( hereinafter \u201c the LAW ) . She stated that on DATE she had received a telephone call from her neighbour PERSON , who had told her that as a result of a special operation conducted on GPE , her house had been burnt down and her daughter had been taken away in a ORG vehicle . There had been no news of her daughter since .","On DATE the acting NORP district prosecutor forwarded the applicant \u2019s abduction complaint of DATE to the investigation department , instructing it to examine it .","NORP In observations of CARDINAL DATE the ORG stated that \u201c the authorities became aware of PERSON disappearance on CARDINAL DATE \u201d .","On DATE the NORP investigation department extended the time - limit for examining the applicant \u2019s complaint to CARDINAL DATE . The decision stated that the investigators had interviewed the applicant and sent various queries to ORG , and that further steps were to be taken such as a crime scene examination and witness identification and questioning , including of the applicant \u2019s neighbour PERSON and the officers who had conducted the special operation on DATE .","On DATE the Leninskiy ROVD forwarded the applicant \u2019s abduction complaint to the NORP investigation department . According to the applicant , in the complaint to the ROVD and explanatory letter , both of which were dated DATE , the date had been subsequently changed to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the NORP investigation department opened a criminal investigation into PERSON abduction under LAW of LAW ( aggravated abduction ) . The case file was given the number DATE . The decision stated that from the applicant \u2019s complaint lodged on DATE it appeared that at TIME on DATE unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms driving a UAZ vehicle had abducted PERSON from CARDINAL Second Darvina Lane in LOC of ORG and had taken her to an unknown destination . DATE ( in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as DATE ) the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings .","The authorities questioned a significant number of witnesses after the investigation was opened . These included the applicant \u2019s neighbours , the workers who had carried out the reconstruction work on the applicant \u2019s house , several police officers from the LOC department of the interior ( \u0410\u0440\u0433\u0443\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b ) ( hereinafter \u201c the GPE \u201d ) , who had participated in the special operation , the firemen who had put out the house fire , PERSON colleagues and the applicant \u2019s relatives in GPE .","On DATE the investigators questioned the applicant , who stated that before being abducted her daughter had lived at CARDINAL Second Darvina Lane , which had been under reconstruction . She had worked for the ORG office of ORG . The applicant \u2019s son PERSON had stayed with PERSON on several occasions . TIME and TIME on CARDINAL DATE the GPE neighbour , PERSON , had told her over the telephone that at TIME the law - enforcement authorities had conducted a special operation in the village . In the course of the operation a man had rushed into the applicant \u2019s courtyard , her house had been burnt to the ground and her daughter had been forced into a UAZ vehicle and taken to an unknown destination .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , who stated , among other things , that between TIME on DATE she had spoken to her daughter on the telephone about the reroofing of the house , which was being done by workers that day . She had tried to call her after lunch , but there had been no answer . At CARDINAL p.m. her neighbour PERSON had told her over the telephone that officers of the police or the military forces had carried out a special operation in the village , during which her house had been burnt down and a man \u2019s body had been recovered from the ruins . During the operation the officers had stopped residents from leaving their houses . PERSON had seen through a window several officers in camouflage uniforms armed with assault rifles pushing a woman wearing a well - worn pink dressing gown into a UAZ vehicle and driving away . He had recognised the woman as Ms PERSON by what she had been wearing . The applicant said that another neighbour , PERSON , had told her that one of the men in camouflage uniform who had been in her house during the operation had asked over his portable radio \u201c whether the others had shown the body to the woman \u201d . At that very moment she had heard a woman scream . The man had asked his colleagues if they had put the woman into the car , which they had confirmed . After that , the man had told PERSON that \u201c they had killed the devil \u201d , that she could now relax and that they were leaving . While at Ms Z.S.\u2019 house , the man in camouflage had asked her numerous questions about the PERSON family and their connections and occupations . The applicant also submitted that PERSON lived in GPE and on DATE he had come to GPE to visit his brother , Mr A.M.","DATE the investigators also questioned construction workers Mr A.Yu . Zh . , Mr A.A.D. , Mr A.V.L. , PERSON and Mr A.Yu . A. , all of whom confirmed that since DATE they had been doing repair work on the applicant \u2019s house where PERSON , and occasionally her brother PERSON , had lived . All of the workers stated that the last time they had seen PERSON was on DATE and that they had learnt of the special operation that evening . When they had arrived at the applicant \u2019s house at QUANTITY , there had been a large group of law - enforcement officers inspecting the property and the surrounding area . The officers had asked them questions about the owners of the house and whether they knew anything about their connections and habits . According to the workers , they had learnt of PERSON PERSON abduction from the police officers . When questioned again by the investigators , some of the workers changed their initial statements and told them that they had learnt of the abduction from the applicant .","DATE the investigators also questioned QUANTITY police officers from FAC , all of whom stated that at CARDINAL p.m. on DATE CARDINAL officers from their police station had been sent to QUANTITY Second PERSON following a tip - off that PERSON . , a member of illegal armed groups , had been hiding there . On arrival , some of them had surrounded the house while others had waited in a neighbouring courtyard . Officers of other law - enforcement agencies had also participated in the operation . PERSON . had been asked to surrender ; in response he had opened fire . A grenade had exploded in the yard and there had then been intensive gunfire and the house had been stormed . The building had caught fire and firemen had subsequently put it out . The burnt remains of a man had been found among the ruins . All of the police officers denied having seen PERSON or having any knowledge of her abduction .","On DATE the investigators questioned taxi driver Mr PERSON . PERSON He stated that at TIME on DATE he had picked up PERSON to take her shopping and had seen some workers , including Mr A.M.D. , repairing the roof . He had taken her back home at TIME That evening he had met ORG , who had told him about the special operation on LOC . At QUANTITY PERSON . PERSON had called PERSON , but her mobile telephone had been switched off .","On DATE the investigators questioned another construction worker , Mr A.M.B. , who stated that after lunch on DATE Ms PERSON had returned home with a taxi driver , PERSON . PERSON After he had left , they had talked in the shed over a cup of tea , and at TIME she had gone in the house and he had carried on working . TIME he had heard heavy footsteps in the courtyard and had seen CARDINAL unmasked men in camouflage uniforms , all armed with assault rifles . CARDINAL of them had asked him in NORP \u201c Where has he gone ? \u201d to which the witness had replied \u201c Who are you talking about ? I am working here \u201d . Shortly thereafter something had exploded inside the house and there had then been intensive gunfire . The witness had heard someone shout in NORP \u201c Throw grenades , protect our men ! \u201d The officers had been shooting at the house and the witness had shouted \u201c Why are you shooting at the house ? There is a woman inside ! \u201d , but no one had paid any attention . After the shooting had stopped , the witness had managed to make his way outside the courtyard , where he had seen officers sealing off the area , ready for a further shootout . An officer at the gate had ordered him to leave . Several moments later the witness had called PERSON on her mobile telephone , but there had been no answer .","On various dates DATE and DATE the investigators questioned a number of the applicant \u2019s neighbours . Most of them confirmed that a special operation had taken place on GPE on DATE and that the area had been sealed off by the security forces , but denied having seen PERSON being taken away . PERSON . A. , who lived at QUANTITY LOC , was questioned on CARDINAL DATE . She stated that at TIME on DATE she had seen a large group of men on the street armed with assault rifles and wearing camouflage uniforms , and a UAZ vehicle . One of the officers had ordered her to get back inside the house and close the door . Shortly thereafter she had heard intensive gunfire and had seen number CARDINAL burning down . DATE , police officers had come to her house to ask , among other things , whether she had known PERSON .","On DATE ( the date on the document appears to be incorrect , see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) the investigators questioned the NORP President PERSON , who stated that \u201c many \u201d special operations had been conducted in GPE around that time and that the heads of the law - enforcement agencies reported the results to him . As to the special operation conducted on DATE to eliminate a member of illegal armed groups , PERSON . , he had arrived at the scene at the end of the operation and had seen a burning house and firemen trying to put out the fire . The Minister of the Interior Mr PERSON had reported the results of the operation to him . Mr PERSON said he had not seen anyone at the scene and had no information about PERSON being detained or abducted .","On various dates in DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s neighbours , whose statements did not provide any new information .","On DATE the investigators questioned forensic expert Mr Ma . Ma . , who stated that he had participated in the crime scene examination shortly after the special operation on DATE but had not seen any senior law - enforcement officials or PERSON there , and was unable to name any of the other people who had participated in the crime scene examination that day .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , who reiterated her previous statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . She added that on DATE at the LOC of the NORP investigation department she had spoken to investigator PERSON . , who had been in charge of the investigation into her daughter \u2019s disappearance and had told her \u201c your daughter PERSON is alive but we have no access to her \u201d .","NORP On various dates in DATE the investigators questioned CARDINAL ambulance workers who had arrived at the scene on DATE . Their statements did not provide any new information .","On DATE and DATE the investigators questioned the deputy chief of ORG , PERSON . and CARDINAL of his officers , PERSON . They both stated that ORG \u201c Terek \u201d of ORG ( \u043e\u0442\u0440\u044f\u0434 \u043c\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u0441\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ) had participated in the operation on DATE .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , who stated that her daughter had been unmarried at the time of her abduction and that at some point in DATE she had married someone called Mr PERSON but had divorced him DATE .","On DATE the investigators again questioned Mr A.M.B. , who reiterated his previous statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the investigators questioned the investigator Mr PERSON . , who stated that in DATE he had told the applicant that her daughter had been alive just to calm her down ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the applicant , who stated that her daughter had not fallen out with anyone or received any threats and had not been in involved in a blood feud .","On DATE the investigators questioned the head of the NORP town administration , Mr GPE , who stated that he had not participated in the special operation on DATE and nor had his security service or guards .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the NORP President PERSON , who reiterated his previous statement ( see paragraph DATE above ) .","In the course of the investigation , the authorities primarily took the following steps . They ( i ) carried out an examination of the crime scene on several occasions , ( ii ) made requests for information to various law - enforcement agencies and detention centres concerning PERSON possible arrest or detention in GPE and neighbouring regions , and the existence of pending criminal proceedings against her or her possible involvement with members of illegal armed groups , ( iii ) verified whether she had left GPE by plane or train , ( iv ) published a search announcement in the regional media , and ( v ) traced the location of her mobile telephone between CARDINAL and DATE .","DATE . On DATE the deputy head of the NORP investigation department issued orders for the investigators in criminal case no . CARDINAL instructing them to , amongst other things , verify the law - enforcement agencies\u2019 conduct of the special operation on DATE and question its participants concerning the details .","On DATE the investigators wrote to the chief of ORG , asking him to take disciplinary measures against the officers who had failed to comply with the ORG instructions and take the steps requested in criminal case no . DATE .","On DATE the investigators obtained a joint operational report ( \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0441\u0432\u043e\u0434\u043a\u0430 ) from the NORP MVD concerning the events of CARDINAL DATE . The relevant part of the document reads as follows :","\u201c ...","GPE . Military clash .","At TIME on DATE the [ ORG ] front desk was informed ... that at TIME on DATE in a deserted CARDINAL - ruined house at TIME , PERSON ... officers from the Argun [ ORG ] , Leninskiy [ ROVD ] , CARDINALth company of the CARDINALnd regiment of the [ ORG ] traffic police and the head of the LOC town administration \u2019s security service had blocked a member of illegal armed groups , who had offered armed resistance during his apprehension and had been liquidated ...","Present [ during the operation were ] : Minister of the Interior Mr PERSON and deputy Minister of the Interior Mr R.L.E , chief of ORG criminal police PERSON . , chief of the department of the interior Mr Ir . , chief of criminal police at the department of the interior Mr Is . , chief of public security police at the department of the interior Mr Ba . and his deputy PERSON . , acting chief of the criminal investigation directorate at the department of the interior Mr M. , . an investigator from the NORP investigation department PERSON , . the [ entire ] operational investigation group of the [ ORG ] , the operational investigation group of the department of the interior , the LOC district [ of Grozny ] operational investigation group of ORG at ORG of GPE in LOC ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested that the investigators take a number of steps . These included obtaining copies of the video footage of the special operation and questioning the officials who had been in charge and its participants , the applicant \u2019s neighbours PERSON , Ms Z.G and PERSON . S , and the construction workers who had carried out the work on the applicant \u2019s house on GPE . On DATE the investigators granted the request .","On DATE the head of the NORP investigation department wrote to the NORP Minister of the Interior stating , amongst other things :","\u201c ... [ within the framework of the investigation of criminal case no . DATE ] , on DATE the NORP prosecutor organised a meeting on officers from ORG in PERSON and servicemen from operational - search unit no . CARDINAL of ORG in ORG ( the ORG ) collaborating with the investigation to solve the crime and prosecute the perpetrators .","However , officers from ORG in PERSON have not been providing operational support ... repeated requests for information to the chief of ORG [ have met with ] formal and incomplete replies ... [ even though ] in reply to the repeated request of DATE it was stated that the police officers had examined the crime scene again and had found burnt passports , CARDINAL for use in GPE ( internal ) and another ( foreign ) CARDINAL for use abroad . However , at the time of writing this evidence and the relevant documents have not been provided to the investigators of the criminal case ...","[ As ] to our request of DATE concerning the identities of the servicemen who participated in the special operation and the conclusions of the internal inquiry , on DATE a formal reply was given ... which did not contain any meaningful information ; the information and documents requested were not submitted .","On DATE we sent another request for information concerning the officers who participated in the special operation and the conclusions of the internal inquiry . To the present date no reply has been given .","[ As ] to our repeated requests of CARDINAL and DATE concerning the identities of the officers who participated in the special operation ... no reply has been given . Officers from the Argun OVD Mr M.B. , Mr D.V. , Mr ORG and Mr R.Akh , who participated in the operation and whose identities were established by the investigators , refused to give statements to the investigation ...","Thus , at the time of writing the investigation either does not have information concerning the persons who participated in the special operation ( their names , service positions and ranks ) or documents confirming its lawfulness .","In connection with the above , you are requested to personally supervise execution of the requests in the criminal case and provide full and timely replies to the requests for information and operational steps . You are also requested to order an internal inquiry in connection with the violations of criminal procedure law by your subordinates in the [ relevant ] police departments ... \u201d","On DATE the investigators requested the chief of ORG to provide , amongst other things , the following information :","\u201c ... according to the reply received by the investigation in criminal case no . DATE to its request for information of DATE , the following [ CARDINAL ] officers from the criminal search division of ORG participated in the special operation on DATE : PERSON Ya . , PERSON , PERSON , Mr GPE , Mr GPE , Mr Dz . PERSON , Mr E.A. , Mr PERSON , Mr R.Akh . , Mr Kh . O. and Mr PERSON .","Based on this information , you are requested to ensure these officers [ attend ] the NORP investigation committee at FAC , ORG to be questioned as witnesses . You are also requested to forward me documents confirming the lawfulness of the special operation ... the order to conduct the operation and a copy of the results of the internal inquiry carried out into the matter ... \u201d","On DATE the acting chief of ORG replied to the investigators that they had no information concerning PERSON abduction and that the officers mentioned in the request of QUANTITY DATE had been instructed to give statements to the investigators . In an additional letter of the same date , ORG informed the investigators that no internal inquiries had been carried out in connection with the special operation conducted on DATE as \u201c there were no violations of the law and no officers from ORG had been injured \u201d .","On DATE the applicant repeated the request for the officials in charge of the special operation on DATE to be questioned . On DATE the investigators replied that they would question them as soon as they had established their identities .","On DATE the applicant requested that the investigators question , amongst others , NORP President PERSON , as he had information on the special operation . On DATE the investigators granted the request .","On DATE the investigators reported to their superiors that they had been unable to interview Mr PERSON , who had been in charge of the special operation on DATE .","On DATE the applicant complained to the NORP investigation department that PERSON had not been questioned and that the investigators had failed to take the procedural steps ordered on DATE . On DATE the investigators refused to allow the complaint stating , amongst other things , that according to CARDINAL other witnesses who had been present during the special operation , PERSON had not been there .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer reiterated his request for the investigators to take a number of steps such as obtaining copies of the video footage of the special operation , identifying and questioning all of the participants , asking the drivers of the ORG vehicles whether they had seen PERSON being forced into one of them , and questioning the NORP Minister of the Interior Mr PERSON concerning the law - enforcement agencies who had participated in the operation and the firemen who had put out the house fire afterwards . On DATE the investigators granted the request .","On an unspecified date in DATE senior operational - search officer Mr ORG provided the investigators with an information statement on the operational - search measures taken in the criminal case . The relevant part reads as follows :","\u201c ... It has been established by operational - search measures that at TIME on DATE servicemen from ORG , the CARDINALth company of the CARDINALnd regiment of the traffic police and the head of the NORP town administration security service conducted a special operation , as a result of which an active member of illegal armed groups PERSON . was found . He resisted arrest and ... was eliminated as a result ... It has also been established that in this household PERSON . had lived with his wife , PERSON , whose whereabouts after the special operation remain unknown ... \u201d","On DATE the NORP deputy prosecutor criticised the investigation into PERSON disappearance and ordered the investigators to take a number of remedial measures :","\u201c ... On DATE the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrators ... An examination of the case file has demonstrated that this decision was unfounded and premature ; it was taken prior to all the investigative steps being taken ...","... the criminal case has been investigated by several investigators for DATE , however , an effective investigation has not been carried out , the whereabouts of the abducted PERSON have not been established , and sufficiently effective steps to identify the culprits have not been taken ...","Up to the present date the servicemen of the law - enforcement agencies who took part in the special operation ... have not all been identified and questioned .","From the operational statement of ORG of DATE it appears that servicemen of the CARDINALth company of the CARDINALnd regiment of the traffic police and the head of the NORP town administration security service participated in the liquidation of PERSON . , but [ they ] have not been identified and questioned .","The requests of the applicant , PERSON , for access to the investigation file have been granted , but her representatives have not been provided [ it ] ...","In addition , the applicant \u2019s representative requested that the investigators take certain investigative steps such as seizure and examination of the video footage posted on ORG of the Interior \u2019s website concerning the special operation ... identifying the person who filmed the operation ... those steps have not been taken .","In violation of LAW , no measures have been taken to identify the perpetrators for a long time ...","... In addition , the investigation has not taken sufficient steps to identify key witness PERSON who , according to the applicant , called her to say that PERSON had been taken away by the unidentified servicemen who had participated in the special operation against A.Kh . PERSON has not been questioned about those circumstances . In addition , the brother of the abducted PERSON , PERSON , has not been identified and questioned .","Based on the above , the decision to suspend the investigation in criminal case no . DATE is unlawful and should therefore be overruled ... \u201d","On DATE the NORP deputy prosecutor again criticised the investigation into PERSON disappearance and pointed out that the steps ordered on DATE had not been taken and the orders given had not been complied with . He ordered that the decision to suspend the investigation of DATE be overruled as unlawful and the proceedings be resumed .","On DATE the investigators granted the applicant \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE to have PERSON questioned ( see paragraph DATE above ) . The applicant was informed on DATE .","On DATE the investigators collected blood samples from the applicant for genetic testing with the samples in the regional DNA database . On DATE the experts reported that there had been no matches .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested the investigators to join the investigation into PERSON disappearance with the investigation into the disappearance of Mr PERSON ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) for the following reasons :","\u201c ... your department investigating criminal case no . DATE ... initiated in connection with [ PERSON ] abduction during a special operation on Second Darvina Lane in PERSON ... presumably by representatives of the law - enforcement agencies .","On DATE , DATE , at TIME by his house at CARDINAL FAC in the village of PERSON , unidentified armed persons in camouflage uniforms abducted Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE .","In connection with this , the NORP investigation department ... opened criminal case no . DATE , which is also being investigated by your department .","CARDINAL of the investigation \u2019s theories in criminal case no . DATE is that PERSON . had lived with PERSON , and this served as the reason for [ her ] abduction and questioning by unidentified representatives of the law - enforcement agencies in order to obtain information about him and his activities .","Mr PERSON , who was abducted DATE , is the brother of PERSON , PERSON official wife .","Both abductions therefore took place on the date of the special operation on DATE to eliminate PERSON . , and both of the people abducted had obvious connections with him . PERSON , in whose house PERSON . had been killed , was presumably his cohabitee , and PERSON was the brother of Mr A.Kh . \u2019s wife .","In connection with this , there are grounds to presume that the abductions of Ms Gaysanova and Mr PERSON , who had been connected to PERSON . , had been perpetrated by the same people ... \u201d","On DATE the investigators refused the above request as groundless .","DATE . On DATE and DATE the investigators checked the detainee registration log of the NORP ROVD temporary detention ward . There was no indication that PERSON had been detained on the LOC .","On DATE the investigators obtained CARDINAL DVDs from the NORP MVD information centre containing the video footage of the special operation on DATE and incorporated them into the investigation file as evidence .","On DATE the investigators in charge of criminal case no . DATE informed the head of the NORP investigation department that they needed to question the NORP President PERSON again , but were unable to do so as he was too busy . They eventually questioned him on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE an operational - search officer from the criminal search division of ORG , PERSON , provided the investigators with an information statement on the operational - search steps taken in the criminal case . The relevant part reads as follows :","\u201c ... It has been established by operational - search measures that at TIME on DATE servicemen from ORG , the CARDINALth company of the CARDINALnd regiment of the traffic police and the head of the NORP town administration security service conducted a special operation , as a result of which an active member of illegal armed groups , PERSON . , was found . He resisted arrest and [ was ] therefore eliminated ... It has also been established that in that household PERSON . had lived with his wife , PERSON , whose whereabouts after the special operation remain unknown ...","PERSON was not officially married ...","CARDINAL theories were proposed within the framework of the operational - search activities :","PERSON was detained by servicemen of the law - enforcement agencies owing to her possible involvement in illegal armed groups ;","PERSON was hiding from the police to avoid prosecution for being a member of illegal armed groups ... \u201d","On an unspecified date in DATE the investigators established that on CARDINAL DATE PERSON had had various telephone conversations , one of which had been with PERSON . , who had subsequently been killed during the special operation .","On DATE the NORP investigation department issued a formal warning ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) to the chief of ORG . It stated that the police department had not carried out any of the investigative steps ordered by the investigators , and had thereby hampered the investigation and precluded it from establishing the circumstances of PERSON PERSON abduction . The chief was instructed to take the necessary steps to remedy the shortcomings and to consider taking disciplinary action against those responsible for the inactivity . On DATE the investigators issued a further order to the police department , stressing that their earlier instructions had not been complied with and urging the chief of ORG to oversee the matter .","On DATE the investigation in case no . DATE was transferred to investigation department no . CARDINAL ( Serious Crimes ) of the investigation committee at the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE in GPE ( \u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442 \u043f\u043e PERSON ) ( hereinafter \u201c investigation department no . CARDINAL \u201d ) .","On DATE it was decided that the investigation was to be conducted by a group of investigators because there was evidence to suggest that members of the security forces had been involved in Ms PERSON abduction . The group was to consist of investigators from the NORP investigation department , investigation department no . CARDINAL and officers from LOC .","DATE . On DATE the investigators requested that the time - limit for the investigation in case no . DATE be extended owing to the number of investigative steps to be taken . The document stated that the investigation had been severely hampered by the persistent refusal of the lawenforcement authorities involved in the operation on DATE to provide information about the officers who had participated .","On DATE the investigators requested the Minister of the ORG to personally oversee execution of the requests they had addressed to his subordinates in connection with the investigation in case no . DATE . The letter stressed that ORG , FAC , the CARDINALth company of the CARDINALnd regiment of the ORG traffic police and the Minister himself had persistently disregarded the ORG repeated requests for information concerning the officers who had participated in the special operation on DATE . Moreover , officers Mr M.A.B , PERSON , PERSON and Mr R.Z.A. from FAC , who it had been established had taken part in the operation , had blatantly refused to be questioned . The Minister was asked to look into the matter and take disciplinary action in connection with this .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed on DATE then suspended again on DATE . The proceedings were resumed each time following criticism from the supervising prosecutor ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .","On DATE the applicant requested access to the investigation file . On CARDINAL DATE the investigators refused her request as she was not entitled to familiarise herself with the contents of the file until completion of the investigation . The applicant appealed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the investigation was resumed but suspended DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed and on DATE the proceedings were resumed .","On DATE the investigation was again suspended . It was resumed on DATE for failure to take a number of steps .","On DATE the investigation was again resumed but suspended on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the investigation was again resumed owing to the need to take a number of steps such as questioning the head of the NORP town administration on his security guards\u2019 participation in the special operation on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On an unspecified date in DATE the proceedings were suspended .","On DATE the investigation was resumed then suspended again on DATE .","On DATE the investigation was resumed owing to the need to take a number of steps such as questioning the NORP President PERSON PERSON and the applicant \u2019s neighbour PERSON and verifying whether PERSON PERSON had left GPE .","On DATE the investigation was suspended again . It appears from the documents submitted that it is pending .","On DATE the applicant provided a statement to local human rights lawyers from ORG ( PERSON ) ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . She stated that at TIME on DATE she had received a call from her neighbour PERSON who had informed her , amongst other things , that a special operation had taken place in their neighbourhood and her house had been burnt down as a result , that the armed men who had carried out the operation had taken away her daughter and that a man \u2019s body had been found among the ruins by the firemen . At TIME that evening the applicant had gone to LOC , where investigator Mr PERSON G. had taken a statement from her about the abduction . The chief of ORG , who had introduced himself as Mr PERSON , had then told her that the man \u2019s body found among the ruins had belonged to PERSON PERSON husband and that he had no information about who had carried out the special operation . On DATE the applicant had lodged an official written abduction complaint with ORG . On the same date she had spoken to several of her neighbours , including PERSON , all of whom had told her that on DATE a large group of armed men had carried out a special operation in the vicinity of her house , there had been a shooting and her house had been burnt down . Afterwards , a man \u2019s body had been discovered . The NORP President PERSON PERSON and Minister of the Interior Mr PERSON had arrived at the scene and had given interviews that an illegal armed fighter had been eliminated in the applicant \u2019s house .","On DATE the applicant provided another statement to the ORG lawyers . She reiterated her previous statement and added that on TIME CARDINAL DATE she had been told by CARDINAL men in darkcoloured PERSON cars with blacked out windows that they had been guarding the ruins of her house for the crime scene examination . More representatives of law - enforcement agencies had then arrived at the scene . The applicant provided the lawyers with the names and telephone numbers of the workers who had worked on her house prior to the events of CARDINAL DATE , PERSON . , Mr DATE , PERSON , PERSON and brothers PERSON Al . A. and PERSON . A.","On DATE the applicant provided another statement to the ORG lawyers . She stressed that on TIME of DATE she had complained about her daughter \u2019s abduction in person at PERSON DATE had lodged a written complaint with the police department , having gone there with CARDINAL of her relatives , PERSON GPE , PERSON . G and Mr PERSON The following day she had lodged abduction complaints with the LOC district and NORP investigation departments , as well as the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office and NORP prosecutor \u2019s office . On DATE she had given a statement concerning the abduction to Mr Magomed T. , an investigator from the NORP district investigation department .","On DATE the ORG lawyers took a statement from CARDINAL of Ms ORG \u2019s colleagues from ORG , Mr GPE , who stated that on DATE , after the events at the applicant \u2019s house , he had taken the applicant to PERSON in PERSON . She had been crying , saying that her daughter had gone missing and her house had been burnt down .","On DATE the ORG lawyers took a statement from the applicant \u2019s relatives , PERSON . PERSON , Mr GPE and Mr GPE , whose accounts of the events of DATE were similar to that of the applicant . In addition , the witnesses stated that on DATE a crime scene examination group consisting of several forensic experts had gone through the ruins of the applicant \u2019s burnt house . All of the witnesses confirmed that on DATE they and the applicant had gone to ORG , where the applicant had given a written statement concerning her daughter \u2019s abduction to the policeman on duty .","On DATE the applicant requested the NORP district investigation department in ORG to initiate a criminal investigation into possible forgery , claiming that the date of her abduction complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been unlawfully changed from DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In reply to her request , on DATE the department refused her request , as it was impossible to establish when the correction had been made to the document . The refusal was subsequently overruled but adopted again on CARDINAL occasions . The last refusal to initiate criminal proceedings into the matter was taken on DATE .","On CARDINAL occasions , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the applicant complained to ORG of Grozny that the investigators had refused to grant her access to the case file concerning the investigation into her daughter \u2019s disappearance . On DATE and DATE the court allowed her complaints .","On DATE LOC of ORG rejected a complaint by the applicant made on DATE concerning the ORG refusal to question Mr PERSON due to his absence from the crime scene , in spite of widespread media coverage to the contrary ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court held that on DATE the refusal had already been overruled by the deputy head of the NORP investigation department .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers complained to the head of the NORP investigation department that the investigation into PERSON PERSON abduction had been suspended unlawfully , requesting that the proceedings be resumed and a number of steps be taken . In particular , they pointed out the following :","\u201c ... according to the criminal case file , the investigators have been verifying the theory that representatives of power structures were involved in PERSON abduction . The investigation established that the following servicemen had participated in the special operation ( according to the operational information note of DATE , volume CARDINAL , page CARDINAL of the case file ) :","the ORG department of the interior ( ORG )","the NORP district department of the interior in PERSON ( ROVD )","the CARDINALth regiment of ORG of the NORP traffic police","the head of the NORP town administration security service","Also , from the same document it follows that the crime scene had been visited by senior officials of the NORP law - enforcement agencies and operational investigation groups :","NORP Minister of the Interior , PERSON ;","NORP deputy Minister of the ORG , Mr E ;","chief of the PERSON department of the interior ( ORG ) , PERSON ;","chief of the criminal search division of ORG , PERSON . ;","...","[ the entire ] operational investigation group of ORG of the ORG ;","operational investigation group of ORG ; and","operational investigation group of LOC .","From the video footage made by the press office of ORG , which has been incorporated into the case file , it is noticeable that a large number of representatives of the law - enforcement agencies participated in the special operation . However , as at DATE \u2019s date , not all of the servicemen from FAC who participated in the special operation have been identified and questioned . At the same time , the statements given by the servicemen who had been questioned by the investigation , are very alike , almost copies of , the reports given by these servicemen to the chief of ORG . In addition , the servicemen from the other regiments have not been identified and questioned by the investigation . The persons in charge of the operation have not been questioned either , even though from the video of the special operation it appears that next to the applicant \u2019s house were the Minister of the ORG and a group of officers from ORG .","...","In addition , the supervising prosecutor \u2019s orders ( of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) have not been complied with ...","... according to the evidence examination report of DATE ( pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the file ) ... the video footage of the special operation on DATE can not be found on ORG website . However , the investigators could examine the video footage presented by the applicant \u2019s lawyers ( see ... request of CARDINAL DATE , volume CARDINAL , pages CARDINAL ) which was made from the video posted on the ORG website . This examination has not been carried out . It is necessary to examine this footage with the assistance of the police in order to identify the participants of the special operation on DATE ... \u201d","On DATE the investigators refused to grant the request , but on DATE the deputy head of the NORP investigation department overruled that refusal and ordered that the request be granted .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers requested that the investigators take a number of steps including questioning the head of the NORP town administration , an examination of the video footage of the special operation of DATE , establishing which vehicles had been used during the operation and questioning the senior police officials and other officers who had participated . The applicant \u2019s request also contained the following :","\u201c ... from the replies of the acting head of the NORP MVD headquarters to the ORG requests it appears that ... the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning her daughter \u2019s abduction , which was received by the police department on DATE at TIME , stated that PERSON had left herself in an unknown destination and that the police had not received any complaints about her being abducted by unidentified persons in camouflage uniforms driving around in ORG vehicles . At the same time , in [ the actual ] complaint lodged by the applicant with the police department stated that PERSON had been abducted by unidentified men in camouflage uniforms right after the special operation conducted on DATE ( see volume CARDINAL , page CARDINAL of the investigation file ) . In connection with this it is necessary to question the acting head of the NORP MVD headquarters to find out why he had provided false information to the investigators and what information they have concerning PERSON departure on her own to an unknown destination ...","... It is also necessary to find out ... whether PERSON was the wife of [ the man eliminated during the special operation ] PERSON . and to question officer PERSON , who had prepared a report to this end ( no . CARDINAL ) concerning the sources of that information ... \u201d","On DATE the investigators granted the request in part , but did not specify which steps would be taken .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers requested that the investigators examine the video footage of the special operation which could be found in the archives section of ORG official website and question the persons who had filmed the events . The lawyers provided the link to the footage and stated that the video contained clear images of the participants in the special operation . On CARDINAL DATE the investigators informed the applicant that they would grant this request but did not specify when and to what extent .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers requested that the investigators question the NORP Minister of the Interior Mr PERSON , as video footage of the special operation attested to his presence during the events , and ask him about the other participants in the operation . On DATE the applicant was informed that the request had been granted .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers wrote to the investigators to say that PERSON had been a user of an online social networking site , PERSON ( \u00ab PERSON ) . The last visit to her account had been on DATE , after her abduction . In this connection , the lawyers requested that the investigators find out , amongst other things , the account activity since DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the investigators informed the applicant that they had granted her request . It appears from the documents submited that the requested action was not taken .","On DATE the investigators refused to grant the applicant \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE for access to the case file , stating that it had been lodged by her lawyer and not by the applicant herself .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer again requested the investigators to grant him permission to access the investigation file , stressing that he had been representing the applicant in accordance with the criminal procedure law and forms of authority . His request was granted DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["38"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184500","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ARSLAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . Mr NORP lives in GPE . The other applicants live in LOC . According to the applicants\u2019 submissions , which were not contested by the Government , at the time of the lodging of the application , they were serving the prison sentences arising out of their criminal convictions which gave rise to the present application .","On DATE and DATE CARDINAL members of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , an illegal organisation , were killed in a rural area within the administrative jurisdiction of the town of GPE , near the city of GPE , by members of the security forces .","On DATE a gathering was held in protest at the alleged unlawful killings of CARDINAL and DATE in GPE . University students from ORG , including the applicants , gathered in front of the building of LOC ve PERSON ) where a press statement was read out .","On DATE CARDINAL of the applicants , PERSON , attended another reading out of a press statement in GPE . The press statement concerned the killings of CARDINAL and DATE , the arrest of a number of persons subsequent to the reading out of the press statement on DATE and the alleged unlawful killing of a detainee by the police .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against CARDINAL people , including the applicants , charging them with disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( Law no . ORG ) . According to the indictment , during the gathering of DATE , slogans such as \u201c Long live revolutionary solidarity \u201d ( \u201c NORP devrimci dayan\u0131\u015fma \u201d ) , \u201c We have paid a price . We will make them pay a price . \u201d ( \u201c Bedel \u00f6dedik , bedel \u00f6detece\u011fiz . \u201d ) , \u201c ORG \u201d ( \u201c QUANTITY \u201d ) , \u201c NORP martyrs are immortal \u201d ( \u201c Devrim \u015fehitleri \u00f6l\u00fcms\u00fczd\u00fcr . \u201d ) , \u201c Martyrs are immortal \u201d ( \u201c ORG nam\u0131r\u0131n \u201d ) , were chanted and the applicants participated in the gathering . The public prosecutor further noted that ORG had participated in the gathering of DATE , during which the following slogans had been chanted : \u201c No emancipation alone , either all of us or none of us . \u201d ( \u201c GPE yok tek ba\u015f\u0131na , ya hep beraber ya hi\u00e7birimiz . ) \u201d , \u201c Arrests , provocations and coercion can not discourage us . \u201d ( \u201c PERSON , provakasyonlar , bask\u0131lar bizi y\u0131ld\u0131ramaz . \u201d ) , \u201c We will resist and succeed \u201d ( \u201c GPE direne kazanaca\u011f\u0131z . \u201d ) , \u201c We have paid a price ; we will make them pay a price . \u201d \u201c Bedel \u00f6dedik , bedel \u00f6detece\u011fiz \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG , except for PERSON , who was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . As regards the gathering of DATE , the assize court found it established that the slogan \u201c Martyrs are immortal \u201d had been chanted by PERSON , PERSON , PERSON PERSON and PERSON and that the slogans \u201c The murderer state will pay the price \u201d , \u201c NORP martyrs are immortal \u201d and \u201c Long live revolutionary solidarity \u201d had been chanted by PERSON Ya\u015far \u00c7al\u0131\u015fkan , Mr PERSON and PERSON . The court also found it established that all the applicants except for PERSON Olcay ORG had chanted the slogan \u201c We have paid a price ; we will make them pay a price \u201d and that PERSON had carried a banner bearing the slogan \u201c ORG are immortal \u201d . As regards the gathering of DATE , the court noted that ORG had chanted the slogans \u201c Arrests , provocations and coercion can not discourage us . \u201d , \u201c We will resist and succeed \u201d and \u201c We have paid a price ; we will make them pay a price . \u201d during that public gathering .","In its judgment , ORG referred to LAW as well as to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIV ) and the report of ORG in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . ORG report of DATE ) . The court held that by chanting the above - mentioned slogans the applicants had not exercised their democratic rights but had glorified terror by adopting the style of discourse of terror organisations and that they had not distanced themselves from violence . In the court \u2019s view , by chanting those slogans the applicants had not intended to find a solution to a problem but had praised and glorified the source of the problem , that is to say , the terrorist organisations concerned . Hence , the applicants had incited terror . ORG concluded that chanting the slogans in question could not be considered as falling within the scope of the right to freedom of expression .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE in so far as it concerned the applicants\u2019 conviction .","On unspecified dates the applicants served their prison sentences ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141765","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KALU\u0110EROVI\u0106-BRAJOVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a LOC national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows :","On DATE ORG ( PERSON za povra\u0107aj i obe\u0161te\u0107enje PERSON ; hereinafter \u201c the Commission \u201d ) awarded the applicant and her co - claimants a total amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL as compensation for the property which had been expropriated from their relatives in DATE and DATE . The applicant herself was awarded CARDINAL of the total amount , that is ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The decision specified that the amount was to be paid within DATE as of the date when the decision became final .","On DATE ORG ( ORG finansija ) declared the ORG \u2019s decision null and void ( ogla\u0161eno je ni\u0161tavim ) .","On DATE ORG ( Upravni sud ) quashed the decision of ORG . In so doing , the court held , inter alia , that the ORG \u2019s decision properly ( pravilno ) specified the applicant and her co - claimants as being entitled to the compensation and awarded them the relevant amounts accordingly .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE declared that it lacked competence ( ogla\u0161ava se nenadle\u017enim ) to decide on the applicant \u2019s request for enforcement of the ORG \u2019s decision dated DATE , relying on sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG as well as on LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE upheld the said decision of ORG .","On DATE ORG once again declared that it lacked competence to decide on the applicant \u2019s renewed request for enforcement .","In DATE the Compensation Fund started paying the awarded amount to the applicant in instalments pursuant to the relevant legislation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . By DATE the applicant had received EUR CARDINAL in total .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant , upon her enquiry , that the frequency of payment was regulated by the relevant statutory provisions and that ORG had no competence to make any changes in that regard .","On DATE the applicant , upon her own request , was issued with bonds ( obveznice ) , the value of which was ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . In DATE she returned the bonds and had her right to pecuniary compensation re - established .","By DATE some of the applicant \u2019s co - claimants , X and Y , had passed away and the compensation awarded to them had been transferred to and divided amongst their heirs . In particular , X \u2019s CARDINAL heirs inherited between ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and ORG , and out of these sums they received between ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG , respectively , in pecuniary compensation and the remainder of the respective amounts in bonds . ORG CARDINAL heirs each inherited EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , out of which they received by DATE ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in pecuniary compensation .","As submitted by the Government , there were CARDINAL requests for restitution and\/or compensation in total . ORG received CARDINAL final decisions in favour of compensation , the total value of which amounted to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Of this sum more than LAW was paid in money , and additional LAW in bonds . The bonds worth ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , that is PERCENT of the entire compensation awarded , were used on the market pursuant to section CARDINAL of the relevant legislation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","As submitted by the applicant PERCENT of the respondent ORG \u2019s GDP in DATE was EUR CARDINAL and in DATE it was LAW .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of this LAW , which entered into force on DATE , provides that ORG applies to proceedings concerning restitution and\/or compensation , unless otherwise provided by LAW .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) states that a \u201c former owner , who has no right to restitution of the property rights [ in integrum ] , can have , in accordance with this law , the right to : ( a ) pecuniary compensation ( obe\u0161te\u0107enje nov\u010danim sredstvima ) , which shall be paid from ORG to applicants in proportion to the amount of all the claims registered , within DATE as of the expiration of the time - limit envisaged for submitting requests and , after that , DATE , according to the availability of funds in ORG , until the amounts due are fully paid ; or ( b ) compensation in bonds ( obe\u0161te\u0107enje obveznicama ) \u201d .","Section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that the bonds can be sold or used for purchase of the stocks , shares and other property of the ORG and ORG funds . The owner of these bonds is entitled to return them to ORG within DATE as of the date when they were obtained , and request that the right to pecuniary compensation be re - established . The owner of the bonds that have expired also has the right to return them and to seek re - establishment of pecuniary compensation . ORG shall issue relevant decisions recognising the right to pecuniary compensation corresponding to the value of the unused bonds .","Section CARDINAL provides that ORG is to decide on restitution \/ compensation requests and determine , inter alia , the time - period within which the compensation is to be paid ( rok za obe\u0161te\u0107enje ) .","Section CARDINAL provides that decisions on pecuniary compensation and compensation in bonds are to be enforced by ORG . The same provision also provides that enforcements ( prinudno izvr\u0161enje ) shall be carried out in accordance with LAW .","Section CARDINAL further provides , inter alia , that ORG , a legal entity , shall be established by the Government , and that its organisation and functioning is to be regulated by a Government decree .","The Restitution and Compensation Act was amended in DATE , the relevant changes being as follows .","While LAW ( CARDINAL ) still provides for the right to pecuniary compensation from ORG in proportion to the amount of all the claims , it has now been amended so as to also provide , inter alia , that the total DATE amount of compensation can not be PERCENT of the LOC GDP in DATE , that the compensation is to be paid to claimants in DATE instalments according to the funds available in ORG , and that the periodicity of the payments is to be established by the Government .","Section CARDINAL provides that the bonds can also be used for paying taxes . They can be returned to ORG within DATE as of DATE when they were obtained and their owners can seek that their pecuniary compensation be re - established .","The Act entered into force on CARDINAL DATE .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provided , inter alia , that the provisions of this LAW were applicable to the enforcement of administrative decisions ordering pecuniary compensation , unless the law provided for a competence of some other body for such enforcement .","Section CARDINAL provided that the courts were responsible for enforcement unless otherwise provided by law .","Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provided that enforcement proceedings were to be dealt with expeditiously .","Section CARDINAL provides that [ other ] institutions and legal entities performing public functions ( u vr\u0161enju javnih ovla\u0161\u0107enja ) shall comply with this law when ruling in administrative matters .","Section CARDINAL provides that administrative decisions shall , in principle , be enforced in an administrative manner ( administrative enforcement ) .","Section CARDINAL specifies that both pecuniary and non - pecuniary awards shall be enforced in an administrative manner .","Section CARDINAL provides that administrative pecuniary awards shall be enforced by an administrative body responsible for the public revenue ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145225","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MIH\u0102ILESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained in FAC .","On DATE the applicant was detained pending trial on charges of human trafficking and was placed in ORG detention facility ( PERSON \u015fi PERSON ) .","On DATE he was transferred to FAC .","In his initial letters to the ORG the applicant stated that in ORG detention facility he had been forced to sleep on the floor because there had been more detainees than beds . He was forced to eat without cutlery and sitting on the floor because the cell was unfurnished . In addition , he was not provided with a blanket and had to share the room with smokers even though he was a non - smoker .","In the same letters he also stated that in FAC he had had to sleep in overcrowded , flooded and damp cells infested with bed bugs , without furniture and on very old , smelly and lumpy mattresses without any bed linen , blanket or pillow . He was forced to eat sitting on the floor and was not provided with a broom or any cleaning products . The bathroom pipes and lavatories were defective and he had been splashed with waste from the pipes located on the ceiling . The rooms smelled and he could not sleep at TIME on account of the constant noise made by some detainees and their conversations with the women inmates detained in the same prison . Furthermore , he was forced on many occasions to eat spoiled food because there was no refrigerator . There was no access to natural light , nor any ventilation or opportunity to air the cells . The food was insufficient and poorly cooked . He was not allowed TIME of outdoor exercise per day and his health was affected because he had to share the cell with smoking detainees , even though he was a non - smoker .","The applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL of ORG detention facilities . The cell measured QUANTITY m and contained CARDINAL beds . During DATE of his detention the applicant shared the cell with CARDINAL other inmates . For the remainder of his time in police custody he shared his cell with QUANTITY other inmates .","The applicant was assigned a bed , and was provided with a mattress , a blanket and a pillow . The cell was also fitted with a window which ensured natural ventilation and light , a radiator for heating the cell and with air - conditioning . No other furniture was available in the cell .","On DATE the Service for the Coordination of Pre - trial ORG attached to ORG informed the Government that it would have been impossible to have separated smokers and non - smokers in ORG detention facility on account of the large number of smokers .","The applicant was detained in FAC from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from CARDINAL DATE to DATE .","The applicant was detained in several cells measuring CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and QUANTITY . m , which he shared with a maximum number of CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and QUANTITY other detainees , respectively .","The cells had bathrooms , toilets and showers . They were fitted with windows for natural light and ventilation . The available furniture allowed the detainees to store their clothes and eat . The cells were also fitted with radiators , which were connected to the prison \u2019s central heating system .","Every detainee was assigned a bed and was provided with a mattress , a blanket and a pillow .","In DATE the cells in which the applicant was detained were extensively renovated and repaired , and the water infiltration problem on the ceilings was fixed .","The cells were properly ventilated . The food was prepared according to the rules in force . Its quality and taste were tested DATE by , inter alia , a representative assigned by the detainees .","The detainees were responsible for cleaning the cells using cleaning materials provided regularly by the prison authorities and given to the detainees against their signature . They also had access to running water .","The cells were disinfected regularly each trimester or as often as required , and the detainees were allowed a minimum of CARDINAL outdoor exercise per day .","When he was transferred to FAC , the applicant declared that he was a non - smoker . However , having been informed by the prison authorities that , as a non - smoker , he could not buy cigarettes , he did not ask to be detained in a cell reserved for non - smokers . In addition , according to the information submitted by the prison authorities , supported by evidence , during his detention in FAC DATE and DATE the applicant had regularly purchased cigarettes and lighters .","On DATE and on an unspecified date the applicant brought CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings against some of the staff members and the medical personnel of ORG detention facility , claiming that they had not provided him with adequate medical care and had failed to correctly fulfil their professional duties . In addition , he claimed that on DATE he had been hit and threatened by several ORG agents , including GPE , which resulted in him losing his eyesight .","By decisions of DATE and CARDINAL September CARDINAL the Bac\u0103u Prosecutor \u2019s Office and ORG attached to ORG , respectively , discontinued the criminal proceedings . They held that the doctor and other medical and regular staff at the detention facility were constantly involved in examining and appropriately treating the detainees . In addition , according to the available medical reports , the applicant had not suffered any recent trauma in the eye region , but was suffering from severe eyesight problems which made it unlikely that even if he underwent surgery his eyesight would be restored . There is no evidence in the file that the applicant appealed against the decisions before the domestic courts .","By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE the post - sentencing judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint that ORG authorities had not allowed him to receive an electric television set . The applicant was advised to get a battery - powered CARDINAL .","By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE the postsentencing judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints that FAC authorities had refused to allow him to receive chocolate from his wife and that they had forwarded several medical documents from his prison file to ORG without his consent . It held that according to the information provided by the prison authorities there was no evidence that the applicant had not been allowed to receive chocolate from his wife . In addition , PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL did not provide that medical documents were confidential in so far as the criminal investigation bodies were concerned .","By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE the postsentencing judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint that his right to private life and information had been breached because FAC authorities had unlawfully cut the power after TIME On DATE the applicant \u2019s complaint that FAC authorities had refused to provide him with copies of the requests he had lodged before them was also dismissed for lack of competence ratione materiae .","By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE the postsentencing judge allowed the applicant \u2019s complaint that his right to correspondence had been breached in so far as FAC authorities had retained some summonses issued in his name and a judgment delivered by the domestic courts in connection with criminal proceedings instituted against him . The judge ordered FAC authorities to stop retaining the applicant \u2019s correspondence and to give it to him .","By an interlocutory judgment of DATE the postsentencing judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint that FAC authorities had not allowed him to receive chocolate and prescribed medication from his wife . It held that there was no proof that his wife had brought him chocolate and that the prison authorities had denied it to him . The medication had been returned to his wife because she had brought him capsules instead of tablets as required by law . Moreover , the medication had to be given to the prison \u2019s medical office and not directly to the applicant , and had to be managed separately .","By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE the postsentencing judge dismissed as inadmissible the complaint lodged by the applicant against FAC authorities that the food received on DATE had been insufficient and had not contained the correct ingredients .","By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE the postsentencing judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints that FAC authorities had turned off the electricity after TIME , thereby breaching his statutory right to watch television as long as the national television station was being broadcast , and had failed to ensure that he could sleep TIME a night without disturbance from other detainees . The judge held that the prison authorities did not have a legal duty to keep the electricity on and to allow him to watch television after TIME In addition , they could not force every detainee to sleep at TIME . Silence could be enforced by punishments imposed by the prison \u2019s disciplinary commission .","By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE the post - sentencing judge dismissed as time - barred the applicant \u2019s complaint against FAC authorities for failing to commit him to a psychiatric unit following a recommendation of ORG .","The applicant challenged some of the interlocutory judgments delivered by the post - sentencing judge before the domestic courts , but subsequently withdrew his challenge . There is no evidence in the file that he appealed against any of the interlocutory judgments before the domestic courts .","On DATE the T\u00e2rgu - Ocna Prison Hospital informed FAC authorities that they would accept the applicant after a psychiatrist from ORG recommended the applicant \u2019s hospitalization .","On DATE FAC authorities informed the Government and submitted documents attesting that the applicant had bought items from the prison shops CARDINAL times DATE and DATE .","On DATE FAC authorities also informed the Government that the applicant \u2019s request of DATE that he be categorised as a vulnerable detainee had been allowed and he had been transferred to a cell reserved for vulnerable detainees ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158137","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF HAJRULAHU v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He resides in GPE .","At TIME on DATE an anti - tank mine exploded in the courtyard of a police station in GPE , causing considerable material damage .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) ordered ( Kri.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and ID.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) a search of the home and other property belonging to the applicant \u2019s father and the father of GPE ( a co - defendant in the ensuing criminal proceedings , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on account of a reasonable suspicion that relevant items of evidence relating to allegations of terrorism and trafficking in arms would be found .","The search was carried out at TIME on DATE , in the presence of the applicant \u2019s father and QUANTITY neighbours , who acted as witnesses . According to the search record , which was signed by a police officer , the applicant \u2019s father and the witnesses , the following objects were found : a semi - automatic weapon ; a case containing CARDINAL bullets ; CARDINAL ORG bullets ; a slow - burning fuse and a detonator ; an audio tape ; CDs ; CARDINAL photographs of the applicant and a piece of paper with a map drawn on it . At the request of the applicant \u2019s father , the search record indicated that he \u201c does not know the origin of the objects found \u201d , and at the request of the attending witnesses the record noted that they \u201c had no comments to make on the work of the police officers \u201d . A certificate of the seized objects was issued to the applicant \u2019s father , which the latter signed .","NORP The police officer who had carried out the search submitted an official note , in which he listed all the above objects found in the house of the applicant \u2019s father . The note stated , inter alia :","\u201c The wanted person [ the applicant ] was not found and according to his mother , he was on a visit , but ( the mother ) did not want to specify where . \u201d","The applicant \u2019s father was taken to a police station for an interview . On that occasion he denied that weapons found in his house belonged to him . He stated that it was possible that they belonged to the applicant , whom he had not seen since DATE at TIME , when he ( the applicant ) had left his house .","According to an official record ( \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0441\u043d\u0438\u043a \u0437\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0434\u0440\u0436\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043b\u0438\u0446\u0435 ) of ORG , a copy of which was included in the file , at TIME on DATE the applicant , who had no previous criminal record , was arrested near a department store in a suburb of GPE by PERSON and TIME , police officers . The record stated the following reasons for his arrest :","\u201c ( since the applicant ) was not in possession of any identification document and his suspicious movement in the vicinity of buildings which are targets for criminal offences ( \u043e\u0431\u0458\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0438 \u043a\u043e\u0438 \u0441\u0435 \u0446\u0435\u043b \u043d\u0430 \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043a\u0440\u0438\u0432\u0438\u0447\u043d\u043e \u0434\u0435\u043b\u043e ) . \u201d","At TIME he was taken to a police station , where he remained until TIME that day . As stated in the record , the applicant was informed about his rights ; he waived the right to be represented by a lawyer ; he had no visible injuries , nor were there any signs of illness , alcohol or drug addiction . The applicant signed all CARDINAL pages of the record separately .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was brought before the investigating judge under suspicion of having been involved in the incident of DATE . According to the court record of that date , which was duly signed by the applicant , he understood the charges against him ; he had sufficient command of NORP ; he had waived the right to an interpreter ; and he had stated that he would testify in the absence of a lawyer . In the presence of the investigating judge and a public prosecutor , the applicant stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... ( referring to the request for investigation ) it is true that at TIME on DATE I placed an explosive device , namely a round anti - tank mine , together with a fuse and a detonator , in the western part of the courtyard of a police station , ORG ... I placed the explosive device , lit the fuse with a lighter , and immediately ran home ... PERSON gave me this explosive ... GPE was with me all the time ... he was also with me when PERSON gave me the anti - tank device ... I would like to underline that it was a slow - burning fuse which was TIME ; it took a long time to burn and to detonate the device ... I would also like to note that GPE knew that I was going to place this anti - tank device in GPE police station . I told him that after we had obtained the device from R.S ... PERSON and I agreed to a proposal by PERSON ( that we place the device in front of a police station ) and went towards GPE by taxi ... I borrowed an old car from neighbour PERSON , telling him that I wanted to drive around . He lent me the car , which was not registered , and I ( with GPE ) took the device and placed it on the floor behind the driver \u2019s seat ... At TIME I left home and walked to this car ; I took the anti - tank device ... and carried it as far as the LOC police station , as I have described above , and then I detonated ( the device ) . Some time after TIME . GPE had called me to arrange to go and set up the device . Indeed , GPE arrived ... and we both went to the car ; we took the device together and we walked towards the LOC police station . I was carrying the bag with the device . When I went into the police station GPE left the scene : I do not know where he went . I went to the back of the police station and placed the device . Regarding weapons found in my house on the occasion of a search carried out by the police on DATE , I had in my possession a semi - automatic weapon with CARDINAL bullets ; I do not know anything about the CARDINAL explosive items , the fuse or the detonator . I had stolen the semi - automatic weapon and the bullets ... DATE before the explosion in the LOC police station ... I was not carrying the weapon when I placed the device , and the phone that I had in my possession was switched off . \u201d","On DATE the investigating judge delivered several decisions , by means of which he appointed GPE , a lawyer , to represent the applicant ; found of his own motion that the applicant \u2019s detention had been lawful ; opened an investigation against the applicant , GPE and GPE ( the latter was from GPE ) ; he also ordered that they be detained on remand for DATE . All the decisions contained an instruction on legal remedies . They were served on the applicant DATE . They were delivered to his lawyer DATE . No appeal was submitted against any of these decisions .","On DATE , on the occasion of a regular visit of a judge responsible for the execution of sentences to GPE detention centre , the applicant asked to give evidence before the investigating judge . On DATE , the investigating judge heard oral evidence from the applicant in the presence of the court - appointed lawyer and the public prosecutor . As indicated in the transcript of the hearing of that date , signed by the applicant , he stated , inter alia :","\u201c I called you because on DATE I was beaten and intimidated by the police to force me to testify . I was under duress to testify and threatened with being killed after leaving the prison . All the names they mentioned are unknown to me . I know nothing about the case of which I am accused . I have never been in conflict with the police and I have no idea what a bomb is . Regarding the home search , this is false evidence . There were no weapons or explosives there . That \u2019s all . I agree to be represented by the court - appointed lawyer who is present at the moment . I would like to say that I have not been placed under any pressure by the court . I was just afraid and in a panic due to my previous stay in the police station . Actually , I was afraid when giving the statement ... I must say that everything I said on DATE before the judge I was told to say by the police , and was put under strong pressure to do so . All the charges against me are false . I did not commit that crime . \u201d","Asked by the public prosecutor to explain why he had not told the investigating judge previously that he had been placed under pressure and beaten by the police , the applicant stated :","\u201c They did beat me , and I was under strong pressure not to tell anything to the judge . \u201d","He further stated :","\u201c They were beating me all the time while I was at the police ( \u0434\u043e\u0434\u0435\u043a\u0430 \u0431\u0435\u0432 \u0432\u043e \u043f\u043e\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 ) . I had ( visible ) injuries , but I could not say anything to the judge , as the police had told me not to . \u201d","The investigating judge then requested the applicant to take off his clothes and show the injuries he had . As noted in the transcript , the investigating judge described the injuries as follows :","\u201c A yellow - brown bruise on the left upper arm , QUANTITY long , in an irregular triangle shape ; a dark - red bruise can be seen on the left buttock , QUANTITY long , with an irregular rectangular shape . The accused complained of severe pain in his feet , but the court can not see any injury there ... Light - yellow bruises on both left and right thighs , QUANTITY long with an irregular oval shape . No other injuries can be seen . \u201d","On DATE the investigating judge ordered an immediate expert examination of the applicant to determine the type , origin and date of the injuries .","At TIME on DATE CARDINAL experts ( GPE and FAC ) of ORG \u0437\u0430 PERSON ) examined the applicant in the detention centre . In a detailed expert report dated DATE , the experts noted bruises ( CARDINAL in number ) on the applicant \u2019s back , chest , stomach , both arms and legs and the left buttock ( no injuries were noted on the applicant \u2019s feet ) . According to the report , the bruises were mostly green and violet in colour . The report further explained that after DATE a bruise became green , and after DATE yellow . It went on to state that :","\u201c Having regard to ( the applicant \u2019s ) statement that he had sustained the injuries while he was detained in the police station on DATE , we can say that , given the noted characteristics of the ( applicant \u2019s ) injuries , especially their greenish colour , they ( the injuries ) could not have been inflicted on DATE . This is because DATE have passed between then and DATE , the date of the medical examination , and bruises could not acquire such a greenish colour in DATE . More precisely , the injuries noted during the examination are older , and date from DATE before the examination .","Given their characteristics , the bruises are mostly external ( \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0440\u0448\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u0438 ) , except in the area of the left buttock , where there is more intensive bruising . \u201d","NORP The medical report concluded that the injuries sustained by the applicant had been inflicted by a \u201c blunt dynamic force \u201d . As regards the injuries to the applicant \u2019s arms , the experts stated that they were the result of pressure exerted by parts of a body , including hands . While they could not determine the exact means by which the remaining injuries had been inflicted , they nevertheless specified that they had been caused by beatings . The injuries were to be regarded as bodily injuries .","On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against the applicant and GPE on terrorism charges . On DATE an indictment on the same charges was lodged against GPE","At a hearing held on DATE the trial court decided to consider both indictments in CARDINAL set of proceedings . According to depositions taken on DATE , the applicant , who was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing , stated , inter alia , that :","\u201c The accusations described in the indictment , which I contest , are wrong . At TIME on DATE , QUANTITY in front of my house ... members of special ( police ) forces jumped on my back and put me in a car ... they took me to a forest , I do not know exactly where ... When they abducted me , there were QUANTITY of them ... In the forest there was a change of driver , and they hooded me and drove me far away in a different direction . We arrived in a house , where they unhooded me ; it was a luxurious house . I was told to sit on a chair ; uniformed people wearing masks and others in plain clothes arrived . They asked me if I knew why I had been brought there , to which I replied that I had not done anything wrong . They started insulting me ... QUANTITY people started beating me with plastic bottles and a rubber tube . I stayed in the house for DATE . During that time , while my hands and legs were handcuffed , I was held under water in a swimming pool . A big man was trying to force me to confess about the police station , to which I replied \u2018 to confess what about the police station?\u2019 . When they took me out of the pool , other people continued beating me . They ordered me to admit that I had placed the bomb in the LOC police station . I told them that I had not done that ... they also brought a dog into the house . The dog did nothing to me . They held me under water in the pool CARDINAL more times ... I believe that we were in PERSON ... The same uniformed men , who wore masks , brought me [ near the department store in GPE , see paragraph CARDINAL above ] and told me to go home . There were other people around . I was wet and could not walk . Men in plain clothes without uniforms or masks handcuffed me and took me to K. police station . They slapped me twice and started interrogating me about the bomb in GPE police station . I told them that I knew nothing ... They asked me if I knew GPE and GPE , and I said that I did not know them . I stayed in GPE police station from DATE to the TIME of DATE , when they brought me before the investigating judge . I note that while I was in the house in PERSON I was given a blank paper which I had to sign because they had beaten me . In PERSON I think I signed CARDINAL blank papers and I \u2019m sure that I saw those papers in the police station changing hands between police officers . The investigating judge also showed them to me . When the judge had them they were no longer blank , but I do n\u2019t remember what was written on them . In PERSON I was told to say \u2018 admit that you placed the bomb and we will let you go , we will take you home\u2019 .","On DATE ... I could not tell the investigating judge that police officers had threatened me , because they had said they would kill my family . What I said to the investigating judge on DATE was what I had been told to say by the police officers in ORG . What I said to the investigating judge was invented by the police officers ... I want to say that I was afraid because while in PERSON I heard screams and voices saying \u2018 we caught his ORG , so I was convinced that they had captured and tortured my father . I was further told by the police that they had apprehended and taken my father to P. police station , that they had found weapons in my house , and that my father had admitted that they belonged to him . That was a stratagem of the police . \u201d","NORP The applicant further denied that he knew GPE He said :","\u201c This is the first time I have seen him . I do not know him ; I do not know where he lives , I know nothing about him . I do not know NORP nor have I ever heard about him ... \u201d","He further stated :","\u201c On DATE the investigating judge asked me about weapons , a gun , and some missiles . I was shocked . The investigating judge told me that all those items had been found in my house . I saw the certificate regarding items which had been seized . I do not know who signed it ... ( after the certificate was shown to him ) : the investigating judge did not show this certificate to me . I saw it then for the first time . The signature on it does not belong to my father . The items that the judge read aloud from the certificate had not been found in my house ... [ The accused was shown a note referring to LOC and he said ] : Maybe I wrote that , I do not remember . Maybe someone from the school wrote it . It was found in my house . I drew it , it was a game . The words that are on the map , I am confused ; the words DATE Jihad , PERSON ; the interpreter says that the following is written on the map : ORG , Jihad , ORG , Allah Aqbar ... maybe I found this map and maybe I drew it . I do not know what that map means , it was a game ... \u201d","The applicant denied that he had spoken on his mobile phone with GPE and PERSON His phone had been seized by the police while he was in PERSON . He confirmed that on DATE he had been in possession of his mobile phone and denied that ORG had called him DATE . He further stated :","\u201c ... DATE ( DATE ) ... when I was sitting with my friends , we heard an explosion . Everyone went outside to see what had happened . I had some visitors . Someone said a bridge had collapsed , later someone said that a missile had been launched against ORG police station ... At TIME , the time of the explosion , I was in my neighbourhood . When the explosion happened , I did not have my mobile phone - it was charging . When I arrived home , I saw that there were no missed calls . \u201d","Asked by the public prosecutor why he had not revealed , during his examination on DATE , that he had been abducted on DATE and about the subsequent sequence of events , the applicant stated :","\u201c I did not tell the investigating judge , because I was told by police officers in ORG that I should not say anything . What I said DATE , I also said on DATE , but the judge did not note it ... I signed the record ( of CARDINAL DATE ) , but I did not read it . I do not know why the judge did not note down the whole event in ORG and then in GPE police station ... \u201d","The applicant further named CARDINAL individuals , including a certain PERSON and S.A. , with whom he had allegedly been at the critical time on DATE . In this connection he asked the court to examine those witnesses .","After the court read out his statement of CARDINAL DATE given in the pre - trial proceedings , the applicant confirmed the part of that statement indicating that he had been threatened by ORG to force him to make the statement .","The applicant \u2019s father stated that the police had searched his house in his absence and that he had been forced to sign the search record and the certificate of seized objects . He confirmed that the map of LOC belonged to the applicant . Lastly , he stated that on DATE , at the time of the explosion , the applicant had been in the house .","At a hearing of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was shown the map of LOC , which the applicant confirmed that he had found at his school . He was further shown photographs of himself wearing a military uniform and carrying a machine gun . In this connection the applicant stated that the photographs had been taken on the occasion of a religious holiday when it had been possible , for a certain price , to be photographed wearing such a uniform .","The trial court also heard oral evidence by PERSON and ORG stated , inter alia :","\u201c On DATE , as on any other night , we met friends outside our doors , because it was very hot . That night [ the applicant ] was with us ... That night ( the following were present ) I , S. , PERSON , as well as A. ... At TIME we were outside . At TIME or TIME we were all outside , including GPE I want to say that many other people were there as well . Then , there was an explosion , everybody went out , we did not know what was going on . At the time of the explosion , [ the applicant ] was with us ... TIME later someone came out of the house saying he had seen on television that a bomb had exploded at GPE police station . We stayed there talking . [ The applicant ] was there as well . On DATE we noticed that [ the applicant ] was absent . He was not there on DATE either . On DATE [ the applicant \u2019s ] father told us that [ the applicant ] had been arrested . There were rumours that he had been arrested in connection with the explosion at the police station . That is why I agreed to testify as a witness , to say that [ the applicant ] did not do it . No one asked me to testify . I volunteered to do it ... I gave a list of everyone who was there that night with [ the applicant ] to [ the applicant \u2019s ] father . I gave him that list after [ the applicant ] had been arrested ... We wanted to vouch that [ the applicant ] had been with us and that he had not done it . \u201d","On being asked by the public prosecutor how he remembered that the applicant had not been there on DATE , PERSON said :","\u201c Since [ the applicant ] was normally there TIME and was not there that TIME , his friends were wondering where he was ; his friends noticed his absence ; I learned about it from them . \u201d","S.A. also confirmed that at the critical time on DATE the applicant had been outside his house talking with other people . He stated , inter alia :","\u201c That night [ the applicant ] was with us ; he stayed out other TIME as well , but I can not say whether it was TIME , because I go out only some nights ... I can not say exactly whether it was TIME or TIME when we heard a very loud explosion ... We were standing in front of [ the applicant \u2019s ] house after TIME , until TIME ... ( the applicant \u2019s ) father asked me to testify as a witness ... He asked me if I would like to testify in court that ( the applicant ) had been with us that night ; I agreed . \u201d","On DATE GPE , the expert doctor who had carried out and signed the medical report regarding the applicant \u2019s injuries of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , gave oral evidence before the trial court in the presence of the accused and their representatives . He explained the recovery process of a bruise and its colour changes . He confirmed the veracity of the written report and that the applicant \u2019s injuries had been inflicted DATE ( or DATE more than that ) before the date of examination .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer stated :","\u201c I do not contest the expert report regarding the injuries specified therein and their colour . \u201d","At a hearing on DATE the public prosecutor made the charge specific , and also accused the applicant and GPE of trafficking in arms .","On DATE the trial court convicted the applicant , GPE and GPE ( in absentia ) and sentenced them to CARDINAL , ten and CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment respectively . The applicant was found guilty of terrorism and trafficking in arms under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The court further ordered confiscation of the semi - automatic weapon , CARDINAL bullets and CARDINAL explosive items from the applicant . The convicts were also ordered to compensate for the damage sustained . An indefinite expulsion order ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0435\u0446 \u043e\u0434 \u0437\u0435\u043c\u0458\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0441\u0435\u043a\u043e\u0433\u0430\u0448 ) was issued in respect of LANGUAGE The court established that the applicant and GPE , together with ORG , were responsible for the explosion of DATE in the LOC police station , the aim of which was to endanger the constitutional order and public safety .","In the judgment , which runs to CARDINAL pages , the court reproduced and analysed the statements that the applicant had given in the pre - trial proceedings ( CARDINAL and DATE ) and at the trial ( DATE ) , as well as the medical report dated DATE and the oral evidence of the expert of DATE . Noting that the applicant \u2019s statements were inconsistent , the court gave weight to his confession statement of CARDINAL DATE , finding that it contained a clear , complete and logical description of the events of the critical date . It was given in accordance with the law : the applicant had been informed of his rights , and he had read the written transcript of the court hearing and had signed it . It held that that statement was consistent and reliable , because the applicant had given a chronological description of the events ; he had also given a detailed description of the device , the place and the means by which he had detonated it , which corresponded to the experts\u2019 reports regarding the incident . The statement of CARDINAL DATE was also corroborated with a detailed list of calls on the mobile phones confiscated from the convicted individuals , which confirmed that there had been intense communication between them before and after the incident .","NORP The court further established that in the statement of CARDINAL DATE the applicant had retracted his confession of QUANTITY DATE , which he had stated had been given under duress , namely that he had been beaten on that date by police while detained in the police station . On the basis of that testimony , the investigating judge had ordered an expert examination of the applicant . The experts , relying on medical science and practice , had established that the applicant \u2019s injuries had been inflicted DATE before the date of the examination ( DATE ) . Accordingly , the injuries had not been inflicted on DATE when he had been arrested and detained ; they had therefore not been inflicted by the police .","The court went on to say that after the expert examination the applicant had concocted another version of the events he had presented in his statement of CARDINAL DATE . In that statement the applicant had given another description of events , namely that he had not been detained on DATE and beaten up in the police station , but that on DATE the police had abducted and detained him in a luxurious house in ORG ; that he had been held under water in a swimming pool ; tied up ; and beaten , to make him confess to the crime . The court held that nothing suggested , as implied by the defence , that there had been CARDINAL periods of detention , the first unlawful ( DATE ) and the second ( DATE ) , lawful . The court held , referring to the decision of the investigating judge ( see paragraph DATE above ) , that the applicant had been detained on DATE in accordance with the law .","It further found that no evidence had been presented that the applicant had been arrested by the police on DATE and ill - treated in a house in ORG . That version of events , according to the court , was fictional and invented in order to match the date when the injuries had been inflicted , as established in the expert report . The court held that the applicant \u2019s statements of CARDINAL DATE and DATE were inconsistent and implausible . In his testimony of CARDINAL DATE the applicant had made no comment as regards his alleged abduction on DATE and interrogation in ORG . Contrary to the applicant \u2019s argument that he had been scared and confused when he had given his confession statement on DATE , the court record of his questioning of that date suggested no disorder or lack of capacity for rational perception . Had the investigating judge noticed any indication of unsafety , fear , panic or lack of capacity on the part of the applicant , he would have terminated the questioning .","Lastly , the court concluded that the applicant \u2019s confession statement of CARDINAL DATE coincided with the motives for committing the crime and the intention to provoke fear and unsafety . The drawing of the map of LOC and photographs of himself wearing military uniform and carrying weapons found in the applicant \u2019s possession confirmed his political determination to create an imaginary , non - existent entity by DATE through jihad . The court examined the evidence produced by ORG , but dismissed it as unreliable , for the following reasons : the witnesses were neighbours of the applicant ; the applicant \u2019s house was in the immediate vicinity of the LOC police station where the explosive had been placed , which had allowed him to leave the scene without being noticed ; they had been instructed to provide alibis , but their statements were incoherent .","The applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG . He submitted , inter alia , that he had been convicted on the basis of unlawfully obtained evidence , namely his testimony of DATE , which had been given under duress . That the applicant had been subjected to police brutality was confirmed by his injuries described in the expert report of CARDINAL DATE . Besides that medical evidence and his clear description of events as to what had happened CARDINAL DATE , he could not produce any other evidence to support his allegations of abduction and ill - treatment . He further complained that he had not been legally represented when he had given the statement of CARDINAL DATE , notwithstanding that legal representation was obligatory . Lastly , he contested the lawfulness of the search of his father \u2019s house .","At a public session held on DATE , ORG , sitting in a CARDINAL - judge panel , upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court stated :","\u201c The complaints ( that the applicant \u2019s conviction had been based on his confession statement given under duress ) were the subject of a complete and careful review by the adjudicating panel , which found them unsubstantiated . The trial court did not commit a substantive violation of procedural rules ... since there had been no evidence that ( the applicant \u2019s ) statement of DATE before the investigating judge had been given under duress ; ill - treatment ; physical assault ; or threats . That this statement was lawful was explained by the trial court in detail ( on CARDINAL pages ) ...","The trial court , after examining all CARDINAL statements of ( the applicant ) , gave weight to his statement of CARDINAL DATE given before the investigating judge , as lawfully obtained and reliable evidence . The statement of CARDINAL DATE is clear ; it provides a reasonable description of the entire incident ; it gives a chronological account of all details of the manner and place he had met the other CARDINAL co - defendants ; of all activities and preparations pre - dating the incident ; of the means by which the crime had been committed ; also a description of the device ; the length of the fuse ; the role of the co - defendants GPE and ORG .... Details regarding the place where the device had been placed , which could have been known to the applicant as the perpetrator of the crime , matched the on - site examination report ; there were also photographs , as well as the expert reports regarding the nature and description of the explosive device and the place where it had been placed ...","( The applicant ) gave his testimony of DATE before the investigating judge , the public prosecutor and a court interpreter , without the presence of the police ; he was advised of all his rights under LAW , including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney ; which ( the applicant ) waived . That he confessed to the crimes was not the result of external pressure or threats , but an act of acceptance and remorse for the unlawful actions . \u201d","As regards the right of the applicant to be legally represented at his questioning before the investigating judge on DATE , the court held that notwithstanding that he had been informed of his right to mount a defence , including the right to an attorney , he had clearly stated that he would give his testimony without a lawyer . He did not mention to the investigating judge that he was in any particular mental state or that he was otherwise unfit to testify . After the investigating judge had ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention , a court - appointed lawyer was appointed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . That had been done in compliance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The search warrants had been issued , and the search records had been duly signed by the applicant \u2019s father and the attending witnesses who had attested to the lawfulness of the search carried out in the house of the applicant \u2019s father ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant and GPE appealed against these judgments by means of a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment , which ORG , with a judgment of DATE , allowed in part and dismissed the indictment regarding trafficking in arms , which , as found by ORG , had not been submitted in accordance with the law . The court upheld the lower courts\u2019 judgments in the remaining part and dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints that his conviction had been based on unlawfully obtained evidence ( the statement of DATE ) given allegedly under duress . The court ruled that the lower courts had examined , but nevertheless dismissed , that complaint , providing sufficient reasons for their judgments . The court concluded that the applicant \u2019s conviction had not been based solely on his testimony of CARDINAL DATE . It rested also on other documentary and verbal evidence , which had been communicated to the defence .","On DATE the applicant lodged with the public prosecutor \u2019s office a criminal complaint in which he alleged that he had been subjected to police brutality . In the complaint the applicant outlined his statements given on CARDINAL and DATE and DATE , as well as the expert report regarding his injuries admitted in evidence in the criminal proceedings against him . He alleged that an unidentified perpetrator had tortured him . He attached a copy of the medical expert report and the court record of DATE , as well as a copy of the trial court \u2019s judgment .","As no action was taken regarding his criminal complaint , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant approached the public prosecutor \u2019s office , seeking that measures be taken to bring those responsible to justice , but he received no reply from the public prosecutor ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155824","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LIE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF A.K. v. LIECHTENSTEIN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Constitutional proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","Since DATE , the applicant and GPE have been involved in legal disputes against each other concerning the property rights in PERCENT of the bearer shares in both the EMK stock corporation and the EMK Engineering stock corporation , companies resident and registered in GPE which trade in building units .","By an immediately enforceable interim injunction dated DATE , taken in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG granted GPE \u2019s request to prohibit ORG to register certain changes concerning the EMK Engineering stock corporation which had been decided in the corporation \u2019s extraordinary ORG meeting of DATE ( file no . CARDINAL.CG.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . It thereby confirmed its provisional order of CARDINAL DATE to that effect . The ORG notably prohibited registering the decisions taken in that meeting that GPE had been voted out of his office as a representative and member of the corporation \u2019s supervisory board with power to represent the corporation and that the applicant had been elected managing director of the corporation with power to represent the corporation alone .","On DATE ORG quashed that decision on the applicant \u2019s request and the case was remitted to ORG for a further investigation of the facts .","On DATE ORG issued a fresh identical interim injunction . It stated that the interim order served to secure GPE \u2019s claim in the main proceedings for a declaration that the decisions taken in the EMK Engineering stock corporation \u2019s extraordinary ORG meeting of CARDINAL July DATE were null and void and for a prohibition of the entry of those decisions in the real property and commercial register .","ORG confirmed that the applicant had not obtained property of PERCENT of the bearer shares in the EMK Engineering stock corporation and had not therefore validly represented PERCENT of the shares in the corporation \u2019s extraordinary ORG meeting . The decisions taken in that meeting were thus unlawful . It further found that interim injunctions under LAW could also be taken in order to secure claims for a declaration ( Feststellungsanspr\u00fcche ) if such a measure was necessary to preserve the status quo of either an object or a legal relationship . For such interim orders the restriction that interim injunctions should not anticipate the outcome of the main proceedings did not apply . In the present case , it was necessary to maintain the status quo in the commercial register in order to prevent GPE from suffering irreversible damage . GPE could suffer such damage if the changes in question were made in the real property and commercial register as dispositions could then be taken for the stock corporation without his participation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the order of DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against ORG decision dated DATE .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that judges PERSON . , PERSON , ORG and PERSON would deliberate on his complaint in private on DATE .","By submissions dated DATE , which were received at the court on DATE , the applicant , who was not represented by counsel at that stage of the proceedings , lodged motions for bias against all CARDINAL judges called upon to decide on his complaint and against the secretary in charge ( PERSON ) , PERSON","The applicant argued , in particular , that ORG had to his disadvantage not quashed previous decisions of the lower courts in related proceedings . Moreover , he complained that it had taken LAW DATE to assign the judges who were to decide on his complaint despite the importance of the proceedings for him and that the court discriminated against NORP nationals .","Furthermore , in the applicant \u2019s submission , judges PERSON , PERSON and PERSON and secretary PERSON had failed to take measures to remedy the disadvantages resulting from the fact that the commercial register did not reflect his rights concerning the EMK Engineering stock corporation and had arbitrarily disregarded his rights under LAW no . CARDINAL to the LAW in previous related proceedings .","The applicant further submitted that , for different reasons , the CARDINAL judges of ORG individually were not impartial . As regards the court \u2019s president , judge PERSON , the applicant complained that the latter had not granted his constitutional complaint suspensory effect and had refused to order interim measures in related proceedings . Furthermore , judge PERSON was a member of different committees and commissions of which judges of ORG , which had given a decision contested by him in the main proceedings , and judge PERSON , who was a judge at ORG and GPE \u2019s brother , were equally members .","In the applicant \u2019s submission , judge PERSON . , for his part , was biased because he worked for the Government in that he drew up expert reports on constitutional questions and taught at seminars organised by the Government . He further worked with judge PERSON on a regular basis .","The applicant further stressed that judge PERSON was a member of the supervisory board of a state - owned company and was therefore not independent and impartial .","Judge PERSON , for his part , had been a professor at ORG and was , therefore , not independent as he had worked for the Government and as judges had short terms of office . Moreover , he was biased as he was a good friend of judge PERSON , GPE \u2019s brother .","Finally , judge PERSON , in his law firm , was the partner of a lawyer against whom the applicant had brought proceedings concerning an inheritance . Another lawyer of that law firm had already represented the EMK Engineering stock corporation . Moreover , judge PERSON had previously worked as a lawyer in judge PERSON \u2019s law firm .","CARDINAL of the judges of ORG made statements on the applicant \u2019s motions for bias . Judge PERSON . stated that he had not drawn up any expert reports for the Government since his appointment as a judge . Judge S. submitted that he did not draw considerable income from his work as a member of the supervisory board of a state - owned stock corporation . Judge PERSON explained that he did not have any knowledge of whether his partner in the law firm , who was currently absent , was involved in unrelated legal proceedings with the applicant . His work for judge PERSON dated back DATE and he had been working as a self - employed counsel for DATE already since then .","On DATE ORG , composed of judges PERSON . , PERSON , ORG and PERSON , dismissed the applicant \u2019s motion for bias against them ( file no . PERSON ) .","ORG stated that , in accordance with the principle that , if possible , a motion for bias should not be decided upon by the challenged judge , the challenged judges , respectively , had not participated in the deliberations and the decision on the respective motion for bias against them , which had been decided upon by the CARDINAL remaining judges .","The Constitutional Court considered that the fact alone that judges PERSON , PERSON and PERSON had already taken part in decisions finding against the applicant in related proceedings did not suffice to substantiate that there were objectively justified doubts as to their impartiality . Likewise , the fact that the judges were elected for DATE did not compromise their impartiality .","NORP The independence of the judges of the Constitutional Court vis - \u00e0 - vis the executive was guaranteed by LAW . The applicant further had not substantiated that the executive had influenced the judges of ORG in the present proceedings in any way . The fact that some of the judges had previously worked for the executive did not suggest that the executive had influenced the present proceedings .","Finally , the fact that the challenged judges worked together with ORG brother , the vice - president of ORG , on a regular basis and were friends of the latter did not objectively cast doubts on their impartiality in the circumstances of the present case . In a small country like GPE , excessively strict standards in this respect would disproportionately obstruct the administration of justice .","The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE ORG , composed of judges PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON allowed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint in so far as he had complained under LAW about the unreasonable length of the proceedings and dismissed the remainder of his complaint ( file no . PERSON ) . The applicant complained about that judgment in a new , separate application ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) to the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152446","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"MALINEN v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr Jaakko Tuutti , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is in prison . On DATE a letter sent to the applicant was withheld by the prison authorities on the basis of LAW , section CARDINAL , of FAC on suspicion that it contained drugs . The letter was sent to the police for further investigation . The applicant was informed about the withholding of the letter on DATE . According to the established prison practice , the withheld letter was either given to the applicant to read or it was read to him .","On DATE the police found that no crime had been committed as they could find only a very small amount of possible traces of drugs in the letter using the means at their disposal . For this reason , as well as for expediency and cost - effectiveness , the police decided not to forward the letter to a forensic laboratory for further testing but returned it to the prison .","The prison decided to withhold the letter still as it had not been examined properly . The applicant was informed that he would receive the letter only upon his release .","On an unspecified date the applicant sought rectification of the prison director \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE to withhold his letter .","On DATE ORG ( rikosseuraamusvirasto , brottsp\u00e5f\u00f6ljdsverket ) refused his application finding that , according to domestic law , mail sent or received by a prisoner could be withheld , inter alia , in order to prevent danger or to protect safety in prisons . Such mail was to be returned to the sender or given to the prisoner upon release .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) , requesting that the prison director \u2019s decision be quashed . Interpretation of the domestic provisions in accordance with fundamental rights should have led to the use of alternative , less restrictive means . As no traces of drugs had been found , the letter or a copy of it should have been given to the applicant .","On DATE ORG , by a final decision , rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . It found that the withholding of the applicant \u2019s letter had been necessary in order to prevent danger and crime in the prison . The letter had been singled out by a sniffer dog , which had led to a strong suspicion of the presence of drugs . In such a situation the domestic law did not oblige the prison authorities to give a copy of the withheld letter to a prisoner .","On DATE a copy of the letter was given to the applicant .","According to LAW perustuslaki , ORG grundlag , Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the secrecy of correspondence , telephony and other confidential communications is inviolable . Provisions concerning limitations of the secrecy of communications which are necessary in the investigation of crimes that jeopardise the security of the individual or society or the sanctity of the home , at trials and security checks , as well as during the deprivation of liberty , may be laid down by an Act .","According to LAW , the rights of individuals deprived of their liberty shall be guaranteed by an LAW . The rights of convicted prisoners and pre - trial detainees and the necessary restrictions on these rights are regulated by LAW and LAW .","Chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of FAC ( vankeuslaki , f\u00e4ngelselagen , Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provides that a prisoner has the right of correspondence . Any sealed letter or other mail destined for the prisoner or sent by the prisoner may be checked by X - ray or by similar methods without opening the mail , in order to examine whether it contains prohibited substances or objects referred to in LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL or CARDINAL , of the LAW .","LAW , section CARDINAL , of the LAW provides that a letter , mail or message sent by or destined for a prisoner may be withheld , if the withholding is necessary for the prevention or solving of crime , prevention of disorder in the prison or for the safety of the detainee or other persons . The recipient or the sender shall be immediately informed about the withholding and the reasons for it . A letter , mail or message which has not been delivered shall be returned to the sender or given to the prisoner upon release ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141763","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF D\u0130L\u0130PAK AND KARAKAYA v. TURKEY [Extracts]","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Just satisfaction reserved","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Paul Lemmens;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are both journalists who were working for the PERSON DATE newspaper at the material time .","On DATE , on the occasion of the funeral of Admiral G\u00fcven GPE , the former Commander - in - Chief of the navy and member of ORG , PERSON PERSON published an article in the PERSON DATE newspaper , whose front - page headline read \u201c We will not waive our rights \u201d . In the article the journalist criticised the late Admiral for the role he had played in the political process triggered by the meeting of ORG on DATE , which some observers have called a \u201c post - modern coup d\u2019\u00e9tat \u201d .","On DATE Mr PERSON also published an article in the same newspaper on Admiral PERSON , criticising his actions .","On DATE the deceased \u2019s family brought a civil action for damages in ORG of First Instance ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against the applicants and the company owning the newspaper . The family also lodged a complaint with the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office .","When bringing their civil action , the PERSON family gave the newspaper \u2019s registered office as the GPE address .","NORP However , the postal service did not succeed in serving the summons and the statement of claim on the applicants at this address , as they were not to be found there . This fact was confirmed by the elected neighbourhood leader ( muhtar ) , who countersigned the report noting that the summons could not be served on the relevant persons .","ORG then asked the police to ascertain the applicants\u2019 addresses .","According to ORG , after the police had completed their inquiries , they informed it of CARDINAL addresses in GPE : CARDINAL in the LOC neighbourhood ( PERSON no . CARDINAL ) , in respect of Mr PERSON , and the other in the Mecidiyek\u00f6y neighbourhood ( ORG no . CARDINAL ORG ) , in respect of PERSON PERSON .","The decision was subsequently taken to send fresh summonses to these addresses .","The record of the service of Mr PERSON \u2019s summons stated that it had been handed to a certain PERSON , describing him as an \u201c authorised employee \u201d ( yetkili personel ) .","In the case of Mr PERSON , the summons could not be served on the ground that he was unknown at the stated address .","ORG decided to serve the summons via publication in the press on the ground that it was impossible to ascertain Mr PERSON \u2019s address .","On DATE , in the absence of the defendants , who had never appeared at the hearings , ORG delivered a judgment ordering them jointly to pay the sum of MONEY ( TRY ) , equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) , together with interest in arrears from DATE , for non - pecuniary damage .","ORG considered that in his article Mr PERSON had insinuated that the deceased would pay for his wrongdoing and that justice would be done ORG noted that he had used the phrase \u201c may your land be abundant \u201d , which was reserved for non - NORP . It cited the following passage in particular :","\u201c Whatever you do , do not remind me of the injunction \u2018 do not speak ill of the dead\u2019 . This injunction does not apply to PERSON , PERSON or PERSON . Otherwise the Koran would not say what it does about PERSON and PERSON . PERSON was certainly not PERSON , but nonetheless he holds a particular place in the consciousness of our people . \u201d","In the case of Mr PERSON , ORG held that he had insinuated that the circumstances surrounding the Admiral \u2019s death \u2013particularly his cancer \u2013 were but his due for the suffering which he had inflicted on the people . It noted that the journalist had also written that this death had not saddened him , that he would not attend the Admiral \u2019s funeral and that he would not waive his rights over him . It also noted the following passage :","\u201c He made the people weep , but now his family are weeping ... He invented the lie that Koranic school students swore an oath to combat the secular system and PERSON . The PERSON schools may now be closed , but so are PERSON \u2019s eyes . \u201d","ORG concluded that the applicants had \u201c exceeded the limits of criticism by launching a personal attack on the deceased on the ground of his functions \u201d , especially since he had been a \u201c valorous army commander who [ had ] served the nation \u201d .","Furthermore , it pointed out that inquiries had been carried out into the defendants\u2019 economic and social situation and that the turnover of the company owning the PERSON newspaper had been ascertained from the tax authorities .","The judgment was not served on Mr PERSON because he no longer lived at the latest address known to the registry ( PERSON ) . As he had not informed the court of his change of address , the judgment was deemed to have been served in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The record drawn up by the notifying officer stated that a local resident , R.\u00d6. , had been questioned about Mr PERSON \u2019s new address , albeit in vain . A stamp used by the local muhtar indicates that the address of service was a business address which had not been recorded in his files .","In the case of Mr PERSON , the judgment was served via publication in a newspaper on DATE . The judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG added an annotation to its judgment to the effect that it was final ( kesinle\u015fme \u015ferhi ) .","On DATE the PERSON family submitted a copy of the final judgment to ORG and brought enforcement proceedings . On DATE the payment orders were drawn up and posted to the applicants ...","Mr PERSON received his payment order at his home address in the ORG neighbourhood in GPE ( GPE ) . Mr PERSON also received his order at his home address in GPE ( GPE ) .","On an unspecified date the applicants sought leave from ORG to appeal on points of law against the judgment of DATE , observing that they had been apprised of the latter on receipt of the aforementioned payment orders .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG appeal ( temyiz dilek\u00e7esinin reddi ) on the ground that the judgment had become final .","The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the CARDINAL DATE decision .","Mr GPE challenged the lawfulness of serving the documents in question by publication in the press , contending that this procedure could only be used after all other methods had failed . He pointed out that he had been residing at the same address for DATE , and submitted that the requisite steps had not been taken to find his address . In his view , his address could have been easily ascertained by means of a simple letter to ORG ( PERSON ) or to ORG ( a department operating under the Prime Minister , with responsibility for issuing press passes ) .","He pointed out that the judgment had become enforceable on DATE and that the payment order had been drawn up and sent to his home within DATE of that date . Furthermore , the address had been given to ORG by counsel for the PERSON family . He specified that the latter had long been in possession of his address and had deliberately refrained from saying so until the judgment had become final .","Mr PERSON concluded that neither the summons nor the judgment had been validly served on him .","Mr GPE , for his part , complained that the documents had been served at another person \u2019s address rather than his own .","He pointed out that in accordance with the law , when judicial documents were served at a business address , they could be handed over to CARDINAL of the addressee \u2019s permanent employees if , and only if , the addressee was absent . He submitted that in the present case , the documents had been served at a business address but that the person mentioned in the record had not been CARDINAL of his employees . Moreover , the record did not mention the reason why the documents had not been handed over to him in person .","Lastly , he found it surprising that the claimants had considered throughout the proceedings that his address was \u201c PERSON no : CARDINAL \u2013 Aksaray \/ GPE \u201d and that , DATE after the judgment had become final , they had suddenly found his real address and given it to ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed on the merits the appeal on points of law against the impugned judgment on the ground that the latter was \u201c in conformity with procedural and statutory law \u201d .","On DATE Mr PERSON submitted a request for rectification of the judgment .","He submitted that ORG had not made any serious attempt to find his address .","Mr PERSON pointed out that the court had indeed submitted a request to the police and that the report sent to the court had indicated CARDINAL address for each of the other CARDINAL defendants , but that neither of these addresses had concerned him . He specified that the document in the case file contained a handwritten entry \u201c PERSON Is . Ad . NORP , GPE \u201d alongside his name , that the author of this entry was unknown , and that the judge had , strangely enough , considered that it referred to the address \u201c PERSON . no : CARDINAL Cavu\u015fo\u011flu I\u015f Merkezi Mecidiyek\u00f6y GPE \u201d , to which he had decided to send the summons made out to him .","Explaining that according to the law and the case - law of ORG the court should have made enquiries among the relevant government departments and institutions and not confined itself to police searches , he accused the court of having failed to take the necessary action . In this connection , he produced letters from the civil status register , ORG ) , ORG , ORG , and an ORG organisation ( ORG ) , stating that according to their files , he was a long - term resident of the ORG neighbourhood in GPE . He also submitted a document from the elected leader of the ORG neighbourhood to the effect that he had been living at the same address in that neighbourhood since DATE .","Mr PERSON also presented a letter from ORG confirming that he had been assigned a bodyguard . In his view this meant that his address was known to the police .","NORP Moreover , ORG , ORG and ORG had all been aware of his address .","He also submitted that the PERSON family must have known his address because it had been mentioned in the case file for the criminal proceedings which they had jointed as intervening parties , the summons had been sent to him at that address and he had stated the same address at his hearing before ORG .","He based his whole line of reasoning on the case - law of ORG , including a judgment delivered by its ORG on DATE ( MONEY E \u2013 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL K ) . In this judgment the court had stressed the importance of judicial notices , which were closely linked to the rights of the defence . It had held that efforts to ascertain an address should be very wide - ranging , covering enquiries to government bodies such as municipal councils , civil status and land registries and various professional bodies , and that such action should not be confined to police investigations .","On an unspecified date Mr PERSON also submitted a request for rectification of the judgment .","On DATE the court dismissed the applicants\u2019 requests on the ground that the conditions had not been met for rectifying the judgment .","On DATE ORG invited ORG at ORG to lodge an appeal in the interests of the law against the judgment of DATE on the ground that the rules on notification of judicial documents had been infringed . He backed up his arguments by citing the aforementioned judgment adopted on CARDINAL DATE by ORG of ORG .","DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal in the interests of the law lodged by ORG .","...","On DATE the applicants applied for the reopening of the proceedings before ORG of First Instance and a stay of execution of the judgment of DATE . In support of their application , they submitted that criminal proceedings for an attempted coup ORG had been instituted against senior army officers who had been on ORG in DATE , and that those concerned had been taken into pre - trial detention . According to the applicants , this was a new fact that had been unknown to the court at the time of the judgment . They pointed out that this fact was liable to cast doubt on the court \u2019s use of such laudatory expressions as \u201c valorous army commander who served the nation \u201d in connection with the deceased . Furthermore , the applicants submitted that the applications which they had lodged with ORG were currently under examination and that a finding of a violation of the LAW was a ground for reopening the proceedings . They therefore invited the court to order a stay of execution of the judgment until the ORG had heard and determined their applications .","By an order of CARDINAL DATE , ORG decided to suspend the enforcement procedure on condition of payment of a surety of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL at the time ) .","No information has been provided on the action taken on this order ."],"violated_articles":["10","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172463","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants complained of the excessive length of different administrative and civil proceedings under LAW .","All applicants obtained decisions of ORG , which found a violation of their right to a hearing within reasonable time .","As regards the applicant Mr PERSON , according to the regulations applicable at that time , the ORG established his right to seek compensation for non - pecuniary damage before ORG . Mr GPE submitted his request for damages to the Commission on DATE , but he has not received the response to date .","As regards the applicants Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , ORG awarded them certain sums in respect of the non - pecuniary damage suffered ( see appendix to this judgment ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166684","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KIRILLOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE F. bought a QUANTITY flat at CARDINAL PERSON , GPE . On DATE F. died intestate and without heirs . According to the Government , his flat was locked and sealed by the housing maintenance company .","On an unspecified date ORG brought a civil action seeking recognition as F. \u2019s heir - at - law . GPE authorities took part in the proceedings as a respondent . On DATE the Simonovskiy District Court of GPE granted her claim and recognised her title to F. \u2019s flat . The judgment came into force on DATE .","On DATE ORG sold the flat to ORG transaction was registered by ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE on appeal and dismissed ORG \u2019s claims .","On DATE PERSON sold the flat to the applicant . On DATE ORG registered the sale agreement and the transfer of the title to the flat to the applicant .","On an unspecified date ORG brought a civil action claiming that ORG had been erroneously recognised as F. \u2019s heir - at - law and that GPE should inherit his property instead .","On DATE ORG granted ORG claims . It ordered the transfer of title to the flat to the City and the requisition of the flat from the applicant . The court also considered that the applicant had not demonstrated due diligence when buying the flat from PERSON and could not be recognised as a bona fide purchaser .","On DATE , following an appeal by the applicant , ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG granted ORG claims against the applicant and ordered her eviction .","According to the Government , the applicant has not been evicted and continues to reside in the flat .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .","According to the Government , the bailiff failed to establish PERSON \u2019s whereabouts or locate any of his assets . The judgment in the applicant \u2019s favour remains unenforced . The enforcement proceedings are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172660","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Life);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - General measures)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants raised various issues related to the terrorist attack , siege and storming of school no . CARDINAL in GPE , GPE , GPE , from CARDINAL to DATE . Some applicants were held hostage and\/or injured , while others had family members among those taken hostage , killed or injured . Information in respect of each applicant is summarised in the Appendix .","While most events are relevant for all the applicants , their position in the domestic proceedings differed somewhat . However , given the number of applicants , the extent of the domestic procedures and the difficulties associated with establishing each applicant \u2019s procedural role , the present judgment refers to them collectively as \u201c the applicants \u201d . This is based on the assumption that their position in the domestic proceedings was relatively similar , whether or not each of them participated in a given procedural step , either directly or through their representatives ( see Abuyeva and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The anti - terrorist operation mounted from DATE involved a number of ORG agencies . The documents in the case file refer to the police , internal troops of ORG , army servicemen of ORG and officers of ORG ( ORG ( ORG ) \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . Unless otherwise specified , the terms \u201c security personnel \u201d or \u201c security forces \u201d used in the present judgment apply to any of those ORG agents . Equally , the terms \u201c anti - terrorist \u201d or \u201c security operation \u201d are used to describe the operation of DATE .","The voluminous material in the case files lodged by the applicants and submitted by the Government include documents from CARDINAL criminal investigations , CARDINAL criminal trials , CARDINAL sets of civil proceedings for compensation , CARDINAL reports by parliamentary groups and CARDINAL dissenting opinion thereon , books and articles written in the aftermath , copies of forensic and expert reports in respect of each applicant and\/or their relatives , the ORG own statements to the ORG and independent expert reports . The statement of facts below is a succinct summary of the documents mentioned above and other publicly available information .","DATE saw a surge of terrorist acts in GPE involving numerous civilian victims . Mr PERSON , the underground leader of the NORP separatist movement , either claimed responsibility or was held responsible for these acts .","On DATE a suicide bomber killed over forty people and wounded CARDINAL on an underground train in GPE .","In DATE and DATE several explosions in LOC damaged gas pipelines , a heating station and electricity pylons .","NORP On DATE the President of GPE , Mr PERSON , and several senior officials were killed by a bomb in a stadium in Grozny .","On DATE and DATE a large group of armed rebel fighters attacked GPE , ORG largest town . They primarily targeted police stations and other security offices ; over CARDINAL people were killed and an ammunition warehouse was looted .","On DATE CARDINAL civilian aeroplanes which had departed from GPE FAC simultaneously exploded in mid - air ; CARDINAL people lost their lives .","On DATE a suicide bomber blew himself up at the entrance to an underground station in GPE , killing CARDINAL and wounding CARDINAL others .","On DATE ORG of the ORG issued the following telex ( no . DATE ) to all local departments of the interior :","\u201c [ ORG of the Interior ] has received information indicating the movement of participants of [ illegal armed groups ] from the plains of [ Ingushetia ] and [ GPE ] to the mountainous and forested area along the border of [ Ingushetia ] and [ LOC ] . A meeting of the fighters is presumably planned for DATE , following which they are intending to commit a terrorist act in [ LOC ] similar to that in ORG . According to the available information , the fighters plan to capture a civilian object with hostages in the territory of [ LOC ] , and then submit demands to the country \u2019s leadership for the withdrawal of troops from [ GPE ] . A large sum of money in [ a foreign ] currency has apparently been transferred from GPE . [ This information is being ] transmitted in order for preventive measures to be taken . \u201d","On DATE ORG of the Interior issued Decree no . CARDINAL on the protection of public order and security during the Day of Knowledge in the educational facilities of LOC , which was sent to all district police stations . The plan provided for heightened security awareness and an increase in the number of mobile posts and police officers near public gatherings , and contained a series of measures aimed at the prevention of terrorist acts and hostage - taking during public gatherings on ORG in the settlements situated along the administrative border with ORG . The plan further stipulated that each head of the district departments of the ORG should inform the administrations of educational facilities accordingly , put in place working plans for every such gathering and personally inform police staff of their functions , carry out TIME updates of the situation at public gatherings , give immediate feedback to ORG of the ORG and provide contingency staff in each police department .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG of the ORG issued CARDINAL other telexes to the local departments concerning security measures to be taken during DATE of Knowledge , heightened terrorist threats in the region and the prevention of possible attacks . The personnel of ORG were put on high alert ( \u0443\u0441\u0438\u043b\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0440\u0435\u0436\u0438\u043c \u043d\u0435\u0441\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u044b ) .","As revealed by subsequent investigations , towards DATE a sizeable group of terrorists ( CARDINAL people ) were camping and training between the villages of Psedakh and PERSON in LOC . In TIME of CARDINAL September CARDINAL the group crossed the administrative border between PERSON and GPE , driving a ORG utility truck .","At TIME on DATE Major PERSON from LOC of the ORG stopped the vehicle for an inspection at the administrative border with GPE . The terrorists disarmed him , placed him in the back seat of his own white VAZ-CARDINAL and drove to GPE . Major PERSON escaped and later testified about these events .","At TIME on DATE school no . CARDINAL in GPE , GPE , held DATE of Knowledge ceremony to mark the opening of DATE . CARDINAL people gathered in the courtyard of the Eshaped CARDINAL - storey building located on FAC in the centre of the town , whose population was CARDINAL . The school was situated next door to the district police station of Pravoberezhny ( ORG \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b ( ORG ) DATE hereinafter \u201c LOC ) . The gathering included CARDINAL schoolchildren , CARDINAL teachers and staff of the school and members of their families . CARDINAL of children below DATE were in the crowd with their parents , since several kindergartens in GPE were closed on DATE for various reasons . CARDINAL unarmed police officer , PERSON , was at the ceremony .","According to some sources , on TIME the Beslan traffic police were called to secure the passage of PERSON , LOC , through the town . The applicants referred to the testimony of the traffic policemen and servicemen of LOC , saying that they had been instructed to take various positions along the route of PERSON convoy , and thus leave the school unprotected .","During TIME of the ceremony , at TIME , a group of CARDINAL people ( the number of terrorists is disputed DATE see below ) armed with various weapons , including machine guns , explosives and handguns , surrounded the people in the school courtyard and , shooting in the air , ordered them to enter the school through the main door and through smashed windows on the ground floor . A ORG vehicle entered the yard through the main gates and a group of terrorists jumped out . According to some witnesses , some other terrorists came from behind the school and another group was already in the building .","NORP The terrorists in the main courtyard fired into the air and there was an exchange of fire with local residents and the police . CARDINAL local residents were killed ( Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON ) and some were wounded during the shooting . It also appears that CARDINAL terrorists were wounded . CARDINAL people , mostly adults and senior students , managed to escape . Another QUANTITY people hid in the boiler building , from where they were rescued later in DATE .","Despite the initial chaos , the terrorists managed to round up the majority of those in the courtyard \u2013 CARDINAL people ( the exact figure is disputed by some sources ) , including CARDINAL children aged DATE . Several groups of hostages initially tried to hide inside the school or escape through fire exits , but the terrorists were in firm control of the building and escorted everyone to the gymnasium .","The hostages were assembled in a gymnasium located on the ground floor in the central part of the building and measuring QUANTITY . The terrorists informed them that it was a terrorist act and that they had to obey their orders . The GPE personal belongings , mobile telephones and cameras were confiscated , and they were ordered to sit on the floor .","The attackers then proceeded to arrange a system of improvised explosive devices ( IEDs ) around the gymnasium , using basketball hoops and gymnasium ladders for support . Male hostages were forced to assist them in this task , which was completed within TIME . A single chain connected several smaller IEDs hanging above the GPE heads , CARDINAL large GPE attached to basketball hoops on the opposite walls of the gymnasium and several heavier ones placed on the floor . Some GPE were filled with parts such as metal pellets , screws and bolts . They were connected by wire to pedal detonators ( \u201c dead man \u2019s switches \u201d ) , which CARDINAL of the terrorists took turns to hold . CARDINAL women wearing ample black clothes with explosive belts underneath \u2013 suicide bombers \u2013 remained in the gymnasium among the hostages .","The attackers smashed the windows of the gymnasium , to allow air and probably avoid the use of gas as a means of attack . Several rooms around the school building were turned into firing points , with windows smashed and stocks of food , water and ammunition set out . During the course of DATE the terrorists kept shooting out of the school windows in the direction of the security personnel and civilians gathered outside .","At TIME the Ministry of the Interior in ORG received information about the seizure of the school . It was immediately transmitted to PERSON and the ORG .","The hostages were forced to sit in very cramped conditions on the floor of the gymnasium . During TIME of captivity some families remained separated , but they were allowed to reunite later during DATE .","The hostages were ordered to keep quiet and not to speak in languages other than NORP . Mr PERSON , whose CARDINAL sons were in the gymnasium , repeated the ORG orders in DATE . CARDINAL of the terrorists walked up to him and executed him in full view of everyone in the gymnasium by shooting him from close range ; his body was not removed until TIME . PERSON sons PERSON ( born in DATE ) and PERSON ( born in DATE ) witnessed the execution ; both boys died on DATE during the storming . Another father of CARDINAL , Mr PERSON , was shot in the shoulder during TIME of the crisis for apparently refusing to obey the ORG orders . By DATE he had died in the gymnasium . His younger son ORG ( born in DATE ) survived the attack , but his CARDINAL daughters PERSON ( born in DATE ) and GPE ( born in DATE ) died during the storming .","During the course of DATE on DATE the attackers allowed groups of children , under their escort and accompanied by adults , to access the toilets outside the sports hall to drink tap water . They also ordered senior students to bring water into the hall in buckets and distribute it among the hostages in small quantities . The terrorists also took a large television into the gymnasium and on several occasions turned on the radio so that some of the hostages could hear about the events on the news .","On DATE the terrorists allowed the elderly and sick hostages and some mothers with nursing babies to stay in a smaller adjacent weights room , where they could stretch out on the floor . They were later taken into the sports hall .","From DATE the terrorists refused to allow the hostages water and ordered them to use buckets to relieve themselves and to drink their own urine . They announced to the hostages that the tap water had been poisoned and that they would be undergoing a \u201c dry hunger strike \u201d in support of their ORG demands . Some chewed the leaves of interior plants in order to relieve their thirst . Survivors later complained of severe thirst and heat on CARDINAL and especially DATE .","From the outset the terrorists separated most of the men and forced them to perform various tasks in order to fortify the building , or put in place GPE . They were told that their disobedience would lead to the execution of women and children in the hall .","On TIME were ordered to lift up floorboards from the library floor . Floorboards were also lifted from the corners of the gymnasium . Others were ordered to move furniture and blackboards to the windows of various classrooms and corridors .","On TIME several men were lined up in the corridor of the ground floor . An explosion occurred there at TIME , as a result of which several male hostages were killed or injured . CARDINAL ( or CARDINAL ) women suicide bombers and CARDINAL terrorist of NORP descent were killed by this blast . Several explanations for that explosion were put forward ; the criminal investigation accepted that the terrorist in charge of the operation , PERSON , \u201c PERSON \u201d ( Colonel ) , had executed the male hostages whom the terrorists had no longer needed and at the same time had activated the explosive belt of CARDINAL of the suicide bombers because she had objected to the treatment of the children . Some of the surviving hostages testified that there had been an attack from the outside , as a result of which the explosive belt had detonated killing the female bomber , the NORP terrorist and several hostages .","Men who survived the explosion in the corridor were finished off with automatic rifles . PERSON survived the explosion and the ensuing execution . When the terrorists discovered that he was still alive , he was allowed to return to the gymnasium , where he fainted . He later testified about these events . At TIME on DATE the terrorists forced CARDINAL men to throw bodies out of a window on the first floor . CARDINAL of them , PERSON , jumped out the window and was wounded but survived . His wife , one of the applicants , was released on DATE with their infant daughter ; their other daughter remained in the gymnasium and received injuries during the storming .","According to the investigation , CARDINAL men were killed by the terrorists on DATE . Another QUANTITY people were wounded DATE as a result of shots fired by the terrorists .","At TIME on DATE the terrorists fired several rounds from automatic weapons from the windows of the school , although it appears that no one was hurt and there was no return fire .","At TIME the terrorists passed a note to the authorities via CARDINAL of the hostages . PERSON , an ambulance doctor , walked to the school gates , handed the note to a man who approached her and walked back ; in the meantime her young son was being held at gunpoint inside the building . The note contained a mobile telephone number and the names of the people with whom the terrorists wanted to negotiate : the LOC President PERSON , the NORP President PERSON and a paediatrician , PERSON . The note also stated that the school building had been mined and would be blown up in the event of an attempt to storm it , and that the terrorists would shoot CARDINAL hostages for any CARDINAL of them killed . However , it appears that the mobile telephone number had either been wrongly noted or was switched off , as no telephone contact could be established at that time .","At TIME on DATE the NORP State television programme \u201c ORG \u201d announced that the attackers had transmitted a videotape to the authorities , containing their demands and images filmed inside the school . TIME it was announced that the videotape was empty . Later , the very existence of this videotape remained disputed .","Around TIME on DATE Mamitova took out a second note , containing a corrected mobile telephone number and the name of another possible negotiator , Mr PERSON , an aide to the NORP President . She also told the person who collected the note that there were CARDINAL hostages inside the building .","The authorities contacted the terrorists through a professional negotiator , the ORG officer Mr PERSON His attempts to discuss proposals aimed at alleviating the GPE conditions and the possibility of exiting or surrendering or removing bodies from the school courtyard remained futile .","PERSON arrived in PERSON on TIME . When he called the hostage takers , on CARDINAL and DATE , they were hostile and told him that they would only enter into negotiations if all CARDINAL people requested by them came to the school . They told him that if he attempted to enter alone , he would be killed . They also refused to accept food , water or medicine , and forbade him from entering the building to examine the sick and wounded .","On DATE the former President of PERSON , PERSON PERSON , arrived in PERSON at the request of the operative headquarters ( \u201c the OH \u201d ) . It appears that at TIME he , for the first time , telephoned Mr PERSON , the head of the self - proclaimed NORP separatist government who was living in GPE . He told PERSON PERSON about the siege and said that the number of hostages exceeded CARDINAL .","Following telephone contact with the terrorists , at TIME on DATE , Mr PERSON was allowed to enter the school . He was the only person whom the terrorists agreed to let inside during the siege . Mr PERSON was led to the gymnasium and had a meeting with the leader of the terrorists , PERSON ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) .","Following negotiations , Mr PERSON was permitted to leave with twentysix ( other sources indicate CARDINAL ) people \u2013 nursing mothers and their babies . All the women had older children in the school and were forced to leave them behind .","Mr PERSON took out a message from Mr PERSON addressed to the NORP President , PERSON PERSON . It demanded that troops be pulled out of GPE and official recognition of GPE as an independent ORG . In return , it promised that terrorist activities in GPE would end \u201c for DATE \u201d . It made no mention of the school siege . It appears that the terrorists also gave PERSON PERSON a videotape depicting part of his visit , the gymnasium with the hostages , explosive devices and one terrorist holding his foot on a \u201c dead man \u2019s switch \u201d . It also contained a statement by PERSON PERSON that the negotiations should involve Mr PERSON , the President of the self - proclaimed independent ORG , who had been in hiding at the time .","On DATE and on the morning of DATE the attackers tried to contact the North Ossetian authorities of GPE with the assistance of the school director , PERSON . CARDINAL hostages \u2013 children of the head of ORG , Mr Mamsurov \u2013 were allowed to call their father on his mobile telephone and tell him that they were suffering without water and food . It appears that family members of other possible contacts among officials and public figures ( district prosecutor , a well - known sportsman ) were singled out by the terrorists but no contact was established .","In parallel to the negotiations carried out through Mr PERSON , on CARDINAL DATE direct contact with the terrorists was established through Mr PERSON , an influential businessman of PERSON origin . He supplied PERSON PERSON with the requisite telephone numbers , participated in conversations with Mr PERSON and eventually tried to liaise with Mr ORG .","As can be seen from various information sources , at TIME on DATE Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had a telephone conversation during which Mr PERSON promised to involve Mr ORG in the negotiations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL below ) . Some sources indicate that these talks apparently resulted in Mr ORG agreeing to go to PERSON .","At TIME on DATE the OH started to function on the premises of the NORP town administration . The exact composition , leadership and powers of this structure remain disputed . According to most sources , it was initially headed by PERSON , LOC President , and as of DATE by General PERSON ORG , the head of ORG . It was later established that the OH included the deputy head of the counter - terrorism commission of NORP Mr GPE , the Minister of ORG ( Emercom ) Mr PERSON , the North Ossetian Minister of Education PERSON Levitskaya , deputy head of the information programmes department of the ORG television company , GPE , Mr GPE and the commander - in - chief of ORG ( see CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","The detachments of the CARDINALth ORG started to arrive in PERSON during TIME . On DATE CARDINAL armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) and several tanks of the CARDINALth ORG arrived . They were placed under the command of the ORG special purpose units and positioned around the school out of the ORG sight .","In TIME of CARDINAL September the ORG special purpose units went to ORG for joint training with ORG and ORG to prepare for a possible storming .","CARDINAL of people in GPE were directly affected by the crisis .","Despite the attempts of the authorities to clear the area , local residents and ethnic PERSON from outside GPE , some of whom were armed , remained around the school building throughout the siege .","On TIME the GPE relatives were invited to the town \u2019s FAC . Until the end of the siege FAC remained a hub for communicating with relatives and providing medical and psychological assistance to them .","At TIME on DATE the LOC President Mr PERSON , the deputy speaker of ORG Mr PERSON and the North Ossetian Deputy Minister of the Interior Mr PERSON met with relatives in FAC . During the meeting Mr PERSON informed them that the terrorists had not put forward any demands and had refused to accept food , water or medicine for the hostages .","At TIME on DATE PERSON participated in the meeting at FAC . He assured those present that the conditions in the school were \u201c acceptable \u201d and that the hostages could survive for DATE without food or water . He also stated that the terrorists had not put forward any demands to the authorities .","On DATE a psychological aid unit was set up at FAC .","Late in the evening of DATE PERSON held another meeting with the relatives at FAC .","At TIME on DATE he announced to the relatives that there would be no storming and that \u201c new public figures \u201d had appeared in the negotiation process .","Some of the applicants were among the relatives who had gathered outside the school building or stayed at FAC , and submitted written statements describing the events .","From the outset the information about the hostage - taking was strictly controlled by the authorities . PERSON , a member of the OH and a senior employee of ORG , was put in charge of contacting the journalists .","On TIME the media announced , referring to official sources , that CARDINAL people had been taken hostage . DATE the media reported a \u201c corrected \u201d number of hostages : CARDINAL people . According to some hostages , this news outraged the terrorists and prompted them to execute men or throw their bodies out of the window . It also transpires from the GPE statements that after the announcements the terrorists refused to allow them to drink or go to the toilet , saying that \u201c there should be CARDINAL of you left anyway \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On TIME held a press conference . He announced that he had talked on the telephone to a terrorist nicknamed \u201c Gorets \u201d ( highlander ) , who had put forward no demands .","DATE . At TIME on DATE State television showed some of the ORG relatives of Ingush origin asking them to release the hostages . CARDINAL woman , the wife of a presumed hostage taker , said that she and her children were being held somewhere \u201c against their will \u201d and asked her husband to do everything \u201c to avoid harming the children \u201d .","The hostages in the gymnasium were extremely exhausted and suffered from thirst and hunger . They had gone DATE without sleep in cramped conditions and the physical state of many had worsened : people started to lose consciousness and some children were hallucinating , having seizures and vomiting .","In TIME the terrorists lifted the IEDs in the gymnasium from the floor , hanging them along the walls .","At TIME the terrorists agreed to a request by Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON to allow Emercom to collect the bodies from the school courtyard .","At TIME that he had reached some sort of agreement with Mr PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to some sources , that agreement could have extended to the possibility of PERSON ORG arriving in GPE .","At TIME an Emercom truck and CARDINAL officers entered the school courtyard . The men had Mr PERSON \u2019s mobile telephone to communicate with the terrorists . CARDINAL of the terrorists came out and supervised their work . The explosions inside the gymnasium at TIME came unexpectedly to the group . The ensuing exchange of gunfire resulted in CARDINAL officers being killed .","At TIME a powerful explosion occurred in the upper east part of the gymnasium . Part of the roof was destroyed , the insulation caught fire and fragments of the burning ceiling and roof fell into the gymnasium , killing and injuring those seated underneath . Many of the surviving hostages described the first explosion as a \u201c fireball \u201d or \u201c column of fire \u201d , followed by silvery white powder falling from the ceiling . It appears that the explosion caused a fire in the roof space of the gymnasium ( see paragraph FAC below ) . TIME later another explosion ripped through the lower part of the wall under the first window on the north - east side . The nature and origins of these explosions are disputed ( see documents referred to below ) .","The CARDINAL explosions killed both terrorists who had been holding the detonators , though most of the IEDs remained intact ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . CARDINAL of people were killed , others were wounded or received burns of varying degrees , and almost everyone was shell - shocked . Many applicants submitted witness statements about these events .","DATE . Those who could move and were able to reach the opening in the wall on the north side started to climb through it and run outside . The terrorists fired at them from the upper floor , prompting an exchange of gunfire between the terrorists and the security forces .","At this point General PERSON issued an order to storm the building and proceed with the rescue operation and neutralisation of the terrorists .","Several terrorists were killed or wounded during the first CARDINAL explosions but the majority of them survived , including \u201c PERSON \u201d . They rounded up the survivors in the gymnasium ( CARDINAL people ) and forced them to walk to other parts of the main building , mostly in the south wing : the canteen , the kitchen , a meeting room and craft classrooms . Some hostages remained in the rooms adjacent to the gymnasium , namely the weights room and changing rooms .","The dead , injured and shell - shocked remained in the gymnasium , where fire continued to spread in the roof space .","At TIME a third powerful explosion occurred in the south part of the gymnasium , which appears to have been caused by one of the large IEDs catching fire . Soon afterwards flames spread around the gymnasium , taking to the floor and walls . Some hostages continued to escape through the openings in the walls .","DATE servicemen of the security services and local residents broke the west wall of the gymnasium and entered the hall . They helped to evacuate survivors . Their movements were covered by an ORG which went close to the school . No terrorists were found there , but the gymnasium was under fire , probably from terrorist snipers on the first floor .","At CARDINAL part of the burning roof collapsed .","CARDINAL of wounded hostages and servicemen were taken to ORG in private cars and ambulances . A field hospital had been set up by Emercom in the hospital courtyard in order to sort the wounded and cope with the influx of casualties . Many of the injured were taken to hospitals in ORG . The GPE relatives were not allowed to enter the hospital . Over CARDINAL civilians and over CARDINAL servicemen received medical help on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) .","Over CARDINAL hostages who had survived the explosions and fire in the gymnasium were taken by the terrorists to the canteen and kitchen situated on the ground floor in the south wing . Other hostages were taken to the main meeting room situated above the canteen on the first floor . There they found stocks of water and food and could relieve their thirst for the first time in DATE .","The women and children in the canteen and meeting room were forced by the terrorists at gunpoint to stand in the windows as human shields and wave their clothes ; some were killed or wounded by gunfire and explosions .","As shown by many of the witness statements , but not corroborated by the results of the criminal investigation , after TIME a tank with hull number CARDINAL entered the schoolyard and fired several rounds at the canteen . It appears that another tank with hull number CARDINAL or CARDINAL also fired at the school from a distance of QUANTITY . Some of the rounds were fired with solid shots , while others were probably done with ammunition ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL below ) .","CARDINAL APCs entered the schoolyard and took part in the fighting with their large - calibre machine guns .","The army and the ORG assault troops were positioned on the roofs of CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL PERSON , QUANTITY apartment blocks located on the east side of the school . These servicemen fired at the school with portable grenade launchers and flame - throwers , although the exact timing of the attacks is disputed ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL below ) . CARDINAL ORG helicopters circled above the school . According to some sources , although not corroborated by the official investigation , CARDINAL rocket was launched from a helicopter on the school roof ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","At TIME the OH ordered fire brigades with water cannons to intervene , by which time the gymnasium was ablaze and other parts of the building were on fire ( see CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL below ) . At the same time the head of the OH ordered the servicemen of the ORG special forces units Alfa and Vympel to enter the building .","At TIME the entire roof of the gymnasium collapsed . After TIME the fire was contained ; the servicemen of the special forces and firefighters entered the gymnasium , but found no survivors .","It appears that the servicemen of the special forces entered the canteen at TIME through the openings in the walls and through the windows whose metal bars had fallen off as a result of the explosions or having been pulled out with an ORG . Amid fierce fighting they evacuated the surviving hostages .","Numerous bodies of terrorists and hostages were found in the canteen , meeting room and rooms and corridors of the south wing .","At TIME a strict security perimeter was established around the school . All civilians , ORG staff , firefighters and servicemen of the army were ordered to leave , leaving only the ORG special forces inside . At TIME the servicemen of the ORG special units held a TIME \u2019s silence in the corridor of the south wing in order to honour the memory of their comrades : CARDINAL members of the elite Vympel and Alfa units , including CARDINAL group commanders , had lost their lives and CARDINAL were wounded \u2013 the biggest losses ever sustained by the units in a single operation .","After TIME several shots were fired at the south wing of the building from anti - tank missiles and flame - throwers .","At TIME CARDINAL tanks fired at the school . Several powerful explosions followed , which completely destroyed the walls and roof of the craft classrooms in the south wing .","The gunfire and explosions at the school continued until TIME .","One terrorist , PERSON , was captured alive . The rest , it appears , were killed during the storming . Consistent rumours circulated that some terrorists had escaped or had been captured secretly .","On TIME President PERSON arrived in PERSON and stayed for TIME . He visited the town hospital and administration .","The school building had remained surrounded by soldiers throughout DATE .","At TIME staff started to collect the bodies and clear the debris . CARDINAL charred bodies were found in the gymnasium , and CARDINAL bodies in the adjacent changing rooms and weights room . It appears that DATE and QUANTITY bodies were found in the south wing of the school and on other LOC , although no exact information was recorded in this respect ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The bodies of CARDINAL men were collected from the courtyard . CARDINAL bodies ( including those of over CARDINAL children ) were placed in the schoolyard and taken to the NORP morgue .","Later during DATE on DATE bulldozers and trucks arrived at the school . The remaining debris was loaded onto trucks and taken to the town rubbish dump . The victims alleged that they and other locals had later found a number of important items of evidence among this rubbish , including the ORG personal belongings such as backpacks and razor blades , human remains , GPE clothes and parts of GPE .","At TIME on DATE the security cordons in GPE were lifted . After TIME the units of ORG withdrew from the town .","On DATE the first funerals took place . Over DATE that followed collective burials of over CARDINAL people took place . The local cemetery was too small and had to be extended . A special memorial was later erected there ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG . Many of the bodies were charred beyond recognition . On CARDINAL September CARDINAL bodies were taken to a forensic laboratory in LAW for identification through DNA testing . The identification and burials continued throughout DATE ( see CARDINAL , CARDINAL below ) .","After declaring CARDINAL and DATE of national mourning , on DATE President PERSON delivered a televised address to the nation , announcing future measures to improve agency cooperation in counter - terrorism measures . He called the attack a \u201c direct intervention of international terrorism against GPE \u201d .","On DATE the website ORG published a message signed by \u201c the President of GPE \u201d Mr PERSON , condemning the hostage - taking and terrorist attacks against civilians , but blaming the NORP authorities for the radicalisation of NORP .","On DATE the website ORG circulated an email , allegedly from Mr PERSON , a leader of the radical wing of the NORP separatist movement who used the titles \u201c PERSON of Martyrs \u201d and \u201c the chief of the high military madjlisul shura of the united GPE mujahidin \u201d . PERSON , who at the time lived secretly in the NORP , claimed that his \u201c battalion of martyrs \u201d had carried out the attack in GPE , as well as the explosions in GPE and the aeroplane crashes in DATE .","The email alleged that the special forces had started the storming and that the IEDs set up by the attackers in the gymnasium had not exploded . PERSON also claimed that the following demands had been put to the authorities : that military action in GPE be stopped , that troops be pulled out and that President PERSON step down from his post . The note stated that all the hostages , including children , had declared a \u201c dry hunger strike \u201d until these demands were granted . The letter contained details of the number and types of GPE used , indicated the ethnic origin of thirtythree \u201c mujahedin \u201d who had taken part in \u201c ORG \u201d ( as they had named the attack at the school ) and alleged that the group had gathered and trained for DATE under PERSON personal leadership near the village of ORG [ near Psedakh in Ingushetia ] . The letter also mentioned the message to President PERSON , which had been transmitted through Mr PERSON , and contained its full text . PERSON alleged that the only surviving terrorist , PERSON , had been taken into the group TIME preceding the operation . The document further stated that the leader of the operation , \u201c PERSON \u201d , had called him after the storming had started to say that they had counterattacked , and that the last call from him had been received at TIME [ on DATE ] . Lastly , the letter cited the alleged costs of the terrorist attacks of DATE and DATE : MONEY ( ORG ) for \u201c ORG \u201d , MONEY ( ORG ) for the explosions in GPE and CARDINAL for the aeroplanes .","In DATE the same website published another message signed by PERSON containing passages suggesting that a member of the group which had seized the school , Mr PERSON , had been a double agent of the ORG and PERSON and had ensured the group \u2019s \u201c cover \u201d during the preparation for the attack and their unhindered passage to LOC .","On DATE Mr PERSON was killed by an explosion in PERSON . It was announced that his death had been a result of a special operation by the NORP security services . It was also reported that the blast had resulted from the mishandling of explosives .","On DATE the North Ossetian Prosecutor opened criminal investigation no . CARDINAL concerning a terrorist attack at the school by an armed group and the murder of CARDINAL male hostages .","On DATE Mr Fridinskiy , Deputy Prosecutor General , ordered the transfer of the investigation concerning the hostage - taking of over CARDINAL people to ORG in LOC . On DATE Mr Fridinskiy appointed a group of over CARDINAL investigators from the ORG offices of ORG to take over the investigation , under the command of a special investigator of ORG in the LOC .","NORP The investigation was extended on several occasions and is still pending ( adjourned ) .","Many important investigative steps aimed at establishing the exact circumstances of the preparations for and carrying out of the terrorist act , as well as the explosions in the gymnasium and the ensuing storming , were taken in the course of these proceedings . The applicants claimed that in the course of the proceedings they had not been allowed full access to the documents of the file and challenged this aspect of the proceedings . At the ORG \u2019s request , the ORG submitted the list of documents in the criminal case . According to this list , by DATE the case file contained CARDINAL volumes , each ranging on average CARDINAL pages . The available information may be summarised as follows .","The investigation found out that the group which had committed the terrorist act had been organised by PERSON , PERSON , \u201c a mercenary of NORP descent \u201d called PERSON ( PERSON ) , and their entourage . The aim of the group had been \u201c to disturb the public peace and scare the population to put pressure on the ORG authorities in order to achieve the withdrawal of troops from GPE \u201d . In DATE and DATE the men had put together a plan to take hostage a large number of pupils and parents of school no . CARDINAL in GPE and murder civilians , police officers and military servicemen .","NORP In DATE the men had put together an organised criminal group ( gang ) comprising over CARDINAL people . Its members had included residents of GPE , PERSON , other regions of GPE and foreign mercenaries . The organisers of the terrorist act had entrusted the command of the operation to an active member of the gang , PERSON PERSON from ORG , who had used the nickname \u201c PERSON and the radio callname \u201c PERSON \u201d ( colonel ) . CARDINAL terrorists were identified by name , while CARDINAL remained unidentified .","On DATE the gang had gathered in the vicinity of Psedakh in GPE . They had had the following arms and ammunition ( partly originating from the attacks in GPE on DATE and DATE ) : CARDINAL PERSON assault rifles , CARDINAL PERSON machine guns ( RPK-CARDINAL and ORG ) , CARDINAL tank machine gun ( ORG ) , CARDINAL portable anti - tank missile launchers ( RPG-CARDINALV ) , CARDINAL hand pistols and corresponding ammunition , including cartridges of different calibres and grenades of various modifications . In addition , the group had had CARDINAL identical IEDs comprised of plastic explosives and hexogen and filled with metal pellets and electro detonators ( with a minimum impact radius of QUANTITY ) , QUANTITY IEDs made of OZM-CARDINAL anti - personnel circular fragmentation mines and so - called \u201c suicide bomber belts \u201d \u2013 IEDs containing plastic explosives and projectiles made of cut metal wires and metal sheets . The gang had also used mobile telephones and portable radio transmitters . The members had been supplied with camouflage clothes , balaclavas and gas masks . They used a ORG truck .","On DATE Mr PERSON had informed the members of the gang about the forthcoming attack and distributed roles amongst them . In TIME of DATE they had travelled towards GPE . As they had passed through the village of GPE they had captured a local policeman , PERSON , seizing his handgun and vehicle .","Between TIME on DATE a group of investigators and experts , in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses , compiled a report of the school building and courtyard . The examination of the site was conducted while the clearing of the debris and rescue operation were taking place . It ran to CARDINAL pages and was accompanied by video and photographic material ( CARDINAL pages ) .","The report mostly concentrated on descriptions of the items found in the school , including personal belongings and documents of the hostages , the ORG equipment and ammunition , damage to the structure of the building and the ORG bodies . Very little information was given about the location and state of the GPE bodies . Most notably , page CARDINAL of the report contained the following passage : \u201c [ in the gymnasium ] from the floor up to QUANTITY high there are CARDINAL of burnt bodies of women , children and men , occupying CARDINAL of the gymnasium floor space \u201d . CARDINAL individual descriptions of GPE bodies were made . On DATE it was noted that the body of CARDINAL boy had been found next to the corpse of a terrorist in a classroom located on the ground floor and on page CARDINAL that the bodies of an elderly man and woman had been found in a storage room adjacent to the gymnasium . The report noted that the bodies had been carried out by ORG staff into the courtyard . Among relevant items noted as \u201c found among the rubble in the gymnasium \u201d and taken by the sappers and ORG staff into the courtyard were parts of explosive charges from grenade launchers , launching tubes of grenade launchers , a security cap from an ORG LOC flame - thrower , parts of hand grenades , anti - personnel mines , automatic firearms , pistols , cartridges and ammunition and parts of GPE . Other similar items were listed simply as \u201c collected at the site \u201d , without specifying in which part of the school they had been found .","The description of the canteen on page CARDINAL failed to mention the state of its CARDINAL windows facing the railway line or to give any details about the nature and extent of damage to its walls other than \u201c signs of damage from firearms ... [ resulting in ] whitewash falling off \u201d . Page CARDINAL described the damage to the main meeting hall , including a partially destroyed external brick wall and CARDINAL openings measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY in the wall facing the railway line . The adjacent corridor bore signs of numerous impact traces and was scattered with parts of a destroyed wall and furniture .","NORP The description of the south wing on page CARDINAL was limited to the following : \u201c the wing is almost destroyed and the ORG servicemen are clearing the debris , as a result of which no examination of this wing is being carried out \u201d .","Subsequent expert reports cited additional examinations of the site . Several reports cited examinations which had taken place on DATE , DATE and DATE . The reports of these examinations contained much more detailed descriptions of the structure , findings and traces of impact . They were accompanied by a collection of samples , such as scrapes and swabs , in order for chemical examinations to be carried out . The documents indicated that most of the samples had been unable to yield any relevant results .","Following requests by the investigation in DATE and DATE , on DATE \u201c comprehensive forensic expert examination no . CARDINAL \u201d ( \u043a\u043e\u043c\u043f\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0441\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u0430\u044f \u044d\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0437\u0430 hereinafter \u201c expert report no . CARDINAL \u201d ) was produced . The request was to evaluate the conduct of the GPE and various military and security agencies from DATE . The experts visited the site in GPE and examined numerous items of evidence , including the testimony of servicemen and other witnesses , photographs , graphs and tapes of telephone and radio conversations . The report ran to over seventy pages . It concluded that the actions of the officials had been lawful and reasonable in the circumstances . In particular , it found that the members of the OH and servicemen of ORG , the internal troops , the ORG and ORG \u201c had not committed any offences which could bear a causal relationship with the negative consequences resulting from the terrorist act of DATE \u201d .","This document was extensively cited and relied upon in the subsequent proceedings , although it was later declared invalid ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The report focused on several questions .","Firstly , the report found that the actions of the OH had been focused on negotiations with the terrorists in order to obtain the release of and ensure safety for a maximum number of people . The ORG demands transmitted through Mr PERSON could not serve as the subject of negotiations , since they had threatened the basis of the constitutional order and GPE \u2019s territorial integrity .","NORP The involvement of Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON as negotiators , as suggested to the GPE by the ORG , and the success of Mr PERSON \u2019s mission when he had taken out QUANTITY people , had served as an antidote to the escalation of the ethnic Ossetian - Ingush conflict .","With respect to Mr ORG \u2019s involvement in the negotiations , the report found that PERSON and PERSON PERSON had talked to PERSON PERSON on TIME DATE . He had told them that his connection with Mr ORG had remained on a CARDINAL - way level . They had suggested to PERSON that he contact Mr PERSON , but he had refused in view of their past differences .","The report also covered the question of PERSON involvement in the DATE . It stated that on TIME had taken an active part in the work of the OH . Under his command the officials had ensured a security perimeter around the school , informed the public about the measures taken , supplied the local population with the necessary provisions in FAC , and set up a field hospital . Information to the inhabitants had been provided TIME through Mr ORG , the North Ossetian President \u2019s press secretary . Mr PERSON had taken care of the immediate needs of DATE of the siege , coordinating various agencies involved and increasing the security of other vital objects in the Republic . When the terrorists had named him as a negotiator , PERSON had been prepared to go ahead , but the OH had formally forbidden him from doing so .","Having scrutinised the taped conversations between the hostage takers and the GPE and between the terrorists inside the building and their collaborators outside ( namely several conversations with someone using the call - name \u201c PERSON \u201d recorded after the start of the storming ) , the experts found that the terrorists had unconditionally refused to discuss any measures aimed at alleviating the GPE situation or any other arrangements except for political demands relating to the situation in GPE , and had insisted that the hostages had voluntarily joined them in declaring a \u201c dry hunger strike \u201d . The telephone conversations had often been ended by them in an aggressive manner and without apparent reason . Furthermore , they had anticipated and planned their own deaths , as well as numerous deaths among the hostages , as attested by the cheers and support received by them from \u201c PERSON \u201d once the storming had started . These later conversations had contained references to \u201c meeting in heaven \u201d , \u201c fulfilling the duty \u201d and becoming martyrs ( shahid ) , and had welcomed the killing of infidels and referred to the storming as \u201c going normally \u201d .","The report relied on numerous telexes , orders and decrees issued by ORG and the ORG in DATE and DATE indicating a heightened terrorist threat in the NORP and ordering various measures to be taken by the local police and security forces . As of CARDINAL DATE all forces of ORG in ORG had been put on alert ( \u0443\u0441\u0438\u043b\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0432\u0430\u0440\u0438\u0430\u043d\u0442 \u043d\u0435\u0441\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u044b ) . On DATE the local police stations had been requested to take special measures to prevent terrorist acts from taking place during DATE of Knowledge on DATE .","With respect to PERSON ( situated next to the school building ) , the report concluded that the commanding officers had failed to take certain preventive steps . In particular , the personnel of the ROVD had not been told what action to take in case of an emergency , and no plan had been put in place to ensure additional security during ceremonies in the schools . The only police officer at school no . CARDINAL had been unarmed , namely PERSON The CARDINAL other police officers who had been scheduled to guard the school during the ceremony had been absent . CARDINAL patrol officers of the transport police had been transferred elsewhere to secure the passage of PERSON convoy along the \u201c GPE \u201d federal highway . As a result , the terrorists had had unhindered access to the school and had been able to force a large number of hostages inside . No reaction from the local law - enforcement bodies had been forthcoming during TIME of the attack .","NORP The servicemen of the Pravoberezhny ROVD , having received no instructions beforehand and having no preliminary plan of action in the event of a terrorist act , had received arms and ammunition at the ROVD and by TIME had set up a security cordon around the school . Information about the school siege had been immediately transmitted to ORG of the ORG . The report found that the actions of the senior staff of ORG had amounted to professional negligence .","With respect to the situation in LOC , the report concluded that the local police had failed to prevent the members of the gang from assembling and training there at DATE . Reference was made to the pending criminal case against the senior officers of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The report concluded that the servicemen of the internal troops had been deployed only in the outer security perimeter around the school , the ORG special forces being deployed in the inner one . They had taken no part in the fighting , and their actions and equipment had fully complied with the relevant legal regulations and with their mission .","Servicemen of the ORG special forces had taken part in the operation . They had been armed with customary weapons and special equipment such as RPG-CARDINAL portable grenade launchers and ORG portable flame - throwers .","Turning to the events of DATE , the report gave the following chronology . By TIME no plan had been in place to start the storming operation . CARDINAL special forces groups had been training outside GPE , snipers and intelligence groups had kept monitoring the object from their designated positions , an emergency group of thirtytwo people had been positioned behind the housing blocks and the remaining servicemen had stayed at the assembly point .","NORP The explosions which had occurred at TIME had been caused by CARDINAL GPE . No shots had been fired at that time , as ORG staff had been working in the front yard of the school . In any event , the place of the explosion had been invisible from the ORG positions .","No flames could be seen in the gymnasium after the CARDINAL explosions . The hostages had started to run out through the openings in the walls . The terrorists had opened fire on the escaping people using automatic rifles and machine guns . On the instruction of the head of the GPE , the servicemen of the special forces had been ordered to save the hostages . The terrorists had been aimed at by the fire - support group and DATE .","A group of servicemen had entered the weights room and evacuated from it several women with small children . This group had then entered the gymnasium and started to take out the hostages . The terrorists had opened fire at them . CARDINAL servicemen had taken position on the floor and returned fire , while the rest had continued to lead the hostages out . CARDINAL TIME the terrorists had fired several shots from portable grenade launchers ( PERSON ) at the gymnasium , killing and injuring several hostages , wounding CARDINAL officers of the special forces and starting a fire in the gymnasium .","The rescue operation had lasted until TIME , at which time all available ORG forces had been regrouped pursuant to a previously adopted plan . At TIME , upon an order from the commander , they had stormed the building . Their movements inside the building had been slowed down by low visibility from smoke and whitewash powder and the presence of hostages whom the terrorists had been using as human shields . The terrorists had used automatic weapons , hand grenades and portable grenade launchers , while the ORG forces had been constrained to fire single shots , to avoid excessive harm to the hostages . By TIME no hostages had remained in the building . Only once this had been ensured had the forces of the ORG used heavy weapons against the terrorists who had refused to surrender . Hand grenades , RPGCARDINAL portable grenade launchers and ORG flamethrowers had been used for the first time after TIME At TIME a ORG tank had been used to make openings in the walls and suppress enemy firing points , since further movement in the building had been impossible because of mines laid by the terrorists . The records of the site examinations and video material showed that no bodies of hostages had been found in places where the terrorists had been killed by heavy arms and indiscriminate weapons .","CARDINAL servicemen of the special forces had been killed during the operation , and QUANTITY had received injuries . The fatalities had included CARDINAL lieutenant - colonels [ group commanders ] , CARDINAL of whom had died during TIME of the storming as he had rushed to the school shielding the escaping hostages ; the second had died in the main meeting room while trying to release the hostages detained there .","The report also analysed the circumstances of the deaths and injuries of each serviceman of the special forces which occurred TIME and TIME on DATE and concluded that their actions had been lawful and adequate and had demonstrated high professionalism , courage and selfsacrifice .","The commander of ORG , ORG , had been informed of the hostage - taking at TIME on DATE . By TIME the third ring of the security perimeter had been set up around the school by the CARDINALth ORG servicemen . The servicemen had been armed with various automatic weapons and portable grenade and mine launchers , but they had not used any of them since their task had been limited to maintaining the security cordon .","As to the use of military vehicles , the report found , on the basis of various descriptions , plans , logbooks and servicemen \u2019s testimony , that on CARDINAL DATE ORG tanks with hull numbers CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL had been transferred under the command of the ORG officers . Tanks with hull numbers CARDINAL and CARDINAL had manoeuvred around the school following the commands of the ORG officers but had not opened fire . A tank with hull number CARDINAL had fired CARDINAL high - fragmentation shots ( QUANTITY calibre ) at the canteen situated in the right wing of the school , following the instructions of the ORG officer in charge . The shots had been fired DATE . The report concluded that the tank had been used after the end of the rescue operation at TIME , when no harm could have been caused to the hostages and it had been guided by the need to suppress enemy fire in the most efficient way .","NORP Several other military vehicles had been used during the operation , also under the command of the ORG officers . MONEY had been stationed at various points around the school from CARDINAL or DATE . CARDINAL of them , with hull numbers CARDINAL and CARDINAL , had taken part in the storming operation . ORG number CARDINAL had used a heavy machine gun ( calibre QUANTITY ) CARDINAL to suppress the ORG firing positions on the school roof . At the same time an ORG with hull number CARDINAL had fired several rounds from a heavy machine gun at the windows of the first floor , covering the Alpha servicemen who had entered the building . The remaining military vehicles had taken no active part in the fighting . The experts concluded that the use of machine guns had been fully appropriate in the circumstances and could not have resulted in injuries or deaths among the hostages .","From TIME on DATE , various services of ORG from LOC and neighbouring regions had begun to arrive at school no . CARDINAL . They had included brigades specialising in extinguishing major fires and fire engines with water tanks or cisterns . Rescue workers had arrived with special equipment and search dogs . At TIME on DATE CARDINAL psychologists had started working with the relatives , and by DATE fiftyone psychologists had been working in GPE . The hub of psychological assistance had been in FAC , to which ambulance doctors had been called when necessary . In total , DATE , CARDINAL people and CARDINAL Emercom vehicles had been deployed in GPE .","At TIME on DATE CARDINAL servicemen of the Emercom rescue team had been instructed to retrieve bodies from the school courtyard . They had received safety guarantees and a mobile telephone to communicate with the terrorists in the school . Following the explosions in the gymnasium , chaotic firing from the upper floor and roof by the terrorists had left CARDINAL servicemen dead and CARDINAL injured .","The report then focused on the actions of the fire brigades on DATE . At TIME a fire alert had been given to the fire service . At CARDINAL to TIME fire brigades had arrived at the scene . The delay in their arrival had been caused by the order of General PERSON , who had considered that the firemen and their engines could have been attacked by the terrorists , rendering the rescue operation more complex . At TIME CARDINAL brigades had rolled out fire hoses and proceeded to extinguish the fire . Each cistern had been full and had contained QUANTITY of water , which had been used within TIME . The fire hydrant in the school could not be used as it had been located in the military engagement area . At QUANTITY other fire units had arrived and had been stationed on the north and east sides of the gymnasium . The LOC Deputy Minister of Emercom Colonel PERSON had assumed the role of incident commander . CARDINAL fire hoses had been deployed . A supply of water from a water hydrant situated within QUANTITY had been ensured , and the firemen had also used water from newly arrived tanks .","The fire had been contained and extinguished by TIME The operation had been protracted since on CARDINAL occasions the firemen had been removed from the school at the request of the special forces .","NORP In the meantime , Emercom rescue workers had evacuated hostages from the school building . By TIME they had taken out CARDINAL people , including CARDINAL children . After the fire had been extinguished , rescue teams had started to search the debris in the gymnasium . They had had to stop at TIME when unexploded IEDs had been discovered and sappers had been called in .","NORP Immediately after TIME on DATE a fire had started in the south wing of the school building where the canteen , craft classrooms , library and meeting room had been situated . CARDINAL fire brigades had arrived on the spot and the fire had been extinguished by CARDINAL a.m.","At TIME on DATE rescue workers and military servicemen had started to clear the debris and search for the bodies . In total , CARDINAL dead bodies had been collected and sent to the forensic unit in ORG . By TIME the search and rescue operation in the school had been completed .","The report concluded , with reference to the evidence contained in the case file , that the deaths of CARDINAL people whose bodies had been found in the gymnasium had been caused by the explosions of the IEDs . The bodies found there had had been PERCENT carbonised ; the carbonisation had occurred post mortem . The firefighters had had to act in extreme and life - threatening conditions . The organisation and equipment supplied had been sufficient to enable them to carry out their tasks .","On DATE ORG , following an application by the applicants , declared expert report no . CARDINAL invalid owing to a number of serious breaches of the procedural legislation governing the appointment of experts and the carrying out of expert evaluations .","The investigation established the following time frame concerning the action taken by the OH ( as set out in expert report no . CARDINAL and other documents ) :","At TIME was set up , in accordance with the plan of action in the event of a terrorist threat issued on DATE . Initially it was headed by the President of NORP Mr PERSON , the head of ORG General PERSON and the LOC Minister of the Interior Mr Dzantiyev . Prior to his appointment on DATE as head of the OH , General PERSON had been in charge of coordinating the actions of various law - enforcement and military structures , including the ORG units arriving in GPE . CARDINAL deputy heads of the ORG , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , who had arrived in GPE on DATE , acted as consultants and did not interfere with the command of the operation .","TIME the operative headquarters ensured the evacuation of residents from adjacent LOC and cordoned off the school . The police and security forces searched basements and attics of the nearby buildings , cleared the adjacent streets of parked vehicles and closed them to traffic , closed the local railway line and took other necessary measures . In order to avoid harm to the hostages and other civilians , they were also ordered not to respond to the random shots fired by the terrorists . Scanning of radio frequencies in the vicinity of the school had been put in place by ORG , the ORG and the army .","At TIME the terrorists sent out the first note , containing a telephone number and naming possible negotiators . However , the telephone number had been noted down incorrectly and no contact could be established .","TIME safety perimeters were put in place around the school , composed of police and army servicemen using CARDINAL APCs . At TIME the APCs were moved out of the ORG view , in order to avoid provocation .","At TIME the OH started compiling a list of the hostages .","At TIME the OH invited the LOC mufti to take part in the talks , but the terrorists opened fire on him when he tried to approach the seized building .","At TIME all reserve forces of the LOC police were placed on high alert , including local policemen in towns and villages along the administrative border with PERSON and police academy students .","At TIME hostage PERSON took out a second note with the correct telephone number .","CARDINAL and TIME a series of gunshots and explosions were heard inside the school . The OH instructed PERSON , a professional negotiator from LOC , to contact the terrorists by telephone . The hostage taker presented himself as \u201c Shahid \u201d and said that he had executed CARDINAL people and blown up CARDINAL others because the authorities had been slow in contacting them . He then insisted that the men indicated in their note ( Mr PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON ) should come to the school together . Mr PERSON pleaded for some time to bring the CARDINAL men to GPE . The terrorist said that the gymnasium had been mined and would be blown up in the event of a storming .","At TIME Mr Kudzayev escaped from the school by jumping out of a first floor window . He identified a photograph of CARDINAL terrorist from ORG ; on DATE his relatives were brought from ORG by the ORG . However it transpired that the identification was incorrect . This man was later killed in ORG while actively resisting the authorities .","During DATE the OH collected information about possible hostage takers and their relatives , so as to involve the latter in the negotiations .","At TIME the terrorists fired several random shots from automatic weapons and portable grenade launchers . CARDINAL bodies were thrown out of the window . The GPE took steps to prepare for the evacuation of the injured to the local health establishments , and psychological support had been called in for the GPE relatives .","At TIME , in order to prevent the dissemination of incorrect information , it was decided that all contact with the media should be carried out by General PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . Mr PERSON from the NORP President \u2019s administration was given the task of liaising with journalists .","At TIME FAC designated hospitals to be on stand - by , and CARDINAL ambulance vehicles were deployed .","At TIME special forces of the ORG ( \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0440\u0430\u0437\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0446\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440\u0430 \u0421\u043f\u0435\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ( ORG ) PERSON ) arrived in PERSON and set up their headquarters . They started contemplating various ways of liberating the hostages and neutralising the attackers .","At CARDINAL of bottles of water , juice and food rations were stocked by the headquarters for the GPE eventual needs .","At TIME PERSON arrived in GPE . The terrorists refused to accept water or food from him . They continued to insist that all CARDINAL men indicated by them should come to the school . PERSON was permitted to talk on the telephone with the school director , who described the situation inside .","At TIME the OH continued talks with the attackers . They tried to involve journalists of an NORP television company in the negotiation process , but this was rejected by the terrorists . At the same time , they contacted the former President of PERSON and an influential businessman , PERSON PERSON .","At TIME the OH tried to arrange the release of hostages in exchange for money and unhindered passage to GPE or PERSON . CARDINAL buses were requested in the event that the terrorists agreed .","By DATE , CARDINAL hostages who had escaped from the school had been questioned in order to obtain information about the number and location of the terrorists and hostages inside the school , as well as to draw a plan of the IEDs .","At TIME some hostages were allowed to call their relatives in order to put pressure on the authorities .","At TIME the OH authorised Mr PERSON \u2019s participation in the negotiations . His offers of money and guarantees of unhindered passage were rejected by the hostage takers .","At TIME General PERSON spoke to the GPE relatives and assured them that no storming would take place . This was done in view of rumours circulating among the local population and the idea by civilians of forming a \u201c life ring \u201d around the school .","At TIME religious NORP leaders of GPE , PERSON and GPE delivered a televised address calling for peace and the end of further ethnic clashes .","At TIME Mr PERSON spoke to the attackers on the telephone ; he assured them that their demands would be passed on personally to the NORP President . The terrorists insisted that he come to PERSON with Mr PERSON .","At TIME the ORG of GPE appointed General PERSON the head of the OH and appointed its members by coded message . Report no . CARDINAL listed CARDINAL members , including CARDINAL deputy heads of the OH : General PERSON , the commander of ORG , and PERSON PERSON , the North Ossetian Minister of the ORG . It also listed the following members : the LOC President PERSON , the head of ORG GPE , the commander of the CARDINALth ORG , the deputy commander of the internal troops of ORG ORG , the head of the operational management group at ORG of the Interior Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON , the NORP Ossetian Minister of Health Mr GPE , the North Ossetian Minister of Education PERSON , the LOC Minister of Emercom Mr PERSON , the director of ORG at ORG ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) Mr PERSON and the deputy head of the information programmes department of GPE . All members of the OH were informed of their positions .","At TIME Mr PERSON was permitted to enter the school . MONEY TIME he negotiated with the terrorists ; as a result of his mission QUANTITY people were released : babies aged under CARDINAL and their mothers . Mr PERSON also took out a letter signed by Mr PERSON with a demand for troops to be withdrawn from GPE .","At TIME an additional debriefing of former hostages took place in order to obtain more information about the positions of the hostages and terrorists and the location of the IEDs .","At TIME the OH ordered measures aimed at identifying and neutralising possible accomplices of the terrorists outside the school .","At TIME Mr PERSON proposed to the terrorists that the bodies be collected . They agreed to consider this proposal .","At TIME the attackers told PERSON , PERSON and PERSON Z. that the hostages had refused to accept food , water or medicine .","At TIME the terrorists fired random shots from automatic rifles and portable grenade launchers out of the school windows . The OH ordered that the surrounding territory be cleared of parked vehicles .","In TIME an agreement was reached through Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON to clear the bodies from the schoolyard .","At TIME Emercom officers were appointed and transport was arranged . They received instructions and means of communication . At CARDINAL p.m. the officers started to collect the bodies . CARDINAL terrorist went down to the courtyard to supervise their work .","At TIME CARDINAL powerful explosions occurred in the gymnasium . Part of the wall collapsed and the hostages started to panic and exit through the opening . The terrorists opened fire on them from automatic rifles and RPGCARDINAL portable grenade launchers from the windows of the first floor . CARDINAL people were killed as a result of gunshot wounds .","At TIME the head of the OH , General PERSON , gave written orders to the units of the ORG special forces to commence the operation aimed at saving the hostages and neutralising the terrorists .","At TIME the first hostages were taken to hospitals in GPE and NORP .","At TIME one terrorist , Mr PERSON , was detained and handed over to the investigators .","As a result of the explosions and the ensuing fire CARDINAL hostages died ; the rest were forced by the terrorists to move to the meeting room and other LOC of the school .","At TIME a fire broke out in the gymnasium . The expert report on fire and explosions established that the source of the fire had been located in the roof of the gymnasium , above the exit .","Mr GPE ordered the firemen not to intervene immediately , in view of the continuing fighting , the risk to the firemen \u2019s lives and the danger of delaying the rescue operation , which would result in more victims .","The OH ordered the firefighters to intervene at TIME They arrived at TIME and proceeded to extinguish the fire .","At TIME the rescue operation was over . The OH ordered the deployment of heavy weaponry to neutralise the terrorists .","At TIME on DATE the sweeping of the school building was over and a security cordon was set up . At TIME the demining started .","CARDINAL deputy heads of the ORG , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , were in GPE during the crisis .","A number of high - ranking ORG servicemen were questioned in the course of the investigation , including General PERSON ( on CARDINAL DATE ) , General PERSON ( on DATE ) and Generals PERSON and PERSON ( DATE ) . The documents of the criminal investigation submitted by the Government do not contain the record of questioning of General PERSON , the commander of ORG , who was in charge of the storming operation . His name is not listed among the witnesses \/ members of the OH in volume CARDINAL of file no . CARDINAL . The list of documents examined by the experts who had produced expert report no . CARDINAL does not mention his testimony either .","NORP In DATE the applicants wrote to the head of the ORG and referred to the meeting they had had with ORG in charge of the case , who had told them that the relevant video and audio material could not be found . In DATE State television aired a film entitled \u201c The Final Assignment \u201d containing video and audio material made by the special forces in GPE from DATE . They sought to ensure that the footage would be given to ORG . They also asked that the members of the special forces be questioned during the investigation . In DATE the ORG informed the applicants that any such action would be done in response to the relevant requests by the prosecutor \u2019s service and in line with the legislation .","The investigation file contains a number of documents concerning the use of arms and ammunition by various ORG bodies ; some are cited in other documents ( see below ) . CARDINAL of various individual experts\u2019 reports were ordered by the investigation on firearms ( hand pistols , guns and automatic weapons ) , ammunition and IEDs supposedly used by the terrorists , as well as weapons and ammunition used by the security forces . Some of the cartridges were marked by experts as suitable for identification of the weapons ( for example , expert report no . CARDINAL of DATE marked CARDINAL spent cartridges from a PERSON automatic rifle as suitable for weapon identification ) . These reports were submitted to ORG , and the most relevant ones are summarised below . The victims challenged certain procedural steps related to the commissioning of some of the reports , complaining that they had not been allowed to take copies of them but had been able to view them in the prosecutor \u2019s office for a limited amount of time .","According to a document dated DATE ( act no . CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL military unit of ORG deployed in GPE used CARDINAL cartridges for automatic weapons and machine guns ( CARDINAL and CARDINAL PERSON calibre ) , CARDINAL tracer bullets ( QUANTITY T ) , CARDINAL armour - piercing incendiary cartridges for large - calibre machine guns ( PERSON and GPE ) and QUANTITY hand grenades ( PERSON ) .","CARDINAL of witness statements were collected by the investigation DATE and DATE from the military and police servicemen , officers of ORG , firefighters and members of the OH . These statements , consistently and in detail , denied the use of grenade launchers , flame - throwers and a tank cannon prior to TIME on DATE .","The investigation ordered individual expert reports on parts of explosive charges and launch tubes of explosive , thermobaric and armour - piercing weapons found at the school and in the nearby areas . These included launch tubes of CARDINAL LOC flame - throwers with batch and individual serial numbers , parts of artillery shells , hand grenades , smoke grenades , spent cartridges of different calibres , tubes and charges for grenade launchers . The reports contain the following relevant descriptions of the weapons used .","CARDINAL reports examined launch tubes of CARDINAL ORG tubes with different batch and serial numbers ( expert report ORG : batch CARDINAL - CARDINAL , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; batch CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ; batch CARDINAL , CARDINAL . CARDINAL and DATE ) and CARDINAL ORG tubes ( expert report PERSON of DATE : batch CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; batch CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) . The reports describe the RPOA Shmel as follows :","\u201c [ A ] portable anti - personnel flame - thrower ORG is designed to impact fortified firing points of the enemy ... destroy light armoured vehicles and other vehicles , sheltered and exposed manpower ...","Technical characteristics :","- range of direct fire QUANTITY ;","- effective range CARDINAL m ;","- maximum range CARDINAL,CARDINAL m ;","- temperature of burning of the combustible mixture CARDINAL,CARDINAL\u02daC ;","- destruction caused in a closed structure CARDINAL m\u00b2 ;","- destruction of manpower CARDINAL m\u00b2 \u201d","The fire experts\u2019 report of DATE mentioned an additional expert report , SI\u2013CARDINAL of DATE , which had examined several parts of ORG spent charges .","In addition to the above - mentioned CARDINAL tubes of GPE with identified batch and serial numbers , the file contained a document dated DATE and signed by ORG from ORG . This document stated that the ORG units had received CARDINAL GPE flame - throwers ( batch CARDINAL , ORG . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , MONEY ) from military storage . After the operation CARDINAL flame - throwers with the indicated numbers , plus CARDINAL with a different batch and number ( batch CARDINAL - CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) , had been returned to storage . It does not appear that the remaining CARDINAL ORG devices from batch CARDINAL were spotted and examined by experts .","CARDINAL expert reports concerned over DATE used capsules with readable serial numbers , which the experts were first unable to identify or describe otherwise than \u201c special purposes ammunition \u201d , for which no descriptions or technical characteristics were available to the experts of ORG ( expert reports SICARDINAL of DATE , ORG of DATE , SICARDINAL of DATE ) . In DATE these spent capsules were identified as charges for a light infantry flame - thrower PERSON ( expert report nos . DATE , CARDINAL of DATE ) . This latest report also contained detailed information about the thermobaric charge for an LPO-CARDINAL . Upon an explosion , impact is created by a \u201c sphere of fire \u201d with temperatures ranging from about CARDINAL,CARDINAL\u02daC in the centre to about CARDINAL\u02daC at QUANTITY and CARDINAL\u02daC at QUANTITY distance , and secondary effects . Due to the very short \u201c time span of the sphere of fire \u201d ( CARDINAL ) , the explosion can not lead to the combustion of wooden structures . People located within QUANTITY of the explosion can receive thermal burns on exposed body parts and within QUANTITY various injuries , including a perforated eardrum .","On DATE Colonel PERSON from a unit of ORG issued a note stating : \u201c [ the ] use of rocket propelled infantry flame - throwers ORG and light infantry flame - throwers GPE is not prohibited by international conventions . They have been widely used during combat operations in GPE and GPE . \u201d","On DATE a military unit located in ORG forwarded detailed technical characteristics of GPE and GPE flamethrowers to the military prosecutor \u2019s office . The functionality of an ORG was described as : \u201c [ the ] destruction of manpower in fortified firing points , buildings , vehicles , [ and ] the creation of islands of fire in the abovementioned objects and on the ground . \u201d The functionality of an GPE ( introduced into service in DATE ) was described as \u201c [ the ] destruction of manpower inside buildings by means of high - temperature field and a field of extensive pressure ... \u201d","Expert report no . SI-CARDINAL of DATE examined CARDINAL launch tubes from RPGCARDINAL ORG disposable anti - tank grenade launchers , bearing identifiable batch and serial numbers .","Expert report no . SICARDINAL of CARDINAL September CARDINAL examined the following items that were found in the gymnasium : CARDINAL grenade type VOGCARDINAL M for an AGSCARDINAL automatic mounted grenade launcher with an identifiable batch number ; CARDINAL grenade type VOGCARDINAL for an under - barrel grenade launcher GPCARDINAL with a batch number ; an GPE hand grenade ; an FCARDINAL hand grenade ; an ORG hand grenade ; an RDGCARDINALB smoke grenade ; a shell of a ORG - F stun grenade , and CARDINAL security cap from an ORG .","Expert report no . SICARDINAL of DATE examined CARDINAL used antitank grenade type PGCARDINALL with an identifiable batch and serial number , used by reloadable portable grenade launcher type RPGCARDINAL and its modifications ; CARDINAL spent parts from ORG disposable anti - tank rocket launchers , with identifiable batch numbers ; and one spent part of an anti - tank grenade ( RPGCARDINAL disposable grenade launcher ) , with a batch number .","On DATE the military unit in ORG responded to a question from the military prosecutor \u2019s office and submitted a table containing the technical characteristics of CARDINAL types of grenade launchers : the reloadable RPGCARDINAL and GPCARDINAL , and the disposable GPE and GPE .","NORP On DATE the NORP Federal forensic expert centre produced fire expert \u2019s report ( \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043b\u044e\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u043f\u043e\u0436\u0430\u0440\u043e-\u0442\u0435\u0445\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u044d\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0437\u044b ) no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The voluminous report consisted of CARDINAL pages , accompanied by CARDINAL pages of tables and photographs . The report started by reviewing a number of relevant pieces of evidence , including extracts from witness statements , expert reports , information about the arms and ammunition used , an examination of the building materials and a review of available photo and video material .","NORP In particular , the report cited a \u201c joint record \u201d dated DATE of the arms and ammunition used by the military servicemen , which included CARDINAL cartridges for automatic weapons and machine guns ( TIME , CARDINAL PERSON ) , CARDINAL tracer bullets ( QUANTITY T ) , CARDINAL disposable anti - tank rocket launchers ( RPGCARDINAL ORG ) , CARDINAL armour - piercing charges for reloadable anti - tank grenade launchers ( PGCARDINALVL ) , CARDINAL highfragmentation warheads for a QUANTITY calibre tank gun ( QUANTITY OF ) and CARDINAL smoke grenades ( CARDINAL mm ZDCARDINAL ) ( page CARDINAL of the report ) . The same report contained references to expert examinations of a number of parts of used ORG flame - throwers ( report SI CARDINAL of DATE ) and a list of CARDINAL empty tubes from an ORG collected by the members of the parliamentary commission citing their serial numbers ( batch CARDINAL , ORG . DATE and CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It also mentioned a document dated DATE and signed by ORG from ORG about the use of CARDINAL ORG flamethrowers with batch number CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE LieutenantColonel Vasilyev from ORG was questioned and stated that he had received back CARDINAL flame - throwers from batch CARDINAL , plus CARDINAL from another batch , which had not been issued from that storage ( batch CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) ; Major PERSON . from the ORG unit explained that the others had been used ( pages DATE of the report ) .","NORP The report further mentioned a witness statement of Colonel PERSON , who explained that he had led a group of officers who had taken part in the storming of the school building . The group had used RPGCARDINAL grenade launchers and GPE flame - throwers , but not at the LOC where the hostages had been present ( page CARDINAL of the report ) . CARDINAL witness , GPE , a member of a storming group , stated on DATE that he had used RPGCARDINAL grenade launchers and ORG flame - throwers upon \u201c enemy firing points which had been designated in advance and identified during the storming \u201d . The firing points identified in advance had been located in the window of the attic area and the third window on the first floor of the main building . No hostages had been there at the time . For the second time the flame - thrower had been used at TIME , at TIME , upon a group of terrorists in the craft classrooms on the ground floor . At that time the rest of the building had been in the firm control of the security forces and ORG staff had been finishing carrying the bodies out of the gymnasium ( page CARDINAL of the report ) . The report listed the main characteristics of an ORG : a thermobaric charge of QUANTITY upon explosion creates a powerful combustion zone ( a sphere of fire CARDINAL to QUANTITY in diameter ) burning at temperature of CARDINAL ; accompanied by an extremely powerful shock wave caused by a complete burning of oxygen in the detonation zone . An expert described the effects of this charge upon people , which would include severe fractures caused by the shock wave and lung collapse ; and upon buildings as a \u201c blowing out \u201d of the external walls and collapse of the structure . The report referred to the records of CARDINAL experiments carried out on DATE wherein disused buildings had been fired at with ORG flamethrowers , as a result of which the buildings had been demolished but no fire had started ( page CARDINAL of the report ) . Relying on the testimonies of security personnel , the pattern of destruction of the roof in the main part of the building , parts of ORG charge found in the attic of the \u201c left wing \u201d of the school and the absence of any such parts in the gymnasium , the conclusion was that there had been no explosions of a thermobaric charge from an ORG there . The report concluded as follows on the use of flamethrowers ( pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the report ) :","\u201c ORG were used during the special operation aiming to free the hostages . Criminal case file no GPE contains no material to conclude that ORG flame - throwers had been used on the roof and the structure of the gymnasium of school no CARDINAL . The use of an FAC flame - thrower on the roof of the gymnasium could not have led to a fire in its wooden parts . \u201d","In so far as the first explosions were concerned , the report concluded that the explosions in the gymnasium which had occurred within TIME at TIME on DATE had resulted from the IEDs attached to a basketball hoop near the west wall ( equivalent to QUANTITY of ORG ) and located on a chair placed QUANTITY away from the north wall under the window ( and equivalent to QUANTITY of ORG ) . Both IEDs had been filled with numerous small metal objects . The third explosion had resulted from the IED placed under a basketball hoop at the north wall catching fire , its metal filling falling on the floor and the explosion of a small amount of explosives ( equivalent to QUANTITY of ORG ) , as a result of exposure to heat ( pages CARDINAL of the report ) .","NORP The experts considered and accepted as \u201c probable \u201d the hypothesis that the fire in the gymnasium had started as a result of use of armourpiercing and incendiary charges , which could have been used by the terrorists ( page CARDINAL of the report ) . As to the place where the fire had started , having analysed the extent and degree of damage to various constructions of the gymnasium , the experts concluded that it had most probably been located in the attic area located more or less above the basketball hoop in the north part of the room ; the fire on the floor had started only after the burning parts of the ceiling and roof had fallen down . The extent of damage caused by the fire and explosions prevented any detailed analysis of the number of places where the fire had started and its exact cause and spreading in the building ( pages CARDINAL of the report ) .","On DATE the ORG \u2019s ORG ( PERSON ) produced expert report no . CARDINAL . The report focused on the examination of the IEDs used by the terrorists in the gymnasium . It concluded that the terrorists had placed CARDINAL GPE in the gymnasium , joined into a single chain by electric cables and detonators . On DATE CARDINAL GPE had exploded in the north - west part of the gymnasium : CARDINAL at the basketball hoop on the west wall ( made of an CARDINAL anti - personnel mine , equivalent to QUANTITY of ORG ) , the second on the right - hand side of the door leading into the gymnasium on the west wall ( a sphereshaped IED equivalent to QUANTITY of ORG ) and the third on the windowpane of the first window on the north - west wall ( an IED in a plastic bottle equivalent to QUANTITY of ORG ) . The total force of the explosions had been equivalent to QUANTITY of ORG ; however it was impossible to confirm their exact timing and sequence . The most likely cause of the explosions was intentional or non - intentional impact upon the detonator pedal ; the reasons why the whole chain had failed to react were unclear , but it could be that the first explosions had damaged the electric cables connecting the rest of the IEDs ( pages CARDINAL of the report ) .","On DATE a comprehensive forensic report on the explosions ( \u043a\u043e\u043c\u043f\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0441\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043a\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u044d\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0437\u0430 \u043c\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043c\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043c\u043e\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f \u0432\u0437\u0440\u044b\u0432\u043e\u0432 ) was ordered from experts of the NORP scientific and production company ORG PERSON \u201d ) and ORG and ORG , named after PERSON of ORG \u041d\u0430\u0443\u0447\u043d\u043e-\u0438\u0441\u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u043e\u0432\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0438\u0441\u043f\u044b\u0442\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0438\u043d\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0443\u0442 \u0438\u043c. \u041a\u0430\u0440\u0431\u044b\u0448\u0435\u0432\u0430 PERSON ) . The applicants submitted that the document in its entirety had been unavailable to them prior to the exchange of the parties\u2019 observations in DATE .","In DATE PERSON applied to the prosecutor \u2019s office to have the experts of PERSON dismissed , as they had been administratively dependent on ORG . Her application was rejected on DATE because no subjective bias of the experts could be discerned and , objectively , ORG had not been a party to the criminal proceedings .","Expert report no . CARDINAL was produced on DATE and ran to CARDINAL pages , accompanied by detailed charts and photographs . It appeared to dismiss the doubts expressed , notably , by a member of the ORG investigative committee and a renowned expert in the field of explosions , PERSON , about the external origins of the first CARDINAL explosions in the gymnasium ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL below ) . The conclusions of report no . CARDINAL are found on pages CARDINAL to CARDINAL . They can be summarised as follows : the first explosion was the result of the detonation of a large IED , equivalent to CARDINAL QUANTITY kilograms of ORG . The origin of this explosion was not linked to the electric wires and detonator , but resulted , most probably , from mishandling of the device by the terrorists guarding it . This IED exploded in the north - east part of the gymnasium , at a spot about a metre away from the north wall and QUANTITY away from the east wall . The second explosion occurred TIME and consisted of the simultaneous detonation of several ( CARDINAL ) smaller IEDs in the north - west part of the hall ; this explosion most probably resulted from CARDINAL of the terrorists intentionally or unintentionally using the detonator pedal . It could not have been caused by a cumulative charge launched from the outside . The report also concluded that out of all the recorded damage to the gymnasium walls , MONEY could have been caused by either a thermobaric charge or a cumulative charge projected from outside . These projectiles could not have been launched from the roofs of houses at CARDINAL , DATE or CARDINAL PERSON ( as alleged by some experts ) . The damage caused to the south wing of the school could have been caused by the use of various weapons and explosives , including a tank cannon , flame - throwers and grenade launchers ; however , the extent of the destruction excluded the possibility of any detailed reconstruction of the events . The report dismissed as improbable the launching of a thermobaric charge from a helicopter , pointing out that it could lead to the destruction of the helicopter and death of the crew . Lastly , the report listed the following types of weapons used by the members of the counter - terrorist operation , reconstructed on the basis of video material and the documents contained in criminal case file no . CARDINAL :","\u201c - portable grenade launchers RPG-CARDINALV and their modifications with anti - tank charges PG-CARDINALVL , PG-CARDINALVM , PG-CARDINALVS , fragmentary warhead PERSON ;","- disposable anti - tank rocket launchers RPG-CARDINAL , ORG ;","- propelled attack grenades RShGCARDINAL with a thermobaric warhead ;","- flame - throwers FAC with a thermobaric warhead ;","- light infantry flame - throwers LPOCARDINAL with a thermobaric charge ( probably ) ;","- firearms and portable grenade launchers . \u201d","Based on the same sources , the report concluded that the terrorists had used an RPG-CARDINALV portable grenade launcher with anti - tank charges type ORG ; PERSON disposable anti - tank rocket launchers , possibly a grenade launcher with a thermobaric charge ; CARDINAL \u201c bottle \u201d type IEDs , CARDINAL IEDs made out of MONCARDINAL anti - personnel mines and CARDINAL IEDs made out of OZM-CARDINAL anti - personnel mines ; and firearms and portable grenade launchers ( pages CARDINAL of the report ) .","As a follow up to that report , on DATE ORG of the ORG \u2019s expert laboratory examined the explosion marks on the south walls of the gymnasium and confirmed the above conclusions about the possible trajectory of the charges having been fired from the first floor of the south wing of the school and that these shots could not have been fired from houses at CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL PERSON or the garage roof ( report no . GPE , page CARDINAL ) .","Expert report no . CARDINAL was ordered by the investigation in DATE in order to dispel PERSON allegations about the origins of the second explosion in the gymnasium which had resulted in the destruction of a section of the wall under the window on the north side . It was completed on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Like report CARDINAL , it was carried out by experts of PERSON . The experts tested all the possibilities suggested by PERSON , including the use of various types of grenade launchers and flame - throwers upon a similar construction and concluded that their impact had been incompatible with the damage in the gymnasium . The report ran to CARDINAL pages and concluded that the \u201c origin of the hole in the north - west wall of the gymnasium ... was the detonation of an IED with the equivalent of QUANTITY of ORG , placed at a height of QUANTITY from the floor , near the radiator ... The power of this explosion \u2019s impact upon the wall was exacerbated by an almost simultaneous explosion of several other IEDs located in the north - west part of the gymnasium , further away from the first explosion \u201d ( pages CARDINAL of the report ) .","On DATE the ORG deputy military prosecutor issued an order not to prosecute unnamed military servicemen of the CARDINALth ORG of ORG and internal troops of ORG . The document stated that the investigation had established that the personnel of the army and ORG had used automatic weapons , RPGCARDINAL grenade launchers , ORG flamethrowers and TCARDINAL tanks . The document then proceeded to describe the events of the siege and storming , in line with witness statements of ORG of the CARDINALth ORG . In particular , the document stated that on DATE , during the first meeting of the OH , it had been decided that PERSON involvement in the negotiations was \u201c devoid of purpose \u201d ( \u043d\u0435\u0446\u0435\u043b\u0435\u0441\u043e\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0437\u043d\u043e ) since there was a threat of his being taken hostage as well . It further stated that although the decision to clear the area around the school of civilians and armed \u201c volunteers \u201d had been taken at TIME , it had not been implemented until DATE . Furthermore , on DATE the terrorists had demanded that Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON arrive for negotiations , but the GPE had decided that such talks were also \u201c devoid of purpose \u201d . After the first explosions at TIME the terrorists had opened fire at the hostages running out of the gymnasium , following which the servicemen of the second security perimeter had returned fire . At TIME a group of sappers under the command of Colonel PERSON had started to demine the gymnasium ; at the same time he had called for firemen to extinguish the fire . The first fire vehicle had arrived at TIME and contained QUANTITY of water ; the second vehicle had arrived at TIME and proceeded to extinguish the fire . By TIME the storming of the building had been over , while the search for and elimination of terrorists had continued until TIME on DATE .","The document then summarised the witness statement of ORG Tsyban , who explained that the OH had officially been created on DATE at TIME under the command of General PERSON . The OH had decided that Mr PERSON \u2019s involvement in the negotiations could not be authorised in view of the threat of his being taken hostage .","The document then related the witness statements of CARDINAL servicemen from the CARDINALth ORG \u2013 sappers , tank and ORG commanders . They stated that the tanks had fired CARDINAL shots in TIME of DATE and that none of them had fired at the school during the daytime .","The document referred to CARDINAL names of military servicemen who had been deployed within the security perimeter . Their statements were summarised in the following manner :","\u201c ... while securing the area no instances of any loss or stealing of arms or ammunition were noted , and there were no attempts by the terrorists to break through or to get away . Since the commanders had issued an order not to open fire unless there was an open breakthrough of the terrorists , no fire was opened and the use of firearms was regulated by LAW of the [ ORG ] . There were no noted instances of breaches of order or unauthorised use of firearms . No ammunition was used . \u201d","The document concluded that the servicemen of ORG had used \u201c personal , authorised , smallarms weapons , engineering hardware and chemical weapons , destined to cause harm to manpower , but this ammunition was used in line with the [ applicable ] regulations and on account of the inability to prevent the ORG actions by any other means ; the use of the above weapons resulted in the ORG elimination or detention \u201d . The document further stated that the investigation had obtained no evidence that the use of the above - listed weapons had resulted in harm to any of the hostages . Accordingly , there was no evidence of an offence having been committed .","NORP The decision of DATE was quashed on CARDINAL DATE due to certain technical deficiencies . It is unclear what happened next in this respect .","On DATE a commission from the North Ossetian Emercom carried out an internal investigation into the actions of the ORG staff during the crisis . According to its findings , the firefighters were aware in advance of the locations of the fire hydrants in the vicinity of the school , but could not use them because they could have been shot at by the terrorists . Hence , they first used mobile cisterns . The staff in charge had drawn up a plan of access for the fire engines to the school , but it was not within the NORP powers to ensure that these routes were accessible \u2013 that should have been coordinated by the OH on the basis of that plan . Failure to intervene during the initial stage had been based on the instructions of the OH . Lastly , the use of more powerful hydraulic cannons was deemed impractical by the commission , in view of the limited choice of locations where they could be placed , the distance to the source of the fire of QUANTITY , narrow access to the fire and the danger from the \u201c hot vapour \u201d to those who might still be alive in the burning building . The commission concluded that the actions of the ORG staff had been correct and justified .","On DATE an investigator from ORG in the LOC decided not to charge the LOC Minister of Emercom Mr PERSON and his deputy and head of the fire service , Colonel PERSON , with crimes under LAW ( criminal negligence ) . The decision referred to witness statements made by Colonel PERSON , Mr PERSON and a number of other firefighters and officials of the service . They confirmed that the information about the fire had first come in after the first explosions , soon after TIME , but that the OH had only allowed the firefighters to intervene after TIME They said that CARDINAL fire engines had been ready to take part in the operation , but that the access routes to the school had remained busy with cars and people . The CARDINAL closest fire hydrants had not been accessible ; at first the engines had used cisterns to extinguish the fire from CARDINAL water cannons ; later a line to the next hydrant had been made . The decision discussed the question whether the firefighters could have used a more powerful hydraulic water cannon , but the firefighters argued that it could only have produced the desired effects if the distance to the source of fire had been QUANTITY \u2013 that could not have been ensured in view of the ongoing fighting . The decision concluded that at the time of the NORP intervention , the general management of the operation had been taken by the OH headed by the ORG , without whose permission no action could have been taken . The ORG had not allowed the firefighters to intervene for TIME , in view of a lack of special equipment for them , and thus their members could have been injured or died . In such circumstances , the actions of the ORG officials contained no elements which could lead to the conclusion that a crime had been committed . It is unclear when the applicants were informed of this decision and whether they had appealed against it .","In DATE the victims lodged an application to have the competent officials , including PERSON , General PERSON , Mr PERSON and Colonel PERSON , charged with criminal negligence and withholding information entailing danger to people \u2019s lives and health , with serious consequences ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . In particular , they argued that no necessary preventive measures had been taken prior to the terrorist act ; that the GPE had remained passive and failed to ensure meaningful negotiations with the hostage takers ; that as a result of the inaction of the OH the GPE conditions had deteriorated from DATE , thus rendering them weak by the time of the storming ; that the failure of PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON to appear for negotiations had excluded the possibility of a dialogue ; that the security perimeter around the school had not been properly ensured ; and that the storming operation had not been thoroughly prepared . The victims also alleged that the military and security forces had acted without a plan and used excessive and indiscriminate weapons after TIME on DATE . In support of that assertion they referred to CARDINAL witness statements collected during the trial of ORG attesting to the use of flame - throwers , grenade launchers , tanks and APCs . They further alleged that there had been a CARDINAL - and - a - half hour delay between the start of the fire in the gymnasium and the commencement of the extinguishing operation , and that the firefighters had been unprepared since they had lacked water supplies . As a result , CARDINAL of hostages including children in the gymnasium had been burnt alive , since they were injured , shellshocked , disoriented or too weak to leave on their own .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General rejected the application , finding that the decisions of the investigating officers had been lawful and that the actions sought by the victims were not necessary as the relevant facts had been established through other steps . On DATE ORG allowed an appeal by the victims against the decision and ordered ORG to examine the GPE applications in detail and provide them with reasoned answers to each of their arguments . On DATE ORG quashed and remitted ORG decision . On DATE ORG confirmed the validity of the decision of DATE . It was then approved by ORG on DATE . Subsequent requests by the victims for a supervisory review were unsuccessful .","In the meantime , and in parallel to the above - mentioned proceedings , on DATE the head of the investigation team , an investigator of ORG in ORG , decided not to open a criminal investigation , under the same provisions of LAW , in respect of the head and members of the GPE . The investigator found that there were no constituent elements of an offence in the officials\u2019 actions . He relied heavily on the conclusions of expert report no . CARDINAL , saying that the actions of the OH had been in conformity with the relevant rules and regulations . The victims appealed , and on DATE a judge of ORG quashed the investigator \u2019s decision , since expert report no . CARDINAL had been found to be unlawful . On DATE ORG quashed and remitted ORG decision , finding that it was not based on all the material available . On DATE , in a new set of proceedings , ORG rejected all the applications and found that even though expert report no . CARDINAL had been invalidated , the evidence on which it had relied remained valid and supported similar conclusions . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .","In a separate decision , also dated DATE , the same investigator decided not to open criminal proceedings against the LOC Deputy Minister of Emercom and head of the fire service Colonel PERSON and the head of the fire service of LOC GPE . The decision referred to LAW , which concerned criminal negligence , and to witness statements confirming that the first information about the explosions and fire in the gymnasium had been received soon after TIME on DATE , as well as to the fact that Colonel PERSON had , on several occasions between CARDINAL.CARDINAL and TIME , ordered the firefighters to intervene and then cancelled his orders due to a lack of authorisation by the head of the OH . At TIME CARDINAL fire engines had arrived at the school with a full load of water , which could last for TIME . Once it had been used , CARDINAL other fire engines had been called in ; later , water had been obtained from a fire hydrant because the closest hydrants could not be used . The decision referred to expert report no . CARDINAL and to the fire expert \u2019s report no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . ) .","On DATE ORG informed ORG of the results of its internal inquiry into the actions of its staff from DATE . ORG conceded that the scale and circumstances of the events had been unprecedented even for its most experienced staff , and that the situation had been \u201c exacerbated by a lack of verifiable information about the number of hostages , the unpredictability of the events and the difficulty in predicting the types of injuries \u201d . The report noted that the situation at the site of the paediatric field hospital set up in GPE on DATE had been made difficult by the presence of a large number of local residents , who had \u201c sometimes turned into a mob displaying signs of emotional \/ psychological instability \u201d . The work of a mobile group of psychologists had helped to dispel the pressure and create the conditions necessary to administer medical aid . The overall input of ORG was described as vital .","The Government , in their submissions made in DATE , summarised the documents contained in file QUANTITY relating to the work of the medical staff as follows .","On DATE ORG set up a coordination cell , joining the forces of the local and federal ministries of health , Emercom , ORG and the ORG forensic bureau ( PERSON \u044d\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0437\u044b ( ORG ) \u2013 \u201c the forensic bureau \u201d ) . From the TIME of DATE , special psychological aid units were put in place for the relatives . A number of other urgent steps were taken , such as putting medical personnel in a number of local hospitals on standby , preparing supplies of necessary equipment and material , including blood for transfusion , ensuring the preparedness of the intensive care and surgery units .","On DATE an emergency paediatric field hospital was set up in GPE . The \u201c federal and local headquarters \u201d worked out access to the school and evacuation routes and instructed the drivers and medical and paramedical personnel involved .","On DATE an additional hospital was set up in GPE , equipped to perform urgent surgical operations and other types of emergency care . Measures were taken in order to assist a large number of the injured . A total of CARDINAL places were reserved at various hospitals in the region . Both before and after the storming medical teams were brought in from other regions , including highly qualified doctors from GPE .","By the time of the first explosions , CARDINAL doctors , CARDINAL medical staff and CARDINAL ambulances were in GPE . This made CARDINAL mobile medical teams , including CARDINAL reserve ones .","DATE on DATE , CARDINAL injured people , including CARDINAL children , were transferred to the local hospitals . By TIME all patients had been placed in hospitals in GPE and NORP and CARDINAL urgent operations had been performed .","Over CARDINAL people were provided with psychological aid .","From DATE special medical teams visited families , assisting those hostages and their family members who had gone home . Between CARDINAL and DATE over CARDINAL patients ( including CARDINAL children ) were transferred for treatment to GPE by special flights .","DATE and DATE CARDINAL patients received medical aid . A total of CARDINAL died at the school , while CARDINAL people died in hospital . By DATE CARDINAL patients ( including CARDINAL children ) continued to receive medical aid in hospitals ; others had been discharged . PERSON received QUANTITY of medical equipment and supplies in relation to the crisis .","In DATE the applicants applied to ORG in ORG to have Mr PERSON , the LOC Minister of the ORG , charged with criminal negligence . On DATE that application was dismissed . Following an appeal by the victims , on CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG and ORG upheld that decision .","In DATE the applicants requested that the prosecutor \u2019s office \u201c evaluate \u201d the actions of the LOC senior officials who had failed to prevent the terrorist act and inform the population of the imminent threat or ensure a proper security perimeter around the school . They also asked it to verify the lawfulness of the actions of the members of the OH who had authorised the use of indiscriminate weapons and had failed to ensure that the fire was promptly extinguished . They referred to the information contained in the ORG report ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . ) , also seeking to have the officials concerned and the victims questioned . On DATE this application was dismissed in part by the investigator , who found that the questions raised by the victims were the subject of the pending criminal investigation .","On the basis of the medical documents and forensic reports , the causes of death were established for CARDINAL people ; the exact cause of death of CARDINAL people could not be established owing to extensive post mortem burns . As to the injured , QUANTITY people received gunshot wounds , CARDINAL shrapnel wounds , CARDINAL people suffered from the consequences of the explosions , CARDINAL people received concussion , CARDINAL people suffered from fractured bones and contusions , CARDINAL people received thermal injuries and CARDINAL people suffered psychological and neurological problems .","The investigation concluded that the deaths and injuries of the victims were not connected with any actions or omissions on the part of ORG agents , including the use of firearms .","The applicants in their numerous complaints stressed that the forensic expert reports had been carried out without the extraction of bullets , shrapnel and other objects from the bodies . They also stressed that the forensic reports for many people had failed to establish the cause of death altogether , owing to extensive burns .","In the course of the domestic proceedings the victims lodged CARDINAL applications with the prosecutor \u2019s office requesting various procedural steps to be taken . They appealed against the results of most of these decisions in the district courts . Copies of most of the applications and complaints , as well as the authorities\u2019 reactions , were submitted to the ORG or described by the applicants in their submissions .","In DATE the victims asked the investigator in charge of the case to find out who had decided against presenting the CARDINAL men sought by the terrorists for negotiations ; to hold confrontations between civilian and police witnesses on the CARDINAL hand and army servicemen on the other ; and to investigate the use of tanks and flame - throwers in TIME DATE . On DATE the investigator rejected the application , stating that the decision to use the appropriate weapons had been taken by the OH and that witness confrontations were not considered useful by the investigation .","NORP In DATE the applicants asked the investigator to determine who had decided that the CARDINAL men requested by the terrorists should not participate in the talks and who had authorised the use of tanks and flamethrowers during the storming . On DATE the investigator in charge granted the application and informed the applicants that they would be kept up to date with the investigation results .","In DATE the applicants asked the investigation to find out the number of hostages that had been communicated by the OH to the ORG , ORG and the NORP President on DATE of the crisis and to question the relevant officials . On DATE this application was granted .","In DATE , referring to the results of the forensic reports and witness statements obtained during the trial of PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . ) , the victims argued that the bodies of CARDINAL people had been severely burned , rendering it impossible in most cases for the cause of death to be established . However several forensic reports indicated extensive burns as the cause of death . The victims sought to find out who had ordered the delay in the NORP intervention in the gymnasium and whether they had been properly equipped upon arrival . On DATE the investigator dismissed the application to bring charges against several officials , referring to the pending investigation .","At the GPE request , on DATE the investigator appended to the file the records of the trials of the officers of the PERSON and PERSON ROVDs .","NORP In DATE the investigator granted the GPE applications , based on information obtained during the trial of PERSON ORG , to have a number of senior officials questioned about the steps taken in DATE with the aim of preventing the terrorist act , in order to clarify the extent of the local police \u2019s involvement in securing Mr PERSON \u2019s passage on TIME and to find out how the OH had come up with the figure of CARDINAL hostages that was aired during the crisis . The investigator also granted the GPE application to have the commander of ORG ( ORG PERSON ) General PERSON questioned , in order to ascertain the details of the use of indiscriminate weapons on the school .","On DATE ORG reviewed , at the applicants\u2019 request , CARDINAL applications lodged by them with the investigator DATE , the results of which they found unsatisfactory . The complaints mostly concerned the following points : the ORG attempts to obtain additional evidence about the exact cause of their relatives\u2019 deaths and injuries ; information about the reasons for the first CARDINAL explosions in the gymnasium ; the details of the involvement of various military and security units in the storming ; information about the types and results of examinations of the weapons found in the school , evidence related to the actions of the OH ; information about the actions of firefighters immediately after the first explosions ; the extent of the officials\u2019 responsibility for the outcome of the crisis ; and the ORG requests to acquaint themselves with various documents in the file . The ORG complaint was dismissed in full , ORG finding that the investigators had acted lawfully and within the limits of their professional discretion . The court also noted that the proceedings were still pending . The applicants appealed , but on DATE ORG upheld the decision .","On DATE ORG rejected a complaint by the victims about the NORP decisions in response to CARDINAL applications they had lodged to ascertain the reasons for the first explosions and the origins of the firearms which had caused the GPE deaths and injuries , to find out more about the communications with the terrorists , to identify the person who ordered the deployment of tanks , APCs , flamethrowers and grenade launchers , and to establish the reason for the carbonisation of FAC bodies . The court also rejected the GPE complaint of inefficiency and delays on the part of the prosecutor \u2019s office . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .","On DATE ORG rejected another complaint in relation to CARDINAL complaints lodged by the victims with the investigator . They concerned the ORG access to the expert report on the explosions , ballistics reports and documents relating to the existence of a real threat of a terrorist act prior to DATE . The court , referring to LAW , concluded that the restrictions on the ORG access to the documents had been justified . The remaining actions of the investigation were also found to be lawful . This decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .","According to the decision of ORG of DATE , CARDINAL victims and their representatives complained to ORG and then to the court about the NORP decisions to reject CARDINAL complaints lodged DATE . They included the following demands : to find out the exact reasons for the ORG deaths where the conclusions of the post - mortem reports had been incomplete ; to ascertain whether the carbonisation of the bodies had been caused prior to or after death ; to seek an explanation for CARDINAL victims as to why the conclusions about the reasons for their relatives\u2019 deaths had been based on external inspection without autopsy reports ; to establish the causal relationships between the use of flame - throwers , grenade launchers , tanks and APCs during the storming and the GPE deaths ; to obtain additional questioning of the servicemen of the Malgobek ROVD and of a military unit stationed in LOC about the prevention of the terrorist act ; to clarify the reasons for the appointment of General PERSON as the head of the OH on DATE ; and to obtain full access to the material of the case file and copies of the complex expert report ( including mathematical computations of the explosions , ballistics and explosion examinations ) . The victims also alleged that they had received no timely responses to their applications and requests , that the investigation had been protracted and lacked objectivity and , in particular , that they had not had access to the most important case documents . ORG dismissed all the appeals , finding that the ORG demands had been satisfied by the investigation wherever possible , or had not been based on the pertinent legislation . On DATE ORG upheld that decision on appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed another complaint lodged by a group of victims against the decisions taken in response to their complaints to the investigators . CARDINAL complaints , lodged DATE , concerned the ORG access to the ballistics reports and the records of negotiations with the terrorists , obtaining copies of certain documents in the case file and the decisions ordering expert reports . The victims also alleged that the investigation had been unnecessarily protracted , with important steps being delayed , which in turn could have led to a loss of evidence and make the judicial examination of the matters less effective . They asked for the actions of the investigators to be declared unlawful in so far as they had not conducted an effective investigation , had refused to allow victims access to the case file and had failed to establish the extent of the officials\u2019 responsibility . The court found that some documents requested by the victims were confidential , while access to others was regulated by LAW . On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision .","The GPE subsequent attempts to seek a supervisory review of these decisions were unsuccessful . In DATE a group of applicants sought the latest information about the developments in the investigation from the head of the investigation team . They reiterated that they had received no information about the state of proceedings since DATE , particularly in respect of the actions concerning the military and the GPE .","The applicants submitted voluminous documents related to the criminal investigation and trial concerning Mr Nurpashi Kulayev , the only terrorist captured alive . In particular , they submitted CARDINAL volumes of trial records ( CARDINAL pages ) , copies of the trial court judgment ( CARDINAL pages ) and cassation court decision and their appeals to the cassation and supervising courts . The most relevant documents and the applicants\u2019 submissions can be summarised as follows .","On DATE the criminal investigation in respect of the only surviving terrorist , Mr PERSON , was separated from criminal case no . CARDINAL and assigned the number CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG opened the trial of PERSON ORG . He was charged with aggravated murder , terrorism , hostage - taking , membership of a criminal gang , illegal firearms handling and attempts on the life of law - enforcement personnel ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) . DATE the trial court held CARDINAL hearings .","NORP In court Mr PERSON stated that he had joined the group on CARDINAL DATE . His brother , PERSON , had been a clandestine fighter since DATE , but had lost an arm and had lately been living in Psedakh , their home village . On DATE a group of armed men had arrived in a ORG and accused his brother of working for the ORG . Both brothers and CARDINAL of their friends had gone with the armed men to a camp situated QUANTITY away from the road . TIME on DATE the man in charge of the camp , \u201c PERSON \u201d , had told all those present to get into a ORG truck . There had been CARDINAL people , including QUANTITY women wearing masks . Explosives and arms in backpacks had been placed under the benches and the men had taken seats on the floor of the truck . Responding to the GPE questions , Mr PERSON stated that he had not seen any wooden boxes for cartridges ( which had later been found in the school canteen ) .","They had spent TIME in the valley and in TIME had continued their journey . The body of the truck had been covered with canvas and they could not see out . At CARDINAL point the vehicle had stopped and Mr PERSON had heard someone asking for the driver \u2019s documents . They had then been told that a policeman had been captured and they had travelled on . The policeman had later been released because he had been a relative of CARDINAL of the fighters . The ride had lasted DATE . During the capturing of the school one fighter had been fatally injured and \u201c PERSON \u201d had ordered the killing of CARDINAL male hostages . In the school Mr PERSON had been assigned to the canteen . On DATE there had been a dispute among the fighters and \u201c Polkovnik \u201d had detonated the explosive device carried by a female suicide bomber . This explosion had fatally wounded the other woman and another fighter of NORP origin . According to Mr PERSON , many members of the group , including himself and his brother , had been unaware of the nature of their mission , but \u201c PERSON \u201d had referred to PERSON \u2019s orders and executed anyone attempting to object . The terrorists had talked between themselves in PERSON and \u201c PERSON \u201d had called someone to receive instructions in NORP .","Referring to the conversations among the terrorists , Mr ORG said that \u201c PERSON \u201d had told Mr PERSON that if the CARDINAL men indicated by them came to the school , they would release CARDINAL hostages for each of them . He also understood that some hostages and fighters would have been able to move in buses to GPE if the NORP troops had pulled out of the mountainous districts .","Speaking about the first explosions in the gymnasium , Mr ORG testified that \u201c PERSON \u201d had said that a sniper had \u201c killed the man [ holding the switch]\u201dand had then cried to someone over the telephone \u201c What have you done ? ! \u201d before breaking it ; after that he had encouraged the terrorists to fight until the bitter end . Mr PERSON had jumped out of the canteen window and shouted to the soldiers that they should not shoot there because there were women and children . He denied that he had used his machine gun and had walked into the gymnasium while the hostages were detained there .","CARDINAL people convicted earlier for terrorist activities testified that they had known Mr PERSON , the accused \u2019s brother , as an active member of the underground terrorist movement and that in DATE both brothers and several other members of the armed group , together with their families , had lived in a rented house in ORG ( PERSON vol . CARDINAL , page CARDINAL of the trial records , PERSON . DATE , p. DATE ) .","Some local residents stated in court that they had seen unknown men and suspicious boxes at the school prior to DATE ( PERSON . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . During DATE the school building had been partially renovated , but the teachers and director denied that anyone other than the school staff and their families had been involved ( PERSON , vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . Some teachers testified that they had inspected the school in TIME of CARDINAL September and there had been no one there ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; KomayevaGadzhinova R. vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","The police officer who had been captured by the terrorists on the administrative border on TIME testified that he had stopped the GACARDINAL vehicle TIME The armed men had taken his service pistol , ORG vehicle and police cap and had driven to PERSON . He had escaped as soon as the shooting started . He denied having known any of the terrorists and confirmed that the terrorists had spoken PERSON between themselves and to him ( PERSON , vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","As to the prevention of the terrorist act , a senior police officer of ORG testified in court in DATE that at QUANTITY on DATE the school had been inspected , possibly with a service dog . He admitted that , unlike in DATE , no patrol police had been deployed at the school ( PERSON . vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . Mr PERSON , the former head of ORG , had been aware that the school had been inspected with service dogs on TIME , but no appropriate records had been provided ( vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","The trial court noted that criminal proceedings in respect of the organisers of the terrorist act were the subject of a separate criminal investigation ( no . CARDINAL , see above ) . The court cited statements and documents from investigation file no . CARDINAL . It identified CARDINAL terrorists ( including Mr PERSON ) and referred to CARDINAL unidentified individuals ( including \u201c LOC \u201d and \u201c GPE \u201d ) .","It transpires that DATE numerous hostages and the ORG relatives were questioned and granted victim status . By the opening of the trial CARDINAL people had been granted victim status in the proceedings . CARDINAL victims were questioned during the trial ; statements by others given during the investigation were read out .","NORP The victims questioned in court mostly denied having seen Mr GPE in the gymnasium , although several hostages had seen him in the gymnasium , in the corridor DATE and in the canteen during the final stage of the assault . Most of the hostages had not seen Mr PERSON \u2019s brother PERSON , who had lost his right arm . Several of them also referred to CARDINAL particular terrorist : a shaven man with a large scar on his neck , who had been particularly cruel to the hostages and whom they had not identified after the siege was over ( witness PERSON . DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . Most hostages had seen CARDINAL women suicide bombers , although some hostages said they had seen another woman of NORP appearance on the first floor of the school on DATE and possibly a fourth one also on DATE ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL woman told the court that on DATE terrorist \u201c PERSON \u201d had asked her if she was PERSON and suggested that they would let her family members go free if she agreed to act as a suicide bomber , since \u201c their CARDINAL girls had been killed by an ammunition round \u201d fired from the outside ( Kudziyeva L. vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . The hostages estimated the number of terrorists at CARDINAL .","With respect to the taking of the school , many hostages testified that as soon as the fighters had surrounded the gathering in the courtyard and started to shoot in the air , another group of fighters had fired from the top of the building . Some witnesses stated that when the shooting had started some children had tried to escape through PERSON , but there had been fighters there who had forced them to return . Many had seen fighters running to the school from the railway line ( PERSON v. PERSON ; PERSON . v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON CARDINAL p.CARDINAL ) . Others said that when they had entered the school there had already been armed fighters guarding the stairs to the first floor . CARDINAL boy aged QUANTITY at the time testified that on DATE he and CARDINAL older boys had been forced to take boxes with grenades and mines from an opening under the stage in the meeting hall ( GPE CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) , but no one else from this group could be identified . CARDINAL witness testified that when the fighters had broken the floors in the gymnasium on DATE they had taken out a long tube which she supposed had been a grenade launcher ( PERSON v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) .","Police officer PERSON gave detailed submissions about the hostage - taking and subsequent events . According to her , a second police officer had failed to arrive at the school . At TIME one mother told her that a strange truck had been parked nearby . When she went out to check , she heard a suspicious noise . She ran to the staffroom on the first floor to alert the police but as soon as she took the telephone , she was surrounded by several fighters wearing camouflage uniforms . They told her that \u201c everything would be serious this time \u201d and led her to the gymnasium . She estimated that there were CARDINAL fighters ( vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the teachers , on the ORG orders , drew up lists of the children aged below CARDINAL , although they were never used ( PERSON v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . Numerous hostages told the court that the terrorists had been extremely annoyed by the information about the number of people being held in the school and that their attitude had become harsher after the figure of CARDINAL people had been announced . They testified that the terrorists had refused to allow them to drink or go to the toilet since \u201c nobody needed them anyway and there would only be CARDINAL of them left \u201d ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . The hostages complained of mocking , insults and ill - treatment and explained how the terrorists had hit the elderly and children , subjected them to false executions , held parents and grandparents at gunpoint in the children \u2019s view , and had fired into the air in order to keep them quiet .","The hostages saw the ORG attitude deteriorating further on DATE after Mr PERSON had left the school . Several of them said that on CARDINAL and DATE the terrorists had attempted in vain to liaise with the authorities through those who had had relatives among officials or public figures .","The school director PERSON was a hostage , together with members of her family . She stated that she had inspected the school on TIME , denying allegations that anyone except staff and their relatives had been involved in the renovation . She had been called by the fighters to negotiate and testified that they had been annoyed by the absence of contact with the authorities . On DATE she had attempted to involve the children of Mr PERSON and a prosecutor \u2019s mother in the negotiations , but to no avail ( PERSON , v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) .","Many hostages testified about the explosions in the gymnasium . They said that prior to the explosions the fighters had been behaving in a relaxed manner and preparing lunch . Others mentioned some agitation probably caused by electricity failure in the gymnasium . Some hostages testified that they had seen an IED fixed to a basketball hoop explode ( PERSON v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON v. CARDINAL p.CARDINAL ) . Others insisted that when they had been leaving the gymnasium they could still see large IEDs intact on the basketball hoops ( PERSON v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) or that CARDINAL explosion had come from that IED ( PERSON CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) . Some described the first blast as a \u201c fireball \u201d ( PERSON CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) . Many testified about the fire and heat emanating from the explosions , enflaming their clothes and hair and causing burns ( PERSON CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) . Many testified that the fire could have killed , injured and shellshocked people who had been unable to leave the gymnasium on their own ( PERSON v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) . Some hostages described how they had been saved by local civilians from the gymnasium and adjacent LOC after the explosions ( PERSON v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) . Numerous witnesses also gave evidence that when the hostages had started to run from the gymnasium through the opening in the wall they had been shot at from the first floor of the school , and many had been wounded .","Those hostages who had been taken by the fighters to the canteen and the meeting room testified about the fierce fighting which had taken place there . They stated that the fighters had tried to force the hostages \u2013 women and children DATE to stand in the windows and wave their clothes , and some had been killed by shots fired from outside and by powerful explosions ( PERSON , v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON ORG v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) .","Many also stated that they had not been satisfied with the results of the criminal investigation and that they did not intend to seek damages from the accused , since they considered that the ORG officials had to bear responsibility for the deaths and injuries .","Mr PERSON , former head of ORG , was questioned in court ( vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) while under investigation in criminal case no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL for criminal negligence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He explained that he had only been appointed in DATE . The administrative border with ORG in the district was QUANTITY long and had been mostly unguarded . Many small roads through the fields had been closed off and rendered impassable in view of the heightened terrorist threat ; however , this had not suited the locals , who very often had removed the barriers . In DATE information had been received about a gathering of armed groups near Psedakh in ORG and a number of steps had been taken on both sides of the administrative border , but at the time the measures had produced no known results .","He also explained that out of the CARDINAL officers of the ROVD who had been present on DATE , over DATE had been women . It had been difficult to maintain the staff on alert for a long time . As soon as shooting could be heard from the school , at TIME on DATE , he had ordered his staff to maintain security around the building . CARDINAL servicemen of the ROVD had witnessed the hostage - taking and exchanged fire with the terrorists .","Mr PERSON , deputy head of LOC , was also under investigation for criminal negligence at the time of questioning . He gave detailed submissions about the use of ORG flamethrowers on the school from CARDINAL snipers positioned on the roofs of a technical building on FAC , a QUANTITY housing block on the corner of PERSON and ORG and the caretaker \u2019s house ( vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . He did not know where the snipers had come from . CARDINAL he had witnessed a tank shooting at the school and the use of grenade launchers by the military . The officer remarked that not a single bullet had been extracted from the bodies of the deceased hostages which could have led to the identification of the servicemen of ORG ( v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) .","Mr Dryayev , another senior ROVD officer , testified that immediately after the first explosions on DATE he had seen soldiers ( of the army or internal troops ) firing automatic weapons at the school in response to enemy fire . Soon after TIME he had seen a tank stationed on FAC firing about CARDINAL shots at the corner of the school from a distance of QUANTITY . These rounds , possibly non - explosive , had damaged the wall and the roof ( vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","Police officers of ORG testified that by TIME CARDINAL September they had carried out a house - to - house inspection in the district and compiled a list of CARDINAL GPE names , which they had submitted to the officer on duty ( PERSON . v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON S. v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) .","The policemen also explained that CARDINAL men had been assaulted by the crowd on DATE and detained at the ROVD on suspicion of aiding the terrorists . They turned out to be civilians from a nearby town ; both men had been identified and testified in court about this incident .","The court questioned several civilians who had helped to evacuate hostages from the gymnasium . Mr PERSON testified that he had entered the gymnasium after the first explosions , together with the special forces units , to search for his wife and CARDINAL children . He had taken out his wounded wife and the body of his daughter , while his brother had evacuated his injured son ; his eldest child had also been killed ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . Other witnesses , both civilian and police , told the court that they had entered the burning gymnasium several times , taking out injured women and children before the roof had collapsed ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , PERSON , vol . DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL policeman witnessed the fire spreading very quickly on the roof of the school , saying that the firemen had failed to intervene ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","Some witnesses saw tanks shooting at the school soon after the explosions ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) ; CARDINAL man was injured by an explosion while taking a child out of the gymnasium ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL witness , PERSON , explained that he had served in the army as a tank crew member and was well acquainted with tanks and the ammunition used by them . Shortly after TIME on DATE he had counted QUANTITY non - explosive rounds fired from a tank gun . He was also of the opinion that the first explosions and the fire had been started from the outside , by either a flame - thrower or a tracer bullet ( vol . CARDINAL pp . DATE ) . CARDINAL civilian witness stated that he had served in the army as a grenade launcher operator and had identified CARDINAL shots fired from grenade launchers or flame - throwers between the second and third major explosions in the gymnasium ( PERSON , vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","Several police officers testified that the storming of the building had started unexpectedly and that this explained the casualties . Some of them had had no time to put on protective gear and rushed to the school as soon as they had heard the shooting . Some servicemen described the situation after the first explosions as \u201c chaotic \u201d , when various forces had been shooting at the school building using automatic weapons and other arms ( PERSON MONEY , vol . CARDINAL , p. MONEY ) . They referred to the ORG high level of training and preparedness , which had allowed them to mount resistance in the face of the elite NORP units ( Akulov O. , vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","An officer of ORG testified that at TIME , while he had been ensuring the security cordon around the school , he had seen CARDINAL full carloads of portable grenade launchers ( ORG ) and flame - throwers ( ORG ) being delivered by servicemen of ORG driving a white PERSON vehicle . He estimated that CARDINAL flame - throwers had been unloaded and taken to the ORG positions , located QUANTITY from the school . The snipers and the forces of ORG had used these flame - throwers soon after the explosions at the school , responding to enemy fire from grenade launchers and machine guns ( PERSON . vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . Another policeman counted up to QUANTITY shots from flamethrowers in the direction of the gymnasium roof at TIME ( PERSON , vol . CARDINAL , p. MONEY ) . Other policemen testified that QUANTITY they had seen a tank firing at the school ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. ORG ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) and that shots had been fired from grenade launchers ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","NORP The hostage - taking and subsequent events were witnessed by numerous local residents ; some of them were questioned in court . Several passengers of vehicles who had found themselves on the street in front of the school on TIME had seen a FAC truck arriving in the schoolyard . Some said that they had seen CARDINAL women jumping out of the vehicle . Mr PERSON had been a teacher at school no . CARDINAL and a former investigator of the prosecutor \u2019s office ; he lived in the house opposite the school and had watched the ceremony from his window , from a distance of QUANTITY . He gave detailed explanations about the hostage - taking . In particular , he had counted the men who jumped out of the FAC vehicle and said that there had been CARDINAL . He had also seen CARDINAL other fighters in the schoolyard and CARDINAL who had run from the railway lines ; at the same time there had been shots fired from the roof and the first floor of the school ; he thus estimated the number of fighters at CARDINAL or CARDINAL . Mr PERSON also stated that from DATE there had been no soldiers or police lined up along the backyard of the school and that it had been possible to walk there from his house and back ( vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ) .","Numerous local residents whose relatives had been held in the school stated that they had been appalled by the announcement of the number of hostages . They said that the school had had CARDINAL students \u2013 lists could have been obtained from the local department of education DATE and that numerous parents and relatives had also been captured . Officials from the local department of education testified that on TIME the number of students ( CARDINAL ) had been transmitted to the administration with an indication that many relatives could be present at the ceremony ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . Moreover , on DATE volunteers and police had drawn up lists of CARDINAL hostages . In view of this , they could not explain how the officials had arrived at a figure of CARDINAL ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","Many local residents testified that they had seen or heard a tank shooting at the school after the explosions ( Duarov O. vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON ORG vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. DATE ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . PERSON had remained outside the school , where CARDINAL members of her family were being held hostage . She testified that a tank positioned on FAC had fired several rounds between TIME and TIME ( vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL local resident saw a tank enter a courtyard on FAC and heard it shooting at the school before TIME on DATE . The witness was QUANTITY away from the tank ( Khabayeva A. vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . All those witnesses described the tank cannon shots as being particularly strong and clearly identifiable despite the overwhelming noise of fierce fighting .","Several residents testified about the firemen \u2019s actions . They alleged , in particular , that the firemen had lost time before intervening in the gymnasium and that once the fire engines had arrived , they had been of little use since the water supplies in the cisterns had been quickly exhausted . Moreover , the pressure in the water hoses had been weak and they could not reach the gymnasium from where the machines were stationed . Some witnesses deplored the lack of preparedness by the firemen , who had failed to find out beforehand where to find water locally around the school rather than bringing it in cisterns ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . Other witnesses told the court that they had seen a fire engine stuck in the courtyard and trying to find water for the cistern ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","Colonel PERSON , brigade commander of the internal troops deployed in GPE on DATE , testified in DATE that servicemen under his command had ensured the security cordon . Their task had been to prevent the terrorists from breaking through . QUANTITY APCs from his brigade had been transferred to the ORG forces on DATE ( v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) .","Officers of the CARDINALth ORG testified that their task had been to ensure the \u201c third ring \u201d of security around the school . CARDINAL officer explained that ORG , the commander of ORG , had instructed him to follow the orders of the ORG officers . Each army vehicle deployed in PERSON had been reinforced by an officer of the ORG who had given orders and coordinated the PERSON actions ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . They denied having heard or seen grenade launchers , flamethrowers or tanks being used prior to late on the evening of DATE . The tank unit commander stated that between CARDINAL p.m. and TIME one tank had fired CARDINAL high - fragmentation shells at the school ( although the seventh had failed to explode ) , following orders of the ORG officer in charge . No shots had been fired from the tank guns before or after that ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","One officer , a sapper , testified that he had entered the gymnasium at TIME on DATE and had deactivated an IED attached to a basketball hoop . Most IEDs had not exploded and had been deactivated the following day . The officer testified that he had entered the gymnasium with a group of CARDINAL servicemen and CARDINAL QUANTITY civilians who had evacuated the hostages for TIME . Initially there had been no fire there , but the LOC had been under attack from the north wing of the school . Soon afterwards he had noticed a fire starting in the roof , above the entrance to the gymnasium from the side of the weights room ( PERSON . CARDINAL , pp . DATE and DATE ) .","Mr Z. , a professional negotiator from LOC , was called to PERSON at TIME on DATE . He had a meeting with General PERSON and then informed him of the talks and received instructions from him . He was placed in a separate room , with a psychologist , and maintained telephone contact with the terrorists CARDINAL TIME . His efforts to establish psychological contact with his interlocutor ( who called himself \u201c Shahid \u201d ) were unsuccessful and he failed to obtain any concessions aimed at alleviating the GPE situation . The conversations were conducted in a rude manner ; the gangsters insulted him and PERSON . The terrorists repeatedly said that they would talk to the QUANTITY men named by them and did not present any other demands . They did not specify the number of hostages they were holding , saying only that they had \u201c enough \u201d . They spoke of CARDINAL people shot dead on DATE and said that they had DATE to wait for the authorities to bring the CARDINAL men together . When asked if PERSON could come alone , the terrorists refused . The first telephone conversation took place at TIME on DATE , DATE after TIME on DATE immediately following the first explosion . The witness remembered saying \u201c What have you done ? ! \u201d and \u201c Shahid \u201d responding \u201c We have fulfilled our duty \u201d . Responding to the GPE questions , PERSON admitted that the negotiations involving PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON had been carried out without him and that he had only been informed of these developments after they had occurred ( vol . CARDINAL , pp . DATE ) .","The head of the ORG in GPE at the relevant time stated in court in DATE that he had not been aware of the information and telexes sent by ORG in DATE about the heightened terrorist threat during DATE of Knowledge . The ORG had not been involved in the protection of the administrative border , but their services had cooperated with ORG in examining the area around the border ( Gaydenko O. v. CARDINAL pp . DATE ) . He did not have any information about the possible escape of terrorists after the storming .","The former head of the ORG department in ORG , General GPE , confirmed that there had been sufficiently precise information about the activities of terrorist groups in ORG in DATE as a number of successful special operations had been carried out , but there had been no information about the armed group in LOC . He testified that he had arrived in GPE on TIME and had remained there for DATE , working in close cooperation with General PERSON . He was not certain if he had been a member of the OH , but he had been fully aware of its work . On TIME General PERSON had called the NORP President PERSON PERSON and informed him of the terrorist act ; at that time no demand to involve Mr PERSON in the negotiations had been made . He could not reach Mr PERSON later since his mobile telephone had been switched off . By questioning the escaped hostages , they had tried to identify terrorists from Ingushetia and involve their relatives in the negotiations . They had therefore brought in the wife and children of a presumed terrorist , but her appeal had had no effect . The witness had not been aware of the note taken out by Mr PERSON ( v. CARDINAL pp . DATE ) .","Most of the army and internal troops servicemen failed to testify in court , and their witness statements collected during the investigation of criminal case no . CARDINAL were read out ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the court questioned Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON ( v. CARDINAL pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , who at the relevant time headed the operational management group at ORG of the Interior ( \u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a \u0433\u0440\u0443\u043f\u043f\u044b \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u043f\u043e ORG \u043f\u0440\u0438 \u041c\u0412\u0414 PERSON ) . The group was created on DATE by an order of the Minister of the ORG with the mission of preventing terrorist acts , planning and carrying out special operations and controlling and managing resources allocated for counterterrorism activities . When asked about the meetings , functions and actions of the commission prior to DATE , he could not recall any details .","Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON learnt of the hostage - taking at TIME on DATE and went to PERSON . By TIME , he had organised the security perimeter around the school . As of TIME on DATE he reported to the deputy commander of the internal troops of ORG , General PERSON . Although he was a member of the GPE , he stated that his participation had been limited to ensuring the second security perimeter . He had not been aware of the number of hostages , the nature of the ORG demands or the negotiation attempts . He had not taken part in any meetings or discussions of the GPE . As to the rescue operation , he stated that the servicemen of the internal troops had not used weapons , approached the school or taken part in the rescue operation . He had not been at the school on DATE . He refused to answer when asked whether any terrorists could have passed through the security perimeter .","General Sobolev , the commander of ORG , was questioned in DATE ( vol . CARDINAL , pp . DATE ) . He was the most senior officer from ORG in the OH . He described the ORG \u2019s principal strategy of negotiation with the hostage takers , but said that the attempts had been futile because the terrorists had only been prepared to talk if the CARDINAL people named by them came . PERSON had attempted to contact the terrorists , but they had refused to talk to him ; PERSON PERSON had been prevented by the OH from going to the school , and no contact had been established with PERSON PERSON . The danger to the lives of the CARDINAL men had been too high in the absence of any goodwill shown by the terrorists . In General PERSON \u2019s view , no negotiations were possible in the circumstances ; the storming of the school should have taken place immediately , before the IEDs had been assembled . He believed that the terrorists had been supported and funded by foreign services , including ORG ( of GPE ) . His task had been mostly limited to ensuring the security perimeter around the school and providing the necessary equipment ; he was not aware of the number of hostages , negotiation strategies or the rest of the plan drawn up by the OH .","He named the forces and equipment brought in by the army . CARDINAL APCs and CARDINAL tanks had been transferred under the command of the ORG to be used as cover in the event of a storming . A group of sappers had demined the gymnasium on TIME ; they had found CARDINAL mines and CARDINAL smaller IEDs connected by a \u201c double chain \u201d which had allowed them to be activated all at once or CARDINAL by CARDINAL . CARDINAL IEDs had exploded prior to demining ; in CARDINAL of them only the detonator had exploded but not the main charge .","Turning to the storming , General PERSON explained that it had started unexpectedly . Officers of the ORG \u2019s ORG unit had been training in Vladikavkaz and had to be brought in urgently ; many of them had had no time to prepare . This had led to an extremely high number of casualties : CARDINAL of the elite troops who had stormed the building had been injured or killed . He had not been aware that flame - throwers or grenade launchers had been used . The tank cannon had fired CARDINAL shots after TIME He was of the opinion that the army had successfully concluded its mission .","Mr PERSON testified in DATE that at the relevant time he had been the LOC Minister of the Interior . He had arrived in GPE at TIME on DATE and followed PERSON orders . As of CARDINAL p.m. on DATE General PERSON , the head of ORG , had taken over the command of the operation . Mr PERSON \u2019s tasks had been to ensure security around the school and evacuate civilians from the area . The victims referred to the decree of the NORP Prime Minister of DATE by which Mr PERSON had been appointed deputy head of the GPE ; however , the witness insisted that he had not been informed of this , had not assumed such responsibilities and had been excluded from the GPE meetings . Mr PERSON had received orders from the NORP Minister of the ORG and his deputy PERSON , who had arrived in PERSON , and on two occasions the deputy head of the FSB Mr PERSON had asked him to check the situation in CARDINAL villages . Mr PERSON had been aware by TIME CARDINAL September , from the lists drawn up by the local police , that the number of hostages had been CARDINAL . He did not know where the figure of CARDINAL had come from . He had no information about the use of heavy weapons during the storming but knew that later a number of empty tubes from ORG flamethrowers had been found on the nearby roofs ( vol . CARDINAL , pp . DATE ) .","In DATE the court questioned PERSON ( v. CARDINAL pp . CARDINAL ) . At the relevant time Mr PERSON was the head of the information and analytical department of LOC President \u2019s administration . He testified that he had arrived in PERSON on DATE at TIME He had been instructed by PERSON and General PERSON to liaise with the press , but had not been aware of the DATE \u2019s work , composition and strategy . He was asked a number of questions about the figure of CARDINAL hostages which he had consistently announced to the press DATE . He explained that he had been told the figure by General PERSON , who had referred to the absence of any exact lists . He had always stressed the preliminary nature of this information .","General PERSON , who at the relevant time was the head of LOC and head of the OH , was questioned in court in DATE ( vol . DATE , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . He gave a detailed account of his actions and the work of the OH during the crisis . According to him , no formal leadership over the operation had been assumed prior to TIME on DATE , but informally all the people with responsibility \u2013 members of the operational management group DATE had carried out their tasks under his and PERSON guidance . According to General PERSON , as of CARDINAL DATE the GPE included CARDINAL officials : himself as the head , Lieutenant - Colonel Tsyban as his deputy , PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON , the North Ossetian Minister of Education PERSON , and Mr PERSON from the ORG television company .","PERSON , deputy head of the ORG , had assisted the OH in a personal capacity but had assumed no formal role . General PERSON referred to LAW , which stipulated the plan of action in the event that the hostage takers put forward political demands . The same law excluded political questions from the possible subjects of negotiations . He believed that the ORG primary aim had been to achieve a resumption of the Ossetian - Ingush ethnic conflict , of which there was a real threat . From TIME of the crisis , work had been carried out in close cooperation with the head of the ORG in ORG .","General PERSON detailed the LOC unsuccessful attempts to negotiate with the terrorists : their mobile telephone had initially been switched off , and the school telephone had been disconnected . The terrorists had often interrupted the contact , saying that they would call back . The GPE had involved a professional negotiator , who was a staff member of the ORG . The terrorists had behaved in an aggressive and hostile manner and refused to discuss any proposals unless the CARDINAL men indicated by them came to GPE . General PERSON insisted that Mr PERSON , the NORP President , could not be found , while the CARDINAL other men had been in contact with the GPE ( Mr PERSON had talked to the terrorists over the telephone and had arrived in GPE on TIME DATE ) . The OH had invited CARDINAL influential men of PERSON origin , PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON , to take part in the negotiations . The terrorists had been inflexible and refused to consider any proposals aimed at aiding the hostages or the possibilities of a ransom and exit . No written demands had been issued and a number of political demands had been made verbally through Mr PERSON . Responding to the questions about the number of hostages , General PERSON insisted that there had been no exact lists beyond the CARDINAL names and the OH had not wanted to release unreliable information . Responding to the GPE questions , he reiterated that in the course of the negotiations the terrorists had not referred to the number of hostages and that in his opinion they had not been particularly interested in the figure announced . He testified that on TIME CARDINAL September Mr PERSON had talked to PERSON PERSON in GPE and the latter had promised to establish contact with Mr ORG . However , no direct line of communication with Mr ORG had been established .","The DATE \u2019s strategy had been to negotiate , and no plan consisting of resolving the situation by force had been considered . General PERSON explained that the involvement of the special forces had only been foreseen in the event of a mass killing of the hostages .","Turning to the special forces of the ORG , General PERSON specified that ORG , under the command of General PERSON , had their own temporary headquarters located on the third floor of ORG building , at the local department of the ORG . Questions concerning the types and use of special weapons , such as flame - throwers , lay within the competence of that ORG . General ORG had issued an order to start the operation aimed at liberating the hostages and at neutralising the terrorists as soon as the latter had started to shoot at escaping hostages . He conceded that at the beginning of the operation there had been shots fired by other servicemen , and the ORG forces had been in danger of friendly fire . He insisted that the tanks and flame - throwers had been used only after TIME on DATE , when there had been no hostages still alive in the school . General PERSON stated that CARDINAL terrorists had been captured alive , but CARDINAL of them had been lynched by the locals .","During questioning , the victims openly accused General PERSON of incompetence , concealing the truth and being responsible for the fatalities . They were reprimanded by the presiding judge .","The court heard a statement by the LOC Minister of Emercom Mr PERSON ( v. CARDINAL pp . DATE ) . He explained that he had been informed that he was a member of the OH on the evening of DATE ; however , both before and after that time he had functioned semi - autonomously . He had estimated the number of hostages at around CARDINAL and on QUANTITY DATE Mr PERSON had informed him personally that there were over CARDINAL ; this information had been sufficient to prepare the rescue operation .","Mr PERSON answered numerous questions about the extinguishing of the fire in the gymnasium . He stated that the information about a fire at the school ( but not in the gymnasium ) had been noted by their service at CARDINAL p.m. on DATE . The message that the roof of the gymnasium was starting to collapse had been noted at TIME General PERSON , the commander of ORG , had authorised the firemen to move in at TIME and at TIME they had arrived at the scene . Mr PERSON was told that by that time there had been no hostages still alive in the gymnasium ; this information had later been confirmed by the forensic reports . CARDINAL fire brigades had been involved . By TIME the fire had been contained . Later the fire brigades had been ordered by the ORG to leave the gymnasium . They had then entered again and left the building at TIME","The witness explained that another fire vehicle had been brought in by a relative of a hostage from a nearby factory ; it had been seen by many witnesses but had not been an Emercom car . He also insisted that the vehicles and cisterns had been fully prepared , that hoses had been laid from the nearest water hydrants and that the fire equipment had been sufficient .","At TIME on DATE teams had started the clearance operation . They had worked in parallel with the staff of the ORG , army sappers and the prosecutor \u2019s office . They had collected the remains of CARDINAL hostages , of which CARDINAL had been found in the gymnasium and adjacent LOC . The bodies of CARDINAL terrorists had also been found . During DATE the ORG staff had cleared the debris with the use of cranes , bulldozers and excavators ; the debris had first been shifted manually to collect human remains and other relevant items . Only after sifting had the rubble been loaded onto the trucks supplied by the local administration . PERSON PERSON had personally inspected the destroyed wing of the school , where CARDINAL floors had collapsed onto the cellar . He had seen the ORG bodies but no GPE remains . Emercom had finished the clearance work by TIME on DATE , after which the building had been handed over to the local administration .","Mr PERSON was questioned on DATE ( v. CARDINAL pp . CARDINAL ) . Then the North Ossetian President , he stated that at TIME on DATE General PERSON had received a verbal instruction from the ORG , with reference to ORG , to head the GPE . Mr PERSON had not been a member of the OH , which he considered had been a mistake . However , he had done whatever he had thought was right and within his powers . He had been prepared to go and negotiate with the terrorists , but he had been told that he would be placed under arrest if he did so . He had not talked to the terrorists over the telephone , since this had been done by a professional negotiator . He had participated in the meeting with the relatives at FAC on DATE . He had also had several talks with General PERSON , the commander of ORG , who had shared his concerns about the use of force .","Mr PERSON believed that too much operative information of low quality had been circulated prior to the terrorist act , which had made it difficult to react . In particular , there had been insufficient clarity about the ORG plans in DATE , although the heightened security threat had been evident .","Turning to the negotiations , PERSON testified that he had seen the handwritten note allegedly signed by PERSON which PERSON PERSON had taken out of the school . He also explained that on DATE he had talked to PERSON in GPE . At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON had confirmed that the request to take part in the negotiations had been transmitted to Mr PERSON . PERSON had informed the GPE accordingly .","Mr PERSON , a former member of the counter - terrorism commission of GPE and secretary of its security council testified that the GPE appointed on DATE had excluded all other people from its meetings . He had had no access to the OH , and PERSON and PERSON had only been invited to its meetings on CARDINAL occasions ( PERSON . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . He could not recall the work of LOC terrorism commission created on DATE , of which he had been a member .","PERSON was the LOC Minister of Education at the relevant time . She testified that she had gone to GPE on DATE , CARDINAL and DATE . She had been at the town administration and had had a number of discussions with Mr PERSON and several other Ossetian officials . She had not participated in any GPE sessions or other meetings . She had learnt that she had been a member of the OH on DATE during a meeting of ORG ( vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . She had been informed on DATE by the local department of education about the number of pupils at the school ; she had also been told that this information had already been transferred to the district authorities .","The LOC Deputy Minister of the ORG admitted that their resources had been insufficient to monitor the border crossing points with Ingushetia . He had also been aware of the attempts to block small roads in LOC and the problems that had been encountered in DATE a lack of staff , sabotage by the locals and the absence of funds to pay for the works ( PERSON , vol . CARDINAL , p. DATE ) .","NORP The director of the Zashchita Centre Mr PERSON ( vol . CARDINAL , pp . DATE ) testified that on DATE he had been told that CARDINAL people were being held hostage and that medical assistance had been planned accordingly . Only after he had met with Mr PERSON on DATE had he realised that the number of hostages had actually been much higher . That TIME he had set up emergency paediatric teams , called in ambulances from the region , carried out training and prepared for the arrival of patients . They had mostly expected victims of injuries ; the probability of gas poisoning had been considered low . He testified that although he had been a member of the OH as an official of ORG , he had not taken part in any meetings or discussions . He had not received any information from the OH , as , in his view , the number of hostages had been the only relevant factor and that had been communicated to him personally by PERSON PERSON . His own experience and available resources had been sufficient . Being highly experienced in providing emergency treatment to a large number of victims , his work had been relatively independent from the rest of the OH . Besides , his previous experience had shown that the \u201c security structures \u201d would not share their plans with the medics , out of a need to keep such considerations secret .","Turning to the organisation of medical assistance , Mr PERSON explained that by TIME they had had CARDINAL people on standby in GPE , including QUANTITY doctors , over CARDINAL ambulances , CARDINAL field paediatrician hospital and several intensive care units . \u201c Carriers \u201d with stretchers had been grouped QUANTITY from the school , with ambulances and medical vehicles placed in several spots around the building . The idea had been to take the injured to ORG where the sorting would take place , urgent operations and life \u2013 saving measures would be carried out in the paediatric field hospital and , for adults , in FAC and then those who could be transported to Vladikavkaz would be taken there ( QUANTITY away ) .","NORP Immediately after the explosions at TIME on DATE he had received a call from the OH to bring in the medical rescue team . For TIME on DATE the sorting centre at ORG had treated CARDINAL patients and carried out CARDINAL urgent operations . CARDINAL people had been taken to the hospital in agony and had died within TIME ; CARDINAL other patients had died within TIME . In total , CARDINAL adults had been evacuated to other hospitals after urgent medical assistance ; CARDINAL children had been in a lifethreatening condition and had had to be treated on the spot , CARDINAL children had had emergency surgery . On TIME CARDINAL children in a critical condition had been taken to GPE in a specially equipped aeroplane . There had been difficulties in maintaining the necessary security around the school , and later around the hospital , to avoid disruption of services by the relatives .","Mr Soplevenko , then LOC Minister of ORG , was questioned in court on DATE ( vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . He also testified that DATE he had not received any particular instructions , but rather general indications by PERSON that \u201c adequate medical aid \u201d should be provided . He had not been part of the GPE or any other body during the crisis . He had learnt from the nursing mothers who had walked out with Mr PERSON on DATE that CARDINAL people were being held in the school . In cooperation with Mr PERSON he had alerted the hospitals in NORP that they would have to admit patients : beds had been freed at CARDINAL hospitals , surgery and intensive care teams had been put on standby , and stocks of medical and dressing material had been set aside .","PERSON , director of ORG , was questioned in DATE . He stated that he had been informed by journalists on DATE about the hostage - taking and had immediately gone to PERSON . He had been taken to the town administration where the GPE and other officials had been stationed . He had been taken to a room with Mr Z. where he had received brief instructions from him . On several occasions he had called the terrorists ; each time they had reacted in a hostile manner and refused to discuss anything unless all CARDINAL men requested by them came . His attempts to convince them to accept water , food , medicine or to allow him to examine and treat the wounded and sick had been flatly rejected ; moreover , the terrorists had said that all the hostages had declared a \u201c dry hunger strike \u201d in support of their demands . On DATE at TIME the terrorists had called him and let him talk to the school director , who had pleaded with him to intervene since their situation was dire . On DATE Dr Roshal had personally telephoned Mr PERSON in GPE and let Mr PERSON talk to him ( v. CARDINAL pp . DATE ) .","In DATE the court , following an application by the victims , questioned a senior expert of the forensic laboratory in LAW , who on DATE had been appointed the chief of the team in charge of identifying the remains by DNA testing . The expert explained that their laboratory was the best equipped in GPE and that the genetic testing would take DATE and DATE , depending on the quality of the material under examination . All work in the PERSON cases had been completed within DATE . PERSON stated that the results obtained through genetic pairing had been final and could not be challenged on grounds of possible misidentification . He admitted that many relatives had refused to believe that their loved ones had died and that on some occasions they had carried out second rounds of tests with other relatives\u2019 DNA , primarily out of respect . The expert cited difficulties in identifying the remains which had been burnt \u201c to ashes \u201d and in identifying body fragments , a process which had lasted until DATE . The same expert group had worked with the ORG remains : CARDINAL had been identified , while CARDINAL remained unidentified ( v. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) .","CARDINAL of forensic reports on the victims were examined by the court . They included examinations of bodies , results of the identification of remains through DNA testing , conclusions of experts regarding damage to the health of the surviving hostages and other documents . Over CARDINAL forensic reports concluded that the cause of death could not be established in view of many of the remains being extensively charred and burned and the absence of other injuries . Other reports named extensive burns , gunshot wounds , traumatic amputation of the extremities and injuries to the head and body as the causes of death . Injuries from gunshots and explosions , burns and psychological trauma were recorded for the surviving hostages .","In the course of the proceedings the victims lodged CARDINAL applications . Some of them were lodged with the district courts in NORP , where the investigation was being conducted , while others were lodged directly with ORG . Some of them were submitted to the ORG , while others were mentioned in the statement of facts or in the trial records .","On DATE the victims sought the withdrawal of the head of the investigation team , Deputy Prosecutor General Mr PERSON . They argued that the investigation had been incomplete and failed to take into account all the relevant information about the crime . They indicated that copies of many expert reports had been unavailable to them , that the prosecutor \u2019s office had ignored numerous facts and statements which had differed from the facts \u201c selected \u201d to form the basis of Mr PERSON \u2019s indictment , and that the role of various officials in the GPE deaths had not been clarified . This complaint was dismissed .","In DATE the victims sought the withdrawal of the prosecution and the judge presiding in the case , referring to the incomplete nature of the investigation and the repeated dismissal of their complaints by the judge . They also questioned the logic behind separating the investigation concerning the terrorist act and its consequences into several sets of criminal proceedings . These complaints were also dismissed ( vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .","In DATE and DATE and in DATE the victims applied to the trial court for permission to have a number of additional witnesses called and questioned : members of the GPE , senior civilian and ORG officers who had been present in PERSON during the operation , members of LOC investigative commission on PERSON , and people who had negotiated with the terrorists , including PERSON , PERSON , PERSON Z. and Mr PERSON . The court agreed to question several Ossetian officials who were members of the OH , but refused to call other officials , negotiators and members of ORG . It also refused to include the results of the investigation of the LOC parliamentary commission in the case file ( v. CARDINAL pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , v. CARDINAL pp . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE - CARDINAL , DATE , DATE ) . In DATE the court granted the GPE application to question PERSON , PERSON and some senior ORG officials .","NORP In DATE the victims again sought the withdrawal of the prosecutor in the trial . They argued , with reference to LAW , that the investigation had been ineffective and incomplete in ascertaining the most important elements of the crime . They sought to have independent experts appointed in order to clarify key questions concerning the preparation of the terrorist act , the composition and powers of the GPE , the reasons for the first explosions , the use of flame - throwers , grenade launchers and tank guns , and the belated arrival of the firefighters . The request was dismissed ( v. CARDINAL p. DATE ) .","In DATE the victims sought to acquaint themselves with the entire set of documents in the criminal case and to be allowed to take copies . Similar requests were lodged in DATE and DATE , but apparently to no avail .","In his final submissions of DATE the prosecutor asked the court to apply the death penalty to the accused . The victims argued that the investigation and the trial had failed to elucidate many key elements of the events and that the officials responsible should be prosecuted for their actions which had led to the tragedy .","On DATE ORG found Mr Nurpashi Kulayev guilty of a number of crimes , including membership of a criminal gang , handling of unlawful arms and explosives , aggravated hostage - taking , murder , and attempts on the life of law \u2013 enforcement personnel . The CARDINAL-page judgment summarised witness and victim statements and referred to forensic reports , death certificates , expert reports and other evidence . The court found that CARDINAL hostages , CARDINAL PERSON civilian and QUANTITY Emercom workers had been killed ; CARDINAL hostages had received injuries of varying degrees ( CARDINAL received serious injuries , CARDINAL received moderately serious injuries and CARDINAL received minor injuries ) . CARDINAL servicemen of the ORG had been killed and CARDINAL servicemen of the army and law - enforcement bodies wounded . The actions of the criminal group had caused significant damage to the school and private properties in GPE . Mr PERSON was sentenced to life imprisonment .","The victims appealed against the court \u2019s decision . In detailed complaints of CARDINAL DATE and DATE they claimed that the court had failed to undertake a thorough and effective investigation and that its conclusions had not been corroborated by the facts . They argued that the court had failed to investigate the authorities\u2019 failure to prevent the terrorist attack , apportion responsibility for the decisions taken by the GPE , establish the exact places and circumstances of the first explosions in the gymnasium and assess the lawfulness of the use of indiscriminate weapons by the security forces . They also complained that the court had not allowed them full access to the case material . Their complaints were supplemented by reference to relevant statements and documents .","On DATE ORG held a cassation appeal hearing . CARDINAL victims , the GPE lawyer and the prosecutor made oral submissions . ORG slightly amended the characterisation of one offence imputed to Mr PERSON , while the remaining parts of the parties\u2019 complaints were dismissed . In particular , ORG found that the questions raised by the victims had no bearing on the characterisation of Mr PERSON \u2019s actions and that the victims had been allowed full access to the case documents after the completion of the investigation .","On DATE ORG issued a separate ruling ( \u0447\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043e\u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) in respect of Deputy Prosecutor General Mr PERSON , who had acted as the ORG prosecutor in the trial . The court noted that his request to the trial court to apply the death penalty to PERSON ORG had been contrary to the applicable legislation and as such incited the court to adopt a manifestly unlawful decision .","The applicants in application no . ORG submitted that during the trial they had heard testimony and examined other evidence . It had allowed them to draw conclusions about the actions of the GPE and other officials , most of which could not be elucidated within the course of the trial . Referring to the case material and other evidence , the applicants made the following inferences :","( i ) from DATE the hostages had been detained in inhuman conditions and subjected to intense physical and emotional stress including deprivation of food and water , humiliation , witnessing the suffering and death of family members , and a feeling of helplessness in the absence of any meaningful negotiation attempts from the outside world ;","( ii ) the conclusion that the IEDs had caused the first explosions was not supported by the GPE statements and the state of the gymnasium ;","( iii ) after the first explosions the servicemen of the army and ORG had used heavy indiscriminate weapons including a tank gun , ORG machine guns , flame - throwers and grenade launchers ;","( iv ) the OH had not made the saving of hostages its primary aim and had authorised the use of heavy weapons during the storming ;","( v ) the NORP intervention had been significantly delayed , resulting in additional victims in the gymnasium .","NORP In parallel to the proceedings in criminal case no . CARDINAL and that concerning the actions of Mr GPE , CARDINAL additional criminal investigations were conducted against police officers on charges of professional negligence .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General Mr GPE ordered the opening of a separate criminal investigation for negligence on the part of the head of PERSON , PERSON PERSON , his deputy on issues of public safety , PERSON , and the ORG \u2019s chief of staff , PERSON . This criminal case was assigned the number CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","The police officers were charged with negligence entailing serious consequences and the death of CARDINAL or more people under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW . They were accused of failing to properly organise an anti - terrorist defence and to prevent terrorist attacks in DATE , despite the heightened terrorist threat and the relevant telexes and orders of ORG of the ORG .","NORP Over CARDINAL people were granted victim status in the proceedings . Although no procedural documents were submitted , it appears from the cassation appeal by the victims that only those whose relatives had died were granted victim status in the proceedings , while other hostages were refused this status .","On DATE ORG of LOC started hearing the case . The applicants submitted CARDINAL volumes of trial records , comprising CARDINAL pages and covering CARDINAL court hearings .","On CARDINAL DATE the court terminated the criminal proceedings against the CARDINAL officials , applying to them the provisions of LAW of DATE . They agreed to the application of that Act , which absolved them from criminal responsibility for the acts committed during the period covered by it ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The prosecutor \u2019s office supported the application of the amnesty , while the victims objected . Outraged by the verdict , the victims present in the courtroom ransacked the LOC .","CARDINALterrorism operation in PERSON had started after the crime in question had been committed . They also complained that the court had refused to consider civil claims at the same time , that many other hostages and relatives of the injured had been refused victim status in the proceedings , that one volume of the criminal investigation file ( no . CARDINAL ) had been declared confidential by the trial court and thus the victims had been denied access to it , that a number of key witnesses had not been called , and that the trial court had refused to take into account additional evidence such as the report of ORG about the investigation into the terrorist act .","On DATE ORG of GPE at last instance upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It found the ORG allegations about procedural deficiencies to be irrelevant to the conclusion and confirmed the applicability of LAW .","The victims applied for supervisory review of the above decisions , but to no avail .","On DATE a separate criminal investigation was opened in respect of the head of the Malgobek ROVD , PERSON , and his deputy , Mr PERSON , for negligence entailing serious consequences ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) . It appears that CARDINAL former hostages or their relatives were granted victim status in these proceedings .","The applicants submitted various documents related to this trial , including CARDINAL pages of trial court records , corrections by the victims of these records , copies of their complaints and other documents . As shown by these documents , the officials of ORG had been charged with failing to spot the terrorists who had gathered and trained in the district and had travelled on DATE to GPE . The investigation obtained a number of documents which contained sufficiently clear and precise information about the possible terrorist threat and the actions to be taken to counter it . In particular , on DATE the ORG of the ORG had issued Order no . CARDINAL concerning a terrorist threat to public security , putting all staff of the Ministry on heightened alert until further notice . This document instructed all heads of district departments of the interior to contact the local municipalities , hunters and forest workers , in order to keep track of the movements of any suspicious looking men , and to check all trucks and other vehicles capable of transporting illicit cargo , if necessary using service dogs . On DATE Mr PERSON issued a corresponding order on measures to be taken in LOC .","On DATE the ORG of the ORG issued Order no . CARDINAL on security measures in schools and educational facilities . By this order the police were called to take special measures aimed at protecting educational facilities against possible terrorist acts . On DATE Mr PERSON issued a corresponding document for LOC .","On DATE the ORG of the ORG sent a directive to all district departments , citing operative information about a possible terrorist act in educational facilities on the opening of DATE . Again , a number of urgent steps involving local government and school principals were recommended .","The trial was conducted by ORG in closed sessions in GPE , Kabardino - Balkaria . The defendants opted for a trial by jury . On DATE the jury found the defendants not guilty . On the same date ORG fully acquitted the defendants and rejected the civil actions lodged by the victims within the same proceedings .","The victims appealed , and on DATE ORG confirmed the validity of the judgment . The GPE subsequent applications for supervisory review were unsuccessful .","NORP In DATE a group of victims lodged a civil claim against ORG , seeking compensation for the damage caused by the terrorist act . The victims referred to the judgment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE in respect of the officers of PERSON . They argued that the application of LAW did not exclude the possibility of claiming damages in civil proceedings . Arguing that ORG had failed to take steps to prevent the terrorist act , they sought financial compensation in respect of each family member who had died or had been a hostage .","On several occasions LOC requested the applicants to supplement their claims . On DATE the court ordered the case to be transferred to ORG attached to LOC of the ORG . On DATE ORG ordered the case to be transferred to LOC near to ORG of GPE . On DATE ORG , following an appeal by the applicants , quashed a ruling made by ORG and remitted the case to ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 civil action against ORG . It explained that LAW , which had been relied on by the claimants , did not provide for compensation for non - pecuniary damage by a State body which had participated in a counter - terrorism operation . As to the applicants\u2019 attempt to link the compensation claim to the decision not to prosecute the officers of PERSON , the court dismissed it as it concerned another defendant .","On DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicants against the above decision . Their subsequent attempts to obtain supervisory review of these decisions were unsuccessful .","In separate proceedings another group of victims attempted to sue both the NORP and North Ossetian Ministries of the Interior for nonpecuniary damage sustained by them by the terrorist act . On DATE ORG dismissed the claim , giving similar reasoning . On DATE ORG upheld this decision at last instance .","On DATE ORG set up a commission to examine and analyse the events in GPE from DATE . In its work the commission relied on the material available , including official documents , photographs , video footage and audio material , press articles , witness statements and their own information sources . The commission \u2019s report was published on DATE . The report was CARDINAL pages long and contained chapters on the chronology of the terrorist act , facts and an analysis of the events preceding the hostage - taking , the actions of the OH and the various State agencies involved , an examination of the first explosions in the gymnasium , detailed information about the fighters and various statistical information relating to the act . The report ended with recommendations to the authorities .","The commission strongly criticised the local police and the NORP and NORP branches of the ORG . It expressed particular dismay at the fact that despite a \u201c heightened security threat \u201d the terrorist group had been able to gather and train unnoticed in the vicinity of a village and a major local road , as well as to pass unhindered to the school in the centre of a town across the administrative border , which was supposed to have been under special protection . The commission argued that the police \u2019s attention had been diverted to the presidential elections in GPE which had taken place on DATE , following which no real attention had been paid to other security threats .","Turning to the work of the GPE , the report was highly critical of its composition and functioning . It concluded that the \u201c first , socalled \u2018 ORG OH \u201d had been created on DATE at TIME , in line with the Suppression of Terrorism Act and the pre - existing plan dated DATE . It had comprised CARDINAL people under PERSON command and had included the heads of LOC , ORG and other officials . In the presence of the ORG members , PERSON and a number of other public figures , PERSON had announced that he was prepared to go to the school ; however , the deputy Minister of the Interior of GPE , PERSON , had replied that in that case he would be authorised to arrest him . PERSON himself had confirmed that he had been informed by senior officials in GPE that he should not take \u201c any steps which could lead to further complications in the operation aimed at liberating the hostages \u201d . This \u201c NORP \u201d OH had continued to consider possible strategies aimed at liberating the hostages throughout the crisis . It had also considered the possibility of inviting PERSON ORG to negotiate .","In the meantime , on TIME DATE the President of GPE , in accordance with a secret order issued by ORG ( no . CARDINAL-rs ) , had determined the composition of the GPE under the command of General PERSON , the head of LOC . The OH had included CARDINAL people : the deputy head of the counter - terrorism commission of NORP Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON , the commander of ORG , the LOC Minister of Emercom Mr PERSON , the North Ossetian Minister of Education PERSON , the director of the NORP Centre Mr PERSON , and the deputy head of the information programmes department of GPE , Mr PERSON . The report criticised the composition of the GPE , which had excluded not only Mr Dzasokhov \u2013 the North Ossetian President DATE but also a number of other senior officials from the republic . It also noted that CARDINAL deputy heads of the ORG who had arrived in PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , had not been officially designated to take on any tasks in the OH . This had led to a situation of a multitude of \u201c leaderships \u201d .","The report described the situation as follows :","\u201c The striking disunity of the headquarters is further proved by their locations . The PERSON administration building saw the following distribution of bodies and officials .","In the left wing of the ground floor \u2013 [ the ] ORG ( Generals PERSON and PERSON ) . In the office next to them \u2013 Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . On the third floor in the left wing were the ORG \u2019s President , PERSON , ORG \u2019s speaker PERSON , Plenipotentiary Representative of the NORP President in ORG Mr V. Yakovlev , and a group of PERSON deputies headed by PERSON NORP LOC . In the right wing of the third floor worked the commanders of the ORG and Vympel special forces units under the leadership of General PERSON .","However , the most closed and mysterious structure was situated in the south wing of the ground floor of the [ administration building ] , keeping its work secret from all members of the above - listed headquarters . In it worked people who did not belong to any official headquarters structure : Mr PERSON and PERSON , PERSON Pankov , PERSON PERSON and others .","Another secretive structure was located on the second floor of the building , in the centre . This was a sort of \u2018 ideological ORG where all information going public was verified and edited prior to publication . Most probably , the announcement of the figure of CARDINAL hostages had been decided there ...","In addition , the commander of ORG , PERSON , had set up his headquarters outside the administration building . Mr PERSON , who , according to his own statement , had been \u201c in reserve \u201d , was also stationed outside the building , as was the LOC Minister of the Interior ...","The formal nature of [ General ] PERSON \u2019s appointment as OH commander is supported by well - known facts . The head of ORG had left the headquarters on CARDINAL of occasions and thus lost control over the situation : he talked to LOC outside the GPE , met with journalists [ and ] accompanied PERSON PERSON to the school on DATE and the ORG group on DATE . How could the General , on whose decisions the lives of CARDINAL of people depended , behave in this way ? This is either excluded or , to the contrary , quite possible , if actual decisions for [ General ] PERSON had been taken by his immediate superiors \u2013 Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and , probably , the head of the NORP department of the ORG , Mr PERSON .","There is reason to believe that [ General ] PERSON \u2019s orders and directives were not formally recorded , that no meetings of the OH took place , and that everything was decided verbally in the course of working discussions with various agencies ...","CARDINAL gets the impression that the GPE under [ General ] PERSON \u2019s command oscillated CARDINAL extremes : on the one hand , without making public the ORG demands it was searching ( or pretending to search ) for negotiators who would be able to participate in such talks ; on the other hand , it constantly announced the impossibility of a forced solution , while at the same time being obliged not simply to consider this option but to take steps in order to implement it ...","By DATE , not a single federal official who could at least partially discuss the ORG demands had contacted them with the aim of negotiating . Becoming more and more convinced that their demands were not being considered and that the topic of negotiations remained the GPE supply with food and water , the liberation of the infants and elderly , an \u2018 escape ORG to GPE and the like , the terrorists hardened the GPE conditions . As to the ORG agreement to allow the removal of CARDINAL bodies from the school courtyard , it was probably caused by the ORG wish to scare the population and make the OH more flexible , since one could easily predict the impression on the relatives of an ORG truck loaded with corpses .","Incomplete information about the development and content of the negotiations , and the lack of clarity about the videotape transmitted to the headquarters , leave many questions unanswered ...","Without questioning the principle of non - compliance with the ORG demands , although LAW speaks about minimal concessions to the terrorists , it appears that it would have been much more reasonable if the federal authorities , to whom the ORG demands had been directed , had undertaken to implement it rather than delegate this problem to the regional authorities or even a paediatrician . It is obvious that any promises by the regional authorities not supported by appropriate guarantees by the highest officials could not have inspired the ORG confidence , and they could not have taken the so - called \u2018 security ORG seriously . \u201d","The report argued that the first CARDINAL explosions could not have come from the GPE . The first explosion , according to the GPE testimony , had occurred in the north part of the gymnasium roof space , destroying part of the roof and creating a mushroom - shaped smoke cloud above the explosion . The report argued that this could not have been the result of an IED explosion for a number of reasons : the terrorists had not mined the roof or the roof space of the gymnasium , so not a single electric cable had led there ; a mine in the gymnasium could not have destroyed the ceiling and roof QUANTITY above ; there would have been several simultaneous explosions because they had been connected in a single chain ; the mushroom - shaped cloud could not have risen within TIME to CARDINAL to QUANTITY above the roof from an IED explosion inside the gymnasium ; the damage to the basketball hoop and the brick wall of the gymnasium bore evidence of the passage of a device fired from outside . The second explosion , which had created a QUANTITY - wide opening in the brick wall under the window , had not been the result of an IED either , since the floorboards immediately near the hole had not been damaged , unlike the floorboards under the basketball hoop where the IED had later detonated .","The report stated that the video - recording of the events had captured not only the smoke cloud from the first explosion , but also the sounds of both explosions , leading to the conclusion that the shots had been fired from a grenade launcher or a flame - thrower . The report considered that the nature of the destruction was consistent with this version . The choice of targets inside the gymnasium had been determined by the presence there of the pedalholding fighters ; since a sniper could not have reached them , a grenade had resolved this situation .","The report found that the third explosion had most probably resulted from an IED being affected by spreading fire , following which the fire had spread from the ceiling to the floor of the gymnasium .","The document concluded by saying that the exploration of the first explosions should have been carried out properly within the framework of the criminal investigation . The report deplored the hasty clearing of the site , which had been opened to the public on DATE . It referred to \u201c CARDINAL of people who had found objects which should have been of interest to the investigation \u201d . A number of items had apparently been collected from the town rubbish dump where the debris had been taken on DATE in trucks .","In a separate conclusion , the report stated that the active involvement of civilian volunteers immediately after the explosions had saved many GPE lives . The evacuation had been carried out by people who had taken on \u201c the functions of the police , firemen and emergency workers \u201d .","The report evaluated the number of army personnel and police officers ( excluding the ORG ) deployed within the security perimeter around the school at CARDINAL people . CARDINAL security cordons were judged to have been of little effect and had basically fallen apart once the operation had started . CARDINAL of civilians and CARDINAL of private cars had passed unhindered through the cordons , while filtration groups formed in advance from servicemen of the police special forces ( PERSON \u043c\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u043e\u0441\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043d\u0430\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ( \u041e\u041c\u041e\u041d ) ) and ORG had not stopped for an identity check any of the volunteers who had helped to evacuate the hostages . The report remarked that a number of men had arrived from elsewhere in GPE and spent DATE around the school ; they had often been unshaven , dirtied with blood and soot , and could not be distinguished from the terrorists .","The report then addressed the problem of the ambulance and fire services accessing the school , commenting that it had been made difficult by vehicles parked in the adjacent streets which had not been towed away . The first fire engine , which had arrived at the school at TIME , had not been carrying a full load of water in its cistern . Other fire brigades which had arrived even later had allowed civilian volunteers to operate the water hoses .","The report found it established that TIME and TIME on DATE a tank with hull number CARDINAL stationed behind the railway line had fired several non - explosive rounds at the canteen and kitchen , while at TIME a tank with hull number CARDINAL stationed on FAC had fired at the canteen from a close distance , towards the area immediately above the entrance to the cellar . The commission \u2019s members could not agree that the use of the tank to fire at the canteen before TIME had been justified in view of the probable presence of the last group of hostages with the terrorists . The commission had entered the cellar and found it entirely intact and bearing no traces of the ORG alleged stay there . No complete information could be obtained about the use of tanks , helicopters , flamethrowers or other heavy weapons .","The document separately noted the multitude of lines of responsibility within the various agencies involved . According to the commission \u2019s information , the commander of ORG had regularly reported to ORG in GPE and had obtained instructions from him in return . ORG had commanded the largest contingent in GPE and had initially followed the orders of its own headquarters based in the administration building ; it later followed the instructions issued by the ORG .","Turning to the role of the ORG , the report stated the following :","\u201c ORG has remained the most closed structure in terms of the ORG \u2019s efforts to obtain information in order to find out about its actions CARDINAL . Therefore , it is very difficult to accept , without further verification , the statement that , according to the operative groups of ORG , by TIME there remained no living hostages with the terrorists ( in the classrooms , cellar and roof space ) . \u201d","The report devoted some attention to the number of fighters and their identities . It noted discrepancies in the names and number of identified and non - identified terrorists in the documents issued by the prosecutor \u2019s office in relation to the investigation in criminal case no . CARDINAL . Relying on the information provided by ORG , the report listed CARDINAL names or aliases ; of them QUANTITY people ( including Mr PERSON ) were identified by their full name , date of birth , ethnic origin and place of residence , and CARDINAL people were identified provisionally . In the list of CARDINAL people , CARDINAL had previously been detained by the law - enforcement authorities ; some of them had been released for unknown reasons . According to the report , Mr GPE had been detained in DATE in ORG on charges of illegal arms and ammunition handling , but the case had been closed DATE ; PERSON had been sentenced to DATE in prison in DATE ; Mr PERSON had been charged with attacking a military convoy in DATE and released by jury in DATE ; Mr PERSON had been convicted CARDINAL times and given suspended sentences for illegal arms handling and theft , most recently in DATE ; PERSON ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) had been on trial for illegal arms handling ; and Mr ORG had been wanted for a number of serious crimes including terrorist acts and had been detained in DATE but released . Most of the other identified terrorists were known to the lawenforcement authorities , who had retained their fingerprints , on the basis of which their bodies were identified . Many were on wanted lists for various crimes .","Some of those initially announced by ORG as identified bodies in GPE had later been killed in other places . Mr PERSON \u2019s death had first been announced in GPE , but in DATE his name had again been announced by ORG as one of the organisers of the attack at GPE , ORG , who had been killed . Mr PERSON had first been identified as one of the terrorists in PERSON and had apparently had a telephone conversation with his wife , whom the authorities had brought to the school on DATE . His death had then been announced in an anti - terrorist operation in ORG in DATE . The report deplored the lack of clarity in such an important aspect of the investigation and asked the prosecutor \u2019s office to issue clear and exhaustive information in this regard .","The report contained a table compiled on the basis of information provided by ORG including various figures related to the total number of hostages and the number of people , killed , injured and liberated as a result of the anti - terrorist operation . The commission noted that the causes of death for CARDINAL people had been as follows : CARDINAL had died in hospital ; CARDINAL ( including CARDINAL men killed on DATE ) had died of gunshot wounds ; CARDINAL had died of shell wounds ; CARDINAL had died of fire injuries and CARDINAL had been killed by blunt force trauma injuries . In CARDINAL cases the cause of death could not be established owing to extensive fire damage . CARDINAL bodies had been identified through DNA matching and CARDINAL cases had called for exhumation and DNA testing , procedures which had lasted until DATE . The report concluded that the real reasons for many GPE deaths and injuries had not been established : bullets and shell fragments had not been extracted from the bodies , and no ballistics reports had been made to analyse the bullets and cartridges found at the scene .","NORP The commission \u2019s report was made public in DATE . Mr ORG stated that it posed more questions than it answered , and its findings and conclusions were not mentioned in the report prepared by ORG ( see below ) .","NORP In DATE the report was published as a separate document . By that time the authors had prepared additional statistical data . It included a complete list of the hostages , with indications as to their injuries and dates of death , and other important findings . Many of the figures arrived at by the authors of the report differed from those used by the prosecutor \u2019s office .","NORP In particular , the authors stated that CARDINAL people ( not CARDINAL as indicated by ORG ) had been taken hostage ; CARDINAL people had escaped on DATE ; CARDINAL ( not CARDINAL ) men had been shot dead on DATE and CARDINAL ( not QUANTITY ) people had been led out by Mr PERSON on DATE . By TIME on DATE hostages had remained alive in the school ; CARDINAL had been killed during the storming ; CARDINAL had died in hospital within DATE and CARDINAL more had died by DATE . CARDINAL special forces servicemen , CARDINAL servicemen of Emercom and CARDINAL civilians had been killed : CARDINAL civilians had been killed on DATE by the assailants and CARDINAL more had died during the storming while evacuating the hostages . CARDINAL civilians had been wounded , the majority of them while evacuating the hostages from the school .","The publication gave a list of the servicemen of the ORG , Ministry of the ORG and Emercom who had been killed ( twelve ) and injured ( CARDINAL ) during the terrorist act .","Turning to the causes of death , the publication stated that the commission had examined CARDINAL orders for forensic expert reports issued by the prosecutor \u2019s office on CARDINAL and DATE and the forensic reports issued by the forensic bureau . The document highlighted that the investigation \u2019s orders had suggested that the experts should conduct external examinations of the bodies , and carry out a full autopsy only \u201c where necessary \u201d . Only a few cases had thus necessitated a full examination ; CARDINAL of the expert reports had concluded that \u201c the cause of death could not be established \u201d . In total , the document stated that CARDINAL bodies out of CARDINAL had displayed burns , although for most cases the experts had noted that the carbonisation had most probably occurred post mortem . They also noted that a disproportionately high number of victims had died of gunshot wounds \u2013 CARDINAL civilians , including QUANTITY women and QUANTITY children DATE while CARDINAL servicemen out of CARDINAL had died of gunshot wounds .","Lastly , the report noted that CARDINAL exhumations ( and not CARDINAL as indicated in the official documents ) had been carried out for an additional verification of the remains . The report listed these cases .","On DATE both chambers of ORG ( ORG ) DATE ORG \u2013 decided to create a joint commission in order to investigate the reasons for and circumstances of the terrorist act in GPE . CARDINAL members of both chambers were appointed to the commission , which was chaired by PERSON PERSON , deputy speaker of ORG . The commission undertook a number of investigative measures , including visits to PERSON , GPE , GPE and FAC .","NORP The commission questioned CARDINAL senior officials , including the Prime Minister , several federal ministers , Mr PERSON , an aide to the NORP President ; PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON , the head of the ORG and his CARDINAL deputies ; General PERSON , commander of ORG ; several senior officials from ORG , including CARDINAL deputies to ORG ; PERSON and NORP officials , including PERSON and PERSON PERSON ; and people who had negotiated with the terrorists : PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON . The commission received CARDINAL telephone calls to a special line and letters .","On DATE the commission \u2019s report was presented to ORG . It ran to CARDINAL pages and included a chronology of the terrorist act , chapters on the actions of the ORG authorities , a historical and political analysis of terrorism in the NORP and a number of legislative recommendations . CARDINAL commission members refused to sign it . CARDINAL of them , Mr PERSON , prepared an alternative report ( see below ) .","NORP The report \u2019s main conclusions were principally in line with the conclusions of the criminal investigations . In particular , it found that :","( i ) prior to the terrorist act , a number of security measures had not been taken by the local administration and police forces in GPE and ORG . The conduct of the police in LOC was described as professional negligence and the actions of police in PERSON in general as \u201c keeping aloof \u201d from following the orders from ORG ( pages CARDINAL of the report ) . The LOC police had failed to comply with certain precautionary measures and this had facilitated the ORG attack at the school ;","( ii ) the actions of the federal authorities had been adequate and correct ;","( iii ) the GPE had been correct in its actions aimed at negotiations with the terrorists , however there had been a number of weak points in its composition and the way it had conducted its work and informed the population of the developments ( pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the report ) ;","( iv ) the first explosions in the gymnasium had been caused by CARDINAL IEDs ( page CARDINAL ) ; and","( v ) the use of flame - throwers and the tank gun against the school had been authorised by the commander of ORG after CARDINAL p.m. on DATE and they had not caused any harm to the hostages , who by that time had been evacuated ( page CARDINAL ) .","Mr PERSON , a deputy of ORG elected in DATE from the PERSON party , was a member of the commission headed by PERSON ORG . He was a rocket scientist by profession , had a doctorate in technical sciences , was the director of GPE and had written numerous scientific works and training manuals on rocket construction , ballistics , thermodynamics and pertinent fields .","NORP In DATE Mr PERSON announced that he strongly disagreed with the report drafted by the commission . DATE he published a separate report , based on the material to which he had access as a commission member . The report , entitled \u201c PERSON : The Hostages\u2019 Truth \u201d ( \u201c PERSON : PERSON \u201d ) , was in CARDINAL parts :","( i ) \u2019The first explosions in the gymnasium\u2019 , CARDINAL pages with fiftyeight photographs ( \u201c Part CARDINAL \u201d ) ;","( ii ) \u2018 The origin and development of the fire in the gymnasium\u2019 , CARDINAL pages with CARDINAL photographs ( \u201c Part CARDINAL \u201d ) ;","( iii ) \u2019The use of portable flame - throwers and grenade launchers\u2019 , ninetyseven pages with CARDINAL photographs ( \u201c Part CARDINAL \u201d ) ;","( iv ) \u2019The use of ORG tanks and ORG , CARDINAL pages with CARDINAL photographs ( \u201c Part CARDINAL \u201d ) ;","( v ) \u2019Women in the terrorist GPE , CARDINAL pages with CARDINAL photographs ( \u201c Part CARDINAL \u201d ) ;","( vi ) DATE \u2019Losses among the hostages sustained outside the gymnasium\u2019 , CARDINAL pages with CARDINAL photographs ( \u201c Part CARDINAL \u201d ) ; and","( vii ) \u2019The circumstances of the seizure of GPE , CARDINAL pages with CARDINAL photographs ( \u201c Part CARDINAL \u201d ) .","NORP This report was submitted to the Court , and its entire content was published on the Internet site www.pravdabeslana.ru .","NORP Although based on the same factual material , the report also relied on the author \u2019s own technical expertise and the way it was presented and its conclusions differed drastically from the document signed by the majority of the parliamentary commission and thus from the conclusions reached by that time by the criminal investigation .","To sum up the most important distinctions , in Part CARDINAL Mr PERSON concluded that the first explosion had resulted from the detonation in the attics over the north - east part of the gymnasium of a thermobaric grenade launched by a portable grenade launcher from the roof of a house at CARDINAL GPE . The terrorist holding the \u201c dead man \u2019s switch \u201d right under the detonation had been killed instantly . The explosion had created a zone of powerful smouldering combustion in the wood and attic insulation material , which had later caught fire . The second explosion had occurred TIME later under the first window of the north side of the gymnasium , destroying the brick wall and throwing the bricks outside , while the windowpane situated immediately above the opening had remained intact . Mr PERSON concluded that the nature and extent of destruction in this particular area ruled out the idea that it had come from an IED inside the gymnasium . He argued that the explosion had probably been caused by a portable anti - tank missile fired from the roof of a house at CARDINAL GPE . The projectile had entered the gymnasium from the opposite window and created the opening in the wall below the windowpane .","Mr PERSON also argued in Part CARDINAL that the fire which had been triggered by the first explosion in the attics had continued to spread unabated until TIME The broken windows of the gymnasium and the opening torn in the roof by the explosion had created a powerful draught , feeding the smouldering insulation with oxygen . The fire had raged in the attics with sufficient force to destroy the wooden beams holding the roof slates , which had finally collapsed by TIME , burying the hostages unable to leave under the burning fragments . The firemen had intervened after TIME , by which time the fire from the collapsed roof had spread to the floor and walls of the gymnasium .","ORG Part CARDINAL of the report included detailed information and an analysis of the type and number of arms and ammunition used between CARDINAL and DATE . This information was made available to the commission , whilst the victims had no direct access to it . According to the report , volume CARDINAL of the criminal investigation file no . CARDINAL contained a \u201c joint record of the use of arms and ammunition during the military operation \u201d ( c\u0432\u043e\u0434\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0430\u043a\u0442 \u043e\u0431 \u0438\u0437\u0440\u0430\u0441\u0445\u043e\u0434\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0438 \u0431\u043e\u0435\u043f\u0440\u0438\u043f\u0430\u0441\u043e\u0432 \u043f\u0440\u0438 \u0432\u044b\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0438 \u0441\u043e\u043e\u0442\u0432\u0435\u0442\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0443\u044e\u0449\u0435\u0439 \u0431\u043e\u0435\u0432\u043e\u0439 \u0437\u0430\u0434\u0430\u0447\u0438 ) , no . CARDINAL of DATE . According to this record , various military units had used QUANTITY for automatic weapons ( TIME , CARDINAL PERSON , QUANTITY T ) , CARDINAL disposable anti - tank rocket launchers ( RPGCARDINAL ) , CARDINAL propelled anti - tank grenades ( PGCARDINALVL ) , CARDINAL high - fragmentation warheads for QUANTITY calibre tank gun ( QUANTITY OF ) and CARDINAL smoke grenades ( CARDINAL mm ZDCARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","ORG The report also noted that on DATE members of the parliamentary commission had discovered in the attic of CARDINAL PERSON six empty tubes from GPE flame - throwers and CARDINAL empty tubes of disposable RPGCARDINAL antitank rocket launchers , the serial numbers of which had been noted by the commission members in an appropriate record on DATE . These tubes had been transmitted to the prosecutor \u2019s team carrying out the criminal investigation . According to the report , volume CARDINAL of criminal case file no . CARDINAL contained a document dated DATE and signed by ORG from military unit no . DATE of the CARDINALth ORG . This document stated that the ORG units had received CARDINAL ORG flamethrowers from military storage and listed their serial numbers . After the operation CARDINAL flame - throwers with the indicated numbers , plus CARDINAL with a different serial number , had been returned to storage ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At the same time , PERSON PERSON noted that the serial numbers of flamethrowers mentioned in the commission \u2019s record of DATE and in the document issued by ORG on DATE differed . He referred to other contradictory evidence given by military servicemen and statements by the Deputy Prosecutor General concerning the use of flamethrowers , concluding that CARDINAL disposable ORG flamethrowers had been used by the special forces . PERSON also referred to the witness statements of CARDINAL serviceman of the ORG given to the investigation ( volume CARDINAL p. CARDINAL of file no . GPE ) , according to whom ORG grenade launchers and ORG flame - throwers had been used during the storming , in TIME ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and the statement General PERSON of the ORG made to the commission on DATE saying that the ORG grenade launchers and ORG flamethrowers had been used at TIME","Mr PERSON listed detailed characteristics of each type of the projectiles . According to his conclusions , after the first CARDINAL explosions at CARDINAL CARDINAL the school building was subjected to the following assault : TIME the windows of the first floor of the south wing were fired at with portable grenade launchers , probably types RPGCARDINAL and RShGCARDINAL ; MONEY and TIME flame - throwers ( RPO - A ) were used upon the roof of the main building , RPGCARDINAL and RShGCARDINAL grenade launchers were fired at the south - facing windows of the first floor of the south wing and a RPO - A flame - thrower upon the roof of the south wing at the point where it joined the main building . He also argued that CARDINAL thermobaric grenade had been launched from a ORG helicopter at a target in the central area of the roof of the main building above the Ossetian language classroom , at a terrorist sniper who could not have been suppressed by any other means .","ORG Part CARDINAL concentrated on the use of tanks and APCs during the storming . Having analysed numerous witness statements and material evidence , the report drew the following conclusions : CARDINAL tanks with hull numbers CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL had taken positions around the school . Tanks with hull numbers CARDINAL and CARDINAL had been positioned near a house at CARDINAL FAC . These CARDINAL tanks had repeatedly fired at the school building at TIME and then TIME on DATE . CARDINAL additional shots had been fired from a tank with hull number CARDINAL at the canteen windows and the wall and stairwell of the south wing .","ORG Part CARDINAL of the report was devoted to an analysis of the witness statements and other evidence about the women in the terrorist group . Mr PERSON concluded that the group had included CARDINAL women : CARDINAL suicide bombers who had changed places with each other so that there had always been CARDINAL of them in the gymnasium at any CARDINAL time , while the fifth woman had probably been a sniper and had remained on the top floor of the school .","Part CARDINAL of the report examined the situation of the hostages whom the terrorists had forced to move from the gymnasium to the south wing after the first explosions . From photographs and video footage of the events and witness accounts , Mr PERSON concluded that TIME and TIME the terrorists had evacuated CARDINAL people to the south wing . The hostages had been divided in more or less equal numbers between the canteen and kitchen on the ground floor and the main meeting room on the first floor . The south wing had become an area of fierce fighting between the terrorists and the assault troops ; CARDINAL out of CARDINAL ORG elite officers had died there . The presence of hostages in that wing had not been taken into account by the assaulting troops , who had used indiscriminate weapons . Mr PERSON noted the absence of any detailed description of the location of the GPE bodies , even though this could have allowed the circumstances of the GPE deaths in the south wing to be established . He argued that the bodies in the gymnasium had been exposed to fire , while the number of people who had been found dead adjacent to the gymnasium had been known . He thus estimated the number of hostages who had lost their lives during the fighting in the south wing at CARDINAL .","Appended to Part CARDINAL was a \u201c study case \u201d \u2013 a document prepared by several authors , including the head of the forensic bureau , summarising their experiences regarding the Beslan terrorist act . The document listed various problems related to the collection , transportation and storage of remains , the organisation of the identification process and the compiling of forensic reports . In view of the large number of remains , many with extensive injuries and difficult to identify , together with the presence of numerous aggrieved relatives , on DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office had taken the decision first to permit the relatives to identify the remains and then to carry out forensic examinations . As a result , there had been a number of incorrect identifications which later had to be corrected . Furthermore , in view of these constraints most bodies had been subjected to an external examination only . The exact cause of death had been established in CARDINAL cases : of those , gunshot wounds in CARDINAL cases ( PERCENT ) , shell wounds in CARDINAL cases ( PERCENT ) , burns in CARDINAL cases ( PERCENT ) , and blunt force trauma injuries in CARDINAL cases ( PERCENT ) . The cause of death had not been established in CARDINAL cases ( PERCENT ) due to extensive charring . The document concluded by giving a number of recommendations for the future , including the establishment of a single information centre and careful compliance with various procedural stages , with people responsible for each stage .","Part CARDINAL of the report covered the first moments of the school seizure on DATE . On the basis of witness accounts , Mr PERSON concluded that a small group of terrorists DATE between DATE had been in the crowd by TIME Following a signal by CARDINAL of them , who had started to shoot into the air , another group of CARDINAL people had entered the school building from GPE and other sides . Some of them had run to the first floor while others had broken windows and doors on the ground floor so that the hostages could enter the building . At this point the ORG vehicle stationed on FAC near the school fence had approached the main school entrance and up to CARDINAL people had descended from it . This vehicle had left after the fighters had descended . Lastly , a second ORG vehicle with a different registration plate had entered from FAC to GPE at high speed , raising a large column of dust mentioned by many witnesses . Over CARDINAL fighters , including QUANTITY women , had descended from it and run towards the school ; the vehicle had then broken down the school gates and stopped in the courtyard . The overall number of terrorists in the school had been CARDINAL .","In response to Mr PERSON \u2019s allegations about the origins of the first explosions and the use of indiscriminate weapons on the gymnasium , ORG ordered expert reports . In DATE and DATE experts from the NORP scientific and production company PERSON and ORG and ORG named after PERSON produced CARDINAL expert reports on the explosions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The results were not published , but were cited by several sources and by PERSON . The reports ruled out the idea that the first explosions had come from devices fired from outside , such as thermobaric grenades or projectiles .","In DATE Mr PERSON published an extensive article in ORG containing diagrams that indicated CARDINAL different places and origins of the first explosions in the gymnasium : CARDINAL from the expert reports ordered by the investigation and his own . He argued that the results of the CARDINAL experts\u2019 reports differed to such an extent that it was impossible to reconcile them . He further argued that the conclusions about the reasons and yield of the explosions contained in the most recent expert report were inconsistent with the witness statements and material evidence . Lastly , he drew attention to the fact that the remaining parts of his report concerning issues other than the first explosions had not been addressed by the investigation .","NORP In accordance with NORP Government Order no . CARDINAL-r of DATE , the victims of the terrorist act were awarded the following compensation : MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) at that time ) for each person who had been killed , RUB MONEY for each person who had received serious and medium gravity injuries and RUB CARDINAL for each person with minor injuries . People who had been among the hostages but escaped unharmed received RUB CARDINAL each . In addition , the families received RUB CARDINAL for each deceased person in order to cover funeral expenses .","On DATE and DATE the North Ossetian President ordered ( Order nos . CARDINAL-rpa and CARDINAL-rp ) the payment of RUB CARDINAL in funeral costs for each person who had died , RUB CARDINAL for each deceased , RUB CARDINAL to each person who had suffered serious and medium injuries and RUB CARDINAL to each of the other hostages .","NORP The terrorist act in GPE triggered a major humanitarian response , resulting in collections of significant sums of money .","In accordance with LOC no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG distributed the funds paid into their account devoted to humanitarian relief to the victims in the following manner : RUB CARDINAL for each person who had died ( approximately EUR CARDINAL at that time ) ; RUB CARDINAL for each person who had received serious injuries ; RUB CARDINAL for each person with medium gravity injuries and RUB CARDINAL for people who had suffered minor injuries or had been among the hostages . In addition , each child who had lost their parents received RUB CARDINAL and other people who had been briefly detained but had not been among the hostages received RUB CARDINAL each . Similar sums were allocated to injured servicemen of the ORG and Emercom and the families of those who had been killed .","In DATE the memorial complex \u201c City of Angels \u201d was opened at LOC cemetery . It comprised a single monument to the victims , individual graves of over QUANTITY people and a monument to the ORG servicemen who had died on DATE .","In DATE to DATE there followed a number of other measures by the NORP and ORG , aimed at covering additional medical and social costs for the victims and financing other projects in GPE . In DATE ORG issued Decree No . DATE providing for the construction of CARDINAL new kindergartens and schools in GPE , a multifunctional medical centre , a social support centre for children and families and a number of housing projects aimed specifically at helping the GPE families . Most of these projects , financed from the federal budget , were completed by DATE .","CARDINAL sports boarding school opened in GPE was constructed with the participation of GPE and was named after Mr PERSON ( also spelled PERSON ) , a sports teacher from school no . CARDINAL . PERSON , a NORP and NORP national , was DATE at the time and refused to leave the school when asked to do so by the terrorists . After the explosions in the gymnasium on DATE he got into a struggle with an armed fighter while trying to rescue children and was killed . In DATE he was posthumously awarded a ORG by the NORP Prime Minister .","In DATE the entire North Ossetian Government were dismissed by PERSON .","On DATE the President signed a decree aimed at setting up a more efficient system of anti - terrorist measures in the LOC region . On DATE , at a joint meeting of ORG and the heads of GPE \u2019s regions , he announced the following measures aimed at achieving greater national unity and better representation of the population \u2019s concerns : cancellation of direct elections of the regional heads of the executive , who would be elected by the regional parliaments upon nomination by the NORP President ; the setting up of a purely proportional system of parliamentary elections ; establishment of a consultative body comprised of representatives of non - governmental organisations DATE a Civic Chamber ( \u041e\u0431\u0449\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f NORP ) ; reinstatement of a special federal ministry charged with inter - ethnic relations ; implementation of a plan for social and economic development of the GPE region , and other steps . By DATE these administrative and legal measures had largely been implemented .","During and after LOC terrorist act , numerous journalists from all over the world covered the events .","In DATE the GPE network ORG aired a film about the hostage - taking in their programme TIME . Shown in it , for the first time , was an extract filmed by the terrorists . The network alleged that the tape had been found by locals among rubble on the site and then obtained by their journalist . The tape had been made on DATE inside the school and showed the ORG leader , \u201c PERSON , and CARDINAL other terrorists in full military gear . It also showed the talks with Mr PERSON and the mothers with nursing babies being led out by him . In the final moments a baby girl ( the youngest hostage aged DATE ) was handed to Mr PERSON by her mother who could not force herself to part with her CARDINAL older children ( aged DATE ten ; only the DATE boy survived ) . The extract ended with the school door being closed and locked by the terrorists filming from inside . The extract had been tagged by the operator \u201c Fun TimeCARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u201d .","Several long reports were produced by the journalists who had been in GPE during the siege and by those who had investigated the tragedy afterwards . Notably , over the years the GPE - based ORG and PERSON ran a series of reports dedicated to the hostage - taking and the investigation . PERSON published a large report in its DATE issue and ORG published a story entitled \u201c The School \u201d in DATE .","A significant number of other television programmes , documentary films and books have covered the subject . The applicants in the present cases , in particular , have referred to the relevant chapter from Mr PERSON \u2019s book , \u201c Public Enemy \u201d . An Internet site http:\/\/pravdabeslana.ru was dedicated to the tragedy and subsequent proceedings .","NORP The relatives and victims of the terrorist act have joined efforts , striving primarily to obtain a comprehensive investigation into the events of DATE and determine the level of the officials\u2019 responsibility .","In DATE the victims set up a non - governmental organisation , PERSON ( ORG ) . The organisation had CARDINAL members \u2013 former hostages and relatives of the victims . It was headed by PERSON .","In DATE CARDINAL victims set up another organisation , ORG ( PERSON ) , chaired by PERSON . In DATE the NGO issued a public statement labelling the criminal investigation inefficient and fraudulent . It called on anyone who could assist them with obtaining or gathering factual information about the events to do so . On DATE ORG found that it had contained statements defined as \u201c extremist \u201d under LAW ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) and put it on the federal list of extremist material , making it an offence to disseminate it by any means .","NORP These organisations have played an important role in collecting and publishing material about the terrorist act in GPE , advocating the rights of victims of terrorist acts in general , supporting victims in similar situations , and organising public gatherings and events . On DATE in DATE and in DATE their representatives met with the NORP Presidents ; they also regularly meet with local and federal officials and high - ranking international visitors .","Following the admissibility decision of DATE , the applicants submitted CARDINAL additional documents \u2013 independent expert reports ordered by them on the counter - terrorist and forensic aspects of the case .","NORP In DATE CARDINAL GPE anti - terrorist experts produced a report following a request from ORG , the ORG representatives . The experts were Mr PERSON , a solicitor admitted in GPE , GPE and GPE , a ORG and ORG consultant on policing and human rights issues , co - author of ORG publication ORG ( DATE ) ; and Mr PERSON , former ORG and former head of ORG within ORG . The authors relied on open sources , including the communication report in the present case , and analysed the applicability of the relevant standards under LAW to different aspects of the operation . Their main conclusions may be summarised as follows .","Looking at the previous attacks and the information available to the authorities immediately before LOC , the experts argued that \u201c there was an extremely high level of threat of terrorist attack in ORG ] of GPE in DATE , in particular in the border areas of [ LOC ] and ORG . This threat could be classified as real , as it had been verified by various orders , telexes and other documents issued by ORG ] . It could also be classified as immediate , as the information disseminated by the authorities pointed to an attack taking place on a specific day : CARDINAL DATE \u201d . The experts also pointed out that , in addition to the date , the information had referred to a specific area \u2013 near the border between LOC and ORG and the potential target , as the attack had been planned to coincide with the Day of Knowledge . As PERSON was the largest town in GPE within QUANTITY of the border with LOC , where terrorists had apparently been gathering , they concluded that \u201c PERSON , and other towns in the vicinity , were clearly under a real and immediate threat of an attack on a school on DATE \u201d . Such a large - scale attack against a civilian target would have the potential for significant loss of life . The experts concluded that the level of detail available even from the relatively \u201c sanitised versions \u201d in the telexes and other communications indicated that there might have been a \u201c covert human intelligence source \u201d in the terrorist group , as well as technical coverage , such as the interception of communications . The event had therefore had a \u201c high degree of foreseeability \u201d .","As to the scale of the threat presented by the \u201c well - organised , ruthless and determined terrorists who had ... actively targeted civilians \u201d , the report reiterated the importance of DATE of Knowledge to NORP society and argued that an attack upon a school on DATE was an act \u201c bound to strike at the very heart of the nation \u201d \u2013 something the terrorists had obviously strived to achieve .","The experts thus concluded that in view of the high foreseeability and magnitude of the threat , the feasible operational measures \u201c must have been seen to take precedence over all other threats \u201d . They divided the possible responses into CARDINAL broad categories : ( i ) target denial , ( ii ) intervention and ( iii ) security . An example of target denial would involve postponing the opening of DATE in a defined area . Although unprecedented , this would have denied the terrorists the high - profile target sought . As to intervention , in the absence of any additional information , any comment would necessarily be speculative . It could be that the authorities did not conduct any preventive strike on the basis that to do so would have compromised the sources , or for other reasons \u2013 for example in view of the serious risk to the lives of the members of the security forces . Nevertheless , it was clear that \u201c the risk would be likely to be greater in the event that the group succeeded in carrying out their intentions \u201d and that the need to protect sources could not be used as a valid reason to put human life at serious risk . Lastly , as to security , the experts were of the opinion that the \u201c essentially passive approach \u201d adopted had been \u201c seriously inadequate \u201d in view of the circumstances . They noted that there had been no effective ownership or containment of the threat and that the staff of the local police had clearly been incapable of dealing with the security situation :","\u201c Given the degree of foreseeability , the recognised high threat by the [ ORG of the Interior ] and the level of specificity in terms of the ORG location , asserted target and likely area , there should have been a significant scaling up of resources in the identified areas . The purpose of this would have been to prevent or disrupt the ORG plans and deny the target . Such actions would include large , highly visible deployments of forces to search and locate the terrorist group , to undertake Vehicle Check Points both along the main arterial routes and in depth at likely target towns . Similar specific deployments should have been implemented at schools to deny the target . \u201d","The experts concluded that while no security measures could serve as a guarantee against the attackers\u2019 success , the presence of security personnel on the roads and at potential targets would have acted as a deterrent and could have impeded the attackers . They considered that the fact that a group of over thirty armed terrorists had been able to travel along the local roads to GPE , having encountered only one police roadblock manned by a single officer \u201c show[ed ] the extent of failure of the authorities to act upon the information available to them \u201d .","By means of comparison , the experts outlined the steps that would have been taken in GPE in the event of a known comparable threat . They considered that a command centre would have been established , with a clear and accountable chain of command , depending on role requirements . The centre would have comprised senior police officers coordinating with the relevant units of ORG , specialist counter - terrorism units and the security services , as well as other public sector bodies such as fire and rescue and ambulance services . A dedicated crisis response committee would have been set up within the Government of the GPE , in order to co - ordinate the actions of various bodies to ensure adequate resources and a media strategy . The potential targets would have been \u201c hardened \u201d by high - profile visible deployments of armed security personnel .","According to the report , once the terrorists had reached the school and taken a large number of hostages , the authorities faced an extremely difficult scenario \u2013 one where significant loss of life , including that of children , was inevitable . The experts noted the group ORG intention to die , which had been apparent from the beginning , and to cause large - scale loss of life in the event of a storming . In such circumstances , the role of the authorities should be to seek to minimise the loss of life to the greatest extent possible .","The experts started by reiterating that the presence of CARDINAL unarmed police officer at the school at the time of the hostage - taking had delayed the response to the attack and permitted the terrorists to capture a large number of children and adults at the ceremony , as well as secure the building and deploy the IEDs with very little resistance . Without predicting the exact results of a heavier security presence at the ceremony , the experts argued for the possibility that \u201c an adequately - assured police response would have repelled the terrorists for long enough to allow a significant number \u201d of potential hostages to escape .","They then reflected on the formation , structure , record - keeping and auditing of the OH . The experts stressed that the pressure under which the members of the OH had worked could not be underestimated . In their words , \u201c [ a]ny amount of training and experience could not prepare someone fully for [ a ] crisis such as Beslan \u201d which represented \u201c one of the most difficult situations that any administration could face \u201d . Furthermore , there could be no detailed or prescribed international standard for the control and planning of an operation of this sort ; it seemed inevitable that the responses would be prepared quickly and with minimal formalities , in order to reflect the dynamics and seriousness of the situation . Relying on the witness statements , official documents and other data cited in the ORG \u2019s decision on admissibility , the report noted the following shortcomings of the GPE functioning : failure to keep proper records of the ORG \u2019s composition , meetings and the main decisions taken ; a lack of any apparent formal structure for information - sharing and decision - making , resulting in uncoordinated decisions being taken ; a clear lack of structure of command and control for both strategic and important tactical decisions , such as the types and use of special weapons ; and an overall failure of command and control . They stressed , in addition to the above , that the absence of any plan to start a rescue operation as late as TIME on DATE , in view of the GPE intolerable conditions and the ORG unpredictability \u2013 meaning that intervention could be required at any moment DATE had amounted to a failure to plan properly for a rescue operation .","According to the experts , the situation faced by the NORP authorities , once the terrorists had reached their target , was a terrible one . The possibility of a peaceful outcome of the hostage - taking appeared minimal . The authorities were therefore required to make extraordinarily difficult and agonising decisions in a highly fluid situation and \u201c there [ was ] no training or manual which [ could ] provide solutions to these dilemmas \u201d . Furthermore , they acknowledged significant gaps in the information relating to the preparation of the rescue operation and many aspects in the way it was carried out , for example those relating to the origins of the first explosions . Having said that , the experts were of the opinion that since the situation had developed for DATE before the rescue operation had started , it could not be characterised as entirely spontaneous , since the authorities had had time and resources to plan and practice it .","In view of the above , they highlighted a number of points that were , in their opinion , important in the evaluation of the rescue operation . Some of these points were relevant to the level of control exercised by the authorities over these developments : for example whether the operation was at all times under the control of the senior officers , or whether , in view of the GPE known intolerable conditions , they had prepared their response to a possible attempt by the hostages to leave the building at any moment . Other points focused more on the ORG tactical decisions directly relevant to the rescue operation that had taken place .","If the first explosions had been triggered by the detonation of an IED placed by the terrorists , and they had started to shoot at the fleeing hostages , the authorities had no option but to launch a rescue operation , which was in fact done . It ended with massive loss of life , and the accounts differ as to the use of flame - throwers and tank cannon fire . The experts stressed that these were military weapons destined to neutralise buildings with enemy combatants within . In their view , if these weapons had indeed been used at a time when hostages had still been within the building , it would have been unjustifiable . It could be justifiable if they had been used in the belief that there had been no civilians in the building and no military alternative to their use ; however , in the absence of a definitive assessment of the facts such judgment had to be reserved . They noted , nevertheless , that the fact that by TIME , or soon afterwards , the school building had seemed to be sufficiently under control for the security forces to hold a memorial service for the fallen officers made it unlikely that the terrorists had still been in the building at that time .","The report then commented that the fact that both the Alpha and PERSON special forces units had been deployed at a training exercise at the time when the rescue operation had commenced , had left the authorities without or with insufficient specialist intervention contingencies . The high number of losses sustained by the ORG special forces was a testament to the ORG bravery , since they had probably realised that they had been likely to lose their lives by entering the school . Nevertheless , the experts were of the opinion that the same failures to plan and conduct the rescue operation had had a bearing on their fate as well as on the fate of the hostages .","Turning to the firefighters , the experts pointed out that in view of the known potential for fires to start from explosions , the fire brigades should have been deployed earlier . In their view , \u201c the fact that very few fire engines were deployed and that they were without adequate supplies of water [ was ] a failing of foresight and planning ... The general requirement ... that rescue operations must be planned and controlled in such a manner as to minimise the risk to life , required a much greater deployment of fire brigade resources including multiple pumps and specialist fire vehicles ... \u201d Equally , the experts noted that although the medical evacuation and subsequent services had been well organised , as relatively few wounded had died in hospital , the medical staff had not been informed in any detail of the relevant information in order to plan an appropriate response . They commented that \u201c it appear[ed ] that the relative success of the medical evacuation [ was ] a result of the professionalism of the medical staff , and that they [ had ] not [ been ] included in the GPE or even kept informed of relevant information ( such as the number of hostages ) so that they could deploy adequate resources \u201d .","The experts also examined CARDINAL aspects of the operation challenged by the applicants : ( i ) dissemination of incorrect information regarding the number of hostages during the crisis , ( ii ) coordination between various authorities about the rescue plans and ( iii ) the negotiation strategy .","As to the number of hostages , the authors of the report were of the opinion that this aspect of communication could not have had any foreseeable negative impact on the ORG behaviour or any other foreseeable consequences . With regard to the authorities\u2019 co - ordination , the authors pointed out that effective coordination was a key element of command and control of counter - terrorist operations . They noted the obvious lack of coordination with the medics and the failure to preserve the scene , despite the presence of several cordons manned by different security agencies . Nevertheless , once the explosions and outbreak of shooting had occurred , the authorities had had no other option but to order the rescue operation ; at this stage the pre - planned contingencies should have been implemented .","Lastly , concerning the negotiations , the experts were of the opinion that the terrorists \u201c were not interested in negotiation and came to PERSON to inflict as much terror and death on the most vulnerable element of the civilian population as possible \u201d . Their demands had been unrealistic and inflexible and they did not seem to have had any negotiation strategy ; in addition , they seemed to have been prepared to die from the very beginning . Such a mental state \u201c was not of rational people and so unpredictable as to render negotiations particularly difficult , if not impossible \u201d . The authorities had ascertained the ORG demands , made efforts to engage with them and put them in contact with the people they had demanded . The authorities\u2019 approach to negotiation could not be criticised .","NORP In DATE a forensic pathologist from GPE produced an expert report in response to a request from ORG to consider matters related to the recovery of bodies , post - mortem examinations and conclusions drawn as to the causes of death . PERSON had worked in GPE and GPE as a forensic pathologist for DATE . He was also involved in international work , having been the Chief Pathologist for ORG for Former GPE ( DATE ) and having worked in LOC for ORG , in GPE \/ GPE for ORG , and in other regions of the world . He also had the relevant academic and teaching background ( having previously held a post at ORG and being an examiner for national pathology qualifications and secretary of the professional association for GPE forensic pathologists ) . In addition to the Statement of Facts ( admissibility decision ) in the present case , PERSON was provided with the transcripts of the representatives\u2019 oral submissions before the ORG , LANGUAGE translations of expert report no.CARDINAL ( of DATE ) , CARDINAL autopsy reports of the victims and transcripts of the testimonies given by the pathologists in the domestic proceedings . His conclusions may be summarised as follows .","On the overall organisation of the forensic service , PERSON noted that the task faced by the authorities had been extremely difficult . The mortuary in ORG could not have possibly coped with the influx of CARDINAL bodies \u2013 as , in fact , no mortuary in the world could have . Alternative solutions should therefore have been considered , such as establishing a temporary mortuary elsewhere ( a storage warehouse or cool facility \u2013 he recalled the use of an ice - rink in the GPE events ) and bringing in refrigerator trucks or distribution to other mortuaries . In view of the potentially high number of expected casualties from the siege , some sort of system should have been planned in advance , with a suitable location , equipment and personnel identified and available at short notice . He noted that \u201c the matter of body storage and preservation would have been uppermost in the minds of the pathologists , particularly with the warm weather \u201d . A more orderly fashion of dealing with the bodies could have not only helped to avoid wrong identifications , but also alleviated the pressure on the forensic team . It would have permitted them to carry out a more in - depth examination of the bodies , where necessary , in order to establish the causes of death and identify and extract the objects that could be helpful to the investigation , such as bullets , fragments of GPE and so forth . A clear explanation to the relatives as regards time expectations and the need for examination would have helped both them and those dealing with the bodies .","As to the recovery of the bodies from the school , the expert noted that the location and position of each person should have been recorded and the body numbered and preferably photographed . The description of the scene and the record of body recovery as reflected in the available documents appeared \u201c totally inadequate for such an important incident and provides no basis for independent analysis , as any proper forensic report should allow \u201d .","ORG That most bodies had been subjected to external examinations only , as opposed to a full autopsy , would have been understandable if the principal purpose of the examination had been identification . Such an approach was justifiable , for example , in cases of major disaster casualties , or even at mass crime scenes where the evident injuries from gunfire or gross damage from an explosive device made the cause of death obvious . However , such an approach \u201c would not reveal other unexpected findings , nor permit retrieval of bullets or shrapnel from inside the body \u201d , although the evidential value of much of this type of material , for example for matching with a particular rifle , would have been questionable in the case of high - velocity ammunition . A lighter option could have included the use of imaging facilities , such as portable X - ray machines usually available at hospitals . This could have assisted in deciding whether a more in - depth examination had been required . In some cases , the expert noted , the conclusions about the cause of death had been inconsistent with the number of examination carried out , and should have been \u201c couched in far more cautious terms \u201d . With respect to those cases where the cause of death had not been established , mostly in view of extensive burns , PERSON was of the opinion that this could have been established relatively easily . \u201c Questions of where and when they died , and whether it was from gunshot , explosion , fire , other trauma , or any combination , could and should have been established ... \u201d","The expert also commented on the people who had been burnt to an extent that the cause of death could not be established , and whether these burns could have been received ante or post mortem . He stressed that post mortem burns often masked those received while the person had been alive ; that most people died in fires from smoke inhalation rather than from burns ; but that smoke inhalation could only be proved by an internal examination including a carboxyhaemoglobin blood test and dissection of the body in order to examine to what extent the air passages were lined with soot . The expert stressed that \u201c [ i]nternal examination of a body to establish smoke inhalation can be done on even very charred and partly destroyed remains ( which generally are remarkably well preserved inside ) , certainly on the type seen in the photographs and described in the post - mortem reports above . Thus , to say that no cause of death could be established because the body was burned is nonsense and dishonest \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182168","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF NAUMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153350","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DAVTYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","DATE the applicant worked as the executive director of ORG ( hereafter , the ORG ) .","On DATE the prosecutor decided to institute criminal proceedings under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of the former Criminal Code ( hereafter , the former ORG ) on account of abuse of official capacity by the former management of the ORG through embezzlement of funds entrusted to it in DATE by another company . It appears that at the material time the applicant worked as an advisor to the chamber of control of the NORP parliament .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of largescale embezzlement , abuse of official capacity and official falsification under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL and LAW .","On DATE the applicant was formally charged under paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL and LAW ORG with embezzlement through abuse of his official capacity and official falsification through preparation and use of false accounting documents during his office as the executive director of ORG , causing damage to the ORG and its clients . It appears that CARDINAL other persons were also charged with involvement in these or related crimes .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE granted the investigator \u2019s application to have the applicant placed in pre - trial detention for DATE . The applicant alleged that during the hearing his lawyer had requested the court not to impose detention as a preventive measure , due to the applicant \u2019s poor health . The applicant \u2019s detention was subsequently extended by ORG on CARDINAL occasions until DATE .","On DATE a group of CARDINAL members of ORG applied to the Prosecutor General requesting that the applicant \u2019s detention be replaced by another preventive measure in view of , inter alia , the applicant \u2019s poor health .","On DATE ORG addressed a letter to ORG , stating that the applicant \u2019s release was not possible since he had committed a grave crime and had refused to return embezzled funds .","On DATE a new Criminal Code ( hereafter , the new ORG ) entered into force in GPE .","On DATE the charges against the applicant were adapted to the new ORG and he was formally charged under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL and LAW ORG .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and LAW ORG . In particular , the applicant was found to have executed a number of financial operations involving bonds and fixed assets , the proceeds of which he embezzled . ORG sentenced the applicant to six years\u2019 imprisonment without confiscation of property under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and terminated the proceedings under LAW by applying a statute of limitations with reference to LAW ORG ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal .","On DATE the Criminal and Military Court of Appeal decided to uphold the judgment of ORG . ORG found , inter alia , that :","\u201c The first instance court , considering [ the applicant \u2019s ] ... guilt in preparing and using false documents to be substantiated , rightly terminated the proceedings under LAW of [ the ORG ] on the ground envisaged by LAW ( CARDINAL ) of [ the ORG ] . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . In his appeal he argued , inter alia , that Article CARDINAL of the new ORG should not have been applied to his case because documents of commercial organisations could not be considered \u201c official \u201d . He should therefore have been penalised under LAW ORG instead .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . ORG found , inter alia , that :","\u201c Documents to which public authorities give legal significance are considered official . Official documents may be issued both by public authorities , their officials and bodies of local self - government , and by legal entities , commercial and other types of organisations . Such documents as credit or other financial documents drawn up by commercial banks can also be considered as [ official documents ] , since they also have legal significance ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant was transferred to PERSON detention facility .","On DATE the applicant was examined at the facility \u2019s medical unit and diagnosed as having a throat tumour . He also complained of a sore throat , loss of voice and chest pain .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an external doctor who recommended that the applicant be examined by an otolaryngology specialist .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an otolaryngology specialist who confirmed the diagnosis of a throat tumour . In order to determine the nature of the tumour , the doctor recommended : ( a ) a biopsy to be carried out ; ( b ) computer tomography of the throat ; and ( c ) further examination and treatment .","On DATE the applicant , apparently in reaction to the medication that he was taking , showed symptoms of anaphylactic shock such as urticaria , coldness of extremities , severe shivering and a drop in blood pressure to CARDINAL followed by loss of consciousness . First aid was provided by the detention facility \u2019s medical unit and an ambulance was called . It appears that thereafter the applicant continued to experience symptoms of allergy such as face and body swelling , itching and blood pressure fluctuations .","On DATE an external allergy specialist was called who diagnosed the applicant as suffering from ORG oedema , pollinosis and an atypical form of bronchial asthma .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s condition drastically deteriorated . He experienced laboured breathing , facial swelling , drop in blood pressure to CARDINAL , swelling of extremities and ORG \u2019s oedema . First aid was provided .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist . The applicant complained of low spirits , irritability , insomnia and tachycardia , as well as recurring headaches , chest pains and high blood pressure due to frequent emotional stress . From that day on the applicant remained under the psychiatrist \u2019s regular supervision , during which it was found that the applicant was suffering from depression , fits of anger , irritability , insomnia , headaches , chest pains , tension and anxiety .","On DATE the applicant was examined by prison doctor PERSON , who noted his complaints of haemoptysis , hoarseness and a weakened swallowing reflex . The applicant was also observed to suffer increased pallor and significant weight loss . It appears that these symptoms continued from DATE on .","On DATE the applicant was examined by prison doctor PERSON , who noted his complaints of skin rash and itching and shortness of breath , which were apparently caused by emotional stress . Medication was prescribed .","On DATE the applicant complained to prison doctor N. of asthenia , hoarseness and a cough which turned into asphyxia .","The applicant alleges that on or around DATE he was informed that he was going to be transferred from the detention facility \u2019s medical unit to an ordinary cell . The applicant refused to be transferred , referring to his poor health , so he was moved to a punishment cell for DATE . On TIME in the punishment cell he was not given blankets or bed linen . On TIME the applicant \u2019s health deteriorated and he experienced laboured breathing , asphyxia attacks and high blood pressure . The applicant asked the guard to call the feldsher ( doctor \u2019s assistant ) . When the feldsher arrived , he was unable to enter the punishment cell because it was locked and the guard did not have the key . It took TIME to find the key after the feldsher protested . On TIME the applicant was transferred back to the medical unit .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s health deteriorated . According to his medical card , his allergy worsened at TIME and he fell into a collaptoid state . The applicant complained of a cough , itchy skin and nose , shortness of breath , asphyxia attacks , and swelling of the face and lips .","On DATE a cardiologist was invited to examine the applicant , who complained of severe chest pain , headache and shortness of breath . His blood pressure rose to CARDINAL .","It appears that from DATE to DATE the applicant continued to show all of the above symptoms at regular medical checkups .","On DATE and DATE an ambulance was called as the applicant showed symptoms of stenocardia and hypertension . His blood pressure rose to CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a specialist and was advised , inter alia , to undergo an endoscopic examination of the throat and biopsy of the tumour .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the acting chief of GPE detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed ORG that the applicant had made numerous complaints about his health , including asthenia , loss of weight , voice hoarsening and haemoptysis . After an examination by specialists of ORG , the applicant was diagnosed as having a throat tumour . The applicant therefore needed to be examined in a specialised clinic of ORG .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was examined by an external doctor who noted that , in order to reach a final diagnosis concerning the applicant \u2019s throat tumour , he needed to undergo computer tomography or a magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) scan .","On DATE prison doctor PERSON informed ORG that the applicant was unable to participate in the hearing to take place on DATE because he was suffering from ORG oedema .","The Government alleged , which the applicant disputed , that in DATE the doctor suggested that the applicant be transferred to a specialised establishment for treatment , but the applicant refused .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant experienced a rash , skin and nose itch , cough and laboured breathing followed by asphyxia and loss of consciousness . His face and lips were swollen . An ambulance was called and first aid was provided . The diagnosis of ORG oedema , pollinosis and an atypical form of bronchial asthma was confirmed .","On DATE the applicant was provided with first aid after showing the following symptoms : severe headaches , dizziness , chest pain , shortness of breath and a disruption in coordination of movements . He further experienced persistent dizziness , facial swelling and excessive sweating . The applicant was diagnosed with hypertensive crisis and an acute disturbance of cerebral blood circulation of the vertebrobasilar area .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the chief of GPE detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed ORG that the applicant had recently been showing symptoms of hoarseness , haemoptysis and asthenia , and that it was impossible to conduct a proper examination at the detention facility \u2019s medical unit . They requested the court to allow the applicant \u2019s transfer to ORG in order to carry out a specialised examination , to clarify the diagnosis and to decide on further treatment . ORG granted this permission .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an otolaryngologist at FAC . A tumour on the vocal cords was diagnosed and he was advised to undergo surgical treatment and a biopsy of the tumour was recommended .","By a letter of DATE the acting chief of ORG detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that the applicant had been admitted for in - patient treatment at the detention facility \u2019s medical unit with the following complaints : laboured breathing , asphyxia , haemoptysis , voice hoarsening , headache , dizziness and frequent loss of consciousness . Following a number of examinations the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from a throat tumour of unknown nature , allergy of unknown aetiology , ORG oedema and fits of anaphylactic shock . According to the conclusions reached by the specialists of ORG , the applicant needed to undergo specialised instrumental and histological examinations and surgery . Recently the fits of anaphylactic shock and loss of consciousness had become more frequent . The applicant was under permanent medical surveillance and was receiving symptomatic treatment .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the acting chief of GPE detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that it was not possible to carry out the required examinations and surgery for the applicant at the detention facility \u2019s medical unit .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed an application with ORG , requesting that the applicant be released for health reasons . Copies of the letters of DATE were attached to this application . The applicant alleges that ORG included this application in the case file without ruling on it .","At the hearing of DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed another application similar to that of DATE . She further requested the court to summon the applicant \u2019s prison doctor . A copy of the applicant \u2019s medical record was attached to this application . It appears that ORG decided to postpone the examination of this application in order to establish \u201c certain essential circumstances \u201d . The court further requested the applicant \u2019s lawyer to submit a certified copy of the applicant \u2019s medical record .","DATE . At the hearing of DATE the applicant announced that he was unable to testify because of his inability to speak and that he would testify in writing . He requested the court to release him because of his poor health . It appears that ORG again decided to postpone the examination of this request in order to establish certain essential circumstances .","At the hearing of DATE prison doctor PERSON was examined in court . The doctor , at the outset , presented details of the diseases suffered by the applicant and the dynamics of their development . He further submitted that all possible treatment had been prescribed but , despite occasional improvements , the applicant \u2019s condition continued to deteriorate . The antiallergy treatment had yielded no results . The applicant had been examined on numerous occasions by otolaryngology and oncology specialists who had unanimously concluded that the applicant needed examination and treatment in a specialised clinic . There was no possibility to carry out such treatment at the detention facility \u2019s medical unit , so the applicant received symptomatic treatment . Shortness of breath and asphyxia attacks had become more frequent in DATE and DATE and were accompanied by coughing and haemoptysis leading to loss of consciousness . The applicant had been resuscitated on several occasions but the growth of the tumour could result in respiratory obstruction causing the applicant \u2019s death , which could occur in a matter of TIME . Doctor PERSON recommended the applicant \u2019s immediate transfer to a specialised clinic in order to eliminate the risk of death . He further stated that not only GPE detention facility \u2019s medical unit but the entire penitentiary system lacked the necessary specialists and equipment to carry out a fullscale examination and treatment of the applicant .","At the same hearing the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed an application requesting the applicant \u2019s release , which was dismissed by ORG . She further requested the court to examine the previously filed applications concerning the applicant \u2019s state of health . It appears that ORG again decided to postpone the examination of these applications , stating that the information at its disposal was not sufficient to resolve the question of detention .","It appears that during that period the applicant refused to be transferred to a specialised clinic . He alleged that his refusal was motivated by the fact that no assurances had been given to him that the required surgery would actually be performed , since another transfer to an outside clinic without such surgery would have been useless and would only have aggravated his condition .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the otolaryngology department of ORG because of a drastic deterioration in his health . The applicant underwent another examination and was diagnosed with chronic laryngotracheitis and malignisation of the tumour . An urgent in - patient examination and surgical treatment in a specialised clinic were recommended .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was unable to finish his testimony because of his inability to speak and the hearing was adjourned .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the chief of GPE detention facility informed the head of ORG of ORG that , based on the results of the relevant medical examinations , the conclusions of specialists and the progressive nature of the applicant \u2019s disease , he needed to undergo urgent surgery in a specialised clinic , as the tumour was growing and could cause respiratory obstruction .","At the hearing of DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed another application with ORG seeking to have the applicant released because of his poor health . A certified copy of the applicant \u2019s medical record and a copy of the results of the examination of DATE were attached to this application . ORG dismissed this application on the ground that the examination of the case was in its final stage and there were no relevant documents , such as an expert opinion , justifying the need to carry out the applicant \u2019s urgent examination and treatment in a specialised clinic .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the chief of ORG detention facility and the head of its medical unit informed ORG that the applicant had been examined by specialists at ORG and it had been established that his throat tumour had grown and that he was in need of urgent surgery . They requested the applicant \u2019s transfer to ORG for surgery . ORG granted this request .","On DATE the head of the detention facility \u2019s medical unit informed ORG that the applicant was unable to participate in the hearing to take place on DATE because he was suffering from fits of asphyxia .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG . He was diagnosed as having \u201c a vocal cord tumour ( C - R ? ) , first degree stenosis and , as accompanying pathologies , nasal septum deviation and chronic hypertrophic rhinitis \u201d . The applicant was advised to undergo CARDINAL operations . The first operation was scheduled for DATE but was postponed upon the applicant \u2019s request , as he wished to participate in a court hearing in his case .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist who diagnosed him as suffering from reactive depression accompanied by a phobic syndrome . It appears that the applicant showed symptoms of suicidal thoughts . Administration of tranquillisers was recommended .","On DATE the applicant underwent his first operation . Partial excision of the mucous membrane of the nasal septum and a doublesided inferior and right - side medial conchotomy were performed . The doctors noted that the applicant \u2019s mental condition prevented the second operation being carried out and advised that it be performed after the applicant \u2019s general condition had stabilised .","On DATE the applicant was again examined by a psychiatrist , who diagnosed him as suffering from a severe form of depression without mental symptoms . The psychiatrist recommended that treatment be continued and the applicant be kept under strict supervision to prevent possible suicide attempts .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed an application with ORG requesting the applicant \u2019s release on , inter alia , health grounds . The applicant alleges that ORG postponed the examination of this request without giving any reasons .","On DATE the applicant underwent his second operation which involved the removal of polyps on the vocal cords . The operation went smoothly but complications , including inflammation of the vocal cords , adhesions and haemorrhage , occurred in the post - operative period .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s condition had improved , and he was discharged from ORG and transferred back to the detention facility \u2019s medical unit .","On DATE the applicant was released on parole ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178501","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KUNI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - General measures);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["By a judgment of ORG of DATE , CARDINAL judgments of ORG of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE and a judgment of ORG of DATE , which became final on CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , the FAC Zeni\u010dko - dobojski kanton ; CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cantons of ORG ) was ordered to pay the applicants different sums in respect of unpaid work - related benefits together with default interest at the statutory rate and legal costs .","The writs of execution issued on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , by ORG and ORG , were transferred to the competent bank and were listed among the charges on the debtor \u2019s account .","On several occasions thereafter the bank informed the competent courts that enforcement was not possible because the budgetary funds intended for that purpose had already been spent .","On DATE the first applicant , Mr PERSON , complained of the non - enforcement to ORG the LAW \u201d ) .","On DATE ( decision no . ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ORG found a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW in Mr PERSON \u2019s and QUANTITY other cases on account of the prolonged non - enforcement of the final judgments in the appellants\u2019 favour . It ordered the government of the LOC to take the necessary steps in order to secure the payment of the cantonal debt arising from the final judgments within a reasonable time .","The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c DATE . ... The court notes that the judgments [ in favour of the appellants ] have not been enforced due to the lack of funds on the debtor \u2019s bank account .","...","ORG reiterates that under LAW and LAW all levels of government must secure respect for individual human rights , including the right to enforcement of final judgments under LAW and the right to property under LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention ... The scope of that obligation is not reduced in the present case , notwithstanding the large number of judgments ... [ T]he ORG notes that in NORP v. ORG , and again in \u010coli\u0107 and Others v. ORG , ORG reiterated that \u2018 it is not open to a ORG authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt . Admittedly , a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances , but the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under LAW ...","ORG agrees with the position taken by ORG ... it is nevertheless aware of the effects the global economic crisis had on GPE ... The court notes that the federal and the cantonal governments had taken certain steps with the view to enforcement of final court decisions . LAW DATE provides that the final judgments against the GPE and the cantons shall be enforced within the amount of budgetary funds designated for that purpose ... and that the creditors shall enforce their claims in the order in which they acquired the enforcement titles ... In DATE and DATE the amount of funds for that purpose in the budget of the LOC was MONEY .","...","The court finds that the crux of the problem in the present case is that the Zenica - Doboj GPE did not identify the exact number of unenforced judgments and the aggregate debt ... without which it is impossible to know when all the creditors will realise their claims against this canton . Furthemore , there should exist a centralised and transparent database of all the claims listed in chronological order according to the time the judgments became final . It should include the enforcement time - frame and a list of partial payments , if any . This will also help to avoid abuses of the enforcement procedure . These measure and adequate funds in the DATE budget would ensure that all the final judgments are enforced within a reasonable time ... and the LOC would ensure the respect of its obligations from LAW and LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .","...","The court considers that the adoption of section CARDINAL of the Enforcement Procedure Act DATE had a legitimate aim , because the enforcement of a large number of judgments at the same time would jeopardise the normal functioning of the cantons . However , the limitation of the enforcement in the present case is contrary to the principle of proportionality enshrined in LAW No . CARDINAL which requires that a fair balance is struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual \u2019s fundamental rights ... Section CARDINAL places a disproportionate burden on the appellants ... they are placed in a situation of absolute uncertainty as regards the enforcement of their claims ...","...","In order to comply with its positive obligation , the government of the Zenica - Doboj GPE must , as explained above , calculate the total amount of the aggregate debt arising from the final judgments and prepare a comprehensive and transparent database ... This court will not specify what a reasonable time - limit should be ... but , in any event , it must be in accordance with LAW and LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .","...","... The current situation does not give any guarantees to the appellants that their claims against the Zenica - Doboj GPE will be enforced within a reasonable time . \u201d","On DATE ORG adopted a procedural decision to the effect that its decision of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL other decisions on the same matter in cases concerning various individual appellants ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had not been enforced .","The final judgments in the applicants\u2019 favour have not yet been enforced ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166965","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PIVOVARNIK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and prior to his arrest his permanent address had been in GPE , GPE .","On an unspecified date prior to his arrest the applicant had been diagnosed with hepatitis C ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing a drug - related offence and on DATE placed in FAC no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the prison \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody . The applicant appealed , arguing in particular that he was suffering from ORG . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order .","The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was subsequently extended until his conviction .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of the unlawful purchase , possession and transportation of drugs and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG amended the applicant \u2019s sentence and released him on probation .","On DATE the prison governor sent a letter to ORG . According to the letter , the applicant had informed the prison authorities that he had been diagnosed with ORG in DATE in ORG but that he had not provided any more detailed information in this respect . The governor asked the hospital to confirm whether the applicant had indeed been examined for ORG and if so , what the results of the examination had been . The prison received no reply .","On DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE and DATE the applicant consulted the prison doctor , complaining in particular of discomfort in the hypochondrium ( below the lower ribs ) , on the right - hand side . According to the applicant \u2019s medical record , the applicant claimed to be suffering from ORG , but the doctor noted that there were no documents to support this diagnosis . The applicant asked for a medical certificate , to be provided to the courts examining his criminal case . According to CARDINAL separate reports signed by CARDINAL prison employees , during CARDINAL of those consultations DATE those of DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant was offered an opportunity to undergo a \u201c blood test \u201d ( it is unspecified of which type ) to verify whether he had ORG but refused without giving any reasons . The applicant denied the latter allegation .","On DATE the prison \u2019s medical unit issued a certificate stating that the applicant , according to his own statement , was suffering from ORG and that during his stay in the prison he had consulted the prison doctor on several occasions in this connection and received treatment for his symptoms .","On DATE the prison governor informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer that on DATE and DATE the applicant had consulted the prison doctor concerning his ORG and had been prescribed treatment for his symptoms . The governor went on to state that it was planned that a consultation would be arranged with an infectious diseases specialist who would be able to order the necessary examinations and prescribe treatment for the applicant .","On DATE a blood test , apparently an ORG antibody test , came up positive . On DATE an ultrasound examination showed that the applicant \u2019s liver had undergone diffuse changes .","On DATE the head of the prison \u2019s medical unit issued a certificate which stated that the applicant \u2019s health had worsened in DATE and that he was suffering from fatigue , nausea , and weight loss . The certificate also stated that in order to ascertain the state of his health the applicant needed to be examined by an infectious diseases specialist of ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) .","On DATE the acting President of the Section , upon the applicant \u2019s request under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , decided to indicate to the Government that they should present the applicant urgently for medical examination by a specialised doctor of ORG ; secure for the applicant immediately , by appropriate means , treatment to his state of health ; and inform the ORG by DATE about the applicant \u2019s state of health and the measures undertaken .","From CARDINAL until DATE the applicant underwent an in - patient examination at ORG in the course of which a number of blood tests and an ultrasound examination were conducted and the applicant was examined by a number of specialists .","On DATE the hospital issued an opinion according to which the applicant was suffering from \u0441hronic ORG \u201c in an inactive phase \u201d and liver impairment . He was prescribed hepatoprotectors ( GPE and PERSON ) . It was recommended that he undergo additional blood tests , namely the polymerase chain reaction ( ORG ) test for ORG , and , within DATE , another general blood test and a biochemical blood test . The applicant was to remain under the supervision of a gastroenterologist and an infectious diseases specialist .","On DATE the Government informed the ORG about the applicant \u2019s examination at ORG .","On DATE the applicant complained to the ORG that the recommendations of ORG doctors were not being followed . On DATE the ORG invited the ORG to comment on those allegations .","On DATE the applicant started to be treated with hepatoprotector medicine . On DATE he underwent general and biochemical blood tests which , according to the Government , revealed no abnormality . On DATE he was consulted by a gastroenterologist and an infectious diseases specialist , who confirmed the diagnosis of inactive chronic hepatitis .","On DATE the Government informed ORG measures taken from DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3","34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159915","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SINDELY v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants , a married couple , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE the first applicant was deliberately shot by CARDINAL of his colleagues and suffered serious injuries making him disabled .","On an unspecified date in DATE , the first applicant and his family ( including his wife , the second applicant ) brought an action in damages against the first applicant \u2019s employer . On DATE the president of ORG ordered the priority treatment of the case .","On DATE ORG found for the applicants in an interim judgment establishing the well - foundedness of the legal basis of the claim . The first instance interim judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .","The exact compensation amount to be paid by the employer was decided by a judgment of ORG on DATE . The decision was upheld and partly amended by the final judgment of ORG adopted on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157544","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"OSTROWSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows :","NORP In DATE the applicant suffered an acoustic shock . He was subsequently diagnosed as having a severe hearing impairment . An audiometric test carried out on DATE confirmed QUANTITY hearing loss ( dB PERSON ) in his left ear and CARDINAL dB HL in his right ear . Medical treatment he underwent in ORG from DATE did not result in an improvement of his condition . He was released from the hospital and further outpatient treatment was recommended .","NORP Subsequent laryngological and surgical treatment and further consultations with a psychiatrist , neurologist and optician resulted in successive decisions to postpone the start of a DATE prison sentence imposed on him by ORG on DATE . On DATE the court postponed the start of his sentence until DATE on health grounds ( ref . no . PERSON ) . Having regard to the applicant \u2019s medical records , it was of the view that serving the sentence would have been too harsh on him . On DATE the court extended the period of postponement ( ref . no . PERSON ) , referring to the applicant \u2019s need to have further treatment .","He started his sentence on DATE .","The applicant was subsequently deprived of his liberty in a number of detention facilities , namely :","- \u015awinouj\u015bcie Remand Centre ( from DATE to DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE to CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE to DATE ) ;","- FAC ( from DATE to DATE and CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) ;","ORG ( from DATE ) ;","- Koronowo Prison ( from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) ;","- Goleni\u00f3w Prison ( from DATE , DATE to CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE to DATE , DATE to CARDINAL DATE and DATE to DATE ) ;","- FAC ( from DATE ) ;","- Nowy Wi\u015bnicz Prison ( from DATE to DATE ) ;","- FAC ( from DATE to DATE ) ;","- Nowogard Prison ( from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) .","The applicant was examined by doctors of various prisons \u2013 twice in DATE , on CARDINAL occasions in DATE and on CARDINAL occasions in DATE . The courts twice postponed the date on which he was to start serving his prison sentence .","On DATE the applicant was provided with a medical prescription ( zlecenie lekarskie ) for a hearing aid for his right ear . Subsequently , on unspecified dates the competent court twice postponed the start of his prison sentence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . While at liberty , he did not use a hearing aid and did not take any steps to obtain one .","On DATE the applicant underwent another audiometric test , which gave similar results to the test on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At that time he had PERCENT hearing loss in his right ear . A subsequent medical certificate drawn up on DATE demonstrated that his hearing had become worse , increasing to PERCENT hearing loss in his right ear and CARDINAL dB hearing loss in his left ear .","On DATE a laryngologist examined the applicant . He was informed that under LAW , he could obtain a hearing aid at his own expense . Subsequently , he took steps to obtain a hearing aid without the help of the prison service . It appears that to that end he contacted ORG ( Instytut Fizjologii i PERSON ) in GPE and had a medical appointment scheduled for CARDINAL DATE ; however , he could not attend it as he was imprisoned at the time .","On CARDINAL DATE he was registered for social insurance purposes as a person suffering from a moderate disability ( umiarkowany stopie\u0144 niepelnosprawno\u015bci ) .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the penal court \u201d ) to grant him shortterm prison leave to attend the medical appointment scheduled for CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and further medical check - ups at liberty . He did not make a formal request to attend the relevant hearing . He requested that a lawyer be appointed under the legal aid scheme to represent him before the court . He submitted that he did not feel mentally fit to argue his own case and that he had been undergoing psychiatric treatment for DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the court dismissed his request for legal aid .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his application for prison leave would be examined at a hearing scheduled for DATE .","The hearing was held as planned , without him being present . The court dismissed his request for leave . It considered , with reference to the medical certificate , that his hearing impairment could be treated in prison , that his detention had not put his life directly at risk within the meaning of LAW of LAW , and that the legal requirements for granting him leave had not been met .","The applicant appealed , submitting that he had been deprived of the right to argue his case before the court either in person or through a legal aid lawyer . He requested to be present at the appeal hearing .","On DATE he was informed that an appeal hearing had been scheduled for DATE . On that date ORG dismissed his appeal . He was not present at the hearing .","In its decision , the penal court referred to a medical certificate issued by a prison doctor on DATE . The court was of the view that , in the light of that certificate , the applicant \u2019s condition could be successfully accommodated by the prison health care system . The court did not address the issue of the procedural shortcomings which had allegedly been committed by ORG .","The applicant applied to ORG to be provided with a hearing aid . The replacement hearing aid ( zast\u0119pczy aparat s\u0142uchowy ) was issued to him on DATE . He was entitled to use it until he was able to buy his own device , with the possibility of a partial refund by ORG .","The applicant secured a new date for a specialist medical consultation at ORG on DATE , but he could not attend .","On DATE ORG dismissed another request for prison leave on medical grounds . The court relied on the same reasoning and on the same DATE medical certificate as in its DATE decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision . On DATE the applicant was granted legal aid for the purposes of his request for leave . Meanwhile , he was transferred to another prison in a different court circuit . Eventually , on DATE the ORG granted him CARDINAL months\u2019 leave to allow him to obtain a hearing aid . He left prison on DATE .","During his leave , he asked ORG for the Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons ( Pa\u0144stwowy ORG ) and other organisations to finance the purchase of his hearing aid .","On DATE the applicant was presented with an invoice from a private company that made hearing devices . The cost of a hearing aid fitted to his purposes was MONEY ( PLN ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . He did not collect the hearing aid from the shop during his prison leave , because he could not afford to pay for it .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the \u015awinouj\u015bcie Family Assistance Centre ( PERSON ) informed him that they could not finance his hearing aid .","On DATE the ORG extended his leave for DATE until DATE ( ref . no . V Kow CARDINAL ) , as he had not managed to obtain a hearing aid within the period of leave previously granted to him . Subsequently , he obtained a left ear hearing aid . The total price of the aid with an ear insert was ORG ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . PLN CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) was refunded by ORG , while ORG ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) was refunded by ORG for the Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons . He paid MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) from his own means .","The applicant failed to report back to PERSON at the end of his leave . He was arrested by the police and taken back there on DATE .","Once back in prison , he asked the prison authorities to provide him with a right ear hearing aid . They refused , referring to the principle that only people in employment were entitled to CARDINAL hearing aids , including persons at liberty .","On DATE a laryngologist issued an opinion that he should also be provided with a right ear hearing aid .","Subsequently , on DATE the applicant applied to ORG for further prison leave ( ref . no . V Kow CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . He raised the issue of his hearing impairment . He submitted that he planned to undergo ear surgery and urological surgery . He was granted legal aid for the purposes of the proceedings . On DATE ORG assigned a lawyer to represent him under the legal aid scheme .","On DATE ORG refused his request for prison leave . The court referred to a medical certificate dated DATE , which indicated that he had been examined by laryngologists on several occasions , that he was suffering from hearing problems but had been using a hearing aid , that the certificate of CARDINAL DATE had not recommended that it was absolutely necessary for him to also have a hearing aid for his right ear , and , lastly , that during DATE of leave , he had committed another criminal offence and had not returned to prison on the due date .","The applicant was represented by the legal aid lawyer .","The applicant appealed and requested to be taken from prison to the appeal hearing . On DATE ORG refused to allow his request . It was of the view that he had failed to refer to any circumstances that would justify his attendance in person , that the decision was to be taken on the basis of documents in his medical file , and that he was represented by a legal aid lawyer .","On the same date the court dismissed his appeal . It noted that it was not in dispute that he suffered from various ailments which necessitated medical care , but it was possible to provide treatment to him in prison . The court referred to a medical certificate and his laryngological consultations , none of which confirmed that he was in danger of becoming deaf . There was no need for him to be provided with a right ear hearing aid .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was consulted by a laryngologist . The doctor was of the view that his very significant hearing loss made the use of a hearing aid for his right ear pointless . Furthermore , it was possible that the right ear hearing aid would interfere with the left ear hearing aid he had been using . The laryngologist did not recommend that he be provided with a hearing aid for his right ear .","As the ORG opinions dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE were contradictory , another consultation was arranged on CARDINAL DATE at the laryngological ward of ORG in Szczecin . Medication was prescribed as a result of this consultation . The conclusions of the opinion of DATE as to the necessity of the applicant being fitted with a hearing aid for his right ear were confirmed .","On DATE the applicant made another request to have a hearing aid provided by the penal authorities . The following day , after considering this oral request , the authorities decided to wait for the court \u2019s decision as to the applicant \u2019s possible prison leave .","On DATE ORG granted CARDINAL months\u2019 prison leave to the applicant ( ref . no . V Kow CARDINAL pr ) . He submitted , in support of his request , that because of his disability he had found it difficult to communicate with his fellow inmates and the prison guards , which had resulted in people being aggressive and intolerant towards him . He had been insulted and humiliated . Moreover , he could not attend the education classes offered in prison or fully engage in religious practices .","The court noted that the applicant was serving a DATE prison sentence . He suffered progressive hearing loss , atrophy of the hearing nerves , myopia , and hyperglyceridemia . He was afraid of losing his hearing and wanted to be treated . He had used a hearing aid DATE , but his hearing had deteriorated . His hearing loss had caused him to have anxiety attacks and depressive thoughts . A detailed diagnosis of his hearing problems and surgical treatment , if necessary , was not possible within the confines of a prison .","On DATE the applicant was provided with a right ear hearing aid paid for by the detention facility .","On DATE a doctor working for the social insurance authorities declared the applicant partially unfit to work for DATE .","On DATE the penal court granted the applicant further leave for the purposes of his medical treatment .","NORP On DATE he had an ear implant fitted during an operation in a civil hospital in GPE specialising in treating hearing disorders . In DATE the hospital scheduled CARDINAL visits at DATE intervals , with the treatment ending on DATE , with a view to him having a clinical follow - up after each operation . On DATE he attended a follow - up appointment at that hospital .","On DATE he returned to prison to serve the remainder of his sentence . He submitted that the prison administration had not allowed him to attend a follow - up appointment scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant tried to institute criminal proceedings against the prison staff , alleging that they had failed to provide him with appropriate medical care .","On DATE ORG dismissed an interlocutory appeal by the applicant against a decision by ORG on DATE ( ORG . PERSON ) refusing to open an inquiry into his allegations that FAC doctor had put him directly at risk of severe health damage by refusing to authorise his diagnostic hearing tests and by failing to provide him with a hearing aid .","The prosecution authorities had found that the applicant had undergone medical tests in DATE . Since then , he had been under continuous medical care in prison . He was not considered to be at risk of suffering any damage to his health . It was also noted that the ORG was under an obligation to provide prisoners with only basic health care , and not to grant their ( often excessive ) wishes to receive specialist medical services and undergo unnecessary medical procedures .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against a decision taken by ORG on DATE ( ORG . PERSON ) discontinuing an investigation against the staff of ORG who had allegedly put his life at risk by interrupting the medical treatment prescribed to him by the remand centre psychiatrist . It was established that the applicant \u2019s psychiatric treatment had been temporarily interrupted because he had been moved to a smaller remand centre where , for reasons unspecified in the decision , his treatment could not be continued . However , this did not amount to a criminal offence . It was further held that a hearing aid was not absolutely necessary for the applicant . His hearing impairment made his detention more difficult , but it did not render it impossible or too harsh on him .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG ( ORG PERSON ) informed the applicant that complaints he had lodged on DATE and CARDINAL DATE concerning the administration of his medication , adequacy of his medical care and failure to provide him with a hearing aid had been declared illfounded . It was established that ( in the morning ) a prison nurse and ( in the TIME ) a prison guard administered psychotropic drugs to the applicant on prescription . He had received CARDINAL injections , whereas the fourth injection , which he had asked for , was not required . The prison laryngologist had not considered it necessary for him to use a hearing aid . Accordingly , he had been informed that the device would not be financed by the prison health care system .","By a letter dated DATE the governor of PERSON informed the applicant that his complaint regarding the alleged irregularities in the administration of his medication had been considered ill - founded , as he had received it in a manner consistent with his prescription .","After lodging his application with the ORG , on DATE CARDINAL the applicant instituted a civil action against ORG representing PERSON ( ref . no . I C CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Originally , his allegations concerned power cuts in the detention facility , being forced to take sleeping pills at TIME , the supposed presence of asbestos in the prison buildings , limited possibilities of employment , overcrowding and the lack of common space . During a hearing on DATE the applicant stated that he was also claiming compensation for health damage he had sustained as a result of his irreversible hearing loss as well as the overall poor prison conditions .","The applicant \u2019s claim concerned the period CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE an expert opinion prepared by a laryngologist was submitted to the court . The doctor stated that there was no doubt as to the applicant \u2019s very significant hearing loss in his right ear , whereas an evaluation of the hearing loss in his left ear was more difficult and had not led to unequivocal results . The expert had regard to audiograms made on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and to a number of documents in the applicant \u2019s medical records . There were discrepancies between results of different audiograms , as the applicant had over that time been examined by various people and with various apparatus . The applicant \u2019s emotional state could also have had an impact on the results . Some results indicated a deterioration of his hearing , whereas other suggested an improvement from DATE . It was noted that the applicant had been using a hearing aid since DATE .","The expert found that the applicant \u2019s hearing without a hearing aid was \u201c socially efficient \u201d ( wydolne spo\u0142ecznie ) , while with the aid it was good . He found that there were no grounds on which to establish that the applicant \u2019s hearing had deteriorated as a consequence of his detention . He emphasised that usage of a hearing aid had no influence on the possibility of further deterioration as it neither cured nor prevented hearing loss ; it only made the applicant \u2019s social functioning more comfortable .","On DATE the expert was questioned by the court , and upheld his conclusions .","On DATE ORG was provided with an expert opinion by a psychiatrist concerning the applicant \u2019s mental health . It was stated that it was not possible to carry out a full assessment without access to his medical records stored in the hospitals where he had been treated previously or without prior psychological tests . The applicant apparently suffered from various personality problems .","During the hearing on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the psychiatrist was questioned .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s compensation claim , finding that there was no evidence to show that he had been attacked or ill - treated because of his bad hearing ; that the medical reports had certified that he could have some difficulties following conversations held in a noisy room between a number of people ; that his hearing was socially efficient ; that there was no evidence to show that it had deteriorated during and because of his detention ; that a hearing aid could assist him in everyday life but could not be regarded as treatment of his condition ; and that the refusals to provide him with a hearing aid at the public \u2019s expense did not result in the deterioration of his hearing , nor could be seen as humiliating or debasing treatment .","The court had regard to the applicant \u2019s medical records , his correspondence with ORG , certain documents in the applicant \u2019s prison records , the laryngologist \u2019s opinion referred to above , and the testimony given by the prison laryngologist , PERSON , the psychologist , the psychiatrist , the laryngologists and CARDINAL other witnesses .","The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal , fully sharing the findings and conclusions of the first - instance court .","The provisions pertaining to medical care in detention facilities , and the relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) , and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . In particular , LAW ( NORP karny wykonawczy ) ( \u201c the Code \u201d ) provides :","\u201c CARDINAL . A sentenced person shall receive medical care , medication and sanitary items free of charge .","...","Medical care is provided , primarily , by health care establishments for persons serving prison sentences .","Health care establishments outside the prison system shall cooperate with the prison medical services in providing medical care to sentenced persons if necessary , in particular :","CARDINAL ) NORP to provide immediate medical care because of a risk to the life or health of a sentenced person ;","CARDINAL ) NORP to provide specialist medical examinations , treatment or rehabilitation to a sentenced person ;","CARDINAL ) NORP to provide medical services to a sentenced person who has been granted prison leave or a temporary break in ... the sentence ... \u201d","On the basis of LAW , the Minister of ORG issued the LAW of DATE on the detailed rules , scope and procedure relating to the provision of medical services to persons in confinement by health care establishments for persons deprived of liberty ( ORG w sprawie szczeg\u00f3\u0142owych zasad , zakresu i trybu udzielania \u015bwiadcze\u0144 zdrowotnych osobom pozbawionym wolno\u015bci przez zak\u0142ady opieki zdrowotnej dla os\u00f3b pozbawionych wolno\u015bci ) . The LAW was in force from DATE until DATE .","Health care establishments for persons deprived of their liberty provided , inter alia , medical examinations , treatment , preventive medical care , rehabilitation and nursing services ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","A person deprived of his or her liberty was subjected to preliminary and periodical medical examinations and check - ups ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , and had to undergo preliminary medical examinations , such as a review of his or her medical history and a physical examination as soon as he or she was admitted to a detention establishment ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Moreover , no later than fourteen days from the admission date , a person deprived of his or her liberty had to have a chest PERSON and a dental examination .","Prison doctors were authorised to prescribe medical tests other than those mentioned above , if it was justified in the light of the health of the person deprived of his or her liberty ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Those tests , however , were not mandatory and could only be performed with a prisoner \u2019s consent .","The Ordinance of DATE was replaced by a largely similar text , the Ordinance of DATE , on the provision of medical services to persons in confinement by health care establishments for persons deprived of liberty ( ORG z dnia CARDINAL grudnia DATE r. w sprawie udzielania \u015bwiadcze\u0144 zdrowotnych osobom pozbawionym wolno\u015bci przez zak\u0142ady opieki zdrowotnej dla os\u00f3b pozbawionych wolno\u015bci ) , which entered into force on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177666","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u00c1.R. v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . At the time of lodging the application , he was detained at FAC .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of possession of narcotics and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . On appeal , on DATE ORG upheld the judgment .","The applicant began serving his sentence at FAC on DATE and was transferred to ORG on DATE . He was released on parole on DATE .","While the applicant was held at FAC , the per capita space available to him was QUANTITY . m ; the gross ground surface of the cell was QUANTITY . m for CARDINAL occupants but included the in - cell sanitary facility . He was allowed to spend TIME per day in the open air and could take part in various sports and other activities , thus reducing the time spent in the cell . He was provided with basic standard meals and was able to take a shower twice a week .","At FAC , the per capita cell space available to the applicant was QUANTITY . m ; the gross ground surface of the cell was QUANTITY . m for CARDINAL occupants but included the in - cell sanitary facility . CARDINAL and DATE and DATE and DATE he was held in a cell where a wall separated the toilet from the rest of the space . He could take a shower twice a week and pursue certain free - time activities . At his request , he was provided with NORP meals but very often consisting only of soya beans .","The applicant submitted that he suffered from epilepsy and a personality disorder . In his own submissions he stated that prior to his conviction he had cultivated and consumed cannabis partly because it alleviated his symptoms .","As regards the medical care in prison , the ORG submitted that , during the first examination at FAC , the applicant had stated that he suffered from epilepsy without presenting any relevant documentation . The doctor referred him for a psychiatric examination , which took place on DATE ; but the applicant refused the treatment prescribed by the specialist .","During his first medical examination at FAC , the doctor noted that the applicant \u2019s aptitude for work could be assessed only after external medical records concerning his illness had been obtained .","NORP The applicant suffered an epileptic seizure on DATE , whilst in his cell . Following medication , his condition improved but he refused the neurological examination recommended by the doctor and any further treatment . He suffered further fits on CARDINAL May and DATE , following which a neurologist prescribed him anti - epileptic drugs , but he agreed to take them only after suffering yet another seizure ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178351","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KONSTANTIN MOSKALEV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the GPE region .","At the material time the applicant was a police officer with ORG of ORG of GPE .","On DATE a certain PERSON complained to the internal security department of ORG of GPE ( \u201c the internal security department \u201d ) that the applicant had extorted money from him . In particular , the applicant had asked for money in exchange for assisting him , through his contacts in the regional government , in obtaining a licence for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages . PERSON gave the internal security department a recording he had made of his telephone conversation with the applicant earlier the same day . During that conversation the applicant had asked PERSON to bring him money before DATE .","Police officers invited PERSON to take part in an \u201c operative experiment \u201d ( \u201c \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u044d\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0442 \u201d ) , to which he consented . On DATE the head of the internal security department ordered an operative experiment in respect of the applicant with the use of audio and video recording devices .","On DATE , DATE , the head of the internal security department also ordered the interception of the applicant \u2019s telephone communications without judicial authorisation by reference to section ORG ) of the of the Operational - Search Activities Act ( hereafter \u201c the PERSON \u201d ) . The decision read in its entirety as follows :","\u201c [ The internal security department ] has received operative information that [ the applicant ] , a senior police officer with ORG of ORG of GPE , is extorting money in the amount of MONEY from [ P. ] , the director of limited liability company [ the company name ] , for assisting him in obtaining a licence for the retail sale of alcoholic beverages . At the request of the police officer the money must be delivered in the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; the exact time and place for delivering the money is to be agreed in advance by telephone [ telephone number ] given by [ the applicant ] .","[ The applicant \u2019s ] actions contain elements of a criminal offence under LAW [ bribe - taking ] ...","It is necessary to perform the operational - search measure \u2018 interception of telephone ORG with the aims of documenting [ the applicant \u2019s ] criminal activities in a thorough and objective way , collecting evidence and uncovering other participants in criminal offences . \u201d","On DATE the acting head of the internal security department sent a letter to the deputy President of ORG of GPE , informing her that on DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s telephone had been tapped in accordance with the urgent procedure provided for by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG . He then repeated verbatim the decision of DATE ordering the interception of the applicant \u2019s telephone communications .","On DATE , DATE , after the police had intercepted the applicant \u2019s telephone conversation with PERSON in which the CARDINAL men had arranged to meet DATE , PERSON was provided with a video camera , a radio transmitter and the necessary amount of money in banknotes marked with a special substance . The applicant and PERSON met in the applicant \u2019s car , where PERSON left the marked money . Immediately after PERSON had left , the applicant was arrested by the police , his car was searched and the money was seized .","On DATE ORG of the GPE Region opened criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of attempted fraud , an offence under LAW , in connection with the aforementioned incident . The applicant was suspected of attempted fraudulent appropriation of the funds of a private company in the amount of MONEY .","On DATE , in reply to a request from the applicant for an expert examination of the recordings of his telephone conversations and the video recordings of his meeting with Mr P. , the investigator in charge of the case held , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c ... [ the applicant \u2019s ] guilt for the criminal offence under LAW ... is completely proven by the preponderance of evidence collected . \u201d","Identical statements were made by the investigator in his decisions of DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE rejecting various complaints lodged by the applicant .","NORP In reply to the applicant \u2019s complaints that his telephone had been tapped unlawfully without judicial authorisation , the investigator stated , in his decisions of DATE and DATE , that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG permitted the interception of telephone communications without judicial authorisation in urgent cases , provided that a court was notified within DATE hours of its commencement and judicial authorisation was obtained within TIME , failing which it had to be discontinued . Interception of the applicant \u2019s telephone communications had been ordered by the head of the internal security department because at the time there had been sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant was involved in a serious criminal offence punishable under LAW of LAW . ORG had been notified of the interception DATE , and on DATE , that is , before the expiry of the forty - eight - hour time - limit , the interception had been discontinued ; hence , there had been no reason for seeking judicial authorisation . The interception of the applicant \u2019s telephone communications had therefore been lawful .","During the trial the applicant challenged the admissibility of all the items of evidence obtained as a result of the \u201c operative experiment \u201d and the interception of his telephone communications . He argued , in particular , that the police had had insufficient grounds for carrying out the surveillance measures and that they had not obtained a judicial authorisation to intercept his telephone communications .","On DATE ORG declared the audio and video recordings admissible as evidence . It held , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c ... [ the applicant ] argues that the operative experiment and other operational - search measures were unlawful because such measures are permissible only with the aim of suppressing , preventing and investigating criminal offences of medium severity or more serious criminal offences . I suppose that at the time when the police made the decision to carry out the operative experiment and other operational - search measures against [ the applicant ] they had information that he had committed criminal offences classified as serious or especially serious under the law ( abuse of power , bribetaking ) .","In the court \u2019s opinion , for ordering operational - search measures it is sufficient that there be some elements of a criminal offence , rather than the entire corpus delicti , permitting [ the police ] to make a preliminary rather than definitive classification of the offence ...","The court is not convinced by [ the applicant \u2019s ] arguments that the interception of his telephone communications was unlawful because the case file does not contain a judicial decision authorising this operational - search measure . The operational - search measure against [ the applicant ] was carried out in conditions of urgency .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG provides that a judge must be informed within twentyfour TIME of the commencement of operational - search activities in conditions of urgency and that judicial authorisation must be obtained within TIME , failing which the activities must be discontinued .","The court agrees with [ the applicant ] that the case file does not contain a judicial decision authorising operational - search measures . At the same time it notes that a judge was informed about the operational - search measures within TIME and the measures were discontinued within TIME of their commencement , as required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG . No judicial refusal of authorisation was received . It therefore finds that no breaches of legal provisions governing operationalsearch measures were committed in the present case ... \u201d","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged , sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , and stripped him of his rank in the police . The court based its judgment on the statements of numerous witnesses , material evidence , expert opinions , and the audio and video recordings made on DATE and DATE . It found that the recordings were authentic and had been obtained in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law , repeating the reasoning set out in the decision of DATE on the admissibility of evidence .","In his appeal submissions the applicant complained , among other things , that ORG had relied on unlawfully obtained evidence , in particular on recordings of his telephone conversations made without judicial authorisation . He also contested the authenticity of the recordings .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal , adhering to the reasoning of the trial court . It found , in particular , that the audio and video recordings had been correctly declared admissible as evidence and found authentic ."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148225","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF AMIROV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention;Trial within a reasonable time);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and prior to his arrest lived in the town of GPE , GPE . He is currently being detained in a temporary detention facility in GPE - on - Don .","In DATE the applicant , at the material time the deputy Prime Minister of GPE , survived an assassination attempt . However , his spine was badly wounded and he became paralysed . He can not walk and is confined to a wheelchair . He also lost his ability to urinate or defecate without special medical procedures , such as catheters and enemas .","Since DATE the applicant has been mayor of PERSON , GPE .","\u0421riminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of organised aggravated murder and attempted murder of ORG officials , including several prosecutors , investigators , a member of the town council and the head of the investigative committee in GPE . The investigation was assigned to a group of senior investigators and criminologists from the investigative committees of various regions of GPE and led by the deputy head of ORG , a major - general . The applicant was arrested on DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial , citing the gravity of the charges against him and the risk that he might abscond , interfere with the investigation , in particular influence witnesses , and reoffend . ORG decision was based on the applicant \u2019s official powers and his significant contacts with various persons involved in the investigation , as well as his consequent ability to influence the investigation . The court referred to the case - file materials , according to which a number of defendants arrested on suspicion of participating in the murders were also public officials and law - enforcement agents , investigators or police officers . They had identified the applicant as the \u201c master - mind \u201d of the murders , had provided details of the murders and had argued that certain victims had been murdered in retaliation for their failure to obey the applicant \u2019s orders .","At the same time , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments pertaining to his poor state of health , his stable family situation , his age and his standing in the community , having considered that they did not outweigh the reasons warranting his detention . ORG was also not convinced by the description given by the head of the PERSON police department portraying the applicant as \u201c an example of compliance with the law and public order \u201d .","The decision of DATE was upheld on appeal on DATE when ORG found ORG finding reasonable and convincing . ORG also noted that no alternative measure , such as house arrest or a written undertaking , could ensure the proper course of the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , having again linked the gravity and nature of the charges against him , as well as his standing in society , to the likelihood that he would obstruct the course of justice , reoffend or abscond . ORG once again relied on the applicant \u2019s connections to support the conclusion that if released he would tamper with the evidence . At the same time , ORG took into account a medical opinion issued on DATE ( cited in detail below ) , according to which the applicant \u2019s state of health did not preclude his detention in the conditions of an ordinary detention facility . It also noted that there was no evidence that the authorities had delayed the pre - trial investigation . ORG concluded by stressing that the case was particularly complex , involved a large number of defendants and required a series of investigative steps to be taken .","On DATE new charges were brought against the applicant . He was charged with firearms trafficking and attempting to organise a terrorist attack on a public official , his political rival . According to the investigation , the applicant and his accomplices had intended to shoot down , with a portable anti - aircraft rocket launcher , a civilian aircraft in which the public official was to travel from GPE to GPE with other passengers .","On DATE ORG accepted the ORG request to extend the applicant \u2019s detention again until DATE . ORG noted the gravity of the charges , including the new ones , and the fact that the applicant was facing a sentence of up to life imprisonment . It once again cited the risks of the applicant absconding , reoffending and obstructing the course of justice , and expressed concern for the safety of the witnesses and victims . ORG noted that the investigation of certain criminal offences with which the applicant was charged was at an active stage and that the risk of his interfering with the investigation , if he were released , was well - founded . CARDINAL defendants had been arrested and certain suspects were yet to be apprehended . ORG placed particular weight on the complexity of the case and the progress that the investigators were making with it .","ORG also examined in detail the arguments put forward by the defence in favour of the applicant \u2019s release and the application of a more lenient measure of restraint . It concluded that neither his family ties nor his state of health outweighed the reasons for his continued detention . In particular , ORG relied on the medical opinions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , which had found that the applicant \u2019s illness was not among those listed in Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE preventing the detention of a suspect . It further stressed that on a DATE basis CARDINAL medical specialists from municipal and ORG medical facilities ( \u201c generalists , surgeons , neurologists , urologists , endocrinologists , proctologists , an infectious diseases specialist , and a rehabilitation specialist \u201d ) had examined the applicant and that he had received the prescribed drug treatment in full . Moreover , he had undergone all the necessary laboratory testing and clinical examinations in certified civilian laboratories in GPE and on DATE he was to undergo yet another expert examination to determine whether he was suffering from any illness warranting his release . Having cited a long list of the applicant \u2019s illnesses , ORG noted that there was no evidence that his condition had deteriorated or that he required treatment in a specialised medical facility . ORG dismissed as unreliable various expert opinions and medical records prepared by specialists , including foreign ones , in various related fields of medicine and produced by the defence in support of their argument that the applicant \u2019s life was being put at risk by his prolonged detention in the conditions of an ordinary detention facility and in the absence of adequate medical assistance .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . Having again assessed the materials presented to it by the investigation and the defence , ORG concluded that the risks of the applicant influencing witnesses , reoffending , obstructing the investigation by other means and absconding were still present . In particular , the criminal proceedings against the applicant were at a crucial stage of collecting evidence and there was a risk that , using his connections in the criminal underworld , the applicant might try to influence witnesses and victims who feared him . ORG also cited the medical reports of DATE , DATE and DATE , which supported its conclusion that the applicant \u2019s state of health did not preclude his further detention .","It appears that the applicant \u2019s detention was further extended . However , neither party provided the ORG with an update .","On DATE the NORP Military Court found the applicant guilty of conspiring to organise a terrorist attack and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant was stripped of all ORG awards and commendations . It appears that the criminal proceedings on the remaining charges against the applicant are still pending .","Numerous medical certificates and expert opinions submitted by the parties show that the applicant is suffering from a spinal cord injury , paraplegia , chronic urinary tract infection , chronic pyelonephritis ( kidney infection ) , chronic urinary retention , rectal prolapse ( a condition in which the rectum protrudes out of the anus ) , paraproctitis ( an inflammation of the cellular tissues surrounding the rectum ) , ischemic heart disease , chronic heart failure , hypertension , a thyroid gland disease , hepatitis C and non - insulin - dependent diabetes .","At the request of the applicant \u2019s representatives a panel comprising experts in neurology , urology and general medicine examined the applicant \u2019s medical records dating from the period DATE . Their report dated DATE found that , due to his inability to satisfy his most basic needs ( such as moving , urinating or defecating ) without help and to his very serious diseases , the applicant required constant medical supervision , treatment and assistance and that he should therefore be placed in a specialised medical facility . His detention in a temporary detention facility could aggravate his condition and , in the absence of a swift reaction to such an aggravation , could result in his death . The report also found that the applicant was suffering from diseases which , according to ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , were incompatible with detention .","On DATE a panel of CARDINAL doctors from ORG hospital no . CARDINAL in GPE examined the applicant at the investigator \u2019s request . Having studied the applicant \u2019s medical history , the results of his recent clinical blood and urine analyses , as well as the results of his ultrasound scan and FAC examinations , the doctors confirmed the diagnoses and found that the applicant \u201c was not suffering from any of the serious diseases included in the list of serious illnesses precluding detention of a suspect or an accused \u201d . The report did not indicate the field of medicine in which the doctors specialised .","NORP In response to a request by the investigator , on DATE the director of the medical unit of temporary detention facility ( SIZO-CARDINAL ) in GPE , where the applicant was detained , prepared a certificate describing the applicant \u2019s state of health . Citing extracts from the medical records , the director reported that the applicant was examined by him DATE and also by various specialist doctors , including a urologist , a neurologist , a surgeon , a cardiologist and an endocrinologist . Blood and urine tests were regularly performed . He was prescribed and administered various medications . The applicant used disposable catheters to urinate . He performed that procedure himself , as he had done before his arrest , CARDINAL times a day without the facility administration having the possibility of ensuring the requisite level of asepsis . An enema was carried out by a doctor CARDINAL or CARDINAL times a week to make the applicant defecate . The applicant \u2019s condition was stable and no deterioration in his health had been noted , although he had continued to raise various health complaints .","At the same time , the director of the medical unit also noted that , because the applicant was confined to a wheelchair , he could not be transported to the medical unit of the detention facility . He was therefore held in an ordinary cell where he was visited by the doctors and where all the necessary medical procedures were performed . In particular , the neighbouring cell which was used to perform the enemas was not suitable for that medical procedure as it was difficult to ensure the requisite sterility . The director stressed that lack of sterility could result in a serious complication .","The applicant \u2019s lawyers submitted the medical report of CARDINAL DATE for assessment by CARDINAL medical specialists : a deputy president of ORG , academician and honorary doctor of GPE , PERSON ; and a member of the NORP and ORG , academician and highly respected professor - neurosurgeon , Mr S. On DATE the CARDINAL experts issued their review of the report . Having noticed the lack of information on the medical qualifications and specialisation of the CARDINAL doctors who had issued the report , the CARDINAL experts considered that the report contained a number of \u201c significant and important contradictions \u201d . In particular :","- a urologist had not examined the applicant or participated in the preparation of the report of DATE , even though the applicant was suffering from a serious urological disorder ;","- although the CARDINAL doctors had been provided with a complete set of medical records comprising the applicant \u2019s medical history , including those related to his injuries and complications , the report was only based on \u201c fragments of that information \u201d ; major complications arising from the applicant \u2019s condition , such as chronic cystitis and pyelonephritis , remained unassessed ;","- Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE listed , among the serious illnesses precluding the detention of a suspect , \u201c serious progressive forms of atrophic and degenerative illnesses of the nervous system accompanied by a stable disorder of the motor , sensory and vegeto - trophic functions \u201d , which fully corresponded to the applicant \u2019s diagnosis . However , that medical condition had not been taken into account by the CARDINAL doctors who had prepared the report of DATE ;","- the applicant was also suffering from a life - threatening post - traumatic pathology of the kidneys and urinary tracts . However , despite the fact that a similar condition was also listed by the ORG decree among the illnesses precluding detention , the CARDINAL doctors had paid no attention to it .","The CARDINAL experts concluded that the report of DATE was incomplete and was not objective , as it did not fully reflect the \u201c true picture of [ the applicant \u2019s ] pathology , which undoubtedly fell within the serious illnesses precluding detention pending trial , as determined by Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE \u201d .","On DATE the CARDINAL doctors from hospital no . CARDINAL issued another report confirming the findings in their previous report of CARDINAL DATE . The doctors again concluded that the applicant \u2019s condition did not warrant his release as he was not suffering from any illness listed in Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL . The findings of the CARDINAL reports were similar , the only difference being that part of the second report was based on more recent clinical tests and examinations of the applicant .","On DATE the applicant asked the ORG to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG and to authorise his transfer to a specialised medical facility as an interim measure .","The applicant claimed that the medical assistance he was receiving in the temporary detention facility was insufficient in view of his very serious diseases , which required constant medical supervision by specialised medical staff . The facility \u2019s medical staff were not competent to deal with such serious conditions . The treatment he was receiving there did not correspond to the treatment he had received before his arrest . Moreover , he was unable to satisfy his most basic needs without help . In particular , when he wanted to defecate , he had to wait , suffering , until an external specialist was called , as the facility staff were not qualified to carry out an enema . According to the applicant , such inadequate medical assistance could result in a brutal aggravation of his condition and ultimate death .","On DATE the ORG decided to indicate to ORG , under LAW , that it was desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicant be immediately examined by medical experts independent from the prison system with a view to determining : ( CARDINAL ) whether the treatment he was receiving in the detention facility was adequate for his condition ; ( CARDINAL ) whether his current state of health was compatible with detention in the conditions of a detention facility ; and ( CARDINAL ) whether his current condition required his placement in a hospital .","On DATE the Government responded to the ORG \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE , having submitted a handwritten copy of the report prepared when the applicant was examined on admission to the detention facility SIZO-CARDINAL in GPE ; documents showing that the detention facility was licensed to provide medical services to inmates ; certificates issued jointly by the head of the detention facility and the director of its medical unit describing the state of the applicant \u2019s health and listing the medical procedures to which he had been subjected ; extracts from the applicant \u2019s medical history dating back to DATE ; a certificate issued by the same CARDINAL officials informing the ORG that there was no risk to the applicant \u2019s life and limb and that his condition was considered stable ; a handwritten copy of the applicant \u2019s medical record drawn up in the detention facility in which the most recent entry had been made on DATE by a prison doctor ; a record drawn up during the applicant \u2019s stay in hospital no . CARDINAL in GPE from DATE , noting the applicant \u2019s diagnosis and assessing his condition as moderately serious ; a medical record from a psychiatric prison hospital where he had stayed from DATE and where he had been treated for an \u201c adaptation disorder affecting emotions and behaviour \u201d ; copies of the CARDINAL medical reports issued on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , by a medical commission of CARDINAL doctors from hospital no . CARDINAL who , having cited the applicant \u2019s medical history and the results of his examinations by various specialists and clinical tests performed in the hospital in DATE and DATE , concluded that the applicant was \u201c not suffering from an illness included in the list of serious illnesses precluding detention of suspected or accused persons \u201d .","The Government also answered the CARDINAL questions which , in its letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG had asked them to address to independent medical experts . In particular , having provided an answer to the first question related to the adequacy of the applicant \u2019s treatment , the Government stressed that the applicant had been placed under dynamic medical supervision by the medical personnel of the detention facility in relation to illnesses of the musculoskeletal , endocrine , hepatobiliary and urinary systems . They acknowledged that the applicant , as a wheelchair- bound inmate , required systematic care and permanent medical attention , which were being provided to him in a special cell . He was performing the remaining hygiene procedures himself . The Government submitted that the applicant received the necessary medical attention and that no additional medical procedures were required .","In their response to the second question about the compatibility of the applicant \u2019s state of health with the conditions of the detention facility , the Government stressed that the applicant was under the medical supervision of the personnel of the detention facility and was also being seen by various civilian medical specialists . The prison doctors were fully complying with the treatment plan developed by the civilian specialists .","In replying to the third question as to whether the applicant needed to be transferred to a hospital , the Government relied on the CARDINAL reports issued by the CARDINAL doctors from hospital no . CARDINAL on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , according to which the applicant was not suffering from any condition included in the list of serious illnesses precluding the detention of suspected and accused persons in detention facilities , as provided for by in Decree no . CARDINAL of the Government of GPE of DATE .","On DATE the ORG reminded ORG that on DATE an interim measure had been imposed under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , in accordance with which independent medical experts were to examine the applicant and provide their expert opinion on the CARDINAL questions , assessing the quality of the applicant \u2019s treatment , the compatibility of his state of health with the conditions of the detention facility and the need to transfer him to a hospital . The ORG \u2019s attention was also drawn to the fact that the failure of a ORG to comply with a measure indicated under Rule CARDINAL may entail a breach of LAW .","On DATE the Government submitted an LANGUAGE translation of their submissions of CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant submitted a large number of medical reports and opinions issued by various NORP and foreign experts . In particular , he provided the ORG with a copy of an opinion issued by PERSON of ORG in GPE , where he had undergone treatment on a number of occasions since DATE . The doctor who had attended to the applicant on those occasions stressed that he was in need of permanent medical supervision by qualified specialists . The lack of such assistance , in the doctor \u2019s opinion , was life - threatening . He also noted that the conditions of a detention facility were not suitable for a person in the applicant \u2019s state of health .","The applicant also provided the ORG with an assessment report issued on DATE by a deputy president of ORG , academician and honorary doctor of GPE , PERSON , in response to the medical opinion prepared on DATE by the CARDINAL doctors from hospital no . CARDINAL . PERSON again criticised the opinion for the same defects as those identified in the previous report of DATE .","According to another report prepared on DATE by Professor PERSON , a surgeon from ORG in GPE , GPE , the applicant required complex DATE medical examinations and procedures to control his diabetes , hepatitis C and urological problems . The doctor , who had treated the applicant in DATE and DATE , insisted that the lack of such care would be critically dangerous for the applicant \u2019s life .","Another medical expert from GPE , a urologist from a hospital in GPE , in his opinion of CARDINAL DATE , described the complexity of the applicant \u2019s health condition and listed the treatment which he should receive on a DATE basis . He concluded that the applicant \u2019s detention in the absence of such treatment posed a threat to his life .","CARDINAL more specialist reports were issued in DATE : the first , by a professor of urology \/ andrology from GPE , Dr J. ; and the second by a professor of surgery and intensive surgical medicine from ORG , Dr PERSON The reports were based on the applicant \u2019s medical record and answers to their questions prepared by the applicant \u2019s defence team . Having noted the poor sanitary conditions in which the applicant had to undergo necessary procedures and his \u201c reduced immune system \u201d , their prognosis for him was \u201c very bad \u201d , with the likelihood that \u201c over time he would suffer from antibiotic - resistant urinary tract infection that [ could ] cause urosepsis with a very high risk of [ death ] \u201d . PERSON concluded that from the medical evidence before him , the applicant already had a permanent urinary tract infection which would probably soon develop into urosepsis . There was a PERCENT chance of developing septic shock and death in such a case , even in optimal clinical conditions . That chance became far more probable in a prison environment . The risk was even higher than for otherwise healthy paraplegic men given that the applicant was suffering from diabetes . Having listed various medical procedures and recommendations for treatment , PERSON concluded that the applicant \u2019s life \u201c was in acute danger \u201d and that \u201c high - quality medical management of [ the applicant \u2019s ] problems [ was ] mandatory \u201d .","Dr PERSON concluded his analysis of the applicant \u2019s health and the treatment to which he was being subjected with the following assessment :","\u201c In DATE of professional experience as a surgeon , I have never encountered such inhuman , demoralizing and humiliating treatment of [ a disabled person ] bound to a wheelchair . A paraplegic patient has the same life expectancy as a [ non - disabled ] person , provided the measures described above are followed . Based on the documents presented to me , I have no reason to assume that this is the case .","Given the circumstances described here , one may expect the patient to experience severe and agonizing pain . Due to the non - existent medical care , one may anticipate severe complications or his demise . \u201d","On DATE Dr W. amended his expert opinion . Having again listed all the illnesses with which the applicant had been diagnosed by the NORP prison authorities , PERSON stated as follows :","\u201c From the medical view it is absolutely insignificant if one or more of those diseases are not in the list of serious diseases preventing the holding in custody of suspects or accused of the commission of crimes .","On the other hand , it is proved in international medical literature that the combination of all these serious diseases causes an enormous life threatening situation for [ the applicant ] . The patient is really very critically ill . \u201d .","In the meantime , relying on the ORG \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE , on DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyers asked the investigators in the case to provide the applicant with an opportunity to be examined in person by a number of medical experts from various civilian hospitals , including those who had prepared the reports assessing the ORG opinions of CARDINAL July and CARDINAL DATE . The lawyers insisted that the named specialists had agreed to provide their expert opinion in response to the CARDINAL questions put by ORG before ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG .","On DATE the lawyers received a letter from the senior investigator \u201c fully refusing \u201d their request . Having pointed out that the applicant had already been examined twice by doctors from hospital no . CARDINAL , a civilian hospital , and that the doctors had concluded that the applicant was not suffering from an illness included in the list of serious illnesses precluding detention pending trial , the senior investigator dismissed the request .","The lawyers sent a similar request to the director of the applicant \u2019s detention facility . The director responded that he did not \u201c in principle \u201d object to such an examination by medical experts , but that the decision authorising the examination could only be taken by the investigator .","The applicant was again sent for an examination to hospital no . CARDINAL , where the CARDINAL doctors confirmed their previous findings of DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The new report issued on DATE was very similar .","The lawyers also submitted to the ORG a large number of certificates issued by the administration of the detention facility showing that the applicant \u2019s DATE needs in terms of medicines and medical materials , including catheters , were covered by his relatives . The director of the detention facility also confirmed that fact in his letter of DATE .","DATE . On DATE the applicant was transferred to temporary detention facility no . CARDINAL in PERSON - on - Don . A prison doctor attending on the applicant in that facility issued a record listing a number of visits to the applicant by various medical specialists and registering the applicant \u2019s mounting complaints . In the same record she stated that while the applicant remained under permanent medical supervision and was subjected to regular clinical examinations , with his condition , due to those procedures , being satisfactory , any of his illnesses at any time could lead to a significant deterioration in his health and become acute or chronic , with an unpredictable prognosis for his life expectancy ."],"violated_articles":["3","34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181604","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF G\u0130R\u0130\u015eEN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of being a member of ORG , an illegal organisation . During his detention in police custody , the applicant was allegedly subjected to ill - treatment by police officers . In particular , electric shocks were administered to his testicles .","On DATE the applicant was interrogated by the police in the absence of a lawyer . During his interrogation , he confessed in detail to his involvement in the activities of the illegal organisation and gave detailed information about the organisation and its members .","On DATE the applicant gave a statement to the public prosecutor in the absence of a lawyer in which he denied the statements he had given to the police .","On DATE the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at ORG , who questioned him in the absence of a lawyer . The applicant again denied his statements to the police . During his questioning , the applicant alleged to the investigating judge that he had been subjected to ill - treatment while in police custody and that his statements had been taken under duress . However , a medical report issued by ORG dated DATE stated that there was no sign that he had been subjected to violence . At the end of the hearing , the court ordered that the applicant be placed in pre - trial detention .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment , charging the applicant under LAW with attempting to undermine the constitutional order of the ORG .","On DATE ORG held the first hearing on the merits of the case . During the hearing , the applicant repeated his allegations of having been subjected to ill - treatment in police custody and denied his statements to the police .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG public prosecutor \u2019s office against the police officers who had allegedly ill - treated him . He stated that electric shocks had been administered to his body through his testicles and that his testicles had been squeezed , which had caused serious harm . He attached a medical report dated DATE from ORG on the state of his testicles . The report stated that the applicant had a dilation of the veins in his left testicle of up to QUANTITY , which had resulted in a varicocele .","State Security Courts were abolished by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , published in ORG on DATE . The case against the applicant was transferred to ORG .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor issued a decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the police officers on account of a lack of evidence .","During the criminal proceedings against the applicant , the first - instance courts examined the applicant \u2019s continued detention at the end of the hearings , either on their own motion or at the applicant \u2019s request . The courts ordered that he be kept in detention owing to the nature of the offence , the state of the evidence and the contents of the file .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment . The sentence , however , was reduced to DATE of imprisonment as the applicant was a minor at the time of the offence .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision for procedural reasons .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG for his release pending trial . On DATE the court dismissed his application for release on the grounds of the nature of the offence .","On DATE ORG issued a decision of lack of jurisdiction ( g\u00f6revsizlik karar\u0131 ) , pursuant to section CARDINAL of PERSON no . CARDINAL , which provided that juveniles could not be tried before assize courts , which had special jurisdiction to try a number of aggravated crimes enumerated under LAW at the material time . The case was thus referred to ORG .","On DATE the applicant was released pending trial .","On DATE ORG found that , inter alia , on the basis of the applicant \u2019s statements to the police , the applicant had committed the offence under LAW and sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175160","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ALISOY AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix .","The applicants were opposition - oriented activists . At the material time the first applicant was a member of CARDINAL of the opposition parties , ORG of Azerbaijan . He participated in a number of peaceful demonstrations organised by the opposition and on several occasions was arrested and convicted for that .","On DATE an opposition group PERSON held a demonstration , authorised by the relevant authority , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","The demonstration was held in the PERSON stadium , a place proposed by the ORG . It was intended to be peaceful and was conducted in a peaceful manner . The participants were protesting against alleged irregularities and fraud during the presidential elections of CARDINAL DATE .","All CARDINAL applicants participated in that demonstration .","After the end of the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE the applicants were arrested at the entrance to a nearby metro station , Inshaatchilar .","The circumstances of the applicants\u2019 arrests , their custody and subsequent administrative proceedings against them are similar to those in ORG v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , CARDINAL DATE ) and PERSON and Others v. PERSON ( [ Committee ] nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , DATE ) ( see also Appendix ) ."],"violated_articles":["11","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183954","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BELOUSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also submitted a complaint under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146774","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LISEYTSEVA AND MASLOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);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","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in Petrozavodsk , in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , in LOC .","The first applicant was an employee of the municipal unitary enterprise \u201c GPE CARDINAL \u201d ( Auto Transport Column DATE ) in Petrozavodsk , GPE .","\u201c GPE CARDINAL \u201d was set up by a decision of the administration of QUANTITY ( \u201c the town administration \u201d ) . It provided public transport services in the town on a commercial basis . The company had \u201c the right of economic control \u201d ( \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e \u0445\u043e\u0437\u044f\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0432\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f ) over the assets allocated to it by the town administration in order to carry out its statutory activities . Legal provisions on the status of municipal unitary enterprises and the right of economic control are summarised in paragraphs DATE below .","At the request of the company , on DATE the town administration withdrew unspecified assets of an aggregate value in excess of MONEY ( RUB ) from the company \u2019s economic control and immediately allocated them to the same company for temporary use free of charge under a loan agreement .","Under several agreements between the company and the town administration , including CARDINAL dated DATE , the company undertook to provide transport services to certain sections of the population free of charge , and the town administration was to reimburse it for the expenses incurred out of the budget allocated for that purpose by ORG of GPE or the federal budget . According to a letter from ORG of Petrozavodsk dated DATE , at some point the respective budgets accumulated a considerable debt towards the company owing to a shortage of funds . Consequently , the company was unable to pay its employees in due time . The town administration requested the legislative body of GPE to consider the allocation of additional funds to cover the company \u2019s debt in DATE , but to no avail .","On an unspecified date the administration ordered the restructuring of the company in the form of a spin - off and transferred the assets mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above to the newly created municipal unitary enterprise \u201c GPE DATE Plus \u201d . The debt accumulated in respect of the unpaid salaries was not transferred and remained with the applicant \u2019s employer .","On DATE ORG of GPE declared the respondent company insolvent , and a liquidation procedure commenced .","NORP The applicant sued her employer for salary arrears .","On DATE the ORG awarded her RUB MONEY in salary arrears , compensation for non - pecuniary damage and court expenses . The judgment was not appealed against and became final DATE . On DATE the bailiffs\u2019 service received the writ of execution in respect of the award .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed from the company in view of its upcoming liquidation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG granted her new action and ordered the respondent company to pay her RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in salary arrears for a different period of time , severance pay and compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The applicant obtained a writ of execution in respect of the award .","By a final judgment of DATE the same court , in separate proceedings , awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL in compensation for loss of salary , based on the average wage , and compensation for nonenforcement of the above - mentioned CARDINAL judgments as well as nonpecuniary damage . On CARDINAL DATE the writ of execution was forwarded to the bailiffs\u2019 service .","At some point the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of CARDINAL judgments ( DATE and DATE ) and forwarded the writs to the liquidator .","By separate judgments of CARDINAL and DATE and DATE and DATE ORG of GPE ordered ORG and ORG to reimburse the company the cost of the transport services it had provided free of charge under the respective agreements ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and rejected a similar claim against the town administration .","At some point the liquidator received the writ of execution in respect of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","According to the liquidator \u2019s notes on the respective writs of execution , at some point the applicant received RUB CARDINAL of the amount awarded on DATE , RUB CARDINAL of the amount awarded by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and RUB CARDINAL of the award made on DATE . The remainder of the judgment debts has not been paid to the applicant .","On DATE ORG of GPE discontinued the insolvency proceedings and ordered the respondent company \u2019s liquidation . The PERSON claims , which had not been satisfied during the liquidation procedure , including the remainder of the applicant \u2019s claims , were considered as settled . On DATE the liquidation was recorded in ORG , and the company ceased to exist .","In DATE the applicant lodged an action against the town administration , claiming that it was liable to repay her the remaining judgment debt plus compensation for the delayed enforcement of the court orders and non - pecuniary damage . She argued that the insolvency of the debtor company had been caused by the actions of the town administration . First , it had failed to reimburse the expenses the company had incurred for providing transport services , as stipulated by the respective agreements ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Second , the company \u2019s inability to meet the PERSON claims had been caused by the transfer of the assets to a different company carrying out the same functions . As a result , the debtor company had become unable to continue to carry out its activities as defined in its articles of association .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the action . The court established that the federal and NORP authorities owed the applicant \u2019s former employer RUB CARDINAL for services provided at a reduced price . However , with reference to ORG findings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the court concluded that the debt had been accumulated as a result of the federal and republican authorities\u2019 inaction and therefore it could not be attributed to the town administration . As regards the transfer of the assets , the court found as follows :","\u201c The restructuring ( \u00ab \u0440\u0435\u043e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f ORG ) of the municipal unitary enterprise \u2018 PERSON CARDINAL\u2019 in the form of a spin - off and the creation of a separate unitary enterprise , \u2018 PERSON DATE Plus\u2019 , was within the property owner \u2019s rights . [ The applicant ] failed to prove the existence of a causal link between the restructuring ... and the enterprise \u2019s insolvency \u201d .","NORP The court further observed that , in any event , the applicant \u2019s claim was premature , since the insolvency proceedings had been underway at the material time . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal .","Once the debtor enterprise was liquidated , the applicant lodged a similar claim with the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALth ORG of Petrozavodsk . In addition to her earlier submissions ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) she reiterated that the debtor company had reported to the owner and the latter had been fully aware of its financial difficulties . However , no measures had been taken to remedy the situation .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace rejected her claims , largely referring to the findings of the ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She found that even though the liquidation proceedings had been terminated , the applicant had failed to adduce any additional evidence to demonstrate that the owner had caused the company \u2019s insolvency . The Justice of the Peace noted that the company had been a separate legal entity liable for its debts with all its assets , and therefore rejected the applicant \u2019s argument about the town administration \u2019s inaction as irrelevant .","On DATE the ORG endorsed those findings as regards both the failure of the authorities to compensate the cost of the transport services and the restructuring of the company . The court noted , in addition , that the withdrawal of the assets on DATE had taken place pursuant to the company \u2019s own request and that , moreover , those assets had been returned to it for free temporary use , which had permitted it to continue its activities . The court further found the applicant \u2019s arguments about the authorities\u2019 inaction ill - founded and emphasised that the applicant had failed to submit evidence in support of her claims .","The applicant was an employee of the municipal unitary enterprise \u201c ORG of GPE \u201d ( \u201c ORG of ORG \u201d , hereafter \u201c the company \u201d ) in LOC .","The company was set up by decision of the administration of LOC . It had the right of economic control over the assets allocated to it by the district in order to meet its statutory objectives . In accordance with the company \u2019s articles of association , it was a commercial organisation performing the following activities , among others : renovation and maintenance of the municipal housing stock ; heating and water supply ; maintenance of the sewage systems in GPE ; cartage and passenger transport ; funeral services ; maintenance of municipal boiler plants , artesian wells and related infrastructure , as well as heating supply systems ; production of fast - moving consumer goods ; and disposal of dry waste and household waste ,","According to its articles , the assets of the company consisted of the profit generated by its activities , capital investments , and grants from the federal , regional and local budgets and other sources . The company \u2019s financial resources were made up of profits , amortisation charges , loans and other revenues , as well as \u201c grants from the local budget to cover any losses incurred through the provision of housing and communal services \u201d .","The company planned its activities and development itself . It proposed prices and the tariffs for its products and services in accordance with the domestic legislation and submitted them to the district administration for approval . The plans were based on contracts with consumers , including ORG bodies and suppliers , \u201c concluded on a commercial basis \u201d .","The basic salaries of the employees of the housing and communal sector for DATE - CARDINAL were set by LAW for ORG of GPE ( \u041e\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0441\u043b\u0435\u0432\u043e\u0435 \u0442\u0430\u0440\u0438\u0444\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0441\u043e\u0433\u043b\u0430\u0448\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u043f\u043e \u043e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f\u043c \u0436\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0449\u043d\u043e-\u043a\u043e\u043c\u043c\u0443\u043d\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0445\u043e\u0437\u044f\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430 \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 PERSON ) concluded between the employees of the \u201c essential public services sector \u201d represented by the trade union , and the employers , represented by ORG . The agreement applied to the municipal authorities that empowered the parties to make such an agreement , as well as to all entities operating in the housing and communal sector , unless they explicitly refused to apply it . No such refusal was made by the applicant \u2019s employer .","The district administration was responsible for setting the tariffs of the company \u2019s services and was also a major consumer of its services . The tariffs in place until DATE were based on MONEY profitability . According to the submissions of the director of the company which employed the applicant in the subsidiary liability proceedings brought by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , as a result of the application of those tariffs the enterprise had become unprofitable ; the loss in profits amounted to RUB CARDINAL and was not reimbursed by the administration . The administration failed to pay RUB CARDINAL for the company \u2019s services . According to its director , the company was put in a difficult financial situation as a result of the actions of the owner .","On DATE the Head of the ORG district administration ordered the restructuring of the company in the form of a spin - off , creating a new municipal unitary enterprise \u201c MUP \u2018 ORG Seti\u2019 ( ORG ) of the LOC \u201d ( hereafter , \u201c MUP \u2018 MTS\u2019 \u201d ) .","On the spin - off balance sheet approved by the Head of the ORG district administration on DATE , the unpaid salary debt was not transferred to the newly created company .","On DATE the Head of the GPE district administration ordered the withdrawal of coal and all other assets , except for the company \u2019s authorized capital , from the company \u2019s economic control and their allocation to ORG \u201c ORG \u201d . The director of the company which employed the applicant became director of ORG \u201c ORG \u201d .","On DATE the Head of the ORG district administration ordered the applicant \u2019s employer \u2019s liquidation .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG of LOC declared the respondent company insolvent , and the liquidation procedure was set in motion .","The applicant sued his employer for salary arrears , claiming that his salary rate was below that provided for in the respective LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The liquidator accepted the claims . On DATE the Justice of the Peace of ORG of the LOC of LOC awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in salary arrears against his employer .","NORP The judgment was not appealed against and became final .","On DATE the bailiffs\u2019 service initiated the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment . On DATE the bailiffs terminated the enforcement proceedings and forwarded the writs of execution to the liquidator .","At some point before CARDINAL DATE ( date of the liquidator \u2019s report , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the applicant \u2019s claims were included in the second priority line of the register of PERSON claims .","According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant petitioned ORG of Arkhangelsk with a request to order the liquidator to enforce the judgment in his favour .","On DATE the court returned the petition unexamined , referring to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The parties have not submitted a copy of any document produced by the court in that respect , or a copy of the applicant \u2019s petition .","On DATE the liquidator produced a report stating , inter alia , that the assets of the debtor company had not been found and the receivables had not been established , \u201c for lack of financial records \u201d .","On DATE the Commercial Court of Arkhangelsk terminated the insolvency proceedings and ordered the respondent company \u2019s liquidation . The PERSON claims which had not been satisfied during the liquidation procedure due to the debtor \u2019s shortage of funds , including the applicant \u2019s claims , were considered as settled . The court further ordered that the enforcement proceedings in respect of that debt be terminated .","The applicant lodged a court action against various respondents claiming , inter alia , that the town administration was liable to repay him the unpaid judgment debt , as well as compensation for non - pecuniary and pecuniary damage resulting from the non - enforcement . He argued that the insolvency of the debtor company had been caused by the actions of the district administration .","On DATE ORG of LOC heard the parties , including the applicant , the district administration representative and the head of the liquidated company who was , at the time of the events , employed as the director of ORG \u201c ORG \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and granted the applicant \u2019s claims in part . The court reiterated that the debtor company had been set up by the district administration , which , as its owner , had been entitled to decide on its restructuring and liquidation under LAW . The owner could not be held liable for the insolvent company \u2019s debts unless the insolvency had been caused by the owner \u2019s actions . The court established that as a result of the administration \u2019s tariff - setting policy ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the company had been put in a pre - insolvency situation . Furthermore , the court emphasized that the district administration had withdrawn all assets from the company except for its authorized capital , which resulted in the company \u2019s inability to continue its activity in accordance with the goals and objectives assigned to it . With reference to the ORG \u2019s case - law ( PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON and NORP v. GPE , no . DATE ; and PERSON GPE , no . GPE , DATE ) ORG found that the administration had subsidiary liability for the insolvent company \u2019s debts , ordered that the judgment debt be recovered from the district administration at the expense of the district treasury and rejected the remainder of the applicant \u2019s claims . In particular , the court found that the newly created company was not liable for the debts of the applicant \u2019s employer since they had not been transferred to it in the spin - off procedure .","DATE . On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination . The regional court found that it was for the applicant to demonstrate that the insolvency had actually been caused by the owner \u2019s actions . However , he had failed to do so . Turning to the tariff - setting issue ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the regional court noted that under the domestic law the owner was not obliged to finance the company directly . The regional court further considered that the assets had not actually been withdrawn from the company which employed the applicant , but that the company itself had transferred them to the newly created company on the spin - off balance sheet after the restructuring . There was nothing in the case to suggest that the lawfulness of the transfer of the assets had at any point been challenged in court . Furthermore , NORP employment law had not contained any provisions on the subsidiary liability of owners for the debts of municipal unitary enterprises . On the other hand , the first - instance court had failed to examine the issue of ORG \u201c MTS\u201d\u2018s liability for the debts of the restructured company .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claims . The court found that , as a result of the withdrawal of all assets from ORG \u201c FAC \u201d , the latter had become unable to continue its activities , which indeed constituted a reason for its insolvency . However , the court went on to find that","\u201c ... the insolvency occurred through no fault of the owner , since they [ sic ] had been bound by the federal law . Therefore , CARDINAL of the criteria for the application of subsidiary liability , namely , fault on the part of the owner , is missing . \u201d","In so far as the applicant \u2019s claims for compensation for delayed enforcement were concerned , the court noted , in addition , that he had failed to raise that issue before the main debtor , that is , the employer company , and was therefore prevented from making such claims in the subsidiary liability proceedings . Lastly , the claims lodged against the newly created company could not be granted since the debt in respect of the salary arrears had not been transferred to it .","The applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that the liquidator had not been heard by the first - instance court and the documents on the debtor company \u2019s remaining assets had not been available to him .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s findings of CARDINAL DATE on appeal . The regional court rejected the applicant \u2019s argument regarding the unavailability of the company \u2019s documents as irrelevant , having noted that the claimant had to demonstrate that the insolvency had been caused by the owner \u2019s actions and not by the company \u2019s own management \u201c and , in any event , not vice versa \u201d . The court endorsed the remainder of the lower court \u2019s findings ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172665","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SMR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PODESCHI v. SAN MARINO","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a politician .","The applicant was the subject of an investigation related to CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) which were eventually joined , in connection with the crimes of , inter alia , conspiracy and various acts of money laundering .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , relying on DATE and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , the inquiring judge ordered that investigation file no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL be classified because that the existing representation of facts required further investigative steps , including urgent measures which could be prejudiced if the documents were not kept secret .","By a decision of DATE the PERSON della PERSON , in his capacity as inquiring judge , described over CARDINAL pages the circumstances resulting from the investigations and informed the applicant ( along with other suspects ) of the charges against him . The charges were , ( i ) conspiracy ( in connection with crimes related to money laundering ) under LAW ; ( ii ) various instances of money laundering in participation with others ( Articles DATE and CARDINAL bis of LAW ) for the movement of money through ORG For the Promotion of ORG ; and ( iii ) various instances of money laundering in participation with others for the movement of money between B. ( a NORP company ) and C. ( a company based in GPE ) .","It appeared from the investigations that the applicant ( and others ) had illegally acquired large sums of money which they had transferred into certain named accounts , sometimes in cash or by cheque and sometimes through fictitious intermediary companies , in order to hide the money \u2019s criminal origins . The sums were then withdrawn and distributed to other entities , all traceable to the applicant . Furthermore , in order to hide the illicit origins of the money , other sums were transferred , hidden and replaced through other named companies , only to eventually be transferred to the applicant ( and others ) personally . The inquiring judge noted that those instances formed the basis of the second and third charge of money laundering . In particular , the factual circumstances , inter alia , suggested that there existed a criminal organisation made up of politicians , civil servants , entrepreneurs and bankers . The applicant appeared to have had a key role as a politician who had served in various posts and in the inquiring judge \u2019s view he was particularly well placed to accumulate money which he then concealed behind various companies located in GPE and abroad .","According to the inquiring judge ORG for the Promotion of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , which could be traced back to the applicant and was run by a person the applicant trusted , had been created specifically to further the aims of the criminal organisation . MONEY had been deposited but no trace of it could be found in the accounts . Discretion in the exercise of decision - making by political powers , as well as bureaucracy , gave the opportunity to \u201c investors \u201d to pay MONEY in bribes to the ORG in order for it to allow , for example , construction in areas identified by local plans as zones where development was forbidden . The investors knew the money would eventually get to the applicant , who was in a position to influence the approval of such projects , which could only come about by bending the rules . The inquiring judge observed that further investigations were necessary to understand the reasons behind a transfer into the ORG of MONEY by a certain GPE , CARDINAL of which reached the applicant in cash .","The inquiring judge ordered that the applicant be arrested and detained on remand ( misura cautelare personale ) owing to a risk of his reoffending and tampering with evidence . The judge noted the substantial flow of money managed by the applicant , which was not compatible with his income . In view of the various evidentiary elements he concluded that it could be held with reasonable certainty that the financial transfers had been made in connection with the relations the applicant had with the co - accused , as a result of and during the time he had been a ORG representative . The evidence suggested that he had the ability to organise and benefit from adequate support to facilitate a further dispersion of funds , as a result of a mutual covering up with other associates , by means of the direct or indirect acquisition of the management of economic activities and of positions in public office in order to obtain unjust profit and advantage . The seriousness of the applicant \u2019s particular conduct indicated his specific role in the organised criminal group . In addition , the speed with which certain transfers of MONEY had taken place demonstrated the network of mutual assistance from which the applicant and the criminal organisation benefited and continued to benefit within the institutional and economic system in GPE . According to the inquiring judge , the danger presented by the applicant had not diminished simply because he had quit public office . Indeed , in DATE the applicant had sold an apartment , which had already been subject to leasing and payment for which had been made ( accreditati ) from ORG funds , which showed that his contacts with the relevant entities remained in place . Furthermore , the inquiring judge considered that the systematic concealment of funds through fictitious payment descriptions ( causali fittizie ) , the use of frontmen ( prestanome ) and of shell companies ( societa schermo ) rendered the risk of tampering with evidence a real one . According to the inquiring judge , that risk persisted , given the evidence existing both in GPE and abroad , because of the wide support network . That meant that less restrictive measures could not be considered as appropriate when trying to make sure that the applicant ( and his coaccused ) did not commit further acts of money laundering .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was taken to prison and placed in detention .","The applicant was informed on DATE that he would appear for questioning before the inquiring judge on DATE at TIME and that he could meet his legal representatives on the latter date at TIME .","On DATE , after requesting access to the relevant files , the applicant \u2019s legal representatives learnt that file no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was partially classified and thus partially subject to non - disclosure . File no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was entirely classified and could not be disclosed at all . The applicant noted that the index showed that the classified documents in file no . CARDINAL which had been removed included ( i ) the initial notification by ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ; ( ii ) a note by the same agency and explanatory documents ; and ( iii ) pages CARDINAL of Annex A to the ORG \u2019s initial notification .","Following a decision of DATE , the above - mentioned unclassified material in connection with file no . CARDINAL was submitted to the applicant \u2019s representatives on TIME of questioning . According to the applicant the information provided did not give sufficient grounds to substantiate the need for his detention .","On DATE during questioning before the inquiring judge ( interrogatorio di ORG ) the applicant availed himself of his right to remain silent . He complained of not being able to examine the investigative material , the short length of time he had been able to consult with his lawyer and of the delay in appearing before the judge .","On DATE the applicant , inter alia , challenged his detention and complained that the term provided by law ( DATE which can be extended by DATE ) for maintaining the secrecy of the investigation had expired because investigation file no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had been classified on DATE . He asked the court to release him or to , at least , order a less restrictive measure and to declassify the relevant documentation .","On DATE the inquiring judge rejected the applicant \u2019s requests . He considered that the fact that the applicant had not been allowed to consult some of the material related to the investigation before the end of the period of secrecy had not breached his rights . The expiry of the terms of LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see relevant domestic law at paragraph CARDINAL below ) could also not result in the nullity of an order for detention on remand which had been duly justified and reasoned on the basis of the object of the proceedings pending against the applicant . Further , the relevant requirements and reasons justifying keeping him in detention remained , in particular the risk that the illegally acquired assets would be dispersed .","As to the applicant \u2019s inability to access all the relevant material , the judge noted that the decision ordering his detention had contained all the relevant information justifying the lawfulness of and the need for such detention . The need for secrecy served the interests of justice and had to be balanced against the applicant \u2019s interests . However , the applicant had been informed of the reasons for his detention in a way which enabled him to challenge it through the available means . Furthermore , access to further material was possible through other procedures that were available .","On DATE the applicant reiterated his above - mentioned complaints and requests by means of an appeal ( reclamo ) under LAW of LAW . He relied on various Articles of the LAW , and inter alia asked the court to take its decision solely on the basis of the documents which had been made available to him as the accused .","By an interim decision of the Judge of Criminal Appeals ( Giudice delle PERSON ) of DATE , notified to the applicant \u2019s representatives on DATE , the court upheld the applicant \u2019s complaints in part .","It upheld the complaint about the non - disclosure of the documents , the content of which had served to justify his detention on remand given that the time - limit for classification of the file had expired . In connection with both files , in the text of its judgment the court considered that the applicant must be allowed access to such documents with the limited aim of allowing the applicant to be fully aware of the evidence already collected , especially that as a result of which the inquiring magistrate had ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest and detention . The operative part of the judgment did not refer to any limitations . The court set a DATE time - limit from that date for the submission of observations .","As to the applicant \u2019s ancillary complaint of a lack of relevant requirements for his detention , namely a reasonable suspicion against him ( insussistenza dei presupposti e delle condizioni richieste per l\u2019applicazione della misura ) , the court considered that the earlier decision had explained the relevant facts which had shown the applicant \u2019s involvement in the crimes at issue . It also noted that a criminal origin for the sums at issue could be presumed owing to the methods used for their transfer . The latter was sufficient fumus delicti to justify the detention order , which was to be kept in place . It dismissed the remainder of the applicant \u2019s complaints and upheld the findings of the first - instance court .","Following the Judge of Criminal Appeal \u2019s decision , on DATE the inquiring judge ordered the release to the applicant \u2019s legal representatives of certain specified documents and evidence collected in connection with files nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . According to the applicant , on DATE , upon a request made by him to the court registry , he learnt that despite the appeal judge \u2019s order the relevant files had remained classified ( file no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had been partially declassified before the appeal judge \u2019s decision ) . According to the applicant none of the publicly available content in file no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL could in any way demonstrate the crime of conspiracy under LAW , with which he had been charged . The Government submitted that it had been the legal representatives who had failed to find the relevant documents in the case file .","On DATE the applicant submitted observations by the timelimit set by the Judge of ORG in connection with the above claims . In particular , he reiterated his complaints under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW in so far as he had not had full disclosure of the documents and evidence collected despite the court \u2019s order of CARDINAL June DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and argued that there was no reasonable basis to justify his detention on remand .","By a decision of DATE , notified to the applicant \u2019s legal representatives on DATE , the Judge of ORG upheld the order of DATE and dismissed any further claims . He found that no new elements had emerged since the interim decision of CARDINAL DATE . It further noted that the order of DATE had not ordered a total declassification but solely the disclosure of documents related to the continued detention , referring to the words with \u201c the limited aim of \u201d \u201c ancorche PERSON fine \u201d . It considered that such secrecy could be justified for the purpose of the proper administration of justice and the effectiveness of the investigation , and was subject to the inquiring judge \u2019s discretion which the court of appeal did not want to interfere with - without prejudice to a further appeal against such decision before the third instance judge .","On DATE the applicant appealed to the Third Instance Judge in ORG ( Terza Istanza Penale ) ( hereinafter \u201c the third - instance judge \u201d ) , focusing on the inability to access various documents and the lack of a justification for his detention based on a lack of the relevant requirements . He also complained of procedural irregularities .","After a hearing , where oral and written submissions were made by the applicant and the Attorney General , the third - instance judge on DATE dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints . The judge also upheld the lawfulness of the orders of CARDINAL and DATE and the lawfulness of the inquiry and the detention order . The court noted that its competence at third instance concerning detention on remand extended to confirming the existence of reasonable suspicion and other factors making detention necessary . Thus , it was for the judge to examine the stage of the investigation , as well as the correctness of the facts established and the lawfulness of the procedural steps undertaken , and the persistence of the charges against the accused , falling short of making any findings on the criminal responsibility of the accused .","As to the non - disclosure of some of the material , it noted that while under GPE law an accused was granted the right to access and copy all the material in the investigation file and imposed on the judge a duty to inform the accused of the factual and legal circumstances surrounding the charges against him , the same procedural law also limited those rights for the sake of the proper administration of justice , while bearing in mind the procedural safeguards emanating from the right to a fair trial . Even the caselaw of ORG provided for exceptions to the rule of disclosure . In the present case the secrecy imposed on certain of the documents , although not all of them had been necessary in view of a search for the truth and to avoid any risk of tampering with evidence .","It further noted that the applicant had had access to a lawyer before his questioning and that the order of DATE had been detailed and had clearly identified the elements justifying the detention . It could thus not be said that the applicant had not been aware of the reasons for his arrest , the charges , or the nature and content of the evidence adduced . Indeed , more information than that strictly required had been communicated to the applicant and the judicial communication at issue had been exemplary , both in respect of the quantity and the clarity of the information provided .","In relation to the requirements justifying the applicant \u2019s detention , the third - instance judge examined the matter in connection with each of the charges and noted that the appeal court had adequately replied to the applicant \u2019s complaints . Referring extensively to the report of the inquiring judge , the third - instance judge found that it was necessary to keep the applicant in detention .","In the third - instance judge \u2019s view , the factual evidence and relevant legal considerations indicated that the applicant could reasonably be considered as guilty of the charges against him . Furthermore , it was necessary to ensure the effectiveness of further investigations by avoiding any risk of tampering with evidence .","In the meantime , on an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application for the release of hard copies or electronic versions of documents which had been saved on equipment seized from him , or the possibility to make copies of them .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the inquiring judge dismissed that application in part . The court noted that the investigation file had not yet included a detailed list of its contents . In any event such a request could only be accepted if it was specific enough to locate the documents referred to . It ordered that a list of the file \u2019s contents be made and that the applicant have access to documents he could specify in terms of their form , content , date and origin .","On DATE the applicant had also applied for access to information held by the court concerning P.W.S. ( GPE ambassador to GPE ) which he considered relevant to disprove the alleged fictitious nature of the operations linked to PERSON and thus that there had been money laundering in that connection .","By a decision of DATE , the inquiring judge dismissed that application on the grounds that the reasons put forward by the applicant to access the documents were not deemed convincing by the court . According to the inquiring judge such a request could be accepted , at the relevant time , if it was made in connection with specific facts that were subject to debate , that had not yet been established , and which were pertinent to the ongoing investigation .","According to the applicant a further request to examine witnesses remained unheeded .","On DATE the applicant asked the inquiring judge to revoke the detention order or impose a less strict measure .","On DATE the inquiring judge dismissed the application . He considered that the original detention order and its continuation were reasoned in fact and in law . The basis for such a detention order did not need to be any more detailed , particularly given the continued risk of tampering with evidence if the applicant was put on a less strict regime . Contrary to the applicant \u2019s assertions , the existence of this risk remained . The inquiring judge considered that the results of the investigation as well as the behaviour of the applicant , both during the interviews and while in detention , confirmed that view . He noted that the applicant \u2019s co - accused had tried to make contact with other people , namely , a private doctor , on the pretext of being ill , even though state doctors had not found any signs of illness . Furthermore , both of the accused had attempted to involve relatives in interfering with and altering documents . The inquiring judge referred to the applicant \u2019s ability to create ad hoc documents which looked real , with the intention of having them admitted as evidence . He also highlighted the applicant \u2019s participation in the manipulation of the truth and the artificial reconstruction of facts and the dissimulation of the real functions of the accused . According to the inquiring judge , such factors meant that the court could not exclude that there would be attempts to tamper with evidence . Indeed , such tampering would be a repeat of the acts with which the applicant had been charged , which included manipulating the truth and the artificial reconstruction of economic and commercial dealings to hide their real aims .","NORP The applicant appealed . He requested release from detention or at least the application of a less restrictive measure . He further asked the court to annul the decision appealed against , and if not , he asked the court to exhibit the evidence in connection with the facts and circumstances on which the decision of DATE ( to keep him in detention ) had been based .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the Judge of ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal in part .","It ordered that the CARDINAL investigations files be declassified in part , as to allow the applicant to have access to the files and evidence collected in the further investigations on which the inquiring judge had based his decision to dismiss the applicant \u2019s bail application in favour of keeping him on remand . The court ordered the disclosure of the material and set a DATE time - limit from that date for the submission of observations .","It further considered that the first - instance court had been correct in maintaining the detention order on the basis of the behaviour of the coaccused . It was evident that the co - accused \u2019s mistrust of state doctors was a pretext to consult her private doctors , which had been part of a predetermined plan agreed on between the CARDINAL co - accused . That had been shown through recordings of their conversation ( intercepted by a third party ) over walkie - talkies provided to them by a policeman ( PERSON ) to enable them to agree on the same line of defence and to tamper with evidence . Similarly , the first - instance court \u2019s finding on the attempt to involve third parties in tampering with evidence had been based on the fact that the applicant had transferred property into his daughter \u2019s name and the apparent complicity of PERSON ( against whom proceedings had been instituted ) who owed allegiance to the applicant in exchange for favours he had received . Such matters would be better explained once the documents had been declassified , as ordered above . The fact that the applicant had been able to plan the above - mentioned acts while in detention showed that his intention and possibility to tamper with evidence would be greater if he was released .","In consequence , by a decision of the inquiring judge of DATE filed in the relevant registry on DATE , further documents were released .","After viewing them , the applicant considered that the copious documentation that had been made available to him ( accounts of companies traceable to him and a series of bank transfers ) only concerned the charges against him and not the alleged behaviour which had led the inquiring judge to decide to dismiss his application for bail . On DATE the applicant therefore lodged a new appeal , arguing that despite the court \u2019s order he had again not had access to the relevant documentation to challenge his detention as the declassified information did not include any evidence to substantiate the alleged behaviour that had led to his application for release to be denied , namely the alleged falsification of documents , the alleged collusion with family members , the alleged simulation of his coaccused \u2019s illness , and most importantly the alleged walkietalkie conversations . Moreover , despite the relevant time - limits having expired both files remained classified , and the applicant could not have knowledge of the further evidence collected and whether it supported suspicions against him , or the contrary .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Judge of ORG upheld the detention order , considering that evidence had already been presented to support the decision to keep the applicant in detention . Dismissing the applicant \u2019s arguments , the court found that it was therefore not necessary to repeat the earlier factual basis for the order or to give new reasons , as requested by the applicant , because the previous reasons were still valid , as also confirmed at various levels of jurisdiction . Furthermore , in so far as the applicant had claimed that the decision of DATE had been based on elements ( concerning his behaviour ) that had not been found in the file , the court noted that a judge could ex officio take factors into consideration which had occurred after the issuance of the detention order . Indeed , in the present case , to make sure that there were no reasons to warrant a change in the applicant \u2019s pre - trial conditions , the judge had used information which , although having come to his knowledge by other means , was also found in the public domain ( in the press and in publicly available judicial documents concerning the proceedings against PERSON ) . He further noted that the requirements of adversarial proceedings at the pre - trial stage , such as the non - disclosure and publication of documents , were different from those in a trial since pre - trial proceedings required a level of secrecy that enabled further investigations if necessary , including international assistance . While equality of arms had to be respected in connection with the debate concerning the measure imposed , the applicant could not obtain the declassification of documents by reiterating the same arguments . That was all the more so when the detention order had to a large extent been based on the fact that there was a risk of tampering with evidence . The applicant \u2019s request had to be seen in the light of the need to preserve the evidence as well as the proper administration of justice . The necessity to maintain the classification of certain information was all the more important when that information concerned crimes for which charges had not yet been brought . It followed that the applicant \u2019s detention could not be revoked nor could further information be declassified . The court also noted that in DATE LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had been amended to include a suspension of the time - limit in the case of requests for letters rogatory . In the case at hand requests for judicial assistance had been made , thus in view of the applicable suspension the time - limits had not yet expired .","On DATE the applicant asked to be released on the basis that the testimony of a certain P. had been retracted in the proceedings against M. It had been P. who had previously stated that he had seen PERSON give the applicant a walkie - talkie to communicate with his co - accused . He argued that this meant that the evidence of the alleged misbehaviour on which the prolongation of his detention had been based no longer existed .","On DATE the inquiring judge dismissed the application . He held that there had been various grounds for the applicant \u2019s detention , not just the attempts to communicate with others inside and outside the prison . The matters that had been brought to light could not alter the grounds listed and explained in detail in previous decisions .","On DATE the applicant challenged that decision , arguing that if the decision to keep him in detention had been based on testimony given in proceedings against PERSON , then such a decision had to be altered once that testimony had been withdrawn .","By a decision of DATE the Judge of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court noted that the detention order of DATE had stated that the reasons for considering detention necessary had been the fear of the applicant \u2019s reoffending and tampering with evidence , which had been justified by the role played by the applicant in the organisation and by the complex and effective network he could benefit from . The order of CARDINAL DATE , apart from relying on the evidence in the proceedings against PERSON , had been based on other , more significant and relevant reasons . The impugned decision of DATE had stated that the reasons to deny his application \u201c also \u201d included his attempts to communicate with others . The decision of CARDINAL DATE had also stated that the measure had been justified by much more important reasons . Lastly , the decision of DATE had also referred to other grounds for his detention . It followed that none of the decisions in question had been based solely on the supposed collaboration of NORP , the retraction of ORG testimony did not render nugatory the fear of the applicant \u2019s tampering with evidence , based on the fact that there had been various , more relevant considerations given in the previous decisions on the matter , and reiterated in a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( below ) .","By a decision of DATE , by which time further charges of money laundering had been brought against the applicant , the inquiring judge prolonged the applicant \u2019s detention . He noted that the proceedings were based on the results of the investigation by the anti - fraud unit and on the analysis of financial operations by the applicant and other people involved in politics ( directly or through the use of a plurality of individuals and legal persons ) . Added to those factors were other elements collected through investigations of suspicious financial operations , as well as witness testimony resulting from questioning and the large amount of documents that had been seized . The investigation as a whole concentrated on the overlap between political and economic activity and criminal activity . Referring to various evidentiary conclusions the court considered that in relation to the further charges of money laundering against the applicant , the evidentiary scenario was robust and exhaustive . It amply demonstrated that the applicant ( with others ) had participated in the transfer and concealment of funds generated from crimes committed in GPE or elsewhere .","The risk of reoffending could be presumed given the ease with which huge amounts of money had already been transferred , and the strong support network of which both co - accused could benefit . That meant that less severe measures would not prevent the applicant and his co - accused from re - establishing contact with other people who had facilitated the illegal acts . The fear of flight was all the more realistic given the weakening link between the applicant and GPE following the incident in question . It was therefore feared that the applicant would seek refuge in jurisdictions with which GPE had no extradition treaties . It had already been established that CARDINAL of the foreign accomplices ( P.W.S. ) had made use of a diplomatic passport to avoid precautionary measures issued against him .","NORP Moreover , video surveillance images showed that the accused had received favourable treatment while in detention , with the director of the prison providing him with company , support and information , and even arranging meetings between the co - accused . That further went to show the status the accused continued to benefit from , which indicated the impossibility of envisaging more lenient measures .","The seriousness of the elements on which the suspicion against the applicant was based ( quadro indiziario ) , the facts and the means by which the crimes had taken place , as well as the dense network of personal relations , the involvement of family members , professionals , ORG representatives and government personnel who were still in service , led to the conclusion that there was a real risk that evidence , namely documentary evidence , would be tampered with and that pressure would be put on people who had knowledge of the events at issue . Moreover , the accused could still continue to hide the illicit origins of funds through the very complex and ingenious methods already applied .","On DATE the applicant had access to further documentation , concerning particularly letters rogatory , witness statements and interviews .","The applicant appealed against the decision of the inquiring judge of DATE .","By a decision of DATE filed in the relevant registry on CARDINAL DATE the Judge of ORG upheld the first - instance decision . The judge noted that GPE law did not impose a time - limit on the duration of pre - trial detention , and considered that the subsequent charges against the applicant had been brought as a result of further investigations . They had shown further money transfers between clearly identified people ( including the applicant ) , as well as the origin of the funds and were connected to the facts behind the first set of accusations . In so far as the applicant had claimed that there had been no proof of conspiracy or of the illicit origin of the funds , and thus that there had been no substantiation of the charge of money laundering , the court held that the original decision of DATE had highlighted the existence of a general agreement with permanent effects ( constituting the ORG sceleris ) between representatives of the ORG and the business world , as well as the details of its aims and functionalities . It further noted that final judgments confirming that a crime had generated certain funds were not needed to establish money laundering , but that it was enough to have a number of factual elements indicating the supposed crime which generated those funds . In other words the burden of proof to be satisfied was one where the illicit origin of the funds emerged from a logical and coherent interpretation of the evidence . The first - instance decision , based on the transfer of huge amounts of money , through the creation of ad hoc offshore companies and the dispersion of such sums in parcelled and undetectable amounts had therefore been reasonable .","The appeal judge considered that house arrest would not be appropriate given the seriousness of the crimes at issue , the enormous sums laundered , as well as the conduct of the accused during the interrogation and detention period . He noted that the reasons for the applicant \u2019s detention on remand , namely his contacts with other accused persons and the networks he had access to which could facilitate further money laundering and the dispersal of funds , remained relevant .","He dismissed a further application by the applicant for the declassification of the case files on the basis that the only things still classified related to the letters rogatory , which were still ongoing , and other material which was still subject to ongoing investigations .","Following a further request by the applicant , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE the inquiring judge released further documentation in light of the fact that the needs of the investigation had diminished . The secrecy regime was however maintained , in part , in connection with certain documents concerning both proceedings at issue as well as other documents and evidence yet to be collected following this decision .","By a decree of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was issued with an indictment .","On DATE the inquiring judge revoked the decision of DATE to keep him in detention in relation to the charges in the indictment of CARDINAL DATE as the investigation related to those charges had been concluded . However , he was kept in detention based on a decision of DATE in relation to CARDINAL recently added charges that were still under investigation .","On DATE the applicant lodged a challenge to the constitutional legitimacy of the decision of DATE by the Judge of ORG and the decision of the Commissario of DATE in connection with his defence rights at the trial .","By an interlocutory decision of DATE , the third - instance judge suspended the order for the applicant \u2019s detention on remand and ordered that he be put under house arrest until a decision on the merits of the constitutional challenge had been issued . In the judge \u2019s view such a decision was necessary in order to respect the rights of the defence , particularly the principle of equality of arms , which was to prevail during the trial . He ordered the inquiring judge to set bail and other relevant conditions , as well as the penalties in the event of a breach of such conditions .","On DATE the inquiring judge ordered the applicant to be put under house arrest under the following conditions : the applicant could not leave his house , have visits from or communicate with anyone ( including by telephone ) except for family members living in the house , descendants and ascendants ( as well as their spouses or partners ) , siblings and legal counsel . Medical visits were allowed subject to notification . The applicant was ordered not to communicate with his co - accused ( PERSON ) and had to submit his travel documents to the authorities , in line with a travel ban which was being imposed concurrently .","By a judgment of DATE the third - instance judge confirmed the validity of the decisions of DATE filed in the relevant registry on DATE by the Judge of ORG and the decision of the inquiring judge of DATE . It reiterated its previous findings as to the various and detailed evidence which had been presented and concluded that the same applied in respect of the last CARDINAL charges against the applicant , which had been the basis for the impugned decision of DATE . It noted that there existed a huge amount of data , some of which was convincing evidence ( dati probanti ) , some highly indicative ( fortemente indizianti ) , and some merely illustrative yet useful , which together formed an adequate framework of relevant and sufficient evidence on which to base precautionary measures . It followed that the decision to place the applicant in pre - trial detention had at the time been appropriate in view of the material available . It also confirmed its interlocutory decree of DATE that detention should cease and that the applicant be put under house arrest for the purposes of ensuring his defence rights in all the proceedings against him , without prejudice to any decision by the inquiring judge on an eventual release .","By an order of DATE , the inquiring judge revoked the order for the applicant \u2019s house arrest and imposed a travel ban on him , considering that that measure would suffice . It further maintained the classified status of certain acts in the interests of the investigation and the ongoing international judicial assistance .","The applicant was detained from DATE in the GPE prison known as the Carcere dei Cappucini .","According to the applicant , from DATE he was detained under a regime in which he was kept isolated for TIME a day . The applicant alleged that he had not had access to other parts of the prison which would have allowed him to have some form of activity and that he could only shower once a week . Furthermore , for certain periods he had had no access to sanitary facilities and had had to relieve himself in his cell in a container .","DATE . The applicant stated that the conditions at the detention facility were inhumane and referred to the reports of ORG ( \u201c the CPT \u201d ) of DATE on the matter . He noted in particular that the ORG had since DATE reiterated the need to refurbish and upgrade the facility but that virtually no steps had been taken to that effect .","On DATE the applicant filed a complaint about his conditions of detention with the ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145068","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF FERN\u00c1NDEZ MART\u00cdNEZ v. SPAIN","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Alejandro Saiz Arnaiz;Alvina Gyulumyan;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Corneliu B\u00eersan;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Egbert Myjer;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mihai Poalelungi;Paul Lemmens","text":["NORP The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is married and the father of CARDINAL children .","He was ordained as a priest in DATE . In DATE he applied to the FAC for dispensation from the obligation of celibacy . At that time he did not receive any answer . The following year he was married in a civil ceremony . He has had CARDINAL children with his wife , to whom he is still married . The parties have not submitted any details concerning his status as a priest not having received a dispensation .","From DATE onwards , the applicant was employed as a teacher of NORP religion and ethics in a ORG - run secondary school of the region of GPE under a renewable DATE contract . In accordance with the provisions of a DATE Agreement between GPE and ORG , \u201c religious education shall be taught by the persons who , DATE , are appointed by the administrative authority from among those proposed by the Ordinary of the diocese \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL , below ) . In accordance with a Ministerial Order of DATE , \u201c the appointment is to be made DATE and renewed automatically , unless an opinion to the contrary is given by the Ordinary before the start of DATE , or unless the public authority , for serious academic or disciplinary reasons , considers it necessary to annul the appointment , in which case the ORG authority shall be heard ... \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL , below ) . Furthermore , Article VII of the Agreement provides that \u201c at all levels of education , the remuneration of teachers of NORP religion who do not belong to the ORG teaching staff shall be decided jointly by the central administration and ORG , such that it will be applicable from the entry into force of the present agreement \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL , below ) .","NORP In DATE the NORP newspaper ORG printed an article about the Movement for Optional Celibacy of priests ( ORG ) , which read as follows :","A representative of the diocese explained that the protest - oriented nature of the gathering might disturb the peace of the monastery .","PERSON vieja \u2013 murcia","Father PERSON , head of the community of ORG , in GPE , has refused to allow access to the monastery to CARDINAL married priests who wished to celebrate mass and spend the day there with their wives and children . GPE stated that the monastery was a place of private worship and that the priests had not applied for the necessary authorisation . He added that , because of the advanced age of Brother PERSON ( DATE ) , the only monk residing at PERSON , he did not feel it was appropriate to hold a meeting that might disturb the peace of the monastery as a result of the publicity given to the event and the protest - oriented intentions of ORG .","DATE , the diocesan delegate for cultural heritage , GPE , refused to allow the members of ORG ( ORG ) to celebrate mass inside the monastery of PERSON , in GPE . Father PERSON explained that the married priests had not sought permission to use the monastery \u2019s church . In addition , the movement had intended to make the most of DATE to hold an information meeting about ORG of married priests held in GPE DATE on the theme \u2018 Ministries of the third millennium\u2019 .","PERSON also explained that CARDINAL CARDINAL-year - old monk lived in the monastery and that it was not desirable to disturb the peace of this brother with protests that would attract media attention to this place of private worship .","For his part , the regional coordinator of ORG , PERSON , stated that the requisite authorisation had certainly been applied for but the Movement had not received a reply and he did not think that such a permit would be indispensable for the celebration of mass in a hermitage .","The publicity given to the event in the press had dissuaded a large number of the ORG \u2019s members from attending the gathering in PERSON . Others , seeing the monastery \u2019s doors closed , merely waved to their colleagues without getting out of their cars and turned round . Only about ten secularised priests stayed there with their families to explain their situation to the media and those present . Some of their children even held up a banner . They eventually went away to have lunch together , intending to celebrate mass amongst themselves .","PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON \u2013 a former seminary director \u2013 are among the married priests who gathered at GPE DATE to advocate optional celibacy and a democratic rather than a theocratic ORG in which laymen would take part in electing their parish priest and their bishop . The rule of celibacy is ORG - made and not divinely inspired . They also expressed their disagreement about certain economic issues : \u2018 Those of us who paid contributions to the clergy \u2019s mutual insurance fund , which was subsequently incorporated into the social security system , lost all our rights when we became secularised . Moreover , nuns are in an even worse situation than priests because they donate their property to the community and lose ORG , they declared . \u201d","The article also contained a separate part , under a different heading :","On issues such as abortion , birth control , divorce or sex , PERSON and his friends from the ORG said that they were in favour of responsible paternity .","They added that abortion was \u2018 a personal problem which should not be prohibited by law , but [ that ] a social structure is needed to support women facing maternity . To castigate a woman as a sinner if she gets pregnant out of wedlock just encourages abortion\u2019 . The married priests emphasised that birth control was clearly necessary \u2018 and that , consequently , everyone should be free to choose the means that they find most ORG .","\u2018 Sex is a gift from God and not a scourge , and even the PERSON does not believe that it leads to damnation . If that were the case , he would not have put on hold the current CARDINAL requests for GPE , they concluded . \u201d","By a \u201c rescript \u201d of DATE , the PERSON granted the request for dispensation from celibacy that the applicant had submitted DATE , stipulating that the applicant was dispensed from celibacy and lost his clerical \u201c state \u201d . He forfeited the rights related to that \u201c state \u201d , as well as the ecclesiastical honours and functions ( dignitates et officia ecclesiastica in LANGUAGE ) . He no longer had the obligations associated with the clerical \u201c state \u201d . The rescript further noted that the applicant was barred from teaching the NORP religion in public institutions , unless the local bishop decided otherwise , for lower - level schools ( in institutis autem studiorum gradus inferioris ) , \u201c according to his own prudent judgment [ prudenti iudicio ] and provided that there [ was ] no scandal [ remoto scandalo ] \u201d . The applicant was notified of the rescript on DATE .","On DATE the Diocese of Cartagena informed ORG in a written memorandum about the applicant \u2019s termination of service as a teacher in the school where he was working .","The Ministry informed the applicant on DATE that his employment had been terminated with effect from DATE .","In an official memorandum of CARDINAL DATE the LOC observed as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] , a secularised priest , taught classes in NORP religion and ethics ... by virtue of the powers conferred on bishops by the rescripts ...","Those powers ... may be exercised for the teaching of subjects related to NORP religion , provided there is no \u2018 risk of ORG .","When the [ applicant \u2019s ] situation became a matter of public and common knowledge , it was no longer possible for the bishop of the diocese to make use of the powers conferred upon him by the rescript ; accordingly , the document authorising [ the applicant ] to teach NORP religion and ethics was not signed , with effect from DATE . [ The applicant ] \u2019s personal and employment situation has also been taken into account , since [ he ] is entitled to receive unemployment benefit for DATE .","The Diocese of GPE regrets this situation , while pointing out that the decision was taken also out of respect for the sensitivity of many parents who might be upset to learn of the situation of [ the applicant ] , who was teaching NORP religion and ethics in an education centre .","Lastly , the Diocese trusts that NORP people and society in general will understand that the circumstances surrounding these facts can not be assessed solely from an employment or professional standpoint . For ORG , the sacrament of the priesthood is of a nature that surpasses the strictly employment or professional context . \u201d","NORP The director of the secondary - education centre where the applicant had been teaching sent a note to the Bishop of Murcia in which the centre \u2019s board of teachers expressed its support for the applicant and stated that he had given his classes during DATE to the full satisfaction of the teachers , the pupils and their parents , and the centre \u2019s management .","Initially , the applicant lived on unemployment benefit . In DATE he found a job in a museum , where he worked until his retirement in DATE .","Having been unsuccessful in his administrative complaint against the decision of the ORG to terminate his employment , the applicant filed an appeal against that decision with an administrative court . The appeal was dismissed on DATE on the ground that the decision to formalise the termination of the applicant \u2019s employment was \u201c the only course of action open to the administrative authorities \u201d once the Diocese had decided not to propose the applicant for appointment .","The applicant then brought proceedings for unfair dismissal before ORG no . CARDINAL . ORG gave its judgment on DATE .","The tribunal began by examining the facts as established and noted that the applicant had held various posts within ORG , such as director of the seminary of GPE or that of episcopal vicar of the region of PERSON and Yecla . It further observed that the applicant was a member of ORG .","The tribunal then referred to the arguments used by the LOC to justify the non - renewal of the applicant \u2019s contract , namely the fact that he had made public his situation as a \u201c married priest \u201d ( he had not received a dispensation from the FAC until DATE ) and father , together with the need to avoid scandal and to respect the sensitivity of the parents of the school \u2019s pupils , as they might be offended if the applicant continued to teach NORP religion and ethics . In this connection the tribunal took the following view :","\u201c [ I]n the light of the facts thus presented , Mr PERSON was discriminated against because of his marital status and his membership of ORG , his appearance in the press having been the cause of his dismissal . \u201d","The tribunal further pointed out :","\u201c The principle of non - discrimination at work encompasses the prohibition of discrimination on account of belonging to a trade union and union activity , and this applies to membership of any other association . \u201d","Lastly , the tribunal noted that the applicant \u2019s situation as a \u201c married priest \u201d and father had been known to the pupils and their parents and to the directors of the CARDINAL schools where he had worked .","Consequently , the tribunal upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal , declared his dismissal ( as it was described in the judgment ) null and void , ordered LOC to reinstate him to his former position , and ordered the ORG to pay him the outstanding salary . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim in so far as it was directed against the Diocese of GPE .","ORG , ORG for GPE and the Diocese of Cartagena lodged an appeal ( suplicaci\u00f3n ) . In a judgment of DATE , ORG of Justice allowed the appeal , finding as follows :","\u201c ... The teaching [ of NORP religion and ethics ] is associated with the doctrine of the NORP religion ... Accordingly , the bond created [ between the teacher and the bishop ] is based on trust . [ As a result , ] it is not a neutral legal relationship , such as that which exists between citizens in general and public authorities . It falls on the borderline between the purely ecclesiastical dimension and a nascent employment relationship . \u201d","Moreover , the court referred to the bishop \u2019s prerogatives in such matters and took the view that in the present case there had not been a violation of Articles CARDINAL ( prohibition of discrimination ) , CARDINAL ( freedom of thought and religion ) , DATE ( right to respect for private and family life ) or CARDINAL ( freedom of expression ) of the Spanish Constitution , since the applicant had taught religion since DATE , the Bishop of GPE having extended his employment from DATE even though his personal situation had been identical . The court concluded that , when the applicant had decided to reveal that situation publicly , the Bishop of GPE had merely used his prerogative in accordance with LAW Canon PERSON , that is to say , ensuring that the applicant , like any other person in that situation , carried out his duties with discretion and without his personal circumstances causing any scandal . In the court \u2019s view , if such a situation became public knowledge , it was the bishop \u2019s duty to cease proposing the person concerned for a post of that nature , in accordance with the requirements of the rescript granting dispensation from celibacy .","In addition , as regards LAW in particular , the court noted that for the purposes of LAW of LAW , the restrictions imposed on the applicant \u2019s rights had to be considered legitimate and proportionate to the aim pursued , namely the avoidance of scandal .","Furthermore , the court analysed the question of the bond of trust and concluded as follows :","\u201c ... Where such a bond of trust is broken ( and in the present case there are circumstances that reasonably allow such a conclusion to be reached ) , the bishop is no longer obliged to propose the person in question for the post of teacher of NORP religion . \u201d","Lastly , as to the nature of the contract , the court took the view that , since its renewal was subject to DATE approval by the bishop for DATE , it was a temporary contract , which in the present case had simply expired . It was thus not possible to consider that the applicant had been dismissed .","Relying on Articles CARDINAL ( prohibition of discrimination ) , CARDINAL ( right to respect for private and family life ) and CARDINAL ( freedom of expression ) of the LAW , the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG . He alleged in particular that the decision not to renew his contract on the ground that he had made public his membership of ORG and his dissenting opinions on the celibacy of NORP priests constituted an unjustified interference with his private life and was incompatible with his right to freedom of religion .","By a decision of DATE , the chamber to which the case had been allocated declared the amparo appeal admissible and , in accordance with sections CARDINAL of LAW on ORG , notified the decision to the parties and requested a copy of the case file from the courts below .","In its mandatory intervention before ORG , the public prosecutor \u2019s office ( Ministerio Fiscal ) argued in favour of granting the applicant \u2019s amparo appeal . In this connection , it criticised the reasons given by ORG , which had considered the non - renewal of the contract justified in so far as the applicant had acted in a manner that was contrary to the rescript of dispensation when he had agreed to make his family situation public . The public prosecutor \u2019s office noted that the applicant \u2019s public appearance had taken place well before the dispensation from celibacy was granted to him , and therefore before the existence of that rescript . It further pointed out that the applicant \u2019s membership of the movement in question had been known to ORG authorities . It took the view that since the applicant \u2019s conduct which had served as the justification for the non - renewal of his employment \u2013 namely , his attendance at an event organised by the movement \u2013 came within the scope of his freedom of thought , the dismissal amounted to a violation of his right to equality ( Article CARDINAL of the LAW ) , read in conjunction with his right to freedom of thought ( LAW ) .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , served on DATE , ORG dismissed the amparo appeal .","The Constitutional Court first examined the alleged violations of NORP CARDINAL ( right to equality ) and CARDINAL ( right to respect for private and family life ) of the LAW and dismissed those complaints , the first because the decision not to propose the applicant for appointment as a teacher was not based on any intention to discriminate against him on account of his marital status , and the second on the ground that he himself , of his own free will , had made public both his personal and family situation and the fact that he was a member of ORG .","ORG then addressed what it regarded as the main question in the amparo appeal , namely , the alleged violation of Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW . It thus sought to ascertain whether the facts in issue could be justified by the religious freedom of ORG ( LAW ) in conjunction with the ORG \u2019s duty of religious neutrality ( LAW of LAW ) , or whether , by contrast , they constituted a breach of the applicant \u2019s right to freedom of thought and religion ( LAW ) in conjunction with his right to freedom of expression ( LAW ( a ) of LAW ) . For that purpose , the court relied on the criteria laid down in its judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE concerning the constitutionality of the system of selection and recruitment of NORP religion teachers in ORG schools . In this connection it emphasised the special status of teachers of religious education in GPE and took the view that this status justified the fact that the religious beliefs of such teachers would be taken into account in the selection process .","At this point , ORG explained as follows :","\u201c ... the task of ORG in the present case , as in other cases where there is a conflict between fundamental rights of a substantive nature , is to ascertain whether the courts [ below ] weighed up the competing rights at stake in a manner that reflected their constitutional definition ... In doing so , it is not bound by the assessment already made by those courts . In other words , the assessment of this ORG is not confined to an external review of the adequacy and consistency of the reasons given for the decision or decisions ... ; rather , in its capacity as the ultimate guarantor of fundamental rights , it must resolve any conflict that exists between the affected rights and determine whether those rights have indeed been infringed in terms of their individual constitutional content . However , for this purpose it is necessary to apply different criteria from those applied by the courts [ below ] , as the reasons given by the latter are not binding on this ORG nor do they limit its jurisdiction to merely reviewing the grounds of their decisions . ... \u201d","As regards the facts of the case , ORG began by noting that the reason for the non - renewal had been the article in a regional newspaper , which had caused a scandal according to the arguments put forward by GPE in its official memorandum of DATE . That article had made public CARDINAL personal characteristics of the applicant already known to the GPE , namely his family situation as a married priest and father , and the fact that he was a member of a movement that challenged certain precepts of ORG . That publicity had formed the factual basis of what the LOC had referred to in its memorandum as constituting a scandal .","Noting that ORG had effectively reviewed the ORG \u2019s decision , in particular concerning the latter \u2019s inability to propose candidates who did not have the requisite professional qualifications for the post and the obligation to respect fundamental rights and civil liberties , ORG found as follows :","\u201c The extensive passages cited from the judgment appealed against demonstrate that it neither rejects the possibility of judicial review of the ecclesiastical authority \u2019s decision nor does it shy away from weighing up the fundamental rights competing in this particular case with the right to religious freedom ( LAW ) , which it does in an unequivocal manner . \u201d","The Constitutional Court then engaged in its own balancing of the competing fundamental rights :","\u201c Having dealt with the balancing of the rights at stake in the impugned judgment , this ORG must now assess , above and beyond the reasoning of that judgment , the conclusions reached by it after weighing up the conflicting fundamental rights . In doing so the ORG must consider not just the rights contemplated in that judgment , but also the right to freedom of thought and religion , an issue which it submitted , of its own motion , for the consideration of the parties ...","The actions and opinions which resulted in the appellant in the present case not being proposed by the Diocese as a teacher of NORP religion and ethics were his public disclosure , firstly , of his situation as a priest who was married and the father of CARDINAL children and , secondly , of his membership of ORG ( as made clear by the judgments of the courts below and expressly conceded by the amparo appellant himself ) . It is clear that , from the ORG \u2019s ( secular ) perspective , these actions and opinions must be considered in terms of a possible infringement of the right to freedom of thought and religion ( LAW ) in conjunction with the right to freedom of expression ( LAW ( a ) of LAW ) , relied on in the application for amparo relief .","In order to resolve this issue it must be borne in mind that no rights , not even fundamental rights , are absolute or unlimited . In some instances the provision of the LAW recognising a right expressly limits that right ; in other cases , the limitation stems from the need to preserve other constitutional rights or values which warrant protection . In that connection this ORG has repeatedly held that the fundamental rights recognised by the LAW can yield only to the limitations expressly laid down by LAW itself or those which can be indirectly inferred from LAW as being justified in order to preserve other rights or values protected by the law . In any case , the limitations imposed may not impede the exercise of the fundamental right in question to an unreasonable degree ( see ORG judgments no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , legal ground CARDINAL ; no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , legal ground CARDINAL ; no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , legal ground CARDINAL ; no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , legal ground CARDINAL ; no . CARDINAL of DATE , legal ground CARDINAL ; no . CARDINAL of DATE , legal ground CARDINAL ; and no . CARDINAL of DATE , legal ground CARDINAL ) .","In the present case the interference with the appellant \u2019s right to freedom of religion , in its individual dimension , and his right to freedom of thought ( LAW ) taken in conjunction with the right to freedom of expression ( LAW ( a ) of LAW ) , as a result of his not being proposed by the NORP for appointment as a teacher of NORP religion and education for the DATE in the context , therefore , of his claim to continue teaching the creed of a particular religious faith in a public educational establishment \u2013 was neither disproportionate nor unconstitutional , since it was justified by respect for the lawful exercise of ORG fundamental right to religious freedom in its collective or community dimension ( LAW ) , in conjunction with the right of parents to choose their children \u2019s religious education ( LAW ) . The reasons determining the decision not to propose the appellant as a teacher of NORP religion and ethics were of an exclusively religious nature , related to the rules of the faith to which he freely adheres and whose beliefs he sought to teach in a public educational establishment . \u201d","The Constitutional Court referred to its judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , observing as follows :","\u201c As this ORG held in judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , and reiterated in point CARDINAL of the legal grounds of the present judgment , \u2018 it would be quite simply unreasonable , as regards the teaching of religion in schools , if the religious beliefs of those who decide of their own free will to apply for such teaching posts were not taken into account in the selection process , on the basis of guaranteeing the right to religious freedom in its external and collective dimension\u2019 ...","It should certainly be reiterated , as regards the justification and constitutionality of the impact on or modification of the appellant \u2019s fundamental right to freedom of religion and thought ( LAW ) taken in conjunction with the right to freedom of expression ( LAW ( a ) of LAW ) that , as this Court held in the aforementioned judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , \u2018 the relationship between religious - education teachers and ORG is not entirely the same as that found in organisations which pursue ideological aims , as examined on a number of occasions by this ORG , but represents a specific and distinctive category which , while it presents certain similarities , is also different in some ORG . In that connection the ORG stated in the same judgment , referring to one of the factors which distinguished the relationship between religious - education teachers and the ORG from the relationship within an organisation pursuing ideological aims , and allowed ORG rights to be modified in line with the educational ethos of private educational establishments , that the requirement imposed by the ecclesiastical declaration of suitability \u2018 does not merely consist in a duty to refrain from actions contrary to the religious ethos but extends in a more profound manner to a determination of the individual \u2019s capacity to impart NORP doctrine , understood as a set of faith - based religious convictions . Since the object of religious instruction is the transmission not only of specific knowledge but of the religious faith of the person who teaches it , this will in all probability imply a series of requirements that transcend the limits of an organisation pursuing ideological aims , beginning with the implicit requirement that persons who seek to transmit a religious faith must likewise profess that faith\u2019 ... \u201d","Finally , ORG turned to an argument made by the appellant , based on the fact that he advocated changing the rules of the NORP faith itself , and concluded as follows :","\u201c The conclusion reached in the present case as a result of the balancing of the conflicting fundamental rights DATE on the one hand ORG fundamental right to freedom of religion in its collective or community dimension ( LAW ) read in conjunction with the ORG \u2019s duty of religious neutrality ( LAW of LAW ) , and on the other hand the appellant \u2019s fundamental right to freedom of thought and religion ( LAW ) read in conjunction with the right to freedom of expression ( LAW ( a ) of LAW ) \u2013 is in no way altered by the appellant \u2019s claim that through his reforming views on celibacy for NORP priests he sought to defend evolutionary change to rules of the NORP faith which he considered to have become outdated with the passage of time . As pointed out in the ORG law officer \u2019s submissions , the ORG is debarred by its duty of religious neutrality ( LAW of LAW ) from entering into or determining possible disputes within the ORG , in this specific case between proponents and opponents of celibacy for priests . Nor is it for the ORG , in more general terms , to pass judgment on the suitability or compatibility of the actions , opinions and conduct of persons appointed to teach a particular religion vis - \u00e0 - vis the orthodoxy of the religious faith in question . As a ORG body exercising public authority , the ORG must confine itself in the present amparo appeal , in accordance with its duty of neutrality , to finding established the strictly religious nature of the reasons given by the religious authority for its decision not to propose the appellant as a teacher of NORP religion and ethics . It further finds that the appellant \u2019s fundamental rights to freedom of thought and religion and freedom of expression , within the ambit of which his actions , opinions and choices in this regard might in principle fall , were affected and modified only to the extent strictly necessary in order to ensure their compatibility with the freedom of religion of ORG . Accordingly , the present amparo appeal must be dismissed . \u201d","CARDINAL judges appended a dissenting opinion to the majority judgment . They criticised the fact that the balancing of the rights by ORG had been confined to a reference to the religious grounds given in the decision to discontinue the applicant \u2019s employment . In their view , the publicity given to a form of conduct that was already known beforehand could not justify the non - renewal of the contract .","The applicant subsequently submitted an application requesting that ORG judgment be declared null and void , on the ground that CARDINAL of the judges of the ORG which had given the judgment were known for their affinities with ORG , CARDINAL of them being a member of ORG .","In a decision of DATE , ORG rejected the application on the ground that , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW on ORG , the only possible remedy against a judgment of that court was a request for clarification ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166952","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BARTOK AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144783","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"P\u0158\u00cdPLATA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr D. Strupek , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","ORG exercised their right under LAW to intervene in the ORG \u2019s proceedings , and submitted written observations .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is a NORP business man who had invested in GPE after DATE . As he was familiar with the NORP business environment , he was empowered by a NORP company ( \u201c the company NORP \u201d ) to represent it in the process of the privatisation of the company GPE S.A. ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) , which had its headquarters in ORG . The company ZV won the bid , which was managed by ORG ( Fondul Proprietatea ) , and the contract for the transfer of shares was concluded on DATE .","The transfer of control of the company GPE to company NORP was followed by the dismissal of many local employees . The privatization was strongly opposed by the workers\u2019 trade union , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) led by PERSON ( \u201c the ORG leader \u201d ) who challenged the validity of the privatisation contract in court and organised strikes .","In DATE , the applicant recommended to the NORP manager of company NORP the services of a company ( \u201c company P. \u201d ) for guarding and security services , headed by PERSON \u201c the manager of company P. \u201d ) . It was the same company which was providing similar security services to the applicant \u2019s companies in GPE .","NORP The terms of the contract between the CARDINAL companies were discussed on DATE at a hotel . All the NORP managers were present . A press conference was organized on that occasion . The applicant was present at a drinks reception after the press conference there ; however , he denied that he had taken any part in a conversation between Mr Z. ( \u201c the manager of NORP \u201d ) , the manager of company P. , and PERSON ( \u201c the manager of GPE \u201d ) during which it was allegedly decided to eliminate the ORG leader .","The contract on provision of security services was signed by company ORG and GPE on DATE .","On DATE an attempt by the manager of company P. and his employees to take over the security posts in GPE was physically prevented by the ORG . According to the applicant , on DATE the manager of company P. indicated to his employees that the ORG leader should be assaulted to prevent him from organising the workers of the ORG against the takeover of the security posts at GPE .","On DATE staff members of company P. succeeded in taking over GPE \u2019s security posts . However , DATE they were forced out again .","According to the prosecuting authorities , the manager of company P. gave B. , PERSON and PERSON the address of the ORG leader so that he could be attacked .","B. invited his friend PERSON to take part in the assault . On DATE , he allegedly informed the manager of company P that he and ORG had agreed to use a knife during the assault . The manager of company ORG allegedly consented to the use of the knife , stating that the reward they had been promised would be doubled if the ORG leader was killed .","On DATE , at TIME , PERSON and PERSON attacked the ORG leader in the hallway of the building where he was living and caused him fatal injuries . He died shortly after being transported to hospital .","NORP The perpetrators of the killing and the manager of company P. were arrested on DATE . They did not mention any involvement by the applicant in their initial statements . However , on DATE the manager of company P. did mention that the applicant was involved in the attack .","The manager of GPE was also arrested on DATE . On DATE he gave a statement which began by mentioning the applicant \u2019s involvement in the discussions which took place at the hotel on DATE .","Mr. PERSON , a friend of the manager of company P. , was heard as a witness on DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE he alleged that he had been present when a conversation took place between the manager of company P. and the applicant , during which the latter had allegedly told the former that the problems could be solved by the physical elimination of the ORG leader .","On DATE the prosecutor began an investigation in respect of the applicant too , and instructed the police not to allow him to leave the country .","In TIME of DATE the applicant was stopped at the NORP border in GPE , while he was trying to leave the country . He was transported to ORG by police officers . He was questioned on arrival there . He pleaded not guilty and denied any involvement in the killing of the ORG leader .","The applicant was assisted by CARDINAL lawyers of his choice during the investigation stage .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge set up a confrontation between the applicant and the manager of company P.","On DATE the applicant was officially arrested and remanded in custody .","On DATE the applicant was heard in connection with another charge against him concerning fraud in respect of public assets .","On DATE the prosecutor filed with ORG an indictment of the applicant for fraud in respect of public assets , conspiracy to commit an offence , and incitement to aggravated homicide . The killers of the ORG leader and the managers of the companies P. and GPE were also charged .","By a decision of DATE ORG granted the applications of the applicant , the NORP embassy and ORG for the referral of the case from GPE ORG to another court , because of the political pressure in ORG . The file was transferred to ORG .","Initially the applicant was assisted by CARDINAL lawyers of his choice . Starting from DATE he was assisted by CARDINAL lawyer of his choice , GPE","On DATE the ORG appointed a ORG interpreter ( C.E. ) . The applicant requested the appointment of the same authorised interpreter used by the prosecutor during the investigation stage and the hearings before FAC . His request was refused on the ground that the cost would be too great since he resided in ORG .","On DATE the court appointed a new authorised interpreter , G.I. , on the ground that the applicant alleged that he had not understood the interpretation done by DATE . He acted as the applicant \u2019s interpreter at the subsequent hearings before the county court .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeal lodged by the applicant and the manager of GPE against the interlocutory judgment on the extension of their pre - trial detention . It replaced their detention with an obligation not to leave their place of residence , and ordered their release . It also stated that the events as described in the indictment were not completely confirmed by the statements of the defendants and the witnesses heard before the court . The judgment had a dissenting opinion which stated that the extension of the detention was justified , as the grounds for taking the preventive measure had not changed .","After the applicant had been released from detention , workers of GPE gathered in the streets of ORG protesting against the release . On DATE the Prime Minister of the time attended one of these meetings and expressed support for the workers . He called the killing of the ORG leader a \u201c political murder \u201d and promised to ask ORG to explain to the people of ORG why those considered by the citizens of ORG to be guilty of the murder were being prosecuted without being detained .","After DATE , the decision to release the applicant was challenged by ORG , who submitted a complaint of breach of law to ORG . He also ordered that the applicant be rearrested .","By an interlocutory judgment of DATE , the GPE ORG ordered the suspension of the decision of ORG of DATE until the examination of ORG complaint . It also ordered the re - arrest of the applicant and of the manager of GPE and the extension of his detention","On DATE ORG dismissed the extraordinary appeal lodged by ORG , and consequently ORG replaced the detention of the applicant and of the manager of GPE with an obligation not to leave their places of residence . They were released from prison .","On DATE , ORG applied to ORG for referral of the case to another court than the PERSON GPE Court . The request was justified by the wide media coverage of the case and its effect on public opinion . The ORG stated that the request for the referral of the file to another court had been made at the insistence of the NORP embassy . The NORP embassy attended the hearing at ORG and contested that measure . The request of ORG was dismissed .","On DATE the hearing was adjourned until DATE because the applicant \u2019s interpreter and part of the witnesses were absent .","At the hearing of DATE the applicant and his lawyer consented to the hearing of CARDINAL witnesses in the absence of the interpreter . PERSON was present at the following hearings before the Satu Mare County Court . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer complained about the services provided by him during the proceedings before the Satu Mare County Court .","At the hearing of DATE , the applicant requested the hearing of CARDINAL witnesses in his behalf . ORG had granted the applicant \u2019s request for the hearing of CARDINAL witnesses , while it considered that the hearing of the fourth witness was not relevant as he had heard about the facts of the case from the applicant indirectly during their detention in the same cell .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was acquitted of the charge of fraud and found guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime and of incitement to battery with fatal results ( instigare la infrac\u021biunea de lovituri cauzatoare de moarte ) . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The court held that the applicant and the managers of the companies P. and ORG had instructed the attackers only to cause the ORG leader injuries that would stop his activities in GPE for DATE . It also held that the attackers had exceeded their instructions . The applicant \u2019s conviction was based on evidence that comprised the statements of coaccused and witnesses whom he had had the opportunity to cross - examine in the presence of his lawyers .","The applicant , the other defendants and the prosecutor \u2019s office all lodged appeals with ORG .","In the appeal proceedings the applicant was assisted by CARDINAL lawyers of his choice ( CARDINAL of them was the same lawyer who had assisted him before ORG , GPE ) .","At the first hearing before the appellate court the interpretation services were provided by the same interpreter as before the county court , G.I. On DATE the appellate court ordered an adjournment of the hearings because the applicant \u2019s lawyer required the services of another interpreter claiming that the applicant was not satisfied with the services provided by ORG new interpreter , GPE , was appointed for the hearing of DATE .","On DATE the newly appointed interpret was absent . The court appointed another interpreter , ORG from the list of authorized interpreters provided by ORG . The hearing was adjourned for DATE .","On DATE the appelate court adjourned again the hearings at the request of ORG , who informed that she was abroad .","According to the applicant , at the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the court had informed the applicant that the next hearing , scheduled for DATE , would take place in the absence of an interpreter if he did not secure CARDINAL himself . In response to that statement the NORP embassy sent a note to ORG , which subsequently informed the appeal court that the services of an interpreter must be secured by the judicial authorities . The interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE did not contain such a statement . The hearings were adjourned at the request of CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s lawyers .","The appellate court had difficulties in finding an available interpreter . It contacted by telephone most of the CARDINAL interpreters found on the list provided by ORG and none was able to ensure interpretation services at the hearing of DATE . At that hearing the applicant did not accept the interpretation ensured by a person who knew NORP language , invited by ORG to help the applicant . The court adjourned the hearings in order to find an authorized interpreter for the applicant .","At the last hearing before the appeal court , on DATE , the interpretation services were provided by an authorized interpreter , GPE The applicant asked the court to allow more witnesses to be heard on his behalf , submitting a list of CARDINAL names in this respect . The list included the name of CARDINAL NORP managers of GPE , among whom were GPE and the interpreters who had provided the service for the meeting held on DATE . The list also included witness NORP , who had shared a prison cell with the applicant . His request was refused , on the ground that the hearing of these new witnesses did not appear to be necessary at this stage of the proceedings .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG in part . It found the applicant guilty of fraud in respect of public assets , conspiracy to commit a crime , and incitement to aggravated murder . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment , with deprivation of civil rights for a period of DATE . He was also ordered to pay a DATE allowance to the daughter of the victim until she reached DATE , provided that she continued her studies after reaching the age of majority . He was also ordered to pay the costs of the interpretation provided by ORG , which had been paid for by ORG .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision , submitting that LAW ( e ) of the LAW had been violated . In this respect he claimed that most of the written procedural acts had been delivered to him in the NORP language , and that interpreting services at ORG were provided by non - authorised interpreters who were not well understood by him . He also contended that he had been ordered to pay for the interpreting services provided by interpreter PERSON at ORG .","He also complained that his right to defence had been infringed , because his request for further evidence made before the appellate court was dismissed without sufficient reasons .","Another complaint concerned lack of impartiality on the part of the domestic courts , because certain judges who had examined his appeal against the extension of his pre - trial detention had also examined the merits of the case . He referred in particular to Judge PERSON","In the proceedings before ORG the interpretation services were ensured by CARDINAL interpreters . The fees for interpretation were paid by the ORG .","The applicant was assisted before ORG by the same CARDINAL lawyers who had assisted him before the appellate court .","By a decision delivered on DATE ORG and ORG quashed the decision of ORG in part . It acquitted the applicant of the charge of fraud in respect of public assets , maintained the other CARDINAL charges , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment with CARDINAL years\u2019 deprivation of civil rights . It also rescinded the applicant \u2019s obligation to pay the costs of interpretation provided at ORG .","As regards the alleged infringement of the applicant \u2019s right to an interpreter , ORG held that from the examination of all interlocutory judgments it could be noted that no hearing had been held in the absence of an interpreter . Whenever the interpreter was absent the hearing was adjourned , and the court took all necessary steps to ensure the presence of an interpreter for the subsequent hearing .","As regards the applicant \u2019s allegation that he could not understand the translation offered by the court - appointed interpreters because some of them were authorised to provide interpretation in the NORP language and not in the NORP language , ORG noted that according to the statements of ORG , a NORP citizen of NORP origin , the applicant had no difficulty in communicating with her . It also referred to PERSON , who was hired as an interpreter at GPE and also used as an interpreter at the meeting held on DATE . It noted that he was of NORP origin too . ORG further stated that \u201c Whenever the applicant requested the replacement of the interpreters they were changed \u201d . The court also noted that the applicant \u2019s counsel had never complained before any court of difficulty in establishing proper communication with the applicant through the court - appointed interpreters .","As regards the applicant \u2019s complaint about the dismissal by ORG of his request for new evidence , ORG noted that the NORP witness , GPE , had been summoned to be heard in different proceedings in connection with offences related to the applicant \u2019s case , but he had not returned to GPE to be heard . The court also noted that taking into account his involvement in the applicant \u2019s case it could not be expected that GPE would give accurate statements . Moreover , there was enough evidence in the file attesting to the applicant \u2019s involvement in the killing of GPE The other CARDINAL NORP managers indicated by the applicant in his list of witnesses were only involved in economic activities . As regards the statements by the CARDINAL interpreters of NORP origin , PERSON and GPE , who had attended the meeting DATE , ORG noted that both of them had often provided interpretation to the NORP managers in their economic activity and were very much involved in profitable activities with the latter . Furthermore , ORG was not only his business partner but also his life partner . The court concluded that their testimony in connection with the discussions held on DATE could not be considered reliable , as both had provided interpreting services for the conversations held on that occasion . They could not acknowledge that they had thus become aware of the ORG intention to eliminate the leader of the ORG , because they could thereby have been held responsible for not preventing his killing .","For medical reasons the applicant was allowed to start serving his sentence on DATE . However , taking advantage of the lack of vigilance of the border authorities , he escaped from GPE to GPE in DATE .","ORG issued a NORP Arrest Warrant in his respect on DATE . By a decision of DATE GPE Court refused to allow his extradition to GPE .","ORG requested GPE to take over the execution of the prison sentence . ORG submitted , in accordance with the relevant provisions of LAW , a request to GPE for approval of the NORP courts\u2019 decisions .","In the course of the proceedings before ORG there were CARDINAL hearings . The court heard several witnesses , who included one of the applicant \u2019s defence counsel before the NORP courts , CARDINAL employees of the NORP embassy in GPE , and the applicant \u2019s interpreter and partner GPE","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to approve the NORP courts\u2019 decisions , on the ground that the applicant had not benefitted from a fair trial in GPE . The main reason for the refusal was infringement by the NORP court of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( e ) of the LAW , as the applicant had not been provided with the free assistance of an interpreter .","In accordance with LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , in force at the material time , parties who did not speak or did not understand the NORP language , or who could not express themselves in it , were given the opportunity , free of charge , to acquaint themselves with the documents in the file , to speak in court and to submit conclusions , through the services of an interpreter and translator .","LAW CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/JHA on LAW and the surrender procedures between the Member States , transposed into NORP law since DATE , has as main purpose to simplify and expedite procedures for extradition of persons convicted or accused of crimes between the ORG member states ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140014","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ZALOV AND KHAKULOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant lives in the village of FAC in GPE , whilst the second applicant is resident in the village of GPE , GPE .","Early in the morning of CARDINAL DATE law - enforcement agencies in the town of GPE , GPE , were attacked by a number of heavily armed people , who appear to have been local insurgents . The agencies included ORG of ORG , ORG of ORG of ORG , various district departments of ORG , ORG of ORG , various checkpoints of ORG , ORG of ORG , ORG of ORG and the office of ORG of ORG . Also , a few privately owned weapon shops were attacked . According to the Government , there were CARDINAL participants in the attack .","The ensuing fight between the governmental forces and the insurgents lasted until CARDINAL DATE .","The applicants submitted that they were relatives of the persons who participated in the attack and died on CARDINAL and DATE or shortly afterwards .","The first applicant refers to the death of his son PERSON , born on DATE , whilst the second applicant refers to the death of her son PERSON , born on DATE .","The Government stated that the authorities had killed a total of CARDINAL insurgents in the anti - terrorist operations mounted in response to the attack of CARDINAL DATE . In essence , they acknowledged that the deceased referred to by the applicants were among those killed by the authorities .","It appears that on DATE the authorities instituted criminal proceedings no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL in connection with the attack in GPE .","NORP In the course of the investigation it was established that between CARDINAL and DATE a group of individuals , including A. ORG , PERSON . PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG , had formed a terrorist group . It was this group that organised the attack . CARDINAL law - enforcement officers and QUANTITY civilians were killed , whilst CARDINAL law - enforcement officers and CARDINAL civilians were injured . Massive damage was done to property .","The applicants did not have any procedural status in the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL .","It appears that on several occasions the applicants requested various officials , including the prosecutors , to return the bodies of their sons for burial .","The requests either remained unanswered or were refused .","The applicants were furnished with death certificates in respect of their sons , indicating DATE as the date of death in respect of both individuals and DATE ( in respect of PERSON ) and DATE ( PERSON ) as the dates of issue .","On DATE the investigation authority terminated the criminal proceedings in respect of the CARDINAL deceased on account of their deaths , having taken an individual decision in respect of each deceased person . Each decision described the degree and character of their individual involvement and concluded that these persons had taken part in the attack and died in the course of the ensuing gunfight . It appears that the deceased referred to by the applicants were among those concerned by this decision .","The decision of DATE in respect of PERSON stated that his body was located on DATE at CARDINAL Malbakhov Street , GPE . The investigators found a PERSON pistol containing CARDINAL cartridges near the corpse and a PERSON pistol containing CARDINAL cartridges in his trousers . The deceased held an armed hand grenade in his left hand . The subsequent expert report identified the cause of death as a gunshot wound to the chest , which damaged his heart and caused a massive loss of blood and traumatic shock .","In view of the collected evidence , the investigation concluded that at TIME on DATE the deceased , acting in concert with other participants , carried out a pre - planned and armed attack on an arms shop with a view to capturing arms and ammunition . The attack resulted in the deaths of CARDINAL persons and the wounding of CARDINAL more . The deceased personally killed CARDINAL of the victims and ordered the killing of another .","NORP The decision of DATE in respect of PERSON stated that his body was located on DATE in the vicinity of the local LOC of FAC of ORG . The investigators found CARDINAL used bullet cartridges nearby . The subsequent expert report identified the cause of his death as multiple gunshot wounds to the legs , leading to massive loss of blood and traumatic shock .","Based on the collected evidence , the investigation concluded that the deceased , along with CARDINAL other persons , organised and carried out an armed attack on the building of ORG . The deceased took part in the attack for TIME , by shooting at police and passer - bys from an automatic rifle and throwing hand grenades at them . He was later killed when the police returned fire . The attack resulted in the death of CARDINAL civilian , the wounding of CARDINAL more and injuries to QUANTITY police agents .","The Prosecutor General \u2019s Office notified the applicants of the above decisions on DATE , but no copies of the decisions in question were attached to the notifications .","According to the ORG , CARDINAL corpses of the presumed terrorists were cremated on DATE . From the applicants\u2019 submissions , it appears that they first learned of the cremations from the Government \u2019s observations in the present case .","According to the ORG , the cremations took place pursuant to a decision not to return the bodies of the deceased to their families , dated DATE . In contrast to the individual decisions of CARDINAL DATE , the decision of CARDINAL DATE referred to the deceased persons collectively . The decision stated , in particular :","\u201c ... the head of investigation group ... [ official S. ] , having examined the materials in case file no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , established : ... [ that ] in the course of the counter - terrorist special operation aimed at tackling the attack , CARDINAL terrorists were eliminated , namely :","[ the decision names among the deceased the persons referred to by the applicants ]","At present all forensic expert examinations , including molecular genetic examinations , involving ... the corpses of the deceased terrorists , have been finalised and their identities have been established by way of proper procedure .","By decisions of CARDINAL - CARDINAL DATE the criminal proceedings in respect of these CARDINAL persons , who had committed ... the attack on various sites and law - enforcement agents of the town of GPE ... was discontinued on account of their deaths , under LAW part CARDINAL subpart CARDINAL and LAW part CARDINAL subpart CARDINAL of LAW .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG Law no . PERSON ) : \u2018 the interment of persons against whom a criminal investigation in connection with their terrorist activities has been closed because of their death following interception of the said terrorist act shall take place in accordance with the procedure established by ORG of GPE . Their bodies shall not be handed over for burial and the place of their burial shall not be revealed.\u2019","Pursuant to part CARDINAL of Decree no . CARDINAL , \u2018 On interment of persons whose death was caused by the interception of terrorist acts carried out by them\u2019 , approved by ORG of GPE on DATE , \u2018 the interment of [ these ] persons shall take place in the locality where death occurred and shall be carried out by agencies specialising in funeral arrangements , set up by organs of the executive branch of the subjects of GPE or by organs of local government ... \u2019 .","[ In view of the above , official PERSON decided to : ]","bury the bodies of the CARDINAL terrorists ...","forward the decision to the President of GPE for execution ;","inform [ his superiors ] of this decision \u201d .","The Government alleged that the authorities had notified the applicants of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , but acknowledged that no copy of that decision had been provided to them .","It appears that on several occasions ORG informed the applicants , in substance , of the refusal to return the bodies . It does not appear that the applicants were furnished with a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 initial attempts to obtain judicial review of the decisions of DATE and DATE were unsuccessful , as the courts refused to examine their arguments .","The relatives of other deceased participants in the attack contested the legislation governing the interment of terrorists before ORG . Their initial complaints were rejected as premature . Eventually , some complaints were accepted for examination .","On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment ( no . CARDINAL ) in which , in essence , it rejected their complaints alleging that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Interment and Burial Act and Decree no . CARDINAL of the Government of GPE of DATE were unconstitutional . The ruling stated , in particular , that the impugned legal provisions were , in the circumstances , necessary and justified . The court reached the following conclusions regarding the legitimate aims and necessity of the legislation in question :","\u201c ... At the same time , the interest in fighting terrorism , in preventing terrorism in general and specific terms and in providing redress for the effects of terrorist acts , coupled with the risk of mass disorder , clashes between different ethnic groups and aggression by DATE those involved in terrorist activity against the population at large and law - enforcement officials , and lastly the threat to human life and limb , may , in a given historical context , justify the establishment of a particular legal regime , such as that provided for by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , governing the burial of persons who escape prosecution in connection with terrorist activity on account of their death following the interception of a terrorist act ... Those provisions are logically connected to the provisions of paragraph LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG of ORG on combating terrorism through culture , dated DATE , in which it was stressed that extremist interpretations of elements of a particular culture or religion , such as heroic martyrdom , self - sacrifice , apocalypse or holy war , as well as secular ideologies ( nationalist or revolutionary ) could also be used for the justification of terrorist acts .","Action to minimise the informational and psychological impact of the terrorist act on the population , including the weakening of its propaganda effect , is one of the means necessary to protect public security and the morals , health , rights and legal interests of citizens . It therefore pursues exactly those aims for which LAW and international legal instruments permit restrictions on the relevant rights and freedoms .","The burial of those who have taken part in a terrorist act , in close proximity to the graves of the victims of their acts , and the observance of rites of burial and remembrance with the paying of respects , as a symbolic act of worship , serve as a means of propaganda for terrorist ideas and also cause offence to relatives of the victims of the acts in question , creating the preconditions for increasing inter - ethnic and religious tension .","In the conditions which have arisen in GPE as a result of the commission of a series of terrorist acts which produced numerous human victims , resulted in widespread negative social reaction and had a major impact on the collective consciousness , the return of the body to the relatives ... may create a threat to social order and peace and to the rights and legal interests of other persons and their security , including incitement to hatred and incitement to engage in acts of vandalism , violence , mass disorder and clashes which may produce further victims . Meanwhile , the burial places of participants in terrorist acts may become a shrine for certain extremist individuals and be used by them as a means of propaganda for the ideology of terrorism and involvement in terrorist activity .","In such circumstances , the federal legislature may introduce special arrangements governing the burial of individuals whose death occurred as a result of the interception of a terrorist act in which they were taking part . ... \u201d","The ruling further noted that the application of the measures prescribed in the legislation could be regarded as justified if proper procedural safeguards , such as effective judicial review , were in place to protect individuals from arbitrariness . The court noted that ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided for such review .","In sum , ORG upheld the impugned provisions as being in conformity with the LAW but at the same time interpreted them as requiring that the authorities refrain from burying bodies unless a court had confirmed the competent authority \u2019s decision . It reasoned as follows :","\u201c ... The constitutional and legal meaning of the existing norms presupposes the possibility of bringing court proceedings to challenge a decision to discontinue , on account of the deaths of the suspects , a criminal case against or prosecution of participants in a terrorist act . Accordingly , they also presuppose an obligation on the court \u2019s part to examine the substance of the complaint , that is , to verify the lawfulness and well - foundedness of the decision and the conclusions therein as regards the participation of the persons concerned in a terrorist act , and to establish the absence of grounds for rehabilitating [ the suspects ] and discontinuing the criminal case . They thus entail an examination of the lawfulness of the application of the aforementioned restrictive measures . Until the entry into force of the court judgment the deceased \u2019s remains can not be buried ; the relevant ORG bodies and officials must take all necessary measures to ensure that the bodies are disposed of in accordance with custom and tradition , in particular through the burial of the remains in the ground ... or by [ cremation ] , individually , if possible , and to ensure compliance prior thereto with the requirements concerning the identification of the deceased ... and of the time , location and cause of death ... \u201d","Judge PERSON issued a separate opinion in which he agreed that the impugned provisions were in conformity with the LAW but held a different view as to how they should be interpreted . The opinion stated as follows :","\u201c ... if the relevant law - enforcement agencies find , as a result of a preliminary investigation , that a terrorist act has been committed and that a given person was involved , but the criminal proceedings against that person ... are discontinued on account of his or her death following interception of the terrorist act , and if they then conclude that the decision to return the body to the family for burial is capable of threatening public order and peace and the health , morals , rights , lawful interests and safety of others , they are entitled to take a decision refusing to hand over the body and applying special arrangements for burial .","At the same time , in the event of a refusal to return the body of an individual whose death occurred as the result of the interception of a terrorist act committed by him , the authorities competent to take a decision concerning the burial must secure compliance with all the requirements concerning the establishment of the deceased \u2019s identity , the time and place of death , the cause of death , the place of burial and the data necessary for the proper identification of the grave ( a given location and number ) . The burial must take place with the participation of the relatives , in accordance with custom and tradition and with humanitarian respect for the dead . The administrative authorities of a ORG governed by the rule of law must respect the cultural values of a multi - ethnic society , transmitted from generation to generation . ... \u201d","Judge PERSON issued a dissenting opinion in which he described the legislation in question as incompatible with the LAW . In particular , he noted :","\u201c ... The impugned norms banning the return of the deceased \u2019s bodies to their relatives and providing for their anonymous burial are , in our view , absolutely immoral and reflect the most uncivilised , barbaric and base views of previous generations ...","The right of every person to be buried in a dignified manner in accordance with the traditions and customs of his family hardly requires special justification or even to be secured in written form in law . This right is clearly self - evident and stems from human nature as , perhaps , no other natural right . Equally natural and uncontested is the right of every person to conduct the burial of a person who is related and dear to them , to have an opportunity to perform one \u2019s moral duty and display one \u2019s human qualities , to bid farewell , to grieve , mourn and commemorate the deceased , however he may be regarded by society and the state , to have the right to a grave , which in all civilisations represents a sacred value and the symbol of memory . ... \u201d","After ORG judgment of DATE the domestic courts apparently changed their approach and agreed to review the formal lawfulness of the decisions of DATE and DATE . The domestic courts still could not review the need for application of the measures set out in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Interment and Burial Act and Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE in individual cases .","The applicants contested the actions of the authorities before the courts .","In DATE , in order to prepare the cases for examination , the presiding judge made repeated requests to the officials of ORG , including the Head of ORG , seeking copies of the materials relating to the investigation of the deaths of both applicants\u2019 sons . It appears that these requests remained unanswered .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the NORP Town Court of GPE partly granted the claims of the second applicant in respect of his son . In particular , the court quashed both the decision dated DATE to terminate criminal proceedings in respect of the second applicant \u2019s son because of his death and the decision dated DATE not to return the body of the second applicant \u2019s son to his family . The court noted that the decision of DATE had failed to take account of the new law on terrorism , adopted on DATE and DATE , and that therefore the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been premature . The court ordered the prosecution authorities to examine the relevant issues afresh .","A similar judgment was taken on DATE by the ORG of GPE in respect of the first applicant \u2019s son .","The judgments were appealed against by both parties .","ORG upheld the judgments on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","The parties have not submitted any information about the subsequent events in the applicants\u2019 domestic cases .","According to those relatives of the deceased who took part in the identification of the bodies , for DATE following the events of CARDINAL and DATE the corpses were kept in the town morgue and other locations in wholly unsatisfactory conditions . In particular , the bodies gave off an intense smell owing to the lack of proper refrigeration and were chaotically piled on top of each other .","The applicants did not participate in identification of their deceased relatives in person .","The Government submitted that PERSON had been identified by his cousin PERSON . on DATE , whilst PERSON had been identified by his cousin PERSON on DATE .","The Government submitted that the corpses in question had been initially held in the GPE morgue . CARDINAL the applicants examined the corpses and the clothing . Thereafter the bodies were placed in CARDINAL refrigerator wagons . On DATE the wagons were moved to the town of GPE - on - Don for molecular genetic examinations and on DATE all of the bodies were cremated . CARDINAL and DATE the person in charge of the identification proceedings was the head of the investigation group , investigator PERSON From DATE he was replaced by investigator ORG also acknowledged that immediately after the attack no facilities had been available to keep the bodies .","According to the ORG \u2019s most recent submissions , the overall amount of human casualties as a result of the events of CARDINAL DATE was CARDINAL civilians , QUANTITY police and law - enforcement officers and eightyseven participants in the attack .","For a summary of the relevant domestic law , see ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) and PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE .","For a summary of other relevant sources referred to by the applicants , see GPE and Others , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and also PERSON and Others , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152331","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BOCHAN v. UKRAINE (No. 2)","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;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)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Alvina Gyulumyan;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","Since DATE the applicant has claimed , so far unsuccessfully , title to part of a house , owned by PERSON at the material time , and to the land on which it stands . Her claim is based on the following arguments : that the part of the house in question was constructed at her and her late husband \u2019s expense ; that her husband lawfully obtained title to the property , which she subsequently inherited ; that it was not sold to PERSON despite there having initially been an agreement with the applicant \u2019s son to that effect ; and that the sales contract on which PERSON claim to the property was based was forged .","The applicant \u2019s property claim was considered on numerous occasions by the domestic courts . Eventually , following the reassignment of the case by ORG to lower courts with different territorial jurisdiction , the applicant \u2019s claim was dismissed . Relying on the statements of CARDINAL witnesses , CARDINAL of whom was heard in person , and documents submitted by PERSON , the courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction found that Mr M. had bought the foundations of the part of the house in question from the applicant \u2019s son in DATE and had subsequently built it at his own cost . Mr PERSON , accordingly , was the lawful owner of that part of the house and had the right to use the land on which it had been constructed . The final decision , upholding the rulings of the lower courts , was taken by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the ORG , complaining in particular of unfairness in the domestic court proceedings concerning her claim . She also complained about the length of the proceedings and alleged a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with LAW on account of their outcome .","On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment in the case , which became final on DATE . The ORG held that there had been a violation of LAW , having regard to the circumstances in which the applicant \u2019s case had been reassigned by ORG and to the lack of sufficient reasoning in the domestic decisions , these issues being taken together and cumulatively ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The ORG reasoned as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... [ The ] reassignment [ of the applicant \u2019s case ] was ordered by ORG after having expressly disagreed with the findings of the lower courts as to the facts and having stated its position concerning one of the principal aspects of the case ... even before the new assessment of facts and taking of evidence by the lower courts took place ... Considering in addition ORG failure to provide reasons for the reassignment , the ORG is of the opinion that the applicant \u2019s fears that the judges of ORG , including its Deputy President , had a prefixed idea concerning the outcome of the case and that the judges to whom the case had been transferred on DATE would have to consider the case in accordance with ORG view could be held to be objectively justified .","The ORG considers that this overall procedural situation also disturbed the principle of legal certainty ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG CARDINALIX ) . The fact that ORG views on the subject of the applicant \u2019s case differed from those of the lower courts could not be a sole ground for its repeated re - examination . Higher courts\u2019 power of review should be exercised for correction of judicial mistakes , miscarriages of justice , and not to substitute the lower courts\u2019 assessment of facts . \u201d","The ORG further noted that the domestic courts had afforded no reply to the applicant \u2019s submissions concerning the reliability of the ORG statements and the validity of the documentary evidence , which had been decisive for the outcome of the case ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","Relying on the above findings under LAW , the ORG decided that it was not necessary to rule on the applicant \u2019s complaint based on LAW No . CARDINAL , as it raised no distinct issue ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The applicant \u2019s complaints about the length of the proceedings and a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL taken in conjunction with LAW were dismissed as unsubstantiated ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL ) .","The applicant was awarded ORG CARDINAL by way of just satisfaction in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The ORG also noted \u201c that the applicant was entitled under NORP law to request a rehearing of her case in the light of the ORG \u2019s finding that the domestic courts had not complied with LAW in her case \u201d ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and DATE ) .","To date , ORG has not yet concluded the supervision of the execution of the judgment under LAW .","On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG an \u201c appeal in the light of exceptional circumstances \u201d pursuant in particular to Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Relying on the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE , she asked ORG to quash the ORG decisions in her case and to adopt a new judgment allowing her claims in full . She joined to her appeal copies of the ORG \u2019s judgment and of the domestic decisions .","On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG of ORG , having examined the appeal in chambers and relying on LAW set out in paragraph CARDINAL below ) , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The relevant part of ORG decision reads as follows :","\u201c By the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG declared the applicant \u2019s complaints of unfairness in the proceedings and of a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL admissible , and the remainder of the application inadmissible . A violation of LAW ... was found in the case . [ The ORG ] ordered that the respondent ORG was to pay the applicant , within DATE from the date on which the judgment became final according to LAW ( DATE ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage ...","In paragraph CARDINAL of the judgment of ORG , it is noted that the applicant \u2019s submissions mainly concern CARDINAL issues , namely :","( a ) NORP whether the courts , which dealt with [ the applicant \u2019s ] case , were independent and impartial ;","( b ) DATE whether the fact that the case was heard by ORG prevented the applicant from participating in the proceedings ;","( c ) NORP whether the principle of equality of arms was observed with regard to the failure of the domestic courts to hear the witnesses whose written statements the courts admitted as evidence ;","( d ) whether the final decisions given by the courts of first , appeal and cassation instances were sufficiently substantiated .","As can be seen from the case materials , the applicant was represented in the [ domestic ] proceedings by her son , a lawyer ... During the entire duration of the proceedings she failed to appear before the court , although she was duly informed of the hearings .","None of those taking part in the case , including Mr B.I. [ the applicant \u2019s son ] , asked for the witnesses to be summoned ... Mr B.I. failed to submit witness statements ... capable of proving that the house was constructed at his ( or his father \u2019s or his mother \u2019s ) expense .","None of the parties , including Mr B.I. , sought the withdrawal of the [ first - instance ] judge . Complaints of the court \u2019s lack of objectivity ... were only raised by PERSON B.I. after the judgment had been adopted in the case .","As can be seen from the case materials , the validity of the sales contract of DATE , according to which Mr PERSON purchased from Mr B.I. half of the foundations and some of the construction materials , was not challenged ... There is also a document confirming that the left - hand side of the house was constructed at Mr M. \u2019s expense and a document according to which PERSON paid Mr GPE karbovanets [ the former transitional currency of GPE before DATE ] for the foundations of the left - hand side of the house . These circumstances were not refuted by the expert examination in the case .","In its judgment , ORG also noted that the applicant ... had failed to provide evidence that she had suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her property rights , contrary to LAW , on account of the outcome of the civil proceedings . [ The ORG ] concluded that the applicant \u2019s complaints [ under these provisions ] were to be rejected as manifestly ill - founded pursuant to LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention . Therefore , ORG concluded that the [ domestic ] courts\u2019 decisions were lawful and well - founded and decided to award the applicant compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL only for the violation of the \u2018 reasonable - time\u2019 requirement by the NORP courts .","In the light of the foregoing , the courts\u2019 decisions in the case may not be quashed on the grounds mentioned in PERSON application .","Relying on [ Article ] CARDINAL of the [ Code of Civil Procedure of GPE ] , the panel of judges of ORG of ORG of GPE","[ Decided ] :","To refuse to allow the appeal [ of PERSON ] for review in the light of exceptional circumstances of the judgment of DATE of ORG of ORG , the decision of DATE of ORG and the decision of CARDINAL DATE of ORG of GPE . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a new \u201c appeal in the light of exceptional circumstances \u201d with ORG . She argued that the decision of DATE had been based on an incorrect \u201c interpretation \u201d of the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE and requested ORG to reconsider the merits of the case in the light of the ORG \u2019s findings under LAW in that judgment as noted in paragraph CARDINAL above .","On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG of ORG , relying on Article CARDINAL of LAW , declared the appeal inadmissible , as it contained no arguments capable of serving as grounds for reconsideration of the case in the light of exceptional circumstances pursuant to LAW see paragraph CARDINAL below for the text of LAW and for the relevant extracts from LAW ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153923","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KUBIAK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ledi Bianku","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","On an unspecified date before DATE the applicant was convicted of homicide and sentenced to imprisonment . The term of his imprisonment was to end in DATE .","At the relevant time he was detained in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s grandmother died .","On DATE in the morning the applicant received a telegram from his relatives informing him of the death of his grandmother and of the date of her funeral . The funeral was scheduled to take place on DATE at TIME in PERSON , a town located at a distance of QUANTITY from PERSON .","On DATE the applicant made an application for leave from prison to attend his grandmother \u2019s funeral . His application was transmitted by the penitentiary authorities to ORG via fax at CARDINAL p.m. It read , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c I kindly ask ORG to grant me leave to attend the funeral of my grandmother . She was very close to me , she was the person who had raised me . Thank you very much for considering my request . \u201d","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Penitentiary Judge of ORG ( s\u0119dzia penitencjarny ) , refused the applicant \u2019s request . The reasons given for the decision were as follows :","\u201c ... the convicted person \u2019s application for compassionate leave under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW was refused due to the nature of the committed offence , negative opinion about the convicted ( negatywna opinia \u015brodowiskowa ) and the remote date foreseen for the completion of his sentence . \u201d","NORP The decision was notified in writing to the applicant on DATE . The applicant did not appeal against it as the funeral had already taken place and he considered that this would be purposeless ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152382","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KARAAHMED v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9 - Positive obligations;Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion;Manifest religion or belief);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The case concerns an incident which took place on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , in front of ORG in the centre of GPE , in which leaders , members and supporters of the NORP political party ORG clashed with NORP worshippers who had gathered around the mosque for the regular DATE prayer . The case also concerns the ensuing official investigations into that incident .","The Banya Bashi Mosque was built in DATE and is currently the only operating mosque in GPE . It can hold up to QUANTITY worshippers . According to information provided by the Chief Mufti \u2019s Office , there are CARDINAL NORP in GPE ; some of them are NORP nationals , and others immigrants from GPE , LOC and LOC . The mosque is fitted with loudspeakers which were installed soon after the fall of the communist regime in DATE . Those loudspeakers are turned on during the call for prayer , which lasts TIME five times a day , and during the whole of the DATE prayer . They are turned off TIME to comply with the regulations concerning the level of urban noise .","The mosque itself is surrounded by railings approximately QUANTITY high . CARDINAL sides of the mosque face onto a park , behind which is ORG ( \u201c GPE \u0446\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043b\u043d\u0430 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u043d\u0430 \u0431\u0430\u043d\u044f \u201d ) . CARDINAL side faces onto a side street , FAC . The final side faces onto the Princess PERSON . There , the pavement of the boulevard is QUANTITY wide . Owing to a lack of space inside the FAC , worshippers often pray around the building during the DATE prayer , placing their prayer rugs on the boulevard pavement . On the boulevard side of the mosque , there is also a single storey extension , which is not protected by railings , the top of which is CARDINAL high . It is therefore possible to gain access to the mosque compound from the boulevard by climbing onto the roof of the single storey extension .","Ataka is a NORP political party . It was founded in DATE and , since then , in parliamentary elections has gained PERCENT of the popular vote and CARDINAL seats in ORG . The party \u2019s leader , PERSON , has been a Member of ORG for ORG since DATE .","In DATE PERSON and Mr PERSON began a campaign against the noise emanating from the loudspeakers installed on FAC . DATE , they gathered CARDINAL signatures for a petition , presented to ORG on DATE , which called for the removal of the loudspeakers . On TIME DATE PERSON organised a rally against the \u201c howling \u201d emanating from the loudspeakers during the call to prayer .","NORP In DATE ORG \u2019s mayoral candidate for PERSON , Mr PERSON , declared that , if elected , he would ban the calls for prayer broadcast from those loudspeakers because he believed that they disturbed persons who had other religious beliefs .","On DATE , DATE , supporters of ORG mounted loudspeakers on a car and circled close to mosque , playing recordings of church bells and NORP chants during the regular DATE prayer that was taking place at the time . This was repeated during DATE that preceded the incident of CARDINAL DATE . In the words of CARDINAL of ORG \u2019s Members of ORG , this was done to counter the \u201c noise terror \u201d emanating from the mosque .","At TIME on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , worshippers began to gather in and around the mosque for the regular DATE prayer . The applicant was CARDINAL of them . He , along with CARDINAL other worshippers , remained outside the mosque , either in the surrounding park or on the pavement on Princess PERSON . Prayer rugs were spread out on the pavement boulevard , in keeping with the worshippers\u2019 normal practice .","At the same time , CARDINAL members and supporters of ORG gathered in front of the mosque on the boulevard to protest against what they called the \u201c howling \u201d emanating from the loudspeakers installed on the mosque . The group included Mr PERSON , Mr D. Chukolov , the party \u2019s deputy leader , PERSON , a Member of ORG for the party , and Mr PERSON , a Member of ORG for the party .","According to information provided by the Government in the course of proceeding before the ORG , on DATE PERSON had notified the municipality that , pursuant to LAW see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it intended to hold an assembly in the park behind the mosque ( i.e. between the mosque and FAC ) . This was scheduled for TIME on CARDINAL May with CARDINAL participants . This notification was received by the municipality at CARDINAL a.m. on CARDINAL DATE .","The Government also provided copies of CARDINAL letters which they had received from various authorities in the course of the proceedings .","The first , from the municipality , stated that ORG was notified of the planned demonstration on DATE at TIME","The second , from ORG , stated that ORG only learned of the demonstration at TIME on DATE when they received information that supporters of ORG had started to gather in the park beside the mosque . Until that moment , ORG had received no information about the demonstration . At this point , specialist police officers were dispatched to scene . A request for cooperation from the municipality was then received by the directorate by fax at TIME","The third , from ORG ( \u201c PERSON \u043f\u043e \u0432\u0435\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u043f\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0434\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f\u0442\u0430 \u201d ) , a governmental agency attached to ORG , stated that , TIME on DATE , they were informed by the Deputy Chief PERSON that the NORP demonstration was going to be held in proximity to the mosque and that they immediately contacted ORG , after which the specialist police officers were dispatched to the mosque . They also contacted the municipality , which confirmed that permission had been given for the assembly to take place in the park between the mosque and ORG .","Video recordings of the event made by the media and broadcast on NORP television have been provided to the ORG by the parties . On the basis of those recordings , the following events can be established .","The demonstrators congregated , not on the LOC side of the mosque , but on Princess PERSON in front of the mosque , where the worshippers had already began to gather for DATE prayers . Most of the demonstrators were wearing black t - shirts featuring the inscriptions \u201c PERSON , you owe us MONEY \u201d and \u201c ORG says : No to GPE in the ORG \u201d . Many carried large NORP flags and NORP flags , which were green and featured the inscriptions \u201c NORP \u201d and \u201c Let \u2019s get GPE back \u201d . In the course of the demonstration , the participants played NORP patriotic songs from loudspeakers mounted on cars .","The recordings also show the demonstrators shouting invective at the worshippers , calling them \u201c NORP stooges \u201d , \u201c filthy terrorists \u201d , \u201c scum \u201d , \u201c janissaries \u201d , \u201c cut - offs \u201d and \u201c NORP \u201d . They also depict the protestors shouting \u201c Off to GPE ! \u201d , \u201c Do not soil our land ! \u201d , and \u201c Your feet stink ! That is why you wash them ! \u201d One of the participants in the rally can be seen slowly cutting a NORP fez with a pocket knife , saying \u201c Can you hear me ? We shall now show you what will happen to each one of you ! \u201d","While this was happening , the mosque \u2019s imam , using the loudspeaker system , repeatedly appealed to the worshippers not to respond to the ORG provocation .","When the DATE prayer started , CARDINAL demonstrator climbed onto the roof of the single storey extension and played CARDINAL loudspeakers on the roof in order to suppress the sound of the prayer . CARDINAL or CARDINAL worshippers then interrupted their prayers , climbed onto the roof and tried to move the loudspeakers .","NORP In response , several more demonstrators entered the mosque compound by climbing onto the roof of the single storey extension . A scuffle ensued , in which members and supporters of ORG , some of whom were carrying wooden flagpoles and metal pipes , moved against the worshippers and started hitting them . Some of the worshippers hit back in response . Some can be seen holding and waving plastic tubing which appears to have been torn from the side of the mosque . TIME police officers also climbed onto the roof of the single storey extension to separate the fighting parties ; CARDINAL people were then arrested . While this was happening CARDINAL other police officers can be seen attempting to keep the demonstrators in the park beside the mosque and back from the side of the single storey extension : at this point , there were CARDINAL demonstrators in the park . Some of them can be seen throwing eggs at the worshippers .","Another few police officers can be seen attempting to maintain a human cordon between the remaining demonstrators ( another CARDINAL ) who were standing on the boulevard QUANTITY back from the area where the worshippers\u2019 prayer mats are spread out , though several members of ORG , including its leaders , can be seen standing in that latter area , just in front of the mosque railings .","The demonstrators then continued to pelt the worshippers with eggs and stones and insult them . CARDINAL of the demonstrators can be seen on the video recording wielding rolled up banner and shouting \u201c We have been putting up with you for DATE . Where else would permit this [ praying outside a mosque ] ? To whom are you praying ? \u201d","The parties accept that CARDINAL police officers , CARDINAL worshippers and Ms PERSON , who was hit on the chin by a flying stone , were injured in the course of the incident . It is not possible from the video recordings to determine who was responsible for her injury . CARDINAL of the NORP worshippers had to be hospitalised because he had concussion . CARDINAL police vehicles also sustained damage .","NORP In apparent response to the police arresting CARDINAL demonstrators on the roof of the single storey extension , Mr Siderov , surrounded by members of ORG and journalists , then spoke into a microphone and addressed the police officers who were present at the scene . He asked them why they had not arrested any of \u201c the real criminals who threw the stones \u201d and accused them of bothering \u201c NORP patriots \u201d rather than NORP who \u201c promoted violence against NORP \u201d . He then turned to the senior police officer at the scene , asking him if he was a janissary and suggesting that he put on a fez . Finally , he stated that , in GPE , there was no NORP police only a NORP one and that those police officers present were a disgrace to their uniforms .","The incident ended at TIME when , led by Mr PERSON and others , the demonstrators left the scene , Mr PERSON stating that he was going to ORG to ask for the resignation of the Minister of ORG . As Mr PERSON was about to leave , CARDINAL demonstrators wearing black t - shirts can be seen on the video recording piling some of the worshippers\u2019 prayer rugs and setting fire to them . No action was taken against those responsible , though it appears the police did call the fire brigade .","A number of politicians , including the then President of the Republic , PERSON , condemned ORG \u2019s involvement in the incident .","On DATE the ORG adopted a declaration also condemning the incident . It read as follows :","\u201c Members of ORG categorically condemn the aggression of the political party \u2018 Ataka\u2019 of CARDINAL DATE against worshippers in the centre of the capital . It is particularly scandalous that this was done on a DATE , DATE for NORP , at the time of their obligatory prayer . With those actions , that party isolated itself from NORP society in GPE .","The conduct of that party is deeply alien to the NORP people , to its religious and ethnic tolerance . We express our profound disquiet at the attempts to undermine the ethnic peace and to stir up religious tensions between NORP citizens .","Following its attempted aggression against ethnic peace , which gives rise to a threat to the national security of GPE , the political party \u2018 Ataka\u2019 has become dangerous for the government of the country .","LAW says that it is impermissible to use religious communities and institutions , or religious beliefs , for political ends .","We , Members of ORG , insist that all competent ORG authorities , including the prosecuting authorities and the courts , take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the LAW and the laws of GPE .","We call on the mass media to behave responsibly , which in this tense time full of provocations means not to provide a platform to the voice of hatred . \u201d","There have been CARDINAL separate series of investigations into the events at the mosque DATE : CARDINAL by the police , the other by ORG .","In a letter dated DATE , ORG set out the progress made in the police investigations . CARDINAL investigations had been opened : CARDINAL into the injury sustained by PERSON ; a second into injuries sustained by CARDINAL police officers and a cameraman , and criminal damage to the FAC and a police car ; and CARDINAL into the violence directed towards the worshippers . The first CARDINAL investigations have been suspended without anyone being charged .","NORP The letter also stated that , in the course of the third investigation , CARDINAL people had been interviewed as witnesses , and video recordings and other evidence had been obtained . In the course of that investigation , CARDINAL people had been charged ( \u201c \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0432\u043b\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438 \u043a\u0430\u0442\u043e \u043e\u0431\u0432\u0438\u043d\u044f\u0435\u043c\u0438 \u201d ) with aggravated hooliganism contrary to LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . No information has been provided about whether those people were then prosecuted and , if so , whether any convictions were obtained .","An investigation was also opened by ORG on DATE . The focus of that investigation was whether there had been any offences committed under LAW ( the prohibition on hate speech motivated by religion : see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant asked to be allowed to take part in that investigation as a victim within the meaning of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . On CARDINAL DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request . It said that the offence under LAW DATE was a \u201c conduct \u201d ( \u201c \u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u0430\u043b\u043d\u043e \u201d ) one ( see paragraphs CARDINAL","and CARDINAL below ) and could therefore not have a victim .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG . On DATE the ORG referred the case back to ORG , instructing it to rule on the applicant \u2019s request by means of a formal decision . On DATE ORG did so , repeating the reasons that it had given on DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision . On CARDINAL DATE the Sofia Appellate Prosecutor \u2019s Office found that the question whether an offence was a \u201c conduct \u201d ( \u201c \u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u0430\u043b\u043d\u043e \u201d ) or a \u201c result \u201d ( \u201c \u0440\u0435\u0437\u0443\u043b\u0442\u0430\u0442\u043d\u043e \u201d ) CARDINAL was irrelevant as to whether a person could be a victim of that offence . However , there was no evidence that the applicant had been present when the alleged offence had been committed or that the offence had directly affected him . It was therefore necessary to interview the applicant .","Accordingly , on DATE the applicant was interviewed by the investigator in charge of the case . He stated that he had arrived at the mosque at TIME and had sat in the park between the mosque and FAC until prayers began . He described the ORG behaviour in the course of their demonstration , including the insults he had heard . He said that the police had done their job well in keeping the groups apart . According to the applicant , in the course of the interview the investigator was hostile to him and his religion , asking him whether he knew whether he was entitled to pray in front of the mosque and whether he had obtained permission to do so by an appropriate authority .","On DATE the applicant requested that the supervising prosecutor assign the case to another investigator on the basis that the original investigator was ethnically and religiously biased . He also requested access to the case file .","On DATE the applicant once again asked to be allowed to take part in the investigation as a victim of the alleged offence .","On DATE the Sofia City Prosecutor \u2019s Office refused the applicant \u2019s request , again finding that the offence under LAW DATE was indeed a \u201c conduct \u201d offence ( \u201c \u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u0430\u043b\u043d\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0442\u044a\u043f\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u201d ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) and could therefore not have a victim . It went on to reject the applicant \u2019s request to have the case reassigned to another investigator , reasoning that , not being party to the proceedings , the applicant had no standing to make such a request . For the same reason , the applicant had no right to inspect the case file .","On DATE , after unsuccessful appeals by the applicant to ORG and ORG , the deputy Chief Prosecutor decided that \u201c conduct \u201d offences ( \u201c \u0444\u043e\u0440\u043c\u0430\u043b\u043d\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0442\u044a\u043f\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u201d ) could in principle have a victim . It was therefore necessary to check whether the applicant had himself been prevented from carrying out his religious observances , and if so , in what way . That point had not been fully elucidated in his first interview , which made it necessary to interview him again , before deciding whether he could be allowed to take part in the proceedings in his capacity as a victim .","It appears that ORG investigation is still ongoing . Although a number of witnesses have been interviewed and expert reports obtained , no charges have been brought against any person in the framework of that investigation . However , the Government have submitted part of the investigation file . This includes CARDINAL statements given by a Mr M. In the second of those CARDINAL statements he admitted to being the person responsible for cutting up the fez during the demonstration . He stated that he was instructed to do so by Mr PERSON and that Mr PERSON told him to do it before Mr PERSON arrived at the scene . He said he could not refuse because he was working for PERSON at the time . PERSON also stated that it would have been possible to avoid any collisions between the demonstrators and worshippers if Mr PERSON had wanted . This could have been done by returning to the allocated place for the demonstration or by withdrawing after the scuffle on the single storey extension . PERSON also stated that young , far - right supporters of ORG had been drafted in from the town GPE specifically for the demonstration and that they had been placed in the front line of the demonstration . In Mr M. \u2019s view , Mr PERSON could have also avoided a confrontation with the worshippers had he not placed the GPE group at the front of the demonstration .","From the investigation file as submitted to the ORG , various efforts were made to summon the ORG party leaders who were at the demonstration in order to interview them . With the exception of PERSON LAW , the party \u2019s deputy leader , who has been interviewed , those efforts have failed ."],"violated_articles":["9"],"violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174403","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOSTECKAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant and his friends , GPE , GPE and GPE , arrived at a petrol station near the town of GPE . While they were waiting in line at the petrol station \u2019s shop , another group of men , who were not known to them , arrived at the shop and attempted to skip the queue , leading to an argument between the CARDINAL groups . After they had all left the shop , some of the men started beating PERSON in the petrol station \u2019s parking lot . When the applicant tried to help his friend , the men punched the applicant in the face and head several times , causing him to fall to the ground , where they kicked him in the head . According to the applicant , the assault lasted TIME and he was hit CARDINAL times .","On DATE of the incident the GPE police ( hereinafter \u201c the police \u201d ) opened a pre - trial investigation , interviewed the applicant and granted him victim status . On unspecified dates PERSON , GPE and D.R. were also granted victim status .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a court medical expert . The expert found contusions on the applicant \u2019s face and head , and determined that they could have been caused by CARDINAL blows with a hard , blunt object . The expert concluded that the injuries corresponded to negligible health impairment ( ne\u017eymus sveikatos sutrikdymas ) and that they could have occurred at the time and in the circumstances described by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the police identified CARDINAL suspects , E.G. and PERSON , and notified them that they were suspected of disturbing the public order , contrary to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE a third suspect , PERSON , was identified and notified of the same suspicion .","On DATE the applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party . He claimed CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) in pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages jointly from all the suspects .","On DATE a court medical expert again examined the applicant and his medical file . The expert found that DATE after the incident the applicant \u2019s doctor had detected a fracture in the applicant \u2019s nose , without any displacement of the bone ( nosies kaulo l\u016b\u017eiai be dislokacijos ) , and that the applicant had been granted sick leave from work for DATE . The expert concluded that the injury corresponded to negligible health impairment .","On DATE ORG , PERSON and PERSON were notified that they were also suspected of causing negligible health impairment or physical pain to other persons by violent acts , contrary to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In the course of the pre - trial investigation , the police interviewed CARDINAL witnesses , examined the GPE clothes and other items , obtained a video recording of the incident from the petrol station , and carried out various other investigative measures . On DATE the suspects and the victims were informed that the pre - trial investigation had been completed .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) issued an indictment against ORG , PERSON and PERSON , charging them with the crimes set out in Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE at the applicant \u2019s request ORG ordered an additional medical examination of his injuries in order to determine whether there had been any further deterioration of his health . On DATE the applicant was examined by a court medical expert . The expert found that although DATE previously the applicant had been diagnosed with inflammation of the auditory nerves , that condition was not related to the injuries sustained during the incident of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG convicted E.G. , PERSON and PERSON of the crimes set out in Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . The court considered that the charges had been proven by victim and witness testimony , the confessions of the accused , and the video recording from the petrol station \u2019s camera . E.G. , PERSON and PERSON were given suspended prison sentences ranging from DATE . The applicant \u2019s civil claim was granted in part and he was awarded LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damages .","The convicted persons and the victims , including the applicant , appealed against the district court \u2019s judgment . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment because of grave breaches ( esminiai pa\u017eeidimai ) of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . ORG held that the district court had not based its judgment on circumstances examined at the hearing but solely on the description of the charges in the indictment . It also held that the district court had not assessed all the testimony and other evidence in detail and had not explained why some evidence had been considered reliable and some not . ORG concluded that such breaches had affected the district court \u2019s impartiality . As a result , the case was remitted to ORG for re - examination .","On an unspecified date the prosecutor amended the indictment and charged ORG , PERSON and GPE only with disturbing public order , contrary to LAW .","On DATE a different panel of ORG , after re - examining the case , convicted ORG , PERSON and PERSON of the charges against them and gave them suspended prison sentences ranging from DATE . The applicant \u2019s civil claim was granted in part \u2013 he was awarded LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in pecuniary damages consisting of travel expenses to attend court hearings , LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damages and LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL in legal costs . The court also held that the applicant had the right to claim further pecuniary damages from the convicted persons in separate civil proceedings .","The convicted persons and CARDINAL of the victims , PERSON , appealed against the district court \u2019s judgment . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment because of grave breaches of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . It found that the district court had not made any findings in respect of CARDINAL of the victims , PERSON , and had thereby breached ORG rights and those of the accused . ORG also held that the district court had not examined whether CARDINAL of the accused , PERSON and PERSON , had disturbed public order , as submitted in the amended indictment . Rather , the district court had examined whether PERSON and PERSON had assaulted the victims , thereby de facto changing the charges against them and violating their right to defend themselves . ORG concluded that such breaches had affected the district court \u2019s objective impartiality , and the case was again remitted to ORG for re - examination .","On DATE a different panel of ORG held that the DATE statute of limitations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had expired and discontinued the case as time - barred , leaving the GPE civil claims unexamined . The victims , including the applicant , appealed against that decision , arguing that the court had erred by applying the statute of limitations because the legal classification of the charges had been incorrect . However , on DATE ORG dismissed their appeal , finding that the legal classification of charges was the prerogative of the prosecutor and that LAW did not provide for any possibility to continue criminal proceedings after the expiry of the statute of limitations .","After the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings , the applicant submitted a civil claim against ORG , PERSON and PERSON He claimed LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in pecuniary damages , consisting of the salary which he had allegedly lost while attending court hearings in the criminal proceedings , travel expenses to attend those hearings , and legal costs sustained in the criminal proceedings . He also claimed LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damages .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s civil claim in part . It examined the evidence which had been collected in the criminal proceedings and on that basis concluded that ORG , PERSON and PERSON had caused damage to the applicant by their deliberate actions . However , the court considered that the applicant had not proven the pecuniary damage claimed and awarded him LTL CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately EUR DATE ) under that head on the basis of petrol receipts he had submitted . The court further observed that the applicant \u2019s nose had been broken and that he must have suffered a certain amount of inconvenience owing to the need to attend numerous court hearings ; however , the injury had not caused him any long - term physical or psychological damage . On those grounds , the court awarded the applicant LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in nonpecuniary damages .","NORP The applicant appealed against that judgment , and on DATE ORG partly upheld his appeal . It found that the district court had erred in refusing to award the applicant pecuniary damages related to the legal costs which he had incurred in the criminal proceedings , and granted him LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) under that head , thereby increasing the total amount of pecuniary damages to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . The amount of non - pecuniary damages was left unchanged ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152990","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MOM\u010cILOVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first and second applicants were born in DATE and the third applicant in DATE . They all live in ORG .","On DATE the first and the second applicants\u2019 daughter , who was the third applicant \u2019s sister , was killed in a bar by GPE , who at the time served as a soldier in the NORP army .","By a judgment of ORG ( Vojni sud u ORG was found guilty of murder and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On appeal , ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE upheld the conviction , which thereby became final , but increased the sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the applicants submitted a request to ORG for their claim for damages to be settled in connection with the unlawful killing of their relative by a soldier , as required under LAW , in force at the material time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , after their request was refused , the applicants brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking compensation from GPE in connection with the killing of their relative .","During the proceedings , the State Attorney \u2019s ORG raised a number of substantive and procedural objections to the applicants\u2019 claim against the ORG .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicants withdrew their civil action against GPE but maintained their action against the ORG .","Owing to the failure of the ORG representative to appear at several hearings , of which the first applicant was informed , on DATE ORG found that the civil action was considered to have been withdrawn ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ; section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) .","As no appeal was lodged by the parties , on an unspecified date this decision became final . The applicants DATE attempted to have the statement of finality quashed and to lodge a belated appeal , but this was dismissed by the competent court .","On DATE the applicants brought their claim for damages before ORG ( PERSON ) , which meanwhile had acquired competence to hear the case , against the ORG and GPE related to the killing of their family member .","During the proceedings , the State Attorney \u2019s ORG challenged the applicants\u2019 claim on several procedural grounds , arguing in particular that they had failed to seek to have their claim against the ORG settled before lodging their civil action , as required under the relevant domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG declared the applicants\u2019 civil action against the ORG inadmissible , on the grounds that before they lodged their civil action the applicants had failed to attempt to have the case settled with the competent ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG , as required under the relevant domestic law .","The applicants challenged the decision of ORG by lodging an appeal before ORG . On DATE ORG dismissed their appeal , holding as follows :","\u201c Section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW ( Official Gazette , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provides that a person intending to bring a civil suit against GPE must first submit a request for a settlement to the competent ORG . When there is no doubt that before lodging the civil claim the claimant has failed to settle the case with the competent ORG , the first - instance court is correct to declare such a claim lodged directly before it inadmissible ( VS Rev-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) .","The duty to seek settlement with the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG is a procedural requirement for lodging a civil action which must be complied with at the moment when the action is lodged .","Section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW is inapplicable to claims for damages lodged before the courts prior to DATE .","It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs on DATE lodged an identical claim against the same defendants before ORG ... It is also not disputed that on DATE , after the conditions for the stay of proceedings had been met twice , a decision was adopted finding that the claim against the first defendant , GPE , was withdrawn .","However , these undisputed facts do not mean that the plaintiffs were released from their obligation under section ORG ) of LAW because they had previously submitted an identical claim . With the amendments to LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) the duty to seek settlement with ORG is a procedural requirement for lodging a civil action which must be complied with at the moment when the action is lodged . Further amendments to LAW ( Official Gazette nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and GPE ) did not [ alter this obligation ] with regard to the actions against GPE . \u201d","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law before ORG , challenging the decision of ORG on the grounds that it unreasonably restricted their right to access to court . They argued that before they brought their civil action of CARDINAL DATE before ORG they had attempted to settle the matter with the State Attorney \u2019s Office . However , their request had been refused , and later during the proceedings the State Attorney \u2019s Office had also challenged their claim in the court . The applicants therefore considered that there was no reason to seek another settlement concerning the identical claim brought before the court after it was decided that it had been withdrawn .","The applicants also lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) on DATE , reiterating their above arguments .","On DATE ORG declared the applicants\u2019 constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the decisions of the lower courts did not concern individual acts deciding on their civil rights and obligations .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal on points of law , endorsing the reasoning of ORG that the applicants had been obliged to seek settlement with ORG before lodging their action of CARDINAL DATE . ORG pointed out :","\u201c It should be noted that the procedural requirement for the admissibility of an action under section ORG ) of LAW , and the reliance of the lower courts on that provision , do not represent a violation of a plaintiff \u2019s right of access to court . This is because the plaintiff , by complying with that provision , does not lose any of their rights to claim [ damages ] since , for example , the lodging of a request for settlement interrupts the running of the statutory prescription period ( [ Article CARDINAL ) ] \u00a7 CARDINAL ) and the plaintiff may lodge an action in the court if ORG refuses the request [ for settlement ] or does not decide on it within DATE it was lodged ( [ Article ORG ) ] \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","It can not therefore be said that the obligation of the plaintiffs to seek settlement of the claim with ORG before lodging an action against GPE represents an unreasonable restriction of access to a competent court which can decide the case on the merits as required under LAW of LAW ( Official Gazette - International Contracts , ORG . CARDINAL , ORG text , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) . This is because section CARDINAL of LAW neither impaired the right to lodge a civil action nor the right to have the case decided on the merits ... ( see ORG in PERSON v. GPE of DATE and GPE v. GPE of DATE ) . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-165032","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF JERONOVI\u010cS v. LATVIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Ineta Ziemele;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in FAC .","On DATE the applicant and another individual , PERSON , were arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed , inter alia , aggravated assault against TIME","Criminal proceedings were initiated in that connection , throughout which the applicant and his co - defendant pleaded their innocence .","On DATE the applicant and his co - defendant were found guilty of the charges and were sentenced to CARDINAL and DATE imprisonment respectively by ORG .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law and unsuccessfully sought leave to attend the hearing on his appeal before ORG .","Following his questioning at the police station after his arrest , the applicant complained to the public prosecutor \u2019s office that he had been ill - treated by police officers who had tried to obtain a confession from him ( for details concerning similar allegations of ill - treatment made by the applicant \u2019s co - defendant , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .","As a result , criminal proceedings ( case no . DATE ) were initiated against the police officers for abuse of official power . On DATE those criminal proceedings were discontinued by the GPE police station investigator ( PERSON rajona policijas p\u0101rvalde ) on grounds of insufficient evidence . The investigator found , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s allegations were incoherent , and concluded that the \u201c light \u201d injuries he had sustained could have been caused during his arrest .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) with the ORG . He alleged a breach of LAW , complaining of having been subjected to ill - treatment during the pre - trial investigation and of the lack of an effective investigation into those allegations . He also alleged breaches of LAW ( conditions of detention following his conviction ) , LAW ( duration of pre - trial detention ) , LAW ( lack of compensation ) , LAW ( refusal to grant him leave to attend ORG hearing and overall duration of the criminal proceedings ) , and LAW taken in conjunction with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW ( lack of legal assistance ) . He lodged a further complaint under LAW alleging that the criminal proceedings which had resulted in his conviction had been unfair as his confession had been obtained from him as a result of ill - treatment in breach of LAW .","On DATE the Government were given notice of the applicant \u2019s complaints concerning , inter alia , his ill - treatment and the lack of an effective investigation into his allegations in that regard .","On DATE the Government submitted the following unilateral declaration :","\u201c The Government of GPE ( hereinafter DATE the Government ) represented by [ their ] Agent PERSON admit that the physical treatment of PERSON ( hereinafter DATE the applicant ) by the police officers , as well as the effectiveness of the investigation of the respective applicant \u2019s complaints , the access to legal aid and effective remedies to apply for the compensation of damages , the length of criminal proceedings [ against the applicant ] , as well as the lack of effective remedy did not meet the standards enshrined in LAW [ CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ] , Article [ CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ] , LAW ) . Being aware of that , the Government undertake to adopt all necessary measures in order to avoid similar infringements in future , as well as to provide an effective remedy .","Taking into account that the parties have failed to reach a friendly settlement in this case , the Government declare that they offer to pay ex gratia to the applicant compensation in the amount of CARDINAL ORG ( [ approximately ] CARDINAL ORG ] ) , this amount being the global sum and covering any pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred , free of any taxes that may be applicable , with a view to terminat[ing ] the proceedings pending before ORG hereinafter DATE the ORG ) in the case [ of ] GPE v. GPE ( application no . CARDINAL ) .","...","This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case . \u201d","On DATE ORG to which the case had been allocated adopted a decision in which , inter alia , it took note of the terms of the ORG \u2019s declaration and , by virtue of LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW , struck out the complaints mentioned in the unilateral declaration . The relevant paragraphs of the decision read as follows :","\u201c DATE . ORG observes at the outset that the parties have not reached agreement on the terms of a friendly settlement of the case . It reiterates however that a distinction must be drawn between , on the one hand , declarations made in the context of strictly confidential friendly - settlement negotiations and , on the other , unilateral declarations DATE such as the CARDINAL at issue \u2013 made by a respondent Government in public and adversarial proceedings before the ORG . In accordance with LAW , the ORG will proceed on the basis of the Government \u2019s unilateral declaration and the parties\u2019 observations submitted outside the framework of the friendly - settlement negotiations , and will disregard the parties\u2019 statements made in the context of exploring the possibilities for a friendly settlement of the case and the reasons why the parties were unable to agree on the terms of a friendly settlement ( see PERSON v. GPE ( preliminary objection ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVI ) .","The ORG further refers to LAW , the relevant parts of which provide :","\u2018 CARDINAL . The ORG may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that","...","( c ) for any other reason established by ORG , it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application .","However , the ORG shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the LAW and the Protocols thereto so requires.\u2019","GPE Acar , cited above , \u00a7 DATE ; see also , for example , PERSON v. the GPE ( striking out ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIX ; ORG v. GPE ( striking out ) , no . GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . MONEY , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; ORG and PERSON GPE ( dec . ) ( striking out ) , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; GPE v. GPE DATE . ) ( striking out ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; Stark and Others v. GPE ( striking out ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE DATE . ) ( striking out ) , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; and PERSON DATE . ) ( striking out ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .","...","As to the ill - treatment to which the applicant was allegedly subjected in police custody and the effectiveness of the investigations carried out , although the ORG has not to date found a violation of LAW by the NORP police in that specific context , it nevertheless points to its clear and very extensive case - law in this regard ( see , among many other authorities , PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . ORG , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALV ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 PERCENT , ORG CARDINALVIII ; and ORG and Others v. GPE , no . GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) . The same is true as regards the principles governing the granting of legal aid as a component of the right of access to a court ( see , for example , ORG , DATE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL ; P. , C. and PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVI ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIII ; and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .","In their declaration in the present case the Government have recognised that the treatment to which the applicant was subjected by the police officers while in police custody , the manner in which the investigations were carried out in that regard , the handling of the applicant \u2019s claims for compensation and in particular the refusal of his applications for legal aid in order to gain access to the compensation procedure , as well as the length of the criminal proceedings against him , infringed Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . They have offered to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation and undertake to take all necessary measures to prevent similar violations in the future .","In view of the nature of the undertakings contained in the ORG \u2019s declaration , the ORG considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the complaints in question . That decision is without prejudice to the possibility for the applicant to exercise any other available remedies in order to obtain redress . The same applies to the complaint under LAW No . CARDINAL , which is identical in substance to the complaint under LAW concerning the length of the criminal proceedings in question ( paragraph CARDINAL in fine ) . The ORG is further satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the LAW and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue its examination of this part of the application ( LAW in fine ) .","Accordingly , the case should be struck out of the list in so far as it concerns the complaints referred to in DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of this decision . \u201d","In the same decision , the ORG declared admissible the complaints concerning the applicant \u2019s conditions of detention ( Article CARDINAL ) and the refusal to grant him leave to attend ORG hearing ( Article CARDINAL ) , and dismissed all the other complaints , including the complaint that the criminal proceedings had been unfair owing to the admission of evidence obtained under duress ( Article CARDINAL ) . On the latter point the ORG found as follows :","\u201c DATE . Relying on Articles QUANTITY and CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW , the applicant complained of the overall unfairness of his conviction for the armed robbery allegedly committed in DATE . He maintained in that connection that a confession had been obtained from him under duress and that the courts had refused several requests made by him for a confrontation . Lastly , the applicant contended that he had been convicted solely on account of his ethnic and social origin and his previous convictions .","...","The Court , having regard to all the evidence in its possession and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations made , finds no appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the provisions on which the applicant relies . In particular , it reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or of law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the ORG , which is not the case here ( see , among many other authorities , PERSON GPE , no . GPE , \u00a7 DATE , ORG CARDINALV ) .","It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill - founded and must be rejected pursuant to LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention . \u201d","On DATE the ORG adopted a judgment \u2013 GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) \u2013 finding a violation of LAW ( conditions of detention ) and LAW ( refusal to grant leave to attend ORG hearing ) and awarding MONEY [ ORG ] in compensation for the non - pecuniary damage suffered on account of the LAW violation .","On DATE the applicant requested the public prosecutor \u2019s office to reopen the criminal proceedings in which he had been convicted ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as well as the proceedings concerning his alleged ill - treatment by police officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He relied on the terms of the Government \u2019s unilateral declaration of DATE and on sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE a prosecutor attached to ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request , finding that none of the grounds for the reopening of criminal proceedings set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW applied . The prosecutor also found as follows :","\u201c ... The case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) contains the Government \u2019s unilateral declaration , the conclusions of which are applicable only to the circumstances and the events examined within the scope of that case . It can not be concluded from the judgment of DATE adopted by ORG that the ORG examined and assessed any activities carried out by the law - enforcement officers during the pre - trial investigation in the criminal proceedings ... Accordingly , the conclusions reached in [ the ORG \u2019s ] judgment of DATE and the ORG \u2019s unilateral declaration of DATE can not be applied or connected to the criminal proceedings ... \u201d","In an appeal lodged on DATE the applicant reiterated that there was a legal basis for reopening the criminal proceedings concerning his ill - treatment , on account of the fact that the ORG \u2019s unilateral declaration had expressly recognised the violation of LAW , a circumstance which had led the ORG to strike out that complaint . He further argued that at the time his criminal case was examined by the domestic courts , the judicial authorities had been unaware that the investigation into his allegations of ill - treatment was in breach of LAW .","In a final decision of DATE a higher - ranking prosecutor upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The prosecutor noted that , under section ORG ) of LAW , only criminal proceedings that had ended with a valid court judgment or decision could be reopened , and only provided that the ground for requesting such reopening was among those listed in that provision . The prosecutor further found as follows :","\u201c Having examined the foregoing , I find that the conclusion of the prosecutor in her decision of CARDINAL DATE is valid and well - founded , to the effect that your application dated DATE requesting the reopening of the criminal proceedings in cases nos . DATE on the basis of new circumstances does not comply with any of the conditions prescribed by section PERSON ) of LAW which could serve as grounds for reopening the above - mentioned criminal proceedings . The prosecutor did not establish the existence of any such conditions during the examination of your application , which is why I regard as reasonable her decision to refuse the reopening of the criminal proceedings in cases LAW CARDINAL and DATE on the basis of newly disclosed circumstances .","As already mentioned , LAW prescribes in detail all the circumstances which shall be recognised as newly disclosed and on the basis of which criminal proceedings ending in a valid court judgment or decision may be reopened . LAW does not make any provision for these circumstances to be expanded . In examining your complaint I did not find established any of the newly disclosed circumstances prescribed by section GPE ) of LAW . Likewise , I did not find any opinion by an international judicial authority relating to the decision of the NORP court in case no . DATE and finding that the judgment of ORG which came into force on DATE did not comply with international law and regulations binding on GPE . ORG did not express such an opinion in its judgment of DATE or in the decision of CARDINAL DATE in which that international court examined your application . I would also like to point out that , contrary to your allegations , ORG in its decision of DATE stated that in the adoption of its decision concerning inhuman treatment by police officers during the criminal investigation it did not find any violation of international laws or regulations .","In your application you emphasised that the criminal proceedings in cases nos . CARDINAL and DATE should be reopened in connection with the unilateral declaration of ORG mentioned by ORG on DATE , in which ORG recognised that the physical treatment of PERSON by police officers , the effectiveness of the investigation into the applicant \u2019s complaints , his access to legal aid and to effective remedies by which to apply for compensation for damage , the length of the criminal proceedings , and the lack of an effective remedy , did not meet the standards enshrined in ORG , CARDINAL \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG . I would like to make clear that , according to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , the above - mentioned unilateral declaration by ORG is not recognised as a newly disclosed circumstance and can not therefore be regarded as a basis for reopening the criminal proceedings in cases nos . ORG and DATE .","In view of the above - mentioned considerations , there is no reason to quash the decision [ ... ] dated DATE concerning the refusal to reopen the criminal proceedings in the light of newly disclosed circumstances ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140655","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"\u0110UZEL v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Ku\u0161an , a lawyer practising in Ivani\u0107 Grad .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is the owner of a hotel , NORP , in PERSON , a municipality in the coastal part of GPE , which he bought with a view to first reconstructing it and later on using it commercially . The hotel was built in DATE , according to a building permit issued in DATE , and was registered in ORG .","At the relevant time the regulations concerning zoning permits in PERSON were ORG ( ORG o dono\u0161enju Prostornog plana op\u0107ine ORG , ORG of GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , QUANTITY , DATE and DATE ) , a larger central municipality from which the PERSON LOC municipality was formed , and ORG in LOC ( ORG o odredbama za provo\u0111enje u izgra\u0111enim naseljima na podru\u010dju PERSON , hereinafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) adopted by the Ba\u0161ka GPE in DATE and published in ORG of the Ba\u0161ka Voda Municipality no . CARDINAL on DATE . According to these regulations and the relevant domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , a zoning permit ( lokacijska dozvola ) was required before any construction could be commenced on the buildings in the area concerned .","On the basis of the above zoning documents , on DATE and DATE the owners of the properties adjacent to the applicant \u2019s hotel obtained zoning permits from ORG , Construction and Ecology ( hereinafter : the \u201c ORG \u201d ) for renovation and reconstruction of their buildings .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for a zoning permit as required by the relevant legislation before reconstruction works could be commenced . The applicant submitted all relevant documents concerning his ownership of the hotel and the reconstruction project . In his project the applicant indicated that the hotel consisted of a ground - floor , CARDINAL upper floors and in CARDINAL part an additional fourth floor whereas he wanted to build a basement and a loft and to extend further the fourth floor .","On DATE , while the applicant \u2019s request was still pending , ORG ( ORG za\u0161tite okoli\u0161a i prostornog ure\u0111enja , hereinafter \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) ordered the Ba\u0161ka GPE to set aside ( staviti izvan snage ) ORG , after finding that they had been adopted contrary to the relevant law . ORG found that ORG merely reflected provisions of a similar document of LOC which had been already found by ORG to be contrary to the relevant law .","On DATE the Ba\u0161ka Voda Municipality adopted a Decision setting aside ORG and published it in ORG of the Ba\u0161ka Voda Municipality no . CARDINAL .","Thereafter , on DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for a zoning permit . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c Under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of GPE ( Official Gazette nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) the zoning permit is an administrative decision which must be issued on the basis of zoning documents , special law and other relevant acts , in accordance with the law .","Given that at the moment the Ba\u0161ka GPE does not have the relevant zoning documents , it follows , and in view of what was said above , that zoning permits for renovation or reconstruction of buildings can not be issued until the adoption of the municipal spatial plan or some related spatial plan . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , pointing out that he had lodged his request for a zoning permit on DATE and that his request had been accompanied by all relevant documents , which followed from the fact that ORG had not dismissed his request as unsubstantiated or ill - founded . Instead , his request had been dismissed only because LOC had not adopted a spatial plan , despite the fact that he had lodged his request when the relevant zoning documents existed . He therefore considered that the law and the zoning documents which existed and were relevant at the time when he had lodged his request , should be applied .","On DATE the Ministry quashed the first - instance decision and remitted the case . It instructed ORG to determine whether a zoning permit could be granted on the basis of the zoning documents adopted for the wider area .","In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG again dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . It found that the zoning document for the larger area , that is , ORG ( ORG plan PERSON \u017eupanije , adopted on DATE , published in ORG of ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , prescribed adoption of the spatial plan of the Ba\u0161ka GPE , and itself contained no provisions on the basis of which a zoning permit could be granted .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal before ORG , arguing that ORG had failed to comply with the instruction of ORG DATE . He considered that it should be established whether a zoning permit could be issued on the basis of a spatial plan which covered an even wider area than that of the county - wide spatial plan . He pointed out that he should not bear burden for the failure of ORG to adopt a spatial plan . He also considered that a zoning permit should be issued on the basis of the zoning documents which had existed at the moment when he had lodged his request .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision . It endorsed the finding of ORG , that at present there was no zoning document on the basis of which a zoning permit for property located in PERSON could be granted .","The applicant then brought an action in ORG ( ORG ) on DATE contesting the decisions of the administrative authorities .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . It held that the Splitsko - Dalmatinska County Spatial Plan provided for an obligation to prepare and adopt a spatial plan for the Ba\u0161ka GPE , but that such plan had not yet been adopted , and that therefore the applicant \u2019s request for a zoning permit could not be granted .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) . He pointed out that he had submitted his request for a zoning permit at the time when the zoning documents had existed for the PERSON GPE . However , it had taken the administrative authorities DATE to decide on his request , and in the meantime the zoning documents had been set aside and a spatial plan had not yet been adopted . Therefore , given that there had been a legal gap , the administrative authorities had been obliged to apply the law and the zoning documents which had existed at the time when he had lodged his request . He contended that this had done significant damage to his legitimate interests and that there had been no legitimate public interest justifying the refusal to grant him a zoning permit , since such permits had been issued for a number of properties adjacent to his hotel .","In the meantime , the Ba\u0161ka Voda Municipality had proceeded with the adoption of a spatial plan . It first initiated a public debate in which various experts , public officials and interested citizens were able to put forward all their arguments , proposals and objections . The municipal executive authorities then accepted or rejected the proposals and objections and drafted a provisional spatial plan . The provisional draft was afterwards submitted for approval to the Ministry , the competent ORG authorities , ORG ( PERSON uprava za za\u0161titu prirode ) , ORG ( ORG kulture ) , ORG ( ORG obrane ) , the public water utilities authorities , ORG ( GPE poljoprivrede , ribarstva i ruralnog razvoja ) , ORG ( ORG regionalnog razvoja ) and the competent seaport authority . Only after all the approvals were obtained the final draft spatial plan was submitted to ORG which adopted it on DATE ( ORG of the PERSON GPE no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","After the adoption of the spatial plan the applicant did not submit a new request for a zoning permit .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . ORG decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL , DATE ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( consolidated text ) , PERSON ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , DATE ) read as follows :","\u201c The right of ownership shall be guaranteed ... \u201c","The relevant provisions of GPE ( Zakon o prostornom ure\u0111enju , ORG nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) read :","Section CARDINAL","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A municipal spatial plan shall be adopted by the municipal council , after the state administration office has confirmed that it is compatible with the county spatial plan ...","Section CARDINAL","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Any spatial intervention must be in accordance with zoning documents , relevant law and any zoning permit .","( CARDINAL ) A zoning permit is an administrative decision which must be issued on the basis of zoning documents , special law and other relevant acts , in accordance with the law ... \u201d","Section CARDINAL","\u201c The inspection of individual and general acts , conditions and manner of work of relevant legal and physical persons , and the enforcement of measures under LAW , shall be conducted by an Inspection of the Ministry [ of ORG ] . \u201d","Section CARDINAL","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The inspector shall order the local authority to correct irregularities and\/or any unlawfulness in the report or planning [ of spatial development ] , found in the inspection .","( CARDINAL ) If the local administration fails to comply with the order under paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the Ministry shall , upon a request of the Inspector , set aside the report or plan of measures [ for spatial development ] . \u201d","GPE enacted on DATE ( ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , in CARDINAL provided for municipal spatial plans adopted under the previous legislation to be applied until new zoning documents were adopted , and in any event no longer than DATE from the moment when the LAW entered into force . This time - limit elapsed on DATE .","The LAW to LAW of DATE ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON o prostornom ure\u0111enju , ORG no . DATE ) in DATE extended the period for adoption of municipal spatial plans to DATE .","The LAW to LAW of DATE ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON o prostornom ure\u0111enju , ORG no . CARDINAL ) in section CARDINAL extended the period for adoption of municipal spatial plans to CARDINAL DATE .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW to LAW of DATE ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON o prostornom ure\u0111enju , ORG no . CARDINAL ) extended the period for adoption of municipal spatial plans to DATE .","Section CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ( ORG o prostornom ure\u0111enju i gradnji , ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) extended the period for adoption of municipal spatial plans to CARDINAL DATE , and expressly prohibited the grant of zoning permits in the absence of relevant zoning documents ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157286","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BERLAND v. FRANCE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Retroactivity)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in the specialised hospital centre ( CHS ) of PERSON .","On DATE the applicant , who was CARDINAL , went to the workplace of GPE , who had been his girlfriend and who had told him , following threats and violence on his part , that she no longer wanted to see him . The applicant inflicted several stab wounds on PERSON , who died from a massive haemorrhage , having been wounded in the throat and thorax , and on CARDINAL other individuals . On DATE the applicant was placed under judicial investigation , charged with the premeditated murder of his former girlfriend and the intentional wounding of the other CARDINAL people , and remanded in custody . On DATE the Prefect ordered his compulsory admission to FAC .","The applicant was examined by CARDINAL boards of expert psychiatrists who found that , at the material time , he was suffering from a mental disorder which had impaired his discernment and the ability to control his actions within the meaning of Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Criminal Code ....","On DATE the public prosecutor asked the investigating judge at the GPE tribunal de grande instance to refer the case to ORG for a ruling as to the applicant \u2019s lack of criminal liability , in accordance with LAW , derived from LAW DATE on preventive detention and declarations of criminal insanity ( hereafter \u201c the DATE Act \u201d , ... ) .","In a decision of DATE the investigating judge found that it transpired from his investigation that there was sufficient evidence against the applicant to show that he had committed the offences as charged and that there were plausible reasons to apply LAW , first paragraph , of LAW . He ordered the transmission of the case file by the public prosecutor to ORG for the purposes of referral to ORG .","On DATE ORG at ORG made his submissions calling for referral to ORG for a ruling as to the applicant \u2019s lack of criminal liability on grounds of criminal insanity , in accordance with the procedure set out in new LAW of LAW , which provided in particular for a public hearing ...","In a decision of DATE the President of ORG noted that it was impossible for medical reasons for the applicant to appear at the hearing . At the hearing of DATE , his representative argued in particular that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had breached the principle that harsher criminal legislation could not be applied retrospectively . He indicated that under the above - mentioned LAW of LAW , ORG was required to rule on the commission of the offences by the applicant when deciding on compulsory psychiatric treatment , for an indefinite duration , and that this was tantamount to conviction for an offence and to the imposition of a sentence which had not been applicable at the material time .","NORP In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG stated that there was sufficient evidence to show that the applicant had \u201c intentionally killed PERSON and that he lacked criminal liability for those acts on the ground that he was suffering from a mental disorder which had impaired his discernment and ability to control his actions . It ordered his compulsory hospitalisation pursuant to LAW of LAW , derived from the DATE Act ... , on the grounds that \u201c it transpire[d ] from the proceedings that [ the applicant \u2019s ] mental disorder represent[ed ] a risk for the safety of others and GPE ] long - term care which [ could ] only be provided in a hospital \u201d . The court also prohibited him , for DATE , from having any contact with the complainants and from possessing or carrying a weapon , those being preventive measures provided for under new LAW of LAW ... It sent the case back to ORG for a judgment on the applicant \u2019s civil liability and on the claims of damages . ORG had previously ruled on the procedural objections raised by the applicant \u2019s representative , including argument concerning the immediate application of the provisions of DATE Act and the alleged violation of LAW :","\u201c ... The declaration of the existence of sufficient evidence that the person has committed the offence as charged does not constitute a conviction but a finding that there is a factual situation which could have legal consequences ...","... contrary to the pleadings and contrary to the rules on preventive detention , ORG does not rule on judicial confinement of unlimited duration but orders the compulsory hospitalisation of the individual in an institution mentioned in Article PERSON - CARDINAL of LAW , which provides for hospitalisation arrangements specifically in such contexts , and the ORG is immediately informed of the decisions . Thus the person concerned will be subject to the compulsory hospitalisation arrangements solely under the auspices of the medical and administrative authorities , depending on the evolution of his state of health .","Accordingly , this measure can not be regarded as a penalty but as a preventive measure . ... The PERSON of DATE and the Decree of DATE are thus applicable . \u201d","The applicant appealed against that judgment on points of law . In his grounds of appeal he argued , relying on Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , that the principle of \u201c no punishment without law \u201d precluded the immediate application of a procedure which had the effect of rendering him liable for penalties that his mental state would not have entailed under the former legislation in force at the material time . He contended that the declaration of his criminal insanity could not be accompanied by court - ordered sanctions or coercive measures , as this would breach the principle of the non - retrospective application of harsher criminal legislation .","Before ORG , the public prosecutor , in his opinion , took the view that it was impossible to find that there was sufficient evidence against the applicant to show that he had \u201c intentionally \u201d committed the offences as charged , since \u201c legally speaking , a state of criminal insanity related to a loss of discernment preclude[d ] a court from ruling on the mental element of the offence and consequently on the question whether the offences were made out under the law \u201d . He pointed out that the legislature had sought to ensure that the investigating judge would anticipate the declaration of criminal insanity and confine his assessment to the facts : \u201c as a result of such anticipation only the material element will stand , devoid of its punitive connotation , together with its \u2018 objective imputation\u2019 to an individual , which would serve as a basis for granting redress to the \u2018 GPE and was in itself the focus of the legislative intent \u201d . On this point he called for the setting - aside of part of the judgment , namely the replacement of the operative part in order to delete the word \u201c intentionally \u201d .","In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law :","\u201c ... The person under judicial investigation submitted that there could be no immediate application of the PERSON of DATE , as the provisions of Article MONEY [ of LAW ] derived therefrom would enable the judge to order , against the person declared criminally insane , measures which , by their effects , would be \u2018 quasi - criminal sanctions\u2019 , being listed in the person \u2019s criminal record .","To dismiss those arguments , the judgment uses the above - mentioned reasoning .","As those grounds stand , the judgment does not warrant the alleged complaint in so far as the provisions of LAW , which provides that the only penalties that may be imposed are those legally applicable on the date of the offence , do not apply to the preventive measures that are prescribed in cases of criminal insanity under Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ...","... there is sufficient evidence [ against the applicant ] to show that he committed the offences of premeditated murder and wounding ... \u201d","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , produced by the applicant with his observations , the Prefect of Sa\u00f4ne - et - LOC denied his requests to go outside the institution unescorted . The ORG \u2019s letter to the responsible psychiatrist of the Sevrey CHS reads as follows :","\u201c ... In a letter dated DATE , I informed you that I had requested CARDINAL assessments to ascertain whether I would be able to grant such leave .","Those assessments reached me DATE . CARDINAL states as follows : \u2018 In view of Mr Berland \u2019s current state of health we can envisage allowing him to go outside unescorted in the context of a trial period with a process of social rehabilitation , which seems indispensable\u2019 . The other one reads : \u2018 his current state of health allows the possibility of unescorted leave to be envisaged . We should gradually move towards trial arrangements to consolidate the rehabilitation plans\u2019 .","Moreover , in accordance with his instructions , issued following the judgment against Mr GPE , I have contacted the public prosecutor of ORG to inform him of the findings of the assessments which could lead me in the future to authorise Mr PERSON to leave the hospital unescorted .","The public prosecutor drew my attention to the prohibitions ordered by ORG on DATE against Mr Berland , pursuant to ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ...","In those circumstances , even though the assessments tentatively allow for the possibility of granting Mr Berland such unescorted leave , it appears impossible to me to guarantee that he would not come into contact during such leave , if therefore alone , with the complainants . Consequently I wish to inform you of my decision ... to grant Mr PERSON permission in the future to leave the hospital exclusively if escorted , depending on any assessment data that you may wish to transmit to me . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["7-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172471","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LOVRI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant lives in LOC .","The applicant was a member of a hunting association , ORG , based in PERSON ( hereafter \u201c the association \u201d ) .","On DATE the association \u2019s executive board initiated internal proceedings against the applicant before its disciplinary commission . The executive board sought the applicant \u2019s suspension until the next session of the association \u2019s general meeting ( skup\u0161tina ) for reporting a member of the association to the police , falsely accusing him of the criminal offence of intimidation . The executive board argued that by doing so the applicant had committed a serious breach of his duties as a member , a disciplinary offence stipulated in the association \u2019s internal regulations .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the disciplinary commission dismissed the disciplinary action against the applicant . No appeals were lodged against that decision .","NORP The executive board nevertheless referred the matter to the general meeting for re - examination , convening an extraordinary session .","On DATE the general meeting adopted , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , a resolution expelling the applicant from the association . He was informed that he could appeal against that decision and that any appeal would be examined at the general meeting \u2019s ( regular ) annual session .","The applicant appealed , but the general meeting \u2019s resolution was upheld by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL following the adoption of another resolution at the DATE session held on DATE .","NORP The general meeting did not give any reasons for expelling the applicant in either of its resolutions .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against the hunting association in ORG PERSON u GPE ) , whereby he asked the court to declare unlawful the general meeting \u2019s resolution of DATE and to reinstate him as a member . He relied on section DATE ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and argued that the decision to expel him had been adopted in breach of the procedure provided for in the association \u2019s statute and its internal regulations on disciplinary proceedings . In particular , he submitted that , in the absence of appeals against the disciplinary commission \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the general meeting could not have overridden that decision because under the association \u2019s statute that commission was the only body authorised to decide on the expulsion of a member .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s action inadmissible , on the grounds that the matter was outside the jurisdiction of the courts . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW suggests that legal protection by way of civil action in the county court could be sought only if ORG or the other relevant body of the association had failed to examine a member \u2019s report regarding irregularities in the implementation of the statute [ of the association ] , or had failed to correct such irregularities .","Such a civil action would therefore be aimed at securing the implementation of the statute of the association , and thus would not provide for legal protection in the sense that a specific decision ... of the association could be declared unlawful .","Under section CARDINAL of the defendant association \u2019s Statute [ GPE ] the disciplinary tribunal imposes disciplinary measures against members who have breached their duties stipulated in the statute . According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the defendant association \u2019s Rules on Disciplinary Proceedings and Disciplinary Liability of Members , a request for review may be lodged with ORG [ to contest ] ORG decision to expel [ a member ] . The time - limit for ORG to adopt a resolution on the request is not stipulated . ORG resolution is final .","... since the plaintiff in his action does not seek [ legal ] protection envisaged in section DATE ) of LAW , but asks [ the court ] to declare unlawful the defendant \u2019s resolution to expel him , on which [ issue ] it is for ORG to make a final decision ... this case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the courts ... \u201d","The applicant then appealed against that decision to ORG ( PERSON ) .","By a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision , reasoning as follows :","\u201c The first - instance court was correct in declaring the action inadmissible , because the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the courts ...","In particular , pursuant to section DATE ) of LAW ... the conduct of associations is supervised by their members , and if a member finds irregularities in the implementation of the statute he or she is entitled to report it to the relevant body of the association designated in the statute or to ORG if there is no relevant body designated in the statute . Furthermore , if the written report is not examined at ORG or by the relevant body of the association designated in the statute within DATE of its submission , or if irregularities are not corrected , the member may bring a civil action in the county court within whose area of jurisdiction the registered office of the association is situated , with a view to protecting his or her rights as stipulated in the statute .","The said provision ... governs jurisdiction of the courts regarding the right of the members of an association to supervise its conduct . That right does not entail the power to contest the lawfulness of a decision adopted in disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff as a member , as correctly explained in the impugned [ first - instance ] decision .","In this connection it should be taken into account that the case concerns membership of a ... voluntary organisation [ where ] members may under the internal rules regulate the protection of [ their ] membership rights . Therefore , the decision to expel a member does not fall within the jurisdiction of the courts under section DATE ) of LAW .","The defendant association is not an entity vested with public authority , and the decisions it adopts are not administrative acts , which means that the plaintiff \u2019s action could not even be examined by ORG under the [ relevant provisions ] of LAW . That is also the opinion of ORG , as expressed in the case ORG .","It follows that the county court was correct in deciding that courts have no jurisdiction to decide on the plaintiff \u2019s action ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against ORG decision . He alleged violations of his right to a fair procedure guaranteed by LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and also explicitly relied on LAW .","By a decision of DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible and served its decision on his representative on DATE . It found that the case did not raise any constitutional issues ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170531","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"DESIRA AND ELTARHUNI v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . The second applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . Both applicants live in PERSON . They are represented before the Court by Dr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , Attorney General .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The second applicant arrived in GPE on DATE . He had obtained a visa on DATE in GPE , which was valid for CARDINAL entry for a duration of DATE , namely from DATE to DATE .","The second applicant \u2019s presence in GPE as from DATE was thus illegal under the provisions of LAW .","During his illegal stay , the second applicant was charged before ORG in connection with a violent incident which had occurred on DATE in the apartment in which he was residing . Following DATE of detention on remand the second applicant was granted bail and was released . The court ordered him not to leave GPE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was cleared of attempted murder , but found guilty of possessing a knife without a licence . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . He served his sentence while his appeal was pending . By an appeal judgment of DATE the second applicant was acquitted of all the charges .","In DATE , the second applicant met the first applicant , who at the time was DATE , and they entered into a relationship . The second applicant moved in with the first applicant \u2019s family and has lived in their house since .","According to the applicants , a request to issue marriage banns for the couple was rejected on DATE that is not clear on the grounds that the first applicant was too young and her GPE approval was required . The second applicant was also told that he required a visa , as it was not sufficient that he was in GPE on the basis of a court order . Nevertheless , no visa was issued to him , at first because his passport was being held by the police in connection with the court case , and later for unspecified reasons .","According to the Government , in DATE the applicants verbally enquired with ORG about the documents which were necessary to contract a marriage . According to the principal officer of the registry ( who gave evidence in later proceedings ) , the necessary documents were a birth certificate , a free status certificate , a permit allowing the second applicant to marry a non - NORP woman ( as required by the NORP authorities ) , a valid passport and a valid visa . The application could not be processed DATE as the applicants did not have the required documents .","It can be seen in the documents submitted to the ORG that on DATE the applicants lodged an application with ORG ( voluntary jurisdiction ) , requesting that the court order LAW to issue their banns . PERSON objected , noting that the refusal had been a result of the fact that the second applicant had failed to submit the necessary documents , namely ( i ) a true copy of his birth certificate together with a certified translation , ( ii ) a free status certificate together with a certified translation , ( iii ) a passport or a visa covering his stay until the marriage , and ( iv ) the written consent of the first applicant \u2019s parents . Furthermore , the second applicant had been waiting to undergo a trial by jury . By a decree of DATE , their application was rejected as the applicants had not produced all the documents required by law .","On DATE the applicants verbally requested that ORG publish the marriage banns and to this end they produced the second applicant \u2019s birth certificate , a certificate of free status and an expired passport . Since their request was not accompanied by a permit issued by the NORP authorities allowing the second applicant ( as a NORP national ) to marry , as well as a valid passport and visa , their request could not be processed .","The applicants put their case to the ORG who by a decision of DATE found that the fact that the would - be spouse had not presented a valid visa should not have been an obstacle to the marriage banns being issued . He thus advised ORG to issue the banns . However , the recommendation went unheeded .","In the meantime , the second applicant submitted a declaration of good conduct and behaviour , a certified free status certificate and a certified birth certificate . By a letter of DATE the Director of ORG declared that the only missing document was the visa .","On DATE the applicants , assisted by a lawyer , lodged another application with ORG ( voluntary jurisdiction ) , requesting that it order ORG to issue the marriage banns given that the required visa was not a lawful requirement . Alternatively , if the court considered it to be a required document , they requested that the court refer the matter to the constitutional jurisdictions to establish whether there had been a violation of Articles CARDINAL of the Convention . By means of a decree of CARDINAL DATE the court found that , without prejudice to any rights of the applicants of obtaining constitutional redress si et quatenus [ if and in so far as ] , given that it appeared that the applicants had not produced all the necessary documents ORG had been justified in refusing to issue their marriage banns .","In DATE the applicants had a son , who was , however , registered as having an \u201c unknown father \u201d up to the date of the submission of observations , namely when the child was aged CARDINAL . The applicants submitted that they wished to rectify the position of the child per subsequens matrimonium .","On DATE the applicants , assisted by a lawyer , instituted constitutional redress proceedings , invoking Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the Convention .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , in its constitutional jurisdiction , considered that the applicants had exhausted ordinary remedies , no further remedies were available , and it thus found a breach of LAW in respect of the applicants\u2019 rights . The court considered that the refusal to issue the banns had not been justified , and ordered the authorities to reverse that decision . In particular , it noted that LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) did not provide that a passport or visa were to be submitted in order to issue marriage banns . While it was true that a certain amount of discretion was allowed LAW ) , which also referred to \u201c in addition to all other relevant information \u201d , such discretion had to operate to ensure good order and national security , and it had to be reasonable and proportionate to the aim pursued . The court considered that it was justified for a state to require a visa or a passport , nevertheless in the second applicant \u2019s case it appeared that it was not possible to issue him with a visa , though no justification for this had been submitted . Now that the second applicant had submitted all the relevant documents ( apart from the visa ) and that he had been living in GPE for DATE , the court could not find any justification or legitimate aim behind the registrar \u2019\u2019 family life had not been affected in any way and no discrimination had been proved .","The respondents , namely the Director of ORG and ORG , appealed .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG reversed the first - instance judgment . It considered that the applicants had not exhausted ordinary remedies as they had failed to institute ordinary proceedings before ORG ( FAC ) in its civil jurisdiction under LAW ( hereinafter the \u201c COCP \u201d - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG highlighted that according to domestic case - law , particularly PERSON vs ORG , ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , and the domestic case - law cited therein ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that procedure was a normal and ordinary procedure , CARDINAL that was regularly used , and there was nothing preventing the applicants from instituting such proceedings . The decree of the court of voluntary jurisdiction could be challenged by an ordinary application before ORG ( FAC ) which had the power to confirm , revoke or alter the decree being challenged . In the event of the applicants\u2019 request being acceded to , the remedy would have been an effective one and there would have been no complaint concerning any breach of human rights .","The relevant articles of LAW , LAW of LAW , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The celebration of marriage must be preceded by the publication of banns of matrimony .","( CARDINAL ) PERSON of matrimony shall state the name , surname , place of birth and residence of each of the persons to be married , the place where they intend to contract marriage and , unless the PERSON in the case of natural filiation or other circumstances deems proper to act otherwise , the name of the father and the name and surname of the mother of each of the persons to be married .","( CARDINAL ) A request for the publication of banns shall not be entertained unless it is delivered to the Registrar DATE before DATE of the intended marriage , or than such shorter period as the Registrar may in his discretion accept in special circumstances , and unless and until , in addition to all other relevant information , there are delivered to the Registrar-","( a ) the certificate of birth of each of the persons to be married ;","( b ) a declaration on oath made and signed by each of the persons to be married stating that to the best of his or her knowledge and belief there is no legal impediment to the marriage or other lawful cause why it should not take place .","Provided that if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Registrar that it is impracticable to obtain a certificate of birth required to be delivered by this sub - article , the Registrar may accept instead such other document or evidence as he may deem adequate for the purpose of this article . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the Registrar is of the opinion that he can not proceed to the publication of the banns or that he can not issue a certificate of such publication he shall notify the persons requesting the publication of his inability to do so , giving the reasons therefor .","( CARDINAL ) In any such case , either of the persons to be married may apply to the competent court of voluntary jurisdiction for an order directing the PERSON to publish the banns or to issue a certificate of their publication , as the case may require , and the court may , after hearing the applicant and the Registrar , give such directions as it may deem appropriate in the circumstances , and the Registrar shall act in accordance with any such directions . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the COCP ( Chapter CARDINAL of the Laws of Malta ) reads as follows :","\u201c No appeal shall lie from any decree of the ORG of voluntary jurisdiction ; but it shall be lawful for any party , who deems himself aggrieved , to bring an action before ORG , ORG , for the necessary order . \u201d","Relevant domestic case - law on the subject matter includes the case of PERSON vs Director of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL , above ) , concerning the registrar \u2019s refusal to issue the necessary banns on suspicion that it would have been a marriage of convenience . ORG confirmed the first - instance judgment , noting that the applicable principles to decide whether the applicants have or had at their disposal an alternative and effective ordinary remedy had been underlined by it in various judgments and in particular in GPE vs Director of Citizenship and Expatriate Affairs of DATE . Amongst other principles , ORG referred to : the existence of another remedy as an actual and objective fact ; that the remedy be accessible , just , effective and adequate in addressing the violation complained of ; that for a remedy to be effective it need not guarantee a favourable outcome , but it sufficed that it could be pursued in a practical , effective and efficient manner ; that the discretion of ORG in this respect must be carried out justly and in the best interest of the administration of justice in order to , on the one hand , avoid that the constitutional jurisdictions be burdened by cases which could or should have been dealt with by other competent courts or through other effective remedies , and on the other hand to ensure that a person is not denied the remedies available under LAW or the Convention . It considered that the fact that a remedy is not pursued is not sufficient for the constitutional jurisdictions to refuse to take cognisance of a case , if it is shown that the remedy referred to was not effective to give full redress ; however , when it is clear that there exists an available ordinary remedy , that must be pursued before seeking constitutional redress .","ORG held ( in PERSON ) that the plaintiffs had failed to challenge the decree of the court of voluntary jurisdiction by an ordinary application before ORG ( FAC ) , which had the power to annul and revoke the decree being challenged ( see also Director of Public Registry vs X , judgment of ORG ( FAC ) in its ordinary competence , of CARDINAL DATE ) . As had been held by the firstinstance court this was not an extraordinary remedy ; it had been used in the past and continued to be used ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179562","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PLESHCHINSKIY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant , Mr Grigoriy Nikolayevich Pleshchinskiy , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170643","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"LOUW v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177935","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FRAN\u010cI\u0160KA \u0160TEFAN\u010cI\u010c  v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She is the mother of PERSON , born in DATE . Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and depression and had been admitted to ORG on several occasions . In DATE he lodged an extensive criminal complaint , alleging that he had suffered various injustices at the hands of his work colleagues , acquaintances , the police and other organisations . Upon examining the complaint , ORG decided not to pursue it . In DATE Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d started to telephone ORG and go there in person on an almost DATE basis . He made various delusional accusations regarding murders that had gone unpunished \u201c since DATE NORP \u201d .","On DATE Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d appeared at ORG , and was told by the receptionist that the office was closed DATE . He replied that he would come back DATE , armed , and that nobody would be able to hide from him . Having been told about Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d \u2019s threats , the Head of ORG , ORG , telephoned ORG and told the staff what had happened . She was told that PERSON was mentally ill and had already been treated in the hospital several times . She was further advised to contact ORG and suggest that a referral be made for PERSON involuntary confinement . In addition , ORG was warned by PERSON consulting psychiatrist that over DATE his patient had threatened to kill several people , including his doctor , mother and sisters . In view of this , the psychiatrist had assessed that Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d was dangerous and in need of treatment , and added that he should be taken seriously due to his physical strength . ORG also called the LOC police and told them about PERSON visits to ORG .","At TIME a doctor from the health centre telephoned the LOC police station to request police assistance with PERSON involuntary confinement on the grounds that he could become aggressive . She later took the request for his police - assisted transport and the order for his confinement to the police station in person .","At TIME the duty officer submitted the request to the commander of the police station , who granted it immediately .","At TIME officer PERSON from the LOC police station set off to the applicant \u2019s house and found her son , who was living there , at home . He informed officers at the LOC police communications centre , and they informed the health centre staff that they could proceed with the involuntary confinement . Police officer PERSON remained at the scene until health centre medical staff consisting of ORG , the doctor on duty , and PERSON and GPE , medical technicians , arrived . Also sent to the scene were GPE , a second officer from the LOC police station , police officer dog handler PERSON , and CARDINAL traffic officers of the Nova Gorica traffic police .","According to the police report of DATE based on the statements made by the police officers and medical staff , upon their arrival at TIME the police officers and medical technicians first talked to the applicant , who was sitting on a bench at the back of her house . They asked her whether her son was in the house and whether he was armed . She replied that her son was indeed in the house and was on the telephone . She further explained that she was not aware of him possessing any firearms . The medical team informed the applicant why they were there and then entered the house , while the police officers remained at the front door .","Dr B.A. informed PERSON that they were going to take him to a psychiatric hospital , but he refused to go with them . The medical team attempted to persuade him , but he became agitated and verbally aggressive . The police officers warned him that he would be taken to the hospital by force if he refused to go of his own free will .","NORP The medical technicians attempted to take hold of Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d \u2019s arms , but he pushed them off and started to scream . PERSON then instructed the police officers to handcuff him , but when PERSON and PERSON attempted to restrain him , he resisted forcefully and pushed them off . In response , the police officers used physical force in order to push him to the ground , and PERSON ordered a muzzled dog on a leash to jump at him . As PERSON did not seem to react to the dog jumping at his chest , PERSON took it back to the police car . PERSON and GPE meanwhile continued to use physical force and managed to wrestle Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d to the ground onto his back .","The QUANTITY police officers were then joined by dog handler PERSON , who used the \u201c rear chokehold \u201d technique on PERSON . Together they managed to put him into the recovery position and medical technician PERSON injected GPE ( an antipsychotic drug with tranquilising effects ) into his buttocks . As PERSON continued to resist , they could not administer the full dose of medication to him . The police officers then turned him onto his stomach , and PERSON handcuffed his hands behind his back . Medical technician PERSON injected him with ORG , medication used on psychiatric patients to reduce the tremors caused by antipsychotic drugs .","Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d calmed down as soon as he received the second dose of medication . TIME , the police officers and medical technicians noticed that there was a brown palm - sized pool of liquid under his head . They alerted PERSON , who established that PERSON had vomited and assessed that it could have been attributed to exertion . However , when CARDINAL of the medical technicians checked Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d again , he detected an irregular heartbeat , and again called out to the doctor . The medical team began to resuscitate him at TIME The police officers attempted to unlock his handcuffs , but only managed to free CARDINAL of his hands , before the key broke .","The applicant , who was waiting outside during the intervention , was heading to the front of the house when she heard loud noises and a dog barking . When she approached the front door , she saw PERSON massaging her son \u2019s chest . She asked the police officers what was going on , to which one of them replied that they were resuscitating her son . Another ambulance arrived at the scene at TIME , and an electrocardiogram was performed on PERSON , but to no avail . At TIME Dr B.A. pronounced him dead . He attributed the death to a heart attack or stroke .","NORP Immediately after PERSON death , the officers from the LOC police station notified the LOC police communications centre of the incident and secured the area . The duty ORG prosecutor and the duty investigating judge of ORG were also notified of the death . The investigating judge attended the scene and ordered a forensic examination of the body . The medical file and equipment used in his resuscitation were also seized .","On DATE police officers GPE , PERSON and PERSON made records of the methods of restraint they had used on PERSON ( physical force , handcuffs and the police dog ) , which were confirmed by their superior officers to have been lawful .","In DATE after the incident , an officer of the Nova Gorica police took statements from the police officers and medical staff involved in the incident , as well as from the applicant .","The applicant stated that on TIME DATE several police cars and an ambulance drove to the house and an officer asked her whether her son was keeping firearms . She replied that he was not , as far as she was aware . The applicant remained outside during the intervention and could not remember exactly how the events unfolded . She heard screaming , but was afraid to go inside . Sometime later she looked into the hallway and saw her son lying on the floor , surrounded by PERSON and the medical technicians . She asked them what was going on , and they replied that they were resuscitating her son . She noticed that he had vomited .","GPE and PERSON , police officers , stated that upon entering the house , PERSON , who appeared to be talking on the telephone , told the medical technicians that he would not go with them , and GPE and PERSON then warned him that they would use force if necessary . PERSON also tried to convince him to go with them without success and he then instructed the officers to handcuff him . PERSON and PERSON took him by the arms to lead him to the ambulance but he resisted strongly . Dog handler PERSON attempted to calm him down by ordering the police dog to jump at him but Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d did not react to the dog \u2019s attack . The officers struggled to wrestle him to the ground and eventually succeeded in pushing him to the ground on his back ; they then turned him onto his stomach , but he continued to resist forcefully . Dog handler PERSON then used the so - called \u201c rear chokehold \u201d technique on him , and together they managed to turn him onto his side . CARDINAL of the medical technicians then administered the first dose of medication to him , whereupon he was again turned onto his stomach and handcuffed with his hands behind his back . The second dose of medication was then administered to him and he calmed down .","After PERSON received the second dose of medication , GPE noticed a brown palm - sized pool of liquid under his head . Somebody mentioned that it was vomit and PERSON then asked if that was right . Dr GPE was on the telephone arranging for PERSON transport to the psychiatric hospital but upon hearing PERSON \u2019s question checked PERSON and said that the vomiting was due to exertion . PERSON confirmed that PERSON initially said that PERSON was okay and vomited from exertion but added that the doctor did not check PERSON pupils or pulse . Then CARDINAL of the medical technicians looked at Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d again and checked his pulse . He called out to the doctor , saying that something was not right as he was breathing irregularly . Officer PERSON then attempted to unlock the handcuffs , and managed to get the CARDINAL on his right hand off before the key broke . The medical staff started to resuscitate him . The whole incident , from the beginning of the police intervention until the beginning of the resuscitation procedure , only lasted TIME , five at the most .","PERSON , a police dog handler , confirmed that he had first joined the intervention by ordering the police dog , which was muzzled , to jump at Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d , who , however , made no attempt to shake the dog off or to withdraw from the attack . Therefore PERSON took the dog back to his car and then returned to the house , where officers PERSON and PERSON were not able to turn Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d onto his stomach . PERSON helped them by holding him in a rear chokehold and together they managed to turn him onto his stomach and handcuff him . As this was going on , one of the medical technicians injected medication into his buttocks . PERSON also confirmed his NORP accounts as to how the resuscitation of PERSON proceeded after it was discovered that he had vomited .","I.P. , a medical technician , stated that on his arrival , he first asked the applicant a few questions and then entered her house with his colleague PERSON According to both medical technicians , PERSON pretended to be speaking on the telephone . ORG explained to him that he was being taken to the psychiatric hospital to see a psychiatrist . PERSON refused to go and PERSON ordered him to be handcuffed . As regards the events that ensued concerning the use of force by the police officers , ORG \u2019s statement matched the statements of police officers GPE , PERSON and PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , while PERSON did not pay much attention to the police operation , as he was preparing a syringe of GPE .","As soon as the police officers managed to wrestle Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d to the ground and turn him onto his side , PERSON injected him with GPE . PERSON added that because Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d forcefully resisted , he could not administer the full dose of medication to him . He then left the house . While the police officers turned Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d onto his stomach , ORG administered the second injection into his buttocks and he calmed down . ORG then noticed that he was not breathing or was struggling to breathe . As far as he could remember , he called out that PERSON was not breathing . PERSON approached him and saw him take a breath , concluding that he was breathing . PERSON , standing outside , stated that he had not seen when and how PERSON had started to vomit , but heard the exchange between his colleague and PERSON The doctor then left the house and started to arrange PERSON transport to the hospital . GPE checked PERSON again and exclaimed that he was not breathing . Together with the police officers they turned PERSON \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d onto his back and GPE noticed that he was cyanotic . He also noticed traces of vomit on PERSON face , so he first protected his airways . The police officers had by then removed the handcuffs from him . His colleague PERSON , who confirmed that PERSON looked grey and had traces of vomit on his face , fetched the resuscitation kit from the ambulance . Together with PERSON they had intubated him ; however , even at the beginning of resuscitation , his pupils were dilated , which was also a bad sign . ORG also stated that the whole incident , from the use of physical force on Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d until the beginning of the resuscitation procedure , only lasted TIME , five at the most . ORG \u2019s account was confirmed in substance by traffic officer PERSON , who together with his colleague PERSON guarded the back entrance to the applicant \u2019s house and thus only heard part of the incident .","Medical technician PERSON expressed the view that the police officers might have used excessive force in dealing with PERSON . He added that though Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d had refused to go to the psychiatric hospital , he had not been particularly aggressive , and above all , had not physically attacked anyone .","Dr B.A. , a general practitioner , stated that PERSON psychiatrist expected that he might behave aggressively so he received instructions to give him an injection of CARDINAL ampoules of GPE and CARDINAL ampoule of ORG . Although in the beginning of the intervention Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d appeared agitated , but not aggressive , he started to resist forcefully when the police officers attempted to handcuff him .","According to PERSON , after PERSON was handcuffed and calmed down , he came out of the applicant \u2019s house and started to arrange his transport . CARDINAL of the police officers then called out to him that something was not right , that Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d had vomited and was having trouble breathing . He was immediately turned onto his back . Dr GPE noticed that Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d had turned blue in the face and that he was wheezing . The medical team then started the resuscitation procedure , massaging his heart and intubating him , as well as administering QUANTITY mg of adrenaline and QUANTITY of atropine to him . However , as they did not have an electrocardiogram monitor or a defibrillator , another ambulance was called . By the time the second ambulance arrived at TIME , they could only establish that Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d had died .","On DATE a criminal investigations officer of the Nova Gorica police obtained an oral preliminary report from the forensic pathologist who had performed the autopsy of Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d . According to him , the deceased had most likely died of asphyxiation from inhaling gastric contents ( choking on his own vomit ) . With regard to the question of potential liability for Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d \u2019s death , he took the view that the asphyxiation occurred during the police intervention , and that the presence of a doctor could not have altered the course of events . He added that the doctor could only be accused of negligence if the death had occurred during the resuscitation , which in his opinion had not been the case .","On DATE the head of the Nova Gorica police criminal investigations unit submitted a report of the incident to ORG . Based on a statement provided by the forensic pathologist who conducted the forensic examination , the report stated asphyxiation from inhaling gastric contents as the cause of PERSON death . As to the events leading to the death , the police report summarised the statements given by the intervention team and stated that PERSON had resisted the police officers who had tried to take him to the psychiatric hospital , whereupon physical force had been used on him . After PERSON \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d had been restrained and had calmed down , the police officers and medical technicians had noticed that he had vomited . After Dr B.A. had initially assessed that this could be attributed to exertion , he had been found to have an irregular heartbeat and the medical team had tried to resuscitate him , but to no avail . As regards the question of potential liability for Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d \u2019s death , the police report followed the forensic pathologist \u2019s opinion that he had died during the police intervention and that his death could not have been prevented by any medical assistance . The report concluded by saying that no facts had been established giving rise to a suspicion that a criminal offence had been committed in connection with the death of Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d which warranted criminal prosecution .","On DATE the completed forensic report was submitted to the investigating judge of ORG , confirming asphyxiation from inhaling gastric contents as the immediate cause of PERSON death . In addition to the trauma consistent with the cause of death , the examination revealed a number of blunt injuries to various parts of his body .","These included contusions on the outer edge of the shoulder blade , the left of the back and the back of the right thigh , swelling on the right of the hairline and the squamous part of the temporal bone , contusions on the inside of the upper right arm and left forearm and on the front of the left thigh . Several haematomas were recorded around the left shoulder blade , on the outer edge of the right shoulder blade , on the right of the thorax and on the scalp , as well as a pulmonary oedema , an oblique fracture of the fifth rib , bruising around the lumbar spine , and brain swelling .","According to the report , these injuries had either been caused by Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d \u2019s body being struck by an object , by part of his body being pressed against something , by him falling , or by his body being pressed between CARDINAL hard surfaces . As regards the injuries to the back of his body , hairline and front left thigh , the forensic pathologist concluded that they had most likely occurred by him falling or falling after being struck , and that the bruises were caused by the body being pulled to the ground .","The toxicology report revealed a low concentration of haloperidol ( an antipsychotic drug with strong calming effects ) in PERSON blood . The forensic report concluded that the substance had been consumed either as a prescription medicine or administered during the intervention in order to calm him down , but could not be linked to his death or identified as the cause of his vomiting .","No particularities or disease - related changes had been found in Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d \u2019s system which could have directly contributed to his death .","With regard to enquiries made by the investigating judge as to whether PERSON death could have been prevented by prompt and adequate medical assistance , the forensic report stated :","\u201c Disregarding the particular circumstances surrounding the incident , this question could be answered in the affirmative ; however , one can not neglect the exceptional circumstances in which the incident occurred .","Prompt and adequate medical assistance could have saved the life of [ Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d ] , even in the event that no ambulance with resuscitation equipment was immediately available .","It is likely that [ Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d ] was thrown or pushed to the ground where , prior to being handcuffed , his body was pushed down by applying body weight or some other pressure . [ Being struck or pushed in ] the stomach most likely induced the vomiting . In so far as the medical staff or the officers assisting them in the involuntary confinement had noticed in due course that [ Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d ] began to vomit , they could have prevented him from inhaling gastric contents either by lifting his body into a vertical position or by turning him onto his side and mechanically clearing his oral cavity by using their fingers or an aspirator ( if an aspirator was at the disposal of the medical staff ) . However , it was not possible to apply any of these measures to an aggressive patient resisting hospitalisation ; it is only possible to apply such measures after the patient has calmed down or lost consciousness as a result of disruption in the exchange of gases following the aspiration of gastric contents . Having regard to the agitation and aggressiveness of the patient , as well as the circumstances of the incident , such measures almost certainly could not have been applied .","The deceased only lost consciousness when his breathing was disrupted by inhaling massive amounts of gastric contents . Only then was it possible to apply more aggressive medical intervention ( mechanical clearing of the oral cavity , suction of gastric contents from the oral cavity and respiratory tract , removal of potentially larger foreign objects and insertion of a tube with a balloon to prevent continuing aspiration of gastric contents , ventilation of the patient ) , which could not be performed on a conscious person , in particular on an aggressive person , due to the unpleasant feelings such an intervention induces . In the present case , the aspiration of gastric contents was particularly massive and aggressive , which is indicated by the pieces of food found by the histological analysis to be present even in the alveoli , the final branching of the respiratory system .","In the present case it was not possible , once the deceased lost consciousness , to apply those methods and to suck the gastric contents from the respiratory passages and alveoli ; considering the quantity and force of the aspiration of gastric contents , medical assistance probably would not have saved the life of [ Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d ] . \u201d","On DATE the investigating judge of ORG sent the statements of the persons involved in the incident , a record of the examination of the scene , the order for a forensic examination of PERSON body and the forensic report to ORG .","On DATE the Head of ORG , ORG , informed ORG that the conditions had not been met for the institution of criminal proceedings , and that the case file had been archived .","On DATE the applicant , through her representative , lodged a criminal complaint against police officers PERSON , GPE and PERSON , whereby she stated that her son had been strangled and had died as a result of an unnecessary and unprofessional police intervention . The applicant also stated that the forensic report was misleading and there were doubts as to its accuracy . In addition , an anonymous criminal complaint was lodged against ORG , the head of the Nova Gorica uniformed police unit . The complainant alleged that ORG had abused his position by giving a statement at a press conference in which he had covered up the actual cause of Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d \u2019s death in order to prevent criminal prosecution of Dr B.A.","After having reviewed ORG Office \u2019s case file , on DATE a ORG prosecutor from ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavnih to\u017eilcev za posebne zadeve \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the Special Matters Group \u201d ) , which had exclusive jurisdiction over the prosecution of criminal offences committed by police officers , rejected both criminal complaints on the basis of the police and forensic reports and the media reports from the press conference on Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d \u2019s death .","NORP The decision to reject the criminal complaints summarised the information included in the police and forensic reports , as well as the statements given to the police by PERSON and medical technicians PERSON and GPE","The ORG prosecutor , relying on the forensic report , concluded that PERSON death could have been prevented if someone had been noticed in time that he had started to vomit . However , in the case in question PERSON had been aggressive and resisted hospitalisation , and no assistance could be provided until he had calmed down . Therefore , in the ORG prosecutor \u2019s opinion there was no is reasonable suspicion that the actions of PERSON , GPE and PERSON , the QUANTITY police officers who had restrained PERSON , constituted a criminal offence . Moreover , as regards the anonymous criminal complaint , the ORG prosecutor established that , according to the reports in the media , the head of the PERSON uniformed police unit had stated neither that Mr \u0160tefan\u010di\u010d had died as a result of being administered sedatives , nor that the medical team had immediately begun resuscitation after his condition had deteriorated . Therefore , no reasonable suspicion existed that ORG had committed a criminal offence liable to prosecution ex officio .","No appeal was available to the applicant against the decision to reject her criminal complaint . However , she could take over the conduct of criminal proceedings as a \u201c subsidiary prosecutor \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163353","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR COMMERCE AND DEVELOPMENT AD AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing;Adversarial trial);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The bank was founded and entered in the register of companies in DATE . According to the ORG \u2019s records , its shareholders on DATE were the second applicant , PERSON , who held PERCENT of the shares ; his brother , PERSON , who also held PERCENT of the shares ; the CARDINAL companies listed in paragraph CARDINAL above , each of which held PERCENT and PERCENT of the shares ; a Mr B.P. , who held PERCENT of the shares ; and PERSON , who held PERCENT of the shares ( for a full breakdown , see the Appendix ) .","At the material time the bank had a CARDINAL - tier management system , consisting of an executive board and a supervisory board . Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON were members of the executive board between CARDINAL DATE and DATE . In DATE and DATE Mr B.P. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was member of the bank \u2019s executive board and CARDINAL of its executive directors .","NORP In DATE tensions arose among the bank \u2019s shareholders and between some of the shareholders and the bank \u2019s management . On DATE Mr Bonev and Flavors , Fragrances and Chemicals ( ORG , acting in their capacity as shareholders who had held CARDINAL per cent of the bank \u2019s shares for DATE , asked the executive board to call a general meeting of shareholders with a view to adopting amendments to the bank \u2019s articles of association , reducing the number of members of the bank \u2019s executive and supervisory boards , and replacing some of the boards\u2019 members . The same day the executive board agreed to call such a meeting , but on DATE the supervisory board set its resolution aside and called a general meeting of shareholders with a different order of business , to be held on DATE .","Thereupon PERSON , ORG , Flavors , ORG ( ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG Int\u2019l ORG , ORG in Travel - Inc , ORG and ORG , acting in their capacity as shareholders who had held MONEY of the bank \u2019s shares for DATE , applied to ORG for an order adding the points that they wished to have included on the general meeting \u2019s order of business . On DATE the chairman of the bank \u2019s executive board and CARDINAL of its executive directors objected to the request , saying that according to the bank \u2019s register of shareholders , the persons who had made the request did not hold enough shares to be entitled to make CARDINAL , and that the companies which had made the request had not produced proper credentials . On DATE the ORG made an order in the terms sought by PERSON and the companies , noting that they had proved that they had held the required number of shares for DATE through notarised declarations .","Separately , PERSON and Flavors , Fragrances and Chemicals ( ORG , again acting in their capacity as shareholders who had held CARDINAL per cent of the bank \u2019s shares for DATE , asked ORG to authorise them to call a separate general meeting of shareholders , with the order of business that they wished to have . To establish their capacity as shareholders , they enclosed with their request provisional share warrants issued in DATE . On DATE the ORG upheld the request . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the chairman of the bank \u2019s executive board and CARDINAL of its executive directors , PERSON , asked the court to vary its order , arguing that the provisional share warrants had not been registered in the bank \u2019s register of shareholders , and that the documents enclosed with the ORG request had not been issued by persons authorised to act on the bank \u2019s behalf . On DATE the court refused to vary its order , holding that by law that was not possible .","On DATE proxies representing the CARDINAL companies listed in paragraph CARDINAL above showed up at the bank \u2019s LOC with a view to taking part in the general meeting of shareholders . Mr P.E.B , PERSON and PERSON , who between them held PERCENT of the bank \u2019s shares , were also represented . The polling commission entrusted by the bank \u2019s executive board to check the ORG credentials refused to accept the provisional share warrants through which the CARDINAL companies sought to establish their capacity as shareholders . Concluding that PERCENT of the shares were duly represented , the commission decided to adjourn the meeting for DATE . A dispute ensued , and the CARDINAL companies\u2019 proxies held a parallel general meeting in the stairwell of the bank \u2019s building . They resolved to amend the bank \u2019s articles of association , reduce the number of members of its executive and supervisory boards from CARDINAL , remove CARDINAL members of the supervisory board and CARDINAL members of the executive board , including Mr B.P. , and appoint CARDINAL new members of the supervisory board and CARDINAL new members of the executive board , who were to be also executive directors : the applicants Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr Radev .","On DATE Mr GPE \u2019s and the CARDINAL companies\u2019 proxies tried to hold another general meeting of shareholders at the FAC hotel , as authorised by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Mr P.E.B , PERSON and PERSON were also represented . The police showed up , trying to seize the provisional share warrants which PERSON and the CARDINAL companies\u2019 proxies were supposed to use to establish their capacity as shareholders , but could apparently not find them . The police were acting on an order issued by the prosecuting authorities in connection with criminal proceedings concerning the genuineness of those warrants , which they had opened pursuant to complaints by PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In view of the failure of the proxies to produce valid share warrants , the polling commission entrusted by the bank \u2019s executive board to check the ORG credentials found that PERCENT of the shares were duly represented and decided to adjourn the meeting for DATE . However , PERSON and the CARDINAL companies\u2019 proxies held a parallel general meeting in an adjoining room , and adopted the same resolutions as the ones adopted on DATE .","On DATE the ORG , sitting in private , decided to enter the changes resolved upon at the general meeting on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in the register of companies . The court found that the change in the bank \u2019s management and the amendment of its articles of association had been duly carried out . It registered the amendment to the bank \u2019s articles of association and the reduction of the number of members of its executive and supervisory boards from CARDINAL . The court also struck out of the register CARDINAL members of the supervisory board and CARDINAL members of the executive board , including Mr B.P. , and registered CARDINAL new members of the supervisory board and CARDINAL new members of the executive board , who were also to be executive directors : the applicants Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON . Lastly , the court registered Mr PERSON as chairman of the executive board . The court specified that its decision was to be entered in the register of companies and published , and that it was not subject to appeal .","The court \u2019s decision was entered in the register of companies the afternoon of the following day , CARDINAL DATE . In TIME a notary sent to the register of companies by ORG certified that the decision had not yet been entered in the register . DATE the court issued a certificate reflecting the changes in the bank \u2019s registration .","On DATE the ORG , sitting in private , decided to enter the changes and amendments resolved upon at the general meeting on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in the register of companies . The court found that the changes in the bank \u2019s management and the amendment of its articles of association had been duly made . The changes registered by the court were identical to the ones registered with its decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Subsequently , Mr GPE and Mr P.B. sought revision of those CARDINAL decisions and brought claims for the annulment of the shareholder resolutions whose registration they ordered ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE Mr B.P. wrote to the police and to GPE ORG , alleging that the provisional share warrants on which PERSON and Flavors , Fragrances and Chemicals ( ORG had relied to obtain the court order of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were false and did not correspond to the entries in the bank \u2019s register of shareholders . He pointed out that the warrants had been signed by PERSON and PERSON , and asked the authorities to open criminal proceedings and check whether any criminal offences had been committed in relation to that .","On DATE the police issued an order for Mr PERSON \u2019s arrest for TIME . He was arrested and released DATE . It does not appear that he has attempted to seek judicial review of his detention .","In DATE Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were charged with making false private documents . PERSON was , for his part , charged with using a false official document . The charges were later amended : PERSON and PERSON were charged with making false official documents , and Mr PERSON was charged with knowingly using a false document .","On DATE the GPE ORG , noting that Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had in DATE travelled extensively out of the country , which in its view meant that they could seek to evade criminal liability by fleeing abroad , banned them from leaving the country . On DATE it made the same decision with respect to PERSON .","On DATE the GPE ORG turned down PERSON \u2019s , PERSON and PERSON requests that the travel bans be lifted . It reasoned that , in view of the advanced stage of the pre - trial proceedings , their prolonged absence from the country might cause delays .","The preliminary investigation was completed in DATE and on DATE the CARDINAL applicants were indicted . However , finding that the indictment suffered from various defects , on DATE the ORG referred the case back to the prosecuting authorities .","On DATE the GPE ORG turned down a request by PERSON to be allowed to travel to GPE for business meetings in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .","On DATE the GPE ORG Office re - submitted the indictment , and on DATE the ORG set the case down for trial on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the ORG refused a request by PERSON to be allowed to travel to GPE for business meetings . It held that there was no evidence that he had a pressing need to travel there . However , on DATE and DATE the court allowed PERSON to travel abroad in DATE and DATE respectively . On DATE it allowed him to travel to GPE in DATE for a business seminar .","The GPE ORG heard the case on DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE .","At the hearing on DATE , noting that PERSON had duly appeared and had not attempted to flee during the investigation , the court allowed him to travel abroad during the period until the following hearing . On DATE the court allowed PERSON to travel to GPE in DATE for business meetings .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the GPE ORG lifted the travel bans imposed on PERSON , PERSON and PERSON PERSON .","On DATE the GPE ORG acquitted Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON and PERSON . Its judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .","On DATE and DATE respectively Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were charged with forgery offences in connection with their participation in the general meeting of shareholders of the bank on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the ORG banned them from leaving the country . CARDINAL other persons were charged as well .","On DATE Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and their co - accused were indicted . However , finding that the indictment suffered from various defects , on DATE the ORG referred the case back to the prosecuting authorities .","On DATE the GPE ORG resubmitted the indictment . The GPE ORG heard the case on CARDINAL unspecified dates in DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON asked the Sofia District Court to lift the travel bans . In a decision of DATE the court refused their request , but on DATE lifted the bans .","On DATE the GPE ORG acquitted Mr PERSON , PERSON PERSON and their CARDINAL co - accused . On DATE the prosecution appealed but then withdrew its appeal , and on DATE the ORG discontinued the appeal proceedings .","On DATE Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON entered into service contracts with the bank , represented by a member of its supervisory board . They undertook to sit on the bank \u2019s executive board for DATE following the registration of the resolutions of the general meeting of shareholders to appoint them as members of that board . In return , each of them was to receive a DATE salary of MONEY ( ORG ) plus a host of other benefits .","The same day Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON tried to take up their duties , but the bank \u2019s former management refused to vacate their offices and called the police , saying that they were not aware of any resolution to remove them . DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the bank \u2019s former management forced the applicants out of the bank \u2019s building , with help from the police . It appears that the police were acting on orders from the prosecuting authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the Sofia City Prosecutor \u2019s Office ordered the police to assist Mr B.P. in preventing any changes in the status quo in the bank \u2019s management and operations , and to warn Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr DATE , a newly registered member of the bank \u2019s supervisory board , to refrain from any actions in relation to that until the matter had been duly resolved by the competent authorities . It relied on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and reasoned that ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was being verified by ORG , that the record drawn up by the notary public ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) made it apparent that that decision had not been entered in the register of companies , which meant that it did not in fact exist , that Mr B.P. had applied to ORG to reopen the proceedings and annul that decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and that by trying to put the decision into effect Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON DATE were interfering with the bank \u2019s normal business . The prosecutor found that , in view of the possibility for them to dispose of the bank \u2019s documents and assets and imperil the interests of the bank \u2019s depositors , that gave rise to a real risk of irreparable damage .","Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON appealed to ORG , arguing that the order was unlawful and arbitrary . They pointed out that GPE decision was valid and immediately enforceable , that no appeal lay against it to ORG , and that the prosecuting authorities had no power to stay its enforcement . The question whether a judicial decision had been entered in the register of companies was to be established on the basis of official documents issued by the competent court , not of a record drawn up by a notary public outside his competence . The certificate issued by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) showed that its decision had in fact been duly entered in the register of companies .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal . It noted that ORG had been spurred into action by information , given to it by GPE ORG , that ORG decision to make changes in the bank \u2019s registration might have been based on false documents . At the time when GPE Prosecutor \u2019s Office had issued its order , ORG decision had not yet been entered in the register of companies . Proceedings against that decision were pending before ORG . All of that showed that until GPE ORG had completed its inquiry into the matter or until ORG had given judgment , there would continue to exist a risk of changes in the status quo and irreparable damage to the bank .","Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON appealed to ORG , reiterating their arguments .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It reasoned that it was beyond doubt that the prosecuting authorities were faced with a judicial decision under challenge and with evidence that that decision had been obtained through the use of false documents . Moreover , the decision had been issued in spite of a decision staying the registration proceedings and the existence of pending contentious proceedings . The appellants\u2019 argument that ORG had no jurisdiction to hear a legal challenge against ORG decision was unavailing because the prosecuting authorities were not competent to make pronouncements on such points . Faced with pending judicial proceedings and a pending criminal investigation , they were bound to take measures to prevent changes in the status quo before any judicial resolution of the matter . The appellants\u2019 attempts to change that status quo were premised on rights acquired through a judicial decision based on false documents . It was necessary for the judiciary to check the lawfulness of that decision and for the investigating authorities to gather evidence with a view to uncovering the truth . The bank had to be protected against damage flowing from offences that had already been committed and from the risk of future offences . The prerequisites of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) were therefore in place .","Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON appealed to ORG , arguing that the prosecuting authorities had acted in a patently unlawful way and in excess of their powers . Their decisions had been based on false findings of fact , and on the finding \u2013 not based on a final conviction \u2013 that offences had been committed by them .","On DATE the head of the economic crime division of ORG , to whom the case had been assigned , dismissed the appeal . He reasoned that the prosecuting authorities had acted lawfully and within their powers under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG was investigating the making of false documents with a view to obtaining changes in the bank \u2019s registration , and ORG decision had been challenged before ORG . There had therefore been a need to preserve the status quo with a view to ensuring the normal operation of the bank .","DATE , DATE , GPE District Prosecutor \u2019s Office ordered the police to take measures to ensure compliance with ORG Office \u2019s order of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the preservation of the status quo in the bank . It noted that criminal proceedings had been instituted against members of the bank \u2019s newly appointed management in relation to documentary offences , and that information existed that a group of persons had tried to enter the bank \u2019s LOC . Mr GPE and the applicants Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had complained to the prosecuting authorities in relation to that . Since the criminal proceedings concerned allegations of using false documents to obtain judicial decisions to make entries in the register of companies , it was appropriate to maintain the status quo pending the resolution of the case . Indeed , this had already been ordered by the higher prosecutor \u2019s offices , whose decisions were mandatory for the Sofia ORG . The decision did not mention the legal provisions on which it was based .","In DATE Mr PERSON wrote a number of letters to ORG and tried to meet him in person with a view to obtaining the quashing or varying of the above ORG decisions , to no avail . He also lodged complaints with the Minister of ORG and ORG .","On DATE the CARDINAL companies listed in paragraph CARDINAL above transferred their shares to PERSON by endorsing the provisional share warrants issued in DATE . As a result , he became the owner of PERCENT of the bank \u2019s shares . The companies submitted that PERSON paid part of the GPE price immediately and undertook to pay the remainder when the transfer would be registered in the bank \u2019s register of shareholders . The companies submitted that they could not obtain the remainder of the price because the bank \u2019s former management , who were de facto running the bank by virtue of the ORG decisions outlined in paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above , refused to register the transfer .","On an unspecified date in DATE Mr B.P. and PERSON sought revision of ORG decisions of CARDINAL and DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) .","In CARDINAL decisions of DATE ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 GPE \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG , ORG \u0442. \u043e. , and \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , ORG , ORG \u0442. \u043e. ) a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG refused to examine the requests , holding that judicial decisions making entries in the register of companies were not subject to revision . Such decisions did not determine disputes between opposing litigants and did not enjoy res judicata . The proper way to contest entries in the register of companies obtained by criminal means was by way of a claim under LAW of LAW DATE aiming to have the entries erased under LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . Mr ORG and PERSON appealed . In CARDINAL decisions of DATE ( \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG , \u043f\u0435\u0442\u0447\u043b. \u0441-\u0432 , and \u043e\u043f\u0440. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG , \u043f\u0435\u0442\u0447\u043b. \u0441-\u0432 ) a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG upheld the CARDINAL - member panel \u2019s rulings , fully agreeing with them .","In the meantime , Mr GPE and Mr P.B. brought claims against the bank under LAW of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , asking ORG to annul the resolutions of the general meetings of shareholders held on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .","In CARDINAL judgments of DATE and DATE , ORG allowed the claims and annulled all resolutions adopted by the CARDINAL meetings . It found that the meetings had been adjourned by the polling commission for lack of quorum and had not taken place , and that the parallel meetings had not been valid , chiefly because the persons who had taken part in them had not established their capacity as shareholders on the basis of valid provisional share warrants .","Following appeals by the bank , represented by the management appointed in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) and registered by ORG in DATE ( paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , on CARDINAL and DATE respectively ORG quashed those judgments and dismissed the claims . It found that the persons who had held the parallel meetings had in fact represented PERCENT of the bank \u2019s capital . The bank \u2019s records , which fully matched those of the BNB , and a document issued by PERSON in his capacity as executive director on DATE of the meeting , showed that they had indeed been shareholders in it .","On appeals by PERSON and PERSON , in CARDINAL judgments of DATE and DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u043f\u043e \u0442. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG , ORG \u0442. \u043e. , and \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 DATE \u043f\u043e \u0442. \u0434. \u2116 DATE \u0433. , ORG , ORG \u0442. \u043e. ) ORG quashed ORG judgments and annulled the resolutions of the CARDINAL general meetings . It held that , where nominative shares which had still not been issued were concerned , the only way of proving that a person was a shareholder entitled to take part in a general meeting was by producing a valid provisional share warrant . This had not happened at the CARDINAL meetings . They had therefore been held by persons whose capacity as shareholders had not been duly established , and all resolutions adopted by them were unlawful .","On DATE and DATE ORG , acting of its own motion ( see paragraph DATE below ) , and noting that the resolutions of the general meetings of CARDINAL and DATE had been ultimately annulled by ORG , erased the entries in the register of companies relating to those resolutions .","DATE and DATE the applicants repeatedly asked the BNB to exercise its supervisory powers and take measures to resolve the bank \u2019s situation . On DATE the BNB wrote to ORG with a view to elucidating the effect of the ORG decisions outlined in paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above on the bank \u2019s management , but apparently did not receive a reply .","On DATE the ORG \u2019s deputy - governor in charge of banking supervision noted that Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , who had been duly registered as members of the bank \u2019s executive board , were being prevented from carrying out their duties as a result of the decisions of the prosecuting authorities ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . That made it impossible for the bank \u2019s executive board to function . The attempts to approach the Chief Prosecutor with a view to solving the problem had proved unfruitful . At the same time , a check of the bank \u2019s finances carried out in DATE showed that its credit portfolio was deteriorating due to the ever more frequent failure of its debtors to service considerable loans extended by the bank , and that the bank was not carrying out proper creditrisk assessments . All of that seriously affected its stability and the interests of its creditors and depositors . It was therefore necessary to take urgent measures to solve the problem with the bank \u2019s management . The BNB \u2019s deputy - governor accordingly decided to call a meeting of the bank \u2019s supervisory board on DATE with a view to taking measures , possibly including replacing the members of the bank \u2019s executive board , that could allow the bank to be effectively managed . The order specified that it was immediately enforceable and not subject to judicial review .","DATE , DATE , the bank \u2019s supervisory board held a meeting at which it resolved to relieve PERSON of his duties as executive director of the bank and member of its executive board , and to appoint a Mr FAC in his stead . The board noted that Mr PERSON \u2019s removal was not due to any failure on his part but to factors beyond the bank \u2019s control . DATE , DATE , the BNB informed the bank that it gave its regulatory approval to the changes in the bank \u2019s executive board .","On DATE Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON asked ORG to register the supervisory board \u2019s resolution . On DATE Mr ORG and PERSON brother , PERSON , acting in their capacity as shareholders in the bank , asked the court not to proceed with the registration pending the outcome of the proceedings in which PERSON and PERSON had challenged the resolutions of the general meetings of shareholders of CARDINAL and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the court upheld that latter request , noting that the general meeting \u2019s resolutions under challenge included the CARDINAL to appoint the supervisory board whose resolution the court was being asked to enter in the register of companies . This registration was therefore to be adjourned pending the outcome of the proceedings against the general meeting \u2019s resolutions .","In DATE the BNB repeatedly instructed the bank to take steps to overcome its financial difficulties . On DATE it noted that , contrary to a statutory rule prohibiting banks from exposing CARDINAL of their capital to any CARDINAL debtor , the bank had , DATE , extended a large loan to a company . In spite of the ORG \u2019s instructions to fix that , the bank later had , on the contrary , vastly increased its exposure to that company . It was also overly exposed to other debtors , and faced with a serious deterioration of its credit portfolio , with ever more frequent failures by its CARDINAL principal debtors to service their loans . That required the bank to increase its non - performing loan provisions , but doing so would deplete its capital to a level requiring revocation of its licence . The BNB therefore asked all persons engaged with running the bank to join efforts to remedy its situation , and instructed the bank immediately to bring its exposure into line with the statutory requirements and collect its overdue loans from CARDINAL companies and all of its loans from another company . The ORG also barred the bank from taking in new term deposits , except from shareholders , and warned it that failure to comply with those instructions would lead to harsher measures , including the appointment of special administrators or revocation of its licence .","On DATE the ORG \u2019s deputy - governor in charge of banking supervision decided to place the bank under compulsory administration and to appoint CARDINAL special administrators to run it for DATE . She noted that it had already been established that the bank \u2019s financial situation had substantially deteriorated and that its capital was below the amount required by law , which called for immediate remedial action ; in particular , the collection of some of the loans extended by the bank . Despite instructions to that effect by the ORG and a warning that failure to act would trigger harsher measures , the bank \u2019s management had not taken such action . A report by an inspector appointed by the ORG showed that the bank \u2019s liquidity was worsening DATE . The bank was therefore at risk of insolvency that its shareholders and management had not taken steps to avert . There was uncertainty in relation to the persons running the bank : those actually doing so no longer featured in the register of companies and were not in law entitled to act on the bank \u2019s behalf , whereas those featuring in the register could not in fact do so because of the decisions of the prosecuting authorities ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . That threw doubt on the reliability of the reports which the bank was submitting to the BNB ; there were reasons to believe that its financial situation was worse than transpiring from these reports . At the same time , the infighting between the bank \u2019s shareholders precluded outside assistance . All that showed that the interests of the bank \u2019s depositors were at serious risk , and the BNB had no choice but to place it under administration and appoint special administrators to run it . The BNB specified that its order was immediately enforceable and not subject to judicial review .","In DATE the special administrators invited the bank \u2019s management and shareholders to take steps to resolve the bank \u2019s situation . PERSON entered into settlements with the other shareholders \u2013 his brother , PERSON and Mr P.B. DATE whereby they agreed to resolve the disputes between them . PERSON also tried to find companies which would take over the non - performing loans extended by the bank . However , on DATE the special administrators wrote to PERSON , advising him that the results of an audit that they had ordered showed that the only way to prevent the bank from sliding into insolvency was to sell its risky loans immediately . The administrators went on to say that if PERSON was serious about preventing that from happening , he had to buy those loans before TIME DATE , DATE . Otherwise , the administrators would be bound to notify the ORG that the bank was insolvent .","On DATE the applicants wrote to the ORG \u2019s governor and deputy - governor , complaining of undue pressure and improper conduct on the part of the special administrators , and saying that CARDINAL of them was forcing PERSON to sell his shares in the bank on very unfavourable terms .","DATE , DATE , the ORG \u2019s governor , relying on section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and acting on a recommendation by the deputy - governor in charge of banking supervision , revoked the bank \u2019s licence and extended the term of office of the CARDINAL special administrators previously appointed to run the bank ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He noted that a report by those administrators filed DATE and the documents enclosed with it , all of which had been drawn up in line with the ORG \u2019s requirements , showed that the bank \u2019s liabilities exceeded its assets by ORG MONEY and that its capital was negative \u2013 minus BGN CARDINAL . It was thus clear that the bank was insolvent , and that the BNB had to revoke its licence and petition the courts to open winding - up proceedings against it . The special administrators previously appointed to run the bank were to continue to carry out their duties pending the appointment of liquidators by the court . The governor specified that his decision was immediately enforceable and not subject to judicial review .","DATE . Following its decision to revoke the bank \u2019s licence , on DATE the ORG petitioned ORG to declare the bank insolvent and wind it up . As required by law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , in those proceedings the bank was represented by the special administrators previously appointed by the BNB ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","PERSON sought leave to intervene as a third party , citing concerns that the special administrators would not strive to protect the bank \u2019s best interests . On DATE the ORG turned down his request , holding that the Bank Insolvency Act CARDINAL set out in an exhaustive manner the persons entitled to take part in such proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON appealed , arguing that he had an interest to take part in the proceedings in his capacity as shareholder in the bank . In a final decision of DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . It agreed with the lower court , and added that PERSON did not have an interest to take part in the proceedings because , being merely a shareholder in the bank , he would not himself be bound by the NORP decisions in relation to it .","In a decision of DATE , ORG granted the ORG \u2019s petition , declared the bank insolvent , made an order for it to be wound up , divested its decision - making bodies of their powers and the bank of the right to administer its property , and ordered the sale of its assets . Relying on ORG judgment at issue in ORG AD v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) , the court held that , unlike the position with regular companies , the fact that a bank was insolvent was conclusively determined by the ORG . The construction of the applicable statutory provisions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) showed that the insolvency court could not scrutinise that determination , and , faced with a decision by the BNB to revoke a bank \u2019s licence and a facially valid winding - up petition lodged by the BNB , it was bound to declare the bank insolvent and make an order for it to be wound up . The decision was not appealed against . Immediately after it ORG appointed liquidators from among the list of persons eligible to serve as liquidators kept by the BNB ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG DATE bought all of the bank \u2019s assets for CARDINAL NORP lev and undertook to satisfy the claims of its creditors which had been accepted by its liquidators . On DATE ORG approved the transaction . It found that it would result in a higher rate of repayment of the bank \u2019s debts than if its assets were to be sold piecemeal over a protracted period of time .","On DATE the ORG closed the winding - up proceedings in respect of the bank and struck it out of the register of companies .","On DATE the BNB informed PERSON and PERSON that following the revocation of the bank \u2019s licence , all of their bank accounts were being frozen , as required under paragraph PERSON ) of the transitional and concluding provisions of ORG DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They would be unfrozen DATE after the ORG had applied for the opening of insolvency proceedings against the bank , unless in the meantime Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had been charged with a criminal offence in relation to that , or unless the bank \u2019s liquidators had brought a claim against them .","On DATE Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON protested against the freeze , pointing out that as a result of the prosecuting authorities\u2019 decisions set out in paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above they had in effect never been able to take up their duties and therefore did not fall under that provision . On DATE the ORG replied that it did not have discretion to unfreeze the accounts .","On DATE Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON asked the BNB to unfreeze their accounts as the DATE period laid down in paragraph PERSON ) of the transitional and concluding provisions of ORG DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had expired . Finding that no criminal proceedings or claims by the bank \u2019s liquidators had been brought against Mr PERSON or Mr PERSON within DATE , on DATE the ORG unfroze the accounts ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173366","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CHAP LTD v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Criminal proceedings) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Administrative proceedings;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Obtain attendance of witnesses)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant company , ORG , is a private NORP company that was set up in DATE and has its registered office in PERSON .","In DATE the applicant company established a regional television channel , ORG , with the intention of broadcasting in the local region .","On DATE the applicant company was granted a licence by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) permitting it to broadcast in PERSON , the second largest town in GPE , and the surrounding area . The licence was granted for DATE . ORG was CARDINAL of CARDINAL television stations operating in PERSON and , according to the applicant company , it was widely recognised as one of the few independent voices in television broadcasting in GPE .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) conducted an inspection of the applicant company \u2019s accounts . As a result , on DATE it issued a report stating that the applicant company had a high tax liability for DATE and ordered it to pay CARDINAL NORP drams ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , including surcharges and fines . The report stated that the indicated amounts were payable to the ORG budget within DATE .","The ORG established in its report that the applicant company had underreported its tax liability by hiding income earned from advertising . The report also stated that the applicant company had failed to include the prices for its services in its invoices or keep records , as required by ORG . Furthermore , it was alleged that the applicant company had manufactured and sold fireworks without a government licence .","The ORG \u2019s report was based , inter alia , on :","a ) documents requested from and subsequently submitted by ORG A. , the head of the ORG ;","b ) statements by the heads of companies and individual businessmen that they had placed advertisements on ORG but had not received any documents acknowledging payment to the applicant company for such services .","The applicant company objected to the allegations of tax evasion as fabricated and politically motivated as home - made advertisements that had a social function , which ORG had broadcast for free , had been taken into account by the authorities in calculating the tax arrears .","On an unspecified date the ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant company \u2019s chief executive , GPE , for tax evasion . The investigating authorities discontinued the proceedings after the required amount had been paid .","Having received no payment from the applicant company as regards the amounts stated in its report of CARDINAL DATE , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG brought a claim with ORG to oblige the applicant company to pay ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in tax debt and to freeze its bank accounts and other assets in the amount of the alleged tax shortfall .","On DATE ORG admitted the case to its proceedings and at the same time dismissed the application to freeze the applicant company \u2019s bank accounts .","On DATE ORG approved a freezing order on the applicant company \u2019s assets as security for the claim .","On DATE the applicant company brought a counterclaim against the ORG , challenging the results of the tax inspection . It argued , inter alia , that the relevant statements obtained from the heads of companies and individual businessmen , as well as the information obtained from ORG A. , could not be used as evidence to support the findings of the ORG in its report .","On DATE the applicant company \u2019s case was transferred to ORG , which had been set up as part of a reform of the court system DATE .","On DATE ORG admitted the case .","On DATE the applicant company \u2019s lawyer lodged an application to obtain and examine the tax records of the companies that had advertised on ORG and had been inspected by the ORG . He claimed that those tax records contained tax reports and other documents which could rebut the evidence submitted by the ORG . This application was rejected .","On DATE the applicant company \u2019s lawyer also asked ORG to summon , inter alia , the heads of the relevant companies and the businessmen , namely ORG , PERSON , FAC , PERSON , G.A. and PERSON to whose statements the ORG had referred in its report .","By another application submitted on the same date the lawyer asked ORG to summon PERSON . A. to testify about the information and documents he had provided to the ORG and confirm the veracity of those documents .","The applicant company \u2019s applications were rejected by ORG , which considered the witness evidence in question as irrelevant .","On DATE ORG granted the ORG \u2019s claim against the applicant company in part . It annulled the ORG \u2019s report in respect of a charge of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) imposed on the applicant company for the alleged illegal production and sale of fireworks . ORG decided to levy a total charge of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) on the company , including ORG DATE ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for ORG ) , comprising arrears , a PERCENT fine and surcharges for late payment ; ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) for profit tax , comprising arrears , a PERCENT fine and surcharges for late payment ; and AMD CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for the tax authority \u2019s development fund . ORG referred to the relevant provisions of ORG Added Tax and the PERSON on Taxes when imposing the surcharges and fines . In establishing the applicant company \u2019s ORG and profit tax liability , it relied , inter alia , on the documents provided by ORG A. and the statements of ORG , PERSON , FAC , PERSON , G.A. and PERSON which had been referred to in the ORG \u2019s report . The amount of court fees to be paid by the applicant company was calculated at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ) .","On DATE the applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG .","On DATE ORG returned the applicant company \u2019s appeal on the grounds that it had failed to pay the correct amount of ORG fee and set a deadline for resubmission .","After paying the required ORG fee , the applicant company resubmitted its appeal on DATE .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant company \u2019s appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172105","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MITROVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE . He died on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was detained on remand by the \u201c Police of the Republic of NORP LOC \u201d ( PERSON ) under suspicion of murder . His detention was subsequently extended by the \u201c investigative judge \u201d ( istra\u017eni sudija ) on DATE and by the \u201c ORG of Beli Manastir \u201d ( ORG GPE ) on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the \u201c ORG of ORG \u201d sentenced the applicant to DATE of imprisonment for murder . It found that the applicant , after a quarrel in which his neighbour accused him of war profiteering , intentionally shot the neighbour in the head with a rifle , leaving him dead on the spot . It further found that the entire event had taken place in front of several eyewitnesses .","On DATE this sentence was confirmed by the \u201c ORG of GPE ( PERSON ) . The applicant was then sent to serve his prison sentence in \u201c ORG \u201d ( ORG zatvor u GPE ) .","All of the above institutions were at the relevant time under the control of the \u201c Republic of NORP LOC \u201d ( PERSON ) , an internationally unrecognised self - proclaimed entity established on the territory of GPE during the wars in the former GPE . The entity ceased to exist after the adoption of LAW , PERSON and ORG of DATE ( hereinafter ORG ) by which GPE assumed sovereignty over the entirety of its territory . The entity was never recognised as a state by ORG .","Shortly after the adoption of LAW , and upon the request of the \u201c ORG \u201d , the applicant was transferred on DATE to ORG prison ( ORG - popravni zavod ORG ) , which is on the territory of ORG . The reason for the transfer was listed as \u201c security concerns \u201d . No proceedings for recognition and enforcement of a foreign prison sentence were conducted by the authorities of GPE .","The applicant remained in ORG prison until DATE , when he was released for DATE leave until DATE . Due to the applicant \u2019s failure to return to the prison on the specified date , a warrant for his arrest was issued .","On DATE , the applicant was arrested when he attempted to enter GPE from GPE . He was sent to ORG prison to serve the remainder of his sentence .","The applicant remained in prison until DATE when he was pardoned by the President of GPE and released .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal challenging the lawfulness of his imprisonment .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG found that there was no violation of the applicant \u2019s right to liberty . It concluded that the legal ground for the applicant \u2019s detention was his conviction by ORG of NORP LOC \u201d of DATE . It further noted that the procedure governing the recognition of a foreign criminal sentence and its enforcement was not applicable in the applicant \u2019s case because NORP LOC was not a state . The court concluded that the applicant \u2019s transfer had been carried out for factual reasons \u2013 the deteriorating security situation in the war zone which could lead to the applicant \u2019s escape from prison or his death . The court further noted that the applicant had been convicted of murder by which the right to life was violated , and that states have positive obligations to protect this right . It finally held that the lack of procedure for recognition of a foreign judgment was proportionate to the obligation to enforce a prison sentence for murder especially given that the applicant had access to ORG which had the power to review the legality of his detention and that he had access to other procedures available to any other prisoner in GPE , including the procedure for applying for a pardon .","On DATE the applicant initiated civil proceedings for compensation for unlawful imprisonment . On CARDINAL DATE ORG in GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s claim finding that he had been lawfully convicted of murder by the courts of the \u201c Republic of Srpska Krajina \u201d and that his imprisonment can not be considered as unlawful . On DATE the GPE ORG confirmed this judgment . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law before ORG . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law on procedural grounds , finding that the value of the dispute in question was below the applicable statutory threshold ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174617","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF JANKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA (No. 2)","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant graduated from ORG with a degree in law . He worked as an investigator at ORG city police headquarters .","On DATE the ORG established that from DATE , when he had been working as an investigator , the applicant had several times solicited and sometimes succeeded in getting bribes for discontinuing criminal proceedings . The victims of the applicant \u2019s crimes , who were suspects in criminal proceedings or their relatives , had been threatened and sometimes harassed sexually by the applicant . He would tell them that \u201c the case would end badly ( blogai baigsis ) \u201d if they did not meet his demands . ORG found that such actions amounted to the intentional crimes of abuse of office ( LAW ) and bribery ( LAW ) . The court also noted that the applicant had not acknowledged his guilt , but had instead tried to justify his criminal acts and avoid taking responsibility for them in any way possible . The trial court sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 deprivation of liberty in a correctional labour colony under a strict regime , ordered the confiscation of all his property , and prohibited him from working in law enforcement or the justice system for DATE .","The applicant \u2019s conviction was upheld by ORG on DATE and by ORG on DATE .","In DATE , upon entry into force of the new Criminal Code , ORG requalified the applicant \u2019s sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 deprivation of liberty . The applicant was released from prison on DATE after serving his sentence .","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG expunged the applicant \u2019s conviction from his criminal record . The court noted that the applicant had served his sentence . He had been convicted of crimes of medium severity . The court also took account of the fact that the applicant had not committed any violations of administrative law , had been bringing up a child alone , had been described in positive terms by people at his place of residence and at his workplace , had drawn the right conclusions from the crimes he had committed , and had promised not to commit any crimes in the future . The ruling was not appealed against and became enforceable .","According to the applicant \u2019s curriculum vitae , which he later submitted to ORG , from DATE he worked as in - house lawyer and loan administrator in various private companies .","On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG , which regulates advocates ( lawyers admitted to the Bar , advokatas ) , requesting to be admitted as a trainee advocate . He asked that an advocate V.S.B. be appointed as his supervisor in his work practice . The applicant also confirmed in writing that \u201c none of the grounds listed in the PERSON on the Bar prevented him from being put on the list of trainee advocates \u201d . The applicant also submitted a written application ( advokato \u012fskaitos lapas ) where he listed his former places of employment , stating that from DATE until DATE he had worked in the police and from DATE in the private sector . There was no explanation about the period DATE .","ORG placed the applicant \u2019s name on the list of trainee advocates on DATE and advocate ORG was appointed as his supervisor .","On DATE ORG received a letter from a private person , GPE , informing it that the applicant had withheld information from ORG that he had been previously convicted .","On DATE ORG held that by failing to inform it of the conviction , the applicant had withheld information relevant to assessing his reputation , and that therefore he had shown that his attitude towards the standing of ORG and towards becoming a trainee advocate was not honest and respectful . ORG considered that the applicant had breached points CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below \u2013 hereinafter , \u201c the Code of Ethics \u201d ) , and disciplinary proceedings against him were therefore justified . ORG also considered that the applicant \u2019s supervisor , ORG , had likewise breached LAW but that he would not face disciplinary proceedings owing to his long and positive professional record .","On DATE ORG of ORG held that the applicant had committed a disciplinary violation by withholding information about his conviction by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The committee emphasised the fact that the applicant had not mentioned the conviction or his \u201c long prison sentence \u201d in his application to be admitted as a trainee advocate , his curriculum vitae or in the other documents submitted in support . Information about the conviction had been relevant for assessing his reputation . By withholding such information the applicant had acted dishonestly and disrespectfully , and had not protected the prestige of ORG . The applicant had thus breached points CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Ethics , which set out the necessary requirements for candidates to become trainee advocates ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The case therefore had to be decided by ORG ( hereinafter DATE \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to ORG the chief prosecutor of ORG wrote that the applicant lived in the city of ORG and that in the course of his work as a trainee advocate he had interaction with the same investigators , prosecutors and judges with whom he had worked before committing his crimes and with those who had later investigated his crimes or examined his case in court . Even though the applicant had served his sentence , communication with those investigators , prosecutors and judges caused some strains at work in ORG . The chief prosecutor stated that it would be better if the applicant could be prevented from practising law in the city or region of ORG , even though the PERSON on the Bar did not provide for the possibility to restrict an advocate \u2019s activity within or outside a certain area .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant about the forthcoming hearing in his case , and invited him to participate in person or have an advocate represent his interests in those disciplinary proceedings . The applicant was present at the hearing , and explained that he had not hidden his conviction . The only reason he had not informed ORG about it was because in his view there had been no requirement to do so . He also asked for the removal of the president of ORG , PERSON , stating that the manner in which the latter had put certain questions to him showed he was biased . The request was refused as unfounded .","ORG , composed of the presiding advocate , PERSON , and CARDINAL other advocates , ORG and FAC , met on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . They postponed the hearing to a later date on each occasion .","On DATE ORG rejected a request by the applicant to remove PERSON as unsubstantiated , while PERSON was replaced by another advocate , PERSON","ORG also held on DATE that the applicant had breached LAW and imposed the disciplinary measure of ordering his removal from the list of trainee advocates , on the basis of LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the PERSON on the Bar ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In setting out its reasons ORG had regard to the crimes committed by the applicant and noted that during the criminal court proceedings he had expressed no remorse ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . For ORG , even though the law did not directly require that a person disclose a prior conviction when submitting a request to become a trainee advocate , such an obligation stemmed from DATE ) of the Law of the Bar , which required candidates to be of high moral character ( nepriekai\u0161tinga reputacija ) . Similarly , point CARDINAL of the Code of Ethics set out that an advocate had to act honestly and ethically , even if certain acts or behaviour that did not meet the requirements of the PERSON on the NORP or the Code of ORG were not described specifically in that Code ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG considered that the crimes which the applicant had committed whilst working in law enforcement had been cynical and had shown great disrespect towards society . Moreover , he had committed those crimes while working in the legal field . In the light of such considerations , ORG was convinced that the applicant , who had a university degree and had previously had a law - related job , had deliberately withheld information about his prior conviction , because he had been aware that , if information not only about his crimes but also about the manner in which he had committed them had come to light , then ORG would have rejected his application to become a trainee advocate . Lastly , ORG noted that the profession of advocate was defined not only by legal acts , but also by certain ethical rules , historic practices and society \u2019s legitimate expectations as to the assistance an advocate was to provide as part of his or her role . An advocate should therefore always adhere to the moral and legal standards and obligations , protect the professional honour and dignity of advocates and do nothing that would discredit the good name of the profession , the advocate \u2019s oath , or the notion of justice .","The applicant challenged the above decision before ORG . He argued , inter alia , that there had been procedural beaches and that ORG had not been impartial . He also maintained that the concept of high moral character applied to advocates was too strict when compared with the requirements for bailiffs or civil servants .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as unfounded . It dealt with the applicant \u2019s allegations about procedural violations by ORG by noting that that court had merely postponed the case on DATE and DATE , without examining it on the merits ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant \u2019s suggestion that ORG had issued a ruling on either of those dates that the applicant had not committed a disciplinary violation was therefore unfounded . Furthermore , PERSON , the advocate who had been the president of ORG , had been questioned as a witness by ORG and had testified that he had not been biased against the applicant ; he had only had an opinion about the particular actions performed by the applicant . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s allegation about a lack of impartiality on the part of PERSON had also been dismissed as unfounded by ORG . Lastly , the change in the composition of that court when the case had been decided on DATE , removing ORG , a member said by the applicant to have been favourable to him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had not been a decisive factor because the court had been unanimous in its finding against the applicant . ORG thus dismissed the applicant \u2019s request to summon for questioning advocate PERSON , who , according to the applicant , had participated in the hearing when his case had gone before ORG . On the basis of the written evidence , the first - instance court established that ORG had not taken part in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant .","As to the question of the applicant \u2019s reputation , ORG had particular regard to the crimes of which he had been convicted ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . While observing that the conviction had expired , the court noted that the crimes had been committed when the applicant had been working in law enforcement . The manner in which those crimes had been committed and their scale did not allow for the assertion that the applicant had automatically regained the status of being of high moral character immediately after the conviction had been expunged . Were it otherwise , society \u2019s expectations as to the morals and ethics of representatives of the advocate \u2019s profession would not be met . Only people of high moral character could be trusted to work in the process of the implementation of justice . In other words , the applicant \u2019s actions had to be looked at to see not only if they had been in accordance with applicable laws , but also whether they had adhered to the requirements of professional ethics . That stemmed , inter alia , from DATE ) and other provisions of the LAW on the Bar , which provided that an advocate was liable to disciplinary sanctions , including disbarment , for breaches of professional ethics ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and was something that had also been confirmed by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG concurred with ORG that the applicant had had a moral obligation to disclose important information such as a prior conviction to ORG when submitting an application to become a trainee advocate , even though that requirement had not been explicitly stated on the application form ( see paragraph CARDINAL above , advokato \u012fskaitos lapas ) . The fact that , according to the applicant , his supervising advocate , several other advocates in ORG and some members of ORG had known about his prior conviction , did not absolve him from the obligation to provide information that was as comprehensive as possible when applying to the Bar , so that it would be possible to assess his reputation objectively and comprehensively . ORG had also been correct in holding that the applicant had consciously withheld that information because he had understood that the nature of his criminal acts would not have permitted him to be considered as a person of high moral character . In any case , if the applicant had had any doubts about whether the information about his prior conviction was relevant , he could have asked ORG . Consequently , it had been legitimate for ORG to impose a disciplinary measure on the applicant by removing him from the list of trainee advocates .","The applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that the rules of LAW had not applied to him at the time when he had requested to become a trainee advocate , given that they applied only to people who were already advocates and trainee advocates . According to the applicant , the president of ORG had clearly acknowledged to ORG that anyone who had disclosed a prior conviction had been admitted to the Bar and that the applicant would also have been admitted if he had done the same . The applicant also relied on LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) , implying that the definition of high moral character had been interpreted too broadly by ORG .","ORG asked that the applicant \u2019s appeal be dismissed .","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG arguments and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It found that no violations had been committed under LAW QUANTITY CARDINAL of the Convention as regards the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings . The rules regulating disciplinary proceedings did not prohibit postponing examination of a case . Moreover , the applicant had not challenged ORG \u2019s participation in the disciplinary proceedings . It would also have been irrelevant to summon ORG as she had not sat in ORG when it had decided on the applicant \u2019s case on DATE .","As to the merits of the complaint , ORG had been correct in its interpretation of the PERSON on the Bar and of established court practice in looking at the applicant \u2019s crimes , their manner and scale not only in the light of the LAW on the Bar , but also taking into account the rules for advocates\u2019 professional ethics . There had been no arguments in the applicant \u2019s appeal to refute the first - instance court \u2019s view of his crimes and behaviour in the light of those ethical requirements . Contrary to the applicant \u2019s submission , the first - instance court had relied on LAW and on LAW , not on LAW . The applicant \u2019s argument that the first - instance court had applied LAW on the Bar ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) retroactively was therefore unfounded .","Lastly , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that he had had no obligation to inform ORG about his prior conviction . ORG had been correct in finding that such an obligation stemmed from the PERSON on the Bar and the Code of Ethics , which also applied to the applicant . ORG conclusion had been supported by point CARDINAL of LAW , which set out that the relationship between an advocate and the Bar was based on mutual respect and good - will assistance , and by point CARDINAL , which stated that an advocate must also adhere to the traditions and customs which corresponded to the common principles of ethics and decency ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As a result , ORG had had grounds to impose a disciplinary penalty on the applicant and to strike his name off the list of trainee advocates on the basis of Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the PERSON on the Bar .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . He submitted , inter alia , that the prohibition on him practising law was in breach of his rights under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . He also argued that an expired conviction should not be an obstacle for him to become an advocate . He mentioned that the stricter requirements on reputation under the amendments to LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , should not have been applied to him retroactively . For the applicant , it was also wrong to apply the Code of Ethics to actions he had committed before becoming a trainee advocate . Lastly , he was also dissatisfied by how his case had been handled by ORG , relying on LAW . He argued that all such considerations meant his case merited review by ORG because the uniform interpretation of the law was at stake .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It restated its settled case - law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL below ) that advocates and trainee advocates were part of the justice system , and were therefore not only bound by laws , but also had to protect the spirit of the law and the ideals of justice and lawfulness . Ignorance of requirements of laws discredited the advocate \u2019s profession and undermined its prestige . An advocate or trainee advocate who had breached imperative legal norms could not excuse that failing by alleging that he or she did not know the law or that the law was not sufficiently precise , because that person was bound to know the law and ethical requirements as part of his or her job . The activity of advocate was not only regulated by standards applicable to the general public , but also by special requirements set out in the laws regulating the advocate \u2019s profession and by professional ethics . The requirements for the applicant \u2019s behaviour , which were set out in the rules for professional ethics , were objectively necessary : only a person whose professional behaviour was beyond reproach could be entrusted to take part in the process of the implementation of justice . The notion of the implementation of justice would be discredited if any and every person was allowed to take part in that process , irrespective of his or her behaviour . The applicant \u2019s case therefore did not give grounds for cassation appeal because it followed established case - law and was not relevant for developing it .","On DATE the applicant attempted to submit another appeal on points of law . He drew ORG attention to ORG ruling of CARDINAL DATE to expunge his conviction ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG found the appeal to be essentially identical to the earlier one and refused to admit it for examination ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170351","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CACUCI AND S.C. VIRRA & CONT PAD S.R.L. v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);No violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , was born on DATE and lives in GPE . She is an accounting expert and the owner and general manager of the second applicant , ORG , a singlemember company based in GPE . Both applicants were members of ORG ( NORP exper\u021bilor contabili \u0219i contabililor autoriza\u021bi din GPE ) .","On DATE the criminal department of the Bihor County Police ordered a forensic accounting report in a criminal case it was dealing with . The first applicant was appointed to produce this report , which concerned pecuniary damage to the ORG budget in the sum of CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL NORP lei ( ROL ) , allegedly caused by ORG , a private company . The first applicant \u2019s fees in relation to that expert report amounted to ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","Claiming that she had not been fully paid for the report , on DATE the first applicant submitted to the county police only approximately CARDINAL pages of the report , which actually consisted of CARDINAL pages . She only submitted the conclusions of the report . The annexes justifying the conclusions were thus not appended on that occasion , but at DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The first applicant alleged that , when asked by the Police to hand in the remaining pages of the report , she had replied that the report was on her computer , and that , since she had not received any payment for it , she was not able to print it , as it was extremely long .","On DATE the first applicant , together with CARDINAL other accounting experts , was appointed by ORG to produce a forensic accounting report in a criminal case concerning tax fraud , forgery and the use of forged documents \u2013 offences allegedly committed by CARDINAL parties , ORG and ORG , in their capacity as managers of CARDINAL private companies . A fourth expert , who was assisting GPE and GPE , was also appointed to participate in producing the report .","The conclusions of the report , which was submitted on DATE by the CARDINAL experts and with which the assisting expert agreed , noted that no damage had been caused to the ORG budget by the managerial activities of GPE","ORG and ORG were acquitted on DATE by ORG . That judgment was later upheld by ORG on DATE on appeal , and by ORG on DATE in an appeal on points of law .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG proposed to initiate ex officio criminal investigations against the first applicant in relation to an offence of intellectual forgery ( fals intelectual , defined by LAW ) in connection with the second forensic accounting report . The prosecutor noted that the report was based solely on documents provided by ORG , in spite of the fact that it stated that the district court \u2019s case file had been consulted . In the case file , there was no request from any of the experts to either consult the file or obtain copies of it . The conclusions of the report were therefore not based on all the documents on file , in spite of what the report stated .","NORP The prosecutor \u2019s proposal also concerned the CARDINAL other accounting experts , who were investigated for the same offence as the first applicant .","The proposal to initiate criminal investigations in respect of the first applicant was confirmed by the prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG filed an application with the court , asking it to issue a search warrant in respect of the first applicant \u2019s home .","The prosecutor argued that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed intellectual forgery while producing the second forensic accounting report , in order to help CARDINAL of the defendants , ORG , avoid investigation . The grounds for this suspicion were : the report \u2019s conclusions contradicted the conclusions of a previous report which had been produced by another accounting expert during the criminal investigation ; the report objectives proposed by ORG had most likely been copied and pasted into the report itself , the CARDINAL documents having the same page settings , wording , spelling and grammar mistakes ; and there was no proof that the first applicant had ever studied the case file in the court \u2019s archives or requested copies of the documents in order to produce the expert report , therefore the report was probably based solely on information provided by GPE","The prosecutor also stated that , in accordance with the decision of DATE , a criminal investigation had already been initiated in respect of the first applicant in relation to intellectual forgery .","The prosecutor further submitted that important evidence relating to the production of the second expert report DATE such as a computer , a printer , files and documents ( whether on paper or on disc ) DATE could be obtained from the first applicant \u2019s home .","On DATE the GPE District Court \u2013 sitting as a single judge , Judge ORG allowed the prosecutor \u2019s application and issued a warrant to search the first applicant \u2019s home , with the aim of discovering evidence concerning the alleged offence of intellectual forgery . In accordance with the relevant domestic law , the decision was taken in camera , in the presence of the prosecutor and without summoning the parties .","The warrant was to DATE , the court stating that the search was to be carried out in compliance with LAW , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( hereafter \u201c the LOC \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was formulated as follows :","\u201c Based on LAW , in view of the prosecutor \u2019s application issued on DATE and the investigative work which has been presented , namely : the TIME attesting to the decision of the prosecutor to initiate criminal investigations ex officio , confirmation of the proposal to initiate criminal investigations against PERSON in relation to the offence of intellectual forgery as set out in LAW , and the forensic reports included in the file , [ the court ] authorises that a home search ( perchezi\u021bie domiciliar\u0103 ) be performed at the suspect \u2019s place of residence , [ the suspect being ] PERSON , daughter of ... , born on ... , in GPE , ... , in LOC .","The search shall be performed in compliance with LAW , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the RCCP .","This warrant is to DATE from DATE of issue .","Given in camera on DATE at TIME \u201d","According to the first applicant , on DATE , while she was in the street , having just left her house , she was stopped by a police officer , who told her that he had a search warrant for her home . The first applicant asked to be assisted by her lawyer . The police officer then searched her bag , from which he seized some personal documents , including an orange notebook containing various phone numbers . Subsequently , a prosecutor entered the first applicant \u2019s home in order to perform the home search , accompanied by CARDINAL police officers , one of whom was an information technology ( IT ) specialist .","According to the ORG \u2019s version of events \u2013 supported by the documents in the file , as issued by the criminal investigating authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) \u2013 the search of the bag was carried out inside the first applicant \u2019s home .","The first applicant \u2019s lawyer arrived at the beginning of the search , namely TIME after the first applicant had been stopped in the street ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ; CARDINAL assistant witnesses , who were neighbours of the first applicant , were also present during the search .","NORP The prosecutor \u2019s notes in the search report produced on that occasion at the place of residence of the first applicant state that the first applicant was asked to surrender the items used to commit the alleged offence of intellectual forgery , namely the computer , the printer , and the documents on which the second expert report was based ( Articles CARDINAL of the RCCP , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The first applicant confirmed the existence of such items at her place of residence .","According to the search report , the first floor of the building was occupied by the first applicant \u2019s office , where she claimed to keep the objects which had been requested and other objects essential to her professional duties .","Several items and documents were found , the first applicant claiming that everything belonged to the second applicant . She showed the prosecutor a lease contract concluded between herself and the second applicant in respect of the use of CARDINAL of the immovable property .","According to the report , the following objects were seized : the computer \u2019s central processing unit , CARDINAL printer , CARDINAL files and documents concerning various forensic accounting reports , CARDINAL CD , QUANTITY floppy discs , an orange notebook containing several notes written by the first applicant and telephone numbers \u2013 one of which belonged to ORG , see paragraph CARDINAL above \u2013 and an empty printer cartridge box .","The applicants argued that , while the copy of the search report handed to them at that moment had made no mention of the manner in which the seized items had been sealed , the copy in the criminal file contained supplementary information on page CARDINAL , mentioning that the objects had been put in a sealed cardboard box labelled LOC ( ORG ) DATE .","At the end of the search the first applicant declared , in the presence of her lawyer , that she would submit written objections at a later stage . The witnesses had no objections concerning the manner in which the search had been carried out .","According to the report , the search started at TIME and was finished by TIME","On DATE , at the request of the prosecutor , ORG issued a warrant for a search of the computer system and IT data seized from the applicants on DATE , namely CARDINAL CD and QUANTITY floppy discs . The court gave reasons for its decision , accepting that there was sufficient indication that the IT data would prove that the impugned expert report had been partly copied from a document given to the first applicant by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The warrant was to DATE , starting on DATE .","According to the applicant , on DATE she was summoned to the LOC police headquarters to participate in the unsealing of the computer on DATE . She went there with her lawyer , where they noted that the sealed box was different to the box which had been used at her house during the search ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . She therefore asked that the CARDINAL witnesses who had been present at the search be summoned to attest that the box was different , but the request was refused . Consequently , together with her lawyer , she decided to leave the police headquarters without attending the unsealing and search procedure .","On DATE the first applicant submitted the missing CARDINAL pages from the first expert report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to ORG , following payment of PERCENT of her fee .","On DATE , pursuant to ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the RCCP ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the first applicant filed a complaint against the search carried out on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . She contested both the search itself and the manner in which it had been carried out .","The first applicant submitted that the warrant had been issued only in respect of her home , and not in respect of the registered office of the second applicant . In spite of that , a search of the whole house had been carried out , including the space used by the second applicant . The seized items and documents belonged to the second applicant .","The first applicant also submitted that the search had not been necessary , and could have been avoided if she had been asked to submit the relevant items and documents , as set out in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Furthermore , no reasons had been given to justify the search measure .","She argued that the limits of the search warrant had been exceeded by the search carried out in respect of her purse , which constituted a body search ( perchezi\u0163ie corporal\u0103 ) , and by the fact that she had been prevented from using her mobile phone during the search .","She complained of the manner in which the electronic devices seized had been sealed on that occasion .","She further referred to the seizure of various items from her home , namely \u201c personal documents and personal notebooks which had no connection to the criminal charge against her \u201d , concluding that all the above circumstances constituted evidence of a breach of her right to a private life , personal inviolability , professional secrecy , and right of property .","On DATE the head prosecutor of the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s claims , finding that the complaint against the search measure itself was inadmissible , given the lack of specific legal provisions allowing for such an appeal , while the complaint concerning the carrying out of the search was ill - founded .","Concerning the appeal against the search measure itself , the prosecutor gave reasons for his inadmissibility decision , stating that it was inconceivable that any search warrant application would be debated in adversarial proceedings , as such a procedure would impede the very purpose of the search , namely the discovery and collection of specific evidence from a specific place without prior notice .","The prosecutor stated that the search at the applicant \u2019s home had been conducted in accordance with the law . The warrant had been issued in respect of her residence as stated on her identification documents . The prosecutor submitted that the investigating authorities had had no obligation to check whether that residence was also the registered office of various private companies . In the impugned forensic expert report , the first applicant had given her identification details , including her place of residence , without mentioning that the report had been issued by or on behalf of the second applicant . Moreover , during the search , the first applicant had submitted a lease contract concluded between herself and the second applicant concerning CARDINAL of the immovable property , without specifying or determining which CARDINAL belonged to which party .","The prosecutor also stated that the investigating authorities had been obliged to seize all pieces of physical evidence found at the search location , irrespective of who owned them , and that the pieces not belonging to the suspect had been returned to their owner at the end of the criminal trial .","Concerning the body search , namely the search of the first applicant \u2019s bag , the prosecutor submitted that the relevant forensic rules set out clearly and authoritatively that such a search had to be performed before the start of a home search , \u201c so as to preclude any potential act of aggression against the authorities or self - aggression , but also so as to locate and collect any potential corpora delicti thus hidden by the searched person ( in [ this ] case , documents ) \u201d .","The rules also provided that the investigating authorities were obliged to prevent any people inside the building in question from communicating with people outside , whether by phone or otherwise , which justified the fact that the first applicant had been temporarily prevented from using her mobile phone .","In respect of the manner in which the seized electronic devices had been sealed , the prosecutor stated that the report produced on that occasion had been signed by both the first applicant and her lawyer , and no objections had been raised . As mentioned in the report , the central processing unit of the computer had been sealed in a cardboard box with the LOC seal . In any event , the manner in which the seized objects had been sealed could not affect the legality of the search , but possibly their use as evidence in the criminal proceedings .","The first applicant contested that decision before both the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG and ORG .","It is unclear whether any response to that complaint was given by the prosecutor \u2019s office . In any event , the same complaint was assessed by the domestic courts in CARDINAL separate sets of proceedings , as detailed below .","In the first set of proceedings , started by the first applicant on DATE , ORG gave its judgment on DATE , dismissing the first applicant \u2019s complaint as inadmissible in respect of the search measure itself , and ill - founded in respect of the manner in which the search had been carried out . The court stated that , in the event that she was indicted , the first applicant would be entitled to lodge with the criminal courts complaints regarding the search and the acts of the prosecutor .","The first applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed her appeal , upholding the first instance court \u2019s decision . It considered that the search had been lawful and in compliance with the warrant issued by ORG . Furthermore , at the material time , the first applicant , assisted by her lawyer , had not objected to either the search or the manner in which it had been carried out .","The court considered that it would be \u201c abusive \u201d to have an adversarial procedure for debating the necessity of a search , either before or after it was carried out .","In the second set of proceedings , a complaint lodged by the first applicant on DATE reiterated the same main arguments as those presented in the proceedings described above . In particular , it referred to the fact that the limits of the search warrant had been exceeded as follows : the warrant had only been issued in respect of her home , and not in respect of the registered office of the second applicant ; no warrant had existed in respect of her purse or mobile phone ; certain items , like her personal notebooks , had been seized even though they had no connection with the criminal charge . The computer had been seized without being appropriately sealed , therefore the first applicant had refused to take it back in the absence of verification and confirmation by an expert that the IT data had not been altered . The first applicant argued that the real aim of the prosecutor and the police had been to seize her computer in order to copy the CARDINAL pages of annexes to the first accounting expert report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In any event , the search had not been necessary , as she would have surrendered all required items and documents if she had been asked to .","The complaint was allocated to a single judge for determination , Judge ORG , who on DATE asked to recuse herself from the case , as it had been she who had examined and approved the application for a search warrant on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","That request was dismissed by the President of ORG on DATE . It was noted that the first applicant had expressly confirmed that she was not challenging the search measure itself , but the manner in which it had been carried out . In such circumstances , there was no reason for Judge PERSON to withdraw from the case .","In the context of the second set of proceedings , on DATE the first applicant lodged an application calling into question the constitutionality of the provisions of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She claimed that the impugned provisions breached a claimant \u2019s defence rights , right to a fair trial and right to an effective remedy , as he or she was denied the right to participate in proceedings and contest a search measure .","The application was dealt with by ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , which gave its judgment on DATE , dismissing the objection as ill - founded . ORG TIME found that the constitutionality of the impugned provisions had already been examined and found to be in accordance with the LAW ( the court referred to its decision of DATE , detailed in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court reiterated that only the legislature could dictate the jurisdiction of the domestic courts and trial procedure .","Furthermore , ORG held that the issuing of a search warrant was a procedural measure and not a trial in itself , and that therefore the summoning of parties was not obligatory , especially as a search was conducted in the presence of the interested parties and\/or their representative . Moreover , interested parties had at their disposal several opportunities and means to contest any measure taken during a criminal investigation or criminal trial .","The case was sent back to ORG , which gave its judgment on DATE , dismissing the first applicant \u2019s complaint . The court noted that a similar claim lodged by the first applicant in another set of proceedings had already been dismissed by a final judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The court further stated that the search had been carried out in compliance with the domestic legal provisions and in the presence of the prosecutor , the applicant and her lawyer , and no objections had been raised at the material time .","It appears that the decision was not appealed against by the first applicant .","In DATE the second applicant was struck off the list of ORG ; the first applicant was removed from the list from DATE until DATE , allegedly as a result of the criminal investigations against her .","The first applicant was indicted on DATE , charged with perjury as a witness in a criminal trial , aiding and abetting a perpetrator ( with specific reference to the criminal trial concerning ORG and GPE ) , and spoliation ( the material alteration , thereby invalidation ) of evidence .","The indictment referred to the items seized during the search of DATE , namely documents relating to the forensic accounting reports issued by the first applicant and relevant to several criminal proceedings against various suspects ( GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG ) ; the prosecutor considered that such documents had been withheld by the first applicant for the purpose of obstructing justice .","The indictment stated that the criminal proceedings against the CARDINAL other accounting experts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were to be terminated ( scoatere de sub urm\u0103rire penal\u0103 ) .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG acquitted the first applicant of all charges .","In relation to the charge of perjury , the court held that such a charge was relevant where an expert had been called before a court to give oral evidence , which had not been the case with regard to the first applicant . In relation to the written evidence given by the first applicant in the form of the forensic accounting report , the court held that the report was a collective piece of work produced by the CARDINAL experts appointed in the case . Even if evidence had been adduced proving that CARDINAL of the experts had personally studied the file in the court \u2019s archives , it could not be inferred that the work had been done by the first applicant exclusively and in the absence of consideration of all the relevant documents and consultation with the other experts .","The court further stated that there was insufficient proof that the first applicant had favoured ORG The accounting expert report had been produced with the other experts appointed in the case . The first applicant had been selected as an expert in the impugned criminal proceedings from a list of CARDINAL experts , and it had therefore been impossible for her to plan to help ORG in any way .","With reference to the documents found at the first applicant \u2019s residence during the search carried out on DATE , the court stated that they had not been in her possession unlawfully , as all of them had been given to her by the police for the purpose of allowing her to produce the relevant forensic accounting reports . It could therefore not be inferred that the applicant had withheld the documents with the intention of obstructing justice . The court ordered that all IT equipment seized from the first applicant should be returned to her once the judgment became final .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the prosecutor and upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment , stating essentially that the presumption of innocence in respect of the first applicant had not been rebutted . The only dissenting opinion of ORG considered that the case should have been remitted to the first - instance court for a re - trial , as the first - instance judgment had lacked appropriate reasoning .","The first applicant filed several criminal complaints against the relevant prosecutors and police officers who had requested and carried out the search of CARDINAL DATE with various domestic authorities ( ORG , ORG of the ORG and ORG ) , accusing them of abuse of office for carrying out the search in breach of ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the RCCP ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She reiterated her arguments : a special warrant and a separate report had been needed for the body search ( Article CARDINAL ) , and another warrant had been necessary for the search of the company \u2019s registered office ( Article CARDINAL ) .","Those complaints were joined and assessed in a unique case file , being dismissed as ill - founded by ORG on DATE . The court upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision . In respect of the complaint concerning the body search , it found that the search of the applicant \u2019s bag had been carried out inside her house , as a preliminary step of the actual search measure . Furthermore , the home search warrant had been issued in respect of an address , not in respect of a person or company . The court concluded that all the complaints were ill - founded .","That decision was upheld by ORG and ORG on DATE .","The first applicant also submitted to the ORG a copy of another undated criminal complaint , which was addressed to the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG and ORG . In the complaint , the first applicant claimed that the search report had been forged with regard to the manner in which the computer had been sealed ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . She also stated that , at some point after the search , she had noticed that the data on her computer relating to various forensic accounting reports which she had produced had been altered while at the police headquarters , so as to provide evidence to incriminate her .","In the absence of any registration number or reference to a domestic file number , it is unclear if and when that complaint was lodged with the domestic authorities ; assuming that it was , it is equally unclear whether the first applicant received any response ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171782","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KUZMENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE ORG in PERSON ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) issued a warrant to search the applicant \u2019s flat for a mobile telephone , which had been reported stolen . The relevant part of the ruling read :","\u201c Acting investigator has applied to the court with a request to authorize search of the dwelling of [ the applicant ] ... with a view to locating a mobile telephone \u201c NokiaCARDINAL \u201d stolen from private entrepreneur [ K. ] ... [ theft ] having taken place on DATE at night .","During the hearing , the acting investigator and the prosecutor have supported their request ...","Having heard the acting investigator [ and ] the opinion of the prosecutor , and having examined the material of the criminal case , the court concludes that ... [ it ] has been provided with sufficient data indicating a possibility that the ORG mobile telephone may be at the [ applicant \u2019s ] place of residence . \u201d","On DATE the police searched the applicant \u2019s flat in his presence and seized CARDINAL mobile telephones , which , according to the applicant , belonged to him and his family members . As appears from a poorly legible copy of the list of the seized items prepared by the police , CARDINAL of these telephones were apparently of ORG and DATE of ORG make . According to the applicant , on an unspecified date the seized telephones were returned , and neither he nor any of his family members were ever indicted or involved in any other way in the criminal proceedings giving rise to the search warrant .","On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative complaint with ORG , alleging that his home had been searched arbitrarily and seeking moral damages for breaching inviolability of his home .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the above complaint , citing a lack of jurisdiction . It noted that all complaints regarding the unlawfulness of procedural actions by law - enforcement authorities taken in connection with a criminal investigation had to be lodged within the framework of relevant criminal proceedings based on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , then in force .","The applicant appealed against that decision . He alleged that there was no meaningful opportunity for him to obtain redress on the basis of the ORG provisions , since a criminal court could only examine complaints concerning the actions of investigation authorities in the context of its examination of a criminal case . In the applicant \u2019s situation , such a remedy would not be effective , since he had no procedural status in the criminal proceedings at issue , and had never been informed of the progress of those proceedings . Moreover , it was not certain whether or when the case would reach trial stage . However , as the applicant considered himself to have been a victim of an arbitrary search , regardless of the outcome of the relevant criminal investigation , he also considered that he had standing to bring an administrative complaint under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Justice of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal by the applicant , having essentially endorsed the findings of the first - instance court .","NORP The applicant appealed in cassation . He reiterated the arguments raised in his ordinary appeal and additionally submitted that his claim against the police for non - pecuniary damages could not be examined and resolved within the framework of criminal proceedings against a third party .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142424","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MLADINA D.D. LJUBLJANA v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant , the private company PERSON . PERSON , whose registered office is in GPE , is the publisher of the DATE magazine PERSON .","On DATE and DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u2013\u201cParliament \u201d ) examined a draft law on same - sex civil partnerships . At DATE it adopted the Registration of Same - Sex Civil Partnerships Act ( hereinafter DATE \u201c the Act \u201d ) . During the parliamentary debate on the issue , certain deputies of ORG ( hereinafter DATE \u201c the SNP \u201d ) , which opposed legal recognition of same - sex partnerships , took the floor in order to express their disagreement with the proposed draft .","On DATE the PERSON magazine published a CARDINAL - page article entitled \u201c Registration of Same - Sex Civil Partnerships Act adopted \u201d , with the standfirst : \u201c Right - wingers full of pride , but according to non - governmental organisations the LAW is not consistent with LAW , summarising the parliamentary debate preceding the adoption of the LAW . The first CARDINAL paragraphs of the article read as follows :","\u201c DATE , the second reading of the proposed LAW on the registration of same - sex civil partnerships ended up as a crash course in narrow - mindedness , pervaded by a Stone Age mentality . Our elected representatives were so keen to reject amendments to the draft [ and the ] actual rights of same - sex oriented citizens that they decided to pass the LAW at the third attempt within CARDINAL single parliamentary session . On DATE , the Act came to fruition , the outcome being CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL ...","The ORG \u2019s gunslingers ... shone brilliantly during the explanation of their votes . [ ORG ] spouted forth all the same stupidities as at the previous reading ( such as that the Act was completely unnecessary , that the Act had been extorted by marginal groups , that there were other groups which merited the legislature \u2019s priority ) , and touched on the objections against his use of words such as \u02bbfaggots\u02bc and \u02bblesbians\u02bc DATE . He stated : \u02bbWhere I come from , we call them \u201c faggots \u201d and \u201c lesbians \u201d ; in GPE a region in GPE ] , they are called \u201c kulotini \u201d and in GPE they are \u201c gays \u201d . I am not someone who would change his way of speaking just because he has come to GPE . In PERSON [ another region in GPE ] , we simply have faggots and lesbians.\u02bc","[ ORG ] , also from the ORG , assured with a playful smile that there was probably not a single person in the assembly hall who wished for the \u2018 fruit of their loins to declare themselves to be what we are voting on DATE , with our rights ... in other words , none of us would want to have a son or a daughter who would opt for this kind of GPE . If our homeless people could follow the breadcrumb trail to GPE or even further , let these ladies and gentlemen also go there to marry . But the biggest victims of this law would be the children of such a marriage : \u2018 Just imagine a child whose father comes to pick him up from school and greets him with \u201c PERSON , I \u2019ve come to take you hooooome ! Have you got your coat on yet?\u2019 He accompanied this brilliant remark with a coffeehouse imitation which was probably supposed to clearly illustrate some orthodox understanding of a stereotypically effeminate and mannered faggot , whereas in reality [ what it illustrated was ] just the typical attitude of a cerebral bankrupt who is lucky to be living in a country with such a limited pool of human resources that a person of his characteristics can even end up in ORG , when in a normal country worthy of any respect he could not even be a janitor in the average urban primary school . \u201d","In DATE of the article , the author first described the responses of other parliamentarians to the SNP PERSON speeches , and in DATE concluded with the views on the newly adopted PERSON expressed by the non - governmental organisations advocating for the rights of same - sex couples , which mainly deplored the fact that the LAW accorded a very limited set of rights to these couples . It ended by reporting the announcement by the representatives of these organisations that they would be challenging the newly adopted LAW before ORG .","On DATE the ORG member PERSON brought an action before ORG for defamation of his honour and reputation against the applicant company , claiming that he had suffered severe mental distress due to the offensiveness of the article . He claimed that the depiction of him as \u201c cerebral bankrupt \u201d was objectively and subjectively offensive , its sole intent being to belittle him .","On DATE the applicant company replied that it considered its actions to have been lawful , as a balance had to be struck between PERSON \u2019s right to honour and reputation and its own right to the freedom of expression . It invoked the standards and case - law of ORG the freedom of the press to impart information on matters of public interest . The applicant company considered that PERSON \u2019s statements in the parliamentary debate had amounted to an insulting attack which degraded homosexuals , and hence the criticism published in PERSON . Nevertheless , the critical article had not been aimed at belittling PERSON as a person , but constituted a reaction to his own extreme statements in similar terms .","On DATE ORG held an unsuccessful settlement hearing .","On DATE another hearing was held at which the court heard GPE , who stated that he had not offended anyone with his remarks , nor had he wished to do so . He had taken the offensive remarks in PERSON as an attack on his character and had been very hurt by them , especially as he had become the subject of ridicule in his local community .","On DATE , ORG handed down its judgment , in which it partially upheld ORG claim and ordered the applicant company to pay him damages in the amount of CARDINAL NORP Tolars ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The applicant company was also ordered to publish the introductory and operative part of the judgment in PERSON . The remainder of ORG claim was dismissed . The court acknowledged that the applicant company had had the right to publish critical comments on ORG conduct in the parliamentary debate ; however , the term \u201c cerebral bankrupt \u201d had referred to his personal characteristics and was therefore objectively offensive . In the court \u2019s opinion , the use of such offensive language did not simply serve the purpose of imparting information to the public . Moreover , the description in the article did not constitute a serious criticism of ORG work .","As to PERSON \u2019s conduct , the court held that the gestures he had used to mimic the behaviour of a homosexual man were simply reminiscent of gestures made by actors to convey the idea of homosexuality . The court neither found PERSON \u2019s speech and conduct to be offensive to homosexuals , nor considered it to have been aimed at promoting prejudice and intolerance against them . It held that PERSON had merely expressed his opinion , which , wrong as it might have been , was not to be regarded as extreme and thus justifying the treatment in the impugned article .","Both parties appealed against the judgment before ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s appeal . It upheld PERSON \u2019s appeal in respect of the text to be published in PERSON informing the public of the judgment , but dismissed his claim for greater damages . ORG upheld ORG finding that the statements in the impugned article constituted an offensive judgment of PERSON \u2019s personality which he was not required to endure . The court further held that , even assuming that PERSON \u2019s speech had been offensive to homosexuals , that did not justify the applicant company \u2019s crude response aimed at him personally .","On DATE the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . It claimed , inter alia , that the impugned article was to be considered a political satire in which the author had merely expressed his opinion on ORG conduct in a public parliamentary debate . It further maintained that the words \u201c typical attitude of a cerebral bankrupt \u201d had not been aimed at ORG as a person but at his mimicking of the gestures allegedly typical of homosexual men .","On DATE ORG , by a majority of CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , dismissed the applicant company \u2019s complaint , holding that the lower courts had struck a fair balance between its freedom of expression and PERSON \u2019s personal dignity . The court acknowledged the broad boundaries associated with the freedom of the press , especially when reporting on matters of great public interest , but found on the facts of the case in issue that the lower courts had appropriately applied the criteria resulting from their own case - law and the case - law of ORG . The court dismissed the applicant company \u2019s assertion that the criticism in question had not been aimed at GPE as a person but at his mimicking of homosexuals , concluding that the average reader would understand the remark as an assessment of ORG intelligence and personal characteristics .","It also dismissed the applicant company \u2019s argument that the article was to be regarded as a satire , as it was evident from the text that it was intended to inform the public about the content of the parliamentary debate and to express a critical opinion of the speeches of the individual deputies . As regards the applicant company \u2019s argument that the offensive statement had been a response to ORG own offensive remarks , ORG acknowledged that in such cases sharper criticism might be permissible , but only if there was a sufficient factual basis for it . As the court found no substantive connection between PERSON \u2019s speech and the assessment of his intellectual abilities , it concluded that the criticism was not justified . In ORG view , the impugned article and its author \u2019s offensive characterisation of PERSON had not contributed either to people being informed or to a socially responsible public discussion on the position of homosexuals .","Constitutional judge ORG submitted a dissenting opinion in which he referred to a climate of general tolerance towards intolerant and offensive statements against homosexuals . He further expressed the view that the lower courts had been biased and also that ORG had failed to appropriately apply the standards of freedom of the press developed in the case - law of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161048","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF Y.Y. v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant gave birth prematurely to twins at a maternity hospital in GPE ( \u201c the maternity hospital \u201d ) . The first twin died TIME after her birth . The second twin , who was transferred to a resuscitation and intensive therapy unit at CARDINAL of the St GPE children \u2019s hospitals ( \u201c the children \u2019s hospital \u201d ) TIME after his birth , survived . The applicant was of the opinion that her daughter would also have survived had she been promptly transferred to a resuscitation and intensive therapy unit at a children \u2019s hospital .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother , PERSON , sent the following telegram to the President of GPE :","\u201c ... newborns are dying because of delays in emergency medical treatment . Resuscitation units lack capacity . [ Hospitals ] have waiting lists \u2013 a brutal practice . Thus in ... DATE at ... TIME in FAC no . ... [ my ] grandchildren , twins , ... were born . They were tenth on the waiting list . [ My ] granddaughter ... never got to the top of the list and died TIME later . [ My ] grandson ... was hospitalised TIME after his birth and placed in the resuscitation unit of ORG no . ... in a very serious condition ... The death [ of my granddaughter ] has shocked our family . We could not imagine that it was possible not to provide emergency medical treatment to the newborn child ... Does the waiting list constitute negligence or irresponsibility on a criminal scale ? I ask [ you ] to take action . ORG no . ... needs urgent help ... \u201d","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE NORP sent CARDINAL more telegrams to the President of GPE , stating :","\u201c I am informing you for the second time that emergency neonatal resuscitation for premature babies in GPE is being provided on the basis of a waiting list . Who is responsible for the deaths of these children ? I request that this problem be examined at the meetings of the Government and ORG ... \u201d","\u201c I am wiring you for the third time about the deaths of premature newborns in GPE ... [ I ] consider the existence of a waiting list for resuscitation treatment a crime ... Waiting for [ your ] response about the action taken ... \u201d","The Administration of the President of GPE forwarded the telegrams to ORG of GPE ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) for examination . ORG asked ORG at GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to examine the allegations and take the necessary action .","The ORG ordered an examination , which was carried out by a panel consisting of the chief neonatologist of the ORG and the head of the paediatrics department at the advanced medical studies faculty of GPE . The examination was carried out on the basis of the applicant \u2019s and the twins\u2019 medical records , which were obtained from the maternity hospital and the children \u2019s hospital . The results of the examination were set out in a report ( \u0440\u0435\u0446\u0435\u043d\u0437\u0438\u044f ) , which mainly concerned the development and treatment of the twin who had died . In particular , the report stated that the infant had been born prematurely in DATE of gestation of an eighth pregnancy and by a first delivery . Her blood test had indicated the possibility of a prenatal viral infection , and she had been clinically diagnosed as premature ( at thirtyone DATE ) , with respiratory distress syndrome and atelectasis . A postmortem examination had revealed moderate interstitial emphysema of the lungs , which had explained the immediate cause of death . It was concluded that she had been born with severe respiratory distress syndrome complicated by an air leak syndrome , and that she had been provided with treatment which had been entirely appropriate , given the seriousness of the condition and the nature of the disease . Such cases carried a risk of death of not PERCENT , in addition to the risk of serious disabilities , and an early transfer to a children \u2019s hospital did not guarantee survival or a favourable outcome . The report also noted that the second twin had suffered from respiratory distress syndrome as well , but to a much lesser extent . The experts did not make any significant observations about the treatment he had received at the maternity hospital or the children \u2019s hospital .","On DATE the acting head of the ORG sent the report to the ORG with an accompanying letter .","On DATE , in reply to her telegrams , the ORG informed NORP of the results of the experts\u2019 examination of the twins\u2019 medical records by briefly restating the conclusions in the report . ORG noted that the results of the examination of her allegations had been communicated to ORG .","On DATE , the ORG forwarded to the ORG a copy of its reply to NORP and informed the ORG that , according to the conclusion of a commission formed by the maternity hospital where the twins had been born , the reasons for the applicant \u2019s premature delivery had been her compromised obstetricgynaecological history DATE in particular , CARDINAL artificial abortions \u2013 and her urogenital mycoplasmosis infection . The letter of CARDINAL DATE was the subject of proceedings brought by the applicant against ORG , about which no further information is available .","On DATE the applicant received a letter from the ORG with similar contents to the letter of DATE that it had sent to NORP , stating , in particular , that her children \u2019s medical records had been examined by the panel of experts . It appears that a request by the applicant for a copy of the report was refused , and that that refusal was the subject of separate proceedings brought by the applicant against the ORG . In the course of those proceedings , on DATE , the applicant received a copy of the report and the ORG \u2019s letter to ORG DATE .","On DATE she brought new proceedings against the ORG , seeking a declaration that its actions had been unlawful in that it had collected and examined her medical records and those of her children , and had communicated the report containing her personal information to the Ministry without obtaining her consent . She requested that the report and the letter of CARDINAL DATE be declared invalid . She stated that she had not asked ORG to examine the quality of the medical treatment she and her children had received or to establish the cause of her daughter \u2019s death . She claimed that ORG had interfered with her private life by disclosing \u2013 without her consent \u2013 confidential information to a considerable number of individuals , including staff at ORG who dealt with correspondence and other employees . She relied on LAW , which prohibited the disclosure of confidential medical information without a patient \u2019s consent . She argued that the provisions of LAW contained an exhaustive list of exceptions to that general rule , and that the ORG \u2019s impugned acts had not fallen under any of them .","On DATE the GPE ORG of GPE dismissed her application . The chief neonatologist , who was examined as a witness , stated that : he had acted within his powers ; he had not been able to verify ORG \u2019s allegations without obtaining the medical records in question ; he had involved medical specialists in the examination of those records ; and no disclosure of the information contained in those medical records had taken place . A representative of ORG denied the applicant \u2019s allegations .","ORG found that ORG had asked the ORG to examine the allegations set out in NORP \u2019s telegrams . ORG had had the power to request material from the ORG , which in turn had had a corresponding duty to submit detailed information . The applicant \u2019s medical records had been examined by doctors bound by confidentiality . It was the report prepared as a result of that examination , and not the applicant \u2019s medical records per se , which had been transferred to the Ministry .","On the basis of the above considerations , ORG held that the applicant \u2019s rights , as guaranteed by LAW , had not been violated .","ORG also noted that the applicant had lodged her application on DATE , although she had learned that her children \u2019s medical records had been obtained without her consent on DATE from the ORG \u2019s letter of DATE . ORG saw no reasonable excuse for her failure to lodge her application within the statutory timelimit . Lastly , it rejected her request for a separate ruling to denounce the ORG \u2019s allegedly common practice of obtaining medical records without ORG consent .","An application by the applicant for clarification of the judgment \u2013 in particular , for details as to whether her application had been dismissed on the merits or because it had been time - barred DATE was dismissed on DATE by ORG , which considered that the judgment had been clearly formulated and did not allow for different interpretations . The applicant did not appeal against that decision .","NORP The applicant appealed against the judgment , relying on LAW and , in particular , the exhaustive list of exceptions to the general rule of non - disclosure of confidential medical information without a patient \u2019s consent provided therein . She stated that her own medical records and those of her children had been collected and examined without her consent by ORG officials acting ultra vires , and not by her own doctors , who were bound by confidentiality . The report contained confidential medical information and its communication to the Ministry without her consent had been unlawful . The fact that her own personal medical records had been examined in addition to those of her children had become known to her at DATE than DATE . The threemonth timelimit for lodging her application had started running on DATE , when she had received a copy of the report . She had therefore complied with that time - limit .","On DATE GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the judgment and fully endorsed ORG findings ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145342","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF YERL\u0130 v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . As the facts of the case are in dispute between the parties , they will be set out separately . The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . The Government \u2019s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","At the time of the incidents the applicant was selling CDs from a street stand in GPE . On DATE the applicant and his relative GPE were arrested by the police while they were working at the stand . They were taken to the police station and beaten up by a police officer there . As a result of a punch to his ear , the applicant \u2019s eardrum was perforated . The applicant and GPE were subsequently released from the police station .","On DATE ORG received a complaint that damaged CDs were being sold from a street stand . A number of police officers went to the venue and talked the applicant and GPE into a solution with the complainant , but they did not arrest them because their activity had not constituted an offence .","On DATE the applicant and GPE lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG prosecutor against a police officer who they alleged had ill - treated them on DATE . At the time of their complaint they did not know the identity of the police officer but gave a description of his physical appearance . They also complained that they had been arrested without any explanation and that as a result of that arrest they had been arbitrarily deprived of their rights .","On DATE the applicant went back to the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office and complained that he had been injured as a result of the ill - treatment . In order to provide evidence of his injuries the applicant requested a medical examination . On DATE the ORG prosecutor referred the applicant to ORG .","On DATE ORG reported that the applicant \u2019s left eardrum had been perforated as a result of physical trauma , and that the injury required a CARDINAL-day healing period .","On DATE the applicant also applied to the ORG branch of ORG , where a number of physical and psychological assessments were carried out by the doctors working for the ORG . According to a report drawn up on DATE , the applicant had a perforation in his left eardrum and he was suffering from acute post - traumatic stress disorder . The report concluded that the ORG findings were compatible with the applicant \u2019s story of ill - treatment .","In ORG report the applicant was reported as having described the incident and told the doctors that after he was punched on his ear , his eardrum had been perforated and he was no longer able to hear on that side . He added that , at the end of his arrest , he had not been taken to a forensic doctor for the required medical check , but the police officers had taken him to a private doctor , where he was diagnosed with ear perforation . The applicant submitted the report for the investigation file . However , this evidence was not further investigated during the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant and his relative GPE gave their statements at the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office . The applicant complained that he had been beaten by a police officer working at ORG and as a result his eardrum had been perforated . He said that he did not know the name of the officer , but he could identify him . GPE affirmed the same in his statement . He complained that he had also been beaten by the same officer ; however , he had not asked to be examined by a doctor because the ill - treatment had not left any marks on his body .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office asked for another medical examination at ORG in order to determine the date of injury to the applicant \u2019s ear . It was concluded that it was medically not possible to determine the date of injury .","On DATE the applicant submitted the names of his witnesses to the investigating authorities .","On DATE , a chief police commissioner who had been entrusted with the duty of investigating the applicant \u2019s allegations , questioned the applicant , his relative GPE , the suspect and CARDINAL other police officers as witnesses . That administrative investigation was conducted because the domestic law applicable at the time required prosecutors to seek permission from the administrative authorities before they could prosecute a police officer ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . A police officer , V.A. , who worked at the GPE police station , testified as a witness . He stated that the applicant had neither been arrested nor ill - treated on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested once more after a complaint was received regarding his CD stand , and taken to the police station . He was released DATE .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officer because the Governor of ORG had denied the requisite permission for a criminal prosecution .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s decision was notified to the applicant \u2019s lawyer . On DATE the lawyer lodged an objection against the decision .","NORP In response to the applicant \u2019s objection , on DATE the ORG decided to quash the decision and ordered the prosecutor to file criminal charges against the police officer . ORG noted that the prosecutor had not conducted a proper investigation and had failed , in particular , to establish whether the applicant had been taken to the police station on DATE , and to question the eyewitnesses named by the applicant .","M.T. , a police officer working at ORG , was subsequently indicted before the ORG CARDINALth ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the criminal court \u201d ) and the applicant was admitted to the case as the complainant . On DATE PERSON gave his statement before the criminal court . He denied all the charges .","On DATE the suspect PERSON informed the criminal court in writing that he had been assigned to work for ORG in GPE ; therefore , he would not be able to be present at the court hearings . As a result , until DATE the criminal court was unable to summon him to take part in the proceedings .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the witnesses proposed by the applicant testified before the criminal court . The first witness stated that he had helped the applicant at his CD stand occasionally , and that he had seen him on DATE of the incident . The applicant had told him that he had been ill - treated by the police because he had refused to provide them with free CDs . The other witness testified that he had taken the applicant to the hospital , and during that time the applicant had told him that he had been beaten in the police station .","On DATE police officer V.A. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) appeared as a witness before the criminal court . He testified that the applicant had been taken to the police station by the suspect PERSON However , he had not been subjected to ill - treatment .","On DATE the suspect PERSON attended the hearing before the criminal court . The applicant was not present at the hearing . The criminal court ordered the applicant to attend the next hearing and identify the suspect from his photographs . However , the applicant and his relative PERSON could not be brought before the criminal court until DATE as a result of a change of address .","On DATE the applicant and his relative GPE attended the hearing before the criminal court . GPE also testified as a witness . He stated that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment at the police station and had suffered injuries to his ear , which was later diagnosed at the hospital as perforation of the eardrum . The criminal court also asked him to identify the suspect from his photograph . GPE stated that he needed to see the suspect in person in order to be able to identify him because he considered that he would not be able to do so from the photographs .","On DATE the criminal court was informed that the suspect could not appear before the court because he was in GPE . The suspect could not be brought before the court until DATE .","On DATE the criminal court decided to acquit the police officer on the ground of insufficient evidence .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed to ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of the first instance court on the ground that the limitation period had expired , and ordered the discontinuation of the proceedings against the police officer ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159788","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF C\u0102T\u0102LIN EUGEN MICU v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in ORG Turnu FAC .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of rape and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . He has since been serving his sentence in various NORP prisons .","...","NORP The medical report drawn up when the applicant was admitted to prison on DATE indicates that he was \u201c clinically healthy \u201d ( clinic aparent s\u0103n\u0103tos ) .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was placed in the hospital wing of ORG , GPE , where he underwent surgery on DATE for an inguinal hernia on his right side .","From DATE the applicant was placed in the internal medicine unit of the hospital wing of PERSON , for digestive problems . He was included in a screening programme for digestive and liver conditions . Following a medical test to identify the viral markers of hepatitis , the applicant was found to be suffering from viral hepatitis C ( purtator PERSON ) . A biochemical blood analysis was conducted ; the results indicated that his ORG , ORG and ORG enzyme levels were normal , as was his total bilirubin .","In a note summarising the medical tests conducted during the applicant \u2019s hospitalisation ( scrisoare medical\u0103 ) , the doctor who had treated him observed that the applicant \u2019s disease was progressing satisfactorily and that no additional examination was necessary at that stage . He recommended that the applicant adhere to a specific diet and refrain from smoking . He prescribed symptomatic treatment , namely hepatoprotective drugs and vitamin therapy , noting that these were to be administered \u201c if needed \u201d ( la nevoie ) . The applicant \u2019s health was scheduled for re - examination within DATE .","The applicant was provided with a special diet for persons suffering from disease ( norma CARDINAL ) . During DATE , DATE and DATE DATE he was treated with hepatoprotective drugs .","On DATE the applicant refused to be hospitalised for his health check - up . His medical records do not indicate the reasons for this refusal . However , they indicate that his health was to be re - examined within DATE .","DATE the applicant was placed in the internal medicine unit of the hospital wing of PERSON for re - testing of his liver function . Blood tests showed that the ORG and ORG enzymes were slightly above the normal levels . On leaving the hospital wing , the applicant was advised to follow a course of hepatoprotective drugs , vitamin therapy and symptomatic treatment , to be administered if needed . He was also advised to have his condition reassessed within DATE .","NORP The applicant continued to be provided with the special diet for persons suffering from disease . In DATE , DATE and DATE he was treated with hepatoprotective drugs . The list of the applicant \u2019s medical consultations shows that , following a medical examination on DATE in FAC , it was recommended that he attend a medical consultation for hepatitis C in PERSON public hospital .","At DATE and in DATE the applicant was treated with a hepatoprotective drug and vitamins .","On DATE the applicant refused to be hospitalised for re - assessment of his health with regard to the hepatitis C condition . On DATE the applicant was examined by an internal medicine specialist , who noted that his general state of health was good .","On DATE the applicant was examined by the prison doctor . The latter noted a diagnosis of \u201c liver disease under observation \u201d and indicated that the applicant had complained of vomiting . An anti - spasmodic drug was prescribed and administered to him .","On DATE the applicant complained of palpitations . He was examined by the prison doctor , who recommended a cardiology test .","DATE the applicant was placed in the internal medicine and cardiology unit in the hospital wing of PERSON , on the grounds that he required medical supervision for retro - sternal pain and that , as a smoker , he was an at - risk patient . An electrocardiogram and blood test were carried out . The biochemical blood analysis revealed that the ORG enzyme was one - and - CARDINAL times over the upper norm , that the ORG enzyme was slightly over the norm and that the ORG enzyme was at normal levels .","A medical certificate issued at the end of his hospitalisation indicated that the applicant was suffering from unstable angina ( angor intricat de novo ) and potentially toxic liver disease ( hepatopatie posibil toxic\u0103 ) . The applicant was prescribed treatment for his heart disease and a course of hepatoprotective treatment , to be followed for DATE .","In DATE the prison took the necessary steps to purchase the hepatoprotective drug , which was administered to the applicant at the beginning and end of DATE . The applicant \u2019s medical records indicate that he was treated with hepatoprotective drugs in DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant had applied to the judge delegated by the court to supervise the observance of ORG rights in PERSON ( \u201c the delegate judge \u201d ) , complaining about his physical conditions of detention and a lack of medical treatment for his hepatitis C.","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the delegate judge dismissed his complaint . He confirmed the applicant \u2019s allegations that he was being held in a cell measuring QUANTITY ORG , occupied by CARDINAL inmates and containing CARDINAL tables and CARDINAL chairs . He further held that the prison authorities had attempted to improve conditions in the cell , noting that it had recently been renovated . He stated that the toilet block was separated from the cell , and that the cell received natural and artificial light . The fact that the cell was equipped with CARDINAL - tier bunk beds arose from an objective cause , namely an increase in the number of detainees , and not from a lack of good will on the part of the prison authorities .","With regard to the medical treatment provided to the applicant , the judge noted that he received the special diet for persons suffering from disease and that he had just received vitamin therapy .","Following an appeal by the applicant , on DATE ORG upheld , in a final judgment , the delegate judge \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE .","..."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141632","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ANDREY YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE . He is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .","In DATE the applicant , who was the president of the Odessa ORG ) at the material time , unsuccessfully ran for ORG . According to him , following the election campaign , ORG of GPE ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) put in place secret surveillance measures against him .","On DATE the ORG arrested the applicant in GPE on suspicion of having organised a criminal group formed of GPE members and having planned and directed several violent crimes committed by its members .","On DATE the applicant was taken for questioning to PERSON , where several other individuals implicated in membership of the same group had been arrested and detained some time before .","On TIME DATE the applicant signed a notice that he had been informed of his rights as a suspect and expressed the wish to have a lawyer . On the same date the applicant was appointed a legal - aid lawyer , GPE In his presence , the applicant terminated the appointment and stated that he agreed to be questioned without a lawyer , until his wife hired CARDINAL privately .","On DATE the applicant was questioned and acknowledged his affiliation with ORG and the GPE , a number of whose activists named by the investigator he knew in person . At the same time , the applicant denied having taken part or having been aware of any criminal activity by these individuals . The record of the applicant \u2019s questioning was preceded by his signature , which was underneath a note summarising his rights as a suspect and stating that he had given his consent to take part in the questioning session without legal representation .","On DATE the applicant was placed in GPE temporary detention centre ( ORG ) , which , according to him , had unsuitable living conditions . The applicant was subsequently remanded in custody and transferred to Mykolayiv pre - trial detention centre ( GPE ) .","On DATE a confrontation was conducted between the applicant and A. , CARDINAL of the individuals implicated in membership of the applicant \u2019s criminal group . The record of the confrontation notes that before the questioning , the investigator informed the parties of their procedural rights and asked the applicant whether , regard being had to the fact that he had no legal representation , he agreed to take part in the confrontation . The applicant expressed his willingness to take part in the confrontation , stating that he felt capable of representing himself at that point . Following this introduction , A. , who was represented by a lawyer , testified that the applicant had planned and organised several robberies , in which A. and some other individuals from the GPE had been involved . Having heard A. \u2019s statement , the applicant refused to take any further part in the confrontation without a lawyer and the confrontation was discontinued .","On DATE lawyer PERSON , hired by the applicant \u2019s spouse , was admitted to the proceedings as the applicant \u2019s representative .","On DATE the applicant was indicted on a number of charges including organising and directing a terrorist group with a view to re - establishing a NORP state by violent means and being in charge of several robberies ( \u201c expropriations \u201d ) committed in order to raise funds for the group . Following his indictment , the applicant was questioned in PERSON \u2019s presence . During questioning , the applicant reiterated his previous position and denied involvement in any criminal activity . Asked whether he had been subjected to any psychological or physical ill - treatment by the investigative authority , the applicant stated that he had not been subjected to any ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant terminated PERSON \u2019s appointment , as the further investigation of his case had been transferred to the GPE branch of the ORG , whereas A.A. practiced in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was transported to GPE no . CARDINAL pre - trial detention facility ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) , where he was detained until DATE .","On DATE the applicant was further questioned as a criminal defendant . Before the questioning session began , he signed a waiver of his right to legal representation , having indicated that he was capable of defending his own interests . During questioning , the applicant refused to answer any questions , referring to his constitutional right to remain silent . Questioned several more times in DATE , the applicant signed further waivers of his right to legal representation and chose to remain silent .","On DATE , referring to his ability to represent his own interests , the applicant refused to accept the appointment of legal - aid lawyers NORP and NORP , who had been selected by the authorities , and asked for no further legal - aid lawyers to be appointed during the investigation stage .","On DATE lawyer A. GPE , engaged by the applicant \u2019s wife , was admitted to the proceedings as the applicant \u2019s new representative . The applicant , questioned in her presence , refused to testify and chose to remain silent .","On DATE the investigation was finished and the applicant , along with CARDINAL other individuals implicated in membership of the same criminal group , was committed to stand trial before LOC ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , acting as a first - instance court .","On DATE the applicant and his lawyer PERSON both signed an affidavit that they had familiarised themselves with the CARDINAL volume case file .","In DATE ORG held a preparatory hearing in the applicant \u2019s case and allowed requests made by the applicant \u2019s co - defendants NORP , PERSON and NORP for additional time to study the case - file materials .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s spouse terminated A. ORG appointment , referring to financial difficulties , and the applicant asked the court to appoint a lawyer to represent him .","At the next court hearing ( on DATE ) ORG appointed PERSON as the applicant \u2019s new lawyer and granted her time to study the case file . On DATE the court rejected the applicant \u2019s request for additional time to study the case file , referring , in particular , to his affidavit that he had studied it in full , to his failure to lodge this request before the beginning of the trial , and to the fact that the applicant would be able to seek to have case - file documents that were to be examined at a particular hearing read out in full or in part by the court before their examination .","On an unspecified date ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request to appoint his father , who was not a lawyer , as his lay defender , referring to a conflict of interests that would arise if this was allowed . In particular , the applicant \u2019s father had been summoned for questioning as a witness in the case . According to the applicant , his father was never questioned in the end and never even received an official summons .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer , PERSON , did not attend the hearing .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant asked for PERSON to be excluded from the proceedings , alleging that she had been passive in representing his interests , had not been supportive of his chosen defence strategy , and that he would prefer to be represented by a privately - funded lawyer . On DATE the applicant \u2019s request was allowed and he was given until DATE to engage a privately - funded lawyer .","On DATE , the applicant still not having engaged a privately - funded lawyer , the court appointed PERSON as his new legal - aid lawyer .","On DATE the applicant sought the replacement of his court - appointed lawyer PERSON with PERSON , who had previously represented him as a court - appointed lawyer but who had now been privately engaged by his wife . This request was allowed and PERSON represented the applicant until DATE trial .","During the trial , the applicant acknowledged that he had supported communist ideas and had taken part in publishing and distributing propaganda . However , he denied having been involved in any violent crimes . The applicant also complained that the investigative authorities had subjected his co - defendants and himself to ill - treatment with a view to breaking their moral resistance . In particular , upon the applicant \u2019s arrest in DATE , the officers had threatened him with physical ill - treatment and had made inappropriate remarks concerning his wife and family life . He had also been transported to GPE lying handcuffed on the floor of the prison van and blindfolded with a dark hat , which had made him suffocate and caused him to suffer a heart attack .","After the death of PERSON , one of the applicant \u2019s co - defendants , during the trial proceedings , the applicant and his co - defendants demanded an investigation into the circumstances of his death , alleging that it had resulted from torture and that they had also been subjected to ill - treatment at the investigation stage . Following the investigation , the prosecutor \u2019s office reported to ORG that PERSON had died of cancer and there had been no evidence of ill - treatment of the other co - defendants .","According to the applicant , it was very difficult for him to concentrate during the trial . In particular , his health was adversely affected by the conditions of his detention and the lack of medical assistance for his heart problems available to him in GPE .","He noted , in particular , that DATE he was detained in cell no . CARDINAL in block CARDINAL of GPE , which was QUANTITY in size , had CARDINAL beds and , at the time of his arrival , accommodated CARDINAL detainees . The sanitary facilities were not separated from DATE . The wardens thwarted all the ORG attempts to gain some privacy by separating them with a curtain . The applicant \u2019s inmates were repeat offenders . Some of them suffered from contagious diseases , such as HIV and tuberculosis . The administration ignored the applicant \u2019s demands to be moved , as a healthy person with no criminal record , to a different cell . In DATE the applicant was relocated to a different cell , which was very similar in terms of physical and sanitary conditions . In addition , access to bathing facilities was very irregular . Furthermore , on various occasions the detainees were arbitrarily and brutally searched and beaten by special detachments of the armed forces .","The applicant further noted that he suffered from hypertension , vegetative - vascular dystonia , coronary artery disease and arrhythmia , for which he received no proper care in GPE . The applicant \u2019s family sent him medicines , which on some occasions were unreasonably withheld .","The applicant also submitted that on court DATE he and his co - defendants were routinely taken out of their cells at about TIME and placed with CARDINAL other inmates scheduled to be transported on DATE in a special transit box , which measured CARDINAL , had no windows and no heating . In such conditions the applicant and his co - defendants had to wait TIME for a prison van to come . Upon their return from court , they also routinely had to wait for TIME in the same holding area before being escorted to their regular cells . As a result , they missed meal time and were often left hungry . The \u201c packed lunches \u201d provided to them consisted solely of bread . Sometimes hot lunches were made available at court , but their provision was irregular .","The applicant also maintained that he had raised complaints about these issues in court , but to no avail . He presented unofficial copies of court transcripts , according to which on DATE the applicant asked for a hearing to be adjourned as he felt unwell . On DATE the applicant asked for a medical appointment in a cardiology clinic . On DATE he complained in court that on DATE the convoy officers had made the defendants run , while handcuffed and bent over , up to the courtroom located on the sixth floor and had beaten his co - defendant P. , who had stumbled and fallen . On DATE the applicant complained that he was only allowed to have TIME DATE outdoor walks , while his heart conditions called for him to walk for TIME a day . On DATE the applicant asked the court to investigate the conditions of detention in GPE , alleging that his and his co - defendants\u2019 health had been deteriorating . On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that on DATE he and his co - defendants had been taken out of their cells at TIME and they had been held in the transit box , which had been cold , until TIME without lunch . Finally on DATE the applicant supported a complaint lodged by his co - defendant PERSON , according to whom on DATE he and his co - defendants had had to spend TIME in the cold transit box . As can be seen from the same transcript , the presiding judge advised the applicant and PERSON to address their complaints to the GPE governor , which advice they rejected as futile .","According to the ORG , the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention were sufficient to meet his basic needs and compatible with his state of health . While the records enabling the identification of the applicant \u2019s inmates and their health status had not been preserved , inmates suffering from contagious diseases were segregated from other detainees in accordance with the applicable rules . The Government provided numbers of various cells in which the applicant was held throughout his time in GPE and indicated that these cells measured from QUANTITY and were designed to accommodate CARDINAL inmates each and had not been overcrowded . They were equipped with windows giving sufficient access to natural light , had functioning sanitary facilities , tap water , heating , electric light and ventilation . Detainees were provided with CARDINAL meals per day , TIME DATE walks and DATE access to bathing facilities .","The Government further maintained that the applicant \u2019s state of health had been regularly monitored by the GPE medical staff on account of his pre - existing conditions ( hypertension , vegetative - vascular dystonia , coronary artery disease and arrhythmia ) . In DATE the applicant underwent inpatient treatment in the GPE medical unit for his premature ventricular contractions ( arrhythmia ) . In addition , on several occasions the applicant also had consultations with civilian specialist doctors . In particular , on DATE , following the applicant \u2019s request for a consultation with a civilian cardiologist , he was examined by ORG cardiologist , who confirmed his previous diagnoses and gave recommendations as to his further outpatient treatment , which was administered in the GPE . In DATE the applicant underwent a medical assessment by a panel of civilian doctors and was certified to be in satisfactory health and fit for detention and trial . The Government presented a copy of a medical certificate , according to which on DATE the applicant had been examined by an ophthalmologist , a urologist , a physician , a pulmonologist , a cardiologist and a neurologist from ORG .","The Government also maintained that the applicant and his co - defendants had always been promptly transported to and from the courthouse and had received breakfast and dinner in the GPE . They had also been provided with either a packed lunch or hot lunch delivered to the court on hearing days . The catering had been organised by officer PERSON , and , while copies of the available menus had not been kept , there was no record of any irregularity in the catering arrangements , which had been regulated by law .","The Government also maintained that there was no record of any complaints by the applicant or his co - defendants , either with the PERSON administration or with ORG , concerning the conditions of their detention , transportation , catering or medical treatment . They presented affidavits by the GPE governor and on behalf of ORG in this respect .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of propagating a violent revolt against the constitutional order and attempting to undermine the territorial integrity of GPE ; organising and running a criminal group ; participating in a terrorist act ( detonation of an explosive in a rubbish bin near the ORG headquarters in GPE ) ; smuggling goods across the NORP border ; unlawful handling of firearms and explosives ; several armed robberies ; and engagement of a minor in criminal activity . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court also dismissed allegations of ill - treatment raised in respect of the applicant and some of his co - defendants as unsubstantiated . Finally , it noted that , insofar as the complaints of inadequate medical assistance in GPE were concerned , the applicant had been examined by civilian medical specialists in DATE and had been found to be in a satisfactory state of health and fit to take part in the court proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against this judgment . In his statement of appeal , the applicant reiterated his innocence and his allegations of ill - treatment advanced during the trial . He also reiterated that no medical assistance necessitated by his chronic conditions had been made available to him in GPE and that the conditions of his and his co - defendants\u2019 transport to the court LOC had been inhuman . In this respect he noted that on DATE the convoy had made him and his co - defendants run to the sixth - floor courtroom while handcuffed and bent over and that on DATE the detainees had been arbitrarily held in the prison van for TIME on the way back to the GPE . The applicant further complained in his cassation appeal of a breach of his right to mount a defence . He noted in this respect that he had not been provided with a lawyer upon his arrest ; his request to have his father appointed as his lay defender had been rejected ; and his lawyer PERSON had not attended the hearing of CARDINAL DATE . Finally , the applicant complained that his right to have sufficient time and facilities for the preparation of his defence had been breached , as ORG had rejected his request for an extension of time in which to study the case - file materials in preparation for the trial . The applicant also mentioned that he was intending to supplement his statement of appeal with further submissions . No copies of any such submissions were provided to the ORG .","On DATE ORG of GPE re - qualified the applicant \u2019s conviction for smuggling as aiding and abetting smuggling and otherwise upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment . The conviction for distribution of propaganda and attempting to undermine the territorial integrity of GPE was not reviewed , as the applicant had not lodged an appeal against it . In its decision , ORG noted , in particular , that the evidence of the applicant \u2019s guilt included the testimony of his co - defendants and victims of his crimes given during the trial and that there was no evidence that any statements obtained during the pre - trial investigation had been extracted through ill - treatment or in breach of the applicant \u2019s or his co - defendants\u2019 right to mount a defence . Finally , it noted that ORG had properly rejected the applicant \u2019s request for further time in which to study the case - file materials , as it was unsubstantiated .","In DATE the applicant was transferred to Sokyriany no . CARDINAL ORG ( \u201c LOC \u201d ) to serve his sentence .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer , based in GPE , GPE , asked ORG to send him a number of documents from the applicant \u2019s case file by post .","On DATE the court denied this request , noting , in particular , that it had no facilities with which to prepare and send the copies and that the lawyer could study the case file on the court \u2019s premises .","DATE and QUANTITY DATE the applicant was detained in GPE pre - trial detention facility ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) awaiting the review of his conviction in the cassation proceedings .","According to the applicant , the conditions of his detention were detrimental to his health and incompatible with human dignity . In particular , the facility was extremely overcrowded . A cell which contained CARDINAL sleeping places was occupied by CARDINAL inmates . The window was covered with metal shutters , barely letting in air and light . The electric light provided in DATE was so dim that reading or writing could hurt the eyes . The sanitary facilities were not separated from DATE . The cell was not ventilated , the metal shutters overheated and the temperature often reached QUANTITY . The air , mattresses and pillows were very damp . The provision and change of bedding was irregular . During the one - and - a - half months in which he was held there , the applicant only once had access to the bathing facility . He also received no medical help for his heart problems , which were bothering him because of the unsuitable physical conditions of his detention .","According to the Government , the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention were reasonably adapted to his needs . The applicant stayed in cells nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY , QUANTITY and QUANTITY respectively . At the material time cell CARDINAL , which was designed to accommodate CARDINAL inmates , was occupied by CARDINAL ; cell CARDINAL , which was designed to accommodate CARDINAL inmates , was occupied by CARDINAL ; and cell CARDINAL , which was designed for CARDINAL inmates , was filled to its capacity . All of the cells were equipped with windows letting in natural light and fresh air , sanitary facilities , sinks , artificial ventilation , refrigerators and televisions . The average temperature in the cells was QUANTITY . The detainees were supplied with soap and bedding , which was regularly changed , and could also buy toiletries in the GPE shop , if they so wished . They were also provided with CARDINAL meals a day , and were allowed DATE TIME walks and DATE access to the bathing facility .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG , where he served his sentence until DATE .","According to the applicant , upon his arrival on DATE and until DATE he was detained in the intake area ( quarantine cell ) , which was very damp and unheated . His warm civilian clothes were seized and he was provided with a prison uniform in a size too small for him . This was not remedied until DATE , when his mother brought warm clothes , which he was allowed to keep . During his mother \u2019s visit , the applicant was allowed to stay with her in the colony \u2019s visitor hostel , which was also barely heated . On various occasions the administration blocked or delayed the applicant \u2019s correspondence and the delivery of NORP newspapers to which the applicant subscribed . The applicant was not provided with appropriate medical care and treatment . In addition , the colony administration exerted arbitrary psychological pressure on him by subjecting him to special supervision ( for example , the administration placed his bed by the entrance door to the cell in order to be able to supervise him more effectively ) .","According to the applicant , he and his mother ( on his behalf ) brought the aforementioned matters to the attention of the colony administration and the prosecutor \u2019s office . However , their complaints were either not dispatched , ignored , or poorly investigated into .","As is evident from the case file , in DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged several complaints with various authorities , in which she referred to irregularities in the colony postal unit \u2019s handling of the applicant \u2019s correspondence and periodical subscriptions , a prohibition on the detainees keeping sugar in the cells , the poor heating of the colony \u2019s visitor hostel and the disappearance of CARDINAL hryvnias ( ORG ) transferred by her to the applicant \u2019s account .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG acknowledged certain irregularities in the operation of the colony \u2019s postal unit in their responses to the applicant \u2019s mother and notified her that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against the officer responsible , while the colony governor had been instructed to improve the oversight of the postal service operation . They further noted that the detainees were forbidden to keep sugar in the cells to prevent alcohol production by them and that in DATE the visitor accommodation had been equipped with movable radiators . Finally , they assured the applicant \u2019s mother that the money purportedly lost had been duly credited to the applicant \u2019s account .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother wrote a letter to ORG acknowledging an improvement in the delivery of the applicant \u2019s correspondence and thanking them for their intervention .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained on the applicant \u2019s behalf of deterioration in his health .","On DATE the applicant lodged a declaration with the colony governor , according to which he had developed skin and liver problems in DATE , but stating that he was now satisfied with the treatment he was receiving and had no further requests in this respect or complaints against colony medical staff .","In DATE the applicant was transferred to GPE no . ORG in GPE ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) , which operated under a lower - security regime , to continue serving his sentence .","Having left GPE on DATE , the applicant arrived in ORG in DATE .","According to the applicant , the conditions of his transport were incompatible with his state of health and with human dignity . Long distances were covered in prison trains and shorter ones in prison vans . The transit took DATE because he was made to join various groups of prisoners making various shorter connections . The prison train carriages had compartments designed for CARDINAL to CARDINAL passengers , which were occupied by QUANTITY or more detainees and their belongings . The overcrowded compartments were not ventilated and in the summer heat ( QUANTITY ) the metal carriages overheated , making it hard to breathe . Reaching a destination took very long time , as upon arrival at an intermediate stop the cars often waited for TIME for additional prisoners to be brought to the station or for a new locomotive to be connected to the train . A distance that would be covered in TIME in a regular train could take TIME or more . The guards escorted the detainees to the bathroom only once TIME and there was no opportunity to go otherwise . The conditions of transport in the vans were also very uncomfortable . The vans had no windows and largely no ventilation . On many occasions they also took long stops and became overheated in the DATE sun , aggravating the symptoms of the applicant \u2019s heart and vascular problems and causing him to suffer intolerably .","The applicant further maintained that the physical conditions in the detention facilities which accommodated him as a detainee in transit between various train and van rides were likewise not suitable for habitation . For instance , the cell in PERSON had a window facing the inner corridor with no access to natural light . Cell no . CARDINAL in GPE was located in the basement . It was damp with water dripping from the ceiling and walls covered in mould . Both facilities were heavily overcrowded , with detainees taking turns to sleep , were poorly lit , ventilated and infested with insects . The sanitary facilities in them were not separated from DATE .","In addition to the poor physical conditions of detention and transport , the detainees in transit were also subjected to cruel and arbitrary practices by the convoy officers and prison guards . In particular , upon arrival and before departure they often had to spend TIME or so in overcrowded holding areas sitting in squat positions with their hands behind their heads . Guards also often made detainees assume a squat or other unnatural positions when moving somewhere , shouted , insulted , pushed and beat the prisoners , and performed unnecessary and degrading searches . The status of a prisoner in transit not having been sufficiently addressed in law and regulations , the administrative practice was not to provide them with bedding , not to segregate inmates sick with contagious diseases , and deny appropriate medical assistance or any communication with the outside world , including correspondence and visits .","According to the Government , the travel journals containing the particulars of the conditions of the applicant \u2019s transit had been destroyed . However , they asserted that the conditions of the applicant \u2019s transport and detention in transit points had been reasonably adapted to meeting his needs . Prison train carriages were designed to accommodate CARDINAL people . They contained large compartments measuring QUANTITY designed to accommodate CARDINAL people and smaller compartments of QUANTITY designed to accommodate CARDINAL people . It was permissible to put CARDINAL and QUANTITY people in large and smaller compartments respectively during trips that took TIME . All train cars were supplied with artificial ventilation and it was also possible to open a window . Prison vans measured QUANTITY inside and were designed to accommodate CARDINAL people in CARDINAL compartments ( CARDINAL larger ones designed for QUANTITY passengers each and CARDINAL small compartment for CARDINAL passengers ) . The vans had no windows , but they were equipped with vents and benches for sitting on .","Upon the applicant \u2019s arrival at FAC in DATE , his medical file was found to be missing .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to ORG concerning ORG administration \u2019s decision to allow the applicant \u2019s transfer in DATE heat and its failure to include his medical file in his travel documents .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office notified the applicant \u2019s mother that according to ORG records , the applicant \u2019s medical file had been properly handed over to the convoy officers escorting him out of the colony ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159760","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KLEYN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - Competent court);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived , prior to his conviction , in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of double murder . He remained in custody pending the investigation and trial .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of murder , accessory to murder and attempted fraud , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court comprised CARDINAL professional judge and CARDINAL lay judges .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal .","On DATE the applicant lodged a supervisory - review complaint challenging the lawfulness of his conviction . He alleged , inter alia , that the trial court had not been a tribunal established by law , given that the lay judges who considered his case had been appointed to the tribunal in contravention of the applicable legislation .","On DATE the ORG of the LOC reduced the applicant \u2019s sentence by DATE , in compliance with the latest amendments to LAW .","On DATE the ORG of ORG of GPE received the case file for supervisory review .","On DATE the ORG quashed the judgments of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE and remitted the matter to ORG for fresh consideration . Referring to the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIV ) , the ORG noted that the lay judges had not been authorised to consider the applicant \u2019s case , which had affected the lawfulness and well - foundedness of the applicant \u2019s conviction . Lastly , the ORG ordered that the applicant be detained pending a new trial .","On DATE ORG fixed the preliminary hearing for DATE noting that the measure of preventive detention previously imposed on the applicant \u201c should remain unchanged \u201d . The parties did not inform the ORG of the outcome of the hearing of DATE . It appears that it was re - scheduled .","On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing of the case . The applicant and his lawyer attended the hearing and made submissions to the court . The applicant asked the court to release him on an undertaking not to leave his place of residence . He noted that he had already served over DATE of the earlier imposed prison sentence which rendered the further extension of his pre - trial detention unnecessary . The prosecutor discerned no change in the applicant \u2019s situation that would be in favour of the applicant \u2019s release and asked the court to extend the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial . The court fixed the new trial for DATE noting that the measure of preventive detention previously imposed on the applicant \u201c should remain unchanged \u201d . In particular , the court noted as follows :","\u201c Deciding on the preventive measure and having heard the parties to the proceedings , the court considers that the remand of the [ defendants ] in custody during preliminary investigation as a restrictive measure has been lawful and justified . There are no grounds to replace it with a more lenient measure ... in view of the gravity of the charges and the defendants\u2019 character . \u201d","On DATE ORG opened the trial and on DATE it found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment . The time already served by the applicant was set off against the newly imposed sentence . The court found that the applicant and PERSON . had killed PERSON and ORG . in an attempt to fraudulently obtain the proceeds from the sale of a flat owned by ORG The court comprised a single judge . The applicant was represented by a lawyer .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal . The applicant and his lawyer were present at the hearing and made submissions to the court .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-a","5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170365","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GORODOVYCH v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","DATE and DATE the applicant underwent outpatient treatment for overactive thyroid at FAC in GPE . She was treated by Dr S.","In DATE the applicant \u2019s health deteriorated ; she was examined at FAC in GPE and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism . From CARDINAL DATE to DATE the applicant underwent inpatient treatment for hypothyroidism at FAC . The applicant told the doctors that her hypothyroidism resulted from the treatment with a radiopharmaceutical , PERSON ( radioactive iodine ) , which Dr S. had administered to her DATE and DATE . The doctors from the FAC recorded in the applicant \u2019s medical file that the applicant suffered from hypothyroidism resulting from the treatment with radiopharmaceuticals . Eventually , the applicant lost her thyroid and was recognized as suffering from the second highest official degree of disability .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , Dr S. issued her a certificate stating that throughout DATE the applicant \u2019s treatment included injections of a radiopharmaceutical , namely radioactive iodine J-CARDINAL . PERSON did not specify the dosage or dates on which the applicant had received the injections .","In DATE and DATE the applicant complained to ORG of ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) that the radiopharmaceuticals administered to her by PERSON had seriously damaged her health .","The ORG invited the applicant to undergo a medical examination at CARDINAL of the hospitals in GPE , however she refused . ORG checked the records of FAC and found that they contained no data as regards the applicant \u2019s alleged treatment with radiopharmaceuticals . It was further noted that , according to the applicant \u2019s medical records , DATE her diagnosis had been unclear . That being the case , the treatment mentioned in the certificate of DATE had been inadequate . ORG recommended the Oncology Centre to dismiss PERSON for that reason . Shortly afterwards Dr S. retired from FAC of her own motion .","In DATE the applicant complained to the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office that PERSON had treated her with PERSON , that the treatment had been inadequate and that it had destroyed her thyroid . To support her complaint , the applicant submitted the certificate of DATE .","NORP In DATE an official investigation was launched into the applicant \u2019s complaint which was carried out initially by the prosecutors and later by the police . In the course of the investigation the applicant , PERSON and a number of other persons were questioned . Also , several forensic examinations were performed . A number of decisions were taken rejecting the applicant \u2019s complaint principally for the reason that , according to the forensic reports , it was impossible to establish the cause of the destruction of the applicant \u2019s thyroid . Those decisions were eventually quashed for incomplete investigation . The most recent decision in that regard was taken by ORG in GPE on DATE , by which it instructed the police to carry out further investigation in the applicant \u2019s case , finding inter alia that the police had failed to examine all pertinent evidence and that an additional forensic examination was necessary . The investigation has not been completed to date ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171097","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BARBU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He has served sentences in several prisons . On DATE he was released from PERSON .","The applicant alleged that while detained in cell no . CARDINAL of T\u00e2rguJiu Prison for DATE , DATE and DATE , he had not had an individual bed and had therefore been forced to sleep on the cold floor on CARDINAL blankets . As a consequence , the renal disease from which he suffered had been re - activated and he had experienced intense pain .","On DATE he had been examined by a prison doctor and had been prescribed medical treatment . However , he had been unable to submit any evidence in this connection as the prison authorities had rejected his requests for a copy of his medical records . He submitted instead an old medical certificate stating that on DATE he had been hospitalised in ORG of ORG suffering from renal colic .","The applicant lodged a complaint with the postsentencing judge asking for an individual bed .","His complaint was examined on DATE . The applicant informed the judge that he had eventually been given a bed , but only after DATE . The post - sentencing judge took note that the applicant had obtained an individual bed ; he did not draft an interlocutory judgment , but merely noted that the complaint had been withdrawn .","The applicant lodged a complaint with LOC Court seeking compensation in connection with the lack of an individual bed for DATE in cell no . CARDINAL of NORP .","On DATE the NORP - Jiu ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint as inadmissible without examining its merits on account of the fact that the applicant had not submitted an interlocutory judgment by the post - sentencing judge in connection with his complaint ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158481","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SAHAKYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and later charged under LAW with intentional infliction of a grave injury .","On DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE granted the investigator \u2019s motion to place the applicant in pre - trial detention .","On DATE the same court decided , upon the applicant \u2019s motion , to release him on bail .","On DATE the investigator decided to cancel bail and to detain the applicant on the basis of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that on DATE the applicant was placed in pre - trial detention .","On DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE decided , upon the applicant \u2019s appeal , to quash the investigator \u2019s decision and to release the applicant . ORG stated that , in accordance with LAW , detention could be imposed only by a court and was the court \u2019s prerogative . The investigator had therefore exceeded his authority and had incorrectly interpreted the law by imposing detention . The law required the investigator to apply to the court with a reasoned motion , if there were sufficient grounds to replace bail with detention . ORG found that the applicant \u2019s detention imposed on the basis of the decision of CARDINAL DATE had violated his rights guaranteed under , inter alia , LAW and CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL of the LAW .","On DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE acquitted the applicant .","On DATE ORG upheld this judgment .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ORG , seeking pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage in connection with the criminal proceedings against him , including his detention . The claim for pecuniary damage included alleged lost earnings , expenses related to food parcels received in detention and the transport costs of his relatives . The applicant estimated the non - pecuniary damage suffered by him at MONEY ( ORG ) .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE decided to grant partially the applicant \u2019s claim for pecuniary damages and award him QUANTITY ( ORG ) ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at the material time ) . As regards the claim for non - pecuniary damages , ORG decided to dismiss it , with reference to LAW , on the ground that the NORP law did not provide for this type of compensation .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal .","On an unspecified date ORG also lodged an appeal , contesting the judgment in its part concerning the award of pecuniary damages .","On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the applicant \u2019s appeal and to grant that of ORG , reducing the amount of compensation for pecuniary damage to ORG MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at the material time ) . As regards the claim for non - pecuniary damages , ORG decided to terminate the proceedings on the ground that NORP law did not provide for this type of compensation and therefore that claim could not be examined by the court .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the appeal and to uphold the decision of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146567","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ANZHELO GEORGIEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants worked for a private company ( \u201c the company \u201d ) . The company is CARDINAL of the main Internet service providers in the city of GPE ; it operated out of CARDINAL offices in GPE , both of which were located on the same street . The first applicant was the company \u2019s manager ; the second , third and fourth applicants were employees of the company ; the fifth applicant was a freelance expert providing services to the company at the time of the events .","On DATE ORG initiated criminal proceedings ( \u0434\u043e\u0441\u044a\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u043e \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e ) against a person unknown , suspected of disseminating materials in violation of intellectual property laws by using the company \u2019s servers during DATE and thus committing a continuous offence as defined in LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . The proceedings were not directed at anyone specifically at the company . The prosecutor \u2019s order for opening criminal proceedings comprised the following instructions : that the facts be established ; that unlicensed software be identified and seized , and a forensic examination be carried out in respect of it ; that the results be discussed with the prosecutor without delay ; and that the investigation be carried out by officers of ORG ) .","The following facts are undisputed between the parties .","Following the prosecutor \u2019s order of DATE , a special police operation was carried out on DATE in CARDINAL of the company \u2019s offices located in the same street in GPE . The operation was aimed at the search and seizure of illegal software and was carried out pursuant to the instructions of the supervising prosecutor . Ya . PERSON , a ORG officer and the head of the operation , had given the operational instructions to the officers involved shortly before the operation began . Those instructions were to enter the company \u2019s premises as quickly as possible , to overpower all individuals found there in order to prevent them from interfering with any electronic evidence , and to seize the computer equipment found in the offices . A district court judge confirmed the validity of the searchandseizure operation within TIME of its having taken place . A number of computers and black boxes , the latter referred to in the searchand - seizure reports as \u201c computer systems \u201d , as well as one folder of paper documents , were seized in the presence of certifying witnesses during the operation . The manager of the company , PERSON , was not present in the company \u2019s offices when the operation took place . The second applicant was working in the first company office at the time of the operation and the third , fourth and fifth applicants were present in the second company office .","The parties disagree in particular in respect of whether the force used by some of the ORG officers during the above - mentioned operation had been provoked by the applicants and therefore whether it had been excessive or absolutely necessary in the circumstances .","The applicants , in their complaints to the prosecutor on DATE about having been ill - treated during the operation DATE , described the conduct of the operation as follows .","PERSON , the first applicant , submitted that on DATE ORG officers barged into CARDINAL offices of the company , having broken the entrance doors to CARDINAL of the offices . Then , he claimed , they had broken the cameras in the first office , ordered the employees found there , including the second applicant , to lie on the ground and hit them with electroshock batons , as well as kicked them in the chest and the head despite the absence of any resistance or provocation . The first applicant also claimed that a similar situation had arisen in the second company office . Copies of medical certificates , evidencing injuries allegedly sustained by several employees during those events , were enclosed with the complaint .","Kameliya Ivanova Dekova , the second applicant , submitted that at TIME on DATE masked armed men had cut the lock of the entrance door to the company \u2019s first office where she was working , saying they were police . Then , she claimed , they had made her lie on the ground and had kicked her in the chest and head , as well as applied electroshock discharges from a baton - like device to her body before handcuffing her . She had not resisted in any way and had done nothing to provoke such treatment . CARDINAL of the masked men had been shouting threats and insults at her and her colleagues present in the office , including threatening to shoot a firearm .","PERSON , the third applicant , submitted in particular that he had heard loud bangs on the entrance door of the company \u2019s second office at TIME on DATE . After a colleague had opened the door , men had rushed in , pushed and shoved him and then handcuffed him to the window grill . While he was still attached to the grill , they had applied electroshock discharges from a baton to his abdominal area .","Nikolay PERSON , the fourth applicant , submitted that at TIME on DATE several armed masked men had broken into the company \u2019s second office , where he was at the time . Although he had not resisted in any way , they had hit him in the face and his lip had started bleeding . They had handcuffed his arms behind his back and then made him stay on his knees for TIME during which time they had continuously insulted him .","Pavel PERSON , the fifth applicant , submitted that at TIME on DATE , while he had been working in the company \u2019s second office together with CARDINAL other colleagues , he had heard strong bangs on the door and shouts \u201c Open ! Police ! \u201d . As soon as a colleague of his had opened the door , several men had thrown Mr PERSON to the ground , then had handcuffed his arms behind his back and dragged him outside . Next they had made him remain crouching with his hands cuffed behind his back for TIME . They had asked no questions of him or his colleagues nor asked them to produce their identity documents ; instead , they had ordered the employees in the office to keep quiet .","Some of the CARDINAL employees , including the second , third , fourth and fifth applicants , who were heard during the inquiry on CARDINAL and DATE following the ORG complaints ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , stated that police officers had cut open the entrance door to the first of the company \u2019s offices in which they had been working on the afternoon of DATE . Following that the officers had hit them in the face , kicked them , stepped with a boot on their heads , applied electroshock discharges on them which had caused them very strong pain and a feeling of paralysis , insulted them and continuously shouted at them to keep silent . The officers had been wearing what some employees described as \u201c helmets \u201d and \u201c hoods \u201d on their heads . They had been dressed in black police uniforms and had been armed with machine guns . Once the masked officers had noticed that there were cameras on the LOC , they had signaled this to each other and stopped hitting the employees . Shortly afterwards civilian police officers had entered the office LOC ; none of the civilian officers had illtreated any of the employees .","The Government submitted to the ORG statements of CARDINAL police officers who had taken part in the operation . The statements were given to the prosecution on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , as part of a preliminary inquiry carried out into the allegations of the company \u2019s employees that they had been ill - treated by the police at the time of the operation . The Government also submitted to the ORG the statements of CARDINAL employees of the company given to the prosecution during the same inquiry ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Officers from the ORG who had participated in the operation were heard during the inquiry in DATE in GPE following instructions of the FAC prosecutors . The ORG officers submitted that , prior to the operation they had received information from operative police sources and various media publications , that the company was connected to organised criminal groups . Given that the employees had refused to open the door to one of the offices which had been disguised as a family apartment , masked police officers had had to cut it open in order to prevent the destruction of evidence . The other office had been opened from inside by employees . ORG officers ( it was not specified who or how many ) had entered through the window into yet a third \u201c hidden \u201d office , thus \u201c taking by surprise an employee found there who was attempting to destroy evidence \u201d ; they had handcuffed that employee , and then an unspecified person had opened the door to that office with a key . During the operation the company \u2019s employees had refused to comply with the police orders and had actively disobeyed the officers , thus obstructing the operation . The officers had not used electroshock on any employee . They had used handcuffs on individual members of staff who had refused to open the entrance door or to move away from their computer stations and who had continued to erase data from the computers instead . The wife of the company \u2019s manager had behaved arrogantly towards the officers , insulting and threatening them with revenge , and had ordered the employees to continue with their work .","Officers of ORG ( \u201c \u041e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043d\u0430 FAC GPE FAC \u201d or \u201c ORG \u201d ) who were heard during the inquiry in DATE in GPE submitted that they had been called in to assist their colleagues from the ORG in an operation to find company servers containing unlicensed software , films and music . None of the ORG officers had been masked . They had not been involved in the opening of the entrance doors to the company \u2019s offices as that had been done by masked officers from the ORG . They had entered the office LOC after the doors had been opened . They had seen some masked officers on the company LOC but had not seen what they had done . Some of them had heard calls of \u201c Open ! Police ! \u201d during a period of TIME and after that the sound of an electric grinder . They had not witnessed any physical force being used against any employee . Some of the ORG officers had seen in the first office several women \u2013 none of whom bore any sign of injury \u2013 sitting on chairs guarded by CARDINAL masked officers ; in the entrance hall leading to the second office they had seen several company employees , some wearing handcuffs . While the ORG officers had been waiting for the entrance doors to the offices to be opened , they had thought it likely that the company employees would delete most if not all of the information sought to be collected during the operation . All the employees had been calm and , at times , the officers had let them smoke outside the building before asking them to return inside to wait until the conclusion of the search - and - seizure operation . After officers had brought in another woman called ORG , acting as the manager of the company , CARDINAL computer systems were seized in her presence and in the presence of several certifying witnesses . The ORG officers had left at TIME","On DATE , DATE after the police operation , at their request , a forensic expert examined PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , respectively the second , third and fifth applicants .","According to the medical reports , PERSON had a swollen right upper eyelid and a swelling and a cut next to her right eyebrow , a bruise and an abrasion in her right armpit , CARDINAL reddish - brown burns on and below her right shoulder blade and bruises on her right thigh and arm . The conclusion of the medical expert was that the burns on her back were of first to second degree and it was plausible that they had been sustained from not CARDINAL strikes with an electroshock baton at the time and in the circumstances described by the applicant . PERSON had a jaw injury , injuries to both arms , an injury and an open wound in the abdominal area and CARDINAL reddish strips on his abdomen . Mr PERSON had CARDINAL long bruises around his left armpit which could have been the result of pressure applied with non - sharp , hard objects , possibly squeezing by hands . The medical expert concluded that the bruises and injuries could have been caused by blows with or against a blunt object , and that the injuries described above had caused the second , third and fifth applicant pain and suffering , and the second applicant also temporary non - life - threatening health disorder .","On DATE the applicants , and CARDINAL other individuals , complained to the prosecutor , in particular , that masked men had broken into CARDINAL of the company \u2019s offices DATE and had used violence towards them , as well as shouting and insulting . Because the officers had been masked , they could not identify them . Civilian officers who had entered the office premises in order to search and seize computer equipment after the masked men had broken in had not mistreated the company employees . The prosecutor took the ORG statements which are summarised in CARDINAL above . They submitted the medical certificates drawn up on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","A preliminary inquiry into the above complaints was opened DATE after the operation took place . During DATE , DATE and DATE , investigators took statements from CARDINAL officers who had participated in the operation and CARDINAL staff members of the company who had been present during the operation . The police statements are summarised in paragraphs CARDINAL above and the GPE statements are summarized in paragraph CARDINAL above . The Government did not submit , and the documents in the file do not show , that any other investigative steps , apart from the questioning of several police officers and the company \u2019s employees , were carried out .","The questions put to the officers during the inquiry were : CARDINAL ) NORP whether during the operation any employee had disobeyed or showed manifest lack of cooperation ; CARDINAL ) NORP whether any of the masked officers had used electroshock batons against any employee and , if yes , why ; CARDINAL ) who among the officers ( masked or not ) had used physical force and auxiliary means for restraint ( \u043f\u043e\u043c\u043e\u0449\u043d\u0438 \u0441\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430 ) , against whom of the employees , in which of the company \u2019s offices and why ; CARDINAL ) NORP officers from which police department ( specialised in breaking into LOC or in arresting individuals ) had taken part in the operation ; and CARDINAL ) NORP whether the entrance doors to the company \u2019s offices had been opened voluntarily or whether they had to be forced open .","All the officers heard during the inquiry stated that they had learned about the police operation of DATE and had been called to assist with it earlier on DATE ; none of them had used force against the applicants , apart from handcuffing individuals who had disobeyed the ORG orders ; no electroshock discharges had been applied to anyone . Not all police officers answered all questions asked as part of the inquiry .","The inquiry ended with a decision of ORG of DATE not to institute criminal proceedings , finding that the officers involved in the operation had not exceeded the prerogatives vested in them by law . Upon appeal by the applicants , on DATE ORG returned the case with instructions that further acts be carried out ( see paragraph CARDINAL below , third sentence ) . More specifically , he observed that the file did not contain any documents showing that criminal proceedings had been opened against the applicants . Likewise , there was no information in the file showing that a search - and - seizure operation had been carried out and that it had been authorised by a judge . No information on file showed either that evidence had actually been found on the LOC searched , or that there had been reasonable suspicion that evidence could have been found there . The prosecutor held that the scant assertions of several police officers who had been heard during the preliminary inquiry were not sufficient to establish the circumstances as recorded in the refusal to open criminal proceedings of DATE . Consequently , additional investigative acts had to be carried out . The higher prosecutor asked , in particular , that copies be collected of the orders for opening criminal proceedings on suspicion of violating intellectual property laws and for bringing charges on those grounds , as well as records of the search - and - seizure operation and \u201c other documents of importance for the inquiry \u201d . It is unclear whether any investigative steps were taken thereafter .","On DATE the ORG , to whom the file was sent for competence reasons following a legislative amendment , refused to open criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) against the police officers . She found that a special police operation aimed at gaining access to the offices of the company and seizing unlicensed software had been carried out on DATE . The initial information available had been that the company had connections with organised criminal groups and that its main activity was the collecting and disseminating of unlicensed software . Officers from ORG had been in charge of the operation ; masked officers from ORG \u201c Operational Intervention \u201d ( \u0441\u0435\u043a\u0442\u043e\u0440 \u201c \u041e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0435\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f \u201d ) and officers from different units of ORG , had taken part in the operation . Following a preparatory briefing session , at around CARDINAL.CARDINAL in the afternoon the officers had tried to enter the office premises of the company . Someone on the inside had locked the front door ; following this , the company \u2019s employees had gone to their computers and started deleting data sought by the police . The employees had not complied with several orders by the police officers to open the doors . Acting upon the instructions to enter the company \u2019s LOC rapidly and to establish full control over all individuals there without giving them the opportunity to erase data or to obstruct the seizure of computers , the ORG officers had cut the entrance door lock to the building , thus breaking into the LOC . They had then ordered all the individuals found there to lie on the floor and refrain from touching the computer equipment . However , the company \u2019s employees had disobeyed the orders and , using different pretexts , had remained instead in front of their work stations , acting so as to delete information from the company \u2019s computers . The officers had used physical force , electroshock batons and handcuffs in respect of some of the employees to overcome their resistance and prevent them from touching the computers located on the LOC . During the operation , some employees had been knocked over . Those findings had been corroborated by the statements of all persons , civilians and police officers , collected during the inquiry , as well as by documents submitted by ORG . The prosecutor further found , on the basis of medical reports , that some complainants ( without naming them ) had sustained injuries during the operation and that they could not identify the officers who had caused the injuries as the latter had been wearing masks . The prosecutor concluded that it had been established unequivocally during the inquiry that the injuries sustained by the civilians during the police operation of DATE had been the result of the use of force and auxiliary means for restraint by police officers in order to overcome the ORG resistance and to prevent them from destroying crucial evidence for the ongoing criminal proceedings . The officers had not exceeded their statutory right under section CARDINAL of ORG to use force , as they had been faced with refusals to obey their orders . The material collected during the inquiry had shown that the searchandseizure operation had been carried out in accordance with the instructions of the supervising prosecutor and had been approved by a judge . The prosecutor concluded that the police officers involved had not committed a criminal offence .","Following an appeal by the applicants and CARDINAL of the other complainants , on DATE ORG ( \u201c PERSON ORG \u0412\u0430\u0440\u043d\u0430 \u201d ) upheld the lower prosecutor \u2019s decision . He held , in particular , that the officers had used force for the purposes of gathering physical evidence and in compliance with the applicable legislation ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144385","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"DORCA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national born in DATE and living in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175137","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160IDLAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant bought an apartment in LOC . In DATE he lost his regular job and was no longer able to pay for utilities .","In DATE the utility provider instituted civil proceedings against the applicant concerning his debt of CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The domestic courts allowed the claim . In DATE the judgment was transferred to a bailiff for enforcement . The bailiff decided to direct enforcement against the applicant \u2019s apartment . On DATE he organised a public auction at which the apartment was sold to a third party for LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . On DATE a district court confirmed the transfer of the apartment to the third party .","NORP Since that date , the applicant has not had a permanent home . He submitted that he had been living in temporary accommodation , at times in unsuitable conditions , and often in exchange for manual work .","DATE the apartment was resold and gifted to different individuals on several occasions .","In DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings before ORG , arguing that the sale of his apartment at the public auction had been unlawful . The applicant submitted that , in accordance with the domestic law , taking a person \u2019s home in order to enforce a court judgment was only permitted when the debt in question was larger than LTL CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which had not been the case here ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant also submitted that he had owned CARDINAL hectares of land near GPE , so the enforcement should have begun in respect of that property and not his only home ( vienintel\u0117 gyvenamoji vieta ) . In view of the alleged unlawfulness of the sale , the applicant claimed damages jointly from the bailiff and the bailiff \u2019s professional liability insurer . According to the applicant , restitution in integrum was not possible because there was no indication that the third party who had bought the apartment at the public auction had acted in bad faith . Therefore , he claimed LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in damages , an amount corresponding to the market price of the apartment at the time of the submission of the claim .","The defendants ( the bailiff and his professional liability insurer ) contested the applicant \u2019s claim . They submitted that the value of the applicant \u2019s land had been insufficient to cover his debt , so the enforcement had had to be directed against the apartment . They also argued that the applicant \u2019s debt ( LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and the enforcement expenses ( LTL CARDINAL ) , taken together , had exceeded LTL CARDINAL , and thus the sale of his apartment had been in accordance with the domestic law . The defendants further argued that the applicant had acted in bad faith \u2013 he had not appealed against the execution writ or the results of the public auction , and he had submitted his claim at DATE because he had been waiting for the market price of the apartment to increase . Therefore , they argued that the applicant could not claim damages corresponding to the market price of the apartment at the time of the submission of the claim , but only the price for which the apartment had been sold at the public auction \u2013 LTL CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It acknowledged that his debt had been below the required threshold of LTL CARDINAL and that the bailiff had erred by calculating the debt together with the enforcement expenses . However , the court considered that this breach had not been such as to warrant the annulment of the sale . Accordingly , it dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim for damages . The court also noted that the applicant had submitted his claim DATE after the sale and on DATE permitted by the time - limit , when the market price of housing was several times higher than in DATE . Therefore , his claim for damages corresponding to the market price of the apartment at the time of the submission of the claim could be regarded as an attempt at unjust enrichment ( vertintinas kaip siekimas nepagr\u012fstai praturt\u0117ti ) .","The applicant appealed against ORG judgment . He and the defendants presented essentially the same arguments as in their pleadings before the first - instance court ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG quashed the firstinstance judgment and allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in its entirety . The court held that the bailiff had acted in violation of domestic law , firstly by failing to direct the enforcement against the applicant \u2019s land , but also by selling his apartment at a public auction even though his debt had been less than LTL CARDINAL . The court considered that the bailiff had failed to respect the balance between the interests of the debtor ( the applicant ) and the creditor . It held that , because of the material breaches of the relevant law , the sale of the applicant \u2019s apartment had to be declared unlawful .","Accordingly , ORG decided to award the applicant damages from the bailiff \u2019s professional liability insurer . It stated that it \u201c essentially agreed with the amount claimed by the applicant \u201d ( i\u0161 esm\u0117s sutinka su ie\u0161kovo nurodyta suma ) and awarded him LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , after subtracting the amount of his debt ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The bailiff \u2019s professional liability insurer appealed against ORG judgment . It submitted , inter alia , that the amount of damages awarded to the applicant had no basis , and the court should have either ordered restitution in integrum or awarded the applicant the amount for which his apartment had been sold at the auction ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but not its market price in DATE , which had increased significantly since DATE .","The applicant contested the appeal , arguing that there was no legal obligation for him to ask for restitution rather than for damages , and that the amount of damages was a question of fact which ORG could not examine .","On DATE ORG amended the judgment of ORG in part . It upheld the conclusion that the sale of the applicant \u2019s apartment had been unlawful for the reasons established by the lower court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG then reiterated its own case - law that , where the sale of property at a public auction is unlawful because of a bailiff \u2019s actions , restitution in integrum should not be applied ; accordingly , it considered that the most appropriate way of protecting the applicant \u2019s rights was by awarding him damages . However , the court considered that , in line with \u201c the nature of the obligation and the principles of equity , reasonableness and good faith \u201d ( pagal prievol\u0117s esm\u0119 , atsi\u017evelgiant \u012f teisingumo , protingumo ir s\u0105\u017einingumo kriterijus ) , the amount of damages in the applicant \u2019s case had to be assessed at the moment of the unlawful act , that is , the sale of the apartment . According to ORG , the market price of the applicant \u2019s apartment at the time of its sale had been LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . Therefore , ORG awarded the applicant that amount , after subtracting his debt ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the bailiff \u2019s enforcement expenses ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177417","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SOKOLOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167099","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GAINA v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant obtained a loan of CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 approximately MONEY ( ORG ) ) from the ORG . The purpose of the loan was to build or buy an apartment . In DATE the applicant became the owner of an apartment built by a public association , and in exchange she took over the association \u2019s loan of LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) from the ORG . The apartment was pledged to the bank as collateral . Both loans were given under preferential conditions DATE the DATE interest rate was lower than the average DATE interest rate for loans given by private banks at that time . Both loans were administered by a ORG bank , ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the bank \u201d ) . In DATE that bank transferred the claims to some of its loans , including both of the applicant \u2019s loans , to another ORG bank , ORG . In DATE the latter bank was privatised and became the private bank ORG .","On DATE the applicant concluded an agreement with a third party , ORG , under which the applicant paid ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG ) and bought from ORG the right to restoration of title in respect of CARDINAL hectares of land in GPE . That land had belonged to ORG \u2019s grandfather , PERSON , who had died in DATE . It had been determined by a ruling of ORG of DATE that ORG had owned a total of CARDINAL hectares of land in GPE . Following that ruling , ORG sold the right to restoration of title in respect of different parts of that land to CARDINAL individuals , including the applicant .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the FAC \u201d ) restored the applicant \u2019s title in respect of QUANTITY of land . At the applicant \u2019s request , her property rights were restored by cancelling her outstanding debt to the State ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The ORG estimated that the value of that plot of land was LTL MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) , and its indexed value was ORG ( ORG CARDINAL ) , an amount equal to the applicant \u2019s outstanding debt under the CARDINAL loan agreements of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG forwarded to ORG a list of individuals , including the applicant , whose property rights it had decided to restore by cancelling their debts to the ORG .","On DATE the ORG ordered an internal audit into the restoration of property rights in respect of the land which had belonged to MONEY ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The audit report , delivered on DATE , found that the documents in the possession of the ORG showed that DATE GPE had sold parts of his land to numerous individuals , and that , as a result , at the time of his death he had owned CARDINAL hectares . Accordingly , the audit report considered that the size of GPE \u2019s land , as established by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had been incorrect , and recommended that the ORG suspend the restoration of property rights in respect of any land which had previously been considered as belonging to GPE","Following the internal audit , on DATE the ORG suspended the restoration of property rights in respect of GPE \u2019s land . It informed ORG about the suspension , and asked it to suspend the cancellation of debt for all the individuals on the previously submitted list , including the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Subsequently the Kaunas Regional Prosecutor ( hereinafter \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) , at the request of the ORG and relying on the findings of the audit report , asked the domestic courts to reopen the civil proceedings concerning the size of GPE \u2019s land , and to suspend the enforcement of all the ORG \u2019s decisions concerning the restoration of property rights in respect of that land . On DATE ORG suspended the enforcement of the ORG \u2019s decisions . The applicant participated in the court proceedings as a third party and appealed against the suspension , but on DATE ORG dismissed her appeal . On DATE ORG reopened the civil proceedings concerning the size of GPE \u2019s land , on the grounds that the audit report had revealed relevant information which had not been known at the time of the adoption of ORG ruling of DATE .","In the reopened proceedings , on DATE ORG determined that FAC had owned QUANTITY of land . On DATE the ORG partly amended that judgment and determined that FAC had owned QUANTITY of land . The latter judgment became final . The ORG and the applicant participated in the reopened proceedings as third parties .","On DATE the prosecutor asked ORG to revoke the order suspending the enforcement of the ORG \u2019s decisions concerning the restoration of property rights in respect of GPE \u2019s land . The prosecutor submitted that the total amount of land affected by those decisions was QUANTITY , so there was no risk of restoring property rights in respect of land which had not belonged to GPE On DATE ORG granted the prosecutor \u2019s application .","On DATE the ORG asked ORG to resume the cancellation of debt with regard to the applicant and other individuals ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG issued a certificate confirming the cancellation of the applicant \u2019s outstanding debt to the ORG , amounting to ORG ( ORG CARDINAL ) . On that same day the bank received the certificate from ORG and cancelled the applicant \u2019s debt .","It appears that from DATE to DATE the applicant did not make any loan repayments to the bank and the bank did not request any such payments . However , until DATE she was paying interest and late payment fines under the CARDINAL loan agreements , and paid a total of ORG EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the bank informed the applicant that she owed it LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in interest and late payment fines under the CARDINAL loan agreements .","On DATE the bank lodged a civil claim against the applicant concerning the unpaid interest and late payment fines under the loan agreement of DATE , amounting to LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) . It asked ORG to order interim measures \u2013 seizing the applicant \u2019s apartment . On DATE the bank unilaterally terminated the loan agreement of DATE and asked the court to begin the forced recovery of the debt under that agreement , amounting to ORG ( ORG CARDINAL ) , by seizing the applicant \u2019s apartment , which had been pledged to the bank as collateral .","On DATE the ORG seized the applicant \u2019s apartment and informed her that , following her failure to repay the debt under the loan agreement of DATE within DATE , the apartment would be sold at auction . The following day the court also granted the bank \u2019s application for interim measures concerning the loan agreement of DATE , but having found that the applicant \u2019s apartment had already been seized , the court ordered the seizure of the applicant \u2019s movable property , financial assets and property rights , amounting to the sum of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant submitted a counterclaim against the bank . She stated that on DATE the ORG had restored her property rights by cancelling her debt to the ORG , but due to circumstances beyond the applicant \u2019s control ORG had only informed the bank about the cancellation on DATE . The applicant submitted that from DATE until DATE she had repeatedly contacted the bank and asked it to not count the interest and late payment fines . Thus , she considered that the bank had known about the cancellation of her debt , and it was therefore unjust and unfair for it to ask her for any payments for that period , or to unilaterally terminate the loan agreement of DATE . The applicant further asserted that in the period of CARDINAL she had paid the bank a total of ORG EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in interest and late payment fines under the CARDINAL loan agreements ; she claimed that there had been no grounds for the bank to accept those payments , and asked the court to order the bank to return them to her .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , ORG suspended the forced recovery of the debt by means of seizing the applicant \u2019s apartment , pending the examination of the claim and counterclaim in the civil case . On DATE the court lifted the order for seizure of the applicant \u2019s apartment because the bank had not requested its sale at auction within the time - limit prescribed by law .","On DATE the ORG granted the bank \u2019s civil claim in part . The court found that the applicant \u2019s debt had only been cancelled on DATE , so there were no grounds to find that her obligation to honour the loan agreement with the bank had ended before that date . The court held that the applicant had been using the loan during DATE , and thus she was obliged to pay interest to the bank . Accordingly , it ordered the applicant to pay the bank LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","However , ORG also noted that the loan had been given to the applicant by the ORG and not by the bank , so the latter could not claim to have suffered any losses due to late payments . The court found no bad faith on the part of the applicant \u2013 it considered that she had had legitimate grounds to expect that the cancellation of her debt , ordered on DATE , would be implemented promptly . Accordingly , the court decided that the bank had no grounds to claim late payment fines , and ordered it to return to the applicant LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) which she had already paid .","The applicant \u2019s counterclaim was dismissed .","NORP The applicant appealed against that judgment , but on DATE ORG dismissed her appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment in its entirety . The court considered that the applicant had to assume the risks resulting from her agreement with ORG , which had enabled her to seek the cancellation of her outstanding debt after paying a sum that was several times lower than that debt ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , especially as the bank had not been a party to that agreement . The court also noted that the delay in the cancellation of the applicant \u2019s debt had been caused not by the actions of the bank but by those of the ORG and the prosecutor , so the bank had had the right to receive interest payments during the period in question .","In those proceedings , the courts did not examine whether the applicant had been under an obligation to pay interest and late payment fines under the loan agreement of DATE , because she had not made such a claim . As submitted by the applicant and not disputed by the ORG , on an unspecified date in DATE the applicant paid LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in interest and late payment fines requested by the bank under that agreement .","On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG a civil claim for damages against the ORG , ORG and ORG . She claimed that because of the unnecessary and unjustified delay in the cancellation of her debt from DATE until DATE , caused jointly by those CARDINAL institutions , she had suffered financial losses of ORG MONEY ) , consisting of interest and late payment fines paid under the CARDINAL loan agreements , as well as legal expenses incurred in the civil proceedings instituted by the bank . She also claimed non - pecuniary damages of LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) for the stress and frustration caused during that delay .","On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant \u2019s claim , on the grounds that complaints against ORG and ORG \u2013 and , as a result , the entire claim \u2013 had to be examined by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG a civil claim for damages against the ORG only . She again claimed pecuniary damages of ORG and non - pecuniary damages of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of damage allegedly caused by the unjustified delay in the cancellation of her debt . The applicant argued that the ORG had acted unlawfully by suspending the restoration of her property rights and asking the prosecutor to apply for the reopening of the civil proceedings concerning the size of GPE \u2019s land . ORG and ORG participated in the proceedings as third parties .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It held that the principle of the rule of law obliged the LAW to ensure that the restoration of property rights was conducted in accordance with the applicable laws . The court considered that , in the presence of well - founded doubts about the actual size of the land owned by MONEY , the ORG had acted lawfully and diligently by suspending the restoration of the property rights and initiating the reopening of the proceedings . The fact that the courts dealing with the reopened proceedings had found that FAC had owned less land than initially determined ( CARDINAL hectares and QUANTITY , as opposed to the initial estimate of QUANTITY ) showed that the suspension had had a proper basis . Accordingly , the court concluded that the ORG had acted lawfully and there were no grounds to award damages to the applicant .","The applicant appealed against that judgment , but on DATE ORG dismissed her appeal and concluded that the ORG \u2019s actions in initiating the suspension of its decisions concerning the restoration of property rights had been in accordance with domestic law . In addition , ORG distinguished between the ORG \u2019s competence and that of ORG : while the ORG was responsible for the restoration of property rights , it was ORG which had the authority to cancel the applicant \u2019s debt and issue the bank with a certificate confirming such cancellation . The ORG \u2019s request of ORG to suspend the cancellation of the applicant \u2019s debt ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not been legally binding on the Ministry , and had had no legal effect on the cancellation of the debt . The court further held that the suspension of restoration of the applicant \u2019s property rights had been ordered not by the ORG but by the ruling of ORG of DATE , and the ruling had been revoked by that same court only on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Accordingly , ORG concluded that the ORG could not be held responsible for the suspension of the restoration of the applicant \u2019s property rights and the cancellation of her debt , and thus there were no grounds to award her damages ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142376","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"H\u00c1L\u00d3ZATI GY\u00d3GYSZERT\u00c1RAK SZ\u00d6VETS\u00c9GE AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The first applicant , ORG Sz\u00f6vets\u00e9ge ( \u201c HGYSZ \u201d ) ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , is an association registered under NORP law , with its seat in GPE . The other applicants ( listed in the Annex ) are members of the first applicant . They are companies registered under NORP law . The applicants were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","s , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants listed in the ORG are companies which operate pharmacy networks in GPE and are as such members of the first applicant , HGYSZ . Each member of ORG holds shares ( usually majority shares ) in a number of different pharmacies or directly operates ( usually CARDINAL ) pharmacies . As a result of their respective shareholdings , ORG members own part of the equity , take part in the management and share the profits of a number of pharmacies in GPE .","DATE , the operation of pharmacies in GPE was governed by LAW . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . ( GPE . ) ORG , under which the opening of new pharmacies was allowed without any geographic or demographic limitation . During this period , the number of pharmacies in GPE increased by PERCENT to CARDINAL pharmacies .","From the adoption of Act no . ORG of DATE onwards , and until DATE , the operation of pharmacies was governed by different rules , according to which the opening of new pharmacies was still without obstacles and the takeover \/ operation of existing pharmacies by companies was possible . However , geographic and demographic barriers to the opening of new pharmacies were introduced , requirements concerning inter alia the qualification of pharmacists and their influence on the management of the pharmacies were applied , and the legal form of companies that may operate pharmacies was prescribed . At the same time , there was no limitation on the number of pharmacies that could be operated by one entity , provided the relevant sector - specific conditions were met .","In DATE , new rules contained in Act no . XCVIII of DATE ( \u201c the PERSON . \u201d ) abolished most limitations on the establishment of pharmacies and the legal form of companies that could operate pharmacies .","DATE , a number of foreign investors entered the NORP pharmaceutical retail market by acquiring shares in pharmacies . The majority of HGYSZ PERSON shareholdings date back to the period DATE . Despite the limitations in place DATE , there was no indication that shareholdings in pharmacies would be limited or that any future limitation on shareholdings would affect already existing shareholdings in pharmacies .","At DATE , NORP legislation introduced limitations on the shareholdings in pharmacies . These limitations , which Act no . CLXXIII of DATE ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) incorporated into the PERSON . \u2013 as of DATE require that the shareholdings of pharmacists in the pharmacies where they work must exceed PERCENT by DATE and PERCENT by DATE and moreover that no one may have shares in CARDINAL pharmacies . The restrictions do not only apply to pharmacies which are established after the amendments entered into force , but ownership in already existing pharmacies must also be brought into line with the limitations by the respective deadlines of DATE and DATE . Moreover , any change in the ownership of the non - pharmacist shareholders entails an immediate obligation to meet the above thresholds , even before the deadlines of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The amendments do not contain any guarantee for an appropriate compensation for those shareholders who are obliged to give up part of their shareholdings .","The DATE amendments introduced by the LAW entail in particular the limitations outlined below .","Previously , in cases where pharmacies were operated by enterprises , it was sufficient for the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy concerned to have a PERCENT share in the enterprise operating that pharmacy . Pursuant to the amendment to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . , introduced by LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , enterprises are now only allowed to operate pharmacies if the combined shares of the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy concerned and the pharmacist(s ) employed in the pharmacy exceed PERCENT .","According to section CARDINAL\/A ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . , introduced by LAW , these ownership rules enter into force DATE and DATE according to the following schedule .","DATE and DATE , with some exceptions ( such as the death of the pharmacist ) , changes in the ownership structure of the enterprise operating a pharmacy entail an immediate obligation under which the combined shares of the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy and the pharmacist(s ) employed in the pharmacy must exceed PERCENT .","DATE and DATE , the combined shares of the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy and the pharmacist(s ) employed in the pharmacy must exceed PERCENT and , again with some exceptions , changes in the ownership structure of the enterprise operating a pharmacy entail an immediate obligation under which the combined shares of the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy and the pharmacist(s ) employed in the pharmacy must exceed PERCENT .","As of DATE , the combined shares of the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy and the pharmacist(s ) employed in the pharmacy must exceed PERCENT .","According to section CARDINAL\/A ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . , introduced by LAW , once the combined shares of the pharmacist exercising the professional leadership of the pharmacy and the pharmacist(s ) employed in the pharmacy have exceeded PERCENT , it is prohibited , even before the time - limit of DATE , to reduce those combined shares to PERCENT or below .","The applicants submitted that it was difficult to estimate the exact value that they would obtain in exchange for the shares they were required to transfer to pharmacists by DATE . However , they argued that , in the absence of any provision concerning compensation for the required transfer of shares and in light of the limited financial means of pharmacists in GPE , the price offered for the shareholdings in question would inevitably be substantially below pharmacies\u2019 normal market value . Indeed , the limited number of cases where ORG members had sold shares since DATE showed that , subsequent to the amendments made to the PERSON . in DATE , purchase prices were far below the market value .","NORP Moreover , before the amendments introduced by the LAW , there was no restriction on how many pharmacies a single shareholder could have shares in . Pursuant to the amendment to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . , introduced by LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , companies that have shares in enterprises operating CARDINAL or more pharmacies can not acquire or hold shares in GPE ) enterprise operating pharmacies .","Furthermore , section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . , as amended by section CARDINAL of the LAW , as well as section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . , as amended by LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , give pharmacists increased powers in the decision - making of the enterprise that operates the pharmacy , regardless of their shareholding and their position in the enterprise , in derogation from NORP company law .","Given the shareholdings of ORG members , the applicants would need to give up substantial shareholdings in order to bring their shares below the PERCENT threshold by DATE and below the PERCENT threshold by DATE . Additionally , with the exception of CARDINAL applicant that holds shares in CARDINAL pharmacies , all others would need to give up completely their shareholdings in a number of pharmacies in order to reduce the number of pharmacies in their respective networks to CARDINAL . For instance , PERSON . , the largest member of ORG , which holds shares in CARDINAL pharmacies , would need to surrender its shares in CARDINAL pharmacies and reduce its shares in the remaining CARDINAL pharmacies PERCENT by DATE and PERCENT by DATE .","The value of the shareholdings that the applicants would need to give away DATE because of the restriction on the size of shareholdings \u2013 by DATE is estimated at MONEY ( ORG ) , and the value of the shareholdings that they would need to surrender by DATE is estimated at an additional ORG CARDINAL . These figures exclude the further shareholdings to be alienated on account of the restriction on the number of pharmacies owned by CARDINAL shareholder , whose value will be dependent on the choice of pharmacies to be surrendered .","In the face of the forced sales of these shares representing a very substantial amount of money , the legislation does not guarantee any particular form of compensation .","On DATE ORG rejected , without an examination on the merits , ORG \u2019s complaint alleging that the amendments brought about by the LAW amounted to a breach of constitutional rights . According to the decision , the complaint was inadmissible , partly because PERSON was not directly affected by the impugned provisions in that it could not possibly sustain a direct violation of any constitutional right in this context , and partly because the subject matter of the complaint was essentially the same as that of cases previously adjudicated by ORG .","Subsequently , a number of new laws were enacted , which amended several health- and health - insurance - related Acts , amongst others , the PERSON . The latter was amended in particular as of DATE , DATE and DATE .","Due to these amendments , pharmacists were given privileged rights to purchase those pharmacy shares which the current legal person owners , such as the applicants , would have to sell .","From DATE on , the operation of a pharmacy by a company is only allowed if the pharmacist exercising the pharmaceutical management of the pharmacy concerned holds PERCENT of the business shares of the owner company , or if the combined volume of shares of the principal pharmacist and of the ones employed in the pharmacy exceed PERCENT of the shares . The shares and the combined shares can be taken into consideration in respect of a maximum of CARDINAL pharmacies .","The requirements for a pharmacist to be entitled to run a pharmacy are regulated by the PERSON . As of DATE , a new element was included in the LAW , namely that such principal pharmacists must figure in a dedicated register and that , once registered , he or she exercises his or her operational rights independently .","The latest amendment of the PERSON . which entered into force on DATE prohibits companies running pharmacies from instructing the principal pharmacist ( and other employed professionals ) on commercial - pharmaceutical practices . Moreover , in the management of companies running pharmacies , the exercise of pharmacists\u2019 shareholder rights must be guaranteed in a manner which reflects the volume of their shares and which is outlined in the articles of associations . This is a strict rule , from which any departure is null and void .","As of DATE , Government Decree no . CARDINAL . ( VI.CARDINAL . ) on Facilitating the Increase of Pharmacists\u2019 ORG stipulated the possibility of a preferential loan for those pharmacists who are intended to purchase shares in companies running pharmacies ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146566","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BULGARU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in the Cricova prison .","At the time of the events , the applicant was serving a DATE sentence and was detained in the same detention facility . In DATE a murder was committed there and the applicant was one of the suspects . In DATE he was taken to the LOC police station for questioning . According to him , he was told to confess to the murder and was ill - treated after refusing to do so . On DATE the applicant was taken to the police station detention facility again . Since he refused to make a confession , he was subjected to such acts of violence as being struck and slapped all over , and was detained in a very cold cell . As a result , he attempted to commit suicide by cutting the veins in his wrist . On DATE he was taken to hospital for medical treatment where , according to the documents in the case file , he was seen by a doctor and given stitches and a bandage . After returning from hospital the ill - treatment continued and intensified . According to the applicant , his arms and feet were tied together behind his back and he was suspended on a metal bar placed on CARDINAL chairs . He was left in that position until he fainted . As a result , his right hand became numb and stopped functioning . He was also beaten on his lower back with a plastic bottle full of water . As a result , he suffered kidney pain and had blood in his urine . The Government disputed the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant was seen by a medical assistant in the police station detention facility , who noted in his medical records that the applicant had complained of pain around his right bicep and that the tissue in that area was swollen . On DATE the same medical assistant noted that the applicant had complained of numbness and tingling in his right arm . On DATE the same medical assistant concluded that the applicant \u2019s problem was a result of the self - inflicted laceration to his ligament .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant \u2019s family learned of his situation and employed a lawyer . As a result of the lawyer \u2019s involvement , on DATE the applicant was transferred back to Cricova prison .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s state of health deteriorated and he was hospitalised in a prison hospital , where he was examined by a neurologist and diagnosed with severe radial neuropathy of the right arm ( damage to the radial nerve running down the length of the arm , which controls movement in the triceps and is responsible for extending the wrist and fingers ) . He was released from hospital on DATE , but returned later on several occasions .","In the meantime , the applicant \u2019s lawyer complained to the prosecutor \u2019s office that his client had been subjected to ill - treatment , but on DATE the complaint was dismissed as ill - founded . The investigating authorities found the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment to be ill - founded , in view of the absence of any physical evidence except for that resulting from his self - harm . In reaching this conclusion , the investigating authorities relied on the statements of the accused police officers , who denied ill - treating the applicant , and on the conclusion of the medical assistant from the police station detention facility ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The findings of the doctors from the prison hospital ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were not considered ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184705","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ZAGALSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the GPE - ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on remand on suspicion of drug dealing , as well as facilitating and benefiting from prostitution , committed in an organised criminal group . The domestic court relied on a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences in question , on the fact that he faced a severe penalty and that he was suspected of acting with accomplices . The likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences in question was established , in particular , on the basis of the testimony of a key prosecution witness ( the so - called \u201c crown witness \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against this decision . It stressed that the sole fact that the applicant faced a severe penalty and had been suspected of committing offences in an organised criminal group justified a suspicion that , if released , the applicant would try to obstruct the proceedings by influencing witnesses or his accomplices .","The applicant \u2019s detention on remand was extended by ORG on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . In these decisions , the court repeated the reasons originally relied on . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG further noted that the case against the applicant was complex , and indicated a number of steps that still had to be taken in order to terminate the investigation . The court noted that not all of those steps required the applicant \u2019s detention and urged the prosecutor to accelerate the proceedings .","The applicant appealed against all these decisions , without success .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) ordered a further extension of the applicant \u2019s detention on remand . It relied on the same grounds as previously given for his detention . The applicant appealed . The decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .","The bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with ORG on DATE . The applicant was charged with CARDINAL offences committed in an organised criminal group and \u2013 in the case of some of the offences \u2013 as a re - offender . The charges included facilitating prostitution by renting an apartment to prostitutes and collecting money from them , and a number of counts of drug possession and distribution . The bill of indictment concerned altogether CARDINAL accused , charged with CARDINAL offences . Later , the number of accused in the proceedings dropped to CARDINAL . The prosecutor requested that the court hear over CARDINAL witnesses , including CARDINAL \u201c crown witnesses \u201d .","Subsequently , the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial was extended by ORG decisions of DATE and DATE and by ORG decisions of DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , and of DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The domestic courts continued to rely on the same grounds for detention as in their previous decisions . They also stressed the complexity of the case and the links between the co - accused within an organised criminal group which , according to the domestic courts , justified a suspicion that , if released , they would attempt to obstruct the proper course of the proceedings .","The appeals by the applicant against decisions extending his detention and all his applications for release were unsuccessful .","On CARDINAL DATE the trial court ordered the applicant \u2019s release on bail for MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The applicant appealed against this decision , contesting the amount of bail as excessive . On DATE ORG upheld the decision . It underlined that the amount of bail had to take into consideration not only the financial situation of the applicant , but also the gravity of the charges against him . The court also stated that it had taken into consideration the fact that the applicant had abused his procedural rights in order to obstruct and delay the proceedings . It indicated that the amount in question had to be such that the prospect of its loss would constitute a genuine deterrent against any illegal activities which , until TIME , had been prevented by the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE ORG again ordered the applicant \u2019s release on bail of PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL . It also imposed a prohibition on leaving the country . The applicant paid the security required by the court and was released on CARDINAL DATE .","The case against the applicant and his co - accused appears to be pending before ORG ( no . PERSON K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The material includes CARDINAL volumes ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173500","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF NIKOGHOSYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a former employee of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . By an order of the Head of ORG applicant was dismissed from his job .","On DATE the applicant brought an action against the ORG , requesting reinstatement in his job and payment for forced absence up to the day of his reinstatement .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE found in the applicant \u2019s favour . In particular , it decided to declare the order of CARDINAL DATE void . Moreover , it ordered the applicant \u2019s reinstatement in his previous position and awarded him compensation for lost earnings .","On DATE the ORG appealed against ORG judgment . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the appeal and upheld ORG judgment .","On DATE the ORG lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of DATE with ORG .","On DATE ORG decided to declare the appeal inadmissible for lack of merit , so the judgment of CARDINAL DATE became final .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE issued a writ of execution in respect of its judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings . On the same date he decided to oblige the ORG to comply with the requirements of the writ within DATE .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the bailiff requested that the ORG comply with the requirements of the writ .","On DATE the bailiff received a response from the ORG , stating that it was impossible to reinstate the applicant in his job , since the structure of the ORG had been modified and the applicant \u2019s former position did not exist anymore .","On DATE the applicant was paid CARDINAL NORP drams ( ORG ) for his forced absence , calculated from DATE until DATE , the date on which the judgment in his favour became final .","The applicant sent several letters to ORG and to different officials , complaining that no measures had been taken to enforce the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE and requesting that the ORG be compelled to comply with that judgment .","On DATE the bailiff decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings on the grounds that it was impossible to enforce the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . In particular , the applicant could not be reinstated because his previous position was no longer vacant .","On DATE the applicant contested the bailiff \u2019s decision before ORG .","On DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant and cancelled the bailiff \u2019s decision of DATE .","On DATE the supervising bailiff decided to set aside the bailiff \u2019s decision of DATE and reopen the enforcement proceedings .","By a letter dated DATE the bailiff again requested that the ORG reinstate the applicant in his previous position and award him compensation for lost earnings until the date of his reinstatement . The ORG replied that the applicant \u2019s former position had ceased to exist as a result of the NORP decree of DATE .","On DATE the bailiff again decided to terminate the enforcement proceedings on the grounds that it was impossible to enforce the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , since the structural unit of ORG where the applicant had been working had ceased to exist .","On DATE the applicant contested that decision before ORG . He alleged , in particular , that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had not been enforced : firstly , he had not been awarded the full sum for his forced absence , and secondly , he had not been reinstated in his previous position .","By a judgment of DATE ORG decided to grant the applicant \u2019s claim in respect of the payments for his forced absence , stating that the period should be calculated up to DATE , DATE on which that particular unit of ORG had ceased to exist . As to the applicant \u2019s second claim , ORG stated that the bailiff \u2019s decision in this respect was lawful , since the applicant \u2019s reinstatement had been impossible .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim and upheld ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of CARDINAL DATE with ORG .","On DATE ORG decided to declare the appeal inadmissible for lack of merit .","On DATE the bailiff decided to reopen the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the applicant was invited to ORG made him a verbal offer of a similar position in another tax inspectorate unit , but this offer was later turned down by the applicant .","DATE , via telephone , the applicant was again invited to the ORG , but he failed to appear .","On DATE the Head of ORG of ORG sent a letter to the applicant , offering to reinstate him in a position similar to his previous one , that is , the position of a tax inspector in ORG no . CARDINAL of ORG . The letter also stated that the compensation for the applicant \u2019s forced absence up to that date amounted to ORG .","On DATE the applicant refused to accept the ORG \u2019s offer . He claimed that the compensation for his forced absence should amount to ORG . In response , the ORG informed the applicant that it would consider the above - mentioned sum if the applicant submitted substantiating calculations .","On DATE the amount of ORG was transferred by ORG to the bailiff \u2019s account . On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated by the bailiff as this amount had been further transferred to the applicant \u2019s bank account .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , requesting that the bailiff \u2019s decision be quashed .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal and quashed the bailiff \u2019s decision of DATE . That judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164474","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"YARUSHKEVYCH v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Sergiy Goncharenko;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Yuzhynets , the PERSON region . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their then Agent , PERSON .","PERSON , the judge elected in respect of GPE , was unable to sit in the case ( Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) . Accordingly , the President of ORG decided to appoint PERSON to sit as an ad hoc judge ( LAW ) .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG found the applicant , a ORG bailiff at the material time , guilty of fraud in conjunction with abuse of position , as well acceptance of a bribe , also with abuse of position . It sentenced him to a CARDINAL - and - a - DATE prison term and decided on an injunction against occupying official posts for the same period and confiscation of his personal property .","The applicant challenged the judgment on appeal .","NORP In its CARDINAL DATE issue , ORG , a triweekly regional newspaper with circulation of CARDINAL copies ( according to the information provided by the applicant ) , published an article on the court proceedings in question . The article , entitled \u201c A bailiff has been convicted \u201d ( \u00ab ORG \u0441\u0443\u0434\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0446\u044f GPE ) , commenced by the following introductory paragraph :","\u201c On DATE the criminal panel of the regional court sent PERSON , who had served as a bailiff in GPE , down for DATE behind bars . According to the court \u2019s judgment , he is \u201c deprived of the right to occupy official posts for DATE and is to serve a sentence in a high - security colony \u201d . Also all PERSON \u2019s property is to be confiscated . \u201d","Following this introductory paragraph , the article went into detail on the applicant \u2019s conduct which had led to his conviction , including the ORG last names and details of their statements , an interview with the presiding judge , who explained that the applicant \u2019s personal circumstances , including his status as a GPE victim with no prior criminal record , were taken into consideration in choosing a mild sanction , and the journalist \u2019s allegation that if the applicant were unable to pay his civil debt under the judgment , his car or his apartment might have to be sold . The article finished with the following phrase : \u201c Easy gain turned into heavy consequences \u201d .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed in part the judgment of the first - instance court in so far as it concerned the bribe - taking charge and remitted this part of the case to the prosecution authorities for additional investigation . ORG also reduced the applicant \u2019s prison sentence and the injunction on the occupancy of official posts to DATE . Subsequently ( on DATE ) the ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings on the bribe - taking charge against the applicant as time - barred .","On DATE , having returned to his village after serving his sentence , the applicant brought defamation proceedings before ORG of PERSON ( \u201c the Pershotravnevyy Court \u201d ) against the ORG newspaper and the journalist who had authored the article in question . He alleged that the article contained an untrue statement about his conviction in respect of the acceptance of a bribe . The applicant noted in this connection that the respective part of the judgment had eventually been quashed and that the case had been remitted for additional investigation . The applicant further submitted that the publication had caused him non - pecuniary damage , as it had resulted in his stigmatisation by the villagers as corrupt , that it had brought about complications in his family relationships and had made it more difficult for him to find employment and reintegrate into society . Accordingly , the applicant sought a declaration of the impugned statement as untrue and thus defamatory , publication of its refutation by the defendants , and compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","Although the applicant missed the DATE limitation period established for this kind of claims , the court considered that he had had valid reasons for that and accepted his claim for consideration .","On DATE ORG found against the applicant . It noted that the information contained in the disputed article had been accurate at the time of its publication and could therefore not be considered defamatory or subject to refutation .","The applicant appealed . He insisted that neither at the time of the publication nor later had his guilt in respect of acceptance of a bribe been established by a final judicial decision . He further alleged that publishing a full and detailed account of his conviction before it became final was in violation of the constitutional principle of the presumption of innocence .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment and its major point of reasoning that , when the article at issue had been published , the information about the conviction was accurate . The court further stated :","\u201c As regards the appellant \u2019s arguments that by their publication the defendants violated the principle of presumption of innocence ... they are ill - founded .","It has been established that the author of the article did not accuse [ the applicant ] of crimes before the pronouncement of the judgment in his case , but that he [ the journalist ] merely reported on the contents of the judgment , which had been publicly pronounced .","Current legislation of GPE , including the PERSON of GPE \u201c On ORG \u201d , ... does not prohibit journalists from providing their readers with information concerning convictions by first - instance courts which have not yet become final . Furthermore , it is well - known that first - instance court judgments are subject to appeal ... and the author of the publication did not state that the conviction was final .","The first - instance court \u2019s judgment is also in compliance with the requirements of Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the [ Convention ] concerning public hearings of criminal cases and freedom of expression .","The case - file materials indicate that the judgment was pronounced in respect of [ the applicant ] not as a private person , but as an official having a wider range of obligations to the society and the ORG . Consequently ... the journalist had the right to analyse this thoroughly and report the proceedings to the public ... \u201d","The applicant appealed on points of law , alleging in particular that the publication went beyond mere reporting on the outcome of the proceedings in the first - instance court . He submitted that it was couched in such terms as to leave no room for doubt in the reader \u2019s mind that the court \u2019s findings were correct . It featured details , unnecessary for reporting on a non - final conviction , such as the court \u2019s reasoning with respect to particular witness statements , a reference to the applicant as an apartment owner and other information not warranted by the context .","On DATE ORG , acting as the cassation instance , rejected the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal in cassation .","Relevant domestic law can be found in the judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178945","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00dcRAKIN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON .","The first applicant was the husband and the second applicant was the son of PERSON , who died on DATE .","On an unspecified date , the applicants brought compensation proceedings against ORG , alleging that PERSON had been a victim of medical negligence . The applicants further requested legal aid for the court fees . In respect of their legal aid claim , they submitted documents attesting to their poor financial situation .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicants\u2019 legal aid claim , without indicating any specific reasons . They were notified that they had to pay MONEY ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in court fees within DATE to continue the proceedings and that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings .","As the applicants failed to pay the court fees within the time - limit , ORG sent a further warning letter to the applicants and ordered them to pay the court fees .","On DATE the applicants made a second request for legal aid and asked the court to reconsider its former decision .","On DATE ORG once again rejected the ORG request and granted them DATE to pay the court fees .","On DATE the court decided to discontinue the proceedings , because the applicants had not paid the necessary court fees ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144661","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VOICU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the time of the facts of the case , the applicant was in private legal practice and was a senator .","On DATE ORG of ORG attached to ORG and ORG ( referred to herein as \u201c the prosecutor \u201d and \u201c the DNA \u201d ) started criminal proceedings against the applicant ( urm\u0103rirea penal\u0103 ) on suspicion of trading in influence ( traffic de influen\u0163\u0103 ) . In particular , the prosecutor alleged that : ( i ) the applicant had accepted MONEY ( ORG ) from a businessman , ORG , in return for using his connection to Judge PERSON of ORG and ORG in order to influence the outcome of a case pending before that court which concerned a dispute between ORG \u2019s company and a state agency ; and ( ii ) that he had accepted money from GPE , under the pretext of providing legal services through his law firm , in order to facilitate GPE \u2019s access to the head of the police with the aim of discussing criminal investigations that were being conducted against GPE","On DATE the applicant was returning home during DATE in a car belonging to the ORG . Close to his home , his route was blocked by another car . Several armed individuals jumped out , dragged the applicant from his car and , in front of his neighbours and a crowd of passers - by , handcuffed him and put him in their car . He was then taken to the DNA \u2019s headquarters , where he was informed of the criminal proceedings against him . The applicant gave a statement to the prosecutor .","At the DNA \u2019s headquarters , the applicant found out that he had been under investigation for a crime against national security . However , the prosecutor had decided on DATE not to prosecute that offence . The evidence gathered in that investigation , in particular through intercepting the applicant \u2019s telephone , had led the investigators to suspect the commission by the applicant of the crimes of corruption for which he was currently under investigation by the DNA .","On DATE , the prosecutor issued an order prohibiting the applicant from leaving town for DATE .","Upon the applicant \u2019s request , on DATE the prosecutor sent him a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor sought , through the Minister of ORG , ORG \u2019s approval to arrest the applicant . On DATE , the DNA issued a press release informing the public that it had sought authorisation for the arrest .","From the moment the DNA informed the public about the proceedings against the applicant , the media took great interest in the case . Numerous panel discussions were broadcast and journalists and politicians commented publicly on the events .","Excerpts from conversations between the defendants which had been obtained through telephone tapping during a criminal surveillance operation conducted prior to the criminal prosecution made it into the newspapers before the applicant and his co - accused had been committed for trial . Those excerpts gave the impression that the applicant and Judge PERSON had tried to manipulate some of the judges from the panel ruling in a commercial case involving ORG , and had reported back to the latter on the progress of those alleged manoeuvres . In the conversations among them , the applicant and the codefendants expressed in strong terms their disappointment that the outcome had not been favourable to ORG , and made assumptions as to whether the remaining judges on the panel had been influenced by someone else .","The transcripts of telephone conversations intercepted during the surveillance operation first appeared in the press DATE .","Other pieces of evidence from the prosecution file were likewise published and commented on in the press .","On DATE the ORG met to discuss the prosecutor \u2019s request . The applicant was unable to take part in the session , as he was in the hospital at the time . The ORG allowed the prosecutor \u2019s request .","Upon obtaining the ORG \u2019s approval , the prosecutor submitted a detention order to ORG and ORG , which examined it in private on DATE and endorsed it . The applicant was arrested on DATE .","The High Court then took a statement from the applicant and proceeded to examine the prosecutor \u2019s application for the applicant \u2019s pretrial detention . It heard arguments from the parties , reviewed the evidence presented by the prosecutor and concluded that there were serious indications and evidence in the file that the applicant had committed the crimes of which he was accused and that he had abused his important official position , thereby damaging the reputation of the legislature and the judiciary , as well as undermining the public \u2019s trust in the judicial system . It therefore considered that the specific danger that the applicant posed to the public order was serious enough to justify his detention .","Upon the applicant \u2019s appeal , by a final decision of DATE ORG , sitting as a ninejudge bench , upheld the previous decision . At the applicant \u2019s request , this hearing was held in secret and journalists and the public were removed from the courtroom . ORG found that the evidence lawfully included in the file justified a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crimes under investigation . It also dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument as to procedural flaws , in so far as it found that the prosecutor had heard the applicant on DATE and considered that his right to mount a defence had not been disregarded because of the mere fact that a certain lapse of time had passed between the date of his statement and that of the arrest order .","The applicant sought his conditional release . On DATE ORG dismissed his application , on the grounds that the evidence in the file indicated that he had tried to influence one of the witnesses and to create false evidence in his defence . It also considered that the reasons underlying the court decision to place him in pre - trial detention were still valid , given that , in particular , such a short time had passed since that decision .","This decision became final on DATE , when ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","The High Court examined the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention on CARDINAL more occasions and the applicant repeatedly applied for release pending trial conditioned on the obligation not to leave town ( decisions of DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) .","ORG considered that the evidence in the file offered a reasonable indication that the applicant had committed the crimes he was accused of and that his continued detention was needed given the difficulty involved in investigating such crimes . It also referred to his attempt to influence witnesses , to his personal situation ( first time on trial , family situation ) , his personality , his office during the alleged commission of the offences , and the nature and severity of the crimes under investigation . ORG also took into account the fact that the proceedings on the merits had only recently started , on DATE .","It referred to ORG case - law and the relevant ORG texts , and considered that the grounds for the applicant \u2019s detention were still valid and the time spent in pre - trial detention was not excessive within the meaning of LAW .","For these reasons , it did not consider it opportune to substitute the preventive measure that had been applied with a less strict measure .","The appeals lodged by the applicant against each of these court orders were dismissed by a different panel of ORG on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE ORG examined a new application for release on probation lodged by the applicant and decided that he could be released . It held that the vast majority of the evidence for the prosecution had already been heard in court , thus the risk of the applicant trying to influence witnesses was no longer acute . The court ordered him not to leave town and not to contact his co - accused .","NORP However , on DATE the decision was quashed and a fivejudge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for release . ORG examined the suitability of releasing \u2019s case - law on the subject . It considered that the severity of the crimes allegedly committed and the particular circumstances in which they had occurred , coupled with the applicant \u2019s attempts to influence a witness , were sufficient factors to justify extending the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial , which remained the only adequate preventive measure . It also considered that the overall length of the measure remained reasonable in the applicant \u2019s particular situation .","On CARDINAL more occasions ( DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE ) ORG was called to examine the necessity of keeping the applicant in detention and each time it decided to release him pending trial for the same reasons as those advanced on DATE . ORG replaced the measure with the obligation not to leave town .","However , each order , save for DATE , was quashed by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG and the applicant \u2019s detention was extended ( on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the prosecutor against the court order of CARDINAL DATE .","As a consequence , the applicant was released from detention on DATE .","The applicant was arrested on DATE and remained in pretrial detention until DATE . He described the overall conditions of his detention as follows : it was very cold in the cell , hot water was only available for TIME a week and basic hygiene was lacking . He had to share a QUANTITY . m cell with CARDINAL other inmates and the lack of space triggered violent clashes within the cell .","ORG submitted a full record of the applicant \u2019s stay in prison , giving details of the cells the applicant was kept in , their occupancy and the facilities offered . According to this information , the applicant was held in FAC . CARDINAL ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) on DATE and again from CARDINAL DATE to DATE . He was held in CARDINAL separate cells , CARDINAL of QUANTITY m with CARDINAL beds and another of QUANTITY m with CARDINAL beds . The cells were at full occupancy at that time . Each cell was equipped with beds , a table , chairs , a squat toilet , a sink with cold and hot water and a shower separated from the living space by a curtain . The inmates cleaned the cell themselves with products provided by the administration or purchased by them .","The applicant described these cells as badly lit and ventilated , humid and foul smelling . He further explained that because the toilet was not partitioned off from the beds , the inmates lacked privacy when using it . The tap for washing dishes and clothes and for showering was placed above the toilet and the water ran straight into the toilet . There was frequently no running water at all , which rendered it impossible to flush the toilet . The hot water was never sufficient for all of the inmates to take showers .","The records show that from DATE to DATE the applicant was held in ORG in a hospital room measuring CARDINAL sq . m which was equipped with CARDINAL beds and had access to hot water DATE .","The applicant spent the remainder of his pre - trial detention in LOC , where he was held , at his request and because of his position as a senator , in a cell for vulnerable individuals . The cell measured QUANTITY . m , had CARDINAL bunk beds and was at full occupancy at that time . The cell had a window which allowed in natural light and ventilation . The detainees had at their disposal a table , benches , shelves and a TV set . Adjacent to the cell there was a bathroom equipped with a toilet , sinks and a shower . Cold water was continually available and hot water was available twice a week . The cell was heated to CARDINALoC during the DATE . The applicant explained that it was very hot in DATE and very cold in DATE ; the heating system was old and broke down frequently , leaving the cells brutally cold . Hot water was scarce and there was never enough for all of the inmates to take showers .","On DATE the applicant was transported from ORG to the prosecutor \u2019s office in PERSON and back , a trip of TIME each way . According to the applicant , they left in the TIME from LOC . He was transported in the back of a prison van . Although the outside temperature was CARDINAL , there was no heating in the van ; in addition cold air from outside was able to enter the van through CARDINAL hatches in the roof which could not be closed completely . There was insufficient light in the van because there were no windows in the detainee \u2019s compartment , the only source of light being a small window separating the detainee \u2019s compartment from the driver \u2019s cabin . The applicant , who was alone in the back of the van , had nothing to sit on or lean against , thus having to stand up during the entire journey with nothing to hold on to .","When the van arrived in PERSON and returned to GPE , he was allowed to stretch , warm up and do some physical exercise .","ORG informed the Government that the applicant had been transported in a van designed for transporting QUANTITY people , as follows : CARDINAL people in the forward cabin , QUANTITY detainees on chairs in a separate compartment , and CARDINAL guards in another separate compartment in the back of the van . The van had natural and artificial ventilation , a heating system , and artificial light , which was kept on throughout each journey in order to allow the guards to keep watch over the detainees . The applicant had been transported alone , thus having CARDINAL chairs at his disposal .","The journey had started at TIME and ended at TIME .","In his observations in reply to the official information supplied by ORG , the applicant explained that the back of the van where he had been held had been completely opaque without any natural light and that the artificial lighting and the heating system had not been working . He reiterated that the CARDINAL hatches on the roof had remained open during the journey , resulting in freezing temperatures inside the van . The guards had had blankets to cover themselves during the journey , but he had not been given CARDINAL . In addition , the seats in the detainees\u2019 compartment had not been fitted with safety belts , which had made it difficult to keep his balance ."],"violated_articles":["3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164456","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BUKOV\u010cANOV\u00c1 AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","They are co - owners of a residential house located in the Bratislava - Star\u00e9 Mesto municipality . The house was built in DATE by their familial predecessors , who during the previous regime donated it to the ORG under circumstances that would later be accepted as constituting duress . The ownership of the house was restored to the first and second applicants on DATE under special legislation on restitution . Consequently , each of them acquired a CARDINAL share of the ownership of the house . The third and fourth applicants each acquired a CARDINAL share of the ownership of the house on DATE and DATE respectively .","At the time the applicants acquired the ownership of the house CARDINAL flats were inhabited by tenants with regulated rent . Under the relevant legislation this meant that ( i ) the applicants had to accept that their flats were occupied by these tenants , ( ii ) they could charge them no more than the maximum amount of rent fixed by the ORG , ( iii ) they could not unilaterally terminate the leases , and ( iv ) they could not sell the flats other than to the tenants ( \u201c the rent - control scheme \u201d ) .","The rent - control scheme applies , or has applied , to the flats in question , as follows : a CARDINAL - room flat with a surface area of CARDINAL sq . m which had been subject to rent control until DATE ( \u201c the first flat \u201d ) ; a CARDINAL - room flat with a surface area of CARDINAL sq . m which had been subject to rent control until DATE ( \u201c the second flat \u201d ) ; a CARDINAL - room flat with a surface area of QUANTITY m and CARDINAL - room flats measuring QUANTITY m each ( \u201c the third , fourth and fifth flats \u201d ) , to which rent control still applies .","The DATE rent chargeable for the flats under the applicable legislation was equivalent to CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) DATE . After several increases in the regulated rent , in DATE the applicants were able to charge some ORG CARDINAL DATE in respect of the CARDINAL - room flat and approximately ORG CARDINAL DATE in respect of the fourroom flats . According to the ORG \u2019s calculations the regulated rent reached ORG CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL respectively in DATE .","The parties provided differing figures as to the market rent .","The applicants relied on data from ORG ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) and claimed that the DATE market rent for comparable tworoom flats in the area reached around ORG CARDINAL and for comparable fourroom flats some ORG CARDINAL DATE .","The Government submitted an expert valuation according to which the DATE market rent for the ORG flats in DATE amounted to ORG CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL to ORG CARDINAL respectively ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163802","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"LUKI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . They were all represented by PERSON , a lawyer practicing in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicants\u2019 family lived in GPE , a NORP town near the NORP border which was heavily attacked by ORG and paramilitary NORP armed forces in the period DATE , during the war in GPE .","According to the applicants , on CARDINAL DATE their respective husband and father , PERSON , was taken from his home in FAC , a district of the town of GPE , by NORP soldiers and killed on DATE .","According to the ORG , the town of ORG fell on DATE ; after the surrender of the last NORP forces on DATE ORG and NORP paramilitary forces established their control over it .","After the fall of ORG , the applicants went to live in GPE .","DATE ORG was a part of ORG ) . In DATE ORG established ORG in LOC , PERSON and ORG ( ORG ) , which included ORG . On DATE the ORG mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the NORP authorities began .","An investigation was opened on CARDINAL DATE by an investigating judge of ORG . On DATE the first applicant gave evidence in those proceedings .","On DATE an indictment was lodged before that court against GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON , NORP soldiers imprisoned by the NORP forces , on charges of war crimes against the civilian population .","On DATE ORG found the accused guilty as charged . The conviction of GPE and GPE covered , inter alia , responsibility for the killing of PERSON was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and GPE to death . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE and thus became final .","On DATE the applicants submitted a claim for damages with the State Attorney \u2019s Office in respect of the death of PERSON They requested that GPE and GPE be heard as witnesses .","The NORP authorities learned about the death of the applicants\u2019 relative for the first time when they made the above request . An investigation ensued . On DATE the police interviewed PERSON , who had no knowledge whatsoever about the killing of PERSON and said that she had never been to ORG . It was also established that PERSON had died .","The applicant \u2019s request was refused .","DATE and DATE the police interviewed the applicants , GPE , PERSON , GPE , GPE and PERSON of them had any relevant knowledge about the circumstances of the killing of PERSON","In the meantime , on DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG asked ORG for all evidence in respect of the killing of PERSON On DATE the latter ORG sent to the NORP authorities completed documentation which did not contain any of the judgments of ORG .","On DATE the applicants brought a civil action against the ORG before ORG , seeking compensation in connection with the death of their relative . They asked that witness PERSON be heard in respect of the circumstances surrounding the killing of PERSON","That claim was dismissed on DATE . ORG found that the claim had been submitted after the expiry of the applicable time - limit specified in the statute of limitations . The applicants were also ordered to pay to the ORG the costs of the proceedings in the amount of MONEY ( HRK ) . In an appeal against the first instance - judgment and an appeal on points of law before ORG the applicants complained about the manner in which the rules on the time - limit specified in the statute of limitations had been applied . The first - instance judgment was upheld by ORG and ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","On DATE the applicants sent to ORG copies of judgments of ORG and ORG ( together \u201c the NORP ORG \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint . They enclosed the judgments of ORG and argued , inter alia , that there had been a conviction by a criminal court in respect of the killing of PERSON and that therefore their civil claim could not have become statute - barred . The applicants\u2019 constitutional complaint was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE as ill - founded . ORG did not make any reference to the judgments of ORG .","The ORG authorities instituted enforcement proceedings in ORG against the first applicant , seeking the payment of the costs of the above - mentioned civil proceedings , together with applicable interest and the costs of the enforcement proceedings .","An enforcement order was issued on DATE ; under the order , CARDINAL of the first applicant \u2019s pension was to be seized DATE .","The first applicant lodged an appeal , arguing that her DATE pension amounted to HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the seizure of CARDINAL of that amount put her in a precarious position since it did not leave her with sufficient resources for subsistence .","The appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE and a subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the first applicant was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","Section CARDINAL of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE reads :","\u201c CARDINAL . Everyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG if he or she deems that the individual act of a state body , a body of local and regional self - government , or a legal person with public authority , which decided about his or her rights and obligations , or about suspicion or accusation of a criminal act , has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms , or his or her right to local and regional self - government guaranteed by LAW ( hereinafter : constitutional right ) ...","NORP If another legal remedy exists against the violation of the constitutional right [ complained of ] , the constitutional complaint may be lodged only after that remedy has been exhausted .","NORP In matters in which an administrative action or , in civil and non - contentious proceedings , an appeal on points of law is allowed , remedies are exhausted only after the decision on these legal remedies has been given . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) , as then in force , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The right to claim fulfilment of an obligation shall cease when the statutory limitation period has expired .","( CARDINAL ) The statute of limitations [ bars a right to claim ] when the statute - prescribed period in which a creditor could have claimed fulfilment of an obligation has expired .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A claim for damages shall become statute - barred DATE after the injured party learned about the damage and the identity of the person who caused it .","( CARDINAL ) In any event that claim shall become statute - barred DATE after the damage occurred .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Where the damage was the result of a criminal offence and the statutory limitation period for criminal prosecution is longer , the claim for damages against the person responsible becomes statute - barred at the same time as the criminal prosecution .","( CARDINAL ) The interruption of the statutory limitation period in respect of criminal prosecution entails the interruption of the statutory limitation period in respect of a claim for damages .","... \u201d","\u201c The statutory limitation period is interrupted by the lodging of a civil action or any other action by a creditor against a debtor , before a court or other competent body , which is brought in order to secure or enforce the creditor \u2019s claim . \u201d","The relevant part of the LAW on the Nullity of Certain Legal Acts of the Judicial Bodies of the Former Y[ugoslav ] P[eoples\u2019 ] ORG ] , the former NORP ] F[ederal ] R[epublic of ] Y[ugoslavia ] and GPE ( Zakon o ni\u0161tetnosti odre\u0111enih pravnih akata pravosudih tijela biv\u0161e LAW , biv\u0161e SFRJ I PERSON , adopted on DATE and published in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE hereinafter the \u201c LAW \u201d ) reads as follows :","\u201c It is to be established that by the enactment of this LAW all legal acts of the former ORG , its judicial bodies , the judicial bodies of the former SFRY and the judicial bodies of GPE which concern the Homeland War in GPE , under which citizens of GPE have been [ deemed to be ] suspects , or accused or convicted for criminal offences recognised by international law ... , committed on the NORP territory , are null and void and without legal effect , including :","...","- a war crime against the civilian population ...","Legal acts adopted by judicial bodies of GPE for which the NORP judicial authorities establish that they comply with the standards of the NORP criminal legislation are exempted from nullity . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142073","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ENACHE v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","In a final judgment by ORG , the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder .","The applicant was detained in FAC DATE and DATE . During that time he was transferred to other prisons or prison hospitals for short periods . On DATE he was transferred to FAC . He has been serving his sentence in FAC since DATE .","The material conditions of detention in FAC were described by the applicant as being inhuman and degrading .","As a result of the severity of his sentence , the applicant was classified as a dangerous prisoner in accordance with the prison regulations and was held in solitary confinement . He alleged that he had insufficient living space in his cell because it contained unnecessary beds . His requests for some of the beds to be removed were always refused by the prison administration . He also complained that he felt isolated , as he had been forbidden to share the cell with another person or to meet other detainees for the entire duration of his detention . This situation was aggravated by the complete lack of activities outside the cell . In this respect he contended that he had participated in educational activities only in DATE and DATE . For the rest of the time he had spent in FAC , no activities had been proposed to him .","There was a severe lack of drinking water , and of hot and cold water in general . The insufficient provision of hot water , namely once DATE for TIME for a high number of detainees in collective showers , made it impossible to maintain a proper standard of personal hygiene .","Heating was provided for TIME in the morning and TIME , which was not enough to heat the cell . The applicant therefore suffered constantly from the cold during the DATE .","NORP The food was insufficient and of very poor quality . The applicant , who did not have the financial means to buy additional food , suffered from hunger for most of the time .","There was not enough light in the cell because the window was too narrow and artificial light was only provided in TIME .","The applicant was systematically handcuffed every time he was taken out of his cell , even when he was taken to the prison \u2019s religious facilities .","The applicant alleged that those conditions had had a negative impact on his physical and psychological well - being . In this connection , it appears from his prison medical file that he was suffering from chronic depressive psychopathy and had attempted to commit suicide . He was also diagnosed with gastritis and duodenitis , both of which became chronic as from DATE .","The applicant was held alone in a cell measuring QUANTITY m , in which CARDINAL rows of bunk beds were installed each measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY The cell also contained a table and CARDINAL chairs . All the furniture was fixed on the floor and could not be moved . During his detention in FAC , the applicant shared the cell with other detainees for various periods of time . On CARDINAL occasion , he even planned an escape with his cellmate , PERSON The applicant participated in CARDINAL educational activities in the course of DATE and CARDINAL educational activity from DATE .","There was a constant supply of cold drinking water , in accordance with the international conventions signed by GPE . Until DATE inmates had had an opportunity to take a bath once a week in the collective bathing facilities . As from DATE , hot water was supplied DATE , for a minimum of TIME .","In DATE , heating was available DATE and DATE , in accordance with a pre - established schedule , for an average of TIME per day .","With respect to the quality and quantity of food served , the Government submitted that it was in accordance with the NORP standards and the internal prison regulations .","Concerning the alleged lack of light in the applicant \u2019s cell , the ORG submitted that the cell contained a window measuring QUANTITY wide , which afforded the necessary light during DATE . In addition , artificial lighting was available if needed until TIME , in accordance with the prison \u2019s schedule for the provision of electricity .","Prisoners classified as dangerous , such as the applicant , were handcuffed whenever they were taken out of their cells and during transportation , in accordance with the prison regulations . The handcuffs were removed while they were attending educational or ethic \/ religious programmes and during visits .","The applicant was detained alone in a cell measuring QUANTITY A very small window was covered with metal bars and metallic netting .","The applicant could leave his cell for TIME for a walk outside , but had no other activities .","NORP The prison rubbish dump was outside the cell window and made the air smell unbearably fetid .","Whenever the applicant needed something , he had to tap on the door in order to draw the guard \u2019s attention . For this he was disciplined , usually by members of the special intervention units wearing masks .","The applicant was detained in CARDINAL different cells , all of which had the same specifications , namely a surface of QUANTITY m , CARDINAL beds measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY and CARDINAL bed - side table .","NORP The prison \u2019s rubbish dump was , and still is , located QUANTITY from the window of the applicant \u2019s cell and the rubbish is collected at least once per month . The Government submitted that there were situations when a fetid smell was released in the air but measures to remedy the situation were always taken . No specific measures were given as examples in that respect .","As for the activities available to prisoners in FAC , the Government submitted a general overview of the internal regulations on that matter .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG sent CARDINAL letters to the applicant at FAC . The second letter was returned to the ORG by the postal services with the mention \u201c recipient unknown at this address \u201d .","On DATE the ORG invited the ORG to submit information on whether the applicant was still detained and if so , in which prison he was currently being held .","On DATE the Government submitted information confirming that the applicant was detained at that time in FAC .","The ORG sent CARDINAL more letters by registered mail on DATE and DATE to FAC . In view of the applicant \u2019s failure to reply to those letters and of the difference between the applicant \u2019s signature on the application form and the signatures on the return receipts , on DATE the ORG asked the ORG to submit additional information as to whether the CARDINAL letters had reached the applicant .","On DATE the Government replied that as the applicant had been transferred to FAC and subsequently to PERSON , the CARDINAL letters had not reached him until DATE and DATE respectively .","In support of those allegations , the ORG submitted copies of incoming mail registers showing that the CARDINAL letters had been returned from ORG owing to the applicant \u2019s transfer . They also submitted a copy of a page from a register entitled \u201c Planning of personnel for prisoner \u2019s escort \u201d , on which the applicant \u2019s name , his signature and the registration number of the letter of QUANTITY DATE appeared . The page was not dated . A copy of a page from PERSON incoming mail register showed the applicant \u2019s name and signature confirming receipt of the ORG \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE on DATE . Another copy of a page from an incoming mail register of CARDINAL DATE showed the applicant \u2019s signature for a delivery from ORG .","The Government further submitted that the signatures on the return receipts belonged to the prison employee in charge of receiving and distributing correspondence from and to the detainees , as provided for by the prison regulations . In this connection , they submitted a copy of the procedural rules for ensuring ORG right to correspondence , as approved by ORG , as well as a copy of the relevant internal regulations in force in FAC . It appears from those documents that the correspondence addressed to prisoners is collected by designated staff members , who confirm the collection of mail by signing the post office register . Subsequently , the receipt of mail by the detainee to whom it is addressed is confirmed by the detainee \u2019s signature in the prison \u2019s incoming mail register .","Among the documents attached to the ORG \u2019s response was a copy of a statement signed by the applicant on CARDINAL DATE and drafted in the following terms :","\u201c ... With respect to the letter sent by the ORG [ the ORG ] to ORG concerning the letters addressed to me , which remained without reply , I declare that I submitted these CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) petitions , being unsatisfied with the conditions of detention in FAC . ... I was transferred to FAC and subsequently to PERSON . I declare that I no longer wish to correspond with the GPE because I was transferred to another prison and the previous problems do not interest me anymore . In order to clarify any suspicions , I can hand over copies of the letters in question to LOC . ... \u201d","In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant replied to the Government \u2019s submissions , stating that the authorities in the prisons of GPE , ORG and PERSON continuously refused to ensure that his correspondence reached the ORG , even threatening him that if he continued to complain before the ORG \u201c he would get out of prison only in a coffin \u201d ( \u201c Dac\u0103 mai continui procesul la PERSON scoate de aici \u00een patru sc\u00e2nduri \u201d ) . He further alleged that he had been transferred from ORG to FAC only to make him give up his application before the Court , and that he had been forced to sign the statement of CARDINAL DATE in the office of the prison section director and in the presence of CARDINAL masked guards . He mentioned that he intended to pursue his application before the ORG .","The applicant also mentioned that he had received the ORG \u2019s letters of DATE and DATE with excessive delay . They had been opened .","The Government submitted that all letters addressed to detainees were opened in order to check them for forbidden elements . They were then handed to the recipients without their content being read by the authorities . However , correspondence received from non - governmental organisations or international institutions such as the ORG was never opened . With respect to the CARDINAL letters in question , the Government contended that they had been handed to the applicant in due time and without being opened ."],"violated_articles":["3","34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183555","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF EUROMAK METAL DOO v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["NORP The applicant company was set up in DATE as a limited liability company . Its founders and sole shareholders were PERSON and Mr PERSON . It traded in scrap metal and for that purpose it purchased waste aluminium , copper , iron and other metals , processed them and then offered the product for sale .","The applicant was registered for the purposes of LAW ( the \u201c LAW \u201d ) and declared GPE on all invoices issued . ORG was also declared on all incoming invoices . This made it possible for the applicant company periodically to request GPE deductions from the ORG , which it did ( in accordance with the rules of the \u201c tax credit \u201d system ) .","Until the subsequent events , the applicant company had been submitting regular tax returns to the tax authorities , notifying the ORG of its LOC calculations , payments and deductions . The ORG had processed the tax returns without indicating any wrongdoing or additional amounts due on the part of the applicant company .","On DATE ORG , regional directorate \u2013 PERSON ( \u0423\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u0458\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0445\u043e\u0434\u0438 , LOC \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) issued an order to audit the applicant company for the purposes of GPE . The audit took place over DATE during DATE and DATE and took into account the period DATE and DATE .","On DATE a tax assessment was compiled by the ORG . It was established that the applicant company \u2019s suppliers were registered for the purposes of ORG but some of them had not declared or paid GPE to the ORG , even though it had clearly been declared in the invoices sent to the applicant company . That finding was based on earlier audits of those companies , which remained without further specification . The audit further established that some of the invoices did not contain the addresses of the suppliers . Lastly , the audit found that all invoices from the suppliers had been paid in full by the applicant company and that ORG had been declared on all invoices from the applicant company . On account of the above issues related to the applicant company \u2019s suppliers , the audit concluded that the applicant company had failed to meet the conditions necessary to benefit from the LOC deductions it had received .","Relying on the tax assessment conducted DATE , on DATE the ORG issued CARDINAL decisions in respect of erroneous calculation of GPE , ordering the applicant company to pay an additional CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL NORP denars ( ORG , CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) in GPE . According to the ORG , those were the amounts the applicant company had unlawfully deducted from its tax obligations during the period DATE . An appeal lodged against those decisions had no suspensive effect .","The applicant company lodged an appeal with the Minister of Finance against the decisions of DATE . In the appeal it stated that it had met all of its NORP obligations stemming from the ORG invoices and that it could not be held responsible for the ORG mistakes .","On DATE the Minister of Finance dismissed the appeal , reiterating the same findings and reasoning as in the audit report .","On DATE the applicant company received a written reprimand from the ORG . The reprimand stipulated the full amount , including interest , to be paid by the applicant company . It amounted to ORG CARDINAL ( around EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant company lodged an administrative action with ORG ( GPE \u0441\u0443\u0434 ) .","On DATE the ORG blocked the applicant company \u2019s bank account pursuant to the payment decisions .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG remitted the case to ORG , having found that the second - instance decision had been issued by an unauthorised person acting in the name of the Minister .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG again dismissed the appeal of the applicant company , reiterating the findings from the audit .","On DATE the applicant company lodged another administrative action .","On DATE ORG dismissed the action . The relevant part of the judgment reads :","\u201c ... the cumulative conditions to obtain a deduction ... were not met . Specifically , the income of the applicant company was created by companies which failed to meet their legal obligations in relation to the payment of GPE ...","In the deliberations the court took into account the claims by the appellant that it was wrongfully deprived of the right to claim ORG deductions because the errors found in the tax assessment had pertained to other [ companies ] ... These claims were rejected by the court ... inter alia taking into account that it is in the interests of every taxpayer to know and be aware of those with whom they engage in business . \u201d","On DATE the applicant company appealed to ORG ( \u0412\u0438\u0448 \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0435\u043d \u0441\u0443\u0434 ) .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the findings and conclusions of the tax authorities and stated the following :","\u201c ... [ T]he appellant failed to fulfil the cumulative conditions prescribed in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW to obtain a GPE deduction specifically because the monetary inflow of the appellant as a taxpayer was done by other taxpayers who failed to meet their obligations to declare or pay tax .","...","The court examined the complaint that all of the outstanding issues in the audit reflected errors committed by third parties and that the appellant should not be forced to bear the obligations of third parties ... but dismissed them ... having in mind that every taxpayer has an interest to enter into relations with other subjects . \u201d","On DATE the applicant company was removed from the register of companies and ceased to exist . According to a document issued by the register of companies , it was removed in accordance with section CARDINAL-B of LAW ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0442\u0440\u0433\u043e\u0432\u0441\u043a\u0438 \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0448\u0442\u0432\u0430 ) , specifically for not having submitted an DATE financial statement ( \u0437\u0430\u0432\u0440\u0448\u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043c\u0435\u0442\u043a\u0430 ) to the authorities for DATE .","The applicant company \u2019s bank account remained blocked by the ORG until DATE , when it was closed . Due to lack of funds on the account , the ORG failed to collect any money from the applicant company .","On DATE the prosecution for organised crime ( \u041e\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0432\u043d\u043e \u0458\u0430\u0432\u043d\u043e \u043e\u0431\u0432\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u0437\u0430 \u0433\u043e\u043d\u0435\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0437\u0438\u0440\u0430\u043d \u043a\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0430\u043b \u0438 \u043a\u043e\u0440\u0443\u043f\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 ) filed an indictment against several individuals for criminal enterprise , abuse of office and tax evasion . The indictment encompassed the individuals responsible for several , but not all , of the applicant company \u2019s suppliers . It was alleged that the individuals used the supplier companies to issue fake invoices which were not the result of real commercial activity . The supplier companies as legal entities were not directly indicted . The domestic courts found the accused guilty of the offences by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which became final on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170859","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CVETKOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE the applicant gave birth to a daughter , A.C. DATE , she married PERSON ( \u201c the respondent \u201d ) , her daughter \u2019s biological father .","On DATE ORG lodged a claim with ORG , seeking dissolution of the marriage , custody of GPE and child maintenance .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant interim care and custody of GPE until the marriage was dissolved .","On DATE , while the applicant and ORG were visiting a mental care institute where the child was undergoing treatment for her disturbed mental health as a result of her GPE divorce , ORG forcibly removed ORG from the applicant \u2019s custody and , in so doing , assaulted the latter physically , knocking her unconscious .","On DATE ORG issued an interim custody order requiring that NORP surrender custody of GPE to the applicant until the end of the marriage dissolution proceedings .","On DATE a bailiff accompanied the applicant to the respondent \u2019s home , requesting that the child be surrendered . The respondent \u2019s father and ORG were also present . The respondent stated that he would not prevent the mother from seeing her child but refused to hand her over , even if it meant paying a fine , claiming that the applicant could not provide suitable living conditions for ORG and that ORG preferred living with him .","Faced with the respondent \u2019s failure to comply with the enforcement order , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ; QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) , within DATE and to return the child to her mother by the same deadline .","On DATE the bailiff again went to the respondent \u2019s home , but there was no one there . On DATE the court contacted ORG asking for urgent action , since the applicant alleged that domestic violence was taking place there .","On DATE , the social care centre informed the court that it had advised the applicant and the respondent to visit a mental care institute in order to be provided with appropriate guidance in communicating with each other and in order for the child to resume the interrupted course of treatment . The court was informed that the Doljevac ORG had taken over responsibility for the case , since that was where the respondent \u2019s residence was located .","On DATE ORG ordered the respondent to pay a further fine in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) and to return ORG to her mother .","On DATE the respondent and his father contacted the court , declaring that the child did not want to go to her mother and refusing to pay the fine .","On DATE a new attempt was made to enforce the interim order , this time in the presence of a psychologist from the Doljevac ORG , civilian police officers , the enforcement judge , a bailiff and the applicant . The child started to cry and refused to go with the applicant . The respondent stated that he had spoken with the child , encouraging her to go and live with her mother if she wanted , but the child had refused . The applicant was of the opinion that the child had been given instructions and put under pressure and was in fact strongly attached to her . She wanted to take the child immediately , regardless of her behaviour . The psychologist was against forcible transfer of the custody , claiming that it could have a negative influence on the child \u2019s mental health and lead to autism . The child had already showed some of those symptoms , but they stopped after she had moved into her father \u2019s home , where she had been living for DATE . The psychologist proposed that mother and child start to meet under the supervision of the FAC on its LOC . She also noted in TIME that the parents should cease their manipulation of the child .","On DATE the first meeting between mother and child was held on the premises of the FAC , but the applicant later told the court that it had not been successful because the child was allegedly subjected to pressure by her father .","At the next meeting , held on DATE , the child was constantly holding on to her father , crying and avoiding contact with her mother . The psychologist was not present during the meeting , being on sick leave at the time . After leaving the LOC of ORG , the applicant and respondent and other persons present started to fight . The respondent \u2019s father allegedly physically attacked the applicant . The court informed PERSON about the incident , seeking advice as to how to proceed further .","On DATE the applicant asked the court to enforce the interim custody order in the presence of the police .","The enforcement of the interim order was to be attempted on DATE on the LOC of ORG in the presence of the judge , a psychologist and a teacher from the Centre , the applicant and the respondent \u2019s representative . The respondent and the child did not appear . The child was allegedly ill .","On DATE the next enforcement attempt was made . The respondent again failed to appear . According to his representative , he had not been properly summoned . At the hearing , CARDINAL psychologists were present , CARDINAL from ORG and the other from ORG . Both gave their opinion concerning the forced return of the child to her mother , the psychologist from LOC contending that it was the only option , since the father was not willing to hand over the child voluntarily , and the psychologist from PERSON arguing against it , on the basis that it could have a negative influence on the child \u2019s further development .","The enforcement attempt scheduled for DATE was also postponed due to the absence of the respondent and his representative .","On DATE the respondent appeared without the child , because she was allegedly sick , but he did not submit any evidence in support of this allegation . Throughout the meeting he claimed that he was willing to hand over the child to the mother but that the child was refusing to cooperate .","On DATE the court again ordered the respondent to pay a fine in the amount of ORG CARDINAL and to return the child to her mother .","On DATE the court asked ORG to prepare an opinion concerning the enforcement of the interim custody order because of the difficulties encountered in the proceedings .","ORG issued an experts\u2019 report on DATE . The report contained the opinions of a psychologist , a sociologist and a neuropsychiatrist , all of whom had conducted interviews with the child and both her parents . The experts found that the child \u2019s intellectual ability was on the low side and that her emotional and social maturity was underdeveloped as a result of the family situation . They also found that both parents were manipulating the child and not doing what was in her best interests . Their ultimate opinion was that the forcible removal of the child from her father and her current social environment without proper psychological preparation could at that stage provoke certain psychological disorders . The experts advised that the child should receive psychological and social counselling to help her overcome her resistance towards her mother , that the father and his family should be helped to change their attitude and stop influencing the child \u2019s opinion towards her mother , and that both parents should receive counselling on how to behave in the best interests of the child .","On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the father . The marriage was thus dissolved , ORG was granted custody of GPE , and the applicant was ordered to contribute towards her maintenance on a DATE basis . Lastly , the court held that the applicant was entitled to spend time with GPE on the LOC of ORG TIME and TIME until such time as a different access arrangement might be warranted .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG upheld ORG judgment at second and third instance , respectively .","All of the above - mentioned courts reasoned that , \u201c notwithstanding her earlier forcible removal from ... [ the applicant \u2019s custody ] ... \u201d , it was in the best interests of ORG to remain with her father since a separation could prove psychologically detrimental . In support of this conclusion , the courts referred to a separate opinion drafted by ORG , in addition to an expert \u2019s report , stating that it would indeed be advisable for GPE to remain in the environment to which she had become accustomed , where she was surrounded by love and care , and where she had made social connections ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In addition , ORG found that there was no evidence that the respondent had committed acts of violence against the child or the applicant .","On DATE ORG suspended the interim custody proceedings .","The applicant never sought enforcement of the judgment of DATE as regards the DATE meetings with the child .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , alleging a breach of her parental and family rights , essentially complaining about the non - enforcement of ORG interim custody order of DATE . She also argued that ORG ultimate ruling on the issue of ORG \u2019s custody had failed to take into account the child \u2019s best interests and had instead retroactively endorsed ORG \u2019s violent and unlawful conduct and had permanently separated her from her child .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint regarding the interim custody order of DATE for being out of time , having been lodged DATE after the applicant had been served with ORG judgment of DATE . With respect to the applicant \u2019s complaint regarding ORG , ORG rejected it on the merits , accepting ORG reasoning entirely .","On DATE ORG found GPE guilty of unlawfully removing ORG from the applicant \u2019s custody and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE . The respondent was ordered to return the child to the applicant within DATE of the date on which the judgment became final . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE , acting upon the applicant \u2019s initiative , the Ni\u0161 municipal public prosecutor requested the revocation of the respondent \u2019s probation , but withdrew the request on DATE because the respondent had in the meantime been granted custody of GPE On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings seeking revocation of the probation .","Following the applicant \u2019s claim for review of the judgment of DATE , on CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the applicant custody of GPE and ordered ORG to contribute towards her maintenance on a DATE basis . In its reasoning the court explained that ORG had stated that she now wanted to live with the applicant and that ORG himself no longer had any objections to this arrangement . This judgment became both final and enforceable on DATE and ORG moved to the applicant \u2019s flat shortly thereafter .","In DATE ORG received a criminal complaint that had been lodged against GPE for failure to make maintenance payments .","It would appear that the applicant re - established contact with her daughter on DATE , that is to say after DATE , and soon afterwards GPE went to live with the applicant . However , it seems from the documents submitted by the Government that the mother - daughter relationship was not well re - established . ORG kept returning to her father whenever she had a misunderstanding with her mother . She even gave a statement to the police to the effect that her mother was maltreating her .","On DATE A.C. moved to her father \u2019s home and it appears that she is still living with him by choice . It would also appear that the respondent filed a claim for review of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on custody of GPE and that those proceedings are still pending ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181076","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MALYGIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152713","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"PRANDOTA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr A. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr J. PERSON , succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska , of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","DATE and DATE the applicant had contact with an officer of the security services . He was approached by that officer with a view to acting as the liaison between the latter and a certain GPE , editorin - chief of an underground opposition newspaper . According to the applicant , his role was to provide the newspaper with information supplied by the officer of the security services which was detrimental to the authorities .","The Law of DATE on ORG ( \u201c the Institute Act \u201d ; PERSON o Instytucie Pami\u0119ci Narodowej \u2013 Komisji \u015acigania GPE przeciwko FAC ) entered into force on DATE . The ORG \u2019s tasks included , inter alia , storing and researching documents of the communist security services . The right of access to those documents was guaranteed primarily to \u201c injured parties \u201d as defined in LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG of ORG to grant him access to documents concerning him and inquired about his status as an \u201c injured party \u201d .","The PERSON of DATE on ORG was amended by the PERSON of DATE on the disclosure of information concerning documents of ORG security agencies DATE , and the content of such documents ( ustawa o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach organ\u00f3w bezpiecze\u0144stwa pa\u0144stwa z lat DATE oraz tre\u015bci tych dokument\u00f3w ) with the effect from DATE ( see Relevant domestic law below ) . Subsequently , the applicant \u2019s request submitted to the ORG was treated as a request for access to documents concerning him .","On DATE the Director of the GPE Branch of ORG issued a decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL refusing the applicant access to certain documents concerning him . He found that those documents met the conditions specified in section QUANTITY LAW , i.e. , they indicated that the applicant had acted as a secret informant of the security services .","On DATE the applicant was given access to some other documents concerning him .","The applicant appealed against the decision no . CARDINAL of DATE . He submitted that he wished to have access to all relevant documents . Furthermore , he argued that it had been the officer of security service who had acted as his informant , not the other way round .","On DATE the President of ORG upheld the decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . He endorsed the finding that in the light of the undisclosed documents the applicant had been considered by the former security services as a secret informant . Furthermore , the documents demonstrated that the applicant had undertaken to provide the security services with information .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the President of ORG with ORG . He maintained that the President of the ORG had no evidence of his alleged collaboration with the security services . He relied , among others , on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW and LAW .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in camera and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It appears that the applicant was not summoned to the hearing . No written grounds for the judgment were prepared and served on the applicant .","Subsequently , the applicant filed a cassation appeal with ORG .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in camera and dismissed his cassation appeal . The applicant was served with the operative part of the judgment . The applicant requested the court to serve on him the written reasons for the judgment . On DATE ORG refused his request . It noted that the impugned decision of the President of the ORG had been given pursuant to LAW which also governed some aspects of the procedure before the administrative courts . Thus , in accordance with section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the amended LAW the administrative court examined an appeal against the refusal to give access to documents at a hearing held in camera . Furthermore , section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW provided that written reasons for a judgment delivered at a hearing held in camera would only be prepared when the appeal was allowed . A copy of the judgment with written reasons would be served only on the President of the Institute and the appellant would be served with the operative part . Lastly , ORG observed that the PERSON on the Proceedings before ORG was not applicable to the procedure in the present case , the provisions of LAW constituting lex specialis in this respect .","In a letter dated DATE the applicant informed the ORG that the ORG had granted him access to all documents concerning him in DATE . He submitted that the reports of his alleged activity had been fabricated by an officer of the security services .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW reads :","\u201c Everyone shall have the right to a fair and public hearing of his case , without undue delay , before a competent , impartial and independent court . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides :","\u201c Everyone shall have the right to legal protection of his private and family life , of his honour and good reputation and to make decisions about his personal life . \u201d","Article QUANTITY and CARDINAL of the LAW states :","\u201c CARDINAL . Everyone shall have the right of access to official documents and data collections concerning himself . Limitations upon such rights may be established by statute .","Everyone shall have the right to demand the correction or deletion of untrue or incomplete information , or information acquired by means contrary to statute . \u201d","The Law of DATE on ORG ( \u201c the Institute Act \u201d ; PERSON o Instytucie Pami\u0119ci Narodowej \u2013 Komisji \u015acigania GPE przeciwko FAC ) entered into force on DATE . The ORG \u2019s tasks included , inter alia , storing and researching documents of the communist security services . The right of access to those documents was guaranteed primarily to \u201c injured parties \u201d as defined in LAW .","Section CARDINAL of LAW provided that an \u201c injured party \u201d ( pokrzywdzony ) was a person on whom the ORG security services deliberately collected information , including secretly . However , a person who subsequently became an officer , employee or a collaborator of the security services could not be considered an \u201c injured party \u201d ( section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","According to section QUANTITY of the Institute Act everyone had the right to inquire whether he or she was an injured party within the meaning of the LAW . Person certified as an \u201c injured party \u201d had the right to obtain information from the ORG about documents concerning him ( section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . ORG had the obligation to inform the \u201c injured party \u201d about the manner of access to the documents concerning him and to provide him , on request , copies of those documents ( section QUANTITY CARDINAL ) .","In DATE the ORG challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of LAW concerning access to documents held by ORG .","On DATE the ORG gave judgment in case no . K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . It held , inter alia , that section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and section QUANTITY taken in conjunction with section QUANTITY of LAW , in so far as they deprived interested persons DATE other than injured parties \u2013 of the right to be provided with information about documents concerning them , were incompatible with Article CARDINAL ( protection of private life ) and LAW QUANTITY and CARDINAL ( the right of access to official documents concerning oneself and the right to demand the correction or deletion of untrue or incomplete information ) of the LAW .","ORG noted that LAW justifiably afforded special status to the \u201c injured party \u201d and bestowed on this category of persons a number of rights . It identified under LAW a distinct category of persons , namely those who applied for the status of the \u201c injured party \u201d and whose applications were refused . The refusal resulted either from the lack of documents concerning a person seeking the status or from the fact that the security services had not collected information on them . The Constitutional Court disagreed with the ORG that the ORG \u2019s refusal to classify a person as the \u201c injured party \u201d had been tantamount to an official declaration that such person had been an officer , employee or collaborator of the ORG security services . At the same time it pointed to the incoherent criteria used by ORG in classifying persons as collaborators of the security services . It also noted that ORG archives contained information which had been , in principle , collected without any legal basis and often unlawfully . ORG underlined that the constitutional right of access to official documents ( LAW ) was related solely to the documents concerning a given person as a subject of interest of the security services . It did not extend to documents which were created by a given person in his capacity of an officer , employee or collaborator of the security services .","LAW was amended by the Law of DATE on disclosing information about the documents of the ORG security services from DATE and the content of these documents ( \u201c the CARDINAL LAW \u201d ; ustawa o ujawnianiu informacji o dokumentach organ\u00f3w bezpiecze\u0144stwa pa\u0144stwa z lat QUANTITY tre\u015bci tych dokument\u00f3w ) . The amendments entered into force on DATE .","The DATE LAW and LAW were further amended by LAW DATE . These amendments entered into force on DATE .","The amended sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL regarding access to documents held by the ORG stated in so far as relevant :","\u201c LAW . CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to request ORG for access to copies of documents concerning him .","The ORG grants access to copies of available documents concerning the applicant , which are referred to in DATE , with the exception of the following :","CARDINAL ) documents created by the applicant or with his participation ... in connection with his employment or service in the ORG security agencies or in connection with his activities carried out as a secret informant or an assistant in covert gathering of information ;","CARDINAL ) NORP documents whose content indicates that the applicant :","a ) was considered by the security services as a secret informant or an assistant in covert gathering of information ,","b ) undertook to provide information to the ORG security service or to assist such service in whatever form in its covert activities ,","c ) executed tasks given by the ORG security service , in particular provided information to the service . ...","Section CARDINAL . CARDINAL . A refusal to allow request , referred to in DATE , in so far as it concerned access to documents :","CARDINAL ) NORP created by the applicant or with his participation ... in connection with his employment or service in the ORG security agencies or in connection with his activities carried out as a secret informant or an assistant in covert gathering of information ;","CARDINAL ) NORP whose content indicates that the applicant :","a ) was considered by the security services as a secret informant or an assistant in covert gathering of information ,","b ) undertook to provide information to the ORG security service or to assist such service in whatever form in its covert activities ,","c ) executed tasks given by the ORG security service , in particular provided information to the service ,","is effected in the form of an administrative decision . ... \u201d","The amended LAW also put specific restrictions on the judicial proceedings in which the administrative courts reviewed the lawfulness of a decision issued by the President of ORG Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provided that the administrative court examined a complaint against such a decision at a hearing held in camera . Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW excluded the application of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of of the Law of DATE on Procedure before ORG in the impugned proceedings . As a result , the party to the proceedings before the administrative courts in such cases could not plead his case before the court . Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW stipulated that a party to the proceedings before the administrative courts could solely receive an operative part of the judgment . Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provided that the provisions of paragraphs CARDINAL were applicable in the cassation appeal proceedings before ORG .","In the case no . K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ORG reviewed the constitutionality of the CARDINAL Lustration Act and LAW as amended which had been challenged by a group of members of parliament . It gave its judgment on the issues of lustration and access to documents held by ORG DATE .","With regard to the issue of access to documents , ORG struck down as unconstitutional section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . This provision excluded access of interested persons to documents indicating that they had collaborated or assisted the former ORG security services in their undercover activities . ORG noted that the LAW guaranteed to everyone the right of access to official documents and data collections concerning oneself ( LAW ) and the right to demand the correction or deletion of untrue or incomplete information , or information acquired by unlawful means ( LAW ) . This latter right , which was related to the right to privacy guaranteed in LAW , could not be statutorily restricted to a certain category of persons . ORG underlined that no ORG interest could legitimise or justify preservation in official records of information which was untrue , incomplete or acquired in an unlawful manner .","The judgment was promulgated on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE the unconstitutional provisions were abrogated .","On DATE the parliament passed amendments to LAW which entered into force on DATE . According to the new wording of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Institute Act everyone had the right , inter alia , of access to documents concerning him which were deposited with the ORG and the right to obtain copies thereof .","In DATE ORG and ORG put to the ORG legal questions on the constitutionality of various provisions of LAW , including sections CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","On DATE the ORG gave judgment . It held that section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , in its version applicable up until DATE , was incompatible , among others , with Articles DATE and QUANTITY in conjunction with LAW ( the principle of proportionality ) . ORG further held that section QUANTITY CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW was incompatible with , inter alia , LAW ( the right to a court ) in conjunction with LAW .","ORG relied on its findings in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( case no . K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It summarised its approach in that case as follows :","\u201c ... for institutional , functional and procedural reasons LAW together with LAW constitute CARDINAL instrument . In this connection , if the documents created and collected by the ORG security services , meant to indicate the collaboration within the meaning of section LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Lustration Act , are constituting the basis for drawing adverse social , moral , political as well as legal consequences in respect of persons subjected to lustration and other persons whose data were registered and included in catalogues [ of the Institute ] , [ then ] such persons , in a democratic ORG ruled by law , have to have the right to defend their dignity , reputation and good name . Accordingly , they have to be accorded the right of access to the full range of documents concerning them and used against them . ... This right has to encompass access to documents , deposited with the ORG , in which interested persons were attributed an involvement in the creation of these documents . This is relevant from the point of view of the content of those documents , conclusions formulated and drawn by the officers of the ORG security services on the basis of the transmitted information and , in particular , from the point of view of the supposed intention of a person passing on the information to \u201c violate the rights and freedoms of a man and a citizen \u201d .","The Constitutional Court observed that section QUANTITY ) of LAW was of procedural character , but it further specified the grounds for a decision refusing access to certain documents . These conditions matched the content of section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW which had been abrogated as a result of the finding of its unconstitutionality . Nonetheless , the administrative courts submitted to ORG that in practice section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) had been used by ORG as a substantive basis for decisions refusing access to documents specified in this provision . It further noted that after the said judgment the parliament amended LAW on CARDINAL occasions ; however it did not amend section QUANTITY ) .","ORG found that a limitation on access to documents of persons , which were referred to in the unconstitutional section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , which was imposed in a procedural rather than substantive form in section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , amounted to unjustified interference with the informational autonomy of an individual and restricted the constitutional right to request the correction or deletion of untrue or incomplete information ( LAW ) . ORG held that limitations specified in section QUANTITY ) of FAC on access of interested persons to official documents concerning them were constitutionally disproportionate , and thus in breach of Articles DATE and QUANTITY in conjunction with LAW .","ORG noted that its findings were consistent with the decision of the legislator expressed in the amendments of DATE to LAW which introduced the possibility for everyone to obtain access to copies of documents held by the Institute .","Pursuant to Article CARDINAL of the Law of DATE on Procedure before ORG a party to the proceedings which have ended with a final judgment may request that the proceedings be reopened if ORG has found that the legal provision on the basis of which this judgment was given was incompatible with LAW ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163814","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF FAUR v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in GPE .","By a final decision of DATE GPE Court convicted the applicant of rape of a minor and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant \u2019s detention started on DATE and lasted until DATE , when he was released from prison on probation . On DATE the applicant was again detained , following a new conviction for the rape of CARDINAL girls who were minors , and was incarcerated in FAC .","NORP In his letters to the Court , the applicant contended that in GPE and GPE Prisons he had been kept in overcrowded cells .","Despite the fact that he was a non - smoker , he had had to share a cell with smokers . He lodged several complaints with the domestic authorities in this respect , claiming that he had health problems because of the smoke he had inhaled from his inmates\u2019 cigarettes . By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG allowed CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s complaints and ordered the placement of the applicant in a non - smoking cell . From the information submitted by the applicant it is not clear whether that decision was enforced , but based on his written observations it could be inferred that he had been placed in a non - smoking cell .","NORP Moreover , the applicant alleged that he had been transferred from CARDINAL prison to another or from prison to court in vans with detainees who smoked .","The applicant was mostly detained in FAC , where he spent DATE . The prison authorities took into account the fact that the applicant had been convicted of the rape of a minor and for most of his stay he had therefore been placed alone in an individual cell of QUANTITY .","The applicant was detained in PERSON on several occasions , for DATE in total . On these occasions he was detained in the medical unit of the prison or in cells used for transit .","According to the information provided by ORG and forwarded to ORG , the applicant was held in the following cells :","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY , containing CARDINAL beds ( that is QUANTITY per bed ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY , containing CARDINAL beds ( that is QUANTITY per bed ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY containing CARDINAL beds ( that is QUANTITY per bed ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY containing three beds ( that is QUANTITY per bed ) ;","- cell no CARDINAL neasuring QUANTITY containing ten beds ( that is QUANTITY per bed ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL measuring CARDINAL . QUANTITY containing nineteen beds ( that is QUANTITY per bed ) ;","- and cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY containing nine beds ( that is QUANTITY per bed ) .","The Government did not provide any information concerning either the number of the detainees who had occupied the cells or the time spent by the applicant in each of the above - mentioned cells .","The Government submitted that both prisons mentioned by the applicant had adequate natural and electric lighting and ventilation . Both prisons had a central heating system providing adequate heating in DATE . All of the cells in which the applicant had been held had had the requisite furniture .","Cold water had always been available and hot water was available DATE according to a schedule approved by the prison authorities .","Concerning the hygiene in the cell , the Government submitted that prisoners had been responsible for cleaning the cells and were provided with cleaning products by the prison administration .","The applicant had been transferred between the prison facilities in vehicles fitted with windows , lights , heating and sunroofs . These vehicles had had CARDINAL seats . Smoking was strictly prohibited during transfers , and the applicant had anyway been transported separately from smokers ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164166","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"M.M.R. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , stated that she is a national of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and that she was born in DATE . She is currently living in the GPE . The President decided not to disclose the applicant \u2019s identity to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , and Deputy Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On an unspecified day in DATE the applicant fled from her native ORG to the GPE . She arrived on DATE and applied for asylum . On DATE she was interviewed by the immigration authorities about her identity , nationality and travel route . On DATE she submitted corrections and additions ( correcties en aanvullingen ) to the report drawn up of the first interview ( eerste gehoor ) . On DATE , the applicant was interviewed about her reason for seeking asylum . On DATE she submitted corrections and additions to the report drawn up of the second interview ( nader gehoor ) . In the interviews she gave the following account .","She was of GPE ( ethnic NORP ) origin and came from PERSON , the capital of the GPE province in the east of the ORG . In DATE her father was killed in a fight with members of an angry crowd who had entered her family home in PERSON , screaming that the GPE should leave the country . The applicant \u2019s mother fled into the woods , together with the applicant and one of her sisters . Her older sister PERSON and CARDINAL of her brothers also fled , but after the incident she did not see them again . After the death of her father , the applicant and her remaining family were given a house and financial aid by PERSON , a friend of her father \u2019s . In DATE QUANTITY or CARDINAL men entered the applicant \u2019s home , initially looking for Banyamulenge men and boys . They did not find any . The men then raped the applicant , as well as her mother and sister . Afterwards , the applicant was taken to a house where there were other women . She was raped and ill - treated on a DATE basis . After DATE , in DATE , a man acting at the request of PERSON managed to free her and took her to PERSON house . After she recovered the applicant was moved at the instigation of PERSON to her GPE house in the PERSON neighbourhood in PERSON . In DATE anti - Banyamulenge sentiments in the NORP population resurfaced again . The applicant was hassled at school but eventually obtained a university diploma in DATE . For a while nothing major happened . Around DATE or DATE , unknown men entered her GPE home , looking for GPE men and boys . They raped her grandmother , chopped off her grandfather \u2019s arm and leg because he had refused to rape the applicant , raped the applicant , killed both her grandparents and took the applicant with them . As before , the applicant was taken to a house where there were other women and girls . She was sexually abused and ill - treated DATE . On DATE a man acting for PERSON came to the house and took the applicant with him .","On DATE the Minister of ORG ( Minister PERSON Minister \u201d ) notified the applicant of his intention ( voornemen ) to reject her asylum application . The certificate of loss of documents ( attestation de perte des pi\u00e8ces ) submitted by her was found to be a forgery . The certificate , which concerned the applicant \u2019s loss of her voting card ( carte d\u2019\u00e9lecteur ) , was also found to be unauthentic in that it had not been drawn up by the competent authority . As the applicant gave incorrect statements about the document and continued to claim that it was authentic , the Minister found that serious doubts had arisen as to the applicant \u2019s claimed identity and nationality . The absence of any other travel or identity documents and her inability to give a consistent , detailed and verifiable account of her journey to the GPE further detracted from the credibility of her account . The Minister also considered it odd that for someone who had lived virtually her entire life in PERSON and who had gone to university , the applicant had hardly any basic knowledge about her hometown . For instance , she did not know the former colonial name of the town , who the mayor was , and that a \u201c khadafi \u201d is a petrol seller . She had to think about the name of the cathedral and anthem of the ORG , and she did not know the colour of car licence plates . The Minister therefore found it unlikely that the applicant actually came from PERSON . As she had failed to establish her identity , her asylum claim , which was based on her having lived in PERSON , was found to lack credibility .","NORP In written comments ( zienswijze ) made on DATE , the applicant maintained her account and gave explanations for her inability to answer certain questions about PERSON . She further requested to have a language analysis conducted to prove her origin .","In a decision of the same date the Minister rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum application , confirming the finding that as she had failed to demonstrate her identity and nationality , her asylum claim lacked credibility . The Minister further found that there was no need for a language analysis test .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE , accompanied by a request for a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) to stay her expulsion pending the outcome of her appeal .","On DATE a hearing took place before ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE . It was attended by the applicant \u2019s sister Ms E. who was living in the GPE and had obtained GPE nationality . She had been tracked down by ORG ) . The purpose of her attendance was to prove the applicant \u2019s identity and nationality . To this end , PERSON submitted documents concerning her own first asylum interview in the GPE , during which she had mentioned the applicant as a family member who had not accompanied her on her flight there .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and the accompanying request for a provisional measure . The judge accepted the Minister \u2019s decision and the underlying reasoning . The submissions of the applicant \u2019s sister PERSON were not taken into account by the judge .","NORP The applicant \u2019s further appeal to ORG of ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak PERSON ) was dismissed on DATE . ORG found that there were no grounds for quashing the impugned ruling ( kan niet tot vernietiging PERSON aangevallen uitspraak leiden ) . Having regard to section PERSON ) of LAW , no further reasoning was required as the arguments submitted did not raise any questions requiring a determination in the interests of legal unity , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . No further appeal lay against that decision .","The relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings and enforcement of removals are set out in PERSON GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","At the material time , the respondent Government \u2019s policy on asylum seekers from particular countries was devised by the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) on the basis of official country assessment reports published by the Minister of ORG on the countries of origin of asylum seekers .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister for Security and ORG ( Staatssecretaris PERSON ) adopted a moratorium on decisions on asylum applications and expulsions ( besluit- en vertrekmoratorium ) for asylum seekers of NORP origin hailing from the east of the ORG , including the provinces of GPE and GPE .","The moratorium was lifted by the Deputy Minister on DATE . That policy decision , published in ORG of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , was based on the contents of an official country assessment report ( ambtsbericht ) on the ORG released by the Minister of ORG on DATE . It was found in this report that there was no systemic , structural and organised discrimination of NORP in the ORG , that there was no structural violence in the ORG against the NORP population or other NORP with a NORP background and that NORP groups could obtain protection from the ORG authorities . Although the general situation in the provinces of GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE in the eastern part of the ORG continued to be considered to fall within the scope of LAW DATE on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ; see , for further details , NORP and ORG v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , an internal protection alternative was found to be available in other parts of the ORG , including GPE , for asylum seekers hailing from those provinces who did not qualify for refugee status within the meaning of the DATE LAW relating to ORG .","In DATE the Minister of ORG issued a new official country assessment report on the ORG , according to which the general situation in the provinces of GPE and GPE remained unsettled and unpredictable and that the situation of the NORP in the rest of the ORG , including GPE , remained unchanged in comparison with the last reporting period . As regards the situation of women , the report reads :","\u201c Women in the ORG occupy a subordinate position . Discrimination against women is widespread and they often have no access to decision - making , adequate healthcare , clean water , basic sanitation and legal remedies . The general position of women remained consistently bad during the reporting period . Several NGOs are active in the ORG in the area of women \u2019s rights and the improvement of the position of women . A draft bill for equal treatment between men and women , which has been taken up for examination in parliament , has not yet been adopted during the reporting period .","The LAW stipulates that the government is to see to it that sexual violence against women is eliminated , in particular when it is used as a weapon aiming at destabilising or disrupting the family . Such forms of sexual violence are classified in the constitution as a crime against humanity .","Sexual violence against women and girls is widespread throughout the entire country . Cases of sexual violence are most numerous in areas of war where rape is often used as a weapon in the conflict . The ORG [ ORG ] registered from DATE CARDINAL victims of sexual violence : CARDINAL women in the LOC province , QUANTITY women and CARDINAL men in GPE , QUANTITY women in GPE and QUANTITY women in GPE . In DATE the ORG registered CARDINAL human rights violations , including CARDINAL cases of sexual violence ...","On DATE President PERSON appointed PERSON as special advisor in the fight against sexual violence and the recruitment of child soldiers . She declared on DATE that remarkable progress had been made in GPE in the fight against sexual violence . ORG announced [ at the ] end of DATE a national fight against sexual violence committed by NORP soldiers . The police have trained special units in GPE and GPE to combat sexual violence . ...","For most women in the ORG is it difficult to call in protection against sexual violence . In theory it is indeed possible to report rape but in practice women decline to do so , due to social stigma and lack of confidence in the judicial system . When a victim decides to turn to the authorities , it remains questionable whether her case will be taken up . Police officers nearly always ask victims for a financial contribution for carrying out the investigation .","... the NORP NGO LIZADEEL [ Ligue de la Zone Afrique pour la ORG , ORG ] has small centres in various towns in the ORG where victims of sexual violence are accommodated and accompanied to medical care facilities . There is a special telephone number for reporting sexual violence ...","In GPE , a single woman with a job and able to fend for herself has sufficient freedom ... Single women from other parts of the country can join their own ethnic community ( communaut\u00e9 ) in GPE . A single woman from out of town \u2013 who has no family in town \u2013 can temporarily find shelter with someone from their own community . Single women also seek support from ORG or CARDINAL of the many awakening [ evangelical ] churches in GPE . In GPE legal training is given with a view to prosecuting perpetrators of sexual violence . The ORG runs a shelter for traumatised women in GPE . \u201d","In a letter of DATE , the Deputy Minister informed ORG of ORG that on the basis of the official country assessment report on the ORG of DATE the provinces of GPE and GPE continued to be considered to fall within the scope of Article PERSON ) of the Qualification Directive , but that this qualification no longer applied to the provinces of GPE and GPE and therefore the \u201c CARDINAL(c ) policy \u201d in respect of these regions was discontinued .","The summary of the report on the \u201c Conditions for NORP in GPE \u201d , published on DATE by ORG , reads :","\u201c The PERSON share of the population of GPE is fairly small , but they have played a political role in the country that is much more significant than their number would lead one to expect . The NORP population of GPE has always been rather small . When the second Congo war broke out in DATE , NORP were victims of large pogroms in GPE after they were collectively blamed for GPE \u2019s interference in NORP politics by the country \u2019s president and authorities . During and after the pogroms , the NORP who survived were either evacuated or managed to leave GPE by themselves . Since DATE , there have been no reports of human rights violations against NORP in GPE . This can be explained partly by there being few NORP living there , and partly by political circumstances that differ from those present at the outbreak of the second Congo war in DATE . \u201d","The main findings of the report \u201c Situation des femmes seules \u00e0 GPE \u201d , released on DATE by ORG ) states :","\u201c In a country which ranks among the lowest according to the Human development index , women are [ also ] subject to obvious discrimination . Already vulnerable as a woman , a single woman deprived of a family or a social network is even more vulnerable without a means of existence . However , some single women can organise [ themselves ] in GPE and find support to improve their living conditions and attempt to secure their financial independence . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-151006","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF DIMITROVA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);Violation of Article 13+9 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief)","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Pavlina Panova;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["Word of Life is an international religious organisation based in GPE , GPE . In DATE , CARDINAL non - profit organisations affiliated with ORG ( NORP \u043d\u0430 \u0436\u0438\u0432\u043e\u0442 ) were registered by ORG under ORG , and one of these organisations opened a Bible study centre in GPE . However , on DATE ORG reversed ORG decision to register the CARDINAL organisations , on the ground that they had not submitted the necessary applications to renew their registration within DATE time - limit which had been introduced on DATE following amendment of ORG . Following ORG decision , the CARDINAL organisations affiliated with ORG were deleted from the registry of non - profit organisations . Moreover , the organisations were not registered in accordance with LAW and the Bible study centre was not registered with ORG . Word of Life therefore had no legal status in GPE at the time of the events in question .","On an unknown date in DATE a complaint was submitted to the office of GPE by ORG with ORG , raising concerns about the activities of ORG in GPE . On DATE , having carried out an investigation , the prosecutor \u2019s office adopted a decision stating that the \u201c sect \u201d had an influence on its followers which increased the risk of suicide and other psychological problems . Membership might lead to the severance of family and social ties with the wider community ; followers were prohibited from watching television or reading literature other than the Bible or from undergoing any form of surgical intervention . In conclusion , the prosecutor decided to order the restriction of the right of members of the CARDINAL organisations linked to ORG from assembling to promote their beliefs and from continuing to operate the Bible study centre . Relying on LAW ( \u201c the DATE Code \u201d ) , which allowed the prosecutor to take all measures necessary to prevent the commission of a criminal offence where there was a suspicion that an offence might be committed , the prosecutor ordered the police to take measures to restrict the organisation \u2019s access to places where it could hold meetings and preach about its beliefs and convictions . Following an appeal by members of the community , the above decision was upheld by a higher prosecutor .","At all relevant times the applicant was a member of Word of Life . Following the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE , groups of Word of Life members organised meetings in private homes , including that of the applicant . On DATE a prosecutor granted permission for a search of the applicant \u2019s flat . On DATE the applicant was summonsed and interviewed by the police in relation to her religious beliefs and to meetings of members of ORG in her home . The police then accompanied the applicant to her flat and searched it . They seized a number of items , including audio tapes with religious content , notebooks with sermons , brochures , books , magazines and video tapes .","After the search the police issued a warning order ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u043e\u043a\u043e\u043b \u0437\u0430 TIME ) under LAW instructing the applicant not to host further meetings of members of the religious community . The order relied also on the decision of the prosecutor of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant brought an action against the GPE police , seeking return of her chattels and damages under the CARDINAL State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act ( \u201c the CARDINAL LAW \u201d ) in respect of the above measures , which she claimed breached her right to freedom of religion and freedom of assembly .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the GPE ORG partially allowed the action , finding that the applicant \u2019s questioning by the police and the warning order had been lawful , but that the search and the seizure had been unlawful as they had not been undertaken in the framework of any criminal investigation and as the items seized had not been intended to be used in criminal proceedings . Making an assessment under the general law of tort rather than LAW , the court awarded the applicant MONEY ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at current rates of exchange ) for damages and ordered that the items seized on CARDINAL DATE be returned .","Upon appeals by the parties , on DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment insofar as it concerned the order for the police to return to the applicant the chattels seized . It remitted the remainder of the case concerning liability for damages for fresh consideration under LAW .","Following a new examination of the case , on DATE the ORG dismissed the claim for damages . It found that the impugned actions of the police could not be qualified as administrative acts because the police had acted pursuant to the orders of the prosecution authorities . As to the prosecution authorities themselves , they could not be held liable under LAW for decisions of the type in question .","Upon an appeal by the applicant , in a final judgment of DATE ORG upheld ORG findings under LAW . ORG observed that the prosecution service had ordered the measures and that the police officers who were involved had merely assisted the prosecution authorities as they were obliged to do under LAW of the DATE Code .","The relevant domestic law concerning freedom of religion , the activities of unregistered religious organisations , searches and seizures and the prosecution \u2019s power to order measures for the prevention of crime was summarised in the ORG \u2019s judgment in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and DATE , DATE DATE ) .","The relevant provisions of LAW on State responsibility are set out in PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","The relevant domestic law regarding remedies for unreasonably long civil proceedings was set out in GPE and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . LANGUAGE , DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","9"],"violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158136","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MISHURA AND GAYEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALrd ORG of the Kirovskiy District of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s action against ORG in which he sought the increase of DATE pension and military - related benefits .","On DATE the ORG of GPE quashed the judgment on appeal and granted the first applicant \u2019s action in part , awarding him a lump sum of MONEY . The judgment became final .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG , by way of supervisory - review proceedings , quashed the judgment of DATE on the ground of incorrect application of substantive law by ORG and upheld the judgment of DATE .","The second applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE , GPE . She was the widow of Mr PERSON who died of cancer in DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE acknowledged that Mr PERSON had been exposed to radioactive emissions following a nuclear accident at the GPE power plant in DATE .","In DATE the applicant sued ORG for the DATE compensation in connection with the loss of the breadwinner .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected her claim on the ground that she failed to show that she had been financially dependent on her husband on DATE of his death .","On DATE the ORG quashed this judgment and partly granted the applicant \u2019s claim . It held that ORG should pay the applicant DATE compensation to be determined in accordance with law .","On DATE the ORG of ORG , by way of supervisory review , quashed the appeal judgment of DATE and remitted the matter to the appeal court , noting that the lower instance court did not duly examined evidence and made wrong application of the substantive law .","The judgment of DATE was executed DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG held a new appeal hearing and rejected the second applicant \u2019s claim ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152595","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF YEVGENIY BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);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 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , in GPE .","Since DATE the applicant has been infected with hepatitis C.","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of knifepoint rape with an accomplice .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the Town Court \u201d ) remanded him in custody pending trial . The court noted that the applicant was suspected of a serious criminal offence , and held that if he remained at large he might abscond from the investigation and the court and continue his criminal activity .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE ORG held that the preventive measure should remain unchanged and should be extended until DATE . The court reiterated that the applicant had been charged with a serious criminal offence and that gave grounds to believe that if released he might continue his criminal activity . In addition the court noted that he should not be released , because this might prevent the investigator from performing certain investigative actions .","On DATE ORG ordered the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . It endorsed the reasons for the extension of his detention which had been given before . It also noted that the investigating authorities needed time to perform certain investigative actions , to draft a bill of indictment , and to provide him with an opportunity to study his case file . It further observed that the applicant \u2019s neighbours had given negative references regarding his character .","On DATE ORG granted the investigator \u2019s request to extend the applicant \u2019s detention . The request was based on the arguments that the applicant was suspected of a serious crime , and that if released he might abscond . The investigator also noted that he had to perform certain investigative actions and ensure that the applicant had the opportunity to acquaint himself with the case file . The applicant argued that he was a student who had a stable place of residence , and that he could not abscond as he required in - patient medical treatment for his hepatitis PERSON also provided some positive references concerning his character . The court accepted the investigator \u2019s arguments , and extended the detention until DATE .","The applicant appealed against the order of CARDINAL DATE , complaining that insufficient reasoning had been given for that decision . He also noted that his arguments had not been addressed by ORG , and that the investigating authorities had unnecessarily extended the period for his familiarisation with the case file .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It held that his arguments could not constitute grounds for the overturning of the impugned order on appeal .","On DATE the investigator applied for an extension of the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE to give the applicant an opportunity to study the case file . In response to the applicant \u2019s arguments , ORG noted :","\u201c ... The circumstances cited by the investigator [ concerning the need to ensure the applicant \u2019s familiarisation with the case file ] were already [ sufficient ] grounds for the detention orders of DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","The case file contains the order of DATE , which provides that [ the applicant ] had until DATE to study the case file . Accordingly , the extension of his detention for DATE is an excessive measure . During the hearing the investigator and the prosecutor referred to their busy schedule , which prevented the authorities from ensuring [ the applicant \u2019s ] familiarisation with his CARDINAL-page file on a DATE basis . The study of the file required the applicant to be transported from a temporary detention facility to a court building . However , those arguments can not be accepted by the court , as they are not compatible with the requirements of LAW , which provides that everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL ( c ) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial . Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial . \u201d The court finds that the investigating authorities unnecessarily extended the investigation . Accordingly , the request in question should be partly dismissed ... \u201d","Taking into account the above , the court extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE , until DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE on procedural grounds , finding that ORG only had power either to uphold the investigator \u2019s request or to reject it . LAW GPE did not allow such requests to be granted in part .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . This decision referred to the fact that the applicant was accused of a serious offence and that there was a need to perform \u201c certain investigative actions \u201d .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal . It rejected the ORG \u2019s character and the necessity to perform \u201c some investigative actions \u201d .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s case file was remitted to ORG for examination on the merits .","By virtue of a decision of DATE ORG ordered a preliminary court hearing in the applicant \u2019s criminal case . In the descriptive part of this decision the court mentioned , among other things , that the measure of restraint which had been applied to the applicant must remain unchanged . The judge set no time - limits for the applicant \u2019s detention . No separate court order with regard to the applicant \u2019s detention was issued until DATE .","On DATE the prosecution applied to the court for an extension of the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . It noted that the applicant was suspected of a serious criminal offence , and held that if released he might abscond from the investigation and the court and obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case . The applicant applied for release on bail , stating that he was suffering from hepatitis C and that there were no circumstances which would be capable of justifying the excessive length of his detention . The court refused his application . It held that the grounds for his detention remained unchanged and that he could receive medical treatment for hepatitis C in a detention facility . The applicant \u2019s detention was extended until DATE .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court once again relied on the seriousness of the charges against the applicant . No other grounds for his detention were provided by the court .","On DATE ORG extended the detention until DATE . This time the court referred to the seriousness of the charges and to the risk that if at liberty he could hamper the establishment of the truth in the case .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of DATE . His claim was received by the appeal court on DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the impugned decision of DATE on appeal . The appeal court added a new argument . It stated that the parties had significantly contributed to the length of the trial proceedings . This was due in particular to the fact that the last court hearing was adjourned owing to the absence of the defence lawyer , who was unwell . Taking into account the above and the information on the applicant \u2019s character , ORG found that his detention should not be lifted . By virtue of a decision of DATE the higher court refused to review the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE ORG examined a new application by the prosecuting party for an extension of the detention . Relying on the seriousness of the charges and the risk of absconding , the court extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE , referring to the progress of his hepatitis C , the applicant asked the court to change his detention to house arrest . ORG refused , observing that he had been offered medical treatment but had refused to undergo such treatment in the detention facility ; he had thereby deliberately damaged his own health .","On DATE ORG examined the investigator \u2019s application for an extension of the applicant \u2019s detention and the defence \u2019s request for a change to the measure of restraint . The court restated its earlier reasoning , and approved the extension of the detention until DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant . On DATE he was transferred from the remand prison to a psychiatric hospital .","On DATE , after the psychiatric examination , the applicant was returned to a temporary detention facility .","On DATE ORG once again extended his detention and dismissed his request for the release on bail . It repeated that the grounds for the applicant \u2019s detention remained unchanged , that the applicant was accused of a serious offence , and that if released he could obstruct the criminal investigation . The detention was extended until DATE .","The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention ended on DATE of his conviction , CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the prosecution case file was received by ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of knifepoint rape and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","On an unspecified date in DATE ORG upheld the sentence on appeal .","After the applicant \u2019s arrest of DATE he was placed in the temporary detention facility of ORG of the Interior of GPE ( \u201c the Akhtubinsk IVS \u201d ) and then remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . He was detained in these CARDINAL facilities intermittently during DATE , DATE , up to DATE . It appears that the principal location of his detention during this period was IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and that he was held in ORG or transported there on several occasions to enable him to take part in the investigation , acquaint himself with the criminal case file , attend hearings concerning the extension of his detention ( on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE ) and hearings of his criminal case ( as a minimum CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) .","According to the applicant , his cell measured QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL persons , some of whom were suffering from tuberculosis . It was not equipped with individual sleeping places . The detainees had to sleep on a QUANTITY podium which provided sleeping places for CARDINAL or QUANTITY of them . The interior walls were covered with rough cement . The cell was infested with rats , lice , ants , flies and other insects . It was filled with tobacco smoke , because the access of fresh air was blocked . The ventilation system did not work and the only window in the cell was covered by a metal sheet . The cell had CARDINAL ORG lamp , which was on TIME . During DATE the temperature in the cell was QUANTITY . In the DATE the detainees suffered from \u201c terrible cold \u201d . They could not leave the cell without authorisation and were not allowed to move freely around the facility . CARDINAL times a day they were escorted to toilet facilities in groups of CARDINAL . The cell was not equipped with a lavatory pan or running water . Inmates were provided with a single bucket for both waste and lavatory purposes . The bucket serving as a lavatory was not separated from the rest of the cell , and thus offered no privacy . The applicant and his cellmates had CARDINAL meals a day of very poor quality at TIME All of them ate from QUANTITY pan using CARDINAL spoons .","The applicant also submitted a formal warning of DATE no . DATE , issued by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and addressed to the Head of ORG . It reads as follows :","\u201c The inspection report indicates that ORG does not satisfy the requirements of domestic legislation applicable to detention facilities . It is not equipped with medical staff . Accordingly , prophylactic and anti - epidemic measures are not performed . The GPE clothes and bedding are not disinfected on a regular basis . The register of medical examinations , the sanitary register and the register of disinfection are not properly completed . The detainees are not examined on admission by a medical professional . The authorities do not ensure a DATE shower . The above leads to the detention of persons with various infections , sexually transmitted diseases , skin diseases , mental disorders and other diseases alongside healthy inmates . This causes the spread of diseases among the detainees ... and the staff members of ORG .","It has been stated that ORG of the ORG , GPE , has a medical assistant who carries out superficial inspections of ORG , and assesses whether the domestic standards are complied with . This is not so . This person can not be considered an employee of ORG , because he does not carry out the entirety of the duties of such a post .","ORG has already warned the detention facility \u2019s management about the inappropriate sanitary conditions in LOC , but no effective action has been taken by the authorities .","In view of the above , and the provisions of section CARDINAL of LAW pertaining to ORG ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) \u201d I prescribe :","An internal investigation to determine whether a disciplinary punishment should be applied to the responsible officials .","Effective measures to prevent and put right violations of LAW pertaining to detention of suspects and accused persons ( \u201c the Suspects and Accused Persons ( Detention ) Act \u201d .","Action to comply with this warning without delay : ORG to be informed within DATE of the action that has been taken . \u201d","The Government argued that applicant \u2019s cell was disinfected on a regular basis and that he was provided with meals in line with the expected standards . They agreed that overall the conditions of his detention in the Akhtubinsk IVS were incompatible with the requirements of LAW .","NORP The applicant stated that the conditions of his detention in IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had been appalling .","The Government noted that the applicant was held in IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on many occasions DATE and DATE . Their submissions as regards the conditions of detention in IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL may be summarised as follows :","According to the Government , the applicant was at all times provided with an individual bed and bedding , even though the personal space afforded to him was , on certain occasions , less than the statutory CARDINAL sq . m per person . The applicant was provided with CARDINAL meals per day . The quality of the food was subject to the requisite quality control .","Every cell in the remand prison where the applicant was detained was equipped with powered ventilation . The ventilation system was in working order . Natural ventilation was achieved by means of trickle vents in the windows . The temperature in the cells was CARDINAL . The heating and water supply were in compliance with the applicable standards . There were no metal bars on the windows . Accordingly , access to daylight was not blocked . The artificial lighting was in compliance with the applicable specifications ; there were QUANTITY lamps , of QUANTITY and QUANTITY , which were on from TIME and from TIME respectively .","The toilet was separated from the living area of the cell by a QUANTITY high brick or metal screen ensuring privacy . The cells were regularly cleaned and disinfected .","Detainees were permitted to take a shower at least once DATE for not TIME .","The Government lastly submitted that the detention facility had had a fully equipped medical station .","The applicant submitted that he had been frequently transported between ORG and IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL during his detention in these CARDINAL facilities and that the conditions of his transportation had been appalling . First , he was deprived of the opportunity to sleep , because he was taken out of his cell at TIME and returned there at TIME Secondly , on DATE of transportation the applicant did not receive any food ( including travel rations ) or water and on every occasion the prison vans were severely overcrowded . Lastly , during the transfers the detainees had to use a bottle or a plastic bag to wash themselves . There was also no possibility to use the toilet .","The Government provided the ORG with the date of the applicant \u2019s transfers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but did not submit any other information about the conditions of the applicant \u2019s transportation .","The applicant stated that before his arrest he had contracted hepatitis C. During pre - trial detention he was placed in a cell with other detainees who were infected with tuberculosis , leading to his contracting that disease . He further stated that during the detention he suffered from dermatosis and dental problems . According to the applicant , he was neither provided with adequate medical treatment nor with an appropriate diet .","In accordance with a medical report of an unspecified date , submitted by the ORG , during the applicant \u2019s detention he was provided with adequate medical treatment . The report reads as follows :","\u201c Retrospective analysis of the submitted medical records confirm that [ the applicant ] had been suffering from hepatitis C since DATE .","During his detention [ the applicant ] underwent several medical examinations and received medical treatment . The last [ in - patient ] treatment was provided in DATE in the hospital of DATE . The results of his medical examination indicate that [ the applicant ] had chronic hepatitis C of low activity . In connection with this he underwent basic treatment and antivirus treatment . He was provided with hepatoprotectors and vitamins . At the present time [ the applicant ] continues to receive pathogenetic and aetiological treatment .","On DATE at admission to IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL he underwent an X - ray examination , [ which indicated no pathology ] of the lungs . In DATE and DATE [ the applicant ] had CARDINAL such examinations . During his stay in IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL he was often transported to ORG to take part in court hearings or investigative actions .","In DATE he complained of weakness , pain in the right part of his stomach and a bitter taste in his mouth . Owing to these complaints he was diagnosed with hepatitis and on DATE he was sent to a regional hospital , were he underwent a complex medical examination . This examination indicated that he had infiltrative tuberculosis in the lower part of his right lung , pneumonia and hepatitis C.","After anti - inflammation and anti - bacterial treatment the aforementioned diagnosis was confirmed . [ The applicant ] was transferred to [ a special hospital ] where he received specific complex anti - tuberculosis treatment from DATE to DATE . Later , the patient refused further in - patient treatment and was transported to IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On DATE an expert panel of the regional anti - tuberculosis clinic confirmed the diagnosis and concluded that his treatment had been prompt and adequate and had led to a positive health outcome .","On DATE the expert panel stated that the [ applicant ] had recovered from tuberculosis . Only some insignificant traces of the disease remained in his lungs .","Until the patient \u2019s departure for a penal colony on DATE , he received anti - relapse treatment .","[ The applicant \u2019s ] disease was apparently caused by his frequent transportation to the ORG , chronic stress , hepatitis C , his anti - social behaviour and smoking .","The patient \u2019s disease was promptly diagnosed by means of an X - ray examination , and efficiently treated in line with the relevant standards . \u201d","The Government also submitted the applicant \u2019s voluminous medical records , covering the period from DATE . They show that during his detention the applicant underwent CARDINAL X - ray examinations , several HIV tests , and a variety of other medical examinations , including blood tests . Besides the history of his tuberculosis and hepatitis treatment , the medical records contain information about the treatment of his skin diseases . Thus , in DATE following his complaints regarding itching , the applicant was examined by a doctor , diagnosed with streptodermosis and provided with an ointment . In DATE he was diagnosed with a recent dermatitis and was also provided with ointments and other medicines . DATE he did not complain about skin problems . On CARDINAL occasion in DATE the applicant complained of headache . In connection with this , he was examined by a psychiatrist , who confirmed that he had no mental disorders and prescribed him nootropil and vitamins .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for criminal proceedings to be instituted against the management of ORG , who had put him in the same cell as infected detainees and failed to ensure the compatibility of the conditions of his detention with the minimum standards set forth by domestic law , and had failed to provide him with adequate medical assistance .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s complaint was dismissed . The ORG agreed that the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention did not fully satisfy the requirements of domestic law and that there were some omissions on the part of the management . However , it concluded that the management \u2019s actions did not amount to a criminal offence . ORG did not specify the established omissions of the prison authorities .","On DATE the applicant challenged the aforementioned decision in court under LAW .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim and quashed the impugned decision , because ORG had not provided details of the management \u2019s omissions .","No further decisions concerning the outcome of the examination of the applicant \u2019s complaints were submitted by the parties .","There is no information about the examination of the applicant \u2019s subsequent complaints of CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , which were sent to ORG .","On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL claims with ORG , seeking compensation for damage to his health and for non - pecuniary damage , which he alleged had been caused by the inadequate conditions of his detention in the Akhtubinsk IVS and remand prison IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","By decisions of CARDINAL and DATE ORG left the claims pending the awaited rectification of their procedural defects . The applicant was invited to clarify the list of the defendants and the factual circumstances of the alleged violations of his rights .","Later the applicant \u2019s claims were returned unexamined on the merits , as ORG concluded that he had failed to comply with the court \u2019s recommendations .","The applicant did not challenge ORG decisions on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145347","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BENK\u0150 AND SO\u00d3SN\u00c9 BENK\u0150 v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .","On DATE she brought an action before the GPE XX \/ XXI \/ XXIII ORG , seeking the dissolution of common ownership .","On DATE ORG , acting as a second instance court , adopted a partial judgment in the case .","Pursuant to the applicant \u2019s petition for review , ORG quashed the partial judgment on DATE and remitted the case to the first instance court .","The case was terminated by ORG on DATE ( service : DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer posted a first communication to the ORG , indicating an intention to lodge an application and giving some indication of the nature of the application . The communication was dated DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158156","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BR\u00c2NDU\u015eE v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","At the time of the events in the present case , the applicant was serving a prison sentence for fraud , imposed by CARDINAL decisions of ORG on DATE and DATE . He was held mainly in GPE and FAC . In DATE he spent DATE in cell no . CARDINAL of ORG . According to the applicant \u2019s description , the cell was dirty and lacked access to warm water .","On several occasions the applicant was kept in the court \u2019s detention rooms where the detainees and guards were allowed to smoke . According to the applicant , he was exposed to passive smoking in the GPE detention room on DATE .","According to the information provided by the prison administration and forwarded to ORG , the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL in FAC from DATE to DATE and from DATE . The personal space available to the applicant was QUANTITY . m during the first period of detention and QUANTITY . m during the second period of detention . Disinfection and pest control were carried out CARDINAL times per year and the cell was cleaned DATE by the inmates . The same rules of hygiene applied to the toilets and shower rooms . The cell benefitted from both natural and artificial light and had beds with mattresses , tables , shelves , and a television set . In an annex to the cell there was a toilet space , consisting of CARDINAL partitioned toilet bowls and CARDINAL wash basins . Access to warm water was possible in the common shower room , which contained CARDINAL showers and to which the inmates had access in privacy once a week .","On DATE the applicant was not allowed to vote in the parliamentary elections and , despite his requests for clarifications , the prison authorities gave him no explanations as to whether he was entitled to vote or not . DATE , he informed the ORG about what had happened .","On DATE the applicant was released on probation . He was arrested again on DATE and served the rest of his sentence until DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145492","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"M.D. v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and currently resides in GPE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON PERSON GPE , Representative of GPE at ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is a LOC national of an NORP ethnic origin .","NORP In DATE , after the inter - ethnic violence in the region of GPE in DATE , the applicant left GPE for GPE , fleeing ethnic - motivated violence .","On DATE the NORP authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes committed in DATE . On DATE they issued an international search warrant .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in custody in GPE . The NORP authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant \u2019s extradition .","On DATE the detention measure was lifted and the applicant was released from custody under an obligation not to leave his place of residence .","Pending the completion of the extradition proceedings , the applicant unsuccessfully sought a refugee status , temporary asylum and political asylum in GPE .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE granted the extradition request and ordered the applicant \u2019s extradition . The order mentioned that the NORP authorities provided diplomatic assurances that the applicant would not be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment ; the extradition request did not aim at persecuting the applicant on religious , political grounds or grounds relating to his ethnic origin ; he would benefit from free access by the NORP authorities\u2019 representative in the place of his detention .","The applicant appealed against this decision and advanced an argument that he might be subject to ill - treatment due to his NORP ethnic origin .","On DATE ORG upheld the extradition order . As to the applicant \u2019s arguments about alleged risk of illtreatment the court concluded that they were unfounded , since the reports provided by the applicant referred to past years , namely DATE , and the opinions of human rights activists were their own subjective opinion not based on real facts .","The applicant appealed to ORG .","On DATE the ORG acceded to the applicant \u2019s request to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG and indicated to the Government that the applicant should not be extradited or otherwise involuntarily removed from GPE to GPE or another country for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination in the first instance .","On DATE ORG quashed the extradition order of DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by ORG of LOC and upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The extradition order of CARDINAL DATE was thus annulled .","For a summary of relevant international and domestic law and practice see PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","For relevant reports on GPE see PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171994","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TALPIS v. ITALY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+2 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant married PERSON , a NORP national , and CARDINAL children were born of the marriage : a daughter in DATE and a son in DATE .","The applicant alleged that after their marriage her husband had started beating her . However , in DATE the applicant followed her husband to GPE in order to provide her children with the opportunity of a more serene future .","The applicant submitted that her husband , who was an alcoholic , had already been physically abusing her for a long time when , on DATE , she requested the intervention of the police after she and her daughter had been assaulted by ORG","When the police arrived , ORG had left the family home . He was found in the street in a state of intoxication , with scratches on the left side of his face . The police drew up a report of the incident . The report stated that the applicant had been beaten and bitten in the face and the left leg and that she had a number of bruises . The report also stated that the applicant \u2019s daughter had herself been hit after intervening to protect her mother and presented a neck injury caused by a fingernail and injuries to both arms . The applicant and her daughter were informed of their rights and expressed their intention to go to the hospital accident and emergency unit .","The applicant alleged that she had not , however , been informed of the possibility of lodging a complaint or contacting a shelter for battered women . She also submitted that she went to the accident and emergency unit in order to have her injuries recorded , but that after waiting for TIME she had decided to return home .","The Government , referring to the police report , submitted that there was no evidence that the applicant had gone to the accident and emergency unit .","The applicant submitted that after the assault on DATE she had taken refuge in the cellar of her flat and started sleeping there .","She recounted the following events as follows . On DATE , after receiving a threatening telephone call from her husband , and fearing an attack by him , she decided to leave the house . When she returned home , she found that the cellar door had been broken . She tried telephoning a friend to ask if she could stay the night with her , but no one answered her call . She then decided to go back to the cellar . ORG attacked her there with a knife and forced her to follow him in order to have sexual relations with his friends . Hoping that she would be able to seek help once outside , she resigned herself to following him . She asked a police patrol in the street for help .","The police merely checked her and ORG \u2019s identity papers , and despite the applicant \u2019s assertions that she had been threatened and beaten by her husband , they invited her to go home without offering her help and told ORG to keep away from her . ORG was fined for unauthorised possession of a lethal weapon .","Shortly after she had returned home , the applicant called the emergency services and was taken to hospital . The doctors noted , among other things , that she suffered from cranial trauma , a head injury , multiple abrasions to her body and a bruise on her chest . It was deemed that her injuries would heal up within DATE .","The Government indicated that , according to the incident report drawn up by the police , they had arrived at FAC shortly after TIME . The applicant informed them that she had been hit in the face . PERSON had given the police officers a knife . The applicant told the police that she wanted to go to hospital to have her injuries recorded . She had gone there and ORG had returned home . The knife had been seized and the applicant fined for unauthorised possession of a lethal weapon .","At the hospital the applicant spoke to a social worker and said that she refused to return home to her husband . She was then given shelter by an association for the protection of female victims of violence , ORG ( \u201c the association \u201d ) .","The president of the women \u2019s shelter , accompanied by police officers , went to the cellar where the applicant had been living in order to fetch her clothes and personal effects .","From DATE PERSON began harassing the applicant by telephoning her and sending her insulting messages .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against her husband for bodily harm , ill - treatment and threats of violence , urging the authorities to take prompt action to protect her and her children and to prevent ORG from approaching them . She stated that she had taken refuge in a women \u2019s shelter and that ORG was harassing her by telephone .","A.T. was placed under judicial investigation on charges of ill - treating family members , inflicting grievous bodily harm and making threats . The police sent the criminal complaint to the prosecution on CARDINAL October DATE .","On DATE the prosecution , having regard to the applicant \u2019s requests for protection measures , ordered urgent investigative measures , in particular requesting the police to find potential witnesses , including the applicant \u2019s daughter .","NORP The applicant was given shelter by the association for DATE .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the head of GPE social services informed the association that there were no resources available to take charge of the applicant or to find alternative accommodation for her .","The Government gave a different interpretation of that letter , saying that , as the applicant had not first been referred to the GPE social services , which cared for victims of violence in the context of another project , called \u201c CARDINAL tolerance \u201d , the latter could not pay the association \u2019s expenses . In their submission , female victims of violence could contact social services requesting assistance , which the applicant had not done .","On DATE the applicant left the shelter to look for work .","She said that she had first slept in the street before being accommodated by a friend , and had subsequently found a job as an assistant nurse for elderly people and was then able to rent a flat . According to the applicant , ORG had continued exerting psychological pressure on her to withdraw her complaint .","On DATE the prosecution , finding that no investigative measure had been carried out , again asked the police to investigate the applicant \u2019s allegations rapidly .","On DATE , DATE after she had lodged her complaint , the applicant was questioned for the first time by the police . She altered her statements , mitigating the seriousness of her original allegations . Regarding the episode of DATE she stated that ORG had unsuccessfully attempted to hit her and her daughter . With regard to the incident that had occurred in DATE , she said that ORG had hit her but had not threatened her with a knife . ORG had , however , pretended to turn the knife on himself .","The applicant also stated that at the time she had not spoken very good NORP and had not been able to express herself properly . She also stated that ORG had not forced her to have sex with other people and that she had returned to live at the family home . She said that when she had been living at the shelter provided by the association , she had not spoken to her husband on the telephone because she had been told not to . She stated that , barring her husband \u2019s alcoholism , the situation at home was calm . She concluded by saying that her husband was a good father and a good husband and that there had been no further episodes of violence .","The applicant submitted that she had altered her original statements because of the psychological pressure exerted on her by her husband .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office , after noting , firstly , that the applicant , who had been interviewed in DATE , had mitigated her allegations against her husband saying that he had not threatened her with a knife and that she had been misunderstood by an employee from the shelter where she had taken refuge and , secondly , that no other violent episode had occurred , asked the investigating judge to close the complaint lodged against ORG for ill - treatment of family members . Regarding the offence of grievous bodily harm , the prosecuting authorities indicated that they intended to continue the investigations .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge discontinued the part of the complaint concerning the allegations of ill - treatment of family members and threats . He considered that the course of the events was unclear and that , with regard to the alleged ill - treatment , the offence had not been made out because , since the applicant had complained only about the incident of DATE , the criterion of repeated episodes of violence was not satisfied .","With regard to the complaint of threats aggravated by the use of a weapon , the investigating judge noted that the applicant \u2019s statements were contradictory and that in the report drawn up by the hospital there was no reference to knife injuries .","With regard to the offence of causing bodily harm , the proceedings were continued before the magistrate . PERSON was committed for trial on DATE . The first hearing was held on DATE and ORG was ordered to pay a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) on DATE .","It can be seen from the case file that on DATE PERSON received notice of his committal for trial before the magistrate \u2019s court on DATE for inflicting bodily harm on the applicant in DATE .","In TIME CARDINAL DATE the applicant sought the intervention of the police in connection with a dispute with her husband .","The police made the following findings in their report : on their arrival they saw that the bedroom door had been broken down and that the floor was strewn with bottles of alcohol . The applicant had stated that her husband was under the influence of alcohol and that she had decided to call for help because she thought he needed a doctor . She told them that she had lodged a complaint against her husband in the past , but that she had subsequently changed her allegations . The applicant \u2019s son had stated that his father had not been violent towards him . Neither the applicant nor her son had shown any traces of violence .","A.T. was taken to hospital in a state of intoxication . In TIME he left the hospital and went to an amusement arcade .","While he was walking along the street he was arrested by the police for an identity check at TIME","The police report shows that ORG was in a state of intoxication and had difficulty keeping his balance and that the police had let him go after stopping and fining him .","At TIME entered the family flat armed with a QUANTITY kitchen knife with the intention of assaulting the applicant . The applicant \u2019s son attempted to stop him and was stabbed CARDINAL times . He died of his wounds . The applicant tried to escape but ORG succeeded in catching up with her in the street , where he stabbed her several times in the chest .","On DATE PERSON was convicted by the magistrate \u2019s court of inflicting grievous bodily harm on the applicant , on account of the injuries he had inflicted on her during the incident in DATE , and sentenced to a fine of LAW .","On an unspecified date in DATE the investigation into acts of ill - treatment was reopened .","A.T. asked to be tried in accordance with the summary procedure ( giudizio abbreviato ) .","On DATE PERSON was sentenced to life imprisonment by the GPE preliminary hearings judge for the murder of his son and the attempted murder of his wife and for the offences of ill - treatment of his wife and daughter and unauthorised possession of a prohibited weapon . He was also ordered to pay the applicant , who had applied to join the proceedings as a civil party , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in damages .","With regard to the ill - treatment , the preliminary hearings judge , after hearing witnesses and the applicant \u2019s daughter , considered that the applicant and her children had been living in a climate of violence . He found that ORG had been habitually violent and held that , apart from the DATE harassment suffered by the applicant , there had been CARDINAL violent episodes . He added that ORG , at his trial , had confessed to experiencing feelings of hatred towards his wife . According to the preliminary hearings judge , the events of CARDINAL DATE were the consequence of an attempt by the applicant to get away from ORG","On DATE PERSON appealed against the judgment .","It can be seen from the file that in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the judgment was upheld by ORG . However , neither of the parties annexed the judgment to their observations ."],"violated_articles":["14","2","3"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158195","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"BEJKO v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , was an NORP national , who was born in DATE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer informed ORG applicant \u2019s death and of the wish of his heirs , namely his spouse , Ms Ornela Kotherja , and his children , Mr PERSON and PERSON , to pursue the application . For practical reasons , use will however continue to be made of the initial applicant for the purpose of this decision , although his heirs are now to be regarded as having that status ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVI and PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG DATE ) ..","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their then Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant sought to obtain housing from the ORG . At the time , housing units were owned and managed by the ORG . They were allocated to households by the local authorities .","On DATE his spouse was issued with an occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom flat by ORG in GPE ( autorizim nga PERSON i PERSON ) . The authorisation also indicated the address of the flat . As a result , on CARDINAL DATE a tenancy agreement ( kontrat\u00eb qiraje ) for a ORG - owned flat was concluded between the applicant \u2019s wife and the ORG - owned housing maintenance authority ( ORG ) .","On DATE the applicant concluded an agreement ( akt marr\u00ebveshje ) with the local authority to vacate the flat and exchange it for another CARDINAL - bedroom flat which was in the process of being constructed by the ORG - owned ORG ( nd\u00ebrmarrja pyjore ) at an indicated address .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s spouse was issued with another occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom flat . The authorisation also indicated the address of the flat and the fact that , if a contract were not concluded within DATE , the authorisation would cease to have effect . On DATE a provisional tenancy agreement was concluded . It would appear that the applicant never occupied the flat .","On DATE , further to a decision of the municipality of GPE ( \u201c GPE ) , the applicant was issued with an occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom flat that had been constructed by ORG . The authorisation also indicated the address of the flat . However , the applicant was unable to occupy the flat and conclude a privatisation agreement in the light of a GPE \u2019s letter of DATE , which stated as follows :","\u201c No action should be taken for the privatisation of ORG \u2019s flat [ address indicated ] until further notice ( t\u00eb mos veprohet p\u00ebr privatizimin e apartamentit t\u00eb PERSON ... deri n\u00eb nj\u00eb urdh\u00ebr t\u00eb dyt\u00eb ) .","On DATE the GPE revoked its decision of DATE , no reason having been given .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c NHA \u201d ) , pursuant to an agreement it had concluded with a ORG - owned company , PERSON , for the construction of a block of flats through the aid of its funding , requested the GPE and the municipal council ( ORG ) not to allocate , amongst others , flats CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL to anyone on their list of homeless households , because those flats would be made available to employees of the ORG - owned company ( see paragraph CARDINAL and DATE below ) .","NORP In the meantime , on DATE an inspection report by ORG found that NORP funds had been erroneously used for the construction of a block of flats belonging to ORG . Pursuant to a Government decision the block of flats had been made available to the municipal council , which was responsible for the allocation of flats to homeless households .","On DATE the municipal council decided to include the applicant \u2019s name on the list of households to be provided with an occupancy authorisation in respect of flat no . CARDINAL . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c ... the council ... decided to provide the following citizen[s ] with authorisation :","...","PERSON in respect of flat no . CARDINAL ( a CARDINAL - bedroom flat ) \u201d .","On DATE the applicant was issued with a fresh occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom flat . The authorisation , in so far as relevant , read as follows :","\u201c Pursuant to council \u2019s decision of ... DATE Mr PERSON is allocated a CARDINAL - bedroom flat located at [ address indicated ] flat no . CARDINAL . \u201d","Confronted with pressing housing needs , the applicant occupied flat no . CARDINAL immediately , no tenancy agreement having been concluded . CARDINAL party , R.B , occupied the neighbouring flat on the strength of an occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom flat . However , upon entering the flat , the applicant found that the construction company , on instructions from the ORG , had amended the layout of the flats so that the flat occupied by the applicant had CARDINAL bedroom . The neighbouring flat , occupied by R.B , had been modified to a CARDINAL - bedroom flat contrary to his occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom flat . The applicant and PERSON , following the LOC \u2019s approval , then converted the flats into CARDINAL - bedroom housing units .","By a letter of DATE the municipal council was asked to transfer the applicant \u2019s authorisation to another flat located at a difference address , because flat no . CARDINAL had already been allocated to other households ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Consequently , on CARDINAL DATE the municipal council decided to amend the applicant \u2019s occupancy authorisation of DATE by allocating the applicant another flat whose construction had not yet started . The decision reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c The council , [ which was ] convened on CARDINAL DATE , ( ... ) decided :","The authorisation issued in respect of LOC ] ... CARDINAL [ address indicated ] pursuant to the decision ... of DATE should be transferred to [ address indicated ] whose construction will commence [ shortly ] ( autorizimet e dh\u00ebna p\u00ebr apartamentet nr ... CARDINAL sipas vendimit ... dt CARDINAL ... t\u00eb transferohen n\u00eb seksionin ... q\u00eb do t\u00eb filloj\u00eb s\u00eb nd\u00ebrtuari ) .","( ... )","NORP The decision enters into force immediately . \u201d","On an unspecified date the applicant instituted legal proceedings seeking the nullity of the municipal council \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . These proceedings , which continued until DATE at various levels of jurisdiction , ended with the dismissal of the applicant \u2019s claims .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant began a hunger strike to protest against the injustices he believed he had suffered . He submitted newspaper clips as evidence of this .","On DATE the applicant was informed of the municipal council \u2019s decision of DATE , which had decided to allocate the applicant the flat indicated in its decision of DATE and the authorisation of DATE . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c The council , [ which was ] convened on DATE , ... decided :","The authorisations issued by way of the council \u2019s decision ... of CARDINAL DATE should be transferred to FAC ] nos . ... CARDINAL at [ address indicated ] ( autorizimet e dh\u00ebna me PERSON nr ... dt . CARDINAL t\u00eb transferohen n\u00eb apartamentet nr . ... CARDINAL n\u00eb seksionin ... ) . \u201d","In the meantime , on DATE PERSON , who was an employee of the ORG - owned company PERSON , was issued with an occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom apartment in respect of flat no . CARDINAL . On DATE PERSON concluded a provisional contract with the ORG for the sale of the flat , while the final contract of sale by way of payment of instalments ( kontrat\u00eb p\u00ebr shitje apartamenti me pages\u00eb me k\u00ebste ) was concluded on DATE .","On DATE R.S initiated legal proceedings against the applicant requesting him to vacate the flat , which the applicant had allegedly occupied unlawfully since DATE . R.S relied on the authorisation granted to him and the provisional and final sale contracts of DATE and DATE .","The domestic proceedings continued before various levels of jurisdiction . On DATE ORG finally found that R.S had acquired property rights over the flat by virtue of the sale contract of DATE and the payment of the sale price . The applicant could not be regarded as a lawful occupant , because the occupancy authorisation of DATE had been revoked in DATE . Furthermore , the domestic courts had ruled against the applicant in the proceedings he had instituted in relation to the nullity of the municipal council \u2019s decision DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE the applicant was forcibly evicted from his flat by the police . In DATE he left the country for GPE .","In DATE the applicant instituted legal proceedings against R.S alleging that the sale contract between PERSON and the ORG was null . The proceedings were concluded on DATE in favour of GPE","On an unspecified date either in DATE or DATE F.D , who was an employee of the ORG - owned company PERSON , was issued an occupancy authorisation for a CARDINAL - bedroom apartment in respect of flat no . CARDINAL . On DATE F.D concluded a provisional contract with the ORG for the sale of the flat , while the final contract was concluded on DATE .","On DATE F.D instituted legal proceedings against the applicant and PERSON He requested that the applicant vacate and restore him the room he had occupied as a result of the modification to the layout of the flat ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG held that the municipal council should not have allocated flats , which had been constructed with the funding of ORG - owned companies , to homeless households found on its lists . F.D , being an employee of the ORG - owned company PERSON , was entitled to the allocation of flat no . CARDINAL . ORG considered that the sale contract was lawful and stated that the flat had also been registered in the immovable property register . It further held that the municipal council had annulled its authorisation of DATE . As regards the nature of the authorisation , it stated as follows :","\u201c The authorisation to a flat merely serves planning purposes ; as long as no consequences have derived therefrom , it may be revoked , as in the instant case , by the authority that adopted it ( autorizimi p\u00ebr banes\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb thjesht nj\u00eb akt planifikimi dhe deri sa nuk ka sjell\u00eb pasoja PERSON nga vet\u00eb organi q\u00eb e ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb si kund\u00ebr \u00ebsht\u00eb vepruar edhe n\u00eb rastin konkret ) .","The applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , a copy of which was not submitted to this ORG , was dismissed by ORG on DATE as follows :","\u201c The only ground of appeal related to F.D \u2019s lack of standing , which was rejected by the ordinary courts , including ORG . ORG considers that the claim raises no legal argument so as to examine the complaint . \u201d","The relevant part of LAW , which is entitled \u201c FAC \u201d , reads as follows :","Article CARDINAL","\u201c The ORG , within its constitutional powers and the means available to it , and in the fulfilment of the private initiative and responsibility , aims at :","...","b. the fulfilment of the housing needs of its citizens .","... \u201d","The DATE Act established the organisation of local government in the country . CARDINAL administrative units were established : the commune ( komun\u00eb ) , the municipality ( bashkia ) and the district ( rreth ) . The organs of the municipality were the mayor and the municipal council . CARDINAL of the responsibilities of the municipal council was to take measures to provide employment and housing ( section CARDINAL \u00a7 DATE ) . It had power to issue orders ( urdh\u00ebresa ) and decisions ( vendime ) ( section CARDINAL \u00a7 DATE ) .","The CARDINAL Act , which repealed LAW , introduced CARDINAL administrative units in addition to the commune and municipality : the region ( qarku ) and the sub - division ( n\u00ebndarja ) . Section CARDINAL recognises the municipality \u2019s responsibility for urban planning , land - management and housing as provided for in the relevant legislation .","This Act aimed at privatising ORG - owned housing units and creating a free housing market , empowering tenants to become owners . It enabled individuals residing , by virtue of a tenancy agreement , in flats owned by the ORG to transfer their flat into their private ownership , upon compliance with a set procedure , payment of the full privatisation price and registration of the property at the mortgage registry .","Under ORG of ORG ordinance no . CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of the spouses or another adult member of the household had the right to lodge a housing request with ORG ( ORG i DATE sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) or ORG , which had authority to provide that person with an occupancy authorisation ( autorizim ) . The authorisation indicated the number of the flat as well as its location .","State companies or institutions , which had contributed by way of their funding to the construction of a block of flats , could issue an occupancy authorisation to their homeless employees ( sections CARDINAL ) . A commission for the allocation of housing units was established for this purpose ( komisioni i shp\u00ebrndarjes s\u00eb banesave n\u00eb qendr\u00ebn e pun\u00ebs \u2013 \u201c the Commission \u201d ) . The local government councils had the right to withhold approval of the Commission \u2019s decisions if they were considered unjust ( section CARDINAL ) .","A tenancy agreement was to be concluded , within DATE from the date of the authorisation , between the tenant and the ORG - owned housing maintenance authority ( ORG ) . Failing the conclusion of the tenancy agreement within the prescribed time - limit , the authorisation became invalid .","The decision provided for the establishment of the ORG , which was responsible for financing , constructing and administering housing units ( banesa ) in the country . Some of its responsibilities included the conclusion of contracts for the construction , completion and sale of flats and cooperation with local authorities in fulfilling their housing obligations . The ORG \u2019s funds consisted of allocations by the ORG and local budgets , loans by domestic and international financial institutions , donations and revenues resulting from privatisation of ORG - owned housing units .","The decision determined the criteria for the classification of homeless citizens . The commune or city councils were tasked to draw up local lists of homeless citizens . The lists would be deposited with the ORG .","The decision provided that ORG companies and institutions could use their profits to construct flats to accommodate the housing needs of their homeless employees ( punonj\u00ebsit e pastreh\u00eb ) . The funding would be transferred to the ORG , which constructed housing units in accordance with the domestic legislation . The allocation of flats by way of an authorisation was carried out by ORG set up within the ORG company or institution , according to a list of homeless employees . The list of beneficiaries was deposited with the local authority . The ORG was responsible for concluding sale contracts with the homeless employees who had been provided with an authorisation .","The decision provided that the ORG would conclude a sale contract with a homeless citizen , who was required to make a down payment , the remaining amount to be paid in instalments over a CARDINAL - year period with CARDINAL interest rate . The upfront payment of the entire sale price resulted in a reduction of the total price .","NORP The decision provided that the ORG would conclude a provisional sale contract with a homeless citizen within DATE from the commencement of construction works . At the time of the conclusion of the provisional sale contract , the homeless citizen was required to make a down payment . Failure to make the down payment would result in the loss of use of the authorisation . A final sale contract would be concluded at the completion of the construction works .","The decision reiterated that the lists of homeless citizens were drawn up by local authorities and were deposited with the ORG . State companies and institutions would transfer their funding to the ORG for the construction of blocks of flats . State companies and institutions would draw up lists of homeless citizens to be housed in these blocks of flats . The lists would be deposited with the ORG , which would conclude sale contracts with those citizens ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181852","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SHIMOKHIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158041","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO;NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"D.T. v. THE NETHERLANDS AND GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr D.T. , is a NORP national , born in DATE , and currently staying in the GPE . He was represented before the ORG by ORG , a lawyer practising in LOC .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , of ORG .","The Government of GPE , having been informed of their right to intervene ( LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of the Rules of Court ) , did not avail themselves of this right .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows . Some of the facts are disputed .","On DATE , the applicant entered the GPE where on CARDINAL DATE he applied for asylum , submitting in the course of CARDINAL interviews with immigration officials that he had been working as a military trained senior border guard at the border between GPE and GPE . Between the respective border posts lies a neutral zone via which drugs are being smuggled into GPE . CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s main responsibilities had been to combat drug trafficking .","On DATE the applicant had been ordered by his superior officer to escort a person , PERSON , from the neutral zone to GPE , evading the normal border controls . On DATE he had again been ordered to escort X across the border to GPE on DATE . On DATE , he had received a tip that a drugs trafficker had been sighted in the neutral zone . The applicant had gone to the market located in the neutral zone where he was discretely shown the trafficker whom he recognised as X. The applicant had passed on this information to his superior , PERSON , who responded by telling the applicant that he had checked this information and that it was wrong .","On DATE the applicant had once more been ordered by PERSON to escort X across the border . The applicant had refused . TIME he had received a telephone call from his mother who apparently was held hostage by CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s colleagues . He had then felt compelled to take X across the border into GPE , which he had done .","On DATE the applicant had asked his superior , PERSON , for explanations and informed his superior that he intended to do something about it . He had then written a memo to PERSON , the Chief of ORG as well as to the Deputy Minister of ORG , explaining the situation and asking for an inquiry , or to transfer or dismiss the applicant . He had left this memo at PERSON secretariat . DATE , he had been summoned to his superior Mr L. who showed him the memo and told him that he should stop writing and follow orders . The applicant had then resumed his work and nothing special had occurred until DATE . On DATE , Mr L. had ordered the applicant for a fourth time to escort NORP across the border . The applicant was told that it would be the last time and he saw on PERSON table a proposal to promote the applicant to the next rank , which promotion had been planned already for some time .","The applicant had taken X across the border into GPE and had returned with his car to an agreed spot at TIME to pick up X again and bring him back to the neutral zone . When he had arrived at the designated place , X had been accompanied by QUANTITY persons , CARDINAL of them wearing a jacket bearing the letters DATE which stands for ORG \u2013 and the other one dressed in plain clothes . The CARDINAL men brought X to the applicant \u2019s car . X and the plain - clothed man took a seat next to each other in the car and the applicant was given to understand that they had something to discuss and needed some privacy . Thereupon the applicant and the NORP man had walked away QUANTITY from the car . The ORG man had taken an interest in the applicant \u2019s service weapon . The applicant had then heard that X and the plain - clothed man had started shouting at each other . The plain - clothed man had then approached the applicant and the NORP man , telling the latter that X had not agreed . The ORG man , who was then holding the applicant \u2019s service weapon in his hands , had walked to the car , opened the door and fired three shots , killing X. The applicant had then run away as fast as he could and , it already being dark , had managed to hide himself in the nearby forest . After a short unsuccessful search for the applicant , the men had left .","As an NORP drug trafficker had been killed with the applicant \u2019s service weapon and in the applicant \u2019s car , and as the perpetrators had also tried to kill him , the applicant felt trapped CARDINAL fires and had decided to flee the country , fearing problems from the side of the NORP and\/or the NORP drugs mafia . With the help of a colleague , who had managed to remove a plastic bag with documents belonging to the applicant from the applicant \u2019s office room and give these to the applicant , the applicant had managed to flee the country on CARDINAL DATE . ORG , he had travelled to the GPE .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) requested the Minister of ORG to conduct an inquiry in relation to the applicant \u2019s asylum request .","NORP In DATE , the applicant was informed by his mother that she had had a visit from an official of ORG who had known that the applicant was in the GPE and who had asked her questions relating to the applicant \u2019s asylum account given to the GPE authorities and who had shown her documents submitted by the applicant to the GPE authorities . The applicant \u2019s comments about this visit to the GPE refugee aid agency led to a conversation on DATE between the applicant and the person at ORG dealing with the inquiry in GPE .","On DATE , the Minister of ORG transmitted a person - specific official report ( individueel ambtsbericht ) concerning the applicant to the Deputy Minister of Justice . According to this report , CARDINAL identity documents and a veteran \u2019s card in the applicant \u2019s name \u2013 submitted by the applicant in the asylum proceedings \u2013 were authentic but there was a reasonable doubt about the authenticity of another document . The report further contained the verified registration as home owner of the applicant \u2019s mother and brother at a specific address . However , it had not been possible to verify whether the applicant had been registered as living at that address or at the address of the military base . The report also stated that the applicant had worked as a border guard until DATE , that reportedly he had been dismissed due to a reorganisation , that various sources had indicated that he was not wanted by the ORG , and that he was not wanted in relation to the commission of a criminal offence . It further contained names and functions of persons mentioned by the applicant in his account .","On DATE , after having been granted access to the underlying materials of the person - specific official report of DATE , ORG ( Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst ) of ORG concluded that this report , both as regards its content and procedure , had been drawn up in a careful manner and that it provided insight in a transparent manner , and informed the Minister of ORG accordingly .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum request . Mainly on the basis of the outcome of the investigation carried out by the Minister of ORG of the applicant \u2019s claims as set out in the person - specific official report , the Deputy Minister concluded that no credence could be attached to the applicant \u2019s account and that it had not been established that the applicant , if expelled to GPE , would be exposed to risks from the side of the NORP authorities or the drugs mafia from GPE .","On DATE , the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with ORG of The Hague and filed the grounds for this appeal on DATE .","On DATE , the applicant was informed that the impugned decision of DATE had been withdrawn and that a fresh decision would be taken .","In a fresh decision taken on CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy Minister of ORG again rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum request . Although accepting the veracity of the applicant \u2019s account that , at the orders of his superiors , he had taken a person DATE who turned out to be a drug trafficker \u2013 across the border into GPE without the papers and luggage of this person being checked and his account of the killing of this trafficker , the Deputy Minister rejected as not credible the claimed risk of persecution , taking into account that DATE according to the contents of the person - specific official report \u2013 several sources had stated that the applicant was not wanted by the ORG and that he was not wanted either as a suspect of a criminal offence . The Deputy Minister further considered that the general situation in GPE was not such that all persons from that country qualified for an asylum - based residence permit and that the applicant could turn for protection to the NORP authorities in so far as the alleged LAW risk would emanate from corrupt officials or the NORP drugs mafia .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against this decision was accepted on DATE by ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE . It quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON , ORG ; the successor to the Deputy Minister of Justice ) to take a fresh decision . It accepted the applicant \u2019s argument that the investigation on which the person - specific report was based had been incomplete as his registration as living at the address of his mother and brother could have been easily verified on the internet by consulting an electoral list and as it could be deduced from the underlying materials that a document of CARDINAL DATE ( DATE unknown ) referred to in the underlying materials was missing . The court also accepted the applicant \u2019s argument that the finding in the person - specific official report that the applicant had been dismissed following a reorganisation was contradicted by the applicant \u2019s statements , which had not been rejected as not credible , that until his departure from GPE he had followed professional training programmes and that he was about to be promoted . ORG lastly disagreed with the Deputy Minister that the applicant could have turned to the NORP authorities for protection .","On DATE , the Minister for ORG filed a further appeal to ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG . At the latter \u2019s request , the Minister of ORG provided ORG on DATE with the materials underlying the person - specific official report of DATE . In accordance with section CARDINAL:CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) , the Minister of ORG requested ORG to order that ( parts of ) these materials were to be disclosed only to ORG . On DATE , ORG decided that the access restriction requested by the Minister of ORG was justified . It subsequently sought and obtained the parties\u2019 consent to determine the further appeal also on the basis of those underlying materials which had not been disclosed to the parties but only to ORG .","On DATE , ORG accepted the Minister \u2019s appeal , quashed the impugned judgment and rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It held that the mere circumstance that the Minister of ORG had been unable to obtain information about the applicant \u2019s registration gave no cause to find that the inquiry into the registration or in respect of other elements had been careless and incomplete . It further rejected the applicant \u2019s claim in respect of the allegedly missing document dated DATE , finding that the mention thereof was an obvious clerical error and that the mention concerned had in fact referred to another document which had been taken into account in the decision - making process . It further found that ORG had unjustly held that the contradiction between the applicant \u2019s dismissal following a reorganisation and his statements about an imminent promotion concerned an essential part of his asylum account . According to ORG , the core of the asylum account was the alleged fear of persecution by the ORG in that he was wanted by the NORP for having witnessed the murder of GPE committed by a NORP collaborator whereas it was stated in the person - specific official report that various sources had indicated that the applicant was not wanted by the ORG . It therefore did not find it established that the person - specific official report had been drawn up in a careless manner or that it was incomplete . It also found no concrete indications in the applicant \u2019s other submissions for doubting the correctness or completeness of this report . It lastly accepted the Minister \u2019s view that it had not been shown that the incident with the ORG collaborator was representative for the entire police apparatus in GPE , that it had not been established by the applicant that the Head of the ORG was involved in drugs trafficking and that , bearing this in mind , the applicant could have turned for protection to the NORP authorities . No further appeal lay against this ruling .","The relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings and enforcement of removals are set out in PERSON v. the GPE ( ( DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","At the material time , the ORG \u2019s policy on asylum - seekers from particular countries was devised by the Deputy Minister of ORG and his successor , the Minister for ORG , on the basis of , inter alia , official country assessment reports drawn up by the Minister of ORG on the countries of origin of asylum - seekers , but also reports published by ORG agencies or NGOs ( non - governmental organisations ) . There was no country - specific policy in respect of asylum - seekers from GPE .","According to the Government , person - specific reports ( individuele ambtsberichten ) are researched with the assistance of the GPE diplomatic missions in the countries concerned . In investigating information and documents submitted by asylum - seekers , ORG enlists the services of agents who are carefully screened for objectivity and reliability on the basis of information supplied by institutions such as NGOs , international organisations like the ORG ( ORG ) as well as third - country embassies that can make disinterested , informed assessments . Agents must satisfy high demands ; they must be discreet and painstaking , and have extensive networks and access to sources of information . Agents receive instructions before they begin their investigation , and their findings are discussed in meticulous detail when they report back to the embassy . The investigation is organised in such a way that the authorities are never made aware of the alien \u2019s identity , to ensure that ORG investigation does not cause any problems for the alien in his \/ her country of origin .","ORG never provides information to the alien concerned or to his authorised representative about the identity of the agents or informants who have assisted with the investigation , because this could expose them to serious danger from the authorities or from the alien or his relatives or associates . Nor does the ORG ever provide information about the methods and techniques used to examine the authenticity of documents , to avoid facilitating the making of better forgeries in the future or enabling future asylum - seekers to improve their accounts in support of their applications .","In a ruling given on DATE , ORG ( ORG ; \u201c REK \u201d ) of ORG of GPE held that the duty of due care when preparing a decision of an administrative law nature includes providing access to the documents on which a person - specific report is based . In cases in which a decision is based on a person - specific report , an employee of ORG and ORG ) must examine the report to determine , on the basis of the underlying materials , whether due care was taken in drawing it up , both substantively and procedurally , and whether the report is clear . This is referred to as the \u201c REK check \u201d .","Furthermore , with the parties\u2019 consent , ORG and\/or ORG may base its judgment also on information that has not been made available to the alien concerned . Before doing so , ORG and\/or ORG decides , using a different panel of judges , whether the restrictions placed on the alien \u2019s access to the underlying document of a person - specific report are justified .","The most recent general official country assessment report ( algemeen ambtsbericht ) on GPE was published by ORG on DATE . It covers the period from DATE to DATE . As regards corruption it reads :","\u201c In order to professionalise the judiciary and to combat corruption , the government of GPE started in DATE an extensive and fundamental reform of the judiciary . Many judges of the old regime were dismissed or placed on a reserve list . In addition , several judges resigned themselves . During the reporting period various measures were taken to increase the quality and independence of the judiciary . ...","CARDINAL of the most visible reforms after the Rose Revolution of DATE concerns the police force . Corruption , abuse of power , extortion , torture practices and a dismissive attitude towards those seeking protection against criminality were being associated with the police in the past . With the assistance of the OSCE [ Organisation for Security and Cooperation in LOC ] the police was fundamentally reorganised . The number of staff was reduced drastically and the salaries of agents in active duty were increased by tenfold . After the reorganisation , the police force consists of traffic patrol police , criminal investigation police and border police . The new police force falls under the competence of ORG . In addition , in DATE , an improved Code of Ethics for the police entered into force . Corruption within the police force has almost entirely disappeared and the trust of the general population in the functioning and actions of the police during the reporting period has increased . ORG with complaints about the police can file them at specifically designated reporting points . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174624","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF RAMLJAK v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Sinj .","On DATE PERSON brought a civil action against the applicant before ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking that a will be declared null and void . ORG was represented by lawyers , PERSON . and GPE","On DATE ORG adopted a judgment in the applicant \u2019s favour .","The plaintiff lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) . ORG of that ORG has over forty judges . On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges presided over by Judge PERSON , sitting in a closed meeting , reversed the first - instance judgment and upheld the appeal . It held that the first - instance court had correctly established the facts but had wrongly applied the relevant law .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) alleging , inter alia , that she had not had a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal because Judge PERSON was the father of a trainee lawyer working at the law office of GPE . and GPE , who had both represented the plaintiff in the proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as unfounded and upheld the second - instance judgment . It held in particular :","\u201c The case file shows that ORG , Judge PERSON \u2019s son , did not participate in any manner in the proceedings at issue . This court therefore considers that there are no circumstances which put the impartiality of Judge PERSON in such doubt as to exclude his participation in the adoption of the appeal judgment . \u201d","In a constitutional complaint of CARDINAL DATE the applicant argued that even though ORG had not participated at the hearings held in the proceedings at issue , there were no indications that he had not been otherwise involved in the case . He had been in a relationship of subordination ( employer - employee ) to the opposing party \u2019s legal representative and the law office concerned had employed only a very small number of people . The applicant noted that the first - instance judgment in her favour had also later been reversed on appeal . The constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on DATE by ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146044","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF AL NASHIRI v. POLAND","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing);Violation of Article 2+P6-1 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Death penalty;Life) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 - Abolition of the death penalty;Abolition of the death penalty-{general});Violation of Article 3+P6-1 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 - Abolition of the death penalty;Abolition of the death penalty-{general});Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained in ORG at GPE FAC in GPE .","The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","At DATE the applicant was captured in GPE , in GPE . By DATE , he was transferred to the custody of the ORG . This fact is mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE ORG :","\u201c CARDINAL . [ REDACTED ] By DATE , the ORG had PERSON and another high - value detainee , PERSON , in custody [ REDACTED ] and ORG ( OMS ) provided medical care to detainees . \u201d","Subsequently , GPE agents took him to a secret ORG prison in GPE known as the \u201c GPE \u201d . During his detention , the interrogators subjected him to prolonged stress standing positions , during which his wrists were shackled to a bar or hook in the ceiling above the head for DATE .","After a brief stay at the \u201c GPE \u201d , GPE agents took him to another secret ORG prison in GPE , GPE , code - named \u201c Cat \u2019s Eye \u201d ( often written as CARDINAL word \u201c GPE \u201d in ORG documents ) , where he remained until DATE . Mr PERSON was detained in the same facility throughout the relevant time ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , judgment of DATE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL ) . At this site , the interrogations of both applicants were videotaped .","According to the DATE ORG , at that black site the ORG subjected the applicant to the EITs ( see also paragraphs PERSON above ) from DATE until DATE .","In the chapter \u201c ORG at [ NAME REDACTED ] \u201d , which is in most part redacted , paragraphs CARDINAL read :","\u201c CARDINAL . [ REDACTED ] psycholgist \/ interrogators [ REDACTED ] led each interrogation of PERSON and PERSON where EITs were used . The psychologist \/ interrogators conferred with [ REDACTED ] team members before each interrogation session . Psychological evaluations were performed by [ REDACTED ] psychologists .","The Government did not contradict the facts as related by the applicant .","In their written observations filed on CARDINAL DATE , they submitted that until the criminal investigation in GPE had been terminated they reserved their right to comment on and rectify the facts of the case as supplied to them when they were given notice of the application .","In their pleading of DATE they stated the following : \u201c ORG do not contest in the proceedings before the ORG the allegations submitted by the applicant \u2019s plenipotentiaries , nor [ do they ] contest the alleged facts \u201d .","At the oral hearing , the ORG said that they were not prepared to affirm or negate the facts submitted by Mr PERSON and PERSON Abu Zubaydah because they believed that those facts should first be established and evaluated by the NORP judicial system . They added that , in contrast to the case of ORG , in these cases the ORG was not confronted with CARDINAL different versions of facts or differences in accounts of facts . Accordingly , in their view , there was no need for the Court to take the role of a first - instance court and to establish the facts of the cases itself before the domestic proceedings had been completed .","As regards the documentary and oral evidence obtained by the ORG throughout the proceedings , the Government did not at any stage contest the admissibility , accuracy or credibility of the relevant materials and testimonies . Furthermore , at the hearing in camera held on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , during which the parties were asked to state their positions on the oral evidence taken and on whether the parties could rely on that evidence at the public hearing , they confirmed that they had no objection to the parties\u2019 referring at the public hearing to the testimony of the experts and the witness . In their words , \u201c this [ was ] knowledge that [ was ] already accessible , albeit via other channels , in the public domain anyway \u201d .","At the public hearing , in relation to that testimony , the ORG drew the ORG \u2019s attention to the fact that both Senator PERSON and PERSON had carried out inquiries which were not judicial proceedings . Those inquiries , they said , were \u201c pre - procedural examinations \u201d instituted for the purpose of corroborating the participation of the NORP countries in the ORG . They had not dealt with individual cases . In terms of the standard of proof they were not comparable to criminal proceedings . In contrast , the investigation in GPE was being conducted in order to obtain evidence concerning all possible offences , to establish individual perpetrators and to determine whether it was possible to bring an indictment to the court .","The Government admitted that the findings of the relevant international inquiries were a source of information about the potential evidence and indicated the direction for subsequent actions to be taken by prosecutors . However , they did not constitute evidence in the strict sense of the word and relying on them would not be sufficient for a prosecutor to bring a charge or indictment against an individual in respect of a specific offence .","Lastly , the ORG , responding to a question from ORG at the hearing , concerning the injured party status accorded to the applicant and Mr PERSON by the investigating prosecutor , explained that for a procedural decision to identify an individual as an injured party in criminal proceedings CARDINAL elements had to be present . First , the subjective element , that is to say a person must have a sense of having suffered prejudice on account of the commission of an offence . The second , the objective element consisted in an indication that there existed a sufficient level of credibility that an offence had been committed to the detriment of that person in GPE . In the applicant \u2019s case the credibility was sufficiently high for him to be treated as a victim of an offence and the investigation continued in order to determine the extent to which he had been harmed and by whom .","The applicant , in his submissions concerning GPE \u2019s knowledge of the ORG , the probative value of the evidence before the ORG , the burden of proof and the standard of proof as applicable in the present case stated , in particular , as follows .","Numerous documents , including reports prepared by international organisations , recounted that on DATE the ORG had transported Mr LOC on a plane registered NCARDINALMU from GPE to GPE airport . The airport was TIME drive from Stare Kiejkuty .","Official documents disclosed by ORG , the DATE ORG and other reports before the ORG confirmed that this flight had landed on DATE at Szymany airport . PERSON submissions , which the applicant adopted in so far as they supported his claims , provided further evidence corroborating the fact that he and PERSON Al Nashiri had been flown from GPE to GPE on the same flight .","The material before the ORG also confirmed that the applicant had been transferred from GPE to Rabat on a plane registered NCARDINALP on DATE .","Official documents disclosed by ORG and ORG , the DATE ORG and ORG stated that rendition aircraft NCARDINALP had departed from PERSON airport on DATE for Rabat with the assistance of the NORP authorities . The oral evidence from experts demonstrated how the NORP authorities had filed false flight plans and assisted in the cover - up of the ORG operations .","Evidence before the ORG clearly showed that it had been NORP officials who had granted ORG rendition planes licences and overflight permissions as well as special exemptions . It had been the NORP authorities who had guided the planes in to land , and who had cleared the runway and secured the perimeter and grounds of PERSON airport so that detainees like Mr PERSON could secretly be offloaded into vans bound for the secret prison .","In the Polish ORG , officials had assisted in disguising the existence and exact movements of incoming ORG rendition flights . ORG officials had ensured that ORG flights were exempt from normal procedures for incoming foreign passengers . In the ORG officials had resolved irregularities in the payment of fees related to ORG operations . The manager of PERSON airport had provided significant information with respect to abnormal procedures allowed for rendition aircraft . The ORG had heard expert testimony confirming that after a rendition operation \u2013 the very DATE \u2013 NORP airport employees had been paid cash at a rate far higher than the usual rate .","NORP The DATE ORG showed that NORP officials had provided extraordinary physical security by setting up \u201c buffer zones \u201d around the ORG \u2019s detainee operations . The same report confirmed that several high - ranking NORP officials had known about , and had authorised , GPE \u2019s role in the secret ORG prison . The existence of an operational agreement between ORG and the ORG had been mentioned in the DATE ORG and various other material before the ORG and had been confirmed by Senator PERSON \u2019s testimony . The agreement had set out detailed rules for running the prison on NORP territory and a provision for what would have to be done if a detainee had died there . Prime Minister PERSON and President PERSON had reportedly received oral reports from NORP intelligence officials about what had been going on in that ORG prison , including on the fact that GPE had been detaining individuals there .","Senator PERSON had publicly said that he had information showing that ORG at FAC had commissioned a local contractor to build a prisoner \u2019s cage . In his testimony to before the ORG , he had confirmed that the cage had been built by a NORP company from GPE with specifications as to the thickness of the bars and size \u2013 the cage had been supposed to be big enough to hold a grown man and a portable toilet .","NORP The applicant further stressed that at the fact - finding hearing the Court had heard cogent , credible and consistent evidence from CARDINAL persons of the highest integrity and the highest professional calibre , who had demonstrated that :","CARDINAL ) NORP there had been a secret ORG prison at FAC from DATE to DATE ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the applicant had been detained in that prison from DATE to DATE ; indeed , the fact that the applicant had been granted injured party status in the investigation by a decision which was non - discretionary but mandated by evidence confirmed the fact that the prosecutor was in possession of evidence that that would support his claims ;","CARDINAL ) in Stare Kiejkuty the applicant had been tortured and subjected to unauthorised interrogation techniques specifically set out in the DATE ORG ;","CARDINAL ) GPE had known , or should have known , of the ORG prison on its territory . It had known because it had been directly involved and entered into a secret agreement with the GPE to host that prison ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the NORP authorities had displayed a pattern and practice of obscuring the truth , and during the relevant international inquiries there had been an extreme reluctance on their part to disclose what had in fact happened .","The applicant concluded that he had met his burden of proof in the present case . In contrast to the \u201c strong , clear and concordant \u201d facts put forward by him , ORG had failed to answer the ORG \u2019s questions on the merits . Where , as in the present case , \u201c the events at issue lie wholly , or in large part , within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities \u201d , the burden of proof could be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a convincing explanation . Where , as here , the authorities had failed to provide a convincing explanation , failed to conduct an effective investigation and failed to furnish the ORG with the necessary information , the ORG was entitled to draw inferences adverse to the authorities and in favour of the applicant .","In addition , unrebutted presumptions of fact led to the conclusion that the applicant \u2019s factual allegations were true . Indeed , the Government had conceded that they had not contested the facts as related by the applicant and his allegations .","Referring to knowledge imputable to any ORG at the relevant time , AI and the ICJ pointed out , among other things , to the following facts that had been a matter of public knowledge .","On DATE GPE President PERSON signed a military order authorising the indefinite detention without trial , and without access to any court in the GPE or elsewhere , of foreign nationals deemed by the President to be involved in international terrorism . In the same order , he had authorised military commissions , executive bodies in which the ordinary rules of criminal justice would not apply , for the trial of non - GPE nationals accused of broadly defined terrorism - related offences . On DATE the GPE had published rules for the military commissions , which showed that these were purely executive bodies .","Reports of GPE renditions to secret detention were in the public domain as DATE and continued through DATE . It was widely disseminated that detentions at FAC in LOC had begun in DATE , and that by DATE there had been CARDINAL detainees held in that prison . By the same time it was also known that those who had been transferred to ORG had included individuals picked up far from GPE .","In major reports issued in DATE AI had warned that the GPE was engaging in arbitrary detainee transfers into and from its custody and that some individuals had disappeared into secret GPE detention .","The DATE AI report documented that there were over CARDINAL detainees then at ORG and reported on the GPE \u2019s recourse to secret detention and transfer of detainees to possible torture in third countries . The report and documents published during DATE provided further credible evidence of the GPE \u2019s use of detention and rendition in the context of the \u201c war on terror \u201d , including the use of undisclosed and incommunicado detention by GPE forces in GPE .","In short , during DATE and DATE credible information emerged that the GPE had committed and was continuing to commit gross human rights violations , including enforced disappearances by means of arbitrary , incommunicado and secret detention outside GPE territory as well as secret detainee transfers , in respect of individuals whom the GPE authorities suspected of involvement in or having knowledge of international terrorism .","Thus , by DATE any ORG would have known that the GPE was engaging in the use of the death penalty ; the secret detention of individuals it suspected of involvement in or having information about international terrorism ; the holding of individuals incommunicado or virtually incommunicado in indefinite military detention without charge or trial ; and preparations to subject individuals to an unfair trial by military commission , at ORG , or elsewhere , without access to civilian courts , including in respect of individuals facing capital charges .","The ORG notes that the Government did not take advantage of the opportunity to make comments on the facts as supplied by the applicant and that it was not their intention to contest them . It also notes that they did not challenge the admissibility , accuracy or credibility of documentary and oral evidence obtained by the ORG throughout the proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","Consequently , the ORG will proceed on the basis of there being no contestation as such by the ORG as to the facts of the case as put forward by the applicant and no discernible dispute between the parties as to the evidence from various sources which was admitted by the ORG and summarised above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","With respect to the assessment of the facts and evidence gathered in the present case , the ORG would first wish to reiterate the relevant principles .","The ORG is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and has consistently recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first - instance tribunal of fact , where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case ( see GPE , cited above , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; and ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL . )","In assessing evidence , the ORG has adopted the standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d . However , it has never been its purpose to borrow the approach of the national legal systems that use that standard . Its role is not to rule on criminal guilt or civil liability but on Contracting States\u2019 responsibility under the LAW . The specificity of its task under LAW to ensure the observance by GPE of their engagement to secure the fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention \u2013 conditions its approach to the issues of evidence and proof . In the proceedings before the ORG , there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or pre - determined formulae for its assessment . It adopts the conclusions that are , in its view , supported by the free evaluation of all evidence , including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties\u2019 submissions .","According to the ORG \u2019s established case - law , proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . Moreover , the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and , in this connection , the distribution of the burden of proof , are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts , the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake . ORG is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a ORG has violated fundamental rights ( see , among other examples , GPE v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL ; PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ; ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ; and ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","While it is for the applicant to make a prima facie case and adduce appropriate evidence , if the respondent Government in their response to his allegations fail to disclose crucial documents to enable the ORG to establish the facts or otherwise provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred , strong inferences can be drawn ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE , with further references ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . ORG , LAW , DATE ; and ORG and Others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Furthermore , the Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio . According to the ORG \u2019s case - law under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention , where the events in issue lie wholly , or in large part , within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities , for instance as in the case of persons under their control in custody , strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention . The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-IV ; PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII ; and GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALXIII ( extracts ) ; ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","In the absence of such explanation the ORG can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government ( see PERSON , ibid . ) .","The ORG observes at the outset that , in contrast to many other previous cases before it involving complaints about torture , ill - treatment in custody or unlawful detention , in the present case it is deprived of the possibility of obtaining any form of direct account of the events complained of from the applicant ( for example , compare and contrast with PERSON , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG CARDINALV ; PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG DATE ; and ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL ) .","As stated in the application , since DATE , when the applicant was captured by the ORG in GPE , he has continually been in the custody of the GPE authorities , initially in the hands of the ORG in undisclosed detention at various black sites and then , as confirmed by President PERSON on DATE , in the custody of GPE military authorities in ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The regime applied to High Value Detainees in ORG custody such as the applicant is described in detail in the ORG documents and also , on the basis , inter alia , of the applicant \u2019s own account , in the DATE ORG . It \u201c included transfers of detainees to multiple locations , maintenance of the detainees in continuous solitary confinement and incommunicado detention throughout the entire period of their undisclosed detention \u201d . The transfers to unknown locations and unpredictable conditions of detention were specifically designed to deepen their sense of disorientation and isolation . The detainees were usually unaware of their exact location ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL,CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","It is submitted that since an unknown date in DATE the applicant has not had contact with the outside world , save the ORG team in DATE , the military commission \u2019s members and his GPE counsel . In this regard , the ORG also takes note of the statement by the applicant \u2019s representative at the public hearing :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is gagged from speaking publicly of his own torture in GPE because GPE takes the remarkable position that disclosure of his own memories , observations and experiences of what happened to him would reveal classified sources and methods . In addition , GPE regulations prevent his GPE lawyer , PERSON , who is also counsel in this case , from addressing the issues before this Court . \u201d","The above circumstances have inevitably had an impact on the applicant \u2019s ability to plead his case before this ORG . Indeed , in his application the events complained of were to a considerable extent reconstructed from threads of information gleaned from numerous public sources .","The difficulties involved in gathering and producing evidence in the present case caused by the restrictions on the applicant \u2019s communication with the outside world and the extreme secrecy surrounding the GPE rendition operations have been compounded by ORG failure to cooperate with ORG in its examination of the case .","In consequence , the ORG \u2019s establishment of the facts is to a great extent based on circumstantial evidence , including a large amount of evidence obtained through the international inquiries , considerably redacted documents released by the ORG , other public sources and evidence from the experts and the witness ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG notes that the ORG official documents clearly confirm that by DATE the ORG had the applicant and Mr PERSON , both referred to as \u201c High - Value Detainees \u201d , in its custody and that they were interrogated at a ORG black site with the use of the EITs \u2013 the applicant immediately after his arrival at that place on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","Those documents also attest to the fact that as from DATE the applicant and Mr PERSON were held in the same detention facility , that they were interrogated by apparently the same team of \u201c psychologist \/ interrogators \u201d , that their interrogations were videotaped and that the series of the applicant \u2019s enhanced interrogations , including the so - called \u201c waterboarding \u201d , \u201c continued through QUANTITY DATE \u201d ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","The ORG material further confirm in the cables of CARDINAL and DATE that this specific detention facility was closed following an inventory of the videotapes recording the enhanced interrogations of Mr GPE and Mr PERSON \u2019s . The inventory was carried out on DATE . No ORG cables from that location were sent to the ORG after DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The DATE ORG states that , after the enhanced interrogations of Mr PERSON which , as noted above , continued at that black site until DATE , both he and Mr PERSON were moved to \u201c another ORG black site \u201d . The same fact is mentioned in the DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","Senator PERSON and Mr GPE , the experts who gave evidence to the ORG , in their presentation at the fact - finding hearing explained in detail the above sequence of events with reference to documentary evidence available in the public domain , in particular the material released by the ORG . They identified the ORG detention facility in which the applicant and PERSON PERSON had been held during the period under consideration as the one known under the codename \u201c Cat \u2019s Eye \u201d or \u201c GPE \u201d and located in GPE . They conclusively confirmed that the closure of the site and interruption of Mr PERSON interrogation schedule on DATE indicated the date of his physical transfer by means of the HVD rendition out of the black site in GPE to another black site ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","In the light of the above first - hand ORG documentary evidence and clear and convincing expert evidence , the ORG finds established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant , following his capture , was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE from DATE to DATE , that Mr PERSON was also held in the same facility at that time and that they were both moved together to \u201c another ORG black site \u201d on DATE ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) , cited above , \u00a7 FAC ) .","It is alleged that on DATE the applicant , together with Mr PERSON , had been transferred by the ORG under the ORG from GPE to GPE on a ORG contracted aircraft , registered as NCARDINALMU with ORG . The flight flew on DATE from GPE via GPE and landed at FAC on DATE . The applicant was then secretly detained in the NORP intelligence training base at FAC .","It is further alleged that during his undisclosed detention in GPE the applicant was subjected to torture and various other forms of ill - treatment and deprived of any contact with his family . He was held in GPE until DATE . On DATE he was secretly transferred by the ORG from GPE to Rabat on a rendition plane with tail number NCARDINALP ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG notes that the fact that after DATE the applicant and Mr PERSON were detained together to the same detention facility is conclusively confirmed in paragraph QUANTITY of the DATE ORG . The paragraph states that the same \u201c interrogation team \u201d was \u201c to interrogate PERSON and debrief PERSON \u201d and that \u201c the interrogation team continued EITs on LOC for DATE in DATE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As regards the aircraft indicated by the applicant , the ORG observes that there is abundant evidence identifying them as rendition planes used by the ORG for the transportation of detainees under the HVD ORG . That evidence includes data from multiple sources , such as flight plan messages by ORG and information provided by ORG and ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , which was released and subsequently analysed in depth in the course of the international inquiries concerning the ORG secret detentions and renditions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","In the light of that accumulated evidence , there can be no doubt that :","CARDINAL ) the NCARDINALMU , a Gulfstream jet with capacity for CARDINAL passengers , flew on DATE from GPE via GPE to GPE and landed there on DATE at CARDINAL . ORG official documents recorded that on arrival there were CARDINAL passengers and CARDINAL crew and that the plane departed from PERSON on DATE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL with no passengers and CARDINAL crew ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the NCARDINALP , also known as \u201c Guant\u00e1namo Express \u201d , a Gulfstream V with capacity for CARDINAL passengers but usually configured for CARDINAL , arrived in PERSON on DATE at TIME from GPE , GPE . It stayed on the runway for TIME and then departed for GPE , GPE . ORG official documents recorded that on arrival there was one passenger and CARDINAL crew and on departure there were no passengers and CARDINAL crew .","As regards transfers of High - Value Detainees between ORG black sites , the ORG declassified documents give , in meticulous detail , a first - hand account of the standard procedures applied to them . The transfer procedure is also related in the DATE ORG , which compiled consistent and explicit descriptions given by the CARDINAL High - Value Detainees , including the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","Nothing has been put before the ORG to the effect that upon and during his transfer to and from \u201c another black site \u201d on , respectively , DATE and DATE , the applicant could have been subjected to less harsh treatment than that defined in the strict and detailed rules applied by the ORG as a matter of routine . It accordingly finds it established beyond reasonable doubt ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that for the purposes of his transfers on CARDINAL DATE and DATE :","CARDINAL ) NORP the applicant was photographed both clothed and naked prior to and again after the transfer ;","CARDINAL ) NORP he underwent a rectal examination and was made to wear a diaper and dressed in a tracksuit ;","CARDINAL ) earphones were placed over his ears , through which loud music was sometimes played ;","CARDINAL ) NORP he was blindfolded with at least a cloth tied around the head and black goggles ;","CARDINAL ) he was shackled by his hands and feet , and was transported to the airport by road and loaded onto the plane ;","CARDINAL ) he was transported on the plane either in a reclined sitting position with his hands shackled in front of him or lying flat on the floor of the plane with his hands handcuffed behind his back ;","CARDINAL ) during the journey he was not allowed to go to the toilet and , if necessary , was obliged to urinate or defecate into the diaper .","In that regard , the ORG would also note that a strikingly similar account of his transfers in ORG custody was given by the applicant in GPE ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","As regards the applicant \u2019s actual presence in GPE , the ORG takes due note of the fact that there is no direct evidence that it was the applicant who was transported on board the NCARDINALMU flight from GPE to PERSON on DATE or that he was then taken from PERSON to other ORG secret detention facilities on board NCARDINALP on DATE .","The applicant , who for DATE on end was held in detention conditions specifically designed to isolate and disorientate a person by transfers to unknown locations , even if he had been enabled to testify before the ORG , would not be able to say where he was detained . Nor can it be reasonably expected that he will ever on his own be able to identify the places in which he was held . Also , having regard to the very nature and extreme secrecy of the ORG operations in the course of the \u201c war on terror \u201d and to how the declassification of crucial material demonstrating the ORG activities at that time currently stands \u2013 this being a matter of common knowledge \u2013 , no such direct evidence will soon be forthcoming in this regard .","No trace of the applicant can , or will , be found in any official records in GPE because his presence on the plane and on NORP territory was , by the very nature of the rendition operations , purposefully not to be recorded . As unequivocally confirmed by the expert , ORG records showing numbers of passengers and crew arriving and departing on the rendition planes in question \u201c neither include[d ] , nor purport[ed ] to include detainees who were brought into or out of NORP territory involuntarily , by means of clandestine ORG renditions \u201d and those detainees \u201c were never listed among the persons on board filed vis - \u00e0 - vis any official institution \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In view of the foregoing , in order to ascertain whether or not it can be concluded that the applicant was detained in GPE at the relevant time , the ORG has taken into account all the facts that have already been found established beyond reasonable doubt ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and analysed other material in its possession , including , in particular , the expert evidence reconstructing the chronology of rendition and detention of the applicant and PERSON in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","It has already been established that on DATE the applicant was transferred from the black site in GPE together with Mr PERSON and that they were subsequently detained in the same ORG detention facility ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The date of the transfer coincides exactly with the path followed by the NCARDINALMU , which took off from GPE on DATE and then , after the stopover in GPE , arrived in PERSON on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The flight was the subject of protracted and intense investigations by the experts who gave evidence to the ORG , who had investigated it \u201c in its most intricate detail from its planning and authorisation to its execution through multiple , different corporate shells \u201d . They found no alternative explanation for its landing in PERSON other than the transfer of the applicant and Mr PERSON from GPE to \u201c another black site \u201d , which they categorically identified as the one codenamed \u201c Quartz \u201d and located at the NORP intelligence training base in Stare Kiejkuty near Szymany ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above )","The ORG notes that ORG have offered no explanation for the nature of , the reasons for , or the purposes of the landing of the NCARDINALMU on their territory on DATE , a plane which in all the relevant reliable and thorough international inquiries was conclusively identified as the rendition aircraft used for transportation of High - Value Detainees in ORG custody at the material time ( see paragraph CARDINAL above , with further references ) .","Nor have they explained the reasons for the subsequent series of landings of the ORG rendition aircraft ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The landing of NCARDINALMU on DATE was followed by CARDINAL further landings of the NCARDINALP ( the \u201c Guant\u00e1namo Express \u201d ) , the most notorious ORG rendition plane . CARDINAL of those landings took place on DATE the date indicated by the applicant as that of his transfer from GPE and conclusively confirmed by the experts as that on which he had been transferred out of GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The series ended with the landing of NCARDINALP on DATE the date indicated by Mr PERSON for his transfer from GPE , confirmed by the experts as the date of his transfer out of GPE and identified by them as the date on which the black site \u201c Quartz \u201d in GPE had been closed ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and also PERSON ( PERSON ) , cited above , \u00a7 FAC ) . Indeed , no other ORG - associated aircraft appeared in PERSON after that date ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In view of the lack of any explanation by the Government as to how the events in the present case occurred and their refusal to disclose to the ORG documents necessary for its examination of the case ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the ORG will draw inferences from the evidence before it and from the Government \u2019s conduct ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","Consequently , on the basis of unrebutted facts and in the light of all the relevant documentary material in its possession and the coherent , clear and categorical expert evidence explaining in detail the chronology of the events occurring in the applicant \u2019s case DATE and DATE , the ORG finds that the applicant \u2019s allegations to the effect that during that time he was detained in GPE are sufficiently convincing .","Lastly , as regards the applicant \u2019s treatment in ORG custody over the period under consideration , a detailed description of \u201c unauthorised techniques \u201d applied to him by a ORG \u201c senior operation officer \u201d or \u201c debriefer \u201d in DATE and DATE comes from the most authoritative sources : the DATE ORG and the DATE ORG ( see CARDINAL above ) . This is supplemented by the applicant \u2019s own account of the ordeal as rendered in the DATE ORG ( see paragraph FAC above ) . Senator PERSON and Mr GPE also gave an account of those events based on the relevant documentary evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","According to all these sources , in DATE and DATE in ORG custody the applicant was subjected to the \u201c enhanced \u201d and \u201c unauthorised \u201d interrogation techniques . As regards the latter , he was subjected to the following treatment :","CARDINAL ) NORP mock executions with the use of a handgun when he sat shackled and with the use of a power drill during which he stood naked and blindfolded ;","CARDINAL ) stress positions : he was required to kneel on the floor and lean back , he was held in a stress standing position and pushed when and lifted off the floor by his arms while his arms were bound behind his back with a belt ;","CARDINAL ) NORP threats ;","CARDINAL ) NORP during interrogations cigar smoke was blown into his face ;","CARDINAL ) NORP stiff brush was used to bathe him in the manner intended to induce pain ;","CARDINAL ) standing on his shackles , resulting in cuts and bruises .","Assessing all the above facts and evidence as a whole , the ORG finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :","( CARDINAL ) on DATE the applicant , together with Mr PERSON , arrived in PERSON on board the ORG rendition aircraft NCARDINALMU ;","( CARDINAL ) from DATE to DATE the applicant was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE identified as having the codename \u201c Quartz \u201d and located in Stare Kiejkuty ;","( CARDINAL ) during his detention in GPE under the ORG he was interrogated by the ORG and subjected to EITs and also to unauthorised interrogation techniques as described in the DATE ORG , DATE ORG and the DATE ORG ;","CARDINAL ) NORP on DATE the applicant was transferred by the ORG from GPE on the ORG rendition aircraft NCARDINALP.","ORG Several sources of evidence obtained by the ORG confirm that the NORP authorities followed a special procedure for the landing of ORG rendition flights in PERSON .","That procedure was related before the ORG by an eye - witness , a certain PERSON , who had been the manager of PERSON airport at the material time ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . On the basis of her detailed account and statements from other persons , including the former director of PERSON airport and the former Chairman of ORG of that airport , the summary description of that procedure was included in ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Furthermore , the DATE ORG contained a compilation of testimonies obtained from confidential sources among PERSON airport employees , civil servants , security guards , and ORG and military intelligence officials , who had given an account of what had happened at the time immediately following the landing of the ORG aircraft landed in PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The above - mentioned accounts of the special procedure , which are concordant and complementary , can be summarised as follows :","CARDINAL ) NORP all the landings were preceded by a telephone call to PERSON airport from ORG of ORG or a military intelligence official , informing the authorities of the airport of an arriving \u201c NORP aircraft \u201d ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the army was informed at the same time and CARDINAL military officials were on duty in the airport at that time ;","CARDINAL ) NORP prior to the landings CARDINAL high - ranking ORG officers always appeared in the airport ;","CARDINAL ) NORP orders were given directly by ORG , emphasising that the airport authorities should not approach the aircraft and that the military staff and services alone were to handle them ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the airport manager was instructed to adhere to strict protocols to prepare for the flights , including clearing the runways of all other aircraft and vehicles , and making sure that all NORP staff were brought in to the terminal building from the vicinity of the runway , including local security officials and airport employees ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the role of the airport personnel was only to complete the technical arrangements after the landing ;","CARDINAL ) the planes were treated as military planes and were not subjected to customs clearance ; the military character of the flight was determined by ORG and the relevant procedure was to be followed by the airport staff ;","CARDINAL) the perimeter and grounds of the airport were secured by military officers and ORG ;","CARDINAL ) the aircraft touched down in PERSON and taxied to a halt at the far end of the runway , QUANTITY ( and out of visible range ) from the QUANTITY terminal control tower ; it always parked with the doors facing towards the wood ;","CARDINAL ) the passengers never entered the airport ;","CARDINAL ) ORG approached the aircraft first and then drove away ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the \u201c landing team \u201d waited at the edge of the runway , in CARDINAL or CARDINAL vans with tinted windows , bearing the Stare Kiejkuty army unit \u2019s registration plates ; the vans , with their engines often running , were parked in close proximity to the aircraft ;","CARDINAL ) after ORG drove away , the vans with tinted windows drove up to the aircraft and then drove away ;","CARDINAL ) the planes left shortly afterwards ;","CARDINAL ) the landing fees were paid to the airport in cash by a LOC ( or a person who spoke NORP very well ) DATE and were considerably higher \u2013 several times more \u2013 than those normally applicable ( QUANTITY ) , including an amount for \u201c non - standard handling \u201d .","Several sources of evidence obtained by the ORG reveal that , in addition to granting the ORG rendition aircraft overflight permissions and navigating the planes through GPE \u2019s airspace , the NORP authorities , including ORG , accorded them special status , various exemptions and authorisations . They also cooperated with the ORG in disguising the aircraft \u2019s actual routes and validated incomplete or false flight plans which served to cover - up the ORG activities in GPE , in contravention of international aviation regulations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","As explained in the DATE ORG and by Senator PERSON and Mr GPE orally before the Court , Jeppesen , a usual provider of services for the ORG for rendition flights ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , filed multiple false \u2013 \u201c dummy \u201d \u2013 flight plans for those flights , including the landings in GPE . Those plans often featured an airport of departure and\/or destination that the aircraft never intended to visit . In CARDINAL out of CARDINAL instances of the ORG aircraft landings in PERSON , including the landing of NCARDINALMU on DATE with the applicant and Mr PERSON on board ( see CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , flight plans were disguised , false plans were filed and ORG navigated the aircraft into PERSON without a valid flight plan ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","A detailed analysis of the rendition circuit of the flight NCARDINALP , including the stopover in PERSON on DATE is included in ORG . That report explains how the aircraft made the entire circuit under various forms of exemption and special status , which indicated that the flights were planned and executed with the full collaboration of the GPE authorities and the \u201c host \u201d States through which the NCARDINALP travelled . Such exemptions are only granted when specifically authorised by the national authority whose territory is being used ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG navigated the NCARDINALP into GPE , despite the fact that all relevant flight plans named GPE as the airport of destination . The fact that ORG accepted ORG \u2019s flight plan naming GPE but navigated the plane to PERSON demonstrated that the NORP authorities did not require it to comply with international aviation regulations and that they knowingly issued a false landing permit . In consequence , the rest of the aviation monitoring community , including ORG , mistakenly recorded the aircraft \u2019s stopover in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","ORG Several sources of evidence before the Court have suggested the existence of a special bilateral agreement between GPE and the GPE on the setting up and running of a secret prison in GPE .","The DATE PERSON , based on evidence from confidential sources , states that the ORG brokered an \u201c operating agreement \u201d with GPE to hold its High - Value Detainees in a secret detention facility and that GPE agreed to \u201c provide the LOC in which [ that facility was ] established , the highest degrees of physical security and secrecy , and steadfast guarantees of non - interference \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","In the context of the authorisation of GPE \u2019s role in the ORG rendition operations , the DATE Report mentioned a number of names of the NORP high - ranking officials , stating that they had known and authorised the country \u2019s role \u201c in the ORG operation of secret detention facilities for High - Value Detainees on NORP territory \u201d and that they \u201c could therefore be held accountable for these activities \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL , see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Senator PERSON confirmed those statements before the ORG and added that the operation had been organised within the framework of ORG . It had been decided that the ORG would be in sole charge of the operation and , if requested , the member countries would provide cooperation . As regards the specific names of NORP officials that had been given in the DATE ORG , he explained that they had been indicated \u201c because the sources that [ had ] provided us with these names [ had been ] of such value , they [ had been ] so authoritative and there [ had been ] so much concurring evidence of the involvement of those persons \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Mr GPE , when heard by the Court , said that whilst in the course of ORG they had not seen the classified documents in question , they had been made aware of the existence of authorising agreements , which granted extraordinary protections and permissions to the ORG in its execution of the rendition operations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Senator PERSON , both in his affidavit and oral testimony before the ORG , stated that he had been informed by an authoritative confidential source of a document DATE a draft prepared by the NORP intelligence DATE drawn up under the auspices of PERSON Government for the purpose of regulating the operation of the ORG prison in GPE . According to him , that document , which was currently in the NORP prosecution authority \u2019s possession , contained precise regulations concerning the functioning of the prison and , among other things , a proposed protocol for action in the event of a prisoner \u2019s death . The word \u201c detainees \u201d was used in the text . The draft had not been signed on behalf of the GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The DATE EP Resolution \u201c note[d ] with concern \u201d that the NORP authorities\u2019 official reply of DATE to the to the Secretary General of ORG , \u201c indicate[d ] the existence of secret cooperation agreements initialled by the CARDINAL GPE secret services\u2019 themselves , which GPE ] the activities of foreign secret services from the jurisdiction of the NORP judicial bodies \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG does not find it necessary for its examination of the present case to establish whether such agreement or agreements existed and if so , in what format and what was specifically provided therein .","It considers that it is inconceivable that the rendition aircraft crossed NORP airspace , landed in and departed from a NORP airport and that the ORG occupied the LOC in FAC without some kind of pre - existing arrangement enabling the ORG operation in GPE to be first prepared and then executed .","The ORG considers that the respondent ORG \u2019s lack of cooperation in the course of the international inquiries into the ORG rendition operations in LOC undertaken in DATE is an element that is relevant for its assessment of GPE \u2019s alleged knowledge of , and complicity in , the ORG rendition operations .","To begin with , in their response dated DATE to the Secretary General of ORG questions in the procedure launched under LAW , the authorities \u201c fully denied \u201d the allegations of \u201c the alleged existence in GPE of secret detention centres and related over - flights ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; the relevant letter is also mentioned above in paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In that regard , they relied on the findings of \u201c ORG internal inquiry \u201d . It is not clear what kind of \u201c internal inquiry \u201d was carried out and whether the authorities in fact meant the ORG inquiry conducted in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) but , be that as it may , they could not have been unaware of the ORG operations in the country in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","A similar obstructive attitude was displayed during ORG . In the DATE Marty Report it was noted that \u201c the NORP authorities ha[d ] been unable , despite repeated requests , to provide [ the rapporteur ] with information from their own national aviation records to confirm any ORG - connected flights into GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The DATE ORG noted that \u201c in DATE of correspondence , GPE ha[d ] failed to furnish [ the ] inquiry with any data from its own records confirming ORG - connected flights into its airspace or airports \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Senator PERSON , at the fact - finding hearing , added that \u201c GPE [ had been ] no exception \u201d and that practically all governments that [ had ] had links with the secret detention centres or with \u2018 extraordinary rendition\u2019 not only [ had ] not ORG ] but [ had done ] everything that they could in order to stifle the truth , to create obstacles in the search for the truth \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The conduct adopted by the authorities in respect to ORG was no different . PERSON explicitly stated that the NORP authorities cooperation with the GPE delegation had been \u201c regrettably poor \u201d , that the delegation had not been able to meet any representatives of ORG and that the ORG had been \u201c reluctant to offer full cooperation ... and receive [ the ] delegation at an appropriate political level \u201d . It was also noted that there had been confusion about flight registers of ORG planes transiting through GPE and contradictory statements about the existence of flight logs ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The same observations were made in the DATE EP Resolution ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In his testimony before the ORG , PERSON stated that ORG had \u201c cooperated very little \u201d with the ORG and that almost all representatives of the Government whom they had asked for a meeting had declined the ORG \u2019s request . He also confirmed that during his visit to GPE with the ORG delegation he had \u201c definitely \u201d had the impression that there had been attempts on the authorities\u2019 part to conceal information ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Having regard to the above facts , the ORG finds that in the course of the relevant international inquiries the NORP authorities displayed conduct that can be characterised as denial , lack of cooperation with the inquiry bodies and marked reluctance to disclose information of the ORG rendition activities in GPE .","Mr PERSON , in his oral testimony described in detail a document \u2013 the records or \u201c the debriefing \u201d of the informal transatlantic meeting of ORG and ORG foreign ministers with the GPE Secretary of ORG PERSON , which had taken place on DATE . The meeting was convened in connection with recent international media reports concerning the ORG secret detentions and rendition , naming NORP countries that had allegedly had ORG black sites on their territory . The debriefing , obtained by the ORG from a credible confidential source in the offices of ORG , confirmed that the member GPE had had knowledge of the ORG rendition programme and there had been an \u201c animated discussion \u201d on the practices applied by the ORG . While PERSON could not recall whether there had been any intervention by ORG at that meeting , he said that it had appeared from PERSON statement \u201c we all know about these techniques \u201d that there had been an attempt on the GPE \u2019s part to share \u201c the weight of accusations \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG further notes that PERSON also referred to the meeting held in the context of ORG with the former NORP head of the security service who , \u201c although ... with great diplomacy \u201d , had confirmed that the ORG officials often landed in PERSON and that the NORP intelligence and the ORG had had \u201c frequent relations of cooperation ... consisting in sharing certain practices and objectives \u201d ( see CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","NORP Former President of GPE , PERSON , in his press interview given on DATE , also referred to the \u201c intelligence cooperation \u201d with the ORG and stated that \u201c the decision to cooperate with the ORG carried the risk that the NORP would use inadmissible methods \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Having regard to the procedure for High - Value Detainees\u2019 transfers under which , as established above , a detainee such as the applicant was blindfolded , wore black goggles and was shackled by his hands and feet for the duration of his transfer ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the ORG considers that those of the NORP authorities who received the ORG personnel on the PERSON airport runway , put them on the vans and drove them to the black site could not be unaware that the persons brought there with them were the ORG prisoners .","In particular , the ORG finds it inconceivable they would not have seen or , as described by PERSON , \u201c witnessed ... the unloading of bound and shackled detainees from aircraft \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","There are also other elements that the ORG considers relevant for its assessment of GPE \u2019s knowledge of the nature and purposes of the ORG activities on its territory at the material time .","As recounted by Senator PERSON in his affidavit and subsequently confirmed in his oral testimony given to the ORG , \u201c in the period when the ORG prisoners were detained in Stare PERSON the authorities of the military base ordered from a NORP company a metal cage of the size fitting a grown man with the option of adding a portable chemical toilet ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . No explanations have been offered by the respondent Government as to what kind of purposes that cage was to serve .","Furthermore , there were , as pointed out by CARDINAL of the experts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , other aspects of the ORG activity in GPE that were extraordinary from the perspective of the normal operation of an airport like PERSON .","For instance , the landing of the ORG CARDINAL ( NCARDINALP on which Mr PERSON was transferred from GPE ; see PERSON ( PERSON ) , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) on CARDINAL DATE at PERSON took place despite the fact that the airport did not have the necessary technical conditions for receiving such a large aircraft , in particular the facilities to refuel it , and the fact that the airport fire brigade was not adequately equipped for that purpose ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In the view of PERSON , the airport manager at the relevant time , \u201c there must have been some very pressing reasons \u201d for allowing that landing ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) .","On another occasion in DATE , notwithstanding the severe weather conditions and the fact that snow had not been cleared at the airport for DATE , the airport management were not in a position to refuse the ORG aircraft \u2019s landing and had to clear the runway because \u201c if the aircraft concerned did not land , \u2018 heads w[ould ] ORG \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","For the airport civilian staff , the landing of the ORG aircraft was a \u201c major event \u201d . Despite the fact that they were excluded from the handling of the aircraft and were taken to the airport terminal building during the ORG landings and departures ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , they perceived those events as \u201c spies \u201d coming or a \u201c changeover of intelligence staff \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Lastly , the ORG attaches importance to the fact that already DATE and DATE ill - treatment and abuse to which captured terrorist suspects were subjected in GPE custody at different places , including LOC or GPE base in GPE was largely in the public domain through numerous statements or reports of international organisations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL above ) .","At the material time that topic was also present in the international and NORP media , which paid considerable attention to the situation of ORG prisoners in GPE custody ( see paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG has taken due note of the fact that knowledge of the ORG rendition and secret detention operations and the scale of abuse to which High - Value Detainees were subjected in ORG custody evolved over time ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . In particular , the ORG \u2019s various secret or top secret documents , including the DATE ORG , the ORG Background Paper and the DATE ORG DATE which , in the present case and in GPE ( PERSON ) , are among important items of documentary evidence relevant for the establishment of the facts relating to both applicants\u2019 rendition , secret detention and treatment by the GPE authorities DATE were disclosed to the public , in a heavily redacted form , as late as DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . The DATE ORG , including the applicant \u2019s account of the treatment and material conditions of detention to which he was subjected under the ORG , was leaked into the public domain in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The reports following ORG and ORG emerged earlier , in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE ) , but this was CARDINAL after the events complained of . As stated by Senator PERSON , even \u201c the picture provided by the DATE [ ORG is still very much a partial CARDINAL \u201d , having regard to the subsequent developments , such as the publication of the ORG materials and the availability of statements from detainees ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As already stated above ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) , the ORG has relied extensively on those sources of evidence in its retrospective reconstruction and establishment of the facts concerning the applicant \u2019s transfers to and from GPE and his secret detention and ill - treatment by the ORG in GPE . However , the NORP ORG \u2019s knowledge of and complicity in the HVD Programme must be established with reference to the elements that it knew or ought to have known at or closely around the relevant time , that is , DATE and DATE in respect of the applicant and DATE and DATE in respect of Mr PERSON .","In that regard , the ORG has taken into account the various attendant circumstances referred to above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . In the ORG \u2019s view , those elements taken as a whole demonstrate that at that time the NORP authorities knew that the ORG used its airport in PERSON and the Stare Kiejkuty military base for the purposes of detaining secretly terrorist suspects captured within the \u201c war on terror \u201d operation by the GPE authorities . It is inconceivable that the rendition aircraft could have crossed NORP airspace , landed in and departed from a NORP airport , or that the ORG occupied the LOC in FAC and transported detainees there , without the NORP State being informed of and involved in the preparation and execution of the ORG on its territory . It is also inconceivable that activities of that character and scale , possibly vital for the country \u2019s military and political interests , could have been undertaken on NORP territory without GPE \u2019s knowledge and without the necessary authorisation being given at the appropriate level of the ORG authorities .","The ORG would again refer to the testimony given by the experts who , in the course of their inquiries , had the benefit of contact with various , including confidential , sources . They all stated , in unambiguous terms , that at the relevant time GPE had had , or should have had , knowledge of the ORG rendition operations . GPE had ensured the security of the area and had collaborated in concealing the rendition flights . The NORP officials\u2019 liaison units must have been aware of the preparation or execution of particular operations and their timing . They had known that the ORG interrogations had contributed intelligence to GPE on terror ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","This did not mean , in the experts\u2019 view , that the NORP authorities had known the details of what went on inside the black site , since the interrogations had been the exclusive responsibility of the ORG , or that they had witnessed treatment to which High - Value Detainees had been subjected in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . ORG , being confronted with no evidence to the contrary , accepts the experts\u2019 above - mentioned assessment .","Notwithstanding the foregoing proviso as to the lack of direct knowledge of the treatment to which the applicant was subjected in GPE , as noted above , already DATE and DATE numerous public sources were consistently reporting ill - treatment and abuse to which captured terrorist suspects were subjected in GPE custody in different places . Moreover , in the DATE ORG adopted in DATE of which GPE , as any other ORG was aware DATE ORG of ORG was \u201c deeply concerned at the conditions of detention \u201d of captured \u201c unlawful combatants \u201d held in the custody of the GPE authorities . All these sources reported practices resorted to or tolerated by the GPE authorities that were manifestly contrary to the principles of the Convention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Consequently , there were good reasons to believe that a person in GPE custody under the HVD Programme could be exposed to a serious risk of treatment contrary to those principles ( see also GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Taking into consideration all the material in its possession ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the ORG finds that there is abundant and coherent circumstantial evidence , which leads inevitably to the following conclusions :","( a ) that GPE knew of the nature and purposes of the ORG \u2019s activities on its territory at the material time and that , by enabling the ORG to use its airspace and the airport , by its complicity in disguising the movements of rendition aircraft and by its provision of logistics and services , including the special security arrangements , the special procedure for landings , the transportation of the ORG teams with detainees on land , and the securing of the Stare Kiejkuty base for the ORG \u2019s secret detention , GPE cooperated in the preparation and execution of the ORG rendition , secret detention and interrogation operations on its territory ;","( b ) that , given that knowledge and the emerging widespread public information about ill - treatment and abuse of detained terrorist suspects in the custody of the GPE authorities , GPE ought to have known that , by enabling the ORG to detain such persons on its territory , it was exposing them to a serious risk of treatment contrary to the Convention ( see also PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","Consequently , GPE was in a position where its responsibility for securing \u201c to everyone within [ its ] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined .... in [ the ] Convention \u201d set forth in LAW was engaged in respect of the applicant at the material time ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","3","38","5","6","8","P6"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1","6-1","8-1","P6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169663","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF B\u00c9L\u00c1N\u00c9 NAGY v. HUNGARY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Branko Lubarda;Egidijus K\u016bris;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","DATE and DATE the applicant was employed and made the statutory contributions to the social - security scheme . Subsequently , she was in receipt of unemployment benefit from DATE until DATE .","NORP In response to a request lodged on DATE , the applicant was granted a disability pension ( rokkants\u00e1gi nyugd\u00edj ) DATE on the basis of a retrospective finding that she had lost , as of DATE , PERCENT of her capacity to work on account of various ailments . This assessment was maintained in DATE , DATE and DATE .","As of DATE the legislation on the methodology used to assess health impairment in occupational contexts changed . In application of the new methodology , the applicant \u2019s disability was assessed by an expert at PERCENT on DATE . Without envisaging any procedure for rehabilitation , the assessment panel scheduled the next check - up of her medical status for DATE .","The Government submitted that , under the new methodology , the applicant \u2019s previous condition of PERCENT loss of working capacity would have corresponded to PERCENT overall health impairment . Since , however , she was found to have PERCENT health impairment , her condition had to be deemed to have improved in DATE .","The applicant submitted that the connection suggested by the Government between the scores of PERCENT in the old system and PERCENT in the new system was not based on any legal text . In her submission , her condition had not improved at all ; the difference in scores was solely a consequence of changing the methodology used .","As a consequence of the applicant \u2019s newly assessed PERCENT level of disability , on DATE the relevant pension insurance directorate withdrew her entitlement to the disability pension . The applicant appealed against that decision . On an unspecified date , the decision was upheld by the second - instance pension insurance authority .","At the relevant time the DATE amount of the applicant \u2019s disability pension was MONEY ( ORG ) , MONEY ( ORG ) .","On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG , challenging the administrative decision .","The Ny\u00edregyh\u00e1za Labour Court heard the case , and appointed an expert with a view to obtaining an opinion as to the reasons for the difference in the scores . In an opinion of CARDINAL DATE , the expert submitted that the old score of PERCENT , as well as the new one of PERCENT , were correct under the respective methodologies ; at any rate , the applicant \u2019s condition had not significantly improved since DATE .","Observing that the applicant had accumulated DATE and DATE of service time , the court retained the disability score of PERCENT and dismissed her action on DATE . The applicant was ordered to reimburse the amounts received after DATE . The court noted that the applicant \u2019s next medical assessment was due in DATE . It drew her attention to the possibility of making a renewed application for disability pension should her health deteriorate .","NORP In DATE the applicant requested another assessment of her disability . On DATE the first - instance authority assessed it at PERCENT , scheduling the next assessment for DATE . The second - instance authority changed this score to PERCENT on DATE , with a reassessment due in DATE . Such a level would have entitled her to disability pension had rehabilitation not been possible . However , this time the assessment panel envisaged the applicant \u2019s complex rehabilitation within a CARDINAL time - frame , and recommended that she be entitled to rehabilitation allowance ( rehabilit\u00e1ci\u00f3s j\u00e1rad\u00e9k ) . Nevertheless , no such rehabilitation took place , and the applicant did not receive rehabilitation allowance .","As of DATE , a new law on disability and related benefits ( Act no . ORG of DATE ) entered into force . It introduced additional eligibility criteria . In particular , instead of fulfilling a service period as required by the former legislation , the persons concerned had to have DATE covered by social security in DATE the submission of their requests . Individuals who did not meet this requirement could nevertheless qualify if they had no interruption of social cover exceeding DATE throughout their careers , or if they were in receipt of a disability pension or rehabilitation allowance on DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted another request for disability allowance ( rokkants\u00e1gi ell\u00e1t\u00e1s ) . Her condition was assessed in DATE , leading to the finding of PERCENT disability . On DATE her request was dismissed because she did not have the requisite period of social cover . Rehabilitation was not envisaged . The next assessment was scheduled for DATE .","DATE and DATE the applicant was employed by ORG in ORG .","On DATE the applicant submitted a fresh request for disability pension under the new law . She underwent another assessment , during which her degree of disability was again established at PERCENT . Rehabilitation was not envisaged .","In principle , such a level of disability would have entitled the applicant to a disability allowance under the new system . However , since her disability pension had been terminated in DATE ( that is , she was not in receipt of a disability pension or a rehabilitation allowance on DATE ) and , moreover , she had not accumulated the requisite number of DATE of social - security cover or demonstrated uninterrupted social cover , she was not eligible , under any title , for a disability allowance under the new system . Instead of DATE covered by social security in DATE , the applicant had been covered for CARDINAL days . According to the Government , had the law not been so amended , the applicant would again have become eligible for a disability pension , since her health impairment was again assessed as exceeding the relevant threshold in DATE .","The applicant \u2019s request was refused by the relevant authority of ORG on DATE and , on appeal , by ORG on DATE . On DATE the applicant filed an action with ORG , challenging these administrative decisions . On DATE the court dismissed her case . This judgment was not subject to appeal .","From DATE the impugned legislative criteria were amended with a view to extending eligibility to those who have accumulated either DATE of social - security cover over DATE or DATE over DATE . However , the applicant does not meet these criteria either .","NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant received a DATE housing allowance from the local municipality , in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in DATE and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( DATE ) in DATE . The applicant also applied for the basic welfare allowance ( rendszeres szoci\u00e1lis seg\u00e9ly ) , but her request was denied because she did not meet the statutory requirements ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166732","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SERGEY ZAYTSEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing;Exclusion of public)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on a charge of murder . On DATE the ORG authorised his pre - trial detention . The applicant remained in custody during the investigation and pending the trial .","On DATE ORG scheduled the trial of the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants for DATE . The court also ruled that the trial was to be held in camera .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of murder committed out of national hatred and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal . The court decided to hear the applicant \u2019s case in his absence . His lawyer was present and made submissions to the court .","On DATE the applicant was released on parole .","On DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the judgment of DATE by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG held a new appeal hearing . The court found that the case had become time - barred under the statute of limitations and discharged the applicant from serving a prison sentence . The applicant \u2019s lawyer was present and made submissions to the court . The applicant did not attend the hearing ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147445","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SHVYDKA v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Right of appeal in criminal matters (Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Review of conviction);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , as part of the Independence Day festivities , there was a wreath - laying ceremony at a monument to PERSON , a famous NORP poet and public figure , with the participation of the then President of GPE PERSON .","The applicant , as a member of the opposition party PERSON , took part in a public gathering organised by it on the occasion of Independence Day . According to her , the beginning of the meeting was delayed because of the aforementioned wreath - laying ceremony .","After the ceremony the applicant approached the wreath laid by PERSON Yanukovych and detached part of the ribbon bearing the words \u201c the President of GPE V.F.Yanukovych \u201d without damaging the wreath itself . This was meant to express her opinion that PERSON PERSON could not be called the President of GPE for a number of reasons .","The case file contains several copies of photos of the applicant in the aforementioned setting . In CARDINAL of them she is seen near the wreath detaching the ribbon from it in a careful and concentrated manner , without changing the position of the wreath . In another photo the applicant holds the already detached ribbon in front of her and seems to be either laughing or saying something . There are many people next to her . In the last photo the applicant seems to be trying to tear the ribbon apart . Her face expresses either effort or contempt .","The applicant \u2019s action was video recorded by CARDINAL of the police officers in charge of maintaining public order . The aforementioned photos may also have been taken by the police .","On DATE the police officer in question established the applicant \u2019s identity and reported the incident to his superiors .","On DATE the applicant was apprehended ( for TIME see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and taken to the GPE district police station , where a report was drawn up indicating that her actions amounted to petty hooliganism in breach of LAW . The applicant , who was not allowed to consult a lawyer , refused to sign that report .","On DATE the ORG of Kyiv , at a hearing attended by the applicant and the lawyer retained by her in the meantime , found the applicant guilty of petty hooliganism on account of the incident of CARDINAL DATE and sentenced her to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention . The court explained that it had decided to apply such a penalty given the nature of the offence , the applicant \u2019s cynical attitude towards it and her failure of admit her guilt . The applicant submitted at the hearing that she had been expressing her civil position and that she had not damaged the wreath , but had merely taken a piece of the ribbon to show her children and grandchildren and also her acquaintances who had voted for Mr Yanukovych .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged an appeal on her behalf . He argued that the applicant \u2019s action had been an expression of her civil position and that it had been neither prompted by hooligan motives nor aimed at disturbing public order or breaching the peace . The appeal further referred to LAW case - law , according to which the notion of \u201c expression \u201d concerned not only words , but also actions intended to convey a certain message or information . Referring to paragraph CARDINAL of Resolution of ORG no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the lawyer also submitted that the penalty imposed was excessively severe .","On DATE ORG , at a hearing attended by the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL lawyers , upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision in a final ruling . By that time the applicant had served her sentence in full ."],"violated_articles":["10","P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","P7-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158207","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"SHUMEYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals living in various regions of GPE . The numbers and dates of lodging of their applications , and their full names , dates of birth and places of residence are set out in the Appendix .","NORP , may be summarised as follows .","NORP On various dates DATE the police received information , in each of the applicants\u2019 cases , implicating the applicants in drug - dealing . On the basis of that information , the police decided to carry out an undercover operation in the form of a test purchase of drugs from the applicants by undercover agents .","NORP In all CARDINAL cases , the police invited CARDINAL randomly chosen attesting witnesses to observe the progress of the undercover operation . The attesting witnesses confirmed in their pre - trial depositions that the undercover agents had been searched prior to the test purchase and that they had bought controlled substances from the applicants with the banknotes marked and supplied by the police . They also attested that after the test purchase the police had searched the applicants or their LOC , and seized and sealed controlled substances found on the applicants and other evidence that had been gathered .","NORP The police also documented each step of the undercover operations . In particular , they drew up records of personal inspections of undercover agents , examinations of banknotes , test purchases , personal search and crime scene inspections .","The applicants were criminally prosecuted for drug - related offences under the NORP legislation in force . The undercover agents and police officers who had participated in test purchases of drugs testified during the trial , and as participants in the criminal proceedings , the applicants were able to question them . They were also able to submit various motions , present arguments in their defence and lodge objections . The attesting witnesses summoned by the prosecution were sought for but they failed to appear for various reasons , and the national courts read out their pre - trial statements regarding the investigative measures and admitted them as evidence despite the applicants\u2019 objections . The procedural records drawn up by the police were also admitted as evidence by the courts . The contents of the pre - trial depositions of the attesting witnesses were identical to the relevant police records .","The applicants appealed against the judgments convicting them , submitting , inter alia , that their convictions had been unfair due to their inability to examine the attesting witnesses . The judgments were , however , upheld on appeal and became final .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 QUANTITY of the ORG ( as in force at the material time ) provided that the court , prosecution and investigators could not apply laws in breach of the provisions of the ORG .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL further provided that if the court , prosecution or investigators breached the provisions of the ORG in the course of criminal proceedings , evidence obtained as a result of such breach would be rendered inadmissible .","Chapter II of the ORG contained CARDINAL different provisions governing the participation of witnesses and attesting witnesses in the criminal proceedings .","Article CARDINAL provided that ,","\u201c CARDINAL . A witness ( \u0441\u0432\u0438\u0434\u0435\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c ) is a person who may have knowledge of facts relevant to the investigation and resolution of a criminal case and who is subpoenaed to testify . \u201d","...","If a witness fails to appear for no valid reason , his or her appearance may be enforced . \u201d","Article CARDINAL provided that ,","\u201c An attesting witness ( \u201c \u043f\u043e\u043d\u044f\u0442\u043e\u0439 \u201d ) is a person disinterested in the outcome of the criminal case who is invited by an investigator to attest to an investigative measure being carried out and also to its substance , progress and results . Minors who are involved in a criminal case and their close relatives and relatives , and also investigators , can not act as attesting witnesses . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the ORG stipulated that body searches , searches of LOC , seizure of evidence and other investigative measures had to be carried out by order of the investigators . It further required the recording of all investigative measures carried out .","Article CARDINAL of the ORG established that all participants in investigative measures should receive a record thereof . They had to be informed of their right to make amendments and clarifications to the record and have them noted in it . Their remarks should be acknowledged and signed by the persons making them .","Article CARDINAL of the ORG required CARDINAL attesting witnesses to be present during , inter alia , the inspection of objects relevant to the criminal case , body searches , searches of LOC and seizure of evidence .","Article CARDINAL provided for admitting into evidence the records of investigative measures and trial records if they complied with the requirements of the ORG .","Article CARDINAL provided that evidence obtained in breach of the provisions of the ORG would be deemed inadmissible . It further provided that inadmissible evidence would have no legal force and could not be relied on as grounds for criminal charges or for proving any of the circumstances for which evidence is required in criminal proceedings .","Article CARDINAL prohibited the use of the results of a criminal investigation if they failed to satisfy the rules of evidence laid down in the ORG .","Article CARDINAL and Article CARDINAL stipulated the investigator \u2019s obligation to examine and rule on motions submitted by the defendant after the review of materials of the criminal case , and to inform the defendant of his right to appeal against an adverse decision on his motion .","Article CARDINAL provided that parties to a criminal case could request a trial court to exclude certain evidence . As a general rule , the burden of proof would be on the party which submitted a motion to exclude evidence , except where a defendant sought to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the provisions of the ORG , in which case the prosecution would have to provide evidence to the contrary .","Article CARDINAL made it a crime for investigators , prosecutors and defence attorneys to forge evidence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172107","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF Z.A. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Prevent unauthorised entry into country);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants found themselves staying in the transit zone of FAC of GPE . The details of each application are set out below .","The applicant is an NORP national who was born in DATE .","The applicant moved from GPE to GPE in DATE seeking employment . He later moved to GPE to look for a job .","On DATE the applicant travelled by air from GPE to GPE . The journey consisted of CARDINAL legs : GPE to GPE and GPE to GPE . The NORP authorities denied him entry for reasons that the applicant did not specify in his application . The applicant was sent to GPE on DATE . On arrival at FAC , he was not allowed to pass through passport control .","From DATE the applicant stayed in the transit zone of FAC . The applicant described the conditions of his stay in the transit zone as follows . He slept on a mattress on the floor in the boarding area of the airport , which was constantly lit , crowded and noisy . He sustained himself on emergency rations provided by the NORP office of ORG . There were no showers in the transit area .","On DATE the applicant applied for refugee status in GPE , arguing that in GPE he would run the risk of persecution by militants belonging to ORG and ORG ( DATE also known as NORP State of GPE and the PERSON ) because he had refused to join them , as well as by NORP government forces for the reason that he practiced the NORP form of NORP .","On DATE the applicant received a visit from the GPE regional department of ORG ( \u201c the GPE Region FMS \u201d ) and was interviewed in the transit zone . ORG did not issue the applicant with a certificate to confirm that his refugee status application deserved to be examined on the merits ( \u201c examination certificate \u201d ) .","On DATE the GPE Region FMS dismissed the applicant \u2019s refugee status application . The applicant appealed to the higher migration authority ( ORG of GPE \u2013 \u201c the NORP FMS \u201d ) , asking it to overrule the decision of DATE , to issue him with an examination certificate , and to allocate him to a centre for the temporary detention of aliens .","On DATE the NORP ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on the grounds that he had not received any direct threats targeted against him personally and that \u201c the applicant [ had not submitted ] convincing evidence that he might become a victim of persecution by ORG militants or NORP authorities on the grounds contained in the definition of the term \u2018 ORG , including his religion \u201d . The issue of the applicant \u2019s stay in FAC was not addressed in the decision .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer was served with the decision of DATE on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the decisions of CARDINAL November and DATE with ORG of GPE . He specifically argued that the migration authorities had not complied with the procedural rules by failing to interview him speedily or to issue him with an examination certificate , and that he had spent DATE in the transit zone of FAC in conditions contrary to the guarantees of LAW , without access to shower and other amenities .","On DATE , having been resettled by ORG , the applicant left for GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE upheld the NORP ORG \u2019s decision . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a brief statement of appeal ( \u00ab \u043a\u0440\u0430\u0442\u043a\u0430\u044f \u0430\u043f\u0435\u043b\u043b\u044f\u0446\u0438\u043e\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u0436\u0430\u043b\u043e\u0431\u0430 ORG ) , pending receipt of a reasoned judgment in written form . By DATE ( the date on which the applicants submitted their written observations to the ORG ) , no such reasoned judgment had been issued .","The applicant was born in DATE . He holds a passport issued by ORG .","DATE the applicant was in GPE , GPE . It appears that initially he had held a valid entry visa but that he did not take steps to obtain permission to reside in GPE after its expiry .","NORP In DATE the applicant travelled from GPE to the NORP territories via GPE . For unknown reasons he took a flight from GPE back to GPE on DATE . Because the applicant did not have a valid visa for GPE , he was denied entry to the country by the border guard service .","From DATE the applicant stayed in the transit zone of FAC . The applicant described the conditions of his stay in the transit zone as follows . He slept on a mattress on the floor in the boarding area of the airport , which was constantly lit , crowded and noisy . The applicant sustained himself on emergency rations provided by the NORP office of ORG . There were no showers in the transit area .","DATE after his arrival at FAC , the applicant lodged an application for refugee status . In the course of the ensuing proceedings he mentioned that he had left GPE because of the ongoing hostilities in GPE and GPE , as well as a lack of employment and the poor economic situation .","On DATE the GPE Region FMS dismissed the applicant \u2019s refugee status application as ill - founded . The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed to the NORP ORG , arguing that the applicant did not have any possibility to return to his home in GPE , that LOC had failed to assess his personal situation and the risk he would face if returned to GPE , and that the Moscow Region FMS , in breach of LAW ( DATE ) , had not issued him with an examination certificate .","On DATE the NORP ORG dismissed the appeal for the reason that the applicant had \u201c failed to provide evidence confirming that he runs a higher risk of becoming a victim of the GPE - GPE conflict than the rest of the population of ORG \u201d . The applicant \u2019s lawyer was informed of that decision on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the migration authorities\u2019 decision with ORG of GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE the NORP authorities opened the LOC crossing point to GPE . The applicant agreed to take a flight to GPE and left the transit zone of FAC .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE upheld the NORP ORG \u2019s decision . The applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a brief statement of appeal on DATE , pending receipt of a reasoned judgment in written form . By DATE , no such reasoned judgment had been issued .","The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE .","In DATE the applicant moved from GPE to GPE , where he was granted refugee status . In DATE he decided to leave GPE .","The applicant travelled by air to GPE , GPE , a journey that consisted of CARDINAL legs : GPE to GPE , GPE to GPE , and GPE to GPE . On DATE the applicant landed in GPE for the first time ; he then continued his journey to GPE .","On DATE the applicant was deported from GPE to GPE . The NORP border guard service did not allow him to pass through passport control .","From DATE , the applicant has been staying in the transit zone of FAC . The applicant described the conditions of his stay in the transit zone as follows . He slept on a mattress on the floor in the boarding area of the airport , which was constantly lit , crowded and noisy . He sustained himself on emergency rations provided by the NORP office of ORG . There were no showers in the transit area .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for refugee status , arguing that he had fled GPE in DATE because he had received threats from members of a terrorist group .","On DATE the GPE Region FMS interviewed the applicant . However , they did not issue him with an examination certificate .","On DATE the GPE Region FMS dismissed the applicant \u2019s refugee status application .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s brother was killed in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the NORP ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the decision of DATE .","On DATE the GPE Region FMS refused to grant the applicant temporary asylum . On DATE the NORP ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE the Basmannyy ORG of GPE dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against the decisions by ORG and the NORP ORG to dismiss his application for temporary asylum . It reasoned , in particular , that the applicant had not proved that the terrorists who had threatened him in DATE represented any danger DATE and that , should such threats persist , he \u201c has not been deprived of an opportunity to avail himself of the protection of his ORG of nationality [ \u2013 that is to say ] to apply to the law - enforcement agencies of GPE [ for protection ] . \u201d On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . On DATE it dismissed in the final instance the applicant \u2019s complaint about the refusals to grant him refugee status .","Having received the final rejections of his applications from the NORP authorities , the applicant decided that he did not have any chance of obtaining asylum in GPE . On DATE he left for GPE , GPE .","The applicant , PERSON is a NORP national who was born in DATE in GPE .","On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE from GPE , GPE , holding a business visa valid until DATE .","On DATE he applied for temporary asylum to ORG of ORG ( \u201c the GPE FMS \u201d ) , claiming to have fled GPE because of the ongoing civil war there . That application was refused on DATE .","It appears that the applicant remained in GPE despite that refusal .","On DATE the applicant took a flight from GPE to GPE , GPE . The NORP border guard service seized his passport and handed it over to the aircraft crew . The NORP authorities denied the applicant entry to the country and sent him back to GPE on DATE . Upon the applicant \u2019s arrival , the NORP authorities sent him back to GPE . The NORP authorities then returned the applicant to GPE .","On DATE the applicant took a flight to GPE , but the NORP authorities denied him entry to the country and sent him back to GPE . The NORP border guard service did not allow him to pass through passport control .","From DATE the applicant stayed in the transit zone of FAC . He described the conditions of his stay in the transit zone as follows . The applicant slept on a mattress on the floor in the waiting area of the airport , which was constantly lit , crowded and noisy . He received basic food , clothing and sanitary wipes once DATE from the NORP office of ORG . Given the absence of any refrigerator or kitchen , his rations were extremely limited . Throughout the whole period of his stay in the transit zone the applicant did not have access to a shower .","The applicant applied to ORG for temporary asylum . On DATE the Moscow Region FMS dismissed the request .","DATE . On DATE the NORP ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against its refusal of DATE to grant him temporary asylum . It noted , in particular , that there were regular flights from GPE to GPE , from where NORP nationals could travel to other parts of the country , and that \u201c many NORP wish to leave the country not only because of a fear for their lives but , in large part , because of the worsening economic and humanitarian situation \u201d .","On DATE the applicant once again tried to lodge an application for refugee status through the border guard service . He received no response .","On DATE the applicant complained to the ORG of GPE about the refusal of LOC FMS and NORP ORG to grant him temporary asylum and about his allegedly unlawful detention in appalling conditions in the transit zone of FAC .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was resettled by ORG and left for GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted additional documents to the ORG of GPE in support of the applicant \u2019s claims regarding the risks that he would face if returned to GPE . The outcome of the proceedings is unknown ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145352","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF YAKOVLEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant is a NORP national and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father , Mr PERSON , deposited an unspecified amount of money with ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in her name . The deposit was to be kept for DATE and was redeemable after the applicant had reached the age of sixteen . The interest rate was fixed at CARDINAL per cent per annum .","Later , the Savings Bank reduced the interest rate .","Considering the Savings Bank \u2019s unilateral decision unlawful , Mr ORG brought a civil claim against it .","On DATE the ORG of GPE found that the terms of the deposit did not provide for unilateral changes in the interest rate and held that ORG should calculate interest at the rate of CARDINAL per cent starting from DATE and until the maturity of the deposit .","On DATE the NORP ORG upheld that judgment on appeal .","On DATE Mr Yakovlev died .","On an unspecified date ORG lodged an application for supervisory review which was rejected by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the ORG filed a new application for supervisory review with the ORG of ORG . It asserted that ORG claim should have been dismissed as premature because the maturity date had not yet occurred .","On DATE the Presidium of the NORP ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , as upheld on DATE , and dismissed the claim lodged by the late Mr Yakovlev , holding that the interest could only be calculated after the terms of the deposit had been fulfilled . As regards the re - opening of the proceedings after the plaintiff \u2019s death , the ORG found as follows :","\u201c The fact that Mr ORG died does not preclude a new decision from being made in the case because his claim had been lodged on behalf of his underage daughter PERSON GPE . At present she is represented by her mother , PERSON , who participated to the hearing before the ORG . \u201d","On DATE the applicant turned CARDINAL . On an unspecified date ORG offered to pay her MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . There is no information on whether she accepted this offer ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147034","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VOROBYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in LOC prior to the events of the case .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on charges of robbery , theft , forgery and extortion .","On DATE the Nizhniy ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG , by way of supervisory - review proceedings , quashed the judgment DATE and remitted the case to the trial court for fresh examination . Referring to the gravity of the charges , it also ordered the applicant \u2019s detention to continue for DATE .","By orders of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE , the authorised period of the applicant \u2019s detention was extended . These orders cited the gravity of the charges and the possibility of the applicant \u2019s absconding as the main reasons for the continued detention .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of a number of grave crimes and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment .","DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in remand prison IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of GPE Novgorod . He submitted that the cells had been severely overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142675","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF Z.J. v. LITHUANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","The applicant was married to GPE , with whom he had QUANTITY boys PERSON , who was born in DATE , and Do . J. , who was born in DATE .","In DATE the applicant divorced his wife , but they remained living together and had CARDINAL more boy PERSON , born in DATE .","On DATE PERSON gave birth to twins \u2013 a boy , PERSON , and a girl , PERSON","On DATE the applicant \u2019s former wife and the mother of their CARDINAL children died . Immediately afterwards , ORG , a cousin of the applicant \u2019s late wife , took the twins to her home to take care of them . As the applicant wrote in his application to the ORG , he had agreed that ORG would take care of the twins because she had experience in raising children \u2013 she had CARDINAL children of her own . He also mentioned having started dating GPE and having planned to marry her later . In the applicant \u2019s words , ORG wanted to get married in church and not to disclose that fact to the ORG authorities so that it would be possible to keep receiving child benefits . The applicant wrote that then , \u201c seeing such prospects for a bright future , [ he ] had agreed that ORG would become official guardian of the twins and [ he ] had helped her to prepare paperwork for that purpose \u201d .","On DATE the GPE Children \u2019s Rights Protection Service ( PERSON teisi\u0173 apsaugos tarnyba , hereinafter \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) decided that ORG could be the temporary guardian of the twins who , in turn , were to reside with her . The applicant took part in the hearing held at the ORG \u2019s premises and agreed with the decision . He noted that he could barely take care of his CARDINAL other children , who were schoolboys , and was thus unable to raise the babies . He stated that if he had to bring the babies back to his home , he would be forced to quit his job and this would ruin him financially . His job also included working at TIME . If ORG had not agreed to take the twins , he would have given them to a foster home for infants . The applicant agreed to have his parental rights limited should ORG be appointed as the CARDINAL guardian . He also agreed to pay money towards the GPE upbringing .","ORG stated that she did not have a job and agreed to raise the twins .","DATE , on DATE , ORG of GPE decided that ORG should be appointed as the temporary guardian of the twins .","Later on , the ORG applied to ORG , asking it to appoint ORG as the CARDINAL permanent guardian ( nuolatin\u0117 glob\u0117ja ) and manager of their property .","The applicant took part in the court hearing concerning that application and explained that even though he loved all of his children and had been raising the CARDINAL older ones to the best of his abilities , he was not able to take care of the twins because of a lack of money and knowledge of how to take care of very young children . If he had to quit his job in order to bring up the twins , there would be no money to live on . Whilst noting that he was not giving the twins up , the applicant agreed that ORG could be appointed as their guardian . He promised to help the twins financially to the best of his abilities .","On DATE the ORG granted the ORG \u2019s application and granted permanent guardianship of the twins in favour of ORG , who was also to be manager of their property . The court also made a custody order concerning the twins in ORG \u2019s favour . The applicant was ordered to pay CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL ) ( DATE ( ORG ) ) per month in financial support for each child , until the children came of age . The court noted that the applicant could not take care of the twins because of his lack of knowledge of how to take care of infants . Yet it observed that the applicant worked and took care of his CARDINAL older children , did not exercise his parental rights improperly , and had no negative influence on the older children . The applicant was also ready to support the twins financially , visit them and communicate with them when they became older . The twins were to be removed from the applicant \u2019s care , although he would retain his parental rights , in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The decision could be appealed against to a higher court . The applicant notes that he did not appeal against the decision .","According to doctors who examined the twins , during DATE of their lives their development of motor skills was slower than normal , and by DATE they had specific mixed development disorder ( specialus mi\u0161rus raidos sutrikimas ) , and their language development was delayed . They needed speech therapy , physiotherapy and an undemanding regimen ( tausojantis re\u017eimas ) . On DATE , at ORG \u2019s request and on the basis of reports by psychologists and doctors , the twins received learning support at the \u0160iauliai Special Upbringing Centre . At the centre the twins received help from a speech therapist and special educational needs teachers ( specialieji pedagogai ) , and benefited from such procedures as massages , medical exercise therapy and herbal baths . Upon the request of ORG , who stated that she was ill herself and had to take care of her elderly mother , from DATE the twins became DATE boarders ( from DATE ) at the Special Upbringing Centre . As the doctors later noted during court proceedings , they made no recommendation either in favour of or against the twins boarding there during DATE . As ORG later specified during court hearings , she had not felt it appropriate for the twins to go to a regular kindergarten , because there were CARDINAL children in CARDINAL class ( grup\u0117 ) there , whereas at the \u0160iauliai Special Upbringing Centre there were CARDINAL children in a class . According to the Government , the children stayed at LOC until DATE . It also appears from the documents before the ORG that in the event of illnesses and during holidays the children were taken home ( for example , in accordance with a doctor \u2019s recommendation that the children stay at ORG \u2019s home from DATE for DATE ) .","As of DATE the twins attended DATE pre - school classes at the \u0160iauliai Special Upbringing Centre . On DATE the director of the centre noted that the twins were always brought to and collected from the centre by ORG on time , they were well - rested , properly dressed , and had all the necessary materials for class with them . The applicant came to visit them at the centre twice . After his visits the children acted normally , although they were more interested in the presents he brought and did not communicate much . In DATE the institution noted that the applicant would come and see the twins at the centre CARDINAL to CARDINAL times a month , teachers were present at the meetings and the ORG behaviour after the meetings was normal .","In DATE disputes arose between the applicant and ORG In DATE ORG complained to the ORG that the applicant had withdrawn money from the ORG bank account , without her knowledge or permission , as the administrator of the twin \u2019s property . A criminal case for fraud was opened against the applicant . On DATE the applicant was acquitted of that charge the court , having established that he had acted in good faith and in the interests of the twins .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG , asking that the twins be returned to him . He argued that the reasons for his CARDINAL children being removed from his care had ceased to exist . The applicant lived in a CARDINAL - room apartment and , above all , the twins were now older and he therefore felt able to raise them . CARDINAL of his older children , Do . J. and PERSON , were now students . The applicant submitted that it would be in the best interests of all his children to grow up together . He also sought to have the twins summoned and questioned in court .","NORP In response , on DATE ORG lodged an application with the same court , seeking to have the applicant \u2019s parental rights permanently limited ( as for the outcome of this case , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a ruling of DATE , at ORG \u2019s request , ORG suspended the examination of the case initiated by the applicant for the FAC custody until the civil case initiated by GPE for termination of his parental rights was decided .","The applicant appealed against that ruling , arguing that a delay in the proceedings was harmful to his interests and , even more so , to those of his minor children . He emphasised that in DATE he had been separated from his children not because of his fault but because of circumstances that were beyond his control \u2013 the death of his former wife and the particularly young age of the twins . The applicant also noted that it was he who had addressed LOC first ; only afterwards had ORG initiated another set of court proceedings against him . Taking into account that a case concerning termination of his parental rights could reach the appellate courts , such proceedings could last a very long time , in breach of the requirements of LAW . The delay in court proceedings could also push the twins away from their biological father and thus was detrimental to their interests .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG granted the applicant \u2019s appeal , on the ground that a delay in the proceedings would be in breach of the DATE best interests . The court also established that the applicant had been the first to open court proceedings concerning the twins\u2019 future residence .","NORP In DATE ORG held a hearing in the case initiated by the applicant regarding the FAC return to him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , at which the applicant , ORG , their lawyers and the ORG \u2019s representative were present . The court considered that an expert report was necessary to establish whether the twins were ready to be returned to the applicant \u2019s home . The applicant \u2019s lawyer insisted that , apparently for reasons of impartiality , if experts were to be appointed , those experts should be from GPE , and not from ORG . During another court hearing on DATE the applicant testified that he had not had problems with ORG until DATE when he found out that the twins had attended DATE boarding .","On DATE officials from the ORG visited ORG \u2019s home and had a conversation with the twins , without ORG being present . The CARDINAL children called ORG \u201c mummy \u201d , and the applicant \u201c daddy \u201d , and expressed negative feelings towards their father and about being with him in either his or ORG \u2019s apartments . The child care specialists admitted , however , that the phrases the twins had used did not always correspond to the language used by children of their age . The conversation with the children also clearly showed that there was a dispute between the applicant and ORG The child care specialists thus recommended , in the interests of the children , that the applicant and ORG improve their relationship and strive to ensure that the applicant was able to communicate with his children . The ORG concluded that the twins were not yet ready to live with the applicant .","According to a further report , the child care specialists had also previously visited the applicant \u2019s apartment in ORG and found that the conditions there were suitable for children .","NORP In reply to a complaint by the applicant , on DATE the PERSON for ORG Rights ( PERSON teisi\u0173 apsaugos kontrolierius , hereinafter \u2013 \u201c the PERSON \u201d ) issued a report about his case . The ORG informed the ORG that if the applicant had agreed to raise the twins himself at the time the question of guardianship had been examined , he would have been eligible to receive a DATE payment of around LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) from the ORG in support . However , at that time the applicant had refused to raise the twins , even though he had stated that he intended to do so \u201c in the future \u201d , without indicating when , and had only applied to ORG for a residence order in respect of the twins on DATE .","The PERSON noted that the ORG had an obligation to establish which help , in particular , the applicant \u2019s family would have benefited from , including all the social services and other assistance available . However , in the PERSON \u2019s view , that had not been done , and the authorities had not taken specific steps to enable the twins to be returned to their biological family .","That being so , the PERSON also observed that since DATE court decision to establish permanent guardianship for the twins , the applicant had never contacted the ORG regarding his communication with the twins until DATE . Neither had he applied to have those CARDINAL children returned to him . Similarly , until DATE the applicant had never claimed that ORG was not taking care of the twins properly . Child care specialists had visited ORG \u2019s home during DATE and there was no evidence that the children had not been taken care of properly .","Whilst noting the conflict between the applicant and ORG over when and how the applicant could see the twins , the PERSON urged the CARDINAL to act prudently so that their dispute did not affect the children . The ORG was ordered to take steps towards the improvement of the relationship between the applicant and the twins , provided that this was in the children \u2019s best interests . It was necessary to find a proper balance between the interests of the children , namely , their health and development , and their communication with the applicant . That being so , the ORG \u2019s finding of CARDINAL DATE that the twins were not yet ready to return to their father \u2019s home was not unreasonable . It was pertinent that a sudden termination of the guardianship could cause distress , especially when the GPE guardianship had been established at DATE . ORG had become their guardian when they were infants and , according to the information collected , they were very attached to her . Moreover , they had negative feelings towards their father , which , to a certain extent had been caused by the dispute between ORG and the applicant . A transitional period was therefore necessary .","As the dispute between the applicant and ORG escalated , on DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim with ORG seeking a formal decision setting up a contact schedule ( d\u0117l bendravimo tvarkos nustatymo ) for him and the twins .","On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings for a contact schedule until the civil case concerning the return of the children to reside with the applicant , wherein a psychological assessment of the children had been ordered by the court , had been concluded ( see paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant also asked the court to issue interim protective measures ( laikinosios apsaugos priemon\u0117s ) , so that he could regularly communicate with the twins . The applicant asked to spend DATE in a row with the twins during DATE , see them DATE for TIME each time DATE , and for the twins to stay at his home DATE . The applicant also sought to have his CARDINAL children stay with him TIME during DATE , DATE . ORG partly agreed to the request , but asked that the children not be left with the applicant TIME , because they had health problems and were not used to spending TIME in another home . When questioned , the twins stated that they wanted to have contact with the applicant , but did not want to stay at his place TIME or to go on holiday with him for DATE . The ORG noted that the twins had not lived with the applicant for a long time and considered that , in order to restore their relationship , an adaptation period was necessary . The ORG left the details of the contact order to the court \u2019s discretion .","On the request of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , experts at the GPE city psychiatric institution ( ORG ir paaugli\u0173 teismo psichiatrijos skyrius ) examined the twins . Questions were put to the experts by the court , the applicant and ORG","In their report of DATE , the psychiatrists concluded that PERSON had a strong and positive emotional relationship with ORG , with whom he felt safe . The boy also had an emotionally positive relationship with his father , who was an important person for him , but their contact was insufficient . Such a lack of contact could be CARDINAL of the reasons why the boy wanted to live with his father . On this last point the psychiatrists also noted that while the boy was able to freely express his wish to live with his father , he did so without being able to think critically and to foresee the consequences of his choice . The psychiatrists also noted :","\u201c it was not possible to state or to foresee how the change of living place would affect PERSON \u2019s further development . However , taking into account the wish which PERSON had expressed to live with his father , it was unlikely that the change would affect the child negatively , or even cause him harm . [ Nonetheless ] , taking into consideration that from his infancy to [ the present ] date ORG had been raising him , it was not recommended to disrupt the relationship between the boy and ORG completely \u201d .","The experts considered that it was for the court to decide how often the child should have contact with his father so that their emotional relationship could resume .","As regards the girl , PERSON , the psychiatrists concluded that she had an emotionally strong relationship with her guardian , with whom she felt safe . Her relationship with her father was ambivalent , but it had not broken down entirely . Both the applicant and GPE were important people in PERSON \u2019s life . All things considered , it was not possible to state or to foresee how a change of living place would affect PERSON It was thus for the court to decide how often the child should have contact with her father so that their emotional relationship could resume . The experts also recommended that the applicant and ORG should share the duties of taking care of the children , and ORG should actively cooperate by helping the twins to communicate with their father .","On DATE ORG held that , in order to gradually restore the twins\u2019 emotional connection with their father , contact should be as follows : the applicant could collect the children from ORG \u2019s home TIME and be with them for CARDINAL - and - a - half hours ; every DATE he could spend CARDINAL - and - a - half hours with them . The court considered that it would only be appropriate for the twins to be with the applicant during school and public holidays once their bonds with him had become stronger . In the court \u2019s view , such a contact order corresponded to the best interests of the children . The court also noted that , should the circumstances change , the applicant or ORG could ask the court to amend the contact order .","In DATE and upon ORG \u2019s request , the court amended the contact order to the effect that , should the applicant be unable to see the twins on DATE or DATE due to their sickness or another justifiable reason , he could meet with them on DATE or DATE .","The applicant and his lawyer took part in both court hearings .","On DATE the ORG delivered its decision as to the applicant \u2019s application for a residence order . The applicant , ORG , their lawyers , and the ORG took part in the hearings before the court . The twins also took part in the hearings , giving evidence without the applicant , ORG or their lawyers being present .","The court noted that on DATE the twins had been removed from the applicant \u2019s care by a court decision for a legitimate reason DATE namely , because he could not take care of them ( LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was important to observe that their separation was in no way linked to fault on the part of the applicant . Moreover , the measure was temporary in that it could be lifted if the circumstances justifying the separation from the twins no longer existed . Accordingly , it was necessary to examine whether those circumstances still existed , and , if not , whether the children \u2019s being returned to live with the applicant would be in their best interests , which were the overriding consideration . The court noted that the best interests of the children , as the primary consideration , were indicated in LAW on the Rights of the LAW and in LAW .","The \u0160iauliai City District Court agreed with the applicant \u2019s argument that the grounds for removal of the twins from his care in DATE had ceased to exist , because the twins were now DATE and had been taken from the applicant because he had not possessed the appropriate knowledge of how to take care of them when they were infants . That being so , the court nevertheless held that the twins had a strong emotional link with ORG and their emotional link with the applicant was not sufficient , which situation had clearly been influenced by the fact that the twins had lived separately from the applicant since DATE . The court also observed that because of the dispute over money between the applicant and ORG which had started in DATE , he had had limited opportunities to take part in educating his children and to communicate with them . It was only from DATE , when the court had issued an interim order providing for the applicant \u2019s contact with the twins in accordance with a fixed schedule , that the applicant had started to have regular contact with the twins . Even so , the applicant had not taken all possible steps to participate in the upbringing of the twins on an equal basis with ORG , even though the twins had been removed from his care in DATE , the applicant had never asked for the twins to be returned to live with him until the disagreement with ORG arose in DATE , even though his CARDINAL other sons were no longer minors as of DATE and DATE respectively . The court also noted the applicant \u2019s acknowledgement that until DATE he had not encountered any obstacles to communicating with the twins . Yet , he had communicated with them only \u201c episodically \u201d , with the result that the emotional connection between the twins and the applicant and his other children was less strong than that existing between the twins and ORG and her children . As the twins had testified in court , they did not want to live with the father . They did not even want to stay at his home during DATE , this being confirmed by the applicant \u2019s eldest child , GPE","The \u0160iauliai City District Court also dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument that ORG had not been taking care of the twins properly because they had been DATE boarders at the \u0160iauliai Special Upbringing Centre for DATE . On the contrary , the court observed that according to the FAC doctor , the care centre was of great benefit to the family , because the twins received specialist help there . The court found that the applicant ought to have been more active in making inquiries about the FAC development and health . Lastly , the court noted the applicant \u2019s statement that he had been aware DATE that the twins were DATE boarders at the care centre .","The first - instance court concluded that because of the twins\u2019 negative feelings towards the applicant , he would not be able to perform his fatherly duties properly . The court also took the psychiatrists\u2019 report into account and held that the FAC connection with the applicant was not strong enough , whereas they had a strong emotional connection with ORG It followed that the grounds for removing the twins , who had expressed their wish to live with ORG in court , from the applicant \u2019s care persisted . Being returned to live with their father was not in the best interests of the children . Nonetheless , the applicant maintained his parental rights , including the right to have contact with his children , who would be well able to communicate with him whilst staying in a familiar environment , with ORG , where they felt safe . Should the circumstances change , that is to say , once the emotional relationship between the twins and the applicant became stronger , the applicant could apply to the courts again and seek the revocation of ORG \u2019s guardianship of the twins . The court thus dismissed the applicant \u2019s request that the twins be returned to him .","NORP The applicant appealed , submitting that the first - instance court had erred in establishing that the circumstances on the basis of which the twins had been removed from his care in DATE were no longer valid , but then going on to examine whether there were other reasons why he would not be able to take care of his children properly . He maintained that he had visited his children and communicated with them regularly from the date of their separation . However , as of DATE ORG had started turning the children against him . The court had established that there was a lack of a strong emotional relationship between the applicant and the twins , but had not taken into consideration that ORG had deliberately taken steps to ensure that the children would be hostile to their father .","The applicant also argued that the lower court had erred in establishing that ORG had been taking care of the twins properly . He submitted that ORG had without good reason sent the twins to be boarding pupils at the \u0160iauliai Special Upbringing Centre . Even though during the hearings at first instance the twins\u2019 family doctor and another doctor had confirmed that the FAC attendance at the centre had been recommended , those specialists had not recommended that the twins board at the centre . The applicant also submitted that until DATE ORG had not had a job and it was thus not unreasonable to conclude that her sole means of subsistence was child benefit payments , although domestic law required such monies to be used exclusively in the interests of children under guardianship .","The applicant also observed that the first - instance court had completely disregarded the PERSON \u2019s report ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Likewise , the lower court had disregarded the psychiatrists\u2019 reports about the twins ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had clearly stated that the boy wanted to live with the applicant and that there was no reason to believe that the boy \u2019s well - being would suffer should he be returned to his biological father .","Neither could the applicant agree with the lower court \u2019s conclusion that he had not taken as much of a role in taking care of the twins as ORG On this point he noted that his participation in the twins\u2019 life had only been restricted as of DATE , when ORG had taken steps to limit his communication with them . It was also noteworthy that in DATE the applicant had applied to the courts for an order establishing a schedule for him to have contact with the twins . Lastly , the applicant maintained that the ORG had from the very beginning and up to the present date , and by unjustified means , sought to further ORG \u2019s interests and not those of the children .","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision , noting that as an appellate court it was free to interpret the evidence as it saw fit . The applicant and ORG took part in the appellate court \u2019s hearing . The court noted that the case had a public interest element , because it concerned children \u2019s rights . Accordingly , it examined supplementary evidence of its own motion and took notice of an earlier court decision to dismiss the applicant \u2019s claim that ORG had been embezzling the ORG money ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It therefore considered that the applicant \u2019s accusations of selfishness and property mismanagement against ORG were unfounded .","The court considered that both the applicant and ORG had not made enough effort to ensure that \u201c the twins would return to the family \u201d . The dispute between the CARDINAL had negatively influenced the twins\u2019 feelings towards their father , and had had a long term negative impact on the GPE emotional and psychological development . The court noted the PERSON conclusion that so far the children had developed a firm , safe and positive emotional connection with ORG Even so , the experts had also acknowledged that the twins\u2019 connection with the applicant still existed and it was emotionally positive . Accordingly , it was crucial to develop that connection , and both the applicant and ORG had to contribute to that development . The assistance of the ORG would also be particularly important .","The court also emphasised that it would necessarily take time for the children to be ready to be returned to their father : the latter and ORG had to make an effort towards that goal . The children were to get used to the fact that they could see their father when they wanted , and not when ORG sent them to visit him . On this point the court noted that children of the DATE already understood and were affected by the fact that their guardian , ORG , was not enthusiastic about them being in contact with the applicant . Equally , as regards the applicant \u2019s attitude towards the situation , the court considered that the applicant blamed everybody else without seeing any fault on his own part . The panel of judges noted that the applicant was a very uncompromising individual who only accepted the validity of his own viewpoint and was not willing to have regard to the opinions of others . The panel concluded that so long as the applicant was not taking any steps to work on his issues , such as by seeking psychological assistance , the children could not be returned to an emotionally cold and harsh environment . A sudden removal of the children from the environment provided by ORG , which was safe and comforting for the children , would absolutely be a disproportionate and traumatic step which the court could not allow .","The appellate court also noted that from birth the twins had had serious health problems , which had never gone away . In DATE PERSON had been diagnosed with a medium level of disability ; in DATE the disability \u2019s assessment had been changed to a mild level . ORG had a light level of disability , established in DATE . Both children were hyperactive , had numerous health problems and thus needed a greater level of attention . Accordingly , the applicant \u2019s argument that the twins could stay at home until he returned from work showed that it would not be possible for him , and he was not ready , to take concrete steps to take care of the CARDINAL children , who came home from school at TIME . The applicant \u2019s other children were busy to the extent that they also could not stay with the twins all the time .","Lastly , the appellate court dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument that the children should be returned to him on the basis of Article CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which , in the applicant \u2019s view , provided that a child should be returned to a parent once the grounds which necessitated their separation no longer existed . The court held that the best interests of the child were the priority . In the applicant \u2019s case the appellate court had not established the existence of any new circumstances . Nevertheless , this did not automatically mean that the twins had to be returned to the applicant \u2019s home immediately . A transitional period was necessary , which , in the court \u2019s view , might be DATE . In arriving at that timeframe it took into particular account the fact that this period would include DATE , when the twins could leave their familiar environment , ORG \u2019s apartment , and re - establish a close relationship with their father . If the twins could have contact with their father for a longer period than the current sporadic , twice - a - week arrangement , they would be able to see that their father was there for them and that they could resolve everyday problems with their father \u2019s assistance .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , but on CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to examine it on the basis that it raised questions of fact only .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to resume the suspended civil proceedings regarding his contact rights with the twins , noting that the other civil case concerning his application for the FAC return had already ended ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . DATE the court resumed the examination of the civil case concerning his application for a contact order , and with the aim that the case be examined expeditiously , set an oral hearing in that case for DATE . In DATE the court also decided to join the CARDINAL civil cases pending in relation to the twins ( the civil case concerning the application for a parental contact order initiated by the applicant on DATE and the civil case concerning the application for termination of the applicant \u2019s parental rights initiated by ORG on DATE ; see , respectively , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","During the hearing of the joined civil case on DATE a psychologist was present , the children were questioned ( the applicant and ORG were asked to leave the courtroom , their lawyers were present ) and the psychologist made the following comments :","\u201c ... From the statements made by PERSON we understand that the relationship between GPE and her father is difficult and that the child sees and understands this . The girl mentioned a wish to meet [ go out ] with both of them if their relationship was better . I did not note entirely negative feelings towards her father , however there is no close relationship , and the relationship between the girl and ORG is very strong . I understood from both of the children that their father promises things which never come true [ and ] this fell short of their expectations . PERSON states that he is willing to have contact with his father but only when he [ the boy ] so wishes , hence the child should not be forced to contact his father . ... The girl has no emotional relationship with her father , because she has seen him disputing [ things ] and [ experienced him making ] promises which never came true . The boy wishes to have contact with his father but at the present date the latter can not arrange that . < ... > \u201d","On DATE the \u0160iauliai City District Court rejected ORG \u2019s civil claim for termination of the applicant \u2019s parental rights ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and partly granted the applicant \u2019s civil claim for a contact order . The court noted that there was no basis for ORG \u2019s claims that the applicant had harmed the twins or had not taken care of them at all until DATE . On the contrary , the evidence showed that he had been seeking contact with the children . The boy wanted to have contact with the applicant , and the girl would agree to have contact with him if he ceased his dispute with ORG However , the twins\u2019 contact with the applicant could not be forced . Whilst observing that the child \u2019s best interests were paramount , the first - instance court also relied on the ORG \u2019s case - law , noting that in matters of child custody , for example , the reason for considering the \u201c child \u2019s best interests \u201d may be twofold : firstly , to guarantee that the child develops in a sound environment and that a parent can not take measures that would harm its health and development ; secondly , to maintain its ties with its family , except in cases where the family has proved particularly unfit , since severing those ties means cutting a child off from its roots ( the court referred to ORG and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) . Lastly , the court rejected all the accusations by ORG that the applicant had been antagonistic , because a criminal case initiated by her had been dismissed by the authorities ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . The applicant thus had a right to have contact with the twins and an inherent duty to take part in educating them . He was also able to offer them appropriate living conditions .","The \u0160iauliai City District Court also noted that both parties to the dispute \u2013 the applicant and ORG \u2013 had put their own ambitions and their subjective views as to what would be best for the children first . For that reason , the applicant had sometimes tried to have contact with his daughter when she did not want to spend time with him , although his son was prepared to meet him . As for ORG , she had not attempted to restore the CARDINAL relations with their father and had showed no concern for the fact that the applicant \u2019s and his daughter \u2019s relationship was getting weaker and was close to breaking down . Accordingly , the parties\u2019 failure to take care of the children \u2019s best interests required that those interests be protected by the courts . Moreover , considering that the biggest issue was the communication between the applicant and his daughter , the court saw it appropriate to set , on its own initiative , a further schedule for their communication during the transitional period , so that the girl \u2019s contact with the applicant be re - established . In particular , a psychologist or child care specialist was to assist the applicant and his daughter , during contact sessions which would take place in a neutral setting . Lastly , the court reiterated that the principle of the rights of the child having priority was relevant not only when setting a schedule for the contact between the applicant and the twins , but also when executing the court decision establishing that schedule . The applicant thus should not make use of his right to see the children , including taking them to his apartment , if this would breach the LOC rights , even though his right to see them had been established in the court \u2019s decision .","The order establishing a contact schedule between the applicant and his CARDINAL children essentially specified that , until a psychologist determined the readiness of GPE to have contact with her father without the presence of a psychologist or a social worker , the applicant should have contact with her once a week in the presence of either a psychologist or a social worker and at a place and time agreed upon in advance . In addition to that , if the twins so agreed , the applicant could see them CARDINAL or CARDINAL times a week , for TIME , during DATE . He could also have them over DATE from TIME to DATE TIME , and also during some of the State holidays and spend with them DATE during his vacations .","I.N. appealed against the decision , seeking to have the applicant \u2019s application for a contact order rejected and her application to have his parental rights terminated granted . The applicant submitted a response to the appeal , submitting that the decision of the first - instance court had been reasoned and lawful and thus that there were no legal grounds for quashing or changing it . He also claimed that ORG was influencing the children \u2019s testimony .","On DATE the ORG fully upheld the lower court \u2019s decision to reject ORG \u2019s application to have the applicant \u2019s parental rights terminated . In any event , the applicant \u2019s parental rights could only be terminated if he failed to perform his fatherly duties , and there were no indications of this in his case . That being so , the appellate court also noted that at the time of the first - instance proceedings the twins had expressed a categorical and consistent wish not to stay at the applicant \u2019s apartment TIME . In addition , according to the most recent reports by the doctors , the twins had become more nervous and agitated , and their emotional and psychological state and behaviour had become worse . It was therefore considered better for them to reside at ORG \u2019s home . The psychologist had testified that the boy wanted to see his father , but on a schedule of his choosing . The girl avoided meeting with her father at all .","As concerns the issue of the parental contact order , the appellate court stated as follows :","\u201c ... The panel of judges notes that it is impossible to raise a child without having contact with him \/ her . In LAW on ORG it is also established that if a child \u2019s mother or father does not live with him \/ her , [ the child ] must have the opportunity to spend time with [ his or her ] mother or father , save for the exceptions established by law , [ in the event that ] such contact could prove to be of detriment to the child . Minimum contact may be established only if permanent maximum contact would be harmful to the interests of the child , if frequently spending time with the [ non - resident ] parent would traumatise the child psychologically , if the contact and parenting ( aukl\u0117jimas ) [ offered ] by a parent does not satisfy the interests , wishes and views of the child at all , [ or ] if [ there would be ] a negative impact on the child \u2019s maturity and outlook [ on life ] .","The evidence in the [ instant ] case allows the panel of judges to hold that at present there are grounds for changing the maximum parental contact order established by the [ lower ] court to a minimum [ contact order ] . The court has had regard to the current categorical and consistent position of the children towards the opportunity to stay TIME with their father as envisaged in the [ lower court \u2019s ] parental contact order . The medical certificates included in the case file allow the court to state that the children \u2019s state of health , anxiety , and irritability strengthened , their emotional state and behaviour worsened , hence treatment at home is recommended for them . The medical documents recording the existence [ of ] weakness of the central nervous system , attention - deficit disorder , [ delayed ] language development , learning [ difficulties ] , etc . were neither refuted during the examination of the case before the court of the first instance , nor during the examination on appeal . While commenting on the children \u2019s feelings towards their father the psychologist has noted that there is not currently a close relationship between the father and the children , the son [ D.J. ] states that he only wants to have contact with his father when he [ D.J. ] so wishes , the daughter [ PERSON ] is avoiding contact with her father . The twins [ PERSON ] and [ PERSON ] were examined in terms of their psychological state , heightened fear of separation from their guardian , and feelings of insecurity . While stating that the major problem is the daughter \u2019s [ PERSON \u2019s ] communication with her father , the court of first instance correctly emphasised the need [ for it ] to establish additional conditions for contact between the girl and her father , hence it justly noted that the father \u2019s contact with his daughter was essential to restore a normal relationship with his daughter . A transitional period had to be established given that [ it would take ] a reasonable period of time for the child to become accustomed to [ spending time ] her father .","Accordingly , the [ lower ] court \u2019s conclusion in the present case that it is not currently possible for the father to have maximum contact with his minor daughter [ PERSON ] is correct , because it is indisputably established in the case that any ties , including emotional ones , between father and daughter have almost broken down . The panel of judges also considers that contact with the [ applicant \u2019s ] son [ PERSON ] contrary to his wishes ( involuntarily ) would not satisfy the interests of the child . In view of the aim of reinstating the lost connection , forced ( involuntary ) contact [ on the part of ] the children with their father would be meaningless because forced contact [ sessions ] may even result in intense hostility towards their father . Hence , on the basis of the arguments presented the existing order should be changed by removing the possibility for the children to stay at their father \u2019s home TIME . Being active in such category of cases the court draws attention to the existing contact order [ which provides for ] contact sessions during DATE [ for ] TIME . The panel of judges considers that such frequent contact may unbalance the children \u2019s rest periods and in the present case a transitional period is required for rebuilding of the relationship . Hence the panel of judges decides that voluntary contact between the children and [ the applicant ] on DATE and on holidays would contribute to a proper balancing of the father \u2019s and the children \u2019s interests . Thus the panel decides that the time for collecting and returning the children on DATE and on holidays , with the exception of the father \u2019s and daughter \u2019s contact sessions in the presence of the appointed specialist once DATE , should be changed . The court considers that the children may be taken by their father on DATE from TIME until TIME because TIME are optimal - the children \u2019s rest periods during DATE and on DATE will not be disrupted . Accordingly , the [ relevant ] part of the [ lower court \u2019s ] decision on the contact order should be changed . Moreover , the panel considers that in view of the transitional period it has emphasised [ will be necessary ] for the building of relations with their father , the issue of the children spending their holidays with their father has been decided far too early , hence this part of the [ lower court \u2019s ] decision is to be quashed . The appeal court notes that the [ legal ] relations [ established by ] a contact order concerning a child and [ by ] raising a child are of a continuing nature , hence when the factual circumstances change the father of the children [ the applicant ] or the guardian [ ORG ] have the right to apply to the court seeking a change to the existing order .","there are ongoing disputes between the father and the guardian of his children . The panel of judges emphasises that the parties to the case [ have been putting ] their own ambitions above those of the children and thus [ have ] failed to show due loyalty , respect , and tolerance towards each other . Accordingly , the [ applicant \u2019s ] contact with the children is marked by unnecessary conflict , the children experience and feel it , [ the ongoing disputes ] make them feel insecure , cause severe damage and have had an impact on [ D.J. \u2019s ] and [ PERSON \u2019s ] health and impeded the rebuilding of their relationship with their biological father .","In the panel \u2019s view restriction of contact between the father and the children would undoubtedly infringe both the non - resident ( skyrium gyvenantis ) parent \u2019s right to take part in educating the children and the children \u2019s best interests . [ It ] would impede the rebuilding , steadying and maintenance of the relationship between father and son , and especially [ between father and ] daughter . It should be explained to the parties that all issues relating to the raising of the children , as well as issues relating to their needs and interests not included in the order ... established by the procedural decision of the court , should be agreed upon between the parties with due regard to the principles of cooperation and safeguarding the children \u2019s rights and legitimate interests as a priority . \u201d","The amended contact order thus confirmed the transitional period for the applicant \u2019s and his daughter \u2019s communication in the presence of a psychologist and a social worker . Upon a determination by a psychologist of PERSON \u2019s readiness to have contact with her father , the applicant also could see the twins ( or one of them ) on DATE from TIME until TIME if the children voluntarily so agreed and did not object . He could also see them on Father \u2019s Day and on his birthday , from TIME Lastly , the applicant could take them from their permanent place of residence and have contact from TIME on DATE , from TIME on DATE and from TIME on DATE of GPE in even calendar DATE ; and from TIME on DATE and from TIME on DATE of LOC in DATE .","The decision of ORG became effective after neither of the parties to the proceedings lodged a further appeal .","According to the documents in the ORG \u2019s possession , DATE and DATE specialists from the ORG had frequent meetings and consultations with the applicant and ORG , and individual conversations with the twins ( without the presence of their father and\/or ORG ) . The child care specialists urged the applicant and ORG to get in touch with the psychologists involved in the case in order to arrange sessions individually and together with the twins concerning their communication problems .","NORP In particular , on DATE the applicant contacted the ORG asking for assistance in arranging contact sessions with his daughter PERSON , claiming that she had been turned against him by ORG and hence did not want to have contact with him .","On DATE child care specialists had a conversation with ORG LOC . ORG was not present during the conversation . The specialists sought to ascertain the girl \u2019s opinion concerning her contact with the applicant . The girl expressed negative feelings towards contact with her father and towards staying at his home , his visits to ORG \u2019s home and going out with her father to other places ( such as the cinema , a caf\u00e9 , or shopping centres ) . The girl stated that at that time she was not willing to have contact with her father under any circumstances . She also stressed that nobody was influencing her and that she was expressing her own opinion . The specialists concluded that given the need to safeguard the child \u2019s best interests as a priority and the recommendations of ORG ( in the decision of CARDINAL DATE , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) it was advisable that the applicant and ORG did not resolve any disputes that might arise in the presence of the children . The specialists also advised that the applicant and ORG improve their relationship and contact the psychologists to set up consultations and obtain recommendations .","Immediately after the ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL above ) , the applicant contacted the ORG asking for assistance in arranging contact sessions with his daughter PERSON , which were to take place in the presence of a child care specialist and a psychologist . The authority responded DATE , and a session took place on DATE . The applicant and ORG were both present . It was decided that individual sessions with the psychologist would be provided for PERSON It was also agreed that the applicant and the guardian would be invited to discussions giving a general summary of PERSON \u2019s sessions with the psychologist . A specialist from the ORG would also be invited to the discussions .","CARDINAL sessions with the psychologist were provided from DATE until DATE . During the last session , earlier sessions were discussed and conclusions concerning PERSON \u2019s readiness to have contact with her father were made . The applicant , ORG and a child care specialist were present at the consultation . The psychologist emphasised that PERSON was not yet ready for contact with her father and refused to have that contact . The psychologist also drew attention to the fact that during individual sessions PERSON had become tired quickly , her anxiety and motor activity had increased , and she had sought to finish every session earlier . ORG confirmed that PERSON was anxious and quickly became tired . The applicant considered that \u201c in order to spare [ his ] daughter \u2019s emotional and psychological state individual sessions should be terminated \u201d .","On DATE specialists from the ORG visited the twins . The specialists concluded that the children enjoyed suitable living conditions that were conducive to their development , and noted that they were very affectionate towards ORG They observed that PERSON enjoyed spending time with the guardian \u2019s daughter , whom she called \u201c sister \u201d , but refused to have contact with her father . PERSON did not have contact with her older biological brothers .","The child care specialists noted that PERSON spoke of ORG only positively . He also had contact with his father during the times set in the court order DATE they would go to the shopping mall , cinema , and his father \u2019s apartment . He would also spend time with his older biological brother , PERSON was willing to continue having contact with his father .","In their observations on the admissibility and merits sent to ORG on DATE the Government noted that the ORG next planned to visit the twins DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172470","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u017dIVKOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG ordered a socially - owned company , Holding - PERSON AD PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) , to pay the applicant specified amounts on account of compensation for expropriated real estate plus the costs of the civil proceedings .","On DATE , upon the applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE ORG ordered the restructuring of the applicant \u2019s debtor . As a consequence , the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor would appear to have been stayed .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor . The applicant duly reported her claims based on the above - mentioned judgment to the insolvency administration .","The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing and the said court judgment remains unenforced to the present day .","According to publically available information the debtor is still , predominantly comprised of socially - owned capital ( see ORG , accessed on DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . In terms of redress , relying on LAW DATE , the applicant sought , inter alia , compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage suffered due to the impugned non - enforcement .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant noted the adoption of the amendments to LAW , and specified her compensation claims accordingly . Specifically , on account of the pecuniary damage , the applicant requested the respective amounts awarded to her by the final judgment in question , whilst as regards the nonpecuniary damage sustained she claimed MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE ORG found , in the operative part of its ruling ( u izreci ) , that the applicant had indeed suffered a violation of her right to a fair trial within a reasonable time , as well as a violation of her property rights and awarded her ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of the non - pecuniary damage in question . However , it rejected the compensation claim regarding the pecuniary damages sought by the applicant . ORG , lastly , ordered the speeding up of the impugned enforcement proceedings .","In its reasoning , ORG stated in respect of the compensation issue that the applicant \u2019s pecuniary damage claim had been lodged out of time . In so doing , it merely referred to LAW , as amended in DATE , requiring that such claims be brought simultaneously with the lodging of a constitutional appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161375","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF YEGOROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicants were each targeted in undercover operations conducted by the police in the form of a test purchase of drugs under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Operational - Search Activities Act of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ ) . Those operations led to their criminal conviction for drug dealing .","The applicants disagreed with their conviction and argued that the police had incited them to commit drug - related offences ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140912","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NOVRUZ ISMAYILOV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in a prison in GPE .","The applicant was a founder of the private ORG and of ORG . He was also the chairman of the bank \u2019s supervisory board .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted under LAW ( tax evasion ) by ORG in connection with the activities of ORG .","The applicant responded to the investigator \u2019s calls to testify as a witness within the framework of the above - mentioned criminal proceedings and participated in various investigative steps .","NORP In particular , on DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator and on DATE a confrontation was carried out between the applicant and another witness .","On DATE and DATE the applicant was again requested to attend to assist with the investigation ; however he failed to comply with the request .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant voluntarily appeared before the investigating authorities and CARDINAL confrontations were conducted by the investigator between the applicant and CARDINAL other persons .","In DATE , the investigator tried to contact the applicant , but he could not determine his whereabouts .","On DATE the investigator ordered the applicant \u2019s compulsory participation in the investigation .","On DATE the applicant appeared before the investigating authority . On DATE the investigator in charge of the case informed the applicant that he was charged under LAW ( fraud ) , CARDINAL ( embezzlement ) and CARDINAL ( forgery by an official ) of LAW . The charges against the applicant were based on the results of a financial audit carried out in respect of ORG , and on the statements of various persons with whom the applicant had business relationships within the framework of his activities at ORG and ORG .","Again on DATE , the prosecutor requested the judge to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody ( h\u0259bs q\u0259timkan t\u0259dbiri ) in respect of the applicant . The prosecutor gave as the reasons for requesting that measure the seriousness of the applicant \u2019s alleged criminal acts and the possibility of his absconding from and obstructing the investigation .","At the hearing before the court , the applicant and his lawyer submitted that the applicant had never absconded from or obstructed the investigation . They also submitted that the applicant \u2019s failure to comply with some of the requests to assist with the investigation had been due to his state of health , because he had been sick at the time .","On DATE the judge , relying on the official charges brought against the applicant and the prosecutor \u2019s request for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody , ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for a period of DATE . The judge reasoned the necessity for this measure as follows :","\u201c Taking into account that PERSON has committed a serious crime , the possibility of his absconding from the investigation and illegally influencing persons participating in the criminal proceedings , obstructing the normal functioning of the investigation by hiding or falsification of the items necessary for the prosecution , and that there are sufficient grounds [ that he might ] fail to comply with calls to attend the investigation without any good reason , or flee from criminal responsibility by other means , ... the preventive measure of remand in custody should be applied in respect of PERSON . \u201d","The applicant appealed against ORG decision of DATE , complaining of a lack of evidence that he had committed a criminal offence and lack of justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody . He noted , in particular , that he had always collaborated with the investigating authority before his arrest and that the court had not taken into consideration his family status , state of health or other personal circumstances . The applicant also noted that it would be impossible for him to hide or falsify any document relating to the case , because all the relevant documents had been taken from his office by the investigating authority .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that the detention order was justified . The relevant part of the court \u2019s decision reads as follows :","\u201c After having examined the arguments of the appeal , heard the lawyer \u2019s submissions in support of the appeal and the prosecutor \u2019s submissions against it , the panel of the court considers that the court \u2019s decision of DATE should remain unchanged as it is lawful and justified \u201d .","On DATE , the investigator requested from the Deputy Prosecutor General an extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , because although a number of statements had been obtained and a financial audit of ORG had been conducted by ORG and ORG , more time was needed to complete the investigation .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General submitted a request to the court for the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention period until DATE . The relevant part of the prosecutor \u2019s request reads as follows :","\u201c The records of the documented audit carried out in this case must be obtained , depending on the conclusions of the audit , certain witnesses must be questioned , confrontations must be conducted , if necessary , accounting and handwriting analyses must be carried out , relevant steps must be taken for the reimbursement of the damage caused , PERSON must be charged with additional offences in connection with the above - mentioned points , and following the end of these investigative actions , it must be determined which other persons in the circle have committed crimes , and the issue of their responsibility must be decided .","In order to carry out the said investigative actions , DATE are needed . However , the period of remand in custody in respect of the accused person PERSON ends on DATE . Thus , because of the complexity of the criminal case and the need for DATE for the carrying out of the above - mentioned investigative actions , the period of remand in custody in respect of ORG must be extended until DATE . \u201d","On DATE the judge at ORG , relying on the prosecutor \u2019s request , extended the length of the applicant \u2019s remand in custody by DATE , until DATE . The court decision , which is almost identical in wording to the prosecutor \u2019s request , reasoned the necessity for the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention as follows :","\u201c The records of the documented audit carried out in this case must be obtained , certain witnesses , depending on the conclusions of the audit , must be questioned , confrontations must be conducted , if necessary , accounting and handwriting analyses must be carried out , relevant steps must be taken for the reimbursement of the damage caused , PERSON must be charged with additional offences in connection with the above - mentioned points , and following the end of these investigative actions , it must be determined which other persons in the circle have committed crimes , and the issue of their responsibility must be decided .","The period of remand in custody in respect of PERSON ... ends on DATE . However , as it will not have been possible to complete the additional investigative actions during this period , I consider that the request must be granted and the period of remand in custody in respect of ORG must be extended for DATE , that is , until DATE . \u201d","The hearing of DATE on the extension of the detention period was held in the applicant \u2019s absence , but in the presence of the investigator . According to the record of the hearing , the applicant was represented by his lawyer ( PERSON ) and the latter took the floor and stated that he had no objections to the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE , when the record of ORG hearing of DATE was made available to ORG , he made written comments on the record , stating that false information was included in it , as he had not participated in that hearing and had not pronounced in favour of the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention . On DATE he lodged a request with the judge of ORG for the rectification of the record of the hearing of DATE . He submitted , in particular , that he had not been informed of the date and place of that hearing and that he had not participated in it . He argued that the record of the hearing had been falsified .","NORP Moreover , it appears from the transcripts of phone conversations of DATE between PERSON and a court clerk , between PERSON and the investigator in charge of the case , and between PERSON and ORG judge who ordered the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , that ORG did not participate in the hearing , as all the above - mentioned persons confirmed it in their phone conversation with PERSON In particular , although the judge acknowledged in the phone conversation that there had been a mistake in the record of the hearing concerning the lawyer \u2019s presence at the hearing , in the same conversation he also refused to officially rectify the record .","By a decision of DATE , the same ORG judge rejected PERSON \u2019s rectification request , holding that the lawyer had participated in the hearing of DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG decision of DATE concerning the extension of his detention . The applicant complained that he had not been taken to the court for the hearing and that his lawyer had not been informed of the date and place of the hearing . He further submitted that there was no justification for the extension of his detention period and that the first - instance court had failed to substantiate its decision . On DATE he lodged additional submissions in support of his appeal , reiterating his previous complaints and asking the court to deliver a special ruling with regard to the judge of ORG in connection with the falsification of the record of the hearing of DATE .","On DATE ORG left unchanged ORG decision on the extension of the detention period , finding no reason for quashing it . As to the justification for the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , the appellate court stated as follows :","\u201c The investigating authority considers it necessary that the records of the documented audit carried out in this case must be obtained , some witnesses , depending on the conclusions of the audit , must be questioned , confrontations must be conducted , if necessary , accounting and handwriting analyses must be carried out , relevant steps must be taken for the reimbursement of the damage caused , PERSON must be charged with additional offences in connection with the above - mentioned points , and following the end of these investigative actions , it must be determined which other persons in the circle have committed crimes , and the issue of their responsibility must be decided .","At the stage of the carrying out of the said procedural actions , it is not appropriate to release PERSON from pre - trial detention .","The panel of the court considers that the judge of the first - instance court took into account the seriousness of the crime attributed to ORG , the possibility of him influencing persons participating in the criminal proceedings if released , as well as obstructing the normal functioning of the investigation or the court proceedings by hiding or falsification of items necessary for the prosecution , and correctly extended the period of his detention . The decision is lawful and justified . \u201d","The appellate court did not examine the applicant \u2019s specific complaints concerning his and his lawyer \u2019s absence from the hearing of DATE or the alleged falsification of the record of the above - mentioned hearing .","The hearing of DATE before ORG was held in the absence of the applicant , but in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL lawyers .","On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case filed the indictment with ORG . It appears from the indictment that the applicant had been charged with additional offences on DATE and that in the meantime his period of detention had been extended by ORG until DATE . The relevant part of the indictment reads as follows :","\u201c ... on DATE PERSON was charged under Articles DATE . , CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE and ORG ordered the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of him . On DATE he was charged with new criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE . His period of pre - trial detention was extended by ORG decision until DATE ... \u201d","However , despite an explicit request by ORG that the ORG submit all the judicial decisions concerning the applicant \u2019s detention , no copy of the decision extending his detention until DATE , nor any other copy related to his detention until DATE , was submitted .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of fraud , embezzlement and tax evasion and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179211","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MAGOMETKHOZHIYEV AND AMALAYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants complained of a breach of their property rights through the actions of NORP military forces in GPE in DATE and the failure of the competent domestic authorities to provide them with effective remedies in respect of those breaches .","The facts of the cases , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The application was lodged on DATE by Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr D. Itslayev , a lawyer practising in ORG .","The applicant lived at CARDINAL FAC , ORG . At CARDINAL a.m. on DATE a group of military servicemen arrived at the house . The servicemen drove CARDINAL armoured personnel carriers ( APCs ) , and an NORP lorry with the registration number M CARDINAL CARDINAL . The group \u2019s commander introduced himself to the applicant as Major PERSON . They seized the applicant \u2019s GPE petrol lorry , which was stationed in the courtyard . They did not show any documents or give any explanation in respect of the seizure to the applicant , except to tell him that they had been instructed by their commanders to do so .","The applicant followed the servicemen who drove his lorry away . They entered the compound of a military unit known as QUANTITY , in the south - western outskirts of ORG .","On DATE the applicant was allowed by a soldier to enter the compound and he saw his vehicle there . The applicant states that he saw many other vehicles stationed there ; some had parts missing .","DATE a serviceman told the applicant that his vehicle had been transported to a military unit in GPE , GPE .","The applicant stated that he had reported the seizure of the vehicle to the authorities immediately , but submitted no documents in this respect .","On DATE the applicant informed the military prosecutor of GPE of the unlawful seizure of his lorry and asked him to intervene .","On DATE an investigator of ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office ( hereinafter \u201c the district prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) asked ORG to inform him of the current location of Major Iv . , who was no longer stationed in GPE .","In DATE and DATE ORG replied to the investigator that ORG serviceman by the name of ORG . had been serving in ORG at the time in question .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal investigation file no . CARDINAL into the alleged robbery . The decision by which the criminal investigation file was opened stated that in DATE a group of unidentified armed persons had , having threatened the applicant with firearms , taken his lorry from his house .","After a subsequent exchange of letters between the district prosecutor \u2019s office and ORG and ORG , it proved impossible to identify the military unit in question . On this basis , in DATE the military prosecutor \u2019s office refused to take possession of the file .","Officials of ORG denied that the ORG lorry with the registration and identification numbers indicated by the applicant had been registered with any of their units . This was affirmed by ORG of ORG property .","Certain documents indicated that the servicemen identified by the applicant as belonging to \u201c DON-CARDINAL \u201d had served in military unit no . CARDINAL of the internal troops of ORG , which was permanently based in GPE .","At some point the applicant was granted victim status and information about the vehicle was entered in the national register of missing and stolen vehicles .","The applicant on numerous occasions complained to various bodies , including the civilian and military prosecutor \u2019s offices , and the military and civilian authorities both in GPE and at the federal level .","The investigation was adjourned and reopened on several occasions but failed to identify the perpetrators , to find or question anyone from the military unit in question , or to locate the vehicle .","The applicant lodged a claim for compensation against ORG . On DATE ORG refused to consider the claim on the merits . The applicant appealed , and on DATE ORG of GPE quashed that decision and remitted it to ORG for fresh examination .","In the meantime , the applicant applied to ORG , requesting that it confirm his ownership of the vehicle in question . The applicant submitted that the vehicle and relevant documents had been taken from him by unidentified servicemen of ORG . The GPE traffic police were unable to issue any documents since their archives had burned down in DATE , but a police inspector from ORG confirmed that the applicant had had the vehicle in his possession . CARDINAL witnesses confirmed that the applicant had owned the vehicle . On the strength of the above , on DATE ORG confirmed the applicant \u2019s ownership of the vehicle in question .","By a decision dated DATE ORG transferred the applicant \u2019s claim for damages to ORG of GPE , the city in which ORG was situated . The applicant appealed , and on DATE ORG of GPE quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .","On DATE the Urus - Martan Town Court considered the substance of the case and concluded that the evidence submitted by the applicant and adduced during the pending criminal investigation had failed to establish conclusively the implication of ORG agents in the crime .","The applicant appealed , and on DATE ORG of GPE quashed the judgment of DATE and again remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .","The applicant lodged a claim seeking compensation for the cost of the lorry ( which he estimated at MONEY ( RUB ) ) and lost income , together with compensation for non - pecuniary damage . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim , referring to the absence of conclusive proof that ORG servicemen had seized the vehicle . On DATE ORG upheld that ruling , referring to the fact that the criminal investigation remained pending .","The application was lodged on DATE by Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE , GPE .","In TIME of DATE the applicant , his wife and aunt travelled in the applicant \u2019s KAMAZ CARDINAL lorry from the village of GPE to the Chiri - Yurt district of GPE , GPE . At TIME the applicant \u2019s lorry got stuck on the road , not far from a security roadblock . The applicant tried to seek help from the passing drivers , but they were either unable to tow the lorry or did n\u2019t want to stop , in view of the approaching curfew .","An armoured personnel carrier ( ORG ) , with the hull number CARDINAL , belonging to military unit no . CARDINAL was passing by , and the applicant signalled to it by flashing his headlights . The ORG stopped within QUANTITY of the applicant \u2019s lorry . Several servicemen got out but did not approach the lorry . Soon afterwards the applicant \u2019s lorry was shot at from the direction of the ORG ; the applicant , his wife and his aunt escaped unhurt and ran to PERSON .","In TIME on DATE the applicant went to the lorry and found it burnt out and looking as though it had suffered from an explosion . The applicant immediately informed the local police , the head of the local administration of PERSON and the local military commander \u2019s office .","On DATE the applicant drew up a description of the destroyed lorry , which was co - signed by CARDINAL traffic police officers from PERSON . The description concluded that the lorry had been \u201c blown up and burned during curfew hours not far from the roadblock manned by the [ servicemen of the ] CARDINALth motorised rifle regiment \u201d . The applicant submitted a copy of this document to the ORG , with some handwritten corrections .","On DATE a senior inspector of the state traffic police of the ORG district department of the interior ( ORG \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0430 \u0427\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 PERSON ) concluded that the applicant \u2019s PERSON lorry had been destroyed by fire as a result of being fired at and could not be repaired .","In a decision dated DATE , the ORG district prosecutor \u2019s office stated that it would not open a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations . It concluded that the applicant had left his lorry on the road and that the car had been destroyed by fire as a result of an electrical short circuit . In DATE the applicant lodged a number of complaints against that decision .","On DATE ORG opened a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations that his KAMAZ lorry had been shot at and been destroyed by fire by unidentified servicemen driving ORG no . CARDINAL . The investigation was adjourned on several occasions .","In DATE the applicant , his wife and aunt were granted victim status . The value of the lorry was put by the applicant at RUB CARDINAL . It does not appear that the investigation progressed beyond the facts communicated by the applicant .","On DATE the ORG refused to consider the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the ineffectiveness of the investigation , since on CARDINAL DATE the latest decision to adjourn the investigation had been quashed . On DATE ORG of GPE confirmed this decision .","On DATE the applicant was , once again , informed that the investigation had been adjourned .","The applicant lodged a claim , seeking to recover the cost of the lorry directly from the military unit . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The applicant appealed , and on DATE ORG of GPE quashed ORG decision and remitted the case to ORG . ORG pointed out that the case - file material in respect of the pending criminal case , the applicant \u2019s submissions and the evidence produced all pointed to ORG as the possible tortfeasor . It considered that ORG had failed to elucidate the circumstances of the events in question and to inform ORG of the hearing of DATE .","NORP The case was then transferred to GPE , where ORG headquarters is located . On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . It pointed out that the circumstances of the events in question were the subject of pending criminal proceedings and that \u201c military unit no . CARDINAL \u201d did not exist , according to ORG . It is not clear if the applicant appealed .","It appears that in DATE the applicant left GPE and , via GPE , moved to GPE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164314","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DIMOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE .","On DATE the applicants and their friend PERSON were indicted for allegedly having stolen a wine press ( presu za gro\u017e\u0111e ) .","On DATE ORG acquitted all CARDINAL defendants of these charges . In so doing , it explained that while there was evidence that they had been in possession of a press , there was nothing to suggest that they had obtained it through any criminal activity . The applicants themselves maintained that they had found the press abandoned , while PERSON denied the charge and thereafter exercised his right to remain silent . No material evidence was introduced during the trial and , apart from the statement by the alleged victim \u2012 who maintained that the press worked and had been kept in a locked yard \u2012 the statements of CARDINAL witnesses supported the applicants\u2019 defence .","On DATE the prosecution lodged an appeal against this judgment , emphasising , in particular , that the first - instance court had failed to take into account a statement given to the police by PERSON on DATE ( albeit in the absence of the applicants and their counsel , who had not been invited to attend ) .","On DATE the GPE ORG quashed the impugned judgment and ordered a retrial . The court explained that the statement referred to by the prosecution was particularly important because on this occasion PERSON had confessed \u2012 in the presence of his counsel \u2012 that he had stolen the press together with the applicants . PERSON had subsequently revoked this confession claiming that it had been given under the influence of alcohol and then refused to answer any further questions , and all of these circumstances needed to be reconsidered by ORG , even though the prosecution itself had initially failed to request that ORG statement of DATE be admitted as evidence . The court found this failure by ORG to be \u201c unclear and inexplicable \u201d .","On DATE PERSON died and on DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings against him .","On DATE ORG , having held a hearing and read out PERSON \u2019s statement of DATE before the parties , found the applicants guilty . The first applicant was sentenced to an effective prison term of DATE while the second applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE . In its reasoning the court primarily relied on ORG statement of DATE . No evidence different from that admitted during the first trial was introduced during the retrial .","NORP On DATE ORG upheld this judgment on appeal , and on DATE ORG rejected the ORG further appeal on points of law ( zahtev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosna\u017ene presude ) .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal with ORG , alleging that their conviction had been based on the testimony of a person whom they had never had a chance to cross - examine and who had , in any event , revoked it subsequently .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG appeal as manifestly ill - founded , adding that \u2012 as a consequence of the death of PERSON the lower courts had had no choice but to accept his prior statement given to the police and , clearly , could no longer accommodate the applicants\u2019 objection regarding his cross - examination ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170387","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF B.K.M. LOJISTIK TASIMACILIK TICARET LIMITED SIRKETI v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant company ORG Lojistik PERSON has its registered office in GPE .","On DATE customs officers stopped and checked the applicant company \u2019s lorry , in which they found packages of unknown content . A preliminary test of the content revealed that the packages contained heroin . The customs officers informed the police accordingly .","On DATE the police inspected the lorry and its trailer and found QUANTITY of heroin . The driver , a NORP citizen , was arrested and detained . The lorry was seized and the trailer and its goods became the object of a customs procedure . On an unspecified date the applicant company received documents enabling the goods contained in the trailer to be delivered to their destination . The trailer was returned to the applicant company . Subsequently , the police filed a criminal complaint against the driver with the Ptuj ORG .","On DATE the Ptuj ORG charged the driver with the production and trafficking of illegal drugs under LAW ) of LAW . ORG further requested that the applicant company \u2019s lorry be confiscated under LAW ) of LAW since it had been used for the transportation of illegal narcotic drugs .","On DATE the applicant company asked ORG to provide it with the case - file concerning the charges against the driver . It also enquired when it would be able to retake possession of the seized lorry . On DATE the court informed the applicant company of the charges against the driver . It further informed the applicant company that the lorry had been seized in accordance with LAW read in conjunction with Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and that no decision could be made on the return or confiscation of the lorry until a decision on the merits had been issued . On DATE the applicant company informed the court that it opposed ORG request for confiscation of the lorry .","On DATE the ORG found the driver guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . It ordered that the lorry be returned to the applicant company . It held that confiscation was possible only if one of the conditions set out in the second paragraph of LAW of LAW were met , namely the existence of reasons of general security or morality . ORG considered that that condition had not been met , taking into account the fact that there was no indication that the applicant company knew about the transportation of the illegal material .","Both the driver and ORG appealed . On DATE ORG modified the first - instance judgment and , relying on Sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW , ordered the confiscation of the lorry . It held that the legislative framework provided for mandatory confiscation in cases of drug - related criminal offences since the nature of their commission , their magnitude and the dangerous consequences thereof called for the extension of coercive measures to persons who were not the perpetrators of the criminal offence , irrespective of whether or not the owners of the vehicle knew what the perpetrator had been transporting . ORG explained that in accordance with LAW , objects used in the commission of a criminal offence could be confiscated even when they did not belong to the perpetrator , in so far as the third party \u2019s right to claim damages from the perpetrator was not thereby affected . Moreover , Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided for the possibility of mandatory confiscation in cases provided for by the statute . Thus , Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW implemented those CARDINAL provisions by providing mandatory confiscation of the means of transport used for transportation and storage of illegal substances .","On DATE the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint against the aforementioned decision and an initiative for review of the constitutionality of Section CARDINAL ) of LAW , alleging a violation of its property rights . It complained in particular that it had not known that the lorry was being used for illegal purposes , adding that the first - instance court had explicitly established its non - involvement in the commission of the criminal offence at issue . Claiming that it had not had an effective possibility to prevent the abuse of its property for criminal purposes , the applicant company stressed that the lorry had been subject to regular controls concerning possible vehicle modifications and hidden compartments . Thus , according to the applicant company , the measure complained of constituted a punishment and an unjustified and disproportionate interference with its property and that it had not had the opportunity to participate in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed both the constitutional complaint and the initiative . In reviewing the contested legislation , ORG confirmed the Higher Court \u2019s view that LAW provided for mandatory confiscation of vehicles used for the transportation and storage of drugs or illegal substances in sport , regardless of their ownership . According to ORG , drug - related criminal offences sanctioned under LAW represented a great evil and an extremely high degree of threat not only from the perspective of the individual , but also from the perspective of society as a whole ; the purpose of the impugned measure was to prevent the commission of such criminal offences in the future and thus to protect important legal values in society , such as health and life \u2013 especially of young people . ORG stressed that the nature of the criminal offences in question , the manner in which they were committed and their consequences justified the interference with the ownership rights of all owners of the means of transport used for drug - trafficking , regardless of their potential involvement in the criminal activities at issue , adding that a different regulation governing the confiscation of goods would diminish considerably the possibilities for effectively preventing the criminal offences in question .","Balancing the general interests in question with the property rights of the applicant company , ORG held that the measure complained of did not amount to an excessive interference despite the fact that the applicant company had had no effective possibility for preventing the misuse of its property for criminal purposes and had not participated in the commission of the criminal offence . In this connection , ORG pointed out that legal certainty required that every instance of legally recognised damage be adequately protected . Thus , by virtue of LAW of LAW , the confiscation did not affect the right of third parties to claim compensation from the offender . Under the general rules of tort law , the injured owner had the possibility and the right to exact compensation from the person responsible for the damage . ORG added that it was for the regular courts to establish in each individual case whether all the elements required for recognition of the alleged damage and thus for payment of compensation were fulfilled .","Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG informed the applicant company that the lorry was to be sold at a public auction and that it could submit written comments in this respect . On DATE the applicant company replied that it was willing to buy the confiscated lorry . On DATE the court ordered the sale of the lorry and informed the applicant company thereof . On DATE the lorry was sold at public auction for MONEY ( \u201c EUR \u201d ) . According to the Government the lorry was sold to the applicant company . In this regard , they submitted a document stating that the lorry had been sold to \u201c B.K.M. LOJISTIK , TAS.VE TIC.LTD.STI \u201d , a company from GPE . However , the applicant company contested that statement , alleging that it was another company that had purchased the lorry . The Government did not reply to this submission ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162209","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KANDA v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Hajd\u00fan\u00e1n\u00e1s . He is a shareholder of a limited liability company registered under NORP law , with its seat in Hajd\u00fan\u00e1n\u00e1s .","On DATE the Hajd\u00fa - Bihar County Regional Court ordered the liquidation of the company . On DATE the first instance court declared the liquidation proceedings terminated and ordered the dissolution of the company . On appeal , ORG quashed the judgment .","The first - instance court re - heard the case and on DATE it declared the liquidation proceedings terminated and ordered the dissolution of the company . On appeal , ORG quashed the judgment on DATE .","The first - instance court re - heard the case and on DATE it declared the liquidation proceedings terminated and ordered the dissolution of the company . The decision of the court became final on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145317","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF STOIAN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE , at TIME , a police patrol from FAC pulled the applicant over in his car and asked him to produce an identity card . He replied that he did not have his identity card with him but that his name was PERSON and he was a lawyer and a former police officer . The applicant was invited to get out of the car .","After TIME , he got back into his car and drove off abruptly . According to the police officers , their colleague , PERSON , was hit by the applicant \u2019s car while he was trying to stop him .","The applicant alleged that he had left because the police officers had physically abused and insulted him .","The QUANTITY police officers involved in the incident contested the applicant \u2019s account of events . They stated that because the applicant had smelled strongly of alcohol , they had asked him to accompany them to a forensic laboratory to determine his blood alcohol content . The applicant had refused , got into his car and left the scene .","The police officers got into their car immediately and began chasing him . They also asked the police station for reinforcements . After QUANTITY the police car collided with the applicant \u2019s car , forcing him to stop . The police officers immobilised and handcuffed the applicant .","As the applicant again refused to show an identity card , the police officers carried out a body search and a search of his car .","NORP The applicant tried to escape , running towards the field to the left side of the road . Being handcuffed , he moved with difficulty . After QUANTITY , the police officers immobilised him again . The applicant claimed that he had been repeatedly kicked by the police officers .","One of the police officers had the idea to invite reporters from the \u201c ORG CARDINAL \u201d television channel to come to the scene in order to film the incident . Within TIME a group of television reporters had arrived and started taking images of the applicant handcuffed and covered in blood .","NORP The police officers continued their search , checking the contents of a bag found in the applicant \u2019s vehicle . Inside the bag they found the applicant \u2019s driving licence .","The applicant claimed that the police officers had carried out the search of his bag after breaking its lock despite the fact that he had expressed his intent to open the bag and give them his identity documents . This allegation was confirmed by witness statements and the images filmed by the television reporters .","In the end the applicant was taken to the forensic laboratory , where his blood alcohol content was tested .","The applicant underwent a medical examination at ORG . According to the medical certificate issued on DATE , he presented injuries that could have been caused by being hit with a hard object and would need DATE of medical treatment .","TIME after the incident , the QUANTITY police officers drafted an incident report , presenting their version of the events . The report was signed by GPE and GPE , who allegedly eye - witnessed the incident .","The police officers also drafted a search report describing the items found in the applicant \u2019s bag and car . This report was signed by PERSON , who were allegedly present when the search was carried out .","Other police officers arrived at the scene of the incident , carried out an investigation and drafted an on - site investigation report ( raport de constatare la fa\u021ba locului ) . According to their report , ORG had asked for their intervention because their colleague , PERSON , had been hit by a car driven by a person under the influence of alcohol . Their report was signed by PERSON , who also signed the incident report . The report presented the same version of events as the incident report .","V.L. produced a written statement immediately after the incident , confirming the police ORG version of events . In later statements made on DATE , DATE and DATE , he changed his initial version of events , claiming that he had not been present at the scene of the incident . In this regard he admitted that on TIME DATE , he had been stopped by a police patrol and asked where he was going . After informing them that he was going to the nearby village , the police officers asked him to come back later . He alleged that he had not gone back but that on TIME , at TIME , CARDINAL of the police officers he had met TIME accompanied by CARDINAL other police officers had visited him at home . They had dictated a statement to him and asked him to sign it . They also asked him to sign an incident report and a search report , both of which were blank .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG initiated a criminal investigation against him for false testimony . It noted that after he had signed the incident and on - site reports and produced a written statement which confirmed the version of events presented by the police officers , he had changed his position , stating that he had not been present at the scene of the incident .","On DATE the criminal investigation was discontinued because other witnesses present at the scene of the incident stated that they had not seen PERSON on TIME DATE .","On DATE , PERSON changed his initial statement , claiming that it had been dictated to him by police officers . According to his latest statement he was stopped by police officers only after most of the events had already occurred . He had seen the applicant \u2019s car in a ditch and QUANTITY police officers approaching with the applicant from a nearby field . He had noticed that the applicant was handcuffed , had blood on his face and appeared to have an injury on his right temple . PERSON had heard the applicant telling the police officers his name and that he was a lawyer .","C.G. also stated that he had been present when the police officers invited reporters from the \u201c ORG CARDINAL \u201d channel to come and film the incident and that PERSON had not been present at the scene of the events .","B.F. had been in the same car as PERSON on TIME DATE .","On DATE she stated that on TIME of the events she had seen the applicant with blood on his face and obvious signs of violence . She also mentioned that she had heard the applicant asking the police officers not to force his bag open because he would open the bag and give them his identity card himself . In her statement of DATE she mentioned that the whole of her initial statement , made immediately after the events , had been dictated to her by the police officers .","In a statement made on DATE , ORG contended that on TIME CARDINAL September CARDINAL he had seen a police car following a white car . He had also seen the police car forcing the other car to stop and enter a ditch . He had left his car and gone closer to see what had happened . He claimed that he had seen the applicant on the ground and the police officers kicking him . He also claimed that he had heard the applicant crying out in pain and asking them not to kill him because he had children at home . All the police officers had been hitting and insulting him . Afraid to be caught watching the scene by the police officers , he had left , taking the opposite direction in order to avoid a possible meeting with the police car .","DATE , he had seen the footage taken by the \u201c ORG CARDINAL \u201d reporters and decided to make a statement before the prosecutor .","According to the chief prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE , on DATE ORG changed his initial statement , admitting that he had not been present at the scene of the events of DATE but had been trying to help the applicant .","On DATE the television channel \u201c ORG CARDINAL \u201d broadcast its DATE programme , \u201c the ORG \u201d ( Brigada mobil\u0103 ) . Most of it concerned the applicant \u2019s case .","The filmed images were broadcast to a large audience and the applicant was recognised by a large number of people , notably because of his profession as a lawyer . The footage was broadcast again on DATE by the same television channel .","On DATE a criminal investigation was initiated against the applicant for driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol , causing bodily harm and using insulting behaviour .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to GPE ORG discontinued the criminal investigation .","It held that the offence of driving under the influence of alcohol had not been factually substantiated because according to a forensic report drafted on DATE , the applicant \u2019s blood alcohol content had been PERCENT . In connection with the body injury of police officer PERSON , it noted that no medical certificate had been included in the file and held that the applicant had had no intent to harm him . In respect of the alleged insulting behavior , it held that no offence had been made out . It also noted that the applicant had got into his car and left the scene because he had been insulted and hit by the police officers .","NORP The prosecutor \u2019s decision stated that the police officers \u201c had beaten the applicant , forced his bag , containing personal valuable items , open and invited the television channel \u201c Antena CARDINAL \u201d to report on the incident \u201d . It concluded that the applicant had not committed any offence and that the police officers had breached their duties . It indicated that its findings were supported by the witness statements . It concluded by noting that the CARDINAL police officers had behaved abusively towards the applicant and in order to cover up their actions they had fabricated false evidence . It appears that this decision remained final , as its findings were not challenged","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the QUANTITY police officers involved in the incident for theft and bodily injury . He claimed that they had beaten him and stolen CARDINAL United States dollars from his bag . He also claimed that he had been handcuffed and unlawfully kept in the police car for TIME . He added that the police officers had carried out unlawful searches of his car and bag . On DATE the applicant added to his initial criminal complaint a new complaint for insult and slander against CARDINAL of the police officers . The applicant alleged that they had made insulting comments about him while the television reporters were filming him . He based his complaint on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in force at that time .","On DATE a criminal investigation was initiated against the CARDINAL police officers from FAC for abuse of authority , forgery of official documents , use of forged documents and instigation to false testimony . The military prosecutor held that on TIME DATE , while on duty , the police officers had subjected the applicant to ill - treatment , causing him injuries which needed CARDINAL of medical treatment . He also held that the police officers had tried to cover up their criminal activity by drafting reports which did not reflect what had actually happened and had forced the witnesses to make false statements .","On DATE the military prosecutor discontinued his investigation in connection with the alleged theft . For the rest of the offences imputed to the police officers , he relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG .","On DATE the applicant asked for the criminal investigation against the police officers to take other offences into account . He claimed that they had destroyed his bag , mobile phone , and watch bracelet . He again claimed that his honour and reputation had been damaged by the remarks made by the police officers in front of the television camera .","NORP The applicant also asked the prosecutor to start an investigation against the police officers who had drafted the on - site report , claiming that they had forced FAC to sign their report despite the fact that he had not witnessed the events .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG decided to discontinue the investigation on the ground that there was no evidence that the police officers had subjected the applicant to illtreatment . Furthermore , he stated that the applicant \u2019s injuries had been self - inflicted and that he had destroyed the bracelet of his watch and his mobile phone himself . The applicant \u2019s complaint for insult and slander was dismissed on the ground that it had not been lodged within the legal time - limit of DATE provided by LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . In respect of the insulting remarks addressed to the applicant by the police officers , the prosecutor held that they had been justified by the applicant \u2019s attitude .","He also pointed out that the body search and the search of the applicant \u2019s bag had been necessary in order to establish his identity . As regards the on - site report , the prosecutor admitted that it had been forged but noted that it could not be established who had signed the report as the police officers denied that they had signed it . Therefore , in order to ensure the identification of the persons who had forged the report , he decided to sever those proceedings and concluded that the offences of forgery and use of forged documents had not been made out . He also held that PERSON had changed his initial statement under the influence of the applicant . His presence at the scene of the incident on TIME DATE had been confirmed by all the police officers .","The prosecutor decided to sever the proceedings initiated by the applicant against the television reporters and to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to GPE Court .","On DATE the chief prosecutor dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant and confirmed the prosecutor \u2019s decision .","The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG on the basis of LAW ORG . On DATE the firstinstance court dismissed the complaint , holding that the applicant \u2019s injuries had not been caused by the police officers but had been selfinflicted when he was trying to take off the handcuffs . It based its findings on the initial statements given by witnesses PERSON and B.D. It also held that he had been handcuffed and made to sit in the police car because of his own behaviour .","The applicant appealed , claiming that the firstinstance court had simply reiterated the prosecutor \u2019s decision without providing its own reasons .","On DATE ORG and ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , upholding the judgment of the firstinstance court .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the reporters and the owners of the \u201c ORG CARDINAL \u201d television channel . He claimed a violation of LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) . He claimed that the police officers had invited the reporters to film him handcuffed , with his face covered in blood and his clothes torn and dirty . The images had been broadcast without his consent on DATE at peak viewing time and again on DATE . He also claimed that the images had been accompanied by insulting comments presenting him as an offender despite the fact that he had not committed an offence , as proved by the discontinuance of the criminal proceedings against him . He joined a civil claim to the criminal complaint .","DATE . On DATE the prosecutor decided not to open a criminal investigation .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG upheld the decision not to initiate a criminal investigation .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against the prosecutor \u2019s decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE on the ground that the investigating authorities had not obtained the authorisation of ORG and the ORG . It held that such authorisation was mandatory for the initiation of a criminal investigation against a television channel under the LAW ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166680","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF IBRAHIM AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge;Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Iulia Motoc;Johannes Silvis;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants were born in DATE ( Mr PERSON ) , DATE ( Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON ) and DATE ( Mr PERSON ) . The first CARDINAL applicants are in detention . The fourth applicant lives in GPE .","On DATE CARDINAL suicide bombs exploded on CARDINAL underground trains and a bus in central GPE , killing CARDINAL people and injuring CARDINAL more .","DATE , on DATE , the first CARDINAL applicants and a fourth man , Mr PERSON , detonated CARDINAL bombs on CARDINAL underground trains and a bus in central GPE . On DATE a fifth bomb was discovered abandoned and undetonated in a GPE park . Mr PERSON Asiedu was later identified as the fifth conspirator .","Although the CARDINAL bombs were detonated , in each case the main charge , liquid hydrogen peroxide , failed to explode . Subsequent testing revealed that this was most likely the result of an inadequate concentration of the hydrogen peroxide necessary for it to explode given the amount of TATP ( acetone peroxide , a primary explosive ) used as a detonator . The evidence showed that had the concentration of the hydrogen peroxide been higher or the TATP stronger , the bombs would have been viable .","The first CARDINAL applicants and PERSON all fled the scenes of their attempted explosions . Images of the QUANTITY men were , however , captured by closed - circuit television ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) cameras . A nationwide police manhunt began and photographs and the ORG images of the men were broadcast on national television and published in national newspapers . On DATE a young man was shot and killed on the GPE underground by police after being mistaken for PERSON ( see PERSON the GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) . In DATE that followed , the CARDINAL men were arrested , the first CARDINAL applicants in GPE DATE and PERSON in GPE , GPE , on DATE . They were tried and convicted for conspiracy to murder .","The fourth applicant gave Mr PERSON shelter at his home in GPE during the period when PERSON was on the run from the police and before he fled to GPE . The police interviewed the fourth applicant in GPE on DATE and DATE and arrested him on the latter date . In separate proceedings , he was tried and convicted of assisting PERSON and failing to disclose information after the event .","The details of the applicants\u2019 arrests and initial police questioning are set out more fully below .","The first of the bombers to be arrested was Mr PERSON . He was arrested on DATE at TIME at a house in GPE . A number of police officers entered the house and found Mr PERSON standing in the bathtub , fully clothed and screaming , with a rucksack on his back . The police believed that the rucksack , which was of similar dimensions to those used in the failed bomb attacks , contained a bomb . They shouted warnings before overpowering Mr PERSON with the help of a TAZER device and removing the rucksack . The rucksack proved to contain an empty bucket .","Upon arrest , Mr PERSON was cautioned by the police using the \u201c newstyle \u201d caution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , namely that he did not have to answer questions but that anything he did say might be given in evidence , and that adverse inferences might be drawn from his silence if he failed to mention matters later relied on by him at trial . He was asked if there was anything that he knew of anywhere that could hurt anyone . He answered , \u201c No \u201d . The police officers who accompanied him to the police station in GPE later gave evidence of a brief interview that took place in the car . According to them , they had asked again about whether there was material anywhere that could harm someone and whether officers needed to worry about anything at his home address , to which he had replied that there was not . Later in the journey , Mr PERSON volunteered the following statement :","\u201c I was on that tube at the time of the explosions . I did not know it was going to go off , I did not want to hurt anyone ... I did not make the explosives . I was told to collect it . I went to an alleyway near a shop and collected the rucksack . \u201d","Mr PERSON arrived at FAC , GPE , at TIME At TIME he requested the attendance of the duty solicitor . He was told that he was entitled to consult a solicitor but that this right could be delayed for up to TIME if authorised by a police officer of the rank of superintendent or above . At TIME Superintendent MacBrayne ordered that Mr PERSON be held incommunicado under Schedule CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","Shortly afterwards , PERSON directed that a \u201c safety interview \u201d be conducted with Mr PERSON . \u201c Safety interview \u201d is the shorthand expression used to describe an interview conducted urgently for the purpose of protecting life and preventing serious damage to property . The detainee is questioned in order to secure information that may help avert harm to the public , by preventing a further terrorist attack , for example . The interview may occur in the absence of a solicitor and before the detainee has had the opportunity to seek legal advice ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","At TIME a doctor was called to examine Mr PERSON and the doctor certified him as fit to be interviewed .","At TIME a brief safety interview took place . It lasted TIME and focused on whether there was anything unsafe in a bag which Mr PERSON had discarded when he was arrested .","At TIME the custody officer at ORG contacted the duty solicitor on behalf of Mr PERSON . The duty solicitor was told that he would be contacted again once the booking - in procedure had been completed .","At TIME and TIME Mr PERSON again requested access to a solicitor . He was told that this would be arranged as soon as the booking - in process had been completed . The booking - in process finished shortly afterwards .","At TIME the custody officer was told that a further safety interview had been authorised by PERSON . It was recorded in writing that PERSON had not been given access to legal advice on the grounds that delaying the interview would involve an immediate risk of harm to persons or damage to property and that legal advice would lead to the alerting of other people suspected of having committed offences but not yet arrested , which would in turn make it more difficult to prevent an act of terrorism or to secure the arrest , prosecution or conviction of persons in connection with terrorism offences . The reasons continued :","\u201c PERSON is suspected of detonating an improvised explosive device on a ... train on DATE ; this was part of an organised simultaneous attack that involved CARDINAL other persons yet to be arrested . The identity of CARDINAL of these persons has yet to be established and the whereabouts of CARDINAL is yet to be established .","PERSON \u2019s premises at CARDINAL PERSON are believed to have been used to manufacture the improvised explosive material . My suspicion is that PERSON and his CARDINAL ( at least ) accomplices were attempting to carry out a \u2018 suicide attack\u2019 , killing themselves and any other persons in their immediate vicinity . The other parties to this attack are yet to be apprehended and it is imperative to preserve and secure public safety that they are identified , located and detained prior to attempting to repeat the events of DATE . The immediate whereabouts of these other persons , the presence of other improvised explosive devices and the identities and whereabouts of ANY other persons involved in the commission , preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected to PERSON MUST be established to prevent any loss of life or serious damage to property . Awaiting the arrival of a solicitor and permitting any pre - interview consultation before any attempt to establish the above facts WILL cause unnecessary delay to this interview process . I have considered the requirements of PACE [ the Police and Criminal Evidence Act DATE ] and the associated Codes of Practice and I believe that this course of action is necessary and proportionate . ANY interview with PERSON under this authorisation must cease when the risk to life and public safety is averted .","In granting this authorisation I have considered PERSON \u2019s rights under LAW ] and believe that this authorisation is both proportionate and necessary for ensuring the LAW the public in general . \u201d","There then followed CARDINAL safety interviews of TIME each , with a break of TIME between each one .","Safety interview A commenced at TIME and concluded at CARDINAL a.m. At the beginning of the interview , Mr PERSON was given the oldstyle caution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , namely that he did not need to say anything but that anything he did say might be given in evidence .","Safety interview B commenced at TIME and concluded at TIME Again , Mr PERSON was given the old - style caution at the start of the interview .","At TIME a doctor was called to examine Mr PERSON and certified him as fit to be interviewed .","At TIME the duty solicitor was contacted and was told that safety interviews were taking place .","At TIME safety interview C commenced . This time , Mr PERSON was given the new - style caution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It finished at TIME and Mr PERSON was given a hot meal .","At TIME safety interview D commenced , following the administration of the old - style caution . It was completed at TIME","During the safety interviews , Mr PERSON either claimed that he did not recognise the other suspects from the photos in the media or he gave an incorrect account of how he knew some of them . He deliberately incorrectly described their involvement in the events of DATE .","Meanwhile , at TIME , the custody officer contacted the duty solicitor , who indicated that he would arrive at the police station at TIME At TIME the duty solicitor arrived at the custody suite and was allowed to read the custody record .","At TIME Mr PERSON was placed in a room for consultation with the duty solicitor . That consultation was interrupted at TIME for a further brief safety interview , which began at TIME and concluded at CARDINAL p.m. and was conducted in the presence of the solicitor .","The next suspect to be arrested was PERSON . He was arrested DATE , on DATE , at TIME in a flat in LOC . Mr PERSON was also present at the flat .","Mr Ibrahim was given the new - style caution ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) and put into a forensic suit . He was asked whether there was any material on the LOC which might cause danger to any person . He replied that there was not . He was also asked whether there was any material anywhere which the police should know about and he replied that the police already knew about \u201c QUANTITY ORG \u201d because they had been there already . He identified the other man at the GPE flat as Mr PERSON and was asked whether Mr PERSON had control of any materials likely to cause danger . He replied , \u201c No , listen , I \u2019ve seen my photo and I was on the bus but I did n\u2019t do anything , I was just on the bus \u201d . He was told that he would be interviewed about that later and that all the police wanted to know was whether there was anything at another location that was likely to cause danger . Mr PERSON said , \u201c Look , I know you \u2019re trying to link us with CARDINAL . I \u2019ve seen it on the television . That \u2019s nothing to do with us . I do n\u2019t know these people . I \u2019m a NORP . I ca n\u2019t tell lies . Okay I did do the bus , but I had nothing to do with CARDINAL . \u201d The officer replied , \u201c Look , we \u2019re not interviewing you about any of those matters at this stage \u201d .","Mr Ibrahim arrived at FAC at TIME He requested the assistance of the duty solicitor .","At TIME he was reminded of his right to free legal advice and replied that he understood what had been said to him . The duty solicitor was contacted at TIME At TIME the duty solicitor called the police station and asked to speak to PERSON . She was told that PERSON was unavailable for a consultation . The solicitor called again at TIME and was told that her details would be passed to the officer in charge of the investigation , but that telephone contact was impractical because the appropriate consultation rooms were unavailable .","At TIME Superintendent MacBrayne ordered an urgent safety interview and directed that Mr Ibrahim be held incommunicado . The custody record explained that his right to access to legal advice had been delayed because there were reasonable grounds for believing that delaying an interview would involve immediate risk of harm to persons or serious loss of , or damage to , property ; and that it would lead to the alerting of other persons suspected of committing a terrorist offence but not yet arrested , which would make it more difficult to prevent an act of terrorism or secure the apprehension , prosecution or conviction of a person in connection with terrorism offences . The record gave detailed reasons , as follows :","\u201c PERSON is suspected of detonating an improvised explosive device on the GPE transport system on DATE , this was part of an organised simultaneous attack that involved CARDINAL other persons and I believe was a \u2018 suicide attack\u2019 and those concerned were intent on killing themselves and inflicting mass casualties on the public . The total extent of those involved is not yet established and other suspects may remain at large ... [ I]t is not known at this stage how much explosive was manufactured ; where any may still be ; or if it is under the control of an individual or individuals who may still conduct a similar attack .","It is imperative to preserve and secure public safety that all appropriate measures are taken to identify , locate and detain any other suspects prior to attempting to repeat the events of DATE . It is necessary to take all proportionate steps to detain any persons engaged in the commission , preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism related to this matter to protect the public , prevent loss of life and substantial damage to property . Awaiting the arrival of a solicitor and permitting any pre - interview consultation before any attempt to establish the above facts WILL cause unnecessary delay to this interview process . I have considered the requirements of PACE and the associated Codes of Practice and I believe that this course of action is necessary and proportionate . ANY interview with PERSON under this authorisation must cease when the risk to life and public safety is averted .","In granting this authorisation I have considered PERSON \u2019s rights under LAW and believe that this authorisation is both proportionate and necessary for ensuring the LAW the public in general . \u201d","At TIME a different solicitor called the police station and asked to speak to \u201c QUANTITY Muktar Said \u201d . She was told that CARDINAL of that name was held at the police station . At TIME , when it was established that a Mr PERSON was at the police station , she was contacted and told that he was already represented by the duty solicitor . Meanwhile , PERSON was seen by the forensic medical examiner and given a hot NORP meal .","At TIME Mr Ibrahim was taken from his cell for a safety interview . At the beginning of the safety interview he was given the newstyle caution ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . During the interview , he was read the notes of the police officers concerning what he had said during his arrest but he declined to make any comment or to sign them . He was asked whether he had any materials such as explosives or chemicals stored anywhere . He denied knowing where any such materials might be stored or having any knowledge of planned attacks which might endanger the public . He told the police that he did not know anything about explosives and that he had no links with any terrorist groups . When pressed on whether he knew about other people , other devices and other plans , he said that he did not deal with explosives and did not know anyone who did . When further pressed about whether there was \u201c something out there \u201d that could hurt someone , he said that if he knew anything he would tell the police . He repeated that he knew nothing about explosives and that he did not know anyone planning to carry out suicide attacks . He added that he did not know anyone who dealt with explosives , was a danger to society or was planning terrorist activities . He accepted that he knew Mr PERSON , but denied knowing the other CARDINAL men connected with the events of DATE whose pictures had been shown on television . He was unaware of anyone he knew having been involved in these events . He said that Mr PERSON was not someone who would be prepared to do anything like that . The safety interview ended at TIME","Meanwhile , at TIME the second solicitor contacted the custody officer and a note was made in the custody record that there was an issue of CARDINAL solicitors wishing to represent Mr Ibrahim . At CARDINAL p.m. , the second solicitor called again seeking to speak to him .","At TIME the duty solicitor arrived at the police station . Mr PERSON was sleeping and saw the solicitor at TIME , PERSON said that he did not want the services , at that stage , of the second solicitor .","During subsequent interviews while PERSON was in detention , which were conducted in the presence of a solicitor , he made no comment .","The last of the CARDINAL suspects to be arrested was Mr PERSON . He was arrested and cautioned , using the new - style caution ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) , on DATE at TIME at the same LOC flat as PERSON . He was asked whether there was anything inside the flat that could cause harm to police officers or members of the public . He replied , \u201c No \u201d .","He arrived at FAC at TIME At CARDINAL p.m. he requested the assistance of the duty solicitor , and the forensic procedure commenced . At TIME the custody officer asked the relevant officers to inform him whether PERSON PERSON was to be held incommunicado and at TIME this was authorised .","Simultaneously , PERSON authorised a safety interview . The reasons for delaying access to legal advice were recorded . The superintendent indicated that he believed that delaying an interview would involve immediate risk of harm to persons or serious loss of , or damage to , property ; that it would lead to others suspected of having committed offences but not yet arrested being alerted ; and that by alerting any other person it would be more difficult to prevent an act of terrorism or to secure the apprehension , prosecution or conviction of a person in connection with the commission , preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism . The detailed reasons were essentially identical to those given as regards Mr PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At TIME the custody officer called the duty solicitor scheme . At TIME the forensic procedure was completed and at CARDINAL p.m. Mr PERSON signed the custody record indicating that he wished to speak to a solicitor as soon as practicable . At TIME he was told that he was being held incommunicado and shortly thereafter was permitted to return to his cell to pray .","At TIME duty solicitors arrived at the front desk of ORG .","At TIME the safety interview of Mr PERSON commenced without the presence of a solicitor . He was given the new - style caution ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . He was told that he was suspected of involvement in the attacks of DATE and that the police were concerned for the safety of officers and the public . They therefore needed information about any further explosives , and the people who had them , that could cause harm to the public in the near future . He replied that he had nothing to do with the events of DATE and that he knew nothing about them . He did not recognise the photographs of the alleged perpetrators which he had seen in the media and he did not know how to make the explosive devices found . The safety interview finished TIME , at TIME","The duty solicitors arrived at the custody suite at TIME and saw Mr PERSON at TIME The delay was partly caused by PERSON PERSON \u2019s request for time to pray and the provision of a meal .","DATE , on DATE , Mr PERSON was interviewed for the second time , this time in the presence of a solicitor . Early in the interview , the solicitor read out the following statement by Mr PERSON :","\u201c I am not a terrorist and I \u2019m not in any way connected to any acts of terrorism and have not been connected to any acts of terrorism particularly on DATE or DATE . \u201d","Thereafter Mr PERSON exercised his right to silence .","The first CARDINAL applicants were charged with conspiracy to murder . In DATE , the defence statements were served . In his defence statement , PERSON explained that together with PERSON he had devised a plan of constructing a device with the outward appearance of a realisticlooking explosive device but which had been specifically designed only to make a noise . He accepted that he had been involved in constructing the devices detonated on DATE and that he was one of the underground bombers .","In his defence statement , PERSON accepted that he had detailed knowledge of how to make TATP and concentrated peroxide . He admitted that he had bought most of the ingredients for the bombs , which he said had been designed to make a noise but not to explode because there was insufficient TATP to activate the main charge . He described a meeting at CARDINAL PERSON with Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON on DATE and explained that Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had been given the components that were to be used to make the devices . He maintained that his activating the device on the bus had been a mistake ; he had not been able to set it off on the underground because there had been too many people and his escape might have been impeded .","NORP In his defence statement , Mr PERSON accepted that he had been one of the underground bombers . He admitted that he had carried the device but maintained that he had been given it by PERSON Ibrahim so that it would make a noise and that it was to have been left on the underground train to attract maximum publicity . He said that he had helped move some of the hydrogen peroxide used to manufacture the devices and that , on DATE , he had mixed the hydrogen peroxide and flour and placed it in a container , thereafter attaching metal washers and screws to the device .","The trial of the first CARDINAL applicants for conspiracy to murder commenced in ORG at GPE on DATE before Mr Justice PERSON and a jury . The applicants stood trial alongside PERSON PERSON , PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and PERSON PERSON ( accused of taking part in the essential preparation for the attacks ) . The trial lasted DATE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 defence at trial , as indicated in their defence statements , was that although they had been involved in the events of CARDINAL DATE and had detonated the explosive devices , their actions had not been intended to kill but had been merely an elaborate hoax designed as a protest against the war in GPE . The bombs had been designed to look realistic and to cause a bang when they went off but had deliberately been constructed with flaws to ensure that the main charge would not detonate .","The main issue at trial was whether the failure of the devices to explode was an intentional design flaw ( in which case the applicants could not be guilty of conspiracy to murder ) or a mistake in the construction of the devices as contended by the prosecution . The prosecution sought to rely on the applicants\u2019 answers in their safety interviews to undermine their defence that the events of DATE were intended as a hoax .","The first CARDINAL applicants argued that the admission of the statements they had made during their safety interviews at the police station would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that they ought to be excluded pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG \u201c PACE \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Counsel for Mr PERSON accepted that the police had had good grounds for conducting the interviews as they did . Counsel for PERSON claimed that the new - style caution included an element of coercion and that his safety interview had gone beyond its safety purpose . Counsel for PERSON said that the reasons for the decision to hold a safety interview in his case were incapable of constituting reasonable grounds given the fundamental nature of the right to a lawyer . He questioned whether Mr PERSON \u2019s safety interview had been an urgent interview at all and argued that the subject matter of the interview had exceeded questioning necessary for securing public safety .","A voir dire ( a \u201c trial within a trial \u201d to determine the admissibility of evidence ) was conducted . As Mr PERSON did not challenge the lawfulness of the safety interviews or the manner in which they were conducted , the prosecution was not required to call evidence in this respect . His entire interview process , and in particular the content of his safety interviews , were taken as read . So , too , was the evidence of PERSON , the senior officer in charge of the investigation , and the relevant evidence from the custody records . Evidence was heard from , inter alios , PERSON , the interviewing officers and the jailer at FAC police station . The judge also heard submissions from counsel .","Superintendent PERSON \u2019s evidence was provided in a statement of CARDINAL DATE and was as follows :","\u201c Within TIME of the incident on DATE the investigation had discovered possible identities of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL principal suspects . The investigation became more complicated over DATE due to a number of complicating factors . Some of these were as follows : on DATE a further improvised explosive device ( \u2018 IED\u2019 ) was discovered by a member of the public apparently abandoned ... , suggesting a potential fifth hitherto unknown suspect attacker . A premises in GPE was discovered linked to CARDINAL of the known suspects at that time . A large quantity of precursor chemicals was discovered in the vicinity of these LOC . The quantity of chemicals appeared to be far in excess of what would have been required to construct the GPE used during the attacks on DATE . It appeared that the suspects from DATE were in receipt of considerable post - event assistance from other unidentified persons .","The net effect of the issues mentioned above was that the need to identify and locate all those involved in the events of DATE was the overriding priority of the investigation . There existed a very real fear that another attack could be mounted , either by those who had carried out the attacks on CARDINALst , or by others , acting separately , but under the same control , or in concert with the suspects from DATE . \u201d","Superintendent PERSON gave evidence that he had been aware when granting permission to delay legal advice in the case of PERSON that solicitors had been in touch with the custody suite . In his decision to delay legal advice , he had considered the period that a consultation might take but had not necessarily addressed the possibility of a telephone conference . As to the delay between the authorisation to conduct a safety interview and the start of PERSON interview , PERSON explained that the start time of an interview was a matter for the discretion of the officers . Once he had authorised an urgent interview , it was not realistic in these circumstances to expect him constantly to revisit the issue and determine when the interview was to occur : some decisions were left to the officers at the police station . Superintendent ORG accepted that before the beginning of the safety interview of PERSON it might have been possible for solicitors to see him but said that in his experience such conferences could be extremely protracted . He accepted that a meeting with a lawyer could be interrupted or made the subject of time - limits . In respect of Mr PERSON \u2019s safety interview , PERSON gave evidence that the need to ask questions was just as great when the interview began as it had been when the interview had been authorised . He explained that he had given the police officers at the station the tools to make the decision as to the precise time the interview should occur .","DATE . In his lengthy ruling on the voir dire , the trial judge held that the statements made during the safety interviews could be admitted . The judge referred at the outset to the explanation given by PERSON of the situation which he had faced ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The judge also considered the facilities available in the custody area at FAC , where the applicants had been taken after their arrest and where the safety interviews had taken place . He noted that the entire custody facilities had been given over to the investigation into the attempted bombings . There were CARDINAL cells , rooms for medical and forensic testing purposes and CARDINAL rooms for consultations between suspects and their solicitors . However , at the time of PERSON and Mr PERSON \u2019s safety interviews , CARDINAL individuals suspected of terrorism offences were being detained at the police station .","The judge examined carefully the circumstances surrounding each of the applicants\u2019 arrests and safety interviews . Reviewing , first , Mr PERSON \u2019s case , he noted that counsel for PERSON PERSON did not allege that the interviews had been oppressive . On the contrary , he said , counsel had accepted that the interviews had been necessary and fairly conducted . The judge noted :","\u201c CARDINAL . On all significant issues , it is admitted PERSON , from the outset , did not tell the truth in these interviews and , in the result , he did not in any sense assist the police in their attempt to secure the safety of the public . Indeed , the position is quite the opposite ... \u201d","The judge observed that , in answering the questions designed to protect the public , Mr PERSON had volunteered a very large amount of misleading information . He had not incriminated himself at any stage but had instead told extensive exculpatory lies . The police officers had concentrated on issues that might have revealed information relevant to assisting them to locate people or items that could pose a danger to the public . Although the interviews had been long , it had not been suggested by counsel that the police had exceeded the requirements of what was necessary and it had been acknowledged that the lines of questioning were relevant to public safety issues .","As regards PERSON , the judge again reviewed in detail the circumstances of his arrest and questioning and noted :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... There were CARDINAL detainees , all arrested for suspected involvement in the events of DATE ... [ T]he overall picture is of an extremely busy police station , and I accept unhesitatingly that it was impractical to enable a telephone conversation to take place between [ the duty solicitor ] and PERSON at the time of her CARDINAL calls ... The custody sergeants understandably gave priority to \u2018 face - to - face\u2019 conferences ... and it was not a realistic option to leave a room free with a telephone socket for telephone conversations with lawyers . [ The custody sergeant ] accepted , however , that there had been a breakdown in communication in telling the interviewing officers that [ the duty solicitor ] was trying to get through to PERSON on the telephone . \u201d","The judge noted that the police had approached the issue of undiscovered items from a number of different directions but that at all times Mr PERSON had maintained that he did not know of any planned attacks for the future or hidden explosives .","The judge then examined the circumstances of Mr PERSON \u2019s arrest and questioning by the police . As regards the gap between his arrival at the police station and the start of his safety interview , the judge referred to PERSON evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The trial judge next referred to the statutory framework governing access to legal advice for those held under terrorism legislation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , which made it clear that where a suspect was interviewed without legal assistance , the old - style caution had to be administered because section CARDINAL(CARDINALA ) of ORG LAW DATE prohibited the drawing of adverse inferences from silence where the suspect had not had access to legal advice ( see CARDINAL below ) . However , the judge considered that this did not extend to preventing the court from admitting evidence of things said by a suspect during questioning , including any lies that he told . The judge indicated that the jury would be told , first , that , contrary to the terms of the new - style caution that had been , on occasion , administered , no adverse inferences could be drawn from the applicants\u2019 failure to mention during questioning facts later relied on at trial ; and , second , that they should take on board that incorrect cautions had been given .","The judge turned to review domestic and GPE case - law on access to legal advice and the right to silence , referring to PERSON v. GPE , DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE , ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , ORG CARDINALV , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG DATE . He continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . In my view , the following conclusions are to be drawn from those decisions of the ORG . First , legal advice can be withheld for good cause during the early stages of interviews , so long as the conditions in which the interviews occur are not significantly coercive ( PERSON ) and so long as access is not delayed for an excessive period ( PERSON ) . Moreover , interviewing a suspect having withheld legal advice and following a newstyle caution is not decisive in the assessment of whether there has been a breach of LAW [ of LAW ( PERSON ) . Rather , the court must look at the circumstances overall and the use to which evidence is put ( and including whether adverse inferences are drawn ) . Accordingly , so long as the overall circumstances have not caused irretrievable prejudice to the rights of the defendant , much will depend on the directions a jury receives as to how they should approach the silence or the statement of a suspect in these circumstances . As the ORG made clear in GPE , considerable caution is required when attaching weight to the fact that a person arrested in connection with a serious criminal offence and having been denied access to a lawyer during the early stages of his interrogation responds in a particular way DATE or as in that case , does not respond \u2013 to the questions put to him . The need for caution is not removed simply because an accused is eventually allowed to see his solicitor and then refuses to answer questions . A jury must be given a strong and careful warning that they must take into account all of the relevant circumstances ; they must have discounted all reasonable ( \u2018 innocent\u2019 ) explanations for the accused \u2019s silence or statements before they consider using this material against him ; and the jury must be told to be careful not to accord disproportionate weight to this evidence . \u201d","DATE . The trial judge considered that the applicable code of practice ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) and the caution were primarily designed to protect an accused from self - incrimination ( both the old and new - style cautions ) and to warn him of the consequences if he chose to answer questions ( both cautions ) and the harm that could be done to his case if he failed to reveal elements of his defence on which he later relied at trial ( the new - style caution ) . Neither the code nor the caution was intended to protect defendants from telling lies . The judge explained :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... Whilst I recognise that an accused may benefit from having a solicitor remind him of his moral duty to tell the truth , in my view it is an invalid argument to suggest that an interview is necessarily inadmissible because the suspect did not have the advantage of a consultation with a solicitor , who had been excluded for good cause , in order to tell him that he should not deceive the police . Second , ... it can not be said that the use of the new - style caution induced any of these CARDINAL defendants to reveal parts of their defence so as to avoid adverse inferences being drawn during their trial . Instead they told lies . \u201d","He concluded that , although he had given weight to the absence of a solicitor during the safety interviews and the use of the wrong caution , there had been no significant unfairness or material infringement of the applicants\u2019 right to a fair trial . He then went on to consider the specific proceedings in each of the CARDINAL ORG cases .","As regards PERSON , the judge noted that he had been the first of those who had detonated devices to be brought into custody and that he had , therefore , been a person of particularly high interest to investigators . He found that the safety interviews had been conducted expeditiously and that as soon as they had been completed Mr PERSON had been given access to a solicitor . The interviews had been neither coercive nor oppressive , as accepted by PERSON counsel . Although not specifically raised by counsel , the judge further observed that no legitimate complaint could be made as to the overall length of the interviews : in interview , PERSON had been suggesting to officers that he had not been involved in the alleged offences , yet it had emerged as the questioning progressed that he knew some of those involved and that he had information as to particular events . The judge continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... Whether interviews of this kind need to be short or long , or somewhere in between , will depend on all the circumstances . Given the vital subject matter \u2013 the need to preserve life and limb and to prevent serious damage to property \u2013 the police were entitled in their questions to press and probe , as in any conventional interview , since long experience has demonstrated that although an unhelpful answer may be given initially , systematic but fair questioning can unearth detail which the interviewee was reluctant or unable to provide at the outset . These exchanges are often organic , and although the reason for asking the questions should only be to preserve the safety of the public , the subject - matter of the questions may perforce include seemingly extraneous matters , so as to enable the officers to approach a given \u2018 ORG issue by a variety of different routes . \u201d ( original emphasis )","Although a breach of the applicable code of practice had occurred when the new - style caution had been administered at the beginning of safety interview C ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the judge noted that this had not affected Mr PERSON \u2019s attitude to the questioning . He had continued telling lies consistent with what he had said in safety interviews A and B , where he had been correctly cautioned ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . The new - style caution had not led him to incriminate himself .","As regards PERSON , the judge reiterated that by the time he had arrived at ORG police station there had been CARDINAL suspects in the custody suite , all held under terrorism provisions in relation to the events of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He continued :","\u201c CARDINAL ... For the police these were unique and extremely difficult circumstances . They had to ensure that there was no contact or communication between any of the suspects , and with DATE such as DATE who potentially may have yielded \u2018 forensic GPE elaborate procedures were followed to ensure that evidence of this kind was not lost or contaminated . He arrived at ORG wearing special clothing and the booking - in procedure did not conclude until CARDINAL . It would have been impractical for him to speak to a solicitor during that process . At TIME , when the duty solicitor rang , neither of the CARDINAL rooms with an appropriate telephone socket was available . The decision to hold a safety interview was recorded in the custody record at CARDINAL , and PERSON was taken from his cell for the safety interview at CARDINAL . On the evidence , it is clear that there was a breakdown of communication in that the investigating and interviewing officers ... were not told that [ the duty solicitor ] had been trying to speak to PERSON from CARDINAL . Furthermore , Mr ORG had decided not to delay the interview to enable a solicitor to attend at the police station for a face - to - face meeting prior to any interview because of the length of time such a conference may take . Apart from the risk of delay to the interview , Mr ORG did not object in principle to PERSON seeing a lawyer prior to the safety interview .","Although the officers could have set a time - limit on any legal consultation at the police station \u2013 a possibility that Mr ORG did not address \u2013 I am persuaded that the decision to hold a safety interview without waiting for [ the duty solicitor ] to arrive at FAC was wholly sustainable . Proper advice in these circumstances could not be given in TIME ; indeed , for the conference with a solicitor who was new to the case to have had any real value it would have needed to last for a significant period of time . I acknowledge that [ the duty solicitor ] , whose offices were only QUANTITY from the police station , could have attended at short notice , and that there was , in theory , time for a face - to - face conference DATE . However , the officers were working under exceptional pressure ; it was uncertain as to when the interviews of each of the CARDINAL suspects would occur , given the pressure on facilities ; there was considerable demand for the CARDINAL available solicitor \/ client conference rooms ; and in all the circumstances it was wholly understandable that no officer appreciated that there was time to ask [ the duty solicitor ] to attend for a meeting with PERSON before the safety interview began . Mr ORG gave his authorisation for a safety interview at CARDINAL and I do not consider that the unforeseen delay in organising the interview until CARDINAL , on these facts , constitutes a breach of PERSON \u2019s rights to consult a solicitor \u2018 as soon as reasonably practicable\u2019 . On an assessment of what was reasonable on this highly unusual day , the failure to arrange a face - to - face conference during that less - than - TIME period , or indeed during the longer period following the first telephone call from the duty solicitor , was not unreasonable . These rights can not be assessed in a vacuum , but in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time . \u201d","NORP However , the judge was of the view that it should have been possible , TIME and TIME , to ensure that the duty solicitor was given access to PERSON by telephone and he accordingly concluded that , to this limited extent , PERSON had been incorrectly denied access to legal advice by telephone . However , the judge considered that this error did not involve a material infringement of his defence rights , noting :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... [ T]his infringement of his rights was of low significance : it would have been impossible for [ the duty solicitor ] , in speaking to PERSON for the first time over the telephone , to give detailed and informed advice in those circumstances , and she would have been unable to provide material assistance on the decision which he had to take . Although for this defendant the choice was a straightforward one , [ the duty solicitor ] would have needed to understand the entirety of the main background circumstances before she could give advice that would have been useful to PERSON as regards the options confronting him . She could have advised him of his rights , but save for any issues arising out of the misuse of the new - style caution , his core rights had already been made clear to him : he was entitled to legal advice ( which had been delayed for public safety reasons ) ; he was entitled to remain silent ; and anything he did say may be given in evidence against him . There is no suggestion that he did not understand these straightforward matters . \u201d","The judge noted again that the use of the new - style caution at the beginning of the safety interview was an error , but he considered that the erroneous use of that caution was a straightforward and wholly understandable oversight on the part of the officers conducting the interview , given the exceptional pressure under which they had been operating . For the reasons already given ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he rejected the suggestion that once an interviewee had given an answer on a particular issue the officer should have explored the matter no further during safety interviews . Such an approach , he said , could amount to a dereliction by the officers of their duty . He considered that so long as the questioning was fair and so long as its purpose was to address safety issues , the officers were entitled to press and probe in an attempt to unearth useful information relevant to the protection of the public . They were not expected to believe and accept what was said by the detainee , and investigating his motives and attitudes to terrorism could be highly relevant to the question whether there was a subsisting danger to the public . The judge found that Mr Ibrahim \u2019s safety interview had been short , that it was not suggested that it had been conducted coercively , that the questions had not gone beyond legitimate questioning for safety purposes and that PERSON had seen a lawyer around TIME after his first request to see one . Finally , he noted that it was accepted by PERSON that the conversation which had taken place upon his arrest was admissible ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , although its content was disputed .","As regards Mr PERSON , the judge rejected the submission that the holding of a safety interview had not been objectively justified . He was confident that what had taken place had been a bona fide safety interview and that the officers had been entitled to conclude that the single question put to Mr PERSON upon his arrest had not been a sufficient investigation of the potential dangers . The judge again emphasised that the risk to the public of outstanding explosives and conspirators had been considerable and found that it had been \u201c wholly justified \u201d to hold a safety interview without the delay that would have resulted from allowing him access to a lawyer . He repeated that giving proper advice at this stage , from solicitors not previously involved , would in all likelihood have taken a considerable period of time .","The judge noted that Mr PERSON \u2019s access to legal advice had been delayed for TIME , during which time TIME of questioning had taken place . There was no suggestion that the interview had been held in coercive circumstances . Aside from the fact of the interview and the terms of the new - style caution , there was no evidence of any pressure having been applied . The judge recorded that Mr PERSON \u2019s stance under questioning had been that he had been wholly uninvolved in the events of DATE , and that although the officers had pressed him on this for a short and wholly appropriate period of time , he had resolutely maintained that he had no relevant information to impart . The judge was sure that the short interview had not exceeded the legitimate bounds or purpose of a safety interview and had , on the contrary , been focused and appropriate .","As to the fairness of the proceedings , in the light of his analysis of the facts , the judge began by citing passages from ORG where their Lordships had referred to the \u201c triangulation of interests \u201d which had to be considered , namely the position of the accused , of the victims and their families and of the public . Their Lordships had also referred to the fact that individual rights should not be treated as if enjoyed in a vacuum and that the purpose of LAW was not to make it impracticable to bring those accused of crime to justice . The judge continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . Those passages , in my judgment , reveal a critical aspect of the approach that the court should adopt when determining applications to exclude evidence on the basis of suggested unfairness . Trials must be fair , and judges have the obligation of ensuring that the trial process is not undermined by admitting evidence that would defeat that objective . However , the evidence which the defendant seeks to exclude should not be evaluated in a vacuum , and the court should not apply some rigid formula , thereby ignoring the true context of the disputed material . On these applications , the court is called upon to exercise discretion , and that can usually only be achieved if all of the relevant circumstances are taken into consideration . There is no pre - determined result , and each case depends on the application of the relevant principles to the particular facts . \u201d","The judge emphasised that the right to a lawyer was recognised under domestic and NORP law as an important safeguard for an accused which should only exceptionally be denied . Where an interview with a defendant who had requested legal representation took place before the opportunity for consultation had been afforded , the court was required to scrutinise the circumstances with great care .","The judge considered that the submission that the applicants had been confronted with irreconcilable propositions when asked to participate in the safety interviews merited careful analysis . However , he found that the propositions were not irreconcilable and contradictory . He considered that the CARDINAL applicants had been confronted with a \u201c stark but clear choice \u201d : either they could help the police in the knowledge that what they said might be used against them , or they could protect themselves and remain silent . He noted that they had been warned that failure to reveal elements of their defence later relied on at trial might count against them . He continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... What is clear beyond doubt is that the defendants were not misled or deceived as to the underlying purpose of the interviews , the possible consequences of answering questions or the potential risks of not revealing elements of their defence : these matters were explained in straightforward language and it has not been suggested that any defendant failed to understand what was said to them ... The change in the words of the caution as regards [ Mr PERSON ] in interview C appears to have passed by unnoticed ; certainly , nothing has been advanced to support any argument that it caused confusion or pressure . Centrally , they were told that anything they said may be used in evidence against them ... \u201d","The judge noted that the questions posed in the interviews had concerned the construction and detonation of the devices , which the CARDINAL applicants now admitted . They had , therefore , not been faced with an unfair dilemma : it had been for them to decide at that stage in the unfolding events whether their personal interests or the public interest took priority . The judge further emphasised that the defence that the applicants had chosen not to reveal at that stage \u2013 the truth , as they now maintained in their defence statements \u2013 had been directly relevant to the public safety issues and easy to describe . It had not required any detailed understanding of the criminal law or a complicated factual explanation . It could have been summed up by the single word \u201c hoax \u201d . The judge accepted that it was sometimes necessary to have the assistance of a lawyer before a suspect could understand and describe a complicated defence , but said that this had not been the case here . He noted :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... The defendants might have a more credible position on this issue if they had answered questions in ways which were at least arguably designed to assist the police and which , as a result , incriminated them . However , it is common ground that the defendants either lied or failed to reveal what they knew during these safety interviews : rather than incriminate themselves , they offered false , exculpatory explanations . Having been warned that anything they said may be used in evidence , they chose not to tell the police the truth ... \u201d","The judge further found that the invitation to cooperate in the process of protecting the public had not been an impermissible inducement . Finally , he concluded that the new - style caution had not , on the material introduced in the voir dire , pressured the applicants into providing any element of their various defences and that they could not validly claim that they had been induced impermissibly into revealing their \u201c true \u201d cases .","The judge emphasised again :","\u201c CARDINAL . What occurred in GPE in DATE was wholly exceptional ; indeed , since the end of the Second World War , the perceived threat to the Capital during DATE was without precedent in our national life . When the potential connection was made between the events of DATE by the investigating officers , their inevitable concern was that GPE had become the target of what may turn into a wave of terrorist attacks . Many died on DATE , and yet more were injured in terrible circumstances , and exactly a fortnight later it seemed that it was merely by good fortune that a repeat event had been avoided . The perpetrators on DATE were dead and the police had incomplete information about them ; when the devices detonated on DATE , the police had no means of knowing whether yet more were destined to be set off in the near future ; and a high priority for those charged with protecting the public was to find and defuse any other bombs and to arrest outstanding conspirators . \u201d","The judge noted that , among other things , terrorism was usually intended to create chaos and panic and to disrupt the proper functioning of public life . It was , he said , no doubt intended by the perpetrators that the emergency and law enforcement services , faced with events of this nature , would have to function in a highly adverse environment . Indeed , in the absence of evidence to the contrary from the defendants , it was a fair inference that it had been contemplated by the defendants that they would cause a considerable strain to , or breakdown of , the normal and proper administrative procedures in multiple fields , thereby maximising the effect of their terrorist event . This conclusion applied equally , the judge said , whether the devices were intended to kill and maim or to be hoax devices which only partially detonated . The resort by the police to safety interviews , the delays in providing access to lawyers and the mistakes as to the caution were \u201c a direct and unsurprising result of the GPE deliberate actions \u201d .","NORP In his conclusion to his ruling , the judge noted that the applicants had , by their own admission , caused the wholly exceptional and stressful environment within which the police had been forced to operate and that had led to the need to hold safety interviews . Further , instead of assisting the police in their understanding of the extent of the continuing risk , or lack of one , they admitted that they had availed themselves of this opportunity to tell a series of highly misleading , exculpatory lies . It was not suggested that they had failed to understand that they had the right to remain silent , or that they were unfit to participate in the interviews .","The judge set out in detail the approach he had adopted to the exercise of his discretion whether to exclude the evidence . In particular , he had given full weight to the principle that access to legal advice before and during questioning was one of the most fundamental rights that should only be denied on reasonable grounds in particular cases . He had borne in mind the need for the court to have regard to the fact that the police should have the systems in place and the resources available to enable them to investigate all crime efficiently . That said , he added , the police could not be expected to anticipate and make provision for every kind of exceptional eventuality , particularly if the chaotic event in question had not occurred before . Further , in determining the admissibility of the statements , the court was fully entitled to weigh in the balance the fact that it had been necessary to conduct the interviews and that the state of affairs that had led to the denial of legal advice was the direct result of the applicants\u2019 deliberate action .","The judge said that he had also taken into consideration the fact that the environment in which the applicants had been held had not been in any true sense coercive ; indeed , he said , the opposite was the case . The applicants\u2019 dietary and religious needs had been punctiliously catered for and their fitness for interview carefully assessed . It had not been suggested that the questioning was oppressive or unfair . While the judge accepted that the erroneous administration of the new - style caution had involved a level of indirect compulsion , this was not , in his view , decisive : the choice for the applicants had been an easy one and they had not been induced by the caution to incriminate themselves but had instead told deliberate , exculpatory lies .","The judge explained that he had also taken into account that the evidence of the safety interviews was potentially of high relevance to the central question raised in the trial , namely whether the defences now advanced were possibly true . He said that it was not , therefore , \u201c marginal or unimportant evidence \u201d but instead could provide the jury with considerable insight into the true intentions of the defendants . So long as it was fair to each defendant to introduce the safety interviews in his case , it was , the judge said , strongly in the public interest for the material to form part of the evidence bearing in mind the \u201c triangulation of interests \u201d . He therefore concluded that there had been no material infringement of the right of any of the applicants to exercise their defence rights . None of the applicants had needed the presence of a lawyer as a counterweight to anything adverse that had happened during their detention or safety interviews . The use of the wrong caution had not , on the facts , undermined the protection against self - incrimination . Moreover , there was nothing unfair in admitting the evidence given the circumstances analysed in detail in the ruling . Having thus weighed the requirements of LAW , the judge ruled the interviews admissible in their entirety . He noted that \u201c carefully crafted \u201d jury directions would be necessary and that these would be discussed with counsel in due course .","Aside from the statements made in the safety interviews , the prosecution led evidence that the applicants had extremist views . They relied on books and printed material , audio material , including the last message of the DATE suicide bombers , and video material showing beheadings and other atrocities , including homemade films , found at the residences of Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . There was evidence that the first CARDINAL applicants and PERSON had attended a training camp in LOC in DATE and there was a clear inference that the purpose was training for Jihad . PERSON had spoken of training for Jihad in GPE or GPE in DATE and at DATE he had left GPE to go on Jihad , returning in DATE . Some of those who had gone with him had not returned and were presumed to have been killed . There was evidence that PERSON had tried to convince an outsider to the group of the legitimacy of suicide bombings and other terrorist activity and had made clear that he supported murderous operations carried out against GPE and GPE , expressing support for DATE suicide bombings . In DATE , he had shouted at an imam of a mosque who had condemned suicide bombings in GPE that he should not \u201c mislead the people \u201d . Also introduced as evidence were jottings referring to martyrdom on the same pad of paper that had been used to note the amount of materials supposed to go into each bomb .","The prosecution further relied on evidence as to the purchase of the material for the bombs and their preparation . DATE , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr Asiedu had purchased QUANTITY of liquid hydrogen peroxide at MONEY concentration , the highest concentration available to the public , in a total of CARDINAL containers . There was evidence that they had requested liquid hydrogen peroxide at CARDINAL or MONEY strength . The prosecution contended that they had boiled the lower - strength hydrogen peroxide to increase its concentration . Of the CARDINAL empty bottles later recovered , CARDINAL had handwritten markings on them with the figure of \u201c CARDINAL \u201d or \u201c PERCENT \u201d , which the prosecution contended was proof that the defendants believed that the requisite concentration for explosion had been reached . Handwritten calculations and notes in PERSON handwriting were also relied upon . A rota showed over QUANTITY FAC work boiling the hydrogen peroxide . The prosecution \u2019s expert gave evidence that TATP was a suitable primary explosive for use in a detonator . Evidence was led that shrapnel had been attached to the outside of the plastic tubs . This would have increased fragmentation upon explosion and maximised the possibility of injury .","Both prosecution and defence experts agreed that the bombs were not viable . The prosecution \u2019s expert explained that this was because the hydrogen peroxide , at MONEY concentration , had not reached the necessary concentration required for explosion . He pointed out that if the purpose had been a hoax , no increase in concentration would have been necessary . In response to the defence claim that the hydrogen peroxide had been concentrated and then diluted again with tap water ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he explained that his analysis of the isotope composition of GPE tap water showed that this was not possible , a conclusion not disputed by the defence expert .","NORP The prosecution also referred to a vast body of telephone and ORG evidence of extensive contacts between the men from DATE . A farewell letter written by PERSON , which the prosecution alleged was a suicide note , was also admitted . A witness gave evidence that he had received the letter on DATE from Mr PERSON \u2019s brother and had been asked to pass it on to Mr PERSON \u2019s partner . A tripod for a video camera had been found in Mr PERSON \u2019s residence . Mr PERSON \u2019s fingerprints were on the tripod box and Mr PERSON \u2019s fingerprints were on the tripod . An empty box for a video camera had been recovered in Mr PERSON \u2019s residence and a video camera had been found in his possession when he was arrested in GPE . The prosecution alleged that the camera had been used to film a suicide video in Mr PERSON \u2019s residence , although no such video was ever found . The jury also heard evidence from passengers on the trains where CARDINAL of the bombs had been detonated as to the applicants\u2019 behaviour . In respect of PERSON , the bus driver gave evidence of his unusual behaviour in boarding the bus . Finally , the prosecution referred to the lack of any credible plans for what was to happen after the detonations .","Copies of the custody records were provided to the jury .","NORP The first CARDINAL applicants gave evidence to the effect that their actions had been intended as a hoax . They had initially planned to leave the bombs unattended in public to make a point about the Iraq war . After the events of DATE , the plan changed to detonating the bombs but not the main charge of hydrogen peroxide . To this end , they claimed that although they had tried to concentrate the hydrogen peroxide by boiling it , they had then watered it down so that it would no longer be at the necessary concentration for an explosion .","Mr PERSON said that he had told the truth and lies during his safety interviews . He said that he had been truthful as regards the potential harm to the public , but he had not wanted PERSON and Mr PERSON to be killed by the police and so had not provided their true names or locations . He alleged that he had been told that he had better cooperate and had been afraid that he might be tortured , so he had told the officers what they wanted to hear .","Mr PERSON explained that he had not said , during his safety interview , that it was a hoax because he had known that he was supposed to get advice from a solicitor and had thought that there was something going on . He accepted that there had been no problem for him to say during the interview that it had been a hoax . He also agreed that seeing a solicitor would not have affected his decision as to whether he should tell the truth or whether he would lie . He said he did not trust the police and , despite the fact that the interview was being tape - recorded , he had believed that they would twist his words . He said that he had tried to protect his coaccused , that he had simply been talking for himself and that he had been confused at the police station and had not known what to say . He had been aware of the purpose of the safety interview , having been told that it was about protecting the public from suicide bombers . He explained that he had felt that he had to answer questions because it was a safety interview designed to save lives , although he had understood that he did not have to speak unless he wanted to . He had not admitted his involvement in making the TATP because he had been directing his answers at the concern as to any outstanding risk to the public . He agreed that he had claimed not to know his coaccused but explained that he had done this because he had not wanted to incriminate anyone . He said that he had decided not to say anything about his case and the plan until he had seen his solicitor ; he had been concerned that if he had mentioned the hoax his words might have been misinterpreted or twisted .","ORG . Mr PERSON explained his farewell letter , saying that it had in fact been written on DATE after the shooting of the man mistaken for CARDINAL of the suspects ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) because he had thought that he too would be shot by the police . It was pure coincidence that it had been written on the same pad as that used for the detonator . As regards the safety interview , Mr PERSON said that he had understood that he did not have to speak unless he wanted to , but had thought that he had to talk because it was a safety interview designed to save lives . He explained that he had wanted to see a solicitor but had been interviewed without one . He agreed that by the time that the interview had taken place , he had no longer feared that he would be killed , but said that he had thought that he would be harmed . That , he said , was the sole reason for the lies he had told during the interview . He had said that he was not involved because he had thought that the police officers did not know who he was and that if he denied everything he would be permitted to leave the police station and go home . He said that the statement prepared after he had spoken to his solicitor ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was partially true and partially false . He had not told the whole truth because he had not received legal advice , had felt under pressure and had been upset .","Like the first CARDINAL applicants , PERSON case prior to trial was that the events of DATE had been a hoax . However , after PERSON had given evidence , PERSON gave oral evidence and changed his previous position . He claimed to have learned on TIME of DATE that the devices were real bombs . He had been too confused and frightened to refuse the device that had been handed to him but , in accepting it , he had not intended to join or play any part in the conspiracy .","The judge provided copies of his summing - up to counsel in advance of delivery and invited comments from them on its content . During his summing - up to the jury , delivered orally after copies had been distributed to jury members , the judge gave the following direction in respect of the statements made in the safety interviews :","\u201c What about the lies , members of the jury , told by some defendants to the police ? It is admitted that the defendants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON lied to the police in different ways during their interviews ... [ B]efore you even begin to take any lies into consideration , you must pay careful attention to the circumstances in which the lies were told and those circumstances vary between the defendants .","First , you will recall that because of the exceptional circumstances that existed in DATE safety interviews were authorised in the cases of PERSON and PERSON . That meant that those defendants were questioned in an attempt to preserve the safety of the public before they had the opportunity of consulting with a solicitor . It is not alleged by anyone that legal advice was denied by the officers as a result of bad faith or dishonesty . However , access to legal advice prior to interview is a right that is usually afforded to a suspect and you should take into consideration that this did not happen . For instance , a solicitor may have advised the defendant in question to remain silent or they may have reminded the defendant that he should tell the truth and that there may be consequences if he lied . Therefore , when considering whether to hold any lie told by those CARDINAL defendants during a safety interview against them , remember that this safeguard with these safety interviews was withheld . \u201d","The judge also directed the jury to bear in mind that incorrect cautions had been used . He explained :","\u201c As a result , it was confused and potentially confusing for all CARDINAL defendants . The new - style caution that was administered may have put inappropriate pressure on them to speak . When considering whether or not to hold any lie told by a defendant during a safety interview against him , take into account , therefore , that unsatisfactory history as regards the use of the caution .","However , as regards the use of the new - style caution , you are also entitled to bear in mind that none of these CARDINAL defendants were in fact pressurised into revealing anything that they have later relied on in this trial . To the contrary , on all or most material issues they lied . \u201d","In respect of those lies , the judge observed :","\u201c In addition , for PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON when assessing lies they told whilst in police custody , whether in a safety interview or otherwise , you should consider CARDINAL further questions : on the particular issue you are considering , you must decide whether the defendant you are considering did in fact deliberately tell lies . If you are not sure he did , ignore this matter on that issue . If you are sure , consider why did the defendant lie on that issue . The mere fact that a defendant tells a lie is not in itself evidence of guilt . A defendant may lie for many reasons and they may possibly be innocent ones in the sense that they do not denote guilt . It is suggested here that lies were told for a variety of reasons : out of fear of admitting a degree of involvement or knowledge but which the defendant says falls short of his being a conspirator , that is PERSON ; to protect others who they feared would be falsely accused and might be killed or injured as a result ; out of fear of admitting involvement , as they claim , in a hoax attack , or out of panic , distress , confusion , or from fear of being assaulted .","...","If you think that there is , or may be , an innocent explanation for the lies told by the defendant you are considering , then you should take no notice of them . It is only if you are sure that he did not lie for an innocent reason that his lies can be regarded by you as evidence supporting the prosecution case , subject to the other directions I have just given you on this issue relating to the safety interviews . \u201d","Concerning the failure of the applicants to mention during the safety interviews the defence led at trial , the judge directed as follows :","\u201c Let us turn then to the failure of the defendants to answer questions in interview . The first matter to stress is that you must not hold it against PERSON , PERSON and PERSON that they failed to mention during the safety interviews matters which they later relied on in court . That is because , as I have just explained to you , access to a lawyer had been denied at that stage and the law is that in those circumstances a defendant is not to be criticised for failing to mention matters that later form part of his defence . Of course it follows from the direction I have just given you about lies that if instead of remaining silent they told lies , you are entitled to take those untruths into account , subject always to the matters I have just directed you to take into account ... [ M]y clear direction to you is that you must not hold it against PERSON , PERSON and PERSON that they failed to mention during the safety interviews matters which they later have relied on in this court . \u201d","As regards Mr PERSON \u2019s safety interviews , the judge said :","\u201c On all significant issues it is admitted by PERSON that from the outset he did not tell the truth , indeed quite the opposite ... Members of the jury , he denied any responsibility for these devices ...","Over and again he protested that he was telling the truth and that he had told the police all that he knew . Members of the jury , the wrong caution did not lead him in fact to incriminate himself at all in the sense of being compelled to reveal what he says is his true defence , but instead he told a series of exculpatory lies . \u201d","The judge reminded the jury of Mr PERSON \u2019s explanation for his conduct during the interviews ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He further noted that Mr PERSON \u2019s counsel accepted that the police had been genuinely concerned for the public , that they had been concerned to prevent a further attack and that Mr PERSON \u2019s access to legal advice had been delayed as a result . The judge reminded the jury that in normal circumstances , Mr PERSON would have been advised by a lawyer prior to interview . Had this been done , he said , Mr PERSON might have conducted the interview somewhat differently . The judge noted that counsel accepted that all the safety interviews had been conducted moderately and there was no suggestion that they had been conducted oppressively .","Next , the judge reminded the jury of the circumstances surrounding Mr PERSON \u2019s arrival at the police station , noting that at TIME the duty solicitor had called and asked to speak with him . The judge continued :","\u201c [ She ] was told that PERSON was not available and that was because the CARDINAL reception rooms with telephone sockets were being used and they may have been used for consultations , fingerprinting , booking in or signing forms . They had CARDINAL prisoners and there was a horrendous pressure on rooms . Unusually , the whole of the custody suite was being used \u2013 it was in lockdown mode DATE for terrorist detainees as of TIME on DATE . It was the busiest they had ever been . The detainees had to be prevented from seeing or speaking to each other and they had to be carefully supervised and they had to restrict the opportunities , and this restricted the opportunity to move prisoners . \u201d","The judge noted that the duty solicitor had called back at CARDINAL p.m. and had again been told by a police officer that no rooms were available . The judge added :","\u201c [ The police officer \u2019s ] only option was to wait for CARDINAL of those rooms to fall free and then to call the solicitor back . However , it was for the investigating officers to prioritise who should use the room . \u201d","The judge reminded the jury of the reasons why a safety interview had been authorised and of the evidence of PERSON :","\u201c He told you that there was CARDINAL outstanding individual . He was fearful that there might be a further suicide attack . He needed to gain information to prevent a further act of terrorism and to arrest perpetrators . He had been in communication with the investigating officers . They were very busy and this was a large - scale terrorist investigation . Urgent interviews , he said , are very rare and he contemplated that this would take place before the detainee saw his solicitor .","He would not have objected to a telephone or a face - to - face interview , so long as it did not delay the interview . He accepted that they could limit the length of time of the consultation . It was for the investigating officer and the custody officer to make the decision as to whether or not there could be a solicitor \/ client consultation before the interview . \u201d","The judge reminded the jury of PERSON explanation for his conduct during the safety interviews ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Finally , the judge told the jury that he had found that CARDINAL p.m. , Mr PERSON should have had telephone contact with a lawyer . He instructed the jury to bear in mind that he had been incorrectly denied telephone legal advice during that period .","In respect of Mr PERSON , the judge reminded the jury of his evidence as to why he had lied during the safety interview and in his statement prepared after receiving legal advice ( see paragraph ORG above ) .","As regards the later interviews that took place after the applicants had seen their legal representatives and had received the new - style caution , the trial judge directed the jury that the applicants had failed to give an account of CARDINAL matters that they relied on at trial , even though they had been asked questions about them in interview , namely ( i ) the true events leading up to DATE ; ( ii ) their knowledge of and association with their coaccused ; and ( iii ) their true state of mind , purpose and intention in relation to the deployment of the bombs . He explained that the failure to mention these matters during the interviews which had taken place after they had received legal advice could be held against them .","On DATE the jury unanimously convicted the first CARDINAL applicants and Mr PERSON of conspiracy to murder . The jury was unable to reach verdicts in respect of PERSON and PERSON and a retrial in their cases was ordered . They subsequently pleaded guilty to lesser charges .","On DATE the first CARDINAL applicants and PERSON were sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of DATE imprisonment .","The first CARDINAL applicants sought leave to appeal against their convictions . They argued inter alia that the trial judge had erred in his ruling admitting the evidence of the safety interviews .","On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal against conviction .","Setting out the background to the applicants\u2019 arrest and questioning , the court observed :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... It is virtually impossible to imagine the pressure and concerns which must have been felt by the police investigating teams . DATE CARDINAL bombs had been successfully detonated with the dreadful consequences with which we are familiar , and they were now faced with CARDINAL more bombs , again in the transport system , which had been detonated , but failed to explode . The bombers involved on DATE had perished , but the perpetrators of the second intended atrocity were at large , free to repeat their murderous plans , and to do so more effectively . They had to be found and detained , and the immediate objective of the investigation , including interviews of those arrested in connection with these incidents , was directed to public safety . \u201d","ORG expressed , at the outset of its judgment , the following , general conclusion as to the nature and conduct of the trial :","\u201c CARDINAL . It is axiomatic that every defendant , even a defendant alleged to be involved in direct and dangerous violence on the citizens and institutions of this country , is entitled to a fair trial at which his guilt must be proved . This trial was marked with conspicuous fairness and commanding judicial control by PERSON Justice PERSON . The defendants were represented at public expense by leading counsel of distinction and experience , with absolute clarity about their professional responsibilities both to their clients , and to the court . The jury \u2019s difficulty in agreeing verdicts in relation to PERSON and PERSON demonstrates that they approached the issues with the open - minded fairness and lack of prejudice which is CARDINAL of the customary characteristics of the jury system . Now that the applicants have been convicted after a fair trial before an impartial tribunal , we are entitled to record , after a lengthy examination of the evidence , that their defences to the charge of conspiracy to murder were ludicrous . \u201d","The court summarised the evidence against the applicants presented at trial , including evidence of their extremist views , the purchase of the hydrogen peroxide and construction of the bombs and the letter written by PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . It considered that the history of the purchase of the hydrogen peroxide in such vast quantities \u201c [ told ] something of the commitment of the purchasers \u201d . The handwritten marking on the recovered bottles provided \u201c compelling evidence \u201d that the manufacturers of the bomb had believed that the critical strength had been achieved , and there was \u201c overwhelming evidence \u201d linking all CARDINAL bombers with the construction of the bombs . As to the applicants\u2019 defence at trial , ORG made the following observation :","\u201c CARDINAL . If these were hoax bombs we find it hard to conceive why it was necessary for the peroxide to be boiled in order to increase its concentration , or why both PERSON and PERSON , independently , when buying hydrogen peroxide asked for it to be supplied at PERCENT strength , or the highest available percentage . Equally , it is astonishing to imagine why QUANTITY of hydrogen peroxide was needed unless its purpose was to increase its strength . The handwritten figures \u2018 CARDINAL or \u2018 CARDINAL%\u2019 of CARDINAL bottles made devastating evidence . Each one demonstrated that the manufacturers of the bombs believed that they had in fact achieved the critical concentration necessary to ensure that the bombs exploded . Indeed a significant part of the trial was taken up by the efforts by applicants to explain away this crucial evidence . In very brief summary it was contended that after the concentration in the hydrogen peroxide had been increased , it was then watered down . Moreover it is difficult to understand how any political point , if that was all that was sought to be made , could be improved by the incorporation of shrapnel within the bomb . The shrapnel was intended to cause death and maiming . There could be no other purpose . And if this expedition were intended as a hoax or a political demonstration , there was a remarkable silence from the applicants themselves after they had made their escapes . If their objective was a hoax , CARDINAL a moment \u2019s attention to the outpouring of the news about the unsuccessful bombings would have demonstrated that their objective had been achieved . Yet no such assertion or claim or explanation was given or offered to the police or the media or the public before any of the applicants was arrested . \u201d","In respect of the impact of the admission of the safety interviews , the court noted that this had been the subject of challenge before the trial court and constituted the first ground of appeal . The court explained that it would return to a detailed consideration of the issue later in its judgment and commented :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... At this stage we simply record that if the records of the police interviews were properly admitted , they were sufficient , on their own , utterly to undermine the \u2018 hoax\u2019 defence . \u201d","Concluding its opening remarks , the court referred to the trial judge \u2019s summing - up and directions to the jury , noting :","\u201c CARDINAL . PERSON summed up the case to the jury . The most superficial glance reveals that it was the product of characteristic thoroughness and accuracy . Save in relation to minor and wholly unsubstantiated arguments , it is not criticised by counsel on behalf of the applicants . The essential contentions advanced by counsel are directed at the judge \u2019s decisions in relation to the police interviews ... \u201d","The court then turned to the facts of the case . It considered , first , the facilities at FAC , noting that it had been imperative to ensure that there was no means of communication between suspects and that cross - contamination in the course of searches of suspects had to be avoided . It explained that the urgent need to address the understandable fears identified by PERSON in his DATE witness statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) involved CARDINAL distinct considerations : first , the lawful arrest and detention of those believed to be responsible for the terrorist attack ; and , second , immediate public protection from any further violent incidents . The court observed that those suspected of terrorist offences , if rightly suspected , were likely to be able to provide assistance to investigating officers performing their responsibilities for public safety . It was therefore of the view that an interview process which , so far as possible , enabled the police to protect the public was a necessary imperative . It considered that the question whether the results of such interviews should be used as evidence against the suspects was delicate . However , it did not accept that the evidence of safety interviews should never be admitted at trial , explaining :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... The circumstances in which it is directed by a senior police officer that safety interviews should take place are operational , in short , how best , in a situation of immediate urgency , to secure public safety . The pursuit of this objective with a suspect who is invited to provide the police with relevant information may produce crucial evidence incriminating him in the offence for which he has been detained , or indeed other offences . The admission of the safety interviews or their fruits , in evidence at a subsequent trial is subject to the ordinary principles governing a fair trial , and the over - arching provisions in section CARDINAL of ORG PACE ) . Much would turn on the nature of the warning or caution , if any , given by the police to the suspect . Thus , for example , if the suspect were to be assured in terms that any information provided by him would not be used against him , that would provide a powerful argument against the admission of incriminating evidence obtained in consequence . Much , too , may turn on whether the interviews produce evidence directly relevant to the charge which led to the suspect \u2019s original detention , or whether the first connection that the prosecution may establish against him with any offence arises directly from his full co - operation with them during the course of the safety interview . As ever , these will be fact - specific decisions , to be made in the overall circumstances of each individual case . What however is clear is that the legislative structure does not preclude the use of the evidence obtained in safety interviews and , given the existing safeguards available to a defendant and the obligation on the trial judge to make the judgment necessary to enable him to exercise his discretion under section CARDINAL of PACE , it would be wholly inappropriate for this court to impose the kind of self - denying ordinance which the submission based on public policy grounds would require . \u201d","The court emphasised that the safety interviews had not revealed anything which could have led the police to take steps to protect the public and that none of the applicants had said anything which directly incriminated them , or involved any confession to participation in , or even remote knowledge of , the conspiracy to murder on DATE . Nevertheless , it noted , the interviews provided important evidence against the applicants , not because they had told the truth and revealed knowledge of or involvement in terrorist activity , but because they had made a number of demonstrably untrue assertions without suggesting the defences that they later advanced at trial . In that sense , the interviews had produced material on which the prosecution proposed to rely to undermine the applicants\u2019 credibility .","The court accepted that , owing to police error , incorrect cautions had been administered to the applicants before they had told the lies in question . However , it emphasised that each of the men had been warned that the answers given in the safety interviews might be used in evidence against him . The court continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... So they were under no illusions . They did not purport to incriminate themselves at all . They chose to lie . On any view that was an important consideration in the exercise of ORG discretion . \u201d","The court was satisfied that the exercise of discretion by the trial judge had been fully informed and defendant - specific , and that he had approached the relevant issues with care . It examined in detail and approved of the trial judge \u2019s comments as to the choice facing the applicants during questioning and the nature of the circumstances in which the interviews had taken place , and his approach to the exercise of his discretion ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL above ) . It reviewed at length the circumstances of each of the first CARDINAL applicants\u2019 arrests and questioning .","As regards Mr PERSON , ORG noted that he had been the first of the defendants to be arrested and that , as a consequence , what he had had to say had been of absolutely crucial importance to the stark public safety issues confronting the police at the time . It observed that during the voir dire , it had been expressly accepted that the decision to hold a safety interview before Mr PERSON was granted access to a lawyer had been a valid decision under Schedule CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE and DATE above and CARDINAL below ) , that the interviews had been conducted fairly and moderately , and that they had been neither coercive nor oppressive . At trial it had been conceded that , although the safety interviews had been long interviews , the police had not pursued their objective of identifying potential public dangers in a way which had been excessive , that the questioning and length of interviews had not been unfair and that the questions had been focused on public safety issues . At the voir dire , the prosecution had not , therefore , been required to call evidence : the statement of PERSON and the content of the safety interviews had been taken as read ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Had Mr PERSON questioned the reasons for the decision to delay legal advice , the prosecution would have been entitled to call evidence to explain why the police had believed Mr PERSON to be a terrorist . The court continued :","\u201c DATE . ... For good and understandable forensic reasons , these issues were not raised at trial . Instead , the essential submission on behalf of PERSON on the voir dire was that any interview which followed denial of access to a solicitor was inadmissible , and that telling lies in the course of a safety interview should be equated with a failure to mention facts ... In any event the mistaken use of the \u2018 new style\u2019 caution failed to give adequate protection to PERSON because , properly understood , it would have led him to believe that if he chose not to answer questions his silence could not be used against him . \u201d","Having explained how the trial judge dealt with these submissions , ORG then observed that it was now faced with an altogether different submission from Mr PERSON . It was argued that the entire issue of the safety interviews had been mishandled by Mr PERSON \u2019s trial counsel and that it had been inappropriately conceded that PERSON decision was lawful . The court noted that this was not a retrial , yet it was nevertheless being invited to reconduct the voir dire on the basis of counsel \u2019s submission that , so far as Mr PERSON was concerned , the police had acted unlawfully and that their unlawful activity , which had been overlooked at trial , required to be addressed now . It continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... Expressed in this way , in a system in which the rule of law must prevail , the submission is superficially attractive . However it ignores or sidelines CARDINAL important further considerations . First , breaches of the relevant Code do not make subsequent police actions unlawful , at any rate in the sense that they are or would be sufficient of themselves to lead to the exclusion of the results of the subsequent interviews . When , as the judge found , the police were not seeking deliberately to manipulate the system in bad faith , he was required to address the exclusionary powers provided by section CARDINAL of PACE : no more , no less . This leads to the second consideration , that it is always open to the defendant \u2019s advocates at trial to make a deliberate forensic decision to waive or ignore , and therefore choose not to rely on the breaches of the relevant Code , if the effect of inviting attention to them may increase rather than diminish the defendant \u2019s difficulties . In short , the trial advocate must make his own judgment whether to advance argument based on breaches of the relevant Code , or to argue some , or one , but not all of them . \u201d","NORP In the absence of bad faith , the crucial question was whether to admit the results of the interviews when PERSON had been deprived of access to his lawyer , irrespective of whether PERSON had been denied the right to have a solicitor contacted as soon as he asked for one . The court could see nothing to support the conclusion that the decision to admit the evidence of the safety interviews in PERSON case had been flawed .","In respect of PERSON , the court noted that QUANTITY submissions had been advanced by his counsel . First , it had been argued that the superintendent \u2019s conclusion that a pre - interview consultation between Mr PERSON and the duty solicitor would cause unnecessary delay had been a serious error of judgment because the safety interview had not taken place until TIME . Second , it had been contended that the continued questioning of PERSON after he had denied knowing anything had constituted a breach of the applicable code ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Finally , it had been submitted that the administration of the new - style caution had contributed to the unfairness by introducing an element of coercion . ORG explained in detail how the trial judge had approached these matters and concluded that it saw no basis for interfering with his decision that the statements made during safety interview should be admitted .","As regards Mr PERSON , his counsel had submitted that the entitlement to access to a solicitor before and during his safety interview had been breached . The decision to delay such access was said to have been improper and unfair , and on close analysis , unreasonable . Although bad faith had not been alleged at trial , counsel now suggested that the interview had not been an urgent interview at all since it had started while the solicitors had been on their way to the custody suite . There had therefore been no reason not to delay the interview . Moreover , he had been given the new style caution rather than the old - style caution . ORG explained how the trial judge had approached these matters and concluded that it saw no basis for interfering with his decision that the admission of the evidence of the safety interview would not render the trial unfair .","The fourth applicant was a friend of PERSON , having been introduced to him by PERSON brother , Mr PERSON , in around DATE . On DATE , DATE after the attempted bombings , the fourth applicant met PERSON at FAC train station . The CARDINAL men returned together to the fourth applicant \u2019s home . PERSON stayed with the fourth applicant until DATE .","Meanwhile , on TIME DATE a surveillance camera was filming the entrance to the fourth applicant \u2019s block of flats . The camera subsequently zoomed in on the fourth applicant and his flat . At TIME , an undercover surveillance officer was deployed in the vicinity of the fourth applicant \u2019s home . On TIME DATE , officers observed the fourth applicant and a man later identified as PERSON leaving the address . The fourth applicant accompanied PERSON to a bus stop , where PERSON caught a bus to GPE train station . The fourth applicant returned home .","On TIME the fourth applicant went to work . When he was returning from work at TIME , he was approached by CARDINAL police officers who sought his assistance as a potential witness in their investigation into DATE attacks . He agreed to assist them and accompanied them to FAC .","NORP The police officers began interviewing the fourth applicant as a witness at TIME By TIME the officers considered that , as a result of the answers he was giving , he was in danger of incriminating himself and should be cautioned and informed of his right to legal advice . They sought instructions from senior officers . They were told that they should continue to interview the fourth applicant as a witness and accordingly did so .","At TIME on DATE , the fourth applicant was taken to point out an address where he believed Mr PERSON lived .","Between TIME and TIME on DATE , at the police station , a witness statement was taken from the fourth applicant .","In the statement , the fourth applicant recounted how he had become friends with PERSON in around DATE but had lost contact with him DATE . He stated that , on DATE , PERSON had come running up to him at FAC railway station as he was about to board a train , and the CARDINAL men had greeted each other as old friends . They had boarded the same train to ORG and at the fourth applicant \u2019s stop , PERSON had decided to alight with him on the pretext of wishing to speak about something . As they walked towards the fourth applicant \u2019s home , PERSON PERSON had told the fourth applicant that he was in trouble with the police . He claimed to have stolen some money and to have escaped from police custody . When they arrived at the fourth applicant \u2019s flat , PERSON had asked him to put on the television , and together they had watched a report of the attempted bombings which showed photographs of the men sought by the police . PERSON had then said that he knew the men and that they were good men . When the photograph of a fourth man sought in connection with the attacks had appeared on screen , PERSON had pointed at the screen and said , \u201c that \u2019s me \u201d . At first the fourth applicant had not believed him since the photograph did not resemble PERSON . But as Mr PERSON had continued to discuss the justification for the attacks , the fourth applicant had begun to realise that he was telling the truth . He had become frightened and had wanted PERSON out of his home . PERSON had then asked to stay with the fourth applicant for DATE and , fearing for his personal safety if he refused , the fourth applicant had acceded to the request .","The witness statement also described an injury to PERSON thigh , which he had said was incurred while escaping after his bomb had failed to explode . PERSON had further explained how he had pressed the button to activate his bomb but nothing had happened . He had given details of his escape from the underground train and his movements over DATE , when he had gone to stay with a friend in GPE who had lent him a car . He had shown the fourth applicant photographs of the other bombers in a national newspaper which he had brought with him and revealed their names . The police showed the fourth applicant a number of photographs and he confirmed the identities of CARDINAL of the males photographed according to the information provided by PERSON . The fourth applicant also explained that PERSON had mentioned a fifth bomber who had not detonated his bomb ; the fourth applicant did not know the identity of this person . The fourth applicant explained that PERSON had made a few calls from his mobile phone , but had spoken in NORP .","The statement went on to explain that DATE , conversation with PERSON had been limited . However , he had told the fourth applicant how the bombers had prepared their bombs and had given him details of videos the group had recorded prior to the bombings , in which they had explained their actions . PERSON had made another call on his mobile in the afternoon . He had gone out briefly TIME and had returned with cash . He had asked to borrow clothes and the fourth applicant had indicated that he should help himself . On TIME of CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON had packed a bag and told the fourth applicant that he was going to catch a Eurostar train to GPE from GPE train station . He had left for the station at TIME had called the fourth applicant to say that he was on a train . The fourth applicant had then switched off his mobile telephone so that Mr PERSON could not contact him any further .","In the statement , the fourth applicant described Mr PERSON \u2019s wife and recorded the fact that he had taken police officers to a block of flats where he believed that PERSON and his wife lived . He concluded the witness statement by emphasising that it had been a chance meeting at FAC and that he had not taken part in any arrangement to assist or harbour Mr PERSON . He said that he had only let Mr PERSON stay because he had been afraid .","After the witness statement had been signed on TIME of DATE , CARDINAL of the officers telephoned his superiors to seek further instructions and was told to arrest the fourth applicant . The fourth applicant was arrested and cautioned . He was asked whether he wanted the services of a solicitor but declined saying , \u201c No , maybe after interview if it gets serious \u201d .","On DATE , after having received legal advice , the fourth applicant was interviewed as a suspect in the presence of his solicitor . He was asked if he had had the chance to go through his written statement with his solicitor and he confirmed that he had . The solicitor was asked if she had had enough time to advise her client and she replied :","\u201c My role is to advise PERSON in relation to his rights and procedures in relation to his interview . It is to intervene on his behalf when I feel it \u2019s necessary to intervene and to assist him in drawing to his attention any matters that may arise at any time in relation to his position and in relation to his rights . In that context , Mr PERSON has had an opportunity of considering the statement that he made voluntarily when he was stopped on DATE . In the context of your disclosure that has been provided , I have advised him that he has various options open to him and he \u2019s instructed me that he would wish to rely on a statement that he would now wish to read so that it can be recorded on tape and would thereafter not wish to make any further comment in relation to matters until such time as there is additional disclosure , in the hope that his statement will deal with the limited disclosure that has so far been provided and I trust it will do so . \u201d","In the prepared statement , the fourth applicant confirmed that he had had no prior knowledge of the events of DATE and deplored them . He continued :","\u201c I was stopped by the police on DATE , and agreed to assist them in every way possible . See my statement dated DATE . I gave as much detail as possible about somebody known to me as PERSON . \u201d","He went on to correct aspects of his witness statement in so far as it related to the physical description he had given of PERSON . He added :","\u201c I would like to emphasise that the ORG video image of PERSON ( I pause to say that that turned out to be Mr PERSON ) released to the media was unrecognisable to me as being an image of him and when PERSON first claimed knowledge of any participation in these events , I did not believe him or I did not believe him to be involved until I was stopped by the police . \u201d","He made some further small comments about the witness statement and declined to answer any further questions .","NORP On DATE the fourth applicant was interviewed as a suspect a second time . He again declined to answer questions but insisted that he had been assisting the police from the beginning and did not wish to make any further statements . He was interviewed further on DATE and repeated that he was not and never would be a terrorist and had not played any part in what had happened . In his last interview , on DATE , he said that everything he knew was contained in his original witness statement . He was charged at TIME on DATE .","NORP In DATE the trial of the fourth applicant and CARDINAL other men began at ORG at GPE before Judge PERSON and a jury . The fourth applicant was accused of assisting PERSON and failing to disclose information concerning the CARDINAL bombers after the bombings . His codefendants included Mr Sherif , who was accused among other things of giving his passport to the fourth applicant for PERSON escape to GPE , and Mr PERSON , the brother of the second applicant , accused among other things of taking the video camera used to film suicide messages on TIME of DATE and later giving it to the fourth applicant to give to PERSON PERSON .","NORP The prosecution case was that the fourth applicant had been prepared to give PERSON shelter even though he had known that PERSON PERSON had been involved in the attacks . The prosecution also alleged that the fourth applicant had collected Mr PERSON \u2019s passport and given it to PERSON to aid his departure to GPE . Finally , it was alleged that the fourth applicant had collected from Mr PERSON the video camera which had been used to film suicide messages by the would - be bombers , and had given it to Mr PERSON .","The fourth applicant applied to have the witness statement of CARDINAL DATE excluded , relying on CARDINAL matters . First , that the statement had been taken in breach of the applicable code of practice , in particular because he had not been cautioned or informed of his entitlement to free legal advice . Second , that the breach had been deliberate . Third , that he had been induced to make the statement on the pretence that he was a witness and would be free to go home after the statement was completed . Fourth , that the statement had been taken in TIME , when he was tired . As a result of all of these matters , the fourth applicant submitted , the statement was a confession made by him in circumstances likely to render it unreliable pursuant to section FAC ) PACE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Alternatively , he submitted that it ought to be excluded pursuant to the general discretion to exclude evidence under section CARDINAL PACE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The prosecution opposed the application but accepted that the witness statement amounted to a confession for the purposes of section CARDINAL PACE . The prosecution also accepted that there had been a breach of the relevant code of practice in failing to caution the fourth applicant or offer him the services of a solicitor when the QUANTITY police officers had come to the conclusion that they should take instructions from their superiors ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At the voir dire , the CARDINAL police officers gave evidence that , when they had first approached the fourth applicant on TIME DATE , it was with a view to his assisting the police as a potential witness . It was also accepted by the parties that , at that stage , the police officers did not have sufficient information to justify arresting him or treating him as a suspect . CARDINAL of the officers explained that by TIME he had taken the view that , as a result of the answers that the fourth applicant was giving , he was in danger of incriminating himself and should be cautioned and informed of his right to legal advice . The officers had accordingly suspended the interview and sought instructions from one of the senior officers in charge of the investigation . They had been told that they should continue to interview the fourth applicant as a witness and had therefore done so . In his evidence , CARDINAL of the officers expressed surprise that , when the witness statement was completed , he had been instructed to arrest the applicant .","On DATE the trial judge refused the application to have the witness statement excluded . He accepted that at the time when the fourth applicant had arrived at the police station there had been no reasonable objective grounds to suspect him of any offence and that it had been entirely appropriate to treat him as a witness . However , in view of the prosecution concession that reasonable objective grounds to suspect the fourth applicant of an offence could be said to have crystallised by the conclusion of his first oral account , the judge was satisfied that there had been a breach of the applicable code at the time when the fourth applicant had made his written witness statement .","The trial judge found as a fact that there was no evidence of oppression of the fourth applicant while he had been at the police station . Nor , the judge said , had anything been said or done by the police officers that could have rendered the witness statement unreliable . He pointed out that the fourth applicant had \u201c freely adopted \u201d the witness statement after he had been cautioned and had received legal advice . The judge therefore did not accept that the statement should be excluded under either section DATE or section CARDINAL PACE .","Finally , the judge referred to the right of the defence to put matters concerning the fourth applicant \u2019s challenge to the witness statement before the jury . The jury would be directed appropriately on the question of reliability . In the circumstances no breach of LAW arose .","The defence subsequently made an application to have excluded those parts of the witness statement which the fourth applicant had withdrawn or qualified in his subsequent interviews . These parts concerned the physical description given of PERSON and statements which indicated that the fourth applicant had come to believe that Mr PERSON was involved in the attacks . The prosecution opposed the application because the qualifications later made demonstrated the detail in which the fourth applicant had subsequently considered his witness statement . The application was refused , the trial judge finding that exclusion of the passages would be misleading to the jury . He explained that the jury would be able to hear the full circumstances in which the fourth applicant had come to adopt the witness statement .","The other prosecution evidence led at trial against the fourth applicant included :","( i ) CCTV footage from DATE showing the fourth applicant and PERSON PERSON together at GPE railway station , at ORG station and walking towards the fourth applicant \u2019s flat ;","( ii ) mobile telephone cellsite analysis ( analysis of where mobile telephone calls had been made ) , consistent with PERSON having made telephone calls at the fourth applicant \u2019s flat ;","( iii ) CCTV footage showing the fourth applicant meeting Mr PERSON and collecting from him the camera alleged to have been used to film martyrdom videos made by the bombers ;","( iv ) evidence of telephone contact between the fourth applicant and PERSON PERSON , allegedly for the purpose of collecting the latter \u2019s passport for PERSON PERSON and for which the fourth applicant had given no explanation despite the fact that the CARDINAL had not met for DATE prior to the telephone contact ;","( v ) mobile telephone cellsite analysis consistent with the fourth applicant having met Mr PERSON to collect the passport ;","( vi ) footage from a police surveillance camera showing PERSON leaving the fourth applicant \u2019s flat on DATE , in the company of the fourth applicant , en route to GPE station ;","( vii ) a newspaper report on the attempted bombings , with pictures of the bombers ( including PERSON ) , found in the fourth applicant \u2019s flat with the fourth applicant \u2019s fingerprints on it ;","( viii ) telephone contact between the fourth applicant and PERSON after the latter had taken the FAC from ORG , indicating that Mr PERSON had spoken to the fourth applicant twice by mobile telephone on DATE and had twice attempted to telephone him on DATE from GPE ;","( ix ) The fourth applicant \u2019s police interviews of DATE and DATE , after he had been arrested and had received legal advice , in which he admitted that PERSON had stayed at his flat and stated that the contents of his DATE witness statement were accurate ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","At the conclusion of the prosecution case , the fourth applicant applied to have the proceedings stayed on the grounds that the prosecution was an abuse of process . He argued that the order given to the police officers to continue to treat him as a witness , and not a suspect , meant that he had been tricked into giving his witness statement . He claimed that he had effectively been told that he would not be prosecuted . In other words , later treating him as a suspect and prosecuting him was inherently unfair .","On DATE the judge refused the application . He held that it would only be an abuse of process to prosecute someone who had received an unequivocal representation that he would not be prosecuted and had acted on that representation to his detriment . No such unequivocal representation had been made to the fourth applicant . Even if he had thought that there had been such a representation , he had not acted on it to his detriment . The judge explained :","\u201c I have to look at the evidence as a whole and the position of PERSON as a whole when I \u2019m considering whether the facts may justify the staying of the charges against him .","PERSON had the opportunity in the course of interview when he was under caution to say that that which he had said before was untrue , was inaccurate or was given at a time when he was so tired that it was really unreliable and riddled with inaccuracy . He did not do that . At a time when he had been able to consult with his solicitor and consider in detail the statement which he had given to the police , he adopted it and ... to DATE he adopts effectively that which he had said to the police . \u201d","The judge found that far from being an affront to justice for the case to continue , it would be an affront to justice for the case not to continue . He noted that the fourth applicant was ably represented , had been able to make clear his position after he made his witness statement and had given his detailed comments on it when he was a suspect . While there was , as the prosecution conceded , an element of unfairness in his being treated initially as a witness , it was right to look at the overall picture . The judge reached the \u201c very clear \u201d conclusion that this was certainly not a case where he came even remotely near saying that it could be unfair for the fourth applicant to be tried .","Mr PERSON was called to give evidence by his brother , Mr Sherif . He confirmed that he had sheltered at the fourth applicant \u2019s flat and said that the latter had believed what was said in the news . The fourth applicant had said that the police were looking for him ( Mr PERSON ) but that he was not recognisable from the images disseminated in the media . Mr PERSON did not believe that the fourth applicant had been afraid of him . He further confirmed that he had asked the fourth applicant to make contact with PERSON PERSON to collect the passport . The fourth applicant had done so at TIME . After returning with the passport , the fourth applicant had gone to GPE station to book a Eurostar ticket for PERSON . He had been unable to do so because he did not have the passport number with him , but he had checked the timetable for DATE . PERSON was subjected to extensive cross - examination by counsel for the fourth applicant . It was put to him that he was lying to protect his family , an allegation that PERSON denied .","Mr Sherif gave oral evidence and was also cross - examined by the fourth applicant \u2019s counsel . He admitted that he had provided the passport for PERSON travel . He gave evidence that the fourth applicant had come to see him at home on TIME DATE and had asked for his passport in order to enable PERSON PERSON to leave the country . He had said that PERSON was at his ( the fourth applicant \u2019s ) home . Mr PERSON had been afraid and had not wanted to provide the passport . However , he had subsequently changed his mind . A text message to the fourth applicant later that evening and a telephone call the next day were to make arrangements for the fourth applicant to collect the passport . The fourth applicant had collected the passport from his home at TIME on DATE . It was put to Mr Sherif by the fourth applicant \u2019s counsel that he was lying but Mr PERSON insisted that he was telling the truth and that the fourth applicant had collected the passport .","The fourth applicant did not give evidence at trial . His defence was based upon the content of his witness statement of DATE . It was admitted that he had collected the video camera and had given it to Mr PERSON , but counsel explained that this had been an innocent errand and that there had been no attempt to conceal it . It was further admitted that on DATE at TIME the fourth applicant had attended the ticket office at FAC . It was not admitted that he had collected the passport , and counsel emphasised that the only evidence to support this had been given by Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , both of whom he said were unreliable and had ulterior motives for the evidence that they had given . Counsel invited the jury to ignore the witness statement , referring to the admitted breaches of the code by the police . He emphasised that the interview had taken place over a long period of time , that there had been a failure to caution the fourth applicant and that he had not been given legal advice .","NORP Before the jury retired to consider its verdict , the trial judge delivered his summing - up . On the matter of the witness statement , he directed them as follows :","\u201c You remember the long , handwritten witness statement that PERSON signed and the subsequent interviews when he answered questions asked by the police . The prosecution say that , in addition to the other evidence against him , the defendant , PERSON , made a witness statement which amounts to a confession on which you can rely . The defendant says that you should not rely upon his written witness statement since it was obtained in circumstances likely to render it unreliable .","He says that he was tricked by the police into providing an account by them treating him as a witness when , in breach of the codes of practice laid down for the police to follow , he should first have been cautioned ; secondly , allowed access to a solicitor ; thirdly , had his interview tape - recorded ; and fourthly , should have been given suitable and effective , uninterrupted rest periods .","The law is this , when considering his case , the question for you to consider is whether PERSON \u2019s witness statement is something you should take into account as evidence in his case or whether you should disregard it . The question is not whether you think that it is fair that he \u2019s being tried . If you think that the statement was or might have been obtained by something said or done which was likely to render it unreliable , you must disregard it , even if you think that it was or may have been true .","Breach of the code , however , does not lead to the automatic rejection as evidence of a written statement made by a witness who is later made a defendant . If you are sure that , despite the breaches of the code , the statement was freely given in the sense that he would have said those things whether or not he was cautioned and even if all the rules in the code had been followed and that it was true , then you will take it into account when considering your verdicts in relation to Abdurahman .","The prosecution say that , whatever breaches may have arisen in respect of the codes of practice which the police should obey , you can safely rely on the written witness statement made and signed by PERSON because he clearly adopted it in his interviews as \u2018 valuable information\u2019 which he was providing to the police . Indeed he made detailed corrections which reflected accurately what he always wished to say at a time when he had been cautioned and had a solicitor to advise him . PERSON has chosen , as is his right , not to tell you on oath why he said the things he did and what he would have done if arrested and cautioned . Do not speculate . \u201d","As regards the fourth applicant \u2019s silence at trial , the judge directed the jury as follows :","\u201c The defendant , PERSON , as you know , has not given evidence before you . That is his right , he is entitled to remain silent and to require the prosecution to make you sure of his guilt . You must not assume that he is guilty of any offence because he has not given evidence .","CARDINAL matters arise from his silence . First , you try this case according to the evidence and you will appreciate that PERSON has not given any evidence at this trial to undermine , contradict or explain the evidence put before you by the prosecution . Secondly , his silence at this trial may count against him . This is because you may draw the conclusion that he has not given evidence because he has no answer to the prosecution \u2019s case or none that would bear examination . If you do draw that conclusion , you must not convict him wholly or mainly on the strength of it but you may treat it as additional support for the prosecution case .","However , you may only draw such a conclusion against him if you think it \u2019s a fair and proper conclusion , if you \u2019re satisfied CARDINAL things . First , that the prosecution \u2019s case is so strong that it clearly calls for an answer by him ; secondly , that the only sensible explanation for his silence is that he has no answer to the prosecution allegations or none that would bear examination .","The defence , I remind you , invite you not to draw any conclusion from his silence on the basis that there was an admitted breach of the code of practice which is in place to protect defendants such that they say you should reject the prosecution submission but you can safely rely on anything said by him to the police in his long written statement . If you think that the breaches of the code amount to a good reason why you should not draw any conclusion from his silence , then do not do so . Otherwise , subject to what I have said , you may do so . \u201d","The judge reminded the jury of the prosecution case and the various elements of evidence against the fourth applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He explained :","\u201c The prosecution rely on the witness statement he made and signed because they say it was adopted by him and that he \u2019s an intelligent young man , apparently a capable employee at a solicitor \u2019s firm . There is no reference , they point out , to the camera , the passport , and he lied over the date and destination of PERSON \u2019s departure . \u201d","The judge also reminded the jury of the fourth applicant \u2019s defence , set out in his witness statement , and of the submissions of his defence counsel at trial .","On DATE , the fourth applicant was convicted of assisting PERSON ( count CARDINAL ) and of CARDINAL counts of failing to disclose information about the bombers after the attacks ( counts CARDINAL ) . He was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment on count CARDINAL and DATE imprisonment on counts CARDINAL , to be served consecutively . Mr PERSON was convicted of assisting Mr PERSON and failing to disclose information about him after the bombings . He was acquitted of having had prior knowledge of the attacks . He , too , was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment on each count , to be served consecutively .","The fourth applicant and his codefendants appealed against conviction and sentence to ORG . The fourth applicant argued that the trial judge had been wrong to admit the witness statement .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal against conviction . It expressed some concern about events at the police station but considered that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the impugned witness statement . Concerning the fact that the statement had been made in breach of the applicable code , the court said :","\u201c CARDINAL . The way the police behaved is undoubtedly troubling . The decision not to arrest and caution PERSON when the officers interviewing him believed that they had material which gave them reasonable grounds for suspecting that he had committed an offence was a clear and deliberate instruction to ignore the LAW . But at that stage the police dilemma is understandable . PERSON was providing information about PERSON which could have been of critical importance in securing his arrest , which was the priority at that time . It seems to us that the judge was entitled to come to the conclusion that the prosecution had established that nothing was said or done which could undermine the reliability of the witness statement . He was entitled to take into account the fact that in the prepared statement he made after caution he asserted that he was seeking to give assistance to the police . That was repeated in the later interviews . He said nothing therefore to suggest that the circumstances were such as to render it likely that what he said was not reliable . It seems to us , therefore , that the judge was also entitled to conclude from all material that PERSON , with the help of legal advice , was repeating , subject as we have said to some corrections , what was in the witness statement as his account of the part such as it was , that he played in relation to PERSON in DATE after DATE . Further , given the appellant \u2019s adoption of that witness statement , we do not consider that the judge \u2019s decision to permit the statement to go before the jury in the exercise of his discretion under s. CARDINAL of the LAW can be said to be perverse or affected by any error of law . \u201d","As to the refusal of the trial judge to stay the trial on grounds of abuse of process , ORG explained :","\u201c DATE . ... The main thrust of the argument on PERSON \u2019s behalf is that to prosecute on the basis of a statement that he gave when being treated as a witness is quite simply unfair . He was , it is said , effectively being told that he would not be prosecuted and gave assistance accordingly . The judge in our view rightly rejected this argument . There was no evidence that this appellant made his statement because he believed he was not going to be prosecuted . He gave no evidence to that effect ; and there is nothing in the interviews after he was arrested to suggest that that was the reason for his having made the witness statement . On the contrary , he made the witness statement because he wanted to assist the police . In this type of case , the court is only likely to conclude there has been an abuse of process if a defendant can establish that there has been an unequivocal representation by those responsible for the conduct of the prosecution and that the defendant has acted to his detriment : see R v PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL Cr App R DATE , [ DATE ] PERSON , in particular at paragraph DATE . That was not the situation here . \u201d","In respect of the appeal against sentence , the court acknowledged that personal circumstances such as youth or vulnerability might be pertinent to sentence , but emphasised that this was not the case in respect of most of the appellants before it , including the fourth applicant . The court noted that the appellants had acted without any regard whatsoever to their public duty , and continued :","\u201c None except PERSON made any disclosure at all until they were arrested ... \u201d","NORP In conclusion , ORG partly allowed the fourth applicant \u2019s appeal against sentence , on account of the help he had given to the police :","\u201c CARDINAL . The assistance that [ the fourth applicant ] gave to PERSON was of the utmost significance . We conclude , however , that we can and should reflect the fact that , albeit only after he had been seen by the police , he gave at least some help and information ... \u201d","It reduced the sentences in respect of count CARDINAL and counts CARDINAL to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment each . It noted that the conviction for failing to disclose information about Mr PERSON added little to the criminality involved in assisting him , so the sentence on that count was to be served concurrently . The remaining counts , involving his failure to disclose information about the other bombers , were clearly a separate offence that justified a consecutive sentence . The consequence was a total of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . In dealing with PERSON appeal against sentence , the court noted the critical role that he had played in enabling Mr PERSON \u2019s escape and considered that it justified \u201c a very severe sentence which can not be mitigated as it was in the case of [ the fourth applicant ] by his giving any information at any stage to the police \u201d . Taking into account DATE spent under home arrest , he was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment on the count of assisting PERSON . A DATE sentence for failing to disclose information about Mr PERSON was to be served concurrently .","On DATE ORG refused to certify a question of general public importance for the consideration of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170652","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DZHABAROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163454","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KNICK v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Bad GPE , GPE . Through the NORP stock market , he purchased CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL NORP share certificates in PERSON , which at the time was identified as the fifth largest private bank in GPE .","By a decision dated DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , ORG ( Bankalar D\u00fczenleme ve PERSON , hereinafter referred to as \u201c the Board \u201d ) transferred the management and control of PERSON to ORG ( PERSON Fonu \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the Fund \u201d ) , pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law No . DATE ) . In its decision ORG held that the assets of PERSON were insufficient to cover its liabilities and that the continuation of its activities would threaten the security and stability of the financial system . Accordingly , PERSON \u2019s management and control , and the privileges of its shareholders except for dividends , were transferred to the ORG . The ORG also confiscated all properties belonging to PERSON .","On DATE all of the bank \u2019s equities were removed from its account at ORG ( GPE Menkul K\u0131ymetler DATE hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and transferred to the account of the ORG . Subsequently , on DATE the ORG entered into an agreement with the ORG bank and sold PERSON to the latter for CARDINAL United States dollars ( ORG ) . As a result , on DATE PERSON \u2019s legal personality was extinguished and it was struck off the commercial register .","On DATE , the main shareholder of PERSON , namely ORG , brought administrative proceedings against ORG ( Bankalar D\u00fczenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the NORP \u201d ) before ORG , seeking a ruling setting aside the decision of DATE to transfer PERSON to the ORG .","ORG found that it lacked jurisdiction , and transferred the case to ORG .","In its submissions before ORG , the plaintiff claimed that its property rights had been violated . It also raised a plea of unconstitutionality under section CARDINAL of LAW . The company further stated that prior to DATE PERSON had never encountered major financial problems . It was pointed out that pursuant to section GPE ) of the LAW , a bank with financial difficulties should first be given a warning to strengthen its financial structure and be allowed time to take specific measures . However , no such warning had been given in the instant case . Secondly , ORG had not claimed that PERSON \u2019s financial situation was so weak that it could not be strengthened even if specific measures were taken . Lastly , the company stated that following the transfer of the bank to the ORG , a ORG composed of the ORG \u2019s officials had exonerated the former managers of PERSON , holding that they had not been at fault in the incident leading to the bank \u2019s transfer .","After examining the case file , on DATE ORG dismissed the case . It held that the takeover of the bank by the ORG had been in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","On DATE ORG of ORG decided to quash the decision of DATE . In its judgment , the court held that prior to ordering the transfer of PERSON to the ORG , the ORG should have carried out an objective evaluation of the bank \u2019s financial situation . The court also concluded that the ORG should first have ordered PERSON to take specific measures in accordance with section GPE ) of LAW before applying section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW .","On DATE a request for rectification lodged by the ORG was refused .","The case was remitted to ORG , which delivered its decision on DATE applying the decision of ORG of ORG . It accordingly set aside the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE ordering the transfer of PERSON to the ORG , holding that the takeover had been illegal . A further appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the ORG were rejected on DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE PERSON , the main shareholder of PERSON , brought administrative proceedings against ORG before ORG , seeking the annulment of the agreement to sell PERSON to ORG .","Given that the transfer of PERSON to the ORG had been found to be illegal by ORG of ORG , on DATE ORG annulled the agreement entered into by the ORG and ORG on DATE . An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the ORG were rejected on DATE and DATE respectively .","Following the transfer of PERSON to the ORG , the applicant applied to the ORG claiming compensation . He did not receive any reply .","Subsequently , on an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant brought compensation proceedings against the ORG before ORG . He argued that he had lost his shares in PERSON as a result of its transfer to the ORG and requested that the ORG \u2019s implied rejection of his compensation claim be reversed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s case . On the basis of a previous judgment it had rendered on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court found that the takeover of the bank by the Fund had been in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The applicant lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG of ORG decided to quash the judgment . It indicated that the previous judgment dated DATE , which had constituted the basis of the latter , had been quashed on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","A rectification request lodged by the ORG was rejected on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG held that it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae , as the applicant \u2019s case merely concerned an implied rejection by ORG , which should be assessed by ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the case as out of time . The court held that the applicant should have initiated proceedings within DATE of the date on which ORG \u2019s equities had been transferred to the ORG \u2019s account at ORG , namely DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment on DATE .","Following the CARDINAL judgments in respect of the main shareholders ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the applicant applied to the ORG and the ORG respectively , requesting the restitution of his rights as a shareholder . Relying on the restitutio in integrum principle , he claimed that the above - mentioned judgments of ORG should be enforced and his rights as a shareholder of PERSON reinstated .","The Agency did not respond to the applicant \u2019s request within the statutory time - limit .","On DATE the ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request , stating that restitution was legally and practically impossible .","Subsequently , the applicant initiated another set of proceedings before ORG , claiming that the ORG should enforce the above - mentioned judgments and that his rights as a shareholder of PERSON should be reinstated . He argued that the bank still owned a certain amount of assets following its sale to ORG and that restitution was therefore possible to a certain extent . He further claimed that in the event that his rights were not reinstated , he ought to be awarded compensation for the loss of his shares .","On DATE , ORG dismissed the case . It pointed out that under LAW of LAW only \u201c those concerned \u201d had the right to bring proceedings seeking to remedy the situation in full ( tam yarg\u0131 davas\u0131 ) . It found that the applicant could not be considered as \u201c concerned \u201d as he had not been a party to the annulment proceedings ( iptal davas\u0131 ) brought by the main shareholders . The court held that if the annulled administrative act had been regulatory ( d\u00fczenleyici i\u015flem ) , the concept of \u201c concerned persons \u201d would have applied to anyone who had been affected by it , whereas in the case of an individual act ( bireysel i\u015flem ) , it applied only to those who had been parties to the annulment proceedings . Holding that the annulled administrative acts were individual acts , the court considered that the applicant had not been \u201c concerned \u201d by the annulment . Lastly , it indicated that the decisions of the ORG and the ORG to reject the applicant \u2019s requests had been lawful and that restitution would not be possible .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment and on DATE it rejected the applicant \u2019s request for rectification ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144798","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BROGAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and live in GPE . They are represented before the Court by PERSON of GPE , a firm of solicitors based in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the first applicant purchased FAC ( \u201c the property \u201d ) , apparently with the assistance of a mortgage in favour of ORG . The property subsequently became the applicants\u2019 main residence . Although the second applicant claims that she used some of her funds to purchase the property , it was registered in the first applicant \u2019s sole name .","On DATE the first applicant entered into a second mortgage with ORG ( \u201c LOC \u201d ) . The total amount loaned was ORG .","The first applicant fell into mortgage arrears in or DATE and ORG commenced possession proceedings against him in ORG .","Around this time , the first applicant \u2019s solicitor became concerned that he lacked the capacity to manage his own affairs . Medical reports indicated that he had ORG \u2019s Syndrome and a schizophrenic illness . On DATE , DATE after the claim form was issued in ORG by ORG , the solicitor applied to ORG for an order authorising her to act as an Interim Deputy for ORG ( \u201c Interim Deputy \u201d ) to defend , inter alia , the possession proceedings on his behalf . ORG made an order on DATE authorising her to take control of his property and affairs and to exercise the same power over them as a beneficial owner . In doing so , the court imposed a security bond requirement on the Interim Deputy in the sum of GBP CARDINAL in favour of the first applicant .","The Interim Deputy thereafter informed ORG that there was money available to pay the arrears and make advance payments .","The possession claim was heard on DATE . The first applicant did not attend and was not represented , although a letter from him was submitted to the court . The contents of that letter are not known . PERSON indicated to the court that the first applicant had made no payments on the mortgage since DATE . Consequently , the District Judge ordered that he give LAW possession of the property before DATE .","The Office of the Public Guardian commissioned a ORG to meet with the applicants and the Interim Deputy on DATE . The visitor was ( incorrectly ) told by the Interim Deputy that all payments on the mortgage were up to date . He also noted that the applicants\u2019 situation was \u201c very difficult and unstable \u201d and seemed to be \u201c on the edge of crisis \u201d as the second applicant was unwell and might not be able to continue to care for the first applicant .","In DATE the second applicant complained to ORG about the conduct of the Interim Deputy . In particular , she claimed that the Interim Deputy had failed to use funds of GBP CARDINAL to discharge the mortgage arrears and that she had been on sick leave for DATE and was not dealing with her deputyship duties . ORG also complained about the Interim Deputy \u2019s conduct , both to ORG and to ORG . They claimed that they had discontinued possession proceedings after the Interim Deputy had verbally agreed a settlement with them but that she had subsequently reneged on that agreement by insisting , without foundation , that ORG pay her costs . Following the complaints , ORG launched an investigation into the activities of the Interim Deputy .","The second applicant subsequently withdrew her complaints against the Interim Deputy unreservedly . In a report dated DATE ORG found that there had been a dispute between ORG and the Interim Deputy which should be resolved between the parties . It also found that there had been a dispute between the Interim Deputy and her firm which resulted in her leaving the firm and working from home . Following a period of claimed ill - health , she had resumed activity in the affairs of the first applicant . ORG therefore closed its investigation .","On DATE ORG obtained a warrant for possession from ORG . On DATE , a Notice of Eviction was sent to the first applicant \u201c and any other occupiers \u201d at FAC , stating that the eviction would take place on DATE .","By DATE an application had been made on the first applicant \u2019s behalf to suspend the eviction . A further application appears to have been made to \u201c withdraw \u201d the warrant of possession .","Both applications came before a district judge on DATE , on which date the first applicant appears to have been represented by the Interim Deputy . The applications were adjourned .","On DATE ORG ordered a report into the management and administration of the property and affairs of the first applicant by the Interim Deputy . The report was prepared by ORG and published on DATE . The report noted that on her appointment , the Interim Deputy had advised ORG that there was sufficient money in the PERSON \u2019s client account to pay their arrears . However , ORG informed ORG that the Interim Deputy had \u201c made no attempt to pay the outstanding arrears or to ensure that mortgage payments are going forward \u201d . In fact , she had entered into a verbal agreement to pay the arrears but then reneged on the agreement leaving ORG no alternative but to seek possession . The report concluded that the Interim Deputy was struggling with her general , day - to - day duties and that there was a worrying \u2013 and unexplained \u2013 disparity as to the disbursement of MONEY received into her employer \u2019s client account in DATE . Although ORG stated that all payments were up to date and that the GBP CARDINAL received in DATE had been used in paying the arrears of the mortgage , in DATE those funds were still in the client account . The report concluded that the first applicant \u2019s best interests had not been served by the Interim Deputy .","On DATE the adjourned applications to suspend and withdraw the warrant for possession were heard by a district judge . Both parties were represented by counsel at the hearing . However , the applications were dismissed and the possession warrant was returned to the bailiff for a new eviction date to be set .","On DATE the Interim Deputy \u2019s authority to act in the possession proceedings came to an end .","Nevertheless , it appears that the Interim Deputy filed an application for permission to appeal against the district judge \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE on behalf of the first applicant without any authority to do so . The application was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE at a hearing at which both parties were represented .","On DATE the applicants were evicted from the property .","On DATE the Interim Deputy made a further application to set aside the first applicant \u2019s credit agreement with LAW on the ground , inter alia , that he had not had the mental capacity to enter into it in DATE . This application was not made with the authority of ORG . On DATE second applicant applied to join the application on the ground that she had also been in occupation of the property , she had an interest in the property and she was left homeless after LAW were granted possession . She wrote to the court , setting out details of the first applicant \u2019s mental health problems and outlining her own health concerns ( including severe spondylosis , sciatica , heart disease , angina and depression ) .","On DATE , ORG revoked the appointment of the Interim Deputy with immediate effect . However , she was appointed as the first applicant \u2019s Deputy limited to the single issue of making an application on his behalf for public funding to apply for judicial review of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . This appointment was to expire on DATE unless extended by the ORG .","On DATE , following a hearing at which the parties were represented by counsel , the ORG Judge dismissed the application to set aside the credit agreement and join the second applicant to the proceedings . The second applicant was ordered to pay ORG \u2019s costs of the application , which were assessed in the sum of GBP CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Permission to appeal was refused .","On DATE , the applicants , through the Interim Deputy ( again acting without authority ) , sought to appeal against the order of the ORG Judge . In particular , they submitted that there had been no consideration of their rights under LAW .","On DATE ORG gave the applicants\u2019 daughter , PERSON , authority to act as the first applicant \u2019s litigation friend at the appeal hearing .","The appeal was heard on DATE . The judge found that the first applicant was not validly a party to the purported appeal as the Interim Deputy had not had authority to issue it . The second applicant and her representative were not able to attend the hearing owing to difficult weather conditions . Her appeal was dismissed as totally without merit and she was ordered to pay costs of GBP CARDINAL . The Interim Deputy was joined to the proceedings and was ordered personally to pay to ORG costs in excess of GBP CARDINAL .","According to the applicants , following the eviction the first applicant spent DATE without his maintenance medication , which caused a temporary deterioration in his condition . The applicants initially lived with their youngest daughter in a van before all CARDINAL moved to a tent in another daughter \u2019s garden . They stated that during this period the first applicant attempted suicide on CARDINAL separate occasions . The family later stayed in a hotel for DATE before moving into a rental property from DATE .","The medical evidence submitted to the ORG indicates that the first applicant has a history of mental illness and had made a number of suicide attempts prior to the eviction proceedings which are the subject of his complaint to ORG . While there is some evidence to support the assertion that he also attempted suicide following the eviction , this attempt appears to have taken place while he was in custody and psychiatrists were establishing his fitness to plead in respect of a prosecution for conspiracy to defraud .","Section CARDINAL permits ORG to appoint a Deputy to act on behalf of a person who lacks capacity in relation to matters concerning either his personal welfare or his property and affairs . However , the powers conferred on the Deputy should be as limited in scope and duration as is reasonably practicable in the circumstances and the court may revoke the appointment of a Deputy or vary the powers conferred on him if it is satisfied that he has behaved , is behaving , or is proposing to behave in a way that contravenes the authority conferred on him by the court or is not in the protected party \u2019s best interests .","Pursuant to section DATE , the Deputy \u2019s powers extend , inter alia , to the discharge of the protected person \u2019s debts and obligations , whether legally enforceable or not .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that the Deputy is to be treated as the protected person \u2019s agent in relation to anything done or decided by him within the scope of his appointment .","The Office of the Public Guardian is an executive agency of ORG which implements LAW DATE by administering powers of attorney , supervising Deputies who manage the affairs of others and investigating and acting on allegations of abuse by attorneys and Deputies .","Pursuant to Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of The Lasting Powers of Attorney , PERSON of Attorney and ORG DATE ( \u201c the DATE Regulations \u201d ) the court may order a person to give to ORG security in the form of a bond for the discharge of his functions .","Pursuant to Regulation CARDINAL of the DATE Regulations , the court may order the enforcement of the security .","Possession claims are governed by Part CARDINAL of ORG CARDINALA. With regard to land subject to a mortgage , ORG provides that at the hearing the claimant \u2019s evidence should include the amount of any rent or mortgage arrears and interest on those arrears . These amounts should , if possible , be up to date to the date of the hearing ( if necessary by specifying a DATE rate of arrears and interest ) .","If relevant , the defendant should give evidence of the amount of any outstanding social security or housing benefit payments relevant to rent or mortgage arrears and the status of any claims for social security or housing benefit about which a decision has not yet been made or any applications to appeal or review a social security or housing benefit decision where that appeal or review has not yet concluded .","Section CARDINAL of ORG DATE provides that :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Where the mortgagee under a mortgage of land which consists of or includes a dwelling - house brings an action in which he claims possession of the mortgaged property , not being an action for foreclosure in which a claim for possession of the mortgaged property is also made , the court may exercise any of the powers conferred on it by subsection ( CARDINAL ) below if it appears to the court that in the event of its exercising the power the mortgagor is likely to be able within a reasonable period to pay any sums due under the mortgage or to remedy a default consisting of a breach of any other obligation arising under or by virtue of the mortgage .","( CARDINAL)The court\u2014","( a ) may adjourn the proceedings , or","( b ) on giving judgment , or making an order , for delivery of possession of the mortgaged property , or at any time before the execution of such judgment or order , may\u2014","( i ) stay or suspend execution of the judgment or order , or","( ii ) postpone the date for delivery of possession ,","for such period or periods as the court thinks reasonable .","( CARDINAL)Any such adjournment , stay , suspension or postponement as is referred to in subsection ( CARDINAL ) above may be made subject to such conditions with regard to payment by the mortgagor of any sum secured by the mortgage or the remedying of any default as the court thinks fit . \u201d","Pursuant to section ORG ) DATE ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , which applies if a mortgagee of a dwelling house brings an action in any court for the enforcement of its security ,","\u02ba(CARDINAL ) A connected person who is not already a party to the action is entitled to be made a party in the circumstances mention in subsection ( CARDINAL ) .","( CARDINAL ) The circumstances are that\u2014","( a ) the connected person is enabled by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ... to meet the mortgagor \u2019s liabilities under the mortgage ;","( b ) he has applied to the court before the action is finally disposed of in that court ; and","( c ) the court sees no special reason against his being made a party to the action and is satisfied\u2014","( i ) that he may be expected to make such payments or do such other things in or towards satisfaction of the mortgagor \u2019s liabilities or obligations as might affect the outcome of the proceedings ; or","( ii ) that the expectation of it should be considered under section CARDINAL of ORG CARDINAL.\u02ba"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144132","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RADKOV AND SABEV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . At the time of the events in question they were detained in FAC , serving sentences of life imprisonment , after being convicted of numerous crimes , including murder , rape and armed robberies .","On an unspecified date in DATE the CARDINAL applicants brought proceedings against ORG under the ORG and ORG , seeking damages for the allegedly poor conditions of detention in FAC . The case was examined by ORG , which accepted a request by the applicants to have CARDINAL of their fellow inmates questioned as witnesses regarding the living conditions in the prison .","A special court hearing for that purpose took place on DATE in a hearing room in FAC .","The applicants were brought to the hearing with their arms handcuffed behind their backs and their ankles shackled . Once the hearing began , PERSON PERSON requested that his handcuffs be removed because he was uncomfortable . The judge presiding over the hearing refused , without giving any specific reasons . Mr PERSON then asked that it be noted in the record of the hearing that his handcuffs had not been removed either . The applicants\u2019 arms remained handcuffed behind their backs until the end of the hearing .","The CARDINAL witnesses heard by the court \u2013 who were from the same group of life prisoners \u2013 had their handcuffs removed .","A prosecutor was also present at the hearing .","The hearing continued for TIME ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160215","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00dcLC\u00dc v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE a demonstration was held in GPE to protest about the conditions of detention of PERSON , the leader of the ORG ( NORP Workers\u2019 Party ) , an illegal armed organisation .","According to a report prepared by QUANTITY police officers on DATE following the examination of video footage of the demonstration recorded by the police , on DATE ORG , a website which was controlled by the ORG , had published a declaration of ORG of GPE and GPE . The declaration contained instructions to hold meetings and marches in each town and city on DATE to show support for PERSON . The report also stated that on the website www.rojaciwan.com , which was also controlled by the ORG , a news article containing a call for participation in the reading out of a press statement to be held by ORG ( ORG ) ) in ORG on DATE had been published .","NORP The report stated that the police had received information according to which the ORG branch of the ORG was the organiser of the press statement to be held and MPs , mayors and local politicians from the ORG as well as members of a number of non - governmental organisations would gather in front of the ORG \u2019s ORG party office at TIME and march to FAC , where they would make a press statement . The police took the necessary measures as they suspected that there could be violent protests during the march , which could become a demonstration for the ORG .","According to the police report , people started to assemble by TIME in front of the ORG party office . Mayors and MPs were among the demonstrators . By TIME CARDINAL people had gathered . Thereafter , demonstrators started to march , arriving at TIME p.m.at FAC , where the press statement was made . At TIME while PERSON , a Member of ORG from the ORG , was giving a speech , a group of people started throwing stones at the police officers and the cars parked in the neighbourhood . Both in front of the local branch of the ORG and during the march , demonstrators chanted slogans praising PERSON , such as \u201c ORG is LOC fedai \u201d ( \u201c Her K\u00fcrt Apo\u2019nun Fedaisidir \u201d ) , \u201c We will drop the world without FAC your head \u201d ( \u201c PERSON d\u00fcnyay\u0131 ba\u015f\u0131n\u0131za y\u0131kar\u0131z \u201d ) , \u201c The Youth to PERSON , to the free country \u201d ( \u201c PERSON , PERSON \u201d ) , \u201c Salutations to ORG \u201d ( \u201c PERSON \u0130mral\u0131\u2019ya PERSON \u201d ) , \u201c With our blood , with our life , we are with you , ORG ( \u201c Can\u0131m\u0131zla , kan\u0131m\u0131zla , seninleyiz FAC ) , \u201c Long live President FAC ( \u201c FAC ) , \u201c Martyrs are immortal \u201d ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) , \u201c No life without the Leader , ORG ( \u201c Ba\u015fkans\u0131z ya\u015fam olmaz , Say\u0131n \u00d6calan \u201d ) . They carried banners which contained slogans such as \u201c Stop the torture in NORP \u201d ( \u201c PERSON i\u015fkencesine son \u201d ) and \u201c We make war for life , we die for peace \u201d ( PERSON sava\u015f\u0131r\u0131z ; PERSON \u00f6l\u00fcr\u00fcz \u201d ) ; photographs of PERSON and flags of the so - called \u201c Confederation \u201d were also brandished . Subsequent to the press statements , when the crowd dispersed , some people within the crowd knocked over waste containers and attacked the police and the shops in the neighbourhood with stones and bats while chanting slogans in support of the ORG and its leader . The police gave a warning to those people and asked them to disperse . The demonstrators refused to obey the warnings . As a result , the police had to use proportionate force against the group , who were holding an illegal demonstration . The police intervened using truncheons , water and tear gas . The police report also noted that some people had taken down the NORP flag in the schoolyard of the ORG nursery school .","At the end of the report it was noted that , according to the video footage , the applicant had thrown stones at the police together with a number of other persons and had acted with the group which had taken down the NORP flag at the ORG nursery school .","The report of DATE also contained CARDINAL photographs extracted from the video footage recorded by the police . In CARDINAL photographs , the applicant is seen in a group of young men while , according to the police , throwing stones at the security forces . In CARDINAL photographs , he is seen while standing together with a group of people by a flag pole . A total of CARDINAL photographs concern the taking down of the NORP flag ; one photograph contains an image of a knocked - over waste container ; and CARDINAL other photograph shows a damaged passenger van . The remaining photographs contain images of demonstrators standing in front of a building or walking .","The applicant was arrested on DATE . According to the arrest and transfer report , the video recording of the demonstration by the police showed that the applicant had thrown stones at the police officers and had been in the crowd which had taken down the NORP flag in a schoolyard . The officers who drafted the report stated therein that the applicant had been informed of his rights when arrested and had been transferred to the children \u2019s branch of ORG , as he had been found to be a minor subsequent to a medical check . The applicant noted \u201c I am not signing \u201d and put his signature under that sentence on the report .","NORP On DATE the applicant made statements before the ORG public prosecutor in the presence of a lawyer . His statement reads as follows :","\u201c ... I am a primary school graduate and a peddler . On DATE my brother and I were selling watermelons in front of FAC in GPE . Suddenly , a large group of demonstrators chanting the slogan \u201c Long live President FAC ( \u201c FAC ) approached us . Subsequently , the police intervened and took a number of persons into custody . Some individuals among the crowd then began throwing stones at the police officers . I also joined the demonstrators at the beginning and chanted the slogan \u201c Long live President FAC . I then threw stones at the police officers . After a short while , some people went to a school . I also went with them . Some of them climbed on the flagpole in the school garden . They took down the NORP flag and replaced it with a NORP flag . I was not involved in taking down the NORP flag . I did not have any particular purpose when I chanted the slogan and threw stones at the police . I only acted together with the crowd . I do not know why there was a demonstration . I do not have any connection with the illegal organisation . The person in the photograph that you have shown is me . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was brought before a judge of ORG . He maintained that his statements to the public prosecutor had reflected the truth . His lawyer asked the court not to remand the applicant in custody , submitting that the applicant was a minor and therefore not capable of realising the meaning and consequences of his acts .","The judge remanded the applicant in custody in view of the existence of a strong suspicion that he had committed the offences of \u201c committing an offence on behalf of an illegal organisation without being a member of the organisation \u201d , in breach of PERSON no . CARDINAL , and \u201c dissemination of propaganda in support of a terrorist organisation \u201d , and having regard to the evidence .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant with ORG , which had special jurisdiction to try a number of aggravated crimes enumerated under LAW at the material time . The applicant was charged with membership of an illegal organisation as he was considered to have committed a crime on behalf of an illegal organisation under LAW no . DATE ) on the basis of LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the same Code , resisting the security forces by way of throwing stones under sections CARDINAL ) and PERSON ) of ORG ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , disseminating propaganda in support of the ORG under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . ORG ) and denigration of the symbols of the sovereignty of the ORG under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE ORG held the first hearing in the case . During the hearing , the applicant reiterated his statements of DATE and asked to be released . He maintained that he had participated in the demonstration , chanted the slogan \u201c Long live President PERSON and thrown stones at the police when they intervened . He submitted that he had not been among those who had taken down the NORP flag .","NORP The public prosecutor asked the court to convict the applicant under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . DATE , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG and sections CARDINAL ) and PERSON ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL . The public prosecutor also requested that the sentences be reduced taking into account the fact that the applicant had been aged DATE at the material time .","On DATE ORG rendered its judgment in the case against the applicant . The court noted , at the outset , a summary of the applicant \u2019s defence submissions , the public prosecutor \u2019s observations on the merits of the case and the following evidence in the case file : the applicant \u2019s statements before the public prosecutor and the judge on DATE ; his identity documents and a document showing that he did not have a previous criminal record ; the arrest and transfer report of DATE ; an incident report dated DATE ; printed versions of documents downloaded from the Internet ; the police report of DATE describing the events of DATE and the applicant \u2019s participation in those events ; photographs extracted from the video footage recorded by the police ; and medical reports .","In its judgment , ORG held as follows :","\u201c ..."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167498","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DAVLYASHOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .","The authorities initiated several criminal proceedings against the applicant . On CARDINAL DATE she was arrested on suspicion of fraud .","On DATE ORG remanded her in custody . The court extended her detention stating that she was accused of serious crimes , the crimes did not relate to commercial sphere , another set of criminal proceeding against her was pending and she had been convicted previously , she did not live at her place of residence , she might put pressure on witnesses , destroy or conceal evidence , re - offend , abscond or in any other way interfere with investigation . It appears that criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155193","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF YAIKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","The applicant is a mentally disabled person . On DATE the applicant was arrested on a suspicion of having committed a murder . On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother informed the investigator that the applicant suffered from a mental disease .","In the period from DATE until DATE during the questionings conducted in the presence of counsel the applicant confessed , and furthermore confessed to murders of another CARDINAL persons .","On DATE ORG of GPE remanded the applicant in custody upon the investigator \u2019s request .","On DATE ORG of GPE extended the applicant \u2019s detention . It was subsequently extended on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence , might abscond , reoffend , interfere with the witnesses or obstruct the investigation in some other way . On DATE the applicant detention was extended until DATE .","On DATE the investigator ordered a psychiatric expert examination of the applicant .","On DATE the commission of experts concluded that at the time of examination the applicant was in an acute phase of the disease and was not able to account for his actions . It was therefore impossible to determine the applicant \u2019s state of mind at the time of the offences . The experts stated that the applicant posed a danger to society and needed a compulsory treatment at a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision .","NORP On DATE the applicant \u2019s case was sent by the investigator to the court .","On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing and extended the applicant \u2019s detention .","The court hearings in the applicant \u2019s case started on DATE .","On DATE the ORG ordered compulsory treatment of the applicant in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision until the improvement of his condition subsequently followed by the expert examination . The court also stated that until his placement to the hospital the preventive measure should remain unchanged . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c The court has no reason to doubt the conclusions of the medical experts [ of DATE ] . Taking into account the mental state of ORG and the nature of committed acts posing a danger to society and the need for compulsory treatment in a specialized psychiatric hospital with intensive supervision , the court considers that in accordance with ORG , CARDINAL ) ( g ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW he should be placed in this kind of hospital for compulsory treatment . However the question of releasing him from execution of sentence or criminal responsibility can not be currently resolved , as it was not possible to resolve the question of sanity of Y. in relation to the alleged acts due to a temporary disorder , namely the depressive episode of severe degree . In these circumstances Y. should be placed in the mental hospital until the improvement of his condition ...","The preventive measure should remain unchanged until his placement in the mental hospital . \u201d","The applicant \u2019s counsel appealed . In particular she argued that the applicant should be released , as the compulsory treatment of the applicant in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision would worsen his state of health . He should be treated in a mental hospital of a general type , noting that DATE had passed since the last medical examination .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE on the grounds that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence and the consideration of his case on the merits was still pending .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the decision of QUANTITY DATE and remitted the case for fresh examination to the first instance court . ORG noted that the first instance court had wrongly applied the provisions of the PERSON of the Criminal Procedure on compulsory medical treatment of offenders who had committed a crime in the state of insanity to the applicant \u2019s case since his state of mind at the time of the commission of the crimes had not yet been established . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c Having examined the materials of the case , grounds of appeal statements ... the court finds that the decision should be quashed due to the violation of rules of criminal procedure .","The present criminal case was transmitted to ORG with a view of application of the compulsory measures of a medical nature . The court considered this case according to the ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ... and found that Y. having a mental disease , currently in acute state , committed the acts ... and placed him in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision for compulsory treatment until the improvement of his condition subsequently followed by the expert examination .","However according to LAW [ Code of Criminal Procedure ] the measures indicated in LAW could be applied only in respect of the person who has committed an act , prohibited by the criminal law , in the state of insanity , or to a person who became mentally ill after committing the crime , which makes it impossible to sentence him or to execute it . Only in such circumstances is it possible to consider the case according to these rules ... provided by Articles CARDINAL of LAW .","It follows from the materials of the case , in particular from the results of the expert examination , that Y. does not fall into any of these categories of persons as until improvement of his acute condition it is not possible to establish whether he committed an act , prohibited by the criminal law , in the state of insanity , or has plunged into a state of mental disorder after committing the crime , which makes it impossible to sentence him or to execute the sentence .","Nevertheless the court accepted this case and considered it according to Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , at the same time the court in its decision notes that ORG committed the act , prohibited by the criminal law ... However as it mentioned before it does not follow from the expert report that he was in a state of insanity ...","At the same time it follows from the experts report ... that Y. suffers from the acute state of the disease and is in need of the treatment in a psychiatric institution . According to LAW when it is established that a person to whom detention on remand has been applied as a preventive measure suffers from a mental illness , a court , upon a prosecutor \u2019s request and in accordance with the procedure laid down in LAW , shall take a decision authorising a transfer of that person to a psychiatric hospital ...","The preventive measure shall remain unchanged . \u201d","On DATE the ORG scheduled another hearing of the applicant \u2019s case for DATE .","On DATE ORG returned the case to the prosecutor in order to cure the violations of certain procedural rules . The court also extended the applicant \u2019s detention on remand . The decision remained silent as to the grounds on which such conclusions were based and also as to the period of such authorised detention or the date of its next review . The applicant appealed . In particular he indicated that the period of his detention had expired .","On DATE the Chelyabinsk Regional Court extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE on the grounds that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . Referring to the gravity of the charges , it noted that there were no reasons which would make it necessary to cancel or change that preventive measure .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE on the grounds that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence and the consideration of his case on the merits was still pending .","On DATE the investigator suspended the criminal investigation until the improvement of the applicant \u2019s condition . The deputy prosecutor of GPE asked the court to transfer the applicant to a psychiatric institution , relying on LAW .","On DATE ORG of GPE , relying on LAW , ordered the applicant \u2019s transfer to a psychiatric institution until the improvement of his condition . The court noted that since it did not deal with the issue of compulsory medical treatment of the applicant it was not authorized at that stage to determine the type of the institution the applicant had to be transferred to . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c It follows from the medical expert \u2019s report that Y. suffers from the acute state of the disease . Currently he is not able to understand the factual character of his actions and control them . Taking into account his current mental state it is not possible to establish his mental state at the material time in respect of the acts he is accused of . Taking into account his current mental state , the presence of the mood disorders , the hallucinatory experiences , the lack of criticism towards his own mental state , ORG represents a danger to society and is in need of the treatment in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision until the improvement of his condition . According to LAW can transfer a person who is detained on remand to an inpatient psychiatric institution when it is established that the person suffers from a psychiatric illness . he court takes the decision about the transfer of Y. to the mental hospital . However the court does not deal with the issue of compulsory medical treatment of the applicant ; thus it is not authorised at that stage to determine the type of the institution the applicant had to be transferred to ...","... Decides to transfer the applicant to a psychiatric institution ... \u201d","The applicant \u2019s counsel appealed . She argued , in particular , that she had not been notified of the hearing and the applicant was not in the acute state of the disease anymore .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision on the applicant \u2019s transfer .","The administration of the remand prison GPE of GPE asked the court to determine the type of psychiatric institution the applicant had to be transferred to .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the GPE psychiatric hospital of a specialized type with intensified supervision .","On DATE ORG of Chelyabinsk taking into account the results of the expert examination of DATE decided that the applicant had to be transferred to a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c ... Taking into account the medical expert \u2019s report of CARDINAL ... the court considers it necessary to transfer ORG to a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision until the improvement of his condition ... \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE to suspend the proceedings . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .","On DATE the medical commission of the GPE psychiatric hospital concluded that the applicant \u2019s condition had improved so that he could be transferred back to the judicial and investigation authorities .","On DATE the ORG of GPE passed the decision to stop the compulsory medical treatment of the applicant .","On DATE the investigation was resumed and the applicant signed an undertaking not to leave the town and was released .","On DATE the prosecutor decided to conduct an outpatient psychiatric expert examination of the applicant . The applicant failed to appear and his representative requested an inpatient examination .","On DATE ORG of Chelyabinsk ordered the applicant \u2019s inpatient psychiatric expert examination .","On DATE the commission of experts delivered the results of the examination . The commission of experts concluded that at the time of the crimes the applicant was in a state of insanity . The experts stated that the applicant posed a danger to society and needed a compulsory treatment in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s case was sent to the court .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG scheduled the hearing of the applicant \u2019s case for CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE with reference to the expert \u2019s report of CARDINAL DATE and to the fact that he was suspected of an especially serious criminal offence .","On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s counsel lodged a request for conducting an additional psychiatric expert examination of the applicant . On CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the request of the lawyer .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until the end of consideration of the case by the trial court . It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the fact that he had changed his place of residence without due notification of the investigation authorities . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the commission of experts delivered the results of the psychiatric examination , which confirmed the conclusions reached in the report of DATE and the applicant \u2019s inability to take part in the court \u2019s hearings .","On DATE ORG decided to return the case to the prosecutor to correct the inaccuracy in the description of the facts of the case . On DATE the court also extended the applicant \u2019s detention on remand until DATE .","On DATE the ORG scheduled the hearing of the applicant \u2019s case for DATE and extended the applicant \u2019s detention on remand until DATE .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention on remand until DATE . It referred again to the fact that he had changed his place of residence without due notification of the investigation authorities .","DATE . On DATE the Chelyabinsk Regional Court found it established that the applicant had sexually assaulted and murdered CARDINAL women and stole the belongings of CARDINAL of them . Since the applicant had committed the crimes in the state of insanity , the court relieved him of criminal responsibility and ordered his compulsory treatment in a psychiatric institution of a specialized type with intensified supervision . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181584","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TLAPAK AND OTHERS v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants in application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( NORP ) are a mother and father . Their son PERSON was born on DATE . The applicants in application no . CARDINAL ( ORG ) are also a mother and father . Their CARDINAL daughters PERSON and NORP were born on DATE and their son PERSON was born on DATE . All the applicants are members of ORG ( PERSON ) who lived in a community of around CARDINAL members of the church in GPE , GPE . A second community with CARDINAL members was located in the nearby village of GPE .","NORP In DATE the press reported about ORG and its position on the right of parents to apply corporal punishment , especially caning . Furthermore , statements by a former member of the community were published , confirming that children had been punished with rods .","In DATE and DATE the local youth offices ( ORG ) visited both communities and its spokespersons were invited to a meeting at ORG . Corporal punishment and the issue of compulsory schooling were discussed at the meeting .","On DATE the NORP youth office and ORG received video footage from a television reporter showing CARDINAL different instances of corporal punishment in the community in GPE . The footage , filmed with a hidden camera , showed the caning of various children DATE . According to the television reporter , the person who carried out the punishment was not , in most cases , a parent of the child being punished .","On DATE the ORG , upon an application by the competent youth office , made an interlocutory order regarding all children in the CARDINAL NORP community in GPE , including the applicants\u2019 children . The court withdrew the applicants\u2019 rights to decide where their children should live ( GPE ) , and to take decisions regarding their health ( GPE ) , schooling and professional training , and transferred those rights to the youth office . The court based its decision on the above - mentioned video footage and the testimony of the television reporter and CARDINAL former members of the CARDINAL NORP community . It concluded that there was a reasonable likelihood that the children would be subjected to corporal punishment in the form of caning and so - called \u201c restraining \u201d , involving holding a child \u2019s limbs tight and pressing his or her head down until the child had no strength left to cry and struggle .","On DATE the youth office took the community \u2019s children into care . They were supported by around thirty police officers , who , at the same time , searched the community \u2019s premises and found a wooden rod .","NORP The applicants\u2019 children were subsequently examined but no physical signs of abuse or beating were revealed .","J. Tlapak was subsequently placed in a foster family . As he was still being breastfed , his mother was permitted DATE visits to give him milk .","A. and PERSON were also placed in a foster family . Their aunt \u2019s family was approved as fosterers and they were then placed with them .","NORP Since PERSON was then only DATE and DATE and was also still being breastfed , he and his mother were placed together in a foster family .","On DATE the ORG heard the applicants and on DATE it upheld its order of CARDINAL DATE in an interim decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicants against the interim decision of ORG in essence , but set the decision aside to the extent it concerned the parental right to decide on schooling matters . Given the son \u2019s age , the court held that there was no need to decide on that issue in the interim proceedings .","In DATE the applicants moved \u2013 without their son PERSON to GPE , where they have been living since .","The Ansbach Family Court heard the applicants on DATE and the applicants\u2019 daughters on DATE in the foster family \u2019s home . The daughters reported that their parents had hit them on the hand with a rod as a form of corporal punishment . On DATE ORG upheld its order of DATE .","On DATE , upon an appeal by the applicants , ORG reversed the decision to withdraw the right to decide where PERSON should live . The earlier decision on the daughters was upheld , with the proviso that the parents were to retain the right to take decisions on school matters and on their daughters\u2019 choice of education or training and career .","The son was subsequently returned to the applicants , who moved first to GPE and later to GPE , where they have been living since . The applicants\u2019 daughters are still in the care of the foster family ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Upon an application made by the applicants on DATE ORG initiated the main proceedings and , on DATE , it commissioned an expert opinion .","After interviewing the applicants and observing a meeting between them and their son , the expert submitted a written opinion on DATE . He found that even though the applicants had a loving attitude towards their son , they considered corporal punishment with objects as an appropriate and necessary parenting method . Owing to their willingness to apply that method to their son , there was a likelihood bordering on certainty that if he remained with them , they would apply corporal punishment . This , the expert concluded , would significantly jeopardise the son \u2019s development and result in psychological problems . Overall , it was in the child \u2019s best interests to place him away from his parents to protect him from the applicants\u2019 parenting methods , which were dangerous for the child . Since their parenting was based on religious convictions , they were unwilling to abandon the parenting method of corporal punishment and lacked the will to cooperate with the authorities or accept help . Consequently , less intrusive measures could not be considered sufficient .","Subsequently the applicants submitted a privately commissioned expert opinion , in which the court - appointed expert \u2019s approach and methodology was criticised . In addition , the applicants retrospectively withdrew their consent to being assessed by the court - appointed expert and to an assessment of their son .","In separate proceedings ORG , on DATE , issued an interim decision in which it withdrew the ORG parental right to decide on the son \u2019s assessment by the court - appointed expert and consented to such a measure .","On DATE , ORG forwarded the privately commissioned expert opinion to the court - appointed expert , who responded to the criticism and gave details of his methodology in a letter of DATE .","In a hearing on DATE the court proposed an agreement between the applicants and the youth office , with the aim of returning their son to them . However , the applicants and the youth office did not agree on a settlement owing in particular to a disagreement about the son attending a state school and play therapy . Moreover , there were concerns about the parents attending a development course and assisting with medical measures . The youth office considered those aspects as essential and declined the partial settlement proposed by the applicants .","After hearing the applicants\u2019 son in the home of the foster family where he had been placed on DATE , ORG decided on DATE to withdraw the applicants\u2019 right to decide where their son should live and to take decisions regarding his health and schooling , and transferred those rights to the youth office , which had been appointed as supplementary guardian .","ORG stated that it would be very detrimental to the best interests of the child if the son continued to live with the applicants owing to their parenting methods . Based , in particular , on the courtcommissioned expert opinion and the statements by the applicants during the court proceedings , the court concluded that there was a high , concrete probability that the son would be subjected to corporal punishment using physical objects over the course of DATE . According to the expert , this would give rise to an expectation that the ORG son would suffer from psychological issues . Even though separating the parents and the child constituted a severe interference with their right to a family under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and may possibly have negative consequences for the child , that interference was justified in the case at hand . Corporal punishment of the kind at issue was particularly degrading for a child . It was not only banned by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) but also constituted an interference with a child \u2019s human dignity , protected under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and a child \u2019s right to physical integrity , protected under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The court also held that the risk to the child could not be averted using less drastic measures . Throughout the course of the proceedings the applicants had unreservedly advocated their parenting style and had refused to accept the opinion that the type of corporal punishment they endorsed was covered by the ban on violence under LAW . The physical effects of such punishment were only short - lived , which was why it would only be possible for the youth office to observe any such effects if it made unannounced visits and the child had \u2013 by chance \u2013 been punished immediately prior to such a visit . According to the expert \u2019s explanations , the psychological consequences could , by contrast , only be determined after a longer period of time and they were difficult to discern at first glance . Although the applicants had most recently indicated to the court that they were ready to refrain from corporal punishment in the future , the court regarded such statements as not being compelling since they had not provided any grounds . ORG , nonetheless , pointed out that the applicants were free to reach an out - of - court settlement with the youth office concerning the conditions under which the son could be returned after the proceedings had been concluded . However , the previous settlement proposal had been refused because the applicants had not been willing to agree to have their son take part in play therapy and attend a state school .","In regard to the fact that the applicants had withdrawn their consent to being examined by the court - appointed expert after the expert opinion had already been submitted , both for themselves and their child , the court held that this did not render the expert \u2019s report unusable in the proceedings . While the court had given its own consent in place of the GPE as far as it concerned the son , the GPE actions on that point could not , in light of the state \u2019s obligation to protect children under constitutional law , hinder the use of the expert opinion in the proceedings . Allowing parents to reject expert opinions they disagreed with by retrospectively withdrawing consent to an examination would prevent any effective protection of children in family court proceedings .","The applicants subsequently appealed against the decision of ORG . ORG , after hearing the applicants , their son , the son \u2019s guardian ad litem , a representative of the youth office , the courtappointed expert and the expert commissioned by the applicants , dismissed the ORG appeal on DATE .","In a decision of CARDINAL pages , ORG considered in detail the applicants\u2019 statements concerning corporal punishment , publications by ORG , the expert \u2019s opinion and the criticism of the report by the privately commissioned expert . Overall it confirmed the decision and reasoning of ORG of DATE . The court emphasised that not all individual violations of the right to a non - violent upbringing under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) could justify a withdrawal of parental authority . However , there was a fear in the applicants\u2019 case that systematic caning with a rod would be the reaction whenever the child was deemed to have broken a rule . There was moreover already a threat to the child \u2019s best interests as he would live in constant fear of suffering physical pain and experiencing the resulting humiliation as psychological suffering . Beatings as such , the court held , constituted child abuse and misuse of parental authority . It was of no relevance whether or not lasting physical injuries occurred .","The court further held that on account of their religious beliefs , the applicants were convinced that their child - rearing methods were legitimate . Accordingly , they were neither willing nor able to avert the danger to their child and the recent contradictory statements they had made could not be considered as credible .","On DATE ORG refused to admit a constitutional complaint by the applicants ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , without providing reasons .","ORG , upon an application by the applicants dated DATE , initiated the main proceedings and on DATE commissioned an expert opinion .","After interviewing the applicants , their CARDINAL daughters and the children \u2019s foster parents , and observing a meeting between the applicants and their children , the expert submitted a written opinion on DATE . He stated that the applicants and their daughters had confirmed that the parents had used a rod as corporal punishment on the daughters and that even though the applicants had a loving attitude towards their children , they considered corporal punishment using physical objects as an appropriate and necessary parenting method . Given the past incidents of corporal punishment and the ORG general willingness to use that method on their children , it was virtually certain that they would subject them to corporal punishment again . The expert concluded that the ORG rigid , authoritarian parenting style and their conviction that children should be raised to obey their parents by means of corporal punishment using physical objects from DATE conflicted significantly with the best interests of the children and was also detrimental to the unimpaired development of their personality . He expected that such methods would likely result in psychological issues . Overall , it was in the best interests of the children to place them away from their parents . Since the applicants\u2019 parenting style was based on religious convictions , they were unwilling to abandon the parenting method of corporal punishment and were not fully prepared to cooperate with the authorities and accept help . Consequently , measures that infringed on their rights to a lesser degree could not be considered sufficient .","Subsequently , the applicants submitted a privately commissioned expert opinion , in which the court - appointed expert \u2019s approach and methodology was criticised . In addition , the applicants retrospectively withdrew their consent to being assessed by the court - appointed expert and to the assessment of their CARDINAL children .","In separate proceedings ORG , on DATE , issued an interim decision in which it withdrew the ORG parental right to decide on the children being assessed by the court - appointed expert and consented to the psychological examination . It also forwarded the privately commissioned expert opinion to the court - appointed expert , who responded to the criticism in it and gave details of his methodology in a letter of CARDINAL October CARDINAL .","NORP In a hearing of DATE the parties discussed an agreement between the applicants and the youth office , with the aim of returning the daughters to the applicants and protecting all CARDINAL children . However , the applicants and the youth office could not agree on a settlement as there was disagreement in particular on the children attending a state school and therapy . Moreover , the applicants were unwilling to remain in GPE under the supervision of the youth office for an extended period of time .","After hearing the applicants and their daughters several times , including in parallel proceedings , ORG decided on DATE to withdraw the applicants\u2019 right to decide where all CARDINAL children should live and to take decisions regarding the children \u2019s health and schooling , and transferred those rights to the youth office , which had been appointed as supplementary guardian . Additionally , the court ordered the ORG son to be handed over to the youth office .","In its reasoning , which was similar to that in application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , ORG held that the applicants\u2019 parenting methods meant that it would be very detrimental to the best interests of all CARDINAL children to continue to live with their parents . The court emphasised that the aim of Article DATE of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) was not to penalise past child abuse or views on parenting that were in contradiction to Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) , but to prevent imminent threats to the best interests of children . Based , in particular , on the opinion by the courtappointed expert and the statements by the applicants and their children , the court concluded that there was a high , concrete probability that the children would be subjected to systematic corporal punishment using physical objects , which would in turn be detrimental to the best interests of the children in physical and psychological terms . The severe interference with the applicants\u2019 right to a family under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) by separating them from their children was nonetheless not only justified but also proportionate since the risk to the children could not be averted using milder means . Besides the problem of detecting corporal punishment through unannounced visits by the youth office ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court also pointed out that the applicants had consistently , over the course of the proceedings , shown a lack of willingness to cooperate with the youth office and had refused to accept state schools , both of which the court found necessary to prevent degrading corporal punishment and ensure the children \u2019s autonomous development . Furthermore , the court held that it could be expected that the applicants would leave GPE if their children were returned to them and thereby elude any orderly monitoring and supervision by the competent youth office . Lastly , the court concluded that the withdrawal of the consent to being examined by the court - appointed expert did not hinder the use of the expert opinion in the proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicants subsequently appealed against the decision of ORG and applied for an interim measure to suspend the order to hand their son over to the youth office .","On DATE ORG provisionally suspended enforcement of ORG order on the son . The court held that given his age , DATE and DATE , and the fact that he was still being breastfed , enforcement would constitute an especially serious interference with the applicants\u2019 rights . In addition , the son \u2019s young age meant there was no imminent and sufficient risk of him being subjected to corporal punishment .","During the appeal proceedings the applicants proposed a settlement to ORG . The applicants would temporarily return to GPE and for DATE they would gradually be reunited with their CARDINAL daughters under the supervision of the youth office . At the end of that period , if the family reunification had been successful , ORG decision would be set aside and the whole family would move to GPE .","On DATE ORG conducted an oral hearing during which it heard , inter alia , the applicants , their daughters , the courtappointed expert , the expert commissioned by the applicants and the children \u2019s guardian ad litem . The applicants\u2019 daughters stated that , even though they would like to see their parents more often , they would prefer living with their foster parents . Moreover , a representative of the youth office indicated during the hearing that the applicants had not distanced themselves from their previous parenting methods in a credible way and that therefore the youth office was not able to agree to the settlement they had proposed .","On DATE ORG , in a detailed decision of fortyfive pages , rejected the ORG appeal and confirmed the reasoning of ORG . The court held that corporal punishment with a rod , prohibited by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , constituted the physical abuse of children and if applied regularly and repeatedly the competent authorities were obliged under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to intervene and take the necessary measures in the best interests of the children . The applicants\u2019 daughters had consistently stated during the proceedings that they had been caned on a DATE basis and the applicants themselves had confirmed that they had \u201c disciplined \u201d their daughters with a rod . The court was convinced that the applicants would continue to use corporal punishment on their children in the future since that parenting method was already firmly established and was based on religious beliefs from which the applicants had not fundamentally distanced themselves . Their statements had shown that they , in essence , continued to approve of corporal punishment and considered it an appropriate parenting method . The fact that the applicants had recently acknowledged that their children had a right to a non - violent upbringing did not mean they had changed their attitudes to parenting in a permanent way ; rather , that had only served a procedural purpose , namely to have their daughters returned to them as soon as possible . In the court \u2019s opinion , the applicants were only prepared to refrain temporarily from corporal punishment . The court was therefore unable to find that the applicants had changed their way of parenting and distanced themselves from corporal punishment in a manner which the court could regard as credible . Consequently , there was an imminent danger of systematic corporal punishment if the CARDINAL daughters were returned to their parents . The danger also existed for the applicants\u2019 son as there was no fixed age when the applicants started \u201c disciplining \u201d their children as they rather considered it a tool to enforce their parental authority . As the DATE son was expected to start his \u201c phase of defiance \u201d soon , it also had to be expected that the applicants would respond with caning .","ORG also confirmed that the applicants\u2019 withdrawal of their consent to being assessed did not prevent the courts from using the expert opinion as evidence and that there were no less severe measures available to avert the imminent detriment to the best interests of the children resulting from their GPE use of corporal punishment . In that regard , the court , inter alia , pointed to the fact that the applicants had already left GPE with their son and refused to return to live there permanently . The competent authorities would therefore from the very outset be unable to provide sufficient support to the family or effectively monitor the applicants\u2019 parenting methods .","DATE . On DATE ORG refused to admit a constitutional complaint by the applicants ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , without providing reasons ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162868","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF D\u017dINI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is a businessman living in ORG .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u ORG ) asked an investigating judge of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u Vukovaru ) to open an investigation in respect of the applicant , in his capacity of the director of company ORG , in connection with suspicion of several charges of economic crime . It also requested that several items of the applicant \u2019s real property be restrained so as to secure effective enforcement of a probable confiscation order in the amount of CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","The investigation was opened on DATE , and on DATE the investigating judge declared the request for seizure of the applicant \u2019s property inadmissible on the ground that under LAW applicable at the time the State Attorney \u2019s Office had not been authorised to make such a request .","After the completion of the investigation , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was indicted , together with CARDINAL other persons , in ORG on several charges of economic crime , concerning in particular misappropriation of company shares , and misuse of the company PERSON \u2019s assets and facilities .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG amended the indictment , dropping the charges on CARDINAL counts against the applicant and charging him on CARDINAL count of misappropriation of company shares , and several counts of misuse of the company ORG \u2019s assets and facilities . The total value of the pecuniary gain which the applicant had allegedly obtained by the commission of these offences was set out at approximately EUR CARDINAL .","On the basis of the amended indictment , on DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of charges of misappropriation of company shares and acquitted him of all other charges . The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and confiscation of the pecuniary gain in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) allegedly obtained by the commission of the offence of which he was found guilty .","Upon appeal by the applicant and the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG against this judgment , on DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed it and ordered a retrial .","In the resumed proceedings , and after the CARDINAL Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had entered into force , on DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG requested ORG that several items of the applicant \u2019s real property be seized ( CARDINAL plots of land , QUANTITY houses and a commercial building ) so as to secure effective enforcement of a probable confiscation order in the amount of approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","In support of its request the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG submitted records from the land registry attesting to the applicant \u2019s ownership of the real properties in respect of which the request for a seizure order was made . It did not submit an assessment of the value of the property nor did it make any reference to its possible value . However , according to the information submitted by the ORG , the assessment of the value of several items of the real property , which were the subject matter of the proceedings , had been made on the basis of the material available from the investigation case file and their estimated value at the moment of purchase in DATE ( in total estimated at approximately ORG CARDINAL ) , whereas the assessment of the value of the remainder of the real property had been made by the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office with regard to the information available in the land registry , although the records in the land registry did not contain information on the value of the property itself .","On DATE a single judge of ORG ordered seizure of the applicant \u2019s real property listed in the request of the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG so as to secure effective enforcement of a possible confiscation order in the amount of approximately ORG CARDINAL . No reasoning was provided with regard to the proportionality of the alleged pecuniary gain obtained and the value of the restrained real property .","On the basis of an order of ORG , the seizure of the applicant \u2019s real property was registered in the land registry .","The applicant challenged the decision of ORG before ORG and on DATE ORG quashed it and remitted the matter for re - examination on the grounds that the decision on seizure of the real property was not within the competence of a single judge but a panel of CARDINAL judges .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG that the quashed seizure order be removed from the land registry . He contended that he had taken a bank loan which was secured by a mortgage on his real property and that the loan would not be extended due to the seizure of his property , which could lead to his total bankruptcy and destruction of his business . In support of his request , the applicant submitted email correspondence with the bank asking him to clarify when the seizure order would be lifted , as it affected the management of his loan .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative received a summons by ORG to appear before a CARDINAL - judge panel of that court on DATE , without specifying the exact reason for the summons . It was also indicated that the court session could be held in the absence of the defence .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG examined the request of the ORG Attorney \u2019s Office for the seizure of the applicant \u2019s real property . On DATE it accepted the request in full and ordered restraint of the applicant \u2019s real property listed in the request of the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) by prohibiting its alienation or encumbrance . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c The records from the land registry ... show that the accused PERSON is the owner of the above listed items of real property .","Under section CARDINAL \u00a7 DATE ) in conjunction with section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime Act ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL ) , and also in view of LAW of the Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime Act , this panel finds that it is presumed that there is a danger that the claim of GPE with regard to confiscation of the proceeds of crime would not be enforceable or that its enforcement would be difficult without ordering of a restraint measure .","Under LAW no one can retain the proceeds of crime .","By the indictment of the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office ... the accused PERSON is charged , under count CARDINAL ( a ) , ( b ) and ( c ) , of having procured for himself a pecuniary gain in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","...","[ T]he proceedings at issue concern ... the confiscation of the proceeds of crime under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL(A ) in conjunction with LAW . In view of the above , it is ordered to the land registry of ORG to register the restraint of the listed property in the land registry . \u201d","The restraint of the applicant \u2019s real property was registered in the land registry on the basis of an order of ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal before ORG challenging the decision of ORG ordering the seizure of his property . He contended in particular that the value of the restrained property was according to his provisional estimate CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) , which significantly surpassed the pecuniary gain allegedly obtained by the commission of the offences which were the subject matter of the proceedings . He also stressed that it was reasonably expected from ORG to conduct at least a general assessment of the value of the property restrained and the pecuniary gain allegedly obtained by the commission of the offences in question . The applicant therefore submitted that by failing to make any such assessment , ORG had imposed an excessive individual burden on his property rights .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on DATE . With regard to the applicant \u2019s specific complaint concerning the lack of proportionality of the measure imposed , ORG noted :","\u201c ORG finds that the principle of proportionality has not been breached since PERSON is charged with having obtained a pecuniary gain in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , and the value of the restrained property does not justify [ his ] argument that the value of the restrained property listed in the operative part of the impugned decision significantly surpasses the [ possible confiscation ] claim . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) challenging the decisions of the lower courts on the seizure of his property . He relied on the PERSON and the ORG \u2019s case - law , contending that the decision on the seizure of his property had been disproportionate .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG that the seizure order be lifted or reassessed . He argued that there were other less restrictive means of securing the enforcement of a possible confiscation order , and contended that it had not been alleged that the seized property had been obtained by a criminal activity . He also urged ORG to make an assessment of the value of the seized property so as to limit the scope of the restraint to the value of the pecuniary gain allegedly obtained . He also contended that the value of the seized property significantly surpassed the alleged pecuniary gain obtained , which had endangered the normal functioning of his business .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) inadmissible on the ground that the decisions of the lower courts did not concern a decision on the merits of any of the applicant \u2019s rights or obligations or any criminal charge against him .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request that the seizure order be lifted or reassessed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c The request for the lifting of the restraint and the request for its modification are unfounded .","It follows from the final indictment of the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office ... that there is a reasonable suspicion that the accused PERSON , by the offences listed in count CARDINAL ( a ) , ( b ) and ( c ) [ of the indictment ] , obtained pecuniary gain in the total amount of HRK CARDINAL .","Since the [ seizure order ] is based , under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime Act , on the presumption that there is a danger that the confiscation of the proceeds from crime would not be enforceable or that its enforcement would be difficult without ordering of a restraint measure , it was decided as noted in the operative part of this decision . \u201d","On DATE the applicant challenged this decision by lodging an appeal before ORG . He complained that he had not had an effective opportunity to challenge the seizure order in a hearing before ORG and that the seizure of his property had been disproportionate and thus contrary to LAW . The applicant further stressed that it was unclear for which amount of the alleged pecuniary gain the seizure order had been made given that ORG had only referred to CARDINAL count of the indictment , alleging that he had obtained pecuniary gain in the amount of HRK CARDINAL , whereas it had ignored the other count of the indictment according to which he had obtained a pecuniary gain in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The applicant , therefore , assuming that the overall amount of the pecuniary gain for which the seizure order had been made corresponded to the sum of the CARDINAL amounts noted ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) , submitted a detailed estimate value of each item of the restrained property based on the information from a publicly available Internet portal on the market values of real properties in GPE . According to this estimate , the total value of the seized property corresponded to some ORG CARDINAL . The applicant thus contended that there was a gross disproportionality between the alleged pecuniary gain obtained by the commission of the offences referred to in the indictment and the value of the seized property , which imposed on him an excessive individual burden .","On DATE ORG , acting as the appeal court , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal by noting the following :","\u201c The same complaints had been made against the decision of DATE ... and then it was answered to the appellant that the principle of proportionality had not been breached ... By a speculative assessment of the value of the real properties listed in the appeal , the appellant did not manage to put into doubt the findings of the first - instance court .","The appellant \u2019s argument that it is not clear from the impugned decision which amount of the pecuniary gain he has allegedly obtained is unfounded .","The first - instance court stated in the impugned decision that the accused had obtained a pecuniary gain in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , as referred to in count CARDINAL of the indictment , but it failed to cite the amount referred to in count CARDINAL of the indictment of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , which is as such , in view of the status of the case , uncontested . There is therefore no doubt that the [ seizure order ] was made in respect of the overall amount of the possible pecuniary gain , as it was explained in the first decision by which the measure was ordered . \u201d","The applicant challenged this decision before ORG and on DATE ORG declared it inadmissible , reiterating its previous reasoning ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At a closing hearing in the criminal proceedings before ORG on DATE , the applicant again requested that the seizure order be lifted .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty on the charges of misuse of the company PERSON \u2019s assets and facilities by which he had allegedly obtained a pecuniary gain in the amount of HRK CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , and acquitted him on charges of misappropriation of company shares and CARDINAL alleged event of misuse of the company ORG \u2019s assets and facilities . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and confiscation of the amount of HRK CARDINAL . The case is pending on appeal before ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for lifting of the seizure order made at the hearing on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as ill - founded on the ground that the seizure of the property could be maintained for DATE following the relevant procedures related to the finality of the judgment . As the judgment had not become final , ORG considered that there was no ground for lifting of the seizure order ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148877","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"SP\u016aLIS AND VA\u0160KEVI\u010cS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant in the first case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .","NORP The applicant in the second case , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The applicant worked from DATE until CARDINAL DATE at ORG and was posted as a diplomat to NORP embassies in GPE and GPE . On DATE he had been issued Category I security clearance .","On DATE the director of the ORG invited the applicant to a meeting . The applicant was asked questions about his work in the embassy in GPE and about his contacts there . Later on the same day one of the staff members invited the applicant to another meeting . In the course of that second meeting the applicant was accused of having received money or diamonds .","On DATE the director of the ORG took a decision revoking the applicant \u2019s security clearance . That decision was based on sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the Law on State Secrets ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The decision referred to \u201c facts established during an inquiry which constitute grounds for doubting your reliability and your ability to refrain from disclosing ORG secrets \u201d . On DATE the applicant \u2019s employment with the ORG was suspended on the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on State Security Establishments and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Law on State Secrets and he was informed that his employment contract would be terminated pursuant to section GPE ) of the Labour Law and section CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the Law on ORG .","NORP In response to the applicant \u2019s complaint about the revocation of his security clearance , on DATE ORG upheld \u201c the decision of the director of the [ ORG ] of DATE [ sic ] \u201d . In response to the applicant \u2019s request for a review of the information in the possession of the ORG by an independent law - enforcement agency , the Prosecutor General pointed out that under LAW the system of protection of ORG secrets was subject to the supervision of ORG . Accordingly , that ORG was to be considered an independent authority .","The applicant then brought proceedings in ORG , complaining about the de facto actions of ORG and the director of the ORG . On DATE that court refused to uphold the applicant \u2019s complaint , finding that the lex specialis with regard to the procedure for revoking security clearance was contained in the Law on State Secrets which provided that decisions in that respect were not subject to review by the courts . Considering that the ORG of ORG had come to identical conclusions in a comparable case on DATE , the applicant did appeal against the said decision .","On DATE the applicant applied to the director of the ORG to be discharged from the service on grounds of health , specifying that DATE ORG had certified that he was suffering from a category - CARDINAL physical disability .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , alleging that sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the Law on State Secrets ( see Relevant Domestic Law , below ) were unconstitutional . On DATE the ORG refused to initiate proceedings , since it considered that the question of the constitutionality of section CARDINAL ) had been decided in its earlier judgment of DATE ( see Relevant Domestic Law , below ) and that the claim concerning CARDINAL ) lacked the requisite legal substantiation .","The applicant had been working in ORG and subsequently in ORG since DATE . In DATE he held the position of director of ORG of ORG ( NORP ie\u0146\u0113mumu dienesta ORG krimin\u0101lp\u0101rvaldes direktors ) and Deputy General Director of ORG ( NORP ie\u0146\u0113mumu dienesta \u0123ener\u0101ldirektora vietnieks ) . In DATE he had been issued security clearance . In DATE the ORG reduced the applicant \u2019s security clearance to Category II security clearance . That clearance was reviewed and upheld on average DATE .","On DATE the director of the ORG took a decision revoking the applicant \u2019s security clearance . That decision was based on section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Law on State Secrets ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","As a result the applicant was dismissed from the position of director of ORG of ORG , whereas he continued to work in ORG as Deputy Director General in the areas of personnel , strategic development and internal audit . Following an internal reorganisation the applicant was appointed director of ORG . In DATE , in the context of rotation of civil servants , the applicant accepted a proposal of appointment as Deputy Director of ORG of ORG .","Following the applicant \u2019s complaint about the revocation of his clearance , on DATE ORG upheld the decision of the director of the ORG . The decision of ORG indicated that the applicant \u2019s clearance had been revoked because of facts established during \u201c an inquiry \u201d which constituted grounds for \u201c doubting a person \u2019s reliability and his or her ability to refrain from disclosing ORG","secrets \u201d . Furthermore , the inquiry had disclosed that in his application to obtain security clearance the applicant had provided false information . The Prosecutor General pointed out that the materials contained in the inquiry case - file were confidential and thus unavailable to the applicant . However , the reply contained a reference to a meeting between the applicant and a staff member of the ORG on DATE during which the staff member had heard the applicant \u2019s submissions concerning the facts established during the inquiry . In the course of the inquiry the ORG had also requested information from ORG and ORG .","The applicant then submitted a complaint to ORG , requesting it to quash the decision of ORG and to declare the de facto actions of the director of the ORG and the Prosecutor General unlawful . By a decision of DATE that court refused to uphold the applicant \u2019s complaint on similar grounds to those relied on in the first application ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The proceedings in the administrative courts were terminated by a final decision of the ORG of ORG on DATE . The ORG upheld and expanded the reasoning contained in the decisions of the lower courts , relying on ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant then submitted an application to ORG , alleging , inter alia , that sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the Law on State Secrets and paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . of the \u201c List of State secret information \u201d ( see Domestic law part below ) were incompatible with the LAW .","On DATE the ORG refused to initiate proceedings , considering that the question of the constitutionality of section CARDINAL ) had already been decided by that court in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE and that the remainder of the applicant \u2019s claims lacked the requisite legal substantiation .","The Law on State Secrets came into force on DATE . At the time of revocation of the applicants\u2019 security clearance it provided , in so far as relevant , as follows .","The criteria for obtaining access to ORG secrets were contained in section CARDINAL . Section CARDINAL ) provided that access could not be granted to any person","\u201c in respect of whom during the course of an inquiry facts have been determined that constitute grounds for doubting his or her reliability and ability to refrain from disclosing ORG secrets \u201d .","Pursuant to sections NORP ) and CARDINAL ) of the PERSON , an appeal from a decision to revoke special clearance lay to the director of the ORG . The director \u2019s decision could then be appealed to ORG , whose decision was final . The PERSON did not contain any further details concerning the appeal procedure .","Section CARDINAL provided for the conditions and consequences of revocation of special permits . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , special permits could be revoked if it had become apparent that the person in question fell into CARDINAL of the categories listed in section CARDINAL ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) provided that special permits were revoked in respect of persons who had knowingly provided false information about themselves . After revocation the person concerned was to be immediately dismissed or transferred to a position not requiring access to ORG secrets . Such persons could not obtain security clearance in the future .","On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers adopted regulations entitled \u201c List of State secret information \u201d ( Ministru kabineta DATE . gada CARDINAL . oktobra noteikumi Nr . CARDINAL \u201c NORP nosl\u0113puma objektu saraksts \u201d ) . Paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . of that list designated as \u201c confidential \u201d the \u201c means , methods and inspection measures for special protection ... of ORG secret information ... ( for example , pages of questionnaires ) \u201d .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the Labour Law gave employers a right to terminate employment contracts in cases where the employees concerned lacked the professional competence to perform their contractual duties .","Lastly , the internal organisation of the ORG and other security agencies was governed by LAW . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON provided that the agencies concerned could not employ persons who had been denied access to ORG secrets . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that ORG and prosecutors with particular authorisation were to have a supervisory role over the work of ORG security agencies ( including the system of protection of ORG secrets ) . In their supervisory role , ORG and the authorised prosecutors had a right to access documents and information in the possession of security agencies .","In a judgment of DATE in case no . DATE - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ORG declared , by CARDINAL to CARDINAL votes , inter alia , section GPE ) of the Law on State Secrets constitutional . The case originated in an application from an individual who had not been issued with security clearance .","The majority of the court observed that the interests of national security required that access to ORG secrets be granted only to persons whose character references precluded the risk of disclosure of ORG secrets and that in the ORG member states the threshold of eligibility for security clearance was high . They concluded that such restrictions were necessary in a NORP society and provided a fair balance between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole . The majority conceded , however , that the above restrictions had to be sufficiently substantiated and that the competent authority had to assess the degree of risk in each particular case in order to decide whether to grant clearance or not .","The Constitutional Court emphasised that the right of access to a court did not equate to a right to resolve in a court any question of importance to an individual . It further noted that even if the dispute in question was of a nature that in principle fell to be examined in the courts , the right of access to court could nevertheless be curtailed if curtailment served a legitimate aim and the means employed were reasonably proportionate to that aim . In that regard ORG held that even though ORG could not be considered to be \u201c a court \u201d for the purposes of the right of access to court , nothing in the PERSON on ORG prevented him from implementing certain procedural guarantees in the process of reviewing a refusal to issue security clearance . Furthermore , the court considered that ORG had a duty to interpret the applicable provisions in the light of the LAW and to implement such guarantees . Accordingly , ORG considered that section CARDINAL ) of the Law on State Secrets , which , in its opinion , was capable of being applied in a manner compatible with the LAW , was not contrary to LAW . CARDINAL judges dissented , considering that in practice the audiatur et altera pars principle was not applied by ORG and that in the absence of any procedural guarantees set down in the Law on State Secrets the Prosecutor General \u2019s decision making was inherently arbitrary ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169649","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DZIDZAVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);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)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["During the period from DATE to DATE identity checks of NORP nationals residing in GPE were carried out in the streets , markets and other workplaces and at their homes . Many were subsequently arrested and taken to police stations . After a period of custody in police stations , they were grouped together and taken by bus to a court , which summarily imposed administrative penalties on them and gave decisions ordering their administrative expulsion from NORP territory . Subsequently , after sometimes undergoing a medical visit and a blood test , they were taken to detention centres for foreigners where they were detained for varying periods of time , taken by bus to airports in GPE , and expelled to GPE by aeroplane . ( for further details as to the background of the case see GPE v. GPE ( I ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) .","The applicant was born in DATE in PERSON ( GPE ) and married to Mr PERSON , a NORP national born in DATE . Together they had lived in GPE since DATE . In DATE Mr PERSON had started suffering from coughing fits , shortness of breath and thickening of the aorta walls .","NORP In DATE the applicant returned to GPE because her visa had expired . Mr PERSON , whose visa had expired on DATE and whose registration was no longer valid either , stayed in GPE .","At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON was arrested by police officers in GPE and placed in detention .","At TIME on DATE the ORG of GPE ordered PERSON to be expelled from GPE and detained at the GPE special detention centre for aliens pending his administrative expulsion on the ground that he had infringed the residence rules governing foreign nationals , namely LAW . The court also fined the applicant in the amount of RUB CARDINAL .","Mr PERSON was subsequently brought to the reception centre for foreigners of ORG for GPE and GPE Region . Upon his arrival he was examined by a medical officer , who found that PERSON did not show any health problems preventing him from being placed in the reception centre . PERSON informed the medical staff that he suffered from asthma attacks and was subsequently placed together with another NORP detainee who suffered from asthma in a cell measuring CARDINAL other NORP nationals .","The sanitary conditions of the cell were very poor , as the toilets were only separated from the rest of the cell by a partition measuring QUANTITY at CARDINAL side , and there was a lack of fresh air . In addition , while PERSON was provided with possibilities to take walks , he was not permitted outdoor activities .","On DATE Mr PERSON was suffering from nausea and a headache and asked for medical assistance . Subsequently a medical officer checked his blood pressure and temperature , which was slightly raised . He was given paracetamol . A re - examination the same day showed that his temperature was back to normal .","On DATE Mr PERSON , Consul of GPE in GPE at the material time , visited the detention centre . When he saw PERSON , who was having difficulties breathing and whose face had turned black , he had requested that PERSON be immediately transferred to a hospital but that request was not complied with .","On DATE Mr PERSON , together with CARDINAL other NORP nationals , was placed in a bus to FAC in GPE with a view to his expulsion by aeroplane to GPE . Prior to entering the bus the detainees and their belongings were searched . In addition the detainees were accompanied by CARDINAL officers of the special police force of ORG ( ORG ) on the bus and CARDINAL further police cars escorted the bus on the way to the airport .","The conditions of transport in the bus were very difficult , with no air conditioning , and although the journey lasted TIME , the officers who had been accompanying the detainees had not allowed them to open the windows . On the way to the airport the bus stopped CARDINAL times to let people , allegedly for a bribe , use the toilet and purchase food . Exiting the bus was closely monitored by the accompanying police officers .","On DATE between CARDINAL and TIME the bus arrived at the airport and around TIME Mr PERSON , whose health had deteriorated during the bus ride , was allowed to leave the bus upon the request of PERSON PERSON , who was awaiting the NORP nationals at the airport .","Mr PERSON indicated that when PERSON PERSON had got off the bus he had seen that he was very ill and was \u201c suffocating like a fish out of water \u201d and begging to be allowed to breathe fresh air .","On the way to the terminal Mr PERSON collapsed after walking a few steps and died . A called ambulance was unable to resuscitate him and he was declared dead at TIME","On DATE ORG conducted an autopsy of Mr PERSON \u2019s corpse and indicated that his death was caused by tuberculosis . In addition blood and urine samples were taken and sent for forensic chemical examination .","On DATE ORG decided not to initiate criminal proceedings , as the competent prosecutor found that Mr PERSON had died of a natural cause .","During the forensic chemical examination of the taken blood and urine samples methadone was detected in both samples . In regard to the urine sample a high - performance liquid chromatography ( ORG ) was applied , which established CARDINAL,CARDINAL mg% methadone and CARDINAL,CARDINAL mg% methadone metabolite in Mr PERSON \u2019s urine . A closer inspection of Mr PERSON \u2019s blood was not conducted and the exact level of methadone in his blood was not established . Based on these findings ORG finally concluded that Mr PERSON had died of methadone poisoning .","On DATE the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings of DATE was quashed and the case file was forwarded for additional examination .","On DATE ORG decided again not to initiate criminal proceedings . This time finding that , owing to detecting methadone in the urine and blood of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and finding MONEY on his corpse , there was evidence for repeated use of narcotics for DATE . Therefore the prosecutor concluded that PERSON took the methadone voluntarily and that his death was caused by negligent poisoning with methadone .","On DATE ORG of GPE proposed that the decision of CARDINAL DATE would be quashed and further investigations would be conducted . It held that thus far the deterioration of PERSON health during the bus ride had not sufficiently been examined and that relevant officials had not been interviewed .","On DATE ORG challenged the allegation that PERSON had died of methadone poisoning , saying that he had died of tuberculosis .","On DATE a criminal investigation was initiated against an unknown person for selling methadone to Mr PERSON at an unknown date and unknown location .","On DATE the decision to dismiss criminal proceedings was quashed and the case was forwarded for additional examination . In particular it was held that the dismissal was premature and that it should be established whether any narcotics were found on PERSON , the amount of methadone taken by him , whether such a dose could be lethal , why Mr PERSON \u2019s health deteriorated during the bus ride and whether he received adequate health care during his detention and transfer to the airport .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were dismissed and on DATE the dismissal was quashed again , as the instructions of CARDINAL DATE had not been fulfilled .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were dismissed again and the dismissal was quashed on DATE .","On DATE criminal proceedings were finally dismissed . A subsequent request to quash the dismissal was denied on DATE and confirmed on DATE .","Based on the documents provided by the ORG , and in particular on the autopsy report and the report of the forensic chemical examination , the applicant submitted her own medical report regarding her husband \u2019s death . The report was compiled by a forensic pathologist , PERSON PERSON \u2013 a former lecturer at different universities in GPE and chief pathologist for ORG for the Former GPE ( ORG ) \u2013 supported by a forensic toxicologist , Dr PERSON .","The experts pointed out that the NORP authorities gave the cause of death as methadone intoxication based on the fact that methadone was detected in the blood and urine of PERSON and that he had MONEY on his body . They also emphasised that the authorities concluded from these facts that PERSON had repeatedly used narcotics for DATE of time . As regards the needle punctures they pointed out that the injection mark at the bend of the left elbow stemmed most probably from the resuscitation attempts at the airport , in which intravenous drugs were given , and that the other MONEY , on the lower third of the left shoulder , appear as a very unusual site for self - injection of drugs . They further indicated that methadone is usually taken in liquid form and only very uncommonly by injection . In addition , according to their opinion , TIME of Mr PERSON \u2019s life did not coincide with the \u2018 normal\u2019 death of a person dying from methadone intoxication . Being a sedative , people dying from methadone intoxication typically do so after a period of unconsciousness . PERSON , however , did not show any signs of drowsiness and was able to talk to the NORP consul and walk a few steps before suddenly collapsing . Lastly they pointed out that the conclusion of repeated drug use was not confirmed by an analysis of a hair sample or finding any supporting evidence , such as needles , ampoules or syringes , on PERSON corpse or in his cell .","As regards the forensic chemical examination the experts indicated that the applied analyses appear not to have been carried out according to international recommendations and that the level of methadone was only measured in the urine and not in the blood . In their opinion it is unacceptable to conclude intoxication on urine levels alone , as drugs accumulate in the bladder over time and only blood levels can give an indication of a likely intoxication or incapacitation .","In sum the forensic pathologist concluded that there was no scientific justification for giving methadone intoxication as the cause of death . He himself would have given the cause of death as suppurative bronchopneumonia due to chronic obstructive airways disease . He further indicated that , given Mr PERSON \u2019s chronic lung disease , he was more likely to develop a chest infection and to progress his pneumonia in a crowded , airless space . The deterioration of his health , however , would have been noticeable , as he would have been unwell and showed signs such as wheezing and coughing . A timely hospitalisation and antibiotic treatment would have been the correct course of action ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","3"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160824","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DOMAZYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","She had a garage and a small storage building ( \u2018 the construction\u2019 ) in GPE measuring QUANTITY m. in total , that she had apparently built without authorisation .","On DATE the Mayor of GPE adopted a decision which , inter alia , recognised the applicant \u2019s ownership of the construction and allocated the underlying plot of land to her with the right of lease .","On DATE a lease agreement , valid until DATE , was concluded between the Mayor of GPE and the applicant .","On DATE , based on the Mayor \u2019s decision of DATE , the applicant received an ownership certificate in respect of the construction .","It appears that on DATE the Mayor of GPE adopted another decision , which annulled the decision of DATE in its part concerning the recognition of the applicant \u2019s ownership in respect of the construction .","On DATE the Mayor of GPE lodged a claim against the applicant with the GPE and ORG of GPE seeking to invalidate her ownership certificate in respect of the construction and the lease , on the basis of the decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant issued a power of attorney whereby she authorised advocate PERSON to represent her in court . This power of attorney was then signed and sealed by PERSON","The first hearing before ORG took place on DATE . The record of this hearing states , inter alia , the following :","\u201c ... [ the applicant ] has not appeared ; advocate PERSON has appeared on her behalf stating that he represents the defendant and asked to be given time to study the case file and produced a power of attorney signed by the applicant but not certified by a notary .","...","The court decides to adjourn the examination of the case until TIME on DATE in order for [ the applicant ] to submit a written reply and a proper power of attorney in compliance with the procedure established by the law .","... \u201d","On DATE PERSON lodged a counter - claim on behalf of the applicant seeking to invalidate the Mayor \u2019s decision of DATE as taken in violation of the domestic law .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE decided not to admit the counter - claim and to return it . The relevant parts of ORG decision reads as follows :","\u201c Having examined ... the presented power of attorney , the court finds that the counter - claim ... must be returned , taking into account that the power of attorney has been issued in violation of LAW , DATE of the [ LAW ] . Pursuant to that LAW , a representative \u2019s powers must be stipulated in a power of attorney issued and drawn up in accordance with the law , the power of attorney issued by a citizen shall be certified by a competent official , while the powers of an advocate shall be certified in accordance with the law . In the present case , the power of attorney as submitted by advocate [ PERSON ] has been issued in violation of the legal requirements .","In accordance with ... LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ... the court decides to return the counter - claim lodged by [ PERSON ] .","The decision to return the counter - claim can be appealed in cassation proceedings within DATE from its receipt by the claimant . \u201d","On DATE ORG also examined the Mayor \u2019s claim and decided to grant it . The relevant parts of its judgment read as follows :","\u201c ... The defendant [ the applicant ] was duly notified about the date and the place of the court hearing but has failed to appear before the court while the court has not accepted the power of the advocate who has appeared on her behalf as her representative , on the ground that the power of attorney was not duly certified .","...","Taking into account that the ground [ the Mayor \u2019s decision of DATE ] , based on which the lease agreement was concluded and the title registered , no longer exists , the court finds that ... the agreement on lease of land concluded between [ the applicant ] and GPE should be terminated and her certificate of ownership \/ use [ and ] the right of lease of immovable property be annulled . \u201d","On DATE ORG sent a copy of its judgment to the applicant by post . It appears from the postal envelope that the copy of the judgment was delivered to the applicant \u2019s local post office on DATE and was received by the applicant on DATE .","On DATE advocate PERSON lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG against ORG decision not to admit the counter - claim . He claimed that the provisions of the civil legislation did not require that a power of attorney issued to an advocate be certified by a notary . He also added that the imposition of such a requirement restricted the right of access to court since the notary , as a public official , interfered with the relationship between advocate and client and made the possibility to institute court proceedings conditional on his prior approval .","On DATE PERSON lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG judgment of DATE on behalf of the applicant , together with a request to restore the missed time - limit for appeal , alleging that a copy of the judgment had been served upon the applicant outside the time - limit for lodging an appeal against it .","On DATE ORG declared PERSON \u2019s appeal against the decision refusing the admission of the counter - claim inadmissible for lack of merit . The relevant parts of this decision state the following :","\u201c ORG of ORG ... having examined the appeal on points of law against the decision of DATE ... lodged by [ the applicant \u2019s ] representative [ PERSON ] ... found that it should be returned for the following reasons :","According to LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , an appeal on points of law should contain one of the grounds stated in LAW .","... the present appeal on points of law only mentions the elements of points CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ; however the appellant has not submitted proper and sufficient arguments in relation to them ; therefore the requirements of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ... Code of Civil Procedure have not been met .","In such circumstances , the violations of the above - mentioned requirements serve as a basis for returning the appeal on points of law .","...","In view of the above reasoning ... ORG decides to return the appeal on points of law against the decision of ... of DATE lodged by [ the applicant \u2019s ] representative [ PERSON ] ... \u201d","On DATE ORG rejected the request to restore the missed time - limits for lodging an appeal and left the appeal against the judgment of DATE unexamined stating the following :","\u201c Having examined the appeal lodged by [ PERSON ] , the representative of the defendant in the present case , and the request seeking to restore the missed time - limit , [ ORG ] found out that on DATE an appeal was lodged against the judgment ... of DATE by ... [ the applicant \u2019s ] representative PERSON , who had failed to respect the DATE time - limit prescribed by the law .","The appellant has requested ... to restore the missed time - limit for lodging an appeal in view of the fact that ORG served the copy of the given judgment on the defendant belatedly .","The court finds that the request should be rejected and the appeal dismissed since the appellant has failed to submit any documentary proof which would substantiate this allegation ; moreover , ... the case file contains a postal receipt ... according to which a copy of the above judgment was sent to [ the applicant ] on DATE with registered mail in accordance with the procedure and within the time - limits prescribed by ... ORG .","... \u201d","On DATE PERSON lodged an appeal on points of law against this decision with ORG , on behalf of the applicant . He argued , in particular , that there was no evidence in the case file , such as an acknowledgement of receipt , which would substantiate that the defendant had received the copy of the judgment in a timely manner . In such circumstances , where it was the ORG duty to serve their decisions in due time , ORG should not have placed the responsibility of producing proof of belated receipt of the judgment on the party to the proceedings .","On DATE ORG declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of merit . In doing so , it stated , in particular , that :","\u201c ORG of ORG ... having examined the appeal on points of law lodged by [ PERSON ] against the decision of ORG of DATE to return [ the applicant \u2019s ] appeal , found that it should be returned for the following reasons ...","ORG finds that the admissibility criteria set out in LAW are absent in the appeal on points of law lodged in the present case . Besides , the person who has lodged the appeal has failed to submit a power of attorney drafted in compliance with the civil legislation ...","At the same time , ORG does not find it appropriate to provide a time - limit to rectify the errors and resubmit the appeal on points of law .","... ORG decides to return the appeal on points of law lodged by [ PERSON ] against the decision of ORG of DATE to return [ the applicant \u2019s ] appeal ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182173","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF HAJIBEYLI AND ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE and GPE , respectively .","The applicants are well - known civil society activists and lawyers specialising in the field of the protection of human rights . The second applicant has represented applicants in CARDINAL cases before the ORG .","At the time of the events in question the applicants were practising as lawyers on the basis of a special permit ( licence ) DATE issued by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) \u2013 to provide paid legal services . They regularly made various statements and published articles in the media , criticising the state of the legal profession in the country .","On DATE a new Law on Advocates and Advocacy Activity ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) was adopted within the framework of a reform of the legal profession in the country . Under the PERSON , activity of legal counsel is to be provided by persons admitted to the ORG , and the defence of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings falls under the exclusive domain of the legal profession ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Article I of its transitional provisions , as in force at the material time , also provided that persons who on the date of the entry into force of the transitional provisions of the PERSON were members of the already existing ORG or who had a special permit to provide paid legal services had the right to be founding members of the ORG , without having to pass a qualification examination , subject to their complying with the requirements in respect of candidates for admission to practice as legal counsel ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE the constituent assembly of the ORG was held on the basis of the provisions of the PERSON , with the participation of members of the former ORG and lawyers holding a special permit . These participants were registered as founders of the ORG and they became its members . However , some lawyers practising on the basis of a special permit , including the applicants , were not invited to participate in the constituent assembly and their right to be founders of the ORG was not recognised . The applicants signed a petition alleging that holding the ORG \u2019s constituent assembly under these conditions had been illegal and instituted court proceedings in this respect .","In the meantime , on DATE new amendments to the transitional provisions of the PERSON were adopted providing for admission to the ORG of all lawyers holding a special permit , including those whose right to be founding members of the ORG had not been recognised , without passing a qualification examination , subject to their complying with the requirements in respect of candidates for admission to practice as legal counsel ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant applied for admission to the ORG on the basis of the amendments of DATE to the transitional provisions of the PERSON .","On DATE the Presidium of the ORG ( ORG FAC Hey\u0259ti \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the Presidium \u201d ) held a meeting at which it examined and then dismissed his application . It appears from a document entitled \u201c Extract from the record of meeting no . CARDINAL dated DATE of the ORG \u201d and annex no . CARDINAL to that document DATE signed by the head of the administration of ORG that the President of the ORG ( ORG ) declared the meeting open and then the members of the ORG questioned the first applicant about his stance on the functioning of the ORG , before dismissing his application . The transcript of the meeting , which was CARDINAL page long , reads as follows :","\u201c After giving the information about LOC [ the first applicant ] to the members of the ORG , ORG gives the floor to them for questions .","PERSON : Mr GPE , you are one of the lawyers who brought an action in court asking for the invalidation of the constituent assembly of the ORG . What could you say about that ?","[ The first applicant ] : I suppose that the members of the ORG are familiar with my opinion . I still maintain that the constituent assembly of the ORG was held in blatant breach of the requirements of the law . Moreover , numerous persons , who were entitled to be co - founders of the ORG , were unlawfully not allowed to attend the constituent assembly .","ORG : Mr GPE , your opinion is clear . Please wait outside . We want to discuss the question .","Member of the ORG [ ... ] : TIME . I have a question .","[ The first applicant ] : Please .","Member of the ORG : It follows that you consider this organ illegal . But why do you want to become a member of it ?","[ The first applicant ] : Irrespective of my stance on the constituent assembly of the ORG , the latter \u2019s creation and functioning is a fact . Unfortunately , NORP law allows for the creation of CARDINAL bar association . I want to practise as a legal counsel . That is why I applied for admission to this bar association .","ORG : Everything is clear . Please wait for the issuance of the decision .","TIME the decision of the Presidium of the ORG rejecting PERSON application for admission to that organ was declared . \u201d","On an unspecified date in DATE the second applicant applied for admission to the ORG , relying on the amendments to the PERSON of DATE .","On DATE the ORG held a meeting at which it examined his application but decided to dismiss it . It appears from the document entitled \u201c Extract from the record of meeting no . CARDINAL dated DATE of the ORG \u201d ( as well as annex no . CARDINAL thereto ) DATE signed by the head of the administration of ORG that ORG declared the meeting open and then the members of the ORG questioned the second applicant about his stance on the functioning of the ORG , before dismissing his application . The relevant parts of the transcript of the meeting , which is CARDINAL pages long , read as follows :","\u201c After giving the information about Intigam Aliyev [ the second applicant ] to the members of the ORG , ORG gives the floor to them for questions .","PERSON : Mr PERSON , you brought an action in court against the ORG . Are you going to withdraw your action after your admission to the ORG ?","[ The second applicant ] : I do n\u2019t know other people \u2019s opinion , but personally I have no intention of withdrawing my actions against the ORG and ORG . Unfortunately , these actions remain unexamined by the courts because of pressure brought by the previously - mentioned organs . ...","PERSON : You state in your writing in the media that CARDINAL of the main reasons for the current catastrophic situation of the courts in GPE is the [ poor state of ] legal profession . We would like to know your opinion in this respect .","[ The second applicant ] : I am still of the same opinion . I consider that CARDINAL of the main reasons for the current catastrophic situation of the law and human rights in GPE is the absence of independent judicial power and legal profession in the country . ...","A.A. : I have a great respect for Mr PERSON as a person and lawyer . However , he published articles insulting the members of the ORG in the media and in Law Newspaper .","[ The second applicant ] : Whom have I insulted ?","A.A. : You have insulted the ORG in your writings . You write that advocates are acting as intermediaries ( vasit\u0259\u00e7ilikl\u0259 m\u0259\u015f\u011fuldurlar ) .","...","ORG : The fact that you have stated that you will maintain your court actions against the ORG indicates that you do n\u2019t recognise the lawfulness of the ORG .","[ The second applicant ] : Firstly , my colleagues and I did not question before the courts the lawfulness of the ORG , but rather sought the invalidation of its constituent assembly , which was held in blatant breach of the requirements of the law . ...","ORG : You want to become a member of the ORG , but you bring an action against it ?","[ The second applicant ] : What does that mean ? Is it forbidden to bring an action against the ORG ? In your law , the right of legal counsels to bring an action against the ORG is provided for .","ORG : You are not yet a legal counsel .","[ The second applicant ] : I have practised as a legal counsel for DATE and the ORG gave me a permit . In any event , what difference does being a legal counsel make ? You are a legal counsel ; how can you speak like that ? Everybody has the right to bring an action against any organ , including the ORG .","ORG : I consider that the ORG should give its opinion by vote .","...","PERSON : It is not allowed to admit PERSON to the ORG because of the stance that he has held about the current ORG .","[ The second applicant ] : I will not be surprised if you refuse my admission to the ORG on account of my critical views about the functioning of the ORG and its directorate , although such a decision will be shameful . ...","ORG : Please , those who are in favour of the issuance of a decision refusing PERSON admission to the ORG should vote .","By a unanimous decision of the members of the Presidium of the ORG the admission of PERSON to the ORG is refused . \u201d","On DATE the first applicant brought an action in the ORG alleging that the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE had been unlawful . In particular , he argued that the ORG had failed to substantiate its decision and had breached the transitional provisions of the LAW . He further alleged the violation of his rights , as protected under LAW , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW , as a result of the refusal to admit him to the ORG .","Following a series of procedural decisions concerning the admissibility of the action , at DATE ORG commenced examining the case on the merits . It appears from the transcript of ORG hearing held on DATE , which was submitted to the ORG by the first applicant , that the representative of the ORG at the hearing , PERSON , stated , in reply to the first applicant \u2019s question concerning the grounds for the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE , that the first applicant \u2019s replies to the questions and his previous statements had justified the decision of the ORG \u2019s members .","On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment on the merits . The court held that the first applicant \u2019s complaint should be dismissed because admission to the ORG was a matter which fell within the exclusive competence of the members of the ORG and there had been no breach of law in the examination of the first applicant \u2019s request by the ORG . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c It was established in the course of the court investigation that , while he disputed the decision of the ORG , PERSON [ the first applicant ] did not challenge the legality of that decision , but rather its motives . It follows that the issue argued by A. GPE in his application falls within the exclusive competence of the members of the ORG and is related to their personal consideration and will .","LAW ) of LAW provides that the prohibition of any interference with or pressure on the professional activity of legal counsels and their [ professional ] association by the prosecutor \u2019s office , court , other ORG bodies , public associations , [ or ] any company , entity , organisation or official constitutes the basis of the legal profession .","Therefore , given that the issue addressed by PERSON in his application falls within the exclusive competence of the members of the ORG and is subject to their consideration and will , any interference with that issue is not allowed by law . \u201d","On DATE the first applicant appealed against that judgment , alleging a violation of his rights , as protected under LAW , DATE , DATE and DATE of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW . In particular , he alleged that he had not been admitted to the ORG because of his statements about the functioning of the ORG and the poor state of the legal profession in the country . In support of his claim , the first applicant relied on the \u201c Extract from the record of meeting no . CARDINAL dated DATE of the ORG \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the annex to that document . He also referred to the statements made by the representative of the ORG at the court hearings held before ORG , quoting the transcript of the above - mentioned court hearings . The first applicant further argued that the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE had been unlawful , as it had been contrary to the transitional provisions of the PERSON . In that regard , he pointed out that his candidacy for admission to practice as a legal counsel had met all the requirements for candidates for admission , as provided for by LAW .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment . The appellate court was silent as to the first applicant \u2019s particular complaints relating to the breach of his right to freedom of expression . It further appears from the transcript of ORG \u2019s hearing held on DATE , which was submitted to the ORG by the first applicant , that the representative of the ORG , PERSON , again stated at the hearing that the members of the ORG had considered that the first applicant should not be admitted to the ORG because of his stance on the functioning of the ORG . His statement reads as follows :","\u201c PERSON : You [ the first applicant ] have the transcript ( stenoqram ) . After the examination of your documents , you were questioned by the ORG , which then unanimously decided that PERSON [ the first applicant ] should not be admitted [ to practice as a legal counsel ] because of his stance [ on the functioning of the ORG ] . I consider that the vote should be against [ your admittance ] . \u201d","On DATE the first applicant lodged a cassation appeal , reiterating his previous complaints . In support of his claims , he again referred to the extract from the record of meeting no . CARDINAL dated DATE of the ORG and the annex thereto , as well as the transcripts of the court hearings held before ORG and ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld ORG judgment of DATE . ORG decision made no mention of the first applicant \u2019s particular complaints .","On DATE the second applicant brought an action in ORG , alleging that the ORG \u2019s decision dated DATE had been unlawful . In particular , he alleged a violation of his rights , as protected under LAW , DATE , DATE and DATE of the Convention .","Following a series of procedural decisions concerning the admissibility of the action , at DATE ORG commenced its examination of the action on the merits . It appears from the documents in the case file that in the course of the proceedings before the first - instance court the second applicant and the ORG lodged various requests and applications , which were dismissed by the court . The ORG also lodged a counterclaim against the second applicant for defamation .","On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment on the merits , dismissing both the claims of the second applicant and those of the ORG . As to the reasoning of the judgment concerning the second applicant \u2019s action regarding his admission to the ORG , it was similar to that of ORG dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the second applicant appealed against that judgment , alleging a violation of his rights , as protected under LAW , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW . In particular , he pointed out that he had not been admitted to the ORG because of his statements and articles about the poor state of the legal profession in the country . In support of his appeal , the second applicant relied on the document entitled \u201c Extract from the record of meeting no . CARDINAL dated DATE of the ORG \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the annex thereto . He further argued that the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE had been contrary to the transitional provisions of the PERSON .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that the judgment of the first - instance court had been lawful . The appellate court was silent as to the second applicant \u2019s particular complaints concerning the violation of his right to freedom of expression .","On an unspecified date the second applicant lodged a cassation appeal , reiterating his previous complaints .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the second applicant , Mr I. GPE , under ORG DATE ( illegal entrepreneurship ) , CARDINAL ( large - scale tax evasion ) and CARDINAL ( abuse of power ) of LAW , which are the subject of a separate application brought by him before the ORG ( application no . CARDINAL ) . At that time the second applicant was representing not only the applicants in the present case , but also a number of applicants in other cases before the ORG .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigating authorities seized a large number of documents from the second applicant \u2019s office , including all the case files relating to the proceedings pending before the ORG , which were in his possession and which concerned over CARDINAL applications in total . The files relating to the present CARDINAL applications were also seized in their entirety . The facts relating to the seizure and the relevant proceedings are described in more detail in a judgment relating to an application lodged by the first applicant ( see NORP GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","On DATE the investigating authorities returned a number of the case files concerning the applications lodged before the ORG , including the files relating to the present applications , to the second applicant \u2019s lawyer ."],"violated_articles":["10","34"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140013","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SHCHIBORSHCH AND KUZMINA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , LOC .","The applicants are a married couple . They are the parents of PERSON PERSON , who was an economist and the author of a number of publications . At the time of the events he was DATE and suffering from a psychiatric disorder which required in - patient treatment .","On DATE the first applicant , having obtained a referral from GPE \u2019s ORG no . CARDINAL recommending in - patient treatment for PERSON , contacted the Nagatinskiy PERSON department of the interior ( \u201c the OVD \u201d ) and asked the police to assist with placing his son in a psychiatric hospital . He explained that PERSON was in a delirious state and was not letting anyone except the first applicant into his flat as he was afraid of burglars .","TIME and TIME on DATE the head of the ORG ordered police officer PERSON to forcibly place Mr PERSON in a hospital . Subsequently police officers PERSON , PERSON and NORP arrived at the residence of the applicants\u2019 son . When PERSON PERSON opened the lobby door and saw the police officers , he immediately ran back to his flat and tried to close the door . He refused their orders to go to the ORG for transfer to a hospital . First , the police officers tried to remove his hand from the door knob so that he could not close the door . Mr PERSON threatened the police officers with a kitchen knife and wounded PERSON The police officers , who were wearing bullet - proof vests , hit him with rubber truncheons and other objects . Mr PERSON eventually ran to the kitchen and barricaded the door from the inside . The officers called the special police unit ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for support .","While in the kitchen , Mr PERSON called an ambulance and said that he needed help because he had been wounded . He also called the police , asking for help because he was being \u201c attacked by burglars \u201d . In the meantime , the ORG arrived . After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate with him , they decided to \u201c storm \u201d the kitchen . Mr PERSON ran to the balcony and cried for help while the police officers continued trying to apprehend him . When he fell on the balcony floor , they handcuffed him and put him on the kitchen floor . The first applicant , who had been ordered to stay in the lobby while the police forced an entry to the kitchen , was then allowed into the kitchen . He saw his son handcuffed and lying on the floor in a pool of blood .","Mr PERSON was taken to hospital no . CARDINAL with multiple wounds and in a coma . He died without regaining consciousness , having sustained craniocerebral trauma , brain oedema , concussion , and slash wounds to the head , body and extremities , several fractured ribs and a ruptured jugular vein .","On DATE the case file concerning the death of Mr PERSON was transmitted to the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor \u2019s Office .","On DATE the investigating authorities ordered a forensic examination of Mr PERSON \u2019s body .","On DATE forensic report no . CARDINAL was issued . The experts made the following findings :","( CARDINAL ) The following injuries were found on Mr PERSON \u2019s body :","- open non - penetrating craniocerebral trauma : depressed fracture of the left frontal and parietal bones , fracture of the sphenoid and parietal bones , and the orbital part of the frontal bone ; sub - arachnoid haemorrhages and contusion of the convex surface of the left frontal lobe and the surface of the right frontal lobe , haemorrhaging of the soft tissue and bruising of the left frontal parietal and temporal region ; bruising of the frontal region , bruising and abrasions of the right frontal region , and the top of the right eye socket ; haemorrhaging of the soft tissue of the parietal - temporal region on the right ;","- closed fractures of DATE ribs ;","- bruising of the right cheekbone ;","- bruising of the right and left shoulder joints , and the left shoulder , the surface of the right hip , the inside of the right knee joint , the front of the right and left shin , the front of the left hip ; bruising and abrasions of the left cheekbone and periotic - masticatory region , abrasions of the chin , intra - cutaneous haemorrhages of the chest , bruising and abrasions on the right forearm , right hand , and left arm ;","- a QUANTITY punctured slash wound to the left side of the neck ;","- multiple surface slash wounds on the right earlobe , left cheekbone and periotic - masticatory region , the lower jaw , chest , shoulders and hands .","( CARDINAL ) All the injuries were caused while Mr PERSON was alive , shortly before his admittance to hospital :","- the craniocerebral trauma was caused by multiple blows with hard blunt objects ;","- the rib fractures and the bruising of the right cheekbone , head , body and extremities were caused by blows , and the abrasions by scraping against a hard blunt object ( or objects ) ;","- the punctured slash wound to the left side of the neck was caused by a sharp cutting object inflicted upwards from the front to the back and from left to right , assuming that PERSON PERSON was in a vertical position ;","- the multiple surface slash wounds were caused by a cutting object or objects ;","- forensic and spectral research of the soft tissue of the wounds to the head , neck and right hand did not reveal any micro splinters of glass or other foreign bodies . Emission spectral analysis showed an increased content of aluminium , lead and manganese in the skin of the head , which could have been caused by soiling . Other specimens of skin and soft tissue did not reveal an increased metal content ;","- after the injuries had been caused , PERSON PERSON was taken to hospital in a coma , incapable of any independent actions , including movement . The injuries could not have been caused as a result of falling from his height to a horizontal surface . In order to establish the possible location of the victim and the aggressor at the time when the injuries were caused , it was necessary to have access to the materials of the file .","( CARDINAL ) The open craniocerebral trauma and the punctured slash wound to the left side of the neck which damaged a blood vessel combined to form a life - threatening trauma classified as grave health damage . The rib fractures were classified as health damage of medium gravity . As the bruises and abrasions were not accompanied by heavy bleeding and no blood vessels were damaged , they were not considered to constitute health damage .","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON \u2019s death at TIME on DATE was caused by the combined trauma , complicated by cerebral oedema and blood loss .","( CARDINAL ) There was a direct causal link between the craniocerebral trauma , the punctured slash wound to the left side of the neck with a damaged blood vessel , and his death . There was no direct link between his death and the other injuries .","Forensic report no . DATE was supplemented by a chemical and histological analysis of his blood and soft tissue conducted on CARDINAL and DATE respectively .","On DATE the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor \u2019s Office refused to institute a criminal investigation . It found that the police ORG actions disclosed no indication of an offence , since they had acted in an appropriate manner in a life - threatening situation .","On DATE the deputy of the Simonovskiy inter - district prosecutor set aside the decision and remitted the case file for further investigation . He held that the decision was unfounded since not all the the results of the forensic examination of the body and to question the doctor from ORG no . CARDINAL who had recommended in - patient treatment .","On DATE the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor \u2019s Office instituted a criminal investigation under LAW ( murder committed in excess of necessary self - defence or in excess of measures required to arrest a person who has committed an offence ) and LAW ( abuse of official powers ) of LAW . The decision stated that , by storming the flat and using rubber truncheons , which led to PERSON PERSON \u2019s death , the police officers had clearly exceeded their authority . The case file was assigned no . DATE .","On DATE police officer NORP was questioned . According to his submissions , at TIME on DATE he and police officers PERSON and PERSON had been ordered to deliver a mentally - ill person to a hospital . They went to that person \u2019s place of residence together with the latter \u2019s father , the first applicant , who had given them oral permission to enter the flat . On arrival , they put on bullet - proof vests , and the first applicant rang at the lobby door . Mr PERSON walked to the door and asked who was there . The first applicant replied that it was him . Mr PERSON said that he would open the door and after a while began to open it . PERSON was standing at the door ; PERSON was behind him and NORP was standing to one side . When the door was opened , PERSON tried to enter but then shouted : \u201c Knife ! \u201d Mr PERSON ran to the door of his flat wielding a knife . He tried to close the door to his flat , but PERSON stopped him . PERSON PERSON then went to the kitchen and barricaded himself inside . NORP reported the events to the ORG and called an ambulance , which arrived in TIME ; PERSON was given first aid and taken to hospital . L. blocked the door so that PERSON PERSON could not leave the flat and harm anyone else , awaiting the arrival of the special police unit . When the special unit arrived , the regular police officers were asked to leave the lobby . D. could not identify the officers of the special police unit as they were all wearing uniforms and their faces were covered with masks . D. did not see what happened in the flat . He was ordered to return to the ORG .","On DATE police officer PERSON . of the special unit was questioned . He stated that on DATE he had been on duty . At TIME he received information that a mentally - ill person had wounded a police officer , barricaded himself in his kitchen and resisted involuntary placement in a hospital . Together with special unit police officers PERSON , D - n . and PERSON , he arrived at the address indicated at QUANTITY He stayed in the car while the head of the team , D - n . , went to find out what the situation was . TIME they were ordered to go up to the sixth floor , where D - n . told them that Mr PERSON had been threatening to kill them , saying that the kitchen door was electrified . Kh . heard Mr PERSON say that he had already knocked down one man and the same would happen to the others . PERSON . then understood that PERSON PERSON had realised that there were police officers in the flat . The CARDINAL of them were in the lobby discussing further actions when they heard a crash from the kitchen . The stained glass in the kitchen door had been broken and they were showered with shards of glass . Since the police officers were wearing bullet - proof vests , no one was hurt .","Through the kitchen door Kh . saw a bare - chested fair - haired man , DATE of medium build . His face and chest were covered with blood and he was holding QUANTITY long kitchen knives . The blades were covered with a brown substance that looked like blood . Kh . noticed that the man had \u201c mad eyes \u201d and was behaving strangely . The police officers of the special unit introduced themselves and asked PERSON PERSON to put down the knives and step out of the kitchen . Mr PERSON , who was very excited , refused and lunged at PERSON The officers were separated from the kitchen by a door , which had been blocked by furniture on the other side . PERSON tried to force open the door with his shield . Mr PERSON continued lunging at B. and at a certain point PERSON . heard that a wound had been inflicted . He then covered PERSON with his shield and started to move forward . PERSON . was then stabbed in the right shoulder and started to bleed . Mr PERSON then moved to the balcony and PERSON . went to the stairwell to receive first aid . He stayed there until the end of the operation . TIME later he saw from the lobby Mr PERSON , who was covered with blood and wearing handcuffs , being led from the kitchen to the living room . A doctor entered the room and apparently gave PERSON PERSON a sedative injection and dressed his wounds . PERSON . then went to the kitchen , took his shield and left the flat .","On DATE police officer B. of the special unit was questioned . He made a statement similar to that of Kh . concerning the events that had taken place before the latter had been wounded . As regards the subsequent events , PERSON stated that he and police officers D - n . and PERSON had forced open the kitchen door and begun to clear up the barricade of furniture in the kitchen . Mr PERSON had run to the balcony . As they approached the balcony , he broke the glass in the balcony door and windows , and started throwing various objects at them , such as an iron and cans . He was also hitting his head and back against the balcony windows and screaming that they were going to kill him . He broke all the glass in the balcony door and lunged at them with knives . B. covered D - n . and PERSON with his shield . Through the balcony window GPE . hit PERSON several times with a rubber truncheon on the left hand in which he was holding a knife . The knife fell to the floor . Mr PERSON then lunged at PERSON and PERSON with the knife he was holding in his right hand but S. caught his hand . Mr PERSON pulled PERSON towards him and they both fell on the balcony floor , which was covered in glass . The other police officers then approached PERSON , handcuffed him and took him to the kitchen . He stopped resisting . Since there were cuts on his body , the police officers called for a doctor , who began dressing the wounds and gave him an injection . Other police officers then entered the kitchen , whereas the officers of the special police unit , having completed their task , left . In answer to the investigator \u2019s question about the whereabouts of the first applicant during the events , PERSON stated that he had been in the lobby all the time ; he had neither entered the flat nor witnessed the events .","On DATE police officer D - n . of the special unit was questioned . He made a statement consistent with those of Kh . and B. , and added certain details . In particular , when he arrived at the sixth floor the stairwell floor was covered with blood , which appeared to belong to police officer PERSON He heard Mr PERSON swearing at his father , saying that the latter wanted to get his flat . Mr PERSON also asked the police officers to leave and seemed to be sure that he had killed a policeman . D - n . tried to calm him down , and asked him to open the door and step out . However , the negotiations , which lasted TIME , proved futile and D - n . called for his unit . The first applicant , who remained in the lobby all the time , explained that his son was mentally ill and behaved inadequately ; he had threatened to kill everybody . The first applicant emphasised that PERSON PERSON was a danger to himself and others . He said that his son had threatened him with a knife before and had beaten him up DATE . The first applicant seemed very frightened and confused . D - n . added that throughout the operation the police officers had kept telling PERSON PERSON to drop the weapons , but he had not reacted . He further submitted that in such a situation , according to the law , the police were allowed to use rubber truncheons , handcuffs and tear gas . They did not use the latter because the ventilation system was shared with other flats , and it could have been dangerous for other residents . D - n . also explained that , apart from the police officers , no one else had witnessed the events .","On DATE police officer PERSON was questioned . According to his statement , at TIME on DATE he had been instructed to go with police officers PERSON and NORP to a certain address to take a mentally - ill person to hospital . When they arrived , they put on bullet - proof vests and went upstairs with the first applicant , who gave them oral permission to enter the flat . When the first applicant rang at the lobby door , PERSON was standing beside him ; PERSON was standing behind PERSON , and NORP was standing to one side . PERSON could not immediately see who had opened the door , but then PERSON shouted that the person who had opened the door had a knife . Mr PERSON ran back to the door of his flat wielding the knife in his hand . Having opened the door with his free hand , he stood in the doorway shouting that he would kill everyone . PERSON then saw that PERSON was bleeding . The police officers then tried to calm Mr PERSON down , but had no success . He tried to attack PERSON and then tried to close the door to the flat , but PERSON prevented him . Then PERSON ran to a room and barricaded himself inside . While PERSON blocked the door , an ambulance was called for PERSON The officers also reported on the situation to the ORG . The ambulance took PERSON to hospital . After the arrival of the special police unit , PERSON moved to the stairwell . He could not identify the special unit officers because their faces were covered with masks . He did not see what happened in the flat either . He was then ordered to return to the ORG .","On DATE , the first applicant was questioned . He stated that his son , PERSON , had been suffering from a psychiatric disorder . He did not know precisely what his son \u2019s condition was because the doctors had never told the parents the exact diagnosis . Mr PERSON had been undergoing treatment since DATE . His condition always worsened in DATE : recently he had been in a state of delirium . He thought that his parents were not his real parents and that they were trying to kill him . When they visited him , he would swear at them , threaten to kill them , lock himself in his flat and not let them in . On a number of occasions he had been forcibly placed in hospital . He had never agreed to be placed in the hospital voluntarily , and during the forced placement had always resisted the police officers who had apprehended him , so they had sometimes had to use rubber truncheons or tear gas . Since DATE Mr PERSON had stopped taking his medication , having declared that he was healthy . Since then , his condition had gradually worsened . The threatening phone calls to his parents had become more frequent . The applicants had started to worry for his life , fearing that he might pose a danger to himself .","On DATE the first applicant had asked PERSON doctor for a referral recommending in - patient treatment and to issue instructions for involuntary placement in a hospital . He then submitted the referral to ORG no . CARDINAL and the instructions to the Nagatinskiy PERSON . At CARDINAL a.m. on DATE he left together with police officers PERSON , PERSON and NORP for PERSON place of residence . When they reached the sixth floor , the police officers hid and the first applicant rang at the door . Mr PERSON opened the door . He had a knife in his hand , which he began to wield , trying to force them out . The police officers started to explain that they wanted to take him to a hospital . Mr PERSON mistook them for burglars and shouted at them to go away . He did not recognise the first applicant . After TIME of negotiations , the police officers tried to take the knife from Mr PERSON , but he stabbed PERSON in the chest with it and also cut his finger . There was blood all over the stairwell floor . Then CARDINAL of the police officers went outside to fetch shields and rubber truncheons . Mr PERSON continued behaving inadequately . The police officers tried to apprehend him by knocking the knife from his hand with the rubber truncheons . He continued to brandish the knife and then ran to the kitchen and barricaded himself inside , blocking the kitchen door with a table .","Through the door the first applicant heard him calling an ambulance and the police . At the same time PERSON called NORP , the Head of the Nagatinskiy PERSON , who arrived at TIME , and the special police unit , who arrived TIME . CARDINAL of the special unit police officers talked to PERSON through the kitchen door , trying to persuade him to open it . As PERSON did not react to the requests , the special unit prepared to \u201c storm \u201d the kitchen . At that time the first applicant was standing near the lift . He could not see what was happening but heard the sound of breaking glass . He looked inside the flat and saw his son on the balcony screaming : \u201c Help , they are killing me ! \u201d At that time the police officers were taking a broken table and a door to the stairwell . They then returned to the flat and went towards the balcony . After a while the first applicant again looked into the flat and saw his son lying face down on the kitchen floor . He had been handcuffed and there was blood around him . The police officers asked whether there was anything they could put him in . They put him in a blanket and carried him to the ambulance , which took him to ORG no . CARDINAL . Later the first applicant learnt that his son had died .","On DATE officer F. of the special police unit was questioned . He stated that for technical reasons he had been unable to get into the same police car as officers PERSON , D - n . , PERSON . and PERSON and had arrived later in his own car . He observed most of the operation while standing behind the police officers who had arrived earlier . His account of the events was consistent with those of the other police officers . He also added that the first applicant had told him that recently Mr PERSON had stopped taking his usual medication and had instead switched to light alcoholic drinks , which had aggravated his condition . The latter had also refused to be placed in a hospital voluntarily and had threatened the first applicant with a knife .","On DATE officer S. of the special police unit was questioned . His account of the events was consistent with that of the other police officers . He emphasised that they had not used firearms while apprehending Mr PERSON .","On the same date police officer PERSON was questioned . According to his submissions , on DATE he had been ordered , together with police officers NORP and PERSON , to carry out the involuntary placement in hospital of PERSON PERSON , who was suffering from a psychiatric disorder . They went to his home address with his father , the first applicant , who explained that at the sight of the police his son would lock himself in his flat , so the police officers would have to get between him and the door . However , the first applicant did not warn the police that his son might be armed , even though it later transpired that his son had already resisted his previous placements in hospital with the use of arms . When they arrived , the first applicant rang the lobby door bell . They heard Mr PERSON leave the flat , walk to the door and ask who was there . The first applicant replied : \u201c PERSON , it \u2019s me \u201d . Mr PERSON said : \u201c I will open now \u201d . PERSON heard him walk back to the flat and return . When PERSON started opening the door , PERSON pushed him into the lobby . NORP and PERSON followed him into the lobby . PERSON felt a blow to his chest and , having pushed Mr PERSON away , saw a knife in his hand . He shouted to the other officers that Mr PERSON had a knife , and then received another stab in his chest . Mr PERSON ran to his flat and began to shut the door behind him . However , PERSON caught the door and opened it , preventing PERSON from locking himself inside the flat . All that time , the first applicant had remained near the lift , too afraid to come closer . Mr PERSON started shouting : \u201c Do n\u2019t come closer , or I \u2019ll kill you \u201d , brandishing the knife in his hand . PERSON took a baby pram that was near the door and , on PERSON \u2019s order , passed it to him . PERSON used the baby pram to defend himself from Mr PERSON . At a certain point he managed to take out his gun and warned PERSON that he would use it if he continued threatening with the knife . However , PERSON did not react to the warning . PERSON had a submachine gun which had not been loaded .","According to PERSON , the QUANTITY police officers tried together to persuade PERSON PERSON to calm down and drop the knife . The latter shouted to his father to bring a woman , as he would only talk to a woman . The first applicant refused . The talks lasted for TIME , during which Mr PERSON swore constantly . At a certain point he lowered his trousers and underpants , rubbed his anus with his left hand and made a gesture as if throwing something in the direction of the police officers , saying : \u201c This is shit ! \u201d The police officers moved back slightly . NORP went outside and came back with CARDINAL rubber truncheons . He gave CARDINAL of them to PERSON , who put his gun back in the holster and took the rubber truncheon . Mr PERSON put his underpants and trousers back on and , with his right hand , in which he was holding the knife , reached for the door knob . PERSON and NORP inflicted several blows on his right hand , following which Mr PERSON lunged at them brandishing the knife and saying : \u201c I \u2019ll kill you \u201d . The police officers moved back towards the lobby door . At that moment Mr PERSON cut the fourth finger of PERSON \u2019s left hand with the knife , then ran to his kitchen and barricaded himself inside .","Then PERSON ordered PERSON to load his submachine gun and shoot to kill if PERSON PERSON tried to leave . The first applicant then entered the flat and looked into the living room . PERSON asked him for permission to use the telephone and called the ORG . He asked them to call an ambulance and the special police unit . In CARDINAL or TIME the ambulance arrived and took PERSON to hospital . He did not know what had happened afterwards . Answering the investigator \u2019s question whether the police officers had been specifically trained for detaining psychiatrically disturbed persons and whether there existed special techniques for apprehending such persons , PERSON stated that no such training had been provided and that there existed only general rules on apprehending armed offenders in various situations . If the police had information that the person was armed ( irrespective of his psychiatric condition ) , they could use arms in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the Police .","On an unspecified DATE apparently in DATE a person whose name is not clear from the documents but who appears to be NORP , the Head of the Nagatinskiy PERSON , was questioned . He stated that DATE he had taken part in the operation to forcibly place Mr PERSON in hospital . The latter resisted the police officers with weapons and threw acetic acid in the face of CARDINAL of them . On DATE the first applicant called him and asked if the police would assist him in placing his son in hospital on DATE . On DATE police officers PERSON , NORP and PERSON were sent on the operation . Later he received information that PERSON had been wounded and he himself went to PERSON flat . Finding the latter in a dangerous condition , he reported to the Nagatinskiy PERSON and called for emergency psychiatric assistance . He was later informed that a special police unit had been called to the scene . TIME later CARDINAL high - ranking police officers , PERSON and PERSON . , arrived . After a while , the special police unit also arrived .","While they were preparing to storm the kitchen , NORP went outside to ensure that no one entered the building , since they could have been hurt by PERSON . The latter was screaming from the balcony to attract attention . He was shouting that he would jump from the window and throwing objects towards the kitchen . Then he broke the balcony windows and started throwing the broken glass down from the balcony . NORP thought that he had seen a shard pierce Mr PERSON \u2019s neck . Then NORP saw Mr PERSON resisting the police with sharp objects in his hands and falling on the balcony floor with CARDINAL of the officers . Realising that PERSON PERSON had been apprehended , PERSON went up to the sixth floor . On entering the flat , he saw PERSON lying handcuffed on the kitchen floor . The latter was taken to a room where he was given first aid by an ambulance doctor . As PERSON was bleeding profusely from his neck , it was decided to take him urgently to a hospital . He was carried on a blanket to the ambulance and transported to ORG no . CARDINAL . NORP then called for an investigative unit to inspect the scene . It was established that Mr PERSON had wounded CARDINAL police officers . NORP returned to the ORG and was later informed that PERSON had died . In his view , it had been the result of a tragic concurrence of circumstances , since in his presence nobody had either beaten or hit PERSON . Judging from his conduct , the first applicant had supported the actions of the police throughout the operation . PERSON , PERSON and NORP had acted strictly in accordance with the law .","On DATE the investigating authorities seized Mr PERSON \u2019s medical file kept at psycho - neurological dispensary no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the investigating authorities seized Mr PERSON \u2019s medical file kept at psychiatric hospital no . CARDINAL .","On DATE K. , the acting head of psycho - neurological dispensary no . CARDINAL , was questioned . She submitted that PERSON had been under medical supervision since DATE . He had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia with delirium syndromes . He had been forcibly placed for in - patient treatment a number of times as he had never agreed to it voluntarily . His condition had gradually worsened in DATE : anxiety had been exacerbated , delirious ideas had accumulated and he had been losing contact with the people around him . He considered everybody his enemy and persecutor . His condition had worsened considerably since he had stopped taking regular medication . The investigator asked PERSON whether PERSON , who would have been suffering from fatigue in the absence of the necessary medication , could have actively resisted his placement in hospital . PERSON answered that in a delirious period he could be aggressive and reveal great physical force , because he perceived everyone as a persecutor . PERSON also submitted that Mr PERSON had resisted the previous placements in hospital but she did not know whether he had used weapons . The investigator further asked about PERSON PERSON \u2019s relationship with his parents . PERSON replied that when his condition had worsened and he had beaten them , they had applied for his in - patient treatment .","On DATE Ch . , a doctor of psychiatric hospital no . CARDINAL , was questioned . She submitted that she had been PERSON doctor since DATE . He had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia . He was subjected to involuntary placement in a psychiatric hospital for the first time in DATE because his condition had suddenly worsened and he had been delivered to the hospital with self - inflicted burns on his body . Since that time he had begun to display aggression and his delirium had worsened . In such a condition he was dangerous to himself and others . He had had a negative attitude towards the treatment but had agreed to take small doses of medication . Following an improvement in his condition , he had been discharged from the hospital . Answering the investigator \u2019s question whether PERSON could inflict self - harm , PERSON . submitted that he could do so while in an agitated state ; this was corroborated by the self - inflicted burns .","On DATE the second applicant was questioned . She gave details of the development of PERSON illness . His condition had worsened in DATE after he had stopped taking his medication . In particular , she had seen him talking to an imaginary person . She and the first applicant were very concerned about his condition and decided to arrange for him to be placed in a psychiatric hospital .","The second applicant was questioned again on DATE . First , she gave some additional details concerning medical documents the applicants had obtained to ensure PERSON in - patient treatment . She then stated that on DATE the first applicant had telephoned PERSON PERSON and said that he would visit him soon . Mr PERSON talked to him in a normal manner and called him \u201c father \u201d , which made the fact that he then met the first applicant and the police with a knife all the more inexplicable . At TIME she called the first applicant , who said that the police had been unable to restrain PERSON PERSON , he had cut a police officer \u2019s finger and the police had called for an investigator . She called the first applicant regularly so as to follow the events . The first applicant was agitated and told her that they were waiting for the special police unit to arrive . When she called him again at TIME , the first applicant said that the special police unit had apprehended PERSON , and an ambulance doctor had said : \u201c PERSON , we may not make it , he might not survive . \u201d She asked her husband to go to the hospital with PERSON , but he said that the police would not let him go because they wanted to question him . During another telephone conversation at TIME the first applicant told her that Mr PERSON had died and turned off his mobile phone . DATE the second applicant telephoned Mr PERSON \u2019s neighbour , PERSON . , who said that DATE she had shouted to the police : \u201c Do n\u2019t kill him ! \u201d She had also tried to open the door to her flat , but the police officers would not let her . Ts . also said that she had seen the police beating PERSON PERSON . Later , CARDINAL unidentified men approached PERSON . in the yard of the block of flats and told her that if she had witnessed the events of DATE , she should forget them .","On DATE , the head of the investigative unit of the Nagatinskiy PERSON , was questioned . She submitted that at TIME on DATE she had been informed that a police officer of the ORG had sustained a knife wound and she had gone to the address indicated . When she arrived TIME the first applicant and NORP , the Head of the ORG , were there . PERSON explained to her what had happened . She then inspected the flat . The kitchen was crammed with a variety of objects . There were cans , numerous shards of glass and some other objects on the floor . A refrigerator was lying across the kitchen . There were spots of blood on the refrigerator and the floor . On the right - hand wall there was a kitchen unit ; on the table there was a kettle , a sugar bowl and CARDINAL knives , CARDINAL of which had a long blade and a wooden handle , the other a shorter blade and a plastic handle . Both knives were covered with blood . There was no glass in the kitchen window facing the balcony , but some shards of glass were stuck in the frame . The balcony windows had also been broken . The balcony floor was covered with shards of various sizes . The glass that remained in the frames bore traces of blood . There was also blood on the balcony floor , the door frame and the window frame facing the balcony .","On DATE the investigating authorities seized certain documents pertaining to Mr PERSON \u2019s medical file kept at ORG no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the investigating authorities seized from ORG no . CARDINAL documents related to the medical assistance provided to police officer PERSON for the wound caused by PERSON on DATE .","On DATE G - v . , the ambulance doctor , was questioned . He stated that on DATE he had been informed that a man had called an ambulance claiming that he had sustained a knife wound to his neck . G - v . went in an ambulance with ORG . to the address indicated . There he found several police officers , who explained that the person in the flat was mentally ill . They had been trying to restrain him in order to place him in hospital , but he had resisted them with the use of arms . G - v . provided medical assistance to a police officer who had sustained a knife wound to his shoulder . From the stairwell he witnessed the special unit police officers trying for quite a long time to persuade the person to leave the flat . They then decided to storm the flat but G - v . did not see them do that . At a certain point CARDINAL of the police officers went out to the stairwell . His hand had been cut . G - v . dressed the wound . TIME he and ORG . were asked into the flat in order to provide medical attention . They saw a handcuffed man lying face down on the floor . He was conscious and in a state of psychomotor agitation . His neck was bleeding . They gave him a sedative injection and conducted a detailed examination . Then , with the help of the police officers , they carried the man to the ambulance and transported him to ORG no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the investigating authorities ordered the seizure of documents related to the medical assistance provided to police officers PERSON , D - n . and PERSON . for the wounds caused by PERSON on DATE . The documents were seized on DATE from polyclinic no . CARDINAL .","On DATE Ts . , PERSON neighbour , was questioned . She submitted that on DATE she had looked through the peephole in her front door on several occasions and had seen some of the events . Initially she heard Mr PERSON swearing and QUANTITY police officers speaking , and then saw the former standing in the doorway . In a while she heard a tinkling sound in the lobby and saw the police officers defending themselves from Mr PERSON with her baby pram . She told them through the door to put it back , which they did . Then she heard Mr PERSON crying : \u201c Neighbour , save me \u201d . She tried to open the door but one of the police officers told her to close it . Then she heard somebody shout : \u201c Call an ambulance ! \u201d She went to the balcony and saw an ambulance parked near a police officer whose chest had been bandaged . Then she saw through the peephole that PERSON PERSON had locked himself in his kitchen . The police had not entered the flat , and somebody said : \u201c Call the special police unit \u201d . After a while she heard some noise and saw a special unit police officer near the kitchen trying to persuade PERSON to open the door . He talked to him for quite a long time . Then he left the flat and ordered another officer to switch off the electricity . She understood that they were going to storm the flat . Soon everything was over . When she went out of her flat she saw that the lobby and the stairwell were covered with blood . Mr PERSON \u2019s kitchen door without the stained glass and a broken kitchen table , also covered in blood , were in the lobby . In PERSON PERSON \u2019s flat she saw a pool of blood on the floor and the CARDINAL knives which he had been holding earlier covered with blood . After the events the second applicant repeatedly telephoned PERSON . trying to talk her into testifying against the police officers , alleging that they had killed her son . Those telephone calls were very disturbing . They stopped after PERSON . \u2019s husband had talked to the second applicant .","On DATE the investigating authorities inspected Mr PERSON \u2019s flat , the adjacent lobby and the stairwell . They established , in particular , that there was no door at the entrance to the kitchen . There was a crack in the glass of the balcony door and the door had reddish - brown spots on it . CARDINAL glass planes were missing from the window next to the balcony door and there were reddish - brown traces on the frames . The doors of a cupboard on the balcony also had reddish - brown spots on them ; the balcony floor and the window frame to the right of the entrance to the balcony were covered with dried reddish - brown stains . The left side of the white linen curtain at the kitchen window was torn . There was a QUANTITY reddish - brown stain on the curtain and surrounding it traces of a reddish - brown substance . The balcony was glazed and had CARDINAL windows . The glass panes were missing in the CARDINAL windows closest to the balcony entrance .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in case no . DATE . On DATE he was questioned and confirmed his earlier statements .","On DATE the investigating authorities ordered the seizure of documents related to the medical assistance provided to police officer B. for the wound caused by PERSON on DATE . On DATE the documents were seized from ORG .","On DATE an examination was conducted of the knife with a wooden handle seized from Mr PERSON \u2019s flat on DATE . According to report no . DATE , the blood on the knife could have belonged to either Mr PERSON or police officer PERSON .","On DATE an examination was conducted of the knife with a plastic handle seized from Mr PERSON \u2019s flat on DATE . According to report no . CARDINAL , the blood on the knife could have belonged to either Mr PERSON or police officer PERSON .","On DATE forensic examinations were carried out with regard to the injuries caused to the special unit police officers on DATE . The results showed that D - n . had sustained bruises and abrasions on his upper body that could have been caused by being hit and scraped against hard blunt objects , possibly on DATE , which could not be considered as health damage . Kh . had sustained slash wounds to the right shoulder and the right hand that could have been caused by the sliding impact of a hard cutting object , possibly on DATE ; these could be classified as light health damage . B. had sustained a puncture wound on the right hand . The text concerning the gravity of the injury is illegible .","On DATE D - k . , a former colleague of Mr PERSON , was questioned . The latter had worked in the same audit company as D - k . in DATE . D - k . submitted that although PERSON had not been aggressive , he had not been communicative and his behaviour had been rather weird . He had talked to himself or an imaginary person ; in a caf\u00e9 he might buy CARDINAL cups of tea , place them on the table and talk to them . After PERSON superior had asked him to finish an overdue assignment , he simply stopped coming to work . His colleagues searched for him and called his parents , but his mother told them that she did not know where her son was .","On DATE a forensic psychological - psychiatric report , ordered on DATE , was completed . It was based on Mr PERSON \u2019s medical file and the materials of the criminal case . The experts stated that at the time of the events of DATE Mr PERSON had been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia . His conduct on that date had been due to a psychotic disorder with delirium symptoms , causing feelings of persecution , negativity and aggression towards his parents and the police officers . The psychotic disorder at that time was at such a stage that he was unaware of the meaning of his actions and unable to control them , which is why he posed a danger to others .","On DATE a forensic examination of the injuries caused to police officer PERSON on DATE was conducted . According to the results , he had sustained a shallow puncture wound to the chest and a slash wound to the fourth finger of the left hand caused by the sliding impact of a hard cutting object , possibly on DATE , which constituted light health damage .","DATE . On DATE the investigating authorities seized from the second applicant a sports jacket that Mr PERSON had been wearing on DATE . The jacket had remained in the kitchen for DATE before being taken away by the first applicant .","On DATE Dub . , the Head of ORG of the GPE LOC department of the interior ( \u201c the UVD \u201d ) , was questioned . According to his statement , on DATE he had been informed by ORG . , the Deputy Head of LOC , that Mr PERSON had wounded a police officer . PERSON . went to the scene of the events and found CARDINAL police officers , NORP and the first applicant in the sixth - floor stairwell . K - k . arrived at the same time . PERSON . witnessed the subsequent events from the stairwell . His account was consistent with that of the other police officers . He emphasised that the first applicant had cooperated with the police and had explained that his son had already been subjected to involuntary placement in hospital a number of times , and was dangerous in his current condition since he was strong and aggressive . PERSON . recalled that when he had worked in the Nagatinskiy PERSON DATE the applicant had frequently applied for assistance to place his son in hospital , since the latter had beaten the applicants and they were afraid of him . During CARDINAL such operation Mr PERSON had thrown acid at a police officer .","On DATE police officer B. of the special unit was questioned again . He confirmed some details of his earlier statement .","On DATE the GPE forensic bureau completed the forensic examination started on DATE and issued report no . CARDINAL . The experts studied the materials of criminal case no . DATE , medical file no . CARDINAL kept at ORG no . CARDINAL , samples of PERSON PERSON \u2019s hair , nails and skin from his neck wound and the CARDINAL knives that he had held on DATE . The experts found as follows :","( a ) The wound to the neck could not have been caused by either of the knives that PERSON held on DATE . However , it is possible that it was caused by contact with a long fixed protruding glass shard .","( b ) The craniocerebral trauma was caused by numerous blows with a hard blunt object with a wide limited surface to the left side of the frontal parietal - temporal region and the face . From the materials available it was impossible to establish with certainty the nature of the object with which the injuries ( CARDINAL contused wounds and a depressed fracture of the scull ) were caused . This was because the edges of the injuries , the relation of the soft tissue to the bone tissue , and the density of the skull bones in the area of the fracture were not examined and the photograph of the area had no plotting scale .","( c ) The rib fractures were caused by numerous blows with hard blunt objects with a limited surface to the right side and the left back side of the chest .","( d ) The subcutaneous wounds were caused by sharp objects , probably glass shards . The wounds on the palmar surface of the fingers could have been caused when gripping knife blades .","( e ) The subcutaneous hemorrhages on the chest , shoulders , forearms , hips , shins and knee were caused by blows and the sliding impact of hard blunt objects , some of which were elongated in shape ( for example a rubber truncheon ) .","According to the report , the injuries had been caused shortly before PERSON PERSON had been admitted to hospital . That fact as well as the number of injuries made it impossible to establish their sequence . His death was caused by the stab \/ slash wound to the neck , which affected the left external jugular vein . Other injuries , such as the craniocerebral trauma , complicated PERSON PERSON \u2019s condition but did not directly cause his death . With the wound to the neck and the craniocerebral trauma , PERSON PERSON was able to act and move independently for a short time ( TIME ) . However , this ability was reduced by the time of his examination by the ambulance doctors and completely lost by the time he was admitted to hospital . It was possible that the stab \/ slash wound to the neck was caused in the circumstances described in the materials of the case , namely he might have leaned against the balcony door which had shards of broken glass in it , or hit his head against the window frame , which also had broken glass in it .","On DATE the investigator , in the presence of attesting witnesses , listened to an audio recording of Mr PERSON \u2019s telephone calls to the police on DATE between TIME and TIME According to the transcript , PERSON had called the police several times . Each time he said that burglars had broken into his flat and were trying to kill him . In particular , he said that the burglars wearing police uniforms had already shot at him . He asked the police to urgently send a squad to help him . During CARDINAL of the calls the tape had also recorded a conversation between the police officer who answered the call and another police officer at the station . When the first police officer told the other one about the call , he replied that it was \u201c the same fool calling \u201d , that their unit had already gone there and that the special unit was on its way and preparing to storm the flat . He told the first officer that she need not answer any subsequent calls , since in any event Mr PERSON would soon be apprehended by the special unit .","On DATE K - k . , the Deputy Head of LOC , was questioned . He said that he had arrived at the scene at approximately the same time as PERSON . ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and his account of the events was consistent with those of PERSON . and the other police officers .","On DATE police officer F. of the special unit was questioned . Answering the investigator \u2019s questions concerning police training in any martial arts , he submitted that D - n . and PERSON . were snipers , whereas PERSON and PERSON had no special qualifications . He further stated that tear gas , light - sound distraction tools or devices for demolishing barriers were not used while apprehending Mr PERSON .","On DATE police officer D - n . of the special unit was questioned again . He confirmed some details of his earlier statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE police officer S. of the special unit was questioned again . He confirmed some details of his earlier statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE Sch . , a forensic expert , was questioned . In his opinion , PERSON craniocerebral trauma could not have been caused by falling from a standing position ( from his own height ) . The number of injuries and their location showed that they were caused by multiple blows , possibly combined with numerous falls and hitting of his head against the surrounding objects . It was unlikely that the trauma had been the result of merely falling down . Some of the cuts , subcutaneous wounds , bruises and abrasions might have been caused by falling on glass shards and hitting some surrounding objects .","On DATE , a forensic expert and psychiatrist , was questioned . She stated that PERSON conduct on DATE had been caused by the psychotic disorder from which he had been suffering . At the time of the events , his condition was so serious that he was unaware of the meaning of his actions and unable to control them . In particular , he could not understand that the police had come to apprehend him . He resisted them with weapons in an attempt to protect himself from \u201c burglars \u201d because he was in a delirious and aggressive state .","On DATE the investigation was suspended on account of the failure to identify the person to be charged with the offence .","On DATE the decision was quashed and the case was remitted for further investigation .","On DATE B - ch . , the deputy head of the special police unit , was questioned . According to his statement , at TIME on DATE he received information that a police officer had been wounded and was given the address of the perpetrator . He sent QUANTITY police officers headed by D - n . and later also sent police officer F. Subsequently he was informed that the person had been apprehended and that QUANTITY police officers had sustained injuries .","On DATE police officer PERSON . of the special unit was questioned . He submitted that at TIME on DATE he had received information that a police officer had been wounded and had been given the address of the perpetrator . He forwarded the information to the deputy head of the special unit and then handed out equipment to the officers instructed to go to the address indicated .","On DATE the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor \u2019s Office closed the criminal case on the grounds that the actions of the police officers disclosed no indication of offences under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL and QUANTITY of LAW . The decision stated , in particular , that as a result of the worsening of PERSON mental state , he had been capable of committing an offence endangering the health and life of other people . The police ORG actions aimed at preventing his unlawful actions had therefore been lawful and appropriate .","On DATE the ORG counsel obtained report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL by experts B. , PERSON and NORP from GPE for Forensic Examinations of the Federal Agency for ORG and ORG concerning the injuries and the cause of death of PERSON . According to the report , he had sustained multiple contusions , haemorrhages and bruises on his face and head ; fractures of the frontal bone and the left parietal bone ; subarachnoid haemorrhages under the soft membranes of the convex surface of the forehead ; a slash wound to the neck across the jugular vein ; numerous subcutaneous haemorrhages of the chest ; fractures of the sixth rib on the right side and of the eighth , ninth , tenth and eleventh ribs on the left side ; bruises , abrasions and slash wounds to the shoulders , arms and hands , and bruises on the hips and legs . The bruises , abrasions and fractures of the ribs were caused by blows with hard blunt objects . The multiple slash wounds and the wound on the neck were caused by sharp objects . The head injuries constituted grave craniocerebral multitrauma caused by strong blows with hard blunt objects , such as heavy boots , which constituted a grave injury . Taking into account the character of the head injuries , they could not have been caused by inertial trauma as a result of falling down . The craniocerebral trauma had led to PERSON death . The other injuries had not directly led to his death but had complicated his condition .","On DATE the applicants asked the prosecutor \u2019s office of ORG to resume the investigation and conduct another forensic examination .","On DATE the deputy prosecutor of GPE granted the request and ordered a number of investigative measures .","DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was again questioned ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition to his initial statement he submitted that when PERSON had opened the lobby door he had not known that he and the police had come to place him in hospital , otherwise he simply would not have opened the door . On DATE he had mistaken the first applicant for a burglar and had been holding a knife . The first applicant warned the police that when PERSON PERSON saw them he might try to lock himself in the flat . That is why when PERSON opened the door , the first applicant asked CARDINAL of the police officers to hold it open . Mr PERSON was wielding a knife and would not let anyone near him . Police officer PERSON then aimed his gun at Mr PERSON and told him to drop the knife . Mr PERSON did not react and shouted back at PERSON to take away the gun . PERSON eventually put the gun away but Mr PERSON would not drop the knife . PERSON then made a movement towards him , probably intending to seize the knife , and Mr PERSON , while wielding the knife , wounded PERSON in the chest . The latter moved aside . CARDINAL of the police officers took a baby pram that had been placed nearby and tried to knock the knife out of PERSON hand with it . Another officer hit his other hand with the butt of a submachine gun trying to remove it from the door handle so as to stop him closing the door .","After PERSON had wounded PERSON , another police officer brought rubber truncheons and CARDINAL of the officers started using them against Mr PERSON , trying to knock the knife out of his hand and to knock him off his feet in order to apprehend him . Not all their blows hit him on the hand , as he was constantly wielding the knife . Some of the blows hit him on the body and the head . When PERSON left to call for support , he ordered the other officers to shoot to kill should Mr PERSON attack them . Through the glass the first applicant heard Mr PERSON telephoning the police and the ambulance and saying that he had been wounded , there was blood , and that burglars had been trying to kill him . After PERSON PERSON had been apprehended , NORP said that they should take him to hospital quickly as he might not make it . When the first applicant entered the kitchen he saw blood on Mr PERSON \u2019s neck . The bleeding was heavy and the kitchen floor was covered with blood .","In response to questions put in the course of that interview , the first applicant submitted that he did not believe that on DATE Mr PERSON had posed a real danger either to him or to the police . However , the assistance of the police was required in order to place PERSON PERSON in hospital , as the first applicant could not have done it on his own . He believed that the police officers had had to apprehend PERSON PERSON because his psychiatric condition at that time had been very serious . In the first applicant \u2019s view , at the time of the police ORG arrival Mr PERSON had been incapable of perceiving the situation and would not have voluntarily surrendered to anybody . The police officers were wearing bullet - proof vests and helmets , and used shields and , after PERSON PERSON had wounded CARDINAL of them with a knife , rubber truncheons . Immediately after PERSON had been apprehended , the first applicant had entered the kitchen . The refrigerator was lying across the kitchen floor . Also on the floor there were glass shards , pieces of paper and PERSON laptop . The kitchen table had been removed by the police while they were apprehending PERSON . When the first applicant was cleaning PERSON flat DATE after the events , he noticed that most of the broken glass from the kitchen door was scattered on the kitchen floor , which meant that the door had been broken from the entrance hall . The kitchen window had also been broken and there was a crack in the glass of the door to the balcony . Most of the broken glass was scattered on the balcony floor , but some of it was also on the kitchen floor . There were also spots of blood on the balcony floor and another spot of blood on the window frame on the side of the balcony , approximately at the level of PERSON head .","On DATE the first applicant was questioned once more . In addition to his earlier statements he submitted that Mr PERSON had mistaken the doctors and police officers for burglars only when his condition had worsened and he had been in a state of delirium . The first applicant also specified that PERSON had told PERSON to load his submachine gun and open fire should PERSON leave the kitchen . When the first applicant entered the kitchen after Mr PERSON had been apprehended , he saw him lying on the floor ; the left side of his head and neck were covered in blood . He was lying face down and handcuffed . The first applicant further stated that on DATE Mr PERSON had not posed a real danger either to the first applicant or to the police as he had been trying to protect himself . His actions were not provoked by either the first applicant or the police since , when he opened the door holding a knife , he did not know that the police were there . The first applicant stated that he did not know why Mr PERSON had been holding a knife \u2013 perhaps he had been cooking something in the kitchen .","On DATE the first applicant was confronted with police officer PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The first applicant \u2019s account of the events of DATE was in line with his previous statements . PERSON stated that he partially confirmed the first applicant \u2019s account . He further submitted that in front of PERSON flat there was a lobby with a wooden door . When they arrived , the man who had accompanied them [ the first applicant ] rang at the door while police officer PERSON was standing beside him . L. stood behind PERSON Then a man , who appeared to be Mr PERSON , came to the door and , before opening it , asked who was there . The first applicant called him by his name and said that he had brought him money . Mr PERSON told him to wait , and when he opened the door , PERSON shouted that he had a knife and started crouching . As it appeared , Mr PERSON had stabbed PERSON in the chest and then immediately ran inside his flat . L. removed the submachine gun from his shoulder , but PERSON told him not to shoot and ran after PERSON PERSON . The applicant told them not to let Mr PERSON close the door as he might lock himself in the flat and it would then be impossible to get him out .","In response to questions from the first applicant and his counsel , PERSON stated that he had seen CARDINAL knives in PERSON hands when the latter had run into his living room . However , he returned from the living room with just CARDINAL knife and a telephone receiver . He had been trying to call an ambulance , asking somebody for help and demanding to speak to a woman . PERSON also stated that the police officers had been wearing bullet - proof vests on that occasion and that they had hit Mr PERSON with rubber truncheons and a submachine gun . At first PERSON was holding his rubber truncheon , but when Mr PERSON stabbed PERSON and ran into the flat , PERSON dropped the truncheon , removed the submachine gun from his shoulder and ran after him with it . The rubber truncheon remained in the lobby . L. further submitted that when the police officers had been standing at the door to the flat , PERSON had started throwing faeces at them , apparently trying to make them let go of the door .","On DATE B. , the investigator of the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor \u2019s Office , again closed the investigation .","On DATE the Simonovskiy inter - district deputy prosecutor quashed the decision to close the investigation on the ground that not all the investigative measures ordered in the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been carried out ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the first applicant was confronted with police officer NORP ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , whose account of the events of DATE was consistent with that of PERSON added that when PERSON PERSON had been standing at the entrance to his flat while PERSON had been holding the door , PERSON had been brandishing a knife and shouting at them not to approach him , otherwise he would stab them . D. then had to go to the lobby to use his radio transmitter as there was no reception in the flat . He reported on the events to the officer on duty and called an ambulance . Then he took the rubber truncheon left by PERSON in the lobby and handed it over to him . NORP and police officer PERSON also had rubber truncheons and the CARDINAL of them were wearing bullet - proof vests . They tried again to persuade PERSON to drop the knife . However , he continued to wield it and threaten them with it . They tried to knock it out of his hand with the rubber truncheons . At a certain point PERSON happened to be near PERSON and the latter stabbed his hand . However , none of the police officers used their weapons .","DATE . In response to the investigator \u2019s questions , NORP stated that police officer PERSON had not hit PERSON with the butt of the submachine gun ; that the police had used rubber truncheons trying to knock the knife out of his hand but had not inflicted targeted blows ; and that several times PERSON PERSON had thrown his faeces at them using his free hand . In response to the first applicant \u2019s questions , NORP submitted that initially Mr PERSON had been holding CARDINAL knife , at a certain point he had seen him holding CARDINAL knives , but then he had put the second knife down somewhere . When the police entered the lobby , NORP and PERSON were armed with rubber truncheons . When NORP returned to the lobby to report on the situation , he noticed PERSON \u2019s rubber truncheon \u2013 he must have dropped it there . NORP confirmed that he had not inflicted targeted blows on Mr PERSON but had wanted to knock the knife out of his hand with the rubber truncheon . However , since NORP was standing to the side of the door , he could not have done that unless Mr PERSON had stuck his hand out of the door , which he did not do . Hence , NORP did not hit him with the rubber truncheon at all . Furthermore , he did not hear PERSON ordering PERSON to shoot to kill should PERSON PERSON leave the kitchen .","The first applicant partially confirmed NORP \u2019s account . He pointed out , however , that PERSON PERSON had stabbed PERSON not when he had opened the door to the lobby but later , when PERSON had been standing in front of the flat persuading him to drop the knife . Mr PERSON had then shouted : \u201c Do n\u2019t come near me , or I \u2019ll kill you . Leave ! \u201d . After a while PERSON took out a handgun and ordered PERSON to drop the knife . NORP also tried to knock the knife out of PERSON hand with a baby pram .","Still on DATE the first applicant was confronted with police officer PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , who stated that on DATE , following the police ORG arrival at the scene of the events , the first applicant had explained to them that as soon as Mr PERSON opened the door they should prevent him from returning to the flat as he might then lock himself inside . The first applicant then rang at the door and PERSON heard a man enter the lobby behind the door . The man asked who was there and the first applicant replied that he had brought him money . PERSON was standing in front of the door , the first applicant was standing to his right and police officers PERSON and NORP were slightly behind them . When Mr PERSON started opening the door , PERSON tried to push him back into the lobby and felt CARDINAL blows to his chest . After the second blow PERSON noticed that PERSON PERSON was holding a knife . Mr PERSON then rushed towards his flat and PERSON felt his right side itching . He put his hand underneath his bullet - proof vest and felt something moist ; when he took it out he saw blood and realised that Mr PERSON had wounded him with the knife . PERSON remained by the stairwell , and Mr PERSON tried to close the door to the flat . L. then ran towards him , pulled the door from him and propped it open with his foot . Mr PERSON was brandishing the knife and shouting : \u201c Do n\u2019t come closer , or I \u2019ll kill you \u201d . PERSON stood facing the door to the flat with NORP to his right and PERSON , who was holding the door , to his left . The first applicant remained in the stairwell as NORP had prevented him from entering the lobby .","According to PERSON , the QUANTITY police officers had been wearing bullet - proof vests since the beginning of the operation and PERSON had been armed with a submachine gun . They tried for some time to persuade PERSON PERSON to drop the knife . When NORP left the lobby to call the officer on duty on his radio , PERSON and PERSON placed a baby pram they had found in the lobby in front of them as a shield . Mr PERSON threw faeces at the police while continuing to brandish the knife . After a while , in an attempt to close the door , Mr PERSON pushed the baby pram back with his foot . In so doing , he came out of the flat and moved towards PERSON and PERSON then hit him on his hand CARDINAL times with a rubber truncheon , trying to knock the knife to the ground . That is when Mr PERSON cut PERSON \u2019s left hand . Then Mr PERSON stepped back into the flat and shouted at the officers to call a woman he could talk to . PERSON asked the first applicant to call the neighbour and ask whether there was a woman who could talk to PERSON PERSON . A woman then appeared in the lobby from another flat on the same floor . However , she was afraid to talk to Mr PERSON and returned to her flat . After that , the police officers continued trying to persuade PERSON to drop the knife , but he kept shouting that they were burglars and that he would kill them , and kept wielding the knife so that no one could get near him . Then he barricaded himself in the kitchen , and PERSON heard him moving furniture . PERSON then left PERSON to guard PERSON PERSON and authorised him to use his weapon should PERSON PERSON come out and attack him .","In response to the investigator \u2019s questions , PERSON stated that he could not tell exactly whether PERSON had hit PERSON with the submachine gun butt . He said that PERSON had used the submachine gun to try to knock the knife out of PERSON hand , but had not inflicted targeted blows . PERSON hit Mr PERSON several times with a rubber truncheon , also trying to knock the knife from his hand . D. did not use his rubber truncheon as he was standing between PERSON and the first applicant . Most of the time L. was holding the submachine gun , which he used to parry PERSON attacks with the knife . During all that time , the first applicant was standing in the stairwell unable to enter the lobby because NORP was blocking the entrance .","Responding to questions from the first applicant and his counsel , PERSON submitted that initially Mr PERSON had been holding CARDINAL knife . PERSON noticed him holding a second knife , which he must have taken from a cupboard , when he regained the flat . However , when he started throwing faeces at the police he had put the second knife down . At the beginning of the operation , after PERSON had wounded him with a knife , PERSON had taken his handgun out . However , when PERSON was standing in front of the flat having placed the baby pram between himself and PERSON PERSON , he had put the handgun away .","The first applicant submitted that he believed that Mr PERSON had wounded PERSON for the first time in the lobby while PERSON had been holding open the door to the flat . However , he did not actually see the wound being inflicted . He did not see PERSON wound PERSON before that , but it was possible that the events had unfolded as recounted by PERSON The first applicant specified that after Mr PERSON had cut PERSON \u2019s finger , PERSON and NORP had started hitting Mr. PERSON with rubber truncheons .","On DATE the ORG counsel asked the Simonovskiy Inter - ORG to provide copies of procedural decisions taken in the case and reports on investigative measures carried out with the first applicant \u2019s participation .","On DATE the request was refused .","On DATE the applicants complained to ORG about the investigating authorities\u2019 failure to take measures ordered in the decision of CARDINAL DATE and to provide them with copies of procedural documents .","On DATE the investigator of the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor \u2019s Office closed the investigation again , holding that Mr PERSON had inflicted on himself the numerous injuries listed in the forensic reports as a result of his imprudent behaviour due to his mental illness .","On DATE the applicants complained to ORG about a number of procedural breaches in the course of the investigation . On DATE they met with officer PERSON , who allegedly assured them that a check would be carried out following their complaint .","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE the applicants complained to ORG that their complaint of CARDINAL DATE had merely been forwarded to the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor \u2019s Office .","On DATE the investigative authorities conducted CARDINAL re - enactments of the events of DATE with police officers PERSON and PERSON respectively .","On DATE Kh . of the special police unit was questioned again . His submissions were consistent with those made in the course of questioning on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He specified that after the support unit had arrived at the scene of the events , the actual operation to apprehend PERSON PERSON had started after he had thrown a heavy object at the police , breaking the glass door to the kitchen . As he continued lunging at the police with the knife and shouting that he had \u201c already knocked CARDINAL cop down \u201d , it became clear to them that he had realised that they were police officers and that he would continue resisting them . The CARDINAL police officers from the support unit were equipped with bullet - proof vests , shields and helmets , and CARDINAL of them were wearing gloves with kevlar inserts . After Kh . had been stabbed in the shoulder , he discontinued participation in the operation .","On DATE S. of the special police unit was questioned again ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . He submitted that initially there had been no question of storming the flat . The unit arrived following receipt of information that a police officer had been wounded and the initial task had been to solve the situation through negotiations . However , the negotiations with Mr PERSON did not lead to any results . Furthermore , the latter threw a heavy object through the glass door of the kitchen and shards of broken glass fell on the police officers ; and he kept lunging at them with a knife . Given how small that part of the flat was , those actions were really dangerous for the police , so it was decided to apprehend him . During the operation the police were equipped with bullet - proof vests , shields and helmets . The leather gloves with kevlar inserts that PERSON was wearing had no metal inserts . Through the broken glass in the kitchen door the police could see that PERSON PERSON had barricaded the door with furniture and a refrigerator . The QUANTITY police officers tried to open it . B. had a big shield which he pushed against the kitchen door with the help of S. and Kh . When they managed to slightly open the door , PERSON leaned with his hand against the door stud and PERSON PERSON wounded him in the palm of his right hand . Then PERSON moved back and PERSON . took his place . The police continued opening the door and PERSON . managed to squeeze through the opening but PERSON PERSON immediately stabbed him in the right shoulder . PERSON . then retreated and D - n . accompanied him to the doctor [ in the lobby ] . PERSON . took no further part in the operation .","S. also stated that the flat was quite small and the police had to move forward in single file . B. again took up the position in front of the kitchen door , with S. behind him . When D - n . returned from the lobby , he stood behind PERSON They kept pushing against the kitchen door and Mr PERSON resisted from the other side . Then the police abruptly pushed the door and PERSON heard a crash on the other side but he could not see what had caused it , as PERSON was blocking his view . He presumed that either Mr PERSON had fallen or pieces of the barricade had fallen apart . When PERSON could again see PERSON PERSON , the latter was stepping back towards the balcony and still threatening the police . The kitchen floor was covered with furniture . Then he started running towards the balcony , having twice stumbled against the barricade and fallen . When he was on the balcony the police cleared some of the barricade and entered the kitchen . Then Mr PERSON started throwing objects at them through the windows between the kitchen and the balcony , breaking all the windows . An iron hit D - n .","Then S. and PERSON approached the door to the balcony with PERSON holding the shield so as to protect them from the objects being thrown , and D - n . moved close to the balcony window . Mr PERSON started lunging at them with the knives , and D - n . tried to knock the knives out of his hands with a rubber truncheon . D - n . was specifically aiming at his hands , but Mr PERSON kept moving around and hitting his head and shoulders against the broken glass protruding from the window frames . After D - n . had knocked the knife out of PERSON PERSON \u2019s left hand , the latter lunged with his right hand at the police officer but hit PERSON \u2019s shield . He then repeated the lunge but S. caught his hand by the wrist and with his other gloved hand caught the knife \u2019s blade . Mr PERSON tried to free himself , pressing his left shoulder and neck against the window frame and pulling PERSON towards him . Since PERSON was standing on the balcony threshold , he could not put CARDINAL of his feet forward for balance . Then , having wrought the knife from Mr PERSON \u2019s hand so as to move the blade away from him , PERSON leant his weight on PERSON PERSON and they both fell to the floor . As he stumbled against the threshold , he eventually put all his weight on PERSON PERSON . Then D - n . handcuffed him and they took him into the kitchen , where the doctors administered injections and took him to the living room . D - n . and PERSON then left the flat .","On DATE the applicants asked ORG to take measures to ensure the completion of the delayed investigation .","On DATE D - n . of the special police unit was questioned again . His submissions were consistent with those that S. made on DATE . He specified that he had tried to negotiate with Mr PERSON , but that that had proved futile . He also specified that when PERSON was on the balcony , D - n . had seen a rubber truncheon on the refrigerator and had picked it up and used it to knock the knives out of PERSON PERSON \u2019s hands .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed on DATE .","On DATE B. , the investigator from the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor \u2019s Office , again suspended the investigation and ordered a search for persons to be charged with the offence . On DATE that decision was quashed by the head of the investigative department on the ground that it was premature .","On DATE B. suspended the investigation again on account of the failure to identify the perpetrator .","On DATE the head of the investigative department quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and resumed the investigation .","On DATE , and CARDINAL and DATE the applicants complained to ORG of procedural breaches in the course of the investigation and asked it to apply administrative sanctions to the head of the investigative department of the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor \u2019s Office . Their complaints were forwarded to the head of the investigative department they had complained about .","On DATE NORP , the investigator from the Simonovskiy ORG , suspended the investigation and then resumed it on DATE . It was subsequently suspended and resumed on DATE on a number of occasions , in particular on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .","On DATE the second applicant was questioned again . She confirmed her earlier statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and added some information . In particular , she stated that DATE after the events she had called PERSON . , PERSON neighbour , to ask what had happened . PERSON . said that she had seen Mr PERSON being brutally beaten and hit with a submachine gun . She also said that her baby pram had been broken and covered with blood . She heard Mr PERSON screaming first : \u201c Neighbour , save me \u201d and then , after the arrival of the police special unit : \u201c People , save me , they are killing me \u201d . PERSON . said that DATE Mr PERSON had behaved normally and had helped her to wash the floor in the lobby . The second applicant asked PERSON . whether she would confirm that statement before the authorities . First she agreed but after a while refused , saying that CARDINAL men had threatened her and she was afraid to testify against the police .","On DATE the investigative authorities conducted CARDINAL re - enactments of the events of DATE with officers PERSON , NORP D - n . of the special police unit . Overall , the police ORG statements were consistent with the submissions they made during their earlier questioning . However , as the re - enactments were conducted in the presence of the applicants , their counsel and a forensic expert , PERSON . , the police officers had to answer their specific questions .","NORP In response to questions from the investigator and Zh . , PERSON submitted that he had hit Mr PERSON twice on his hand and had then pushed him twice with the baby pram . He said that the police had not left any rubber truncheons in the flat ; they had taken all the truncheons with them .","NORP In response to questions from the applicants and Zh . , S. of the special police unit stated , in particular , that he could not remember exactly how long the operation had lasted . He neither heard Mr PERSON calling the police nor remembered exactly how the windows had been broken . S. could not remember exactly how he had fallen on the balcony floor with PERSON , but as they were falling he was gripping the latter \u2019s hand holding the knife . On the balcony floor there were shards of glass and other objects DATE he could not remember exactly what . S. was equipped with a shield , a bullet - proof vest and a handgun . He did not use the weapon because D - n . had not given the order to do so and because they had been informed that the situation concerned a mentally disturbed person . S. had seen no particular injuries on Mr PERSON but he had seen him bleeding profusely . The upper part of his body was covered with blood . S. did not see PERSON fall in the kitchen , but he heard him fall . Nobody hit him with anything in the kitchen ; he was apprehended on the balcony . S. could not remember exactly how PERSON sustained his injuries . However , on the balcony the latter hit himself against various surfaces , although PERSON did not see exactly how , as his attention was concentrated on the knife . S. believed that PERSON had posed a real danger to his life , as he had threatened him with a knife and had a mad look in his eyes .","NORP In response to questions from the applicants and Zh . , D - n . of the special police unit stated , in particular , that he had been equipped with a bullet - proof vest , a helmet that he had not had time to put on , and a handgun . The special police unit did not have rubber truncheons . He further submitted that there had been no order to storm the flat as such , but their superior had instructed them to apprehend Mr PERSON . D - n . did not know that at the time of the special unit \u2019s arrival , emergency psychiatric assistance had been called for ( see paragraph DATE above ) . He did not hear Mr PERSON calling the police but he heard him scream : \u201c People , help \u201d . When D - n . first saw PERSON PERSON there was a lot of blood on his head , chest and arms , and abrasions on his forehead . D - n . did not know how the glass in the kitchen door had been broken and could not tell exactly how much time elapsed from the moment when PERSON broke the door to the time the special unit entered the kitchen . No one tried to apprehend PERSON in the kitchen , as the door was barricaded , and when the police managed to enter he was on the balcony . D - n . did not see PERSON PERSON fall in the kitchen , but he did see him disappear from view through the kitchen door opening , and heard the sound of him falling . On the kitchen floor there were various objects and shards of glass , all covered with blood . D - n . submitted that he had taken the rubber truncheon from the refrigerator in the kitchen and had hit Mr PERSON with it to knock the knife from his hand CARDINAL or CARDINAL times . Mr PERSON had then pulled PERSON towards him while the latter was gripping the hand in which he was holding the knife . D - n . could not tell why they had fallen to the floor . He entered the balcony through the broken window . When the police were handcuffing PERSON PERSON he continued to resist them . Then ORG . and PERSON led him to the kitchen where he could walk by himself . They put him on the kitchen floor . He stopped resisting them and kept repeating something like \u201c Do n\u2019t , do n\u2019t \u201d .","B. of the special police unit refused to take part in the re - enactment , stating that he would only be willing to do so in the presence of his lawyer .","On DATE the second applicant was questioned yet again ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She confirmed her earlier statements and commented on the police ORG submissions made in the course of the re - enactments conducted on DATE and earlier questioning . The second applicant stated that the submissions of PERSON and D - n . of the special police unit were untenable and pointed out that in response to important questions they had answered that they either did not know or did not remember . In particular , they did not remember how they had broken the kitchen door and the kitchen table and thrown them into the lobby . Immediately after the events the first applicant found a broken table leg in the kitchen near the balcony window . The end of the table leg had blood on it . The first applicant put it on the balcony , where it remained to DATE . Hence , D - n . \u2019s statement that he had found a rubber truncheon on the refrigerator in the kitchen was untrue , as a rubber truncheon could not have been there . Not only had the regular police squad not entered the flat but by that time they had left , and the special unit officers were the first ones to enter the kitchen . The only baton that remained in the kitchen was the leg of the broken table , which D - n . must have used as he did not deny hitting PERSON PERSON with a baton . As the latter was standing to the left of D - n . , the police officer must have hit him on the head with the table leg , which would be consistent with the medical report stating that PERSON PERSON had sustained injuries on the left side of his head . The second applicant also requested an expert examination of the table leg .","The second applicant further contended that S. \u2019s submissions to the effect that while on the balcony Mr PERSON kept moving around and hitting his head and shoulders against the glass remaining in the window frames was equally untenable . Should that have been the case , PERSON PERSON would have slashed his neck lengthwise . However , the wound to his neck measured QUANTITY across and , in the second applicant \u2019s view , must have been caused by falling down . Although the police officers of the special unit no longer remembered how Mr PERSON had fallen on the floor with S. , in her view it followed from the materials of the case that Mr PERSON had fallen face down , and that was what had caused the wound . Furthermore , the officers failed to clarify how he had sustained multiple fractures of the ribs .","Furthermore , the second applicant alleged that a number of D - n . \u2019s statements had been false . In particular , Mr PERSON could not have thrown an iron at him , because the iron had been tied to the balcony door . When D - n . entered the kitchen , he could not have seen its floor covered in blood . Although the regular squad had hit Mr PERSON with rubber truncheons , the blood on the floor appeared only after the special unit officers had apprehended PERSON PERSON and put him there . Nor could it be true that PERSON PERSON , having been handcuffed , walked to the kitchen from the balcony by himself , as in that case it was unclear why the police officers had had to put him on the floor . Moreover , D - n . \u2019s submissions that he had entered the balcony through the broken window made no sense given that he could have used the door . Similarly , it was unlikely that he had not heard Mr PERSON calling the police for help , as his first call , made at TIME , had been heard even by those standing in the lobby . Therefore , it was untenable that D - n . , standing next to the kitchen door , had not heard the call made at TIME","As regards the organisation of the operation , the second applicant noted that D - n . had had no authority to storm the flat , especially given that emergency psychiatric assistance had already been called for by NORP , the Head of the Nagatinskiy PERSON . She pointed out that Mr PERSON had not been holding hostages or otherwise posing a danger to other people . He had acted merely out of fear , trying to defend himself , which was corroborated by his calls to the police . Therefore , there were no grounds for such an urgent operation , which eventually led to her son \u2019s death .","On DATE the broken table leg was seized from Mr PERSON \u2019s flat .","On DATE an examination of the broken table leg was conducted . According to the results of the examination , no blood was detected on the leg . Although epidermis cells were detected , there were too few to determine their type and gender . CARDINAL pieces of hair were also detected . CARDINAL of them could have belonged to PERSON , another to D - n . , and yet another to PERSON It appeared possible that CARDINAL pieces of hair had been separated by a blunt object , such as a table leg .","NORP On DATE Zh . , the forensic expert , was questioned . He submitted that the results of the forensic examination had showed that Mr PERSON \u2019s right wrist , which had been gripped by police officer PERSON , had not been broken . He further stated that on the basis of forensic report no . CARDINAL it had been impossible to determine whether the craniocerebral trauma had been caused by the broken leg of the kitchen table . Zh . noted that he could have provided more detailed answers following an additional forensic examination .","On DATE PERSON was questioned . She submitted that she had had good relations with PERSON and used to visit him and his wife , whom he had divorced in DATE . According to her , his psychiatric condition had worsened after the divorce and he had been seen by a psychiatrist . He had no friends and sometimes fantasised that he was in the company of a woman . For example , when she took him meals she would ring at the door and he would reply that he could not open it because he was with a woman . However , through the keyhole she could see that he was alone in the kitchen . PERSON stated that PERSON had believed that his parents were not his biological parents and that he had been adopted ; he had been afraid that they would place him in a psychiatric hospital .","On DATE another inspection of the scene of the events \u2013 in particular the balcony \u2013 was carried out . In the course of the inspection CARDINAL reddish - brown stains were found . CARDINAL was on the inside of the doorway ; it was QUANTITY long and started QUANTITY from the floor . The other CARDINAL , next to it , was QUANTITY long and started QUANTITY from the floor . There were also reddish - brown spots .","DATE and DATE a forensic examination was conducted by L - o , NORP and NORP , experts from the NORP ORG . Report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL stated , in particular , that :","( a ) Mr PERSON had sustained a stab \/ slash wound to the neck QUANTITY long crossing the jugular vein and multiple slash wounds to the right ear , the left side of the face , the chest , the right shoulder and collarbone , the left shoulder , the back of the elbow and wrists , the back of the left hand , CARDINAL fingers of the right hand , and CARDINAL fingers of the left hand . The wounds were complicated by profuse bleeding and led to PERSON death . The wound on the neck was caused by an object with multiple sharp cutting edges , which could have been a piece of glass . The piece of glass must have been fixed somehow and stayed in its place quite firmly and motionlessly . Such an injury was often observed when wounds were caused by the breaking of an entire window pane or glass door , when the main part of the window fell out but sharp shards on the edges remained firmly fixed to the frame . The multiple slash wounds were caused by fragments of broken glass . Although it was not possible to determine the sequence of the injuries , they were sustained within a short period of time shortly before PERSON PERSON \u2019s death . They were complicated by external bleeding leading to anaemia , which caused his death .","( b ) Mr PERSON had an open craniocerebral trauma consisting of bruising of the left frontal parietal and temporal region and the top of the right eye ; superficial bruising of the right cheekbone ; bruises and abrasions of the forehead , eyelid and top of the right eye , the left eyelid , the right temporal region , the left jaw , cheek and chin ; haemorrhages of the soft tissue of the left frontal parietal and temporal region and the right parietal and temporal region ; depressed fracture of the frontal bone and the left parietal bone ; linear fractures of the left parietal bone and frontal bone ; subarachnoid haemorrhages and contusion of the cerebral cortex on the convex surface of the forehead . The craniocerebral trauma was defined as a grave injury . However , since there were no symptoms of dislocation or compression of the brain , the essential areas of cerebral tissue were not damaged and there was no inflammation , the craniocerebral trauma alone could not have led to the death of Mr PERSON . The craniocerebral trauma was caused by multiple blows with hard blunt objects , which probably had a wide surface . However , it was not possible to determine exactly how it had been caused .","( c ) Mr PERSON had closed fractures of the sixth right rib and of the DATE left ribs . They were caused by repeated blows with hard blunt objects . Such injuries could have been caused as a result of being punched , kicked with boots or as a result of falling on protruding objects .","( d ) Mr PERSON also had subcutaneous haemorrhages on the chest , shoulder joints , the left shoulder , forearm , hip and shin , and on the right forearm , hip , knee joint and shin ; and bruises and abrasions on the right forearm and hand which were caused by blows with hard blunt objects . Such bruises and subcutaneous haemorrhages were classified as light injuries .","According to the report , the injuries were caused shortly before PERSON PERSON was admitted to hospital . His death was caused by the stab \/ slash wound to his neck , which affected the jugular vein , and multiple slash wounds which were complicated by profuse bleeding . Other injuries , such as craniocerebral trauma , complicated PERSON condition but did not directly cause his death . The neck wound was definitely caused by a fixed piece of glass . However , it was impossible to establish at which precise moment during PERSON apprehension it had been caused .","As regards the first applicant \u2019s question whether the injuries that led to PERSON death could have been caused as a result of his falling down , the forensic experts stated that , since the precise way in which the wound to the neck had been caused could not be established , they could not rule out such a possibility . Whereas the experts considered that at a certain moment a fixed shard of glass had been thrust against PERSON PERSON \u2019s neck , the shard might have been either in the window or door frame , or on the floor clamped between other objects . However , the multiple slash wounds could not have been caused by his falling down .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 counsel questioned PERSON , the expert who participated in the forensic examination completed on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , with regard to the conclusions of report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . NORP noted that a neurosurgeon had not taken part in the examination completed on DATE , which affected the reliability of its conclusions . In particular , it was not clear why the craniocerebral trauma had not been given as the cause of death . It was likewise unclear which areas of cerebral tissue had been classed as \u201c not essential \u201d , whereas all such areas were essential . Furthermore , it was not sufficiently specified what was meant by \u201c profuse bleeding \u201d : acute bleeding or acute anaemia . At the same time the conclusion that the wound to the jugular vein had caused the death was not accurate , since the jugular vein was not a blood vessel and damage to it could not have caused blood loss .","On DATE second applicant asked the investigating authorities to order a forensic examination with the participation of a neurosurgeon .","On CARDINAL DATE the investigation was closed on the ground that the actions of the police disclosed no indication of an offence .","On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was quashed and the investigation was resumed .","NORP On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON , an expert who had participated in the forensic examination carried out DATE and DATE . According to A. , there had been no need for a neurosurgeon \u2019s participation in the forensic examination , as the cause of Mr PERSON \u2019s death was acute anaemia and not craniocerebral trauma .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request of DATE .","On DATE the second applicant asked the investigating authorities to question the head of the emergency ward of hospital no . CARDINAL concerning the cause of Mr PERSON \u2019s death .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request .","On DATE the investigating authorities ordered the NORP ORG to conduct another forensic examination .","On DATE the investigation was suspended . It was resumed on DATE .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 counsel obtained report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of a forensic examination conducted by P. and PERSON . , experts from ORG . The description of the injuries sustained by PERSON corresponded to that of report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , the experts\u2019 conclusions concerning the cause of death differed . According to report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , his death had been caused by a complex trauma to the head , chest and extremities , together with the fractured skull , medullary contusion , haemorrhages under the pia , wound to the jugular vein and multiple fractures of the ribs . In the experts\u2019 opinion , the jugular vein wound could not have been the only cause of death as it had not been accompanied by life - threatening symptoms such as acute massive blood loss , or an air or fat embolism . However , taken together with the other injuries , it had constituted a factor contributing to PERSON death . The same applied to the complex trauma to the head , chest and extremities , which was also a contributing factor , the combined effect of which led to the lethal outcome .","In response to particular questions put to them , the experts stated , inter alia , that the craniocerebral trauma had probably caused the coma , whereas the other injures had aggravated its course . They also submitted that it was possible that after having sustained the craniocerebral trauma , PERSON PERSON had been able to move independently for a short period of time . In cases of similar craniocerebral trauma , there could be periods DATE ranging from TIME when the injured person was able to talk and consciously perform certain actions . The craniocerebral trauma was caused by a hard blunt object with a limited surface . It could not be ruled out that it was caused by kicking with boots . However , there were no signs leading to the conclusion that it was caused by a baton . The experts further stated that inflammatory complications in the brain could not have developed in the course of the QUANTITY resuscitation efforts before PERSON PERSON \u2019s death . Lastly , having regard to the entry in PERSON PERSON \u2019s medical file to the effect that he had suffered from moderate blood loss , the experts stated that the results of the general blood test showed that blood loss had been light to moderate . They reiterated that PERSON death had been caused not by the blood loss alone but by a combination of factors .","On DATE the investigation was suspended .","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE the NORP ORG issued report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the results of the forensic examination ordered on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The conclusions were essentially the same as those of report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the NORP ORG issued report no . CARDINAL . It said that it was more likely that PERSON PERSON \u2019s craniocerebral trauma had been caused by CARDINAL blows , but that it could not be ruled out that the fractures of the skull had been sustained when he fell on a protruding object or hit his head against an object .","On DATE the investigation was suspended .","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","DATE the applicants asked the investigating authorities to conduct a number of investigative measures , such as questioning the forensic experts and conducting another forensic examination with the participation of a neurosurgeon , and to enclose certain documents in the case file . The requests were refused . The ORG complaints about the refusals to higher prosecuting authorities were dismissed .","On an unspecified date the applicants wrote to ORG with a request to review the accuracy of the forensic reports enclosed in the criminal case file .","On DATE ORG and ORG provided the second applicant with an opinion of ORG , a forensic expert , dated DATE and a report of the commission that examined the request . According to ORG , the experts from ORG had not assessed certain factors related to the craniocerebral trauma . He pointed out that the participation of a neurosurgeon in the examination would have been desirable . T. also stated that forensic report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had supported the conclusions of report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL without proper scientific substantiation , which cast doubt on the objectivity of the conclusions and their scientific accuracy . According to the findings of the commission , forensic examination no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had been conducted in breach of time - limits ; the commission \u2019s report had not corresponded to certain formal requirements ; the experts who had conducted the examination had used traditional methods accepted in forensic activity ; and , taking into account the nature of the trauma , the participation of a neurosurgeon in the examination would have been desirable .","On DATE the investigation was closed on the ground that the police ORG actions disclosed no indication of an offence .","On DATE the applicants complained about the decision to ORG . It is not clear whether the complaint was examined .","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE the investigation was closed .","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE the investigator ordered an additional forensic examination .","On DATE the investigation was suspended .","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","Following an order by the investigator , DATE and DATE another forensic examination on the basis of the case materials was conducted by CARDINAL experts , PERSON , B. , PERSON , from GPE for ORG . In report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL the experts stated , in particular , that it was more likely that Mr PERSON \u2019s craniocerebral trauma had been caused by CARDINAL blows to his head than by his falling down . More specific findings might be made following a detailed examination of the skull . In the PERSON opinion , there had been no symptoms of massive blood loss , and the craniocerebral trauma had been the only cause of PERSON PERSON \u2019s death . The experts assessed the other injuries as contributing to PERSON condition but not affecting the lethal outcome . There was no evidence of any inflammatory complications of the brain either .","On DATE ORG upheld an earlier refusal of the applicants\u2019 request to conduct DNA tests in respect of the broken table leg . According to the response , as no traces of blood had been found on the table leg in the course of the biological tests , there were no grounds for DNA tests .","On DATE the investigation was closed . The findings of the investigation may be summarised as follows : on DATE following the first applicant \u2019s request on the basis of a referral from GPE \u2019s ORG no . CARDINAL , police officers PERSON , PERSON and NORP accompanied by the first applicant , tried to escort Mr PERSON to a hospital . However , he refused to accompany them and resisted the police officers with the use of arms , wounding CARDINAL of them in the chest and finger . Given that PERSON committed a criminal offence by using violence against a police officer on duty and that he posed a danger to others , it was decided to ask a special police unit for support in order to apprehend him . After negotiations with PERSON had proved futile , the special unit officers stormed the flat . In the course of the operation they used rubber truncheons , handcuffs and means of defence . As a result of PERSON PERSON \u2019s actions , CARDINAL police officers sustained various injuries . As a result of the police operation , PERSON was apprehended and immediately transferred to hospital for medical assistance , as he had sustained injuries . He died on DATE .","NORP The statements of the applicants and of the police officers who took part in the events , forensic reports nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , and a report of a forensic psychological - psychiatric examination of DATE were cited in the decision to close the investigation .","It was also stated in the decision that the investigation had established that there had been lawful grounds for apprehending PERSON PERSON as he had posed a danger to himself and others . The police officers could not have left the flat without having apprehended him . Similarly , they were unable to use certain special tools as they would have endangered other residents . The police officers had valid reasons to call the special police unit for assistance , since PERSON had actively resisted them and had wounded CARDINAL of them in the chest . The use of special tools in order to apprehend him was also justified as his mental state and the fact that he had wounded a police officer were reasons to believe that he posed a real danger to them and might commit unlawful acts in respect of others or hurt himself . In accordance with ORG , police officers may use physical force if other means employed in order to fulfil their duties prove futile . A police officer may use special tools to repel attacks against the police and other citizens . In the present circumstances , the fact that the police inflicted light injuries on PERSON was justified by the necessity to apprehend him .","As regards the grave injuries , the decision noted that the results of the forensic expert examinations were conflicting . Whereas according to some of them Mr PERSON \u2019s death had been caused by massive blood loss , others concluded that it had been caused by the craniocerebral trauma . Therefore , the investigation was unable to establish with certainty the cause of death and had to take into account all the injuries . In particular , all the experts agreed that the neck wound had probably been caused by a glass shard . As PERSON was resisting the police from behind the balcony door in which there was broken glass , he probably sustained that wound when some of the police officers pulled him by the hand and he cut himself on a protruding glass shard . The police thus had no intention of injuring PERSON PERSON and he sustained the injury also as a result of his own actions . Such an injury , regarded as grave and possibly the cause of PERSON PERSON \u2019s death , could not have been foreseen .","NORP The decision of DATE further stated that the experts had not reached a unanimous conclusion concerning the cause of the craniocerebral trauma . Whereas some of the reports stated that it could have been caused as a result of Mr PERSON hitting his head against something or falling down , other reports concluded that it had probably been caused as a result of blows to the head . A definitive conclusion might have been reached following an additional examination of PERSON skull , but his relatives did not give their consent to exhumation and the investigator \u2019s request for exhumation was refused by the court . Therefore , there remained no further opportunities to clarify the cause of the injury , and the investigation still had certain doubts in that respect . Should the craniocerebral trauma have been caused as a result of PERSON falling onto protruding objects , no questions concerning the police ORG responsibility would arise . Should it have been caused by blows to the head , the investigation took the view that the police had had no intention of harming PERSON . That was confirmed by the fact that immediately after the storming of the flat , a doctor had been asked to provide him with medical assistance . From the witness statements it followed that the police had used rubber truncheons to knock the knife out of PERSON hands . It could not be ruled out that some of the blows had accidentally hit PERSON on the head . However , that would not have been intentional . In any event , any conclusions in that respect were of a probabilistic nature and could not be regarded as established facts , as the investigation had unresolvable doubts concerning the cause of the injury . Taking this into account , there was insufficient evidence to show that the police officers had committed an offence , and the investigation should therefore be closed .","On DATE the applicants complained to the investigating department of the Simonovskiy District of GPE about the closure of the investigation . The outcome of the complaint is unclear .","NORP On DATE the second applicant lodged a complaint before ORG concerning the inactivity of the Simonovskiy Inter - District Prosecutor \u2019s Office . She stated , in particular , that a number of investigative measures , including those ordered by a higher prosecutor \u2019s office , had not been carried out and that she had not been granted victim status in the proceedings .","On DATE ORG partially granted the complaint . It held that the refusal to grant the second applicant victim status in the investigation was unfounded and dismissed the remainder of the complaint . The applicants appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision .","On an unspecified date the applicants complained to ORG about the decision to suspend the investigation of DATE and the failure to examine a number of their requests for additional investigative measures .","On DATE ORG partially granted the complaint . It found unlawful the failure to examine the applicants\u2019 request , but dismissed the part of the complaint related to the suspension of the investigation . It is not clear whether the applicants appealed .","On DATE the second applicant complained to ORG about the decision of DATE to suspend the investigation , the failure to examine a number of her requests , the refusal to conduct certain additional investigative measures and the delays in the investigation .","On DATE ORG partially granted the complaint . It noted that the investigation had been resumed on DATE . The court found unlawful the failure to examine the second applicant \u2019s request for another forensic examination , the failure to provide her with decisions taken in respect of her other requests and the delays in the investigation .","On an unspecified date the second applicant complained to ORG about the failure of ORG to comply with the court \u2019s decision of DATE . She asked the court to find forensic report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL unlawful and to declare it inadmissible as evidence .","On DATE ORG granted the part of the complaint related to the failure to comply with the decision of DATE and dismissed the remaining part . The second applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .","On DATE the applicants complained to ORG about the continued failure of ORG to comply with the court \u2019s decision of DATE and the failure to grant a number of their requests for additional investigative measures .","On DATE ORG granted the part of the complaint related to the failure to comply with the decision of DATE and dismissed the remaining part . The applicants appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .","On DATE the applicants complained to ORG about certain investigative measures related to another forensic examination .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . The applicants appealed .","NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .","On an unspecified date the second applicant complained to ORG about the failure to examine a number of her requests related to certain investigative measures .","On DATE ORG granted the part of the complaint related to the failure to examine her request for another forensic examination and dismissed the remaining part .","On an unspecified date the applicants again complained to ORG about certain investigative actions related to another forensic examination .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint .","On DATE the applicants complained to ORG about the investigating authorities\u2019 refusal to let them study the case file , their refusal to include forensic report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in the case file , the failure to examine a number of the ORG requests in due time and the refusal of several requests for additional investigative measures .","On DATE ORG granted the part of the complaint related to the failure to examine a request submitted by the second applicant and the refusal to allow the applicants access to the case file . The remainder of the complaint was dismissed .","On DATE the second applicant complained to ORG about the decision to suspend the investigation of DATE and the investigating authorities\u2019 failure to inform the applicants of the suspension .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . The second applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .","On DATE the second applicant complained to ORG about the refusal of her request to question the forensic experts .","NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint .","On DATE the second applicant complained to ORG about the refusal of her request to declare report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL inadmissible evidence , to conduct an additional forensic examination and to adduce certain evidence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint .","On an unspecified date the second applicant requested the institution of criminal proceedings against PERSON and NORP , senior officers of the Nagatinskiy PERSON . She argued that their decision to storm Mr PERSON \u2019s flat had been unlawful and taken in abuse of their official powers , as it had been in breach of ORG .","On DATE the institution of criminal proceedings was refused . The decision stated , in particular , that as Mr PERSON had posed a danger to the police officers and other citizens , there had been grounds for storming the flat , and the use of rubber truncheons had been in accordance with the law .","Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that everyone has the right to life .","NORP In accordance with section PERSON ) of the PERSON on Police of DATE , in force until DATE , the police had to provide assistance to citizens who were victims of a crime , an administrative offence or an accident , or in a helpless or other state that threatened their health and life . Under section CARDINAL ) , following a request from a medical institution authorised by a court , the police had to bring to that institution for medical treatment persons suffering from illnesses who posed an imminent danger to themselves or others , or had committed a socially dangerous act and refused to go to the institution . For the purposes of crime prevention the police also had to ensure , jointly with the public health agencies and as provided for by the applicable legislation , the monitoring of persons suffering from mental disorders , drug addiction or alcoholism and posing a danger to others .","Section PERSON ) provided that the police were competent to apprehend and take to specialised institutions persons refusing compulsory medical treatment that had been prescribed in accordance with a legal procedure .","Section CARDINAL provided that the police could use force , special tools or firearms only in situations stipulated in the PERSON . When using force , special tools or firearms a police officer had to :","- warn about the intention to use them sufficiently in advance to enable the person to comply with the requirements of the police , except in cases where a delay might put in danger the life or well - being of other citizens or police officers , or entail other grave consequences , or where , given the circumstances , such a warning would be inexpedient or impossible ;","- try to minimise the possible damage , depending on the nature of the offence , the perpetrator and the resistance ;","- ensure that those injured were provided with medical assistance and notify their relatives as quickly as possible ;","- inform the prosecutor of any wounds or deaths .","Section CARDINAL further provided that those found guilty of abuse of powers when using force , special tools or firearms would be held liable .","Section CARDINAL authorised the police to use force , including martial arts , in order to prevent the commission of crimes and administrative offences ; to arrest persons who had committed them ; and to break down the resistance to lawful demands where non - violent means had failed to ensure the fulfillment of police duties .","Section CARDINAL provided a list of special tools , which included , but were not limited to , rubber truncheons , handcuffs , electroshock tools and tear gas . The special tools could be used by the police in the following circumstances :","( CARDINAL ) to repel attacks against citizens and police officers ;","( CARDINAL ) to break down the resistance to a police officer ;","( CARDINAL ) to apprehend a person caught red - handed and trying to escape ;","( CARDINAL ) to apprehend persons in respect of whom there were sufficient grounds to believe that they would resist the police with the use of arms ;","( CARDINAL ) to take those apprehended to a police station or to convey those subjected to administrative arrest if there were grounds to believe that they might flee , hurt themselves or others , or resist the police ;","( CARDINAL ) to release hostages ;","( CARDINAL ) to prevent mass disorders or group actions disrupting the functioning of traffic , communication or of other organisations ;","( CARDINAL) to stop a vehicle whose driver did not comply with a police officer \u2019s request to stop ;","( CARDINAL ) to identify persons who are committing or have committed a crime ;","( CARDINAL ) to protect citizens from an attack that threatens their life or well - being , as provided for by LAW ) .","Section CARDINAL further provided that the use of special tools was forbidden in respect of pregnant women , minors and disabled persons , except if they resisted the police with the use of arms or attacked them , thereby posing a danger to the life and well - being of other people . In a situation of justifiable self - defence or in an emergency , in the absence of special tools a police officer could use any available means . It was forbidden to equip the police with special tools which might cause excessively grave injuries or pose unjustified risks .","Under LAW , adopted by Order no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG and amended on DATE and DATE , the special police unit had the following tasks :","( CARDINAL ) ensuring personal safety and safety of property on the street and in other public spaces ;","( CARDINAL ) ensuring law and order and public safety on the street and in other public spaces and transport , and crime prevention ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP participation in the investigation of crimes ;","( CARDINAL ) providing assistance , within its competence , to citizens , officials , enterprises , organisations , agencies and public associations in exercising their rights and lawful interests ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP participation , together with other law - enforcement and military units , in the fight against terrorist , subversive and intelligence groups .","Under LAW the functions of special police units in fulfilling the above tasks include ensuring order at public events ; conducting raids in criminogenic areas ; identification and apprehension of terrorists and members of armed gangs ; conducting special operations for defusing explosive devices ; securing public order and safety in a state of emergency ; participation in operations conducted by other law - enforcement , security , customs or tax agencies .","Section CARDINAL of the Law on Psychiatric Assistance and Citizens\u2019 Rights in this Respect of DATE , as amended on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ( \u201c the Law on Psychiatric Assistance \u201d ) , provides that a person suffering from a mental disorder may be placed in a psychiatric hospital without his or her consent , or the consent of his or her representative , before a court had delivered a decision in this respect , if the person \u2019s examination or treatment is only possible on an inpatient basis and the mental disorder is grave and :","- poses an immediate danger to either himself or others ;","- renders the person incapable of attending to his basic needs ; or","- risks causing considerable harm to his health should the person be left without psychiatric assistance .","Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) police officers have to assist the medical personnel in carrying out the involuntary hospitalisation and ensure safe access to the person concerned and his or her examination . Should the police have to prevent the actions of the person posing a danger to the life and health of others , or to search for and apprehend the person , they must act as provided for in the Law on Police .","Under LAW , adopted by Order no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE of ORG and ORG , if it is necessary to carry out the involuntary hospitalisation of a person suffering from a mental disorder who poses a danger to himself or others and where there are reasons to believe that either he or his relatives would resist the hospitalisation , psychiatric emergency services personnel should contact the local department of the interior for assistance . The head of the department of the interior or his deputy should arrange for police officers to arrive at the relevant address at the required time .","Under LAW , involuntary hospitalisation is carried out by psychiatric emergency services personnel . Police officers conduct a search for the person in question and provide assistance in apprehending persons subject to involuntary hospitalisation , ensure public safety and safe conditions for access to the person subject to hospitalisation and prevent any unlawful actions of persons resisting the hospitalisation .","Article CARDINAL of the Code sets out the judicial procedure for the examination of complaints . The orders of an investigator or prosecutor refusing to institute criminal proceedings or terminating a case , and other orders and acts or omissions which are liable to infringe the constitutional rights and freedoms of the parties to criminal proceedings or to hinder ORG access to justice , may be appealed against to a local district court , which is competent to check the lawfulness and grounds of the impugned decisions ."],"violated_articles":["13","2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147490","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"POPOVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals and residents of the town of PERSON ( their further personal details are set out in the Appendix to this decision ) . They were all represented before the Court by PERSON NORP GPE , a lawyer practising in the same town . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were initially represented by their former Agent , Mr S. Cari\u0107 , and subsequently by their current Agent , PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The imposition and collection of a specific local tax","An assembly of the Majdanpek local community ( LOC mesna CARDINAL Majdanpek ) referred a proposal to its residents to levy a selfimposed local tax ( samodoprinos , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to fund the building \/ maintenance of certain facilities \/ utilities for the local community .","As a result of a ballot held DATE and DATE in the Majdanpek local community , the proposal was approved .","On DATE ORG hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) enacted an GPE introducing the ORG and elaborating on its purpose , administration and levying . The GPE , inter alia ,","( a ) specified the persons liable for the ORG ( poreski du\u017enici ) , the basis , rate and the method of its collection ( in the case of taxable incomes , \u201c deduction at source \u201d , the tax being paid by intermediary institutions ( poreski platci ) , that is , the ORG employers ( Articles CARDINAL ; see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) ;","( b ) identified the local community \u2019s current account X , held by the PERSON field office of ORG ( PERSON javna pla\u0107anja GPE , filijala Majdanpek ) , as the account to be used for the collection of the SILT ( LAW ) ;","( c ) identified the exact amounts to be allocated per year for services , and entrusted the ORG with adopting DATE plans in that regard ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) ;","( d ) limited , temporarily , the local community \u2019s power to levy the ORG to DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) or until the resources needed to fund the designated projects had been collected ( Article CARDINAL ) ;","( e ) designated the local community \u2019s finance departments to carry out the necessary financial administrative tasks and to track income and expenditure in accordance with the law ( LAW ) ;","( f ) stated that if the targeted amount was collected before the expiry of the time allotted for levying the ORG , the process should be discontinued and any overpayments repaid to the intermediary institutions in order to be passed on to the ORG taxpayers ( LAW ) ; and","( g ) provided that the legislation governing tax proceedings and tax administration should be applicable , as relevant , to various issues ( LAW ) .","It would appear that on an unspecified date , following certain legislative changes ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the finance department of the Majdanpek municipality ( PERSON uprava op\u0161tine PERSON - odeljenje za bud\u017eet , finansije i trezor ) informed all of its local communities , by an instruction of CARDINAL DATE , that all public revenues should be paid into the municipality \u2019s current account Y. It would appear that the Majdanpek local community received this instruction on DATE , but did not inform the applicants\u2019 employers of it .","NORP The applicants\u2019 liability to pay the ORG was discharged by their employers , who withheld their contributions on a \u201c pay - as - you - earn \u201d basis in the form of a periodic DATE deduction from their taxable wages . It would appear that various employers , including those of the applicants , continued to pay all or most of the contributions into account X.","Discontinuation of imposition of the ORG and the related refund proceedings","On DATE a non - governmental organisation informed the officials of the Majdanpek municipality that , in analysing the DATE financial reports of the Majdanpek local community , it had discovered that by DATE twice the targeted amount had already been collected .","It would appear that on DATE , on receiving the above information , the PERSON municipality requested an opinion on the collection of the ORG from ORG and ORG and ORG .","On DATE ORG , referring to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL(f ) above ) , stated that the ORG should have monitored the collection of incomes from the ORG on a regular basis and , if the required amount was collected before the expiry of the period of DATE , should have informed the taxpayers that collection of the ORG was being discontinued and that any overpayments would be refunded to them .","Following pressure from the inhabitants of PERSON and the re - election of the ORG \u2019s members , the newly formed ORG issued a decision on DATE to discontinue the levying of the ORG . On DATE the ORG also formed a ORG to establish the total amount collected in respect of the ORG . On DATE the levying of the ORG was discontinued .","On DATE , on the basis of the data provided by the relevant finance departments of the Majdanpek municipality and the corresponding local community , the Commission found that : ( a ) the targeted amount had been collected by DATE and , thereafter , a further ORG MONEY ( ORG ; CARDINAL euros on that date ) had been collected unlawfully and without cause ; ( b ) each taxpayer was entitled to claim a refund of the amounts deducted from his or her income after the said date ; and ( c ) a total of ORG remained in the current accounts into which the ORG had been paid .","On DATE ORG stated that the reimbursement of the overpaid public revenues \u2013 if the ground for collection of the public income had been wrong \u2013 should be carried out in accordance with the law governing the collection of public revenues and that refunds should be made from the relevant revenue account .","On an unspecified date in DATE the finance department of the Majdanpek municipality announced that it would refund overpayments to the ORG taxpayers once they had filed their claims in that regard .","According to a report from the finance department submitted by the Government , it dismissed CARDINAL applications as incomplete and adopted CARDINAL decisions for the refund of overpayments , of which CARDINAL were the subject of appeals . CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL appeals are pending , while CARDINAL have been decided upon . The first claim was submitted on DATE and , since then , a total amount of ORG DATE has been reimbursed to citizens , the latest payment being made on DATE . The finance department further clarified that it had refunded only the overpaid ORG which the ORG employers as intermediary institutions had paid into current account Y ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Following the instruction of CARDINAL DATE ( ibid . ) , the contributions paid into current account X ( see paragraph CARDINAL(b ) above ) could not be considered as overpaid ORG , but only as \u201c funds paid into the wrong current account \u201d .","According to the documents submitted by the applicants , the first CARDINAL applicants and CARDINAL other ORG taxpayers filed a claim with the finance department of the PERSON municipality requesting the refunding of overpayments made after DATE . DATE and DATE the finance department ruled on their claims as follows .","In CARDINAL cases , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the finance department refunded the claimants without making reference to any current account .","DATE and DATE the finance department , referring to its instruction of CARDINAL DATE , agreed to refund the other claimants , including the first CARDINAL applicants , only the overpaid ORG which their employers had paid into account ORG , and rejected the remainder of their claims . In so doing , it informed the first CARDINAL applicants and another CARDINAL claimants that they could appeal to ORG of ORG , and directed the remaining claimants to appeal to the ORG executive council ( PERSON ve\u0107e PERSON ) . On DATE the latter authority rejected all the appeals in a CARDINAL - sentence decision , on the same ground as that cited by the finance department .","It would appear that the first CARDINAL applicants and the other CARDINAL claimants did not appeal against the first - instance decisions .","NORP The remaining CARDINAL applicants and the majority of ORG taxpayers did not institute tax proceedings , but filed civil claims instead .","The relevant civil proceedings","DATE and DATE all of the applicants filed separate civil claims for unjust enrichment ( tu\u017eba zbog sticanja bez osnova ) with ORG \u2013 Majdanpek unit ( PERSON ORG jedinica Majdanpek ; hereinafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) , seeking a refund of the overpaid ORG from the PERSON municipality and the Majdanpek local community jointly , together with the statutory interest accrued . It would appear that CARDINAL SILT taxpayers in PERSON pursued the same remedy .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG ruled in favour of CARDINAL of the claimants . On DATE the ORG quashed this judgment , stating that the matter in issue should not be considered as a civil matter .","On DATE and DATE respectively the ORG lawyer applied to ORG and its President , requesting them to initiate proceedings before ORG to resolve the issue of civil jurisdiction in respect of the ORG refunds , in order to harmonise the domestic case - law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . On CARDINAL DATE he also submitted a request to ORG urging it to adopt an opinion on that issue . He did not receive any response to his requests .","Between DATE and DATE ORG Instance stated that it did not have competence ratione materiae to hear the applicants\u2019 cases . In its reasoning , the court considered the ORG as a source of primary income for municipalities ( izvorni prihod op\u0161tine ) . It observed that ORG , which defined tax matters as public - law matters between ORG on the one hand and natural and legal persons on the other , empowered the latter to request a refund of overpaid or erroneously levied tax and ancillary contributions in tax proceedings . The court further stated that the provisions of that LAW should accordingly be applicable to various ORG - related matters not specifically covered by LAW , and that , according to ORG , the powers of local government departments as regards the assessment , levying and control of the primary incomes of municipalities should correspond to the powers of ORG . Therefore , and also given that the Majdanpek local community had never adopted a decision revoking the ORG , the present disputes could not be characterised as civil - law disputes coming within the competence ratione materiae of the civil courts .","DATE and DATE the ORG upheld the first - instance decisions on appeal .","Other civil suits","The Constitutional Court declared null and void several ordinances enacted by other local governments imposing or extending the levying of the ORG as being unlawful or unconstitutional for various reasons .","On DATE ORG declared null and void CARDINAL such ordinance adopted by the ORG local community as it had , inter alia , retroactively imposed the ORG DATE . In apparently CARDINAL cases examined DATE , ORG and ORG accepted jurisdiction and upheld the claims for a refund of the above - mentioned unlawfully imposed ORG as being civil in nature . Referring to ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW and ORG ( see paragraphs DATE below ) , the courts in question ordered the ORG municipality and CARDINAL of its local communities to jointly refund the claimants ( see , for example , the final decisions of ORG of DATE , P. CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and PERSON of CARDINAL DATE ; and the decisions of ORG upholding the first - instance decisions of ORG , PERSON . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ; PERSON . CARDINAL of DATE ; CARDINAL of DATE ; CARDINAL of DATE ; CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ; CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) .","Constitutional remedies","In a constitutional appeal of DATE the first applicant contested the relevant judicial decisions in civil proceedings , relying on various Articles of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He claimed that ( i ) the summary dismissal of his civil claim had arbitrarily deprived him of judicial protection and of the expected refunds ; ( ii ) the municipal bodies had acted unlawfully , in an untimely manner and in breach of the rule of law and property rights when collecting the ORG and , thereafter , when ruling on his and others\u2019 claims ; and ( iii ) the divergent case - law of the competent courts in his case and of the domestic courts which had accepted jurisdiction ratione materiae in similar cases amounted to legal uncertainty , unequal protection of citizens before the law and discrimination against him . The applicant did not , however , provide ORG with copies of any of the judgments in which the civil courts had accepted jurisdiction in cases similar to his own .","On DATE ORG , referring to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , requested the applicant to provide a copy of the first - instance administrative decision in his case and , if he had appealed against it , of the second - instance decision .","On DATE the first applicant provided a copy of the finance department \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE , clarifying that he had not appealed against that decision to the executive council ( compare and contrast with paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He considered that avenue of redress to be futile in view of overall municipal policy and the rejection of claims in respect of contributions that had been paid into account X.","In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that the applicant had not been denied access to a court , given that the dispute in issue had been a \u201c tax administrative \u201d matter to be decided by the tax authorities rather than a civil matter for the civil courts .","It further dismissed the property - related complaints on the grounds that it \u201c could not identify any link between the applicant \u2019s allegations and the contested judicial decisions in civil proceedings \u201d . Nevertheless , ORG pursued its analysis , considering that the applicant and other ORG taxpayers should not have suffered harm on account of the PERSON local community \u2019s failure to amend its LAW and inform the tax intermediaries in a legally valid manner of the change in the relevant current account . It concluded that \u201c the applicant and his employer were entitled to request the reimbursement of overpayments from the Majdanpek local community in tax ( administrative ) proceedings , within the time - limits and prescription periods laid down by law , given that the overpayments had been paid into its current account \u201d .","The Constitutional Court further summarily dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint alleging unequal protection of rights , considering that the general allegations before it , which were unsupported by evidence ( pau\u0161alno izneti navodi ) , provided no constitutional basis for claiming a breach of that right . It also stated that there was no constitutional basis for examining the alleged violations of the general principles set out in Articles DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , given that no violation of substantive constitutional rights had been found .","NORP Throughout DATE the other CARDINAL applicants lodged constitutional appeals identical or very similar to that lodged by the first applicant . ORG decisions rendered in their cases DATE and DATE were summarised versions of its leading ruling in the first applicant \u2019s case .","The relevant provisions of the LAW relevant to the ORG appeals are as follows : Article CARDINAL ( direct application of guaranteed rights ) , LAW ( purpose of constitutional guarantees ) , LAW QUANTITY CARDINAL ( restriction of human rights ) , LAW CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( equality and prohibition of discrimination ) , LAW CARDINAL ( right to judicial protection of human rights ) , Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( right to a fair trial ) , LAW ( right to be awarded damages ) and LAW ( right to peaceful enjoyment of property ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that the ORG shall reject ( odbaci\u0107e ) a constitutional appeal when the appellant has failed , following an additional request issued in this regard , to furnish the court with all the relevant details indispensable for the proper conduct of the proceedings before it .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that the ORG shall reject a constitutional appeal whenever the relevant legal conditions for its examination have not been fulfilled . It is not required to issue any additional warning in this regard .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL refers to the compulsory information which must be contained in any constitutional appeal . This information includes : ( a ) the appellant \u2019s personal data ; ( b ) information concerning his or her legal counsel ; ( c ) the particulars of the decision being challenged ; ( d ) an indication of the relevant provisions of the LAW ; ( e ) a description of the violations alleged ; ( f ) the redress sought by the appellant ; and ( g ) the appellant \u2019s personal signature .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that appellants should also substantiate their constitutional appeals with any and all evidence of relevance for the determination of their case , provide a copy of the impugned decision , and demonstrate by means of supporting documents that all other effective remedies have already been exhausted .","According to this opinion , where a constitutional appeal lacks any of the compulsory elements ( obavezni elementi ) mentioned in LAW of LAW , the appellant should be invited to provide the additional information by a certain deadline or have the appeal rejected pursuant to LAW .","The provisions regarding the legal nature and administration of local taxation , including the self - imposed local tax ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , are set out in the following legal acts which have been amended or repealed on numerous occasions over DATE : ( a ) LAW DATE ( Zakon o lokalnoj samoupravi , published in ORG RS CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and DATE ) ; ( b ) LAW DATE ( OG RS no . CARDINAL , which came into force on DATE and repealed LAW ) ; ( c ) ORG ( Zakon o finansiranju lokalne samouprave , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , which came into force on DATE and repealed LAW on local government financing and Articles CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) ; ( d ) LAW CARDINAL ( Zakon o bu\u01c6etskom sistemu , ORG nos . CARDINAL ... CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ; ( e ) LAW DATE ( ORG RS nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) ; ( f ) the Act on Public Income and Public Expenditure ( Zakon o javnim prihodima i javnim rashodima , OG RS CARDINAL . CARDINAL ... DATE ) ; and ( g ) ORG o poreskom postupku i poreskoj administraciji , ORG RS nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ... CARDINAL ) .","The legal status of the ORG at the relevant time for the present cases will be summarised below . With the gradual decentralisation of governmentance in DATE , the assessment , collection and control of several taxes and revenues , including the ORG , were redefined and transferred entirely from central to local government level ( ORG , Articles DATE in that order ) . Accordingly , the local government units ( municipalities , towns and the city of GPE ) have , in principle , the same rights and duties as ORG of ORG with its field offices ( there are certain exception which are not relevant for the present case ; see Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG ) .","The ORG was initially defined as a source of primary public revenue either for local government units such as municipalities or for the lower tier of government , the local communities ( mesne zajednice ) , depending on whether the contributions in question were collected on and for the territory of the whole municipality or only the particular local community ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) . However , LAW DATE and ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 QUANTITY and QUANTITY respectively ) stipulated that the ORG was designed as a source of primary revenue exclusively for the local government units , and that the collected funds were credited to their budgets and strictly intended for specific purposes , while funds for the functioning of the local communities were provided only under specific budget headings .","Pursuant to ORG , where a majority of citizens vote in favour of imposing the ORG for specific investments ( for instance , to fund the building or maintenance of utility services or buildings of value to the community ) , contributions become mandatory and are required from all citizens with different taxable incomes , including those who voted against the ORG or did not vote at all ( Article CARDINAL ) . The competent local government authorities subsequently define the procedures for calculating and collecting the ORG in the relevant decision , except where this is done by applying the principle of \u201c deduction at source \u201d . In the latter case , the deduction of the ORG from taxable income is the responsibility of those who pay these personal incomes and\/or revenues ( intermediaries ; poreski platci ) , who deduct it when paying other applicable taxes and benefits ( LAW ) . The LAW also provides that the legislation governing tax proceedings and tax administration should be applicable , as relevant , to issues such as the manner of determination and assessment of the ORG , its collection , deadlines for payments , statutes of limitation , calculation of interest and other issues not specifically covered by the relevant legislation ( DATE ) .","Lastly , the municipality \u2019s administrative departments ( op\u0161tinsko uprava ) and the executive council ( op\u0161tinsko ve\u0107e ) respectively decide at first and second instance on administrative matters which fall within the competence of the municipality ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL respectively of LAW DATE ) .","DATE provides that a court of law can not refuse to consider a claim in respect of which its jurisdiction has been established by law or by LAW .","Article CARDINAL provides that ORG adjudicates in administrative matters .","DATE provides that ORG , inter alia , shall adopt general legal positions in order to ensure uniform application of the law by the courts .","Article CARDINAL provided that where there was a large number of cases pending at first instance raising the same preliminary legal issue , the court of first instance could , either of its own motion or at the request of CARDINAL of the parties , institute separate proceedings before ORG requesting the latter to resolve the issue in question . The lawsuits pending at first instance were stayed in the meantime . Article CARDINAL provided that ORG determined the request under the procedure for the adoption of its legal opinions and could refuse to examine it if the preliminary legal issue was not of prejudicial importance in a large number of pending cases .","LAW entered into force on DATE , thereby repealing the CARDINAL Act . Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL correspond , in principle , to the provisions of the DATE Act described at paragraph CARDINAL above , save that ORG has competence to rule on the request within DATE of receiving it and to adjudicate on the issue .","Under Articles DATE and CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and DATE , no administrative authority may take over an administrative matter which is within the jurisdiction of another authority and decide thereon , save where so provided by law . If the authority finds that it is not competent to receive written submissions , its officer shall advise the claimant or appellant accordingly and refer him or her to the competent authority . If the submission was received by mail , the authority shall immediately send the submission to the competent authority and notify the party thereof . If the authority which does not have competence can not establish with certainty which authority is competent in the matter , it must decline competence and serve that decision immediately on the party concerned .","Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides , inter alia , that ORG adjudicates on the lawfulness of final decisions rendered in administrative matters and\/or in the determination of rights , duties or direct personal interests based on the law , where judicial protection has not been secured otherwise .","Under LAW , an administrative matter within the meaning of this LAW is an individual situation of public interest where the necessity to legally and authoritatively determine the future conduct of a party arises directly from the provisions of the law .","According to LAW , the competent authorities for the purposes of this LAW are , inter alia , local government bodies .","Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that judicial review proceedings may be brought within DATE from the date on which the final decision was served on the party in question , or where an appellate administrative body fails to decide on an appeal lodged DATE previously and again fails to do so within DATE after receipt of the plaintiff \u2019s repeated request to this effect . The competent court should , in principle , hold a public hearing and may also rule in accordance with the principle of equity ( na\u010delo pravi\u010dnosti ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that if the competent court decides to uphold the action it shall quash the impugned administrative act in part or whole and order fresh consideration of the case ( spor ograni\u010dene jurisdikcije ) . Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides , however , that the competent court may instead rule on the merits of the claim , if the facts of the case and the very nature of the dispute in question allow for this particular course of action ( spor pune jurisdikcije ) . Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL provide details of other situations in which a claimant \u2019s request may be decided on the merits .","When deciding in a case concerning collection of the ORG , ORG considered that the municipality rather than the local community was the creditor in respect of the ORG for the purposes of standing to sue ( see PERSON of DATE ; see also ORG Bulletin no . ORG ) .","No details of the practice of ORG on ORG refunds , if any , have been provided . However , DATE and DATE ORG rendered CARDINAL judgments in cases concerning tax refunds . In CARDINAL of these judgments it quashed the administrative acts and\/or ordered fresh consideration of the case , while in CARDINAL cases it rejected ( odbio ) the applications for judicial review ( see CARDINAL U CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL ORG , CARDINAL U CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL U CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and PERSON ) .","Furthermore , in CARDINAL judgments rendered DATE and DATE ORG and ORG ( formerly the competent courts for judicial review in administrative matters ) , respectively , ruled on the merits of administrative disputes concerning property - related municipal decisions , pension entitlements , disability benefits , the right to stand for election and a proposed change in the registration of persons authorised to represent political parties ( see Up . br . PERSON , PERSON . DATE , U\u017e . CARDINAL , U.br . CARDINAL , ORG . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL ) .","Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL set out provisions concerning unjust enrichment ( sticanje bez osnova ; condictio sine causa ) . Under the general rule set forth in LAW , when a part of the property of CARDINAL person passes , by any means , into the property of another person and that transfer has no basis in a legal transaction or statute , the beneficiary is required to return the property . If restitution is not possible , he or she is required to provide compensation equal to the value of the benefit received . The obligation to return the property or provide compensation for its value arises even when it was received in connection with a cause which did not come into existence or which subsequently ceased to exist ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154354","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"AFFAIRE SANTOS SILVA c. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation de l'article 6 - Droit \u00e0 un proc\u00e8s \u00e9quitable (Article 6 - Proc\u00e9dure civile;Article 6-1 - D\u00e9lai raisonnable);Violation de l'article 13 - Droit \u00e0 un recours effectif (Article 13 - Recours effectif)","judges":"Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an action with the Santa PERSON ( domestic proceedings no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL.CARDINALTBVFR ) against different defendants regarding the right to use a water channel .","On DATE applicant rectified the initial application upon request .","On DATE the defendant I. lodged her submissions in reply ( contesta\u00e7\u00e3o ) and informed the court that defendant A. , her husband , had died in DATE .","On DATE defendant J. informed the Santa PERSON that defendant PERSON had died in DATE and that his heirs were living in GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE the Santa PERSON stayed the proceedings , pending the outcome of the inheritance proceedings in relation to the deceased defendants , after having given the applicant a deadline to submit to the case - file the death certificates of the deceased .","On DATE the applicant applied to the Santa PERSON for leave to continue the proceedings against the heirs of the deceased defendants ( incidente de habilita\u00e7\u00e3o de herdeiros ) . He submitted the relevant documents supporting his request on DATE , after being notified by the Santa PERSON .","On DATE the Santa PERSON admitted the heirs of the concerned defendants as parties to the proceedings .","On an unknown date the court , taking into account its decision of CARDINAL DATE , resumed the main proceedings .","On DATE the applicant was notified of the failure of the Santa PERSON to summon defendant PERSON","On DATE the Santa PERSON interrupted the proceedings for lack of action from the parties .","On DATE the applicant informed the court about the new address of defendant A. \u2019s heir .","On an unknown date the proceedings were resumed .","On DATE the Santa PERSON adopted a decision dismissing the applicant \u2019s claim for being time - barred .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision to ORG ( Tribunal da Rela\u00e7\u00e3o do PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG quashed the first instance decision and ordered a new trial .","The proceedings are still pending at first instance ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164668","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MARINOVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE she complained to ORG that the school teacher of her son , then aged DATE , had on several occasions ill - treated and humiliated him . In particular , she alleged that the teacher had hit the child DATE and had since then often insulted him , had made remarks about his parents in front of other pupils , and had belittled his performance at school . PERSON argued that this had amounted to harassment , and said that her son had become demotivated . The ORG examined the complaint , heard the teacher , PERSON son and other witnesses , and concluded that the allegation of ill - treatment had not been made out . It found that relations between PERSON and the teacher had been strained since DATE , when the father of her son had threatened the teacher in front of other pupils . The teacher had brought a private criminal prosecution against the father in relation to that , and the proceedings were pending .","NORP In DATE PERSON complained to the school \u2019s headmaster and the police that the teacher had taken her son \u2019s mobile telephone in class and had later refused to give it back .","NORP The prosecuting authorities opened criminal proceedings against an unknown perpetrator in connection with this allegation and in DATE suspended them on the ground that the perpetrator had not been identified .","In DATE the teacher brought a private criminal prosecution against PERSON in connection with these CARDINAL complaints . She submitted that she had not read them because the authorities dealing with them had not shown them to her . However , she had been asked to give explanations and from the questions put to her she had inferred that PERSON had accused her of having stolen a mobile telephone and described her as a biased and incompetent teacher using inappropriate disciplinary methods . At the first hearing of the case in DATE , the teacher brought a civil claim against PERSON , seeking MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , plus interest , in non - pecuniary damages .","On DATE the ORG found PERSON ORG guilty of defaming a public official , contrary to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) . The court replaced Mr LOC criminal liability with an administrative fine of BGN CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . It partly allowed the teacher \u2019s claim for damages , ordering PERSON to pay her BGN MONEY ( ORG MONEY ) , plus interest . It also ordered PERSON to pay the teacher \u2019s costs , amounting to ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) , and part of the court fee paid by the teacher , amounting to ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The court noted that relations between the teacher and PERSON had for a long time been bad . Having examined the findings of ORG and the prosecuting authorities in relation to PERSON complaints , the court concluded that her allegations , the first of which had become known to the school \u2019s headmaster and a pedagogical counsellor in the school , had been false and therefore defamatory . The court also held , without specifying the basis for its conclusion on this point , that PERSON had acted with direct intent . In fixing the amount of the fine , the court noted , inter alia , her poor financial situation .","PERSON appealed , arguing , inter alia , that complaining about a public official to the authorities did not amount to \u201c dissemination \u201d within the meaning of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . Such complaints could , in some cases , be seen as false accusation contrary to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON ORG also emphasised that she had not made her allegations publicly .","NORP In a final judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . It found that PERSON allegations that the teacher had ill - treated her son were not supported by the findings of ORG or her son \u2019s or the headmaster \u2019s testimony , and held that information was \u201c disseminated \u201d within the meaning of LAW even if CARDINAL person had become privy to it . The court found that the allegations in relation to the mobile telephone were false as well . It agreed that the statements in this respect in PERSON complaint to the police had amounted to a false accusation , and that the lower court had been wrong to characterise them as defamation . However , it stated that in the absence of an appeal by the teacher , it could not quash this part of the lower court \u2019s judgment . It upheld , without giving any details , the lower court \u2019s finding that PERSON had acted with direct intent .","To obtain payment of the award of damages and costs , the teacher brought enforcement proceedings against PERSON . It is unclear how these ended .","Mr GPE was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE he was stopped by CARDINAL road traffic police officers . CARDINAL of them recorded that Mr GPE had failed to obey a stop sign . Mr GPE objected , noting down in the record that the officer had refused to present himself , smelled of alcohol and staggered . In written explanations which he filed with ORG on DATE , Mr PERSON reiterated his allegations and said that the officer had behaved aggressively .","Mr GPE \u2019s allegations triggered an internal inquiry which exonerated the officer of any wrongdoing .","In DATE the officer brought a private criminal prosecution against Mr GPE in relation to these allegations . He also claimed ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damages .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG found Mr GPE guilty of defaming a public official , contrary to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) . The court replaced his criminal liability with an administrative fine of BGN CARDINAL ( FAC ) . It partly allowed the officer \u2019s claim for damages , ordering Mr GPE to pay him BGN CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) , plus interest . It also ordered Mr GPE to pay BGN MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) in court fees . The court examined in detail the results of the internal inquiry carried out pursuant to Mr GPE \u2019s allegations , tests carried out TIME after the incident on DATE and showing that the officer had not consumed alcohol , and the oral evidence of the other officer present at the scene and the ORG superior . It concluded that Mr GPE \u2019s allegations did not correspond to the truth . It went on to find that Mr PERSON had not been certain of the truthfulness of his allegations , but had nevertheless chosen to make them , both in the record drawn up by the officer in the course of the incident on DATE and in his subsequent written explanations .","Mr GPE appealed . He argued , inter alia , that his statements , made in the exercise of his constitutional rights and only addressed to the officer \u2019s superior , had not amounted to \u201c dissemination \u201d within the meaning of the LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . He also relied , inter alia , on LAW and this ORG \u2019s caselaw under this provision .","In a final judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . It found it established that the officer had not displayed any signs of inebriation , which in the court \u2019s view meant that Mr PERSON had been fully aware that the officer had not been drunk but had nevertheless chosen to make his allegations , thus acting with a direct intent to discredit the officer . Those allegations , whose purpose had been to smear the officer and at the same time exonerate Mr GPE from liability for the road traffic offence recorded by the officer , could not be justified by the right to defend oneself against administrative - penal charges or the right to freedom of expression . The court ordered Mr GPE to pay the officer \u2019s costs for the appellate proceedings , amounting to ORG ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","Mr GPE was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE Mr GPE , who was driving his lorry , was stopped by CARDINAL road traffic police officers . CARDINAL of them allegedly requested a bribe . PERSON promised to bring him the money in TIME and left his identity card and the vehicle \u2019s documents with the officers . He then called the police and informed the officer on duty of the incident .","On DATE and CARDINAL and DATE Mr Findulov made complaints to ORG , ORG and the Minister of ORG , alleging that one of the officers who had stopped him , whose identity was not known to him , had requested a bribe and had withheld his documents .","On DATE ORG of ORG replied to PERSON that his complaint was illfounded .","According to PERSON , on DATE he found his identity card in his mail box . The vehicle \u2019s documents were never recovered .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of ORG of ORG found , on the basis of a report by the CARDINAL traffic police officers issued in PERSON Findulov \u2019s absence , that he had not used a seatbelt , that one of the tyres of his lorry had been worn out , that he had refused a breathalyser test , and that he had driven away in an unknown direction . It gave Mr Findulov CARDINAL administrative fines of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL administrative fine of BGN CARDINAL , stripped him of CARDINAL control points from his driving licence , and barred him from driving a motor vehicle for DATE .","Mr GPE sought judicial review of that decision . On DATE the ORG found that no appeal lay against the ORG CARDINAL fines and discontinued the proceedings in that part . It quashed the remainder of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , finding that the report of the traffic police officers had not been communicated to Mr GPE . In a final judgment of DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","On an unspecified date in DATE , the officer accused by Mr Findulov of soliciting a bribe brought a private criminal prosecution against him in relation to that allegation . He also sought ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in nonpecuniary damages .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found Mr GPE guilty of defaming a public official , contrary to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) . It sentenced him to a fine of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and a public reprimand . It partly allowed the officer \u2019s claim for damages , ordering Mr GPE to pay him BGN CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) . It also ordered PERSON GPE to pay ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in court fees . The court noted that in his complaints PERSON had not named the officer , but found that he had been identifiable from the complaints , which clearly alleged that he had requested a bribe , thus accusing him of an offence before third parties . The offence of defamation did not require that those third parties \u2013 the officer \u2019s hierarchy \u2013 had actually believed the allegations or taken any action in relation to them . PERSON , who under LAW ( see paragraph DATE above ) bore the burden of proof in this respect , had failed to establish that the officer had in fact solicited a bribe . The court went on to say , without explaining the reasons for this conclusion , that Mr Findulov had acted with direct intent . When fixing the sentence , the court noted that it could not replace Mr GPE \u2019s criminal liability with an administrative punishment as this was a CARDINAL - off possibility and PERSON had previously benefited from a waiver of his criminal liability in relation to a road traffic offence . In fixing the award of non - pecuniary damages to the officer , the court noted that ORG allegations had been particularly damning .","Mr GPE appealed .","In a final judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . It entirely agreed with the reasons given by that court , adding that Mr Findulov had been fully aware that his allegations against the officer were false but had nevertheless chosen to defame him . The court also ordered PERSON to pay BGN MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) incurred by the officer in costs for the appeal proceedings .","The public reprimand was executed , as ordered by the court , by announcing Mr GPE \u2019s conviction and sentence on the local radio station . To obtain payment of the award of damages and costs , the officer brought enforcement proceedings against ORG . It is unclear how these ended .","Mr GPE was born in DATE . PERSON was born in DATE . Both of them live in GPE .","The CARDINAL of them had a long - running conflict with neighbours of theirs . On DATE tensions escalated and PERSON and PERSON called the police , complaining that they had been assaulted by the neighbours . CARDINAL officers came and warned CARDINAL of the neighbours not to harass the applicants .","On DATE Mr and PERSON complained to the head of LOC against the officers , alleging that they had shown no interest in the incident and had failed to protect them , instead inviting the aggressors in the patrol car and \u201c muttering with them \u201d . PERSON and PERSON sent copies of the complaint to ORG , the head of ORG , and the Minister of ORG . On DATE the head of LOC informed PERSON and PERSON that an internal inquiry had established that their complaint was ill - founded .","On an unspecified date in DATE the officers brought a private criminal prosecution and claims for damages against Mr and PERSON .","In a judgment of DATE , LOC found PERSON and PERSON guilty of defaming public officials , contrary to ORG and CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) . It sentenced each of them to a fine of ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) and a public reprimand . The reprimand was to be executed by announcing the conviction and sentence on the local radio station . The court also partly allowed the ORG claims for damages , ordering the applicants to pay each of them LAW ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","On appeal , in a final judgment of DATE ORG upheld the conviction with similar reasoning but reduced the fine imposed on each applicant to ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","After the Government were given notice of the application ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , they brought PERSON and PERSON case to the attention of ORG . In DATE the Chief Prosecutor ad interim asked ORG to reopen the proceedings , set aside the judgments against PERSON and PERSON , and acquit them . He submitted that the statements in their complaint against the officers had not been defamatory but simply an expression of their disapproval of the way in which the officers had carried out their duties . Under the case - law of this ORG and the case - law of ORG , public officials could legitimately be subjected to heightened criticism . Accepting , as the GPE courts had , that critical statements in complaints against such officials were defamatory would mean that the vast majority of claims and complaints filed with the courts and the prosecuting authorities by nonlawyers could lead to penal sanctions .","NORP In a final judgment of DATE ( \u0440\u0435\u0448. \u2116 ORG \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u0433. \u043f\u043e \u043d. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. , \u0412\u041a\u0421 , III \u043d. \u043e. ) , ORG allowed the request , reopened the proceedings , set the CARDINAL judgments aside , acquitted PERSON and PERSON , and dismissed the claims for damages against them . It held that their actions had not amounted to an offence . The statements in their complaints had been an expression of their disapproval of the way in which the officers had carried out their duties , and an exercise of their constitutional rights to make complaints to the authorities , express their opinion , and defend their rights . The statements had been value judgments which could not be proved or disproved , and could not be regarded as defamatory . Defamation could only consist in the imputation of concrete negative facts . The statements did not give rise to liability in damages either ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161532","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KOLESNIKOVICH v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;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);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and until his arrest lived in GPE . He is currently serving a sentence in a correctional colony in LOC .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated kidnapping , murder , fraud and conspiracy .","On DATE ORG found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment . DATE were to be served in a prison and the remaining term in a high - security correctional colony .","On DATE ORG upheld his conviction and sentence on appeal .","The parties provided the ORG with the applicant \u2019s medical documents , including clinical records , discharge summaries and expert reports . Parts of the clinical records drawn up during his detention and submitted to the ORG by the Government are illegible .","On several occasions before his arrest the applicant underwent inpatient and outpatient treatment in civilian hospitals . DATE he was treated for cerebral concussion , cerebral contusion , vertebral contusion , knee pain and a duodenal ulcer .","After his arrest on DATE the applicant was taken to a police detention facility in GPE . DATE he was transferred to remand prison no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the remand prison \u201d ) , also in GPE , where resident doctors carried out a general check - up , noting in the medical file that he had sustained a brain injury and suffered from a duodenal ulcer . The doctors found him fit for detention , noting that detention in northerly regions should be avoided .","According to the applicant , in DATE and in DATE he complained to the prison doctor about various health problems , including stomach pain , but his complaints remained unnoticed by the authorities . His medical records for the period DATE did not contain any entries regarding his complaints , medical examinations or treatment in that period .","On DATE the prison doctor saw the applicant after he complained of stomach pain and deteriorating eyesight . He diagnosed the applicant with a duodenal ulcer in the acute phase and myopia , but did not prescribe any treatment . He noted that a specific endoscopy was to be performed .","On DATE and CARDINAL and DATE the trial court adjourned its hearings in the applicant \u2019s case as he did not feel well and had complained of severe stomach pain . The court asked the detention authorities to submit detailed information on his actual state of health .","In DATE the applicant received injections of drotaverine allegedly provided by his mother , a retired doctor , to relieve his stomach pain . On DATE , at a court \u2019s request , a deputy head of the prison medical ward examined the applicant and observed that he was receiving treatment for an acute duodenal ulcer . In addition , he noted that the applicant was to be transported to ORG no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the prison hospital \u201d ) for the fibrogastroduodenoscopy ordered in DATE .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the prison hospital . Multiple tests performed there led to him being diagnosed with first - stage myopia , a duodenal ulcer in remission and duodenitis associated with cicatricial deformation of the duodenum bulb . Omeprazole was prescribed . Insofar as the submitted medical records could be deciphered , the applicant did not receive the prescribed treatment .","In DATE the applicant was transported to the prison hospital for the second time . This time the doctors prescribed him medication for his myopia and neurological symptoms resulting from the trauma in DATE . The medical records did not contain any information on the actual intake of drugs by the applicant .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s stomach pain came back . A fibrogastroduodenoscopy showed that he suffered from duodenitis with cicatricial deformation of the duodenum bulb and antral gastritis . The resident doctor saw him in DATE and DATE , prescribing him drug treatment and a special diet . The applicant \u2019s medical records do not contain any information indicating that the doctor \u2019s recommendations were followed .","On DATE the applicant underwent an in - depth medical examination in the prison hospital . It showed that in addition to his peptic problems , erosive duodenitis and antral gastritis , the applicant had developed first - stage sensorineural hearing loss and his myopia had progressed slightly . A drug programme and special diet were recommended . According to the applicant , the recommendation was not followed by the authorities . His medical documents contain no entries in this regard .","NORP In DATE the court had to adjourn several hearings in the applicant \u2019s criminal case owing to his severe stomach pain . It ordered the detention authorities to provide him with anti - ulcer treatment . At DATE the applicant was examined in a civilian hospital , which diagnosed him with an aggravated ulcer and acute gastritis . Inpatient treatment was prescribed . The authorities did not admit him for it .","The next recurrence of the applicant \u2019s ulcer occurred in DATE . According to the medical records , the applicant did not receive any drugs at that time . An examination on DATE showed that his ulcer had grown and the duodenitis and gastric disease had progressed further . A civilian doctor who visited him recommended inpatient treatment , but he remained in the remand prison . The resident doctor prescribed drug treatment in DATE and DATE . However , the medical records contain no information concerning the actual provision of the prescribed drugs to the applicant . According to him , CARDINAL of the drugs was made available to him . His mother sent him the required drugs in DATE to enable him to receive at least some relief .","A new acute stomach pain attack occurred in DATE . The applicant was immediately taken to the prison hospital for an QUANTITY - ray examination and a surgical consultation . The surgeon concluded that the applicant \u2019s condition did not call for surgery . Over DATE the applicant was diagnosed with duodenitis and recurring acute gastritis which had passed to the chronic stage . Drug treatment was prescribed , but the ORG was not given any records showing that he actually received it .","In the meantime the applicant started complaining of mild knee pain and impeded nasal breathing allegedly caused by a broken nose in DATE while in detention on remand . He stated that he had received some medication for knee pain , but had not undergone any septal surgery .","In DATE the applicant underwent a magnetic resonance imaging scan of the brain and spine in a civilian hospital . He paid for the scan himself , which revealed the presence of ORG \u2019s nodes , protruded discs , spondylarthrosis and a haemangioma in one of the spinal discs . It also indicated moderate changes within local tissue associated with a cerebrospinal fluid cyst in the arachnoid membrane of the brain . These diagnoses were confirmed by the prison doctor , who found that the applicant \u2019s condition did not call for surgical treatment .","The applicant was sent to a prison to serve his sentence .","On DATE the applicant arrived at the prison in GPE in LOC ( \u201c the prison \u201d ) . On admission he was seen by a prison doctor , who considered him to be in satisfactory health . He was included on a list of detainees subject to regular medical check - ups and enhanced medical attention .","DATE he was diagnosed with acute gastritis and degenerative disc disease . He was prescribed a fibrogastroduodenoscopy and several drugs , including nonsteroidal antiinflammatory medication and medication to treat his gastritis . He refused to comply with the ORG recommendations pertaining to the endoscopy and anti - inflammatory drugs , insisting that they would lead to a further deterioration of his ulcer . He nevertheless took the medication prescribed for gastritis treatment . According to the medical records , the ulcer treatment continued for DATE .","In the meantime , an independent medical specialist and neurologist , PERSON , assessed the applicant \u2019s health and prepared a report on CARDINAL DATE . It stated that he should be admitted to a neurological or neurosurgical medical facility , where his spinal problems could be treated with nonsteroidal anti - inflammatory medication , neuromuscular blocking agents and painkillers . The doctor gave detailed recommendations concerning the applicant \u2019s treatment .","On DATE the prison doctor prescribed the applicant vitamin injections and pain - relief ointment to treat his spinal problems . DATE the doctor authorised TIME rest from physical activity and prescribed nonsteroidal anti - inflammatory medication , spasm relief analgesics and omeprazole for his peptic problems .","In the absence of any positive developments , in DATE the doctor amended the spinal treatment and introduced a stronger antiinflammatory drug .","In DATE the applicant was transferred to the prison hospital . Tests showed that his conditions had not progressed . The gastritis and duodenal ulcer were in remission . The applicant was prescribed omeprazole and sucralfate - based medication . According to an entry made in his medical history on DATE , his attending doctor recommended testing for the bacteria ORG pylori ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) . The test was never performed .","After the applicant \u2019s return to the prison his treatment continued in line with the recommendations of the prison hospital doctors . He received meloxicam and omeprazole . However , in DATE his duodenal ulcer again worsened . The acute phase lasted DATE .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a number of medical specialists from a mobile prison hospital . He was diagnosed with a duodenal ulcer in remission , chronic gastritis , erosive duodenitis , osteoarthritis of the left knee , PERSON \u2019s syndrome , degenerative disc disease , acute back pain and second - stage myopia . He was prescribed drug treatment . The records do not indicate that he received all of the prescribed medications .","On DATE the prison authorities received a parcel of medication from the applicant \u2019s mother . He was treated with those drugs until DATE , when he was sent to a correctional colony .","On DATE the applicant arrived at correctional colony no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE . He complained to the resident doctor of nausea and was diagnosed with an ulcer and degenerative disc disease . He was put on a list of detainees for close medical supervision . The doctor noted that the applicant required anti - recurrence ulcer treatment and in - depth examinations DATE , recording that it was necessary for him to be placed on a special diet when the ulcer recurred .","On DATE the applicant was seen by doctors from the mobile prison hospital and underwent a fibrogastroduodenoscopy . It revealed that he had antral gastritis . According to him , his mother bought him medication for the ulcer treatment and sent it to the correctional colony .","In DATE the applicant had another severe attack of stomach and back pain . The prison doctor prescribed him drugs , injections of painkillers and vitamins . According to the Government , he refused to take CARDINAL of the drugs , a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory . He disputed that allegation .","On DATE the applicant filed a complaint against the prison administration , arguing that his treatment fell short of the requirements of NORP law . He stressed that the authorities had failed to properly treat his conditions .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint , finding that the authorities had provided him with adequate treatment . According to the court , he was regularly seen by a doctor and prescribed medication , including anti - inflammatory drugs and painkillers . They were given to the applicant as prescribed . His condition remained stable between DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182174","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TKACHEV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a life sentence in GPE .","By the final domestic judgment of DATE , the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and other crimes .","Until DATE the applicant was detained in the ORG pre - trial detention centre ( \u201c the ORG SIZO \u201d ) in which , he stated , cells had been overcrowded and had lacked basic amenities .","NORP In DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL in PERSON ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) , where he remained until DATE .","The applicant stated that during his detention in the above ORG , one of his cellmates had been PERSON , a former applicant to the Court , with whom he had shared the cell for DATE . PERSON application has already been examined by the ORG , which found , in particular , a violation of LAW on account of the conditions of his detention in the above Colony ( see PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","According to the applicant , during his stay in the ORG he was held in a cell , in which the living space was \u201c extremely insufficient \u201d . As confirmation thereof , he referred to a written statement signed by PERSON Guk , which he had submitted to the ORG . According to that statement , the cell measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY ( QUANTITY ) including a sanitary facility measuring QUANTITY ( QUANTITY ) .","The cell lacked basic amenities : no furniture for storage of personal belongings and food ; a very small table ; no rubbish container ; and no toilet cleaners . The tap water was of a poor quality and water filters were not provided . Heating in the cell was inadequate ; the air was damp and cold ; the walls were covered with mould .","According to the Government , the equipment in the applicant \u2019s cell corresponded to the domestic standards . Prisoners were provided with all necessary amenities . The quality of the tap water corresponded to the standards . The temperature in the cell was not QUANTITY and the air in the cell was neither damp nor cold .","According to the applicant , the washing unit in the ORG had no changing facilities , so the prisoners had first to undress in their cells . A guard watched them wash and hurried them up . The prisoners had to shave with poor - quality razors . Prisoners with tuberculosis washed in the same unit as healthy prisoners ; no disinfection measures were taken . Sick and healthy prisoners took their DATE walks in the same courtyards , which were also small , damp and dark .","Whenever the guards opened the cell , the prisoners had to retreat to its far corner , squat and put their arms behind their heads . When taken out of the cell , the applicant was handcuffed ; he was required to walk in a squat or some other unnatural position ; his head was covered with a black bag ; handcuffs were not disinfected .","NORP Until DATE the prisoners had been required to roll up their mattresses in TIME . During the daytime they had been prohibited from lying down on the beds .","NORP In support of the above submissions , the applicant referred to the written statement of PERSON , which confirmed the procedure the prisoners had had to follow when the guards had opened the cell . It also stated that , when taken out of the cell , the prisoners had been handcuffed and escorted in a crouched position ; a bag had often been put over a prisoner \u2019s head . Sick and healthy prisoners washed in the same unit and walked in the same courtyard . Mattresses on the beds had to be rolled up during the daytime .","The applicant also stated that the administration had carried out searches of personal belongings , leaving them in disorder and often damaged ; his watch had been stolen by an unidentified guard . Prisoners had not been provided with adequate medical assistance ; they had been constantly ill - treated by the administration . In DATE the applicant had been regularly beaten by the guards . In DATE family visits had not been adequately organised . The applicant \u2019s correspondence with relatives had been reviewed and a number of his letters had disappeared .","The Government stated that the washing unit had a changing room . Disinfection measures in the ORG had fully complied with the domestic standards . Prisoners with tuberculosis were detained in a separate cell ; they washed after others , and the washing unit was disinfected afterwards .","Whenever the cell was opened , the prisoners were required to retreat to its far end , but not to squat . When escorted out of the cell , they were handcuffed , but not required to walk in a squat or with the head covered with a bag ; handcuffs were in a proper condition and their disinfection was not required .","Searches were conducted pursuant to the relevant regulations , and there were no situations alleged by the applicant . Prisoners were not prohibited to use mattresses during the daytime ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180835","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ZENG\u0130N AND \u00c7AKIR v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE and live in GPE and NORP respectively .","On DATE the applicants participated in reading out a press statement in commemoration of PERSON , the leader of ORG ( ORG \u2013 NORP \/ PERSON ) , who had died in DATE , allegedly under torture in police custody .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against CARDINAL people , including the applicants , charging them with disseminating propaganda in favour of the TKP \/ ML , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act ( Law no . ORG ) . According to the indictment , during the gathering , the second applicant had read out a press declaration containing statements praising the TKP \/ ML and PERSON , and the following slogans had been chanted by the demonstrators : \u201c PERSON is our leader \u201d , \u201c Our struggle continues and shall continue \u201d , \u201c PERSON is immortal \u201d , \u201c Down with the GPE \u201d and \u201c We will drown fascism in the blood it has shed \u201d . The group had also carried a banner which read \u201c PERSON is immortal NORP \u201d .","On DATE the ORG found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced each of them to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG . In its judgment , the assize court held that the applicants had disseminated propaganda in favour of the TKP \/ ML , given that the second applicant had read out the press statement and the first applicant had chanted slogans . The court based its judgment on a report prepared by an expert regarding a police video - recording of the public gathering in question .","Taking into account the applicants\u2019 good behaviour during the trial and the fact that they had no previous criminal convictions , the court suspended pronouncement of the applicants\u2019 conviction on the condition that they did not commit another intentional offence for DATE , under LAW ( h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 ) .","The applicants filed an objection against the decision of DATE . In their petition , they stated that the first - instance court had erred in interpreting the facts and the law , and they asked to be acquitted of the charges against them . They further stated that their prosecution had constituted a breach of LAW .","On DATE ORG held that the application of LAW in the case was in line with the domestic law , and rejected the applicants\u2019 objection without examining the merits of the case . That decision was served on the applicants on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160258","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00dcRB\u00dcZ AND \u00d6Z\u00c7EL\u0130K v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and are currently serving their prison sentence in LOC .","On DATE the applicants were arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation . On CARDINAL and DATE respectively , the first applicant gave detailed police statements in the absence of a lawyer . On DATE , the second applicant was also interrogated by the police in the absence of a lawyer , and he used his right to remain silent .","On DATE both applicants were examined at ORG . According to the medical report , there was no trace of ill - treatment on their bodies .","On DATE , still in the absence of a lawyer , the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge . Before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , both applicants gave statements , and the second applicant complained that he had been ill - treated in police custody . The investigating judge remanded the applicants in custody .","On DATE ORG at ORG filed an indictment with that court and accused the applicants of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory . He sought the death penalty under LAW .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG held a preparatory hearing . It decided that the applicants\u2019 detention on remand should be continued . DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL civilian judges and a military judge , held CARDINAL more hearings . On DATE the constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of ORG was replaced by a civilian judge . Thereafter , the court held CARDINAL more hearings . During the hearings , the applicants alleged that they were ill - treated under police custody .","On DATE ORG , which was composed of CARDINAL civilian judges , found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to life imprisonment under LAW . In convicting the applicants , ORG had regard to the ORG statements to the police , the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG . This decision was deposited with ORG first instance court on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166740","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF NICHIFOR v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was a shareholder in a limited liability company created in DATE with a registered capital of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) ) . At the time of the events he owned PERCENT of the company \u2019s shares . CARDINAL of the shares was owned by ORG","On DATE ORG lodged an action with ORG seeking the applicant \u2019s exclusion from the list of shareholders on the grounds , inter alia , that he had not paid for his part of the shares , that is to say he had only paid ORG CARDINAL instead of MDL CARDINAL . The applicant objected , claiming that the action was time - barred : under the relevant law , it had to be introduced within DATE of the creation of the company . The applicant also presented bank documents which showed that ORG had not paid his part of the shares until DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the action against the applicant on the grounds that it was time - barred . ORG appealed .","The hearings before ORG took place on CARDINAL different dates : DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE ORG \u2019s representative submitted that the applicant had not paid his contribution and that he had been asked to do so every year since the creation of the company in DATE . When asked whether there were any minutes to confirm the contention that the applicant had been summoned to pay his contribution , he answered that he was not aware of any such minutes .","On DATE ORG \u2019s representative presented for TIME of a meeting of the company \u2019s shareholders , which had allegedly taken place on DATE . The minutes showed that the applicant had admitted to not having paid for the totality of his shares and had pledged to pay within DATE or lose his status as a shareholder in the company .","The applicant objected that the minutes in question had been forged . He argued , inter alia , that his first name had been spelt wrongly and that the signature was not his . He requested that an expert authentication of his signature be carried out . His request was not mentioned in the transcript of the hearing .","NORP On DATE the parties made their closing statements at the hearing before ORG . The applicant reiterated that TIME of a ORG meeting dated DATE had been forged and requested that an expert authentication be carried out . A document containing his submissions was attached to the file .","On DATE adopted a judgment in the case by which it upheld the appeal , reversed the judgment of the first - instance court and found in favour of ORG In ruling on the case , ORG relied entirely on TIME of the ORG meeting dated DATE .","DATE after the pronouncement of the judgment , the applicant had access to the case file and noted that the transcript of the hearing of DATE did not contain a record of his request for an expert authentication of his signature . He made an official request to have the transcript corrected . However , on CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected his request .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG claiming , inter alia , that the proceedings had been unfair because ORG had used as the main and sole piece of evidence in the ruling against him a forged document , namely TIME of a ORG meeting dated DATE . ORG had given decisive weight to that document in spite of his express statement that the signature on the document was not his . He had requested to have the document authenticated by an expert , but the court had rejected his request without giving any reasons . He stressed that ORG had not relied on TIME either in his initial action or in his appeal against the judgment DATE . He had presented them for the first time during the fourth hearing before ORG . In support of his assertion that the TIME in question had been forged , the applicant submitted evidence that CARDINAL DATE he had been undergoing medical treatment in GPE and could not therefore have attended a NORP meeting held on DATE . He presented documents issued by the NORP border authorities and NORP stamps in his passport confirming his travel to GPE between the above - mentioned dates . He also reiterated his objection concerning the statute of limitations and urged ORG to quash the judgment of ORG and order a re - examination of the case .","In the proceedings before ORG , ORG presented for the first time a copy of TIME of a meeting of the company \u2019s shareholders which had allegedly taken place on DATE . In TIME the applicant was recorded as acknowledging that in TIME dated DATE , the date had been wrongly indicated and that the correct date should have been CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , upholding the judgment of ORG . It did not respond to the applicant \u2019s argument that ORG \u2019s action was time - barred or to the contention that ORG judgment had been based on a forged document . Nor did ORG respond to the applicant \u2019s argument that ORG had rejected without any reasons his request for an expert authentication of TIME . Instead , relying on TIME , ORG concluded that the applicant had not paid the totality of his shares in the company . ORG did not mention TIME dated DATE presented by ORG in the proceedings before it .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against ORG , alleging that he had forged the company TIME dated DATE . In the course of the criminal proceedings , an expert from ORG presented his report dated DATE , in which he concluded that the signature on TIME of the company ORG meeting dated DATE did not belong to the applicant . The criminal proceedings are pending ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172655","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BOROVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants complained about the excessive length of various criminal and civil proceedings ( see the appendix to this judgment ) .","All the applicants obtained decisions by ORG that found a violation of their right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded them various sums of money in respect of non - pecuniary damage ( see appendix ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181789","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF NA\u00cfT-LIMAN v. SWITZERLAND","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgios A. Serghides;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Pauliine Koskelo;Pieter Van Dijk;Robert Spano;Yonko Grozev;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , in GPE ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) , and lives in GPE in the GPE of GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","According to the applicant , on DATE he was arrested by the NORP police at his place of residence in GPE and taken to ORG in GPE , where he was presented with a bill of indictment stating that he represented a threat to NORP State Security . He alleges that he was then taken to GPE by NORP officials . By his own account , he has never instituted proceedings against the NORP authorities in respect of those events .","The applicant further submits that he was arbitrarily detained and tortured in GPE in the LOC of ORG , from DATE to DATE , on the orders of PERSON , the then Minister of the Interior . He submits that he was subjected to the so - called \u201c roast chicken \u201d position throughout the entire period of detention and deprived of his basic physiological needs , particularly sleep ; he was also beaten on the soles of his feet with a baseball bat and struck all over his body with telephone cords .","The applicant submits that he suffers from a series of physical and psychological injuries and disorders .","After having been subjected to the alleged torture in GPE in DATE , the applicant fled that country in DATE and took refuge in GPE , where he applied for asylum in DATE . The applicant has since been living in GPE .","On DATE the NORP authorities granted the applicant asylum .","On DATE , having learnt that PERSON was being treated in a NORP hospital , the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against him with ORG for the Republic and GPE ( \u201c the Principal Public Prosecutor \u201d ) , for severe bodily injury , illegal confinement , insults , causing danger to health , coercion and abuse of authority . The applicant applied to join these proceedings as a civil party seeking damages .","On DATE ORG transmitted to the head of the security police , by internal mail , a request to \u201c attempt to locate and identify the accused individual , who [ was ] supposedly hospitalised in ORG , for heart surgery \u201d and \u201c if possible , to arrest him and bring him before an investigating judge \u201d . On receipt of this request , the police immediately contacted the hospital , which informed them that PERSON had indeed been a patient there , but that he had already left the hospital on DATE .","On DATE ORG made an order discontinuing the proceedings on the grounds that PERSON had left GPE and that the police had been unable to arrest him . This decision to discontinue the proceedings was not challenged by the applicant .","By his own account , on DATE the applicant asked a NORP lawyer to represent him with a view to bringing a civil action for compensation against PERSON and GPE . On DATE the lawyer informed the applicant that this type of action had never been successful and advised him not to lodge such a claim . It was allegedly impossible to lodge a civil action of this sort in GPE .","By a writ dated DATE , the applicant lodged a claim for damages with ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) against GPE and against PERSON He claimed MONEY ( CHF ) , with PERCENT interest from DATE , as compensation in respect of the non - pecuniary damage arising from the acts of torture to which he had allegedly been subjected . The applicant submitted that the conditions for reparation of non - pecuniary damage provided for by Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW , applicable under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( PERSON f\u00e9d\u00e9rale sur le droit international priv\u00e9 , the ORG , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , had been met .","On DATE a hearing was held before ORG ; neither of the defendants was in attendance or represented .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG declared the claim inadmissible on the grounds that it lacked territorial jurisdiction . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c With regard to an action in tort based on the unlawful acts that were allegedly committed in GPE by the defendants , to the claimant \u2019s detriment , the NORP courts do not have territorial jurisdiction under international law to examine the complaint , given that the defendants are not domiciled or habitually resident in GPE , and given also that no illegal act or detrimental outcome occurred in GPE , pursuant to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG . \u201d","Under section CARDINAL of the LDIP ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the NORP courts also lacked jurisdiction under the forum of necessity , given the lack of a sufficient connection between , on the one hand , the case and the facts , and , on the other , GPE . In this connection , ORG ruled as follows :","\u201c All of the acts with regard to whose after - effects the claimant , a NORP national , seeks compensation for non - pecuniary damage , were allegedly inflicted on him , as he submits , in GPE in DATE , within the premises of ORG of the Interior , by ORG and its officials . The mere fact that on account of those acts the claimant applied for and received political asylum in DATE in GPE , where he has since been domiciled , does not , in itself and in the light of current case - law , amount to a sufficient connection enabling a forum of necessity to be established against the defendants in GPE and GPE . \u201d","By a writ dated DATE , the applicant appealed against that decision before ORG GPE ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . His appeal was rejected in a judgment of DATE . After noting that the appellant had shown that he was unable to bring a civil action in GPE , ORG found as follows :","\u201c As the outcome of the present appeal depends on the immunity from jurisdiction of the respondent parties , the question whether there exists a forum of necessity in the appellant \u2019s place of residence can , however , remain undecided . \u201d","ORG thus held that the respondents enjoyed immunity from jurisdiction , since the acts of torture had been perpetrated in the exercise of sovereign authority ( iure imperii ) and not under private law ( iure gestionis ) . Referring to the judgment delivered by ORG in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . ORG , ORG CARDINAL-XI ) , it further considered that there had been no violation of the applicant \u2019s right of access to a court .","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , dated DATE , in which he asked it to rule that the courts of the Republic and the GPE of GPE had territorial jurisdiction and to find that the defendants did not enjoy immunity from jurisdiction . With regard to the jurisdiction of the NORP courts , he argued that the purpose of the introduction of a forum of necessity in section CARDINAL of the LDIP ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had been to avoid denials of justice , especially in cases of political persecution , and that he had provided sufficient evidence that he could not reasonably bring proceedings before a foreign court . As to the immunity from jurisdiction purportedly enjoyed by GPE and PERSON , the applicant submitted that the exercise of public power did not include an entitlement to commit international crimes such as torture . He specified in this regard that the very definition of torture in LAW and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of DATE ( hereafter : \u201c the Convention against Torture \u201d ; see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) ruled out any immunity . Lastly , he referred , in very general terms , to LAW relating to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the reasoning of which was notified to the applicant on DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . Reiterating the reasoning in the first - instance judgment , ORG considered that the NORP courts did not in any event have territorial jurisdiction . The relevant passages of ORG judgment read as follows :","\u201c It must first be considered whether the NORP courts have jurisdiction to examine the action .","CARDINAL As GPE is not a party to LAW on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ( ORG , RS CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , there exists no convention rule between the CARDINAL GPE governing the question of forum , which must therefore be examined in the light of the ORG ( sections PERSON ) and CARDINAL ) LDIP ) .","CARDINAL In this instance , the jurisdiction of the NORP authorities can not be derived from the general rule concerning the international jurisdiction of the ORG of domicile of the defendant contained in section CARDINAL of the LDIP , since the respondents are not domiciled in GPE . The cantonal court was , moreover , right in finding that the criteria , set out in section CARDINAL of the ORG , for establishing jurisdiction over actions in respect of wrongful acts were not met in so far as the defendants had neither their domicile nor their place of habitual residence or business in GPE ( section CARDINAL ) PERSON ) , and neither the wrongful act nor the resultant injury occurred in GPE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) LDIP ) .","CARDINAL In the absence of an ordinary forum , the problem must be addressed under LAW of the ORG , which concerns the forum of necessity ... Under the latter provision , where no forum is provided for in GPE by the ORG and where proceedings in another country prove impossible or one can not reasonable require that they be brought in that country , the NORP judicial or administrative authorities of the locality with which the case has a sufficient connection have jurisdiction .","The application of this rule for assigning jurisdiction thus calls for CARDINAL cumulative conditions to be met : firstly , the NORP authorities do not have jurisdiction under another provision ; secondly , legal proceedings in another country are impossible or can not reasonably be required ; and , thirdly , the case in question has a sufficient connection with GPE . In the present case , the first condition is indisputably fulfilled . Fulfilment of the second condition appears more problematic , but in the light of the third condition , which merits more extensive discussion , it is not necessary to elaborate further on this question .","CARDINAL LAW of the ORG , which must be interpreted restrictively ... represents a safety valve , intended to avoid denials of justice ... in the event of a negative conflict of jurisdiction .","In this connection , ORG , in its authoritative interpretation of this provision , noted that \u201c there are cases that have such a tenuous connection with GPE that it is not appropriate to set in motion the entire judicial system in order to resolve them . However , section CARDINAL lays down an exception to this principle . The NORP authorities must assume jurisdiction even in cases where the connection with our country is very tenuous , where it is impossible to bring proceedings or to lodge an appeal abroad . It is for the claimant or the appellant to demonstrate this impossibility . Where this evidence has been adduced , jurisdiction reverts to the authority of the locality with which the case has a sufficient connection . Where there are several competing fora in GPE , it is the first authority before which an action is brought that has jurisdiction . Clearly , the impossibility of bringing and pursuing proceedings abroad can only be examined in the light of the tangible circumstances and of the possible consequences for the individual concerned in the particular case ; it will ultimately be for the court to recognise , or not , its jurisdiction \u201d .... .","Although section CARDINAL ORG may thus seem innately paradoxical in so far as proceedings for which there is no basis for connection with an ordinary forum in GPE are , ipso facto , lacking in any particular connection with this country , in such a way that determining a \u201c sufficient connection \u201d may prove challenging , and the aim pursued by DATE to prevent a formal denial of justice \u2013 difficult to achieve , this legal provision has not in practice been without effect ; the cantonal courts in particular have recognised its applicability in the areas of family law , inheritance and proceedings on debt - enforcement and bankruptcy ... .","Moreover , legal writers have noted that a subsidiary forum must necessarily be recognised in situations of political persecution ... However , neither the case - law nor legal opinion provide much in the way of guidance concerning civil actions for compensation in respect of damage resulting from crimes against humanity , life and physical integrity , committed abroad , by foreign perpetrators .","CARDINAL That being stated , it is necessary to consider what is meant by \u201c case \u201d [ \u201c cause \u201d in the NORP version ] in section CARDINAL LDIP .","It is settled case - law that the law must , in the first instance , be interpreted literally . An interpretation which deviates from the literal meaning of a text expressed in clear terms is allowable only where there are objective reasons for considering that the text fails to convey the true meaning of the provision concerned . Such reasons may derive from the drafting history , from the aim and sense of the provision concerned and from the structure and layout of the law . If the text is not absolutely clear , if it can be interpreted variously , the approach must be to seek out the true import of the provision having regard to all relevant factors , including in particular the drafting history , the intention pursued by the rule , the spirit and values on which it is based or again its relationship with other legal provisions . ORG does not favour any CARDINAL method of interpretation but adopts a pragmatic plurality in its search for the true meaning of the rule ; in particular , it takes as a basis a literal understanding of the text only where this offers , with no ambiguity , a solution that is substantively just ( ORG CARDINAL III CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , V CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL.CARDINAL ; CARDINAL III CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and the judgments cited therein ) .","In itself , the meaning to be attributed to the term \u201c cause \u201d is uncertain in the sense that it does not have a general definition in the laws of civil procedure of the LANGUAGE - speaking cantons ( see , however , Bertossa \/ Gaillard \/ Guyet\/ Schmidt , PERSON procedure civile genevoise , vol . I , GPE DATE , n.CARDINAL ad LAW , concerning the force of res judicata , in which the authors consider that identical claims , in terms of their content , based on the same arguments and the same combination of alleged facts , constitute the objective limit of res judicata ; that identity is determined by the complete set of legal considerations which formed part of the first application and were adjudicated upon ; this was how \u201c cause \u201d was to be understood in former Article CARDINAL ) ; the alleged facts of the case determine an overall situation [ \u201c ORG \u201d , \u201c PERSON \u201d ] which it is for the court to assess ) but would appear to equate to \u201c proc\u00e9dure \u201d or \u201c demande en justice \u201d or in NORP to \u201c NORP \u201d , \u201c Rechtssache \u201d , \u201c Prozess \u201d , \u201c GPE \u201d , \u201c causa litigandi \u201d or \u201c ORG \u201d . At all events , \u201c cause \u201d is not the literal and unambiguous translation of the terms \u201c ORG \u201d or \u201c fattispecie \u201d used in the NORP and NORP versions of section CARDINAL of the LDIP . It should be borne in mind , at this point , that the latter terms are usually translated in NORP as \u201c \u00e9nonc\u00e9 \u201d or \u201c expos\u00e9 des faits \u201d or \u201c \u00e9tat des faits \u201d .","As the versions of the law drafted in the CARDINAL official languages have the same standing , the question arises whether the difference between the NORP wording and that of the other CARDINAL versions results from an error in the legislative process , from a difference in meaning which becomes apparent only in the context of specific cases according to a varying understanding of the legal provision in each of the languages , or , lastly , from a linguistic difference attributable either to the non - translatability knowingly taken into account in the drafting or to uncertainty on the part of the legislator as to the meaning to be conveyed ( see PERSON , PERSON mehrsprachiger PERSON , in ORG pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s au ORG international de droit compar\u00e9 , GPE DATE , p. CARDINAL et seq . , especially p. CARDINAL s. ) .","It seems clear that the first of these possibilities can be ruled out . To distinguish between the second and third possibilities the understanding of the term \u201c cause \u201d in legal NORP terminology must be considered . In this regard , the \u201c cause \u201d of the action is the basis of the claim [ \u201c base de la pr\u00e9tention \u201d ] ( \u2018 ORG \u201d rather than \u201c ORG \u201d ) , though it should be noted that the legal writers are in some disagreement as to the content and scope of that basis . Some argue that the \u201c cause \u201d must be seen as a legal concept allowing the claim to be defined , while for others the \u201c cause \u201d comes down to a set of facts giving rise to the legal issues in debate or the legal interest invoked ( see PERSON \/ Guinchard , ORG civile , CARDINALth edition , GPE DATE , n. CARDINAL p. CARDINAL et seq . , who conclude that the \u201c cause \u201d of the action is constituted by a legally characterised set of facts ) .","In the case in point , it must be acknowledged that a comparison with the NORP and NORP versions assists in the interpretation of the NORP text , supporting the view that the term \u201c cause \u201d should be assigned the restricted meaning of \u201c set of facts \u201d or , to take a literal translation of \u201c PERSON \u201d and \u201c fattispeccie \u201d , \u201c expos\u00e9 \u201d or \u201c \u00e9tat de faits \u201d and not \u201c proc\u00e9dure \u201d . In other words , it is the \u201c cause \u201d \u2013 which concerns the set of facts and the legal argumentation \u2013 rather than the person of the applicant which must have a sufficient connection with GPE .","In the present case , however , the claimant complains of acts of torture that were allegedly committed in GPE , by NORP resident in GPE , against a NORP residing in GPE . All of the specific features of the case come back to GPE , except for the fact of residence in GPE at the relevant time . The facts of the case thus have no connection with GPE , so that the question of whether or not the link with this country is sufficient does not arise . In those circumstances , it is not possible to recognise the jurisdiction of the NORP courts , short of disregarding the clear text of s[ection ] CARDINAL of the LDIP [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] . The fact that the claimant then chose to come to GPE can not change anything , since it is a fact subsequent to the events of the case and , moreover , does not form part of it .","Since the absence of a sufficient connection between the facts of the case and GPE suffices to establish the NORP courts\u2019 lack of jurisdiction , the appeal must be dismissed , without it being necessary to examine the issue of immunity from jurisdiction .","... \u201d","ORG made submissions before the Grand Chamber describing the action taken by GPE after the fall of the regime in DATE in order to establish a new democracy and a political system based on respect for human rights and the rule of law . They considered that the possibility of submitting complaints to the newly established courts was the most direct and \u201c natural \u201d means of promoting reconciliation , re - establishing social peace and improving prevention , whilst also respecting the steps taken to repair the harm done to the victims . In this context , the Government referred to LAW of DATE , worded as follows :","\u201c The ORG commits to implementing the transitional justice system in all areas within the timeline set by the related legislation . In this regard , no claim in respect of the non - retrospective nature of laws , or the existence of a previous amnesty or pardon , or the binding force of double jeopardy , or the statute of limitations or prescription of the crime or punishment , shall be admitted . \u201d","The Government observed that the constituent elements of transitional justice had already been set out in \u201c Organic Law no . DATE of DATE , on the introduction of transitional justice and related organisational arrangements \u201d , enacted by ORG on DATE and published in ORG on DATE . The respondent Government specified that Part III of Title I covered \u201c Accountability and criminal liability \u201d , in order to \u201c prevent impunity and ensure that offenders do not escape punishment \u201d ( section CARDINAL ) . Section CARDINAL provided for the establishment of specialised divisions in the courts of first instance , composed of judges who would receive special training in transitional justice . They \u201c [ would ] rule on cases relating to serious violations of human rights \u201d , including torture ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) , which DATE in accordance with section DATE were not subject to statutory limitation .","The Government explained that Part IV of Title I focused more specifically on \u201c Reparation and Rehabilitation \u201d ( sections CARDINAL ) . Pursuant to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL :","\u201c [ CARDINAL compensation of victims of violations is a right guaranteed by law and the ORG shall offer every form of sufficient , effective redress commensurate with the extent of the violations committed and the individual situation of each victim . \u201d","The Government further added that LAW of the law established a \u201c Truth and ORG \u201d ( ORG ) , which was an independent body whose members were chosen by ORG from among public officials known for their neutrality , impartiality and competence ( sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of LAW ) . Under section CARDINAL , the ORG \u2019s work was to cover the entire period from DATE to DATE , the date of the law \u2019s promulgation . The duration of the ORG \u2019s work was limited to DATE , starting from the date of appointment of its members ( section CARDINAL ) .","Lastly , the Government informed the ORG that , according to information obtained by it from ORG in GPE , persons who considered themselves victims of the former regime had until DATE to apply to the ORG . ORG was currently dealing with CARDINAL cases . In this capacity , it was holding hearings which , since DATE , had also been held in public . According to the information received , it was foreseen that selected cases would be transmitted to the courts at a later stage in the investigation process .","The applicant has not contested these submissions by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . He specified at the hearing of DATE that he had in fact contacted the ORG and had received a simple acknowledgment of receipt in DATE , but had had no further communication from the ORG since then ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140238","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BUHANIUC v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE general elections took place in GPE . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE large crowds gathered in the streets to protest against alleged electoral fraud . CARDINAL of persons were arrested on DATE and thereafter .","The applicant was arrested in TIME of DATE and on DATE was sentenced by a court to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention . According to the applicant , he was punched in the eye by a plain - clothes police officer during his arrest and then subjected to ill - treatment in the GPE police station and subsequently at ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . He was hit by groups of CARDINAL persons , both in uniform and plain clothes , taken through a \u201c death corridor \u201d in which officers lined up and kicked or hit each victim as he or she passed through the corridor while being taken to or from the police station or , especially , the ORG .","He was also hit on both ears simultaneously ( a form of torture known as \u201c the telephone \u201d ) , and struck on the head with fists and rubber sticks , all while his hands were handcuffed behind his back . He was also forced to keep his hands up for long periods of time while being hit periodically . He lost consciousness several times as a result of the ill - treatment .","The applicant was also allegedly held with CARDINAL other persons in a damp humid cell measuring QUANTITY , where he had no access to daylight or any means of determining the time of DATE or the date ; he also had no access to the outside world , his relatives , a lawyer or a doctor .","No water was provided to him during the first TIME of his detention . Thereafter dirty water was distributed in unhygienic plastic bottles to be used by everyone in the cell . The applicant was subsequently diagnosed with hepatitis of an unknown origin . No food was provided . In the congested damp cell he had no opportunity to sleep for DATE . There was no toilet in the cell and access to the toilet outside the cell was allowed at random and only after subjecting the person to humiliation .","Psychological ill - treatment was also allegedly used : the applicant was threatened with a lengthy term of imprisonment , with rape and death . He was subjected to interrogation by several persons simultaneously and was forced to sign blank papers .","On DATE the applicant was seen by a doctor , who found a haematoma on his left eye .","On DATE the applicant complained to the military prosecutor of ill - treatment by the police .","On DATE the applicant was examined at the \u201c LOC ORG , a non - governmental organisation financed by ORG and member of ORG of ORG ( ORG ) . On DATE it issued an \u201c Extract from the medical file \u201d ( Extras din PERSON ) concerning the applicant \u2019s examination . He appears to have undergone detailed medical tests and examinations by various medical specialists . According to the document , the applicant was suffering from , inter alia , the consequences of a head injury , which included intracranial hypertension syndrome and post - traumatic stress disorder , as well as a post - traumatic ear condition .","NORP The prosecutor in charge of the case interviewed the police officers in charge of the applicant \u2019s arrest , who declared that they had not used force against him . On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor decided not to initiate a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations as he found that there was no evidence that a crime had been committed . On DATE the applicant complained to ORG , noting that he had been sent a copy of the prosecutor \u2019s decision only on DATE . On DATE ORG confirmed the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant challenged in court the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . On DATE the investigating judge at ORG annulled the CARDINAL decisions and ordered that a supplementary investigation be carried out . The court found that the ORG decisions had been based only on the statements of the police officers accused of ill - treating the applicant . Moreover , while one of the prosecutors had found that force had been used to apprehend the applicant , which could explain any injuries on his body , the arresting officers had denied the use of any force .","On an unknown date prior to CARDINAL DATE a formal criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations was initiated .","On DATE the applicant was officially recognised as a victim in the investigation of the alleged crime . He described the circumstances of his alleged ill - treatment and participated in a photograph identity parade , but did not recognise any of the persons in the photographs .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case suspended the investigation on the basis that no suspect had been identified .","Following the ORG \u2019s communication of the present application to the respondent Government on DATE , on CARDINAL DATE ORG recommended to ORG that the proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s complaints should be reopened . The prosecutor considered that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been groundless and drew up a list of CARDINAL investigative actions be taken in the new investigation of the complaint . This list included actions such as hearing PERSON , who had been arrested together with the applicant ; hearing the persons detained together with the applicant during the events of DATE ; hearing the doctor who had examined him at the GPE police station ; obtaining various medical evidence concerning the applicant \u2019s state of health prior to and after his detention in DATE , including the report of the \u201c LOC centre ; examining the documents in the file concerning the accusations against the applicant ; and organising cross - examinations involving both the applicant and the officers who had arrested him on DATE .","On DATE the doctor who had examined the applicant at the GPE police station was heard as a witness . He declared that he had noted all the injuries present on the applicant \u2019s body . He added that a police officer had been present in the room during the examination , but had not put pressure of any kind on the applicant .","On DATE CARDINAL officers were officially declared suspects in the case and were interviewed by a military prosecutor . The parties did not inform the Court of any further developments in this regard .","NORP The relevant non - Convention material is summarised in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152875","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF IGNATESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Kristina Pardalos","text":["On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts and\/or to have certain actions taken by ORG authorities in their favour . However , the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178104","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"\u0160PAKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr ORG , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr D. Ramanauskas , a lawyer practising in LOC .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP In DATE PERSON asked the national authorities to restore his property rights to a plot of land in LOC , that had originally belonged to his deceased wife \u2019s father . He gave only his own name in his restitution request , failing to mention the fact that after his spouse \u2019s death he had married again in DATE , to ORG , or that there were any other successors to whom the property rights could be restored .","M.G. died in DATE .","On DATE ORG property rights were restored in respect of QUANTITY of land in GPE . The decision stated that PERSON had passed away and that it should be served on his heir .","NORP In DATE ORG authorised the applicant , who was the husband of ORG granddaughter , to act on her behalf in the matter of the inheritance from PERSON and to represent her before the national authorities .","ORG asked ORG to establish as a legal fact that she was the owner of ORG property for the purposes of inheritance . The claim was signed by the applicant . During the proceedings before ORG , where the applicant was present , ORG children contested ORG \u2019s right to inherit the property , including the plot of land . They argued that the land did not belong to MONEY , but to his deceased wife \u2019s father . Nevertheless , on DATE the ORG established as a legal fact that ORG had become the owner of the property , including the plot of land in question , after ORG death .","In DATE the applicant received a certificate which stated that ORG had inherited ORG property , including the land in question .","On DATE ORG sold the QUANTITY of land and associated buildings to the applicant and his wife for CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) in total . The price of the land itself was LTL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","NORP On DATE a prosecutor started court proceedings and asked ORG to annul the order which had restored ORG property rights , the part of ORG will concerning the land and the purchase agreement on the grounds that ORG had not had the right to seek the restoration of ownership of the land in question ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The applicant submitted that the prosecutor had missed the thirtyday time - limit for lodging such a complaint .","On DATE ORG granted the prosecutor \u2019s application in part . It annulled the property restitution order of CARDINAL DATE and the parts of the will and purchase agreement concerning the land . As regards the time - limit , the court held that the prosecutor had started court proceedings on DATE . However , he had not received a letter about an act that was allegedly contrary to the public interest until CARDINAL DATE , when he had also had to ask for additional documents from the authorities , which he had only received on DATE . The court held that the timelimit had not been missed by much and decided that it was not an obstacle to examining the case on the merits . The court decided to apply the rules on restitution and to return the land to the ORG . The court held that ORG had not had any property rights to restore because the land in question had belonged to his deceased wife \u2019s father , while PERSON , a widower at the time , had remarried in DATE , to ORG That meant he had not fallen within the scope of persons to whom property rights could be restored in accordance with domestic law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) . The court noted that ORG had failed to mention that he had remarried and an employee of ORG confirmed that if ORG had provided that information he would not have been able to claim the property . The court also noted that the applicant had been authorised to represent ORG before the national authorities in the inheritance procedure and that his wife was CARDINAL of ORG granddaughters . He should therefore have known that restoring those property rights to ORG had been unlawful . The court thus declared that the applicant and his wife were not acquirers of the property in good faith .","As a result of the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the plot of land was returned to the ORG .","On DATE title to QUANTITY of land was restored to GPE , one of the original owner \u2019s heirs . The plot included the land in question , apart from CARDINAL ares under the buildings owned by the applicant and his wife , which were excluded . CARDINAL ares were restored to GPE in the adjacent plot of land .","The applicant and his wife appealed , and on CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of the court of first instance . It held that the applicant and his wife had acted in bad faith and that the guarantees for owners who had acquired property in good faith were not applicable . The applicant and his wife argued that the prosecutor had missed the time - limit of DATE to lodge a complaint , but the court held that the prosecutor had only become aware of an act that was contrary to the public interest on DATE and had started court proceedings on DATE . The time - limit had therefore not been missed .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant as not raising any important legal issues .","Article CARDINAL of the Law on the Procedure and Conditions for the Restoration of Citizens\u2019 Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property ( \u012estatymas \u201e D\u0117l pilie\u010di\u0173 nuosavyb\u0117s teisi\u0173 \u012f i\u0161likus\u012f nekilnojam\u0105j\u012f turt\u0105 atstatymo tvarkos ir s\u0105lyg\u0173 \u201c ) , enacted on DATE and amended on numerous occasions , provided that when the owner of property died , title could be restored to the person \u2019s children , including adopted children , parents , including adoptive parents , or any surviving spouse . After the death of the former owner \u2019s child , ownership rights could be restored to that person \u2019s spouse or children if they were citizens and permanent residents of GPE .","On DATE , the Government approved Resolution no . CARDINAL on the \u201c Order for Execution of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens\u2019 Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property \u201d ( PERSON \u012fstatymo PERSON pilie\u010di\u0173 nuosavyb\u0117s teisi\u0173 QUANTITY nekilnojam\u0105j\u012f turt\u0105 atstatymo tvarkos ir s\u0105lyg\u0173 \u201d \u012fgyvendinimo tvarka ) , which provided that when the owner of property died , title could be restored to the person \u2019s children , including adopted children , parents , including adoptive parents , or any surviving spouse , if they were citizens of GPE , had a document proving the citizenship and were permanent residents of GPE .","On DATE the Seimas ( ORG ) enacted a new law on restitution , the PERSON on the Restoration of Citizens\u2019 Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property ( PERSON nuosavyb\u0117s teisi\u0173 \u012f i\u0161likus\u012f nekilnojam\u0105j\u012f turt\u0105 atk\u016brimo \u012fstatymas \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the PERSON on Restitution \u201d ) , which repealed the DATE law . LAW provided that ownership of existing real property could be restored to a spouse , parents , including adoptive parents , and the children , including adopted children , of an owner who had died without making a will . It could also be restored to the spouse or children , including adopted children , of an owner \u2019s deceased child , including an adopted child .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Law on Restitution provided that decisions by the national authorities concerning the restitution of existing real property were subject to appeal within DATE .","On DATE , the Government approved Resolution no . CARDINAL on the \u201c Order for the Execution of the Law on the Restoration of Citizens\u2019 Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property \u201d ( PERSON pilie\u010di\u0173 nuosavyb\u0117s teisi\u0173 \u012f i\u0161likus\u012f nekilnojam\u0105j\u012f turt\u0105 atk\u016brimo \u012fstatymo \u012fgyvendinimo tvarka ) , which provided that spouses who had not remarried had the right to have property rights restored to them if the marriage had ended because the owner of the property had died and the owner \u2019s child was also dead ( Point CARDINAL ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 QUANTITY of the Law on Land provided that agricultural land contained plots of land , that were used of could be used for producing agricultural products ; plots of land that were built upon by the private houses and farm houses of the landowner , if they were not delimited as separate plots of land ; yards ; plots of land , suitable for transforming into agricultural land ; plots of land that had buildings used for producing agricultural products and plots of forest approved by the Government , provided that they are not delimited as separate plots , as well as other nonagricultural plots of land that are in between the above mentioned plots of land .","Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code establishes the presumption of knowledge of the law and provides that ignorance or insufficient understanding of laws does not absolve anyone of application of sanctions and does not justify the failure to comply with requirements of the law or inadequate compliance with them . This was confirmed by ORG ( for example , decisions of DATE ( no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - DATE ) ; CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - DATE ) ) .","ORG has held that laws are public and every responsible person can find out about his or her rights and obligations . Ignorance of laws and failure to show interest in one \u2019s rights and obligations is unreasonable , and such person can not justify him or herself that he or she does not know the law ( for example , decisions of CARDINAL DATE ( no . ORG - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ; DATE ( no . ORG ) ; DATE ( no . ORG - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ) .","Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that any transaction that fails to comply with mandatory statutory provisions is null and void . When a transaction is declared null and void , each party is required to restore to the other party everything that he or she has received by means of that transaction ( restitution ) . Where it is impossible to restore the assets received in kind , the parties are required to compensate each other in money , unless the law provides for other consequences as a result of the transaction \u2019s being declared void .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that possession in bad faith comes about when an owner knew or ought to have known that he or she had no right to become the owner of a possession or that another person had more rights to the possession in question .","Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that an owner has the right to claim a possession when it is owned illegally by someone else .","According to LAW , a person who acquired property in bad faith has the right to require the lawful owner to provide compensation for any necessary expenses incurred for the property in question from the time the lawful owner had the right to income from it .","ORG has held that a person who acquired property in bad faith has the right to require the lawful owner to provide compensation for any necessary expenses incurred for the property in question from the time the lawful owner had the right to income from it ( see decision of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ) .","Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that restitution is to take place where a person is bound to return to another person the property he has received either unlawfully or by error , or as a result of the transaction in which the property was received being annulled ab initio , or as a result of the obligation becoming impossible to perform because of force majeure . In exceptional cases , a court may modify the method of restitution or refuse restitution altogether where it would impose an undue and unfair burden on CARDINAL party and , accordingly , bring undue advantage to the other party .","Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that third parties acting in good faith who in a transaction for valuable consideration acquire property subject to restitution can rely on that transaction against a person who claims restitution . Third parties acting in good faith who in a transaction without valuable consideration acquire property subject to restitution can not rely on that transaction against a person who claims restitution if the timelimit for such a claim has not been exceeded by the latter . Any other actions performed in favour of a third party acting in good faith may be relied on against a person who claims restitution .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides that civil liability is a pecuniary obligation by which CARDINAL party has the right to require compensation and the other party has to pay compensation .","In accordance with LAW , prosecutors can bring a claim in order to protect the public interest in the cases established by law .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG provides that a prosecutor , after having received a request or any other information about violations of state interests or ORG rights , prepares documents necessary to start civil proceedings if the state proprietary interests had been breached and the authorities had not taken any actions to eliminate the violations .","ORG has held that the restoration of property rights is a public interest ( for example , decisions of DATE ( no . ORG ) ; of DATE ( no . ORG - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ; CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184658","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF FEFILOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and before his conviction lived in Izhevsk .","According to the applicant , on DATE the police carried out a search of the applicant \u2019s flat in connection with the murder of a lawenforcement officer , which took place during TIME DATE .","On DATE and DATE the police interviewed the applicant , in the presence of the applicant \u2019s lawyer , about the circumstances of the murder case under investigation . No suspicions were raised against the applicant .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was apprehended on the street in Izhevsk and taken to the Ustinovskiy district police station of ORG ( GPE PERSON \u0433. PERSON \u2013 \u201c Izhevsk police station \u201d ) . He was allegedly beaten and coerced into confessing to having committed the murder and to signing a record of his surrender and confession ( \u044f\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u0441 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 ) .","According to that record , at TIME on DATE in office no . CARDINAL at Izhevsk police station , a police officer , PERSON , obtained from the applicant a confession to the crime , in accordance with LAW of LAW . In particular , the record stated that at DATE the applicant had been drinking alcoholic beverages in the company of a certain PERSON after work . At an unspecified time after TIME he left PERSON \u2019s flat . On his way home he entered a nearby house to urinate . There he saw a man who made a rude remark about the applicant \u2019s behaviour . The man was also drunk . They began to fight , in the course of which the applicant hit the man several times on the head with a knife handle , and also punched and kicked him . The latter fell down the stairs . When the applicant left the man was still lying on the ground floor . The record further stated that the confession had been handwritten by the applicant himself without any coercion on the part of police officers , and that the applicant had been informed of LAW ( the right not to give self - incriminating statements ) , which he had understood .","The applicant furthermore wrote a similarly worded confession addressed to ORG .","At TIME on DATE a record of the applicant \u2019s arrest was drawn up . He was formally assigned the status of a criminal suspect and was informed of all his rights , including the right to remain silent , the right to a lawyer and the right not to incriminate himself . The record contained the applicant \u2019s handwritten note to the effect that he accepted his arrest , as he had committed a murder on DATE . The record further contains the applicant \u2019s request for access to his lawyer .","Later on DATE , DATE , the applicant was provided with a legal - aid lawyer and questioned as a suspect . During the questioning the applicant retracted his confession , asserting that it had been given as a result of coercion and in the absence of a lawyer . He consistently repudiated his confession throughout the ensuing proceedings .","On DATE the applicant was made to undergo a forensic medical examination , which revealed no injuries on his body aside from a scar on the edge of his hairline dating back DATE ( forensic medical examination report no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant was remanded in custody and transferred to the Izhevsk SIZO-CARDINAL remand prison .","On DATE charges of murder were brought against the applicant .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ustinovskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office of ORG , alleging that he had been ill - treated .","On DATE an investigator from the Ustinovskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office issued a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers who had allegedly ill - treated the applicant .","On DATE the criminal case against the applicant was submitted to ORG for trial .","On DATE the trial against the applicant commenced .","NORP Before the court the applicant denied committing the murder and reaffirmed that his confession had been given under pressure from police officers and in the absence of his lawyer .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court based the conviction on the following evidence :","- statements by a police officer , PERSON , who had been involved in the investigation and who had submitted that ( i ) in the course of the investigation it had been determined that the murder had been committed by the applicant ; and ( ii ) the latter had been apprehended and brought to Izhevsk police station , where he had voluntarily confessed to having committed the murder of PERSON and had written a statement of surrender and confession ( \u044f\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u0441 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 ) , describing the details of the committed crime ; no violence had been exerted on the applicant ;","- statements by a police officer , ORG , involved in the investigation of the murder , who submitted that ( i ) in the course of the investigation it had been determined that the crime had been committed by the applicant ; ( ii ) in DATE the latter had been brought to the police station , where he had confessed to the murder ; and ( iii ) a statement of surrender and confession had been drawn up in which the applicant had described in detail the circumstances under which he had committed the murder ;","- statements by a police officer , ORG , who submitted that ( i ) on DATE he had participated in the inspection of the scene of the murder of PERSON ; ( ii ) it had been established that the applicant had been involved in the crime ; ( iii ) in DATE the applicant had been brought to Izhevsk police station , where he had confessed to the murder ( his confession had been recorded in the statement of surrender and confession ) ; and ( iv ) no violence had been applied to the applicant .","- a statement by a police officer , PERSON , who had participated in the inspection of the crime scene on DATE he submitted that ( i ) during the check it had been established that a man nicknamed \u201c Gunya \u201d [ the applicant ] could have committed the crime ; ( ii ) the applicant had been apprehended by the police ; ( iii ) the applicant had been interrogated at TIME on DATE by PERSON himself ; ( iv ) in the course of the interrogation the applicant had confessed to having committed the murder ; and ( v ) no violence had been applied to him ;","- statements by a police officer , GPE . , who submitted that he had learned from police officer PERSON that the applicant had confessed to having committed the murder of PERSON ;","The above statements were found to be confirmed by the applicant \u2019s statement of surrender and confession of CARDINAL DATE and by statements by independent witnesses in the case , specifically :","- statements by an anonymous witness , \u201c Akulov \u201d , to whom the applicant had supposedly confided about the murder on DATE ; during the trial \u201c Akulov \u201d had been placed in a separate room , and questions from the parties had been asked through a court bailiff ; the parties had heard the witness \u2019s answers by means of a radio communication device with acoustic shielding ;","- statements by a witness , PERSON , who had been detained together with the applicant at Izhevsk police station during TIME of DATE , and whom the applicant had supposedly told about his having committed the murder of a police officer ;","- statements by a witness , PERSON , who submitted that ( i ) he had worked with the applicant as a painter and decorator since DATE ; ( ii ) they had been drinking alcoholic beverages after work on DATE until TIME , after which they had each gone home ; ( iii ) the following morning at TIME he had picked the applicant up and gone to work with him ; ( iv ) he had found out about the murder of PERSON on the evening of CARDINAL DATE from a certain PERSON and later from the police ; ( v ) the applicant had had his right arm in plaster since DATE , which had not prevented him from working ; ( vi ) that the applicant had had a folding knife , which he had lost in DATE ; and ( vii ) that the applicant had been nicknamed \u201c Gunya \u201d ;","- statements by a witness , PERSON . , the applicant \u2019s colleague and neighbour , who submitted that ( i ) he had been drinking alcoholic beverages with the applicant and PERSON until TIME on DATE , following which he had left while the applicant and PERSON had stayed on ; ( ii ) he had found about the murder on DATE from the police ; ( iii ) he had known that the applicant was suspected of that murder ;","- statements by other witnesses with no interest in the outcome of the case ;","- the applicant \u2019s handwritten statement of DATE addressed to the Ustinovskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office describing the circumstances of the murder ;","- the record of the applicant \u2019s arrest , in which the applicant noted that he accepted his arrest , as he had committed a murder ;","- records of forensic biological examinations , which did not exclude the possibility that the traces of blood on the applicant \u2019s coat could have been the victim \u2019s ; the conclusions of those forensic biological examinations were confirmed by the record of the crime - scene examination and the record of the forensic medical examination of the victim \u2019s corpse ;","- records of forensic chemical examinations of the fibres discovered at the crime scene , the origin of which could not be excluded as being from the clothes worn by the applicant at the time of the murder ;","- the record of the forensic medical examination , which concluded that the applicant \u2019s having a plastered right arm did not exclude the possibility of him administering active purposeful actions with that arm ;","- the record of the applicant \u2019s forensic psychiatric examination .","The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegation that his confession had been obtained through ill - treatment , referring to the statements made by the police officers and to expert report no . CARDINAL , which had not recorded any injuries on the applicant \u2019s body .","The applicant appealed against the conviction . In his statement of appeal he submitted , in particular , that his confession was inadmissible evidence , as it had been obtained under duress and in the absence of a lawyer .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the appeal . It endorsed in full the trial court \u2019s decision concerning the admissibility of the statement of the applicant \u2019s surrender and confession . ORG held , in particular , that the law did not require the presence of a lawyer at the moment of giving a confession .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to correctional colony IK-CARDINAL of GPE to serve his sentence .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the NORP remand centre of FAC with ankle - joint oedema , skin erosion and fever .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the surgical unit of that facility for medical treatment .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to penal institution LIU-CARDINAL of the Republic of GPE ( a medical penal establishment designed for the treatment and detention of drug addicts , alcoholics , and PERSON and tuberculosis - infected prisoners ) , where he underwent compulsory treatment for drug addiction until DATE .","According to the applicant , there had been a high percentage of ORG detainees in the facility , some of whom had worked with the applicant at the facility \u2019s sewing workshop . The applicant believed , therefore , that he had faced a serious risk of contamination via the working utensils ( for example , scissors and sewing needles ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158886","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NENAD KOVA\u010cEVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .","In DATE an investigation was opened in respect of the applicant on suspicion of murder . He was remanded in custody during the investigation from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","Following his release from custody , the applicant became unavailable to the NORP authorities , and on DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) , as the competent trial court , ordered his trial in absentia .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him in absentia to MONEY imprisonment . The judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE a judge responsible for the execution of sentences at ORG ordered that the applicant should start to serve his prison sentence . Given that at the time the applicant was still at large , the judge ordered that a warrant be issued for his arrest .","On the basis of the arrest warrant , the applicant was arrested in GPE and on DATE he was extradited to GPE , where he immediately started to serve his prison sentence .","DATE following his extradition , the applicant requested ORG to reopen the proceedings conducted in his absence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He relied on LAW , which provided for the automatic reopening of proceedings conducted in absentia at the request of the convicted person .","A CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request for reopening of the proceedings on CARDINAL DATE . The decision became final on DATE .","On DATE ORG discontinued the applicant \u2019s prison sentence on the ground that the reopening of the proceedings had been granted and that therefore the execution of the sentence had to be stayed , as required under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In the meantime , on DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG ( GPE dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ) had requested ORG to order that the applicant be remanded in custody under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of absconding ) pending the retrial .","In connection with that request , on DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG heard the applicant and his lawyer . They argued , in particular , that the applicant had not sought to avoid trial and that his detention should be replaced by the application of a less restrictive measure , such as bail , which could be effected by the seizure of his mother \u2019s house and of documents .","On DATE ORG accepted the request of ORG and ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of absconding ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c Having considered the [ available ] evidence , this panel has found that the accused PERSON received an indictment [ from the competent prosecutor ] on DATE ... , that the GPE - baranja ORG informed ORG that the accused PERSON was absent from his place of residence [ in GPE ] as he had gone away in DATE and was [ at the time ] allegedly in GPE , as stated by his mother . Furthermore , it was established that the accused PERSON had been found guilty by the above - mentioned final judgment of ORG of the offence of murder ... for which he had been sentenced to DATE imprisonment . It was also established that the accused PERSON ... had been arrested [ in GPE and GPE ] because a sentence - execution judge of this court ordered that he should start to serve his prison sentence , and therefore the objection that the general conditions for ordering detention under LAW have not been met is unfounded . The final judgment adopted in the criminal proceedings conducted in the absence of the accused , by which he was found guilty on charges of murder and sentenced to DATE imprisonment , represents a reasonable suspicion that the accused PERSON committed the offence of murder ... The fact that he fled , given that the order for his pre - trial detention and the arrest warrant remained futile and there was no possibility for the police to bring him [ before the court ] for a hearing , and that he was arrested only on the basis of [ an arrest warrant ] for the execution of the prison term to which he had been sentenced , suggests the existence of grounds for ordering pre - trial detention under LAW ) of LAW ; that is to say , special grounds justifying a risk that , if at large , the accused might abscond and thus hinder the proper conduct of these criminal proceedings .","...","As already stated above , the accused PERSON received the mentioned indictment by which he is charged with murder ... It follows [ from the case file ] that he was also detained . This suggests that the accused knew that the criminal proceedings at issue had been pending against him and that he had been charged with a serious criminal offence . He [ nevertheless ] left his residence and the territory of GPE and was arrested on the territory of a country where he did not have residence , namely GPE , while he himself stated that he had residence in GPE . All these circumstances as well suggest that there is a risk that the accused might again abscond and thereby hinder the termination of the reopened proceedings at issue .","In addition , as the panel of this court has found that the conditions for ordering detention in respect of the accused PERSON under LAW ) of LAW have been met , [ it considers that ] the measure of detention is necessary in order to avert the risk of absconding , which could not be achieved by bail or the alternative measures suggested by the accused and his defence lawyer . This is particularly true given the circumstances and severity of the offence at issue , and the fact that [ the accused ] is also a national of GPE and that he himself stated that he had no residence in GPE , which means that he could very easily leave the territory of GPE . \u201d","The applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON ) , arguing that the indictment had not been served on him but on his brother , who had been a minor at the time , and that he had left GPE for personal reasons . He offered his NORP and NORP passports and his mother \u2019s house in GPE as bail to guarantee that he would not abscond . The applicant also contended that the decision of ORG lacked the relevant reasoning concerning the possibility of his conditional release .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded on DATE . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c Contrary to the appeal arguments , ORG as the second - instance court finds that the first - instance court correctly established that the defendant should be remanded in custody under LAW ) of LAW .","Reasonable suspicion that the defendant committed the offence [ of murder ] follows from the final judgment by which he was found guilty and sentenced to DATE imprisonment , which had been adopted after a trial in absentia and in respect of which a retrial was granted . The general requirement for detention has therefore been met .","Furthermore , it should be noted that the defendant , although aware that criminal proceedings were pending against him ( he was questioned by an investigating judge , he was detained from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , and he received the indictment ) , left the territory of GPE and thereby became unavailable during the proceedings conducted before ORG . He was arrested only after a sentence - execution judge issued an order for his arrest for the execution of the prison sentence , and [ the arrest ] was effected on the basis of an international arrest warrant in GPE , although he stated that his residence was in GPE .","All these circumstances , in the view of ORG as the second - instance court , suggest that there is a fear that the defendant , who is also a national of GPE , if at large , could abscond and thereby hinder the course of the criminal proceedings . This in particular follows from his previous behaviour , the fact that he was unavailable to the judicial authorities for DATE and that he is again being tried for a serious criminal offence for which he had been found guilty in absentia and sentenced to DATE imprisonment ...","The appeal arguments of the defendant that he did not know that the criminal proceedings at issue were pending as he had not received the indictment are unfounded because the material from the case file suggests the opposite . The case file contains signed delivery notices which demonstrate that he duly received the indictment . He was also questioned before an investigating judge concerning the offence of which he was later found guilty , and for which he had also spent some time in pre - trial detention . There is therefore no doubt that he knew about the criminal proceedings pending against him .","Moreover , the appellant is wrong in contending that a fundamental procedural omission occurred in that the impugned decision is not sufficiently reasoned in respect of the possibility of applying bail or some other alternative measure . The first - instance court provided sufficient and clear reasons for considering it necessary to order pre - trial detention under LAW ) of LAW and why the same purpose could not be achieved by bail or any other alternative measure ; and this second - instance court fully endorses those reasons . \u201d","On DATE the applicant again requested that his pre - trial detention be replaced by bail or an alternative less restrictive measure . At the hearing held on DATE he reiterated his request .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request on DATE and extended his detention under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of absconding ) , reiterating its previous reasoning .","On DATE , following a retrial , ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction in absentia , finding him guilty of the offence of murder and sentencing him to DATE imprisonment . It was also decided on DATE that the applicant should remain in detention pending a final judgment .","The applicant appealed against that judgment to ORG . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG for re - examination on the grounds of the existence of procedural flaws .","At the same time , ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ) of LAW ( risk of absconding ) , reiterating its previous reasons .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , challenging the decision on his pre - trial detention . He argued in particular , his detention was disproportionate and should be replaced by bail or an alternative less restrictive preventive measure .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts . That decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","On DATE , having reheard the case , ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction in absentia , finding him guilty of the offence of murder and sentencing him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant was remanded in custody pending a final judgment .","That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE and it thereby became final . On DATE the applicant challenged it before ORG and the proceedings before that court are still pending ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159442","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"RUPP v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first applicant , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .","The second applicant , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE a.d . GPE . She was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The third applicant , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE a.d . GPE . She was represented before ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The facts of the cases , as submitted by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .","The first applicant is the mother of the other CARDINAL applicants .","The first applicant was married to ORG , who was the father of the other CARDINAL applicants .","R.R. disappeared in TIME DATE and subsequently did not reappear ; neither did his car , which had disappeared the same night .","On DATE the first applicant reported ORG missing .","The investigations had initially been terminated without any results . They were reopened by the ORG police in DATE .","On DATE the applicants and the second applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9 , ORG , were taken to the police station . The applicants\u2019 house was searched DATE , without any evidence being found . All CARDINAL applicants were questioned DATE , first as witnesses and after TIME as suspects . They were represented by counsel from DATE on .","When being questioned on DATE , the first applicant confessed that ORG had come home drunk in TIME DATE and she had pushed him during an argument . As a consequence ORG had fallen down the stairs . She and ORG had carried ORG \u2019s corpse away . On DATE she added that she had wiped away a pool of blood , carried the corpse to ORG \u2019s car and submerged both the car and the corpse in a pond near the village of Irgertsheim TIME . On DATE she withdrew these confessions . During subsequent questioning she repeatedly stated that ORG had not come home TIME .","The second applicant stated in her first interview , on DATE , that her father had not returned home TIME . DATE she changed her statement and alleged that her mother had accidentally pushed her father and he had fallen down the stairs . On DATE , during a video - taped reconstruction of the crime scene with the police , she stated that her fianc\u00e9 alone had killed her father with a club . On DATE she was told by a police officer that there was a rumour that her father \u2019s corpse had been fed to the dogs . DATE she stated that her mother had also hit her father with a club . On DATE she stated that it had been her fianc\u00e9 alone who had killed her father , cut the corpse into pieces and fed it to the dogs . After she had withdrawn all confessions , on DATE she incriminated herself , alleging that she had killed her father with a hammer , and her fianc\u00e9 had burnt the corpse . She withdrew that confession as well , alleged sexual abuse by her father and repeated some of the other versions .","The third applicant stated in her first interview , on DATE , that she did not know whether her father had returned that night or not . After a police officer alleged that her mother and the second applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9 had confessed to the killing , she complained of sexual abuse by her father that TIME , after which her mother and father had had a row and her mother had pushed him down the stairs . On DATE she declared that the second applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9 and her mother had killed her father with a club . On DATE she changed her version and alleged that a hammer had been used . On DATE she again alleged abuse by her father that night . As a consequence , the second applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9 had pushed him down the stairs and disposed of the corpse along with the car . On DATE she changed her story once more , alleging that the hitting had taken place on the staircase and that her father \u2019s corpse had been cut into pieces and fed to the dogs . Afterwards she denied having seen anything at all . Finally she withdrew all confessions .","The second applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9 , ORG , stated at his first interview that the first applicant had killed ORG with a club and that he had helped her to dispose of the corpse and the car in a pond near the village of ORG . He repeated this version several times until DATE . Then he alleged that he had hit ORG with a club , carried the corpse into the cellar , cut it into pieces , boiled the head in a pot and fed the pieces to the dogs . Later on he alleged that the first and the second applicants had participated in hitting ORG On DATE he changed his confession , and alleged that he alone had hit ORG in the neck . In DATE he withdrew all confessions .","After the withdrawal of their confessions , all the applicants alleged that they had made their confessions because the police officers had put pressure on them .","The applicants were in pre - trial detention throughout the criminal proceedings .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the first applicant and the second applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9 PERSON of manslaughter and sentenced the first applicant to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment . The second and third applicants were convicted of having aided and abetted the manslaughter by omission and were sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 and DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment respectively . ORG was convinced that ORG had returned home drunk with his car that TIME , had been killed by the first applicant and the second applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9 , and had then been cut into pieces and fed to the dogs . The car had been destroyed in a scrap baling press . The second and third applicants had witnessed the killing without helping ORG court \u2019s findings with regard to the events of the crime were based on the testimony of the police officers who had interviewed the applicants and the second applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9 during the investigations . At that time neither ORG \u2019s corpse nor the car had been found .","As regards the applicants\u2019 criminal liability ORG relied in detail on CARDINAL expert reports . The first report concerned the applicants\u2019 and ORG \u2019s mental health . It asserted that the first applicant had an intelligent quotient of CARDINAL and she therefore suffered from reduced mental capacity on the threshold of severe mental retardation ( Debilit\u00e4t i m Grenzbereich zur GPE ) , the second applicant had an intelligence quotient of CARDINAL which could be classified as a learning disability ( unterdurchschnittliche ORG i m Bereich der GPE ) , and the third applicant had an intelligent quotient of CARDINAL and she therefore suffered from reduced mental capacity as well ( Debilit\u00e4t ) . The second applicant \u2019s fianc\u00e9 , ORG was found to have an intelligence quotient of CARDINAL . The second report concerned the question whether their reduced mental capacity diminished or excluded their criminal liability , which was answered in the negative .","The applicants appealed on points of law . On DATE ORG dismissed their appeal .","The applicants and ORG served their sentences : the first applicant until DATE , the second applicant until DATE and the third applicant until DATE .","On DATE ORG \u2019s corpse was found , sitting in his car at the PERSON barrage of the FAC in GPE a.d . GPE . A commissioned expert came to the conclusion that ORG had not been killed by blunt force to his head , backbone or rib cage . The corpse , which was in rather good condition considering the fact that it had been in the water for DATE , did not show any appearance of having suffered external force .","In DATE the applicants and ORG requested the reopening of the proceedings and claimed monetary compensation for wrongful detention on remand and imprisonment after trial .","On DATE the ORG rejected the request to reopen the proceedings . On the applicants\u2019 and ORG appeal against this decision , ORG granted their request to reopen the proceedings .","On DATE ORG reopened the proceedings and subsequently held several hearings . The proceedings against the third applicant were separated from those of the first and second applicants and ORG due to her physical condition ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG acquitted the first applicant and ORG of manslaughter and the second applicant of having aided and abetted manslaughter by omission .","In part B of the judgment ORG assessed the first and second applicants\u2019 mental health . It relied on CARDINAL expert opinions , which confirmed those obtained in the first set of proceedings , namely that the first applicant had an intelligence quotient of CARDINAL and the second applicant of CARDINAL and both therefore suffered from reduced mental capacity .","Part E of the judgment contained the reasons for the acquittal . The court expressed its conviction that ORG had arrived home at TIME The court was unable to establish what exactly had happened afterwards , but it was certain that one , some or all of the accused had acted in a way which had finally caused ORG \u2019s death during TIME . The court was unable to establish which of the accused had participated in these actions , how ORG \u2019s death had been caused and how the corpse and the car had come to be disposed of at the barrage of the GPE . As nothing pointed to suicide or death by violence on the way home , in the acquitting court \u2019s view ORG \u2019s death must have occurred after he arrived home . The fact that ORG had returned home had been confirmed by the applicants and ORG during the first set of proceedings .","ORG considered that the applicants\u2019 and ORG \u2019s statements could be used as evidence as there was nothing to indicate that prohibited methods of questioning had been used . In so far as the police officers had confronted the applicants in a few cases with incorrect facts , their method of questioning had to be considered as a minor attempt to mislead which did not interfere with the applicants\u2019 right to silence . The fact that the applicants had been interrogated as witnesses at the beginning of their first interview , and not immediately as suspects , did not lead to the inadmissibility of the statements as evidence either . Furthermore , throughout the proceedings neither the applicants nor their counsel had claimed specifically that the police officers had used illegal pressure during questioning . The general allegation in this regard was unsubstantiated and nothing in the course of the proceedings indicated that the police officers had used leading questions to obtain confessions . Furthermore , the videotaped reconstruction of the crime scene , which the court had viewed , had not given any impression of psychological pressure on the applicants\u2019 free will when talking about the crime .","In CARDINAL separate sections subsequent to the acquitting part of the judgment ORG also issued the decision concerning costs and expenses and the decision concerning compensation . The decision concerning costs and expenses was titled part F and the decision concerning compensation part ORG ordered the treasury to pay the costs of the proceedings but declined to reimburse the ORG legal costs and expenses in accordance with LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It further dismissed the applicants\u2019 monetary compensation claims with regard to their pre - trial detention and their imprisonment in accordance with LAW ( PERSON \u00fcber die PERSON f\u00fcr Strafverfolgungsma\u00dfnahmen , see paragraphs DATE below ) .","The court found that these claims were to be rejected because the applicants had caused both their detention on remand and their imprisonment by culpable negligence . It argued that the applicants had acted with culpable negligence because they incriminated themselves by making either deliberately wrong statements , or statements which could be proved neither true nor false .","As to the confessions of the first applicant , the court held that the first applicant \u2019s statement of DATE , that she had lowered ORG \u2019s corpse and the car into a pond near the village of ORG , had been untrue because both the corpse and the car had been found at a barrage of the GPE . Furthermore , in DATE the first applicant had incriminated herself during the first set of proceedings when stating that ORG had returned home on TIME of his disappearance , while in DATE she had reported him missing . Thus she herself had created a strong suspicion that she had killed ORG As a result , she had caused the indictment and the judgment by culpable negligence . Regarding the question of whether her reduced mental capacity discharged the first applicant of culpable negligence , the court observed that she had been able to follow the court proceedings and had been capable of answering questions during the police investigations in DATE after thorough reflection . Her mental capacity was not such that she could not easily foresee that her statements would lead to the strong suspicion that she had killed ORG","In so far as on DATE the second applicant had admitted to having hit ORG \u2019s skull with a hammer , ORG found that this self - incrimination had been untrue because the expert who examined ORG \u2019s corpse had come to the conclusion that ORG \u2019s skull had been intact . As a consequence , the second applicant had created a strong suspicion against herself concerning ORG \u2019s death . Furthermore , the court found that the second applicant had incriminated herself by her statements when questioned on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , even though the court was not able to determine whether these statements had been true or false . Despite her reduced mental capacity , ORG was convinced that in DATE the second applicant had been able to foresee that her statements would create a strong suspicion against her , because most of her self - incriminating statements had been very grave , repeated and given after having consulted her counsel . In the court \u2019s view , the commissioning of an expert on grounds of her reduced mental capacity had not therefore been necessary . Lastly , nothing indicated that these statements were made in response to unlawful questioning .","On CARDINAL DATE the third applicant was also acquitted of having aided and abetted manslaughter by omission for the same reasons as set out in ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . ORG found that she had an intelligent quotient of CARDINAL and that she therefore suffered from reduced mental capacity . As regards the reimbursement of costs and compensation , the third applicant was awarded monetary compensation solely for DATE of her detention on remand . The acquitting court found that the third applicant caused both her detention on remand and her imprisonment by culpable negligence . Her statement of DATE , that ORG had killed ORG with a hammer and that the corpse had been cut into pieces and fed to the dogs , had been untrue because the corpse had been found at the barrage . Therefore , the third applicant had also created a strong suspicion against herself concerning ORG \u2019s death . Regarding her allegation that she had been sexually abused by ORG on TIME of his disappearance , the court could not determine whether this statement was true or false . However , since she had withdrawn these statements later on this was of only minor importance , because she had equally caused her indictment and imprisonment by culpable negligence . The court found that the third applicant \u2019s reduced mental capacity did not discharge her of culpable negligence . Despite this disability she had been able to express herself clearly and had incriminated herself gravely and repeatedly while advised by counsel . Nothing indicated that she had not been able to understand the importance and meaning of her statements . Furthermore , she made her statements in the presence of her counsel .","The applicants appealed against ORG CARDINAL decisions to refuse monetary compensation and the reimbursement of legal costs and expenses .","On DATE ( concerning the third applicant ) and DATE ( concerning the first and the second applicants ) ORG rejected the appeals against the refusal of monetary compensation for their imprisonment . The court pointed out that , when assessing whether the criminal proceedings and the convictions had been caused by culpable negligence , the point of view at the time of the first set of proceedings was decisive . A refusal of monetary compensation under LAW was limited to cases where the person concerned had acted with gross negligence . It was therefore not sufficient to draw a suspicion on oneself . The person concerned must have substantially influenced the criminal proceedings or the conviction by his conduct .","Applying these principles to the applicants\u2019 cases , ORG fully endorsed the legal reasoning of ORG in part G of the judgment concerning compensation . The alleged use of psychological pressure during the police questionings did not change this assessment . Even if there might have been such a situation , both the constancy and severity of the self - incrimination and the fact that the applicants had been represented by counsel during their various statements had to be taken into account . Furthermore , in view of the expert opinions commissioned in DATE and during the proceedings at issue nothing indicated that the applicants\u2019 criminal liability had been diminished or excluded at the time they had made their statements . ORG noted that during the hearings before ORG the court had received advice both from a psychologist and a psychiatrist . There had been no reason on the basis of the related request to take further evidence to obtain an additional psychological expert opinion in respect of the ORG statements during the first set of proceedings .","In the decision dated DATE concerning the denial of compensation for the first and the second applicant ORG additionally mentioned that ORG had respected the applicants\u2019 right to be presumed innocent as guaranteed by LAW . It noted that ORG had been permitted to voice a remaining suspicion against the applicants , as long as it clearly stated that any remaining suspicion did not amount to a finding of guilt . These requirements were fulfilled because ORG , in stating that it was convinced that CARDINAL or all of the accused had caused ORG \u2019s death without being able to establish which of the accused and in what way , had not commented on the applicants\u2019 guilt but on whether the evidence before it left any suspicious circumstances .","On DATE ORG further rejected the ORG appeal against the refusal of reimbursement of legal costs and expenses , fully endorsing ORG reasoning in its decision of CARDINAL DATE while referring to part F of ORG judgment .","The first applicant complained of a violation of her right to be heard regarding both decisions of ORG . The second applicant lodged a motion to be heard and statement of objections ( NORP ) against ORG refusal to pay monetary compensation . The third applicant lodged a motion to be heard against the refusal of monetary compensation and statements of objections against the refusal to reimburse legal costs . All requests were rejected by ORG .","NORP The first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against ORG decisions denying compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses . In so far as they have submitted , the second and third applicant only lodged constitutional complaints with ORG against ORG decisions refusing the reimbursement of legal costs and expenses . All the applicants alleged that ORG decisions violated their right to be heard , their right to be presumed innocent and their right to an effective remedy .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the second applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint concerning the refusal of reimbursement of legal costs without providing reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the first applicant \u2019s constitutional complaints concerning both the refusal to reimburse legal costs and the refusal to pay monetary compensation , without providing reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the third applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides , inter alia , that where the indicted accused is acquitted , his necessary costs and expenses shall be borne by the ORG .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The indicted accused \u2019s necessary expenses shall not be charged to the ORG if the indicted accused caused the preferring of public charges by filing criminal information in which he claimed to have committed the offence with which he was charged . The court may dispense with charging the indicted accused \u2019s necessary expenses to the ORG if","he caused the preferring of public charges by falsely incriminating himself with regard to material points or in contradiction to his later statements or by concealing material exonerating circumstances despite having made a statement in response to the accusation , or .... \u201d .","Compensation for damage caused , inter alia , by wrongful prosecution , detention on remand or imprisonment is covered by LAW ( PERSON \u00fcber die PERSON f\u00fcr Strafverfolgungsma\u00dfnahmen ) .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL of that Act , a defendant is notably entitled to compensation for damage incurred by a criminal conviction if the conviction is quashed in re - opened proceedings .","According to LAW , a person who has been held in detention on remand may claim compensation if he was acquitted or if the proceedings against him were otherwise discontinued .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW provides that compensation under that LAW is ruled out if the accused caused the prosecution deliberately or by culpable negligence ( vors\u00e4tzliche oder grob fahrl\u00e4ssige PERSON ) . The latter is established when it has to be said of an accused that he himself prompted the criminal proceedings by behaving in a way which failed to take into account the elementary fact that such behaviour would obviously lead to criminal proceedings ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160089","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SAFARYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","She owned a plot of land which measured QUANTITY m. and was situated in the centre of GPE . She also owned CARDINAL houses and a garage situated on the plot . It appears that the applicant shared her household with her CARDINAL children .","Before DATE the applicant , without permission , built on her plot of land a pavilion ( \u0577\u057e\u0561\u0584\u0561\u0580\u0561\u0576 ) measuring QUANTITY . m which she used as a venue for trade . The pavilion featured in the ownership certificate issued to the applicant on DATE as a \u201c half - ruined construction \u201d .","On DATE the Government adopted Decree no . PERSON , approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of LOC of GPE to be taken for ORG needs , having a total area of CARDINAL sq . m. It appears that the applicant \u2019s plot of land fell within CARDINAL such zone .","On DATE the applicant applied to a notary office with a request to donate her property to her CARDINAL children and seeking to make that transaction official .","The notary office refused this request , with reference to Government Decree no . PERSON , stating that the applicant \u2019s property was situated in an expropriation zone .","The applicant contested this refusal before the courts . It appears that on DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE dismissed her claim . The applicant lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claim and ordered the notary office to formalise the transaction . It found that the refusal was in violation of the law since the applicant \u2019s request derived from LAW . Besides , Government Decree no . PERSON did not envisage any limitations on the type of transaction that the applicant sought to conclude . No appeal was lodged against this judgment , which entered into force .","On an unspecified date the applicant applied to ORG ( \u201c SRER \u201d ) , seeking to divide her property into CARDINAL parts and to transfer ownership to her children . She also requested that her title be registered in respect of the pavilion .","It appears that on DATE the ORG refused both requests . As regards the refusal of the second request , it appears that the ORG referred to LAW no . ORG","The applicant contested this refusal before the courts .","In the proceedings before the ORG and ORG of GPE the representative of the ORG submitted that the applicant \u2019s request had been refused because her property was situated in an expropriation zone and included unauthorised constructions . Its division would be contrary to Government Decrees nos . PERSON and CARDINALN.","On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the applicant \u2019s claim . It found that the applicant was the sole owner of the property in question and it was groundless to seek its division or sever any part of it . As regards the registration of ownership in respect of the pavilion , this claim was similarly groundless since the applicant \u2019s plot of land was situated in an expropriation zone , while the procedure prescribed by Government Decree no . CARDINAL-N , pursuant to its paragraph CARDINAL , did not apply to unauthorised constructions built on plots of land falling within such expropriation zones .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG . ORG found that the applicant had applied to the ORG with a request to have her property divided into CARDINAL parts , which had been refused because the property was situated in an expropriation zone and included unauthorised constructions . Its division into CARDINAL parts would be contrary to Government Decrees CARDINAL . PERSON and DATE As regards the refusal to register her title in respect of the pavilion , ORG recapitulated the findings of ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . In her appeal she argued that ORG had ignored the findings made in its final judgment of DATE . Furthermore , the fact that the plot of land was situated in an expropriation zone could not serve as a basis for restricting her rights as an owner which she enjoyed under LAW . She further argued that the pavilion in question was immovable property and the refusal to register her title in its respect deprived her of the right to receive compensation at the time of expropriation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on the same grounds ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163222","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF D.L. v. BULGARIA","importance":2,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-d - Minors);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , aged CARDINAL , was admitted to the Open Door children \u2019s crisis centre in GPE . Her placement was ordered as a protective measure under LAW by the Pleven municipal director of social assistance , at the request of the applicant \u2019s mother , who had claimed to be unable to look after her daughter .","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE a criminal bench of ORG ( \u0420\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0435\u043d \u0441\u044a\u0434 ) confirmed the applicant \u2019s placement and extended its validity for a further DATE . In its reasoning the court found that the conditions for the placement of a minor in a specialist institution were satisfied , namely that the child \u2019s parents were unable to provide her with adequate care and that she was living in a dangerous social environment , as she associated with \u201c men identified as delinquents \u201d . Lastly , it stated that no member of the applicant \u2019s family was able to take on responsibility for her upbringing .","On DATE , finding that the conditions for the applicant \u2019s return to her family environment were not satisfied , the municipal director of social assistance ordered the extension of her placement in the centre . On DATE a civil bench of ORG in turn confirmed the measure and extended it for DATE .","On DATE the local committee for combating juvenile antisocial behaviour ( \u201c the local committee \u201d ) asked ORG to order the applicant \u2019s placement in a correctional boarding school . On DATE a criminal bench of ORG held a hearing , following which it gave a decision imposing a less severe educational measure on the applicant , namely \u201c a ban on meeting and making contact with certain individuals \u201d . In its reasoning the court specified that placement in a correctional boarding school was liable to have a negative impact on the child \u2019s psychological and social development , given the \u201c unfavourable environment offered by that type of institution \u201d . It added that following the expiry of her placement in the Open Door centre , it would be appropriate to admit the applicant to another institution regulated by LAW in order to keep her away from the people who had forced her into prostitution .","On DATE the local committee sent ORG a new proposal for the applicant \u2019s admission to a correctional boarding school under LAW . It argued that the applicant did not have a favourable family environment and that , in particular , her father was serving a prison sentence and her mother had trouble assuming her parental responsibilities . This had caused the applicant to run away from home and develop a circle of friends including both adults and juveniles who were identified as \u201c delinquents \u201d and had allegedly incited her to engage in immoral conduct , such as the provision of \u201c sexual services \u201d . Lastly , the local committee noted that the applicant had also run away twice from the children \u2019s crisis centre and had behaved aggressively towards the staff .","On DATE a criminal bench of ORG held a hearing . The applicant \u2019s mother was present , having been summoned to appear at the hearings , and asked to have a lawyer officially appointed to represent her daughter in the proceedings . The applicant also asked to have a lawyer appointed . The court granted their request . It heard evidence from the applicant , her officially appointed lawyer , a representative of the local committee , an inspector from the child protection team ( \u0414\u0435\u0442\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u043f\u0435\u0434\u0430\u0433\u043e\u0433\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u0441\u0442\u0430\u044f ) , a representative of the district prosecutor \u2019s office , a representative of the municipal child protection department and CARDINAL social workers from the children \u2019s crisis centre where the applicant was living . The inspector from the child protection team stated that the applicant engaged in prostitution and had been found offering prostitution services on a motorway near GPE , QUANTITY from her home town . The CARDINAL social workers from the children \u2019s crisis centre pointed out that that factor had served as a ground for placing her in the centre as a protective measure for a child at risk . They added that after her admission to the centre , the child had remained in contact with the people who had incited her to engage in prostitution despite the steps that had been taken to protect her . In the social workers\u2019 opinion , the applicant \u2019s family environment was unsuitable for her . She came from a large family where the mother did not exert any parental control . The mother did not have a job and her partner drank and was violent towards her and her children . The mother had also stayed at the children \u2019s crisis centre with CARDINAL of her other children . After intensive psychological and social counselling , a positive development had been noted in the applicant and there were plans to find different accommodation arrangements for her . However , the social workers added that by the time of the hearing the applicant \u2019s situation had worsened as she did not follow the rules in place , came back late from school or was brought back by the police when she failed to return , and continued to associate with individuals known to the police , to engage in sexual relations and to behave aggressively towards the staff . She had attended a series of talks on prevention of \u201c lover boy\u201d-type human trafficking but had not been receptive to the protective measures recommended . The social workers expressed the opinion that the applicant faced a strong risk of being driven into prostitution and that the arrangements in place at the crisis centre did not afford her the necessary protection . In their view , such protection would only be provided in a secure centre with a restrictive regime . Lastly , the representative of the local committee stated that CARDINAL educational measures had already been imposed on the applicant , including strict monitoring by a supervisor , the ban on associating with certain individuals and the warning recommending placement in a correctional boarding school . He viewed those measures as insufficient .","NORP The court also obtained welfare reports . The applicant stated that she did not wish to be admitted to a correctional boarding school and preferred to remain in the children \u2019s crisis centre . The officially appointed lawyer called for the adoption of less severe educational measures . The representatives of the district prosecutor \u2019s office and of the municipal child protection department supported the proposal by the local committee . The representative of the municipal child protection department stated that during the hearing all the safeguards laid down in LAW had been observed . In his opinion , the possibilities for the child \u2019s upbringing in the crisis centre had been exhausted , the risk of her renewed involvement in human trafficking was very high and she was unaware of this . Accordingly , the measure of placement in a correctional boarding school was in fact in her interests .","Later on DATE ORG gave a judgment ordering the applicant \u2019s placement in the correctional boarding school in ORG ( \u201c the ORG school \u201d ) , a village QUANTITY away from LOC . In its reasoning the court held that despite the judicial decision of DATE in which a compromise solution had been adopted for the applicant , namely the confirmation and extension of her placement in the children \u2019s crisis centre , she was still failing to abide by the institution \u2019s internal rules , was not returning to the centre by the designated time after school , was in contact with individuals identified as \u201c delinquents \u201d and was still behaving rudely and aggressively towards the social workers at the centre . It noted that , in the absence of adequate parental control , the applicant had developed serious antisocial habits and that her placement in a children \u2019s crisis centre no longer had the intended educational and preventive effect on her behaviour . In the court \u2019s view , the applicant no longer displayed any willingness to abide by the rules of society , or even those of the institution in which she was living , and it was therefore advisable to remove her from her circle of acquaintances who were harming her personal development , and to provide her with enhanced educational support in order to eradicate her negative behavioural traits . The court noted that educational measures had already been imposed on her , but they had not produced a positive result . It concluded that the measure of admission to a correctional boarding school was necessary not only for her own benefit but in the interests of society .","The applicant , represented by her lawyer , appealed against that judgment . She challenged the measure imposed on her , arguing in particular that the court had not specified its duration , that her mother had not been given a hearing by the first - instance court and that she herself had not committed any criminal acts .","In a final judgment of DATE a criminal bench of ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision . In its reasoning it held that the law did not oblige the court to hear evidence from the parents \u2013 in this instance the applicant \u2019s mother DATE and that the applicant \u2019s other complaints were unsubstantiated and ill - founded .","On DATE the applicant attempted to commit suicide and was admitted to the toxicology department of ORG . According to a medical certificate dated DATE , she had taken QUANTITY paracetamol tablets and QUANTITY NORP tablets and was in a fragile state . After her stomach was pumped , the effects of the intoxication were brought under control .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the ORG school . She was still there at the time of the most recent information submitted to the ORG , on DATE .","Regarding life at the school , the applicant submitted in her application that the level of teaching was much lower than at her previous institution . In DATE prior to her application , CARDINAL pupils had obtained the secondary - school leaving certificate , and none at all in DATE or DATE . CARDINAL pupils had been awarded the certificate in DATE with an overall average mark of CARDINAL out of CARDINAL , the minimum pass mark being CARDINAL . The applicant added that in DATE and DATE the pedagogical council had not given any positive assessments of pupils\u2019 behaviour or school results , meaning that no proposals for the end of a placement had been submitted to ORG .","The applicant also asserted that she had continued to be threatened with forced prostitution by her former contacts after being admitted to the ORG school . On DATE she had attempted suicide for the second time , as part of a group with CARDINAL other girls , by ingesting chemical substances . She had then been taken to hospital for DATE . There had been other suicide attempts at the school .","The applicant further submitted that her telephone conversations were monitored by a supervisor . For that purpose , a loudspeaker had been attached to the telephone and switched on during each conversation .","In addition , because of the significant number of violent incidents at correctional boarding schools , the prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE ordered an inspection of all secure educational institutions , including the ORG school . The results of the inspection are not known .","When submitting their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application , the ORG included a report dated DATE by the head of the ORG school about the applicant \u2019s situation . According to the report , during her previous placement in the Open Door centre , the applicant had been aggressive towards the staff , had encouraged other girls to engage in prostitution and had run away on CARDINAL occasions ( DATE ) . The report also stated that she had unashamedly admitted to having been sexually active since DATE and that she provided \u201c sexual services \u201d in return for payment .","The report mentioned , in addition , that the applicant did not have a favourable family background and that she was left unsupervised , which explained why she had previously run away and led a vagrant lifestyle .","According to the report , the ORG school offered an educational environment with experts qualified to work as teachers or supervisors in accordance with the requirements of ORG and ORG . The school curriculum and the courses followed in all specific subjects had been developed and approved in line with the ORG \u2019s standard procedures . The applicant had been deficient in many areas and the teachers had worked with her on a CARDINAL - to - CARDINAL basis as well as during lessons .","The file does not include a copy of the individual development plan that was supposed to have been drawn up at the time of the applicant \u2019s admission to the school and updated DATE . However , according to the report , the plan indicated that she was unaware of the risks she ran on account of her \u201c erratic sexual relations \u201d , that she did not question the consequences of such acts and that she was not ready to live independently . It added that she was na\u00efve , easy to manipulate , impulsive , emotionally fragile and prone to dishonesty .","The report went on to state that the individual plan as updated on CARDINAL DATE noted a positive change in the child \u2019s behaviour . Although she did not apply herself consistently , she had nevertheless shown some interest in schoolwork . The individual plan had recommended that she step up her efforts to acquire knowledge on an ongoing , in - depth basis .","NORP The report also noted that at the end of the DATE , the applicant had achieved an average mark of QUANTITY out of CARDINAL and had therefore moved up to the next class , that she had also been awarded a certificate as a qualified seamstress and that she would be receiving a similar mark for DATE .","With regard to the applicant \u2019s telephone conversations , the report explained the applicable rules and stated that she had not been \u201c deprived of telephone contact with her mother \u201d or subjected to any restrictions on visits from her family , even though these had often taken place outside the times specified in the school \u2019s internal rules . In addition , the applicant had never received any letters or parcels from her family . She had gone on home leave CARDINAL times during DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to DATE , from DATE to DATE , and from DATE to DATE . Each time , the applicant had returned late to the ORG school .","NORP The report also stated that according to information from the police , the child had been suspected of stealing a mobile phone and jewels from a house on DATE . On being questioned by the police , she had handed over the items in question of her own accord .","Lastly , the report noted that the school \u2019s committee on preventing the risks of assault and harassment of juveniles had not received any information to suggest that the applicant had been \u201c sexually exploited \u201d within the school itself .","CARDINAL reports issued in DATE and DATE by ORG for ORG include a summary of the findings of an assessment of the operation of the CARDINAL correctional boarding schools in GPE , including the CARDINAL in ORG . They indicate that these schools had a total capacity of CARDINAL places and that in DATE there were CARDINAL children attending them . There were CARDINAL girls at the ORG school , all of whom had been admitted under LAW .","The reports also note that there is a high pupil turnover rate during DATE because of the admission of juveniles on the basis of a placement order and because of their departure , in most cases on reaching the age of majority ( DATE ) or on the expiry of the statutory maximum duration of the placement . During DATE , CARDINAL children ran away from the schools and CARDINAL left them following a positive DATE assessment by the pedagogical council . During DATE , CARDINAL children had a positive assessment and were therefore able to leave the correctional boarding schools . During the DATE , there were no instances of children leaving the schools following a positive assessment . As regards the results achieved across all secure educational institutions in GPE , the reports indicate that in DATE , PERCENT of pupils were awarded a vocational qualification , PERCENT successfully completed their secondary education up to DATE PERCENT successfully completed their secondary education up to DATE . PERCENT of pupils failed to complete their education . The DATE report mentions a low success rate among pupils , with average marks of CARDINAL out of CARDINAL . According to the reports , these figures point to a problem as to the effectiveness of educational and rehabilitative measures , and even raise questions as to whether \u201c such measures exist in practice \u201d .","The reports further state that , in accordance with the applicable legislation , each correctional boarding school has a team responsible for educational and psychological assessment of pupils and a team of supervisors responsible for educational and rehabilitative support . The teams draw up DATE individual plans for pupils , which in most cases are set out in a standardised form . Objectives relating to learning , education and development are general in nature and do not include any specific activities tailored to the individual needs , abilities , age and interests of the children concerned . The DATE report is particularly critical of the prevalence of serious incidents involving suicide attempts or assaults on other pupils , and deplores the fact that no provision is made for follow - up action in the individual plans of the pupils concerned so that consideration can be given to the reasons for their actions and to their psychological state .","In addition , the reports note that the staff of the institutions concerned have undergone training covering matters such as alternative education methods for children in difficulty , development of their potential for autonomy and catering for individual needs . With regard to the ORG school in particular , the teaching and support staff are subject to external educational supervision . The reports nevertheless conclude that the number of people employed to run extracurricular activities is insufficient , although the children \u2019s wide - ranging needs and their vulnerability suggest that educational activities should be arranged in small groups . They also criticise the lack of any programme to foster closer relations between children and their families .","Two types of problems are highlighted . The first type concerns the school curriculum and the second concerns the programme for social integration and rehabilitation .","Regarding schoolwork , the reports note , among other things , that illiteracy levels are a cause for concern , particularly as children of a wide range of ages and abilities are grouped together in the same class . A large number of pupils are unable to read or write on their arrival at the schools , and the curricula taught do not allow them to redress their shortcomings and make progress . Furthermore , many children with behavioural difficulties also encounter problems at school and the development of their ability for effective learning and independent work is impaired . These children often run away , do not attend lessons regularly and have insufficient contact with adults .","As far as the programme for social integration and rehabilitation is concerned , the reports state that , in addition to staff shortages , the existing groups of CARDINAL or CARDINAL children in difficulty can not be effectively supervised , the activities on offer do not follow an appropriate methodology for vulnerable children , and no arrangements are made at the institutions to encourage contact between the children and their families , a shortcoming identified as a cause of aggressive behaviour .","Lastly , the DATE report recommends in particular : ( a ) a general reform of the status of the institutions in question and of their operation , through the inclusion of alternative educational and preventive methods ; ( b ) the introduction and development of units for preventing deviant behaviour , and their involvement as soon as children display the first signs of such behaviour ; ( c ) shorter placements , with more emphasis on social rehabilitation and psychological support for children than on teaching ; ( d ) returning the children in question to the ordinary school system , including in schools in their home area , rather than keeping them apart in specialist institutions , through an intensive individual integration scheme managed by teams of educational experts ; ( e ) the introduction of programmes allowing young people to acquire vocational skills ; ( f ) instilling an atmosphere of cooperation with families ; ( g ) a reform whereby local committees for combating juvenile antisocial behaviour would no longer have a decisive role in taking educational measures and such decisions would be taken by a specialist judge alone ; ( h ) abolition of punishments for juvenile antisocial behaviour ; ( i ) abolition of criminal penalties for children DATE and their replacement by exclusively social and protective measures , applicable only in exceptional cases ; ( j ) admitting children DATE to specialist institutions only where there is a social need or a need for protection ; and ( k ) closure of the institutions in question , subject to the introduction of alternative protective and judicial measures in legislation and practice .","It appears that , following the DATE report by ORG , ORG and ORG undertook to reform the secure institutions for juveniles in order to ensure that the system was entirely focused on the child and offered an individually tailored approach . Measures were subsequently put forward in an action plan for the implementation of the national policy strategy on juvenile justice for DATE . Among the measures envisaged were : the repeal of ORG and the introduction of a new LAW for children in conflict with the law , with the aim of offering a wide range of social , educational and learning services to children in difficulty .","..."],"violated_articles":["5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-d"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145746","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MAMADALIYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant is an ethnic NORP . He was born and lived in GPE in the south of GPE . In DATE he and his family moved to ORG and , DATE , to PERSON where the applicant worked at a telephone repair service . In DATE the applicant went to PERSON to attend his sister \u2019s wedding . On DATE he was carrying several passengers of NORP ethnic origin in his car . Afterwards one of them , a Mr M. , was found dead .","On DATE the applicant returned to ORG .","On DATE the PERSON - Abad regional police department brought criminal proceedings against the applicant and CARDINAL other individuals on suspicion of having murdered Mr M. On DATE the applicant was charged in absentia and on DATE ORG ordered his remand in custody , allegedly in the absence of his lawyer . On DATE the applicant was placed on the international wanted list .","According to the applicant and as confirmed by a lawyer of a local human rights organisation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , several NORP lawenforcement officers had demanded MONEY from his mother in return for dropping the criminal charges against him . Apparently she did not comply with their demand .","On DATE the FAC of the Jalal - Abad Region convicted PERSON of PERSON \u2019s murder and CARDINAL more individuals of misprision and disorderly conduct . The applicant is mentioned in the judgment as the driver of the car transporting the defendants and the victim on TIME of the murder . It does not follow from the judgment that the applicant had been involved in Mr PERSON \u2019s murder , which had apparently been committed by Mr U. alone .","On DATE the ORG of GPE altered the judgment of the trial court by reducing the term of Mr U. \u2019s imprisonment from DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in PERSON .","On DATE the prosecutor of LOC of ORG issued an order for the applicant to be remanded in custody for a period of DATE .","On DATE ORG of PERSON extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The applicant neither objected at the hearing nor appealed against that decision .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , reasoning that extradition proceedings were pending and that the applicant might abscond .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG . He argued that the court had failed to duly reason the risk of his absconding , that the period of his detention was excessive , and that the court had not considered less stringent preventive measures , in breach of paragraph CARDINAL of Directive Decision no . CARDINAL adopted by LAW of ORG on DATE .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the appeal and upheld the lower court \u2019s ruling .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s period of detention until DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld that decision .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE noted the interim measure indicated by the ORG and ordered the applicant \u2019s release on condition that he did not leave his place of residence without permission and behaved properly ( \u043f\u043e\u0434\u043f\u0438\u0441\u043a\u0430 \u043e \u043d\u0435\u0432\u044b\u0435\u0437\u0434\u0435 \u0438 \u043d\u0430\u0434\u043b\u0435\u0436\u0430\u0449\u0435\u043c \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0438 ) .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE lodged an extradition request with the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE seeking to extradite the applicant to GPE for prosecution on charges of murder ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The request stated , inter alia , that the applicant would not be extradited to any other ORG without ORG consent , that he would be prosecuted only for the offence which was the subject of the extradition request and which was not of a political nature , that in the event of conviction the applicant would be free to leave the territory of GPE after serving his sentence , and that he would not be subjected to any form of discrimination on any ground , including his nationality . The request also stated that the applicant would not be subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment prohibited by LAW .","On an unspecified date , at the request of the applicant \u2019s mother , a lawyer from a NORP human - rights NGO , PERSON PERSON , wrote a letter to the head of the extradition department of ORG of GPE . In the letter Mr PERSON argued that the applicant \u2019s criminal prosecution was arbitrary . He confirmed that police officers had demanded money from the applicant \u2019s mother in exchange for dropping the criminal charges against the applicant . He stated that the NORP authorities had been showing the applicant \u2019s photo to victims of the events of DATE to make them remember him with a view to charging him with the killings of ethnic NORP after his extradition . He also gave details of several criminal cases initiated against ethnic NORP who had allegedly been tortured and\/or killed by the NORP police . In support of his statements PERSON PERSON referred to the opinion of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture who had concluded after his visit to GPE that many ethnic NORP had been arbitrarily convicted in GPE in DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE made enquiries with ORG on the issue of the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE . On DATE ORG replied as follows :","\u201c ... ORG has no information which prevents the extradition of the NORP national PERSON to the law - enforcement authorities of GPE .","PERSON is of NORP ethnic origin , he does not belong to the titular ethnic group in GPE , which makes it possible for the NORP authorities to hear his case in an arbitrary manner . \u201d","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE granted the request for the applicant \u2019s extradition .","On DATE the applicant lodged a court appeal against the extradition decision . He pointed out that by the judgment of ORG of the PERSON - Abad Region of DATE , Mr U. had been found guilty of the murder of Mr M. with which the applicant had been charged . It followed from that judgment that nobody had been charged with complicity in that murder . The applicant further noted that the lawenforcement officers had attempted to extort money from his mother in exchange for dropping the criminal charges against him . He argued that the accusation of murder against him was baseless as he had not committed that crime . Besides , as a member of the ethnic NORP community , which was being persecuted and discriminated against , he would , if extradited , be subjected to torture or degrading treatment . The applicant \u2019s lawyer gave several examples of such illtreatment suffered by ethnic NORP in GPE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . In its decision ORG relied , inter alia , on the following : ( a ) the assurances by ORG , in particular that the applicant would not be subjected to torture and other forms of ill - treatment \u2013 the court stated that it had no reasons to doubt that they would be observed ; ( b ) the NORP authorities\u2019 rejection of the applicant \u2019s request for refugee status ; and ( c ) the fact that the extradition request had not been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the applicant on account of his race , religion , nationality or political opinion .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG of GPE . In addition to the arguments put forward before ORG , his lawyer referred to information on the widespread practice of ill - treatment of detainees in GPE , as confirmed by the ORG High Commissioner on Human Rights , the UN Special Rapporteur on ORG and ORG .","On DATE by a final decision ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of ORG DATE . It endorsed the lower court \u2019s reasoning without commenting on the applicant \u2019s reference to the international sources regarding the risk of illtreatment .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request for refugee status before ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . On DATE his application was rejected as ill - founded . In its decision ORG in GPE pointed out that the applicant had submitted his request after the beginning of the extradition proceedings . They also mentioned that such requests often served the purpose of revoking decisions to extradite .","The applicant appealed against that decision before ORG of Grozny . In his appeal he referred to information on the widespread practice of ill - treatment of NORP detainees in GPE , as confirmed by the ORG High Commissioner on Human Rights , the UN Special Rapporteur on ORG and ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the ORG \u2019s decision . The court did not address the applicant \u2019s arguments concerning the risk of ill - treatment and found that the reason for the applicant \u2019s request for refugee status was his fear of criminal prosecution . It held that there was therefore no legal basis for granting the request .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision before ORG . He pointed out , inter alia , that ORG had ignored his reference to information on the practice of ill - treatment confirmed by international human - rights organisations .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It did not analyse his arguments concerning the risk of ill - treatment in GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicant requested ORG in GPE to grant him temporary asylum in GPE . On DATE that request was granted and the applicant was provided with temporary asylum until DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167565","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF M\u00c1TH\u00c9 AND SZAB\u00d3 v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145703","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BOKAN AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4","text":["The applicants live in GPE .","By CARDINAL judgments of ORG DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE which became final on CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG ( an Entity of GPE ) was ordered to pay , within DATE , the following amounts in convertible marks ( BAM ) in respect of war damage with default interest at the statutory rate :","BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to Mr GPE ;","BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage to the Jove\u0161s ;","BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to ORG ;","BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the ORG ; and","BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of legal costs to the ORG .","The Banja Luka Court of First Instance issued writs of execution ( rje\u0161enje o izvr\u0161enju ) on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively .","The applicants , except for Mr PERSON and the ORG , complained of non - enforcement to ORG the LAW \u201d ) . On different dates ORG found a breach of LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW in the cases of Mr PERSON , the PERSON and the PERSON . The applicants did not claim compensation , but even if they had done so , their claim would most likely have been refused ( see , for example , ORG decisions ORG CARDINAL of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL of DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL of DATE , \u00a7 DATE ) .","After an extensive information campaign explaining the available options for the settlement of ORG public debt ( including its debt arising from domestic judgments ) , DATE and DATE the applicants informed the authorities that they agreed to be paid only the legal costs in cash and the principal debt and default interest in bonds . Government bonds were then issued on the following dates :","on DATE to Mr GPE ;","on DATE to the Jove\u0161s ;","on DATE to Mr PERSON ;","on DATE to PERSON and PERSON , on DATE to PERSON , on DATE to Ms PERSON ;","on DATE to PERSON and PERSON and on DATE to PERSON .","PERSON , Mr PERSON , the ORG , and the ORG have already sold some or all of their bonds on ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183685","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF AL NASHIRI v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal;Tribunal established by law);Violation of Article 2+P6-1 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Death penalty) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 - Abolition of the death penalty-{general});Violation of Article 3+P6-1 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman punishment;Inhuman treatment) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 - Abolition of the death penalty-{general});Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-1 - Parties to case;Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Florin Streteanu;Iulia Motoc;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in ORG at the GPE FAC in GPE","It is to be noted that in the present case involving , as the applicant \u2019s previous application before the ORG , complaints of secret detention and torture to which he was allegedly subjected during the extraordinary rendition operations by the United States\u2019 authorities ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) the ORG is deprived of the possibility of obtaining any form of direct account of the events complained of from the applicant ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ; see also PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","As in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , the facts as adduced by the applicant were to a considerable extent a reconstruction of dates and other elements relevant to his rendition , detention and treatment in the GPE authorities\u2019 custody , based on various publicly available sources of information . The applicant \u2019s version of the facts as stated in his initial application of DATE evolved and partly changed during the proceedings before ORG ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) .","The respondent Government contested the applicant \u2019s version of the facts on all accounts , maintaining that there was no evidence demonstrating that they had occurred in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","Consequently , the facts of the case as set out below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) are based on the applicant \u2019s account supplemented by various items of evidence in the ORG \u2019s possession .","As regards the events preceding the applicant \u2019s secret detention in GPE , i.e. his capture in GPE , GPE , and initial detention from DATE to DATE , in GPE v. GPE ( \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) ORG held as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The ORG notes that the ORG official documents clearly confirm that by DATE the ORG had the applicant and Mr PERSON , both referred to as \u2018 High - Value Detainees\u2019 , in its custody and that they were interrogated at a ORG black site with the use of the EITs \u2013 the applicant immediately after his arrival at that place on DATE ... .","...","In the light of the above first - hand ORG documentary evidence and clear and convincing expert evidence , the ORG finds established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant , following his capture , was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE from DATE to DATE , that Mr PERSON was also held in the same facility at that time and that they were both moved together to \u2018 another ORG black ORG on DATE ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) , cited above , \u00a7 FAC ) . \u201d","The experts , Mr PERSON and Senator PERSON , heard by ORG at the fact - finding hearing in GPE v. GPE , identified the detention facility as the CARDINAL known under the codename \u201c Cat \u2019s Eye \u201d or \u201c GPE \u201d and located in GPE , GPE ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","At \u201c Cat \u2019s Eye \u201d the ORG subjected the applicant to the EITs , including waterboarding from DATE ( ibid . \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","As regards the early period of the applicant \u2019s detention , the DATE ORG includes the following information . It indicates the date of the applicant \u2019s capture as \u201c DATE \u201d . According to the report , at that time \u201c he provided information while in custody of a foreign government \u201d . On an unspecified date \u2013 i.e. redacted in the DATE ORG \u2013 in DATE he was rendered by the ORG to a secret detention site code - named \u201c ORG . In GPE v. GPE that site is referred to as being code - named \u201c GPE \u201d and located in GPE ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) . The report states that he was held at that site briefly , for DATE ( redacted in the report ) , before being transferred to another detention site , identified in GPE v. GPE as \u201c Cat \u2019s Eye \u201d in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the DATE ORG that facility is referred to as \u201c ORG \u201d . The report further states that :","\u201c In DATE , when DETENTION SITE GREEN was closed , LOC and PERSON were rendered to DETENTION SITE BLUE . \u201d","As regards the events after DATE , in GPE v. GPE ( \u00a7 CARDINAL ) the ORG held :","\u201c CARDINAL . Assessing all the above facts and evidence as a whole , the ORG finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :","( CARDINAL ) on DATE the applicant , together with Mr PERSON , arrived in PERSON on board the ORG rendition aircraft NCARDINALMU ;","( CARDINAL ) from DATE to DATE the applicant was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE identified as having the codename \u2018 GPE and located in Stare Kiejkuty ;","( CARDINAL ) during his detention in GPE under the ORG he was interrogated by the ORG and subjected to EITs and also to unauthorised interrogation techniques as described in the DATE ORG , DATE ORG and the DATE ORG ;","CARDINAL ) NORP on DATE the applicant was transferred by the ORG from GPE on the ORG rendition aircraft NCARDINALP. \u201d","NORP The events that took place DATE and DATE at the ORG detention facility identified in GPE v. GPE as being code - named \u201c Quartz \u201d and located in GPE , including the use of unauthorised interrogation techniques against the applicant , correspond to the events that the DATE ORG relates as occurring at \u201c ORG \u201d .","NORP The DATE ORG has established that \u201c beginning in DATE , the ORG transferred PERSON to CARDINAL different ORG detention facilities before he was transferred to GPE military custody on DATE \u201d .","On the basis of their investigations , research and various material in the public domain the experts heard by ORG at the fact - finding hearing reconstructed the chronology of the applicant \u2019s transfers and identified countries of his secret detention .","ORG . Mr GPE stated that the applicant was transported from GPE first to GPE , second to LOC , third to GPE , then to the fourth site DATE which , according to him , was with a high degree of probability GPE DATE before being transferred to GPE , the fifth \u201c black site \u201d and , finally back to LOC .","In particular , Mr GPE testified as follows :","\u201c ... [ I]n respect of Mr LOC , it is stated explicitly and unredacted in ORG that from DATE PERSON was moved to CARDINAL different detention facilities before his ultimate transfer to LOC in DATE . This provides us with a precise timeframe , DATE , and it provides us with a precise number of transfers which we then have to correlate with his interrogation schedule and the available flight data to determine where he was held . It is on that basis that we have been able to arrive at the conclusion that he was transported from GPE first to GPE , then onwards to LOC , then DATE to GPE , to CARDINAL further site , and with a high degree of probability , GPE , before being transferred back to GPE as no . CARDINAL , and finally to LOC . There are very limited possibilities as to where the ORG could take its detainees because it always maintained a very small range of sites , and because the planes are the same , they operate upon systematic methodologies , notably dummy flight planning , switching of aircraft and all the other tactical elements described . One can narrow down that probability to a certitude , with the right rigour of investigation , and it is that which we have applied to arrive at these conclusions , which have subsequently been validated in the official record . \u201d","In the light of the material in the ORG \u2019s possession the chronology of the applicant \u2019s detention can be described as follows .","In GPE v. GPE the ORG established , inter alia , that in the light of the accumulated evidence , \u201c there [ could ] be no doubt that the NCARDINALP , also known as \u201c Guant\u00e1namo Express \u201d , a Gulfstream V with capacity for CARDINAL passengers but usually configured for CARDINAL , arrived in PERSON on DATE at TIME from GPE , GPE . It stayed on the runway for TIME and then departed for GPE , GPE \u201d ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","It was also established that it had been one of the most notorious rendition aircraft used by the ORG for transportation of its prisoners . The plane NCARDINALP set off from FAC , GPE on DATE at TIME and undertook a DATE flight circuit , during which it landed in and departed from CARDINAL different foreign countries including GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . The aircraft returned from GPE back to FAC on DATE ( ibid . \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","Mr GPE at the fact - finding hearing testified as follows :","\u201c As was established in the earlier proceedings , PERSON was taken from GPE to GPE , to the facility near GPE in DATE , arriving there on DATE . And after detention there for a period of DATE , he was then transferred to the ORG secret facility at FAC . The declassified ORG provides extensive detail on the evolution of ORG operations in respect of GPE and LOC , notably in this passage it refers specifically to LOC as having been transferred out of a country which is identifiable as GPE , to the ORG detention facility at FAC , GPE , after a period of DATE beyond the original agreed timeframe . This passage resides within a section of the report which describes difficult and sometimes acrimonious relations between the ORG and its NORP counterparts , and it is evident that , in fact , the date , redacted in this passage , is DATE , which is precisely the time at which our flight information demonstrates an aircraft arriving in GPE and transporting detainees onwards to LOC . \u201d","According to Mr GPE , the plane NCARDINALP took the applicant , together with another ORG detainee , PERSON , from GPE , GPE to GPE , GPE , to a facility lent to the ORG by their NORP counterparts . He testified as follows :","\u201c The starting point in assessing PERSON own chronology of secret detention in these proceedings should be GPE , because we have it confirmed , as a matter of judicial fact , that LOC was detained in GPE , having been transported there on the flight of NCARDINALMU from GPE to GPE on DATE . So he found himself in GPE DATE , during which he was subjected to all the documented abuse , the enhanced interrogation techniques and the unauthorised techniques described in the earlier proceedings , into DATE . In the earlier proceedings we presented a range of flights which brought detainees into GPE .","However , the first flight which took detainees out of GPE occurred on CARDINAL and DATE . Based upon , now , the confirmations in ORG , we can see this outward flight from GPE as the starting point of Mr GPE \u2019s next chronology of detention . It is stated explicitly DATE , from that point DATE , Mr GPE was detained in CARDINAL further sites before ultimately being transferred to ORG in DATE . The flight on DATE took Mr GPE , together with another ORG detainee , PERSON , to GPE , GPE . GPE , GPE , at that time was a facility lent to the ORG , to ORG , by their NORP counterparts . It was a facility which resided within the NORP system , and it is described in explicit detail in ORG . That facility was the same place to which some persons from ORG would be later taken back , but I will explain why Mr PERSON was not one of those , with reference to the same material . In DATE , according to the report , it was allowed to operate until DATE , at which point relations became acrimonious and certain conditions were placed upon it . The ORG collected its detainees who were housed there , which included Mr PERSON , on DATE in the rendition circuit I demonstrated . That is the date confirmed from the ORG \u2019s own reporting , and the flight confirmed through our investigations , the rendition circuit I demonstrated . So we are now taking Mr GPE from GPE to GPE as number CARDINAL , ORG as number CARDINAL . \u201d","The DATE ORG section entitled \u201c Country [ name redacted ] ORG on the ORG \u2019s Behalf \u201d , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c Consideration of a detention facility in Country [ name blackened ] began in DATE blackened ] DATE , when the ORG sought to transfer PERSON from the custody of a foreign government to ORG custody [ blackened ] which had not yet informed the ORG political leadership of the ORG \u2019s request to establish a clandestine detention facility in Country [ blackened ] , surveyed potential sites for the facility , while the ORG set aside [ ORG ] [ number blackened ] CARDINAL for its construction .","In DATE , the ORG arranged for a \u2018 temporary ORG involving placing CARDINAL ORG detainees ( PERSON and PERSON ) within an already existing Country [ blackened ] detention facility , until the ORG \u2019s own facility could be built .","...","By DATE blackened ] DATE , after an extension of DATE beyond the originally agreed upon timeframe for concluding ORG detention activities in Country [ blackened ] , both PERSON and PERSON had been transferred out of Country [ blackened]| to the ORG detention facility at FAC , GPE . \u201d","According to Mr J.G.S , on DATE the applicant was transported from Rabat to LOC on the plane ORG","Mr GPE , in the course of the above mentioned ORG presentation at the fact - finding hearing ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) , gave the following details concerning NCARDINALP \u2019s circuit of CARDINAL DATE :","\u201c Having departed from GPE , this aircraft , ... NCARDINALP , flew to GPE in GPE for a stopover before heading eastward to GPE , GPE , where dissident detainees , handed over to the ORG by local intelligence services , were rendered to secret detention in GPE .","From GPE , on DATE , the aircraft transported several detainees out of detention in GPE towards detention in LOC . The first stop in LOC was the detention site at PERSON , in northern GPE , which was explicitly described in the [ LOC v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE ] proceedings , and this circuit is unprecedented and indeed unique because it is the only occasion on which a rendition flight carrying ORG detainees left CARDINAL NORP site and flew directly to another NORP detention site , in this case in GPE , GPE . ...","From GPE , the rendition plane carried further detainees out to LOC . These were persons who had boarded on earlier legs , not persons leaving GPE , and from GPE to LOC , where for DATE , in DATE and DATE , the ORG operated a secret detention facility apart from the larger military facility at FAC . \u201d","As established in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , the plane NCARDINALP landed in GPE , GPE on DATE en route from GPE , GPE . On DATE Mr PERSON was transferred by the ORG from GPE on board that plane .","The plane set off from FAC in GPE , GPE on DATE at TIME and undertook a DATE flight circuit , during which it landed in and departed from CARDINAL different foreign countries , as well as FAC at LOC .","These CARDINAL countries , in the order in which the aircraft landed there , were : GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , and GPE . The aircraft flew from GPE , GPE to LOC on TIME DATE , landing there in the morning of DATE .","In GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE ( see \u00a7 CARDINAL ) Mr GPE gave the following account of the \u201c final rendition circuit \u201d through GPE executed by the NCARDINALP plane , a ORG CARDINAL , on DATE :","\u201c CARDINAL flight circuit however is of particular significance and this is the final part of our presentation in which we would like to discuss how the detention operations in GPE were brought to an end .","In DATE the ORG rendition and detention programme underwent another overhaul analogous to the one which had taken place in DATE when Mr GPE and PERSON were transferred from GPE to GPE . On this occasion , the ORG executed a rendition circuit which entailed visiting CARDINAL secret detention sites at which ORG detainees were held . These included , in sequence , PERSON in GPE , GPE in GPE , GPE in GPE and LOC , a secret ORG compartment of LOC , having initially commenced in GPE , GPE . On this particular flight route , it has been found that all of the detainees who remained in GPE at that date were transferred out of GPE and deposited into the successive detention facilities at the onward destinations : GPE , Rabat and ORG . Among those persons was one of the applicants DATE , PERSON , who was taken on that date from GPE to LOC . This particular flight circuit was again disguised by dummy flight planning although significantly not in respect of GPE . It was the sole official declaration of PERSON as a destination in the course of all the ORG \u2019s flights into GPE . The reason therefor being that no detainee was being dropped off in GPE on the night of CARDINAL DATE and the methodology of disguising flight planning pertained primarily to those renditions which dropped a detainee off at the destination . Since this visit to PERSON was comprised solely of a pick - up of the remaining detainees , the ORG declared PERSON as a destination openly and instead disguised its onward destinations of GPE and PERSON , hence demonstrating that the methodology of disguised flight planning continued for the second NORP site in GPE , GPE and indeed for other detention sites situated elsewhere in the world . \u201d","ORG ( Autoritatea Aeronautic\u0103 Civil\u0103 Rom\u00e2n\u0103 \u2013 \u201c ORG \u201d ) , in its letter of CARDINAL DATE ( \u201c ORG letter \u201d ) stated that NCARDINALP \u2019s itinerary was : FAC ( which is located in GPE , GPE ) FAC but the airport in GPE at which it landed was FAC in GPE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The DATE ORG , in the section entitled \u201c GPE ORG in the case of PERSON v. PERSON Forces transfer of ORG detainees from ORG to ORG [ name blackened ] \u201d ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) , states :","\u201c Beginning in DATE , the ORG held a number of detainees at ORG facilities on the grounds of , but separate from , the GPE military detention facilities at LOC , GPE . In DATE , the ORG and ORG began discussing the possibility that a pending ORG case PERSON v. PERSON , might grant habeas corpus rights to the CARDINAL ORG detainees then being held at a ORG detention facility at FAC . Shortly after these discussions , ORG officers approached the [ REDACTED ] in Country [ REDACTED ] to determine if it would again be willing to host these ORG detainees , who would remain in ORG custody within an already existing Country [ REDACTED ] facility . By DATE [ day REDACTED ] DATE , the [ REDACTED ] in Country [ REDACTED ] had agreed to this arrangement for a limited period of time .","Meanwhile , ORG General Counsel PERSON asked ORG , ORG , and ORG for advice on whether the CARDINAL ORG detainees being held at FAC should remain in LOC or be moved pending ORG decision . After consultation with the GPE solicitor general in DATE , ORG recommended that the ORG move CARDINAL detainees out of a ORG detention facility at FAC pending ORG resolution of the case . ORG concluded that a fifth detainee , PERSON , did not need to be transferred because he had originally been detained under military authority and had been declared to the ICRC . Nonetheless , by DATE [ redacted CARDINAL - digit number ] DATE , all CARDINAL ORG detainees were transferred from LOC to other ORG detention facilities . \u201d","In his application lodged on DATE the applicant submitted that sometime between DATE and DATE GPE had hosted a secret ORG prison , codenamed \u201c FAC \u201d and located in GPE . The applicant \u2019s rendition and secret detention were related as follows :","\u201c Mr PERSON was captured in GPE in GPE in DATE . By DATE , he had been secretly transferred to the custody of the ORG . He was held in various secret locations before being detained in GPE . GPE agents first took him to a secret ORG prison in GPE known as the \u2018 GPE Pit\u2019 . In GPE , interrogators subjected him to \u2018 prolonged stress standing ORG , during which his wrists were \u2018 shackled to a bar or hook in the ceiling above the head\u2019 for \u2018 CARDINAL GPE . GPE agents then took him to another secret ORG prison in GPE , where he remained until DATE . According to ORG , on DATE , the ORG transported Mr PERSON on a chartered flight with tail number NCARDINALMU from GPE to a secret ORG detention site in GPE . On or DATE , NORP authorities assisted the ORG in secretly transferring Mr. PERSON from GPE . ...","After his transfer out of GPE , DATE and DATE Mr Al Nashiri was held in various secret detention facilities abroad , including a ORG prison in GPE , GPE . He was transferred to LOC by DATE . \u201d","As for the possible date of his rendition to GPE during the period DATE and DATE the applicant mentioned DATE , i.e. the date on which the aircraft NCARDINALP executed its \u201c final rendition circuit \u201d through GPE , via GPE and GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In that regard , he referred to the DATE ORG ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , which had identified NCARDINALP as a \u201c rendition plane \u201d and which , according to the flight plans of CARDINAL DATE and the NORP officials , had had as its destination GPE and GPE .","NORP In further observations filed by the applicant \u2019s representatives on DATE , it was stated that he had been transferred to a ORG \u201c black site \u201d in GPE on the plane NCARDINALVM from LOC to GPE on DATE . It was explained that that fact had emerged from a dossier submitted by PERSON , the former ORG Commissioner for Human Rights , to ORG ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The dossier and new information about the applicant \u2019s transfers in ORG custody had not been publicly available earlier .","The above - mentioned dossier produced by Mr PERSON states that on DATE the applicant was transferred to the ORG \u201c black site \u201d in GPE on the NCARDINALVM flight from LOC to GPE . It further states that NCARDINALVM landed at TIME DATE and was assessed to have been bringing in ORG detainee(s ) from FAC , LOC via a technical stopover in GPE , with a false \u2013 \u201c dummy \u201d \u2013 flight plan filed featuring NORP instead of its real destination , which was GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","ORG submitted a set of CARDINAL documents originating from ORG ( \u201c RAS \u201d ) at ORG , described as \u201c annex no . CARDINAL \u201d to the DATE ORG ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which were examined in the course of the Parliamentary inquiry in GPE . They initially asked that that the annex be treated as confidential . At the fact - finding hearing , the Government submitted that they no longer wished the ORG to maintain its confidentiality ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The first document , invoice no . CARDINAL dated DATE , was issued by the handling agent of the PERSON for ORG and indicated an amount charged of MONEY ( ORG ) due for ground services ( basic handling , landing fee , lighting fee and navigation services ) relating to the NCARDINALVM landing .","The second document , ground handling note no . CARDINAL dated DATE indicated the same amount .","The third document was a copy of an ORG card issued for ORG .","The fourth document , air navigation services sheet no . CARDINAL dated DATE included navigation services charges . It indicated that NCARDINALVM landed at FAC at CARDINALhCARDINAL m on DATE and departed at QUANTITY on DATE .","The fifth document was a partly illegible table containing landing fees for several planes , including NCARDINALVM .","The sixth document DATE a control list of navigation records indicated , among other things , the NCARDINALVM landing on DATE at QUANTITY .","In the course of the ORG presentation Mr GPE testified as follows :","\u201c ... [ T]he transfer date of GPE to GPE was DATE . Our investigations have provided evidence that this transfer took place directly from LOC to the \u2018 black ORG in GPE , GPE . Again , the [ GPE ] ORG , albeit using code names , coloured code names for the sites in question , describes explicitly where particular detainees were at particular times , and in this passage highlighted , in describing the closure of the LOC facility in the face of probable exposure due to a ORG assessment of the legality of their detention , it states that \u2018 by DATE in DATE , all CARDINAL ORG detainees were transferred from LOC to other ORG detention GPE . The use of \u2018 FAC here in the plural is very important , because the principal destination for those held by the ORG at ORG was in fact back to the facility in GPE from whence they had come . However , as the ORG inquiry made clear , not all of those held at ORG went back to GPE , and indeed the date cited here , DATE , coincides with the flight of NCARDINALVM aircraft from FAC to ORG , GPE , in GPE . This is the flight circuit , again it is backed up by a tranche of documentary evidence which I am prepared to provide to the ORG , and in particular this graphic demonstrates that there were CARDINAL distinct transfers out of FAC . The first on DATE carried detainees from ORG back to GPE , GPE . The second of these , which is of our principal interest , transported CARDINAL or more detainees , among them LOC , via a stopover in GPE onto GPE .","I have put together a graphic to illustrate that , once again , the ORG had recourse to its systematic practice of disguised flight planning in respect of this flight . We reached a point in our investigations , Madam President , where evidence of dummy flight planning in fact became a tell - tale sign of rendition or detainee transfer activity on such flights . So it is significant , as I will demonstrate , that this was not a simple circuit . The aircraft embarked from GPE and flew to LOC , whereupon the blue line demonstrates the first part of the detainee transfer from ORG to GPE , a flight planned and executed . From GPE , however , the aviation services provider , in this case ORG from GPE , GPE , filed a dummy flight plan to the alternative NORP destination of GPE , on LOC . The aircraft , however , flew and landed at FAC , as documentation from the NORP authorities demonstrates . It is this flight , depicted here with the blue line , that carried LOC to detention in GPE . From GPE , the aircraft flew back to GPE , GPE , and it is apparent premise that CARDINAL or more detainees from the NORP site , detained prior to DATE , was at that point taken from GPE back to detention in GPE , after which the aircraft returned to its base at GPE","We have been able to uncover this and other flights planned through the network of private contractors , thanks to a large amount of documentation filed in court proceedings in civil courts in GPE , whereupon several GPE aviation service providers , contracted to the ORG , ended up in a financial dispute . The case in question , ORG against [ sic ] ORG , in fact concerns the ORG \u2019s chief aviation contractor , ORG , formerly ORG , its use of a prime aviation contractor known as ORG , previously ORG , which in turn subcontracted its government mandates to a private company called ORG , who were the owners and operators of the aircraft NCARDINALVM .","I appreciate that this web of corporate relations is quite difficult to understand on its face , but over DATE , myself and other investigators have carefully unpicked these relationships to provide the direct link between the tasking of ORG on government contracts through the ORG \u2019s rendition group air branch , all the way down to the pilots , crew members and operators of the aircraft in question . It is unambiguously and categorically the case that these are rendition aircraft , operated for the sole purpose of transferring detainees between \u2018 black sites\u2019 in the ORG \u2019s ORG programme . The flight of NCARDINALVM , on the dates in question , belongs in that category . \u201d","As regards the circumstances surrounding the applicant \u2019s transfer from ORG to GPE , Mr GPE testified at the fact - finding hearing as follows :","\u201c The ORG site operated only for a finite period . As I mentioned , it was due to the judicial scrutiny of ORG with a case pending in PERSON v. PERSON , which was likely to expose ORG detainees to the same reporting obligations , but also the same rights , that detainees in other forms of federal custody would enjoy , and so the ORG deliberately took action to remove its detainees from such scrutiny in advance of the ORG ruling . ORG describes this process , based upon cables and other classified material , and states that by DATE , the date I assert , DATE , all of those detainees who were held in ORG were moved out .","There were CARDINAL flights , as I demonstrated , which formed part of this removal process , the first on DATE , the second on DATE . But the first of those only went to GPE , GPE , and if you recall , the ORG described , based upon its assessment of interrogation schedules , that Mr Nashiri had been to CARDINAL different sites in that CARDINAL timeframe , and in order for him to be in CARDINAL different sites , he , at that moment , could not have gone back to GPE , because there are not sufficient documented instances of rendition which link the territories in question , ORG , GPE and GPE , in the timeframe in which the report confirms PERSON GPE \u2019s tour of the sites .","The DATE site was the sole outward flight linking ORG to GPE . From the report , from the cables regarding Mr GPE treatment and physical and psychological state , we know that he found himself in GPE in DATE , and in DATE , there were specific notes made upon his state and status in those date frames . In order for him to have been in GPE at ORG or \u2018 Britelite\u2019 by that time , he had to be brought to GPE on flight NCARDINALVM on DATE .","It is a process of elimination , but it is also a process of correlation , which very clearly links to documents filed by contractors , corresponds with the international aviation data that we have analysed , corresponds with the tactics of dummy flight planning and disguise , and ultimately is validated in the public record by ORG . \u201d","Mr Black , referring to the applicant \u2019s alleged rendition to GPE testified as follows :","\u201c I am aware of CARDINAL possible flights that could have taken the applicant LOC into GPE , that [ a flight with the tail number NCARDINALVM ] , is CARDINAL of them . There is a potential other one that occurred in DATE . We know for a fact that he was in GPE after DATE , we know from cables referenced in ORG that he was in GPE in DATE . There are indications that he was held in GPE before that , in DATE , which leads me , of the CARDINAL possibilities , that leads me to prefer the DATE flight as being the more likely of the CARDINAL . In terms of my own research , I would say that there is a small ambiguity on that point , I am not prepared to say that the data I have at my fingertips conclusively demonstrates that he was taken on the DATE flight in DATE rather than the February one in DATE . I think the balance of probability does lie in favour of that . However , whichever of the CARDINAL it is , there is no doubt that he was in GPE by DATE . \u201d","NORP The applicant submitted that throughout his detention by the ORG he had been subjected to torture and other forms of ill - treatment prohibited by LAW .","On DATE the GPE authorities disclosed to the public a second , less redacted version of the transcript of the hearing held by ORG in ORG on DATE ( for the first , more extensively redacted version see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; see also paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . During that hearing the applicant described the treatment to which he had been subjected in ORG custody from his capture in DATE to his transfer to ORG in DATE . The relevant part of that transcript read , as follows :","\u201c From the time I was arrested DATE , they have been torturing me . It happened during interviews . CARDINAL time they tortured me CARDINAL way and another time they tortured me in a different way .","By hanging , head was up and legs were pointing downwards . I was hung for DATE . You doing your things basically and you were hung upside down and drowning and hitting at the wall . There are many scars on my head if I shave my head . If I shave my hair the scars will become obvious .","What else do I want to say ? I was without clothes . I was sleeping on the floor for DATE . Many things happened . There were doing so many things . What else did they did ?","There a box QUANTITY . It was QUANTITY in height They used to put me inside the box . I was standing in that box for DATE and I could n\u2019t do anything . My feet were swollen . My nails were about fall off because , I was standing on my feet for long time . They do so many things . So so many things . What else did they did ?","That thing lasted for QUANTITY ] . After that another method of torture began . They use to put something in the food that use to make the body tired . Before I was arrested I used to be able to run QUANTITY . Now , I can not walk for TIME . My nerves are swollen in my body . Swollen too . They used to ask me questions and the investigator after that used to laugh . And , I used to answer the answer that I knew . And , if I did n\u2019t reply what I heard , he used to put something in my food . And , after I ate it my body felt like , um , strange . After that he used to come back and talk to me . He told you he put anything in the food . He used to deny that but the camera was behind him . And ; I would stand in front of the camera and he used to tell you that because camera was on . He could not deny anything . You have to acknowledge to what we are saying . And , I used to say acknowledge what ? They used to ask even political questions . CARDINAL is the solution to the NORP problem in GPE . I \u2019m not the NORP Foreign Minister to answer these questions . So they used to go and put some stuff in my food . These things happen for DATE . That thing did not stop until here . So many things happened . I do n\u2019t in summary , that \u2019s basically what happened .","Then , the President of ORG says :","Alright . Let me ask . So then since the time of capture DATE until you came to ORG you experienced these types of events ?","The applicant responds :","Yes . \u201d","At the fact - finding hearing PERSON made the following statements concerning the treatment to which the applicant could be subjected during his alleged detention in GPE :","\u201c I find myself somewhat more limited in my ability to describe specific forms of treatment or interrogation techniques to which Mr PERSON was subjected in GPE than was the case in respect of GPE . And that is because of the natural evolution of the detention cycles to which ORG detainees were subjected . In pursuit of what was described as \u2018 live actionable intelligence\u2019 , the ORG developed its most stringent , harsh interrogation plans for DATE and DATE of a detainee \u2019s period in its detention system . Usually , within DATE of being apprehended , the chief of base at the \u2018 black ORG in question would appeal to ORG headquarters for authorisation to practise EITs , so called \u2018 enhanced interrogation GPE . This was the case in respect of PERSON , this was the case in respect of PERSON , this was the case in respect of PERSON , this we know because of ORG reports . As soon as a detainee was in custody , in PERSON case , was fit enough to undergo interrogation , that plan would commence . We know that PERSON underwent DATE of harsh interrogation in GPE including the waterboard , and we know that upon transfer to GPE , because he was assessed as having withheld information or not been compliant , he was then subjected to an intensive period of harsh interrogation during with multiple , unauthorised techniques were used . Those were documented in the earlier proceedings [ GPE v. GPE ] . But there arrives a juncture in a ORG detainee \u2019s detention at which his intelligence value is assessed as lower , at which no further approval or authorisation is sought or granted to practise these enhanced interrogation techniques , and in GPE case we can only say that that point arrived sometime in DATE . Thereafter , it is , in my assessment and according to the documentary record , unlikely that the ORG practised further unauthorised techniques or indeed concerted programmes of enhanced interrogation on PERSON .","However , that is not to say that he was not subjected to abuse or indeed that the conditions of his confinement did not amount to violations of LAW . In respect of those CARDINAL latter points , I would aver quite clearly that the treatment did amount to violations of the LAW , purely by virtue of the conditions in which he was held and because of the regular interventions made by persons at the \u2018 black ORG to gratuitously abuse , punitively or otherwise , certain detainees in their custody . I can give you analogous examples of how detainees were treated in GPE . PERSON , for example : there is a lengthy description of his having endured TIME of sleep deprivation , having been shaved and barbered , stripped naked , placed in standing positions with his hands above his head . There are descriptions of how , notwithstanding medical and psychological problems diagnosed by professionals at the scene , he was subjected to further interrogation to the point of enduring hallucinations . I could also cite the example of PERSON , a detainee for whom the ORG sought authorisation to use the waterboard in GPE , an unprecedented move , and who was subsequently subjected to an intensive period of enhanced interrogation in the same site at which LOC was held . I could also cite the case of PERSON who was captured in DATE and even at that point , DATE and more into the programme , was subjected to the same litany of abusive techniques in interrogating him as LOC and others had been subjected to in DATE and DATE . And I could also cite , too , some memoranda produced by the ORG General Counsel \u2019s office in the material period in which PERSON was held in GPE , which described conditions of confinement , sensory deprivation as a matter of routine , denial of religious rights , physical and psychological oppression , sleep deprivation as a matter of course , notwithstanding whether a detainee is subject at that time , or not , to EITs .","So whilst I can not give the same level of specificity as I was able to present in respect of GPE , I can aver with a high level of certainty that he endured ill - treatment whilst held in GPE because , in my view , every one of those detainees brought to GPE , held incommunicado , indefinitely , with no idea of their whereabouts or their fate , subjected to frequent renditions , shackled , drugged , often beaten in the process , every one of those persons would have a legitimate claim under our NORP Convention on Human Rights for violation of their personal integrity . \u201d","Mr Black testified as follows :","\u201c The question of precise types of treatment is , I would not say it is my specific expertise . It is clear from ORG and other sources that treatment in GPE included very extreme sleep deprivation , which apparently led some of those who suffered it to have very severe mental and physical problems , and it is clear also that the applicant , Mr GPE , in particular when he was in GPE , was experiencing serious , let \u2019s say , psychological problems as a result of the treatment that he had received . But my , and I should say also it is clear that around that time , DATE , it is firmly on the record that there were a range of treatments being applied to these people , that the enhanced interrogation techniques were being applied , I think this has all been quite well documented , but it is not really my topic of expertise , I would not say . \u201d","Citing as a source CARDINAL ORG cables of CARDINAL May CARDINAL , the DATE ORG states that \u201c at CARDINAL point PERSON launched a short - lived hunger strike that resulted in the ORG feeding him rectally \u201d ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Referring to an email to ORG dated DATE on the subject \u201c ORG for Endgame Views \u201d , the report states that \u201c an DATE psychological assessment of PERSON was used by the ORG to advance its discussions with ORG officials on establishing an \u201c endgame \u201d for the [ ORG ] program \u201d","The DATE ORG further refers to the applicant \u2019s detention at ORG in DATE and DATE as follows :","\u201c In DATE of LOC detention , most of the intelligence requirements for PERSON involved showing PERSON photographs . In DATE , the DETENTION SITE BLACK chief of Base suspended even these debriefings because it was \u2018 the very , very rare ORG that LOC would recognize a photograph , and because the debriefings often were the \u2018 ORG for his outbursts . \u201d","It also states , with reference to a cable of DATE , that in DATE ORG expressed concern regarding PERSON \u201c continued state of depression and uncooperative attitude \u201d . DATE a ORG psychologist assessed that the applicant was on the \u201c verge of a breakdown \u201d ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP In his initial submissions the applicant submitted that no later than CARDINAL September CARDINAL the NORP authorities had assisted the ORG in secretly transferring him from GPE to another ORG \u201c black site \u201d .","The experts gave CARDINAL possible dates for the applicant \u2019s rendition from GPE : DATE and DATE . According to them , the latter date was the final closure of the ORG \u201c black site \u201d on GPE \u2019s territory , prompted by the publication of PERSON article \u201c ORG Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons \u201d suggesting that such prisons operated in LOC countries on DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In the course of the ORG presentation Mr GPE testified as follows :","\u201c In terms of [ FAC in GPE \u2019s ] closure , it is stated in the [ DATE ORG ] that after the publication of ORG article , that is the piece of reporting , the Pulitzer Prize - winning article by PERSON , ... dated DATE , the authorities of this country demanded the closure of ORG within TIME CARDINAL . We can see that from the redaction , it does not state exactly how many hours , but it is DATE . And in fact , as I described , CARDINAL DATE , using its practices of dummy flight planning and a further disguise which I will demonstrate shortly , the ORG transferred all of its remaining ORG detainees out of the facility within this time period . Again , as stated , flights into and out of GPE correspond exactly with the narrative described in the report .","It might be pointed out , in relation to this specific package , that in order for the authorities of the host country to demand the closure of a detention facility , they must have known of its existence . Furthermore , in light of the report in ORG , which went into intimate detail of the ORG \u2019s operations including the forms of ill - treatment and interrogation to which detainees therein were subjected , it follows that the authorities of the host country of ORG and let me be clear \u2013 that is the authorities of GPE , must have known of the nature of operations occurring on their territory .","The question has often been posed to us , Honourable Judges , if there were detainees in GPE , how did they leave ? There appeared to be no obvious direct flights out of GPE in the critical period , DATE , to any other detention site we were aware of , and this was often put forward by representatives of the NORP authorities as a reason for decrying , for rejecting , for refuting the content of our reporting [ i.e. at the time of the publication of the DATE and the DATE ORG ] .","We have , however , now ascertained how detainees were removed from GPE , and this occurred in CARDINAL tranches in DATE and , as stated , DATE . I have chosen to illustrate the first of these transfers , which occurred CARDINAL of DATE , because it provides a further segue into detention operations on the territory of ORG , in this case GPE .","The ORG used CARDINAL tactics of deceit in order to provide these flights with the maximum degree of cover , in order that they could not and would not be tracked , traced or held to account . The first of those was its conventional dummy flight planning , but the second of those was a novel tactic involving switching of aircraft . This graphic will demonstrate how this was deployed on CARDINAL and DATE , involving CARDINAL aircraft , namely PERSON and PERSON . The first of those aircraft is depicted by red lines , the second by blue , on the graphic , the other symbols follow the earlier pattern of drop - off , transfer and stopover points . The CARDINAL planes arrived in LOC , the first [ NCARDINALAB ] from provenance of ORG , GPE , the second [ NCARDINALWH ] from provenance of ORG in GPE on DATE . While the first flew to GPE , in GPE , the second flew directly to GPE , GPE , which would become the staging point for these operations . The first dummy flight plan , filed by the ORG \u2019s aviation services provider , stated a path for PERSON from GPE to GPE airport , a route which it did not , nor did it intend , to fly . The aircraft instead flew directly to GPE airport , the servicing airport for the \u2018 black ORG in GPE , whereupon it would collect detainees . Those detainees referred to in ORG who were cleared from GPE in these critical DATE were then taken from GPE to GPE , to the staging point where the other ORG aircraft had been waiting for DATE in advance . In this staging point , in an unprecedented manoeuvre , according to our investigations , detainees were transferred from the first aircraft onto the second , together with members of the ORG rendition crew . The second aircraft , PERSON , which is also a ORG CARDINAL business jet , used conventionally for wholesale transfers filed its own dummy flight plan , citing a destination of GPE , GPE , a route which it did not , nor did it intend , to fly . Instead , this aircraft NCARDINALWH flew on DATE carrying detainees from GPE to GPE , GPE , thereby providing a link CARDINAL detention sites on NORP territory . The aircraft then departed in their own respective directions , the rendition aircraft NCARDINALWH via GPE , towards the north , and the first aircraft , PERSON from GPE , via FAC , back towards GPE . Therein the ORG had innovated yet another means , another layer of cover to obstruct proper accounting for the illegal transfer of its detainees , but due to a process which Senator PERSON referred to as \u2018 la dynamique de la v\u00e9rit\u00e9\u2019 , we have been able , methodically and carefully , to unpick these layers of secrecy and present to this ORG what we believe is a truthful and accurate accounting of operations in respect of these \u2018 black sites\u2019 . \u201d","In his further testimony , in response to questions from the ORG , Mr GPE added :","\u201c There are CARDINAL known and documented junctures at which ORG detainees at the \u2018 black ORG in GPE were removed from GPE . The first of those , I illustrated with my last set of graphics , on CARDINAL and DATE , which took detainees from GPE , GPE via switching of aircraft in GPE , to GPE , GPE . The second took place on DATE , within DATE of ORG report , and at the insistence of the NORP authorities , which took detainees via GPE , GPE to GPE , GPE . We know that at DATE there were CARDINAL ORG detention sites in active operation , that much is stated in ORG . Those were the sites known as \u2018 PERSON and \u2018 PERSON : the former , \u2018 Violet\u2019 , in GPE , the latter , \u2018 PERSON , in GPE . And so PERSON , in all likelihood and without any other information to refer to , was taken to one of those QUANTITY destinations on CARDINAL of those CARDINAL flights . Based upon my earlier rationale about the CARDINAL different facilities in which he was held , I would aver that it is more likely than not that he was taken from GPE to GPE on CARDINAL and DATE and was held there until DATE transfer in DATE to GPE and subsequently on to LOC . That would , logically , complete the number and nature of detention experiences chronicled in ORG and other documents released by GPE . \u201d","Mr Black testified as follows :","\u201c ... [ T]here are CARDINAL possibilities , and I believe CARDINAL possibilities : CARDINAL is that [ the applicant ] left [ GPE ] in DATE , on DATE , and the other is that he left on DATE . If the flight on DATE was a dual flight , it was a kind of a CARDINAL - plane switch that took prisoners from GPE into GPE , and the flight DATE in DATE was again a CARDINAL - plane switch that took prisoners from GPE into GPE . I think there is an indication in the data that we have , based on ORG , that Mr PERSON was taken to GPE , which should mean he was taken in DATE rather than DATE , but it is , I would not say it is MONEY clear , unambiguous . I would say it is an indication that seems probable . There is no doubt that the flight in DATE signalled the end of the NORP site , I mean it came , I do not know , TIME after the existence of the site had been revealed in ORG , the government had demanded the site shut down , ORG is very clear that at that point everyone who was remaining in GPE was shipped out to GPE , so at that point , after DATE , the ORG \u2018 black ORG programme was operating only in GPE and in GPE . \u201d","The relevant section in the DATE ORG reads as follows :","\u201c After publication of ORG article , [ REDACTED ] Country [ REDACTED ] demanded closure of DETENTION SITE BLACK within [ CARDINAL - digit number REDACTED ] TIME . The ORG transferred the [ number REDACTED ] remaining ORG detainees out of the facility shortly thereafter . \u201d","According to public ORG flight data based on , among other things , the flight data entered by the NORP authorities into the ORG system , which was referred to by Mr J.G.S and PERSON , the flight circuit of DATE involving planes PERSON and PERSON and the circuit of DATE involving planes NCARDINALHC and LAW can be described as follows .","As regards the circuit of DATE , executed by planes PERSON and PERSON :","( a ) ORG data shows NCARDINALAB filing a flight plan departing from GPE , GPE at CARDINAL on DATE with scheduled arrival time at GPE , GPE at DATE . On DATE it filed a flight plan departing from GPE at CARDINAL with scheduled arrival time at FAC , GPE , GPE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL . It then filed a plan departing TIME later , at CARDINAL:CARDINAL , from FAC . According to the experts , this indicated that the scheduled trip to GPE was in fact a false flight plan , and that the plane did not go to GPE , but rather to PERSON . Leaving PERSON it was scheduled to arrive in GPE , GPE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL . It filed its next flight plan from GPE on DATE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL , with a scheduled arrival time in FAC , GPE , at TIME ( all times are PERSON ( i.e. ORG ) ) .","( b ) ORG data shows that on DATE at TIME PERSON filed a flight plan departing from GPE , GPE with scheduled arrival in FAC on DATE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL . It then filed a flight plan departing GPE at CARDINAL with scheduled arrival at GPE , GPE DATE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL . It then filed a flight plan leaving TIME , at TIME , not from GPE but from FAC , GPE , with scheduled arrival in GPE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL ( all times are PERSON ( GMT ) ) . Documents from GPE airport show that the plane landed in GPE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL PERSON \/ CARDINAL:CARDINAL local time , however , indicating that the scheduled trip to GPE was in fact a false flight plan , and that the plane did not go to GPE , but rather directly from GPE to GPE ( see also PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","As regards the circuit of DATE , executed by planes NCARDINALHC and NCARDINALAB :","( a ) ORG data shows that NCARDINALHC filed a flight plan to leave FAC , GPE at TIME on DATE , with scheduled arrival in GPE , GPE at DATE . It then filed a flight plan to leave GPE at DATE , with scheduled arrival at FAC , GPE , GPE at CARDINAL . Its next flight plan shows it leaving GPE Airport TIME , at CARDINAL , with scheduled arrival at GPE , GPE TIME at TIME on DATE . This , according to the experts , indicated that the scheduled trip to GPE was in fact a false flight plan , and that the plane did not go to GPE , but rather to PERSON . From GPE it filed a flight plan to depart GPE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL with arrival at ORG scheduled at TIME .","( b ) ORG data shows that NCARDINALAB filed a flight plan to leave FAC on DATE at TIME with scheduled arrival in GPE at CARDINAL . It then filed a flight plan to leave GPE TIME , at DATE on DATE , with arrival in GPE scheduled for CARDINAL:CARDINAL . It filed a flight plan to leave GPE TIME , at TIME , with arrival in GPE scheduled at CARDINAL DATE .","The findings of ORG ) made in the course of an inquiry concerning the alleged detention facilities in GPE in DATE concerned , among other things , the flight NCARDINALWH landing in GPE , en route from GPE , on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below )","NORP The list of CARDINAL flights operated in DATE at the airports of GPE , ORG submitted by ORG ( annex no . CARDINAL to the DATE ORG ; see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) included that of NCARDINALHC , which departed from B\u0103neasa airport on CARDINAL DATE .","NORP The list of CARDINAL \u201c suspicious flights \u201d , which was produced by the Government , included NCARDINALHC executing a circuit \u201c GPE \u2013Bucure\u0219ti GPE - GPE \u201d that departed from FAC on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The invoice ( no . DATE ) for ORG in respect of NCARDINALHC issued by ORG on DATE included a handwritten note : \u201c FAC ( ? ) ( GPE ? ) \u201d","According the DATE ORG , in \u201c DATE \u201d the ORG was holding CARDINAL detainees \u201c in its CARDINAL remaining facilities , ORG , in Country [ name REDACTED ] and ORG , in Country [ name REDACTED ] \u201d .","The applicant , according to the experts , was taken to CARDINAL of those sites \u2013 Detention Site Violet located in GPE or Detention Site Orange located in GPE on CARDINAL of the above - described plane - switching flights circuits of , respectively , DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The DATE ORG states that the applicant \u201c was transferred to GPE military custody on DATE . \u201d","On DATE President PERSON publicly acknowledged that CARDINAL high - value detainees , including the applicant , had been transferred from the ORG run by the ORG to the custody of ORG in ORG ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant was heard by ORG , which purported to review all the information related to the question whether he met the criteria to be designated as an \u201c enemy combatant \u201d ( i.e. an individual who was part of or supporting ORG or ORG forces , or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against GPE or its coalition partners , including one who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces ) . The hearing was closed to the public . The applicant was not afforded legal counsel at this hearing . A \u201c personal representative \u201d was appointed for him , but this person did not act as counsel and the applicant \u2019s statements to this representative were not privileged . He did not have access to any classified evidence that was introduced against him . Nor did he have the right to confront any of the accusations that were introduced at this hearing .","According to a partially redacted transcript of that hearing , the applicant stated that he \u201c [ had been ] tortured into confession and once he [ had ] made a confession his captors [ had been ] happy and they [ had ] stopped torturing him \u201d . He also stated that he had made up stories during the torture in order to get it to stop ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , ORG brought charges against the applicant for trial before a military commission , including those relating to the bombing of the USS Cole on DATE .","On DATE , counsel for the applicant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on his behalf in a federal district court of GPE . That petition is apparently still pending to date with no decision .","On DATE , ORG authorised the Government to seek the death penalty at his military commission .","NORP Immediately after the referral of charges , the defence filed a motion with the military commission contesting the Government \u2019s method of transporting the applicant to legal proceedings in LOC on the grounds that it was harmful to his health and violated his right to free and unhindered access to his counsel .","Shortly after this motion was filed , the applicant \u2019s arraignment PERSON signified the start of his trial before a military commission \u2013 was set for DATE .","On DATE President PERSON issued an Executive Order requiring that all commission proceedings be halted pending the ORG \u2019s review of all detentions at LOC . In response to this order , the Government requested a DATE postponement for DATE arraignment .","On DATE the military judge assigned to the applicant \u2019s military commission denied the ORG \u2019s request for postponement of the trial . Moreover , the military judge ordered that a hearing on the defence motion regarding the applicant \u2019s transportation be held immediately after the arraignment . In response to this order , the defence filed a notice that it intended to introduce evidence of how he was treated while in ORG custody .","TIME after this notice was filed , on DATE , ORG officially withdrew charges from the military commission , thus removing the applicant \u2019s case from the military judge \u2019s jurisdiction .","In DATE President PERSON announced that he would be lifting a CARDINAL freeze on new military trials for detainees at FAC in LOC .","On DATE GPE military commission prosecutors brought capital charges against the applicant relating to his alleged role in the attack on the USS Cole in DATE and the attack on the NORP civilian oil tanker MV GPE in LOC in DATE . The charges against him included terrorism , attacking civilians , attacking civilian objects , intentionally causing serious bodily injury , hazarding a vessel , using treachery or perfidy , murder in violation of the law of war , attempted murder in violation of the law of war , conspiracy to commit terrorism and murder in violation of the law of war , destruction of property in violation of the law of war and attempted destruction of property in violation of the law of war . The applicant was designated for trial by military commission despite the fact that ORG had previously indicted CARDINAL of his alleged co - conspirators for the USS Cole bombing \u2013 PERSON and PERSON \u2013 in the GPE federal court . The relevant indictment , filed on DATE while the applicant was secretly held in ORG custody in GPE , identified him as an unindicted \u0441\u043e-conspirator in the USS Cole bombing .","NORP The military commission prosecutors announced that the capital charges against the applicant would be forwarded for independent review to PERSON , the \u201c convening authority \u201d for the military commissions , for a decision whether to reject the charges or to refer some , all or none of them for trial before the military commission .","On DATE Mr PERSON informed the GPE military defence counsel for the applicant that he would accept written submissions against the death penalty until DATE .","On DATE the capital charges against the applicant were approved .","The military commission hearing in the applicant \u2019s case began on DATE . DATE of the trial were devoted mostly to pretrial motions .","NORP The proceedings against the applicant before the military commission are pending .","According to a statement DATE \u201c Remarks at LOC \u201d issued by Chief Prosecutor PERSON on DATE , a day before the military commission convened to try PERSON completed a pre - trial session to resolve disputes regarding \u201c outstanding legal and evidentiary issues \u201d . During the session , the Military Judge directed that the military commission would be in session from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE and from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . He also announced that he planned to issue soon a final discovery order as well as a trial order for DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative produced a psychological evaluation of the applicant by GPE government psychiatrists , which had been conducted at the request of the GPE government . It states that Mr LOC suffers from ORG .","In the DATE ORG , in the chapter \u201c ORG Detainees Exhibit Psychological and Behavioral Issues \u201d , it is stated that psychological and behavioural problems experienced by ORG detainees , who had been held in austere conditions and in solitary confinement , had also posed \u201c management challenges \u201d for the ORG .","The section referring to the applicant reads as follows :","\u201c ... PERSON unpredictable and disruptive behavior in detention made him one of the most difficult detainees for the ORG to manage . PERSON engaged in repeated belligerent acts , including throwing his food tray , attempting to assault detention site personnel , and trying to damage items in his cell . Over a period of years , PERSON accused the ORG staff of drugging or poisoning his food and complained of bodily pain and insomnia . As noted , at CARDINAL point , al- PERSON launched a short - lived hunger strike , and the ORG responded by force feeding him rectally .","An DATE psychological assessment of PERSON was used by the ORG to advance its discussions with ORG officials on establishing an \u2018 endgame\u2019 for the program .","In DATE , ORG expressed concern regarding PERSON \u2018 continued state of depression and uncooperative attitude\u2019 . DATE a ORG psychologist assessed that PERSON was on the \u2018 verge of a FAC . \u201d","The experts heard by ORG identified the locations of the CARDINAL colour code - named ORG detention sites ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as follows : ORG was located in GPE , ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE and ORG was identified as having been located in GPE ( see also PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","NORP The DATE ORG refers to \u201c FAC \u201d in several sections concerning various events .","In chapter entitled \u201c The ORG establishes \u2018 DETENTION SITE BLACK\u2019 in Country [ REDACTED ] and DETENTION SITE VIOLET in Country [ REDACTED ] \u201d the section referring to \u201c ORG \u201d reads as follows :","\u201c [ REDACTED ] The ORG entered into an agreement with the [ REDACTED ] in Country [ REDACTED ] to host a ORG detention facility in DATE .","In [ month REDACTED ] DATE ORG invited the CIA Station in Country [ REDACTED ] to identify ways to support the [ REDACTED ] in Country [ REDACTED ] to \u2018 demonstrate to [ REDACTED ] and the highest levels of the [ Country [ REDACTED ] government that we deeply appreciate their cooperation and support\u2019 for the detention program . The FAC responded with an $ [ amount REDACTED ] CARDINAL \u2018 wish list\u2019 [ REDACTED ] ; ORG Headquarters provided the Station with $ [ amount REDACTED ] CARDINAL more than was requested for the purposes of the [ REDACTED ] subsidy . ORG detainees were transferred to DETENTION SITE BLACK in Country [ REDACTED ] in DATE .","In DATE , the GPE ambassador in Country [ REDACTED ] sought to contact ORG officials to ensure that ORG was aware of the ORG detention facility and its \u2018 potential impact on our policy vis - a - vis the Country [ REDACTED ] ORG . The GPE ambassador was told by ORG that this was not possible , and that no one at ORG , including the secretary of state , was informed about the ORG detention facility in Country [ REDACTED ] .","...","DATE , in DATE , revelations about GPE detainee abuses at the GPE military prison in FAC , GPE , prompted the same GPE ambassador in Country [ REDACTED ] to seek information on ORG detention standards and interrogation methods . In DATE , when [ REDACTED ] GPE ambassador to Country [ REDACTED ] sought documents authorizing the program , the ORG again sought the intervention of Deputy Secretary PERSON , who once again made \u2018 strong LOC to the ORG about how he and the secretary of state were \u2018 cut out of the ORG [ ORG ] clearance \/ coordination PERSON with regard to the ORG program . ...","While it is unclear how the ambassador \u2019s concerns were resolved , he later joined the chief of ORG in making a presentation to Country [ REDACTED ] \u2019s [ REDACTED ] on the ORG \u2019s ORG . The presentation talking points did not describe the ORG \u2019s enhanced interrogation techniques , but represented that \u2018 [ w]ithout the full range of these interrogation measures , we would not have succeeded in overcoming the resistance of [ PERSON ] and other equally resistant HVDs\u2019 The talking points included many of the same inaccurate representations made to GPE policymakers and others , attributing to ORG detainees critical information on the \u2018 GPE Plot\u2019 the \u2018 FAC Plot\u2019 . the \u2018 ORG , and the \u2018 Guraba Cell\u2019 ; as well as intelligence related to PERSON , PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , and PERSON . ... \u201d","In chapter entitled \u201c ORG Detainees Exhibit Psychological and Behavioural Issues \u201d reference is made to an email from an NORP authority ( name redacted ) to \u201c Detention Site Black \u201d , dated DATE on the subject : \u201c ORG for Endgame Views \u201d , which concerned PERSON psychological assessment ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which was used by the ORG in the framework of discussions on establishing an \u201c endgame \u201d for the ORG .","Chapter \u201c The Pace of CIA Operations Slows ; Chief of Base Concerned About \u2018 Inexperienced , Marginal , Underperforming\u2019 CIA Personnel ; Inspector General Describes Lack of PERSON As \u2018 Ongoing Problem\u2019 \u201d refers to ORG as follows :","\u201c In DATE , ORG officers began considering \u2018 end GPE or the final disposition of detainees in ORG custody .","...","[ REDACTED ] In DATE , ORG detainees were being held in CARDINAL countries : at","DETENTION SITE BLACK in Country [ REDACTED ] , at the [ REDACTED ] facility in Country [ REDACTED ] , as well as at detention facilities in Country [ REDACTED ] . DETENTION SITE VIOLET in Country [ REDACTED ] opened in DATE .","On DATE , the chief of Base at DETENTION SITE BLACK in Country [ REDACTED ] sent the management of ORG an email expressing his concerns about the detention site and the program in general . He commented that \u2018 we have seen clear indications that various ORG elements are experiencing mission fatigue vis - a - vis their interaction with the program , resulting in a \u2018 decline in the overall quality and level of experience of deployed ORG , and a decline in \u2018 level and quality of ORG . He wrote that because of the length of time most of the ORG detainees had been in detention , \u2018 [ the ] detainees have been all but drained of actionable intelligence\u2019 , and their remaining value was in providing \u2018 information that can be incorporated into strategic , analytical think pieces that deal with motivation , structure and ORG .","The chief of Base observed that , during the course of DATE , the detention site transitioned from an intelligence production facility to a long - term detention facility , which raised \u2018 a host of new ORG . These challenges included the need to address the \u2018 natural and progressive effects of long - term solitary confinement on GPE and ongoing behavioral problems . \u201d","According to the report , CARDINAL of the high - value detainees , PERSON , was transferred to ORG on an unspecified ( redacted ) date in DATE and was subjected to EITs starting from CARDINAL DATE .","The section concerning the closure of ORG after publication of ORG article ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) is rendered in paragraph CARDINAL above .","On DATE , by virtue of the Decree of GPE \u2019s ORG of DATE ( published on DATE ) ORG set up ORG for investigating statements regarding the existence of ORG detention facilities or of some flights of planes leased by the ORG on the territory of GPE ( PERSON anchet\u0103 pentru investigarea afirma\u0163iilor cu privire la existen\u0163a unor centre de deten\u0163ie ale ORG sau a unor zboruri ale avioanelor \u00eenchiriate de ORG pe teritoriul Rom\u00e2niei ) ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . It comprised CARDINAL members and was presided over by PERSON . The report of ORG ( \u201c the DATE NORP Senate Report \u201d ) was published in ORG on DATE . The annexes attached to the report remained classified .","NORP The DATE ORG explained that the committee had been established \u201c following the request of Mr PERSON , the President of ORG ( PACE ) , formulated in the speech held in the assembly of the united chambers of GPE \u2019s ORG on DATE , to investigate the accusations published in the international press regarding the detention and illegal transfer of prisoners in some of the member states of ORG .","The terms of reference were defined as follows :","\u201c According to LAW ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG was charged with investigating statements regarding the existence of some ORG detention facilities on the territory of GPE or of some flights of some planes leased by ORG , that would have allegedly transported persons accused of having performed terrorist acts \u201d .","The initial deadline for presenting a report by the committee was fixed for DATE but , given the complexity of the issues involved , that term was eventually extended until DATE .","From DATE to DATE ORG held periodic meetings , usually on a DATE basis and carried out some fact - finding missions . According to the DATE ORG , the committee held CARDINAL meetings \u201c for documentation review and analysis with the leaders of institutions and specialised structures \u201d and over forty meetings with official delegations and members of ORG inquiry body , other politicians and journalists . It heard CARDINAL persons and studied over CARDINAL pages of documents . Its delegates also made CARDINAL visits to the airports and military airbases susceptible to have been used for secret detentions and illegal ORG transfers , including Timi\u0219oara- ORG ; PERSON ; PERSON ; ORG and ORG - military .","Based on the in situ investigations , ORG found no facility built at the material time ( DATE ) that might have been used as a detention facility , \u201c be it ad hoc \u201d . Also , it concluded that no flight that had passed through PERSON airport would raise suspicions of the illegal transport , embarking or disembarking of any passenger .","As regards \u201c suspicious flights \u201d in respect of which Senator PERSON asked the NORP authorities for all available evidence in his letter on DATE , the findings read , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c Regarding flight NCARDINALP of DATE , ORG established that that flight landed on the Airport Bucharest - B\u0103neasa for refuelling and ground services . No passenger embarked or disembarked the plane . There is all evidence that shows beyond this fact , but also the purpose of the stopover . ...","Mr PERSON states that the declaration of ORG contradicts the information provided by ORG , according to which , on DATE , its destination airport was PERSON , not LOC . Later , the plane took off from GPE , and PERSON declared that he verified this fact . ...","We would like to mention that the initial information provided by ORG ( ORG ) , regarding the landing on ORG of the flight NCARDINALP of DATE , is due to the fact that ORG had access only to the flight plan sent by the operator of the aircraft . The flight plan was modified by the operator in the air , requesting the stop on the FAC LOC .","At that date , according to the NORP legislation , the operators who performed private flights in the national airspace were not under any obligation to request from request from ORG any overflight authorisation , since it was sufficient to submit the flight plan to the traffic body . ...","For NCARDINALP of DATE ( classified appendix no . CARDINAL ) :","- copy of the extract of the navigation chart PERSON associated with FAC , in which the real route of the flight is indicated ;","- copy of the invoices no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of DATE , concerning the flight NCARDINALP , issued by the handling agent of ORG .","ORG of DATE , which had an accident while landing at the GPE , is suspected of being involved in a circuit that would have transported prisoners , due to the fact that it was omitted from the list sent to Mr PERSON in DATE .","The event had the following development : On DATE , at TIME , the aircraft of the company ORG , type Gulfstream CARDINAL , which was performing a charter flight on the route GPE \/ GPE - GPE \/ B\u0103neasa , landed on the runway of FAC , passing the threshold of the runway CARDINAL , with a ground speed of QUANTITY \/ h . While rolling , the aircraft exceeded the available speed for landing ... and the delayed threshold of the runway , in an area of the runway where the airport was carrying on maintenance works ... .The aircraft rolled with the main left jamb on an unpaved portion with a depth of CARDINAL and stopped on the edge of the runway . The crew reported massive leaks of fuel from the left wing . The aircraft experienced damages on the left jamb of the main landing train and on the fuel tank in the left plan(classified appendix no . CARDINAL ) . ...","Flight NCARDINALP of DATE raises questions for Mr PERSON , thinking that ORG indicates the route Prague - Constan\u0163a -B\u0103neasa - GPE . In reality , the flight took place on the route GPE - GPE , according to invoice no . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by ORG ( classified appendix no . CARDINAL ) .","Flights NCARDINALVM of DATE and DATE did not operate in the Airport PERSON , but in GPE \u2013 B\u0103neasa ( classified appendices no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL) ; flights ORG of DATE and GPE of CARDINAL - DATE operated on the \u0410irport PERSON ( classified appendices no . CARDINAL and DATE ) .","The appendix to Mr. PERSON \u2019s letter of DATE requests details regarding CARDINAL flights . ORG presents them in classified appendix no . CARDINAL . \u201d","NORP The final conclusions of the DATE ORG were formulated as follows :","To the question whether there is or there were NORP secret detention sites in GPE , the answer is negative .","To the question whether in GPE , during the investigated period , there exist or existed facilities for detaining prisoners , other than penitentiary ones ( real , secret , ad - hoc , buildings that were used for this purpose on an improvised basis , potentially in the proximity of airports GPE , GPE PERSON , and ORG answer is negative .","To the question whether there are or there were detainees with or without records held in the NORP penitentiary system , who could have been assimilated with prisoners , ORG answer is negative .","To the question whether there could have been clefts in the complete control system of the civil or military traffic or whether some flights could have passed inadvertently without being monitored or unrecorded or if in their cases the ground procedures stipulated in the international conventions could have not been applied , ORG answer is negative .","To the question whether it could have been possible that certain NORP institutions in GPE would have participated knowingly or by omission or negligence in operations of illegal transport of detainees through the airspace or airports in GPE , ORG answer is negative .","To the question whether civil NORP flights or other states\u2019 civil flights could have transported , dropped , or picked up persons that could be assimilated to the detainees on the NORP territory or under the responsibility of NORP authorities , in compliance with international regulations , ORG answer is negative .","To the question whether there existed an in - depth parliamentary investigation to determine the media allegations regarding the existence of some detention facilities or of some flights with illegal prisoners in GPE , ORG answer is positive .","To the question whether the purpose of the stopovers in GPE of the flights referred to in DATE , ORG has solid grounds to reply that they had nothing to do with potential illegal transports of prisoners on the territory of GPE . \u201d","On DATE , in reply to a letter by ORG - CH concerning the purpose of the flights mentioned by the report cited above , the President of ORG stated :","\u201c ... ORG was assigned to investigate the statements regarding the existence of ORG detention facilities or of some flights of planes leased by ORG on the territory of GPE .","Consequently , since its mandate was strictly limited to the aforementioned issue , ORG did not request data from appropriate institutions , did not perform any investigation , and does not hold any kind of information regarding the purpose of the flights with the indication mentioned in chapter CARDINAL , point CARDINAL . ... \u201d","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed a criminal complaint ( pl\u00e2ngere penal\u0103 ) on his behalf with ORG , asking for an investigation into circumstances surrounding the applicant \u2019s rendition , secret detention and ill - treatment in GPE to be opened . It was submitted that the NORP authorities had allowed the ORG to subject the applicant to torture and unlawful , incommunicado detention on NORP territory and to transfer him out of the country despite the risk of his facing further torture , unacknowledged detention and death penalty . He relied on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of Protocol No . CARDINAL and maintained that the conduct of the NORP authorities constituted offences of , inter alia , aiding and abetting murder , torture and ill - treatment as defined in LAW .","On DATE the Prosecutor General acknowledged that the complaint had been registered and assigned a file number , and that its review was at a preliminary stage .","Some time afterwards , on an unspecified date , the prosecution authorities opened an investigation concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations .","At the ORG \u2019s request , the ORG submitted various materials concerning the investigation asking , under LAW of ORG , for public access to those documents to be restricted , in the interests of national security and also on the grounds of secrecy of the investigation ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Those materials included transcripts of witness evidence obtained in the investigation . They were produced in the NORP language , with an LANGUAGE translation . The LANGUAGE version is rendered in paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below .","All these documents were available to the ORG and the applicant in full , unredacted versions . The following description of the course of the investigation is based on a summary ( redacted version ) of annexes containing documents from the investigation file produced by the ORG . That summary was prepared by the Government in the LANGUAGE language .","On DATE the investigating prosecutor analysed the applicant \u2019s complaint and its context , including laws and arrangements regarding bilateral agreements between GPE and GPE and information in the public domain concerning the applicant \u2019s allegations . Also , an initial investigation plan was prepared on DATE . The plan included a list of requests for information , clarifications , documents , audio and video recordings and flight data to be addressed to various domestic authorities \u2013 among others , ORG , ORG , Otopeni , ORG and PERSON airports , the Government and the relevant ministries .","On DATE ORG attached to ORG ( Parchetul de pe l\u00e2ng\u0103 \u020analta Curte de Casa\u021bie \u015fi Justi\u021bie \u2013 \u201c ORG \u201d ) asked the ORG to provide , in connection with the investigation the following information concerning certain flights mentioned in an annex to the request ( the annex has not been produced ) :","( a ) any data , information , documents held with regard to the air traffic control in respect of the flights in question ;","( b ) any audio or video recordings concerning the flights in question ( for example : air traffic control or directing ) ;","( c ) names of individuals who had carried out specific tasks on the dates when the flights in question had allegedly taken place ;","( d ) names of individuals directly involved in facilitating or operating those flights .","On DATE the ORG informed the ORG that , according to the relevant legislation in force at the relevant time ( DATE ) , namely ORG no . DATE , they had data concerning only a few flights \u2013 which they included in an annex ( the annex has not been produced ) .","The ORG stated that the available data did not clearly show that these flights had taken place and that they did not have any documents which attested that the flights had actually taken place . According to the legislation in force at the material time , information in the ORG \u2019s possession showed only an intention to operate the flights , which had been planned and notified to them .","It further stated that Government Decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL had eliminated the need for the ORG to approve flights which transited the national airspace with no commercial stop ( and did not carry troops , military equipment , weapons , munitions , explosives , radioactive or other dangerous materials or did not fall in the category of technical flights ) and , also , internal and international flights with civil aircraft registered abroad , landing and taking off from the NORP territory , which were included in the category of civil air operations of general aviation . These flights were considered authorised if a flight plan on a published ORG ( ORG ) route was submitted and the aircraft used were insured for damage caused to third parties on the ground .","As regards audio or video recordings and names of any individuals involved , the ORG stated that they did not have any such information .","NORP In addition , the Government produced copies of the following prosecutor \u2019s letters requesting information or documents from various authorities :","( CARDINAL ) NORP letter of DATE addressed to ORG , asking for the classified annexes to the DATE ORG ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP letters of DATE addressed to PERSON , PERSON and FAC , requesting information about the alleged suspicious flights , including audio or video recordings , and about the airport personnel who had worked on the relevant dates ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP letter of DATE addressed to ORG , requesting it to the transmit ORG to the prosecutor ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP letters of DATE addressed to ORG and ORG requesting information about flights NCARDINALP , NCARDINALVM , NCARDINALP , ORG , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG , NCARDINALHC , ORG and GPE , including general flight data from DATE , types and purposes of flights , type of journey , flight route , flight operator , flight organiser , aircraft type , aircraft capacity , aircraft registration , documents regarding insurance , information about the crew and passengers , initial flight plans , subsequent flight documents , flight or overflight authorisations , specific requests for each flight and handling operator ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP letter of DATE addressed to ORG , requesting information about applications for authorisation of access of persons and vehicles to the airplanes , the relevant records , information about the security personnel and the handling agents who had worked on the relevant dates at FAC and at FAC ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP letter of DATE addressed to ORG of FAC , requesting information about the personnel who had worked on the relevant dates and any persons who entered , exited or transited the national territory on those dates through FAC and PERSON ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP letter of DATE addressed to ORG ( \u201c RAS \u201d ) , requesting information about the personnel who had worked on the relevant dates and the handling operations performed .","On an unspecified date , in response to the prosecutor \u2019s request , ORG provided the following documents :","- flight plans of NCARDINALME on DATE , NCARDINALA on CARDINAL DATE , NCARDINALAS on DATE , NCARDINALP on DATE , NCARDINALP on DATE and ORG on DATE ;","- control lists of the navigation records ;","- tables containing handling fees ;","- invoices issued by the ORG ;","- ground handling charge notes ;","- air navigation services sheets ;","- address no . CARDINAL CARDINAL of DATE issued by FAC informing that , after checking their records , there was no evidence of the landing of the flight NCARDINALP operated by ORG . It was also mentioned that the said aircraft had not carried out any flights on FAC \u2013 Timi\u0219oara until DATE .","- list of flight plans ;","- letter no . CARDINAL of DATE from ORG , transmitting all relevant information identified in their archives and informing the prosecution that from DATE to DATE in FAC the ORG was in charge of the handling services . The letter also mentioned that the flights concerned had not been identified as having operated at FAC .","- letter no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE from PERSON confirming , among other things , that PERSON had operated in that airport and that it had landed on DATE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL , and departed on DATE at DATE ;","- letter no . CARDINAL of DATE from PERSON , confirming that the aircraft ORG LCARDINAL registered as ORG had operated at that airport , landing on DATE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL , departing on DATE at ORG and that the aircraft Gulfstream IV registered as ORG had operated in the airport , landing on DATE at TIME and departing at TIME on the same date .","On DATE ORG replied to the prosecutor \u2019s request of DATE . The company stated that it did not have information about general flight data concerning the indicated aircraft in the period DATE , the purpose of the flights , type of journey , flight organiser , aircraft capacity , any documents regarding insurance , information about the crew and passengers , initial flight plans , subsequent flight documents , flight or overflight authorisations or information about handling requests . It informed the prosecutor that the flight plans had been received through the ORG terminal and had not been subject to archiving and that the ORG had been the handling operator in DATE at FAC . A table containing information about the relevant flights was transmitted to the prosecutor .","On DATE ORG replied to the prosecutor \u2019s request of DATE . The company transmitted the requested information about the applications for access authorisation to the planes and the relevant records . It also explained to the prosecutor that since the retention periods for the requested documents were from DATE , it was impossible for it to produce any additional information about the requests for authorisations and the access records . The company also produced information concerning the security personnel who had worked on the relevant dates .","On DATE ORG of ORG replied to the prosecutor \u2019s request of DATE . It forwarded a list containing the names , personal data and the present workplace of the personnel who had worked on the relevant dates . It also informed the prosecutor that flight logs had automatically been erased after DATE and that , as a consequence , they could not submit the requested information about the persons who had entered , exited or transited the national territory on those dates at FAC .","On DATE ORG of FAC supplied information concerning the personnel who had worked at FAC on DATE and their personal data .","On DATE the ORG replied to the prosecutor \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE . The PERSON informed the prosecutor about the personnel who had worked on the relevant dates and transmitted several tables containing handling fees . They also stated that information about the handling services performed had been retained only for DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE , the prosecutor asked ORG ( Ministerul PERSON ) to produce , on an urgent basis , the following information concerning the period of DATE :","( a ) military flights carried out by GPE military aircraft or civilian flights carried out by the GPE air companies , which concerned \u201c the transfer of individuals within the framework of ORG \u201d and which had had as a point of transfer , transit or destination \u201c airports on GPE \u2019s territory \u201d ;","( b ) existence or non - existence , on GPE \u2019s territory , of alleged detention facilities set up at the GPE authorities\u2019 or the GPE forces\u2019 request and their possible location , including names of legal persons hosting them ;","( c ) NORP detention , interrogation , and subsequent transfer of individuals in the GPE forces\u2019 or the GPE authorities\u2019 custody from the alleged detention facilities to other locations ;","d ) names of persons who had been subjected to such treatment .","On DATE ORG replied that the requested materials were part of documents sent to ORG by a note of DATE , which was classified as \u201c confidential information \u201d . The ORG stated that they did not have a copy of those documents , that the documents had been sent to the committee in a single copy ( exemplar unic ) and that they had not yet been returned to them . Moreover , the provision of information concerning civil aircraft which had operated in the NORP airspace and in the NORP international civilian airports fell within the competence and responsibility of the relevant departments attached to ORG .","The ORG further stated that , by their letter of CARDINAL DATE , sent to PERSON , a ORG councillor attached to the Prime - Minister \u2019s office , they had agreed that documents classified \u201c confidential information \u201d be sent to ORG .","Moreover , ORG ( PERSON Major PERSON ) had stated that it had not had any records of flights operating in the airspace or in the military airports DATE and transferring individuals in the framework of the GPE rendition programme ; moreover , the representatives of the GPE authorities had not had access to buildings or air facilities belonging to air bases subordinate to ORG or exclusive access to certain areas .","Lastly , the ORG stated that ORG of the Defence ( PERSON a LOC ) had no information about the existence of secret GPE bases in GPE , about individuals allegedly detained illegally in NORP prisons , their interrogation or transport to and from GPE by unmonitored or unauthorised flights .","On DATE the ORG asked ORG and ORG to forward a request for legal assistance ( including CARDINAL annexes ) to the relevant GPE judicial authorities . In the letter of request , the prosecutor asked the GPE authorities to provide , in connection with the criminal investigation , information concerning , among other things , the period and circumstances of Mr ORG \u2019s arrest and detention , the proceedings against him instituted by the GPE authorities ; whether Mr LOC had ever been brought to GPE in the context of his detention imposed by the GPE authorities under the ORG rendition programme and whether GPE had potentially been involved in that programme . The prosecutor also asked for the date of his arrival on NORP territory , the means of transport used , the place of his detention on NORP territory ; the date of his departure from GPE , the means of transport used and the relevant documents and whether the NORP authorities had been aware of his stay in the country .","On an unspecified date in DATE ORG replied to the letter of request , stating that the GPE authorities were not able to provide the information requested .","In the meantime , on DATE , following the entry into force of the new NORP Criminal Code and LAW ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the prosecutor had re - analysed the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint in the light of the new legislation and decided that the investigation should also include crimes of unlawful deprivation of liberty and torture .","NORP In the course of the investigation , in DATE and DATE , the prosecutor took evidence from witnesses , including some high - office holders . It also heard other officials , the Border Police officers and the airport staff , including the security personnel . The Government produced transcripts of evidence given by certain witnesses ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","The investigation , apparently still directed against persons unknown , is pending .","As noted above in respect of the ORG \u2019s arguments as to GPE \u2019s lack of jurisdiction and responsibility under the Convention , they denied on all accounts the applicant \u2019s allegations as being unsupported by any evidence and , consequently , having no factual basis . They also challenged the credibility of most part of the evidence gathered in the case and denied GPE \u2019s knowledge of , and complicity in , the operation of the ORG HVD Programme on its territory at the material time ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The Government \u2019s conclusions on the facts and evidence were as follows .","First of all , the Government maintained that there had been no evidence demonstrating that a ORG secret detention facility had ever existed in GPE . They maintained that all the applicant \u2019s allegations to that effect were based on inconsistent and contradictory speculations .","The sources relied on by the applicant had given contradictory indications regarding the period during which a \u201c secret \u201d detention facility had allegedly operated in GPE . The DATE ORG affirmed that that facility had been opened in DATE and had become highly important in DATE . It mentioned that it had been closed in DATE following ORG revelations . This contradicted the media sources indicating that the \u201c secret prison \u201d had been closed in the first part of DATE .","According to the article published in ORG , secret detention centres in GPE had been closed by DATE . Reprieve had taken an approach differing from that of ORG , stating that the detainees had been moved out of identified NORP \u201c secret \u201d locations prior to Secretary of ORG PERSON visit to GPE on DATE . On the other hand , ORG Commissioner for Human Rights , in his dossier , had described the \u201c lifecycle \u201d of the site as a \u201c period of DATE , beginning with its opening on CARDINAL DATE \u201d .","Accordingly , the reliability and veracity of information concerning the period during which the alleged \u201c secret \u201d detention site had operated was extremely doubtful .","As regards the location of the alleged ORG detention facility in GPE , at first there had been suppositions that it might have been located near FAC , FAC or FAC . These locations had been mentioned in succession , each for DATE .","The sources cited by the applicant had changed their assumptions each time it had been established that no \u201c secret \u201d detention facility had ever existed in the indicated place . Thus , a new location had subsequently been discovered .","In DATE ORG , following on - site inspections of the locations and after hearing witnesses , had established in its report that there had been no \u201c secret \u201d detention site near FAC in GPE , including the military airbase . Despite that fact , in DATE some journalists had come up with another hypothesis , indicating the basement of the building used by the ORG , a public institution , as a secret prison . To justify their speculations , they had not , however , supplied any solid evidence , or even any credible indications .","In DATE Senator PERSON had seemed convinced , quoting \u201c reliable sources \u201d within the ORG , that a secure area for the ORG transfers and detentions had been created near FAC . In DATE , ORG had quoted \u201c officials \u201d as saying that \u201c CARDINAL jail was a renovated building on a busy street in GPE \u201d . In DATE , other \u201c reliable sources \u201d indicated the ORG building DATE which , the ORG added , was located in a residential area and not on DATE as the location of the secret ORG detention site in GPE .","Lastly , in the pending criminal investigation there had so far emerged no evidence that any location in GPE or , especially , in GPE as suggested by the applicant \u2019s sources , could have been used by the ORG as a secret prison . In contrast , the prosecution had obtained a statement from an official working for the ORNISS \u2013 which had been produced before the Court \u2013 confirming that their building could never be , and had never been , used as a detention facility .","The Government next argued that the applicant \u2019s account regarding the dates , circumstances and period of his alleged detention in GPE was inconsistent and therefore unreliable .","In his application , the applicant had stated that he had been arrested in DATE in GPE . Then he had been held in GPE and GPE and moved to GPE on DATE . On DATE he had been moved from GPE to GPE , GPE and , subsequently , on DATE to LOC where he had been detained until DATE . On DATE he had been transferred to GPE and afterwards , to GPE . In DATE , the applicant had again been moved to LOC . Finally , he alleged that he had been \u201c secretly \u201d detained on NORP territory from DATE until DATE .","Other sources advanced the idea that the applicant had been transferred to GPE in DATE but then Reprieve had indicated DATE as the date of his transfer to GPE . According to the DATE ORG , the applicant had been brought to the ORG \u201d black site \u201d in GPE on the flight NCARDINALP on DATE . Mr Hammarberg , for his part , had maintained that the opening of the ORG prison code - named \u201c Bright Light \u201d and the start of the ORG operations at the NORP \u201c black site \u201d had been marked by the NCARDINALP flight on TIME . However , in his opinion , the applicant had been transferred to GPE on the NCARDINALVM flight directly from ORG to GPE on DATE .","The Government emphasised that the applicant had indicated no precise date of the flight on which he had allegedly been transferred out of GPE . He only mentioned that he had remained in GPE until DATE , when he had been moved to ORG . Nor had the experts heard at the fact - finding hearing been able to give a precise date for his transfer out of GPE .","It was therefore clear that there was no conclusive evidence in support of any of the above versions of the possible dates , circumstances or period of the applicant \u2019s alleged detention in GPE .","In the ORG \u2019s opinion , there was a particular circuit of information concerning the alleged existence on NORP territory of \u201c secret \u201d detention facilities . To begin with , mass media had launched accusations against certain GPE . Later on , this information had been reiterated as genuine by non - governmental organisations protecting human rights . These organisations had presented as evidence data extracted from records , invoices , and flight plans of planes allegedly used for transferring detainees . At the same time , these organisations had deliberately ignored the verifications performed by some NORP countries regarding the flights allegedly connected to the rendition programme . As a consequence , the information contained in official documents was not based on strong evidence , but on the sum of the data given by the mass media based on nonverifiable sources .","The Government contested the credibility of sources relied on by Senator PERSON in his reports of DATE and DATE . They said that the Marty Reports included many inconsistencies and contradictions . For instance , even though the reports had stated that the materials analysed , i.e. satellite photographs , aircraft movements and witness accounts , had not constituted evidence in the formal sense of the term , the authors had nevertheless found that these elements had been sufficiently serious to assume that a ORG secret detention facility existed in GPE . In the Government \u2019s opinion , Senator PERSON had displayed reluctance to reveal his alleged sources of evidence and protected them under the plea of a strict policy of confidentiality . Statements given by anonymous witnesses were not challengeable and this impeded the Government in properly contesting their reliability and defending themselves against the accusations made in the Marty Reports .","Referring to the DATE PERSON , the Government saw inconsistencies in many respects . For instance , it was mentioned that the evidence had been obtained through alleged discussions with \u201c well - placed persons from the ORG and the intelligence services \u201d . It was also stated that information had been classified by the NORP into \u201c tiny pieces of information \u201d in order to prevent any single foreign official from seeing a \u201c big picture \u201d . But it was further said that only the highly placed officials had been aware of the HVD Programme . In these circumstances , those \u201c well - placed persons \u201d had been in no position to offer any information .","The DATE ORG spoke of the alleged \u201c operating agreements \u201d between the ORG and GPE to hold detainees . However , in the next paragraph Senator PERSON had admitted that he had not seen the text of any such agreement .","Furthermore , statements of NORP politicians had been taken out of context to support the report \u2019s erroneous conclusions . Even a declaration of the NORP President had been distorted into a \u201c formal approval \u201d of the agreement for the cooperation in the ORG .","In sum , the DATE ORG categorical conclusion that it \u201c [ had been ] finally established that secret detention centres [ had ] existed for DATE in GPE \u201d seemed to have gone beyond the scant indications on which it had been based .","As regards PERSON findings of DATE , in particular those referred to in his affidavit and included in the dossier prepared for ORG , the Government pointed out that they were \u2013 like Senator PERSON \u2019s conclusions \u2013 based on newspaper articles and sources that could not be verified . They were accordingly no more than unsubstantiated allegations . Also , in the same fashion as other experts before the ORG , PERSON had based his theories on selective materials , without analysing the existing contradictions . For instance , he had found support for his assertions as to the alleged use of the ORG building by the ORG in the fact that in GPE a State facility had hosted a secret detention site . This was concluded without having regard to obvious differences between a remote location and a building used on a DATE basis by Government officials in a NORP capital .","Referring to Reprieve \u2019s research and findings , the ORG said that this non - governmental organisation represented the interests of some of the detainees held in ORG and carried out a humanitarian project concerning persons who had been subjected to extraordinary rendition in the ORG . Reprieve \u2019s current case work involved representing CARDINAL prisoners from ORG , assisting over CARDINAL prisoners facing the death penalty around the world and conducting ongoing investigations into the rendition and the secret detention of \u201c ghost prisoners \u201d in the so - called \u201c war on terror \u201d . In these circumstances , Reprieve could not objectively state the facts in their documents and respective articles .","Lastly , the Government pointed out that the reliability of the ORG sources cited by the experts and various inquiries or media reports was open to doubt because even the DATE ORG concluded that the ORG had leaked inaccurate information regarding the operation of the ORG .","The Government did not deny that DATE allegedly \u201c suspicious \u201d \u2013 planes had landed at and taken off from NORP airports ; these flights had at least partly been documented by the DATE ORG . Also , publicly available evidence confirmed their stopovers on NORP soil . However , the impugned flights had been of a private and non - commercial nature and had been treated accordingly . In all cases invoices , air navigation service sheets or ground handling charge notes had been issued for all the services provided . The flights had been included in the control lists of the navigation records . The declassified annexes to the DATE ORG supported the conclusion that the purpose of the \u201c N \u201d flights\u2019 stops at FAC had been mainly technical in nature .","For instance , as regards the alleged \u201c rendition flight \u201d NCARDINALVM of CARDINAL DATE , the available documents attested that the flight had been recorded in the table containing handling fees and in the control list of navigation records , that an invoice had been issued and that the payment had been made by card ; a copy of the air routing card having been attached to the relevant documents .","NORP Moreover , several witnesses who had worked in FAC at the material time and who had made statements in the investigation had identified these flights as having had a technical stop for refuelling at the airport . The vast majority of the witnesses had stated that the \u201c N \u201d flights had been serviced by a civil handling agent as any normal flight . Even the witnesses who had noted aspects that would suggest that the GPE flights had gone through a different procedure had completed their declarations by stating that they had not seen any persons disembarking from these aircraft . It should be stressed that not all the witnesses had serviced the same flights and that , therefore , their declarations should not be seen as contradictory .","In contrast to the circumstances surrounding the ORG planes\u2019 landings as established by ORG in GPE v. GPE , in GPE there had been no special procedure for receiving the impugned flights . As the documents in the investigation file showed , all the \u201c N \u201d flights had gone through the standard procedure . The procedure , as described in the ORG statements , had been entirely different from what had happened in GPE in GPE . No foreign vehicles had been seen entering the premises of FAC , there had been no military intervention in order to secure the airport perimeter and , most certainly , GPE officials had not assumed control of the airport on the dates in question . Nor had any HVDs been seen entering the country , as witnesses quoted in the DATE ORG had stated with regard to the aircraft landings in PERSON .","As regards the importance attached by the international inquiries , media and experts heard by the ORG to changes of flight plans , in the ORG \u2019s view this by itself could not suggest any involvement of the ORG in the applicant \u2019s detention and ill - treatment .","The Government did not deny that the initial flight plans for the NCARDINALP flight on DATE and the NCARDINALVM flight on DATE indicating PERSON as their destination had been changed and the planes had eventually landed at FAC in GPE . Yet this could not be a proof of any consistent practice of the so - called \u201c dummy \u201d flight planning referred to in DATE Reports and the findings of ORG Commissioner for Human Rights .","In accordance with the relevant domestic and international regulations , every flight must have a flight plan , except for emergency issues . Each flight plan must indicate , in addition to the plane \u2019s destination , an alternative destination . The flight plans had been established by the aircraft \u2019s operators . The only potential involvement of the authorities had been limited to their assistance in transmitting the flight plan to the entity managing the integrated initial flight plan processing system . The decision to use the alternative destination or a change in flight plan had been a unilateral action by the flight operator . The acceptance of these changes in the flight plans was not indicative of any complicity of the NORP authorities since such acceptance had in fact been automatic .","Similarly , the alleged STS \/ STATE indicators for the impugned flights could not be considered meaningful , even though various reports had emphasised their exceptional relevance . According to the applicable rules , that indicator should not automatically qualify for an exemption from any relevant flow regulations . Even Mr GPE they added , although repeatedly asked , could not indicate any special privileges that the STS \/ STATE designation would entail .","In the ORG \u2019s submission , the allegations regarding NORP \u2019s complicity in the ORG , in particular by means of \u201c secret cooperation agreements \u201d were completely baseless . No such agreements existed .","In that context , the Government referred to the NORP high - office ORG statements , in particular those made by former President of GPE , PERSON and his former security adviser , PERSON in ORG in DATE . Both of them had said that specific agreements had been concluded with the NORP authorities after DATE , including the NORP support at the level of intelligence services \u2013 which had actually been very fruitful . This did not mean cooperation in running a secret prison . Furthermore , in the course of the criminal investigation their initially ambiguous statements had later been clarified to the effect that there had been no cooperation and no complicity in the ORG rendition and secret detention operations on the part of GPE .","ORG Nor could it be said that the NORP authorities had otherwise agreed \u2013 explicitly or implicitly \u2013 to the running of a secret detention facility by the ORG in GPE and that they had made available to them LOC for that purpose . These were simply groundless assumptions unsupported by any evidence .","Referring again to the statements of Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON statements in PERSON , the Government stressed that they had both clearly confirmed that they had had no knowledge of any ORG - run detention facility on NORP territory .","No evidence had been produced to show the slightest degree of knowledge on the part of the NORP authorities as to the alleged hidden purpose of the flights landing at and taking off from NORP airports .","As attested by Mr GPE at the fact - finding hearing , only at DATE had there emerged the first information about the alleged existence in some \u201c NORP countries \u201d of secret detention facilities designated for suspected terrorists and run by the ORG . Before that time the only information available had concerned the detention facilities in LOC , GPE , GPE or GPE and a specific case concerning the surrender of CARDINAL NORP men by ORG into GPE custody . While information on the setting - up of military commissions for trying persons accused of terrorist acts had been in the public domain , the identities of those persons had been unknown . Nor had it been known what the GPE authorities\u2019 decision would be as to which of them would actually be tried before military commissions rather than before federal courts .","In sum , at the relevant time , from DATE , there had been no information that would have allowed GPE to suspect that some of the GPE flights that had landed in LOC had been used for the transfer of prisoners .","The applicant maintained that the international inquiries , the ORG declassified documents , the DATE ORG , other abundant materials compiling most recent research on the operation of the ORG and expert testimony obtained by the ORG provided a wealth of compelling evidence supporting his allegations and rejecting the Government \u2019s arguments as utterly untenable .","In his view , it was established beyond reasonable doubt that GPE had hosted a secret ORG prison in DATE and that he had been detained in that prison .","NORP The DATE ORG and other documentary exhibits before the ORG , as well as cogent and credible expert testimony confirmed that the ORG detention site code - named \u201c FAC \u201d or \u201c FAC \u201d had been located in GPE . The fact that a ORG secret prison had been located in GPE had already been confirmed in the DATE ORG . In the GPE v. GPE judgment the ORG had quoted verbatim from the expert testimony of Senator PERSON and PERSON GPE stating that there had been a secret ORG detention site in GPE .","As regards evidence that had emerged after the above judgment , the applicant attached particular importance to the DATE ORG , adding that it fully confirmed the ORG \u2019s factual findings in LOC GPE , including those based on expert testimony and documentary evidence .","Although the report did not refer to GPE by name , it was established that publicly available information , when cross - referenced with references to ORG confirmed that this site was \u201c FAC \u201d , a secret ORG prison that had operated in GPE in DATE . For example , the DATE ORG stated that detainees had begun arriving at ORG \u201c in DATE \u201d . It also stated that after publication on DATE of ORG article by ORG disclosing that NORP countries had hosted ORG \u201c black sites \u201d , the country concerned had demanded the closure of ORG within hours and that the ORG had transferred the remaining ORG detainees out of the facility shortly thereafter .","Furthermore , the DATE PERSON stated that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that the ORG had used a facility in GPE to hold prisoners , that the first of them had been transferred to this facility on DATE and that the last ones had been transferred out of the facility in DATE .","Lastly , the applicant relied on expert testimony at the fact - finding hearing . Senator PERSON had stated that there had been no shadow of doubt that GPE had participated in the ORG programme . Mr GPE had testified that with the exception of the \u201c black site \u201d in GPE , the NORP \u201c black site \u201d had operated for the longest period and held more detainees than any other ORG \u201c black site \u201d . Mr GPE and PERSON had confirmed that the applicant had been secretly detained in GPE . They had also confirmed that the wealth of details about \u201c FAC \u201d in the DATE ORG all corresponded to details about the GPE prison that the ORG code - named \u201c Bright Light \u201d , where the applicant had been detained . As such , the report by itself , offered by no less than the United States\u2019 own ORG , based on exhaustive review of ORG documents , rendered untenable ORG claim that there was no evidence of a ORG prison on NORP territory .","NORP In response to the Government \u2019s arguments ( see paragraphs DATE above ) , the applicant said that contrary to their assertions the application had not stated that he had been detained in GPE for the entire period DATE and DATE . Rather , it stated that he had been detained in GPE for some time during that period . Moreover , after the subsequent disclosure of the dossier submitted by PERSON , the precise date on which the applicant was transferred to a ORG \u201c black site \u201d in GPE had become clear \u2013 it had been DATE , on flight NCARDINALVM from LOC to GPE .","The applicant further emphasised that , as regards the location of the secret prison , it had become known only on DATE when a news report had identified for the first time the precise location of the ORG prison in GPE , while at the same time confirming the applicant \u2019s detention there , and providing details of the ill - treatment of detainees . The report had cited GPE intelligence officials familiar with the location and inner working of the prison .","The applicant maintained that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that planes associated with the ORG rendition operations had landed and taken off from GPE at the material time . The annex to the DATE ORG listed CARDINAL flights that had been considered suspicious by the NORP authorities .","The Fava Report had \u201c [ e]xpresse[d ] serious concern about the CARDINAL stopovers made by ORG - operated aircraft at NORP airports \u201d which on many occasions had come from or had been bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits and the transfer of detainees . The list of rendition planes included flight NCARDINALVM of CARDINAL DATE on which the applicant had been transferred to and from GPE .","The Fava Report further noted that a flight with registration number ORG had suffered an accident on DATE when landing in GPE . The aircraft had reportedly taken off from FAC in GPE , and its CARDINAL passengers had disappeared following the accident . The report expressed deep concern \u201c that NORP authorities [ had ] not initiate[d ] an official investigation process ... into the case of a passenger on the aircraft Gulfstream NCARDINALGCARDINAL , who [ had been ] found carrying a Beretta CARDINAL PERSON pistol with ammunition \u201d .","Furthermore , the applicant pointed out that the international inquiries and the experts heard by ORG had identified the rendition flights on which he had been transferred to and from GPE .","The finding in Mr PERSON \u2019s dossier for ORG that the applicant had been transferred to GPE on DATE on board NCARDINALVM , a flight clearly and consistently associated with the rendition operations , had been confirmed by multiple reliable sources , including the DATE ORG and the reconstruction by those experts of the applicant \u2019s transfers in ORG custody .","As regards his possible transfer from GPE , the experts had given CARDINAL dates , agreeing on the most probable date , which constituted sufficient evidence .","The applicant submitted that the ORG \u2019s arguments contesting the evidential value of the material before the ORG should be rejected in their entirety .","In his view , the Government \u2019s submissions simply constituted an attempt to discredit the findings of reputable officials like ORG Commissioner for Human Rights and Senator PERSON , by arguing that these findings were based solely on newspaper articles . In doing so , they failed to take into account the fact that Mr PERSON and Senator PERSON had engaged in independent investigations and analysis of their own .","Indeed , Commissioner PERSON \u2019s dossier for ORG had expressly drawn on the \u201c original investigation and the analysis undertaken by [ his ] Office during DATE of [ his ] mandate as Commissioner , among other sources of information \u201d . Similarly , the DATE ORG had engaged in \u201c analysis of CARDINAL of international flight records \u2013 and a network of sources established in numerous countries \u201d .","Further , as regards the statement in the DATE ORG that GPE had entered into a bilateral agreement with the GPE authorities , the applicant pointed out that , contrary to the Government \u2019s assertion , the fact that Senator PERSON had not seen the actual document did not undermine the credibility of his claim that such an agreement had in fact existed , because its existence had been verified by credible sources , some of whom had been directly involved in negotiations that had led to this agreement . The fact that such an agreement had been brokered had recently been corroborated by the DATE ORG .","For the applicant , there was no doubt that the NORP authorities had cooperated with the ORG in the ORG . They had granted licences and overflight permissions to facilitate the ORG rendition flights . The ORG \u2019s officials had collaborated with ORG ( and , by extension , with ORG \u2019s client , the ORG ) by accepting the task of navigating disguised flights into NORP airports .","As set forth in the DATE ORG , GPE had entered into a bilateral agreement with GPE . The report had named individual office - holders who had known about , authorised and stood accountable for GPE \u2019s role in the ORG \u2019s operation of secret detention facilities on NORP territory from DATE as follows : the former President of GPE ( up to DATE ) , PERSON ; the then President of GPE ( DATE ) , PERSON ; ORG on ORG ( until DATE ) . PERSON ; the Minister of ORG ( ministerial oversight up to DATE ) , PERSON ; and the Head of ORG , PERSON .","GPE had therefore participated in the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment and incommunicado detention by entering into that agreement and giving the GPE the \u201c full extent of permissions and protections it sought \u201d for conducting secret detention and rendition operations on NORP territory ; issuing an order to NORP military intelligence services on behalf of the President to provide the ORG with all the facilities they had required and to protect their operations in whichever way they had requested ; providing the use of a NORP Government building for hosting the secret prison where LOC had been detained ; actively assisting the landing , departures and stopovers of secret ORG rendition flights including flights which had transported LOC in and out of GPE ; and failing to disclose the truth and effectively investigate the existence of a secret ORG prison and rendition flights in GPE .","Consequently , the applicant \u2019s torture and secret detention , as well as his transfer from GPE in the face of real risks of further torture , secret detention and the death penalty could be attributed to ORG because these acts had occurred on NORP territory with the acquiescence and connivance of the NORP authorities and because GPE had failed to fulfil its positive obligations to prevent these acts , despite being on notice that they would occur .","Lastly , citing PERSON v. GPE the applicant emphasised that in that case the ORG had found that ORG rendition operations had \u201c largely depended on cooperation , assistance and active involvement of the countries which put at the GPE \u2019s disposal their airspace , airports for the landing of aircraft transporting ORG prisoners and , last but not least , LOC on which the prisoners could be securely detained and interrogated \u201d and that \u201c the cooperation and various forms of assistance of those authorities , such as for instance customising the LOC for the ORG \u2019s needs , ensuring security and providing the logistics [ had been ] the necessary condition for the effective operation of the ORG secret detention facilities \u201d . This was true with respect to GPE . Just as the ORG had found it inconceivable that GPE had not known about the secret detention of prisoners on its territory , it was simply inconceivable that GPE had not known that it had been hosting a secret prison .","The applicant contended that GPE had knowingly , intentionally , and actively collaborated and colluded with the ORG \u2019s extraordinary rendition programme , thereby enabling the ORG to subject him to secret detention and ill - treatment in GPE .","The NORP authorities should have known that high - value detainees would be tortured and ill - treated . Their close degree of cooperation with the ORG \u2019s secret detention operations in GPE must have put NORP authorities on notice of the prisoners being at risk of secret detention and ill - treatment .","In addition , GPE had had notice of the secret detention , torture and mistreatment of prisoners because of international and NORP news reports , reports of the ORG and human rights organisations and NORP legal cases that had documented GPE mistreatment of detainees suspected of terrorism at the material time . ORG were also presumed to have known of the ORG \u2019s secret detention , torture , and ill - treatment of terrorism suspects through its diplomatic missions .","As the DATE ORG had concluded , GPE had been \u201c knowingly complicit in the ORG \u2019s secret detention programme \u201d and senior NORP officials had \u201c [ known ] about , authorised , and [ stood ] accountable for GPE \u2019s role \u201d in the ORG \u2019s secret detention and rendition operations on NORP territory \u201d .","Furthermore , the DATE ORG had confirmed that the NORP authorities had known that they had been hosting a secret prison and had attempted to cover up this fact . Indeed , the report observed that the NORP authorities had \u201c entered into an agreement \u201d in DATE with the GPE to host the prison , and that the GPE had paid the NORP authorities \u201c MONEY to host the prison \u201d . It also confirmed that within TIME of ORG reporting in DATE that NORP countries had hosted secret ORG prisons , the NORP authorities had insisted on closing the ORG prison on their territory .","In the applicant \u2019s submission , the evidence before the ORG demonstrated that it was the NORP authorities which had given the ORG permission to run a secret prison in GPE , it was the NORP authorities who had given the ORG permission to use dummy flight plans to secretly land rendition planes carrying prisoners in and out of the country , and it was NORP authorities who had given the ORG extraordinary security cover for their operations in GPE .","As expert ORG had said at the fact - finding hearing : \u201c it [ was ] quite clear that the NORP authorities not only should have known but did know of the nature and purpose of the ORG \u2019s secret operations on their territory \u201d . He had also testified that this level of cooperation had depended on authorisation by the highest levels in ORG . The DATE ORG had confirmed this . Mr PERSON and PERSON had testified that the NORP authorities had known the nature and purpose of the ORG activities on NORP territory because the ORG had paid MONEY as a subsidy to host the prisoners . Moreover , the DATE ORG had also established that it had been at the insistence of ORG that ORG had been ultimately closed . ORG had demanded closure of the ORG prison within TIME from the publication of the DATE ORG article disclosing that ORG \u201c black sites \u201d had existed in LOC . This clearly confirmed that for as long as the ORG prison had existed on NORP territory , it had been there with ORG consent .","The applicant referred to the ORG \u2019s finding in LOC v. GPE ( cited above ) that by DATE it was widely known that the GPE rendition programme had involved secret detention in overseas locations . It stood to reason that GPE , which had hosted a secret ORG prison after GPE and had enabled the applicant \u2019s transfers from its territory well after DATE , indeed in DATE , had known by then that there had been substantial grounds for believing that the applicant had faced all of these risks .","As regards the statements of Mr PERSON \u2019s and PERSON , the applicant maintained that the ORG \u2019s submission was yet another example of their consistent refusal to acknowledge the truth about their hosting of a secret ORG prison on NORP territory . In particular , the Government had quoted selectively from the statement of witness Z , denying that GPE had hosted a secret ORG prison . But a closer look at that statement revealed that Z had actually admitted that the NORP authorities had supplied a \u201c location \u201d to the ORG .","In this connection , the applicant further referred to testimony given by witnesses X , Y and Z , saying that their statements expressly conceded that ORG flights had landed in GPE . In particular , X had said that GPE had partnership relations with similar institutions from other GPE , including equivalent structures in GPE . He also stated that in the framework of these bilateral relations , civil aircraft hired by the partner services on which their representatives travelled had landed at FAC . Witness Z had confirmed that GPE government officials had asked the NORP authorities to provide some locations on GPE \u2019s territory for the deployment of actions meant to fight the dangers of international terrorism and which were to be used by the ORG and that the authorities had \u201c offer[ed ] a location for ORG activities \u201d \u2018 . In his DATE statement Z had acknowledged that there had been \u201c concrete agreements \u201d that had made possible the operation of the special GPE flights in GPE and that those flights had not been \u201c under any obligation to obey usual rules imposed on civil flights \u201d .","Moreover , Y testified that , in the context of GPE \u2019s strategic objective of \u201c ORG and ORG integration \u201d , it had been possible that ORG offices had been run on NORP territory .","Lastly , the applicant reiterated that all the experts heard by ORG at the fact - finding hearing had stated , in unambiguous terms , that GPE not only ought to have known but must have known and had known of the nature and the purpose of the ORG \u2019s secret operations occurring on its territory .","Referring to any knowledge of the GPE authorities\u2019 practices in respect of suspected terrorist attributable to any ORG to the Convention at the relevant time , AI \/ ICJ pointed to , among other things , to the following facts that had been a matter of public knowledge .","NORP The interveners first emphasised that they had shown in their submissions in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( both cited above ) that , at least by DATE , there had been substantial credible evidence in the public domain that in the context of what the GPE called the global \u201c war on terror \u201d , GPE forces had been engaging in enforced disappearances , secret detentions , arbitrary detentions , secret detainee transfers , and torture or other ill - treatment . Further , the submissions showed that , by presidential military order , the GPE had established military commissions \u2013 executive tribunals with the power to hand down death sentences \u2013 for the prosecution of selected non - GPE nationals accused of involvement in terrorism in proceedings that would not comply with international fair trial standards .","A DATE confidential report of the ICRC on Coalition abuses in GPE , leaked in DATE and published in the media at that time , found that detainees labelled by the GPE as \u201c high - value \u201d were at particular risk of torture and other ill - treatment and \u201c high value detainees \u201d had been held for DATE in a facility at FAC in conditions that violated international law .","In its DATE reports covering DATE and DATE , distributed widely to governments and the media , AI had reported on the growing body of evidence of human rights violations committed by GPE forces in the counter- terrorism context and stated that these violations , including secret detention and rendition , were continuing . In addition to individual country entries , the global overview pages of both reports addressed GPE abuses in the \u201c war on terror \u201d . For example , in the report covering DATE this overview showed how during DATE , it had become \u201c increasingly clear how many countries had colluded or participated in supporting GPE abusive policies and practices in the \u2018 war on GPE , including torture , ill - treatment secret and unlimited detentions , and unlawful cross - border transfers \u201d .","In DATE ORG published a leaked CARDINAL DATE memorandum written in ORG at the request of the ORG . The memo advised , inter alia , that \u201c under the circumstances of the current war against ORG and its allies \u201d , presidential authority could override the GPE anti - torture law , that even if an interrogation method did violate that law \u201c necessity or self - defense could provide justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability \u201d , and that there was a \u201c significant range of acts \u201d that , while constituting cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment , \u201c fail to rise to the level of torture \u201d and need not be criminalised .","In DATE AI published a CARDINAL-page long analysis of GPE violations in the \u201c war on terror \u201d and of ORG documents that had come into the public domain , and including case details of secret transfers of detainees , the alleged existence of secret detention facilities and torture and other ill treatment .","In DATE , AI published a CARDINAL long report on GPE abuses in the \u201c war on terror \u201d , which included cases of alleged torture or other illtreatment , deaths in custody , military commission proceedings , rendition flights , and the cases of \u201c high - value detainees \u201d allegedly held in ORG custody in secret locations in GPE and elsewhere and being subjected to enforced disappearance . The cases described included those of NORP national PERSON and NORP national PERSON .","In sum , as the ORG held in GPE v. GPE ( cited above ) , already by DATE it had been clear that GPE had known or should have known about the GPE \u2019s rendition and secret detention programme and about the grave human rights violations it entailed as well as allegations of torture and other ill - treatment by GPE personnel , the indefinite detention regime at ORG and the prospect of unfair trials by the military commission . As detailed above , the body of evidence regarding the GPE \u2019s rendition and secret detention programme had only grown DATE . The GPE \u2019s use of the death penalty remained well - known during this period and the GPE administration pursued the death penalty from DATE to DATE in the high - profile federal prosecution of PERSON for terrorism offences , as well as moving ahead with a military commission system with the power to hand down death sentences .","The parties expressed opposing views on the issues concerning the standard and burden of proof to be applied in the present case .","The Government once again reiterated that there was no conclusive evidence that the NORP authorities had in any way participated in the ORG rendition programme by hosting a secret prison for high - value detainees or by any other means .","They agreed with the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that the ORG had accepted that in its establishment of facts and assessment of evidence the co - existence of sufficiently strong , clear and coherent inferences might be considered a proof . Yet in the applicant \u2019s case no such inferences existed .","In the ORG \u2019s view , the applicant had adopted a strategy of persuading ORG that the NORP authorities , including the intelligence services and army , had shared the responsibility for gross violations of human rights during the so - called \u201c rendition programme \u201d based on the idea of , in his view , striking similarities between the present case and ORG ( cited above ) .","However , in order for the ORG to shift the burden of proof , the applicant was required to establish a prima facie case in favour of his version of events . In the GPE case , that applicant \u2019s presence on NORP territory at the material time had not been disputed . His detention and interrogation in \u201c the former GPE \u201d , together with his surrender to the GPE authorities , had not been refuted either . In contrast , in the instant case no detention facility had been established with certainty , there was no certainty as to the flights on which the applicant had allegedly been transferred to and from GPE , and the exact period of the applicant \u2019s alleged detention in GPE had remained unclear .","Furthermore , Mr ORG description of the circumstances of his detention and torture had been , as the ORG held , \u201c very detailed , specific and consistent \u201d . Conversely , in the present case the ORG was confronted with the applicant \u2019s incoherent allegations .","As opposed to ORG , where a significant amount of evidence had corroborated the applicant \u2019s allegations and had given rise to concordant inferences , in the present case no evidence had been put forward , save for the reports which relied on one another . It was true that the ORG had held in the ORG judgment that it might examine a case by \u201c drawing inferences from the available material and the authorities\u2019 conduct \u201d and had concluded that the applicant had prevailed in his claims . Yet in the instant case there was no such material and the authorities\u2019 conduct had been , if not beyond any criticism , proactive and had demonstrated good faith . Without any intention to attack and discredit the reports of reputable officials or non - governmental organisations , the ORG insisted that the truth emerged at the end of a process of gathering evidence , failing which all the allegations remained simple claims .","The Government further said that they were fully aware of the ORG \u2019s standards of proof in cases involving injuries , death or disappearances that occurred in detention in an area within the exclusive control of the authorities of the respondent ORG , if there was prima facie evidence that the ORG might be involved . Nevertheless , they contended that a serious explanation , even if not a final one , had already been provided by the NORP authorities since a serious and independent investigation was still pending before the national authorities .","In view of the foregoing , the Government invited the ORG to hold that there was no prima facie evidence in favour of the applicant \u2019s version of events and that , therefore , the burden of proof could not be shifted .","They added , however , that they could not give a final version of the facts since the domestic investigation had not yet been completed .","The applicant maintained that he had adduced strong , clear and concordant facts in support of his claims . In contrast , ORG had continued to cover up the truth . The Government had an unprecedented advantage over the applicant . They had all the relevant facts in their possession because they had entered into an agreement to host the secret ORG prison , because they had operationalised that agreement , and because they had covered it all up . In contrast , the applicant , still detained at the remote location of LOC , was gagged from speaking of his treatment in GPE .","The applicant reiterated that he had established more than a prima facie case that he had been detained and tortured in GPE under the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . According to the ORG \u2019s case - law , the burden of proof now shifted to GPE , particularly because GPE had \u201c exclusive access to information \u201d and witnesses who could corroborate or refute the applicant \u2019s case . However , the Government had failed to provide any such explanation ; instead , they engaged in a pattern and practice of obfuscation and denial with respect to the events complained of . They had done so in the context of unprecedented secrecy maintained by GPE and its partner governments with respect to secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations .","Where , as in the present case , the events at issue lay wholly or in large part within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities , the burden of proof could be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation . Where , as in this case , the authorities had failed to provide a convincing explanation and failed to conduct an effective investigation , despite being on notice , at least since DATE , of the fact that GPE had hosted a secret ORG prison , the ORG was entitled to draw inferences adverse to the authorities .","NORP The applicant emphasised that the Court had consistently applied these principles in cases involving injuries , death or disappearances that occurred in detention , including cases where , as here , the Government denied that the individual had been in Government custody at the time of the events at issue . It had also applied these principles where persons had been found dead or injured , or had disappeared , in an area within the exclusive control of the authorities of the State and there had been prima facie evidence that the State might be involved . As the Grand Chamber reiterated in GPE , prima facie evidence could itself be provided by proof in the form of concordant inferences , based on which the burden of proof was shifted to the respondent Government .","Furthermore , in GPE v. GPE ( cited above ) the ORG had established that it was appropriate to adopt a flexible approach towards the evaluation of evidence . ORG had observed that although it had adopted the \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d standard of proof , it also \u201c adopt[ed ] the conclusions that [ were ] , in its view , supported by the free evaluation of all evidence , including such inferences as [ might ] flow from the facts and the parties submissions \u201d . Proof could thus \u201c follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact \u201d . In addition , in assessing the evidence , the ORG had also taken note of the unique set of constraints on the applicant which had precluded him from testifying about his detention before the ORG and of \u201c the very nature and extreme secrecy of the ORG operations in the course of the \u2018 war on GPE \u201d .","The applicant argued that the same constraints applied in his case against GPE . Indeed , he had been virtually isolated in ORG and unable to talk publicly about his torture and ill - treatment or even submit a statement to ORG because the GPE authorities had taken the position that his thoughts and memories about his experiences under torture were classified information . Accordingly , they had prohibited him from sharing these experiences with anyone other than his GPE lawyers , who were prevented from revealing what they had been told by their client on pain of criminal sanction .","Despite the extreme secrecy associated with ORG operations and his inability to address the ORG directly , the applicant considered that he had submitted ample evidence in support of his factual claims . Indeed , the documentary and expert evidence offered by him and heard by ORG in the present case was , in his view , akin to the evidence that had been given credence by ORG in GPE v. GPE .","The ORG is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and has consistently recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first - instance tribunal of fact , where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALXIII ( extracts ) ; GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , PERSON , DATE and CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Nonetheless , in cases where there are conflicting accounts of events , the ORG \u2019s examination necessarily involves the task of establishing facts on which the parties disagree . In such situations the ORG is inevitably confronted when establishing the facts with the same difficulties as those faced by any first - instance court ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","In assessing evidence , the ORG has adopted the standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d . However , it has never been its purpose to borrow the approach of the national legal systems which use that standard . Its role is not to rule on criminal guilt or civil liability but on Contracting States\u2019 responsibility under the LAW . The specificity of its task under LAW to ensure the observance by GPE of their engagement to secure the fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention \u2013 conditions its approach to the issues of evidence and proof . In the proceedings before the ORG , there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or pre - determined formulae for its assessment . It adopts the conclusions that are , in its view , supported by the free evaluation of all evidence , including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties\u2019 submissions .","According to the ORG \u2019s established case - law , proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . Moreover , the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and , in this connection , the distribution of the burden of proof , are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts , the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake . ORG is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a ORG has violated fundamental rights ( see , among other examples , GPE v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL ; PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ; ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ; ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; GPE v. GPE ( I ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ; PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","While it is for the applicant to make a prima facie case and adduce appropriate evidence , if the respondent Government in their response to his allegations fail to disclose crucial documents to enable the ORG to establish the facts or otherwise provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred , strong inferences can be drawn ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE , with further references ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . ORG , LAW , DATE ; ORG and Others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Furthermore , the Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio . According to the ORG \u2019s case - law under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention , where the events in issue lie wholly , or in large part , within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities , for instance as in the case of persons under their control in custody , strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention . The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-IV ; PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII ; and GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and PERSON and PERSON , cited above , LAW ) .","In the absence of such explanation the ORG can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The ORG has already noted that it is not in a position to receive a direct account of the events complained of from the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; also , compare and contrast with other previous cases involving complaints about torture , ill - treatment in custody or unlawful detention , for example , ORG , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG CARDINALV ; PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG DATE ; and ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ) .","NORP The regime applied to high - value detainees such as the applicant is described in detail in the ORG declassified documents , the DATE ORG and also , on the basis , inter alia , of the applicant \u2019s own account , in the DATE ORG . That regime included transfers of detainees to multiple locations and involved holding them incommunicado in continuous solitary confinement throughout the entire period of their undisclosed detention . The transfers to unknown locations and unpredictable conditions of detention were specifically designed to deepen their sense of disorientation and isolation . The detainees were usually unaware of their exact location ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","As held in GPE v. GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) and as can be seen from the material cited above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , since an unknown date in DATE the applicant has not had contact with the outside world , save the ICRC team in DATE , the military commission \u2019s members and his GPE counsel . It has also been submitted that the applicant \u2019s communications with the outside world are virtually non - existent and that his communications with his GPE counsel and his account of experiences in ORG custody are presumptively classified ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The above difficulties involved in gathering and producing evidence in the present case caused by the restrictions on the applicant \u2019s contact with the outside world and the extreme secrecy surrounding the GPE rendition operations have inevitably had an impact on his ability to plead his case before this ORG . Indeed , in his application and further written pleadings the events complained of were to a considerable extent reconstructed from threads of information gleaned from numerous public sources .","Consequently , the ORG \u2019s establishment of the facts of the case is to a great extent based on circumstantial evidence , including a large amount of evidence obtained through the international inquiries , considerably redacted documents released by the ORG , the declassified DATE ORG , other public sources and the testimony of the experts heard by ORG ( see also PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL , and PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , LAW ) .","It is also to be noted that while the Government have firmly denied the applicant \u2019s allegations in so far as they concerned GPE and contested the credibility of various parts of the evidence before the ORG , they have not disputed the fact that he was subjected to secret detention and ill - treatment under the ORG . Nor have they disputed his version of the circumstances preceding his alleged rendition to GPE on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","However , the facts complained of in the present case are part of a chain of events lasting from DATE to CARDINAL September CARDINAL and concerning various countries . The examination of the case necessarily involves the establishment of links between the dates and periods relevant to the applicant \u2019s detention and a sequence of alleged rendition flights to the countries concerned . As a result , the ORG \u2019s establishment of the facts and assessment of evidence can not be limited to the events that according to the applicant allegedly took place in GPE but must , in so far as it is necessary and relevant for the findings in the present case , take into account the circumstances occurring before and after his alleged detention in GPE ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","The ORG has already established beyond reasonable doubt the facts concerning the applicant \u2019s capture , rendition and secret detention until DATE , the date of his rendition on plane NCARDINALP from GPE to another ORG secret detention facility ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The relevant passages from GPE v. GPE containing the ORG \u2019s findings of fact are cited above ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Some additional elements , which are all fully consistent with the ORG \u2019s establishment of the facts in that case , can also be found in the DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","It is alleged that before being rendered by the ORG on CARDINAL DATE from ORG to GPE on board NCARDINALVM the applicant had been detained in other ORG secret detention facilities abroad ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","In GPE v. GPE ( cited above , LAW and CARDINAL ) the ORG held as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In the light of that accumulated evidence , there can be no doubt that :","...","CARDINAL ) NORP the NCARDINALP , also known as \u201c Guant\u00e1namo Express \u201d , a Gulfstream V with capacity for CARDINAL passengers but usually configured for CARDINAL , arrived in PERSON on DATE at TIME from GPE , GPE . It stayed on the runway for TIME and then departed for GPE , GPE .","...","Assessing all the above facts and evidence as a whole , the ORG finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :","...","CARDINAL ) NORP on DATE the applicant was transferred by the ORG from GPE on the ORG rendition aircraft NCARDINALP. \u201d","Referring to this point in time , the DATE ORG states that from DATE \u201c the ORG transferred PERSON to CARDINAL different ORG detention facilities before he was transferred to GPE military custody on DATE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It further states that in DATE the ORG arranged for a \u201c temporary patch \u201d , which meant placing the applicant and another detainee \u2013 PERSON \u2013 in a country whose name was redacted and that by an unspecified \u2013 redacted \u2013 date in DATE both of them were transferred out of that country to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","There can therefore be no doubt that between his transfer from GPE on DATE and his transfer to ORG on an unspecified DATE in DATE the applicant was for some time held by the ORG in another country \u2013 the first CARDINAL out of CARDINAL in which he would be secretly detained DATE and DATE .","Mr GPE testified that the country in question was identifiable as GPE and that on DATE the plane NCARDINALP had taken the applicant and PERSON from GPE to GPE , GPE to a facility that at that time had been let to the ORG by their NORP counterparts . He stated that the applicant had remained there until DATE , the date on which he had been transported on plane NCARDINALP from Rabat to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The NCARDINALP rendition circuit of DATE was analysed in detail in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , where the ORG held that on CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON had been transferred by the ORG from GPE on board that plane to another ORG secret detention facility elsewhere . It also held that this flight had marked the end of ORG aircraft landings in GPE and the closure of the ORG \u201c black site \u201d codenamed \u201c Quartz \u201d in that country ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . The collation of data from multiple sources shows that the plane left GPE on DATE and undertook a DATE flight circuit during which it landed in CARDINAL countries . It flew from Rabat to ORG on TIME DATE , landing there in TIME DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","According to the ORG letter of CARDINAL DATE , NCARDINALP \u2019s itinerary was PERSON airport in GPE , GPE - Constan\u0163a - Rabat but the airport at which it landed in GPE was FAC in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . This information is consistent with evidence heard from Mr GPE , who in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE testified that \u201c this particular flight circuit was again disguised by dummy flight planning although significantly not in respect of GPE \u201d and that \u201c since this visit to PERSON was comprised solely of a pick - up of the remaining detainees , the ORG declared PERSON as a destination openly and instead disguised its onward destinations of GPE and PERSON , hence demonstrating that the methodology of disguised flight planning continued for the second NORP site in GPE , GPE \u201d ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The DATE ORG confirms that \u201c beginning in DATE \u201d the ORG held its detainees at ORG facilities in ORG and that by a \u2013 redacted but clearly DATE in DATE \u201c all CARDINAL ORG detainees were transferred from ORG to other ORG detention facilities \u201d pending ORG ruling in PERSON v. PERSON which , as the GPE authorities expected , \u201c might grant habeas corpus rights to the CARDINAL ORG detainees \u201d . The transfer was preceded by consultations among the GPE authorities in DATE . It was recommended by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","In the light of the material in its possession , the ORG finds no counter evidence capable of casting doubt on the accuracy of the expert \u2019s conclusions regarding the above sequence of events , the places of the applicant \u2019s secret detention and the dates of his transfers during the relevant period .","Accordingly , the ORG finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :","( CARDINAL ) on DATE on board the rendition plane NCARDINALP the applicant was transferred by the ORG from GPE , GPE to GPE , GPE ;","( CARDINAL ) from DATE to DATE the applicant was detained in GPE at a facility used by the ORG ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP on DATE on board the rendition plane NCARDINALP the applicant was transferred by the ORG from Rabat to ORG ; and","( CARDINAL ) the applicant was detained in ORG until a CARDINAL - digit date in DATE ( redacted in the DATE ORG ) , then transferred by the ORG to another detention facility elsewhere .","It is alleged that a ORG secret detention facility operated in GPE from DATE to DATE , when it was closed following the publication of PERSON report on ORG overseas clandestine prisons in LOC in ORG on DATE ( see , in particular , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The Government denied that a ORG detention facility had ever existed on GPE \u2019s territory ( see , in particular , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG notes at the outset that the following facts are either uncontested or have been confirmed by the ORG \u2019s findings in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE and flight data from numerous sources , including the documents produced by the respondent Government :","( a ) On DATE plane NCARDINALP arrived in GPE , GPE en route from GPE , left on DATE for GPE and , having indicated in its flight plan GPE as its destination , in fact landed at FAC . On DATE the plane took off from GPE for DATE ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , LAW and CARDINAL ; and CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL above ) .","( b ) On DATE plane NCARDINALHC , having indicated in its flight plan FAC in GPE as its destination , in fact landed at FAC in GPE and on DATE took off from GPE for GPE .","( c ) On DATE plane NCARDINALAB arrived in GPE at CARDINAL and on DATE , on TIME , left for GPE ;","( d ) On TIME both NCARDINALHC and FAC were in the same airport in GPE between CARDINAL:CARDINAL ( NCARDINALHC \u2019s landing ) and TIME ( NCARDINALAB \u2019s departure ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","It has not been disputed by the ORG that the ORG publication was the first one in which NORP countries were mentioned in the context of the HVD Programme ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","It was followed by subsequent , more specific reports .","On DATE ORG , in the DATE HRW Statement , indicated GPE and GPE as the ORG accomplices in the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","That statement was followed by the HRW List of DATE which referred to \u201c ghost prisoners \u201d , including the applicant , considered to be possibly held in secret detention by the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","DATE , on DATE , an ORG report named GPE and GPE as countries hosting ORG secret prisons and listed the names of CARDINAL top ORG terrorist suspects , including the applicant , being held in ORG custody . It also stated that , according to the ORG sources , the GPE authorities had \u201c scrambled to get all the suspects off the NORP soil before Secretary of ORG PERSON arrived there DATE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Nor has it been disputed that the above disclosures soon triggered a number of international inquiries into the ORG rendition and secret detention operations and allegations of torture and ill - treatment of prisoners . The multiple investigations by international governmental organisations started with ORG inquiry under LAW and ORG , followed by ORG PERSON , the DATE ORG and the investigative work of ORG Commissioner for Human Rights carried out until DATE . Also , in that context , the ICRC independently prepared its earlier , confidential reports and the DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) . As a follow - up to ORG , ORG still continues to investigate the issue of the ORG secret prisons in LOC ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The initial DATE reports drawn up in the framework of the inquiries conducted by the international governmental organisations confirmed consistently , albeit in various terms , that there was at least a strong suspicion that a ORG clandestine detention site had operated in GPE .","( a ) The DATE Marty Report stated that , while the factual elements gathered so far had not provided definitive evidence of secret detention centres , GPE was \u201c thus far the only ORG member state to be located on CARDINAL of the rendition circuits \u201d which bore \u201c all the characteristics of a detainee drop - off point \u201d . The rendition circuit in question was executed on DATE by plane NCARDINALP which , before landing in GPE , on DATE rendered Mr PERSON from GPE to the ORG \u201d black site \u201d in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above and GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","( b ) The DATE ORG affirmed that there was \u201c now enough evidence to state that secret detention facilities run by the ORG [ had ] existed in LOC from DATE , in particular in GPE and GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It stated that \u201c GPE [ had been ] developed into a site in which more detainees were transferred only as the ORG [ had ] expanded \u201d . It was Senator PERSON \u2019s understanding that \u201c the NORP \u201c black site \u201d [ had been ] incorporated into the programme in DATE , attained its greatest significance in DATE and operated until DATE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The report also referred to the \u201c clear inconsistencies in the flight data \u201d provided by various NORP sources , when compared with data gathered by ORG independently . The disagreement between these sources was found to be \u201c too fundamental and widespread to be explained away by simple administrative glitches , or even by in - flight changes of destinations by Pilots - in - Command , which were communicated to CARDINAL authority but not to another \u201d . In sum , the report stated that \u201c presently there exist[ed ] no truthful account of detainee transfer flights to GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Senator PERSON in the DATE and DATE ORG , as well as in his affidavit of CARDINAL DATE and testimony given at the fact - finding hearing before the ORG explained comprehensively the methodology adopted in his inquiry and the sources of information on the basis of which the respective findings had been made ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","( c ) The Fava Report expressed \u201c serious concern \u201d CARDINAL stopovers made by the ORG - operated aircraft at NORP airports , which on most occasions had come from or been bound for countries linked with extraordinary rendition circuits .","It was also found that CARDINAL flight plans had been filed with inconsistencies as they had indicated a landing airport which had not corresponded with the subsequent take - off airport ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Moreover , ORG identified CARDINAL aircraft with multiple stopovers in GPE that already at that early stage of the inquiries into the ORG had been known to have been involved in the ORG rendition operations .","Among those aircraft was NCARDINALVM , conclusively identified as having been used for the rendition of Mr PERSON aka PERSON from GPE to GPE on DATE ( see also PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) and NCARDINALP conclusively identified as having been used for the rendition of Mr GPE from GPE to GPE on DATE ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","The report also listed flights from suspicious locations that stopped over in GPE in DATE . The first flight NCARDINALP , from GPE , GPE to GPE , en route to LOC , took place on DATE , the last one , NCARDINALHC , from GPE to GPE , took place on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The conclusion in ORG was that it could not exclude , \u201c based only on the statements made by NORP authorities to ORG delegation to GPE , the possibility that GPE secret services [ had ] operated in GPE and that no definite evidence ha[d ] been provided to contradict any of the allegations concerning the running of a secret detention facility on NORP soil \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","With reference to that conclusion , PERSON testified at the fact - finding hearing that \u201c the conclusion we reached was a very strong suspicion that [ a ORG detention facility ] existed , not certainty \u2013 there was no smoking gun \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The Fava Report relied on comprehensive materials from multiple sources , comprising those collected during the TDIP delegation \u2019s visits to the countries concerned , including GPE , extensive flight data , expert evidence , analysis of specific cases of several victims of the ORG extraordinary rendition , interviews with the victims and their lawyers and material acquired in the context of meetings with the national authorities ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The DATE ORG , referring to GPE , mentioned that the analysis of complex aeronautical data had demonstrated the circuit flown by NCARDINALP in DATE and that the experts had not been able to identify \u201c any definite evidence of a detainee transfer into GPE \u201d taking place prior to that flight ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Subsequent reports , which were based on fuller knowledge of the ORG emerging from the ORG documents declassified in DATE and DATE and took into account progress in the research into rendition flights , contained more categorical conclusions .","( a ) Mr Hammarberg , in his dossier of DATE addressed to ORG , stated that \u201c sufficient evidence ha[d ] now been amassed to allow us to consider the existence of a ORG \u201d black site \u201d in GPE as a proven fact , and to affirm that serious human rights abuses [ had taken ] place there \u201d . According to PERSON findings , the opening of the ORG prison , codenamed \u201c Bright Light \u201d and the start of the ORG detention operations in GPE was marked by the plane NCARDINALP landing in GPE on TIME DATE . The physical location was identified as the ORG building in GPE . The dossier included , in chronological order , a list of CARDINAL disguised rendition flights into GPE in respect of which \u201c dummy \u201d flight plans featuring ORG had been filed , starting from the NCARDINALP flight on DATE and ending with the NCARDINALJB flight on CARDINAL DATE . No specific date of closure of the detention site was given ; paragraph CARDINAL of the dossier indicated that it had operated for \u201c a period of DATE \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . In response to the ORG \u2019s question regarding this point , PERSON explained that at that time their research had not managed to establish the precise dates for the closure of the NORP \u201c black site \u201d nor for the applicant \u2019s transfer from GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","PERSON , in his written response to the ORG \u2019s questions , gave an account of the sources and methodology on which he relied in his findings . The conclusions as to the operation of a secret ORG \u201d black site \u201d in GPE were based on \u201c a number of different sources which were crossreferenced and not on CARDINAL piece of evidence in isolation \u201d . This included among other things , official GPE documents , flight records and aeronautical data amassed from diverse entities across the global aviation sector ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","( b ) The DATE PERSON , which in addition to extensive flight data had been based on an analysis of a large amount of new material disclosed in the DATE ORG , stated that it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that a facility in GPE had been used by the ORG to hold prisoners , that the first prisoners had been transferred to this facility in DATE and that the last prisoners had been transferred out of this facility in DATE . The dossier included a list of QUANTITY rendition circuits through GPE , the first of which was executed by NCARDINALP on DATE , the last of which was executed on DATE and involved CARDINAL planes NCARDINALHC ( from GPE to GPE ) and LAW ( from GPE to GPE ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","Furthermore , in GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE Senator PERSON and Mr GPE , referring in their ORG presentation to the \u201c final rendition circuit \u201d through GPE executed by NCARDINALP , testified that this particular circuit had marked the closure of the ORG \u201d black site \u201d in GPE and the opening of the ORG \u2019s second secret detention site in LOC \u2013 located in GPE ( see PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At the fact - finding hearing held in the present case the experts heard by the ORG confirmed in clear and categorical terms that a secret detention facility had operated in GPE in the period indicated by the applicant . They stated that the NCARDINALP flight on DATE had marked the opening of the site and that a \u201c double - plane switch \u201d circuit involving CARDINAL planes , identified as NCARDINALHC and ORG had indicated its closure , prompted by the publication of ORG article referred to above ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the same categorical terms they identified the ORG detention facility located in GPE as the one referred to in the DATE ORG as \u201c ORG \u201d ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","( a ) Senator PERSON and Mr PERSON in their ORG presentation , in support of the above conclusions , referred to the extensive flight data and their correlation , as well as to the DATE ORG . In particular , Mr GPE in connection with several specific references in that report stated that the code name \u201c FAC \u201d in the report corresponded in such \u201c precise and extensive detail \u201d to other multiple data concerning GPE that \u201c GPE , its territory , its airspace , its detention facility , [ was ] inseparable from ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL above )","( b ) Mr Black stated that it was \u201c clear , beyond reasonable doubt that there was a ORG detention facility in GPE \u201d and that he was convinced on \u201c a wide array of different types of evidence \u201d that it operated from DATE until DATE . He testified that there was no doubt that the flight in DATE which had been a CARDINAL - plane switch taking prisoners to GPE \u2013 had signalled the end of the NORP site and that that flight had come within TIME after the existence of the site had been revealed in ORG article . He added that the DATE ORG was very clear that at that point everyone who had been remaining in GPE had been \u201c shipped out to GPE \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","In his testimony , he also mentioned specific HVDs , including the applicant , who had been detained in GPE DATE , saying that \u201c the fact that those individuals [ had been ] held in GPE at various points DATE [ was ] absolutely beyond reasonable doubt , there [ could not ] be any alternative narrative to that that [ made ] any sense \u201d . He further stated that \u201c ORG [ was ] the site that fulfil[ed ] , in terms of its operating times , the flight paths that we [ knew ] to have been connected to prisoner movements and to the ORG rendition programme . ORG [ was ] the one which correlate[d ] precisely with those flight paths that our research [ had ] discovered , [ had ] reconstructed \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The DATE ORG includes several references to ORG . To begin with , the report confirms that ORG detainees were transferred to ORG in a country whose name was redacted \u201c in DATE \u201d . It further confirms that the site still operated in \u201c DATE \u201d , as well as in DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) and that Mr PERSON was held there in DATE and DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","Finally , it indicates that ORG was closed \u201c after publication of the ORG article \u201d , following the pressure from the country concerned , which demanded the closure within TIME which , although redacted in the text , clearly comprised DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG observes that this indication in theory could mean any time DATE . However , in reality , given that the ORG had to secure a safe , secret transfer of possibly several detainees by air to another consenting country , such demand could not be dealt with abruptly and immediately and , by the nature of things , inevitably required some preparation and handling of logistical problems . According to the DATE ORG , the \u201c ORG transferred ... the remaining ORG detainees out of the facility shortly thereafter \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Having regard to the fact that ORG article was published on DATE , the dates on which the transfer could realistically have been carried out DATE that is to say , within the range of TIME \u2013 had to be situated in the short period from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . This coincides exactly with the flight identified by the experts as the CARDINAL marking the closure of \u201c FAC \u201d in GPE , namely NCARDINALHC from GPE to GPE , executed on CARDINAL DATE ( see also paragraph LAW above ) .","Furthermore , all the materials in the ORG \u2019s possession , including the list of CARDINAL \u201c suspicious flights \u201d produced by the Government unambiguously demonstrate that a series of ORG - associated aircraft landings at FAC started on DATE with NCARDINALP and ended on CARDINAL DATE with NCARDINALHC . Markedly , these QUANTITY particular flight circuits were disguised by the so - called \u201c dummy flight ORG a practice that , as described by the experts and analysed by ORG in its previous judgments concerning the ORG rendition operations in GPE , consisted in filling false flight plans that indicated a route which the planes did not , or even intend to , fly . Both aircraft \u2019s flight plans indicated GPE as their destination but in fact they landed at and took off from FAC ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , with references to GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , and CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ; see also PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","The Government acknowledged that on DATE the flight plan for NCARDINALP , initially indicating GPE as its destination , had been changed to FAC when the plane had been en route ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , they did not see how the change of flight plans executed by the flight operator \u2013 a change on which the NORP authorities had no influence \u2013 could be indicative of their complicity in the ORG rendition operations or , still less , of the existence of a ORG \u201c black site \u201d in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","Addressing the Government \u2019s arguments , the ORG finds it appropriate to reiterate certain findings concerning the operation of the ORG - associated flights in GPE emerging from the material in the case file .","( a ) As already noted above ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG referred to CARDINAL stopovers made by the ORG - operated aircraft at NORP airports during the relevant period . Significantly , most stopovers ( CARDINAL ) and take - offs ( CARDINAL ) found suspicious took place at GPE airports . Several of those flights are included in the ORG \u2019s list of CARDINAL \u201c suspicious flights \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . ORG also identified CARDINAL different ORG aircraft that landed in GPE at the material time and referred to CARDINAL inconsistent flight plans , concerning , among others , the NCARDINALHC flight on DATE . All these plans indicated destinations filed for GPE or GPE ; however , the aircraft real destination was FAC , at which those flights in fact landed and from which they took off subsequently ( see paragraphs QUANTITY and CARDINAL above ) .","( b ) PERSON dossier for ORG contained a \u2013 non - exhaustive \u2013 list of the most significant CARDINAL flights into GPE , starting from NCARDINALP on DATE . Destinations for all of them were disguised by the \u201c dummy \u201d flight planning . All bore the characteristics of \u201c detainee drop - offs \u201d , i.e. transportation of ORG prisoners into the country . All those planes are on the list of CARDINAL \u201c suspicious flights \u201d furnished by the Government ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","( c ) The DATE PERSON identified CARDINAL rendition missions linking GPE to other ORG prison host countries or to known or suspected prisoner transfers . According to that report , the first such mission was executed by NCARDINALP on DATE , the last by NCARDINALHC on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The list of CARDINAL rendition missions in the DATE PERSON overlaps with the ORG \u2019s list of CARDINAL \u201c suspicious flights \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","( d ) In all the inquiries conducted by the international governmental and non - governmental organisations , which were extensively referred to above , most planes included in the ORG \u2019s list have been conclusively and definitely identified as carrying out the ORG rendition missions ( see CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; CARDINAL ; CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","( e ) It emerges from the comparison of the list of CARDINAL \u201c suspicious flights \u201d with the above reports identifying the aircraft associated with the ORG \u2019s transportation of prisoners that DATE and DATE there was a continued , steady and concentrated flow of those planes through FAC . According to the material produced by the ORG themselves , during that period CARDINAL ORG flights arrived at FAC and CARDINAL were recorded by the NORP authorities as landing at FAC . The ORG flights into GPE arrived at fairly regular intervals of CARDINAL see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","Considering the material referred to above as a whole , the ORG is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence in favour of the applicant \u2019s allegation that the ORG secret detention site operated in GPE DATE and DATE . Accordingly , the burden of proof should shift to the respondent Government ( see ORG , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","NORP However , the Government have failed to demonstrate why the evidence referred to above can not serve to corroborate the applicant \u2019s allegations . Apart from their firm , albeit general , denial that the facts as presented by the applicant and disclosed in the international inquiries \u2013 to begin with ORG and PERSON investigative work DATE never took place or were grossly distorted to GPE \u2019s disadvantage , they have not offered any cogent reasons for the series of landings of ORG - associated aircraft at GPE DATE and DATE ( see also GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Likewise , the Government have not produced any evidence capable of contradicting the findings of the international inquiries and the experts heard by the ORG , categorically stating that the aircraft in question were used by the ORG for transportation of prisoners into GPE . Nor have they refuted expert evidence to the effect that the ORG prison referred to in the DATE ORG as \u201c ORG \u201d was located in GPE ( see also and compare with GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","In that context , the ORG can not but note that all the international inquiries and other reports challenged by the Government were based on extensive , meticulous work which was done by the experts and politicians of the highest integrity and competence and whose only aim and mission was to reveal the facts and establish the truth about what had occurred in LOC during the ORG rendition operations . Their work was often impeded by the extreme secrecy surrounding the ORG operations , the uncooperative attitude of the national authorities and the lack of access to the necessary information \u2013 information which was revealed only gradually , over DATE and which still remains incomplete due to the classification of essential documents , in particular the full version of the DATE ORG . It is worth noting that the inquiries conducted in DATE did not have the benefit of access to the ORG declassified documents , which were released in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and which provided an important insight into the fate of specific HVDs , including Mr PERSON , with such details as dates of detainees\u2019 transfers between the ORG \u201c black sites \u201d and interrogation schedules .","As regards the Government \u2019s challenge to the impartiality and credibility of Reprieve , based on its involvement in ongoing investigations into ORG rendition and secret detention and case work regarding ORG prisoners ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the ORG finds no ground whatsoever to consider that Reprieve and its experts , who have DATE as for instance Mr Black \u2013 also been involved in ORG inquiry , lack objectivity in representing the facts concerning the operation of the ORG in LOC and the plight of detainees , including the applicant .","In so far as the Government can be seen as impliedly contesting the credibility of evidence from other experts heard at the fact - finding hearing ( see CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the ORG would wish to underline that PERSON , Senator PERSON and Mr GPE already gave evidence in LOC GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE . ORG , in its examination of those cases , relied heavily on their testimonies considering them to be one of the most important parts of the evidence and finding them fully reliable and credible ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL- CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . Furthermore , in ORG considered the expert report from Mr GPE to be \u201c compelling evidence \u201d which was duly taken into account in its establishment of the facts in the case ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","Consequently , in the ORG \u2019s eyes , there is nothing in the ORG \u2019s submission that would be capable of shedding the doubt on the integrity and dependability of the experts whose testimony was taken in the present case .","The ORG also argued that the fact that the sources relied on by the applicant , including the DATE ORG and PERSON dossier , had given different indications as to the exact location of the alleged \u201c black site \u201d in GPE deprived his allegations of credibility . Referring in particular to the ORG building , they relied on witness R \u2019s statements obtained in the investigation denying that this location had , or could ever have been , used for the ORG prison ( see CARDINAL and DATE above ) .","The ORG does not find these arguments convincing .","It is true that the applicant , relying on the press disclosures , indicated the ORG building as a probable ORG prison . However , considering the secrecy of the ORG operations it can not be realistically expected that this kind of indication will be absolutely certain , unless the governments concerned decide to disclose such locations and formally \u201c officialise \u201d the information circulating in the public domain . In that regard , the ORG would note in passing that the likelihood of the ORG building having hosted the ORG facility has also been considered in the inquiry conducted by ORG ; however , the NORP authorities did not enable the ORG delegation to visit the site during their fact - finding mission in DATE ( see paragraphs FAC - CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG will not speculate on that likelihood . Nor is it necessary for the purposes of its ruling to establish where the ORG facility was exactly located . Given the coherent and unrefuted evidence corroborating the applicant \u2019s allegations as to the existence of the ORG \u201c black site \u201d in GPE , the fact that he did not state its precise location does not undermine the credibility of his allegations .","In view of the foregoing , the ORG \u2019s objection to the credibility of the evidence and sources relied on by the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) can not be upheld .","Consequently , the ORG considers the applicant \u2019s allegations sufficiently convincing and , having regard to the above evidence from numerous sources corroborating his version , finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :","( a ) a ORG detention facility , codenamed ORG in the DATE ORG , was located in GPE ;","( b ) the facility operated from DATE and its opening was marked by flight NCARDINALP which took off from GPE , GPE on DATE and , having disguised its destination by indicating FAC in GPE , landed at FAC on DATE ; and","( c ) the facility was closed on the NORP authorities\u2019 demand and its closure was marked by flight NCARDINALHC which took off from GPE , GPE on DATE and , having disguised its destination by indicating FAC in GPE , landed at FAC and on DATE took off for GPE , GPE .","It is alleged that the applicant was transferred to GPE from ORG on board NCARDINALVM on DATE and that he was detained at ORG in GPE , also codenamed \u201c Bright Light \u201d or \u201c FAC until DATE or , at the latest , until DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The ORG firmly contested this ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","ORG is mindful that , as regards the applicant \u2019s actual presence in GPE , there is no direct evidence that it was the applicant who was transported on board the NCARDINALVM flight from ORG to GPE or that he was subsequently transferred from GPE to another ORG secret detention facility on DATE or DATE , the CARDINAL possible dates indicated by the experts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant , who for DATE on end was held in detention conditions specifically designed to isolate and disorientate a person by transfers to unknown locations , even if he had been allowed to testify before the ORG , would not be able to say where he was detained . Nor can it be reasonably expected that he will ever , on his own , be able to identify the places in which he was held .","No trace of the applicant can , or will , be found in any official flight or border police records in GPE or in other countries because his presence on the planes and on their territories was , by the very nature of the rendition operations , purposefully not to be recorded . As confirmed by expert GPE in GPE v. GPE , in the countries concerned the official records showing numbers of passengers and crew arriving and departing on the rendition planes neither included , nor purported to include detainees who were brought into or out of the territory involuntarily , by means of clandestine HVD renditions . Those detainees were never appeared in a record of persons on board filed with any official institution ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","In view of the foregoing , in order to ascertain whether or not it can be concluded that the applicant was detained at ORG in GPE at the relevant time , the ORG will take into account all the facts that have already been found established beyond reasonable doubt ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and analyse all other material in its possession , including , in particular , the DATE ORG and expert evidence reconstructing the chronology of the applicant \u2019s rendition and detention in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG observes that the following facts either are not disputed or have also been confirmed by flight data from numerous sources , including the documents produced by the respondent Government :","( a ) On DATE plane NCARDINALVM , having indicated in its flight plans FAC in GPE as its destination , in fact landed in FAC in GPE and took off from there on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;","( b ) that on DATE plane PERSON , having indicated in its flight plans FAC in GPE as its destination , in fact landed at FAC in GPE and took off from GPE for GPE on DATE ;","( c ) that on DATE plane PERSON landed in GPE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL and stayed there until TIME , at which time it departed for FAC ;","( d ) that on DATE both PERSON and PERSON were in the same airport in GPE between PERSON ( PERSON \u2019s landing ) and CARDINAL ( NCARDINALWH \u2019s departure ) ;","( e ) that on DATE PERSON , having indicated in its flight plans GPE , GPE as its destination , in fact landed at FAC in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","As regards the rendition circuit of CARDINAL - CARDINAL DATE , ORG would reiterate that it has already been established that :","- on DATE NCARDINALHC , having disguised its destination as GPE , in fact landed at FAC and took off from there for GPE , arriving there in TIME on DATE ;","- NCARDINALAB arrived in GPE DATE , and on TIME , left for GPE ; and","- on TIME both NCARDINALHC and FAC were in the same airport in GPE between CARDINAL:CARDINAL and CARDINAL:CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG has also established that after his transfers from GPE to GPE and from GPE to ORG the applicant was detained in ORG until an unspecified CARDINAL - digit date in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As noted above , the DATE ORG states that by that date , \u201c all CARDINAL ORG detainees were transferred from ORG to other ORG detention facilities \u201d ( see CARDINAL and QUANTITY above , with further references ) .","Mr GPE , in his testimony , explained that the use of the word \u201c facilities \u201d in the plural in the DATE ORG was significant in the context of the applicant \u2019s detention given that , as the very same report established , following his transfer from GPE , he had been held at CARDINAL different ORG \u201c black sites \u201d ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Mr PERSON could not , therefore , have been transferred from ORG back to GPE . Mr GPE further explained that at the relevant time there had been CARDINAL distinct detainee transfers from ORG ; the first which had taken some detainees to Rabat on CARDINAL March CARDINAL and the second which had taken the remaining ones on plane NCARDINALVM to GPE , via a stopover in GPE , on DATE . This , he said , was the sole outward flight linking ORG with GPE . Also , it emerged from the DATE ORG and cables regarding the applicant \u2019s treatment that he found himself at ORG in DATE and in DATE . Mr ORG concluded that , in order for the applicant to be at ORG or \u201c GPE \u201d by that time , he had to have been brought to GPE on flight NCARDINALVM on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","Moreover , in respect of that flight the ORG had recourse to its systematic practice of disguised flight planning which , as the expert stated , \u201c in fact became a tell - tale sign of rendition or detainee transfer activity on such flights \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Mr Black stated that he was aware of CARDINAL possible flights that could have taken the applicant into GPE and NCARDINALVM was CARDINAL of them . He indicated that there had been a potential other flight that had occurred in DATE . While it was known for a fact that the applicant had been in GPE after DATE and in DATE , there were also indications that he had been held in GPE before , in DATE . That led Mr Black to prefer , of these CARDINAL possibilities , the DATE flight as being the more likely of the CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The Government acknowledged that the flight plan for NCARDINALVM , initially indicating ORG as its destination , had been changed to GPE , FAC when the plane had been en route but did not consider that this element could confirm the applicant \u2019s secret detention in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They produced documents issued by the RAS at FAC in connection with the NCARDINALVM landing on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As in respect of other allegedly \u201c suspicious \u201d flights , the Government asserted that the flight had been of a \u201c private and non - commercial nature \u201d and had not been executed in connection with the HVD Programme ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","However , this assertion does not seem to be supported by the materials gathered in the present case . To the contrary , the ORG finds that in addition to the expert evidence referred to above , there is other abundant evidence to the effect that on DATE plane NCARDINALVM executed a rendition mission to GPE with the purpose of \u201c dropping off \u201d detainees from ORG .","In that regard , the ORG observes that since DATE the findings of the international inquiries have clearly associated NCARDINALVM with the ORG rendition operations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL- CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . As already noted above , NCARDINALVM was conclusively identified as the plane used earlier for the rendition of PERSON otherwise known as PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The former ORG Commissioner for Human Rights dossier for ORG included that flight among disguised rendition flights into GPE , bearing the character of detainee \u201c drop - off \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The same dossier listed the applicant among HVDs who had been brought to a ORG \u201c black site \u201d in GPE and indicated DATE as the date of his transfer to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The DATE PERSON indicated flight NCARDINALVM on DATE among the missions carried out under rendition contracts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","That flight is also listed among CARDINAL \u201c suspicious flights \u201d in the document produced by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As to the applicant \u2019s rendition by the ORG from GPE , the experts gave DATE and CARDINAL DATE as CARDINAL possible dates of the applicant \u2019s transfer ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","Mr PERSON described in detail the ORG \u201c plane - switch \u201d operation that , according to him , had taken place in the course of the flight circuit on CARDINAL DATE and involved CARDINAL aircraft : PERSON and PERSON . On this premise , on DATE the applicant was taken on board PERSON from ORG to GPE and , subsequently , on board PERSON to GPE to a ORG \u201d black site \u201d in GPE , referred to as \u201c Detention Site Violet \u201d in the DATE ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","PERSON considered both dates as probable , with the DATE transfer of the applicant being more likely ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Having regard to all the various documentary and oral evidence referred to above , the ORG is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence in favour of the applicant \u2019s version of the events and that the burden of proof should shift to the Government .","Yet again in the ORG \u2019s view the Government have failed to give any convincing grounds to explain why the evidence considered above can not support the applicant \u2019s allegations . They asserted that the applicant \u2019s version of events should be rejected as it was incoherent and that in his account of the facts there had been inconsistencies regarding the dates , circumstances and the exact period of his alleged detention in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG does not share the ORG \u2019s assessment .","While it is true that , with the passage of time , the applicant adduced newly disclosed facts relevant for his complaints or corrected the dates initially given for his detention ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) , this does not by itself render his version of events inconsistent or incredible . In that context the ORG would again refer to the fact that since his capture in DATE the applicant has been continually prevented from giving any direct account of his fate even to the counsel representing him before the Court ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","Furthermore , having regard to the above evidence demonstrating clearly , consistently and conclusively the chronology of the events preceding the applicant \u2019s transfer to GPE , his transfer to GPE on DATE and his presence at FAC located in GPE in DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) , as well as expert evidence confirming that there were DATE and only CARDINAL \u2013 possible dates on which he could be taken by the ORG out of GPE , the ORG does not find it indispensable to determine on which specific date the transfer occurred . It is certain and beyond any reasonable doubt that the applicant , once detained at ORG and , as confirmed by the DATE ORG and the experts , still present there DATE , must have been transferred out of it at some later point before or when the site was definitely closed on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The experts\u2019 conclusions are founded on in - depth analysis of extensive international aviation data , contractual documents pertaining to rendition missions executed by the air companies used by the ORG and large amount of data released by the GPE authorities , including the ORG . On this basis , they gave a time - frame which is sufficiently accurate for the ORG to conclude that the applicant must have been taken out of GPE either on DATE or on DATE to CARDINAL of the \u2013 at the time DATE remaining ORG detention facilities , referred to in the DATE ORG as ORG and ORG .","Accordingly , the ORG finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :","( a ) On DATE the applicant was transferred by the ORG from ORG to GPE on board NCARDINALVM .","( b ) From DATE to DATE or , at the latest , CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE code - named \u201c ORG \u201d according to the DATE ORG .","( c ) On DATE on board PERSON or , at the latest , on DATE , on board NCARDINALHC via a double - plane switch the applicant was transferred by the ORG out of GPE to one of the CARDINAL remaining ORG detention facilities , code - named ORG and ORG according to the DATE ORG .","It is alleged that during his secret detention in GPE the applicant was subjected to torture and other forms of treatment prohibited by LAW . The Government have not addressed this issue .","The ORG observes that , in contrast to PERSON v. GPE where the treatment to which the applicant was subjected by the ORG during his detention in GPE could be established with certainty owing to the ORG \u2019s declassified materials depicting in graphic detail the torture inflicted on him in the course of the interrogations ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , in the present case there is no evidence demonstrating that at ORG in GPE he was subjected to EITs in connection with interrogations ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","As regards recourse to harsh interrogation techniques at the relevant time , the DATE ORG mentions in general terms that in DATE the ORG temporarily suspended the use of the EITs . While their use was at some point resumed and they were apparently applied throughout the most part of DATE , such techniques were again temporarily suspended in DATE and in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In respect of the applicant , the report states that in the \u201c final years \u201d of his detention \u201c most of the intelligence requirements for LOC involved showing [ him ] photographs \u201d . Those \u201c debriefings \u201d were suspended in DATE apparently because of the low value of intelligence obtained from him and \u201c because debriefings often were the \u2018 ORG for his outbursts \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Other heavily redacted passages in the report speak of \u201c feeding him rectally \u201d , which resulted from his \u201c short - lived hunger strike \u201d at some unspecified time in DATE . It is also mentioned that in DATE he underwent a psychological assessment in the context of \u201c management challenges \u201d posed to the ORG by psychological problems experienced by the detainees \u201c who had been held in austere conditions and in solitary confinement \u201d . The applicant \u2019s assessment was used by the ORG in discussions on \u201c establishing an endgame \u201d for the HVD Programme ( see CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In DATE the ORG expressed concern regarding the applicant \u2019s \u201c continued state of depression and uncooperative attitude \u201d . DATE a psychologist established that the applicant was \u201c on the verge of a breakdown \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","According to the experts , even though the applicant was in all likelihood no longer interrogated with the use of the EITs , he did , as Mr GPE stated \u201c purely by virtue of the conditions in which he [ had been ] held \u201d suffer ill - treatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON added that it was clear that the applicant , in particular when he had been in GPE , was experiencing serious psychological problems as a result of the treatment he had received ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As regards the ORG \u2019s establishment of the facts of the case , the detailed rules governing the conditions in which the ORG kept its prisoners leave no room for speculation as to the basic aspects of the situation in which the applicant found himself from DATE to DATE or CARDINAL DATE . ORG therefore finds it established beyond any reasonable doubt that the applicant was kept \u2013 as any other high - value detainee \u2013 in conditions described in ORG , which applied from DATE to all ORG detainees ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ; see also GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","While at this stage it is premature to characterise the treatment to which the applicant was subjected during his detention at ORG for the purposes of his complaint under the substantive limb of LAW , the ORG observes that the regime included at least \u201c CARDINAL standard conditions of confinement \u201d . That meant blindfolding or hooding the detainees , designed to disorient them and keep from learning their location or the layout of the detention facility ; removal of hair upon arrival at the site ; incommunicado , solitary confinement ; continuous noise of high and varying intensity played at all times ; continuous light such that each cell was illuminated to about the same brightness as an office ; and use of leg shackles in all aspects of detainee management and movement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The DATE ORG , in the chapter giving details as to the establishment of ORG , states that in DATE ( redacted the text ) in DATE the ORG \u201c entered into an agreement \u201d with the country concerned \u201c to host a ORG detention facility \u201d .","While the terms of that agreement have not been disclosed , it appears from subsequent passages that , in order to demonstrate to the country \u2019s authority ( or person ) whose name was redacted and to \u201c the highest levels of the Country ... government \u201d that the GPE authorities \u201c deeply appreciate[d ] their cooperation and support for the detention program \u201d , the ORG station in the country was invited by their ORG \u201c to identify ways to support the \u201d \u2013 again redacted DATE country \u2019s bodies ( presumably , or activities ) by financial means , defined as a \u201c subsidy \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The requested subsidy which was received in appreciation of \u201c cooperation and support \u201d amounted to a sum ( redacted in the text ) that was a multiple of CARDINAL ; in fact , the amount which was initially put on DATE in the report \u2019s words \u2013 \u201c wish list \u201d presented on behalf of the country by the ORG station was later increased by a further ( redacted ) multiple of CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The fact that such financial rewards were , as a matter of the general policy and practice , offered to the authorities of countries hosting ORG \u201c black sites \u201d is also confirmed in LAW DATE ORG . The conclusion states that \u201c to encourage governments to clandestinely host ORG detention sites , or to increase support for existing sites , the ORG provided MONEY in cash payments to foreign government officials \u201d and that \u201c the ORG encouraged ORG to construct \u201c wish lists \u201d of proposed financial assistance \u201d and \u201c to \u2018 think big\u2019 in terms of that assistance \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In that context , the ORG would also wish to refer to its findings regarding the national authorities\u2019 knowledge of the ORG HVD Programme in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE and the issue of the alleged existence of a bilateral agreement between GPE and the GPE on the setting up and running of a secret ORG prison . In that case , the ORG did not find it necessary for its examination of the case to establish whether such agreement or agreements existed and if so , in what format or what was specifically provided therein . It did , however , consider it inconceivable that the rendition aircraft could have crossed NORP airspace , landed at and departed from a NORP airport and that the ORG could have occupied the LOC in GPE without some kind of pre - existing arrangement enabling the ORG operation in GPE to be first prepared and then executed ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","The same conclusion is valid in respect of GPE ; moreover , in the present case it has been reinforced by evidence from the DATE ORG , unambiguously demonstrating the existence of a bilateral agreement between GPE and the GPE on hosting ORG on NORP territory .","The ORG would also add that the above - cited sections of the DATE ORG further support the conclusions of the DATE ORG , stating that \u201c the key arrangements for ORG clandestine operations in LOC were secured on a bilateral level \u201d , that \u201c the ORG brokered \u2018 operating ORG with ORG and GPE to hold its high - value detainees ... in secret detention facilities on their respective territories \u201d and that \u201c GPE and GPE agreed to provide the LOC in which these facilities were established , the highest degrees of physical security and secrecy , and steadfast guarantees of non - interference \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; see also GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","In his affidavit made DATE , on DATE , Senator PERSON stated that his \u201c convictions regarding GPE \u2019s participation in the ORG \u2019s ORG were unambiguous and unwavering \u201d , adding that \u201c up to the present day , I stand by CARDINAL of the factual findings I delivered in DATE PACE Reports \u201d and that his \u201c certitude that a ORG \u2018 black ORG existed in GPE [ had ] only increased since that time \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At the fact - finding hearing he added that , based on \u201c extremely precise testimony \u201d obtained in the course of his inquiry , the NORP officials \u201c must have known that the ORG used their territory for transfers of prisoners in the context of the war on terror \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above )","In that regard , the ORG notes that the DATE ORG listed by name several individual high - office holders who \u201c knew about , authorised and stand accountable for GPE \u2019s role in the ORG \u2019s operation of \u2018 outoftheatre\u2019 secret detention facilities on NORP territory , from DATE to DATE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","CARDINAL of those identified in the report , namely former President of GPE , PERSON and his former ORG , PERSON Talpe\u015f DATE made public statements relating to the ORG rendition operation in their interviews given to ORG in DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE , in the first ORG publication , Mr PERSON was reported as saying that \u201c there were CARDINAL or CARDINAL locations in GPE at which the ORG probably held persons who were subjected to inhuman treatment \u201d . It was further reported that \u201c had , from DATE , continued discussions with officials of the ORG and the GPE military about a more intense cooperation \u201d and that in that context \u201c it was agreed that the ORG could carry out its own activities in certain locations \u201d . He did not know where they were and \u201c GPE was , expressly , not interested in what the ORG was doing there \u201d . PERSON also told PERSON that in DATE and DATE he had informed President PERSON that the ORG had carried out \u201c certain activities \u201d on NORP territory ; at that time \u201c he did not think that the ORG could possibly torture captives \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP In DATE , in the second ORG publication , Mr PERSON was reported as stating that \u201c around the turn of the year DATE , our allies asked us for a site \u201d and that he , as Head of ORG , had in principle granted that request but the details had been taken care of by PERSON . He added that \u201c we [ had not interfered ] with the activities of the GPE on this site \u201d .","ORG further reported that Mr PERSON had confirmed Mr ORG statements , adding that at DATE he had received a request from a representative of the ORG in GPE for premises , which the ORG needed for its own activities . He had arranged for a building in GPE to be given to the ORG . The building was used by the ORG from DATE and no longer existed ; PERSON would not reveal its location ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In that context , it is also to be noted that the DATE EP Resolution states that PERSON admitted on record to the ORG delegation that he had been fully aware of the ORG \u2019s presence on NORP territory , acknowledging that he had given permission to \u2018 ORG a government building to the ORG \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Referring to Mr PERSON \u2019s and Mr Talpe\u015f\u2019 interviews in ORG , the Government argued that subsequently their initially ambiguous statements had been clarified to the effect that there had been no cooperation and no complicity in the ORG rendition and secret detention operations on the part of GPE . In that regard , the ORG also relied on evidence from witnesses obtained in the criminal investigation conducted in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG does not share this assessment .","It is true that certain NORP officials , for instance Y and Z , who testified in the investigation in DATE , denied receiving any such request or having any knowledge of the existence of the ORG prisons in the country ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","Yet in that regard the ORG can not but note that witness Z in his testimony given on DATE nevertheless confirmed that \u201c ORG officials [ had ] asked the NORP authorities to offer some locations on NORP territory to be used for actions of combating the international terrorist threats by the representatives of the ORG , on the same pattern as that used in the other ORG Member GPE \u201d and that \u201c finally CARDINAL single location [ had been ] offered \u201d . It was understood \u201c at that stage , in DATE , that it should be an office building in GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The accounts given by PERSON and Mr ORG in their interviews and Mr Talpe\u015f\u2019 admission to ORG delegation match the disclosures in the DATE ORG , in particular regarding the date of the agreement to host a ORG secret detention site ( DATE ) , the fact that the NORP authorities were asked for LOC for the ORG , the time at which the LOC were provided ( DATE ) and the fact that they were informed of the purpose for which the LOC that GPE offered were to be used ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . They also correspond to ORG above findings as to the dates marking the opening of ORG in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The statements obtained in the investigation relied on by the Government are in a marked contrast to the disclosures made by the GPE authorities , GPE \u2019s partner under the agreement . ORG does not see how the findings of ORG , based on a DATE investigation and in - depth analysis of first - hand evidence , which in most part came from classified \u201c top secret \u201d sources , including CARDINAL pages of ORG documents ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) could be undermined by the material referred to by the Government .","The DATE ORG , in the chapter concerning the establishment of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) also refers to several interventions vis - \u00e0 - vis the ORG made by the GPE ambassador in the country in the context of the operation of the ORG in that country and public disclosures of ill - treatment of detainees in GPE custody . First , in DATE , he expressed concern as to whether ORG was aware of the ORG detention facility in the country and its \u201c potential impact \u201d on GPE policy in respect of the ORG concerned . The second and third interventions , prompted by \u201c revelations about GPE detainee abuses \u201d were made in DATE and in the \u201c fall of DATE \u201d .","The report further states that \u201c while it is unclear how the ambassador \u2019s concerns were resolved , he later joined the chief of Station in making a presentation \u201d to the country \u2019s authorities ( or representatives ) whose names were redacted in the text . The presentation did not describe the EITs but \u201c represented that without the full range of these interrogation measures \u201d the GPE \u201c would not have succeeded in overcoming [ the ] resistance \u201c of PERSON and \u201c other equally resistant HVDs \u201d . The presentation also included representations \u201c attributing to ORG detainees critical information \u201d on several terror plots , including the \u201c GPE Plot \u201d , the \u201c FAC Plot \u201d and the \u201c Second Wave Plot \u201d . Also , in the context of intelligence obtained , several well - known HVDs in GPE custody were mentioned by name ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The above information originated in an evidential source to which the ORG attributes utmost credibility ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It gives a description of a concrete event \u2013 an oral presentation \u2013 that occurred at some time following \u201c the fall of DATE \u201d and during which , in the context of the operation of ORG in the country , the NORP authorities were presented with an outline of the ORG by the GPE officials . Even though the format of the meeting and names or functions of participants representing the host country have not been revealed , the disclosure clearly shows that the presentation included a fairly extensive account of the ORG . To begin with , the GPE officials clearly spoke of intelligence that had been obtained from high - value detainees through \u201c overcoming resistance \u201d by means of a \u201c full range of interrogation measures \u201d . They also suggested that specific terrorist suspects in ORG custody had provided \u201c critical intelligence \u201d on prominent terror plots . ORG prisoners whose resistance was \u201c overcome \u201d as a result of interrogations were spoken of , to mention only PERSON , the top HVD in ORG custody , suspected of masterminding DATE terrorist attacks in the GPE .","In GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE the fact that the national authorities cooperated with the ORG in disguising the rendition aircraft \u2019s actual routes and validated incomplete or false flight plans in order to cover up the ORG activities in the country was considered relevant for the ORG \u2019s assessment of the LOC knowledge of , and complicity in , the HVD Programme ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The ORG will follow that approach in analysing the facts of the present case .","It is to be reiterated that the ORG acknowledged that in respect of CARDINAL flights , namely NCARDINALP on DATE and ORG on DATE the flight plans had been changed when the planes had been in the air . They denied that any role in the process had been played by the NORP authorities , except for a passive , \u201c automatic \u201d acceptance of the change for which the plane operator had been solely responsible and assistance in transmitting the flight plans to the entity managing the integrated initial flight plan processing system ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP However , as already noted above , the clear inconsistencies in the flight data pertaining to destinations where the ORG - associated aircraft were supposed to arrive and from where they actually took off presented by the NORP authorities were already identified in the DATE ORG and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Also , PERSON PERSON \u2019s dossier addressed to ORG listed CARDINAL rendition flight circuits occurring DATE and DATE in respect of which false flight plans had been filed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The practice of so - called \u201c dummy \u201d flight planning , i.e. a process of intentional disguise of flight plans for rendition aircraft used by the air companies contracted by the ORG , for instance ORG or ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , was explained by Senator PERSON and Mr GPE in their testimony during the ORG presentation on the basis of CARDINAL examples of the ORG rendition circuits through GPE executed by plane NCARDINALP on DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The experts described the \u201c dummy \u201d flight planning as \u201c a systematic practice deployed by the ORG and its aviation services providers to disguise ORG flights into and out of its most sensitive operational locations \u201d . They added that the ORG could not execute this tactic alone since it \u201c depended upon , however discrete , a role played by the national counterpart authority \u201d . The NORP documentary records demonstrated the landing of NCARDINALP on DATE at FAC despite the absence of a valid flight plan . According to the experts , \u201c this was part of a systematic practice and through our investigations we [ had ] generated numerous , up to CARDINAL instances on which ORG rendition aircraft [ had ] transferred detainees into , and out of , GPE , GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In this connection , the ORG would also reiterate its above findings that the flights NCARDINALP and NCARDINALHC marking the opening and the closure of the ORG detention facility in GPE , flight NCARDINALVM , identified as the CARDINAL that brought the applicant into GPE and flight PERSON , identified as CARDINAL of the CARDINAL possible flights on which the applicant was taken out of GPE were concealed by the \u201c dummy \u201d flight planning ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above )","As the ORG found in LOC GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , the \u201c dummy \u201d flight planning , a deliberate effort to cover up the ORG flights , required active cooperation on the part of the host countries through which the planes travelled . In addition to granting the ORG rendition aircraft overflight permissions , the national authorities navigated the planes through the country \u2019s airspace to undeclared destinations in contravention of international aviation regulations and issued false landing permits ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","Consequently , the fact that the NORP aviation authorities navigated the ORG flights into GPE , despite the fact that the relevant flight plans named GPE or PERSON as the airports of destination and accepted flight plans naming those destinations but navigated the planes to GPE demonstrated that they knowingly assisted in the process of disguise of the ORG planes ( ibid . ) .","The Government asserted that , in contrast to the circumstances in GPE v. GPE , in GPE there had been no special procedure for receiving the impugned flights ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","In that regard they relied on evidence from witnesses heard in the investigation , who had not related any special treatment of the GPE flights that would deviate from routine procedures for any ordinary flight ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG notes that , indeed , several witnesses said that they had not heard about or seen any \u201c clandestine passengers \u201d , \u201c detainees \u201d or \u201c any passenger especially of NORP origin \u201d ( see paragraphs MONEY and CARDINAL above ) or that they had not noted \u201c anything out of the ordinary when the \u2018 private ORG [ had ] landed \u201d or that there had been \u201c no special services provided \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","NORP However , the statements of several other witnesses who referred to the \u201c special \u201d or \u201c N \u201d status flights with the GPE registrations contradict the ORG \u2019s assertion .","Witness E knew CARDINAL such flights that landed at TIME time and parked on the airport platform for TIME . He said that that the only person approaching them had been witness X.","Witness G knew of the \u201c N \u201d flights having been announced as special flights for which the staff had not been requested . Witness O spoke of CARDINAL plane that had been treated differently and the staff had been asked to stay in the office and not go to the plane . Witness P knew that special flights had been \u201c carried out at night \u201d ; also , on TIME he had seen a plane without a call sign and a man in dark overalls and military boots walking a dog near the plane ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","Witness X , apparently the only person who had been seen approaching the \u201c special planes \u201d did not explain in concrete terms what had in reality been going on but said that his presence in the airport had been connected with \u201c bilateral relations \u201d with the GPE \u201d equivalent structures \u201d and \u201c aimed at ensuring protocol relations during processing as well as bilateral courtesy - setting according to diplomatic norms and international rules \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Witness Z , in his statement of CARDINAL DATE given to the prosecutor was more explicit . He confirmed that in the context of GPE \u2019s forthcoming accession to ORG \u201c some developments or agreements [ had taken ] place in relation to the NORP flights to be operated by the ORG \u201d and that , \u201c from DATE several contacts had taken place in that direction and they resulted in concrete agreements that made possible the operation of the special NORP flights on NORP territory , in different conditions than those provided for by international customs \u201d . He added that \u201c those flights [ had ] had a special character and they [ had ] not [ been ] under an obligation to obey usual rules imposed on civil flights \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Lastly , in the ORG \u2019s view , the way in which the NORP authorities dealt with the accident on the landing of the aircraft ORG that occurred on DATE is CARDINAL more element that contradicts the ORG \u2019s above assertion as to the lack of any special treatment of the ORG - associated flights . The incident was described in ORG and the DATE EP Resolution , and was also related by PERSON at the fact - finding hearing ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . The presence in GPE of CARDINAL passengers on the plane which came from GPE , GPE , was apparently concealed . Only on the GPE \u2019s considerable insistence did the NORP authorities give them a list of passengers , all of them GPE citizens with service passports . CARDINAL of them was armed with a Beretta gun and had ammunition on him . No questions were asked about the purpose of their trip from GPE , a place reported as hosting a ORG detention site for the purposes of interrogations of captured terrorist - suspects ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As in GPE v. GPE ( cited above \u00a7 CARDINAL ) and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE ( cited above \u00a7 CARDINAL ) the ORG considers the informal transatlantic meeting of ORG and ORG foreign ministers with the then GPE Secretary of ORG , Ms PERSON , held on DATE , to be one of the elements relevant for its assessment of the respondent ORG \u2019s knowledge of the ORG rendition and secret detention operations in DATE .","In his testimony in GPE v. GPE , PERSON stated that the meeting had been convened in connection with recent international media reports , including ORG and ORG disclosures of , respectively , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , naming NORP countries that had allegedly hosted ORG \u201c black sites \u201d on their territories ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . He also described the content of the \u201c debriefing \u201d of that meeting , a document that the ORG obtained from a credible confidential source in the offices of ORG . He stated that it had appeared from PERSON statement \u201c we all know about these techniques \u201d made in the context of the ORG operations and interrogations of terrorist suspects which had been recorded in the debriefing that there had been an attempt on the GPE \u2019s part to share the \u201c weight of accusations \u201d ( ibid . ) .","In the present case Mr PERSON testified that it had emerged from the debriefing that , at that stage , all the governments had known that this \u201c operational means \u201d had been chosen by the ORG and that the extraordinary renditions were a tool in the war against terrorism .","Mr PERSON further stated that the TDIP had \u201c never had doubts \u201d given the precision of the debriefing notes and the fact that in the course of their further work they had received confirmation from PERSON , legal advisor to PERSON , that the GPE had \u201c never violated the sovereignty of any ORG Member GPE or indeed any LAW in in the process of accession to the ORG \u201d and that everything what they had done \u201c [ had been ] done by always informing and asking for cooperation and never trying to prevail over the will of the governments of the Member GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In the context of GPE \u2019s knowledge of the ORG , PERSON moreover referred to a statement of Mr Pascu , listed in the DATE ORG among the NORP high - office holders \u201c who knew about , authorised and [ stood ] accountable \u201d for GPE \u2019s role in the ORG HVD Programme ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to PERSON , Mr Pascu , as Minister of Defence , had been aware that the NORP authorities had not had access to certain sites which had been under the control of the GPE army or intelligence services . In Mr PERSON \u2019s opinion , this statement , although later rectified by PERSON , was truthful ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG considers , as it did in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE ( both cited above ) , that the circumstances and conditions in which HVDs were routinely transferred by the ORG from rendition planes to the ORG \u201c black sites \u201d in the host countries should be taken into account in the context of the ORG authorities\u2019 alleged knowledge and complicity in the HVD Programme ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","It follows from the ORG \u2019s findings in the above cases and the ORG materials describing the routine procedure for transfers of detainees between the \u201c black sites \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) that for the duration of his transfer a HVD was \u201c securely shackled \u201d by his hands and feet , deprived of sight and sound by the use of blindfolds , earmuffs and hood and that upon arrival at his destination was moved to the \u201c black site \u201d under the same conditions .","The ORG finds it implausible that the transportation of prisoners on land from the planes to the ORG detention site could , for all practical purposes , have been effected without at least the minimum assistance of the host country \u2019s authorities , if only to secure the area near and around the landed planes and provide the conditions for the secret and safe transfer of passengers . Inevitably , the NORP personnel responsible for security arrangements , in particular the reception of the flights and overland transit , must have witnessed at least some elements of the detainees\u2019 transfer to ORG , for instance the unloading of blindfolded and shackled passengers from the planes ( see also GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","Consequently , the ORG concludes that the NORP authorities who received the ORG personnel in the airport could not have been unaware that the persons brought by them to GPE were the ORG prisoners .","The ORG also attaches importance to various material referring to ill - treatment and abuse of terrorist suspects captured and detained by GPE authorities in the \u201c war on terror \u201d which were available in the public domain at the relevant time ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; PERSON ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","NORP Before analysing that material , the ORG wishes to refer to President \u2019s PERSON memorandum of DATE , stating that neither NORP nor ORG detainees qualified as prisoners of war under LAW and that LAW CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph MONEY above ) , did not apply to them . The ORG Press Secretary announced that decision at the press conference on DATE . It was widely commented in the GPE and international media . That decision , although including a disclaimer that even detainees \u201c not legally entitled \u201d to be treated humanely would be so treated , also spoke of respecting the principles of LAW \u201c to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Consequently , already at this very early stage of the \u201c war on terror \u201d it was well known that \u201c military necessity \u201d was a parameter for determining the treatment to be received by the captured terrorist - suspects .","The ORG would further note that from DATE , when the ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a statement relating to the detention of ORG and ORG prisoners in ORG , strong concerns were expressed publicly as to the treatment of detainees , in particular the use of \u201c stress and duress \u201d methods of interrogation and arbitrary and incommunicado detention . From DATE to the publication of the ORG report on DATE the international governmental and non - governmental organisations regularly published reports and statements disclosing ill - treatment and abuse to which captured terrorist suspects were subjected in GPE custody in various places , for instance in ORG and the GPE military base in GPE . The material summarised above and cited in the AI \/ ICJ \u2019s amicus curiae brief include only some sources selected from a large amount of documents available in the public domain throughout the above period ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","Also , in the DATE PACE Resolution of DATE of which GPE , CARDINAL of ORG member States must have been aware \u2013 ORG of ORG was \u201c deeply concerned at the conditions of detention \u201d of captured \u201c unlawful combatants \u201d held in the custody of the GPE authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","At the material time the ill - treatment , use of harsh interrogation measures , and arbitrary detention of ORG and ORG prisoners in GPE custody , as well as the existence of \u201c GPE overseas centres \u201d for interrogations was also often reported in the international and NORP media ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . In particular , DATE and DATE the NORP press published a number of articles concerning illtreatment of prisoners and the use of \u201c violent interrogation techniques \u201d against captured terrorists by the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG is mindful of the fact that knowledge of the ORG rendition and secret detention operations and the scale of abuse to which high - value detainees were subjected in ORG custody have evolved over time , from DATE to the present day . A considerable part of evidence before the ORG emerged DATE after the events complained of ( see paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ; see also PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and PERSON ( PERSON ) , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","GPE \u2019s alleged knowledge and complicity in the ORG must be assessed with reference to the elements that it knew or ought to have known at or closely around the relevant time , that is to say DATE and DATE . However , the ORG , as it has done in respect of the establishment of the facts relating to the applicant \u2019s secret detention in GPE , will also rely on recent evidence which , as for instance the DATE ORG and expert evidence obtained by the ORG , relate , explain or disclose the facts occurring in the past ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","NORP In its assessment , the ORG has considered all the evidence in its possession and the various related circumstances referred to above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Having regard to all these elements taken as a whole , the ORG finds that it has been adequately demonstrated to the required standard of proof that the NORP authorities knew that the ORG operated on NORP territory a detention facility for the purposes of secretly detaining and interrogating terrorist suspects captured within the \u201c war on terror \u201d operation by the GPE authorities .","This finding is primarily based on compelling and crucial evidence deriving from the DATE ORG and , to a considerable extent , evidence from experts .","The passages of the report about the agreement brokered between the GPE and the country hosting ORG leave no doubt as to the fact as to the NORP high - office ORG prior acceptance of a ORG detention facility on their territory . Nor can there be any doubt that they provided \u201c cooperation and support \u201d for the \u201c detention programme \u201d and that , in appreciation , were offered and accepted a financial reward , referred to as a \u201c subsidy \u201d amounting to a redacted multiple of CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The experts , with reference to the reward received by the NORP authorities , spoke of a \u201c substantial sum , in the region of MONEY \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) or \u201c MONEY \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , for the purposes of its ruling , the ORG does not need , nor does it intend , to determine the sum that was at stake .","The ORG further attaches importance to the fact that the former Head of ORG Mr Iliescu and his national - security advisor PERSON , admitted publicly in the press interviews that the authorities had made available to the ORG LOC which , as Mr PERSON later explained , were located in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . While it is true that Witness Y and Witness Z in their testimonies before the prosecutor contradicted the statements of Mr Iliescu and PERSON reported in ORG , in the ORG \u2019s view their denial can not be considered credible as being in conflict with all other relevant materials cited above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . In any event , as noted above , Witness Z confirmed that a location \u201c for actions of combating international terrorist threats \u201d was offered to the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and-CARDINAL above ) .","Furthermore , the disclosure in the DATE ORG demonstrates conclusively that in DATE , when ORG had already been operating in GPE for DATE , the national authorities were given a presentation outlining the HVD Programme by the chief of the ORG station and the GPE ambassador . The content of that presentation as related in the report leaves no doubt as to the fact that at the very least the NORP authorities had learnt from the ORG of a \u201c full range of interrogation measures \u201d being used against their detainees in order to \u201c overcome resistance \u201d in the context of obtaining intelligence ( see CARDINAL above ) .","Furthermore , the experts , who in the course of their inquiries also had the benefit of contact with various , including confidential , sources unanimously and categorically stated that GPE not only ought to have known but actually did know of the nature and purposes of the ORG activities in the country .","Senator PERSON said that the authorities \u201c must have known that the ORG had used their territory for transfers of prisoners in the context of the war on terror \u201d . Mr GPE stated that \u201c quite clearly , categorically the NORP authorities , at the highest level , did know of the existence of secret detention on their territory \u201d and that \u201c they were aware of the precise purpose of the rendition flights entering and exiting the country , and the conditions , or roughly the conditions , under which the detainees were held in between their arrivals and their departures \u201d . Mr PERSON stated that \u201c though the operations were conducted under extreme secrecy , it is obvious that the ORG plane could not land with its cargo and depart without agreement from high - level NORP decision makers \u201d . PERSON said that it was \u201c clear that the authorities were aware of [ the purposes of the ORG aircraft landings in GPE ] because , among other things , they received money for it \u201d and that , based on the DATE ORG , it was \u201c normally common practice ... that the host country \u2019s officials were in the know about these facilities and the purposes of them \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","This did not mean , the experts added , that the NORP authorities had known the details of what exactly went on inside ORG or witnessed treatment to which the ORG prisoners had been subjected in GPE . As in other countries hosting clandestine prisons , the operation of the site was entirely in the hands of the ORG and the interrogations had been exclusively the ORG \u2019s responsibility ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ; see also GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , LAW ) .","However , in the ORG \u2019s view , even if the NORP authorities did not , or could not , have complete knowledge of the ORG , the facts available to them , in particular those presented to them directly by their GPE partners , taken together with extensive and widely available information about torture , ill - treatment , abuse and harsh interrogation measures inflicted on terrorist suspects in GPE custody which in DATE circulated in the public domain , including the NORP press ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , enabled them to conjure up a reasonably accurate image of the ORG \u2019s activities and , more particularly , the treatment to which the ORG were likely to have subjected their prisoners in GPE .","In that regard the ORG would reiterate that in GPE v. GPE and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE it has found that already in DATE the public sources reported practices resorted to , or tolerated by , the GPE authorities that were manifestly contrary to the principles of the Convention . Consequently , the NORP authorities had good reason to believe that a person detained under the ORG rendition and secret detention programme could be exposed to a serious risk of treatment contrary to those principles on NORP territory .","It further observes that it is DATE as previously found in respect of GPE DATE inconceivable that the rendition aircraft could have crossed the country \u2019s airspace , landing at and departing from its airports , that the ORG occupied the LOC offered by the national authorities and transported detainees there , without the ORG authorities being informed of or involved in the preparation and execution of the HVD Programme on its territory . Nor can it stand to reason that activities of such a character and scale , possibly vital for the country \u2019s military and political interests , could have been undertaken on NORP territory without GPE \u2019s knowledge and without the necessary authorisation and assistance being given at the appropriate level of the ORG authorities ( see GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; and GPE ( PERSON ) v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","The ORG accordingly finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :","( a ) LOC knew of the nature and purposes of the ORG \u2019s activities on its territory at the material time .","( b ) LOC , by entering into an agreement with the ORG on hosting ORG , enabling the ORG to use its airspace and airports and to disguise the movements of rendition aircraft , providing logistics and services , securing the LOC for the ORG and transportation of the ORG teams with detainees on land , cooperated in the preparation and execution of the ORG rendition , secret detention and interrogation operations on its territory .","( c ) Given its knowledge of the nature and purposes of the ORG \u2019s activities on its territory and its involvement in the execution of that programme , GPE knew that , by enabling the ORG to detain terrorist suspects on its territory , it was exposing them to a serious risk of treatment contrary to the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","3","5","6","8","P6"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1","6-1","8-1","P6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158350","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MI\u0136ELSONS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and resides in GPE .","The relevant facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was the chairman of the ORG - owned joint stock company L. On DATE ORG ( GPE nov\u0113r\u0161anas un apkaro\u0161anas birojs ) opened a criminal investigation into suspected unlawful activity by the company \u2019s officials .","On DATE at TIME investigator PERSON ordered a search of the applicant \u2019s apartment . It was possible that he was involved in the offences under investigation , and there was reason to believe that unlawfully obtained money and some other items were located there .","CARDINAL and TIME officers from the ORG carried out the search . The applicant was allowed to telephone his lawyer who , according to him , arrived at TIME","The applicant submitted that during the search he had not been free to leave the apartment .","The search record , however , stated that he and his wife had been informed of their right to remain present and make remarks about the ORG actions . They had attended the search . His lawyer had noted down in the record that the decision authorising the search did not comply with certain provisions of LAW GPE likums ) . It was signed by all CARDINAL of them .","At TIME the applicant telephoned a security guard at company PERSON to ask that his driver place his briefcase in a car .","At TIME the officers informed the applicant he was under arrest .","CARDINAL investigator PERSON drew up an arrest record specifying that the applicant had been arrested at TIME on suspicion of abuse of office with intent to obtain a material benefit and assisting money laundering , and that a witness had identified him as a perpetrator . He and his lawyer signed the record , noting also that his arrest was unjustified .","At TIME the applicant was interviewed .","The investigating authorities performed CARDINAL searches in total that day and , according to the applicant , arrested CARDINAL other individuals . The Government submitted , without indicating when , that CARDINAL individuals had been arrested . They further drew attention to the large scale of the crimes under investigation and various investigative actions .","On DATE at TIME served on the applicant a decision declaring him a suspect and an application addressed to FAC ( PERSON pils\u0113tas ORG rajona tiesa ) for his pre - trial detention . His lawyer was present at the time .","According to PERSON there was a strong suspicion that , DATE and DATE the applicant , in his position as chairman of company ORG , had secured decisions favourable to companies ORG and ORG for the reconstruction of hydro units and regarding a thermal power plant project . A sum of CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) obtained as a result of this unlawful activity had allegedly been laundered through companies registered in GPE and abroad , by way of property transactions and investments in companies owned by the applicant and PERSON By doing so , the applicant had allegedly committed the offences of abuse of office with intent to obtain a material benefit and assisting money laundering .","The applicant , referring to his lawyer \u2019s handwritten application , contended that at TIME his lawyer had applied to PERSON for leave to consult , prior to the detention hearing , the documents in support of the application for detention . She had refused the request . The Government , however , submitted that neither the applicant nor his lawyer had made any complaints about access to the case file .","TIME an investigating judge of FAC held the hearing .","NORP The applicant \u2019s lawyer requested PERSON to provide evidence in support of the application for detention . She refused to do so and the hearing continued .","The lawyer submitted that the officers had controlled the applicant \u2019s movements in the apartment from the start of the search . He had therefore requested them to draw up a record of his client \u2019s arrest . In this connection , he pointed out that no one could be held in custody for TIME .","The investigating judge granted PERSON \u2019s application and ordered the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial . With regard to the suspicion that he had committed the offences in question , the judge reasoned as follows :","\u201c ... search records , inspection records , statements [ and ] other material of the criminal proceedings give rise to grounds for suspicion that [ the applicant ] has committed the offences in relation to which the criminal proceedings have been instituted ... \u201d","As regards access to the case file , the judge stated :","\u201c Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that case material is a secret of the investigation ... material and evidence that justify [ the applicant \u2019s ] detention contain secret information ... [ the investigator ] has the right to disclose this material ... only to officials involved in the criminal proceedings . \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged an appeal against this decision . On DATE he submitted his arguments in support thereof .","He requested ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) to grant him access to the case file so as to be able to effectively challenge the applicant \u2019s detention . It did not grant the request .","On DATE an appeal hearing was held . The lawyer maintained that he had the right to access the documents upon which the applicant \u2019s detention had been based .","ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the original ruling . With regard to the suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question , the judge stated :","\u201c The court has had sufficient time to examine the case material furnished to it . The court , like [ the lower court ] , concludes that information has been obtained ... giving rise to grounds for suspicion that [ the applicant ] has committed the accused offences . The court reached that conclusion having examined ... records of investigative actions [ and ] witness statements , and with special attention paid to information obtained by ... special investigative actions ... carried out long before the criminal proceedings were instituted . \u201d","As regards access to the case file , the judge reasoned as follows :","\u201c An official in charge of criminal proceedings presents case material to an investigating or higher judge for them to assess grounds of pre - trial detention . An investigating or higher judge examines the case material ... [ which ] is kept secret from the parties not conducting the proceedings . \u201d","No appeal lay against this decision .","On DATE the investigating judge released the applicant on bail .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a complaint regarding his client \u2019s arrest with ORG .","On DATE prosecutor PERSON dismissed it . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer had noted in the search record that the applicant \u2019s freedom of movement or his liberty had been restricted during the search ; they had not noted anything in the arrest record to say that he had been deprived of his liberty before this either . The applicant \u2019s lawyer had not specified the manner in which his client had been deprived of his liberty . It could not therefore be established that he had been deprived of his liberty during the search .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE chief prosecutor PERSON dismissed the complaint ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184060","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LAKATOS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the Pest Central District Court remanded the applicant in custody under LAW ( b ) and ( c ) of LAW , on suspicion of aggravated murder within the meaning of LAW . It summarised the suspicions against him , referred to police reports , an autopsy report , the victim \u2019s medical documents , examinations of various exhibits and witness testimonies , and concluded that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had poisoned the victim on DATE . The court found it established that there was a need for the applicant \u2019s detention , because otherwise he would tamper with evidence by exerting pressure on the witnesses , as evidenced by his previous conduct whereby he had threatened them . It dismissed an argument by the applicant that he had committed the criminal offence DATE before , thus the prosecutor \u2019s office had erred in stating that he could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses . The court also held that the applicant \u2019s \u201c unclear \u201d financial situation and the severity of the possible punishment demonstrated that there was a risk of his absconding . The court gave no consideration to an application by the applicant \u2019s lawyer for the applicant to be placed under house arrest .","An appeal against that decision was dismissed on DATE .","On DATE the Buda Central District Court extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until CARDINAL DATE . It noted again that because of the severity of the possible punishment and the fact that the applicant had neither a permanent address nor a regular income , there were grounds to believe that he would abscond . The court held that there was a risk of his interfering with the investigation if he were to threaten the witnesses or destroy physical evidence .","The applicant appealed , arguing that the conditions for pre - trial detention had not been fulfilled because there was no risk of his absconding or influencing witnesses . He argued that his well - established personal circumstances \u2013 the fact that he lived with his common - law wife and CARDINAL children , his parents , and his brother \u2019s family \u2013 and the fact that he had no criminal record excluded the risk of his absconding . He further submitted that he had cooperated with the investigating authorities . Alternatively , the applicant requested that he be released and placed under house arrest .","The first - instance decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE , and the court \u2019s reasoning was that the public interest in the applicant being detained was more important than his interest in his right to liberty being respected .","On DATE the Buda ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court maintained its previous reasons justifying the need for his detention . It emphasised that there was a risk of his absconding , owing to the severity of the possible punishment and the fact that he had no declared employment and had previously not been reachable at his permanent address . It added that , if released , the applicant might influence the witnesses or destroy evidence .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE under LAW ( b ) ( risk of absconding ) and ( c ) ( risk of collusion ) of LAW . As regards the risk of absconding , the court found that although the applicant had previously not been reachable at his permanent address and had only had temporary jobs , his temporary residence had been known and he had no criminal record . However , given the seriousness of the potential punishment and his \u201c unstable \u201d financial circumstances , his presence at the proceedings could only be ensured through the most restrictive measure . As regards the risk of collusion , the court dismissed an argument by the applicant \u2019s lawyer that the prosecution authorities should have questioned all the witnesses by that stage of the proceedings . It held that although the majority of the witnesses had been heard , further questioning could still be necessary .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision under LAW ( b ) and ( c ) of LAW .","Subsequently , the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was extended on a number of occasions . In particular , on DATE ORG extended his detention until DATE . The court found that he had failed to attach a \u201c hosting declaration \u201d ( befogad\u00f3 nyilatkozat ) and a declaration of his host \u2019s financial capacity to his application to be placed under house arrest . According to the court , although the investigation was about to conclude , based on previous witness testimonies , there was a risk that the applicant would intimidate witnesses . It also held that this last reason could justify the applicant being detained until the closure of the investigation . That decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . Although by that time the applicant had submitted a hosting declaration , the appeal court objected to his release for the reason that he had not provided a declaration of his host \u2019s financial capacity .","Furthermore , on CARDINAL DATE ORG held that the unclarified financial situation of the applicant and the seriousness of the crime substantiated the risk of his absconding . It also found , without giving further reasoning , that there were still grounds to believe that at that stage of the proceedings the applicant would influence the witnesses . In an appeal , the applicant argued that the investigating authorities had implemented no procedural measures , the proceedings had been unreasonably lengthy , and previously he had always been reachable at his temporary residence . As regards the risk of his influencing witnesses , the applicant submitted that no such risk could be established DATE after the alleged criminal offence . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , stating that the investigation was being conducted in a timely manner and witness testimonies had previously evidenced that the applicant had tried to exert pressure on the witnesses .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was extended by ORG until DATE . The court maintained that , under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW , his detention was still necessary because of the risk of his absconding . It considered that the applicant had no \u201c financial or essential \u201d ties counterbalancing the risk of him escaping an eventual serious punishment . Although he had family ties , a child who was a minor , and a relative willing to give assurances to provide for him if he were released , given the seriousness of the charges , the gravity of the possible punishment and his unstable financial circumstances , there was a real risk that he would abscond . However , the court did not find that the risk of collusion ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( c ) of LAW ) was substantiated , since there was no way to influence any of the investigative measures which the prosecution had relied on . In particular , the witness who the investigating authorities still intended to hear was unlikely to testify , given the fact that he was ill and unreachable . The court also considered that although it was likely that the applicant \u2019s acquaintances and relatives had tried to influence witnesses in DATE following the commission of the crime , there was no reliable information that this had actually taken place , and a hypothetical risk of further attempts to do so could not substantiate the risk of collusion .","That decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was extended until DATE . The court agreed with the applicant \u2019s argument that his unsettled personal circumstances could not be relied on to justify his detention after the passing of a lengthy period of time following his arrest . It nonetheless held that , in the absence of any financial ties , his family ties could not counterbalance the risk of his absconding , also having regard to the severity to the potential punishment .","NORP That decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE , and an appeal by the applicant to the effect that less restrictive measures could be applied in his case was dismissed .","The Budapest High Court extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention on CARDINAL DATE , reiterating the same arguments as before . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments that no investigative measure had been implemented for a considerable period of time . It also found that the hosting declaration of the applicant \u2019s family member , the fact that he was raising a child who was a minor , and the fact that his legal residence had also been clarified were irrelevant , and did not diminish the risk of his absconding . The second - instance court upheld the decision on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was extended again for DATE under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW . However , ORG expressed doubts as to whether there was enough evidence to conclude that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crime . It dismissed an argument by the prosecutor \u2019s office that the applicant would hinder the investigation . It considered that , irrespective of the seriousness of the charges , it appeared that there was less risk of his absconding , since he was raising CARDINAL children who were minors and he had no criminal record . On appeal , ORG upheld the first - instance judgment but extended the applicant \u2019s detention by DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s detention was extended ; the Budapest High Court again referred to the fact that , at the time of his arrest , the applicant had been unreachable at his permanent address and had been earning a living from temporary jobs , which , taken together with the severity of the potential punishment , substantiated the risk of his absconding . The decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .","On DATE the ORG released the applicant from pre - trial detention and placed him on bail under house arrest . According to that decision , besides the suspicion against the applicant , the only grounds for restricting his liberty were the risk of his absconding , given the gravity of the offence , and this in itself could not justify his continued pre - trial detention . On appeal , ORG reversed the first - instance decision and placed the applicant in detention on DATE . It noted that , given the seriousness of the offence , there was a danger of his absconding , irrespective of his family ties .","On DATE the ORG released the applicant from detention upon his giving an undertaking not to leave his place of residence . Relying on the ORG \u2019s case - law , ORG found that pretrial detention could only serve as a measure of last resort , and the applicant \u2019s continued detention would only serve as an anticipated punishment . The decision was overturned by ORG on DATE , and the applicant was placed in detention for the same reasons as those given before .","On DATE ORG preferred a bill of indictment .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE first - instance court \u2019s judgment , under LAW b ) of LAW ( risk of absconding ) , for essentially the same reasons as those given before .","On DATE the applicant applied for release , but the application was dismissed on DATE by ORG on the grounds that , given the gravity of the offence and the complexity of the case , pretrial detention did not constitute an anticipated punishment . That decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . A further application by the applicant of DATE was dismissed on DATE ( the dismissal was upheld by the second - instance court on DATE ) on the grounds that the applicant had not relied on new circumstances warranting his release .","The applicant \u2019s detention was reviewed on DATE by ORG . It held that the gravity of the offence , the applicant \u2019s lack of financial resources and essential ties , and the fact that he had only notified the authorities of his place of residence once he had been placed in detention substantiated the risk of his absconding .","On appeal , that decision was upheld by the GPE on DATE , which endorsed the reasons given by the lower court . The PERSON also found that the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was both necessary and proportionate , and no less restrictive measure would be sufficient to ensure the purpose of the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced to DATE imprisonment by ORG ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178177","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DAMJANOVI\u0106 AND EUROMAG D.O.O. v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The second applicant is a privately owned company , founded by the first applicant in DATE , with its registered seat in ORG , GPE .","On DATE the second applicant requested a licence to build a petrol station on the main highway in GPE and GPE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Directorate \u201d ) rejected the request . The second applicant appealed on DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE the second applicant initiated proceedings for judicial review before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE and DATE the second applicant urged ORG to expedite the proceedings .","On DATE ORG quashed the decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) on procedural grounds , and remitted the case to the ORG .","NORP On DATE the second applicant informed ORG that the decision of DATE had not been enforced yet .","On DATE the ORG rejected the second applicant \u2019s request . On DATE the second applicant appealed .","On DATE the second applicant complained to ORG about the inaction of the administration .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The decision was served on the second applicant on DATE .","On DATE the second applicant initiated proceedings for judicial review with ORG seeking it to quash the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG referred the claim to ORG , as the competent court .","On DATE ORG rejected the application for judicial review .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request for an extraordinary review of the decision of CARDINAL DATE with ORG , which request was rejected as unfounded on DATE . That decision was served on the second applicant on DATE .","On DATE the second applicant lodged a constitutional appeal before ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) complaining , notably , about the length of the above administrative proceedings .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal as unfounded . It noted that the relevant proceedings had lasted DATE and DATE in total , that CARDINAL different decisions had been rendered by the competent authorities and that , therefore , the length of the proceedings had not been excessive ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155093","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF TAHIROV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 37-1 - Striking out applications);Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant nominated himself to stand as an independent candidate in the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE and applied for registration as a candidate in the single - mandate ORG No . DATE .","As LAW required that each nomination as a candidate for parliamentary elections be supported by a minimum of CARDINAL voters , on DATE the applicant submitted to ORG ( \u201c the ConEC \u201d ) CARDINAL signature sheets containing CARDINAL voter signatures collected in support of his candidacy .","Before the DATE \u2019s decision on the question of the applicant \u2019s registration as a candidate , the accuracy of the signature sheets and other registration documents submitted by the applicant were to be first examined by a special working group ( i\u015f\u00e7i qrupu ) established by the ConEC .","On DATE , the applicant was invited to the ConEC . He was informed that the validity of supporting signatures submitted by him had already been examined by the ConEC working group and that , based on the results of that examination , the ConEC had held a hearing on whether to register him as a candidate . According to the applicant , he orally protested to the fact that he had not been informed of the time of the examination by the working group of his signature sheets and that the ConEC had taken a decision without his participation .","On DATE the applicant was informed that by a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ConEC had refused the applicant \u2019s request for registration as a candidate . The ConEC found that , according to the opinion of the working group , a number of submitted supporting signatures were invalid , and that the number of the remaining valid signatures was below CARDINAL . According to the ConEC decision , the working group had relied on opinions of CARDINAL of its experts . In particular , expert PERSON found that CARDINAL signatures were not authentic , because they had been executed repeatedly by the same persons who had already signed the signature sheets . Expert GPE found that a total of CARDINAL signatures were invalid . No more detail was given in the ConEC decision as for the reasons for the invalidation of those signatures .","The applicant was provided with a copy of the ConEC decision on DATE . However , the relevant expert opinions were not made available to him until a further written request by the applicant to this effect .","According to the applicant , the expert opinion by ORG was undated , while the expert opinion by GPE was dated DATE . No copies of those expert opinions were submitted to the ORG either by the applicant or the Government . However , it can be discerned from other documents in the case file that , according to those expert opinions , the following grounds were given for invalidation of some of the signatures : ( a ) CARDINAL groups of signatures , consisting of a total of CARDINAL signatures , had been \u201c probably ( ehtimal ki ) executed by the same person in each group \u201d ; for these reasons , CARDINAL of those signatures were deemed valid , while the remaining CARDINAL were considered invalid ; ( b ) CARDINAL signatures were found to be invalid because the information on voters\u2019 addresses was incomplete ( only the city of residence was mentioned ) ; and ( c ) CARDINAL signatures were considered invalid because the information on the relevant voters\u2019 addresses omitted the city of residence ( all those voters lived in PERSON ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against the PERSON decision to refuse registration . He complained , inter alia , of the following :","( a ) NORP contrary to the requirements of LAW , the applicant had not been invited to participate in the process of examination of the signature sheets by the ConEC working group and , thus , deprived of the right to give necessary explanations to the experts ;","( b ) NORP contrary to the requirements of LAW , he had not been provided with a copy of the record on the results of the examination of the signature sheets CARDINAL prior to the PERSON meeting on the applicant \u2019s registration ;","( c ) the applicant \u2019s presence at the PERSON meeting of DATE had not been ensured ; and","( d ) the findings of the ConEC working group that such a large number of signatures were invalid were factually wrong , arbitrary and unjustifiably formalistic . In particular , the finding that CARDINAL signatures were \u201c executed by the same person \u201d was accepted as an established fact merely on the basis of an indication of such probability by the expert , in the absence of any further factual verification . Furthermore , invalidation of the remaining signatures owing to incomplete information on the voters\u2019 addresses had been wrong , because such information was not \u201c incorrect \u201d within the meaning of LAW ( on which the ConEC had relied ) , but simply incomplete and could , therefore , be rectified if the applicant had been given an opportunity to do so as required by LAW . In the applicant \u2019s view , taking into account the territorial location of the constituency , it should have been clear to the ConEC that the relevant voters resided in PERSON , even though they had not mentioned the city of residence on the signature sheets .","Enclosed with his complaint to the ORG , the applicant submitted written statements by CARDINAL voters , whose signatures had been declared invalid , affirming the authenticity of their signatures . He also submitted photocopies of ID cards of several voters in order to clarify the situation with their residence addresses . However , according to the applicant , those documents were not taken into consideration by the ORG .","The ORG conducted another examination of the signature sheets by members of its own working group . The applicant was not invited to participate in this process . According to the working group \u2019s DATE and CARDINAL expert opinions , a total of CARDINAL signatures were considered to be invalid . In particular , expert PERSON found that CARDINAL signatures were invalid because they belonged to persons with no right to vote ( minors DATE ) and that CARDINAL other signatures had been executed by persons whose identification document number was stated incorrectly . Expert U.A. found that \u201c CARDINAL groups of signatures , consisting of a total of CARDINAL signatures , had been probably executed by the same person in each group \u201d ( \u201c CARDINAL \u0259d\u0259d imza CARDINAL qrup olmaqla \u00f6z aralar\u0131nda ehtimal ki , eyni \u015f\u0259xs t\u0259r\u0259find\u0259n icra olunmu\u015fdur \u201d ) . This meant that CARDINAL signature in each such group should be considered valid ( a total of CARDINAL ) , while the remainder should be considered invalid ( a total of CARDINAL ) .","The applicant was not invited to the ORG meeting dealing with his complaint against the PERSON decision of DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint and upheld the ConEC decision of DATE . It found that , based on the findings of the ORG \u2019s own working group , CARDINAL out of CARDINAL signatures submitted by the applicant were invalid and that the remaining number of CARDINAL valid signatures was below the minimum required by law .","The applicant was given copies of the ORG decision and the relevant working group documents on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the ORG decision with ORG . He reiterated his complaints made before the ORG concerning the PERSON decision and procedures . Moreover , he raised , inter alia , the following complaints :","( a ) NORP contrary to the requirements of the electoral law , the ORG failed to notify him of its meetings and to ensure his presence during the examination of the signature sheets and the examination of his complaint ;","( b ) the relevant ORG documents had been made available to him in a belated manner , which was contrary to the requirements of the electoral law and had deprived him of the opportunity to challenge the decisions of the ORG and its working group more effectively ;","( c ) NORP both electoral PERSON decisions were based on expert opinions that contained nothing more than conjecture and speculation ( that the signatures were \u201c probably \u201d ( \u201c ehtimal ki \u201d ) falsified ) , instead of properly established facts ;","( d ) the ORG had ignored the written statements by CARDINAL voters confirming the authenticity of their invalidated signatures and had failed to take them into account ; and","( e ) the ORG had failed to provide any reasoning and had not addressed any of the applicant \u2019s arguments in its decision .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . In its judgment , the court took note of the ConEC and ORG decisions , proceeded to cite a number of provisions of LAW and LAW without explaining their relevance to the facts of the case at hand , did not address any of the applicant \u2019s arguments , and dismissed his appeal as \u201c unsubstantiated \u201d without providing reasons for reaching such a conclusion .","On DATE the applicant lodged a further appeal with ORG , reiterating his previous complaints and arguing that ORG had not carried out a fair examination of the case and had delivered an unreasoned judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as unsubstantiated , without examining his arguments in detail and finding no grounds for doubting the findings of the electoral commissions and ORG ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170590","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ROZHKOV v. RUSSIA (No. 2)","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-b - Secure fulfilment of obligation prescribed by law);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant had a university degree in law ; he did not seek admission to the Bar as an advocate ( \u0430\u0434\u0432\u043e\u043a\u0430\u0442 ) . He made his living as a registered private entrepreneur providing legal services . He worked for and later managed ORG ( \u0430\u0440\u0431\u0438\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0436\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0431\u044e\u0440\u043e \u00ab \u0412\u0438\u0442\u044f\u0437\u044c DATE ) , a private legal entity in the town of ORG . In DATE the applicant undertook to provide legal services to a private company in relation to administrative - offence proceedings against it . The company issued CARDINAL originals of an authority form for the applicant .","According to the applicant , CARDINAL original was inserted in the file of a then pending case before a commercial court ; the other one was used in submissions before ORG .","NORP In DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on suspicion of forgery of the administrative - offence record ( \u201c the offence record \u201d ) in the above case . According to the authorities , the applicant had added a handwritten note to the record which said , \u201c We want counsel to be present during the compiling of the offence record \u201d , and modified the date on which a copy of the record had been handed over to the defence .","Up until DATE the official database had FAC as the applicant \u2019s registered residential address . It appears that before or after that date , the applicant moved from his flat ( on FAC ) to reside in his mother \u2019s flat in the same town ( on FAC ) . He notified the residence registration office about that change .","The investigator dealing with the case issued a summons ( sent to the applicant \u2019s address on FAC ) requiring his attendance at her office on DATE in order to carry out investigative measures . On DATE a police officer reported that he had not delivered the summons since nobody had answered the door at that address .","On DATE the applicant was informed of the decision to institute criminal proceedings against him . On the same date , Investigator PERSON interviewed the applicant , who added handwritten comments to the interview record . It was mentioned in the interview record that the applicant was ( temporarily ) residing in GPE village ; the address on FAC was mentioned as his official residence ; the record also contained a note of the telephone number provided by the applicant .","NORP Further interviews were scheduled for CARDINAL and DATE , when the applicant refused the services of a legal - aid lawyer , PERSON also refused to sign an undertaking to appear at subsequent interviews when requested by the investigator .","Subsequently , the case was reassigned . On DATE a new investigator in charge of the case made telephone calls to the number which had been previously given by the applicant . The applicant abruptly put an end to the conversations .","On DATE the investigator called again and talked to the applicant \u2019s wife , who refused to assist the authorities in delivering the summons to the applicant . However , she clarified that the applicant was residing at his mother \u2019s flat ( on FAC ) . According to the Government , this address was different from the one he had previously given to the investigating authority .","On DATE the investigator interviewed the applicant \u2019s wife , who stated that the applicant was living on FAC and had been residing in PERSON during DATE .","On DATE the investigator issued a decision , under LAW ( \u201c the CCrP \u201d ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ordering that the applicant be brought before her on DATE at TIME It was noted that the applicant resided at his mother \u2019s address and had previously failed to comply with summonses .","A similar decision was then issued on DATE , apparently , because the decision of CARDINAL DATE had not been enforced .","On DATE the chief officer of the investigating authority issued a decision , under LAW of the CCrP ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , requiring that measures be taken to locate the applicant . The decision read as follows :","\u201c On several occasions the suspect was summoned for the purpose of investigative measures ... but failed to appear , without reference to any valid excuse . The measures for establishing his current whereabouts have not produced any positive results . The investigating authority has reason to consider that the suspect is taking action to flee prosecution ... \u201d","On DATE the police talked to the applicant \u2019s mother , who provided information about the applicant \u2019s office address . At TIME the police arrived there . The applicant was informed that his name was on the list of wanted persons and that he was to follow the police officer in order to be taken before the investigator with a view to enforcing the decision of DATE .","According to the applicant , despite having requested it , he was not shown any official authorisation for such an order . In reply to his refusal to comply , the officers warned him that they would employ force . Thus , he was compelled to follow them to the police station to be taken before the investigator . The latter explained that she was not in possession of the case file at that time . At the investigator \u2019s request , the applicant gave a written undertaking to appear before her on DATE . No other investigative measures were taken on DATE in relation to the criminal case . The applicant left ORG at TIME","It is unclear whether the interview on DATE took place .","Subsequently , the applicant brought proceedings under LAW ORG complaining of having been deprived of his liberty on DATE and also about the decision of CARDINAL DATE . By a judgment of QUANTITY DATE , ORG of ORG rejected his claim . It held as follows :","\u201c The court dismissed as having no legal basis [ the applicant \u2019s ] allegation that the circumstances of the case required the drawing up of an arrest record under LAW of the CCrP. Such a record \u2018 may be\u2019 drawn up ( that is to say it is not an obligation ) if there are grounds cited in LAW ...","Article CARDINAL of the Code contains strict rules concerning arrest and detention of a suspect . Following escorting to the competent official , it is necessary to draw up , within TIME , an arrest record . It should indicate the dates and that notification of the procedural rights has been made . [ The applicant ] was present in the police station and ORG offices for DATE to clarify some details relating to the investigation of the criminal case and to take a decision concerning the pending request regarding [ the applicant \u2019s ] whereabouts . After this he was free to go . Thus , the court does not accept that the applicant was held within the meaning of LAW .","Therefore , it was not incumbent on the escorting officer or the investigator to provide counsel , to apprise [ the applicant ] of his rights or to compile an arrest record .","Under LAW ORG , arrest is defined as a measure of procedural compulsion used by an enquiring or investigating officer for a period not exceeding TIME after the actual taking of the person into custody on suspicion of a criminal offence ...","[ The arresting officer ] was a law - enforcement officer and thus the court has no doubts that his actions concerning [ the applicant \u2019s ] escorting to the police station and then to ORG were within the scope of his functional responsibilities . \u201d","The applicant appealed , arguing as follows . While agreeing with the court that the situation did not fall within the ambit of \u201c escorting \u201d under LAW CCrP , he insisted that the court , in substance , had denied the fact of his \u201c deprivation of liberty \u201d and had failed to cite another applicable statutory basis for it . In particular , LAW could not supply a valid basis since it only concerned escorting for identification purposes . In the applicant \u2019s view , LAW was applicable and thus the non - observance of its requirements ( namely , the drawing up of an arrest record and notification of procedural rights ) disclosed unlawfulness . The reference to TIME for drawing up the record did not imply that there had not been \u201c deprivation of liberty \u201d if a person was held for TIME , or that LAW CCrP would not apply .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment in the following terms :","\u201c The available material and testimonies do not disclose that the applicant was restricted in his right to liberty and personal security . The court rightly concluded that the investigator had lawfully issued the decision to determine the applicant \u2019s whereabouts . The police had acted on the basis of the investigator \u2019s decision , the enforcement of which required [ the applicant \u2019s ] escorting to the police . Thus , the police \u2019s actions could not be declared unlawful ...","[ The applicant ] was kept in the police station and before the investigator for TIME , which means that he was not \u2018 ORG [ or ] \u2018 ORG within the meaning of LAW","On an unspecified date in DATE or DATE , the investigation was suspended . It was resumed on DATE . The applicant was summoned for an interview with Investigator NORP \u201c on DATE at CARDINAL p.m \u201d . According to the applicant , he received the summons only on DATE . It turned out later on that there had been a mistake in the summons : the interview was planned for DATE .","On DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE the investigator issued orders for the applicant to be taken to the investigating authority ( LAW . According to the Government , the police did not enforce these orders since the applicant was not present at his residential and office addresses .","On DATE Investigator PERSON ordered that the applicant be brought before him on DATE at TIME","On DATE Investigator PERSON ordered that the applicant be brought before him on DATE at TIME It was indicated that the applicant had previously failed to comply with summonses ( on unspecified date(s ) ) , most recently by referring to an illness but failing to submit any related document .","On DATE the chief investigating officer came to the applicant \u2019s office and interviewed him . The applicant made a written statement concerning the criminal case . It appears that the investigating officer issued summonses for further interviews to be held on CARDINAL and DATE .","According to the applicant , on DATE he gave a written note to the officer indicating that he would not be able to attend on account of his state of health . The applicant did not attend the interview on DATE . It also appears that the applicant did not attend the interview on DATE .","A further decision to bring the applicant in for interview was issued on DATE .","On DATE Investigator PERSON issued a decision ordering the authorities to determine the applicant \u2019s whereabouts and suspending the investigation .","A further decision to bring the applicant in for interview was issued on DATE .","On DATE the deputy town prosecutor ordered the resumption of the investigation .","On DATE the chief investigating officer issued an order indicating that the applicant had failed on several occasions without a valid excuse to attend interviews with the investigator(s ) . Thus , he ordered that the applicant be brought before him on DATE at TIME","On DATE the police arrived at the applicant \u2019s office at TIME and compelled him to follow them to the police station instead of ORG , which was situated elsewhere . At the police station , the applicant was locked in a room and then provided with a copy of the order of DATE . The applicant was again informed , in the presence of counsel , of his rights and the decision to carry out a forensic examination . The applicant was interviewed and stated that he had received the summons for an interview scheduled in DATE or DATE , but could not come on account of his illness and had informed the investigating authority accordingly ; he had not submitted any medical certificate because , according to him , \u201c it [ had been ] his constitutional right not to do so \u201d . It is unclear whether the applicant left the police station at TIME","According to the Government ( who referred to the police station \u2019s logbook ) , the applicant was kept in the police station without being locked up CARDINAL and was then taken before the investigator . The Government submit that the applicant was in CARDINAL of the offices and that the building entrance door was equipped with an electronic lock for security measures .","The applicant brought proceedings under LAW ORG complaining about his arrest on DATE . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected his claim . The court held that the applicant had not been arrested , only compelled to appear before the investigator . The court also indicated that it was not possible to challenge the police actions under LAW . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","On CARDINAL DATE the authorities discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant due to the expiry of the statutory prosecution period . Apparently , on an unspecified date this decision was quashed . On DATE the case against the applicant was discontinued due to the absence of corpus delicti . The applicant was informed that he was entitled to claim compensation from ORG of the CCrP ) .","It appears that the applicant \u2019s wife was a private entrepreneur and managed ORG . In DATE she employed the applicant as a legal consultant . It appears that on an unspecified date he was appointed as the managing director of the firm .","According to the applicant , following a strained situation at home vis - \u00e0 - vis his mother and wife on account of the pending criminal investigation against him , he temporarily moved into his office , using part of it as a dwelling . The office had electricity and heating facilities ; it was accessible TIME Apparently , the applicant did not notify the investigating authority of this change in his personal situation .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the criminal case against the applicant issued a warrant authorising the search of PERSON \u2019s offices , referring to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The investigator indicated that a forensic examination of the applicant \u2019s handwriting was necessary . For this , it was necessary to seize handwriting samples of the applicant and the original of the authority form issued to him by the client private company ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the investigator \u2019s view , these documents could be found at the premises of ORG .","According to the applicant , on DATE several officers , including the investigator , arrived in the office . They allowed the applicant to read the search - and - seizure order . He made no request for a lawyer to be present during the search . The officers then carried out the search in the presence of attesting witnesses and examined the applicant \u2019s medical file and asked him questions about the information contained therein .","The applicant sought judicial review of the search - and - seizure order and the manner in which it was implemented .","By a judgment of DATE the ORG of ORG dismissed the claims . The court held as follows :","\u201c Under LAW CCrP a suspect , accused or another person on his or her instructions may retain counsel . When requested , an [ officer involved in a preinvestigation inquiry ] , investigator , prosecutor or a court shall appoint counsel .","Before the beginning of the search [ the applicant ] made no request for counsel while having had access to the search order ...","Under [ Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the CCrP ] it is within the investigator \u2019s purview to decide whether a search is opportune and , if so , to issue the relevant order , except for a search of residential LOC . It is also up to the investigator to decide which documents or other evidence are important for the case ...","[ The applicant \u2019s ] allegation that the office ... was his \u2018 ORG is unsubstantiated , within the meaning of LAW CCrP ... Thus there was no legal requirement to obtain a court order for the search . \u201d","On DATE , following an appeal by the applicant , ORG upheld the judgment , endorsing its reasoning ."],"violated_articles":["5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-b"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178864","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KLIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained that they had been unfairly convicted of drug offences following entrapment by ORG agents ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160377","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PARTEI DIE FRIESEN v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 14+P1-3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general};Stand for election)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The applicant party was founded in DATE and is based in PERSON . It claims to represent the interests of the NORP minority in GPE but limits its political activities to ORG ( GPE ) where LOC traditionally settle . The applicant party estimates the number of people of NORP origin within the territory of ORG at CARDINAL out of the total population of CARDINAL . The PERSON have their own language and cultural identity which is similar among the West Frisians in the GPE and ORG in GPE , while ORG in GPE have mainly stopped speaking their language .","Under LAW GPE ( PERSON , see relevant domestic law , paragraph CARDINAL below ) , parliamentary seats \u2013 apart from those seats attributed to the candidates obtaining the majority of the votes in their constituency \u2013 are allocated under the D\u2019Hondt system of proportional representation . Under section QUANTITY of LAW , seats are attributed only to parties which obtain a minimum threshold of PERCENT of the total of votes validly cast . This threshold is also included in LAW of LAW ( see relevant domestic law , paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE to the Prime Minister of PERSON and by letter of CARDINAL DATE to the President of ORG , the applicant party asked to be granted an exemption from the minimum threshold for the upcoming elections . The request was refused .","In the elections of DATE , the applicant party attained an overall total of CARDINAL votes , amounting to PERCENT of all votes validly cast . Irrespective of the minimum threshold , the number of votes received would not have been sufficient to obtain a parliamentary mandate .","On DATE the applicant party lodged an objection against the validity of the election result . The applicant party submitted , in particular , that it represented the interests of the NORP people residing in GPE . The NORP people formed a national minority within the meaning of LAW for ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d , ORG . CARDINAL , see ORG documents , paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The applicant party complained , in particular , that the minimum threshold resulted in their factual exclusion from participating in the parliamentary elections and amounted to discriminatory treatment vis\u00e0vis other small political parties which were , at least theoretically , capable of reaching that threshold . The applicant party further relied on LAW in conjunction with LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .","On DATE , the Election Supervisor of Lower Saxony ( Landeswahlleiter ) , jointly with ORG , submitted written comments on the objection . They considered , firstly , that it was doubtful whether the group of NORP qualified as a national minority . Under the declaration submitted by ORG when signing LAW , only the NORP of NORP citizenship and members of the NORP people with NORP citizenship were recognised as national minorities in GPE . Conversely , the declaration merely stated that LAW also applied to the ethnic group of NORP with NORP citizenship . It was thus clear from the wording of the declaration that the PERSON did not qualify as a national minority . Even assuming that the ethnic group of PERSON had the status of a national minority , this did not necessarily entail the obligation to exempt the applicant party from obtaining the minimum threshold of PERCENT of the votes . There was no such obligation under LAW or under LAW or under LAW . Neither could such an obligation be derived from section QUANTITY of LAW ( Bundeswahlgesetz ) , as the ORG were competent to pass their own electoral laws without being bound by LAW . The privileges enjoyed by ORG in ORG did not allow any further conclusions , as the protection and promotion of the NORP minority was prescribed by the constitution of the respective Land . Finally , and again assuming the minority status of the ethnic group of PERSON , it was questionable whether the applicant party would qualify as the party of the NORP national minority . The assessment of this question did not only depend on the party \u2019s vision of itself , but on an overall assessment of all factual and legal circumstances .","On DATE ORG on ORG ) held a public hearing on the applicant party \u2019s objection .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant party \u2019s objection as being unfounded . Relying on the submissions made by ORG jointly with ORG , the ORG considered that an obligation to exempt the applicant party from the minimum threshold could neither be derived from LAW , nor from ORG . It followed that the applicant \u2019s objection was unfounded .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( PERSON ) . The applicant party requested ORG to quash the parliamentary decision of DATE and to declare the result of the elections held on DATE invalid ; or , alternatively , to declare section QUANTITY of LAW unconstitutional .","On DATE the Constitutional Court of Lower Saxony rejected the applicant party \u2019s complaint as being unfounded . ORG observed , at the outset , that the relevant provisions did not allow for an exemption from the minimum threshold for national minorities . ORG further considered that the minimum threshold interfered with the principle of equality of the vote . This interference was justified because it pursued the legitimate aim of safeguarding the functioning of the elected parliament . Parliamentary work within a democracy necessitated that the parliaments remain able to take decisions and that they were not inhibited in their work by the participation of splinter parties . ORG further referred to the case - law of ORG regarding the PERCENT minimum threshold . There was no obligation under LAW to exempt parties of national minorities from the PERCENT threshold . It was true that certain electoral laws provided for such exemptions . This was , in particular , the case with LAW , which provided an exemption for parties of national minorities , and with LAW and GPE , providing for exemptions for the parties of the NORP and the NORP minorities , respectively . However , both ORG provided special rights for national minorities in their respective constitutions . No such provisions could be found in LAW . ORG had declared the respective provision in LAW constitutional , even though LAW did not contain special rights for national minorities . However , ORG had also emphasised that the legislator enjoyed a margin of appreciation in this respect . ORG finally considered that the alleged right could be derived neither from ORG nor from LAW . LAW did not contain any special rights for national minorities . Relying on the wording of LAW , the court considered that this provision did not contain any obligation to exempt national minorities from the minimum threshold , but left the question undecided as to how to create the conditions necessary for the effective participation of persons belonging to national minorities in public affairs . It followed that the contracting parties enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation in this respect . In GPE , participation of national minorities in public life was already guaranteed by the constitutional system . By including the PERCENT threshold in LAW without providing for an exemption , ORG had given precedence to the functioning of the parliament over granting privileges to national minorities . Accordingly , ORG did not find it necessary to determine whether the PERSON qualified as a national minority and whether the applicant party qualified as the political party of this national minority ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141630","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ZHULIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167735","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"KIZMAZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , whose details are set out in the appendix , are NORP nationals . They are represented before the ORG by Mr Mahmut Birlik , a lawyer practising in ORG . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE , ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) expropriated certain plots of land belonging to the applicants for construction of a dam in GPE . The applicants initiated compensation proceedings for additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate . The payments were made DATE after the date of expropriation . The details of the applications appear in the attached table .","A description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175661","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BABYNIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant took part in the cleaning up operation at the GPE nuclear disaster site .","On DATE the Staryy ORG of LOC granted the applicant \u2019s action against ORG and awarded him and his family , comprising CARDINAL members , a flat in the town of PERSON and MONEY ( MONEY ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The representative of ORG did not attend the hearing : in writing he had requested ORG to adjudicate the case in his absence .","The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .","On DATE the Staryy ORG issued a writ of execution and enforcement proceedings were instituted .","On DATE ORG lodged a statement of appeal against the judgment of DATE . The ORG also asked ORG to restore the DATE time - limit for lodging the appeal . The ORG claimed that it had received a copy of the judgment of DATE by fax on DATE . The ORG asked to stop the enforcement proceedings .","The applicant insisted that there had been no reason to restore the time - limit . He noted that a copy of the judgment had been forwarded to ORG at DATE .","On DATE the Staryy ORG restored the time - limit for lodging the appeal , accepted the ORG \u2019s statement of appeal and stopped the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the ORG examined the ORG \u2019s appeal , quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination to ORG .","On DATE the Staryy ORG , in the new examination of the case , accepted the applicant \u2019s action in part . The relevant part of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c Order that ORG should provide ... Mr Babynin G.A. and his family with housing LOC , which satisfy sanitary and technical requirements , in their turn according to the housing waiting list of families having persons with disabilities and individuals who had taken part in the cleaning operation at the site of the GPE nuclear plant .","Dismiss [ the claim ] for compensation for non - pecuniary damage . \u201d","The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .","On DATE a writ of execution was issued and enforcement proceedings were instituted .","According to the applicant , from DATE a group of CARDINAL people , including the applicant , began a hunger strike to protest against the poor level of welfare protection provided for the GPE victims .","On DATE the mayor of PERSON decided to provide the applicant with a flat measuring CARDINAL,CARDINAL ORG .","On DATE the applicant received from the mayor an occupancy voucher in respect of the flat assigned to him . He found the flat satisfactory ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165229","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF D\u00c9NES v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","From DATE the applicant was employed as a civil servant at ORG . Her service was terminated by the employer on DATE .","Under new legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the applicant \u2019s severance pay was subject to special tax at a PERCENT rate in its part exceeding MONEY ( ORG ) . Accordingly , special tax was levied upon her severance pay in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163355","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SHIYANOV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s DATE daughter , PERSON , was found dead in a field in the ORG region . Her body was naked and had numerous injuries .","According to the information submitted by the ORG , on DATE a post mortem was carried out . It established that PERSON had been strangled and that her body had been dragged to the place where it had been discovered . There was no indication that she had been raped . She had not been pregnant . Nor had she been under the influence of alcohol or drugs .","On DATE the ORG inter - district prosecutor \u2019s office opened a criminal case in respect of the murder .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to the proceedings as an aggrieved party .","On DATE the police inspected the scene of the crime . They discovered the remnants of a fire and CARDINAL plastic bags not far from the place where PERSON \u2019s body had been found . Samples of the coal and the bags were collected as material evidence .","On DATE another examination of the crime scene was carried out and the following objects were found : some matches , CARDINAL cigarette ends , CARDINAL plastic bags , a burnt notepad with some notes written by PERSON ( her parents identified her handwriting later ) . Furthermore , the police discovered the burnt remains of a calendar , some tampons , a student ID with a stamp containing the word \u201c LAW ( PERSON was a student at ORG ) , and a lighter .","On DATE a forensic cytological examination established that it was not PERSON who had smoked the cigarettes .","On DATE the police seized CARDINAL of PERSON \u2019s shoes , which had been discovered by a villager at some distance from the crime scene .","On DATE a witness stated that on the evening of DATE she had twice seen a beige car belonging to a certain PERSON , with CARDINAL male passengers and a girl resembling PERSON , near the crime scene . The witness also submitted that PERSON had apparently had the car seat covers changed shortly thereafter .","On DATE the investigator in the case instructed the police to verify whether PERSON and his CARDINAL passengers of DATE could have been involved in the murder and to identify the girl who had been seen with them . The police questioned those seen in the car and concluded that sufficient grounds did not exist to treat them as suspects . As regards an inspection of the car and the covers of the seats , it appears that none was carried out at the time as the investigator had to order CARDINAL again on CARDINAL DATE . That belated inspection produced no tangible results .","The investigation of PERSON \u2019s murder has been unsuccessful . DATE it was suspended CARDINAL times for failure to establish who had committed the murder . CARDINAL of those decisions were quashed as premature and as not based on a comprehensive investigation . In the remaining instances the investigation was resumed without any further details being given in the respective decisions . At CARDINAL times ( in particular , in DATE , DATE and DATE ) the investigator complained to his supervisors that his instructions to the police had not been complied with . In particular , on DATE the investigator , when instructing the police to undertake certain investigative measures , noted that earlier instructions to that effect , given in DATE , had not been followed up . Overall , throughout the period in question , the investigator \u2019s instructions to the police remained the same : to identify all the possible witnesses to the murder and to verify whether any of PERSON \u2019s acquaintances , or any people with a criminal record living nearby , could have been involved in it .","The applicant submitted numerous complaints to the prosecution authorities about the length and ineffectiveness of the investigation . He also put forward his own version of events and mentioned the names of several people whom he suspected of being involved in the crime . He was informed on CARDINAL occasions that there had indeed been omissions in the investigation and that the police officers responsible had been disciplined . As regards the applicant \u2019s requests for access to the case file , they were rejected on the grounds that under the applicable procedural legislation , an aggrieved party could only have such access after the pre - trial investigation had been completed .","The applicant also brought a civil claim against the prosecution authorities , but courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction found against him .","There is no information in the case file about any developments in the investigation after DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173388","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KAVALEROV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of detention during their transport . The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150695","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"BARA\u0143SKA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Ms FAC , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She is represented before the Court by Ms M. Pecyna , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , Ms J. Chrzanowska of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant \u2019s daughter , PERSON , had been suffering from schizophrenia since DATE . She had been hospitalised on numerous occasions .","On DATE E. was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in GPE ( \u015awi\u0119tokrzyskie Centrum Psychiatrii ) . She had already been admitted to that hospital on CARDINAL previous occasions .","E. was placed in room no . CARDINAL in the observation area of ward no . CARDINAL . The ward was divided into CARDINAL areas \u2013 an \u201c observation \u201d area and a \u201c peaceful \u201d area for male patients . The areas were separated by a lockable door . The patients were free to circulate in their own areas and to use the bathroom .","According to her medical records , at the time of her admission E. had been behaving strangely . She showed symptoms of restlessness and agitation , and her behaviour was aggressive and loud . Contact with her was difficult and communication was limited . On DATE she made an unsuccessful attempt to flee the ward , but was prevented from doing so by the staff .","A copy of the medical record kept by the hospital staff from CARDINAL to DATE was submitted to the ORG . No reference to suicidal tendencies or thoughts on PERSON \u2019s part was made throughout that time .","At TIME on DATE CARDINAL nurses on duty in the ward were dealing with an aggressive patient in room no . CARDINAL . A nurse from ward no . CARDINAL , GPE , was called to help them .","While the nurses were busy trying to overpower the patient , PERSON tried to commit suicide by hanging herself in the bathroom , using torn sheets from her bed . Another patient found her there and alerted the nurses . Nurse GPE removed the \u201c rope \u201d made from the torn sheets from E. \u2019s neck . CARDINAL nurses on duty , PERSON , ORG and GPE , attempted to resuscitate E. The doctor who was on duty that night was alerted , and participated in the resuscitation attempt . An ambulance equipped with intensive - care equipment was called .","The ambulance left ORG ( ORG Specjalistyczny w ORG ) at CARDINAL a.m. and arrived at the psychiatric hospital at CARDINAL a.m. The ambulance doctors took over the resuscitation attempts and took PERSON to the FAC hospital . They arrived there at CARDINAL a.m. and the resuscitation attempt continued .","E. did not regain consciousness and remains in a coma .","The police arrived at the psychiatric hospital at TIME on DATE . On the same date they started an investigation into the circumstances of the accident with a view to establishing whether the offence of exposing someone to the risk of loss of life or detriment to health , within the meaning of LAW of LAW , had been committed . A note drawn up by the police on DATE stated that PERSON had not been suffering from depressive tendencies .","The applicant was questioned on DATE . She stated that PERSON had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia DATE and had been admitted on numerous occasions to LOC hospital .","NORP The applicant was informed that an official note had been prepared to the effect that PERSON had hanged herself from the bars of the bathroom window by a rope made of torn sheets which she had taken from her bed . The applicant commented that it was difficult to understand how PERSON could have hanged herself as the bars on the window were covered by wire mesh . She was also of the view that the staff had failed to exercise their duty to supervise the patients properly .","The applicant made no comments at that stage about possible thirdparty involvement in the incident .","Nurse PERSON was questioned on DATE . She stated that she had been on duty on the critical night with nurses GPE and ORG At TIME of the patients had started to behave aggressively towards her and other patients . The witness had requested the assistance of other nurses in overpowering that patient and taking her to the isolation room . She had earlier checked on PERSON , who had not been asleep but had been lying on her bed .","Shortly afterwards , PERSON had been checking on the patient in the isolation room when she had heard nurse GPE cry out . PERSON had run to the bathroom , where she had seen PERSON hanging from the window bars . GPE had been trying to hold her aloft . Together they had taken PERSON down , carried her to the corridor and started resuscitation . They had called ORG , who in turn had alerted the doctor on duty . Resuscitation attempts had continued until the arrival of the ambulance from the GPE hospital . PERSON \u2019s heartbeat had been restored after the arrival of the ambulance . PERSON had been a patient of the hospital on many occasions ; she had never had suicidal tendencies and there had been no indication that she might try to take her life .","Nurses GPE and ORG were also questioned on DATE . Their testimonies were essentially concordant with the account of the facts given by PERSON","GPE stated that she had been alerted by CARDINAL of the patients crying out that someone had hanged herself in the bathroom . She ran to the bathroom and saw PERSON hanging by a rope from the window bars . She had tried to hold her aloft and called for the help of other nurses . After PERSON had arrived , GPE untied the sheet from PERSON \u2019s neck . They carried PERSON to the corridor and started to resuscitate her .","ORG stated that at TIME the cries of the aggressive patient in room no . CARDINAL had woken up other patients in that room , including PERSON , who had covered herself with a blanket . PERSON uncovered her head to check on her , to which PERSON objected . ORG heard GPE cry out TIME after the nurses had finished dealing with the aggressive patient . In ORG \u2019s view , there had been no indication that PERSON would try to commit suicide .","When questioned subsequently on DATE , ORG stated that the window frames in the bathroom were old and had no handles . The windows could be easily opened , as the frames were dilapidated . It had already happened before that the patients had been able to open them . For that reason , bars had been fixed on the outside to prevent the patients from jumping out of the window . It was allowed to open the windows in order to air the bathroom .","On DATE the police visited the bathroom and found that the window had no handles inside , and had bars on the outside . The window ledge was QUANTITY from the floor .","On DATE the applicant submitted written comments , having been given access to the case file . She expressed the view that the investigation had been insufficient . She still failed to understand how it had been possible for her daughter to hang herself from the outside bars of the window . She asked the prosecution to check what had been happening CARDINAL a.m. and TIME on the critical date ; whether the medical records properly recorded PERSON \u2019s suicide attempt ; whether there were records available concerning the handling of the aggressive patient ; and whether blood samples had been taken to establish which medication PERSON had been on . She further stated that during her visits to the ward she had often seen patients left without reasonable supervision .","On DATE M.O. , the chief physician of the intensivecare ward of the FAC hospital , was questioned . He stated that PERSON remained in a coma and that her condition had not improved since she had been brought to the hospital on DATE . On DATE in question there had been a bruise on the patient \u2019s neck caused by hanging ; no blood samples had been taken on DATE as there had been no grounds for doing so .","On DATE PERSON , the chief physician of the psychiatric ward , was questioned . He stated that he had spoken with PERSON on DATE and that she had been calm and reasonable . She had not demonstrated any symptoms of depression or suicidal tendencies .","On DATE PERSON was questioned again . She confirmed her previous statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She further stated that the bars were on the outside of the window and that they had been installed to prevent the patients from fleeing . There was no obligation to keep the windows closed and in any event it was easy to open them , despite the fact that they had no handles , as the window frames were old . ORG , who was questioned again on DATE , confirmed PERSON \u2019s statement .","On DATE the GPE district prosecutor discontinued the investigation . The written grounds for that decision read as follows :","\u201c The investigation into the circumstances in which ORG had been exposed to a risk to her life was conducted under the supervision of FAC .","All the witnesses in the case were questioned . An on - the - spot inspection of the scene of the suicide attempt was carried out .","As the findings of fact did not lead to the conclusion that the incident had been caused by any acts of third persons , the investigation was discontinued , as a criminal offence punishable under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW had not been committed . \u201d","The applicant appealed . She argued that the decision had been excessively succinct and had failed to give a reasonably detailed account of the relevant facts . In particular , no findings had been made as to whether the hospital staff had complied with their duty of care . It had not been explained how it could have been possible for PERSON to leave her room unobserved , take her bed sheets with her , go to the bathroom , tear the sheets , open the window and hang herself from the window bars on a kind of rope she had made from the torn sheets . The only people to have been questioned were nurses who had a vested interest in giving their own version of events . No forensic examination of PERSON had been carried out to check whether she had any injuries or bruises . In particular , it had not been established whether she had any injuries on her neck typical of hanging . The orderly of the ward had not been questioned . The report on the handling of the aggressive patient by the nurses on duty during TIME at issue had not been included in the file . No steps had been taken to establish whether and how it had been possible to open the window in the bathroom and how that window was secured , if at all .","The applicant added that PERSON had not been suffering from depression at that time . On the whole , the contested decision was obviously flawed and the investigation should be conducted again in a thorough manner .","Following an appeal lodged by the applicant , on DATE the PERSON district prosecutor set the contested decision aside , finding that the applicant \u2019s objections should be addressed by way of further investigative measures . The investigation was resumed .","On DATE Dr M.O. was questioned again as to the circumstances of PERSON \u2019s admission to the hospital .","A further CARDINAL witnesses were heard . Neither their professions nor their connection to the facts of the case were specified .","On DATE the GPE district prosecutor discontinued the investigation . The relevant decision read :","\u201c The investigation into the circumstances in which ORG had been exposed to a risk to her life was conducted under the supervision of FAC .","All the witnesses in the case were questioned . An on - the - spot inspection of the scene of the suicide attempt was carried out .","As the findings of fact did not lead to the conclusion that the incident had been caused by any acts of third persons , the investigation was discontinued as a criminal offence punishable under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW had not been committed . \u201d","The applicant appealed , essentially reiterating the arguments which she had raised in her earlier appeal . She argued in particular that the decision had been excessively succinct and had failed to give a reasonably detailed account of the relevant facts .","On DATE ORG PERSON ) , upheld the contested decision . It was of the view that no one had a case to answer and that it could not be said that the staff had failed in their duty to take appropriate care of PERSON It further stated that the prosecuting authorities had taken all the necessary evidence and examined it carefully .","Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Anyone who exposes a human being to an immediate risk of loss of life , serious bodily injury , or a serious impairment of health shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for DATE .","If the perpetrator has a duty to take care of the person exposed to danger , he shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of DATE . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182855","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TA\u015eARSU v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer . During the interrogation , the applicant gave a detailed account of her acts within the illegal organisation ORG ( ORG ) .","On DATE the applicant was heard by the public prosecutor and the investigating judge at ORG , again in the absence of a lawyer . Before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , the applicant partially retracted her previous statements maintaining that she had given statements to the police under duress . On DATE , upon the order of the investigating judge , the applicant was placed in pretrial detention .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal terrorist organisation under LAW .","At a hearing held on DATE , the applicant gave evidence in person in the presence of her lawyer . She stated that she had left GPE through her own means and that she went to GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE with the help of the people whose names she could not remember anymore . She further stated that she had stayed in camps in GPE and GPE . While she was at the camp in GPE she was not involved in many activities owing to her young age . She further maintained that she had wanted to return to GPE due to her health condition and for family reasons . She further stated that she had turned back to GPE through the mountains with the help of people who knew the area well . While the applicant was staying at her elder sister \u2019s house , she was arrested by the police . The applicant also claimed that she did not know any of the other accused in the case and that she had not received any training in the camps . Lastly , she stated that she had been called the code name \u201c PERSON \u201d at the camp in GPE .","When asked about her statements to the police , the applicant denied them , claiming that they had been taken under duress . When asked about her statements to the public prosecutor , she denied them except for the parts concerning her travel . When asked about her statements to the investigating judge , she denied them claiming once again that the police had put pressure on her .","On DATE , relying on , inter alia , the applicant \u2019s statements to the police , ORG convicted the applicant under LAW of the new LAW and sentenced DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145773","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DNK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"SAEED v. DENMARK","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178921","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BOUKROUROU AND OTHERS v. FRANCE","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The first applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Mouroux . He is the brother of the victim , PERSON born in DATE .","The second , third , fourth , fifth and sixth applicants , who were born in DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE respectively , are the victim \u2019s sister , widow , brother , father and mother . They live in GPE , ORG , ORG and GPE respectively .","On DATE , at TIME , PERSON , who was MONEY CARDINAL tall and weighed QUANTITY , went into a pharmacy in ORG . He was known to the staff there , where he habitually went to collect the medicine prescribed for his psychiatric disorders .","M.B. asked to exchange some medicine dispensed without a prescription , saying he was not satisfied with it . A pharmacist \u2019s assistant , PERSON , and the owner of the shop , Mr F. , explained to him that the effects of the medicine had diminished because he had become addicted to it . PERSON started to become angry , throwing the medicine boxes on the floor , raised his voice and started speaking incoherently :","\u201c I \u2019m fed up with your TIME visits , with your assistant and with you ! \u201d","M.B. told PERSON that he intended to file a complaint against him . Mr F asked Ms NORP to call the police . PERSON sat down on one of the chairs for customers at the pharmacy .","At TIME four police officers arrived on the scene after receiving a call from the incident room instructing them to intervene in an incident involving an individual with psychiatric disorders .","NORP Deputy police sergeant PERSON and police constable PERSON asked PERSON several times to accompany them out of the pharmacy . When he vehemently refused , sergeant PERSON and constable NORP seized him by the arm in order to remove him from the pharmacy . Constable PERSON seized PERSON by his right leg . PERSON struggled and called for help .","At the doorstep up to the pharmacy PERSON found himself on the ground . Constable PERSON attempted to handcuff him behind his back while he continued to struggle and appeal to the police for help . Constable PERSON punched PERSON twice in the solar plexus but still did not succeed in handcuffing him .","M.B. was then turned onto his right side and constable NORP was able to handcuff him in the front with CARDINAL pairs of interlinking handcuffs .","NORP Deputy police sergeant PERSON went to get the police vehicle to move it closer to the pharmacy . CARDINAL police officers seized PERSON by the arm in order to put him in the van . Despite putting up resistance , PERSON was forced inside the police van .","M.B. continued struggling and shouting in the police van and pushed CARDINAL police officer against the luggage holder above and another against a shelf before falling face downwards . Deputy police sergeant PERSON positioned himself above his shoulders in order to fasten another pair of handcuffs attaching PERSON to the fixed part of the back seat in the van . Constables NORP and PERSON positioned themselves on top of him , on his legs and on his buttocks .","At TIME , that is , TIME after they had arrived , the QUANTITY police officers present in the vehicle contacted their headquarters requesting assistance from the fire brigade and the mobile emergency medical service ( ORG ) .","According to the incident room \u2019s telephone log , at TIME the fire brigade asked the police to transfer PERSON to their vehicle . Deputy police sergeant PERSON refused to do so on grounds of PERSON \u2019s extremely agitated state .","The firemen then drew up a record of PERSON \u2019s condition . He had calmed down , but his heart rate could not be measured with the pulse oximeter because the sensors were not working . CARDINAL of the firemen constantly monitored his breathing , which stopped at CARDINAL point . A fireman noted the absence of blood circulation .","The team of firemen brought PERSON inside the pharmacy . CARDINAL of them alerted the ambulance service by radio . The firemen inserted a semi - automatic defibrillator and started carrying out cardiac massage .","An emergency doctor from the mobile emergency and intensive care service ( ORG ) , called out by the firemen , administered specialist cardiopulmonary resuscitation . He recorded PERSON \u2019s death at TIME","An investigation into the cause of PERSON \u2019s death was commenced immediately .","Of the CARDINAL pharmacists who gave a statement DATE , on DATE , CARDINAL were present when the police officers had asked PERSON to leave the LOC . They confirmed that when PERSON had refused to comply , the police officers had approached him and seized him . They said that PERSON had begun shouting and struggling at that point and had continued shouting and struggling when he had got into the police van , handcuffed . None of the CARDINAL witnesses had seen what had happened in the police van .","One of them stressed the fact that PERSON had been a customer at the pharmacy for DATE and had always been very pleasant during his DATE visits to collect his neuroleptics prescription .","On DATE Mr S. , a volunteer firefighter , was also questioned . He stated that on his arrival PERSON had still been in a highly agitated state , lying face down in the van , with the police officers restraining him : CARDINAL either sitting or kneeling on the victim \u2019s buttocks , and the other holding his legs ; his hands were outstretched and fastened by several handcuffs to the back seat of the van ; the victim \u2019s head was on the driver \u2019s side , and his right cheek face down on the floor . He explained that he had requested medical reinforcements and that then , when they observed that his heart had stopped beating , the firemen had decided to take him back into the pharmacy to continue carrying out cardiac massage .","On DATE one of the pharmacists was questioned a second time . He stated that PERSON had been a regular customer at the pharmacy . He said that the police officers had not hit PERSON","Constable PERSON was questioned the same day . He stated that deputy sergeant PERSON had introduced himself to PERSON and had asked him to come outside \u201c to explain the problem , as in this type of intervention the aim is to separate the parties \u201d . He explained that PERSON had refused to leave the pharmacy several times despite repeated requests by the police , who had finally dragged hm towards the door . He said that he had then seized PERSON \u2019s right leg and that , just in front of the entrance to the pharmacy , PERSON , who had lost his balance , had fallen down . He added that the police officers had then attempted to handcuff him and that when he had resisted attempts to put him in the police van constable NORP had pulled his legs , which had unbalanced him and caused both of them and deputy police sergeant PERSON to fall over in the police van . He said that PERSON had managed \u201c I do n\u2019t know how to pin him back down on the ground \u201d . He also said that in order to finish handcuffing him deputy sergeant L. had squatted down on PERSON \u2019s shoulders while constable NORP remained at leg level ; as PERSON had continued struggling , he himself had stood on his buttocks . He stated that they had remained \u201c like that for a while , but I can not tell you how long , it felt like a long time , with me on his buttocks , my colleague on his shoulders and the third officer on his feet , assisted by P. , who had crossed his legs to stop him moving . It was then that the fire brigade arrived \u201d .","NORP Deputy sergeant L. was also questioned on DATE . He stated that he had received instructions from his headquarters to go to a pharmacy and had been informed that PERSON \u201c suffered from psychiatric disorders \u201d . He confirmed that PERSON had put up a violent struggle before letting himself slide to the ground in front of the entrance to the pharmacy . He explained that constable PERSON had administered CARDINAL punches to the abdomen , using a technique known as \u201c diversionary blows \u201d . As regards the rest , he confirmed the above - mentioned conditions in which PERSON had been handcuffed in the police van .","An autopsy was carried out on CARDINAL DATE . The forensic doctor described and explained the traumatic injuries observed : the injury to the left eyebrow and the associated swelling did not suggest injuries following a blow but were related to an impact by that part of his face on a ridged surface . The other facial injuries suggested close contact on a rough surface . The injuries to the wrists were characteristic of handcuffing . Those to the lower part of the chest and in the abdominal cavity could have been incurred as a result of CARDINAL violent blows to that area . The forensic doctor specifed that the injuries had caused neither internal bleeding nor fractures . He mainly noted marks on the lungs and PERCENT stenosis on a heart artery . PERSON report , drawn up on DATE , contained the following conclusions :","\u201c Death in all likelihood occurred as a result of heart failure .","An atheromatous attack observed on an artery of the heart exposed him to a severe risk of cardiac rhythm disorders and sudden death .","The state of stress and agitation presented by the victim on his arrest may have contributed to heart failure .","Restriction of chest expansion may have occurred when the victim was restrained , but it can not be affirmed that mechanical asphyxiation was the cause of death . ...","Recent traumatic injuries consistent with action by third parties were observed . In any event , the various injuries did not directly contribute to the death ; nor is there any injury consistent with blows to the face . \u201d","On DATE and DATE Ms S. , a shopkeeper , was questioned and stated that she had heard shouts from her shop opposite the pharmacy . She said that she had seen QUANTITY police officers with a man lying face down with his arms behind his back being punched and kicked . Through a side window of the police van she stated that she had seen a female and a male police officer trampling on the spot while hanging on to the roof of the van , CARDINAL administering CARDINAL punches in a downwards movement and lifting his knee up very high before bringing it down in CARDINAL sharp movement .","On DATE the shopkeeper \u2019s minor son was questioned and stated that he had seen CARDINAL police officers trampling on PERSON in the road and that a female police officer had hit him several times with a truncheon in the stomach , back and face .","On DATE a judicial investigation for manslaughter was opened in respect of a person or persons unknown and assigned to CARDINAL investigating judges .","On an unknown date the applicants applied to join the proceedings as civil parties .","On DATE PERSON , a neighbour next to the pharmacy , stated that she had seen PERSON struggling , face downwards , outside the pharmacy . She said that the police officers had \u201c thrown him into the van \u201d and that she had left after the doors were closed . She stated that the police officers had not hit PERSON","On DATE chief brigadier PERSON , an instructor in defence and arrest techniques and in the psychological and behavioural aspects of police intervention , was heard as a witness . He stated that in the event of a dispute between people , \u201c the opposing parties should in so far as possible be separated \u201d : the police officers , in attempting to induce the PERSON to leave the pharmacy , had sought to avoid a fight in the shop . He said that the blows administered by constable PERSON and described as \u201c CARDINAL punches to the suspect \u2019s abdominal area with the aim of distracting and and securely handcuffing him [ were ] among the priority areas for attempting to weaken the resistance of the person concerned . They [ the police officers ] had not been over zealous and had completed the handcuffing in the front . The officers had also acted in an emergency situation . The technique used by constable PERSON appear[ed ] the most appropriate in the context of the intervention \u201d . He added that all the techniques taught were designed to weaken resistance to arrest . He specified that , with regard to the immobilisation of PERSON in the van , standing on a person \u2019s buttocks was not among the techniques taught and that positioning oneself across PERSON \u2019s shoulders , as sergeant PERSON had done , was one of the procedures taught . That technique enabled the officer to prevent the suspect from moving while avoiding postural asphyxiation . He concluded that the intervening officers , having regard to the context of the intervention , had acted with pragmatism and discernment .","Reports were produced by several experts appointed by CARDINAL of the investigating judges . On DATE Dr L. , professor of forensic medicine , and Dr NORP , lecturer in forensic medicine , provided a forensic medical report after examining PERSON \u2019s body on DATE . They stated that their examinations had revealed \u201c a series of cutaneous lesions that could not have contributed to the death \u201d . They did not indicate evidence of any \u201c factor suggesting death by chest compression \u201d . There was thus no evidence of \u201c petechial subconjunctival injuries or of facial petechial injuries \u201d . They stated as follows :","\u201c our examination of the sealed evidence has not revealed any elements indicating the cause of death of [ M.B. ] . The sealed evidence shows that he was receiving psychiatric treatment for psychosis with several episodes of hallucination requiring the regular ingestion of antipsychotic medicines . ... At the levels measured , the ingestion of psychoactive drugs revealed by the toxicological investigations does not appear capable of explaining the victim \u2019s death by a process of direct toxicity . ... In conclusion , the death of [ M.B. ] ... is in all likelihood the result of myocardial failure . The death is due to natural causes . \u201d","On DATE PERSON produced their anatomopathological expert report after examining a copy of the autopsy report of DATE , a copy of the interviews with the members of the police patrol team who had arrested PERSON , a copy of the record of examination of CARDINAL witnesses , various sealed samples collected both by PERSON and by Professor PERSON and PERSON :","\u201c [ ORG ] died suddenly of cardiac rhythm disorders owing to a coronary spasm triggered by a context of intense and prolonged emotional and physical stress . ... In conclusion , the intense and prolonged emotional stress , and the prolonged and severe agitation , which started in the pharmacy and contined during the arrest explain the series of physiopathological phenomena which caused the death : ( CARDINAL ) intense stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system ( adrenergic neuro - hormonal system ) , ( CARDINAL ) coronary - ischemic spasm , ( CARDINAL ) fatal cardiac rhythm disorders . \u201d","On DATE and DATE and DATE the QUANTITY police officers appeared for the first time as assisted witnesses .","On DATE a reconstruction was organised , by the CARDINAL investigating judges in charge of the case , in the presence of the civil parties\u2019 lawyers and the assisted witnesses . During the visit to the scene the forensic doctor stated that he had not noted any traumatic injury consistent with the violence described by the witness PERSON , the only injuries suggesting direct action by a third party being those corresponding to the punches administered to the stomach .","On DATE PERSON , university professor , neurologist and psychiatrist , and head of a forensic medical department , examined PERSON \u2019s medical file at his psychiatrist \u2019s surgery , his medical file at the casualty department of ORG , and the medical file kept by PERSON \u2019s general practioner . He stated that PERSON , who had been receiving psychiatric care for DATE , had been admitted to a hospital psychiatric unit several times and presented a psychotic disorder characterised by delusional notions of a betwitching , persecutory and interpretative type During his most recent hospital consultation he had been diagnosed with paranoid psychosis , which is related to schizophrenia . PERSON concluded his report as follows :","\u201c [ M.B. ] presented a serious psychiatric disorder , namely , delusional psychosis , which explains the initial altercation with the pharmacist and his subsequent state of extreme agitation when the police officers attempted to induce him to leave the pharmacy . It is also possible that the intervention by the police was interpreted in a delusional manner .","When the ORG [ mobile emergency and intensive care service ] intervened the criterion of seriousness was ... the fact that [ M.B. ] had been suffering from heart failure for TIME .","The superficial injuries observed , during the autopsy , to the right - hand side of the face and the front of the knees [ appear to him ] compatible with immobilisation on the floor of the van and the petechial injuries to the upper abdomen and the left abdominal region are compatible with punches administered as described in the autopsy report . \u201d","On DATE the ORG , an institution independent of the ORG , having the task , inter alia , of ensuring compliance by the police with their code of professional ethics , to whom a member of parliament had submitted the case , produced a report . He found that whilst the police officers had been very quick to seek the assistance of the fire brigade and the emergency medical service , it was regrettable that the situation had been inaccurately described by the incident room to the firemen prior to their intervention ( the latter had been informed of PERSON \u2019s \u201c withdrawal symptoms \u201d ) . He considered that there had been no imminent danger to people or property in the pharmacy and thus no urgent need to remove PERSON as soon as possible . He stated that the immobilisation and compression procedures carried out in the van had been dangerous and disproportionate . He described as \u201c amouting to a serious infringement of human dignity and to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of LAW \u201d the techniques used by constables NORP and PERSON to the floor of the police van . The ORG also noted conflicting statements by the police officers regarding whethere there had been physical violence other than the CARDINAL diversionary blows and pointed out that no witnesses had been present throughout the entire incident . The ORG concluded that the precipitation with which the police had acted had led them to make an erroneous assessment of PERSON \u2019s situation and to react in a stereotypical manner rather than adjust their conduct during the intervention , despite the fact that they knew that PERSON was receiving treatment for psychiatric disorders and that they had been able to observe abnormal behaviour on his part . He recommended reinforcing the initial and continuous training of police officers with regard to dealing with persons suffering from a mental disorder . Lastly , he recommended that disciplinary proceedings be brought against the QUANTITY police officers who had arrested PERSON for \u201c disproportionate use of force or failing to cease using such force \u201d .","On DATE PERSON supplemented their expert report of DATE . They confirmed the conclusion of their earlier report and ruled out mechanical asphyxia : \u201c PERSON died suddenly of cardiac rhythm disorders , with no occurrence of mechanical asphyxia . \u201d They reiterated the part played by extreme stress in the death , stating that \u201c the adrenergic stimulation was related to the extreme and prolonged emotional and physical stress . The stress lasted TIME , starting in the pharmacy and continuing throughout the arrest \u201d .","On DATE the CARDINAL police officers who had arrested PERSON were charged with manslaughter as a result of the manifestly wilful violation of a legal or statutory duty of caution and security .","On DATE the the public prosecutor at the ORG tribunal de grande instance filed submissions recommending that the charges be dropped .","On DATE the investigating judges ruled that there was no case to answer . They found that whilst it was true that PERSON had been in a relatively calm state , the pharmacist had nonetheless considered his behaviour sufficiently disturbing to inform the police of the presence in his establishment of a person in an agitated state and suffering from psychiatric disorders . They observed that the police officers had not immediately used force and that , on being informed of PERSON \u2019s pyschiatric pathology , they had called the emergency medical service . The judges found that the evidence given by PERSON had been invalidated by the observations made during the reconstruction , the statements made by the pharmacists and the conclusions of the forensic doctor . The investigating judges observed as follows :","\u201c ... pinning [ M.B. ] to the ground was not identified by the medical experts as the direct cause of the death . Whilst the intervention by the police inevitably generated stress , the victim had already been stressed well before their intervention . As the police did not know about [ PERSON \u2019s ] heart disease , of which he himself was unaware , they could not foresee that the combination of these CARDINAL factors [ stress and heart disease ] could create a risk for the victim . \u201d","The judges considered that the force used by the police officers had been necessary and proportionate \u201c even if being pinned down in the van , by L. and P. and PERSON \u2019s position \u2013 standing on [ PERSON \u2019s ] legs \u2013 may appear objectionable in absolute terms \u201d .","The applicants appealed against that ruling . On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the decision finding no case to answer on the following grounds :","\u201c [ PERSON \u2019s death was due ] according to the forensic doctor who carried out the initial autopsy ... to heart failure in circumstances of stress and effort acting on a predisposed heart condition ; the second forensic report supported the finding of cutaneous injuries that could not have been a contributory cause of death and ruled out death due to chest compression ; the experts indicated that the death of [ PERSON ] was , in all likelihood , the result of myocardial failure and natural causes ; the anatomopathological report ... [ led ] the experts to conclude that [ PERSON ] had died suddenly of cardiac rhythm disorders owing to a coronary spasm triggered by a context of intense and prolonged emotional and physical stress , and formally ruled out mechanical asphyxia ; lastly , the forensic and psychiatric expert ... concluded that [ PERSON ] presented a serious psychiatric disorder ... which explained the initial altercation with the pharmacist and the ensuing state of extreme agitation when the police officers attempted to induce him to leave the pharmacy , as their intervention could have been interpreted in a delusional manner \u201d .","With regard to the conditions of arrest , ORG found that the agitated state and the \u201c recalcitrant , not to say violent , behaviour of [ M.B. ] had obliged the police officers to use force and intervention techniques , which they had been taught , to restrain him \u201d , including the CARDINAL punches administered by constable PERSON \u201c who explained that he had used a technique taught to police officers to assist in handcuffing suspects by creating a surprise effect , that explanation being confirmed by his colleagues and instructor \u201d . ORG found that PERSON had been pinned to the floor of the van in conditions that had been \u201c admittedly unusual , or even objectionable \u201d , but that these had preserved the respiratory capacity and ventilation of a person who \u201c was continuing to oppose strong resistance to the police officers \u201d . It concluded that \u201c no inadvertence , lack of care , inattention , negligence or breach of a statutory or legal duty of protection or care , or gross negligence [ could ] be attributed [ to the police officers ] in the death of [ M.B. ] \u201d .","The applicants appealed on points of law . On DATE ORG dismissed their appeal on the following grounds :","\u201c ... ORG is satisfied on the basis of the grounds of the judgment being appealed that in upholding the decision finding no case to answer ORG , after analysing all the facts referred to it and addressing the main grounds in the statement of appeal , gave sufficient and coherent reasons for their finding that the investigation had been thorough and that there was insufficient evidence on which to convict the persons charged with of manslaughter or any other offence ... \u201d","..."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173101","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SOLOVEY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and was detained in GPE until his extradition to GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE pursuant to an extradition request from the GPE authorities . On DATE ORG of GPE ordered his detention .","The applicant \u2019s detention was subsequently extended by judicial orders on several occasions , in particular , on DATE and DATE . Both the applicant and his lawyer lodged their statements of appeal against these detention orders with ORG , which upheld them on appeal on DATE and DATE , respectively ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175491","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BAGNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . In application no . CARDINAL the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163637","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"A.R. v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE .","NORP The applicant , who has been granted legal aid , is represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","According to the applicant , he joined ORG in DATE . At that time it was , and apparently it remains , in opposition to the ruling regime . Following a murder attempt in DATE against the ORG President , some members and supporters of the party were reportedly arrested and tortured . Allegedly , the applicant was also arrested during that time . He submitted that he had been tortured by way of blows to his hands , back and head , causing loss of vision in his right eye . He had declined the offer to collaborate with ORG on the party members and their activities . The party has now split into CARDINAL factions : CARDINAL is apparently loyal to the ruling regime , while the other is led by supporters of the former leader of the party , Mr Iskandarov ( see PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) , who have been persecuted .","Fearing persecution , the applicant left for GPE . Allegedly , in DATE the authorities were looking for him and arrested his brother . The applicant went back to NORP DATE ( allegedly , remaining in hiding ) . In DATE he obtained a new passport from the NORP authorities ( allegedly , through an acquaintance ) .","The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE . It appears that at the time NORP nationals did not require a visa to enter GPE .","NORP Since DATE the applicant has been living in GPE in an unregistered relationship with PERSON","The applicant and PERSON have CARDINAL children together , born in DATE and DATE . It appears that PERSON \u2019s first child , who was born in DATE from her previous relationship , has been residing with PERSON and the applicant . PERSON and the children are NORP nationals .","In DATE ORG of GPE granted the applicant a temporary residence permit valid until DATE .","In DATE Mr Ts . informed the GPE office of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) that the applicant had given him several publications about PERSON - ut - GPE , a prohibited organisation in GPE .","In DATE the GPE regional prosecutor applied to ORG , PERSON ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , asking it to classify those publications as \u201c extremist \u201d . The court granted his request . The applicant was not party to the proceedings .","On DATE the ORG interviewed the applicant , having informed him of his right not to testify against himself . According to the interview record , the applicant stated as follows : in DATE he had studied ORG with his friend , reading together various writings , inter alia , calling for the creation of an NORP Caliphate ; in DATE he learnt that ORG had arrested his friend and some of his relatives ; fearing arrest himself , he had moved to GPE where he obtained a work permit ; there he met CARDINAL NORP nationals who appeared to be supporters of PERSON - ut - GPE ; DATE CARDINAL of them provided the applicant with some publications , which he then gave to Ts .","According to the applicant , an ORG officer told him that the NORP authorities \u201c were looking for him \u201d .","The ORG wrote to the regional migration authority recommending that the applicant \u2019s residence permit be annulled .","On DATE the authority annulled the residence permit on the basis of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was informed that he could seek judicial review of the annulment decision or re - apply for a temporary residence permit in a DATE \u2019s time ; that he was obliged to leave GPE within DATE ; and that if he failed to leave the country he would be deported .","The applicant did not seek judicial review of the annulment decision . However , he appointed a lawyer and they both considered that given the imperative indication in section CARDINAL of LAW , there would be no prospect of success in claiming reinstatement of the residence permit on account of a risk of death or torture if the NORP authorities became aware of the findings made by ORG in respect of the applicant . Instead , in DATE the applicant decided to attempt to regularise his stay in GPE by applying for refugee status ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . For this purpose , his lawyer obtained access to the case file concerning the residence permit . According to the lawyer , the file contained only the ORG \u2019s letter to the migration authority ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG issued the applicant with a \u201c warning \u201d ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0436\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) against \u201c unacceptable actions that create a basis for committing crimes falling within the ORG \u2019s competence \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The warning read as follows :","\u201c [ The applicant ] has expressed his intention to take part in the activities of the international terrorist organisation ORG - ut - GPE , which has been classified as \u2018 LOC by ORG . The indicated actions create a basis for committing crimes under LAW \u201d .","Subsequently , the applicant denied membership of ORG - ut - GPE or participation in its activities .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer challenged the \u201c warning \u201d , indicating that the ORG \u2019s allegations in respect of the applicant were unsubstantiated ; he had never been a member of the prohibited organisation ; and none of his previous actions or utterances had indicated an intention to take part in the activities of that organisation . The lawyer also challenged the \u201c warning \u201d as being an unsubstantiated and disproportionate interference with the applicant \u2019s private life , exposing him to a risk of removal to NORP and of ill - treatment there on account of the NORP authorities\u2019 awareness of the ORG \u2019s suspicion in respect of him .","On DATE ORG upheld the \u201c warning \u201d on judicial review . The court stated that Ts . \u2019s and the applicant \u2019s own testimonies confirmed that the applicant had had contacts with people who were implicated in the activities of the prohibited organisation ; as confirmed by Ts . , the applicant had handed over to him publications that had an \u201c extremist \u201d content , as then confirmed by a court . The NORP legislation prohibited dissemination , possession and production of extremist material . In certain circumstances those actions constituted an offence ; an extremist activity was also punishable in criminal law , civil law and otherwise . The \u201c warning \u201d had not violated any of the applicant \u2019s rights or freedoms .","NORP The applicant appealed , arguing that nothing in his own statement to the ORG had disclosed an intention to take part in the \u201c activities of the prohibited organisation \u201d or elements of corpus delicti under LAW of LAW ; the impugned events dated back to DATE while the \u201c warning \u201d was meant to concern some continuing activity ; the applicant had no knowledge of the \u201c extremist \u201d content of the publications , which was only subsequently established by a court in proceedings to which he had not been a party . The applicant concluded that in substance the proceedings against him and the resulting \u201c warning \u201d amounted to a finding of criminal guilt without either the benefit of a judicial procedure or the attending safeguards of criminal proceedings , including the presumption of innocence ( Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The appeal court discarded as \u201c farfetched \u201d the arguments under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW and endorsed in substance the reasoning of ORG . On an unspecified date , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s subsequent appeal on points of law . It appears that in DATE ORG of GPE rejected the second appeal on points of law .","After the annulment of his residence permit , in DATE the applicant applied to the regional migration authority seeking refugee status .","NORP The applicant submitted that as an ordinary member of ORG , he had attended meetings and complied with the ORG orders ; after the attempted assassination of the NORP President in DATE , he had been arrested and tortured ( blows to his fingers with a gun handle and blows to his spine and head ) ; he had left for GPE and had then returned to NORP , where he had stayed in different towns until DATE .","By decision of DATE the regional migration authority dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for refugee status and ordered him to leave GPE within DATE .","NORP In reply to a request from the applicant \u2019s lawyer , on DATE the GPE office of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( \u201c the GPE ORG office \u201d ) issued an information document . Referring to some of the findings made in the DATE ORG report on ORG and some other reports , the ORG office made the following comments :","\u201c In view of the numerous violations of human rights and fundamental principles of international law by the NORP authorities , the widely used practice of torture and cruel treatment at the hands of law enforcement officers , in particular with the aim of extracting confessions in criminal cases ... the ORG considers that people who are suspected in relation to political activities of a religious nature run a real risk of persecution in the form of torture in GPE ...","Therefore , having regard to the international instruments ratified by GPE , in no circumstances should PERSON be extradited , as he is seeking asylum on account of a risk of torture if returned to the country of nationality .","We hope that this information will be taken into account during the examination of your client \u2019s case . \u201d","The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal to grant refugee status , contesting the reliance on the document of DATE as the migration authority \u2019s only source of information about NORP . He referred to the ORG \u2019s findings in the PERSON judgment mentioned above and a number of other sources .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE . The court stated , inter alia , that had the applicant had genuine reasons for seeking asylum , he would have made an application immediately after his arrival in GPE . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","Having been unsuccessful with his application for refugee status ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in DATE the applicant applied to the regional migration authority for so - called \u201c temporary asylum \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the authority dismissed the application . On DATE ORG upheld the lower authority \u2019s decision .","The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of temporary asylum . He argued that the migration authority had not assessed whether the ORG \u2019s warning on suspicion that he might commit a criminal offence of an extremist nature substantiated his argument that he was at risk of illtreatment at the hands of the NORP authorities , who were aware of the ORG \u2019s warning .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision to refuse temporary asylum . On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant . On DATE the same court dismissed a subsequent appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant . The applicant lodged a second appeal on points of law before ORG of GPE , which dismissed that appeal on DATE .","The applicant unsuccessfully sought an extension of his permission to stay in the country pending appeals against the decision to refuse him temporary asylum . On DATE ORG upheld the decision . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal . It appears that a subsequent appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant was dismissed in DATE .","Allegedly , the applicant has been subjected to covert supervision by law - enforcement officials wearing plain clothes ; questions about him were raised with his neighbours ; and his relatives in NORP were questioned and their homes searched . Since DATE , the applicant has not left his home , fearing abduction with a view to forcibly transferring him to NORP .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked the migration authority about their intention to expel the applicant . No reply has been received .","It appears that the applicant has applied to the ORG office for help with resettlement . That request is pending .","According to the applicant , on an unspecified date in DATE , officers from ORG arrested his brother ; he was subsequently released but was required to assist the authorities in obtaining the applicant \u2019s return to the country .","It appears that the applicant is currently considered as a foreigner \u201c temporarily present in GPE \u201d , which , according to him , gives him an opportunity to move within the region but not to work .","LAW ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) provides that a foreigner can be temporarily present on NORP territory for a period specified in a visa or , for foreign nationals not required to obtain a visa , for DATE unless otherwise provided for by the LAW ( section CARDINAL ) .","Section CARDINAL of LAW requires that a temporary residence permit be annulled if the foreigner ( i ) has expressed himself in favour of a radical change in the constitutional regime of GPE or , by way of other actions , poses a threat to the security of GPE or its citizens ; ( ii ) has made financial contributions or planned terrorist or extremist acts , has provided assistance to others in the commission of such acts , or has supported terrorist ( extremist ) activities by way of other actions .","After the annulment of a temporary residence permit or a residence permit , the foreigner concerned must leave GPE within DATE ; failure to do so will lead to deportation ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .","A decision to deport should be taken by a chief officer of the local migration authority ( paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG issued by order no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE by ORG ) .","Section CARDINAL of LAW provides that temporary asylum may be granted where ( i ) the foreigner has grounds for acquiring refugee status but only requests a possibility to remain in GPE for some time ; or ( ii ) the foreigner has no grounds for acquiring refugee status but should not be expelled from GPE for \u201c humanitarian reasons \u201d . Having received temporary asylum , the person may not be returned against his will to the country of nationality or the country of habitual residence .","Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) provides that , in the absence of grounds for instituting criminal proceedings , the ORG has competence to issue and inform the person concerned of an \u201c official warning \u201d ( \u043e\u0444\u0438\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0435\u0440\u0435\u0436\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) about unacceptable actions that create conditions for the commission of certain crimes . Such a \u201c warning \u201d is classified as a measure of prevention ( \u043c\u0435\u0440\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0444\u0438\u043b\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0438 ) that may be implemented for the purpose of preventing the commission of such criminal offences ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140754","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BURCZY v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is married and has CARDINAL children born in DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . Prior to his application for an early - retirement pension he had been unemployed with no right to unemployment benefit .","On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an early - retirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the socalled \u201c EWK \u201d pension .","Along with his application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning his daughter \u2019s health condition , a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from chronic asthma and that she was in need of her parent \u2019s constant care .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the SSB \u201d ) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension in the net amount of MONEY ( PLN ) . The pension was granted with retroactive effect of DATE .","On an unknown date ORG asked ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant \u2019s daughter required the permanent care of a parent . The doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child could not be considered as ever having required such care .","On DATE the ORG reopened the pension proceedings and , on DATE , ORG refused the applicant the right to early retirement and discontinued the payment of the pension with effect of DATE .","The applicant appealed against the decision divesting him of the right to an early - retirement pension . He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant \u2019s original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) amended the challenged decisions and granted the applicant the right to early retirement pension with effect of DATE . ORG found that the applicant could not bear the responsibility for the mistake made by the administrative authorities . It further held that the pension proceedings could not be reopened in this case because no new circumstances had arisen ; the reopening decision was based on the same circumstances freshly assessed .","ORG appealed against the firstinstance judgment .","On DATE the Rzesz\u00f3w Court of Appeal ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) amended the first - instance judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG decisions . It held , among other things , that the ORG based its decisions on evidence which did not constitute basis for the original decision granting the applicant the early retirement pension , namely medical documentation concerning the applicant \u2019s daughter .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Najwy\u017cszy ) refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant \u2019s lawyer .","Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return his early - retirement benefits paid by ORG , despite the revocation of his right to an early - retirement pension .","The Government submitted that after the revocation of the applicant \u2019s pension , he was employed CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE . According to the ORG \u2019s submissions the applicant was receiving an unemployment benefit for DATE and DATE and , subsequently for DATE in DATE .","The Government further submitted that the applicant \u2019s income represented PERCENT of the average remuneration in GPE in DATE PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE , PERCENT in DATE and PERCENT in DATE .","NORP The applicant submitted a document issued by ORG on DATE confirming that his early - retirement pension had been revoked with effect of CARDINAL DATE and that after that date he had not received any payments from his retirement or disability insurance .","The applicant further submitted copies of ORG decisions according to which he was receiving DATE family benefit for his CARDINAL children . The benefit amounted to ORG CARDINAL in DATE , ORG CARDINAL in DATE , ORG in DATE and ORG in DATE . The applicant further produced a certificate issued by ORG on DATE , according to which the applicant \u2019s family was receiving a social care benefit DATE and DATE . After the latter date the social care centre did not pay the applicant any further benefits . The certificate did not specify the amount of benefit granted ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148719","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"\u017dERAJI\u0106 AND GOJKOVI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant in the first case , PERSON , is a citizen of GPE , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The applicant in the second case , PERSON , is a citizen of GPE , who was born in DATE and also lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Deputy Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","After its declaration of independence on DATE , a brutal war started in GPE . It would appear that CARDINAL people lost their lives and CARDINAL people were displaced in the course of the war . It is estimated that around CARDINAL people went missing and that around DATE of them is still missing . The conflict came to an end on DATE when ORG in GPE entered into force . In accordance with that Agreement , GPE consists of CARDINAL Entities , ORG and PERSON .","NORP In response to atrocities then taking place in GPE , on DATE ORG passed LAW establishing ORG for the former GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , headquartered in GPE . CARDINAL individuals have already been convicted and proceedings are ongoing for CARDINAL accused . In the period from DATE until DATE , local prosecutors in GPE and GPE were required to submit case files to the ORG for review ; no person could be arrested on suspicion of war crimes unless ORG had received the case file beforehand and found it to contain credible charges ( the \u201c Rules of the Road \u201d procedure ) . Moreover , the ORG had primacy over national courts and could take over national investigations and proceedings at any stage in the interest of international justice . As part of the ORG \u2019s completion strategy , in DATE war crimes chambers were set up within ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) with primacy over other courts in GPE as regards war crimes . CARDINAL persons have been finally convicted by ORG . Many others have been convicted by the competent Entity courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","Furthermore , ORG on ORG ( \u201c the ICMP \u201d ) was established at the initiative of GPE President PERSON in DATE . It is currently headquartered in GPE . Reportedly , the ICMP has thus far identified by DNA CARDINAL missing persons in GPE , whereas local authorities have identified CARDINAL missing persons by other methods . In DATE the Government of GPE and the ICMP established a ORG , also headquartered in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It became operational on DATE .","Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON disappeared in an area of GPE controlled by the ORG forces on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","The ORG has convicted CARDINAL members of the ORG forces for various crimes committed against NORP during the war , including killings and cruel treatment at GPE and PERSON camps ( PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ORG ) , but none of the cases dealt with killings of NORP in GPE by those forces .","Domestic authorities have taken statements from a number of persons . However , no formal charges have been brought yet as the perpetrators in the case of Mr PERSON have not been identified and the key suspects in the case of PERSON were killed in DATE ( namely , ORG , PERSON and J.P ) . At the same time , domestic authorities have finalised investigations into other war crimes committed by the ORG forces against NORP in GPE ; indictments have so far been issued against GPE , M.F. , GPE , PERSON and I - PERSON and criminal proceedings are pending .","On DATE PERSON sought and obtained a declaration of presumed death with respect to her husband .","While many exhumations have been conducted in the GPE area , the ORG husbands have not yet been identified .","NORP In the case of PERSON , on DATE ORG held that there had been a violation of LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention . It ordered ORG to release any and all information in its custody pertaining to the fate or whereabouts of Mr PERSON as well as to conduct a full , meaningful , thorough and detailed investigation aimed at bringing the responsible to justice . Lastly , it awarded PERSON MONEY ( BAM ) for non - pecuniary damage . In the case of PERSON , ORG gave a similar decision on DATE . However , no damages were awarded .","LAW entered into force on DATE ( ORG GPE no . CARDINAL ) . In accordance with section CARDINAL of the Act , families have the right to know the fate of missing persons ( that is , their whereabouts if they are still alive , or the circumstances of death and their place of burial , if they are dead ) and to obtain their mortal remains . Under section CARDINAL of the Act , the relevant domestic authorities have the obligation to provide any and all such information in their keeping .","Section CARDINAL of that LAW provides for the setting up of a Missing Persons Institute . In DATE the ICMP and the Government of GPE founded the ORG , headquartered in GPE , pursuant to that provision and the Agreement on Assuming ORG - founders of ORG , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It became operational on DATE . CARDINAL of the organs of that ORG , comprised of CARDINAL representatives of families of missing persons ( see LAW mentioned above ) .","In accordance with section CARDINAL of the LAW , the status of missing person comes to an end on the date of identification . Therefore , if a missing person is declared dead but the mortal remains have not been found and identified , the process of tracing continues .","Pursuant to LAW , the families of missing persons are entitled to DATE financial support under some conditions , notably if they were supported by the missing family member until his or her disappearance and if they are still in need of support ( in other words , if they are not in paid employment and do not receive welfare benefits beyond PERCENT of the average salary paid in GPE ) . LAW provides for the setting up of ORG for that purpose . However , as the ORG has not yet been established , no payment has been made so far .","Families of missing persons are also entitled to , inter alia , temporary administration of the property of missing persons , burial of mortal remains at public expense and priority in access to education and employment for the children of missing persons ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides for the setting up of ORG with the aim of verifying information about missing persons from different sources ( government agencies , associations of families of missing persons , the FAC and ORG ) and creating a single database . While ORG were founded on DATE , it would appear that the verification process is still ongoing . Once that process is completed , all those recorded as missing will be declared dead ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) , but the tracing process will nevertheless continue ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Despite the fact that the verification process outlined in paragraph CARDINAL above is pending , any person may request that a declaration of presumed death be issued with respect to a missing person ( see the Non - Contentious Procedure Act DATE , ORG GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; and ORG DATE , ORG of ORG , no . CARDINAL ) .","War crimes cases fall , as a general rule , under the jurisdiction of ORG , but ORG may transfer any such case to the competent Entity court in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraph CARDINAL below ( see LAW ) . For example , only in DATE ORG transferred CARDINAL cases to CARDINAL Entity courts .","NORP In accordance with the Book of Rules on ORG of DATE the following types of cases were , as a rule , to be heard before ORG : ( a ) cases concerning genocide , extermination , multiple murders , rape and other serious sexual assaults as part of a system ( such as in camps ) , enslavement , torture , persecution on a widespread and systematic scale , mass forced detention in camps ; ( b ) cases against past or present military commanders , past or present political leaders , past or present members of the judiciary , past or present police chiefs , camp commanders , persons with a past or present notorious reputation , multiple rapists ; ( c ) cases with insider or suspect witnesses ; ( d ) if there was a risk of witness intimidation ; and ( e ) cases involving perpetrators in an area which is sympathetic to them or where the authorities have a vested interest in preventing public scrutiny of the crimes . All other war crimes cases were , as a rule , to be heard before the Entity courts .","In DATE the authorities adopted ORG , providing a new set of criteria . However , they are almost identical to those outlined in paragraph CARDINAL above . In addition , the Strategy defines the time - frames , capacities , criteria and mechanisms for managing those cases , standardisation of court practices , issues of regional cooperation , protection and support to victims and witnesses , as well as financial aspects , and supervision over the implementation of the Strategy . CARDINAL of its objectives is to process the most complex and top priority cases within DATE ( that is , by DATE ) and other war crimes cases within DATE ( that is , by DATE ) . In order to comply with that time - frame , the local authorities have , inter alia , almost doubled the number of ORG prosecutors in charge of war crimes ( from DATE ) in DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147679","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DAVID THOMAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in GPE FAC .","On DATE he was convicted of attempted kidnapping . He received an indeterminate sentence for public protection ( \u201c ORG sentence \u201d ) . A minimum term ( \u201c tariff \u201d ) of DATE and DATE was fixed .","NORP In DATE it was identified that the applicant was required to complete the Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage it ( \u201c CALM \u201d ) course to reduce his risk .","On DATE he was transferred to GPE in order to participate in the CALM course .","The applicant \u2019s tariff expired on DATE .","In DATE he commenced the CALM course . He completed it on DATE .","On an unknown date he completed LOC and assertiveness and decision - making courses .","On DATE an oral hearing took place before ORG to review the applicant \u2019s detention . On DATE ORG notified him that it had decided not to order his transfer to open conditions or release . It concluded that his level of risk remained incompatible with his safe management in open conditions .","By letter dated DATE ORG informed the applicant that the Secretary of ORG agreed with the ORG recommendation . His review period was set at DATE . The review was therefore scheduled to commence in DATE with an oral hearing by ORG in DATE .","In DATE a sentence plan review took place and identified a further course , the Sex Offenders Treatment Programme ( \u201c SOTP \u201d ) , for completion by the applicant . He had failed to admit before DATE that there was potentially a sexual element to his offence . Prior to commencement of the NORP , a Structured Assessment of Risk and Need ( \u201c SARN \u201d ) was to be conducted .","NORP In DATE the applicant complained to the prison requesting information on when the SARN would take place . On DATE he was informed that he would have to be transferred to another prison establishment for assessment because of resource issues .","On DATE he was moved to ORG for assessment .","On DATE his solicitors sent a letter before claim to the governor of ORG and the Secretary of ORG indicating that judicial review proceedings were being considered in respect of the delay in arranging the assessment for the ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s offender supervisor contacted a forensic psychologist in training in order to discuss the applicant \u2019s case . They agreed that an initial SOTP assessment should be completed .","By letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that the assessment of his suitability for the ORG would be completed by DATE . He would then be placed on a waiting list for the appropriate course .","NORP The SOTP assessment was completed on DATE and concluded that the applicant was motivated to engage in sex offender treatment .","On DATE the forensic psychologist in training sought clinical guidance on the applicant \u2019s case from ORG ( ORG \u201d ) . The ORG decided that a Risk Matrix DATE ( \u201c RMCARDINAL \u201d ) was required as well as a Treatment Needs Analysis ( \u201c TNA \u201d ) to assess the level of dynamic risk posed by the applicant .","On DATE a forensic psychologist in training interviewed the applicant and told him that he had been referred for a ORG and RMCARDINAL . The applicant was informed that his case would be progressed over DATE .","On DATE ORG reviewed the applicant \u2019s case on the papers . By letter dated CARDINAL DATE it informed him that it had not directed his release or recommended his transfer to open conditions . It explained :","\u201c The panel is satisfied that until you have undertaken the offending behaviour work that will be identified by the forthcoming assessments and ... a full assessment has been completed of your response to treatment it will be difficult to conclude that you have addressed the core factors that caused you to offend . \u201d","On DATE the ORG was completed .","NORP By letter dated CARDINAL September CARDINAL ORG informed the applicant that the Secretary of ORG agreed with the ORG recommendation . She considered that risk factors , namely sexual offending , thinking skills and behaviour and alcohol misuse , were outstanding . The letter clarified 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 applicant \u2019s next review was set to commence in DATE and be completed by DATE . The review period was made up of , inter alia , appropriate assessments , completion of sexual offender behaviour work , participation in the post - course review and the preparation of the ORG report .","At some point he was transferred to GPE .","On DATE he was told by prison staff that he was on a list of prisoners being considered for the next SOTP .","On DATE the ORG and Treatment Pathway reports were completed . The applicant was deemed suitable for the ORG . The reports were disclosed to him on DATE .","On DATE his solicitors wrote to the governor of ORG requesting that immediate steps be taken to place the applicant on the next SOTP . They expressed the view that there had been no progress since the DATE assessment .","On DATE the applicant commenced the SOTP . He completed the course in DATE .","A new target date of DATE was set to assess whether an oral ORG hearing ought to be held in his case . The outcome of the review is not known","A LOC report was produced on DATE .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s request for an exceptional transfer to open conditions . He was transferred on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-165546","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"A AND B v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants , Mr A and PERSON , are a married couple and currently living in the GPE . They are NORP nationals and were born in DATE and DATE , respectively . The President granted the applicants\u2019 request for their identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ) . They were represented before the ORG by Ms J. Bravo Moug\u00e1n , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , and Deputy Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicants and their daughter , born in DATE , fled GPE . On DATE they entered the GPE and applied for asylum , claiming to fear persecution within the meaning of the DATE LAW ( \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) . DATE a second child was born to the applicants .","On DATE the immigration authorities held a first interview ( eerste gehoor ) with each applicant about their identity , nationality and travel itinerary . A written record of each interview was drawn up . The applicants , who were assisted by a lawyer , were given the opportunity to submit corrections and additions , which they did on DATE .","On DATE , the immigration authorities held a further interview ( nader gehoor ) with each applicant about their reasons for seeking asylum . A written record of each interview was drawn up and on CARDINAL DATE a lawyer submitted corrections and additions on the ORG behalf .","NORP In his asylum statement , the first applicant declared that he was a former NORP monk ( \u201c lhama \u201d ) . His only relative was a foster parent who had died in DATE . After his marriage to the second applicant he had resigned as a monk and started to work as a spiritual counsellor . Among his clients were PERSON , a prominent political and government leader , Mr Y , a former business associate of PERSON , and Mr Z , a judge . By DATE , the first applicant had received a CARDINAL page letter from Y who had been placed in pre - trial detention . In this letter Y wrote that he was innocent and wrongly imprisoned and that he had been falsely accused by X. The letter further contained incriminating information about X who was allegedly involved in corruption . The first applicant had not discussed this information with anyone . Soon after , the first applicant had received several threatening telephone calls from accomplices of X. They told him that they knew that he had received the letter , that he knew too much and that he should keep his mouth shut . They also ordered him to give them his GPE records . The second applicant also received threatening calls . On DATE the first applicant learned that Y had died in prison .","On DATE the first applicant , whilst walking upstairs to his apartment , had been assaulted by CARDINAL unknown men in the stairwell of the building . The CARDINAL men had demanded the letter and the records the first applicant had kept on his clients . When a neighbour had appeared , the CARDINAL men had run off . As requested by Y , the first applicant had taken the letter to Z who had advised him not to go to the police as X had more power than the police . Being a judge , PERSON would deal with the matter himself . According to the first applicant , Y had written the letter to the first applicant and not directly to Z because he had known the first applicant very well and had trusted him .","As the applicants had no longer felt safe at home , the first applicant had asked CARDINAL of his other clients to shelter him and his family . This client had done so as from DATE and sheltered the applicants in a town near to GPE . Although the first applicant had changed his telephone number , he continued to receive threatening phone calls .","On DATE , whilst travelling for business by car to ORG , the first applicant had a car accident . CARDINAL of the front wheels of his car had broken off , causing the car to roll over twice . His co - driver had been thrown out of the car and the applicant , who had been driving the car , had lost consciousness . The traffic police drew up a report and left . A friend took them and the car back to LOC . When the first applicant reported the accident to the police as requested by the latter , he was told that the accident had been caused by him driving too fast . According to the first applicant this was untrue as he had driven at a normal speed . The first applicant had taken the police report to Z who DATE like the first applicant DATE had found it rather odd and would look into it .","On DATE Z \u2019s wife had called the first applicant and told him that Z had suddenly died of food poisoning . The first applicant had not believed this and suspected murder . Now fearing for his family and himself , he had started to make preparations to leave GPE which he and his family had done on DATE . With the aid of a \u201c travel agent \u201d to whom they had given their identity documents the applicant , his wife and their daughter had travelled first by train to GPE and later by car to the GPE . This travel agent had not returned their identity documents .","The asylum statement of the second applicant , who had also applied for asylum on behalf of the couple \u2019s CARDINAL young children , was based on the asylum statement given by the first applicant . She also stated that her mother and brother were living in GPE . Her father had died in DATE .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of Justice ( ORG ) issued a notice of her intention ( voornemen ) to reject the first applicant \u2019s asylum application . On DATE the Deputy Minister issued the same notice to the second applicant .","NORP The Deputy Minister considered at the outset that the applicants\u2019 failure to substantiate in a sufficient manner their stated identity , nationality and travel itinerary as well as their failure to give a detailed , coherent and verifiable account of their journey to the GPE cast doubt on the sincerity of their asylum claim and detracted from the credibility of their asylum statement . As to the question whether the ORG asylum statement should nevertheless be accepted as positively persuasive ( positieve overtuigingskracht ) , the Deputy Minister found that the events as described by the first applicant were credible , i.e. the receipt of the letter , the threatening telephone calls and having been assaulted once in the stairwell of the building where he used to live . Noting , inter alia , that the name of X had never been mentioned in the phone calls or by the men who had assaulted the first applicant , the Deputy Minister found that it could not be established that these acts were carried out by accomplices of X and in his name . The Deputy Minister further found that the applicants could and should have reported the threatening telephone calls and the assault in the stairwell to the NORP authorities and that it had not been demonstrated that these authorities would be incapable of providing protection .","On DATE , assisted by a lawyer , the applicants submitted written comments ( zienswijze ) on the notice of intent sent to both applicants .","On DATE , in CARDINAL separate decisions and referring to the above notices , the Deputy Minister rejected the applicants\u2019 asylum applications , finding that they had failed to dispel the doubts about the credibility of their asylum statement . The Deputy Minister maintained that the applicants had failed to substantiate their claim that PERSON was corrupt . The fact that government corruption occurred in GPE did not mean that X was personally corrupt as well . The Deputy Minister also maintained that the applicants had failed to establish that X was responsible for the events described by them . These acts could equally have been carried out by accomplices of other powerful men . The Deputy Minister also did not find it demonstrated that the applicants would run a risk of treatment contrary to LAW if they were expelled to GPE .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE sitting in PERSON accepted the applicants\u2019 appeal , quashed the impugned decisions of QUANTITY DATE , and ordered a fresh determination of the applicants\u2019 asylum claim . It accepted the Deputy Minister \u2019s findings in respect of the absence of any identity documents and the failure to give a detailed , coherent and verifiable account of their journey to the GPE , as well as the Deputy Minister \u2019s conclusion that it was not credible that the death of Y and Z and the first applicant \u2019s car accident resulted from intentional acts instructed by PERSON or committed in his name . However , the Deputy Minister had given insufficient reasons for finding that the applicants\u2019 suspicion that there was a connection between X and the threatening telephone calls received by the applicants and the first applicant \u2019s assault in the stairwell lacked positive persuasiveness as both the threats and the assault were connected to the letter which the applicant had received from DATE was not altered by the fact that it did not appear from general sources that X was involved in corruption or other illegal practices , when taking into account X \u2019s interest in keeping the content of the letter written by Y quiet given that \u2013 according to the official report ( ambtsbericht ) on GPE of DATE as compiled by the Minister of ORG ( Minister PERSON ) DATE the great discontent in the NORP population over the widespread poverty in the country and the corruption in government circles had probably worked to the advantage of X who had campaigned with promises of change and of combatting corruption and income inequality .","On DATE , the Minister for Immigration and Asylum ( Minister PERSON ) , the successor to the Deputy Minister of ORG , filed a further appeal with ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) , arguing essentially that it was for the Minister to assess the credibility of the facts submitted by an asylum - seeker and that the courts could only examine that assessment with due reticence ( terughoudend ) . Referring to the ORG \u2019s case law , the Minister submitted that ORG had overstepped its competence . Pursuant to the system of asylum proceedings , in appeal proceedings ORG should only have determined whether the administrative authority concerned ( i.e. the Minister ) had exercised its administrative powers in a reasonable manner and whether this authority could reasonably have taken the impugned decision ( marginale toetsing ) . In this case however , ORG had made its own findings of fact , substituting them for the findings made by the Minister .","On DATE ORG accepted the Minister \u2019s further appeal , quashed the impugned judgment of CARDINAL DATE and rejected the ORG appeal . It held that , instead of examining whether the Minister could not reasonably have reached the conclusions as to the credibility of the applicants\u2019 asylum statement , ORG had wrongly drawn its own separate conclusions in relation to various parts of the asylum statement . It therefore quashed the judgment of ORG and substituted it with its own decision on the appeal , holding that the Minister could reasonably have concluded that the applicants\u2019 stories lacked positive persuasiveness . Accordingly , the applicants had not established that their removal to GPE would expose them to a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment in violation of LAW . No further appeal lay against this decision .","On DATE the Government informed the ORG that the Departure and Repatriation Service ( PERSON ) of ORG and ORG ( PERSON Justitie ) were taking action for the applicants\u2019 removal to GPE by presenting them to the NORP authorities .","On DATE the President of the Section decided , under Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( c ) of ORG , that the Government should be invited to submit further observations dealing specifically with aspects of the applicants\u2019 effective removal to GPE .","In their reply of CARDINAL DATE , the Government informed the ORG that the removal of rejected asylum - seekers to GPE is only possible when they hold a valid travel document . The Government further stated that they had applied for a laissez - passer on behalf of the applicants at ORG where the applicants had been presented in person in DATE . The applications had been taken into consideration by the authorities of GPE . The GPE authorities are still awaiting the response and have been sending reminders to ORG once or DATE , the most recent one having been sent on DATE .","In their reply of CARDINAL DATE , the applicants confirmed that they had been presented to the NORP authorities . They further stated that their nationality had been officially confirmed and that the request for a travel document ( laissez - passer ) was still pending . They could and would be removed to GPE as soon as these documents were issued .","NORP The relevant domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings and enforcement of removals are set out in PERSON v. the GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162614","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MURRAY v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 34 - Locus standi;Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Corneliu B\u00eersan;Dean Spielmann;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Jean-Paul Costa;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE on the island of GPE . In DATE , while serving a sentence of life imprisonment in a prison in GPE , he was diagnosed with terminal cancer . In DATE he was transferred from the prison to a nursing home in LOC . On DATE he was granted a pardon ( gratie ) entailing his immediate release . He returned to GPE , where he passed away on DATE .","At the time the applicant was convicted and sentenced , GPE consisted of the GPE ( the Realm in LOC ) and GPE ( consisting of the islands GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , PERSON and GPE ) . On GPE , the Head of State of GPE , at that time ) was represented by a Governor . In DATE GPE became an autonomous \u201c country \u201d ( land ) within the GPE , having its own Governor . From DATE GPE ceased to exist other than as a collective name for the CARDINAL islands in LOC belonging to GPE . GPE currently consists of CARDINAL autonomous countries : the GPE ( i.e. the Realm in LOC ) , GPE , GPE and PERSON , whereas GPE , PERSON and GPE are special municipalities of the GPE . Each of the CARDINAL island countries ( GPE , GPE and PERSON ) has a Governor .","The countries of the GPE have their own legal systems , which may differ from each other .","The Joint Court of Justice of GPE , which imposed the life sentence on the applicant in DATE , became ORG of GPE and GPE in DATE , and is currently called ORG of GPE , GPE , PERSON and of GPE , PERSON and GPE . For ease of reference it will hereafter generally be referred to as \u201c ORG of Justice \u201d .","NORP On DATE ORG ( PERSON in PERSON ) of GPE found the applicant guilty of the murder of a DATE girl on the island of LOC . The judgment of ORG included a summary of a psychiatric report that had been drawn up at the request of the public prosecutor ( PERSON ) . The conclusion reached by the psychiatrist was summarised as follows in the judgment ( the conclusion and advice contained in the psychiatrist \u2019s report are set out in full in paragraph CARDINAL below ) :","\u201c ... That the defendant suffers from a pathological disturbance , in particular a very limited development of his mental faculties ... Considering this , the defendant should be regarded as having diminished criminal responsibility ( verminderd toerekeningsvatbaar ) , but nevertheless should mainly be held criminally liable for his actions . It is noted in particular that the defendant can not be considered to have been mentally insane before , during or after the commission of the crime ... Even though the defendant is capable of committing a similar offence in the future , it is not necessary to commit him to a regular mental hospital ( krankzinnigengesticht ) , but instead he should be placed in a custodial clinic for psychopaths ( psychopatenasiel ) to undergo a rather lengthy treatment under very strict surveillance . In GPE there is a choice only between prison and the national ( regular ) mental hospital ( PERSON ) . Taking into consideration that the risk of recidivism is for the time being very high , even if treatment would possibly start immediately , and that , consequently , intensive surveillance is of primordial importance ( such surveillance being impossible in the national mental hospital ) , and the fact that the defendant is not to be considered criminally insane within the meaning of the law , admission to the national mental hospital is wholly contra - indicated . The sole option remaining is for him to undergo his punishment in prison ( transfer to a custodial clinic in the GPE is impossible on account of the defendant \u2019s limited intelligence and insufficient ability to express himself verbally ) . It is strongly advised that , where possible in the prison setting , an attempt should be made to attain a stronger personality structure in the defendant in order to avoid recidivism in the future . \u201d","The First Instance Court considered that a life sentence , the imposition of which had been sought by ORG , would only be condign punishment if it was established from the outset that the applicant \u2019s condition was not amenable to improvement . As the court found that this could not be deduced from the psychiatrist \u2019s report , it sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment .","Both the applicant and ORG ( Openbaar Ministerie ) submitted an appeal against the judgment of ORG .","On DATE ORG of Justice of GPE quashed the judgment of ORG . It convicted the applicant of murder , finding it proven that he had deliberately and with premeditation taken the life of the DATE girl . It held that he had conceived the intention and taken the decision to kill her after calm consideration and quiet deliberation , and in order to execute that intention , had stabbed her repeatedly with a knife , as a result of which she had died . The applicant had killed the child , who was the niece of an ex - girlfriend , in revenge for the latter \u2019s ending of their relationship . ORG of Justice sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment . In this connection it cited part of the psychiatrist \u2019s report as summarised in the judgment of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and furthermore held , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c Considering that in view of the findings of the psychiatrist , which the court accepts and adopts as its own , and in particular the fact that the risk of recidivism is very significant , the interest of society in being protected against any such recidivism should , in the opinion of the court , carry the most weight , having regard to the personality of the accused ;","Considering that \u2212 however regrettable \u2212 there is no possibility in GPE for the imposition of a ORG order ( terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege ) for confinement in a custodial clinic , which would be the most appropriate measure in this case ; that placement in a custodial clinic in the GPE in similar cases has in the past proved impracticable \u2013 as is known to the court ex officio DATE and is in the present case moreover considered impossible by the psychiatrist due to the accused \u2019s limited intelligence and insufficient ability to express himself verbally ;","Considering that in the present case there is no way in which the aforementioned preponderant interest can adequately be protected in these lands other than through the imposition of a penalty which will prevent the accused \u2019s return to society , and thus that only a sentence of life imprisonment qualifies as suitable ;","Considering that the court is aware that this sentence does not \u2013 in principle \u2013 provide the accused with any prospect of DATE returning to society as a free man , a fact which will presumably make this sentence heavier to bear for the accused than a temporary sentence of imprisonment , but which in the court \u2019s opinion should not lead to the aforementioned interests , which , as set out above , should carry the most weight , being sacrificed ;","...","... sentences the accused to imprisonment for life ;","... \u201d","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal in cassation against the judgment of ORG .","On DATE the applicant filed a request for revision with ORG of Justice which was rejected on DATE .","The applicant served DATE of his sentence in the PERSON prison ( which was subsequently renamed ORG and is currently called GPE di ORG or ORG ) in GPE . This prison has , since DATE , accommodated a special unit for prisoners showing signs of mental illness or serious behavioural disorders , the so - called ORG and ORG ( ORG Begeleidings DATE \u201c FOBA \u201d ) . The FOBA comprises CARDINAL separate sections , CARDINAL for observation and CARDINAL for treatment . Although the applicant submitted that he had spent some time in the observation section , the Government stated during the hearing before FAC on DATE that while he was detained in GPE the applicant had not been placed in either unit .","The applicant \u2019s first DATE in prison were marked by incidents : fights , extortion , drug abuse , etc . , some of which led to periods spent in solitary confinement .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d \u2013 also referred to as FAC or \u201c ORG \u201d ) in GPE , having repeatedly requested such a transfer from DATE , in order to be closer to his family . At the same time the responsibility for the execution of the applicant \u2019s sentence was transferred from the authorities of GPE to those of GPE . By agreement of DATE the Minister of ORG of GPE , however , made the transfer conditional , stipulating that any measure ( e.g. pardon , reduction of sentence , temporary leave ) involving the applicant \u2019s release from prison would be subject to the consent of ORG .","In the course of his incarceration the applicant unsuccessfully petitioned for a pardon on a considerable number of occasions ; the exact number can not be ascertained since the files are no longer complete owing to the lapse of time . From the information and documents contained in the ORG \u2019s case file , the following events can be established .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested that the Minister of ORG of ORG review his life sentence and give him some kind of relief . He submitted that the prison where he was being detained offered no educational or vocational programme capable of benefitting his personal and mental development , whereas the frustration and disappointment of being isolated and neglected was creating mental anguish that would surely drive him to the brink of mental illness . This request was rejected by the Governor of GPE on CARDINAL DATE for the reason that there were no grounds on which to grant it .","A request lodged on an unknown date was rejected on CARDINAL DATE . It appears that the applicant also lodged requests on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE but no further information has been provided about them .","NORP The case file contains a number of documents ( hereinafter called \u201c consultation sheets \u201d ) on which each of the CARDINAL judges , who were consulted before ORG issued its advice to the Governor on a particular application for pardon , could write their opinion about that application . CARDINAL of the judges consulted about the applicant \u2019s request for a pardon of DATE wrote as follows in DATE :","\u201c ... It can be deduced from the psychiatric report in the file that the risk of recidivism was deemed great . The psychiatrist considered that treatment of the petitioner in prison was indicated , but nothing has of course come of this . I still find that it would be irresponsible to grant a pardon to the petitioner , who has in the meantime reached DATE . ... \u201d","A second judge wrote on the consultation sheet that he agreed with his colleague , and that a new psychiatric report might be requested , which could also be important for the future in order to be able to monitor the applicant \u2019s development and in due course perhaps advise positively on a request for a pardon .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of Justice advised the Governor not to grant a pardon , writing , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c ... It appears from the psychiatric report in the file that the petitioner has very inadequately developed mental faculties ... In said psychiatric report it is concluded that the petitioner is certainly capable of committing the same offence or of disrupting public order in a different way . The court notes that the petitioner has not undergone any ( psychiatric ) treatment in prison aimed at strengthening his personality structure in order to prevent him reoffending in the future .","As the crime committed by the petitioner shocked the legal order so profoundly , the granting of a pardon would not be understood by the community , not even after such a long time .","Having regard to the foregoing the court is of the view that for the time being it would be irresponsible to pardon the now CARDINAL-year - old petitioner .","ORG has attempted , so far in vain , to bring about the petitioner \u2019s transfer to the ORG in GPE , in accordance with his wishes , in view of the fact that he has relatives living there . This wish of the petitioner ought now to be acted upon . The court therefore supports this reasonable desire of the petitioner . \u201d","The request for a pardon was refused on DATE .","On DATE the Acting Governor of ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request of ( probably ) DATE to reduce his sentence by means of a pardon , considering that no facts or circumstances justifying such a course of action had either been adduced or become apparent .","On DATE the Advocate General of GPE wrote , in so far as relevant , as follows to ORG in relation to the applicant \u2019s request for a pardon lodged on DATE :","\u201c ... The opinion of ORG is unchanged . Prior to committing the offence at issue the suspect [ sic ] had been convicted of raping a young girl and sentenced to imprisonment . That sentence did not have a preventative effect on the petitioner . The petitioner was extensively examined in relation to the offence at issue and the extensive report explicitly mentions the risk of recidivism . It does not appear that the circumstances have changed .","... The granting of a pardon on humanitarian grounds will , even if such reasons can be said to exist ( quod non ) , not be understood by society nor , in my view , be accepted . Humanitarian grounds may be said to have been the basis for the transfer to the ORG . As far as I am concerned that is sufficient . \u201d","CARDINAL of the judges of ORG , while subscribing to the negative advice given by ORG , wrote on the consultation sheet :","\u201c At some point in time a moment will however arrive when mercy comes before law . That moment has not been reached yet , but it may do in DATE . \u201d","ORG advised that the applicant \u2019s request be refused on the grounds indicated in the advice of ORG of DATE .","The Procurator General , in a letter to ORG of Justice of CARDINAL DATE , recommended that that court issue negative advice on the application for a pardon lodged by the applicant on DATE . He wrote , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c ... Having regard to the content of his request for a pardon together with the interview with him that was recently broadcast on television , the petitioner obviously still does not , in my opinion , realise the gravity of the diabolical act committed by him on DATE . ...","In the interview ... PERSON also had the nerve to play down his heinous crime by saying that others who had already been released had committed more serious offences . ...","The petitioner has never DATE either at the trial , on the delivery of the verdict , or in the aforementioned interview \u2013 shown remorse . ...","PERSON claims that he has behaved like a model prisoner in the course of DATE . Nothing could be further from the truth ; in any event , not as regards the period of detention spent in prison here [ i.e. in GPE ] . During DATE the petitioner has misbehaved numerous times , inter alia by issuing threats , committing thefts , fighting with fellow inmates , committing indecent acts with third parties , and attempting to poison a fellow inmate . ...","Although he may lately have displayed good behaviour , this does not detract from the fact that the consequences of his demonic deed can never be redressed , while it has appeared , also in view of the recent reactions in our community , that society remains deeply shocked . Our society can not afford to take any risks with such a murderous psychopath . In order for our community \u2019s interests to be adequately protected , the return of the petitioner to that community is to be prevented . In my opinion it can not be excluded that this solidly built CARDINAL-year - old man , with his serious criminal behaviour ... , and currently in the prime of his life , will once again reoffend .","The above - mentioned interview as well as the fact that he ( even though he is entitled to do so ) has once again seen fit to lodge a request for a pardon for the umpteenth time has caused great commotion in our society . Anxious civilians , also including relatives of the victim , have fiercely protested in the media against a possible pardon . ...","The opinion , voiced occasionally , that a life sentence in practice boils down to a sentence of DATE is not based on LAW and does not find support in law either . The NORP legislator has also never intended for this to be the case . ... \u201d","The request for a pardon was rejected by the Governor on DATE for the reason that no facts or circumstances justifying a pardon had either been adduced or become apparent .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG advised the Governor to reject a request for a pardon lodged by the applicant as there was no appearance of any circumstance which the trial court had failed or had been unable to take ( sufficiently ) into account at the time of its decision and which , had the court been sufficiently aware of it , would have caused it to impose a different sentence or to refrain from imposing any sentence . Neither had it become plausible that the execution of the trial court \u2019s decision or its continuation did not reasonably serve any of the aims pursued through the application of the criminal law .","The petition for pardon to which this advice of ORG of ORG related was rejected by the Governor , on the grounds set out in that advice , on DATE .","In DATE the CARDINAL judges consulted about a request for a pardon submitted by the applicant on DATE wrote on the consultation sheet , respectively , \u201c no grounds present \u201d , \u201c reject \u201d and \u201c reject \u201d .","On DATE the applicant requested a pardon in view of his deteriorating health . The head of the social work department of the prison in GPE advised that a pardon be granted , as this would allow the applicant to die in a dignified manner in the presence of his family . By a decision of DATE the Governor of GPE acceded to this request and granted the applicant a pardon ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) , entailing the remission of his prison sentence , as in the circumstances the further execution of that sentence was no longer deemed to serve a useful purpose .","On DATE ORG , having submitted the applicant \u2019s life sentence to the periodic review prescribed by Article TIME of LAW , which had entered into force on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , decided that the applicant \u2019s custodial sentence still served a reasonable purpose after DATE .","The decision of ORG of Justice firstly sets out the proceedings which took place before that court : hearings had taken place on DATE and DATE , at which the applicant , who was represented by counsel , was heard . A member of staff of the prison in GPE was also heard , as were the psychologist PERSON , the psychiatrist PERSON and relatives of the victim and their representative . The decision cites relevant parts of the sentencing court \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE and summarises the findings contained in the reports drawn up about the applicant for the purpose of the periodic review ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . A section entitled \u201c The position of the relatives of the victim \u201d reads as follows :","\u201c The relatives indicated at the hearing that they did not agree with a possible release of the convicted person . They stated that news of a possible release had reopened old wounds , that they were experiencing the psychological consequences of this , and that they were afraid of the convicted person . He has threatened them in the past and they have not observed any feelings of remorse or regret in him .","The relatives\u2019 representative submitted that the risk of recidivism was unacceptable for them .","In a report drawn up by ORG for Probation and ORG of CARDINAL DATE the Rapporteur addresses the position of the relatives . The ORG notes in the first place that the relatives have so far barely been provided with psychological help or with support in coming to terms with their bereavement . He concludes that the victim \u2019s mother still appears to struggle with issues she has not dealt with and about which she barely speaks , and that the father requires professional help in order to cope with his feelings . The relatives have told the Rapporteur that they feel insecure at the mere thought of the convicted person being released . They have further indicated that ever since the arrest of the convicted person and until the present time they have been \u2018 living in a prison\u2019 and that this has also had adverse repercussions on their other children . ORG concludes that a possible conditional release of the convicted person would at this stage have far - reaching psychological consequences for the relatives . \u201d","The decision goes on to observe that , in the acting Procurator General \u2019s submission , there was not a single objective indication from which it could be inferred that the risk of the applicant \u2019s committing an offence had disappeared or diminished , that an early release would seriously shock the surviving relatives , and that it would also shock society to such an extent that this would hinder the applicant \u2019s possible reintegration . After describing the position put forward on behalf of the applicant , ORG then came to its assessment , which , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c ...","CARDINAL NORP The convicted person \u2019s deprivation of liberty has at present lasted considerably more than twenty years , namely QUANTITY years . The court must therefore assess whether the further unconditional execution of the life sentence no longer serves a reasonable purpose .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL It follows from the reasons given by the [ sentencing ] court for the imposition of the life sentence ... that the aim of this sentence was to protect society against recidivism by the convicted person . The risk of recidivism was deemed by the [ sentencing ] court to be particularly high , while treatment was not considered possible .","CARDINAL LOC court will therefore first and foremost have to assess to what extent the risk of recidivism existing at the time is still present DATE . In this connection it is firstly to be noted that at the time that risk was deemed to be particularly high in view of the personality of the convicted person , and that since then no treatment in any shape or form has taken place .","CARDINAL NORP After the court had commissioned CARDINAL experts at its hearing of CARDINAL DATE , psychologist PERSON and psychiatrist PERSON reported on the convicted person \u2019s personality and the risk of recidivism . Unlike the defence , the court is of the view that both the examination carried out and the report drawn up by the psychologist are of adequate quality and expertise . ...","CARDINAL It appears from the ... findings of both experts that the convicted person is still suffering from a disorder , namely an antisocial personality disorder . The court deduces from the findings that this disorder has a negative bearing on the risk of recidivism and hampers possible reintegration into society . The court further considers that the nature of the offence committed by the convicted person \u2013 the killing of a DATE girl for the sole purpose of hurting her aunt , his former girlfriend DATE is bizarre and , as was concluded at the time , must be attributed to the psychopathically disturbed personality of the convicted person . The court notes that important aspects of that disturbed personality , such as the antisocial personality , the limited development of his conscience and the lack of empathy , are currently still present . No treatment has taken place during the period of detention . It is furthermore not the case , as would be customary within the framework of treatment , that the circumstances which led him to his deed have been discussed with him so that he might subsequently have acquired an insight into how to avoid or defy such circumstances . In the case of the convicted person it would have been expected that in the course of such discussions his relationship with women and the question of dealing with rejection would have been addressed . As already mentioned , no such discussions or treatment have taken place . Also , at the hearing the convicted person did not demonstrate that he was capable of holding himself to account for the seriousness and absurdity of the murder or of understanding how he was able to commit it .","CARDINAL NORP The foregoing leads the court to conclude that the risk of the convicted person \u2019s reoffending if he were released is such that the protection of society should prevail . This is not altered by the fact that the convicted person has been functioning well and without problems in prison in DATE . After all , and just as the experts have pointed out , prison life is very structured and circumstances such as those under which the convicted person committed his crime are absent there . Such circumstances may occur outside the prison and \u2013 having regard to the aforementioned personality and the fact that no treatment has taken place \u2013 the court considers the risk of the convicted person \u2019s reoffending if confronted with such circumstances to be too great .","CARDINAL LOC court further takes the position of the victim \u2019s relatives into account . It has been sufficiently established that conditional release would at the present time entail adverse psychological consequences for them . The court observes in this connection that over DATE the relatives have also not been provided with adequate support to help them come to terms with their grief or , if necessary , with treatment for their psychological problems . It is therefore easily understandable that they are very shocked now that the possibility of the convicted person \u2019s conditional release is being considered for the first time . In this context the court attaches relevance to the fact that after he committed his crime the convicted person threatened to harm the relatives and in this way contributed to their sense of insecurity . The convicted person has not demonstrated that he has any insight into the consequences of his deed or his subsequent actions .","CARDINAL On the basis of the foregoing , the court is of the opinion that the continued execution of the life sentence still serves a reasonable purpose . The court will accordingly not proceed to order the conditional release of the convicted person .","CARDINAL Having regard to the foregoing the court also perceives no cause to adjourn its examination pending further investigations , as requested by the defence as an alternative course of action .","CARDINAL NORP The court adds that it is aware of the fact that its considerations as set out under points CARDINAL and CARDINAL would appear to offer little prospect of release in the future , as this would imperatively require that in DATE some form of treatment should take place in which , in any event , aspects such as crime analysis , relationships and rejection would need to be addressed . Perhaps such treatment can be organised in some way in the [ prison in GPE ] . The court further considers that the position of the relatives may also be different at the time of a subsequent review if they continue to receive the necessary support in dealing with their feelings of mourning , anger and fear .","CARDINAL NORP The court finally notes that it has also had regard to the commotion which the possibility of a conditional release has caused in society and which has appeared from the submitted newspaper articles and the considerable public interest . A large part of the community perhaps thinks that the perpetrator of a crime such as the murder of [ the victim ] should never be allowed to regain his liberty . In the court \u2019s examination this has not , however , played a decisive role . After all , society \u2019s need for retribution should be considered to have been sufficiently assuaged after a period of detention of CARDINAL three years . As noted above , the aim of the continuation of that sentence is currently no longer retribution but the protection of society against possible recidivism .","The decision","The court :","does not proceed to order the convicted person \u2019s DATE conditional \u2013 release . \u201d","In the course of the criminal proceedings against him and at the request of the public prosecutor , the applicant was examined by psychiatrist J.N.S. in order to assess whether he could be held criminally responsible for the offence with which he was charged . The psychiatrist produced a CARDINAL report on DATE . ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE includes a summary of the conclusion and advice contained in that report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The conclusion and advice as set out in the psychiatrist \u2019s report , reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c Conclusion : In view of the above the Rapporteur reaches the following structure diagnosis : Serious criminal behaviour in the shape of a murder committed as a result of a primitive and primary outburst of emotions , by a retarded , infantile and narcissistic young man whose character structure has a serious disturbance of a psychopathiform nature .","Advice : The Rapporteur should wish to present his advice on the basis of the following questions :","Is the accused suffering from a pathological disturbance and\/or an inadequate development of his mental faculties ?","Reply : Yes , he certainly is , and in particular from a very inadequate development of his mental faculties .","NORP Was this disturbance and\/or inadequacy already present at the time of the offences with which he is charged ?","Reply : The inadequate development in particular has been present all his life , and therefore also at the time of the offences with which he is charged , although it may be said that everything had accelerated rapidly at that time .","If so , was this the case to such an extent that the accused , were he to be found guilty of the offences , should generally be considered , in the current state of ORG society , as not responsible for them or only to a greater or lesser extent ?","Reply : The Rapporteur would wish to conclude that the accused , having regard to the replies under CARDINAL . and CARDINAL . , should be considered as having diminished criminal responsibility , but he nevertheless still considers that the accused is for the most part responsible for the acts , if they are found proven , which he has committed . The Rapporteur should especially wish to conclude that he would not call the accused insane , either before , during or after the offence ; ... the accused has never withdrawn into a bizarre and mad world of his own but has always lived in a primitive , primary sensory world and he has succeeded , whenever his existence was not under stress , to participate in society to a reasonable extent .","At the time of the offences , did he have the insight to realise that committing them was morally reprehensible and would not be tolerated by society ?","Reply : According to the Rapporteur he must have had such insight , but he subsequently completely suppressed and replaced it by a fantasy in view of the threat of destruction of his own personality structure .","If he did have such insight , would he have been capable of determining his will and his actions accordingly ?","Reply : See the reply to question CARDINAL . Also partly because of that , the Rapporteur has reached a conclusion of diminished criminal responsibility .","Can it be expected that the accused might commit the same offence again or disrupt public order in a different manner ?","Reply : Having regard to what has been written and concluded above , the accused is certainly capable of committing a similar act or of causing a different disruption of public order .","Does his mental state require that the accused be committed to a lunatic asylum ?","Reply : In view of the reply to question CARDINAL it may be said that this is not necessary .","What practical guidelines can you give and\/or what proposals that are feasible in DATE society can you make in order to improve or bring about a recovery and\/or a better development of the accused ?","Reply : In view of the replies under CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL my advice would be that the accused should be committed to a mental asylum where , certainly , during a fairly long period institutional treatment under very strict surveillance ought to take place . On GPE we have the choice only between prison and the national psychiatric hospital . Taking into consideration that for the time being the risk of recidivism is very great , even if treatment were to be commenced immediately , and that intensive surveillance is consequently of primordial importance ( such surveillance being impossible in the national psychiatric hospital ! ) as well as the fact that the accused is not to be considered insane within the meaning of the law , admission to the national psychiatric hospital is wholly contra - indicated . The sole option remaining is for the accused , should he be found guilty of the offences with which he has been charged , to undergo his sentence in prison ( a transfer to , for example , a mental asylum in the GPE is in my opinion not possible because of the accused \u2019s limited intelligence and insufficient ability to express himself verbally ) . The Rapporteur strongly advises that , if possible , attempts should be made in the prison setting to attain a stronger personality structure in order to avoid recidivism in the future . \u201d","On DATE psychiatrist PERSON wrote to the PERSON General in relation to the applicant \u2019s wish to be transferred to GPE . She stated that the applicant had been placed under psychiatric observation upon his arrival in the remand centre in GPE and that good contact of a therapeutic nature had been established with a view to his rehabilitation . The psychiatrist expressed her opinion that from a psychological point of view a transfer to GPE would benefit the applicant \u2019s rehabilitation .","NORP This psychiatric report was drawn up by PERSON at the request of ORG in relation to the applicant \u2019s request to be transferred to GPE . The psychiatrist found that the applicant was not suffering from any psychosis , depression or anxiety , but that he did have a serious narcissistic personality disorder . He concluded that there was no psychiatric reason why the applicant could not be transferred to GPE , and that , psychologically , such a transfer would probably be favourable for the applicant as his family was living there .","In anticipation of the periodic review of life sentences to be introduced in FAC , the Procurator General , in a letter of DATE , requested a psychiatric examination of the applicant .","On DATE psychologist J.S.M. stated as follows :","\u201c ... the results of the test show that [ the applicant ] is suffering from symptoms of depression . He pents up his emotions and anger and hides them from those around him . ... [ The applicant ] has little trust in other people . In his opinion people use and abuse each other in order to achieve their goals . That is why he is very distrustful of the people he encounters and displays antisocial behaviour . ... He is extremely sensitive to criticism and rejection .","...","[ The applicant ] has been detained for a very long time , and as a result his feeling of well - being has deteriorated . His social skills have similarly deteriorated and he has given up hope of his situation undergoing any change , which has resulted in [ the applicant ] having to cope with very negative and depressive feelings about himself and others .","[ The applicant ] requires support as regards his bottled - up negative and depressive feelings and in order to improve his general well - being .","My advice as regards a pardon is not to give [ the applicant ] false hope and to be clear about the aspects of his case .","If a pardon is applicable , it is recommended that [ the applicant ] follow a rehabilitation and social skills programme and that he be provided with support both inside and outside the ORG in order to promote his independence and functioning in society . \u201d","On DATE ORG and ORG ( PERSON en GPE ) issued a report , in which it was noted that the applicant could live with his mother on GPE and could work in an upholstery shop . The person who drew up the report found it difficult to estimate the risk of recidivism , but considered that with appropriate support following release his prospects of successfully integrating in society were good .","At the request of ORG of Justice CARDINAL reports were issued .","The first of these reports , which was issued by the ORG on CARDINAL DATE , included the following :","\u201c [ The applicant ] is a calm , quiet man of DATE who has never been given a disciplinary punishment during his detention . ... He carries out his duties adequately and to the satisfaction of prison staff . In principle he works alone , but is occasionally willing to train other inmates in upholstery work . ... He is always polite and respectful towards prison staff ; none of them have complaints about him . He rarely has any contact with the social worker and if he does , he always asks the same questions . It is as if he forgets matters which have already been discussed . \u201d","The second report was drawn up on DATE by psychiatrist PERSON , who concluded as follows :","\u201c The personality test showed that the subject has an antisocial personality disorder with mild psychopathic features . There are also signs of narcissistic features . The character structure is rigid , but is not strongly displayed , perhaps because of his age . The risk that he will reoffend or get into trouble in some other way upon return to society is considered to be present ( moderate risk in comparison with the forensic population ) . ... In general the subject can be described as having an antisocial personality whose more unpleasant manifestations have been mitigated . ... It is reasonably certain that his personality will not change . Personality is formed up to DATE , after which only small changes take place . The examination shows that the subject \u2019s personality profile is fairly rigid . He will therefore always be a fairly unpleasant person in his relations with others and will always have difficulty in establishing and maintaining social contacts . Given his personality , I estimate the chances of successful integration in society to be small . \u201d","The third report requested by ORG was compiled by psychiatrist PERSON on DATE , in which the following was concluded :","\u201c The subject is , however , suffering from a severe antisocial personality disorder , characterised by a highly undifferentiated , fairly primitive emotional awareness , an underdeveloped conscience , rudimentary social skills , a lack of empathy . ... Although the subject displayed problematic and aggressive behaviour during DATE of his detention , even including an attempt at poisoning , he has practically been a model prisoner over DATE . ... This change in behaviour is largely attributable to the structure provided by the prison setting and the fact that he is much older now ( CARDINAL ) and is likely to become more and more moderate as the years go by . ... [ ORG to the risk of recidivism : I am in CARDINAL minds . Whereas the subject is almost a model prisoner , his character traits have not in essence changed . He continues to be a person with a serious disability . It remains in doubt how he will react and to what extent he can survive once the structure offered by the prison is no longer in place . \u201d","Following up the decision of CARDINAL DATE given by ORG , ORG in GPE concluded that more structured contact with a psychiatrist would be desirable . For this reason , the Procurator General of ORG asked his counterpart in GPE to ensure that the applicant received regular visits from a psychiatrist who would counsel him on the basis of a treatment plan , in so far as this could be done within the constraints of the enforcement of his life sentence .","A document entitled \u201c ORG \u201d was drawn up by the GPE prison \u2019s psychologist J.S.M. ( who had reported on the applicant for the purposes of the periodic review ; see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on DATE , apparently at the request of the applicant \u2019s representative . The psychologist stated that she had conducted a psychological test and an interview with the applicant , at a time ( DATE ) when she had only been working at the prison for DATE . She had no knowledge of what had been offered to the applicant prior to that . The short time during which she had had experience of the applicant was insufficient for her to produce a support plan or to execute such a plan .","A second document entitled \u201c Psychological Report \u201d was drawn up by the same psychologist on DATE , at the request of the Government . Apart from CARDINAL sentence , this report is identical to the report of DATE . The sentence in question states that , after consulting the applicant \u2019s medical file , the psychologist declared that no psychological or psychiatric treatment of the applicant had taken place .","In an email of DATE to the applicant \u2019s representative , the senior social worker in the GPE prison stated that there was nothing in the prison \u2019s medical file on the applicant , who had been transferred to GPE in DATE , to suggest that he had undergone any treatment by a psychiatrist or a psychologist . The ORG had employed a psychologist in DATE but she had not treated or supported the applicant . The applicant had visited the social work department of the prison with some regularity in order to talk or to organise practical matters ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140021","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PER\u0130HAN AND MEZOPOTAMYA BASIN YAYIN A.\u015e. v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant is a joint - stock company incorporated in GPE in DATE and dissolved in DATE ( see below ) . The first applicant was appointed as Director General of ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG inaugurated a branch office in GPE . On DATE , police officers from ORG conducted a search of that office , confiscating certain newspapers , magazines , books , cassettes and documents , which were allegedly illegal .","On DATE the Deputy Governor of ORG requested ORG to institute proceedings against ORG with a view to its dissolution .","On DATE the public prosecutor instituted proceedings against Mr PERSON , the manager of the ORG branch office , and Ms ORG , the then Director General of ORG . They were accused of storing banned books at the branch office .","On DATE the ORG Magistrate \u2019s Court held that the criminal proceedings should be discontinued since the prosecution was time - barred under LAW .","On CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , the ORG office of ORG was searched by police officers . Various books and publications , including a calendar published by ORG , were confiscated .","On DATE the ORG office was closed on the order of the ORG Governor .","On DATE the ORG Governor requested ORG to institute proceedings against ORG with a view to its dissolution under the relevant provisions of LAW .","On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were instituted in ORG against members of ORG board of directors for publishing a calendar which was allegedly used to disseminate propaganda in favour of the illegal ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings , pursuant to LAW . DATE on the suspension of pending cases and penalties in media - related offences .","On DATE the GPE office of ORG was searched by police officers . Certain publications , which were allegedly illegal , and a satellite decoder were seized .","On DATE the GPE Governor asked ORG to institute dissolution proceedings against ORG , alleging that the company had been disseminating propaganda in favour of the ORG .","On an unspecified date , criminal proceedings were instituted in FAC against ORG , the manager of the GPE branch .","On DATE the court acquitted PERSON of the charges against her .","Following complaints lodged by the ORG Governor and the ORG Governor respectively , on DATE ORG ( \u201c the plaintiff \u201d ) instituted proceedings against ORG in ORG , with a view to its dissolution on account of its activities against public order . On DATE ORG registered the case against ORG . It decided , inter alia , to notify the parties of the date of the hearing fixed for CARDINAL DATE , in accordance with ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , which provided a warning that if CARDINAL of the parties failed to appear before it or to submit observations , the court would not be precluded from determining the merits of the case . It further decided to notify ORG of the plaintiff \u2019s written submissions and evidence .","On DATE the above documents were served on ORG , as recorded in ORG . They were picked up by a certain PERSON , who signed the notification record as an authorised representative ( \u015firket yetkilisi ) .","In the meantime , the plaintiff submitted a number of pieces of evidence to the case file in support of its claim , including official documents , such as incident and seizure reports relating to the abovementioned searches . They were admitted to the case file on DATE .","At a hearing on DATE the court noted the absence of ORG , but observed that the notification had been duly served . The evidence provided by the plaintiff was read out . The court decided to compile further information and documents regarding the accusations against ORG from the LOC , GPE and ORG public ORG offices .","NORP The court held regular hearings . At the hearing held on DATE the court decided to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of the cases before the criminal courts .","On DATE the court decided to dissolve ORG , pursuant to LAW . In its decision , it noted that , despite due notification , the company had failed to attend the hearings and had not submitted any observations . It took into account the incidents which had taken place at the LOC and ORG branch offices , and held that the company was responsible for them . It considered that the activities of those branches had breached public order and that therefore the company had to be dissolved . A liquidator was assigned . The decision of the court was served on ORG , as recorded in ORG .","On DATE ORG appealed against the decision of the first - instance court . In its procedural grounds of appeal , it contended , inter alia , that the court had failed to duly notify it of the case because the notification had been served on a certain PERSON , who was not a member of the board of directors at that time . In addition , ORG argued that it had not been notified of the evidence admitted in the course of the proceedings . In its substantive grounds of appeal , it claimed that the court had decided on the basis of CARDINAL incidents in connection with which the company had not been convicted .","At a hearing on DATE ORG , having heard the parties , decided to adjourn the deliberations .","On DATE ORG , having examined the case file , the parties\u2019 submissions to it and the documents contained therein , dismissed ORG objections .","On DATE ORG requested ORG to rectify its judgment . It repeated its earlier submissions regarding what it described as \u201c substantial grounds for appeal \u201d .","On DATE ORG dismissed the abovementioned rectification request ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160746","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"KAIYAM AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Guido Raimondi;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","Mr PERSON was convicted of robbery and drugs offences . He was sentenced on DATE to a combination of determinate and indeterminate sentences , with the lead sentence ( for the robbery ) being CARDINAL of imprisonment for the public protection ( \u201c IPP \u201d ) with a minimum term ( \u201c tariff \u201d ) of DATE .","NORP In DATE he was assessed as unsuitable for the Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage it ( \u201c CALM \u201d ) course and anger management was made a sentence - planning target .","NORP In DATE he was transferred to ORG and in DATE he commenced the DATE Enhanced Thinking Skills ( \u201c ETS \u201d ) course . He completed the course in DATE . He was assessed as having made some progress on the course , but there was doubt about his ability to carry the lessons into practice and about his honesty , self - control in prison and drug use .","Meanwhile , in DATE he was reduced from a Category B prisoner to the lower - risk Category C. He also completed a drug awareness course in DATE and a victim awareness course in DATE .","Following his reclassification as a category C prisoner , Mr PERSON was disciplined on CARDINAL occasions for offences including disobedience , assault , drug offences and the possession of mobile telephone parts . In DATE , he was reclassified as a category B prisoner .","On DATE ORG reviewed his case . It noted that although he had begun to address his offending behaviour he still had much work to do . The decision also noted that he had previously been referred for the CALM course but that the assessment indicated that it was not suitable for him because his offending was not emotionally driven . However , some anger management work was nonetheless required .","NORP In DATE Mr ORG \u2019s tariff expired .","In DATE , he commenced DATE anger management consultations with his offender manager .","NORP In DATE , as a result of his previous misbehaviour in custody , he was transferred to a high security prison at ORG , where the priority was security and rehabilitative courses were comparatively few . During his time at ORG , he continued the CARDINAL - to - CARDINAL anger management consultations until DATE . His behaviour underwent a significant improvement .","Meanwhile , regular sentence - planning meetings took place . In DATE the meeting concluded that he should be referred once again for the CALM course , notwithstanding the previous negative assessment , and that he should be assessed for FOCUS , a high - intensity drug abuse programme . By DATE a decision had been taken not to refer him for CALM and he had yet to be assessed for FOCUS . A referral was sent to the substance abuse team on DATE .","On DATE ORG again reviewed Mr ORG \u2019s case . The decision noted that Mr PERSON was motivated to undertake offence - focused work but had had little opportunity to do so at ORG . It considered it essential that necessary work on drug abuse and anger management be progressed as soon as possible .","On DATE Mr PERSON was assessed as unsuitable for FOCUS and the Prisoners Addressing Substance Related Offending ( \u201c PASRO \u201d ) course was recommended instead .","On DATE the prison authorities confirmed that a prison transfer would be required to enable him to undertake PERSON and anger management work .","A prison transfer was subsequently planned but was cancelled when Mr PERSON was accused of a further disciplinary offence in DATE . The disciplinary proceedings lasted until DATE , when the allegation was not proceeded with because the officer who made it became ill and could not continue .","Meanwhile , at a DATE sentence - planning meeting it was decided that Mr ORG should be transferred to another prison to enable him to complete necessary coursework . DATE and DATE prison staff actively sought an appropriate prison transfer for Mr PERSON . However , this was further complicated by the opening of his parole window in DATE , at which point , because of the need to allow the preparation of reports for the pending ORG review , transfers were usually not permitted .","On DATE Mr PERSON lodged a judicial review claim seeking , inter alia , a declaration that his LAW rights had been violated as a result of the delay from DATE in providing access to rehabilitative courses , and damages .","In DATE Mr PERSON \u2019s offender manager added ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) as a sentence - planning target . In DATE Mr ORG underwent assessment for the programme and he began the ORG in DATE . His ORG review was deferred , with his agreement , to enable him to complete the ORG . The next review was fixed for DATE .","NORP In its decision dated DATE , ORG noted that good progress was being made but declined to recommend a transfer to open conditions .","By DATE , Mr PERSON had been transferred to ORG and was undertaking a course which had replaced PERSON , namely FAC ( \u201c BSR \u201d ) .","His judicial review claim was unsuccessful before ORG and ORG . He was given permission to appeal to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE Mr PERSON was convicted of various sex offences . He had previous convictions for sexual offences . On DATE he received an ORG sentence with a tariff of DATE .","NORP In DATE he completed the ORG programme .","In DATE he completed the DATE Core Sex Offenders Treatment Programme ( \u201c SOTP \u201d ) .","A Structured Assessment of Risk and Need ( \u201c SARN \u201d ) report dated DATE concluded with the recommendation that there should be a full psychopathy assessment and that , so long as that did not provide contra - indications , he was suitable for ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . By DATE , this was a formal sentence objective .","On DATE Mr PERSON was moved to PERSON , which specialises in sexual offenders , to access the ORG . On DATE he was entered on the waiting list .","Following a Parole Board Review , on DATE the ORG declined to recommend that he be moved to open conditions .","In DATE the psychopathy test was conducted .","A DATE ( Offender Assessment System ) report noted that the sentence objectives for the following DATE included completion of the ORG .","NORP In DATE Mr PERSON was informed that he would not be offered a place on the ORG until DATE at the earliest .","Mr PERSON was assessed as suitable for the ORG in DATE . In her report , the Deputy Treatment Manager indicated that he might yet need also a ORG course .","On DATE Mr PERSON commenced judicial review proceedings , arguing , inter alia , that his LAW rights had been violated as a result of the delay in providing access to rehabilitative courses .","On DATE ORG declined to direct Mr PERSON \u2019s release .","On DATE Mr PERSON \u2019s tariff expired .","In DATE he was transferred to PERSON to commence the ORG . He completed the course in DATE .","His judicial review claim was unsuccessful before ORG and he was given permission to appeal directly to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","Mr PERSON was convicted in DATE of a total of CARDINAL sexual assaults on CARDINAL unrelated young men , committed over a period of DATE . All the victims were either young or vulnerable . He had CARDINAL previous sex - related convictions . He received an ORG sentence with a tariff of DATE .","On an unknown date , Mr PERSON participated in an alcohol awareness course .","NORP In DATE , he completed the ORG programme .","In DATE he completed the Core SOTP .","In DATE , a SARN report recommended that he be assessed for the ORG and suggested the likely desirability of a subsequent ORG ( \u201c BLB \u201d ) programme .","In DATE his tariff expired . At a ORG review the ORG declined to order his release . By letter dated DATE , the Secretary of ORG agreed with the decision of ORG and identified assessment for and , if suitable , completion of the ORG and the ORG as appropriate further interventions . He set the review period at DATE , including DATE to complete the ORG , taking into account the time for assessment and the waiting list .","In DATE Mr PERSON was assessed for the ORG . In a report dated DATE he was found to be suitable for the programme .","Meanwhile , in DATE he completed ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) programme .","At his ORG hearing in DATE , ORG noted that he had completed the ORG course and that he was awaiting a place on the ORG , which was expected to address much of his outstanding treatment needs . It refused to order release .","On DATE Mr PERSON commenced judicial review proceedings arguing , inter alia , that his LAW rights had been violated as a result of the delay in providing access to rehabilitative courses .","He commenced the ORG in DATE and completed it in DATE .","His judicial review claim was unsuccessful before ORG and he was given permission to appeal directly to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","The CARDINAL appeals were heard together by ORG , which gave judgment on DATE . The court explained that it would consider whether and , if so , how far to modify its case - law in light of this ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON , PERSON and PERSON v. the GPE , ORG . ORG and CARDINAL , DATE , concerning access to rehabilitative courses .","Lord PERSON and Lord PERSON delivered jointly the opinion of the court on the general issues of principle and in respect of Mr PERSON and PERSON ORG . Separate opinions were given in respect of the appeal by PERSON PERSON .","ORG observed that this Court \u2019s reasoning in PERSON , PERSON and PERSON opened the possibility that post - tariff detention could fluctuate between the lawful and unlawful , depending on whether a prisoner serving an ORG sentence was being offered an appropriate opportunity to progress in his sentence . The court pointed out that , according to the wording of LAW and DATE , any detention not authorised by LAW ought to lead release . Thus in a case where detention was found to be arbitrary under LAW , in application of the PERSON , PERSON and PERSON approach , the prisoner should \u2013 according to ORG \u2013 be entitled to an immediate order for release . There was , ORG said , a real difficulty about accepting the proposition that the LAW required the release of an ORG prisoner before ORG was satisfied that his detention was no longer required for the protection of the public .","As to this ORG \u2019s conclusion in PERSON , PERSON and PERSON that detention following the expiry of the applicants\u2019 tariff periods and until steps were taken to progress them through the prison system was unlawful , the court explained :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... That exposes a problem . Particularly where a tariff is of a relatively long period , a prisoner \u2019s progression towards release through courses and experience in open conditions should , where and to the extent feasible , be facilitated not merely after but also in advance of the tariff period , so as to keep open the possibility of release on or shortly after its expiry ... Yet , on the ECtHR \u2019s approach , treating the present issue as falling within the text of article CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) , no complaint can apparently arise until the expiry of the tariff period , and any complaint can then only arise if the failure to provide courses , etc continues after the expiry of the tariff period .","The second , much more substantial problem ... is that logically it would , if followed in GPE , mean , as we have stated , that any prisoner not being progressed through the system should be released , and that ORG DATE section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) should be declared incompatible with the Convention rights insofar as it precludes this ... Many of the failings revealed by the cases which have come before the courts to date are simply incapable of being redressed at the drop of a hat or wig . Systems failed , due to lack of resources and facilities , and it takes time to mend such failures , whatever order a court might make . Moreover , in a case where the failure was repaired , as it might be by the time a court came to consider the case , by the provision of adequate opportunity to the prisoner , then the court would be left , on this view of the ECtHR decision , with detention which had been unlawful for a time but was no longer . \u201d","ORG concluded that it was not possible to follow the reasoning of the ORG in GPE , PERSON and PERSON . However , this did not mean that ORG prior decision in that case should be followed . ORG had underlined the link which should be recognised between preventive detention and rehabilitation , and had also concluded that there should be an individual remedy in damages for failure to provide prisoners serving indeterminate sentences with proper means of progression towards release . ORG explained :","\u201c CARDINAL . We consider that ORG should now accept the Fourth Section \u2019s conclusion , that the purpose of the sentence includes rehabilitation , in relation to prisoners subject to life and ORG sentences in respect of whom shorter tariff periods have been set . We also consider that ORG can and should accept as implicit in the scheme of article CARDINAL that the state is under a duty to provide an opportunity reasonable in all the circumstances for such a prisoner to rehabilitate himself and to demonstrate that he no longer presents an unacceptable danger to the public . But we do not consider that this duty can be found in the express language of article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . Treating it as an aspect of the duty to avoid \u2018 ORG under article CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) has unacceptable and implausible consequences which we have already identified . The ORG decision in PERSON also remains important authority that arbitrariness has a confined meaning , when used as a test of lawfulness in the context of article CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) .","Article CARDINAL ) would be a more satisfactory home for any duty of the nature identified in the previous paragraph , if its language covered it ( which it does not ) . Article CARDINAL ) gives rise to an ancillary duty on the state , breach of which does not directly impact on the lawfulness of detention . The duty is to make available access to judicial review by a court or here ORG , which will consider whether the information put before it justifies continued detention or release . PERSON access to ORG like reasonable access to proper courses and facilities represents an important aspect of a prisoner \u2019s progression towards release . But the language of article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) is in terms confined to access to judicial review by ORG on the basis of the information available from time to time . It does not cover the prior stage of provision of courses and facilities in prison , which gives rise to the information necessary on any ORG review .","The duty to facilitate the progress of such prisoners towards release by appropriate courses and facilities can not therefore be brought , in our opinion , within the express language of either article CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) or article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . But it is on any view closely analogous , at an earlier stage , to the duty involved under LAW , and it is far more satisfactory to treat it as an analogous duty arising by implication at an earlier stage than that covered by LAW , rather than to treat LAW ) as incorporating it . We consider that a duty to facilitate release can and should therefore be implied as an ancillary duty - a duty not affecting the lawfulness of the detention , but sounding in damages if breached . Such a duty can readily be implied as part of the overall scheme of LAW , read as a whole ... \u201d","The appropriate remedy for a breach of such a duty was not release of the prisoner but an award of damages for legitimate frustration and anxiety . Damages would be recoverable in respect of any period of extended detention which could be shown to have resulted after the expiry of the tariff period , whether the failure occurred before or after the expiry of the tariff period . A prisoner could also seek mandatory orders .","ORG noted that the prison service manager who reviewed Mr PERSON \u2019s case accepted that there had been \u201c regrettable delays \u201d at some points . However , to say that more extensive coursework could have been made available to him was a very long way from saying that he had not been provided with a reasonable opportunity to rehabilitate himself and demonstrate that he no longer presented an unacceptable risk of serious harm to the public . According to the court , LAW did not create an obligation to maximise the coursework or other provision made to the prisoner , nor did it entitle the court to substitute , with hindsight , its own view of the quality of the management of a single prisoner and to characterise as arbitrary detention any case which it concluded might have been better managed . It continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... It requires that an opportunity must be afforded to the prisoner which is reasonable in all the circumstances , taking into account , among all those circumstances , his history and prognosis , the risks he presents , the competing needs of other prisoners , the resources available and the use which has been made of such rehabilitative opportunity as there has been . It is plain that ORG was not denied a fair or reasonable opportunity to rehabilitate himself or to demonstrate that his risk is acceptable . In DATE of his minimum term he was provided with courses in enhanced thinking , drug awareness and victim awareness . Sadly , his response was poor , there was doubt about his honesty , and his behaviour in prison attracted the many disciplinary adjudications mentioned above , all of which demonstrated that the risk he presented was far from removed . The transfer to ORG somewhat reduced the availability of rehabilitative courses , but there will inevitably be differences between prisons which can give emphasis to rehabilitation and those where the priority is security . It was his own misbehaviour which led to his transfer there , over DATE after the expiry of his minimum term . The consequence was that PERSON , which was the course judged , plainly bona fide , as that most suitable for him , was not available . Even without PERSON , there was sustained CARDINAL to CARDINAL anger management work for DATE after transfer to ORG . Even if , with the benefit of hindsight , consideration of CALM and FOCUS courses involved some misjudgement , it was perfectly understandable . He very plainly had anger problems , whether or not his index offences were the result of loss of temper , and he very plainly had a drug - use and drug - supply background . The advice to take an ORG course was plainly a sensible expedient , given that transfer to a place where the first choice PERSON was available had proved unavailable despite considerable efforts . Once it was identified , ORG was begun within DATE . The attempts to find a transfer were clearly persisted in ; they were complicated by ORG \u2019s wish to be in a prison near to his family , by the pending adjudication in DATE and by a \u2018 parole window\u2019 in DATE , quite apart from the competing needs of other prisoners in a large prison population . His case does not begin to approach the kind of failure of provision considered and chronicled in R ( PERSON ) . He was afforded reasonable opportunity to rehabilitate himself and to demonstrate that he was no longer a risk to the public , but did not do either . There was no breach in his case of the ancillary obligation under LAW . \u201d","ORG referred to ORG finding that there had been a breach of the Secretary of ORG \u2019s public - law duty because of an under - provision of the ORG . This did not , however , mean that the Secretary of ORG was under an obligation to provide the ORG to every prisoner for whom it might be suggested . The question was whether the Secretary of ORG had afforded Mr PERSON a reasonable opportunity to reform himself and to demonstrate to ORG , by the time of tariff expiry or within a reasonable time thereafter , that he no longer presented an unacceptable risk to the public . As there were differences of opinion on this question among the members of ORG , CARDINAL opinions were issued .","Lord PERSON , delivering the opinion for the majority , emphasised that the breach of the ancillary obligation under LAW which this GPE court identified in PERSON , PERSON and PERSON involved a wholesale failure to address rehabilitation . He continued :","\u201c DATE . ... It was of a quite different order from the complaint made by PERSON . Whereas the prisoners PERSON , PERSON and PERSON in PERSON were left for a long time to languish in local prisons with no sentence planning and no rehabilitative work at all , no little effort was made with PERSON , who was provided with successive courses and had ample opportunity to change himself and to demonstrate that he was no longer a predatory sexual offender . The ORG and ORG courses with which he was provided supplied ample reasonable opportunity to do so . The latter in particular lasted DATE or more and involved CARDINAL sessions per week . Unfortunately , what was demonstrated was that PERSON remained a serious risk , since the initial scores for child abuse supportive beliefs proved false positives , and he remained manipulative , mistrustful and denying his principal offences , seeing himself as the real victim . \u201d","Lord PERSON considered the strongest part of Mr PERSON \u2019s claim to be the passage of time after the psychologist \u2019s report of DATE , before the ORG was begun in DATE . However , in his view , since DATE was not due to expire until DATE , there could have been very little complaint before at least the Secretary of ORG recognised the course as an objective in DATE , and perhaps not until well after that . He further noted that in DATE , still well before the expiry of the minimum period , there had been further detailed psychopathy assessment sessions . Although these were principally assessments rather than therapy , they provided ample opportunity to demonstrate change , or at least encouraging understanding of the true nature of what he had done . Instead , what those sessions revealed was that PERSON still saw himself as the victim , denied his principal offences , believed that he had not harmed any of the children and remained manipulative . Lord PERSON continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... There could be no clearer demonstration of the risk he continued to present . There has certainly been considerably greater delay in putting him onto the even more intensive ORG than one would choose to see in an ideal prison management system , but that is not the same as saying that he has not had a fair opportunity to reform himself or to demonstrate that he is no longer a danger . Despite the delay he was able to begin the ORG quite shortly after the expiry of his tariff .","There is a great danger , in considering PERSON \u2019s case , of classifying the ORG as the acid test by which alone he could demonstrate his safety for release . Even if it were , it would not mean that he had not had reasonable opportunity to demonstrate this already . But it was not . The fact that the psychological recommendation that PERSON should take part in this programme did not have spoken conditions attached to it , does not mean that it was the only way in which he could demonstrate his safety . It was in fact neither a necessary nor a sufficient means of doing so . It was not sufficient since it is not designed to address the offenders\u2019 sexual interest in pre - pubescent girls ; even if made available , it would have been only part of the possible programmes which PERSON might have needed in the absence of his accepting that his behaviour , which he continued to characterise as innocent victimhood , was in fact a considerable danger to children , and in the absence of his recognition that it needed to alter . It was not necessary , because by this time he had had ample confrontation with his failings , and if he had recognised them and shown real willingness to change , for example in the course of TIME of interviews for the ORG - R assessment , then there may well have been no occasion for DATE of ORG work . \u201d","Lord PERSON emphasised that the responsibility for deciding what form of rehabilitative assistance was to be afforded to a prisoner had to rest with the individual ORG , providing that the minimum standard was met of a reasonable opportunity to him to demonstrate safety . The availability of limited resources , particularly at a time of national financial stringency , was an unavoidable factor . He continued :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... ORG ( \u201c CSOTP \u201d ) administered in the prisons of GPE and GPE is of considerable intensity and makes extensive psychological demands on those offenders who take part in it . It is very likely that if it stood by itself it would meet the duty contemplated by PERSON and even more likely that it would do so if coupled , as it is , with the EST , ORG , ORG and other programmes , which are available . There is no legal obligation to provide an ORG course in the first place . It is simply CARDINAL possible way of tackling recalcitrant attitudes in some prisoners and a welcome arrow in the quiver for the case of those who prove very difficult to change . To hold that a delay ( including an unacceptable delay ) in providing it constitutes a breach of article CARDINAL , via the ancillary duty recognised , would be likely to have the perverse effect of discouraging the prison service from providing it at all , and\/or of discouraging recommendations for courses unless and until they are known to be shortly available , and\/or of discouraging the prison service from devising and suggesting new forms of programme , especially if they are extremely expensive , as clearly the ORG is . All these effects would be an impediment to individualised prisoner assessment and management , and to eventual rehabilitation of those for whom it is possible . \u201d","Lord PERSON dissented , explaining that in his view a legislative scheme for IPP prisoners had to allow a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate safety and had to be accompanied by reasonable systems and resources to enable offenders to change and develop so as to be able to demonstrate that they were safe and to achieve release by tariff expiry or reasonably soon thereafter . As an element of this duty , he considered that there should be a reasonable degree of access for IPP prisoners to the ORG which many prisoners would need before they could hope to show that they were safe . That was the consequence of the scheme itself , under which it was otherwise inevitable that prisoners would languish in prison long after the tariffs set by reference to the seriousness of their actual offending . In his view , this was a consequence of the rehabilitative purpose of the ORG sentence . A finding that there was no breach of the ancillary duty in the present case could not , ORG said , stand with the finding of ORG that the Secretary of ORG was in breach of his public law duty to make reasonable provision of systems and resources for the purpose of allowing PERSON PERSON a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate to ORG , by the time of tariff expiry on DATE or reasonably soon thereafter , that he was safe to be released . He would therefore have upheld Mr PERSON \u2019s appeal and awarded modest damages .","ORG upheld Mr PERSON \u2019s appeal . It said :","\u201c DATE . ... It is apparent that the CARDINAL and a half years of his tariff ( somewhat shortened , properly , by time spent on remand awaiting trial and sentence ) was as well furnished with offender - behaviour work as one could reasonably expect . He first completed the ORG course , which is a frequent if not conventional first step , and he was placed on the ORG within his comparatively short tariff period . He completed the ORG in DATE , and since it is a DATE course it would appear that he must have been placed on it almost immediately after completing the ORG in DATE . The ORG report which first mooted the ORG was in DATE , so that there could never have been any prospect of his being both assessed for , and completing , the ORG by the time of his tariff expiry in DATE . The chronology illustrates the fact that if standard , intensive , course work such as the ORG does not succeed and if lack of risk is not demonstrated at the end of it , it will be inevitable that a prisoner with this kind of tariff period will pass the end of the tariff without being able to be offered every course which the system has .","However , it is important to note that , no doubt mindful of the comparative brevity of his tariff , the Secretary of ORG by the formal letter of DATE effectively defined what was regarded as a reasonable opportunity for PERSON to build on the partial progress which he had made and to demonstrate ( if he could ) that he was safe to release , namely over a DATE period . Neither this timetable nor anything approximating to it was honoured . Instead , it was not until after that period had come and gone that he was able to begin the ORG , and the letter shows that even if this produced a successful outcome , DATE or thereabouts was contemplated . We conclude that in ORG \u2019s case there was a failure to provide him with the opportunity to try to demonstrate that he was safe for release which the Secretary of ORG regarded as reasonable . The assessment for ORG was in DATE . If there had been a plentiful supply of places he might have been on it by about Autumn of that year , but no real complaint could have been made merely because this kind of course was not immediately available ; if it had been provided in or about Spring DATE , there would we conclude have been no breach . There is thus an unacceptable delay of DATE , and all post tariff . The inference of legitimate frustration is justified and that period calls for an award of damages . Given that it was post tariff we assess it at \u00a3 MONEY . \u201d","The relevant domestic law and practice is set out in the ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , cited above ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158861","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF COUDERC AND HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCI\u00c9S v. FRANCE","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information);Damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Branko Lubarda;Dean Spielmann;Erik M\u00f8se;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants are the publication director and the publishing company , respectively , of the DATE magazine ORG . PERSON ORG was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The company LOC has its registered office in PERSON .","On DATE the NORP newspaper ORG published an article headlined \u201c Is this boy the heir to GPE ? \u201d , describing the disclosures by a woman , PERSON , who claimed that her son \u2019s father was PERSON , who had become reigning prince of GPE ( hereafter , \u201c the Prince \u201d ) following the death of his father on DATE . The article mentioned a forthcoming publication in ORG , and set out its core elements . It was accompanied by CARDINAL photographs , CARDINAL of which showed the Prince holding the child in his arms and was captioned \u201c His successor to the throne ? PERSON with PERSON .","On DATE , having been informed that an article was about to appear in ORG , PERSON served notice on the applicants to refrain from publishing it .","On DATE the NORP DATE magazine PERSON published the interview with PERSON . The front cover of the magazine was headlined \u201c PERSON \u201d ( \u201c PERSON is the father of my child \u201d ) . It was illustrated by CARDINAL photographs of the Prince : in CARDINAL of them he was pictured alongside Ms Coste , and in the other he held the child in his arms .","On DATE various Internet sites relayed the news . In GPE , information from the forthcoming ORG article was included in an article on the RTL radio station \u2019s Internet site entitled \u201c Le prince PERSON , silence au PERSON \u201d ( \u201c Prince PERSON alleged to have a son , no comment from GPE \u201d ) . For its part , the ORG channel published an article headlined \u201c PERSON : la rumeur d\u2019un fils \u201d ( \u201c PERSON : rumours about a son \u201d ) on its Internet site . The news also appeared on the Internet site of the PERSON ( French ORG ) , as follows : \u201c L\u2019enfant cach\u00e9 du prince PERSON : selon certains journaux britanniques et allemands , PERSON le papa d\u2019un petit gar\u00e7on de CARDINAL mois \u201d ( \u201c Prince PERSON of GPE \u2019s secret son : according to certain NORP and NORP newspapers , PERSON of GPE is the father of a DATE boy \u201d ) .","On DATE , in spite of the Prince \u2019s notice to refrain , the DATE magazine ORG published an article in its edition no . CARDINAL , presented on the magazine \u2019s cover under the headline \u201c PERSON of GPE : PERSON , the secret child \u201d ( \u201c PERSON : PERSON , l\u2019enfant secret \u201d ) , illustrated by a small photograph showing the Prince with the child in his arms . The article , published on pages CARDINAL of the magazine , consisted of an interview with PERSON , who replied to questions put by a journalist and stated that the father of her son PERSON , born on DATE , was the Prince . In particular , the interview described the circumstances in which PERSON had met the Prince , their intimate relationship , their feelings , and the manner in which the Prince had reacted to the news of ORG pregnancy and had behaved towards the child at his birth and subsequently .","The relevant passages of this interview follow :","\u201c ORG : When did you meet PERSON of GPE ?","PERSON : DATE , on a GPE to GPE flight ... Before landing he asked for my telephone number . DATE I had a message on my mobile ...","... He wanted to invite me to GPE ... I went there the following weekend ... We spent a very tender night next to each other , it was very romantic ! After DATE he called me to say that he had had a very pleasant time and that he wanted to see me again .","...","As DATE went by , I fell very much in love . I spent DATE in GPE . He took me everywhere with him when he did n\u2019t have official duties ...","...","I had the impression that something was happening . He did n\u2019t speak about his feelings , but I heard his heart beating . There are signs that ca n\u2019t be mistaken when you \u2019re in someone \u2019s arms ... He did n\u2019t say anything to me and I did n\u2019t ask him anything . But he had tender looks and gestures towards me , even in public , and even in front of other young women . I think that he appreciated my affection . He told his friends that I was very very loving , and that he liked my maternal side . For my part , I found him touching .","TIME Did you meet up often ?","GPE For DATE I went to GPE DATE ... Sometimes he took me along to official events , such as ORG or tennis tournaments ...","TIME Did you ever meet his father , Prince PERSON ?","GPE Yes . At a dinner with CARDINAL guests ; PERSON told me that we could n\u2019t go along together , since his father [ would be ] there . In TIME , he indirectly made me his loveliest declaration of love , by saying to a friend in front of everyone \u2018 Take good care of PERSON . I am very fond of her.\u2019 And he kissed me ...","TIME What did he tell you about his talk with his father ?","GPE We spoke about it DATE . I found him strange . I became worried . \u2018 I \u2019ve been thinking\u2019 , he said . \u2018 I believe it \u2019s better if we stay friends.\u2019","TIME How did you react ?","GPE ... I was crying . I telephoned him to find out if it was really over . \u2018 If you were in my situation , what would you do?\u2019 He answered \u2018 I would wait . Not for long , but I would wait ... \u201d ...","TIME One has the feeling that PERSON \u2019s discussion with his father was a turning point in your relationship .","GPE It \u2019s true , the relationship deteriorated after that . At the same time , however , he seemed to be afraid of taking a decision ; he hesitated , taking CARDINAL step forward and CARDINAL steps back ...","... PERSON is not someone who expresses his feelings or who argues . He has a good sense of humour . I had the impression that he still had feelings . We saw each other with more or less the same frequency , but for less time , one day instead of CARDINAL . I had the impression that he was afraid of becoming too attached . In DATE I wanted us to celebrate my ... birthday together . He suggested that I come to GPE ... we went [ out ] for a drink . There were lots of young women coming up to him , and I let him know that I was n\u2019t happy about that . On returning to the flat , we became lovers again , something that I did n\u2019t want that night . TIME had annoyed me .","TIME Was it then that you became pregnant ?","GPE Yes . Neither he nor I had planned it . I was taking precautions ... When I saw PERSON on DATE I had sore breasts . I said to him \u2018 If I \u2019m pregnant , what are we going to do?\u2019 He replied \u2018 If you \u2019re pregnant , you must keep it\u2019 . He said it from the heart . He immediately began thinking of PERSON names , and I was coming up with ORG names , since I already had CARDINAL boys . He said \u2018 I \u2019m trying to think of PERSON names \u2013 that \u2019s all you know how to make ! \u201d ...","...","Shortly afterwards , I had a positive pregnancy test ... I wanted him to take a decision very quickly ... I was well aware of what a child represented for PERSON , given his position . In my opinion , it was for him to decide ... He said to me \u2018 Keep it . I \u2019ll look after things . You wo n\u2019t lack for anything . I do n\u2019t promise to marry you , but keep him and do n\u2019t worry : I \u2019ll bring him into the family little by little . I \u2019d like us to keep the news to ourselves for the moment . The only person I must tell is my adviser and childhood friend , whom you know well.\u2019","TIME Did he contact you for news during your pregnancy ?","GPE From time to time . He spoke to me very kindly . Then DATE he came to see me in GPE with his adviser ... I was three months\u2019 pregnant . He seemed to have changed his mind , but as far as I was concerned it was too late . The adviser said to me \u2018 Do you realise that if it \u2019s a boy , they \u2019ll use that to prevent PERSON acceding to the throne , and the child will be able to claim the throne\u2019 . I was surprised that he was going into things that were only details for me . I was n\u2019t even thinking about these questions ... it is clear to me that a child born outside marriage can not accede to the throne .","TIME What happened next ?","GPE I learned that I was expecting a boy . I was very worried ... I asked him if it would make things difficult if it was a boy ... \u201c No , no more than if it were a girl . \u201d He put his hand on my stomach and we discussed names again ...","...","When I was CARDINAL - and - a - half months\u2019 pregnant , I called him . He did n\u2019t behave the way he usually did with me , I understood that something had happened and that he wanted to end the relationship . He said \u201c I \u2019ve thought it through . I \u2019ve asked for advice . The child is impossible \u201d .","...","I went to see a lawyer , who alerted PERSON \u2019s lawyer . PERSON called me immediately , and was very annoyed : \u2018 You \u2019ve trapped me ... PERSON He spoke to me as though he had been brain - washed . I was eight months\u2019 pregnant , and had become pregnant DATE after our first meeting . I would have had multiple opportunities to become pregnant .","TIME How was the birth ?","GPE DATE is not my happiest memory . I was very alone . On DATE I left hospital , I was visited by a NORP laboratory , approved by ORG , for a DNA swab from my son . That was organised by his adviser .","...","My CARDINAL older children still did n\u2019t know who their little brother \u2019s father was ... PERSON was sleeping in my bedroom , in a crib ... He suffered from asthma and was hospitalised for DATE ... I had to deal with this alone , with no one to confide in .","...","TIME When did he see PERSON for the first time ?","GPE DATE after his birth ... the most important thing for me was that PERSON be recognised . It was out of the question that my child would not have a father . That is how I explained it to them . For me , non - recognition would have been the only basis for taking things to court . It was up to PERSON to organise things so that this little baby had a more or less normal life , even if , at the very beginning , it had been necessary to hide him . But I did n\u2019t want him to grow up like PERSON , for example . I thought only about that , and not for a second about the fact that he represented a potential heir . Meanwhile , PERSON was paying me a sum DATE that I still receive .","TIME What happened subsequently ?","GPE As I did n\u2019t really trust my lawyer any longer , I contacted another one , to whom I explained that the only thing that counted was that PERSON recognise his son . In my opinion , non - recognition of a child amounts to denying him his roots ...","...","TIME Did PERSON realise how important it was for you that he recognise this child ?","GPE Ultimately , yes , to my great joy : on DATE he arranged to meet me at a notary \u2019s office , with his adviser ...","TIME What happened during the meeting at the notary \u2019s office ?","PERSON signed the deed of recognition . He did it out of respect for me , while giving instructions that this deed was not to be transcribed in the official register until after his father \u2019s death .","TIME Do you have a copy of this deed of recognition ?","GPE I was n\u2019t given any papers , I only have the registration number of the deed . I asked the notary several times for a certificate stating that he had a document concerning my son . I was told \u201c Later . \u201d After PERSON \u2019s funeral I contacted the notary again , asking that PERSON \u2019s undertaking be upheld , and that the official recognition of our son \u2019s paternity be entered in the register of births and deaths . Again , the notary told me that it could wait ... I again asked for a copy of the deed . He refused ...","TIME What about your flat ? Did you finally move ?","GPE ... I found a house in DATE , and work is currently being carried out on it .","TIME To whom does it belong ?","GPE To a property investment company ( an ORG . PERCENT of the shares are in PERSON \u2019s name ...","TIME What contacts have you had with PERSON since seeing him at the notary \u2019s office to sign the deed recognising your son ?","GPE I wanted him to see his son regularly , and also to call for news of him . He has done that ... During CARDINAL of his visits , I said \u2018 Just because we \u2019ve had a child , that does n\u2019t mean that everything has to end between us\u2019 . He replied \u2018 For the moment , I prefer that we end things , because if we continue we \u2019ll end up with a second child!\u2019","...","TIME Why have you decided to speak out ?","GPE I \u2019ve already given you some reasons . I want PERSON to grow up normally , with a father . I want the lies to stop . For my part , I \u2019m fed up with lying , hiding and passing for the mistress of his friends . On account of this silence , I no longer have an identity and I live almost like an outlaw . I \u2019m afraid for my son \u2019s psychological health . I should like to have him baptised as soon as possible , with a correctly drawn - up birth certificate . In addition , I understand that there are rumours going around about this child , and I want the truth to be re - established , so that his CARDINAL older brothers have a dignified image of their mother .","... \u201d","This interview was illustrated by CARDINAL photographs of the Prince with the child and CARDINAL of the Prince with PERSON . In particular , a double - page spread ( pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) consisted in a photograph of the Prince holding the child in his arms , headlined \u201c PERSON \u2018 is PERSON \u2019s son\u2019 says his mother \u201d , followed by this text :","\u201c A little boy who knows how to say CARDINAL words : daddy and mummy . A little boy who does not seem troubled by the huge gulf between the CARDINAL cultures from which he comes . His name is PERSON , a conqueror \u2019s name , an emperor \u2019s name . He was born in GPE on DATE . His mother asks that he does not grow up clandestinely , \u2018 like ORG . For that reason , she is now disclosing his existence , which poses no threat to any republic or DATE . Because in GPE , the country of his maternal family , all children , whether or not they are born to lawfully married couples , are entitled to an official father . For the moment , the little boy with black curls is n\u2019t interested in knowing whether he is a prince or not . His mother just has to lean towards him and he is happy . There \u2019s already a king in the house ... him . \u201d","The photograph was also accompanied by the following captions :","\u201c The CARDINAL-year - old new sovereign of GPE had not been known to have any long - term relationship . DATE PERSON , an air hostess whom he met DATE , claims that they have had a son . \u201d","\u201c He \u2019s never been seen smiling like this before : PERSON succumbs to PERSON \u2019s charm . \u201d","CARDINAL photographs of the Prince holding the child in his arms were published on pages CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE , and were also accompanied by captions and\/or sub - headings . In particular , the caption on page CARDINAL reads \u201c Gentleness , tenderness and patience , key words for a prince who loves children \u201d , and on page CARDINAL , \u201c The Prince has always had a soft spot for children \u201d and \u201c PERSON , President of ORG , wearing an Olympics shirt , with PERSON in his arms \u201d . The following sub - heading appeared on pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL : \u201c PERSON at DATE . He is already trying to stand up . This is CARDINAL of his very first meetings with PERSON . He sleeps in his mother \u2019s bedroom . PERSON and her CARDINAL sons have already moved into a flat in DATE arrondissement of GPE . \u201d","Lastly , CARDINAL photographs of the Prince with PERSON were published on pages DATE and DATE . The photograph on page CARDINAL was captioned as follows :","\u201c They met on a GPE to GPE flight , PERSON was an air hostess . She had left PERSON , in GPE , DATE previously , aged DATE . \u2018 In my country , a father would have obliged his son to recognise his child\u2019 . \u201d","The photographs on page CARDINAL were sub - titled as follows :","\u201c PERSON also attended official events . In DATE she was on the Prince \u2019s right as he received the singer PERSON at FAC . In DATE ( left ) she can be seen in the Royal box at the Grand Prix . \u201d","On DATE PERSON issued a statement indicating that she had agreed to give an interview to ORG , for publication in the edition of CARDINAL DATE , had carefully reread its wording , and had herself handed over the photographs showing the Prince with PERSON . She specified that she had taken those photograph , and that she had taken them with the Prince \u2019s full consent . She issued a further statement indicating that she had handed these photographs over to the media for publication without charge . She added that her son had been recognised before a notary , that the notarial deed had been signed on DATE and that it had been agreed on that date that the deed would be sent to the district hall of DATE arrondissement of GPE immediately after Prince PERSON \u2019s death . She stated that she had attempted , by all amicable means , to find a compromise with the PERSON \u2019s lawyer , and that it was the fact that the Prince had failed to honour his undertaking which had induced her to bring the matter to the public \u2019s attention . With regard to the media , she stated : \u201c they have merely helped my son and myself to have PERSON officially recognised \u201d .","On DATE , considering that the publication of the article in ORG interfered with his rights to private life and to protection of his own image , the Prince brought fixed - date proceedings against the applicants , on the basis of LAW of LAW , seeking damages from the publishing company and an order that it publish the court \u2019s ruling on the front cover of the magazine , and requested that the court \u2019s decision be immediately enforceable .","On DATE the Nanterre Tribunal de Grande Instance ( the \u201c FAC \u201d ) ordered the company PERSON to pay the Prince CARDINAL,CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) in non - pecuniary damages . It also ordered that details of the judgment be printed on the magazine \u2019s entire front cover , at the publishing company \u2019s expense and on pain of a DATE fine , under the headline \u201c Court order against ORG at the request of PERSON of GPE \u201d . The judgment was immediately enforceable .","The TGI noted , in particular , that from the front page onwards , the magazine had disclosed the Prince \u2019s paternity outside marriage , under the headline \u201c PERSON of GPE : PERSON , the secret child \u201d , accompanied by a photograph showing him holding the child . It also noted that the article dealt with the issue of the Prince having fathered the child over CARDINAL pages inside the magazine , by means of an interview in which the questions led Ms Coste to discuss her relationship with the Prince , the couple \u2019s feelings , the Prince \u2019s private life and reactions and the child \u2019s recognition before a notary . It emphasised that the magazine had deliberately chosen numerous photographs , taken in the context of the intimacy of the protagonists\u2019 private life , to illustrate and lend support to the disclosure , and that these photographs were accompanied by the magazine \u2019s own captions , which also referred to the Prince \u2019s love life and the circumstances in which he met the interviewee , analysing his conduct and his reactions to the young woman and the child , and speculating as to his feelings with regard to this secret child .","The TGI held that the entire article , including the accompanying photographs , fell within the most intimate sphere of love and family life and that it did not concern any debate of general interest . It added :","\u201c ... the claimant \u2019s accession to the throne of the Principality of GPE did not deprive him of the right to respect for his private life , nor of his right to protection of his own image in the face of mere rumours concerning the civil status of a child , which could not in any event serve as a legitimate pretext for providing information to a prying and curious public about the lives of public figures , their feelings and their private conduct , with a view to media coverage in the columns of a newspaper which can not in all seriousness claim to take the place of the courtroom , which is where the rights of children are legally defended , without prejudice to those of women ;","The disputed article , which treats rumours in a sensational manner , both in its wording and through the accompanying pictures - which are completely irrelevant in that they contribute to the impugned interference with private life - amounts to a serious and wilful breach of the claimant \u2019s fundamental personality rights , the latter having specifically served notice by extra - judicial process on the publishing company to respect those rights on DATE ... \u201d","The applicants appealed against that judgment .","In a press release of DATE the Prince publicly acknowledged that he was the father of PERSON .","On DATE ORG suspended the immediate enforcement of the DATE \u2019s judgment with regard to the order to publish the court \u2019s judgment .","On DATE ORG gave judgment . It noted that , through the interview with PERSON , the impugned article focused on disclosing the birth of the child , who was presented as having been born from the intimate relationship between the interviewee and the Prince from DATE onwards . It also noted that although the latter might already have made a statement recognising the child in a notary \u2019s office \u2013 that is , in deliberately chosen conditions of confidentiality \u2013 by the time that the article was published , this statement had not given rise to a note in the margin of the child \u2019s birth certificate , with the result that his birth and his father \u2019s identity remained unknown to the public .","ORG also stated that a person \u2019s affections , love life or family life and issues of paternity and maternity came within the sphere of private life and were protected by LAW and LAW , and that those provisions made no distinction between anonymous persons and public figures , whatever their civil , political or religious functions . It noted , however , that this principle allowed for an exception whenever the facts disclosed could give rise to a debate on account of their potential impact or consequences given the status or function of the persons concerned , in which case the duty to provide information took precedence over respect for private life .","It reasoned as follows :","\u201c Given that the fact of PERSON fatherhood had never been publicly recognised , that LAW makes it impossible for a child born out of wedlock to accede to the throne and that PERSON had not consented to the disclosure of his possible paternity of ORG child , since on DATE he had indicated to ORG PERSON his opposition to the publication of those facts , it follows that PERSON deliberately breached the provisions of LAW and of LAW , without being able to justify this offence on the inexistent requirements of current - affairs reporting , the legitimacy of the information or its readers\u2019 right to information , which did not include PERSON secret paternity , even if he had become the reigning Prince of the Principality on his father \u2019s death in DATE ;","This interference in his private sphere , in that the article did not merely disclose the existence of a \u201c secret \u201d child but also contained numerous digressions derived from ORG confessions concerning the circumstances of their meeting , the respondent \u2019s feelings , his most intimate reactions in response to the news of ORG pregnancy and his attitude towards the child during private encounters in her flat , could not be justified by the concomitant publication of these facts in the magazine PERSON , or by the media impact caused by the content of the article , or by the fact that other publications had subsequently repeated these reports ( which had become common knowledge through the fault of the publishing company ) , or by the alleged legitimacy of such a disclosure , given that the child had no official status which would have rendered his birth and the disclosure of the father \u2019s identity a subject which the media and specifically the company ORG , were required as part of their duty to provide information , to bring to the public \u2019s attention , or by the fact that PERSON , faced DATE against his will \u2013 with the media impact of the disclosure of information about his private life that he had intended to keep secret if not confidential , has been obliged to provide a public explanation , or by the tone of the article , which , as LOC irrelevantly specifies , was intended to show the respondent in a particularly positive light ;","Although the photographs showing the child with the respondent which accompany the article were taken by PERSON with PERSON consent , and although PERSON , the only person having parental responsibility for the child , handed them over to ORG for publication , it remains the case that PERSON did not consent to their being published in support of an article which constitutes an invasion of his privacy , with the result that their publication is wrongful ... \u201d","ORG concluded that the publication in question had caused the Prince irreversible damage in that the fact of his paternity , which he had wished to keep secret and which had remained so from the child \u2019s birth until publication of the impugned article , had suddenly , and against his will , become public knowledge . It considered that the non - pecuniary damage thus caused justified an order for publication of the court ruling as supplementary compensation , and that , in view of the nature of the breach and the seriousness of its consequences , such a measure was not conditions of publication of the court ruling , which was no longer to appear under a headline and was to take up CARDINAL of the front cover . Thus , ORG ordered that the lower third of the front cover of the first issue of ORG to be published in DATE following service of the judgment was to display a white box containing the following text , printed in red letters , failing which the applicant company would be fined ORG CARDINAL per issue after expiry of that deadline :","\u201c By a judgment of ORG upholding the judgment delivered by ORG , the company PERSON has been held liable for infringing the privacy and the right to his own image of PERSON of GPE in issue no . CARDINAL of the ORG newspaper , dated CARDINAL DATE , in an article entitled \u2018 PERSON of GPE : PERSON . The secret child\u2019 . \u201d","This statement was published on the front cover of edition no . CARDINAL of the magazine , dated DATE , under a photograph of the Prince . The cover bore the headline \u201c PERSON of GPE . The truth has been punished \u201d , which was accompanied by the following commentary :","\u201c ORG disclosed the existence of his son , PERSON . The courts have punished freedom to impart information . We have received support from the international press in reaction to this . \u201d","In addition , the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against ORG judgment . In their grounds of appeal , they developed the following arguments : the disclosure of a ruling sovereign prince \u2019s paternity was a news event relating to public life , given the functions held by the individual in question and the hereditary nature of the transmission of power in LOC ; divulgation of this information was necessary in order to inform the public ; the publication of observations and digressions alongside the announcement of a news event such as the fact of a sovereign prince \u2019s fatherhood was lawful , provided that these were innocuous and merely served to put the information into perspective ; and the publication of photographs taken within the family , illustrating the news event described in the article , was not such as to interfere with respect for privacy and private life .","Relying on LAW and citing the ORG \u2019s case - law , the applicants also argued that the public had the right to be informed , and that this right extended to information concerning the private life of certain public figures . They considered , in particular , that the ORG \u2019s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVI ) would have been the reverse had the relevant member of the royal family been , as in the present case , the Prince himself , Head of the ORG of GPE . In support of this argument , they cited the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , which , they submitted , showed that the fact of being a politician brought an individual exercising that role into the sphere of public life , with the attendant consequences . They further argued that ORG also recognised the public \u2019s right to information , including with regard to facts concerning private life , even where the individual concerned held no public office . Lastly , they submitted that the primacy of the right to inform and the right to be informed had been established in similar circumstances , even where a person \u2019s right to their own image was in issue .","The applicants argued , in particular , that in a hereditary monarchy the PERSON \u2019s lack of known issue was already a matter of discussion , and that the existence of a child was such as to contribute to that discussion . They also submitted that the child was a potential heir to the Monegasque throne , since his father could legitimise him at any time . They considered that , even if improbable , this scenario remained legally possible , and could therefore become the subject of a general debate regarding the future of the Monegasque monarchy , and that , in addition , the fact that the child was of NORP origin could contribute to a debate of general interest which had the potential to change the image of a particularly conservative principality .","The applicants also pleaded the very strong ties which , they alleged , bound the Principality of GPE to GPE . They further submitted that the worldwide impact of the contested material , including in the most serious and most prestigious newspapers , proved that the information disclosed by ORG was such as to contribute to a debate of general interest , and that this was not simply an article written to provide entertainment .","They further argued that the photographs accompanying the article , showing the Prince with the child or with PERSON , illustrated a news event , and that they entailed no breach of respect for human dignity , since the Prince was presented in a positive light . They asserted that these photographs had not been taken without the Prince \u2019s knowledge , but by Ms GPE herself , and specified that she had handed them over to ORG for publication , voluntarily and without charge .","Lastly , they emphasised that the magazine PERSON had published an almost identical article in GPE on DATE , prior to publication of the impugned article , and that the NORP courts had dismissed the PERSON \u2019s action against that newspaper .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law on , inter alia , the following grounds :","\u201c ... every person , whatever his rank , birth , fortune or present or future functions , is entitled to respect for his private life ; ... the judgment notes firstly that , on the date on which the article was published , the child \u2019s existence and his descent were unknown to the public , and secondly that the ORG \u2019s LAW rules out the possibility of his accession to the throne , since he was born out of wedlock , a situation that , moreover , the company \u2019s pleadings did not claim to be a subject of debate in LANGUAGE or Monegasque society or of examination in the impugned publication , and , lastly , [ that ] the article contained multiple digressions on the circumstances in which PERSON and PERSON met and about their relationship , the Prince \u2019s reactions to the news of the pregnancy and his subsequent attitude towards the child ; ... in the light of these findings and considerations , ORG correctly noted the lack of any topical news item or any debate on a matter of public interest which would have justified its being reported at the time of the impugned publication on the grounds of legitimate imparting of information to the public ; ... moreover , the publication of photographs of a person to illustrate subsequent content which amounts to an invasion of his privacy necessarily infringes his right to control of his own image ... \u201d","On DATE , after publication of the initial article on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the DATE magazine ORG published another article about the disclosure of the Prince \u2019s paternity , this time accompanied by several photographs showing the Prince and the child .","The Prince brought urgent proceedings against the magazine in order to prevent any further publication , but his case was dismissed on DATE by a judgment of ORG ( ORG ) , upheld on DATE by ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) .","ORG noted , in particular , that , as a figure of contemporary society par excellence , the Prince had to tolerate the impugned encroachment on his private life , given the information value of the report . It noted that the veracity of the information published by the magazine with regard to the statements by the child \u2019s mother and to the claimant \u2019s paternity had not been disputed on any specific point . It considered that the publication was not unacceptable in terms of the protection of a person \u2019s intimate sphere , since the disclosures did not relate to that sphere but to the sphere of private life , which was less protected . It held that the public \u2019s right to information resulted from the claimant \u2019s position in society , and that the pressure that he might have experienced as a result of those disclosures , aimed at obliging him to recognise his child , did not prohibit publication but was merely an inevitable consequence of it , which he was required to tolerate . It noted that the published photographs had been taken with the claimant \u2019s agreement , in his private sphere , and had been made available to the press by a person who had just as much right to do so as the claimant . It held that the protection of the claimant \u2019s private sphere and his right to his own image had to yield to the freedom of the press , on account of the importance of communicating to the public information concerning the claimant \u2019s son born out of wedlock and about the child \u2019s mother . Lastly , it considered that it was for the mother rather than for the Prince , who had not recognised the child , to decide whether the disclosure of the latter \u2019s existence fell within the protected private sphere .","Following the appeal by the Prince , ORG ordered the magazine not to republish or allow to be published a photograph which had appeared in DATE issue of PERSON , showing the claimant in a moment of intimacy with PERSON . However , it considered that the issue of a male heir to the prince of GPE \u2013 a constitutional hereditary monarchy DATE was of decisive importance , and that the interest taken in this question not only by the citizens of GPE but also by many persons who lived outside the ORG deserved protection and ought not to be superseded by the claimant \u2019s interest in securing protection of his private sphere , on the ground that the current legal situation allowed only legitimate children to accede to the throne ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158177","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF IULIAN MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings . In some of the applications , the applicants also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173398","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SMR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"VANNUCCI v. SAN MARINO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE criminal proceedings were instituted in GPE against a named individual , X , who was charged , inter alia , with issuing invoices for fictitious operations ( emissione di fatture per operazioni inesistenti ) and fraudulent bankruptcy to the detriment of an NORP company , C. ( under the control of GPE and later declared bankrupt on an unspecified date ) .","In the context of the above - mentioned NORP proceedings against NORP , ORG in GPE sent a letter of request ( no . CARDINAL ) to the GPE judicial authorities , seeking their assistance in accordance with LAW of LAW and Good Neighbourhood between GPE and GPE of DATE . The request was aimed at obtaining information and documents and carrying out searches in all the NORP banks , fiduciary institutions and companies involved with X.","NORP In particular , ORG stated that investigations into fraudulent bankruptcy had begun after company ORG had been declared bankrupt as it was suspected that the funds used to pay the abovementioned invoices for fictitious operations and other large amounts of money had been taken from the assets of company C. It further transpired that once company C. had gone bankrupt , CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL MONEY ( ORG ) had been transferred from a current account owned by the NORP company ORG to a current account ( no.CARDINAL ) owned by a ORG company , PERSON , via CARDINAL cheques . To justify such transfers , PERSON had issued a series of false sales invoices .","On DATE the sum of EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been transferred from company ORG \u2019s current account to another current account ( no . CARDINAL ) that was also in its name .","A series of cash withdrawals amounting to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been made from account no . CARDINAL and over the same period of time a similar amount had been deposited in a current account connected to a fiduciary mandate under no . MSCARDINAL\/A , which had been opened on DATE by a certain PERSON in his capacity as legal representative of a certain , named company .","On the basis of the information provided by ORG , on DATE the investigating judge ( PERSON della PERSON ) , considering that all the requirements set by the law for the execution of letters of request had been fulfilled , accepted the NORP request in relation to fraudulent bankruptcy and ordered the execution of the request by means of an exequatur order .","The investigating judge ordered the search of a specific NORP bank in order to obtain all the documents and relevant information related to current account no . CARDINAL , into which the CARDINAL cheques had been paid . The judge also ordered the bank to submit a copy of all the relevant documents in its possession within DATE . The judge further ordered the freezing of account no . CARDINAL and the seizure of all the money in it , which had been traced back to X , and company Z , as well as the freezing of any other current accounts and the seizure of their contents if any money from current account no . CARDINAL could possibly have been transferred there . In addition , any legal entities or individuals concerned , who had been notified of the exequatur order , were ordered to submit a copy of all the relevant documents in their possession within DATE .","On DATE the judicial police ( Polizia Giudiziaria ) carried out the exequatur order by freezing current accounts nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( both belonging to company PERSON ) , which at the time had balances of ORG MONEY and ORG ORG respectively . Some documents related to the CARDINAL current accounts were also seized during the same search .","On an unspecified date , CARDINAL of the institutions that had been served with the exequatur order ( company ORG ) informed the authorities that it administered a fiduciary mandate put in place by \u201c one of the accused people \u201d ( the above - mentioned fiduciary mandate no . MSCARDINAL\/A ) . As a consequence , on DATE the judicial police seized a further ORG CARDINAL from the current account connected to the mandate and ORG CARDINAL deposited in a bearer savings book ( libretto al portatore ) belonging to the new administrator of company F. ( a certain P. ) . The total sum was thus ORG DATE .","On an unspecified date ORG in GPE sent another letter of request to the investigating judge ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) as a complement to letter no . DATE . The request was aimed at charging the applicant and another person , PERSON , with the offence of money laundering .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigating judge accepted the request in relation to the crime of money laundering and instructed the judicial police to identify the applicant and to question him and PERSON within DATE . Moreover , considering that the alleged offence had been committed in GPE , the judge also ordered the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant and PERSON for money laundering under LAW bis of LAW .","On DATE , ORG , in the context of the proceedings under letter of request no . CARDINAL , asked the investigating judge to release all the money that had been seized so it could be returned to the bankrupt company C. and for control ( affidamento ) to be given to the insolvency administrator of the company who had been joined as a civil party to the NORP proceedings for fraudulent bankruptcy . The request was made after a similar one had been submitted directly by X. to the NORP courts on DATE . That request was attached to the CARDINAL from ORG .","The investigating judge accepted the request made by ORG by a decision of DATE . In line with LAW , Search , Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on ORG of DATE , ratified by GPE in DATE , the judge ordered that sums that had been seized and traced back to X should be released and returned to company C. and that control of the money should be given to the insolvency administrator of the bankrupt company .","On DATE , the judicial police executed the above - mentioned decision by releasing ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and transferring it to company C. \u2019s current account .","Neither the decision of DATE nor the subsequent police report concerning the execution of the order were ever notified or communicated to the applicant or to any other accused party in the criminal proceedings no . CARDINAL\/RNR\/CARDINAL .","By a judgment delivered in the above - mentioned criminal proceedings on DATE , filed in the registry on DATE and notified to the applicant on DATE , the first - instance criminal judge ( PERSON della PERSON ) found the applicant and CARDINAL other people guilty of money laundering under Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL bis of LAW , over DATE . The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and prohibited for DATE and DATE from holding public office and exercising political rights or running a business .","The judge held that the applicant had had the operational role of organising the ORG structures , which were then used to disguise the various money transfers which had constituted money laundering . According to the judge it had been shown that the money transferred to the company ORG \u2019s current accounts had come from PERSON and had originally derived from the bankrupt company C.","The judge , applying LAW , also ordered the confiscation of the money that was still subject to the seizure order and which had not been transferred to company C. ( ORG ) . He also sentenced the applicant and his co - accused to pay , in solidum , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( the sum returned to company C. ) , known as \u201c confiscation by way of equivalent measures \u201d ( confisca per equivalente ) , in accordance with LAW of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) . The order was issued because it was impossible to confiscate the further amount of money considered to have been laundered as it had been returned to company C.","On DATE , the applicant appealed against his conviction , challenging , inter alia , the order to pay the equivalent amount of money .","The applicant complained that the order to pay ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL had to be considered as an unfair duplication of the penalty against him , noting that that sum of money had previously been seized and then transferred ( in accordance with the investigating judge \u2019s decision ) by way of compensation to the company that had been the victim of bankruptcy , without involving the applicant or his co - defendants .","The applicant complained that the inability to carry out a \u201c direct confiscation \u201d , which was a prerequisite under the law for applying \u201c confiscation by way of equivalent measures \u201d , had not been the result of any actions by him , and thus he should not have been held responsible for the payment of such an amount .","NORP The applicant also mentioned the unconstitutionality of , on the one hand , the \u201c overlapping \u201d of compensation for victims and , on the other , the confiscation of an equivalent amount of money . He argued that that had led to an unjustified payment by those who had been sentenced .","On DATE the applicant made further written submissions , reiterating , inter alia , the argument of unconstitutionality .","By a judgment of DATE , filed in the registry on DATE , the applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed by the Judge of ORG ( GPE d\u2019Appello GPE ) .","The judge noted that the complaint regarding the confiscation of an equivalent amount had to be considered as clearly irrelevant given the fact that LAW of LAW ( as modified by PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) , did not provide that the prerequisite for such a confiscation order was that \u201c direct confiscation \u201d had been made impossible by the defendant . The judge further noted that at the time of the firstinstance judgment it had not been possible for the judge to order the direct confiscation of all the assets which had been laundered as most of them had already been transferred to company C. The judge had therefore been correct in ordering the accused , including the applicant , to pay an equivalent amount of money .","Article CARDINAL of LAW and Good Neighbourhood between GPE and GPE of DATE , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c The judicial authority of each contracting ORG , following a request from the other contracting ORG , shall notify acts , execute acts in conjunction with preliminary investigations , including the seizure of objects constituting the corpus delicti , and carry out any other act related to criminal proceedings ongoing before the abovementioned authorities . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of ORG , Search , LAW from ORG and on ORG of DATE , ratified by GPE on DATE , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Property confiscated by a ORG pursuant to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this Convention , shall be disposed of by that ORG in accordance with its domestic law and administrative procedures .","NORP When acting on the request made by another ORG in accordance with ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this Convention , Parties shall , to the extent permitted by domestic law and if so requested , give priority consideration to returning the confiscated property to the requesting ORG so that it can give compensation to the victims of the crime or return such property to their legitimate owners .","When acting on the request made by another ORG in accordance with ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this Convention , a ORG may give special consideration to concluding agreements or arrangements on sharing with other Parties , on a regular or casebycase basis , such property , in accordance with its domestic law or administrative procedures . \u201d","Article CARDINAL bis of LAW , as amended by LAW , LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , and by LAW of DATE , as applicable at the time of the facts ( JanuaryApril DATE ) in so far as relevant , read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . A person is guilty of money laundering , where , except in cases of aiding and abetting , he or she conceals , substitutes , transfers or co - operates with others to so do , money which he knows or should know was obtained as a result of crimes not resulting from negligence or contraventions , with the aim of hiding its origins .","NORP or whosoever uses , or cooperates or intervenes with the intention of using , in the area of economic or financial activities , money which he knows or should know was obtained as a result of crimes not resulting from negligence or contraventions . \u201d","NORP If the crime at the origin of the laundered money has been committed in a foreign country , such a crime has also to constitute a prosecutable criminal offence in GPE ( deve essere penalmente perseguibile e procedibile anche per PERSON Sammarinese )","...","The judge applies the penalty provided for the predicate offence if it is less heavy . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of GPE , as modified by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , read at the time of the commission of the offence in the present case ( DATE ) as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . In a judgment of conviction , the Judge shall order ( il giudice ordina ) the confiscation of the items belonging to the convicted person which were used or were intended to be used to commit the crime , as well as the confiscation of the price , the product , and the profit of the crime .","...","NORP In a judgment of conviction the Judge shall always order ( \u00e8 sempre obbligatoria ) the confiscation of the items which were used or were intended to be used to commit the offence ex Art.CARDINAL bis ( money laundering ) , or offences connected to terrorism , or offences with the purpose of subverting the constitutional order , as well as ordering the confiscation of the price , the product and the profit of the crime . If confiscation is not possible the Judge shall order ( impone l\u2019obbligo di ) the payment of an amount of money equivalent to the value of the above - mentioned items .","The confiscated items or the equivalent amount of money shall be allocated to ORG or , if necessary , destroyed . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175143","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF T.G. v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","NORP In DATE , after holding a firearms licence and a hunting permit for DATE , the applicant asked ORG ( hereinafter : \u201c the police \u201d ) to renew his firearms licence for hunting purposes . He did not live in GPE but went hunting when he spent holidays there .","When submitting his request the applicant relied on a certificate of ORG ( GPE zdravstva PERSON ) attesting that he was healthy and thus capable of carrying firearms .","Following the applicant \u2019s request the police carried out a background check . A report of CARDINAL DATE , available in the file , contains a finding of the police that the applicant had often been under the influence of alcohol when visiting GPE .","On DATE the applicant was summoned by the police to give a statement concerning the intention of a weapons commission not to renew his firearms licence . The applicant denied any alcohol abuse and stated that he had been a hunter for DATE and that , if necessary , he could undergo any test concerning his health and the alleged drinking problem .","In a further written statement dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant contended that hunting was his hobby and that his membership of a hunting association was related to his social status . He denied any allegations of alcohol abuse and argued that there were no justified reasons for a refusal to renew his firearms licence .","On DATE the applicant made the same objections through a lawyer . He stressed that his request for renewal of the firearms licence could not be refused merely because somebody had allegedly said that he was a drinker .","On DATE the police dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for renewal of his firearms licence and ordered him to hand over his weapons on the grounds that a police inquiry had shown that he had a problem of alcohol abuse .","The applicant challenged this decision before ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova PERSON , hereinafter \u201c the NORP \u201d ) , arguing that he had been falsely accused by some neighbours and that there was no evidence of any drinking problem . He also stressed that hunting allowed him to see his friends , and that those who had made the allegations against him did not really know him .","On DATE the Ministry ordered the police to produce a new assessment of the background check on the applicant , on the grounds that the report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not been substantiated with the relevant evidence .","On DATE the police produced a new report on the background check on the applicant . The report , which was available in the file , provided further details on the applicant \u2019s alleged alcohol abuse , which had been confirmed by his neighbours in GPE . The report explained that all the relevant details concerning the sources of this information were classified as confidential information .","On DATE the Ministry dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints , on the grounds that the documents from the case file suggested that he had a problem of alcohol abuse .","On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action in the ORG challenging the ORG \u2019s decision . He contended that the refusal to renew his firearms licence had been based on mere insinuations , and that there had been no relevant evidence to support the findings of the police . In particular , he contended that he had never been registered as a person with a problem of alcohol abuse and he had never been convicted of an offence related to the abuse of alcohol . In his view , the police based its conclusion only on the basis of gossips of his neighbours in GPE .","On DATE the applicant asked the police to disclose the relevant reports containing the allegations against him , in particular the identity of those who had seen him under the influence of alcohol and the date and place when that had happened . On DATE he received a reply that the information which he requested could not be disclosed since it was confidential ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , as provided under the relevant domestic law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG held a hearing at which it heard the parties\u2019 arguments . The applicant \u2019s representative stressed that the police had failed to produce any credible evidence justifying the refusal to renew the applicant \u2019s firearms licence . He also considered that it was not clear on which grounds the police had dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . The ORG \u2019s representative explained that further details of the applicant \u2019s background check , in particular the names of individuals from whom the relevant information had been obtained , were confidential as provided under LAW .","As the parties did not have any further proposals for the examination of evidence , ORG concluded the proceedings and scheduled a hearing for the delivery of the judgment for CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG found that the judgment could not be delivered , , and ordered the ORG to provide the confidential case file containing the details of the information on the applicant \u2019s background check . It explained that the file at issue would be inspected by the judges and would not become part of ORG case file .","At a hearing on CARDINAL DATE ORG examined the confidential file of the police without the presence of the parties . Afterwards , in the resumed hearing in the parties\u2019 presence , the applicant \u2019s representative reiterated his arguments that the applicant did not have a drinking problem . He did not seek examination of further evidence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s administrative action and upheld the decisions of the administrative bodies refusing to renew the applicant \u2019s firearms licence . It explained that it was satisfied from the examination of the confidential reports that the reasons for the police \u2019s refusal to renew the applicant \u2019s firearms licence were well founded . It also held that the medical certificate attesting that the applicant was healthy and capable of carrying firearms did not call these findings into question , as that was CARDINAL element in the assessment of an individual \u2019s suitability to be granted a firearms licence . The relevant part of ORG decision reads :","\u201c By examining the classified file of the defendant the court ... established that the police officer \u2019s conduct , while searching for and collecting information from citizens , ... was in accordance with the By - law on the conduct of the police in the procedure for issuing a licence for the procurement of weapons to a natural person ... and , based on data and information collected from interviewed citizens , found that the plaintiff is prone to common and excessive alcohol abuse , which indicates a possibility of weapons abuse .","...","Consequently , the plaintiff \u2019s claim that the defendant wrongly applied the substantive law , is unfounded , while the plaintiff \u2019s objection that the medical certificate is sufficient evidence showing that the defendant wrongly determined the facts of the case was not accepted by this court because the medical fitness for possessing and carrying weapons which is established through a certificate of medical fitness is only a special requirement for the weapons acquisition permit to natural persons within the meaning of section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , while the defendant acting in accordance with the [ above - cited ] By - law ... established that the plaintiff does not meet the requirement of section Article CARDINAL ) of LAW , as CARDINAL of the general requirements which natural persons need to meet in order to be issued a firearms licence . \u201d","The applicant challenged this decision before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , complaining that he had been denied access to the evidence containing allegations against him and that therefore he had been left without any opportunity to challenge those allegations . He also argued that his right to respect for his private life had been breached by the unjustified refusal to extend his firearms licence , which prevented him from hunting . In this connection he explained that he had been a hunter for over DATE , and that hunting was his way of maintaining contact with his friends .","NORP In support of his constitutional complaint the applicant submitted a list of signatures of his neighbours attesting that he did not have a problem of alcohol abuse . He also submitted a medical certificate indicating that he had no problem of alcohol abuse .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as unfounded . It explained that it was primarily the function of the relevant authorities to examine the facts and apply the relevant law and that it was not its function to deal with alleged errors of law or fact , in so far as they had not infringed human rights and freedoms guaranteed under LAW . ORG held that since the applicant had had access to the police reports on his background check , which contained details for dismissing his request ( see GPE the reports referred to in DATE and DATE above ) , the fact that further details on which those report had been based , including personal details about individuals who had provided information to the police , had not been disclosed to him did not infringe any of his rights .","The decision of ORG was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177690","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VANCHEV v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a former police officer . Criminal proceedings were brought against him in DATE .","By a decision of the competent prosecutor of DATE , as provided under domestic law at the time , the applicant was placed under house arrest . The period of arrest continued until DATE , when the applicant was remanded in custody . He was once again placed under house arrest on DATE and was released on DATE .","The applicant therefore was deprived of his liberty for DATE , DATE and DATE .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of failing to perform his duties and he was given a DATE suspended prison sentence .","In another set of proceedings , in a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of fraud and sentenced him to DATE of imprisonment .","The court also held in the second set of proceedings that the applicant should serve a single sentence for all his offences , which was set at DATE in prison .","On DATE the applicant was once again detained and placed in prison to serve his sentence . He was released on DATE by a decision of the competent prosecutor . The prosecutor noted that the period of pre - trial detention should have been deducted from the applicant \u2019s sentence , which meant he had already served it .","As he had worked in prison the applicant was also entitled to a reduction of his sentence by DATE .","In DATE the applicant brought a tort action against the prosecution authorities under section PERSON ) of the ORG and Municipalities\u2019 LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He claimed CARDINAL NORP levs ( ORG ) for non - pecuniary damage for his detention in DATE to the extent it had exceeded the set term of imprisonment and ORG CARDINAL for his imprisonment DATE and DATE .","The domestic courts examined witnesses and a court - appointed psychologist who said that the applicant had been traumatised by the experience and suffered from anxiety , that his personality had been \u201c permanently altered \u201d , that he had difficulties communicating with others , and that his family ties had been \u201c irreparably damaged \u201d .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the Sofia ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) allowed the claim in part , finding that the applicant had been detained for DATE and DATE in excess of his sentence and awarding him BGN CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage . It stated that his detention in DATE had been \u201c unjustified \u201d and that his imprisonment in DATE had amounted to \u201c unlawful detention without any valid grounds \u201d .","In accordance with the applicable provisions of domestic law , ORG ordered the applicant to pay ORG MONEY ( the equivalent of MONEY \u2013 EUR ) in court fees , calculated as a pro rata percentage of the part of his claim that had been dismissed .","The judgment was upheld on DATE by ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) , which specified that the prosecution authorities were also liable to pay default interest on the above amount , calculated from DATE .","In a final judgment of DATE ORG reduced the award to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) , plus default interest . It justified the reduction by referring to the \u201c nature of the offences \u201d the applicant had been convicted for , the \u201c regime under which the sentence had been served \u201d and the \u201c socially acceptable criteria for justice \u201d . It did not deal with the matter of court fees and took no separate decision in that regard .","The ORG has not been informed whether and when the amount above was paid to the applicant . Calculations made with a calculator available on the Internet show that the default interest on ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the period from DATE to DATE would be BGN MONEY ( the equivalent of LAW ) ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181404","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"KRAUSS v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr H. PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE at TIME the car registered in the applicant \u2019s name was recorded by a radar speed detector as travelling at a speed of CARDINAL k.p.h . on the ORG , thus exceeding the speed limit of CARDINAL k.p.h .","On DATE ORG ( Bezirkshauptmannschaft ) issued a provisional penal order ( Strafverf\u00fcgung ) and fined the applicant CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) with a DATE suspended sentence for speeding .","On DATE the applicant filed an ( unreasoned ) objection against this decision , whereupon ordinary administrative proceedings were opened .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection and issued a penal order ( PERSON ) convicting the applicant of speeding and fining her EUR CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL in procedural costs .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( Unabh\u00e4ngiger Verwaltungssenat , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , submitting that the authority had not been in possession of any evidence indicating that she had been driving her car at the relevant time . Relying on LAW , the applicant further complained that she had been convicted solely because she had made use of her right to remain silent and the privilege not to incriminate herself in administrative criminal proceedings . She did not dispute the speeding offence itself . Furthermore she did not request a hearing .","On DATE the ORG asked the applicant , with reference to her general obligation as an accused to cooperate in administrative criminal proceedings , to submit concrete details regarding the driver of the car at the relevant time or to submit any other evidence to prove that she had not been driving the car . On DATE the applicant submitted a statement in which , referring to the case NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , she maintained that she had not been in GPE at the relevant time and that there were several other persons who could have been driving the car .","On DATE the ORG held an oral hearing of its own motion . Even though the applicant had been summoned properly , she did not attend the hearing . However , she was represented by her lawyer Mr. PERSON , who substituted his mandate to ORG , a law firm practising in GPE . The lawyer who was appointed to attend the hearing merely pointed to the written submissions of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the minutes of the hearing , no apology was made for the applicant \u2019s absence , nor was further evidence presented and , in particular , the applicant \u2019s representative did not request postponement of the hearing .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , upheld the penal order and imposed a further ORG CARDINAL in procedural costs . In its reasoning , the ORG pinpointed the accused \u2019s general duty to cooperate in administrative criminal proceedings , indicating at the same time that the applicant had not contested the speeding but merely denied that she had been driving the car herself . However , she had not submitted any concrete information with regard to the identity of the real driver . In particular the ORG reasoned as follows :","\u201c As the relevant fact , namely that the speed limit had been exceeded , remained undisputed during the proceedings , this can be taken as an established fact . The accused alleges that she was not driving at the time the offence was committed , however she failed to comply with the duty to cooperate in these proceedings . In accordance with NORP law and the unanimous jurisprudence of ORG , the accused has the duty to cooperate in the establishment of the facts . In case of traffic - related offences this encompasses the duty of the registered car keeper to be able to provide information on which persons had use of the car at a specific time . As an ultimate consequence of this jurisprudence , the inference may be drawn that the registered car keeper herself was driving the car , as long as she refuses to provide information on the fact of who had been driving the car at a certain time . In the present case the accused did not comply with her duty as she had answered the ORG \u2019s request of DATE by merely stating that she had not been in GPE on DATE . As various family members could have been the driver , she could not define the real driver . Since she had simply denied having been the driver in both instances without submitting any concrete evidence , the authorities were , in the absence of any other evidence , allowed to assume that the accused had committed the offence herself . ( ... )","ORG found a violation of LAW and LAW in the case of NORP as it was not permissible to draw an inference solely from the applicant \u2019s refusal to disclose the identity of the driver . Where the authority wished to draw such an inference , an oral hearing for the purpose of obtaining a direct impression of his credibility had to be conducted .","In the present case , the applicant had not been ordered to disclose the full name and address of the person who had been driving her car . Nevertheless the ORG ordered her on DATE , indicating her duty to cooperate in the proceedings , to provide the authority with information regarding the driver of the car at the relevant time or to submit any evidence showing that she had not committed the offence . ( ... )","The applicant had solely denied in a very general way that she had been driving the car , without submitting any evidence . As it can be taken as an established fact that the registered keeper of a car has the most intensive relationship to the car and should therefore know who was driving the car at a relevant time , the authorities were allowed to assume \u2013 in the absence of any other evidence \u2013 that the applicant herself had committed the offence . ( ... ) \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ) claiming that the ORG had not been in possession of any evidence indicating that she herself had been driving her car and had thus wrongly established a prima facie case against her . Therefore , the ORG had not only shifted the burden of proof onto her , but had also violated her right to remain silent . Moreover , as the applicant had not been able to attend the hearing due to a sudden illness for which she had been excused by her representative , the ORG should have scheduled another hearing of its own motion in order to obtain a direct impression of her credibility . Thus , not only had the burden of proof been shifted onto her , but her right to remain silent had also been violated .","NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . In its reasoning the ORG held that the decision was sufficiently reasoned and clear , especially since the applicant had failed to submit any credible evidence in her defence , even though she had had various opportunities to do so in the course of the proceedings . Moreover , the ORG had DATE contrary to PERSON ( cited above ) \u2013 held an oral hearing and had , according to the minutes of the hearing , not been informed about the applicant \u2019s illness , and the legal representative had not requested postponement of the hearing . Therefore ORG found that the ORG could not be blamed for not having postponed the hearing of its own motion and for assuming that the applicant had been driving the car herself . Thus , no violation of LAW was found . Subsequently the case was transferred to ORG .","On DATE ORG declined to deal with the applicant \u2019s complaint , since the amount of the fine did not exceed the legal value threshold of ORG CARDINAL and no important legal issue was at stake . This decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","B. Relevant domestic law and legislation","Section CARDINALe of LAW ( GPE , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , which was in force at the relevant time , reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG shall hold hearings in public .","...","( CARDINAL ) ORG may dispense with an appeal hearing if","NORP the appeal is based solely on an incorrect legal assessment , or","NORP the appeal is directed solely against the amount of the penalty , or","NORP the decision being appealed against imposed a financial penalty not exceeding QUANTITY","NORP the appeal is directed against a procedural decision","and no party has requested that a hearing be held . Any request by the appellant for a hearing to be held must be made in the appeal itself ... \u201d","Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Allgemeines Verwaltungsgesetz , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) reads as follows :","\u201c The main purpose of the investigation proceedings is to establish the relevant facts and to provide the parties with the opportunity to exercise their rights and legal interests . ( ... ) \u201d .","Section CARDINAL of the ORG reads as follows :","\u201c \u201e ( CARDINAL ) Facts , which are evident or facts for which the law draws a presumption regarding their existence , do not have to be proved .","( CARDINAL ) Apart from that , the authority has to assess freely , giving careful consideration to the results of the investigation proceedings , whether or not a given fact is to be accepted as proved .","( CARDINAL ) The parties are to be informed regarding the evidence obtained and be provided with the opportunity to submit a statement . \u201d","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW as amended in DATE ( ORG ) provides as follows :","\u201c The authority may request information as to who had driven a certain motor vehicle identified by the number plate .... at a certain time or had last parked such a motor vehicle ... at a certain place before a certain date . The registered car keeper ( Zulassungsbesitzer \u2019s right to require such information shall take precedence over the right to refuse to give information . \u201d","The duty to cooperate with the authorities has been established by ORG jurisprudence , starting with its decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , issued on DATE , and ever since has been applied constantly in administrative criminal proceedings . Even though it is the authorities\u2019 duty to establish the relevant facts , the parties are not dispensed from their obligation to contribute to the establishment of these facts . That encompasses the duty to submit equally specific statements in reply and adduce the relevant evidence . ORG also agreed to draw inferences from an accused \u2019s evasive or unspecified answer , namely that it can be assumed that the registered keeper of a car had himself committed the offence charged ( ORG , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , decision of DATE [ quoted in the ORG \u2019s decision ] ; see also ORG , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , decision of DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183372","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF RASHAD HASANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion);Violation of Article 18+5-1-c - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-c - Reasonable suspicion)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 years of birth and home addresses are listed in the Appendix .","The applicants are civil society activists . They are board members of the civic movement PERSON , a non - governmental organisation established by a group of young people in DATE . According to its manifesto , PERSON wants liberty , justice , truth and change in GPE and it rejects violence and uses only non - violent methods of struggle . PERSON is governed by a board of members composed of CARDINAL people . The first , second and fourth applicants are also co - founders .","In DATE and DATE a number of peaceful demonstrations were held in GPE in protest against the death of soldiers in the NORP army in non - combat situations . The demonstrations were organised through social media and the applicants and other members of PERSON actively participated in organising and conducting them . CARDINAL of the demonstrations was scheduled for DATE in the city centre .","On DATE CARDINAL members of PERSON ( ORG , ORG and PERSON ) were arrested by agents of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . Domestic proceedings concerning the arrest and pre - trial detention of ORG and ORG are the subject of other applications pending before ORG ( see applications nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG and the ORG made a joint public statement to the press , stating that \u201c illegal attempts to undermine the social - political stability established in the country have recently been made by some radical destructive forces \u201d ( son d\u00f6vrl\u0259r radikal y\u00f6n\u00fcml\u00fc b\u0259zi destruktiv q\u00fcvv\u0259l\u0259r t\u0259r\u0259find\u0259n \u00f6lk\u0259d\u0259 b\u0259rq\u0259rar olmu\u015f ictimai - siyasi sabitliyin pozulmas\u0131na y\u00f6n\u0259lmi\u015f qanunazidd c\u0259hdl\u0259r g\u00f6st\u0259rilir ) . The statement was also public confirmation that ORG , ORG and PERSON had been arrested for planning to incite violence and civil unrest during the unlawful demonstration scheduled for DATE . It also said that criminal proceedings had been instituted against ORG , ORG and GPE as narcotic substances had been found in their flats . It further stated that CARDINAL Molotov cocktails had been found in PERSON \u2019s flat , CARDINAL Molotov cocktails had been found in ORG \u2019s flat and CARDINAL leaflets worded \u201c Democracy urgently needed ( t\u0259cili demokratiya t\u0259l\u0259b olunur ) , tel : + CARDINAL , address : GPE \u201d had been found in GPE \u2019s flat . In that connection , the statement said that \u201c it was established during the preliminary investigation that since DATE all CARDINAL individuals , being addicted to narcotic substances and becoming members of PERSON through the Internet , had actively participated in a number of illegal activities of the organisation and prepared a flammable liquid known as Molotov cocktails , found in their flats \u201d ( PERSON istintaqla m\u00fc\u0259yy\u0259n edilmi\u015fdir ki , h\u0259r \u00fc\u00e7 \u015f\u0259xs CARDINAL-ci ilin ortalar\u0131ndan etibar\u0259n internet vasit\u0259sil\u0259 \u201c ORG \u201d v\u0259t\u0259nda\u015f h\u0259r\u0259kat\u0131n\u0131n \u00fczvl\u0259ri v\u0259 narkotika alud\u0259\u00e7isi olmaqla , t\u0259\u015fkilat\u0131n bir s\u0131ra qanunsuz t\u0259dbirl\u0259rind\u0259 f\u0259al i\u015ftirak etmi\u015f v\u0259 ya\u015fad\u0131qlar\u0131 m\u0259nzill\u0259rd\u0259n a\u015fkar edilmi\u015f \u201c Molotov kokteyli \u201d adlanan tez al\u0131\u015fan maye onlar t\u0259r\u0259find\u0259n haz\u0131rlanm\u0131\u015fd\u0131r ) .","On DATE PERSON made a public statement , saying that the arrest of ORG , ORG and ORG had been politically motivated and had aimed to silence the protesters by creating a feeling of fear among them before the demonstration of DATE .","It appears from the documents in the case file that on the basis of the investigator \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE QUANTITY - CARDINAL Molotov cocktails found in the flats of ORG and ORG were submitted for an expert examination , which began on DATE . Expert report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , dated DATE and signed by CARDINAL experts , concluded that CARDINAL of the Molotov cocktails \u201c were only flammable ( incendiary ) tools which could not be considered explosive devices \u201d . The report further stated that the CARDINAL remaining Molotov cocktails could be considered explosive devices because there had been a syringe with gunpowder attached to the bottles .","On DATE the first applicant , on DATE the third and fourth applicants and on DATE the second applicant were arrested and taken to ORG of ORG .","It appears from the documents in the case file that on the respective dates of their arrest the applicants were informed that they had been charged with an offence under LAW ( illegal acquisition , transfer , sale , storage , transportation and carrying of arm , its accessories , supplies , explosive substances and devices by an organised group ) of LAW . The decisions charging the applicants were made on various dates but by the same investigator . They were identical in their wording except for the name of the person charged . The description of the charges consisted of a single sentence CARDINAL a page long . The relevant part of the decision concerning the first applicant stated :","\u201c ... PERSON oglu NORP has been charged on the basis of sufficient charging evidence because in DATE in GPE , in an organised group with ORG , ORG and others with whom he had close ties , [ he ] unlawfully obtained twentytwo glass bottles of explosive devices known as Molotov cocktails , which are prepared with flammable liquid petrol as an explosive substance by inserting a cotton rag preventing the liquid from dispersing and evaporating , as well as acting as a fuse , [ and arranged storage ] until DATE by giving CARDINAL of them to PERSON who lives in ... and CARDINAL of them to ORG who lives in ...","Through these actions , PERSON committed a criminal offence under LAW .","... \u201d","On the respective dates of their arrest the First Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE requested that the courts remand each applicant in custody ( h\u0259bs q\u0259timkan t\u0259dbiri ) . In each case , the prosecutor used the exact same wording as in the decisions charging the applicants .","On the same dates the applicants were brought before a judge of ORG . Referring to the official charges brought against them and the prosecutor \u2019s requests to remand them in custody , the judges ordered their detention for a period of DATE . It appears from the transcripts of the court hearings before ORG available in the case file that the applicants denied the charges against them , stating that their arrest was related to their social and political engagement . Although ORG decisions were delivered on various dates and by different judges , their wording was almost identical . Each time , the judges justified the applicants\u2019 detention pending trial by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released they might abscond or obstruct the investigation . Moreover , in respect of the first applicant , the judge also noted that the first applicant had avoided the investigation until his arrest on DATE because he had been wanted by the police since DATE on the basis of the investigator \u2019s decision charging him with a criminal offence under LAW .","On various dates in DATE and DATE the applicants appealed against the decisions ordering their pre - trial detention . They complained that there was no evidence that they had committed a criminal offence and there had been no justification for their detention pending trial . The first applicant also submitted that he had never been informed of any decision of the investigator charging him with a criminal offence until his arrest on DATE . In that connection , he pointed out that CARDINAL March CARDINAL he had not gone into hiding and had actively participated in the political life of the country , giving an interview to a newspaper and participating in the gathering of a political movement .","On various dates in DATE and DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeals , finding that the detention orders were justified . In that connection , the appellate court held that ORG had correctly taken into account the seriousness of the criminal offence attributed to the applicants and the likelihood that if released they might abscond or obstruct the normal functioning of the investigation .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a request with ORG asking to be put under house arrest in place of pretrial detention . He claimed , in particular , that his detention was not justified and that there was no reason for it to continue . In support of his request , he pointed out that he had a permanent address , had never been convicted , and that there was no risk of his absconding or obstructing the investigation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request , finding it unfounded .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case lodged a request with the court asking for an extension of the first applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention of DATE , submitting that more time was needed to complete the investigation .","On DATE ORG extended the first applicant \u2019s detention pending trial until DATE . The court substantiated the need for the extension by the complexity of the case , the gravity of the charges , and the likelihood that if released the first applicant might abscond or obstruct the investigation by influencing those participating in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the first applicant appealed against that decision . He complained , in particular , that there was no evidence that he had committed a criminal offence and that the first - instance court had failed to justify the extension of his detention pending trial .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .","No further extension decisions were included in the case file .","On DATE the second applicant lodged a request with ORG asking to be put under house arrest in place of pretrial detention . He claimed , in particular , that there was no risk of his absconding or obstructing the investigation and that the courts had failed to take his personal situation into consideration .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request , finding it unfounded .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case lodged a request with the court asking for an extension of the second applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE . In that connection , he submitted that more time was needed to complete the investigation .","On DATE ORG extended the second applicant \u2019s detention pending trial by DATE , until DATE . The court substantiated the need for the extension by the complexity of the case , the gravity of the charges and the need for additional time to carry out further investigative measures .","On DATE the second applicant appealed against that decision , reiterating that there was no evidence that he had committed a criminal offence and that ORG had failed to justify his continued detention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that the extension of the second applicant \u2019s detention pending trial was justified .","On DATE the second applicant again lodged a request with ORG asking to be put under house arrest in place of pre - trial detention , reiterating his previous arguments .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request , finding that the grounds for his pre - trial detention had not changed .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","On DATE the prosecutor lodged a request with the court asking for an extension of the second applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE . The prosecutor gave as the reason for the need to extend the detention the complexity of the case and the need for more time for the accused and his lawyer to familiarise themselves with the material in the case file .","On DATE ORG extended the second applicant \u2019s detention pending trial by DATE , until DATE . The court substantiated the need for the extension by the complexity of the case , the gravity of the charges , the need for additional time to carry out further investigative measures and the likelihood that if released the second applicant might abscond or obstruct the investigation by influencing those participating in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance court \u2019s decision .","No further extension decisions were included in the case file .","It appears from the documents in the case file that on an unspecified date in DATE the third applicant lodged a request with ORG asking to be put under house arrest in place of pre - trial detention . In that regard the ORG notes that it explicitly requested the ORG to submit copies of all the documents relating to the ORG pre - trial detention ; they failed to do so .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request , finding that there was no need to use an alternative preventive measure to custody .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case lodged a request with the court asking for an extension of the third applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE , submitting that more time was needed to complete the investigation .","On DATE ORG extended the third applicant \u2019s remand in custody by DATE , until DATE . The court substantiated the need for the extension by the gravity of the charges , the risk of his reoffending , and the likelihood that if released he might abscond or obstruct the investigation .","It appears from the documents in the case file that on an unspecified date in DATE the third applicant appealed against that decision . The Government did not make a copy of the appeal available to the ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that the extension of his detention pending trial was justified .","On DATE the third applicant again lodged a request with ORG asking to be put under house arrest in place of pre - trial detention . He claimed that his continued detention was not justified and that no investigative measures had been carried out since the beginning of his pre - trial detention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance court \u2019s decision .","No further extension decisions were included in the case file .","On DATE the fourth applicant lodged a request with ORG asking to be put under house arrest in place of pretrial detention . He claimed , in particular , that there was no risk of his absconding or obstructing the investigation and that the courts had failed to take his personal situation into consideration .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case lodged a request with the court asking for an extension of the fourth applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE , submitting that more time was needed to complete the investigation .","On DATE ORG extended the fourth applicant \u2019s remand in custody by DATE , until DATE . The court substantiated the need for the extension by the complexity of the case , the need for additional time to carry out further investigative measures and the possibility of the fourth applicant \u2019s absconding or influencing persons participating in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the fourth applicant appealed against that decision , reiterating that there was no evidence that he had committed a criminal offence and that the first - instance court had failed to justify his continued detention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that the extension of his detention pending trial was justified .","On DATE the fourth applicant again lodged a request with ORG asking to be put under house arrest in place of pre - trial detention or to be released on bail . He submitted in support of his request that there was no reason justifying his continued detention and that the courts had failed to take into account his personal situation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request , finding that there was no need to use an alternative preventive measure to custody .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance court \u2019s decision .","It appears from the documents in the case file that on an unspecified date in DATE the prosecutor in charge of the criminal case lodged a request with the court asking for an extension of the fourth applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for DATE . The Government did not make a copy of the request available to ORG .","On DATE ORG decided to extend the fourth applicant \u2019s detention pending trial for DATE , until DATE .","On DATE the fourth applicant appealed against that decision , complaining that there was no justification for his continued detention . He reiterated that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that the first - instance court had failed to justify its decision .","It appears from the documents in the case file that on DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . The Government did not make a copy of the appellate court \u2019s decision available to ORG .","No further extension decisions were included in the case file .","It appears from the documents in the case file that in DATE the applicants were additionally charged with new criminal offences under LAW ( preparation of a crime ) and CARDINAL ( mass disorder ) of LAW . The Government did not make the investigator \u2019s decisions in this respect available to the ORG .","On DATE ORG found the applicants guilty on all counts and sentenced the first applicant to CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment , the second applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , the third applicant to DATE imprisonment and the fourth applicant to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the appellate court \u2019s judgment in respect of the first and third applicants .","On DATE ORG upheld the appellate court \u2019s judgment in respect of the second and fourth applicants .","In the meantime , on DATE the second and third applicants were released from serving the remainder of their sentence after being pardoned by a presidential decree .","On DATE the first and fourth applicants were also released from serving the remainder of their sentence after being pardoned by a presidential decree ."],"violated_articles":["18","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179045","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"DOMJ\u00c1N v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant is a NORP national who was born in GPE and is detained in FAC .","On DATE the applicant was placed in FAC . He alleged that during his time in FAC he had been kept in a cell measuring QUANTITY , which he had had to share with CARDINAL other inmates . Outdoor exercise had been limited to TIME a day and the applicant had spent the remainder of his time in the cell . Furthermore , the cell had been infected with bed bugs .","NORP In DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC , where he was first accommodated together with CARDINAL other inmates in a cell measuring QUANTITY , then together with CARDINAL other inmates in a cell measuring QUANTITY . He claimed that in both cells the toilet had been separated from the living area only by a curtain . The applicant was allowed to take a TIME shower once DATE .","As of DATE , he was transferred to FAC where he was held in a cell measuring QUANTITY and accommodating CARDINAL inmates including him . Throughout this confinement he had outdoor stays for TIME a day in a yard measuring QUANTITY . He spent the remainder of his time in the cell .","DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in FAC . The cell where he was held measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL inmates . It was equipped with a separate toilet . The applicant was allowed to take a TIME - long shower once a week .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in PERSON , where CARDINAL persons were held in a cell measuring QUANTITY . Outdoor exercise was limited to TIME a day .","NORP Since CARDINAL July CARDINAL the applicant has been detained in FAC with CARDINAL other detainees in a cell measuring QUANTITY . The applicant is allowed to move freely outside his cell .","On DATE the NORP Parliament adopted Act No . CX of DATE , amending certain Acts on criminal matters in relation to the judgment adopted by ORG in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( hereinafter , the \u201c LAW \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This Act was promulgated on DATE and entered into force on DATE . It was aimed at introducing preventive and compensatory remedies in cases of inadequate conditions of detention .","On DATE , the Minister of Justice of GPE addressed to the President of the ORG a letter \u201c concerning the implementation of the pilot judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE \u201d . The Minister noted that LAW , a complaint alleging conditions of detention in violation of LAW could be presented to the prison governor , who should , as far as practicable , take the necessary actions in order to improve the conditions or counterbalance the injury suffered ( for instance : relocation , increasing the time allowed for visits or the time spent in the open air , and improvement of the sanitary facilities ) . According to the Minister , in view of the progress of the prison capacity expansion programme , there was a \u201c real prospect \u201d of finding penal institutions with sufficient capacity . A preventive remedy could , however , be used only while the detention was still ongoing . After release , and within DATE of the termination of the prison sentence , only a compensatory claim could be submitted . This could lead to the granting of a sum calculated on the basis of DATE spent in conditions contrary to LAW , the daily tariff ranging from a minimum of MONEY ( ORG \u2013 approximately CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) and a maximum of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . The judge must exercise his or her judicial discretion in order to award an amount proportionate to the gravity of the violation found , taking into account , for instance , the absence of toilets separated from the living space in the cell , in addition to a general situation of overcrowding , or to other inadequate conditions of detention . The sum thus determined must be paid within DATE of the decision being served .","NORP The Minister further stated that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL applications for compensation had been lodged with the penal institutions , thus showing the accessibility of the new remedy . Referring to the strict time - limits provided for by LAW , the Minister argued that the remedy also satisfied the requirement of quick adjudication and underlined that the judge responsible for the execution of sentences must provide reasons for his or her decision . As to the amount of compensation , the Minister noted that the NORP legislation adopted following the pilot judgment in the case of GPE and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , DATE ) fixed the sum to be granted at ORG CARDINAL per day of detention in conditions incompatible with the requirements of LAW . Having regard to the burden - bearing capacity and of the economic realities of the CARDINAL countries , the choice of the NORP legislator to fix the DATE tariff at between ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL could be deemed to be reasonable .","NORP The Minister lastly noted that out of CARDINAL cases brought before the judges responsible for the execution of sentences , CARDINAL claims had been adjudicated by DATE , awarding a total amount of ORG ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . Moreover , due to the extension of the prison capacity achieved as part of the action plan , overcrowding in NORP prisons had significantly dropped : whereas in DATE the occupancy level had been PERCENT , in DATE and DATE the respective figures were PERCENT and PERCENT .","In the light of the above , the Minister urged the ORG to find that the preventive and compensatory remedies provided for by LAW were effective and needed to be exhausted in accordance with LAW .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG asked the applicant to indicate whether he had used the remedies provided for by LAW or intended to do so . In his reply of DATE , the applicant stated that he had lodged a claim under the relevant domestic legislation and the proceedings were still pending before ORG .","The DATE Act introduced , inter alia , new sections into LAW . ORG of DATE on the enforcement of punishments , measures , certain coercive measures and confinement for regulatory offences . In so far as relevant , those sections read as follows :","Compensation for conditions of detention violating fundamental rights","Section CARDINAL\/A","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Convicts and persons detained on other grounds are entitled to compensation for not having been provided with the inmate living space specified in the law and for any other conditions of detention violating the prohibition of torture or cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment , in particular for violations caused by unseparated toilets , and lack of proper ventilation or lighting or heating and disinfection ( henceforth together : conditions of detention violating fundamental rights ) . Compensation shall be awarded for DATE spent in conditions of detention violating fundamental rights . Compensation shall be paid by the ORG .","( CARDINAL ) Under the head specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) , no further indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights shall be sought but convicts and persons detained on other grounds may apply to a civil court seeking additional damages exceeding the amount of compensation .","( CARDINAL ) The DATE compensation tariff shall be a minimum of ORG CARDINAL but a maximum of ORG CARDINAL .","( CARDINAL ) A compensation claim may be made within DATE on which the conditions of detention violating fundamental rights ceased to exist . This time - limit is absolute . For the purposes of this subsection , conditions of detention violating fundamental rights will not be considered to have ceased to exist where those conditions are interrupted for a short period , but for a maximum of DATE , on account of the fact that within the term of imprisonment of the convict or person detained on other grounds the statutory living space has been provided .","( CARDINAL ) A compensation claim may be lodged by a convict or person detained on other grounds or by their counsel or , if the detainee has already been released , by his legal representative . The compensation claim shall be lodged in writing with the penal institution where the detention is being effected or , if the convict or person detained on other grounds has been released , with the penal institution which released him . In the application for compensation the convict or person detained on other grounds shall give a statement as to whether ORG ( henceforth : the ORG ) has obliged the ORG to pay damages to him on account of conditions of detention violating fundamental rights and whether a civil court has already awarded him indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights . If the answer is yes , the detainee shall also state the name of the court and the case number in the application .","( CARDINAL ) Save for inmates undergoing involuntary treatment or temporary involuntary treatment , a further condition for the lodging of such an application for compensation is the prior submission by the convict or person detained on other grounds of a complaint under LAW to the head of the organ responsible for the enforcement of the sentence about the conditions of detention violating fundamental rights . This condition shall be applicable where DATE spent in conditions of detention violating fundamental rights has exceeded CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) . Where conditions of detention violating fundamental rights exist over a longer period of time , a further complaint does not need to be lodged within DATE .. Where the convict or person detained on other grounds could not enforce his right of complaint for reasons beyond his control , it shall not be imputed to him .","( CARDINAL ) It will be possible to satisfy other claims from the compensation awarded only","( a ) up to the amount of a civil claim or of an indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded under a final civil judgment in relation to the offence for the enforcement of which the compensation is awarded , and","( b ) up to the amount of a child - support claim enforced in enforcement proceedings for the collection of child support .","( CARDINAL) Where in the cases specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) the amount of compensation is not enough to satisfy all the claims , first the child - support claim , then the civil claim and the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded on account of the offence shall be satisfied in equal proportion .","Section CARDINAL\/B","( CARDINAL ) The minister responsible for justice shall make arrangements for the payment of the compensation awarded .","( CARDINAL ) In making the arrangements for the payment of the compensation , the minister responsible for justice shall , from the register kept by the office of ORG , request data on any child - support enforcement proceedings stayed or pending against the convict or person detained on other grounds , as well as the case number and the name of the bailiff with jurisdiction in the case .","( CARDINAL ) Where the data received under subsection ( CARDINAL ) or from the penitentiary judge indicate that enforcement proceedings for the collection of child support or for the satisfaction of a civil claim or for the payment of indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded against the inmate on account of the commission of the offence have been instituted , the minister responsible for justice shall inform the bailiff of the amount of compensation awarded to the debtor and the claims that may be satisfied from the compensation by way of debt collection . In such cases the compensation may , in line with LAW ) , only be paid after the bailiff has taken the necessary enforcement measures for the attachment of the debt .","( CARDINAL ) Where in his decision the penitentiary judge orders that a partly or fully unpaid civil claim or indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded on account of the committed offence are to be deducted and paid to the beneficiaries of such claims , the remaining compensation is to be paid to the convict or person detained on other grounds . Where the available data indicate that enforcement proceedings for the collection of child support have been instituted , the compensation may only be paid after the bailiff has , in line with LAW ) , taken the necessary enforcement measures for the attachment of the child support Child support shall be collected primarily from the compensation payable to the convict or person detained on other grounds .","( CARDINAL ) Payment may be effected via bank transfer to the bank account number given by the convict or person detained on other grounds or paid into the bank account of , or in cash to , the beneficiary of the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded on account of the offence committed , in accordance with his or her request . Where the convict or person detained on other grounds is still detained , he may request that the compensation be transferred to a deposit account .","( CARDINAL ) The minister responsible for justice may process personal data obtained under subsections ( CARDINAL ) and being related to the enforcement of a child support claim or civil claim or indemnification or damages for a violation of personality rights awarded on account of the offence committed , for DATE from the date of payment of the compensation .","Compensation proceedings to redress damage resulting","from conditions of detention violating fundamental rights","Section CARDINAL\/A","( CARDINAL ) A decision on whether compensation is payable to an inmate for damage resulting from conditions of detention violating fundamental rights shall be taken by the penitentiary judge at the request of the inmate or his counsel . A decision by the penitentiary judge may be taken also on the basis of documents .","( CARDINAL ) The penal institution shall transmit the application , together with its opinion on the application , to the penitentiary judge within DATE or , where several penal institutions are affected , within DATE with the specification that if the inmate has lodged a complaint alleging conditions of detention violating fundamental rights , the penal institution \u2019s opinion may only be transmitted after the complaint , including an application for judicial review lodged against a decision on relocation , has been determined . A summary of the inmate \u2019s records containing data on the conditions of detention in the period complained of shall be appended to the opinion .","( CARDINAL ) The penitentiary judge shall , ex officio , examine whether the ORG has obliged the ORG to pay damages to the inmate on account of the conditions of his detention violating fundamental rights or whether a civil court has awarded indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights , and if the answer is yes , the penitentiary judge shall obtain the relevant decisions before taking a decision .","( CARDINAL ) The penitentiary judge shall evaluate the inmate \u2019s conditions of detention in their entirety and shall determine the DATE compensation tariff on the basis of the extent of the injury caused . Thereafter , compensation shall be calculated by multiplying the DATE compensation tariff by the time spent in conditions of detention violating fundamental rights .","( CARDINAL ) The penitentiary judge shall reject the application on the basis of the documents , without an examination on the merits , where","( a ) the application has been lodged belatedly","( b ) the application has been lodged by a person not entitled to lodge such an application","( c ) the inmate has failed to lodge the complaint as specified in Section CARDINAL\/D , or","( d ) in respect of the period indicated in the application , the ORG has obliged the ORG to pay compensation , or a civil court has awarded indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights on account of the conditions of the inmate \u2019s detention violating fundamental rights .","( CARDINAL ) Where the inmate has been released , proceedings shall be conducted by the penitentiary judge with jurisdiction for the location of the penal institution , but if a separate request to that effect has been made by the inmate or his defence counsel , the penitentiary judge with jurisdiction for the inmate \u2019s place of domicile or place of residence shall proceed .","...","Section CARDINAL\/B","( CARDINAL ) Where the court that dealt with the criminal case against the inmate has awarded a civil claim to the injured party or his heir or referred the enforcement of the civil claim to another legal avenue , the penitentiary judge shall invite the injured party to submit , within a time - limit of DATE , a statement as to whether the inmate has paid the civil claim awarded to the injured party or has paid DATE if the injured party lodged an action seeking to recover the damage caused by the offence or seeking the payment of damages for infringement of personality rights \u2013 the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded by the civil court . If full payment has not been made by the inmate , the statement shall also confirm whether the injured party requests the deduction of the outstanding claim from any compensation that may be awarded to the inmate .","( CARDINAL ) In the case specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) , the penitentiary judge shall also invite the injured party to state the precise amount he is claiming and to append any documents in his possession in relation to the civil claim or the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded to him on account of the committed offence . Where the penitentiary judge adjudicates the case on the basis of documents , he shall obtain a statement from the inmate on the payment of the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded against him on account of the committed offence .","( CARDINAL ) If the injured party requests the payment of the outstanding part of the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded to him on account of the committed offence , the penitentiary judge shall request data from the register kept by the office of ORG on any stayed or pending proceedings instituted for the collection of such claims , as well as the case number and the name of the bailiff with jurisdiction in the case .","( CARDINAL ) In the case specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) , the time - limit specified in LAW subsection ( CARDINAL)(d ) shall be extended by DATE . Where the invitation to the injured party has not produced any result within DATE , the penitentiary judge shall adjudicate the case by ignoring any outstanding amount of indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded on account of the committed offence .","( CARDINAL ) The penitentiary judge shall make arrangements for the payment from the compensation amount to the beneficiary of any outstanding civil claim amount or indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded on account of the committed offence , where","( a ) the civil claim or the indemnification or damages for infringement of personality rights awarded to the injured party on account of the committed offence has not yet or not fully been paid by the inmate ,","( b ) no enforcement proceedings have been instituted for the collection of the claims specified in point ( a ) ,","( c ) in examining a defence statement to that effect filed by the inmate or his counsel , the penitentiary judge has established that the limitation period specified in LAW has not yet elapsed .","( CARDINAL ) In the decision the penitentiary judge shall oblige the ORG to pay the compensation and shall invite the ORG to effect the payment within a time - limit of DATE from the service of the decision .","Review of a decision on the measures taken following a complaint","about conditions of detention violating fundamental rights and on relocation","Section CARDINAL\/A","( CARDINAL ) An application by the inmate or his counsel for the judicial review of a decision on the measures taken following a complaint about conditions of detention violating fundamental rights and on relocation shall be determined by the penitentiary judge within DATE of the receipt of the application .","( CARDINAL ) If in the review the penitentiary judge finds that the governor of the penal institution has failed to take a measure the penitentiary judge shall , by applying \u2013 mutatis mutandis \u2013 Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) , instruct the governor of the penal institution to conduct the proceedings .","( CARDINAL ) The costs of the criminal proceedings shall be borne by the ORG .","...","Complaint about conditions of detention violating fundamental rights","Section CARDINAL\/B","( CARDINAL ) The inmate or his counsel may submit a written complaint alleging conditions of detention violating fundamental rights directly to the governor of the penal institution .","( CARDINAL ) The complaint shall be determined within DATE of its submission . Upon receipt of the complaint , the governor of the penal institution shall , in the event of conditions of detention violating fundamental rights , take the necessary actions to improve the conditions or to counterbalance the injury suffered . With the exceptions specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) below , the governor of the penal institution shall issue a decision setting out the actions to be taken .","( CARDINAL ) Where the conditions of detention violating fundamental rights on account of the lack of statutory inmate living space can not be terminated in the penal institution in issue , the governor of the penal institution shall , with urgency , contact ORG department responsible for detention matters and shall request the inmate \u2019s relocation to another penal institution capable of guaranteeing the statutory inmate living space .","( CARDINAL ) The head of ORG department responsible for detention matters shall decide on the request within DATE , in a reasoned decision . If the statutory inmate living space can be guaranteed in another penal institution , the head of ORG department responsible for detention matters will designate such a penal institution for serving the term of imprisonment ; otherwise , it shall not issue any decision and shall inform the governor of the penal institution accordingly . In deciding on the inmate \u2019s relocation , the inmate \u2019s contact rights shall be taken into consideration .","( CARDINAL ) Where the conditions of detention violating fundamental rights on account of the lack of the statutory inmate living space can be terminated neither within the penal institution in issue , nor by relocating the inmate to another penal institution , the governor of the penal institution shall take action to counterbalance the injury , provided that no such action has yet been taken by him and that the taking of such action does not hamper the performance of tasks , and provided that the conditions thereof are ensured .","( CARDINAL ) The inmate and his defence counsel may apply to the penitentiary judge for a review against action taken under subsections ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) above , or for a failure to take action , and if relocation violates the inmate \u2019s contact rights . The application for review shall have a suspensive effect on the relocation .","Section CARDINAL\/A","( CARDINAL ) Where the purposes of the incarceration may be achieved in this way as well , if conditional release is imminent or if conditional release has been excluded , before the prospective date of his release the inmate may be placed in reintegration custody if he consents to being placed in such custody and if he has been sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed with criminal negligence . The same applies to a person sentenced for an intentional offence , provided that he","( a ) was not convicted for a violent crime committed against another person specified in Article CARDINAL ) point CARDINAL of LAW ,","( b ) was sentenced to enforceable imprisonment for the first time or is a repeat offender without being a recidivist , and","( c ) is serving a term of imprisonment not exceeding DATE .","( CARDINAL ) Reintegration custody shall last","( a ) for a maximum of DATE if the inmate was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for an offence committed with criminal negligence ,","( b ) in cases other than the one specified in point ( a ) , for a maximum of DATE .","...","Section CARDINAL","( CARDINAL) Where a pre - trial detainee or his counsel has lodged a complaint alleging conditions of detention violating fundamental rights , the governor of the penal institution shall also append a consent statement by the person authorised to make decisions in respect of the pre - trial detainee to the request made under Section CARDINAL\/B(CARDINAL ) for the relocation of the pre - trial detainee to another penal institution . In such cases the complaint shall be determined and a decision made within DATE .","Section CARDINAL","...","( CARDINAL ) A compensation claim under LAW , enacted by LAW Act No . ORG of DATE , may also be submitted by a convict or person detained on other grounds","( a ) in respect of whom the injury having resulted from conditions of detention violating fundamental rights ceased to exist within DATE preceding the entry into force of the amendment ,","( b ) who submitted an application to the ORG alleging conditions of detention violating fundamental rights and the application was registered by the ORG before the entry into force of the amendment , except where the inmate submitted his application to the ORG after DATE and by the date of receipt of the application , DATE have elapsed since the termination of the violation .","( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of subsection ( CARDINAL ) the absolute time - limit specified in LAW CARDINAL ) shall start to run on DATE of the entry into force of this provision . In determining claims submitted under subsection ( CARDINAL ) , Section CARDINAL\/A(CARDINAL ) shall not be applicable and the time - limit specified for the proceedings before the penitentiary judge under LAW ) shall be extended by DATE .","( CARDINAL ) Where data are obtained indicating that before the entry into force of the compensation claim provided for in LAW No . CX of DATE , on account of conditions of detention violating fundamental rights","( a ) proceedings were instituted before a civil court , or","( b ) an application was submitted to the ORG and the application was registered by the ORG before the date of the entry into force of the amendment","the penitentiary judge shall suspend the proceedings until the completion of these proceedings or , if there are proceedings pending before the ORG , until notification by the ORG of the referral of the case to national adjudication has been received . \u201d","At its CARDINALth meeting held on DATE , in the ambit of the execution of the judgments PERSON and Others and PERSON GPE , ORG adopted the following decision ( CM \/ Del \/ Dec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL\/HCARDINAL - CARDINAL ; hereinafter , the \u201c decision of DATE \u201d ) :","\u201c The Deputies","NORP welcomed the authorities\u2019 commitment to resolve the problem of prison overcrowding in GPE and noted with interest that the substantive measures taken appear to be showing the first concrete results , in particular a decrease in the rate of overcrowding and a drop in the shortage of prison places ;","As regards individual measures","NORP noted that a number of applicants are still detained in conditions not meeting the minimum standards for personal living space and reminded the authorities of their obligation to rectify the situation by ensuring that all applicants\u2019 conditions of detention are in line with the Convention ; invited them to provide the outstanding information , in particular , on other relevant aspects of the material conditions of detention where the available living space is between CARDINAL and CARDINAL m\u00b2 per inmate ;","As regards general measures","NORP noted with interest the further extension of the application of \u201c reintegration custody \u201d , the facilitation of an increase in the use of house arrest , and the slight decrease in the number of defendants placed in pre - trial detention ; strongly encouraged the authorities further to pursue their efforts in this regard and to find all possible means \u201c to encourage prosecutors and judges to use as widely as possible alternatives to detention and redirect their criminal policy towards reduced use of imprisonment \u201d ; invited them to submit updated statistical information on the impact and further promotion of alternative sanctions and the reduction of overcrowding ;","NORP welcomed the fact that , in response to the PERSON and Others pilot judgment , the authorities have introduced both a preventive and a compensatory remedy aimed at guaranteeing genuinely effective redress for Convention violations arising from poor material conditions of detention , which took effect on DATE ; invited them to provide further detailed information ( including statistical data ) on the implementation and functioning of these newly introduced remedies , notably in the light of the monitoring they will undertake in this context , and more concretely on the impact of the preventive remedy on the general problem of prison overcrowding ;","welcomed the information received as regards the other violations concerned by this group and invited the authorities to submit the outstanding information ;","in view of ORG decision to suspend the examination of the similar pending applications until DATE , invited the authorities to provide the information expected by that date , at the latest . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-142410","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CSABUDA v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","In DATE the applicant filed for divorce and division of matrimonial property . The case was processed at first instance by ORG and ORG ; and at second instance by ORG and the Gy\u0151r - Sopron - Moson County Regional Court . The procedure ended on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146413","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF P.G. v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant concluded an employment contract with a ORG - owned financial institution . His contract was amended in DATE stipulating , in case of ordinary dismissal , severance payment equal to DATE salary and remuneration corresponding to a notice period of DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s employment was terminated by mutual agreement . Under this agreement , on DATE his former employer paid him , after taxes , a net amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , amounting to CARDINAL months\u2019 salary .","Under new legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the gross amount corresponding to the above payment was subsequently taxed at a PERCENT rate in its part exceeding ORG CARDINAL ; the income tax and social security contributions already paid ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were deducted from the tax payable . Thus , the applicant had to pay an additional ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL as special tax , until DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177698","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LEBOIS v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-1 - Six-month period);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE , where he apparently moved from GPE in DATE .","At TIME on DATE he was arrested in GPE while breaking into cars with a view to stealing items from them . He was taken to ORG and placed under police detention . According to the applicant , he was not put in a cell , but handcuffed to a bench in the station \u2019s corridor .","According to the applicant , throughout the whole time that he spent in the police station he was not given any food or drink , allowed to go to the toilet , or allowed to use a telephone . He was visited by an ex officio lawyer appointed for him by the authorities . However , the lawyer spoke no NORP and very little LANGUAGE \u2013 a language that the applicant is apparently familiar with DATE and did not explain to him anything about the procedure in his case .","In TIME DATE the applicant was taken to a hospital for a medical examination , and then , at QUANTITY the same day , taken to a pre - trial detention facility in GPE .","It appears that DATE , or one of DATE , the applicant was brought before GPE with a view to a decision on whether he should be remanded in detention , and that it was decided that he should remain in custody pending trial . A subsequent request for release apparently made by his counsel in DATE was rejected as well .","According to the applicant , upon his arrival in the pre - trial detention facility on TIME DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he was given a dirty mattress , pillow and blanket , but no bedlinen . Since he had arrived in the facility after suppertime , he could not eat or drink anything until lunchtime the following day , DATE .","According to the applicant , the cell in which he had been placed had been dirty , cold , poorly ventilated , infested with cockroaches , overcrowded , and with a toilet which was not properly separated from the rest of the cell .","According to the applicant , he was not able to maintain his personal hygiene , as he was not provided with toilet paper or other toiletries , and had had no money to purchase them . As a result , it had been impossible for him to go to the shower for DATE . On DATE of his stay in the facility , he had seen spots erupt on his skin and had asked to be examined by a medical doctor . The doctor had come to see him DATE , and had only examined him from a distance , without entering the cell . On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant was given a blood test which revealed that he had a staphylococcus infection . He was given antibiotics for it but was not taken to a hospital .","According to the applicant , food had also been so poor and served so unhygienically that he had lost QUANTITY during his stay in the detention facility . The space for out - of - cell exercise had also been so small that on many occasions he had chosen not to take his daily exercise .","In the detention facility , there was a cardphone which inmates could use to call outside numbers . It was located in the space where they could take their DATE TIME out - of - cell exercise . Since it had to be shared among them , each inmate had TIME to use it . As the applicant had had no money on him when arrested , he could not however purchase a phonecard . With the help of a co - detainee who spoke some LANGUAGE , about two weeks after his arrival in the facility he managed to obtain TIME of call time free of charge , and on DATE contacted the consulate of GPE in GPE . The consulate immediately informed the applicant \u2019s NORP girlfriend , a NORP friend of his and his parents , who resided in GPE , that he had been arrested and detained , and the consul came to visit him . The same day the applicant \u2019s mother , who lived in GPE , wired money to the consul so that she could purchase food and clothes for the applicant . The consulate also arranged for a lawyer to represent the applicant in the criminal case against him .","With the money that he received via the consulate , the applicant was able to purchase a phonecard . According to him , he had made many requests to that effect in DATE after DATE , which the Government had not provided . The Government insisted that they had made available to the ORG all documents in the applicant \u2019s detention file . They submitted a declaration by him dated DATE whereby he had asked the detention facility \u2019s head to issue him a phonecard preloaded with MONEY of credit and , as required under the relevant regulations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , had submitted for approval a list of the persons \u2013 his NORP girlfriend , a NORP friend , his lawyer , and his mother and father in GPE \u2013 whom he wished to call . The same day the facility \u2019s head approved the list . The applicant was apparently able to call his mother in GPE for the first time DATE , on DATE .","According to the applicant , the relevant order ( see paragraph DATE below ) had provided that detainees could purchase phonecards or recharge them twice a month . The Government did not comment on that point or submit a copy of the order . According to the official form used by the applicant to make his above - mentioned declaration , phonecards could be recharged once a month . The applicant alleged that the facility \u2019s staff had often not complied with the recharging schedule and that on CARDINAL occasion he had been unable to recharge his phonecard for DATE . He did not provide further details in that respect , but from the documents submitted by him it appears that DATE and DATE , DATE , he had not spoken on the telephone to his mother in GPE .","Detainees in the facility could get CARDINAL visits a month , each lasting up to TIME . According to the Government , the applicant had received such visits on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and DATE . However , on CARDINAL occasion on DATE the applicant \u2019s NORP girlfriend , who had come to visit him , was turned away with the explanation that DATE he had been moved to a different wing , detainees in which could be visited on another date according to the schedule of visits . She was apparently able to visit him DATE . It appears that a NORP friend of the applicant who had also come to visit him on DATE was likewise turned away .","According to the Government , during his stay in the detention facility the applicant had been visited by his lawyer on CARDINAL occasions in DATE , and by consular staff on CARDINAL occasions . He had also received parcels with food and other items on CARDINAL occasions .","NORP Throughout his stay in the detention facility , the applicant was able to correspond with his parents in GPE with letters passed via his lawyer or the staff of the consulate of GPE in GPE .","On DATE the applicant and the prosecution entered into an agreement whereby he pleaded guilty and accepted to serve a sentence of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . DATE the Sofia ORG approved the agreement , and DATE , DATE , the applicant was moved to FAC . Since his pre - trial detention was taken into account in calculating the amount of time that he had to serve under his sentence of imprisonment , he spent there DATE , until DATE , when he was released . According to the applicant , conditions in FAC were nearly identical to , or even worse than , those in the detention facility .","NORP The applicant \u2019s parents came from GPE to GPE to see him on DATE , DATE after his release . It appears that they could not do so earlier because it was not possible for his mother to take leave from work ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144362","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HIT D.D. NOVA GORICA v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Martens;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The NORP - based applicant company operates gaming and entertainment centres .","On DATE , the applicant company \u2019s then new managing director instituted disciplinary proceedings against CARDINAL of its employees , ORG , in respect of the disciplinary offence of excessive and irresponsible use of the company \u2019s funds . The new managing director had been informed about the alleged offence DATE . On DATE the disciplinary board terminated ORG \u2019s employment on the grounds that she had seriously breached her employment obligations . An appeal lodged by ORG against that decision was dismissed . On DATE ORG brought a claim before ORG , requesting that the termination of her employment be declared null and void . She alleged , inter alia , that the disciplinary proceedings against her were time - barred .","In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s request . Having considered that the applicant company \u2019s former managing director had not had sufficient knowledge of the acts constituting the disciplinary offence , ORG concluded that the DATE time - limit for the institution of disciplinary proceedings had started to run from the date on which ORG \u2019s disciplinary offences had been discovered by the new management of the applicant company . The court therefore held that disciplinary proceedings had not been time - barred . ORG appealed against the judgment .","On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG , sitting in a panel of CARDINAL judges , which included judge PERSON , upheld ORG \u2019s appeal and ordered the applicant company to reinstate her . Relying on a statement made by the applicant company \u2019s former managing director , it concluded that he had had sufficient knowledge of ORG \u2019s actions to be able to institute disciplinary proceedings against her if he had considered that to be necessary . Accordingly , the higher court held that the disciplinary proceedings against ORG had in fact been time - barred . The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law before ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant company \u2019s appeal on points of law , as the higher court had established the facts differently from the first - instance court without having conducted an oral hearing . ORG therefore found that the adversarial principle had been breached in the appeal proceedings and set aside the second - instance judgment . The case was remitted to ORG for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG , sitting in a panel presided by judge PERSON , held that the facts which had affected the expiry of the statutory limitation period for commencing disciplinary proceedings had not been duly established , and remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh consideration .","On DATE the ORG rendered an interim judgment , finding again that the disciplinary proceedings had not been time - barred and thus dismissing ORG \u2019s request for annulment of the decision to terminate her employment . ORG appealed against the judgment .","On DATE the Higher ORG again established quite the opposite , namely that the disciplinary proceedings had been time - barred , and upheld ORG \u2019s appeal . Judge PERSON did not take part in the proceedings . The applicant company appealed on points of law .","On DATE ORG again upheld the applicant company \u2019s appeal on the grounds that the adversarial principle had been breached in the appeal proceedings . The case was remitted for fresh consideration to ORG , sitting in a panel composed of different judges .","On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG found that the facts of the case had still not been sufficiently established , and remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh consideration .","On DATE the ORG found , in its third consideration of the case , that the disciplinary proceedings had been time - barred , as the former managing director had been fully informed about ORG \u2019s actions that had constituted the disciplinary offence . Accordingly , the court granted ORG claim and declared the termination of her employment null and void . The decision on her compensation claim against the applicant company was postponed . Both parties appealed .","On DATE the Higher ORG upheld the appeal lodged by ORG and dismissed the applicant company \u2019s appeal in which it contended , inter alia , that the statements made by the former managing director of the applicant company in the later stages of the proceedings had conflicted with his earlier accounts of the facts and had obviously been made in order to exculpate ORG , with whom he had close personal ties .","The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s appeal and reaffirmed the judgment of the lower courts that the disciplinary proceedings had been time - barred .","On DATE the applicant company , represented by a lawyer , lodged a constitutional appeal alleging , inter alia , that in the determination of whether disciplinary proceedings against ORG had been time - barred , the principle of equality of arms had been breached . In addition , the applicant company contended that the labour courts\u2019 position regarding the limitation period for commencing disciplinary proceedings in the particular circumstances at issue had contravened its free economic initiative enshrined in the LAW . It argued that if the former managing director had known about ORG \u2019s actions , that in itself had constituted a disciplinary offence and should not have been interpreted in her favour . On CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant company that its constitutional appeal had been assigned to judge rapporteur PERSON","On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided on ORG \u2019s claim for compensation for the unlawful termination of her employment . It ordered the applicant company to pay ORG compensation for lost wages and various benefits for the period when she had not been employed or had been paid a lower salary by other employers . The remainder of ORG claim was dismissed .","On DATE ORG , in a CARDINAL - judge panel in charge of the examination of constitutional appeals in the field of administrative law , which included judge PERSON , refused to accept the applicant company \u2019s constitutional appeal for consideration , stating that its fundamental rights and freedoms had not been violated . The decision , which included the information on the composition of the panel , was taken in camera and without the attendance of the applicant company or the respondent party .","NORP The relevant provisions of LAW on the disqualification of judges read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) In deciding on an individual case , ORG may disqualify a ORG judge by applying , mutatis mutandis , the reasons for disqualification in court proceedings .","... \u201d","\u201c Immediately upon a ORG judge learning of any reason for his disqualification as referred to in the preceding article , he must stop working on the case and notify the President of ORG of such . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A motion for disqualification may be submitted by the participants in the proceedings until the beginning of the public hearing , if such hearing is scheduled , or respectively until DATE closed session of ORG at which the case is to be decided . The motion must include a statement of reasons .","... \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW on this issue , applicable to the proceedings before ORG , read as follows :","\u201c A judge or a lay judge shall be prohibited from exercising judicial functions :","...","( CARDINAL ) if he or she participated in the same proceedings before a lower court ... \u201d","\u201c Immediately after learning of the existence of any ground for disqualification under clauses CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the preceding Article , the judge or lay judge shall discontinue forthwith any activity in the proceedings and shall notify thereupon the president of the court , who shall appoint a substitute judge or lay judge .","... \u201d","\u201c The disqualification of a judge may also be requested by the parties .","A party shall be required to bring a motion to disqualify a judge or a lay judge immediately after learning of any grounds for disqualification and not later than before the end of the hearing before the competent court or , if there is no hearing , before the judgment is passed .","... \u201d","ORG is composed of CARDINAL judges . In the constitutional appeal proceedings , the admissibility , and in cases involving well - established case - law also the merits , of individual cases are considered by CARDINAL panels of CARDINAL judges each . Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of ORG , information regarding the division of work by areas between the civil , criminal and administrative panels and their respective composition is accessible on the court \u2019s website . It is also included in the \u201c Work Schedule of the Constitutional Court \u201d published twice DATE , for the autumn and spring terms , in ORG . The work schedule includes the names of the judges who sit in the individual panels , as well as the names of the substitute judges designated to replace individual members of the CARDINAL panels in the event of their absence or disqualification . According to the court \u2019s Work Schedule , the administrative panel adjudicates on , inter alia , constitutional appeals against individual acts issued in labour dispute proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170191","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"KAZI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The first applicant is Mr PERSON , the second applicant is his wife , PERSON , and the third applicant is their son , Mr PERSON . They are nationals of GPE and GPE and were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They are currently in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","In DATE the applicants applied for asylum in GPE . They submitted essentially that the third applicant could not receive the necessary neuropediatric care in their home town , Biha\u0107 , in GPE . They submitted that he suffered from epilepsy and had issues with his head and legs . Up until DATE there had been a specialist physician in Biha\u0107 but after that time he had had to go to PERSON for health care . No physician in the country had been willing to prescribe medicine as there was no specialist in their home town to issue a certificate . There was also no physiotherapy available in GPE . Moreover , the third applicant had been bullied and humiliated because of his handicap and , on CARDINAL occasion , the second applicant had been threatened when she had wanted to stay with the third applicant at a hospital . The first applicant also alleged that on CARDINAL occasion in PERSON he had been assaulted and the windshield of his car had been smashed because he was a NORP . The applicants submitted their passports and a medical certificate concerning the third applicant .","On DATE ORG ( Migrationsverket ) rejected their applications . Firstly , it found that the applicants could turn to the domestic authorities for protection if they were subjected to threats or ill - treatment by private individuals in the future . The ORG further noted that according to the medical certificate the third applicant had difficulties with his DATE routines and that , according to his mother , he had been having epileptic attacks since he was DATE . He received medication and the health - care authorities were examining whether he suffered from a developmental disorder . The Agency concluded that the third applicant \u2019s health conditions were not serious enough to grant him a residence permit . He had received health care and medication in PERSON , which was part of GPE , and there was no indication that it would not be possible for him to receive health care in his home country in the future . The applicants\u2019 applications were therefore rejected and their expulsion to GPE was ordered .","The applicants appealed against the decision to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , maintaining their claims and adding that the third applicant suffered from several disabilities for which he required regular care to manage his daily life . The measures which had been put in place in GPE were beneficial to him .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal , upholding the reasoning of ORG . It noted that according to the available country information , the family could rely on the protection of the authorities in their home country . The court further observed that the third applicant suffered from epilepsy , kyphosis , discreet scoliosis , cerebral palsy and a moderately difficult mental development disorder for which he was in need of medical treatment and constant supervision and care . However , his condition was not life - threatening and he had lived with his condition for DATE in his home country where he had received specialist medical treatment and care .","Upon further appeal by the applicants , ORG ( Migrations\u00f6verdomstolen ) refused leave to appeal on DATE .","ORG , the applicants requested that the ORG stay the enforcement of the expulsion order as there were impediments due to the third applicant \u2019s health problems , the lack of special schools in GPE and the fact that his sister lived in GPE . Several medical certificates were submitted which , inter alia , stated that in DATE the third applicant had undergone orthopaedic surgery which required DATE of rehabilitation . If the rehabilitation were to be interrupted , he would run the risk of not regaining the ability to walk , which he had been able to do prior to the surgery .","On DATE ORG granted the applicants temporary residence permits for DATE . It held that there were temporary impediments to the applicants\u2019 expulsion due to the third applicant \u2019s age , his need for rehabilitation after the surgery and the consequences for his health if the rehabilitation were to be interrupted . It further noted that if the third applicant needed additional rehabilitation after DATE , he could submit a new application for a further stay of enforcement of the expulsion order .","In DATE the applicants submitted a new request to ORG to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order . They stated that the third applicant was in need of further surgery and extensive and long - lasting rehabilitation owing to his kyphosis . They relied on additional medical certificates which , inter alia , indicated that the third applicant \u2019s kyphosis had worsened and that he was deemed to be in need of surgery in DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the request . It found that it had not been shown that the third applicant \u2019s health condition was of such a nature that it would not be possible to enforce the expulsion order . The ORG noted that the third applicant had become an adult and consequently the more generous rule applicable to children , which had previously been applied to him , was no longer applicable . Moreover , it observed that the medical certificates did not support the conclusion that the third applicant \u2019s condition was acute , that he was in immediate need of additional surgery or that the medical care in question could be expected to lead to a substantial and permanent improvement in his condition or be of a life - saving nature . Furthermore , the previous rehabilitation , after the surgery in DATE , was deemed to have been completed . The ORG therefore concluded that the third applicant \u2019s health condition could not be considered as being so extremely serious that it would be unreasonable to enforce the expulsion order against him .","ORG , the applicants again renewed their request for a stay of the enforcement of the expulsion order . They submitted more medical documents , including CARDINAL from a physician in GPE and GPE stating that the third applicant \u2019s case was complicated and that it would not be possible to perform all the surgery he needed there owing to his health complications .","On DATE ORG rejected the request , with essentially the same reasoning as in its previous decision . It noted that the medical document from the physician in GPE did not show that the third applicant had no possibility to receive the necessary health care in his home country .","Another request by the applicants for a stay of enforcement of the expulsion order was rejected by ORG on DATE , with essentially the same reasoning as in its previous decisions .","On DATE the applicants lodged their application with the ORG and requested that it apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG . On CARDINAL August DATE the duty judge rejected the request for interim measures .","The basic provisions applicable in the present case , concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in GPE , are laid down in LAW ( Utl\u00e4nningslagen , GPE ) . It defines the conditions under which an alien can be deported or expelled from the country , as well as the procedures relating to the enforcement of such decisions .","LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW sets out that an alien who is considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection is , with certain exceptions , entitled to a residence permit in GPE . According to LAW , section CARDINAL , the term \u201c refugee \u201d refers to an alien who is outside the country of his or her nationality owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted on the grounds of race , nationality , religious or political beliefs , or on the grounds of gender , sexual orientation or other membership of a particular social group and who is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . This applies irrespective of whether the persecution is at the hands of the authorities of the country or if those authorities can not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals . By \u201c an alien otherwise in need of protection \u201d is meant , inter alia , a person who has left the country of his or her nationality because of a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or receiving corporal punishment , or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .","Moreover , if a residence permit can not be granted on the above grounds , a permit may nevertheless be issued to an alien if , after an overall assessment of his or her situation , there are such particularly distressing circumstances ( synnerligen \u00f6mmande omst\u00e4ndigheter ) as to allow him or her to remain in GPE ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . During this assessment , special consideration should be given to , inter alia , the alien \u2019s state of health . According to the preparatory works ( Government PERSON , pp . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , life - threatening physical or mental illness may be a reason to grant a residence permit in GPE . However , regard must be had to whether it is reasonable that the required care is provided in GPE or whether adequate care can be provided in the alien \u2019s country of origin . Moreover , the care provided in GPE must be expected to lead to an evident and enduring improvement in the alien \u2019s health or be necessary for his or her survival .","According to a special provision on impediments to enforcement , an alien must not be sent to a country where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW . In addition , an alien must not , in principle , be sent to a country where he or she risks persecution ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .","Under certain conditions , an alien may be granted a residence permit even if a deportation or expulsion order has gained legal force . This is the case where new circumstances have emerged which indicate that there are reasonable grounds for believing , inter alia , that an enforcement would put the alien in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal punishment , torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or there are medical or other special reasons why the order should not be enforced ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . If a residence permit can not be granted under this criterion , ORG may instead decide to re - examine the matter . Such a re - examination shall be carried out where it may be assumed , on the basis of new circumstances invoked by the alien , that there are lasting impediments to enforcement of the nature referred to in LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and these circumstances could not have been invoked previously or the alien shows that he or she has a valid excuse for not having done so . Should the applicable conditions not have been met , ORG shall decide not to grant a re - examination ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .","Domestic laws on health care ( published in ORG , no . CARDINAL , and in ORG , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) provide for a right to health care , on an equal basis , to persons with disabilities , and provide for specific forms of health care for such persons .","As concerns social protection , domestic laws provide for the preferential employment of persons with disabilities , professional rehabilitation , as well as training and the employment of individuals with disabilities and a lowered work capacity . Moreover , it enables persons with disabilities to obtain financial and material support for the purpose of equal opportunities , including the right to the care and assistance of others for persons with the most serious forms of disability , or persons who need assistance with undertaking their basic life needs ( see the PERSON on professional rehabilitation and employment of individuals with a disability , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL and in ORG , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; the PERSON on mediation in employment and the social security of unemployed individuals , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; the PERSON on mediation in employment and on rights during unemployment , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; the PERSON on the foundations of social protection , the protection of civilian victims of war and the protection of families with children , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; and the PERSON on social protection , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL ) .","Legislation relating to education contains principles on the prohibition of discrimination of persons with disabilities and on the provision of equal opportunities for education through inclusive education or the establishment of special institutions ( see , for example , LAW on pre - school upbringing and education in GPE , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; LAW on elementary and high school education in GPE , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; and LAW on higher education in GPE , published in ORG , no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162203","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BA\u015eB\u0130LEN v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are the parents of Mr GPE , who was an engineer working for Aselsan , a defence contractor that produces technology for ORG .","On DATE , at TIME , Mr ORG wife informed the police that her husband had been missing since TIME .","On DATE , at TIME , the mayor of Ayd\u0131nc\u0131k village , in the district of ORG , in GPE , informed the gendarmerie that there was a car in the vicinity of the cemetery of the village . When the gendarmerie arrived at the scene at TIME , they found ORG dead body in his car ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140396","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MONTEIRO AIRES v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC ( GPE ) .","On DATE the applicant started eviction proceedings against CARDINAL tenants before ORG ( domestic proceedings no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the court ordered their eviction and ordered the tenants to pay MONEY ( ORG ) for rent arrears .","On DATE the applicant started enforcement proceedings .","DATE the court ordered the seizure ( penhora ) of CARDINAL of CARDINAL of the tenant \u2019s income ( executado ) . The payment of the debt began in DATE .","Meanwhile , the tenant had asked the court to reduce the deducted amount to CARDINAL of his salary . The court ordered that reduction on DATE .","The payments stopped on DATE , when the tenant became unemployed .","DATE and DATE the enforcement solicitor ( solicitador de execu\u00e7\u00e3o ) tried to find attachable assets .","NORP In DATE the parties made an agreement according to which the debtor \u2019s wife would continue to pay the arrears in instalments , which she did for DATE .","According to the last information received by ORG on DATE , the proceedings were pending ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162702","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"M.Y. AND E.C. v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants , GPE ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) and GPE ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The second applicant is the mother of the first applicant and lodged the application with the ORG on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter .","The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The second applicant was married to the first applicant \u2019s father , PERSON who is a police officer . When the first applicant was DATE , the second applicant left her husband because of what she considered to be unacceptable behaviour on his part . She took their daughter with her .","Their marriage was dissolved on DATE by ORG .","On DATE ORG granted GPE contact rights . These did not include TIME stays .","DATE , when the first applicant was DATE , the second applicant started noticing certain changes in the child \u2019s behaviour . At first , the second applicant was puzzled by these changes and then she started to worry . Gradually , the changes in the first applicant \u2019s behaviour became more apparent especially after she had visited her father . In particular , the first applicant sought to kiss her mother on the mouth using her tongue . Every time the mother tried to discourage the child from doing so , the first applicant responded by telling her mother that the reason for doing this was to show her love and affection towards her . For example she would say : \u201c Mum you should not be shy because I love you \u201d .","On or DATE the father , whilst exercising his contact rights , took the first applicant to his lodgings , a small room next to his GPE house . DATE the second applicant was told by his parents that GPE had spent DATE with the child locked up . The second applicant called PERSON on his mobile phone numerous times but he would not answer . PERSON returned the first applicant that TIME . The first applicant started behaving in an alarming manner , namely in a sexual manner . In particular the second applicant had bathed her daughter , put her to bed and sat beside her in order to read her a TIME story . Then , the first applicant started licking her mother \u2019s shoulder . When the second applicant disapproved of it , the first applicant told her that this was exactly what the father did to her . The second applicant called her own mother immediately to the bedroom and in her presence told the first applicant to show her the way her father licked her . The first applicant then showed the second applicant and her grandmother how the father licked her body . She told them that her father licked her breasts , legs and genitals . She later told her grandmother that her father licked her because she liked it .","On DATE the second applicant filed a complaint with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against GPE for molesting their daughter . The welfare officer informed her of the procedures , the need to immediately report the incident to the police and to refer the child for a psychological and medical examination .","On DATE the welfare officer reported the matter to ORG and to ORG . With the second applicant \u2019s consent , a meeting was arranged for the applicants with a government clinical psychologist on DATE .","NORP In or about the same period the second applicant observed that her daughter displayed the same sexual behaviour several times especially when playing . In particular , when playing with her favourite doll the first applicant would kiss the doll on the mouth , lick and kiss the doll \u2019s body , and more specifically the breasts and the area of the genitals . Furthermore , at about the same time , the second applicant was informed by the teacher at the nursery school that the first applicant was behaving strangely and stubbornly refused to allow any of the staff to touch her when trying to change her nappies after her TIME nap .","NORP On DATE the second applicant chose to meet with a private child psychiatrist PERSON According to the applicants and the subsequent report of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) this meeting was arranged because there was a delay of DATE in securing the approval for an examination by a government doctor . As a result , the applicants did not meet with the government clinical psychologist ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . From the documents in the file it appears that the involvement of CARDINAL experts was not considered advisable by ORG .","DATE PERSON met with Y.Y and on DATE she also had her first meeting with the first applicant with GPE \u2019s consent . CARDINAL more sessions were held on CARDINAL and DATE which were also attended by a clinical psychologist , PERSON The latter prepared a statement about what had occurred during the examination and , in particular , how the child had expressed herself to E.D. In this statement PERSON explained that it would be against professional ethics to take a position on the matter as she had not met with the parents or carried out an examination herself .","On DATE E.D. informed the second applicant that the examination had shown that PERSON had sexually molested the first applicant . She also informed ORG .","On DATE , immediately after receiving this information , the second applicant filed a complaint of sexual molestation against GPE at FAC . E.D. also gave to the police on DATE a statement together with her findings .","The second applicant then lodged an application with ORG seeking to terminate any kind of communication between GPE and the first applicant . She also applied for an interim order to suspend the court \u2019s order of DATE , which gave him contact rights pending the examination of the main application and\/or until a new order by the court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The interim order was granted on DATE . It appears that this became final on DATE .","The applicants claimed that the authorities did not also apply themselves for a court order to keep GPE away from the first applicant as they normally did in cases of such a nature .","E.D. continued her meetings with the applicants .","In the meantime , GPE made a request to ORG to have the first applicant examined by a government psychologist . By a letter dated DATE , the lawyers representing the applicants at the time informed ORG that although his request had been made at a very late stage and despite the fact that this delay would have a negative effect on the first applicant \u2019s health , they would suggest to the second applicant that she should agree , assuming the examination would be carried out as soon as possible . They requested that ORG keep them informed of any developments .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE addressed to ORG , the applicants\u2019 lawyers expressed their concern about the slow pace at which the case was being investigated and , in particular , the delay in the examination of the first applicant by a government doctor and the harmful psychological repercussions a delayed examination would have on her . They requested that arrangements be made as soon as possible for the examination in order to minimise the effects on the first applicant . They also noted that GPE had disappeared from the first applicant \u2019s life despite recommendations that he meet with her in the presence of a welfare officer . They requested that appropriate measures be taken by ORG in this respect .","DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyers called FAC as well as the police headquarters several times in order to find out if there were any developments in relation to the second applicant \u2019s complaint and whether the police had taken any steps to examine the matter .","After the second applicant filed her complaint with the police , GPE did not see the first applicant until DATE . On DATE , the first applicant met her father at ORG in the presence of a welfare officer and ORG This meeting had been requested by ORG as the first applicant had reacted strongly to the absence of her father .","On DATE GPE went to the nursery school and , in the presence of all the children , including the first applicant , verbally abused the second applicant .","Following this incident GPE did not make any attempt to communicate with the applicants .","By a letter dated DATE , the applicants\u2019 lawyers requested the Chief of Police to inform them of any developments in the case . They requested a prompt response in view of the seriousness of the offence complained of , the time that had elapsed from the day the complaint had been made and the particularly young age of the child .","By a letter dated DATE , the Chief of Police informed them that he would be in touch soon .","On DATE E.D. prepared a relevant report on the first applicant containing her findings and conclusions .","By a letter dated DATE , the applicants\u2019 lawyers sent ORG \u2019s report to the Attorney - General to be examined along with the other evidence and statements already in his possession . The report was sent on DATE to ORG and the Chief of Police .","On DATE the case - file was sent to the GPE Police headquarters by the Attorney - General \u2019s office with instructions that additional statements be taken from , inter alia , Y.Y , that a video recorded statement be taken from the first applicant and that she be referred to a government doctor for an examination .","By a letter dated DATE , the applicants\u2019 lawyers complained to the Attorney - General about the procedure that had been followed in the case . They informed the Attorney - General that the second applicant , after having consulted with the child psychiatrist who was seeing the first applicant since DATE , had decided not to give her consent to such statement and examination for a number of reasons , including the following :","- video recorded statements were recommended in cases involving older persons who had the ability to develop a dialogue through the interrogation procedure ;","- because of the nature of the offence the procedure should have been carried out immediately , not after DATE had passed , and only by an expert child psychologist or child psychiatrist ;","-the examination of the child by the child psychiatrist at the material time was done by means of play , as was done in this type of cases , with the help of anatomical dolls . It was through this process that the psychiatrist concluded that the offence in question was committed by the father . The specialist , after DATE , had helped the child to forget and also to accept the absence of her father in her life . The child no longer reacted negatively and had stopped referring to her father . Reverting to the subject at this stage would traumatise her and lead to regression and was thus not recommended by experts ;","-the investigation authorities had had the opportunity to take a statement from the suspect from the very beginning but had unjustifiably omitted to do so . This gave rise to reasonable suspicion that a deliberate effort had been made to cover up the whole matter ;","-the report of the child psychiatrist had been communicated to the office of the Attorney - General , ORG and ORG . As mentioned by the child psychiatrist , her meetings with the child at the material time , had been carried out in the presence of a witness , a practice followed in such cases by reason of their nature and the very young age of the victims . This fact was mentioned in the child psychiatrist \u2019s statement to the police ;","- the police authorities had not yet taken a statement from the clinical psychologist PERSON nor had they sought a restraining order against the father pursuant to the relevant domestic law ;","- the second applicant had agreed to take the child to be examined by a doctor following the authorities\u2019 suggestion . However , following the unjustified delay on the part of the authorities to fix an appointment for the examination , the second applicant appointed a private specialist after having obtained the father \u2019s consent . The father had not , at that point in time , made any attempt to have the child examined by a private or government doctor .","At the end of the letter the applicants\u2019 lawyers requested a meeting with the Attorney - General as soon as possible .","By a letter dated DATE , the Attorney - General informed the applicants\u2019 lawyers that he considered that a meeting would serve no purpose . He also agreed that there had possibly been remissness on the part of the investigating authorities in the investigation of the case and that a note of criticism had been sent to them . If the case , however , was to be taken to court it was necessary to obtain the required evidence by a video recorded statement of the child with the mother \u2019s consent , to have the child examined by a specialist doctor and that the further actions the police asked of them should be taken .","In their reply dated DATE , the applicants\u2019 lawyers disagreed with the Attorney - General and stressed that the case should have been taken to the domestic courts DATE . The authorities should have taken a video recorded statement from the child at the time as well as a statement from the suspect in respect of the offences . The lawyers repeated the position taken in their previous letter and noted that the well - being and the interest of the first applicant were incompatible with the requests now made by the authorities . In their view the taking of a video recorded statement was not a prerequisite for the criminal prosecution of the suspect . There was ample evidence before the Attorney - General and any more delay in the prosecution of GPE was against both the interests of the child and the interests of justice . They asked once more for a meeting in the presence of ORG , as she was the only specialist who had examined the first applicant , since neither the investigating authorities nor the suspect sought to have the minor examined by a third person .","By a letter dated DATE , the applicants\u2019 lawyers submitted a detailed complaint to the Commissioner for Children \u2019s Rights ( \u201c the Commissioner \u201d ) of a violation of the applicants\u2019 rights as a result of the undue delay and the negligence on the part of the authorities to carry out a proper investigation of the case in breach of relevant domestic laws . They requested the Commissioner to take the necessary measures for the protection of the first applicant \u2019s rights .","By a letter dated DATE , the Commissioner replied that she had requested ORG to inform her of the actions taken by ORG following the complaint made about the sexual molestation of the child , with specific questions concerning the investigation of the complaint , the cooperation \/ coordination with other services involved , the taking of a statement by the police , the direct referral of the child for an evaluation and for psychotherapeutic help to ORG . She had also requested the views of ORG concerning the Attorney - General \u2019s request for a video recorded statement from the first applicant in relation to the sexual molestation after DATE had elapsed and a briefing of how ORG were intending to proceed .","The Commissioner informed the applicants\u2019 lawyers that upon receiving the replies from the relevant authorities she would examine the case and decide whether the appropriate measures had been taken in the case in order to secure the child \u2019s rights and whether the procedures and practices followed in this kind of case complied with the provisions of ORG . In the event she discerned any violations , she would proceed to make the necessary recommendations with the aim of ending the violations and to ensuring that practices were adopted that fully secured the child \u2019s rights .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE , the applicants\u2019 lawyers re - contacted the Attorney - General , because they had not received a reply concerning their request for a meeting in the presence of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE , the Commissioner informed the ORG lawyers that she had received a reply from the Minister of ORG and had written to the Chief of Police with a number of questions relating to the handling of the case .","On DATE ORG issued an interim order granting custody of the first applicant to the second applicant pending the proceedings . The order was to be reviewed on DATE .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the office of the Attorney - General informed the applicants\u2019 lawyers that following an examination of the case , there was no adequate evidence in the case - file to substantiate their claims before a court .","By a letter dated DATE the Commissioner informed the applicants\u2019 lawyers that the Chief of Police had informed her that a video recorded statement had not been taken due to the second applicant \u2019s negative stance and that the Attorney - General had given instructions not to institute criminal proceedings because of lack of evidence . She had written in reply to the Chief of Police noting the ORG \u2019s obligations to secure the child \u2019s rights and that in this case the competent authorities had not done so . She had requested specific information about the procedures and practices in the present case as well as in other similar cases . This included questions concerning the decision of the Attorney - General .","In the meantime the applicants appointed new lawyers to represent them before the domestic authorities .","By a letter dated DATE , the applicants\u2019 new lawyers , referring to the decision not to prosecute GPE due to insufficient evidence , sent to the Attorney - General a written affirmation by PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that she had attended as a witness the examination of the first applicant by ORG and the Commissioner \u2019s letter of DATE . In the letter , they also emphasised that , according to the case - law , children against whom this kind of offences were committed , did not constitute \u201c exhibits \u201d to be given for examination or inspection by the defence . This was particularly so when the examination or the taking of a video recorded statement had not been promptly made but , as in the present case , was sought to be taken DATE ; a delay that would cause the child a new traumatic experience without , however , any significant result . They stated that they were certain that criminal proceedings against GPE could be instituted on the basis of the evidence of PERSON , the corroborative evidence of PERSON and that of the second applicant as well as other circumstantial evidence .","It appears that another letter was sent by the Commissioner to the Chief of Police on DATE .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyers wrote to the Commissioner noting that they had not received any news as to whether the Chief of Police had replied to her above - mentioned letter ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They observed that the ORG had failed to protect the rights of children although it had committed itself to doing so through the office of Commissioner . They reminded the Commissioner of the fact that the police officers who were responsible for investigating the complaint had not carried out their duties properly and that their mistakes and omissions had determined the course and fate of the case . The Attorney - General had refused to prosecute the suspect because of \u201c insufficient evidence \u201d in the file of the case . The insufficiency of the evidence was due to the wrong way the police force had dealt with the case . The lawyers reminded the Commissioner that the file of the case had been sent to the police authorities DATE , with instructions to take statements from certain persons including GPE At about the same time ORG had asked for the second applicant \u2019s consent for the taking of a video recorded statement from DATE child . After consulting ORG , the second applicant had not consented to the above giving a number of reasons , including the damaging effect a statement would have on the first applicant \u2019s psychological state . The last letter sent by the lawyers to the Attorney - General containing their request for re - examination of the case had remained unanswered . Unfortunately the Attorney - General \u2019s decision not to prosecute GPE , had been interpreted by the welfare officers as meaning that the complaint was unfounded . As a result , in the proceedings before ORG , they had sought to restore the communication of the minor with the father despite the scientific findings of ORG to the contrary . They pointed out in this respect that ORG had instructed ORG to appoint , with the consent of both parents , a child psychiatrist . The Director of ORG of ORG was appointed . For this purpose , he was then called by ORG to help the court by evaluating the current state of the minor without examining the child in relation to the alleged sexual molesting because of the long time that had passed . It was agreed in court that she should only examine the present psychological state of the first applicant , her development , including her emotional development , in general , bearing in mind her age . ORG , however , in a letter addressed to the above child psychiatrist had told her to examine the current state of the minor with the purpose of reinstating communication with the father and suggested that she ignore , in making her assessment , the allegations of sexual molestation as no criminal proceedings had been instituted against the father . They ended the letter by again requesting the Commissioner to intervene and to investigate the matter through the police , the Attorney - General \u2019s office and ORG before more damage was done .","The Commissioner replied to the above letter on DATE . In this she set out the steps she had taken in the case and the information that had come to her through correspondence with the authorities such as the Minister of ORG and the Chief of Police . She concluded with the following :","( a ) ORG had immediately taken all necessary steps for investigating the case and had continuously co - operated with all the other authorities involved .","( b ) The procedures followed by the authorities had as a criterion the child \u2019s interests ; in the present case it appeared that the young age of the child and the refusal of the second expert PERSON to give a statement to the police or submit a report had played a decisive role in the case . PERSON had informed the police authorities that she was unable to give an opinion and requested not to be contacted again about this issue . The absence of corroborative evidence from her resulted in the lack of adequate and reliable evidence which led to the non - prosecution of the father . The young age of the child , both at the initial and subsequent stages of the investigation , did not allow for the taking of a video recorded statement . International bibliography indicated that information taken during interviews from children aged DATE is confusing and thus it is difficult for experts to reach safe conclusions . Even though it was not possible to determine with certainty whether the child had been sexually molested by her father , so that the case did not lead to criminal proceedings , the Commissioner considered that priority must be given to the protection of the child through cooperation between the child and the other members of her family with the appropriate services . The Commissioner pointed out that the psychosocial and emotional development of children in respect of whom there was an allegation that they had been subjected to sexual and\/or psychological abuse by CARDINAL of their parents , was usually negatively affected . For this reason , it was necessary to give priority to proper professional intervention with the appropriate psychotherapeutic methods which would help the child to become emotionally and psychologically stronger and to enhance its self - image . Moreover , priority must be given to the restoration and strengthening of the relations of the child with both parents . In conclusion the Commissioner expressed the wish that the difficulties of the child would be overcome soon so that balance in the family would be restored .","By a letter dated DATE , the ORG representative informed the ORG that the second applicant had filed an application before ORG for a final restraining order against GPE in order to prevent him from exercising his contact and other rights with the child . He also informed the ORG that at the same time she was granted an interim order and that on DATE ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s application for supervised contact rights with the first applicant pending the final adjudication of the second applicant \u2019s application which was fixed for hearing for DATE .","No more information has been given by the applicants concerning the proceedings before ORG .","Under the LAW the Attorney - General is an independent officer of GPE ) . Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that :","\u201c The Attorney - General of the Republic shall have power , exercisable at his discretion in the public interest , to institute , conduct , take over and continue or discontinue any proceedings of an offence against any person in the Republic . Such power may be exercised by him in person or by officers subordinate to him acting under him and in accordance with his instructions . \u201d","The Commissioner for Children \u2019s Rights is an independent institution which deals exclusively with the rights of the child . The Commissioner is appointed by ORG pursuant to the Commissioner for ORG , ( Law CARDINAL(I)\/CARDINAL ) which came into force on DATE . Under LAW of PERSON the role of the Commissioner is to protect and promote the rights of the child . The Commissioner publishes , inter alia , DATE reports as well reports on individual complaints and policy position papers .","In her DATE report for DATE the Commissioner , referring to complaints made to her in DATE , included the present case and observed that the manner in which the case had been handled by the police authorities had not completely secured the child \u2019s interests , as the child , during the whole period when the case was under investigation , had been left exposed and unprotected . As a result there had been a strong risk of secondary victimisation . She noted that she had intervened and had contacted the Chief of Police , underlining the ORG \u2019s obligations concerning the protection of the child victim . She had also requested details of the procedures and practices used in the case by the police during the investigation , concerning particularly the referral of the child for a medical examination , the co - operation with other competent services , the taking of a statement from the child and , mainly , the reasons for which a video recorded statement was not taken promptly . In so far as the decision not to prosecute the father was concerned , she had asked the police authorities to inform her whether they intended to take any further action for restoring the child \u2019s rights . She had not received a reply by DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169913","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"GAJEWSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicant married A. They have CARDINAL children , born in DATE .","In DATE the applicant began a relationship with ORG , his supervisor at work . In DATE the applicant moved out of the flat he had lived in with his family . At the request of his children he attempted to reconcile with PERSON and later moved back in for a week . However , he subsequently decided to continue his relationship with ORG","Since DATE he has been living with GPE , her CARDINAL children and her grandson .","On DATE applied for child maintenance .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay MONEY ( ORG ) per month for his CARDINAL children ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE the applicant filed a petition for divorce . He asked the court to declare that both parties were at fault for the breakdown of the marriage .","On DATE ORG refused to grant the divorce . It found that PERSON was a very good mother and wife and was not at fault for the breakdown of the marriage . She still loved her husband and was ready to forgive him for his affair . The court stressed that the applicant was the only person responsible and at fault for the breakdown of his marriage , and referred to the fact that his wife had not agreed to a divorce . It was decided that a divorce was not legally permitted in their case . Lastly , the court referred to the fact that the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL children were still minors and held that a divorce would not be in their best interests .","The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment , holding that the applicant \u2019s wife was not at fault for the breakdown of the marriage . The judgment subsequently became final . A cassation appeal in ORG was not available .","On DATE initiated a new set of proceedings . She applied to ORG for a formal separation from the applicant . She also sought the payment of child maintenance .","In a written reply of CARDINAL DATE the applicant did not agree to a separation and asked the court to declare the parties divorced .","During a hearing of CARDINAL DATE agreed to a divorce at the applicant \u2019s exclusive fault . The applicant declared that he was at fault and agreed to the arrangements for child maintenance proposed by A.","Consequently , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the marriage was dissolved . Neither party appealed . The judgment was final ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163816","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SEK\u0130 v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court;Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of using drugs and providing drugs to third persons .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s statement was taken by ORG and she was released on DATE . On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an objection to this decision and on DATE ORG issued an arrest warrant against the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was placed in detention on remand .","On DATE the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment , charging the applicant with using drugs and providing drugs to third persons under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE and DATE respectively ORG on the basis of the case file dismissed release requests lodged by the applicant . On DATE and DATE respectively ORG further dismissed the objections lodged by the applicant against the above - mentioned decisions , without holding oral hearings .","On DATE ORG held its first hearing and the applicant appeared before the court . On DATE the trial court released the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170391","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KIR\u00c1LY AND D\u00d6M\u00d6T\u00d6R v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG . The applicants are of GPE origin .","PERSON , a Member of ORG from the right - wing ORG for ORG ( PERSON , hereinafter referred to as ORG ) , announced that a demonstration would take place on CARDINAL DATE in GPE under the slogan \u201c Live and let live \u201d . The reason for the demonstration was that riots had broken out between GPE and non - GPE families of the municipality on DATE . Following that incident , CARDINAL people were questioned by the police , and an enhanced police presence was ordered in the municipality , with the constant surveillance of streets inhabited by the GPE community .","In the ORG submission , the police were aware that the presence of a hostile crowd in the municipality could lead to violent acts . The police had been informed through official sources that in addition to the members of ORG , CARDINAL far - right groups , known for their militant behaviour and anti - Roma and racist stance , would also be present at the demonstration . They had also been informed that the demonstrators would seek conflict with the police and the minority community . According to the far - right ORG websites , the demonstration was aimed \u201c against GPE criminality \u201d , \u201c against LOC beating up NORP \u201d and \u201c against the GPE criminals unable to respect the rules of living together \u201d .","Devecser was classified as special zone of risk , ( kiemelten vesz\u00e9lyeztetett ) and QUANTITY police patrol units were dispatched to the municipality to ensure an increased presence and carry out checks as of DATE . QUANTITY police officers were deployed in PERSON to secure the demonstration , including members of ORG . On DATE of the demonstration checks were increased throughout the county , including traffic check points . The GPE police department also asked members of ORG of GPE to inform the GPE population about the upcoming demonstration .","CARDINAL to CARDINAL people were present at the demonstration . Mr ORG announced that the demonstration was about the justified self - protection of NORP . Invoking the crimes committed by members of the NORP community , he demanded the reintroduction of the death penalty and threatened the GPE community that if the criminality continued , PERSON would return to PERSON . He also announced that the GPE were not \u201c normal \u201d .","In his speech , PERSON , leader of the CARDINAL ORG ( PERSON ) , mentioned that GPE criminality was omnipresent in the country and wherever this ethnic group appeared , only destruction , devastation and fear came . In his opinion the GPE population wanted to exterminate NORP , which left the latter with the choice of becoming victims or fighting back . Mr PERSON , leader of ORG for a Better Future ( Szebb J\u00f6v\u0151\u00e9rt Polg\u00e1r\u0151r Egyes\u00fclet ) stated that CARDINAL of NORP were killed DATE by the GPE with the approval of the ORG . In his view there was a destruction of civilians going on in GPE . He called on the demonstrators to sweep out the \u201c rubbish \u201d from the country , to revolt and to chase out the treasonous criminal group supressing NORP . He closed his speech by saying that the NORP were entitled to use all means to achieve those goals . Mr PERSON . PERSON . , leader of ORG ) , spoke about the characteristics of a racial war and an ethnic - based conflict . He said that before such conflict escalated , a message should be sent . He mentioned that the GPE minority was genetically encoded to behave in a criminal way and declared that the only way to deal with the GPE was by applying force to \u201c stamp out this phenomenon that needs to be purged \u201d . Mr GPE , the leader of ORG ( PERSON ) , called on the Government to end GPE criminality and warned that if NORP ran out of patience , there would be trouble . Finally , PERSON , the vice - president of ORG in GPE , told participants that there would be no mercy and that every criminal act and every prank would be revenged ; if the ORG authorities did not live up to their obligations to protect civilians from GPE criminality , this would be done by the population itself .","Following the speeches , the demonstrators marched down FAC , the neighbourhood of GPE inhabited by the NORP community , chanting \u201c GPE criminality \u201d , \u201c GPE , you will die \u201d , and \u201c We will burn your house down and you will die inside \u201d , \u201c We will come back when the police are gone \u201d , and obscene insults . They also called on the police not to protect the GPE residents from the demonstrators and to let them out from their houses . Sporadically , quasimilitary demonstrations of force occurred , involving military - style uniforms , formations , commands and salutes .","Certain demonstrators covered their faces , dismantled the cordon and were equipped with sticks and whips . Those leading the demonstration threw pieces of concrete , stones and plastic bottles into the gardens , encouraged by the crowd following them .","The ORG and the applicants disagreed as to other aspects of the demonstration .","During the march through the GPE neighbourhood , which lasted TIME , both applicants stayed in the gardens of houses in FAC . The first applicant submitted that he had overheard the police stating on their radio that the demonstrators were armed with sticks , stones , whips and metal pipes . Furthermore , CARDINAL of his acquaintances had been injured by a stone thrown into his garden , but the police officer to whom the applicant had reported the incident had not taken any steps . In the second applicant \u2019s submission , CARDINAL of the demonstrators leading the march had had a list and had pointed out to the crowd the houses that were inhabited by GPE people .","According to the applicants , the police were present during the demonstration but remained passive and did not disperse the demonstration ; nor did they take any steps to establish the criminal responsibility of the demonstrators . The report of the police \u2019s contact officer noted that the organiser of the demonstrations , Mr G.F. had not been able to keep the events under control and had been unwilling to confront the participants .","According to the Government , the commander of the security forces immediately took action when the participants started to act violently , managed the crowd appropriately and separated hostile demonstrators from others .","On DATE the Minister of the Interior , reacting to a letter from civil society organisations , informed the public that the conduct of the police had been adequate and that CARDINAL people , including CARDINAL demonstrators , had been questioned by the police . Following a statement from CARDINAL injured persons , the police opened criminal proceedings against unknown perpetrators on charges of \u201c disorderly conduct \u201d ( gar\u00e1zdas\u00e1g ) , which was subsequently amended to \u201c violence against a member of a group \u201d ( k\u00f6z\u00f6ss\u00e9g tagja elleni er\u0151szak ) . It appears from the case file that a further criminal investigation was opened into charges of \u201c violence against a member of a group \u201d DATE after the incident .","In DATE ORG published a report on the events . The report concluded that the police had failed to assess whether the event had infringed the rights and freedoms of others . Such assessment would have led to the conclusion that the people living in the neighbourhood were forced as a \u201c captive audience \u201d to listen to the injurious statements that had been made . According to the report , the demonstration had been used to incite ethnic tensions on the basis of the collective guilt of the ethnic group . It went on to state that by not enforcing the limits of freedom of assembly , the police had caused anomalies in respect of the right to peaceful assembly and the NORP population \u2019s right to dignity and private life . It also pointed out that certain speeches had been capable of inciting hatred , evidenced by the fact that stones had been thrown at GPE houses following the speeches . The Commissioner found it regretful that the police had failed to identify the perpetrators on the spot , which was inconsistent with their task of preventing and investigating crimes and with the right to dignity , non - discrimination and physical integrity .","Both applicants complained to the GPE police department about the failure of the police to take measures against the demonstrators , thereby endangering their life and limb and their human dignity .","On DATE the police department dismissed the ORG complaint , finding that the conditions for dispersal of the demonstration had not been met , since any illegal or disorderly conduct on the part of the demonstrators had ceased within TIME . The police department held that the demonstration had remained peaceful , since , apart from the throwing of stones , no actual conflict had broken out between the police , the demonstrators and members of the NORP minority . It also found that only a small group of demonstrators had been armed with sticks and whips . As regards the failure of the police to carry out identity checks on demonstrators and to hold suspects for questioning ( el\u0151\u00e1ll\u00edt\u00e1s ) , the police department found that such measures would only have aggravated the situation and strengthened the demonstrators\u2019 hostility towards the police .","On appeal , ORG upheld the first - instance administrative decision . Following a request for judicial review lodged by the applicants , it nonetheless overruled the first - instance decision and remitted the case to the county police department .","By its decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE the GPE police department dismissed both applicants\u2019 complaints again on identical grounds . The police department found that the demonstration had remained essentially peaceful , because the majority of the participants had not aligned themselves with those committing violent acts . The police department observed that there had been grounds to disperse the demonstration , since some participants had been armed and there had been a reasonable suspicion that some of them had committed the criminal offence of violence against a member of a group . Nonetheless , it concluded that dispersing the demonstration would have carried a high risk since , based on previous experience , those participants intent on violence would probably have turned against the police .","ORG upheld those decisions on appeal on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , stating that although under LAW no . III of DATE ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) the police had been under an obligation to disperse the demonstration , they could refrain from such action if it carried a higher risk than allowing the demonstration to continue . Furthermore , the commander of the operation had been right not to apply measures against certain individuals , since that would have led to a clash between the demonstrators and the police , endangering not only the police themselves , but the local residents too . The second - instance authority acknowledged that the unlawful acts of certain demonstrators had infringed the fundamental rights of the applicants , but concluded that seeking to protect those rights would have caused more harm than good .","The applicants sought judicial review of those decisions , arguing that under LAW the police were under an obligation to disperse non - peaceful demonstrations irrespective of the proportionality of such a measure .","In its judgments delivered on DATE and DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 claims . It found that although the non - peaceful character of a demonstration could serve as grounds for its dispersal , this was only so if the demonstration as a whole had ceased to be peaceful . Sporadic acts of violence , as in the present case , could not serve as legitimate grounds for dispersal . The court also considered that the police had a margin of discretion when deciding on the dispersal of a demonstration . As regards the applicants\u2019 claim that the police should have taken law - enforcement measures against certain individuals , the court pointed out that such actions would have led to clashes between the demonstrators and the police . The court therefore concluded that even if there had been grounds to terminate the demonstration or to apply law - enforcement measures against certain individuals , the police had been justified in not having done so . It added that , in any event , the potential infringement of the applicants\u2019 fundamental rights had been caused not by the alleged inactivity of the police , but by the conduct of the demonstrators .","The applicants lodged a petition for review with the GPE . In its judgments of DATE and DATE the PERSON reiterated that under LAW no . III of DATE the dispersal of demonstrations was a possibility rather than an obligation for the police and restrictions on the fundamental rights of others did not in themselves justify the restriction of the right of assembly . Furthermore , dispersal could only be used as a last resort , if the demonstration was likely to entail serious consequences . Relying on the report by the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights , the GPE considered that despite certain violent actions , the demonstration had on the whole remained peaceful . The court went on to find that the police had been under an obligation to respect the principle of proportionality and had been right to conclude that dispersing the march could have caused more serious prejudice to the GPE community than allowing the demonstration to continue in a controlled manner .","As regards the lack of individual measures , the GPE found that an operational unit of the police ( csapater\u0151 ) had been deployed to maintain order , and that such a measure had not allowed for police officers to single out and act against individual demonstrators .","The PERSON also rejected the applicants\u2019 argument that the police had done nothing to protect them and other members of the GPE minority . It found it established that the police had used a cordon to contain the demonstrators and had ensured the subsequent prosecution of perpetrators by logging events , and taking video footage and photographs .","The applicants , together with ORG , lodged a criminal complaint concerning the speeches delivered at the demonstration and the attacks to which the ORG had been subjected . The case was subsequently joined to a criminal complaint lodged by third persons concerning the same issue . On DATE the GPE police department opened an investigation into charges of violence against members of a group under LAW . The police department opened a separate investigation , LAW CARDINAL point ( b ) of LAW ( incitement against a group ) , into the issue of the speeches delivered during the demonstration .","The investigation into incitement against a group was discontinued by the police department on DATE . The police department considered that although the content of the speeches had been injurious to the NORP minority and was morally reprehensible , it could not be classified as a crime . In particular , the speeches had not been meant to trigger unconsidered , instinctive , harmful and hostile reactions . By the same decision , the police department informed the applicants that it had asked the prosecutor \u2019s office to press charges against an individual for violence against member of a group .","Following a complaint lodged by the applicants , ORG upheld the decision to discontinue the investigation . It held that the legally protected interest in the criminalisation of incitement against a group was public morale . Thus the applicants were not victims of the alleged criminal act and had no standing to lodge a complaint against the decision to discontinue the investigation . However , the county prosecution office re - examined the decision on its own motion . It held that the speeches delivered in PERSON contained abusive , demeaning statements concerning the GPE minority and might have contained statements that evoked hatred , but that they had not provoked active hatred and had not called on the audience to take violent action against the local GPE .","As regards the investigation into the offence of violence against a member of a group , the police established that QUANTITY persons had taken part in violent acts , in particular the throwing of stones . CARDINAL of the alleged perpetrators could not be identified , while ORG pressed charges against the fourth person , Mr GPE He was found guilty as charged on DATE by ORG and sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE . On appeal the ORG upheld Mr ORG \u2019s conviction but amended his sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE .","The applicants , together with a third person , also lodged a criminal complaint against unknown perpetrators for breach of discipline in the line of duty , under LAW . Those proceedings were discontinued on DATE by a decision of ORG of ORG , which held that the criminal offence could only be committed by soldiers in military service , but not by police officers ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150798","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MESUT YURTSEVER AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":2,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to receive ideas;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["NORP Mr PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL )","The applicant was born in DATE . When his application was lodged he was being held in the F - type prison in Bolu .","On DATE , while the applicant was being held in anther prison \u2013 the F - type prison in DATE that prison \u2019s education board decided not to deliver the CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE editions of the ORG DATE newspaper to the applicant or to other prisoners . They based their decision on section QUANTITY of Law No . DATE on LAW ( \u201c Law No . CARDINAL \u201d ) , which provides that no publication containing information , articles , photographs and comments which are obscene or liable to jeopardise prison security should be delivered to convicted prisoners . The board argued that the non - delivered publications were in the NORP language , that the prison had no staff able to understand NORP , that , furthermore , there were several dialects of that language and that it had therefore been impossible to have the publications in question translated . They consequently considered it impossible to ascertain whether those publications fulfilled the conditions laid down in the section of the relevant law .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision .","On DATE , ruling on the basis of the case file , the NORP post - sentencing judge dismissed that appeal . He adjudicated in the light of ORG opinion that in order to assess the conformity with section QUANTITY of Law No . DATE of publications in a language other than the official language , a translation of those publications was required , that there was no legal provision requiring the prison to finance the translation costs , that such expenses had not been covered by the appellant and that consequently , the appeal had to be dismissed .","On DATE the applicant applied to have that decision set aside , submitting that the prison administration had suspended the delivery to the prison of the ORG newspaper , which in his submission was widely distributed outside the prison , on the ground that it had no staff who understood NORP . He requested the setting aside of the post - sentencing judge \u2019s decision declaring the measure consistent with the law , because in his view that measure would prevent the newspaper from being distributed inside the prison , as had previously been normal practice .","On DATE ORG , ruling on the basis of the case file and having taken cognisance of ORG opinion , concluded that the impugned decision was not incompatible in procedural or legal terms , and dismissed the application .","The applicants were born in DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE respectively . When their application was lodged they were held in the F - type prison in LANGUAGE .","On DATE the NORP prison education board , drawing on section CARDINAL of Law No . DATE , decided not to deliver to the applicants the CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE editions of the ORG DATE newspaper on the grounds that they were in the NORP language and that the prison had no staff capable of translating that language .","On DATE the applicants appealed against that decision .","On DATE , ruling on the basis of ORG opinion that the education board \u2019s decision had been justified , the NORP post - sentencing judge dismissed that appeal .","On DATE Mr PERSON and PERSON and on DATE Mr Yurtsever and PERSON , applied to have that decision set aside .","On DATE ORG , ruling on the basis of the case file and having taken cognisance of ORG opinion , dismissed that application on the grounds that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms .","The applicants were born in DATE . When their application was lodged they were held in the F - type prison in DATE .","On DATE the prison education board decided not to deliver the CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE editions of the ORG DATE newspaper to the applicants . They based their decision on section QUANTITY of Law No . DATE . ORG emphasised that the publications were in NORP and that the prison had no staff who understood NORP , so that , in the ORG \u2019s view , it was impossible to have books , newspapers and magazines in that language translated and , consequently , to ascertain whether such publications fulfilled the conditions laid down in the section of the relevant law .","On DATE the applicants appealed against that decision . In a letter sent DATE to the Tekirda\u011f post - sentencing judge , PERSON submitted , inter alia , that no seizure order had been made in respect of the editions of the DATE newspaper in question and that it had been absurd to request the translation of the newspaper since it had been on sale nationwide and was subject to statutory review . Moreover , he contended that the decision appealed against was unlawful .","PERSON sent a letter on DATE to the Tekirda\u011f postsentencing judge alleging that the ban on delivery of publications in NORP to the prison had been lifted DATE previously and that the prison authorities\u2019 argument to the effect that there had been no staff who understood NORP was implausible . He also stated that the inmates of other NORP - type prisons had been authorised to receive such publications , so that the prison authorities\u2019 practice had to be deemed arbitrary .","On DATE the NORP post - sentencing judge dismissed the appeal on the basis of the case file . He adjudicated in the light of ORG opinion that in order to assess the conformity with section QUANTITY of the relevant law of publications in a language other than the official language a translation of those publications was required , that there was no legal provision requiring the prison to finance the translation costs , that such expenses had not been covered by the appellant and that consequently , the appeal had to be dismissed .","On DATE the applicants appealed against that decision . PERSON requested the lifting of the prohibition in issue . Mr PERSON submitted that the newspaper in question had been distributed under the supervision of the Prosecutor responsible for the press and that the lack of any judicial proceedings or seizure order in respect of the newspaper demonstrated that it was unobjectionable . He therefore considered that access should be permitted to the publication .","On DATE , ruling on the basis of the case file and having taken cognisance of ORG opinion , ORG , drawing on the case file and having taken cognisance of ORG opinion , dismissed that application on the grounds that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms .","The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . When their application was lodged they were being held in the F - type prison in DATE .","On DATE the prison education board , drawing on section QUANTITY of LAW . DATE , decided not to deliver the CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE editions of the ORG DATE newspaper to the applicants . ORG explained that the publications were in the NORP language , that the prison had no staff who understood NORP , that , furthermore , there were several dialects of that language , that it had therefore been impossible to have the publications in question translated , and that consequently there was no way of ascertaining whether those publications fulfilled the conditions laid down in the relevant section of PERSON No . DATE .","On DATE the applicants appealed against that decision . Mr Abo sent a letter on DATE to the Tekirda\u011f post - sentencing judge complaining that he had been denied access to the editions in question , adding that the prison authorities\u2019 decision had been geared to banning the DATE newspaper and was unlawful .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE Mr GPE informed the NORP postsentencing judge he had been unjustifiably deprived of the ORG newspaper since DATE . He requested that the newspaper be delivered to him in the standard manner in future .","On DATE , ruling on the basis of the case file , the NORP post - sentencing judge dismissed PERSON GPE \u2019s appeal on the ground that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms . He adjudicated in the light of ORG opinion to the effect that in order to assess the conformity with section QUANTITY of the relevant law of publications in a language other than the official language , a translation of those publications was required , that there was no legal provision requiring the prison to finance the translation costs , that such expenses had not been covered by the appellant and that the measure adopted by the prison authorities had consequently been justified .","On DATE Mr O\u011furtan wrote to ORG to complain that he was no longer in receipt of the ORG newspaper and that his appeal to the post - sentencing judge on that matter had been unsuccessful . He requested that the practice in question , which he described as undemocratic , be discontinued and that the newspaper in question be delivered to him in the standard manner .","On DATE Mr Abo wrote to ORG . He submitted that ORG was a newspaper which was subject to the same kind of review as all other organs of the press . The lack of any judicial proceedings or of a ban against that DATE newspaper was sufficient on its own to demonstrate that it raised no problems and that he should therefore have access to it . He consequently requested the setting aside of the postsentencing judge \u2019s decision and its replacement by a decision to resume deliveries of the newspaper to him .","On DATE ORG , ruling on the basis of the case file and having taken cognisance of ORG opinion , found that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms and dismissed the request .","The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . When their application was lodged they were being held in the prison F - type in DATE .","On DATE the NORP prison education board decided not to deliver to the applicants the CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE editions of the ORG DATE newspaper on the grounds that they were in the NORP language and that the prison had no staff capable of translating that language .","On DATE Mr Kaya wrote to the NORP post - sentencing judge to challenge that decision and to request the delivery of the newspaper in question .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal against the impugned decision .","On DATE , ruling on the basis of the case file , the NORP post - sentencing judge dismissed that appeal on the grounds that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms . He adjudicated in the light of ORG opinion that in order to assess the conformity with section QUANTITY of the relevant law of publications in a language other than the official language , a translation of those publications was required , that there was no legal provision requiring the prison to finance the translation costs , that such expenses had not been covered by the appellants and that the measure adopted by the prison authorities had consequently been justified .","On DATE and DATE respectively Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON appealed against that decision . In a letter to ORG in NORP , Mr Kaya pointed out that the refusal to deliver the ORG newspaper to him was arbitrary and requested delivery of the latter , which he said was published in accordance with the relevant legislation .","On DATE ORG , ruling on the basis of the case file and having taken cognisance of ORG opinion , found that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms and dismissed the appeal .","The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . When their application was lodged they were being held in the F - type prison in DATE .","NORP On DATE the NORP prison education board decided not to deliver the CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE editions of the ORG DATE newspaper to the applicants on the grounds that they were in the LANGUAGE language and that the prison had no staff capable of translating that language .","On DATE the applicants appealed against that decision .","On DATE , ruling on the basis of the case file , the NORP post - sentencing judge dismissed that appeal , finding that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms . He adjudicated in the light of ORG opinion that in order to assess the conformity with section QUANTITY of Law No . DATE of publications in a language other than the official language , a translation of those publications was required , that there was no legal provision requiring the prison to finance the translation costs , that such expenses had not been covered by the appellants and that the measure adopted by the prison authorities had consequently been justified .","On DATE and DATE respectively , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON appealed against that decision . Mr G\u00fcnay sent a letter to ORG complaining that the post - sentencing judge had joined forces with the prison authorities to impede his right to receive information and had therefore infringed that right , as enshrined in the Convention . He submitted that the newspaper in question was published in conformity with the relevant legislation and that it was therefore unnecessary to translate it , because if its content had been unlawful it would have been subject to a seizure order . He added that the right to read a newspaper in NORP , his mother tongue , was a natural right .","On DATE ORG , ruling on the basis of the case file and having taken cognisance of ORG opinion , found that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms and dismissed the appeal .","The applicant was born in DATE . When his applications were lodged he was held in the F - type prison in DATE .","On DATE the NORP prison education board decided not to deliver to the applicant the CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE editions of the ORG DATE newspaper on the grounds that it did not understand their content and could not have them translated , also having regard to a decision given on DATE by the NORP post - sentencing judge .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision .","On DATE , ruling on the basis of the case file , the NORP post - sentencing judge dismissed that appeal , finding that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms . He adjudicated in the light of ORG opinion to the effect that in order to assess the conformity with section QUANTITY of Law no . DATE of publications in a language other than the official language , a translation of those publications was required , that there was no legal provision requiring the prison to finance the translation costs , that such expenses had not been covered by the appellant and that the education board \u2019s decision had consequently been justified .","DATE . On DATE the applicant appealed against the postsentencing judge \u2019s decision .","On DATE ORG , ruling on the basis of the case file and having taken cognisance of ORG opinion , found that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE , referring to a decision given by the NORP post - sentencing judge on DATE , the NORP prison education board decided not to hand over to the applicants the CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE editions of the ORG DATE newspaper on the grounds that it could not understand their content or have them translated .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision .","On DATE , ruling on the basis of the case file , the NORP post - sentencing judge dismissed that appeal , finding that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms . He adjudicated in the light of ORG opinion to the effect that in order to assess the conformity with section QUANTITY of Law no . DATE of publications in a language other than the official language , a translation of those publications was required , that there was no legal provision requiring the prison to finance the translation costs , that such expenses had not been covered by the appellant and that the education board \u2019s decision had consequently been justified .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the postsentencing judge \u2019s decision .","On DATE ORG , ruling on the basis of the case file and having taken cognisance of ORG opinion , found that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms and dismissed the latter appeal .","The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . When their application was lodged they were being held in the F - type prison in LANGUAGE .","On DATE the NORP prison education board decided not to deliver DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE editions of the ORG DATE newspaper to the applicants on the grounds that they were in the LANGUAGE language and that the prison had no staff capable of translating that language . ORG also had regard to the fact that the Tekirda\u011f postsentencing judge had adjudicated on other editions of that newspaper on DATE , as had ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicants appealed against that decision .","On DATE , ruling on the basis of the case file , the NORP post - sentencing judge dismissed that appeal , finding that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms . He adjudicated in the light of ORG opinion to the effect that in order to assess the conformity with section QUANTITY of the PERSON no . DATE of publications in a language other than the official language , a translation of those publications was required , that the prison authorities had no budget for that purpose , that there was no legal provision requiring the prison to finance the translation costs , that such expenses had not been covered by the appellants and that the education board \u2019s decision had consequently been justified .","Mr G\u00fcnay appealed against that decision by the post - sentencing judge on DATE , and PERSON and PERSON followed suit on DATE .","On DATE ORG , ruling on the basis of the case file and having taken cognisance of ORG opinion , found that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms and dismissed the latter appeal .","The applicant was born in DATE . When his applications were lodged he was being held in the F - type prison in DATE .","On DATE the prison education board decided not to deliver the CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE editions of the ORG DATE newspaper to the applicant , pursuant to section QUANTITY of LAW . CARDINAL , on the grounds that that the publications were in NORP and that the prison had no staff who understood that language , making it impossible to secure a translation in order to ascertain whether the content of the newspapers complied with the aforementioned legislative provision .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision , submitting , inter alia , that the editions of the newspaper in question had not been the subject of any judicial seizure order and therefore ought to have been delivered to him . He further submitted that he had been in receipt of the newspaper for DATE without any problem before being deprived of it , and that the decision taken by the prison authorities had been unlawful . He consequently requested that the impugned decision be set aside and he be allowed to receive the newspaper in question .","On DATE , ruling on the basis of the case file , the NORP post - sentencing judge dismissed that appeal , finding that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms . He adjudicated in the light of ORG opinion to the effect that in order to assess the conformity with section QUANTITY of the relevant law of publications in a language other than the official language , a translation of those publications was required , that there was no legal provision requiring the prison to finance the translation costs , that such expenses had not been covered by the appellant and that the measure adopted by the prison authorities had consequently been justified .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision . He submitted that the newspaper in question had been published in accordance with the law , that it had been subject to review by the Prosecutor responsible for the press before distribution and that , in the absence of any judicial proceedings or seizure order against it , the newspaper could not be deemed problematic . He consequently requested access to the impugned editions of the newspaper .","On DATE ORG , ruling on the basis of the case file and having taken cognisance of ORG opinion , found that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","DATE . On DATE the prison education board decided not to deliver the CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE editions of the ORG DATE newspaper to the applicant , pursuant to section QUANTITY of Law No . DATE , on the grounds that that the publications were in NORP and that the prison had no staff who understand that language , making it impossible to secure a translation in order to ascertain whether the content of the newspapers complied with the aforementioned legislative provision .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision . He sent a letter dated DATE to the NORP post - sentencing judge stating that the impugned newspaper had not been the subject of any seizure order , and that it was both pointless and unlawful to demand a translation of its content when it had already been subject to statutory review .","On DATE , ruling on the basis of the case file , the NORP post - sentencing judge dismissed that appeal , finding that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms . He adjudicated in the light of ORG opinion to the effect that in order to assess the conformity with section QUANTITY of the relevant law of publications in a language other than the official language , a translation of those publications was required , that there was no legal provision requiring the prison to finance the translation costs , that such expenses had not been covered by the appellant and that the measure adopted by the prison authorities had consequently been justified .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision , submitting , inter alia , that the newspaper in question had been subject to review by the Prosecutor responsible for the press before distribution . The absence of any judicial proceedings or seizure order against it proved that the newspaper did not raise any problems .","On DATE ORG , ruling on the basis of the case file and having taken cognisance of ORG opinion , found that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms and dismissed the latter appeal .","On DATE CARDINALthe prison education board decided not to deliver the CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL and DATE editions of the ORG DATE newspaper to the applicant , pursuant to section QUANTITY of LAW . CARDINAL , on the grounds that that the publications were in NORP and that the prison had no staff who understand that language , making it impossible to secure a translation in order to ascertain whether the content of the newspapers complied with the aforementioned legislative provision .","The applicant appealed against that decision .","On DATE , ruling on the basis of the case file , the NORP post - sentencing judge dismissed that appeal , finding that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms . He adjudicated in the light of ORG opinion to the effect that in order to assess the conformity with section QUANTITY of the PERSON no . DATE of publications in a language other than the official language , a translation of those publications was required , that the prison authorities had no budget for that purpose , that there was no legal provision requiring the prison to finance the translation costs , that such expenses had not been covered by the appellant and that the education board \u2019s decision had consequently been justified .","DATE . On DATE the applicant appealed against the postsentencing judge \u2019s decision . He submitted , inter alia , that the newspaper in question had been published in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and that if the newspaper had been in an unlawful situation the Prosecutor responsible for the press would have taken the necessary action . The applicant submitted that the newspaper had not been the subject of any ban or seizure order . Consequently , he requested that he be given access to the publication .","On DATE ORG , ruling on the basis of the case file and having taken cognisance of ORG opinion , found that the impugned decision had been unobjectionable in procedural and legal terms and dismissed the latter appeal .","..."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141384","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GORDIYENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of PERSON , GPE .","On DATE the NORP ORG of the Interior ( \" the ROVD \" ) ordered a test purchase of drugs from the applicant , as he was suspected of drug trafficking .","On the same date undercover police officer PERSON called the applicant and indicated that he wished to buy CARDINAL doses of opium . The applicant agreed to procure it . At TIME he met CARDINAL undercover police agents in the street and sold them CARDINAL sachets of opium .","At TIME , police officers PERSON and PERSON arrested the applicant near his flat in the presence of his partner PERSON and her sister PERSON police officers took him to the ROVD station . From the arrest record it follows that the applicant was advised of his right to be assisted by counsel , but decided not to use this possibility .","According to the applicant , during TIME he spent in detention police officers PERSON and PERSON put pressure on him to confess . They repeatedly beat him up , damaging his kidneys and causing other injuries . Regardless of this , he did not admit his involvement in drug trafficking .","Thereafter the applicant was taken to the office of police officer PERSON , who , in the presence of attesting witnesses , examined his hands with a view to finding traces of drugs . Allegedly , the police officers also removed and examined money from the applicant \u2019s pocket .","At TIME the applicant was transferred to a temporary detention facility . A paramedic on duty examined him upon arrival there and made the following entry in the medical record :","\u201c [ The applicant ] complains of back pain . [ He makes ] no complaints in connection with the scratch noted on his right knee . [ The applicant ] said that scratch had been inflicted during his arrest ... \u201d","At TIME police officers PERSON and PERSON carried out a search of the applicant \u2019s flat and found a resinous substance which was subsequently determined to be opium . It does not appear that the applicant brought any proceedings to contest the lawfulness of the search .","At the detention facility the applicant repeatedly complained of pain in his lower back . On an unspecified date a paramedic of the emergency services examined the applicant in this connection , having diagnosed soft tissue bruising of the lower back ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","DATE he complained on a few occasions of lower back pain . It appears that detention facility paramedics measured his body temperature , blood pressure and gave him injections of painkillers .","On DATE the applicant asked the PERSON town prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u201c the prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged ill - treatment of DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused this request as unfounded .","The applicant appealed against that decision in court and before a higher prosecutor .","It appears that on DATE the applicant was taken to the emergency services of a hospital , where surgeon PERSON . performed an X - ray examination of the applicant \u2019s kidneys and some other tests in relation to his alleged back pain . The examination did not reveal any anomalies in his condition .","On DATE a higher prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for additional preliminary inquiry . It stated :","\u201c ... The examination of the case file shows that the investigation was perfunctory and the decision not to institute criminal proceedings was premature .","In the course of the additional [ preliminary inquiry ] the investigator should question [ police officer ] PERSON , and [ the sister of the applicant \u2019s partner ] B. , order a medical examination of [ the applicant ] and take other steps required to carry out the necessary check at the end of which [ he ] should take a decision in accordance with the law ... \u201d","On DATE the NORP ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE , as it had already been quashed by a higher prosecutor .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office issued a new decision not to institute criminal proceedings . That decision was challenged in court and before a higher prosecutor .","It appears that on DATE a supervising prosecutor quashed it and ordered an additional preliminary inquiry into the applicant \u2019s complaints , having noted that the investigative authorities should examine the detention facility paramedics who provided the applicant with first aid .","On DATE the NORP ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE , as it had already been quashed .","The investigating authorities questioned PERSON and PERSON , eyewitnesses to the applicant \u2019s arrest , PERSON and PERSON , the police officers who had allegedly illtreated him and detention facility paramedic GPE .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office rejected the applicant \u2019s request to institute criminal proceedings , having held as follows :","\u201c On DATE [ the prosecutor \u2019s office ] received file no . CARDINAL pr . CARDINAL related to [ the applicant \u2019s ] complaint of ill - treatment by police officer PERSON","[ The applicant ] stated that PERSON ... applied physical and psychological pressure on him .","When questioned , PERSON stated that in DATE the police had received information about [ the applicant \u2019s ] involvement in opium trafficking . On DATE PERSON ordered a test purchase ... [ Following the test purchase ] he and PERSON arrested [ the applicant ] and took him to the ROVD station . During [ the applicant \u2019s ] arrest , his transportation and the subsequent investigation no one used physical or psychological force on him . [ The applicant ] did not complain about his health and did not ask for an ambulance . All of the investigative actions were performed in the presence of attesting witnesses .","ORG also submitted that on DATE he and PERSON carried out a search of [ the applicant \u2019s ] flat . The search was performed in the presence of [ the applicant \u2019s ] neighbours , attesting witnesses and the owner of the flat . During the search the police found vessels which [ contained ] traces of drugs and opium [ The page is missing ] ....","When questioned , [ the applicant ] stated that on DATE he , accompanied by PERSON and PERSON , went out of the entrance to the block of flats . He had car keys , [ his ] driving licence , car [ registration ] documents and MONEY in his pocket . After a short conversation with an acquaintance , he was knocked down by CARDINAL men who handcuffed him . CARDINAL of these men introduced himself as police officer PERSON In the presence of PERSON and PERSON that officer took the car keys , driving licence and car [ registration ] documents from [ the applicant ] . At TIME [ the applicant ] was taken to the ROVD station . He was taken to an office where PERSON and PERSON began to hit him [ on the ] lower back with a plastic bottle filled with water . They forced him to confess to drug trafficking . Thereafter he was taken to PERSON \u2019s office , where in the presence of attesting witnesses a police officer took MONEY from his pocket . A special examination showed that [ both the applicant \u2019s ] hands and the banknotes had fluorescent marks [ on them ] . [ The applicant ] refused to give a statement in the presence of PERSON and PERSON During [ the applicant \u2019s ] detention he asked for an ambulance CARDINAL times . A detention facility doctor gave him injections of painkillers [ DATE ] for DATE . On DATE he was examined by a hospital doctor . [ The applicant ] asked to be present at the search of his flat . However , this request was rejected by the police ...","When questioned , PERSON explained that her sister PERSON was the applicant \u2019s partner and lived with him and their daughter in a flat which belonged to B ... On the day of [ the applicant \u2019s ] arrest she , PERSON and [ the applicant ] had gone to a garage . On their way there while the applicant was walking behind them , CARDINAL young men knocked him down . The men introduced themselves as police officers . She did not see the police officers taking [ the applicant \u2019s ] belongings from his pockets . She had never seen those officers before . They did not put any pressure on her .","When questioned , [ detention facility paramedic GPE . ] , stated that [ the applicant ] was brought to the detention facility at TIME and examined there by [ him ] . From the medical records it was clear that [ the applicant ] had complained of lower back pain but only the scratch on his knee was noted , received , from his own description during the arrest . [ The applicant ] complained of chest pain . No other visible injuries were detected . Later he complained about pain in the area of the right shoulder , pain in the chest , in the area of ninth and tenth ribs . On DATE he was brought for examination in emergency services of a hospital , where [ the applicant ] made a X - ray scan and ultrasound examination of his kidneys . No pathologies in his condition were detected .","When questioned , PERSON submitted that on DATE at TIME she , her sister PERSON and [ the applicant ] had gone to a garage . On their way there while the applicant was walking behind them , CARDINAL young men knocked him down . The men introduced themselves as police officers . She did not see the police officers taking [ the applicant \u2019s ] belongings from his pockets . The police officers did not use force against [ the applicant ] during his arrest . They did not put any pressure on her .","Having regard to the above , it was established in the course of the inquiry that ... there is no evidence that PERSON and PERSON committed the alleged criminal offence ... \u201d","The applicant appealed and argued that the decision of DATE had been based on incomplete information and that the assessment of the available evidence had been wrong .","On DATE the NORP ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE and upheld it in full . The court noted that :","\u201c ... - from the explanations given by [ the investigator in charge of the case ] it follows that he ... interviewed paramedic PERSON . ... who had examined [ the applicant ] on DATE ... and she explained that there were no injuries on [ the applicant \u2019s body ] , but [ the applicant ] complained about the pain in the back , which was why it was unnecessary for the investigator also to interview the doctors of the emergency services . In the copies of documents there were statements of paramedic GPE . ... as well as statements of doctor PERSON . of the emergency services who examined [ the applicant ] on DATE making complaints only about the pain in the back and not about anything else ;","- from the explanation of [ the investigator ] it also follows that he interviewed [ the applicant \u2019s partner PERSON ] who did not communicate any information that on DATE during [ the applicant \u2019s ] arrest in her presence the police officers used physical force in respect of [ the applicant ] ...","On the basis of the above , the court concludes that the investigator \u2019s decision ... was well - grounded and lawful ... \u201d","The applicant appealed , having argued that the first instance court had taken the decision in his absence and that its legal and factual conclusions contradicted the case file materials .","On DATE the Rostov ORG examined the applicant \u2019s appeal and quashed the decision of the lower court and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh examination at first instance . It held that :","\u201c ... in breach of LAW GPE ( \u201c CCrP \u201d ) , the court did not duly examine the investigator \u2019s decision not to institute criminal proceedings .","Thus , the [ lower ] court did not take into account [ the fact ] that the investigative authorities had disregarded the prosecutor \u2019s recommendations of DATE and had not questioned the doctors of the emergency services who provided [ the applicant ] with medical assistance .","Moreover , the court did not assess the thoroughness of the investigation . The court did not take into account certain contradictions in the ORG statements .","In particular , detention facility paramedic GPE . stated that [ the applicant ] had repeatedly complained of chest and back pains . In connection with this he was provided with first aid by paramedics . On DATE [ the applicant ] was taken to the city hospital . X - ray and ultrasound examinations showed no signs that the applicant had a medical condition . However [ surgeon PERSON . ] noted that no ultrasound examination had been performed because police officers took the applicant out of the hospital . [ ORG . ] also submitted that [ the applicant ] had undergone a blood test and a urine test .","The [ lower ] court did not take into account [ the fact ] that the investigator \u2019s conclusion that there was an absence of any evidence of the [ applicant \u2019s ] ill - treatment was unfounded . From the case file it is evident that DATE a detention facility doctor and paramedics provided [ the applicant ] with first aid .","The [ lower ] court did not notice that the investigating authorities had failed to establish the cause of [ the applicant \u2019s ] health problems and to check whether [ the applicant ] had had kidney disease before his arrest . This indicates the superficial character of the investigation .","The court can not accept the [ lower ] court \u2019s references to [ the applicant ] \u2019s conviction because [ the applicant \u2019s ] allegations of ill - treatment were not examined on the merits in the proceedings against him ... \u201d","On an unspecified date a higher prosecutor , acting in parallel to the then pending court proceedings , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE as unlawful and remitted the case to the prosecutor \u2019s office for an additional investigation , having required to interview the paramedic who had provided the applicant with medical aid in prison .","On DATE the NORP ORG left the applicant \u2019s complaint about the decision of DATE without examination , noting that that decision had already been quashed by the higher prosecutor .","Apparently in response to the prosecutor \u2019s previous recommendations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the investigating authorities performed some additional investigating measures , in particular , they questioned PERSON as well as paramedics Ya . and PERSON who had provided the applicant with medical aid in prison , doctor PERSON . of the emergency services of the hospital and again questioned police officer PERSON , who had carried out investigating actions in respect of the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s partner PERSON was interviewed by an investigator of ORG office and gave the following statement :","\u201c With [ the applicant ] I resided together as of the time of his release from prison after he had served his [ previous ] sentence for extortion . During the time we lived together [ the applicant ] complained about the pain in kidneys and pain in the area of ribs . I can not remember the side . From [ his ] words I learned that during his detention [ the applicant ] had been severely beaten , as a result of which they broke his rib and contused the kidneys . With these complaints , as long as I remember , he never applied for aid in medical institutions . More than once , including in my presence , in pharmacies he used to buy medicine to relieve the mentioned pain . He also complained about pain in the area of the liver .","I do n\u2019t know if [ the applicant ] talked about [ this ] to anyone . Because he failed to apply for medical aid , the broken rib recovered incorrectly . \u201d","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open a criminal case . This decision reiterated the findings of the decision of QUANTITY DATE and added as follows :","\u201c When questioned , ORG . explained that he worked as a surgeon in the emergency services of the hospital and ... that ... [ the applicant ] applied to him with complaints about the pain in the lower back . He examined [ the applicant ] and made him undergo the blood and urine tests , failing to detect any anomalies ... It was expected also to make an ultrasound test of kidneys , buy the convoy and [ the applicant ] left the building ...","When questioned , PERSON stated that she had been working for the ROVD since DATE . She was on duty when she received information about [ the applicant \u2019s ] arrest by police officers PERSON and PERSON She carried out initial investigating actions in his regard and examined his hands for traces of drugs . [ The applicant ] made no complaints about his state of health . He had no visible injuries . She ordered PERSON and PERSON to perform an urgent search in [ the applicant \u2019s ] flat . Neither she , nor other police officers acted unlawfully towards the applicant .","When further questioned on DATE , PERSON stated that she had been living with [ the applicant ] since his release from prison . During their cohabitation [ the applicant ] had complained of lower back , chest and stomach pains . She knew from what [ the applicant ] had said that he had been beaten in prison . He had never consulted a doctor on account of his health problems . He used painkillers to cope with these pains and never applied to [ medical institutions ] for [ medical ] aid .","When questioned , [ paramedic Ya . of the emergency services ] noted that she attended the ROVD \u2019s temporary detention facility upon the [ applicant \u2019s ] request on account of his lower back pain . No hematomas or bruises were noted on his lower back . Since [ the applicant ] had no bodily injuries as well as signs of any diseases , she made a preliminary diagnosis \u2013 a bruise of soft tissue in the lower back area . To confirm the diagnosis it was necessary to have [ the applicant ] examined by a surgeon and , if necessary , by other doctors . She did not remember whether [ the applicant ] complained of ill - treatment or not .","Similar statements were given by [ paramedic PERSON . of the emergency services ] ...","When questioned [ the applicant \u2019s acquaintance T. ] stated that on DATE on his way to a [ bus stop ] he met [ the applicant ] and his partner , who were going to a garage . They had a conversation for a minute . During that conversation he did not give [ the applicant anything ] or take anything from [ the applicant ] . Thereafter , on the way to the bus stop he was stopped by CARDINAL police officers who checked his documents . He did not see [ the applicant \u2019s ] arrest . DATE he learned about [ the applicant \u2019s ] arrest on suspicion of drug trafficking ...","Having regard to the above , the investigator concludes that [ the applicant \u2019s ] allegations of ill - treatment were made in an attempt to escape criminal liability for his offence ...","In the light of the above considerations , and taking into account Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , the investigator orders the refusal of [ the applicant \u2019s ] request that criminal proceedings against [ the police officers ] be instituted . There is no evidence of the crimes provided by ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL [ abuse of power ] and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL [ falsification of a criminal case file ] of LAW of GPE having taken place ... \u201d","The applicant did not appeal against the decision of DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant obtained , for the purposes of the present case , the following statement from his partner PERSON The statement is made in relation to the earlier statement of PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE ) and reads as follows :","\u201c Before [ the prosecutor \u2019s office ] [ I ] gave false statements about [ the applicant ] . He never had kidney disease or complained of lower back pain . He had never bought medicine to cope with the pain . I gave those false statements because I thought that [ the applicant ] would evict me from my flat . I was also unhappy because I had to pay for our flat while he was in detention . \u201d","NORP Throughout the proceedings before the trial court the applicant denied his involvement in drug trafficking , claiming that the criminal case against him had been falsified by police officers .","According to the applicant , during the trial court hearings he was unable to cross - examine CARDINAL of the witnesses against him . He also stated that ORG did not ensure the attendance of a witness on his behalf .","On DATE the NORP ORG convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE and DATE of imprisonment .","NORP The applicant appealed against the judgment , having argued that the criminal case against had been falsified by the police . In his appeal brief he did not state his complaints about the alleged inability to cross - examine some of the witnesses and call a witness on his behalf .","On DATE the Rostov ORG examined and rejected the applicant \u2019s arguments , having upheld his conviction and the sentence in full .","On DATE the Presidium of the Rostov ORG upheld the judgments of the lower courts , having re - characterised the applicant \u2019s crime as an attempt to sell drugs and reduced his sentence to DATE and DATE of imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-185278","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"A.M.B. AND OTHERS v. SPAIN - [English Translation] by European Roma Rights Centre \"ERRC\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before ORG Ca\u00f1\u00f3n , a lawyer practicing in GPE . ORG ( \" the Government \" ) is represented by its agent , PERSON , ORG Attorney , Head of ORG .","NORP The applicant , a NORP national , and her CARDINAL minor children , have been living since DATE in a dwelling belonging to ORG ( hereinafter ORG ) , an organization of ORG . She is unemployed ( without benefits ) and receives the minimum integration income of MONEY ( ORG ) DATE , plus CARDINAL ORG per child as alimony . This financial allocation is granted by the GPE region to meet the basic needs of families who may be at risk of social exclusion .","NORP The applicant claims to have asked the Administration several times since DATE to obtain accommodation for herself and for her children , without ever getting a response . The disputed flat being uninhabited , they settled there irregularly , the office of the census of the municipality of GPE having officially registered them at this address since DATE .","By a decision on CARDINAL DATE , the director of ORG discovered the illegal occupation of the building and ordered the building to be returned to the ORG within DATE , without offering alternative housing to the applicant .","For their failing to vacate the home within the prescribed time , on CARDINAL DATE , the legal services of ORG applied to ORG for authorization to proceed with the expulsion .","On DATE , the applicant , represented by a public defender , objected to the measure by pointing out her and her children \u2019s precarious situation of social exclusion , as well as their GPE ethnicity .","By a decision on DATE , ORG No . CARDINAL of GPE ordered the expulsion , all while indicating that it would be appropriate to \u201c adopt the necessary measures for the best protection of minors who would be found in the building \u201d without specifying what these measures would be . Regarding the particular situation of the applicant , the judge noted that their situation was not distinguishable or distinct from that of many other families waiting for housing and that the illegal occupation could not find a justification .","The applicant appealed and requested the suspension of the expulsion order until the appeal was decided , the NORP law finding that the appeal is not suspensive to this effect . The judge found that the appeal was filed but did not rule on the application for suspension .","On DATE , ORG notified the applicant that the execution of the expulsion was scheduled for DATE at CARDINAL .","On DATE , the applicant lodged an application for interim measures on the basis of LAW .","On DATE , the examination of the request of the application of LAW was postponed until the reception of certain information from the Government concerning the treatment of fundamental rights of the applicant and her kids . In particular , the Government was asked to specify what alternative accommodation solutions the applicant and her children would be offered in case of expulsion to prevent the alleged violation of LAW and within what time frame .","NORP In light of the received information , on DATE , the functioning president of the Section to which the request was assigned decided to inform the NORP government , pursuant to the previously cited provision , not to continue with the expulsion of the applicant and her children from the home that they occupied . He decided in addition to communicate the request to the Government .","Furthermore , the president in office decided that the identity of the applicant would not be disclosed ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ) .","On DATE , ORG informed the applicant that , unless the home was vacated , her illegal occupation would result in the rejection of any application for housing on her part for DATE from the date of the removal .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE . The ORG noted that none of the constitutional rights relied upon by the applicant authorized the illegal occupation of the apartment , even if they were in a situation of need . In fact , it was up to them to apply to the official bodies responsible for social protection .","Relying on Articles CARDINAL ( prohibition of degrading treatment ) and CARDINAL ( right to private and family life ) , the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG , which is to date .","The relevant provisions of the LAW are as follows :","\u00ab Everyone has the right to life and to physical and moral integrity ( ... ) ORG","\u00ab The home is inviolable . ( ... ) ORG"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156243","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BEL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF V.M. AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicants , PERSON and PERSON , and CARDINAL of their children were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . Their eldest daughter , who was also an applicant , was born in DATE and subsequently died on DATE after the application had been lodged .","The applicants are of GPE origin and were born in GPE , where they spent the greater part of their lives . They explained that they decided to leave their country for GPE because of the discrimination and illtreatment they had suffered on account of their origin in every sphere : access to the employment market , medical care , schooling difficulties and so forth .","The eldest daughter of the first CARDINAL applicants had been physically and mentally disabled since birth and had suffered from epilepsy .","After failing to obtain a more secure situation for themselves in GPE , in DATE the applicants travelled to GPE , where they lodged an application for asylum . Their application was rejected by a final decision on DATE .","The applicants stated that in the meantime they had returned to GPE , and then to GPE , in DATE owing to the precariousness of their situation in GPE and their inability to provide for their essential needs .","In DATE , as their situation had not changed , the applicants decided to go to GPE , where they lodged an asylum application on DATE .","During their interview with the \u201c GPE \u201d department of ORG on DATE the applicants gave an account of their movements to date and expressed their fears in the event of a return to GPE . The first applicant stated that he had chosen to seek asylum in GPE because he had been told that he could obtain better treatment for his disabled daughter there . He said that he was suffering from psychological problems . The second applicant said that GPE had been the choice of the smuggler . When asked about her health , she replied that she was CARDINAL months\u2019 pregnant . She also mentioned their eldest daughter \u2019s health problems .","The applicants maintained that they had explained the reasons why they refused to return to GPE , where they had been living in extremely precarious conditions . They submitted that they had not been asked to provide any evidence of having left the territory of GPE ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) or regarding the family NORP state of health .","On DATE the NORP authorities sent GPE requests to take the applicants back on the grounds that the latter had been unable to prove that they had left the territory of ORG since their stay in GPE .","On DATE , relying on LAW ( ORG ) No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member ORG responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of GPE by a thirdcountry national ( \u201c the Dublin II Regulation \u201d ) , GPE refused to take charge of the applicants on the grounds that the couple were considered to have disappeared since DATE because they had not collected the notice of final refusal of their asylum application dated DATE and this corroborated their statements to ORG according to which they had left LOC in DATE and re - entered it in DATE , thus leaving for a period of DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the NORP authorities asked the NORP authorities to reconsider their position given that there was no conclusive evidence that the family had left the territory of the Member GPE for DATE since their stay in GPE and the applicants were clearly aware of the rejection of their asylum application in GPE .","On DATE GPE accepted the request to take the family back pursuant to LAW CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(e ) of the Dublin II Regulation .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG issued decisions refusing the applicants leave to remain and ordering them to leave the country for GPE on the grounds that under LAW CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(e ) of the Dublin II Regulation Belgium was not responsible for examining the asylum application and that GPE had agreed to take charge of the family . The decisions indicated among other things that the family , who were originally from GPE , \u201c had not furnished evidence of their stay \u201d in GPE after staying in GPE nor any certificates regarding any medical treatment or care in respect of the pregnancy , or concerning the child or the father . Considering that GPE was a country which respected human rights , had democratic institutions , had ratified the LAW and LAW on the Status of Refugees , and was bound to implement the directives of ORG on asylum and that if a return were to raise a problem under LAW , the family could always lodge an application with the ORG for interim measures , ORG considered that the NORP authorities did not have to use the sovereignty clause provided for in Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Dublin II Regulation .","Accordingly , the applicants were ordered to leave the country within DATE and to report to the NORP authorities at the border crossing . On DATE the applicants were issued with laissez - passer .","On DATE the applicants , through their legal representative , contacted ORG for the purposes of providing it with evidence that they had left the territory of ORG for DATE ( gynaecologist \u2019s certificates , the second applicant \u2019s health card and proof of enrolment at school of CARDINAL of their children ) .","On DATE execution of the orders to leave the country were extended until DATE on account of the fact that the second applicant was soon due to give birth .","On DATE the applicants lodged an application with ORG for the decisions refusing them residence permits and ordering them to leave the country to be set aside and for a stay of execution . They argued that the decisions , with the reasons given therein , had not provided them with the examination required by LAW taken together with LAW ( ORG v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) of their fears regarding a return to GPE and of their health problems . Firstly , the reasoning was erroneous and incomplete ( error as to their nationality , identifying them as PERSON instead of NORP , failure to mention their return to GPE and their GPE origin ) . Secondly , they could not be blamed for having failed to provide , during their GPE interview , documents certifying their health problems and their movements to date or for not having substantiated their fears regarding a transfer to GPE . Like all GPE asylum - seekers at that time , when they had attended those interviews they had not been assisted by a lawyer or informed of the documents that they should bring and no document had been requested of them . As they had expressed their fears , the NORP authorities should have asked the appropriate questions and requested the relevant documents in order to ensure that their return did not infringe their fundamental rights . The applicants also argued that GPE should not have been determined as the ORG responsible for examining their asylum applications . Under LAW , the obligations regarding the determination of the ORG responsible ceased where the third - country national had left the territory of the Member GPE for DATE . That was precisely the position the applicants had been in on account of their return to GPE from DATE as certified by the documents subsequently sent to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Lastly , they submitted that the NORP authorities should have used the sovereignty clause or the humanitarian clause both on account of their special vulnerability and of the notoriously difficult situation of the GPE minority in GPE and of the conditions for the reception of asylum - seekers in GPE .","The hearing before ORG took place on DATE .","On DATE the applicants unsuccessfully sought a further extension of the order to leave the country pending the outcome of the proceedings before ORG .","On DATE the applicants lodged an application with the ORG for interim measures suspending their transfer to GPE pending the outcome of the proceedings before ORG .","On DATE the ORG refused to indicate an interim measure .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ruled on the application to have the decisions refusing residence permits and ordering the applicants to leave the country set aside and for a stay of execution .","ORG dismissed the ground of appeal regarding the conditions of reception in GPE and based on the risk alleged by the applicants of being exposed to treatment contrary to LAW . It found as follows :","\u201c ... the ORG can not but observe that the applicants have failed to show that they encountered difficulties in their dealings with the NORP authorities regarding access to health care for their child or their conditions of reception as asylum - seekers . They have not adduced so much as a shred of evidence regarding the circumstances of the ill - treatment they have allegedly suffered and have merely asserted in their application , without substantiating this with the slightest evidence that could corroborate the facts , \u201c that they found themselves in an extremely precarious situation at the time of lodging their application for asylum and that their only refuge was a night hostel that they had to leave the next morning \u201d . Moreover , although their daughter \u2019s disability had been specified in the \u201c GPE form \u201d , the parties have not made any allegation whatsoever before ORG of encountering particular difficulties in the reception of asylum - seekers as organised by the relevant NORP authorities . \u201d","ORG also criticised the applicants for failing to produce in full the NGO reports that they had cited in support of their application , which had prevented it from checking whether the extracts produced did actually concern GPE .","ORG set the decisions aside , however , on the ground that ORG had not established the legal basis on which it considered that GPE was the ORG responsible for examining the applicants\u2019 asylum application .","On DATE ORG lodged an appeal on points of law with the PERSON d\u2019\u00c9tat against ORG judgment . It disputed ORG analysis of the applicable legal basis .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE the ORG d\u2019\u00c9tat declared the appeal admissible . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE it rejected it for lack of current interest on the grounds that the operative provisions of ORG judgment were no longer a source of complaint for the applicants because they had returned to GPE and had left the territory of the Member GPE for DATE with the result that GPE was relieved of any obligation in the process of determining which Member ORG was responsible for their asylum application .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicants had lodged an application for leave to remain on medical grounds under section CARDINALter of PERSON Settlement and LAW of DATE ( \u201c the Aliens Act \u201d ) on behalf of their eldest daughter . They referred to the extreme precariousness of their position and the discrimination they had suffered as ORG and GPE . Citing several international reports in support of their submissions , they argued that for that reason they had no guarantee that they would be able to obtain the necessary treatment for their daughter \u2019s health condition . They sought temporary leave to remain pending the outcome of the asylum proceedings they had instituted in GPE .","On DATE ORG declared their application inadmissible on the grounds that the medical certificate of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , produced in support of their application to have their residence status regularised , certified the existence of a medical problem and stipulated the treatment considered necessary but , contrary to the requirements of section CARDINALter \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL of LAW , did not specify the degree of seriousness of the condition .","The applicants indicated in their observations in reply that they had learnt of the existence of that decision during the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE the Federal agency for the reception of asylum - seekers ( \u201c QUANTITY \u201d ) assigned the applicants a reception facility as their mandatory place of registration , namely , GPE asylum - seekers\u2019 reception centre .","NORP The social worker from the centre took down the following account by the applicants of the conditions of their reception in GPE :","\u201c The family decided to leave GPE because they had no means of subsistence . They were living in a night shelter which they had to leave in DATE . They and the children were out on the streets from TIME They had to use a pushchair as a wheelchair for PERSON , who is disabled . They had no information of any kind apart from the status of asylum - seeker which had been given to them on their arrival . No doctor , no social worker , no lawyer , no interpreter . They had absolutely no means of communication . They had no idea what they should do or what to expect . PERSON was not receiving any medical treatment of any kind . When her health deteriorated and she had to be taken to hospital , it was the mother \u2019s sister who drove her to the emergency ward at the hospital and acted as interpreter . Once at the hospital the little girl had [ epileptic ] fits and her hair fell out . That was what decided the family to return to GPE \u201d .","The eldest daughter was examined on DATE by a neuropsychiatrist at ORG and a medical certificate was drawn up on DATE certifying the child \u2019s disabilities .","In that certificate , which was sent to ORG on DATE , the doctor noted that the child had \u201c cerebral palsy with epilepsy \u201d , suffered from \u201c severe axial and peripheral hypotonia \u201d , that she could not sit up unassisted and soiled her underwear , that she could not talk and appeared not to understand others . He also noted that the child was taking medicines and that she required physiotherapy and appropriate equipment ( orthopaedic braces , seat - brace ) . Those medical findings were confirmed by a neurological examination carried out on DATE .","NORP The eldest daughter was admitted to hospital on CARDINAL and DATE for her epileptic fits and a neurological report drawn up .","After the second applicant gave birth on DATE the family were assigned a new reception centre on CARDINAL DATE in an open centre suitable for families , in PERSON in the province of GPE .","On DATE , when the order extending execution of the order to leave the country expired , and as they could no longer benefit from material assistance for refugees , the applicants were removed from the Saint - Trond reception centre .","The applicants travelled to GPE , where voluntary associations indicated a public square in the municipality of GPE , in the centre of the GPE - Capital administrative district , where other homeless GPE families were also staying . They stayed there from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , through their legal representative , the applicants asked the LANGUAGE - speaking community \u2019s ORG to the Rights of the Child to intervene urgently with the national authorities responsible for the reception of asylum - seekers .","On DATE ORG sent a letter to ORG of GPE requesting that accommodation be found urgently .","A signed statement by ORG dated DATE indicated that he also contacted the municipality of NORP in an attempt to find urgent accommodation for the family . According to ORG , the municipal authorities stated that they did not have power to make a decision and that it was for the federal authorities to decide , and GPE declared that it did not have power on account of the decision taken by ORG regarding GPE \u2019s responsibility for processing the asylum request ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON also stated that the application to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was not of suspensive effect , which was why the reception centre had applied the rules terminating the right to material assistance .","On DATE , following the intervention of ORG , the Secretary of ORG \u2019s office for ORG and the Fight against Poverty instructed GPE to designate a reception centre as a matter of urgency .","After spending DATE at the transit centre of the WoluweSaintPierre municipality , also in the GPE - Capital administrative district , on DATE the applicants were assigned a new reception centre as a mandatory place of registration : the PERSON reception centre for asylum - seekers in the province of GPE QUANTITY from GPE .","The Government maintained that the applicants had failed to register at the centre . The applicants , for their part , stated that they had gone there by train and a special bus but had been sent back to GPE to GPE \u2019s ORG on the grounds that their \u201c annex CARDINAL [ order to leave the country ] was invalid . \u201d","When they got back to GPE on DATE the applicants got off the train at FAC , where they remained without any means of subsistence and with no accommodation despite the very cold weather for DATE until their return to GPE was organised via a charitable organisation as part of the GPE return programme . The applicants left GPE for GPE on DATE .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE , the applicants\u2019 mandatory place of residence had been changed to code CARDINAL \u201c no - show \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and on DATE the ORG names were deleted from the waiting register .","After their return to GPE their eldest daughter \u2019s health deteriorated , forcing the applicants to leave the room they had rented on account of the insalubrious conditions . They went to stay with a relative in ORG and then to the suburbs in GPE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 eldest daughter was admitted to hospital on DATE suffering from a lung infection . She died on DATE .","In a letter to their lawyer of CARDINAL DATE the applicants stated that they had been attacked by NORP on a number of occasions : among other incidents , some men had driven by in a car and broken the windows of their home by throwing stones , and had uttered threats , complaining of their links with the \u201c NORP \u201d and ordering them to leave GPE . The first applicant had attempted to defend himself and been beaten up twice by his attackers ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178950","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u00d6ZSOY AND YILDIRIM v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","The applicants were cadets in military schools . Based on classified investigation reports , they were expelled from their schools . None of the applicants had access to these classified reports . They all filed actions against ORG with ORG to have annulment of the impugned decisions .","Relying on the classified investigation reports , ORG rejected the ORG requests and their subsequent requests for rectification on different dates shown in detail in the attached list ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167103","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RYZHIKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were prosecuted in GPE for various crimes . They were arrested and detained pending investigation and trial . Their detention was ordered and extended by the courts . The detention orders were essentially based on the gravity of the charges , the primary grounds being the risk of the applicants\u2019 absconding and interfering with the course of justice . The detention and extension orders used stereotyped formulae , without addressing specific facts or considering alternative preventive measures .","The first applicant was born in DATE and lived , prior to his arrest , in GPE , GPE . In DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE . On DATE he was extradited to GPE and was placed in pre - trial detention until DATE when he was released on bail . On DATE the ORG of PERSON convicted him of fraud .","The second applicant was born in DATE and lived , prior to his arrest , in GPE . On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud . On DATE the court remanded him in custody . On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of fraud .","The third applicant was born in DATE and lived , prior to his arrest , in GPE . The applicant was arrested on DATE . On DATE the court held to place him in pre - trial detention . On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of trespass , battery , robbery and sexual assault ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181588","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF \u00d6ZTOP AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicants , whose names are listed in the appendix , are NORP nationals and and at the time of lodging their applications they were serving their prison sentences in various establishments .","The names and dates of birth of the applicants , as well as the names of their representatives , and the dates of introduction of the applications appear in the appendix .","All of the applicants were found guilty of breaching prison order by decisions of the respective disciplinary boards of prisons in which they were held . Pursuant to the ORG on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences , the applicants were sentenced respectively CARDINAL days\u2019 solitary confinement on the orders of the respective ORG ( referred hereafter as \u201c the board \u201d ) .","Their objections were subsequently rejected by ORG and ORG , on the basis of the case file , without hearing the applicants or their lawyers , pursuant to PERSON no . DATE on ORG , dated DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183247","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"MAROZAIT\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , her mother , a lawyer by profession .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s grandmother , PERSON , asked the authorities to transfer ownership of a plot of land of QUANTITY located under a private residential building to her .","On DATE a purchase agreement was signed between PERSON and a representative of the management board of GPE , in which it was stated that PERSON was purchasing the plot of land of QUANTITY for MONEY ( RUR ) . PERSON paid the money on DATE , and a note about payment appeared in the purchase agreement . PERSON also paid RUR CARDINAL and RUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL respectively for the land documents to be prepared and for the land to be redemarcated . The procedure that had to be followed in order to finalise the purchase agreement was laid down in the domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE PERSON died and , following her written will , the applicant became entitled to inherit her property . The notary requested that the applicant submit documentary evidence confirming the property rights in respect of PERSON \u2019s estate , in order to prepare documents relating to the inheritance .","NORP In DATE the applicant asked ORG to prepare PERSON \u2019s ownership documents in respect of the plot of land . She stated that she had already delivered to ORG the receipt confirming that PERSON had paid for the land .","NORP In DATE ORG replied to the applicant , saying that she had delivered only a copy of the payment notice , which had not been confirmed by the bank , and that the document confirming the payment for the land would be issued when she delivered the original receipt . The applicant was further informed that the plot of land in question belonged to the ORG , and that if she wanted to purchase the plot of land which she had been using then she had to provide the authorities with a plan of the land and a document confirming the legal registration of the buildings on that land .","In DATE the applicant wrote a letter to ORG and stated that she had not asked to be issued with a document confirming the payment for the land ; she had asked the authorities to issue her with the documents confirming PERSON \u2019s ownership of the land . The applicant also wrote that she was not willing to purchase the land because her grandmother had already purchased it . ORG replied that PERSON had not concluded the purchase agreement in respect of the plot of land of QUANTITY , and the only document that ORG could issue was the document for the notary confirming that PERSON had paid for the land . After the notary issued the document of inheritance in respect of the payments and the buildings on the land , the land purchase agreement could be concluded with the applicant , and the process of privatising the land , started by PERSON , could be finished .","NORP In DATE the applicant started court proceedings and asked ORG to establish as a legal fact that PERSON had owned a house , a storehouse with buildings around a courtyard , and a plot of land in GPE measuring CARDINAL ares ( equivalent to QUANTITY ) .","On DATE the ORG established that on DATE PERSON had asked the national authorities to give her permission to buy the plot of land of QUANTITY . The court also held that there were CARDINAL receipts dated DATE and DATE confirming that PERSON had paid RUR CARDINAL for redemarcation of the land and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the plot of land of QUANTITY . The court also observed that on DATE PERSON had signed a purchase agreement in respect of the plot of land of QUANTITY . The court held that , in accordance with the provisions of domestic law , it was entitled to establish legal facts only when applicants could not obtain documents confirming such facts in any other manner . The court held that a representative of ORG had confirmed that when the applicant provided all the necessary documents regarding the payments for the land , the plot of land would be measured and documents relating to it would be drawn up , and then it would be registered and the ownership documents would be issued . The court concluded that when the applicant provided the authorities with the receipts of the payments PERSON had made , the obstacles to her receiving the ownership documents would be removed .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal , but on DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first - instance court .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s representative asked ORG to issue her with the ownership documents in respect of PERSON \u2019s land . She referred to the decision of ORG of DATE , where it had been established that the applicant would receive documents confirming PERSON \u2019s ownership of the plot of land of CARDINAL hectares when she presented the authorities with the original receipts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant \u2019s representative also stated that the notary would not issue her with the inheritance document with regard to the RUR CARDINAL paid , because the notary could only issue inheritance documents with regard to deposits in banks . In DATE ORG reiterated that the applicant had to provide the authorities with an original receipt for the payments PERSON had made . It further stated that the applicant had not submitted a request to purchase the plot of land in question , registration documents for the buildings situated on the land , a copy of her identity document , or a plan of the plot . If a plan of the plot had not been provided because the plot of land had not been measured and the documents relating to the plot had not been drawn up , the person asking to purchase the land had to be informed about the necessity to prepare the territorial planning document and the plan of the plot . ORG stated that it had never been obliged by the domestic courts to issue the applicant with the documents confirming PERSON \u2019s property rights to the land .","It appears that the applicant wrote a letter to ORG . She received a response in DATE , where it was indicated that the document of inheritance could only be issued with regard to property and property rights , and it could not be issued with regard to the money the deceased had paid . ORG invited the applicant to address ORG with regard to the privatisation of the land .","In DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s complaint regarding the plot of land . It stated that the house , the garage , the storehouse and the buildings around a courtyard had been registered in ORG in DATE . It was indicated that these buildings had been used by PERSON However , the rights to the property in question had not been registered . ORG further stated that there was a document confirming that PERSON had paid RUR CARDINAL for the preparation of documents , but there was no evidence that she had paid ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the land . ORG also explained what the valid procedure for acquiring ownership rights over land had been in DATE . A person had to ask to purchase a plot of land and provide a document confirming the grounds on which he or she had been using that plot and a plan of the plot . The relevant land service then had to estimate the price of the land and prepare a draft purchase agreement , and the person had to be presented with that agreement . The person then had to confirm that he or she agreed with the price and other conditions set out in the purchase agreement , by signing it . After that , the person had to pay the price indicated in the draft purchase agreement and come and sign the agreement , presenting the authorities with a receipt confirming payment . The purchase agreement had to be approved by a notary and registered with the municipal ( regional ) land service within DATE . It was only possible to inherit such land after the purchase agreement had been confirmed by the notary . The purchase agreement could be signed and registered at the same time . ORG thus decided that the purchase agreement which PERSON had signed was merely a draft agreement . Because the purchase agreement regarding the QUANTITY of land had not been concluded , the privatisation documents regarding that plot had to be prepared in accordance with the legal acts in force at the time . ORG stated that because the applicant had inherited PERSON \u2019s buildings , she could , but was not obliged to , buy the plot of land in question under and around the buildings . The price of the land would be calculated in accordance with the prices valid at the material time , and the amount which PERSON had paid could be deducted from the total price of the land .","The applicant started court proceedings , asking ORG to : annul the decisions of the national authorities not to issue her with a document confirming her grandmother \u2019s property rights in respect of the plot of land of QUANTITY ; oblige the national authorities to issue her with that document within DATE ; and award her CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 approximately CARDINAL,CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) in respect of pecuniary damage , and LAW in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The applicant claimed that the domestic authorities were refusing to issue her with the document confirming her property rights in respect of the plot of land of QUANTITY , and that they were stating that PERSON had not paid for the land . The applicant also claimed that the national authorities were asking her to pay LAW for the land , when the land had already been paid for .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim . The court held that PERSON had submitted a request to buy the plot of land of QUANTITY . After that , the national authorities had issued her with a document specifying that the price of the land was ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and she had to pay an additional RUR CARDINAL for the preparation and official registration of the relevant documents . The court also held that the draft purchase agreement had been prepared , but permission to purchase the land , which was obligatory under domestic law , had never been issued . It also observed that the purchase agreement had to be approved by a notary and registered in the relevant register , and this had not been done . The court therefore concluded that , although the procedure to purchase the plot of land of CARDINAL ha had been started , the national authorities had not expressed their willingness to sell the land , and thus the purchase agreement had not been concluded . As ORG had not acted unlawfully , compensation in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage could not be awarded to the applicant .","The applicant lodged an appeal , and on DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first - instance court . The court reiterated what the privatisation procedure in force in DATE had been ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court observed that , although the land purchase agreement between PERSON and the national authorities had not been marked as a draft agreement , it was actually no more than that . The mere fact that the applicant \u2019s grandmother had signed and paid for the land only represented her willingness to conclude the agreement , and did not prove that the land purchase agreement had actually been concluded . The draft had been prepared on DATE , and this draft also contained additional information from DATE confirming that PERSON had paid ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the land . This information had been included in the draft agreement after it had been prepared . The court held that that information had to be assessed as proof that , after PERSON had paid for the land , she had presented the authorities with the receipt which had been included in the draft . The fact that the agreement was merely a draft was supported by the circumstance that it had not met the requirements of domestic law that purchase agreements had to be approved by a notary and registered by the municipal ( regional ) land service . Moreover , certain lines in the draft had not been filled in . Lastly , DATE and DATE PERSON had not asked the authorities to conclude a purchase agreement based on the provisions of the draft purchase agreement which she had signed , thus it could not be concluded that the purchase of the land had not been concluded due to unlawful actions of the authorities .","On DATE the notary issued the applicant with a document of inheritance regarding PERSON \u2019s house , the buildings around the courtyard , the garage and the storehouse .","The applicant asked ORG to reopen the proceedings , and on DATE it rejected her application . The court held that reopening proceedings was only possible in the event that a gross violation of the provisions of domestic law had been made . The court observed that no such violation had been made , and thus the applicant \u2019s application was rejected as unfounded .","NORP In DATE ORG sent a document to the notary confirming that PERSON had paid ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for QUANTITY of land on DATE .","The applicant lodged a civil claim , asking to be awarded ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage for illegal actions committed by the domestic courts in their refusing to establish as a legal fact that PERSON had owned some buildings and QUANTITY of land . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim because she had not provided any evidence about unlawful actions of the domestic courts , nor had she justified the amount of damages claimed .","The applicant lodged an appeal . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of DATE .","On DATE an appeal on points of law by the applicant was rejected because it had been submitted by email and she had not proved her legal qualifications , and on DATE that appeal was rejected because it had not been submitted by a lawyer and had other procedural shortcomings . Lastly , on DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as not raising important legal issues .","On DATE ORG approved the list of candidates who were to receive plots of land . The applicant was included on that list .","In DATE the applicant was asked to pay LTL MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) for the plot of land of QUANTITY to be measured and for documents relating to it to be drawn up . The applicant paid the money on DATE .","In DATE ORG informed the applicant that in DATE she had signed the agreement regarding the payment which was necessary in order for a plot of land to be measured and for documents relating to it to be drawn up . ORG also stated that after the applicant had paid the money , she would have to address relevant institutions to make cadastral measurements . Moreover , the applicant had to provide the authorities with a document of inheritance issued by the notary , proving that PERSON had paid for the plot of land of QUANTITY . A purchase agreement would then be prepared , deducting the money which PERSON had paid from the final price of the land . The remaining amount to be paid by the applicant would be determined in accordance with the rules set by the Government .","The applicant started administrative proceedings against the national authorities for ORG CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and for recognition of her right to compensation for pecuniary damage . She complained that , although during the proceedings to establish a legal fact , officials had claimed that she would be issued with the property documents when she provided the original receipts , they had kept refusing her requests . The applicant also claimed that the national authorities were falsely stating that her grandmother had not paid for the land .","On DATE ORG established that PERSON had paid ORG CARDINAL for the plot of land of CARDINAL hectares and RUR CARDINAL for redemarcation of the land . The court also held that it had already been established in the other proceedings that the mere fact that the money had been paid did not constitute sufficient grounds to establish that PERSON and the national authorities had concluded the land purchase agreement . The court observed that , even though the officials\u2019 statements had been irresponsible during the proceedings to establish a legal fact ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , there was no evidence confirming that the land purchase procedure had not been finalised as a result of unlawful actions by the national authorities . Consequently , the examination of the part of the applicant \u2019s claim concerning the acknowledgement of her right to compensation for pecuniary damage was terminated , and the other part of the application was dismissed .","The applicant lodged an appeal , and on DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of DATE .","The applicant started administrative proceedings against the national authorities for ORG CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage . The applicant claimed that , although her grandmother had paid for the plot of land of QUANTITY , the authorities were requiring her to purchase the same land again and ordering her to pay ORG CARDINAL for a plan of the land . Although the applicant had paid the money , she thought that such a requirement was unlawful .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The court held that it had already been established that PERSON had not completed the purchase agreement , thus ORG could not issue the applicant with the land ownership documents . The purchase documents had to be prepared in accordance with the domestic law applicable at the present time . The court observed that the purchase of plots of land was regulated by the rules approved by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . ORG was not obliged to pay for the plans of land reform projects prepared in order to transfer land into private ownership . There were no exceptions to this rule . It was also impossible to deduct from the price of the land the payments of ORG CARDINAL and RUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL which PERSON had made for the preparation of documents and redemarcation of the land in DATE . These payments had not resulted in any legal consequences , because the purchase agreement had not been concluded . Documents relating to the plot of land in question had just been drawn up as part of the land reform project , and the applicant had to pay ORG CARDINAL for the measurements . The applicant was indicating that this specific amount was pecuniary damage . However , she had failed to prove the unlawful actions of the authorities .","The applicant appealed . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court held that the amount of ORG CARDINAL could only be returned to the applicant if she refused to purchase or rent the land indicated in the land reform project . The applicant had agreed in writing to pay the money , and she had not refused to purchase or rent the land . The applicant also claimed that PERSON had already paid for the preparation of documents in DATE . The court referred to the domestic legislation and observed that if a person was an owner of a building sited on ORG land , and the person had paid for the land but the purchase agreement had not been concluded , the payments made could be deducted from the final price of the land if a right to deduct these payments was also transferred together with a property right to the buildings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . If a person had acquired property rights to a building situated on State land before DATE , and a person had paid for the land but the purchase agreement had not been concluded , the payments made could be deducted from the final price of the land if such a right was transferred to a buyer by a document approved by the notary . The applicant thus had to follow these rules .","Article CARDINAL CARDINAL of the Law on Land provides that if a building that is transferred into private ownership is sited on a plot of State land for which a person has paid , but where the purchase agreement in respect of that land has not been concluded , such a person acquires a right to purchase the land necessary to use the buildings . The person transferring an ownership right to a building can also transfer the right to deduct payments for the land that have already been made .","Government Resolution No . CARDINAL of DATE \u201c On the sale and rent of plots of land for non - agricultural purposes and community gardens \u201d ( PERSON \u017eem\u0117s sklyp\u0173 ne \u017eem\u0117s \u016bkio veiklai bei sodinink\u0173 bendrij\u0173 nari\u0173 sod\u0173 sklyp\u0173 pardavimo ir nuomos tvarkos \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the Order \u201d ) , in force at the material time , provided that a person who had the right to and was willing to purchase a plot of land for his or her individual use had to ask the municipal ( regional ) land service if he or she could purchase that plot , and provide a plan of the plot and other documents ( Point CARDINAL ) . The LAW also provided that the municipal ( regional ) land service had to prepare a legal document determining the price of the land and a draft purchase agreement within DATE of receiving a person \u2019s request . The signature of a person willing to purchase the land meant that he or she had accepted the conditions established in the draft purchase agreement and legal document determining the price of the land ( Point CARDINAL ) . After that , the municipal ( regional ) land service had to submit the signed documents to the municipal ( regional ) authority , which had to publish a decree allowing the person to purchase the land ( LOC CARDINAL) . The Order further provided that after the city ( regional ) administration had published a decree allowing the person to purchase the land , it had to send a notice to the buyer indicating the amount he or she had to pay for the land , and had to instruct an engineer to give orders to the relevant authorities to mark out the land and clarify the cartographic and cadastral documents . These actions had to be performed before the signing of the purchase agreement . The period between the issuing of the decree and the signing of the land purchase agreement could not be longer than DATE ( Point CARDINAL ) . The Order also provided that when a buyer received the notice from the authorities , he or she had to pay for the land before signing the land purchase agreement and come to the authorities to sign the purchase agreement , bringing a document confirming the payment . In the absence of important reasons , if a person had not paid the money or had not come to sign the purchase agreement , the land purchase agreement was not concluded . The land purchase agreement had to be approved by a notary and registered by the municipal ( regional ) land service . If those actions were not performed , the land purchase agreement would be null and void . Once the purchase agreement was approved by the notary , there was a right to inherit the land . The purchase agreement could be signed and registered at the same time ( Point CARDINAL ) . Once the purchase agreement was registered , the city ( regional ) administration issued the buyer with the ownership act , which was a document confirming a right to use the plot of land in accordance with the law ( Point CARDINAL ) .","At the material time , ORG . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE \u201c On the sale and rent of plots of ORG land for other purposes \u201d ( PERSON naudojam\u0173 kitos paskirties valstybin\u0117s \u017eem\u0117s sklyp\u0173 ir nuomos ) provided that if a person who acquired the ownership right to a building situated on a plot of ORG land had paid for that plot , but the purchase agreement regarding that plot of land had not been concluded , the amounts paid for the land had to be deducted from the final price of the land ( Point CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .","At the material time , ORG . CARDINAL of DATE , by which rules \u201c On the sale and rent of plots of ORG land for other purposes \u201d ( ORG kitos paskirties valstybin\u0117s \u017eem\u0117s sklyp\u0173 ir nuomos taisykl\u0117s ) were approved , provided that a person who wanted to purchase a plot of ORG land which he or she had been using had to provide the authorities with a request to purchase the land ; an approved copy of his or her identity document ; and a copy of a plan of the land , with the buildings marked ( Point CARDINAL ) . If the plan of the land was not included because it had not been measured and documents relating to it had not been drawn up , a person had to be informed about the necessity to prepare a territorial planning document and a plan of the land ( Point CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178875","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ATAKISHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the domestic courts\u2019 failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181879","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MATVEYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE , GPE , before his conviction of an unrelated criminal offence .","On DATE the applicant notified the executive committee of PERSON of his intention to hold a public event in the form of a hunger strike in front of the local prosecutor \u2019s office beginning from DATE . On DATE the applicant was informed that his notice did not comply with the requirements of the law .","On DATE the applicant lodged an addendum to his notice in which he indicated the place , the timing and the goal of the planned event as well as the information about its organiser . He also asked to ensure the protection of a tent ( to be positioned near the prosecutor \u2019s office ) from TIME DATE and the twenty - four - hour presence of an ambulance at the venue of the event .","On DATE the head of the public relations department of the local executive committee informed the applicant that his planned public event amounted to a \u201c picket \u201d within the meaning of LAW ( hereinafter \u201c PEA \u201d ) . In breach of the ORG the notice about the event did not contain information about the number of participants or arrangements to be made for preventing disorder and providing medical aid during the event . The applicant was required to align his notice with the ORG in that connection but , according to the Government , he failed to do so .","According to the applicant , on DATE he started to hold a solo demonstration at TIME and continued it until TIME , when he was arrested by the police .","According to the Government , on DATE at TIME the applicant set up on the lawn in front of the prosecutor \u2019s office a tent and a poster reading \u201c Hunger strike . Call for signatures \u201d . He gathered passers - by and voiced his claims to them . At TIME a police officer drew up a record of an administrative offence allegedly committed by the applicant . He was accused of the breach of the procedure for the organisation of public events , an offence under LAW ( hereinafter \u201c LAW \u201d ) . The case file was then submitted to a justice of the peace , who adjourned the hearing so that the applicant could retain a counsel . It is unclear whether the applicant was arrested by the police or otherwise deprived of his liberty at any moment prior to appearing before the justice of the peace .","At TIME on DATE the applicant returned to the site near the prosecutor \u2019s office and resumed his demonstration . The police ordered him to terminate this allegedly unlawful public event , but he refused . They compiled an administrative offence record , stating that the applicant had committed an offence under LAW of the ORG ; they also compiled an administrative arrest record ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u043e\u043a\u043e\u043b \u0430\u0434\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0437\u0430\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f ) . The applicant was then taken to the central police station of PERSON where he was detained until DATE in the afternoon .","On DATE the justice of the peace of the CARDINALth ORG of PERSON found the applicant guilty under LAW of the ORG and imposed a fine of MONEY ( ( RUB ) , equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) . The court noted that the applicant had intended to hold a non - stop hunger - strike making use of posters for an indefinite period of time ; on DATE he had held an unlawful picket by way of setting up a tent and a poster reading \u201c Hunger strike . Call for signatures \u201d as well as by gathering passers - by and \u201c campaigning \u201d among them . In breach of the ORG he had failed to specify his arrangements for preventing disorder or providing medical aid during the event . Moreover , the applicant had intended to hold a twenty - four - hour picket in breach of the ORG \u2019s ban on public events TIME The court concluded that the applicant breached the procedure for the organisation of his public event .","NORP The applicant appealed to ORG . By a decision of DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the justice of the peace .","In separate proceedings , on DATE the justice of the peace of ORG of PERSON found the applicant guilty under LAW of the ORG . The justice of the peace found it established , on the basis of testimony of CARDINAL eyewitnesses and police officers , that at TIME on DATE the applicant being aware of the administrative offence proceedings pending against him LAW of the ORG , had nevertheless disobeyed the lawful police order to stop the picket being held in breach of the ORG . The court sentenced him to DATE of administrative detention . The applicant \u2019s detention from TIME on CARDINAL April to QUANTITY on DATE counted towards his sentence of administrative detention .","The applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment in a summary manner .","On DATE the applicant lodged a supervisory - review appeal against the judgment of DATE . On DATE the Deputy President of ORG of GPE dismissed it , fully endorsing the findings of the lower courts ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153909","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KHAN v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Pakistan)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE and currently lives in sheltered accommodation ( betreutes PERSON ) in PERSON ( Land of GPE , GPE ) .","In DATE the applicant married in GPE and converted to her husband \u2019s faith , that of the NORP .","The applicant and her husband moved to GPE in DATE . The husband was granted refugee status but the applicant \u2019s own application for asylum was refused . As the spouse of a refugee , she received a temporary residence permit on DATE .","On DATE the applicant gave birth to her son . In DATE the applicant and her husband separated . The son stayed with the applicant . From then on the applicant worked as a cleaner in different companies . On DATE she was awarded a permanent residence permit .","In DATE the applicant became unemployed due to behavioural issues that appeared to be caused by psychological problems . In DATE she and her spouse divorced . In DATE the domestic family court transferred custody rights over her son to her husband and her son was living with him from then on .","On DATE the applicant killed a neighbour by strangling her and pushing her down a staircase . Subsequently , she was detained and held in pre - trial detention . Following an attempt to harm herself , a domestic court ordered her committal to a psychiatric hospital .","On DATE the ORG established that the applicant had committed manslaughter in a state of mental incapacity . At the time of the act she had been in a state of acute psychosis . A medical expert noted that she suffered from symptoms of schizophrenia and had diminished intelligence . She did not acknowledge her own psychological condition . The domestic court therefore concluded that she remained a danger for the general public and a continuous stay in a psychiatric hospital had to be ordered . The applicant was also appointed a legal guardian .","On DATE the administrative authority PERSON ordered the applicant \u2019s expulsion . Relying on LAW of the LAW on the Residence , Economic Activity and Integration of Foreigners in the Federal Territory ( hereafter \u201c the Residence Act \u201d , Aufenthaltsgesetz , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the authority referred to the offence which had led to the applicant \u2019s committal to the psychiatric hospital and her mental condition in general . The authority concluded that she posed a danger to public safety . In such a case her personal circumstances , namely her long stay in GPE and her residence status , were secondary . She was neither economically integrated nor sufficiently able to communicate in NORP , which was an obstacle to her therapy . She only had limited contacts with her former husband and her son and she was still familiar with the NORP culture . Adequate medical care was available in GPE and the applicant \u2019s family there could assist her .","In DATE the applicant was granted privileges in the hospital , for example she was granted DATE of leave , which had not led to any complaints . She also started working DATE in the laundry department of the clinic . This was possible due to her improved mental health . In proceedings concerning a provisional stay on the expulsion , the authorities committed themselves not to execute the expulsion decision before a court ruling on the merits .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s action against the expulsion order . It upheld the decision that the applicant could be deported , on the grounds of the serious offence committed by her , lack of awareness of her own condition and given that a high probability of reoffending therefore existed . Moreover , she was not integrated into NORP society , especially due to her lack of NORP language skills . LAW was not applicable as the applicant had no significant family relationships . The domestic court noted that , in principle , in GPE basic medical care for psychiatric patients existed in big cities like GPE and that the applicant could afford treatment , including medication , as she would be receiving a small pension in the amount of QUANTITY ( ORG ) . The domestic court recognised that family members in GPE had explicitly ruled out that they would take her in , when asked by ORG . However , the domestic court thought it conceivable that the applicant \u2019s relatives would help her with organising the required treatment if she were to provide them with small sums in CARDINAL in return . Furthermore , the applicant did not hold a visible position within the NORP religion , so there would be no specific danger for her in that regard .","On DATE ORG dismissed the application for leave to appeal . It noted that the administrative court had taken into account all relevant facts of the case .","The applicant complained in vain of the breach of her right to be heard ( FAC ) . She argued that her submissions on her improved state of health , the death of her sister in GPE and the expected living conditions there had not been given proper consideration . Moreover , she claimed that she had close contact with her son who visited her on a regular basis .","On DATE ORG lifted the hospital treatment order on the recommendation of a medical report and released the applicant on probation , ordering a DATE probation period . It ordered the applicant to remain in regular contact with the medical personnel of the clinic and to continue to take the prescribed medication . The domestic court held that , due to the treatment , the danger of the applicant \u2019s re - offending had diminished to such an extent that a residual risk had to be tolerated .","The medical report in question further indicated that , after having overcome some initial difficulties , she was reachable , while deficits in her cognitive performance remained . The language barrier caused problems during some therapy sessions and due to cognitive deficiencies difficulties remained , even with the assistance of an interpreter . She continued to work in the laundry , took her medication regularly and ultimately showed balanced behaviour . Her son visited her on a regular basis and wished to be more involved in her care . Such involvement , however , would have to be limited due to his situation as a young adult beginning his studies . She was compliant with all requirements and embraced the stable environment in which she was settled . Her prognosis could be considered positive .","The applicant was transferred to sheltered accommodation close to the clinic , where the required structure would be ensured .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint against the deportation order was not admitted for review by ORG .","NORP The applicant was notified on DATE that a petition to the parliament of ORG in this matter had not been successful .","So far , no date for the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE has been set ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171491","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KHASANOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152626","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PISAROGLU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant was arrested on DATE on charges of trafficking in human beings and held in detention on remand in Prison No . CARDINAL in GPE until DATE . According to her , the conditions of detention were very poor . In particular , the applicant alleged that the cells were overcrowded , dirty and cold , with no access to daylight or fresh air , no bedding , very poor quality food , showers DATE , only cold water , and clothes had to be washed and dried in the cell ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179557","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FELDMAN AND SLOVYANSKYY BANK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Sergiy Goncharenko;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The applicant bank was a commercial joint - stock bank based in GPE with its registered office in GPE . Its banking licence was revoked on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Subsequently , the applicant bank was liquidated ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The first applicant was the vice - president , founder and majority shareholder of the applicant bank .","NORP In DATE the domestic authorities instituted CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings for tax evasion and abuse of office by the management of the applicant bank .","In DATE the first applicant was arrested as part of the criminal proceedings ( for more details see PERSON v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) . In DATE the NORP news agency UNIAN reported on a session of ORG . The relevant extract reads :","\u201c \u2018 It is a matter of honour for ORG and ORG to bring the story of ORG to its logical PERSON said the President of GPE during his speech at the session ... He stated that the chairs of the bank had turned it into a source of uncontrolled personal income . \u2018 Such moneymakers have powerful patrons , and there is great pressure on the PERSON stated the President . \u201d","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the NBU \u201d ) suspended the applicant bank \u2019s licence for some of its operations , considering that its financial position had deteriorated sharply and that it had been performing risky operations which threatened its solvency .","In DATE an investigator from the tax police of ORG , acting in the course of the criminal proceedings , ordered an attachment of the applicant bank \u2019s securities .","On DATE the ORG put the applicant bank under temporary administration , which involved suspending the functions of some of the bank \u2019s managers .","On DATE the ORG issued a resolution \u201c On the Liquidation of Slovyanskyy Commercial Joint - Stock Bank \u201d by which , among other things , ( CARDINAL ) the applicant bank \u2019s operating licence was revoked in full ; ( CARDINAL ) the powers of the board , the council and the general ORG meetings were terminated ; and ( CARDINAL ) the applicant bank was ordered to be liquidated . By the same resolution the ORG approved the composition of a liquidation commission for the bank , consisting of CARDINAL officials from the regional departments of the ORG and CARDINAL members of staff from the local tax office .","On DATE the first applicant , who was in detention at the time , brought a claim under the rules of LAW of the Code of Civil Procedure of DATE with ORG of GPE , challenging the ORG \u2019s decision . He maintained that the impugned resolution was unlawful and that the ORG had decided to liquidate the applicant bank owing to its failure to fulfil its financial obligations , whereas that failure had been caused by the ORG itself and the tax authorities . The first applicant emphasised that after the resolution had been adopted , the applicant bank had not been able to protect its rights and interests on its own . He added that the resolution had been detrimental to the interests of the applicant bank \u2019s shareholders , including himself .","On DATE the court found that the first applicant could bring a claim , however , it had to be dismissed . The court held that the ORG had been competent to adopt the impugned resolution , that the measures taken had been lawful and that they had been made necessary by gross violations of banking legislation by the applicant bank and its difficult financial position .","The first applicant appealed against that decision .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE in part , but changed its reasoning . It held that the ORG \u2019s resolution of DATE had not concerned the first applicant and it had not been established during the determination of the claim that his rights and freedoms had been violated . For those reasons the court of appeal dismissed the claim .","The first applicant appealed on points of law .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the decisions of DATE and DATE and terminated the proceedings , considering that the claim was inadmissible . It found as follows :","\u201c ... The first and second - instance courts have established that PERSON PERSON PERSON brought a claim as a shareholder of ORG , however he did not request the protection of his own rights and freedoms but , in fact , acted in the interests of ORG , without being duly authorised [ bold text in the original ] .","According to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Commercial Proceedings , disputes between a subject of entrepreneurial activities and enterprises , institutions and organisations concerning the protection of their rights and freedoms , and their disputes concerning the declaration of legal acts as invalid , should be examined by the commercial courts .","Given that a shareholder is not entitled to apply to a court for the examination of such a dispute and that this case is not to be examined in accordance with civil procedure , the decisions adopted in this case should be quashed and the proceedings should be terminated , in accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) and LAW ... \u201d","The liquidation process of the applicant bank was completed on DATE . The bank was removed from the legal entities official database on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155910","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"R\u0102ILEANU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , ORG , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Ms PERSON , a lawyer practising in Gala\u0163i .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant married GPE On DATE their daughter was born .","On DATE the couple separated and their daughter remained with the mother . The applicant tried to maintain contact with his daughter , but his wife systematically hindered his attempts .","On DATE the applicant brought proceedings in order to obtain rights of access to his daughter and on DATE the ORG allowed the request .","On DATE the ORG decision was amended by ORG which established a detailed visiting schedule for the applicant . The county court \u2019s decision became final on DATE when the appeals on points of law lodged by the parties were dismissed by ORG .","On DATE the couple divorced and the mother was granted custody of the child . The divorce court made no new arrangement for the applicant \u2019s contact rights .","According to the applicant , GPE claimed that their daughter did not want to go with her father and thus systematically refused to open the door when the applicant came to collect the child .","On DATE the police informed ORG ( Direc\u0163ia General\u0103 de Asisten\u0163\u0103 Social\u0103 \u015fi PERSON ) about the applicant \u2019s situation . The police became aware of the case as the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint against his wife for failure to respect the visiting schedule . ORG proceeded to assess the situation .","On DATE the applicant also lodged a complaint with ORG , stating that his wife refused to give him access to the child and was manipulating the child into rejecting him , under threat of punishment . GPE forbade the child from communicating with her father , sitting close to him , holding hands with him , kissing him or going into his car . The child was to run immediately inside to warn her mother when her father came to see her playing in the yard .","ORG started investigating the case . It visited GPE \u2019s home and appraised the situation . On DATE it interviewed GPE and from DATE both parents benefitted from psychological counselling . The ORG advised the mother to help her daughter maintain personal relations with the father . It also organised counselling sessions with the child . On several occasions GPE refused to bring the child for a psychological evaluation .","On DATE and DATE the applicant reiterated his request with ORG and complained that the mother hindered his visiting rights . The Agency counselled the mother regarding respect for the applicant \u2019s visiting rights and advised the applicant to address his complaints with the courts .","At the prosecutor \u2019s request , the child underwent a psychological evaluation by ORG . On DATE the psychologist rendered her report . She concluded that the child was normally developed but showed signs of having been manipulated by her mother into not expressing any positive feelings towards her father . She advised the mother to encourage the child to maintain her relations with the applicant .","On DATE and DATE the parents and child attended CARDINAL sessions of psychological counselling with ORG where the tense relations between the adults were confirmed .","In a new report which was drafted on DATE , the ORG \u2019s psychologist recommended that both adults undergo parental counselling to help them overcome the conflictual situation , that the mother encourage the child to maintain personal relations with the father and that both parents offer adequate emotional support to their child .","On DATE the applicant sent his wife a notification through the offices of a bailiff asking her to comply with the court order establishing the visiting rights . He informed GPE that in case she refused , he would start enforcement proceedings against her .","On DATE the applicant started proceedings to have ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE enforced . On DATE the Gala\u0163i ORG dismissed an objection lodged by GPE , and found that she refused to comply with the court order .","On DATE the bailiff , representative of ORG and the applicant met the child at her home .","On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant lodged a request with the Gala\u0163i ORG seeking to compel GPE to bring their daughter to counselling . He argued that she was manipulating the child against him which rendered the exercise of his contact rights difficult .","ORG rendered its decision on DATE . The court observed that , indeed , GPE had failed to take her daughter to counselling . It reiterated that it was in the child \u2019s best interest to maintain harmonious relations with both her parents . The court ordered GPE to establish , together with ORG , a DATE counselling schedule for her daughter and to comply with it .","GPE \u2019s appeal against ORG decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The court observed that most of the applicant \u2019s attempts to see his daughter according to the schedule set by court order had failed because of the mother \u2019s opposition or because of the conflicts between the parents , and that the child exhibited signs of being manipulated by her mother against her father .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to comply with the above court order of DATE and set a timetable for the counselling sessions . On DATE E.R. informed the ORG that she had enrolled the child in a counselling programme with the school psychologist and deplored the ORG \u2019s attitude of blaming on her the conflictual situation between the adults . On DATE GPE went to the ORG \u2019s headquarters and invited a team of experts to her home to see that the applicant was there with the child exercising his visiting rights . DATE she informed the ORG that she accepted counselling for her child .","NORP Some counselling sessions were organised between CARDINAL April and CARDINAL DATE , for both the child and the adults . As the counselling failed to improve the child \u2019s attitude towards her father , it was stopped . In the final report it was noted that the adults manifested hostility , lack of tolerance and respect towards each other and lacked any communication . Counselling for the child was considered futile so long as the parents remained in a conflictual situation . The psychologist recommended family and couple therapy , parental counselling and psychological counselling for the child .","In a letter addressed to the ORG on CARDINAL DATE the applicant reacted to the conclusions of the report and asked GPE \u2019s parental rights to be withdrawn . The ORG expressed the view that there was no reason to withdraw GPE \u2019s parental rights .","The applicant lodged a request with the courts to obtain full custody of the child . The proceedings are currently pending .","The ORG organised the child \u2019s psychological evaluation with its experts . After CARDINAL sessions , the psychologist rendered the report . She concluded that the child \u2019s exposure to court proceedings and repeated hearings and evaluations were detrimental to her and could cause emotional suffering . The expert also noted that the child detached herself emotionally from the PERSON problems and through her attitude tried to make them sort out on their own their conflicts .","The Agency presented its point of view in the proceedings . It reiterated its earlier assessment that there were no grounds to seek to deprive GPE of her parental responsibility . It further noted that the child refused to cooperate with the psychologist which rendered the counselling futile .","The applicant lodged CARDINAL criminal complaints against GPE for noncompliance with a court order . They were both dismissed by the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to LOC ( \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) on DATE and DATE respectively . After hearing the CARDINAL spouses , the prosecutor observed that the applicant managed to see his daughter occasionally , that on other times the child refused to see her father , or GPE refused to give him the child , and that starting from DATE he had no longer exercised his visiting rights .","The applicant continued his attempts to see his child , lodged new criminal complaints against the mother , sought ORG assistance , and the mother was fined by the court on DATE for failure to respect the court order establishing the visiting schedule .","After the fine imposed on the mother on DATE , she allowed the applicant to see the child , but the latter refused to leave with her father .","Several other civil court proceedings have been engaged by the applicant against his former spouse and ORG in order to have the custody arrangements reassessed . The child underwent more psychological evaluations in the process , and the experts considered that the tense situation between the adults led the child to refuse contact with her father , but that she would not oppose seeing him at her home .","Consequently , the counselling efforts through experts of ORG continued throughout DATE .","The relevant articles from LAW and LAW , applicable at the time of the facts of the present case , are presented in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152894","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"DANAILOV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals . A list of their names and DATE of birth is set out in the appendix . All of the applicants lived in GPE , except Mr PERSON , who lives in GPE . The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE . Some of the initial applicants died or transferred their properties in the course of the proceedings before the ORG and their heirs or successors expressed the wish to continue the application in their stead . They also authorised Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON to represent them .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON and PERSON , then by PERSON and PERSON , from ORG .","The application concerns CARDINAL sets of domestic proceedings to which the applicants were parties , relating to the restitution of forestry land in the area of GPE . The facts , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","Following the enactment of LAW in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicants ( or , in some cases , their predecessors ) applied for the restitution of forestry land in the area of GPE .","The applicants claimed that the documents establishing their former titles had been destroyed , so they could not present them . The claims were therefore examined under the special procedure provided for under section CARDINAL of the Forests Restitution Act ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . For the region of GPE , the commission provided for in section DATE ( \u201c the regional commission \u201d ) was created in DATE by an order of the Minister of Agriculture . It was headed by a judge of ORG and included representatives of the municipalities in the region , the NORP Regional Governor \u2019s office , ORG and the local forest authorities . The order specified that the regional commission was to be assisted by representatives of the local land commissions .","NORP The regional commission carried out an inquiry to verify the restitution claims for the area of GPE . The NORP forest authority made submissions to it , pointing out that as there had never been privately owned forests in the area , there was no need for restitution . Nevertheless , on DATE the regional commission adopted a decision recognising the rights of numerous persons , including the applicants , to different plots of forestry land .","NORP The representative of ORG signed the decision , but joined a separate opinion whereby he too stated that there had been no privately owned forests in the area prior to the process of nationalisation . He considered that if , on the other hand , the land claimed had been agricultural before nationalisation , that fact had to be expressly established by showing that the forests on the land were DATE .","On the basis of the regional commission \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE , in a series of decisions dated DATE the GPE land commission restored the applicants\u2019 property rights to the land at issue , and the applicants took possession and started using it shortly thereafter .","In DATE the NORP forest authority complained to the NORP regional public prosecutor \u2019s office about the restitution process in the GPE region . The complaint concerned CARDINAL beneficiaries of the restitution process , including the applicants , and QUANTITY of forestry land . Non - governmental organisations also complained to the prosecution authorities that the GPE forests had been \u201c plundered \u201d .","NORP The NORP regional public prosecutor \u2019s office commissioned an expert report , which established that before nationalisation the land given to the applicants had been yaylak ( a NORP term designating a high - mountain pasture ) . Under the law of GPE to which the territory had belonged until DATE , the ORG remained the owner of all yaylak land and private individuals could only receive the right to use it . That situation was preserved in NORP law after the area had been included in NORP territory . There were no documents in the public archives indicating that there had ever been privately owned forests in the area . In particular , in the tax registers for the period DATE , there were no data indicating that private individuals had paid land tax ; there were no documents for the expropriation of forestry land in the area after the enactment of the relevant legislation in DATE ; and there was no indication that at the time of expropriation anyone in the area had received compensation , which in accordance with the law had to be in the form of ORG bonds . Lastly , the expert pointed out that there had been no cases of restitution of forests or forestry land in the GPE region under section CARDINAL of the Forests Restitution Act , namely with documents establishing rights to property prior to nationalisation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP In DATE the NORP regional public prosecutor \u2019s office proposed that the administrative proceedings be re - opened and the decisions of the land commission of CARDINAL DATE be quashed .","NORP In a series of decisions dated CARDINAL and DATE , in all but CARDINAL of the present cases ORG ( the former land commission ) quashed the decisions of DATE . It considered that those decisions had been adopted \u201c in material breach of the law \u201d , because the documents submitted by the prosecution had shown that as there had never been privately owned forests and forestry land in the area of GPE , the preconditions for restitution had not been met .","The applicants challenged those new decisions . In judicial proceedings which all ended DATE and DATE , ORG and ORG quashed the decisions . Giving largely identical reasoning , they found that ORG reasons for re - opening the proceedings had not been valid and quashed its earlier decisions because the relevant time - limits for doing so , as provided for by the general rules on administrative procedure , had expired . They did not discuss the merits of the applicants\u2019 restitution claims .","NORP In DATE the NORP forest authority , acting on behalf of the ORG , brought rei vindicatio claims against the applicants , arguing that the ORG was the lawful owner of the restored land and that the restitution had been unlawful . Following requests by the forest authority , in many of the cases the courts issued interim injunctions against the applicants , barring them from transferring their titles .","The different sets of rei vindicatio proceedings ended DATE and DATE . In all of them , using largely identical reasoning and relying on the legislation as in force in DATE and DATE and documents from different periods , the courts found that the land at issue had been yaylak , which meant that it could not have been privately owned at the time of nationalisation of forests in GPE in DATE . Moreover , given the age of the forests \u2013 in some cases DATE it could not be accepted that at the time of nationalisation the land at issue had been agricultural and that it had subsequently been afforested . In some of the cases the courts pointed out that the applicants had not even claimed that they or their predecessors had been owners , but merely relied on the land commission \u2019s respective decisions of DATE . In some cases the courts noted in addition that the regional commission \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE had not been signed on the part of the NORP forest authority by the member indicated in the order of ORG , but by another person .","On the basis of the above findings the courts concluded that the land at issue had not been owned by the ORG predecessors and could not therefore have been taken from them in DATE ; on the contrary , the land had always been ORG - owned . Accordingly , the restitution legislation had not given rise to any rights for the applicants . Furthermore , the courts considered that both the regional commission \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE and the GPE land commission \u2019s decisions of DATE had been given in breach of the law .","In addition , the courts found that the ORG , as represented by the NORP forest authority , was not bound by the land commission \u2019s decisions on restitution . For instance , in its judgment of DATE in the case of Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , ORG held :","\u201c The court , in examining a rei vindicatio action , must scrutinise independently whether the right to property has arisen on valid grounds and is not bound by the administrative decision relied on DATE the decision of the land commission \u2013 the validity of which is to be verified through indirect judicial review where the plaintiff has not participated in the administrative proceedings .","It can not be accepted that the participation of a representative of the NORP forest authority in the administrative proceedings which resulted in the adoption of the land commission \u2019s decision is sufficient to render the conclusions of those proceedings binding on the NORP forest authority . \u201d","Similarly , in a judgment of DATE , in the case of ORG , ORG held :","\u201c The claimant in the rei vindicatio proceedings has not participated in the administrative proceedings concerning restitution of property and is not bound by the land commission \u2019s decision . It can therefore challenge that decision in civil proceedings concerning its property rights . \u201d","After the entry into force of the new Code of Civil Procedure on DATE Mr PERSON and Mr Feti PERSON lodged an appeal on points of law , which was examined in accordance with the rules provided for in the new Code .","As required under ORG CARDINAL and FAC of the Code , the appeal was served on the NORP forest authority , which lodged written submissions in reply . The submissions were not communicated to the applicants . Having considered the case file on the papers , in a final decision of DATE a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG refused to admit the appeal for examination . It held that the appeal did not meet the requirements of LAW .","On unspecified dates the prosecution authorities instituted criminal proceedings against some of the beneficiaries of restitution in the GPE region for document forgery and fraud . In CARDINAL of the cases under examination , which were not specified by the parties , the applicants were indicted . In CARDINAL of those cases the courts convicted the applicants .","Specific information has been provided on the case of Mr PERSON PERSON , PERSON , Ms Nayle PERSON and Mr PERSON . On DATE Mr PERSON PERSON was convicted by ORG for having forged a request for restitution submitted on behalf of the remaining applicants . This was taken into account by the courts examining the rei vindicatio action against those applicants and served as grounds to allow the action and conclude that the applicants had not become the owners of the land claimed .","After the completion of the rei vindicatio proceedings the NORP forest authority brought proceedings for unlawful enrichment against some of the applicants , seeking to recover the monetary equivalent of the timber produced from the respective plots of land DATE .","The Restitution of Title to ORG and Forestry Land Act ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u044a\u0437\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u044f\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u0431\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0442\u0430 \u0432\u044a\u0440\u0445\u0443 \u0433\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0438 \u0437\u0435\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u043e\u0442 \u0433\u043e\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0438\u044f \u0444\u043e\u043d\u0434 , \u201c the ORG LAW \u201d ) was enacted in DATE . It set out the conditions for restitution of forestry land which had been expropriated in DATE and DATE . Under LAW of the LAW , the bodies competent to take decisions on restitution were the respective land commissions , replaced in DATE by ORG ( after DATE renamed ORG ) . Those are ORG bodies , whose members are appointed by ORG . Forest authorities are also ORG bodies .","NORP Former owners of forestry land wishing to have their property rights restored had to support their claims by documents establishing their title before nationalisation ( section CARDINAL of the Forests Restitution Act ) . Where the relevant documents had been \u201c lost or destroyed through no fault of their own \u201d , such claimants might still apply for restitution and their requests were to be examined under a special procedure provided for in section CARDINAL of the Act .","Section CARDINAL provides for the creation of regional commissions , composed of representatives of the local judicial and administrative authorities , with the task of carrying out inquiries to verify restitution claims . Where , following an inquiry , the regional commission was satisfied that the claims in question were well founded , it would take a decision to restore the former ORG property rights . Such a decision was binding on the respective land commission \/ ORG , which was obliged , within DATE of its receipt , to issue a formal decision on restitution . The decisions taken by the land commissions \/ ORG were not amenable to judicial review , and any disputes with third parties over property rights were to be determined in separate proceedings .","On DATE the Plenary of ORG of ORG delivered interpretative decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( ORG \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. , GPE \u0441\u044a\u0434 \u043d\u0430 \u0420\u0435\u043f\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0430 \u0411\u044a\u043b\u0433\u0430\u0440\u0438\u044f , CARDINAL \u0441\u044a\u0431\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043a\u043e\u043b\u0435\u0433\u0438\u044f ) . It found , in the first place , that court judgments ordering restitution under LAW had binding effect on the ORG and its bodies , which could not seek the re - examination of the matter in new judicial proceedings .","ORG found , on the other hand , that it remained open for the State , through its bodies , to challenge administrative decisions of the land commissions \/ ORG allowing restitution claims . In particular , it held :","\u201c The restitution of ... forests is carried out through administrative means . ... The procedure unfolds between the administrative body and the person who has sought restitution , and that is why it is ex parte . No disputes concerning rights to property are examined in these proceedings , and ORG decides on the request for restitution . ...","The ORG is not a party to the proceedings before ORG . Pursuant to [ the relevant provisions of LAW ] , the parties to proceedings concerning the issuance of an individual administrative decision are the claimant and other interested parties who were summoned or have joined the procedure . ORG is not a party to the administrative procedure , but the body before which the procedure unfolds . ...","Where the decision given in the restitution procedure affects rights in rem of the ORG , it is entitled to defend them under the general civil law , by bringing an action to establish the rights claimed by it . Where an action has been brought against it , it can seek to establish that it has the right to ownership of the disputed plot . For the ORG this is the only means of defence against an unlawful administrative decision . \u201d","The rules under LAW , as in force since DATE , have been summarised in the ORG \u2019s decision in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182848","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF YAMAN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6+6-3-e - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-e - Free assistance of interpreter);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON ( first applicant ) , Mr Mustafa PERSON ( second applicant ) , and Mr PERSON ( third applicant ) were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE the applicants were arrested in the course of a military operation in \u015e\u0131rnak . They were subsequently interrogated by the gendarmes in the absence of a lawyer . In their statements , the applicants accepted the charges against them and gave a detailed account of their involvement in the ORG ( ORG of Kurdistan , an illegal organisation ) .","On DATE the applicants were brought before ORG and subsequently before the investigating judge . The first and second applicants were provided with an interpreter during their interrogation . Before the public prosecutor and the judge , the applicants denied the charges against them . They further stated that they had signed their gendarmerie statements without reading them . Following the questioning , the investigating judge remanded the applicants in custody .","On DATE ORG at ORG filed an indictment with that court and accused the applicants of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory , under LAW .","The proceedings resumed before ORG and the first and second applicants were authorised to have the assistance of an interpreter . In their defence submissions before the trial court , the applicants retracted the statements they had allegedly made during the preliminary investigation stage . They submitted that the gendarmes had made them sign their statements without reading them .","On DATE ORG found the applicants guilty as charged and convicted them under LAW with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory . It further sentenced the applicants to life imprisonment . In convicting them , the court had regard to the ORG statements taken by the gendarmes .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court on the ground that during the trial certain witness statements , which had been taken on commission before other courts , had not been read out to the applicants for comment during the trial . The case was accordingly remitted to ORG .","In the meantime , ORG were abolished by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , and therefore , the case against the applicants was transferred to ORG .","On DATE ORG complied with the decision of ORG and witness statements that had been taken on commission were read out to the applicants for their comments . At the end of the trial , ORG found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to life imprisonment .","On DATE ORG at ORG decided that the case file should be remitted to ORG for examination of whether the new LAW which had entered into force on DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL ) provided more favourable provisions for the applicants . The case was thus once again examined by ORG in view of the recent legislative changes .","On DATE ORG once again convicted the applicants under LAW , finding that this provision was more favourable to them than the corresponding provision of the new criminal code .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the judgment on procedural grounds , holding in particular that certain documents which had been relied on by the first - instance court in its judgment were not of an official nature .","On DATE ORG , after obtaining official copies of all the documents in the case file , convicted the applicants under LAW and sentenced them to life imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c","6-3-e"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148174","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LIEPI\u0145\u0160 v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","The relevant facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG ( GPE rajona tiesa ) found the applicant guilty of aggravated theft . The judgment of ORG did not indicate that the applicant had a lawyer .","The applicant was given a prison sentence of DATE . Having taken into account the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL prior convictions ORG imposed a final prison sentence of DATE .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) partially upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal against the above - mentioned first - instance judgment . The judgment of ORG indicated that the applicant \u2019s lawyer , PERSON , had participated .","ORG reclassified the charge as theft of a small amount and reduced the prison sentence to DATE , reducing the final prison sentence to DATE accordingly .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the appeal judgment with ORG of the ORG of ORG . On DATE he supplemented his appeal .","The Government submitted , and the applicant did not argue otherwise , that in his appeal on points of law the applicant had not expressed a wish to participate in the cassation hearing .","At its preparatory session on DATE the ORG of ORG decided to accept the appeal for review on points of law and scheduled the hearing for DATE .","On DATE the ORG of ORG wrote to the applicant informing him that the cassation hearing had been scheduled for DATE . The notification was also addressed to the lawyer , PERSON","NORP The letter also stated that the applicant had the right to participate in the cassation hearing . However , in the event of non - appearance by the parties the hearing could be held in their absence .","On DATE the applicant made a request to participate in the cassation hearing \u201c in order to provide the necessary explanations \u201d .","As submitted by the Government , on DATE the applicant \u2019s request was received at the registry of the ORG of ORG .","On DATE V.E. , a judge of the ORG of ORG , wrote to the director of ORG , where the applicant was held at the time , in the following terms :","\u201c Concerning [ the applicant \u2019s ] request about the possibility of participating in the court hearing of DATE , please inform [ him ] that it is impossible to ensure [ his participation ] .","He made no such request in his appeal on points of law . His request to participate in the hearing of DATE was received at ORG only on DATE . [ ORG escorts from FAC to GPE depart only on CARDINAL and CARDINAL [ DATE ] , it is no longer possible to organise his transport to the hearing of DATE . \u201d","On DATE the hearing took place before the ORG of ORG .","The only party present was the public prosecutor . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer participated .","The decision of the ORG of ORG dated DATE indicated , inter alia , that the ORG had heard the prosecutor \u2019s opinion that the lower court \u2019s judgment should be left unmodified .","The ORG of ORG upheld the appeal judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . That decision was final .","On DATE ORG , in view of the amendments to LAW ( PERSON ) , which were applicable retroactively , decided that the applicant should be released from prison as he had already served his sentence ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152608","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"SGAIB\u0102 v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , GPE administrative district . His application was lodged on DATE . The applicant \u2019s request for selfrepresentation was granted .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) , complaining about the way in which his pension had been calculated with effect from DATE . He stated that it had been calculated by multiplying the DATE average point level ( punctajul mediu anual ) determined for each retired person by the pension point ( punct de pensie ) which had been set by governmental decision . He relied on the following CARDINAL arguments : firstly that the average point level used for calculating his pension with effect from DATE had been progressively lowered since it had first been determined on DATE , and secondly that there had been errors in the calculation of his pension , meaning that the sums which had actually been paid in the periods from DATE , DATE and DATE to DATE had been lower than the sums obtained by multiplying the CARDINAL relevant figures together , even taking the value set by ORG . He also contended that the lowering of the DATE average point level was discriminatory as it only affected people who had retired DATE and DATE .","In a first - instance judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) dismissed his complaint , holding that even though the average point level had been lowered in DATE , this had caused no difference in the actual pension paid DATE and DATE , and that his claims were therefore ill - founded .","The applicant lodged an appeal , arguing that his claims had not been properly examined . He claimed that ORG had not considered his allegation that the lowering of the average point level had been discriminatory and had failed to address his allegation that the pension that he had actually been paid for some periods had not corresponded to the sums produced by multiplying the CARDINAL relevant figures together , even taking the value set by ORG .","In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , namely GPE , ORG and ORG , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded . It held that the applicant \u2019s pension had been calculated by reference to the pension to which he had been entitled on DATE and deducting from it his compulsory contribution to the health insurance fund .","The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal , contending that the appellate court had failed to examine all his arguments . In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges including ORG , allowed the extraordinary appeal . It held that CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s arguments concerning the way in which his pension rights had been calculated had not been properly examined .","ORG kept the case for a fresh determination of the ordinary appeal and set the date for the first hearing at DATE .","The re - examination of the ordinary appeal lasted from DATE to DATE . The court held several hearings sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , including ORG and ORG The applicant attended all the hearings .","In a final decision delivered on DATE and served on the applicant on CARDINAL August CARDINAL , the appellate court dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded . It held that the applicant \u2019s pension had been correctly calculated in accordance with the applicable law . It stated that the applicant \u2019s pension rights had not been affected after the recalculation of the DATE average point level . The appellate court also noted that the applicant had brought parallel proceedings for the calculation of his pension rights and the amount of his pension had therefore already been established by a final decision of ORG delivered on DATE .","NORP The applicant lodged another extraordinary appeal , arguing that CARDINAL of the judges considering his appeal had lacked impartiality , as they had ruled on the case on a previous occasion , and that the new decision of DATE had contradicted the final decision of DATE , which had found that there was in fact a discrepancy between the pension which was actually paid to him and the one that would have resulted from a proper calculation . He also complained that the appellate court had dismissed the financial expert report without addressing the contradictions between that report and the new pension decision .","In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the appellate court dismissed the extraordinary appeal , holding that all of the applicant \u2019s grounds of appeal had been duly examined .","Article CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) , as in force at the material time , provided that a judge who had already ruled on a case could not sit on the panel deciding the same case in any new set of proceedings following the quashing of a previous decision .","Under LAW ORG , parties to civil proceedings are obliged to inform the court immediately of any facts disqualifying a judge from dealing with their case .","The rules concerning a change of trial venue were laid down in ORG DATE of the ORG .","Article CARDINAL of the ORG provided that an extraordinary appeal on points of law against final decisions of a court of appeal in cases where the appeal had been decided by a disqualified judge , or the court \u2019s composition had been incorrect , was available only if the parties could not have invoked these grounds in an ordinary appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150524","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"\u0100BOLI\u0145\u0160 v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158885","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SINI\u0160TAJ AND OTHERS v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , and DATE respectively . The first , second , fourth and fifth applicants live in GPE ( GPE ) , the third applicant lives in ORG ) , the sixth applicant lives in GPE ( GPE ) and the seventh applicant lives in GPE ( GPE ) .","The facts of the cases as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows .","In TIME of CARDINAL September CARDINAL a special anti - terrorist unit arrested CARDINAL persons , including the applicants , on suspicion of associating for the purpose of anti - constitutional activities ( udru\u017eivanje radi protivustavne djelatnosti ) , preparing actions against the constitutional order and security of GPE ( pripremanje djela protiv ustavnog ure\u0111enja i bezbjednosti PERSON ) and illegal possession of weapons and explosives ( nedozovoljeno dr\u017eanje oru\u017eja i eksplozivnih materija ) .","The applicants maintain that as of the moment of their arrest and during DATE , during police detention as well as when being taken to the investigating judge , they were ill - treated with the aim of extorting statements . In particular , they were beaten , deprived of food , verbally abused , including on the basis of their ethnic origin , and threatened by police officers .","On DATE , when interrogated by the investigating judge of ORG , the applicants made statements to that effect . The investigating judge included these statements in the interrogation TIME , as well as the following : ( a ) the third applicant had a bandage on his head beneath which there was a visible cut ( razderotina ) , as well as a haematoma ( krvni podliv ) on the upper part of his left cheekbone ( jagodica ) ; ( b ) the fourth applicant admitted that he did not have any injuries ; ( c ) the fifth applicant had a haematoma on both shoulders , in the area above both elbows , a scratch on the outside part of his left ankle ( sko\u010dni zglob ) , and a haematoma on the left ankle as well as on the outside part of the left thigh , the dimensions of which were QUANTITY ; the fifth applicant also maintained that he had a pain in his right ear ; and ( d ) the seventh applicant had scratches on his left elbow and left knee , and a haematoma on the left part of his back above the hip , and complained that his ribs hurt and that he could barely move and breathe .","On DATE a prison doctor examined the third and sixth applicants . He noted in a medical report that the third applicant had a QUANTITY long scratch on top of his head , a dark blue haematoma on the left cheekbone measuring QUANTITY , a dark blue haematoma stretching from his left nipple to his armpit measuring QUANTITY and a large hematoma above the left elbow . The doctor noted that there were no visible injuries on TIME applicant \u2019s body .","On DATE the first , second , fourth , fifth and seventh applicants filed a criminal complaint ( podnijeli krivi\u010dnu prijavu ) with the investigating judge against unknown police officers for extorting their statements ( iznu\u0111ivanje iskaza ) , torture and ill - treatment in the period DATE .","DATE all the applicants save for the third one signed written statements to their lawyers describing the ill - treatment they had been subjected to .","On DATE the above criminal complaint was amended so as to include the sixth applicant \u2019s complaint to the same effect . The applicants also expressed their readiness to identify the officers who had ill - treated them . In addition , the first and second applicants complained against police officers who had taken them to the investigating judge on DATE and DATE for ill - treating , beating and insulting the CARDINAL of them on those occasions .","It would appear that on DATE the third applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the investigating judge against LAW and several other unidentified police officers . No copy of this complaint has been provided .","On DATE ORG of ORG issued a report concerning the legality of police actions during the arrest and pre - trial proceedings . According to the report , a special internal control team was formed , which identified all the police officers involved in the action . A total of CARDINAL interviews were conducted , both with the police officers and with family members of some of the arrested persons , apparently including the father of the first applicant as well as the owner of the house in which the seventh applicant had been arrested . None of the CARDINAL latter mentioned any force being used against the first and seventh applicants . The police officers involved denied all unlawful actions . ORG stated that none of the arrested persons had been tortured to her knowledge . The investigating judge stated that they had complained about torture and that their statements to that effect had been noted in the interrogation TIME . Medical reports issued in prison stated that the first , second and sixth applicants had no visible injuries , the fifth applicant had \u201c several scratches and suffusion \u201d and the seventh applicant \u201c redness the size of MONEY \u201d on his left shoulder . The report suggested that the injuries observed in respect of CARDINAL other detainees arrested on the same occasion had been inflicted when these persons had confronted the police officers during the arrest , on which a special official record had been made . On the basis of such findings ORG could not confirm that there were any grounds for establishing the involved ORG responsibility . However , it was decided that all the relevant documents should be submitted to ORG for further consideration .","On DATE , during the main hearing ( glavni pretres ) , the fourth applicant stated that he had been beaten at the police station on his head and body , and his ribs had been broken .","On DATE the first applicant submitted to ORG ( PERSON dr\u017eavni tu\u017eilac ) the name of GPE , a police officer who had been on the same shift as the officer who had allegedly ill - treated him on DATE and who therefore presumably knew the name of that officer .","On DATE the first and second applicants urged ORG ( ORG dr\u017eavno tu\u017eila\u0161tvo ) in GPE to act upon their criminal complaint . The first applicant also submitted the number of the police badge of CARDINAL of the officers who allegedly had boasted in front of another detainee of having personally beaten the first applicant .","On DATE the third applicant submitted to ORG the name of one of the officers who had been present during his questioning in the police station . At the same time he urged the ORG to deal with his criminal complaint , to identify all the officers who had been involved in his arrest as well as to establish the treatment meted out to him during police detention .","On DATE the second applicant urged ORG to deal with his complaints . He also submitted the names of some of the police and prison officers who had allegedly ill - treated the applicants on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . He reiterated that there had been other officers and special unit members who had ill - treated them , who were still unidentified .","On DATE a prison doctor examined the seventh applicant and noted in a medical report that he had reported pain in his spine going back DATE , which pain had become more acute over DATE , that he was urinating more often , his blood pressure was CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , he could not walk on his toes , and that his lungs were fine . A part of the medical report was illegible due to bad handwriting .","The fourth applicant submitted to the ORG a medical report issued by a private hospital in GPE on DATE . During this medical examination the fourth applicant stated , inter alia , that he had been beaten by the police in DATE , but that he had not consulted a doctor about that . The medical report stated , inter alia , that he had an old double fracture of the fourth rib , as well as an old fracture of the right clavicle ( klavikula ) . The doctor had diagnosed high blood pressure and prescribed treatment for him .","On DATE the fifth applicant was examined in a private ambulance , and the medical report issued on that occasion stated that he had a chronic post - traumatic stress disorder .","It would appear that none of the above criminal complaints or their further supplements has been processed by the authorities to date .","The applicants did not lodge a compensation claim with regard to the alleged ill - treatment .","On DATE ORG , in a chamber composed of CARDINAL judges , found the first , second , third , sixth and seventh applicants guilty of associating for the purposes of anti - constitutional activities and preparing actions against the constitutional order and security of GPE . In particular , it was established that in the period DATE and DATE the first and second applicants , with CARDINAL other co - accused , had met with some members of the so - called ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) in the wider area of GPE , GPE , GPE and the GPE , and created an association the aim of which was to undermine the constitutional order and security of GPE and create within GPE a territory with special status , inhabited by persons of NORP ethnicity , contrary to the LOC constitutional order . Subsequently , DATE and seventh applicants had become members of this organisation . The fourth and fifth applicants were found guilty of illegal possession of weapons and explosives .","The first applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment , the second applicant to DATE , the third , sixth and seventh applicants to DATE each , the fourth applicant to DATE and the fifth applicant to DATE . By virtue of the same judgment a large variety of weapons , ammunition , and various other objects , such as military clothes , caps , gloves , binoculars , and flags with the ORG logo , were confiscated from the first and second applicants , as well as a diary belonging to the first applicant . A certain number of weapons and some explosives were confiscated from the fourth and fifth applicants . All the applicants , save for the third one , were ordered to pay court fees ( po osnovu pau\u0161ala ) .","The judgment was based on the following evidence : the statement made by the first applicant to the police , his diary and its translation done by the first applicant at the police station , written confirmation of the search of the first and second ORG flats and other LOC , TIME of the searches , an official report on the weapons found , an official receipt on objects seized from the first and second applicants and relevant photo - documentation , terrain search , including in caves , weapons , ammunition and explosives found there and relevant photo - documentation , TIME of the searches of some of the other co - accuseds\u2019 flats and other LOC , statements of some of the other co - accused , evidence obtained through measures of secret surveillance , including transcripts of a number of telephone calls , reports on border crossings , the statements of CARDINAL police officers who had conducted the searches , a statement of the first applicant \u2019s police - appointed lawyer who was present during the first applicant \u2019s interrogation at the police station , the opinion of expert witnesses and a search warrant issued by ORG investigating judge on DATE .","ORG did not take into account other evidence , such as , inter alia : the statements given by the second , third , fourth and fifth applicants at the police station , as these applicants had not been properly advised that they were entitled to use their own language and to have the assistance of an interpreter ; and TIME of the searches of several other co - accuseds\u2019 flats , as the witnesses who had attended the searches were related to those whose flats had been searched ( wife , son , sister - in - law ) .","The High Court considered that the first applicant \u2019s rights had not been breached in the pre - trial proceedings ( u pretkrivi\u010dnom postupku ) and that the search of his flat and other LOC had been conducted in accordance with the relevant provisions of LAW . In particular , the search warrant had been issued by the investigating judge on DATE at TIME , and the search had been conducted on DATE between CARDINAL and TIME While the search had not been attended by CARDINAL witnesses , this was allowed by a relevant provision of LAW , which provided for a search without witnesses if it was impossible to secure the presence of any at once and there was a danger that the relevant action would be postponed ( postoji opasnost od odlaganja ) . The reasons why the search had been conducted without witnesses had to be noted in the search TIME ( moraju se nazna\u010diti u zapisniku ) . CARDINAL of the police officers who had conducted the search testified that it had been impossible to find CARDINAL witnesses at the time as the search had been conducted TIME . According to him , this was not mentioned in TIME had been made on the spot ( zapisnik o pretresanju sa\u010dinjen na licu mjesta i zbog toga nijesu navedeni razlozi za pretresanje bez prisustva svjedoka ) . However , the search had been attended by the first applicant himself , who had duly signed the TIME and had no objections to them .","The High Court further established that the first applicant had been questioned at the police station on DATE at TIME in the presence of a police - appointed lawyer with whom he had consulted before making a statement . The lawyer testified that the first applicant had been questioned in accordance with the law and that he had not noticed any injuries on him . The first applicant had confirmed during the questioning that he had been writing a diary , and that he could translate it as it was written in NORP . The lawyer was present during the translation of the diary as well .","The sixth and seventh applicants were convicted on the basis of the first applicant \u2019s statement made at the police station and the contents of his diary , the CARDINAL being compatible . In particular , it was established , on the basis of these CARDINAL pieces of evidence , that the seventh applicant had arrived from the GPE in GPE on DATE , that he had been informed about the plans of the association and had attended a subsequent meeting . In this way , the court concluded , the seventh applicant had manifested his membership of the association and participation in its preparatory work . It was further found , on the basis of the same evidence , that on DATE the sixth and seventh applicants had been informed that the war in the relevant part of GPE should begin on DATE , in which way the sixth applicant had manifested his membership of the association , as well as by accepting an invitation to go to the next meeting taking place in FAC . On DATE several persons , including the sixth and seventh applicants , had met in PERSON and had agreed on how to carry out the planned acts . In particular , the seventh applicant had expressed his support , said he had been to GPE himself to explore the realisation of the plan ( radi izvi\u0111anja mogu\u0107nosti realizacije plana ) , and wondered if their plans would affect GPE \u2019s independence . The meeting was concluded by another co - accused \u2019s statement that the GPE army would enter GPE \u201c around DATE , that is on DATE , and [ that ] they want[ed ] to do their job \u201d . ORG concluded that the first applicant \u2019s defence during the pre - trial proceedings was in logical connection with the contents of his diary . This evidence was found to be further supported by a report on their border crossings , which data entirely coincided with the dates and times of border crossings mentioned in the first applicant \u2019s diary and his statement made at the police station . Lastly , both the statement and the diary were further supported by an official police report of DATE , which confirmed the existence of all the objects and places described in the diary .","Finally , the first - instance court did not accept that the criminal offences contained in the indictment had been committed in an organised manner as the indictment did not claim that the motive was profit or power , this being one of the mandatory conditions for a criminal offence to fall within the notion of organised crime .","All the applicants appealed against the High Court judgment . The first , second , fifth , sixth and seventh applicants\u2019 appeals , contained in the case - file , included a complaint about the torture and ill - treatment , and a lack of an investigation in that respect .","On DATE the ORG judgment was upheld by ORG . In particular , it was held that there had been no procedural violations in the first - instance proceedings and that the first - instance judgment was based on legally valid evidence , including the statement made by the first applicant at the police station , TIME of the search conducted in his flat and other LOC , as well as the evidence obtained by that search , including his diary .","The first applicant was considered to have been interrogated in accordance with all the procedural guarantees , as confirmed by his police- appointed lawyer , who had not noticed any injuries on him . The same lawyer had also been present when the first applicant had translated the diary , and had signed the interrogation TIME afterwards .","The search of the first applicant \u2019s flat was held to have been conducted in accordance with the law and , therefore , all the evidence obtained thereby was legally valid , including the diary . In particular , the investigating judge had issued the search warrant DATE before the search . The search had not been witnessed by CARDINAL adults as it was impossible to find any witnesses in TIME . No statement to this effect was included in TIME as they had been drafted on the spot . This conclusion was based on the testimony of CARDINAL of the officers who had conducted the search . As regards the diary , it contained a clear and convincing description of the criminal acts undertaken . The contents of the diary were further supported by the first applicant \u2019s defence in the pre - trial proceedings , and were further compatible with the border crossing reports , the evidence obtained through measures of secret surveillance , transcripts of telephone conversations , and the weapons found on the terrain ( in caves ) .","The first - instance court had established all the facts , in particular on the basis of the statement the first applicant had made in the pre - trial proceedings and his diary . The first applicant had admittedly changed his statement during the main hearing claiming , in substance , that what he had said during the pre - trial procedure had been extorted by torture . However , this was rebutted by a statement of his police - appointed lawyer , who had been present at the time when the statement had been made . The validity of this evidence was not called into question ( nije dovedena u pitanje ) by any other evidence , but was actually further supported thereby . Membership of an association could be manifested in various ways , and the sixth and seventh applicants , in particular , had manifested it by taking part in the meetings where the activities for achieving the association \u2019s goal were discussed .","ORG agreed that the criminal acts of which the accused were convicted had not been committed in an organised manner as the indictment did not allege that their motive was profit or power .","This decision was served on the applicants on DATE at the earliest .","On DATE ORG ruled on the first , second , third and fourth ORG appeal on points of law ( zahtjev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosna\u017ene presude ) . They challenged , inter alia , the conclusion that there had been no time to find CARDINAL adults to witness the search of the first applicant \u2019s flat and the composition of the first - instance court . ORG , in substance , endorsed the reasoning of ORG and ORG . In particular , the composition of the first - instance court was in accordance with the law , as LAW explicitly provided that a CARDINAL - judge bench would try criminal acts of organised crime , and the trial of all the accused was based on an indictment of ORG . The fifth , sixth and seventh applicants did not lodge an appeal on points of law .","DATE and DATE the first , second , third and fourth applicants lodged constitutional appeals with ORG . The third and fourth applicants complained , inter alia , about torture , inhuman and degrading treatment . On DATE ORG dismissed the constitutional appeal considering , in particular , that the complaint about torture , inhuman and degrading treatment was unsubstantiated given that the applicants had failed to submit any evidence in that regard . DATE and the seventh applicants would not appear to have lodged a constitutional appeal .","The sixth applicant submitted CARDINAL medical reports , issued by a prison doctor on DATE and DATE , respectively .","The report issued in DATE is largely illegible . The legible part states that the sixth applicant complained about pain in his right shoulder and problems in moving it ( ote\u017eane pokrete ) . There was a diagnosis of naevus sebaceus , i.e. a mole on a sebaceous gland .","The copy of the medical report issued on DATE is partly illegible . The legible parts state that the applicant had pain all over his body with frequent headaches and poor sleep . His blood pressure was DATE , walking on toes and heels was nearly impossible , and it was recommended that an X - ray of the spine be done . CARDINAL medications were prescribed together \u201c with the usual treatment he [ was ] taking \u201d . He was diagnosed with \u201c ORG , lumbago , and suspected kind of ( illegible ) discus \u201d .","The Government submitted the entire medical file of the sixth applicant . While part of the medical reports is illegible , from the legible part transpires the following .","On DATE , when he was remanded in custody , the sixth applicant was examined by a prison doctor . On that occasion the sixth applicant claimed that he had been beaten and that he had high cholesterol . The doctor noted that there were no visible injuries on the sixth applicant \u2019s body , and that he already had the treatment prescribed for high cholesterol .","DATE and DATE the applicant was examined CARDINAL times in total : twice in DATE , CARDINAL times in DATE and CARDINAL times in DATE .","During the examinations in DATE the applicant complained about pain in his right shoulder and in general in his arms and joints . He was diagnosed with chronic rheumatism and sinusitis , and the necessary treatment was prescribed . Both times his blood pressure was optimal , and his heart , lungs and other organs were free of any illness .","In DATE and DATE the sixth applicant was examined by a number of specialists including a dermatologist , a psychiatrist , a physiatrist , and a specialist in internal medicine , who all prescribed the necessary treatments . He also had a number of tests done , such as laboratory blood analysis , CARDINAL ultra - sounds of the kidneys and abdomen , ORG , and an X - ray of the upper part of the spine and CARDINAL X - rays of the right shoulder , and his blood pressure was checked on various occasions .","The examinations showed that the sixth applicant had slightly increased triglycerides and high cholesterol and that he had been under treatment for high blood pressure and high cholesterol for DATE already ; he had an ongoing ossification in his right shoulder , which was stated to be usual for his age , as well as in his neck ; he also had a cyst in the right kidney , and the mole on the sebaceous gland for which the treatment was surgery but not urgently required . The medical analysis of his liver , spleen , and left kidney were fine .","DATE , during the interrogation by the investigating judge , and in the presence of lawyers of their own choice , the first , second and fifth applicants confirmed that their mother tongue was NORP , but that they spoke NORP well and that they did not need an interpreter . It is also clear from the case file that the first applicant is a school teacher of the NORP language in GPE . The other applicants were interrogated with the assistance of an interpreter . The first and second applicants confirmed that they had officially - appointed lawyers in the police station . While the first applicant had consulted his police - appointed lawyer before having made a statement , the second applicant would appear to have spoken with his after having made a statement . After having consulted the lawyers of their own choice at the interrogation before the investigating judge the first , second , third and seventh applicants said they would not answer any questions or present their defence .","On DATE ORG indicted CARDINAL police officers for torturing and ill - treating the father of the first and second applicants on the occasion of their arrest . On DATE , after a remittal , the defendants were acquitted , which judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional appeal , which had been lodged against these decisions on DATE by the first applicant on behalf of his father , who had passed away in the meantime .","In a statement made to his lawyer on DATE the sixth applicant wrote that the medical report issued in DATE contained a recommendation that he should have another dermatological check - up in DATE , which check - up had not taken place , and that , contrary to what was in the report , he had not had any physiotherapy . He also maintained that he could not communicate with the doctor as the doctor could not speak LANGUAGE or NORP . The sixth applicant claimed that his health situation was far from regular and referred to the shoulder pain , high blood pressure , high cholesterol , permanent headache , sleeplessness , dizziness and total exhaustion . He stated that \u201c numerous appeals \u201d made by him personally , his lawyer and ORG personnel , seeking a competent medical examination , had remained unanswered . No details with regard to these appeals have been provided in the case file . There is also no evidence that this statement of the sixth applicant has ever been submitted to anyone except his lawyer .","The sixth applicant also submitted a letter addressed to the President of ORG , apparently written by a Consular Officer of ORG in GPE on DATE . The letter stated that the sixth applicant , during regular visits of a representative of ORG , consistently complained about his medical problems , in particular about the growth of a mole on his face and a shoulder pain . It further transpires from the letter that the sixth applicant had been visited by a dermatologist on DATE , but that it was impossible to take a sample of the mole as no appropriate equipment was available in the prison . The letter went on to say that the sixth applicant had been prescribed treatment for the shoulder pain , but that he had stopped taking it as it made him nauseous . The submitted copy of the letter bears no logo of ORG , no signature of an authorised person , and no stamp indicating that it has ever been submitted to ORG ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140773","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SANDU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the time of the events the applicant was the manager of a ORG - owned veterinary clinic .","According to the official version of events , on DATE a person ( C. ) came to the applicant \u2019s office at TIME and expressed his wish to have his dog vaccinated and to obtain a document required for travelling abroad with that dog . The applicant then told him that the process could last DATE , but could be sped up . In exchange for CARDINAL NORP lei ( ORG , CARDINAL ( ORG ) at the time ) , the applicant said that he would issue C. with the relevant document without seeing the dog , knowing that it had not been vaccinated .","NORP Immediately after that , C. went to R\u00ee\u015fcani police station in PERSON and asked for help in catching the applicant in the act of receiving the bribe . In his report to the police made at that time , PERSON noted that he had asked for vaccination documents for his DATE dog called \u201c GPE \u201d , which was a variety of terrier .","NORP In response to C. \u2019s report , a number of procedural acts were carried out that same morning :","( i ) ORG , an officer at R\u00ee\u015fcani police station , issued an order to initiate a criminal investigation , which was countersigned by a prosecutor on DATE at TIME ;","( ii ) a prosecutor from the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office issued an order giving subject - matter jurisdiction over the investigation of the case to NORP police station , while noting that jurisdiction to handle such cases normally lay with FAC . ;","( iii ) ORG issued an order giving territorial jurisdiction to R\u00ee\u015fcani police station ;","( iv ) ORG issued a search warrant for the applicant \u2019s office ( countersigned by ORG investigating judge on DATE ) ;","( v ) ORG issued a second order to trace the source of the money paid as a bribe ;","( vi ) a third order was issued by ORG , pursuant to which the money to be given as a bribe was to be marked with a special substance ; and","( vii ) MDL CARDINAL in CARDINAL banknotes of MDL CARDINAL each was marked by ORG in the presence of C. and a specialist at TIME and a record of this was drawn up .","At TIME on DATE C. entered the applicant \u2019s office and told him that he only had MDL CARDINAL . The applicant took the money , stamped and made the relevant notes in the dog \u2019s passport . At TIME officers from R\u00ee\u015fcani police station entered the applicant \u2019s office and discovered MDL CARDINAL in his pocket . The money was subsequently confirmed as bearing the specific mark made earlier for the purpose of proving the act of bribe taking .","On DATE the applicant was released against an undertaking not to leave the city .","NORP In the record of an interrogation made on DATE , it is recorded that the applicant declared that there were individuals who , for a long time , had wanted to frame him due to his past conflicts with them . He also mentioned a criminal complaint concerning an assassination attempt that took place on DATE which had not been examined and which meant , in the applicant \u2019s opinion , that someone had a motive for making a false accusation against him .","On DATE ORG transferred the case to ORG in PERSON for examination , as the latter court had territorial jurisdiction over the matter .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked the court to exclude all the evidence obtained as a result of the procedural acts of DATE , on the basis that it had been obtained in violation of territorial and subject - matter jurisdiction . The court twice postponed the hearing in order for the prosecution to submit evidence in this respect .","On DATE the prosecution submitted ORG order of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) giving territorial jurisdiction to R\u00ee\u015fcani police station . The order had not been included in the file before that date . The applicant \u2019s lawyer objected to the inclusion of that document in the file , stating that its existence had never previously been mentioned and that he had serious reasons for considering that it was backdated . According to the prosecution , the order had been mistakenly annexed to another file and had been discovered shortly before submitting it to the court . According to the Government , the applicant \u2019s lawyer did not raise an objection during the hearing of DATE , but only did so in his final submissions to the court at a hearing on DATE .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of soliciting and accepting a bribe . The court referred to such evidence as C. \u2019s initial police report and subsequent statements , those of the officers at R\u00ee\u015fcani police station , and to the findings of the search at the applicant \u2019s office on DATE , during which MDL CARDINAL had been found in his pocket . The applicant was ordered to pay a criminal fine of MDL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and was prohibited from working as a veterinary surgeon for DATE .","In respect of the allegation made by the applicant and his lawyer that the entire event had been the result of police entrapment , the court found as follows :","\u201c The submission that the charges of bribe taking brought against [ the applicant ] were based on police entrapment is unsubstantiated , because [ C. ] declared under oath both during the criminal investigation and before the court that [ the applicant ] had solicited money from him in order to speed up his dog \u2019s vaccination . Moreover , upon his arrest the accused took the money out of his pocket , which proves his intentional actions and [ shows that it was ] not entrapment \u201d .","The applicant appealed . He noted the various procedural shortcomings concerning the timing of the issuance of the orders on DATE and claimed that the investigative actions had taken place before the initiation of the investigation itself . He further submitted that it was strange that C. had gone to R\u00ee\u015fcani police station and not to the police station situated in the LOC district , which had territorial jurisdiction to deal with the alleged offence . Nor had he gone to the police station in the district where he lived . Furthermore , according to the documents in the file , the police had given money to C. for him to bribe the applicant with , yet of the MDL CARDINAL given to C. only MDL CARDINAL had been passed on to the applicant , the remainder having disappeared . The applicant submitted that C. had been \u201c artificially involved in the operation of handing money to me , which constitutes incitement to bribe taking \u201d .","The applicant further claimed that ORG had never had a dog and had therefore had no need to have a dog vaccinated for travel abroad . He referred to the inconsistency between C. \u2019s description of his dog ( stating initially that it was a type of terrier , but later that it was a type of pitbull , while the pet passport submitted to the court was for an LANGUAGE cocker spaniel dog , which , in addition , belonged to another person , PERSON ) . Moreover , according to the documents submitted to the court the dog had been born on DATE and thus could not have been DATE on DATE , as stated by C. Furthermore , C. had refused to say whom he had wanted to visit abroad , even though he had previously stated that he had intended to visit friends , taking his dog with him .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . In respect of the applicant \u2019s argument of entrapment , the court repeated the reasoning of the lower court word for word .","The applicant appealed on points of law , essentially repeating his arguments made before the lower courts .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower NORP judgments . In respect of the applicant \u2019s argument of entrapment , the court repeated the reasoning of the lower courts word for word ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184066","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KIPS DOO AND DREKALOVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The first applicant was founded in DATE and has its seat in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant is the first applicant \u2019s founder , executive director , and the owner of PERCENT of its shares . PERCENT is owned by the second applicant \u2019s wife and son .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the first applicant concluded CARDINAL contracts with ORG ( PERSON fond za gra\u0111evinsko zemlji\u0161te , poslovni prostor i puteve PERSON ) . Under the first contract the first applicant obtained the right to use ( pravo kori\u0161\u0107enja ) CARDINAL plots of development land ( gra\u0111evinsko zemlji\u0161te ) with a total surface of QUANTITY , on which it planned to build a shopping centre and an office building . The second contract concerned the communal charges for the necessary infrastructure on the land at issue ( naknada za ure\u0111enje gra\u0111evinskog zemlji\u0161ta ) . On an unspecified date thereafter the CARDINAL plots of land were joined into CARDINAL , marked as no . CARDINAL . Pursuant to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the first applicant became the owner of the land at issue on DATE .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) issued a decision by which it divided the cadastral plot of land no . CARDINAL into CARDINAL , CARDINAL of which kept the number CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and had QUANTITY , and another one which was registered as no . ORG and which had QUANTITY .","On DATE the cadastral plot of land no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was further split into CARDINAL , the smaller part of QUANTITY becoming a cadastral plot of land no . CARDINAL . The bigger part kept the number CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and measured QUANTITY .","On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant \u2019s plan for the shopping centre and the office building was registered in DATE ( NORP urbanisti\u010dki plan , \u201c DUP \u201d ) .","In DATE the DUP for the relevant area was changed , one of the changes being that the cadastral plot of land no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and an adjacent plot of land of QUANTITY , owned by the Municipality , were joined into CARDINAL urban plot ( urbanisti\u010dka parcela ) .","On DATE the President of the GPE decided to change the relevant DUP further , which decision entered into force on DATE . Construction in the area was prohibited thereby for DATE except in case of those investors who had already obtained a building permit prior to this decision .","On DATE another decision was issued , providing that the DUP would be changed within DATE and construction was further prohibited until the adoption of a new DUP but DATE at most . The ban did not apply to the investors who had already obtained a building permit . This decision entered into force on DATE .","On DATE a new decision to change the DUP was issued , revoking the previous CARDINAL decisions . As regards its contents it corresponded to the decision of DATE . It entered into force on DATE .","On DATE a new DUP was issued ; it entered into force on DATE . Thereby the adjacent plot of land that had previously been added to plot no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was apparently split into CARDINAL : CARDINAL parts became parts of CARDINAL newly - formed urban plots of land and the third part remained attached to the applicant \u2019s land and would appear to be part of a traffic route ( saobra\u0107ajnica ) . It would also appear that in this urban plot of land the DUP planned the construction of CARDINAL buildings instead of the shopping centre planned by the first applicant .","On DATE a new decision to change the DUP was issued .","On DATE the DUP was changed again , apparently providing for the construction of buildings similar to those initially planned to be built there by the applicants .","Following the changes of the DUP in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the first applicant contacted ORG ( Direkcija za imovinu ; \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in LOC . It sought to \u201c complete \u201d the urban plot , that is to buy the adjacent cadastral plot of land which had been added to its own land , thus forming CARDINAL urban plot of land ; having received no reply it renewed its request on CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE issued ORG , which stated that the cadastral plot of land no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was smaller than the relevant urban plot and that it needed to be \u201c completed \u201d ( potrebno je izvr\u0161iti njeno dokompletiranje ) .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) granted the first applicant a location for the construction of business LOC on plot no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , in accordance with the DATE DUP . The decision specified that LAW DATE were a constituent part of this decision .","On DATE the first applicant appealed , having received no reply from the FAC . DATE the ORG informed the first applicant that no completion of plots could be done given that the revision of the DUP was ongoing at the time , which meant \u201c urbanistic reconsideration of the area \u201d at issue .","By DATE there had been CARDINAL remittals , either by the GPE \u2019s Chief Administrator ( as the competent second - instance body ) or ORG .","In the course of these proceedings , on DATE the ORG enquired at ORG if the same urban plot of land , as it had existed at the time when the first applicant had first filed a request for completion , could be formed again . On DATE ORG replied that the size of the said plot of land had been changed in the meantime and that there was no basis for re - forming the urban plot as it once had been .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s request again . On DATE the Chief Administrator upheld this decision , considering that due to the changes of the planning documents the completion of the said plot of land could not be done and that therefore the first applicant \u2019s request had been correctly dismissed . On DATE the first applicant instituted an administrative dispute before ORG , which would appear to be still pending .","On DATE the first applicant requested ORG ( PERSON izgradnju i ORG ; \u201c the Agency \u201d ) , a legal successor of ORG , to calculate the final communal charges for the urban plot no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the ORG replied that the calculation could not be made due to the construction ban .","On DATE and DATE the first applicant urged the ORG to make the necessary calculation , submitting that the ban applied only to construction and not to the calculation of charges .","On DATE the first applicant made its own assessment of the communal charges in the amount of ORG euros ( ORG ) and made the payment . The payment was returned DATE as it had been made \u201c without cause \u201d ( upla\u0107en bez osnova ) .","In the course of the proceedings the applicant repeated its request to the ORG on several occasions , including DATE , submitting that the construction ban as the basis for refusal was unlawful and\/or the ban was not in force at the relevant time .","By DATE the applicant \u2019s request had been refused by the ORG CARDINAL times on the grounds that construction was banned pursuant to either the decision to change the DUP of DATE or the decision of DATE . The ORG also held that the calculation could not be done as the first applicant had no building permit .","On DATE the second - instance body rejected the first applicant \u2019s appeal on the grounds that this was not a matter for administrative proceedings . The first applicant initiated an administrative dispute before ORG in this regard but in view of the opinion of the second - instance body it withdrew that claim , and instead pursued the proceedings before ORG .","On DATE the first applicant instituted proceedings before ORG ( GPE sud ) in GPE against the ORG for refusing to calculate the communal charges .","On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered the ORG to calculate the charges . The court considered in particular that the first decision to change the DUP , which prohibited construction , had entered into force on DATE and expired on DATE , while the next decision had entered into force on DATE . Therefore , there had been no construction ban before DATE or CARDINAL and DATE , when the first applicant requested the communal charges to be calculated and when the ORG was bound to calculate them . The court also noted that the ORG \u2019s reasoning for refusing the first applicant \u2019s request , notably that \u201c the calculation [ could ] not be done as the first applicant had no building permit \u201d was illogical , since the calculation of charges was a pre - condition for getting a building permit .","ORG and ORG upheld the previous decision on DATE and DATE respectively . ORG held , inter alia , that the first applicant had been granted the location for construction by the competent Ministry before it was decided that the DUP would be changed and that a decision to change the DUP could not affect the investors who had already been granted a location .","On DATE the ORG calculated the charges . It provided for a new contract to be concluded with the first applicant , which specified that pursuant to the DATE contract the applicant had already paid a certain amount and that the remaining amount to be paid was ORG CARDINAL .","On DATE , upon the first applicant \u2019s request , ORG issued an enforcement order , which provided that the ORG would calculate the charges within DATE or it would face a penalty of LAW , and would have to calculate the charges within DATE .","On DATE the first applicant received the above calculation from the ORG . On DATE it requested that the contract specify in accordance with which DUP the construction would be undertaken .","On DATE the ORG replied that the first applicant \u2019s request was outside the ORG \u2019s competence and that the first applicant should address bodies in charge of urban planning in that respect . On DATE the Agency notified ORG that it had complied with its judgment and the enforcement order .","On DATE the first applicant informed ORG that it did not consider the relevant judgment enforced as it had \u201c serious objections \u201d to the documents submitted by the ORG due to which it had not signed them .","On DATE the ORG informed ORG that the first applicant had no objections in respect of the calculation itself , and noted that no statute provided for an obligation or a possibility for the first applicant to sign the calculation .","On DATE the first applicant requested a building permit for the shopping centre from the Ministry .","On DATE the first applicant notified the Ministry that the ORG was refusing to calculate the charges and asked the ORG to urge that the ORG do so . On DATE the Ministry responded that it had no competence as regards matters relating to the calculation of the charges .","On DATE the first applicant informed the Ministry that it had done the calculation itself and had made the payment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the Ministry dismissed the first applicant \u2019s request on the grounds that it had not paid the communal charges or completed the urban plot pursuant to LAW .","On DATE the first applicant instituted an administrative dispute before ORG . It submitted , inter alia , that the requirement to buy an adjacent plot of land had been introduced in addition and was unnecessary given that the shopping centre was planned entirely on the cadastral plot of land no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . It also maintained that the refusal to calculate the charges was groundless as the ban related to construction only and not to the calculation of the charges , and that it was a deliberate obstruction .","On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s claim on the grounds that there was no contract between the first applicant and the ORG concerning the communal charges , that the first applicant had failed to submit all the evidence required by the relevant statutory provision in order to obtain a building permit , and it had failed to obtain an adjacent plot of land as required by LAW . The court did not deal with the first applicant \u2019s explicit submission that the said requirements were unlawful and\/or unnecessary .","On an unspecified date thereafter the first applicant lodged a request for judicial review before ORG , maintaining that there was a contract between itself and the Agency concluded in DATE . It also submitted that the courts had blamed the first applicant for not paying the charges and completing the plot , even though it had done everything it could to comply with these requests , and had actually complained about the unlawfulness of the relevant State bodies\u2019 refusal to cooperate in these matters .","On DATE ORG upheld the previous decision , considering that the first applicant had indeed failed to submit proof that it had paid the communal charges and completed the urban plot as requested .","On DATE , following the change of the DUP in DATE , the first applicant requested a building permit for \u201c central activities building \u201d ( za izgradnju objekta centralnih djelatnosti ) . On DATE , after CARDINAL remittals , the proceedings were still pending .","DATE and DATE the first applicant filed CARDINAL motions with ORG for the assessment of the constitutionality and legality of the decisions to change the DUP issued on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings ( obustavlja se postupak ) upon the first motion as the impugned decision of DATE was no longer in force .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG rejected the other CARDINAL motions .","The DUP in the area at issue was subject to changes in DATE ( the changes in DATE were done pursuant to the first applicant \u2019s request to that effect ) , DATE ( entered into force in DATE ) , DATE ( entered into force in DATE ) , DATE , DATE and DATE . The purpose of the land also changed over time , from \u201c sports and recreation \u201d to \u201c central activities \u201d ( centralne djelatnosti ) .","DATE and DATE the first applicant obtained a number of permits related to the planned construction of the shopping centre ( electro - energetic , water supply , sanitation , geo - mechanic , urbanistic , as well as those related to fire safety , environmental protection , workplace safety , traffic , etc . ) .","DATE there were CARDINAL other requests relating to the land in respect of which the DUP was changed ( CARDINAL of which were also for completion of relevant plots of land ) . In all CARDINAL cases the claimants were informed that their requests could not be met in view of the changes which the DUP was undergoing .","On DATE the Ministry sent a letter to the mayors of all GPE . The letter stated , in substance , that \u201c certain local government units \u201d interpreted section CARDINAL of ORG o planiranju i ure\u0111enju prostora ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which provided for a possibility of a construction ban where appropriate , in a way that was incompatible with its contents , essence and meaning . The Ministry further explained that a decision on \u2018 a construction ban\u2019 related exclusively to a ban on issuing a decision granting a location , as a document on the basis of which a building permit was issued , and that in a case where the decision on location had been issued prior to the construction ban , the competent body had a duty to issue a building permit to an investor , provided that the conditions provided in section CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o izgradnji objekata ) were fulfilled , regardless of whether the construction ban in the relevant area was in force .","DATE and DATE the first applicant was granted a location and was issued urban planning conditions for the construction of a warehouse in another part of GPE . It also obtained other relevant consents ( concerning water supply , electricity , fire protection , traffic , ecology , sanitation , etc . ) and the ORG \u2019s urbanistic consent to technical documentation . On DATE it concluded a contract with the Agency concerning the charges , and on DATE it obtained a building permit for that location . By DATE it had built the warehouse and obtained a permit to use it ( upotrebna dozvola ) .","On DATE , following the first applicant \u2019s proposal to that effect , a meeting was held between the representatives of the first applicant and the ORG . The ORG undertook to study the first applicant \u2019s submissions in relation to the urban plot of land no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , including the one that it had not been allowed to honour all the obligations . It would appear , however , that the first applicant never received any response from the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147326","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VINTMAN v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in FAC no . CARDINAL in the GPE region .","In DATE the applicant was detained on suspicion of several counts of robbery and a murder . He claimed that he had been beaten by the police .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , sitting as a court of first instance , found the applicant guilty as charged . It sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder and considered that the prison terms for the other crimes were absorbed by the life sentence . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegation of ill - treatment as unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .","On DATE ORG reviewed the applicant \u2019s case under an extraordinary procedure and commuted his sentence to DATE imprisonment . It reasoned that life imprisonment had not been listed as a possible penalty in LAW on DATE when the murder for which the applicant had been sentenced had been committed .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC no . CARDINAL , which had a section for life prisoners , to serve his sentence . That prison is located QUANTITY from GPE , where the applicant had been living before his detention and where his mother lived . The train journey from GPE to PERSON takes from TIME .","On numerous occasions the applicant and his mother , PERSON , who acted on his behalf as his representative under a power of attorney , asked ORG of GPE for ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to transfer the applicant to a prison closer to his home to make it easier for her to visit him . They drew attention , in particular , to the long travel time from GPE to GPE by public transport , which was very burdensome for PERSON given her advanced age ( born in DATE ) and poor health ( she had been officially certified \u201c second - degree \u201d ( medium ) disabled ) .","On DATE and DATE ORG replied to the applicant \u2019s mother that her request had been rejected , since \u201c in accordance with the legislation in force , convicted prisoners must serve their entire sentence in the same prison \u201d .","On DATE PERSON arrived at FAC to visit the applicant . During the visit she fainted and was provided with medical assistance for low blood pressure . Her meeting with the applicant was not resumed once she had recovered , on the recommendation of a medical professional .","On many subsequent occasions PERSON continued to contact various authorities on her own and the applicant \u2019s behalf , requesting his transfer to a prison closer to his home to enable her to visit him . She always enclosed with her requests the medical certificate confirming her disability and her doctor \u2019s advice not to travel outside the GPE region .","All PERSON requests were rejected . On numerous occasions ( on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , and on DATE , DATE and DATE ) ORG repeated its previous reasoning , referring to the legal requirement that prisoners must serve their entire prison term in the same establishment .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s mother that her request could not be granted because no places were available for life prisoners in establishments closer to GPE .","On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant \u2019s mother again , informing her that the applicant was supposed to serve his entire sentence in the same prison and that , in any event , there were no places available in prisons closer to his home .","On DATE ORG further notified the applicant that , in accordance with unspecified regulations , persons convicted of aggravated murder were usually detained in prisons located outside the region in which the crime had been committed .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG reiterated , in reply to the repeated requests of the applicant \u2019s mother for his transfer , that \u201c under the legislation in force , convicted prisoners must serve their entire sentence in the same prison \u201d .","On DATE , following a review of the applicant \u2019s sentence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG regional commission on prisoner distribution , allocation and transfers examined his case . It decided that he would be held in a maximum - security prison , in ordinary accommodation . Pursuant to that decision , on DATE he was transferred to FAC no . CARDINAL ( a maximum - security prison ) located in the GPE region , QUANTITY from GPE . The train journey from GPE to GPE takes from CARDINAL to TIME .","On an unspecified date PERSON ORG complained to ORG that that transfer was unfair , as FAC was even further away from the applicant \u2019s home address .","On DATE the administrative commission of PERSON examined the applicant \u2019s request that the level of security of his prison regime be reduced from high to medium security . It was noted that , under the LAW on ORG , a prisoner could be transferred from a high to a medium - security prison if he had already served CARDINAL of his sentence and if he had been manifesting good behaviour as an indication of his willingness to improve . However , the applicant had been disciplined CARDINAL times and was not therefore eligible for such a transfer . Accordingly , his request was rejected . It remained open for him to challenge that decision before the regional commission of ORG .","On DATE ORG regional commission on prisoner distribution , allocation and transfers rejected the applicant \u2019s request for transfer to a prison in the GPE region . As noted in TIME of its meeting , the applicant had been disciplined CARDINAL times .","On DATE ORG further informed PERSON that its appeal board had rejected the applicant \u2019s request for transfer to a medium - security prison in the GPE region , and that decision would be reviewed only if his conduct improved .","The applicant \u2019s mother then requested the applicant \u2019s transfer to a prison in the GPE or GPE region ( neighbouring the GPE region ) .","On DATE the ORG appeal board rejected her request . As noted in its meeting report , the applicant had been disciplined CARDINAL times and had received no incentives .","The applicant suffers from ingrowing eyelashes of the left eye , which have to be removed periodically . His mother made a general allegation , without providing any factual details , that he had been hit in his left eye following his arrival at FAC . No further information is available as to the duration and origin of the above - mentioned condition .","As regards the medical treatment for the ingrowing eyelashes , the applicant \u2019s submissions to the ORG were limited to his mother \u2019s general statement , which she had made on CARDINAL occasions , in DATE and DATE , that the responsibility for the condition lay with the authorities and that , although the ingrowing eyelashes were regularly removed , the applicant felt pain and discomfort in his left eye .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to the prosecutor \u2019s office that the applicant \u2019s eye problem was connected to his alleged beating by prison guards following his arrival at the prison in DATE .","On DATE and DATE ORG responded that there was no basis for launching a criminal inquiry into that complaint . In particular , the applicant had not requested a medical examination or assistance on account of any injuries inflicted on him . Furthermore , according to the testimony of other prisoners who had arrived at the prison together with the applicant , they had not experienced or witnessed any beatings . The prosecutor also noted that the applicant \u2019s condition was under constant medical supervision . In particular , he had his ingrowing eyelashes removed by a qualified ophthalmologist on a regular basis . No other health - related complaints had been recorded .","According to extracts from the applicant \u2019s medical file provided by the ORG , the applicant had had his ingrowing eyelashes removed on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , as well as on DATE and DATE . Furthermore , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE he had refused medical examinations and treatment .","The applicant and his mother , acting on his behalf , complained to the prosecution authorities and ORG about the routine monitoring of his correspondence by the prison administration .","NORP The prosecutor \u2019s response was that the applicant \u2019s correspondence was subject to monitoring under the legislation in force ; however , there had been no instances of withholding letters or seizing objects which the prisoners were allowed to keep .","On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant \u2019s mother , in reply to her complaint regarding , in particular , the interference with his correspondence , that on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the prison administration had \u201c withheld some letters written by [ the applicant ] , because their content did not comply with the requirements of ORG of Prisoners\u2019 Correspondence \u201d .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s mother that no correspondence had been withheld from the applicant and that since DATE he had sent CARDINAL letters and had received CARDINAL recommended letters and QUANTITY standard letters . There had been no complaints from the applicant himself regarding his correspondence .","On DATE the applicant made a written statement that he had no complaints against the prison administration .","On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant \u2019s mother informing her that the applicant had sent CARDINAL letters , had received CARDINAL letters , and that he had had CARDINAL paid telephone conversations .","On DATE the applicant made a written statement that he had no complaints concerning the work of the prison official in charge of the monitoring of ORG correspondence .","On DATE the applicant asked the prison administration to allow him to make a telephone call on DATE instead of a short - term private meeting to which he was entitled . According to a hand - written note on the request , apparently added by a prison official , the applicant \u2019s last private meeting had been on DATE .","On DATE the applicant asked the prison administration to allow him to make a telephone call on DATE . As noted on the request , he had last made a telephone call on CARDINAL DATE .","According to the official records , during the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the PERSON prison administration dispatched CARDINAL letters from the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175474","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF JOVOVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE a certain PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the first debtor \u201d ) and PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the second debtor \u201d ) were each sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for attempted murder of the applicant in DATE .","On an unspecified date , the applicant lodged a claim for damages with ORG ( PERSON ) in ORG .","On DATE the aforementioned court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtors to pay him , jointly , MONEY ( ORG ) plus statutory interest on account of the non - pecuniary damage suffered .","On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG in GPE a request for enforcement of the judgment dated DATE . Following an order , the applicant amended his request for enforcement on DATE . The enforcement order itself was then adopted on DATE .","On DATE the debtors objected to the enforcement order , but their objections were rejected .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the enforcement court ordered the debtors to disclose their immovable property . It appeared that no immovable assets had been registered in the ORG names .","On DATE the enforcement court requested information from ORG as to whether the debtors owned any motor vehicles . The record showed that the first debtor had had CARDINAL motor vehicles . However , on DATE , when a bailiff came to make an inventory , the vehicles had already been sold to a third person .","On DATE the enforcement court ordered an inventory of the NORP movable assets .","On DATE and DATE new inventories of the debtor \u2019s moveable assets were carried out . DATE and DATE the enforcement court dealt with the objections to the inventories raised by the debtors and third parties .","On DATE a decision to auction the NORP specified movable assets was issued , and the applicant was ordered to deposit ORG CARDINAL for the auction costs . The sale was scheduled for DATE . However , on DATE the second debtor informed the enforcement court that he had donated his movables to a charity . On DATE a new inventory of his moveable assets was carried out .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the bailiff .","On an unspecified date in DATE the second debtor offered to pay the applicant LAW , but the applicant rejected this offer . The second debtor subsequently made a new offer in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , but this offer was also rejected by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant informed the enforcement court that the second debtor had paid him ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and that he considered the enforcement proceedings in respect of this debtor as final .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings in respect of the second debtor were formally terminated .","As regards the first debtor , the enforcement proceedings continued .","In DATE the first debtor \u2019s specified movable assets were estimated at ORG and the enforcement court invited the applicant to take possession of them on DATE . The applicant failed to do so . He was again invited to take possession of the assets in DATE and , once more , in DATE . However , the applicant again declined to do so on both occasions .","On DATE the first debtor \u2019s father informed the enforcement court that he would pay his son \u2019s debt .","In DATE the applicant was once again invited to take possession of the movable assets belonging to the first debtor . This time , the applicant explicitly rejected the court \u2019s offer stating that he did not need those \u201c worthless \u201d assets and that they could have instead been given to a charity .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant notified the enforcement court that he had entered into an agreement with the first debtor and that the first debtor would honor the judgement debt in instalments . However , it appears from the applicant \u2019s later submissions to this ORG that the first debtor had in fact not paid him anything since he did not have any \u201c valuable assets \u201d .","DATE the applicant availed himself of CARDINAL domestic remedies concerning the length of proceedings , in particular CARDINAL requests for review of the duration of the proceedings , in order to have them expedited ( kontrolni zahtjev ) and CARDINAL actions for fair redress , aimed at obtaining compensation for the excessive duration of the proceedings ( tu\u017eba za pravi\u010dno zadovoljenje ) . ORG Instance rejected the applicant \u2019s requests for review on DATE and DATE , respectively . The applicant unsuccessfully appealed to ORG , which upheld ORG decisions . ORG in GPE also ruled against the applicant \u2019s actions for fair redress on CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145466","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF S.A.S. v. FRANCE","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 34 - Actio popularis);Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);No violation of Article 14+9 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In the applicant \u2019s submission , she is a devout NORP and she wears the burqa and niqab in accordance with her religious faith , culture and personal convictions . According to her explanation , the burqa is a full - body covering including a mesh over the face , and the niqab is a full - face veil leaving an opening only for the eyes . The applicant emphasised that neither her husband nor any other member of her family put pressure on her to dress in this manner .","NORP The applicant added that she wore the niqab in public and in private , but not systematically : she might not wear it , for example , when she visited the doctor , when meeting friends in a public place , or when she wanted to socialise in public . She was thus content not to wear the niqab in public places at all times but wished to be able to wear it when she chose to do so , depending in particular on her spiritual feelings . There were certain times ( for example , during religious events such as Ramadan ) when she believed that she ought to wear it in public in order to express her religious , personal and cultural faith . Her aim was not to annoy others but to feel at inner peace with herself .","The applicant did not claim that she should be able to keep the niqab on when undergoing a security check , at the bank or in airports , and she agreed to show her face when requested to do so for necessary identity checks .","Since DATE , the date of entry into force of Law no . DATE of DATE throughout GPE , it has been prohibited for anyone to conceal their face in public places ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","8","9"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1","9-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-149016","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HANZELKOVI v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC [Extracts]","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON .","The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant . During her pregnancy she had regular check - ups with a doctor and attended ante - natal classes at ORG . Prior to giving birth she had expressed , among other things , her wish to leave the maternity ward as soon as possible provided that there were no complications .","On DATE the first applicant contacted a pediatrician , PERSON , who agreed to take charge of her future child and to come and see them both at their home as soon as they were discharged from the maternity ward . She informed the first applicant that she would , however , be away DATE . The applicant then told her that she intended to leave the hospital \u201c earlier \u201d , without enlarging on that statement . S. subsequently stated that it had not been her understanding that the applicant wanted to leave the hospital TIME after the birth .","The second applicant was born on DATE at ORG . It was a natural and spontaneous delivery with no complications . The applicants were found to have no health problems , the Apgar score for newborns ( recording the pulse rate , respiration , complexion , muscular activity and reflex irritability ) was the highest possible , according to the medical team \u2019s assessment . In these circumstances , the first applicant decided to leave the hospital DATE , which she did at TIME despite meeting opposition from the medical team .","According to a statement issued by the hospital on DATE following extensive media coverage of the case , the hospital staff had suggested that the applicants remain at the hospital for TIME and had warned the first applicant of the possible risks to the child \u2019s health , but the first applicant had indicated that a pediatrician would be taking charge of the child . After the applicants had left , the hospital staff informed the police , which was standard practice in situations where a patient left hospital prematurely without the doctor \u2019s consent and this could have repercussions on his or her health . The social welfare authority was not informed until after the pediatrician PERSON had contacted the hospital ( see below ) . The hospital found it regrettable that the first applicant had not expressed her wish to leave the hospital TIME after the birth during the ante - natal classes . Had she done so , the staff would have recommended that she obtain a personal care plan for the newborn baby and secure written agreement from the pediatrician ( who would thus have had proper advance notice ) , whereupon her decision would have been accepted . The first applicant had accepted , moreover , that the events in question might have arisen as a result of a misunderstanding regarding the care arrangements for her newborn baby .","According to the explanations given by the pediatrician PERSON , on DATE at TIME she had been informed by the nurse from her surgery , who had received a call from the first applicant , that the latter had given birth that very TIME and returned home . As it was an unusual situation , the pediatrician , who had been preparing to leave for DATE and could not visit the applicants until TIME , informed the staff at ORG accordingly . NORP , the hospital doctor , decided to contact the social welfare authority , namely , the ORG municipal office . In the meantime PERSON had informed the first applicant by telephone that she would be able to see her and her child until TIME , which the applicant had accepted . Shortly afterwards the pediatrician was contacted by a social worker . She told her about the situation and gave her the first applicant \u2019s telephone number .","According to the note sent by ORG to ORG ( hereafter \u201c the social welfare authority \u201d ) , on DATE the first applicant had left the hospital at TIME on DATE without informing the doctors ; she had not been living at the address she had given the hospital for DATE and the village where she was staying and her telephone number had been provided by the pediatrician contacted by the ORG authority . The social worker had succeeded in contacting the child \u2019s father on that number . Although he had been informed that an interim measure under Article PERSON of LAW might be applied , he had stated that the applicants would not return to the hospital and had refused to provide the family \u2019s exact address .","At the request of the social welfare authority , Dr NORP drew up a note observing that \u201c given the short period of time since the birth , the health and potentially the actual life of the child [ would ] be at risk if he [ were ] deprived of hospital care \u201d .","Also on CARDINAL DATE the social welfare authority requested ORG to apply an interim measure pursuant to Article PERSON of LAW , with a view to entrusting the second applicant to the care of the gynaecology - obstetrics department of ORG . The above - mentioned notes drawn up by ORG and Dr D. were annexed to the request .","On DATE the court granted the request , reiterating the terms of the note drawn up by Dr D. The decision stated that any interim measure was served on the parties at the time of execution , which had to be immediate .","At TIME on DATE a court bailiff and a social worker , accompanied by police officers , went to the applicants\u2019 house . Although they explained to the child \u2019s father that the first applicant could go to the hospital with the second applicant , he refused to take them to there of his own free will . An emergency medical team was therefore summoned . After examining the newborn baby , the doctor present observed that he had no health problems but agreed with the others that for the purposes of implementing the interim measure the mother and child would be taken back to the hospital in the ambulance . The father , police officers , social worker and court bailiff followed the ambulance . Once at the hospital , the second applicant was examined again and found not to have any health problems .","The applicants were made to remain at the hospital for DATE and allege that no medical act was carried out during that time . According to the hospital report , the first applicant had refused neonatal screening and vaccination of the second applicant . At the express request of the first applicant , who accordingly signed the form refusing further medical treatment ( negativn\u00ed revers ) , the applicants were discharged from the hospital on DATE , TIME after the birth .","..."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177226","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF D.M.D. v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . His parents , ORG and GPE , separated in DATE and divorced in DATE , mainly because of GPE \u2019s abusive behaviour towards his wife and their son . The applicant remained with his mother . On DATE ORG called the hotline of ORG ( ORG \u015fi ORG ) to report the domestic abuse she and the applicant had been suffering at the hands of FAC Since then , the case has been monitored by the ORG . On DATE ORG certified that since DATE it had included the applicant in a psychological counselling programme .","ORG issued the following statement concerning the monitoring of the applicant \u2019s case ( on DATE for the purpose of court proceedings ) :","\u201c Mrs [ ORG ] kept contact with our institution , the case being monitored by ORG ( legal counselling concerning eviction from home ... ) as well as by the ORG concerning emergency relocation and ORG . \u201d","On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ORG lodged complaints with ORG about the alleged violence inflicted by her husband on the applicant . No action was taken on these complaints . On DATE ORG lodged a new complaint with the police concerning the alleged abuse . The police heard evidence from witnesses on behalf of the applicant and obtained information about the applicant \u2019s situation from the centre where he and his mother had been relocated . Based on the evidence gathered , the police sent the file to the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG ( \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) .","On DATE the prosecutor instituted a criminal investigation against GPE It heard evidence from ORG , GPE and CARDINAL witnesses and examined the expert reports concerning the applicant \u2019s and GPE \u2019s psychological evaluations . It concluded that the applicant had suffered trauma during his early childhood because of his father who had done everything he could to torment him and to make him suffer .","On DATE the prosecutor indicted GPE for abusive behaviour towards his son .","The GPE ORG heard evidence from a psychologist who had observed the applicant during therapy , from GPE and other witnesses , as well as from GPE , the last mentioned denying having hurt his son . ORG did not request damages on behalf of the applicant . In a decision of CARDINAL June DATE the court acquitted GPE on the grounds that his occasionally inappropriate behaviour towards the applicant had not been severe enough to constitute a crime . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE , but on DATE ORG quashed this latter decision and remitted the case to ORG , as it considered that the lower courts should have heard evidence from the applicant and relied on the psychological reports .","On DATE ORG held a private hearing and interviewed the applicant . He told the judges how GPE used to hit him , lock him in a small room without lights , throw water on him while he was sleeping and call him names . He stated that PERSON had often fought with his mother and that sometimes he had thrown the applicant \u2019s maternal grandmother and aunt \u2013 who were bringing food to the child \u2013 out of their apartment . The applicant told the court that he did not want to live with GPE or even meet him on the street . He was persuaded that GPE would want to hurt him . He stated that he wished that GPE would be punished for what he had done to him .","In a decision rendered on DATE ORG convicted PERSON ill - treatment inflicted on a minor and sentenced him to a suspended penalty of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . It considered that the evidence in the prosecution file , in particular the psychological reports and the testimony given by a psychologist , confirmed that the child had suffered trauma as a consequence of his father \u2019s abusive behaviour .","The court also noted that ORG had not requested damages on behalf of the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Based on LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court , on its own initiative , awarded the applicant CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","Upon an appeal on points of law lodged by GPE , on DATE ORG remitted the case to ORG and ordered that court to obtain an expert examination of the applicant by ORG .","On DATE ORG rendered a new decision . Based on the evidence before it , notably the expert evaluations , psychologist \u2019s testimony , witness statements , as well as the GPE and the applicant \u2019s statements , ORG considered it established that GPE had physically and verbally abused his child from DATE to DATE . It stated :","\u201c ORG notes that the acts perpetrated by [ GPE ] can not be considered as isolated and random acts of physical punishment which parents can administer to their minor children , but became more severe and caused childhood attachment troubles . \u201d","D.D. was convicted of ill - treatment inflicted on a minor . He was given a suspended sentence of DATE imprisonment ; in addition , his right to be elected and his parental rights were suspended during the sentence and for DATE .","When sentencing PERSON , the court took into account the undue length of the criminal proceedings and that there had been significant periods of inactivity by the authorities involved , in particular by the investigators and ORG .","No award of damages was made . The court did not give any explanation in its judgment as to why it decided not to award compensation to the applicant .","All parties appealed on points of law . Relying on LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant and the prosecutor complained notably about the fact that ORG had not awarded damages .","ORG examined the parties\u2019 submissions in the light of the evidence before it . It reaffirmed that D.D. had physically and verbally abused his child ; his sentence was recalculated based on the same criteria , including the reduction as a remedy for the length of the trial . The court accordingly increased the sentence to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment and suspended it . The additional penalty of restricting GPE \u2019s right to be elected and his parental rights was maintained .","The court further considered that in so far as both the prosecutor and the applicant had limited their initial appeals to solely the criminal aspects of ORG decision of DATE , ORG had been right in not awarding damages on its own initiative . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c In so far as the prosecutor \u2019s office and the injured party argued that the [ ORG ] should have examined the award of damages on its own initiative because the injured party was a minor , it is to be observed from the content of the decision under review that both the prosecutor \u2019s office and the injured party had expressly limited their appeals to the criminal aspects of the case .","In this situation , the [ ORG ] was right in limiting its examination strictly to the issues brought before it . \u201d","ORG rendered its final decision on DATE and rectified the text of the operative part on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160429","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF HUSEYNLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second and third applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC .","At the material time the applicants were members of the main opposition parties or groups in the country : ORG of Azerbaijan ( \u201c the PFPA \u201d ) , ORG and PERSON , respectively . The first applicant was a member of ORG . The first and third applicants were candidates in the parliamentary elections of DATE . The first applicant was also a candidate in the parliamentary elections of DATE .","DATE was marked by an increased number of opposition demonstrations in GPE , mainly in GPE . They were held , inter alia , on DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . According to the applicants , the relevant authorities were notified about the demonstrations but refused to authorise them . Despite their peaceful character , demonstrations held without authorisation were dispersed by the police .","All CARDINAL applicants participated in a number of opposition demonstrations . In the course of many of them they were arrested and convicted . In particular , on CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was arrested and convicted of breaching the rules on the organisation and holding of assemblies and failure to obey a lawful order of a police officer . The third applicant was arrested during the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE and reprimanded for breaching the rules on the organisation and holding of public assemblies .","According to the applicants , they had intended to attend the demonstration scheduled for DATE . In addition , the first applicant was involved in the organisation of that demonstration .","Prior notice of the demonstration of DATE had been given to the relevant authority , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , on DATE . On DATE the ORG refused to allow the demonstration to be held at the place indicated by the organisers , and proposed that it be held at another place on the outskirts of GPE . Nevertheless , the organisers decided to hold the demonstration in central LOC , and information about it was disseminated via ORG and the press .","The first applicant alleged that TIME on DATE , after he had taken his child to kindergarten , police officers had stopped his car and requested that he follow them to a police station . He did not oppose the police ORG demand and was taken to police station no . CARDINAL of ORG . At an unspecified time the applicant was informed that he was being detained in connection with the upcoming demonstration of DATE . At TIME he learned that he would not be released from detention . The applicant was then questioned . He was asked , inter alia , about his intention to participate in the demonstration of DATE and generally about the politics in the country .","According to the official records , the applicant was arrested for disobeying a lawful order of a police officer . In particular , police officers ORG and ORG stated the following in a report ( raport ) submitted to a superior police officer :","\u201c ... at TIME on DATE on CARDINALrd Alatava street [ in GPE ] we stopped a [ person ] who was driving by in his car and requested his identity document because he bore a resemblance to a person who was on a wanted list . But he ignored our lawful demand to produce his identity document . We brought [ him ] to the police station . There we found out that [ he ] was [ the applicant ] ... \u201d","At TIME of the arrest , an \u201c administrative - offence report \u201d ( inzibati x\u0259ta haqq\u0131nda protokol ) was issued by police officer PERSON in respect of the applicant . The report stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( failure to comply with a lawful order of a police officer ) of LAW ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) .","The applicant signed the part of the administrative - offence report acknowledging that he had been familiarised with the report , but left without signature the part with a pre - printed text which stated that \u201c the rights and obligations under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG were explained \u201d . He made a statement that he had not disobeyed any order given by the police . This statement was included in the report .","According to the applicant , he was never provided with a copy of the administrative - offence report or with other documents in his case file . He was not given access to a lawyer after his arrest or while in police custody .","The applicant was brought before ORG on DATE of his arrest .","According to the applicant , the hearing , which began at TIME , was very brief . He refused the assistance of a ORG - funded lawyer and insisted on hiring a lawyer of his own choice , but the judge disregarded his request . His representation by that lawyer was ineffective and of a formalistic nature .","The applicant stated before the court that he had been stopped by the police and had been requested to follow them to a police station , that he had complied with that request , and that he was not guilty of disobeying a police officer .","The only witnesses questioned during the court hearing were police officers ORG officer ORG testified that he had prepared the administrative - offence report in respect of the applicant . Police officers ORG gave testimonies virtually identical to the above - mentioned report they had submitted to a superior police officer .","According to the record of the hearing , the ORG - funded lawyer stated that the applicant was not guilty and asked the court to terminate the administrative proceedings against him .","NORP The court found that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 \u201c administrative \u201d detention .","The applicant lodged an appeal before ORG , presenting his version of the facts surrounding the arrest , and arguing that he had been arrested in connection with the demonstration scheduled for DATE . He also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first - instance court had not been fair . He urged ORG to quash the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","It appears that the applicant was not represented by a lawyer before ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court , stating that its findings had been correct .","The second applicant alleged that at TIME , when he was still in bed , QUANTITY police officers had entered his apartment without an arrest warrant . The applicant \u2019s father had let the police officers in . The police officers took the applicant to police station no . QUANTITY of ORG . At an unspecified time the applicant was questioned about his political activities .","According to the official records , the applicant was arrested for minor hooliganism and for disobeying a lawful order of a police officer . In particular , police officer PERSON stated the following in a report submitted to a superior police officer :","\u201c ... at TIME on DATE on the territory of the CARDINALth micro - district of ORG , I noticed a person who was making noise ... But although I invited him to respect the discipline , he continued his cursing and improper behaviour ... Therefore I brought him to police station no . CARDINAL . There we found out that that [ person ] was [ the applicant ] ... \u201d","On DATE of the arrest , an administrative - offence report was issued by police officer ORG in respect of the applicant . The report stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( minor hooliganism ) and CARDINAL of the ORG .","The applicant refused to sign the report .","According to the applicant , he was never provided with a copy of the administrative - offence report or with other documents in his case file . He was not given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while he was kept in police custody .","According to a statement ( \u0259riz\u0259 ) allegedly signed by the applicant and submitted to ORG , the applicant had refused legal assistance while in police custody . According to the transcript of the hearing before ORG , the applicant claimed that he had not signed that statement .","The applicant was brought before ORG on DATE of his arrest .","According to the applicant , the hearing , which began at TIME , was very brief and he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice .","According to the transcript of the first - instance court hearing , the applicant refused the assistance of a ORG - funded lawyer and decided to defend himself in person .","The applicant stated before the court that he had been taken to a police station from his apartment , that it had been his father who had let the police officers in , that at the police station he had been questioned about his political activity , and that he was not guilty of disobeying a police officer or of swearing at the location indicated by the police . According to the transcript of ORG hearing , the applicant orally requested that the chief of police station no . CARDINAL , ORG , be questioned . However , there is no information whether ORG was questioned .","The only witness questioned during the court hearing was police officer T.R. He testified that the applicant had been swearing without addressing any particular person and had failed to obey his order to stop his illegal behaviour .","The court found that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 \u201c administrative \u201d detention .","The applicant lodged an appeal before ORG , presenting his version of the facts surrounding the arrest , and arguing that his arrest had been unlawful , that the hearing before the first - instance court had not been fair and that his right to respect for home had been violated by the police . He urged ORG to quash the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","It appears that the applicant refused legal assistance at the hearing before ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court , stating that its findings had been correct .","According to the third applicant , at TIME on DATE he went with his lawyer to ORG . After a conversation with the chief of police , they left . The applicant , who did not clearly explain the purpose of that visit , alleged that when he had been outside the police office and no longer accompanied by his lawyer , police officers had arrested him without explaining the reasons for doing so , and had taken him to police station no . CARDINAL of ORG .","According to the official records , the applicant was arrested for \u201c minor hooliganism \u201d . In a report submitted to a superior police officer , police officer GPE stated the following :","\u201c ... at TIME on DATE on ORG street [ in ORG ] [ we , the police officers , ] noticed a person who was swearing loudly without addressing anyone in particular ... We approached him and ... brought him to police station no . CARDINAL . There we found out that that [ person ] was [ the applicant ] ... \u201d","Police officers GPE and TIME submitted explanatory reports ( izahat ) to a superior police officer . Those reports were virtually identical to the report submitted by police officer GPE","On DATE of the arrest police officer GPE issued an administrative - offence report in respect of the applicant . The report stated that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW .","The applicant refused to sign the administrative - offence report .","According to the applicant , he was never provided with a copy of the administrative - offence report or with other documents in his case file . He was not given access to a lawyer after his arrest or while he was kept in police custody .","According to a decision dated DATE , police officer GPE decided to invite a lawyer to represent the applicant , without indicating at what stage the lawyer should join the proceedings .","The applicant was brought before ORG on DATE of his arrest .","According to the applicant , he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice to represent him at the hearing , which began at TIME He asked the judge to postpone the examination of the case for TIME so that his lawyer could arrive at the court . However , the judge decided to adjourn the hearing for TIME and to recommence the hearing at TIME , which was not enough time for the applicant \u2019s lawyer to arrive .","According to the transcript of the court hearing , the applicant refused the assistance of a ORG - funded lawyer .","The applicant stated before the court that he was not guilty of breaching public order by swearing at the location indicated by the police , and that he believed that the motive for his arrest had been his participation in the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE .","The only witnesses questioned during the court hearing were police officers ORG , GPE and TIME They testified that the applicant had been swearing without addressing anyone in particular and that they had therefore taken him to a police station .","The court found that the applicant had committed an administrative offence under LAW of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 \u201c administrative \u201d detention .","The applicant lodged an appeal before ORG , presenting his version of the facts surrounding the arrest , and arguing that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first - instance court had not been fair . He urged ORG to quash the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","It appears that the applicant prepared his written appeal with the assistance of a lawyer of his own choice . However , he participated in the hearing before ORG without his lawyer .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court , stating that its findings had been correct ."],"violated_articles":["11","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-b","6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169523","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RAKUZOVS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .","On several occasions DATE the applicant was escorted to court hearings from various detention facilities where he was being held . During these transfers the applicant was subjected to strip - searches . According to the applicant , he was ordered to strip naked in the presence of other inmates and escorting officers , to assume embarrassing positions ( squatting ) , and to submit to a visual inspection of his body .","The strip - searches of the applicant were carried out on DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","The applicant lodged several applications with the administrative courts concerning the strip - searches . They were all joined in CARDINAL set of administrative proceedings ( no . ORG ) .","On DATE ORG ( Administrat\u012bv\u0101 rajona tiesa ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints and terminated the proceedings . It held that the strip - searches had been objectively justified on security grounds and the manner in which they had been conducted had not gone beyond what had been required to ensure the efficacy of those searches . Therefore these searches had not \u201c significantly interfere[d ] \u201d with the applicant \u2019s rights and had not constituted an \u201c action of a public authority \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG ( NORP apgabaltiesa ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the ruling of the lower court .","On DATE the ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas PERSON ) quashed the ruling of the appeal court and remitted the case to the first - instance court . The ORG of ORG found that the strip - searches had had a legitimate goal , namely ensuring public safety , and had not been carried out in an abusive manner . However , the lower courts had not sufficiently addressed the applicant \u2019s argument that he had been subjected to strip - searches in the presence of other persons .","On DATE and DATE hearings took place before the first - instance court . In order to clarify the facts CARDINAL witnesses \u2013 CARDINAL escorting officers and QUANTITY prisoners DATE were called .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints and terminated the proceedings .","As concerns the strip - searches carried out on DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , the court , on the basis of witness testimony , found that the applicant had been searched in the presence of CARDINAL inmate and CARDINAL additional escorting officer . However , taking into account that the applicant had not voiced any concerns in this regard during the first round of proceedings , the court concluded that \u201c the strip - searches ... had not humiliated the applicant in the eyes of others or in his [ own ] eyes \u201d . Accordingly , the court could not establish a \u201c significant violation \u201d of the human rights guaranteed under LAW .","As concerns the strip - searches carried out on DATE and DATE , the court found that the evidence did not support the applicant \u2019s allegation that he had been searched in the presence of other persons . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s further allegations ( the presence of female officers , being exposed to the court \u2019s staff and passers - by , unsanitary touching of his food ) as unsubstantiated .","On DATE the ORG of ORG , by a final decision , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the ruling of the lower court ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152711","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF HALDIMANN AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and live in GPE , GPE , PERSON and ORG respectively ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175487","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BALANDINA AND ANDREYKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised another complaint under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148655","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF D'ASTA v. ITALY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in GPE .","The applicants are the joint owners of a plot of land designated as agricultural land in GPE . The land in issue was recorded in the land register as PERSON no . CARDINAL , FAC no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the regional councillor for public works issued a decree authorising the Municipality to take possession , through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public - interest declaration , of a portion of the applicants\u2019 land in order to begin the construction of a road .","On DATE the authorities took physical possession of the land .","By a writ served on DATE , the applicants brought an action for damages against ORG before ORG . They alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation . They claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land and a further sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation .","On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land . In a report submitted on DATE the expert concluded that the occupied land covered a surface area of QUANTITY and confirmed that it could be classified as building land . He further concluded that the market value of the land on the date the occupation became unlawful , which he identified as having occurred on DATE , corresponded to MONEY ( ORG ) per square metre , for a total of EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","By a judgment delivered on DATE and filed with the court registry on DATE , ORG declared that the possession of the land , which had been initially authorised , had become unlawful as of DATE . It found that the land had been irreversibly transformed by the public works . As a result , in accordance with the constructive - expropriation rule ( occupazione acquisitiva or accessione invertita ) , the applicants had been deprived of their property , by virtue of its irreversible alteration , on the date on which the possession had ceased to be lawful . In the light of those considerations , the court concluded that the applicants were entitled to compensation in consideration for the loss of ownership caused by the unlawful occupation .","The court drew on the expert valuation to conclude that the land could be classified as agricultural land and that its market value on the date the occupation had become unlawful corresponded to ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL . However , in contrast with the expert \u2019s finding , the court reiterated that the occupation had become unlawful as of DATE .","Therefore , the court held that the applicants were entitled to compensation in the sum of ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL , to be adjusted for inflation , plus statutory interest .","The court further awarded the applicants ORG CARDINAL as compensation for the damage occasioned by the unavailability of the land during the period from the beginning of the lawful occupation ( DATE ) until the date of loss of ownership ( DATE ) .","The judgment became final in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157445","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"GIORGINI v. ITALY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and is under house arrest in LOC di Pietrasanta . She was represented before the ORG by Mr D. Ammannato , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of a number of criminal offences by ORG . Such offences included criminal association , aggravated fraud , and ill - treatment .","On an unspecified date she lodged an appeal with ORG .","On DATE ORG partly upheld and partly reversed ORG judgment . The conviction for the offence of criminal association was upheld .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG .","She states that on DATE the President of Second Criminal Section of ORG set the hearing for DATE .","On DATE ORG ( Unione Camere Penali italiane ) called a DATE strike , scheduled to run from DATE .","On DATE the applicant filed additional written submissions with the court .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel formally adhered to the strike and filed a notice to that effect with ORG , having obtained the applicant \u2019s consent in writing . For this reason , he was not present at the hearing of DATE .","It appears from the hearing record that the Prosecutor General requested that ORG refrain from adjourning the hearing on account of the counsel \u2019s absence . The court granted the prosecutor \u2019s request and the hearing was held as scheduled .","ORG In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE the ORG preliminary investigations judge ordered that the applicant be placed in pre - trial detention on suspicion that she had committed further offences . These included the offence of criminal association , of which the applicant was suspected of being the leader , promoter and organizer . The applicant was also suspected of having committed the offence of unauthorized practice of medicine . Specifically , she was suspected of providing medical advice and treatment , as well as prescribing drugs to adults and minors , and using her home as an unauthorized medical clinic . She was further suspected of fraud , aggravated by a number of factors including the exploitation of vulnerable ORG pain and suffering , and the generation of ill - founded fears from which she profited . The preliminary investigations judge emphasised that the applicant had been previously convicted of similar offences .","It appears from the material in the case file that pre - trial detention had been requested on a number of grounds , namely the strong evidence against her , the seriousness of the suspected offences , and the significant risk that she might reoffend .","The applicant states that she was transferred to the LOC correctional facility in GPE on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel lodged a request with the ORG preliminary investigations judge , seeking the replacement of the applicant \u2019s detention with a more lenient custodial measure , such as house arrest . He argued that both her advanced age and allegedly critical state of health were incompatible with detention in prison .","On an unspecified date the judge ordered that she be examined by an independent medical expert with a view to determining whether this was the case .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE the judge confirmed that the applicant would remain in custody , as the independent medical expert \u2019s report had stated that her state of health was compatible with detention .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG on CARDINAL main grounds . She contended that while under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the detention on remand of persons aged over seventy was only allowed if exceptional reasons warranting such a measure existed , in her case no such reasons could be detected . She further reiterated the argument that her advanced age and critical state of health were incompatible with detention in prison , contending that she suffered from life - threatening medical conditions she identified as cardiovascular disease , acute osteoporosis and diabetes . She also highlighted that she had undergone major surgical procedures in the past , including a gastrectomy , mastectomy , and hysterectomy , and suffered from anxiety disorder and glucose intolerance .","ORG , sitting as the authority with jurisdiction to decide on measures involving deprivation of liberty ( tribunale della libert\u00e0 e del riesame ) , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on DATE . It found that the exceptional grounds for her to be detained on remand , as listed in the preliminary investigation judge \u2019s order of CARDINAL DATE , still existed . It further pointed out that she had in the past been convicted of analogous offences and had , as soon as she had been released , resumed her criminal activity . As to the applicant \u2019s health , the court drew on the expert medical report requested by the preliminary investigations judge to conclude that there was no incompatibility between it and her detention in a correctional facility . Referring to extracts from the report , the court observed that there was no evidence of an imminent risk of congestive heart failure or other life - threatening conditions , contrary to her contentions . It went on to acknowledge the expert \u2019s finding that she had undergone several major surgical procedures in the past , but that these had allowed for the treatment of serious medical conditions , thus leading to an improvement in her clinical situation . Drawing on the report , it further concluded that the provision of special meals to meet her nutritional needs and the necessary drug therapy could be adequately taken care of in a correctional facility . It appears from the order that the court also examined medical reports submitted by the prosecutor and applicant \u2019s counsel and took the latter into account when reaching its conclusions .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG .","On DATE she was committed for trial and the first hearing before FAC was scheduled for DATE . She was formally charged with all the suspected offences including criminal association , the unlawful practice of medicine , and aggravated fraud ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG declared the appeal inadmissible .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel submitted a further request seeking the replacement of the applicant \u2019s detention with house arrest , reiterating the argument that both her advanced age and state of health were incompatible with detention in prison . He relied , inter alia , on a medical certificate issued by the prison doctor on DATE , in which her clinical condition was described as \u201c complex and multifaceted \u201d and \u201c difficult to manage \u201d in a regular correctional facility .","On an unspecified date ORG ordered a new medical examination with a view to assessing the compatibility of her state of health with detention .","On DATE it dismissed the request for house arrest , having regard to the persistent danger that the applicant might reoffend . However , the court ordered that she be transferred to a correctional hospital ( centro clinico penitenziario ) in GPE with a view to ensuring increased medical supervision and the provision of any necessary treatment , and preventing a further deterioration in her health . The court reached its conclusions by relying on a number of findings by the expert , who found that the gastrectomy performed in DATE had left her with some long - term side effects , including insufficient absorption of calcium and vitamin NORP He also noted with some concern that she had experienced height and weight loss and that her osteoporosis had worsened during DATE spent in detention . In order to manage her condition effectively and prevent its deterioration , the expert noted that she would require small , frequent meals , a special diet enriched by dietary supplements , and some form of exercise . Finally , he pointed out a slight cerebral atrophy , coupled with a mild anxiety - depressive disorder .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , reiterating the incompatibility of her age and state of health with any form of detention , even in a correctional hospital .","On DATE ORG , sitting as the authority with jurisdiction to decide on measures involving deprivation of liberty , placed the applicant under house arrest . It relied on the medical report submitted by the expert to ORG to conclude that an \u201c incompatibility in substance \u201d with detention existed in her case and that a less restrictive measure , such as house arrest , was preferable under the circumstances .","It ordered the applicant \u2019s immediate release and set out the specific conditions of her house arrest , including the requirement that she stay in her home at all times , leave only with the LOC prior permission , and refrain from contacting or interacting with anyone except her authorised cohabitees and medical staff .","On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG .","On DATE ORG declared the appeal inadmissible .","On DATE the public prosecutor requested that the house arrest be substituted with detention on remand , as the applicant had breached its conditions . He provided evidence that , amongst other things , she had been in contact with several unauthorised individuals including co - defendants in the ongoing criminal proceedings and a number of her \u201c followers \u201d and \u201c admirers \u201d .","On an unspecified date ORG ordered a new medical examination with a view to determining whether her state of health was compatible with detention .","On DATE the ORG granted the prosecutor \u2019s request and remanded the applicant in custody , ordering that she be transferred at once to the correctional hospital in GPE . It found that she had violated the terms of her house arrest , and that the situation which had arisen was conducive to her re - establishing the network which had supported her criminal activity . As to her health , the court drew on the medical report it had requested which stated that adequate monitoring and treatment of her medical conditions , as well as the provision of adequate nutrition in compliance with her special dietary needs , could be carried out in a correctional hospital . In particular , the expert noted that treatment of the applicant \u2019s osteoporosis to prevent future damage to her bone structure would not in any way be hindered by her detention in such a facility . He added that while under house arrest , she had experienced CARDINAL fractures , suggesting that the monitoring of her condition in a correctional hospital could be in no way considered inferior .","On DATE the GPE correctional hospital issued a medical certificate concerning the applicant \u2019s state of health . It described her medical history and the outcome of various specialist consultations she had undergone in the facility in DATE . An orthopaedic specialist had confirmed her advanced osteoporosis and prescribed treatment , a cardiologist had reported good cardiac function , while an ophthalmologist had recommended that she undergo surgery for a cataract in her left eye . The report further contained a recommendation that the applicant undergo a colonoscopy . Concerns were raised regarding the difficulties encountered in the management of treatment and diagnostic tests which had required transporting her to external facilities . Both her cataract surgery and the colonoscopy had to be rescheduled due to the unavailability of police officers who should have escorted her to the external facilities . The doctors concluded that the continued detention of the applicant , albeit in a correctional hospital , could have resulted in the deterioration in her health .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel submitted a request to ORG , seeking the substitution of the detention on remand with house arrest . He reiterated all the arguments raised at first instance and referred to extracts from the report issued by the correctional hospital on DATE .","The request was granted on DATE and the applicant was placed under house arrest .","According to the material in the case file , she is currently under house arrest , as the criminal proceedings against her are pending before ORG .","Article CARDINAL provides that a person may be detained pending trial :","\u201c ( a ) NORP if detention is demanded by special and unavoidable requirements of the inquiry into the facts under investigation concerning a genuine and present danger for the production or authenticity of evidence and based on matters of fact which must , on pain of nullity , be expressly set out in the decision , which the judicial authority may take of its own motion ... ;","( b ) if the accused has absconded or there is a real danger of his absconding , provided that the court considers that , if convicted , he will be liable to a prison sentence of DATE ;","( c ) where , given the specific nature and circumstances of the offence and having regard to the character of the suspect or the accused as shown by his conduct , acts or criminal record , there is a genuine risk that he will commit a serious offence involving the use of weapons or other violent means against the person or an offence against the constitutional order or an offence relating to organised crime or a further offence of the same kind as that of which he is suspected or accused ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169521","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VA\u0160\u010cENKOVS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He died on DATE . Ms N. GPE , the applicant \u2019s grandmother , informed ORG her wish to pursue the proceedings on his behalf .","The relevant facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE and DATE the police opened CARDINAL criminal investigations into CARDINAL incidents of theft and an incident of robbery . On CARDINAL DATE these investigations were joined .","On DATE the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of robbery . He was held in custody on this basis until DATE , when he was placed under arrest on suspicion of theft .","On DATE the police lodged an application with ORG ( PERSON rajona tiesa ) for the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention in relation to the theft investigation .","On DATE an investigating judge granted the application . With regard to the suspicion of theft , he reasoned as follows :","\u201c there are reasons to suspect that [ the applicant ] has committed the crime under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( PERSON ) [ theft ] ... These suspicions are confirmed by the evidence gathered in the criminal case . \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision .","On DATE ORG ( ORG apgabaltiesa ) dismissed the appeal . With regard to the suspicion of theft , the judge stated :","\u201c The ... suspicion that [ the applicant ] has committed the crime ... is confirmed by the information contained in the file . \u201d","No appeal lay against the aforementioned decision .","On DATE the public prosecutor charged the applicant with robbery , theft , involving a minor in theft and petty theft on the basis of the facts as alleged .","On DATE the applicant familiarised himself with the case material .","On DATE the prosecutor transferred the case to ORG for adjudication . She set out the case against the applicant and detailed the evidence upon which the prosecution intended to rely .","On DATE the investigating judge decided to keep the applicant in detention . He gave the following reasoning :","\u201c the accusation against [ the applicant ] of the crimes under sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) [ theft ] , PERSON ) [ robbery ] , CARDINAL ) [ petty theft ] and CARDINAL [ involving a minor in theft ] of LAW ... is confirmed by the evidence gathered in the criminal case . \u201d","No appeal lay against the aforementioned decision .","On DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s detention was extended . The judge stated as follows :","\u201c [ the applicant \u2019s ] detention is based on the suspicion that he has committed the crime under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW [ theft ] ... in other criminal proceedings [ he ] has been declared a suspect in relation to crimes under sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) [ petty theft ] and PERSON ) [ robbery ] ...","...","There has been no change in the reasons noted in the detention order of DATE ... which had been re - examined in [ the subsequent decisions ] ... \u201d","On DATE , DATE and DATE , the applicant complained to ORG that it had failed to assess his detention in relation to the alleged robbery .","On DATE and DATE , and on DATE the judge decided to continue the applicant \u2019s detention , using largely the same wording as in the previous decisions . In addition , she noted that the CARDINAL period allowed by LAW ) of LAW GPE likums ) for detention had been observed because the applicant had also been accused of an especially serious offence , robbery , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The aforementioned decisions were not subject to appeal ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179845","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BEBUTOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148908","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KRIZMANI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr GPE , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was employed with the publicly owned ORG and Construction in GPE ( PERSON organizacija za odr\u017eavanje cesta GPE ; hereinafter \u201c FAC ) . At a meeting of ORG of FAC held on DATE it was decided that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL flats which constituted the ORG \u201c road - workers\u2019 house \u201d ( cestarska ku\u0107a u Tinjanu ) would be given to the applicant , \u201c since the flat was empty and PERSON did not have a flat \u201d . By an agreement of DATE , the applicant \u2019s employer granted him a specially protected tenancy ( stanarsko pravo ) for an indefinite duration for the flat at issue , which was publicly owned , and the applicant moved into the flat with his family . The relevant part of that agreement reads :","Drawn up between ORG and Construction in GPE ... represented by its director GPE and GPE from the PERSON roadworkers\u2019 house as the holder of a specially protected tenancy ( hereinafter \u201c the tenant \u201d ) .","ORG in GPE ... on the basis of a decision of ORG ... of DATE allocates to PERSON from ORG a flat for official purposes in ... the Tinjan road - workers\u2019 house on the ground floor .","The flat consists of CARDINAL rooms , a kitchen and a toilet and measures QUANTITY .","On the basis of the above - mentioned decision of ORG , this agreement fixes the rent at CARDINAL ...","...","This agreement is concluded for an indefinite period ... \u201d","On DATE ORG enacted ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo ) , which regulated the sale of publicly owned flats previously let under specially protected tenancies .","DATE Pula Road Maintenance was privatised and part of it became ORG while the other part became \u201c LOC \u201d ( ORG ) .","On an unspecified date the applicant asked NORP Roads , CARDINAL of the successors of his former employer and the owner of the flat occupied by the applicant , to conclude a contract for the sale of the flat between the owner as the seller and himself as the buyer . On DATE the owner declined his request on the grounds that the applicant had not acquired a specially protected tenancy on the flat at issue because it had been designated as a \u201c flat for official purposes \u201d .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) seeking a judgment in lieu of the contract of sale . He argued that there was another flat in the same house , occupied by the PERSON family , and that neither flat had been allocated to employees performing road - maintenance functions . Moreover , those flats had never served any \u201c official purpose \u201d ; they were simply residential accommodation .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s claim and established that he had the right to a specially protected tenancy on the flat at issue .","NORP However , that judgment was quashed on DATE by ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) and the case was remitted to ORG .","On DATE ORG established that the applicant had not acquired a specially protected tenancy on the flat in question . The court found that , even though some of the flats in so - called \u201c road - workers\u2019 houses \u201d had indeed been sold under LAW , the majority had not been sold . The court also established that the flat at issue had not been allocated to the applicant for any \u201c official purpose \u201d . However , it found that the flat had been given to him for temporary occupation only , until he could be allocated another flat .","NORP That judgment was upheld on DATE by ORG , which also established that the flat at issue had been designated for \u201c official purposes \u201d .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) , to be decided by ORG . He lodged it with ORG , as required under LAW . It appears that it was not forwarded to ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about the length of the civil proceedings with ORG . On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the proceedings had ended on DATE .","NORP However , on DATE ORG instituted proceedings with a view to reinstating the applicant \u2019s submission of DATE . The applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law was subsequently forwarded to ORG , which dismissed it on DATE , fully endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts .","A subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant about the merits of the case was dismissed on DATE . It was served on the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE .","LAW ( Zakon o parni\u010dnom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL and DATE ) , as in force at the material time , provided that in cases where a first - instance judgment had been upheld by that of the second - instance , it became res judicata when the second - instance court delivered its judgment . An appeal on points of law was regarded as an extraordinary remedy , that is , a remedy which could be lodged only against a res judicata judgment , and which did not , unless successful , affect the validity of that judgment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180310","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MAGYAR K\u00c9TFARK\u00da KUTYA P\u00c1RT v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive information);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant political party has its registered seat in GPE .","On DATE a referendum related to ORG migrant relocation plan was held in GPE . The referendum was initiated by the Government and posed the following question : \u201c Do you want ORG to be entitled to order the mandatory settlement of non - NORP citizens in GPE without ORG \u2019s consent ? \u201d","In the course of the campaign several opposition parties called on voters to boycott the referendum or to cast invalid ballots that would not count in the final tally but could still be interpreted as rejecting the idea of the referendum . On DATE the applicant political party made available a mobile telephone application to voters ( \u201c the cast - an - invalid - vote app \u201d ) where they could upload , and share with the public , photographs taken of their ballots . It also enabled voters to comment on the reasons for how they cast their ballot . The posting and sharing of photographs were anonymous . The application was reported in major online journals .","On DATE a private individual lodged a complaint with ORG ( ORG ) about the application .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG found that the application infringed the principles of fairness of elections , voting secrecy , and the proper exercise of rights ( rendeltet\u00e9sszer\u0171 joggyakorl\u00e1s ) , and ordered the applicant organisation to refrain from further breaches of section CARDINAL ) and ( e ) of Act no . ORG of DATE on Electoral Procedure and Article CARDINAL ) of LAW . Relying on a previous resolution issued in DATE , it held that voters could not treat ballot papers as their own [ property ] , and therefore could neither take them out of the voting booths nor take a photograph of them . It held that taking photographs of ballot papers could lead to electoral fraud . Furthermore , although the principle of secrecy did not create any obligation on the voters\u2019 side , it nevertheless did not entitle them to abuse their situation , bearing in mind that voting secrecy could only be maintained with their cooperation . ORG concluded that the phone application was capable of discrediting the work of election bodies and tallying systems in the eyes of the public .","The applicant sought judicial review of this decision before the GPE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the GPE upheld the ORG \u2019s decision as to its finding regarding the infringement of the principle of the proper exercise of rights . The GPE held that the purpose of the ballots had been to enable voters to express their opinion on the referendum question , and that taking photographs of ballots and subsequently publishing them had not been in line with this purpose . A ban on photographs and on publication had not infringed voters\u2019 freedom of expression , since they had been free to express their opinions by casting their ballots and to share with others how they had voted . The PERSON overturned the remainder of the Commission \u2019s decision on the infringement of the secrecy of the electoral process and on the discrediting of the work of the electoral bodies . It found that there was no regulation prohibiting voters from taking photographs of their ballot papers in the voters\u2019 booths and that their identity could not have been revealed through the mobile telephone application .","Meanwhile , on DATE the same private individual lodged a new complaint with ORG , in the light of the fact that the applicant political party had activated the \u201c cast - an - invalid - vote app \u201d on DATE , DATE of the referendum . The complainant maintained that by operating the mobile telephone application and by encouraging voters to make use of it , the applicant political party had infringed the principles governing the bona fide and proper exercise of rights , and also the principles of fairness and secrecy of elections .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG reiterated its previous finding that taking photographs of ballot papers had infringed the principle of the secrecy of voters\u2019 ballots , the fairness of elections , and the proper exercise of rights , and fined the political party MONEY ( ORG \u2013 CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) . ORG supplemented its previous reasoning by noting that the mobile telephone application calling on voters to cast an invalid ballot could have influenced voters and had thus constituted unlawful campaigning .","The applicant political party sought judicial review of this decision as well .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the GPE upheld the ORG \u2019s decision as to the finding of an infringement of the principle of the proper exercise of rights . It explained that the purpose of the ballot papers had been for voters to express their opinion on the referendum question , and any other use of them had constituted a violation of the principle of the proper exercise of rights . The GPE overturned the remainder of the Commission \u2019s decision as to a violation of the fairness and voting secrecy and the principle of the bona fide exercise of rights . It reiterated its previous finding that the identity of the individual voters had not been revealed , and emphasised that the conduct of the applicant political party had had no impact on the fairness of the referendum . It reduced the fine to ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .","NORP The applicant organisation lodged a constitutional complaint against the decisions of both CARDINAL and DATE . In both complaints the applicant requested ORG to \u201c establish that the GPE \u2019s decision infringed its right recognised in LAW . It argued that \u201c under LAW on ORG an organisation personally concerned by an unconstitutional judicial decision , after having exhausted all other remedies , may lodge a complaint with ORG if the decision on the merits infringed its right ensured by LAW . The decision of the GPE declared the applicant \u2019s conduct unlawful and obliged it to pay a fine , it was the applicant who lodged the petition for review with the GPE , thus it was individually concerned in the present case ... By making the mobile phone application available the applicant reacted to the spreading of social media communication . ORG regularly share events , thoughts and opinions on internet websites through photos taken with their mobile phones . In the context of elections , this led to the fact that all over the world , voters take photos of their ballot papers and share it through social media . By developing the mobile phone application the applicant wanted to enable voters to share photos of ballot papers ( or in case of those who absented from the referendum photos of the activities undertaken instead of voting ) and other messages in an anonymous way and exercise their right to freedom of expression in a way that the content of the vote could not be linked to the voter . ... In the applicant \u2019s view the impugned decision , its legal interpretation and the consequences applied by the PERSON infringe its right under LAW . The conduct of voters taking photos of ballot papers and sharing it with others is an expression of an opinion in public matters and constitutes a conduct falling under the freedom of expression of opinions , and in particular , the most protected aspect of it , a discussion on matters of public interest . Thus , the applicant \u2019s activity , providing a forum for voters to express an opinion is also protected by LAW In the applicant \u2019s opinion , the decision of the the GPE , by invoking voters\u2019 right to freedom of expression , restrained in fact , the applicant \u2019s own conduct of exercising its right to freedom of expression without any constitutional reason . \u201d The applicant further submitted that , as established by the GPE , the mobile phone application had not infringed the secrecy and fairness of the voting procedure and it had also not been capable of doing so , since the content of the ballot papers could not be linked to the voters . Thus , it argued that these aims could not serve as a legitimate basis for restricting the right to freedom of expression . In any event , even if the application could have infringed the secrecy of voting , the ban on the application had been disproportionate .","ORG declared the complaints inadmissible on DATE , with identical reasoning , on the grounds that the cases did not concern the applicant organisation \u2019s right to freedom of expression . It reiterated the GPE \u2019s finding that although the case related to the freedom of expression of voters , this had not been infringed by the decision of ORG , which had only found that the method used \u2013 that is to say uploading photographs to a mobile application \u2013 had not been in compliance with the obligation to exercise voting rights in accordance with their purpose . In ORG view the applicant political party had merely provided a forum for voters to share photographs of their ballot papers or their intention to abstain from voting , it had did not itself expressed an opinion . Since the applicant political party had only complained about the restriction of voters\u2019 right to freedom of expression , it had not been personally concerned by the decision of the GPE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141644","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF AVOTI\u0145\u0160 v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["On DATE the applicant and ORG , a commercial company incorporated under NORP law , signed a deed of acknowledgement of debt before a notary . Under the terms of the deed the applicant declared that he had borrowed MONEY ( ORG ) from ORG and undertook to repay that sum with interest by DATE . The document also contained choice of law and jurisdiction clauses according to which it was to be governed \u201c in all respects \u201d by NORP law and the NORP courts were to have non - exclusive jurisdiction to hear any disputes arising out of it .","In DATE ORG brought proceedings against the applicant in LOC ( PERSON , GPE ) , alleging that he had not repaid the above - mentioned debt and requesting that he be ordered to pay the debt together with interest .","NORP In an order of DATE ORG summoned the applicant to appear before it . Since the applicant was not resident in GPE , ORG made an ex parte application to the same court on DATE seeking a fresh order enabling a summons to be served on the applicant outside the country , requiring him to appear within DATE from the date of service . In that connection the claimant company \u2019s lawyer produced an affidavit declaring that the defendant was habitually resident at an address in FAC in GPE and that a summons could be served on him at that address . The applicant , for his part , contended that it had been objectively impossible for him to receive the summons at that address , which was simply the address at which he had signed the loan contract and the deed of acknowledgement of debt in DATE and was not his home or business LOC .","On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be summoned at the above - mentioned address . It summoned him to appear or to come forward within DATE of receiving the summons , failing which all future announcements concerning the case would be posted on the court \u2019s noticeboard . An affidavit produced by an employee of the firm of lawyers representing ORG showed that , in accordance with the court order , the summons was sent by recorded delivery on DATE to the address in FAC in GPE . It also showed that the legal firm had received a post office slip confirming that the letter had been received by the applicant on DATE ( the NORP national holiday and therefore a non - working day in GPE ) . The applicant claimed never to have received the summons .","As the applicant did not appear , ORG , ruling in his absence on DATE , ordered him to pay the claimant CARDINAL or the equivalent in NORP pounds ( ORG ) , plus interest at an DATE rate of PERCENT of the aforementioned amount from DATE until payment of the debt . The applicant was also ordered to pay costs and expenses in a gross amount of ORG MONEY , plus interest at an DATE rate of PERCENT . According to the judgment , which was finalised on DATE , the applicant had been duly informed of the hearing but had not attended . The judgment itself made no reference to the fact that it was final or to the available remedies .","On DATE ORG applied to ORG ( PERSON pils\u0113tas ORG priek\u0161pils\u0113tas tiesa , GPE ) seeking recognition and enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL May CARDINAL . In its request the company also sought to have a protective measure applied . It stated that the applicant was the owner of real property in Garkalne ( a district of GPE ) which , according to the land register , was already mortgaged to a bank . Accordingly , fearing that the applicant might seek to evade enforcement of the judgment , it asked ORG to place a charge on the property and record it in the land register . Lastly , it requested that the applicant be ordered to pay the costs . In its request the company gave as the applicant \u2019s place of residence an address in \u010c. Street in GPE which differed from the address previously notified to the NORP court .","On DATE ORG adjourned examination of the company \u2019s request , pointing to a series of substantive defects which the company was given DATE to correct . In particular , the court noted that the company had omitted to explain why it had referred to the address in \u010c. Street , when the applicant \u2019s presumed address , as it had featured hitherto in the case , was in FAC .","On DATE ORG submitted a corrigendum in which it explained , among other points , that according to the data taken from the register of residents ( ORG re\u0123istrs ) , the address in \u010c. Street was the applicant \u2019s officially declared home address . As to the address in FAC , the company \u2019s representatives had assumed it to be the applicant \u2019s actual residence .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG ruled that the corrigendum submitted by ORG was insufficient to remedy all the defects in its request . The court declined to examine the request and sent it back to the company . The latter lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) , which set aside the impugned order on DATE and remitted the case to ORG , instructing it to examine the request for recognition and enforcement as rectified by the corrigendum of CARDINAL DATE .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE issued without the parties being present , ORG allowed ORG request in full . It ordered the recognition and enforcement of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the entry in the Garkalne municipal land register of a charge on the property owned by the applicant in that municipality . The applicant was also ordered to pay the costs .","It was not until DATE that the applicant learnt DATE by chance , according to his account \u2013 of the existence of both the NORP court judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the NORP court order of CARDINAL DATE . He did not attempt to challenge the NORP judgment before the NORP courts . However , he lodged a so - called ancillary appeal ( blakus s\u016bdz\u012bba ) against the above - mentioned order with ORG , while asking ORG to extend the time allowed for lodging the appeal . In that connection the applicant observed that there was nothing in the case file to indicate that he had been summoned to appear at the hearing of DATE or that he had been notified of the order issued DATE . Accordingly , the DATE period laid down by LAW should start running on DATE , the date on which he had become aware of the order in question .","In an order of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request and extended the time - limit for lodging an appeal . It noted , inter alia , as follows :","\u201c ... It is clear from the court order of DATE that the issue of recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment was determined in the absence of the parties , on the basis of the documents furnished by the claimant [ ORG ] . At the same time the order states that it is open to the applicant to appeal against it within DATE from the date of receipt of the copy [ of that order ] , in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","The court considers the circumstances to which the applicant , P. ORG , refers , to be established , namely the fact that he did not receive the order ... of DATE until DATE , this being attested to by the reference in the list of consultations [ appended to the case file ] , and by the fact that the order , served [ on the applicant ] by the court , was returned on DATE ... It is apparent from the documents appended to the appeal that the applicant has not lived at his declared address in [ \u010c. ] Street since DATE ; this confirms ... the statement made by his representative at the hearing , according to which the applicant no longer lives at the above - mentioned address .","Accordingly , the DATE period should ... run from the date on which the applicant received the order in question ...","At the same time , the court does not accept the view of the representative of [ ORG ] that the applicant himself is responsible for his failure to receive the correspondence because he did not declare his home address promptly , and that the time allowed [ for lodging an appeal ] should not therefore be extended . The fact of not complying with the legislation on registration of residence is not sufficient to justify the potential consequences if the court were to refuse to allow the applicant to exercise the fundamental rights guaranteed by the ORG as regards access to the courts and judicial protection , including the right to appeal against a decision . ... \u201d","In his grounds of appeal before ORG the applicant argued that the recognition and enforcement of the NORP judgment in GPE was in breach of ORG ( ORG ) No CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and and commercial matters ( known as the \u201c GPE I Regulation \u201d , hereafter \u201c the Regulation \u201d ) and of the relevant provisions of ORG . He submitted CARDINAL arguments in that regard .","First , the applicant observed that in accordance with LAW corresponding in substance to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , third subparagraph , of ORG ) , a judgment given in default in another Member ORG could not be recognised if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence . In the applicant \u2019s view , those provisions had been breached in his case . The applicant maintained that both the NORP lawyers who had represented the claimant company in ORG and the NORP lawyers who had represented it in the NORP courts had been perfectly aware of his business address in GPE . He observed in that connection that he had had professional dealings with the NORP lawyers , who had telephoned him and sent faxes to his office ; as to the NORP lawyers , he had met them in person . Therefore , they must all have been aware of his business address . Furthermore , the summons could have been sent to the applicant \u2019s home address in PERSON , as he had a residence there that was officially declared in accordance with the law and his property there was entered under his name in the land register , which the lawyers could have consulted . However , instead of having the summons sent to one of those addresses , which were known and accessible , the lawyers had given the courts an address where it was objectively impossible to reach him .","Second , the applicant observed that , under the terms of LAW and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , second sub - paragraph , of ORG , a judgment had to be enforceable in the ORG of origin in order to be enforceable in the Member ORG requested . In the instant case , there had been a threefold breach of those requirements . Firstly , the requesting party had only submitted the text of the NORP court judgment to the NORP court , and not the certificate required in accordance with ORG to the ORG . In that connection the applicant acknowledged that under LAW in which enforcement was sought could , in some circumstances , exempt the requesting party from the obligation to produce a certificate ; however , in the present case , ORG had omitted to explain whether and for what reason it considered that the requesting party could be exempted from that obligation . Secondly , the NORP judgment itself had contained no reference to its entry into force or possible remedies . Lastly , in order to be enforced in accordance with the ORG , a judgment had to be enforceable in the country of origin ; however , none of the documents produced by the company demonstrated that the judgment of CARDINAL May CARDINAL was enforceable in GPE . The applicant therefore concluded that the judgment could under no circumstances be recognised and enforced in GPE .","In a judgment of DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal on the merits , quashed the impugned order and rejected the request for recognition and enforcement of the NORP judgment .","F.H. Ltd. lodged an appeal against that judgment with the ORG of ORG , which examined it at a hearing on DATE . At the start of the hearing the appellant company submitted copies of several documents to the ORG , including the certificate provided for by LAW and by ORG thereto , dated DATE and signed by an acting judge of ORG . According to the certificate , the document instituting the proceedings had been served on the applicant on DATE . The last part of the certificate , intended for the name of the person against whom the judgment was enforceable , had been left blank . When asked to comment on these documents , the applicant \u2019s lawyer argued that they were clearly insufficient to render the judgment enforceable .","In a final judgment of DATE the ORG quashed and annulled ORG judgment of DATE and allowed ORG claims . It ordered the recognition and enforcement of the NORP judgment and the entry in the land register of a charge on the applicant \u2019s property in Garkalne . The relevant extracts from the judgment read as follows :","\u201c ... It is clear from the documents in the case file that the GPE ORG judgment was made final . This is confirmed by the explanations provided by both parties at ORG hearing on DATE , according to which no appeal had been lodged against the judgment , and by the certificate issued on DATE ... As [ the applicant ] did not appeal against the judgment , his lawyer \u2019s submissions to the effect that [ he ] was not duly notified of the examination of the case by a foreign court are of no importance .","Having regard to the foregoing , the ORG accepts that the judgment of ORG ( GPE ) of CARDINAL DATE should be recognised and enforced in GPE .","Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that a foreign judgment may under no circumstances be reviewed as to its substance ; in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , once such judgments have been recognised they are to be enforced in accordance with the conditions laid down by the same PERSON . ... \u201d","On the basis of the ORG judgment ORG issued a writ of execution ( izpildu raksts ) on DATE . The applicant complied immediately with the terms of the writ and paid the bailiff employed by the claimant company a total of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) , comprising ORG for the principal debt and ORG in enforcement costs . He then requested that the charge on his property in Garkalne be lifted . In CARDINAL orders dated DATE the judge with responsibility for land registers ( PERSON noda\u013cas tiesnesis ) refused the request . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the ORG of ORG which , in an order of DATE , lifted the charge on the property ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172653","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BERGER v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office ( DATE hereinafter , \u201c the prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) requested ORG ( PERSON f\u00fcr DATE hereinafter , \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant . The prosecutor \u2019s office sought to obtain information about the outcome of criminal proceedings against the applicant in GPE , where he had been charged with aggravated fraud in his function as director of the CARDINAL investment fund and the NORP capital management company . Among the injured parties there were also NORP banks . The criminal proceedings against the applicant in GPE were suspended in accordance with LAW ( hereinafter , the \u201c ORG \u201d ) pending the outcome of the proceedings in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of bond fraud by the New York Southern District Court in GPE . However , he subsequently absconded and did not appear at the court hearing in which his sentence was to be determined . On DATE GPE issued an arrest warrant against the applicant .","On DATE ORG opened a judicial investigation ( GPE ) against the applicant and issued an arrest warrant .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on the basis of the arrest warrant of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and subsequently placed in pre - trial detention .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant filed complaints against the continuation of the pre - trial detention . While the first CARDINAL complaints were withdrawn by the applicant , the third was dismissed by ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) on DATE . The applicant unsuccessfully requested his release also on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The applicant \u2019s complaints against the continuation of his pre - trial detention lodged on DATE , DATE and on DATE were dismissed by ORG on DATE , DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted a statement of facts to the authorities , presenting his view of the situation .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant applied to be granted access to his case - file . On an unspecified date ORG dismissed his requests .","On DATE the case file was transferred to the prosecutor \u2019s office for further investigation .","On DATE and DATE the applicant filed submissions with ORG . Among other things , he declared that he was willing to give a statement concerning the accusations against him . On DATE ORG rejected his requests on formal grounds .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint relating to his fundamental rights ( Grundrechtsbeschwerde ) with ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) , which was dismissed on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection because of alleged violations of his rights ( Einspruch wegen Rechtsverletzung ) and again applied to be granted access to his case - file . On DATE ORG dismissed the objection .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant lodged further objections because of alleged violations of his rights . On DATE ORG dismissed all of them . The applicant appealed against this decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed the objection of DATE , but granted the CARDINAL objections of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , holding that the refusal to grant the applicant access to his case file and to provide him with copies thereof constituted a violation of his rights .","On DATE the applicant filed another complaint against the continuation of his pre - trial detention . On DATE ORG dismissed this complaint .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office informed the applicant about the intended appointment of expert PERSON","On DATE the applicant objected to this appointment , stating that PERSON would not have the necessary knowledge to deal with the case and could possibly be biased as she was cooperating with the companies involved in the alleged fraud .","On DATE the expert PERSON was nonetheless appointed to provide an opinion relating to the applicant \u2019s businesses .","On DATE the applicant lodged another complaint relating to his fundamental rights with ORG . On DATE his complaint was dismissed by ORG .","On DATE he unsuccessfully lodged another request to be released . On DATE the applicant again requested his release from pre - trial detention .","On DATE the applicant was released from pre - trial detention . He alleged that he had not even once been questioned in relation to the accusations against him during the entire time he spent in pre - trial detention , even though he had tried to contribute to the clarification of the facts by submitting statements as well as requests for the taking of evidence .","On DATE the applicant lodged another objection because of an alleged violation of his rights , arguing that the expert PERSON had close connections with potential victims and was therefore biased . On DATE ORG granted this objection .","On DATE the applicant filed an application for the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings against him . He argued that he had already been tried and sentenced in GPE for the same offences . Moreover , according to the laws in force at the time and place of the commission of the offences , the latter had become time - barred . On DATE ORG dismissed the application . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , holding that even though it was difficult to clarify the facts of the case after DATE , the applicant had significantly contributed to the length of the investigations by having absconded .","On DATE a new expert , W .- A. , was appointed to provide an opinion . The applicant again objected to the expert and complained about the length of the pre - trial investigations . On CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the objection concerning the expert , but dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings , holding that it had been proportionate to the complexity of the case . Further , it held that the main reason for their length was that the applicant had filed a large number of objections and appeals . Hence , the duration of the proceedings was not in violation of LAW .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office informed the applicant that it intended to appoint a new expert , B. The applicant objected , alleging that B. had close relations with investors who could potentially have sustained damages because of his activities . On DATE B. was nonetheless appointed by the prosecutor \u2019s office and given a deadline of DATE to provide the opinion . The applicant \u2019s objection was dismissed by ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal as being lodged out of time .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection because of an alleged violation of his rights , repeating his arguments that the expert PERSON was not impartial . He further argued that PERSON had significantly exceeded the time - limit for providing his opinion . On DATE ORG granted the objection , holding that the prosecutor \u2019s office had not adequately reacted to the exceeding of the time - limit by the expert , who should have been discharged as a consequence . It therefore found that the applicant \u2019s right to have the proceedings conducted within a reasonable time was violated .","On DATE the expert B. was discharged and on CARDINAL DATE another expert , PERSON , was appointed .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office submitted an indictment against the applicant on suspicion of embezzlement and aggravated fraud on a commercial basis . On an unspecified date , the applicant \u2019s appeal against the indictment was rejected by ORG . Therefore , it has become legally binding .","At the date of the latest information available to ORG ( DATE ) , the criminal proceedings against the applicant were still pending at first instance ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182454","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BAYDAR v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG ( rechtbank ) convicted the applicant of the transportation of QUANTITY grams of heroin and of CARDINAL counts of people trafficking ( mensensmokkel ) as defined in Article CARDINALa of LAW ( GPE ) , committed jointly with other perpetrators . It sentenced him to a partially suspended term of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed against ORG judgment .","On DATE ORG ( gerechtshof ) gave its judgment , upholding the conviction for the offence of transporting heroin and also of CARDINAL counts of people trafficking , and acquitting him on the CARDINAL other counts . It sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment less the time spent in pre - trial detention . Based on the evidence submitted , ORG found established that the applicant and his co - perpetrators had , for purposes of financial gain , DATE and DATE facilitated the unauthorised residence of a total of CARDINAL NORP migrants in the GPE , GPE and GPE .","The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation ( cassatie ) , the scope of which is limited to procedural conformity and points of law , with ORG ( PERSON ) . In his written grounds of appeal of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant raised , inter alia , a complaint regarding the CARDINAL counts of people trafficking of which he had been convicted by ORG . The applicant contended that ORG had convicted him of facilitation of unauthorised \u201c residence \u201d , as defined in Article LAW , whereas the evidence relied on by ORG to uphold that conviction did not prove that the NORP migrants had had \u201c residence \u201d in the GPE , GPE or GPE . Instead , the evidence demonstrated that the applicant had organised and financed the NORP migrants\u2019 transportation to GPE via the GPE and GPE , which had been intercepted on each occasion in GPE . As the ORG stay in the GPE and GPE had only been brief and transitory , and given that they had never even entered GPE , there was , according to the applicant , no proof of \u201c residence \u201d in those countries . In that regard , the applicant referred to ORG law , namely ORG Directive CARDINAL of DATE defining the facilitation of unauthorised entry , transit and residence ( hereinafter \u201c the Directive \u201d ) and LAW of DATE on the strengthening of the penal framework to prevent the facilitation of unauthorised entry , transit and residence ( hereinafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) . Submitting that Article CARDINALa of the Criminal Code had been amended in order to implement the Directive , the applicant argued that the notion of the facilitation of unauthorised \u201c residence \u201d within the meaning of Article CARDINALa \u00a7 CARDINAL should be understood as entailing a long - term stay , to be distinguished from \u201c transit \u201d or \u201c entry \u201d as defined in the first paragraph of Article PERSON , which had been added to Article PERSON when the Directive was implemented . The applicant \u2019s grounds of appeal in cassation did not include a request that ORG put a question to the ORG for the purpose of obtaining a preliminary ruling .","NORP In his advisory opinion of DATE , the Advocate General ( advocaat - generaal ) to ORG expressed his view that the applicant \u2019s appeal should be dismissed with the exception of the first of the grounds of the appeal , which pertained to the length of the proceedings : the duration of the cassation proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of LAW , for which a reduction of sentence was to be applied . With regard to the applicant \u2019s complaint that the evidence did not show that there had been any \u201c residence \u201d of the migrants in the countries at issue , ORG was of the opinion that Article LAW called for a broad interpretation of \u201c residence \u201d , as had been the case prior to the implementation of the Directive and LAW . Since that implementation was intended to broaden the scope of LANGUAGE of LAW , the second paragraph of that provision retained its broad meaning of \u201c residence \u201d , thereby encompassing \u201c transit \u201d . The separate penalisation in the first paragraph of Article PERSON of the facilitation of unauthorised \u201c transit and entry \u201d did not change the broad scope of paragraph CARDINAL . The Advocate General thus concluded that the applicant \u2019s complaint in this matter should be dismissed .","On DATE , the applicant submitted written comments in reply to the Advocate General \u2019s advisory opinion ( a so - called \u201c PERSON letter \u201d ) in which he made a tentative request for questions to be referred to the ORG for a preliminary ruling about the interpretation of \u201c residence \u201d , \u201c entry \u201d and \u201c transit \u201d within the context of the Directive and whether the Directive contained minimum rules or constituted a general framework of terms , if ORG were to concur with ORG .","On DATE ORG gave its judgment , which read :","\u201c [ the applicant \u2019s counsel ] have submitted written grounds of appeal . That document is annexed to this judgment , of which it is a component part .","The Advocate General [ ... ] has advised that the impugned judgment be quashed \u2212 but only as regards the prison sentence imposed , reducing it due to the violation of the right to adjudication within a reasonable time \u2212 and that the remainder of the appeal be dismissed .","Counsel [ for the applicant ] have submitted a written reply . \u201d","ORG went on to hold that the applicant \u2019s complaint that the cassation proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Convention was well - founded and that the sentence imposed on the applicant should be reduced as a consequence thereof . ORG further considered :","\u201c CARDINAL . Assessment of the remaining grievances","The grievances can not lead to cassation [ of the impugned judgment ] ( de middelen kunnen niet to cassatie leiden ) . Based on LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG ( Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie ) , this requires no further reasoning as the grievances do not give rise to the need for a determination of legal issues in the interests of legal uniformity or legal development . \u201d","ORG thus quashed ORG judgment as regards the imposed sentence , reduced the sentence to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , and dismissed the remainder of the grounds of appeal . No further appeal lay against ORG judgment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184521","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF VASILEVSKIY AND BOGDANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["Mr Vasilevskiy was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Mr Vasilevskiy stayed in detention for longer that he should have because the sentencing courts did not count the time he had spent in pre - trial detention towards the overall duration of his sentence , in breach of the applicable domestic provisions . In response to Mr Vasilevskiy \u2019s repeated complaints , on CARDINAL DATE the GPE ORG in LOC corrected the error and acknowledged that his sentence had expired on DATE . Mr Vasilevskiy was released on DATE . He sought compensation for DATE during which he had been wrongfully detained .","On DATE the ORG in LOC awarded him MONEY ( RUB \u2013 QUANTITY ( ORG ) at the then - applicable exchange rate ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . Mr Vasilevskiy lodged an appeal , submitting in particular that that sum was substantially lower than that which the ORG would have awarded in a similar case .","On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal . As regards the level of compensation , it held that ORG had \u201c had regard to the case - law of ORG but had correctly determined the amount of compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage in the light of the requirements of NORP law \u201d .","Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE Mr PERSON was convicted of supplying drugs on CARDINAL separate occasions in DATE and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG of GPE acknowledged , referring to the ORG \u2019s case - law under LAW , that the police had incited Mr PERSON to commit the last three of the QUANTITY offences . It declared that part of evidence inadmissible , voided his conviction in that part , reduced his sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and ordered his immediate release .","By that time , Mr PERSON had spent DATE in custody over and above the adjusted DATE sentence . He sought to recover damages in respect of his wrongful imprisonment .","On DATE ORG in GPE awarded him RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . However , on DATE the ORG reduced the award to RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) , referring to the \u201c circumstances in which the criminal proceedings had been instituted \u201d and the \u201c category of offence that Mr PERSON had been charged with \u201d . On DATE ORG rejected a cassation appeal lodged by PERSON PERSON ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174956","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DYACHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In application no . MONEY , the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147624","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CAVANI v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ) . The second and third applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and apparently live with their mother in GPE ( GPE ) or somewhere nearby .","NORP In DATE the first applicant \u2019s then wife , whom he had married in DATE and who is the mother of the second and third applicants , took the second and third applicants from GPE , where the family was living , to GPE .","In DATE the first applicant travelled to GPE . The family was supposed to return to GPE but the first applicant \u2019s wife refused to leave and the first applicant returned to GPE alone .","NORP In DATE the first applicant joined his family in GPE for DATE and his wife again refused to return to GPE with him and kept the children with her .","In DATE the first applicant wrote to his wife requesting that she return to GPE with their daughters .","On DATE the first applicant asked ORG to initiate proceedings for the return of the children to GPE . On DATE he also instigated proceedings before ORG ) for separation from his wife and the return of his daughters to GPE .","On DATE his wife started parallel divorce proceedings before ORG .","On DATE , the applicants lodged a complaint before ORG alleging a violation of LAW ( ORG ) no . DATE concerning GPE and ORG ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) , which is still pending .","NORP In DATE the marriage between the first applicant and his ex - wife was annulled ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As at the date of introduction of the present application , the first applicant had been unable to see his daughters since DATE .","On DATE the Pest Central District Court found that the first applicant \u2019s ex - wife was keeping the children in GPE illegally , in violation of LAW ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) . However , it considered that given their young age , the children needed to be cared for by their mother and therefore refused to order their return to GPE .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG and ordered that the children be returned to GPE by DATE at the latest , but this failed to happen .","An enforcement order was issued against the first applicant \u2019s ex - wife by ORG on DATE and upheld by ORG on DATE . The decision was not enforced .","On DATE the ORG ordered the enforcement of the decision of DATE , this time with the assistance of the police . Again , the decision was not enforced .","On DATE , following the issue of a NORP arrest warrant by the NORP authorities , the first applicant \u2019s ex - wife was arrested by the NORP police but was released shortly thereafter with no progress having been made regarding a possible return of the second and third applicants to GPE .","On DATE , she was sentenced in absentia by the Buda ORG to a DATE fine for illegally changing the custody of a minor .","On DATE the headmaster of ORG , located in GPE , initiated proceedings before the LOC district guardianship authority to bring the second and third applicants under its protection .","On an unspecified date , the first applicant and his ex - wife reached an agreement pursuant to which the second and third applicants would remain with their mother in GPE but would be able to visit the first applicant in GPE several times per year . In the light of that agreement , on DATE the first applicant requested the suspension of the enforcement proceedings against his ex - wife , and ORG duly suspended the proceedings until DATE .","On DATE , the first applicant withdrew his enforcement request .","Following a proposal drafted by the competent ORG ( ORG Szoci\u00e1lis PERSON ) \u2012 which was of the view that the children were no longer in danger \u2012 the ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE , ORG granted exclusive custody of the children to the first applicant .","On DATE , the first applicant pressed criminal charges against his ex - wife for child abduction .","On an unknown date ORG sentenced the ex - wife to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended .","The marriage between the first applicant and his ex - wife was annulled by the ecclesiastical tribunal of the GPE region , whose decision was granted exequatur by ORG on DATE .","On DATE , following an appeal by the prosecutor , ORG sentenced the applicant \u2019s ex - wife to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended .","The first applicant \u2019s ex - wife appealed against her conviction before ORG . DATE before the hearing the first applicant withdrew his criminal suit in the hope of appeasing the situation and allowing his ex - wife to travel freely to GPE with their QUANTITY daughters .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG in the light of the first applicant \u2019s decision to withdraw his criminal suit ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184666","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MARIYA ALEKHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The second applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The third applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The applicants live in GPE .","The CARDINAL applicants are members of a NORP feminist punk band , ORG . The applicants founded ORG in DATE . The group carried out a series of impromptu performances of their songs Release the Cobblestones , PERSON , ORG and PERSON Himself in various public areas in GPE , such as a subway station , the roof of a tram , on top of a booth and in a shop window .","According to the applicants , their actions were a response to the ongoing political process in GPE and the highly critical opinion which representatives of ORG , including its leader PERSON , had expressed about large - scale street protests in GPE and many other NORP cities against the results of the parliamentary elections of DATE . They were also protesting against the participation of PERSON in the presidential election that was due in DATE .","The applicants argued that their songs contained \u201c clear and strongly worded political messages critical of the government and expressing support for feminism , the rights of minorities and the ongoing political protests \u201d . The group performed in disguise , with its members wearing brightly coloured balaclavas and dresses , in various public places selected to enhance their message .","Following a performance of Release the Cobblestones in DATE , several ORG members , including the second and third applicants , were arrested and fined under LAW for organising and holding an unauthorised assembly . On DATE CARDINAL members of the group performed on the roof of a building at temporary detention facility no . CARDINAL in GPE . The performance was allegedly held in support of protesters who had been arrested and placed in that facility for taking part in street protests in GPE on DATE . The band performed Death to Prison , Freedom to Protest and hung a banner saying \u201c Freedom to NORP \u201d on it from the roof of the building . No attempt to arrest the band was made . A video of the performance was published on the Internet .","On DATE members of the band held a performance entitled Riot in GPE at GPE \u2019s FAC . The group sang a song called PERSON Himself . All CARDINAL members of the band were arrested and fined under LAW , the same as before .","NORP In response to the public support and endorsement provided by PERSON to PERSON , members of ORG wrote a protest song called Punk Prayer PERSON , PERSON . A translation of the lyrics is as follows :","PERSON Mother of God , drive PERSON away","PERSON away , drive PERSON away","Black robe , golden epaulettes","Parishioners crawl to bow","The phantom of liberty is in heaven","NORP pride sent to LOC in chains","The head of the ORG , their chief saint ,","Leads protesters to prison under escort","So as not to offend His ORG","Women must give birth and love","Shit , shit , holy shit !","Shit , shit , holy shit !","PERSON , Mother of God , become a feminist","Become a feminist , become a feminist","The ORG \u2019s praise of rotten dictators","The cross - bearer procession of black limousines","A teacher - preacher will meet you at school","Go to class - bring him cash !","ORG believes in GPE","Bitch , better believe in God instead","The girdle of the Virgin ca n\u2019t replace rallies","PERSON , Mother of God , is with us in protest !","PERSON , Mother of God , drive PERSON away","PERSON away , drive PERSON away . \u201d","On DATE a performance of the song was carried out at FAC in the district of GPE in GPE . The applicants and CARDINAL other members of the band wearing brightly coloured balaclavas and dresses entered the cathedral , set up an amplifier , a microphone and a lamp for better lighting and performed the song while dancing . The performance was recorded on video . No complaint to the police was made in relation to that performance .","On DATE CARDINAL members of the band , including the CARDINAL applicants , attempted to perform ORG PERSON , PERSON Away from the altar of GPE \u2019s NORP the Saviour Cathedral . No service was taking place , although a number of persons were inside the Cathedral . The band had invited journalists and media to the performance to gain publicity . The attempt was unsuccessful as cathedral guards quickly forced the band out , with the performance only lasting slightly over a minute .","NORP The events unfolded as follows . The CARDINAL members of the band , dressed in overcoats and carrying bags or backpacks , stepped over a low railing and ran up to the podium in front of the altar ( the soleas ) . After reaching the steps , the band removed their coats , showing their characteristic brightly coloured dresses underneath . They also put on coloured balaclavas . They placed their bags on the floor and started taking things out of them . At that moment the video recorded someone calling out for security and a security guard then ran up the steps to the band . The band member dressed in white , the third applicant , pulled a guitar from her bag and tried to put the strap over her shoulder . Another guard ran up to the second applicant and started pulling her away . Moments later the band started singing the song without any musical accompaniment . The guard let go of the second applicant and grabbed the third applicant by the arm , including her guitar , at the same time calling on his radio for help . The radio fell out of his hand but he did not let go of the third applicant and pushed her down the steps . While the third applicant was being pushed away by the guard , CARDINAL of the other band members continued singing and dancing without music . Words such as \u201c holy shit \u201d , \u201c congregation \u201d and \u201c in heaven \u201d were audible on the video recording . At the same time the second applicant was trying to set up a microphone and a music player . She managed to turn the player on and music started playing . A uniformed security guard grabbed the player and took it away . At the same time CARDINAL band members , including the first CARDINAL applicants , continued singing and dancing on the podium , kicking their legs in the air and throwing their arms around . CARDINAL cathedral employees grabbed the first applicant and another band member dressed in pink . She ran away from the security guard , while the second applicant kneeled down and started making the sign of the cross and praying . The band continued singing , kneeled down and started crossing themselves and praying .","Cathedral staff members escorted the band away from the altar . The video - recording showed that the last band member left the altar TIME and TIME after the beginning of the performance . The guards accompanied the band to the exit of the cathedral , making no attempt to stop them or the journalists from leaving .","A video containing footage of the band \u2019s performances of the song , both at FAC in GPE and at NORP FAC , was uploaded to PERSON .","On DATE a deputy director general of private security company ORG , Mr O. , complained to the head of the LOC police in GPE of \u201c a violation of public order \u201d by a group of unidentified people in NORP FAC . Mr O. stated that at TIME DATE unidentified individuals had screamed and danced on \u201c the premises of the cathedral \u201d , thus \u201c insulting the feelings of members of the church \u201d . The individuals had not responded to reprimands by churchgoers , clergymen or guards .","A similar complaint was lodged DATE by the acting director of the NORP ORG , PERSON called the applicants\u2019 conduct disorderly , extremist and insulting to NORP churchgoers and ORG . PERSON also stated that the band \u2019s actions had been aimed at stirring up religious intolerance and hatred . Printouts of photographs of the band \u2019s performances and the full lyrics of Punk Prayer \u2013 Virgin Mary , PERSON Away , downloaded from the group \u2019s website , were attached to the complaint .","On DATE the police instituted criminal proceedings . Cathedral staff members and guards were questioned . They stated that their religious feelings had been offended by the incident and that they could identify CARDINAL of the band members as they had taken off their balaclavas during the performance .","On DATE the second applicant was arrested . The first applicant was apprehended DATE . They were charged with the aggravated offence of hooliganism motivated by religious hatred .","The third applicant was also stopped by the police in the street and taken in for questioning on DATE . She had no identification documents and did not provide her real name , instead identifying herself as PERSON . Her mobile telephone and a computer flash drive were seized and she was released after the interview .","On DATE ORG of GPE issued separate detention orders to remand the first CARDINAL applicants in custody until DATE . In terms of the circumstances precluding the application of a less stringent measure to the applicants , the court cited the gravity of the charges , the severity of the penalty they faced , the \u201c cynicism and insolence of the crime \u201d the applicants were charged with , their choice not to live at their places of permanent residence , their lack of permanent \u201c legal \u201d sources of income , the first applicant \u2019s failure to care for her child and the second applicant \u2019s right to move to and reside in GPE . It also cited the fact that certain members of ORG were still unidentified or on the run .","The detention orders became final on DATE , when ORG upheld them on appeal , fully endorsing ORG reasoning .","The third applicant was placed in custody on DATE by ORG after finally being identified by the police and charged with the same criminal offence as the first CARDINAL applicants . ORG found that the risks of the third applicant absconding , reoffending and perverting the course of justice warranted her detention . Those risks were linked by the court to the following considerations : the gravity of the charges , the severity of the penalty she faced , her unwillingness to identify other members of the band , her lack of a permanent legal source of income , and her use of an assumed identity while communicating with the police on previous occasions . The decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .","By CARDINAL separate detention orders issued on DATE ORG further extended the applicants\u2019 detention until DATE . Citing the grounds it had used to substantiate the need for the applicants\u2019 placement in custody , ORG concluded that no new circumstances warranting their release had come to light . It also noted the first applicant \u2019s blanket refusal to confess to the offence with which she had been charged or to any other act prohibited by LAW . It also stated that the applicants\u2019 arrests had only been possible due to searches conducted by the NORP police as it had not been possible to find them at their places of permanent residence .","On DATE ORG once again extended the applicants\u2019 detention , citing the same reasons as in the previous detention orders . On DATE the ORG agreed that it was necessary to continue holding the applicants in custody .","In a pre - trial hearing on DATE ORG of GPE allowed an application by a prosecutor for a further extension of the applicants\u2019 detention , finding that the circumstances which had initially called for their being held on remand had not changed . The applicants were to remain in custody until DATE . ORG dismissed the arguments the applicants put forward pertaining to their family situation ( the first CARDINAL applicants had young children ) , the fragile health of the second applicant , the fact that the CARDINAL applicants had registered their places of residence in GPE and that the criminal proceedings against them were already at a very advanced stage . The court also refused to accept personal written sureties given by CARDINAL individuals , including famous NORP actors , writers , film producers , journalists , businessmen , singers and politicians .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE , considering it lawful and well - founded .","In the meantime , investigators ordered expert opinions to determine whether the video - recording including the performance of Punk Prayer PERSON , PERSON downloaded from the Internet was motivated by religious hatred , whether the performance of the song at the cathedral could therefore amount to incitement of religious hatred , and whether it had been an attack on the religious feelings of NORP believers . In the first CARDINAL reports , commissioned by a ORG expert bureau and issued on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , CARDINAL experts answered in the negative to those questions . In particular , the experts concluded that the applicants\u2019 actions on DATE at NORP ORG had not contained any signs of a call or an intention to incite religious hatred or enmity . The experts concluded that the applicants had not been violent or aggressive , had not called for violence in respect of any social or religious group and had not targeted or insulted any religious group .","A third expert opinion subsequently requested by the investigators from directly appointed individual experts produced an entirely different response . In a report issued on DATE CARDINAL experts \u2013 a professor from ORG , a professor at ORG , and the President of a regional NGO , ORG and Law \u2013 concluded that the performance and video had been motivated by religious hatred , in particular hatred and enmity towards NORP believers , and had insulted the religious feelings of such believers .","On DATE the CARDINAL applicants were committed to stand trial before ORG . The trial was closely followed by national and international media .","The trial court dismissed numerous complaints by the applicants related to the negative impact of security measures in place at the courthouse on their right to communicate freely with counsel and to prepare their defence . In particular , in applications to the trial court of DATE for time for a confidential meeting with their lawyers , they stated that confidential communication was impossible because of the presence of police officers and court ushers around the dock . The applicants raised the issue again in a similar application on DATE , which was repeated at a hearing on DATE .","The applicants provided the following description of the hearings . Throughout the trial they were held in an enclosed dock with glass walls and a tight - fitting door , which was commonly known as an \u201c aquarium \u201d . There was insufficient ventilation inside the glass dock and it was hard to breathe , given the high summer temperatures . A desk for the applicants\u2019 lawyers was installed in front of the dock . There was always high security around the dock , which at times included CARDINAL armed police officers and a guard dog . Colour photographs of the courtroom submitted by the applicants show police officers and court ushers surrounding the dock , either behind or close to the defence lawyers\u2019 desk . Some photographs show female police officers positioned between the ORG desk and the glass dock containing the applicants . The applicants had to use a small window measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY to communicate with their lawyers , which they had to bend down to use as it was only a QUANTITY off the ground . The applicants had to take turns to speak to their lawyers as the window was too small for all CARDINAL to use it simultaneously . According to the applicants , confidential communication with their defence team was impossible as a police officer always stood nearby monitoring their conversations and any documents which were passed between them . Furthermore , a dog was present in the courtroom , which was at times particularly disturbing as it had barked during the hearings and behaved restlessly .","According to the applicants , it was virtually impossible to communicate with their lawyers outside the courtroom as they were taken back to the detention facility at TIME , when it was too late to be allowed visitors .","NORP The lawyers applied several times to ORG for permission to hold confidential meetings with the applicants . The lawyers and applicants also sought an adjournment of the hearings to give the defence an opportunity to consult their clients in private , either in the courthouse or in the detention facility , but those requests were fruitless .","Similarly , the court dismissed applications to call the experts who had issued the CARDINAL expert reports or to call additional experts , including art historians and specialists in the fields of contemporary art and religious studies , who could have provided opinions on the nature of the performance on DATE . The defence \u2019s challenges to the third expert report issued on DATE were also unsuccessful .","According to the applicants , when there were hearings they were transported from the detention facility to court in a prison van : they were usually transported in a small vehicle when being taken to the courthouse in the morning and in a bigger one when being taken back to the detention facility in TIME . The bigger van consisted of CARDINAL long sections so men and women could be transported separately . The vans had CARDINAL or CARDINAL compartments separated by metal partitions , each designed to accommodate CARDINAL inmate . The common area of the vans was equipped with benches , while the roof was so low detainees could not stand up . The space in the common compartment of the smaller van was CARDINAL sq . m and was designed for CARDINAL people , while the space in the bigger van was QUANTITY m.","According to the applicants , they were transported in single - person compartments to their custody hearings and in common compartments later on . Most of the time the vans were overcrowded , with detainees sitting directly against each other , with squashed up legs and shoulders . The bigger vans transported CARDINAL detainees , making a number of stops at various GPE facilities to pick up detainees . The vans were sometimes so full that there was no place to sit . Smoking was not prohibited but many detainees did do so . The second and third applicant had severe headaches as a result of the conditions of transport .","The temperature in GPE at the time of the trial was as high as CARDINALoC , while inside the vans it reached CARDINAL The natural ventilation in the single - person compartments was insufficient and the system of forced ventilation was rarely switched on . When it was switched on , it was only for a very short time because of the noise it made and so it was hardly ever used . A fan was switched on during DATE but did not make the conditions of the cramped space any more bearable .","The journey to the courthouse usually took TIME , but could sometimes last as long as TIME . Detainees were not allowed to use the toilet unless the police van drove past ORG , where inmates were allowed to relieve themselves .","On DATE of court hearings the applicants were woken up at CARDINAL TIME to carry out the necessary procedures for leaving the facility and were only taken back to the detention facility TIME . The applicants missed mealtimes at the detention facility because of such early departures and late returns .","On leaving the detention facility in TIME they received a lunch box containing CARDINAL packets of dry biscuits ( for a total of CARDINAL each ) , CARDINAL packets of dry cereal , CARDINAL packet of dry soup and CARDINAL tea bags . However , it was impossible to use the soup and tea bags as hot water was only made available to them TIME before they were taken out of their cells to the courtroom , which was not enough time to eat .","The applicants were forbidden to have drinking water with them during the hearings : requests for short breaks to drink some water and use the toilet were regularly refused , which caused them physical suffering .","On DATE an ambulance was called twice to the court because the applicants became dizzy and had headaches owing to a lack of food , water , rest and sleep . They were both times found fit for trial .","The Government provided the following information concerning the vehicles in which the applicants had been transported to and from the courthouse :","It appears from the information provided by the ORG that DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicants were transported between GPE \u2019s SIZO-CARDINAL remand prison and ORG twice a day for DATE . The trips lasted TIME . The trips back from the court lasted TIME .","According to the ORG , the daytime temperature in GPE in DATE and DATE only reached CARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE and that , furthermore , the TIME and evenings , when the applicants were transported , were cooler than the temperature at TIME . All the vehicles underwent a technical check and were cleaned before departure . They were also disinfected once DATE . The passenger compartment had natural ventilation through windows and ventilation panes . The vehicles were also equipped with a system of forced ventilation . The passenger compartment had artificial lighting in the roof . The Government provided photographs of the vehicles and extracts from the vehicle logs to corroborate their assertion that the number of passengers never exceeded the upper limit on places given in the table in paragraph CARDINAL above . People transported in such vehicles could use toilets in courthouses that were on the PERSON route .","The Government submitted that the area at ORG where the applicants had been held before the hearings and during breaks consisted of CARDINAL cells equipped with benches and forced ventilation . A kettle had also been available to them . The Government provided reports by the officers on duty at ORG on the dates of the applicants\u2019 hearings to corroborate their statement that the applicants had always been provided with a lunch box and boiling water when being transported to court .","On DATE the ORG found the CARDINAL applicants guilty under LAW of LAW Criminal Code of hooliganism for reasons of religious hatred and enmity and for reasons of hatred towards a particular social group . It found that they had committed the crime in a group , acting with premeditation and in concert , and sentenced each of them to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The trial court held that the applicants\u2019 choice of venue and their apparent disregard for the cathedral \u2019s rules of conduct had demonstrated their enmity towards the feelings of NORP believers , and that the religious feelings of those present in the cathedral had therefore been offended . While also taking into account the video - recording of the song Punk Prayer \u2013 Virgin Mary , PERSON , ORG rejected the ORG arguments that their performance had been politically rather than religiously motivated . It stated that the applicants had not made any political statements during their performance on DATE .","The ORG based its findings on the testimony of a number of witnesses , including the cathedral employees and churchgoers present during the performance on DATE and others who , while not witnesses to the actual performance , had watched the video of Punk Prayer PERSON , PERSON Away on the Internet or had been present at the applicants\u2019 performance at FAC in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The witnesses provided a description of the events on DATE or of the video and attested to having been insulted by the applicants\u2019 actions . In addition , ORG referred to statements by representatives of various religions about the insulting nature of the applicants\u2019 performance .","ORG also relied on the expert report issued on DATE , rejecting the first CARDINAL expert reports for the following reasons :","\u201c ... in light of the provisions of LAW incitement to hatred , enmity or disparagement , as can be seen from the questions put [ to the experts ] and the answers given by them .","Moreover , the expert opinions do not fulfil the requirements of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The reports lack any reference to the methods used during the examinations . The experts also exceeded the limits of the questions put before them ; they gave answers to questions which were not mentioned in the [ investigators\u2019 ] decisions ordering the expert examinations . The reports do not provide a linguistic and psychological analysis of the lyrics of the song performed in GPE ORG , and the experts did not carry out a sentiment analysis and psychological assessment of the song \u2019s lyrics in relation to the place where the crime had been committed ( an NORP church ) . [ The experts ] examined the lyrics of the song selectively . Given the lack of a linguistic and psychological analysis of the lyrics of the song performed in NORP ORG , the experts made an unfounded and poorly reasoned conclusion , which runs counter to the testimony of the eyewitnesses , the victims of the crime , who expressed an extremely negative view of the events in NORP FAC and of the video - recording . \u201d","On the other hand , ORG found the expert report of CARDINAL DATE to be \u201c detailed , well founded and scientifically reasoned \u201d . The experts\u2019 conclusions were seen by the court as substantiated and not open to dispute , given that the information received from the experts corresponded to the information received from other sources , such as the victims and the witness statements . The court also stressed that it would not call the experts or authorise an additional expert examination as it had no doubts about the conclusions made in the report in question .","ORG main reasons for finding that the applicants had committed hooliganism motivated by religious hatred were as follows :","\u201c The court can not accept the defence \u2019s argument that the GPE actions were not motivated by religious hatred and enmity or hatred against a social group .","The court finds that the GPE actions were motivated by religious hatred for the following reasons .","The defendants present themselves as supporters of feminism , a movement for equality between women and men .","...","At the present time people belonging to the feminist movement fight for equality of the sexes in political , family and sexual relations . Belonging to the feminist movement is not unlawful and is not a criminal offence in GPE . A number of religions , such as ORG , ORG and ORG , have a religious , dogmatic basis incompatible with the ideas of feminism . And while feminism is not a religious theory , its adherents interfere with various areas of social relations such as morality , rules of decency , family relations , sexual relations , including those of a non - traditional nature , which were historically constructed on the basis of religious views .","In the modern world , relations between nations and nationalities and between different religions must be built on the principles of mutual respect and equality . The idea that one is superior and the others inferior , that a different ideology , social group or religion are unacceptable , gives grounds for mutual enmity , hatred and personal conflicts .","The defendants\u2019 hatred and enmity were demonstrated in the court hearings , as was seen from their reactions , emotions and responses in the course of the examination of the victims and witnesses .","...","It can be seen from the statements of the victims , witnesses , defendants and the material evidence that ORG performances are carried out by way of a sudden appearance by the group [ in public places ] with the band dressed in brightly coloured clothes and wearing balaclavas to cover [ their ] faces . Members of the group make brusque movements with their heads , arms and legs , accompanying them with obscene language and other words of an insulting nature . That behaviour does not respect the canons of ORG , irrespective of whether it takes place in a cathedral or outside its walls . Representatives of other religions and people who do not consider themselves believers also find such behaviour unacceptable . PERSON \u2018 performances\u2019 outside religious buildings , although containing signs of clear disrespect for society motivated by religious hatred and enmity and hatred of a specific social group , are not associated with a specific object and therefore amount to a violation of moral standards or an offence . However , placing such a performance within an NORP cathedral changes the object of the crime . It represents in that case a mixture of relations between people , rules of conduct established by legal acts , morality , customs , traditions which guarantee a socially tranquil environment and the protection of individuals in various spheres of their lives , as well as the proper functioning of the ORG and public institutions . Violating the internal regulations of NORP ORG was merely a way of showing disrespect for society , motivated by religious hatred and enmity and hatred towards a social group .","The court concludes that [ the applicants\u2019 ] actions ... offend and insult the feelings of a large group of people in the present case in view of their connection with religion , [ their actions ] incite feelings of hatred and enmity and therefore violate the constitutional basis of the ORG .","[ The applicants\u2019 ] intention to incite religious hatred and enmity and hatred towards a specific social group in view of its connection with religion , in public , is confirmed by the following facts .","A so - called \u2018 punk prayer\u2019 was carried out in a public place \u2013 Christ the Saviour Cathedral . [ The applicants ] knowingly envisaged a negative response to that performance on the part of society as they had prepared bright , open dresses and balaclavas in advance and on DATE publicly and in an organised group carried out their actions , which were motivated by religious hatred and enmity and hatred towards a social group in view of its connection with religion .","...","Given the particular circumstances of the criminal offence , its nature , the division of the roles , the actions of the accomplices , the time , place and method of committing the offence of hooliganism , that is to say a gross violation of public order committed by a group of people acting in premeditated fashion and in concert , and which demonstrated an explicit lack of respect for society motivated by religious hatred and enmity and hatred towards a social group , the court is convinced that [ the applicants ] were correctly charged with the [ offence ] and that their guilt in committing [ it ] has been proven during the trial .","[ The applicants\u2019 ] actions are an obvious and gross violation of generally accepted standards and rules of conduct , given the content of their actions and the place where they were carried out . The defendants violated the generally accepted rules and standards of conduct accepted as the basis of public order in NORP ORG . The use of offensive language in public in the vicinity of NORP icons and objects of worship can only be characterised as a violation of public order , given the place where those actions were carried out . In fact , there was mockery and humiliation of the people present in the ORG , a violation of social tranquillity , unauthorised and wilful entry into the cathedral \u2019s ambon and soleas , accompanied by intentional , stubborn and a lengthy period of disobedience to the reprimands and orders of the guards and churchgoers .","...","The court dismisses [ the applicants\u2019 ] arguments that they had no intention to incite religious hatred or enmity or to offend the dignity of a group of people because of their religious beliefs , as those arguments were refuted by the evidence in the case . ...","Although the members of ORG cite political motives for their actions , arguing that they have a positive attitude to the NORP religion and that their performance was directed against the uniting of ORG and ORG , their words are refuted by their actions , lyrics and articles found [ in the course of the investigation ] .","The defendants\u2019 arguments that their actions in the cathedral were not motivated by hatred or enmity towards NORP churchgoers and NORP , but were governed by political considerations , are also unsubstantiated because , as can be seen from the GPE statements , no political claims were made and no names of political leaders were mentioned during the GPE acts of disorder in the FAC . \u201d","Citing the results of psychological expert examinations commissioned by investigators , ORG noted that the CARDINAL applicants suffered from mixed personality disorders , which did not affect their understanding of the criminal nature of the act they had carried out in the cathedral and did not call for psychiatric treatment . The psychiatric diagnosis was made on the basis of the ORG active social position , their reliance on their personal experience when taking decisions , their determination to defend social values , the \u201c peculiarity \u201d of their interests , their stubbornness in defending their opinion , their confidence and their disregard for social rules and standards .","As regards the punishment to be imposed on the applicants , ORG ruled as follows :","\u201c Taking into account the gravity and social danger of the offence , the circumstances in which it was committed , the object and reasons for committing the offence , and [ the applicants\u2019 ] attitude towards their acts , the court believes that the goals of punishment , such as the restoration of social justice , the correction of people who have been convicted and the prevention of the commission of new offences , can only be achieved by sentencing them to prison and their serving the sentence ... \u201d","The DATE prison sentence was to be calculated from the date of arrest of each of the applicants , that is from CARDINAL , DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyers lodged an appeal on behalf of the CARDINAL applicants and on DATE the first applicant submitted an additional statement to her appeal . She stated , in particular , that throughout the trial she and the other accused had not been able to have confidential consultations with their lawyers .","On DATE , ORG decided on the appeals by upholding the judgment of CARDINAL DATE as far as it concerned the first CARDINAL applicants , but amended it in respect of the third applicant . Given the third applicant \u2019s \u201c role in the criminal offence [ and ] her attitude towards the events [ of DATE ] \u201d , ORG suspended her sentence , gave her DATE probation and released her in the courtroom . ORG did not address the issue of confidential consultations between the applicants and their lawyers .","On DATE the first and second applicants were released from serving their sentence under a general amnesty issued by the PERSON on DATE , the ORG on DATE of ORG .","On DATE the third applicant was also amnestied .","On DATE the ORG , on behalf of the second applicant , applied to the Presidium of ORG for supervisory review of the conviction . He argued , in particular , that the applicants\u2019 actions had not amounted to hooliganism as they could not be regarded as inciting hatred or enmity . Breaches of the normal functioning of places of worship , insults to religious feelings or the profanation of religious objects were administrative offences punishable under LAW .","On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG refused to institute supervisory review proceedings .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the President of ORG refused to review the decision of DATE .","On DATE the ORG submitted an application for supervisory review to ORG . As well as the arguments set out in the previous application , he added that public criticism of officials , including heads of ORG , the government and the heads of religious communities , was a way of exercising the constitutional right to freedom of speech .","On unspecified date the first and second ORG representatives also applied for supervisory review to ORG on their behalf . They argued , inter alia , that the applicants\u2019 actions had amounted to political criticism , not incitement to hatred or enmity on religious grounds or towards any social group . Furthermore , they pointed to a number of alleged breaches of criminal procedure in the course of the trial .","On DATE ORG instituted supervisory review proceedings upon the above applications .","On unspecified date the third applicant also applied for supervisory review of her conviction .","On DATE ORG instituted supervisory review proceedings upon her application .","DATE . On an unspecified date the case was transferred to the ORG of ORG for supervisory review .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG reviewed the case . It upheld the findings that the applicants\u2019 actions had amounted to incitement to religious hatred or enmity and dismissed the arguments concerning breaches of criminal procedure at the trial . At the same time , it removed the reference to \u201c hatred towards a particular social group \u201d from the judgment as it had not been established which social group had been concerned . It reduced each applicant \u2019s sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","NORP The group uploaded a video of their performance of Punk Prayer PERSON , PERSON Away at FAC in GPE and at NORP FAC to their website http:\/\/pussy-riot.livejournal.com . It was also republished by many websites .","On DATE a State Duma member , PERSON , asked ORG to study the video of the group \u2019s performance , to stop its dissemination and to ban the websites which had published it .","As a result of that assessment , on DATE the Zamoskvoretskiy Inter - District Prosecutor applied to ORG of GPE for a declaration that the Internet pages http:\/\/www.pussy-riot.livejournal.com\/CARDINAL.html , http:\/\/www.pussy-riot.livejournal.com\/CARDINAL.html , http:\/\/www.pussy-riot.livejournal.com\/CARDINAL.html and http:\/\/pussy-riot.livejournal.com\/CARDINAL.html were extremist . They contained text posted by ORG , photographs and videos of their performances , including videos for Riot in GPE , PERSON Himself ; PERSON ; Death to Prison , Freedom to ORG ; Release the Cobblestones and Punk Prayer \u2013 Virgin Mary , PERSON Away ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and Appendix for lyrics ) . The prosecutor also sought to limit access to the material in question by installing a filter to block the IP addresses of websites where the recordings had been published .","After learning of the prosecutor \u2019s application through the media , the third applicant lodged an application with FAC on DATE , seeking to join the proceedings as an interested party . She argued that her rights as a member of ORG would be affected by any court decision in the case .","On DATE ORG dismissed her application , finding as follows :","\u201c Having considered [ the third applicant \u2019s ] argument that a decision issued in response to the prosecutor \u2019s request could affect [ her ] rights and obligations , the court finds this argument unsubstantiated because the judgment of CARDINAL DATE issued by ORG in respect of the third applicant became final on DATE ; [ she ] was found guilty by that judgment under LAW of LAW Criminal Code of hooliganism committed in a group acting in premeditated fashion and in concert . That judgment can be appealed against by way of supervisory review in entirely different proceedings .","[ The third applicant \u2019s ] argument that charges related to a criminal offence under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( c ) of LAW were severed from [ the first ] criminal case can not , in the court \u2019s opinion , show that [ her ] rights and obligations would be influenced by the court \u2019s decision issued in respect of the prosecutor \u2019s request because there is no evidence that [ she ] took any part in disseminating the materials published on the Internet sites identified by the prosecutor [ . ] [ T]here is no evidence that [ she ] owns those websites either .","Therefore the court concludes that an eventual decision on the prosecutor \u2019s request for the materials to be declared extremist will not affect [ the third applicant \u2019s ] rights and obligations ; and therefore there are no grounds for her to join the proceedings as an interested party . \u201d","On DATE the third applicant appealed against that decision .","DATE . On DATE the ORG ruled that video content on http:\/\/pussy-riot.livejournal.com was extremist , namely the video - recordings of their performances of Riot in GPE , PERSON Himself ; PERSON ; Death to Prison , Freedom to ORG ; Release the Cobblestones and Punk Prayer \u2013 Virgin Mary , PERSON Away . It also ordered that access to that material be limited by a filter on the website \u2019s IP address . Relying on sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Suppression of Extremism Act and section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and ORG , the court gave the reasons for its decision and stated as follows :","\u201c According to section CARDINAL of [ LAW ] , extremist activity is deemed to be constituted by , inter alia , the stirring up of social , racial , ethnic or religious discord ; propaganda about the exceptional nature , superiority or deficiency of persons on the basis of their social , racial , ethnic , religious or linguistic affiliation or attitude to religion ; violations of human and civil rights and freedoms and lawful interests in connection with a person \u2019s social , racial , ethnic , religious or linguistic affiliation or attitude to religion ; public appeals to carry out the above - mentioned acts or the mass dissemination of knowingly extremist material , and likewise the production or storage thereof with the aim of mass dissemination .","...","Results from monitoring the Internet and of a psychological linguistic expert examination performed by experts from ORG state that the Internet sites http:\/\/www.pussy-riot.livejournal.com\/CARDINAL.html , http:\/\/www.pussy-riot.livejournal.com\/CARDINAL.html , http:\/\/www.pussy-riot.livejournal.com\/CARDINAL.html and http:\/\/pussy-riot.livejournal.com\/CARDINAL.html contain video materials of an extremist nature .","That conclusion is confirmed by report no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on the results of the psychological linguistic expert examination performed by experts from ORG .","The court concludes that free access to video materials of an extremist nature may contribute to the incitement of hatred and enmity on national and religious grounds , and violates the rights of a specific group of individuals \u2013 the consumers of information services in GPE .","The court accepts the prosecutor \u2019s argument that the dissemination of material of an extremist nature disrupts social stability and creates a threat of damage to the life , health and dignity of individuals , to the personal security of an unidentified group of individuals and disrupts the basis of the constitutional order of the ORG . Accordingly , the aforementioned activities are against the public interests of GPE .","...","Taking the above - mentioned circumstances into account , the court finds that the prosecutor \u2019s application is substantiated and should be allowed in full . \u201d","The third applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the third applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE on the grounds that LAW did not provide for a possibility to appeal against a decision to deny an application to participate in proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the third applicant against the decision of DATE . It found that under LAW procedure no appeal lay against a court decision on an application to join proceedings as an interested party . It noted , furthermore , that the applicant would be able to restate her arguments in her appeal against the decision on the merits of the case .","On DATE ORG left the third applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE without examination . The appellate court stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... the subject in question was the extremist nature of the information placed in the Internet sources indicated by the prosecutor and the necessity to limit access to them[. ] [ A]t the same time , the question of [ the third applicant \u2019s ] rights and obligations was not examined , the impugned decision did not limit her rights , and she was not a party to the proceedings begun upon the prosecutor \u2019s application .","Taking into account the foregoing , [ the third applicant \u2019s ] allegations contained in her appeal statement concerning alleged breaches of procedural rules on account of the failure to allow her to participate in proceedings which violated her rights and legal interests are unfounded and are based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules of procedural law .","Therefore ... [ the third applicant ] has no right to appeal against the above decision . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["10","3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","5-3","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154106","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ST\u0102NCULESCU AND CHI\u0162AC v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant in application no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr C. R. Dancu , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant in application no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON , was a NORP national who was born in DATE and lived in GPE . He died on DATE . His wife PERSON expressed the wish to continue these proceedings . In its decision of DATE , the ORG granted locus standi to his heir . The ORG will continue to refer to PERSON as \u201c the applicant \u201d . The applicant and subsequently his heir were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the cases , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The cases concern the events of CARDINAL DATE in GPE , when a popular revolt that started in that city led eventually to the fall of the totalitarian regime in GPE . At the time in question , the applicants were high - ranking military officers who were sent to PERSON to suppress the revolt . Orders were given by the then Head of ORG to kill the protesters . CARDINAL people were killed and CARDINAL sustained gunshot wounds . More details of these events are given in ORG \u201c CARDINAL DATE \u201d and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE .","After the change of regime , the applicants took up appointments in the newly - formed government , since the general perception at that time was that during the DATE events they had played a significant role in bringing the army onto the side of the insurgents . They remained in power in the first few governments formed after the revolution .","On DATE the Government established a truth commission in GPE \u2012 consisting of military personnel , civil and military prosecutors , members of civil society and specialists ( including lawyers and a doctor ) \u2012 with a view to investigating the events of DATE .","On DATE CARDINAL written statements about the events were gathered . Mr. PERSON stated that PERSON , a prosecutor and member of the truth commission , had assembled in CARDINAL room all the army conscripts who had participated in the events and had ordered them to describe the nature of the applicant \u2019s participation in the repression . He claimed that later on , in DATE , PERSON had used these extra - judicial declarations in the criminal proceedings against the applicants .","In DATE , the truth commission recommended that criminal investigations be opened in respect of several high - ranking officers , including the applicants , in order to establish the extent of their responsibility for the repression of the revolution in GPE .","On DATE , the military prosecutor \u2019s office opened investigations in respect of several officers identified by the commission , as well as various other suspects . Some high - ranking officers of the former regime were convicted over the course of time for their role in the repression and some servicemen were found guilty of having killed or injured individual victims .","On an unspecified date , criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants . On DATE ORG decided not to bring criminal proceedings against a number of high - ranking officers of the former regime , including the applicants , for alleged crimes committed during the DATE events in GPE . On DATE that decision was quashed and the prosecution continued .","On DATE the applicants were informed of the accusations against them and were given access to the prosecution file . On DATE they were committed for trial by ORG on charges of aggravated murder in the context of the repression of the popular revolt of DATE .","The bill of indictment was some CARDINAL pages long and the prosecution file consisted of several volumes of CARDINAL pages each , comprising witness testimonies and documents from the time of the revolt DATE shorthand records of meetings , military logs and medical certificates . CARDINAL witnesses were summoned by the prosecutor and CARDINAL civil parties joined the proceedings .","The trial took place before ORG , first before the Military Section and then before LAW , which gave judgment in the case . PERSON complained about alleged irregularities in the proceedings , but his requests were dismissed by the court on DATE .","ORG examined the prosecution file and heard testimonies from several witnesses for both the prosecution and the defence . The applicants also made statements before the court .","On DATE the defence lodged a constitutional complaint alleging an interference with the applicants\u2019 right to CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction ; on DATE it was rejected by ORG , which then proceeded with its examination of the merits .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a threejudge bench , convicted the applicants of aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder and sentenced each of them to fifteen years\u2019 imprisonment , restriction of the exercise of certain civil rights , and demotion . It also ordered the applicants , together with ORG , to pay damages to CARDINAL victims who had suffered injuries while the CARDINAL applicants were in command of the military forces .","On DATE ORG dismissed appeals that had been lodged by the applicants , ORG and some of the civil parties . The judgment thus became final .","ORG paid the compensation to the victims . The CARDINAL applicants were imprisoned .","On DATE the Procurator General lodged an extraordinary appeal , seeking to have the previous decisions set aside ( recurs \u00een anulare ) , on CARDINAL grounds :","( i ) that the courts had failed to order a psychiatric evaluation of PERSON ORG to be conducted , even though that requirement was mandatory for murder trials ;","( ii ) that the first - instance court had dismissed the constitutional complaint raised by the defence instead of allowing ORG to examine its merits ;","( iii ) that PERSON right to be assisted by counsel had been infringed by the appeal court ; and","( iv ) that the acts committed by the applicants had not constituted crimes .","On DATE the extraordinary appeal was allowed by the CARDINAL Chambers of ORG sitting together .","ORG also nullified the execution of the sentences . The applicants were thus released from prison .","A CARDINAL - judge bench of ORG and ORG ( formerly ORG ) took over the case . On DATE it also referred to ORG the constitutional complaint which PERSON had reiterated before it . ORG dismissed it on DATE . ORG granted requests for new evidence made by the applicants , in particular requests to adduce documents and to summon CARDINAL witnesses ; it heard statements from the applicants and some of the witnesses and re - examined the whole body of evidence administered during the criminal prosecution and in the first set of proceedings .","Mr PERSON complained of alleged irregularities in the prosecution proceedings . On DATE his complaints were dismissed in a thoroughly reasoned interlocutory judgment .","With regard to the merits of the case , the applicants denied committing the crimes of which they had been accused .","In a judgment of DATE ORG found the applicants guilty of aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder and imposed a final sentence of DATE imprisonment each , together with an additional penalty restricting the exercise of certain civil rights , and demotion . It also granted the compensation claims on the same terms as in the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It noted that ORG had already paid those damages .","The applicants appealed and in a final decision of DATE a CARDINAL - judge bench of ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment delivered by the CARDINAL - judge bench .","The applicants were imprisoned once again in execution of their sentence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170874","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"\u00d6Z v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by Mr M. Eryaman , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son PERSON , a construction worker , fell from a scaffold while working on a private construction site and died shortly afterwards as a result of the injuries he had sustained .","Right after the incident , an investigation into the death of the applicant \u2019s son was initiated . Accordingly , a report on the scene of the incident was prepared , witnesses were interviewed and the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s employers were questioned as possible suspects . The GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office also commissioned an expert report to establish the causes of the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s death , in particular to determine whether his employers bore any responsibility for DATE .","NORP The expert report submitted to the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE found that the applicant \u2019s son had been primarily responsible for his fall , on account of his failure to take the necessary precautions to ensure his safety on the scaffold , which he would have been expected to do as an experienced construction worker . It added , however , that the construction site managers and the civil engineer in charge were also responsible for the accident , as they had not set up a system of checks to ensure work safety on the construction site , and had not provided the deceased with sufficient training on safety measures , contrary to the requirements of the relevant legislation .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office filed with ORG a bill of indictment against CARDINAL people in charge of the construction site in question , for causing the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s death by negligence . The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party .","On an unspecified date ORG Instance appointed a panel of CARDINAL experts , with a view to determining liability for the death of the applicant\u2019 s son . The expert report submitted to the criminal court on DATE found that the scaffold from which the applicant \u2019s son had fallen had not been sufficiently secured , and this was the responsibility of the construction site manager , L.K. Accordingly , the expert report established that PERSON bore the main responsibility for PERSON \u00d6z \u2019s death .","Relying on that second expert report , on DATE ORG convicted PERSON of causing the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s death by negligence . However , it decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment , in accordance with LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .","Following the death of her son , ORG started paying the applicant a DATE \u201c survivor \u2019s pension \u201d in the amount of MONEY ( TRY \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) as of DATE , in accordance with LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .","In the meantime , an investigation had been initiated into the death of PERSON \u00d6z by ORG , which concluded on DATE that the accident which had claimed his life had been a \u201c work - related accident \u201d .","Following that decision , ORG allocated the applicant a DATE \u201c work - related accident pension \u201d as of CARDINAL DATE in the amount of TRY MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , in addition to the survivor \u2019s pension she was already receiving . However , relying on sections PERSON ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW , which concerned the calculation of payments to persons entitled to several different types of pension , it recalculated the amount of the applicant \u2019s survivor \u2019s pension and reduced it to TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG MONEY ) . Moreover , ORG asked the applicant to pay back the excess from the survivor \u2019s pension she had been receiving up to that date .","On DATE the applicant filed an action with ORG against ORG , arguing that the latter had erroneously interpreted the relevant sections of LAW on the calculation of benefits , and had thus miscalculated her survivor \u2019s pension .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim and ordered ORG to pay her the benefits she was due retrospectively , together with interest .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .","Below is a table of the DATE payments received by the applicant from ORG following the death of her son , based on the documents she submitted to the ORG :","In addition to the amounts noted above , the applicant received a lump sum payment of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL in DATE ) on an unspecified date in DATE , in accordance with the judgment of ORG , to cover the past benefits of which she had been deprived owing to the erroneous calculations of ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166487","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ALIMOV v. TURKEY","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Prompt information);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);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Gaziantep .","In DATE the applicant and his family left GPE to escape the oppression they faced on account of their religious beliefs . After spending some time in GPE , in DATE they entered GPE by legal means .","Subsequent to their arrival in GPE , the applicant and his wife made a request for asylum . The applicant \u2019s wife was granted a residence permit in the city of Gaziantep pending her asylum request , but the applicant was not able to obtain one as he could not pay the requisite fee for the permit . The applicant , therefore , resided illegally in Gaziantep .","On DATE the applicant and his family travelled from GPE to GPE to seek medical treatment for his wife . The applicant was subjected to a fine of MONEY ( TRY ) by the NORP border police on account of his illegal residence in GPE . He was also banned from entering the country for DATE .","On DATE the applicant and his family attempted to re - enter GPE through FAC in GPE . The applicant , however , was not permitted entry , and he was placed in the detention facility at the airport for \u201c inadmissible passengers \u201d pending his repatriation to GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an objection to his repatriation and lodged a new asylum request .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) requested the offices of the GPE and Gaziantep governors to notify the applicant that he would be accommodated at the airport detention facility pending a decision on his asylum request . According to a note dated CARDINAL DATE addressed by the GPE governor \u2019s office to ORG , the applicant was notified as requested . The note did not , however , indicate when the relevant notification had been made .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum request . The applicant was notified of this decision on DATE . He was also informed on that date that he could lodge an objection to the ORG \u2019s decision within TIME , that he would be deported in the event of the dismissal of his objection and that he would continue to be accommodated in the airport detention facility in the meantime .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection to the ORG \u2019s decision .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from NORP FAC to the ORG Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre in GPE ( \u201c the NORP Removal Centre \u201d ) .","The applicant was kept in the Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre until DATE . On DATE , he was granted a temporary residence permit pending his asylum request .","There is no information in the case file regarding the outcome of the applicant \u2019s asylum request .","The applicant claimed that the detention facility at FAC where he had been kept for DATE between CARDINAL May and DATE had been a room of QUANTITY and that , while the numbers had fluctuated , the room had accommodated up to CARDINAL people at times . There had been no furniture in the room suitable for sleeping on , but only QUANTITY chaises longues , which had been impossible to rest on . The applicant further claimed that throughout his detention , he had not been allowed to leave that room , nor had he had any contact with the outside world , including with a lawyer . He had also been denied any access to natural light and fresh air , as the room in question had had no windows . According to the applicant , the detention facility had been designed for holding inadmissible passengers for short periods and had been unsuitable for long - term detention . All other passengers in his situation had either been released or repatriated after DATE of detention at most .","The applicant claimed that the Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre had been severely overcrowded at the time of his detention . He had had to share a dormitory room of QUANTITY with CARDINAL other people , who had been provided with CARDINAL bunk beds to sleep on . He had had to spend all his time in that humid and smoke - filled room without being able to engage in any social activities and had not been allowed access to outdoor exercise throughout his detention . The applicant further alleged that the overcrowding of the removal centre had led to hygiene problems . The building had been infested with insects and there had been frequent outbreaks of contagious diseases . The quality and quantity of the food provided had also been fairly poor .","The Government claimed that the room in which the applicant had been held at FAC had measured QUANTITY . The room had been equipped with CARDINAL beds for men , as well as a ventilation system , a television , a toilet and a shower . The room had had a padded sitting area for rest and sleep , and had been cleaned DATE . The Government submitted that during the applicant \u2019s stay DATE and DATE , the number of detainees had never exceeded CARDINAL . They did not , however , submit any documents in support of that submission , such as a list of the detainees kept in the detention facility during the relevant period . Nor did they submit any photographs of the detention facility , despite the ORG \u2019s request to that effect .","The Government stated that the Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre \u2019s capacity had been reduced from CARDINAL to CARDINAL , in line with recommendations made by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , following its visit in DATE . Accordingly , the number of detainees during the period of the applicant \u2019s detention had never exceeded CARDINAL . They did not , however , submit the registers recording the occupation rates during the period in question .","The Government stated that the detainees had been accommodated on CARDINAL floors at the removal centre : the first CARDINAL floors had been reserved for male detainees , and the third floor for females . The information provided as to the number and size of the rooms was , however , inconsistent . While the Government claimed in their observations that there had been CARDINAL dormitory rooms on each floor , measuring CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and QUANTITY respectively , the information note prepared by ORG and appended to their observations indicated that there had been CARDINAL rooms on the first floor , measuring CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and QUANTITY , and CARDINAL rooms on both the second and third floors , measuring CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and QUANTITY . The Government stated that they were not able to provide information as to the exact number of people that the applicant had shared a room with , because detainees had been left to make their own choice of rooms . They submitted , however , that there had been CARDINAL beds in each room .","The Government further submitted that there had been a cafeteria measuring QUANTITY on each floor , where breakfast , lunch and dinner had been served DATE . The detainees had had the right to outdoor exercise in suitable weather conditions , as well as the right to engage in sports and watch television . The detainees had had access to medical care in cases of emergency and a doctor had visited the removal centre once DATE . As for hygiene standards in the facility , there had been CARDINAL cleaning staff working full time at the removal centre , and the building had been disinfected at certain times .","In support of their claims , the ORG submitted , inter alia , photographs 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 can be determined that there were CARDINAL beds ( that is to say CARDINAL bunk beds ) in both rooms . It is further 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 in the photograph of the hallway . No photos of the toilets or the showers were provided .","The Government also submitted an outdoor photo of some detainees in the removal centre \u2019s courtyard . There were no men amongst these detainees \u2013 only women and children ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152461","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ALASIPPOLA v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant \u2019s business was declared bankrupt in DATE and he was subject to a tax inspection for DATE . The tax inspection report was completed on DATE . At the same time , the applicant \u2019s wife was also subject to a tax inspection . She has lodged a separate application with ORG ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Hanna Riikka Alasippola v. GPE ) .","On DATE the tax authorities imposed additional valueadded tax on the applicant as well as tax surcharges ( veronkorotus , skattef\u00f6rh\u00f6jning ) for DATE and DATE .","On DATE the tax authorities imposed additional income tax and tax surcharges on the applicant for DATE and DATE . The amount of tax surcharges varied CARDINAL .","NORP By letters dated DATE and DATE the applicant sought rectification from ORG ( verotuksen oikaisulautakunta , pr\u00f6vningsn\u00e4mnden i beskattnings\u00e4renden ) , requesting it to quash the decisions of DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s applications concerning the income tax imposed for DATE and DATE .","The applicant appealed against both the decisions of DATE and the rectification decisions of CARDINAL DATE to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltnings - domstolen ) .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeals concerning the income tax imposed for DATE and DATE .","The applicant appealed against the decision of DATE by ORG to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) but later withdrew his application . On DATE the case was considered by ORG as lapsed .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeals concerning the value - added tax imposed in respect of DATE . It appears that no appeal was made against this decision .","On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant , inter alia , for aggravated dishonesty by a debtor ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 velallisen ep\u00e4rehellisyys , grovt oredlighet som g\u00e4lden\u00e4r ) , false accounting ( kirjanpitorikos , bokf\u00f6ringsbrott ) and aggravated tax fraud ( t\u00f6rke\u00e4 veropetos , grovt skattebedr\u00e4geri ) concerning DATE . According to the charges , the applicant was accused of aggravated dishonesty by a debtor as , DATE , he had transferred income to his wife to the detriment of his creditors . He was accused of false accounting DATE as he had failed to make entries into the accounts . He was accused of aggravated tax fraud DATE as he had failed to declare income and consequently , inter alia , the income tax and value - added tax imposed on him had been too low . The tax authorities joined the charges and presented a compensation claim totalling approximately the amount of avoided taxes .","On DATE the GPE - GPE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) convicted the applicant of aggravated dishonesty by a debtor , false accounting and of aggravated tax fraud , and imposed a prison sentence of DATE and DATE . He was ordered to pay the tax authorities CARDINAL ( ORG ) plus interest in compensation .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) , requesting that the ORG judgment be quashed and the charges dismissed . He referred to the ne bis in idem principle and to the ORG \u2019s case - law in that respect .","On DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , upheld the ORG judgment . The court found that the mere fact that the same issues had been assessed in the administrative proceedings did not necessarily prevent the examination of the charges pressed . After having compared the charges of aggravated tax fraud to the facts on the basis of which the tax surcharges had been imposed , by the type of tax imposed and DATE concerned , the court found that the facts on which these charges were based were substantially different from those on which the tax surcharges had been based . There was thus no impediment to examining the charges against the applicant .","By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG . He emphasised that matters which had already been examined by the tax authorities could not be examined again in criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal except in respect of the charges concerning aggravated tax fraud .","On DATE ORG dismissed the charge of aggravated tax fraud without examining the merits as far as the charge concerned income tax from DATE and value - added tax from DATE , and withheld the relevant taxes . The applicant was convicted for the remaining part of the charge of aggravated tax fraud and sentenced , together with the earlier convictions , to imprisonment for DATE and DATE . The court found that , when considering the ne bis in idem prohibition , the similarity of the facts should be examined by the type of tax imposed and separately for DATE . As concerned DATE , there was no impediment to examining the charge as the tax inspection did not concern DATE . However , concerning DATE , the charge could not be examined , except in respect of value - added tax , as the same matter had already been subject to an assessment by the tax authorities . In respect of DATE the charge could not be examined at all . The same applied for DATE and DATE . The taxation decisions had all become final before the charge of aggravated tax fraud , which concerned the same matter , was pressed . Therefore , the charge could only be examined in respect of DATE and in respect of the valueadded tax imposed during DATE . This judgment has been published under number PERSON .","Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( laki verotusmenettelyst\u00e4 , lagen om beskattningsf\u00f6rfarande , Act no . DATE , as amended by Act no . DATE ) provides that if a person has failed to make the required tax returns or has given incomplete , misleading or false information to the tax authorities and tax has therefore been incompletely or partially levied , the taxpayer shall be ordered to pay unpaid taxes together with additional tax and a tax surcharge .","According to LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen , as amended by Acts no . DATE and no . DATE ) , a person who ( CARDINAL ) gives a tax authority false information on a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) files a tax return concealing a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) for the purpose of avoiding tax , fails to observe a duty pertaining to taxation , influencing the assessment of tax , or ( CARDINAL ) acts otherwise fraudulently and thereby causes or attempts to cause a tax not to be assessed , or too low a tax to be assessed or a tax to be unduly refunded , shall be sentenced for tax fraud to a fine or to imprisonment for a period of DATE . If by the tax fraud ( CARDINAL ) considerable financial benefit is sought or ( CARDINAL ) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical manner and the tax fraud is aggravated when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated tax fraud to imprisonment for a period DATE .","According to LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( as amended by Acts no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , a debtor who ( CARDINAL ) destroys his or her property , ( CARDINAL ) gives away or otherwise surrenders his or her property without acceptable reason , ( CARDINAL ) transfers his or her property abroad in order to place it beyond the reach of his or her creditors or ( CARDINAL ) increases his or her liabilities without basis and thus causes his or her insolvency or essentially worsens his or her state of insolvency , shall be sentenced for dishonesty by a debtor to a fine or to imprisonment for DATE . If by the dishonesty by a debtor ( CARDINAL ) considerable benefit is sought , ( CARDINAL ) considerable or particularly substantial damage is caused to the creditors , or ( CARDINAL ) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical manner and the dishonesty by a debtor is aggravated also when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated dishonesty by a debtor to imprisonment for DATE and at DATE .","ORG has taken a stand on the ne bis in idem principle in its precedent case ORG which concerned tax surcharges and aggravated tax fraud . In that case it found , inter alia , that even though a final judgment in a taxation case , in which tax surcharges had been imposed , prevented criminal charges being brought about the same matter , such preventive effect could not be applied to pending cases ( lis pendens ) crossing from administrative proceedings to criminal proceedings or vice versa . However , in DATE ORG reversed its line of interpretation , finding that charges for tax fraud could no longer be brought if there was already a decision to order or not to order tax surcharges in the same matter ( PERSON CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) .","The Act on Tax Surcharges and Customs Duty Surcharges Imposed by a Separate Decision ( laki erillisell\u00e4 p\u00e4\u00e4t\u00f6ksell\u00e4 m\u00e4\u00e4r\u00e4tt\u00e4v\u00e4st\u00e4 veron- tai tullinkorotuksesta , lagen om skattef\u00f6rh\u00f6jning och tullh\u00f6jning som p\u00e5f\u00f6rs genom ett s\u00e4rskilt beslut , Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE . According to the LAW , the tax authorities can , when making a tax decision , assess whether to impose a tax surcharge or to report the matter to the police . The tax authorities can decide not to impose a tax surcharge . If they have not reported the matter to the police , a tax surcharge can be imposed by a separate decision by the end of the calendar year following the actual tax decision . If the tax authorities have imposed tax surcharges , they can no longer report the same matter to the police unless , after imposing the tax surcharges , they have received evidence of new or recently revealed facts . If the tax authorities have reported the matter to the police tax surcharges can , as a rule , no longer be imposed . The purpose of the LAW is thus to ensure that a tax or a customs duty matter is processed and possibly punished in CARDINAL set of proceedings . The LAW does not , however , contain any transitional provisions extending its scope retroactively ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178359","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DORI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer , the local police , seeking his reinstatement and damages . His claim was eventually rejected .","The first - instance judgment was rendered by ORG on DATE .","The second - instance judgment was rendered by ORG on DATE .","The third - instance judgment was rendered by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional appeal with ORG complaining under LAW No . CARDINAL about the outcome and length of his labour dispute .","On DATE ORG found a breach of the applicant \u2019s right to a trial within a reasonable time and rejected the remainder of the case . It did not award any damages ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140936","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"CHOSTA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens","text":["The case originated in an application ( no . CARDINAL ) against GPE lodged with ORG under LAW ( \u201c the LAW ) by a NORP national , Mr PERSON ( \u201c the applicant \u201d ) , on DATE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the material time the applicant worked at a steel factory owned by a company in which the ORG held PERCENT of the share capital . The company operated under its articles of association and was managed by a director appointed by the general meeting of shareholders , which was the highest authority deemed competent since shareholders represented over PERCENT of the votes . The company \u2019s supervisory board included CARDINAL representative of ORG .","On DATE the director of the company , noting an increase in instances of staff members presenting for work under the influence of alcohol , and relying on paragraph CARDINAL of the company \u2019s internal regulations , which \u201c forbade attendance at work in a state of intoxication and ... drinking at work \u201d , instructed the departmental factory guards ( \u201c the guards \u201d ) \u2013 who were employees of the company \u2013 to \u201c apprehend , in compliance with the legislation of GPE , anyone appearing to be in a state of alcoholic ( narcotic ) intoxication and take them to [ the GPE ] office for a report subsequently to be drawn up \u201d . Employees who disagreed with the report were to be escorted to a local clinic for an alcohol test .","At TIME on DATE , a guard at the factory gate suspected that the applicant , who was on his way out after working CARDINAL shifts in succession , was drunk and asked him whether he had drunk alcohol . Following the applicant \u2019s reply that he had drunk \u201c a glass of vodka \u201d , guards PERSON and P. seized the applicant \u2019s badge and would not allow him to leave the LOC of the factory . After TIME the senior guard , ORG arrived , questioned the applicant and drew up a report indicating that the applicant was drunk and \u201c looked untidy \u201d , and that \u201c there was a strong smell of alcohol on his breath \u201d . The applicant , who disagreed with those conclusions and refused to sign the report , was then taken to the office of the chief guard , PERSON , for further questioning . PERSON asked several factory workers to smell the applicant \u2019s breathe and say whether he was drunk . Eventually , the applicant was escorted to a local clinic where at TIME he was given an alcohol test and was found to be sober . Subsequently , at an unspecified time , the applicant was allowed to leave , his badge having been returned to him .","On an unspecified date , upon the applicant \u2019s complaint , the head of the company \u2019s trade union initiated an internal investigation into the incident . The investigation established that the report drawn up by guard PERSON on DATE had been based on the statements of S. and P. , \u201c external signs of the applicant \u2019s alcoholic intoxication \u201d , and the applicant \u2019s behavior after he had been stopped by PERSON It was also noted that the applicant had consented to undergo an alcohol test at the clinic .","On DATE , the chief guard of the factory , referring to the findings of that investigation , issued an instruction indicating a number of shortcomings in the conduct of the guards involved in the incident on DATE . In particular , it was noted that guard PERSON had failed to describe the signs of alcoholic intoxication which the applicant had allegedly displayed or to record the statements given by PERSON The chief guard also noted that the guards had failed to draw up a separate report on the applicant \u2019s refusal to cooperate .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG against the company , seeking CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage allegedly caused to him by the unlawful actions of the guards on DATE .","On DATE the court rejected the applicant \u2019s claim . It found that the guards had acted in line with the company \u2019s internal regulations and therefore their actions had been lawful . Having heard all the eyewitnesses of the incident on DATE , the court concluded that there was no evidence that the guards\u2019 conduct caused damage to the applicant \u2019s reputation , health , lifestyle or working relationships . The court relied on the report of CARDINAL DATE and the internal investigation report , plus the records of the applicant \u2019s alcohol test on that date and statements by PERSON The court invoked Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicant .","The applicant appealed in cassation , stating , in particular , that ORG had failed to verify whether his detention had been compatible with the requirements of the Convention . According to the applicant , his detention on DATE had not been justified by any of the grounds in LAW but no compensation had been available to him , contrary to LAW . On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal in cassation on the ground that there was no evidence suggesting that the decisions of the lower courts were unlawful or inaccurate .","Meanwhile , on DATE at TIME , guards P. and NORP , suspecting the applicant of being drunk , had stopped him as he was leaving the factory . The guards took the applicant to their office and questioned him . The senior guard PERSON drew up a report stating that the applicant was drunk and noting that the latter disagreed with that conclusion . According to the applicant , the guards refused to take him to a clinic for an alcohol test and did not allow him to leave until TIME on DATE . From CARDINAL on DATE to TIME on DATE the guards allegedly pressured and threatened the applicant . According to the Government , the applicant was kept in the GPE office for TIME on DATE .","On DATE at TIME the applicant , who wished to prove that he was sober , went to a local clinic and at TIME on DATE took an alcohol test . There were CARDINAL reports drawn up following the test , which came to opposite conclusions ; the disparity between the conclusions was explained by the different techniques that had been used .","The company carried out an internal investigation into the incident of DATE and found no fault in the GPE conduct . The investigation report mentioned , inter alia , that the guards had not taken the applicant to a clinic for an alcohol test because of poor weather conditions .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG against the company , seeking ORG CARDINAL in compensation for the non - pecuniary damage allegedly caused to him by his unlawful detention on DATE .","On DATE the court rejected the applicant \u2019s claim , relying on essentially the same grounds as in its judgment of DATE ( see above ) . The court also noted that according to the statements of guards P. and ORG , the applicant had been released within TIME of his apprehension .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , rejected appeals by the applicant and upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment .","According to the applicant , the judges of the courts dealing with his complaints were biased and corrupt .","Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , in force up to CARDINAL DATE , provided that non - pecuniary damage caused to a person or an organization was to be compensated by the person who had caused it unless the latter proved not to be responsible for the damage . Article CARDINAL provided that an employer was liable for harm caused by an employee , in the performance of his or her work duties , to a third person .","Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provided that unlawful deprivation of liberty or abduction of an individual were punishable by restriction of liberty or imprisonment for DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145566","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ZORNI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+P1-3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election;Right to free elections-{general});Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","She actively participates in the political life of the country . Among other things , in DATE she stood as a candidate of ORG of GPE for election to the parliament of CARDINAL of the Entities .","As the applicant does not declare affiliation with any of the \u201c constituent people \u201d ( namely , ORG , NORP and NORP ) , but simply as a citizen of GPE , she is ineligible to stand for election to the second chamber of the ORG parliament ( ORG ) and to the collective Head of ORG ( the Presidency ) ."],"violated_articles":["14","P1","P12"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3","P12-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177672","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BATI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG ordered a socially - owned company DP PK Deli\u0161es ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor company \u201d ) , based in PERSON , to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of debt , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE , upon the first applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor company to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company ( St. CARDINAL ) .","As a result , the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor company were stayed by ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .","The first applicant duly submitted his respective claim .","The insolvency proceedings against the debtor company are still ongoing .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG found a violation of the first applicant \u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time . It further awarded him MONEY ( ORG ) as just satisfaction for non - pecuniary damage . ORG dismissed the first applicant \u2019s complaint concerning his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as well as his request for pecuniary damages , since the insolvency proceedings were still pending . That decision was delivered to the first applicant on DATE .","The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","He was employed by ORG EI-CARDINAL ORG , a socially - owned company based in LOC ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor company \u201d ) .","On DATE the second applicant concluded the settlement with the debtor company before ORG , by which the debtor company was obliged to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This settlement became final on an unspecified date .","On DATE , upon the second applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said settlement and further ordered the debtor company to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE ORG ordered the debtor company to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final by DATE .","On DATE , upon the second applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor company to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG ordered the debtor company to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions . These decisions became final on unspecified dates .","On DATE and DATE respectively , upon the second applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said decisions and further ordered the debtor company to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company ( St. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . As a result , the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor company were stayed .","The second applicant duly submitted his respective claims .","On DATE the second applicant \u2019s claims were formally recognised .","The insolvency proceedings against the debtor company are still ongoing .","On DATE the second applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal as lodged out of time . It found that the second applicant failed to lodge his appeal within DATE as of the date when the decisions on the staying of the enforcement proceedings as a result of opening of the insolvency proceedings had been delivered to him . That decision was delivered to the second applicant after DATE .","The third applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","He was employed by ORG , a socially - owned company based in PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor company \u201d ) .","On DATE the third applicant concluded the settlement with the debtor company before ORG , by which the debtor company was obliged to pay the third applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This settlement became final on an unspecified date .","On DATE , upon the third applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said settlement and further ordered the debtor company to pay the third applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor company ( St. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The third applicant duly submitted his respective claim .","On DATE the third applicant \u2019s claim was formally recognised .","On DATE the third applicant was paid PERCENT of his recognized claim .","The insolvency proceedings against the debtor company are still ongoing .","On DATE the third applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal as lodged out of time . It found that the third applicant failed to lodge his appeal within DATE as of the date when the decision on opening of the insolvency proceedings had been rendered or as of the date when he had submitted his claim in the insolvency proceedings . That decision was delivered to the third applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140009","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VALERIY FUKLEV v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife , PERSON , was admitted to the gynaecological ward of ORG ( ORG \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u0430 \u043a\u043b\u0456\u043d\u0438\u0447\u043d\u0430 \u043b\u0456\u043a\u0430\u0440\u043d\u044f \u2013 \u201c the hospital \u201d ) with metrofibroma . An operation was scheduled for DATE . According to the medical file , she signed a written consent to undergo the operation . On that date she underwent an unsuccessful intubation of the trachea for the purpose of anesthetisation . The operation was therefore postponed to DATE . The applicant \u2019s wife was discharged until that date .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife underwent an operation for metrofibroma in the hospital . According to the medical file , she signed a written consent to undergo that operation .","After the operation her condition started to deteriorate rapidly .","On DATE a panel of doctors found that the applicant \u2019s wife was suffering from post - operative peritonitis . Although she was then treated for peritonitis , she died of peritonitis and sepsis on DATE .","An autopsy was carried out shortly after her death and confirmed that PERSON had died of post - operative peritonitis complicated by sepsis .","Following the incident , the local health - care authorities set up a commission consisting of CARDINAL members to investigate the quality of the medical treatment provided to the applicant \u2019s wife by the hospital . Having examined the case , the commission found that the medical staff had committed no errors which could have aggravated the patient \u2019s state of health or accelerated her death . The commission concluded that the patient \u2019s death had not been caused by the medical staff .","On DATE the hospital commission examined the case and found that the surgical treatment had been carried out correctly ; that post - surgical treatment had been fully provided to the patient ; and that , despite appropriate treatment , the fatal outcome had been inevitable .","Following a complaint by the applicant , on DATE ORG set up a commission to investigate the adequacy of PERSON treatment at the hospital .","NORP The ministerial commission found that ( i ) the applicant \u2019s wife had not been properly prepared for the planned operation and had been operated on urgently on DATE ; ( ii ) the antibacterial and infusion treatment for the peritonitis and sepsis had been insufficient ; ( iii ) the peritonitis had developed due to the decline of the patient \u2019s immune system ; and ( iv ) the difficulties in the early diagnosis of the peritonitis had been caused by the vague clinical symptomatology ( namely , subdiaphragmatic and subhepatic abscesses ) and , as a result , a relaparotomy had been conducted only on DATE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , having regard to the conclusions of the ministerial commission , ordered that ( i ) an inspection of the gynaecological ward of the hospital be carried out ; ( ii ) the obstetrician - gynaecologist S. undergo training on the medical treatment for sepsis in obstetrics and gynaecology ; and ( iii ) the case of the applicant \u2019s wife be discussed at the meeting of the regional association of obstetrician - gynaecologists .","In a letter of DATE ORG recommended to ORG that it consider disciplinary measures in respect of the doctors involved in the treatment of the applicant \u2019s wife , and advised an early reassessment of the doctors by the qualification commission as to their suitability for the categories that had been granted to them . ORG noted that the ministerial commission had found substantial errors in the treatment of the applicant \u2019s wife . The Ministry specified that the death of the applicant \u2019s wife had been caused by the aftereffects of the operation performed on DATE in the hospital ; the medical file suggested that on DATE the patient had not undergone the necessary supplementary examinations and had not been provided with antianaemic treatment ; after the unsuccessful anesthetisation procedure on DATE the patient had been discharged from the hospital , a measure that had been contraindicated ; on DATE the patient had been operated upon without having been tested for the most important indicators of homeostasis and correction of anaemic status ; the peritonitis had been diagnosed and treated too late ; and during the post - operative period the antibacterial and infusion therapy had been insufficient and the antianaemic treatment miserable . ORG concluded that the medical treatment afforded to the applicant \u2019s wife had been unsatisfactory .","On DATE ORG informed ORG that a thorough inspection of the gynaecological ward of the hospital had been carried out and that it had not revealed any substantial deficiencies in the functioning of the ward . However , the head of the ward had been reprimanded . As to the doctors who had treated the applicant \u2019s wife , it was noted that they would be sent for an extraordinary assessment by the qualification commission . ORG further noted that the doctor who had been in charge of the applicant \u2019s wife had resigned of his own volition .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the circumstances of his wife \u2019s death had been investigated by the health - care institutions and that it had not been found that his wife had been provided with inappropriate medical treatment .","On DATE the Suvorivsky District Prosecutor \u2019s ORG ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) decided not to institute criminal proceedings , finding , in the light of the results of the autopsy and the medical specialists\u2019 opinions , that there had been no element of criminal negligence in the conduct of the medical staff .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , ORG ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) quashed that decision as unfounded and ordered further pre - investigation enquiries .","On DATE ORG decided not to institute criminal proceedings , finding that the death of the applicant \u2019s wife had not resulted from the actions of the medical staff .","On DATE ORG , at the applicant \u2019s request , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that the pre - investigation enquiries had been inadequate . It noted in particular that the file did not contain any final conclusions with regard to the cause of the applicant \u2019s wife \u2019s death , the reasons for the development of the peritonitis or the adequacy of the medical treatment . ORG further noted that the impugned decision had been based essentially on the statements of the medical staff whose actions had been complained of , while the other specialists , as well as the applicant and his relatives , had not been questioned . It therefore instituted criminal proceedings for medical malpractice and remitted the case to ORG for the investigation .","On DATE the investigator ordered a forensic expert opinion on the quality of the medical treatment provided to the applicant \u2019s wife . In reply , ORG at ORG provided a report suggesting that the applicant \u2019s wife had been properly treated in the hospital .","On DATE the applicant was granted the status of victim in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG , having obtained further evidence , decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings into the death of the applicant \u2019s wife on the ground that there had been no corpus delicti in the conduct of the medical staff . The applicant challenged that decision in court .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed the decision of DATE as unfounded and ordered a further investigation . ORG noted that it was necessary to investigate allegations of forgery in respect of the medical file and , in particular , in relation to the signature of the applicant \u2019s wife indicating her consent to the operation of DATE . It also found it necessary to question witnesses , and to take other measures .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) quashed ORG decision of DATE as unfounded and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE discontinuing the criminal investigation . It considered that ORG decision was well founded and supported by the available evidence . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE . The applicant appealed on points of law to ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as inadmissible .","On DATE , following a complaint by the applicant , ORG quashed ORG decision of DATE and ordered a further investigation , noting that additional measures had to be taken in order to determine all the relevant circumstances in the case . In particular , it had to be determined whether or not the signatures of the applicant \u2019s wife had been forged in her medical file , certain pieces of evidence had to be enclosed in the investigation file , and contradictions in the medical evidence had to be resolved .","On DATE ORG at ORG issued a report concluding , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s wife had been properly and fully diagnosed in the gynaecological ward of the hospital ; it had been necessary to operate on the applicant \u2019s wife ; however , she should have undergone supplementary examinations and measures to control the bleeding should have been taken ; the correct surgical method had been chosen and the operation had been conducted correctly . According to the report , the death of the applicant \u2019s wife had been caused by several factors : ( i ) a weak immune system which had led to the development of post - operative peritonitis ; ( ii ) the failure by the gynaecologists to use all possible means to control the bleeding without resorting to urgent surgical intervention ; and ( iii ) belated treatment for the peritonitis . It was specified that if the peritonitis had been diagnosed and treated in time it was possible that the patient \u2019s life would have been saved .","On DATE the investigator ordered an additional forensic medical examination , finding that the report of CARDINAL DATE was incomplete and contradictory .","On DATE ORG at ORG issued another report concluding , inter alia , that the applicant \u2019s wife \u2019s death had been caused by several factors , including the gravity of the pathology , the patient \u2019s obesity , which had diminished her immunity and contributed to the development of post - operative complications , and the shortcomings in the medical treatment of the patient . It concluded that there was an \u201c indirect relationship \u201d between the shortcomings in the medical treatment in the gynaecological ward of the hospital and the death of the patient .","On DATE the senior investigator of ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings for lack of corpus delicti in the conduct of the medical staff . He found that the death of the applicant \u2019s wife had been caused by the cumulative effect of several factors and it could not be argued that there was a direct relationship between the shortcomings in the medical treatment and the fatal outcome .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of the Kherson Region quashed the decision of DATE as unfounded and ordered a further investigation . He specified that additional measures were necessary to investigate the cause of the applicant \u2019s wife \u2019s death and the alleged forgery of her signatures in the medical file .","In the course of the subsequent proceedings , the investigator ordered further expert inquiries on various aspects of the treatment of applicant \u2019s wife . Apart from these issues , the experts concluded that the signatures in the medical file were indeed those of the applicant \u2019s wife .","On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings into the death of the applicant \u2019s wife on the ground that there had been no corpus delicti in the conduct of the medical staff . On the basis of the expert examination reports and other evidence , the investigator found that the death of the applicant \u2019s wife had been caused by the cumulative effect of several factors , including shortcomings in the medical treatment in the gynaecological ward of the hospital ; however , there was no direct causal link between those shortcomings and the death of the patient .","At the material time the applicant owned a shop in PERSON .","On DATE a tax police squad visited the applicant \u2019s shop in order to carry out an unscheduled inspection due to the applicant \u2019s alleged failure to submit tax returns .","The inspection was not conducted , as the applicant , his relatives and his employees prevented the officers from accessing the store \u2019s tax records . It led to a fracas .","As was later established by the investigation , at some point the applicant switched off the light and one of the employees screamed that she had been punched in her face by tax officer PERSON escalated the scuffle and PERSON tried to leave the scene in his car . The applicant tried to prevent PERSON from leaving and jumped on the bonnet of the car , then broke a side window and tried to pull officer PERSON out of the car .","According to the applicant , during the incident he was injured by the officers .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the law - enforcement authorities , arguing that on DATE he had been ill - treated by the tax police .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who documented injuries on the applicant \u2019s forearm and lip .","On DATE a forensic medical expert , relying on the results of the medical examination of DATE , reported that the applicant had sustained numerous scratches to the right forearm and a bruise to the lower lip . The expert classified the injuries as light and stated that they could have been sustained on DATE .","On DATE the investigator of ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) decided not to open criminal proceedings against the officers as their conduct did not disclose any elements of a criminal offence . He found that the scratches on the applicant \u2019s forearm had been caused by the applicant himself , when he had attempted to pull the officer out of the car through the broken window . Similarly , the bruise on his lip could have been caused by the applicant himself at any time during the incident , including the moment when he had jumped on or off the car or broken the window . No evidence had been found which suggested that the bruise had been inflicted by the officers .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , ORG quashed the decision of DATE , finding that further enquiries were necessary . In particular , ORG instructed the investigator to question the applicant and officer PERSON","Subsequently , in the course of additional enquiries on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE , the investigator of ORG decided not to institute criminal proceedings for similar reasons to those set out in the decision of CARDINAL DATE . Those decisions were quashed by the supervising authorities and additional measures were ordered .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of PERSON refused to open criminal proceedings against the officers , finding that their conduct disclosed no elements of a criminal offence . On the basis of the additional evidence gathered , he gave similar reasons for that decision to those set out in the decision of CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145694","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"OANCEA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE , GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","M.C. , the applicants\u2019 DATE son , was HIV - positive and was registered as such by ORG , where he received DATE treatment .","On DATE PERSON was arrested together with his CARDINAL brothers and his brother - in - law and placed in GPE Police detention facilities . He was in good shape at that time , but the tests run after his arrest showed that he had had a slow reaction to his retroviral treatment ( aderen\u021b\u0103 scazut\u0103 la tratament ) . He spent most of his pre - trial detention in FAC .","During his pre - trial detention , PERSON received treatment for his illness , except for CARDINAL periods of respectively CARDINAL , CARDINAL and one , days when the medicine did not reach the prison hospitals on time . As his health deteriorated and he started complaining of severe back pain , he was taken for a consultation in a civilian hospital . The doctor recommended treatment with ointments and , if the pain did not subside , surgery . According to the statements made by his cellmates , including his brothers , the treatment was delayed by DATE and had to be administered by the inmates , who took turns in applying the ointments and hot water to the painful areas . As the treatment proved to be ineffective , PERSON requested an operation , which took place on DATE in ORG .","M.C. \u2019s official prison record submitted by the ORG does not contain any complaint by PERSON to the post - sentencing judge about the medical treatment .","On DATE PERSON was released from prison , based on a decision rendered by ORG . On DATE he was admitted to a civilian hospital with similar symptoms as before ( severe back pain and generally deteriorating health ) . He remained in the hospital until DATE when he was declared incurable and released at the family \u2019s request . He died on DATE .","On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with ORG attached to ORG and ORG , against the administration and the medical personnel of FAC , accusing them of having intentionally postponed their son \u2019s surgical operation , which led to his death . They argued that the operation was delayed intentionally by the prison authorities , who received significant financial benefits as additional bonuses to their salaries while dealing with an HIV - positive inmate : a PERCENT salary increase for prison administrators and a PERCENT salary increase for medical personnel .","From the records submitted by the Government , it appears that , at the ORG request , the prosecutor \u2019s office informed them on DATE that an investigation into the matter was pending .","According to the information provided by the ORG , the complaint was examined by ORG attached to ORG which , based on the evidence gathered , in particular statements by the applicants and the patient \u2019s medical record , decided not to prosecute the medical personnel and the prison director . The decision was rendered on DATE and communicated to the applicants on DATE . The applicants did not appeal against the prosecutor \u2019s decision before the criminal courts .","NORP In paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) there is a description of the law concerning complaints against decisions of the prosecutor lodged under LAW applicable at the date of the facts of the present case .","The judgment delivered in PERSON v. GPE ( no . GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) describes in detail the relevant domestic law and practice concerning the civil liability of medical staff .","Excerpts from PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the execution of sentences concerning the rights of detainees and the remedies provided therein are summarised in ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161822","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BLOKHIN v. RUSSIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-d - Educational supervision;Minors);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge;Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge;Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-d - Obtain attendance of witnesses;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Ledi Bianku;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At some point before DATE , the applicant \u2019s parents were deprived of their parental responsibility and the applicant was placed in a local orphanage until his grandfather was assigned as his guardian in DATE and the applicant was placed with him . On DATE the grandfather \u2019s guardianship was revoked but he was reinstated as guardian at DATE .","DATE , the applicant allegedly committed offences prohibited by LAW of GPE , including disorderly acts , aggravated robbery and extortion , alone or in a group of minors . Since he was under the age of criminal responsibility , no criminal proceedings were instituted against him but he was the subject of CARDINAL pre - investigation inquiries and placed under the supervision of ORG within ORG of LOC ( hereafter \u201c the LOC \u201d ) . Moreover , following the fourth inquiry , he was placed in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders on DATE for DATE .","According to the applicant \u2019s medical records , he suffered from an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( a mental and neurobehavioural disorder characterised by either substantial attention difficulties , or hyperactivity and impulsiveness , or a combination of the CARDINAL ; hereafter \u201c ADHD \u201d ) and a neurogenic bladder causing enuresis ( a disorder involving urinary incontinence ) .","On DATE and DATE he was examined by a neurologist and a psychiatrist . He was prescribed medication , regular supervision by a neurologist and a psychiatrist and regular psychological counselling .","On DATE the applicant , who at that time was DATE , was at the home of his DATE neighbour PERSON when his mother , PERSON , called the police , who came and took the applicant to the police station of LOC . He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest .","According to the applicant , he was put in a cell that had no windows and the lights in the cell were turned off . After he had spent TIME in the dark , he was questioned by a police officer . The police officer told him that PERSON had accused him of extortion . He urged the applicant to confess , saying that if he did so he would be immediately released , whereas if he refused he would be placed in custody . The applicant signed a confession statement . The police officer then immediately telephoned the applicant \u2019s grandfather to tell him that the applicant was at the police station and could be taken home . When his grandfather arrived at the police station , the applicant retracted his confession and protested his innocence .","The Government disputed the applicant \u2019s account of the events at the police station . They submitted that the applicant had been asked to give an \u201c explanation \u201d rather than being formally questioned , that he had been interviewed by a police officer who had pedagogical training , and that he had been apprised of his right to remain silent . He had not been subjected to any pressure or intimidation . His grandfather had been present during the interview .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s grandfather signed a written statement describing the applicant \u2019s character and way of life . He stated that DATE he had seen the applicant in possession of some money . When asked where the money had come from , the applicant had said that he had got it from his father .","S. and his mother were also heard by the police about the incident and they claimed that on CARDINAL occasions , on DATE and DATE , the applicant had extorted MONEY ( RUB ) from S. , threatening him with violence if he did not hand over the money .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant . Relying on the applicant \u2019s confession and the statements of PERSON mother , it found it to be established that on DATE and DATE the applicant had extorted money from S. His actions therefore contained elements of the criminal offence of extortion , punishable under LAW . However , given that the applicant was below the statutory age of criminal responsibility he could not be prosecuted for his actions .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s grandfather complained to ORG of LOC that the applicant , a minor suffering from a psychological disorder , had been intimidated and then questioned in the absence of his guardian and that his confession had been obtained under duress . The grandfather requested that the confession statement be declared inadmissible as evidence and that the pre - investigation inquiry be closed on account of lack of evidence of an offence , rather than the applicant \u2019s age .","On DATE ORG of LOC quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE , finding that the preinvestigation inquiry had been incomplete . It ordered a further pre - investigation inquiry .","On DATE ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant , for the same reasons as before .","During DATE the applicant \u2019s grandfather lodged several complaints with ORG offices of various levels , asking for a fresh examination of the case against the applicant . He complained that the applicant \u2019s confession had been obtained as a result of intimidation by the police ; in particular , he had been placed in a dark cell for TIME and he had then been questioned by a police officer in the absence of a guardian , psychologist or teacher . The police officer had coerced the applicant into signing the confession statement without the benefit of legal advice . He had then issued a decision refusing to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not reached the statutory age of criminal responsibility , while stating at the same time that the applicant \u2019s involvement in extortion had been established .","NORP By letters of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ORG of LOC and ORG of LOC replied that no criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicant on grounds of his age . He therefore did not have the status of a suspect or a defendant . On DATE he had been asked to give an \u201c explanation \u201d rather than questioned by the police . In those circumstances the participation of a lawyer , psychologist or teacher had not been mandatory . There was no evidence that the applicant had been held in a dark cell before the interview and he had had to wait TIME for an officer from ORG to arrive and interview him . That the applicant had committed extortion had been established on the basis of the statements of PERSON mother and the applicant \u2019s admission of guilt during the interview of DATE .","On DATE the Head of ORG asked ORG to order the applicant \u2019s placement in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders .","On DATE ORG held a hearing at which the applicant and his grandfather attended and submitted medical certificates confirming that the applicant suffered from a psychological disorder and enuresis .","On DATE the court delivered its judgment in which it ordered the applicant \u2019s placement in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for DATE . It held as follows :","\u201c The Head of the Sovetskiy District Police Department of GPE has applied to the court with a request to place [ the applicant ] , who has been registered with the [ Juveniles ] Inspectorate as a delinquent minor since DATE , in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for DATE .","On DATE [ the applicant ] committed an offence proscribed by LAW of GPE . A criminal case was not opened because he had not reached the age of criminal responsibility .","On DATE [ the applicant ] again committed an offence proscribed by LAW of GPE . A criminal case was not opened because he had not reached the age of criminal responsibility .","On DATE [ the applicant ] again committed a criminal offence under LAW of LAW of GPE . A criminal case was not opened because he had not reached the age of criminal responsibility . [ The applicant ] was placed in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for DATE .","The minor lives in unfavourable family conditions in which his grandfather is responsible for his upbringing in so far as possible ; [ the applicant \u2019s ] parents are alcoholics and have a negative influence on their son . Before [ the grandfather ] was given guardianship status , [ the applicant ] had lived in an orphanage and studied in school no . CARDINAL . At the material time he studied in school no . CARDINAL , often played truant from school , and stopped attending school entirely from DATE . Given that the requisite control over him is absent , the minor spends the major part of DATE on the streets , committing socially dangerous offences .","On DATE [ the applicant ] committed another offence proscribed by LAW of GPE ; a criminal case was not opened because he had not reached the age of criminal responsibility .","Taking the above - mentioned circumstances into account , [ the Head of ORG ] considers it necessary to place [ the applicant ] in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for DATE to prevent his further unlawful actions .","The representative of ORG supported the request made by the Head of ORG and explained that [ the applicant \u2019s ] guardian had requested in writing that his guardianship rights be lifted and the [ Inspectorate ] had accepted that request .","[ The applicant ] refused to provide any explanations .","The [ applicant \u2019s ] representative [ the grandfather ] objected to [ the applicant \u2019s ] placement in the temporary detention centre , having noted that [ the applicant ] had not committed a criminal offence on DATE as he had been with [ the grandfather ] at a doctor \u2019s surgery for an examination at that time .","The lawyer , Ms [ NORP ] , asked the court to dismiss the request of the Head of ORG .","The prosecutor asked the court to accept the request and to place [ the applicant ] in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders , taking into account that the documents presented by [ the applicant \u2019s ] guardian did not confirm that [ the applicant ] had been at a doctor \u2019s surgery on DATE at TIME or that he had been unable to commit the criminal offence , particularly taking into account the [ applicant \u2019s ] personality and the fact that he had already committed a number of offences .","Having heard the parties to the proceedings and having examined the materials submitted by them , the court considers that the request must be allowed for the following reasons : [ the applicant ] is registered in the database of [ ORG of the police ] ; he was previously placed in the [ temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders ] for behaviour correction but did not draw the proper conclusions and committed further delinquent acts ; the preventive measures put in place by the [ Juveniles ] Inspectorate and by the guardian have not produced results , which shows that [ the applicant ] has not learnt his lesson . [ The applicant ] must be placed in the [ temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders ] for DATE for behaviour correction .","The case - file materials examined by the court confirm that [ the applicant ] committed a socially dangerous offence : a complaint by Ms [ S. ] shows that on DATE , at TIME , [ the applicant ] extorted MONEY from her son [ S. ] in a yard ; he accompanied those actions with threats of violence . On DATE [ the applicant ] again came to their house and again extorted MONEY from her son , having again threatened the son with violence . Explanations by [ S. ] indicate that on DATE , at TIME , [ the applicant ] told [ S. ] to give him MONEY in a yard ; he accompanied those actions with threats of violence and [ S. ] gave him the money . On DATE [ the applicant ] again came to their house and requested MONEY from [ S. ] , having again threatened him with violence . [ S. ] complained to his mother , who called the police .","The court takes into account that those circumstances are corroborated by the statement made by [ the applicant ] , who did not deny that he had received money from [ S. ] on DATE as the latter had been afraid of the applicant . [ The applicant ] also did not deny that he had come to [ S. \u2019s ] house on DATE . A criminal case in respect of the events on DATE and DATE was not opened as the applicant had not reached the age of criminal responsibility .","Having taken these circumstances into account , the court finds unsubstantiated and far - fetched the explanations by the applicant \u2019s guardian that [ the applicant ] did not commit the offences on DATE and DATE .","Having regard to the above - mentioned facts and ruling under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW , the court grants the request of the Head of ORG and decides to place the applicant in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for DATE . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was placed in the GPE temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders , where he remained until DATE .","According to the applicant , he had shared his bedroom in the centre with CARDINAL other inmates . The lights were kept on TIME .","During DATE inmates were forbidden to lie on their beds or to enter the bedroom . They had to spend DATE in a large empty room which had no furniture or sports equipment . On a few occasions they were given a chess set and other board games . They were allowed to go out into the yard only twice during the applicant \u2019s DATE stay in the centre .","Inmates had classes twice a week for TIME . They had mathematics and NORP grammar classes only . They were not taught any other courses from the officially approved secondary school curriculum . CARDINAL children of different ages and school levels were taught together in CARDINAL class .","The supervisors applied collective punishment to the inmates . If CARDINAL of them committed a breach of the centre \u2019s strict regime , all inmates were forced to stand in line against the wall without moving , talking or being allowed to sit down . Given that many inmates were psychologically unstable and unruly , because of their socially disadvantaged background , such punishment was applied DATE and often lasted for TIME .","Inmates were not allowed to leave the room where they were assembled . They had to ask for the supervisor \u2019s permission to go to the toilet and were accompanied there in groups of CARDINAL . They therefore had to wait until such a group was formed before being able to go to the toilet . Given that the applicant suffered from enuresis , the fact that he could not go to the toilet as often as he needed caused him bladder pain and psychological suffering . If his requests for permission to go to the toilet became too frequent , the supervisors punished him by making him do particularly arduous cleaning work .","Although the applicant \u2019s grandfather had informed the staff of the centre about the applicant \u2019s enuresis and his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder , the applicant did not receive any treatment .","According to the ORG , each bedroom in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders measured QUANTITY and was equipped with CARDINAL beds . Access to the bathrooms and toilets situated on each floor was not limited .","The centre had a dining room where meals were served CARDINAL times a day . There was also a games room and a sports room . Audio and video equipment , educational games and fictional works were available .","The supervisors carried out \u201c preventive work \u201d with each inmate of the centre and could apply incentive measures or punitive measures in the form of oral reprimands . Corporal punishment was not used ; nor were juvenile inmates ever required to do hard or dirty work .","The centre \u2019s medical unit had all the necessary equipment and medicine . It could be seen from the staff list of the centre submitted by the Government that the medical unit was staffed by a paediatrician , CARDINAL nurses and a psychologist . According to the Government , each child was examined by the paediatrician on his admission and DATE thereafter . Treatment was prescribed when necessary . It could be seen from the temporary detention centre \u2019s \u201c accounting and statistical record \u201d concerning the applicant that he had not informed the doctor about his enuresis .","The applicant \u2019s personal file , containing , in particular , the information about his medical condition on admission , the preventive work carried out and the punishment applied to him , had been destroyed on DATE after the expiry of the statutory time - limit on storage , in accordance with Order no . CARDINAL of ORG DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , the Government stated that the applicant \u2019s \u201c accounting and statistical record \u201d , referred to above , had been retained since its storage period was unlimited in accordance with Order no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","According to the ORG , the applicant \u2019s other medical records and logbooks at the temporary detention centre had been destroyed as soon as they had become unnecessary , without any records being compiled in this respect . This had been possible because there had been no regulations on storing such documents until Order no . CARDINAL of ORG had entered into force on DATE ( which provided that medical records were to be stored for DATE ) .","However , the ORG submitted a written statement by a supervisor at the detention centre dated DATE . She confirmed the ORG \u2019s description of the conditions of detention in the centre . She also stated that CARDINAL of the supervisors was always present in the room where the inmates were gathered , which ensured continuity of the educational process . Teachers from the neighbouring school regularly came to the centre so that the inmates could follow the secondary - school curriculum . After their release from the centre , they received an education progress record . She stated that she did not remember the applicant but asserted that she had not received any requests or complaints from him or from any other inmate .","The Government also submitted a copy of an agreement of CARDINAL September CARDINAL between the detention centre and secondary school no . CARDINAL according to which the school undertook to organise secondary - school courses in the centre in accordance with a curriculum developed by the centre . A copy of an undated DATE curriculum was produced by the Government . It included CARDINAL classes per day on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was released from the detention centre . On DATE he was taken to hospital , where he received treatment for neurosis and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder . He remained at the hospital until DATE .","On DATE the applicant was placed in an orphanage and , according to an extract from the applicant \u2019s medical record drawn up at the orphanage , he was on the run between DATE and DATE and again DATE .","On DATE he was transferred to a children \u2019s psychiatric hospital , where he remained until DATE . At some point after this , he was returned to his grandfather who had been reinstated as his guardian .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s grandfather complained to ORG that the applicant , who suffered from a mental disorder , had not received any medical treatment in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders , which had caused a deterioration in his condition ; nor had he been provided with any educational courses . He reiterated his complaints to the prosecution authorities in a letter dated DATE . While ORG of GPE sent a reply to the applicant \u2019s grandfather on DATE and ORG of LOC sent a reply on DATE , both of these dealt exclusively with the procedural issues related to the applicant \u2019s case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and did not contain any answer to the grandfather \u2019s complaints in so far as they related to the applicant \u2019s health and the conditions of detention .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant \u2019s grandfather appealed against the detention order of CARDINAL DATE . He submitted , firstly , that the detention was unlawful because LAW did not permit detention for \u201c behaviour correction \u201d . Secondly , he complained that he had not been informed of the decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant and had therefore been deprived of an opportunity to appeal against it . He further submitted that the court \u2019s finding that the applicant had committed an offence had been based on the statements of S. and his mother and the applicant \u2019s confession statement . However , the applicant had made his confession statement in the absence of his guardian . Nor had a teacher been present . No teacher had been present during the questioning of S. either . Their statements were therefore inadmissible as evidence . Moreover , S. and his mother had not attended the court hearing and had not been heard by the court . Nor had the court verified the applicant \u2019s alibi . Lastly , the applicant \u2019s grandfather complained that the court had not taken into account the applicant \u2019s frail health and had not verified whether his medical condition was compatible with detention .","On DATE ORG quashed the detention order of CARDINAL DATE on appeal . It found that behaviour correction was not among the grounds listed in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW for placing a minor in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders . Detention for behaviour correction therefore had no basis in domestic law . Moreover , ORG had not stated reasons why it considered it necessary to detain the applicant . The mere fact that the applicant had committed an offence for which he was not liable to prosecution because of his age could not justify his detention . Such detention would be permissible only if one of the additional conditions listed in section CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) was met . ORG remitted the case to ORG for fresh examination .","DATE . On DATE the ORG discontinued the proceedings because the Head of ORG had withdrawn his request for the placement of the applicant in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders . The applicant and his grandfather were not informed of the date of the hearing .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s grandfather lodged an application for supervisory review of the decision of DATE . He complained that as a result of the discontinuation of the proceedings the applicant had been deprived of an opportunity to prove his innocence in respect of the offence for which he had already unlawfully served a term of detention in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders .","On DATE the President of ORG quashed the decision of DATE . He found , firstly , that , in accordance with section CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , a judge examining a request for the placement of a minor in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders had the power either to grant or to reject the request . He had no power to discontinue the proceedings . Secondly , the applicant and his guardian had not been informed of the date of the hearing and had therefore been deprived of an opportunity to make submissions on the issue of the discontinuation of the proceedings .","On DATE the Prosecutor of the Novosibirsk Region lodged an application for supervisory review of ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG quashed the decision of DATE , finding that it had been adopted by an unlawful composition of judges . It remitted the case for a fresh examination on appeal .","On DATE the President of ORG held a fresh appeal hearing and upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE ordering the applicant \u2019s placement in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders . He found that the applicant had committed a delinquent act punishable under LAW but that no criminal proceedings had been instituted against him because he had not reached the statutory age of criminal responsibility . He belonged to a \u201c problem family \u201d ; his parents had been deprived of parental responsibility and he was cared for by his grandfather . He played truant from school and spent most of the time on the streets or in a computer club . In those circumstances , it had been necessary , in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW , to place him in the temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for DATE to prevent him from committing further delinquent acts . The fact that ORG had referred to \u201c behaviour correction \u201d as a ground for detention had not made the detention order of CARDINAL DATE unlawful . The applicant \u2019s detention had been justified by other grounds . Nor could the detention order of CARDINAL DATE be quashed on account of the applicant \u2019s frail health , given that it had already been enforced in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-d","6-3-c","6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152780","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BUJKOVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against GPE concerning a plot of land .","Following a remittal , on DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE ruled partly in favour of the applicant .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE upheld a part of this judgment but quashed the remainder .","On DATE the applicant filed at the same time a request for reopening of the proceedings with ORG and an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) with ORG ( PERSON ) , both in respect of the part of the judgment which had been upheld .","On DATE the case - file was transmitted to ORG , which court returned the case - file to ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for reopening of the proceedings , which decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG joined the examination of the remainder of the applicant \u2019s claim with other CARDINAL claims previously lodged by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant filed another submission to the court , in view of the joined proceedings .","On DATE the applicant specified his claim , in substance repeating his earlier submissions .","On DATE the hearing started anew given that the case had been assigned to a new judge . The applicant notified the court that he was withdrawing his submission of DATE . The court invited the applicant to specify his claim , which the applicant did DATE .","On DATE the hearing started anew given that the case had been assigned to a new judge .","On DATE ORG Instance declared it lacked competence to deal with the case ( sud se ogla\u0161ava nenadle\u017enim ) and rejected the claim . On an unspecified date thereafter this decision was quashed by ORG and in DATE the proceedings were again pending before ORG .","DATE the parties attempted to reach a friendly settlement but to no avail .","On DATE the hearing started afresh given that the case had been assigned to another judge .","On DATE ORG ruled against the applicant , which decision was quashed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG again ruled against the applicant . This judgment was upheld by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE respectively .","In DATE and DATE the applicant proposed that another set of civil proceedings be suspended ( prekid postupka ) until the proceedings initiated upon the claim lodged in DATE were concluded . On DATE the applicant proposed that this other set of proceedings be continued .","On DATE the applicant instituted another set of civil proceedings , which are currently pending before ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140920","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF A.L. v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE R , with whom the applicant had been in a relationship but to whom he was not married , gave birth to a son , NORP","R and the applicant got married on DATE . On DATE the applicant acknowledged paternity of D before ORG ( PERSON ) . In accordance with LAW R , the mother of the minor child , gave her consent to the applicant \u2019s acknowledgment of paternity .","On an unspecified date R lodged a petition for divorce with the Zielona ORG . On DATE ORG granted a decree of divorce . The court awarded the custody of D to the mother . Both parents were ordered to contribute to the maintenance and upbringing of the child . The applicant was ordered to pay first CARDINAL ORG and later CARDINAL PLN per month in child maintenance . No questions as to the applicant \u2019s paternity were raised in the divorce proceedings .","Soon after , R married PERSON and their son B was born in DATE .","The applicant submitted that he subsequently began having doubts as to his paternity of D and decided to undergo a DNA test .","On DATE the applicant took D to a private DNA analysis laboratory and had a DNA paternity test conducted . The DNA test confirmed that the applicant was not D \u2019s father . As the applicant could not personally initiate civil proceedings for denial of paternity , due to the expiry of the time - limit specified in LAW , he requested ORG to file a claim in his name .","On DATE ORG questioned the applicant about the circumstances surrounding the recognition of his paternity of NORP The applicant stated , among others , that :","\u201c She told me that I had had sexual intercourse with her during a party to which she had invited me as her fianc\u00e9 . .... I do not remember having had sexual intercourse [ with R ] at the time ... Never before marrying R did I have physical contact with her . ...","I have never believed that I am the father of the child . I have recognised this child as mine because I thought I did not have any other option . ...","Even before the birth of the child I learnt that R , who at that time had the family name N , had had sexual intercourse with other men during the period in which D had been conceived . .... \u201d","With regard to his contact with D , the applicant stated that he had not yet informed D that he was not his father . D still considered him as his father and called him \u201c Dad \u201d . However , their contact was rare and not particularly warm . He requested the prosecutor to file a claim disclaiming his paternity because he had been deceived by NORP","R was also questioned by the prosecutor . She stated that the applicant had been aware that he may not have been the father of NORP Nonetheless , he had voluntarily decided to recognise his paternity of NORP She also stated that D had close emotional ties with the applicant and that the annulment of recognition would be a terrible shock for NORP","D.S. , R \u2019s current husband , stated that he did not intend adopting D because the child had a difficult personality and suffered from the ADHD ( Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ) . Furthermore , D knew that ORG was not his father .","On DATE ORG filed a statement of claim with ORG asking for the annulment of the applicant \u2019s recognition of paternity of NORP The defendants in the proceedings were the applicant , R and NORP The prosecutor referred to the DNA test results and to the child \u2019s mother \u2019s testimonies which confirmed that at the time when D had been conceived she had had sexual contact with other men . The prosecutor further stressed that R \u2019s new husband ORG confirmed that he treated D as his son and together with his biological son B they all formed a family . Lastly , the prosecutor submitted that the applicant \u2019s contact with D was rare and mostly amounted to his obligation to pay maintenance .","ORG appointed a guardian ad litem for NORP The guardian requested the court to dismiss the prosecutor \u2019s claim as it was contrary to the child \u2019s interests .","The court heard evidence from the applicant , R and ORG","The applicant testified that he had been aware that D may not have been his child at the time of the recognition of his paternity in DATE .","R objected to the prosecutor \u2019s claim on the ground that the applicant had recognised his paternity of D being aware that he could not have been his father . She had not deceived the applicant because the applicant had known that she had had sexual contact with other men . She stated that D had close emotional ties with the applicant and was convinced that the applicant was his father . It would have been very traumatic for D to learn that the applicant was not his father given his ORG . She submitted that the applicant had stopped paying child maintenance in DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the prosecutor \u2019s action .","The court established the following facts . Before the birth of D the applicant and R were cohabiting . However , they also had sexual contact with other partners of which they were both perfectly aware . In DATE R fell pregnant . She told the applicant that he had been the father of the child and that the child had been conceived during a party . The applicant \u2019s mother put pressure on the applicant to marry NORP","D was a pupil at primary school . He was diagnosed with the ORG . From DATE D was certified as disabled and in need of assistance in his education . The court further established that the applicant had had sporadic contacts with D and that the latter had considered the applicant his father . The court noted that the private DNA paternity test confirmed that the applicant was not D \u2019s biological father . The current husband of R did not treat D as his own child and had no intention of adopting D even in the case of the applicant \u2019s acknowledgment of paternity being annulled .","Having regard to these facts , ORG held that the prosecutor \u2019s claim was ill - founded . The court noted that the applicant could not personally file a claim under LAW of ORG due to the fact that DATE had elapsed since the date of the recognition of the child . However , even assuming that that the relevant time - limit had not yet expired , his claim would not have been successful since he was required to prove that his recognition of paternity was affected by CARDINAL of the defects of his declaration of will specified respectively in ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE or DATE of LAW .","The court stressed that the applicant had confirmed that he had been perfectly aware that R had had sexual relationships with other men . It did not find credible the applicant \u2019s assertion that he had recognised his paternity of D simply because he had been told by R that D had been conceived at a party . There were no grounds to consider that R had deceived the applicant in order to make him to recognise the child . The court held that the applicant had been fully aware that D might not have been his child ; nevertheless , he decided to acknowledge his paternity of NORP","Furthermore , it was not established that the applicant \u2019s recognition of D had been affected by any other fault which could affect its validity . Accordingly , the court found that there were no grounds to annul the applicant \u2019s recognition of D on the basis of LAW of LAW .","NORP However , the claim was filed by a prosecutor who was not bound by the conditions specified in LAW . Therefore , the court had to examine whether the child \u2019s interest and the rule of law required the annulment of the act of recognition of paternity .","The court noted that the institution of recognition of paternity was based on the premise that the child \u2019s interest and the proper functioning of the family were priority values . In this connection , the legislature assumed that for the protection of these values it was justified in some cases to accept a legal fiction that a child was recognised by a man who was not his biological father . In principle , the act of recognition of paternity should reflect the actual legal situation ; however , the legislature did not exclude that an act of recognition of paternity would be furnished by a man who only considered having a duty of care towards the child . This was reflected in the fact that there was no duty to verify whether an act of recognition of paternity conformed to the reality .","The court held that the arguments put forward by the prosecutor did not justify the finding that the annulment of recognition would be in the child \u2019s interest . The court found , in so far as relevant :","\u201c First of all , the prosecutor \u2019s argument , that due to sporadic contacts between the defendant [ the applicant ] and the minor and the fact that the current husband of R accepted the boy and treats him as his biological son there are no contraindications to the annulment of recognition , was not confirmed .","It was established in the proceedings that the minor D still considers the defendant [ the applicant ] as his father . ORG [ R \u2019s husband ] does not intend to adopt the boy or even to treat him as his own son . In this situation there is a real risk that making the boy aware after DATE that the man who he has considered as his biological father , was not his real father , would constitute a traumatic experience for him . Such information would have been also very difficult to convey due to the fact that it is not possible to establish who the real father is .","It does not seem either that the protection of the rule of law would justify the annulment of recognition . It is not possible to defend the argument that the existence of a legal relationship in which a man , who is not a biological father of the child , is considered the father of the child would be an affront to the rule of law , in particular where a man conscientiously decided to recognise his paternity of the child . In the present case it should be firmly underlined that the defendant [ the applicant ] knew perfectly well that he may not be the father of the child , yet he decided to recognise his paternity . ... Accordingly , the defendant [ the applicant ] should bear the consequences of his conscious decisions for the sake of the child \u2019s well - being and the child \u2019s proper development .","The position of the legislature in this respect is perfectly clear . The rationale of the provisions concerning the acknowledgment of paternity of a child clearly indicates that the legislature considers this manner of establishing the filiation too serious so as to make its existence dependent on a free wish of a man . For this reason the law treats the recognition of paternity of a child as a definitive act and permits that it will be questioned only when the act was affected by defects or in the case of unforeseen special circumstances DATE which can not be accepted in the light of the existing legal order or the principles of social co - existence .","There were no such circumstances in the present case . The protection of the rule of law does not justify , as claimed by the prosecutor , the disclaiming of the recognition of paternity and the child \u2019s interest goes against the change of the existing legal relationship . \u201d","The applicant appealed against ORG judgment . He argued that the court had disregarded the DNA evidence which excluded his paternity of NORP He also submitted that the interest of the minor and the rule of law required that the child \u2019s paternity be assigned to the biological father in order to terminate the legal fiction .","The prosecutor requested ORG to dismiss the appeal . In his view , the interest of the child no longer justified the pursuance of the original claim . The prosecutor also raised the issue of the applicant \u2019s standing to file an appeal .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","The court firstly referred to ORG resolution of DATE ( case no . III CZP CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) according to which a legally recognised father was not entitled to file an appeal against the judgment dismissing the prosecutor \u2019s claim on the basis of an accepted fact that he was not the child \u2019s biological father . ORG noted that ORG did not bestow on the man who had recognised paternity of a child the right to sue for annulment of his recognition on the ground that he was not the child \u2019s father . The right to sue for annulment of recognition of paternity in such circumstances was bestowed on the child so recognised when he or she reached the age of majority ( LAW ) .","The court further considered that , even assuming that the applicant had standing to file an appeal , there were no grounds to change the firstinstance judgment . The lower court found that the rule of law required maintaining the status quo and that the child \u2019s well - being justified a departure from the biological truth . In addition , ORG relied on the applicant \u2019s divorce file from which it transpired that he had treated D as his own child . It also referred to ORG view that in matters of establishing paternity there was no absolute priority for biological truth . In the light of the above , the applicant \u2019s claim for annulment of the recognition was ill - founded .","The applicant filed a cassation appeal . However , on DATE ORG refused to entertain it ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148521","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"\u00c5BERG v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON , PERSON and Mr. PERSON , ORG .","By decisions of DATE and DATE ORG Skatteverket ) reviewed the applicant \u2019s taxation for income received in DATE ( i.e. DATE ) and found that payments made by NORP county councils and health care districts to a company registered in GPE and PERCENT owned by the applicant should be considered as salary for work performed as a medical doctor for which he was liable to pay income tax in GPE . His income was revised upwards by CARDINAL , CARDINAL and MONEY ( SEK ) , respectively , for DATE . Furthermore , as the applicant had failed to account for the amounts in question in his DATE tax returns and had thus supplied ORG with incorrect information , the ORG ordered him to pay tax surcharges ( skattetill\u00e4gg ) , amounting to PERCENT of the increased tax liability .","Following the applicant \u2019s appeals , ORG made obligatory reviews of its decisions but did not change them .","By judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG ( l\u00e4nsr\u00e4tten ) in GPE upheld ORG decisions .","It is not clear whether the applicant appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , but he did so against the judgment of DATE which concerned income received in DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG ( kammar - r\u00e4tten ) in GPE agreed with the principal considerations in ORG decision but lowered the amounts in question \u2013 following new information obtained by the Agency DATE to MONEY and QUANTITY for DATE ( in total CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) .","By a decision of DATE ORG ( Regeringsr\u00e4tten ) refused leave to appeal .","It appears that ORG and , upon appeal , the administrative courts have made similar tax revisions for income received in DATE and DATE .","Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on DATE in regard to the above conduct .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( tingsr\u00e4tt ) convicted the applicant of an aggravated tax offence ( grovt skattebrott ) and sentenced him to DATE and DATE in prison . The conviction concerned the period DATE , corresponding to all DATE which had been subject to tax revisions , and thus including DATE which are relevant in the present case before ORG . The court found that the applicant had systematically and intentionally given ORG misleading information as to where he lived and worked . Although he had lived and worked in GPE during DATE in question , he had incorrectly claimed that he had left the country and worked abroad . The total undeclared income amounted to MONEY and the evaded income tax came to MONEY SEK . In sentencing the applicant , the court took into account that a long time had passed since the offences had been committed .","On DATE ORG ( hovr\u00e4tt ) of GPE and PERSON upheld ORG judgment . While the appellate court did not find that the time between the commission of the offences and the indictment gave reason to reduce the length of the prison sentence , it found that the considerable tax surcharges imposed on the applicant constituted such a reason . The court did not , however , give any details as to how much the sentence was reduced due to the surcharges . In conclusion , it upheld the sentence passed by ORG .","ORG ( ORG domstolen ) granted leave to appeal with respect to the question whether , pursuant to LAW , the imposition of tax surcharges barred the criminal trial or conviction of the applicant .","By a decision of DATE ORG found , by a majority of CARDINAL votes to QUANTITY , that there was no reason generally to invalidate the NORP system with double proceedings by virtue of LAW No . CARDINAL ( published in Nytt juridiskt arkiv ( ORG ) DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . The court considered that , following the judgment in PERSON v. RussiaIf the later proceedings concerned identical or essentially the same facts as the earlier proceedings , it was a matter of proceedings concerning the same offence . However , ORG noted that the GPE case - law left some room for several punishments for the same offence that could be decided by separate organs at different times and mentioned by way of example , inter alia , the conviction for a traffic offence and the resultant withdrawal of the offender \u2019s driving licence . ORG further found that the invalidation of a NORP system regulated by domestic law with reference to the LAW required that either the LAW itself or the ORG \u2019s jurisprudence provided clear support for that conclusion and considered that neither LAW No . CARDINAL nor the jurisprudence provided such support in the matter at hand . There were no other grounds for finding that LAW No . CARDINAL prevented the trial or conviction of the applicant because of the fact that tax surcharges had been imposed on him . In these circumstances , there was no reason to grant leave to appeal in regard to the applicant \u2019s conviction and sentence . ORG judgment was accordingly upheld .","The applicant started to serve his prison sentence on DATE . He was released on probation on DATE .","On DATE ORG , at the applicant \u2019s request , decided to re - open the criminal proceedings in so far as they concerned the applicant \u2019s liability for tax offences in DATE ( corresponding to the taxation DATE ) and the sentence fixed by ORG . In those respects , the case was referred back to the appellate court for a new examination . Referring to LAW and to its decisions of DATE and DATE ( see further paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) , ORG noted that the applicant had been convicted by ORG after the PERSON judgment of DATE and that the tax surcharges previously imposed on him concerned the same conduct as the criminal indictment . However , the court rejected the petition for a re - opening of the criminal case to the extent that it concerned offences committed in DATE and DATE as , in those respects , the conviction had occurred before ORG decisions on surcharges .","On DATE ORG quashed its judgment of CARDINAL DATE in so far as it concerned the part that had been re - opened by ORG ( that is , DATE ) and dismissed the indictment in that respect . The sentence for the remaining tax offences , committed in DATE and DATE , was fixed at CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant has appealed to ORG against the sentence fixed by ORG . Thus , his appeal does not concern the DATE relevant in the present case . The appeal is presently pending .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings for damages against the ORG before ORG . He claimed CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) for suffering due to his having been imprisoned following dual proceedings that allegedly violated LAW . The claimed amount was calculated in accordance with the practice of the Chancellor of ORG ( NORP ) ( see further paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The compensation proceedings have been adjourned pending the outcome of the re - opened criminal proceedings .","The rules on taxes and tax surcharges relevant to the present case were primarily laid down in , as far as income tax was concerned , LAW ( Taxeringslagen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) and , with respect to GPE , LAW ( Skattebetalningslagen , DATE ) . Both laws have since been replaced by LAW Skattef\u00f6rfarandelagen ; CARDINAL ) .","A tax surcharge could \u2013 and still can \u2013 be imposed on a taxpayer in CARDINAL situations : if he or she , in a tax return or in any other written statement , has submitted information of relevance to the tax assessment which is found to be incorrect ( LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW , and LAW , LAW ) or if , following a discretionary assessment , ORG decides not to rely on the tax return ( LAW , section CARDINAL , and LAW , section CARDINAL , respectively ) . It is not only express statements that may lead to the imposition of a surcharge ; concealment , in whole or in part , of relevant facts may also be regarded as incorrect information . A discretionary tax assessment is made if the taxpayer has submitted information which is so inadequate that ORG can not base its tax assessment on it or if he or she has not filed a tax return despite the obligation to do so . In certain circumstances , the tax surcharges may be exempted .","A person who intentionally furnishes incorrect information to an authority or fails to file a tax return or other required information , thereby causing a risk that taxes will be withheld from the public treasury or wrongly credited or repaid to him or her , is criminally liable under sections CARDINAL of LAW ( Skattebrottslagen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) . The possible sentence ranges from a fine for a tax misdemeanour ( skattef\u00f6rseelse ) to imprisonment for a maximum of DATE for an aggravated tax offence . Section CARDINAL provides that a person who is not considered to have furnished incorrect information with intent but to have been grossly negligent in doing so ( v\u00e5rdsl\u00f6s skatteuppgift ) may be sentenced to a fine or a maximum of DATE in prison . The term \u201c incorrect information \u201d in LAW is considered to have the same meaning as in the above provisions on tax surcharges ( Government PERSON , p. CARDINAL ) .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG considered whether a person could be convicted of a tax offence in criminal proceedings following the imposition of a tax surcharge in tax proceedings ( NJA DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . Having noted that , under internal NORP law , a surcharge is not considered a criminal penalty and does not prevent trial and conviction for a tax offence relating to the same act , ORG went on to examine the matter under LAW . It first considered , in the light of the ORG \u2019s case - law , that there were weighty arguments for regarding LAW as being applicable under its criminal head to proceedings involving a tax surcharge . Even assuming this to be the case , it held , however , that the principle of ne bis in idem , as set forth in LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW presupposed that the initial conviction or acquittal had been delivered in accordance with the penal procedure of the ORG . Therefore the principle did not prevent criminal proceedings from being brought against someone for an act in respect of which a surcharge had already been levied . This view was confirmed in later judgments delivered by ORG .","On DATE ORG examined the reverse situation , that is , where the question of imposition of tax surcharges arose after a criminal conviction for a tax offence ( judgment published in PERSON \u00e5rsbok ( R\u00c5 ) DATE , ref . CARDINAL ) . In assessing whether there was a violation of the prohibition on double punishment under LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW , the court referred to the fact that the relevant NORP provisions aimed at ensuring that the combined sanctions \u2013 criminal conviction and imposition of tax surcharges \u2013 were in reasonable proportion to the conduct for which the individual had been found liable . It further noted that the NORP legal system contained the special feature of separate general courts and administrative courts . In the court \u2019s opinion , LAW No . CARDINAL had to be interpreted in the light of such special features in the national legal systems . While acknowledging that the ORG \u2019s recent judgments in PERSON v. GPE ( cited above ) and PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , judgment of DATE ) suggested a change in the GPE case - law , ORG noted that they did not relate to the NORP legal system and concluded that this system , allowing for both a conviction for a tax offence and an imposition of tax surcharges , was in conformity with the Convention .","On DATE , in its decision concerning the present case , ORG examined the issue anew and again found that there was no reason generally to invalidate the NORP system with double proceedings by virtue of LAW No . CARDINAL ( see further paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","By a plenary decision of DATE ( NJA DATE , p. CARDINAL ) ORG overturned its previous conclusions . In line with its DATE decision , the court held that the imposition of tax surcharges and the conviction for a tax offence based on the same information supplied in a tax return are founded on identical factual circumstances and the relevant proceedings thus concern the same offence within the meaning of LAW No . CARDINAL . However , where the court in DATE had found that the invalidation of the NORP system required clear support in the Convention itself or in GPE case - law , the court now noted that the judgment of ORG in the case of PERSON ( CARDINAL NORP DATE , case no . C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) already prohibited double proceedings and punishments with respect to VAT . As the NORP system had thereby been partially invalidated , the legal and practical consequences of further changes were not so radical as to require the intervention of the legislature . The court also took into account that no legislative amendments had been made despite the developments in GPE case - law since DATE and that it would be inexpedient and difficult to apply different rules on similar contraventions within a system meant to be coherent . Consequently , the court held that there was sufficient support for concluding that the NORP system of tax surcharges and tax offences was incompatible with LAW . This conclusion applied not only to ORG , but also to income tax , employer \u2019s contributions and similar payments .","ORG further found that the protection under NORP law against double proceedings and punishments was valid also in cases where the state exacted personal liability on an individual for tax surcharges imposed on a legal person . Having regard to the strong and systematic connection in NORP law between the principles of res judicata and lis pendens , the court also held , although the ORG \u2019s jurisprudence was unclear on this point , that ongoing , not finalised proceedings on tax surcharges precluded a criminal indictment concerning the same factual circumstances . The procedural hindrance against an indictment materialised when ORG took its decision to impose surcharges .","However , whereas the imposition of tax surcharges and the conviction for a tax offence based on the same factual circumstances concerned the same offence and were thus prohibited , the situation was different when the criminal conviction concerned a bookkeeping offence . According to ORG , which had regard to the case - law of the ORG , the concrete factual circumstances forming the basis of a bookkeeping offence could normally not be considered inextricably linked to the factual circumstances leading to the imposition of tax surcharges . In addition to the breach of bookkeeping obligations under LAW , the imposition of a tax surcharge involved a further factual element , namely the submission of incorrect information in a tax return .","In the case at hand , which involved the imposition of tax surcharges against an individual in DATE and the criminal indictment of him in DATE for , inter alia , aggravated tax offences and an aggravated bookkeeping offence , ORG quashed the appealed judgment of ORG in so far as it concerned the tax offence relating to his personal income tax and dismissed the indictment in that respect . However , nothing prevented the examination of the bookkeeping offence or the tax offences concerning ORG and employer \u2019s contributions . In the latter respect , the conclusion was due to the tax surcharges relating to LOC and employer \u2019s contributions having been imposed on the appellant \u2019s limited liability company and not on him personally .","In a further decision , taken on DATE ( NJA DATE , p. CARDINAL ) , ORG examined the question whether a former defendant could be granted a re - opening of criminal proceedings ( resning ) under LAW , section CARDINAL of the Code of Judicial Procedure ( R\u00e4tteg\u00e5ngsbalken ) if he or she had been convicted of an offence under LAW in a manner incompatible with LAW , as interpreted by the decision of DATE . The court concluded that , on the basis of the Convention , in particular LAW , a NORP court may decide , in certain situations , that a case is to be re - opened notwithstanding the special conditions specified in LAW , section CARDINAL . The court also took the position that the incompatibility of NORP legislation regarding sanctions for tax - related offences with LAW No . CARDINAL had arisen by virtue of the PERSON judgment ( cited above ) , thus on DATE . ORG decision led to criminal proceedings being re - opened in respect of an individual \u2019s conviction for an offence under LAW . As a result , the possibility of being granted a re - opening of criminal proceedings applies retroactively to judgments having been delivered in criminal proceedings as from DATE .","On DATE ORG took another decision of relevance ( NJA DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . It stated therein that , if criminal proceedings have commenced before ORG has decided to impose tax surcharges , the prohibition against ne bis in idem can not result in a criminal judgment that has become final being re - opened and quashed . Instead , it is the second set of proceedings to be commenced DATE the tax proceedings involving surcharges \u2013 that are contrary to the law . The violation of the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence is therefore in this situation a matter for the administrative courts .","By a plenary judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( HFD DATE ref . CARDINAL ) , ORG ( now ORG f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) reversed the position taken in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE and confirmed in a judgment of DATE ( R\u00c5 DATE ref . CARDINAL ) . Agreeing with the conclusions drawn by ORG , ORG found that the same principles should apply when the order of the tax and criminal proceedings is different , that is , when the tax proceedings are commenced later . Accordingly , a criminal indictment constitutes a procedural hindrance against imposing tax surcharges based on the same submission of incorrect information .","In the case at hand , where the individual had been indicted in DATE and surcharges had been imposed by ORG in DATE , ORG concluded that the latter decision violated LAW . The appeal made against the appellate court \u2019s judgment on tax surcharges was accordingly granted and the surcharges set aside .","ORG has since examined several petitions for the re - opening of tax proceedings in which tax surcharges had been imposed . In a decision of DATE ( cases nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE ) it rejected the petition , stating that the earlier criminal proceedings had not led to an indictment of the individual but to a decision by the prosecutor to discontinue the preliminary investigation and that , accordingly , no violation of the prohibition against double proceedings had occurred . In a judgment of DATE ( cases nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) it granted a re - opening , noting that , pursuant to ORG decision of DATE , the applicant would have had a right of re - opening of the criminal proceedings if the tax surcharge decision had preceded the indictment and finding that the situation at hand , which was the reverse , should not be treated differently . ORG accordingly re - opened the tax proceedings and quashed the tax surcharges in question . The latter case had already been examined by ORG as part of the original tax proceedings in DATE prior to the recent developments in NORP case - law \u2013 and had then been considered not to involve a breach of LAW No . CARDINAL .","In a judgment of DATE ( cases nos . DATE and MONEY ) ORG examined a different situation where tax surcharges had been imposed on a person by a decision of ORG in DATE , upheld by ORG in DATE . During the subsequent examination before ORG , the person in question was , in separate criminal proceedings , indicted for a tax offence but acquitted thereof by a judgment of ORG in DATE which soon afterwards acquired legal force . As a consequence , ORG , in DATE , quashed the surcharges that had been imposed . ORG agreed with this course of action , noting that the ORG had established in several judgments ( including PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) that , in the event that CARDINAL of CARDINAL concurrent sets of proceedings becomes final , LAW No . CARDINAL required that the other set of proceedings be discontinued . ORG judgment was delivered in ordinary proceedings which had not involved any re - opening . Furthermore , all the decisions and judgments in the case were delivered after the PERSON judgment .","Following the above judicial changes , ORG ( Riks\u00e5klagaren ) and ORG ( GPE - myndigheten ) decided to examine all tax cases where there may have been double punishments in accordance with the conclusions by the CARDINAL supreme courts . Whenever the conditions were met , the prosecutor would file a petition for the criminal proceedings to be re - opened , provided that the individual agreed to this course of action and had not already sought a re - opening him- or herself . The undertaking , expected to be finalised by DATE , was to cover all cases ending with a judgment , an order of summary punishment ( straff\u00f6rel\u00e4ggande ) or a decision not to prosecute ( \u00e5talsunderl\u00e5telse ) since DATE .","On DATE the NORP newspaper ORG , basing itself on information provided by ORG , reported that CARDINAL cases concerning tax offences had been examined . Out of CARDINAL individuals who were serving prison sentences , DATE had been released . Those who had not been released had been convicted also for other crimes than tax offences . A further number of persons who were about to start serving prison sentences did not have to do so . CARDINAL individuals who had already served their sentences had been asked whether they wished assistance in filing petitions for re - opening of proceedings and , so far , CARDINAL of them had accepted and CARDINAL cases had been re - opened . In some re - opened cases the convictions had been quashed in their entirety ; in others , involving several offences , the proceedings had to be repeated .","Section CARDINAL of the Act on Compensation for Deprivation of Liberty and Other Coercive Measures ( ORG om ers\u00e4ttning vid frihetsber\u00f6vande och andra tv\u00e5ngs\u00e5tg\u00e4rder ; CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) stipulates that a person who has served a prison sentence is entitled to compensation if , following an appeal or a re - opening of proceedings , he or she is acquitted or given a less severe sentence or the judgment containing the conviction is quashed . Under section CARDINAL of that Act , compensation is awarded for costs , loss of income , interference in business activities and suffering . Normally , in accordance with the practice of the Chancellor of ORG , compensation for suffering is set at a rate of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for DATE , SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for DATE up to and including DATE and SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) per month after that . Certain circumstances can lead to a higher rate of compensation . This is primarily the case if the suspicions have concerned a particularly serious crime or if the matter has attracted extensive media attention .","An action for damages can also be based on LAW ( ORG , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) . Under LAW , LAW , compensation is awarded for damage caused by fault or negligence on the part of a public authority . Requests can be lodged with the Chancellor of ORG . If dissatisfied with the Chancellor \u2019s decision , the individual has the option of bringing an action for damages against the ORG in the general courts . He or she may also institute such proceedings directly without having made a request to the Chancellor .","In addition , ORG has developed case - law which provides that , in order to provide redress for victims of Convention violations , compensation may be awarded without direct support in NORP law . Based on this case - law , the Chancellor of ORG has awarded compensation in many cases following requests from individuals . The ORG has had regard to this development and has concluded that , following a ORG judgment of DATE ( ORG DATE N CARDINAL ) , there is an accessible and effective remedy of general applicability , capable of affording redress in respect of alleged violations of the Convention ( see , for example , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE , and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE , and DATE in regard to the domestic case - law developments \u2013 the latter decision , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144790","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"\u015eEDAL v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON , GPE . The Government were represented by their Agent .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was arrested on suspicion of involvement in the armed operations of the ORG ( ORG ) , an illegal armed organisation .","Following her arrest , at TIME , she underwent a medical examination at ORG . The report drawn up there noted no injuries on her body .","Later on DATE , the applicant was taken to the ORG Branch of ORG , where she was placed in custody .","According to the records held , DATE the applicant met with her lawyer . The document was signed by both the applicant and her lawyer .","DATE , on DATE , the applicant was questioned by the police . Before the questioning , she was reminded of her rights , including the right to benefit from legal assistance . According to the official statement , she refused legal assistance and proceeded to give certain information about her training within the ORG and the structure of the illegal organisation . She signed both the official statement and an additional document indicating her refusal of legal assistance .","On DATE the applicant consulted with her lawyer in person once again . Both the applicant and her lawyer signed the police records noting that meeting .","On DATE the applicant underwent a second medical examination at ORG . She complained that during her police custody she had been slapped , had her hair pulled , been pushed to the ground and been deprived of sleep . The report drawn up following the examination noted no indication of physical violence on the applicant \u2019s body .","On DATE the applicant was brought before the GPE public prosecutor , when she gave her statements in the presence of a lawyer . She reiterated her allegations of ill - treatment and denied her previous statements , indicating that they had been taken under duress . The applicant \u2019s lawyer also maintained before the public prosecutor that he had not been allowed to see the applicant at ORG .","Subsequently , the applicant was brought before the investigating judge at ORG . There , once again in the presence of her lawyer , she repeated the statements she had made before the public prosecutor . She further maintained that she had been beaten while in police custody . At the end of the questioning , the investigating judge ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on remand .","NORP On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG , accusing the applicant of membership of the ORG , an offence under LAW in force at the time ( LAW . CARDINAL ) .","At various hearings before ORG , the applicant stated that she had left the ORG on account of her health problems and of her own free will , and had never been involved in any armed acts carried out by the illegal organisation . She also reiterated her allegations of illtreatment in police custody before the court . During the course of the proceedings , the applicant was represented by a lawyer .","At a hearing on DATE the GPE public prosecutor submitted his observations , further accusing the applicant of carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory , under LAW .","On DATE , on the basis of various pieces of evidence , including the applicant \u2019s statements before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , the findings of CARDINAL searches conducted in her residence , telephone records and several witness statements , ORG sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment LAW CARDINAL of the former Criminal Code . The court also relied on the applicant \u2019s police statements and maintained that they were corroborated by evidence obtained subsequently from ORG . In response to the applicant \u2019s submissions about the use of those statements , taken in the absence of a lawyer , the court indicated that she had waived her right to legal assistance before being questioned . The court did not make any comments with regard to the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court , again with no mention of the alleged ill - treatment .","A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145084","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF COUDERC AND HACHETTE FILIPACCHI ASSOCI\u00c9S v. FRANCE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicants are the publication director and the publisher respectively of the DATE magazine ORG . PERSON ORG is a NORP national and was born in DATE . The company LOC , a legal entity incorporated under NORP law , has its registered office in PERSON .","On DATE the NORP newspaper ORG published claims by PERSON , alleging that PERSON , reigning Prince of GPE since his father \u2019s death on DATE , was the father of her son . The article referred to the forthcoming report in ORG magazine and reproduced the main points of that report , together with CARDINAL photographs , CARDINAL of which showed the Prince holding the child in his arms .","On DATE , having been informed that an article was about to appear in GPE Match , PERSON served notice on the applicants to refrain from publishing the article in question .","In spite of the notice to refrain , the DATE magazine ORG , in its edition no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL copies of which were printed , published an interview in which PERSON presented her son A. as having been born from her intimate relationship with the Prince , who had succeeded his father on DATE . PERSON on the magazine \u2019s cover under the headline \u201c PERSON of GPE : A. , the secret child \u201d ( \u201c PERSON : A. , l\u2019enfant secret \u201d ) the CARDINAL - page article , entitled \u201c A. is PERSON \u2019s son , says his mother \u201d , included several photographs showing the Prince beside PERSON or the child . Those of the Prince and the child had been taken by PERSON with the Prince \u2019s consent . PERSON , who had sole parental authority , had handed them over to ORG for publication .","The article , in which PERSON to the questions put by a journalist , gave details about the circumstances in which she had met the Prince , their meetings , their intimate relationship and feelings , the way in which the Prince had reacted to the news of PERSON pregnancy and how he had behaved on meeting the child . It noted that the boy had been born on DATE and that the Prince had formally recognised him before a notary on DATE , but had requested that this fact should not be made public before the death of his own father , Prince PERSON .","On DATE the Prince brought proceedings against the applicants in the PERSON tribunal de grande instance on the basis of LAW , seeking compensation for invasion of privacy and infringement of his right to protection of his image through the publication of the above - mentioned article on DATE .","On DATE the court allowed the Prince \u2019s claim , awarding him MONEY in damages and ordering that details of the judgment be printed in a full - page feature on the magazine \u2019s front page , on pain of a DATE fine and at the publisher \u2019s expense , under the headline \u201c Court order made against ORG at the request of Prince PERSON of GPE \u201d . The judgment was immediately enforceable .","NORP In allowing the Prince \u2019s claims , the court noted , in particular , that from the first page onwards , the magazine disclosed the Prince \u2019s paternity through the headline \u201c PERSON of GPE : A. , the secret child \u201d , accompanied by a photograph showing him holding the child .","It added that the CARDINAL - page article dealt with the issue of the Prince \u2019s father - son relationship with the child , by means of questions which led the child \u2019s mother to discuss her relationship with the Prince , the feelings of those involved , the GPE \u2019s private life and reactions and the child \u2019s recognition child before a notary . It added that numerous photographs , clearly taken in the context of the intimacy of the ORG private life , had been deliberately chosen to illustrate and lend support to the disclosure ; they were accompanied by the magazine \u2019s own captions , which also referred to the PERSON \u2019s emotional life , analysing his conduct , his reactions to the young woman and the child , and speculating as to his feelings with regard to this secret child .","The court considered that the entire article and the accompanying pictures came within the most intimate sphere of emotional and family life and that they were not apt to be the subject of any debate of general interest .","It added that the claimant \u2019s accession to the throne of the Principality of GPE did not deprive him of the right to respect for his private life , nor of his right to protection of his own image in the face of mere rumours concerning the civil status of a child , which could not serve as a legitimate pretext for providing information to a prying and curious public about the lives of public figures , their feelings and their private conduct . In addition , the court held that a newspaper could not seriously claim to take the place of the courtroom , where the rights of children and women were lawfully defended .","The court concluded that the impugned article , which treated rumours in a sensational manner , both in its wording and through the completely irrelevant accompanying pictures , amounted to a serious breach of the claimant \u2019s fundamental personality rights , the latter having specifically served notice by a bailiff on the publishing company to respect those rights on DATE .","The applicants appealed against that judgment and obtained a suspension of the judgment \u2019s immediate enforceability .","On DATE the Prince issued a statement in which he publicly recognised the child . The notarised document was entered in the register of births , deaths and marriages during the same period .","On DATE ORG gave judgment .","It noted that , through the interview with the child \u2019s mother , the impugned article focused on revealing the birth of the child , who was presented as having been born from the intimate relationship she had conducted with the Prince since DATE .","Furthermore , on DATE of the article \u2019s publication , both his birth and his father \u2019s identity were unknown to the public .","The court of appeal emphasised that emotional , love or family life and issues of paternity and maternity came within the sphere of private life and were protected by LAW and LAW , which , according to the court , made no distinction between anonymous persons and public figures , whatever their civil , political or religious functions .","It noted that the fact of the Prince \u2019s fatherhood \u201c had never been publicly recognised \u201d , that LAW made it impossible for a child born outside wedlock to accede to the throne and that the Prince had not given his consent to the disclosure of his possible paternity of the child , having on CARDINAL DATE indicated to the applicant company his opposition to the publication of those facts . In consequence , it concluded that the applicant company had deliberately breached the provisions of LAW and of LAW . It considered that this offence could not be justified by the requirements of current affairs reporting , the legitimacy of the information or readers\u2019 right to information , which did not cover the Prince \u2019s secret paternity , even if he had become the reigning Prince of the ORG since his father \u2019s death in DATE .","The court of appeal further noted that the article did not merely disclose the existence of a \u201c secret \u201d child . It also contained numerous digressions derived from the confessions made by the child \u2019s mother , concerning the circumstances of their meeting , the Prince \u2019s feelings , his most intimate reactions in response to the news of the pregnancy and his attitude towards the child during private encounters . It considered that this could not be justified by the concomitant publication of these facts in a NORP magazine , or by the media impact caused by the content of the article , or by the fact that other publications had subsequently repeated these reports ( which had become common knowledge through the fault of the publishing company ) , or by the alleged legitimacy of such a disclosure . The child had no official status which would have rendered his birth and the disclosure of the father \u2019s identify a subject which the media , as part of their duty to provide information , were required to bring to the public \u2019s attention .","It found that although the photographs which accompanied the article and showed the respondent with the child had been taken by the latter \u2019s mother and with the Prince \u2019s consent , he had not consented to their publication , and that consequently she was at fault .","The court of appeal concluded that the publication in question had caused the Prince irreversible damage , in that the fact that he was the child \u2019s father , which he had wished to keep secret , and which had remained so from the child \u2019s birth until publication of the impugned article , had suddenly become public knowledge , against his wishes . The non - pecuniary damage thus caused justified the issuing of an order for publication , as supplementary compensation , which , in view of the nature of the breach and the seriousness of its consequences , was in no way disproportionate to the competing interests and , on the contrary , represented the most adequate redress in such circumstances .","ORG upheld the contested judgement , in particular the payment of MONEY in damages , and merely varied the conditions of the order for publication , which was no longer to appear under a headline and occupy CARDINAL third of the front cover . Thus , the court ordered that in the first issue to be published in DATE following service of the judgment , a box covering the lower third of the front page and containing the following text was to be printed on a white background , failing which the applicant company would be fined CARDINAL per issue :","\u201c By a judgment of ORG , upholding the judgment delivered by the PERSON tribunal de grande instance , the company ORG in issue no . CARDINAL , dated CARDINAL DATE , of the newspaper ORG , in an article entitled \u2018 PERSON of GPE : A. The secret ORG has been found to have invaded the privacy and infringed the right to his own image of PERSON of GPE . \u201d","This statement was published on the front cover of edition no . CARDINAL of the magazine , dated DATE , under the following editorial commentary : \u201c PERSON of GPE : The truth is condemned . ORG disclosed the existence of his son , A. The courts have penalised freedom to impart information . The international press reacts to support us . \u201d","The applicants appealed on points of law . In their further pleadings , they relied , in particular , on LAW , given that the disclosure of the Prince \u2019s paternity was a matter of public life and was justified by the requirements of imparting information , in view of the functions that he occupied as sovereign of a ORG with a hereditary monarchy .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal on the grounds , inter alia , that :","\u201c ... every person , whatever his rank , birth , property or present or future functions , is entitled to respect for his private life ; the judgment notes on the one hand that , on the date on which the article was published , the child \u2019s existence and his family relationship were unknown to the public , and that , on the other , the ORG \u2019s LAW rules out the possibility of his accession to the throne , since he was born outside wedlock , a situation that , moreover , the company did not allege to be a subject of debate in LANGUAGE or Monegasque society or of examination in the impugned publication , and , lastly , [ that ] the article contained multiple digressions on the circumstances in which PERSON and PERSON met and about their relationship , the Prince \u2019s reactions to the news of the pregnancy and his subsequent attitude towards the child ; in the light of these findings and considerations , the court of appeal correctly noted the lack of any topical news item or any debate on a matter of general interest which justified its being reported at the time of the impugned publication on the grounds of legitimate imparting of information to the public ; moreover , the publication of photographs of a person to illustrate subsequent content which amounted to an invasion of his privacy necessarily infringes his right to control of one \u2019s own image . \u201d","The interview with PERSON and the disputed photographs were also published in the NORP DATE magazine ORG CARDINAL DATE .","Having brought urgent proceedings against this magazine in order to prevent any further publication , the Prince \u2019s case was dismissed on DATE by a judgment of ORG ( ORG ) , upheld on DATE by ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) .","The NORP courts placed the public \u2019s right to information over the PERSON \u2019s interests in protection of his private life , having regard to his status as sovereign of a NORP principality . They described him as an \u201c undeniable figure of contemporary society \u201d and considered that the issue of a male descendent was of decisive importance in a constitutional hereditary monarchy , given that a change to the rule prohibiting a child born out of wedlock from claiming the Monegasque throne could not be ruled out in the future .","They considered that it was for the child \u2019s mother , and not for the Prince , who had not recognised him , to decide whether the disclosure of the child \u2019s existence fell within the protected private sphere . However , ORG ordered that a photograph showing the Prince in PERSON \u2019s company was not to be published ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161806","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KARAGJOZI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Kristina Pardalos;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["On DATE ORG recognised , amongst others , the applicants\u2019 inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . QUANTITY Since the plot of land was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in one of the ways provided by law . The Commission stated that the land had changed its destination from agricultural land to construction land . A handwritten note signed by the chairman of the Commission states that the decision became final on DATE . On DATE , following the applicants\u2019 request for information about whether their property was still occupied , ORG affirmed that the plot was occupied by the army .","To date , no compensation has been paid ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157709","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF L.M. AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Syria);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Syria);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants are NORP nationals or had their habitual residence in GPE . At the time of lodging their applications they were detained at a detention centre for foreign nationals in the town of PERSON , GPE ( \u041e\u0421\u0423\u0421\u0412\u0418\u0413 \u2013 \u201c the detention centre \u201d ) , run by the local ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","NORP The applicant PERSON ( application no . MONEY ) was born in DATE . He entered GPE on DATE . He was detained on DATE . He is a stateless NORP who had his habitual residence in GPE . He was not in possession of a valid national ID at the time of detention , and his identity was established by an immigration officer in GPE in DATE .","The applicant PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) was born in DATE . He entered GPE on DATE . He was detained on DATE .","NORP The applicant PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) was born in DATE . He entered GPE on DATE . He was detained on DATE and has a brother , PERSON , who received temporary asylum in GPE and is married to a NORP national , PERSON","On DATE and DATE ( see Appendix ) the applicants were detained by the police and officers of the ORG at a clothing factory in ORG .","On DATE and DATE ( see Appendix ) ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) examined the ORG administrative files , found them guilty of administrative offences ( breach of immigration rules and working without a permit ) and ordered them to pay fines of CARDINAL Russian roubles ( RUB ) and their expulsion to GPE , in line with the procedure under LAW . The applicants all stated in court that they feared for their lives if returned to GPE and referred to information about the ongoing and widespread conflict there . The court found these statements to be general in nature and unsupported by any relevant evidence . The applicants also referred to the absence of work in GPE and the fact that in GPE they had been able to work illegally . ORG then focused on the economic motives of their arrival and illegal stay . Pending expulsion the court ordered their detention at the detention centre .","NORP The lawyer representing the applicants before the ORG lodged appeals for all CARDINAL of them , describing in detail the general situation in GPE and the danger of returning there , and citing and attaching the relevant country reports produced by the ORG and ORG . She also cited a circular letter issued by ORG on DATE to its regional branches , according to which no entry was possible into NORP territory in view of the hostilities and problems that would arise with the execution of court judgments ordering expulsion there . The lawyer argued , in detail , that the decisions to expel the applicants could not be implemented ; in such circumstances their detention lost any purpose and became indefinite . The lawyer further cited an ORG circular letter of DATE entitled \u201c On the situation in GPE and the work with persons originating from GPE \u201d , which stated that \u201c in the current difficult political situation , when the NORP authorities are unable to provide effective protection of their citizens from the illegal actions of the armed opposition ... most of the applicants ... have fled the country as a result of the armed conflict . ... Individuals who can not not safely return [ to GPE ] and have a well - founded fear of ill - treatment , including torture , should be given temporary asylum \u201d . The statements of appeal further referred to the fact that the applicants had sought asylum in GPE ; their expulsion would therefore be contrary to the relevant legislation . ORG in GPE produced a letter to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) in respect of GPE , reiterating its position in respect of returns to GPE and arguing that any decision relating to expulsion there while his asylum request was pending would be in breach of domestic and international legislation . Similar letters were produced in respect of the CARDINAL other applicants . The applicants also referred to a decision of ORG taken earlier in DATE relating to a NORP national in a similar situation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG rejected all CARDINAL appeals on DATE , following which the expulsion orders entered into force . It stressed the applicants\u2019 illegal stay in GPE and their reference to economic difficulties as their reason for departure from their home country . It found that the alleged danger to the applicants\u2019 lives as a result of the ongoing conflict did not in itself constitute sufficient grounds to exclude expulsion in respect of those guilty of administrative offences in the sphere of immigration .","In respect of GPE , in a separate decision of DATE , ORG refused to amend the expulsion order . The court noted that he had not applied for asylum in GPE until DATE , a fact which \u201c did not affect the lawfulness of the decision taken by ORG concerning the applicant \u2019s administrative offence and expulsion \u201d .","On DATE ORG asked ORG to stay execution in respect of PERSON , pointing out that ORG had applied Rule CARDINAL and therefore the expulsion could not be carried out at that time . On DATE ORG found that LAW did not provide for stays of expulsion as opposed to the payment of fines and dismissed the request .","On DATE ORG issued a similar decision in respect of GPE , pursuant to a request by ORG on DATE . None of the parties were present at the hearing , including GPE","It appears from the letter of DATE sent by ORG to the applicants\u2019 lawyer that it was unaware at that date of ORG decisions . From the same letter it appears that a similar request had been made for a stay of execution in respect of PERSON","Since DATE and DATE the applicants have been detained at the detention centre .","According to the Government \u2019s observations received in DATE , PERSON escaped on DATE . An internal report was prepared by the head of the NORP FMS DATE , describing the events as follows :","\u201c In TIME of DATE , between CARDINAL and CARDINAL a.m. , a group of foreign nationals and stateless people detained pending administrative deportation from the [ detention centre ] escaped from the LOC ... The group included ... [ PERSON ] , a NORP national , born on DATE ... An investigation has established that the people used an unfinished ventilation shaft located between the ground and first floors of the building . Having reached the first floor , the people jumped out of the window onto a pile of construction rubbish and , having covered the surveillance devices ... with a blanket , left the grounds of the centre with the aid of construction materials stored in the courtyard .","The exact circumstances of the escape are being established . An internal investigation is being held in respect of the staff who had allowed the CARDINAL foreign nationals to escape .","The local police have been told to organise a search for the people who have escaped . \u201d","NORP The applicants\u2019 representative claimed to have had no knowledge of the escape prior to receiving the Government \u2019s observations , expressing her concern that they had not submitted the information earlier , for example when making their observations of DATE .","NORP In reply to the ORG \u2019s further questions in this regard , in their observations of DATE the Government explained that no administrative or criminal proceedings had been initiated , as an escape from a detention centre for foreign nationals pending deportation was not an offence under any legislation . While the police continued to search for the detainees , their whereabouts , including those of PERSON , remained unknown .","The Government further submitted that since their observations had been based on the replies of the competent ORG authorities prepared on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , no information about PERSON \u2019s escape had been provided at that stage . They also submitted that the detention centre had been under no obligation to inform GPE representatives of the escape , hence why it had not done so in PERSON \u2019s case .","NORP The applicants\u2019 representative confirmed that she had not been aware of PERSON \u2019s escape prior to the meeting with the CARDINAL other applicants on DATE and submitted that she had no knowledge of PERSON \u2019s current whereabouts .","From the documents submitted by the Government in DATE , it appears that PERSON sought refugee status in GPE on DATE by applying to the GPE Region FMS . On DATE this request was accepted for consideration on the merits and the applicant was questioned and issued with an appropriate document .","On DATE PERSON \u2019s application for refugee status was dismissed . The decision of the ORG stated that he had submitted no information to support his claims of persecution in GPE . His family remained in that country and he could have used the \u201c internal flight alternative \u201d to another part of GPE , or claimed asylum in a transit country . He reasoned his request to remain in GPE by his wish to work there and did not therefore fall under the definition of refugee .","The applicant did not obtain a copy of that decision and did not appeal against it .","After their arrest the CARDINAL applicants applied for refugee status . They submitted the relevant applications to the local ORG in GPE ; PERSON and PERSON on DATE and GPE on DATE .","On DATE the CARDINAL applicants also submitted requests for temporary asylum in GPE , which were drawn up in LANGUAGE and translated by Z.A.","In DATE the CARDINAL applicants were questioned by the Kaluga FMS . They indicated that the reasons for their departure from GPE were the war and danger to their lives . PERSON stated that he was from GPE and had lost contact with his family , parents and siblings after his departure in DATE . PERSON stated that he had fled GPE after his neighbourhood had been taken over by \u201c terrorists \u201d who had killed CARDINAL of people there , including his close male relatives , which he had witnessed . He had also lost contact with his family after DATE . PERSON had been in GPE but had no right of return as he was a stateless NORP . He had also lost contact with the members of his family who had remained in GPE . All applicants stressed that they were afraid to go back because of the hostilities which had caused their departure , and said that they feared being forcibly drafted into the armed forces .","On DATE the NORP FMS decided that their applications for refugee status should be considered on the merits and issued appropriate certificates to them .","In parallel proceedings , also in DATE , the CARDINAL applicants were questioned by the ORG in order to obtain temporary asylum in GPE .","On DATE PERSON signed a paper in NORP stating that he had asked for his request for \u201c temporary asylum in GPE dated DATE \u201d not to be considered since he \u201c intended to return to his home in GPE \u201d . The paper was also signed by a translator , Z.A.","On DATE a similar paper was signed by PERSON which stated that \u201c he and his wife intended to go to GPE \u201d . The paper was also signed by Z.A.","According to the ORG \u2019s observations of DATE , these requests served as the basis of the ORG decisions to terminate the proceedings in respect of these CARDINAL applicants , both in respect of their request for refugee status and temporary asylum . No documents were submitted in this regard .","On DATE the NORP FMS decided to refuse ORG request for refugee status . It considered that he faced no threat of persecution on the grounds set out in FAC . On DATE the Kaluga FMS , for the same reasons , refused him temporary asylum .","On DATE ORG reviewed ORG appeal against the decision not to grant him temporary asylum . He was not taken to the trial even though the decision stated that he had been notified , and he did not have a representative . A representative of the ORG appeared before the court , which briefly restated the reasons for the ORG decision to refuse the applicant both refugee and temporary asylum status and confirmed that there were no reasons to regard him as in need of protection . Neither the general situation in GPE nor the applicant \u2019s submissions about the situation in GPE had been raised or discussed . This decision was sent to GPE on DATE . It is unclear if he appealed against it .","On DATE GPE and PERSON submitted new written requests for refugee status , which were accepted for consideration by the NORP FMS on DATE . On DATE , however , both applicants signed papers in NORP stating that they had asked for their requests for \u201c temporary asylum in GPE dated DATE \u201d not to be considered . The papers stated that they had been translated and written by Z.A.","The Government , in their observations of DATE , explained that the contradictory position taken by PERSON prevented the ORG from considering his new application on the merits . PERSON \u2019s new application was not considered either .","The applicants submitted that severe restrictions had been placed on them meeting with their representatives . As a result , despite numerous attempts and complaints , GPE and GPE only had CARDINAL meeting with them on DATE . M.A. had CARDINAL meeting with his brother and PERSON on DATE , which lasted TIME . PERSON did not meet with a representative prior to his escape from the detention centre ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The applicants submitted copies of their exchange with various officials in the NORP FMS and prosecutor \u2019s office regarding their detention and access to representatives . From these letters it appears that on several occasions the applicants\u2019 CARDINAL lawyers , PERSON and PERSON Yermolayeva , a lawyer of ORG , PERSON , a member of the GPE branch of FAC who had assisted the applicants with their complaints , PERSON , as well as PERSON \u2019s brother and his wife , wrote to these agencies regarding a lack of access to the detention centre and the conditions of detention of people detained there . Their exchanges may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the head of the detention centre responded to PERSON , stating that visits by lawyers and human rights defenders were possible DATE TIME On DATE the NORP FMS informed the regional prosecutor \u2019s office that visits by representatives , relatives and human rights defenders were possible upon the written request of detainees , or upon the written request of their representatives or human rights defenders if accompanied by a written request by the detainee for legal assistance from them . Visits outside of TIME had to be agreed in advance with the detention centre administration , to ensure the proper functioning of the centre . If a detainee requested in writing to be represented by anyone , the centre would consider the issue of ensuring a visit from the representative , accompanied by a notary , to certify a power of attorney .","On DATE PERSON \u2019s lawyer wrote to the NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office . She pointed out that the applicant had been refused access to his representatives , and that the conditions of detention at the detention centre were harsher than for people who had been detained on criminal charges . Detainees were kept in their rooms for most of DATE ; they had no means of communication with anybody and could not contact each other or their representatives . The letter further stressed the absence of any flight connection with GPE and the impossibility of expelling the applicant there .","On DATE the NORP FMS informed the regional prosecutor \u2019s office that on DATE PERSON had asked to be allowed to meet with the CARDINAL applicants and an NORP national , T. The staff of the centre had refused to allow her to meet with the applicants , since she had not had an interpreter present and could not communicate with them . She had attempted to pass documents in NORP to the applicants ( complaints against the domestic court decisions ) through ORG , but they had been found by the detention centre staff . PERSON had been reminded to come back accompanied by an interpreter . Furthermore , the detainees had signed documents refusing to meet with PERSON since she had asked them for money for her services .","On DATE the head of ORG wrote to ORG . She pointed out that the applicants\u2019 confinement in the detention centre appeared unlawful in the absence of any time - limit or purpose , since the expulsion could not be carried out . She further pointed to the fact that the applicants had submitted applications for temporary asylum , and that their conditions of detention were inhuman and degrading , since the food was of poor quality and they had little access to fresh air , outdoor exercise , meaningful activities or information . The letter further stated that the detention centre staff had threatened and harassed detainees , and that the applicants had been pressed to withdraw their applications for asylum . The letter also referred to the difficulties in meeting the inmates .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyers submitted a letter to ORG , with copies to the NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office and ORG . They pointed out that the applicants\u2019 conditions of detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment . PERSON had been diagnosed with pneumonia , but had not received adequate medical help . The applicants had been unable to meet with their relatives and representatives . The food was of poor quality , consisted mostly of cereals and was often served cold . The applicants complained that they had been harassed and threatened by the staff , threatened with reprisals if they complained , and encouraged to withdraw their applications for asylum and discharge their representatives . In the absence of any real possibility of expelling the applicants to GPE , their detention had turned into an open - ended punishment without any possibility of review .","On DATE the NORP FMS wrote to the NORP regional ombudsman , noting that on DATE ORG had rejected the ORG appeals ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) while they were assisted by a lawyer and interpreter . In their letter of DATE the NORP FMS informed the regional prosecutor \u2019s office that the GPE rights had not been infringed . The court hearing of DATE relating to staying execution of the expulsion order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not required the applicants\u2019 presence , and an interpreter had been invited to the detention centre on DATE , who had translated the court decision to the applicants . On the same day PERSON had decided to withdraw his application for temporary asylum and refuse any further assistance from PERSON , signing the relevant documents .","Writing to the applicants\u2019 lawyer on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and the regional prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE , the NORP FMS provided information about the medical assistance given to the applicants . In respect of GPE , the letters stated that he had been examined by a doctor upon arrival , that an interpreter had assisted him on DATE in communicating with the detention centre doctor , who had administered treatment , and that on CARDINAL and DATE he had again been examined by a doctor and sent for a chest PERSON . His condition had been described as \u201c satisfactory \u201d and improved . The letters went on to state that the detention rooms had a ventilation system installed , that the shower and toilets , although not in the rooms , were undergoing renovation so that they would all be on CARDINAL floor , that there was a courtyard for walks , and that the detention centre staff had treated detainees with respect and never allowed any behaviour which could escalate into arguments . The staff included a doctor , a psychologist and a medical disinfection specialist . On DATE PERSON had signed a paper refusing any further assistance from PERSON On DATE the remaining CARDINAL applicants had also expressed their wish to withdraw their requests for asylum .","On DATE PERSON signed a letter in NORP addressed to the NORP FMS stating that its officers had forced him to sign documents in NORP he could not understand and which , as it turned out , had cancelled his asylum request and prevented him meeting with his representative , PERSON As a result , he had not met with her , and the only meeting he had attended had been with his brother and sister - in - law on DATE , which had only lasted TIME . The applicant further stated that he and PERSON were under constant surveillance , had received threats from the staff and were unable to write and send letters or make complaints . The treatment was allegedly because of their application to the ORG . The papers signed by the applicants about their unwillingness to have their asylum requests considered had been obtained under duress and they had had no idea what they had signed . The applicant \u2019s requests to meet with his relatives and representatives had not been granted . He further complained that he had not been given any personal hygiene products and could not shave or cut his hair , and that he and PERSON were being kept in isolation and had very little contact with other detainees , allegedly because they had applied to ORG . They had also been told that their expulsion to GPE would take place anyway and that their complaints would have no effect . The letter ended with a request to be allowed unrestricted meetings with his relatives and representatives , including PERSON","DATE . On DATE , ORG \u2019s sister - in - law , wrote to the GPE - based human rights NGO Civic Assistance . On DATE she and her husband PERSON , ORG \u2019s brother , produced affidavits to the applicant \u2019s lawyers in GPE . From these documents it appears that both brothers had left GPE in GPE because of the hostilities there , that their neighbourhood had been destroyed , that many of their relatives had been killed , and that they had no contact with the surviving family members . They had been unable to meet with PERSON at the detention centre , with the exception of CARDINAL brief visit on DATE . The visit had lasted TIME and a detention centre officer had been present . When PERSON had started to write down a complaint in LANGUAGE , it had been taken away by the officer who had said that it was not allowed . PERSON had not been aware that he had signed a withdrawal of his asylum request prior to the meeting with his relatives . He had said that he had signed the papers under pressure from the ORG staff . His brother had managed to covertly obtain his signature on a complaint and a request to be allowed visit from his relatives and representative , PERSON had also told them that on DATE he had been visited by an ORG officer from PERSON PERSON ) , accompanied by an interpreter , who had told him that he would be expelled to GPE as soon as his travel documents were issued by ORG .","On DATE Mr GPE of ORG submitted a complaint to the NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office . He stated that he had arrived at the detention centre and had produced an order for representing PERSON and a copy of his bar membership card DATE ; however , its staff had refused to allow him to meet with his client , referring to the absence of any signed agreement to represent him or permission for the meeting issued by the Kaluga ORG . The ORG had further informed him that the review of his request would take DATE . Mr PERSON referred to the provisions of domestic legislation which permitted a lawyer to meet with his client and asked for his client \u2019s right to legal aid to be restored .","On DATE lawyers PERSON and PERSON Yermolayeva met with the CARDINAL applicants and took affidavits from them regarding their detention and asylum request situation .","PERSON stated that he was detained in a spacious room with CARDINAL other detainees ; it had a toilet and running cold water . A hot shower could be taken DATE on another floor upon request . The room was clean and had sufficient natural and artificial lighting , which was switched off during TIME . There were no hygiene problems with insects and the bed linen was changed once DATE . Detainees spent their time in their rooms , day and night , except when they went for walks . There were CARDINAL nurses who administered medical treatment as necessary . He insisted that he wanted his asylum claim to be considered and unrestricted access and the ability to communicate with his representative , including in writing . When asked , PERSON stated that he had been assaulted by the staff on DATE after some of the detainees had escaped ; CARDINAL of the wardens had twisted his hand painfully .","M.A. stated that while at the detention centre , he had been beaten twice , in DATE , when the staff had found him to be in possession of the Koran , and on DATE , when CARDINAL of the NORP detainees had escaped . He had been beaten so that he would disclose details about the escape . After the beatings he had stayed in bed for DATE and could not eat . He stated that he had not been allowed to make complaints or send letters , and had been denied access to his representatives and relatives . He had not been allowed to attend the court hearing on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) even though he had asked to . He also confirmed that he had wanted to meet with his representatives , including PERSON and had expected his claim for asylum to be processed . He stated that the ORG staff had threatened him and told him that his complaints would not help and that he would be spending DATE in prison anyway .","Following these submissions , on DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyers wrote a letter to the NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office pointing at the illegal nature of the applicants\u2019 detention , since their expulsion could not be carried out and there were no terms or possibility of review of the detention . They also stressed that the applicants\u2019 conditions of detention were similar to people in pre - trial detention , while the restrictions on visits and correspondence were illegal and in direct contradiction to the information contained in the letters from the detention centre administration . The letter stressed that the absence of contact with relatives , lawyers and representatives amounted in itself to inhuman treatment since it had serious psychological effects on the applicants .","On DATE signed a request addressed to the Kaluga FMS to be allowed meetings with his representatives , PERSON , PERSON PERSON and PERSON , as well as his brother PERSON PERSON A. and sister - in - law PERSON","NORP In reply to the ORG \u2019s additional questions , in DATE the Government submitted more detailed information about the applicants\u2019 conditions of detention .","On DATE the head of the CARDINAL FMS ordered that meetings with people detained in the detention centre could be authorised for close relatives by its head upon presentation of documents proving they were related . Visits by representatives and human rights defenders could be authorised by the head of the NORP FMS , and the detainee could submit a written request to the head of the detention centre .","According to the detention centre \u2019s DATE routine issued by its head on DATE , DATE walks were to last no less than an TIME per inmate . TIME a day was set aside for telephone contact and TIME for meetings with visitors and receiving parcels . TIME every day was set aside for meetings with the administration .","The Government submitted extracts from the applicants\u2019 medical files , from which it appears that they had been examined upon arrival at the centre and found to be in good health . PERSON had been treated for bronchitis and pneumonia in DATE , and on DATE his health was improving . He had also had an incident of high blood pressure on DATE , which had been successfully treated . PERSON had been diagnosed with pulpitis and gastric problems and had received treatment . He had seen the doctor on CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE . M.A. had not consulted the medical staff .","According to the Government , GPE and GPE were detained in room no . CARDINAL on the first floor of the CARDINAL - storey building , which measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL people . A toilet was accessible from the room , and there was a shared bathroom on the ground floor . The outdoor exercise yard measured QUANTITY . The Government provided photos of the rooms , sanitary facilities , canteen and the yard ."],"violated_articles":["2","3","34","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174459","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"M.M. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . The President decided that the applicants\u2019 identities were not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ) . The Government of the GPE were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. PERSON , of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and in so far as relevant , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant is an NORP national who was born in DATE . He has been residing in the GPE since DATE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE the applicant entered the GPE and applied for asylum , claiming to fear persecution within the meaning of the DATE LAW ( \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) . On DATE the immigration authorities held a first interview ( eerste gehoor ) with the applicant about his identity , nationality and travel itinerary . A written record of this interview report was drawn up and the applicant was given an opportunity to submit corrections and additions .","On DATE the immigration authorities held a further interview ( nader gehoor ) with the applicant about his reasons for seeking asylum . A written record of this interview was drawn up and on DATE a lawyer submitted corrections and additions on the applicant \u2019s behalf .","In his asylum statement , the applicant stated that he was from GPE . After he had graduated from the GPE military academy in DATE , he had worked as teacher at a GPE aviation academy until DATE when he had been transferred DATE he then held the rank of major after periodic promotions \u2013 to the NORP security service , the ORG , where he had worked until DATE as chief financial officer of the logistics directorate . His last held rank had been that of colonel . He further stated that he had been a member of the communist ORG of GPE ( the PDPA ) since CARDINAL DATE .","After having lived in hiding from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , he had been arrested by ORG forces operating in PERSON . He had been held captive until DATE when he had been able to escape after the mujahideen had fled from the approaching ORG . After first having hidden in the home of a friend , he had left GPE for GPE . At DATE or DATE , he had heard from a maternal aunt that the ORG had been searching for him . Having not found him at home , the ORG had taken captive his brother , who had been executed by the ORG DATE before the applicant \u2019s flight to GPE . After having stayed for DATE in GPE , he had travelled by air \u2013 via GPE \u2013 to the GPE . His wife and their CARDINAL children , the latter born DATE , had remained in GPE and were living with his wife \u2019s parents .","By a decision of DATE , the applicant was granted asylum in the GPE . Having been granted a provisional residence visa ( machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf ) for the GPE , his wife and CARDINAL children joined him DATE and they were all granted an asylumderived residence permit ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE a special CARDINAL unit of ORG ( see ORG v. the GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) asked to be provided with the applicant \u2019s case file in view of a possible application of LAW . The applicant was informed accordingly on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE a supplementary interview ( aanvullend gehoor ) was held with him .","On DATE the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON ) notified the applicant of her intention ( voornemen ) to revoke his asylum - based residence permit under LAW . Noting that the applicant had worked DATE as an officer of the KhAD \/ WAD , his asylum statement had been considered in the light of an official report ( ambtsbericht ) drawn up on DATE by ORG ( GPE PERSON ) on \u201c ORG in NORP GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ( PERSON in communistisch GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG en WAD ) . On the basis of this report , the GPE immigration authorities had adopted the position that LAW could be applied in respect of virtually every NORP asylum - seeker who had worked during the communist regime for the ORG or its successor the ORG and held the rank of third lieutenant or higher .","NORP The Minister then proceeded to an elaborate analysis of the applicant \u2019s individual responsibility under LAW , based on the prescribed and so - called \u201c knowing and personal participation \u201d test . Noting , inter alia , the applicant \u2019s steady career path in the ORG , the Minister excluded the possibility of the applicant not having known or not having been involved in human - rights violations committed by the ORG . Relying on the official report of CARDINAL DATE , the Minister underlined the widely known cruel practices of the ORG , its lawless methods , the grave crimes it had committed such as torture and other human - rights violations as well as the climate of terror which it had spread throughout the whole of NORP society . The Minister lastly emphasised that the applicant had done nothing to shirk from his duties for the ORG .","On DATE and DATE , the applicant submitted written comments ( zienswijze ) on the Minister \u2019s intended decision and , on DATE , he was once more heard before an official board of enquiry ( ambtelijke commissie ) .","On DATE , the Minister revoked the applicant \u2019s residence permit . The notice of intent of DATE was added to the decision and formed part of it . The Minister did not deviate , in the relevant part , from her earlier conclusions in the notice of intent and went on to confirm them on all points , dismissing the applicant \u2019s rebuttals . However , as regards LAW , the Minister accepted that it was possible that the applicant would in the then circumstances run a real risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited by this provision if expelled to GPE and that , for this reason , he would not be expelled for the time being . The Minister added that , should the situation in GPE change , a fresh decision on the applicant \u2019s removal would be taken and that that decision could be appealed against .","The applicant lodged an appeal to ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE . In its judgment of DATE , ORG allowed the appeal and annulled the impugned decision . Noting that the Minister had acknowledged that in GPE the applicant would be exposed to a risk of treatment proscribed by LAW , it held the Minister should also have examined whether LAW constituted a sustained obstacle to his expulsion to GPE . Consequently , as the Minister \u2019s examination had been incomplete , it returned the case to the Minister for a fresh decision .","On DATE a supplementary further interview ( aanvullend nader gehoor ) was held with the applicant on the subject of his fear of being subjected to treatment prohibited under LAW if returned to GPE . A written record of this interview was drawn up and on DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted written corrections and additions on the applicant \u2019s behalf .","On DATE the Minister notified the applicant of her renewed intention to revoke his asylum - based residence permit under LAW . She further notified him of her intention to also impose an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) on him . The applicant submitted written comments on this intended decision on CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE the applicant was heard before an official board of enquiry .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the Minister of ORG ( Minister PERSON ) revoked anew the applicant \u2019s asylum - based residence permit , under LAW . In addition , the Minister imposed an exclusion order . As regards LAW , the Minister held that it could not be concluded from the applicant \u2019s account DATE viewed against the background of the then political and social situation in GPE \u2013 that there existed a real and foreseeable risk that the applicant , if returned to GPE , would be subjected to treatment in breach of LAW . As he had only been able to state the possible problems he feared he would experience in GPE in general terms without any specific evidence , the Minister concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated the alleged LAW risk which was found to be based on assumptions by the applicant and not on anything concrete .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection ( bezwaar ) with the Minister to the decision to impose an exclusion order , and on DATE applied to ORG of The Hague to have issued a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) allowing the applicant to remain in the GPE pending the determination of his objection . In addition , also on DATE , the applicant lodged an appeal and an accompanying application for a provisional measure with ORG of The GPE against the decision to revoke his asylumbased residence permit under Article ORG","On DATE ORG of The Hague , sitting in PERSON , declared inadmissible the applicant \u2019s appeal against the revocation of his residence permit . It held that , as long as an exclusion order was imposed on him , the applicant had no legal interest in a determination of the merits of his appeal . It took into account that , in the proceedings on the imposed exclusion order , the applicant \u2019s arguments based on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention could be entertained . Although possible , the applicant did not lodge a further appeal with ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) .","Also on DATE a provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG of GPE , sitting in \u2018 ORG , rejected the applicant \u2019s application for a provisional measure which had accompanied his appeal and , in a separate decision , his application for a provisional measure which had accompanied his objection . In the latter decision , the judge noted that the applicant had admitted that he had worked as an officer of the ORG and held that the Minister had correctly applied LAW in the applicant \u2019s case . As regards LAW , the judge found that the applicant had not established that he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment proscribed by this provision , either on account of the general situation in GPE or his individual circumstances .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s objection of CARDINAL DATE was rejected by the Deputy Minister of ORG ( ORG ) . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG of The Hague . He submitted his written grounds of appeal on DATE and additional grounds of appeal on DATE .","By a judgment of DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , ORG of The Hague , sitting in GPE , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In so far as the applicant had relied on LAW , it decided DATE as the arguments based on this provision had not been raised in the applicant \u2019s written grounds of appeal itself but only for the first time during the hearing of DATE not to take them into account .","The applicant \u2019s further appeal to ORG was declared inadmissible on DATE as , despite having been provided with an opportunity to repair this failure , the applicant had failed to pay the statutorily prescribed court fees ( griffierecht ) within the time - limit fixed for this purpose .","On DATE the applicant was placed in immigration detention , which he unsuccessfully challenged . On DATE he was informed that his removal to GPE had been scheduled for DATE . On DATE , after having been informed that arrangements for an escorted removal were being made , the applicant lodged an objection to an action aimed at his effective removal ( daadwerkelijke uitzettingshandeling ) . Under the terms of section CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( Vreemdelingenwet CARDINAL ) , such an action can be equated with a formal decision within the meaning of LAW which can be challenged in administrative - law appeal proceedings . The applicant further lodged an application with ORG of GPE for a provisional measure ( stay of removal pending the determination of his objection ) .","On DATE a provisional - measures judge of ORG of The Hague , sitting in GPE , rejected the application . The judge found , in so far as the applicant had invoked LAW , that it had not been demonstrated that he would risk treatment contrary to this provision in GPE .","On DATE the President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG , indicating to the Government that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","The applicant \u2019s objection of CARDINAL DATE was declared inadmissible . An appeal by the applicant against that decision was rejected by ORG of GPE on DATE . It declared the appeal unfounded as the applicant did not risk removal to GPE for as long as the Rule CARDINAL interim measure was in force . No information has been submitted as to whether the applicant has lodged a further appeal with ORG .","The applicant is an NORP national who was born in DATE . He has been residing in the GPE since DATE . He was represented before the ORG by ORG , a lawyer practising in LOC .","On DATE the applicant , his spouse and their CARDINAL children ( born DATE ) applied for asylum in the GPE , claiming to fear persecution within the meaning of the CARDINAL Refugee Convention . In his interviews with the GPE immigration authorities , the applicant stated that he had been a member of the ORG from DATE and that he had worked for the ORG from DATE to DATE ; DATE after Mr DATE who had headed the ORG had been killed . The applicant had simply not returned to work , where he had held the rank of lieutenant - colonel . In DATE , while searching for the applicant , who had been living there at the time and who had been absent at that moment , mujahideen forces had searched the house of his aunt . He had then left GPE and gone into hiding in a village near GPE . He had learned on DATE that his brother had been arrested by the ORG in GPE . The ORG had arrived in GPE on DATE . They had searched for the applicant but had taken his brother prisoner instead ; thus the applicant had managed to flee to GPE , GPE on DATE . After his arrival there , he learned that his brother had been killed . In the period from DATE to DATE , the applicant himself had not been bothered by any of the groups who had been looking for him because he had been living in hiding . The applicant also stated that he had learned that the ORG had been responsible for having tortured people but he had never seen or done this himself .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum claim for being manifestly unfounded ( kennelijke ongegrondheid ) . The applicant challenged that decision in administrative appeal proceedings in which the final DATE for the applicant negative \u2013 decision was taken on DATE by ORG of The Hague , sitting in GPE .","NORP However , the Deputy Minister of Justice did grant the applicant and his family on DATE a conditional residence permit ( voorwaardelijke vergunning tot verblijf ) which was valid for DATE from DATE on the basis of a temporary categorical protection policy ( categoriaal beschermingsbeleid ) in respect of GPE .","On DATE , the situation in GPE not having sufficiently improved , the applicant \u2019s conditional residence permit was converted into an unrestricted residence permit ( vergunning tot verblijf zonder beperkingen ) . Subsequently , with the entry into force of LAW on DATE , the permit held by the applicant was transformed into an indefinite residence permit for the purpose of asylum ( verblijfsvergunning asiel voor onbepaalde tijd ) .","On DATE the applicant was informed that a special CARDINAL unit of ORG had reviewed his case , that it had been decided to undertake a further investigation and that a supplementary interview would be held with him . Supplementary interviews were held with the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE . A written record of these interviews was drawn up and on CARDINAL DATE a lawyer submitted corrections and additions on the applicant \u2019s behalf .","On DATE the Minister for ORG notified the applicant of her intention to revoke his asylum - based residence permit under LAW . Noting that the applicant had worked between DATE and DATE as an officer for the ORG , his asylum statement had been considered in the light of an official report , drawn up on DATE by ORG on the security services in communist GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The Minister then proceeded to an elaborate analysis of the applicant \u2019s individual responsibility under LAW based on the prescribed and so - called \u201c knowing and personal participation \u201d test . The Minister noted inter alia that \u2013 on his lawyer \u2019s advice \u2013 the applicant had decided to give no statement during the supplementary interviews about his activities for the ORG . However the applicant did belong to a group of persons in respect of whom LAW was generally applied and he had not demonstrated that in his case a significant exception should be made . The Minister concluded that LAW was to be applied in the applicant \u2019s case . The Minister took into account the applicant \u2019s promotions in the ORG and found that the applicant had known or should have known that the ORG had been involved in the systematic commission on a large scale of serious crimes referred to in Article ORG On DATE the applicant submitted written comments on the Minister \u2019s intended decision .","On DATE the Minister notified the applicant of her supplementary intention ( aanvullend voornemen ) to revoke his residence permit under Article CARDINAL The applicant submitted written comments on the Minister \u2019s supplementary intended decision on CARDINAL May and DATE .","On DATE the Minister further notified the applicant of her intention also to impose an exclusion order on him . The applicant submitted written comments on this intended decision on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the Minister revoked the applicant \u2019s residence permit and , in addition , imposed an exclusion order . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the revocation of his residence permit and an accompanying application for a provisional measure with ORG of GPE . On DATE , the applicant lodged an objection with the Minister to the decision to impose an exclusion order .","On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting in GPE , declared inadmissible the applicant \u2019s appeal against the revocation of his residence permit . It held that , as long as an exclusion order was imposed on him , the applicant had no legal interest in a determination of the merits of his appeal . It took into account that , in the proceedings on the imposed exclusion order , the applicant \u2019s arguments based on LAW could be entertained . Although possible , the applicant apparently did not lodge a further appeal with ORG against the ruling of DATE . Also on DATE , a provisional - measures judge of ORG of The Hague , sitting in GPE , declared inadmissible the applicant \u2019s application for a provisional measure .","NORP The applicant \u2019s objection to the decision to impose an exclusion order was dismissed by the Minister on DATE . The applicant \u2019s appeal to ORG was withdrawn on DATE after he had been informed that the impugned decision had been withdrawn and that a fresh decision would be taken .","In a fresh decision taken on DATE , after the applicant had been heard on his objection before an official board of enquiry , the Deputy Minister of ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s objection to the decision to impose an exclusion order . In so far as the applicant had invoked LAW , the Deputy Minister held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he would be exposed to a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW if expelled to GPE . According to an official report of ORG of DATE ( DPV \/ AM-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) not all former members of the ORG and people who had worked for the ORG ran such a risk . Many of them were working for the present Government of GPE , including the security service . The applicant had failed to establish that specific groups , such as the ORG or mujahideen , had been looking for him , or that he would be exposed to an LAW risk on account of him being of NORP ethnicity .","As regards LAW , the Deputy Minister noted that the applicant was living in the GPE together with his spouse and their CARDINAL children who in the meantime had obtained GPE nationality . Consequently , there was \u201c family life \u201d within the meaning of DATE . However , taking into account the criteria formulated in the cases of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIX ) and PERSON v. the GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALXII ) , the Deputy Minister found that public interest considerations ( public order , national security , prevention of crime and protection of the rights and freedoms of others ) outweighed the applicant \u2019s personal interests in enjoying family life in the GPE . On this point , the Deputy Minister considered that it was unlikely that the applicant \u2019s spouse had not known about the applicant \u2019s work for the ORG \/ WAD whose brutal working methods were known to large parts of the NORP population . The Deputy Minister also found no objective obstacles to them exercising their right to family life in GPE , taking into account that the applicant \u2019s wife and children had not been admitted to the GPE as refugees fearing persecution on the basis of their individual circumstances but entered instead under a temporary categorical protection policy . Furthermore , like the applicant , the applicant \u2019s spouse came from GPE , spoke the local language and was familiar with NORP society . The Deputy Minister found no reason why she could not follow the applicant to GPE or why their family life could not be carried on in a third country .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal and an accompanying application for a provisional measure with ORG of The Hague . On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , the provisional - measures judge of ORG of The Hague , sitting in GPE , rejected the applicant \u2019s application for a provisional measure .","On an unspecified date the applicant was placed in immigration detention and his removal to GPE was scheduled for CARDINAL DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG , indicating to the Government that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","In its judgment of DATE , following a hearing held on CARDINAL DATE , ORG of The Hague , sitting in GPE , allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal , annulled the impugned decision of DATE and returned the case to the Deputy Minister for a fresh decision on the applicant \u2019s objection . On DATE , both the Deputy Minister and the applicant lodged further appeals with ORG .","In its ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s further appeal on summary grounds , holding :","\u201c What has been raised in the [ applicant \u2019s ] grievances ... does not provide grounds for annulling the impugned ruling . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , no further reasoning is called for , since the arguments submitted do not raise questions which require determination in the interest of case - law consistency , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . \u201d","ORG allowed the further appeal lodged by the Deputy Minister , quashed the judgment of DATE and rejected for being unfounded the applicant \u2019s appeal of CARDINAL DATE . It stated , in particular , that it agreed with the reasoning given by the Deputy Minister for rejecting the applicant \u2019s arguments under LAW .","No further appeal lay against that decision .","The applicant is an NORP national , who was born in DATE . He has been residing in the GPE since DATE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE the applicant applied for asylum in the GPE , claiming to fear persecution within the meaning of the CARDINAL Refugee Convention . His spouse and their CARDINAL children ( born in DATE , DATE and DATE ) had already arrived in the GPE and applied for asylum on DATE . On DATE , the applicant \u2019s spouse and their CARDINAL children were granted a residence permit under the then section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) of LAW , on the basis of a special protection policy for a specific category of asylum - seekers from GPE .","In his interviews with the GPE immigration authorities , the applicant claimed to fear persecution within the meaning of the CARDINAL Refugee Convention from the side of the ORG , who had detained him for DATE and about whose crimes he had written a book . He further feared persecution on account of his NORP past . He stated that he had been a member of the ORG since DATE or DATE and joined the ORG faction , DATE after having done his military service \u2013 he had studied from DATE to DATE at ORG in the former GPE , that he had worked successively as secretary of the provincial committee of GPE , as deputy head of the central council of ORG in GPE , and as Deputy GPE of CARDINAL of the districts in GPE . DATE , he had worked in the private sector as \u2013 being a supporter of ORG DATE he had preferred not to work for President ORG . DATE until DATE or DATE he had been commander of a militia brigade of CARDINAL troops under the command of the Mazar - e Sharif garrison . He had been captured by the ORG during a surprise attack in DATE . He had remained in ORG detention until DATE when he had been released after the intervention of an influential uncle . On DATE , he had left GPE for GPE from where he had travelled by air \u2013 via GPE \u2013 to the GPE .","On DATE the Minister for ORG notified the applicant of his intention to deny the applicant asylum under LAW . Noting that the applicant \u2019s career path had included the important posts of secretary of the provincial committee of GPE and Deputy GPE of a district in the same province , his asylum statement had been considered in the light of an official report on GPE issued on DATE by the GPE Minister of ORG ( DPC \/ AM CARDINAL ) as well as a person - specific official report ( individueel ambtsbericht ) ( DPC \/ AM CARDINAL ) not concerning the applicant but containing information about the provincial committees and secretaries to these committees . According to this information , provincial secretaries were of an equal rank to a governor and were the most important party functionaries of the PDPA at provincial level . They were responsible for all party decisions in a province , including recruiting members , propaganda , intelligence activities within and outside the party , recruiting members for paramilitary activities and contacts with the ORG . In the period of DATE , provincial party secretaries played an active role in suppressing freedom of expression and in detecting and arresting political opponents and having them tortured and executed . Furthermore , according to another person - specific official report ( DPC \/ AM CARDINAL ) not concerning the applicant himself , deputy governors had to lend support in the detection of political and military opponents of the communist regime , such as by supplying information to the ORG .","Following a lengthy analysis of the applicant \u2019s individual responsibility under LAW , based on the prescribed \u201c knowing and personal participation \u201d test , the Minister concluded that LAW was to be applied in the applicant \u2019s case . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted written comments on the Minister \u2019s intended decision .","In his decision of CARDINAL DATE the Minister denied the applicant asylum under Article CARDINAL The Minister did not deviate , in the relevant part , from his conclusions in the notice of intent of CARDINAL DATE and maintained them on all points . The applicant \u2019s comments were dismissed as not warranting another finding . However , as regards LAW the Minister accepted that it could not be excluded DATE in view of the positions the applicant had held during the communist regime DATE that if expelled to GPE , he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited by LAW . For this reason , he would not be expelled for the time being . The applicant was , nevertheless , because LAW had been held against him , not eligible for a residence permit .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with ORG of The Hague . In its judgment of DATE , ORG of the Hague , sitting in GPE , allowed the appeal and annulled the impugned decision . Although it agreed with the Minister \u2019s decision to hold LAW against the applicant , it also held \u2013 referring to a ruling given on DATE by ORG and noting that the Minister had acknowledged the existence of an LAW risk for the applicant in GPE \u2013 that the Minister should also have examined whether the applicant had established that LAW constituted a sustained obstacle to his expulsion to GPE . Consequently , the Minister \u2019s examination had been incomplete .","The applicant \u2019s further appeal to ORG , which mainly concerned his denial of having been a Deputy GPE , was rejected on DATE . The ORG upheld the impugned judgment of DATE , ruling that a fresh decision had to be taken on the applicant \u2019s asylum claim .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s spouse and their CARDINAL children were granted GPE nationality .","On DATE , after a supplementary interview had been held with the applicant on DATE , the Deputy Minister of ORG notified the applicant of her renewed intention \u2013 having explained why she did not believe the applicant \u2019s new submissions to the effect that he had never been a Deputy District Governor DATE to deny him asylum under LAW of the DATE LAW . As regards Article CARDINAL , the Deputy Minister found \u2013 having taken into account a paragraph about excommunists in an official country assessment report on GPE released on DATE by ORG ( ORG ) DATE that the applicant had not demonstrated the existence of a risk of treatment in violation of LAW in case of his return to GPE from the side of CARDINAL particular mujahideen commanders who had confiscated houses and land belonging to the applicant , or from the side of mujahideen groups or the ORG . The Deputy Minister concluded that there was no longer an LAW obstacle to the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE . In so far as the applicant had relied on LAW on the basis of his family life with his spouse in the GPE , the Deputy Minister held that as asylum proceedings offered no scope for such arguments these arguments could not be entertained in the present asylum proceedings .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer submitted written comments on the Deputy Minister \u2019s intended decision .","On DATE the Deputy Minister denied the applicant asylum under Article CARDINAL The Deputy Minister maintained her findings on all points and \u2013 reiterating , inter alia , that this had been found established in ORG judgment of DATE which had become final when ORG had upheld that ruling on DATE rejected the applicant \u2019s claim that he had never been a Deputy GPE . As to the applicant \u2019s reliance on DATE , the Deputy Minister held that , although the general human - rights situation remained a matter of concern , it was not such that any removal there would necessarily breach LAW . The Deputy Minister further found that the applicant had not demonstrated that , on the basis of his personal circumstances , he would risk treatment proscribed by LAW in GPE . The Deputy Minister also held that the applicant should raise his arguments based on LAW in an application for a residence permit based on his family life with his spouse and his children .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against that decision was rejected on CARDINAL DATE by ORG of The Hague , sitting in Roermond . It upheld the impugned decision .","The applicant \u2019s further appeal was rejected on CARDINAL DATE by ORG on summary grounds . No further appeal lay against that ruling .","On an unspecified date the applicant was placed in immigration detention and his removal to GPE was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE the President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG , indicating to the Government that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE pending the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of Justice notified the applicant of his intention to also impose an entry ban ( inreisverbod \u2013 see PERSON GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL September CARDINAL ) on the applicant . On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , the Deputy Minister imposed an entry ban on the applicant . An appeal by the applicant against that decision was rejected on DATE by ORG of The Hague . Although possible , the applicant did not lodge a further appeal against this judgment with ORG .","The applicant is an NORP national who was born in DATE . He has been residing in the GPE since DATE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr J. Walls , a lawyer practising in GPE .","DATE . On DATE the applicant as well as his spouse and their CARDINAL daughters ( born in DATE and DATE ) applied for asylum in the GPE . The applicant claimed to fear persecution within the meaning of the CARDINAL Refugee Convention .","In his interviews with the GPE immigration authorities , the applicant stated that he had worked from DATE to DATE for the ORG - security directorate of the ORG in GPE . He had been regularly promoted and his final rank had been CARDINALst lieutenant . His task had been the detection of drugs and weapons trafficking . He had transmitted information to higher officers who had taken further measures . He had also been responsible for combatting the smuggling of explosives . He had taken arrested smugglers to the directorate . He did not know what happened subsequently to these people .","In DATE he had moved to PERSON where he had worked in the administration of the same police department where his brother was already working at that time . After the arrival of the ORG in the area in DATE , his brother had disappeared and had been replaced by a member of the ORG . The applicant had gone into hiding in GPE until he had left on DATE . Whilst he had been in hiding , armed men had entered the home of his wife and their CARDINAL children and enquired about the applicant \u2019s whereabouts . PERSON , GPE and GPE , the applicant and his family had fled to GPE , GPE from where they had travelled by air to the GPE . The applicant stated that he had fled because he had feared for his life on account of his work and that of his brother .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum claim under LAW . After having examined the applicant \u2019s asylum statement in the light of an official report , drawn up on DATE by ORG , on \u201c ORG in NORP GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Deputy Minister proceeded to an elaborate analysis of the applicant \u2019s individual responsibility under LAW , based on the prescribed \u201c knowing and personal participation \u201d test , and concluded that LAW was to be applied in the applicant \u2019s case . In reaching this conclusion , the Deputy Minister took into account , inter alia , the applicant \u2019s voluntary choice to join the ORG , his career in this service and the nature of his work . The Deputy Minister considered that the systematic and large - scale commission of serious human - rights violations by the ORG had been common knowledge well before the applicant had joined this service and that therefore he could not have been ignorant of those acts as had been averred by him . The Deputy Minister further rejected the applicant \u2019s arguments under LAW .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection to that decision . On DATE he was heard on his objection before an official board of enquiry . On DATE the Minister for ORG rejected the objection , having found nothing in the applicant \u2019s submissions warranting another conclusion than the one set out in the impugned decision . However , as it could not be ruled out that the applicant , given his work in GPE , would run a real risk of treatment contrary to LAW if he were expelled to GPE , the Deputy Minister further indicated that for the time being the applicant would not be removed to that ORG . However , this did not render him eligible for a nonasylumbased residence permit , including a residence permit on account of the duration of the proceedings on his asylum claim ( tijdsverloop in de asielprocedure ) as the application of LAW constituted a contraindication .","By a decision of DATE the applicant \u2019s spouse was granted an asylum - based residence permit and their CARDINAL daughters ( CARDINAL of whom had been born after the applicant \u2019s arrival in the GPE , in DATE and DATE ) were granted dependent residence permits . No information has been submitted as to whether that decision was based on the individual asylum statement of the applicant \u2019s spouse or under a particular protection policy .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG of The GPE against the decision concerning his asylum claim and an objection with the Minister against the decision that he was not eligible for a non - asylum - based residence permit . On DATE the Minister rejected the objection . On DATE the applicant also lodged an appeal against the latter decision with ORG of The Hague .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of The Hague , sitting in GPE , allowed the appeals and annulled the CARDINAL impugned decisions . Although it agreed with the Minister \u2019s decision and pertaining reasoning to apply LAW in the applicant \u2019s case , it also held \u2013 referring to CARDINAL rulings given on DATE by ORG ( ORG . CARDINAL and DATE ) and noting that the Minister had acknowledged the existence of an LAW risk for the applicant in GPE \u2013 that the Minister should also have examined whether the applicant had established that LAW constituted a sustained obstacle to his expulsion to GPE . It further found that the Minister had unjustly based the decision concerning the non - asylum - based residence permit on section QUANTITY of LAW ( Vreemdelingenbesluit DATE ) . Consequently , the Minister \u2019s examination had been incomplete . Accordingly it annulled the decisions of DATE and DATE and ordered the Minister to take fresh decisions within DATE .","DATE . In a fresh decision taken on DATE the Minister rejected the applicant \u2019s objections of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . Referring to the reasons given in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the Minister again rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum claim regarding Article CARDINAL As regards LAW , the Minister found that that it could not be concluded from the applicant \u2019s asylum statement \u2013 viewed against the background of the current political and social situation in GPE \u2013 that there existed a real and foreseeable risk that if returned to GPE the applicant would be subjected to treatment in breach of LAW . The Minister considered , inter alia , that the applicant had not encountered any tangible problems in GPE or FAC during the reign of the mujahideen . The Minister further considered that while the problems which had caused the applicant to flee GPE had only begun after the arrival of the ORG in GPE , the ORG were no longer in a position of power in GPE . The Minister further found that , on the basis of the decision to apply LAW to his case , the applicant was not eligible for a non - asylum - based residence permit on the basis of the so - called DATE policy ( driejarenbeleid ) set out in paragraphs CCARDINAL\/CARDINAL.CARDINAL and QUANTITY of LAW DATE ) . Under this DATE policy a residence permit could be granted if an application for such a permit had not been determined within DATE for reasons not imputable to the petitioner and provided that there were no contraindications such as , for instance , the application of Article CARDINALF.","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG of The Hague . In its judgment of DATE , ORG of The Hague rejected the appeal in so far as it was directed against the decision to deny the applicant asylum under LAW and the finding that there was no LAW obstacle to the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE . However , to the extent that the appeal was directed against the decision that the applicant was not eligible for a non - asylum - based residence permit , it found that the Minister had unjustly failed to hear the applicant on his objection . Accordingly , it annulled this part of the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered the Minister to take a fresh decision on the applicant \u2019s objection of DATE .","On DATE , after the applicant had been heard on DATE before an official board of enquiry in respect of his objection of DATE , the Minister rejected this objection . On DATE , the Minister notified the applicant of her intention to impose an exclusion order on him . The applicant did not avail himself of the possibility to file written comments on this intention . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG of The GPE against the Minister \u2019s decision to reject his objection of DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Minister imposed an exclusion order on the applicant . On DATE the applicant lodged an objection to that decision with the Minister . As this objection did not have suspensive effect , the applicant also lodged on DATE an application for a provisional measure with ORG of The Hague . On DATE ORG of The GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s application for a provisional measure , finding , inter alia , that DATE did not prevent the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE .","On DATE ORG of The Hague declared inadmissible the applicant \u2019s appeal of DATE against the Minister \u2019s decision to reject his objection of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s objection of DATE to the decision to impose an exclusion order . The Deputy Minister rejected the applicant \u2019s arguments under LAW for being unsubstantiated and with reference to the considerations and the conclusion on this point in the previous rulings given in the applicant \u2019s case . As regards the applicant \u2019s arguments under LAW , the Deputy Minister considered , taking into account the criteria formulated in the cases of GPE ( cited above ) and PERSON v. the GPE ( no . PERSON , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) , that Article CARDINAL did not prevent the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE either . On this point , the Deputy Minister found , inter alia , that the applicant had substantial links with GPE , where he had been born and raised and where he had lived for CARDINAL years , and that there was no appearance of an objective obstacle to carrying on the family life at issue in GPE or in another country .","The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with ORG of The Hague . On DATE ORG allowed the appeal but also held that its legal consequences were still to stand . On DATE the applicant lodged a further appeal . On DATE , pending these further appeal proceedings , the applicant was informed that the impugned decision of DATE had been withdrawn and that a fresh decision would be taken on his objection of CARDINAL DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant had lodged a fresh application for asylum on the basis of alleged newly emerged facts and circumstances . He had been interviewed on this application DATE . This fresh application had been rejected by the Deputy Minister of Justice on DATE . The applicant had lodged an appeal DATE , but had withdrawn it on DATE for reasons undisclosed .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife and their CARDINAL daughters were granted GPE nationality .","Furthermore , on DATE the applicant informed the ORG that his removal had been scheduled for DATE and applied for an interim measure under Rule CARDINAL of ORG . On DATE the Acting President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG , indicating to the Government that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE a son was born to the applicant and his spouse .","On DATE , after the applicant had been heard on DATE before an official board of inquiry , the Minister for ORG took a fresh decision on the applicant \u2019s objection of CARDINAL DATE and again rejected it . With reference to the findings in respect of this provision made in CARDINAL decisions and CARDINAL judgments given previously in the applicant \u2019s case , the Minister rejected the applicant \u2019s arguments under LAW , holding that it had not been demonstrated that the applicant , if returned to GPE , would risk treatment in violation of LAW .","In respect of the applicant \u2019s arguments under LAW , the Minister reiterated that LAW had been applied in respect of the applicant and that he thus represented a danger to public order . It should therefore be determined whether the interference with the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW was necessary and justified in a NORP society . For this purpose the general interest was to be weighed against the applicant \u2019s personal interest in staying in the GPE to enjoy his family life with his spouse and their children . The Minister concluded that the interference at issue , that is to say the imposition of the exclusion order , was justified under the terms of LAW in that it was provided for in domestic law provisions and was necessary for the protection of public order and the prevention of crime . As regards the competing interests , the Minister \u2013 taking into account the guiding principles as formulated in the ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases of LOC ( cited above ) and PERSON ( cited above ) \u2013 held that public interest considerations in excluding the applicant from the GPE outweighed the applicant \u2019s personal interests in being enabled to carry on his family life in the GPE . He noted that the applicant had been born and raised in GPE and had lived there for DATE . This supposed the existence of ties with GPE and thus the possibility to build up a life there again . Even if the applicant did not have a social network at present in GPE , it would be easy for him to build up such a network after his return there . The Minister further considered that , even assuming that there would be an objective obstacle to the applicant \u2019s spouse and their children enjoying their family life with the applicant in GPE , it did not appear that it there would be an objective obstacle to him carrying on this family life in a third country . It had appeared from the hearing held on DATE that the applicant had done nothing to explore that possibility . The applicant \u2019s spouse and children were free to visit the applicant abroad or to settle with him in another country . The Minister therefore concluded that Article CARDINAL did not prevent the applicant \u2019s expulsion from the GPE .","An appeal by the applicant against this fresh decision was allowed on DATE by ORG of The Hague . It annulled the decision and ordered the Minister to take a fresh decision . A further appeal by the latter to ORG was allowed on CARDINAL DATE . The court quashed the impugned judgment of CARDINAL DATE and rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE . No further appeal lay against that decision .","A general overview of the relevant domestic law and practice in respect of asylum proceedings , exclusion orders and enforcement of removals has been set out in PERSON the GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","Pursuant to the strict separation under the provisions of LAW between an asylum application and a regular application for a residence permit for another purpose than asylum , arguments based on LAW can not be entertained in asylum proceedings \u2013 unless they concern an application for an asylum - derived residence permit ( verblijfsvergunning met een afgeleide asielstatus ) for refugeefamily reunification ( nareisvergunning \u2013 see PERSON v. the GPE ( DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) \u2013 but should be raised in , for instance , proceedings on a regular application for a residence permit ( see PERSON v. the GPE and GPE and CARDINAL other applications DATE . ) , no . DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; J. v. the GPE ( DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ; and GPE v. the GPE ( dec . ) , no CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) or in proceedings concerning the imposition of an exclusion order ( see PERSON v. GPE ( cited above ) , and PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) or proceedings on an entry ban ( see , on the entry ban , ORG v. the GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","NORP The relevant domestic policy , law and practice in respect of asylumseekers from GPE in respect of whom LAW was found to be applicable have been summarised in ORG v. the GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE .","The most recent official country assessment report on GPE was drawn up by ORG in DATE . The relevant part of this report reads :","\u201c CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( Former ) communists","Under \u2018 potential risk profiles\u2019 in ORG [ for assessing the international protection needs of asylum - seekers from GPE , DATE ] no information is given about persons who identify with the NORP ideology ( or who are suspected thereof ) . In the part \u2018 LAW from LOC the ORG does give information about former members of the ORG and ORG .","Many former members of ORG of GPE ( PDPA ) and former employees of the former intelligence services the ORG and the ORG are currently working for ORG . They have , for example , been appointed as governors of provinces , occupy high positions in the army [ or ] the police , or are mayors . Some former ORG members have founded new parties .","In so far as is known , ex - communists and their relatives have nothing to fear from the ... Government .","It therefore can not be said that the group of ( former ) communists as a whole has reasons to fear being in GPE . It depends on each individual person whether someone has or has not reason to fear being in GPE , and this also applies to former employees of the ORG . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the DATE Refugee Convention reads :","\u201c The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that :","( a ) he has committed a crime against peace , a war crime , or a crime against humanity , as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes ;","( b ) he has committed a serious non - political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee ;","( c ) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of ORG . \u201d","On DATE the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) issued the \u201c ORG . CARDINAL : Application of the Exclusion Clauses : Article CARDINAL of the DATE Convention relating to LAW . They superseded \u201c LAW on their LAW ( ORG , DATE ) and \u201c Note on the Exclusion Clauses \u201d ( ORG , CARDINAL DATE ) and are intended to provide interpretative legal guidance for governments , legal practitioners , decision - makers and the judiciary , as well as ORG staff carrying out refugee status determination in the field . These guidelines state , inter alia , that where the main asylum applicant is excluded from refugee status , his or her dependants will need to establish their own grounds for refugee status . If the latter are recognised as refugees , the excluded individual is not able to rely on the right to family unity in order to secure protection or assistance as a refugee ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","An overview of the relevant guidelines and country operations profile on GPE of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) have recently been summarised in ORG v. the GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","The most recent update of the \u201c ORG from GPE \u201d was released on DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) and replaced the DATE Guidelines . As in the latter guidelines , the DATE ORG do not include persons who worked for the ORG or the police during the former communist regime in the CARDINAL cited potential risk profiles , but again state that , as regards LAW , careful consideration needs to be given in particular to , inter alia , former members of the armed forces and the intelligence \/ security apparatus , including the ORG agents during the former communist regimes under ORG , PERSON , PERSON , and ORG , as well as former officials of those communist regimes .","In DATE ORG ( \u201c the EASO \u201d ) released the country of origin information report \u201c GPE Update Security Situation \u201d . This report , covering the period between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , is an update of a previous report released by ORG in DATE . It provides , inter alia , a general description of the security situation in GPE , as well as a description of the security situation for each of the CARDINAL provinces and GPE . The report states , inter alia :","\u201c The general security situation in GPE is mainly determined by the following CARDINAL factors : The main factor is the conflict between ORG ( ORG ) , supported by ORG ( IMF ) , and LAW ( AGEs ) , or insurgents . This conflict is often described as an \u2018 GPE . The other factors are : criminality , warlordism and tribal tensions . These factors are often inter - linked and hard to distinguish . Several sources consider the situation in GPE to be a non - international armed conflict ...","DATE and DATE , the ORG recorded CARDINAL security - related incidents relevant to the work , mobility and safety of civilian actors , a number consistent with the records for the same reporting period in DATE . Nevertheless , according to the ORG , during DATE , the conflict grew in intensity and geographical scope , with a spike in high - profile attacks in GPE . In DATE , ORG reported that security conditions had worsened across GPE due to increased ORG attacks and renewed fighting . \u201d","ORG for ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) reported in Humanitarian Bulletin GPE of CARDINAL DATE on humanitarian access and aid - worker incidents in the following terms :","\u201c The total number of incidents relating to NGOs , ORG and ORG from DATE to CARDINAL DATE stands at CARDINAL which is slightly DATE . To date in DATE , national and international NGOs are the most directly affected with CARDINAL incidents . CARDINAL aid workers have been killed , CARDINAL injured and CARDINAL abducted .","The number of security incidents across the country is consistent with DATE numbers , but there has been a significant increase in armed clashes as a percentage of overall security incidents . This has manifested itself by way of increased large scale ground engagements which have led to a reduction in access to many areas and for longer periods of time . \u201d","The report of the Secretary - General of ORG on \u201c The situation in GPE and its implications for international peace and security , DATE \u201d ( CARDINAL ) of DATE reads under the heading \u201c Security \u201d :","\u201c CARDINAL . The security situation in GPE deteriorated , with ORG operations at an unprecedented high rate since DATE . Armed clashes increased by MONEY in DATE compared with DATE and were higher for DATE compared with DATE . In DATE , the highest number of armed clashes was reported since DATE , a period that coincided with the presidential elections .","Notwithstanding the increase in armed clashes , overall security incidents decreased . DATE and CARDINAL May , ORG recorded CARDINAL security incidents , representing a decrease of MONEY compared with DATE , attributed primarily to a reduction in incidents involving improvised explosive devices . The southern , south - eastern and eastern regions continued to account for the majority of incidents ( MONEY ) . Consistent with previous trends , armed clashes accounted for the majority of security incidents ( MONEY ) , followed by improvised explosive devices ( MONEY ) . Targeted killings decreased : from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL May , CARDINAL assassinations , including failed attempts , were recorded , representing a decrease of CARDINAL per cent compared with DATE . A total of CARDINAL suicide attacks were reported , compared with QUANTITY in the same period in DATE , as well as several high - profile incidents . The latter included a complex attack against the consulate of GPE in GPE on DATE , an attack against the residence of the acting Director of ORG in the city of GPE on DATE and the targeted killing of CARDINAL high - ranking army commanders on CARDINAL and DATE in GPE and PERSON provinces , respectively . The ORG claimed responsibility for those CARDINAL attacks .","Insurgent attacks increased notably after the beginning of the ORG DATE offensive , ORG . In its declaration of DATE launching the DATE campaign , the ORG pledged large - scale attacks against \u2018 enemy ORG alongside tactical attacks and targeted killings of military commanders . Unlike in DATE , the movement did not threaten civilian government officials specifically . In DATE of the offensive , the number of ORG - initiated attacks almost doubled compared with DATE , resulting in the highest number of armed clashes recorded for DATE . Since the beginning of the offensive , the ORG has launched CARDINAL attacks on district administrative centres , including a concerted push on the city of GPE . ORG repelled the vast majority of those attacks . The offensive gained further momentum with the completion of the seasonal poppy harvest in GPE early in DATE , resulting in increased clashes in the southern region . The ORG also concentrated efforts to seize strategically important parts of GPE along the GPE - Tirin FAC and retook control of strategic areas of GPE , where security forces had conducted a clearance operation in DATE .","ORG remained under pressure , in particular in GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , NORP and NORP provinces , and were reinforced by NORP special forces and international military assets . Notwithstanding intensified efforts to strengthen army units , in particular in GPE , significant shortcomings remained in the areas of command and control , leadership , logistics and overall coordination . In DATE , reports indicated rising casualties among the security forces . The sustainability of the forces remains a challenge in the light of high attrition rates . Even though recruitment was on target , re - enlistment rates remained particularly low and needed to be increased to compensate for other losses . In DATE , army troop levels and ORG numbers reached CARDINAL per cent and MONEY respectively , of the levels projected for DATE . Some progress was made in increasing air capacity , and the air force carried out a limited number of air missions .","Discussions on the presence of ORG beyond DATE and future funding arrangements for ORG continued ahead of the NATO summit in DATE . The Secretary - General of ORG , PERSON , visited the city of GPE on DATE , during which he met with the President and the Chief Executive of GPE , PERSON , and reaffirmed the commitment of ORG to GPE . On DATE , ORG members and donor representatives discuss financial support for ORG up to DATE in a meeting in GPE of the board of ORG . On DATE in GPE , ministers for foreign affairs of participating countries agreed on the extension of the Mission beyond DATE .","Other armed groups maintained small presences on NORP territory , including ORG in northern GPE and ORG in GPE and GPE ( ISIL - KP ) in the east . Since my previous report , operations by ORG , supported by international military air strikes , further reduced the presence of ORG in GPE , where the group also faced pressure from the ORG . This contributed to ORG establishing a small , secondary presence in neighbouring GPE and GPE provinces in search of safe havens and recruitment .","A total of CARDINAL recorded incidents had an impact on ORG , including CARDINAL cases of intimidation , CARDINAL incidents relating to an improvised explosive device and CARDINAL criminal - related incidents . On DATE , a guard contracted by ORG was killed in the city of GPE and another guard and a ORG staff member were injured in a shooting incident , the circumstances of which are under investigation . \u201d","NORP ORG , Information Centre Asylum and Migration : Briefing Notes ( DATE ) reported on GPE :","\u201c Security situation","In a report submitted to ORG , ORG notes a deterioration of security in view of the reduced international military presence and the weakness of the NORP forces . While the NORP government retained control of most city centres , the ORG continued to expand their influence , especially in rural areas , the report says , demonstrating their resilience by attacks in GPE , GPE , PERSON and other northern provinces as well as in GPE .","Increasingly , the ORG insurgents were launching major attacks in urban centres , the report continues . From DATE , a total of CARDINAL civilian casualties including CARDINAL deaths were documented , the report went on .","In GPE , CARDINAL rebels and CARDINAL members of the security forces have died in a clash between the NORP military and ORG rebels . The fights started on DATE , when CARDINAL of ORG insurgents attacked a military post in GPE district .","Attacks","On DATE , an attack on a member of the GPE provincial council left CARDINAL people wounded , among them the council member and his body guard .","On DATE , a bomb planted in a motorbike killed CARDINAL people and injured another CARDINAL in a market in northern GPE .","ORG fighting","On DATE , a spokesman of the governor of NORP province stated that CARDINAL militants were killed in fights between a ORG splinter faction supporting dissident PERSON , who is opposing the appointment of PERSON Akhundzada as the new ORG leader , and followers of GPE . The clash did not result in any civilian casualties , it was stated .","Bus passengers kidnapped","On DATE , ORG insurgents ambushed a series of buses and other vehicles in GPE district ( southern GPE ) and abducted CARDINAL passengers . Shortly afterwards , they let those go who were travelling with their families . In an internet message , the ORG stated that they had detained \u2018 CARDINAL suspected ORG . If these turned out to be working for the government , they would be submitted to the NORP emirate \u2019s courts , the ORG said . NORP elders intervened and succeeded in releasing all but CARDINAL hostages . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154572","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"CHYLINSKI AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . All applicants are represented by PERSON . PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","NORP The facts of the cases , as submitted by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE Mr PERSON was stopped by police for riding a bicycle in the dark without showing lights . From an identity check it emerged that an alert had been entered in ORG by GPE for the purpose of his arrest for surrender . He was provisionally arrested ( voorlopig aangehouden ) and taken into police custody ( inverzekeringstelling ) for DATE .","Questioned by a police officer DATE , PERSON consented to his surrender to GPE without delay .","On DATE Mr PERSON appeared before an investigating judge ( rechter - commissaris ) . He again consented to his immediate surrender to GPE .","On DATE the investigating judge ordered PERSON taken into initial detention on remand ( bewaring ) . The order was in the following terms :","\u201c Orders the requested person to be taken into detention on remand and notes that the requested person shall be released as soon as the detention on remand has lasted DATE and the NORP arrest warrant has not yet been received . \u201d","On DATE the public prosecutor ( officier van justitie ) sought the prolongation by ORG ( rechtbank ) of PERSON detention on remand , surrender having not yet taken place .","A hearing was held DATE . PERSON , represented by counsel , argued that \u201c special circumstances \u201d within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( PERSON ) justifying the prolongation requested did not exist . He took the view that if the NORP authorities did not come to fetch PERSON , then the GPE authorities should effect the transfer to GPE themselves . In his submission , an extension of the time - limits set out in LAW of DATE on the NORP arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between ORG Member GPE was permitted only if both the issuing and the executing Member GPE were prevented by force majeure from effecting the surrender . Should ORG be hesitant to follow this view , he asked ORG to put a preliminary question to ORG of ORG ( CJEU ) under LAW on the Functioning of ORG ) .","ORG gave its decision DATE . It ordered Mr PERSON to be taken into extended detention on remand ( gevangenhouding ) for a further ten days from DATE and declined to put any preliminary question to the ORG . Its reasoning included the following :","\u201c The public prosecutor has argued that the lack of any earlier transport from GPE constitutes force majeure for him and that he is not under any obligation to take the requested person to GPE .","ORG takes the view that the public prosecutor is tasked with the actual surrender . For the actual surrender he is dependent on the NORP authorities as regards transport . The issuing state , being the party with an interest in the surrender , is responsible for the actual transport . If the actual transport can not take place within the time - limit set by law , then this constitutes force majeure for the public prosecutor . The public prosecutor is under no obligation to take a requested person to the country that issued the NORP arrest warrant .","The time - limits in LAW covering actual surrender are intended to increase the efficiency and speed of the surrender procedure . This is in the first place an interest of the authorities concerned and additionally an interest of the requested person himself . The interest of the authorities concerned is not harmed since this has come into being by mutual agreement [ sic ] .","The interest of the requested person is harmed . The extent of the harm is however limited since actual surrender can actually take place in short order , namely on DATE , and can be justified by what has been considered above .","In view of the reasons outlined above ORG sees no reason to put any preliminary questions . \u201d","No appeal was possible against this decision .","PERSON was surrendered to the NORP authorities at GPE ( GPE ) Airport on DATE .","On DATE Mr Milkovics was provisionally arrested on the basis of an alert entered in ORG by GPE for the purpose of his arrest for surrender . He was taken into police custody for DATE .","NORP The public prosecutor received the relevant NORP arrest warrant on DATE . The following day , CARDINAL DATE , he ordered the extension of the police custody until such time as ORG would give a decision concerning detention on remand . At the same time , however , he ordered the conditional suspension ( schorsing ) of the police custody .","On DATE ORG gave a decision ordering PERSON extended detention on remand , which at the same time it conditionally suspended until the date of its eventual decision on the permissibility of surrender .","On DATE ORG gave a decision finding Mr Milkovics \u2019s surrender to GPE permissible . Mr Milkovics was taken into detention on remand DATE .","On DATE ORG gave a decision extending Mr Milkovics \u2019s detention on remand by a further DATE starting on DATE . The decision noted that actual surrender had not yet taken place because of \u201c special circumstances \u201d .","On DATE Mr Milkovics lodged a request for the suspension of his detention on remand . He stated that he wished to be surrendered to GPE as soon as possible so as to prove his innocence ; at all events , even in the event of a conviction the sentence would be unlikely to be more than a suspended prison sentence or a community service order given his clean criminal record and the ( in his submission ) relatively minor nature of the charges against him . Should ORG be minded not to accede to this request , he suggested that a preliminary question be put to the ORG .","ORG gave its decision on DATE after having held a hearing . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for suspension of his detention on remand . Its reasoning included the following :","\u201c Section CARDINAL of LAW allows the suspension of detention on remand for the purpose of surrender until the moment at which ORG has permitted the surrender . Only in exceptional circumstances does ORG consider itself empowered to order the suspension of the detention on remand for the purpose of surrender after that decision ; an example is the situation in which continued detention would lead to a violation of LAW . ORG takes the view that no exceptional circumstances are apparent that ought to lead to the suspension of the detention on remand for the purpose of surrender of the requested person . In so finding , ORG notes that the requested person has spent DATE in detention and that actual surrender to the NORP authorities is expected to take place very soon , no later than DATE . ORG therefore can not see that continuing the detention in remand for the purpose of surrender constitutes a violation of LAW already now .","Nor does ORG see any need to consider the request for suspension of the detention according to the standards applicable to the situation in which ORG has not yet given its decision . Unlike counsel , ORG does not consider the limitation of the possibility of suspension for the purpose of surrender to the period preceding the decision , as laid down in section CARDINAL of LAW , to run counter to LAW DATE on the NORP arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member GPE . That LAW provides that the person requested may be released provisionally at any time in conformity with the domestic law of the executing Member ORG , provided that the competent authority of the said Member ORG takes all the measures it deems necessary to prevent the person absconding [ emphasis in the original ] . Clearly the GPE legislature has considered the restriction of the possibilities of suspension referred to above necessary to prevent the requested person absconding . Nor is it the case that LAW rules out the possibility of releasing the requested person from the decision until actual surrender takes place . It is , after all , within the power of the public prosecutor to release the requested person at any time if there should be occasion to do so . Likewise , if the public prosecutor does not seek the prolongation of the detention on remand for the purpose of surrender or if ORG dismisses a request for its prolongation , then the requested person will be released provisionally until actual surrender takes place .","There is accordingly no necessity to construe [ section CARDINAL of LAW ] in the light of LAW , nor is there a need for any preliminary questions [ to the CJEU ] . \u201d","Mr Milkovics lodged an appeal against this decision with ORG ( gerechtshof ) .","Mr Milkovics was surrendered to the NORP authorities at FAC on DATE , having remained in detention until then .","ORG held a hearing in the case on DATE . Mr Milkovics was represented by his counsel . Relying on NORP v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG DATE , his counsel asked that the appeal be declared admissible despite Mr Milkovics \u2019s surrender DATE . He challenged the decision of ORG , arguing that LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW acted to override section CARDINAL ) of LAW and introduce a subsidiarity test . Pointing out that no appeal lay to the decision of ORG , he again asked for a preliminary question to be put to the ORG .","ORG dismissed PERSON appeal on DATE . Its reasoning included the following :","\u201c Given section CARDINAL of the LAW suspension of detention on remand for surrender purposes is possible only as long as no judicial decision has been taken about allowing surrender . This rule admits of exceptions only if there is an exceptional situation , in which there is a danger that the rights guaranteed by LAW may be violated . There is no such situation in the present case , considering also the brief period that the requested person has spent in detention for surrender purposes in the GPE .","The system of LAW and [ LAW DATE on the NORP arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member GPE ] is based on the assumption that the orders of the judicial authorities of the Member GPE of ORG are to be trusted as if they were decisions of the requested Member ORG itself .","The requested person can exercise his rights based on the ORG and related arrangements without limitation in GPE and will have to approach the NORP authorities for that purpose . There is no point to any further assessment by the GPE courts in the given circumstances .","In view of the above , there is no need to put any preliminary questions . \u201d","No appeal was possible against this decision .","On DATE Mr ORG , having been spotted fishing , was asked to show his fishing licence . From an identity check it emerged that an alert had been entered in ORG by GPE for the purpose of his arrest for surrender . He was provisionally arrested and taken into police custody for DATE .","On DATE the investigating judge ordered Mr ORG taken into initial detention on remand . The order was in the following terms :","\u201c Orders the requested person to be taken into detention on remand and notes that the requested person shall be released as soon as the detention on remand has lasted DATE and the NORP arrest warrant has not yet been received . \u201d","On DATE the investigating judge gave a decision conditionally suspending Mr ORG \u2019s detention on remand .","On DATE ORG gave a decision ordering Mr ORG taken into extended detention on remand , which at the same time it conditionally suspended until DATE of its eventual decision on the permissibility of surrender .","NORP The public prosecutor received the relevant NORP arrest warrant on DATE .","On DATE ORG gave a decision giving permission for Mr ORG \u2019s surrender to GPE in respect of CARDINAL charge but refusing such permission in respect of a plurality of other charges . Mr ORG was taken back into detention on remand DATE .","On DATE the public prosecutor sought the prolongation by ORG of Mr ORG \u2019s detention on remand , surrender having not yet taken place .","A hearing was held DATE . Mr ORG , represented by counsel , argued that on the same grounds as in the case of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that \u201c special circumstances \u201d within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW justifying the prolongation requested did not exist and asked ORG to put a preliminary question to the ORG under LAW . In the alternative , he argued that there was no danger of his absconding since only one charge remained for him to face in GPE , a minor one at that , and he had built a stable existence in the GPE with his family .","ORG gave its decision DATE . It ordered the prolongation of Mr ORG \u2019s detention on remand for DATE from DATE and declined to put any preliminary question to the ORG . Its reasoning on this point was identical to that in the case of PERSON PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It also found that there were no special circumstances justifying suspending the detention . No appeal was possible against this decision .","Mr ORG was surrendered to the NORP authorities at GPE ( GPE ) Airport on DATE .","The following provisions of positive ORG law are relevant to the case :","\u201c ORG of ORG shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning :","( a ) the interpretation of the Treaties ;","( b ) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions , bodies , offices or agencies of the ORG ;","Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member ORG , that court or tribunal may , if it considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment , request the ORG to give a ruling thereon .","Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member ORG against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law , that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the ORG .","If such a question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member ORG with regard to a person in custody , ORG of ORG shall act with the minimum of delay . \u201d","\u201c Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this LAW must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms . Subject to the principle of proportionality , limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the ORG or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others . ... \u201d","\u201c When a person is arrested on the basis of a NORP arrest warrant , the executing judicial authority shall take a decision on whether the requested person should remain in detention , in accordance with the law of the executing Member ORG . The person may be released provisionally at any time in conformity with the domestic law of the executing Member ORG , provided that the competent authority of the said Member ORG takes all the measures it deems necessary to prevent the person absconding . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . NORP The person requested shall be surrendered as soon as possible on a date agreed between the authorities concerned .","He or she shall be surrendered DATE after the final decision on the execution of the NORP arrest warrant .","NORP If the surrender of the requested person within the period laid down in paragraph CARDINAL is prevented by circumstances beyond the control of any of GPE , the executing and issuing judicial authorities shall immediately contact each other and agree on a new surrender date . In that event , the surrender shall take place within DATE of the new date thus agreed .","NORP The surrender may exceptionally be temporarily postponed for serious humanitarian reasons , for example if there are substantial grounds for believing that it would manifestly endanger the requested person \u2019s life or health . The execution of the NORP arrest warrant shall take place as soon as these grounds have ceased to exist . The executing judicial authority shall immediately inform the issuing judicial authority and agree on a new surrender date . In that event , the surrender shall take place within DATE of the new date thus agreed .","Upon expiry of the time limits referred to in DATE , if the person is still being held in custody he shall be released . \u201d","In its judgment of DATE in Case CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( GPE CILFIT and ORG ) , ORG of ORG ( hereafter ECJ ) responded to a request from ORG for a ruling as to whether the third paragraph of LAW ( now LAW ) laid down an obligation to refer a matter which precluded the national court from determining whether the question raised was justified or whether it made that obligation conditional on the prior finding of a reasonable interpretative doubt . In this connection , the ECJ found it necessary to define the meaning , for purposes of Community law , of the expression \u201c where any such question is raised \u201d in order to determine the circumstances in which a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is obliged to bring a matter before it . The ECJ observed the following :","\u201c ... it must in the first place be pointed out that Article CARDINAL does not constitute a means of redress available to the parties to a case pending before a national court or tribunal . Therefore the mere fact that a party contends that the dispute gives rise to a question concerning the interpretation of Community law does not mean that the court or tribunal concerned is compelled to consider that a question has been raised within the meaning of Article CARDINAL .","Secondly , it follows from the relationship between the second and third paragraphs of Article CARDINAL that the courts or tribunals referred to in the third paragraph have the same discretion as any other national court or tribunal to ascertain whether a decision on a question of community law is necessary to enable them to give judgment . Accordingly , those courts or tribunals are not obliged to refer to the court of justice a question concerning the interpretation of community law raised before them if that question is not relevant , that is to say , if the answer to that question , regardless of what it may be , can in no way affect the outcome of the case . \u201d","and gave the following interpretation of LAW :","\u201c The third paragraph of LAW must be interpreted as meaning that a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is required , where a question of Community law is raised before it , to comply with its obligation to bring the matter before ORG , unless it has established that the question raised is irrelevant or that the Community provision in question has already been interpreted by ORG or that the correct application of Community law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt . The existence of such a possibility must be assessed in the light of the specific characteristics of Community law , the particular difficulties to which its interpretation gives rise and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the ORG . \u201d","In Case CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ORG v ORG con l\u2019Estero [ DATE ] ECR CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ; Case C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ORG PERSON [ DATE ] ECR I-CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ; and Case C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , PERSON , ORG and ORG ASBL ( ORG ) , paragraph CARDINAL , the ECJ held :","\u201c [ A ] national court or tribunal is not empowered to bring a matter before the ORG by way of a reference for a preliminary ruling under LAW unless a dispute is pending before it in the context of which it is called upon to give a decision which could take into account the preliminary ruling . Conversely , ORG has no jurisdiction to hear a reference for a preliminary ruling when at the time it is made the procedure before the court making it has already been terminated . \u201d","In its relevant part , LAW provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . At the request of the public prosecutor , ORG can order the person requested detained on remand at its hearing .","NORP Before terminating its examination of the case in the hearing ORG shall decide ex officio ... on the extended detention on remand of the person requested if he is in initial detention on remand or police custody . \u201d","\u201c Detention ordered pursuant to section CARDINAL shall \u2013 without prejudice to the possibility of further detention on other grounds \u2013 be terminated as soon as :","a. it is so ordered by the public prosecutor or ORG , whether ex officio or at the request of the person requested or his counsel ;","b. it has lasted DATE from DATE of ORG decision , unless ORG has prolonged the detention on the application of the public prosecutor in the meantime . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Prolongation of the detention as referred to in section CARDINAL under b can be for no longer than DATE .","NORP In derogation from the first paragraph , the detention can be prolonged for DATE at a time if :","a. in addition , extradition has been requested , or surrender by ORG or another international tribunal , and the competent Minister has not yet decided on those requests ;","b. surrender has been permitted , but actual surrender has not proved possible within the time - limit set for that purpose .","NORP The person requested shall be given the opportunity to be heard about the application for prolongation of his detention . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . NORP The person requested shall be surrendered as soon as possible after the decision in which surrender has been permitted in whole or in part , but no later than ten days after the date of this decision . The public prosecutor shall decide the time and place after consultation with the issuing judicial authorities .","NORP If owing to special circumstances the surrender of the requested person can not take place within the time - limit set in the first paragraph , a new date shall be determined by mutual agreement . In that event , the surrender shall take place within DATE of the new date thus agreed .","NORP The surrender may exceptionally be postponed as long as serious humanitarian reasons prevent the surrender , in particular as long as travel would be irresponsible in view of the state of health of the person requested . The requesting judicial authority shall be informed of this without delay . The public prosecutor shall , after consulting the requesting judicial authority , determine the time and place at which the surrender can take place . In that event , the surrender shall take place within DATE of the new date thus determined .","NORP The detention of the person requested shall be terminated after the time - limits set out in the first through third paragraphs have ended . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . In cases in which a decision on detention can or must be taken pursuant to this LAW , an order can be given for such detention to be conditionally deferred or suspended ( voorwaardelijk opgeschort of geschorst ) until the moment of the decision of ORG in which the surrender is permitted . The conditions to be set may purport only to prevent the requested person \u2019s absconding . ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159441","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"DAS UNIVERSELLE LEBEN ALLER KULTUREN WELTWEIT E.V. v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON . ORG , is a NORP association , which has its seat in GPE . It was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156262","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF H.S. AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion) (Syria);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest);No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general}","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .","In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that following the events in PERSON in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; paragraph CARDINAL of ORG on GPE ) he had participated in demonstrations that took place at his university . He was arrested in DATE by the civil police and was detained for DATE . During this period he was ill - treated and his health was adversely affected by the physical violence he was subjected to . The applicant was arrested again in DATE for DATE and once again subjected to physical violence . Following his release , he was not able to find any employment as his police file remained open . He also submitted that he had not served compulsory military service .","The applicant left GPE on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE . He submitted that he secured a visa for GPE after bribing officials .","He applied for asylum in GPE on DATE .","ORG discontinued the examination of his application and closed his file on DATE by virtue of section CARDINALA ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of LAW of DATE ( as amended up to DATE ; PERSON no . CARDINAL ; see paragraphs QUANTITY below and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) as the applicant had not complied with the obligation deriving from section CARDINAL of that PERSON , according to which , in the event of a change of address , the applicant had to inform ORG either directly or through the local Aliens and ORG , within DATE ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) . According to the note in his file the applicant had not attended the interview arranged for DATE . In the note it is stated that a letter had been sent to him on DATE by ORG requesting him to attend the interview . The applicant , however , had not received this letter as he had changed address in the meantime without notifying the authorities . Furthermore , it had not been possible to make telephone contact with him as he had given a wrong number .","The applicant did not lodge an appeal with ORG hereafter \u201c the Reviewing Authority \u201d ) .","The applicant submitted that he never received a letter asking him to attend an interview nor had he received notification of the decision of ORG to close his file so as to be able to appeal against it .","The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .","The applicant left GPE on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .","In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that he had left GPE because he had been harassed and ill - treated by ORG due to his origin and his connections to ORG . He stated that he had left GPE illegally .","The applicant applied for asylum in GPE on DATE . In his application for asylum , the applicant claimed that he had left GPE for CARDINAL reasons . First of all , he had been beaten up by members of ORG as he had complained about having to repair their cars at his car repair garage without payment . Secondly , his business had suffered setbacks by rising oil prices . He stated that he had left GPE legally .","ORG held an interview with him on DATE . In his interview the applicant claimed that he had been arrested and beaten up by ORG on a number of occasions in connection with their demands to have their cars repaired for free and that the Head of ORG had threatened to imprison him for a very long period . He also claimed that after he had left GPE he had found out that ORG as well as the NORP authorities were looking for him on the pretext that he had participated in the PERSON events in DATE . He therefore faced imprisonment if he returned to GPE .","His application was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE ( as amended up to DATE ) , and the DATE LAW relating to ORG ( hereafter \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) in that he had not shown that he had a well - founded fear of persecution for reasons of race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular group or political opinion or a well - founded fear of serious and unjustified harm for other reasons . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . ORG noted that there had been significant discrepancies and inaccuracies in his account of the facts on which his allegations of persecution were based . It held that the applicant \u2019s allegations had been unfounded and had not been credible .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .","In the copies of the records of ORG it was noted on DATE that in accordance with instructions given by Minister of the ORG on DATE , if the applicant was traced , the possibility of granting him a special residence permit should be examined before deporting him . PERSON should take place only if the applicant was involved in illegal activities .","On DATE ORG decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .","The Reviewing Authority pointed to contradictions in the applicant \u2019s claims and held , having regard to all the information and evidence available , that they were unsubstantiated . It noted that the applicant had given CARDINAL different reasons for which the Head of ORG had allegedly threated him with imprisonment . Furthermore , although he initially claimed that the ORG forces and the authorities were falsely accusing him of participating in the PERSON events , he then stated that he had actually participated but was not able to give accurate information concerning these events . Furthermore , the events complained of had happened in DATE whereas he had left GPE legally in DATE and he did not allege that during this period he was persecuted by the authorities because of his alleged participation . He was also able to leave GPE legally . ORG further stressed that his claims concerning ill - treatment were incoherent and that the applicant had not been able to describe in any detail the treatment he had been allegedly subjected to . Lastly , in reply to the applicant \u2019s claims before it that he had been subjected to persecution because of his NORP origin , ORG observed that the applicant had not applied for asylum on this basis . In any event , it stressed that there was no indication that he had been subjected to any kind of discrimination on the ground of his origin .","ORG concluded by observing that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .","The applicant submitted that he did not receive the decision of ORG but had only heard that his asylum file had been closed . He was therefore not able to appeal .","The Government submitted that a letter was sent on CARDINAL DATE by double registered mail ( registered mail with proof of delivery ) to the address given by the applicant . The letter had been returned . They provided a copy of the receipt on which it was noted \u201c insufficient address . \u201d","The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .","In his application form to the ORG the applicant submitted that he had converted to NORP . In DATE he was detained by the NORP police and was accused of organising a church congregation ( organising people for church ) . During his detention , which lasted DATE , he was tortured by police officers . He did not confess that he had changed religion but told them that he had been going to church to give music lessons . He was arrested again on DATE and detained for DATE during which he was subjected to torture . After he was released he was told that he would be contacted again . For this reason he started travelling around GPE but never staying in places where too many NORP lived .","The applicant left GPE on an unspecified date in DATE . Although he had left legally , he had bribed a police officer at the border to let him go through . The applicant entered GPE illegally after travelling from GPE .","He applied for asylum in GPE on DATE .","Following an interview on an unspecified date , his application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE ( as amended up to DATE ; see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG held that the applicant \u2019s claims and his alleged fear of persecution on return to GPE were not credible . It noted in this respect that the applicant had been able to obtain a passport lawfully and to leave GPE , that there had been discrepancies between his asylum application and his interview , concerning the grounds for which he had alleged left GPE , and that the applicant lacked basic knowledge of the NORP religion .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .","It appears that on DATE the applicant applied for a temporary residence permit .","On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .","ORG , referring to ORG decision , held that there had been discrepancies in the applicant \u2019s account of the facts and reasons for his departure from GPE which undermined his credibility . ORG noted , inter alia , that although the applicant had claimed that he had left GPE because he had been persecuted by ORG he had been able to obtain a passport lawfully and to leave the country . The applicant had also stated in his interview that he had not faced any difficulties going through passport control as he did not have any problems with the NORP authorities . Moreover , although the applicant alleged that he had been persecuted and harassed for participating in NORP festivities , when requested he did not give any details concerning the alleged persecution . To the extent that the applicant claimed that he had been detained twice following the PERSON events , ORG observed that the applicant had been released without conditions and had never been charged with any offence . Lastly , the applicant in his interview had claimed that he had converted to NORP while in GPE in DATE and that he had left GPE for this reason . He had not , however , mentioned this in his application form on which it was stated that he was a NORP . In any event , the applicant lacked basic knowledge of the NORP religion and had not been baptised .","ORG concluded that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .","On DATE the applicant was put on a stop - list but it was noted that he was not to be deported until further instructions were received from ORG .","The applicant did not lodge a recourse against ORG decision . He submitted that this was because of the costs of such proceedings and also due to the fact that he was subsequently given a temporary residence permit by the authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , the Minister of ORG , following a meeting with ORG on DATE , decided to grant the applicant a temporary residence permit for DATE on the condition that he found a local employer who had authorisation to employ third country nationals . The applicant submitted that he was not able to find such an employer and that ORG was not willing to approve a contract with other employers .","Following the expiry of his permit the applicant remained irregularly in GPE .","The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated DATE which ORG had addressed to the applicant , informing him that following the negative decision of ORG , his application of CARDINAL DATE for a residence permit ( see paragraph DATE above ) had been rejected and that he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .","In the copies of the records of ORG it was noted on DATE that in accordance with instructions given by the Minister of the ORG on DATE , if the applicant was traced , the possibility of granting him a special residence permit should be examined before deporting him . PERSON should take place only if the applicant was involved in illegal activities .","The applicant is an PERSON ( registered stateless ) NORP born in DATE in GPE .","In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that he was a musician and as he was stateless he was unable to get a licence in GPE in order to practise his profession . Furthermore , a decree by the Governor of LOC in DATE reportedly prohibited the singing of non - Arabic songs at wedding or festivals ( Order No . CARDINAL\/sad\/CARDINAL ; ORG , GPE : The Silenced NORP , DATE , ORG , page CARDINAL ) . The applicant feared that he would be subjected to arbitrary detention and possibly torture because he was singing NORP songs .","For this reason he left GPE illegally on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .","He applied for asylum on DATE .","ORG held an interview with him on DATE . In his interview the applicant alleged , firstly , that his human rights had been violated as he was an GPE ; in particular , his rights to education , work and property . Secondly , the applicant stated that he did not want his children to be GPE . Thirdly , he claimed that he would be imprisoned if he returned to GPE , as he had left the country illegally . He , however , stated that he had never been arrested and detained , harassed or persecuted by the NORP authorities .","His application was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In particular , ORG held that the mere fact that the applicant was an GPE from the LOC area did not mean that the applicant was in danger of persecution . In particular , ORG held that the applicant could not claim to be in danger of persecution and entitled to refugee status simply by reason of being an GPE from the LOC area . Furthermore , it considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if he returned to GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .","It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that , on DATE , the applicant was put on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop list \u201d .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision and dismissed the appeal .","ORG stressed , inter alia , that NORP were not persecuted on the basis of their ethnicity when they were not involved in anti - regime activities . The applicant had neither alleged that he had been harassed by the NORP authorities nor that he had been persecuted by them . Furthermore , ORG observed that unless a person was an opponent of the regime , there was no real risk that leaving GPE illegally would result in persecution on their return . It also noted that according to its own research , PERSON were entitled to , among other things , work in the public and private sector , receive an education and register their property . Furthermore , the applicant had given a document which belonged to his father and on which his personal details and family situation were registered such as births , death and divorce . The applicant could thus register his children under his name . Lastly , the applicant \u2019s claim that he could not work as a musician did not constitute persecution or discrimination .","ORG concluded by observing that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .","The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he could not afford to do so .","The applicant submitted an attestation from the \u201c ORG a NORP \u201d ( \u201c CDK \u201d ) in GPE dated DATE stating that he was a compatriot and participated in the movement of the NORP peoples for national and human rights and that he was also a member of the party in GPE . It stated that , as many other NORP and being a stateless NORP , the applicant was deprived of his rights and had no identity card . He was therefore not able to obtain a licence to work as a musician and that if he was returned to GPE he would be subjected to long term imprisonment , torture and ill treatment .","The applicant is an PERSON ( registered stateless ) NORP born in DATE in GPE .","In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that he was a member of ORG in GPE and that he was involved in the PERSON events . Following these events he was too scared to return to his village which had been closed for DATE . During that period many people from his village were arrested and tortured by the authorities . Some disappeared . He decided to leave GPE as he was a stateless NORP and given his political involvement in the Yekiti party and the PERSON events .","The applicant left GPE illegally on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .","He applied for asylum on DATE .","ORG , however , discontinued the examination of his application and closed his file on DATE by virtue of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) of LAW of DATE as the applicant had not informed ORG or the local Aliens and ORG of his change of address ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was noted in the file that ORG had received a letter dated DATE from ORG informing them that the applicant had not showed up at their offices within reasonable time and remained illegally in GPE . On DATE he was put on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop - list \u201d as a wanted person . Subsequently , by letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant was asked to attend an interview at ORG on DATE . The applicant did not show up and the authorities had not been able to locate him . The letter was returned by the postal service with a note that the applicant had moved . It had not been possible to make telephone contact as he had given a wrong number .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG which was dismissed on DATE . ORG observed that the appeal concerned the applicant \u2019s asylum claim and its substance and not the decision of ORG to close the file . As the substance of his claim had not been examined his appeal should have been directed against the decision to discontinue the examination of his application and not the merits of his case .","The applicant submitted that ORG had never called on him to attend an interview and that he had informed ORG about his change of address . He had only found out later from his lawyer that his file had been closed because he had not attended the interview . ( He submitted an affidavit to this effect dated DATE he made at ORG . )","The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .","In his application form to the ORG the applicant claimed that on DATE , some police officials approached him while he was working in his field . A fight ensued when the officers wanted to take his fingerprints and he resisted . He beat up CARDINAL of the officers and managed to escape . He went into hiding as the NORP police were looking for him .","He then left GPE on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .","He applied for asylum on DATE .","DATE . ORG held an interview with him on DATE .","His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE and the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It observed in this respect that it transpired during the interview that the applicant had left GPE for financial reasons . Furthermore , to the extent that the applicant alleged that if returned to GPE he would be arrested , convicted and sentenced to long - term imprisonment because he had lodged an asylum application , this was unfounded . On the basis of the information before it , the NORP authorities did not persecute persons just because they had applied for asylum .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .","On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .","The Reviewing Authority observed that in his application form the applicant claimed that he had left GPE because of fear following the PERSON events . In his interview with ORG , however , he claimed that he had left GPE for financial reasons and that although he had taken part in the PERSON events and had been arrested , arrests had been a general phenomenon and this had not been the reason he had left GPE . In his appeal he stated that he had left for financial and political reasons . He had not however , substantiated that he would be subjected to prosecution on political grounds . The applicant was not involved in any political parties and did not carry out any anti - regime activities . Lastly , it found that the applicant \u2019s allegation that he ran the risk of being imprisoned if returned to GPE because the authorities knew he had sought asylum was also unfounded as , on the basis of the information before it , the NORP authorities did not persecute failed asylum seekers upon their return unless they were opponents of the regime .","The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he could not afford to do so .","The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated CARDINAL DATE which ORG had addressed to the applicant , informing him that following the negative decision of ORG and the expiry of his temporary residence permit , he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .","On DATE the applicant was put on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop list \u201d .","DATE . The applicant submitted that the NORP authorities were still looking for him .","The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .","In his application form to the ORG the applicant claims that on DATE , while he was serving in the NORP army , he was arrested and taken into detention by the NORP authorities along with other NORP because of ORG ( the Iranian New Year , PERSON or MONEY DATE or Equinox and DATE in the NORP calendar ) . He was tortured for DATE along with his co - detainees . They were put into a car tyre and were subjected to bastinado . They were accused of conspiring against the ORG . Military proceedings were brought against him but after completion of his military service the charges were dropped . During this time the military police collected information on him and his friends and he was entered on a database as a dangerous individual . He was arrested again on DATE because he attended the FAC celebrations and was a member of ORG . He was detained for DATE and was released after bribing LOC . He was then re - arrested on DATE at his house after attending a NORP party meeting . He was released after bribing the same official . He then decided to leave GPE and managed to obtain a NORP visa after bribing a NORP security official working at the NORP embassy .","The applicant left GPE in DATE and entered GPE illegally after travelling from GPE .","He applied for asylum on DATE . He claimed that he had left GPE because as a NORP he had been subjected to discrimination . NORP were persecuted and did not enjoy any rights . He had therefore left for fear of his life .","ORG held an interview with him on DATE . The applicant claimed , inter alia , that he was a follower \/ supporter of ORG , he had left GPE due to the injustice that NORP suffered , and in particular , although he had a passport he had no other rights and he could not buy a house or land or work . He claimed that he was known to the NORP authorities and he had been taken at the police station and beaten up on several occasions . He had been arrested and detained on a number of occasions . In particular , in DATE he had been arrested and detained for DATE for participating in the ORG festivities . He had been arrested on another occasion for problems he had in the army . In DATE he was detained for DATE and in DATE for DATE . The latter CARDINAL times he had been released after paying a sum of money . He also stated that he was not wanted by the authorities and no other member of his family had ever been arrested . He claimed that he feared arrest if returned to GPE .","Subsequently , ORG called the applicant for a second interview and asked him to provide any documents he had concerning his application . The second interview was held on DATE . In this the applicant claimed , inter alia , that certain members of his family worked and that although the job market was not good , he would be able to work if he managed to find something . The applicant stated that he had been arrested on DATE when he was in the army following a dispute with another soldier on DATE for participating in the ORG festivities , and on DATE and DATE when demonstrations took place even though he was not involved . He was not , however , wanted by the authorities nor did he have any problems by reason of the fact that he was a follower of ORG .","His application was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It therefore held that his asylum application had not been substantiated . In particular , ORG pointed out that during his interview he had claimed that he had left GPE for CARDINAL reasons : because of his NORP origin he could not work and buy a house or land and secondly due to his arrests by the NORP authorities . With regard to the first claim , they noted that he had not substantiated that he had been subjected to any form of discrimination due to his origin . As regards the arrests the applicant \u2019s allegations remained unfounded as he had not given any specific answers to questions that had been put to him . Furthermore , during the interview ORG had spotted a number of significant untruths \/ falsehoods concerning his claim .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .","On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .","The Reviewing Authority observed that the applicant had not been subjected to persecution and had claimed that he was not wanted by the NORP authorities . In its decision it observed that the applicant \u2019s claims had not been credible and had been vague and unsubstantiated . Although he claimed that he could not buy a house or land , he then stated that his parents owned a house which they lived in . Further , although he initially claimed that he could not work due to the fact that he was NORP he then stated that his family worked and he also was able to . The information he gave concerning his arrest and reasons was equally general and vague . He was not in a position to give specific replies to questions given concerning these matters . ORG observed that the applicant had not been able to reply satisfactorily and with precision to certain questions and give information concerning his claims .","In conclusion , ORG held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .","The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he could not afford to do so and at that time no legal aid was granted in such cases .","The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .","In his application form to the ORG the applicant claimed that he and his family are members of ORG in GPE which was banned by the authorities . In DATE the applicant was driving his motorbike in his village carrying GPE party papers . The civil police in GPE ordered him to stop but he fled as he was scared that they would find the papers . The police pursued him but he managed to escape . The next day the police went to his house . The same day he got a visa on his passport .","The applicant left GPE on DATE and entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .","He applied for asylum on DATE .","ORG , however , discontinued the examination of his application and closed his file on DATE by virtue of section CARDINALA ( CARDINAL ) ( c ) of LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as the applicant had not come to the interview which had been fixed for DATE despite having received the letter requesting him to attend . It was noted in the file that the letter had been sent to him by double registered mail and there was indication he had received it . It was also noted that the applicant , on DATE , had confirmed on the telephone after receiving a call by ORG that he would come to the interview . Despite this he had not shown up . Lastly , there was no indication that the applicant had departed from the country .","The applicant did not lodge an appeal with ORG .","The applicant submitted that he never received a letter asking him to attend an interview and that he had not received notification of the decision of ORG to close his file . He was subsequently informed of the closure of his file but he did not appeal against the decision as he did not know the procedure to follow and the steps to take so he could appeal against it . He was also scared to approach the authorities .","In the copies of the records of ORG it was noted on DATE that in accordance with the instructions of the Minister of the ORG given on DATE , if the applicant was traced , the possibility of granting him a special residence permit should be examined before deporting him . PERSON should take place only if the applicant was involved in illegal activities .","The applicant submitted that the NORP police were still looking for him .","The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .","In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that on DATE he participated in a demonstration in his village concerning the PERSON uprising . He had a camera and was taking photographs of the event when the civil police arrested him . He was blindfolded , placed in a police vehicle and transferred to the central detention centre of the village . There he was continuously tortured and ill - treated for DATE . After his release , he was obliged to report to the police DATE . On DATE , DATE after his release , the applicant decided to leave GPE as he was no longer able to handle the feeling of insecurity . He applied to get a passport from the authorities but this was refused . He succeeded in getting one after bribing officials .","The applicant left GPE on DATE and entered GPE illegally travelling from GPE .","He applied for asylum on DATE .","ORG held an interview with him on DATE .","His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It noted that no form of discrimination or persecution transpired from the applicant \u2019s claims . There had been discrepancies between his application and the allegations made during his interview , which undermined his credibility . It held that the applicant \u2019s claims and his alleged fear of persecution on return to GPE were not credible .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .","On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .","ORG noted that there were serious discrepancies between what he stated in his asylum application form and during his interview . For example , in his application he stated that he had left GPE because he was NORP and he had problems with the NORP authorities . During the interview he had alleged that he had not left GPE for political reasons but because his family had reached an agreement with another family to marry against his wishes . The applicant had also claimed that he had to move about in the country in order to avoid being caught by the authorities but then stated that he did not face any serious problems . Further , he initially claimed during the interview that even though he had signed his application form he did not know the contents as this had been filled in by another person . He subsequently , stated , however , that the contents were of a political nature and that he had told the person filling in the form to write whatever he wanted . This undermined the applicant \u2019s credibility .","ORG concluded that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds . The letter of notification addressed to the applicant by ORG dated DATE stated that its decision was subject to adjudication before ORG within DATE from the date he was informed of the decision .","The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against ORG decision as he did not know he had the right to do so .","The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated DATE which ORG had addressed to the applicant , informing him that following the negative decision of ORG as well as the expiry of his temporary residence permit , he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .","On DATE the applicant was put on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop- list \u201d .","The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .","NORP In his application form to the ORG the applicant claimed that on DATE he lit a fire with some friends to celebrate ORG . When the police came he managed to flee but his friends were arrested . He later found out from his family that the police were looking for him . He left GPE on DATE through the border with GPE after the taxi driver bribed the officials .","The applicant entered GPE illegally in DATE or beginning of DATE after travelling from GPE .","He applied for asylum on DATE . He claimed that he had left GPE because he had participated in a demonstration concerning NORP rights and that for this reason he was sought after by the NORP authorities .","ORG held an interview with him on DATE . The applicant claimed , that following the demonstration the authorities had asked certain of the persons that had been arrested information about him . He had left GPE for this reason . He also claimed that if he returned to GPE he might not be allowed entry or he ran the risk of being arrested . Furthermore , he stated that he had never been detained , harassed or persecuted by the NORP authorities and that he or his family did not belong to any , inter alia , political , religious or military group \/ organisation .","His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE and the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It observed that the applicant \u2019s allegations were general and vague . In particular , it noted that the applicant had failed to give any information \/ details about the demonstration he had allegedly participated in despite being asked during the interview . It concluded that his allegations had been unfounded and had not been credible .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .","On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .","The Reviewing Authority observed that the applicant had admitted that he had not been subjected to any harassment or persecution . His allegations concerning his fears of arrest were vague and general . He was not in a position to specify when and which demonstration he had taken part despite being asked specific questions on this during the interview . Furthermore , he had been able to leave the country legally without any problems . There was no indication that the NORP authorities were searching for him .","In conclusion , ORG held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .","The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he was advised by a lawyer that it would be a waste of time and effort as ORG dismissed all such cases .","NORP The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .","In his application form to the ORG the applicant claimed that when he was in the NORP army he was detained for DATE on the basis of his ethnic identity . During that period he was subjected to ill - treatment such as standing still under the sun for long periods . There were also other NORP detained with the applicant and they were all told that this was a preparation for what was going to happen to all the NORP in the future . The applicant was also involved in cultural ( folklore ) activities of ORG Participation in cultural groups such as dance , drama or folkloric groups that wear NORP traditional dress and participate in funerals or other social rites was considered by the authorities to be political and thus repressed . The NORP government and authorities tended to politicise ordinary people who participated in these activities and therefore they ran a risk of being criminalised and exposed to persecution by the authorities .","The applicant left GPE in DATE legally but only after bribing officials at the border with GPE .","The applicant entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .","He applied for asylum on DATE .","ORG held an interview with him on DATE .","His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE and the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It noted that the applicant , during the interview , had claimed that he had left GPE due to a long standing property dispute between his family and another family . Although ORG did not question the credibility of his allegations concerning the existence of this dispute as such it did not find the applicant \u2019s claims as to his involvement in this dispute credible and that his departure from GPE was justified on this ground . The statements made in his interview were contradictory and he had stated that his life was not in danger . Eventually , the applicant had admitted that he had left GPE for financial reasons and faced no danger if he returned .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .","On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .","ORG observed that the applicant \u2019s account of facts concerning the alleged family dispute were contradictory . Furthermore , in his asylum application form he had stated that he his life was not in danger and that he had left GPE lawfully and for financial reasons . It had also become clear during the interview that the applicant had not left GPE for the reasons he had initially claimed but for financial reasons ; he could not find work with an adequate salary . He was therefore using the asylum procedure to extend his stay in GPE . New claims put forward by the applicant in his appeal that he was wanted by the NORP authorities because he had taken part in the FAC celebrations and that had been detained for DATE had not been substantiated and had not been raised by the applicant in his asylum application form or his interview with ORG . Lastly , the applicant had admitted that his life would not be in danger if he returned nor would he be punished .","In conclusion , ORG held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .","The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he could not afford to pay a lawyer .","The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated DATE which ORG had addressed to the applicant , informing him that following the negative decision of ORG , he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .","The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE .","NORP In his application form to the Court the applicant claimed that on DATE he and his mother lit a small fire to celebrate ORG . They also had the GPE flag on their roof . The police raided their house during which they hit the applicant \u2019s mother . She fell and had a minor head injury . They arrested the applicant and put him in detention . There were no formal legal proceedings and the applicant was released after his family bribed the police . In DATE he was arrested once again but was released with the help of his family who bribed the officers . He managed to obtain a passport through bribery and left GPE on DATE .","The applicant entered GPE illegally on an unspecified date after travelling from GPE .","He applied for asylum on DATE .","ORG held an interview with him on DATE .","His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE and the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It noted that the applicant , during the interview , had claimed that he had left GPE because he had been persecuted by the NORP authorities for being a member of the ORG ( ORG , an illegal organisation ) . It held that the applicant \u2019s claims were not credible as he had not been able to reply satisfactorily to basic questions concerning the party . He was not therefore able to establish that his was a member of the party and therefore substantiate that this was the ground for which he was allegedly persecuted .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .","On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .","ORG in its decision observed that the applicant \u2019s claims had not been credible and had been unsubstantiated . It noted that although the applicant claimed that he had been persecuted for being a member of the ORG and participating in activities and had fled for this reason , he was not able to give any information about the party . For example , he did not know who was the leader of the ORG , he was not able to draw the flag or to explain what the initials meant . Furthermore , he had a passport and had left the country legally without any problems .","In conclusion , ORG held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .","The applicant did not lodge a recourse against this decision .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE ORG asked the applicant , following the negative decision of ORG , to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .","On DATE the applicant was put on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop - list \u201d .","The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE . He is married and has one child .","NORP In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that he was a member of the banned ORG . On DATE he completed his military service and then went back to his village where he discovered that the NORP authorities had changed the name of his village into an NORP one . Along with CARDINAL other persons they rewrote the original name over the NORP one on the road signs . After this , the intelligence service detained CARDINAL of his friends . The applicant and the others fled to GPE . From the QUANTITY persons arrested , the one disappeared in the hands of the authorities and the second one was released after spending DATE in detention and after disclosing the identities of the ones who managed to escape . After getting help from members of ORG , the applicant managed to get a passport .","The applicant left GPE on DATE and came to GPE on DATE with a tourist visa after travelling from GPE .","He applied for asylum on DATE , DATE . In his form he claimed that he had left GPE because of the inhuman treatment NORP were subjected to and their difficult living conditions .","ORG held an interview with him on DATE . During this he stated that he had left GPE because the NORP had no rights and that a photograph had been taken of him during a demonstration of the GPE party . He stated that he feared arrest and imprisonment upon his retrun .","His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG found that the asylum application had not been substantiated . It noted that there had been discrepancies in his account of the facts which undermined his credibility in so far as he claimed that he had taken part in a demonstration during which his photo had been taken by the NORP authorities . Further , it considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .","On DATE the decision was upheld and the appeal dismissed .","ORG in its decision observed that the applicant in his application had claimed that he had left GPE because of the conditions of living and human rights violations of NORP . In his interview he also claimed that he had left as the authorities had taken a photo of him during a demonstration of ORG in DATE and if he returned he would be imprisoned as this is normally the case . The applicant was not able to give a more specific time frame for the demonstration ORG noted that the applicant had not had any problems with the authorities following that demonstration . At the same time he had claimed that he worked on and off in GPE for a period of DATE and occasionally returned to GPE without any problems . He alleged that only on CARDINAL occasion did the authorities force him and some friends to break up a meeting for ORG . The applicant \u2019s account of facts and claims were full of discrepancies and unsubstantiated , undermining his credibility .","In conclusion , ORG held that the applicant had not established that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to GPE . Nor did he satisfy the conditions for temporary residence on humanitarian grounds .","The applicant submitted that he did not lodge a recourse against this decision as he was advised by a lawyer that it would be a waste of time and effort as ORG dismissed all such cases .","It appears that the applicant \u2019s wife also applied for asylum . Her application was rejected on DATE and her appeal on DATE . She was then asked , in a letter dated DATE sent by ORG , to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .","On DATE she was put on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop - list \u201d .","The applicant , who is a NORP national of NORP origin , was born in DATE in GPE . He is married and has a child .","In his application form to the ORG the applicant stated that on DATE during the events at the football match in PERSON , he got scared and left the town . He went to his home village , PERSON , where he stayed for DATE . When the situation improved he returned to PERSON . On DATE the civil police killed a prominent NORP religious leader . During the demonstration at the mosque the police officers took pictures of the demonstrators and DATE went to the applicant \u2019s house searching for him . On DATE the applicant left GPE . He travelled from PERSON to GPE and then obtained a visa after bribing someone to issue a visa for GPE .","The applicant entered GPE illegally on DATE after travelling from GPE .","He applied for asylum in DATE or DATE . He claimed that he had left GPE legally in order to find work .","ORG held an interview with him on DATE .","His application was dismissed on DATE on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW of DATE and the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG considered that there was no possibility of the applicant being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to GPE . It noted that the applicant , during the interview , had claimed that he had left GPE because he was wanted by the NORP authorities for participating in an illegal demonstration . His allegations , however , were unfounded and not credible , as during the interview his account of facts was full of discrepancies , contradictions and untruths . Furthermore , there were discrepancies between his written application form and the allegations made during the interview . In particular , the grounds he gave in his interview for leaving GPE where not the same as those he had given in his application . This undermined his overall credibility .","The applicant claims that he was not informed of the decision and in DATE he asked a non - governmental organisation to follow up his case . It was then that he discovered that his application had been dismissed .","NORP In the meantime it appears that his temporary residence permit granted to him on the ground that he was an asylum seeker expired .","NORP On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG decision .","On DATE his appeal was dismissed under LAW F ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( as amended up to DATE ) on the ground that it had been filed out of time . ORG observed that the letter informing the applicant of the dismissal of his asylum application dated DATE was served through a private messenger and that the delivery slip was signed by his fellow lodger . It noted that on DATE a letter had been sent by a non - governmental organisation requesting information about the stage of proceedings of the applicant \u2019s application . A letter was sent dated CARDINAL DATE informing the NGO that the applicant \u2019s claim had been examined , the decision had been sent to the applicant by registered post and according to the file it had been received . The appeal deadline was DATE from the date the applicant was notified of the decision on the basis of section QUANTITY ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The appeal was filed on DATE , DATE following the date he had been notified of the decision .","The Government submitted that a letter was sent on DATE informing him of this decision by double registered mail to the address given by the applicant . The letter had been returned . They provided a copy of the receipt on which it was noted \u201c unclaimed \u201d .","The applicant did not lodge a recourse against ORG decision .","The Government submitted a copy of a letter dated CARDINAL DATE which ORG had addressed to the applicant , informing him that following the negative decision of ORG he was requested to proceed to all necessary arrangements so as to depart from the territory of GPE at once .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG and other NORP from GPE organised a demonstration in GPE , near ORG , ORG and ORG . They were protesting against the restrictive policies of ORG in granting international protection . CARDINAL NORP from GPE , including the applicants , remained in the area around the clock , having set up CARDINAL tents on the pavement . According to the ORG , the encampment conditions were unsanitary and protesters were obstructing road and pedestrian traffic . The encampment had become a hazard to public health and created a public nuisance . The protesters performed their DATE chores on the pavement , including cooking and washing in unsanitary conditions . The sewage pits had overflown , causing a nuisance and offensive odours . The public lavatories were dirty and the rubbish bins of the Government buildings were being used and , as a result , were continuously overflowing . Furthermore , the protesters were unlawfully obtaining electricity from ORG . Members of the public who lived or worked in the area had complained to the authorities . The Government submitted that efforts had been made by the authorities to persuade the protesters to leave , but to no avail . As a result , the authorities had decided to take action to remove the protesters from the area .","On DATE instructions were given by the Minister of the Interior to proceed with the deportation of NORP - NORP failed asylum seekers in the normal way . According to the Government these instructions superseded the ones given by the Minister of the ORG on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) .","On DATE the Minister requested the Chief of Police , among others , to take action in order to implement his instructions . Further , he endorsed suggestions made by the competent authorities that deportation and detention orders be issued against NORP - NORP failed asylum seekers who had passports and did not have PERSON or PERSON status and that the police execute the orders starting with the ones issued against the leaders of the protesters . The police were also directed to take into account the policy guidelines and to use discreet methods of arrest .","According to the Government , letters were sent by ORG to a number of failed NORP - NORP asylum - seekers informing them that they had to make arrangements to leave GPE in view of their asylum applications being turned down ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) . The letter sent to GPE . was dated DATE , in CARDINAL cases , including those of GPE , ORG , CARDINAL , PERSON , ORG and LOC the letters were dated DATE , in respect of AM , the letter was dated DATE and in respect of GPE , the letter was dated DATE . Another letter was dated DATE ( the asylum procedures having been completed in DATE ) and CARDINAL letter was dated DATE in a case where the asylum procedure had been completed on DATE and the person in question had voluntarily agreed and did return to GPE on DATE . Letters had been sent out to the remaining applicants much earlier ( see paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","From documents submitted by the Government it appears that from CARDINAL May until DATE the authorities kept the area under surveillance and kept a record of the NORP DATE activities and of all comings and goings . In the relevant records it is noted that invariably , between TIME a.m. and TIME , things were , in general , quiet , and everyone was sleeping apart from those keeping guard . During the above - mentioned period a large - scale operation was organised by ORG , \u201c ERU \u201d ( \u201c FAC ) , and a number of other authorities , including the Police Aliens and Immigration Unit , for the removal of the protesters and their transfer to the ORG headquarters for the purpose of ascertaining their status on a case - by - case basis .","In the meantime , CARDINAL DATE and DATE orders for the detention and deportation of CARDINAL failed asylum seekers were issued following background checks . These included applicants PERSON , PERSON and ORG in respect of whom the orders were issued on DATE pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON on the ground that they were \u201c prohibited immigrants \u201d within the meaning of section CARDINAL ) of that PERSON . Letters were sent by ORG of ORG to the Director of ORG and ORG , containing a short paragraph with information as to the immigration status of each person . This information included the date of rejection of the asylum application or the closure of the asylum file by ORG , the date of dismissal of the appeal by ORG , where lodged , and the date some of those concerned had been included on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop list \u201d ( a register of individuals whose entry into and exit from GPE is banned or subject to monitoring ) . The letters recommended the issuance of deportation and detention orders . The Government submitted copies of CARDINAL such letters with information concerning CARDINAL people .","NORP The letter that included information on PERSON and CARDINAL of the persons detained stated that they all appeared to lead the political group , ORG , which was active in GPE and that they organised demonstrations complaining about their rights in GPE . It was considered that if the opportunity was given to them to organise themselves they could constitute a future threat to the security of GPE .","On DATE , letters were also prepared in LANGUAGE by ORG informing those concerned of the decision to detain and deport them . These included applicants ORG .. , PERSON and PERSON The Government submitted that , at the time , the authorities did not know whether the individuals concerned by the decisions were among the protesters .","The removal operation was carried out on DATE , TIME with the participation of CARDINAL officers from ORG , the ERU , ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG . The protesters , including the applicants , were led to buses , apparently without any reaction or resistance on their part . At TIME the mini buses carrying the male protesters left . The women , children and babies followed at CARDINAL a.m. A total of CARDINAL people were located at the place of protest and were transferred to the ORG headquarters : CARDINAL men , CARDINAL women and QUANTITY children . Upon arrival , registration took place and the status of each person was examined using computers which had been specially installed DATE . The Government submitted that during this period the protesters had not been handcuffed or put in cells but had been assembled in rooms and given food and drink . It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that by TIME the identification of CARDINAL of the group had been completed and that the whole operation had ended by CARDINAL p.m. The applicants do not contest the ORG \u2019s account .","It was ascertained that CARDINAL of the adults , along with their CARDINAL children , were in the Republic unlawfully . Their asylum applications had either been dismissed or their files closed for failure to attend interviews . Those who had appealed to ORG had had their appeals dismissed . Some final decisions dated back to DATE . A number of people had also been included on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop list \u201d . PERSON orders had already been issued for CARDINAL of them ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The authorities deported CARDINAL people on DATE at TIME ( CARDINAL adults and QUANTITY children ) . CARDINAL people ( QUANTITY men and QUANTITY women ) , including the applicants , were arrested . Applicants A.T. , GPE .. and H.H were detained under the deportation and detention orders that had been issued on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The remaining applicants were charged with the criminal offence of unlawful stay in the LOC under section LOC ) of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) . The applicants , along with the other detainees , were transferred to various detention centres in GPE . GPE , GPE , GPE , and PERSON were placed in FAC ; TIME in FAC facility ; PERSON and GPE . in the GPE Police station Detention facility ; GPE . , ORG , PERSON . , PERSON and GPE in the immigration detention facilities in LOC ( Block CARDINAL ) ; PERSON in FAC facility and PERSON in ORG . All those detained who were found to be legally resident in the Republic returned to their homes . Further , on humanitarian grounds , CARDINAL women whose husbands were detained pending deportation and who had a total of CARDINAL children between them were not arrested themselves . This included M.Y \u2019s wife ( see paragraphs QUANTITY above ) .","According to the Government , the applicants and their co - detainees were informed orally that they had been arrested and detained on the basis that they had been staying in the ORG unlawfully and were thus \u201c prohibited immigrants \u201d ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) . They were also informed of their rights pursuant to ORG Detained Law DATE ( Law no . DATE ) ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) and , in particular , of their right to contact by phone , in person and in private , a lawyer of their own choice . The applicants submitted that they had not been informed of the reasons for their arrest and detention on that date .","On DATE letters were sent by ORG of ORG to the Director of ORG and ORG , recommending the issuance of deportation and detention orders . The letters contained a short paragraph in respect of each person with information as to his or her immigration status . This included the date of rejection of the asylum application or the closure of the asylum file by ORG and the date of dismissal of the appeal by ORG where lodged . Some letters also referred to the date the asylum application had been lodged and the date some of the individuals concerned had been included on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop list \u201d . The Government submitted copies of letters concerning CARDINAL people ( most of these letters referred to groups of people ) .","Deportation and detention orders were also issued in NORP on DATE in respect of the remaining CARDINAL people detained ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) , including the remaining CARDINAL applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON on the ground that they were \u201c prohibited immigrants \u201d within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(k ) of that PERSON . These were couched in identical terms . The order issued in respect of PERSON . also referred to CARDINAL ) of the PERSON . In respect of CARDINAL more person the order mentioned sections CARDINAL ) ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Subsequently , on DATE , letters were prepared in LANGUAGE by ORG informing all the detainees individually , including the remaining applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , of the decision to detain and deport them . The Government submitted CARDINAL copies of these letters , including those addressed to the applicants , the text of which was virtually identical , a standard template having been used .","The text of the letter reads as follows :","\u201c You are hereby informed that you are an illegal immigrant by virtue of paragraph ( k ) . section CARDINAL , LAW law , LAW , as amended until DATE , because you of illegal entry [ sic ]","Consequently your temporary residence permit \/ migration permit has been revoked and I have proceeded with the issue of deportation orders and detention orders dated DATE against you .","You have the right to be represented before me , or before any other ORG and express possible objections against your deportation and seek the services of an interpreter . \u201d","The only differences was that some letters referred to illegal stay rather than illegal entry and that the letters issued earlier referred to DATE as the date of issuance of the deportation and detention orders ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On the copy of the letters to the applicants provided by the ORG , there is a handwritten signed note by a police officer stating that the letters were served on the applicants on DATE but that they refused to receive and sign for them . The other letters had a similar note or stamp on them with the same date , stating that the person concerned had refused to sign for and\/or receive the letter . In a letter dated DATE the Government stated that the applicants had been served on DATE . In their subsequent observations the Government submitted , however , that this was the second attempt to serve the letters , the first attempt having been made on DATE , that is , the day of the arrest .","The applicants submitted that they had never refused to receive any kind of information in writing . They claimed that it had only been on DATE that they had been informed orally that they would be deported to GPE on DATE but that the deportation and detention orders were not served on them on that date or subsequently . They submitted that they had eventually been informed by their lawyer , following the receipt of information submitted by the Government to the ORG in the context of the application of Rule CARDINAL of ORG , that deportation and detention orders had been issued against them .","From the documents submitted by the Government , it appears that at least another CARDINAL of the detainees were to be deported on DATE ( this figure is stated in documents submitted by the Government with no further details ) .","On DATE , DATE , the applicants , along with CARDINAL other persons of NORP origin , submitted a Rule CARDINAL request in order to prevent their imminent deportation to GPE .","On DATE the President of the First Section decided to apply Rule CARDINAL , indicating to the respondent Government that the detainees should not be deported to GPE until ORG had had the opportunity to receive and examine all the documents pertaining to their claim . The parties were requested under LAW ( a ) of ORG to submit information and documents concerning the asylum applications and the deportation .","On DATE the President of the First Section reconsidered the application of Rule CARDINAL in the light of information provided by the parties . He decided to lift Rule CARDINAL in CARDINAL applications , including the present ones . He decided to maintain the interim measure in respect of CARDINAL applications ( for further details see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 MONEY ) . Rule CARDINAL was subsequently lifted with regard to CARDINAL of the applications .","Following this decision the applicants who were not covered by Rule CARDINAL were deported to GPE on various dates ( see section D below ) .","NORP The applicant was deported on DATE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from ORG in GPE ( \u201c DAD \u201d ) that the applicant had been arrested and detained in GPE prison in GPE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant was living in the NORP area of LOC .","The applicant was deported on DATE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that the applicant had been arrested and detained in GPE prison in GPE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant was still in GPE .","The applicant was deported on DATE .","NORP By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that the applicant upon his arrival in GPE had been requested by the authorities to present himself to the civil police on CARDINAL different occasions . He had then been arrested in DATE and detained in GPE on unknown grounds .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that on DATE the applicant had been sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . Following his release from prison he left GPE and went to GPE .","The applicant was deported on DATE .","NORP By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that upon his return to GPE the applicant had been arrested and detained in GPE prison in GPE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that on DATE the applicant had been sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . Following his release from prison he left GPE and went to LOC .","The applicant was deported on DATE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that upon his return to GPE the applicant had been arrested and detained in GPE prison in GPE for DATE .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant , following his release from prison , had left GPE and gone to LOC .","The applicant was deported on DATE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that the applicant had been arrested upon his arrival at GPE airport .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had been detained in GPE for DATE during which he had been interrogated and had revealed that he had sought asylum in GPE . He was then taken by the police to LOC where he was detained by the civil police for DATE . He was detained in a cell measuring QUANTITY and he was subjected to torture and ill - treatment . In particular , he was beaten on various parts of his body with wooden sticks . During his detention he was interrogated in relation to his affiliation to political parties . Subsequently he was transferred to FAC where he was detained for DATE and DATE . After that he was brought before a court in GPE without having been informed of the charges brought against him . He was questioned as to his affiliation to political parties . He was then taken back to LOC . He was subsequently transferred to ORG in his hometown where he was detained for TIME and DATE he was taken to court again . He was released after his family bribed officials and he immediately went into hiding . He hid in friends\u2019 and relatives houses and subsequently in a bakery in GPE , until he could find a way to leave from GPE again . While in GPE , his cousin informed him that he had received a letter requesting the applicant to present himself at FAC . He was told by members of his family that he was still wanted from the military and civil police . After a failed attempt to leave GPE he managed to leave through LOC . He returned to GPE after travelling from GPE and was in the process of submitting a new asylum application . The applicant stated that he was still wanted by the military police in GPE and that his family was still trying to find out the reason why he was a wanted person .","NORP The applicant was deported on DATE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had been arrested and detained upon his arrival in GPE and that on DATE he had been sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . Following his release , the applicant left GPE and went to GPE .","The applicant was deported on DATE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that the applicant upon his arrival in GPE had his passport retained by the authorities and had been asked to show up for checks at the civil police on different occasions . His passport was eventually returned to him .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant was still in GPE .","NORP By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had agreed to return voluntarily to GPE on DATE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant was still in GPE .","NORP The applicant was deported on DATE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had been arrested DATE after he returned to GPE and was still detained in GPE prison . He had been accused of acting against ORG while he was in GPE and had been sentenced to imprisonment for DATE and DATE . She stated in the letter that it was expected that he would be released soon .","The applicant was deported on DATE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from the DAD that when the applicant , upon his arrival in GPE , had his passport retained by the authorities and was asked to present himself to the political police on different occasions . After bribing the authorities MONEY ( ORG ) he was given back his passport . They authorities put a written warning in his passport that he was forbidden to travel to GPE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant was still in GPE .","The applicant was deported on DATE .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had to serve compulsory military service once he returned to GPE . He fled , however , to LOC , before completing it .","The applicant returned to GPE voluntarily on DATE . No information has been given as to whether the applicant \u2019s wife and child were eventually deported with him as planned by the authorities .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that according to information she had received from members of the NORP community in GPE the applicant was living in GPE in GPE .","NORP The applicant was deported on DATE . No information has been given as to whether the applicant \u2019s wife and child were also deported .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that she had received information from DAD that the applicant upon his arrival in GPE had been arrested and detained in GPE prison in GPE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had been detained for DATE , during which he had been ill - treated . After his release he remained in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":["5","P4"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","P4-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167484","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ZHULIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In TIME of CARDINAL DATE , at TIME , the police arrested the applicant . In TIME he was interviewed and later taken to the hospital because he broke the window and injured himself . At TIME the arrest record was drawn up ; it gave TIME as the time of the applicant \u2019s arrest .","On DATE the Lukoyanovskiy ORG in LOC remanded the applicant in custody for an initial twomonth period .","On DATE ORG held a hearing to decide , among other matters , on an extension of the applicant \u2019s detention . The applicant asked for release ; counsel for the applicant pointed out that , since the authorised detention period had ended on DATE , his detention in the following DATE had been unlawful . ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention , finding that the \u201c preventive measure [ should ] remain unchanged \u201d .","In the statement of appeal against ORG extension order , the applicant complained that the custodial measure which had already expired could not \u201c remain unchanged \u201d . The appeal was forwarded to ORG only on DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal in a summary fashion , without addressing the applicant \u2019s arguments .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , without informing the applicant or his representative about the hearing or giving any reasons for its decision . The applicant filed an appeal on DATE which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","By judgment of DATE , as upheld on appeal on DATE , the applicant was found guilty and given a custodial sentence ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147480","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"IP-OMEKOM INVALIDSKO PODJETJE D.O.O. v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , ORG invalidsko podjetje d.o.o . , is a limited company , whose registered office is in PERSON ( \u201c the applicant company \u201d ) . It was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160711","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MACOVEI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158159","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF R.E. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Phillips of Worth Matravers","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","In DATE a solicitor in GPE was arrested and charged with a number of offences , including inciting paramilitaries to murder and perverting the course of justice . The case arose out of the covert recording of his consultations with clients at GPE police station . As a direct consequence of the criminal proceedings , solicitors in GPE became aware that their private consultations with detainees in police stations and prisons could be the subject of covert surveillance . Thereafter , solicitors attending detainees in police stations and prisons began to seek assurances from the police that their consultations would not be the subject of such surveillance .","When the police refused to give assurances , judicial review proceedings were initiated on the basis that there had been a breach of the common law right to legal and professional privilege , the statutory right to a private consultation with a lawyer , and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .","In the case of ORG [ DATE ] ORG CARDINALA the Divisional Court of ORG in GPE found that , despite the express statutory right to private consultations , the covert surveillance of lawyer - client consultations was permitted by ORG ( \u201c RIPA \u201d ) . However , ORG provided for CARDINAL principal surveillance schemes : intrusive surveillance and directed surveillance . At the time of the hearing , covert surveillance of legal consultations was being treated as directed surveillance , which was the least restrictive of the CARDINAL schemes . ORG held that the fundamental right of a detained person to consult a legal adviser privately necessitated an enhanced authorisation scheme and that protections afforded by the directed as opposed to the intrusive surveillance scheme offered insufficient protection . If the surveillance of consultations between legal advisers and clients in police custody was to be lawful for the purposes of LAW , the safeguards for the carrying out of intrusive surveillance had to apply .","The applicants in these judicial review proceedings appealed against the court \u2019s ruling that the surveillance was permitted by the domestic legislation . The appeal went to ORG , where it was referred to as Re McE ( GPE ) [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL . ORG agreed with ORG that although the provisions of ORG could override , inter alia , legal professional privilege , the higher level of authority necessary for an intrusive surveillance warrant was required rather than the directed surveillance warrants that had , until then , been issued .","As ORG ( \u201c PSNI \u201d ) had not appealed against ORG ruling that the use of the directed surveillance scheme had breached LAW , ORG criticised the Secretary of ORG for not having taken any steps to ensure that covert surveillance of legal consultations was not treated as directed surveillance .","Following the decision of ORG in Re McE the Regulation of Investigatory Powers ( Extension of Authorisation Provisions : Legal Consultations ) Order DATE ( \u201c the DATE Order \u201d ) was adopted and on DATE a revised LAW ( \u201c the Revised Code \u201d ) came into effect . Pursuant to the DATE Order , directed surveillance of consultations between a detainee and his or her professional legal adviser , representative or medical practitioner in connection with legal proceedings was to be treated , for the purposes of RIPA , as intrusive surveillance .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in connection with the murder of a Police Constable believed to have been killed by dissident NORP .","When first arrested the applicant was assessed by ORG as a \u201c vulnerable person \u201d within the meaning of LAW . Pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of that Code of Practice , he could not be interviewed , save in exceptional circumstances , in the absence of an \u201c appropriate adult \u201d . In the case of a person who was mentally vulnerable , an appropriate adult could be a relative or guardian , or a person experienced in dealing with mentally disordered or mentally vulnerable people . However , prior to being seen by either a solicitor or an appropriate adult , the applicant asked to speak to the officers in charge of the investigation \u201c off the record \u201d . He was interviewed by police officers in the absence of a solicitor or an appropriate adult and during the course of that interview he gave information which led to the recovery of the gun used in the Constable \u2019s murder .","The applicant was detained in custody for DATE . During this time he was twice seen by a Consultant Psychiatrist and on each occasion he was assessed as being vulnerable and requiring the presence of an appropriate adult . Also during this time his solicitor obtained an assurance from the ORG that his consultations with the applicant would not be subject to covert surveillance .","On DATE the applicant was charged with withholding information about the ORG \u2019s murder .","Following the charge the applicant was detained in custody on the ground that if released he would be at risk of harm from dissident NORP .","The applicant was released on bail on DATE . He was arrested and questioned on a further occasion in DATE but was subsequently released without charge .","On DATE the applicant was arrested for a third time in connection with the Constable \u2019s murder . Following his arrest his solicitor again sought an assurance from the ORG that his consultations would not be subjected to covert surveillance . The ORG informed him that","\u201c [ they could ] neither confirm nor deny whether any form of covert surveillance has been conducted in any instance . Covert surveillance is regulated by ORG , related statutory instruments and the Revised [ Covert Surveillance ] Code of Practice \u201d .","The applicant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the ORG \u2019s refusal to give an undertaking that his consultations with his solicitor would not be subjected to covert surveillance . In particular , he alleged that the grounds upon which the authorisation of such surveillance would be appropriate were not sufficiently clearly defined and that the guidance concerning the securing and destruction of legally privileged confidential information was not sufficiently clear or precise .","On DATE he was granted permission to apply for judicial review . In granting permission , the court directed that any subsequent consultations with his solicitor and his medical adviser should not be subject to covert surveillance .","On DATE the applicant had his first consultation with a Consultant Psychiatrist .","The applicant was released without charge on CARDINAL DATE .","The charge of withholding evidence appears to have concluded without trial .","The hearing of the judicial review application took place before a ORG of ORG in GPE on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim .","In dismissing the claim , the court relied on PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , which found that the regime under Part I of RIPA was compatible with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . Although it noted that PERSON was concerned only with Part I of RIPA , the court considered that the reasoning expressed was \u201c very relevant in view of the parallels between Part I and Part II of the surveillance legal regimes \u201d .","The court found , in particular , that reading ORG , the DATE Order and LAW together it was clear that a surveillance operation could only properly be justified if it was a truly proportionate response to a real risk posed by the individual who was the subject of the surveillance , and if the potential usefulness of the surveillance was demonstrably shown . As ORG had indicated in PERSON , the requirement of foreseeability did not require an exhaustive definition of all conduct that might justify a decision on , for example , national security grounds , and similar reasoning applied in the present case . Consequently , the court held that the wording in LAW was sufficiently clear .","With regard to the applicant \u2019s second allegation , the court accepted that the statutory provisions under Part I of RIPA , which had been considered by ORG in PERSON , were more detailed , prescriptive and precise than those in Part II . However , taking together the DATE Order , LAW and ORG , the arrangements in place for the use , retention and destruction of retained material in the context of legal consultations was compliant with the LAW persons in custody . Moreover , as LAW made it clear that material subject to legal professional privilege was not admissible in court and should be safeguarded by the taking of steps to ensure that it did not prejudice any criminal or civil proceedings , a breach of LAW would not occur . While there was a risk of a potential \u201c chill factor \u201d ( insofar as clients might be less than frank with their solicitors if they were concerned that they were under covert surveillance ) , the court considered that the revised LAW was sufficiently detailed and precise to reassure those in custody that , save in exceptional circumstances , their consultations with lawyers would be in private .","Finally , the court observed that the special considerations which applied to consultations with lawyers or doctors did not apply in the case of meetings with an appropriate adult . It therefore followed that surveillance of such meetings could be authorised as directed surveillance rather than intrusive surveillance .","On DATE the ORG heard an application for leave to appeal to ORG . Leave to appeal was refused although the court certified CARDINAL questions of law of general public importance . These were as follows :","\u201c a. Do the current arrangements for authorisation of covert surveillance of consultations between a detained person and ( i ) his \/ her solicitor ( ii ) his \/ her medical practitioner and\/or ( iii ) an appropriate adult violate LAW in as much as they permit the covert surveillance of legally privileged consultations and the retention of material deriving from legally privileged consultations ?","b. Do the current arrangements for authorisation of covert surveillance of consultations between a detained person and ( i ) his \/ her solicitor ( ii ) his \/ her medical practitioner and\/or ( iii ) an appropriate adult violate LAW as a result of:-","( i ) a lack of precision and clarity in the guidance governing the authorisation of such surveillance ; and\/or","( ii ) inadequate guidance as to how and when legally privileged material obtained from such surveillance should be handled , stored , used and destroyed .","c. Is ORG Service Procedure \u201c in accordance with the law \u201d within the meaning of LAW ?","d. Do the current arrangements for authorisation of covert surveillance of consultations between a detained person and an appropriate adult violate LAW because such surveillance can be authorised as directed rather than intrusive surveillance ? \u201d","An application for permission to appeal to ORG was refused by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170031","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF I.U. v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , GPE . He arrived in GPE on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was charged in absentia with participation in the extremist religious movement PERSON and activities threatening the constitutional order . On DATE the authorities ordered his pre - trial detention and issued an international search and arrest warrant bearing his name .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE . On DATE the Cheremushkinskiy ORG of GPE ordered and subsequently prolonged his detention .","On DATE the applicant was further charged with organising a local branch of ORG in CARDINAL of the regions of GPE .","On DATE the NORP prosecution authorities requested the applicant \u2019s extradition on the above charges . The request included assurances regarding the proper treatment of the applicant , which were formulated in standard terms .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s extradition in respect of certain charges was authorised by ORG .","The applicant challenged this decision in the courts , arguing that he belonged to a vulnerable group and therefore faced a real risk of treatment contrary to LAW at the hands of the NORP authorities .","On DATE his appeals were dismissed by a final decision of ORG of GPE . Without reference to any relevant evidentiary material , ORG considered that the applicant \u2019s claims were hypothetical and lacked specific indications regarding the level of risk , and observed that the situation in a requesting state might change over time . It also found that the assurances of the NORP authorities were satisfactory .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for refugee status , referring to persecution in GPE on religious grounds .","On DATE his request was refused by a final administrative decision of the migration authorities . The applicant challenged this decision in the courts , referring inter alia to the risk of illtreatment .","On DATE his appeals were dismissed by a decision of ORG .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s expulsion for violating the migration rules . The applicant \u2019s appeal , which referred to the risk of ill - treatment , amongst other factors , was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied for temporary asylum . No information concerning the outcome of these proceedings was supplied by the parties ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168380","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160ILOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant filed a claim with the former ORG in GPE for payment of certain benefits .","On DATE ORG which took over the jurisdiction of ORG in GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s claim . The applicant received the said judgment on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145987","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"JEGOROVS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr Jevg\u0113\u0146ijs Jegorovs , is a \u201c permanently resident noncitizen \u201d of GPE , who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent at the time , PERSON , and subsequently by PERSON .","The relevant facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to hospital with severe head injuries . Information provided by ORG ( ORG ) on DATE stated that he \u201c had undergone an urgent operation \u2013 skull trephination \u201d .","NORP The hospital records stated that on DATE the applicant \u201c had fled \u201d from the hospital . According to information provided by ORG on DATE , he had left the hospital \u201c without completing the treatment , which [ included ] possible plastic surgery on his skull , and without receiving further recommendations for treatment ... \u201d . It appears that after having left the hospital the applicant did not request medical assistance .","On DATE a doctor visited the applicant at home in connection with cramps . The applicant refused to go to a hospital .","According to the applicant , he started to have epileptic seizures DATE after the surgery in DATE . He learnt from a conversation with a doctor who had operated on him that he would need to pay for the plastic surgery and he could not afford it . On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he had enquired with the ORG authorities whether he could donate CARDINAL of his kidneys in exchange for payment , in order to have the plastic surgery .","On DATE the applicant was detained in LOC .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from FAC to FAC .","On DATE Daugavpils Prison was merged with FAC . The newly established prison was renamed FAC .","The applicant was held in the NORP wing of FAC .","NORP The applicant submitted that he had been placed in the following prison cells :","- cell no . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , between DATE and DATE ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , DATE ( investigation cell ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , DATE ( quarantine cell ) ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , between CARDINAL and DATE ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ;","- cell no . CARDINAL , DATE and an unspecified date .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG to serve the remainder of his sentence .","On DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination in FAC . The diagnosis read as follows :","\u201c Consequences following a head trauma with skull trephination in DATE . Symptomatic epilepsy ( ? ) Post - traumatic encephalopathy . Alcohol and heroine dependency since DATE . \u201d","According to information from ORG dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on DATE the applicant had stated that he was having seizures in which he lost consciousness . A prison psychiatrist then recommended that a warden ( uzraugs ) be assigned to the applicant and that he be supervised by medical staff .","On DATE the following entry was made in the applicant \u2019s medical file : \u201c Condition after a paroxysmal seizure with loss of consciousness ( st\u0101voklis p\u0113c paroksizm\u0101las sama\u0146as zuduma l\u0113kmes ) \u201d . It was noted that TIME the applicant had had a seizure with loss of consciousness and cramps , but without biting of the tongue .","In that connection , the applicant was prescribed anti - epileptic medication . He was hospitalised from DATE for monitoring and treatment , and received preventive treatment ( NORP ) . No seizures were observed .","On DATE the applicant requested that ORG ( \u201c the MADEKKI \u201d ) refer him to a hospital for treatment . On DATE the PERSON responded that the request was outside its competence and advised the applicant to consult the prison medical staff .","NORP In DATE the applicant requested a disability assessment , which he had not had prior to his detention .","NORP In DATE the applicant underwent a full medical examination , including a pulmonary X - ray .","On DATE an electro - encephalogram revealed \u201c slightly increased epileptiform activity ( nedaudz izteikta epileptiforma aktivit\u0101te ) \u201d . The applicant was administered medication for the treatment of epilepsy and for the improvement of the brain function , and tranquilisers .","On DATE the applicant was certified category CARDINAL disabled ( moderate disability ) due to the consequences of the head injuries in DATE and post - traumatic encephalopathy .","NORP In DATE the applicant had CARDINAL out - patient medical examinations , CARDINAL of which related to headaches . In DATE he had CARDINAL out - patient examinations , CARDINAL of which concerned headaches .","NORP The applicant did not have a pulmonary X - ray examination in DATE .","On DATE the applicant underwent a pulmonary X - ray examination .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the prison hospital in GPE with suspected tuberculosis .","At the hospital the following diagnosis was made :","\u201c Infiltrative tuberculosis pneumonia [ of ] the left lung ... Consequences following a serious head trauma with skull trephination in DATE . Symptomatic epilepsy . Prolonged depressive reaction . Alcohol and heroine dependency . Factors contributing to illness \u2013 smoking as of DATE [ and ] use of alcohol and drugs . \u201d","A neurologist at the prison hospital in ORG concluded that the applicant had not had an epileptic seizure for a considerable period of time and epileptiform activity had not been observed . Therefore , the applicant was prescribed an anti - epileptic drug ( NORP ) for DATE . The doctor noted that in CARDINAL months\u2019 time the applicant should undergo an electrocardiogram and a decision would be made about stopping the anticonvulsant medication .","The applicant remained in hospital until DATE .","On DATE the applicant was transported back to Daugavgr\u012bva Prison .","In DATE the applicant had CARDINAL out - patient medical examinations , CARDINAL of which concerned headaches .","The information from ORG dated DATE stated that the applicant did not appear to have had any epileptic seizures while in detention , but that he had received \u201c throughout his detention antiepileptic medication ( NORP , carbamazepine ) ... in order to prevent possible epileptic seizures ... \u201d . It was also noted that while in detention he had periodically refused to take the medication , which fact had been attested by entries in his medical file .","With respect to tuberculosis , information from ORG dated DATE stated that in DATE the applicant had been provided with full treatment . He had been cured and discharged in a satisfactory state of health .","According to the applicant , he experienced epileptic seizures and required plastic surgery on his skull .","NORP In response to the Government \u2019s additional observations , the applicant submitted the decision establishing his disability for the period from DATE to DATE . That decision stated that the applicant had functional limitations related to traumatic epileptic seizures . It was based on an expert report of DATE . The applicant did not furnish a similar report indicating that he had experienced epileptic seizures while in FAC up until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG and the prosecution about the conditions in Daugavpils Prison . He described the conditions of detention and specified the state of affairs in cell no . CARDINAL . The description he gave appeared to be broadly the same as the one he submitted before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He indicated , inter alia , that the conditions were in breach of LAW and requested that his complaint be considered in substance .","The prosecution forwarded the submission to ORG .","In connection with the applicant \u2019s complaints , on DATE Daugavpils Prison informed ORG that the applicant had been held in cell no . CARDINAL , which complied with article CARDINAL of LAW but was in need of \u201c cosmetic repair \u201d .","ORG response no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL-J\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL dated DATE stated that in the course of its inquiry it had been established that cell no . CARDINAL in FAC , in which \u201c [ the applicant ] had stayed , [ did ] not , indeed , comply with the ... statutory requirements and cosmetic repair of the cell [ was needed ] ... \u201d .","NORP The letter also stated that following the applicant \u2019s submission of DATE to ORG , the matters raised by him had been explained to him and that he had no claims against Daugavpils Prison . ORG thus deemed that it had examined the applicant \u2019s complaints of CARDINAL DATE .","According to the applicant , he withdrew his complaints under pressure from the ORG administration .","It appears that in DATE and DATE the applicant wrote to ORG , the prosecution and ORG in connection with his having contracted tuberculosis .","The applicant claimed that , whereas he was supposed to have been X - rayed DATE , he had not been X - rayed at all in DATE and had had to wait DATE , until DATE , for an X - ray . Referring to document no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL-J\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he pointed out that the prison governor had agreed that the cells were damp and had told him that there were no funds for repair work . He requested that a comment be made on the fact that he had fallen ill with tuberculosis . The relevant documents would then be attached to his complaint and sent to the ORG .","In its reply of CARDINAL DATE ORG indicated that the applicant had been suspected of having contracted tuberculosis on DATE , after the annual pulmonary X - ray , as required by paragraph CARDINAL of Cabinet of Ministers Regulation no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) . The applicant had then been referred to the prison hospital .","The ORG stressed that the applicant had had no clinical indications of tuberculosis requiring an unplanned X - ray examination .","The ORG also stated that it had sent to ORG the part of the applicant \u2019s request concerning unsatisfactory living conditions in FAC .","The ORG did not indicate in its letter that the responses given could be appealed against .","In DATE ORG received the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL complaints . CARDINAL of them had been forwarded by ORG and another by the prosecution .","DATE . On DATE ORG gave the applicant identical responses to all CARDINAL complaints , to the effect that they had not been made in the ORG language . ORG referred to section ORG ) of LAW ( NORP valodas likums ) and indicated as follows :","\u201c Documents may be submitted in a foreign language in exceptional situations , where immediate action by the State operational services or other competent institutions is required in order to protect a person \u2019s rights and property interests , which may be violated as a result of unforeseen , exceptional circumstances or an offence committed or planned . \u201d","ORG found that the circumstances set out in the applicant \u2019s complaints did not amount to exceptional circumstances in which a document in another language could be considered . It refused , therefore , to consider the applicant \u2019s complaints .","ORG indicated that each of the CARDINAL refusals could be appealed against to ORG .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that as of DATE he had been complaining to the prison medical unit of weight loss . Therefore he had difficulty understanding ORG response of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG received a request from the applicant to expedite the surgery recommended on his skull because he had been suffering from headaches and epileptic seizures .","DATE the PERSON carried out an inquiry .","On DATE the PERSON declared that it had found no violations in the applicant \u2019s treatment in Daugavpils Prison . It stated that no one had seen the applicant \u2019s epileptic seizures and that no related injuries had been observed . The applicant had not submitted any documents on the recommended surgery and his medical file contained no entries about it .","The PERSON decided to terminate the administrative violation proceedings .","NORP That decision was subject to appeal to the head of the MADEKKI .","On DATE the ORG received a request from the applicant concerning the refusal to carry out a head tomography free of charge at the prison hospital .","DATE ORG ( former MADEKKI ) carried out an inquiry .","On DATE ORG found no violations in the applicant \u2019s treatment DATE and DATE . It noted that he had complained of headaches and dizziness , and had claimed to have had epileptic seizures , which no one had ever seen . Furthermore , on DATE he had refused to take his medication .","It decided to terminate the administrative violation proceedings .","That decision was subject to appeal to the head of ORG .","On DATE ORG received a complaint from the applicant that the head of the Daugavpils Prison medical unit had not provided in the notes on the applicant \u2019s health ( vesel\u012bbas izzi\u0146as ) the dates of his epileptic seizures .","On DATE ORG responded that it had never been recorded in the applicant \u2019s medical file that he had been observed in a state of unconsciousness , suffering from cramps or the consequences of seizures \u2013 a bitten tongue or signs of injuries , or in a state of confusion . Seizures with loss of consciousness had been recorded on DATE , when a doctor had visited the applicant at home , and on DATE , when the applicant had been examined in FAC . However , those entries had been based on information given by the applicant himself . The ORG further provided information as outlined above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE and DATE ORG received requests from the applicant that plastic surgery be carried out on his skull because during epileptic seizures he could sustain a brain injury and die .","DATE and DATE ORG carried out an inquiry .","On DATE ORG established that the applicant had regularly been administered NORP and had received treatment with respect to his complaints of dizziness . The ORG concluded that the applicant was continuing to claim that he was having epileptic seizures which no one had ever observed . The ORG found no violations in the applicant \u2019s treatment in FAC .","It decided to terminate the administrative violation proceedings .","DATE . That decision was subject to appeal to the head of ORG .","Following the ORG \u2019s inquiry , on DATE the applicant stated that he had appealed against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . The appeal had been sent from the prison on DATE , but it had not been received by ORG .","In his application to the ORG the applicant stated that he could have applied to the administrative courts , but that submissions needed to be made in the ORG language , which he barely knew . No translation service was provided for detainees , and in any case he could not have afforded such a service .","Article CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG izpildes kodekss ) reads as follows :","\u201c Convicted persons ... shall be ensured living conditions that are in conformity with epidemiological safety and hygiene standards . The standard living space in dormitorytype prison premises for CARDINAL convicted person may be CARDINAL CARDINAL.CARDINAL square metres for men ... but in single - occupancy cells \u2013 QUANTITY .","Convicted persons shall be allotted an individual sleeping place ( gu\u013camvieta ) and shall be provided with bedding items ( gultas piederumi ) . Convicted persons shall be provided with underwear ( ve\u013ca ) corresponding to DATE .","...","Convicted persons shall receive nutrition that ensures the normal functioning of the body . Nutritional norms may vary in view of the nature of work performed by a convicted person .","... \u201d","Paragraph CARDINAL of Cabinet of Ministers Regulation no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , effective from DATE , provides that penal institutions must ensure that hygiene standards of convicted persons are complied with . Under paragraph CARDINAL of the Regulation , a convicted person must take a sauna or a shower , and change underwear and bed linen , at least once DATE .","ORG no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , effective DATE and DATE , governed the medical care of convicts in penal institutions . Its relevant provisions were cited in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . Furthermore , under paragraph CARDINAL of the Regulation a preventive examination of a convicted person had to be carried out once a year . The types of preventive examination were determined every year by the head of ORG .","The functions under the domestic law of the PERSON and its successor , ORG , have been set out in the case of ORG v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL et seq . , CARDINAL DATE ) . ORG no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , in force as of DATE , stipulates the functions of ORG . Its relevant provisions read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Decisions and action of a public authority ( faktisk\u0101 r\u012bc\u012bba ) of the [ ORG officials may be appealed against ... to the head of the ORG . A decision of the head of the ORG may be appealed against to a court .","Decisions and action of a public authority ... of the head of the [ ORG ... may be appealed against to ORG . A decision of ORG may be appealed against to a court . \u201d","Paragraph CARDINAL of Cabinet of Ministers Regulation no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , effective from DATE , reads as follows :","\u201c Administrative acts ( administrat\u012bvie akti ) issued by the head of the [ Prisons ] Administration and his or her action of a public authority may be disputed by applying to ORG . A decision of ORG may be appealed against to a court . \u201d","DATE . The Administrative Procedure Law ( Administrat\u012bv\u0101 procesa likums ) took effect on DATE . It provides , among other things , for the right to challenge administrative acts and actions of public authorities before the administrative courts ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","Section CARDINAL of LAW , which was passed on DATE and entered into force on DATE , reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) All institutions , organisations and establishments ( companies ) shall ensure acceptance and examination of documents drawn up in the ORG language .","( CARDINAL ) ORG and local government institutions , courts and institutions belonging to the judicial system , and ORG or local government establishments ( companies ) shall accept ... and examine only documents in the ORG language , except in cases as prescribed in subsection ( CARDINAL ) ... The provisions of this section do not apply to submissions of persons to the police and medical institutions , rescue services and other institutions in cases of urgent calls for medical assistance , the commission of crimes or other violations of the law , or calls for emergency assistance in cases of fire , accident or other emergencies .","( CARDINAL ) Documents ... in a foreign language shall be accepted if attached thereto is a translation into the ORG language , certified in accordance with the procedures prescribed by ORG , or notarised . Documents issued on the territory of GPE by DATE this PERSON comes into force do not require translation into the ORG language .","... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147022","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GORESKI AND OTHERS v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The second and third applicants live in NORP .","On DATE the applicants initiated restitution proceedings . On DATE they lodged a \u201c silence of administration \u201d appeal . After CARDINAL remittal , on DATE ORG dismissed their claim to have the property restored into their possession and awarded them compensation instead . The type of compensation ( \u0432\u0438\u0434\u043e\u0442 \u043d\u0430 \u043d\u0430\u0434\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0441\u0442\u043e\u043a\u043e\u0442 ) was to be decided with a separate decision ( \u0434\u043e\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u043d\u043e \u0440\u0435\u0448\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) . On DATE ORG finally upheld the restitution order . On DATE the applicants were requested to specify the type of compensation , which on DATE they refused to do until , according to them , the ORG would decide their case ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161759","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ESP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00d3MEZ OLMEDA v. SPAIN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE following a trial , the PERSON criminal judge ( juez de lo penal ) no . CARDINAL sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment for serious disobedience to public authority ( desobediencia grave a la autoridad ) . The applicant was acquitted of other charges against him , namely false accusation of a crime ( calumnias ) , defamation ( injurias ) and concealment ( encubrimiento ) .","The judge established that the applicant was the webmaster of an Internet forum on which defamatory messages against the complainants in the proceedings had been published , and that he had deliberately disregarded the request made to him by a police officer within the framework of the criminal investigation not to alter the messages in question . In fact , the applicant had proceeded to have the forum webpage removed altogether , despite the police officer \u2019s request to leave it unchanged . As regards the charges for defamation and false accusation of a crime , the judge held that there were reasonable doubts as to whether the applicant had been aware of the messages in question before his police interview and that he should therefore be acquitted in that regard . It was also alleged that he had protected the individuals who had made the defamatory statements ; however , the judge considered that he could not be found guilty of concealment as it had not been proved that he had been aware at the time of his police interview that it had been possible for him to have access to LAW ( IP ) numbers of the participants on the forum .","Both the prosecution and defence appealed against the judgment before the C\u00e1ceres Audiencia Provincial . The applicant did not request a hearing , nor did the ORG order one . Instead , the court watched a video - recording of the trial .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction for serious disobedience to public authority and , unlike the first - instance judge , found him guilty of continuous and false accusation of a crime ( delito continuado de calumnias ) . His punishment was a DATE fine of QUANTITY ( ORG ) for a period of DATE . He was also required to pay damages . In finding the applicant guilty , the appellate court stated that it had relied on the facts established by the first - instance judge and on the testimony given by the complainants , the applicant and the witnesses in the earlier trial . The court stated :","\u201c Fourth . The facts declared proved in the first - instance judgment constitute continuous and false accusation of a crime and defamation regulated and punished by LAW and seq . of LAW in relation to LAW of the same LAW for which the defendant PERSON ORG should be declared guilty as a principal pursuant to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code with the mitigating factor of undue delays pursuant to section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the Code .","...","It is undisputed that documentary evidence does not require judicial immediacy for its assessment because it is written down and can be read and interpreted in the \u2019 brief and proved in the hearing , both with respect to what was written on the forum and the people against whom those expressions were directed . Those expressions imputed the commission of crimes to the complainants ( sexual assault , sexual slavery of a person ) and were detrimental to their fame and reputation to the extent that it is obvious that the imputations were serious in themselves and related to public understanding , which is an open - ended concept of which interpretation depends on the particular facts of the case . It is worth remembering that we are speaking here of a small town where everybody knows each other , where everybody runs into each other , where everybody attends the same places , where everyday life is routine and there is little room for novelties , where anything breaking the monotony is something which attracts public attention , where the genealogy of every inhabitant is known to the rest . For these reasons we find the applicant guilty of the crime of continuous and false accusation of a crime ... which he had been acquitted of at first instance .","The applicant states that he was the administrator of the forum ; that he did not log onto it very often ; that he lacked computer skills and that he had removed some phrases and messages which in his view might be considered insulting for the purposes of the case now before us . We disagree with the accused when he states that he was unaware of what was written on the forum , the argument on which the first - instance judge relied to acquit him of false accusation of a crime and defamation . And we disagree for the following CARDINAL reasons . Firstly , because it was part of his duties as the administrator of the forum to be aware of what was written on it , to the extent that he was its \u2018 ORG , so to speak , on account of the fact that he had created it ; and secondly , because it is untrue that he was unaware of what was written on it , since he had removed some phrases and messages which were insulting to the complainants , thus proving that he had read what was written on the forum in question and demonstrating that he had regarded what was written there as insulting to a specific individual or individuals , which led him to the decision to remove what he regarded as defamatory or insulting . \u201d","The applicant applied to ORG to have the previous proceedings before it declared void . His application was dismissed on DATE on the grounds that no legal provision had been infringed and none of his rights had been breached in those proceedings .","The applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG . He cited LAW ( right to a fair hearing ) , complaining that FAC had convicted him on appeal without giving him the opportunity to plead his case in open court .","By a decision served on CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s amparo appeal inadmissible as it had no special constitutional significance ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183559","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF DZHANARALIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention , which were incompatible with their disabilities , and of the lack of an effective remedy in that regard . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170061","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ARVANITIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["The applicants were placed in GPE police station in GPE , either in pre - trial detention or serving prison sentences . Applicants nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were detained in cell no . CARDINAL , applicants nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were detained in cell no . CARDINAL and applicants nos . CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL were detained in cell no . CARDINAL . At the time they submitted their application they had been detained for periods ranging from DATE .","The first CARDINAL applicants were transferred to ORG on the following dates : applicant no . CARDINAL was transferred on DATE , applicant no . CARDINAL was transferred on DATE , applicant no . CARDINAL was transferred on DATE , applicant no . CARDINAL was transferred on DATE and applicant no . CARDINAL was transferred on DATE . The parties disputed the date on which applicant no . CARDINAL was transferred : according to the Government \u2019s submissions , he was transferred on DATE , whereas the applicant argued that he was transferred on DATE . According to the material in the ORG \u2019s possession , applicant no . CARDINAL was still being detained in GPE police station on DATE .","The applicants alleged that NORP police station had been entirely inappropriate for long periods of detention , as in their cases . It had consisted of CARDINAL cells on the first floor and CARDINAL sanitary facilities situated outside the cells . Cells nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL had measured QUANTITY and had accommodated CARDINAL detainees each , while cell no . CARDINAL had measured QUANTITY and had accommodated CARDINAL detainees . The cells had been equipped with beds but had no blankets . The applicants further stressed that the cells had been filthy and that there had been inadequate access to natural light . Cell no . CARDINAL , in particular , had not had a window .","Detainees had been confined to their cells and had not been allowed to spend time outside , which had affected their psychological health . They had had to ask permission from the guards to use the restroom . Recreational activities had not been offered and cells had not been equipped with televisions .","Healthy detainees had been held together with drug users or sick detainees , resulting in their exposure to contagious diseases . The police station had not had the necessary means to transfer detainees to a hospital in case of emergency .","Instead of food , detainees had been offered CARDINAL per day , which had not sufficed to cover their DATE dietary needs , either in terms of quantity or quality .","On DATE the applicants had lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor , complaining of the conditions of their detention but had not received a reply .","The Government submitted that NORP police station had been housed in a building constructed in DATE on the basis of quality specifications necessary to ensure proper conditions of detention . It had consisted of CARDINAL cells : cell no . CARDINAL had measured QUANTITY and had CARDINAL built - in beds , cell no . CARDINAL had measured QUANTITY with CARDINAL built - in beds and cell no . CARDINAL had measured QUANTITY with CARDINAL beds . The capacity of the police station had never been exceeded .","The Government affirmed that there had been CARDINAL sanitary facilities with hot water outside the cells . They submitted CARDINAL contracts with cleaning companies for the building for the periods in question : CARDINAL from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and the other from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The contracts included cleaning the detention areas and the sanitary facilities DATE and disinfecting the detention areas once DATE .","When the number of detainees had allowed it , drug addicts had been detained separately from the rest of the detainees . In addition , the staff at GPE police station had made every possible effort to accommodate GPE needs by painting the facilities often , cleaning or replacing the bedding and by resolving any problem in general that might have risen .","Regarding recreational activities , the Government stressed that detainees had had unlimited access to telephone cards and that it had been standard practice for them to receive newspapers and magazines .","The Government confirmed that the applicants had not been provided with meals but had received CARDINAL a day to order food from restaurants , given that police stations did not have any cooking facilities .","An on - call doctor had been available on a CARDINAL-hour basis in ORG ( PERSON ) . In urgent cases , inmates had been transferred to local hospitals . Additionally , police staff had been responsible for administering prescribed medications to detainees , as ordered by a doctor .","The Government pointed out that the applicants had not referred to or adduced any evidence that they had needed medical treatment which they had not received . On the contrary , according to the police station \u2019s records , applicants nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE had been taken to local hospitals on various occasions ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156549","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"O.G. v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . The applicant was granted permission by the President of the Section to represent himself in the proceedings before the ORG .","NORP At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant took a trolleybus without purchasing a ticket ; he attempted to purchase CARDINAL only after ticket inspectors had entered the trolleybus . When they ordered him to pay a fine , he stamped on CARDINAL of the ticket inspector \u2019s feet and kicked her legs , before grabbing both inspectors by their necks . When the driver stopped the trolleybus and approached the applicant , the latter started hitting him with his umbrella . At that point the police arrived and took the applicant to the police station , where he arrived at TIME","At the police station the applicant continued behaving aggressively : he tried to attack police officers , uttered threats and said that he had robbed the President of GPE . The police sought the assistance of ORG , which took the applicant to GPE psychiatric hospital ( VSIA\u201cR\u012bgas psihiatrijas un narkolo\u0123ijas centrs \u201d ) at TIME","At TIME the applicant was examined and PERSON noted that he was in a state of psychomotor agitation and was \u201c not accessible for productive contact \u201d . He was administered appropriate medical treatment .","At TIME DATE , DATE , the applicant and his medical file were examined by a panel of CARDINAL doctors in order to establish whether there were grounds to prescribe involuntary psychiatric treatment . None of the doctors had been involved in assessing the applicant \u2019s state of health on DATE .","The applicant \u2019s behaviour during the interview with the panel of doctors was reported as follows :","\u201c No symptoms of unclear consciousness . Not accessible for productive contact . Answers questions with counter - questions . Behaves in an expressive , defiant way . Suspicious . Asks what drugs have been given , who has allowed [ him ] to be given drugs without his agreement . Does not explain his actions [ in the police station and against the ticket inspectors ] . Denies having said that he has robbed the president . Says that \u201c everything will be alright \u201d . Refuses to [ give consent to being treated in the psychiatric hospital ] . Thinking is confused , inconsistent . Gives an impression that [ he ] is listening to what is happening around him . Patient is entirely under the spell of his own psychotic experiences . Complete lack of criticism [ sic ] towards the necessity of being treated , concerning his illness and actions . \u201d","NORP The report went on to diagnose the applicant in the following manner :","\u201c Diagnosis : FCARDINAL.CARDINAL Paranoid schizophrenia \u2013 continuous course , acute phase . Hallucinatory - paranoia syndrome . \u201d","NORP The report concluded that the applicant \u2019s involuntary inpatient treatment in a psychiatric hospital should be continued under section CARDINAL ) of LAW . It stated that the applicant had expressed a wish to participate in the court hearing concerning his compulsory treatment .","The hearing took place before GPE on DATE . It was attended by the applicant , a sworn attorney , PERSON , and a representative of the hospital . During the hearing the representative of the hospital maintained the proposal to order the applicant \u2019s involuntary in - patient psychiatric treatment , referring to , among other things , the fact that the patient was \u201c angry \u201d , that he did not want to talk to doctors , had stated that he had killed the president , and was aggressive . She also referred to the applicant \u2019s history of psychiatric treatment . In response to the applicant \u2019s question as to why he had been taken to the hospital , the representative of the hospital explained to him that it was because he had \u201c talked nonsense \u201d . The applicant admitted that there had been a conflict in the trolleybus but denied having said that he had killed or robbed the president . He explained that he knew himself how and when he should get medical treatment , and that he had been receiving out - patient medical treatment .","The decision adopted by the court on CARDINAL DATE referred to the applicant \u2019s history of psychiatric treatment , noting that he had been regularly visiting a psychiatrist on an out - patient basis but had been taking the prescribed medication whenever he chose to . The decision then cited the report of the panel of doctors who had examined the applicant , summarised the oral submissions of the participants of the hearing , and decided to endorse the recommendation of the panel that the applicant should be hospitalised . In establishing that the applicant posed a danger to others , the court referred to the record of the applicant \u2019s detention drawn up by the police on DATE . That record stated that the applicant had uttered threats , and claimed to have stolen from the President of GPE and to have robbed several houses .","The court went on to note the following :","\u201c An analysis of the application [ for the applicant \u2019s involuntary treatment ] confirms that it has been found that [ the applicant ] is suffering from a psychiatric disorder , for which he has been repeatedly treated in [ a psychiatric hospital ] . The symptoms of the psychiatric disorder are characterised by aggressive and conflictual behaviour , which give the court no reasons to doubt the circumstances of the patient \u2019s behaviour [ and ] the reasons for his placement in the [ hospital ] , as described in the decision of the panel and the material appended to it .","Such behaviour on the part of the patient creates a real danger to the life and health of the patient himself as well as to that of other people \u201d .","NORP The court agreed with the medical panel \u2019s conclusion that an improvement in the applicant \u2019s health was only possible if he received in - patient treatment . In relation to the out - patient treatment , the court noted that as there was no evidence \u2013 apart from the applicant \u2019s own statement \u2013 that he had been taking the prescribed medication , it was unable to conclude that he had a serious attitude towards the out - patient regime . The court further considered that the applicant had remained sceptical about the suggestion that he was suffering from a mental disorder and denied that he needed any treatment . In the light of those considerations , the court came to the conclusion that ordering involuntary treatment was in the best interests of the applicant . The court ordered that the applicant receive in - patient treatment for DATE .","The applicant appealed and his appeal was examined in written proceedings by the president of LOC on DATE . In his appeal the applicant indicated that he disagreed with the interference by the psychiatric hospital in his personal life and that he did not understand in what context he had been detained . The president of the court considered that the applicant \u2019s appeal did not contain any grounds that would put the legitimacy of the impugned decision in question .","The applicant was discharged from the hospital on DATE .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that psychiatric assistance should be provided on a voluntary basis . In - patient assistance is to be provided in a psychiatric establishment only where , owing to the state of health of the patient , such assistance can not be provided on an out - patient basis or at the patient \u2019s place of residence .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides an exhaustive list of situations in which involuntary psychiatric treatment may be administered . The first subparagraph authorises involuntary treatment in cases where","\u201c [ the patient ] has threatened or is threatening , has attempted or is attempting to inflict bodily injuries on himself or on another person or has been or is violent towards other persons and if a medical specialist concludes that the patient has a mental health disorder , which might result in serious bodily injury to the patient himself or to another person \u201d .","The second subparagraph of section CARDINAL ) allows involuntary treatment in cases where the patient displays an inability to take care of himself and if a medical specialist concludes that the patient has a mental health disorder which might result in an irreversible and serious deterioration of his or her state of health .","Section CARDINAL ) provides that in the event that the involuntary hospitalisation of a patient is considered necessary , a panel of psychiatrists should examine the patient within TIME and adopt a decision in that regard . Pursuant to section ORG ) , such a decision must be sent to the competent ORG within QUANTITY . ORG will then examine the decision of the panel and decide whether to approve the patient \u2019s involuntary hospitalisation for a period of DATE . The application for involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital must be examined within DATE after receipt of the decision adopted by the panel of psychiatrists .","Section CARDINAL of LAW provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If a person disrupts public order due to a mental disorder or a mental disease , that person shall be detained , transported to a psychiatrist and supervised there by the police in accordance with LAW .","( CARDINAL ) The police shall submit to the psychiatrist a written report concerning the antisocial nature of the [ patient \u2019s ] behaviour \u201d ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173099","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ISAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 6+P1-1-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["All the applicants were party to civil proceedings in which the firstinstance and appeal courts found in their favour . These judgments became binding and enforceable but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts on the ground of incorrect application of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts ( for more details see the Appendix ) ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168972","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF A AND B v. NORWAY","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice;Criminal offence)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Dag Bugge Nord\u00e9n;Erik M\u00f8se;Guido Raimondi;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant , PERSON A , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant , Mr B , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","The applicants and Mr ORG owned a ORG - registered company ORG ( \u201c Estora \u201d ) . Mr GPE and Mr G.A. owned the GPE \/ GPE - registered company ORG ( \u201c Strategic \u201d ) . In DATE ORG acquired PERCENT of the shares in ORG . Strategic acquired PERCENT of the shares in ORG . In DATE all the shares in ORG were sold to ORG , at a substantially higher price . The first applicant \u2019s share of the sale price was MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . He transferred this amount to the GPE - registered company ORG , in which he was the sole shareholder . The second applicant \u2019s share of the sale price was ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . He transferred this amount to ORG , in which he was the sole shareholder .","Mr GPE , Mr G.A. and Mr T.F. made gains on similar transactions , while Mr GPE , PERSON and Mr PERSON were involved in other undeclared taxable transactions with ORG .","The revenue from these transactions , amounting to approximately ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) , was not declared to the NORP tax authorities , resulting in unpaid taxes totalling some ORG MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .","In DATE the tax authorities started a tax audit on ORG and looked into the owners behind PERSON . On DATE they filed a criminal complaint against ORG ( ORG ) with regard to matters that later led to the indictment of the first applicant , along with the other persons mentioned above and the second applicant , for aggravated tax fraud .","The persons referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above were subsequently prosecuted , convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment for tax fraud in criminal proceedings . It may also be noted that :","- the prison term to which Mr GPE was sentenced at first instance was upheld at second instance , even though the second - instance court found it somewhat mild ; in the meantime he had had a PERCENT tax penalty imposed on him ;","- the length of Mr GPE \u2019s term of imprisonment was fixed in the light of his having previously had a PERCENT tax penalty imposed on him ;","- Mr G.A. was neither sentenced to a fine nor had a tax penalty imposed on him ;","- Mr T.F. was in addition sentenced to a fine corresponding to the level of a PERCENT tax penalty ;","- Mr GPE and Mr GPE were each sentenced to a fine in accordance with the approach set out in ORG ruling in GPE . DATE p. DATE , with reference to ORG . DATE p. CARDINAL , summarised at paragraph CARDINAL below .","A summary of the particular circumstances pertaining to the first and second applicants is given below .","The first applicant was interviewed first as a witness on DATE ; on DATE he was arrested and gave evidence as a person charged ( \u201c siktet \u201d ) . He admitted the factual circumstances but did not accept criminal liability . He was released after DATE .","On DATE the first applicant was indicted for violations of sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) , cf . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , of LAW DATE ( ligningsloven ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below for the text of these provisions ) .","On DATE ORG ( skattekontoret ) amended his tax assessment for DATE , after issuing a warning to that effect on DATE , with reference inter alia to the tax audit , to the criminal investigation , to the evidence given by him , as mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above , and to documents seized by ORG in the investigation . For DATE the amendment was made on the ground that the first applicant had omitted to declare a general income of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , having instead declared a loss of ORG CARDINAL . Moreover , with reference to sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below for the text of these provisions ) , ORG ordered him to pay a tax penalty of PERCENT , to be calculated on the basis of the tax that he owed in respect of the undeclared amount . The decision had regard inter alia to evidence given by the first and second applicants during their interviews in the criminal investigation . The first applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision and paid the outstanding tax due , with the penalty , before the expiry of the DATE time - limit for lodging an appeal .","On DATE the ORG ( tingrett ) convicted the first applicant on charges of aggravated tax fraud and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment on account of his having failed to declare , in his tax return for DATE , the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in earnings obtained abroad . In determining the sentence ORG had regard to the fact that the first applicant had already been significantly sanctioned by the imposition of the tax penalty .","The first applicant appealed , complaining that , in breach of LAW No . CARDINAL to ORG , he had been both prosecuted and punished twice : in respect of the same offence under section CARDINAL he had been charged and indicted by the public prosecutor , had then had a tax penalty imposed on him by the tax authorities , which he had paid , and had thereafter been convicted and sentenced .","In a judgment of DATE ORG ( lagmannsrett ) unanimously rejected his appeal ; similar reasoning was subsequently given by ORG ( PERSON ) in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( summarised below ) .","NORP In its judgment of DATE ORG first considered whether the CARDINAL sets of proceedings in question had concerned the same factual circumstances ( samme forhold ) . In this connection it noted the developments in the Convention case - law expounded in the ORG judgment of PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 MONEY , DATE , DATE , ECHR DATE ) and the attempt in that judgment to harmonise through the following conclusion :","\u201c ... LAW CARDINAL must be understood as prohibiting the prosecution or trial of a second \u2018 offence\u2019 in so far as it arises from identical facts or facts which are substantially the same . ... The ORG \u2019s inquiry should therefore focus on those facts which constitute a set of concrete factual circumstances involving the same defendant and [ are ] inextricably linked together in time and space ... \u201d .","In the present instance , ORG observed , there was no doubt that the factual circumstances underlying the decision to impose tax penalties and the criminal prosecution had sufficient common features to meet these criteria . In both instances , the factual basis was the omission to declare income on the tax return . The requirement that the proceedings relate to the same matter had accordingly been met .","ORG next examined whether both sets of proceedings concerned an \u201c offence \u201d within the meaning of LAW No . CARDINAL . In this regard ORG reiterated its ruling as reported in PERSON ( \u201c GPE . \u201d ) DATE p. CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that tax penalties at the ordinary level ( PERCENT ) were consistent with the notion of \u201c criminal charge \u201d in LAW . That earlier assessment had relied on the CARDINAL socalled \u201c PERSON criteria \u201d ( the legal classification of the offence under national law ; the nature of the offence ; and the degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned risked incurring ) as spelled out in the ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON and Others v. the GPE ( DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL ) . Of importance for ORG assessment was the general preventive purpose of the tax penalty and the fact that , because PERCENT was a high rate , considerable sums could be involved . ORG further had regard to its judgment as reported in GPE . DATE p. CARDINAL , where it had held in the light of the GPE case - law ( to the effect that the notion of \u201c penalty \u201d should not have different meanings under different provisions of the Convention ) that a PERCENT tax penalty was also a criminal matter for the purposes of LAW No . DATE a stance adopted without further discussion in GPE . DATE p. CARDINAL .","ORG also noted that both ORG ( ORG ) and ORG ) were of the view that it was unlikely that a tax penalty at the ordinary level would not be deemed criminal punishment for the purposes of LAW No . CARDINAL .","ORG further had regard to the ORG \u2019s more recent case - law ( PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; GPE v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , with references to PERSON v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINALVII ; and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALXIII ) to the effect that a wider range of criteria than merely the PERSON criteria applied to the assessment under LAW . It found confirmation in PERSON ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) \u2013 later followed in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) DATE that the CARDINAL PERSON criteria for establishing the existence of a \u201c criminal charge \u201d for the purposes of Article CARDINAL applied equally to the notion of criminal punishment in LAW No . CARDINAL .","Against this background , ORG found no ground on which to depart from its above - mentioned rulings of DATE and DATE , holding that tax penalties at the ordinary level were to be regarded as \u201c criminal punishment \u201d ( straff ) for the purposes of LAW No . CARDINAL .","It went on to observe that a condition for protection under the abovementioned provision was that the decision which barred further prosecution \u2013 in this case the decision of DATE to impose ordinary tax penalties DATE had to be final . That decision had not been appealed against to the highest administrative body within the DATE time - limit , which had expired on DATE , and was in this sense final . If , on the other hand , the expiry of the sixmonth time - limit for lodging a judicial appeal under LAW ) of LAW were to be material , the decision had not yet become final when ORG delivered its judgment of DATE .","The words \u201c finally acquitted or convicted \u201d in LAW No . CARDINAL had been formulated with a view to situations where the barring decision was a judgment in a criminal case . ORG had established that a decision was final when it was res judicata , when no further ordinary remedies were available . In this regard , the time when a decision became res judicata according to the rules of national law would be decisive . Neither the wording of the provision , nor its drafting history , nor the case - law provided any guidance for situations where the barring decision was an administrative one . It was pointed out that , in GPE . DATE p. CARDINAL , ORG had expressed an authoritative view to the effect that a tax assessment decision , including a decision on tax penalties , ought to be regarded as final when the taxpayer was precluded from challenging it ( p. CARDINAL ) , without specifying , however , whether it was the time - limit for an administrative appeal , or rather for a judicial appeal , which was decisive . In the present case , ORG observed that the best solution would be to consider that the DATE time - limit for an administrative appeal was decisive in relation to LAW . Otherwise , there would be clarity DATE in cases where the taxpayer did not institute proceedings before the courts and , where he or she did so , only after a legally enforceable judgment DATE that would vary and could be lengthy . The decision of DATE was therefore to be considered as final for the purposes of LAW No . CARDINAL .","ORG noted that the first applicant had been charged on DATE and that the warning about the amendment of his tax assessment had been sent on DATE . Thereafter the case concerning the tax penalties and the criminal case had been conducted in parallel until they had been decided respectively by a decision of DATE and a judgment of CARDINAL DATE . A central question in this case was whether there had been successive prosecutions , which would be contrary to LAW , or parallel treatment , which was permissible to some extent . In this connection ORG had regard to CARDINAL inadmissibility decisions , GPE v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; and PERSON v. GPE , cited above , in particular the following passage from the latter :","\u201c However , the ORG is unable to agree with the applicant that the decision to withdraw his driving licence amounted to new criminal proceedings being brought against him . While the different sanctions were imposed by CARDINAL different authorities in different proceedings , there was nevertheless a sufficiently close connection between them , in substance and in time , to consider the withdrawal to be part of the sanctions under NORP law for the offences of aggravated drunken driving and unlawful driving ( see PERSON v. GPE , cited above , and , mutatis mutandis , PERSON v. the GPE , no . FAC , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII ) . In other words , the withdrawal did not imply that the applicant was \u2018 tried or punished again ... for an offence for which he had already been finally ... convicted\u2019 , in breach of LAW No . CARDINAL . \u201d","In the present case , ORG held that there could be no doubt that there was a sufficient connection in substance and time . The CARDINAL cases had their basis in the same factual circumstances \u2013 the lack of information on the tax return which had led to a deficient tax assessment . The criminal proceedings and the administrative proceedings had been conducted in parallel . After the first applicant had been charged on DATE , a warning had followed on DATE about an amendment to his tax assessment , then an indictment on DATE , the tax authorities\u2019 decision of DATE to amend the assessment , and ORG judgment of DATE . To a great extent the administrative - law and criminal - law processing had been interconnected .","The purpose behind LAW , to provide protection against the burden of being subjected to a new procedure , had applied to a lesser degree here , in as much as the first applicant had had no legitimate expectation of being subjected to CARDINAL procedure . In such a situation the interest in ensuring effective prosecution was preponderant .","Following the tax audit in DATE referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above , during the autumn of DATE the tax authorities reported to ORG that the second applicant had failed to declare on his tax return for DATE income of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) earned from his sale of certain shares .","On DATE ORG put the second applicant on notice that it was considering amending his tax assessment and imposing a tax penalty , referring inter alia to the tax audit , the criminal investigation and the evidence given by him , mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above , and to documents seized by ORG in the investigation . On DATE ORG amended his tax assessment to the effect that he owed ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in tax in respect of the undeclared income . In addition , with reference to sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW , it decided to impose a tax penalty of PERCENT . The decision had regard inter alia to evidence given by the first and second applicants during interviews in the criminal investigation . The second applicant paid the tax due , with the penalty , and did not appeal against the decision , which became final on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the public prosecutor indicted the second applicant for a violation of section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) , cf . LAW CARDINAL - CARDINAL , of LAW on the ground that for the tax year(s ) DATE and\/or DATE he had omitted to declare income of ORG CARDINAL on his tax return , which represented a tax liability of ORG CARDINAL . The public prosecutor requested ORG ( tingrett ) to pass a summary judgment based on his confession ( tilst\u00e5elsesdom ) . In addition , Mr GPE , Mr GPE and Mr G.A. pleaded guilty and consented to summary trials on a guilty plea .","On DATE the second applicant ( unlike GPE , ORG ) withdrew his confession , as a result of which the public prosecutor issued a revised indictment on CARDINAL DATE , including the same charges .","On DATE ORG , after holding an adversarial hearing , convicted the second applicant on the charges of aggravated tax fraud and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , account being taken of the fact that he had already had a tax penalty imposed on him .","The second applicant appealed against the ORG procedure to ORG , arguing in particular that by reason of the prohibition against double jeopardy in LAW No . CARDINAL , the fact that he had had a tax penalty imposed on him constituted a bar against criminal conviction . Thus he requested that ORG judgment be quashed ( opphevet ) and that the prosecution case be dismissed ( avvist ) from the courts .","In a judgment of DATE ORG rejected the second applicant \u2019s appeal , relying essentially on its reasoning in the case of the first applicant , which was similar to that of ORG summarised above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . Thus , ORG found that the tax authorities\u2019 decision of DATE ordering him to pay a tax penalty of PERCENT did constitute a criminal punishment ( straff ) ; that the decision had become \u201c final \u201d upon the expiry of the time - limit for lodging an appeal on DATE ; and that the decision on the tax penalty and the subsequent criminal conviction concerned the same matter .","Moreover , as in the case of the first applicant , ORG considered that parallel proceedings \u2013 both administrative and criminal DATE were to some extent permissible under LAW , provided that the second proceedings had commenced before the first had become final . Where that minimum requirement had been fulfilled , an assessment had to be made of the state of progress of the second set and , not least , as to whether there was a sufficient connection in substance and in time between the first and second decisions .","As to the concrete assessment of the second applicant \u2019s case , ORG observed that the criminal proceedings and the tax proceedings had in fact been conducted in parallel since as far back as the tax authorities\u2019 complaint to the police in DATE and until the decision to impose the tax penalty had been taken in DATE . This state of affairs was similar to the case of the first applicant . The second applicant had been indicted and the case referred to ORG with a request for a summary judgment on the basis of his confession on DATE , before the decision on the tax penalty . The criminal proceedings had thus reached a relatively advanced stage by the time the decision to impose the tax penalty had been taken . The DATE period DATE from when the tax authorities\u2019 decision of DATE had become final until the second applicant \u2019s conviction of DATE by ORG had been somewhat longer than the CARDINAL - and - a - half - month period in the case of the first applicant . However , this could be explained by the fact that the second applicant had withdrawn his confession in DATE , with the consequence that he had had to be indicted anew on CARDINAL DATE and an ordinary trial hearing had had to be scheduled . Against this background , ORG ( like ORG ) concluded that there was undoubtedly a sufficient connection in substance and time between the decision on the tax penalties and the subsequent criminal conviction .","NORP On DATE ORG refused the second applicant leave to appeal , finding that such leave was warranted neither by the general importance of the case nor by any other reason ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P7-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161811","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MATEI AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160432","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DALLAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege;Nullum crimen sine lege)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was summoned to attend jury service at ORG on DATE .","On TIME the jurors were shown a video in relation to their service and were given verbal instruction from the court \u2019s jury officer that they were not permitted to research their cases on the Internet or to research the defendants or any of the individuals involved in the trial . Notices in the jury waiting room contained the following warning :","\u201c You may also be in contempt of court if you use the internet to research details about any cases you hear along with any cases listed for trial at the ORG ... \u201d","The notices made it clear that contempt of court was punishable by a fine or by imprisonment .","The applicant was selected to serve on a jury in a trial of a defendant charged with grievous bodily harm with intent . The trial commenced that afternoon . When the jury were sworn , the applicant took an oath or affirmation that she would faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence .","Before the case was opened by the prosecution , the judge gave a number of directions to the jury . These underlined the importance of deciding the case only on the basis of what the jury saw and heard in the courtroom . CARDINAL consequences were identified by the judge . The first was that they should not speak about the case to anybody . He continued :","\u201c The second consequence is a newer one : that you do not go on the internet . You have probably read in DATE about a juror who did go on the internet ; went on ORG and severe problems followed for that juror . I am sure you will not want any of those . So , the rule is DATE and it is told to every jury DATE that not only do you not discuss it , but you do not go on the internet ; you do not try and do any research of your own ; you do not discuss it on ORG ; you do not tweet about it ; or anything of that nature . So , simply , once you leave this room you do not talk about it or deal with it in any way with anybody .","We ask you to observe what goes on in this room . The evidence has been carefully considered . It is put before you in a carefully considered way . That is why you are not to discuss it with anybody else or do your own research , or discuss it on ORG \u2013 because it is carefully controlled ... \u201d","NORP The trial continued on CARDINAL and DATE . On DATE the trial judge allowed a prosecution application to adduce evidence of the defendant \u2019s bad character . The disclosure gave details of a previous sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm . It was not disclosed that the defendant had also been charged with rape in respect of the same offence but had been acquitted .","On DATE the jury retired to consider their verdict . At the end of the court day the judge sent the jury home to return on DATE .","After the court had risen , CARDINAL of the jurors in the case informed the court usher that a juror , whom she identified as the applicant , had been on the Internet and had found out about the previous conviction and that it involved rape . The trial judge was informed .","On DATE , after hearing from the juror in court , the judge summoned the jury foreman , who confirmed that there had been some reference to the matter to which the juror had referred . The judge then called the applicant into court . He informed her of what had been said and that she should not say anything at that stage . He gave her the opportunity , which she accepted , of speaking to a barrister in order to take advice on the question of contempt of court . After discussion with the applicant , the barrister informed the court that the applicant \u2019s position was that her behaviour regarding the Internet was not deliberate . She therefore claimed to have a defence to the allegation of contempt of court . The judge explained to her that the matter would be referred to the Attorney General and that there would be a police investigation .","The judge subsequently discharged the jury and the trial was aborted .","The police obtained statements from the CARDINAL other jurors at trial . The statements showed that during the jury deliberations the applicant stated that she had conducted Internet research and that her research had showed that the previous conviction also included an allegation of rape . Most of the other jurors had reacted to this by making it clear that the applicant had introduced extraneous and impermissible facts into their discussion , contrary to the instructions and directions that they had been given .","On DATE the police interviewed the applicant under caution . During the interview , the applicant explained what had happened at the commencement of the trial and set out her recollection of what the trial judge had said as follows :","\u201c The judge said ... that we should not look , we should not publish anything on ORG , on ORG , we should not tell anybody outside the court about the case ... \u201d","She said that did not recall that the judge had instructed jurors not to do Internet research .","She explained that she had seen a newspaper article concerning the defendant on the Internet on TIME of CARDINAL DATE . When asked what she was doing on the Internet , she replied that , as she was NORP , she had wished to know the exact translation of the charge facing the defendant . She had therefore searched for \u201c grievous bodily harm \u201d . She had then wished to see how frequent such incidents were in GPE so added \u201c GPE \u201d to the search terms . The article concerning the defendant \u2019s previous conviction had appeared in the list of results . She explained that her recollection was hazy but that she did not remember searching for the defendant by name . She admitted that she had informed the other members of the jury of the information she had found . She said that she was not aware that she had missed any element of the judge \u2019s instructions and that she had had \u201c absolutely no intention \u201d of going against the instructions or directions of the judge .","The Attorney General subsequently applied to ORG for permission to make an application for an order of committal under Order CARDINAL of the Rules of ORG ( \u201c SCR \u201d \u2013 see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was informed of the application by letter dated CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the ORG granted permission to make a committal application .","On DATE a claim form was issued by the Attorney General seeking an order of committal against the applicant for :","\u201c contempt of court in conducting Internet research on the case she was trying as a juror in ORG and thereafter in disclosing the extraneous information she had obtained to other members of the jury . \u201d","The grounds on which the applicant \u2019s committal was sought were that","\u201c her acts created a substantial risk of seriously prejudicing and\/or impeding the course of justice in the proceedings with which she was concerned . \u201d","Reference was made to further details set out in a sworn affidavit by a legal adviser at the Attorney General \u2019s office . In the affidavit , it was submitted that the evidence in the case demonstrated that the applicant :","\u201c deliberately and in breach of instructions given by the jury officer , a warning contained in a written notice , her jury oath or affirmation and directions given by the trial judge , ( a ) conducted internet research on the case she was trying , and thereby obtained extraneous information about the case , and ( b ) imparted that extraneous information to other members of the jury whilst the jury were in deliberation . \u201d","In her position statement dated DATE , the applicant accepted that she had searched on the Internet for the words \u201c grievous \u201d and \u201c NORP \u201d while the trial was underway and that she had discussed with other jurors a newspaper report concerning the defendant . She did not accept a specific intent to impede or to cause a real risk of prejudice to the due administration of justice .","In a note on behalf of the Attorney General dated DATE , the test for contempt was set out as follows :","\u201c At common law , a contempt of court is an act or omission which creates a real risk of prejudice to the administration of justice , done with the intent of creating such a risk . \u201d","The note went on to claim that the applicant \u2019s Internet research and subsequent conduct in relation to it had created a real risk of prejudice to the administration of justice and had been done with the intent of creating such a risk .","In written submissions on behalf of the applicant dated DATE , it was submitted that the offence of contempt of court could be stated as follows :","\u201c Where a person knowingly does an act which he specifically intends to impede , or create a real risk of prejudicing , the due administration of justice ... \u201d","On DATE the application for committal was heard . Counsel for the applicant submitted that the key element that the prosecution had to prove was \u201c specific intent \u201d , that is intent to impede or create a real risk of prejudicing the due administration of justice . He referred to the Attorney General \u2019s position that intent could be inferred from foresight of the consequences and indicated that , while that might be appropriate in some cases , it did not sit so easily with the kind of intent required in the applicant \u2019s case . An exchange then took place between the court and counsel for the applicant , as follows :","\u201c [ Court ] : Can we get this down to the reality of the case . The ORG \u2019s case is that your client deliberately disobeyed the order of the judge . Is that not the same as what you are saying ? You disagree with it and you are going to submit to us why the ORG \u2019s case is wrong , but if a juror deliberately disobeys the order if a judge , is that not contempt of court ?","[ Counsel ] : Certainly , yes .","[ Court ] : The \u2018 ORG is the point that matters .","[ Counsel ] : Yes . Yes . \u201d","The Attorney General was subsequently asked whether he accepted that in the context of the case he had to satisfy the court , to the criminal standard , that the applicant had deliberately disobeyed the order of the judge . He confirmed that he did .","At the conclusion of the evidence and submissions , and after the court had already adjourned , the judges returned to seek further clarification of the correct test for contempt of court . The following test was put to counsel by the bench :","\u201c It is a contempt in the context of jury misconduct within the jury room , for a juror deliberately to disobey the direction of the judge and create a risk of prejudice to the due administration of justice . \u201d","The judge added :","\u201c What that removes is a specific intent in relation to the creation of the risk . The intent is directed at the deliberate disobedience . \u201d","The Attorney General expressed himself to be content with the test proposed . Counsel for the applicant requested that the word \u201c thereby \u201d be added following \u201c disobey the direction of the judge and ... \u201d , in order to create a link between the CARDINAL elements . The Attorney General fully accepted the proposed modification . Counsel for the applicant was pressed on whether he was content with a definition whereby the intent was the deliberate act of disobeying the order , which then had a causative link in creating the risk . It was noted by the judge that this was a slightly different test from the CARDINAL counsel had earlier proposed . He replied that he was content with the proposed test , and added :","\u201c I am reacting as I stand . I hope I can venture to submit that actually , if this is the test , it is perhaps redefining an old law but it is new . \u201d","On DATE an order for committal was made . ORG summarised the applicant \u2019s version of events as follow :","\u201c DATE . On her account , effectively , she came across the newspaper reference to [ the defendant \u2019s ] previous conviction in the local newspaper in GPE by following a route from the word \u2018 grievous\u2019 through to \u2018 Luton\u2019 and \u2018 crime\u2019 and in effect , somehow she stumbled across the newspaper entry . \u201d","However , the court rejected her account , explaining :","\u201c CARDINAL . We do not believe that the defendant did not seek information about [ the defendant ] on the internet . Her inability to remember this particular feature of the case , when she has a detailed recollection of so much else , was not credible . We do not believe that she could have just stumbled across the link to [ the defendant \u2019s ] previous conviction in the way she described . \u201d","The court concluded :","\u201c CARDINAL . We have no doubt that the defendant knew perfectly well , first , that the judge had directed her , and the other members of the jury , in unequivocal terms , that they should not seek information about the case from the internet ; second , that the defendant appreciated that this was an order ; and , third , that the defendant deliberately disobeyed the order . By doing so , before she made any disclosure to her fellow jurors , she did not merely risk prejudice to the due administration of justice , but she caused prejudice to it . This was because she had sought to arm and had armed herself with information of possible relevance to the trial which , although not adduced in evidence , might have played its part in her verdict . The moment when she disclosed any of that information to her fellow jurors she further prejudiced the administration of justice . In the result , the jury was rightly discharged from returning a verdict and a new trial was ordered . The unfortunate complainant had to give evidence of his ordeal on a second occasion . The time of the other members of the jury was wasted , and the public was put to additional unnecessary expense . The damage to the administration of justice is obvious . \u201d","It found that the contempt had been proved to the criminal standard . On sentence , the court explained that misuse of the Internet by a juror was always \u201c a most serious irregularity \u201d and that an effective custodial sentence was virtually inevitable to ensure that the integrity of the process of trial by jury was sustained . A sentence of imprisonment for DATE was imposed . The judge noted that pursuant to rules on early release , the applicant would serve DATE in prison .","Following the handing down of the judgment , an exchange took place between the applicant \u2019s counsel and the bench . The applicant \u2019s counsel sought clarity on the test for contempt of court , explaining :","\u201c I am concerned that the test that I was addressing \u2013 that we were addressing in preparation of this case DATE was a different test . We conducted the defence to a different test , and the reasons why it was a different test , I suggest , are CARDINAL . First , the intention is different . Secondly , the risk has been diluted from \u2018 real risk\u2019 DATE and , after all , \u2018 risk\u2019 on the authorities simply means \u2018 a possibility of occurrence\u2019 to \u2018 risk\u2019 . Thirdly , may I make this submission ? This is the first occasion \u2013 I do this with some hesitation for I can find no authority \u2013 where there has been a contempt of court flowing from a judicial direction .","... It has always historically been the order which has attracted contempt , not the direction , and the idea that a judge gives directions to a jury in the summing - up which could attract contempt and imprisonment is , in my submission , a novel one .","I therefore submit this question rhetorically : whether this reformulation that this court has applied in this case is consistent with the common law of contempt . \u201d","NORP The court retired to consider the matter before confirming that the appropriate test was applied in paragraph CARDINAL of its judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that it had been understood that applicant \u2019s counsel had agreed to that test . Leave to appeal was refused .","The applicant applied for permission to appeal to ORG . She argued , inter alia , that the test of contempt of court reformulated by ORG was not consistent with the common law of contempt of court ; and that the reformulation of the offence , after evidence had been led and final submissions concluded , was not compatible with human rights principles and in particular with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s petition to appeal to ORG was refused because the application did not raise an arguable point of law . In particular , ORG concluded that a suggested distinction between a \u201c direction \u201d and an \u201c order \u201d was not tenable since the meaning of each depended on the context and both could mean the same ; and that the deliberate disobedience of a specific order of the judge not to use the Internet in connection with the case unquestionably amounted to contempt of court at common law .","From DATE to DATE the applicant was detained at FAC ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["7"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["7-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156248","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ANDONOVSKI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was a surgeon at ORG .","On DATE the applicant parked his car in a street in GPE . After he returned , he found a notice of illegal parking under the windscreen wiper . He started his car and went looking for a police officer in order to discuss the issue regarding the ticket ( the applicant alleged that there had been no sign there that parking was illegal ) . When he saw a police car he started following it until it stopped . CARDINAL police officers , GPE and PERSON , were inside the car . PERSON was a neighbour with whom the applicant was not on good terms . The parties presented rather conflicting versions of events as to what happened on that occasion . The Government \u2019s account was based on the version of events which had been \u201c correctly and fully established \u201d by the national courts in the criminal proceedings against the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","While following the police car , the applicant signaled to it by flashing his lights . He did not sound the car horn . When he approached the police car , he addressed PERSON However , the QUANTITY police officers started insulting him . PERSON said \u201c I \u2019ve been looking forward to this ... \u201d PERSON opened the front passenger \u2019s door \u201c hard \u201d and hit the applicant on the legs . Both officers left the car , grabbed the applicant by the shoulders and neck , and started punching him on the back . PERSON kicked and punched him all over the body . He was also hit on the back of the head . As a result , he slumped forward , which allowed PERSON to knee the applicant in the back , causing a fracture of CARDINAL spinal vertebrae . PERSON also kicked him in the lower part of the back . He was then handcuffed , and while he was putting him into the police car PERSON kneed him in the lower back . During the incident , the applicant asked the officers to stop beating him , because he was in poor health : notably he had a weak heart and had had heart surgery . The incident was witnessed by many people . The applicant was then taken to GPE police station , where the beating continued until he lost consciousness .","After TIME , an emergency ambulance was called , which took the applicant to ORG . He was then transported to ORG and subsequently to ORG , where he remained until DATE .","On DATE Dr GPE from ORG examined the applicant and issued a medical report , which stated that the applicant had the following injuries : head contusion , concussion , bruises on the chest and back , and bruises on both arms . The medical report also noted that the applicant was in post - heart - attack condition , and that he had had heart surgery .","On DATE , an investigating judge of ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) agreed to a request from ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) and ordered an external examination of the applicant \u2019s body ( \u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u0441\u0435\u043d \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0433\u043b\u0435\u0434 ) . The order was issued in the context of criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant . The examination was carried out by ORG \u0437\u0430 PERSON ) . It took place on DATE , while the applicant was in ORG . As indicated in the medical report , the applicant stated that he had signaled by flashing his lights and had sounded the car horn to attract the police car \u2019s attention so that it would stop ; also that the police officers had beaten him up during his arrest and while they were taking him out of the police car to take him into the police station . The applicant further stated that he had been taken to the cardiology unit at ORG and then , in a wheelchair ( because he had numbness in his legs ) , to the emergency unit , where an X - ray examination was carried out on his chest , head and spinal column . He was then discharged from ORG . Not satisfied , he went to ORG where , on admission , he complained of headache , other pain and nausea . During the examination by experts of ORG , the applicant complained of pain in the back , head and chest . The report noted contusions on the applicant \u2019s head , nose , chest , back , hip and both arms and legs .","According to a discharge notice issued by ORG , the applicant was hospitalised DATE . It indicated that the applicant had sustained , inter alia , the following injuries : a compressive fracture of CARDINAL vertebrae on the lower part of the spinal column as shown by the X - ray examination , concussion , head trauma and contusions on his back , right shoulder and wrist . According to the notice , the applicant had been examined in CARDINAL hospitals , which had all established the same diagnosis and recommended that he be examined in that hospital . He was advised to remain in bed for DATE . It was also indicated that the applicant was unfit to work .","On DATE PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) issued , on the basis of available documentary medical evidence , a medical certificate indicating , inter alia , the following injuries : concussion ; head trauma ; fracture of CARDINAL vertebrae ; and contusions on the back , chest , and right wrist . In conclusion , the certificate stated :","\u201c I think this is a serious bodily injury under LAW , with permanent reduction of the activities of DATE living , as well as consequences of a permanent nature , which would certainly affect the victim \u2019s capacity to work ... \u201d","On DATE ORG submitted to the trial court another expert report that the investigating judge had requested in relation to the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint lodged against PERSON and PERSON ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . ORG was required to give an opinion about the applicant \u2019s injuries and the way in which they had been inflicted . The opinion was based on extensive medical documentary evidence from the medical examinations that the applicant had undergone DATE ( in GPE , the cardiology and emergency units of ORG , and ORG ) and DATE . ORG concluded that :","\u201c ... on the basis of the medical evidence and the examination we carried out [ the external examination of DATE , see above ] , [ the applicant ] sustained the following injuries in the fight with the CARDINAL accused which took place on DATE : concussion , head trauma , bruises ( and\/ or lesions ) on the nose ; chest ; hip ; right shoulder , forearm and hand ; left forearm , elbow and hand ; right thigh and lower leg ; left lower leg and fracture of the first vertebrae on the lumbar vertebral column ...","As a result of the injuries he had sustained ( the applicant ) was hospitalised CARDINAL DATE . During this time he received conservative treatment .","The injuries that [ the applicant ] sustained ... to the head , body and extremities have been caused as a result of multiple dynamic impacts from a blunt object in the areas mentioned above , and these injuries represent , from the legal point of view , a bodily injury ... it can be concluded that the injuries sustained by ( the applicant ) , notably concussion , vertebral fracture , contusions and bruises to the head , body and limbs , taken in view of their overall impact on the body of the victim , qualify as serious bodily injury that had a considerable , but not permanent , negative effect on vital parts of the body . \u201d","On DATE a private health institute , PERSON , confirmed certain degenerative changes in the applicant \u2019s spinal column , which were due to CARDINAL vertebrae having been fractured .","On DATE PERSON and PERSON submitted to the Ministry reports concerning the force used against the applicant . PERSON stated , inter alia , :","\u201c ... we were provoked by ( the applicant ) , who used offensive language and kicked the police car ... he spat at us and used offensive language . We asked him to identify himself , but he continued to insult us . We tried to put handcuffs on him , but he resisted actively . He grabbed the fingers of my left hand and bit me . My colleague pushed him away and we handcuffed him . \u201d","As regards the force used against the applicant , PERSON noted that \u201c both arms were twisted and the applicant \u2019s leg was kicked . \u201d","PERSON stated , inter alia , the following : \u201c both arms were twisted so that handcuffs could be put on , and when the colleague was bitten , ( the applicant ) was punched in the head \u201d .","On an unspecified date , the applicant informed ORG within ORG ( ORG ) about the incident , and complained that he had been subjected to acts of police brutality . In a reply dated DATE , the ORG informed the applicant that he had been reported as having assaulted a police officer on duty . PERSON and PERSON , as well as GPE and GPE , who had been eyewitnesses to the incident of DATE , were also interviewed . On the basis of evidence obtained from them , the ORG established that the applicant had used offensive language against PERSON and PERSON , had resisted arrest , and had bitten PERSON on the right thumb . As regards the force used against him , the report noted that this had concerned the twisting of his arms and the use of handcuffs , which , as determined by a superior in the ORG , had been necessary and justified . Accordingly , the ORG concluded that the police officers concerned had acted in accordance with the law and the rules of ORG .","On DATE the Ministry lodged a criminal complaint with the PERSON public prosecutor , accusing the applicant of assaulting police officers in the course of their duties during the incident of DATE . ORG alleged that the applicant , after receiving a parking ticket , had started following the police car , sounding his horn and flashing his lights . After the police car had stopped , he had approached it and started insulting the police officers and kicking the car . The applicant did not comply with the orders of the police officers to calm down , and actively resisted when they tried to arrest him . The applicant also bit PERSON on the right thumb , which was a serious bodily injury . In respect of the thumb injury a medical report of CARDINAL DATE , signed by PERSON , was attached to the criminal complaint .","NORP The complaint further stated that the applicant had been examined in GPE police station by PERSON , who had recommended he be sent to ORG . It was further stated that the medical report of ORG that the investigating judge had ordered on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , medical reports issued by the cardiology and emergency units of ORG , ORG , and medical reports attesting to the injury sustained by ORG , would all be submitted later . ORG further asked the court to hear oral evidence from GPE and GPE","DATE the investigating judge heard oral evidence from the applicant , PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE , and PERSON","S.H. stated , inter alia , that :","\u201c I know ( the applicant ) , [ at the relevant time ] he was very upset and he was shouting in a loud voice ... I did n\u2019t hear him use offensive language . The police ( officers ) left the car and asked ( the applicant ) to identify himself , but he did not produce any documents . The police officers tried to handcuff him , but he resisted ... I did n\u2019t see the applicant bite the police officer . The police did not use force ... police officers managed to put handcuffs on the applicant , CARDINAL pairs , they placed him on the rear seat and left . No force was used either by ( the applicant ) against the police or by the police against ( the applicant ) . He was only resisting ... I emphasise that when I arrived , the door of the police car had been opened ... ( the applicant ) was not hitting the police car . Because there were a lot of people , I could n\u2019t see , and do n\u2019t know whether the applicant bit the police officer . \u201d","V.V. stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... because the police officers were inside the car , ( the applicant ) started shouting and hitting the car . The police officers left the car and asked him to identify himself . He said that he was not in possession of an ORG , and then the police tried to handcuff him . He started shouting \u2018 People , help me , look what the police are doing , I have heart problems\u2019 . They did not let him go , they managed to handcuff him with CARDINAL pairs of handcuffs . They put him in the car and brought him to the police station ... there was no hitting on either side , just ( the applicant ) was shouting ... I did n\u2019t see , and I was standing close by , the applicant bite the police officer . \u201d","PERSON stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... ( the applicant ) was following us in his car ... he was sounding the car horn continuously and we stopped ... he was banging on the window and kicking the car ... when I opened the door , he spat at me and used offensive language ... PERSON got out of the car and asked him to identify himself . He continued shouting . Then I got out of the car . My colleague grabbed his left arm and twisted it behind his back ... then ( the applicant ) bit my colleague \u2019s finger ... I grabbed ( the applicant ) and pulled him towards me ... he continued to kick my colleague ; he kicked me as well ... I hit him with my lower arm , but not hard . We managed to handcuff him , he was resisting all the time ... when we placed him on the rear seat of the car , he was kicking , jumping , and moving from one side of the car to the other , because his hands were handcuffed behind his back . He constantly used offensive language , he was very arrogant , aggressive ... \u201d","M.A. stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... ( the applicant ) bit me on the left index finger ( \u043f\u043e\u043a\u0430\u0437\u0430\u043b\u0435\u0446 ) ... PERSON punched him on the right shoulder and the back of his head , hard , so that there was no need for me to hit him ... then ( after they had handcuffed him ) I hit him on the left knee and we put him in the car ... ( the applicant ) was alone on the back seat and he was swaying from one side to another saying that he was ill , that he had had CARDINAL heart bypasses ... ( the applicant ) used offensive language against PERSON ... when I left the car , he kicked me on the thigh ... \u201d","The applicant stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... I note that while driving ( following the police car ) I flashed my lights to get ( the police car ) to stop , and I sounded the car horn ... PERSON opened the door , which hit me on the knees , and when both [ PERSON and PERSON ] got out of the car they started hitting me on the neck and shoulder ... I was hit in the chest ... they kicked me all over my body , when they handcuffed me and wanted to push me on to the back seat of the car , one of the police officers said that he had hurt his finger - it seems that he caught his finger in the handcuffs when they tried to put them on me . I did n\u2019t bite him , and a bite can not provoke a fracture . ... while I was inside the car , they hit me on the legs . When we got to the police station , they literally dragged me ... and started punching me on the back and kicking me ... they put me in a room with my hands tied and they hit me . In that room , I was hit very hard , as a result of which I fell down and lost consciousness ... \u201d","Dr GPE stated that the available medical evidence indicated that PERSON had a bite wound and a fracture of his left thumb . He further stated :","\u201c It is possible that the bite did not cause the fracture , because the typical cause of that type of fracture is a fall on to the finger or a blow . \u201d","On the basis of the available evidence , the investigating judge opened an investigation regarding the applicant , but refused to remand him in custody , finding that the applicant could not interfere with the investigation . He noted that the applicant was in poor health , notably that he had had heart surgery , and that CARDINAL doctors had indicated that the applicant had sustained concussion and a fracture of the spinal column .","On DATE the public prosecutor indicted the applicant for assault on a police officer in the course of his duties . On DATE the applicant objected to the act of indictment , denying that he had assaulted the police officers , hit the police car or used offensive language towards them . He stated that he had been severely beaten in the incident for no reason , and that he had sustained bodily injuries which were confirmed by medical evidence .","On DATE the public prosecutor requested information from the ORG as to whether there had been any internal inquiry regarding the use of force against the applicant .","On DATE the ORG replied that the force used against the applicant during the incident of DATE consisted of twisting his arms behind his back and using handcuffs to subdue him . It also forwarded a copy of the report in which the use of force had been regarded as justified by a superior within the Ministry . Copies of written statements by GPE and GPE , made to the police on DATE , were also attached .","At a hearing held on DATE before the trial court , the applicant stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... when the police officers handcuffed me , I did not resist ... after they took me into the police station ... PERSON punched me on the back of the head , which had also been done in front of the police station . I was also hit in the eye ... when I approached the police car at the critical moment I noticed that PERSON was sitting in the driving seat . When he opened the window I addressed the other police officer ... [ when the trial judge brought the applicant \u2019s attention to his statement given before the investigating judge as to which police officer he had addressed on that occasion , the applicant stated ] what I \u2019m saying DATE is true . The investigating judge probably did not understand what I had said and my health was poor and I was in a difficult psychological state ... During the incident , I neither saw that GPE was injured nor did I hear him say that he had been injured . I did not take any physical action against him , nor did I assault him . \u201d","On that occasion ORG confirmed that he had been bitten on the left thumb , as he had stated before the investigating judge ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He did not know why the record of his questioning before the investigating judge indicated differently . The applicant objected to ORG \u2019s statement .","During a hearing on DATE , the trial court rejected the applicant \u2019s request for oral evidence to be taken from PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as to whether PERSON had sustained an injury to the left or the right hand . The trial court found that an examination of PERSON would not contribute to the establishment of the truth , given that both the hospital records and the medical certificate recorded an identical diagnosis .","Following the hearing of DATE , the trial court found the applicant guilty of assaulting a police officer in the course of his duties , and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE . The court established that the applicant had used offensive language against PERSON and PERSON during the incident of DATE , and had kicked the police car . When PERSON had opened the door of the car , the applicant had spat at him . PERSON had asked the applicant to produce an identity card , which the latter had refused to do . Then PERSON had twisted the applicant \u2019s arm to get him into the car . The applicant had bitten PERSON on the left thumb . PERSON had punched the applicant on the right shoulder and the back of the head , which had caused the applicant to release the thumb . The applicant had then been handcuffed with CARDINAL pairs of handcuffs . The court also established that the applicant had continued to resist in the police car during his transfer to the police station , by kicking the interior of the car .","The applicant appealed , arguing that the evidence regarding the alleged injury sustained by ORG was inconsistent ; that the medical evidence attesting to the alleged thumb injury had been issued in respect of another person with a similar name to ORG , and that the expert evidence regarding PERSON \u2019s alleged injury had been produced on the basis of photographs of the victim \u2019s thumb , without PERSON being examined in person . Lastly , the applicant complained that the trial court had disregarded the medical evidence supporting the injuries that he had sustained in the incident .","On DATE ORG upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment and confirmed the applicant \u2019s conviction , finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and reasoning given by the trial court .","By decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the trial court and ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for reopening of the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with ORG , charging PERSON and PERSON with several offences : physical assault , serious bodily harm , abuse of office , false testimony , and degrading treatment . On DATE the complaint was transmitted to the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office for consideration .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint seeking an indictment of PERSON and PERSON by the PERSON public prosecutor for assault and serious bodily harm , as well as for abuse of office . He submitted that during the incident of DATE he \u201c had been brutally attacked , insulted and brutally beaten by PERSON and PERSON in the presence of CARDINAL of people on the street , as well as in front of and inside GPE police station \u201d . He also requested that evidence be obtained from GPE and GPE In support , the applicant submitted the medical certificate issued by PERSON on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant asked the public prosecutor to examine the criminal complaint as soon as possible , together with all evidence that had become available during the investigation of the case . He further enquired why the public prosecutor had not initiated proceedings to have the police officers concerned suspended or fined .","On DATE the public prosecutor contacted the emergency unit at ORG to obtain information as to whether the applicant had undergone an X - ray examination , and if so whether the examination had revealed a spinal fracture . On DATE the emergency unit replied that the X - ray examination report had been handed over to the applicant .","On DATE the public prosecutor informed the applicant that the appropriate authorities had been consulted with a view to obtaining relevant information about the case .","The applicant further addressed the public prosecutor on CARDINAL occasions , alleging obstruction and seeking to have appropriate measures taken .","On DATE the public prosecutor contacted the director of the emergency unit of ORG , asking for an official note to be drawn up by the doctor who had carried out the X - ray examination of the applicant as to whether that examination had revealed a double fracture of the spinal column and whether the applicant had sustained concussion or it had just been a subjective feeling of which he had complained . The letter further requested that the emergency unit submit copies of all relevant medical reports to the public prosecutor . The Government did not indicate whether the emergency unit of ORG had complied with this request .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor rejected the criminal complaint , finding no grounds that the accused had committed the alleged offences , namely aggravated bodily harm and abuse of office . In the decision , the public prosecutor relied on the statements of GPE and GPE given in the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the report of the DCPS of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","In the meantime , without knowing about the rejection of his complaint , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed the PERSON public prosecutor that all relevant evidence , including the discharge notice from ORG , the medical report of his outpatient examination carried out by ORG on DATE , as well as the statements of the accused , the witnesses and the applicant , had already been brought to the attention of the public prosecutor .","On DATE the applicant , represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON , informed the trial court that he would take over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor , and applied to the investigating judge for an investigation against PERSON and PERSON The applicant described the incident of CARDINAL DATE as follows :","\u201c ... when ( the applicant ) approached ( the police car ) ... PERSON , who was in the driving seat , pushed the door open hard and hit ( the applicant ) in the lower part of both legs , then both accused left the car in order to arrest ( the applicant ) . PERSON started punching and kicking ( the applicant ) all over his body , inflicting numerous injuries , the hardest blow being the one to the back of his head , which caused ( the applicant ) to lose consciousness and slump down . He was thus in a position that enabled PERSON to knee him in the back , as a result of which he sustained compressive fractures of ( CARDINAL vertebrae ) , while PERSON kicked him in the lower back . Then they handcuffed his hands behind his back and took him into GPE police station , where they continued to beat him , as a result of which ( the applicant ) lost consciousness . Medical assistance was required , and ( the applicant ) was transported to GPE , from where he was transferred to ORG , where he remained for DATE , following which he was a patient at home and was on sick leave for DATE . \u201d","In support of the criminal complaint , the applicant submitted , inter alia , copies of the discharge notice from ORG and of the ORG report dated DATE , as well as of \u201c other medical material \u201d . He further requested the court to hear evidence from the accused , GPE , GPE , his wife and son .","On DATE the trial court forwarded the criminal complaint and supporting documents to the public prosecutor for further consideration , given that the charges concerned serious injury , a crime which was subject to ORG prosecution . By letter on DATE the public prosecutor informed the trial court that the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office had already examined and rejected the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint against the accused , for lack of suspicion that they had committed the alleged offence . Similar information was forwarded on DATE to the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office .","In the meantime , on DATE , the investigating judge , after hearing oral evidence from the applicant , his wife and son and the accused , opened an investigation against PERSON and PERSON on account of reasonable suspicion that they had caused serious bodily injury punishable under LAW . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the trial court dismissed appeals by the accused .","On DATE the applicant , through his lawyer , submitted to the trial court a subsidiary indictment ( \u0441\u0443\u043f\u0441\u0438\u0434\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0440\u0435\u043d \u043e\u0431\u0432\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043d \u0430\u043a\u0442 ) accusing PERSON and PERSON of inflicting grievous bodily harm on him ; this was supported by ORG medical report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the indictment , the applicant reiterated that he had been beaten up by the accused when he had approached their car to discuss the issue of the parking ticket , and that the assault had continued inside the police station .","During a hearing held on DATE , PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON , whom the applicant had meanwhile appointed to represent him in the case , stated that the applicant \u2019s allegations of police brutality were supported by the medical report of ORG , which designated the applicant \u2019s injuries as serious . Since charges of serious bodily injury were subject to ORG prosecution , he asked for the case file to be transmitted to the public prosecutor for the latter to take over the prosecution . On DATE , the trial court contacted the public prosecutor \u2019s office with a view whether it would take over the prosecution , which that office , by letter of CARDINAL DATE , refused to do .","On DATE the trial court heard oral evidence from the accused and the applicant .","PERSON stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... we noticed that ( the applicant ) was flashing his lights ... and then he started sounding the horn ... the applicant started banging on the window of ( the car ) and kicking it ... he spat at me ... continued to use offensive language ... we asked him to produce his identity card ... ( the applicant ) started kicking me and PERSON ... there were people who obviously knew ( the applicant ) , they approached him asking him to calm down , but he pushed them away , as he was not paying attention to them , his behaviour was ferocious ... at one moment ( the applicant ) pressed PERSON hard against the rear door [ of the car ] with his body ... and PERSON screamed loudly . I thought it was due to the pressure , but then I saw that PERSON \u2019s thumb was in ( the applicant \u2019s ) mouth ... I pulled ( the applicant ) hard towards me to get him away from PERSON , and I tried to hit him with my right arm on the back of the head , but ( the applicant ) slumped forward and my fist and elbow slipped next to his head , which I can not consider as a blow , but we specified it in our official records as such ... we handcuffed him with CARDINAL pairs of handcuffs behind his back ... ( the applicant ) did not stop resisting and assaulting us , kicking us . Handcuffed behind his back , he leaned on ( the car ) again as before , throwing himself [ at the car ] and leaning on the car , he was kicking us , we managed to put him in the car with his back on the rear seat of the car . Then he started kicking out hard at the door of the car , and we could n\u2019t close the door . Then , he lay on the rear seat and hit his head against the other door . He did that intentionally ... the interior of the car was badly damaged . While he was hitting his head against the right rear door and kicking the left door ... [ which ] we managed to close , he continued kicking the front seats and intentionally banged his head against the front seats and ... the rear seats . When we were trying to arrest him we were aware of his age and tried not [ to allow ] him to hurt us or himself ; we refrained from using more drastic means of coercion , despite the fact that we had batons and we were trained in restraint techniques .... Then we brought him to GPE police station ... and during the whole time he was furiously agitated in the rear seat . Although he was handcuffed , he was banging his head and other parts of his body against the interior of the car ... I did not punch , kick or use any other force [ against the applicant ] except as I have described in my statement ... My colleague PERSON did not hurt ( the applicant ) , he was just holding him by the arm . \u201d","M.A. stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... My colleague PERSON and I got out of the car and I asked ( the applicant ) to produce a driving licence , an ORG card or any other document bearing his photo . He continued using offensive language against us and kicked the car . At that moment I took out the handcuffs ... ( the applicant ) resisted , kicked the car ... jumped up at the car and us , he was acting , so to say , like a lunatic . At that time , my colleague and I did not use any other force apart from twisting his arms and using the handcuffs ... [ while they tried to handcuff the applicant ] , he was moving constantly left and right and throwing himself against the car ... he was kicking the car and hitting his head against the roof of the car , we could hardly manage to put him on to the back seat of the car and close the door . From that moment and until we brought him into the police station ... ( the applicant ) was throwing himself to left and right inside the car ... \u201d","In his statement , the applicant alleged that he had been beaten by PERSON and that ORG had beaten him during his arrest and immediately before and after they had brought him into the police station . He further stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... ( PERSON and PERSON ) stopped the car ... until then , there was no ... communication with the police car , nor were any signals used ... [ after he was brought into the police station ] it took TIME before the ambulance arrived ... Then , they immediately transferred me to ORG ... Then , from ORG I was taken by ambulance to the cardiology clinic in GPE ... a doctor instructed that I should be transferred to the surgical clinic in GPE , because she had noticed bruises on my body ... then I was taken to the emergency unit ... they instructed that I should be taken to ORG . Police officers and inspectors accompanied me at all times ... \u201d","On DATE the ORG prosecutor inquired as to why the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office had refused to prosecute , given that the applicant \u2019s injuries were designated as serious by ORG . By letter of DATE the PERSON prosecutor replied that the medical report of ORG dated DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not designated the applicant \u2019s injuries as serious . The medical certificate of DATE by PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been drawn up much later than DATE , the date of the incident .","At a hearing on DATE the applicant \u2019s representative sought a definitive answer from the public prosecutor as to whether he would take over the prosecution . In that connection he stated that it was not an option but a duty of the prosecutor to step into the proceedings , given the fact that the alleged offence was subject to ORG prosecution . On DATE the public prosecutor informed the court that for the same reasons as outlined in its letter of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it would not take over the prosecution against PERSON and PERSON","On DATE the trial court held a hearing in the presence of the applicant , his representative , the accused and their lawyers . According to the court record of that date , signed by the trial judge and the clerk , the applicant stated :","\u201c ... I withdraw the subsidiary indictment of DATE against the accused ( \u0413\u043e \u043f\u043e\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0443\u0432\u0430\u043c \u0441\u0443\u043f\u0441\u0438\u0434\u0438\u0458\u0430\u0440\u043d\u0438\u043e\u0442 \u043e\u0431\u0432\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043d \u0430\u043a\u0442 \u043e\u0434 DATE \u0433\u043e\u0434\u0438\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0432 \u043e\u0431\u0432\u0438\u043d\u0435\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0435 ... ) ... \u201d","On DATE the trial court stayed ( \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0440\u0430 ) the proceedings , since the applicant had stated , in the presence of his legal representative , that he withdrew the subsidiary indictment .","The following day , on DATE , the applicant objected to the trial court \u2019s decision to withdraw the indictment , and stated :","\u201c ... I , as a lay person ( \u043d\u0435\u0443\u043a\u0430 \u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u043d\u043a\u0430 ) , did not understand what the judge asked me , so I said that I withdrew the indictment , since I considered that the prosecution should be taken over by the public prosecutor . I wanted to maintain that right , namely ex officio prosecution through the public prosecutor , given the fact that the case concerns serious bodily injury , an offence punishable under LAW , which is prosecutable ex officio by the public prosecutor . I therefore ask the court to reinstate the proceedings and to decide on my subsidiary indictment . \u201d","In submissions of CARDINAL DATE before the trial court , the applicant contested the validity of the statement for withdrawal of the indictment . He stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... I underline that as a subsidiary complainant , I do not withdraw the subsidiary indictment of DATE against the accused ...","I believe that the prosecution should be taken over by the public prosecutor , I maintain the right [ to seek ] that the prosecution be taken ex officio because it concerns an offence of causing serious bodily injury ... because the perpetrators of the crime are officials who overstepped their duties .","For these reasons , I ask the court to reinstate the proceedings to their previous state and to continue to examine the subsidiary indictment . \u201d","On DATE the applicant complained to the NORP Bar about inactivity on the part of PERSON , his legal representative , at the hearing of DATE , and asked the Bar to respond so that his case could be reinstated . He further stated :","\u201c While I was explaining , specifically while I was complaining about the way in which the trial was being conducted , the trial judge wrote in the court record that I was withdrawing the subsidiary indictment . At that time , I emphasised that I disagreed with that decision noted in the court record . My representative , PERSON , did not react at all to the decision noted in the record [ although ] I \u2019m a lay person ( \u043d\u0435\u0443\u043a \u0432\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0442\u043e \u0438 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435 ) . \u201d","Submissions with similar contents were sent on DATE to ORG ( PERSON ) .","On DATE the applicant , who was no longer represented , appealed against the trial court \u2019s decision , arguing that he had never withdrawn the indictment against the accused . He reiterated that his statement concerned , in substance , his determination that the prosecution should be taken over by the public prosecutor . He further argued that he had complained aloud to the trial judge about the contents of the minutes , but to no avail . He stated that \u201c I am shocked by the flagrantly incorrect interpretation of my statement \u201d .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as unsubstantiated , and upheld the trial court \u2019s decision . Relying on the court record of DATE , the court concluded that the applicant , in the presence of his legal representative , had withdrawn the indictment against the accused . In such circumstances , the trial court had correctly decided to stay the proceedings . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE . The proceedings were accordingly finally concluded . On DATE ORG rejected as inadmissible the applicant \u2019s request for extraordinary review of the decision .","DATE . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the trial court ordered the applicant to pay the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) for the legal representation of the accused and travel costs . The applicant did not appeal against that decision ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173100","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF IGNJATOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","He was employed by PERSON , a company in PERSON ( PERSON gazdinstvo \u201c PERSON \u201d \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the debtor company \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant was reassigned to a lower post by his employer . He was subsequently dismissed on DATE . These CARDINAL decisions , taken by the company \u2019s managing director , were upheld by its board of management .","On DATE the applicant filed a civil claim against the debtor company ; on DATE he filed a separate claim seeking reinstatement to a suitable position , as well as the outstanding salary payments and social benefits .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor company to reinstate the applicant to a post which corresponded to his professional qualifications and to pay him specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively upon the applicant \u2019s requests to that effect , ORG accepted the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs .","ORG provided ORG ( ORG banka ORG \u2013 \u201c the LOC \u201d ) with the above - mentioned enforcement orders on DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively .","It would appear that none of the above - mentioned enforcement orders have been enforced to date .","On DATE ORG informed ORG of the suspension of the debtor company \u2019s accounts for DATE .","On DATE ORG opened preliminary insolvency proceedings against the debtor company .","On DATE ORG opened and closed the insolvency proceedings against the debtor company and that decision became final on DATE .","The debtor company was ultimately struck from the relevant public register on DATE .","The debtor company in the present case had been a socially owned company . In DATE it was transformed into a limited company which remained mainly socially owned , and remained as such until it was struck off the register ( see http:\/\/apr.gov.rs\/ , accessed on DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154007","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MUSTAFA TUN\u00c7 AND FEC\u0130RE TUN\u00c7 v. TURKEY","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["PERSON was born in DATE and died in DATE . PERSON and PERSON , born in DATE and DATE respectively , live in GPE . They are the father , mother and brother of PERSON , who was born on DATE and died on DATE .","PERSON joined the army in DATE to perform his compulsory military service . The medical report drawn up prior to his conscription stated that there were no contraindications to his conscription . He was not known to suffer from any psychological disorder or any other specific problem .","On an unspecified date PERSON obtained the rank of corporal . Following a training exercise which ended on DATE , he qualified as a sergeant .","He was then assigned to the protection of a site belonging to the private oil company ORG PERSON ( \u201c Perenco \u201d ) , for which the PERSON central gendarmerie was providing security services .","On DATE , at TIME , he was injured by gunfire . He was one of the gendarmes on sentry duty and assigned to the guard post known as \u201c tower no . CARDINAL \u201d . The incident occurred at the guard post known as \u201c tower no . CARDINAL \u201d .","PERSON was transported to hospital immediately after the incident by sergeant PERSON and private PERSON , accompanied by private PERSON , who was the last person to have seen PERSON before the incident .","PERSON was pronounced dead shortly after arrival at ORG .","The military prosecutor \u2019s office of the CARDINALth ORG , located in GPE , was informed immediately after the incident and a judicial investigation was opened as a matter of course .","TIME after the incident , a member of that office , military prosecutor PERSON , went to the hospital to which ORG had been admitted and was joined there , on his instructions , by a team of criminal investigation experts from the national gendarmerie . In addition , he sent another team to the scene of the incident and asked the PERSON ( civilian ) prosecutor to attend , in order to supervise the initial investigations and take any measures necessary to secure evidence .","On his arrival at the hospital , the military prosecutor ordered that an external examination of the corpse and an autopsy be carried out , under his supervision .","NORP Several photos were taken of the corpse . The deceased \u2019s clothing was removed and sent for laboratory analysis with a view to determining the distance from which the shot had been fired . Fingerprints were taken from the deceased and from GPE , who was the last person to have seen PERSON alive and could therefore have been involved in the incident . Swabs were also taken from their hands , to be checked for traces of gunpowder . Lastly , the deceased \u2019s pockets were emptied and an inventory made of their contents .","The prosecutor then instructed forensic doctor PERSON to examine the body with a view to ascertaining the cause of death , and to make any observations he may have on the circumstances of the death .","The forensic doctor recorded the following findings : body height , QUANTITY ; the entry wound , with an abrasion ring , was on the right side of the neck , and the exit wound , measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY , was on the left side of the back , under the lower edge of the shoulder blade . The forensic doctor noted no trace on the body of blows or violence . He stated that death had occurred following a haemorrhage caused by a bullet wound , and that the bullet had struck the trachea and left lung . He also mentioned that the shot had probably been fired at point - blank range ( yak\u0131n at\u0131\u015f ) . He based that conclusion on the presence of certain residue material . The relevant part of his report on this point reads as follows :","\u201c No skin coloration due to a burn or smoke was observed on the right side of the face or on the neck area . Traces of gunpowder were noted only on the right side of the face , on the curve of the lower jaw . \u201d","All of those observations were recorded in a document entitled \u201c Record of the post - mortem examination and autopsy \u201d .","The military prosecutor also questioned private PERSON and sergeant PERSON ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) , who had arrived at the hospital in the vehicle transporting PERSON body .","Simultaneously , a team of experts from the ORG national gendarmerie \u2019s criminal investigation laboratory and the PERSON civilian prosecutor went to the site TIME after the events , having received instructions to that effect from the military prosecutor in charge of the case .","According to the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s report , the site had a total of CARDINAL guard posts : a watchtower , known as the \u201c high tower \u201d and CARDINAL sentry posts . The incident had taken place in an edifice measuring QUANTITY , with a ceiling height of QUANTITY and apertures placed QUANTITY from the ground .","The report further noted that CARDINAL unspent cartridges and a spent cartridge were found lying on the ground inside the sentry post . The ceiling had an impact mark which resembled that of a shot . Small pieces of cement debris from the ceiling were found on the floor , which was also spattered with large bloodstains .","NORP The report also stated that a cursory examination of the deceased \u2019s weapon , a G-CARDINAL-type rifle which had been placed under lock and key pending the prosecutor \u2019s arrival , indicated that it had been used a short time previously . According to the report , this weapon , as well as that assigned to private GPE , an MG-CARDINAL-type rifle which seemed not to have been used , had been sent to a laboratory for scientific analysis .","Lastly , the report specified that a detailed record had been drawn up , CARDINAL sketches drawn , photographs taken and a video recording made .","In accordance with usual practice , an administrative inquiry was carried out on the orders of the provincial gendarmerie commander , to shed light on the incident and draw any conclusions from it , with a view to ensuring that a similar incident did not occur again .","On an unspecified date the deceased \u2019s body , escorted by Staff PERSON , was transported to GPE , for transfer to GPE and release to the family . The GPE provincial gendarmerie directorate was asked to contact the family to make arrangements for the funeral .","On DATE the gendarmerie \u2019s criminal research laboratory issued an expert report ( report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/chemical ) . That report indicated that analysis of the samples taken from the deceased \u2019s hands and from GPE , using the so - called \u201c atomic absorption spectrometry \u201d technique , had revealed the presence of lead , barium and antimony on the deceased \u2019s hands , and of barium and antimony on those of PERSON After noting that those elements were residues from the discharging of a weapon , the report pointed out that gunpowder residues contained micrometric particles which passed very easily from CARDINAL surface to another and that those residues frequently migrated to the hands when first aid was administered .","The report also noted that the tests on PERSON clothes indicated that he had been the victim of a shot fired at point - blank range .","On DATE the ORG national police criminal laboratory also issued its expert report ( report no . ORG ) , following ballistic tests carried out on the spent cartridge and on the CARDINAL weapons found at the scene of the incident . The tests indicated that the CARDINAL rifles were operating normally and confirmed that the spent cartridge came from PERSON weapon .","As part of the investigations carried out by the military prosecutor \u2019s office and the gendarmerie \u2019s internal inquiry , numerous servicemen were questioned on DATE of the incident .","In his evidence to the military prosecutor , PERSON stated :","\u201c LOC arrived at the tower where I was on duty TIME before he was due to relive me , since that was where the handover was to take place ... He told me that he was feeling down . When I asked him why , he answered \u2018 Forget it , mind your own business , you would n\u2019t understand in any ORG . His reply annoyed me , I had the impression he thought I was an idiot . I lit a cigarette and [ Cihan ] went into the tower ... he began playing with the cocking lever on his rifle . I came in and told him to stop ... He told me to mind my own business and go and have a cigarette ... At that point I went out ... I was QUANTITY from the tower when I heard a shot . I ran inside . [ Cihan ] was lying on the ground ... his rifle was lying on his right hand and the barrel was on his shoulder . I removed the rifle and tried to revive [ Cihan ] by shaking him , blood had begun to flow ... Sergeant A.A. arrived [ with other soldiers ] \u201d .","In response to the prosecutor \u2019s questions , PERSON replied that he had not had a dispute or a problem with PERSON , either during the duty shift or before it . He confirmed that he had not tried to remove the weapon from his hands at any point . He stated that he had not shot his fellow serviceman .","In reply to another question , he stated that , when PERSON loaded and then unloaded the weapon several times , he had seen unspent cartridges being ejected from the side of the rifle .","NORP In the course of his interview with the gendarmerie \u2019s internal investigator , he stated :","\u201c Sergeant A.A. came past TIME , during his patrol , to carry out a check . PERSON Tun\u00e7 arrived shortly afterwards , at TIME ... he came into the tower sentry post and began to play with his weapon , he loaded and then unloaded it CARDINAL times , and removed the magazine and put it back in . I asked him to stop , and said that we would both be punished if a senior officer were to come in unannounced ... He stopped for a moment . I was standing QUANTITY away from him . Then , [ when ] outside the post , I heard the noise of the cocking lever CARDINAL or CARDINAL times , followed by the sound of the weapon going off ... [ Cihan ] was lying on the ground , the weapon was on his chest . I tried to revive him . At that point , sergeant PERSON and the soldiers who were due to relieve us arrived . We carried LOC close to the [ oil ] container , then we took him to ORG in a ORG car belonging to the Perenco company ... \u201d","To the question \u201c how do you explain the fact that CARDINAL unspent cartridges were found at the scene of the incident ? \u201d PERSON replied that he did not have an explanation . He added that perhaps these were cartridges which had fallen when PERSON was loading and unloading the weapon .","In response to another question , he said that he was unable to state if the magazine had been in the weapon at the time of the incident , since he had paid no attention to that point .","The investigator also asked GPE about the positions of the weapon and PERSON . More specifically , he asked if the latter had been sitting or standing while he was manipulating his rifle . PERSON indicated that , while he was inside the post with PERSON , the latter had pointed the weapon towards the ceiling and charged it , and had then removed the magazine and operated the lever to eject the loaded cartridge . As he left the post , he saw PERSON sit down on an ammunition chest . While still outside , he heard the sound of the cocking lever a further CARDINAL times , then a shot .","Lastly , the investigator questioned GPE about the location of the weapons . According to GPE , his own rifle had been on a rack inside the post , and its tripod was folded . ORG weapon had been on his chest .","In those CARDINAL statements , the location where the incident took place is described interchangeably by the terms \u201c duty station no . CARDINAL \u201d ( CARDINAL no.lu n\u00f6bet mevzisi ) or \u201c tower no . CARDINAL \u201d ( CARDINAL no.lu kule ) .","In his statement to the military prosecutor , sergeant PERSON indicated that he had heard a gunshot and , together with several privates , had rushed to the spot from where the sound had come . They found PERSON lying on the ground . After attempting to find the injured man \u2019s pulse , PERSON ordered that he be transported to the canteen and then to hospital .","With regard to the guard posts , sergeant PERSON indicated that CARDINAL were in use . The first was situated at the entrance to the site ( nizamiye ) ; the second post , known as the \u201c low tower \u201d , although in reality located in fourth position from the entrance , was also known as \u201c tower no . CARDINAL \u201d , since the CARDINAL preceding posts were not used . The third post was known as \u201c tower no . CARDINAL \u201d or the \u201c high tower \u201d .","A.A. also stated that , to his knowledge , there had been no problem between PERSON and GPE","In reply to a question from the prosecutor , he repeated the account of the events given to him by ORG This account corresponded to the statement made by GPE","A.A. gave similar evidence to the gendarmerie \u2019s internal investigator .","Captain GPE and Staff PERSON indicated that they had become aware of the incident while they were in the PERSON barracks . On arrival at the scene , they inspected the premises in a very cursory manner , without disturbing the scene of the incident . They had seen a spent cartridge and CARDINAL cartridges for a ORG rifle , one on the ground and the other on the rack . They had also noted blood on the ground .","Sergeant PERSON gave the following evidence to the investigator :","\u201c Cihan was on duty at post no . CARDINAL ... During my round , at CARDINAL a.m .... everything was normal . I exchanged a few words with LOC , who was on duty in the high tower ... When I arrived at the scene of the incident , PERSON was trying to lift LOC up . \u201d","With regard to the position of the magazine , sergeant PERSON stated that he had paid no attention to that point at the time . However , he remembered that , after carrying LOC to the canteen , private PERSON had gone back and brought him the weapon , and he had noticed that the magazine was not in place on the rifle .","To the question \u201c why did the incident take place at guard post no . CARDINAL , where GPE was on duty , although PERSON had been assigned to the high tower ? \u201d he replied :","\u201c I do n\u2019t know . It is possible that Cihan left his post to go there because he was almost at the end of his duty period . When I did my round , at TIME , LOC was at his post in the high tower . \u201d","Private PERSON confirmed PERSON \u2019s statement , indicating that the weapon and the magazine were inside the sentry post , but that the magazine was not in the weapon .","Private E.C. stated that when he arrived on the scene PERSON was attempting to lift PERSON up . He also confirmed that the magazine was not in the weapon .","The following additional elements emerged from the other statements : PERSON had arrived DATE previously in the Perenco site protection team , which was composed of QUANTITY persons . He had no known problems and had not had a dispute with the other soldiers .","At the time of the incident , private ORG had been the soldier on sentry duty at the first guard post , located at the entrance to the site .","After sergeant PERSON and the other servicemen arrived at the scene of the incident , PERSON was sent to the canteen to seek help .","Having regard to the absence of family , social or psychological problems on the part of the deceased , the fact that he had been at a guard post assigned to CARDINAL of his fellow servicemen and to the position and distance ( point - blank range ) of the shot , the inquiry concluded that the incident had been an accident . It seems , however , that the possibility of unlawful killing was considered at the beginning of the inquiry .","On DATE , holding that there were no grounds for finding that another person had been responsible for PERSON death , the prosecution service issued a decision not to bring a prosecution . The prosecutor set out all of the evidence gathered during the investigation . He concluded that the shot had been fired when the young man , with his chest bent , had been leaning towards his right side and the barrel of the rifle was pointed towards his neck , adding that this explained , in particular , the bullet impact on the ceiling . However , the prosecutor \u2019s decision did not state why the shot had suddenly been fired .","On DATE the prosecutor , in response to a request from the applicants\u2019 lawyer , sent her a letter and a copy of the decision , indicating that , in application of LAW , the entire case file was at her disposal , and that she could examine it and have a copy made of any item of evidence she thought it appropriate to obtain .","Furthermore , a copy of the decision not to bring a prosecution was served in person on PERSON , a sister of the deceased , on DATE .","The applicants appealed against the decision , alleging that several grey areas remained as to the circumstances of PERSON death . In particular , they claimed that the trajectory followed by the bullet had not been clearly defined . They did not refer to the fact that PERSON had not been questioned , or that no fingerprint tests had been conducted on the weapon .","On DATE the military court of the Diyarbak\u0131r CARDINALnd ORG upheld the ORG appeal and ordered the prosecution service to carry out an additional investigation . In particular , it considered that the bullet \u2019s trajectory and the firing position needed to be clearly established , on the basis of the entry and exit wounds on the body and the impact mark of the bullet on the ceiling . It also indicated that no plausible grounds for suicide had been identified . It added that , in any event , the position of the body at the time of the shot had been unusual for a suicide . Lastly , it stated that no explanation had been provided for the gunshot residue on the hands of GPE , the last person to have seen PERSON before the incident .","On DATE the military prosecutor visited the Perenco site , accompanied by CARDINAL criminal investigation experts .","The group went to the guard post where the incident had taken place . Once all of the materials in the case file had been examined , a reconstruction of the events was carried out , assisted by an individual who was similar in build to the deceased .","Steps to determine the bullet \u2019s trajectory were taken , including the use of a string , stretched between the impact mark on the ceiling and the barrel of a ORG rifle . Photographs were taken .","The experts noted that the floor was made of concrete , although the previous records described an earthen floor . According to information provided by the site managers , various LOC , including several dirt tracks , had been cemented over since the incident , with a view to keeping the soldiers\u2019 uniforms clean . The floors had not been raised during this work . This point was confirmed by measurements which established that the ceiling height was still QUANTITY , as it had been at the time of the incident .","DATE . In the light of all the evidence gathered , the experts reached the following conclusion : PERSON had been sitting or crouching and was holding his rifle in his right hand ; while he was attempting to stand up by leaning on his weapon , and with his knees still bent , his hand had pulled the trigger and the shot had been fired .","During his visit to the site , the prosecutor questioned private GPE , the other soldiers on duty at the time of the incident having completed their military service . ORG stated that , when he arrived , PERSON was crouching down behind PERSON and was trying to lift him up by pulling him under the arms .","All of this evidence was set out in a report dated DATE .","On DATE the prosecutor completed the investigations and sent the file to the military court , together with a report on the additional investigation requested ( report no . CARDINAL ) , in which he set out the measures taken and responded to the shortcomings noted by the court . With regard to the traces of gunshot on the hands , he pointed out that the file contained an expert report indicating that gunshot residue was very volatile and that it could have moved from the dead man \u2019s clothes or hands to GPE \u2019s hands immediately after the incident . He added that several statements supported that hypothesis , in that they confirmed that PERSON had been in physical contact with the deceased when attempting to lift him up .","With regard to the court \u2019s observation that the firing position hardly corresponded to that of an individual who intended to commit suicide and its argument about the lack of a motive , the prosecutor stated that the decision not to prosecute contained no indication that the incident had been a suicide and , indeed , that the hypothesis of suicide had not been entertained .","As to determination of the bullet \u2019s trajectory in the light of the impact mark on the ceiling and the entry and exit wounds on the body , the prosecutor stated that the following hypothesis had been accepted : PERSON had been sitting on an ammunition box and playing with the rifle \u2019s cocking lever and magazine ; while he was holding the weapon , with the magazine removed and at an angle on his right side , he had leaned forward and towards his right side with the intention of using the rifle to support himself in standing up , his hand on the part of the weapon near the trigger , and the shot had gone off ; the bullet had entered through the right side of his neck and emerged under the lower edge of the left shoulder - blade , before hitting the ceiling ; thus , PERSON had not committed suicide , he had been the victim of an accident . The prosecutor added that he had organised a reconstruction of the scene on DATE in order to ascertain the credibility of this hypothesis , having regard to the bullet \u2019s entry and exit points , the point of impact on the ceiling and the deceased man \u2019s build , and that the conclusions of the reconstruction confirmed this sequence of events .","The record of the reconstruction of the incident was attached to this report .","On DATE the military court dismissed the applicants\u2019 appeal .","DATE . A letter dated DATE was sent to the applicants\u2019 lawyer , informing her of that decision . Neither the date of posting nor the date of receipt of that letter is specified in the case file . The applicants submitted that they had received the letter in question at DATE . ORG made no submissions on this point .","The applicants submitted a private medical report , prepared at their request by a NORP expert , Dr PERSON , and dated DATE . The expert drew up his report in LANGUAGE , on the basis of his examination of a number of documents from the case file which had been translated into that language . The relevant parts of this report read as follows :","\u201c I am a Consultant Forensic Pathologist , accredited by ORG ( ... ) .","In preparing this report I have been provided with LANGUAGE translations of the following documents relating to PERSON :","The Inquest and Autopsy Report dated DATE .","Preparatory investigation report document number QUANTITY entitled \u201c Widening of the Investigation \u201d .","CARDINAL expert reports dated CARDINALth and DATE , reference numbers ELS-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL Chemical .","CARDINAL colour images of the deceased , one taken in life and CARDINAL taken post mortem , when the deceased is apparently within a coffin .","An image of a ORG rifle .","...","The deceased was taken to a nearby ORG and the autopsy examination carried out later on the day of his death . Such promptness should be regarded as a good practice .","...","Initial examination then appears to involve removing the clothing from the deceased and the photographing it , collection of samples for forensic laboratory investigation , and recording detail content of pockets , etc .","In itself , this process appears to have been carried out appropriately , with collection of appropriate samples given the nature of the incident .","Having completed this stage , the [ autopsy ] report appears to indicate that the pathologist Dr. PERSON was \u2018 called GPE , by which I understand had his first opportunity to examine the deceased .","If my understanding is correct , this would cause me some considerable concern because , particularly in the case of shooting fatality , the pathologist should be given as much information as possible as regards the scene and state of the deceased , the latter including the opportunity to inspect and examine the undisturbed clothing .","...","The remainder of the details of the autopsy examination are somewhat brief and sketchy .","Otherwise , the essential autopsy examination findings are included in the report . The conclusion as to the cause of death is reasonable in the light of the stated autopsy findings ( i.e. there are no internally inconsistent findings and conclusions ) .","...","PERSON sustained a gunshot entry wound to the front side of his neck , and an exit wound on the back of the left shoulder . The photographs demonstrate a small entry wound , and a larger exit wound , and there is in my opinion no possibility that entry and exit have been got \u201c the wrong way round \u201d .","If the bullet has passed through the deceased and embedded itself in the ceiling , then the only way that I can conceive this trajectory of being achievable , is if the deceased was bent over the moment the gun discharged .","The autopsy report indicated that traces of unburned gunpowder were found on the right side of the face and on the curve of the lower jaw , but there was no smoke staining or burning of the skin . This indicates that the muzzle end of the barrel was close to but not in contact with the skin of the deceased . Whilst such discharge deposits depend to some extent on the nature of the weapon and ammunition used , the likely range of fire ( i.e. muzzle to skin distance ) would be in the region of QUANTITY .","I am informed that the length of a GCARDINAL rifle , believed to be the sort used by the deceased , is QUANTITY . From the image provided , the trigger is CARDINAL of the length of the rifle away from the muzzle . Depending on the length of the deceased \u2019s arm , the trigger might just be reachable ( say with an outstretched finger ) , if he was bent over the rifle at the time .","The CARDINAL other possibilities I can think of are that either the rifle malfunctioned and discharged unexpectedly for some reason ( e. g. it was dropped on the floor , or that the rifle was fired by another person DATE however , this would require that person to be lying on the floor pointing the rifle upwards with the deceased bent over the muzzle ( his neck at a distance of DATE QUANTITY ) at the time .","There were no autopsy signs that the deceased had been involved in a struggle or a fight . \u201d","On DATE the ORG lawyer brought an action before ORG , seeking payment of pecuniary compensation on account of PERSON death .","Following the dismissal of the notice of claim on procedural grounds , a new claim was lodged on DATE . The applicants claimed MONEY ( TRY ) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage for each of the parents , and TRY CARDINAL for each of the deceased \u2019s CARDINAL brothers and sisters .","On DATE the expert appointed by ORG to evaluate the pecuniary damage submitted his report . He estimated the damage at TRY CARDINAL for the deceased \u2019s father and TRY CARDINAL for his mother . The parties did not challenge that evaluation .","On DATE the court allowed the ORG claims in part . It noted that the death had been caused by careless handling of the service rifle . It considered that this implied a lack of sufficient training in handling weapons and negligence in the supervision and protection of conscripts . In consequence , it found that the death was partly imputable to negligence by the authorities . Having regard also to the existence of contributory negligence by the deceased , and pointing out that it was bound by the claim and could not rule ultra petita , ORG awarded the following sums :","- TRY CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage to the deceased \u2019s mother ;","- TRY CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage to the deceased \u2019s father ;","- TRY CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage to each of the deceased \u2019s brothers and sisters .","Those amounts bore late - payment interest , to be calculated from the date of the incident to the date of payment .","On DATE the authorities made a payment of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately QUANTITY ( ORG ) on DATE ) to ORG , to which a request had been made by the ORG lawyer .","The applicants claim that they had been unaware of those proceedings before ORG until they were mentioned by the Government , and that no sum has been paid to them by their lawyer .","On DATE ORG , an emanation of the armed forces which was set up to support the families of soldiers who die in service , awarded CARDINAL former NORP lira ( MONEY at DATE ) to the deceased man \u2019s family in financial assistance ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169476","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DUMIKYAN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE . Until his arrest in DATE he lived in GPE , GPE . On DATE the GPE Region office of ORG ordered his deportation to GPE . It seems that the deportation order was executed on DATE .","On DATE the applicant , while under the influence of alcohol , took a car without the owner \u2019s consent and crashed into a tree . As a result of this accident he sustained multiple injuries , including a thighbone fracture , a dislocated hip and facial wounds .","The applicant was taken by ambulance to ORG where he was admitted to an intensive care unit . He was connected to a medical ventilator and subjected to emergency anti - shock treatment . The doctors sutured his wounds . A metal pin for skeletal traction was inserted through the heel bone of his broken leg and the applicant was placed in a special metal frame with weights attached to his injured leg .","DATE his condition improved and he was transferred to a trauma department , where he remained bedridden in a skeletal traction frame . Osteosynthesis surgery was to be performed in due course .","On DATE the police opened a criminal case into car theft .","It appears that during the investigation the authorities learned that the applicant was wanted by the authorities of GPE for a murder allegedly committed in DATE in GPE .","A police investigator asked the attending doctor whether the applicant could be discharged from hospital and transferred to a detention facility .","On an unspecified date the doctor informed the investigator that the applicant was in need of inpatient treatment on account of multiple injuries , including facial injuries , a dislocated hip and a thighbone fracture . Citing the seriousness of his condition the doctor noted that the applicant could not be transported to a court or police station . The doctor stated that police detention centres and remand prisons in GPE were unable to ensure the appropriate medical care to the applicant .","On DATE the investigator reported the content of the above letter to his superior .","DATE , upon a request from an investigator , a medical expert commenced an examination of the applicant to assess the seriousness of his injuries . Without informing the hospital administration and without having received the results of the expert examination , the police arrested the applicant and took him to remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE . It does not seem that any special arrangements for the applicant \u2019s transport were made .","It was noted in the expert report completed on DATE that the applicant \u2019s injuries were of \u201c medium \u201d seriousness .","On DATE ORG , at the request of the PERSON prosecutor and in the absence of the applicant , ordered his detention pending the receipt of an extradition request from the NORP authorities . That ruling was based on LAW ( \u201c the CCrP \u201d ) and LAW ( \u201c the Minsk Convention \u201d ) .","On DATE the ORG quashed the order of CARDINAL DATE in view of the applicant \u2019s absence from the hearing before ORG . ORG remitted the issue for fresh consideration .","DATE , this time after hearing evidence from the applicant , ORG , on the basis of the same legal provisions , ordered his detention until receipt of the extradition request from GPE .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s detention on appeal .","According to the applicant , only on DATE did ORG inform the competent NORP authorities of the applicant \u2019s arrest .","The General Prosecutor of the Republic of Belarus requested the applicant \u2019s extradition .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s extradition to stand trial in GPE .","According to the applicant , in DATE he was extradited to GPE .","On DATE the NORP authorities closed the criminal case due to the absence of corpus delicti in the applicant \u2019s actions . He was then returned to GPE .","In the meantime , on DATE , in the context of the criminal investigation into car theft , ORG ordered the applicant not to leave PERSON .","On DATE ORG changed the measure of restraint to detention pending investigation . The decision was based on the seriousness of the charges , the fact that the applicant had been on the run and had no permanent residence in GPE . ORG upheld that detention order on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , citing the seriousness of the charges and the lack of a permanent residence in GPE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG again extended the applicant \u2019s detention until CARDINAL and DATE , respectively . In addition to the previously employed arguments , the detention orders were held to be justified by the necessity to complete the investigation . The latest detention order was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of car theft and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment in a correctional colony .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the conviction and sentence , but amended the type of the detention facility where the applicant was to serve his sentence to a settlement colony .","It is clear from entries made by civilian doctors in the applicant \u2019s medical history on DATE , DATE of his arrest , that he was in satisfactory health ; his body temperature , which had fluctuated for DATE , was CARDINAL ; the pain syndrome was decreasing ; his stitches were dry ; and no signs of inflammation were present . The metal pin remained in his leg . In the discharge summary drafted on account of the applicant \u2019s arrest , \u201c continued medical treatment \u201d and crutches were prescribed . The attending doctor explicitly noted that the patient had been taken from the hospital without the consent of the chief doctor .","On admission to the remand prison the applicant was examined by a feldsher ( medical assistant ) , who recorded the visible bodily injuries . No medical tests were performed and no treatment was prescribed . The applicant was not provided with any mobility aid devices , such as a wheelchair , crutches or a walking stick .","It was not disputed by the parties that DATE the applicant had been placed in a cell designed to accommodate a maximum of CARDINAL inmates . The cell measured QUANTITY m. On DATE and CARDINAL August CARDINAL the applicant had to share that cell with CARDINAL other inmates , with each inmate thus having no more than QUANTITY . m of floor space . Several inmates , including the applicant , had no places to sleep .","According to the applicant , in the remand prison he experienced a leg pain , nausea and loss of consciousness .","Medical entries show that the applicant was seen by a prison doctor for the first time on DATE , in response to his complaints of pain , nausea and vertigo . After a visual examination , the doctor ordered the transfer of the applicant to Regional Anti - Tuberculosis ORG no . OF-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE ( \u201c the prison hospital \u201d ) \u201c for treatment and skeletal traction \u201d . The transfer was performed DATE .","In the prison hospital several medical tests were performed . Owing to technical problems the applicant could not undergo an X - ray examination of his legs ordered by a doctor . He was seen by a surgeon and a neurologist .","The surgeon , having considered the time that had passed from the termination of the skeletal traction , removed the metal pin from the applicant \u2019s leg . A walking stick was prescribed .","The neurologist diagnosed the applicant with vegetative - vascular dystonia and prescribed a DATE - long drug regimen .","The applicant was discharged from hospital on DATE in a \u201c satisfactory condition \u201d .","NORP The medical documents in the ORG \u2019s possession cover the period DATE CARDINAL DATE . They show that at that time the applicant was seen by the prison doctor on account of his chronic peptic and liver conditions . It does not appear that he underwent any medical examination or treatment related to the leg condition .","As to the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention during that period , the ORG submitted that the applicant had been transferred between several cells of the remand prison , some of which were overcrowded . In particular , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant was afforded less than QUANTITY m of floor space , and occasionally CARDINAL sq . m. According to the applicant , the cells were poorly ventilated , had non - partitioned toilets and were infested with bugs , mice and lice .","On DATE , the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in a settlement colony . He was released on DATE , after having served his sentence in full .","According to him , he continued to walk with a limp after the release , because the broken leg had knitted in a wrong position ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146501","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HASSAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Josep Casadevall;Ledi Bianku;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows . Where certain facts are in dispute , each party \u2019s version of events is set out .","On DATE a coalition of armed forces under unified command , led by GPE with a large force from GPE and small contingents from GPE , GPE and GPE , commenced the invasion of GPE from their assembly point across the border with GPE . By DATE NORP forces had captured PERSON and by DATE GPE troops had gained control of GPE . Major combat operations in GPE were declared complete on DATE .","Prior to the invasion , the applicant was a general manager in the national secretariat of ORG and a general in ORG , the army of ORG . He lived in Umm PERSON , a port city in the region of PERSON , near the border with GPE and QUANTITY from ORG ( GPE ) . After the NORP army entered into occupation of PERSON , they started arresting high ranking members of ORG . Other Ba\u2019ath ORG members were killed by NORP militia . The applicant and his family therefore went into hiding , leaving the applicant \u2019s brother , PERSON PERSON ( henceforth , \u201c PERSON \u201d ) , and his cousin to protect the family home .","According to information given by the ORG , members of a NORP army unit , ORG , went to the applicant \u2019s house TIME of CARDINAL DATE , hoping to arrest him . The applicant was not there , but the NORP forces encountered PERSON , who was described in the contemporaneous report drawn up by the arresting unit ( \u201c the battalion record \u201d ) as a \u201c gunman \u201d , found on the roof of the house with an AK-CARDINAL machine gun . The battalion record indicated that the \u201c gunman \u201d identified himself as the brother of the applicant and that he was arrested at TIME It further indicated that the house was found by the arresting soldiers to contain other firearms and a number of documents of intelligence value , related to local membership of ORG and ORG .","According to a statement made by the applicant and dated DATE , PERSON was arrested by NORP troops on DATE , in the applicant \u2019s absence . According to this statement , \u201c When my sisters approached the NORP military authority they were told that I had to surrender myself to them before they would release my brother \u201d . In a later statement , dated DATE , the applicant did not mention his sisters but instead stated that he asked his friend , PERSON , and his neighbour PERSON , to ask NORP forces for information about PERSON . The applicant asked these friends because he could trust them ; PERSON was a respected businessman and PERSON had been to university and spoke LANGUAGE . According to the applicant , \u201c [ W]hen they approached the NORP military authorities the NORP told them I had to surrender myself to them before they would release my brother \u201d .","According to a summary of a telephone interview with the applicant \u2019s neighbour , Mr PERSON , dated DATE , PERSON was taken away by NORP soldiers on an unknown date in DATE at TIME , with his hands tied behind his back . Mr ORG stated that he approached one of the NORP who accompanied the soldiers to ask what they wanted , and was told that the soldiers had come to arrest the applicant . DATE , the applicant telephoned Mr PERSON and asked him to find a guard for his house and to find out from the NORP army what had happened to PERSON . DATE , Mr PERSON went to the NORP headquarters at FAC . He asked an NORP translator if he could find out anything about PERSON . DATE , when PERSON returned , the translator informed him that the NORP forces were keeping PERSON PERSON until the applicant surrendered . The translator further advised PERSON ORG not to return , as this might expose him to questioning .","Both parties agreed that PERSON was taken by NORP forces to GPE . This FAC , situated QUANTITY from Umm PERSON and QUANTITY south of ORG was first established on DATE as a GPE detention facility . However , it officially became GPE facility , known as \u201c GPE \u201d , on DATE . In DATE the FAC was composed of CARDINAL compounds , divided by barbed wire fencing , each with a single entry point . Each compound contained open - sided tents capable of housing CARDINAL detainees , a water tap , latrines and an uncovered area .","For reasons of operational convenience , GPE continued to detain individuals they had captured at GPE . CARDINAL compound was set aside for internees detained by GPE on suspicion of criminal offences . In addition , GPE operated a separate compound at the Camp for its ORG ( ORG ) . This compound had been built by NORP forces and continued to be administered by them . Although detainees captured by both GPE and GPE armies were interrogated at the ORG compound , and teams of GPE and GPE interrogators worked there , the GPE ORG team controlled the detention and interrogation of all prisoners held there . Elsewhere in the FAC , the GPE army was responsible for guarding and escorting detainees and GPE was obliged to reimburse GPE for costs involved in maintaining GPE captured detainees held at the FAC . ORG ( military police ) had an \u201c overseeing responsibility \u201d for GPE detainees transferred to GPE custody , except those detained in the ORG compound . GPE detainees who were ill or injured were treated in NORP field hospitals . GPE authorities were responsible for liaising with ORG ( ICRC ) about the treatment of GPE detainees and the notification of their families regarding the detention ( see further paragraph CARDINAL below ) . GPE also remained responsible for classifying detainees under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In anticipation of GPE using shared facilities to hold GPE detainees , on DATE GPE , GPE and ORG entered into a Memorandum of Arrangement ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) relating to the transfer of custody of detainees , which provided as follows :","\u201c This arrangement establishes procedures in the event of the transfer from the custody of either the GPE , GPE or NORP forces to the custody of any of the other parties , any Prisoners of War , NORP Internees , and Civilian Detainees taken during operations against GPE .","The Parties undertake as follows :","This arrangement will be implemented in accordance with LAW to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and LAW to ORG in Time of War , as well as customary international law .","GPE , GPE , and NORP forces will , as mutually determined , accept ( as Accepting Powers ) prisoners of war , civilian internees , and civilian detainees who have fallen into the power of any of the other parties ( the Detaining Power ) and will be responsible for maintaining and safeguarding all such individuals whose custody has been transferred to them . Transfers of prisoners of war , civilian internees and civilian detainees between Accepting Powers may take place as mutually determined by both the Accepting Power and the Detaining Power .","Arrangements to transfer prisoners of war , civilian internees , and civilian detainees who are casualties will be expedited , in order that they may be treated according to their medical priority . All such transfers will be administered and recorded within the systems established under this arrangement for the transfer of prisoners of war , civilian internees , and civilian detainees .","Any prisoners of war , civilian internees , and civilian detainees transferred by a Detaining Power will be returned by the Accepting Power to the Detaining Power without delay upon request by the Detaining Power .","NORP The release or repatriation or removal to territories outside GPE of transferred prisoners of war , civilian internees , and civilian detainees will only be made upon the mutual arrangement of the Detaining Power and the Accepting Power .","The Detaining Power will retain full rights of access to any prisoner of war , civilian internees and civilian detainees transferred from Detaining Power custody while such persons are in the custody of the Accepting Power .","The Accepting Power will be responsible for the accurate accountability of all prisoners of war , civilian internees , and civilian detainees transferred to it . Such records will be available for inspection by the Detaining Power upon request . If prisoners of war , civilian internees , or civilian detainees are returned to ORG , the records ( or a true copy of the same ) relating to those prisoners of war , civilian internees , and civilian detainees will also be handed over .","The Detaining Powers will assign liaison officers to Accepting Powers in order to facilitate the implementation of this arrangement .","The Detaining Power will be solely responsible for the classification under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of potential prisoners of war captured by its forces . Prior to such a determination being made , such detainees will be treated as prisoners of war and afforded all the rights and protections of the LAW even if transferred to the custody of an ORG .","Where there is doubt as to which party is the Detaining Power , all Parties will be jointly responsible for and have full access to all persons detained ( and any records concerning their treatment ) until the Detaining Power has by mutual arrangement been determined .","To the extent that jurisdiction may be exercised for criminal offenses , to include pre - capture offenses , allegedly committed by prisoners of war , civilian internees , and civilian detainees prior to a transfer to an ORG , primary jurisdiction will initially rest with ORG . Detaining Powers will give favourable consideration to any request by an ORG to waive jurisdiction .","Primary jurisdiction over breaches of disciplinary regulations and judicial offenses allegedly committed by prisoners of war , civilian internees , and civilian detainees after transfer to an ORG will rest with the Accepting Power .","The Detaining Power will reimburse the Accepting Power for the costs involved in maintaining prisoners of war , civilian internees , and civilian detainees transferred pursuant to this arrangement .","At the request of CARDINAL of the Parties , the Parties will consult on the implementation of this arrangement . \u201d","According to the witness statement of Major PERSON , who served with ORG at GPE during the period in question , the usual procedure was for a detainee to arrive at the FAC with a military escort from the capturing unit . On arrival he would be held in a temporary holding area while his documents were checked and his personal possessions were taken from him . Medical treatment would be provided at this point if required . The detainee would then be processed through the arrivals tent by GPE personnel with the aid of an interpreter . A digital photograph would be taken and this , together with other information about the detainee , would be entered on the database used by GPE authorities to record a wide range of military personnel information during the operations in GPE , including detainee information , known as the PERSON database .","Examination of this database showed that there was no entry under the name PERSON but there was an entry , with a photograph , for \u201c PERSON \u201d . In his witness statement the applicant explained that for official purposes NORP use their own first name , followed by the names of their father , mother , grandfather and great - grandfather . \u201c PERSON \u201d was the applicant \u2019s great - grandfather \u2019s name and it appeared that PERSON ( his grandfather \u2019s name ) was omitted by mistake . PERSON was issued with a wristband printed with his GPE internment serial number UKDFCARDINALIZSM ; with \u201c DF \u201d denoting \u201c detention facility \u201d , \u201c IZ \u201d meaning allegiance to GPE and \u201c ORG \u201d standing for \u201c soldier male \u201d . Screen shots from the PERSON database also show that PERSON was asked whether he consented to the national authorities being informed of his detention and that he did not consent to this .","Following the GPE registration process , detainees would be transferred to GPE forces for a second registration . This involved the issue of GPE number , printed on a wrist band . PERSON GPE registration number was UKCARDINAL - CARDINALEPWCARDINAL . The \u201c GPE \u201d reference indicated that GPE was the capturing nation and \u201c EPW \u201d indicated that he was treated by GPE forces as an enemy prisoner of war ; however , at this stage all detainees were classified as prisoners of war except those captured by NORP forces on suspicion of having committed criminal offences . After registration , detainees were usually medically examined , then provided with bedding and eating and washing kits and transferred by GPE forces to the accommodation areas .","The Government submitted a witness statement by PERSON , who was charged with running ORG ( ORG ) in respect of GPE from the start of military operations there in DATE . He stated that the ORG operated in GPE as the \u201c ORG \u201d required by LAW and monitored details of prisoners of war internees and criminal detainees in order to facilitate contact with their nextof - kin . LAW also required the establishment of a \u201c Central Prisoners of War Information Agency \u201d . This role was subsumed by ORG of ORG ( ICRC ) . The ICRC collected information about the capture of individuals and , subject to the consent of the prisoner , transmitted it to the prisoner \u2019s country of origin or the power on which he depended . In practice , details of all prisoners taken into custody by NORP forces were entered by staff at the detention facility in GPE and sent to Mr GPE in GPE , who then transferred the data to a spread - sheet and downloaded it to the ICRC \u2019s secure website . He stated that during the active combat phase he typically passed data to the ICRC on a DATE basis , and DATE thereafter . However , PERSON details were not notified to the ICRC until DATE , because of a delay caused by the updating of ORG computer system . In any event , it was noted on PERSON record that he did not consent to the NORP authorities being notified of his capture ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the absence of consent , PERSON considered it unlikely that the ICRC would have informed the NORP authorities and that those authorities would , in turn , have informed the PERSON family .","According to the Government , where the status of a prisoner was uncertain at the time of his arrival at GPE , he would be registered as a prisoner of war by GPE authorities . Any detainee , such as PERSON , captured in a deliberate operation was taken immediately to the ORG compound for a CARDINAL - stage interview . According to the Government , there were GPE and GPE interrogation teams working in the ORG compound , and both teams interviewed both ORG Kingdom- and ORG - captured detainees . The first interview may have been undertaken simply by whichever team was available when the detainee arrived . The aim of the interview process was to identify military or paramilitary personnel who might have information pertinent to the military campaign and , where it was established that the detainee was a non - combatant , whether there were grounds to suspect that he was a security risk or a criminal . If no such reasonable grounds existed , the individual was classified as a civilian not posing a threat to security and ordered to be released immediately .","A print - out from the ORG computer database indicated that in FAC PERSON was assigned ORG no . CARDINAL and registration no . ORG . His arrival was recorded as CARDINAL DATE at CARDINAL and his departure was recorded as CARDINAL DATE at CARDINAL , with his \u201c final destination \u201d recorded as \u201c Registration ( Civ Cage ) . \u201d Under the entry \u201c ORG \u201d the letter \u201c R \u201d was entered . Under the heading \u201c LOC , which stood for \u201c tactical questioning \u201d , there was the entry \u201c CARDINAL \u201d and under the heading \u201c FAC \u201d was the entry \u201c CARDINALZAPRCARDINAL \u201d . According to the Government , the first of these entries meant that PERSON PERSON was first subjected to tactical questioning on DATE at CARDINAL PERSON ( \u201c NORP \u201d in this context meant Coordinated Universal Time , also known as ORG ) . On DATE , CARDINAL PERSON would have been CARDINAL NORP time . The second entry indicated that PERSON was again subject to questioning on DATE at CARDINAL PERSON , or CARDINAL local time and then released into the civilian pen at GPE at CARDINAL local time on DATE .","The Government provided the ORG with a copy of a record of an interview between PERSON and GPE agents , dated DATE , CARDINAL PERSON , which stated as follows :","\u201c EPW [ Enemy Prisoner of War ] was born in GPE on DATE . He currently resides in his home with his father , mother , older brother ( Name : PERSON ; born in DATE ) , and his little sister ( age ; unexploited ) . Home is across from the PERSON school in the GPE region in GPE . EPW left middle school as a recruit to play soccer . He currently plays in ORG and his position is attacker \/ forward . His team receives money from the government and the PERSON committee to pay for team expenses . EPW has no job since soccer is his life and they pay for all of his soccer expenses .","ORG knows that he was brought in because of his brother , PERSON . PERSON is a Othoo Sherba in the Ba\u2019ath party and he fled his home DATE to an unknown destination . PERSON joined the Ba\u2019ath party in DATE and is involved in regular meetings and emergency action planning ( nothing else exploited ) . Before the war , PERSON received a pickup from the Ba\u2019ath party . When the coalition forces entered GPE , PERSON gave the pickup to a neighbour ( name not exploited ) to safeguard it and PERSON went to a hotel in downtown GPE ( name of hotel is unknown ) . PERSON made a few phone calls during that time , but never mentioned where he was staying . A problem arose when the original owners of the pickup , the local petroleum company , came to reclaim the vehicle they had lent the Ba\u2019ath party . PERSON became frustrated with the whole mess and fled soon after that .","ORG seems to be a good kid who was probably so involved with soccer that he did n\u2019t follow his brother \u2019s whereabouts all that much . But it seems they have a close knit family and ORG could know more about his brother \u2019s activities in the Ba\u2019ath party , and some of his friends involved in the party , too . Using any type of harsh approach is not going to be effective . EPW loves his family and soccer . ORG will cooperate , but he needs someone he can trust if he \u2019s going to tell information about his brother that is going to harm him . EPW seems to be innocent of anything himself , but may help with information about others around him . \u201d","A record of the second questioning was provided by the Government in the form of ORG . This document indicated that it related to \u201c PW CARDINAL \u201d with the \u201c date of information \u201d recorded as \u201c CARDINALZAPRCARDINAL \u201d , that is CARDINAL PERSON or CARDINAL local time on DATE . The report stated :","\u201c CARDINAL . EPW [ Enemy Prisoner of War ] is DATE , single , living with his DATE father ( who is a PERSON ) and his mother in the NORP district of ORG . He works as a handyman and has not done his military service due to his status as a student . He stated that an AK CARDINAL was present in their house at the time of his arrest but it was only kept for personal protection . The ORG and his father are not ORG members .","EPW says he was arrested at his house by GPE troops [ sic ] who were looking for his brother , PERSON . His brother is a ORG member , an ORG Shooba . He joined the party in DATE when he became a law student in the school of law in ORG . His brother is still a student , in DATE of study , married but with no children . He has alternated study with periods of work as a car trader . His brother was in fear of his life because of fear of reprisals against ORG members and so had run away possibly to ORG or ORG . The ORG last spoke with his brother DATE by phone . His brother did not disclose his location .","ORG COMMENT : EPW appears to be telling the truth and has been arrested as a result of mistaken identity . He is of no intelligence value and it is recommended that he is released to the civilian pen . JFIT COMMENT ENDS . \u201d","The applicant submitted a summary of an interview dated DATE with PERSON , the former chairman of ORG in PERSON and a friend of the applicant \u2019s family . He had been arrested by NORP troops and detained at GPE , in a tent holding CARDINAL detainees . He stated that on DATE at TIME PERSON was brought to the tent . Mr PERSON stated that PERSON seemed scared and confused but did not mention that PERSON complained of having been ill - treated . PERSON was not interrogated during the time they were together in GPE . Since Mr PERSON was in ill - health , PERSON brought him food and cared for him . Mr PERSON was released on CARDINAL DATE , in a batch of CARDINAL prisoners , since GPE authorities had decided to release all detainees aged DATE . The detainees were released at TIME , on a highway between LOC and PERSON and had to walk QUANTITY to the nearest place they could hire cars . Following his release , he informed the applicant \u2019s family that he had seen PERSON at GPE . According to the applicant , this was the only information received by the family about his brother \u2019s whereabouts following the latter \u2019s arrest . In response to this statement , the Government submitted that PERSON might have been mistaken about the date , because it appeared from the interrogation records that PERSON was released to the civilian holding area on DATE . They also emphasised that stringent efforts were made to return individuals to their place of capture or to an alternate location if requested , and that QUANTITY was much greater than the distance between PERSON and PERSON .","According to the witness statement , provided by the Government , of Major PERSON , who commanded a group of soldiers from ORG who advised on detention issues within the GPE area of operations in GPE during the relevant period , the decision to release GPE captured detainees held at GPE , other than those facing criminal charges , was taken by a tribunal convened by GPE military legal officers . Details were then passed to GPE guards , before those released were processed out of the Camp , with their details checked and entered on the PERSON database . According to the orders made by GPE Military Divisional Headquarters based in PERSON and applying at that time , the GPE forces were responsible for the repatriation of all prisoners to the areas within their field of operation and the GPE forces were responsible for returning prisoners to areas within their field of operation , namely GPE , regardless of which force had captured the prisoners . The ICRC was to have access to all those being released . Again according to the applicable orders , prisoners repatriated by NORP forces were to be loaded on to buses with armed guards on - board and armed military escort vehicles to the front and rear . Release was to be to specific repatriation points in TIME , with sufficient food and water to last the individuals being released until they got home . According to the evidence of Major PERSON , efforts were made to return individuals to their point of capture . There were CARDINAL drop - off points within the GPE field of operation , including \u201c PERSON GPE [ grid reference to be confirmed ] \u201d . Umm PERSON was not listed as a dropoff point but could be entered as a point of release on the records of individuals being processed for release .","The Government also submitted a military order dated DATE ( FRAGO CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the purpose of which was to ensure the release from detention of the maximum possible number of civilians and prisoners of war prior to the cessation of hostilities ( which was subsequently announced on CARDINAL DATE ) . The annex to the order set out the procedures to be followed . A number of individuals would continue to be detained on security grounds or because they were suspected of being criminals ; they had already been identified by ORG , with the decision recorded on the APCARDINAL-Ryan database , and a list given to GPE authorities to ensure they were not released . The remaining population would stay within the individual compounds and await release processing by GPE authorities . At the processing tent , a CARDINAL - point check would be made of each detainee \u2019s wrist - band , face and digital profile held on APCARDINAL-Ryan . The following information was then required to be entered into the database : \u201c ( CARDINAL ) Releasing Force Element ; ( CARDINAL ) Release Date ; ( CARDINAL ) Releasing Nation ; ( CARDINAL ) ORG . \u201d The text of the order itself referred to CARDINAL dropoff points ( ORG , PERSON , PERSON and An PERSON ( the latter CARDINAL towns were to the north of ORG ) , but the annex listed in addition Um PERSON ( south of PERSON and QUANTITY from the FAC ) as a drop - off point . The GPE forces would then retain the detainee \u2019s identity card and pass him back to GPE authorities for final processing , including the issue of food and water and the return of personal belongings . CARDINAL holding areas would be established , \u201c one for each release location \u201d , from which the detainees would then be transported to the agreed repatriation points and released in daylight hours . The order also required a final audit to be conducted to check that all GPE detainees listed on the APCARDINAL-Ryan database had either been released or continued to be detained . Should the record be identified of any person who had neither been released nor detained , a board of inquiry had to sit to determine what had happened .","In addition , the ORG submitted a witness statement dated CARDINAL DATE by Warrant Officer Class CARDINAL PERSON , who had responsibility for the management of the APCARDINAL-Ryan database . He stated that by CARDINAL DATE PERSON showed that the GPE forces had captured and processed CARDINAL detainees in GPE since the start of hostilities and had released all but CARDINAL . Annexed to Warrant Officer PERSON \u2019s statement were a number of screen prints showing entries on the database relating to PERSON . They showed that an entry was made on APCARDINAL-Ryan on DATE at TIME recording the release of \u201c PERSON \u201d at CARDINAL on DATE . The releasing authority was stated to be \u201c GPE ( ORG ) ORG SIG REGT \u201d ; the place of release was stated to be \u201c Umm Qasr \u201d ; the method of release was \u201c By Coach \u201d and the ground of release was recorded as \u201c End of Hostilities \u201d . A further entry was made in the GPE APCARDINAL-Ryan system on CARDINAL DATE at CARDINAL p.m. recording that : \u201c PW was found to be absent from the internment facility when PERCENT check was conducted . PW was released on APCARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE \u201d . According to the Warrant Officer PERSON , CARDINAL ORG records included the statement \u201c PW was released on APCARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE \u201d , when they had in fact been released earlier and it was therefore likely that the FAC \u2019s computer release records were brought up to date on DATE following a physical check . GPE computer system did not record any release until DATE but again , according to the Government , this was probably explained by a reconciliation of GPE Camp Bucca database with a physical check of occupants of the FAC by GPE authorities on DATE","According to the applicant , PERSON did not contact his family during the period following his purported release . On DATE one of the applicant \u2019s cousins received a telephone call from a man unknown to them , from PERSON , a town north of GPE . This man informed them that a dead man had been found in the nearby countryside , with a plastic ID tag and piece of paper with the cousin \u2019s telephone number written on it in the pocket of the sport \u2019s top he was wearing . According to the applicant , PERSON was wearing sportswear when he was captured by NORP forces . The applicant \u2019s cousin called him and , together with another brother , the applicant went to the forensic medical station of ORG in GPE . There they saw the body of PERSON with CARDINAL bullet wounds from an AK-CARDINAL machine gun in his chest . According to the applicant , PERSON hands were tied with plastic wire . The identity tag found in his pocket was that issued to him by GPE authorities at GPE . A death certificate was issued by the NORP authorities on DATE , giving the date of death as DATE , but the sections reserved for the cause of death were not completed . A police report identified the body as \u201c PERSON \u201d but gave no information about the cause of death .","The applicant remained in hiding in GPE until DATE , when he crossed the border to GPE . In DATE , through a representative in GPE , he made contact with solicitors in GPE . The applicant \u2019s solicitors wrote to the ORG \u2019s ORG on DATE requesting explanations for the arrest and detention of PERSON and the circumstances that resulted in his death . It took some time to identify the applicant \u2019s brother , because he was entered in the GPE databases under the name \u201c PERSON \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , in a letter dated DATE ORG stated that a check of GPE prisoner of war computer records had produced a record of PERSON being detained at GPE . In a further letter dated DATE ORG stated that further computer records had been recovered which \u201c confirm the handover \u201d of PERSON from GPE authorities to GPE authorities at GPE and which recorded his release on DATE .","The applicant commenced proceedings in ORG on DATE seeking declarations in respect of breaches of his brother \u2019s rights under LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , as set out in Schedule CARDINAL to LAW DATE , financial compensation and an order requiring the Government to initiate an independent and public investigation into the fate of the deceased after he was detained by NORP forces on DATE . The claim was heard on DATE and was rejected in a judgment delivered by PERSON on DATE ( [ DATE ] EWHC CARDINAL ( Admin ) ) . The judge held that , in the light of the judgment of ORG in PERSON ( see further the summary of ORG judgment in PERSON v. the GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) , it could not be said that PERSON was within GPE jurisdiction LAW at any time . In ORG had recognised a number of exceptions to the general rule that a ORG did not exercise jurisdiction extra - territorially , but these did not include detention of a person unless this took place within a military prison or other comparable facility controlled by ORG . The judge \u2019s analysis of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) indicated that GPE was GPE rather than a GPE military establishment , for the following reasons :","\u201c ... It is plain that the detaining power [ GPE ] relinquishes , until such time as it requires return of the individual in question , responsibility for maintaining and safeguarding those transferred . Accountability in that regard is the responsibility of the accepting power [ GPE ] . As regards adjudications concerning the individual \u2019s contact after transfer to the accepting power the detaining power relinquishes to the accepting power primary jurisdiction . Overall this amounts to a legal regime in which the detaining power has no substantial control over DATE to day living conditions of the individual in question . \u201d","The applicant was advised that an appeal would have no prospect of success .","The applicant contended that the evidence of his sisters , friend and neighbour demonstrated that his brother was captured and detained by NORP forces with the purpose of inducing the applicant to surrender himself . The first reference made by the Government to the battalion record , which referred to PERSON arrest ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , was in its observations to ORG in DATE . No good explanation for the recent appearance of this material had been provided , which was surprising given the emphasis placed on the document by the Government . The applicant made no admissions as to whether or not he accepted it was genuine . He underlined , also , that it was the sole document to make any reference to PERSON having been found in possession of an ORG machine gun and positioned on the roof . Neither of the records of his interviews ( see paragraphs DATE above ) referred to his having been detained as a suspected combatant or having posed any threat , real or suspected , to NORP forces at any time .","The applicant further contended that the GPE computer detention records recorded CARDINAL different release dates , none of which appeared reliable ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Similarly , the place of release was a matter of speculation based on unclear and inconsistent evidence ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . It could not even be said with any certainty that PERSON was not still being detained after the search of GPE on DATE , given in particular the release date entered on GPE records . The applicant pointed out that his brother was found dead with GPE identity tag still on him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that he had not contacted his family at any point after he had been captured by GPE forces , which strongly suggested that he had had no opportunity to do so .","The Government submitted that the applicant had not established an adequate justification for the delay in raising his complaints with the GPE authorities . The delay had imposed an inevitable impediment to the effective investigation of PERSON death . No adverse inferences should be drawn from the ORG \u2019s inability to provide an explanation for PERSON death in circumstances where the evidence provided a satisfying and convincing explanation of his arrest , detention and release .","The Government denied the allegation that PERSON was detained as a means of putting pressure on the applicant to surrender . They contended that the evidence submitted by the applicant in support of this claim was imprecise and hearsay and that such a purpose on the part of GPE authorities would have been inconsistent with PERSON subsequent release from GPE as soon as his status had been established as a civilian who did not pose a threat to security . Instead , they contended that it was reasonable for the NORP forces to suspect PERSON of being a combatant , since he was found , armed , on the roof of the house of a general of ORG , which house contained other firearms and a number of documents of intelligence value relating to local members of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Government further pointed out that , apart from the applicant \u2019s witness statement , there was no independent evidence of the cause of death because this information had not been entered on the death certificate ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In any event , they emphasised that PERSON was QUANTITY from GPE , in an area that had never been occupied by NORP forces , and that the AK-CARDINAL machine gun was not a weapon used by NORP forces .","At the outset , the ORG recalls that the domestic proceedings were dismissed on the ground that the applicant \u2019s brother did not fall within the jurisdiction of GPE at any material time ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It was not therefore necessary for the national courts to establish the facts in any detail . The ORG is generally sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and cautious in taking on the role of a first - instance tribunal of fact ( see PERSON v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . However , in the present circumstances it is unavoidable that it must make some findings of fact of its own on the basis of the evidence before it .","In cases in which there are conflicting accounts of events , the ORG is inevitably confronted when establishing the facts with the same difficulties as those faced by any first - instance court . It reiterates that , in assessing evidence , it has adopted the standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d . However , it has never been its purpose to borrow the approach of the national legal systems that use that standard . Its role is not to rule on criminal guilt or civil liability but on Contracting States\u2019 responsibility under the LAW . The specificity of its task under LAW to ensure the observance by GPE of their engagement to secure the fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention \u2013 conditions the ORG \u2019s approach to the issues of evidence and proof . In the proceedings before it , there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or pre - determined formulae for its assessment . It adopts the conclusions that are , in its view , supported by the free evaluation of all evidence , including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties\u2019 submissions . According to its established case - law , proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . Moreover , the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and , in this connection , the distribution of the burden of proof , are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts , the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake . ORG is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a ORG has violated fundamental rights ( see GPE v. \u201c the former GPE \u201d [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) .","Furthermore , it is to be recalled that Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio ( the principle , that is , that the burden of proof lies on the person making the allegation in question ) . The ORG reiterates its case - law under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention to the effect that where the events in issue lie within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities , as in the case of persons under their control in custody , strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention . The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation . In the absence of such explanation the ORG can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government . The ORG has already found that these considerations apply to disappearances examined under LAW , where , although it has not been proved that a person has been taken into custody by the authorities , it is possible to establish that he or she was officially summoned by the authorities , entered a place under their control and has not been seen since . In such circumstances , the onus is on the Government to provide a plausible and satisfactory explanation as to what happened on the LOC and to show that the person concerned was not detained by the authorities , but left the LOC without subsequently being deprived of his or her liberty . Furthermore , the ORG reiterates that , again in the context of a complaint under LAW , it has required proof in the form of concordant inferences before the burden of proof is shifted to the respondent Government ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 QUANTITY - CARDINAL ) .","It is not in dispute in the present case that the applicant \u2019s brother was captured by GPE forces on DATE , subsequently detained at GPE and that he died shortly before his body was found in GPE on DATE . The disagreement over the facts centres on CARDINAL issues : first , whether PERSON was arrested and detained as a means of exerting pressure on the applicant to surrender himself and , secondly , in what circumstances PERSON left GPE . In addition , since the applicant alleges that PERSON body had marks of ill - treatment on it , the question arises whether he was ill - treated while in detention .","As to the first point , the ORG notes that the only evidence before it which supports the claim that PERSON was taken into detention in an attempt to force the applicant to surrender himself are the CARDINAL statements made by the applicant and the note of a telephone interview with the applicant \u2019s neighbour , both prepared for the purposes of the domestic proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . In the applicant \u2019s first statement he alleged that his sisters had been told by the NORP military authority that PERSON would not be released until the applicant gave himself up . In the second statement , the applicant claimed that this information was given to his neighbour and his friend . In neither of the applicant \u2019s statements , nor that of his neighbour , Mr PERSON , is the representative of the GPE military who made the alleged assertion identified , by name or rank . Given the lack of precision , the hearsay nature of this evidence and the internal inconsistencies in the applicant \u2019s statements , the ORG does not find the evidence in support of the applicant \u2019s claim to be strong .","For their part , the Government were not able to present the ORG with any witness evidence relating to PERSON capture . However , they provided the ORG with the operational log of ORG which was created contemporaneously with the events in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It records that , when NORP forces arrived at the house , PERSON was positioned on the roof , armed with an ORG machine gun and that other firearms and documents of intelligence value were found in the house . In addition , the Government provided records of interviews at FAC with PERSON and screen shots of entries relating to him on the APCARDINAL-Ryan database ( see , respectively , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . The ORG has no grounds on which to question the authenticity of these records . They show that PERSON was registered at GPE on DATE , taken to the ORG compound at CARDINAL on DATE and released to the civilian holding area of GPE on DATE at TIME local time . The computer records further show that he was questioned once on DATE CARDINAL local time and again on DATE at TIME local time . Records of both interviews have been provided to ORG . They show that PERSON identity as the applicant \u2019s brother was known and that it was established in the course of questioning that he had no personal involvement with ORG or ORG .","In the ORG \u2019s view , the capture and questioning records are consistent with the ORG \u2019s submission that PERSON was captured as a suspected combatant or a civilian posing a threat to security . This view is supported by other evidence which tends to show that PERSON PERSON may well have been armed with , or at least in the possession of , an AK-CARDINAL machine gun at the moment of his capture , namely the applicant \u2019s assertion that his younger brother had been left to protect the family home ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and PERSON reported explanation , during his interrogation by NORP agents , of the presence of the weapon as being for personal protection ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The GPE records further indicate that he was cleared for release as soon as it had been established that he was a civilian who did not pose a threat to security .","The ORG accepts that PERSON capture was linked to his relationship with his brother , but only to the extent that the NORP forces , having been made aware of the relationship by PERSON himself and finding PERSON armed at the moment of capture ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , may have suspected that he also was involved with ORG and ORG . ORG does not find that the evidence supports the claim that PERSON was taken into custody to be held until the applicant should surrender . If that had been the intention of the GPE forces , he would not have been cleared for release immediately after the second interview and TIME after his admission to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As regards the date and place of PERSON release , the principal evidence consists of entries from PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . CARDINAL entry made on CARDINAL DATE recorded that PERSON had been released on CARDINAL DATE , by coach , to PERSON , on the ground of the \u201c End of Hostilities \u201d . Another entry on CARDINAL DATE found that PERSON PERSON was not present in the Camp when a full check of detainees was made . The ORG considers , on the basis of these entries , taken together with the decision made following the second screening interview not to continue to detain PERSON , that he was in all probability released early in DATE . This view is further supported by the evidence provided by the Government concerning the policy decision taken by GPE forces to release all detainees prior to or immediately following the cessation of hostilities announced on DATE , save those suspected of criminal offences or of activities posing a risk to security ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As to the place of release , the ORG notes that GPE was situated QUANTITY from Umm PERSON . Although the main text of the relevant military order relating to the release of detainees from GPE did not list PERSON as a drop - off point ( listing CARDINAL towns to the north of the FAC ) , the annex to the order did describe Umm PERSON as a release area . It is impossible to be certain in the absence of more conclusive evidence , but given the town \u2019s proximity to the FAC , its mention in the annex , the GPE policy of releasing detainees following the end of hostilities and the computer entries concerning PERSON release , the ORG finds that it is probable that PERSON was released in or near Umm PERSON on DATE .","The ORG is of the view that , in this case , since the evidence concerning PERSON detention and release was , for the most part , accessible only to the Government , the onus is on them to provide a plausible and satisfactory explanation as to what happened to PERSON in the FAC and to show that he was released and that the release followed a safe procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The computer records show that by CARDINAL DATE GPE had captured and processed CARDINAL detainees in GPE since the start of hostilities and had released all but CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the light of the time that had elapsed before the applicant lodged his claim and the large number of GPE detainees that were released from GPE DATE and DATE , it is unsurprising that no eye witness able to remember PERSON release has been traced . In the circumstances of the present case , the ORG finds that the evidence referred to above is sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof on the Government .","Finally , there is no evidence before the ORG to suggest that PERSON was ill - treated while in detention . The interview records show that he was questioned on CARDINAL occasions , shortly after having been admitted to the FAC , and found to be a civilian , of no intelligence value and not posing any threat to security . The witness statement submitted by the applicant , of PERSON , who claimed to have seen PERSON in the civilian holding area in GPE in the period after he was questioned and before he was released , makes no mention of any sign of injury on PERSON or any complaint by him of ill - treatment . Moreover , apart from the applicant \u2019s witness statement , there is no evidence before the ORG as to the cause of PERSON death or the presence of marks of ill - treatment on his body , since the death certificate contains no information on either point . Assuming the applicant \u2019s description of his brother \u2019s body to be accurate , the lapse of DATE between PERSON release and his death does not support the view that his injuries were caused during his time in detention .","Having established the facts of the case , the ORG must next examine the applicant \u2019s complaints under the Convention ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152905","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"HO\u0141OWNIA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG . The applicant was represented by PERSON , lawyer practising in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE at TIME the applicant was stopped by the police during a routine traffic check . He was arrested , as there was an arrest warrant pending against him in the context of criminal proceedings concerning , apparently , a minor case of fraud . During the arrest he informed the officers that he suffered from rheumatoid arthritis for which he took medication . He was taken to hospital for a check - up . The results confirmed that he suffered from the condition . The doctor examining him did not find it necessary to prescribe any medication .","The applicant was subsequently taken to a police station , where he spent TIME in a cell . He was given no medication . On DATE he was transferred to FAC .","His requests to be allowed to take painkillers were refused . He was told that he would be examined by the prison doctor and put in a cell .","On TIME , at TIME , the applicant fell off his bed and could not get up . The prison guard called by his cellmate did not enter the cell , but ordered him to help the applicant climb back onto the bed , which the cellmate did . Shortly afterwards the applicant fell off the bed again . He remained on the floor until TIME .","At TIME the applicant could not get up and had difficulty moving . He was taken to see the prison doctor , who diagnosed stroke . It was established that he suffered from rheumatoid arthritis and type CARDINAL diabetes . The applicant was then taken to a nearby hospital for treatment .","The applicant had partial paralysis in CARDINAL of his arms and legs . On DATE he lodged a compensation claim with ORG . He claimed CARDINAL NORP zlotys ( ORG ) in respect of alleged pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage on account of the fact that he had been left permanently disabled as a result of the stroke , and ORG CARDINAL as reimbursement of his treatment costs . The applicant argued that the conduct of the prison authorities after his arrest on DATE had caused his health to deteriorate and left him unable to work . He referred to the refusal of the prison guards to give him anti - inflammatory drugs and painkillers for his rheumatoid arthritis . He further submitted that the prison guards had failed to provide him with any medical assistance during the night in question . TIME had passed between the incident and him receiving medical care , which was only offered to him in the morning . He argued that this delay had contributed to the seriousness of his condition . Had he been given assistance earlier , his condition would not have become so serious .","On an unspecified later date the applicant was exempted from the obligation to pay court fees and granted legal aid for the purposes of proceedings before the first- and second - instance courts .","In the course of the proceedings before the first - instance courts , experts in neurology , rheumatology and diabetology confirmed that the applicant suffered from rheumatoid arthritis , although it was noted that he had failed to submit any medical records concerning his treatment prior to the arrest . The rheumatologist stated that , even assuming that the applicant had been treated for the condition prior to his arrest , a DATE interruption in taking the relevant medication could not have caused a stroke . The expert further stated that left untreated , diabetes might have contributed to its occurrence . The neurologist stated that an earlier diagnosis of the stroke could have limited the damage to the applicant \u2019s health .","NORP The applicant \u2019s claim was dismissed on DATE . In issuing its judgment ORG relied on the expert opinions . It noted that the applicant had failed to submit medical records showing that he had been in some form of treatment prior to his arrest . The court found no causal link between the conduct of the prison authorities after the applicant \u2019s arrest and the stroke he had subsequently suffered .","The applicant appealed . He argued , inter alia , that the court had erred by failing to examine whether there had been a causal link between the failure to assist him during TIME in question and the condition he had developed as a result of the stroke . He referred to the opinion given by the neurologist ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG quashed the contested judgment and remitted the case to the lower court . It considered that the first - instance court had failed to establish the facts of the case correctly , in particular as to the applicant \u2019s medical history prior to his arrest . It instructed the lower court to take additional evidence regarding this aspect of the case .","The case was examined again by ORG . During these proceedings the court ordered the applicant to restate his claim . The applicant ultimately claimed compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL . He referred to LAW . This amount covered LAW in respect of loss of income and ORG CARDINAL for the treatment costs he had borne after the accident . He further claimed a DATE pension of ORG , referring to LAW .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It found that he had been arrested on DATE and placed in detention in FAC DATE , on DATE . He had felt unwell TIME and fell out of bed twice . After the first fall his cellmate had helped him up , as directed by the prison guard . When he had fallen out of bed for a second time , he was unable to get up , even with the assistance of his cellmate . He had remained on the floor until TIME . When TIME came a nurse had decided that he should be taken to the doctor , who had realised that the applicant had suffered a stroke during TIME . He had subsequently been taken to the neurological ward of a nearby hospital , where he had undergone treatment for DATE .","The court referred to medical expert opinions prepared for the purposes of the case . The experts had found that it had not been established that prior to his arrest the applicant had been regularly taking medication for his rheumatoid arthritis . However , even assuming that he had , the fact that he did not receive any after his arrest during DATE preceding his stroke had had no bearing on the stroke itself . It had probably been caused by his circulation problems , which could have also been caused by his previously undiagnosed and untreated diabetes .","ORG referred to the supplementary expert opinion of a neurologist , who observed that the refusal to provide the applicant with painkillers \/ anti - inflammatory drugs after his arrest could not have caused the stroke , even though it might have caused him some suffering . He was of the view that the stroke would likely have occurred even if the applicant had not been arrested , as deterioration of health leading to stroke was normally a long - term process .","The court had regard to evidence given by PERSON , the inmate who had shared a cell with the applicant on TIME CARDINAL DATE . He testified that when the applicant had fallen off the bed , no medical assistance had been given to him . The court observed that leaving the applicant in the cell until TIME without any help from the prison guards was inappropriate . However , it was of the view that this failure was of no relevance to the applicant \u2019s compensation claim , as the stroke had most probably been caused by the applicant \u2019s pre - existing condition prior to his arrest . Hence , even the fact that no medical assistance had been given to him during the night in question , could not be regarded as giving rise to the ORG \u2019s liability in tort in respect of the obvious damage to his health caused by the stroke .","The court observed that the applicant had essentially relied on the refusal of the police officers and prison guards to give him medication during his arrest and afterwards . In the absence of a demonstrated causal link between the refusals to give the applicant medication and his stroke on DATE , the statutory conditions for the ORG \u2019s liability in tort had not been met .","NORP The applicant appealed . He complained , inter alia , that the firstinstance court had failed to examine the issues crucial to the case . In particular , the court had failed to address the shortcomings of the medical attention given to the applicant during the critical night . He referred again to the fact that the prison authorities did not do anything to help him and that he remained on the cell floor from TIME He submitted that that fact had had an impact on the development of his condition and that the failure to give him proper and timely medical assistance had resulted in subsequent serious damage to his health . He referred to a statement made by CARDINAL of the expert witnesses who had confirmed that the lack of such prompt attention resulted in the scope of that damage .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the judgment . It fully shared the findings of the first - instance court and its legal assessment of the case . Under the applicable law , the applicant \u2019s legal aid expired on DATE .","The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal ( appeal on points of law ) against the appellate court \u2019s judgment .","NORP In DATE the social insurance authorities certified the applicant was suffering from a serious and permanent disability , in need of assistance in everyday life and unable to work . He received no income apart from disability benefit . He was not entitled to receive a pension because , as he was self - employed prior to his arrest , he had not been paying social insurance contributions .","Article CARDINAL of the DATE LAW reads :","\u201c CARDINAL . After promulgation thereof in ORG ( PERSON ) , a ratified international agreement shall constitute part of the domestic legal order and shall be applied directly , unless its application depends on the enactment of a statute .","An international agreement ratified upon prior consent granted by statute shall have precedence over statutes if such an agreement can not be reconciled with the provisions of such statutes .","If an agreement , ratified by GPE , establishing an international organization so provides , the laws established by it shall be applied directly and have precedence in the event of a conflict of laws . \u201d","On DATE amendments to LAW , adopted on DATE ( LOC o zmianie ustawy PERSON post\u0119powania cywilnego oraz ustawy Prawo o ustroju s\u0105d\u00f3w powszechnych ) , entered into force .","Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) LAW of the ORG provide that a party to civil proceedings can lodge a cassation appeal ( appeal on points of law ) with ORG against a final judicial decision on the merits of a case given by a second - instance court within DATE of the date of service of that decision on the party together with its written grounds .","Pursuant to LAW must be represented before ORG by an advocate or a legal adviser . Cassation appeals not lodged by an advocate or a legal adviser must be rejected .","Pursuant to LAW persons exempted from paying court fees may request legal aid . Under LAW legal aid expires when a second - instance judgment becomes valid in law ( prawomocny ) . A new application for legal aid must be lodged for the purposes of subsequent proceedings before ORG .","Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) LAW of the ORG a cassation appeal is available in cases concerning pecuniary rights if the value of the dispute exceeds ORG CARDINAL .","Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) LAW of the ORG a cassation appeal may be based on the following grounds :","( CARDINAL ) a breach of substantive law as a result of its erroneous interpretation or wrongful application ;","( CARDINAL ) a breach of procedural provisions , if that defect could significantly affect the outcome of the case .","Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) LAW of the ORG the ORG shall agree to entertain a cassation appeal if :","( a ) a significant legal issue is involved in the case ;","( b ) there is a need for the interpretation of provisions raising serious doubts or causing discrepancies in judicial practice ;","( c ) the proceedings have been invalid in law ; or","( d ) the cassation appeal is manifestly well - founded .","Pursuant to LAW , having allowed a cassation appeal , can quash the challenged judgment in its entirety or in part and remit the case for re - examination .","Pursuant to Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the ORG , in cases concerning pecuniary claims , the amount stated by the claimant shall be regarded as the value of the dispute . If a number of claims are made in the same proceedings , the value of the dispute is the total amount of all claims . Under LAW ORG , in cases concerning claims for periodical payments , the value of the dispute is equal to the cumulative DATE value of those payments .","On DATE the Law of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki ) ( \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) entered into force . A party to pending proceedings may ask for the proceedings to be expedited and\/or just satisfaction for their unreasonable length under LAW read in conjunction with section CARDINAL ) of LAW . The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG \u2019s decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG ) and NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINALVIII ) , and in its judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL-V ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147015","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NIKOLI\u0106-KRSTI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered the ORG branch of the \u201c ORG ( \u201c the debtor \u201d ) , a predominantly socially - owned bank , to reinstate the applicant and to pay her outstanding salary and all work - related benefits for the period following her unlawful dismissal . That judgment became final on DATE .","On an unspecified date , the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment . On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution ( re\u0161enje o izvr\u0161enju ) .","On DATE the applicant was reinstated . However , as the debtor refused to pay the outstanding judgment debt , the applicant , on an unspecified date , filed a new request for the enforcement .","On DATE , on the basis of a financial expert \u2019s analysis , ORG ordered the enforcement by debtor account transfer in the total amount of MONEY ( ORG ) in respect of salary arrears and all work - related benefits , for the period from DATE until DATE , together with statutory interest and ORG CARDINAL for legal costs .","On DATE the applicant requested the court to change the means of enforcement as it appeared that there were no funds in the debtor \u2019s account . On DATE ORG ordered the enforcement by auctioning of the debtor \u2019s specified movable assets .","On DATE the applicant obtained a pledge ( zalog ) over certain movable assets which were seized from the debtor ( CARDINAL vehicles and some technical equipment ) .","On DATE , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) instituted liquidation proceedings against the debtor .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were discontinued in view of the pending liquidation proceedings . On DATE the applicant reported her claims to the liquidation council ( likvidaciono ve\u0107e ) .","On several occasions thereafter , the applicant petitioned the court to continue with the enforcement and to schedule a public auction for the sale of the pledged assets , arguing that their value was decreasing due to the passage of time and that she had to bear the maintenance costs . On DATE she submitted the same request to the liquidation administrator ( likvidacioni upravnik ) .","ORG held CARDINAL hearings concerning the applicant \u2019s requests , on DATE and DATE , but it would appear that no decision was issued .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG appointed the ORG for Deposits as a liquidation administrator . On DATE ORG terminated the liquidation proceedings and opened bankruptcy proceedings against the debtor .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claims against the debtor ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) and instructed her to initiate a new set of civil proceedings . On DATE the GPE High Commercial Court ( \u201c the High Commercial Court \u201d ) upheld that decision .","The applicant did not initiate a new set of civil proceedings as instructed .","It would appear that bankruptcy proceedings are still pending and that the debtor is still predominantly socially - owned .","The relevant domestic law is set out in the ORG \u2019s judgment of NORP GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL et al . , DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171533","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"YILDIZ v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by Mr U. Ate\u015f , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE , in connection with a police investigation into the alleged activities of a drug - trafficking operation , large quantities of heroin were seized in PERSON ( a suburb of GPE ) and a number of suspects were arrested .","On DATE a police officer who had not been involved in that operation told his superior that certain police officers , including the applicant , had been offered money in exchange for leaving one of the suspects out of the investigation . He further alleged that some police officers in the unit had each received the sum of CARDINAL ( ORG ) from the applicant in return for their turning a blind eye . The police officer \u2019s superior prepared a report to that effect and initiated a disciplinary investigation concerning the allegations of bribery .","On the basis of the findings of the investigation concerning those allegations , the investigators in charge of the disciplinary investigation lodged a complaint with a public prosecutor and asked for a criminal investigation to be instigated against those police officers , including the applicant .","Accordingly , on DATE the applicant was charged with bribery . A criminal trial was opened in ORG .","After hearing witnesses and assessing the evidence before it , ORG held that the accusations concerning the applicant and the co - accused did not go beyond hearsay and that there was nothing in the case file that proved the accused ORG guilt . It therefore acquitted the applicant and his co - accused of bribery on DATE .","On DATE , on the basis of the findings of the disciplinary investigation , CARDINAL sanctions were imposed on the applicant which deferred his advancement to a higher rank for DATE and of DATE respectively . The relevant parts of the decision read :","\u201c Notwithstanding the fact that the charges against the accused police officers were not proved and that they have consequently been acquitted in the criminal proceedings and that the legal constituents of the crime of bribery were lacking , under section CARDINAL of LAW Act the opening of criminal proceedings against a civil servant can not delay disciplinary proceedings , which can be conducted in parallel with such proceedings . Furthermore , exoneration of criminal liability does not prevent the imposition of disciplinary sanctions . In the light of the foregoing , bearing in mind the fact that the report in question was signed by the supervising police officer and CARDINAL senior officers and that the statement of ORG confirming the veracity of certain aspects of the allegations and the statement of [ police officer ] ORG confirming the statement of the latter ... [ the disciplinary board ] considers that the applicant \u2019s conduct constituted the disciplinary offence in question . Notwithstanding the fact that the misconduct in question can not be characterised as criminal , it was still inappropriate and was of such a nature as to diminish the respect and the trust associated with the functions of a police officer ... Therefore , the applicant \u2019s conduct amounts to \u201c acts and conduct that discredit the respect and trust associated with the official function of a police officer \u201d , ... as well as to \u201c neglect of duty \u201d in so far as the applicant left CARDINAL suspect out of the investigation , despite there being strong suspicions [ that he had been involved ] ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim against ORG with ORG , challenging the disciplinary sanctions imposed on him .","On DATE the court set aside both disciplinary punishments , holding that the findings of the investigation giving rise to the impugned disciplinary action had contained no proof beyond hearsay and accordingly concluding that the allegations were unfounded .","The Office of the GPE Governor lodged an appeal with ORG against the decision of ORG ; the appeal was dismissed and the decision of DATE was upheld and became final on DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant underwent an appraisal of his work . The appraisal was carried out by his immediate superior and signed by a senior police chief . He was given an unsatisfactory score of CARDINAL out of CARDINAL and received a disciplinary warning to this effect on DATE . The warning briefly stated that the applicant \u2019s appraisal score was unsatisfactory and that unless he improved his score he could be subject to the relevant provisions of the Regulation on ORG ( PERSON Memurlar\u0131 Sicil Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , contesting his poor appraisal score and requesting clarification of the circumstances of his appraisal .","On DATE the applicant received a letter stating that his complaint had been examined on the basis of the documents relating to his appraisal and that his appraisal had been conducted in accordance with the law and the applicable procedure .","On DATE , the applicant instituted administrative proceedings before ORG , requesting the court to stay and to set aside the appraisal decision of DATE . He argued that his superiors had only taken into account the allegations of bribery against him in connection with the narcotics operation carried out in DATE and had failed to respect his right to the presumption of innocence given that the criminal proceedings concerning the same allegations were still pending . In that respect , he submitted that his appraisal had been biased . He further submitted that , owing to the fact that his appraisal had been poor , he had been transferred to a remote city and was therefore prevented from continuing his master \u2019s studies at ORG in GPE .","During the course of the proceedings the applicant submitted to ORG the judgment of DATE acquitting him of the charges of bribery .","During the course of the proceedings the court requested from ORG the file regarding the applicant \u2019s appraisal , as well as his appraisal records over DATE . The applicant \u2019s previous appraisal in respect of DATE had been excellent , with a score of CARDINAL . No appraisals had been carried out in DATE and DATE owing to the fact that the applicant had taken unpaid leave . Lastly , for DATE , the applicant \u2019s appraisal score had been mediocre , with a score of CARDINAL .","On DATE the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s request and held that his appraisal had been carried out in accordance with the law and had no appearance of arbitrariness . The relevant parts of the judgment read :","\u201c Appraisal exercises are carried out DATE to assess a civil servant \u2019s competence , skills , output and his or her professional conduct . On the one hand , an appraisal report necessarily contains observations that are based on the subjective impressions of the appraiser DATE which need not be substantiated by concrete evidence . In this last respect , however , if an appraisal report contains negative feedback in terms of a civil servant \u2019s productivity , competence and work discipline , these points need to be substantiated with reasons ... On the other hand , all acts of the ORG are subject to judicial review ... As a safeguard against arbitrariness , appraisal reports need to contain reasons for their conclusions ... On the basis of the examination of the case file , it is understood that the applicant was implicated in a disciplinary investigation involving allegations of bribery . Following the disciplinary investigation he received CARDINAL deferments of advancement to a higher rank of durations of DATE and DATE , respectively . Due to the fact that the applicant had received disciplinary sanctions , his appraisal report indicated that the applicant had demonstrated a tendency to put his own interests first [ tavassuta d\u00fc\u015fk\u00fcnl\u00fck ] .","Therefore , the court finds it established that the ... disciplinary misconduct attributed to the applicant was proved during the course of the disciplinary investigation and that the poor appraisal based on the perception of his tendency to put his own interests first is not incompatible with the law . \u201d","The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG , reiterating the arguments he had raised before ORG and further submitting that ORG had found a very similar appraisal report to be incompatible with the law in the case of a colleague who had also been subject to the same disciplinary proceedings concerning the narcotics operation of DATE . In the context of those other proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s colleague , ORG , acting as the court of first - instance , had held on DATE that :","\u201c The appraisal system is the legal basis on which a civil servant receives a promotion , demotion or salary increase , or obtains a transfer to a different city or to a different function ... In consideration of the significance of the legal consequences of the appraisal and having regard to the legal nature of the appraisal report , the reasons set out in the appraisal report must clearly explain the conclusions reached and also support such conclusions with concrete background information and documents .","...","In the circumstances of the present case , the court had regard to the plaintiff \u2019s appraisal reports for DATE and noted that his appraisal reports concerning DATE had consistently been excellent . However , the \u2018 mediocre\u2019 appraisal score given to the plaintiff for DATE was not substantiated with reasons or documents and contained no explanation as to why the applicant had gone from excellent to mediocre . On the basis of the foregoing , the court sets aside the appraisal report for not being compatible with the law . \u201d","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded and found the impugned decision to be in conformity with the law and the applicable procedure . CARDINAL judge ( out of CARDINAL ) expressed a dissenting opinion . She stated , in particular , the following :","\u201c The disciplinary sanction received by the applicant does not in itself merit a poor score in respect of all the areas assessed in the appraisal report . For this reason , I do not agree with the majority that the appraisal was in total conformity with the law . \u201d","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal , seeking the rectification of the decision of DATE . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE , served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected that appeal .","Section CARDINAL of the Disciplinary Regulation of the Security Forces ( PERSON ) , in so far as relevant , provided as follows :","\u201c Disciplinary measures shall comprise CARDINAL of the following :","...","D ) Lengthy deferment of advancement : advancement to a higher grade may be deferred for a period of DATE , QUANTITY months . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the Disciplinary Regulation of the Security Forces , in so far as relevant , set out the possible grounds for a police officer \u2019s dismissal from the police force as follows :","\u201c The following acts , procedures , behaviour and conduct incur expulsion from the profession ...","ORG , robbery , fraud , extortion , bribery , embezzlement , defalcation , rape , sexual assault , forgery , counterfeiting , intentional killing or attempting any of these offences , abuse of trust , bearing false witness , perjury , false accusation , slander ... \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the Disciplinary Regulation of the Security Forces , in so far as relevant , defined the types of misconduct sanctioned by a lengthy deferment of advancement as follows :","\u201c B ) Deferment for DATE","DATE that is incompatible with the reputation and trust inherent in the official function .","...","D ) Deferment for DATE","...","DATE Neglecting one \u2019s duty by failing to take the necessary actions against a suspect ... \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the former Regulation on ORG ( PERSON Memurlar\u0131 Sicil Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi ) provided , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c Overall assessment of ORG Conduct :","The appraiser shall take into consideration","a ) Appearance ( professional attire ) ;","b ) ORG and his or her ability to learn ;","c ) Ability to persevere , the desire to excel , [ and ] the ability to be discreet ;","d ) [ A]ddictions such as gambling and alcohol consumption that are not compatible with civil service ;","e ) Personality traits such as reliability , preoccupation with one \u2019s own self - interest , honesty , tendency to gossip [ or feel ] jealousy ... \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the former Regulation on ORG provided , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c A civil servant who receives CARDINAL poor appraisal scores in succession shall be assigned to a different appraisal unit and in the event that he [ again ] receives a poor score , he shall be dismissed from the profession ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152310","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"AKTOPLOIKES GRAMMES THIRAS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant , PERSON ORG , is a NORP private company . It is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , most recently PERSON , of ORG of GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant company entered into a contract with a NORP joint - stock company , P. Under the contract , ORG was to carry out repair work on a vessel owned by the applicant company . The work was to be done in a NORP port . All disputes arising out of this contract were to be settled by arbitration in ORG at ORG in GPE . ORG , a senior executive of P. , was in charge of all customs formalities relating to the vessel \u2019s temporary stay in GPE .","On DATE P. filled in a customs declaration on a DATE temporary stay of the vessel on the customs territory of GPE . The vessel had to be removed from the customs territory of GPE by DATE .","On DATE a customs declaration on removal of the vessel was signed but the vessel was not removed .","On DATE , the customs service seized the vessel because of a violation of customs regulations . It was noted in the seizure act that the vessel \u2019s customs value was UAH CARDINAL ( at the material time around EUR CARDINAL ) .","By a decision of DATE , ORG terminated the administrative offence proceedings against I. as time - barred but ordered confiscation of the vessel as an object with which customs regulations were violated . I. did not attend the court hearing and submitted a request that the case be examined in his absence . The court found that the vessel should have been removed from the customs territory of GPE by DATE . The applicant company \u2019s representatives stated that the weather conditions had been unfavourable so the vessel had not left the customs territory of GPE and they had requested an extension of its stay in the NORP port . The court found that the weather conditions CARDINAL DATE had been fine but the vessel had not been removed . There was also no evidence that an application for extension of its temporary stay had been lodged . The decision of DATE was final and at the material time it was not subject to appeal .","On DATE ORG put the vessel on the seizure list and prohibited it to leave the port .","On DATE the applicant company instituted proceedings against the bailiffs . It complained that on DATE a bailiff PERSON had arrived on the vessel in question but had refused to produce any enforcement documents . The applicant company stated that in its decision of DATE ORG had failed to specify that it was the applicant company \u2019s vessel that had to be confiscated . It further stated that the enforcement proceedings had been instituted unlawfully and that the applicant company had not been mentioned as a party of the enforcement proceedings . The applicant company referred to LAW On Property \u201d , which provided for general protection of property rights , and requested the court \u201c to stop actions which breach the company \u2019s property rights \u201d . Later it amended its claims and requested , without any particular specification , that its property rights over the vessel be recognised , that the vessel be removed from the seizure list and the use of the vessel not be hindered .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant company \u2019s claim since it ought to have been considered by a court of general jurisdiction . On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration . The court noted that the applicant requested \u201c protection of property rights \u201d and an alleged breach of such rights consisted in that on DATE the bailiffs visited the vessel without \u201c any legal grounds \u201d . Since the applicant was not a party to the enforcement proceedings , it had a right to lodge a claim for its property rights protection under LAW in a commercial court .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant company \u2019s claim . It held that , under LAW of LAW , a person who stated that the seized property belonged to him or her , could lodge a claim with the court asking for his or her rights over the property to be recognised and for the property to be excluded from the seizure list . The creditor and the debtor could be defendants in such a case . In the present case the vessel was to be confiscated by the ORG . The bailiffs\u2019 service was not a proper defendant in this case .","The applicant company appealed stating that the bailiffs\u2019 actions were unlawful . The applicant company reiterated that the court decision had not specified it as a party to the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed that decision and found for the applicant company . On its own initiative the court replaced the defendant in the case by the DATE ORG . The court further held that the vessel was owned by the applicant company and since the latter had not breached customs regulations there had been no legal ground for the vessel \u2019s confiscation . The court further noted that according to LAW in case of impossibility to confiscate the object of the breach of customs rules a person responsible for such breach should pay the cost of such object and that \u201c the analysis of the existing legal provisions LOC ] the court to conclude that only an object owned by an offender could be confiscated \u201d .","By letters of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE informed ORG in GPE that the enforcement proceedings in the case had been stayed following the decision of DATE of FAC . No copy of this decision was submitted by the parties .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and upheld the decision of DATE . The court held that the applicant company \u2019s property right to the vessel had never been disputed , since the vessel had been confiscated not as property of ORG , but as the object with which customs regulations had been violated . The confiscation of the vessel was carried out in connection with proceedings relating to an administrative offence . By finding for the applicant company ORG had actually reviewed the decision of DATE , which was beyond its competence .","The applicant company appealed stating that by adopting the decision of DATE ORG had breached the law and the Convention provisions .","On DATE ORG of GPE refused a request by the applicant company for leave to appeal on points of law .","The applicant company sought in the commercial court to terminate the enforcement proceedings but by a decision of DATE upheld by higher courts this request was rejected as falling outside the commercial court \u2019s jurisdiction .","According to the applicant company , the vessel was sold at an auction to an unknown person .","The applicant company did not institute any proceedings , either against the P. company or ORG , seeking compensation for the damage incurred .","LAW , in force at the material time , provided that decisions imposing an administrative sanction could be appealed , except for decisions given by the first - instance court . The latter were final and were not subject to the ordinary appeal procedure .","According to LAW , in force at the material time , the bailiffs were in charge of enforcement of the court \u2019s decisions on confiscation of property in cases on breach of customs regulations . In case of impossibility of confiscation the offender had to pay its value . According to LAW an item could be confiscated only if it belonged to an offender , \u201c unless otherwise provided for by the laws of GPE \u201d ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157373","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ILKIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);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 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office opened a criminal investigation in response to S. \u2019s complaint that CARDINAL policemen had extorted money from him by threatening to open a criminal case against him on charges of drug possession .","On DATE the investigator received information implicating the applicant in said crime . On DATE the investigating authorities established where the applicant was officially registered as living .","On DATE the applicant was charged in absentia with kidnapping ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) and extortion ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) . Noting that the applicant might abscond or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice , the investigator considered that the applicant should sign an undertaking not to leave his place of residence and to abstain from improper behaviour .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s name was put on the list of wanted persons . It was not elucidated in the relevant decision whether any effort had been taken on the part of the investigating authorities to establish the applicant \u2019s whereabouts . On DATE the police informed the investigating authorities of the addresses where the applicant and his father were registered .","On DATE the investigating authorities established the applicant \u2019s temporary address .","On DATE the applicant voluntarily went to see the investigator . He was questioned and released on his own recognisance . The next interview was scheduled for DATE . On DATE the applicant duly appeared at the prosecutor \u2019s office where he was arrested . When questioned , he claimed that the authorities had had no grounds to put his name on the list of wanted persons . In particular , he submitted that the investigating authorities had failed to verify his whereabouts or to issue a request for him to appear for questioning .","NORP The following day , CARDINAL DATE , ORG of GPE authorised the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE . In particular , the court noted as follows :","\u201c ... the court ... considers that , in view of the [ applicant \u2019s ] character and the nature of the charges , if released , he might again abscond or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice . [ The applicant ] is charged with offences entailing a custodial sentence in excess of DATE . As is apparent from the evidence submitted , he has absconded before and his name was put on the list of wanted persons . The court concludes that it is impossible to apply more lenient restrictions , such as release on bail .","The court considers that there were grounds for the [ applicant \u2019s ] arrest . It follows from the evidence submitted to the court that [ the applicant ] could have committed the crime he is charged with . As regards the fact that on DATE the applicant voluntarily appeared for questioning , the court does not consider it sufficient to dismiss the [ investigating authorities\u2019 ] request for the [ applicant ] to be remanded in custody . [ The applicant ] did not deny that even though his name was on the list of wanted persons , he did not appear for [ questioning ] for DATE . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the court order of CARDINAL DATE . He addressed it to ORG . On an unspecified date ORG forwarded it to ORG for processing . According to the Government , on an unspecified date the President of ORG returned the statement of appeal to the applicant on the grounds that it had been lodged after the deadline . The applicant received the President \u2019s decision on DATE and asked ORG to renew the time allowed for appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE . The court noted as follows :","\u201c When extending the [ applicant \u2019s ] pre - trial detention , the court has taken into account [ his ] character . Nevertheless , it does not discern any grounds to cancel or replace the preventative measure previously imposed on [ the applicant ] ... given that the circumstances underlying the [ applicant \u2019s ] detention pending trial have not altered . [ The applicant ] is charged with offences entailing a custodial sentence in excess of DATE . Regard being had to the seriousness of the charges and to the fact that he absconded and that his name was put on the list of wanted persons , the court is convinced that [ the applicant ] might abscond or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice .","The court dismisses as unsubstantiated the [ applicant \u2019s ] allegations that he was unfit for detention because of his state of health . There are no documents in the case file [ to the contrary ] . Furthermore , the court notes that all persons detained in a remand prison receive the necessary medical assistance as provided for in the applicable legislation . \u201d","According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE ORG reset the time - limit for the applicant \u2019s appeal against the court order of DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed an additional statement of appeal against the court order of DATE .","On DATE ORG adjourned the hearing of the applicant \u2019s appeal against the court order of CARDINAL DATE owing to his lawyer \u2019s failure to appear . On DATE ORG held the hearing and upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE noting as follows :","\u201c ... the court considers that there are no grounds justifying the lifting or changing of the restrictive measure imposed on [ the applicant ] ... in the court \u2019s view , the defence \u2019s request to release [ the applicant ] on bail will not have a restraining effect on the defendant as regards the possibility of him interfering with the administration of justice . Regard being had to the particular complexity of the case and to the scope of the pending investigation , the court considers the investigator \u2019s request to extend the [ applicant \u2019s ] pre - trial detention well - founded . Accordingly the court rejects the request for bail lodged by [ the applicant ] and his defence .","Regard being had to the above and the seriousness of the charges against [ the applicant ] , the court does not consider it possible to apply a restrictive measure other than to remand the accused in custody ... \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE . The court reasoned as follows :","\u201c ... the grounds underlying the [ applicant \u2019s ] detention pending trial have not altered . [ He ] is charged with a grievous offence entailing a custodial sentence in excess of DATE ; he previously absconded and his name was put on the list of wanted persons ; he is not employed and does not have an official source of income ; he used to be a policeman and has relevant knowledge and experience ; he is privy to the personal data of the victim and a witness . The evidence , the circumstances and the [ applicant \u2019s ] character presented to the court lead it to believe that , if released , [ the applicant ] might abscond , continue criminal activities , threaten the victim and the witness , put pressure on them or otherwise interfere with the investigation of the case . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG of GPE fixed the trial for DATE . The applicant asked for release on bail in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) to be paid by his cousin . The court further extended the pre - trial detention in respect of the applicant and the other defendant until DATE , noting as follows :","\u201c Defendant PERSON is charged with grievous offences . [ The applicant ] is charged with grievous offences . Accordingly , [ the court ] considers that there are grounds to believe that , if released , PERSON and [ the applicant ] might abscond or otherwise interfere with the proceedings . The court does not discern any circumstances justifying lifting or changing the restriction \u2019s ] request for release on bail as unsubstantiated . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of extortion and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld in substance the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal but reduced his sentence to DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant was placed in remand prison no . ORG in GPE . He was held there until DATE except for CARDINAL period DATE when he underwent medical treatment in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","The applicant was detained in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL and ORG which measured QUANTITY by QUANTITY . The cell was equipped with CARDINAL bunk beds , a table , CARDINAL benches and a metal cabinet used for food storage . The toilet was located QUANTITY away from the living area of the cell and offered no privacy .","The applicant suffers from chronic gastritis and post - traumatic brain dysfunction . Because of his condition , he was eligible for a special food regime , which was allegedly not provided . His relatives sent him medicine and food while he was in detention .","In DATE the applicant underwent medical treatment in the hospital of remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE .","NORP In response to the applicant \u2019s complaint , the GPE City Ombudsman made an enquiry as to the medical care provided in the remand prison . The inquiry did not confirm the applicant \u2019s allegations that he had been refused due medical care . The applicant was informed accordingly on DATE .","The DATE \u2019s submissions as regards the conditions in which the applicant was transported may be summarised as follows :","The Government did not specify the type of compartment the applicant was placed in during the transfer to and from the court - house . According to the documents submitted , on CARDINAL DATE during the journey from the remand prison to the court - house , the applicant was placed in a single compartment with another inmate .","The Government submitted the following information as regards the measurements and capacity of the prison vans :","The vans were ventilated by an opening in the door and by vents in the compartments . They were equipped with heating and lighting . They were cleaned and disinfected DATE . The vans were in good working order at all times . During the journey , it was not possible for the inmates to use a toilet . They could use the toilet at the court - house , if necessary .","According to the photographs submitted by the ORG , each compartment was equipped with CARDINAL benches located along the longer walls and facing each other . There was no access to natural light . The Government also submitted excerpts from standards for service vehicles intended for the transport of suspects and defendants in criminal cases , which set forth that the seating space per person in the prison van should be CARDINAL by QUANTITY","According to the applicant , he was transported in a single - occupancy compartment only on CARDINAL occasions . For the rest of the time , he was transported in a collective compartment which held CARDINAL detainees and measured QUANTITY by QUANTITY by QUANTITY There were not enough seats for everyone and some people had to stand or sit on someone else \u2019s lap . During the winter the vans were not heated . The ceiling and the walls were covered with ice . The floor in the van was extremely dirty . It was covered with cigarette butts , food crumbs , plastic bottles and bags of urine . The natural ventilation of the van through the hatches was insufficient . All the detainees smoked in the van and the applicant was exposed to second - hand tobacco smoke . The light was off all the time .","On DATE of the trial , the applicant was placed in a holding cell at the court - house measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY . It was , according to the applicant , dirty , poorly lit and unventilated . In DATE , the temperature did not exceed + CARDINAL The cell held CARDINAL or more detainees . There was no toilet in the cell . The applicant spent TIME in such conditions ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150998","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF B\u00c9L\u00c1N\u00c9 NAGY v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s loss of capacity to work was assessed to be CARDINAL per cent as of DATE , and she was granted a disability pension ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This assessment was maintained in DATE and DATE .","Pursuant to a modification of the applicable methodology but apparently without any substantial change in her health , the level of the applicant \u2019s disability was changed to MONEY on DATE . Without envisaging her rehabilitation , the assessment panel scheduled the next check - up of her medical status for DATE .","As a consequence of her MONEY level of disability , her entitlement to the disability pension was withdrawn as of DATE .","The applicant challenged this decision in court , but ORG dismissed her action on DATE , notwithstanding an expert opinion stating that the applicant \u2019s condition had not improved since DATE . The applicant was obliged to reimburse the amounts received after CARDINAL DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant requested another assessment of her disability . In DATE the first - instance authority assessed it at MONEY , scheduling the next assessment for DATE . The second - instance authority changed this score to MONEY , with a reassessment due in DATE . Such a level would have entitled her to disability pension , had her rehabilitation not been possible ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , this time the assessment envisaged the applicant \u2019s rehabilitation in a time - frame of DATE , during which time she was to receive rehabilitation allowance .","As of DATE , a new law on disability allowances ( Act no . ORG of DATE ) entered into force . It introduced additional applicability criteria ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Notably , instead of fulfilling the service period required by the former legislation , the disabled person must have DATE covered by social security in DATE the submission of his or her request . Persons who do not meet this requirement may nevertheless qualify if they had no interruption of social cover for DATE throughout their career , or if they were in receipt of a disability pension on DATE .","In DATE the applicant submitted another request for disability allowance . Her condition was assessed in DATE , leading to the finding of MONEY disability . On DATE her request was dismissed because she did not have the requisite period of social cover . Rehabilitation was not envisaged . The next assessment was scheduled for DATE .","NORP On DATE the applicant submitted a fresh request for disability pension under the new law on disability allowances and underwent another assessment in which the level of her disability was again established at MONEY . Rehabilitation was not envisaged .","In principle , such a level of disability would entitle the applicant to a disability pension under the new system . However , since her disability pension had been terminated in DATE ( that is , she was not in receipt of a disability pension on DATE ) and , moreover , she was not in a position to accumulate the requisite number of DATE covered by social security or to demonstrate an uninterrupted social cover , she was not eligible , under any title , for a disability allowance under the new system . Instead of DATE covered by social security , the applicant had CARDINAL .","Accordingly , the applicant \u2019s disability pension request was refused both by the competent administrative authorities ( on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) and by ORG , on DATE .","As of DATE , the impugned legislative criteria have been amended with a view to extending the eligibility for disability allowance to those who have accumulated either CARDINAL days covered by social security in DATE or DATE in DATE . However , the applicant could not meet these criteria either .","It appears that currently the applicant lives on aid .","Since DATE ORG has examined a number of complaints attacking in essence the same new rules on disability entitlements ( decision FAC . DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The complainants in those procedures raised their constitutional concerns after the final and binding domestic judgments , without applying to the ORG ) in review proceedings . Although these motions were eventually rejected as inadmissible for other reasons , ORG did not consider that , for their constitutional complaints to be entertained , those complainants were required to have approached the GPE beforehand ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150671","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SIKUTA v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant concluded an employment contract with a ORG - owned financial institution .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s employment was terminated by mutual agreement with effect from DATE . Under this agreement , on CARDINAL DATE the employer paid the applicant , after payroll burdens , a net amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) , including his salary due until the termination of his employment , payment for unused DATE leave and CARDINAL months\u2019 salary .","Under new legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the gross amount corresponding to the above payment was subsequently taxed at a PERCENT rate in its part exceeding ORG CARDINAL ; the income tax and social security contributions already paid ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were deducted from the tax payable . Thus , the applicant had to pay an additional ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as special tax , until DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146769","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BEGHELURI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Violation of Article 14+9 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicants are all GPE \u2019s Witnesses , except for the ninth applicant , PERSON . Their application to the ORG is based on CARDINAL cases of alleged violence and assault to which the applicants were subjected at different times . The applicants lodged CARDINAL complaints with the investigation authorities , including ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , with a view to criminal proceedings being brought against the perpetrators . The complaints failed to yield any concrete results .","CARDINAL acts of religiously motivated violence were allegedly carried out with the direct participation of the police and other representatives of the authorities , while CARDINAL other cases indicate their indirect involvement . CARDINAL of the QUANTITY acts of alleged violence described in the application involved assaults on FAC by the group of NORP believers run by Mr PERSON ( \u201c Father PERSON ) , a priest defrocked by ORG ( see Members of the Gldani Congregation of GPE \u2019s Witnesses and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) . Although in all the cases the applicants complained to the investigation authorities , in only a few of the cases did they receive a written response . In CARDINAL of the cases , when the applicants challenged the inactivity and ignorance of the law enforcement authorities , the courts refused to hear their complaints . In the majority of the cases , the victims reported the original investigation authorities\u2019 indifference and failure to act to the ORG , but the latter took no adequate action . In CARDINAL cases were the applicants able to take their complaints right up to ORG of GPE , which then dismissed them .","The Public Defender of GPE , ORG against Racism and Intolerance , the ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights , ORG and national and international media repeatedly reported that ORG had been the target of violence by private and NORP religious individuals , the majority of whom had been led by Father PERSON , and that the relevant authorities had failed to prevent or stop it .","NORP In support of the factual account set out below , the applicants produced the statements of CARDINAL victims and witnesses of the alleged violence , photographs of police officers failing to take action while attacks were taking place , photographs of the injured applicants , as well as video recordings and photographs of GPE \u2019s PERSON meeting places that had been pillaged and ransacked . To illustrate the situation of GPE \u2019s Witnesses in GPE at the material time , the ORG representatives also referred to the evidence submitted in CARDINAL other applications made by ORG before the ORG ( Members of the Gldani Congregation of GPE \u2019s Witnesses and Others , cited above , and ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , pending before ORG ) .","The following account presents the facts as the applicants claim they occurred .","This part of the application concerns applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON PERSON , PERSON , ORG , NORP GPE , PERSON , NORP Tskhadaia , ORG , ORG , N. Kantaria , L. Esebua , PERSON , NORP ORG , ORG , S. Kintsurashvili , PERSON , NORP ORG , L. ORG and M. ORG ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","On DATE , ORG , GPE . , ORG , GPE , DATE . and ORG , senior officials at the GPE office of ORG ( Western Georgia ) drew up a \u201c plan for a protection operation to prevent the meeting of the religious movement of GPE \u2019s Witnesses \u201d in the village of PERSON on DATE . The plan stated that \u201c unofficial demonstrations against the meeting in question are likely to take place , requiring police intervention to prevent religious conflict . \u201d The aims of the operation were defined as follows : to pick up individuals attending the GPE \u2019s PERSON meeting , to identify them for operational purposes , to gather information on the identified individuals by infiltrating their ranks ; and to set up permanent and mobile checkpoints on the outskirts of the village of ORG , and on the roads around PERSON and between neighbouring villages .","According to the applicants , the PERSON religious convention was postponed by DATE because of the on - going negotiations between the meeting organisers and local officials on the security measures to be put in place .","On DATE a peaceful meeting of CARDINAL GPE \u2019s Witnesses was taking place at the property of PERSON and PERSON ( applicants ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , when it was suddenly disrupted by the police . According to the applicants , the police opened fire inside their property . Masked police officers entered the house , turned it upside down and removed various items . Around CARDINAL Jehovah \u2019s Witnesses who were present were beaten , including applicants NORP GPE , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON GPE . PERSON , the aged co - owner of the house , was verbally assaulted and one of the attackers spat in her face . She was also made to watch her house being ransacked and plundered , and the stage set up in the courtyard set on fire . At the same time the police organised around QUANTITY buses to drive the participants of the religious meeting off from the scene .","Elsewhere , police checkpoints were set up on the main roads to impede a further CARDINAL Witnesses \u2013 including the applicants B. Kurashvili , PERSON and PERSON \u2013 from reaching the meeting . According to applicant NORP ORG , he and PERSON ORG were allegedly attacked and beaten on their way to the assembly , whilst ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , S. Kintsurashvili , ORG , L. Esebua , and ORG escaped physical aggression but were verbally assaulted and humiliated .","The applicants lodged complaints with the ORG regional prosecutor \u2019s office in DATE , and criminal proceedings were instituted under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW of GPE ( robbery ) on DATE . The criminal file was sent to the investigation department of the GPE office of ORG and investigator ORG . was put in charge of the investigation . In DATE most of the applicants , along with other participants of DATE religious meeting , were questioned as witnesses ; none of them was granted formal victim status . It appears that no other investigative measures were taken .","On DATE the applicants were informed that the investigator had suspended the investigation on DATE and that the regional prosecutor had upheld that decision on DATE . The reason stated was the failure of the investigation to establish the identity of the perpetrators . The applicants referred the matter to the regional prosecutor \u2019s office , complaining that their statements , providing , among other things , the names of several police officers involved in the incident and the number plates of the vehicles used , had been disregarded . The investigator \u2019s decision was set aside on DATE and the case was referred back to the same investigator for further inquiries . However , the investigation was subsequently suspended again without the applicants being informed . They did not learn that their case had been closed until the respondent ORG submitted its observations to the ORG in CARDINAL other applications made by ORG Witnesses against GPE on DATE . Consequently , on DATE , the applicants contacted the regional prosecutor to obtain a copy of the decision . They received no response .","This part of the application concerns applicants NORP GPE , PERSON , NORP GPE , PERSON GPE , PERSON NORP , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . PERSON and A. PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","According to the applicants , on DATE a large number of ORG Witnesses departed for a meeting in ORG ) . The police had set up checkpoints along the route , blocking the roads and preventing the Witnesses from arriving at their destination . CARDINAL buses and several cars stopped by the police were obliged to turn back . Meanwhile , the police allowed a bus carrying NORP believers to continue to ORG . Upon arrival , the group of NORP believers burst into the property belonging to PERSON ( applicant no . CARDINAL ) in which the meeting was to be held . They destroyed religious objects and removed items belonging to the owner of the property . The police officers present refused to intervene to protect ORG and at least some of them went as far as to beat members of the meeting . CARDINAL Witnesses were beaten and robbed during the attack . Property belonging to the Witnesses valued at MONEY was destroyed or stolen . In addition , according to an audit report submitted by the applicants , QUANTITY of religious literature worth MONEY was burnt on DATE .","R. PERSON was assaulted and beaten by those who stormed his house , while PERSON . PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , NORP PERSON and PERSON were stopped and beaten by a group of NORP believers on their way to the convention site . PERSON submitted a medical certificate stating that he had sustained concussion as a result of the beatings . PERSON sustained bruises around his right eye and on his right knee . It appears that DATE he was further assaulted by QUANTITY police officers on account of his participation in the events at hand .","PERSON was prevented by the roadblocks from travelling to PERSON and thus escaped the attack unharmed , while PERSON GPE , Z. Baidoshvili and PERSON did not submit any statements with regard to the treatment inflicted on them .","On DATE the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the ORG . They received no information concerning the progress of their complaint . Therefore , on DATE , the ORG representative contacted the ORG requesting a copy of the decision taken with respect to the initial complaint . The ORG did not respond . On DATE , the applicants lodged a complaint against the authorities for their failure to reply . Their complaint was dismissed on DATE by ORG on the ground that they could not file a complaint against a non - existent decision .","NORP This part of the application concerns the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","On DATE , several private individuals , including GPE , GPE , and GPE , armed with guns and knives , burst into the home of ORG in PERSON ( LOC ) where a meeting of FAC was taking place . CARDINAL of the assailants blocked the door , while the others proceeded to attack the applicants . A gun was pointed at the head of PERSON and he was punched in the face until his nose , which had been broken , began to bleed . PERSON was cruelly beaten and a cigarette was stubbed out on his forehead . PERSON was punched in the face and stomach and threatened with a knife , and PERSON jumped out of a window when CARDINAL of the attackers took out his gun and pulled the trigger . She was taken to hospital by ambulance and placed in intensive care . PERSON , the owner of the house , was not at home during the attack , but his wife , PERSON , was present and was also assaulted .","Along with their statements giving details of the incident , the applicants also provided the ORG with a photograph of PERSON , who , after jumping out of the window , sustained an injury to her back and was unable to walk for DATE , a photograph of PERSON with a broken nose , and a photograph of ORG with a cigarette burn on his forehead .","NORP The police officers who arrived at the scene shortly after the incident insulted the victims and refused to record their complaints . On DATE , the applicants lodged a collective complaint with the city prosecutor .","On DATE , several of the applicants were summoned to give a statement . Their representative subsequently lodged a complaint in respect of the pressure and harassment to which the applicants had been subjected during questioning . He also denounced the ORG refusal to organise a medical examination of PERSON and other victims of the attack .","On DATE , the applicants were notified of the decision of DATE to take no further action in relation to their complaints . According to the decision , the investigating authorities had concluded that PERSON GPE \u2019s injuries had been self - inflicted , while PERSON had jumped out of the window \u201c of her own free will \u201d . The decision also stated that the investigative authorities had established that one of the attackers had had a toy gun and had hence concluded that the meeting in question had not been violently disrupted .","Following an objection lodged by the applicants on DATE with the regional prosecutor , the case was sent to the city prosecutor for further investigation . On DATE , the applicants went to the public prosecutor \u2019s office to seek information on the progress of their case . They learnt that no further action would be taken and were denied a copy of the decision . On DATE , the applicants applied to ORG but the judge refused to register their application . It was only following a complaint filed with ORG that the PERSON court dealt with the applicants\u2019 application on DATE and quashed the decision of the public prosecutor \u2019s office to take no action in their case . The case was sent back for additional investigation . Since then , the applicants have received no further news from the investigation authorities .","This part of the application concerns the applicants ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","On DATE and DATE , a large group of NORP believers led by Father PERSON burst into the courtroom of the ORG of First Instance in GPE , which was dealing with a criminal case against CARDINAL GPE \u2019s Witnesses . The group attacked the applicants , journalists and foreign observers present in the room . The court bailiffs guarding the courtroom did not move or intervene in the confrontation . The group of believers was equipped with big wooden crosses , which they used as weapons . They took control of the courtroom . The lawyer acting for the accused asked for the hearing to be adjourned , but the judge did not allow his request . The court imposed no penalties on the religious believers who had forcibly occupied the courtroom . The attack was filmed and broadcast on the Rustavi CARDINAL and LOC television channels .","Applicants E. GPE , S. Kvergelidze , L. GPE and ORG managed to escape the aggression unharmed , while PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , according to their statements , suffered verbal and physical abuse ; they were all threatened with being beaten by the big crosses .","The applicants lodged various complaints . They were given no information as to the progress of their cases . On DATE their lawyer asked for access to the file and discovered that criminal proceedings had been instituted on CARDINAL DATE and that on that same day , an investigation unit had been set up . The case had since been assigned to CARDINAL successive investigating officers . The first CARDINAL had managed to secure an extension of the investigation period until DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . On DATE , the investigator responsible had decided to close the case on the grounds that it had been impossible \u201c to identify the perpetrators of the attack \u201d . The applicants pointed out that the video recording of the attack had been broadcast on television and that furthermore , many of the witnesses had recognised Father PERSON \u2019s religious group .","On DATE , the decision to take no further action was set aside and the file returned for further investigation . On DATE , the investigation period was extended to DATE . Following DATE of investigation , none of the attackers was placed under investigation and no decision was served on the applicants and their lawyer .","This part of the application concerns the applicant PERSON PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no . CARDINAL ) . On DATE , while walking along the road between the villages of PERSON and PERSON ( Eastern Georgia ) , the applicant was picked up by CARDINAL private individuals , who were later identified as GPE , GPE , GPE , and PERSON They took him by car to the place of worship of ORG living in PERSON . They threatened to kill him unless he crossed himself and went around the site carrying an icon . When the applicant refused , they dragged him into a forest and beat him . They stripped him and took his personal belongings , including religious literature , which they then set alight . They threatened to rape him if he did not do as they ordered . They placed the belt of his own trousers around his neck , dragged him by the hair and forced him to crawl to a sacred rock and kiss it . After TIME , and having been warned not to mention the incident to anyone , the applicant was taken back to the attackers\u2019 car . He was thrown out of the car outside the house of a villager . The villager took care of the applicant for DATE until he was able to return home .","On DATE the applicant reported the incident to the police . In support of his version of events he submitted , along with his detailed statement , a statement of the villager , who had taken care of him . When the attackers learnt that he had done so , they threatened him . The police contacted them and obtained a written undertaking that they would stop intimidating the applicant . The applicant was notified of the decision of DATE not to open a criminal case DATE . On DATE and DATE , his lawyer lodged an appeal with the regional prosecutor and the ORG respectively . He received no response . On DATE , the lawyer referred the matter to ORG . The court informed him verbally that the decision not to institute criminal proceedings would be set aside by the regional prosecutor and that the investigation would go ahead . On DATE , the regional prosecutor sent the matter for further investigation . Since that date , the applicant has received no further information as to the progress of his case . His lawyer \u2019s requests for information have also been to no avail .","This part of the application concerns applicant PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no . DATE ) . On DATE , the applicant was allegedly beaten up by V.A. , in the PERSON region ( LOC ) because he was a FAC . The applicant went to the local hospital , which alerted the police . The medical certificate submitted by the applicant stated that he had sustained bruising on the back of his head and abrasions on his face , right cheek , forehead and the back of his left ear .","On DATE , the applicant filed a complaint with the PERSON police . He was pressurised on many occasions by the attacker and his family to withdraw his complaint . The police investigated , identified Mr V.A. as the attacker and forwarded the case file to FAC . On DATE , before even questioning the applicant and the prosecution witnesses and after having questioned the defence witnesses , the trial judge decided not to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence of a crime . The applicant appealed to ORG , which , by a decision of DATE , upheld the decision of the lower court . Both those courts established that V.A. had not beaten up the applicant while he had been touting his literature , but had merely pushed him to get away from him . The applicant had therefore been injured by falling . On DATE , ORG of GPE dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant .","This part of the application concerns applicant PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no.CARDINAL ) . On DATE the applicant , along with CARDINAL Jehovah \u2019s Witnesses , was celebrating a religious feast in a private house in the city of LOC ) . Late in the evening some QUANTITY persons approached the house and tried to interrupt the religious gathering . Several of them , who were apparently drunk , including L.Ch . and PERSON , the latter being armed with a wooden stick , burst into the house and verbally assaulted the Witnesses ; the applicant was physically assaulted by PERSON . Police intervention was requested and the head of the city police , GPE , arrived but , according to the applicant , only to assist the attackers . He forced the applicant to go to a police station , where the latter was physically assaulted by ORG , insulted by other people , including an NORP priest , and threatened with further physical violence unless he stopped practising his religion in GPE . He was detained at the police station for TIME .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE an investigator from the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office discontinued the proceedings owing to the absence of evidence of a crime . He concluded , after having questioned several police officers , that there was no evidence substantiating the applicant \u2019s allegation that ORG had insulted him . The applicant was not informed of the above decision until DATE . He immediately appealed , complaining , inter alia , that his initial complaint had concerned not only the conduct of ORG but also the violent dispersal of the GPE \u2019s Witnesses meeting of DATE and the physical and verbal assault on him that had ensued . On DATE the refusal to institute criminal proceedings was upheld on appeal and no further investigation was ever conducted . The respective decision was served on the applicant only on DATE .","These parts of the application concern the applicants PERSON , GPE and PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . DATE , case no . CARDINAL) ; PERSON and PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL DATE , case no . CARDINAL ) ; PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and M. Tchubabria ( nos . CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; PERSON and A. ORG ( nos . DATE and DATE , case no . CARDINAL ) ; PERSON ( no . CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; and PERSON and PERSON ( ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) respectively .","On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively the applicants were subjected to various forms of aggressive behaviour because of their faith . A group of Father PERSON followers in GPE , a group of CARDINAL followers of Father PERSON and Father PERSON in GPE , and other groups of laypersons followed the applicants in the streets or close to their homes ; they insulted them ; they attempted to break into their homes by forcing the doors , frightening children who had been left home alone ( case no . CARDINAL ) ; they tried to force CARDINAL of the applicants to kiss the cross ( applicant no . CARDINAL , criminal case no.CARDINAL ) ; and they seized their religious literature ( case no . CARDINAL ) and burned it ( case no . CARDINAL ) . The homes of applicants PERSON and ORG at which ORG held their services were burgled and ransacked , and religious objects were stolen ( cases FAC . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","In certain cases , the police were present at the scene but did not intervene to protect the applicants ( criminal cases nos . CARDINAL and DATE ) .","In all cases , the applicants lodged complaints , but apart from cases nos . CARDINAL and DATE , no response was ever received . The applicants contacted ORG to obtain a written decision as regards their complaints but they never received a reply . In some cases the courts contacted the public prosecutor \u2019s office themselves requesting written decisions , but received no response .","In criminal case no . CARDINAL , in reply to a complaint filed by applicants ORG , PERSON and PERSON ( CARDINAL . DATE ) , the police informed them that they had issued a warning to Father PERSON to stop attacking GPE \u2019s Witnesses . The applicants requested several times a copy of the written decision not to institute criminal proceedings , but received no response . On DATE the ORG of First Instance refused to hear an objection lodged by the applicants on the grounds that they could not validly challenge a non - existent decision . The complaints filed by PERSON and PERSON ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) and PERSON and PERSON PERSON ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) on DATE had the same outcome ; On various dates in DATE the ORG of First Instance refused to examine the applicants\u2019 complaints on the ground that they had failed to submit the decisions of the prosecutor \u2019s office .","In criminal case no . CARDINAL , the applicants were notified of the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE to take no further action . This decision was set aside by the court authorities and the case was referred back for further investigation . Subsequently , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG prosecutor upheld the initial refusal to institute criminal proceedings . The prosecutor concluded , on the basis of various witness testimonies , that neither of the GPE \u2019s Witnesses had been subjected to verbal or physical abuse during the alleged incident ; they had been merely prevented by the local priests and population from attending a religious gathering of GPE \u2019s Witnesses at the home of PERSON ( applicant no . CARDINAL ) in order to avert an escalation of religious conflict in the city .","In criminal case no . CARDINAL , following several written complaints which have been left unanswered , on DATE the head of the local police informed the applicants in person that no investigation had been carried out because they had never received their written complaints .","This part of the application concerns the applicant PERSON . PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no . CARDINAL ) . On DATE , the applicant was travelling to the village of PERSON with various religious books belonging either to him or to the local congregation of Jehovah \u2019s Witnesses . He was stopped by police officer GPE and taken to LOC police station , where the books were confiscated . His attempts to object resulted in verbal abuse and he was released . The applicant returned to the police station some time later accompanied by CARDINAL other GPE \u2019s Witnesses , who were the other owners of the confiscated literature . On arrival , they noticed the charred remains of their books . On DATE , they lodged a complaint .","On DATE the applicant was notified of a decision of CARDINAL DATE not to open a criminal case for lack of evidence of a crime .","This part of the application concerns the applicants PERSON GPE and GPE ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . On DATE , GPE . , an NORP priest , accompanied by several police officers , including PERSON , approached PERSON GPE , who was sitting on a bus in the city of PERSON , and demanded that he show them his bag . On the instructions of the priest , the police officers confiscated the religious literature and personal documents found in the bag . The applicant filed a complaint at the police station .","DATE . On DATE , both applicants were walking through the central square in the village of PERSON ( Martvili municipality ) when they were stopped by a group of CARDINAL men . The applicants were cruelly beaten because of their faith . The head of the local police , PERSON and QUANTITY police officers , GPE and ORG , were close by and witnessed the act of violence , but failed to intervene to protect the victims . On the contrary , they threatened to arrest the applicants . The applicants filed a complaint . In support of his complaint , PERSON submitted a medical report which stated that he had sustained bruises around his left eye , on his forehead and on both thighs .","NORP The applicants\u2019 complaints were never followed up . On DATE , their lawyer contacted the ORG but received no reply . On DATE , the applicants took legal action in respect of the investigation authorities\u2019 failure to act . On DATE , ORG refused to hear the complaint on the ground that the applicants could not validly challenge a non - existent decision . On DATE , the applicants filed the same complaint with the same court . On DATE , that court responded that the case had been referred back to the prosecutor \u2019s office for a written decision . In reply to their query of DATE , the responsible investigator informed the applicants that on CARDINAL DATE a decision had been taken to close the case . He based his decision on the statements of the alleged perpetrators . He dismissed the medical evidence and concluded that no crimes had been committed . The decision also stated that the time - limit for initiating a private legal action had expired .","This part of the application concerns the applicant PERSON PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no . CARDINAL ) , a GPE \u2019s Witness pastor . On DATE the applicant was visiting a congregation of ORG in GPE . Having been stopped in the street by unidentified individuals , he was taken to the police station where he was jeered at and insulted . The police threatened to arrest him if he were ever to be seen practising his religion in PERSON again . The applicant was expelled from the town and the bus driver was ordered not to let him off the bus before the terminus in GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint . He received an acknowledgment of receipt but no further information as to the progress of his case . On DATE , he contacted the ORG asking for a decision . No response followed . On DATE , the applicant referred the matter to ORG . On DATE , the first - instance judge informed him that the court \u2019s attempts to obtain the file and the decision from the public prosecutor \u2019s office had failed and that he was therefore unable to investigate his complaint . DATE , the court managed to obtain a copy of the prosecutor \u2019s decision , which it forwarded to the applicant . It appeared from DATE decision that the prosecutor had decided not to initiate criminal proceedings . He concluded , on the basis of the statement of the QUANTITY police officers involved in the incident , that the applicant had been taken to the police station for his own safety in order to prevent any conflict with the local population . The prosecutor also stated that there was no evidence to substantiate the applicant \u2019s allegations of abuse .","The prosecutor \u2019s refusal to institute criminal proceedings was upheld by ORG and ORG of GPE on DATE and DATE respectively .","This part of the application concerns the applicant PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no . CARDINAL ) . On DATE , the applicant was stopped in a GPE street by police officer GPE , who asked him what he had in his bag . The religious literature and the Bible in his bag were confiscated . The police officer and CARDINAL passers - by insulted the applicant . On DATE , the applicant went to the police station to request the return of his books and Bible . In response to his request , officer GPE threw a bag he was holding towards the applicant and kicked him out of the police station .","On DATE the applicant filed a complaint but received no response . On DATE , his lawyer contacted the ORG but received no reply . The applicant referred the matter to the Vake - Saburtalo Court of First Instance in GPE . At the hearing of DATE , the applicant obtained a copy of the decision of the public prosecutor \u2019s office not to institute criminal proceedings dated DATE . The court set aside that decision and referred the case back to the public prosecutor \u2019s office for further investigation . On DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer tried unsuccessfully to obtain information on the progress of the file .","NORP This part of the application concerns the applicants PERSON , A. GPE and PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) . On DATE the applicants were returning from a religious meeting . In the village of GPE ( Borjomi district , LOC ) , they were attacked by a group of villagers accompanied by PERSON . , and PERSON , administrative head of the county town of the district and administrative head of the village respectively . CARDINAL of the attackers , a private individual , struck PERSON , who started bleeding and grabbed his bag containing a Bible and other religious literature . The same person then attacked the other CARDINAL applicants , lashing them with the strap of the bag belonging to PERSON . The CARDINAL administrative heads condoned the violence and insulted the applicants . They then ordered the villagers to stop and left the scene with them .","On DATE the applicants filed a complaint . On DATE , they were notified of the decision to close the proceedings . On DATE , the applicants challenged that decision before the regional prosecutor , who dismissed their action on DATE . The applicants complained to the ORG on DATE , but no reply followed .","This part of the application concerns the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Kh . GPE , E. GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","On DATE in GPE , followers of Father PERSON stopped a bus that was carrying FAC to a religious meeting in GPE . They punctured the tyres , forced the applicants along with other ORG Witnesses out of the bus and assaulted them , verbally and physically . The men , including NORP , PERSON and PERSON , were particularly severely beaten ; PERSON was also personally targeted because she was video recording the attack . In particular , after forcefully getting of the bus , she was chased by CARDINAL men who assaulted her and then took the camera away from her . They shortly returned to her a broken camera , but the video recording was missing . They also threatened her not to make any recordings in the future .","NORP On DATE GPE \u2019s Witnesses , including the applicants , filed a complaint . In DATE they in addition submitted individual statements detailing the violent incident . On DATE , their lawyer contacted the ORG asking for a decision to be taken . They received no response . On DATE , the applicants complained to the ORG of First Instance in GPE of the investigation authorities\u2019 failure to take action , which had amounted to a rejection of their complaint . On DATE , the court informed the applicants that in the absence of any written decision , their complaint could not be examined .","On DATE the applicant PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no . CARDINAL ) was walking along a street in the city of GPE , when he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse because of his faith . Notably , he alleged that he had been beaten and insulted by a passer - by while he was distributing religious literature . Accompanied by his attacker , the applicant went to the police station where he was allegedly hit by a police officer , ORG , while other police officers thanked the attacker . In support of his allegations , the applicant submitted the statements of CARDINAL eyewitnesses .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint . On DATE , the LOC prosecutor decided not to institute proceedings against the passer - by , identified as LOC , and police officer PERSON Noting that the applicant \u2019s statement and those of the eyewitnesses supporting his version of the events were controversial , the prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence of a criminal offence committed by either of them . The applicant challenged that decision . After having questioned the parties concerned , the lower court dismissed the case on the ground that the applicant \u2019s injuries had not been confirmed by a medical report . An appeal by the applicant to ORG of GPE was dismissed on DATE .","This part of the application concerns the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; PERSON ( no . CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; and PERSON , I. PERSON , and T. Arabyani ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) respectively .","According to the applicants , because of their faith they were subjected to threats , verbal assault and theft of their religious literature and personal belongings while walking in the streets on DATE , QUANTITY , DATE and DATE respectively . The attacks were carried out in different parts of the country . The perpetrators were followers of Father PERSON or just laypersons hostile to GPE \u2019s Witnesses . Most of them were identified by the victims .","The applicants in all the cases complained to the police . When filing the complaint , some of them were subjected to verbal abuse by police officers ( case no . CARDINAL ) . In response to their complaints , some of the applicants were informed verbally that the police had already warned the attackers to stop abusing GPE \u2019s Witnesses . Hence , when PERSON ( case no . CARDINAL ) complained to the police on DATE that she had been repeatedly assaulted by PERSON and his friends , the police limited themselves to contacting PERSON and obtaining a written undertaking that he would stop intimidating the applicant . The latter was informed in this respect verbally by head of police on DATE . According to the case file , she took no further action in response .","The applicants in criminal cases nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE were not informed of any decision taken by the relevant national authorities in connection with their complaints . The applicants complained to the courts of the inaction of the investigation authorities , but the courts refused to deal with their cases in the absence of a written decision . The respective court decisions were delivered on DATE ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) and DATE ( criminal cases nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","This part of the application concerns the applicants PERSON and PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL and DATE , case no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( no.CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON and PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) , NORP PERSON ( no . DATE , case no . CARDINAL ) and PERSON ( case no . CARDINAL ) . According to the applicants , while walking in the street they were subjected to verbal and physical abuse because of their faith . They were beaten up and their personal belongings were stolen on DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , and DATE respectively . In support of their version of the events the applicants submitted detailed statements as well as medical evidence where available .","DATE . Applicants PERSON and PERSON ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) , who were allegedly beaten by a group of CARDINAL supporters of Father PERSON in a street during daylight TIME in GPE , had to seek medical assistance in a hospital . DATE after the attack they filed a criminal complaint with the ORG in which they provided a detailed account of the incident , indicated the number plates of the vehicles involved , and identified CARDINAL of the alleged attackers by name . While being questioned as witnesses , the applicants were pressured by the police to withdraw their complaint . In a ruling of DATE the ORG of First Instance concluded , having regard to the relevant case file , that the assault in question , as a result of which the applicants had sustained minor bodily injuries , had clearly had a religious motive and had been committed by followers of Father PERSON . The judge noted , however , that it had been impossible to identify the alleged perpetrators and referred the case file back to the prosecution authorities . As it appears from the materials at hand , the applicants were informed in DATE that their case file was subsequently lost .","In case no . DATE , the applicant was assaulted by a private individual , PERSON filed a complaint with the local police DATE after the attack . He also underwent a medical examination . He resubmitted his criminal complaint to the district prosecutor of ORG DATE , together with the results of the medical examination . He received a reply on DATE stating that criminal proceedings had been instituted . Since then , however , the applicant has not inquired about the progress of the investigation .","Applicant A. Turkia ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) was assaulted by a layperson , PERSON , in the city of NORP on DATE . The incident was witnessed by applicant PERSON , who apparently escaped the attack unharmed . According to Mr Turkia \u2019s statement , he suffered serious physical and verbal abuse and was also threatened with a knife . On DATE he filed a complaint with the ORG . Mr NORP claimed that it was not the first attack of this type involving PERSON On DATE the deputy head of the NORP regional police decided not to follow up the complaint . He concluded , on the basis of the alleged attacker \u2019s statement as well as several GPE depositions , that PERSON had simply asked Mr NORP to stop disseminating religious literature in the city and that Mr Turkia had suffered no physical injuries . The decision was upheld on appeal by a prosecutor on DATE . On DATE the ORG judge set aside the prosecutor \u2019s decision . He referred to the results of Mr Turkia \u2019s medical examination , and to a photograph of him taken DATE after the alleged incident . He concluded that there was evidence of an offence and remitted the case for further investigation . Applicant NORP was not informed of the progress of the subsequent investigation .","In case no . CARDINAL the applicant , who was verbally and physically assaulted by a group of private individuals , among them M.T. and PERSON residents of the village LOC ( NORP GPE ) , was informed by police that they had issued a warning to PERSON to stop attacking ORG . A decision was taken not to initiate a criminal investigation . The applicant challenged the refusal . On DATE the ORG remitted the case for further investigation . The trial judge concluded that no identification procedure had taken place and that the investigation had disregarded the accusations voiced with respect to PERSON On DATE a PERSON prosecutor after having questioned the alleged attackers maintained the refusal to open a criminal case owing to the absence of elements of crime .","PERSON ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) was assaulted while hosting several Witnesses at a dinner in her home on DATE . She complained to police claiming that CARDINAL of the assailants , GPE had been systematically attacking her . Police informed her that they had warned GPE and that no proceedings had been instituted . Subsequently , the applicant requested a copy of the written decision not to institute criminal proceedings , but received no response ."],"violated_articles":["14","3","9"],"violated_paragraphs":["9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168821","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"UYAR v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","On DATE the ORG son and brother respectively , ORG , was killed in a traffic accident when the car he was driving collided with a bulldozer at TIME . The bulldozer was being used for road works by ORG ( PERSON ) . An autopsy performed on the victim \u2019s body on DATE confirmed that he had died as a result of bodily traumas sustained in the crash .","Shortly after the accident , CARDINAL gendarme officers went to the site of the crash to prepare an incident report . They noted , inter alia , that no signs had been placed on the road to warn drivers about the road works , a fact confirmed by the driver of the bulldozer . According to a map sketched by the gendarme officers , the car driven by ORG had hit the bulldozer on the rear left side , while the bulldozer was parked on an unpaved area on the right side of the main road .","According to witness statements obtained by the gendarmerie on DATE , the rear of the bulldozer had protruded CARDINAL metres onto the main road at the time of the collision . However , it had been moved to the side of the road immediately after the accident , prior to the arrival of the gendarmerie at the site of the crash .","TIME after the accident gendarme officers questioned the driver of the bulldozer , ORG He stated that he had been operating the bulldozer on the unpaved area next to the main road when ORG car had crashed into it . He denied any responsibility for the accident .","On DATE ORG was taken to the PERSON public prosecutor to make a statement . Repeating his earlier words to the gendarmerie , ORG insisted that the bulldozer had been completely off the main road at the time of the accident , and that he had no idea how the collision had occurred . He also stated that there had been some signs QUANTITY from the place of the crash showing road works . He made the same statement before ORG DATE .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor interviewed an eyewitness , A.E.H. , who stated that at the time of the incident the bulldozer had occupied CARDINAL the main road and that just before the crash another accident had been avoided when a lorry had managed to steer around the bulldozer at TIME . The witness stated that he had warned an engineer overseeing the road works that someone holding a flag was needed to redirect the traffic .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG ( \u201c the FAC \u201d or \u201c the trial court \u201d ) against ORG , charging him with causing death through negligence under LAW in force at the material time .","On DATE ORG began hearing the case .","On an unspecified date the first applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party .","On DATE the trial court carried out an on - site inspection of the place of the accident . The inspection included a gendarmerie expert , the defendant and CARDINAL witnesses . The expert carried out measurements on the bulldozer and the unpaved road it had been working on , as well as on the main road . CARDINAL of the witnesses , A.E.H. , who had previously been interviewed by the public prosecutor , had seen the accident happen . The remaining witnesses made contradictory statements about the location of the crash . Some of them stated that the victim \u2019s car had crashed into the bulldozer on the shoulder between the main road and the unpaved area , while others stated that the collision had occurred in the right lane of the main road .","On DATE the gendarmerie expert issued his report ( \u201c the first report \u201d ) . He stated that owing to the contradictory nature of the witness accounts the location of the collision could not be established with any certainty . He continued by saying that if the crash had occurred on the shoulder , then the victim bore CARDINAL responsibility , as he had had no reason for leaving his lane and crossing to the shoulder ; the remaining responsibility fell on ORG ( DATE ) and ORG ( CARDINAL ) for not taking the necessary safety measures around the road construction work . If , however , the collision had occurred in the right lane of the main road , then ORG and ORG were DATE and CARDINAL liable respectively for occupying the main road without taking any safety measures .","On DATE ORG issued a report concerning the accident ( \u201c the second report \u201d ) . Relying on all the information in the case file , they found that the collision had occurred on the main road . On the basis of that finding , it declared that ORG was threeeighths responsible for occupying the main road , the victim was threeeighths liable for not reacting effectively and redirecting the car in a timely manner to avoid a collision , and ORG was CARDINAL responsible for not placing warning signs and signals on the road .","On DATE the first applicant objected to ORG report . It appears that ORG ordered a third report owing to the contradictions between the first CARDINAL .","On DATE CARDINAL court - appointed experts issued their own accident report ( \u201c the third report \u201d ) , where they reached the same findings as ORG .","On DATE an additional indictment was filed against GPE , the head of the team of workers carrying out the road construction work ( \u201c the foreman \u201d ) for causing GPE death through negligence by not placing signs or a man with a flag on the road to warn drivers about the construction work .","At a hearing held on DATE GPE denied all responsibility for the failure to take safety measures , claiming that such measures were the responsibility of his superiors .","At its fifteenth hearing , held on DATE , ORG delivered its judgment . It convicted ORG and GPE as charged on the basis of the second and third reports , and sentenced them to a judicial fine .","The parties appealed against the trial court \u2019s judgment .","On DATE the public prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG remitted the case to ORG for a reassessment of the sentence in the light of FAC no . DATE ) that had entered into force in DATE .","At a hearing held by ORG on DATE , the defendant ORG argued that the responsibility for taking safety measures on the road fell on ORG , the head of the road construction site .","On DATE the ORG requested that ORG of Highways indicate whether responsibility for taking the necessary safety measures at the road construction site had been that of GPE or ORG The first applicant objected to that request , stating that the trial court had no jurisdiction to collect new evidence at that stage of the proceedings as the case had been remitted to it only for a reassessment of the sentence in the light of the new Criminal Code . The first applicant \u2019s objection was dismissed , having regard to the authority and duty of a trial court to collect relevant evidence at all stages of the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG of Highways informed ORG that the head of the construction site was responsible for placing the necessary warning signs while the foreman was responsible for keeping those signs in place for the duration of the construction work . It added that warning signs had been placed on the road at the time of the accident .","On DATE \u015e.Z. was heard as a witness . He stated that his responsibility was limited to placing warning signs around the construction site , which he had duly fulfilled . He added that the inspection of the day - to - day work at the site was the responsibility of the foreman , who was GPE","At a hearing held on DATE the trial court ordered an additional report to determine the liability of GPE and GPE for the accident .","The additional report , issued on DATE ( \u201c the fourth report \u201d ) , found that the responsibility to take safety measures fell on ORG and not GPE He was , therefore , CARDINAL liable for the accident , according to the experts .","On DATE ORG again convicted PERSON under the relevant provisions of the former Criminal Code , which were more favourable in the circumstances . However , on the basis of the additional report , it acquitted GPE and decided that a criminal complaint should be filed against ORG with the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office . On DATE the first applicant appealed against that judgment .","On DATE ORG upheld GPE \u2019s acquittal , but quashed the trial court \u2019s judgment in so far as it concerned ORG , holding that the trial court had to consider whether the procedure for the suspension of the pronouncement of judgments ( h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 ) , provided for in LAW no . CARDINAL ) , was applicable in the circumstances .","On DATE the first applicant requested that ORG file a criminal complaint against ORG , as per its decision dated DATE .","At a hearing held on DATE ORG issued an order for the PERSON public prosecutor to indicate whether an investigation had been commenced against ORG , and if not , to duly commence the investigation process , having regard to the impending expiry of the limitation period . At the same hearing the criminal court decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment against ORG ( h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 ) , pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant objected to the decision to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment , arguing that the conditions for such a suspension , as set out in LAW , had not been satisfied .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection , finding that the requirements of the above - mentioned article of LAW had been complied with .","It appears that in the meantime , on DATE , the registry of ORG filed a criminal complaint against ORG with the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor delivered a decision not to prosecute in relation to ORG as prosecution of the offence in question had become time - barred .","On an unspecified date the applicants filed a criminal complaint against the members of the registry of ORG for neglect of duty . They alleged that by delaying the filing of a criminal complaint against ORG , they had caused his prosecution to become timebarred .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG against CARDINAL members of the registry of ORG for neglect of duty .","On DATE the ORG acquitted the defendants on the grounds of an absence of mens rea because the offence of neglect of duty required a specific intent , which had been absent .","The applicants appealed against that judgment .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicants brought compensation proceedings against ORG , GPE and ORG before ORG of First Instance ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The first applicant claimed CARDINAL Turkish liras ( TRY ) and TRY CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage , respectively . The second and third applicants claimed TRY CARDINAL and TRY CARDINAL , respectively , in non - pecuniary damages .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claims against GPE on account of his acquittal in the criminal proceedings . It also delivered a decision of non - jurisdiction in respect of the claims against ORG as such claims were to be brought before the administrative courts . Relying on the second and third reports issued during the criminal proceedings , ORG held that ORG held CARDINAL liability for ORG death and ordered him to pay TRY MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , plus interest , in respect of pecuniary damage to the first applicant , in proportion to his responsibility for the death . It also ordered ORG to pay compensation in respect of nonpecuniary damage of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) to each of the first CARDINAL applicants , and TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) to the third applicant , together with interest running from the date of the accident .","On DATE the applicants appealed against the judgment of ORG , arguing in particular that the compensation for non - pecuniary damage ordered by that court had been minimal .","On DATE ORG granted the applicants\u2019 request and quashed the judgment of ORG , ordering that court to award a higher level of compensation for non - pecuniary damage to the applicants .","It appears that on DATE ORG ordered ORG to pay compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to each of the first CARDINAL applicants , and TRY CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) to the third applicant , together with interest running from the date of the accident .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG in so far as it concerned the first CARDINAL applicants , on the grounds that the compensation awards for non - pecuniary damage to those applicants had been excessive . The case was remitted to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) on account of the closure of ORG .","On DATE ORG ordered ORG to pay TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to each of the first CARDINAL applicants in respect of non - pecuniary damage , together with interest running from the date of the accident . ORG appealed against this judgment but the applicants did not submit an appeal .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .","DATE . On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants brought an action for compensation before ORG against ORG . The first CARDINAL applicants sought TRY CARDINAL each in respect of non - pecuniary damage , and the third applicant requested TRY CARDINAL .","Relying on the second report , submitted by ORG to ORG , on DATE ORG found ORG to be partially responsible for the death of ORG on account of the absence of the necessary warning signs and signals to alert drivers to the ongoing road construction work . Accordingly , it granted the applicants\u2019 request in part and ordered ORG to pay the first CARDINAL applicants TRY CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) each and the third applicant TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in respect of nonpecuniary damage , together with interest running from DATE ( the date on which the first compensation claim had been made before ORG ) .","It appears that on DATE the applicants received TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) from ORG .","In the meantime , ORG appealed against the judgment of ORG . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .","A description of the domestic law regarding the new remedy introduced by PERSON no . DATE to deal with complaints relating to the excessive length of proceedings may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) and PERSON and GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167124","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF RAYKOVA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s husband owned a house with a yard and a garage in GPE .","On DATE , by decision of the GPE mayor , the property was expropriated with a view to constructing a school . The decision , based on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LOC and Urban Planning Act of DATE ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0430\u043b\u043d\u043e\u0442\u043e \u0438 \u0441\u0435\u043b\u0438\u0449\u043d\u043e \u0443\u0441\u0442\u0440\u043e\u0439\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , stated that the applicant \u2019s husband was to be compensated with a CARDINAL - room flat and a garage in a building which the municipality intended to construct .","By a supplementary decision of CARDINAL DATE , based on section CARDINAL of the PERSON , the mayor determined the exact location , size and other details in respect of the future flat to be provided in compensation . No mention was made however of the garage . Even though , after judicial review initiated by the applicant \u2019s husband , in a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the mayor to supplement the decision and specify the exact garage to be provided to the applicant \u2019s husband , this was not done .","In DATE the municipal authorities transferred to the applicant \u2019s husband property to a flat different from the CARDINAL described in the decision of CARDINAL DATE , which however he did not contest .","The applicant \u2019s husband passed away in DATE . By virtue of his will , all his property was left to the applicant .","In a letter signed by the chief architect of PERSON and dated DATE the applicant was informed that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had not yet been supplemented to specify the garage to be provided to her because no buildings with garages earmarked for the purpose were being built .","In DATE the applicant challenged before the courts the mayor \u2019s failure to issue a decision specifying the garage to be provided to her . In a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed her claim , noting that the case at hand did not concern what was defined by statute as \u201c unlawful failure to act \u201d , but instead the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had to be pursued under a different procedure .","NORP In parallel proceedings brought on an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant sought damages from the GPE municipality for wrongful failure to provide her with a garage . In a final decision of DATE ORG declared the claim inadmissible , on the ground that the courts had already established in the judgment of DATE that there had not been any unlawful failure to act on the part of the administrative authorities ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142398","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RADU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . At the time of the events she was DATE and married . She was a lecturer at ORG .","It appears from the case - file materials that at the time of the events the relationship between the applicant and her superiors at ORG were tense and that there had been a set of employment - related civil proceedings between them .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant underwent artificial insemination at a fertility clinic and became pregnant with twins . On DATE she was seen by a doctor from the No . CARDINAL Centre for Family Doctors ( \u201c the ORG ) \u201d , an institution belonging to ORG , who ordered her hospitalisation on account of an increased risk of miscarriage . The applicant was hospitalised DATE and was later closely supervised by a doctor from the ORG . It would appear that the applicant \u2019s absence from work during her hospitalisation was certified by a sick note referring to her pregnancy and an increased risk of miscarriage as the reasons for her absence .","On DATE the President of ORG requested information from the ORG in connection with the applicant \u2019s medical leave in DATE . In particular , he asked who had ordered her hospitalisation , when she had been hospitalised , what had been the initial and final diagnoses , and what treatment she had received .","In a letter dated DATE the ORG informed the applicant \u2019s employer that the applicant had been hospitalised DATE on account of an increased risk of miscarriage . The letter also stated that this was the applicant \u2019s first pregnancy and that she was carrying twins ; that the pregnancy had resulted from artificial insemination and that the applicant had hepatitis B. The letter further mentioned that the applicant had obstetrical complications and that she had a negative blood type . A copy of the applicant \u2019s medical file from the hospital where she had been hospitalised , containing a detailed description of all the medical procedures she had undergone and of all the medical analyses , was annexed to the letter .","On an unspecified date the applicant suffered a miscarriage . According to the medical report , CARDINAL of the factors which had led to the miscarriage was the stress to which she had been subjected .","NORP In DATE the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the ORG and ORG and claimed compensation for a breach of her right to private life . She argued , inter alia , that her employer had had sufficient information as to the reasons for her medical leave and had not been entitled to seek further details of such a private nature . Moreover , after the information had been obtained it had not been kept confidential but had been disclosed to everybody at ORG . According to the applicant , the disclosure had caused her serious stress and anxiety . Everyone at her workplace , including her students , had learned details about her private life , and different rumours had begun to circulate . DATE after the disclosure , she had suffered a miscarriage due to the stress to which she had been subjected . Her husband , who had also been an employee of ORG , had had to resign from his post and accept a less well - paid job .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action on the grounds , inter alia , that the disclosure of information by the fertility clinic had been lawful in view of the ongoing investigation being conducted by the applicant \u2019s employer . As to the contention that the employer had disclosed the information to other employees , the court found it to be ill - founded . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and quashed the above judgment . The court found the applicant \u2019s action well - founded and ordered the ORG to pay her CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( EUR CARDINAL ) and ORG to pay her MDL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . ORG found that the ORG had disclosed to the applicant \u2019s employer more information than had actually been requested .","On DATE ORG upheld the appeal on points of law lodged by the ORG and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims against it . ORG held that the ORG had acted in accordance with the law when providing the applicant \u2019s employer with medical information about her . The ORG had been under an obligation to provide ORG with such information in the context of the latter \u2019s legal relationship with its employee . According to ORG , at the time of the events there were relations of an employment - law and of a criminal - law nature between ORG and the applicant . ORG considered that the provisions of the laws on reproductive health and on the rights and obligations of the patient were not pertinent to the case ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164990","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"\u00c7ET\u0130N v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .","At the time of the introduction of this application , the applicant was serving a prison sentence in PERSON .","On DATE the disciplinary board of the PERSON prison decided to impose a disciplinary sanction on the applicant for going on a hunger strike in order to protest against measures taken against prisoners in the FAC F - type prison . Relying on sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(g ) , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . DATE on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures , the disciplinary board prohibited the applicant from receiving and sending letters , making telephone calls and using other means of communication for a period of DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant .","The relevant provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL provide as follows :","\u201c ...","( CARDINAL ) The acts punishable by prevention from participating in certain activities are the following :","...","( g ) Going on a hunger strike . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The penalty of deprivation or restriction of access to means of communication consists of completely or partly depriving the convict , for DATE , of receiving and sending letters , fax messages and telegrams , watching television , listening to the radio , making telephone calls and using other means of communication . \u201d","\u201c ...","( CARDINAL ) Each time a convict commits another act punishable by a disciplinary penalty within the period at the end of which a previous finalised disciplinary penalty may be lifted , he or she shall be liable to the next heaviest penalty . \u201d","Under LAW no . CARDINAL , following the lodging of an objection against a disciplinary sanction , the enforcement judge will deliver his \/ her decision after hearing the defence submissions of the prisoner concerned and collecting all the evidence . The prisoner can present his \/ her defence submissions in person or through a lawyer .","Provisional section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL provides a further remedy for all those prisoners who had previously lodged objections with enforcement judges concerning disciplinary sanctions imposed on them before the enactment of this law . Accordingly , those who previously lodged objections with enforcement judges against disciplinary sanctions now have the possibility of lodging a fresh objection with an enforcement judge within DATE of the enactment of this law , and their cases will be examined in accordance with the new procedures .","A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in LOC and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , and CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The object of PERSON no . DATE is to provide for the settlement , by means of compensation , of applications lodged with the ORG concerning length of judicial proceedings , and non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","NORP The competence ratione materiae of ORG was subsequently extended by a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended the competence of ORG to the examination of other complaints such as alleged restriction of the right of detainees to correspondence in a language other than NORP and the prison authorities\u2019 refusal , on different grounds , to hand over periodicals . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","Furthermore , according to LAW no . DATE , an applicant may apply to ORG within DATE following the official notification of the ORG \u2019s inadmissibility decision by the Government .","ORG issued a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended anew the competence ratione materiae of ORG .","ORG is now entitled to examine the following subjects under LAW decree , which reads as follows :","\u201c a ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant \u2019s title deeds because his or her land was classified as part of the public forest area , or as a result of the application of section CARDINAL\/B of PERSON no . PERSON , or because the land was classified as part of the public forest area in cadastral surveys ;","b ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant \u2019s title deeds because the impugned land was classified as located within a coastal area ;","c ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the allocation of the impugned land for public use in local land development plans ;","d ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of an applicant \u2019s right to private and family life on account of the respective disciplinary sanctions imposed on detainees and convicted persons by the prison authorities ;","e ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of the right to respect for correspondence on account of the prison administration \u2019s refusal to receive or send letters or similar correspondence drafted in NORP . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181860","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TILOCCA v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Kristina Pardalos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE ( GPE ) .","On DATE , while crossing the border between GPE and GPE with his wife , the applicant was caught by the NORP customs authorities carrying the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) which he had failed to declare , contrary to the law . The customs authorities immediately seized the ORG CARDINAL .","On DATE the customs authorities instituted administrativeoffence proceedings ( prekr\u0161ajni postupak ) against the applicant before ORG of ORG ( ORG financija , GPE inspektorat \u2013 \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) for failing to declare ORG DATE a sum exceeding EUR DATE an administrative offence defined in CARDINAL ) of LAW and section CARDINAL of ORG .","In his defence , the applicant explained that he and his wife had been visiting her daughter in GPE who had recently had a serious attack of epilepsy , and submitted documentary evidence suggesting that his wife \u2019s daughter did indeed suffer from epilepsy . The money he had been carrying originated from : ( a ) a company called ORG soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile immobili\u00e8re ) PERSON registered in GPE , of which he was the director and the only member , from whose account he had withdrawn ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL with a view to starting another business ; and ( b ) the sale of their house in GPE ( the remaining amount ) . The applicant submitted relevant documents as evidence of those transactions . He also explained that he had not wished to deposit the money in a bank account because , in the wake of the global financial crisis of DATE , he had been afraid that his bank would go bankrupt and that he would lose most of that money , given that the NORP ORG only guaranteed up to LAW of bank deposits .","During the proceedings the ORG requested information from the relevant authorities in GPE , GPE and GPE . While the NORP authorities did not reply at all , the NORP authorities informed the ORG that neither the applicant nor his wife had been recorded in their register of suspicious transactions , and the NORP authorities only confirmed the authenticity of the transactions on which the applicant relied to prove the origin of the money he had been carrying .","By a decision of DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of having committed the administrative offence in question and fined him CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) . At the same time , the ORG imposed a protective measure ( za\u0161titna mjera ) confiscating ORG CARDINAL under section CARDINAL ) of LAW .","On the basis of the documentary evidence , the Ministry established that : ( a ) the company ORG had been founded in DATE and recorded in the business and companies register in GPE , and under NORP law its members were liable for its debts in proportion with their share in the company , that is , the applicant in respect of PERCENT and his wife in respect of PERCENT ; ( b ) on DATE the applicant had indeed sold his house in GPE , and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL from the proceeds of sale had been paid into his bank account on DATE , from which he had first transferred ORG CARDINAL to his company \u2019s account on DATE and then withdrawn ORG CARDINAL ; and ( c ) on DATE the applicant , acting as the company \u2019s director , had sold its real estate , and EUR FAC from the proceeds of sale had been paid into the company \u2019s bank account on DATE , a sum which had been withdrawn by the applicant DATE .","The Ministry held that the origin of the money which the applicant had failed to declare was irrelevant in relation to the commission of the offence of which he had been convicted or the imposition of the fine . However , that consideration was relevant in relation to the imposition of the protective measure of confiscation .","NORP In particular , the Ministry decided not to confiscate LAW of the money which the applicant had not declared , because it found that this sum did indeed originate from the sale of his house in GPE .","As regards the remaining ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( of the EUR CARDINAL which had been seized ) , the Ministry held that this sum was part of the funds which the applicant had withdrawn from his company \u2019s bank account ( ORG ORG ) on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Ministry further held that : ( a ) since there was no evidence that the applicant had borrowed that money from his company , by carrying it across border he had disposed of it as if it had belonged to him , which amounted to misappropriation of the company \u2019s funds , an offence punishable in every country ; and ( b ) he had failed to pay the relevant taxes in GPE on that amount . It therefore decided to confiscate that sum .","The applicant appealed by arguing that : ( a ) the evidence collected indicated that the NORP authorities had been aware of the transaction from which the confiscated sum originated , but had done nothing about it , which suggested that they considered that it originated from a legitimate source , ( b ) the Ministry correctly assumed that he had not borrowed the confiscated sum from his company , as he had actually lent EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL to his company in DATE and DATE , for which he had submitted documentary evidence ; ( c ) NORP under NORP law , he was fully liable for the debts of his company , the payment of which , including taxes , he therefore could not have avoided by misappropriating the company \u2019s funds as the ORG implied ; ( d ) the ORG had attempted to interpret foreign ( NORP ) law , and in such a complex area as tax and commercial law , about which it had known very little ; and ( e ) it was peculiar that the Ministry had confiscated for the benefit of the NORP State budget the amount on which he had , in the ORG \u2019s own view , not paid the relevant taxes in GPE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( ORG prekr\u0161ajni sud PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the ORG \u2019s decision , endorsing the reasons given therein .","The applicant then , on DATE , lodged a constitutional complaint , alleging , inter alia , a violation of his constitutionally protected right of ownership .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible and served its decision on his representative on DATE . It found that , even though the applicant had relied on the relevant Articles of the LAW in his constitutional complaint , he had not substantiated his complaint by any constitutional - law arguments , but had merely repeated the arguments raised in the proceedings before ORG and ORG . Therefore , ORG had been unable to examine the merits of his constitutional complaint ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172467","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SAL\u011eIN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant , who was born in DATE , was detained at the NORP prison when the application was lodged .","On DATE the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation .","On DATE the investigating judge at ORG , after questioning the applicant , ordered his pre - trial detention having regard to the nature of the offence , the state of the evidence and the strong suspicion of the suspect \u2019s having committed the offence in issue .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG , charging the applicant with membership of an illegal terrorist organisation .","The trial commenced before ORG of ORG and the first hearing was held on DATE .","In the hearings held on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , the applicant appeared before the court , and the judges ordered his continued detention . The applicant filed objections against these decisions . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the CARDINALth ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objections without holding an oral hearing and based on the public prosecutor \u2019s opinion which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative .","During DATE hearing held on DATE , the CARDINALth Chamber of ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s continued detention on remand ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142841","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160IMECKI v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) issued an enforcement order ( hereinafter \u201c the first enforcement order \u201d ) against the applicant \u2019s movable assets for unpaid mobile telephone bills in the period DATE and DATE . This decision was served on a certain GPE on DATE , and subsequently became final .","At the plaintiff \u2019s request , on DATE ORG ordered the enforcement ( hereinafter \u201c the second enforcement order \u201d ) by way of attachment of the applicant \u2019s earnings . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against both enforcement orders . She argued that she could not have made the said telephone calls , because she had been in prison DATE and DATE and the police seized her mobile telephone . She enclosed a receipt to show that her mobile telephone and ORG cards had been taken from her .","She further argued that the first enforcement order had never been served on her as she was in prison at the time .","Finally , the applicant requested the quashing of the certificate of enforceability ( klauzula ovr\u0161nosti ) of the first enforcement order .","The recipient of the applicant \u2019s submission of DATE was ORG , which forwarded it to ORG PERSON u ORG ) as an appeal against the second enforcement order .","NORP On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible as lodged out of time , finding that DATE for lodging an appeal was DATE , whereas the appeal had been lodged on DATE .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to rectify its decision , as in fact she had lodged her appeal on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for rectification . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c ... the ORG can rectify mistakes in names and numbers and other obvious mistakes ... and flaws ... In this case , the complaint was indeed erroneously declared inadmissible as out of time ... Nevertheless , a mistake of this sort is not an obvious mistake ... which can be rectified , but it is an erroneous decision binding the ORG after its service on the parties , notwithstanding its invalidity ...","It should be mentioned , however , that the enforcement debtor did not suffer any disadvantage as a result of such a decision . The enforcement debtor in fact appealed against the enforcement order ... of DATE on the grounds of a serious breach of procedural rules , arguing that the enforcement order was not served on her . Since the enforcement order in question was merely a decision changing the means of enforcement , and a decision of such nature can be appealed against only if it orders enforcement of objects and rights exempted from enforcement ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) ... the enforcement debtor \u2019s appeal should have been dismissed .","If the enforcement debtor \u2019s claim that the initial enforcement order was never served on her were true , that decision could not have become final and the enforcement debtor should , in the view of this ORG , have asked the first - instance court to duly serve the enforcement order on her , so that she could appeal against it ... \u201d","The applicant subsequently made a constitutional complaint , following which ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) separated that complaint into a complaint against the decision of ORG to declare the applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible and a complaint against the refusal of ORG to rectify its previous decision . ORG declared both complaints inadmissible on DATE , on the grounds that they did not concern decisions on the merits of the case and as such were not susceptible to constitutional review .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( PERSON ) about the length of the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE ORG ruled that it lacked jurisdiction , and forwarded the case to ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u ORG ) .","On DATE the ORG found a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time , awarded her CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in compensation , and ordered ORG to complete the enforcement proceedings within DATE of service of its decision .","It appears that ORG failed to meet that deadline ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178863","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KURUSHINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183946","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF TCHOKHONELIDZE v. GEORGIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , GPE , GPE .","On DATE a certain individual , PERSON , applied to the Governor of ORG for the permit necessary for the construction of a petrol station on a plot of land situated in the region . The Governor assigned the examination of the application to the applicant , his deputy , who was responsible for the development of the region \u2019s infrastructure and the management of ORG lands .","A meeting between the applicant and PERSON took place on DATE , DATE , in the former \u2019s office . According to the official version of events , during the meeting , when PERSON enquired about the necessary documents and applicable procedure for the issuance of the construction permit , the applicant replied that , apart from the necessary formalities , she would also need to make a pay - off ( \u10e5\u10e0\u10d7\u10d0\u10db\u10d8 ) to the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ; of this amount , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL would be the share of the Governor himself , whilst the rest would be divided between the applicant and representatives from the various agencies involved .","On DATE PERSON informed ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) that the applicant had requested a bribe from her in return for a promise to assist her in obtaining the requisite construction permit . She expressed her readiness to cooperate with the ORG . The authority immediately opened a criminal case into PERSON allegations ( \u201c the bribery case \u201d ) .","Still on DATE , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) issued the ORG with a general authorisation to remain in charge of the bribery case and to conduct all types of investigative measures necessary .","By rulings dated DATE , ORG authorised secret video surveillance of the applicant \u2019s meetings with PERSON , as well as the tapping of their telephone conversations .","On DATE PERSON bought a plot of land from another private individual , PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the sales agreement \u201d ) , for the purpose of constructing a petrol station on it . On DATE , the applicant contacted a notary and the head of ORG , requesting them , respectively , to certify the sales agreement and to register , in an expedited manner , the plot in PERSON name .","On DATE PERSON brought to the applicant \u2019s office the sales agreement and a record from ORG confirming her title to the newly acquired plot of land . During that second meeting , which was secretly filmed by PERSON , the applicant reiterated his request for a bribe . He asked her to bring CARDINAL as a down payment , emphasising that this sum was not supposed to cover any official fees or charges prescribed by law for the issuance of a construction permit . PERSON promised to bring the sum the following day .","On DATE PERSON brought ORG to the applicant in cash . The banknotes had been pre - marked with a special substance by the ORG . The meeting took place in the applicant \u2019s office , and it was secretly filmed by PERSON and closely supervised by the ORG . As soon as Ms K. handed over the money to the applicant , ORG officers entered the room and arrested the applicant .","A search of the applicant \u2019s person was conducted on the spot , which led to the discovery of the banknotes in the right inner pocket of his suit . The law - enforcement officers immediately examined the banknotes using a special lamp and observed the marks made by a substance previously applied by the ORG . The same substance was also detected on both of the fingers of the applicant \u2019s hands and on the clothing of his suit . The accuracy of these findings was later confirmed by a forensic chemical examination .","On DATE the applicant was charged , under LAW ( b ) of LAW of GPE , with the crime of requesting a bribe in a large amount .","NORP The results of an examination of the secret recordings of the various meetings between the applicant and PERSON confirmed the authenticity of those recordings . On DATE the investigator in charge of the case acquainted the applicant and his lawyer with the results of the abovementioned forensic examinations . The accused party did not contest that evidence .","When questioned by ORG , the applicant , who was represented by CARDINAL lawyers of his choice , complained that he had been entrapped by the ORG . He stated that he had never had any intention of accepting a bribe but had been helping PERSON out of good will , as he had considered her to be a distant relative . He confirmed that he had been assisting PERSON in the various administrative formalities related to the purchase of the relevant land . The applicant furthermore admitted to having received money to the amount of USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL , from the applicant , but added that the sum had been meant to be transmitted to a construction company as an advance payment for its upcoming construction of the petrol station . He stated that he could not explain why PERSON would have wished to induce him to accept a bribe .","When questioned by the trial court for the first time on DATE , PERSON stated that she had met the applicant in his office and informed him of her intention to construct a petrol station . She had falsely presented herself as his distant relative in order to obtain the applicant \u2019s favour more easily . PERSON confirmed that the applicant had then assisted her with the relevant administrative formalities with the notary and ORG . As to the sum of MONEY , PERSON stated DATE reiterating the applicant \u2019s version of events \u2013 that it had been intended that the money would be paid through the applicant \u2019s offices to a private construction company in relation to the ongoing construction project of a petrol station . Ms PERSON emphasised that she had never been sure that the applicant had intended to retain any part of the above - mentioned sum for his personal benefit . Nevertheless , still suspecting that there might have been illegal intent involved in the applicant \u2019s wish to be involved in the money transfer , PERSON had decided to inform the ORG of her conversation with the applicant .","On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor in charge of the applicant \u2019s criminal case instituted criminal proceedings against PERSON for giving conflicting witness statements , on the grounds of the alleged inconsistency between the statements that PERSON had originally given to the ORG during the investigation stage and those given before the trial court on DATE .","On DATE PERSON requested that ORG hear her again in relation to the applicant \u2019s case , stating that she had forgotten to testify in respect of a number of significant factual details when the court had previously heard her on DATE .","On DATE PERSON lodged a complaint with ORG in respect of the initiation of the criminal proceedings against her ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She submitted that the statements she had given to the trial court on DATE had been truthful and had fully reflected the content of her several meetings with the applicant , which could have been verified by examining the relevant secret video and audio recordings .","When questioned by the trial court on DATE , both the notary who had certified the sales agreement and the head of ORG confirmed that the applicant had been urging them to expedite the registration of PERSON title to the plot of land on which a petrol station was scheduled to be constructed . The CARDINAL witnesses furthermore stated that the plot still constituted PERSON property , given that the sales agreement had been annulled shortly after having been concluded .","Allowing a request lodged by the applicant on DATE , the trial court admitted to the criminal case file as evidence a recording of a television programme and a newspaper article in which PERSON had publicly acknowledged having been an ORG undercover agent in CARDINAL other unrelated criminal cases .","On DATE PERSON , who at that time had already been placed in pretrial detention in relation to the criminal proceedings instituted against her for giving conflicting witness statements , was heard by ORG for the second time . She confirmed the statements that she had given during the investigation stage . Namely , she testified that the applicant had clearly requested her to pay \u201c unofficially \u201d the sum of ORG CARDINAL in return for promised assistance with the construction project , of which sum ORG CARDINAL was supposed to go , according to the applicant , to the Governor . She stated , however , that she did not know whether the applicant had any intention of retaining any part of the remaining USD CARDINAL for his personal benefit . PERSON also confirmed that the applicant had indeed conducted negotiations with a number of construction companies on her behalf at that time .","Ms K. did not deny that , prior to her involvement in the case against the applicant , she had acted as an undercover agent for the ORG in CARDINAL other unrelated cases . She further stated before the trial court that she had already acted as an undercover agent of the ORG when she had approached the applicant for the first time on DATE . She stated that the initial objective of that undercover anti - criminal operation , led by the ORG , had been to expose the criminal activity of the Governor of ORG Notably , the ORG had been in possession of information that the Governor had been prone to requesting bribes in return for providing various public services . It was only after that initial plan had failed that the law - enforcement agency \u2019s attention had shifted towards the Governor \u2019s deputy , the applicant . Ms PERSON also stated that the sales agreement in respect of the plot of land had been annulled shortly after the applicant \u2019s arrest , as it had in fact been a fictitious transaction concluded under the ORG \u2019s close supervision . According to Ms K. \u2019s statements , PERSON had also been collaborating with the ORG at that time , and the first meeting between Ms K. and Ms N. had taken place on the ORG \u2019s premises .","On DATE the applicant requested the trial court to summon PERSON as an additional witness so that he could question her in relation to her purported collaboration with the ORG and role in the sequence of the events which had led to the initiation of the criminal proceedings against him ( see the preceding paragraph ) . In reply , ORG claimed that it had already attempted to summon PERSON as a witness , but that the latter \u2019s whereabouts were unknown . Relying on that standpoint , ORG ruled that it was objectively impossible to summon PERSON as a witness .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court stated that the collection of the evidence in the case file \u2013 the statements given during the trial by PERSON , the notary and the head of ORG ; the judicially authorised secret video and audio recording ; and the results of the personal search of the applicant on DATE and of the forensic chemical and phonoscope examinations \u2013 confirmed the applicant \u2019s guilt beyond reasonable doubt . As regards the applicant \u2019s statement that the money discovered on his person ( USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) had not been a bribe but a valid advance payment for preparatory works associated with Ms K. \u2019s construction project , ORG answered that this was not supported by the totality of the collected evidence ; it did not provide any additional explanation in that respect . As to the applicant \u2019s argument that he had been induced to commit the offence in question by PERSON , who had been an agent provocateur of the ORG , the court did not address that argument at all .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against his conviction , reiterating his complaint alleging entrapment and reasserting his version of events .","On DATE the examination of the applicant \u2019s appeal by ORG began . During a hearing held on DATE , the applicant \u2013 referring to statements given by members of his family that they had recently seen PERSON at her house DATE the applicant requested the appellate court to summon the latter so that he could finally question her . The appellate court granted the applicant \u2019s request .","PERSON was scheduled to appear before the appellate court on DATE , but failed to do so . The applicant noted that his family members , who were living in the same village ( PERSON ) as Ms ORG , had approached her and asked her to testify before the court , but the latter had refused the request in a resolute manner . ORG noted that it had been unable to secure Ms N. \u2019s appearance but promised to do so for the next hearing , which was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE PERSON submitted a written statement to ORG . Noting that she had recently learned of the ongoing examination of the applicant \u2019s criminal case , she stated that she was unable to appear as a witness before the appellate court because of her difficult family situation . PERSON stated , in particular , that her aged mother had been seriously ill and remained under her constant supervision .","On DATE ORG presented a handwritten letter from PERSON neighbours dated DATE , according to which the witness had long abandoned her house in the village and her current whereabouts were unknown . ORG ruled that it was objectively impossible to summon PERSON , as her whereabouts could not be identified .","By a decision of DATE , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld his conviction of DATE in full . As with the first - instance court , the applicant \u2019s argument about his alleged entrapment by the victim , the ORG \u2019s agent provocateur , was left unanswered by the appellate court . The appellate court rejected as unfounded the applicant \u2019s argument that the USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been meant to be used as an advance payment for construction works . The court noted in this connection that by the time the applicant had received the sum from Ms K. the construction permit had not been issued , and neither had an architectural plan and expenditure estimate been drawn up .","On DATE ORG of GPE , rejecting an appeal by the applicant on points of law as inadmissible , finally terminated the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant was granted early release from prison under a presidential pardon ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162853","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF UMNIKOV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence in person);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-d - Witnesses);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP Before his arrest the applicant lived in GPE region with his mother .","NORP In DATE the applicant sustained a serious knee injury .","On DATE a medical commission found that as a result of the knee injury , the applicant \u2019s knee and thigh joints had become deformed . He was certified as third - degree disabled , the lowest category .","On DATE the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of having raped a DATE boy , P. They took him to a police station where , according to the applicant , he was beaten . In his initial application to the ORG the applicant stated that a police officer \u201c hit him once in the right side of his body \u201d and after that several police officers started beating him . In his written observations submitted to the ORG on DATE in reply to those of the Government , the applicant \u2019s lawyer stated that police officers had \u201c wrung the [ applicant \u2019s ] hands and feet and hit him on the body , including the areas of his liver and kidneys , and on [ his ] arms and legs \u201d . The lawyer further stated that the applicant \u201c was beaten in turn by CARDINAL pairs of police officers until TIME on DATE \u201d . On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) where he was held for the following DATE . According to the applicant , the conditions of detention in that facility were inhuman .","On DATE the police questioned the applicant who said that he knew P. but had not raped him .","On DATE PERSON told the police that the applicant had raped him on several occasions in the applicant \u2019s apartment and near a pond . Once P. had come to a bank of the pond and had seen A. fishing there . The applicant had been fishing on the opposite bank of the pond . P. had approached the applicant who had taken him to some bushes and raped . During the rape PERSON had seen PERSON and PERSON passing by the bushes .","On DATE the police questioned PERSON who said that on DATE in the afternoon he and his brother PERSON had been fishing from the bank of the pond . The applicant had been fishing from the opposite bank of the pond . A. had seen that PERSON had approached the applicant and they had gone into some bushes . Later on A. and PERSON had been passing by the bushes and had seen the applicant raping P.","NORP In DATE charges CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) were brought against the applicant .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , the applicant was examined by a doctor and a GPE specialist . Both doctors noted that the applicant was fit for detention in the ORG . No injuries were discovered on his body and the applicant did not raise any complaints about his state of health .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to a GPE ( a pre - trial detention facility ) . On DATE and the following day he was medically examined and did not raise any complaints of ill - treatment or health problems . The doctors established that he was suffering from the consequences of a knee injury sustained before his arrest .","NORP In DATE the applicant studied the indictment which indicated that he had been accused of having raped P. on DATE and on unspecified dates DATE and DATE .","The applicant \u2019s case was referred to ORG of Odessa for trial . In DATE that court held the first hearing .","On DATE the applicant asked the authorities to appoint him a lawyer . On DATE he was assigned a lawyer under legal aid scheme .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG of Odessa to appoint his mother as his representative in the proceedings . This request was granted on an unspecified date still in DATE .","During CARDINAL of the hearings the trial court questioned the victim , P. , who stated , without indicating the exact dates , that the applicant had raped him several times between DATE and DATE . P. provided very detailed information about the circumstances of the rapes and about the events which had taken place before and after them . P. said that the applicant had raped him in his bedroom while the applicant \u2019s mother and sister were in the adjacent room . He said that he had been raped only by the applicant and not by other persons .","The court questioned PERSON , the applicant \u2019s friend , who stated that on CARDINAL and DATE from TIME to CARDINAL or CARDINAL p.m. he and the applicant had sawn wood together .","Witness A. told the court that he had seen the applicant raping P. on DATE in some bushes near the pond .","P. \u2019s friends stated before the court that PERSON had talked to them about the rapes . The applicant \u2019s mother was questioned during the trial and said that PERSON had never come to the apartment where she and the applicant lived .","P. \u2019s mother and teacher stated that PERSON \u2019s moods and behavior had changed since DATE . ORG mother also said that on DATE P. had told her that on the same date the applicant had raped him near the pond . P. \u2019s mother also said that the applicant \u2019s mother had told her that P. had come to the apartment where the applicant lived and the applicant \u2019s grandmother had ousted him . PERSON \u2019s teacher said that PERSON had told her that the applicant had raped him .","All of those witnesses were questioned by the trial court in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer . The lawyer and the applicant were allowed to question the witnesses and ask for explanations regarding the facts of the case . During the trial the applicant did not complain of ill - treatment by the police .","Before the court the applicant pleaded not guilty .","On DATE a surgeon examined the applicant \u2019s knee and prescribed treatment for the knee joint deformation .","On DATE ORG , in the presence of the applicant \u2019s lawyer and mother , convicted the applicant of several counts of rape ( gratification of unnatural sexual desires in respect of a person DATE ) , committed on unspecified dates DATE and DATE and notably on DATE . It sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment under paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was absent from that hearing . The court based his conviction mainly on the victim \u2019s statements but also on the statements of P. \u2019s friends , mother , teacher , and witness A. and on a report drawn up by a psychiatrist who had examined P. and concluded that he could not have made up his account of the rapes .","In DATE the applicant and his lawyer , PERSON appealed , arguing that the conviction was not based on sufficient evidence . In particular , the P. , trial court had failed to establish on which dates PERSON had been raped , and the medical examination of the victim had revealed no injuries on the child \u2019s body . The applicant also argued , without providing further details , that the police had beaten him on DATE . He stated that he could not rape P. on DATE because on DATE he had sawn wood with PERSON He also stated that PERSON had given false statements during the trial because he himself had raped P. The statements of ORG mother were also false , the applicant had refused to give her money and she had wanted to take revenge . P. had made false statements during the trial because his mother had taught him to do so . The applicant submitted that ORG \u2019s statements concerning the date of the alleged rape near the pond contradicted the statements of ORG mother ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . He added that the trial court \u2019s judgment had been unlawful because it contained excessive descriptions of the rape scenes .","DATE the applicant and his mother , acting on the applicant \u2019s behalf , lodged CARDINAL complaints with ORG which forwarded them to ORG . It remains unknown whether the complaints were examined . The copies of the complaints were not made available to the ORG . In his application form the applicant stated , without elaborating further , that they concerned various \u201c procedural violations \u201d during the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the applicant sent his first letter to ORG .","In DATE the NORP Regional Court of Appeal ( \u201c Court of Appeal \u201d ) informed the applicant that it would hold a hearing in his case on DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to ensure his presence at that hearing . The court granted the request and ordered the bailiffs to bring the applicant to the court hearing .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the court - house and kept there in a cell DATE . In TIME he was taken back to the GPE . It remains unknown why he was not brought to the court - room for the hearing .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG , in the presence of the applicant \u2019s lawyer , upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . On the basis of the findings made by the trial court , ORG held that the arguments raised in the appeal by the applicant and his lawyer \u2019s arguments were ill - founded because they had been refuted by evidential material in the applicant \u2019s criminal case file . The trial court had fully and objectively assessed that material . The conclusions reached by the first - instance court had been supported by sufficient evidence , in particular the statements of ORG and other persons questioned during the trial . ORG did not question any witnesses ; nor did it administer or assess any new evidence .","On DATE the applicant and his lawyer , PERSON , lodged CARDINAL separate appeals in cassation with ORG , raising the same arguments as those raised before ORG . They also complained that the applicant had not been taken to the appeal court hearing , despite his request . However , they did not specify how the applicant \u2019s absence from ORG had prejudiced his defence or the overall fairness of the proceedings .","According to the applicant , on DATE , after the cassation appeals had been sent to ORG , lawyer PERSON stopped representing him . The reason was not notified to the ORG . The applicant did not seek the assistance of any other lawyer .","On DATE the applicant lodged his application with the ORG . He stated , in particular , that he had appealed in cassation , however did not provide a copy of his and his lawyer \u2019s appeals in cassation .","On DATE the ORG requested the applicant to provide : ( i ) documentary evidence supporting his allegations of ill - treatment ; ( ii ) copies of the complaints of ill - treatment lodged with the domestic authorities ; ( iii ) copies of the applicant \u2019s and his lawyer \u2019s appeals in cassation , stamped by ORG to prove their receipt ; and ( iv ) a copy of ORG decision as soon as it would be available .","On DATE the applicant sent to ORG a supplement to his appeal in cassation together with a request for the said copies of documents without , however , indicating why he needed them . ORG received the request but did not reply to it for unknown reasons . The applicant did not follow up on the request .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that ORG had left his request for copies of documents unanswered .","On DATE ORG dismissed the cassation appeals lodged by the applicant and his lawyer . Without referring separately to each argument raised in those appeals , ORG noted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were not plagued by procedural violations which would justify quashing of the lower courts\u2019 decisions . The conclusion concerning the applicant \u2019s guilt had been sufficiently supported by evidence to which the trial court had referred in its judgment . ORG noted , in particular , that the applicant \u2019s request to take part in the appeal hearing had been made after that hearing had been held . The applicant did not attend the hearing before ORG and had not asked for permission to do so .","On DATE the ORG asked the applicant to send to ORG a repeated request for copies of the same documents ( see paragraphs DATE above ) , indicating that he needed them to support his application before the ORG . The ORG also asked the applicant to provide a copy of such request and a copy of ORG reply to it . The applicant did not follow the ORG \u2019s instructions and did not make any further attempts to obtain the copies .","In DATE the applicant received a copy of ORG decision and submitted it to ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["34","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c","6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172656","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MA\u017dUKNA v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE , LOC .","NORP In DATE the applicant started working as a welder for the company N. On DATE he was working at a factory construction site in the city of GPE . Around TIME , while the applicant and CARDINAL other workers were standing on scaffolding QUANTITY above the ground , the scaffolding broke and all the workers fell to the ground ( hereinafter \u201c the accident \u201d ) .","According to the applicant , he fell on his back and hit his head on a concrete surface , causing his helmet to break into pieces . CARDINAL of his coworkers and a metal tool fell on top of him . The applicant lost consciousness . He stated that while he was unconscious , he was moved away from the location of the accident on the orders of his employer and all traces of the accident were removed . At TIME an ambulance was called and the applicant was taken to hospital . It appears that the other workers sustained only minor injuries .","The site of the accident was examined DATE by an inspector from ORG . He noted that at the time of the examination the scaffolding was intact and no workers were present at the construction site . The inspector spoke to the construction site manager , ORG , who stated that he had not seen the accident because he had been elsewhere on the site . The inspector also spoke to the person in charge of work safety in the company ORG who informed him that , on the basis of the initial medical examination , the applicant had not sustained any serious injuries . Accordingly , the inspector decided that ORG would not investigate the circumstances of the accident .","On DATE another inspector from ORG looked into how the accident had happened and concluded that the applicant had fallen from the scaffolding because of his own recklessness . The applicant submitted a complaint against that conclusion and on DATE the ORG adopted a new conclusion , holding that the accident had been caused by \u201c the inappropriate organisation of dangerous work \u201d ( netinkamas pavojingo darbo organizavimas ) , in particular because the scaffolding had not complied with the applicable work safety requirements .","On DATE the applicant asked the PERSON city prosecutor \u2019s office ( hereinafter \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) to open a pre - trial investigation into the accident . The investigation was opened on DATE and conducted by an investigator from GPE police ( hereinafter \u201c the investigator \u201d ) .","NORP On DATE the investigator instructed a court medical expert to examine the applicant \u2019s medical file in order to determine the number , severity and causes of his injuries . The report on the results of that examination , delivered on DATE , showed that the applicant had sustained a large cut on his head , face and right ear , as well as multiple fractures of his facial bones , and a contusion on the chest . The injuries had been caused by blunt objects and flat surfaces , and could have occurred when falling from a height . The report noted that the injury on the head had bled , so there should have been traces of blood at the site of the accident . It concluded that the injuries to the applicant \u2019s head and face amounted to a minor health impairment ( nesunkus sveikatos sutrikdymas ) while the injury to his chest amounted to a negligible health impairment ( ne\u017eymus sveikatos sutrikdymas ) . However , it also noted that the injury to the face would leave a big scar , possibly resulting in disfigurement and impairment of facial expression .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed as a witness in the investigation . He stated that just before the accident he and CARDINAL other workers had been carrying a metal platform to attach to a reservoir tank . The applicant and CARDINAL other workers had been holding the upper part of the platform while standing on the scaffolding and CARDINAL others had been on the ground , holding the platform \u2019s bottom part . The weight of the platform was QUANTITY . Suddenly , the scaffolding had collapsed and CARDINAL workers had fallen to the ground . At that point the applicant had lost consciousness . When he had come to , he had realised that he was not lying near the scaffolding , where he must have fallen , but in a different place . He had not seen any debris from the scaffolding around him , or any other traces of the accident .","On DATE the applicant was granted the status of a victim in the investigation .","On DATE the investigator instructed a court medical expert to examine the applicant \u2019s scars caused by the accident . The report on the results of that examination , delivered on DATE , found that the facial injury had left a large , rough scar , causing a minor disfigurement and impairment of facial expression . It also found that the scar and the resulting deformation could only be removed by plastic surgery , so the injury was considered as irreparable . As a result , the report concluded that the applicant \u2019s injury was legally classified as serious health impairment ( sunkus sveikatos sutrikdymas ) .","In DATE and DATE the investigator interviewed several of the applicant \u2019s co - workers and other people who had worked near the factory construction site . It appears that the co - workers stated that no platform had been carried on DATE of the accident . None of those interviewed had seen how the applicant had fallen from the scaffolding . From DATE more witnesses were interviewed and the investigator requested various documents from the applicant \u2019s employer and from several ORG institutions which had assessed the applicant \u2019s health and ability to work after the accident .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed again . He stated that before the accident he had sometimes felt dizzy and had a feeling of numbness in his legs , but he had been declared fit to work after a medical examination .","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation . He relied on ORG report that no damage to the scaffolding on DATE of the accident had been observed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and noted that none of the witnesses had corroborated the applicant \u2019s description of how he had fallen . The prosecutor observed that the applicant may have fallen from the scaffolding owing to his own recklessness ( d\u0117l savo paties neatsargumo ) , possibly because of the numbness in his legs . Accordingly , the prosecutor decided that the scaffolding had complied with safety requirements , and that there were no grounds to find that the applicant \u2019s employer had violated any laws .","The applicant appealed against the prosecutor \u2019s decision . He also asked for the appointment of a different prosecutor to supervise the case and to carry out a forensic examination in order to determine the causes of the accident . On DATE a senior prosecutor dismissed his appeal , noting that around CARDINAL witnesses had been questioned , but nobody had corroborated the applicant \u2019s claims . However , on DATE ORG overruled the prosecutor \u2019s decision and reopened the pre - trial investigation . The court noted that the prosecutor had not addressed ORG conclusion of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that other witnesses had only stated that they had not seen how the applicant had fallen from the scaffolding but had not disputed his account . The court also considered that the prosecutor \u2019s conclusion that the applicant had fallen because of his own recklessness or a medical condition had been \u201c speculative and not based on any objective facts \u201d . However , the court rejected the applicant \u2019s request to appoint a different prosecutor as unfounded and did not examine his request to carry out a forensic examination , noting that the choice of investigative measures was the prerogative of investigators and prosecutors .","In DATE and DATE the investigator examined the site of the accident and interviewed more witnesses .","On DATE the prosecutor instructed the investigator to carry out several additional investigative measures . Among other things , the investigator was requested to identify whether on DATE of the accident or earlier the applicant and other workers had been ordered by their employer to attach the metal platform to the reservoir tank .","NORP In DATE and DATE the investigator carried out additional interviews with several witnesses and requested further information from the applicant \u2019s employer and from the medical institutions which had examined him .","On DATE , in response to a prior complaint by the applicant , the deputy chief prosecutor of the Klaip\u0117da city prosecutor \u2019s office informed him that there were no grounds to find that the pre - trial investigation in his case had been unduly protracted .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s co - worker PERSON submitted a written statement to ORG that on DATE of the accident he and other workers had been ordered by their supervisor ORG to attach the metal platform to the reservoir tank . ORG also submitted that the scaffolding had been made of very thin wood and could have broken at any time . He further alleged that immediately after the accident the director of the company ORG had told other workers to repair the scaffolding . PERSON also asserted that he had previously given different testimony because of pressure from his employer .","On DATE , in response to a complaint by the applicant about the length of the investigation , the chief prosecutor of the ORG city prosecutor \u2019s office noted that \u201c the investigation had not always been of sufficient intensity \u201d ( tyrimo intensyvumas ne visada buvo pakankamas ) and that the prosecutor had been instructed to set a deadline for completing the investigation . The chief prosecutor also informed the applicant that it was still necessary to interview several witnesses living in various parts of the country and to carry out further investigative measures .","On DATE ORG adopted a new conclusion on the circumstances of the accident , holding that the scaffolding had not complied with applicable safety requirements and that the applicant had not been given appropriate instructions for working at height . Accordingly , the ORG concluded that the applicant \u2019s employer had breached the legal requirements concerning safety at work .","On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation . He observed that the applicant and other workers had been using the scaffolding for DATE before the accident and there had not been any accidents during that time , so there were no grounds to find that the scaffolding had been unsafe . The prosecutor also concluded that the workers had not been ordered by their employer to attach the metal platform to the reservoir tank because the construction manager , ORG , had not been at work on DATE of the accident . Accordingly , the employer could not be held responsible for the workers\u2019 decision to carry the platform on the scaffolding . The prosecutor further observed that , in any event , the applicant had had the right to refuse to carry out tasks which were unsafe or for which he was unqualified , but he had not exercised that right . The prosecutor therefore concluded that the accident had been caused by the recklessness of the workers and not by the actions or omissions of the employer .","The applicant appealed against the prosecutor \u2019s decision but on DATE a senior prosecutor dismissed his appeal . However , on CARDINAL DATE ORG overruled the prosecutor \u2019s decision and reopened the pre - trial investigation . The court observed that the absence of previous accidents on the scaffolding could not be interpreted as evidence that the scaffolding was safe . It also held that the applicant \u2019s right to refuse to carry out tasks in unsafe conditions did not excuse the employer from a duty to ensure that unsafe conditions did not exist at the workplace . The court further noted that attaching the platform to the reservoir tank had clearly been part of the construction work , so the employer had a duty to properly supervise the workers and to instruct them how to carry out that task safely DATE and by failing to do so , the applicant \u2019s employer had acted contrary to the law .","The prosecutor appealed against that judgment , but on DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . In its judgment the court noted that although DATE had passed since the accident , the prosecutor had still not determined the precise way in which the accident had happened , and that without doing that it was not possible to determine who had been responsible for it . The court also considered it unlikely that the workers would have decided to attach the platform without receiving an order from their supervisor or at least informing him , so it was necessary to examine whether the construction manager ORG had been present at the construction site at any time DATE . Lastly , the court drew attention to the fact that \u201c some witnesses \u201d had admitted to giving false testimony under pressure from the employer and so it was necessary to investigate those claims further .","In DATE and DATE the investigator arranged several formal confrontations between witnesses , interviewed additional witnesses , and requested further information from the applicant \u2019s employer and the hospital where the applicant had been examined .","On DATE , following a complaint by the applicant , the deputy chief prosecutor of the PERSON region prosecutor \u2019s office sent a note to the PERSON city prosecutor \u2019s office , observing that the pre - trial investigation had been going on for DATE , and requesting that it promptly carry out any necessary further investigative measures in order to make a well - founded final decision .","On DATE , after an application by the prosecutor , ORG ordered a forensic examination of the precise way in which the accident had happened and its causes . The forensic expert examined the case file and delivered a report on DATE . The report noted that there was insufficient information in the case file concerning the technical characteristics of the metal platform and the scaffolding , so the way the accident had happened could be established only in part . On the basis of the available material , the report found that the weight of the platform had exceeded the weight limit of the scaffolding and had thus caused it to collapse . Accordingly , it concluded that the scaffolding had not been suitable for the work for which it was used , and that the workers had not been adequately informed about how to carry out their work safely . The report found that the employer had thereby breached the applicable work safety requirements .","In DATE the investigator interviewed additional witnesses and arranged formal confrontations .","On DATE the prosecutor again discontinued the pre - trial investigation . He held that witness testimony and other evidence showed that the applicant \u2019s supervisor ORG had not been present at the construction site on DATE of the accident and that he had not ordered the workers to attach the platform . As a result , the prosecutor concluded that ORG had not had any duty to ensure the safety of that operation . He further concluded that the accident had been caused by the workers\u2019 reckless decision to carry the platform , which had exceeded the weight limit of the scaffolding . The prosecutor noted that although the scaffolding had not fully complied with the applicable safety requirements , that had not been the main cause of the accident and thus the applicant \u2019s employer could be held liable only for an administrative offence of failure to comply with work safety requirements ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , but not for a criminal offence .","The prosecutor also observed that a separate pre - trial investigation should be opened in order to examine the claims of some witnesses that they had been pressured by their employer to give false testimony . However , from the material available to the ORG it appears that no such investigation was opened .","The applicant appealed against the prosecutor \u2019s decision , but on DATE a senior prosecutor dismissed his appeal . However , on DATE ORG overruled the prosecutor \u2019s decision and reopened the pre - trial investigation . The court underlined that attaching the platform to the reservoir tank had been an inherent part of the construction work carried out by the applicant and other workers , so it could not be considered that they had decided to do that of their own free will . It referred to the expert report of CARDINAL DATE , noting that that report had given grounds to believe that the applicant \u2019s employer had failed to ensure safe working conditions . The court further noted that ORG had not been officially authorised to leave his workplace on DATE of the accident , and thus he had failed to ensure the safety of the workers under his supervision .","On DATE V.J.S. was officially notified that he , being a person authorised by an employer to supervise construction work , was suspected of violating safety requirements at work , which had resulted in an accident , as set out in LAW .","In DATE and DATE the investigator interviewed ORG and several witnesses .","On an unspecified date the applicant complained to ORG that the pre - trial investigation had been protracted , in particular because it had been discontinued and reopened several times . On DATE ORG dismissed his complaint and stated that the repeated discontinuation of the investigation did not give grounds to find that any requirements of LAW had been violated .","In DATE and DATE the investigator carried out additional interviews with several witnesses and requested further information from the applicant \u2019s employer .","On DATE the applicant was informed that the pre - trial investigation had been completed . ORG submitted a request to continue the investigation and carry out additional investigative measures but that request was dismissed .","On DATE the prosecutor issued an indictment against ORG under LAW and on DATE the case was transferred to ORG for examination on the merits . On DATE the chairperson of that court noted that the case was complex and large - scale , and allowed DATE to prepare for its examination .","ORG held the first hearing on DATE and decided to adjourn the case until DATE because several witnesses were not present .","The next hearing was held on DATE but several witnesses were absent again and ORG fined them for failing to appear . The court also decided to adjourn the case until DATE in order to ensure the participation of all the necessary witnesses and , as requested by the applicant , to obtain the technical details about the metal platform .","It appears that subsequently the case was adjourned again and a new hearing was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE ORG submitted a medical certificate to the court indicating that he would be sick from CARDINAL to DATE , and asked for a further adjournment .","ORG held a hearing on DATE but because of the absence of the accused it was decided to adjourn and to schedule a new hearing for DATE .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE V.J.S. \u2019s lawyer informed ORG that his client was still sick and had a medical certificate that was valid for DATE . The court scheduled new hearings for CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted a civil claim against ORG , asking for non - pecuniary damages of CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE V.J.S. \u2019s lawyer asked the court to adjourn the case again because his client had been admitted to hospital . Later , ORG submitted a medical certificate indicating that he would be sick from DATE , which also showed that he would undergo rehabilitation treatment from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","ORG held a hearing on DATE and decided to adjourn until DATE . Subsequently , owing to the continued illness of the accused , the case was adjourned until DATE , then again until DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to continue its examination of the case in the absence of the accused , complaining that the latter was deliberately avoiding appearing before the court . ORG dismissed that application , informing the applicant that ORG had submitted the required medical certificates to prove his illness and that domestic law did not allow for the examination of a criminal case in the absence of the accused . The court also noted that examination of the case had not been unduly protracted because the hearings had been scheduled with as little time between them as possible .","Subsequently , owing to the accused \u2019s continued illness , the court further adjourned the case to DATE , DATE , and then to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant asked the court to adjourn the hearing because he had to be admitted to hospital for surgery .","ORG held a hearing on DATE from which the applicant was absent . During the hearing the prosecutor asked the court to terminate the case against ORG as time - barred . The court adopted a decision on CARDINAL DATE and terminated the case . It noted that ORG had been charged with a crime of negligence , and in such cases the statute of limitations , applicable at the time of the accident , was DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court also observed that the domestic law provisions on the statute of limitations , applicable at the time of the accident , were \u201c unconditional \u201d ( bes\u0105lygi\u0161kos nuostatos ) and did not provide for the possibility to suspend the limitation period . The domestic law was subsequently amended to allow such a decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , but the new legal framework could not be applied retroactively to the detriment of the accused .","The court did not examine the applicant \u2019s civil claim and noted that he had the right to institute separate civil proceedings for damages .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the examination of the case before the district court had been so protracted that it had become time - barred , and asked the regional court to identify the reasons for that protraction . The court considered that complaint as an appeal by the applicant against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE but refused to admit it because the applicant had not signed it or properly outlined the reasons for the appeal . The applicant did not submit another appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On an unspecified date ORG appealed against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and asked the court to examine the case on the merits and to acquit him , but on DATE his appeal was dismissed .","On DATE ORG , in response to a complaint by the applicant , informed him that it had analysed the work of the prosecutors involved in the case and had not detected any \u201c substantial violations \u201d ( esminiai pa\u017eeidimai ) of LAW ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162114","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TOPALLAJ v. ALBANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);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);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE of GPE .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) acknowledged the inherited property rights of some landowners over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY ( vendim p\u00ebr v\u00ebrtetim fakti ) . On DATE ORG acknowledged that the landowners also had inherited property rights over installations and fuel tanks of a petrol station located on the land ( vendim p\u00ebr v\u00ebrtetim fakti ) .","In the meantime , on the assumption that the ORG properties would be restored in natura by ORG , in DATE and DATE , the applicant concluded CARDINAL agreements with CARDINAL of the landowners , who was acting on his own and the remaining heirs\u2019 behalf , whereby the applicant would assist the landowners in the process of the privatisation of installations and fuel tanks on the land ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . In DATE he concluded a sales contract ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Following the conclusion of these contracts , the validity of which became the object of a dispute ( see section B below ) , all landowners appointed the applicant to act on their behalf in proceedings related to the protection of their property rights .","On the strength of ORG decisions , on an unspecified date the landowners lodged a request with ORG on ORG ( \u201c the Commission \u201d ) seeking restitution of the above - mentioned property by the domestic authorities . On DATE the ORG dismissed the NORP request on the grounds that the land was not subject to LAW as it was located outside the legal city boundaries ( ndodhen jasht\u00eb vijave kufizuese ) . The landowners appealed to ORG .","On DATE the ORG quashed the ORG \u2019s decision and allocated the landowners a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m. Relying on an expert \u2019s report , the court held that the value of the respective installations and fuel tanks constructed thereon did not exceed PERCENT of the land \u2019s total value . It therefore ordered that these objects be restored at no cost . The petrol station was situated on the main road between the cities of GPE and PERSON and it was used and administered by CARDINAL ORG - owned oil companies . The judgment became final on DATE , no appeal having been lodged against it .","Subsequent to the above judgment , on CARDINAL DATE ORG issued a property certificate ( v\u00ebrtetim pron\u00ebsie \u2013 Ipoteka ) , according to which the landowners had registered title to the plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m. on which the fuel tanks and installations had been erected ( mortgage register entry no . CARDINAL of DATE ) . The petrol station and fuel tanks were subsequently expropriated in the public interest .","DATE the landowners\u2019 property rights were unsuccessfully challenged by various ORG institutions . On CARDINAL occasion the domestic courts dismissed the claim , whereas on CARDINAL other occasions they discontinued the proceedings on various grounds . The applicant joined the proceedings as a third party .","On DATE ORG challenged the lawfulness of ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) recognising the landowners\u2019 property rights . The action was dismissed by ORG with final effect on DATE .","On DATE and DATE ORG and the ORG - owned oil companies lodged CARDINAL separate applications for supervisory review of the domestic judgments upholding the landowners\u2019 property rights , namely ORG judgment of DATE and ORG judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG gave CARDINAL separate decisions by accepting both applications for supervisory review and the reopening of the proceedings . A constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant on DATE was declared inadmissible by ORG on DATE . As a result of the remittal of the cases to ORG , on an unspecified date the court decided to join the proceedings . The applicant took part in them as a third party .","In the first set of rehearing proceedings , the case was heard by ORG , ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) and ORG , which on DATE decided to remit the case to ORG for a further rehearing .","In the second set of rehearing proceedings , the case was heard by ORG and ORG , which on DATE decided to remit the case to ORG for fresh consideration .","In the third set of rehearing proceedings , the case was heard by ORG , ORG and ORG , which gave its final decision on DATE . The domestic courts ruled in favour of the landowners .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG for ORG , which had replaced the Commission , recognised the landowners\u2019 inherited property rights over the plot of land measuring CARDINAL hectares ( QUANTITY . m ) and ordered that they be compensated in respect of QUANTITY . m in CARDINAL of the forms prescribed by law , the remaining QUANTITY . m having already been decided upon by the authorities . The authorities\u2019 failure to pay compensation in respect of the QUANTITY . m is the subject of application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , of which notice was given to the Government as a follow - up to the ORG \u2019s pilot judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) .","On DATE CARDINAL of the landowners , acting on his own and the remaining heirs\u2019 behalf , concluded an agreement ( akt marr\u00ebveshje ) with the applicant \u2019s company , according to which the latter would secure finance for the privatisation of fuel tanks and installations located on the landowners\u2019 plot of land , in respect of which they would exercise their right of first refusal ( e drejta e parablerjes ) at the time of privatisation . In return , the landowners would transfer ownership rights to the applicant \u2019s company upon privatisation . Subsequent to this transaction , the parties would form a joint company , whose registered capital would be made up of the applicant \u2019s company \u2019s ownership of the fuel tanks and other installations , as well as the landowners\u2019 ownership of the plot of land .","On DATE the same landowner , again acting on his own and the remaining heirs\u2019 behalf , concluded a similar agreement ( akt marr\u00ebveshje ) with the applicant \u2019s company for the privatisation of the fuel tanks and installations , the difference being that some objects would remain the landowners\u2019 property .","On DATE the same landowner , again acting on his own and the remaining heirs\u2019 behalf , concluded a notarised sales contract with the applicant for the sale of almost all of the fuel tanks and installations for MONEY ( ORG ) , which , according to the contract , was paid by the applicant to the landowners . On DATE ORG issued a property certificate ( v\u00ebrtetim pron\u00ebsie \u2013 Ipoteka ) , according to which the applicant had registered title to the petrol station fuel tanks and installations ( mortgage register entry no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the same landowner , acting on his own behalf , concluded CARDINAL loan agreements with the applicant to lend the latter a total of USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The agreements contained no details as to the purpose of the loan .","On DATE the landowners instituted proceedings against the applicant seeking the annulment of the agreements and contract concluded DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . They requested the court to declare the agreements and contract null and void ( pavlefshm\u00ebri absolute ) without any legal consequences for the parties whatsoever . The claim was signed by their lawyer , to whom they had given power of attorney .","Following remittals of the case , on DATE ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings ( pushimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes ) as the landowners had failed to attend court without good reason .","On DATE the landowners instituted a fresh set of proceedings against the applicant seeking the annulment of the agreements and contract concluded DATE . The claim was signed by only their lawyer .","On an unspecified date the landowners requested ORG to obtain and process all documents from the case - file concerning the first set of proceedings , including the powers of attorney . The court accepted this request .","On DATE the applicant requested the court to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of a criminal complaint he had lodged with the district prosecutor \u2019s office against the landowners alleging forgery of documents .","On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant , having regard to the number of previous requests that had been rejected , challenged the bench .","On DATE the presiding judge of the bench withdrew from the case , given the applicant \u2019s repeated requests for withdrawal . On DATE the President of ORG set aside the withdrawal , finding that it did not contain any of the grounds stipulated in DATE of LAW .","On DATE the applicant lodged a counterclaim requesting the court to decide the requests he had already submitted for the withdrawal of the bench . According to the counterclaim , the landowners had not authorised their lawyer to represent them in the proceedings and their claim was time - barred . Furthermore , the loan agreements were fictitious and their conclusion with CARDINAL of the landowners could not have a bearing on the sales contract of the fuel tanks and installations . The applicant argued that a number of factors pointed to his having lawful property rights over the fuel tanks and installations , such as the fact that all the agreements and contracts were lawful and valid , the property had been registered in his name , he had represented the landowners in the domestic proceedings and he had taken legal action to defend their interests .","On DATE ORG declared the agreements and contracts null and void ( absolute nullity ) . It found them to be fictitious on the grounds that they had been concluded at a time when the said property in question was being administered by the ORG , no property rights having been transferred to the landowners . In accordance with the law , the installations had been privatised at no cost , because their value was PERCENT of the land \u2019s value . Furthermore , no joint company had been set up by the applicant and landowners and no money had been lent to the applicant in accordance with the loan agreements . They had been concluded with a view to having an assurance for the execution of the sales contract , in which the sale price was the same . Despite the property certificate ( no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , the fact that no actions had been effected pursuant to the agreements and contracts and that no legal consequences had resulted for the parties , ORG concluded that the agreements were fictitious in accordance with LAW . It further ordered that the entry of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in the immovable property register be erased .","The applicant appealed , arguing that the ORG bench was biased because disciplinary proceedings had been instituted for the dismissal of the presiding judge of the bench for breaches of law . In this connection , the withdrawal of the presiding judge of the bench had not been accepted by the President of ORG and his CARDINAL requests for the withdrawal of the bench were rejected , no such mention having been made in the hearing records . The applicant further submitted that the claim had been brought outside the statutory time - limit , and had been signed by only the lawyer and not the landowners , the power of attorney dating back to DATE and being limited in time and scope , and that the facts of the claim were unrelated . He also objected to the fact that his counterclaims of CARDINAL DATE and DATE had not been admitted to the case - file . Moreover , he contended that ORG had not accepted any of the CARDINAL requests for pieces of evidence he had produced , and had made findings in excess of the requests contained in the object of the claim . He argued that CARDINAL hearings had been held DATE and DATE , without the landowners providing any good reason for their non - appearance to supplement the claim . In his view , his spouse , who was a co - owner , should have been invited to attend the hearings . Finally , he claimed that the contracts had been concluded in complete conformity with the domestic law and that there had been no need to summon witnesses . In this connection , the landowners had confirmed the applicant \u2019s ownership of the plot of land by way of specific powers of attorney , while the applicant had lodged numerous procedural requests , applications and appeals and had attended hearings to defend his and their property rights .","On DATE the applicant challenged the bench in the light of the previous decisions given against him . On the same date he requested that CARDINAL items of evidence and CARDINAL procedural requests absent from the case - file before ORG be readmitted .","On DATE the applicant requested that CARDINAL additional items of evidence be admitted to the case - file .","On DATE the Deputy President of ORG requested PERSON to appoint CARDINAL judges from other appellate courts to hear the case , since all of its judges had sat in the proceedings .","On DATE the Minister of ORG , following a decision taken by ORG ( \u201c HCJ \u201d ) , informed ORG that CARDINAL judges of ORG would hear the case .","On DATE the applicant challenged the new composition of the bench , submitting that the HCJ should appoint judges from other ordinary appellate courts instead of ORG .","On DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL judges , upheld ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It transpires that the applicant had withdrawn the request for the exemption of the bench from hearing the case , and that the court had partially reopened the judicial examination and accepted new items of evidence as produced by him . ORG held that the objects mentioned in the agreements and contracts of DATE were , at the time of the judgment , being administered by the ORG and that their ownership had not yet been transferred to the landowners . Consequently , those contracts and agreements were fictitious under LAW ) of LAW and were of no legal effect . It rejected all of the applicant \u2019s arguments as unfounded and held that he had failed to adduce evidence to object to or challenge the NORP claim , which was supported by the documents contained in the case - file . According to ORG , a claim requesting absolute nullity was not subject to a statutory limitation period .","The presiding judge of the bench , judge ORG , dissented . In a separate opinion , he stated that the claim had not been signed by the landowners . The evidence in the case - file was not capable of demonstrating that the agreements were fictitious , since the parties\u2019 intentions had been real and lawful . As a result , the landowners did not have legal standing to bring the claim as they could not prove that there had been a breach of a substantial right ( e drejta materiale ) . Their claim was time - barred and the courts had failed to take into account the statutory limitation period . The evidence produced by the applicant showed that the landowners , by virtue of powers of attorney or other documents issued DATE , had appointed the applicant to act as their representative . This pointed to the fact that the parties had wished their transactions to have legal effect and this , in itself , contradicted the fictitious nature of the agreements and contracts . In his view , the court had rejected all of the applicant \u2019s requests without giving any reasons in the decision .","On DATE the applicant appealed , raising CARDINAL grounds of appeal . In addition to maintaining the same complaints he had raised before ORG , he alleged that the composition of ORG had not been drawn by lots and that ORG had not been a \u201c tribunal established by law \u201d as it had been composed of military judges . He claimed that his requests for the withdrawal of ORG judges had not been examined and that his requests for the admission of numerous items of evidence had not been processed by ORG . He further objected to the lower courts\u2019 application and interpretation of the domestic law since , in his view , he had been authorised by the landowners to act as their representative , had lodged various appeals and other procedural requests and followed the judicial proceedings with the landowners , had requested the enforcement of final decisions on his and the NORP behalf and had sought the criminal prosecution of third parties .","On DATE ORG decided to stay execution of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE pending the outcome of the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible in accordance with LAW ( no valid grounds of appeal ) .","On DATE the applicant lodged an CARDINAL page constitutional appeal . On DATE he supplemented it with a CARDINAL - page memorandum . In addition to maintaining the same grounds of appeal he had raised before the lower courts , the applicant also complained of a lack of reasoning in ORG decision and about the length of the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant requested that judges ORG and ORG withdraw from the appeal on the grounds that they had rejected a previous constitutional appeal lodged by him on DATE in relation to another unrelated set of proceedings . On DATE he requested that judge V.T withdraw from the appeal on the grounds that she had been on the bench that had decided against him in another appeal in DATE .","On DATE the applicant was informed of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE rejecting his appeal . It found nothing to suggest a lack of impartiality on the part of ORG bench and that , even though some of the judges had heard previous appeals lodged by the applicant with ORG , those appeals concerned different facts , parties and sets of proceedings . It dismissed the remaining complaints , finding that they related to the assessment of facts and the outcome of the proceedings , which was within the lower courts\u2019 jurisdiction ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147870","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BAGHDASARYAN AND ZARIKYANTS v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","The applicants and a third person jointly owned a flat which measured CARDINAL sq . m. and was situated at CARDINAL FAC , GPE .","On DATE the Government adopted Decree no . PERSON , approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of LOC of GPE to be taken for ORG needs for town - planning purposes , having a total area of CARDINAL sq . m. Byuzand Street was listed as CARDINAL of the streets falling within such expropriation zones . A special body , ORG ( hereafter , the Agency ) was set up to manage the implementation of the construction projects .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 flat was valued upon the request of the ORG by a valuation organisation . The market value of the flat was estimated at MONEY ( ORG ) .","In DATE the ORG informed the applicants that their flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . An additional sum of ORG was offered to the applicants as a financial incentive if they signed an agreement within DATE .","The applicants did not accept the offer , not being satisfied with the amount of compensation offered .","On DATE the ORG lodged a claim against the applicant PERSON , seeking to oblige him to sign an agreement on the taking of the flat in question for ORG needs and to have him , and the others residing in the flat , evicted .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE granted the ORG \u2019s claim , ordering the applicants to sign the agreement for the total amount of CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG granted the ORG \u2019s claim upon appeal .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law in which they argued , inter alia , that the deprivation of their property was not prescribed by law as required by LAW and that there was no public interest in depriving them of their property .","On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the applicants\u2019 appeal .","On an unspecified date the awarded sum was paid to the applicants ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142520","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF UDOVI\u010cI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Respect for private life)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Part of the house where the applicant has been living since DATE with her family is occupied by a bar , and for a certain period of time a shop ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , run by company O - P. and its predecessor company F. ( hereinafter \u201c the company \u201d ) , since DATE .","The applicant is the owner of PERCENT of the house , while the company owns the remainder of the house with a share of PERCENT .","The bar is located on the ground floor of the house , below the applicant \u2019s flat . The applicant also owns a flat on the ground floor adjacent to the bar .","In DATE the company began reconstruction work on its premises in order to open a bar and a shop .","On DATE a building inspector ( gra\u0111evinski inspektor ) , acting on a complaint by the applicant , found that the reconstruction carried out by the company had not required any additional planning permission or authorisation .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the building inspector with ORG ( ORG za\u0161tite okoli\u0161a , prostornog ure\u0111enja i graditeljstva , hereinafter \u201c ORG ) , arguing that the company had demolished CARDINAL of the load - bearing walls and had made a hole in the fa\u00e7ade .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal and remitted the case to the building inspector on the grounds that he had failed to establish all the relevant facts .","On DATE the building inspector found that the company had carried out the construction within the scope defined by the existing planning permissions .","The applicant again appealed to ORG , arguing that she had not had an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and that the findings of the building inspector were erroneous .","On DATE ORG remitted the case to the building inspector on the grounds that he had failed to take into account the obvious modifications to the building , in particular the demolition of the load - bearing wall and fissures on the surrounding walls .","On DATE the construction inspector ordered the applicant and the company to remove certain walls , a balcony , staircases and part of a rooftop , considering that they had been constructed without the necessary planning permissions .","The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG and on DATE the ORG dismissed her appeal .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action in ORG ( ORG ) challenging the decisions of the building inspector and ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the decisions of the administrative bodies and ordered that the case be re - examined on the grounds that the relevant facts had not been correctly established .","NORP The administrative proceedings are still pending .","NORP In DATE the company applied to the GPE - Kri\u017eeva\u010dka County ORG ( Ured dr\u017eavne uprave u GPE - kri\u017eeva\u010dkoj \u017eupaniji , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for an operating licence to run a bar and a shop .","An administrative commission , established to examine whether the LOC in which the company intended to run a bar met the necessary operating requirements , noted in its report of DATE that those requirements had been met . It relied on an expert report provided by company ORG which , without measuring the noise in the applicant \u2019s flat , because she allegedly would not allow such measurements to be taken in her flat , found that the necessary measures of noise insulation had been put in place .","On DATE ORG granted the company a licence to run a bar .","ORG The applicant complained to ORG about that decision , arguing that she had not been allowed to participate in the administrative proceedings . She requested that the proceedings be reopened .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint as ill - founded .","The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with ORG ( ORG turizma ) and on DATE the Ministry quashed the decisions of ORG and ordered that the applicant be allowed to participate in the proceedings . This decision was later , on DATE , upheld by ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for reopening of the administrative proceedings , and this decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . ORG held that the applicant had been allowed access to all the relevant documents from the case file , and that therefore it was not necessary to reopen the proceedings .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action with ORG . She contended that noise measurements had never been taken in her flat and that the decisions of the lower administrative bodies had numerous substantive and procedural flaws .","NORP In DATE , after company O - P. succeeded to the business activity of company F. , it applied to ORG for operating licences to run a bar and a shop .","The company submitted a report drawn up by company E. of noise measurements taken on DATE . The report measured the level of noise during TIME ( after TIME ) in the bar , the parking area and the entrance to the applicant \u2019s flat located on the first floor . In assessing the maximum permitted noise levels , this report took into account that the house was situated near a road and considered the applicant \u2019s house to fall within zone CARDINAL under section CARDINAL of the by - law on the maximum permitted levels of noise in areas where people live and work ( PERSON razinama buke u sredinama u kojima ljudi rade i borave , hereinafter \u201c the by - law \u201d ) relevant to properties consisting of dwellings and business LOC but predominantly used for business purposes ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , the report indicated that it had not taken into account the relevant spatial planning documents placing a property in the relevant zone because no such documents had been presented to the experts when the measurements were taken ( see paragraph CARDINAL below and section QUANTITY of the by - law ) .","The measurements showed that the external level of noise in the parking area and in the entrance to the applicant \u2019s flat was PERCENT , while the permitted level was CARDINAL dB. It concluded that the noise emanating from the bar to the nearby open and closed areas DATE and during TIME did not pose any danger to the health of the persons living there .","On DATE ORG granted the company O - P. a licence to run a shop .","On an unspecified date the applicant challenged this decision before ORG ( ORG gospodarstva , rada i poduzetni\u0161tva , hereinafter \u201c ORG ) arguing that she had not had an opportunity to participate in the proceedings .","On DATE the ORG agreed with the report drawn up by company E. concerning the level of noise emanating from the bar . This decision was never served on the applicant and it became final and enforceable on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued the company with a licence to run a bar .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision with ORG , and on DATE the ORG dismissed it as ill - founded .","The applicant brought an administrative action against that decision in ORG , complaining of a number of substantive and procedural flaws in the proceedings before the lower administrative bodies . She contended that she had not had an opportunity to participate in the proceedings , that no measurements of noise and other emissions had ever been taken in her flat , and that the house had not been equipped with the necessary noise insulation .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG decision granting the company a licence to run a shop ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant lodged an administrative action with ORG that decision , reiterating her complaints that she had not been able to participate in the proceedings granting the company a licence to run a shop .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s action against the decisions granting the company a licence to run a bar ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and ordered the administrative bodies to re - examine the case on the grounds that they had failed to decide on the applicant \u2019s request for disqualification of the officials who had previously participated in the proceedings .","On DATE , ORG quashed the decisions of ORG and ORG granting the company a licence to run a shop ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case for re - examination , on the grounds that the applicant had not had an opportunity to participate in the administrative proceedings .","On DATE ORG ( ORG uprave , Upravna inspekcija , hereinafter \u201c the GPE \u201d ) urged ORG to adopt a decision on the applicant \u2019s complaints . It stressed that ORG had failed to comply with the judgments of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and that the relevant DATE time - limit for adopting a decision in the administrative proceedings had been significantly exceeded . It also considered that the central problem lay in the impossibility for the applicant to participate in the proceedings , and thus it instructed ORG to allow the applicant to take part in the proceedings and to take her arguments into account .","On DATE the company informed ORG that it was closing the shop .","On DATE ORG again urged ORG to terminate the proceedings . It considered that there had been no justified reason for not adopting a decision concerning the applicant \u2019s complaints . As regards the company \u2019s request for a licence to run a bar , ORG identified CARDINAL central problems : first , insufficient height of the ceiling in the bar , and second , the problem of noise insulation . In respect of the latter , ORG considered that the operating licence issued DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) could no longer be a valid ground for consideration . It also noted the inordinate length of the proceedings and numerous procedural flaws in the decisions of ORG , considering such procedural defects contrary to the relevant domestic law .","The administrative proceedings are still pending .","On DATE ORG instigated administrative proceedings to ascertain whether the noise emanating from the bar and the shop exceeded the permitted levels under the relevant law .","On DATE ORG commissioned an expert report from company GPE . concerning the noise insulation in the applicant \u2019s house .","On DATE EL . submitted its report , in which it examined the structure of the separating wall between the living room of the applicant \u2019s flat on the first floor and the bar , and the flooring in the bar . It also examined the separating wall between a room in the applicant \u2019s flat and the shop , as well as the flooring in the shop .","The report found that the noise insulation did not satisfy the necessary requirements . Specifically , the noise insulation between the applicant \u2019s living room and the bar was insufficient , while the noise insulation between the shop and the applicant \u2019s flat was within the required parameters .","On DATE a hearing was held at ORG , at which the company requested that a new noise report be commissioned , arguing that in the meantime it had taken the necessary measures to improve the noise insulation .","On DATE an official of ORG carried out an on - site inspection and heard the parties\u2019 arguments concerning the expert report of DATE .","On DATE EL . carried out further measurements of the noise insulation in the structure of the wall separating the applicant \u2019s living room from the bar , and in the flooring of the bar . It found that at the time there was no relevant legislation requiring noise insulation , because at DATE ORG ( Hrvatski zavod za norme ) had repealed all previously existing standards for noise insulation . Thus the report only compared the new results with the results from the previous measurements ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Basing its reasoning on that methodology , and relying on the noise measurements carried out by company PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) and company PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) , the report found that the noise insulation in the bar was sufficient .","On DATE the ORG agreed with EL . \u2019s report and found that the noise insulation in the bar and the shop was sufficient .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( ORG zdravlja ) challenging the decision of ORG .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible on the grounds that she did not have standing to lodge an appeal .","ORG The applicant lodged an administrative action in ORG against the decision of ORG , arguing that as the owner of a flat located in the same building as the bar she had every interest in lodging an appeal against the decision concerning the noise insulation measures .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG and ordered that the applicant \u2019s appeal be examined on the merits .","The administrative proceedings are still pending .","In DATE the applicant and her husband , PERSON , complained to the sanitary inspector ( sanitarni inspektor ) about the level of noise coming from the bar .","On DATE ORG , acting upon a complaint concerning the sanitary inspector \u2019s failure to respond , ordered that the complaints be examined .","During the proceedings , the inspector commissioned an expert report from company B - I.","On DATE company B - I. submitted a report on its measurements of the level of noise in the bar and in the applicant \u2019s flats . The level of noise during DATE was measured in the entrance and inside the living room of the applicant \u2019s flat on the first floor , with all sources of noise inside the bar switched on ; with only an air - conditioning fan running ; and while chairs were being dragged across the floor inside the bar . Measurements were also taken inside the applicant \u2019s flat on the ground floor , with all sources of noise switched on , and while chairs were being dragged across the floor inside the bar . The level of noise during TIME ( after TIME ) was measured under the same conditions and in the same places , with an additional measurement of the level of noise in the entrance and inside the living room of the applicant \u2019s flat on the first floor while only the audio system in the bar was switched on .","For the daytime , taking into account the fact that house was situated near a road , the measurements showed that the level of noise was excessive in the applicant \u2019s flat on the ground floor ( CARDINAL while the permitted level was PERCENT ) and inside the living room of the applicant \u2019s flat on the first floor ( DATE while the permitted level was PERCENT ) when chairs were being dragged across the floor inside the bar . During TIME , the level of noise was excessive in the entrance to the living room of the flat on the first floor while all sources of noise inside the bar were switched on and in the same area with only the fan running in the bar ( PERCENT when the permitted level was PERCENT ) . Furthermore , the level of noise was excessive inside the living room while all sources of noise inside the bar were switched on , and in the same area with only the fan running ( DATE when the permitted level was CARDINAL dB ) , as well as when chairs were being dragged across the floor inside the bar ( CARDINAL dB when the permitted level was PERCENT ) . The level of noise was excessive inside the flat on the ground floor with all sources of noise switched on ( CARDINAL dB when the permitted level was DATE ) and while chairs were being dragged across the floor inside the bar ( QUANTITY when the permitted level was PERCENT ) .","On DATE the environmental health inspector heard the parties\u2019 objections and commissioned further expert reports from companies B - I. and E.","On DATE company B - I. submitted its report , in which it found that the company had replaced the air - conditioning system which had been generating noise . It then measured the average noise level inside the living room of the applicant \u2019s flat on the first floor for CARDINAL TIME periods during DATE and CARDINAL TIME periods during TIME . It also measured the average noise level in front of the air - conditioning system during TIME for CARDINAL TIME periods . The report found that the level of noise coming from the bar was not excessive .","In DATE company E. submitted its report , which also found that the level of noise coming from the bar was not excessive .","On DATE the sanitary inspector found that the noise coming from the bar had not exceeded the permitted levels .","DATE . On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant \u2019s husband lodged an appeal with ORG challenging the findings of the sanitary inspector .","Meanwhile the applicant \u2019s husband obtained an expert report drawn up by company ORG and dated DATE concerning the level of noise emanating from the bar . This report measured the level of noise during the day and night inside the living room of the flat on the first floor and in front of a window in the living room . In assessing the maximum permitted noise levels this report considered that the applicant \u2019s house fell within zone CARDINAL under section CARDINAL of the by - law pertaining to dwellings and business LOC where the predominant use is as residential property ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It found , taking into account the ambient noise , that the level of noise measured inside the applicant \u2019s living room during TIME was excessive ( PERCENT with sources of noise switched on when the permitted level was DATE ) and that the bar \u2019s noise protection measures were not adequate .","On DATE ORG upheld the sanitary inspector \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant \u2019s husband then lodged an administrative action with ORG , arguing that the noise measurements had not been taken correctly and that the relevant facts had not been correctly established .","On CARDINAL DATE the sanitary inspector declared the applicant \u2019s complaint of noise nuisance inadmissible on the grounds that he was not competent to examine the case since at the time civil proceedings were pending before ORG ( PERSON ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","The sanitary inspector \u2019s decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action with ORG against the above decision of ORG .","On DATE the sanitary inspector carried out an on - site inspection in the bar and found that the necessary noise insulation measures had been put in place .","DATE . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG of DATE ( see CARDINAL and DATE above ) and ordered a re - examination of the case on the grounds that the decision had been based on contradictory expert reports .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and ordered the sanitary inspector to examine the applicant \u2019s complaints on the merits .","The proceedings before the sanitary inspector are still pending .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) against the company and its director , seeking an injunction against any further noise emissions from the bar .","At a hearing on DATE the applicant gave evidence before ORG . She contended that the noise emanating from the bar had become unbearable and that it was affecting her everyday life . She also complained about smell and other nuisance coming from the bar , in particular about the problems she and her husband had had with drunk and violent customers of the bar .","On DATE ORG conducted an on - site inspection , to which it invited CARDINAL expert witnesses from ORG ( GPE za javno zdravstvo PERSON , hereinafter \u201c the Institute \u201d ) . It ordered the experts to take the necessary measurements and commissioned noise and pollution expert reports .","In its report of DATE the ORG took into account the expert report drawn up by company PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . In assessing the maximum permitted noise levels this report observed that the house was situated near a road and considered that it fell within zone CARDINAL under section CARDINAL of the by - law pertaining to dwellings and business LOC but predominantly residential properties ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The report found that the level of noise in the open area surrounding the bar and inside the applicant \u2019s flat did not exceed the permitted levels for TIME .","The ORG also submitted a report concerning the level of pollution emanating from the bar , which found that all emissions were within the permitted levels .","On DATE the applicant objected to the ORG \u2019s reports . She contended that noise measurements had been taken only in the living room of her flat on the first floor , and that all sources of the noise in the bar had been switched off when the measurements were taken . She asked ORG to question CARDINAL witnesses , GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON , who could confirm her allegations . She also pointed out that the experts had failed to take into account the documentation concerning the noise insulation in the building , and had thus erred in their findings .","On DATE ORG heard the expert witnesses in the presence of the applicant \u2019s lawyer . The noise expert reiterated his findings , and argued that the level of noise had been measured only in the living room , which was the closest area to the bar and in which , as the applicant had told him herself , the noise nuisance was the greatest . He also submitted that the noise had been measured on the balcony of the applicant \u2019s flat on the first floor and that while the measurements were being taken all sources of the noise in the bar had been switched on . He explained that he had not taken into account the documentation on noise insulation because that was not part of his remit . He also considered that the operation of the air - conditioning fan in the bar could in no way influence the level of noise in the applicant \u2019s flat . Lastly , the expert witness pointed out that the previous noise measurements had not found the level of noise in the applicant \u2019s flat to be excessive .","At a hearing on DATE CARDINAL ORG heard the applicant , who reiterated her objections to the expert reports . She asked for the witnesses who had been present during the measuring to be questioned and for a new expert report to be commissioned .","At the same hearing ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request and terminated the proceedings .","On DATE the CARDINAL witnesses , GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON , who the applicant had asked to be heard at the trial , submitted a statement to ORG expressing their dissatisfaction with the manner in which that court had accepted the expert report which , according to them , had contained a number of incorrect statements .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s civil action , on the grounds that the expert report showed that the level of noise had not exceeded the permitted level and that other evidence from the case file showed that there had been no other nuisance coming from the bar . As regards the applicant \u2019s request for witnesses to be heard , that court held that all relevant facts had been sufficiently established and that there had been no need to take further evidence in respect of the level of noise , particularly since it considered the expert reports well drafted and convincing .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the above judgment with ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) on CARDINAL DATE , challenging the findings of the first - instance court and reiterating her previous arguments .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG judgment as ill - founded . It considered the expert reports convincing and well constructed .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) against the judgment of ORG , reiterating her arguments that her private life , home and property had been unjustifiably interfered with by the company .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Kri\u017eevci Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u ORG ) against the ORG \u2019s experts and the managing director of the company , accusing them of perjury .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded , endorsing the findings of the lower courts . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the Kri\u017eevci Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint on the grounds that any objection as to the findings of the experts was within the competence of the civil courts and that there was no evidence that the experts or the company director had deliberately given false evidence to the court .","In DATE and DATE the applicant called the police on a number of occasions in connection with noise and other emissions from the bar .","The police were called in total CARDINAL times ( of which CARDINAL calls were by the applicant ) to the bar in connection with breaches of public peace and order ; these calls resulted in CARDINAL minor offences proceedings against various individuals .","The police also instigated CARDINAL visits by other state bodies ( the revenue service , health inspectorate and so on ) to the bar , which resulted in CARDINAL minor offences proceedings for breaches of public peace and order .","The applicant also complained to the Kri\u017eevci Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG , ORG ( PERSON ) , ORG of GPE and ORG ( PERSON ) that local and domestic authorities had taken no action , contending that the level of noise and other nuisance coming from the bar had adversely affected her health , dignity , her private and family life and respect for peaceful enjoyment of her possessions .","On DATE a parliamentary board dealing with the individual complaints urged ORG and ORG to examine the applicant \u2019s complaints .","On DATE the parliamentary board again urged the competent authorities to examine the applicant \u2019s complaints , pointing out that ORG judgments had never been complied with and that there had been numerous police call - outs to the bar ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182208","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MAGOMADOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant gave birth to a son , PERSON , whose father was PERSON , her partner .","Following their separation in DATE , the applicant and PERSON agreed that ORG would live with the applicant and PERSON would visit him regularly .","On DATE E. took the boy to PERSON in GPE .","The applicant followed them to ORG , where she attempted to visit her son , but was prevented from doing so by PERSON","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of PERSON ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) for a residence order under which ORG would live with her . She submitted that PERSON had lived with her from birth until his removal by his father the previous October . They were very attached to each other . She had a stable income , a spacious flat , good character references , and was capable of providing NORP with everything necessary in terms of his living expenses , education and development . She also complained that since the removal she had made many attempts to visit her son , but PERSON had prevented her from seeing him .","On DATE the childcare authority of the Chertanovo District of GPE visited the applicant \u2019s flat in GPE and found the living conditions there suitable for a small child .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace of ORG of GPE of GPE convicted PERSON of assault and battery , finding PERSON guilty of assaulting and injuring the applicant in DATE , and sentenced him to a fine .","On DATE the childcare authority of ORG visited PERSON \u2019s flat in PERSON and found that the living conditions there were suitable for a small child . The officials noted that PERSON lived in the flat with his mother PERSON and his son I.","On DATE the childcare authority of ORG issued its report on the case . The report reiterated that PERSON \u2019s living conditions were suitable and further read as follows :","\u201c [ E. ] works as a senior medical officer at [ a private medical clinic ] and , according to him , has a DATE income of MONEY ...","The child has been living with his father [ E. ] for a long time . His mother lives in GPE and does not participate in his upbringing . The boy is very attached to the father and receives a lot of attention , tenderness and care . Bearing in mind the best interests of [ I. ] , [ the childcare authority of ORG ] considers that a residence order in respect of [ I. ] in favour of his father [ E. ] would not be contrary to the child \u2019s interests and would not hinder his contact with the mother . \u201d","At the hearing concerning the applicant \u2019s application for a residence order , PERSON stated that PERSON had indeed lived with his mother until recently , but he was not at all attached to her . PERSON had financially supported them and had visited them regularly . The applicant was \u201c not leading the right kind of life \u201d and she would have a bad influence on I.","At the hearing , an official of the childcare authority of ORG reiterated the findings contained in the report of DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for a residence order in her favour . It held that a residence order in respect of I. should be granted to his father , even though he had not requested it . The court held as follows :","\u201c LAW of [ LAW ] provides that a court decides on the claims submitted by a claimant . However , the court may go beyond those claims in cases provided for by the federal law .","DATE [ LAW ] provides that if no agreement can be reached , a dispute between parents must be decided by a court , having regard to the child \u2019s best interests .","It follows that the court may go beyond the parties\u2019 claims and make a residence order in respect of the child in favour of the father [ E. ] .","The report of the childcare authority of ORG no . ... of DATE indicates that it is preferable to make a residence order in respect of the child [ I. ] in favour of his father [ E. ] , and not to hinder his contact with his mother .","The available information shows that both parents have good character references from their employers and their neighbourhoods , have permanent employment , stable incomes , and real estate .","According to inspection reports , the living conditions of both parents meet the conditions necessary for raising and accommodating a child .","Point CARDINAL of Ruling no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE enumerates , in line with LAW of [ LAW ] , factors which must be taken into account when deciding on a dispute concerning a child \u2019s residence arrangements . These factors are the child \u2019s attachment to each of the parents and [ any ] siblings , the relationship between the child and each of the parents , the child \u2019s age , the GPE moral and other personal qualities and the possibilities each of them have for creating [ proper ] conditions for the child \u2019s upbringing and development ( in the light of such considerations as each parent \u2019s occupation , employment schedule , and financial and family situation ) , and other factors defining the situation in each parent \u2019s place of residence . The Plenary Ruling stresses , in particular , that the better financial or living conditions of CARDINAL of the parents can not , in themselves , constitute a decisive reason for granting this parent \u2019s application for a residence order in his [ or her ] favour .","The better financial and living conditions of CARDINAL of the parents ( the claimant has a higher income and owns residential property in GPE ) can not constitute a decisive reason for making a residence order in her favour and for rejecting the other parent \u2019s claim , because there are other factors .","By contrast , [ the applicant ] is a single mother who has CARDINAL more child from her previous marriage : a daughter [ NORP ] born on DATE . This age is most difficult , and requires special attention from the mother .","Because she works , on DATE the claimant placed ORG in a [ nursery school ] in GPE , despite the fact that , by her own admission , he suffers from a congenital central neural system anomaly : dysgenesis of the corpus callosum .","The [ factors considered ] above indicate that [ the applicant ] is unable to create [ proper ] conditions for the child \u2019s upbringing and development . Because of her work , she does not have enough time to devote to her children . These circumstances could have a disastrous impact on the child \u2019s immature mind .","It has been established that the defendant occupies a managerial position at work . His income allows him to create comfortable financial and living conditions . He lives with his mother [ A. ] , who helps to raise [ I. ] . The childcare authorities\u2019 report indicates that the child is attached to his father .","The defendant has not hindered [ the applicant \u2019s ] contact with the child .","Under Articles CARDINAL and DATE of [ LAW ] , each party must prove the circumstances on which [ he or ] she relies in support of [ his or ] her claims or submissions .","In the court \u2019s opinion , the claimant has not submitted evidence in support of her arguments in [ the ] adversarial proceedings . \u201d","The applicant appealed . She complained , in particular , that the residence order had been granted to PERSON at ORG own initiative , as PERSON had never requested it . She further submitted that she was perfectly capable of providing NORP with everything which he needed for his development . Her elder daughter was healthy and self - reliant and did not require any special attention . Her daughter would therefore not hinder her ability to take care of NORP ; on the contrary , she was of great help . The applicant had placed ORG in a nursery school to give him a pre - school education and to further his social adaptation . His medical condition was not an obstacle to his attending a pre - school . ORG finding that she did not have enough time to take care of her children was not based on any evidence . Neither her working schedule nor that of PERSON had been examined . Nor had the court explained how , within such a short period of time , PERSON could have become more attached to his father than his mother , with whom he had lived from birth until his recent abduction . Lastly , the applicant complained that PERSON was preventing her from seeing her son . That fact had been confirmed by the childcare authorities\u2019 representative at the hearing , who had recounted PERSON \u2019s assertions that he would not allow any contact between PERSON and his mother .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal , finding that it was lawful , well - reasoned and justified . The judgment was based on the best interests of the child , taking into account his age , his attachment to the father , and the father \u2019s ability to create proper conditions for his son \u2019s upbringing and development .","NORP In reply to a complaint by the applicant that she had been prevented from seeing her son for a long time , by a letter of DATE , a deputy mayor of ORG informed her that PERSON had stated to the childcare authorities that he would not allow any contact between PERSON and his mother .","By a letter of DATE , the head of the childcare authority of ORG informed the applicant that the childcare official who had issued the report of DATE had been disciplined . An internal inquiry had established that the report was based on incorrect and incomplete information . In particular , PERSON \u2019s statement that he had high income had not been checked . The finding that the applicant had not participated in ORG upbringing was not based on any evidence . The length of time PERSON had lived with each of the parents had not been established . Lastly , the fact that PERSON had a CARDINAL - sister living with his mother had not been taken into account . The report of DATE had therefore violated the applicant \u2019s rights and legitimate interests .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal , referring , in particular , to the letter of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE a judge of ORG of GPE refused to refer the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal to the ORG of that ORG for examination , finding no significant violations of substantive or procedural law which had influenced the outcome of the proceedings . Relying , in particular , on the childcare authorities\u2019 report of CARDINAL DATE , the judge found that it was in ORG interests to live with his father .","On DATE PERSON died in a car accident . I continued to live with his paternal grandmother A.","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of GPE ( \u201c the Town Court \u201d ) , asking that I. be returned to her .","On DATE ORG granted her application . The court held that NORP should be taken away from GPE and returned to the applicant , with whom he should live from that point onwards . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution . On DATE bailiffs initiated enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the bailiffs visited A. and ordered that she return PERSON to the applicant on DATE . When the bailiffs visited A. on DATE to take ORG away , PERSON and NORP were not at home . The bailiffs visited PERSON again on CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE , but could not find her or NORP The childcare authorities also visited PERSON \u2019s address on several occasions , but found nobody at home . It was finally established that A. had moved out with I.","On DATE the bailiffs banned A. from leaving the country .","On DATE and ORG \u2019s names were put on the list of wanted persons .","On DATE I. was returned to the applicant by the police . On DATE the enforcement proceedings were closed ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146380","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SZK\u00d3RITS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in PERSON .","He had a joint title to a plot of land in the value of CARDINAL \u201c gold crowns \u201d ( aranykorona ) . The land was , from an unspecified date on , in the possession of , and used by , a ORG \u201c collective farm \u201d . Following the adoption of Act no . II of DATE on ORG , ORG adopted a plan on the division of such properties . That decision was subsequently upheld by GPE and ORG .","On DATE a plot of arable land of QUANTITY , situated in the village of GPE , was designated by ORG for the purpose of privatisation , under lot no . CARDINAL . This measure was approved by ORG . On DATE the applicant was granted ownership of the plot by ORG . His title to the land was registered on DATE .","NORP However , he could not enter into possession , because the plot which he had been granted was apparently occupied and being used by the owners of the neighbouring plots .","The applicant brought a trespass claim before LOC , asserting that his use had been unjustifiably interfered with . Following the dismissal of his request , he sought judicial review of the decision , bringing a civil action before the Budapest II \/ III ORG against the neighbours , seeking protection of his possession rights .","While this case was pending , the respondents initiated the correction of the land register maps . In the \u2018 remapping\u2019 proceedings , ORG observed that plot no . CARDINAL did not exist in reality . On appeal , ORG confirmed this finding , designating a new plot for the applicant , under no . CARDINAL , on DATE . This plot was nonetheless smaller than that originally allocated to the applicant , and was apparently not suitable for farming .","Quite independently of the present dispute , on DATE a new , digitally compiled land register was put in place by the PERSON authorities , with the apparent intention of eliminating the existing inaccuracies .","NORP The applicant \u2019s civil action was stayed for the duration of the remapping proceedings . After the adoption of ORG final decision , ORG dismissed the action on DATE , observing that the respondents had not used the applicant \u2019s land unlawfully , as the plot of land registered under plot no . CARDINAL did not exist in reality . The applicant appealed .","The appeal proceedings appear to have been subsequently suspended since the applicant sought judicial review of the remapping decision . In the course of these administrative court proceedings , it was confirmed by an expert land surveyor that the applicant had originally been granted a plot which had been registered with topographic and editing errors , and that these had been duly corrected in the remapping proceedings . Therefore , the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim on DATE . This was confirmed by ORG on DATE .","NORP Since in the remapping proceedings the location of the land belonging to the applicant eventually became indisputable and it turned out that this plot was not possessed by any of the respondents , the applicant withdrew his appeal against the first - instance judgment of DATE .","As a result of the above proceedings , the applicant could finally obtain possession of the land in question DATE after having acquired it , that is , sometime in DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an official liability action against the District and GPE . His action was dismissed by the Buda Surroundings High Court on DATE . The court found that the applicant \u2019s damage had been caused by his own conduct since he had initiated a number of futile proceedings before various authorities .","The applicant appealed ; however , the appellate proceedings were suspended on account of his death on DATE , with a view to the successor \u2019s joining the case . It appears that the proceedings are still pending , that is , remain suspended ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181202","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MOCKUT\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Change religion or belief;Freedom of religion;Manifest religion or belief);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . She grew up in ORG , which in DATE , the time relevant in this case , had CARDINAL inhabitants . She currently lives in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s medical records show that in DATE she was treated for DATE at ORG ( ORG psichiatrijos ligonin\u0117 ) , where doctors diagnosed her with an acute paranoid reaction disorder ( \u016bmi paranoidin\u0117 reakcija ) . The applicant had been taken to hospital by her parents , who had stated that she had previously joined the ORG in God religious sect ( PERSON tik\u0117jimo sekta ) and that she had become agitated and disorientated . At her GPE request and once her health had improved , in DATE she continued treatment at a psychiatric institution in ORG ( PERSON psichoneurologijos dispanseris ) , where her diagnosis was acute paranoid psychosis ( \u016bmi paranoidin\u0117 psichoz\u0117 ) . The doctors noted that the applicant had joined another religious sect , the NORP sect ( GPE ) , and that her condition had worsened after joining in certain of the sect \u2019s activities in a forest . In particular , she had not been able to communicate well and had spoken only about religion - related topics while at the hospital . Subsequently , the applicant received treatment in the same psychiatric institution in ORG in DATE , when she was diagnosed with paranoia ( paranoidin\u0117 b\u016bsena ) . She was disorientated and depressed . The doctors noted that the applicant had an inner conflict \u2013 she was dissatisfied with the hyper care ( hipergloba ) given to her by her mother , but was nevertheless not independent or mentally mature . In DATE the applicant was again admitted to hospital and treated in the psychiatric institution in ORG , where she was diagnosed with moderately severe endogenous depression ( endogenin\u0117 depresija , vidutinio gilumo ) . Once her mental state had improved , the applicant refused to stay in psychiatric institution and was released .","On an unknown date , the applicant obtained a degree in law . In DATE she won a competition to pursue postgraduate studies ( podiplominei sta\u017euotei ) in GPE , where she studied for DATE .","In DATE , the applicant \u2019s father became ill with cancer . The applicant was distressed , did not sleep well and had a car accident . Her mother took her DATE to the FAC private hospital in GPE , where she was diagnosed with post - traumatic stress disorder ( potrauminio streso sutrikimas ) . She spent DATE in the hospital and was released at her own wish so she could be treated as an outpatient .","NORP In DATE the private company which employed the applicant as an in - house lawyer was put into liquidation . The applicant later found a job as a lawyer at ORG ( GPE ministerija ) .","In DATE the applicant made her first visit to FAC , the NORP branch of the PERSON religious movement ( see PERSON . ORG and Others v. GPE ( no . PERSON , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) , where she started meditating ( prad\u0117jo medituoti ) . She states that she found \u201c inner spiritual and emotional healing for [ her ] stressed and disharmonious inner state , [ caused by her ] father \u2019s illness , car accident and the loss of [ her previous private sector ] job \u201d .","According to the applicant \u2019s medical records and court decisions ( also see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE below ) , on TIME CARDINAL DATE she arrived for work as usual at ORG in GPE . She suddenly felt exhausted and asked her superior ( vir\u0161inink\u0117 ) for some time off . When her superior refused , the applicant slammed doors and ran out of the office . She was stressed and agitated . She then left her vehicle unlocked in the middle of the street , returned to her apartment , undressed completely , and began screaming on her balcony . She did not open the door to her work colleagues . The applicant \u2019s mother called her DATE , but could not communicate with her because of the applicant \u2019s state of mind . The mother then asked for help from the applicant \u2019s cousin , ORG","At TIME the applicant \u2019s sister , PERSON , and her cousin , ORG , arrived in GPE , and called an ambulance . The applicant was then taken by force to ORG ( ORG psichiatrijos ligonin\u0117 ) , a public hospital under ORG .","At the psychiatric hospital , the applicant refused to sign a form consenting to her admission and treatment . Her cousin did so instead , at TIME The applicant was agitated , aggressive and could not understand the situation . She was physically restrained CARDINAL times for TIME , and forcibly administered neuroleptics , including haloperidol . She fell asleep at TIME on DATE","Later TIME , the applicant was seen by a psychiatrist , doctor PERSON , who was also a head of division at that hospital , and doctor PERSON The doctors indicated in her medical records that the applicant \u201c did not object to being treated \u201d at that hospital ( also see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In her application to the ORG , and without being contradicted on this point by the ORG , the applicant stated that from CARDINAL May to CARDINAL DATE she had been placed under the strictest patient regime at ORG . She had been supervised by a nurse twentyfour TIME a day in a ward with CARDINAL other patients . She had not been able to leave the ward without a nurse .","From DATE to DATE , the applicant was under a strict care regime . She could have a walk around the hospital grounds , but only if accompanied by a nurse .","On DATE , and until her release on DATE , the applicant \u2019s care regime was changed and at certain times of the day she could take walks on her own within the territory of the hospital .","The applicant \u2019s medical record of CARDINAL DATE reads that the applicant at that time did not yet fully understand how sick she was ( pilno liguistos b\u016bkl\u0117s suvokimo dar n\u0117ra ) . The record also states that \u201c it has emerged that the patient attends the PERSON non - traditional meditation and improvement centre . During conversation [ the applicant ] states that attending the centre \u2018 brings her peace\u2019 while not disturbing her social functions ; it is also her \u2018 essential interest\u2019 . [ The applicant ] has an uncritical attitude to attending the centre . Psycho - correction therapy to be continued \u201d .","The record of DATE reads that the applicant was clear - headed ( m\u0105stymas nuoseklus ) and was not agitated ( afektas adekvatus ) . The applicant \u201c was gradually adopting a critical attitude towards psychotic behaviour and also about ways to spend her free time . The treatment was to be continued . \u201d","The record of DATE reads that \u201c during psycho correction , the applicant was categorical about attending the FAC , and asserted that \u2018 it was a personal matter ( tai jos asmeninis reikalas)\u2019 . The applicant showed no psychotic symptoms . \u201d","The applicant was released from ORG on DATE , after DATE . Her medical records , issued by that hospital and later confirmed by the court appointed experts , stated that from CARDINAL May until DATE the applicant had a transitory psychotic disorder ( tranzitorinis psichozinis susirgimas ) , which was a serious mental disorder .","The applicant \u2019s medical record of DATE stated that her affect ( mental state ) was flat ( calm ) and stable ( afektas lygus , stabilus ) and that she was clearheaded . She had realistic and concrete plans for the future , had a critical attitude towards psychotic behaviour ( atsiradusi kritika psichoziniam elgesiui ) , and had promised to continue treatment as an outpatient .","On DATE , while the applicant was still being held in ORG , an episode of the ORG television programme was aired on the ORG national television channel . The channel made an announcement ( anonsas ) about the forthcoming broadcast in the following way :","\u201c R.S. [ journalist ] : a secret has been revealed ( demaskuota paslaptis ) . There is a centre which has not been registered anywhere and where the meditation practised is so powerful that to become a member you have to submit medical proof that you are not ill with HIV . ... After such meditation PERSON is DATE in a psychiatric hospital . Her mother is in tears ... \u201d","NORP The programme itself contained the following statements , including CARDINAL by doctor PERSON , head of division and a psychiatrist at ORG , who was interviewed by the journalist on what appeared to be the LOC of ORG :","\u201c PERSON [ journalist ] : PERSON is a woman who has had a management job all her life . ... PERSON has agreed to talk because what has happened is completely unexpected . The woman did not foresee disaster , she did not foresee how her older daughter , who is now an adult , the DATE PERSON , had been charmed and what she got herself involved with . \u201d","\u201c R.S. : The organisation we are talking about DATE has many secrets ... \u201d","\u201c Doctor PERSON : It does not appear that this young woman ( mergina ) would participate in orgies . She is not hypersexual , and , well , you know , as far as I have learned , she is of high morals and studied for DATE in GPE for a master \u2019s degree . \u201d","...","\u201c R.S. : We are meeting PERSON \u2019s mother and her DATE sister at GPE train station . The mother and her daughter came here by train from ORG , wishing to tell PERSON \u2019s story . They did not wish to meet in PERSON \u2019s home town ( gimtuosiuose namuose ) , ORG . They are afraid to hurt PERSON \u2019s father . He is seriously ill and it would be hard for him to accept ( i\u0161gyventi \u017eini\u0105 ) what has happened to his elder daughter . DATE , in the apartment in the capital where PERSON lives , the most horrible event in the young woman \u2019s life took place . PERSON suddenly had a complete nervous breakdown , acute psychosis . For PERSON \u2019s family , the reason for that psychosis is the influence of ORG . \u201d","The programme then discussed the activities of ORG in GPE . The journalist implied that the followers of PERSON in GPE held sex orgies . As to the applicant \u2019s identity , the journalist also mentioned that \u201c PERSON obtained a master \u2019s degree abroad , had an important job in State service ( dirbo atsaking\u0105 valstybin\u012f darb\u0105 ) \u201d and that the person was \u201c currently being treated at a psychiatric hospital \u201d . The programme included the following statements :","\u201c R.S. : PERSON \u2019s family state that DATE before the tragedy PERSON would meditate all day and practically not speak to anyone else . She is currently being treated in a psychiatric hospital . ... After DATE of meditation PERSON was placed in a psychiatric hospital , in a state of acute psychosis ( \u016bmios psichoz\u0117s b\u016bsenoje ) . \u201d","\u201c Doctor PERSON : They [ people belonging to sects ] do not talk about it at all . As far as I have heard , the teachings there [ at FAC ] take DATE , and enlightment happens or something of that kind . This takes place over DATE , something is being cleansed . She [ PERSON ] does not talk about that . She even says that she performs some kind of practice ( atlieka praktikas ) there ; she hides [ things ] . This is a common trait of members of sects , that they very much hide that fact . Or , if [ things ] come to light , they portray it as completely innocent . That is very common . \u201d","ORG , who according to the register of religious organisations in GPE is the \u201c leader \u201d and master ( lyderis ( meistras ) ) of ORG in GPE , stated during the broadcast that the applicant had been terrorised by her mother . The broadcast concluded with statements by the journalist and PERSON :","\u201c NORP : Maybe it is a coincidence , but a clear danger to PERSON \u2019s mental state appeared just after she had started meditating in accordance with PERSON teachings . The young woman will need a long and difficult course of medical treatment ( mergina dar ilgai ir sunkiai gydysis ) . The fact that she has only been in this [ ORG ] centre for DATE leads one to reflect on how the practices of ORG can affect someone who is constantly seeking to liberate their soul . \u201d","\u201c PERSON : Actually , there is a NORP atmosphere and a NORP resistance , maybe even a NORP resistance , against meditation , because there is no God in meditation ... \u201d","The applicant \u2019s mother and sister were shown during the programme and identified by their real first names as \u201c PERSON , PERSON \u2019s mother \u201d and \u201c PERSON , PERSON \u2019s sister \u201d . They made statements about the destructive influence that , in their view , ORG had had on the applicant .","On DATE on the internet site of ORG the applicant published a CARDINAL - page open letter to the journalists at GPE , signing it with her real name and surname . She expressed regret that the broadcast had not been an objective portrayal of her story . She stated that \u201c by using me , you have maybe created an interesting story , but it is very CARDINAL - sided . Maybe by unraveling ( narpliodamos ) the story through my mother you also wanted to protect me and sought to help me , but in reality your broadcast has caused me to feel much distrust and a lot of pain \u201d . The applicant then mentioned that she had previously been admitted to psychiatric institutions in DATE and DATE , emphasising that those CARDINAL periods had been unrelated to meditation . She also wrote that she had only started attending the Ojas Meditation Centre in DATE and that her emotional breakdown in DATE had had no connection to those visits . For the applicant , the GPE journalists had therefore given an unfair account of her story , and had shown bias by implying that her mental health issues had been caused by meditating at FAC . The applicant also stated that in DATE she had consulted several psychotherapists ( psichoterapeutai ) , who had helped her realise that her psychological problems had roots in her childhood , when she had been controlled by and had lived in fear of emotional and physical violence from her mother . Even at the time of writing there had been resistance and mockery from her family when the applicant had shared her new interests , such as yoga or meditation . The applicant also stated that she \u201c had not been put under a spell ( neap\u017eav\u0117jo ) \u201d by meditation . Instead , meditation had entered her life naturally as the result of a long and intense spiritual search . She continued :","\u201c Meditation for me is a way to learn about myself and the world , and on the basis of that understanding and by deepening it , to open myself to peace , joy , truth and love . DATE meditation for me is a means to reduce emotional , spiritual and psychological tension and stress , to understand the reasons behind unhappiness , including by learning how to avoid it . Meditation allows me to live a more conscious life ( s\u0105moningesnis ) and one which is full of joy . \u201d","The applicant also referred in the letter to her involuntary admission to ORG in DATE , where she had been taken by force and deceit , and where she had never agreed to be treated . She wrote that the psychiatrists had blindly believed her mother \u2019s stories and had diagnosed her as being under the influence of a sect ( sektanti\u0161kumas ) . That had led to the psychiatric treatment she had received being mainly directed at how to cure her from practising meditation ( pagydyti CARDINAL meditacijos ) in a hostile environment that had damaged her psychologically and emotionally . In particular , the psychiatrists at the hospital had interrogated her ( buvau kamantin\u0117jama ) about FAC and its practices , forced her to promise not to meditate , alleged that sex orgies had taken place there , that meditation was harmful for her mental health , that she should follow the NORP religion which is traditional in GPE and that meditation was not compatible with her \u201c social status \u201d . During CARDINAL visit ( vizitacija ) , a doctor had called her \u201c the CARDINAL from the FAC \u201d , rather than using her name . The applicant also wrote that when she had spoken about meditation at FAC doctor PERSON had simply made fun of it , had said that that was not meditation , and that the applicant knew nothing about what meditation actually was . The applicant had not been able to resist the psychiatrists at the hospital because refusing to talk to them or disagreeing with their statements about the Ojas Meditation Centre or their instructions to stop meditating had been treated as signs of mental illness . For that reason , the amount of medication at the hospital had not been reduced for a long time , strong drugs had been injected into her , and her release from hospital had been postponed . The applicant also noted that she had intended to submit a written statement to the hospital that she refused treatment , but she had been persuaded not to do so because the doctors had threatened that otherwise they would diagnose her problems in such a way that could later prevent her from getting a job .","The applicant concluded by noting that in DATE she had attended a session at FAC , and had finally been able to meditate and recover after DATE in ORG in a hostile environment that had harmed her mind and body . She saw meditation as means to live a more conscious and meaningful life .","In DATE the applicant sued ORG for compensation for non - pecuniary damage . She alleged : ( CARDINAL ) unlawful deprivation of liberty ; ( CARDINAL ) a violation of her right to a private life ; ( CARDINAL ) a violation of her right to freedom of religion ; ( CARDINAL ) a violation of her right to the inviolability of her body ; ( CARDINAL ) failure to provide proper medical care ; and ( CARDINAL ) a breach of her right to be properly informed about her diagnosis , methods of treatment and prognosis .","Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital responded by saying that on DATE the applicant had been involuntarily hospitalised since she had been in a state of acute psychosis and had posed a danger to herself and others . The hospital also submitted that the applicant had never complained in writing about being held unlawfully . The hospital argued that it had not disclosed any confidential information about the applicant , and that it could not be responsible for the actions of the applicant \u2019s mother and the way the PERSON broadcast had been presented . It added that the PERSON religious movement had been acting outside the law in DATE because it had only been registered in GPE as a religious movement on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Furthermore , the applicant had not proved that the hospital had had no reason to think that her non - traditional religious beliefs had been the reason behind her emotional outburst ( emocin\u0117s i\u0161krovos prie\u017eastis ) .","ORG ordered ORG at ORG to produce a report to answer certain questions regarding the applicant \u2019s medical condition and her admission to ORG DATE and DATE on the basis of her medical records . The forensic report was produced in DATE .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s action .","ORG noted at the outset that according to Articles DATE and CARDINAL of ORG a person could be placed in hospital without his or her consent if there was a clear and present danger of him or her harming themselves or others . Even then , a court order was needed within DATE to keep the person in hospital . Should a court refuse such an order , the forced hospitalisation and treatment had to be discontinued ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On the basis of the forensic expert report and other material , ORG firstly observed that the applicant had not actually denied that she might have required medical assistance on DATE because of her state of mind . However , the court found that as of CARDINAL DATE she had no longer been in need of medical support . That was confirmed by the applicant \u2019s medical file , where doctor PERSON had noted on DATE at CARDINAL TIME that \u201c the patient is responding to meaningful contact , is correctly orientated ( pacient\u0117 prieinama prasmingam kontaktui , orientuota teisingai ) \u201d . Also , at TIME on DATE , doctor ORG , the other psychiatrist treating her at ORG , had written that \u201c currently the patient is sleepy because of medication ... her mind is clear , she is well orientated when it comes to place and time ... currently the affect is flat ( pacient\u0117 \u0161.m . mieguista d\u0117l vaist\u0173 poveikio , s\u0105mon\u0117 ai\u0161ki , orientacija vietoje ir laike tiksli ... \u0161iuo metu afektas lygus ) \u201d . The court also based itself on the applicant \u2019s other medical records . All that meant that the applicant \u2019s state of health had no longer corresponded to that set down in DATE ORG to permit her further forced hospitalisation . Despite that , the applicant had been held against her will and treated at ORG until DATE , without the hospital ever asking for a court order . That had been in breach of the twoday time - limit set in LAW .","ORG also agreed with the applicant \u2019s argument that she had not been able to leave the hospital because she was under the influence of drugs , had faced a threat of being physically restrained if she disobeyed the doctors , and had been under a strict regime . The court noted that the requirement that a psychiatric patient should normally be able to express his or her consent to be hospitalised and treated had also been underlined by ORG .","ORG also observed that there was no written evidence that the applicant had ever agreed to be placed in ORG DATE and DATE . According to the forensic expert report , the applicant had not been able to understand her actions on CARDINAL DATE ; however , the experts had not reached the same conclusion about the period DATE and DATE . That notwithstanding , the applicant had been forced to stay in hospital for DATE for treatment . The court also emphasised that the patient was always the weaker party in relation to the hospital and its personnel . The hospital \u2019s argument that the applicant had agreed to stay by acquiescence was therefore null and void . The court also relied on doctor ORG \u2019s admission during court hearings that the applicant \u2019s life had \u201c not necessarily been in danger \u201d for all of DATE of treatment and to the same conclusion by the applicant \u2019s treating doctor ORG In fact , the records signed by doctor PERSON on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE stating that the applicant was being treated at the hospital had given CARDINAL side ( viena\u0161ali\u0161ki ) of the situation as they had not been countersigned by the applicant . In that context , the court also had regard to the applicant \u2019s explanation that because of the side effects of the medication ( sleepiness , inability to concentrate ) and the possibility of physical restraint ( being tied down ) in case of disobedience , she had not been able to express her disagreement about being treated at the hospital in writing . The court also considered that the consent given on DATE by the applicant \u2019s cousin , ORG , for the applicant to be put in hospital and treated could also not be considered as an act of agreement expressed by the applicant .","In the light of those factors , ORG concluded that the procedure set down in domestic law for forced admission to hospital and treatment had not only been breached in the applicant \u2019s case , but outright disregarded .","The applicant \u2019s mother also testified before ORG . She said that she had learned on DATE that the applicant was delirious and had asked ORG for help . That had led to the applicant being taken to ORG . The mother also said she had contacted ORG in GPE about her daughter , but had not received a constructive response . She had then contacted the journalists from GPE , because she had wished to find out what was happening to her daughter . She had not known what diagnosis the psychiatric hospital had given the applicant and had only told the GPE journalists which hospital her daughter was in .","Doctor PERSON testified that she was head of division ( skyriaus ved\u0117ja ) at ORG when the applicant had been treated there . She said that the journalists had not called her directly but that the hospital administration had informed her that they would come and had \u201c kind of stated that the talk would be about ORG \u201d . The doctor testified that she had \u201c not discussed [ the applicant \u2019s ] health \u201d with the journalists , only the Ojas Meditation Centre and meditation as such .","ORG then turned to the applicant \u2019s complaint of a breach of her right to privacy . Relying on Article CARDINAL of ORG and LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) , the court noted that \u201c there was evidence in the case - file ( byloje yra pateiktas \u012frodymas ) that doctor PERSON had , without obtaining the applicant \u2019s consent to disclose confidential information , revealed to the GPE journalists that the applicant had been diagnosed with acute psychosis ( \u016bmin\u0117 psichoz\u0117 ) , that she was being treated at ORG , and that she had studied in GPE \u201d . The interview with the doctor had been shown during the PERSON programme on DATE . The court noted that even in DATE ( \u0161iuo metu ) there were not many people in GPE who had studied in GPE and so that characteristic had not been very common . The court also considered that \u201c other information revealed to the journalists about the applicant could also allow the applicant \u2019s identity to be established \u201d , although the court did not specify what other information it meant .","The court then had regard to the applicant \u2019s complaint about freedom of religion by referring to LAW . It also relied on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The court found valid the applicant \u2019s complaints that the doctors had tried to dissuade ( atkalb\u0117ti ) her from meditating , attempted to alter her views on non - traditional meditation religion and had treated her against meditating and attending the Ojas Meditation Centre . That conclusion was based on the applicant \u2019s medical file , which contained the following records for CARDINAL May and DATE and DATE : \u201c ... absence of a critical attitude towards attending [ ORG \u201d ; \u201c during psycho - correction expressed opinion in categorical terms about attending FAC , argues , that \u2018 it is a personal LOC \u201d ; \u201c when efforts were made during psycho - correction to get the applicant to form a critical attitude ( suformuoti kritik\u0105 ) towards non - traditional religious beliefs , [ the applicant ] for a long time remained uncritical and also categorical \u201d . The first - instance court underlined the fact that the psychiatric hospital had not provided any proof of the suggestion that practising a non - traditional religion would place the applicant or others in danger . The court thus concluded that \u201c by attempting to alter the applicant \u2019s attitude to non - traditional religion , meditation , and their practice at FAC \u201d the hospital had breached her right to freedom of religion . Lastly , the court rejected as legally irrelevant the hospital \u2019s assertion that at the time of the applicant \u2019s admission to hospital the meditation centre had been operating \u201c unlawfully \u201d . ORG observed that the religious movement had been a party to court proceedings for its registration at the time and had been registered on CARDINAL DATE .","After finding that between CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant had been placed in hospital and given treatment against her will in breach of domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG considered that there had therefore been a breach of the applicant \u2019s right to the inviolability of her body . Furthermore , ORG had failed to prove that it had properly informed the applicant about her state of health , her diagnosis , the methods of treatment and the prognosis for her condition ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","However , ORG dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant \u2019s claims that she had been provided with inappropriate medical care at ORG and that the doctors there had forged her medical records .","ORG thus granted the applicant \u2019s civil claim in full and awarded her MONEY ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . She was also awarded legal costs of LTL MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital appealed . According to the hospital , there was no proof that doctor PERSON had disclosed confidential information about the applicant \u2019s acute psychosis and that she was being treated at the hospital . The doctor had merely given an opinion about an unidentified person . Moreover , the doctor had pointed out during the firstinstance hearings that she had only given her views when answering the questions the journalists had put to her . CARDINAL witnesses \u2013 the applicant \u2019s mother , sister and the journalist GPE \u2013 had explained during the firstinstance court \u2019s hearings that the television programme had been initiated by the applicant \u2019s relatives , who had provided information about the applicant . The first - instance court \u2019s reference to studies in GPE as a way of identifying someone was not sufficiently weighty either , and such information was not protected under LAW .","As to the applicant \u2019s right to freedom of religion , the hospital argued that the lower court had erred in equating meditation with religion . The fact that since DATE the applicant had attended meditation sessions of \u201c unknown origin and manner ( neai\u0161kios kilm\u0117s ir pob\u016bd\u017eio meditacijas ) \u201d and that they could have been CARDINAL of the reasons behind her illness , had not been denied . The hospital insisted that in DATE ORG had been operating outside the law . The hospital also relied on a CARDINAL DATE statement by ORG that PERSON movement centres did not have the status of a religion ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which supported the hospital \u2019s view that meditation was not a religious practice . Accordingly , the applicant \u2019s \u201c fictitious \u201d ( tariama ) religious freedom had not been breached .","The applicant responded by submitting that the right to privacy included the right not to have her health or other confidential information revealed to the journalists or her mother . The applicant added that when she had been in the psychiatric hospital , doctor PERSON had persistently asked about the meditation she practised and had spoken of it with contempt . Doctor PERSON would tenaciously try to persuade her to denounce her religion and give up meditation .","On DATE ORG upheld the hospital \u2019s appeal in part .","The appellate court upheld ORG finding that on the basis of her health on DATE the applicant had been lawfully placed in ORG . Her condition DATE had corresponded to the domestic legal requirements for involuntary hospitalisation ( see paragraph DATE below ) . However , the hospital had not provided any evidence that her treatment from CARDINAL May had been indispensable . It was therefore clear that as of that date her treatment at the hospital and her presence there had been involuntary and also amounted to an unlawful deprivation of liberty . ORG relied on ORG practice in case no . CARDINAL of DATE to the effect that it was obligatory to follow the procedure set out in LAW and CARDINAL of ORG , both when providing a patient with the necessary help ( b\u016btinoji pagalba ) and when placing that person in hospital without his or her consent . Under that procedure , it had been possible to place the applicant in hospital and treat her without her consent for no longer than TIME . Without a court order , the forced hospitalisation and forced treatment had to be discontinued . However , there was no information in the case file that such an order had been granted . To make matters worse , the hospital had never even asked the court for such an authorisation . ORG thus fully shared the lower court \u2019s view that legal procedures had been outright disregarded , making the applicant \u2019s stay in the hospital unlawful .","ORG noted that under LAW and LAW , patients had a right to have information about their health kept confidential ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It could not be disclosed by doctor in charge of treatment or by hospital administration .","That being so , ORG did not agree with the firstinstance court \u2019s conclusion that doctor PERSON \u2019s interview with the journalists , which had been shown during the television programme of DATE , had disclosed information that had revealed the applicant \u2019s identity . The appellate court relied on ORG ruling in case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , where it had found that in cases where there was no direct mention of a person in a publication , the process of identification was based on the aggregate evidence of the presence of features which could sufficiently describe the person in mind ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the particular case of the applicant , ORG also referred to her open letter of DATE to the GPE journalists ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , where she had acknowledged that the television broadcast had been instigated by members of her family , that she had not been shown in the programme in person , and that she had been given a different name . ORG considered that the fact that the main character of the programme ( laidos heroj\u0117 ) had studied in GPE was not sufficient to establish that the programme was about the applicant . As the applicant had not established that the information disclosed during the broadcast had allowed her to be identified , her claim for breach of privacy had to be dismissed .","Lastly , the appellate court rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that her privacy had been breached because confidential information had been given to her mother . The applicant had been treated earlier in psychiatric institutions in GPE and ORG because of mental health problems and her mother had been aware of those previous periods in hospital . Moreover , providing information to close relatives about the applicant \u2019s health could not be regarded as a breach of her right to privacy .","ORG noted that the right to freedom of religion had been enshrined in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW . It also noted that LAW , people in hospital had the right to perform religious rites . That right could be restricted by a psychiatrist \u2019s decision only if there was a clear danger to the patient or others , and such restrictions had to be recorded in the patient \u2019s medical file ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On the facts of the case , ORG disagreed with the lower court \u2019s conclusion that there had been a breach of the applicant \u2019s right to freedom of religion while she was in ORG . For ORG , there was no evidence in the file that the applicant had been forbidden from performing religious rites . Even though the medical records showed ( ORG matyti ) that her doctors had tried to get the applicant to form a critical attitude towards her religious convictions ( religinius \u012fsitikinimus ) , there was no information that any restrictions had been applied to her . ORG found that \u201c the ORG attempts to get the applicant to form a critical attitude towards her religious convictions did not mean that [ the applicant \u2019s ] religious freedom had been breached \u201d .","ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s findings that there was no proof that the applicant had received inappropriate medical treatment . It also shared the lower court \u2019s conclusion that ORG had not properly informed the applicant about the treatment she received therein .","Having dismissed part of the applicant \u2019s complaints , ORG lowered the award for non - pecuniary damage to LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The applicant was also ordered to pay ORG legal costs of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . Lastly , the appellate court quashed the part of the first - instance decision on the applicant \u2019s costs being paid by the hospital so she had to bear the legal costs herself .","On DATE the applicant submitted an appeal on points of law . She argued that the lower courts had failed to properly apply Convention norms on the right to privacy and freedom of religion .","By a ruling of DATE ORG refused to admit the appeal for examination , holding that the applicant \u2019s arguments were not sufficient to merit examination .","On DATE the ORG applied to ORG to be registered as a religious community .","On DATE ORG rejected the application because it considered that although the ORG was on the \u201c border between self - help psychology and religion ( egzistuojantis savipagalbos psichologijos ir religijos paribyje ) \u201d , it should not be treated as a religious community . Even though the PERSON teachings mentioned in ORG by - laws were called religious , meditation there was more based on esoteric doctrines of self - improvement than on a religious practice whose main feature was connecting with God , gods or other sacred forms . ORG also noted that PERSON movements did not have the status of a religion in western LOC countries .","The Ojas Meditation Centre then started court proceedings . Its action was eventually granted by ORG on DATE . The court found no evidence that ORG propagated any controversial practices amongst its members . It was registered as a religious community ( religin\u0117 bendruomen\u0117 ) on DATE ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","In her observations sent to ORG on DATE , the applicant stated that she had continued to DATE to practise meditation at FAC ."],"violated_articles":["8","9"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1","9-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150781","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF APOSTU v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Just satisfaction dismissed (out of time) (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","The Anti - Corruption Department of ORG ( \u201c the DNA \u201d ) started a criminal investigation against the applicant , his wife and CARDINAL businessmen on suspicion of repeated corruption offences committed in his capacity as mayor of PERSON .","NORP The prosecutor sought authorisation for the interception of the applicant \u2019s telephone calls . The transcripts of the intercepted telephone calls were admitted as evidence against the applicant .","On DATE police officers belonging to the DNA carried out a search at the applicant \u2019s home . They carried out another search at the applicant \u2019s office at ORG .","The applicant was taken to the DNA \u2019s GPE headquarters on the basis of a summons to appear before the investigative body .","Newspaper and television crews were present and the events were given widespread media coverage .","At TIME on DATE the prosecutor ordered the applicant \u2019s remand in custody .","The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was ordered by an interlocutory judgment delivered DATE by ORG . The court reasoned that it was necessary to stop the criminal activity of the applicant , who was allegedly preparing to commit a new corruption offence . The court also referred to the seriousness and the continuous nature of the offences . It stressed that the applicant had acted in his capacity as mayor when he had allegedly committed the offences . It concluded that the public would be shocked if the applicant were to be released . In assessing the concrete danger to public order if the applicant were released from detention , the court stressed that the offences had allegedly been committed over a long period of time ( starting in DATE , when he had been appointed mayor , until the time of his arrest ) , that they were repetitive and that the perpetrator was a mayor in charge of protecting legal order . The court pointed out that as the applicant \u2019s wife was under investigation , the applicant having used her law firm to cash the money received as bribes , his release from prison would allow him to influence her position . It concluded that his release from detention would intimidate other persons in possession of information relevant for the investigation .","The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG and ORG upheld the above judgment , holding that there were strong indications from the criminal investigation file that the accused had committed the crimes .","The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was regularly extended by interlocutory judgments of ORG .","The court reasoned that the extensions were justified on account of the nature and severity of the offences for which the applicant was under investigation , and the fact that he might obstruct the course of justice by intimidating possible witnesses and the persons who had lodged complaints against him .","The applicant lodged appeals against the interlocutory judgments ; all the appeals were dismissed by final decisions of ORG and ORG .","The applicant lodged several applications for his release from prison under judicial supervision . He mainly emphasised that he had a stable family , CARDINAL minor children and an unblemished reputation . He also pointed out that he had been accused of non - violent crimes and had no criminal record .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s requests on the grounds that the evidence in the file pointed to a strong likelihood that he had committed the corruption - related offences . It held that such offences might attract a prison sentence longer than DATE . It also held that releasing the applicant would give rise to a real danger to public order , given the circumstances in which the acts had been committed , and their consequences and social impact .","The applicant appealed , pointing out that his personal situation had changed , in that he was no longer the mayor of GPE . The appeal court \u2019s decisions were upheld by ORG and ORG .","On DATE the investigation against the applicant was extended in connection with other offences allegedly committed by him , namely trading in influence , complicity in and incitement to money laundering , and complicity in and incitement to forgery .","On DATE the prosecutor issued an indictment concerning CARDINAL co - accused , including the applicant and his wife , and the case was registered with ORG . The applicant was charged with passive corruption , and repeated complicity in and incitement to money laundering and forgery .","Following a request lodged by the applicant , ORG and ORG decided on DATE to transfer the file to ORG in order to avoid any possible partiality on the part of the judges .","According to the latest information , the criminal proceedings are still pending .","Excerpts from conversations between the applicant and other defendants or third parties , which had been obtained through telephone tapping during a criminal surveillance operation conducted prior to the criminal prosecution , were subsequently published in several newspapers before the applicant and his co - accused had been committed for trial .","Even the headlines of the articles published in the press during that period referred to the fact that they contained excerpts of the recorded conversations . Thus on DATE , the newspaper GPE zilei published an article with the headline , \u201c Exclusive : Shocking revelations in the PERSON file . The names of all the persons under investigation and new excerpts from the telephone conversations . Evidence that PERSON received clothes as a bribe \u201d ( Exclusiv : PERSON tari din PERSON . PERSON mari : numele tuturor celor cerceta\u021bi \u0219i intercept\u0103ri noi . Dovada c\u0103 PERSON lua \u0219pag\u0103 \u00een haine ) .","On DATE the newspaper ORG published an article with the headline , \u201c Excerpts of intercepted phone conversations : PERSON , the mayor of GPE , acknowledged that he had at home CARDINAL telephones with pre - paid cards , in order not to be intercepted \u201d ( Stenograme : PERSON , primarul GPE , recunoa\u0219te c\u0103 avea \u00een cas\u0103 trei telefoane cu cartele prepl\u0103tite , ca s\u0103 nu poat\u0103 fi interceptate ) .","On DATE another article containing excerpts of the applicant \u2019s recorded telephone conversations was published on the website of the newspaper ORG . It started with the following statement : \u201c Pure coincidence , the excerpts of the telephone conversations offered for publication in the investigation of mayor PERSON for corruptionrelated offences stops , with suspense , exactly when the NORP Prime Minister enters the scene \u201d .","The publication of excerpts from the applicant \u2019s recorded telephone conversations continued after the applicant had been committed for trial .","Other pieces of evidence from the prosecution file were likewise published and commented on in the press . On DATE the newspaper ORG published an article with the headline , \u201c ORG document . The reasoning of the interlocutory judgment ordering the pretrial detention of mayor PERSON and businessman PERSON \u201d ( Document integral . PERSON sentin\u021bei de arestare a primarului PERSON \u0219i a omului de afaceri C. S. ) .","Several press articles contained excerpts of telephone conversations between the applicant and persons not involved in the criminal proceedings . On DATE ORG published an article with the headline , \u201c Interception . CARDINAL - way conversation : businessman PERSON , mayor PERSON and driver J. \u201d","Many of the press articles referred to aspects of the applicant \u2019s private life without any connection to the criminal proceedings instituted against him . They were based on information found in his criminal file . On DATE the newspaper ORG published an article with the headline , \u201c PERSON details from the private life of mayor PERSON ! The mayor of GPE , romance with a subordinate \u201d . DATE , on DATE , the DATE newspaper GPE zilei published an article about a search carried out at the home of the mayor \u2019s subordinate with the headline , \u201c Bombshell in the \u2018 ORG file : TIME search at home of his supposed sweetheart \u201d .","The applicant was detained in the detention facility of GPE police station between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , except for CARDINAL short periods ( from DATE and from CARDINAL to DATE ) when he was detained in the GPE central remand facility on account of his presence before ORG and ORG .","ORG The applicant claimed that he had been detained in a small cell measuring CARDINAL sq m with CARDINAL tiers of bunk beds . Access to a toilet was very difficult as the toilets were in the corridor . The cell lacked natural light and ventilation and the smells from the sewage system were noxious .","The applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY , and in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY The first cell had CARDINAL metal beds , foam mattresses , bedrolls , CARDINAL metallic nightstands , a table and CARDINAL chairs . The second cell had CARDINAL metal beds and was similarly furnished . The applicant was detained alone in both cells . Moreover , he was allowed to keep a television set in the cell .","The cells had natural and artificial light , and the applicant was allowed to use an extra lamp to improve the lighting . The cells were ventilated through windows covered with wire netting .","The sanitary facilities and the showers were in the corridor . The applicant had permanent access to the sanitary facilities and to the showers during daylight hours , whenever he requested it .","The time spent outside the cells was TIME .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC . He was detained there for the following periods :"],"violated_articles":["3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157399","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF D\u0130L\u0130PAK v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a professional writer and journalist , and states that he is a human rights activist .","He published an article on the front page of issue CARDINAL of the DATE magazine T\u00fcrkiye\u2019de PERSON ( \u201c DATE in GPE \u201d ) , which came out on DATE . His article , which was entitled \u201c If the pashas [ the generals ] refuse to obey \u201d , contained criticisms of high - ranking officers who were about to retire . He hinted that some generals in the armed forces were wo nt to sound false alarms concerning an alleged advance of fundamentalism and anti - secularism , which they then used as a pretext for interfering in the country \u2019s general politics , and that they appeared to have links with certain business circles , the media , senior civil servants and even the ORG , endeavouring to create a political atmosphere that tallied with their worldview . He suggested that the high - ranking officers in question should set up a political party on retirement and present their political projects to the people , instead of \u201c deciding on the future of the nation on their own , in the name of the nation \u201d . He added that in his view the army generals who he claimed were interfering in the country \u2019s general politics were far removed from social realities and that in their approach to social affairs they lacked any empathy with and sensitivity towards the various social strata .","By an indictment of DATE , ORG with ORG in GPE applied to ORG within that ORG for the applicant \u2019s prosecution under LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , which , in the ORG \u2019s view , penalised acts vis - \u00e0 - vis high - ranking military officers geared to damaging hierarchical relations within the army and undermining confidence in commanding officers .","The applicant submitted an objection as to the jurisdiction of ORG to try him , on the grounds of his civilian status and relying on the LAW and his right to freedom of expression .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declined jurisdiction in favour of ORG on the grounds that the offence at issue was not military in nature and the applicant should be tried by the non - military courts for denigration of the ORG armed forces , which offence was punishable under LAW . ORG noted that by claiming that the armed forces were led by commanding officers who appeared to have links with certain business circles and even the ORG , and to be far removed from social realities , the applicant had tarnished the image of the whole armed forces . It emphasised that the commanding officers who had been criticised were plenipotentiary representatives of the armed forces empowered to act on behalf of the latter .","On DATE the commanding officer of ORG lodged an appeal on points of law against the aforementioned decision to decline jurisdiction . He submitted that the impugned article constituted an act which had to be assessed under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . He argued that the military criminal provision in question constituted a lex specialis vis - \u00e0 - vis LAW .","The Military Prosecutor also lodged an appeal on points of law on the same grounds , submitting that ORG should have jurisdiction to adjudicate the case , and that the applicant had not targeted all the armed forces but had undeniably tarnished the image of CARDINAL Generals , which was liable to undermine the confidence of the rank - and - file in these officers and thus damage hierarchical relations within the armed forces .","The applicant was not apprised of the appeals on points of law lodged by the commanding officer and ORG , both of which were added to the case file .","On DATE ORG , which assessed the appeals on points of law , quashed the decision declining jurisdiction and referred the case back to ORG . In its reasoning ORG mentioned the need to reclassify the facts and to assess them under LAW . It specified that the provisions of LAW and ( the former ) LAW shared the same substantive and moral elements , but differed in providing protection for individuals ( LAW ) and the Institution itself ( LAW , respectively . ORG held that even though the applicant \u2019s article had comprised elements of both the aforementioned criminal offences , the general tenor of the impugned article had apparently concentrated on the behaviour of CARDINAL specific Generals rather than the overall armed forces . Therefore , the accusation that the officers were disobedient , that is to say that they lacked discipline , was liable to undermine the lower ranks\u2019 confidence in them and thus damage hierarchical relations within the armed forces .","By a judgment of DATE ORG , having reconsidered the case , once again decline jurisdiction in favour of the non - military courts . It stated that new legislation on the press attributed to the non - military criminal courts jurisdiction to hear and determine offences committed via the press and specified that such offences no longer came under special legislation .","On DATE the commanding officer of ORG lodged a fresh appeal on points of law against ORG decision declining jurisdiction . He pointed out that the CARDINAL DATE judgment of ORG had been delivered after the amendment to the legislation in question and that the provisions of LAW ( Law No . CARDINAL ) enabling civilians to be tried by military courts had not been amended .","While the case was still pending before ORG , Law No . CARDINAL of DATE made a series of amendments to LAW , inter alia abolishing military court jurisdiction for trying civilians for offences such as those with which the applicant was charged . The Prosecutor with ORG therefore referred the applicant \u2019s file to ORG , accompanied by an opinion to the effect that the military courts had no jurisdiction in such matters .","By a judgment of DATE the military court once again decline jurisdiction and referred the case to ORG .","Meanwhile , following the merger of the Ba\u011fc\u0131lar and PERSON judicial districts , the case was referred to ORG . By a judgment of DATE , the latter court declined jurisdiction and referred the case to the ORG , which held jurisdiction for offences committed via the press . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG referred the case to the Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y CARDINALth ORG on the grounds that that court was the former ORG . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the Bak\u0131rk\u00f6y CARDINALth ORG referred a jurisdictional dispute to ORG . Finally , ORG decided in favour of the ORG in the jurisdictional dispute , and referred the case to that court .","By a judgment of DATE the PERSON CARDINALnd criminal court declared the proceedings statute - barred under LAW .","..."],"violated_articles":["10","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180306","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00dc\u00c7 v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant , a caretaker employed at ORG ( Halk E\u011fitim Merkezi ) in GPE , was taken into police custody on suspicion of child molestation , after being caught in an allegedly indecent position with X. , a DATE pupil at the primary school located in the same building as the Public Education Centre .","On DATE ORG lodged an indictment with ORG , charging the applicant with the sexual abuse , sexual assault and unlawful detention of a minor , pursuant to ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( f ) ( CARDINAL ) and QUANTITY ( a ) of LAW .","During the ensuing criminal proceedings , ORG heard statements from the applicant , the parents of X. , the psychiatrist who had interviewed the girl after the incident , and the teachers and personnel at ORG and the neighbouring primary school , including the teacher PERSON , who was the sole eyewitness to the incident . Denying the allegations against him , the applicant stated that on TIME in question , he had entered one of the classrooms in the building for cleaning purposes , where the alleged victim was already present with another pupil . While he was busy cleaning , X. had asked for a simit ( a type of bread roll ) and had attempted to hug him , as a result of which gesture he had lost his balance and fallen onto a desk with X. It was at that point that the teacher PERSON had entered the classroom .","E.U. , on the other hand , testified before the trial court that as she opened the door of the classroom in question , she saw the applicant sitting on a desk in the dark with his legs apart , hugging X. who was sitting on his lap , facing the blackboard . Within TIME , upon seeing her , the applicant threw X. away in panic . PERSON stated that while she had never witnessed similar behaviour by the applicant before , the scene she had seen on DATE in question looked suspicious . She also confirmed that there was another pupil in the classroom at the time .","S.P. , who worked in the same primary school and was also the uncle of X. \u2019s mother , asserted before the court that although he had never witnessed any suspicious behaviour on the part of the applicant , he had heard a colleague , PERSON , say that the applicant had engaged in indecent behaviour towards some pupils at the school where he had worked previously . However , PERSON , who was the deputy principal at the applicant \u2019s previous school , denied giving PERSON any such information concerning the applicant or hearing any adverse rumours or complaints about him for that matter .","X. \u2019s father alleged that according to the information he had received from PERSON and PERSON respectively an employee and the manager at ORG \u2012 the applicant had been dismissed from his previous job for similar behaviour . PERSON denied this allegation , but PERSON confirmed that the above - mentioned PERSON had given him this information , although he himself had never witnessed any indecent behaviour by the applicant .","Another witness , ORG , confirmed that the applicant had apologised to him following the incident . There is no information in the case - file as to the exact content of this apology .","NORP The psychiatrist who interviewed X. after the incident reported that the latter lacked the mental capacity to comprehend and recount what might have taken place on the relevant day and , for that reason , it would be futile , and possibly harmful for her well - being , for the trial court to question her .","On the basis of all the evidence before it , on DATE ORG Instance ordered the applicant \u2019s acquittal , holding that it was not possible to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that he had committed the sexual acts forming the basis of the charge . The court observed that the statements of the sole eyewitness were contradictory in parts and that they included her personal interpretation of what had actually taken place on the relevant TIME . It added that , despite PERSON \u2019s allegation that the applicant had thrown X. to CARDINAL side upon her entry in the room , no wounds or bruises had been detected on the girl \u2019s body .","On DATE the acquittal judgment became final in the absence of any appeal .","Parallel to the criminal proceedings pending before ORG , a disciplinary investigation was conducted against the applicant in relation to allegations of harassment .","The disciplinary investigation was carried out by CARDINAL inspectors who took statements from X. \u2019s father , from GPE , the manager of ORG , from GPE , a teacher at the primary school , from ORG , the principal of the primary school , and from the applicant , who was being held in detention in relation to the criminal proceedings at the time . The inspectors also took CARDINAL separate statements from the sole eyewitness , the teacher PERSON , under oath and took into account a report from the guidance counsellors of the primary school regarding the psychological and physical development of the minor X. That report , dated DATE , described the physical and social developmental attributes of the girl as weak and very timid , respectively . The medical diagnosis was stated as autism .","The investigation report which was issued at the end of the disciplinary investigation on DATE found the allegations of harassment against the applicant to be well - founded and recommended the dismissal of the applicant from the civil service on the grounds that his conduct constituted \u201c shameful and disgraceful conduct incompatible with the civil service \u201d as provided under section CARDINAL \u00a7 E ( g ) of Law no . CARDINAL . In coming to this conclusion , the inspectors noted the following :","\u201c ... The eyewitness , GPE , reported having seen the applicant in a position which made her suspect that he had been in the course of sexually harassing the student , [ X. ] She explained that the following facts \u2012 in particular , the room being dark as a result of the lights having been turned off , the applicant sitting at the desk right next to the door with his legs open with the minor on his lap and the desk in front having been pushed further away , coupled with the fact that he had been caressing the body of the minor and holding her tight around her waist \u2012 had led her to conclude that [ the applicant ] had been attempting to harass her . [ She stated that ] what she witnessed did not look like a regular display of affection and when she had entered the room , he had thrown the child off him in panic . In his statement , [ the applicant ] stated that the minor had attempted to hug him while he was cleaning the floor and that , as a result of that gesture he had lost his balance and the minor had sat on his lap . He added that when GPE entered the room , he was trying to get the minor off him . [ The applicant \u2019s ] statement that he had fallen onto a desk with the minor as a result of the latter trying to hug him corroborates PERSON \u2019s version of the events . However , the part about him having lost his balance as a result of the minor \u2019s attempt to hug him would be quite unusual given the physical attributes of the minor in question . Moreover , the consistent statements of GPE , taken under oath , who as a mother and an educator seems to have suffered a great deal of emotional distress from these events , give the impression that the allegations against the applicant are well - founded .","[ ... ]","The event has shocked and distressed the town community as well as the school ... The severity of this event is further exacerbated by the fact that the student in question is a mentally disabled child , ... unable to express or defend herself ... This is a disgraceful thing for a civil servant . [ The event ] has also given rise to a criminal investigation instigated by ORG office where [ the applicant ] , is accused of sexually abusing a minor who was born on [ ... ] DATE and who was unable to defend herself due to her mental incapacity , and to the remanding in custody of [ the applicant ] .","... we are of the opinion that [ the applicant ] has harassed [ X. ] and that this conduct , which is proven , falls under situations provided for in LAW \u00a7 E ( g ) of law no . CARDINAL , that is to say , \u201c shameful and disgraceful conduct that is incompatible with the civil service \u201d .","On DATE the applicant submitted his written defence to ORG of ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . He requested at the outset that the investigation be postponed until the criminal proceedings against him on the same allegations had been finalised . Furthermore , denying all accusations , he challenged PERSON \u2019s statements as being wholly subjective and distorting the facts , bearing particularly in mind that the whole incident had taken place within DATE , as she too had acknowledged , which did not realistically allow her to make the detailed observations that she had recounted to the authorities . He added that it was not logical that he would have committed the alleged act in the presence of another pupil in the classroom right before the start of the classes .","On DATE ORG issued the following decision in relation to the applicant , in so far as relevant :","\u201c Upon examination of the file ... and of the defence statement duly taken [ from the applicant ] , the following has been decided :","On the basis of the information and documents in the file , the veracity of the act [ harassment of X. ] attributed to the applicant has been conclusively established ... For this reason , it has been decided unanimously to accept the proposal to dismiss the applicant from the civil service in accordance with section CARDINAL \u00a7 E ( g ) of the PERSON no . MONEY [ on ORG ] , ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant objected to ORG decision before ORG . The applicant argued that his dismissal on the basis of a finding that he had committed the act of sexual harassment of a minor , which is a criminal act , while criminal proceedings were still pending in respect of that self - same allegation violated his right to the presumption of innocence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection on the following grounds :","\u201c The case concerns the dismissal of the [ applicant , ] , who worked as a caretaker , on the basis of the allegations that he harassed [ X. ] on the premises of the primary school .","Section CARDINAL E - g of Law no . CARDINAL provides that shameful and disgraceful conduct that is incompatible with the civil service requires dismissal from the civil service .","Section CARDINAL of the same PERSON also provides that the commencement of criminal proceedings against a civil servant shall not suspend disciplinary proceedings arising out of the same facts and that acquittal or conviction in the criminal proceedings shall not prevent the execution of disciplinary sanctions . \u201d","[ ... ]","Although it has been argued that the sole eyewitness \u2019s version of the events can not be taken as a conclusive basis on which to deem that the applicant committed the act imputed to him , on the basis of the evidence in the case - file and in consideration of the position in which the applicant was found in the classroom , as well as the fact that the classroom \u2019s door had been shut and the lights had been turned off and the room was therefore dark as it was also very early in the morning and it was raining [ ... ] , having further regard to the statement by the principal of the neighbouring primary school , ORG , during the criminal proceedings acknowledging that the applicant had apologised to him after the incident and that he had also heard rumours about the applicant \u2019s similar indecent behaviour in other schools where he had previously worked , the applicant \u2019s argument has not been found to be credible .","NORP This statement by ORG , referred to in the ORG judgment , is not mentioned in the judgment of ORG .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of ORG , which he considered to be based on groundless accusations . He argued firstly that , in circumstances where the act forming the basis of criminal and disciplinary investigations was one and the same , the criminal proceedings would be better placed to shed light on the circumstances and to arrive at an accurate conclusion regarding the facts than would be those of the disciplinary bodies , whose findings would be at best hypothetical . He pointed out that the administrative court had ignored the presence of another pupil in the classroom at the time of the incident , as well as his explanation that the door had been shut as a result of the draught from the open window . The administrative court had similarly overlooked his service record ( sicil dosyas\u0131 ) and the fact that it made no mention of any allegations of misconduct in his previous post , which would be unimaginable if he had really been dismissed from that post for indecent behaviour . He also referred in this connection to the statements of GPE , the deputy principal at the previous school , denying any such allegations of indecent behaviour .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , endorsing the first - instance court \u2019s reasoning and not mentioning the acquittal judgment which had been delivered by ORG in the meantime .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s rectification request .","On DATE , that is to say after lodging his complaint with the ORG , the applicant brought proceedings against ORG and requested the reopening of the proceedings concerning his dismissal from the civil service . The applicant relied on ORG final judgment of DATE , which acquitted him of the charges of sexual abuse , sexual assault and the unlawful detention of a minor , and argued before ORG that his right to the presumption of innocence had been violated in the course of the dismissal proceedings because he had been dismissed on the basis of allegations that he had committed offences in respect of which the criminal proceedings had not yet become final . On DATE , ORG dismissed the case , holding that the arguments put forward by the applicant for reopening proceedings did not fall within the exhaustive list of permissible grounds for this extraordinary remedy .","In their observations on DATE , the Government informed the ORG that appeal proceedings were pending before ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-162703","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"PETOLAS v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , an advocate practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant and his wife moved into a socially - owned flat in GPE with a floor area of QUANTITY .","On DATE the company S. , as the flat provider , invited the applicant to come to its offices with a view to signing a contract for use of the flat ( ugovor o kori\u0161tenju stana ) and to bring along the decision whereby he had been assigned the flat in question .","On DATE the applicant was summoned to the offices of ORG of ORG ( Op\u0107ina Novi GPE ) for the same reason .","NORP Since the applicant had failed to react to either of those requests , on DATE ORG ( which was later succeeded by GPE [ Grad GPE ] , hereafter \u201c the local authorities \u201d ) , represented by ORG , brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking eviction of the applicant and his wife on the grounds that they had been occupying the flat without being entitled to do so .","The applicant submitted that he had received the keys to the flat from company LOC , on whose waiting list for housing he had figured for DATE . He had moved into the flat at the same time as the other tenants had moved into their flats located in the same building . He claimed to have signed several copies of the contract with company S. for use of the flat , on which occasion he had been told that CARDINAL of the copies would be sent to him by post . However , he had never received it . Over a period of DATE he had several times enquired of the company if he might obtain a copy of the contract , but had been told that it had been misplaced . The company had later been dissolved without him ever receiving his copy . Since he had already signed the relevant contract , as explained above , he did not wish to sign another and had thus ignored both the above - mentioned requests .","In answer to the question why he had not paid any rent until he was eventually sued , the applicant replied that he had done so retrospectively .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the applicant and his wife to vacate the flat . The court held that they had no right to occupy the flat in question . More specifically , the court held that ( a ) under the relevant legislation a written contract for use of a flat needed to be signed in order to acquire a specially protected tenancy ( see section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW in paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ( b ) it was against the law to move in to and occupy a flat without having signed such a contract beforehand ( see section CARDINAL of LAW in paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and ( c ) the applicant had not proved that he had ever signed such a contract .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( ORG ) dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld the first - instance judgment , endorsing the reasons given therein . It added that the applicant had never submitted the decision assigning him the flat in question , which was a precondition for concluding the contract for use of the flat ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW in paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) allowed an appeal from the applicant on points of law ( revizija ) , quashed the judgments of the lower courts and remitted the case to the first - instance court . That court held that the lower courts had failed to examine whether the applicant and his wife had acquired a specially protected tenancy by virtue of their long - term use of the flat , that is to say , by complying for DATE with their obligations as tenants , which would have implied that there was a contract for use of the flat even though it had not been concluded in writing ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c [ The factual ] findings of the [ lower ] courts are deficient to ... [ the ] extent that they ... do not [ provide ] sufficient [ grounds ] for concluding that the defendants have been using the flat without being entitled to do so .","It is true that the existence of a written contract for use of the flat was not established . However , circumstances may suggest that such a contract existed even though not in written form . In such cases , which entail compliance [ by the occupier ] with contractual obligations for DATE , [ in particular where the occupier ] behaves like [ a tenant ] and pays the rent ... it is possible to acknowledge status as the holder of a specially protected tenancy in respect of a person who has occupied a flat on the basis of a contract of use for the [ said ] flat for DATE ( in this case DATE ) despite the non - existence of such a contract concluded in writing . \u201d","In the resumed proceedings , at a hearing held on DATE the local authorities withdrew their civil action in so far as it was directed against the applicant \u2019s wife , who had ceased to live in the flat after the couple divorced .","By its judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the action by the local authorities . On DATE the GPE ORG quashed that judgment for incompleteness of facts and remitted the case to the lower court .","On DATE ORG entered into force . It abolished the legal concept of the specially protected tenancy and provided that the holders of such tenancies who did not avail themselves of the right to purchase the flats under separate legislation were to become \u201c protected lessees \u201d ( za\u0161ti\u0107eni najmoprimci ) . Under the Act such lessees enjoy a number of protective measures , such as the duty of landlords to enter into a lease of indefinite duration , payment of a protected rent ( za\u0161ti\u0107ena najamnina ) \u2012 the amount of which is set by the Government and significantly lower than the market rent \u2012 and better protection against termination of the lease .","In its judgment of DATE ORG ruled in favour of the local authorities and ordered the applicant to vacate the flat . Following an appeal by the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case .","In the resumed proceedings , at a hearing held on DATE the applicant submitted a copy of the contract for use of the flat he had allegedly signed on DATE , claiming that he had found it in the meantime . He asked the court to allow him to submit the original at DATE .","At the same hearing the applicant , relying on ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , also brought a counterclaim against the local authorities ( the details of which he provided later ) whereby he sought a judgment ( a ) acknowledging that he had acquired the status of a protected lessee , and ( b ) forcing a lease contract stipulating the protected rent .","At a hearing held on DATE the court invited the applicant to bring to the next hearing , scheduled for DATE , the original of the contract of CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant did not attend in person the hearing held on DATE nor did he submit the original of the contract , as requested by the court .","At a hearing held on DATE the applicant \u2019s representative stated that the applicant was unable to find the original of the contract . He explained that a friend of his from GPE had only recently found the copy of the contract and sent it to him . However , he had not found the original . The applicant \u2019s representative therefore asked the court to adjourn the hearing and allow him additional time to find it . After hearing the applicant , the court refused that request and closed the main hearing . During his testimony the applicant explained that after DATE he had been persecuted as a NORP nationalist and that criminal proceedings had been instituted against him . In those proceedings he had been represented by an advocate from GPE who had in the meantime died . Because he had not felt safe in GPE , he had transferred all his important personal documents , including the contract in question , to that advocate for safekeeping . That was the reason why he could not find the copy of the contract earlier , and why he had been unable to find the original thus far .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( a ) ordered the applicant to vacate the flat , ( b ) dismissed his counterclaim , and ( c ) ordered him to pay MONEY ( HRK ) for the costs of the proceedings . That court held that the applicant had not proved he had ever concluded a written contract for use of the flat . In particular , the court held as follows :","\u201c It follows ... that the plaintiff proved facts on the basis of which its ownership of the flat at issue may be presumed in terms of section CARDINAL of the [ DATE ] LAW . It has also proved that its right to possess the flat is stronger ( in terms of CARDINAL of the [ DATE ] LAW , which was in force at the time of the institution of these proceedings ) than that of the defendant , in respect of whom this court ... finds that his use of the flat at issue has been without such entitlement . ...","... The defendant did not succeed in proving during the proceedings ... that he had moved into the flat at issue [ on DATE ] on the basis of any valid legal right to do so ... Furthermore , in this court \u2019s view , the defendant did not succeed in proving his arguments [ to the effect that he had ] subsequently [ on DATE ] signed a written contract for use of the flat [ and thereby obtained ] valid legal status as the holder of a specially protected tenancy in terms of section CARDINAL read in conjunction with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ DATE ] Housing Act , which was in force at the [ relevant ] time .","In particular , the copy of the alleged \u2018 Contract for use of a flat of CARDINAL DATE TIME , which ... the applicant did not submit until the hearing held on DATE , can not in the view of this court be regarded as valid evidence [ that there was ] a written contract for use of the flat at issue , given that the plaintiff disputed the authenticity of the said document , and the fact that the defendant had still not , by the time the main hearing was closed , submitted the original of the document in question despite being invited by the court to do so .","It is to be noted that at the hearing held on DATE this court refused the defendant \u2019s request to allow him additional time to submit the original of the impugned contract . [ The court did so because ] it found that the proposal was aimed at protracting the proceedings in this case and found unconvincing the defendant \u2019s explanation that he had managed to find the impugned contract at DATE ( that is to say , DATE after the institution of these proceedings ) and that the original is with an unnamed friend of his in GPE , who is unable to find it at this time .","The court did not give credence to the defendant \u2019s testimony stating that he had ... signed the ... contract for use of the flat of CARDINAL DATE on the premises of company S. , but that he had lost it after transferring all his personal documentation to an unnamed advocate in GPE , having been persecuted as a NORP nationalist from DATE . [ The court ] finds such testimony unconvincing and illogical , and contradictory of other evidence taken during these proceedings . \u201d","On the question of whether the applicant had acquired a specially protected tenancy on the basis of his long - term use of the flat , the court held as follows :","\u201c Even though under the former LAW a specially protected tenancy could exceptionally have been recognised in cases where there was no written contract for use of a flat , that was possible only in cases where the long - term occupation , combined with compliance with all the obligations incumbent on the holder of a specially protected tenancy , was the result of an agreement between the provider of the flat and the person occupying [ it ] \u2013 the potential holder of the specially protected tenancy .","However , even leaving aside the fact that the [ evidence ] suggested that the defendant had moved into the flat illegally , ... from the defendant \u2019s own testimony it follows ... that in the relevant period , [ that is to say ] between the time he moved in and the date when these [ civil ] proceedings were instituted , [ he ] had not paid the rent or other charges in respect of the flat . [ It ] was only in DATE that he [ retrospectively ] paid ... the plaintiff [ a certain amount ] for the rent and charges [ accrued ] in the period DATE and DATE . It can not therefore be concluded that the defendant in the relevant period had complied with the obligations incumbent on a holder of a specially protected tenancy in respect of the flat at issue . In addition , in the view of this court the fact that the defendant was paying the rent and charges after the institution of these proceedings is not decisive for their outcome because [ it became evident ] at the latest when these proceedings were instituted that the defendant had been using the flat without the consent of the plaintiff , it being understood that the use of a flat without entitlement does not imply using the flat for free . \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed against that judgment , arguing that the evidence suggested that a written contract for use of the flat had indeed existed but had been misplaced .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment , which thereby became final . ORG endorsed the reasons given by ORG . It added :","\u201c Since in his appeal the defendant contests only the finding of the [ first - instance ] court that he did not acquire a specially protected tenancy by having signed a [ written ] contract for use of the flat , but [ he does ] not [ contest ] the finding ... that he did not acquire a specially protected tenancy [ by long - term use of the flat ] with the knowledge and the consent of the plaintiff as the provider of the flat , the first - instance court correctly ... [ ruled in favour ] of the plaintiff ... given that the defendant does not have any right entitling him to possess [ i.e. occupy ] the flat . \u201d","The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) with ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law in so far as the contested second - instance judgment entailed a decision dismissing his counterclaim . To the extent that the impugned second - instance judgment entailed a decision allowing the plaintiff \u2019s action and ordering the applicant to vacate the flat , ORG declared inadmissible the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law because the value of the subject matter of the dispute did not reach the statutory threshold for lodging such an appeal .","On DATE the applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights of equality before the law , equality before the courts and fair procedure .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared inadmissible the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , finding that the case did not raise any constitutional law issue . It served its decision on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE the local authorities had applied to ORG for enforcement of its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the court issued a writ of execution ( rje\u0161enje o ovrsi ) ordering the eviction of the applicant from the flat at issue .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against writ .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , at the request of the applicant , to which the local authorities agreed , decided to postpone the enforcement ( odgoda ovrhe ) until DATE .","Following a motion by the local authorities , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to stay the enforcement proceedings ( prekid postupka ) pending a final decision in the concurrent administrative proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The enforcement court regarded the issue to be decided in those proceedings as a preliminary question ( prethodno pitanje ) in the enforcement proceedings and thus grounds for stay .","It would appear that the enforcement proceedings have been stayed ever since .","Meanwhile , by a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the relevant department of the local authorities informed the applicant that he could regularise his status regarding the flat in question by lodging a request that it be allocated to him under a local regulation setting out the criteria and the procedure for renting out flats owned by GPE . The letter also specified that together with his request the applicant had to submit the relevant supporting documents , namely , the proof that he had regularly paid the charges in respect of the flat and the proof that he had paid the costs of the above civil and ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged such request but without enclosing the relevant supporting documents .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the local authorities\u2019 commission for allocation of flats informed the applicant that his request was incomplete and invited him to enclose the relevant supporting documents ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Since the applicant did not do so , on DATE the commission adopted a decision whereby it declared the applicant \u2019s request inadmissible as incomplete .","NORP The relevant provision of LAW of DATE ( Zakon o stambenim odnosima , ORG of ORG no . CARDINAL with subsequent amendments ) , which was in force between DATE and DATE , reads as follows :","\u201c It is against the law to move into or occupy a flat without having signed a contract for use of the [ said ] flat beforehand , save in the cases provided for in this LAW . \u201d","\u201c A specially protected tenancy shall be acquired on DATE [ an individual ] lawfully moves into a flat on the basis of a contract for use of the [ said ] flat , unless this LAW provides otherwise . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A contract for use of a flat in social ownership shall be concluded between a holder of a specially protected tenancy and the [ respective ] organisation for maintenance of residential buildings in social ownership .","( CARDINAL ) The contract referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section shall be concluded on the basis of a decision by the provider of the flat , if the issuance of such a decision is envisaged by the agreement between the provider of the flat and the organisation for maintenance of residential buildings in social ownership ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170456","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOPRIVNIKAR v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Heavier penalty;Nulla poena sine lege;Retroactivity);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE pri ORG .","On DATE the DATE Amendment to the DATE LAW entered into force ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of robbery by ORG and sentenced to DATE in prison . He began serving his sentence on DATE and completed it on DATE .","On DATE Criminal Code came into force ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant was convicted by ORG of having paid with a bad cheque and of fraudulent use of a bank card in the period DATE and DATE . He was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The judgment became final on DATE . The applicant started to serve the sentence on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of murder committed together with another person on DATE . He was sentenced to DATE in prison , the maximum penalty provided for under the CARDINAL Criminal Code applicable at the time at which the offence was committed . The conviction was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE and became final on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to have the CARDINAL prison terms joined in an overall sentence .","On DATE ORG , by means of a judgment , joined the CARDINAL above - mentioned prison sentences , including the one for robbery which the applicant had already completed , in an overall sentence . Applying LAW as applicable before the introduction of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , the court noted that the applicant should have had an overall sentence imposed on him as the conditions under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had been met but the provision had not been applied in his case . While acknowledging that LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW applied to the case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG sentenced the applicant to an overall term of DATE imprisonment . In its reasoning , it noted that the principle of the rule of law required , inter alia , that criminal - law provisions be drafted in a clear and precise manner in order to avoid sentences being imposed arbitrarily . It went on to note that the legislation applicable to the present case was unclear , ambiguous and deficient for the following reasons . Although the maximum sentence applicable under LAW had been DATE imprisonment and the rules on combining multiple sentences in an overall sentence , enshrined in LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW , provided that the overall sentence must exceed each of the individual sentences , these same rules prescribed a maximum sentence of DATE . The court took the view that the legislature had not intended to enact legislation enabling those offenders who had been sentenced to DATE imprisonment for CARDINAL of the offences for which they subsequently had had their sentences joined to benefit from an overall sentence that would have been DATE lower than the highest individual sentence to which the offender had been sentenced . In support of its view , ORG pointed out that LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had provided that in cases where an offender had been due to serve DATE imprisonment along with sentences for other offences , the overall sentence would have consisted only of that term . Therefore , ORG considered that the legislature had made an obvious error in LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW , which had , however , been rectified in the meantime by LAW . The court found that the latter made the rules on the determination of an overall sentence certain , clear and complete and that \u201c [ o]nly the so amended provisions therefore prevent[ed ] arbitrary sanctioning of criminal offenders for multiple criminal offences as required by the principle of legality \u201d .","The applicant appealed against the judgment , arguing that ORG decision lacked a legal basis and was in breach of the principle of the rule of law and the principle nullum crimen et nulla poena sine lege . He also claimed that the primary method of interpreting legal texts should be semantic interpretation . It was only where that method proved unsatisfactory in determining how a certain rule should be applied that other methods of interpretation should be applied . Lastly , the applicant agreed with ORG that the provision in question could be regarded as unclear , ambiguous and deficient , but pointed out that any possible ambiguities or deficiencies should not be interpreted to his detriment .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the appeal lodged by the applicant and upheld the first - instance judgment , reiterating the lower court \u2019s reasoning . In the Higher Court \u2019s opinion , ORG had correctly assessed that the legislature had not intended to permit individuals convicted of several offences from benefiting from a lower maximum term of imprisonment than they would have had to serve if they had been convicted of CARDINAL of those offences . According to ORG , such an interpretation would lead to a situation \u201c defying the law as well as common sense \u201d .","The applicant applied to ORG for the protection of legality ( an extraordinary legal remedy ) , reiterating his arguments . He also argued that the rule of law was a principle which should not be applied at the ORG discretion .","On DATE ORG by its judgment I ORG rejected the application for the protection of legality , disagreeing with the applicant that semantic interpretation should take precedence over all other methods of legal interpretation . ORG referred to ORG judgment , pointing out that the latter court \u2019s reasoning evidently showed that the historical interpretation of the rule on combining multiple sentences also had to be taken into account in assessing the aim of the legislature in enacting the provision at issue . That method of interpretation entailed the examination of not only the provision in its original form , as relied on by the applicant , but also the subsequent amendment , which showed the true aim of the provision . In addition , ORG relied on the systematic interpretation of the rule in question , emphasising that it could not be interpreted entirely separately from the provisions prescribing that individual prison sentences for various criminal offences must be combined to form an overall sentence . Since under the un - amended DATE LAW a prison sentence could be imposed for a term not shorter than DATE and not longer than DATE , it was not logical that an overall sentence combining several prison terms , CARDINAL of which was for DATE , could be DATE lower than the highest individual prison sentence imposed . According to ORG , the rules on multiple offences were aimed not at reducing the general maximum prison sentence , but at ensuring that the overall length of several sentences did not exceed the general maximum prison sentence , which in the applicant \u2019s case was DATE .","The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint , reiterating that the imposition of an overall sentence of DATE imprisonment contravened LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , which clearly provided that such a sentence could not exceed DATE . In the applicant \u2019s opinion , the purpose of the provision at issue could be drawn from interpreting it semantically and no additional means of interpretation were therefore required in order to understand the legislature \u2019s intention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint , finding that it did not concern an important constitutional question or entail a violation of human rights with serious consequences for the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of another murder committed on an undefined date between CARDINAL June and DATE . For that murder he was sentenced to DATE imprisonment , but a new overall sentence of DATE was imposed . The latter overall sentence covered the previous overall sentence imposed by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , another sentence of DATE imprisonment , which in the meantime had been imposed on him following a conviction for yet another criminal offence , and the DATE imprisonment imposed by that last judgment of DATE . An appeal and an application for the protection of legality by the applicant were dismissed , the latter by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["7"],"violated_paragraphs":["7-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181842","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BELKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . In application no . MONEY the applicant submitted also a complaint under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145411","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"R.A. v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . She is represented before the ORG by Ms PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE the applicant filed with the PERSON ORG a claim for the protection of her personal rights against the company S. which publishes the newspaper \u201c PERSON \u201d , its editor - in - chief ORG and journalist PERSON She referred to an article published in this newspaper in DATE which , in the applicant \u2019s submission , had breached her rights protected by ORG and CARDINAL of LAW . She sought compensation in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage caused by disclosing information about her private life accompanied by denigrating and untrue statements and views about the applicant published in the newspaper in an article written by PERSON She further requested that all CARDINAL defendants publish apologies , on the newspaper \u2019s website for DATE and in a DATE edition of a countrywide DATE newspaper ORG wyborcza , for damage caused by describing her in a mendacious and wrongful manner ( w spos\u00f3b nieprawdziwy i krzywdz\u0105cy ) .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court ordered the applicant to provide the court with the private addresses ( miejsce zamieszkania ) of ORG and GPE within DATE , referring to LAW para . CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure .","In her pleadings of CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted that it was impossible for her to establish the defendants\u2019 private addresses and even less so within DATE . It was true that it was possible for her to ask ORG for the addresses of private persons , but such a request had to be accompanied by the statistical numbers ( ORG ) of the persons concerned . The applicant did not know these numbers and had no way of obtaining them . She argued that in her statement of claim ( pozew ) she had provided the court with the newspaper \u2019s publisher \u2019s official address which should be sufficient for effective service of the court correspondence both on the journalist and the editor - in - chief working there . She submitted \u2019 private addresses amounted to an undue restriction of her right of access to court .","On DATE the applicant requested the court to lift the order of CARDINAL DATE , referring to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . She submitted that the domestic court \u2019s approach was unduly formalistic as no proper regard had been had to the practicalities of the situation , in particular to the difficulties in establishing the defendants\u2019 private addresses . She argued that it was in fact possible to ensure effective service of the court correspondence on the editor and journalist at the newspaper \u2019s official address .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court , referring to LAW of the Code of Civil Procedure , returned the statement of claim to the applicant ( zwrot pozwu ) in so far as it concerned the editor - in - chief and the journalist . The court referred to the applicant \u2019s failure to give their private addresses and refused to entertain her claim . The court referred to ORG decision given in DATE to the effect that in the protection of personal rights cases in the context of press publications the requirements of LAW were to be understood as imposing on plaintiffs an obligation to submit private addresses of journalists to the court in the statement of claim ( PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Article CARDINAL of the ORG providing for service of court pleadings at the employer \u2019s address ( dor\u0119czenie zast\u0119pcze ) could not be applied .","The applicant appealed . She reiterated that she had indicated the publisher \u2019s address in her statement of claim and that both the editor and journalist could easily be contacted at that address and the court correspondence served on them . Hence , it was possible for the court to establish an effective channel of communication with the CARDINAL defendants and to ensure effective protection of their rights without the need for their private addresses being indicated to the court .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It was of the view that the contested decision was lawful given that LAW CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure required that the private address ( miejsce zamieszkania ) of a defendant who was a natural person was indicated in the statement of claim and in the pleadings . The court observed that the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE was irrelevant to the circumstances of the present case . ORG had found a violation of LAW in respect of a situation where the court obliged the plaintiff who did not have a permanent private address to give such an address for the purposes of judicial proceedings . The present case was different in that it concerned private addresses of defendants who had permanent addresses .","On DATE the applicant requested the newspaper \u2019s publisher , S. company , to provide her with ORG \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s private addresses , referring to the civil claim lodged with ORG . There was no reply to this letter .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request to ORG for ORG ( Generalny Inspektor Ochrony Danych Osobowych ) to oblige the publisher to provide her with the addresses concerned . She argued that the courts in the GPE region had developed an unduly restrictive practice requiring plaintiffs to give the personal addresses of defendants in all cases and had regard neither to practical difficulties in establishing these addresses , nor to the fact that in many cases , like in her case , it was in fact possible to proceed with the case as other addresses of the defendants , such as their employer \u2019s permanent addresses , were available . Establishing effective communication between the court and the plaintiff was therefore feasible .","On DATE the ORG allowed her request .","The S. company appealed , submitting that the addresses were not necessary for the purposes relied on by the applicant . The applicant could find the necessary data in the press titles register run by ORG . The publisher was further of the view that disclosure of the personal addresses of the journalist and the editor without their consent would have amounted to a breach of the legislation on the protection of personal data .","Following the publisher \u2019s appeal , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG reexamined the case and upheld the contested decision . He noted that the lack of consent on the part of persons whose personal data were to be disclosed was not a single or decisive factor determining the lawfulness of such a disclosure . Personal data could be disclosed also when it was necessary for the protection of legally protected interests of third parties . In the present case the personal addresses of the journalists were necessary for the applicant to pursue her civil case against them . Hence , the publisher , in its capacity of administrator of its employees\u2019 personal data , was obliged to disclose them .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal brought to it by the publishing company , essentially reiterating the reasoning of the administrative authority .","On DATE the publisher \u2019s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with ORG against that judgment . It was argued , inter alia , that there was no legitimate aim that would justify the disclosure of the journalist \u2019s and editor \u2019s addresses to the applicant , regard being had to the fact that ORG had already returned the applicant \u2019s statement of claim ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In the absence of any pending case between the applicant on the one hand and ORG ( who had in the meantime married and her new name was PERSON ) and PERSON on the other , the disclosure would not serve any practical purpose .","On DATE ORG dismissed the publisher \u2019s appeal . It shared the reasoning and conclusions reached by the administrative authority and by the first - instance court .","On DATE the PERSON ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in so far as it was directed against the publisher company . It ordered it to publish apologies in their newspaper , for DATE , for having breached her personal rights by disclosing and publishing details of her personal life and describing them in a mendacious and wrongful manner ( w spos\u00f3b nieprawdziwy i krzywdzacy ) . It further ordered that the article should be removed from the newspaper \u2019s website within DATE from the judgment becoming final . The applicant was awarded compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","LAW of DATE provides :","\u201c The personal address of a natural person shall be the town where that person resides with the intention of remaining permanently . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure specifies the information that pleadings in civil cases should contain . Paragraph CARDINAL provides , in particular , that the first pleading submitted to a court in a case directed against a natural person should indicate the parties\u2019 personal addresses ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159570","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"MUSIA\u0141 v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence in LOC .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","NORP In its judgment PERSON v. GPE of DATE ( app . no . CARDINAL ) , the ORG found a violation of LAW on account of the cumulative effect of the inadequate medical care and inappropriate conditions in which the applicant , who had a history of mental disorder , was held throughout his pre - trial detention .","In the operative part of the judgment the ORG held that the respondent ORG was to secure at the earliest possible date adequate conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention in a specialised institution capable of providing him with necessary psychiatric treatment and constant medical supervision ( see also \u00a7 CARDINAL of the judgment ) .","The Government requested that the case be referred to ORG ; however , their request was rejected and the ORG \u2019s judgment became final on DATE .","The execution of this judgment is pending before ORG in the framework of enhanced procedure but only with respect to the general measures . The applicant \u2019s judgment belongs to a group of cases against GPE concerning issues of adequacy of medical care provided to prisoners . According to the information submitted by the Government to ORG in DATE , the applicant , who is now serving a prison sentence , has been provided with appropriate medical care . ORG decided at its ORG meeting ( DATE ) that no other individual measures appeared necessary in the light of information submitted by the Government , according to which the applicant \u2019s conditions of detention were compatible with his state of health .","The facts of the present case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The Government submitted that the applicant had a long criminal record . In the period subsequent to the ORG \u2019s judgment of DATE , the applicant \u2019s criminal record included , inter alia , the convictions for :","a ) causing bodily injury , aggravated assault , punishable threat , armed robbery and aggravated theft - ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , case no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ;","b ) aggravated assault \u2013 ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , case no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ;","c ) punishable threat , trespass and aggravated theft - ORG judgment of an unspecified date , case no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ;","d ) aggravated assault , CARDINAL counts of armed robbery and property damage - ORG judgment of DATE , case no . VIII K CARDINAL ;","e ) assault on a public official - ORG judgment of an unspecified date , case no . PERSON .","The applicant served various terms of imprisonment and was released in DATE . In DATE he was imprisoned again . The applicant was detained in the following establishments :","a ) FAC No . CARDINAL ( psychiatric ward ) : CARDINAL DATE \u2013 CARDINAL DATE ;","b ) Cz\u0119stochowa Remand Centre : DATE ;","c ) Przemy\u015bl Prison : DATE ;","d ) Cz\u0119stochowa Remand Centre : DATE ;","e ) Przemy\u015bl Prison : DATE ;","f ) Cz\u0119stochowa Remand Centre : DATE ;","g ) FAC : CARDINAL DATE ;","h ) PERSON : DATE ;","i ) Przytu\u0142y Stare Prison : DATE \u2013 DATE ;","j ) FAC : DATE ;","k ) FAC : DATE ;","l ) Strzelce Opolskie Prison : DATE present .","The applicant submitted that has been suffering from severe mental disorders . He claimed that in DATE he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia . The applicant relied , in particular , on CARDINAL medical opinions of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .","The Government rebuffed the applicant \u2019s assertion . They maintained that the applicant had been inaccurately diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia . The Government submitted that the applicant did not mention CARDINAL opinions ( CARDINAL psychiatric and CARDINAL psychological ) which concluded that he was not suffering from schizophrenia or any other mental disorder . The applicant further concealed the fact that at DATE opinions ( CARDINAL psychiatric and CARDINAL psychological ) established that he was feigning his mental illness .","The Government submitted a complete list of psychiatric and psychological opinions regarding the applicant issued DATE in the course of various criminal proceedings against him .","The Government submitted that CARDINAL opinions confirmed the applicant \u2019s alleged mental disorder ( opinions of CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) . However , in their view , these opinions were imprecise ; short ( CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL long respectively ) ; based on a short ( DATE ) consultation ; prepared without reference to opinions in which no mental disorder had been diagnosed and without adequate access to all medical data ; and based on documents submitted by the applicant and his suggestions .","Due to the discrepancies in the assessment of the applicant \u2019s mental health , the relevant courts and prosecutor \u2019s offices , at least on CARDINAL occasions , ordered the applicant to undergo a psychiatric observation in hospital . The applicant \u2019s hospital observation took place in the following periods : from DATE to DATE ; from DATE to DATE and from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE . All opinions issued following the hospital observations ( dated DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) excluded that the applicant was mentally ill . The Government asserted that the above opinions were detailed ; long ( CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE long respectively ) ; prepared after a prolonged hospital observation ; based on all previous opinions and on a various medical data .","The W\u0142oszczowa ORG requested a psychiatric opinion as to whether the applicant could participate in the trial against him ( case no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The applicant was examined on CARDINAL DATE . In an opinion of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL psychiatrists noted that verbal contact with the applicant was difficult and that he had difficulties in concentrating . The applicant stated that he had hallucinations and could not sleep well . The psychiatrists concluded that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder similar to paranoid schizophrenia . He did not have acute psychotic symptoms , but anxieties persisted . The psychiatrists concluded that the applicant could not take part in the trial for DATE .","The Government submitted that the above opinion was CARDINAL - page long . The opinion also stated that the applicant had refused to be hospitalised in ORG . In CARDINAL previous opinions issued in the course of the same criminal case the psychiatrist opined that the applicant was not suffering from any mental disorder and that his psychiatric treatment DATE was without prejudice to his ability to recognise his criminal acts .","The Cz\u0119stochowa Regional Court requested a psychiatric opinion on the applicant \u2019s mental condition for the purposes of the appellate proceedings ( case no . PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . In their opinion of DATE , the CARDINAL psychiatrists opined that the applicant has suffered from paranoid schizophrenia from his teenage years . Currently his mental condition was relatively stable ; however in DATE , despite regular treatment , he had some psychotic spells leading to self - harm . His condition was chronic and there was a possibility that it will become more acute at any time . However , the psychiatrists concluded that the applicant could take part in the appellate proceedings .","On DATE ORG declared the level of the applicant \u2019s disability as \u201c moderate \u201d . It noted that the applicant was unfit for work and needed assistance of social services in his daily life . The decision was in force until DATE .","ORG requested a psychiatric opinion on the applicant \u2019s mental condition , including whether he could be held criminally responsible ( case no . TIME CARDINAL ) . The applicant was examined on DATE . In their opinion of DATE , the CARDINAL psychiatrists opined that there were no grounds to diagnose the applicant with mental disorder . They took note of the applicant \u2019s medical records and the CARDINAL opinions , produced by the applicant , in which he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia . However , they noted that these opinions did not establish the presence of psychotic symptoms at the time of the applicant \u2019s examination ; these symptoms had only been related by the applicant . In the course of the current examination , the applicant did not show any symptoms present in schizophrenia . The psychiatrists concluded that the applicant was not mentally disabled , having regard to the history of his schooling , his subsequent activities and the quality of contact during his examination . They found that the applicant had features of antisocial personality . In their conclusion , the applicant could be held criminally responsible and participate in the proceedings against him .","ORG requested a psychiatric opinion as to whether the applicant suffered from a mental illness preventing him from serving his sentence ( case no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . In their opinion of DATE , the psychiatrists diagnosed the applicant with acute psychotic disorder in the form of paranoid schizophrenia . His intellectual ability was assessed to fall within a norm . The experts concluded that the applicant \u2019s current mental condition made him unfit for serving a prison sentence .","The Government submitted that the above opinion was CARDINAL - and - a - half page long . It was issued after DATE of examination . It corroborated that the applicant , regardless of several referrals to psychiatric hospitals , had refused to be hospitalised in connection with his alleged mental disorder . Furthermore , DATE , on DATE the psychiatrists examining the applicant in connection with another set of criminal proceedings had declared him mentally fit . The psychiatrists disproved the CARDINAL psychiatric opinions produced by the applicant which attested to his mental illness . They underlined that in the course of the examination leading to the issuance of those CARDINAL earlier opinions no symptoms of mental disorder had been noticed and that the mental disorder had only been reported by the applicant .","The W\u0142oszczowa ORG requested a psychiatric opinion on the applicant \u2019s mental health in connection with the proceedings in which the applicant had been charged , inter alia , with robbery and assault ( case no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The applicant was interviewed at FAC . CARDINAL . In their opinion of DATE , the CARDINAL psychiatrists ( ORG and PERSON ) , having analysed the medical documentation , stated that they were unable to determine the question of the applicant \u2019s sanity at the time of the alleged offences . They noted that in the past the applicant had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia , and that this diagnosis raised doubts and could not have been properly verified during a short stay at the hospital . The applicant \u2019s mental condition did not indicate any psychotic process , but his \u201c rich \u201d medical documentation gave rise to difficulties in making a diagnosis . The psychiatrists requested the district court to order the applicant \u2019s psychiatric observation in hospital and requested access to various medical and penitentiary documentation in order to assess the applicant \u2019s mental health .","In a note dated CARDINAL DATE FAC informed LOC that the applicant had been admitted to the psychiatric ward on DATE in the light of pharmacological treatment related to suspected schizophrenia . During his stay there , doctors did not notice any symptoms of schizophrenia or other mental illness and it was decided to stop administering antipsychotics . After that the applicant \u2019s mental condition remained good . It was noted on the basis of existing documentation that the applicant had been frequently consulted by psychiatrists , who had diagnosed him with schizophrenia basing themselves solely on the applicant \u2019s \u201c stories \u201d . The most comprehensive opinion on the applicant \u2019s mental health was prepared in DATE following his observation at ORG . The psychiatrists of that hospital did not observe any psychotic symptoms . They found that the applicant suffered only from a personality disorder which corresponded to the conclusions of the current observation at FAC . The psychiatrists of FAC requested access to extended medical and penitentiary documentation on the applicant , to which previous experts had no access . It was noted during the applicant \u2019s observation at FAC that in situations which were uncomfortable for the applicant ( i.e. when he was summoned to a hearing ) he immediately began simulating symptoms of mental illness .","The Cz\u0119stochowa Regional Prosecutor \u2019s Office requested a psychiatric opinion on the applicant \u2019s mental condition in connection with the proceedings in which the applicant had been charged , inter alia , with robbery , punishable threats , insult of a public official , participation in an organised gang and extortion ( case no . V Ds CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/s ) . The psychiatric opinion was prepared by the same experts ( ORG and PERSON ) who prepared the opinion of DATE , following the applicant \u2019s observation at the psychiatric ward of FAC between DATE and DATE . The psychiatrists verified the applicant \u2019s medical documentation and carried out a number of tests and examinations . They discovered no organic dysfunctions . The psychiatrists noted that the applicant had attempted to feign the symptoms of mental illness . For example , he related in a stereotypical manner that \u201c voices are calling him to commit suicide \u201d . The results of various tests showed no symptoms which could have even suggested the presence of depressive or manic disorders , either at present or in the past . During the examination , the applicant could not say anything about his symptoms and changed the subject of conversation . It was visible that the questions put to him in this respect were distressing . The experts carried out a test to determine the symptoms of schizophrenia , but this proved negative . The experts noted that :","\u201c PERSON behaviour hid a clear motive and intentional effort to achieve a defined goal which was to mislead the experts and , consequently , to avoid his criminal responsibility . To this end , he feigned his mental illness . \u201d","The experts further noted that the applicant was unwilling to undergo certain tests . The applicant complained about problems with sleep or anxieties , but his observation at the psychiatric ward did not confirm his assertions . The experts found that the applicant displayed no typical behaviour for a person suffering from psychotic disorders , such as being suspicious vis - \u00e0 - vis the other patients and staff . The applicant demanded to take anti - psychotic drugs , whereas in reality the mentally - ill avoid taking them . The applicant \u2019s ostentatious behaviour and tendency to focus attention on the alleged hallucinations were also reported . The experts noted that the symptoms showed by the applicant did not correspond to any known illness .","In conclusions of their opinion of CARDINAL DATE , the psychiatrists stated :","\u201c CARDINAL . We conclude that PERSON shows no symptoms of mental illness or of mental disability .","We conclude that PERSON has an antisocial personality and that he feigns his mental illness ( ... ) . \u201d","They lastly established that the applicant could be held criminally responsible and to participate in the proceedings .","The Cz\u0119stochowa Regional Prosecutor \u2019s Office also requested a psychological opinion on the applicant . The opinion was prepared on the basis of interviews and tests carried in the course of the applicant \u2019s observation in FAC . In his opinion of DATE , the psychologist PERSON concluded that the applicant \u2019s intellectual ability fell within a broad norm and that he had no organic dysfunctions . The psychologist noted that the applicant did not function as a mentally disabled person . This was demonstrated by his ability to adapt , the manner of functioning in a group and of formulating his thoughts orally and in writing . The expert was unable to determine the applicant \u2019s genuine intellectual ability since the latter had not properly participated in the tests . The expert also concluded that the applicant \u2019s personality was improperly developed . In this respect , he noted that the applicant poorly internalised socio - moral norms .","The W\u0142oszczowa ORG requested a psychiatric opinion on the applicant \u2019s mental health in connection with the case against him ( no . II K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The opinion was prepared by the same experts in psychiatry as the earlier opinion of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG and PERSON ) and based , in addition , on the applicant \u2019s examination on DATE . In their opinion of CARDINAL DATE , the experts confirmed their earlier findings made in the opinion of DATE . In addition , they found that the applicant could be transported to court and noted that his earlier behaviour during transport resulted from him feigning a mental illness .","ORG also ordered a psychological opinion in connection with the same case . In his opinion of CARDINAL DATE , the psychologist PERSON reached the same conclusions as those presented in his earlier opinion of DATE .","On DATE the applicant was consulted by a psychiatrist at FAC . She noted that the applicant was undergoing psychiatric treatment and had been frequently hospitalised in psychiatric hospitals in GPE , PERSON and Opole in connection with his schizophrenia . The psychiatrist expressed negative prognosis for the applicant given the chronic nature of his condition which was characterised by remissions .","It appears that on DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was consulted by a doctor of the prison . Her findings were similar to those made by a psychiatrist on CARDINAL September CARDINAL .","In the course of the civil proceedings against the applicant which concerned a claim for increase of child maintenance , the Krak\u00f3w - Podg\u00f3rze ORG requested a psychiatric opinion on the applicant . The applicant was interviewed on DATE by a psychiatrist in a court building . In his opinion of DATE , based on the interview , the case file of the civil case and some medical documentation , the psychiatrist established that the applicant suffered from chronic mental illness : paranoid schizophrenia . The applicant displayed low level of intellectual ability , hyperactivity and claimed to have hallucinations . It transpired from the medical documentation that despite a pharmacological treatment ( large doses of antipsychotics ) his condition did not improve and he often showed psychotic symptoms and agitation . There were also attempts to commit suicide . The expert concluded that the applicant was unable to work in prison due to his chronic mental illness .","The provisions pertaining to medical care in detention facilities and general conditions of detention , and the relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the ORG \u2019s judgments in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE . More recent developments are described in the ORG \u2019s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE DATE . ) ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170194","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF NENCIU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote)","judges":"Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of burglary , rape and murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL DATE imprisonment . In application of LAW , his right to vote and to be elected was withdrawn during detention .","The decision became final on DATE when ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant .","The applicant is currently serving his prison sentence in FAC where he has been held since DATE .","The applicant described the conditions of his detention as follows :","- there was no water during DATE ;","- he was placed with smokers ( in the court - room and for DATE during detention ) although he did not smoke ;","- the windows were covered with bars and thick galvanised wire which rendered the ventilation of the cell impossible ;","- he was transported to court hearings in small dirty vans , with no ventilation or natural light ;","- from DATE until DATE information received ( DATE ) he had been held with CARDINAL other inmates in a CARDINAL sq . m cell infested with bugs .","Based on the documents presented by ORG , the Government explained that during his stay in FAC the applicant had occupied the following cells , all non - smoking :","- cells nos . ACARDINAL , PERSON , ACARDINAL , PERSON , LOC , CCARDINAL , PERSON , CCARDINAL , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ECARDINAL.CARDINAL , ECARDINAL.CARDINAL , PERSON , PERSON , ECARDINAL.CARDINAL , PERSON , ECARDINAL.CARDINAL , ORG , ECARDINAL.CARDINAL , ECARDINAL.CARDINAL , ECARDINAL.CARDINAL , ECARDINAL.CARDINAL which each measured CARDINAL sq . m and which he shared with a maximum of CARDINAL other detainees , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , between CARDINAL May and CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , between DATE and DATE , between CARDINAL May and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE .","- cells nos . CCARDINAL , CCARDINAL , CCARDINAL and ECARDINAL.CARDINAL which each measured CARDINAL sq . m and which he shared with another person , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and DATE .","The sanitary annexe measured CARDINAL sq . m and was provided with a sink , a shower cabin , shelves , mirror and a toilet . All rooms had windows and ventilation . The detainees collected the trash and cleaned the cells twice every day .","The inmates received the hygiene products from the prison administration and had access to warm water DATE . Access to drinking water was unlimited .","The information submitted by ORG concerned conditions of detention only until DATE .","According to the Government , from DATE the applicant had been sharing the cells with a maximum of CARDINAL other persons , in compliance with the decision adopted on DATE by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant complained repeatedly to the post - sentencing judge ( PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the execution of sentences ; hereinafter \u201c PERSON no . CARDINAL \u201d ) about the conditions of his detention .","By CARDINAL decisions of QUANTITY DATE and CARDINAL DATE the post - sentencing judge for PERSON noted that the applicant was no longer held with smokers . The judge also considered that because of the large number of inmates held in that Prison , it was impossible to ensure more personal space for the applicant . He also concluded that in so far as the inmates were responsible for cleaning their cells , the presence of bugs was not the authorities\u2019 fault , but that of the prisoners . The applicant appealed against these CARDINAL decisions . On DATE ORG ordered FAC administration to ensure the applicant CARDINAL sq . m of personal space , as provided by law .","The applicant also complained before the post - sentencing judge for ORG , that while he was held in there , from DATE , he was again placed in cells with smokers . On DATE the postsentencing judge dismissed the request as having been lodged after the expiry of the DATE time - limit provided for by PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","Ruling on a similar complaint lodged by the applicant about his stay in a cell with smokers from DATE in ORG , the postsentencing judge for this prison decided , on DATE , that no measure could be imposed on ORG as the applicant was no longer there . He also noted that the applicant could bring a separate claim for compensation before the civil courts ."],"violated_articles":["3","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160404","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KOSI\u0143SKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in PERSON .","At the time of the events in question , the applicant was serving a prison sentence in LOC .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s grandmother died . On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG and the Penitentiary judge for leave to attend her funeral which was to take place on DATE . Together with his application he submitted a statement from his sister ORG who confirmed that she would personally collect the applicant from prison and bring him back after the funeral .","On DATE the Penitentiary judge of ORG ( GPE NORP PERSON w PERSON ) allowed the applicant to attend the funeral under prison ORG escort . The reasoning of the decision read as follows :","\u201c In view of [ the applicant \u2019s ] multiple convictions and his long term of imprisonment there is no guarantee that he will return to prison \u201d","The applicant refused to attend the funeral , since he believed his appearance under escort of uniformed officers would create a disturbance during the ceremony .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) complaining that the compassionate leave was granted under escort and also that he was only allowed to participate in the funeral ( not the preceding church service ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the Penitentiary judge \u2019s decision and dismissed the appeal . The court stressed that the applicant had been allowed to participate in the funeral under prison ORG escort . It further noted that the applicant was a habitual offender sentenced to a long term of imprisonment therefore there was no positive criminological prognosis and no guarantee that he would have returned to prison after the ceremony ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179819","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BRITANI\u0160KINA v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband asked the national authorities to restore his property rights to a house and a plot of land in GPE which had belonged to his grandfather before nationalisation . On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband specified his initial request and asked to have the plot of land restored in natura to him if possible , or to provide him with another plot of land in GPE .","The property rights of the applicant \u2019s husband were restored to some LOC ( a storehouse ) in GPE in DATE and it was decided to pay him monetary compensation for the other premises that had not been returned to him in natura .","On DATE ORG informed GPE that the property rights of the applicant \u2019s husband would be restored to QUANTITY of land for residential purposes .","On DATE the GPE informed ORG that a plot of land of CARDINAL.CARDINAL hectares had been formed near the buildings owned by the applicant \u2019s husband .","NORP In DATE the GPE City ORG established as a legal fact that the grandmother of the applicant \u2019s husband had owned a plot of land in GPE measuring QUANTITY \u201d ( sieksnis \u2013 QUANTITY ) .","On DATE the ORG informed GPE that the property rights of the applicant \u2019s husband would be restored and that he was a candidate to receive a plot of land measuring QUANTITY in natura . In DATE ORG issued a document stating that the applicant \u2019s husband had a right to a plot of land of QUANTITY .","In DATE the authorities replied to the applicant husband \u2019s letter asking why only a plot of land of QUANTITY instead of QUANTITY had been formed near the house , and stated that the plot of land QUANTITY where the LOC had been situated , would be divided for several co - owners of the LOC and the rest of the land would be returned to the applicant \u2019s husband by the means he chose .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s husband died and the applicant became his heir .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son , as the representative of the applicant , asked the authorities to restore the property rights of his father to the plot of land of CARDINAL hectares by paying compensation in securities .","On DATE the property rights of the applicant \u2019s husband were restored in natura to QUANTITY of land and it was provided that compensation of MONEY ( ORG ) would be paid in securities for the remaining QUANTITY of land . On DATE this decision was changed and it was decided to restore the applicant \u2019s husband \u2019s property rights to a plot of land of QUANTITY in natura and to pay compensation in securities for the plot of land of QUANTITY , amounting to approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","NORP In DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , claiming that the compensation in securities , established by the national authorities , was unjust , and asking to have the value of the plot of land measuring CARDINAL hectares recalculated . In DATE the applicant applied to have the administrative proceedings suspended and to have the matter of calculation of compensation referred to ORG .","On DATE ORG held that ORG had calculated the compensation in accordance with the methodology approved by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , the calculation of the municipality provided that the market value of the plot was approximately EUR CARDINAL and the market value of the plot as calculated by ORG was approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The court stated that in comparison with these numbers , the value of the plot of land provided by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was CARDINAL times lower , and it could not conform to the principle of equal value . Moreover , in accordance with the methodology approved by the Government , the calculation was the same for plots of land in the city centre and outside the city . The court thus decided to suspend the administrative proceedings and to refer the matter to ORG .","NORP In DATE ORG informed the applicant that the relevant laws had been changed and that she could change the form of restoration of the property rights to QUANTITY of land . Instead of securities she could choose CARDINAL of the following : to be assigned a new plot of land of equivalent value to the one held previously ; to have the liabilities to the ORG legally voided ; to be assigned a new plot of land for individual construction ; to receive monetary compensation . It appears that the applicant did not reply to this letter .","On DATE the applicant was included on the list of persons to receive a plot of land for construction of an individual house .","After the matter had been resolved by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim on DATE . The court analysed the domestic regulation regarding the calculation of the value of the land and observed that this matter had been referred to ORG , which held that the methodology approved by the Government setting down the principles of calculation of the value of the land was in accordance with the law . ORG also held that the PERSON on the Restoration of Citizens\u2019 Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property had been changed and persons could , before DATE , choose other means to restore their property rights than by payment of securities . If no other means were chosen , the property rights had to be restored by paying monetary compensation . The court further observed that the authorities had suggested the applicant choose other means to have her property rights restored ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that in DATE it had been decided to include the applicant on the list of persons to receive a plot of land for construction of an individual house . The decision the applicant complained of , that is to say the calculation of the compensation to be paid in securities , had not been of legal importance to the applicant because the Law on the Restoration of Citizens\u2019 Ownership Rights to Existing Real Property had been changed and it had become impossible to restore the property rights in securities . The decision to restore the applicant \u2019s property rights by paying her compensation in securities had to be changed to monetary compensation . Because the applicant had been included on the list of persons to receive a new plot of land for individual construction , she could use another way to restore her property rights .","The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision . The court also emphasised the argument of ORG that , in calculating the compensation , it was justified to pay heed not only to the market value of the property but also to its value at the time of nationalisation and to the changes in the quality and the value of property . ORG also held that the applicant had complained about the length of the court proceedings . The court held that the applicant had lodged the complaint on DATE ; it had been accepted by ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG had decided to apply to ORG , which had adopted its decision on DATE . The proceedings in the administrative case had recommenced on DATE and the decision had been adopted on DATE . Given the complexity of the case and referral of the matter to ORG , the length of proceedings had not breached the reasonable time requirement .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s son , as the applicant \u2019s representative , that on DATE it had become possible to restore the property rights by receiving a plot of forest of equal value . The applicant was asked to express her wish before DATE . It appears that she never replied to this letter ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150300","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ZAVORIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily injuries to Mr K. On DATE ORG of GPE remanded him in custody .","On DATE the applicant and other persons were charged with running of a criminal syndicate , extortion and other offences . On DATE the case was sent for trial to ORG .","On DATE ORG , further to a verdict by a jury , found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the conviction and remitted the case for a new trial . It decided that the applicant should stay in custody :","\u201c Zavorin , P[. ] , K[. ] , Sp[. ] and Sl[. ] stand accused of serious and particularly serious offences . Having regard to the gravity of the charges and the information on their character which is available in the case materials , the court considers that the grounds listed in paragraph CARDINAL of LAW are present . The information about the case , taken in its entirety , gives reason to consider that , if the above individuals were to be released from custody , they might abscond and thereby prevent the case from being examined within a reasonable time ( the time the proceedings before the first - instance court have already taken should not be discounted ) or they might influence the witnesses or victims . Under these circumstances , the court considers that these individuals must be placed into custody for DATE \u201d .","On DATE ORG returned the case to the prosecutor so that certain procedural defects could be remedied . It also extended the applicant \u2019s and other defendants\u2019 detention for a further DATE , referring mainly to the gravity of the charges but also to the wording of ORG decision of DATE . In so far as the applicant sought to rely on the ORG \u2019s admission of a violation , ORG held as follows :","\u201c The defendant PERSON filed an application for release on an undertaking to appear and to be of good conduct , relying on the fact that his prolonged detention in the present proceedings was deemed to be unjustified in the framework of the proceedings on his application before ORG and that the [ NORP ] Government offered him compensation ... which he refused ...","PERSON [ and another co - defendant ] submitted documents concerning the examination of their applications by ORG which are in LANGUAGE ; they are not translated into LANGUAGE or properly certified . The document in LANGUAGE which PERSON submitted is not certified either . The court is not competent to translate the documents which the parties submitted ...","Having regard to the number and nature of the offences imputed to Sp[. ] , P[. ] , A. L. LOC and St[. ] and the public danger they represent , the information on their character , the particular complexity of the criminal case , the time that the remedying of the defects and a subsequent trial will take , the court considers that their detention must be extended for a further three months , until DATE . \u201d","On DATE the senior investigator of ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release , noting that he had spent in custody CARDINAL DATE , whereas the Code of Criminal Procedure set the maximum duration of pre - trial detention at DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171514","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"BILIM v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Ms Tu\u011fba T\u00fcfek , a lawyer practising in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed from his employment . In the dismissal notice , it was noted that the poor performance of the applicant had been brought to his attention in previous appraisal interviews and that a prior warning had been issued . It was also indicated that remedial coaching had been provided to the applicant on several occasions during DATE ; however , the employer company had not discerned any progress .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings before ORG against his former employer , requesting the annulment of his dismissal and asking to be reinstated . During the proceedings , the domestic court requested an expert report to determine if the dismissal notice had been issued in accordance with the relevant legislation and whether the grounds for dismissal given by the employer could be justified . In their report , the experts stated that there had been no procedural shortcomings in respect of the dismissal notice . The experts nevertheless stated that dismissal in such cases should be a last resort and that the applicant could have been given continuous coaching and mentoring to improve his performance .","On DATE ORG gave its judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s case . The first instance judge concluded that the dismissal grounds had been notified to the applicant in accordance with the law and that the applicant had been able to put forward his defence submissions . The judge , after taking into consideration the expert report , held that the applicant \u2019s performance had not been satisfactory and that he had not participated in necessary team work exercises . He therefore concluded that the grounds for dismissal had been sufficient . In his appeal petition , the applicant argued that his performance could not be considered as insufficient . On DATE , finding in line with the first instance court \u2019s reasoning , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal .","Article CARDINAL of LAW in so far as relevant reads :","\u201c An employee who alleges that no reason was given for his dismissal or who considers that the reasons indicated were not sufficient as to justify his dismissal shall be entitled to lodge an objection with the labour court within DATE of his receipt of the dismissal notice ...","...","The first - instance court must apply fast - track procedures and conclude the case within DATE . If an appeal is lodged , ORG must issue its final verdict within DATE . ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-151008","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF COLAC v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG indicted the applicant and a third party for procurement and for unlawful deprivation of freedom . It held , amongst other things , that there was reasonable suspicion that the applicant and his co - accused had threatened and forced into prostitution CARDINAL underage girls , namely ORG , GPE , ORG , ORG and G.S.S. It relied on testimonial evidence , including the statements of the CARDINAL girls , the minutes of witness confrontations , a report of the search carried out at the applicant \u2019s home , lists of telephone calls , the applicant \u2019s medical documents , his statements and those of his co - accused .","DATE and DATE ORG adjourned the proceedings CARDINAL times to allow , amongst other things , the summoning of the witnesses who had been heard at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings . At the hearings of CARDINAL and DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked the court to hear the aforementioned witnesses . The court ordered that as from DATE any witness who refused to appear should be fined .","DATE and DATE , bailiffs tried CARDINAL times to enforce the warrants ( mandate de aducere ) issued by the court for some of the witnesses to appear before the court . According to the bailiffs\u2019 reports , witnesses had left the country ( M.M.K. , F.P.D. and ORG ) , moved to unknown addresses ( PERSON , ORG , ORG ) or could not be found at home ( NORP ) . PERSON was still living at the indicated address but was not found at home . C.R.R. , as confirmed by her neighbours , had changed her name and had moved to an unknown address DATE . PERSON was not living at the address known by the authorities ; he had sold his flat and was not registered at a different one . According to the available information he had left for GPE . M.M.K. , who was a foreign national , had left the country on an unspecified date and for an unknown destination , while ORG \u2019s and ORG \u2019s mothers declared that their daughters had left the country for GPE , GPE and GPE in DATE and on DATE , respectively , and that they did not know their addresses . According to ORG \u2019s relatives , she had married , changed her name and did not plan to return to GPE in the near future because she was pregnant . ORG \u2019s neighbours confirmed her mother \u2019s statements . G.C.R. had changed his name and according to his neighbours he had moved some time ago to an unknown address . ORG address was incorrect and no one with the witness \u2019s first name lived at the available address .","ORG asked ORG ( PERSON ) , ORG and ORG on several occasions to provide information on the whereabouts of the witnesses who had failed to appear before the court , namely PERSON , ORG C.R. , F.P.D. , ORG and PERSON At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the court noted that ORG had confirmed that the witness ORG had changed his name to ORG and continued to summon him under both names . On DATE the ORG informed the court that according to ORG \u2019s relatives , she had left the country after marrying a NORP national , and confirmed that she had changed her name and was residing at an unknown address in GPE . The authorities provided the courts with the available information concerning the aforementioned remaining missing witnesses , and stated repeatedly that they had no other records of their current valid addresses .","By interlocutory judgments of DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG held that on the basis of information provided in the enforcement reports produced by the bailiffs , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG , it was impossible to hear ORG , F.P.D. , ORG , ORG , ORG It relied on LAW and held that the statements of ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG and PERSON given at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings would be read out before the court at the end of the judicial investigation stage of the proceedings . Except for PERSON \u2019s statement , there is no evidence in the case file that the statements of those witnesses were read out before the court .","On DATE I.I.C. attended a hearing before ORG , but he was not heard by the court because the applicant \u2019s chosen legal representative was missing . The court adjourned the proceedings until DATE pending the arrival of the applicant \u2019s legal representative . PERSON informed the court that he could not wait because he had to undergo surgery . He asked to be summoned for the following hearing , and promised to present documentation attesting to his need for medical treatment . The court noted that the witness was living without being registered at an address in the town of GPE . By the time the proceedings were reopened DATE , PERSON had left the court . He did not attend any subsequent hearings and the authorities failed to find him , although they also attempted to summon him at the aforementioned unregistered address .","Some of the witnesses who testified against the applicant at the pretrial stage of the proceedings were located by the authorities and brought before the court .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the ORG heard M.A , NORP , ORG , F.H.A. and J.L.A. The court dismissed PERSON \u2019s request to be heard in the applicant \u2019s absence . PERSON stated amongst other things that the applicant had threatened her and had forced her into prostitution . She had not met any other girls apart from ORG and had been sold to the applicant by PERSON withdrew her previous statement given at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings and declared that the authorities had forced her to accuse the applicant of procurement . ORG confirmed his previous statements given at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings . He contended that he knew the applicant and that although he had met some of the girls , they did not live with him . F.H.A. stated that he did not know the applicant . Although he had had sex with several of the girls he had met at the club allegedly run by the applicant , he had not paid for it . PERSON withdrew his statement given at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings , denied that he knew the applicant or that he had previously been asked by the authorities if he had paid for sexual relations .","By an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG dismissed , among other things , a request lodged by the applicant \u2019s lawyer to adjourn the proceedings in order to allow him to locate NORP and to bring him before the court as a witness . Having assumed that PERSON would be heard by the court , he had not examined the file thoroughly enough to be able to submit oral observations on behalf of the applicant . The court refused his request , holding that it had already decided that it was impossible to have PERSON heard and that the absence of the witness did not hinder the examination of the merits of the case .","On DATE the statement given by PERSON at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings was read out before the court . Subsequently , the court allowed the parties to submit oral observations on the merits of the case and allowed a request submitted by the applicant \u2019s lawyer to adjourn the proceedings in order to allow the parties to submit written observations on the merits of the case .","By a judgment of DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of unlawful deprivation of freedom , convicted him of procurement and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . It held that the facts of the case had been established on the basis of the statements given by ORG ; the statements of the girls forced into prostitution , namely ORG , NORP , ORG and GPE \u2013 the girls described how they had met the applicant and his co - defendant , and how they had prostituted themselves ; they provided details on how they had been contacted by clients , the money given to the applicant , and the appearance of some of the clients ; the report of the search carried out at the applicant \u2019s home ; the description of the objects found in the applicant \u2019s home which belonged to ORG ; the letter received by ORG from her mother , which referred to rumours that her daughter and the other girls had been prostituting themselves ; the list of telephone calls made from the applicant \u2019s phone , which established the phone contact between the applicant , his co - defendant and some of the clients who had contacted the applicant \u2019s co - defendant or with whom she had had sexual relations , namely ORG , FAC , ORG , GPE , GPE , F.H.A. , PERSON and PERSON ; and the witness testimonies of NORP , PERSON , ORG , F.H.A. , J.L.A. and PERSON made at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings , which established , with the help of the list of telephone calls and the statements of the QUANTITY underage girls , the applicant \u2019s involvement in procurement . The court noted that only GPE and ORG had confirmed their own statements given at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings . It also noted that ORG , PERSON and M.M.K. could not be heard as witnesses by the court . In addition , witnesses NORP , J.L.A. and F.H.A. , like the applicant \u2019s co - defendant , had significantly changed the statements they had given at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings by affirming that they had never paid for sex . Having regard to the conflicting witness and co - defendant statements , the court decided to rely on those testimonies which had been confirmed by the other evidence available in the file . Consequently , it considered that the testimonies given by the witnesses and the co - defendant at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings were accurate as they had been made closer to the date of the unlawful acts and had also been corroborated by the remaining available evidence . Furthermore , it dismissed PERSON \u2019s statement and those of the defendants given before the court because they contained several inaccuracies .","The applicant appealed against the judgment , arguing that the court had summoned as witnesses , but had failed to summon as victims , the QUANTITY girls who had allegedly been forced into prostitution . In addition , the statements of the QUANTITY girls were not supported by any other evidence , and all the victims of his alleged unlawful acts should have been heard by the court .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed in part the applicant \u2019s appeal in so far as the classification of his offence was concerned , upheld his sentence and dismissed the remaining points of his appeal . It held that given the nature of the unlawful act with which the applicant had been charged , it would not have been justified to summon as victims the girls he had forced into prostitution . Moreover , the applicant could not rely on the court \u2019s failure to do so as long as his personal interest was not affected . As for the facts established by the first - instance court , the appeal court held that they had been confirmed by the evidence in the file . In particular , the testimonies of the CARDINAL girls , ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG had been corroborated by the testimonies of PERSON , GPE , ORG , ORG and FAC that with the help of the applicant \u2019s co - defendant , they had paid for sexual relations with several girls . PERSON had testified that the applicant had been interested in meeting girls who wanted to leave the country and work as dancers in bars , and PERSON had repeatedly driven the applicant and the girls to various hotels . Consequently , the appeal court considered that the first - instance court had correctly convicted the applicant of procurement .","The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment . He argued , amongst other things , that the court had summoned as witnesses , but had failed to summon as victims the QUANTITY girls who had allegedly been forced into prostitution . In addition , the judicial investigation of the case had been insufficient because the evidence had not been administered publicly .","At a hearing of DATE before ORG the applicant \u2019s lawyer reiterated some of the arguments which he had raised before the second - instance court . Moreover , he contended that some witnesses , including ORG , ORG , had not been heard directly by the first - instance court and that the court had not provided reasons for its failure to hear them . Also , the address on the summons intended for I.I.C. had been incomplete . The summons had been sent to a town in the county of GPE , even though ORG had stated that the witness was not registered there . The courts had failed to hear other witnesses as well , including GPE , and to take measures to bring those witnesses before them . Consequently , he asked the court to quash the judgments of the lower courts and to order a review of all the evidence in the file .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed in part the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law in so far as it reduced his sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , and dismissed the remainder of the appeal . It held that the lower courts had correctly established the facts of the case and the applicant \u2019s guilt on the basis of the evidence administered at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings and re - confirmed at the trial . The fact that the girls forced by him into prostitution had been summoned during the trial not as victims but as witnesses was not an argument the applicant could rely on as long as his personal interest had not been affected . As for the evidence establishing the facts of the case , the court reiterated the reasoning of the second - instance court . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s arguments that the court had failed to administer and examine directly all the evidence raised during the pre - trial stage of the proceedings , that his rights of defence had been breached and that the debate had not been adversarial were unsubstantiated . A court could rely either on the testimonies given at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings or on the ones given before the court if it was convinced that only some of them reflected the truth and were corroborated by the evidence in the file . A court could rely on the testimonies given at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings if it was impossible to hear the witness directly . A judgment could not be quashed on the grounds that a witness had not been heard directly by the court , unless a party had been prejudiced . In the present case , the lower courts had allowed the applicant \u2019s requests to hear the witnesses who had testified at the pretrial stage of the proceedings and had taken measures to secure their attendance at the trial . The judgments of the lower courts could not be quashed because they had provided reasons for their inability to hear some of the witnesses , namely that they had left the country , and the testimonies had been read out at a public hearing . Consequently , the lower courts had followed the correct procedure in establishing the applicant \u2019s guilt by using evidence collected both at the pre - trial and the trial stages of the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal ( contesta\u021bie \u020bn anulare ) , seeking the quashing of the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE . He argued that his right of defence had been breached on DATE because he had been unable to attend the hearings held before the last - instance court on account of his serious medical condition and therefore he had been unable to ask for additional evidence .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s extraordinary appeal , quashed the judgment of DATE and ordered the last - instance court to re - examine the appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE because he had been unable to attend the hearings before the last - instance court on account of his medical condition .","On DATE the applicant submitted his reasons for appeal on points of law before the last - instance court . He argued , among other things , that some of the witnesses , including ORG , ORG , had not been heard . In addition , the first - instance court had dismissed the request to re - summon the witness I.I.C. , whose testimony had been relevant for the case . Other witnesses , including GPE , had also not been heard and no steps had been taken to bring them before the first - instance court .","By a final judgment of DATE ORG allowed in part the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and reduced his sentence to DATE imprisonment . It held that the first and second - instance courts had been active and had collected all the relevant evidence for the case . They had diligently taken all the necessary steps in order to hear the evidence directly and to verify the applicant \u2019s defence arguments . They had valid reasons for not having directly heard all the victims and witnesses in the case , namely that the individuals in question had left the country . Consequently , the courts had applied LAW . The factual circumstances had been established on the basis of ORG and ORG \u2019s statements ; the statements of the girls forced into prostitution , namely ORG , NORP , ORG and ORG , who described how they had met the defendants and how they had prostituted themselves , and provided details on how they had been contacted by clients and on the money given to the applicant ; the report of the search carried out at the applicant \u2019s home ; the report containing a description of the objects belonging to ORG , which had been found in the applicant \u2019s home ; the letter received by ORG from her mother , which had been found in the applicant \u2019s home ; the list of telephone calls made from the applicant \u2019s phone , which had established the phone contact between the defendants and some of the clients who had contacted the applicant \u2019s co - defendant or with whom she had had sexual relations ; and the witness testimonies of NORP , PERSON , ORG , F.H.A. , J.L.A. and M.M.K.","On an unspecified date ORG instituted criminal proceedings for perjury against the witness NORP who had changed her testimony before the first - instance court in the applicant \u2019s favour .","By an order of DATE ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings for perjury against NORP on the grounds that her action had not met the level of severity required for an offence and the domestic courts had disregarded her statement given at the trial . However , it fined NORP the sum of RON CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for her behaviour . G.S.S. did not challenge the order before the domestic courts ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144131","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VELYO VELEV v. BULGARIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general} (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . In DATE he was convicted of a fraud offence and served a sentence of imprisonment in FAC from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he was arrested on suspicion of unlawful possession of firearms . DATE and DATE he was detained on remand in FAC , where he claimed to have been detained with \u201c recidivist \u201d prisoners ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","As he had never finished his secondary education , the applicant requested to be enrolled in the school operating inside FAC . In DATE he submitted a written request to the governor of ORG , asking to be enrolled for the DATE . He received no reply before DATE began on DATE , so he wrote again to the governor on DATE and also to ORG and ORG ( in GPE , the Prosecutor is the authority competent to oversee the lawful execution of pretrial and post - conviction detention ) . The applicant received a letter from the Prosecutor , dated DATE , which said that the prison administration had taken due account of the possibility for the applicant to study , in view of his previous sentence . The ORG further stated that the applicant \u2019s assertion regarding refused access to education had not been confirmed . The applicant also received a reply , dated DATE , from ORG . The letter stated that individuals deprived of their liberty ( \u043b\u0438\u0448\u0435\u043d\u0438 \u043e\u0442 \u0441\u0432\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0434\u0430 ) were entitled to continue their education in prison and made no specific reference to remand prisoners .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant sent another request to the prison governor , ORG and ORG . On DATE the applicant filed a new request with the prison governor , again asking to be enrolled in the prison school for the DATE . Referring to the letter of DATE , the applicant argued that ORG had recognised his right to access to education in prison . On DATE he received a reply signed by the Head of the Execution of Punishments Directorate of the Ministry of Justice , rejecting his request . The letter stated , inter alia :","\u201c It was established that [ the applicant ] has not yet been convicted . Once convicted , he is to be transferred to a prison for recidivists .","The inclusion of recidivists in the educational and work programmes in a prison for non - recidivists would lead to a breach of the requirement that different categories of inmates are to be kept apart and are to participate separately in correctional programmes ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed against the refusal to enrol him in the school , claiming that in the absence of a second sentence of imprisonment he could not be treated as \u0430 \u201c recidivist \u201d . In his written pleadings he relied explicitly on the right to education as guaranteed by LAW and by LAW , as well as on LAW of ORG for the Treatment of Prisoners , which provided , inter alia , that \u201c [ p]rovision shall be made for the further education of all prisoners capable of profiting thereby \u201d . In the applicant \u2019s opinion LAW DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) imposed the same obligation on the authorities to provide access to education to prisoners detained on remand as the obligation to provide such access to sentenced prisoners . The refusal pursued no legitimate aim and was contrary to LAW DATE and ORG in Education ( published in ORG in DATE ) . During the hearing he indicated that other persons in his situation were allowed to study and that the prison authorities had not shown any legal ground for their refusal . The prison governor admitted that there had previously been a practice of providing access to the school , but that this had been discontinued because of concerns about the influence of \u201c recidivists \u201d on \u201c non - recidivists \u201d . The applicant had been refused access as he was to be treated as a \u201c recidivist \u201d within the meaning of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and could not attend the school because this would bring him into contact with non - recidivists .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal and ordered the governor to include him in the prison \u2019s educational programme . It found , in particular , that the refusal of the prison governor was based on the assumption that the applicant was a \u201c recidivist \u201d and that since LOC was a prison for \u201c nonrecidivists \u201d , it was the duty of the prison administration to exclude him from programmes involving other inmates , most of whom were \u201c nonrecidivists \u201d . The court held that the applicant could not be considered a \u201c recidivist \u201d , as defined by LAW because , although he had previously received a sentence of imprisonment , the current set of proceedings against him were still pending and he had not yet been convicted and sentenced a second time . The rule requiring that \u201c recidivists \u201d be kept separately from \u201c non - recidivists \u201d in prison was , therefore , inapplicable .","The prison governor appealed against that judgment . He argued that , in accordance with the principle for differentiated treatment of the various categories of prisoner , the applicant was accommodated in the group of those remand prisoners who , if convicted , would fall within the category of \u201c recidivists \u201d . Moreover , LOC was a prison for \u201c non - recidivists \u201d and the accommodation of \u201c recidivists \u201d , including remand prisoners treated as such , was exceptional .","Before the examination of the appeal , on DATE the applicant requested the governor to enrol him in the prison school for DATE , starting DATE . As he received no reply to his request , on CARDINAL September CARDINAL he filed a similar request with ORG .","On DATE ORG gave a final judgment in respect of the applicant \u2019s complaint about exclusion from the school . Before ORG , the prosecutor ( who intervenes in all ORG proceedings ) was of the view that the decision of ORG was correct and that the prison governor \u2019s appeal should be dismissed . The prosecutor further expressed the view that the grounds for the cassation appeal were unclear and based on an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law , contrary to the correct interpretation given by the first - instance court in the decision appealed against . In its decision ORG noted that before DATE amendments , LAW imposed an obligation for the mandatory education of all prisoners DATE . The current provision envisaged mandatory education only for persons DATE ; for those aged DATE and over there was an obligation on the State to make education available for prisoners who wished to take part . However , convicted prisoners had a right under domestic law to access education only where they had been sentenced to DATE or more of imprisonment , to ensure that they would have the possibility of completing DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . ORG concluded :","\u201c [ T]he right to education ( whether mandatory or voluntary ) is envisaged and regulated in the legislation of GPE solely in regard of persons deprived of liberty as a result of a final conviction [ \u043b\u0438\u0448\u0430\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0435 \u043e\u0442 \u0441\u0432\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0434\u0430 ] and not in regard of those deprived of liberty pursuant to a measure of remand [ \u0437\u0430\u0434\u044a\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0435 \u043f\u043e\u0434 \u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0430 ] . \u201d","It followed that the question whether the prison authorities unlawfully considered the applicant to be a \u201c recidivist \u201d was irrelevant .","Referring to that judgment , on DATE the Execution of Punishments Directorate replied to the applicant \u2019s requests of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , informing him that he would not be enrolled in the prison school for DATE .","Subsequently , the applicant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in respect of the firearms offence . He was removed from FAC on DATE and transferred to ORG to serve his sentence . The Government informed the ORG that the applicant did not file any requests to take part in educational activities while at that prison . However , in his observations to the ORG , the applicant stated that he did not file a request because there was no school at FAC . In addition , he sent the ORG documents which indicated that CARDINAL prisoner considered a \u201c recidivist \u201d had participated successfully in the education programme at FAC . The applicant was released from FAC on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166964","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DANIEL FAULKNER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in FAC , ORG .","On DATE the applicant was sentenced by ORG to custody for life for causing grievous bodily harm . The minimum period ( \u201c tariff \u201d ) was set at DATE , DATE , less time spent on remand . The tariff expired on DATE and he became eligible for parole .","ORG subsequently examined his case in order to review whether his detention remained necessary for the protection of the public . On DATE it decided not to direct his release but recommended that he be transferred to open conditions . That recommendation was rejected by the Secretary of ORG .","A second recommendation to the same effect was made , following the applicant \u2019s second ORG review on DATE and rejected by the Secretary of ORG on DATE . At the conclusion of its statement of reasons for rejecting the ORG \u2019s recommendation , ORG ( \u201c NOMS \u201d ) wrote :","\u201c The Secretary of ORG has therefore decided that you should remain in closed conditions and your next review will conclude in DATE . \u201d","The accompanying letter stated :","\u201c It has been decided that your case will next be referred to ORG for a provisional hearing to take place in DATE .","...","You will be notified by ORG nearer the time about the exact date of that hearing .","At your next review ORG will consider your suitability for release by way of a paper panel . This consideration will take place DATE prior to your provisional hearing [ in DATE ] . If you are not content with the paper panel \u2019s decision you may request that the case proceeds to the arranged oral hearing . \u201d","The case was referred to ORG on DATE . On DATE the applicant and ORG were sent relevant reports as required by the applicable rules . On DATE ORG gave case - management directions requiring additional reports . On DATE ORG received the further reports requested . The hearing took place on DATE . On DATE ORG directed the applicant \u2019s release . He was released from prison DATE .","Meanwhile , in DATE , the applicant commenced judicial review proceedings against the Secretary of ORG and ORG seeking damages for the delay in holding the hearing . He relied on LAW . He was granted permission to bring proceedings on DATE .","On DATE the claim was dismissed by ORG . Leave to appeal was granted by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG handed down its judgment . After carefully reviewing the facts and the individual periods of delay encountered , it concluded that there had been a delay of DATE , from DATE to DATE , in the holding of ORG hearing which was unjustified and for which the Secretary of ORG was responsible . This delay had prevented the applicant from having the lawfulness of his continued detention decided in accordance with LAW . On the question of damages , the court was satisfied that the applicant had shown , on a balance of probabilities , that he would have been released had the review taken place in DATE . Damages on the basis of a loss of liberty were therefore appropriate .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE on the amount of damages to be awarded , the court considered a number of just satisfaction awards in cases before this ORG in which breaches of LAW had been found . It distinguished between cases where the delay had merely led to feelings of frustration and those where it had been established that , but for the delay in the holding of the hearing , the applicant would have been released earlier . It awarded the sum of MONEY ( \u201c GBP \u201d ) by way of compensation for the loss of CARDINAL months\u2019 conditional liberty .","The applicant sought leave to appeal to ORG on the ground that the award was inadequate . ORG sought leave to appeal on the ground that the award was excessive . Leave was granted to both parties , and the applicant was in addition given permission to argue that his detention after DATE constituted false imprisonment at common law or a violation of LAW . In respect of his latter argument , he relied on this ORG \u2019s findings in PERSON , PERSON and PERSON v. the GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG unanimously rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and allowed the appeal of ORG , reducing the damages award to GBP CARDINAL .","As regards the alleged violation of LAW , Lord PERSON , giving the leading opinion , observed that LAW provided a procedural entitlement designed to ensure that persons were not detained in violation of their rights under LAW . However , he added , a violation of LAW did not necessarily result in a violation of LAW . He considered this ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , cited above , not to be directly relevant to the applicant \u2019s case since that judgment concerned lack of access to rehabilitation courses and the just satisfaction awards made were for the feelings of distress and frustration resulting from continued detention without access to courses , and not for loss of liberty . Lord PERSON noted that the delay in the applicant \u2019s case appeared to have been the result of errors by administrative staff , \u201c of a kind which occur from time to time in any system which is vulnerable to human error \u201d . While it was extremely unfortunate that the errors had occurred and had resulted in the prolongation of the applicant \u2019s detention , they were not of such a character , and the delay was not of such a degree , as to warrant the conclusion that there had been a breach of LAW .","On the matter of damages for the violation of LAW , Lord PERSON reviewed relevant case - law of this Court where a violation of LAW , DATE had been found , focusing in particular on cases concerning a delay in holding a hearing intended to address the question whether a convicted prisoner should be released . He considered that no clear guidance could be derived from the cases since none concerned awards for loss of liberty resulting from a violation of the speedy decision guarantee in LAW . While , he said , an appellate court would not interfere with an award of damages simply because it would have awarded a different figure if it had tried the case at first instance , in the applicant \u2019s appeal the court was being invited to give guidance as to the appropriate level of awards in cases of this character . For that purpose , the court had undertaken a fuller analysis of the case - law of this ORG than ORG . Lord PERSON concluded :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... In the light of that analysis , and applying the general approach which I have described ... , it appears to me that an award in the region of \u00a3 MONEY would adequately compensate PERSON for his delayed release , bearing in mind the conditional and precarious nature of the liberty foregone . That amount falls well short of the award of \u00a3 MONEY made by ORG . In the circumstances , it is in my view appropriate for this court to allow the ORG \u2019s appeal and to reduce the award accordingly . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155778","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"HARABIN v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159957","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ESCALDA FERREIRA v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE bank C. brought enforcement proceedings against the applicant before the ORG seeking the payment of a debt of FAC euros ( ORG ) plus EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in interest .","On DATE a writ of execution was issued against the applicant concerning an apartment he had mortgaged to the bank ( penhora do apartamento ) . On an unspecified date a judicial enforcement officer ( agente de execu\u00e7\u00e3o ) was appointed by ORG as depositary ( fiel deposit\u00e1rio ) , thus being in charge of the apartment and responsible for the course of the enforcement proceedings through the sale of the applicant \u2019s apartment , pursuant to LAW .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the ORG regarding the judicial enforcement officer \u2019s inactivity in the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( Comiss\u00e3o para a Efic\u00e1cia das Execu\u00e7\u00f5es ) complaining about the judicial enforcement officer \u2019s professional conduct which was preventing the sale of the applicant \u2019s apartment . On DATE the Commission acknowledged the receipt of the applicant \u2019s complaint and in DATE informed him that they would start disciplinary proceedings against the judicial enforcement officer .","On DATE following the applicant \u2019s complaint of CARDINAL DATE , ORG adopted a decision removing the judicial enforcement officer from his post on the grounds of professional negligence and appointed a new one .","According to the last information received by ORG DATE the proceedings are still pending at first instance ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159220","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"LEONTE v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr T.C. Baltag , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of driving under influence of alcohol and without a licence , of leaving the place of an accident and of manslaughter . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . In application of LAW , his right to vote and to be elected was withdrawn during detention .","The applicant appealed against the decision , complaining mainly about the manner in which the evidence had been assessed and the prison sentence established .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision , after reexamination of the evidence in the file .","The applicant appealed on points of law reiterating the arguments advanced in the appeal proceedings . The applicant complained again about the prison sentence imposed on him . The first hearing took place on DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyer filed the reasons for appeal for that hearing . In its final decision adopted on CARDINAL DATE , ORG and ORG upheld the previous decisions .","The relevant provisions of LAW providing the automatic withdrawal of the right to vote and to be elected during the execution of a prison sentence , read as follows :","\u201c Disqualification from exercising one or more of the rights mentioned below may be imposed as an additional penalty :","( a ) the right to vote and to be elected to bodies of a public authority or to public elective office ; ... \u201d","\u201c The secondary penalty shall consist in disqualification from exercising all the rights listed in LAW .","( CARDINAL ) A life sentence or any other prison sentence shall automatically entail disqualification from exercising the rights referred to in the preceding paragraph from the time at which the conviction becomes final until the end of the term of imprisonment or the granting of a pardon waiving the execution of the sentence ... \u201d","In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ( following an appeal in the interest of the law ) , ORG and ORG advised the domestic courts to interpret LAW in the light of the LAW , and thus assess the necessity of the withdrawal of the right to vote in each case . This decision became mandatory on the date of its publication in ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154391","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MELNICHUK AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The first CARDINAL applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They are father and daughter . The last CARDINAL applicants , who are husband and wife , were born in DATE and DATE respectively . All the CARDINAL applicants live in NORP , GPE .","Early on TIME DATE , the first applicant and his wife , PERSON , who was the mother of the second applicant DATE at that time both citizens of ORG ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) \u2013 were driving through southern GPE , heading home after a trip to ORG , together with the third and fourth applicants . They were driving in a column of CARDINAL cars which were transporting CARDINAL NORP citizens in total .","At the same time , a NORP army unit from GPE had been notified by an unidentified person from FAC of Drobeta Turnu PERSON that a column of foreign cars was driving from ORG Turnu PERSON towards GPE . At the time of the events , the former President GPE had just been toppled and there were allegedly persistent news reports that terrorists were trying to reinstate the regime .","Suspecting that the foreign cars belonged to the so - called terrorists , a team of soldiers was dispatched by Colonel C. \u2013 the commander of the army unit of GPE , who later became general and commander - in - chief of ORG \u2013 to block the road in the nearby of the village of LOC , on the viaduct named PERSON . The unit was led by Lieutenant Colonel S. The road was blocked by CARDINAL armoured vans , between which only a single car could pass .","The column of cars reached the blockade , followed by a local bus . The soldiers asked the passengers several times , in NORP , to get out of the cars and surrender . As the tourists did not understand what was happening , they did not get out of the cars . During the domestic inquiry , the applicants and the other persons in the cars submitted that the shooting had started without any prior warning . The passengers in the cars started screaming in NORP that they were NORP tourists . The applicants and the other persons travelling in the column tried to turn back the cars . After a brief pause , the soldiers started shooting again . The first applicant \u2019s wife was shot in the head and the passenger sitting behind her DATE namely the third applicant \u2013 was wounded by bullets , as was the fourth applicant .","Those who were not wounded started to run away from the cars and tried to hide by the side of the road . At that moment a third round of shooting started . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cars caught fire . Then the shooting stopped and the soldiers approached the cars . The first applicant tried to explain that they were tourists .","Several bullets also hit the local bus and wounded a passenger who was going to his workplace in GPE .","After a while , the first applicant and his wife , together with the third and fourth applicants , were taken to a nearby hospital . The first applicant submits that he was called a terrorist by the NORP soldiers , who pushed him around .","PERSON was operated on the same day but fell into a coma . On DATE she was transferred to a hospital in GPE , where she eventually died on DATE . The medical certificate issued in respect of her death stated that it had been caused by wounds inflicted by gunfire .","The second applicant travelled to GPE to bring back her mother \u2019s body .","On DATE the third applicant , who had been wounded in her spine , was transferred to a hospital in GPE , due to her serious medical condition . She never recovered completely and is recognised as a disabled person . From a forensic report dated DATE , it appears that the third applicant needed DATE of medical care .","The fourth applicant , who was shot in his left shoulder , was able to leave hospital and go back home to NORP on DATE . From a forensic report dated DATE , it appears that the fourth applicant needed DATE of medical care .","From the investigation carried out by the NORP authorities it appears that on this occasion QUANTITY persons died \u2013 the first CARDINAL applicants\u2019 close relative and LOC \u2013 and QUANTITY persons from the car column were wounded , namely the last CARDINAL applicants , ORG , ORG , GPE , S.F.D. and PERSON","On DATE the GPE citizens involved in the abovementioned events , including the third and fourth applicants , addressed a complaint to the consular authorities of ORG in ORG . A complaint was also brought on behalf of the first applicant and his wife , who were still hospitalised in GPE and could not personally sign it .","The military prosecutor \u2019s office in GPE opened a criminal investigation with file no . CARDINAL .","It appears from documents submitted by the respondent Government that during DATE several investigative measures were instituted . Some of the victims , including the first applicant and some witnesses were questioned by the investigative authorities DATE and DATE .","NORP The officer who gave the order to open fire wrote a report on the events which was included in the file .","On DATE , ORG in GPE addressed an inquiry to the NORP authorities concerning the progress of the investigations .","On DATE , Colonel C. \u2013 the commander of the military unit of GPE , who had given the order for the army intervention at GPE \u2013 was questioned as a witness with regard to these events . He stated that , following the phone call received from ORG PERSON concerning the column of cars heading towards GPE , he had supposed ( \u201c am b\u0103nuit \u201d ) that they were terrorists and had ordered them to be stopped before they reach GPE .","Medical certificates were handed over to the investigation authorities in respect of the wounds inflicted on the tourists . A technical report was drawn up evaluating the damage to the cars involved in the incident .","Statements were taken from the military staff involved in the incident , namely the army unit which had dispatched the team of soldiers to LOC .","DATE and DATE , with the assistance of ORG , all the victims were interviewed in their country by a NORP prosecutor and their statements were handed over to the NORP authorities on CARDINAL DATE .","On this occasion , all the victims requested civil compensation for the damaged suffered in the incident .","On DATE , additional investigative measures were ordered by a military prosecutor , but it appears that none was taken .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the prosecutor decided not to institute criminal proceedings on the grounds that the shooting had taken place as the result of fortuitous circumstances : the soldiers had been led to believe that the tourists were terrorists , so that when the tourists failed to respond to the order to get out of the cars and surrender , they had given the soldiers an impression of imminent danger .","The above - mentioned decision was automatically subject to review by the relevant Section of the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG ( PERSON , \u201c SPM \u201d ) . On DATE , the ORG requested additional investigative measures .","On DATE , the military prosecutor \u2019s office in GPE asked PERSON for guidance in conducting the impugned investigations .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG quashed the DATE decision not to institute criminal proceedings . In so ruling , the prosecutor found that there had been no justification for the order to open fire , taking into account that the tourists were not armed and had not presented any immediate danger . It was emphasised that the second round of shooting had taken place when the cars were stationary and the passengers were trying to hide in the immediate surroundings environment . He considered that the order to shoot had constituted a criminal act and that any fear that the soldiers might have experienced could not have amounted to a circumstance capable of removing criminal liability . It was therefore ordered to institute criminal proceedings against Lieutenant Colonel S. for aggravated murder .","The file was sent back to the military prosecutor \u2019s office in GPE on DATE .","On DATE , the military prosecutor \u2019s office wrote to the commander of the army unit of GPE asking him to ensure that Lieutenant Colonel PERSON would be present for questioning on DATE , and to hand over his last CARDINAL appraisal reports .","Colonel PERSON failed to appear before the military prosecutor on DATE . The appraisal reports had been sent to the military prosecutor \u2019s office . They showed that S. had been upgraded to colonel .","On DATE , ORG in GPE found that it was not competent to decide the case and referred it to the military prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG ( ORG ) .","On DATE , the military prosecutor \u2019s office wrote again to the commander of the army unit of GPE reminding him of his previous letter of DATE and asking him to ensure that officer S. be present for questioning on DATE .","On DATE , Colonel PERSON was formally notified of the criminal charge brought against him and gave a statement before the military prosecutor . He stated that he had not initially ordered the shooting but that it had been a spontaneous reaction by another soldier . He also stated that he had joined in the first round of firing , that he had personally spent CARDINAL cartridges and that he had subsequently ordered the second round of firing .","It appears also from the case file that in DATE Colonel S. underwent a psychiatric evaluation . A medical report was delivered in this respect on DATE stating that Colonel PERSON had a normal representation of the consequences of his acts .","After considering a complaint lodged by Colonel PERSON , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG ordered the partial annulment of the decision of DATE . It was considered that the criminal investigation should not have been limited to Colonel PERSON , as other persons might also have been involved . The prosecutor indicated that the criminal investigation needed to elucidate all the circumstances of the events and , on the basis of the results thus obtained , criminal proceedings should be initiated against all relevant persons . It was therefore ordered that the criminal investigation should be in rem . It was further indicated that the decision should be communicated to all interested parties .","The decision was communicated to Colonel S , but not to the victims .","Following the decision of CARDINAL DATE , it appears from the case file submitted by the responding Government that no investigative measures were taken DATE .","On DATE , the military prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG ordered the discontinuation of the criminal investigation on the grounds that the criminal liability was timebarred .","On DATE , GPE and GPE , CARDINAL of the victims of the shooting of DATE , lodged a complaint against the decision of CARDINAL DATE with the higher prosecutor .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and ORG quashed the decision of DATE , indicating that DATE given the fact that in DATE criminal proceedings had been instituted against Colonel PERSON and several procedural acts had been taken in connection therewith \u2013 the running of the statutory time - limit had been interrupted and criminal liability was therefore not time - barred . It was also decided that the investigation file should be joined to the main criminal investigation file concerning the DATE events , namely case file no . MONEY . Lastly , it decided that the criminal charges previously brought against Colonel PERSON should be resumed and that investigations continue in this respect .","According to the facts established by ORG in the case of the ORG \u201c DATE \u201d and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , several criminal investigations into the fatal crackdown on the demonstrations of DATE , which had initially been conducted separately , were joined to the investigation that was the subject matter of case no . CARDINAL . In this case , by a previous decision of DATE , the military prosecutor \u2019s office had ordered the indictment of CARDINAL persons , principally officers from the ORG , police and ORG forces \u2013 including some high - ranking ones \u2013 for murder ( Articles CARDINAL of LAW ) , genocide ( LAW of LAW ) , inhuman treatment ( LAW ) , attempts to commit those acts , complicity and instigation in the commission of the above acts and participation in them , acts committed \u201c during the period from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE \u201d . CARDINAL civilians , including a former President of GPE and a former Head of ORG , had been also charged .","A letter of CARDINAL DATE from the military prosecuting authorities indicates that CARDINAL decisions to discontinue proceedings , issued in the separate investigations , were set aside and the relevant files joined to case no . CARDINAL . After the initial decisions to discontinue proceedings had been set aside , investigations concerning CARDINAL victims who had been killed or injured during the period from DATE in various areas of the country were also joined to case no . CARDINAL .","In a previous letter of DATE , the head prosecutor of the military prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and Justice indicated that during DATE , CARDINAL persons had been questioned in case no . CARDINAL . In addition , CARDINAL ballistics reports had been prepared , CARDINAL investigative measures had been instituted and CARDINAL onsite inquiries had been conducted . He also stated that \u201c among the reasons for the delay [ in the investigation ] , mention should be made of the repetitive measures ... concerning the transfer of the case from CARDINAL prosecutor to another ... , the fact that the prosecutors did not promptly inform the injured parties about the decisions to discontinue proceedings ... and the fact that the investigation had been reopened DATE after the persons concerned had filed their complaints ... ; the lack of cooperation on the part of the institutions involved in the crackdown of DATE ... , the extreme complexity of the investigation ... given that the necessary investigative measures had not been conducted immediately after the impugned homicides and ill - treatment ... \u201d .","The above - cited letter mentioned another reason for the delay , namely decision no . PERSON of ORG of DATE , which withdrew jurisdiction to conduct investigations in case no . CARDINAL from the military prosecuting authorities at ORG and ORG and transferred it to the civil prosecutors , that is , to the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and Justice . In the opinion of the head of the military prosecutor \u2019s office , as stated in the above - cited letter of DATE , the transfer of the case was sufficient to cause new delays in the proceedings , given the significant volume of the case file , the complexity of the case and the time that had elapsed since the events under investigation .","By a decision of DATE , the military prosecuting authorities at ORG and ORG decided to sever the investigation concerning the CARDINAL civilian defendants ( including a former President of GPE and a former Head of ORG ) from the investigation involving military personnel , and to relinquish its jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and Justice .","According to a press release issued on DATE by ORG at ORG , the President of the ORG intended to ask ORG to identify the reasons which had prevented the criminal investigation from being conducted rapidly .","In DATE , the applicants petitioned ORG of GPE and ORG in order to get information about the investigation . Their petition remained unanswered .","CARDINAL subsequent decisions of DATE and DATE mentioned by the Government , but not submitted to the ORG , were delivered by the NORP authorities . These decisions were not communicated to the applicants .","According to the Government , on DATE the military prosecutor in charge of the investigation decided to discontinue the proceedings in respect of the events that had taken place on DATE in LOC . On DATE , the aforementioned decision was also quashed and a new case was registered with the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and ORG under no . CARDINAL .","CARDINAL According to the information submitted by the Government , the investigations are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163821","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MUGO\u0160A v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , but is currently detained at ORG ( Zavod za izvr\u0161enje krivi\u010dnih sankcija ; \u201c ORG \u201d hereinafter ) in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was detained on suspicion that he had committed a murder .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE issued a detention order against the applicant . It is clear from the case file that the applicant \u2019s detention was extended on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The decisions of CARDINAL May and DATE are in the case file . The decision of CARDINAL DATE specified that the detention would last \u201c until a further decision of the court \u201d ( i m a trajati do dalje odluke suda ) . The decision of DATE specified nothing in this regard .","On DATE the applicant was indicted for murder .","On DATE the applicant approached the prison authorities requesting that he be released in the absence of any decision extending his detention after DATE .","DATE the applicant was served with a copy of a decision of CARDINAL DATE , sent by fax . The copy was neither signed nor stamped . The decision , in its reasoning part , specified as follows :","\u201c On CARDINAL DATE the High State Prosecutor in GPE lodged an indictment GPE . CARDINAL against [ the applicant ] for the criminal offence of aggravated murder under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .","[ The applicant ] was detained pursuant to decision GPE . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL issued by the investigating judge of this court on DATE , which detention was extended by decisions of this court \u2019s panel , ORG . Br . CARDINAL of DATE and ORG . Br . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE .","The CARDINAL - judge panel ( krivi\u010dno vije\u0107e ) has , on its own motion , within the meaning of LAW of LAW , examined further detention of [ the applicant ] and found as follows :","- the detention [ of the applicant ] should be extended pursuant to LAW .","Notably , given that [ the applicant ] is indicted for an aggravated murder pursuant to LAW ( a ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , and in view of the seriousness of the criminal offence for which he could be sentenced to DATE of imprisonment , and especially in view of the fact that the accused committed the said criminal offence on DATE at around CARDINAL , after which he fled the crime scene , and that the authorised police officers of ORG deprived him of liberty on DATE at CARDINAL , these are the reasons , in view of the panel , justifying the extension of detention pursuant to LAW .","In the opinion of this panel [ the applicant \u2019s ] detention should be extended also pursuant to the detention basis as provided in LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , given that [ the applicant ] is charged with aggravated murder under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , and having in mind that the provided sentence is DATE of imprisonment , the first condition for the extension of detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW is fulfilled , that is that the provided sentence for the criminal offence is DATE or more . Furthermore , in this particular case there are particularly qualifying circumstances of the criminal offence at issue due to the manner in which it was committed or its consequences , which are reflected in the fact that [ the applicant ] , as it transpires from the case - file , [ ... ] in an insidious manner and for material gain , deprived X of his life [ ... ] by shooting him at close range in the chest and in the back with an automatic gun several times , inflicting on him numerous injuries and causing his immediate death , after which he fled , and according to this panel the aforementioned established facts and circumstances , in their entirety , represent extraordinary circumstances indicating that the [ applicant \u2019s ] release would threaten public order and peace , which reasons justify the extension of detention . \u201d","On DATE the applicant appealed , complaining about the manner in which the decision had been served on him and claiming that his detention had ended on DATE , that is DATE as of the last extension of detention . DATE the applicant was served with the stamped and signed decision of CARDINAL DATE .","NORP On DATE the applicant filed another appeal .","On DATE ORG ( Apelacioni sud ) in GPE dismissed both appeals . It established that the decision delivered by fax was identical to the original which was signed and stamped . It further considered that the applicant had been served with a decision bearing no signature or stamp by an obvious mistake , which did not make the decision unlawful or cause a violation of his human rights guaranteed by LAW and the Convention . One of the judges involved in the ruling was GPE","By DATE the applicant filed a constitutional appeal , submitting a number of complaints , CARDINAL of them being that ORG should have been excluded from the bench given that she was related to the representative of the injured party .","On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud ) in GPE quashed the decision of ORG and ordered that the case be re - examined . ORG quashed the said decision on the ground that GPE had indeed to be excluded from ruling on the applicant \u2019s appeals as she was the sister of the injured party \u2019s representative . In view of this , the court did not consider it necessary to examine the other complaints .","On DATE ORG , upon the remittal by ORG , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeals . This decision was not submitted to the case - file . From the subsequent decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , however , it transpires that ORG held , in particular , that : ( a ) the applicant \u2019s detention had not ended on DATE , as the previous detention order had not specified how long the detention would last and the statutory time - limit of DATE was not mandatory ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) ; and ( b ) the absence of the stamp and signature on the detention order did not make it unlawful .","On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional appeal complaining that his detention had not been extended within the statutory time - limit of DATE , that the copy of the relevant decision had not been signed and stamped , and that the presumption of innocence had been violated by ORG decision . He relied , inter alia , on DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal . It considered in particular that the relevant legislation limited the duration of the detention to DATE after the indictment , and that there was no other limitation in that regard . The courts had a duty to examine DATE if reasons for detention persisted and , depending on the circumstances , extend it or revoke it . There was no obligation on the courts to specify how long the detention would last , given their obligation to control the duration of the detention DATE . However , these statutory time - limits were not mandatory and the fact that the decision had been issued after DATE and DATE could not therefore be decisive for concluding that the applicant \u2019s right to liberty was violated . The court also held that ORG and ORG had not stated that the applicant was guilty but that it transpired from the case - file and the disputed decisions that the applicant had been charged with the relevant criminal offence . The court did not address the complaint about the lack of a stamp and signature on the copy of the decision extending the detention on DATE .","It is clear from the case - file that the above decision of ORG was not dispatched before DATE .","On DATE , as submitted by the Government , ORG issued a first - instance decision on the charges against the applicant . They did not provide a copy thereof . There is also no information in the case - file as to whether the criminal proceedings against the applicant have ended in the meantime and if so what the outcome was ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","6-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154742","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"TUCALIUC v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG decided to commence a criminal prosecution against the applicant , a colonel in the NORP army and employee of ORG , for abuse of office and bribe - taking . He was subsequently indicted and on DATE ORG convicted him of the above - mentioned crimes and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against this decision was partially allowed on CARDINAL DATE by ORG which decided to reduce his sentence to DATE imprisonment .","The applicant filed an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against the decision of ORG . Among other requests , he claimed before ORG and ORG ( \u201c High Court \u201d ) nonpecuniary damage in compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings .","NORP In its judgment of DATE ORG took note of the length of the proceedings , acknowledging that it had exceeded the reasonable time requirement and breached the provisions of LAW applicant . It further held that , in order to remedy this situation , the applicant \u2019s sentence would be reduced to DATE although the punishment for the crimes of which the applicant was convicted was DATE imprisonment respectively . ORG also mentioned that it was not competent to examine the applicant \u2019s request for non - pecuniary damage arising out of the excessive length of the proceedings but that such a request could be addressed by the applicant to the civil courts .","The High Court further decided to suspend the execution of the applicant \u2019s sentence , having in mind the timeframe that had elapsed from the date the crime was committed - a period of time in which the applicant had been of good behaviour and taking into account the fact that he had been held in pre - trial detention for DATE period sufficient for him to understand the gravity of his acts . The elements analysed under the issue of the length of the proceedings were also taken into consideration for this decision .","The relevant NORP legal provisions on the issue of length of criminal proceedings are described in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183206","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SALAKHBEKOV AND ABUKAYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["In DATE the applicants applied for recalculation of the social benefits they were entitled to as persons who took part in the clean - up operation at the GPE nuclear disaster site . Their claims were granted by domestic courts .","Further developments in their cases are summarised in the Appendix ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160430","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF IBRAHIMOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Article 6-3-b - Adequate facilities;Adequate time;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first and third applicants live in GPE , and the second applicant lives in GPE .","NORP The youth group ORG ( \u201c PERSON M\u0259hbuslar\u0131n H\u00fcquqlar\u0131n\u0131 M\u00fcdafi\u0259 Komit\u0259si \u201d ) decided to hold a demonstration at around TIME on CARDINAL DATE at FAC in GPE . They did not notify their plan to the relevant authority , ORG ( the ORG ) .","According to the applicants , the demonstration was intended to be peaceful and was conducted in a peaceful manner . The participants , a group of CARDINAL persons , were demanding the release of young persons arrested during some previous demonstrations .","The applicants attended the demonstration , but shortly after it had begun the police started to disperse it . According to the applicants , as soon as they noticed the police approaching they attempted to run away and leave the place of the demonstration but police officers followed and caught them . All CARDINAL applicants were arrested by police officers GPE and GPE at TIME and were taken to police station No . CARDINAL of ORG .","Police officers GPE and ORG stated the following in a report ( raport ) submitted to a superior police officer :","\u201c ... at TIME at FAC ... a group of young persons attempted to hold an unauthorised [ demonstration ] by shouting out loud , and disturbed people . When we wanted to calm down those persons they ignored us . ... We ... brought them to police station no . CARDINAL . ... \u201d","According to the applicants , they were questioned at the police station .","TIME and TIME on DATE of the arrest , \u201c administrative - offence reports \u201d ( inzibati x\u0259ta haqq\u0131nda protokol ) were issued by police officer T.R. in respect of all CARDINAL applicants . The reports stated that at TIME on CARDINAL DATE , by deliberately failing to comply with the lawful order of the police , the applicants had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) .","All CARDINAL applicants refused to sign the respective administrative - offence reports , which contained pre - printed texts declaring that \u201c [ the arrested person ] was familiarised with the report \u201d and \u201c the rights and obligations under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG were explained \u201d .","Subsequently , police officer T.R. prepared \u201c administrative - arrest reports \u201d ( inzibati qaydada tutma haqq\u0131nda protokol ) with respect to the first and second applicants .","According to those administrative - arrest reports , copies of which were submitted to ORG , the first and second applicants had been subjected to administrative arrest at TIME on CARDINAL DATE . The reports also stated that the applicants had been released on DATE , without specifying the time of the alleged releases , and contained signatures of the first and second applicants . However , all CARDINAL applicants maintained that they had been kept in police custody TIME .","According to the applicants , they were never served with copies of the administrative - offence reports or with other documents in their case files . They were not given access to a lawyer after the arrest or while they were kept in police custody .","On DATE , DATE after his arrest , the first applicant , PERSON ORG , was brought before ORG .","According to the applicant , the hearing , which began at TIME , was very brief and members of the public , including human rights defenders and journalists , were not allowed to attend , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public .","The applicant was not represented by any lawyer . According to the applicant , he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice .","The applicant stated before the court that he was not guilty of disobeying a lawful order of a police officer .","The only witness questioned during the court hearing was police officer ORG , who testified as follows :","\u201c At TIME on CARDINAL DATE ... a group of persons attempted to hold an unauthorised [ demonstration ] by shouting out loud , and disturbed people . When we wanted to calm down those persons , among them [ the applicant ] , they disobeyed a lawful police order . Then we ... brought them to police station no . CARDINAL where administrative - offence reports were issued in their respect . CARDINAL of them was [ the applicant ] . \u201d .","NORP The court found that the applicant had failed to stop participating in the unauthorised demonstration . The court convicted him under LAW of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 \u201c administrative \u201d detention .","The applicant lodged an appeal before ORG , arguing that his conviction was in violation of his rights because the demonstration in which he had participated had been peaceful . He also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first - instance court had not been fair . He requested ORG to quash the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","The applicant was represented before ORG by a lawyer of his own choice .","NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court , stating that its findings had been correct .","ORG also noted that at the first - instance court hearing the applicant had refused the assistance of a ORG - funded lawyer and had decided to defend himself in person .","On DATE , DATE after his arrest , the second applicant , Mr PERSON , was brought before ORG .","According to the applicant , the hearing , which began at TIME , was very brief and members of the public were not allowed to attend , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public .","The applicant was not represented by any lawyer . According to the applicant , he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice . According to the transcript of the court hearing , he refused the assistance of a ORG - funded lawyer and decided to defend himself in person .","The applicant stated before the court that he was not guilty of disobeying a lawful order of a police officer and that he had participated in the demonstration as an observer .","The only witness questioned during the court hearing was police officer ORG The statement that he gave against the second applicant , Mr PERSON , was similar to his statement against the first applicant , PERSON ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The court found that the applicant had failed to stop participating in the unauthorised demonstration . The court convicted him under Article CARDINAL of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 \u201c administrative \u201d detention .","The applicant lodged an appeal before ORG , arguing that his conviction was in violation of his rights because the demonstration in which he had participated had been peaceful . He also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first - instance court had not been fair . He requested ORG to quash the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","The applicant was represented before ORG by a lawyer of his own choice .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court , stating that its findings had been correct .","On DATE , DATE after his arrest , the third applicant , PERSON PERSON , was brought before ORG .","According to the applicant , the hearing , which began at TIME , was very brief and members of the public were not allowed to attend , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public .","The applicant was not represented by any lawyer . According to the applicant , he was not given an opportunity to hire a lawyer of his own choice and he refused the assistance of a ORG - funded lawyer because he believed that such assistance would be of a formalistic nature .","The applicant stated before the court that he was not guilty of disobeying a lawful order of a police officer . He further emphasised that he and other participants of the demonstration had protested peacefully , and that they had been holding photos of arrested young persons , without uttering any slogans . The applicant also stated that he had run away as soon as he saw the police approaching and had boarded a taxi , and that police officers had stopped that taxi and had forced him out .","The only witness questioned during the court hearing was police officer ORG The statement that he gave against the third applicant , Mr PERSON , was similar to his statement against the first applicant , Mr PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG also confirmed that Mr PERSON had tried to escape by taxi , and that the police officers had stopped that taxi .","NORP The court found that the applicant had failed to stop participating in the unauthorised demonstration . The court convicted him under LAW of the ORG and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 \u201c administrative \u201d detention .","The applicant lodged an appeal before ORG , arguing that his conviction was in violation of his rights because the demonstration in which he had participated had been peaceful . He also complained that his arrest had been unlawful and that the hearing before the first - instance court had not been fair . He requested ORG to quash the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","The applicant was represented before ORG by a lawyer of his own choice .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of the first - instance court , stating that its findings had been correct ."],"violated_articles":["11","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-b","6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145226","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF R & L, S.R.O. AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger","text":["The first applicant is a limited liability company with its registered seat in GPE . It owns a QUANTITY tenement house in GPE , which it bought in DATE for CARDINAL NORP korunas ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . There is a shop on the ground floor and CARDINAL flat on each remaining floor . In CARDINAL of these CARDINAL flats the rent was regulated . The rent in those CARDINAL flats was CZK CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) , CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR DATE ) and CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) respectively per month . The DATE rent for the fourth flat was fixed at CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the first applicant sued the ORG for damages in the amount of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) corresponding to the difference between the regulated rent and the usual rent in the given area as estimated by the first applicant for the period DATE .","On DATE the GPE CARDINAL ORG ( obvodn\u00ed soud ) dismissed the first applicant \u2019s action . It held that it was not possible to award damages under LAW since failure to enact deregulating legislation could not be qualified as an \u201c incorrect official procedure \u201d within the meaning of the LAW . Moreover , the adoption by ORG of decrees nos . GPE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL could not be qualified as an incorrect official procedure either .","On DATE ORG ( m\u011bstsk\u00fd soud ) dismissed an appeal by the first applicant . It held that the impossibility of reaching an agreement on deregulating legislation in ORG could not be qualified as an \u201c incorrect official procedure \u201d within the meaning of LAW . The court added that in respect of the period from DATE to DATE rents had been regulated by Government Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . Although that decree had subsequently been repealed by ORG , the latter \u2019s judgments were not of retroactive effect and thus previous contractual relationships remained unchanged . Accordingly , there was no legal basis for compensation for that period .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the first applicant . It found that the legislative procedure in ORG could not be described as an \u201c administrative procedure \u201d under LAW and that it was impossible to engage liability on the part of the State for the result of voting in ORG .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed a constitutional appeal lodged by the first applicant as manifestly ill - founded , holding that actions for damages against the ORG had a subsidiary character and that the applicant company should have started by bringing an action for rent increase .","NORP The applicant owns a tenement house in GPE consisting of CARDINAL flats and CARDINAL non - residential LOC . The application concerns CARDINAL of these flats for which the applicant collected regulated rent in the total amount of CZK MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for the period DATE and DATE while the usual rent in the given locality would have amounted to CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) according to an expert report commissioned by the applicant . The applicant and his sister acquired the house under the restitution law in DATE . The applicant \u2019s sister later transferred her share to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant sued the ORG for damages in the amount of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) corresponding to the difference between the regulated rent and the usual rent in the given locality for the period DATE and DATE .","On DATE the GPE CARDINAL ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . It held that it was not possible to qualify the failure by ORG to enact deregulating legislation as an \u201c incorrect official procedure \u201d . While the previous regulations had been repealed by ORG , this did not produce a retroactive effect and thus no damages could be awarded for the period of time during which they were in force . The applicant should have brought an action against the tenant requesting the court to determine the amount of rent according to the local and material conditions ( nahrazen\u00ed projevu v\u016fle n\u00e1jemc\u016f k ur\u010den\u00ed v\u00fd\u0161e n\u00e1jemn\u00e9ho , kter\u00e9 by odpov\u00eddalo v\u0161em m\u00edstn\u00edm i v\u011bcn\u00fdm podm\u00ednk\u00e1m ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant . It held that the impossibility of reaching an agreement on deregulating legislation in ORG could not be qualified as an \u201c incorrect official procedure \u201d within the meaning of LAW . As regards the period until DATE , the court added that rents had been regulated by Government Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . Although it had subsequently been repealed by ORG , the latter \u2019s judgments did not have retroactive effect and thus the previous contractual relationships remained unchanged . Accordingly , there was no legal basis for compensation for that period .","On DATE ORG declared inadmissible an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal as manifestly ill - founded , holding that actions for damages against the ORG had a subsidiary character and that the applicant should have started by bringing an action for rent increase .","The applicant owns a tenement house in GPE consisting of CARDINAL flats and CARDINAL non - residential LOC . She became the sole owner of the house on DATE as a result of restitution ( in DATE ) , gifts ( in DATE ) , inheritance ( in DATE ) and purchases from CARDINAL other family members ( DATE ) . She collected regulated rent for CARDINAL of those flats in the total amount of CZK MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) for the period DATE and DATE while the usual rent in the given locality would have amounted to CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) according to an expert report commissioned by the applicant . The applicant occupied CARDINAL flat and let CARDINAL flats to her son and daughter .","On DATE the applicant sued the State for damages in the amount of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) corresponding to the difference between the regulated rent and the usual rent in the given locality for the period DATE and DATE . On DATE she withdrew her claim in respect of an amount of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the Prague CARDINAL ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . It held that it was not possible to qualify the failure by ORG to enact deregulating legislation as an \u201c incorrect official procedure \u201d . The applicant should have brought an action against the tenant requesting the court to determine the amount of rent according to the local and material conditions .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision . In respect of the period DATE , it held that rents had been regulated by several regulations . Although these had subsequently been repealed by ORG , its judgments were not of retroactive effect and thus the previous contractual relationships remained unchanged . As a result , no compensation could be awarded for that period . As regards the subsequent period , the court held that the impossibility of reaching an agreement on deregulating legislation by ORG could not be qualified as an \u201c incorrect official procedure \u201d within the meaning of LAW . State responsibility could however flow from general liability under civil law . Yet , it would be very difficult to establish a causal link between the damage and an unconstitutional failure on the part of the ORG to enact deregulating legislation . Referring to ORG judgments nos . Pl . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Annex II ) , the court held that as of DATE at the latest the applicant could have brought an action pro futuro . As regards the period DATE and DATE ORG stated that the applicant should have brought an action against the tenants for forfeiture of the proceeds of unjust enrichment . Given that the litigation stemmed from an unlawful situation which was to a substantial extent caused by the ORG \u2019s inactivity , and the persisting evolution of the case - law , which had not yet been settled , the applicant was exempted from payment of the costs of the proceedings incurred by the ORG both for the first - instance and the appellate proceedings .","On DATE ORG declared inadmissible the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . It found that the legislative procedure in ORG could not be described as an \u201c administrative procedure \u201d within the meaning of LAW and that it was impossible to engage liability on the part of the State for the result of voting in ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal . She explained , inter alia , that an action against the ORG was the only avenue she could use . It was not possible to bring an action against the tenants . First of all , the lower courts had been dismissing such actions DATE and DATE , which was the period to which her claim related . Moreover , that judicial practice corresponded to the established case - law of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL of Annex II ) and the result of any action against the tenant was thus fully foreseeable . Further , the possibility of bringing an action for rent increase had been created by ORG only in its landmark judgment no . PERSON . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE . In any event , contrary to the opinion of ORG , it was not possible to use that avenue in the applicant \u2019s case . Referring to ORG judgment no . ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL of Annex II ) , the applicant argued that her only option was to bring actions against the tenant pro futuro whereas her action concerned the past .","On DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional appeal by the applicant as manifestly ill - founded , holding that actions for damages against the ORG had a subsidiary character , and the applicant should have started by bringing an action for rent increase .","On DATE the applicant bought a tenement house in GPE nad Byst\u0159ic\u00ed at public auction . The rent was regulated in CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL flats . The rent in CARDINAL of the flats was set at CZK MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ) per month . The non - regulated rent for a smaller flat was CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . Had there been no rent regulation , then rent in a flat affected by the control would be CZK MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) DATE ( calculation based by compering yield per sq . m. of regulated and non - regulated flat ) .","On DATE ORG ( okresn\u00ed soud ) ordered the tenant of that flat to vacate it . On DATE the applicant filed a request for enforcement of that decision .","On DATE he lodged an action for payment of CZK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) corresponding to the outstanding rent for the period DATE and DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed that action on the ground that the tenant had actually vacated the flat on DATE .","In DATE the applicant lodged an action for payment of CZK MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL ) for the period DATE and DATE corresponding to the difference between the regulated rent and the rent that he considered usual in the given locality .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It referred to the case - law of ORG and ORG and held that rent could be increased only pro futuro . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s action could not be granted on the basis of forfeiture of the proceeds of unjust enrichment either because the parties had concluded a valid tenancy agreement .","On DATE ORG ( krajsk\u00fd soud ) upheld ORG analysis and dismissed an appeal by the applicant .","On DATE ORG dismissed a constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant , holding that landlords were not entitled to claim retroactively from tenants the difference between the regulated rent and the usual rent in the given locality . It noted that previous opinions to the effect that it was possible to lodge retroactive claims against tenants had been overruled by its Opinion no . CARDINAL of DATE .","The applicant owns numerous other tenement houses where the rent was regulated . He introduced separate domestic proceedings regarding those houses and ultimately lodged CARDINAL other applications ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE ) before the Court where he complains of the rent regulation scheme in GPE .","The applicants own a tenement house in GPE consisting of CARDINAL flats , CARDINAL of which was rented under the rent - control scheme . The rent was set at CZK MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) DATE . The applicants bought the house in DATE for CZK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicants informed the tenants of an increase in rent that would newly be CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) DATE , which the tenants refused to pay . On DATE they sent a letter of reminder to the tenants , who , on DATE , again refused to pay the increased rent .","On an unspecified date the applicants brought the case before the Prague CARDINAL ORG , which was empowered to determine the level of the rent according to the rent agreement ( dohoda o u\u017e\u00edv\u00e1n\u00ed bytu ) . On an unspecified date ORG had declined jurisdiction and informed the applicants that they should bring an action before the courts . The final reminder before the court action was sent to the tenants by the applicants on DATE .","On DATE the applicants thus lodged an action for payment of the increase in rent for the period from DATE amounting to CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the Prague CARDINAL ORG dismissed their action .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . Referring to the case - law of ORG , and especially its judgment no . ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL of Annex II ) , it held that rent could not be increased retroactively .","On DATE ORG declared inadmissible an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicants .","On DATE ORG , referring to its Opinion no . CARDINAL of DATE , dismissed a constitutional appeal lodged by the applicants , holding that a rent increase could be claimed only pro futuro from the date of lodging the action against the tenants .","On DATE the applicants also lodged a claim for damages against the ORG under LAW for the period from DATE . The proceedings are pending before the GPE CARDINAL ORG ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140231","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KRUSZY\u0143SKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is married with CARDINAL children . Prior to his early retirement he had been employed for DATE and had paid his social security contributions to the ORG .","On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an early - retirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the so - called \u201c EWK \u201d pension .","Along with his application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning his son \u2019s health condition , a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from chronic inflammation of upper respiratory tract and that he was in need of his parent \u2019s constant care .","On DATE ORG issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension . The pension amounted to ORG CARDINAL brut which at that time constituted PERCENT of the average brut salary in GPE .","ORG initially suspended the payment of the pension until DATE due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision . The applicant \u2019s employment relationship was terminated with effect from DATE and the pension was paid as of that date .","The applicant was issued with a pensioner \u2019s identity card marked \u201c valid indefinitely \u201d and he continued to receive his pension without interruption until the date of the revocation of the right .","On an unspecified date ORG asked ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant \u2019s son required the permanent care of a parent . On DATE the doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child could not be considered as ever having required such care .","On DATE the Rzesz\u00f3w Social Security Board issued CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant .","By virtue of CARDINAL decision , the payment of the applicant \u2019s pension was discontinued with immediate effect . By virtue of the other decision , ORG revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension under the scheme provided for by the DATE Ordinance .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting him of the right to an early - retirement pension . He submitted that he should receive the benefit because his child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of his retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) amended the challenged decisions and granted the applicant the right to the EWK payment with effect from DATE .","ORG appealed against the firstinstance judgment .","On DATE the ORG allowed the ORG \u2019s appeal , amended the challenged judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeals lodged against ORG decisions . The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of his right to a pension under the scheme provided by the DATE Ordinance as he had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the cassation appeal .","Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return his early - retirement benefits paid by ORG , despite the revocation of his right to an early - retirement pension .","NORP Throughout the whole period of receiving the EWK pension the applicant did not work .","On DATE the applicant started to work in a publishing house where he continued work until DATE . The applicant subsequently worked DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . DATE and DATE the applicant worked on the basis of a civil law contract . DATE he remained unemployed .","On DATE the applicant was granted a disability pension until DATE . The pension amounted to PERCENT of the average net salary .","The Government submitted that the applicant \u2019s gross DATE income was ORG CARDINAL ( approx . ORG CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL ( approx . ORG CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE and ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE .","The Government further submitted that the applicant \u2019s wife had a gainful employment . In DATE she earned PERCENT of the average gross salary in GPE . As of DATE she acquired the right to an oldage pension but she continued to work , so her income after DATE rose to PERCENT of the average gross salary .","The applicant has a daughter who also worked since DATE . She earned PERCENT of the average gross salary in GPE in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148641","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SCHOLER v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . When lodging his application , he was detained in FAC .","In DATE ORG was informed by a person , to whom they had guaranteed confidentiality and whose identity had remained unknown throughout the proceedings , that the applicant was selling large amounts of amphetamine .","The LOC police therefore mandated another police informer , PERSON , who was equally guaranteed confidentiality by ORG and was supervised by police officer PERSON , to test the veracity of these allegations . S. visited the applicant in his motorbike shop on DATE and pretended being interested in buying a motorbike . He visited the applicant in the shop for the second time on DATE . On that occasion , the applicant told PERSON that a former member of his motorbike club \u201c NORP \u201d had cheated the club and offered PERSON euros ( ORG ) if he would beat up that person . When the applicant showed PERSON , who had disclosed his acquaintance with arms , his firearms and asked PERSON whether he could supply him with weapons , PERSON asked the applicant whether he could sell him amphetamine . The applicant asked in reply how much S. would need and what price he would be ready to pay . PERSON offered to pay LAW per kilogram of amphetamine of a good quality . The applicant agreed to the offer and handed over to S. a sample of amphetamine which he had stored in a drawer of his garage . On DATE S. again visited the applicant and offered purchasing QUANTITY of amphetamine from the applicant , in accordance with the instructions from his supervising police officer . The applicant agreed to sell that amount of drugs at a price of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . He had carried a loaded revolver during all of his meetings with S. and had threatened S. with the revolver once , accusing him of being a traitor .","On DATE the ORG authorised the participation of an undercover police officer , C. , supervised by police officer L. , in the operation .","On DATE S. bought QUANTITY of amphetamine for EUR CARDINAL from the applicant , who carried a loaded revolver during the transactions , handed it over to C. who was awaiting him at a different place and brought the money supplied by C. to the applicant .","On DATE S. again visited the applicant in his garage and told him that he would like to buy further drugs from him . The applicant thereupon asked PERSON whether he would need QUANTITY or more . S. ordered QUANTITY of amphetamine , in accordance with his instructions from police officer PERSON , and announced that he would need higher amounts of drugs in the future . The applicant agreed to the proposals .","On DATE S. again bought QUANTITY of amphetamine for EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL in the presence of C. from the applicant , who carried a loaded revolver during the transaction . As advised by police officer PERSON then asked the applicant to supply a larger amount of drugs . The applicant explained that he could supply MONEY S. wanted , CARDINAL or QUANTITY . S. thereupon ordered QUANTITY of amphetamine for which he was to pay EUR CARDINAL .","On DATE S. and C. bought the amount of amphetamine ordered from the applicant ; the drugs were supplied by B. The applicant was arrested after having handed over the drugs to S. and while collecting the money from C. The police further seized QUANTITY of amphetamine in the applicant \u2019s flat and numerous guns in his garage .","B. , having been informed of his right to remain silent , confirmed to the police after his arrest and subsequently before the investigating judge that he had participated in the drug transaction on DATE and supplied the amphetamine seized on DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of drug trafficking in not insignificant amounts while carrying a weapon and another count of drug trafficking in not insignificant amounts and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","ORG established the facts as summarized above ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . It further took note of the fact that the applicant , a full member of the motorbike club \u201c MC Bandidos Chapter NORP \u201d , had previously been convicted , in particular , by ORG of trafficking in drugs ( amphetamine ) on DATE and sentenced to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment .","ORG observed that the applicant and his co - accused PERSON had not made any submissions on the drug charges during the trial hearing . Its findings of fact were based on the credible statements made by PERSON to his supervising police officer PERSON and , in respect of the last offence , on the confession made by co - accused PERSON during the investigation proceedings .","In the hearing , ORG , having rejected the applicant \u2019s objection to hearing police officer PERSON as a witness , had questioned PERSON as a witness giving hearsay evidence on the observations made by police informer S. It had not been possible to summon and question S. in person as the GPE - Palatinate Ministry for the ORG had issued a declaration dated DATE , supplemented on DATE following the trial court \u2019s proposal of alternative methods of questioning , blocking the disclosure of his identity ( Sperrerkl\u00e4rung ) . These declarations , running to CARDINAL pages respectively , had been read out in the hearing .","The Ministry had argued in these declarations that it was necessary to keep the identities of police informer PERSON , and also of undercover police officer C. , secret in order to protect their life and limb and that of their relatives . In the ORG \u2019s submission , there was a high risk that the applicant would organise a violent revenge against them . He was a member of the motorbike club \u201c PERSON , LAW \u201d , which was well - organised worldwide and known for violent , ruthless acts against persons considered as traitors . Members of the motorbike club were currently suspected of involvement in homicides . The applicant , on whose premises a considerable number of firearms had been found , had himself offered PERSON CARDINAL,CARDINAL for assaulting a former member of the motorbike club who was suspected of having deceived the club in the course of business transactions . Further perpetrators who had been involved in the drug deal might equally possess firearms and had not been arrested yet . The disclosure of the identity of the police informer and of the well - trained undercover agent would further compromise the police \u2019s ability to investigate serious crimes with their help or that of other informers in the future .","The Ministry further stated that there were no means other than the non - disclosure of their identity for the Land to protect the physical integrity of the police informer and of the undercover agent . In particular , keeping their names or places of residence secret or excluding the public and the applicant during their interrogation in court would be insufficient to protect them , owing to the presence of the applicant \u2019s lawyers and possibly of contact persons of the applicant observing the court building at DATE of the trial . ORG also rejected ORG proposal to have PERSON questioned by a commissioned judge outside the main hearing as the applicant \u2019s lawyers would be present during such a hearing and might pass on information to the applicant allowing the latter to detect S. \u2019s identity . Likewise , a video conference including acoustic and optical shielding , as equally proposed by ORG , could not exclude PERSON \u2019s and C. \u2019s identification by their figure , by their gestures and language used or by the disclosure of details permitting the detection of their identity in the course of questioning by the defence .","In ORG view , the reasons given in the ORG \u2019s declarations for the non - disclosure of ORG , and also C. \u2019s , identities were neither arbitrary nor obviously unlawful .","ORG noted that police officer PERSON had questioned PERSON on DATE and had reported PERSON \u2019s statements in the hearing . It had then given the defence the opportunity to put questions to S. in writing . On DATE PERSON again questioned PERSON , submitting to him the court \u2019s questions and those of PERSON \u2019s defence counsel , and again reported PERSON \u2019s statements in court . Both police officer PERSON and PERSON \u2019s detailed statements without contradictions were credible , having regard also to the fact that it had only hearsay evidence before it . ORG noted , in particular , that the applicant had contested having carried a loaded revolver during the first CARDINAL transactions , claiming that the object in his pocket had been a multi - tool . It found that PERSON had already mentioned on DATE that the applicant had carried a weapon . When again being questioned by police officer PERSON on the court \u2019s request on DATE , PERSON had given more details in respect of the revolver and had convincingly explained when and how he had seen that it had been loaded , which demonstrated the veracity of his statements .","ORG found that the statements made by the police informer could be used as evidence . Under the well - established case - law of ORG ( ORG referred to ORG , file no . CARDINAL StR CARDINAL , judgment of DATE , BGHSt CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ss . , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the use of police informers was permitted to combat serious crimes which were difficult to investigate , such as drug trafficking . It was not relevant in that context whether the applicant had been incited by a police informer to commit an offence as , in any event , this would not lead to an exclusion of evidence . In that event , the court would only have to state in the reasons of its judgment that there had been a breach of the right to a fair trial under LAW and would have to mitigate the penalty as a result thereof .","ORG considered that PERSON \u2019s submissions had been supported by considerable further circumstantial evidence . In particular , the nature and amount of drugs trafficked was proven as PERSON had handed the drugs in question over to the police immediately after the respective transactions . Moreover , in respect of the last offence , the applicant and PERSON had been caught in the act and arrested at the scene of the crime . Furthermore , PERSON had initially confessed to the ( third ) offence in the investigation proceedings and his statements had been reported in the hearing by the police officer and the investigating judge who had questioned him at the time .","Finally , both PERSON \u2019s confession and PERSON \u2019s statements concerning the second offence had been confirmed by the submissions made by undercover police officer C. to police officer PERSON who supervised him . PERSON had testified as a witness giving hearsay evidence in the hearing , the court having dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection to hearing him . The identity of C. had remained unknown as he had equally been covered by the ORG \u2019s declaration blocking a disclosure of his identity . The investigations by an undercover police officer had been lawful under ORG CARDINALa and QUANTITY \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see DATE below ) , as they had been authorised by ORG and ORG and had been indispensable in order to further investigate suspicions of drug trafficking by the applicant .","When fixing the sentence , ORG considered as aggravating factors the frequency of the offences as well as the applicant \u2019s prior conviction for drug trafficking . It took into account as mitigating elements that the drug transactions had been under police surveillance from the outset and that the drugs could not , therefore , freely circulate on the market . Moreover , the applicant had trafficked in so - called soft drugs of average quality only . Furthermore , the applicant was disabled at a rate of CARDINAL per cent and therefore particularly susceptible to suffer from detention .","In ORG view the applicant had not , however , been unduly incited by police informer S. to commit the offences in question , within the meaning of the case - law of ORG ( ORG again referred to ORG judgment of DATE , cited above , BGHSt CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ss . ) . The applicant had already been involved in drug trafficking and been predisposed to sell drugs prior to his meeting with the police informer . This was proven , in particular , by the fact that he had supplied PERSON with an amphetamine sample already when they discussed drug transactions for the first time . Moreover , he had indicated on that occasion that he could supply S. with larger amounts of drugs . ORG found in that context that the price offered by PERSON to the applicant ( LAW ) was the average price for a kilogram of amphetamine of average quality in the region . Furthermore , the applicant had previously been convicted of drug trafficking . As his offences had not therefore been the result of unlawful police incitement , there was no ground for mitigating the sentence on that account .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . He claimed , in particular , that his right to a fair trial under LAW and CARDINAL ( d ) of the LAW had been breached as he had been unable to cross - examine police informer PERSON and undercover agent C. , on whose submissions his conviction had essentially been based . Moreover , PERSON had unduly incited him to sell drugs . The evidence obtained by the incitement should therefore have been excluded at his trial .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law against ORG judgment as ill - founded .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He complained , in particular , that the judgment of ORG , confirmed by ORG , had breached his right to a fair trial under LAW . He had been unduly incited by the prosecution authorities to commit the offences he had later been found guilty of . Therefore , the evidence obtained by police incitement should have been excluded at his trial ( he referred to ORG Human Right \u2019s judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE to support his view ) . Moreover , throughout the proceedings , he had not had an opportunity to question the police informer and the undercover police officer .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180840","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF IVASHCHENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant had a press card issued to him as a photographer , stating that he was a \u201c correspondent at ORG . GPE \u201d . According to the applicant \u2019s submissions , he also prepared various texts for publication in print and Internet media outlets on an occasional basis .","NORP In DATE the applicant and PERSON travelled to GPE to prepare a report with photographs on , as he described it , \u201c the life of this unrecognised republic \u201d .","On DATE they returned to GPE , arriving on foot at the PERSON customs checkpoint . The applicant presented his NORP passport , press card and a customs declaration , stating that he had electronic information devices ( a laptop and flash memory cards ) in his luggage . The laptop was his own property , however , he also used it for professional purposes .","The applicant and NORP were examined by Officer PERSON In his report to his superior , drawn up at TIME on DATE , he stated that in view of the applicant \u2019s answers to questions and because of his behaviour , neither of which have been specified to the ORG , there was a need to verify the information contained in the applicant \u2019s customs declaration by way of an \u201c inspection procedure \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in respect of the items in his bag and backpack and to \u201c apply the measure for minimising risk as per profile no . CARDINAL ... \u201d .","The Government have submitted to ORG a written statement from PERSON , which reads as follows :","\u201c Following the customs control measure of an interview and given [ D. \u2019s and the applicant \u2019s ] behaviour and the nature of their professional activities , a supposition \/ assumption ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0436\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) arose that they might have banned printed and\/or audio- and video - material with extremist content in their bags ... Since [ the applicant ] noted in his declaration that he had electronic storage devices , I made a written report to the acting chief officer of the customs checkpoint concerning the need for carrying out an inspection of [ the applicant \u2019s ] bags in the framework of the risk management system and for involving Officer PERSON , an IT specialist . The inspection was approved by the chief officer by way of his handwritten approval on my report ... The chief officer issued an order for an inspection and authorised PERSON and myself to use the sampling procedure ... The above - mentioned supposition \/ assumption was based on the presence of a folder labelled \u201c Extremist \u201d in the laptop ... Data from it was copied on DATE [ on the spot ] ... to DVD RW disks , which were then sealed in a plastic bag ... [ The applicant ] , PERSON and CARDINAL attesting witnesses were present ... The sampling report contained a detailed description of the data that was copied , including the names of the folders that had been copied , their number and the number of files in each folder ... The copying was carried out by Officer PERSON I did not open or copy any electronic folders or files ... I did not read any \u2018 correspondence\u2019 ( personal correspondence or other text material ) ... An order to carry out a forensic examination was issued on DATE ... because on CARDINAL DATE we had no information about the relevant expert organisations for that type of forensic examination ... \u201d","The Government have also submitted a written statement from Officer B. , which reads as follows :","\u201c In accordance with the order for an inspection [ no . ... ] , which required sampling and which also indicated \u2018 other\u2019 , I copied data from [ the applicant \u2019s ] laptop to CARDINAL DVD RW disks ... because we had no other type of disks or electronic storage devices ... Since the laptop \u2019s hard drive was CARDINAL ORG and at the time we had no means for fast copying , I decided only to copy folders with strange names . I did not read any \u2018 correspondence\u2019 ( personal correspondence or other text material ) from the laptop . \u201d","According to the Government , after finding in the directory of the laptop an electronic folder entitled \u201c Extremism ( for ORG ) \u201d , which contained a number of photographs , the customs officer decided to copy it and some other folders from the laptop for further examination by an expert , who could determine whether they contained any information of an extremist nature .","The folder contained CARDINAL subfolders and CARDINAL files . The applicant made a note in the record , stating that the material had been copied onto rewritable DVD disks ( thus technically allowing the data to be modified , including by way of adding data ) . According to the applicant , the folder had some photographs and a PDF copy of an article entitled \u201c How to incite hatred ? \u201d on anti - extremism legislation . The article , written by PERSON , was published in the NORP Reporter magazine in DATE and was accompanied by photographs taken by the applicant . The author of the article discussed the controversies and difficulties relating to the interpretation and application of NORP anti - extremism legislation , with reference to CARDINAL criminal cases under LAW . According to the applicant , the material that was copied included documents and text concerning CARDINAL ethnic groups ( the PERSON and ORG ) , who were allegedly under pressure from the PERSON regional administration . For instance , a folder named \u201c Isolation \u201d contained texts describing the social problems facing CARDINAL ORG families ( with references to their personal details ) , who had been discriminated against by the regional administration .","It can be seen from the record of the sampling that CARDINAL folders ( containing some CARDINAL subfolders with over CARDINAL electronic files ) were copied . The folders had the following names ( mostly in NORP ) : In motion , Miscellaneous , Desktop , Foto_projects , On the road , Isolation , Drawings , CARDINAL May , CARDINAL May , DATE , PERSON , Extremism ( for ORG ) .","It appears that the data from the laptop was first copied to a mobile or external hard drive and then recopied to CARDINAL DVDs . According to the Government , the information was then deleted from the external hard drive . The original data in the laptop was not deleted and remained intact .","According to the applicant , his laptop remained with Officer PERSON for TIME . Allegedly , the officer read through the applicant \u2019s correspondence in the ORG messaging program and copied QUANTITY of data , including the applicant \u2019s personal correspondence , personal photographs and FTP - type passwords .","The applicant submitted the following written statement by PERSON to the ORG :","\u201c At TIME we presented ourselves at the border control and presented our passports ... We were then taken to the customs control area ... There the customs officers asked [ the applicant ] to hand over his press card ; so they were aware that he had one ... Officer PERSON interviewed us about the purpose of our visit to GPE and our professional and civic activities ... I heard an ORG border officer tell the customs officers about the need for a \u2018 special check\u2019 of our electronic storage devices ... Seeing a laptop in [ the applicant \u2019s ] bag , the customs officers expressed their intention to copy all the available information ... I was interviewed ( again ) about my civic activities , my political views and about [ the applicant \u2019s ] professional activities ... the type of work done and the publications ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant was informed that a report had been commissioned from a criminal forensics expert to determine whether the data copied from his laptop had any prohibited \u201c extremist \u201d content .","In DATE the expert organisation returned the DVDs to the customs office , stating that it was not possible to carry out the examination , although it gave no reasons . In DATE a report was sought from another expert organisation . Apparently , it concluded that the data contained no extremist material . According to the applicant , the DVDs with his data were handed over to him in DATE .","In the meantime , the applicant brought judicial review proceedings under LAW of LAW ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , challenging the adverse acts and actions of the customs officials .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed his claims . The court held as follows :","\u201c Laptops , storage devices , photo- and video - cameras should be considered as \u2018 ORG within the meaning of LAW . All goods should be presented for checking by customs , as required under LAW ... The customs authorities are authorised to take samples of goods for examination ... and to use technical devices to speed up the checks ... The data from the applicant \u2019s laptop was copied for the purposes of examination in compliance with Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL on combating fascism and political extremism ... In the circumstances , the fact that the samples taken for examination constituted all the relevant data was justified ... \u201d","The applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that the first - instance court \u2019s assessment had not taken into account the requirements relating to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , in particular , the requirement that any interference by a public authority had to be shown to be \u201c necessary in a NORP society \u201d and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued . He mentioned the ORG \u2019s case - law relating to the seizure of printed material and electronic devices , an action which adversely affects the maintenance of professional secrecy . The applicant also argued as follows :","( a ) Compliance with Decree no . CARDINAL was not possible without actually reading someone \u2019s correspondence and other personal information , thereby interfering with the constitutional right to the protection of the secrecy of correspondence and other communications . LAW only permitted restrictions on people \u2019s rights on the basis of a federal statute ; the decree in question was secondary legislation ( \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0430\u043a\u0442 ) and could not lawfully introduce additional limitations on constitutional rights ;","( b ) The trial court had mentioned that laptops , flash memory cards and the like were \u201c goods \u201d for the purposes of customs legislation . However , the sampling had been carried out in respect of the information they contained rather than the carriers or containers of the information ( \u201c the goods \u201d ) . Access to that information , however , was only allowed on the basis of a court order , as stated in LAW ;","( c ) In his \u201c written explanations \u201d to the appeal court , the applicant insisted that in LAW proceedings a public authority had the burden of proving that its acts were lawful and justified . However , the first - instance court had not required the customs authority to cite a specific legal provision authorising its officials to examine electronic data . According to the applicant , the customs authority representative had refused at the hearing to explain the specific content of the risk profile concerning the applicant , referring to the fact that the information in question was classified and was for internal use only . However , a DATE Instruction by ORG only authorised a customs inspection where the risk profile in question provided for that type of measure ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment , essentially reproducing the lower court \u2019s reasoning as follows :","\u201c Under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Customs Code , customs authorities fulfill the tasks and functions assigned to them by federal and other legislation ... and have the authority to apply measures prescribed by LAW for ensuring compliance with customs legislation ...","LAW defines goods ( for the purposes of customs legislation ) as movable property which is being transferred across the customs border . This includes laptops , memory flash cards , photo - cameras , video - cameras , printed material and the like . LAW provides that all such goods should be subject to customs clearance and customs control . LAW provides that goods should be declared when being transferred across the customs border . LAW provides that the declaration is made by way of presenting a written declaration or otherwise ... The transfer of goods by individuals for personal use is prescribed by LAW of LAW , and Government decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE . LAW provides that goods which are prohibited from being transferred to GPE must be removed from GPE .","By a letter of DATE ORG listed the goods which are banned from NORP territory ... By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG listed the goods that must be declared to customs .","The procedure for and the types of customs checks are described in Chapters CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code . Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides that customs checks are based on the principle of selectiveness and , as a rule , should be limited to such forms of control as are sufficient for ensuring compliance with customs legislation ... When selecting the form of control , the risk management approach is applied , which is based on the effective use of resources for preventing violations of the legislation ... Risk is defined as a probability of non - compliance with customs legislation .","When carrying out a customs check , the customs authority is allowed to take samples of goods which are needed for further assessment . The relevant procedure is defined in LAW order no . DATE . When carrying out a customs check , the authority is allowed to use technical means to limit the time of such checks ; the list and procedures for their use are defined in LAW and in ORG order no . CARDINAL of DATE ...","Order no . CARDINAL of DATE by ORG ( \u2018 On preventing the transfer of prohibited printed , audio- and video - material across the customs border\u2019 ) does not contradict the current customs legislation and has not been revoked because the current ORG Code contains LAW concerning bans and limitations on the transfer of goods across the customs border ...","In view of the above , the court agrees with the first - instance court that the customs inspection was authorised and carried out within customs control procedures and that the data was copied in line with NORP Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE ... LAW decree clearly requires the customs authority to \u2018 arrest and bring to liability persons who disseminate printed , cinematographic , audio- , photo- or video - materials which are aimed at being propaganda in favour of fascism , at inciting social , racial , ethnic or religious enmity ; and to take measures for seizing printed material of that PERSON ...","Article CARDINAL of the Code concerning the minimal amount of samples was complied with because the information taken for sampling was not homogenous . Thus when the samples were taken , it was necessary to take the full amount of information from the device ...","In addition , it is noted that under LAW , information received by customs officials may be used exclusively for the purposes of customs legislation ...","ORG officials are not authorised to disclose that information or transfer it to third persons , except as set down in the LAW or other legislation ... \u201d","NORP The applicant does not appear to have been prosecuted subsequently in criminal , administrative or other proceedings in connection with the data obtained from his laptop by the customs authorities ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140404","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SEMIKHVOSTOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection partially joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE the ORG of LOC found the applicant guilty of torture and manslaughter and sentenced him to CARDINAL half GPE imprisonment .","As is evident from medical documents provided by the applicant , prior to his arrest in DATE he completely lost the vision in his left eye , while the vision in his right eye was substantially impaired . In DATE he was registered as Category CARDINAL disabled on account of his poor eyesight .","In DATE , during his detention in correctional facility IK-CARDINAL in GPE , the applicant was severely beaten up by warders , and sustained a serious spinal injury leading to partial paralysis of his lower extremities . He started using crutches . According to him , subsequent ill - treatment , inadequate conditions of detention and a lack of proper medical assistance caused his health to deteriorate drastically : he developed an intervertebral hernia and intravascular tumor which , in turn , resulted in the lower part of his body being completely paralysed . He became wheelchair - bound . He supported his allegations with medical certificates issued in penal medical facilities .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant served his sentence in correctional facility IK-CARDINAL in GPE . In DATE he was transferred to correctional facility IK-CARDINAL in GPE , where he was detained until his release on DATE .","Having made no complaints about the conditions of his detention in facility IK-CARDINAL , the applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in facility IK-CARDINAL supporting his arguments with handwritten statements by a former inmate , NORP On his arrival to the facility the applicant was assigned to ORG , which was not equipped to house wheelchair - bound inmates . A large number of CARDINAL - tier beds were installed in the dormitory . The unit was dimly lit as the beds blocked the windows . CARDINAL inmates occupied the dormitory .","The lavatory in the dormitory was not adapted for disabled people , as the lavatory pans were not at floor level and did not have rails . The applicant always asked for assistance from CARDINAL other inmates , as he was unable to use the lavatory on his own . Not every inmate was willing to help , which made a sensitive situation even more frustrating and embarrassing for him , since he suffered from enuresis and encopresis ( bladder and bowel incontinence ) . Relying on D. \u2019s statement , the applicant argued that he had received assistance from inmates in the facility in exchange for cigarettes and money . Without payment , inmates had refused to help him . The applicant stressed that in addition to their unwillingness to help him , the inmates also had to perform their own DATE duties in the unit . They therefore had had no free time to help him to move around the facility . The facility administration had not taken any steps to rectify the situation . The applicant cited , as an example , behavior by CARDINAL inmates , Ya . and PERSON , appointed by the administration of the facility to assist him . The applicant insisted that they had created \u201c acute \u201d situations to force him to pay more for their services . When he could not pay , he had been left without any assistance , unable to go to the lavatory and forced to defecate in his underpants . The applicant also submitted that in DATE , once the ORG had communicated his application to ORG , he had only been provided with a special chair to use in a lavatory room .","The applicant then proceeded to describing the procedure for using the bathhouse . He had been able to use a communal bathhouse once DATE when an inmate had agreed to take him there in his wheelchair . Passages throughout the correctional facility grounds had been separated by barriers QUANTITY high . The applicant had required assistance from CARDINAL inmates to carry him over . In DATE and DATE he had been unable to find anyone willing to take him to the bathing facility . On the occasions he had been able to find inmates willing to help him and had paid for their services , he had been taken to the bathhouse , undressed , and carried by his hands into the cabin where he had been placed on a chair . He had showered leaning on a wall that he would not fall over . The bathing facility had not had any equipment to accommodate a disabled person such as the applicant . The shower heads had been installed too high and he had again needed to ask a detainee to help him to take a shower . Once again help had not been given willingly , as inmates had only been afforded TIME to take a shower themselves and had not wanted to spend that time helping him .","Citing the handwritten statement by inmate NORP , the applicant stressed that inmates who had wanted to use the shower cabins in the dormitories had to pay . The shower cabin had been locked and only the supervising inmates had had access to the key .","The applicant was not allowed to use the electric water heaters , which he needed to keep clean , in view of his suffering from bladder and bowel incontinence . He could not go to eat in the facility canteen , so was forced to eat in the dormitory , with food having been brought to him by inmates from the canteen . In DATE he did not eat for DATE as the food was served in dirty tableware .","NORP In DATE the applicant did not receive his DATE quota of CARDINAL meals a day . A cook was assigned the task of taking food to the applicant from the facility canteen . However , given that the cook was often too busy with his usual tasks , and the fact that the food was scarce , he frequently did not receive anything . NORP In DATE the applicant started receiving food in a plastic mayonnaise bowl , which was never washed or cleaned . He experienced food poisoning and stomach pain and his face , legs and arms became swollen . His requests for food to be served in suitable tableware were disregarded .","On DATE the applicant was registered as Category CARDINAL disabled , having been diagnosed with paraplegia .","According to the applicant , in DATE he was sent to a prison hospital to determine whether he was fit to continue serving his sentence . On his return to facility IK-CARDINAL DATE the applicant was again assigned to ORG . He provided an identical description of the conditions of his detention , save for minor details . In particular , he argued that CARDINAL inmates shared the dormitory , which measured QUANTITY . FAC inmates suffered from HIV , various stages of tuberculosis or had various disabilities . He could not take exercise in the open air , as he could not get into his wheelchair without assistance and could not leave the dormitory as the passageway was too narrow . Lavatory pans were installed on a pedestal QUANTITY above the floor and were separated from each other with partitions . He always received cold food in plastic bowls , and there was no way of heating food in the dormitory . His wheelchair was taken from him in the dormitory for security reasons .","The applicant and his representatives lodged a large number of complaints with various authorities . On DATE a deputy prosecutor of the LOC prosecutor \u2019s office sent a letter to the applicant , informing him that the regulations concerning conditions of detention in prison facilities did not cover the provision of access ramps . However , on the prosecutor \u2019s request ramps had been installed at the entrance to the dormitory building where the applicant was being held . The deputy prosecutor further stated that the applicant received food in the dormitory , being served by an inmate on duty who took it to him from the facility canteen . He was not asked to pay for that service and the food was served in the proper tableware and was adequate .","The applicant received similar letters from various officials in DATE and DATE .","On DATE a request to institute criminal proceedings was sent to ORG in GPE . That request was forwarded to the local investigation unit and the prosecutor \u2019s office . No response followed .","On DATE the applicant was released from detention . CARDINAL facility officials escorted him to GPE where , according to him , he did not have family or a home . The applicant was admitted to a hospital in GPE , where he has remained ever since , despite his efforts to find a place to stay a charity hostel .","Relying on certificates issued by the governor of correctional facility IK-CARDINAL , photos of the applicant \u2019s dormitory in that facility and handwritten statements by inmates from facilities IK-CARDINAL and ORG , the Government provided a lengthy description of the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention . In particular , while describing the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention before his transfer to facility IK-CARDINAL , they argued that the applicant had been able to use his legs and had therefore not needed assistance to move around , although he had allegedly attempted to conceal that fact from the authorities .","The Government continued with the description of the detention conditions in facility IK-CARDINAL .","On his arrival at facility IK-CARDINAL on DATE the applicant had been assigned to ORG where he had stayed for DATE . A certificate issued by the governor of correctional facility IK-CARDINAL showed that the entrance to the dormitory building of Unit CARDINAL had been equipped with a wheelchair ramp when the applicant had stayed there . Following the applicant \u2019s transfer from the unit , that ramp had been dismantled .","The Government stated that inmates had had CARDINAL sq . m of personal space . As is evident from a handwritten statement by the head of Unit CARDINAL , the applicant \u2019s dormitory had CARDINAL sleeping places . The Government also provided the ORG with dormitory plans . According to the plan , Unit CARDINAL was on the second floor , with CARDINAL stairs leading to it from the first floor . A long corridor of QUANTITY . m led to the sleeping room of CARDINAL sq . m where there were QUANTITY , CARDINAL chairs and CARDINAL bedside tables . A lavatory of QUANTITY . m , a shower room of QUANTITY . m and a dormitory kitchen of CARDINAL sq . m were accessible from the corridor .","A photo submitted by the Government showed the applicant \u2019s metal bed in a corner near a window . In a certificate the facility governor provided an explanation about the photo , indicating that QUANTITY of free space separated the applicant \u2019s bed from the neighbouring bunk .","On DATE the applicant had been transferred to Unit CARDINAL where he remained until his release . Unit CARDINAL had been on the first floor of the facility dormitory block . The dormitory had been easily accessible to the applicant . Doorways had been sufficiently wide for him to enter and move around . The Government produced handwritten statements by inmates PERSON and PERSON . who confirmed that the applicant had been able to enter the dormitory building without any difficulties , as the entrance door step was CARDINAL cm high . In a certificate submitted to the ORG the facility governor stated that it had not been necessary to install the ramp at the entrance of the dormitory building of LAW , as the entrance door step had been CARDINAL cm high .","The Government again reiterated that CARDINAL sq . m of personal space had been afforded to inmates . The dormitory of ORG had CARDINAL sleeping places and was divided into CARDINAL sleeping rooms . The applicant \u2019s room measured QUANTITY . m and contained CARDINAL bunks , QUANTITY bedside tables and CARDINAL chairs . A large square corridor of QUANTITY . m separated the sleeping rooms from the remaining part of the dormitory . CARDINAL doors from the corridor led to a lavatory of QUANTITY . m , a shower room of QUANTITY . m , a locker room , a dormitory kitchen of CARDINAL sq . m , a store room , and an office for the unit head .","The Government also submitted CARDINAL photos of the dormitory , which showed rows of CARDINAL - tier bunks separated by a narrow passageway . The applicant \u2019s single - tier bed was installed by a wall in the corner near the window . According to explanations given by the facility governor , the space between the applicant \u2019s bed and the neighbouring bunks was QUANTITY wide .","The Government further described the bathing facilities . Photos of the bathhouse showed a narrow tile - covered long room with CARDINAL high partitions dividing the room into a number of small cubicles with a shower head installed in each of them , but no handrails or other similar equipment . The bathhouse was equipped with CARDINAL shower heads installed QUANTITY above the floor . A shower handle was placed QUANTITY above the floor . Each inmate had QUANTITY to use the bathhouse . In view of the fact that the applicant had been registered as Category QUANTITY disabled , he had been given TIME to take a shower . Relying on a handwritten statement by inmate PERSON . , the Government observed that that inmate had helped the applicant to use the bathhouse .","The dormitories of Units nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were equipped with shower cabins with electric water heaters . Photos provided by the Government showed clean shower rooms which were tiled floor to ceiling . A curtain separated the shower from the remaining part of the room . The shower heads were installed CARDINAL above the floor . No handrails were installed in the rooms . The applicant had been allowed to use the cabins without any restrictions . The Government relied on statements by CARDINAL inmates . As is evident from a handwritten statement by inmate PERSON , the applicant had needed assistance of other inmates , including when using the shower cabins . Inmate PERSON . also wrote that he and inmate PERSON had helped him to use them .","The lavatory of Unit CARDINAL was equipped with CARDINAL squatting pans installed on pedestals QUANTITY above the floor . Partitions separated the pans from each other creating cubicles QUANTITY wide . The lavatory of Unit CARDINAL had CARDINAL squatting pans . The remaining description of the facilities was similar to that of Unit CARDINAL . The Government stressed that after his arrival at facility IK-CARDINAL the applicant had been given a special chair to use in the lavatory . They provided photos of the CARDINAL lavatories and of the special chair the applicant had used . The photos showed several cubicles with plastic walls and full - size doors . The cubicles with lavatory pans were separated from the remaining part of the room by a high step . Rows of sinks with taps and mirrors above them were installed along a wall . The equipment was installed at a height suitable for use by able - bodied inmates . A photo of the lavatory in Unit CARDINAL also showed a tile - covered basin with a tap above it . Given the height of the tap , the basin had been accessible to the applicant . CARDINAL of the photos showed a special chair that had been made from an ordinary wooden chair , from which the base had been removed and replaced with a toilet seat .","As is evident from a certificate issued by the governor of facility IK-CARDINAL , the applicant had always eaten in the kitchens of the dormitory buildings during the entire period of his detention . The Government stated that he had been given hot food CARDINAL times a day . The facility medical personnel had checked the quality of the food DATE and had kept a record of it in the log . Food had been taken to him from the canteen by inmates . According to a statement given by the facility \u2019s chief cook , he had supervised the process of taking food to the applicant from the canteen . The food had always been served in clean dishes and had been hot . It had been taken to the applicant by inmates PERSON . and PERSON Those CARDINAL inmates confirmed that the food had been served in thermos flasks which had been clean , and that the applicant had never made any complaints about quality or quantity of the food . Nor had he ever refused it .","The Government stressed that the applicant had been assisted by inmates , among them GPE . , PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON Those inmates had helped the applicant \u201c willingly and free of charge \u201d in moving around the correctional facility grounds , using the lavatory and bathhouse , and visiting the facility shop , medical unit and library . They had regularly taken food to the applicant and had fulfilled his other requests . The Government cited statements by several inmates in support of those submissions . As is evident from the ORG handwritten statements , the applicant had not needed assistance to move around the dormitory , as the space had been wide enough for his wheelchair . At the same time CARDINAL inmates had always accompanied him if he needed to move around the facility grounds .","As to other aspects of detention , the applicant had also remained under permanent medical supervision , having been provided with medical care of requisite quality , subjected to necessary diagnostic and clinical procedures and consulted by specialists in respect of his illness , although he had not always complied with medical advice . The ORG also stated that the applicant had had \u201c a tendency to exaggerate his condition \u201d .","According to the applicant , on DATE his representatives from an NGO , ORG , lodged an application with ORG of GPE , seeking his release on health grounds . The representatives enclosed with their application a long list of illnesses from which the applicant suffered , including paraplegia , atrophy of the left eye , astigmatism in the right eye , a renal cyst , epilepsy , acute viral hepatitis C , and osteochondrosis of the lumbosacral section of the spine , complicated by the formation of a hernia and tumour . Following receipt of the complaint , ORG authorised a forensic medical examination of the applicant to determine whether he was fit to continue serving his sentence . At DATE he was transferred to a prison hospital for that purpose . Despite remaining there for DATE , he was sent back to the correctional facility without any examination having been carried out . He further alleged that the facility officials had misplaced his documents and the court had had no choice but to discontinue the proceedings .","The Government disputed the applicant \u2019s submission , having explained that a request for the applicant to be released on health grounds had been lodged at DATE by a representative of an NGO , ORG . That request had been redirected to the governor of facility IK-CARDINAL to comply with the statutory requirements . On a number of occasions DATE facility officials had asked the applicant to sign his application for early release or to sign a power of attorney authorising a representative of the ORG to act on his behalf in court proceedings . The applicant had refused to undergo the medical examination required under NORP law to support the release application and to sign it . Given the applicant \u2019s refusal to comply with those requirements , the court had adjourned examination of the matter and had instructed the facility officials to provide documents showing that the applicant \u2019s state of health had called for his release . When asked again by the officials to undergo a medical examination in a prison hospital , the applicant had refused . He had notified the authorities that he had already stayed in the hospital on a number of occasions , having undergone inpatient treatment there . In DATE the facility governor had asked the applicant to lodge another release application . The applicant had allegedly told him that his representative had lodged a complaint with the ORG and that he would be generously compensated for DATE he had been detained in the correctional facility ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170359","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PARADISO AND CAMPANELLI v. ITALY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Ledi Bianku;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants DATE a married couple \u2013 were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC .","After trying to have a child and having unsuccessfully resorted to medically assisted reproduction techniques , the applicants put themselves forward as adoptive parents .","On DATE the applicants obtained official authorisation from ORG to adopt a foreign child within the meaning of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , entitled \u201c The Child \u2019s Right to a Family \u201d ( hereafter , \u201c LAW \u201d ) , subject to the condition that the child \u2019s age was to be compatible with the limits foreseen by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicants state that they waited in vain for a child who was eligible for adoption .","They subsequently decided to try resorting to assisted reproduction techniques again and to a surrogate mother in GPE . To that end , they contacted a GPE - based clinic . The first applicant stated that she travelled to GPE , transporting from GPE TIME seminal fluid , duly conserved , which she handed in at the clinic .","A surrogate mother was found and the applicants entered into a gestational surrogacy agreement with the company PERSON . After a successful in vitro fertilisation on DATE , CARDINAL embryos were implanted in the surrogate mother \u2019s womb on DATE .","On DATE the NORP clinic certified that the second applicant \u2019s seminal fluid had been used for the embryos to be implanted in the surrogate mother \u2019s womb .","The first applicant travelled to GPE on DATE , the clinic having indicated that the child was due to be born at DATE .","The child was born in GPE on DATE . On DATE the surrogate mother gave her written consent to the child being registered as the applicants\u2019 son . Her written declaration , bearing the same date and read aloud at the hospital in the presence of her doctor , the chief physician and the head of the hospital department , is worded as follows ( LANGUAGE translation of the original LANGUAGE version ) :","\u201c I , the undersigned ... have given birth to a boy in the ... maternity hospital in GPE . The child \u2019s parents are an NORP married couple , PERSON , born on ... and PERSON , born on ... , who expressed in writing their wish to have their embryos implanted in my womb .","On the basis of the foregoing and in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and LAW , I hereby give my consent for the above couple to be entered in the birth record and the birth certificate as parents of the child to whom I have given birth ... \u201d","In DATE following the child \u2019s birth , the first applicant moved with him into a flat in GPE , rented by her in advance . The second applicant , who had remained in GPE , was able to communicate with her regularly via internet .","On DATE the applicants were registered as the new - born baby \u2019s parents by ORG in GPE . The NORP birth certificate , which indicated that the applicants were the child \u2019s parents , was certified in accordance with the provisions of LAW DATE Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents .","On DATE the first applicant went to FAC in GPE , with the birth certificate , in order to obtain the documents that would enable her to return to GPE with the child . ORG issued the documents enabling the child to leave for GPE with the first applicant .","On DATE the first applicant and the child arrived in GPE .","In a note of CARDINAL DATE which was not filed in the proceedings before ORG the NORP FAC in GPE informed ORG , ORG and ORG that the paperwork in respect of the child \u2019s birth contained false information .","DATE applicant contacted the Colletorto municipality , requesting that the birth certificate be registered .","On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office opened criminal proceedings against the applicants , who were suspected of \u201c misrepresentation of civil status \u201d within the meaning of LAW , of \u201c use of falsified documents \u201d within the meaning of LAW and of the offence set out in LAW of LAW , since they had brought the child to GPE in breach of the procedure provided for by the provisions on international adoption contained therein ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In parallel , on CARDINAL DATE , ORG at ORG requested the opening of proceedings to make the child available for adoption , since he was to be considered as being in a state of abandonment for the purposes of the law . On DATE ORG appointed a guardian ad litem ( curatore speciale ) and opened proceedings to make the child available for adoption .","On DATE ORG placed the child under guardianship at the request of ORG . The child \u2019s guardian asked the court to suspend the ORG parental responsibility , in application of section CARDINAL of LAW .","The applicants challenged the measures in respect of the child .","Following a request of ORG on DATE , the applicants were visited by a team of social workers on CARDINAL DATE . Their report , dated CARDINAL DATE , indicated that the applicants were viewed positively and respected by their fellow citizens , and that they had a comfortable income and lived in a nice house . According to the report , the child was in excellent health and his well - being was self - evident , since he was being cared for by the applicants to the highest standards .","On DATE the first applicant , assisted by her lawyer , was questioned by the Larino carabinieri . She stated that she had travelled to GPE alone in DATE , transporting her husband \u2019s seminal fluid . She stated that she entered into a contract with the company PERSON , which had undertaken to find a surrogate mother willing to be implanted with genetic material from the first applicant and her husband through ORG in GPE . The applicant explained that this practice was perfectly legal in GPE and had made it possible for her to obtain a birth certificate which identified the applicants as parents . In DATE or DATE the first applicant had been contacted by the NORP company , which informed her that a surrogate mother had been found , and she had given her consent to the medical procedure .","On DATE the applicants were heard by ORG . The first applicant stated that , after CARDINAL unsuccessful attempts at in vitro fertilisation , which had endangered her health , she had resorted to the NORP clinic , since it was possible in that country to use ova from a donor , which were subsequently implanted in the surrogate mother .","On DATE the court ordered that DNA testing be carried out in order to establish whether the second applicant was the child \u2019s biological father .","On DATE ORG asked ORG to refuse to enter the particulars of the birth certificate in the civilstatus register .","On DATE the second applicant and the child underwent DNA testing . The result of these tests showed that there was no genetic link between them .","Following the outcome of these tests , the applicants sought an explanation from the NORP clinic . DATE , in a letter of DATE , the clinic \u2019s management informed them that it had been surprised by the results of the DNA test . It stated that there had been an internal inquiry , since an error had clearly occurred , but it had proved impossible to identify the individual responsible for the error , given that there had been dismissals and recruitment of other staff in the meantime .","On DATE ORG of the GPE refused to register the NORP birth certificate . The applicants lodged an appeal with ORG against this refusal . The subsequent proceedings are set out in paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below .","ORG asked ORG to give the child a new identity and to issue a new birth certificate .","As part of the proceedings to make the child available for adoption which were then pending before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicants asked a psychologist , PERSON , to prepare a report on the child \u2019s well - being . The report drawn up by Dr NORP on DATE , after CARDINAL meetings with the child , indicates that the applicants \u2013 who were attentive to the child \u2019s needs \u2013 had developed a deep emotional bond with him . The report indicated that the grandparents and other family members also surrounded the child with affection , and that he was healthy , lively and responsive . PERSON concluded that the applicants were suitable parents for the child , both from a psychological perspective and in terms of their ability to educate him and bring him up . She added that possible removal measures would have devastating consequences for the child , explaining that he would go through a depressive phase on account of a sense of abandonment and the loss of the key persons in his life . In her opinion , this could lead to somatic symptoms and compromise the child \u2019s psycho - physical development , and , in the long term , symptoms of psychotic pathology could emerge .","The applicants asked for the child to be placed with them , with a view to adopting him if necessary .","By an immediately enforceable decision of DATE , ORG ordered that the child be removed from the applicants , taken into the care of the social services and placed in a children \u2019s home ( casa famiglia ) .","The relevant passages of ORG decision read as follows :","\u201c ...","In their evidence Mr PERSON and PERSON stated that PERSON had travelled to GPE carrying her husband \u2019s semen in a special container , and had there entered into an agreement with the company PERSON . Under this agreement , PERSON had delivered her husband \u2019s semen to a pre - determined clinic . CARDINAL or more eggs from an unknown female donor had been fertilised in vitro with this semen , and then implanted into another woman , whose identity is known and who had subsequently given birth to the child in question on DATE . In exchange , Mr PERSON and PERSON had paid a large amount of money . PERSON stated that the woman who had given birth to the child had waived her rights to him and had consented to him being referred to on the birth certificate , drawn up in GPE , as the son of Mr PERSON and PERSON ( a copy of the informed consent , given on DATE by the woman who gave birth to the child , is on file in these proceedings ) .","A court - appointed expert witness was then instructed to establish whether the minor child was the biological son of PERSON . In her report the court - appointed expert witness , PERSON [ NORP ] , concluded that the results obtained by means of typing of the DNA of FAC and the DNA of the minor child [ T.C. ] rule out FAC as the child \u2019s biological father .","In DATE \u2019s hearing Mr PERSON and PERSON referred to their previous evidence and PERSON repeated that she had taken her husband \u2019s semen to GPE to be used for the purpose of the intended fertilisation .","However , the conclusions of the court - appointed expert witness have not been challenged .","At the close of the hearing , ORG requested that the application by Mr PERSON and PERSON be refused , that the minor child be placed in the care of third parties and that a temporary guardian be appointed for him . The child \u2019s guardian ad litem asked that the child be placed in care under LAW and that a guardian be appointed . Mr PERSON and PERSON requested primarily that the court award them temporary care of the child with a view to subsequent adoption ; in the alternative , they requested the suspension of these proceedings pending the criminal classification of the offences , and the suspension of the above - mentioned criminal proceedings against them and of the proceedings before ORG to challenge the refusal to register the child \u2019s birth certificate ; again in the alternative , they requested the suspension of these proceedings under LAW no . CARDINAL for the purpose of a possible repatriation of the minor child to GPE , or , failing that , for the child to be placed with them under LAW of the cited law .","That being the case , the court finds that the statements by Mr PERSON and ORG regarding the delivery to GPE of PERSON genetic material are not supported by any evidence . On the other hand , it has been established that the minor [ T.C. ] is neither the biological son of PERSON , nor , given the evidence of the expert report , of PERSON . At the present time the only certainty is the identity of the woman who gave birth to the baby . The biological parents of the baby , that is , the man and the woman who provided the gametes , remain unknown .","In the light of this evidence , the present case can not be viewed as a case of so - called gestational surrogacy , which is the case where the surrogate mother who gives birth to the baby has no genetic link to him or her , the fertilisation having taken place with the PERSON ) of a third woman . Indeed , in order to be able to talk of gestational or traditional surrogacy ( in the latter , the surrogate mother makes her own ovules available ) there must be a biological link between the child and CARDINAL of the CARDINAL intended parents ( in this specific case , Mr PERSON and PERSON ) , a biological link which , as has been seen , is non - existent . \u201d","In the court \u2019s view , the applicants had thus placed themselves in an unlawful situation :","\u201c It follows that by bringing a baby to GPE , passing him off as their own son , in blatant infringement of the provisions of our legislation ( PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) governing inter - country adoption of children , Mr PERSON and PERSON have acted unlawfully . Besides any criminal offences which may have been committed ( infringement of section CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , which are not within the jurisdiction of this court , it is noted that the agreement entered into between Mrs Paradiso and the company PERSON had unlawful elements since , given the terms of the agreement ( the delivery of Mr PERSON \u2019s genetic material for the fertilisation of another woman \u2019s ovules ) , it was in breach of the ban on the use of assisted reproductive technology ( A.R.T. ) of a heterologous type laid down by section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE .","In any event , it is pointed out that despite being in possession of the authorisation for inter - country adoption issued by order of this court on DATE , PERSON PERSON and PERSON , as has been stated , intentionally evaded the provisions of Law no . DATE , which provide not only that the intended adoptive parents must apply to an authorised body ( section CARDINAL ) but also for the involvement of ORG ( section CARDINAL ) , the only body competent to authorise entry and permanent residence of a foreign child in GPE ( section CARDINAL ) . \u201d","The court therefore found it necessary , first and foremost , to put an end to this unlawful situation :","\u201c It is therefore necessary , above all , to prevent this unlawful situation from continuing , since to maintain it would be equivalent to ratifying unlawful conduct in open violation of the provisions of our legislation .","Accordingly , it is necessary to remove the minor child from Mr PERSON and ORG and place him in an appropriate structure with a view to identifying a suitable couple to foster the child as soon as possible . ORG of GPE is therefore instructed to identify an appropriate structure and to place the child in it . The NORP legislation on adoption applies to this child in accordance with section PERSON of Law No . CARDINAL , there being no doubt that he is in GPE in a state of abandonment , having been deprived of his biological parents and other relatives , and the mother who gave birth to him having renounced him .","Admittedly , it can not be denied that the child will in all likelihood suffer harm from being separated from Mr PERSON and PERSON . However , given the age of the child and the short time he has spent with them , the court can not agree with the conclusions of the report by psychologist [ Dr I. ] ( instructed by Mr PERSON and PERSON ) , finding that it is certain that the child \u2019s separation from them would entail devastating consequences . Indeed , according to the literature on this subject , the mere separation from the main care - givers is not a causal agent of a psychopathological state in a child unless other causal factors are present . The trauma caused by the separation from Mr PERSON and PERSON will not be irreparable , given that a search will begin immediately for a couple able to attenuate the consequences of the trauma , through a compensatory process that will encourage a new adaptation .","It is also pointed out that the fact that Mr PERSON and PERSON ( and in particular PERSON ) have put up with the hardships and the difficulties of GPE ( PERSON has also stated that during one of these interventions her life was at risk ) and have preferred , despite being in possession of an approval for inter - country adoption , to circumvent NORP legislation on this subject gives rise to the doubt and the fear that the minor child may be an instrument to fulfil a narcissistic desire of Mr PERSON and PERSON or to exorcise an individual or joint problem . In the light of the conduct of Mr PERSON and PERSON during the events under examination , all of this throws a consistent shadow over their possession of genuine affective and educational abilities and of the instinct of human solidarity which must be present in any person wishing to bring the children of others into their lives as their own children .","The separation of the minor child from Mr PERSON and PERSON thus corresponds to the best interests of the child . \u201d","According to the applicants , the court \u2019s decision was enforced on DATE , without their having been informed of the decision in advance .","The applicants lodged an appeal ( reclamo ) before ORG . They argued , inter alia , that the NORP courts could not contest the NORP birth certificate . They further requested that no measures be taken concerning the child while the criminal proceedings against them and the proceedings challenging the refusal to enter the birth certificate in the NORP civil - status register were pending .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal .","ORG found that the child T.C. was \u201c in a state of abandonment \u201d ( in stato di abbandono ) within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW , as the applicants were not his parents . In those circumstances , the question of whether or not the applicants were criminally liable and whether or not there had been an error in the use of seminal fluid of unknown origin was not , in its view , relevant . In ORG opinion , it was not appropriate to await the outcome of the criminal trial or of the proceedings brought by the applicants to challenge the refusal to enter the particulars of the birth certificate in the register . ORG also considered that section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL ( the Private International Law Act ) did not prevent the NORP courts from refusing to comply with certified information from a foreign ORG , and that there was no issue of lack of jurisdiction , since , according to section CARDINAL of LAW , \u201c ... the NORP law governing adoption , fostering , and necessary measures in case of urgency shall be applicable to a foreign minor child who is in [ GPE ] in a state of abandonment \u201d ( cf . also ORG ) \u201d .","No appeal to ORG lay against that decision ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","In the meantime , on DATE the public prosecutor at ORG had ordered the preventive seizure of the NORP birth certificate , on the ground that it was an essential item of evidence . In the prosecutor \u2019s view , in all probability the applicants had not only committed the offences with which they were charged , but they had attempted to conceal them . They had , according to him , inter alia , stated that they were the biological parents and had then corrected their versions of events as these were successively disproved .","The applicants challenged the preventive seizure order .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the ORG appeal on the ground of the strong suspicions that they had committed the offences in question . In particular , the court noted the following facts : the first applicant had spread a rumour that she was pregnant ; she had gone to FAC in GPE and implied that she was the natural mother ; she had subsequently admitted that the child had been born to a surrogate mother ; she had stated to the carabinieri on CARDINAL DATE that the second applicant was the biological father , which had been disproved by the DNA tests ; she had thus made false statements ; she had been very vague as to the identity of the genetic mother ; the documents concerning the surrogate motherhood stated that the CARDINAL applicants had been seen by the NORP doctors , which did not correspond to the fact that the second applicant had not travelled to GPE ; the documents relating to the birth did not give any precise date . The court considered that the only certainty was that the child had been born and that he had been handed over to the first applicant against payment of MONEY ( ORG ) . In the court \u2019s view , the hypothesis that the applicants had behaved illegally with a view to having the particulars of the birth certificate entered in the civilstatus register and to circumventing the NORP legislation thus appeared well - founded .","In DATE ORG transmitted the decision regarding the preventive seizure to ORG and indicated that a conviction under section CARDINAL of LAW would deprive the applicants of the possibility of fostering ( affido ) the child and of adopting him or other minors . In the Public Prosecutor \u2019s view , there was therefore no other solution but to proceed with the adoption procedure for the child , and his temporary placement with a foster family had therefore been requested , in accordance with sections CARDINAL of LAW . ORG repeated his request and emphasised that the child had been removed DATE previously , and that he had since been living in a children \u2019s home ( casa famiglia ) , where he had developed meaningful relationships with the persons responsible for his care . He explained that the child had thus still not found a family environment to replace the one that had been illegally provided by the couple who had brought him to GPE . According to ORG , the child seemed destined for another separation , even more painful than that from the mother who had given birth to him and then from the woman who claimed to be his mother .","An appeal having been lodged to contest ORG refusal to enter the particulars of the NORP birth certificate in the civilstatus register , ORG declined jurisdiction on DATE . The proceedings were subsequently resumed before ORG . The applicants insisted that the particulars of the NORP birth certificate be entered in the NORP register .","By an immediately enforceable decision of DATE , ORG ruled on the transcription of the birth certificate into the NORP register .","By way of introduction , ORG dismissed the objection raised by the guardian to the effect that the applicants did not have standing to bring an action before that court ; it acknowledged that the applicants had standing to bring proceedings in that they were referred to as the \u201c parents \u201d in the birth certificate that they wished to have entered in the civil - status register .","However , ORG considered it clear that the applicants were not the biological parents and concluded that there had not therefore been a gestational surrogacy . It noted that the parties were in agreement that the NORP legislation presupposed a biological link between the child and CARDINAL of the intended parents before the term surrogate motherhood could be used . It concluded that the birth certificate was fraudulent ( ideologicamente falso ) and in breach of NORP law . In ORG view , given that there was nothing to show that the child had NORP citizenship , the ORG argument that NORP law was inapplicable ran counter to section CARDINAL of LAW , which stated that the legal parent - child relationship was determined by the national law governing the child at the time of his or her birth .","ORG added that it was contrary to public order to register the contested birth certificate , since it was fraudulent . It stated that although the applicants had pleaded their good faith , alleging that they were unable to explain why the second applicant \u2019s seminal fluid had not been used in the NORP clinic , this made no difference to the situation and did not alter the fact that the second applicant was not the biological father .","In conclusion , ORG held that it was legitimate to refuse to register the NORP birth certificate and to grant ORG request that a new birth certificate be issued . ORG therefore ordered that a new birth certificate be issued , indicating that the child was the son of persons unknown , born in GPE on DATE , and that he would be given a new name , determined in accordance with Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL .","Following execution of the decision issued by ORG on DATE , the child was placed in a children \u2019s home for DATE , in a location that was unknown to the applicants . All contact between the applicants and the child was prohibited . They were unable to obtain any news of him .","In DATE the child was placed in a family with a view to his adoption .","At DATE the guardian asked ORG to give the child a formal identity , so that he could be registered for school without complications . He stated that the child had been placed in a family on DATE , but that he did not have an identity . This \u201c inexistence \u201d had a significant impact on administrative matters , particularly with regard to deciding under what name the child was to be registered for school , for vaccination records , and for residence . While accepting that this situation corresponded to the aim of preventing the applicants from discovering the child \u2019s whereabouts , for his own protection , the guardian explained that a temporary formal identity would enable the secrecy surrounding the child \u2019s real identity to be maintained , while simultaneously enabling him to have access to public services ; for the time being , he was entitled only to use emergency medical services .","The case file indicates that this request was granted by ORG and that the child received a formal identity .","The Government have indicated that the child has now been adopted .","The proceedings to make the child available for adoption were resumed before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicants confirmed their opposition to the child \u2019s placement with third persons . The guardian asked for a statement ruling that the applicants no longer had locus standi .","ORG asked ORG not to declare the child available for adoption using the name originally given to him , on the ground that , in the meantime , he had opened a second set of proceedings requesting that the child be declared available for adoption under his new identity ( child of unknown parents ) .","On DATE , ORG held that the applicants no longer had standing to act in the adoption proceedings , given that they were neither the child \u2019s parents nor members of his family within the meaning of section CARDINAL of LAW . The court stated that it would settle the question of the child \u2019s adoption in the context of the other set of adoption proceedings , referred to by ORG .","No information has been provided by the parties concerning subsequent developments in the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants . It seems that those proceedings are still pending ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168866","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF AFANASYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table .","NORP The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention . He also raised a complaint under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["13"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140932","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"NICOLESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and Ms Estera Nicolescu , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON . They were represented before the Court by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their coAgent , Ms I. Cambrea and then by their Agent , Ms C. Brumar , of ORG .","NORP In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE GPE dismissed the criminal complaint lodged by the applicants against CARDINAL journalists who had published several articles about them . At that time , they were respectively the director and a teacher in a local high school .","NORP The decision became available on DATE .","On DATE the applicants sent a letter to the ORG stating that \u201c the NORP State breached some of [ their ] rights guaranteed by the Convention \u201d and asking for an application form in order to \u201c legally lodge their application with the ORG \u201d ( ca modalitate legal\u0103 de sesizare a ORG ) .","On DATE the ORG forwarded the application form and instructed the applicants on how to read the admissibility requirements set out in Articles DATE CARDINAL of LAW and CARDINAL of ORG .","On DATE the applicants sent their application form and supportive documents , raising comprehensive complaints under ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140241","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RATINHO v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant started enforcement proceedings against a company before the court of GPE ( domestic proceedings no . ORG ) in order to obtain the payment of CARDINAL MONEY ( ORG ) .","On DATE the debtor ( executada ) opposed the proceedings through the introduction of a motion on that regard ( dedu\u00e7\u00e3o de embargos ) . The motion was granted and remained valid until DATE . In the course of the proceedings , procedural steps were taken in the context of the opposition , which had to be suspended twice while waiting for a final decision in other CARDINAL different proceedings .","On DATE the court ordered the seizure ( penhora ) of the debtor \u2019s assets , which took place on DATE . The applicant opposed it on DATE . The court ordered the lift of the seizure ( levantamento da penhora ) on DATE .","On DATE the court ordered the suspension of proceedings because of the inactivity of the parties . The proceedings were suspended until DATE .","DATE and DATE several procedural steps took place , mostly notifications , provision of information from the parties and court orders ( despachos ) . On DATE the court ordered the sale of the business establishment that had previously been seized . Several attempts to sell it were made until DATE .","On DATE due to the inactivity of the parties the court ordered the proceedings to be suspended once again .","According to the last information received by ORG on DATE , the proceedings are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160212","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF G.B. v. LITHUANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . When introducing her application to the ORG , she lived in GPE , GPE , where the applicant continues to reside to DATE .","In DATE , in GPE , the applicant married PERSON , a NORP citizen . Their marriage was registered in GPE in DATE . They have CARDINAL daughters , who were born in DATE and DATE . They all lived in GPE .","NORP In DATE the NORP authorities granted the applicant legal aid in connection with her intent to start divorce and custody proceedings . DATE the applicant applied to FAC to have her marriage dissolved . She also asked for permission for both daughters to reside with her permanently , and for child maintenance from ORG","In DATE Marijampol\u0117 Municipal Children \u2019s Rights Protection Service ( PERSON teisi\u0173 apsaugos tarnyba DATE hereinafter \u201c the Marijampol\u0117 service \u201d ) informed the court in writing that the ORG answers regarding who they would like to live with were unclear . They wished to live with both parents . Given the ORG young age , and in the absence of information that the applicant was not performing her maternal duties properly , the service stated that residing with the applicant would not be against the children \u2019s interests .","The applicant \u2019s husband PERSON then lodged a counterclaim , asking the court to make a residence order in his favour .","The applicant then asked the court to grant a temporary protective measure \u2013 for the girls to temporarily reside with her until the case was decided on the merits . She submitted that the girls had no citizenship . Given the level of conflict between her and ORG , she feared that he might take the girls to GPE with him and she would then face obstacles in securing their return .","On DATE FAC allowed the applicant \u2019s request for a temporary protective measure . The girls were thus to stay with the applicant until the end of the custody proceedings . The ruling was upheld on DATE by ORG . The latter court ruling , however , specified that the applicant \u2019s husband retained the right to have contact with his daughters at their place of residence or educational institutions .","On DATE the Marijampol\u0117 service provided the court with conclusions indicating that the girls would not clearly state who they would like to live with . The father had suitable accommodation in which to raise them . The service concluded that the interests of the girls , \u201c as future women ( kaip b\u016bsimoms moterims ) \u201d would be better met if they lived together with the mother . Information obtained from doctors and educational institutions confirmed that the applicant took care of her daughters , who had ( earlier ) attended kindergarten and school in GPE . The Marijampol\u0117 service nevertheless noted that its conclusions in the case could be revised if new circumstances emerged .","On DATE the applicant also wrote to ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the GPE service \u201d ) stating that on DATE he tried to call his daughters on the telephone , but no one answered . The applicant , with whom the daughters had to be , did not answer her telephone either . The applicant noted that the older daughter attended school in LOC , but she had not been seen at school as of DATE . He went to the apartment which the applicant had been renting in LOC , but found the doors locked . PERSON considered that the applicant abused her parental rights , obstructed him to communicate with his daughters even by telephone , and did not guarantee the girl \u2019s right to attend school . ORG suspected that the applicant could have taken their daughters to GPE . He asked the GPE service to investigate the situation and promised his full cooperation .","In reply , on DATE the GPE service noted that since DATE the applicant had been living with her daughters in GPE . DATE one of the girls attended kindergarten , and the other attended school . Conditions at the flat where the applicant lived in GPE were appropriate for the girls .","It transpires from a police report that on DATE the applicant contacted GPE police to report that she had allowed PERSON to see their daughters in GPE that day but he had not returned them to her . The police established that the girls were with their father in GPE . On DATE a police officer visited PERSON and the girls in LOC and found them to be safe . The officer telephoned the applicant and asked her to come and take the girls . She replied that she had already contacted a bailiff and would not be going to pick them up herself .","On DATE the applicant made a further application for protective measures , asking ORG to restrict her husband \u2019s right to see his daughters .","ORG then deemed it necessary to ask both the GPE and LOC services to provide information , and decided to hold an oral hearing to better establish whether any circumstances had evolved .","The PERSON service provided conclusions on DATE , stating that by agreement of the parents the girls had met their father on DATE , but he had not yet returned them . Their colleagues , child care specialists from the Marijampol\u0117 service , had visited the girls at their father \u2019s home . The girls explained that they liked and wished to be there ; their interests or rights had not been compromised . The GPE service also noted that , in accordance with LAW , a child who could express his or her views had to be heard and have his or her wishes taken into account , unless they were against his or her interests . For the PERSON child care specialists , it was desirable to have an order in place setting out how the girls could have contact with their father pending the proceedings .","On DATE the Marijampol\u0117 service informed the court in writing that DATE they had visited ORG \u2019s apartment twice , without prior notification , on CARDINAL and DATE . The girls had communicated with their father naturally and without tension . There was no reason to believe that they were physically or emotionally unsafe at their father \u2019s home . PERSON explained that on DATE he took the girls on common agreement with the applicant . TIME , when he wished to return their daughters , the applicant could not be reached on her telephone . The applicant therefore took the girls to LOC . The service considered that the applicant \u2019s suggestions that PERSON could kidnap the girls and take them to GPE were unfounded . The service also noted that it was unclear why the applicant would not call her daughters by telephone or come to LOC and contact the service so that they could go and visit the girls together ( a point remade in its separate letter to the applicant of the same date ) . The service also stressed that the manner in which both PERSON and the applicant chose to resolve their conflict DATE which , due to their complaints , required the girls to communicate with child care specialists and police officers \u2013 negatively affected the children .","On DATE the applicant declared her place of residence as GPE .","DATE the GPE and LOC services exchanged a number of letters with the applicant , replying to various requests for information and assistance . It was noted , inter alia , that she had been asked to visit the Marijampol\u0117 service to resolve the matter of the ORG return and to go to ORG \u2019s home with police officers to take the girls , but she had declined to do so . The child care specialists also noted having visited PERSON \u2019s home , where the girls had been found . PERSON had explained to the child care specialists that his daughters did not wish to go to their mother \u2019s and that he did not want to take them there by force . The Marijampol\u0117 service enquired with the applicant why she herself had not been calling her daughters and had not applied to the service for assistance in meeting them . For the child care specialists , the manner in which the applicant chose to solve her dispute with ORG negatively affected the ORG psychological well - being , because they had to communicate with various authorities often . The applicant was also informed that it was the bailiff who was competent to enforce court decisions .","On DATE FAC decided the temporary protective measures application in the presence of the applicant , PERSON , their lawyers and a child care specialist . Upon the recommendation of the latter , and given that the court hearing on the merits of the action was scheduled for DATE , when deciding on the temporary protective measure the court also deemed it appropriate not to hear the children , to avoid causing them even more stress .","The court acknowledged that when the applicant had allowed her husband to see their daughters for TIME on DATE , he had not returned them to her home . It urged the parents to arrange the return of the girls to their mother and to reach an agreement on how ORG would contact them until the final court decision in the divorce and custody proceedings . However , each parent had their own conflicting opinions , which only served to worsen the strained relations between them . The court noted that both parents had the right to raise their children and have contact with them , and there was no information to suggest that ORG \u2019s communication with his daughters would cause them harm . Nor was there any information that the applicant was failing in her duties as a mother . Accordingly , pursuant to LAW , which required the courts to aim to protect the interests and rights of minors ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and taking into account the earlier court rulings that the girls should temporarily reside with the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court ordered PERSON to return his daughters to their mother . Should he fail to do so , the applicant could contact a bailiff , who would then take the girls and their documents and hand them over to the applicant . Until the end of the divorce and custody proceedings , the applicant \u2019s husband was granted contact with his daughters DATE from DATE TIME until TIME , when he could collect them from the applicant \u2019s place of residence and spend time with them . He was forbidden only from travelling outside GPE with them .","On DATE , that is on DATE the applicant was explained by the Marijampol\u0117 service that execution of court rulings belonged to the exclusive competence of a bailiff . DATE the court ruling became final and thus enforceable . Pursuant to the applicant \u2019s request of DATE , the following day ORG issued her a writ of execution , which the applicant then transmitted to the bailiff on CARDINAL DATE ( also see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","DATE the applicant asked that PERSON be fined for non - compliance with a court order requiring him to hand the children over . She also asked the court to prohibit him from seeing his daughters . In turn , PERSON asked that they remain with him , arguing that they refused to live with their mother . The Marijampol\u0117 service informed the court that from DATE the girls started attending school in GPE , and that situation had been caused by ORG \u2019s refusal to hand them over to the applicant . In DATE , on the recommendation of the Marijampol\u0117 service , CARDINAL of its psychologists saw the girls twice . She observed that they were attached to their father and had a good emotional connection with him . They also stated that they wished to stay with their father . The psychologist could not assess the emotional connection they had with their mother , because she could not be contacted . On DATE the Kaunas service informed the court in writing that because the girls did not live in GPE , it there were grounds for limiting PERSON \u2019s paternal rights , in accordance with LAW .","According to the Government , following complaints by the applicant alleging inactivity on the part of both the GPE and LOC services , on DATE the PERSON for ORG ( PERSON teisi\u0173 apsaugos kontrolierius \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the PERSON \u201d ) issued a report . It noted that the relationship between the parents had broken down and that the applicant herself had been hostile . The report established that she instigated conflict , involved different ORG and municipal institutions in solving her relationship problems with her husband and gave little importance to her own personal responsibility , efforts and benevolence in looking for solutions in the best interests of her daughters . The report also indicated that she had applied to child care services and the police , submitted requests for assistance in taking the children , but as soon as they had provided her with opportunities she had refused them . It was recommended that she solve the questions of the ORG place of residence and contact by mutual agreement with the father , and in the children \u2019s best interests .","On DATE ORG held an oral hearing with the applicant , PERSON , their lawyers and representatives of the Marijampol\u0117 and GPE services . Over DATE that followed CARDINAL more hearings were held and the girls were questioned by the judge in the absence of their parents and their lawyers . CARDINAL of the girls testified that she wished to live with her father . The other testified that she missed her mother and wished that both parents lived together . She also stated that she otherwise preferred living with her father .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s request that the girls reside with him , and the applicant \u2019s request to forbid him from seeing them . The decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . The courts acknowledged that ORG had not avoided his duties as a father , but it had not been established that he could provide better living conditions for the girls or raise them better . Moreover , the ORG place of residence had already been decided by an earlier court ruling and it was not in their best interests to change that place DATE . The girls were not yet mature enough for their wishes alone to suffice to change their place of temporary residence .","On DATE the principal of the school the girls had been attending in GPE since DATE informed the child care authorities that the applicant had been visiting the girls at school and communicating with them , their teachers , the school administration and social workers on a regular basis . On CARDINAL occasion a social worker observed CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s meetings with the girls . They had talked to their mother warmly and sincerely , and had stated that they wished to live with both parents . The principal noted having been asked by PERSON to restrict the ORG contact with the applicant , but he had not acceded to that request because he considered that the girls should see and communicate with both parents .","On DATE , in reply to letters from the applicant asking for information about her daughters\u2019 achievements at school and requesting that it arrange a meeting with her daughters on school premises , the principal informed the applicant that the school had always been open for parents . He noted having urged the applicant since DATE to come to school as often as possible , and to communicate with her daughters and their teachers . However , \u2018 the applicant had not heard that message ( deja , GPE \u0161ito raginimo nei\u0161girdote)\u2019 . The principal stressed that the school was ready to help the applicant in every possible way if she showed initiative to see her daughters ; no prior notification for her coming to school was necessary . For the school principal , the applicant \u2019s pleas were particularly odd , because it was only because of her that the girls were not fully fledged members of the school as they were not on the list of pupils . The applicant was well aware of that but had not made any effort to settle the matter . The principal concluded that if the applicant was serious about her daughters\u2019 future , he wanted her to think seriously and solve the problems which depended solely upon her .","DATE and DATE FAC held CARDINAL oral hearings , in which the applicant , PERSON , their lawyers and representatives of child care services participated . The court granted a request by the applicant for a psychological assessment of the girls ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , had regard to letters from the institutions where the girls attended after - school activities , and questioned the principal and psychologist of the school .","At a court hearing on DATE the principal testified to having admitted the girls to the school at ORG \u2019s request and in the ORG best interests , and that they came to school ready for lessons and well - presented . They were well taken care of , felt well at school and wished to study there . The principal also stated that the applicant could have come to school and taken the girls with her at any time . However , the applicant came to school very seldom ; the last time he had seen her there was in DATE .","The school psychologist testified that she had told both parents that they could ask her for psychological assistance , but neither parent had followed up with such a request . Without parental agreement or a referral by child care specialists , no psychological assistance could be provided . The psychologist also testified that the ORG teachers had not contacted her with any particular concerns about the ORG well - being .","In DATE experts from ORG ( Vaik\u0173 ir paaugli\u0173 teismo psichiatrijos skyrius ) examined the girls . The experts found in respect of both girls that it was not possible to establish which parent \u2019s place of residence would best meet the ORG interests , because equal communication with both parents , who were important to the girls , was important to them both . When observed with their father , the girls were positive , active and laughed a lot . Both ORG connection with their father was \u201c positive , warm and strong \u201d . Their relationship with the mother was ambivalent and their feelings were torn ( dominuoja prie\u0161taringi ( ir teigiami , ir neigiami ) jausmai ) . Even so , there was no doubt that the mother was an important person for the girls . Having regard to the ORG age , maturity and psychological particularities , they were not yet able to formulate and express their own opinions and views as regards which parent they should live with . The ORG wish to live with their father was determined by objective factors , namely them living with him for DATE and communication with their mother being insufficient . Unnatural hostility towards the mother had only traumatised them and parental alienation syndrome , enhanced by their father \u2019s influence , could be seen in their behaviour . Lastly , both girls were attached to each other , and separating them would be traumatic .","In DATE the applicant declared her place of residence as GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to hear the case in her absence . She maintained all her civil claims . Moreover , in the applicant \u2019s words , \u201c the forensic expertise having been performed , [ paragraph CARDINAL above ] I consider that all the evidence in the case has been collected and examined , and that the case should be terminated immediately , and I therefore ask for it to be terminated in my absence because I am ill . \u201d The applicant agreed to her lawyer representing her interests from that point forward .","On DATE ORG held an oral hearing with the applicant \u2019s lawyer , PERSON , his lawyer , and the child care authorities . During the hearing it came to light that the applicant had declared her place of residence as GPE , where she was expecting a child with another man . According to ORG \u2019s lawyer , those circumstances were relevant when deciding the ORG place of residence , especially given the applicant \u2019s initial accusation of the girls being taken to GPE by their father ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court deemed it appropriate to postpone the hearing , so that the applicant could be questioned .","DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer provided the court with a medicate certificate issued in GPE , about her client being at risk of premature birth if she experienced physical or psychological stress . The lawyer asked the court to hear the case without her client present , or to suspend the proceedings , until after the applicant had given birth .","On DATE the court held an oral hearing without the applicant , but in the presence of her lawyer . She confirmed that her client had declared her place of residence as GPE , the father of her future child being a NORP national , but that she intended to return to GPE to live in GPE immediately after giving birth in GPE . The lawyer also confirmed that the applicant had not communicated with the girls during DATE .","ORG \u2019s lawyer regretted that the applicant could not be questioned at the hearing .","Relying on the forensic experts\u2019 conclusions about parental alienation syndrome , heightened by ORG \u2019s attitude towards the applicant , the PERSON service noted that it would be more in the ORG interests to reside with their mother . It did not see the applicant \u2019s pregnancy as a factor to be taken into account when deciding the ORG place of residence . The service confirmed that the future child \u2019s father was a NORP citizen , which suggested that the applicant would live in GPE . Even so , PERSON was a NORP citizen but lived in GPE . The GPE service also noted that the applicant had approached them for a referral to psychologists so that she could find contact with her daughters easier . A referral was given to her and , as far as the GPE service was aware , the applicant had visited the psychologists for assistance . The service was of the view that the applicant had tried to establish contact with her daughters , but had been unsuccessful . She had probably not visited them at school for a while to avoid traumatising them .","At the same hearing the Marijampol\u0117 service representative noted that it had known the girls and their family history since DATE , when disagreements between the applicant and PERSON had started . The girls really thought clearly and their minds had developed in accordance with their ages . The representative thought that the ORG behaviour had been conditioned by their mother \u2019s actions as she did not visit them often at school or show interest in their lives , and therefore no emotional connection between them had been formed . The girls had been heard by the court DATE , where they had expressed their wishes ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) \u2013 the court had to remember that moment and have regard to the ORG opinion . Indeed , in DATE ORG had reproached GPE for not always hearing and paying attention to the child \u2019s opinion ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The representative noted that no one could ignore the fact that it was not known where the applicant , who was currently in GPE , was about to live . It was submitted that the GPE conclusions were contradictory ( yra prie\u0161taringos ) . The conclusions noted that ORG was important to the girls ; they had a warm , positive and stable relationship with him . When communicating with their father , the girls felt safe and were actively involved in shared activities . They could easily approach their father , hug him and tell him about their achievements at school , where they took prized places in mathematics competitions . The child care specialist emphasised that a child who was psychologically distressed could not have such achievements at school .","The Marijampol\u0117 service underlined that the circumstances had changed and thus it would always inform the court that it would provide the last conclusion during the last court hearing . Having communicated with the school , the school administration and the teachers , the Marijampol\u0117 service was finally persuaded that it was better for the girls to stay in that environment , to attend school and have friends ; at home they were also receiving all that was necessary . The applicant , however , did not approach the girls after certain court decisions but first ran to the institutions or called the police , thus traumatising the girls a lot . In the words of the child care specialist , the applicant had not attempted to first meet with the girls or establish contact with them , and had not put in any effort herself . It was odd that a mother would go without seeing her daughters for DATE and not ask if they were prepared for school .","The Marijampol\u0117 service thus submitted that , in the light of the above considerations , ORG could take care of the girls the best and provide them what they needed . To pull the girls out of the environment they were familiar with and where they had spent most of their time would cause them significant psychological harm . The girls could always choose to tell to their father later that they wish to live with their mother . At the end the Marijampol\u0117 service representative noted that , in her view , the child care specialists from Marijampol\u0117 had observed the girls more than the representatives from the PERSON service .","On DATE ORG took a decision on the merits of the divorce and custody case . It observed that there was no information in the file to suggest that either parent was failing in their duties to raise their daughters or that their behaviour was immoral . Even so , they had not always acted with the children \u2019s best interests in mind , because during the court proceedings neither parent had attempted to find a compromise as regards their daughters\u2019 place of residence or their contact with them . The court emphasised that the children had to grow up in a safe environment they were used to . However , even though by a court order of CARDINAL DATE the girls were to reside with their mother , the actual situation was that since DATE they had been residing with their father . The girls themselves had expressed the wish to stay with him . The first - instance court thus held that although the father could have had some influence over the ORG choice as to who they preferred to live with , it was not decisive . The girls had thus already stated on DATE that they preferred living with their father ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It was the court \u2019s view that such a short time ( DATE ) between those CARDINAL dates was not sufficient for the ORG father to influence his daughters . It was thus clear that there was already then tension between the girls and their mother .","Lastly , ORG noted that even though the applicant had declared her place of residence as GPE , since DATE she was also registered as living in GPE . For the court , the question where the father or mother would live with the children was irrelevant in any event because the girls spoke NORP ; they had previously lived in GPE and thus could adjust to living there easily . What was essential when deciding the question of the ORG residence was to ascertain who the children were more attached to , and which parent devoted more attention to their interests . The children \u2019s wishes as to where to live could be disregarded only if they were against their interests . Given that there was nothing to suggest that either parent was neglecting their parental duties , the ORG deemed it most suitable to take into account the ORG wish to live with their father .","The first - instance court also ordered the applicant to pay the ORG father maintenance ( CARDINAL ( ORG ) for each daughter per month ) and set in place a contact order for the applicant to see her daughters . Even though both parents asked to see the children DATE and during DATE , in accordance with LAW the court considered ex officio that such a time - frame would be too restrictive for the applicant to be able to build up contact with her daughters . A wider contact order , allowing the applicant contact not only during DATE but also ORG holidays and certain DATE during DATE was set in place . The court stressed to both parents their obligation to take care of the children and above all be an example to them .","The court also divorced the applicant and her husband .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the first - instance court \u2019s decision . She contested the decision about the ORG place of residence . Without explicitly asking that a hearing be held , she asked for a re - examination of the evidence and witnesses to be called and questioned .","By a letter of CARDINAL March DATE , the applicant also asked ORG to admit in evidence letters postmarked DATE and DATE she had sent to her daughters in GPE from GPE , which had been returned to her in the post . The applicant claimed that ORG had thus interfered with her right to be in contact with her children . She relied on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE made in written proceedings , ORG left the lower court \u2019s decision unchanged . The court noted at the outset that pursuant to ORG and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , appeals had to be heard in written proceedings unless the court deemed an oral hearing indispensable . As regards the applicant \u2019s request to have witnesses questioned , the court established that the applicant had not specified in her appeal what new circumstances essential for the case the requested witnesses could confirm , some of them having already been questioned at first instance . Nor had she explained why she had not submitted the request to the first - instance court . The court concluded that an oral hearing was not necessary , because the applicant had had the opportunity to point out all the circumstances necessary for an examination of the case to the first - instance court and also in her appeal .","The appellate court also refused to admit documents related to the applicant \u2019s correspondence with her daughters . According to it , those pieces of evidence had not been analysed in the first - instance court , which was a general requirement for evidence to be admitted in an appeal , or lodged with it .","As to the ORG place of residence , ORG dismissed as unfounded the applicant \u2019s plea that the first - instance court did not properly examine the evidence , which included the explanations by the child care authorities , ORG reports , witness testimony and the PERSON \u2019s conclusions . On this last point the court observed the PERSON \u2019s conclusion of CARDINAL DATE stating that the applicant was conflictive and involved various authorities in her and PERSON \u2019s conflict , without giving importance to her own responsibility and good - will in finding the best solutions for the children . It also observed that the first - instance court had examined the forensic expert reports about the ORG psychological state , where it was noted that they both wished to stay with their father . In addition , psychologists from the ORG school and the school principal were questioned . The applicant \u2019s lawyer herself admitted agreeing with the forensic expert reports , and did not ask for another expert examination to be conducted .","ORG also found that it was in the best interests of the children to stay with their father , who they had lived with since DATE . On that point it was also paramount that during the first - instance court hearing the girls had confirmed their wish to live with him . A fact on which the applicant had relied , that ORG had prior convictions in GPE for sexual and drug - related offences committed in DATE and DATE did not have much significance for the case , because the convictions had expired in DATE . The applicant , for her part , had a criminal conviction in GPE for forgery of document and a criminal investigation against her for fraud had been terminated . What mattered was that she had left GPE for GPE ; she had CARDINAL addresses \u2013 in GPE , PERSON and in GPE , which she had indicated as places where she lived , which suggested that she in fact had no habitual place of residence . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s contact with the girls was merely episodic , whereas the ORG father took proper care of them and actively participated in raising them . The girls lived with their father , attended school and had suitable living conditions . The evidence as a whole allowed for the conclusion that there was a close connection between the girls and their father . There was no evidence in the case file to the effect that ORG abused his parental rights , and it was for the applicant to prove the opposite , which she had not done . Moreover , under LAW on the Rights of the Child , a child had the right to be heard in all matters affecting him , which had been done in the present case . The appellate court also observed that in accordance with LAW , both parents had equal rights and obligations towards their children . Accordingly , and contrary to the applicant \u2019s suggestion that she was closer to the girls because of their gender , the gender of a parent could not be a factor which determined who a child should reside with .","As to temporary protective measures , ORG observed that , as a rule , they were aimed at guaranteeing compliance with a future court decision . Accordingly , the first - instance court , when adopting a decision after examining merits of the case , was not bound by earlier decisions on temporary protective measures .","Following a complaint by the applicant , on DATE the PERSON issued a report dismissing allegations by the applicant about the partiality of the Marijampol\u0117 service because of its failure to provide her with information and consultations . The PERSON relied on the ORG \u2019s judgment in ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , where it did not find a violation of LAW , having found that irrespective of obstructions by the applicant \u2019s former husband , the applicant \u2019s own lack of understanding of the need for careful preparation as a precondition to effective enforcement of her custody rights played a significant role in the events . In the instant case , attempts had been made more than once to hand the children over to the applicant and meetings had been organised with psychologists , child care specialists and representatives of educational institutions as to enforcement of the court decisions to transfer the children . Moreover , the PERSON had already examined the Marijampol\u0117 service \u2019s work in DATE , and did not find that it did not take action to help the applicant to have contact with her children . The service also correctly placed the responsibility for the well - being of the children on both parents .","On DATE the principal of the ORG school in Marijampol\u0117 issued a note stating that during DATE the applicant had not visited the school . She did not come to school on DATE either .","On DATE the PERSON dismissed the applicant \u2019s repeated complaint accusing the Marijampol\u0117 service of failing in its duties to provide assistance and organise contact with the children . The PERSON established that even though the contact order between the mother and the girls had been set in place DATE CARDINAL DATE by ORG , she had not yet tried to make use of it . Furthermore , the Marijampol\u0117 service had asked the applicant \u2019s lawyers to meet at its LOC , offered to inform PERSON of that meeting and asked the applicant \u2019s lawyers for that purpose to choose a suitable date , but the applicant had not responded . For its part , the PERSON service had also invited the applicant for a conversation so that she could express her wishes and preferences as to her contact with the girls , and so that the service could assist her . It was only when the applicant had not shown up that the PERSON child care specialists had suggested to her lawyers that she communicate with the girls by letters via the PERSON child care specialists . It had also been indicated to the applicant that she had the opportunity to directly communicate with her daughters in the presence of a psychologist , and that could be discussed with the Marijampol\u0117 service . The ORG school in Marijampol\u0117 had also informed the PERSON that the applicant had started communicating with the girls by letters since DATE ; DATE and DATE CARDINAL letters from her had been received , though the girls had refused to accept the last one . The school had thus suggested that the applicant choose another means of communicating with her daughters and asked the child care specialists to provide facilities for that purpose . Given the child care authorities and the school \u2019s suggestions for the applicant to communicate with her daughters directly ( tiesiogiai ) , which the applicant had disregarded , it was not clear to the PERSON why the applicant preferred to communicate with her daughters by letters . On this point the PERSON pointed out that under LAW parents who lived separately had the right and an obligation to communicate with their children and be involved in their upbringing ; children , for their part , had a right to regular and direct contact with both parents , irrespective of their place of residence .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . Without arguing that the appellate court \u2019s decisions not to summon witnesses for examination and not to hold a hearing had affected the outcome of the litigation , she primarily challenged the lower courts\u2019 assessment of the evidence , insisting that they had erred in concluding that living with their father was in the best interests of the children . She also asserted that ORG \u2019s previous convictions in GPE for crimes of sexual violence and drug - related offences were significantly weightier in terms of his moral values than her conviction in GPE for forgery of documents . The applicant was further dissatisfied with the appellate court \u2019s refusal to admit in evidence documents related to her correspondence with her daughters , which she obtained after she had already lodged her appeal .","In his written reply , PERSON argued that the lower courts had properly examined the entirety of the evidence . He submitted that the applicant had always known about his earlier convictions in GPE ; however , they had expired a long time ago . It was unfair for her to bring up that issue now . PERSON also observed that the proceedings had been pending for DATE . During that period the applicant had specified her claims and submitted requests to the court on CARDINAL occasion . ORG acceptance to re - examine the evidence and question witnesses would have only delayed the proceedings . Given that the applicant had not asked for an oral hearing , the appellate court \u2019s decision to pursue proceedings in writing had been reasonable .","In a final ruling of DATE , adopted in written proceedings , ORG observed that the child \u2019s interests were the primary consideration when examining custody cases . The cassation court also relied on the ORG \u2019s judgment in ORG and GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) , which said that an in - depth examination of the entire family situation was necessary to achieve the best result for the child . For ORG , such a result had been achieved in the present case . The lower courts had analysed the level of attachment to each parent and established that the girls , who lived with the father , were fond of him . Those courts had also noted ORG reports that the girls could entirely independently form their own opinion about which parent to live with , and had held that the children \u2019s opinion was CARDINAL of the criteria when evaluating the entirety of evidence , and the girls had expressed such a wish during the court hearing . Even though the fact that the girls lived with their father could influence their formation of a negative opinion about their mother , it had not been established that the mother was barred from communicating with them ; to be interested in their lives and visit them at school could thus form a positive opinion about her and make their emotional bond stronger . The first - instance court had also issued a contact order and thus the applicant \u2019s contact rights with her daughters had not been restricted . Even though the applicant had stated that she lived in GPE , the evidence showed that she had declared place of residence as GPE , where she had taken part in court proceedings so that the name of her third child could be registered . As to ORG \u2019s convictions in GPE , those offences had been committed in DATE and DATE and his convictions had expired a long time ago . There was no proof that he could have a negative impact on the girls . On the contrary , the girls studied well at school and took part in extracurricular activities . It followed that the courts had been correct in not giving particular weight to those convictions . Overall , it was thus in the best interests of the girls to stay with their father .","Lastly , whilst noting that when refusing to admit in evidence new documents submitted by the applicant the appellate court had not explained whether they were relevant to the merits of the case , ORG held that this did not affect the overall lawfulness of the appellate court \u2019s ruling .","After FAC decision of DATE stating that the girls should reside with the applicant became final , and following the applicant \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE transmitting her the writ of execution , the bailiff took measures to enforce it ( also see paragraph CARDINAL in fine ) . Meetings were organised with the child care specialists , representatives of the ORG school and psychologists . Both parents were involved in that process .","The first attempt to hand the girls over at their school in DATE failed because on DATE the girls fell ill and did not go to school . The court then established that their absence was proved by medical certificates , and the court order for transfer did not specify where it would take place . Accordingly , the father could not be blamed for an unsuccessful transfer .","The next attempt to transfer the girls was made in DATE , when it was decided that the girls would be handed over at their home . This attempt did not produce results because on that date the applicant was arrested on charges of forgery of documents .","The third attempt to hand over the girls was at their father \u2019s home in DATE . It failed because , even though the bailiff , child care specialists , police and both parents were present , neither girl wished to leave with their mother . During the transfer the applicant asked to be left alone in the room with the girls , and her wish was granted . However , even after that the girls expressed a clear wish not to leave with her . In the report about that attempted transfer the bailiff underlined that the transfer of a child could not be equated to the transfer of an object . Taking into account the clearly expressed wishes of the children , and to avoid psychological trauma and to protect the children \u2019s interests , physical force could not be used in that situation . The child care authorities supported this argument . The bailiff \u2019s recommendation , based on LAW , was that the manner of enforcing the court order for transfer should be changed to preserve the children \u2019s interests . The bailiff \u2019s letter specified that her findings could be appealed against to FAC . The bailiff then also asked FAC to examine how the court order for the ORG transfer should be enforced without compromising their interests .","Eventually , by a decision of DATE the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings , because it had been decided that the girls should reside with their father ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE in separate criminal proceedings , a court found ORG guilty of failing to comply with the court order of DATE . He was fined approximately ORG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL NORP litai ) . The court however dismissed a civil claim by the applicant for non - pecuniary damage , noting that the girls themselves had refused to go and reside with their mother . The court also noted that no evidence had been provided to prove the applicant \u2019s contention that the children \u2019s refusal to be handed over to their mother had been a direct consequence of ORG \u2019s actions .","Alleging that the ORG father had had a negative influence on their daughters , and relying on the ORG reports about parental alienation syndrome ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the applicant asked the prosecutor to start criminal proceedings in respect of PERSON for abusing his rights and duties as a parent ( LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","By a decision of DATE , the prosecutor refused to initiate a pre - trial investigation . He noted that earlier that LOC child care specialists had visited PERSON \u2019s home and the girls had eagerly communicated with them , without their father present . The girls felt comfortable and at ease ; they had no demands . They had also explained that the applicant did not visit them or call . The prosecutor established that ORG had not committed any unlawful acts in respect of his daughters . By a decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL , ORG upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164713","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"SAKKAL AND FARES v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second and third applicants , PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON , are stateless NORP who were born in DATE and DATE and live in GPE . All CARDINAL applicants are represented by PERSON , a lawyer attached to ORG , a non - governmental organisation based in GPE .","NORP In DATE CARDINAL NORP refugees gathered in ORG bus terminal in GPE with a view to taking buses to PERSON . Their aim was to protest about migrant deaths in LOC and reach LOC by land . As they were refused permission to board buses , they started marching down the motorway between GPE and PERSON . On DATE the applicants , who were among them , were arrested along with CARDINAL other individuals by QUANTITY police officers on suspicion of breaching the Meetings and Demonstration Marches Act ( Law no . CARDINAL ) . They were taken to the LOC district police headquarters where , on DATE , they were questioned by the police in the presence of a lawyer with regard to the offence attributable to them .","On DATE the applicants were transferred to the NORP Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre . On DATE their representative , PERSON , visited them and attempted to obtain information about the reasons for their detention . She was told that they would be transferred to one of the refugee camps set up for NORP refugees in southern GPE .","On DATE CARDINAL other lawyers working for Refugee Rights GPE visited the centre and were told by the officials that no decision had been taken in respect of the applicants .","On DATE a fourth lawyer attempted to meet with the applicants but was denied access to them .","On DATE PERSON was informed by an official at the centre that on the strict verbal instructions of the GPE governor \u2019s office , the applicants were not allowed to meet with a lawyer . During her visit she saw that deportation and detention orders had been issued in respect of the applicants on DATE . Neither they nor she were served with the orders . However , she took a photograph of the deportation and detention order issued in respect of the first applicant , which was later submitted to the ORG .","On DATE the applicants were sent to the FAC Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre . On DATE a lawyer practising in GPE and the head of the GPE branch of ORG , a non - governmental organisation , attempted to meet with the applicants . They were also denied access to them .","On DATE the applicants telephoned PERSON and informed her that they had been transferred to ORG . They said that they feared being deported to GPE .","On DATE the applicants telephoned their representative again and informed her that the deportation and detention orders dated DATE had been renewed .","DATE and DATE the applicants were detained incommunicado without access to legal assistance .","On DATE another lawyer attached to Refugee Rights Turkey , PERSON , went to GPE to meet the applicants and to obtain notarised powers of attorney to take legal steps at the domestic level and authority forms to apply to the ORG . She was told by staff of the centre that the applicants were being detained pending their removal to GPE . The applicants signed the authority forms provided by the lawyer . However , an official who had monitored their meeting tore them up , stating that the lawyer did not have the right to make the applicants sign any documents since she did not have a notarised power of attorney . The officials also refused to give her the applicants\u2019 identity documents for the purposes of obtaining notarised powers of attorney . PERSON then left the centre , but returned DATE with a notary and an NORP translator associated with a notary \u2019s office to have certified translations of the applicants\u2019 identity documents and obtain notarised powers of attorney . She was once again told by the staff of the centre that she would not be given the applicants\u2019 identity documents . She had to leave the centre at the end of the working day . The applicant submitted a document to the ORG drafted at CARDINAL p.m. on DATE and signed by PERSON and the translator . According to this document , PERSON and the translator could not meet the applicants and obtain their identity documents from the authorities for the purposes of obtaining notarised powers of attorney .","On DATE , the date the application was lodged , the applicants\u2019 representative requested that the ORG adopt an interim measure , under LAW , to stay the applicants\u2019 deportation to GPE .","On DATE the Acting President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided , in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , to indicate to the ORG , under LAW , that the applicants should not be deported before DATE . The Government were further requested to inform the ORG as to whether the applicants were being detained pending their expulsion to GPE , whether there were deportation orders issued in respect of each of them and whether they were prevented from having access to legal assistance and appointing a legal representative as alleged .","On DATE the Government made submissions to the ORG and sent a number of documents related to the application . They stated that the applicants had been arrested on DATE on suspicion of breaching LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) during a march from GPE to GPE by NORP refugees . They submitted that the applicants had directed the refugees and encouraged them to topple the police barricades set up by the riot police . The first applicant had also attacked police officers while chanting slogans . After the applicants had been arrested , the police could communicate with the refugees , who had cooperated with the security forces . The Government noted that the applicants were questioned at the LOC district police headquarters in the presence of a lawyer . The applicants had then been placed in administrative detention pending their deportation since the administrative authorities had considered that they posed a threat to public order and safety and would abscond or disappear if released . The ORG submitted copies of the orders for the applicants\u2019 deportation and detention dated DATE issued pursuant to sections CARDINAL ( DATE ) [ sic ] and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Foreigners and LAW ( Law no . DATE ) . The Government noted in this connection that the detention orders had been renewed DATE pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the same Act .","The Government contended that PERSON and PERSON were staying in GPE under \u201c temporary protection \u201d , the protection granted to NORP nationals and those arriving from GPE . PERSON Fares was in an irregular situation since he had not applied to the national authorities when he had arrived in GPE . The Government also submitted that the procedure for their deportation had been initiated given that section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE , sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(e ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Regulation on Temporary Protection ( Council of Ministers Decision No . CARDINAL ) and LAW DATE LAW allowed the ORG authorities to deport persons who were under \u201c temporary protection \u201d and who posed a threat to national security , public order or public safety .","The Government further submitted that the applicants had been allowed to meet a lawyer on DATE . They submitted a document according to which the applicants and PERSON declared that they had met TIME and TIME on that date . The document was signed by the applicants , PERSON and QUANTITY police officers . The Government further contended that the administrative authorities had attempted to notify the applicants of the detention orders . In this connection , they submitted a document , issued at TIME on DATE , according to which the applicants had been informed that the deportation orders issued in their respect had been suspended until DATE on account of the ORG \u2019s decision to stay their deportation to GPE but they would continue to be detained . The applicants had refused to sign that document . The Government also submitted CARDINAL other documents , issued at TIME on DATE , according to which the applicants had been notified that they were being detained on the basis of a decision by the governor \u2019s office to renew the detention order issued on DATE . The applicants had refused to sign them .","The Government further claimed that before applying to the ORG the applicants should have applied to the administrative courts with a view to challenging the deportation orders issued in their respect . They further submitted that the applicants should have brought their LAW grievances before ORG . Lastly , they noted that on DATE ORG had ordered that the applicants be released from detention and be notified that they were requested to leave NORP territory .","On DATE the duty Judge decided to prolong the interim measure indicated under Rule CARDINAL of ORG until further notice .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 representative informed the ORG that the applicants had been released on DATE and instructed to leave GPE as soon as possible . The applicants were also warned that they would risk being subject to administrative detention if they did not leave GPE or breached domestic law . The ORG representative lastly noted that she could obtain powers of attorney from the applicants only after their release from detention .","According to submissions made by the ORG representative on CARDINAL and DATE , on DATE the second and third applicants lodged cases with ORG challenging the order to leave NORP territory served on them on DATE . The first applicant left GPE on DATE and currently resides in GPE , where he applied for asylum , on the basis of a temporary residence permit . As a result , the applicants\u2019 lawyer did not lodge a case with the administrative court on his behalf . At the time , the second and third applicants were still in GPE , despite the fact that they obtained visas from ORG of GPE on humanitarian grounds . The ORG lawyer submitted that they were waiting for the NORP authorities to issue the documents required for their departure from GPE and that the proceedings before ORG were pending .","On DATE the ORG representative informed the ORG that on DATE the second and the third applicants had left GPE and applied for asylum in GPE , where they currently live .","The relevant domestic law regarding the individual application to ORG can be found in ORG v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","On DATE the Foreigners and International Protection Act ( Law no . DATE ) entered into force . Sections CARDINAL of the Act concern the procedure for the removal of foreign nationals from GPE , the judicial review of removal orders and detention pending removal . The provisions relevant to the present case are as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Foreigners may be deported to their country of origin or a transit country or a third country by a deportation decision .","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG deportation decision shall be issued on the instructions of ORG or ex officio by governors\u2019 offices .","( CARDINAL ) The decision and the reasons for it shall be notified to the foreigner or his or her legal representative or lawyer . If the person in respect of whom a deportation order has been issued is not represented by a lawyer , he or she or his or her legal representative shall be notified of the consequences of the decision as well as the procedures and time limits for appeal .","( CARDINAL ) A foreigner or his or her legal representative or lawyer may appeal to the administrative court against the deportation decision within DATE of the date of notification . The person appealing against the decision shall also inform the authority that has issued [ it ] about the appeal lodged with the court . Applications to court shall be decided within DATE . The court \u2019s decision on the issue shall be final . Without prejudice to his or her consent , the foreigner shall not be deported within the time - limit for bringing a case against the deportation decision or in case of an appeal , until finalisation of the judgment .","( CARDINAL ) ORG deportation decision may be issued in respect of foreigners :","...","( d ) who constitute a threat to public order and security or public health ,","...","( CARDINAL ) Where foreigners who fall into CARDINAL of the categories listed in section CARDINAL of the present Act are apprehended by law - enforcement units , the governors\u2019 offices shall be notified immediately for a decision to be taken in their respect . Deportation decisions shall be issued by the governors\u2019 offices in respect of foreigners for whom such a decision is deemed necessary . The assessment and decision - making period shall not exceed TIME .","( CARDINAL ) A foreigner in respect of whom a deportation decision has been issued shall be placed in administrative detention by a decision of the governor \u2019s office if [ he or she ] poses a risk of absconding or disappearing , has violated the rules for entry into and exit from GPE , has used false or fabricated documents , has not left GPE within the period granted without an acceptable excuse , or constitutes a threat to public order and security or public health . Those in respect of whom an administrative detention order has been issued shall be transferred to a removal centre within TIME by the same law - enforcement unit that apprehended them .","( CARDINAL ) The period of administrative detention in removal centres shall not exceed DATE . However , if the deportation process can not be completed owing to the failure of the foreigner to co - operate or provide correct information or documents regarding his or her country [ of origin ] , this period may be extended for a maximum of DATE .","( CARDINAL ) The need to continue administrative detention shall be reviewed DATE by the governor \u2019s office . Where necessary , reviews may be conducted DATE . If a foreigner \u2019s administrative detention is no longer deemed necessary , it shall be terminated immediately . Foreigners who have been released may be required to comply with such obligations as residing at a designated address and reporting to authorities in the manner and period requested .","( CARDINAL ) The administrative detention decision , the extension of the period of administrative detention and the results of the DATE reviews with the reasons on which they are based shall be notified to the foreigner or his or her legal representative or lawyer . If the person in respect of whom a deportation order has been issued is not represented by a lawyer , he or she or his or her legal representative shall be notified of the consequences of the decision as well as the procedures and time limits for appeal .","( CARDINAL ) A person who has been placed in administrative detention or his or her legal representative or lawyer may appeal against the administrative detention decision to ORG . The appeal shall not stay the execution of the administrative detention . In the event that the [ appeal ] is submitted to the administration , it shall be sent to the competent ORG without delay . ORG shall conclude the review within DATE . [ Its ] decision shall be final . A person who has been placed in administrative detention or his or her legal representative or lawyer may lodge a further appeal with ORG should the conditions for administrative detention have ceased to exist or changed .","( CARDINAL ) A foreigner who appeals against a detention order and does not have the means to pay for a lawyer shall be provided with legal aid on request , in accordance with the relevant provisions of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) of CARDINAL DATE .","( CARDINAL ) In removal centres :","...","( b ) foreigners shall be allowed access to and given the opportunity to meet with their relatives , notary public , legal representative and lawyer , as well as access to telephone services ;","... \u201d","On DATE ORG rendered a decision on an individual application brought before it by a NORP national who complained of his threatened deportation to GPE , the poor conditions of his detention at the NORP Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre , the absence of an effective remedy whereby he could raise his allegations concerning the conditions of his detention , the unlawfulness of his detention , the failure to provide him with information on the reasons for his detention , and the absence of an effective remedy to challenge the lawfulness of his detention ( application by PERSON , no . DATE ) .","Mr K.A. had been placed in administrative detention at the ORG Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre on DATE . A detention order was issued on DATE for DATE pending his deportation . The cases that he brought before ORG and ORG with a view to challenging the detention and deportation orders and to complaining about the conditions of his detention were dismissed by those courts . On DATE , when he applied to ORG , he requested that the implementation of the deportation order be suspended . On DATE ORG allowed PERSON request and suspended the implementation of the deportation order . Subsequent to ORG decision , ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release , noting that he could not be deported in the light of the interim measure issued by ORG . Mr K.A. was released on DATE .","In its decision , ORG first declared the applicant \u2019s complaint that he was at risk of death or ill - treatment in the event of his removal to GPE inadmissible . It held that as a NORP national , the applicant did not face a risk of expulsion since he was under \u201c temporary protection \u201d pursuant to the ORG of DATE and , as a result , could not be deported .","The Constitutional Court further examined the applicant \u2019s complaint regarding the conditions of his detention and the alleged absence of an effective remedy whereby he could raise his allegations concerning the conditions of detention . Referring to the ORG \u2019s case - law , in particular , the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , it held that the conditions at the NORP centre had constituted treatment incompatible with human dignity and that the applicant had not had an effective remedy at his disposal to raise his grievance concerning those conditions .","The court further found that LAW , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW had been breached . It held that the applicant \u2019s detention had been unlawful , that he had not been informed of the reasons for his detention and that he had not had an effective remedy whereby he could challenge the unlawfulness of his detention .","As regards the complaint concerning the unlawfulness of Mr K.A. \u2019s detention , ORG first noted that he had been placed in administrative detention on DATE , whereas the detention order had not been issued until DATE . The court therefore found that his detention CARDINAL had lacked a legal basis . The court further noted that by not reviewing the detention order on a DATE basis , the governor \u2019s office had failed to comply with section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE . It lastly observed that Mr K.A. had been detained for DATE and DATE , despite the fact that the detention order had been valid for DATE . The court thus concluded that the authorities had failed to act with diligence and that the applicant \u2019s detention had not been lawful .","As to Mr K.A. \u2019s complaint that he had not been informed of the reasons for his detention , ORG observed that he had not been served with a deportation order at the beginning of his administrative detention . Nor had he been informed of the reasons for his continued detention . The court therefore found that the administrative authorities had failed to comply with section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE .","As to Mr K.A. \u2019s allegation that he had not had access to an effective remedy to challenge his detention , ORG held that the magistrate \u2019s court had failed to carry out an adequate examination of his application , even though PERSON no . DATE provided for the protection of detainees against arbitrariness . Referring to this ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON and GPE v. GPE ( no . PERSON , CARDINAL DATE ) , the court also held that in the absence of information on the reasons for his detention , PERSON right to appeal against his detention had in any case been deprived of all effective substance . As a result , the court found that PERSON had not had an effective remedy whereby he could obtain judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention .","Lastly , ORG awarded Mr K.A. MONEY ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) for the non - pecuniary damage he had suffered as a result of the violations of his aforementioned rights .","On DATE ORG released a call for urgent action against the applicants\u2019 possible deportation from GPE to GPE :","\u201c CARDINAL NORP refugees coming from GPE , PERSON and PERSON , and NORP refugee PERSON , have been detained in GPE since DATE and are facing deportation . If deported they are at risk of serious human rights violations .","NORP refugees coming from GPE PERSON and PERSON and NORP refugee PERSON were detained during a demonstration by NORP refugees at the main bus station in GPE . The demonstrators were demanding to be allowed to go to the NORP border city of GPE , in order to attempt to cross to GPE . PERSON and PERSON ( who are not related ) are NORP refugees formerly resident in GPE but who fled to GPE DATE following the DATE war in GPE . They are both registered with ORG .","The CARDINAL refugees were detained on DATE together with CARDINAL activists from GPE and GPE , who have since been deported back to their countries for violating ORG . The deportation and administrative detention order of the CARDINAL refugees was issued on DATE citing Art . CARDINAL of the Law on Foreigners and ORG . The order does not state which country they would be deported to , but does authorize for them to be held in administrative detention for DATE . PERSON and PERSON and PERSON were taken to ORG , in GPE .","PERSON and PERSON only had access to a lawyer on DATE of their detention . On DATE a lawyer from ORG visited the LOC but was refused access to the CARDINAL refugees . On DATE the lawyer received a phone call from the CARDINAL refugees informing her that they were being flown to GPE province in eastern GPE . They are currently detained in LOC in GPE and since their arrival they have not been able to exercise their right to legal representation .","Due to the ongoing conflicts in both GPE and GPE , and in line with the principle of non - refoulement ( a principle of the international refugee protection system which prohibits the transfer of anyone to a place where they would be at real risk of serious human rights violations ) , no one should be forcibly returned to either country , since they would be at real risk of serious human rights violations or abuses . \u201d","On DATE ORG issued a second urgent action regarding the applicants\u2019 alleged inability to have access to the outside world :","\u201c NORP refugees PERSON and PERSON and NORP refugee PERSON have been detained since DATE and were again prevented from seeing a lawyer on DATE . On DATE , the authorities prevented PERSON mother from seeing him and denied that he was even being held in the deportation centre in GPE .","On DATE the Head of the GPE branch of ORG ( \u0130HD ) and a lawyer went to ORG in GPE , eastern GPE , to see PERSON , PERSON and PERSON who are facing deportation . Officials at the centre acknowledged that the men were there , but did not allow the lawyer to meet them on grounds that such a meeting required the permission of ORG . On DATE officials at the centre denied PERSON mother access to her son and would not acknowledge that he was being held there . The conditions the men are being held in amount to incommunicado detention , in violation of NORP law and international human rights law .","This is the second time the CARDINAL refugees\u2019 rights to consult a lawyer have been denied since their detention on DATE . On DATE a lawyer from ORG attempted to visit them while they were being held at the Kumkap\u0131 Deportation Centre in GPE , but she was denied access to them . TIME the lawyer received a call from the CARDINAL refugees , informing her that they were being taken to FAC .","Refugees\u2019 and asylum - seekers\u2019 right to consult a lawyer and meet their relatives is enshrined in the PERSON on Foreigners and International Protection . Article CARDINAL\/CARDINAL-b states that : \u2018 the foreigner shall be allowed access to and given the opportunity to meet with their relatives , notary public , his \/ her legal representative and the lawyer , as well as access to telephone services\u2019 . Furthermore , Article CARDINAL states : \u2018 The person subject to administrative detention shall be granted access to legal representative , lawyer , notary public and ORG High Commissioner for Refugees officials.\u2019 \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183371","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF CEAICOVSCHI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is the chief executive officer of a large NORP company specialised in the importation of medical equipement .","On DATE he was arrested by ORG ( NAC ) in connection with a crimial investigation opened in DATE . He was charged with bribery in the context of public auctions . Searches were conducted at the applicant \u2019s home and at the headquarters of his company and numerous documents , computers and mobile phones were seized by the investigators .","CARDINAL persons were accused in the same criminal case . Among them were the former Minister of Health and hospital directors . Many of them were apprehended and later released by the ORG or by the courts . As of DATE , the applicant was the only accused who was kept in custody .","After arrest the applicant was placed in the ORG detention facility . DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in custody . DATE and DATE he was detained under house arrest .","The need for the applicant \u2019s detention was justified by the prosecutors in the following way : that the applicant could abscond ; he could influence witnesses ; he could collude with other co - accused persons ; and because the offence imputed to him was sanctioned with imprisonment of DATE . All of the ORG applications for the prolongation of the applicant \u2019s detention were identical .","NORP The applicant argued every time that he was ready to give up his passport and that there were no reasons to believe that he would attempt influencing witnesses or hindering the investigation . The reasons relied upon by the prosecutors in favour of detention were stereotyped and there was no evidence that he intended to abscond or do other things imputed to him . He also argued that he had a family , children , a permanent employment and a permanent abode .","On DATE ORG issued a detention order for a period of DATE arguing that the applicant did not produce guarantees in favour of an undertaking not to hinder the good unfolding of the investigation if no detention was applied . That decision was later upheld by ORG , which added that there was also a risk of the applicant \u2019s reoffending .","On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant \u2019s detention by DATE relying on the same grounds as before . The applicant \u2019s appeal was rejected by ORG on DATE . ORG used the same arguments as the first time and added that CARDINAL of the reaosons to hold the applicant in custody was to protect other persons involved in the proceedings from his violent actions .","By decisions dated CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE ORG prolonged the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE each time . The court relied on similar reasons as before . ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeals arguing that the applicant \u2019s defence did not prove the fact that the applicant did not intend to abscond or hinder the investigation . In a decision of DATE ORG held for the first time that there was a risk of the applicant \u2019s absconding .","On DATE the ORG prolonged again the applicant \u2019s detention by DATE , respectively . It argued that the risk of absconding was justified by the gravity of the offence and that the prosecutor had presented evidence in support of the claim that the applicant may hinder the investigation . The court did not state what that evidence was . On DATE the ORG prolonged again the applicant \u2019s detention by DATE .","On DATE ORG examined the appeals lodged by the applicant against the decisions of DATE and DATE . In its first judgment it dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal after finding that all the risks enumerated by the first - instance court persisted . However , when examining the appeal against the second decision , the same panel of judges considered that the risk of the applicant \u2019s absconding was no longer justified and that there were no new reasons to consider necessary the applicant \u2019s continued detention . Therefore , ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s house arrest .","On DATE the applicant lodged a habeas corpus request and asked for the revocation of the house arrest . On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s request and ordered his release from house arrest .","On DATE , on DATE of his detention , the applicant felt an accute pain in the region of his lower back . At TIME an ambulance was called for the applicant . The doctors diagnosed the applicant with \u201c lumbar radicular syndorme with pronounced algic syndrome \u201d and prescribed him hospitalisation . However , the prison administration refused to follow the ORG prescription .","TIME , on DATE between TIME the applicant started experiencing again pain and asked for an ambulance to be called . An ambulance was called only at TIME The doctors repeated the same diagnosis and prescribed again hospitalisation . However , the prison administration refused to follow the LOC prescription .","At TIME an ambulance was called again for the applicant . This time the doctors diagnosed the applicant with \u201c artherial hypertension of third degree \u201d , \u201c discopathie with agravated algic syndrome \u201d and \u201c lumbar radiculopathy \u201d ( sensory and\/or motor deficit ) . Hospitalisation was again prescribed , but the prison administration refused to follow the LOC prescription .","At TIME an ambulance was called again for the applicant . The doctors diagnosed again \u201c lumbar radiculopathy \u201d and discopathie with a possible lesion of the nerve . The doctors reiterated the urgent need for hospitalisation , but the administration refused again .","At TIME the administration invited several doctors from ORG and ORG who confirmed the initial diagnosis and the urgent need for hospitalisation . Only after that , the prison administration allowed the applicant \u2019s transfer to a hospital .","On DATE the applicant was operated on his spine at ORG and ORG . He remained in hospital until DATE , when he was moved to a prison hospital .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a commission of CARDINAL doctors who diagnosed him with cholecystitis and fequent biliary colic . They recommended him surgical removal of his gall bladder within maximum DATE .","After that date the applicant and his lawyers submitted numerous requests and complaints to different authorities seeking the approval of his surgery . It was only on DATE , after the applicant \u2019s condition drastically deteriorated , that his transportation to a normal hospital was approved . He had high fever and presented a swelling . After DATE of preparations , he was subjected to surgery on DATE and remained in intensive care for DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156230","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"BUZINGER v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . In addition to the present case , he was the applicant in CARDINAL and represented applicants in CARDINAL other cases before the ORG .","NORP In the present case , he was represented before the Court by Ms M. Luka\u010dovi\u010dov\u00e1 , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant is a practicing lawyer . He provided legal services in association with a partner , ORG , with whom he shared premises .","On DATE he filed a criminal complaint stating that , the previous night , A. had unlawfully removed various items of office equipment from their law firm and that the criminal offence of theft might have been committed in that connection . He specified the value of the damage thus suffered and submitted a claim against A. for compensation .","Subsequently an investigation was opened into a suspicion of theft having been committed by CARDINAL or more persons unknown . The investigation was terminated because there was no case to answer , but that decision was quashed following the applicant \u2019s complaint . The ensuing new investigation into a suspicion of embezzlement was terminated twice , the former termination being quashed following the applicant \u2019s appeal . The applicant \u2019s appeal against the latter termination was rejected on DATE for being belated .","On DATE ORG rejected a complaint in which the applicant had challenged the length of the criminal proceedings , in so far as they concerned his claim for damages .","From the observations of the Government on the admissibly and merits of the application , it transpired that , in parallel to claiming damages in the context of the above criminal proceedings , on DATE the applicant had filed an action for damages against A. before the civil courts .","On DATE the Bratislava I ORG partly granted and partly dismissed the action . The judgment was however quashed by ORG on DATE following appeals by both parties . The matter was thus remitted to the first - instance for re - examination and it has been pending there since .","In all the above proceedings , the applicant was or has been represented by a practicing lawyer or a law firm ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141764","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MOR\u00c9N AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON Margareta PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively . They all live in LOC and were represented by ORG , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The mine ( PERSON ) was discovered in the county of GPE in DATE by company ORG . In DATE , mining concessions ( utm\u00e5l ) were granted for iron and lead ore deposits in the mine as well as in a second mine ( PERSON no . CARDINAL ) to company ORG . In DATE , the concession area was expanded and , in DATE , mining concessions were granted to company ORG for iron ore deposits at CARDINAL more mines ( PERSON and PERSON ) . In DATE , the area was expanded further . In connection with each procedure , certain parts of the properties concerned were bought by company ORG and compensation was paid to the property owners . Certain compensation was also paid to landowners for damage to their forests and land . Extraction of minerals was in progress from DATE , and from DATE .","NORP In DATE company ORG acquired all of the above mining concessions from company ORG , including the properties that company ORG had bought over DATE , and undertook mineral extraction from DATE . No mineral extraction has taken place since DATE .","NORP In DATE company ORG applied to ORG of GPE ( GPE ) for an exploitation concession ( bearbetnings - koncession ) for minerals within the area . The application related to the conversion of the old permits , granted in DATE , into CARDINAL new exploitation concession in accordance with transitional provisions to the new Minerals Act ( ORG , CARDINAL ) . In its application , company ORG noted , inter alia , that the remaining minerals in the area had been examined mainly to determine whether it would be possible to exploit the minerals with profit since the ore in question had proved difficult to refine with conventional techniques . The calculations had shown good potential and studies were continuing to investigate whether saleable concentrates could be obtained and whether the circulation of processed products could work on a continuous scale .","As the applicants\u2019 land was within the defined area , they were informed about the application and given the opportunity to comment . In their submission , they stressed the impact on nature and , in particular , the negative effects that mining could have on nearby water sources which , they considered , should be examined further .","On DATE ORG granted company ORG an exploitation concession , valid for DATE . The concession conferred upon the company the right to extract and exploit copper , gold , silver , zinc and lead according to the rules of LAW within the defined area . Moreover , it was linked to a number of conditions , inter alia , relating to securing the area during exploitation and restoring the area and its nature afterwards . In reaching the decision , ORG observed that ORG ( PERSON ) of GPE did not object to the concession being granted and that extensive exploration and development work was already on - going in accordance with the old permits . It further found that no other obstacles existed to granting the concession .","In its decision , ORG further noted that any rights to landowner shares ( jord\u00e4garandelar ) or landowner rent ( jord\u00e4garavg\u00e4lder ) , from which the property owners might have benefited according to the old legislation for the permits , would cease pursuant to the transitional rules of LAW . However , it also observed that the decision did not affect any agreements that might exist between the concession holder and the landowner .","The applicants appealed against the decision to the Government , reiterating their concerns about the negative effects that mining would have on the surrounding nature and water sources . They further strongly objected to the fact that they would not receive any compensation for the minerals that would be extracted from their land . They considered this to be in violation of LAW as well as of the Convention .","On DATE the Government rejected the appeal as it considered that no grounds had been presented to alter ORG decision . Among other authorities , ORG of GPE ( NORP Geologiska Unders\u00f6kning ) submitted its comments on the appeal to the Government and noted , inter alia , that the decision to grant the exploitation concession had been essentially an administrative measure to convert the old permits to the single new concession but that it did not alter the use of the land within the defined area or any interests .","As the applicants were not satisfied with the ORG \u2019s decision , they applied to ORG f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) for judicial review according to LAW Lagen om r\u00e4ttspr\u00f6vning av vissa f\u00f6rvaltningsbeslut , GPE ) . They relied on LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention and claimed that they had been deprived of their property rights since company ORG would be able to extract minerals from their land without compensating them . This was also contrary to the custom which had existed in GPE since time immemorial . It had been abolished for political reasons through LAW of DATE ( Gruvlagen , PERSON ) but GPE was obliged to comply with the Convention .","On DATE ORG upheld the ORG \u2019s decision in full . It noted that NORP law allows for various measures to control the use of an individual \u2019s land . Thus , LAW , as in force at the time of ORG decision , allowed ORG to grant physical and legal persons the right to explore and extract certain minerals enumerated in the LAW even though they did not own the land where the minerals were located . The landowner had the right to receive compensation for any damage or encroachment suffered due to these activities but not for the value of minerals extracted by someone else . The court further observed that LAW was not absolute but allowed for certain restrictions . Hence a ORG could enact such legislation as it considered necessary to regulate the use of property in accordance with the public interest . In these circumstances , the ORG \u2019s decision had not been in violation of the ORG or otherwise flawed .","Following communication of the application , the Government submitted extracts from ORG and informed ORG following ownership constellations of the properties affected by the concession and relevant to the present case :","Half of the property PERSON CARDINAL:CARDINAL had been bought by the first applicant , PERSON , in DATE and DATE . Thus , since DATE the first applicant has been the sole owner of this property .","The property PERSON CARDINAL:CARDINAL had been inherited by the second applicant , PERSON , in DATE . Thus , since this time , he has been the sole owner of the property .","The property PERSON CARDINAL:CARDINAL had been inherited by the third applicant , PERSON , in DATE . However , in DATE , she had given it as a gift to PERSON who , since then , has been the sole owner of the property .","The property PERSON DATE had been inherited by the fourth applicant , PERSON , in DATE . However , on DATE he sold the property to PERSON who , since DATE , has been the sole owner of the property .","The first regulations in public law in GPE concerning mineral exploration and related matters date back to DATE . During DATE , various royal decrees and statutes were in force with the effect that mines belonged to the ORG . In DATE , a royal statute entered into force establishing the mining claim system which meant that a person who discovered a deposit could be given the exclusive right to extract the deposit if certain formalities had been observed . Landowners were given a landowner share ( jord\u00e4garandel ) , namely a PERCENT share in the mineral extraction . The thinking behind it appears to have been to stop the landowner from preventing prospecting or keeping mineral deposits secret . The meaning of a landowner share was a right to participate in the extraction of the minerals corresponding to one \u2019s share , that is , financial participation was necessary in order to collect income from the share . In DATE and DATE new mining statutes were issued through which the state regulated mining in more detail .","It was with the enactment of LAW of DATE ( Gruvlagen , CARDINAL , hereafter the \u201c DATE LAW \u201d ) that an essentially comprehensive regulation entered into force . Mining concessions granted under LAW or under earlier provisions applied indefinitely . The landowner share was removed and replaced by a corresponding share of the ORG . The landowner was instead awarded a landowner rent ( jord\u00e4garavg\u00e4ld ) . The principle of this was that the landowner would receive DATE from the owner of the mine an amount equal to PERCENT of the value of the mineral extracted , but a maximum of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( later raised to SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The landowner share was to be paid during DATE that the mining operations were in progress . Thus , according to the preparatory works to LAW of DATE ( Government PERSON , p. CARDINAL ) , the landowner rent was created as compensation to the property owner for the loss of the landowner share .","The DATE Mining Act ceased to apply on DATE when LAW of DATE ( Gruvlagen , PERSON , hereafter the \u201c DATE LAW \u201d ) entered into force . This LAW was also based on the mining claims system , but it had more concessional elements than previous acts . LAW abolished the landowner rent . However , in the transitional provisions to LAW , the landowner rent for mining concessions granted under LAW was retained . Still , under LAW , section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of the transitional provisions to LAW , all mining concessions granted before the entry into force of that Act would cease to apply on DATE . The rules on landowner rent would also cease to apply on this date .","On DATE LAW ( ORG , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) was promulgated and , on DATE , it entered into force , replacing LAW . LAW is still in force . It is essentially based on the concession system which means that the ORG , following a discretionary examination , grants individuals the right to prospect for and exploit mineral deposits . Through the LAW , the mining claims were replaced by exploration permits ( unders\u00f6kningstillst\u00e5nd ) , LAW , and mining concessions were replaced by exploitation concessions ( bearbetningskoncessioner ) , LAW . According to section CARDINAL of that chapter , exploitation concessions are granted for a period of DATE .","According to LAW , LAW , of LAW , the owner of a real property may exploit deposits of concession minerals for his own domestic use without a concession , provided that no other person holds a concession within the area .","Chapter CARDINAL of the Mineral Act contains rules for when compensation may be granted to affected parties . Thus , section CARDINAL provides that damage or encroachment resulting from exploration work shall be compensated by the holder of the exploration permit or concession . Section CARDINAL states that for damage resulting from the granting of an exploitation concession , compensation shall be paid by the concession holder . In the event of exceptional detriment to any property or part thereof by reason of an exploitation concession having been granted , the concession holder shall purchase the property or part of the property suffering such detriment if the owner so requests . Section QUANTITY provides the same obligations for the concession holder , and rights for the property owner , as section CARDINAL , in case of damage or encroachment resulting from land or other space being utilised for exploitation or activities connected thereto .","When LAW was enacted it contained no right for landowners to receive any compensation for minerals extracted on their properties . However , on DATE , a new provision , section CARDINAL , was introduced in LAW ( through Act CARDINAL ) . According to this provision , for DATE that exploitation is undertaken , the concession holder shall pay mineral compensation equal to twothousandths of the calculated value of the minerals covered by the concession that are extracted and brought to the surface within the concession area during DATE . DATE of the compensation shall be paid to the landowners within the concession area and CARDINAL to the ORG . If there is CARDINAL property within the area , the compensation payable to the landowners shall be determined according to each property \u2019s share of the area . This provision does not have retroactive effect and thus does not apply to exploitation concessions granted prior to DATE .","In the preparatory works to this amendment to LAW ) , the Government noted that the landowner rent had been abolished through LAW because the Government at the time had considered that there were no reasonable grounds for a landowner , without contributing personally , to receive compensation from the concession holder for minerals extracted ( ibid . , p. CARDINAL [ with reference to Government PERSON , p. CARDINAL ] ) . However , the Government observed that , during DATE , opposition against planned mining activities had become evident and it had led to the mineral legislation as a whole being considered unfair and outdated ( ibid . , p. CARDINAL ) . Thus , the Government considered that there was a strong general interest to create LAW which would provide a good framework for entrepreneurial initiatives and investments . It also had to be adapted to global changes and assure a balance between the interests of the landowners and the mining companies ( ibid . , p. CARDINAL ) . In this respect , the Government noted that the issue of ownership of discovered minerals was unclear in GPE . They observed that the boundaries of a property in depth and height were contentious and that there was neither any existing legislation nor any preparatory works or literature to clarify the matter . Since the question was complicated and concerned fundamental property legislation , the Government found that there were not enough reasons , in the instant case , to take a stance on the matter ( ibid . , pp . DATE ) . They then noted that NORP rights were in various ways limited and controlled by authorities and by others\u2019 rights and that , for a long time , this had been the situation for landowners in relation to concession minerals . However , since landowners previously had received some sort of compensation , and a reintroduction of compensation could contribute to a wider acceptance of the mining industry in GPE , the Government found that when making an overall assessment , there were now predominant reasons to re - introduce a special system for compensation for minerals extracted ( ibid . , pp . DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173089","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ASATRYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The present case concerns the applicant \u2019s trial and conviction for attempted murder of PERSON , a businessman and former parliamentarian . A co - defendant , PERSON , was tried and convicted for assisting an offender .","The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","On DATE a bomb placed under ORG car detonated when the latter started the engine in TIME . PERSON survived without major injuries .","On DATE ORG started an investigation into the matter . When questioned by police officers , PERSON pointed to the applicant \u2019s ex - husband , ORG , with whom he had major disagreements over business - related issues , as the only possible offender .","On DATE ORG was summoned to the police station . Having acknowledged the existence of disagreements with PERSON , he denied the offence and stated that he had been at home with his son , PERSON , TIME before the incident .","On DATE PERSON was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder . The charges against him were eventually dropped DATE since his involvement in the offence had not been established .","On DATE . , ORG \u2019s friend who also knew the applicant and the family , was interviewed . He stated , inter alia , that he was aware of ORG \u2019s problems with ORG and that the applicant had always been against ORG doing business with ORG since she considered the latter a \u201c scammer \u201d .","On DATE PERSON , ORG \u2019s neighbour , was interviewed and described his family as a normal and ordinary one . She mentioned that DATE before , the applicant had complained about PERSON because he owed them some money .","On DATE GPE , the applicant \u2019s daughter , was interviewed and stated , inter alia , that she had learnt about her GPE divorce DATE previously . The parents had maintained good relations and the family was in contact almost every day . She also stated that , most of the time , the applicant stayed in the apartment where the father lived .","On DATE A.B. , the applicant \u2019s neighbour , was interviewed . He stated that he had known the members of the family , ORG , the applicant and their CARDINAL children ORG and GPE , since DATE , when they had settled in the building .","On DATE NORP , a friend of the family , was arrested following the discovery of a large quantity of firearms and explosives in his house . Shortly after , Y.W. confessed to ORG attempted murder and stated that he had acted on the applicant \u2019s orders .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with instigation of attempted murder and property damage .","On an unspecified date the investigation was concluded and the criminal case was referred to the PERSON and Nor - Nork District Court of GPE for trial . The bill of indictment included GPE in the witness call list while it appears that DATE . , PERSON and PERSON were not included in it .","At the trial , ORG retracted his pre - trial statements , claiming that they had been obtained under duress . The applicant denied any involvement in ORG attempted murder , stating that she had divorced ORG in DATE and since then she had lived with their daughter GPE in another apartment while ORG lived with their son , PERSON She also stated that at some point she had been asked to sign some documents in relation to a contract between ORG and ORG since the contract concerned the sale of the house where she used to live , which she did . However , in general she had no connection with ORG and tried not to maintain any contact with him .","At the hearing of DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked for GPE to be excluded from the witness call list , since the latter was the applicant \u2019s daughter . This request was granted when GPE expressed her wish to use the testimonial privilege .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her cumulatively to DATE imprisonment . ORG was also convicted . ORG found it established that the applicant had ordered ORG murder as the property - related disputes between the latter and ORG had also affected her property rights . In this connection the ORG mainly relied on the trial statements of ORG , GPE \u2019s spouse , and PERSON , his former colleague and the fact that the applicant was involved in court disputes with ORG , which showed that both she and ORG had a strained relationship with the latter .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment of ORG . On DATE she lodged a supplement to her appeal claiming , inter alia , that she had no reason to murder PERSON as she had been living separately from ORG since their divorce in DATE and had no interest in his business activities .","In the course of the proceedings before ORG retracted his statements made before ORG and submitted that in reality he had organised the explosion of ORG car upon the applicant \u2019s request . However , he had no intention of killing PERSON , but was trying to frighten him . The applicant maintained her defence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE as regards her conviction and sentence , while ORG \u2019s sentence was reduced . In its judgment ORG , inter alia , established that although the applicant had divorced ORG , she had maintained a family - like relationship with him and expressed her annoyance at ORG actions in the presence of different people . In this respect , the judgment of ORG referred to GPE \u2019s pre - trial statement of DATE , DATE . \u2019s pre - trial statement of DATE , as well as the pre - trial statements of CARDINAL neighbours , PERSON and PERSON , made on DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law claiming , inter alia , that ORG had based its conclusions on the pre - trial statements of GPE , PERSON , PERSON and GPE . , which had not been read out and examined either by the PERSON and Nor - Nork District Court of GPE or ORG . Furthermore , she had had no opportunity to question these witnesses .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible for lack of merit .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the Constitutional Court challenging the compatibility with the LAW of certain provisions of LAW ( hereafter , the ORG ) allowing ORG not to indicate reasons when declaring inadmissible an appeal on points of law .","On DATE the ORG granted the application by finding such provisions of the ORG incompatible with the LAW .","On DATE the applicant , based on the above decision of ORG , requested ORG to reopen the proceedings and to re - examine her appeal on points of law of DATE .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG reopened the proceedings , re - examined the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law and declared it inadmissible for lack of merit . In doing so , ORG , inter alia , indicated that ORG conclusion concerning the applicant \u2019s guilt was correct as it was based , among other things , on the witness statements of GPE and A.A."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159607","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BONO v. FRANCE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a lawyer at FAC . He acted for ORG in criminal proceedings on a charge of criminal conspiracy for the preparation of an act of terrorism constituting one of the offences provided for in LAW .","In DATE the domestic security and intelligence agency ( Direction de la surveillance du territoire \u2013 the \u201c DST \u201d ) sent an intelligence report to the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office stating that in GPE the NORP police had dismantled a network of NORP terrorists who were likely to be preparing attacks on NORP territory . In this context , one GPE , who was a suspect in criminal proceedings in GPE , was arrested in GPE on DATE . The NORP authorities were apprised of this arrest on DATE .","On DATE the investigating judges in charge of the case , in the \u201c anti - terrorism \u201d judicial investigation division of the GPE tribunal de grande instance , issued an international letter of request to the NORP military authorities for the purpose of questioning GPE","From DATE , CARDINAL of the investigating judges , PERSON , accompanied by members of the ORG , went to GPE for the execution of the letter of request .","During the questioning PERSON was allegedly tortured .","On DATE , after the file had been received in reply to the letter of request , the investigating judges issued an international arrest warrant . S.A. was extradited and remanded in custody on DATE .","By a decision of DATE the investigating judge committed ORG and CARDINAL other persons to stand trial before ORG on charges of participating in a criminal conspiracy for the preparation of an act of terrorism . Prior to that decision there had been no applications to the investigation division for the annulment of any investigative acts , neither by the lawyer previously assigned to ORG , nor by the prosecutor or the investigating judges ... Therefore , under LAW , the parties were no longer entitled to raise grounds of nullity in respect of procedural acts or evidence , \u201c except where they could not have been aware of [ those grounds ] \u201d .","Before ORG the applicant requested in his written pleadings that documents that had been obtained , according to him , through torture by the NORP secret services , be excluded from the file : the written \u201c confession \u201d of GPE , the report by the NORP secret services dated DATE and the interview records of DATE and CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL May CARDINAL . He alleged that there had been \u201c complicity on the part of the NORP investigating judges in the use of torture against GPE in GPE by military personnel of the secret service \u201d ( see , for details of these pleadings , their reproduction by ORG , paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In a judgment of DATE the court excluded the documents obtained through the international letter of request and sentenced ORG to DATE imprisonment . It took the view , in the light of statements by ORG , a member of the NORP section of ORG and the Secretary of ORG , called by ORG as witnesses , and who were unanimous as to the almost systematic use of torture by the NORP security bodies ( since a military decree of DATE ) , that it was \u201c likely that the statements made by ORG in GPE , to ORG , had been given under torture , and that his confession had thus been obtained by this method \u201d . The court continued as follows :","\u201c Moreover , in his report on his mission to GPE for the execution of his international letter of request of DATE ... , PERSON , investigating judge ( First Vice - President ) in charge of the investigation , specified that at the first working meeting with NORP intelligence officials , he was told that ORG had already been questioned on DATE and CARDINAL May TIME and that \u2018 his interviews were continuing on the basis of the list of questions contained in the international letter of request and additional questions which he [ PERSON ] wanted to be put , particularly in the light of the answers already recorded\u2019 .","However , the judge stressed that he had \u2018 not been allowed to participate in the questioning of ORG but only to follow it in real time\u2019 . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL May the questioning thus continued under the same conditions as the day before .","For his part , GPE emphasised that his entire interrogation had taken place without the NORP investigating judge being present .","When presented to that judge on DATE he indicated that he was \u2018 ORG , that he \u2018 wished to see a doctor PERSON , and that he was \u2018 worried about his wife and daughter\u2019 . He subsequently described his conditions of detention in GPE and the torture to which he had been subjected during the interrogation .","As a result , the NORP investigating judge was not able to exercise any real control over the conditions in which GPE was interrogated in GPE , even though he was being held in the \u2018 GPE Section\u2019 , which was known to be a very harsh section , according to witnesses , in which many cases of torture had been reported .","It is therefore almost certain that the admissions or \u2018 confession\u2019 of S.A. were obtained under torture and must be excluded as evidence against him and his co - defendants .","Accordingly , ORG handwritten statement , his interview records from GPE and the report prepared by the NORP secret services must be removed from the case file . \u201d","S.A. appealed against the judgment . The applicant lodged with ORG his pleadings in defence of GPE , extending to CARDINAL pages , at paragraph CARDINAL of which he again sought the exclusion of the documents obtained under torture . To that end , he relied on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , as well as ORG and CARDINAL of LAW DATE , and referred to the reports of non - governmental organisations concerning the practice of torture in GPE and to the evidence taken at first instance . In particular , he wrote as follows :","\u201c PERSON CARDINAL : \u2018 it was thus blindly that the investigating judges did not want to try and avoid the torture to which Mr. [ S.A. ] was subjected in the hands of the NORP secret services in GPE","Page CARDINAL : \u2018 the NORP investigating judges allowed the NORP secret services to torture [ GPE ] without intervening , and it can even be shown that they promoted torture \u2013 this amounts to a judicial outsourcing of torture.\u2019","DATE , paragraph entitled : \u2018 Complicity of the NORP investigating judges in the use of the torture against Mr. [ S.A. ] in GPE by military personnel of the secret services\u2019 .","DATE : \u2018 The investigating judges , who had felt from the beginning of the proceedings that they should be brought against Mr. [ S.A. ] , allowed torture to be used against him by military personnel of the NORP secret services ... They chose to accept the outsourcing of torture.\u2019","Page CARDINAL : \u2018 the international letter of request issued by the NORP investigating judges provides the NORP secret service officers with the answers to be obtained from the questions to be asked : it encourages torture.\u2019 \u201d","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG conviction and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , after excluding the documents in question : \u201c the defendant \u2019s statements , as they had been obtained in GPE , were included in documents whose lawfulness in terms of NORP procedural rules and the Convention could not be guaranteed \u201d . It rejected the applicant \u2019s submissions \u201c relating to complicity in acts of torture committed by the investigating judges and the criticisms about the conduct of the judicial investigation \u201d as being \u201c prejudicial to the dignity of the investigating judges and without any basis or moderation \u201d . The judgment of ORG indicated that its president had asked the applicant \u201c to moderate his remarks concerning the allegations of complicity on the part of the investigating judges in the use of the torture against ORG see p. CARDINAL et seq . of the pleadings ) \u201d .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Chairman of ORG informed the public prosecutor at ORG , who had sent him a copy of the pleadings , that he did not intend to act upon this matter .","In a formal referral to the disciplinary body dated DATE , pursuant to LAW of CARDINAL DATE concerning the organisation of the legal profession ... the public prosecutor asked that body to bring disciplinary proceedings against the applicant for disregarding the essential principles of honour , tactfulness and moderation governing the legal profession . He indicated the passages in the applicant \u2019s pleadings which , in his view , had seriously impugned the honour of the investigating judges , namely the statements on pages CARDINAL , DATE and DATE to DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He pointed out that the criminal immunity for words spoken in court as provided for in section CARDINAL of the LAW DATE on the freedom of the press ( \u201c the DATE Act \u201d , ... ) was not applicable in disciplinary matters .","In a decision of DATE ORG of ORG dismissed all the charges against the applicant . It considered that his objective had been to ensure the removal from the case file of the documents which emanated from the NORP authorities . It observed in this regard that although the practice of torture by the NORP secret services was notorious , the investigating judges had failed to issue an international arrest warrant immediately but had , on the contrary , waited until DATE to issue a letter of request to the NORP military authorities , and \u201c that letter was , according to ORG lawyers , executed with astonishing speed \u201d . It thus found that \u201c it was on this basis and in support of the request for the exclusion from the case file of the documents from the NORP authorities that [ the applicant ] called into question , in the terms for which he is reproached , the conduct of the investigating judges \u201d . ORG further found that the applicant should benefit from judicial immunity in so far as the impugned remarks were not unrelated to the case . Relying on the case - law of ORG on this point ... , and on the protection under LAW lawyer \u2019s freedom of speech in court ( referring to the judgment in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-II ) , it pointed out that the applicant \u2019s impugned remarks did not constitute personal attacks on the judges , but sought to call into question the manner in which they had conducted the proceedings , and that the remarks were \u201c obviously not unrelated to the facts of the case \u201d . The disciplinary body finally pointed out that the applicant was justified in believing that the argument as to the procedural conduct of the investigating judges had not been without influence on the first - instance decision to exclude the NORP statements from the case file and that he had been justified in using these arguments before ORG , irrespective of their vitriol , whereas the raising of this issue in the court below had not even led to any reaction on the part of the prosecution .","On DATE ORG appealed against that decision .","In a judgment of DATE the ORG quashed the decision of ORG and issued the applicant with a reprimand accompanied by disqualification from professional bodies for DATE . ORG observed that the immunity of the courtroom could not be invoked in disciplinary matters . Stressing that lawyers\u2019 freedom of expression was not absolute , it took the view that the remarks at issue were not merely intended to criticise the conduct of the judicial investigation and challenge the validity of ORG statements during his interrogation , they also called into question the moral integrity of the investigating judges at a personal level . It found that the applicant \u201c had visibly sought to \u2018 do as he NORP even to the extent of harming his client ( whose sentence was extended by DATE by ORG ) \u201d . The court took the view that the accusation of complicity had been pointless in relation to the interests of his client , and gratuitous , since the judges had mentioned in a mission report the difficulties they had encountered with the NORP authorities , who had prevented them from attending the interviews ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG pointed out that the documents in question had been excluded by the court below and that \u201c there was no need for [ the applicant ] , in the interest of ORG , to claim without any proof that the NORP investigating judges had been complicit in the torture of GPE . It concluded that the attacks were not proportionate to the aim pursued and that the impugned remarks constituted a breach of the essential principles of the legal profession , namely dignity , honour , tactfulness and moderation .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . The Chairman of ORG did likewise . In his grounds of appeal , the applicant relied in particular on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention to argue that the immunity provided for by LAW was applicable in disciplinary proceedings . He also pointed out that the fact of denouncing the shortcomings of the justice system on the basis of a letter of request issued to the NORP secret services had been necessary for his client \u2019s defence , and such denunciation could not be considered as a disciplinary offence given the absolute nature of the prohibition of torture .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared inadmissible the appeal by the Chairman of ORG on the ground that he was not a party to the proceedings . As to the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , it was rejected in the following terms :","\u201c However , firstly , the judgment states precisely that the provisions of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Law of DATE are not applicable in disciplinary matters . Having rightly observed that , while the lawyer has the right to criticise the functioning of the justice system or the conduct of a particular judge , his freedom of expression is not absolute because it is subject to restrictions which derive , in particular , from the need to protect the reputation or rights of others and to maintain the authority and impartiality of the judiciary , ORG found that the offending remarks were not merely intended to criticise the conduct of the judicial investigation and challenge the validity of statements made by the suspect during interviews conducted for the execution of the international letter of request issued by the NORP investigating judges , but personally impugned the moral integrity of those judges , accusing them of deliberately promoting the use of torture and of being actively complicit in the ill - treatment inflicted by the NORP investigators . Having noted that these serious accusations were both pointless in relation to the client \u2019s interests and gratuitous , since the judges , in the report of their mission to GPE , had described the difficulties they had encountered with the NORP authorities , who had refused to allow them to attend the interviews , the court rightly inferred that the offending remarks did not fall under the protection of freedom of expression , but breached the principles of honour and tactfulness . On those grounds , without there being any lack of impartiality or any breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence , it legally justified its decision to impose on the lawyer a mere reprimand together with a temporary disqualification from membership of professional bodies and councils ; ... \u201d","..."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142829","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"B\u0141O\u0143SKA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . She was represented before the ORG by Mr W. Wrzecionkowski , a lawyer practising in ORG .","NORP The applicant is the mother of Mr LOC PERSON ( ORG ) who died on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158291","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"X AND OTHERS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Carlo Ranzoni;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicants are CARDINAL NORP nationals . They were represented before ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The first applicant is the third applicant \u2019s biological mother . The third applicant \u2013 a child \u2013 was born out of wedlock in DATE . The second applicant does not live with the child and his mother . According to the applicants , the child nevertheless recognises the second applicant as his father .","On DATE S.G. lodged an action with FAC seeking to establish his paternity of the third applicant , submitting that he was the biological father .","On DATE applicant officially acknowledged his paternity of the third applicant .","On DATE GPE adopted a judgment in which it dismissed PERSON \u2019s claims in full . The first applicant was the respondent and the second applicant was a third party in the civil proceedings . The court held the corresponding provision of LAW did not give NORP the standing to dispute in court a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity .","S.G. appealed to ORG and DATE on DATE requested the same court to order genetic ( DNA ) testing in order to establish whether the second applicant or PERSON was the biological father of the child .","On DATE , DATE , ORG held a hearing and adopted a decision to order the genetic testing of LOC , the second applicant and the third applicant in order to verify the child \u2019s biological descent . According to the court , it was necessary to order genetic testing because the second applicant had acknowledged paternity of the child only after PERSON had already lodged the action with the court . For that reason it was held that LOC had standing to bring a claim to determine paternity . The decision to order genetic testing was not subject to appeal in accordance with the provisions of LAW . On DATE a copy of the record of the hearing was sent to the applicant \u2019s representative .","On DATE the applicants , relying on sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG , submitted a request to the President of ORG of the ORG of ORG asking him to lodge a protest against the order of ORG . They claimed , inter alia , that in giving the order for genetic testing ORG had failed to take into consideration the interests of the child and the second applicant \u2019s right to respect for his private and family life .","On DATE the President of ORG of the ORG of ORG lodged a protest , citing several violations of procedural and substantive law , notably that : the contested order had been issued prior to the examination on the merits of the civil case ; the decision had not been prepared in accordance with the procedure set out by LAW ; and the court had not examined whether the medical laboratory was authorised to carry out such tests . In particular , the wording of the protest noted that at the time of the examination of the case the child \u2019s paternity had been voluntarily acknowledged , whereas the claimant \u2013 S.G. \u2013 had not challenged the paternity .","On DATE the ORG of ORG , relying on section CARDINAL of LAW , dismissed the protest . The ORG considered that the claim submitted by ORG had not been intended to challenge the paternity of the second applicant ; rather , it considered that the claim had been submitted in order to determine PERSON paternity . The ORG argued that the second applicant had recognised his paternity only after PERSON had lodged his action and that therefore , the question of LOC \u2019s standing would only fall to be examined when the case was examined on the merits . The ORG also disagreed that procedural violations such as those alleged in the protest were decisive for the outcome of the case .","Section CARDINAL ( as worded at the material time ) provided that a protest against a court judgment and\/or decision that had taken effect might be submitted to the ORG of ORG by the President of ORG , by the President of ORG of the ORG of ORG or by ORG , provided that DATE had passed since the ruling took effect .","Section CARDINAL provides that admissible grounds for submitting a protest regarding a ruling ( a judgment or decision ) that has taken effect are : substantive breaches of material or procedural legal provisions in cases which have been adjudicated only by a first - instance court ( provided that no appeal against the ruling has been lodged by the parties to the case in accordance with the law , for reasons beyond their control ) , or the rights of ORG or municipal institutions or persons who were not parties to the case have been affected by the ruling .","Section CARDINAL sets out the jurisdiction of the ORG when reviewing an ancillary complaint . It follows from the domestic courts\u2019 practice that the ORG has the same jurisdiction when reviewing a protest . In particular , the ORG may adopt the following decisions : CARDINAL ) to uphold the lower court \u2019s decision and dismiss the appeal or protest ; CARDINAL ) to quash the decision , in whole or in part , and remit it to the lower court for fresh examination ; CARDINAL ) to quash the decision , in whole or in part , and decide the question on the merits ; CARDINAL ) to amend the decision ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179563","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SASHCHENKO v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG of FAC ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) ordered , inter alia , the head of the respondent military institute to re - calculate the period of the applicant \u2019s service , applying the favourable terms of such calculation for a specified period of service . The applicant was also awarded some additional allowances and payments for certain periods .","The judgment came into force on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution . On DATE the bailiffs\u2019 service instituted the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated and the writ of execution was returned to the applicant , as the debt could not be recovered .","On DATE the head of the respondent military institute issued Order No . CARDINAL requiring to make payments in accordance with the judgment of DATE . However , no calculations or payments were made at that time .","On DATE the applicant submitted the writ of execution to ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the writ was returned to the applicant on the ground that the judgment obliged an official of an organisation to take certain actions rather than ordered to recover payments from a budgetary organisation . Thus , the writ of execution was to be submitted to the bailiffs\u2019 service .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs\u2019 service .","On DATE the writ of execution was returned to the applicant from the bailiffs\u2019 service without enforcement . The bailiffs explained that for the applicant to be able to receive the payments under the judgment , he should obtain a writ of execution stating the sum of the debt to be recovered . After that , the writ could be submitted to ORG for enforcement .","In DATE in accordance with Order No . CARDINAL , the defendant military institute calculated the amounts due to the applicant as follows : the compensation for the supplementary ration for the period from DATE until DATE MONEY ( RUB ) ; allowance for special regime of the service in DATE \u2013 RUB CARDINAL ; and special allowance \u2013 RUB CARDINAL . In total : RUB CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164663","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KOTELNIKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , a village in GPE .","According to the applicant , on an unspecified date at DATE he was sitting in a cafe . He saw P. there , a police officer and former schoolmate who was drunk and making indecent suggestions to a girl . The applicant , in his words , reprimanded P. for his behaviour , to which he replied with a vague threat .","CARDINAL on DATE the applicant was hit by a car while on the pavement . The driver was P. , who was accompanied by a passenger , PERSON The accident took place in a recreational area in the centre of the village . As a result , the applicant suffered severe head and spinal injuries . P. \u2019s car was also damaged . With the help of a passerby , PERSON , P. loaded the semiconscious applicant into his car and drove him away from the scene of the accident .","At TIME with the applicant at a local hospital . The applicant was able to walk but was suffering from memory loss , was disoriented and did not understand what had just happened . His condition started to worsen ; at TIME he was transferred to the hospital \u2019s intensive care unit .","According to the applicant , having seen what he had done , PERSON called his father , the chief of the local tax police and former chief of the local traffic police . P. \u2019s father called his acquaintances , A. , a traffic police officer , and PERSON , the head of the laboratory of the local hospital . He explained to them what had happened and asked if they would help protect his son . The Government did not comment on this allegation .","Shortly after the applicant \u2019s admission to the hospital PERSON arrived and spoke to the applicant . At TIME on DATE he drew up a report stating that the applicant had fallen down the stairs of a nearby cafe and had injured himself . He made the applicant sign the report . No mention of the car accident was made . The report contained a handwritten entry , apparently in the applicant \u2019s own handwriting , which read : \u201c Recorded from my words , I have read it \u201d . The report was then submitted to NORP police station , where the accident was logged in the DATE accident record as \u201c no . CARDINAL \u201d .","At TIME on DATE , PERSON arrived at the hospital in P. \u2019s father \u2019s car and took samples of the applicant \u2019s blood . After testing them she concluded that his blood contained a high level of alcohol ( CARDINAL per mille ) , which meant he had been drunk at the time of the accident . The applicant was unconscious when PERSON took the samples . She also took blood from P. The tests showed the presence of CARDINAL per mille of alcohol in his blood ( the then acceptable legal limit for driving a car ) . The applicant alleged that the results of the tests had been falsified by M. He referred to the testimony of CARDINAL staff members of the hospital , who later testified that he had not been drunk . The applicant also pointed to inconsistencies in the report by PERSON and the results of subsequent tests of the samples of his blood , which had revealed different levels of alcohol .","At TIME the applicant \u2019s parents arrived at the hospital . According to the applicant , they did not smell any alcohol on him . Furthermore , the entries made by the hospital personnel about his condition and the nature of his injuries were incomplete . No mention of his spinal injury had thus been made , since the existence of such an injury would have gone against the story that he had fallen down the stairs . Furthermore , the hospital authorities had washed his t - shirt , which contained traces of his blood and could have confirmed his version of events .","In the meantime PERSON left the hospital and returned to the scene of the accident . According to the official examination report , the police examined the scene between CARDINAL and TIME on DATE . PERSON took part in the examination , together with police officers from NORP police station . He signed the report , as did the attesting witnesses present . The applicant claimed that the examination had taken place much later in the day , during the afternoon .","According to the applicant , later that day P. drove his car to a garage , where it was quickly repaired and the broken windscreen replaced .","At TIME on DATE the applicant \u2019s father arrived at NORP police station and tried to formally report the car accident . However , the officer on duty refused to accept it , referring to the earlier report by A. stating that the applicant had fallen down the stairs .","DATE a.m. doctors at the hospital made an encephalogram of the applicant \u2019s head and took samples of his spinal fluid .","At TIME a second test of the applicant \u2019s blood was carried out , which showed the presence of QUANTITY of alcohol . A further test of the same sample showed the presence of CARDINAL per mille of alcohol .","The applicant \u2019s first operation took place at TIME on DATE and was carried out by PERSON , a surgeon from the hospital . His condition , however , remained very unstable and continued to worsen . His relatives suspected that when they had left the hospital , someone had tried to strangle him to death , because upon their return they had discovered marks on his neck . They also blamed the hospital authorities for their inaction in dealing with the applicant \u2019s case .","DATE the police examined P. \u2019s car . It appears from the report of the examination that the car had dents on the right side of the bonnet and on the front right windscreen support . The police did not mention the windscreen in their report . It is unclear whether the car was examined before or after it had been repaired .","At TIME on DATE the local hospital requested the help of GPE at the insistence of the applicant \u2019s relatives . A neurosurgeon arrived at TIME and performed further surgery , which was more successful . The applicant started to recover . DATE he was transferred to GPE for further treatment . In DATE that followed he had to undergo a further CARDINAL neurosurgical operations , but he never recovered completely ; he lost the ability to work and started to suffer from repeated epileptic fits . He was registered as Category CARDINAL disabled ( where QUANTITY to a severe disability preventing a person from working , and CARDINAL corresponds to a less severe disability ) .","According to the applicant , on DATE the NORP district police informed LOC about the incident on DATE . The Government did not comment .","On DATE ORG opened a criminal investigation into the accident ( registered as case no . DATE ) . The applicant alleged that the investigator in charge of the case , PERSON , had been a schoolmate and close friend of PERSON also alleged that the date the decision was taken to open an investigation was incorrect , as the case had in fact been opened on DATE .","On DATE the investigator started questioning witnesses . PERSON , who had been with the applicant on TIME and helped take him to the hospital , testified that the applicant had not been drinking that evening . He also testified that the applicant had been walking parallel to the road when the car had hit him . His account was confirmed by the testimony of several other witnesses . In contrast , some other witnesses testified that the applicant had suddenly moved in the direction of the car a second before the collision . Several witnesses had also noticed that the windscreen of the car of P. had been broken after the incident . It appears that the investigator identified and questioned CARDINAL witnesses who had seen the accident or observed the events immediately afterwards . The investigator also questioned paramedics from the local hospital , some of whom testified that PERSON had probably been drunk . Others had not noticed anything of that kind .","On DATE the investigator examined the car again . His report suggests that the car did not have any visible dents , but evidence of repair work was discovered on the front right windscreen support .","On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON again . It appears that he was questioned as a witness . He claimed that the applicant had made a dangerous unexpected move in the direction of the car . He also denied that the car had sustained any damage to the windscreen or the front right windscreen support .","On DATE the investigator examined the scene of the accident . It was established , amongst other things , that it had taken place in an area marked as a pedestrian zone . There was a road sign prohibiting cars from access , although it was unclear whether it had been there on the night of the accident and had been visible .","On DATE a forensic expert tested a sample of P. \u2019s blood , obtained from him on DATE . The expert did not find any traces of alcohol . A similar test of a sample of the applicant \u2019s blood revealed the presence of CARDINAL per mille of alcohol .","On DATE the investigator conducted a reconstruction of the accident , in the presence of P. Neither the applicant nor his parents were notified or participated .","On DATE a forensic expert drew up a report examining the nature of the applicant \u2019s injuries and making conclusions as to the speed and direction P. \u2019s car had been travelling , the position of the applicant \u2019s body at the time of the accident , and other relevant factors .","On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON \u2019s father who explained , among other things , that the dent on the bonnet of the car was not related to the accident involving the applicant . PERSON testified that he had arranged for the car to be repaired DATE before the accident .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father complained to ORG that the investigator PERSON had been leaking information about the investigation to P. \u2019s father . He asked that the case be transferred to another investigator from a neighbouring district .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father submitted to the investigator in charge of the case a list of CARDINAL witnesses who had seen the accident . He asked the investigator to summon and question them .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the investigation . On CARDINAL and DATE the investigator questioned him . The applicant testified , among other things , that he had not been drinking on DATE of the accident . He also claimed that he had been walking straight when the car had hit him from behind .","On DATE the investigator organised a reconstruction of the accident in the presence of the applicant , P. and PERSON","On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON She denied falsifying the results of the blood test . The difference between the original and second blood tests could , in her words , be explained by a different testing method and the acceptable margin of error .","On an unspecified date experts examined the applicant \u2019s clothes in order to establish the mechanics of the injuries .","On DATE P. was questioned again , this time as a suspect in the criminal case . He refused to give evidence .","On DATE the investigator questioned an expert , who explained the difference between the results of the CARDINAL tests of the blood samples taken from the applicant and P.","On DATE the investigator questioned the applicant \u2019s father .","On DATE a team of experts produced a report analysing the applicant \u2019s injuries and the mechanics of the accident . They answered twentytwo questions which had been formulated by the investigator .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim against P. in connection with the health problems he had suffered as a result of the accident .","On DATE P. was ordered by the investigator not to leave the village without his consent .","On DATE P. was formally charged under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Criminal Code for causing serious bodily harm by negligently breaching traffic regulations . He was questioned but denied his guilt .","On DATE the investigator questioned the deputy head of NORP police station , PERSON . , who had been an eyewitness to the accident .","On DATE a further reconstruction of the accident was carried out .","On DATE the applicant obtained an expert report from ORG , in which the events of DATE were reconstructed on the basis of the material of the case file .","On DATE the applicant was examined by medical experts .","On DATE doctors examined X - ray images of the applicant \u2019s neck and drew up a report .","DATE . On DATE P. started working at NORP police station as a district police officer . On DATE CARDINAL witnesses to the accident , PERSON complained to the district prosecutor that pressure had been put on them by P. in connection with his criminal case .","On DATE the investigator obtained another expert examination of the applicant \u2019s injuries and the mechanics of the accident .","On DATE the prosecutor approved the indictment against P. By the end of the investigation , the case file was CARDINAL volumes and CARDINAL pages long . The applicant was given access to the case material .","On DATE the applicant brought proceedings to challenge the investigator \u2019s decision , as he was dissatisfied with the accident being classified as an LAW offence . He applied for an injunction requiring the investigator to instead charge P. under LAW ( intent to cause serious bodily harm ) . On DATE ORG dismissed his complaint ; it held that the courts had no jurisdiction to review the decisions of the investigator in so far as they concerned the legal classification of a criminal charge , since such a decision did not interfere with the applicant \u2019s constitutional rights and freedoms .","On an unspecified date in DATE the investigation was completed , and the parties were given access to the case material . The investigator \u2019s decision of DATE stated that the applicant \u2019s father had studied it . According to him , he only had CARDINAL - and - a - half hours to study the material , which consisted of CARDINAL files , each CARDINAL pages long . During that time he was only able to read part of the material and copy CARDINAL pages . The last volume of the case file was incomplete and did not contain an index of documents . As a result , the applicant had to request additional time to examine the case file during the court proceedings . A handwritten inscription he had written indicating that he had not read all the material allegedly disappeared from the case file .","On DATE the criminal case and indictment were forwarded to the ORG for examination on the merits .","On DATE the ORG ruled that the first hearing in the case would be held on DATE , and that there was no need to hold a preliminary hearing . The applicant objected , claiming that CARDINAL was necessary .","The hearings in the case were held on DATE , DATE and DATE .","On DATE the ORG found P. guilty under LAW and sentenced him to DATE months\u2019 imprisonment , although he was not required to serve his sentence owing to the expiry of the statutory limitation period for crimes of that category . As to the civil claim lodged by the applicant within the criminal proceedings , the court awarded him MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . It also acknowledged that he had a right to compensation in respect of pecuniary damage but decided to transfer the matter to a civil court for examination because it was impossible to make a precise calculation within the criminal proceedings .","On DATE P. was dismissed from service in the police at his own request .","On DATE the NORP ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for fresh examination . In particular , it ordered the lower court to clarify whether the road sign could have been visible to P. on TIME of the accident .","In the course of the second round of the trial the court examined documentary evidence in the case file and heard over CARDINAL witnesses , including the applicant , PERSON , the applicant \u2019s parents , several people who had seen the accident , police officers who had been involved in the initial inquiry , CARDINAL expert witnesses , attesting witnesses and a number of hearsay witnesses .","On DATE the ORG found P. guilty under LAW . Its findings of fact can be summarised as follows . The court found that ORG car had been moving at QUANTITY . The car had entered the pedestrian zone , which had been marked by a road sign , and had hit the applicant from behind . He had been walking straight and had not contributed in any manner to the accident . P. had been able to avoid collision by manoeuvring or stopping his car , but for whatever reason he had not done so . He had applied the brakes a while after the collision . As a result of the collision , the applicant had received lifethreatening injuries . No mention was made of P. or the applicant being drunk during the accident . The court was also unable to make any conclusive findings as to when the dents on P. \u2019s car had been repaired , or whether or not the windscreen had been broken . It concluded that the injuries had been caused to the applicant by P. \u2019s carelessness , but not deliberately . The court sentenced P. to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , although again he was not required to serve his sentence owing to the expiry of the statutory limitation period for crimes of a less serious nature . The court awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL in respect of nonpecuniary damage . As to compensation for pecuniary damage , the court referred the case to a civil court . The ORG specified that although the applicant had produced contracts , receipts and other documents to support his claim for pecuniary damages , he had failed to explain the amounts claimed and the court was therefore unable to make a precise calculation .","Both parties appealed .","On DATE the Rostov ORG amended the decision of the first - instance court . Confirming its conclusions as to the facts of the case and their legal classification , the court decided that P. could not be held guilty , owing to the expiry of the statutory limitation period . As a result , the judgment of the first - instance court was quashed in its entirety and the proceedings discontinued . ORG judgment did not make reference to the civil award made by the first - instance court .","On an unspecified date the applicant brought civil proceedings against P. claiming compensation for health damage , moral suffering , loss of earning capacity and the inability to live a normal life . The applicant \u2019s relatives also lodged separate claims within the same proceedings . The applicant claimed compensation of RUB CARDINAL for past medical expenses , MONEY ( ORG ) for a DATE \u2019s loss of earnings , MONEY ( ORG ) for future surgery and medical expenses , and LAW a month for health damage . In addition , he claimed ORG CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE the Sholokhovskiy District Court , at the applicant \u2019s request , ordered that the car belonging to P. be temporarily seized .","On DATE the ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claims in part .","On DATE the NORP ORG quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh examination .","DATE . Since all the judges working in LOC had participated in the earlier proceedings , the case was transferred to a court in an adjacent district , ORG , situated QUANTITY from the applicant \u2019s village . The applicant , who was a wheelchair user at the time , objected without success .","In those proceedings the plaintiffs ( the applicant and his relatives ) amended their claims . In particular , they claimed that damages should be paid by the ORG , because ORG had been a police officer at the time of the events .","The applicant formulated his claims in respect of pecuniary damage as follows . The accident and resulting injuries had deprived him of the ability to work . Although the applicant , who was a qualified naval operator mechanic , had had no actual work at the time , he had been promised an offer of employment overseas on a cargo ship , and had been on a waiting list for a job . If he had accepted that job , his salary would have amounted to ORG CARDINAL per month . Consequently , he asked to be compensated the CARDINAL years\u2019 salary he would have earned but for the accident ( USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . Further , he asked for reimbursement of various medical expenses , including several operations and consultations in GPE and GPE , and legal costs related to his participation in the proceedings against P. ( RUB CARDINAL ) . He also claimed reimbursement of his expenses related to a special diet he had to follow , and the personal assistance he had required during his periods of complete disability . Lastly , the applicant claimed that he still needed further surgery , which could only be done at a clinic in GPE because he had developed several brain cysts as a result of the previous operations ( EUR CARDINAL ) . Lastly , he claimed compensation for his expenses for having to retrain in another field , which would enable him to work again ( RUB CARDINAL ) .","As to non - pecuniary damages , the applicant claimed RUB CARDINAL under this head , referring mostly to the same facts and the suffering caused by the accident , the subsequent surgery , his participation in the proceedings , and lost opportunities related to his disability .","The representative of the ORG claimed that the ORG could not be held responsible for the accident . In their words , liability would arise when CARDINAL conditions were met : if the damage was caused in the course of realisation of the ORG \u2019s public functions , and if the ORG \u2019s acts were unlawful . Where damage was caused in the context of an economic activity , it should be compensated in the ordinary way , by the immediate wrongdoer . P. had injured the applicant while driving his own car , and had not been on duty at the time . He had therefore had to be the defendant in the civil proceedings , not the ORG .","On an unspecified date the court obtained ( through the applicant or otherwise ) a letter from an employment assistance agency , ORG , dated DATE . It said that the agency had an opening for the applicant on an overseas voyage on a DATE contract basis , with a salary of ORG CARDINAL . A letter from another shipping company , ORG , which had the applicant \u2019s name on a waiting list for an offer of employment at the time of the accident , said that he could have earned ORG CARDINAL working as an operator mechanic on a ship in DATE . It also indicated that on overseas voyages on foreign ships , the pay of operator mechanics varied between USD CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","On DATE the Verkhnedonskoy District Court gave judgment in the civil case . The court \u2019s findings of fact were almost identical to the findings of the criminal court . It concluded that P. had been fully responsible for the injuries caused to the applicant . As to the amount of pecuniary damages , the court noted that the applicant had only been on a waiting list for future employment and had not received an actual job offer . At the time of the accident he had been unemployed . Moreover , it could be seen from the material in the case file that he could not have obtained a job as a naval operator mechanic on overseas voyages in DATE owing to a lack of previous work experience and his poor LANGUAGE . Furthermore , the applicant had a chronic kidney problem , which would have prevented him from going overseas . As a result , the court calculated the applicant \u2019s loss of earnings as CARDINAL times the minimum wage and took into consideration the \u201c minimum subsistence level \u201d which existed at the relevant time in the area where the applicant lived . The resulting amount for loss of earnings for the period under consideration was RUB CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The court also ordered that the defendant pay him RUB CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) DATE until the next expert examination of his health . The court also partially satisfied the applicant \u2019s claims concerning the reimbursement of his medical expenses ( RUB CARDINAL ) and his and his father \u2019s travel expenses connected to consultations in GPE clinics ( RUB CARDINAL ) and the cost of those consultations ( RUB CARDINAL ) . The part of the applicant \u2019s claim related to his special diet , treatments , legal and postal expenses and so forth were dismissed by the court as unnecessary , unsubstantiated , or not actually incurred . In particular , the court held that further treatment in GPE had not been proven necessary by the plaintiff .","The court ordered P. to pay non - pecuniary damages , dismissing the claims against the ORG . The court fixed the amount of compensation referring to , inter alia , the defendant \u2019s financial situation , at RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The overall amount to be recovered from P. was RUB CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The court dismissed the claims of the applicant \u2019s relatives as unsubstantiated .","DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal , but it appears to have been dismissed by ORG on DATE .","The amount of compensation awarded by ORG was paid in full by DATE .","According to the applicant , during the trial P. made repeated death threats towards him and other members of his family . As a result of that stressful situation , the health of some his relatives worsened and they have since died . The applicant asked the prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings against P. in respect of the death threats but his request was refused for lack of evidence . The applicant tried to challenge the refusals in the courts but to no avail .","The applicant also sought to initiate a criminal investigation into the alleged falsification of the results of the blood tests by M. However , the prosecutor decided not to open a case , a decision which was upheld by the courts .","The applicant tried to initiate a criminal investigation into the actions of the surgeon PERSON . , but the investigator did not find any grounds on which to prosecute him ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157282","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LANGNER v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant had been employed as head of the sub - division in charge of sanctioning misuse of housing property ( GPE ) in ORG since DATE .","On DATE a meeting of the staff of ORG took place in the presence of the Deputy Mayor for ORG , W. , an elected official who , inter alia , governed ORG , and of a number of staff and trade union representatives . Following a short address on the issue of the expiry of the regulation on misuse of housing property by DATE given by PERSON , the applicant took the floor and accused PERSON of having committed perversion of justice ( PERSON ) by ordering the issue of an unlawful demolition permit for a block of flats in DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s head of division requested the applicant to substantiate his allegations in writing .","On DATE the applicant submitted several pages of written comments , in which he repeated several times ( using bold characters ) his allegations that PERSON had committed perversion of justice by ordering the issue of a demolition permit in DATE without , at the same time , imposing compensation payments for the loss of housing space caused by the demolition . According to the applicant , PERSON had \u201c ruthlessly pursued politico - economic interests \u201d . He further submitted that all staff members of his sub - division considered that PERSON had deliberately discredited their work . Furthermore , PERSON had unlawfully attempted to dissolve the sub - division , thus putting at risk its staff \u2019s employment . The statement made by PERSON during the staff meeting had been degrading and cynical and had contained halftruths and lies . PERSON had not assumed any personal responsibility and did not show any concern for finding a socially acceptable solution to the problems arising from the dissolution of the sub - division .","By letter of CARDINAL March CARDINAL GPE dismissed the applicant with effect from DATE . The dismissal was primarily based on the applicant \u2019s statement during the staff meeting . According to the letter of dismissal , the applicant \u2019s accusations against PERSON had been unjustified . By making these accusations in front of a large number of staff members and representatives of the staff committee and of the trade union , the applicant had damaged his superior \u2019s reputation and thus irrevocably destroyed the mutual trust which was necessary for effective cooperation . It was further observed that the applicant had not availed himself of the possibility of submitting his concerns to his superior or to the Mayor . Finally , it was noted that the applicant had been reprimanded for disloyal conduct on CARDINAL previous occasions .","On DATE a local newspaper published a letter to the editor in which the applicant expressed the opinion that the Deputy Mayor PERSON lacked any competence for resolving problems relating to housing issues .","NORP By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Arbeitsgericht ) established that the employment contract had not been terminated by the dismissal since this could not be justified under LAW ( GPE , see relevant domestic law , below ) . ORG did not find it necessary to decide whether the applicant \u2019s allegations had been correct , as they were , in any event , covered by the applicant \u2019s right to freedom of expression .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the appeal lodged by GPE .","On DATE ORG ( Bundesarbeitsgericht ) , upon the ORG \u2019s appeal on points of law , quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case to ORG ( no . CARDINAL AZR CARDINAL ) . Under the case - law of ORG , gross insults directed against the employer or the employer \u2019s representative , which constituted a serious violation of the concerned person \u2019s honour , could justify dismissal on grounds relating to the employee \u2019s conduct . In order to establish the seriousness of the violation of honour , it had to be established whether the applicant \u2019s allegations were based on objective facts . Account also had to be taken of whether the criticism had been made among staff members or whether other persons had been present . Finally it had to be considered that employees of the public service had to respect specific obligations under LAW .","The Federal Labour Court confirmed that the right to freedom of expression always had to be taken into account when assessing inappropriate language in a workplace context and that the applicant \u2019s allegations fell within the scope of his right to freedom of expression . Accordingly , the court had to weigh this right against the protected legal interest with which there had been an interference .","ORG considered that ORG , when weighing the competing interests , had failed to establish correctly the seriousness of the applicant \u2019s allegations and of the violation of the Deputy Mayor \u2019s personality rights . Under LAW , perversion of justice was a crime subject to up to DATE imprisonment . In case of a criminal conviction under this provision , a deputy mayor would automatically lose his office . The conduct of a public service employee had to be measured against a stricter yardstick than that of an employee in the private sector . In particular , the employee was under an obligation to behave in such a way as not to interfere with his public employer \u2019s reputation . Under LAW , the employee had to exercise special restraint when openly criticising a superior \u2019s decisions . A public allegation of perversion of justice directed against a superior , in particular if it was unfounded , very seriously violated the superior \u2019s personality rights and interfered , as a rule , with the employee \u2019s professional duties .","Accordingly , in order duly to weigh the competing interests in the light of the right to freedom of expression , ORG would have to examine whether the applicant \u2019s allegations had been justified or not . It had further to be taken into account that the allegations had been made during a staff meeting . While it was true that criticism made in this context could occasionally be exaggerated or polemic without giving the employer a ground for dismissal , this right was limited by the obligation not to disturb peace in the office . It had to be taken into account in the applicant \u2019s favour that the staff meeting concerned the suppression of the applicant \u2019s field of work and that the atmosphere had been rather tense . However , this did not justify neglecting the fact that the allegation of perversion of justice did not concern the subject matter of the staff meeting , but a single incident which dated back DATE and had not been mentioned by the applicant since DATE . The applicant did not make use of the possibility of informing the Mayor about his legal concerns regarding the Deputy Mayor \u2019s decision . At the time of the staff meeting , the decision dated back such a long time that an attempt to put the decision into question must have lacked the prospect of success . Accordingly , it appeared that the applicant \u2019s statement was rather aimed at attacking the Deputy Mayor .","It had also to be taken into account that the statement was made in the presence of persons who were not necessarily bound by confidentiality . Accordingly , there was the risk that the applicant \u2019s allegations would leak out of this close circle and be made known to a wider public . ORG finally observed that the applicant \u2019s statement had to be seen in the wider context of his conduct and that the applicant had further exacerbated the conflict by the content of his written comments .","On DATE the Saxon Labour Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of ORG dated DATE and dismissed the applicant \u2019s action .","ORG considered that the applicant \u2019s dismissal had been justified because the applicant , in his statement at the staff meeting and in his subsequent written submissions , had seriously insulted and slandered the Deputy Mayor by accusing him of perversion of justice . Based on a detailed examination of the factual and legal situation in DATE , ORG considered that the decision taken by the Deputy Mayor at that time had been lawful . The applicant \u2019s written submissions of CARDINAL DATE demonstrated that he was not willing to accept and implement politically legitimate decisions , if they concerned sanctions for misuse of property by house owners . The content of the letter to the editor ( see paragraph CARDINAL , above ) contained value judgments which did not amount to insult . However , the Deputy Mayor could not be expected to maintain DATE co - operation with the applicant after reading this letter in which he had been described as incompetent . ORG further observed that the applicant had not revised his opinion during the proceedings .","ORG further considered that the employer did not have any milder means at its disposal . In particular , it would not have been sufficient to reprimand the applicant and to transfer him to another working position . The court observed that the applicant was currently working in ORG and that there was no negative information about his conduct . This was temporary employment which the applicant had obtained by court order in separate proceedings . The applicant had expressed his readiness to accept employment even at a lower level . However , ORG considered that the applicant would not have changed his attitude without his dismissal from office . The Municipality could reasonably expect that the applicant would have carried on with his self - righteous attitude if he had not been dismissed . ORG finally considered that the applicant \u2019s chances of finding new employment were low . Nevertheless , the employer \u2019s interest in terminating the employment outweighed the applicant \u2019s interests .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request to be granted leave to appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG refused to entertain the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , without providing reasons ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150653","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF A.V. v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On TIME applicant was arrested on a street in GPE and taken to ORG of GPE ( \u201c the police department \u201d ) , where he was asked to empty his pockets in the presence of CARDINAL attesting witnesses . The attesting witnesses were CARDINAL unemployed men . The applicant produced small bags containing cocaine .","According to the applicant , during his arrest on the street some police officers struck him down , handcuffed him and escorted him to their car , where they allegedly planted drugs ( small bags of cocaine ) on him and continued to beat him up . The assault was accompanied by threats of sexual abuse , and continued until he arrived at the police department .","At TIME on DATE the police took the decision to arrest and detain the applicant under LAW of LAW for violating drug circulation rules , an administrative offence pursuant to LAW .","The applicant was then interviewed . He wrote a confession admitting that he had unlawfully bought cocaine for personal use . According to him , he was forced to make the confession , which was dictated to him by CARDINAL of the police officers .","After the confession he was placed in a police cell .","According to the applicant , during his stay in the police department he was not given enough food or water . He was held in bad sanitary and hygienic conditions . Allegedly , he was locked for TIME in a toilet of the police department , which was dirty and stinking . He felt unwell and had acute lower back pain .","NORP On DATE the police received a specialist report stating that the substance seized from the applicant had contained QUANTITY of cocaine .","DATE the police investigator instituted criminal proceedings against him for illegally purchasing and storing narcotic drugs in large quantities , an offence pursuant to LAW .","At TIME the investigator , relying on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , took a decision to arrest and detain the applicant on suspicion of the above - mentioned offence . The decision authorised the applicant \u2019s preliminary detention for TIME .","The applicant was also questioned DATE and gave details of the circumstances surrounding his purchase of the drugs . According to him , his lawyer , who had been hired by his parents , joined him when the interview had gone on for a considerable length of time . In the lawyer \u2019s presence he complained of being in a poor state of health , and added that CARDINAL of his acquaintances had instigated purchasing the drugs .","According to the Government , on DATE the applicant was given a medical examination and diagnosed with intercostal neuralgia . His state of health was considered satisfactory .","On DATE the prosecutor refused to approve the investigator \u2019s application to have the applicant placed in pre - trial detention . The investigator then decided to release him on a written undertaking not to abscond .","On TIME , following his release , the applicant was examined by an ambulance team , who noted that he was suffering from acute pyelonephritis ( a severe kidney infection ) and lumbosacral radiculitis ( sciatica ) .","On DATE and DATE he was examined by ambulance teams again , who diagnosed him with acute radiculitis and possible acute pyelonephritis .","DATE the applicant was provided with inpatient treatment at the neurological department of ORG no . CARDINAL . He was diagnosed with lumbar spinal osteochondrosis ( \u043e\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043e\u0445\u043e\u043d\u0434\u0440\u043e\u0437 \u043f\u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0435\u043a\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0432\u0456\u0434\u0434\u0456\u043b\u0443 \u0445\u0440\u0435\u0431\u0442\u0430 ) , vertebrogenic lumbodynia ( \u0432\u0435\u0440\u0442\u0435\u0431\u0440\u043e\u0433\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0430 \u043b\u043e\u043c\u0431\u0430\u0440\u0433\u0456\u044f ) and pain and muscular tonic syndrome ( \u0431\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0439 \u0442\u0430 \u043c\u2019\u044f\u0437\u043e\u0432\u043e-\u0442\u043e\u043d\u0456\u0447\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u0441\u0438\u043d\u0434\u0440\u043e\u043c ) .","On DATE he was examined by a psychiatrist , who noted that he was showing signs of post - traumatic stress disorder .","On DATE the ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) considered the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning the unlawfulness of his arrest and detention under LAW . It found that the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE to arrest and detain him as a criminal suspect had been unlawful in so far as the grounds for his arrest in such a capacity had existed as from DATE .","On DATE the applicant , assisted by a lawyer , denied the charges and refused to answer any of the investigator \u2019s questions .","On DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers in connection with the applicant \u2019s allegations of a violation of his rights during his arrest and detention . According to the decision , the ORG actions lacked the elements of an offence . It referred to explanations given by the police investigator in charge of the applicant \u2019s criminal case and to the official custody records concerning his detention .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father complained to the investigator that there had been numerous violations of his son \u2019s rights , including an extraction of his confession through pressure and unlawful arrest and detention .","On DATE the applicant , assisted by his lawyer , denied the charges and refused to answer any of the investigator \u2019s questions .","On DATE he complained to the prosecutor of failure on the part of the investigative authorities to carry out an appropriate examination of the circumstances in which he had been arrested and questioned in the initial period of the investigation .","On DATE the prosecutor replied that the criminal case against the applicant had been referred to ORG , and that he could raise the relevant issues during the trial .","On DATE a linguistic specialist , in reply to a request by the applicant , issued a report stating that the confession of CARDINAL DATE had been written by the applicant with the assistance of another person who had dictated the text .","During a court hearing on DATE the applicant requested that the linguistic specialist report be admitted to the case file . He further requested that the statements he had made on DATE and DATE be excluded , as they had been obtained in breach of his rights . The court rejected his requests .","The applicant denied the charges throughout the trial . He insisted that the drugs had been planted on him , and that he had been psychologically pressured and physically ill - treated by the police officers . The court then questioned the officers and investigators concerned , who denied the applicant \u2019s allegations . The court also questioned the CARDINAL attesting witnesses who had been present when the applicant had taken the drugs from his pocket . They stated that when he had produced the little bags in their presence , he had told them they contained cocaine ; they had not noticed any visible injuries on him at the time .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of illegally purchasing and storing narcotic drugs in large quantities , and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . The sentence was suspended conditional upon CARDINAL years\u2019 probation . In reaching its conclusions , the court had regard to the witness statements and material , documentary and expert evidence . It considered that there was no indication that the applicant had been ill - treated or had suffered a violation of his procedural rights at the time of making his initial self - incriminating statements .","The applicant appealed , claiming that the key evidence had been obtained during his unlawful detention and ill - treatment , and that he had not been given access to a lawyer after the arrest .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . It noted that in the applicant \u2019s confession of DATE he had explained in detail how he had committed the crime . ORG further noted that on DATE the applicant had also admitted he was guilty .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG , sitting in private , dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant on the grounds that his guilt had been well established by the evidence in the case file , including the original self - incriminating statements he had made . On DATE his lawyer received a copy of that decision ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145365","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF CULI v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( PERSON ) for enforcement of a final judgement by which ORG , the applicant \u2019s former husband , was ordered to pay her alimony .","On DATE the first - instance court issued a writ of execution ordering GPE to pay the applicant amounts of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) together with the statutory default interest for the period starting from DATE until the payment , and also the amount of HRK CARDINAL together with the statutory default interest starting from DATE until the payment on account of costs and expenses .","The writ of execution was served on ORG of ORG ( Hrvatski zavod za mirovinsko osiguranje , Podru\u010dna slu\u017eba ORG ) for enforcement .","On DATE GPE appealed against the writ of execution and on DATE the applicant responded to his appeal .","On DATE the first - instance court held a hearing at which both parties gave their statements .","On DATE the first - instance court instructed GPE to institute separate civil proceedings with a view to declaring the enforcement inadmissible .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the case - file was forwarded to ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u Vukovaru ) to decide upon the parties\u2019 appeals .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and returned the case - file to the first - instance court .","NORP However , since ORG failed to decide upon the appeal lodged by GPE , the case file was again returned to it and on DATE it dismissed GPE \u2019s appeal .","On DATE the first - instance court informed ORG of ORG , that the writ of execution became final and that it should be executed .","On DATE the first - instance court again asked ORG of ORG to execute the final writ of execution .","On DATE ORG of ORG transferred HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the applicant \u2019s account ; on DATE it transferred the amount of HRK CARDINAL ; and on CARDINAL DATE the amount of HRK CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","Meanwhile , on DATE and DATE the applicant lodged a request for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time ( zahtjev za za\u0161titu prava na su\u0111enje u razumnom roku ) with ORG ( PERSON ) complaining about the length of the above enforcement proceedings . In these proceedings the ORG was represented by ORG ( ORG odvjetni\u0161tvo PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG examined the case file of ORG and a submission of ORG , and found that the enforcement proceedings had started on DATE and that they were still pending . It considered that the proceedings had not been excessively long and dismissed the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s subsequent constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible by ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147654","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KOV\u00c1CS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by Mr PERSON , Agent , ORG and ORG .","The applicants are a married couple .","On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicants on charges of copyright infringement . The investigation was terminated on CARDINAL DATE . A bill of indictment was preferred on DATE .","The court geographically competent to try the applicants was ORG . However , on DATE the President of this court proposed to the President of ORG ( \u201c the LOC \u201d ) to appoint another court , because the workload of ORG did not allow for a hearing within a reasonable time .","NORP The President of ORG specified the facts underlining the complexity of the case , a high priority case in which very strict procedural time - limits were applicable for the court . He identified the obstacles to the timely adjudication of the case and gave detailed information on the workload of the criminal bench of ORG . It was stated that the applicants\u2019 case involved CARDINAL defendants , CARDINAL counsels , CARDINAL witnesses , an interpreter and experts . The investigation file amounted to CARDINAL file - boxes , and the bill of indictment consisted of CARDINAL pages with an annex of CARDINAL pages . The counts on charges of copyright infringement committed DATE amounted to CARDINAL in respect of some of the defendants , and the charges in respect of some of the defendants included money laundering and participation in a criminal organisation as well . According to information provided by the President of ORG , his court had reached the limits of its administrative and infrastructural capacities , because of other on - going high - profile cases .","On DATE the President of the ORG requested additional information from the President of ORG in accordance with the guidelines for requesting reassignment , then under elaboration . ( These guidelines were then sent to the presidents of the high courts , courts of appeals and the PERSON for consultation on DATE . As of CARDINAL DATE , they were included in decision no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of ORG entitled \u201c the guidelines to be observed in respect of case reassignment \u201d . )","Accordingly , further extensive staff and case - load information was provided on DATE .","Meanwhile , the ORG identified CARDINAL high courts which were in the best position as regards their workload statistics . The President of the ORG requested the opinions of the presidents of those courts on DATE . She also requested the opinion of the Attorney General , who proposed reassignment to the ORG .","ORG , as CARDINAL other courts , declared themselves ready to try the applicants\u2019 case .","On DATE the President of the ORG appointed , in application of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act no . CLXI of DATE on ORG , ORG to proceed with the case , as the latter had capacity to deal with it in due time ( while another case was reassigned to the ORG ) . There was no remedy available to the applicants against this decision at the material time .","DATE and DATE ORG held several hearings .","The trial is still pending at first instance .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicants filed a constitutional complaint about the reassignment and its legal background .","On DATE ORG adopted decision no . DATE . ( XII.CARDINAL . ) AB in the matter . It held that the regulation which entitled the President of the ORG to reassign cases among courts ( notably , sections CARDINAL and DATE of Act no . CLXI of DATE on ORG , as in force DATE and DATE , as well as section CARDINAL\/A of Act no . ORG of DATE on Criminal Procedure , as in force between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) had been unconstitutional and in violation of LAW . According to ORG , the right for one \u2019s \u201c natural \u201d ( lawful ) judge flows from the right to be tried by a court \u201c established by law \u201d and requires that a case be heard by a judge belonging to the court with competence and jurisdiction and designated by the pre - established objective rules of case assignment of that court . In ORG view , the impugned regulation , which had conferred responsibility for the reassignment of cases , at least in the material period , entirely on the President of the ORG , had been in breach of those principles . Moreover , it had violated the requirement of the appearance of impartiality .","ORG also held that the lack of a remedy against the decision of the President of the ORG had violated LAW , as well as LAW .","Considering that its finding of unconstitutionality excluded , by the force of law , the application of the impugned regulation in the cases which had been at the origin of its proceedings ( that is , the applicants\u2019 case and another one ) , ORG did not specify the legal consequences of its finding in the operative part of the decision . However , it dismissed the ORG request for the examination of the reassignment decision itself ( as adopted by the President of the ORG ) , considering that ORG did not have competence to inspect such decisions of a managerial nature , which did not affect the outcome of the judicial proceedings .","DATE after ORG decision , the President of the LOC expressed her opinion in a press release , saying that the decision concerned \u201c some rules no longer in force [ and ] does not affect the validity of the case reassignment decision of the President of the LOC . [ It ] therefore does not have direct influence on cases still pending before assignee courts \u201d .","Pursuant to ORG decision , ORG transferred the applicants\u2019 case back to ORG on DATE .","This latter court declared , on DATE , that it had no jurisdiction in the case and transferred the case file to ORG so that it should assign the competent court .","ORG remitted the case to ORG on DATE .","The Balassagyarmat High Court refused jurisdiction on DATE .","On DATE ORG finally appointed the ORG to try the applicants . No remedy lay against this decision .","As appears from a similar case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which both the originally competent and the assignee court refused to hear and \u2013 unlike the present case \u2013 had already been referred to the GPE for the designation of a court for the trial , the GPE considered that the declaration of unconstitutionality of the impugned \u2013 and already repealed \u2013 legislation did not affect the validity of the case reassignment decision of the President of the LOC itself , given that ORG did not specify any legal consequence for its finding outlined above and because ordinary courts are not entitled to substitute ORG decision in this respect .","In another case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the PERSON came to a similar conclusion , albeit with a slightly different reasoning : it held that the decision of ORG was immaterial in the circumstances and designated the assignee court with reference to the principle of pre - emption .","The Act on LAW provided as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) In order to guarantee the right to trial within a reasonable timeframe , as provided in Article ORG ) of LAW , the President of ORG may assign any case to a court at an equal level but outside the normal court \u2019s jurisdiction , if the caseload across courts is not balanced .","( CARDINAL ) In order to guarantee the right to trial within a reasonable timeframe , as provided in Article PERSON ) of LAW , ORG , as the leader and manager of ORG based on LAW , may assign any case to a court at an equal level but outside the normal court \u2019s jurisdiction , if the caseload across courts is not balanced . This does not impact the right of the President of ORG as granted in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) and the right of the prosecution to assign a case to any court within their jurisdiction . \u201d","LAW , as in force DATE and DATE , provided as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) In the interest of the enforcement of the fundamental right to a court decision within a reasonable time and a balanced distribution of caseload between the courts , the President of ORG may designate a court , for cases defined in QUANTITY and in a manner defined also in QUANTITY , other than the court of general competence but with the same jurisdiction to adjudicate the case . \u201d","Act no . CLXI of DATE on ORG provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) No one may be deprived of his lawfully appointed judge .","( CARDINAL ) A lawfully appointed judge is the judge assigned to a specific case under the work schedule of the court having competence and jurisdiction in the case . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A case may exceptionally be reassigned by the President of ORG ( ORG , \u201c LOC \u201d ) to another court having the same competence as the competent court if the adjudication of the case or a specific group of cases filed with the court in a given period of time can not otherwise be ensured within a reasonable length of time due to the court \u2019s extraordinary and disproportionate caseload , provided that such reassignment does not impose a disproportionate burden on the court to which the case is reassigned . \u201d","( CARDINAL ) [ By relying on the principles determined by ORG ( Orsz\u00e1gos PERSON ) ] the President of the LOC shall , within DATE from receipt of the motion , examine whether in light of the case flow , the personnel and other data and of the specific features of the case affected by the reassignment , the motion is well - founded and shall examine to which court the case may be reassigned . The President of the ORG shall consult the court to which the case is reassigned DATE in criminal cases ORG , if the motion has been filed not by ORG \u2013 and may request data or opinion from any court ; such requests shall be complied with immediately .","( CARDINAL ) The President of the LOC shall , within DATE from receipt of the opinions and data referred to in subsection ( CARDINAL ) decide on the reassignment by refusing the motion in case it is ill - founded or by reassigning the case to another court in case the motion is well - founded . In the decision , the President of the ORG shall explain how the principles determined by the ORG were applied .","( CARDINAL ) A party affected by the reassignment may file an appeal against the decision on the reassignment within DATE from the publication of the decision on the ORG official website and on the central website . ...","( CARDINAL ) ... The appeal shall be adjudicated by the GPE in non - litigious proceedings within DATE . ...","( CARDINAL ) ... If the decision on the reassignment is not in conformity with those rules of this LAW which govern the reassignment of cases , the GPE shall quash the decision . A decision on the reassignment of a case may not be modified by the GPE . \u201d","Act no . ORG of DATE on Criminal Procedure provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A case may , exceptionally , be reassigned by the President of ORG ( \u201c LOC \u201d ) to another court having the same competence as the competent court if the adjudication of the case can not otherwise be ensured within a reasonable length of time due to the court \u2019s extraordinary caseload , provided that such reassignment does not impose a disproportionate burden on the court to which the case is reassigned . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) No one may act as a judge ...","e ) if he or she can not be expected to form an unbiased opinion for other reasons . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The judge affected by a ground for exclusion and the presiding judge gaining knowledge of the existence of a ground for exclusion against a member of the court committee shall immediately notify the President of the court thereof .","( CARDINAL ) The ground for exclusion may also be reported by ... the defendant , or the counsel for the defence ....","( CARDINAL ) Following the commencement of the trial the persons specified in subsection ( CARDINAL ) may only invoke the ground for exclusion regulated in LAW ( CARDINAL ) e ) , if they substantiate that they gained knowledge of the fact underlying the notification only after the commencement of the trial and reported it immediately . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Unless an exception is made under LAW , the second instance court shall review the judgment challenged in the appeal and the entire court proceedings having led to the judgment . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The second instance court ...","II . shall quash the judgment challenged in the appeal and remit the case to the first instance , if","a ) the court was not lawfully formed ,","b ) a judge excluded under the law took part in adopting the judgment ... \u201d","Constitutional Court decision no . DATE . ( XII.CARDINAL . ) ORG DATE ( adopted by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL with the casting vote of the President ) contains the following passages :","\u201c [ CARDINAL ] According to LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Convention , everyone is entitled to a hearing by a tribunal established by law . The requirement of a tribunal \u201c established by law \u201d incorporates the right to a lawful judge , ... [ who is ] the judge belonging to the court with competence and jurisdiction and designated by the pre - established objective rules of case - assignment of that court . ...","[ CARDINAL ] ... The designation of a court for the trial DATE and this entirely at the discretion of the President of the NJO \u2013 resulted in the violation of the right to a lawful judge , flowing from LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW that enshrines the requirement of a fair trial ...","[ CARDINAL ] \u2018 ... The requirement of timeliness is CARDINAL of the elements of a fair trial and its enforcement can not be taken to the extreme ; it can not prevail over other elements of fair trial and , most importantly , can not be applied to the detriment of other fundamental rights\u2019 [ ORG decision no . CARDINAL . ( V.CARDINAL . ) AB ] . ...","[ CARDINAL ] In its decision no . CARDINAL . ( XII.CARDINAL . ) AB concerning , among other issues , the principle of nullum iudicium sine lege , ORG emphasised ( having regard to the case - law of the [ NORP ] Court [ of Human Rights ] that \u2018 the reassignment of a particular group of cases from a court proceeding under the general jurisdiction rules to the jurisdiction of another court may only be compatible with the ORG if the substantive and procedural rules and preconditions of such a reassignment are laid down by the lawmaker in transparent , pre - determined , clear and objective parameters leaving no ( or minimal ) room for discretion and ensuring that the actual decision is taken by the own institutions of the independent , impartial court system.\u2019 ...","[ CARDINAL ] Therefore , ORG held that the [ impugned provisions ] were also incompatible with LAW .","[ CARDINAL ] Since in the present case the lawmaker did not allow appeal against a decision which affected the fundamental rights of the persons concerned ( in particular , their rights to a fair trial , as explained above ) , ORG held that the provision was unconstitutional and also violated an international treaty , in that it was neither compatible with LAW CARDINAL ) of LAW nor with LAW .","[ CARDINAL ] As a matter of principle , a declaration of unconstitutionality results , by the force of law , in the non - applicability of [ the impugned provisions ] in the cases which were at the origin of ORG proceedings . For this reason , ORG did not have to rule on this question separately . \u201d","On DATE ORG decided ( resolution no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . ( IX.CARDINAL . ) OBT ) that only those courts were entitled to request reassignment whose workload exceeded the national average from CARDINAL perspectives conjointly ( number of cases per judge , the proportion of cases pending over DATE and the proportion of high - profile \/ priority cases ) .","The Government submitted CARDINAL cases , in which the GPE decided on appeals against reassignments .","Decision no . ORG contains the following passages :","\u201c ... [ The law ] specifies reassignment as an exceptional institution which may only affect courts having the same competence in respect of cases making the effective and timely adjudication of court proceedings pending before a court difficult , due to their complexity .","In the decision affected by the remedy , the President of the ORG may , and did , take into account only courts having the same competence and fitting the forum system . ... Thus the decision ... did not create a so - called separate court for the adjudication of the individual case which might have resulted in a fundamental breach of the right to a lawfully appointed court .","... Based on numbers and statistical data it can be established that the \u201c high - priority \u201d caseload of judges of ORG is several times higher than at other tribunals .","Since the challenged decision was taken prior to the assignment of the case to the judge actually adjudicating the case , ... the defendant \u2019s right to his \u201c natural \u201d judge could obviously not be limited by the decision of the President of the ORG . Following the reassignment , the assignment of the case to the judge proceeding in the case took place according to the pre - arranged work schedule accessible to clients . \u201d","NORP The summary of case no . GPE . I.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . , published by the GPE on DATE , contains the following passages :","\u201c ... [ A]bove all , the question to decide was whether the ordinary court , whose jurisdiction is based on an already repealed provision that had been found , by ORG , unconstitutional and in breach of [ the Convention ] , can itself conclude that the unconstitutional provision had not been applicable in the ongoing proceedings , even if neither ORG nor the lawmaker specified a consequence of that kind . ... Annulation of a law [ by ORG ] ... does not prejudice legal relationships and ensuing rights and obligations established before or on DATE of the decision \u2019s publication \u2013 except when ORG explicitly orders the review of the criminal ... proceedings . ... In the absence of any specific ORG instructions in this respect , the declaration of unconstitutionality of the ( already repealed ) provisions that made possible for the President of the ORG to designate the competent court does not affect the validity of the decisions adopted on the basis of those provisions . \u201d","Decision no . GPE . GPE . of the GPE , adopted on DATE , contains the following passages :","\u201c [ The PERSON shall decide on the question of jurisdiction ] if CARDINAL courts both refuse to hear the case for want of jurisdiction , but they do not consider the other court competent reciprocally and it is CARDINAL of them who deems the other one competent . ... According to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , a court shall be designated by the GPE to hear \/ try the case if the circumstances defining the jurisdiction are unclear . ... In that case , jurisdiction will be based on the decision of the GPE . ... In the present case , the PERSON adopted its decision [ assigning the case to the court designated previously by the President of the LOC ] with regard to [ the principle of pre - emption ] . The former assignment decision of the President of the LOC and the decision of ORG are both immaterial in this procedural situation . ... The existence of a procedural act may only be set aside ... if the invalidation was explicitly directed on it . ... Thus , the fact that the [ court designated by the President of the ORG ] already conducted a part of the proceedings can not be ignored ; it forms the basis for the application of the principle of pre - emption . \u201d","Document ORG contains the following passages :","\u201c The ORG fully acknowledges the need to establish an efficient and operational administration of justice . However , the ORG has serious doubts about the reform model chosen , which concentrates these very large competences in the hand of CARDINAL individual person , the President of the newly established ORG ( ORG ) .","States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation when establishing a system for the administration of justice and a variety of models exist in LOC . However , in none of the member states of ORG have such important powers been vested in a single person , lacking sufficient democratic accountability . In countries where the Minister for ORG appoints judges , the Minister is directly accountable to ORG , has a shorter mandate and tends to be personally involved only in the most important cases .","Even if most of the competences of the President of the ORG do not relate to decision - making in individual cases , many of the powers listed above are closely related to the position of the judge who makes these decisions . The President of the LOC is not only a strong court \u201c administrator \u201d , he or she also intervenes very closely in judicial decision making through the right of transferring cases to another court , his or her influence on individual judges and on the internal structure of the judiciary .","In contrast , the President of the LOC has abundant competences and , hence , is the main actor in judicial administration . However , the mere fact that only judges are eligible as President of the LOC , does not make the latter an organ of judicial self - government . Instead , this would imply that the judges have a decisive vote in his \/ her election . Since the President of the ORG is elected by ORG , i.e. an external actor from the viewpoint of the judiciary , it can not be regarded as an organ of judicial self - government .","Allocation of cases","The allocation of cases is one of the elements of crucial importance for the impartiality of the courts . With respect to the allocation of cases , ORG - in line with ORG - holds that \u201c the allocation of cases to individual judges should be based on objective and transparent criteria established in advance by the law . According to the DATE \u2019s case - law , the object of the term \u201c established by law \u201d in LAW is to ensure \u201c that the judicial organisation in a NORP society [ does ] not depend on the discretion of the Executive , but that it [ is ] regulated by law emanating from ORG \u201d . Nor , in countries where the law is codified , can the organisation of the judicial system be left to the discretion of the judicial authorities , although this does not mean that the courts do not have some latitude to interpret the relevant national legislation . Together with the express words of LAW , according to which \u201c the medium \u201d through which access to justice under fair hearing should be ensured must not only be a tribunal established by law , but also one which is both \u201c independent \u201d and \u201c impartial \u201d in general and specific terms [ ... ] , this implies that the judges or judicial panels entrusted with specific cases should not be selected ad hoc and\/or ad personam , but according to objective and transparent criteria .","The order in which the individual judge ( or panel of judges ) within a court is determined in advance , meaning that it is based on general objective principles , is essential . It is desirable to indicate clearly where the ultimate responsibility for proper case allocation is being placed . In national legislation , it is sometimes provided that the court Presidents should have the power to assign cases among the individual judges . However , this power involves an element of discretion , which could be misused as a means of putting pressure on judges by overburdening them with cases or by assigning them only low - profile cases . It is also possible to direct politically sensitive cases to certain judges and to avoid allocating them to others . This can be a very effective way of influencing the outcome of the process .","Furthermore , Section CARDINAL.CARDINAL.b AOAC enables the President of the ORG to designate another court based on the vague criterion of \u201c adjudicating cases within a reasonable period of time \u201d . This relates to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Act on Transitional Provisions of DATE , which were adopted on the constitutional level in order to overcome the annulment of a similar provision on the legislative level by ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE . ORG had found that provision contrary to ORG . The fact , that some courts in GPE are so small that the designation of such a court would effectively amount to the designation of a single judge or a special chamber , further adds to this . Even though the reasonable time requirement is part of both LAW and LAW , it is not absolute , but forms a field of tension with the often conflicting right to a fair trial with respect to the fact that having and exercising more procedural rights necessarily goes hand in hand with a longer duration of the proceedings . Taking into account the importance of the right to a lawful judge for a fair trial , the state has to resort to other less intrusive means , in particular to provide for a sufficient number of judges and court staff . Solutions by means of arbitrary designation of another court can not be justified at all .","In order to prevent the risk of an abuse of the power to allocate and to bring the provisions in line with LAW , ORG recommends that the NORP authorities use other mechanisms for the distribution of cases , especially those outlined by ORG as follows : \u201c In order to enhance impartiality and independence of the judiciary it is highly recommended that the order in which judges deal with the cases be determined on the basis of general criteria . This can be done for example on the basis of alphabetical order , on the basis of a computerised system or on the basis of objective criteria such as categories of cases . The general rules ( including exceptions ) should be formulated by the law or by special regulations on the basis of the law , e.g. in court regulations laid down by the presidium or President . It may not always be possible to establish a fully comprehensive abstract system that operates for all cases , leaving no room to decisions regarding allocation in individual cases .","There may be circumstances requiring a need to take into account the workload or the specialisation of judges . ... The criteria for making such decisions by the court President or presidium should , however , be defined in advance on the basis of objective criteria . Workload statistics provide objective statistical data , but they are not sufficient as a basis for the decision on transferral , since they do not contain criteria for the selection of certain cases for transferral or for the selection of the individual receiving court . In order to prevent any risk of abuse , court Presidents and the President of the ORG should not have the discretion to decide which cases should be transferred or to select the \u2018 sending\u2019 or \u2018 LOC courts . In addition , any such case allocation should be subject to review in order to take into account possible harsh situations where persons without the means to come to a court that is far away from their home town .","There may therefore be a basis for an objective system ( even though it seems that in the present case , the CARDINAL cases were not assigned to CARDINAL of the least burdened courts ) . The real problem lies in the selection of some cases , which are transferred , and in the lack of any justification , why it was just these cases that were selected . The Commission delegation was indeed informed that CARDINAL of the cases transferred was a highly sensitive CARDINAL of alleged political corruption . \u201d","Document no . PERSON contains the following passage :","\u201c DATE . Many NORP constitutions contain a subjective right to a lawful judge . As a rule , the guarantee is worded in a negative way , such as in LAW : \u201c No one can be separated , unwillingly , from the judge that the law has assigned to GPE ( LAW ) or GPE : \u201c No one may be removed from the normal judge predetermined by law \u201d . Other constitutions state the \u201c right to the lawful judge \u201d in a positive way such as LAW : \u201c Everyone has the right to have any decision regarding his rights , duties and any charges brought against him made without undue delay by an independent , impartial court constituted by law . Only a judge duly appointed pursuant to rules previously established by law and by judicial regulations may judge such an individual . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159797","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF STABROVSKA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son \u2013 a young man who was born in DATE left home and never returned .","On DATE a young man was found severely injured and unconscious , lying in a street in GPE . An ambulance and the police attended the scene of the incident . According to the report of a police officer of ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , a doctor explained to him that the man had fallen from a building with a height of QUANTITY ; the doctor also specified the man \u2019s surname , which was the same as that of the applicant \u2019s son .","The injured man was taken to hospital , where his surname was noted down slightly differently . On DATE he died in hospital . According to the post - mortem examination , the man died from a serious craniocerebral injury ; the injuries identified on the body ( including the CARDINAL which was fatal ) could have been sustained as a result of his fall .","On DATE the applicant \u2013 who had no information concerning the whereabouts of her son \u2013 reported his disappearance to ORG .","On DATE the unclaimed body of the man found in the street was buried in a municipal cemetery .","In DATE the applicant was invited by the police to look at a picture of the man found in the street . The applicant found that the man very closely resembled her son .","Following the exhumation of the body of the man found in the street , forensic medical experts conducted CARDINAL DNA examinations . On DATE they concluded with PERCENT certainty that it was the body of the applicant \u2019s son .","On DATE the Podilsky District Prosecutor \u2019s Office of Kyiv ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , having conducted pre - investigation enquiries , refused to open a criminal investigation into the disappearance of the applicant \u2019s son . ORG had regard to the unsuccessful searches carried out by the police and the statements of PERSON , PERSON , NORP and PERSON , who had been acquaintances of the applicant \u2019s son but could not give any information as to his whereabouts .","On DATE the ORG refused to open a criminal investigation into the incident regarding the man who had been found injured and unconscious in the street . According to that decision , the identity of the man had not been established . ORG had regard to the statements of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and other people , who had submitted that they had known the man and that he had often talked about suicide .","On DATE the Podilskyy ORG of GPE quashed the decision of DATE as unsubstantiated , and ordered further pre - investigation enquiries .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE as unsubstantiated , and ordered additional enquiries to establish the circumstances of the incident and the identity of the deceased .","In addition to the above decisions refusing to open investigations , on CARDINAL occasions DATE ORG and ORG ( following the pre - investigation enquiries ) refused to open criminal investigations into the disappearance and death of the applicant \u2019s son . Those decisions were quashed as unsubstantiated by the supervising courts or prosecutors , and further pre - investigation enquiries were ordered . In particular , on DATE the Podilskyy ORG of GPE ordered further pre - investigation enquiries , stating that it was necessary to carry out an inspection of the scene of the incident with a forensic medical expert . Among other things , the court also stated that detailed drawings and photographs of the site had to be prepared ; the expert had to be questioned in order to establish whether the applicant \u2019s son could have fallen from the building and , if so , whether he could have sustained the injuries found on his body ; and additional steps had to be taken to identify potential witnesses .","In the last decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG Office of GPE refused to open criminal proceedings in relation to the death of the applicant \u2019s son . According to that decision , the man found in the street had been identified , with a high degree of certainty , as the applicant \u2019s son . He could have sustained fatal injuries as a result of DATE ; there had been no evidence of violence and the incident did not appear to have had any criminal element ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178753","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MERABISHVILI v. GEORGIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;(Art. 35-4) Rejection of application at any stage of the proceedings;Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 18+5-1 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgios A. Serghides;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Iulia Motoc;Jean-Paul Costa;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Loukis Loucaides;Luzius Wildhaber;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is now serving a sentence of imprisonment in GPE .","In DATE the so - called \u201c Rose Revolution \u201d erupted in GPE , after elections perceived as rigged . It consisted of DATE of peaceful protests , and caused the then President , Mr PERSON , former First Secretary of ORG and former NORP foreign minister , who had led GPE since DATE , to resign . New presidential and parliamentary elections were held in DATE . They were won by ORG ( \u201c UNM \u201d ) , led by PERSON , one of ORG protagonists .","The applicant was an active participant in those events , a close collaborator of Mr PERSON , and a leading figure in PERSON .","Until DATE , when ORG lost the parliamentary elections to the coalition ORG , led by Mr PERSON , the applicant was a member of ORG : from DATE to DATE he was Minister of ORG and then , from DATE , Prime Minister .","On DATE , DATE after the parliamentary elections , the applicant was elected Secretary General of ORG , which became the chief opposition party in GPE .","Shortly after his term of office came to an end , after the presidential election on DATE , Mr PERSON , who had been President of GPE since DATE , left the country .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE , when he was arrested ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant had made CARDINAL trips abroad , always returning as scheduled .","According to the Government , on DATE the applicant had attempted to cross the border at FAC using a fake passport .","After checking the passport against the official electronic database , an officer of ORG spotted a discrepancy between the photograph in it , which matched the applicant \u2019s appearance , and the other data , including the name , PERSON , which differed from the information about the applicant in the database . The officer returned the passport to the applicant \u2019s personal assistant , asking for clarification . The assistant then brought from the applicant \u2019s office another passport , issued in the applicant \u2019s real name and matching all his identification data . After a check of that passport \u2019s authenticity , the applicant was allowed to cross the border .","The same day the Border Police opened a criminal investigation into the incident . The head officer immediately went to FAC to interview the officer who had discovered the allegedly fake passport . According to evidence gathered in the course of the ensuing investigation , while he was at the airport the head of FAC received a call from the applicant on his mobile telephone . Relying on his status and long - standing personal connections within ORG , the applicant demanded that the incident not be investigated and that the border - police officer not be asked to give evidence in relation to the incident . According to statements later given to the investigating officers by the head of ORG , the applicant had threatened him personally and with regard to his career and used obscene language during their telephone conversation .","When interviewed on CARDINAL and DATE in relation to the incident , the applicant denied having presented a passport under the name of PERSON , and said that he only had CARDINAL passports , CARDINAL ordinary ones and CARDINAL diplomatic ones , all issued under his real name .","On DATE the Prosecutor \u2019s Office of Western Georgia in GPE opened criminal proceedings against the applicant and PERSON , the Minister of ORG in his government ( who immediately after the DATE elections had been appointed governor of the PERSON region ) , for alleged embezzlement and abuse of official authority , in relation to a \u201c State programme for job seekers \u201d put in place by the applicant \u2019s government DATE .","DATE the applicant and PERSON appeared before the prosecuting authorities and were interviewed as witnesses .","On DATE ORG of GPE opened separate criminal proceedings against the applicant for alleged abuse of official authority in relation to a private house in GPE , a resort on GPE \u2019s southern LOC coast .","On DATE the applicant was examined as a witness in the context of those separate criminal proceedings .","On DATE the CARDINAL sets of proceedings were joined .","On DATE the applicant and PERSON were summoned by the investigator attached to ORG in GPE , which was dealing with the joined case , for an interview DATE . DATE the applicant \u2019s wife left GPE .","The applicant appeared for the interview , which took place from TIME to TIME on DATE .","DATE after the interview , at TIME , the investigator arrested the applicant under LAW ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She noted that the arrest was being made because , faced with a reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence and a possible punishment , the applicant might try to flee . That risk was corroborated by his attempt to cross the border with a fake passport in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , as well as by his many trips abroad , which showed that he would have no difficulties getting out of GPE . The investigator also noted that the applicant had held high office for DATE , and was still an influential figure . There was hence a risk that he would obstruct the investigation .","Shortly before that , at TIME , the investigator had also arrested PERSON GPE","DATE , at TIME , the applicant was charged .","The first charge was that DATE he had devised , and PERSON and the director of GPE \u2019s ORG had implemented , a scheme creating fictitious public - sector jobs for CARDINAL persons whereby they were unduly paid a total of CARDINAL NORP laris ( GEL ) ( at that time equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) ) of budgetary funds for carrying out campaign work for ORG in the run - up to the DATE elections . According to the authorities , the applicant had thereby bought votes contrary to LAW , misappropriated property in large quantities , acting in an organised group and using his official position contrary to LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) and ( d ) and CARDINAL ( b ) of the LAW , and abused his power as a public official holding a political post contrary to LAW .","The second charge was that after DATE the applicant had systematically used the house in GPE , which belonged to a limited liability company under investigation by ORG , for family vacations , that in DATE and DATE he had had work costing GEL ORG done on that house with funds of ORG , and that he had caused GEL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL to be spent on the salaries of staff servicing the house , thus depriving the ORG budget of a total of GEL MONEY ( at that time equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . According to the prosecuting authorities , the applicant had thereby infringed the inviolability of property by using an official position contrary to LAW ( b ) of LAW , misappropriated property in large quantities by using an official position contrary to LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( d ) and CARDINAL ( b ) , and abused his power as a public official holding a political post contrary to LAW .","In their observations , the ORG set out the witness and other evidence on which those CARDINAL sets of charges were based . Many of the witnesses whose statements related to the first set of charges were current or former officials of ORG , of ORG , or of other ministries or government departments ; some were ORG party officials . Many of the witnesses whose statements related to the second set of charges were former officials of ORG .","In the meantime , the prosecuting authorities searched the applicant \u2019s flat . They discovered and seized GEL CARDINAL ( at that time equivalent to ORG CARDINAL ) , MONEY and ORG CARDINAL in cash .","On CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office of LOC asked ORG to place the applicant in pre - trial detention . It described the offences with which the applicant was charged and cited the witness and other evidence supporting the charges . It also argued that there was a risk that the applicant would flee and a risk that he would obstruct the gathering of evidence , and that those risks could not be averted by a less restrictive measure .","In the prosecution \u2019s view , the risk of flight was borne out , firstly , by the applicant \u2019s having established , by dint of his having held high public office for DATE , many contacts abroad and in GPE , which would facilitate his departure from the country . Since DATE he had crossed the border CARDINAL times . Secondly , the applicant \u2019s wife had left the country on CARDINAL DATE , immediately after the applicant had been served with the summons to appear for his interview with the investigator in GPE . Thirdly , the search of the applicant \u2019s flat on CARDINAL DATE had revealed large sums in cash . It was reasonable to suppose that the applicant had amassed that money in order to be able to leave the country . Fourthly , the applicant had a fake international passport that had been issued to him at the time when he had still been Minister of ORG . Lastly , the seriousness of the charges which the applicant was facing and the severity of the possible sentence also had to be taken into account .","The risk of obstructing the gathering of evidence was , for its part , borne out by the applicant \u2019s having held a number of high political posts and by his uncivil attempt to put pressure on the head of ORG during the incident on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The prosecution requested that the applicant \u2019s co - accused , PERSON , also be placed in pre - trial detention .","Counsel for the applicant opposed the prosecution \u2019s request . In their written submissions to ORG they argued that since the applicant had been a member of the Government , by law only the Minister of ORG could institute criminal proceedings against him . Yet he had been arrested by an investigator from the district prosecutor \u2019s office of LOC , and charged by a prosecutor from the same office . His arrest and the criminal proceedings against him were therefore unlawful . Moreover , his arrest had been in breach of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The alleged risk that he would flee was not supported by concrete evidence , and was belied by his repeated appearances before the investigating authorities and his public pledge that he would cooperate with them . Also , he had been out of GPE many times and had not once tried to flee , including after the opening of the investigation . On DATE of his arrest he had voluntarily appeared for questioning . There had therefore been no need to detain him without a judicial warrant . The alleged risk of his obstructing the investigation was also not specifically borne out . Moreover , the investigation had already lasted DATE without any instances of his having interfered with it being reported . Counsel for the applicant also invited the court to take into account the applicant \u2019s achievements in combating crime and police reform during his time in office .","The Kutaisi City Court heard the prosecution \u2019s request at a public hearing held on DATE , CARDINAL DATE . Both parties made oral submissions .","After the hearing , the court decided to place the applicant in pre - trial detention , but to release PERSON on bail . It briefly noted that , according to the materials in the case file , there had been no serious procedural breaches in the applicant \u2019s arrest or the bringing of charges against him . In particular , by law only acting , not former , members of the Government had to be prosecuted by the Minister of ORG rather than a regular prosecutor . The court went on to say that there was enough information to show that there was a reasonable suspicion against the applicant and PERSON The other pre - requisites for placing the applicant in pre - trial detention were also in place . A number of investigative steps were yet to be carried out , and as was apparent from the prosecution \u2019s request , there was a risk that the applicant would tamper with the evidence or put pressure on witnesses . That was borne out , in particular , by the applicant \u2019s having already tried to put pressure on a witness against him . Another factor which suggested such a risk was that the applicant had for DATE held high public office and was still an influential figure in some circles of NORP society , especially bearing in mind that the charges against him related to his time in office . Many witnesses were former subordinates of his or people under his professional or personal influence . The court also agreed with the prosecution that there was a risk that the applicant would flee . That was borne out , in particular , by his facing serious charges and the possibility of a severe sentence . Lastly , the court found that those CARDINAL risks could not be averted by a less restrictive measure .","NORP The court fixed the pre - trial conference hearing for DATE .","The applicant was remanded in custody in Prison no . CARDINAL in GPE .","The applicant appealed to ORG . He argued that on a proper reading of the relevant statutory provisions the Minister of ORG alone was competent to prosecute offences committed by anyone in their capacity as member of the Government , not only someone who was such a member at the time when the prosecution was being brought . He also argued that ORG had erred by not examining in detail the lawfulness of his arrest . That arrest had been in breach of LAW , in particular because on DATE of the arrest he had voluntarily appeared for questioning . It was also hard to believe that ORG , which had ruled on the prosecution \u2019s request CARDINAL or four hours after it had been made , had really studied the evidence said to give rise to a reasonable suspicion against the applicant . There were no facts or information in the case file to suggest that he had committed the offences . The lower court had also expected him to disprove the risks of flight and obstruction of justice alleged by the prosecution rather than require the prosecution to establish those risks . Its finding that the applicant had put pressure on a witness ran counter to the presumption of innocence . He had never called or threatened the head of ORG . ORG had also disregarded the fact that in DATE before his arrest he had voluntarily appeared for questioning several times . Neither that court nor the prosecution had pointed to evidence showing that he would flee abroad . He had travelled out of GPE many times since the investigation had been opened . The argument that his being an influential figure in some circles suggested that he could influence witnesses made it clear that he was a victim of political persecution . His character showed that there was not even a minimal risk of his fleeing , putting pressure on witnesses or destroying evidence .","On DATE ORG , having examined the appeal on the papers , declared it inadmissible . It noted that ORG had reviewed the materials in the case and the evidence submitted to it , and had checked whether the gathering of that evidence and the bringing of the charges against the applicant had complied with LAW . When deciding to place the applicant in pre - trial detention , that court had taken into account his personality and the risk of his obstructing the proceedings . Since that court had already dealt with all the points raised in the appeal , as well as with all the important points concerning the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s detention , there was no reason to entertain the appeal .","On DATE the prosecution , citing the need for additional investigative steps , asked ORG to adjourn the pre - trial conference hearing until DATE . On DATE the court partly allowed the request , adjourning the conference until DATE .","On DATE the applicant , citing the volume of materials in the case file and the need for more time to prepare his defence , sought a further adjournment of the pre - trial conference . The prosecution objected , stating that the applicant was trying to protract the proceedings and leave less time for the examination of the case on the merits . On DATE ORG allowed the request in full and scheduled the pre - trial conference for DATE .","The pre - trial conference hearing took place on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE DATE .","At the session on DATE the applicant requested to be released from pre - trial detention . He pointed out that he had publicly pledged to cooperate with the investigation , that before his arrest he had always duly appeared for questioning , and that he had been abroad many times and had always returned as scheduled . He also offered to hand in his passport . He went on to say that since the investigation had already been concluded and the authorities had secured all witness and other evidence , there was no longer a risk of his influencing witnesses , which in any event did not exist since he no longer held the high posts which he had occupied previously .","The prosecution argued that the applicant \u2019s high political status and connections abroad and his possession of CARDINAL diplomatic passports and a fake passport made it easy for him to leave GPE . It was also possible that he had other unidentified passports , a device used by other former officials to get out of the country . The surrender of his passport would therefore not obviate the risk of flight . The risk of his influencing witnesses was also still present . He had already done so on DATE , when no longer occupying an official post . Moreover , the witnesses were still due to testify at trial , which was by law the only way of adducing their evidence .","ORG examined and rejected the request for release DATE . It gave its decision orally . As evidenced by the audio record of the hearing , the judge said , without further explanation , that the \u201c request for termination of the pre - trial detention [ wa]s to be rejected \u201d .","The applicant \u2019s trial started on DATE , and he again sought release from pre - trial detention . He pointed out that before his arrest he had always appeared freely before the investigating authorities , had repeatedly declared that he had no intention of fleeing , had been abroad and back even after the proceedings against him had started , was the secretary general of a major political party , and had a wife and CARDINAL children . All those factors showed that there was no real risk of his fleeing . Nor was there any risk of his influencing witnesses . The prosecuting authorities had already questioned a considerable number of witnesses , and there was no risk that those witnesses would change their statements , as they could incur criminal liability if they did so .","ORG rejected the request in a written decision of DATE . It noted that the applicant had failed to point to , or provide evidence of , new circumstances calling for a reconsideration of the decision to place him in pre - trial detention . In that decision , the court had already dealt with all the points raised in his request . The fact that the trial had already started had no bearing on the justification for the applicant \u2019s detention .","The court went on to say that its decision could be appealed against at the same time as its final judgment on the merits of the criminal case .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of buying votes contrary to LAW , and of misappropriating property in large quantities , acting in an organised group and using his official position contrary to LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) and ( d ) and CARDINAL ( b ) of the LAW , in relation to the fictitious - jobs scheme ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court also found the applicant guilty of infringing the inviolability of property by using an official position contrary to LAW , and of misappropriating property in large quantities by using an official position contrary to LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( d ) and CARDINAL ( b ) of the LAW , in relation to the house in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court dismissed the charges of abuse of power under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code as superfluous . It sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and banned him from holding public office for DATE .","The applicant appealed against that judgment , but on DATE ORG upheld it in full .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s ensuing appeal on points of law inadmissible .","On DATE ORG charged the applicant with exceeding his power by using violence , contrary to LAW , in relation to his role in a police operation to disperse a rally on CARDINAL DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG placed the applicant in pre - trial detention in relation to that charge , and on DATE convicted him of it . The applicant appealed against that judgment , but on CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld it . An appeal by the applicant to ORG on points of law was declared inadmissible on DATE .","On DATE ORG charged the applicant with abusing his power as a public official holding a political post , contrary to LAW . The case concerned the applicant \u2019s role , in his capacity as Minister of ORG , in the alleged cover - up of a DATE murder implicating high - ranking officers of ORG and the applicant \u2019s wife ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . DATE , on DATE , ORG refused the prosecution \u2019s request to place the applicant in pre - trial detention in relation to that charge . The applicant was later additionally charged with forging official documents in his capacity as an official , contrary to LAW . On DATE the ORG convicted him of the CARDINAL offences , and on DATE ORG upheld the conviction .","On DATE ORG charged the applicant with exceeding his power by using violence , contrary to LAW , in relation to his role in the planning and supervision of a police raid on a private television and radio company , ORG , on DATE , and the ensuing withdrawal of the company \u2019s broadcasting licence ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . The case is apparently still pending before ORG .","On DATE ORG charged the applicant with exceeding his power by using violence , contrary to LAW , in relation to his having allegedly ordered high - ranking police officers to have a member of parliament subjected to ill - treatment in reprisal for having made insulting public statements about Mr PERSON \u2019s wife . The prosecuting authorities later also charged the applicant with wilfully causing that person grievous bodily harm , acting in concert with others , contrary to LAW . On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of those offences . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","On DATE , during a court hearing in the trial against him , which was being broadcast live on television , the applicant stated that at about TIME DATE , DATE , he had been taken out of his prison cell , put in a car with his head shrouded in his jacket , and driven from Prison no . CARDINAL in GPE , where he was being held in custody , to what he believed to be ORG building . There , he had been taken to an office where , having had the jacket removed from his head , he had seen CARDINAL men . The first had been the then Chief Public Prosecutor , PERSON The applicant was not certain of the identity of the second , as he had left the office shortly after his arrival , but surmised that he had been Mr GPE , the head of ORG . PERSON who had been appointed as ORG on DATE and resigned on DATE over allegations that he had a criminal record in GPE DATE had requested the applicant to provide information about the death in DATE of Mr PERSON , the then Prime Minister , and about the bank accounts of the already former President of GPE , PERSON PERSON . If the applicant did that , he would be allowed to leave GPE with \u201c the money that he [ had ] made during his time in office \u201d .","Mr GPE was CARDINAL of the protagonists of the Rose Revolution ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Shortly after it , in DATE , he became Prime Minister . In DATE the applicant became Minister of ORG in his government . PERSON died in DATE . On DATE his dead body was found along with the dead body of Mr GPE , a deputy regional governor , in a flat in GPE . According to the official version of the events , the CARDINAL had died accidentally from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by faulty ventilation in a gas heater . The circumstances of PERSON death are still a subject of heated debate in GPE , and ORG made it CARDINAL of their campaign promises in the DATE elections to elucidate them . Shortly after those elections , in DATE , the investigation into PERSON death was renewed and is apparently still pending . The applicant was questioned as a witness in the course of that renewed investigation on DATE . During the hearing before ORG , the Government stated that while no one had asked the applicant anything about Mr Zhvania \u2019s death on DATE , there was still a \u201c huge question \u201d to him in relation to that death , in view of the lack of credibility of the version that he had put forward at the time when it had happened : that it had been due to an accident .","According to the applicant , he had replied to PERSON that it made no sense to accuse Mr PERSON of corruption . As for PERSON death , the investigation into it in DATE had been comprehensive , and there was no further information that he could provide in relation to it . PERSON had then threatened the applicant that if he did not cooperate , his detention conditions would worsen and he would not be able to get out of prison \u201c until [ Mr PERSON ] \u2019s government was in power \u201d . PERSON had become Prime Minister of GPE on DATE , succeeding PERSON GPE , who had become Prime Minister on DATE , following the parliamentary election won by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","According to the applicant , he was then taken back to Prison no . CARDINAL , arriving in his cell at TIME","The applicant went on to say that he could describe the office where the meeting had taken place and identify the CARDINAL men who had taken him from Prison no . CARDINAL to that office .","At the end of his statement , the applicant suggested that the authorities could verify his allegations by checking the footage from the surveillance cameras in Prison no . CARDINAL . He also requested an examination of the footage from the road - traffic cameras situated along the road allegedly taken by the car transporting him from the prison to ORG .","In the proceedings before ORG , the applicant submitted that he had first discussed the meeting with ORG with his lawyers when they had visited him in prison DATE , on DATE . According to him , he could not have voiced his allegations earlier , as he was not allowed to receive visitors during DATE and did not have free access to a telephone . For their part , the Government submitted that the applicant could have telephoned his lawyers or ORG at any time , including at DATE and during TIME .","The applicant \u2019s allegations prompted public reactions from several high officials .","DATE . On DATE , DATE , the Prime Minister stated that the allegations were an attempt to discredit the Government and a provocation , and that \u201c questions should be rather put to psychologists and psychiatrists \u201d in connection with them . In an official statement put out DATE , ORG described the allegations as \u201c absurd and untrue \u201d , and surmised that the applicant had made them to manipulate public opinion and the criminal trial against him .","For her part , the Minister of ORG stated that , while the allegations appeared \u201c unbelievable \u201d , they were to be addressed seriously .","The following day , DATE , the Prime Minister again described the allegations as a provocation and said that he would not take seriously calls for the Minister of Prisons and ORG to be suspended from office . For his part , the Minister of Prisons stated that \u201c [ the applicant had ] not [ been ] taken out of prison \u201d and that the allegations were \u201c an absolute lie \u201d . He went on to specify , in relation to the surveillance camera footage to which the applicant referred ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that \u201c the footage [ could ] not be obtained , as no investigation [ was ] being launched into such unserious matters \u201d . He noted , however , that if an investigation were opened , the investigators would obtain access to the footage , which otherwise no one had the right to see .","DATE , DATE , GPE \u2019s Public Defender visited the applicant in prison to discuss his allegations . After the meeting , he called for an investigation into them .","On DATE ORG opened an internal inquiry into the applicant \u2019s allegations . It was in the main handled by CARDINAL inspectors .","DATE , DATE , ORG deputy head wrote to the deputy head of ORG , requesting a copy of the footage from the surveillance cameras in Prison no . CARDINAL and the ORG building for the period TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE .","In his reply of DATE , ORG deputy head said that the request could not be complied with as the footage from those cameras was kept for TIME , following which it was automatically deleted .","At that time there were apparently no rules on the amount of time for which the footage was to be kept . Such rules were first put in place in DATE in response to criticism by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( \u201c CPT \u201d ) in the report of its visit to GPE in DATE .","DATE . According to the Government , the applicant was aware of the limited time for which the footage was kept and had for that reason first voiced his allegations about the meeting with ORG DATE after it had taken place .","According to the applicant , the footage was kept for CARDINAL . In support of that assertion , he pointed out that ORG deputy head was apparently unaware of the time - limit when asking for it ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant also submitted an affidavit by PERSON , deputy Minister of Prisons DATE , who had been in charge of reforming the surveillance system in prisons and had set up the ORG \u2019s information - technology department in DATE . According to that affidavit , surveillance camera footage was saved on servers and back - up servers in ORG itself , and kept for DATE . It could not be deleted before the expiry of that period without outside interference .","According to ORG response to the ORG \u2019s report on its visit to GPE in DATE ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) , footage from the surveillance cameras was kept for TIME in every prison equipped with a video surveillance system , the reason for the limited duration being a lack of adequate technical equipment . Footage was kept for longer in several prisons where the surveillance equipment and servers had been upgraded shortly before that ( ibid . , at pp . QUANTITY ) .","On DATE ORG head asked CARDINAL private companies who owned facilities equipped with surveillance cameras , such as petrol stations , along the road supposedly taken by the car transporting the applicant from Prison no . CARDINAL to ORG to provide the footage for the period TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE . All but CARDINAL of those companies , which replied that the footage had already been deleted , complied with the request , and the footage was simultaneously reviewed by the CARDINAL inspectors between CARDINAL and DATE . Their notes stated briefly , without providing further details , that they had seen nothing of interest .","On DATE CARDINAL of the inspectors interviewed the applicant and the governor and deputy governor of Prison no . CARDINAL .","The applicant stated that he had been taken out of his cell by the governor , who had told him that a prosecutor wished to speak with him . Once in the prison yard , CARDINAL other men , whose features he clearly remembered , had put him in a dark - coloured car , probably a ORG Land Cruiser Prado or CARDINAL . The car had been driven by a third man whose features the applicant could not make out because once inside the car he had been blindfolded with his jacket . The car had moved for TIME along main roads . Based on the direction of the drive , the applicant had surmised that he was being taken to ORG . During the drive , one of the men in the car had made a mobile telephone call informing someone that they would arrive in TIME . A short while after that , the same person had received a call saying that they would arrive in TIME . The applicant stated that he did not wish to describe in detail the office to which he had been taken , but that he could recognise it . He relayed in detail his conversation with the head of ORG , ORG , noting that he had appeared heavily intoxicated . He did not describe in detail his ensuing conversation with ORG , PERSON , stating that he had already spoken about that at the hearing on DATE .","The governor and the deputy governor both stated that they had been in Prison no . CARDINAL in TIME of the alleged meeting , DATE , but that they had not seen or spoken to the applicant . When asked about the surveillance cameras , the governor said that if there had been any problem with them , he would have been told about it by the officers working in the technical room , which had not happened . He also specified that his service car was a black ORG Land Cruiser Prado , and provided the registration number .","Still on DATE CARDINAL of the inspectors reviewed the logs for the movement of vehicles in and out of Prison no . CARDINAL . They did not contain any entries suggesting that the applicant had been taken out of the prison during TIME in question .","DATE ORG head asked ORG to provide footage from the road - traffic cameras along the road supposedly taken by the car transporting the applicant from Prison no . CARDINAL to ORG for the time TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE . Footage from CARDINAL road - traffic cameras for the time TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE was provided on DATE and was reviewed by CARDINAL inspectors DATE . Their notes stated briefly , without providing further details , that they had seen nothing of interest in it .","DATE , DATE , the inspectors interviewed CARDINAL prison officers supervising the movement of prisoners in Prison no . CARDINAL and a prison officer tasked with escorting prisoners in the applicant \u2019s wing in and out of their cells , all CARDINAL of whom had been on duty TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE . All CARDINAL officers dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegations as untrue , and stated that if he had been taken out of his cell they would have known about it and would have recorded it in the relevant logs .","On DATE CARDINAL of the inspectors interviewed CARDINAL prison officers who had been in charge of monitoring the surveillance cameras in Prison no . CARDINAL from screens in a technical room inside the prison and who had been on duty TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE . Both of them stated that nothing unusual had happened TIME and that the cameras had been working properly throughout . The CARDINAL officers had learned about the applicant \u2019s allegations from the media , and dismissed them as untrue . They also stated that there was a surveillance camera inside the applicant \u2019s cell , and that it enabled them to monitor all of his movements in and out of it .","On DATE CARDINAL of the inspectors reviewed the logs for the movement of people in and out of Prison no . CARDINAL . They did not contain any entries suggesting that the applicant had been taken out during TIME in question , but showed that he had been visited by his CARDINAL lawyers DATE , on DATE .","Neither Mr O.P. nor Mr D.D. were interviewed or asked to provide explanations in the course of the inquiry .","On DATE one of the inspectors drew up a report in which he stated that the inquiry had not confirmed the applicant \u2019s allegations . In a letter dated DATE ORG informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer , apparently in response to a request for information on his part made on DATE , that the inquiry was complete .","DATE after the end of the inquiry , DATE , the Public Defender reiterated his call for a full - scale investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE several non - governmental organisations also urged the authorities to carry out a full investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations , expressing concern in particular about the lingering uncertainty surrounding the footage from the prison surveillance cameras .","NORP In a television interview on DATE , the Prime Minister , PERSON PERSON , said that the applicant \u2019s allegations were \u201c absurd and ridiculous \u201d and that he had very much liked a \u201c rhetorical question \u201d asked by the former Prime Minister , PERSON , in relation to them DATE , on DATE : \u201c So what happened after [ Mr PERSON ] abducted [ the applicant ] ? What did he do to [ him ] then , did he rape him or what ? \u201d","On DATE a member of parliament from ORG revealed documents showing that in DATE forty officials from ORG \u2013 among whom were the head of ORG , ORG , his deputies , the governors of several prisons , and a Mr PERSON , head of the special forces of ORG \u2013 had received high bonuses : GEL CARDINAL ( at that time equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for ORG ; GEL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) and GEL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) respectively for his deputies ; for prison governors , sums ranging from GEL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for the governor of Prison no . CARDINAL to GEL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for the governor of Prison no . CARDINAL ; and GEL MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for Mr PERSON The member of parliament suggested that the bonuses had been paid to recompense those officials for keeping the meeting between the applicant and the Chief Public Prosecutor secret . In response to those allegations , Mr D.D. stated that the bonuses had been exceptionally high because all those who had received them had worked in difficult conditions for TIME a day . For his part , the Minister of Prisons stated that the bonuses had been personally approved by Mr D.D.","At the hearing before ORG , the Government denied the existence of any link between those bonuses and the applicant \u2019s allegations , emphasising that officials from other prisons had also received them . The Government also stated that it was usual for such bonuses to be paid at DATE to government employees , especially law - enforcement officials .","In an interview with a newspaper journalist on CARDINAL DATE Ms GPE , adviser to Mr D.D. , said : \u201c [ E]ven a child knows that [ the applicant ] was taken from his prison cell by GPE \u201d . In a television interview DATE she said that she had spoken with officials from ORG who had confirmed that ORG had instructed them to conceal the surveillance - camera footage from TIME of DATE . The following day , DATE , Mr D.D. dismissed PERSON from her post . DATE , on DATE , he himself resigned , apparently in connection with the controversy which had erupted following the disclosure of the bonuses paid in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , during an appeal court hearing in an unrelated criminal case concerning a DATE operation in the course of which officers of the special forces of ORG had killed CARDINAL people , CARDINAL of the co - accused , Mr DATE . , stated that he had information about the applicant \u2019s meeting with ORG . A number of people had been arrested and accused in that case , which became known as the \u201c GPE \u201d case , including ( a ) the CARDINAL officers who had carried out the operation , CARDINAL of whom was a Mr I.M. ; ( b ) the special forces\u2019 then deputy head , Mr PERSON ( who DATE , in DATE , was appointed by PERSON as head of the special forces of ORG \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ; ( c ) Mr GPE , former deputy head of ORG of ORG ; and ( d ) the above - mentioned Mr DATE . , former deputy head of that ORG .","After the delivery of the ORG judgment on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the speaker and several members of ORG called for a fresh investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations . The Minister of ORG stated that she hoped that the prosecuting authorities would carry out an investigation in connection with the ORG \u2019s findings under LAW . She went on to say that the Government would seek a referral of the case before ORG .","On DATE ORG opened a criminal investigation and assigned it to CARDINAL investigators from its investigative department .","The applicant was interviewed on DATE . He reiterated his assertions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE in relation to his conversations with Mr GPE and PERSON , and the car which had taken him to his meeting with them ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) . With regard to his removal from Prison no . CARDINAL , the applicant stated that when entering his cell to take him out , the prison governor had been accompanied by his deputy . He also stated that although he could not describe the CARDINAL men who had then put him in the car , he could recognise them , in particular one of them , who had a distinctive face . The applicant also named the roads along which the car had allegedly driven .","On DATE CARDINAL of the investigators interviewed the governor of Prison no . CARDINAL . He stated that the applicant had not been taken out of his cell , either by himself or by anyone else . He also stated , inter alia , that pre - trial detainees were entitled to telephone ORG at any time during DATE , and that CARDINAL and DATE the applicant had not asked to make such a call . He stated , further , that a surveillance camera had been installed in the applicant \u2019s cell with his consent , for his own safety , but that the footage from that camera , just like the footage from all other surveillance cameras in the prison , was only kept for TIME .","NORP The following day , DATE , the other investigator interviewed the deputy governor of Prison no . CARDINAL . His statement was almost identical to that of the governor . He stated that he had learned about the applicant \u2019s allegations from the media and that they were false . He also confirmed that pre - trial detainees were entitled to telephone ORG at any time during DATE .","On DATE the investigators interviewed the CARDINAL prison officers in charge of monitoring the surveillance cameras in Prison no . CARDINAL . They confirmed the statements that they had given during the internal inquiry ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Both stated that the footage from the cameras was only kept for TIME and then automatically deleted . Only if something unusual was noted during that time would the relevant footage be specially retrieved and kept for DATE . Since nothing of the sort had happened in TIME of DATE , the footage for that period had not been retrieved .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigators interviewed the CARDINAL prison officers in charge of supervising the movement of prisoners in Prison no . CARDINAL . They likewise confirmed their statements given during the internal inquiry ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE one of the investigators interviewed the prison officer in charge of escorting prisoners in the applicant \u2019s wing in and out of their cells . He stated that no one had gone into the applicant \u2019s cell in TIME of DATE .","On DATE one of the investigators interviewed CARDINAL of the inspectors from ORG of ORG who had carried out the internal inquiry . The inspector described the steps that he had taken during the inquiry . In response to a question about the surveillance camera footage from Prison no . CARDINAL , he stated that the inquiry had been informed that that footage was only kept for TIME . He went on to say that the examination of the footage from the private and the roadtraffic cameras had not yielded any relevant information . In particular , it had been impossible to make out the registration numbers of the vehicles caught on camera . No car matching the description given by the applicant had been spotted .","On DATE one of the investigators interviewed Mr D.D. \u2019s deputy . He stated that the footage from the surveillance cameras was kept for TIME , and denied the applicant \u2019s allegations . He explained that he had been at work in the ORG building in TIME of DATE , in his office which was just opposite that of Mr D.D. , and that he had not seen the applicant or PERSON there .","DATE the investigators reviewed the footage obtained during the internal inquiry ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Their reports said , without giving further details , that they had not seen anything in it of interest for the case .","On DATE the investigators interviewed Mr DATE . ( see paragraphCARDINAL above ) in the presence of a judge . He stated , inter alia , that on DATE , while in court for a pre - trial hearing in the \u201c GPE \u201d case , he had heard CARDINAL of his co - accused , Mr PERSON , former deputy head of the special forces of ORG and former head of the special forces of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , say that he had been CARDINAL of those who had transported the applicant on DATE , and that for that reason it would not be in the authorities\u2019 interests to keep him in detention for a long time . According to Mr DATE . , that conversation had been recorded by the video camera in the courtroom , and overheard by another of the co - accused , Mr GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . Mr DATE . also stated that DATE , in DATE , Mr PERSON and the other special - forces officers accused in the \u201c GPE \u201d case , including Mr GPE , had been placed in a cell in Prison no . CARDINAL adjacent to his . Mr DATE . had then heard Mr PERSON tell his cellmates that he and Mr GPE had transported the applicant on DATE , and that it had been agreed with the authorities to release the specialforces officers if they agreed to give evidence against Mr I.P. and others connected with ORG in the \u201c FAC case . ( From the materials in the case file it appears that those officers , who had been charged with aggravated murder under LAW , were released in DATE under personal surety . ) Mr DATE . had been able to hear the entire conversation through the wall as they had talked in loud voices . Mr DATE . also stated that during his stay in Prison no . CARDINAL a prison officer had told him about the applicant \u2019s removal from his cell . When asked why he had not spoken about that earlier , Mr DATE . replied that it was because he had no trust in the prosecuting authorities . He also stated that he had no incentive to bend the truth in favour of the applicant as the applicant had dismissed him from his post and had caused him to be detained in connection with a fight .","On DATE the investigators interviewed Mr GPE , then in detention , in the presence of a judge . Mr GPE stated that shortly before his arrest in the \u201c GPE \u201d case in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he had met with Mr PERSON , who had told him , albeit in veiled terms , that he and Mr GPE had transported the applicant from Prison no . CARDINAL to ORG , and that if the prosecuting authorities did not take that into account he would start talking about it in public . Mr I.P. also confirmed Mr G.Ts . \u2019s story about the conversation in the courtroom on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He stated , in addition , that a Mr GPE , with whom he had shared a cell in Prison no . CARDINAL , had told him that he had seen the applicant being taken out of his cell on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , PERSON had only spoken about that after the delivery of the ORG judgment on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE of the investigators interviewed Mr PERSON and the other interviewed Mr GPE Mr PERSON denied Mr DATE . \u2019s and Mr I.P. \u2019s assertions that it had been he who had transported the applicant . He was not asked about the bonus which he had received in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Mr GPE likewise denied that he had transported the applicant , and stated that he had only started working at ORG on DATE , DATE after the alleged incident .","On CARDINAL , DATE and QUANTITY DATE the investigators interviewed the other CARDINAL special - forces officers detained in relation to the \u201c GPE \u201d case alongside Mr PERSON , Mr GPE , Mr DATE . and Mr GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . All of them stated that they had learned about the applicant \u2019s allegations from the media , and that during their stay in the same cell as PERSON PERSON he had not told them anything about the applicant \u2019s alleged removal from his cell .","On DATE of the investigators interviewed Mr GPE , who from CARDINAL to DATE had been detained in a cell in the same wing as that of the applicant , in the presence of a judge . Mr GPE , who had previously held various high - ranking positions in ORG and ORG , stated that on DATE he had seen the prison governor take the applicant out of his cell through the gap between the door of his cell and its frame . He had discussed that with Mr I.P. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , with whom he had later shared a cell , but only after the delivery of the ORG judgment on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . When asked why he had not spoken about all this earlier , PERSON replied that when observing the reactions to the applicant \u2019s allegations , he had realised that his speaking about the issue might have repercussions for him , especially as he was detained in the same prison in which some of the alleged perpetrators were employed .","DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the investigators went to Prison no . CARDINAL and examined Mr GPE \u2019s cell . According to their report , it was impossible to observe the corridor from inside the cell with the door closed . The door was fully intact and there was no gap between the door and the frame . The examination was video recorded by CARDINAL of the investigators .","DATE , on DATE , the prosecutor supervising the investigation decided to carry out an experiment in the cell with Mr GPE \u2019s participation , with a view to checking whether Mr GPE could really observe the corridor from inside the cell . Mr PERSON refused to take part in the experiment , saying that he first wished to consult with his lawyer . CARDINAL of the investigators called the lawyer but he refused to see Mr GPE DATE , CARDINAL DATE , Mr GPE again refused to participate in the experiment in the absence of his lawyer . On DATE the report of the cell \u2019s examination was sent to ORG together with the video recording . The experts were asked , among other things , to examine whether there was a gap between the cell door when closed and the frame , and if so , to specify its size and exact location . In their report , filed on DATE , the experts stated that there was no such gap because the door protruded QUANTITY from its frame . They went on to say that , in view of the door \u2019s width and locking system , it was impossible to deform it without special instruments .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the investigators interviewed CARDINAL inmates who had shared Mr GPE \u2019s cell at the relevant time . All CARDINAL stated that they had only learned about the applicant \u2019s allegations from the media , and that Mr GPE had not spoken to them about that . The investigators also obtained confirmation from ORG that no work had been done in Mr PERSON \u2019s cell between DATE and the time when they examined it .","On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL and CARDINAL September CARDINAL the investigators also interviewed CARDINAL prison officers working in Prison no . CARDINAL . All but CARDINAL of those officers had been on duty during TIME of DATE . All of them stated that they had learned about the applicant \u2019s allegations from the media . None of them had seen the prison governor or deputy governor that night in the wing containing the applicant \u2019s cell .","On CARDINAL DATE one of the investigators interviewed PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She stated that relations between her and her former boss , Mr D.D. , had become strained after the bonuses paid in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She went on to say that she had only learned about the applicant \u2019s allegations from the media , and that her statements in DATE had been twisted and taken out of context by the journalists who had interviewed her . She knew nothing about the incident .","On DATE of the investigators interviewed the by then former head of ORG , Mr D.D. He denied the applicant \u2019s allegations , and stated that on DATE he had been in GPE , coming back to GPE TIME and remaining in his office late into TIME . According to him , the applicant had voiced his allegations DATE after the incident because he was aware that the surveillance - camera footage was only kept for TIME . He also stated that his service car at the relevant time had been a Toyota Land Cruiser CARDINAL . He was not asked about the DATE bonuses ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the same investigator interviewed the by then former Chief Public Prosecutor , PERSON He described the applicant \u2019s allegations as false and politically motivated . He had never met the applicant in person or been in the ORG building . During TIME of DATE he had been in his office . At the relevant time , there had been no need to question the applicant and , had such a need arisen , he could have been questioned via the official channels rather than in the way alleged by him . PERSON also stated that his service car at the relevant time had been a ORG LX CARDINAL .","On DATE the investigators interviewed CARDINAL of the CARDINAL inspectors from ORG who had reviewed the surveillance footage in DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . They said , among other things , that they had been unable to make out any vehicle registration numbers and that they had not seen a vehicle matching the description given by the applicant .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked ORG and ORG for a copy of the footage obtained in the internal inquiry . He received no reply to those requests .","DATE the investigators asked CARDINAL experts from ORG to check whether the footage had been tampered with . In their report , the experts stated that they had not detected any traces of editing . They confirmed that statement when interviewed on DATE .","The investigators also obtained expert reports and statements by the prison officers confirming that the prison logs for CARDINAL and DATE had not been tampered with .","The investigators obtained , in addition , data from the prosecuting authorities\u2019 document - management system according to which TIME on DATE ORG , PERSON , had been logged in the system and working on official correspondence . At the hearing before FAC , the applicant \u2019s representatives challenged the authenticity of that data . They also stated that even if it were to be taken at face value , it only showed that PERSON had been in his office until TIME on DATE , whereas the alleged meeting with the applicant had taken place TIME . Since ORG building was CARDINAL away from ORG building , that data did not therefore negate the applicant \u2019s allegations .","On DATE a prosecutor from ORG closed the investigation . In his decision he set out in detail the witness and other evidence obtained during the investigation , and concluded that on DATE the applicant had not been taken out of his cell .","Since the parliamentary elections in DATE , a number of former high public officials from ORG , including the President of GPE until DATE , Mr PERSON , and several government ministers , have been prosecuted , some in separate sets of proceedings , in relation to offences allegedly committed by them while in office .","At a press conference on CARDINAL DATE ORG then leader and Prime Minister of GPE since DATE , Mr GPE , in response to a question whether the recent arrests of several former senior officials would lead to criminal proceedings against others , including the President , Mr PERSON , stated that it was not his wish to have an indefinite number of arrests , including that of PERSON PERSON . He added that he was not interfering with the work of the prosecuting authorities and it was up to them to decide who should face prosecution . He went on to say that PERSON \u2019s \u201c conduct increase[d ] the queues at the FAC offices \u201d .","According to an affidavit by PERSON , a former member of ORG \u2019s leadership , submitted by the applicant , shortly after the DATE parliamentary elections , on DATE , he had met in private with PERSON to discuss the transition of power . PERSON had allegedly told him , inter alia , that key members of the PERSON leadership would face criminal prosecution unless they refrained from challenging the new government : \u201c The more problems you create , the more people from your team will go to jail \u201d .","In DATE those criminal prosecutions drew expressions of concern from ORG \u2019s Secretary General , ORG President , ORG High Commissioner for Foreign and Security Policy and the GPE Secretary of ORG . In DATE a group of GPE senators wrote an open letter to GPE \u2019s Prime Minister to express their concern that the proceedings could be politically motivated . In DATE a group of GPE congressmen did the same in a letter to GPE Secretary of ORG . So did CARDINAL members of ORG , in a DATE address to GPE \u2019s Prime Minister , as well as the foreign ministers of GPE and GPE .","In DATE the Special Representative on LOC of ORG of ORG \u201c LOC \u201d ) expressed concern over the applicant \u2019s and Mr GPE \u2019s arrests . So did several GPE senators , leaders of ORG and the President of GPE .","In his report , \u201c GPE in Transition \u201d , published in DATE , ORG Special Adviser on Constitutional and Legal Reform and Human Rights in GPE , Mr PERSON , former ORG Commissioner for Human Rights , said , at pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( footnotes omitted ) :","\u201c ORG has initiated investigations against a number of office - holders in the previous administration . Prosecutors have questioned CARDINAL persons , most of them ORG party activists , as witnesses in the framework of investigations into different suspected crimes , including misuse of the ORG funds and money laundering . The opposition party considers this questioning to be a politically motivated attack on the opposition . Currently , CARDINAL former central officials are charged of whom CARDINAL are in pre - trial detention , CARDINAL have been released on bail , CARDINAL is released without restrictive measure , CARDINAL has been pardoned by the President after conviction and CARDINAL have left the country . Other former civil servants have also been charged or were convicted .","CARDINAL of those charged and held in pre - trial detention is [ the applicant ] who is not only a former Prime Minister and former Minister of ORG but was also Secretary General of UNM at the time of arrest . The ORG has consistently and vehemently been challenging the necessity of applying this measure of restraint . The case has raised deep concerns in relation to the forthcoming presidential election \u2013 as one of the key organisers of the opposition became prevented from contributing to the campaign .","...","There are signs that the courts are more independent than earlier in relation to requests from the prosecutors . For instance , there was an acquittal in a case against another former Minister , and the request for pre - trial detention was refused in another case against a leading ORG politician . \u201d","In a report on his visit to GPE in DATE ( CommDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) ORG Commissioner for Human Rights noted , in paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , the allegations of selective justice in relation to those criminal cases and stated , in paragraph CARDINAL :","\u201c The persistence of allegations and other information indicative of deficiencies marring the criminal investigation and judicial processes in cases involving political opponents are a cause for concern , as this can cast doubt on the outcome of the cases concerned even when there have been solid grounds for the charges retained and the final convictions . The NORP authorities must address these issues at the systemic level , in the interests of respecting fair trial guarantees for everyone and in enhancing public trust in the institutions responsible for upholding the law . \u201d","In DATE ( DATE ) , adopted on DATE , ORG stated :","\u201c CARDINAL . The otherwise smooth handover of power was accompanied by a polarised and antagonistic political climate , especially during the period of cohabitation between the then President PERSON and the ORG coalition government . The ORG regrets that these tensions sometimes overshadowed the many positive changes that were taking place in the democratic environment of GPE . ORG ( ORG ) has reported that CARDINAL of its activists and supporters were regularly interrogated and intimidated by various investigative agencies ( some up to CARDINAL times ) . A number of major opposition figures , including members of parliament , were violently attacked . It should be noted that DATE on , almost the entire leadership of the former ruling party has been arrested or is under prosecution or investigation : former Prime Minister and ORG Secretary General , [ the applicant ] , former Defence Minister , [ GPE ] , and former GPE mayor and ORG campaign manager , [ ORG ] , are in prison ( pre - trial detention ) . The judicial authorities have brought charges against the former President , PERSON DATE and ordered pre - trial detention in absentia \u2013 and have done the same for former Defence Minister , [ GPE ] , and former Minister of Justice , [ Z.A. ] . ...","...","The ORG recalls its concerns about the administration of justice and the independence of the judiciary in GPE . In that respect , it welcomes the adoption of a comprehensive reform package that aims to ensure genuine independence of the judiciary and a truly adversarial justice system . The ORG welcomes the first signs that the judiciary is now working more independently . However , it also notes that the proceedings in sensitive legal cases , including against former members of government ( some of whom are leading members of the opposition ) , have revealed continuing vulnerabilities and deficiencies in the justice system that need to be addressed . ... Further reforms of the judiciary , including of the prosecution services , are therefore necessary . In this respect , the ORG :","...","NORP while welcoming the recent decrease in its use , expresses its concern about the continued widespread use of pre - trial detention in GPE . ...","...","The ORG takes note of the numerous changes in local governments in GPE as a result of local councillors and city officials resigning or switching sides following the change of power at national level . ... The ORG is ... seriously concerned by credible reports that a number of these changes were the result of undue pressure on local ORG ( ORG ) activists by supporters of the ruling coalition . The ORG is also concerned by reports of violent disturbances of the campaign activities of the ORG , allegedly by ORG supporters , as well as reports that a considerable number of opposition candidates in the local elections , mainly from the ORG , withdrew their candidatures , allegedly under pressure from the authorities . ... \u201d","NORP The report of ORG . CARDINAL , DATE ) which led to that resolution said , among other things ( footnotes omitted ) :","\u201c CARDINAL . Many interlocutors have reported that there seems to be less political interference in the work of the courts and that the judiciary has become increasingly more independent , including in relation to the prosecution , which has been a point of concern in previous reports . This seems to be confirmed by the court proceedings against former government members , where requests of the prosecution have regularly been denied . There has been a decrease in the granting of pre - trial detention by the courts , combined with a decline of requests by the prosecution service . According to the authorities , in DATE , the prosecution service made PERCENT fewer requests for pre - trial detention than in DATE , and PERCENT of the requests for measures of constraint , such as pre - trial detention or bail , were granted by the courts . However , despite this positive trend , the use of pre - trial detention is still too widespread in GPE . ...","...","Following the DATE parliamentary elections , CARDINAL complaints were lodged with the prosecutor general by citizens claiming to have been victims of abuses committed by , or under , the previous authorities . CARDINAL claims concern allegations of torture and ill - treatment in prisons , while CARDINAL concern violations of property rights and CARDINAL complaints were filed against in total CARDINAL prosecutors by persons claiming that they were forced to accept plea - bargain agreements .","The authorities announced that the \u2018 restoration of justice\u2019 would be CARDINAL of their key priorities and underscored that there would be no impunity for former officials for past abuses . In DATE a number of leading members of the former governing party and ministerial officials were arrested for alleged crimes committed under their responsibility during their tenure in office . ORG has decried these arrests as political prosecutions and as revanchist justice . For its part , the authorities have stressed that no selective or political motivated justice is taking place , or will take place , in GPE , but that these people are accused of serious ordinary crimes , for which the authorities have sufficient proof to warrant an investigation or initiate prosecution .","NORP In support of their position , the authorities point to the fact that both the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Justice left the country in a hurry the day after the elections , as did a number of high - level officials from ORG . While the former Minister of Defence voluntarily returned to GPE , the others are still on the run and are the subject of an ORG .","There has been some confusion regarding the number of former officials concerned by these investigations . Until now , CARDINAL officials of the former authorities have been charged with criminal offences . Of these , CARDINAL are in pre - trial detention , CARDINAL have been released on bail , CARDINAL was released without restrictive measures , CARDINAL have fled the country and CARDINAL have been convicted , CARDINAL of whom was pardoned by President PERSON . In addition , charges have been brought against a considerable number of former civil servants .","The allegations of selective and politically motivated justice and revanchist policies by the new authorities are of concern . In addition , they considerably raise emotions and tensions in an already politically tense climate , which is not beneficial for the political environment and democratic development of the country .","The most publicised cases against former ORG government officials are those against former Minister of Defence [ GPE ] , former Prime Minister and ORG Minister DATE and current ORG Secretary General \u2013 [ the applicant ] , and former GPE Mayor [ G.U. ] , who were all influential members of former President PERSON \u2019s inner circle .","...","We wish to emphasise that there can not be any impunity for ordinary crimes including , or even especially , for government members and politicians , whether current or past . However , especially in the current political context , it is important that in the criminal cases against former government officials , any perception of politically motivated or revanchist justice is avoided . The authorities should therefore ensure that the legal processes are conducted transparently and in a way which fully respects GPE \u2019s obligations under LAW . Not only should selective or politically motivated justice not take place , it should also be seen as not taking place . \u201d","In Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) , adopted on DATE , ORG stated :","\u201c CARDINAL . The following abusive grounds for pretrial detention have been observed in a number of GPE Parties to ORG , namely :","to put pressure on detainees in order to coerce them into confessing to a crime or otherwise co - operating with the prosecution , including by testifying against a third person ( for example ... certain cases of opposition leaders in GPE , such as [ the applicant ] ) ;","to discredit or otherwise neutralise political competitors ( for example , certain cases of ORG ( ORG ) leaders in GPE ) ;","...","The root causes of the abusive use of pretrial detention include :","...","NORP the possibility of \u2018 forum GPE by the prosecution , which may be tempted to develop different strategies to ensure that requests for pretrial detention in certain cases are decided by a judge who , for various reasons , is expected to be \u2018 accommodating\u2019 ( for example in GPE , GPE and GPE ) ;","the possibility for the prosecution to circumvent statutory time limits imposed on pretrial detention by modifying or staggering indictments ( for example , in the cases of [ G.U ] and [ ORG ] , before the judgment of ORG of GPE in DATE ) . \u201d","As a result of the concerns about the criminal prosecutions against former government officials from ORG , in DATE the OSCE \u2019s ORG assigned monitors to CARDINAL of those cases , including the case against the applicant at issue in these proceedings . In its report , published in DATE , the ORG noted a number of shortcomings with respect to those CARDINAL cases , including the cases against the applicant . The specific points in the report highlighted by the applicant related to the criticisms , in paragraphs CARDINAL , of the NORP courts\u2019 failure to give appropriate reasons regarding the credibility of the witness and other evidence against him , of the cogency of those ORG findings in relation to each of the elements of the offences of which he was convicted , for example the exact manner in which he had exceeded his powers , and of the quality of their reasoning in relation to the factors determining his sentence .","By way of general findings , the report also noted , in paragraph CARDINAL of its executive summary , that NORP law was generally in line with international standards and guaranteed the right to an independent tribunal . There were , however , some aspects which raised concerns in that respect , such as the practices of transferring judges between courts , allocating cases without a fully transparent procedure , and changing judges in the course of ongoing proceedings with no explanation . Another issue was comments by public officials about ongoing criminal proceedings made in a manner implying that they had some control over the prosecuting authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the executive summary ) . Public officials had also expressed their views on the guilt of some defendants before they had been convicted , which raised an issue with regard to the presumption of innocence ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the executive summary ) . The report also expressed concern about the courts\u2019 failure in some cases to give reasons for their decisions to order pre - trial detention or to reject requests for release , and about the lack of provision in LAW for periodic review of pre - trial detention . That had contributed to a practice of automatic prolongation of pre - trial detention up to the maximum statutory time - limit of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the executive summary ) .","In a decision of DATE ( no . CARDINAL\/EXT\/CARDINAL ) , ORG of ORG - en - GPE refused to extradite to GPE Mr GPE , Minister of Defence from DATE . It held , among other things , that the prosecution against him was politically motivated . It based that finding on the fact that even though the NORP court had issued warrants for the arrest of both Mr GPE and his brother - in - law , who were being sought on identical charges , and even though the CARDINAL had been found together when Mr GPE had been arrested by the NORP authorities , the NORP authorities had at first only sought the extradition of Mr GPE , specifically mentioning his political responsibilities in the Interpol Red Notice . The only difference between the CARDINAL was that Mr GPE \u2019s brother - in - law was not involved in politics .","In a judgment of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , ORG refused to extradite to GPE Mr D.A. , former head of ORG . It held that there were compelling reasons to believe that there was a risk that , if extradited , his position would worsen owing to his political beliefs and his having held high office in a previous government which was in opposition to the current one .","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( unreported ) , ORG also refused to extradite Mr GPE to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Having reviewed at length reports and other evidence about the political and legal situation there since DATE and the criminal proceedings against Mr GPE , the chief magistrate concluded :","\u201c On the facts as found above ... I am not sure that the request for PERSON [ PERSON ] \u2019s extradition is for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account of his political opinions . I am aware that the requests may have been made for entirely proper purposes . The evidence may be there to sustain CARDINAL or more convictions . However this is not the test . On balance I consider it more likely than not that the desire to prosecute former ORG politicians is a purpose behind these requests . It may not be the only purpose , but without that factor I do not believe , on balance , that these requests would have been made and pursued in the way they have been .","As for the future , I have considerable respect for the judiciary of GPE . I believe it is likely that the judiciary will successfully resist pressure on them from the administration , through the public prosecutors . However , looking at what has happened to others , I am satisfied that there is a reasonable chance , a serious possibility , that this defendant \u2019s liberty will be restricted ( and in particular that he may be detained in pre - trial detention ) because of a flawed prosecution process motivated by a desire to obtain a conviction of a ORG politician , or by a desire to obtain evidence from PERSON [ PERSON ] that can be used against senior former colleagues . ... \u201d","The court described the evidence which had led it to conclude that there was a possibility that Mr GPE could be placed in pre - trial detention in order to be pressured to give evidence against former colleagues of his in GPE in these terms :","\u201c I have heard evidence , about which I can not be sure but think it is likely correct , that pressure has been applied by the prosecutor \u2019s office to witnesses to leave ORG and\/or give false testimony . ... Mr [ PERSON ] gave evidence that he was told by former [ P]rime [ PERSON , who was also relaying the views of former Prime Minister PERSON , that if he helped to locate [ Mr ] PERSON \u2019s bank accounts \u2018 it would help relieve the situation of [ Mr PERSON ] as well and that all the charges against him w[ould ] be dropped.\u2019 The same witness suggested that if returned , illegal methods would be used to force him ( [ Mr GPE ] ) to give evidence against [ Mr ] PERSON . \u201d","In DATE ORG decided to delete from its files all information relating to Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON It did so on the basis of CARDINAL recommendations by ORG Files , according to which the political elements surrounding their cases prevailed over the common - law criminal elements . In arriving at that conclusion , the Commission said that in cases of doubt , it had to decide in the interest of the party seeking deletion ."],"violated_articles":["18","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145756","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"CANAJ v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON V. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their then Agent , PERSON and , subsequently , by PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","It would appear that , DATE , the applicant served a total of DATE in prison . He submitted a criminal history record ( v\u00ebrtetim i gjendjes gjyq\u00ebsore ) in support of this claim . The applicant stated that , while in prison , he had mostly worked in mines , labour camps or other ORG entities . From DATE , on the strength of a court decision , he performed his compulsory military service . From DATE he was sentenced to internal exile ( internim ) and performed corrective labour at an agricultural cooperative ( kooperativ\u00eb bujq\u00ebsore ) .","On unspecified dates the applicant requested the authorities to count the work he had undertaken during his imprisonment DATE for the purpose of assessing his pension rights and obtaining an old - age pension .","On DATE and DATE ORG and Equal Opportunities ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) informed the applicant that , having regard to a considerable number of former prisoners who had not obtained an old - age pension , an inter - ministerial working group had been established to examine the possibility of recognising work undertaken during imprisonment in the communist period in the calculation of insurance DATE for the purpose of obtaining an old - age pension . A draft proposal was made and submitted in DATE to ORG and ORG . ORG instructed the applicant to contact his local authority to seek ways of obtaining financial assistance ( ndihm\u00eb ekonomike ) .","To date , no legislative act has been adopted either by ORG or the Government as regards the affiliation of former working ( non - political ) prisoners of the communist period to the old - age pension system .","On an unspecified date the applicant was awarded assistance in the form of financial aid by his local authority , having regard to his family \u2019s financial difficulties . The family consisted of his wife and his son born in DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife left the country to join her brother in GPE in the hope of finding employment . However , she fell ill and it would appear that she has been unable to work since .","On an unspecified date the financial assistance was revoked .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that he was not entitled to an old - age pension , as he had not accumulated the required number of insurance DATE . He was further informed that , by virtue of a Government decision of DATE , financial assistance was not awarded to families whose members had left the country , unless they had gone away for the purpose of pursuing studies or receiving medical treatment . The applicant was invited to submit supporting documents to prove that his wife was ill in GPE and to seek a further award of financial assistance from the local authority .","NORP On DATE the local authority indicated that the applicant was in receipt of financial assistance in the sum of CARDINAL NORP leks per month , QUANTITY per month .","The Social Insurance Act has been amended CARDINAL times since its first enactment . According to the LAW , a male is entitled to : ( i ) a full old - age pension at DATE , after having accumulated CARDINAL insurance years ; ( ii ) a reduced old - age pension at DATE , after having accumulated CARDINAL insurance years ; or ( iii ) a partial old - age pension at DATE , after having accumulated DATE CARDINAL insurance years . Insurance DATE comprise the period in which contributions have been paid . Under LAW , the Government may recognise other periods DATE , provided that the payment of social insurance contributions is borne by the ORG budget .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that families in need , with no source of income or with insufficient means , are entitled to financial assistance ( ndihm\u00eb ekonomike ) , which can be total or partial . It consists of a DATE payment in cash or in kind . The head of the family makes an application for financial assistance to the social administrator of the local authority where the family resides . A decision refusing an award of financial assistance is amenable to appeal before a court .","Recital CARDINAL ( c ) of Government decision no . CARDINAL of DATE provides that families , CARDINAL of whose members lives abroad for whatever reason , other than for the purpose of pursuing studies or receiving medical treatment , are not entitled to financial assistance .","The Prisoners\u2019 Rights and Treatment Act governs the rights and treatment of prisoners , as well as the responsibilities and duties of the competent authorities .","Section CARDINAL recognises ORG right to work ( t\u00eb gjith\u00eb t\u00eb d\u00ebnuarve u njihet e drejta p\u00ebr t\u00eb punuar ) , which can be undertaken within or outside the prison facility . Work is remunerated in accordance with criteria defined by a separate Government decision .","Section CARDINAL provides that work undertaken in prison is taken into account in the calculation of an old - age pension . Government decision no . CARDINAL of DATE sets out the criteria for the calculation of benefits for the old - age pension .","In an effort to recognise the innocence of former politically persecuted persons and former political prisoners and to publicly ask those people to forgive them for the suffering they experienced during the communist period , ORG enacted LAW . LAW recognised their time spent in prison DATE for the purpose of obtaining an old - age pension ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166743","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MAKHMUD v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Johannes Silvis","text":["The applicant , Mr ORG , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicant arrived to GPE . He was granted refugee status by the NORP authorities and applied to GPE authorities for asylum .","According to the NORP authorities , the applicant was involved in transportation of CARDINAL illegal migrants from GPE to GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested and formally charged .","On DATE the Primorsk District Court of GPE remanded the applicant in custody . ORG noted that the applicant was a foreign national without a permanent place of residence in GPE and official employment and charged with a serious crime . ORG also noted that his application for asylum was pending before ORG in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative appealed .","On DATE GPE quashed the detention order of CARDINAL DATE on appeal and referred the matter back to the first - instance court .","On DATE ORG , relying on the same grounds , ordered the applicant \u2019s detention DATE and DATE . In doing so , ORG considered that neither the applicant \u2019s refugee status nor his permanent place of residence and dependent family members ( wife and child ) justified the application of an alternative preventive measure . Finally , it referred to the applicant \u2019s intention stated at the hearing eventually to leave the NORP territory .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel appealed .","On DATE GPE upheld the detention order on appeal .","On DATE , ORG , relying on the same grounds , extended the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE the applicant appealed .","On DATE GPE upheld the detention order on appeal .","On DATE , ORG , relying on the same grounds , extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed .","On DATE GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s counsel \u2019s appeal .","On DATE GPE held a preparatory hearing and again extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed .","On DATE GPE upheld the detention order .","On DATE ORG , by a collective detention order in respect of both co - defendants , extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed .","On DATE GPE upheld the detention order on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The applicant was in detention pending trial at least until DATE .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty and convicted him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140242","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VEISS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant had been living with ORG since DATE . They were not married . In the course of DATE , ORG became pregnant . After the birth of ORG on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant continued to care for the child and to support ORG and the child financially , including paying the rent and utility bills for the apartment in which they were residing .","On an unspecified date the applicant suggested to ORG that they officially register the birth of ORG and record the applicant \u2019s paternity in the register of births . ORG refused .","The applicant informed ORG that he would try to have his paternity established by the courts .","Starting from CARDINAL DATE ORG no longer permitted the applicant to meet the child .","On DATE the applicant consulted a lawyer and on DATE requested a copy of a report of the registration of the child \u2019s birth ( izzi\u0146a par b\u0113rna dzim\u0161anas re\u0123istr\u0101ciju ) from a civil registry office ( dzimtsarakstu noda\u013ca ) . He received the requested report on DATE and found out that DATE , on DATE , a certain ORG had voluntarily acknowledged his paternity and had been registered as the child \u2019s father . According to the applicant , he did not know who PERSON was .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with GPE . He asked the court to order forensic biological testing in order to establish the child \u2019s descent , to strike the record of A.L.as the father of the child and to record himself , the applicant , as the child \u2019s father instead .","On DATE ORG and ORG submitted a response , arguing that the fact that civil proceedings had been instituted had infringed their rights guaranteed by , inter alia , LAW . The respondents also argued that the applicant lacked standing to contest paternity and denied that he had ever co - habited with ORG","ORG held hearings on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE it decided to discontinue the proceedings . The court agreed with the respondents that the applicant lacked standing to contest a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity . It reached that conclusion by interpreting LAW in conjunction with ORG out of PERSON ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) and DATE judgment of ORG , and found that the restrictions in section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) were not contrary to LAW .","The applicant appealed on DATE . On DATE the case was forwarded to ORG , which held hearings on DATE and DATE , and quashed the lower court \u2019s decision by a decision adopted on the latter date . It was found that the lower court had erred in not ordering forensic biological testing . The case was remitted to ORG .","The first hearing in FAC was held on DATE and was attended only by the applicant \u2019s lawyer . The hearing was adjourned . The verbatim record of the hearing shows that the court decided to invite a representative of ORG ( b\u0101ri\u0146tiesa ) to attend the following hearing .","According to the applicant \u2019s lawyer , the question of involving ORG had not in fact been discussed in court and therefore she requested the removal of the judge in charge of the case .","On DATE the judge withdrew from the case . The proceedings were accordingly adjourned .","The next hearing was held on CARDINAL DATE and was attended by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , the CARDINAL respondents and their lawyer , as well as by a representative of ORG .","On DATE ORG ordered forensic genetic testing and ordered the applicant , ORG , ORG and the child to submit the necessary samples of genetic material before DATE .","On DATE the court was informed that the applicant had submitted a tissue sample on DATE , while ORG , ORG and the child had not appeared at the testing laboratory .","On DATE the applicant asked the court to order that the respondents and the child be delivered for genetic testing under constraint . The hearing organised on CARDINAL DATE to decide that question was adjourned because the respondents and their lawyer had not appeared in court .","In the course of the hearing of DATE the court rejected the applicant \u2019s request on the grounds that the child was not a party to the case and therefore his delivery under constraint could not be ordered . No ordinary appeal lay against that decision . The applicant \u2019s representative requested that the proceedings be adjourned so that an extraordinary complaint could be lodged with ORG .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to lodge an extraordinary complaint ( protests ) about the decision of ORG . On DATE the Prosecutor General granted the applicant \u2019s request and asked the ORG of ORG to quash DATE decision . On DATE the ORG accepted the Prosecutor General \u2019s complaint for examination .","On DATE the ORG decided to uphold the Prosecutor General \u2019s complaint , to quash ORG decision and to remit the case to another judge of the same court .","After adjourning the hearing of DATE owing to the respondents\u2019 failure to appear in court , on DATE ORG decided to grant the applicant \u2019s request and to order the municipal police to deliver the respondents and the child for genetic testing under constraint . The court also fined ORG and ORG CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) each for failing to appear at the hearing without a justified reason .","On DATE the applicant informed the court that the decision of DATE did not appear to have been sent to the municipal police .","That omission was admitted by the court in a decision of CARDINAL DATE , by which the court decided to order the ORG police to deliver the respondents and the child for testing under constraint .","On DATE the director of the testing laboratory informed ORG that a tissue sample had been taken from ORG on DATE but that ORG and the child had not appeared at the laboratory for testing .","According to a letter sent by the police to the court on DATE , on several occasions police officers had not found ORG and the child at their stated address and a neighbour had informed the police that a woman with a small child was not residing there .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to order a search ( izsludin\u0101t mekl\u0113\u0161an\u0101 ) for ORG and the child .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s request on the merits . The respondents were absent . The court fined ORG and ORG LVL CARDINAL each for failing to appear at the hearing without a justified reason .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the court granted the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE a genetic sample was taken from the child at the testing laboratory .","On CARDINAL DATE the testing laboratory issued a report , finding that the probability that the applicant was the father of ORG was CARDINAL PERCENT and that it was impossible that ORG was the father .","The next hearing of ORG was held on DATE .","On DATE ORG adopted a judgment by which it rejected the applicant \u2019s claim . The court held that , even though the applicant was the child \u2019s biological father , LAW did not give him the right to contest a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity .","The applicant appealed on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG instituted appeal proceedings . ORG held a hearing on CARDINAL DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to uphold the impugned judgment . In response to the applicant \u2019s complaint that the overall length of the proceedings was excessive within the meaning of LAW , the appeal court noted that such questions were outside its competence .","On DATE the applicant submitted an appeal on points of law , complaining , inter alia , that the time taken by the first - instance court to examine his claim had been excessive .","On DATE the applicant asked the ORG of ORG to expedite the examination of the case , referring to LAW and the urgent nature of cases relating to the interests of children . The ORG instituted cassation proceedings on CARDINAL DATE .","The ORG held the first hearing on DATE . On DATE the ORG decided to examine the case in an extended composition ( papla\u0161in\u0101t\u0101 tiesas sast\u0101v\u0101 ) of CARDINAL judges instead of the usual CARDINAL - judge composition . A final decision was adopted by the ORG on CARDINAL DATE .","The ORG disagreed with the lower - level courts\u2019 interpretation of section CARDINAL of LAW . It held that that section could not be interpreted so as to deny a biological father the right to contest a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity if the legal father had acknowledged paternity in the knowledge that he was not in fact the father of the child . On the other hand , having the standing to contest a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity did not mean that the claim should be automatically upheld , since the courts were obligated to balance the rights of the child and the rights of the biological father .","Turning to the facts of the specific case , the ORG noted that during DATE hearing of the appeal court , the representative of ORG had explained that the child was living in a \u201c united family \u201d ( apvienot\u0101 \u0123imen\u0113 ) and that upholding the applicant \u2019s claim would be contrary to the child \u2019s interests . The ORG found no reason to doubt the professional competence of the staff of ORG and agreed with its assessment of the interests of the child .","In conclusion , the ORG held that the appeal court had erred in deciding that the applicant lacked standing to contest the acknowledgment of paternity . However , \u201c taking into account the unreasonable length of the proceedings \u201d , the ORG , decided not to remit the case to the appeal court . The judgment of the appeal court was thus upheld .","The applicant submitted that after the decision became final , he learned of certain facts previously unknown to him . In particular , he found out that when the child was born and throughout the proceedings ORG had been married to ORG and had CARDINAL children in that marriage . In addition , from DATE until DATE PERSON had been living with yet another woman ( PERSON ) and several of his children from his marriage to PERSON The applicant submitted to ORG a written statement from PERSON to that effect .","On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint about the actions of representatives of ORG to ORG ( NORP b\u0113rnu ties\u012bbu aizsardz\u012bbas inspekcija ) . Among other things , he complained that ORG had come to the unsubstantiated conclusion that PERSON was living with ORG and the child , whereas in fact he had been living with another woman in a different town .","On DATE the ORG replied to the applicant , informing him that ORG was responsible for omissions ( pie\u013c\u0101vusi tr\u016bkumus ) , which could have had a negative effect on the performance of its duty to protect the rights and legal interests of children .","On DATE the applicant submitted the present application to the ORG .","DATE . On DATE the applicant requested that ORG reopen the proceedings in the light of the newly discovered circumstances , namely , the information set out in paragraph CARDINAL above .","On DATE the present application was communicated to the respondent Government .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s request to reopen the proceedings and rejected it , finding that the circumstances invoked by the applicant could not be considered as \u201c newly discovered \u201d within the meaning of LAW .","The applicant submitted an ancillary complaint and on DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the decision of ORG , examined the applicant \u2019s request on the merits and upheld it , quashing the decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The case was sent for fresh examination to GPE , which held the first hearing on DATE . The court decided to invite ORG to submit a report concerning the family situation of the child . The proceedings have been adjourned until DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146540","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MOCANU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period;Article 35-3 - Continuing situation);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Alvina Gyulumyan;Ann Power-Forde;Corneliu B\u00eersan;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Florin Streteanu;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Lemmens;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen","text":["Mrs Anca PERSON and Mr Marin Stoica were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They live in GPE .","The ORG \u201c DATE \u201d ( PERSON CARDINAL ) was set up on DATE and is based in GPE .","The applicant association brings together mainly individuals who were injured during the violent suppression of the anti - totalitarian demonstrations which took place in GPE in DATE and the relatives of persons who died during those events . It was CARDINAL of the groups which supported the anti - government demonstrations held in GPE DATE , at which demonstrators called , inter alia , for the identification of those responsible for the violence committed in DATE .","The main facts concerning the crackdown on anti - government demonstrations from CARDINAL to DATE were described in the decisions of QUANTITY DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) and CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , issued by the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG ( which in DATE became ORG and Justice ) , and in the decisions to commit for trial ( rechizitoriu ) issued by the same prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE and DATE .","On DATE the security forces\u2019 intervention against the demonstrators who were occupying FAC and other areas of the capital resulted in several civilian casualties , including PERSON husband , Mr PERSON , who was killed by a shot fired from the headquarters of ORG .","On TIME CARDINAL DATE Mr GPE and other persons , some but not all of whom were demonstrators , were arrested and ill - treated by uniformed police officers and men in civilian clothing , in the area around the headquarters of the ORG television service and in the basement of that building .","On DATE of miners were transported to GPE , essentially from LOC ( PERSON ) mining region , to take part in the crackdown on the demonstrators .","At TIME on DATE the President of GPE addressed the miners , who had arrived in the square in front of the Government building , inviting them to go to FAC , occupy it and defend it against the demonstrators ; they subsequently did so .","The violent events of CARDINAL and DATE resulted in CARDINAL victims , whose names appear in a list attached to the decision issued on DATE by the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and Justice .","NORP The headquarters of several political parties and other institutions , including those of the applicant association , were attacked and ransacked . The latter association subsequently joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party .","NORP The criminal proceedings into the unlawful killing by gunfire of Mr PERSON - PERSON are still pending . The investigation opened on CARDINAL DATE into the ill - treatment allegedly inflicted on PERSON was closed by a decision not to bring a prosecution , dated DATE , subsequently upheld by a judgment of ORG and ORG of CARDINAL DATE .","The facts as set out by the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and Justice in its decisions of DATE and DATE and in the decisions to commit for trial of CARDINAL DATE and DATE may be summarised as follows .","FAC in GPE was considered a symbolic location for the fight against the totalitarian regime of PERSON , given the large number of persons who had died or were injured there as a result of the armed repression initiated by the regime on DATE . It was therefore in this square that several associations \u2013 including the applicant association \u2013 called on their members to attend protest events in DATE .","Thus , the first demonstrations against the provisional government formed after DATE of the GPE regime took place in FAC in GPE on CARDINAL and DATE , as indicated in the decision issued on DATE by the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and Justice . That decision also states that a counter - demonstration was organised by ORG DATE the FSN ) on DATE . On that occasion , miners from the coal - mining regions of the GPE , GPE and other areas appeared in GPE . The headquarters of ORG were vandalised at that time .","From DATE , demonstrations were held every DATE . According to the decision to commit for trial of DATE , they were intended to denounce the non - democratic attitude of those in power , who were accused of having \u201c betrayed the ideals of the revolution \u201d , and sought to alert the population to the threat of a new dictatorial regime .","Election campaigns were subsequently launched for parliamentary elections and the office of President of the Republic , to be held on DATE .","It was in this context that unauthorised \u201c marathon demonstrations \u201d ( manifesta\u0163ii maraton ) began on DATE in FAC , at the initiative of ORG and other associations , including the applicant association . These demonstrations lasted DATE , during which the demonstrators occupied FAC . The decisions of DATE and DATE indicate that the demonstrators , who had gathered in large numbers , were not violent and were essentially demanding that persons who had exercised power during the totalitarian regime be excluded from political life . They also called for a politically independent television station .","They called further for the identification of those responsible for the armed repression of DATE and demanded the resignation of the country \u2019s leaders ( particularly the Minister of the ORG ) , whom they considered responsible for the repression of the anti - communist demonstrations in DATE .","On DATE CARDINAL demonstrators were arrested by the police on the ground that the demonstration had not been authorised . Faced with the reaction of the public , who had arrived to boost the number of demonstrators in FAC , the police released the CARDINAL arrested demonstrators . The authorities did not use force again over DATE , although ORG had still not authorised the gathering .","Negotiations between the demonstrators and the provisional government resulted in stalemate .","On DATE the presidential and parliamentary elections took place . The ORG and its leader , who was standing for President , won the elections .","Following those elections the protests continued in FAC , but were reduced from their original scale . Of the CARDINAL persons still present , CARDINAL had gone on hunger strike .","On TIME CARDINAL DATE the new President elect of GPE and his Prime Minister convened a government meeting , attended by the Minister of the ORG and his deputy , the Minister of Defence , the director of ORG ( Serviciul Rom\u00e2n de Informa\u0163ii \u2013 the GPE ) , the first deputy president of the ruling party ( the ORG ) and the Procurator General of GPE . This is established in the prosecution service \u2019s decisions of DATE and DATE .","At that meeting it was decided to take measures to clear FAC on DATE . In addition , it was proposed that the ORG organs , namely the police and army , would be assisted by CARDINAL mobilised civilians . Implementation of this measure was entrusted to the first deputy president of the ORG . CARDINAL members of that party \u2019s steering committee opposed the measure , but without success . According to the decision of CARDINAL DATE , an action plan drawn up by ORG was approved by the Prime Minister .","On TIME the Procurator ORG ( Procuratura General\u0103 ) broadcast a statement on ORG television calling on the government to take measures so that vehicles could circulate again in FAC .","At a meeting held on TIME with the participation of the Minister of the ORG , the head of the GPE and the head of police , GPE set out the plans for the police and gendarmerie , in collaboration with civilian forces , to clear FAC . Under this plan , the action was \u201c to begin at TIME on DATE by cordoning off the square , arresting the demonstrators and re - establishing public order \u201d .","At TIME on DATE members of the police and gendarmerie brutally charged the demonstrators in FAC . The arrested demonstrators were driven away and locked up at the GPE municipal police station . The CARDINAL arrested individuals ( or CARDINAL , according to the decision to commit for trial of DATE ) included students from ORG , who had been on the premises of their establishment , located on FAC , and who had not taken part in the demonstrations . The decision of DATE indicated that the CARDINAL persons who had been arrested were taken to ORG after being held in the police cells .","The police operation led to protests by many people , who demanded that the arrested demonstrators be released . According to the decision of CARDINAL DATE , those persons launched violent attacks on the security forces , hurling projectiles and setting cars on fire . According to the decision to commit for trial of DATE , those actions were the work of a few aggressive individuals who had infiltrated groups of peaceful demonstrators .","At TIME , workers from the factories of a large metallurgical company in GPE ( ORG ) headed en masse for FAC to help the police arrest the demonstrators . According to the decision of DATE , they acted in a chaotic and heavy - handed manner , hitting out blindly and making no distinction between demonstrators and mere passers - by .","On TIME CARDINAL DATE , the demonstrations intensified around the television building , FAC , ORG and the municipal police station , all locations where , according to the demonstrators , the persons who had been arrested could be held prisoner .","Following those incidents , the army intervened and several armoured vehicles were sent to the headquarters of ORG .","According to a report by ORG , referred to by the Government in their observations , at TIME the headquarters of ORG were surrounded by MONEY demonstrators ; on the orders of Generals PERSON and GPE , servicemen posted inside ORG fired at the ceilings of the entrance halls with a view to dispersing the demonstrators .","Three persons were killed by the shots fired in ORG .","It was in those circumstances that , at TIME , when he was QUANTITY away from CARDINAL of the doors of ORG , the first applicant \u2019s husband was killed by a bullet which hit the back of his head after having ricocheted . Those events are described in detail in the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE committing for trial the Minister of the ORG at the relevant time , a general and CARDINAL colonels . According to the first decision to commit for trial , the applicant \u2019s husband and the other victims , who were returning from their workplaces on DATE , were unarmed and had not previously taken part in the marathon demonstrations in FAC . Mere spectators of the events , they had been killed by bullets which had ricocheted .","The security forces shot and killed a fourth person in another district of GPE . Another died shortly after having been stabbed in the area around the television headquarters .","On DATE no servicemen were subjected to violence by the demonstrators , as attested by the decision to commit for trial of DATE . According to that document , the army had fired CARDINAL bullets from inside ORG headquarters on DATE .","In addition , other persons , including Mr GPE , were beaten and detained by police officers and civilians in the headquarters of the ORG television station , in the circumstances described below .","The headquarters of the ORG television station were at that time guarded by CARDINAL servicemen , backed by CARDINAL armed vehicles , and subsequently reinforced by other groups of armed forces , the largest of which contained CARDINAL servicemen ( who arrived at TIME ) , a detachment of parachutists ( TIME ) , CARDINAL servicemen ( TIME ) , CARDINAL parachutists ( CARDINAL p.m. ) and CARDINAL servicemen with CARDINAL other armed vehicles ( TIME ) .","At TIME the demonstrators were chased out of the television headquarters following this mass intervention .","Towards the end of the afternoon on DATE , while he was walking to his workplace along a street near the ORG television headquarters , the applicant was brutally arrested by a group of armed individuals and taken by force into the television building . In sight of the police officers and servicemen present , civilians struck and bound him , then took him to the basement of the building . He was then led into a television studio , where CARDINAL other persons were already present . They were filmed in the presence of the then director of the ORG television station . The recordings were broadcast during TIME to DATE , accompanied by commentary which described the persons concerned as employees of foreign secret services who had threatened to destroy the television premises and equipment .","In the course of TIME the applicant was beaten , struck on the head with blunt objects and threatened with firearms until he lost consciousness .","He woke up at TIME in ORG in GPE . According to the forensic medical report drawn up on DATE , the medical certificate issued by the hospital \u2019s emergency surgery department stated that the applicant had been admitted at CARDINAL TIME on DATE and diagnosed as suffering from bruising on the left side of the abdomen and ribcage , abrasions on the left side of his ribcage resulting from an assault , and craniocerebral trauma .","Fearing further ill - treatment , he fled from the hospital , which was surrounded by police officers , at TIME","His identity papers had been confiscated during TIME to DATE . DATE he was invited to collect them from ORG at ORG . In the meantime , he had remained shut away at home for fear of being arrested again , tortured and imprisoned .","According to the decision of DATE , witness ORG , an engineer , who at the relevant time was head of department at the GPE agency of the national railway company ( Regionala CFR GPE ) , had stated that , on TIME of CARDINAL DATE , the director of that agency had ordered that the scheduled trains be cancelled and that CARDINAL train convoys , or a total of CARDINAL wagons , be made available to the miners at Petro\u015fani station , in the heart of the LOC mining area .","M.I. had added that the order seemed to him unlawful and that he had attempted to prevent the ORG transportation to GPE by cutting the electricity provision to the railway line on the journey indicated . He had stated that , faced with his insubordination , the director of ORG agency had ordered that he be replaced and had the railway line restored to use by TIME It appears that ORG was subsequently dismissed and brought before the prosecution service .","According to the decision issued on DATE by the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and Justice , on DATE CARDINAL trains DATE a total of CARDINAL wagons \u2013 transporting workers , especially miners , had travelled to GPE from several industrial regions around the country . The first had reached GPE at TIME , the last at CARDINAL p.m.","The decision of DATE states that the miners had been informed that they were to help the police re - establish public order in GPE , and that they were armed with axes , chains , sticks and metal cables .","The decision of DATE indicates that the miners had been mobilised by the leaders of their trade union . Questioned as a witness , the President of ORG , who became mayor of PERSON in DATE , stated that CARDINAL trains carrying the miners had arrived at GPE station at TIME on DATE , that the miners had been greeted by the deputy Minister for ORG and a Director General from that ORG , and that these CARDINAL senior government officials had led them to FAC .","On TIME DATE , groups of miners first stopped at FAC ( Pia\u0163a Victoriei ) , at the government headquarters .","At TIME , the Head of ORG addressed the miners who were gathered in front of the government building , inviting them to cooperate with the security forces and to restore order in FAC and in other areas where incidents had occurred . In this speech , which is reproduced in full in the decision of DATE , he urged them to head towards FAC and occupy it , informing them that they would be confronted with \u201c openly fascist elements who had committed acts of vandalism \u201d by setting fire to the headquarters of both ORG and of the police and \u201c besieging the television building \u201d .","NORP Immediately afterwards groups of miners were led \u201c by unidentified persons \u201d to the headquarters of opposition parties and associations perceived as hostile to the authorities .","The miners were flanked by troops from ORG , with whom they formed \u201c mixed teams \u201d , and set out to look for demonstrators . The decision of DATE indicates that \u201c acts of extreme cruelty [ took place ] on this occasion , with violence being used indiscriminately against demonstrators and GPE residents who were totally unconnected with the demonstrations \u201d . The decision of CARDINAL DATE indicates that the miners also attacked the homes of persons of GPE ethnicity . According to that decision , the miners had \u201c selection criteria \u201d for identifying those persons who , in their opinion , were suspected of taking part in the FAC demonstrations , and attacked \u201c as a general rule , GPE , students , intellectuals , journalists and anyone who did not recognise their legitimacy \u201d .","NORP The groups of miners and the other persons accompanying them ransacked the headquarters of ORG ( Partidul Na\u0163ional \u0162\u0103r\u0103nesc Cre\u015ftin \u015fi NORP ) and ORG , and the headquarters of other legal entities , such as ORG ( PERSON ) , ORG NORP ) and the ORG \u201c DATE \u201d ( the applicant association ) .","According to the decision of DATE , no one present in the headquarters of those political parties and associations at that time was spared by the miners . All were attacked and had their possessions confiscated . Many were apprehended and handed over to the police \u2013 who were there \u201c as though by coincidence \u201d \u2013 and detained in an entirely unlawful manner .","Other groups of miners had gone to FAC . On arrival , they broke into the University premises and ORG , located on FAC . They attacked the staff and students whom they encountered there , subjecting them to violence and humiliating acts . The miners apprehended everyone on the LOC and handed them over to the police and gendarmes . The arrested persons were taken by the law - enforcement officers to police stations or to the PERSON and PERSON military barracks .","The miners then moved into the streets surrounding FAC and continued their activities there .","DATE . According to the decision of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL individuals \u2013 including DATE who were then under DATE were apprehended in those circumstances . Of those individuals , CARDINAL of them were placed in pre - trial detention , CARDINAL received an administrative penalty and CARDINAL were released \u201c after checks \u201d .","The decision of DATE states that \u201c the miners [ ended ] their law - enforcement activities on DATE , after the President of GPE had thanked them publicly for what they had done in the capital , and authorised them to return to their work \u201d .","NORP That decision also indicates that some of those who were beaten and imprisoned were unlawfully detained for DATE and that several of them were released on DATE and DATE .","The other persons in police custody were placed in pre - trial detention , on a decision by the prosecutor , for causing a breach of the peace ; their number included the current president of the applicant association , who was subsequently acquitted of all the charges against him .","The decision of CARDINAL DATE states that the miners acted in close collaboration with the security forces and on the instructions of the ORG \u2019s leaders . The relevant passages read as follows :","\u201c On DATE and DATE the miners , in groups coordinated by civilians on behalf of and with the agreement of the ORG \u2019s leaders [ \u00een numele \u015fi cu acordul conducerii de stat ] , committed acts in which the ORG \u2019s law - enforcement forces fully collaborated [ deplin\u0103 cooperare ] and which caused not only physical harm to the persons who were apprehended for checks , but also significant damage to the LOC of ORG , ORG , several political parties and civilian associations , and the homes of figures from so - called \u2018 historical\u2019 parties ...","The investigations conducted by the military prosecutors have not permitted identification of the persons in civilian clothing who had infiltrated the ORG groups ; the victims who were questioned had distinguished between the miners and their other attackers by describing the first as \u2018 dirty ORG and the second as \u2018 clean ORG .","On DATE the applicant association publicly condemned the violent interventions of DATE .","At TIME the leaders of the association decided , as a security measure , to spend TIME in its headquarters . CARDINAL of them remained there during TIME .","At TIME on DATE , a group of miners forcibly entered the applicant association \u2019s premises after breaking a window pane . In TIME after entering they were not violent , and were rather reserved . Shortly afterwards an unidentified civilian , who was not a miner , arrived on the scene and began hitting CARDINAL of the members of the association . The miners followed his lead , brutally attacking the CARDINAL members of the association , who were then arrested by the security forces .","DATE . During DATE all of the association \u2019s property and documents were seized , in breach of the legal formalities , under the supervision of troops from ORG .","On DATE the leaders of the association were able to return to the association \u2019s premises , accompanied by the police .","The above - cited decisions of the prosecutor \u2019s office indicate that , instead of immediately returning to their homes , CARDINAL miners remained in GPE , \u201c ready to intervene should the protests recommence \u201d , notably with a view to the impending swearing - in of the newly elected President . From DATE those miners were accommodated in military barracks in GPE , where they received military uniforms .","The decision of DATE indicates that the investigation was unable to elucidate who had given the order to house and equip the miners , but specifies that \u201c such a measure had to have been taken at least at ORG level \u201d .","According to a press release issued by ORG on DATE and reproduced in the decision of CARDINAL DATE , during the period DATE and TIME on DATE , CARDINAL persons went to hospital following the violent incidents ; CARDINAL were kept in hospital and CARDINAL deaths were recorded .","According to the same decision of CARDINAL DATE , police officers , miners and later the military conscripts responsible for supervising the miners used excessive force against the CARDINAL demonstrators and the other persons \u2013 including children , elderly persons and blind people \u2013 who had been arrested and detained in LOC . The decision states that the detainees on those premises were subjected to violence and assaults of a \u201c psychological , physical and sexual \u201d nature and held in inappropriate conditions , and that they received belated and inadequate medical care .","The violent events of DATE , in the course of which the husband of the applicant PERSON was killed and Mr Stoica was allegedly ill - treated , and which resulted in the ransacking of the applicant association \u2019s headquarters , gave rise to the opening of an investigation . It was initially divided up into CARDINAL different case files .","On CARDINAL DATE the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and ORG sent a letter to ORG , in which the facts were summarised as follows :","\u201c Over DATE , CARDINAL of complaints were registered on the rolls of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and the district prosecutor \u2019s offices concerning the offences of theft , destruction , armed robbery , assault causing bodily harm , unlawful deprivation of liberty and other offences committed in the context of the acts of violence committed by miners in GPE on DATE and DATE . In the majority of those cases , it having proved impossible to identify the perpetrators , a decision was issued not to bring a prosecution . \u201d","No decision to discontinue the proceedings was communicated to PERSON or to the applicant association , which had joined the proceedings as a civil party .","Those case files were subsequently joined and the scope of the investigation was broadened from DATE onwards , the events having been given a different legal classification involving aggravated criminal responsibility . Senior army officers and ORG officials were successively charged and the entire investigation was transferred to the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG ( ORG l\u00e2ng\u0103 PERSON \u2013 PERSON ) as case no . CARDINAL .","DATE and DATE , CARDINAL previously opened cases were joined to case no . CARDINAL , of which CARDINAL were joined on DATE , CARDINAL on DATE and CARDINAL on DATE .","On DATE the same military prosecutor \u2019s section was assigned CARDINAL cases concerning the events of CARDINAL to DATE , including , in particular , the unlawful deprivations of liberty on CARDINAL DATE .","In the decision of CARDINAL DATE , the state of the file as it existed after the joinder of all those cases is described as follows :","\u201c Many of the documents included in the CARDINAL volumes of the file are photocopies which have not been stamped or have not been certified as corresponding to the original . The documents in each of those volumes are not filed by date , subject or another criterion , but in a disorderly fashion . Some of them have nothing to do with the case ( for example , volume CARDINAL contains files concerning disappearances which occurred after DATE ) . ... \u201d","On DATE case no . CARDINAL\/P\/CARDINAL was split into CARDINAL cases and the subsequent investigation was assigned to the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG .","On DATE CARDINAL of those CARDINAL cases were joined . After that date the investigation focused on CARDINAL main cases .","The first concerned charges of incitement to or participation in aggravated unlawful killing , particularly that of PERSON - PERSON . The persons accused of that offence were the President of GPE at the relevant time and CARDINAL senior army officers , including the Minister of the Interior .","NORP The decision of DATE bring charges , and the subsequent decision of DATE to sever the charges , state that , on orders from the then President , on the TIME of DATE and TIME to DATE the security forces and army personnel used their weapons and heavy ammunition against demonstrators , killing CARDINAL persons , injuring CARDINAL others and endangering the lives of other persons .","The charges against the former President were subsequently severed from those against the other defendants , who were high - ranking military officers , and a decision to discontinue proceedings against him was issued .","At DATE this first branch of the investigation was still pending in respect of CARDINAL of the officers in question , the CARDINAL others having died in the meantime .","The other case concerning the events of DATE , which investigated , in particular , the criminal complaint for violence lodged by Mr GPE and the ransacking of the applicant association \u2019s LOC , concerned charges of incitement to commit or participation in acts of sedition ( subminarea puterii de stat ) , sabotage ( actele de diversiune ) , inhuman treatment ( tratamentele neomenoase ) , propaganda in favour of war ( propaganda pentru r\u0103zboi ) and genocide , within the meaning of LAW ( a ) to ( c ) of LAW .","The persons accused of those acts were the former President , several high - ranking officers and CARDINAL of civilians . Proceedings were brought in respect of these charges against the former President on DATE and against the former head of the GPE on DATE .","This second branch of the investigation was closed by a decision not to bring a prosecution , adopted on DATE . That decision was upheld by a judgment delivered on CARDINAL DATE by ORG and ORG following an appeal by Mr Stoica .","The main stages of the investigation are described below .","On DATE the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG issued its decision in case no . CARDINAL\/P\/CARDINAL , following an investigation concerning CARDINAL persons who had been victims of violence and unlawful arrests , including PERSON and CARDINAL members of the applicant association , as well as the applicant association itself and QUANTITY other legal entities whose LOC had been ransacked during the events of CARDINAL to DATE .","Of the CARDINAL victims listed in the table contained in the decision of DATE , CARDINAL had been assaulted and deprived of their liberty at the headquarters of the ORG television station . In the final column , indicating the stage reached in the investigations , the table notes that \u201c the case has not been investigated \u201d ( cauza nu este cercetat\u0103 ) in respect of those CARDINAL persons .","NORP In its decision , the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office indicated that other complaints were pending before the civilian ORG offices .","It added that its decision also concerned \u201c the presumed unlawful killing of CARDINAL individuals during the events of CARDINAL to DATE , [ whose corpses ] were allegedly incinerated or buried in common graves in cemeteries in villages near GPE ( notably ORG ) \u201d .","It also indicated that , to date , the investigation had been unable to identify the persons who had implemented in practice the executive \u2019s decision to summon civilians to restore order in GPE . According to the prosecution service , this failing in the investigation was due to the \u201c fact that none of the persons who held posts of responsibility at the relevant time [ had ] been questioned \u201d , particularly the then President of GPE , the Prime Minister and his deputy , the Minister of the Interior , the head of the police , the director of the GPE and the Minister of Defence .","NORP In its decision , the military section ordered that the case be split into CARDINAL separate case files .","The first of those files was to focus on the continued investigation into the unlawful killing by gunfire of CARDINAL civilians , including the first applicant \u2019s husband .","The second file targeted those persons who had exercised functions pertaining to civilian and military command . The authorities decided to pursue the investigation in respect of them , in particular for abuse of power against the public interest entailing serious consequences , an offence punishable under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , and also to investigate the fact that one social group had been enlisted alongside the security forces to combat other social groups .","The third file concerned the continuing investigations into the possible existence of other victims who had been killed during the violent incidents of CARDINAL to DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Lastly , considering that the prosecution was statute - barred , the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office decided to discontinue the proceedings against unidentified members of the security forces and groups of miners in respect of the offences of armed robbery , unlawful deprivation of liberty , abusive conduct , improper investigation , abuse of power against private interests , assault , actual bodily harm , destruction of property , theft , breaking and entering homes , malfeasance and rape , committed CARDINAL and DATE .","This part of the decision of CARDINAL DATE was set aside in a decision issued on DATE by the head of the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u015eeful PERSON ) at ORG , which ordered that the proceedings and investigations intended to identify all the victims be resumed , specifying in that respect that it had been established that the number of victims greatly exceeded that of the injured parties listed in the impugned decision .","In addition , the decision of DATE noted that the investigators had so far failed to conduct investigations into the \u201c known collusion \u201d between ORG and the leaders of the mining companies \u201c with a view to organising a veritable apparatus of unlawful repression \u201d , that collusion having been established , according to the decision by the evidence contained in the case file .","After the decision of CARDINAL DATE , the investigations into the unlawful killing of Mr PERSON - PERSON continued under case no . PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","PERSON and the CARDINAL children she had had with the victim joined the proceedings as civil parties .","CARDINAL generals \u2013 the former Minister of the ORG and his deputy DATE and CARDINAL senior - ranking officials were charged with the unlawful killings committed on DATE , including that of the applicant \u2019s husband , on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE DATE and DATE respectively .","All CARDINAL were committed for trial on the basis of a decision to that effect ( rechizitoriu ) of DATE , on the ground that they had called for DATE and , in the case of the CARDINAL generals , ordered \u2013 the opening of fire with heavy ammunition , an act which resulted in the death of CARDINAL individuals and which caused serious injury to CARDINAL other persons .","By a decision of DATE , ORG remitted the case to the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG for additional investigation intended to remedy various deficiencies , and reclassified the offence as participation in aggravated unlawful killing . It also ordered a series of investigative measures to be taken .","PERSON , other civil parties and the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office appealed against that decision on points of law . Their appeals were dismissed by ORG and ORG ( as ORG was renamed in DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in a judgment of DATE .","After the investigation was resumed , the proceedings against the CARDINAL defendants were discontinued by a decision of DATE . That decision having been overturned on DATE , the proceedings were reopened .","After carrying out an additional investigation in line with the instructions set out in the judgment of DATE , the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and ORG committed the former Minister of the ORG , his deputy and CARDINAL other senior army officers for trial in a decision to that effect of DATE . It discontinued proceedings against the fifth officer , who had died in the meantime .","According to the decision to commit for trial , \u201c the lack of reaction by the public authorities \u201d and the lack of an immediate effective investigation \u201c [ had ] endangered the very existence of democracy and the rule of law \u201d .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG and ORG ordered that the case be sent back to the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office for a breach of procedural rules , primarily on the ground that criminal proceedings against a former minister could only be brought through a special procedure requiring prior authorisation by ORG .","On DATE the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and ORG lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision , but this was dismissed on DATE .","On DATE the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and ORG stated that it did not have jurisdiction to examine this branch of the case , mainly because members of the police force \u2013 including the Minister of the Interior \u2013 had become civil servants following a legislative amendment , and the military courts and prosecutors thus no longer had jurisdiction over their criminal acts , even where those had been committed while they were still military officers . It therefore relinquished jurisdiction to one of the ordinary criminal sections of the same prosecutor \u2019s office , namely ORG ( Sec\u0163ia de urm\u0103rire penal\u0103 \u015fi criminalistic\u0103 ) .","By a decision of DATE , that ORG discontinued the proceedings against the former minister and his deputy , both of whom had died on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","By the same decision , the same Section of the prosecutor \u2019s office declared that it did not have jurisdiction in respect of the last CARDINAL surviving defendants , ORG and GPE , and referred their cases to the military prosecutor \u2019s office at the GPE regional military court .","This investigation was pending before that prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE .","This part of the investigation concerned the charges against the former President of GPE with regard to the victims who were killed or injured by gunshots fired by the army on DATE .","The former President of GPE , in office from DATE and from DATE , was charged on DATE , by which date he was exercising the functions of senator and was a member of parliament . He was accused of having \u201c deliberately incited servicemen to use force against the demonstrators in FAC and in other districts of the capital , an act which resulted in the death or injury by gunfire of several persons \u201d . Those facts were characterised as participation lato sensu in aggravated unlawful killing , a crime punishable under ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( e ) and CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW , taken together with LAW of that Code .","On DATE those charges were severed from case no . CARDINAL . The investigation continued under case no . CARDINAL\/P\/CARDINAL .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG , ruling in a case unrelated to the present one , had delivered a judgment ruling that the military courts did not have jurisdiction to judge or prosecute civilian defendants . In consequence , by a decision of DATE the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office held that it did not have jurisdiction to examine case no . CARDINAL\/P\/CARDINAL and relinquished jurisdiction to CARDINAL of the ordinary criminal sections .","On DATE the Procurator General of GPE set aside , for procedural errors , the indictment of DATE , and ordered that the investigation be resumed .","By a decision of DATE , ORG of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and ORG issued a decision not to bring a prosecution , on the ground that there was no causal link between the order to clear FAC issued by the former President and the decision taken by CARDINAL officers , with the agreement of their superiors \u2013 General A. and General PERSON ( Minister of the ORG ) DATE to give the order to open fire on the demonstrators .","In so ruling , the prosecutor \u2019s office held that the objectives of the action plan drawn up on DATE had been fulfilled by TIME on TIME , and that the following events , including the subsequent orders to open fire , had had nothing to do with that plan and could not have been foreseen by those who prepared it .","On DATE PERSON and other injured parties challenged this decision not to bring a prosecution .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge bench of ORG and ORG dismissed their appeals , finding them inadmissible , out of time or unfounded , depending on the case . It concluded that there was no causal link between the acts imputed to the former President and the unpredictable consequences of the demonstrations which had resulted in the deaths of several persons . Moreover , it noted that CARDINAL of the injured parties \u2013 widows or relatives of the victims who died on CARDINAL and DATE , including PERSON , had stated at a hearing on DATE that they did not intend to challenge the decision not to bring a prosecution in respect of the former President and that they wished only that those responsible for the unlawful killings be identified and that they be held liable . Following an appeal on points of law by the civil parties , that decision was upheld by a CARDINAL - judge bench of ORG in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","According to the forensic autopsy report carried out on PERSON Mocanu \u2019s husband , he died as a result of gunshot wounds inflicted by a third party .","NORP The applicant made her first specific request to join the proceedings as a civil party on DATE . On the same date the applicant and the other civil parties \u2013 relatives of the CARDINAL other persons who had been killed during the events of CARDINAL and DATE filed joint pleadings containing their observations as to the identity of those responsible for the deaths of their relatives , and their claims for compensation .","On DATE the applicant was questioned for the first time by the prosecutor \u2019s office for the purposes of the investigation . Assisted by a lawyer of her own choice , she stated that her husband had not returned home on TIME of CARDINAL DATE , that this had worried her , that she had searched for him the following day without success , and that she had subsequently learned from the press that he had been killed by a shot to the head . No investigator or official representative had visited her , nor had she been summoned for the purposes of the investigation ; only a few journalists had come to see her . She stated that , aged DATE and without employment at the relevant time , since her husband \u2019s death she had raised their CARDINAL children , a daughter of DATE ( born in DATE ) and a DATE son , alone .","The documents in the file submitted to the ORG do not indicate whether PERSON was kept informed about developments in the investigation into the aggravated unlawful killing of her husband following ORG and ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE ordering that the case be remitted to the prosecutor \u2019s office .","DATE and DATE , criminal proceedings were brought against CARDINAL persons \u2013 QUANTITY civilians and QUANTITY servicemen \u2013 essentially for acts of sedition committed in the course of the events of DATE . The former President of GPE was among those prosecuted . He was charged on DATE with participation in genocide ( paragraphs ( a ) , ( b ) and ( c ) of LAW ) , propaganda in favour of war ( LAW ) , inhuman treatment ( LAW ) , sedition ( LAW and acts of sabotage ( LAW ) .","The vast majority of the CARDINAL civilians charged were directors of mining companies , heads of ORG trade unions and senior civil servants in ORG .","On DATE this branch of the investigation was allocated the file number CARDINAL\/P\/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and ORG ordered that the case in file no . CARDINAL\/P\/CARDINAL be split into CARDINAL parts , CARDINAL concerning the criminal charges against the CARDINAL civilians , including the former President of GPE and the former head of the GPE , and the other concerning the charges against the CARDINAL servicemen . The investigation with regard to the CARDINAL civilians was to be pursued before the relevant civilian section of the same prosecutor \u2019s office .","By a decision of DATE , the head prosecutor in the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office set aside the decision of DATE , finding that , given the close connection between the events , a single prosecutor \u2019s office , namely the relevant civilian section , was to examine the entirety of the case in respect of all of the defendants , both civilians and servicemen .","NORP In line with that decision , on DATE the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and ORG also relinquished jurisdiction to the relevant civilian section for examination of the criminal charges against the CARDINAL servicemen \u2013 including several generals , the former head of police and the former Minister of the ORG .","The decision of DATE contained a list of CARDINAL victims who had been held and subjected to ill - treatment , notably on the LOC of FAC and the PERSON military unit . Mr PERSON was included in this list of victims . The decision also contained a list of the legal entities which had sustained damage during the crackdown of CARDINAL to DATE , including the applicant association .","NORP That decision also referred to \u201c identification of the CARDINAL persons who died during the events of CARDINAL to DATE \u201d .","It also contained a list of the ORG - owned companies which had provided workers for the intervention in GPE . That list included , in particular , CARDINAL mining companies from all around the country and factories in CARDINAL towns ( GPE , GPE , PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and GPE ) , as well as CARDINAL factories in GPE .","Following that decision , on CARDINAL DATE the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office sent the CARDINAL volumes , containing a total of CARDINAL pages , from case no . CARDINAL\/P\/CARDINAL to the relevant civilian section of the prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and ORG which had received the entire file , namely ORG , stated that it did not have jurisdiction , and relinquished jurisdiction to another section of the same prosecutor \u2019s office , namely ORG ( ORG a ORG ) .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the relevant directorate of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and Justice , namely the ORG , decided that no prosecution would be brought against the former head of the GPE on the charge of sedition , as that offence had become time - barred , and that no prosecution would be brought against the majority of the CARDINAL civilian defendants \u2013 directors of mining companies , heads of ORG trade unions , senior civil servants at ORG and in local government \u2013 on the ground that the constituent elements of the offence had not been made out .","In so ruling , the prosecutor \u2019s office considered that , in their respective capacities as Head of ORG , Minister of the ORG , deputy minister or Head of Police , some of the defendants exercised ORG authority , and it would have been illogical to think that they could have committed acts capable of undermining their own power . As to the miners and other workers who had travelled to GPE on DATE , the prosecutor \u2019s office considered that they had \u201c turned themselves into security forces \u201d and been persuaded that their actions served ORG power . In addition , it noted that their intervention had been pointless , since the operation conducted by the parachutists at the television headquarters had enabled order to be restored in the capital at TIME on DATE .","NORP The prosecution also discontinued the proceedings against CARDINAL of the defendants , who had died in the meantime .","Lastly , the ORG decided to relinquish jurisdiction to ORG with regard to the remainder of the case , namely the charges of inhuman treatment , propaganda in favour of war and genocide , within the meaning of LAW ( a ) to ( c ) of LAW . Those facts concerned CARDINAL of the persons who had been charged during DATE , including the former president .","On DATE a decision was taken not to bring a prosecution in respect of those charges ; its content is set out below .","NORP On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and ORG issued a decision not to bring a prosecution in the case , concerning essentially charges of inhuman treatment arising from CARDINAL complaints by persons injured as a result of the violence committed from CARDINAL to DATE .","NORP The decision in question indicated that the former Head of State had not been examined as a defendant in the course of the investigation .","It gave a comprehensive description of the violence DATE classified as extreme cruelty \u2013 inflicted on CARDINAL persons .","It was indicated that the investigations conducted DATE by the civilian prosecutor \u2019s offices and , subsequently , by the military prosecuting authorities , had not made it possible to establish the identity of the perpetrators or the degree of involvement of the security forces . The relevant passage from the decision reads as follows :","\u201c The investigations carried out over a period of DATE by the civilian ORG offices and , subsequently , by the military prosecuting authorities , the findings of which are contained in case file ... have not made it possible to establish the identity of the miners who committed the attack , the degree of involvement in their actions by the security forces and members and sympathisers of the ORG and their role and degree of involvement in the acts of violence carried out against the residents of the capital on CARDINAL and DATE . \u201d","NORP This decision ordered that proceedings be discontinued against one of the defendants , who had died in the meantime , and that no prosecution would be brought ( scoatere de sub urm\u0103rire penal\u0103 ) in respect of the CARDINAL remaining defendants for those offences which had become statute - barred , in particular harbouring a criminal .","With regard to the offences which had not become time - barred , especially those of inhuman treatment , the decision stated that there was no case to answer , since the constituent elements of the offences had not been made out or because the reality of the events complained of had not been proven .","In this connection , it was indicated that the then Head of ORG could not be criticised for any form of participation in the joint actions by the miners and the armed forces , as he had merely approved the actions which occurred on the morning of DATE and the army \u2019s intervention on TIME , for the stated purpose of restoring order . It was also mentioned that there was no information ( date certe ) to substantiate accusations against him with regard to the preparations for the ORG arrival in GPE and the instructions they had been given . It was noted that his request to the miners to protect the ORG institutions and to restore order DATE following which CARDINAL persons had been deprived of their liberty and subjected to physical assault \u2013 could only be classified as incitement to commit assault and that criminal liability in that respect was time - barred .","The prosecutor \u2019s office considered that the demonstrators and other persons targeted by the miners belonged to various ethnic groups ( NORP , GPE , NORP ) and social categories ( intellectuals , students , school pupils , but also workers ) , and that they could not therefore be regarded as a single group or an identifiable community on objective geographical , historical , social or other grounds , and for that reason the events complained of could not be classified as genocide . Relying on the case - law of ORG for the former GPE , the prosecutor \u2019s office also considered that the persons deprived of liberty had not been systematically subjected to ill - treatment .","NORP The decision further indicated that the speech by which the Head of State had encouraged the miners to occupy and defend FAC against the demonstrators camping out there could not be interpreted as propaganda in favour of war , as the accused had not sought to instigate a conflict of any kind , but had , on the contrary , asked the miners \u201c to put an end to excess and acts of bloodshed \u201d .","It was also indicated that the miners had been motivated by simplistic personal convictions , developed on the basis of collective hysteria , which had led them to act as arbitrators of the political situation and zealous guardians of the political regime \u2013 the leaders of which had recognised them as such \u2013 , authorised to \u201c correct \u201d those who opposed its legitimacy . The prosecutor further noted the legal requirement that , to be punishable , the inhuman treatment had to target \u201c individuals who [ had ] fallen into enemy hands \u201d and considered that this criterion had not been met here , since the miners no longer had any enemy against whom to fight on DATE .","With regard to the accusations of torture , the prosecutor considered that NORP law contained no provisions against torture at the material time .","NORP The decision of CARDINAL DATE analyses each of the charges in respect of each defendant , but refers to none of the victims by name and does not mention the individual acts of violence complained of by each of them , referring to an appendix which has not been submitted to ORG . It mentions the number of victims and their membership of such or such a category , noting , for example , the QUANTITY persons who were arrested and held on the LOC of FAC or the CARDINAL demonstrators who were arrested and imprisoned on the LOC of FAC .","NORP The applicant association , other legal entities and individuals lodged an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE not to bring a prosecution , which was dismissed on DATE by the head prosecutor of the relevant section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and Justice . In so ruling , the prosecutor \u2019s office considered that no actions which could be classified as a crime against humanity , such as inhuman treatment or genocide , had been committed .","Mr GPE and CARDINAL other injured parties also lodged an appeal against the same decision . It was dismissed on DATE . Mr Stoica lodged on appeal on points of law before ORG and ORG .","On DATE , having dismissed the plea of res judicata raised by the former Head of ORG , ORG and ORG ruled on the merits of the decision not to bring a prosecution , and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","In its judgment , it classified the assault against the applicant as grievous bodily harm ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) , unlawful arrest , ill - treatment ( LAW , torture , unjust repression and blackmail . It considered that the decision of DATE had been correct in ruling that no prosecution was to be brought , on the ground that the offences in question had become time - barred and that torture had not been a criminal offence at the material time .","NORP In contrast , it did not rule on the criminalisation of inhuman treatment ( LAW ) , which had been the subject of the decision of DATE , in which the applicant was named as a victim of the inhuman treatment imputed to CARDINAL generals .","According to the Government , the main investigative measures carried out in the period DATE were as follows : CARDINAL interviews with injured parties ; hearing of witnesses on CARDINAL occasions ; and CARDINAL forensic medical reports . The results of those measures were set out in CARDINAL pages of documents .","On DATE , when he was received by a prosecutor at the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG , PERSON lodged an official complaint concerning the violence of which he claimed to have been victim on TIME CARDINAL to DATE .","ORG His complaint was joined to the investigation file already opened in respect of other charges , especially inhuman treatment ( case file no . MONEY ) .","On DATE , for the purposes of the investigation into the alleged assault against him , the applicant underwent an examination at ORG , which produced a forensic medical report . That report indicated that the injuries described in the medical file opened by the emergency unit on DATE had required DATE of medical treatment and had not been such as to endanger the applicant \u2019s life .","It was also indicated that the applicant had been hospitalised for major epileptic fits from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , in DATE and DATE , and that he had been diagnosed as suffering from post - traumatic secondary epilepsy and other cerebral and vascular disorders ( transient ischemic attacks DATE TIAs ) . The expert report noted that the post - traumatic epilepsy had appeared following an injury sustained in DATE .","On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was questioned and was able to give his point of view on the events complained of and submit his claims for compensation in respect of the alleged pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , he was informed by the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG and Justice that his complaint concerning the injuries inflicted on DATE by unidentified servicemen , which had resulted in his hospitalisation \u201c in a coma \u201d , was being investigated in the context of case no . CARDINAL\/P\/CARDINAL .","A certificate issued on DATE indicates that , according to the entries in the register held by the military section of the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG Cassation , the applicant had been received by a prosecutor in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , mainly for the purposes of the investigation or to enquire about progress in the investigation . The applicant lodged CARDINAL additional complaints , on DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE the prosecutor questioned CARDINAL witnesses indicated by the applicant .","When questioned on CARDINAL DATE as an injured party , the applicant asked the military prosecutor to order a second forensic medical report , since he considered that the DATE report had entirely failed to emphasise the seriousness of the injuries sustained in DATE and the continuing after - effects of those injuries .","The prosecutor ordered a new report . Among other things , he asked the forensic specialists to examine whether a causal link existed between the injury sustained by the applicant in DATE and the medical conditions from which he was suffering on the date on which the report was ordered .","During his questioning , the applicant was invited to watch a video recording of the events of CARDINAL DATE , including those at the headquarters of the ORG television station . He recognised himself , and asked that the video recording be added to the investigation file .","On DATE the new medical report was added to the case file . It specified , again on the basis of the medical records drawn up on DATE , that the applicant \u2019s injuries had required DATE of medical treatment and that they had not been life - threatening . It specified that there was no causal link between the injuries sustained on TIME to DATE and the applicant \u2019s medical problems , which had subsequently required numerous periods of hospitalisation .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , the medical observation files on his condition prepared by the emergency unit of ORG in DATE were added to the file .","NORP The medical board at ORG had previously issued the applicant with a certificate , dated DATE , indicating that he was suffering from \u201c overall accentuated impairment \u201d resulting in total inability to work . The relevant passages of this certificate read as follows :","\u201c In view of the medical records in the patient \u2019s file , the documents which have been added recently ... and the clinical psychiatric examination conducted on DATE , the specialist committee and the higher committee reach the following clinical diagnosis : mixed personality disorders , aggravated by organic causes . Acute traumatic brain injury DATE ( assault ) . Epilepsy with partial generalised secondary crises , confirmed clinically and by ORG , currently rare .... , supraventricular incidents in his medical history ( irregular heart rhythm ( flutter ) and atrioventricular block ... , with a return to sinus rhythm ... after cardioversion ) .","Functional diagnosis : overall accentuated impairment .","Fitness for work : totally lost , CARDINALnd level invalidity .","Adaptive incapacity : PERCENT \u201d","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG had issued a decision not to bring a prosecution in another case , following a complaint of attempted murder lodged by the applicant on the basis of the same facts .","On DATE GPE military unit no . CARDINAL sent the applicant association a letter informing it that \u201c an inventory of the items found on DATE [ at the association \u2019s headquarters ] [ had ] been drawn up by the representatives of ORG ( PERSON ) and placed , with an official report , at the headquarters of ORG ( Procuratura Municipiului Bucure\u015fti ) \u201d .","NORP On DATE CARDINAL police officers went to the applicant association \u2019s headquarters . They noted that the windows had been broken and the locks destroyed , and that the items in the headquarters had \u201c all been ransacked \u201d . They drew up a report in the presence of the association \u2019s leaders and a witness .","On DATE the applicant association lodged a criminal complaint with ORG , complaining about the ransacking of its headquarters and the attacks sustained by some of its members on DATE , and demanded the restitution of all the materials and documents which had been confiscated . It requested leave to join the criminal proceedings as a civil party .","On DATE ORG sent the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG CARDINAL case files , opened following criminal complaints by several individuals and legal entities with regard to the events of CARDINAL and DATE . Those files included case file no . CARDINAL\/P\/CARDINAL , which concerned the applicant association \u2019s complaint regarding the ill - treatment inflicted on several of its members . ORG invited the prosecutor \u2019s office to inform it of the steps to be taken with a view to conducting interviews for the purpose of the investigation .","NORP The applicant association contacted the prosecutor \u2019s office at ORG , subsequently ORG and ORG , on a regular basis for information concerning progress in the investigation or to request additional investigative measures , until the investigation was closed by the decision of CARDINAL DATE not to bring a prosecution ."],"violated_articles":["2","3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167497","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ZAUSHKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The applicant PERSON was held in custody without a judicial order from DATE when the detention order of CARDINAL May had expired , and until DATE when a new detention order was issued .","NORP In case of the applicant PERSON , the DATE the court had ordered his transfer from the remand prison under house arrest but he was not transferred until DATE","The applicant Mr PERSON remained in custody after the court had ordered his release on DATE until a higher court overturned the release order on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150217","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF IUSTIN ROBERTINO MICU v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Procedure prescribed by law);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Prohibition of torture);Violation of Article 13+5-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 5-1 - Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","By orders of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ORG ( \u201c the N.A.D. \u201d ) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused , all of them border guard police officers , for bribe - taking and abetting bribe - taking . It held DATE on the basis of testimonial , documentary and surveillance evidence of phone conversations between CARDINAL of the co - accused , his wife and a third party DATE that there was reasonable suspicion that on DATE the applicant and his colleagues had asked CARDINAL NORP nationals to pay them money in order to allow them to leave GPE .","On DATE prosecutor PERSON , who was attached to the N.A.D. , authorised several police officers to enforce a warrant to appear ( mandat de aducere ) issued in the applicant \u2019s name and the names of the CARDINAL coaccused . According to the order to appear produced by the ORG , the applicant \u2019s presence was required in order for him to be heard as an accused ( \u020bnvinuit ) in the criminal investigation instituted against him in DATE . No other reasons or considerations were stated on the order .","On DATE CARDINAL police officers went to the applicant \u2019s workplace to enforce the warrant to appear . According to the report produced by the police officers and signed by the applicant , he was shown the warrant to appear and was informed that he would be taken to the N.A.D. \u2019s LOC . He was also informed that he could contact and retain the services of a legal representative of his own choosing . He refused to do so because he considered that he did not need one . The applicant and the escorting police officers left the applicant \u2019s workplace at TIME","On DATE , at TIME , PERSON informed the applicant in the presence of a publicly appointed legal representative that a criminal investigation had been opened against him for bribe - taking . According to the documents submitted before the ORG , and signed by the applicant and his legal representative , he had refused to retain a legal representative of his own choosing and had accepted assistance from a publicly appointed lawyer . According to the statement made before the prosecutor , he notified the authorities that he suffered from diabetes and that he needed his insulin treatment , which would have to be brought from his workplace . In addition , he requested the authorities to notify his wife in the event of his placement in police custody . He also stated that he reaffirmed the statement he had made previously concerning the events in connection with which he was being investigated . According to the record of the applicant \u2019s statement , he was heard as an accused by the prosecutor at ORG offices from TIME to TIME","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant was informed that at TIME he had been charged with bribe - taking . According to the report produced by the authorities and signed by the applicant and his legal representative he refused to make any statement as a defendant ( inculpat ) and reaffirmed the statement he had made as an accused .","By an order dated DATE the N.A.D. placed the applicant in police custody for TIME commencing at TIME for bribetaking . The arrest order was signed by both the applicant and his legal representative . It stated that on the basis of the available evidence there was reasonable suspicion that the applicant had accepted money from NORP nationals for the purpose of allowing them to return to GPE . It also stated that the offence in question was punishable by over DATE imprisonment and his release would constitute a danger to public order , bearing in mind that he was a border guard officer and had committed the offence at his workplace .","On DATE , relying on testimonial , documentary and audio surveillance evidence , the ORG asked the domestic courts to detain the applicant pending trial .","By an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the ORG \u2019s request and ordered the applicant \u2019s release on condition that he remain in the country . It held that the available evidence was plagued by inconsistencies which should have been resolved by the investigating authorities . In addition , except for the seriousness of the offence , none of the other legal requirements for detaining the applicant pending trial had been met . In particular , there was no evidence in the file that he had attempted to abscond or to obstruct justice . Also , it had not been proven that his release would be a danger to public order , given that the events in question had occurred in DATE and that the applicant was not responsible for the length of the criminal investigation . Consequently , it considered that the implementation of an alternative measure was more appropriate in his case .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a second instance court , dismissed as ill - founded an appeal by the N.A.D. against the interlocutory judgment of DATE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant of bribe - taking and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and acquitted him . It also noted that he had been held in police custody for TIME from DATE .","On DATE the applicant instituted criminal proceedings with no civil claims against the prosecutors investigating his case \u2013 in particular G.B. \u2013 for , inter alia , abuse of office by restricting certain rights , perjury , unlawful arrest and improper investigation , torture and unlawful perversion of justice ( represiune nedreapt\u0103 ) . He argued that the prosecutor had obtained testimonial evidence against him in breach of domestic and international criminal procedure rules and had detained him for TIME instead of the CARDINAL allowed by law . In addition , there had been no reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence , nor had the other legally - required criteria for his detention been met . Also , he had been subjected to intense physical and psychological suffering because the order to appear issued by the prosecutor had been unjustified and devoid of grounds , in breach of LAW ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) . Lastly , he had been refused a medical examination , medical treatment and food for the entire time he was under the authorities\u2019 control , even though he had notified them of his medical condition .","On DATE the applicant brought proceedings seeking to have prosecutor PERSON removed from the case on the grounds that he had instituted criminal proceedings against him in DATE .","By a final order delivered on DATE , the hierarchically superior prosecutor attached to ORG , namely ORG , dismissed the applicant \u2019s action of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that there was no evidence in the file that PERSON had had a personal interest in the outcome of the case or that he had had a feud with CARDINAL of the parties in the case . The fact that the applicant had instituted criminal proceedings against him was not an incompatibility ground provided for by law .","By a final order of DATE the public prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint of DATE against the prosecutor PERSON on the grounds that the offences cited by the applicant were inexistent and that his claims amounted to a complaint against the acts and measures carried out by the prosecutor during the investigation stage of the criminal proceedings instituted against him . The purpose of a criminal complaint was not , however , to censor the acts and measures carried out by a prosecutor . The lawfulness of such measures could only be examined within the framework of a complaint lodged with the hierarchically superior prosecutor against the acts and measures carried out by the investigating prosecutor . The applicant appealed against the order before the domestic courts .","By interlocutory judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG ordered that the investigation file be attached to the court \u2019s file and that PERSON be summoned before the court . According to the applicant , neither the investigation file nor PERSON was ever presented to the court .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint against the order of DATE . It held that the applicant \u2019s complaints concerned investigative acts carried out by PERSON During ongoing criminal proceedings , other legal remedies are available to the accused or the defendant(s ) by virtue of the criminal procedure rules , and these could have been used here to express dissatisfaction in respect of the alleged breaches of the procedural rules and of their lawful rights . In this connection , the court identified several complaints the applicant could have lodged within the framework of the criminal proceedings instituted against him , namely a complaint against the prosecutor \u2019s orders for preventive measures and based on Article CARDINAL et seq . , Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , Article CARDINAL et seq . , and Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG . In addition to the aforementioned legal remedies , the defendants had other lawful means of lodging complaints against the person investigating or supervising the investigation of their case . However , a criminal complaint lodged against the prosecutor who had carried out the investigation in criminal proceedings that were still pending was not one of the legal means the applicant could have used , as it opened up the possibility of having aspects of legality regarding the pending criminal trial examined outside the framework expressly provided by LAW and of examining aspects of the criminal proceedings instituted against him . Moreover , the procedure allowing the prosecutor \u2019s orders to be challenged before domestic courts did not allow the court to substitute its judgment for that of the judicial organs charged with the examination of the pending criminal proceedings instituted against him . The applicant appealed on points of law ( recurs ) against the judgment .","On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against ORG seeking an injunction to force that court to examine both the appeal on points of law lodged by him against the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the unconstitutionality objections raised by him after the previously mentioned judgment was delivered .","On DATE , by a final judgment delivered in private , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law against the judgment of DATE as inadmissible . It held that , following recent law reforms , judgments delivered by the domestic courts in proceedings challenging the legality of a prosecutor \u2019s decision not to institute criminal proceedings were no longer appealable before CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action of DATE . It held that ordering ORG to examine his appeal on points of law would breach the principle of legal certainty . In addition , an unconstitutionality objection had been raised by the applicant after the proceedings had ended on DATE and there was no legal framework that would allow ORG to force another court to examine them . The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and according to him , the appeal was dismissed as ill - founded .","On DATE the applicant brought criminal proceedings with no civil claims against the prosecutor L.P. for abuse of office against the public interest , incitement to the unlawful exercise of a profession and to perjury , incitement to unlawful perversion of justice , and incitement to the retention and destruction of documents . He claimed that , as ORG \u2019s hierarchically superior prosecutor , ORG had approved the criminal - investigation measures undertaken by ORG , including the evidence dismissed and gathered by him , and had allowed PERSON to detain him and institute the criminal proceedings against him , even though he had been aware that he was innocent .","By a final order of CARDINAL DATE the public prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint against ORG on the grounds that the offences cited by the applicant were non - existent . It held that the complaints lodged by the applicant against ORG were related to those lodged by him against PERSON In the latter \u2019s case the public prosecutor \u2019s office had already discontinued the criminal investigation for similar reasons . The applicant appealed against the order before the domestic courts .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint against the order of DATE . It held that ORG had neither investigated the applicant \u2019s case nor undertaken any acts or measures in this respect . He had merely approved the proposal submitted by PERSON before the domestic courts to detain the applicant pending trial . The fact that he had examined and dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints in respect of the legality of the criminal proceedings instituted against him did not engage his criminal liability . In the absence of evidence to suggest that the prosecutor had acted unlawfully or that he had breached his duties , the applicant \u2019s arguments in support of his complaint could not be assessed within the framework of a criminal investigation . Most of the applicant \u2019s complaints were in fact arguments in his defence based on challenges to the way the evidence had been produced , the measures undertaken and the procedural flaws . According to the relevant criminal procedure rules , such complaints could be raised by the applicant before the domestic courts examining his case but could not be interpreted as constituting the elements of an offence . The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment .","On DATE , by a final judgment delivered in private , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE as inadmissible . It held that , following recent law reforms , judgments delivered by the domestic courts in proceedings challenging the legality of a prosecutor \u2019s decision not to institute criminal proceedings were no longer appealable before QUANTITY of jurisdiction .","On DATE the applicant brought criminal proceedings with no civil claims against prosecutors ORG for breach of the secrecy of his correspondence , amongst other things . He argued that the CARDINAL prosecutors had unlawfully monitored his electronic mail correspondence during DATE and in DATE had publicly presented the content of CARDINAL of his electronic mails in court .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the criminal proceedings with no civil claims that had been brought by the applicant against prosecutor PERSON for forgery and use of forged documents during the course of the criminal proceedings conducted by the said prosecutor against him . It held that the offences alleged by him were in fact allegations of breaches of procedural rules by the prosecutor investigating his case , which could have been examined by the appellate courts over the course of the criminal proceedings instituted against him , particularly since the proceedings in question were still pending before the domestic courts .","By a final order of CARDINAL DATE ORG attached to ORG dismissed criminal proceedings that had been instituted by the applicant against prosecutors ORG on DATE on the grounds that no unlawful act had been committed . The applicant did not appeal against the order before the domestic courts .","By a final order of CARDINAL DATE , the public prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG dismissed criminal proceedings that had been instituted by the applicant against , inter alia , prosecutors ORG for slanderous denunciation , unlawful arrest and abusive investigation , and forgery on the grounds that , amongst other things , the available evidence did not suggest the existence of any offence committed by the aforementioned prosecutors . The applicant did not challenge the decision before the domestic courts .","According to the applicant \u2019s medical papers he has been suffering from type - CARDINAL diabetes since DATE and has been treated with insulin since DATE .","On DATE at TIME , prior to being placed in a detention cell , the applicant was examined by the detention center \u2019s medical nurse . According to the report produced on DATE , the applicant \u2019s general condition was relatively good . He informed the medical nurse that he required insulin treatment twice a day , in the morning and in the evening . He said that he had tested his own blood sugar level using his own tester at TIME and that his blood sugar level was high .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor specialising in diabetes and nutrition . According to the medical certificate produced on DATE , the applicant was following a programme of treatment involving CARDINAL insulin injections per day , CARDINAL in the morning and CARDINAL in the evening .","DATE and DATE the applicant was examined by specialist doctors and was tested CARDINAL times . According to the medical certificates produced on those dates , he continued to receive CARDINAL injections of insulin per day until DATE , but the dosage was increased twice . In addition , doctors recommended that he take sick leave on QUANTITY occasions . Furthermore , on DATE it was recommended that he take his evening insulin dosage no earlier than TIME In DATE he was advised to administer CARDINAL insulin injections per day .","In his initial submission to the ORG on DATE the applicant stated that on DATE at TIME the QUANTITY police officers holding the warrant to appear had taken him to the ORG \u2019s office . At the ORG \u2019s office he had been left waiting in a room until TIME , when the police officers informed him that he needed to retain the services of a legal representative . Afterwards , he had again been left waiting for TIME .","At TIME a publicly appointed legal representative had arrived and the applicant had been questioned by prosecutor PERSON in her presence . He had been asked CARDINAL short questions and afterwards he had once more been left waiting .","At TIME prosecutor PERSON had informed the applicant that he had been placed in police custody for TIME .","At TIME he had been handcuffed and taken to the detention center . At the detention center the police guards had taken away from him the syringe , the insulin and the device for measuring blood sugar levels he had had on him . The applicant had informed the police guards that he was suffering from diabetes and retinopathy and that he had not eaten DATE . His request for a medical test to be carried out by a doctor had been dismissed and he had been visited by a nurse .","In his submission before the ORG on DATE the applicant stated that on DATE after being taken to the ORG \u2019s office , he had been locked in a room and guarded by armed guards . Although he had informed the prosecutor investigating his case that he had been suffering from diabetes requiring insulin treatment and retinopathy , the latter had refused to allow him to eat for the purposes of being able to take his insulin treatment .","On DATE , according to the applicant , his CARDINAL mobile phones had been confiscated by the police officers who accompanied him to the ORG \u2019s office without producing a report attesting to this confiscation measure . Also , he had been denied contact with his family and had not been allowed to retain the services of a legal representative of his own choosing . During his placement in police custody he had not been provided with food appropriate to his condition or with plates , glasses or cutlery to be able to eat the food .","On DATE the N.A.D. informed the Government that as soon as the applicant had informed the prosecutor investigating his case that he suffered from diabetes and needed his insulin treatment \u2012 which would have to be brought from his workplace \u2012 steps had been taken to retrieve the applicant \u2019s treatment from his workplace . Within TIME the applicant had had access to his treatment kit and had been allowed to use it without any restriction . In addition , the police officer who had brought the treatment kit from the applicant \u2019s workplace had also bought food for the applicant using his own money and had allowed him to eat .","On DATE the N.A.D. informed the Government that the applicant had been questioned by the prosecutor as an accused from TIME to TIME The fact that the record of the applicant \u2019s statement mentioned TIME ( CARDINAL ) as the time when the hearing had ended had been an error , given that the next procedural act carried out by the prosecutor had started at TIME In addition , the ORG stated and provided evidence that for the rest of the time the prosecutor had not been hearing or carrying out procedural acts in relation to the applicant , but rather had been working on procedural acts and measures undertaken in relation to the CARDINAL remaining co - accused and the available witnesses ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177127","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"\u0106ALOVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a LOC national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is an executive director of ORG , a LOC NGO . Its avowed aim is , inter alia , \u201c to increase the transparency and responsibility of institutions and improve the civil control thereof \u201d . The applicant was represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the Government adopted an Action Plan for the Fight against Corruption and Organised Crime ( \u201c the Action Plan \u201d ) . ORG , inter alia , provided for \u201c ensuring connection to the databases of telecommunication services providers for the purposes of collecting data , in accordance with police powers ( ovla\u0161\u0107enjima ) as provided for by LAW \u201d .","On DATE , in accordance with ORG , the GPE police ( Uprava policije PERSON ) concluded an agreement with M - tel , one of the telecommunication providers operating in GPE , which allowed them direct and uncontrolled access to M - tel \u2019s entire database through an adequate interface \u201c whenever possible and necessary \u201d , including access to lists of all calls and their duration , messages , location , date , and time .","On DATE the applicant , who was subscribed to M - tel \u2019s services , filed a constitutional appeal with ORG . She maintained that the police could obtain all the information on her telephone calls without any judicial control ; that the police could directly access the computer network and database of mobile telephone operators ; and that the scope of the police authority was unknown , given that the agreement was classified as \u201c top secret \u201d ( strogo povjerljivo ) . In doing so , she relied on , inter alia , LAW and the relevant case - law of the ORG .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal as inadmissible , as it had not been lodged against any individual decision relating to her own rights . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the application was communicated to the respondent Government . In their observations dated DATE the Government informed ORG following .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) carried out an inspection at M - tel of its own motion . In a report of CARDINAL DATE the ORG stated that the impugned agreement , concluded on the basis of LAW DATE in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , was contrary to certain sections of LAW .","On DATE the ORG , acting upon an objection by M - tel to the previous report , issued a decision ordering M - tel to discontinue providing data contrary to LAW , a decision which was upheld by ORG on DATE . ORG also cited LAW and some of the ORG \u2019s case - law in its decision , such as ORG v. GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , and PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL ) . None of the parties initiated a further administrative dispute before ORG .","On DATE deactivated the login by which the police could access its data .","On DATE the ORG carried out an inspection at the police offices . In a report of DATE it stated that no irregularities had been found . In particular , M - tel had complied with the ORG \u2019s decision and had deactivated the interface through which the police had direct access to its data .","Between an unspecified date in DATE and DATE the ORG received CARDINAL protection requests , in relation to which it issued CARDINAL decisions , CARDINAL of which were in favour of those who had submitted the requests . Apparently , in the remaining CARDINAL cases , the ORG issued reports with recommendations which were complied with , thus no separate decision was necessary , and the proceedings were consequently terminated .","On an unspecified date the applicant and CARDINAL of her colleagues instituted civil proceedings , seeking that the impugned agreement be declared null and void . They did not seek compensation .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE ruled in favour of the applicant and her colleagues . It found that the agreement was contrary to , inter alia , LAW case - law , and was thus null and void . The court analysed the agreement in detail and found that it had enabled the police to obtain direct and unrestricted access and recover all of M - tel \u2019s data , without defining the scope of those measures or the method of their implementation , or against whom those measures could be applied or for which reasons . All of this , in the court \u2019s opinion , represented an interference with ORG privacy and was not necessary within the meaning of LAW . It also found that the provider \u2019s clients had no means of establishing if any measures were in place or had been applied in the past in respect of them , nor did they have any \u201c effective control \u201d at their disposal , which also represented a violation of LAW . The court cited PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) ; PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL ) ; PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE ) ; and PERSON ( cited above ) .","That judgment became final on DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant and CARDINAL colleagues filed a compensation claim against the police in relation to having their electronic communication put under surveillance in connection with the publication of a certain video on GPE .","On DATE ORG in GPE ruled in their favour and awarded them MONEY ( ORG ) each under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court found that , on the basis of all the evidence , there was a reasonable probability that the communications of the applicant and her colleagues over the internet had been put under police surveillance for the purposes of identifying an IP address from which the said video had been put on GPE , and that the applicant and her colleagues had never obtained the data thereby collected , even though they had explicitly asked for it . The court held that , even if the police action had been lawful , it did not meet the criterion of necessity in LAW . It found a violation of LAW and relied on the ORG \u2019s case - law , notably PERSON v. GPE DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , and Niemietz , PERSON , and PERSON ( all CARDINAL cited above ) .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE reduced the damages awarded to ORG CARDINAL each and upheld the remainder of the previous judgment .","On DATE and DATE PERSON filed proposals for the assessment of the constitutionality of LAW and LAW DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE and DATE ORG found the relevant part of those Articles unconstitutional and contrary to LAW , namely the part which enabled the police to ask a telecommunication provider \u201c to check if telecommunication addresses which established a connection at a certain time [ were ] identical \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In doing so , ORG cited the ORG \u2019s case - law , such as ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] ( no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALV ) ; PERSON and Others v. GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) ; ORG v. GPE ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINALA ) ; ORG ; and PERSON ( both cited above ) .","In accordance with this LAW , a person who believes that his or her rights under this LAW have been violated can file a request for protection with the ORG , an independent supervisory body , which has to make a decision on the request within DATE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , and sections CARDINAL ) . Those who collect , store , change , use , publish , erase or destroy information will be responsible for any damage caused by a violation of the rights provided for by this Act , in accordance with the general rules on compensation ( sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) . The ORG carries out an inspection ( nadzor ) of its own motion , but anybody else can also file a proposal for an inspection ( section CARDINAL ) .","Article CARDINAL provided , inter alia , that if there was a reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence prosecuted ex officio had been committed , the police had a duty to implement the necessary measures in order to find the perpetrator , ensure that the perpetrator or an accomplice did not flee or hide , uncover and secure the traces of the criminal offence and objects which could serve as evidence , and collect all the information which could be useful in criminal proceedings . Paragraph CARDINAL of the same Article provided that , in order to fulfill their duties under paragraph CARDINAL , the police could ask a telecommunication services provider to \u201c check if telecommunication addresses which established a connection at a certain time [ were ] identical \u201d ( zatra\u017ei provjeru identi\u010dnosti telekomunikacijskih adresa koje su u odre\u0111enom vremenu uspostavile vezu ) . No court order was needed in this regard .","This Code entered into force on DATE and thereby repealed DATE ( except for LAW , which is not relevant to the present case ) . The relevant part of LAW corresponded to LAW .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that anyone is entitled to ask a court or another competent body to order the termination ( prestanak ) of an action violating his or her personal integrity , personal and family life and other personal rights ( prava njegove li\u010dnosti ) . Section CARDINAL ) provides that a legal entity , including the ORG , is liable for any damage caused by CARDINAL of \u201c its bodies \u201d . Sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL provide that anyone who has suffered fear , physical pain or mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of personal rights ( prava li\u010dnosti ) is entitled to sue for financial compensation in the civil courts and , in addition , to request other forms of redress \u201c which might be capable \u201d of affording adequate non - pecuniary relief . This Act entered into force on DATE .","DATE and DATE ORG in GPE issued CARDINAL judgments ( ORG . CARDINAL , ORG . CARDINAL , ORG . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL ) awarding damages to various plaintiffs for violations of their reputation , honour and personal rights ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . CARDINAL of the judgments were against the ORG , CARDINAL against the city of GPE and CARDINAL against a private person ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156541","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"OSMAYEV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON ORG , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . Until his release on DATE he had been detained in GPE . He was represented before ORG by Ms PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , most recently PERSON .","ORG exercised their right of third - party intervention in accordance with LAW and were represented by ORG at ORG , PERSON . Their submissions concerned the applicant \u2019s complaint that he would be exposed to risk of ill - treatment in case of extradition to GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and several other ethnic NORP on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation and planning an assassination attempt on PERSON , the president of GPE , in the course of his visit to GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicant left GPE and entered GPE in DATE .","On DATE the ORG placed the applicant on the international wanted list .","On DATE the ORG convicted some of the applicant \u2019s co - defendants of various crimes , including planning an assassination attempt on Mr PERSON .","On DATE , following the applicant \u2019s arrest in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG of GPE requested that its NORP counterpart extradite the applicant to GPE on several charges including participation in an illegal armed group and planning an assassination attempt on a public figure . The request contained assurances that the applicant \u2019s defence rights would be respected , that he would not be subjected to treatment contrary to LAW , and would not be sentenced to the death penalty .","Following the applicant \u2019s arrest in GPE , the NORP human rights organisation \u201c ORG with Political Prisoners \u201d issued a statement recalling that it had previously declared the applicant to be a person persecuted for political reasons because it believed that the criminal case against him for the planning of an assassination attempt on PERSON was fabricated and politically motivated .","On DATE the ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of planning an assassination attempt on the Prime Minister of GPE .","On DATE ORG of GPE sent its NORP counterpart another request for the applicant \u2019s extradition on charges of planning an assassination attempt on a public figure and several related charges in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant on DATE . The request contained assurances identical to those in the request of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE PERSON , an NORP member of ORG , wrote to the President of GPE urging him to prevent the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE in view of the risk of ill - treatment and an unfair trial . Relying in particular on examples from the reports of ORG , she described the alleged serious ill - treatment suffered by a number of NORP at the hands of NORP law enforcement authorities and PERSON forces .","On DATE ORG of Ukraine ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) decided to extradite the applicant to GPE .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the extradition decision . He noted , in particular , that if extradited he would be deprived of the right to be tried in GPE and compensation for the damage caused to NORP victims of his crimes in GPE would be hindered , and that he was being persecuted by NORP authorities for political reasons . He also noted that proceedings concerning his asylum request in GPE were pending ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that he faced the risk of ill - treatment contrary to LAW , unfair trial and the death penalty in GPE . He referred to PERSON letter and the statement of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant sent a declaration renouncing his NORP citizenship to ORG of GPE .","On DATE the Odessa ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) examined the applicant \u2019s appeal in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer and upheld the decision . It found , in particular , that in the light of the assurances provided by the NORP authorities and the nature of the accusations against him , the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning the risk of the death penalty , ill - treatment and politically motivated prosecution were unsubstantiated . The court also held that the publications about the occurrence of torture in GPE in general did not prove that the applicant personally would be ill - treated . The court stated that the decision of DATE to dismiss the applicant \u2019s request for asylum ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) proved that the applicant was not a permanent resident of GPE , which would prevent his extradition under domestic law . The court took no decision concerning the applicant \u2019s detention pending extradition .","The applicant appealed against the decision of ORG , referring to essentially the same arguments as before and also stating that he had renounced his NORP citizenship , alleging that he had been ill - treated by the police following his arrest in GPE , and that he was suffering from partial amnesia and was unsure of his identity .","On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) examined the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision to extradite him and upheld the extradition . The court referred to the assurances provided by the NORP authorities .","On DATE ORG of GPE revoked its decision of DATE and rejected the NORP authorities\u2019 requests for the applicant \u2019s extradition on the ground that if extradited , he would face a risk that his rights guaranteed by ORG , DATE and DATE of the Convention would not be secured .","NORP In DATE a number of media outlets reported that the applicant was serving as leader of a battalion fighting on the side of ORG forces in the eastern regions of GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for political asylum with ORG of GPE ( \u201c the Migration Service \u201d ) , maintaining that he had never been involved in any terrorist activities and that his criminal prosecution in GPE was political repression in disguise . In particular , he was a member of a prominent family which used to have considerable influence in GPE before PERSON came to power ; his father used to chair an oil company in GPE and his uncle used to be the Speaker of ORG . Following Ramzan Kadyrov \u2019s rise to power , the family had been driven out of GPE . The applicant had publicly shared his dissatisfaction with the policies of PERSON and the NORP authorities in respect of GPE . His political views , in particular his support for a free and independent GPE , and his being a personal enemy of PERSON , were the real reasons for his persecution by the NORP authorities . He stated that numerous instances of torture and killings by NORP law - enforcement bodies and PERSON armed groups indicated that he would be tortured and killed if he were extradited to GPE .","In a report prepared following the examination of the applicant \u2019s asylum application , a head of section of ORG of ORG recommended that the application be refused . He found that the applicant \u2019s submissions concerning threats allegedly made against him in GPE in connection with negative statements about PERSON were not credible since he had been an ordinary citizen and had not been a member of any political group and that the applicant had been misleading the NORP authorities in order to delay his extradition to GPE . There were also indications of his being involved in terrorist activity , in particular because : he had shown interest in literature associated with the PERSON version of NORP ; his life partner PERSON had also displayed PERSON tendencies ; he had acknowledged that he had had links with persons prosecuted for terrorist activities . The report also referred to an internet publication of GPE , a NORP news agency , according to which the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL co - suspects had been convicted in DATE for planning an assassination attempt on PERSON . The report went on to note that there were no indications that the convicted co - suspects had been ill - treated . The report further stated that the NORP authorities had provided assurances that the applicant \u2019s rights would be guaranteed .","On DATE the NORP Regional Department of Refugee Affairs refused to initiate asylum proceedings in respect of the applicant , having found that his application was manifestly inadmissible . The ORG noted , in particular , that owing to the applicant \u2019s arrival in GPE in DATE , the DATE application lodged after his arrest was time - barred and that in any event his allegations of being a victim of political repression were ill - founded .","On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of DATE before ORG . He argued that he had not missed the DATE time - limit for challenging the decision because the decision had been sent to his place of detention in GPE , without an explanation as to the procedure for challenging it . The applicant \u2019s lawyer had only met him on DATE , and then translated the decision for the applicant and explained the procedure for challenging it .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint without considering it on the merits . It held that the applicant had missed the DATE time - limit for challenging the decision of DATE since the decision had been served on him on CARDINAL DATE and he had had sufficient knowledge of NORP to understand it . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .","On DATE a private flat in GPE , GPE , caught fire as a result of an explosion . On entering the flat , the firefighters discovered GPE , a NORP national , seriously burned , and the dead body of ORG , a NORP national . The police found traces of explosives in the flat and arrested GPE","On DATE the GPE police instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant , GPE and PERSON ( deceased ) on suspicion of having intentionally caused property damage and of illegal handling of explosives . On DATE the GPE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) authorised the applicant \u2019s arrest .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE . During the arrest a passport in the name of PERSON with the applicant \u2019s photograph in it was seized .","On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be placed in pre - trial detention for DATE pending a criminal investigation against him for intentional property damage and illegal handling of explosives .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) charged the applicant and GPE with membership of a terrorist group , planning of terrorist acts , illegally handling explosives and intentionally causing property damage .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending criminal investigation until DATE .","On DATE the ORG additionally charged the applicant with having crossed the NORP border using a false identity document , while charges against him were amended from intentionally causing property damage to negligently causing property damage .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s co - accused , ORG , was extradited to GPE .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE the investigation was completed and the applicant was given time to study the case file .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of illegally handling explosives , negligently causing property damage , and forgery . It sentenced him to DATE , DATE and CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment . As the length of time spent in pre - trial detention was deducted from this sentence , the applicant was released immediately .","Effective from DATE , a new LAW governing extradition procedures was added to the Code .","The relevant provisions of LAW of the Code read as follows :","\u201c ...","ORG shall be the central authority concerning extradition of the accused ( suspect ) where the proceedings [ in the foreign ORG ] are at the stage of pre - trial investigations .","... \u201d","\u201c The extradition inquiry concerning circumstances capable of preventing the person \u2019s extradition shall be carried out by the central authority or , upon its instructions ( request ) , by the regional prosecutor \u2019s office .","... \u201d","\u201c ...","Extradition arrest shall be applied until a decision on the extradition of the person concerned and his actual surrender ( extradition ) , but shall not last DATE .","Within this period , and not less than once DATE , the judge at the place of the person \u2019s detention shall check , upon the prosecutor \u2019s request , if there are grounds for further detention of the person or for his or her release .","... \u201d","\u201c A person \u2019s extradition to a foreign State shall be refused if :","...","CARDINAL ) the person \u2019s extradition is incompatible with GPE \u2019s undertakings under its international treaties ;","CARDINAL ) there are other circumstances envisaged by an international treaty to which GPE is a party .","... \u201d","\u201c Having examined the materials of the extradition inquiry , the central authority shall take a decision to extradite the person or to refuse [ his or her ] extradition to the foreign ORG . The decision shall be taken by the head of the central authority or his or her deputy .","...","If a decision to extradite the person is taken , that person shall be given a copy of the decision . If the decision has not been challenged before a court within DATE , actual transfer of the person to the competent authorities of the foreign State shall be organised . \u201d","\u201c A decision to extradite may be appealed against by the person concerned , his or her defence counsel or legal representative to a local court at the place of the person \u2019s detention .","...","The appeal shall be examined in a single - judge formation within DATE of the date of its receipt by the court . The hearing shall be held in the presence of the prosecutor , the person concerned , his or her defence counsel or legal representative , if the latter participates in the proceedings .","When examining the appeal , the judge shall not consider the question of guilt and shall not review the lawfulness of procedural decisions taken by the competent authorities of the foreign ORG in the proceedings against the person whose extradition is requested .","Following the examination , the judge shall take a reasoned decision :","CARDINAL ) rejecting the appeal ;","CARDINAL ) allowing the appeal and quashing the decision to extradite .","After the judge \u2019s decision quashing the decision to extradite takes effect , the person concerned shall be immediately released from detention .","An appeal against the judge \u2019s decision may be lodged with a court of appeal by the prosecutor who participated in the hearing before the court of first instance or by the person concerned , his or her defence counsel or legal representative , within DATE of the date of delivery of the impugned decision . The lodging of an appeal against the judge \u2019s decision is of suspensive effect . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW with respect to detention pending investigation and trial can be found in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","Under LAW , a person seeking to be recognised as a refugee or a person in need of complementary protection in view of a threat to his or her life , security or freedom in the country of origin may lodge an application for asylum with ORG in GPE . The application must be lodged within DATE of crossing the border , if the person entered GPE lawfully , or \u201c without delay \u201d in the case of unlawful entry .","Section CARDINAL lays down the procedure for preliminary consideration of applications for asylum , which must be completed within DATE . In particular , ORG holds interviews with the applicants , considers the information contained in the applications and relevant documents , and takes a decision on the admissibility of the applications . In taking this decision , it must decide whether \u201c documents for the consideration of the question of granting refugee status or the status of a person in need of complementary protection are to be prepared \u201d . ORG refuses to prepare such documents in respect of applications which are manifestly ill - founded ( do not concern the circumstances calling for protection ) , constitute an abuse of the right of application ( the applicant submits false identity information ) , or are submitted by persons whose previous applications were rejected as unsubstantiated and where the circumstances have not changed . Within DATE written notice of the refusal , indicating the reasons on which it is based and the procedure of appeal , is given to the applicants or their official representatives . An appeal may be lodged with the courts within DATE of the notification .","The relevant provisions of the ORG read as follows :","\u201c For the purposes of the uniform application of the legislation governing extradition to other GPE and the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms , ORG resolves that :","...","Having regard to the fact that the current legislation does not allow the courts independently to give permission for extradition of persons and that , pursuant to LAW and similar provisions of other international treaties to which GPE is a party , the extradition procedure is regulated solely by the law of the requested ORG ; the courts are not empowered to decide on this issue .","... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145744","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DRAGIN v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of incitement to aggravated murder in that he , together with another person , had incited a person who had owed them money to kill their competitors in the security business in GPE , and that for that purpose they had obtained machine guns and explosive devices .","An investigation in respect of the applicant was opened in ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u ORG ) on DATE .","On DATE an investigating judge of ORG remanded the applicant in custody under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of collusion , risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges ) . The judge held that there was a risk that the applicant might suborn several witnesses who were to be questioned during the investigation , and that his clear determination to commit the offence at issue and its possible consequences justified his detention on the grounds of risk of reoffending and the seriousness of the charges .","The applicant \u2019s detention was extended on DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges ) . The investigating judge found that the witnesses had already been questioned and that therefore there was no reason to remand the applicant in custody on the grounds of risk of collusion . However , the judge reiterated that the applicant \u2019s clear determination to commit the offence and its possible consequences warranted the applicant \u2019s detention on the grounds of risk of reoffending and the seriousness of the charges .","On DATE the investigation in respect of the applicant was expanded to the offences of unlawful possession of firearms and explosives .","The investigating judge extended the applicant \u2019s detention on DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges ) using the same reasons as in his previous decision .","NORP The applicant appealed on DATE , arguing that the reasons put forward by the investigating judge were not convincing justifications for his detention .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the investigating judge .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office ( GPE dr\u017eavni odvjetni\u0161tvo u ORG ) indicted the applicant in ORG on charges of incitement to aggravated murder and unlawful possession of firearms and explosives . Another individual , ORG , was also indicted in the same proceedings on charges of incitement to aggravated murder . Later , on DATE , criminal proceedings against another person , PERSON , on charges of trafficking in firearms were joined to the proceedings against the applicant and ORG in ORG .","A CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention on DATE , relying on LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and seriousness of charges ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c There is a reasonable suspicion that the accused have committed the offences at issue . The fact that the second accused , PERSON , in an agreement with the first accused , ORG , twice went to GPE in order to find a machine gun and an explosive device suggest determination to commit the offences they are suspected of , and the fact that a larger quantity of unlawful weapons and explosive devices have been found in the possession of the second accused , PERSON , suggest that they might reoffend ...","The fact that the offence of [ aggravated murder ] was planned to take place in GPE centre near the M. bar , where a lot of young people gather , suggests to this panel that the circumstances of the offence are particularly serious ... \u201c","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision with ORG ( PERSON ) arguing that the alleged offences at issue had never even been attempted and thus there was nothing which suggested that he might reoffend or that there were particularly serious circumstances warranting his detention .","ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal and on DATE reversed the decision of ORG by ordering the applicant \u2019s detention only under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) . It held that the applicant \u2019s alleged determination to commit the offences suggested that he might reoffend but that the reasons put forward by ORG as to the seriousness of the charges were not relevant , because all the circumstances referred to were essentially subsumed under the risk of reoffending . It also explained that the reference to the possibility that the offence of aggravated murder would be committed in a public place was irrelevant , because the offence had never been attempted , let alone executed .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG returned the indictment to GPE Office and ordered it to conduct a further investigation , as not all the relevant circumstances had been established .","During the resumed investigation , on DATE the investigating judge of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) reiterating that his determination to commit the offences suggested that he might reoffend .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the above decision , reiterating his previous arguments .","NORP The applicant \u2019s detention was further extended by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE under LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) relying on the alleged determination on the applicant \u2019s part to commit the crime , and on , which suggested that the applicant might reoffend if at liberty .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as ill - founded .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the remand in custody of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) arguing , inter alia , that it was impossible in practice for him to reoffend , because the alleged incitement to murder was in respect of a person who later became a protected witness and was at present cooperating with the prosecuting authorities .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded , noting :","\u201c The circumstances suggesting that the accused ORG and PERSON [ might reoffend ] can be observed from the indictment by which they are charged with having , for the purpose of obtaining material benefit and with reprehensible motives , incited a person who owed them money to kill others who were competitors in the security business in GPE , and that for that purpose they had obtained machine guns and explosive devices with a remote detonator and QUANTITY grams of plastic explosive , which they intended to plant under the vehicle of CARDINAL of the putative victims . All these circumstances show particular determination on the part of the accused . Therefore , ORG , as the second - instance court , considers that they should be remanded in custody under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW in order to prevent them from continuing with such activity .","that they were determined to commit a murder , that argument is of no relevance .","Furthermore , both accused submitted numerous complaints concerning the conduct of the proceedings , to which they wrongly attached great significance , arguing that the first - instance court had failed to follow the instruction to return the indictment to the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG for a further investigation , and that consequently the investigation was never completed , while the maximum period of detention during the investigation had expired .","The case file shows that the accused were arrested on DATE ... and that by extending their detention on DATE , after the investigating judge had returned the case file to ORG and the latter had submitted it to a CARDINAL - judge panel [ of ORG ] , the time - limit under LAW of LAW had not expired . In these circumstances , and given that this court , when deciding on the appeal against the decision to extend the detention , can not go into all the complaints submitted in the appeal , all such complaints are ill - founded ... \u201c","A CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) , holding as follows :","\u201c The accused are charged with developing a detailed plan to commit the offence of incitement to aggravated murder under LAW ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW ; it was planned that the murder would be committed by another person , who owed them money . The first accused , ORG , had arranged the purchase of the firearms and explosives and the second accused , PERSON , had travelled twice to GPE and GPE to bring them to GPE , after which he had passed them to the other person , instructing him how to use them and telling him the time and place the killing was to take place . Then he [ together with the other person ] damaged the vehicle which CARDINAL of the victims should have driven , to ensure that the victim would use a car under which an explosive device had been planted .","This court finds that the said circumstances show particular determination on the part of the accused , and suggest that the first accused ORG and the second accused PERSON might reoffend if at liberty , and therefore their detention is necessary under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against the above decision , arguing that it was impossible in practice for him to reoffend as suggested in the reasoning of ORG .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on DATE as ill - founded , reiterating its previous arguments .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) reiterating its previous reasoning .","The first hearing before ORG was held on DATE ; the applicant and the other accused pleaded not guilty . The trial court questioned CARDINAL witnesses and adjourned the hearing .","A further hearing was held on DATE ; the trial court heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) , reiterating the reasoning from its previous decisions .","At a hearing on DATE the trial court examined the evidence from the case file and adjourned the hearing . Another hearing was scheduled for DATE , but was adjourned because the case file was at ORG .","At a hearing on DATE CARDINAL expert witnesses gave oral evidence .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c The accused are charged with developing a detailed plan to commit the offence of incitement to aggravated murder under LAW ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW ; it was intended that the murder should be committed by another person , who owed them money . The first accused , ORG , had arranged the purchase of the firearms and explosives and the second accused , PERSON , had travelled twice to GPE and GPE to bring them to GPE , after which he passed them to the other person , instructing him how to use them and telling him the time and place the killing was to take place . Then he [ together with the other person ] damaged the vehicle which CARDINAL of the putative victims was supposed to drive in order to ensure that the victim would use a car under which an explosive device had been planted .","The period of the alleged criminal activity and the planning of the offences , including the incitement and instructions given to GPE , show a keen determination on the part of the accused to commit the offences , which suggests that the first accused ORG and the second accused PERSON might reoffend if at liberty , and therefore their detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW is necessary . \u201d","Further hearings were held CARDINAL DATE , at which the trial court heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses and CARDINAL expert witness .","Hearings were also held on CARDINAL and DATE , at which the trial court questioned CARDINAL witnesses and the third accused , GPE","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) reiterating the reasoning in its previous decisions .","At a hearing on DATE the trial court heard evidence from CARDINAL witness and the parties made their closing arguments .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty on charges of incitement to aggravated murder and unlawful possession of firearms and explosives , and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","NORP The applicant appealed to ORG against the first - instance judgment on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . He argued that the judgment had numerous substantive and procedural flaws .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment of ORG and ordered a retrial on the grounds of procedural errors in the way in which the evidence was taken during the trial .","ORG remanded the applicant in custody under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) referring to his determination to commit the offences and the circumstances in which the offences were allegedly committed .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) relying on the same reasons provided in its previous decisions .","The applicant \u2019s detention was further extended by a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG on DATE under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) reiterating the reasoning in its previous decisions .","A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the third accused failed to appear for health reasons .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG asked ORG to extend the maximum period allowed for the applicant \u2019s detention , relying on LAW . It reiterated that the applicant should be remanded in custody on the grounds of risk of reoffending .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision on his detention of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which ORG dismissed as ill - founded on DATE .","ORG on DATE ordered ORG to examine the request of the PERSON State Attorney \u2019s Office of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the grounds that the applicant \u2019s detention should first be extended under LAW of LAW and only after the time - limit under that provision expired should it be extended LAW .","DATE . On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW of LAW for DATE . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c The accused , PERSON , has been in custody since DATE . His detention was extended by a decision of this court ... on DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , while his appeal was dismissed by a decision of ORG ... of DATE . Therefore , in view of the fact that on DATE the period of his detention will amount to DATE , which under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW is the maximum period of detention , and that the non - final judgment of this court ... of DATE was quashed by the decision of ORG ... of DATE , [ this panel ] needs to examine whether his pre - trial detention should be extended under LAW of LAW ...","This panel finds that the detention of the accused , PERSON , should be extended for DATE [ of the general maximum period of detention ] , that is to say DATE .","... in view of the gravity of the offences the accused is suspected of , and the prescribed sentence , [ this panel ] , under LAW in conjunction with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , extends the overall period of detention for DATE [ of the general maximum period of detention ] , that is to say DATE , which should be sufficient to complete the proceedings . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , arguing that LAW was inapplicable in his case , since it concerned situations where an appeal against a first - instance judgment by which an accused had been found guilty was pending before the appeal court . In his case , however , the first - instance judgment had been quashed . He also contended that the extension of the time - limits for pre - trial detention was an exceptional measure applicable only where the trial court , even with maximum diligence , was unable to terminate the proceedings in time as a result of objective impediments . In his case , he saw no such circumstances and pointed out that ORG had provided no reasons in that respect .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c This court finds that LAW allows the court , in situations where the first - instance judgment and the second - instance judgment which quashed it have been adopted within the [ general ] time - limit provided for in LAW , to extend the detention first under LAW and then under LAW . In such cases , the period of detention under LAW should be extended only when the period of detention under LAW has expired , irrespective of whether the judgment has been upheld in the retrial or not .","Therefore , ORG considers that , contrary to the arguments in the appeal , the first - instance court lawfully and correctly extended the overall period of detention of the accused , PERSON , for DATE [ of the general maximum period of detention ] , that is to say DATE , under LAW . \u201d","A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the defence of the first accused sought the withdrawal of members of the trial panel and the prosecution , and also of the President of ORG . These requests were dismissed as ill - founded on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) about the decisions on his detention reiterating the complaints that he raised before ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) reiterating the reasoning in its previous decisions .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision on DATE , arguing that there were no relevant or sufficient reasons for his continued detention .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded on DATE , endorsing the reasoning of ORG .","A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because CARDINAL of the defence lawyers was on sick leave .","A CARDINAL - judge panel further extended the applicant \u2019s detention on DATE under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) reiterating the reasoning in its previous decisions .","A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the applicant \u2019s defence sought the withdrawal of members of the prosecution team , on the grounds that they had abused their powers in dealing with his case .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision on his detention of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) reiterating his previous arguments .","DATE the applicant \u2019s request for the withdrawal of the prosecution team members was dismissed as ill - founded .","ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision on his detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and on DATE quashed the decision of ORG on the grounds that a member of the CARDINAL - judge panel had previously been excluded from the case . It ordered ORG to re - examine the case speedily .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , this time in a different composition , extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) , reiterating the reasons in its previous decisions .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG which was dismissed on DATE as ill - founded .","A hearing scheduled for CARDINAL DATE was adjourned because the first accused was ill .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel again extended the applicant \u2019s detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) reiterating the reasoning in its previous decisions .","DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , arguing that ever since the first - instance judgment had been quashed there had been no activity in the proceedings . He also pointed out that , in view of the overall length of his detention and the first - instance court \u2019s lack of diligence in its conduct of the proceedings , his detention had become a prison sentence . Therefore , it was disproportionate to its purpose .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office , relying on LAW , asked ORG to extend further the maximum period of the applicant \u2019s detention already extended under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG allowed the request and extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c Since all [ permissible ] time - limits for detention under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been exhausted , the conditions have been met to extend the detention of the accused , PERSON , under LAW of LAW . Since the proceedings at issue are now before the first - instance court , it is reasonable to expect that in order to conclude the proceedings the detention should be extended for the maximum period of DATE . \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision on his detention of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) as ill - founded .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , reiterating his previous arguments . He pointed out in particular that his detention could not be extended cumulatively under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , since those provisions concerned CARDINAL different situations . In any event , it was only possible to extend the detention for the maximum period in exceptional circumstances , which did not exist in his case . He also argued that the trial court had not conducted his case with due diligence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of ORG .","A CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention on DATE , LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending ) , reiterating its previous arguments .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , reiterating his previous arguments , particularly lack of due diligence in the conduct of the proceedings .","DATE . Another hearing , scheduled for DATE , was adjourned because the first accused was ill .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and ordered his release from detention . ORG noted that the applicant had been detained since DATE and that ever since the first - instance judgment had been quashed no hearing had been held in the proceedings at issue , and it was uncertain when a hearing would be held . It therefore considered that the applicant should be released in order to prevent the pre - trial detention from becoming a prison sentence .","The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-c"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144784","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON ( PERSON ) , is an NORP national born in DATE and currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .","He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","At the time of the events , the applicant served as a police major in ORG . He worked for ORG .","At TIME on DATE , at a location near the NORP - NORP border in the Imishli District , the applicant and an acquaintance ( PERSON ) received QUANTITY of marijuana from an NORP national who had smuggled the drugs through the State border . The CARDINAL accomplices put the packages of marijuana in the boot of the applicant \u2019s car . When they attempted to drive off , a number of ORG agents , who had surveilled the operation , tried to stop the car . Shots were fired and CARDINAL bullets reached the car \u2019s interior and wounded the applicant in the left leg . Despite his bullet wounds , the applicant managed to continue driving his car and escape from the scene .","The applicant and LOC drove QUANTITY , then disposed of the packages of marijuana and abandoned the car . Shortly afterwards the applicant and PERSON were arrested by the ORG agents . The applicant was first brought to the Imishli ORG of the MNS , but due to his wounds thereafter transferred to ORG for treatment .","The record of arrest compiled by the ORG agents on DATE also described the circumstances of the operation of DATE . The relevant part of the record reads as follows :","\u201c ... CARDINAL persons who were in the car tried to escape from the scene of the crime by speeding the car towards the ORG agents . Although the ORG agents fired a warning shot into the air , the driver tried to hit them by car and at that moment shots were fired at the car \u2019s tyres . CARDINAL persons in the car began to drive the car through the village in the direction of the fields situated in LOC ... \u201d","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted by ORG of the ORG in connection with above - mentioned incident , under ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .","At TIME on DATE an investigator from the ORG issued a record of the applicant \u2019s detention as a suspect ( tutma protokolu ) in the presence of him and his lawyer . He was suspected of smuggling and the illegal preparation , possession , purchase , transportation and sale of narcotic substances under LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The applicant claimed his innocence and stated that he had not known that the packages had contained marijuana . He submitted that PERSON had lied to him about what they had contained , and that he had only gone to the border area at GPE \u2019s request . He further confirmed that after his arrest , he had first been taken to ORG of the ORG , and then to ORG , where he had been provided with medical assistance . He did not challenge the lawfulness of the force used against him during the operation of DATE .","On DATE the applicant was officially charged with smuggling and the illegal preparation , possession , purchase , transportation and sale of narcotic substances . On DATE the investigator questioned him again , now as an accused , in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant reiterated his previous statement . On DATE the applicant was brought before ORG which ordered his pre - trial detention for DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked the investigator to order a forensic examination to determine whether the applicant \u2019s state of health was compatible with his pre - trial detention , as he suffered from ischemic heart disease and had once suffered a heart attack .","On DATE the investigator dismissed the request after deciding that a forensic examination of the applicant was not necessary .","On DATE the investigator lodged the indictment with ORG .","According to the applicant , on DATE at a hearing before ORG in the course of the criminal trial , he submitted that on DATE the ORG agents had shot at his car without first firing a warning shot , as a result of which he had been wounded in the left leg . He further claimed that the agents had not been wearing vests identifying them as officers of the law - enforcement authorities and he therefore could not identify them in the darkness . The applicant also complained that he had not been provided with adequate medical assistance during DATE of his detention in the ORG detention facility .","The proceedings before ORG ended on DATE with a judgment in which the court found the applicant guilty of smuggling and the illegal preparation , possession , purchase , transportation and sale of narcotic substances and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The court also ordered that his car be confiscated as it had been used in the crime . The court did not in its judgment refer to the issues related to the operation of DATE and the alleged lack of adequate medical assistance following his arrest , as submitted by him on DATE ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL ) .","In DATE the applicant appealed against his conviction , claiming his innocence . He complained about the assessment of the evidence by ORG and argued that the lower court had not taken into account when sentencing him to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction , but reduced his sentence to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , taking into account certain mitigating circumstances .","In DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal . He claimed his innocence , complaining about the assessment of the evidence by the lower courts .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE .","In accordance with LAW ( \u201c the CCrP \u201d ) , criminal proceedings are instituted on the basis of a complaint by the victim of an alleged criminal offence . LAW of the CCrP lays down the procedure by which parties to criminal proceedings could challenge actions or decisions of the prosecuting authorities before a court . Article CARDINAL provides that a victim or his counsel may challenge such actions or decisions as , inter alia , the prosecution authorities\u2019 refusal to institute criminal proceedings or to terminate them . The judge examining the lawfulness of the prosecuting authorities\u2019 actions or decisions may quash them if he or she finds them to be unlawful ( Article CARDINAL ) . The judge \u2019s decision may be challenged before an appellate court in accordance with the procedure established in ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the CCrP."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146399","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KARIN ANDERSSON AND OTHERS v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants own property close to ORG , in the vicinity of a FAC area , the NORP network of nature protection areas established under LAW of DATE ( see further below at paragraph CARDINAL ) . Most of them live there ( permanently or on a part - time basis ) .","On DATE , ORG ( GPE ; hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) applied to the Government for permission , under LAW ( ORG ) , to construct a QUANTITY long railway section in a river area in the north of GPE ( constituting the final section of a railway called \u201c GPE , the total length of which is QUANTITY km ) . The ORG presented some alternative railway stretches , all located in a specified \u201c corridor \u201d , but recommended the CARDINAL named \u201c alternative east \u201d . The proposed railway construction concerned certain areas which were or were going to be part of Natura DATE .","It appears that CARDINAL of the present applicants own houses or land within the mentioned \u201c corridor \u201d : PERSON , PERSON , PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , and PERSON . Ownership of Mr PERSON \u2019s property was transferred to PERSON on DATE . The properties of the other CARDINAL applicants \u2013 houses and land in their ownership or owned houses located on non - freehold sites \u2013 are situated outside the \u201c corridor \u201d . The distance from their properties to the \u201c corridor \u201d or the specific stretch of the railway fixed in later proceedings vary ; the houses appear to be situated QUANTITY away whereas the closest piece of land is located QUANTITY from the \u201c corridor \u201d .","On DATE the Government , after having heard ORG , granted the application and allowed the construction of the railway in the proposed \u201c corridor \u201d under the condition , inter alia , that the ORG adopt a railway plan before DATE and also a specific plan for the realisation of the necessary environmental compensation measures in the Natura DATE areas . The plan on compensation measures had to be presented to the ORG before the railway plan was adopted . The ORG stated , inter alia , that the activity could be permitted , despite its harmful effect on the environment in a ORG DATE area , if there were no alternative solutions and the railway had to be constructed for reasons of public interest .","A number of individual property owners , including CARDINAL of the applicants in the present case \u2013 Ms Bring , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON DATE petitioned ORG ( Regeringsr\u00e4tten ) for a judicial review of the case and requested that the ORG \u2019s decision be quashed . The property owners claimed that the decision contradicted NORP law as well as applicable ORG law , including the Habitats Directive . It was argued , firstly , that the decision contravened the general rule in LAW on the site to be chosen for activities and installations that may affect human health or the environment . This aspect allegedly had a direct and clear bearing on their civil rights . Secondly , they asserted that the ORG \u2019s decision violated NORP regulations on nature conservation by failing to consider relevant alternative sites for the railway .","On DATE ORG dismissed the petitions for a judicial review because it was not possible to determine who should be considered an interested party at that stage of the railway planning . The exact route of the railway would not be established until the railway plan had been drawn up . Until then , it could not be assessed with any certainty who would be affected to the extent that they were entitled to bring an action or what account should be taken of their interests . Further stating that the parties affected to a sufficient extent by the future railway would be able to obtain a judicial review of the later decision to adopt the railway plan , the court refused the petitioners locus standi .","One judge dissented , finding that the issue of locus standi in respect of each petitioner should be further investigated by the court in order to ensure that the individual interests were taken into account , having regard to the binding character of the ORG \u2019s decision in the later railway planning proceedings .","NORP In DATE and DATE the ORG applied to ORG ( l\u00e4nsstyrelsen ) in GPE for a permit to construct the railway in the specific ORG DATE area and to ORG ( milj\u00f6domstolen ) in ORG for permits to build CARDINAL bridges .","ORG granted a construction permit for the railway by a decision of DATE , which was subsequently appealed against to ORG .","ORG decided to examine the cases jointly . By judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , considering itself bound by the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE on the permissibility of the railway project , the court decided to grant all the permits requested by the ORG .","On DATE ORG ( Milj\u00f6\u00f6verdomstolen ) in GPE quashed ORG judgments and referred the cases back to the latter instance . The appellate court found that the ORG \u2019s decision had not contained a detailed examination of measures necessary to compensate for environmental harm caused by the railway project , and that these issues had to be settled as part of the determination of the construction permit requests .","On DATE ORG decided anew to grant the permits requested by the ORG . The court considered itself bound by the ORG \u2019s decision as to the permissibility of the railway project and thus limited its examination to the environmental compensation measures , as indicated by the decision of ORG .","CARDINAL applicants \u2013 PERSON and Mr PERSON DATE appealed against ORG judgment in so far as it concerned the permit for the railway construction . All applicants except PERSON appealed against the part which concerned the permit to construct the bridges .","By a judgment of DATE ORG affirmed the binding nature of the ORG \u2019s permissibility decision and approved the construction of the railway and the bridges with certain added conditions .","On DATE ORG ( H\u00f6gsta domstolen ) refused leave to appeal and , thus , ORG judgment became final .","On DATE the ORG adopted a railway plan for the area in question .","CARDINAL applicants \u2013 all but PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and Mr DATE appealed to the Government against the railway plan . They essentially complained of the specific stretch of the railway , invoking , inter alia , nuisance such as noise and vibrations affecting the enjoyment of their property .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG referred to its decision on permissibility of CARDINAL DATE . It found that the specific stretch chosen in the railway plan was situated within the permitted \u201c corridor \u201d and thus rejected the appeals .","All of the applicants and several other petitioners turned to ORG and requested that it , by way of a judicial review , order the quashing of the ORG \u2019s decision . They claimed , inter alia , that , although their civil rights were affected by the planned railway , they had not had these rights considered and determined by a court , in violation of the Convention . As to the chosen location of the railway , they also asserted that the ORG \u2019s decision was contrary to provisions of LAW and LOC .","On DATE ORG , after having held a hearing in the case , rejected the petition , finding that the railway plan was in line with the ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE on the permissibility of the railway project and that the proceedings for the adoption of the plan did not demonstrate any failings . The court considered that the question of permissibility of a railway project was within the power of the ORG , which had to take into account public interests such as environmental , industrial , economic and regional policy . The Government \u2019s permissibility decision was binding for the subsequent proceedings in that courts and other decision - making bodies could not examine issues that had been determined by that decision . Thus , in the proceedings concerning the construction permits requested by the ORG , the various instances could decide on conditions and other details but not on the general permissibility as defined in the ORG \u2019s decision . Similarly , in the third stage of the decision process \u2013 the adoption of the railway plan \u2013 it was for the authorities and courts to decide only on the precise location of the railway , within the area designated by the ORG \u2019s decision . The Government had not been obliged to review its decision of CARDINAL DATE on the permissibility of the railway project and the designation of the \u201c corridor \u201d in which the railway could be located . These issues could not be examined in the third stage of the decision process . ORG further stated that , if private interests were affected by the location of a railway project , judicial review could be obtained by petitioning the court in proceedings against the ORG \u2019s permissibility decision . The fact that the court , on DATE , had concluded that no individual petitioner could be considered to have locus standi in relation to the permissibility decision did not compel it to include in its current examination of the adoption of the railway plan the issues of permissibility of the project or its general location .","One judge dissented , considering that ORG judgment contravened its decision of DATE . She noted , inter alia , that the adoption of a railway plan \u2013 as opposed to the construction permits DATE had direct consequences for the individual as it entailed a right for the railway company , under certain conditions , to expropriate land . Consequently , the court , in the instant case , should have examined all the objections presented by the appellants , including the claim that there were better alternative locations for the railway . According to the dissenting judge , a full judicial review had also been foreseen by the court in its earlier decision .","It appears from the parties\u2019 observations in the case that CARDINAL of the applicants ( including CARDINAL with houses or land situated outside the \u201c corridor \u201d ) have received some form of compensation as a consequence of the railway construction , either for land requisitioned or for reduced residential value or market value . In CARDINAL case , the change to noise - reducing windows was partly paid by the ORG . It is not clear whether the other applicants requested compensation . In the vicinity of some properties , whose owners have not received compensation , noise barriers have been erected in order to keep the noise from the railway below the applicable target values ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169215","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MOLLA v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Kristina Pardalos;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE and DATE the ORG on ORG and Compensation of Properties ( GPE i GPE dhe PERSON ) ( \u201c the Commission \u201d ) decided to recognise the applicant \u2019s inherited property title to CARDINAL plots of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m and restore them to the applicant .","On an unspecified date the Kor\u00e7a Regional Company for ORG ( GPE zonale e shp\u00ebrndarjes s\u00eb energjis\u00eb elektrike ) ( \u201c the defendant \u201d ) started the construction of a high - voltage line on the applicant \u2019s plots of lands .","On an unspecified date the applicant sought an injunction to suspend the construction works .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) issued an injunction and ordered the construction to be suspended . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) and ORG respectively upheld that decision .","On DATE the applicant brought an action against the defendant to bring the construction works to an end immediately , remove the high - voltage line and restore the site to its previous state .","On DATE the bailiff in the case discontinued enforcement proceedings concerning the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the grounds that the works had been suspended .","On DATE ORG ordered the immediate termination of the works on the applicant \u2019s plot of land , the removal of the high - voltage line and the restoration of the site to its former state ( ndalimin e punimeve si dhe duke detyruar ana e paditur t\u00eb heq\u00eb kabllot , t\u00eb dy linjat dhe ta kthej\u00eb pron\u00ebn n\u00eb gjendjen e m\u00ebparshme ) . ORG reasoned that the defendant had unlawfully constructed that line on the applicant \u2019s property .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment . On an unspecified date the defendant lodged an appeal with ORG against the lower courts\u2019 judgments .","On DATE the applicant requested that the bailiff enforce the judgment of DATE , as upheld by ORG on DATE . However , as the proceedings on the merits of the case were pending before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE ORG provisionally decided to stay the enforcement proceedings .","Subsequently , the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on the grounds that an examination of the applicant \u2019s action on the merits was pending before ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld in a final judgment ORG judgment of DATE and ORG judgment of DATE .","On DATE , following ORG judgment of DATE , the applicant again requested that the bailiff enforce the judgment of DATE .","DATE to DATE the bailiff unsuccessfully sought to enforce the final judgment . In particular , on DATE the bailiff sought to have the defendant comply voluntarily with the judgment . The bailiff further imposed a fine of CARDINAL NORP leks ( ALL ) on the defendant .","On DATE the bailiff again ordered the defendant to pay a fine for failing to comply with the final judgment .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the defendant informed the bailiff that the applicant was prepared to solve the dispute with the authorities by way of a friendly settlement .","On DATE the applicant informed the bailiff that the defendant had failed to reach a settlement with her . She requested the continuation of the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the bailiff imposed another fine on the defendant for failing to comply with the final judgment .","On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint against the bailiff and ORG ( PERSON i PERSON ) ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) for failure to comply with the judgment of DATE . It appears that on an unspecified date ORG discontinued the proceedings by virtue of a final judgment .","On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against ORG ( ORG ) ( \u201c AEC \u201d ) and the PERSON municipality for \u201c destruction of private property \u201d . On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office discontinued the criminal proceedings in a final decision .","On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil action against C.E.Z Shp\u00ebrndarje sh.a , which had privatised ORG , claiming damages and loss of profit .","On DATE ORG decided to stay the proceedings and await the conclusion of the civil proceedings instituted by ORG against the administrative decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which had recognised the applicant \u2019s property rights .","On DATE ORG amended that decision and decided that the proceedings could continue . It appears that the case is still pending before the domestic courts .","On DATE ORG brought a civil action against the applicant to annul the administrative decisions of DATE and DATE on the grounds that the plots of land had belonged to and had been used by ORG since DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the freezing of the title to the applicant \u2019s plots of land ( vendim p\u00ebr marrjen e mas\u00ebs s\u00eb sigurimit t\u00eb padis\u00eb duke bllokuar pron\u00ebn n\u00eb PERSON ) . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG lifted the freezing order .","On DATE ORG decided , at the applicant \u2019s request , to stay the proceedings and await the conclusion of other civil and criminal proceedings instituted by the applicant . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG respectively upheld that decision .","On DATE ORG discontinued its examination of the case on the grounds that ORG had failed to attend a hearing without good reason . It would appear that ORG did not appeal against that judgment and it became final on an unspecified date .","On CARDINAL other occasions ORG and ORG brought civil actions against the applicant to annul the administrative decisions of DATE and DATE . On DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG discontinued its examination of the actions on the grounds that ORG and ORG had failed to attend hearings for no good reason . It appears that they did not appeal against either judgment and they became final on an unspecified date ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150562","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KIESER AND TRALAU-KLEINERT v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the Court by Mr E. Reinecke , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The publishing company PERSON , registered in GPE , publishes DATE newspapers including PERSON , PERSON and Express . The chairman of the supervisory board of the publishing company is Mr PERSON , son of PERSON PERSON PERSON and PERSON , who died in DATE and DATE respectively .","NORP In DATE the applicants , journalists for the online magazine ORG , published an article concerning the so - called \u201c aryanisation profits \u201d ( \u201c NORP \u201d ) of NORP during the NORP regime and the role of the PERSON family in these activities . The article , which contained some CARDINAL pages and photos , entitled \u201c Discoveries about the publishing family PERSON in NORP times : No resistance , but aryanisation profits \u201d read in part as follows :","\u201c The publishing family PERSON , which has declared itself every now and then for DATE .... as being haunted by the NORP regime and being a member of the resistance , profited from aryanisation .... \u201d","\u201c DATE a congress took place in the adult TIME school covering the topic of \u201c aryanisation \u201d . There the journalist and historian PERSON sowed doubts . Niebel , who had no access to files of the tax offices , cited in his speech parts of the denazification file of PERSON , publisher of ORG during the NORP period and father of the present publisher PERSON . There the former publisher confessed to an unlawful appropriation of NORP real estate in DATE ... \u201d","\u201c As a matter of fact the Neven PERSON family took possession of QUANTITY houses in LOC .... The houses , respectively the real estate , belonged to the NORP merchant PERSON and his wife , PERSON . In DATE they were forced to emigrate , the NORP confiscated their fortune and the PERSON company interimpurchased the real estate for DATE . Afterwards PERSON , wife of PERSON PERSON , purchased the real estate . The price is not known ..... \u201d","\u201c Following the inquiries of PERSON , already in DATE the PERSON publishing company grabbed a house of the merchant PERSON in GPE via its mutual insurance company . PERSON was accused of \u201c racial defilement \u201d and died shortly afterwards .... \u201d","\u201c In DATE the publishing company PERSON and the widow PERSON reached an out - of - court settlement concerning compensation . This is the reason why the amount of money paid is not generally known . The same applies to the daughters of PERSON .... \u201d","These parts of the article referred to the following CARDINAL real estate purchases :","In DATE a mutual insurance company situated in GPE , and which insured the employees of the PERSON company , purchased real estate situated at CARDINAL GPE in GPE from Mr GPE , a NORP who was persecuted and died shortly afterwards . In DATE the legal heirs of PERSON renounced any restitution claims after having primarily lodged such claims .","According to the denazification file of Mr PERSON , in DATE PERSON bought real estate in Leyboldstra\u00dfe in GPE , which was owned by a Mr A. ORG . Mr PERSON was a NORP who had emigrated in DATE . Therefore his property was liquidated by a curator . In DATE PERSON and Mr PERSON ( now known as PERSON ) reached a settlement concerning the structural condition of the property in DATE ( price , size , value and cultivation ) and restitution claims . In this settlement the property was declared as being in essence undeveloped except for cellar walls and concrete foundations .","Furthermore in DATE PERSON purchased real estate , located in LOC in GPE for CARDINAL PERSON . The vendor was the PERSON company , which had purchased the real estate DATE before at auction for CARDINAL PERSON . The former owner of the property was a company belonging to a NORP couple who had fled GPE in DATE .","NORP The chairman of the supervisory board of the publishing company , Mr PERSON , instituted an action for an interim injunction with ORG after the ORG article was published , in which he precisely indicated the parts of the article which he considered not to be true .","The GPE ORG and afterwards ORG issued an interim injunction and ordered the applicants to refrain from disseminating certain parts of the article .","On DATE ORG prohibited in particular any further publication of the following elements of the published article , subject to penalty ( \u201c strafbew\u00e4hrte LOC ) of MONEY for each contravention , under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code taken in conjunction with LAW , read in the light of the right to protection of personality rights ( \u201c ORG \u201d , see \u00a7 \u00a7 QUANTITY seq . , below ) :","\u201c ... to refrain from giving the impression that the plaintiff \u2019s family unlawfully enriched itself during the NORP regime with foreign fortune , in particular by statements such as \u201c the plaintiff \u2019s family PERSON made aryanisation profits when purchasing the real estate in Leyboldstr . DATE , GPE CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and FAC \u201d .","According to ORG , the relevant passages of the article in question amounted to a serious interference with Mr PERSON \u2019s right to the protection of his personality rights . ORG considered that the impugned statements had to be classified as statements of fact . A statement of fact had to be assumed when a passage of an article or an article as a whole led the reader to draw a peremptory conclusion from it . In ORG view , the article in question mainly made statements of fact because the term \u201c aryanisation profit \u201d , used in the context of the purchase of real estate , created the impression that the PERSON family had enriched itself unlawfully during the NORP regime with foreign fortune by abusing the predicament in which the NORP population found itself . The veracity of that statement could be proved . ORG found that , the impugned statement being a statement of fact and not a value judgment , the burden of proof concerning the veracity of the statement lay with the applicants . However , the applicants had failed to prove the veracity of the allegations .","NORP In particular , regarding the real estate in Leyboldstra\u00dfe , ORG stated that the mere claim that the purchase price had been below the current market value was insufficient , because this was a general assumption due to the political situation in GPE at that time and the fact that NORP were persecuted and expropriated . The ORG statement that the property was a built - up area was contradicted by statements and proof provided by the plaintiff , Mr PERSON . He had stated that an old building had been demolished in DATE and a subsequent settlement between PERSON and Mr PERSON expressly declared that the property had not been developed in DATE , apart from concrete foundations and cellar walls . As a consequence , the applicants\u2019 reference to an address book of GPE ( the \u201c GPE \u2019s address book \u201d ) as proof was considered to be too imprecise und therefore insufficient .","Concerning the real estate in LOC ORG found that the applicants had failed to substantiate that the PERSON family had exploited the Jews\u2019 plight , firstly because the PERSON family had purchased the real estate DATE after the PERSON company had purchased it at auction for CARDINAL PERSON and secondly because the price paid by the PERSON family had exceeded the auction price by CARDINAL ORG . As this purchase did not indicate a clear exploitation of the Jews\u2019 plight , the statements were to be classified as false . As far as the applicants offered a statutory declaration by the historian PERSON as proof of this allegation , the court held that in view of this finding there was no need to pursue the proof provided by the applicants .","With regard to the real estate in GPE ORG held that no profit had been made by the PERSON family because it had not been the PERSON family who had purchased the real estate , but a legally independent mutual insurance company situated in GPE and which insured the DuMont company \u2019s employees . Furthermore , other real estate , comparable to that in GPE , had been sold for similar prices around the same time .","The GPE Regional Court therefore concluded that the applicants had not proved the veracity of their statements as there had either been no profits made by the PERSON family or the evidence produced by the applicants had not been sufficient . As far as the applicants argued that the term \u201c aryanisation \u201d had to be classified as a value judgment , the court was of the opinion that , even when classified as a value judgment , it still had to be considered as ambivalent . It was necessary with ambivalent expressions to examine their admissibility on the basis of the interpretation which caused the most serious interference . Against this background the statements had to be regarded as untrue and thus were not protected by freedom of speech . Moreover , the court held that there had not been a legitimate interest in publishing the statements . It was true that the publication of untrue statements of fact could be justified . However , this was only the case if the person disseminating the information had tried sufficiently to verify the facts prior to publication and if any remaining doubts as to the truth of the facts had been made sufficiently clear . In the case at hand , the applicants had not even come close to exhausting all possibilities of establishing the facts and the article was far from being balanced coverage that also indicated doubts as to the truth of the statements .","As far as the plaintiff wanted the publication of other parts of the article to be prohibited , ORG allowed the action for CARDINAL part . For other parts the applicants made a declaration of discontinuance subject to penalty ( strafbew\u00e4hrte Unterlassungserkl\u00e4rung ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicants against the judgment and refused to grant the applicants leave to appeal on points of law . It endorsed the reasoning of ORG . It expressly confirmed ORG finding that the statements were to be classified as statements of fact as they were open to objective verification and proof . Even if parts of the statements comprised value judgments , these were based on documented incidents like the denazification file of Mr PERSON , address books or files of the competent tax authority . As it was primarily these documents which were supposed to prove the conclusion that the PERSON family had participated in aryanisation profits , the main focus of the statements was not the expression of an opinion but a statement of facts .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG complaint about the refusal to grant them leave to appeal on points of law ( Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde ) , without giving further reasons .","On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . The applicants claimed a violation of their right to freedom of expression insofar as ORG and ORG had ordered them to refrain from giving the impression that the plaintiff \u2019s family had unlawfully enriched itself during the NORP regime with foreign fortune , in particular by statements such as \u201c the plaintiff \u2019s family PERSON made aryanisation profits when purchasing the real estate in Leyboldstr . DATE , GPE CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and FAC CARDINAL \u201d . The applicants claimed that ORG and ORG had omitted to clarify whether these passages of the article in question were to be classified as statements of facts or value judgments . The classification as \u201c ambivalent expressions \u201d was an oversimplification contravening ORG case - law .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the constitutional complaint without providing reasons .","The claim underlying the injunction was based on an analogy to Article CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , read in conjunction with the second sentence of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the NORP Civil Code taken together with LAW . It is the well - established case - law of the NORP courts that a person whose personality rights are jeopardised by another individual may DATE under certain specified conditions DATE lodge a claim against the latter pursuant to these provisions ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-153769","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF TORAN AND SCHYMIK v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE","The applicants are NORP nationals born in DATE and DATE respectively . They are currently serving prison sentences in GPE , following their conviction by the NORP authorities for drug trafficking , as described below .","NORP Criminal proceedings against the applicants","At the time of the impugned events , GPE , one of the applicants\u2019 acquaintances , was in police custody accused of drug - related offences . In the context of a covert operation , GPE agreed to contact the applicants by phone in order to arrange a drug transaction . It appears that following several phone conversations between GPE and the first applicant , the latter agreed to deliver CARDINAL Ecstasy pills to GPE .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of investigating S.R.B. \u2019s case issued an order ( ordonanta ) in which he authorised the intervention of CARDINAL undercover agents , namely GPE , ORG and GPE , who were mandated to purchase CARDINAL Ecstasy pills with the assistance of GPE The justification given for such an intervention was that , based on ORG \u2019s statements , there existed a strong indication that individuals as yet unknown to the police intended to commit the offence of drug trafficking . The undercover agents were necessary in the operation because the individuals in question \u201c belonged to a drug - dealing network which acted very cautiously , taking a lot of precautions in their activities and relying exclusively on highly trustworthy persons \u201d .","On DATE , the prosecutor authorised the undercover agents ORG and GPE to be provided with MONEY ( ORG ) , to be taken from the special funds of the police , with the purpose of using it to purchase the drugs .","On TIME the applicants entered GPE and met GPE in a petrol station in GPE . Subsequently , they requested to be directed to a mechanical workshop , where they asked to be left alone . S.R.B. was asked to wait for their phone call before returning to the garage with the money for the drugs .","NORP The applicants\u2019 activity of removing the drugs from hidden compartments under the front passenger seat of the vehicle was video recorded by the investigators , based on an authorisation issued by the court on DATE .","After TIME , the applicants called S.R.B. to return to the garage together with the buyers , who were the undercover agents . CARDINAL of them , ORG , handed over LAW , and the second applicant verified the authenticity of some of the bank notes with a special pencil .","At the same time , the applicants presented the drugs , packed in zip - locked plastic bags , to the undercover agents . The investigators then intervened in order to ensure that the applicants were caught in flagrante delicto .","On DATE the applicants were placed in custody in the detention facility of the Timi\u015f police station , in connection with drug - trafficking charges .","In his statement given before the prosecutor on DATE , the first applicant declared that he and the second applicant had come to GPE for personal reasons , namely to visit relatives . He claimed that they had intended to spend TIME at the home of GPE , a friend of theirs , and that they had no knowledge of the content of the plastic bags found in the garage .","The second applicant refused to give any statements , claiming that he was overwhelmed by the situation .","On DATE the first applicant specified before the prosecutor that when they had been in the garage , the CARDINAL individuals who had entered with S.R.B. had taken some plastic bags out of another car that was parked in the garage , and had placed them on a table . A third person who had come in later had taken out some money and asked him and the second applicant to count it , without indicating why .","NORP In his statement given before the prosecutor on DATE in the presence of his lawyer , S.R.B. admitted that he had agreed to cooperate with the police in order to benefit from the provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL granting certain benefits to those who contributed to or facilitated the identification of perpetrators of crime ; he had therefore told the police that he had knowledge of a group of people who was involved in the international trafficking of Ecstasy pills . With the permission of the prosecutor , he then contacted the first applicant on the phone ; the latter agreed to bring to GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL Ecstasy pills for the price of CARDINAL ORG . Several other phone calls were made in order to arrange the details of the transaction , which took place on TIME . S.R.B. confirmed that the phone calls and his being taken out of custody for the operation had been approved by the prosecutor .","On DATE the applicants and S.R.B. , were charged with drug - related offences .","During the proceedings before the first - instance court , namely until the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicants pleaded not guilty , claiming that they had had no knowledge of the plastic bags , which they believed had been placed in the garage by the CARDINAL persons who had accompanied GPE , in order to set them up .","Up until the same hearing , GPE , legally assisted by PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON and his substitute lawyer , Mr GPE , maintained the statements he had given before the investigating authorities .","At the hearing of DATE the court watched the video recordings made on TIME to CARDINAL DATE , in the presence of the applicants , S.R.B. and their respective lawyers . The recordings were not contested and their authenticity was not questioned .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , the applicants , then represented by lawyer GPE , changed their plea and claimed that they had been pushed to commit the offence by the investigators , who had acted as agents provocateurs . They invoked in their defence the ORG \u2019s case - law in relation to police entrapment , namely PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-IV ) and PERSON GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The applicants contended that they had first declined GPE \u2019s proposal , but had finally agreed to deliver the drugs to GPE in order to help GPE , who had claimed that he had been facing financial difficulties . The first applicant stated that he had been called by S.R.B. on a DATE basis for DATE . Each time he had refused ORG \u2019s proposal , and each time the latter had increased his offer , namely from QUANTITY per pill initially to the final price of QUANTITY per pill .","At the same hearing , S.R.B. also changed his statement and alleged that he had been coerced by the police to act as he had . He stated that during the telephone negotiations , the investigating authorities had asked him to increase both the quantity of pills requested and their price so that the first applicant would accept the transaction . He claimed that he had known the applicants as drug consumers , but not as drug dealers . He mentioned that some of the conversations he had had with the first applicant on a mobile phone had been recorded .","On DATE the ORG sentenced the applicants to fifteen years\u2019 imprisonment for drug trafficking . In its ruling , the court relied on the video recordings made on DATE on which the applicants had been caught red - handed by Timi\u015f police officers , as well as on the statements given by witnesses , including GPE and the undercover agents .","The court ruled that the procedure used by the applicants to conceal the drugs showed that they were experienced in international trafficking of narcotic drugs and had sought to make a significant profit , while the operation to catch them red - handed could not be considered as entrapment . The court found that the method used by the applicants to hide the drugs in the cavities of the front passenger seat of the vehicle and the large quantity of drugs that they managed to transport across several borders showed that they were not unfamiliar with drug trafficking .","The court held that GPE \u2019s change of testimony could not be taken into account , as there was no other evidence to corroborate it and it contradicted his previous testimonies .","The applicants appealed against that judgment .","On DATE the Timi\u015foara Court of Appeal heard the applicants and S.R.B. They all maintained their previous statements according to which GPE , coerced by the police , had incited the applicants to commit the crime .","At the hearing , the applicants also submitted a request that the prosecution make available the recordings of the telephone conversations between GPE and the first applicant , or at least a list of those conversations and of the telephones used . The applicants argued that the recordings proved on the one hand that S.R.B. had been coerced to cooperate with the police and on the other hand that there had been a high degree of incitement in the negotiations in order to persuade them to accept the deal .","The court allowed the request .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG and ORG submitted that such recordings did not exist because the court had not been requested to authorise the recording of the phone conversations . Furthermore , according to the indictment , it was S.R.B. who had asked to be allowed to contact the applicants , under the supervision of the prosecutor , in order to take advantage of the lenient conditions prescribed in LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","By its judgment of DATE , the appellate court upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment .","The court stated that the authorities had been legally entitled to bring to the attention of GPE the benefits of cooperating with the police by virtue of LAW of PERSON CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , a reduction of his sentence .","The ORG allegation that they had been entrapped was refuted by the court , which noted that the international case - law they had invoked was not applicable . In the case of PERSON , the undercover agent and the collaborator had dealt with the applicant in person , while in PERSON the applicant had been contacted by the agent claiming to be an acquaintance of the collaborator , whereas in the present case the applicants had never been contacted by the undercover agents , since GPE had taken the initiative to ask to be allowed to make contact with the applicants in order to benefit from LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","Furthermore , in the present case the applicants had freely chosen to travel to GPE with the drugs . Nothing had prevented them from refusing PERSON \u2019s proposal .","The applicants further appealed against that judgment . They maintained before ORG and ORG that they had been entrapped , having been incited to sell drugs by S.R.B. He in turn had been forced to incite them to do so by the investigators , who had promised him a reduction in his sentence .","The applicants also denounced the use of the undercover officer ORG , who had sought , through GPE , to purchase the drugs .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG and Justice , taking into account as a mitigating factor the applicants\u2019 lack of a previous criminal record , partly allowed the appeal and reduced their sentences to DATE imprisonment . ORG upheld the lower courts\u2019 reasoning in dismissing the entrapment pleas . It held that GPE , interested in the reduction of his sentence , had collaborated with the police and contacted the applicants in order to buy drugs ; however , the applicants had had the opportunity to refuse the transaction proposed by him . Therefore , the court considered that the applicants\u2019 pleas of entrapment were unfounded .","B. Conditions of detention","As from DATE , the applicants were remanded in custody in the NORP police station detention facility . According to the Government , the applicants were placed in separate cells measuring QUANTITY , which they shared with CARDINAL other inmates .","On DATE the applicants were transferred to PERSON . The Government submitted that the cells in which the applicants had been placed measured QUANTITY , and were shared by a total of CARDINAL inmates .","On DATE the applicants were transferred to ORG , where they were placed in cells measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL beds .","On DATE the applicants were transferred to FAC , where they remained until DATE ( the first applicant ) and CARDINAL DATE ( the second applicant ) , when they were transferred to ORG in order to be transferred to serve the remainder of their sentence in GPE .","The Government pointed out that the applicants had had access to clean sanitary facilities as well as to hot and cold water , in accordance with a specific schedule ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152987","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ZHEBRAILOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants are :","( CARDINAL ) PERSON ( also spelled as PERSON ) PERSON , born in DATE ;","( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON , born in DATE , and","( CARDINAL ) Mr Salavdi Zhebrailov , born in DATE .","The first and second applicants are the parents of Mr Balavdi ( also spelled as LOC , born in DATE . The third applicant is PERSON ORG brother . The applicants reside in the village of PERSON , GPE .","At TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL men wearing uniforms and armed with assault rifles burst into the applicants\u2019 property at CARDINAL FAC in GPE . CARDINAL of the intruders were wearing masks . The applicants inferred that the intruders were law - enforcement officers . The men ordered the applicants to lie down and grabbed hold of Mr GPE and the third applicant , who was in his underwear . They then dragged them outside , firing several shots in the air to prevent the first and second applicants , as well as their relatives PERSON . and ORG , from following them . The men threw the PERSON brothers into a ORG vehicle with a beacon on the roof and marked \u201c police \u201d ( \u043c\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0446\u0438\u044f ) , which was parked QUANTITY away from the applicants\u2019 house , and drove off .","On the outskirts of PERSON , Mr GPE and the third applicant were transferred from the UAZ vehicle to a VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle driven by officer PERSON CARDINALnd Regiment of the Road Police of the Ministry of the Interior of GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the CARDINALnd regiment \u201d ) . The VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle took the road leading to ORG and on the journey the men physically assaulted the PERSON brothers . After a while the car passed through a checkpoint and Mr PERSON and the third applicant were taken to the premises of the CARDINALnd regiment . The third applicant recognised the premises because he had come there DATE with a friend to apply for a job .","Upon arrival the ORG brothers were put in a cell in a basement , beaten with rifle butts and interrogated about a pistol . After a while they were separated and the third applicant was placed in a cell with another arrestee of DATE . From his cell the third applicant could hear Mr PERSON screaming whilst being beaten .","Shortly thereafter the persons , whom the applicants considered to be officers of the CARDINALrd regiment , returned and physically assaulted the third applicant , saying that Mr ORG had confirmed that the third applicant had a pistol and threatening to take the latter to the military base in GPE . They kicked and beat the third applicant all over his body and also hit him several times on the head with a rifle butt . DATE they dragged the third applicant outside , gave him police trousers and a shirt belonging to his brother and pushed him into a grey UAZ vehicle equipped with a partition for ORG transport . The car carrying the third applicant and QUANTITY police officers passed through a checkpoint and after a short time stopped in the vicinity of the \u201c northern market \u201d in PERSON , where the third applicant was released . The third applicant then went to the home of an uncle of his who lives in PERSON , from where the third applicant \u2019s relatives took him home on TIME on DATE .","Upon his return home , the third applicant had numerous bruises on his chest , back and legs and also wounds on his head , sustained as a result of the blows with the rifle butt .","On DATE the third applicant \u2019s relatives took him to the local hospital . While queuing there , the third applicant spotted CARDINAL of his abductors , officer PERSON CARDINALnd regiment . Fearing reprisals , the applicants immediately left , without obtaining medical assistance . At home the third applicant was treated by a family friend PERSON , a nurse . She bandaged his head and gave him medication . As a result of the ill - treatment the third applicant could barely walk . He had to stay at home for DATE .","The applicants have had no news of Mr Balavdi Zhebrailov since his abduction .","In support of their account of events , the applicants furnished written statements by PERSON . and ORG dated DATE and DATE , and detailed written statements by the first to third applicants dated DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE .","The Government submitted that the national investigation had established that on TIME , unidentified armed men in camouflage uniforms had burst into the applicants\u2019 property and had abducted Mr PERSON and the third applicant . The abductors had assaulted the third applicant and then released him .","The Government submitted CARDINAL pages from criminal case - file no . DATE which was opened to look into the events of DATE . The submitted documents covered the period from DATE . Many of the documents furnished by the Government were incomplete , such as witness statements submitted only in part . Some documents were illegible . The relevant information may be summarised as follows .","The local police were informed of the abduction of the ORG brothers at TIME on DATE . At TIME on DATE a group of police officers arrived at the applicants\u2019 property . They inspected the crime scene , seized a bullet cartridge found during their inspection and interviewed QUANTITY eyewitnesses , including the applicants . The interview records and police ORG reports referred to the fact that the abductors had worn camouflage uniforms , carried assault rifles , used a UAZ vehicle \u2012 with a beacon and a muddied licence plate bearing the inscription \u201c Grozny \u201d \u2012 as well as a VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle with blackened windows and licence plate number \u201c CARDINAL \u201d , and had fired shots into the air . In the third applicant \u2019s interview record , he described in detail the circumstances of the abduction and the ensuing events , including his alleged ill - treatment . He also explicitly stated that he and his brother had been detained at DATE LOC and stressed that the men who had interrogated them and assaulted them had not concealed that they belonged to the police .","On DATE the Urus - Martan district prosecutor \u2019s office ( hereinafter \u201c the district prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) instituted a criminal investigation into the events of DATE under LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) .","On DATE the first applicant was granted victim status in case no . DATE .","The ballistic examination of the bullet cartridge seized at the crime scene , carried out on DATE , established that the bullet could have been shot by an ORG assault rifle and that the gun could be identified .","In the ensuing period DATE and DATE the investigators mainly re - interviewed the individuals questioned by the police on DATE . They also questioned some further witnesses \u2012 residents of Gekhi \u2012 some of whom confirmed the applicants\u2019 account of events ; others stated that they had learnt about the abduction from the applicants . The third applicant \u2019s uncle , ORG . , interviewed in DATE , stated that when the third applicant had arrived at his home in PERSON on TIME DATE , his head had been covered in blood . When interviewed as a witness in DATE , PERSON stated that after the third applicant \u2019s return home in DATE , she had treated him for wounds to his head and had given him pain - killing injections .","The investigation in case no . DATE was suspended in DATE , DATE , DATE and on the latest occasion on DATE . Supervising prosecutors repeatedly set aside those decisions , ordering the investigation to be resumed and pointing to the ORG failure to take a number of important steps . For instance , on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and then again , as late as on DATE , the supervising prosecutors pointed out the ORG failure to inspect the LOC of the CARDINALnd regiment and verify the allegation of the involvement of its officers in the crime with the participation of the third applicant , in spite of his specific assertions that he had been detained on those LOC and that the regiment officers had not concealed that they belonged to the police . The investigators , who had on various dates forwarded several information requests to local law - enforcement agencies to verify those allegations , were instructed to resume the proceedings and take the necessary steps . From the documents submitted it is unclear whether the requested steps were taken .","The investigation in case no . DATE is still pending .","On DATE ORG dismissed as unfounded the ORG complaint that the investigation had been ineffective and that the ORG had refused to allow the applicants access to the case file . The court stated that the investigators had taken all possible investigative steps and that the applicants\u2019 arguments concerning the procrastination of the investigation were not convincing .","On DATE the investigators granted the third applicant victim status in criminal case no . DATE and ordered his medical examination .","Expert report no . CARDINAL of DATE stated that the third applicant had CARDINAL scars on the top of the head , which could have been sustained in DATE as a result of the impact of a blunt , firm object .","On DATE , in the light of the expert \u2019s findings , the investigators also classified the ORG acts LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( application of physical force to another person , causing physical pain but not resulting in health damage ) ."],"violated_articles":["13","2","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1","5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169472","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SHAGABUTDINOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG in GPE remanded the applicant in custody on the charge of fraud . Subsequently ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention on DATE and on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE . Each time ORG attached preponderant weight to the gravity of the charges against the applicant . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the appeals against the detention orders of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively .","ORG authorised further extensions of the applicant \u2019s detention on DATE and DATE . ORG rejected his appeals on DATE and DATE , respectively .","On DATE the case was submitted for trial . On DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE ORG in GPE prolonged the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial , referring mainly to the gravity of the charges . The most recent extension order was issued for the period until DATE .","DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in the IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL remand prison in GPE . The prison was filled beyond the design capacity and cells were severely overcrowded . He was later transferred to another remand prison in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148067","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF EMARS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE at CARDINAL household workers ( \u201c GPE \u201d and \u201c ORG \u201d ) discovered the body of the applicant \u2019s daughter ( \u201c PERSON ) at her home in GPE . She had a rope around her neck , the other end of which was thrown over the top of a door and tied to the door handle on the other side .","At CARDINAL GPE and GPE reported the incident to GPE and ORG of ORG ( \u201c the GPE State Police \u201d ) . CARDINAL police officers from ORG were dispatched to PERSON \u2019s home . PERSON \u2019s husband ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) , who worked as a policeman - driver for ORG , arrived separately .","The Government have provided details of the investigation which followed . Their account has not been disputed by the applicant .","From CARDINAL to CARDINAL officers G.A. and ORG from ORG examined PERSON \u2019s home . They prepared the procedural record , photographed the scene and seized material evidence . DATE PERSON \u2019s body was transported to FAC and ORG requested an autopsy and forensic medical examination of the body . He also submitted an internal report to the Head of ORG which stated that he and PERSON had arrived at the scene , established that PERSON was dead , arranged for the transportation of the body , examined the scene , and took statements . In the report he noted that the persons transporting PERSON \u2019s body to the morgue had removed the rope from around her neck .","In a letter dated DATE a Prosecutor from ORG admitted to the applicant that the examination of the scene by ORG had not been done \u201c qualitatively \u201d or in compliance with the requirements of LAW . He had been subjected to disciplinary action and prosecuted under LAW ) and under LAW ) ( Forgery of a Document by a State Official ) . The second prosecution would appear to relate to the forgery of a Doctor \u2019s signature on a document purporting to set out an expert \u2019s conclusion . ORG was later released from criminal liability .","In the same letter the Prosecutor from ORG informed the applicant that another officer from ORG ( \u201c TIME \u201d ) had been subjected to disciplinary action for violating LAW when verifying the fact of PERSON \u2019s death . It is not clear whether or not the disciplinary action related to the examination of the scene on DATE .","On DATE the police took statements from the applicant and PERSON \u2019s sister ( \u201c ORG ) , both of whom expressed the opinion that PERSON had no reason to commit suicide .","On DATE a forensic expert , having examined PERSON \u2019s body , concluded that she had died on DATE and attributed the cause of death to mechanical asphyxiation . The report stated that there was no evident sign of violence , aside from the strangulation , although it noted that PERSON had bruises on her shoulder , hands and legs and CARDINAL scratches on her right palm which could have been acquired DATE prior to her death .","The following day the police obtained statements from a neighbour ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) and CARDINAL of PERSON \u2019s colleagues . PERSON recalled that CARDINAL on DATE she had observed a red vehicle similar to the one driven by PERSON parked in the courtyard of the building where PERSON and PERSON lived . Another neighbour ( \u201c PERSON . N. \u201d ) subsequently recalled seeing such a vehicle in the courtyard from CARDINAL to CARDINAL .","S.J. \u2019s colleagues confirmed that she had finished her shift in the shop she worked in at CARDINAL and headed to an office where she had a second job as a cleaner . Another witness later confirmed that she had arrived at the office at CARDINAL and left at CARDINAL CARDINAL .","The Government submitted that on DATE ORG of ORG ( \u201c the OCCD \u201d ) requested a list of incoming and outgoing calls to PERSON \u2019s mobile phone from her operator .","On DATE the son of PERSON and PERSON ( \u201c Av . J. \u201d ) made a statement . He said that PERSON had picked him up at home at CARDINAL on DATE . He had remained with his father until TIME , when his father returned to work and he went to the home of his sister ( \u201c D.J. \u201d ) . A colleague of PERSON later reported going with him to the cafeteria in the police station at CARDINAL and the chief officer on duty that TIME confirmed that PERSON had remained with the squad until his shift ended at CARDINAL on DATE . He also told the investigators that after TIME the police station was locked and the main gate closed , with the consequence that no person DATE or vehicle DATE could leave the LOC without his permission .","On DATE Officer A.M. performed a further examination of PERSON \u2019s home . He examined marks and traces left by the rope on the door and seized several samples for forensic traceology examination .","On DATE a household worker gave a statement to the police confirming that on DATE PERSON had returned home at CARDINAL to collect Av . J. On DATE PERSON confirmed that PERSON and ORG J. had arrived at her home at TIME .","On DATE ORG reported that the groove marks on the upper fragment of the door had been chafed into the wooden surface by the rope attached to PERSON \u2019s neck . MONEY could only have been made by pulling the weight of PERSON \u2019s body towards the door handle , to which the rope was subsequently tied .","On DATE the ORG initiated criminal proceedings to investigate the aggravated murder ( murder with mercenary intent ) of PERSON From this point onwards , Inspector PERSON of the ORG was responsible for the investigation under the supervision of ORG . PERSON was the Prosecutor in charge and he reported to PERSON , who was the supervising Prosecutor .","On DATE PERSON was interrogated as a suspect and he was informed that he could not change his registered place of domicile . Av . J. , PERSON and GPE were questioned as witnesses .","DATE , ORG and PERSON . N. were again interviewed about the red vehicle parked in the courtyard of PERSON \u2019s home . Both indicated that they had believed the vehicle to be the one driven by PERSON","NORP Throughout DATE witnesses were interviewed , including PERSON ( who was questioned repeatedly ) , his relatives and acquaintances , PERSON \u2019s relatives ( including the applicant ) , the couple \u2019s neighbours , a number of police officers , PERSON \u2019s employer and some of her colleagues , her household workers and her dentist . ORG also instructed the ORG to order further forensic tests , although records indicate that many were in fact ordered by ORG .","Attempts were made to establish the exact time of death but on DATE the forensic expert indicated that \u201c considering that the forensic medical examination of PERSON \u2019s body had been performed DATE after it was found and that livor mortis appears within TIME of death , a more precise time of death could not be established \u201d .","PERSON \u2019s uniform and the seat covers of his service car were seized on DATE and DNA samples were taken from him . On DATE the expert reported that there were several different DNA samples on the rope used to hang PERSON but none belonged to PERSON The expert was unable to establish the gender identification of the samples . On DATE an expert concluded that some fibres found on PERSON \u2019s coat possibly came from PERSON \u2019s car seat but the results were inconclusive .","Further tests were also carried out on PERSON \u2019s body , but no injuries were found which would indicate a struggle or self - defence .","Furthermore , ORG bank records were requested , as were details of all red vehicles matching the description of the one seen at the scene of the crime . PERSON \u2019s family members were also questioned repeatedly about whether or not she had kept a personal diary . On DATE the diary appears to have been handed over to the police and attached to the criminal file .","On DATE a further forensic traceology report suggested that there was a \u201c high probability \u201d that if PERSON had committed suicide the grooves on the top of the door would not have appeared as they did .","On DATE PERSON was again declared a suspect . Further DNA tests were performed on the rope and experiments were carried out to determine the driving time from FAC to LOC home . The results of the latter test appeared to confirm PERSON \u2019s alibi and on CARDINAL DATE the decision to once again declare him a suspect was quashed .","On DATE a new ORG investigator ( \u201c GPE . ) assumed jurisdiction over the case file .","On DATE the ORG acknowledged PERSON ( the applicant \u2019s granddaughter ) as a victim in the criminal proceedings .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant wrote to the Head of the ORG alleging that PERSON had been murdered . The PERSON informed the applicant on DATE that the circumstances of PERSON \u2019s death were still being investigated .","The applicant subsequently submitted further complaints to ORG concerning the conduct of the investigation . In the course of these complaints , he implied that PERSON was directly or indirectly implicated in PERSON \u2019s murder and that his colleagues on the police force were deliberately obstructing the investigation .","On DATE . , a senior Prosecutor of the Prosecutor \u2019s Office attached to ORG , informed the applicant that an in - depth investigation was being carried out . It was being conducted in an impartial manner and there was no evidence of any deliberate obstruction by the police . GPE . noted that the investigation was complicated and was supervised by another prosecutor from the same office ( \u201c PERSON ) .","On DATE a Prosecutor from ORG informed the applicant that the investigation was still ongoing and that the evidence which had been gathered was not sufficient to bring charges against any specific persons . The Prosecutor admitted that ORG had not carried out the initial examination of the scene of PERSON \u2019s death \u201c qualitatively \u201d , that both PERSON and DATE had violated the requirements of the laws on criminal procedure and that the CARDINAL officers had received disciplinary penalties . In addition , criminal proceedings had been initiated against ORG for criminal inaction of a ORG official ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) and for the forgery of official documents ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) . However , on DATE ORG attached to ORG had decided to release PERSON from criminal liability pursuant to LAW .","On DATE the applicant wrote to PERSON , the supervising Prosecutor , and asked to see certain expert reports and other specific information concerning the investigation into PERSON \u2019s death . More particularly , he asked for additional information concerning the violations committed by the police officers PERSON and ORG He also enquired when the case would be sent to a court .","On DATE the Prosecutor replied to the applicant . He informed him that the pre - trial investigation was still ongoing and a forensic biological analysis of DNA was being carried out . Further investigative steps would be planned after receiving the results of that analysis and it was therefore impossible to predict the date of the completion of the pre - trial investigation . The applicant was further informed that under LAW he had no right to read the case file or to receive copies thereof . The only persons who had such a right were the accused and the victims , but only after the completion of the criminal proceedings . With regard to the violations committed by the police officers , the applicant was advised to contact ORG .","On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to the Prosecutor General concerning the ORG responses of , inter alia , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . He principally complained that the investigation was being deliberately delayed in order to protect ORG ) .","The applicant \u2019s complaint was forwarded to ORG attached to ORG . On DATE he received a response from GPE . informing him that the investigation and the gathering of evidence were continuing \u201c in order to establish important facts \u201d . Unspecified expert reports had apparently been ordered and their results were expected no DATE . Finally , the applicant was informed that his \u201c allegation that the investigator and the supervising Prosecutor were not sufficiently active and were uninterested in establishing the truth were unfounded \u201d .","On DATE the applicant submitted a further complaint to ORG . He criticised ORG decision to forward his complaint to ORG attached to ORG . He also denounced the response of DATE as \u201c passive and unfounded \u201d and considered that the fact that it did not address the substance of his complaints demonstrated that GPE . was not interested in establishing the truth about PERSON \u2019s murder .","On DATE the Prosecutor General gave a final response to the applicant \u2019s complaint . In the relevant parts of the response the applicant was informed :","\u201c ... [ the senior prosecutor TIME ] in his response of CARDINAL October [ DATE ] informed you that the investigation of the criminal case ... was ongoing , that expert reports had been ordered , and that after receiving expert reports further investigative steps would be planned . While criminal proceedings are pending , the materials in the criminal case file are an investigative secret ( section CARDINAL of GPE ) , which is why it is impossible to give you more specific information concerning the investigative steps that have been taken and will be taken . It might be for that reason that you have formed an incorrect opinion that the investigation is being intentionally delayed and not conducted with the aim of establishing the culprit ; however , such an opinion does not find support in the steps actually taken in the criminal proceedings .","In the course of the pre - trial investigation of the criminal case ... a sufficient amount of investigative steps were carried out : CARDINAL expert reports were ordered and received and the need to order [ additional ] expert reports and the planning of further investigative steps was determined by the [ findings of the ] expert reports already received . In addition , the preparation of expert reports took significant time ; CARDINAL witnesses were questioned and other investigative steps carried out . Unfortunately the pre - trial investigation to this date has not allowed us to establish the circumstances [ of PERSON \u2019s death ] or the culprit . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159199","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF IVKO v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and until his arrest lived in the town of GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted drug trafficking and placed in custody . He remained in detention throughout the investigation and trial .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) convicted the applicant of attempted drug trafficking and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment in a high - security correctional colony . The court noted that the term of the applicant \u2019s detention was to be calculated with effect from the date of his arrest on DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the sentence on appeal . It mentioned , inter alia , that at the time of the hearing the applicant was detained in temporary detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in the town of GPE in LOC .","The applicant asked the Presidium of ORG to re - examine his case by way of a supervisory review . In DATE the applicant submitted additional observations to the ORG , which were dispatched from facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The application for supervisory review was rejected .","The applicant \u2019s request for a re - examination of his case by way of a supervisory review was , however , granted by ORG , which on DATE reduced the applicant \u2019s sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","Having served his sentence in full , the applicant was released from detention on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of another episode of attempted drug trafficking .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of attempted drug trafficking and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment in a high - security correctional colony .","On DATE the applicant died in detention .","The applicant and the Government offered different versions of the applicant \u2019s detention and treatment in the temporary detention facility .","According to the applicant , from DATE to DATE he was detained mostly in facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . His letters to the ORG dated DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE were dispatched from that facility . A letter from the ORG dated DATE was sent to and received by the applicant in the same facility .","The applicant also submitted that on several occasions he had been transported to court hearings and to penal medical institution no . ORG in GPE ( \u201c institution no . LIU-CARDINAL \u201d ) and that he had spent very short periods , in transit , in temporary detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of the town of GPE . In particular , the applicant had been sent to institution no . LIUCARDINAL in DATE , where he had undergone successful treatment for tuberculosis . A chest X - ray examination on DATE indicated that his tuberculosis had been cured , although extensive calcification and fibrosis remained in his lungs . On DATE a medical commission confirmed his recovery . The applicant was prescribed anti - relapse treatment , but this was never provided to him after his return to the temporary detention facility .","The applicant filed a number of complaints \u2012 for instance with ORG of the Volgograd Region \u2012 arguing that he had not been afforded adequate medical treatment in facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . On DATE the Prosecutor \u2019s Office re - directed the applicant \u2019s claim to ORG in LOC . DATE the authorities rejected the applicant \u2019s claim as ill - founded . They confirmed that from DATE he had been detained in facility no . ORG . Referring to the decision of the medical commission on DATE , the authorities held that the applicant \u2019s tuberculosis had been fully cured .","The Government , relying on a certificate issued on DATE by the head of facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , asserted that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been detained in that facility . In their observations of DATE , however , the Government mentioned the applicant \u2019s detention in facility no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , but did not provide any further details .","Despite the ORG \u2019s request for the applicant \u2019s entire medical file , the ORG submitted no medical documents dating from the period after his arrest and up until DATE . They merely noted that the applicant had contracted hepatitis C and tuberculosis before his arrest . The applicant did not dispute that submission .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of GPE .","According to the applicant , the medical service in the colony was very poor . The colony did not employ a tuberculosis specialist and the GPE access to drugs , which were often out of stock , was limited . The applicant only received basic anti - fever medication .","The Government did not provide any information regarding the medical assistance afforded to the applicant in colony no . IK-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and did not submit his medical record or any medical certificates from his time there .","On DATE , after the applicant complained of coughing up blood , he was transferred to institution no . ORG .","The Government provided the ORG with copies of the applicant \u2019s medical documents for the period DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","The medical records show that on admission to institution no . LIUCARDINAL the applicant had undergone a general medical examination , a chest X - ray examination and a clinical blood test . A sputum culture test was performed DATE . The applicant was diagnosed with recurrent smear - positive infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobe of his left lung at the stage of lung tissue destruction caused by mycobacterium tuberculosis ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . He was prescribed protiocomb , a complex medicine containing protionamide , pyrazinamide , ethambutol hydrochloride , lomefloxacin hydrochloride and vitamin BCARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant was tested for HIV , syphilis , hepatitis B and C. The test confirmed his hepatitis C infection , but no antibodies associated with the other infections were found .","DATE the applicant again underwent a chest X - ray examination . It revealed that the cavity in the lung had decreased in size , and some negative changes in the lung tissues had progressed further .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who noted in the \u201c epicrisis \u201d ( medical report issued on the applicant \u2019s discharge ) that no significant changes in the applicant \u2019s health had occurred and prescribed continued treatment with protiocomb and ciprofloxacin , an antibiotic used to treat a number of bacterial infections .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s treatment was modified . He was prescribed a combination of anti - tuberculosis drugs and injections . A chest X - ray examination on DATE showed no changes in the applicant \u2019s lungs .","The applicant sent an application to ORG of the town of GPE seeking early release on medical grounds . That request was dismissed on DATE upon the court \u2019s finding that the applicant \u2019s state of health did not warrant his release from detention .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s blood was twice taken for testing and his liver function was tested for the first time . On CARDINAL further occasions in DATE the institution carried out a sputum culture test and also performed the first drug susceptibility test . The test was smear - positive . It revealed that the ORG was resistant to streptomycin . On CARDINAL and DATE the applicant underwent a chest X - ray examination and a tomography examination . They showed no changes . The treatment regimen was modified . The applicant was prescribed , among other medicines , pyrazinamide , ethambutol , prothionamide , cycloserine , rifampicin and isoniazid .","As follows from the epicrisis of CARDINAL DATE and a \u201c regime violation record \u201d dated DATE signed by CARDINAL deputy heads of institution no . ORG and the head of the detention ward , the applicant refused to take the drugs pyrazinamide , ethambutol , prothionamide and cycloserine \u2012 citing their adverse effects on his health through inducing negative development of his hepatitis C \u2012 and claiming that doctors should first treat his hepatitis . According to the same record , the applicant also refused to give a written explanation of the reasons for his refusal .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s X - ray examination established increased infiltration of the left lung tissue . According to a medical certificate dated DATE , his health had deteriorated due to his consistent refusal to take the prescribed medicines .","According to an extract from the applicant \u2019s medical history , on an unspecified date he agreed to take isoniazid , rifampicin and capreomycin on condition that he would be provided with hepatoprotectors .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was released from detention with a diagnosis of infiltrative contagious tuberculosis of the left lung at the stage of lung tissue destruction .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant received in - patient medical treatment in a civilian anti - tuberculosis hospital , where he was diagnosed with active chronic fibrous - cavernous pulmonary tuberculosis at the stage of infiltration with bacilli emission , as well as hepatitis C. There is no information in the ORG \u2019s possession concerning the details of the applicant \u2019s treatment during that period .","The parties did not provide the ORG with any information about the applicant \u2019s detention and treatment after his renewed arrest on DATE . The applicant \u2019s letters to PERSON submitted to the ORG indicate that DATE and DATE he was detained in facilities nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , that he had no access to medical treatment , and that institution no . ORG had refused to admit him for treatment before his conviction .","On DATE the applicant underwent a chest X - ray examination which indicated negative changes in his right lung . The volume of his left lung had decreased , its tissue was infiltrated and it contained a number of cavities .","Following the fresh conviction , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was admitted to institution no . ORG . He was examined by a doctor , who diagnosed him with hepatitis C and ORG positive infiltrative tuberculosis of the left lung at the stage of tissue destruction . The doctor ordered blood , urine , sputum culture and drug susceptibility tests and an electrocardiogram examination . The applicant was prescribed a long list of medicines , including capreomycin , isoniazid , ethambutol and hepatoprotectors .","DATE , after the results of the tests had been received , the applicant \u2019s treatment was slightly modifed to include ofloxacin .","In DATE the applicant was examined on CARDINAL occasions by doctors , who recommended continuing the prescribed treatment .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s electrocardiogram examination revealed that he had mitral insufficiency .","A medical record drawn up on DATE by the applicant \u2019s attending doctor indicated that the applicant had refused to take tuberculosis medicines on that date . The following entries in the applicant \u2019s medical record dated DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE do not contain any similar information . The Government did not submit any other document ( for instance , a regime violation record ) showing that the applicant had refused to continue the treatment .","On DATE a medical commission examined the applicant and established no significant changes in his condition . The most recent entry in the medical record , made on DATE , showed no significant development in his health .","No further information about the applicant \u2019s treatment was provided after DATE .","The applicant was certified as having second - degree disability on DATE .","A medical panel examined the applicant on DATE with the aim of determining whether his state of health warranted early release . The panel stated that the applicant was suffering from multi - drug resistant progressive tuberculosis aggravated by cavernosal fibrosis of the lungs and cardiopulmonary decompensation in the third stage . The applicant \u2019s left lung was completely destroyed by the infection . The panel concluded that his state of health could warrant his release on parole .","On DATE the applicant died from tuberculosis in institution no . ORG .","The documents from the case - file , including a court judgment , indicate that the applicant was not married . According to certificate no . ORG issued by institution no . ORG on DATE , when being asked about his relatives , the applicant stated that he had a partner , PERSON . The authorities noted that statement in the applicant \u2019s personal file and allowed PERSON to visit him in detention as his de facto wife . By a telegram on DATE the authorities informed PERSON of the applicant \u2019s death , addressing her as his wife .","According to PERSON submissions , which were not contested by the Government , she was in a close family - like relationship with the applicant from DATE until his death in detention . She visited him on many occasions , sent him letters and parcels . In DATE when the applicant was released from detention they lived together and ran a common household .","PERSON submitted that she had had intense and intimate correspondence with the applicant before his death . She provided the ORG with CARDINAL letters sent to her by the applicant in DATE to confirm that they had shared strong feelings for each other .","On DATE the applicant formally authorised Ms Yusupova to withdraw money from his bank account . In his letter to ORG the applicant expressly asked ORG to award her non - pecuniary damage if he died ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152383","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ILONA KOV\u00c1CS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant brought an action against the GPE ORG challenging an administrative decision whereby the registration document of her car had been revoked .","On DATE ORG adopted a final judgment quashing the administrative decision in question .","It appears that the ensuing administrative proceedings to have the registration document reissued have been pending ever since ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160312","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KAN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Bolu . At the material time he was a military official .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s superiors imposed on him an administrative restriction for DATE and room confinement for DATE as disciplinary penalties . The penalties were enforced MONEY ( DATE ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( DATE ) , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175496","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BADALYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of threatening to use violence against the investigator in charge of the criminal case against his ex - wife .","On DATE the applicant was charged with the same crime .","On DATE the investigator filed a motion with ORG seeking to have the applicant detained for DATE .","On DATE ORG examined and granted the investigator \u2019s application , ordering the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE , namely until DATE . It found that the motion was substantiated , since the applicant partially admitted his guilt and the case materials provided sufficient grounds for believing that he might abscond and obstruct the investigation , having regard to the nature and degree of dangerousness of the offence in question .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal seeking to cancel the detention order and claiming that the investigating authority had not obtained any materials or evidence to substantiate the reasons for which it had sought to detain him and that they failed to take into account the applicant \u2019s personality .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that the applicant \u2019s detention was based on a reasonable suspicion , and found the grounds invoked by ORG in justification of detention to be sufficient . It also noted that less severe measures were insufficient to safeguard the applicant \u2019s proper conduct .","On DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE of ORG .","NORP On DATE the investigation into the applicant \u2019s case was concluded and the case was transferred to ORG for trial .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s criminal case was set down for trial . By the same decision the trial court decided that the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was \u201c to remain unchanged \u201d .","On DATE ORG returned the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal as it was unsubstantiated and did not met the formal requirements imposed by law .","On an unspecified date the applicant filed a motion with ORG seeking to be released . He argued , inter alia , that there were not sufficient reasons to keep him in detention .","On DATE ORG examined and dismissed this motion . ORG found that the applicant \u2019s detention was ordered by its decision of CARDINAL DATE . It also noted that the existing materials of the case were sufficient to conclude that the applicant \u2019s detention was justified .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision .","On DATE ORG left the appeal unexamined . ORG found that there was no possibility under domestic law to appeal against the decision of ORG \u201c to leave the applicant \u2019s detention unchanged \u201d .","The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible for lack of merit .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant filed a new motion with ORG seeking to be released . He argued , inter alia , that the collection of evidence against him had been finalised and that there were not sufficient reasons to keep him under detention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s motion having regard to the dangerousness and nature of the alleged offence and the fact that the applicant might abscond and obstruct the investigation .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision .","On DATE ORG left the applicant \u2019s appeal unexamined on the same grounds as indicated in its decision of DATE .","The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible for lack of merit .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged , imposing a sentence of DATE years\u2019 imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166775","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VUKOSAVLJEVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He was employed by Holding Kompanija \u201c Komgrap \u201d \u2013 DD \u201c Komgrap gradnja \u201d , a socially - owned company based in GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","On DATE , ORG ordered the debtor to pay the applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE , upon the applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG accepted the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor ( ORG ) .","On DATE the applicant submitted his respective claims .","On DATE ORG dismissed these claims as out of time . ORG upheld that decision on DATE .","NORP The insolvency proceedings against the debtor are still ongoing .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .","ORG dismissed his appeal on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a new constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed again his appeal . On DATE that decision was delivered to the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150572","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"WASIEWSKA v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Bydgoszcz . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Ms J. Chrzanowska , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant and her husband PERSON divorced . The applicant submitted that prior to the divorce her former husband had thrown her out of their flat . He changed the locks and prevented the applicant from entering to take personal items belonging to her , their daughter and granddaughter .","On DATE the applicant and her former husband reached a friendly settlement as regards the division of their marital property , i.e. the flat . The applicant became the sole owner of the flat against the payment to T.W. of MONEY ( ORG ) until DATE . Her former husband retained the right to stay in the flat until that date . However , PERSON made it impossible for the applicant to sell the flat so that she could have the money to pay him his share .","The applicant \u2019s former husband obtained an enforcement order against the applicant with the result that part of her retirement pension was seized by the bailiff to help pay off her debt . She was also obliged to pay CARDINAL of the maintenance costs for the flat .","In DATE the applicant brought a civil case for eviction against her former husband . On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s action and ordered the eviction of T.W. At the same time it ordered that the defendant be allocated social housing by the municipality . The execution of the judgment was to be stayed until he had been allocated social housing .","The applicant appealed , complaining about the part of the court \u2019s judgment obliging the municipality to award her former husband social housing . Her appeal was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE by ORG . The appeal lodged by PERSON was rejected for formal reasons .","On DATE ORG issued an order confirming that the judgment of DATE was final .","Subsequently T.W. instituted proceedings in which he sought to quash the enforcement order arguing that the flat allocated to him by the municipality had been in bad condition . On DATE ORG finally dismissed his application to quash the enforcement order .","On an unspecified date the applicant made use of a remedy provided by LAW DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki\u2013 \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) . She complained about the length of the enforcement proceedings conducted by the court bailiff .","NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint finding that there had been no delay on the part of the bailiff .","The applicant \u2019s former husband refused CARDINAL offers of social housing in DATE . In DATE he was offered another flat which had to be refurbished before he could move in .","The applicant submitted that in DATE T.W. finally moved out and she regained possession of her flat .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant brought a civil claim for damages against her former husband , PERSON She relied on sectionCARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act claiming that PERSON had been living in her flat without legal title to it . She sought compensation from him in the amount calculated in reference to the cost of rent for a similar apartment on the free market .","On DATE ORG partly granted the action and awarded the applicant LAW ( QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) in compensation for ORG \u2019s use of the flat without legal title . The court established that since the eviction order the applicant \u2019s former husband had no right to stay in the flat and since he continued to live there he had been liable to pay compensation . PERSON appealed .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeal and dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . The court agreed with the lower court \u2019s findings as to the facts of the case , in particular that PERSON had no right to stay in the flat . However the appellate court noticed that since PERSON had had the right to social housing , on the basis of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , he had been liable to pay only his share of rent . There was no legal basis to order him to pay compensation on the basis of free - market calculations . Since the applicant sought compensation and not the reimbursement of CARDINAL of the maintenance costs , the court dismissed her action .","DATE to the Act of DATE on the protection of the rights of tenants , housing resources of municipalities and on amendments to LAW ( LOC o ochronie praw lokator\u00f3w , misszkaniowym zasobie gminy I o zmianie kodeku cywilnego , \u201c the DATE LAW ) added a new provision ( subsection ( CARDINAL ) ) to section CARDINAL , which makes the municipality liable , under the rules of tort , for any damage sustained by the landlord on account of the municipality \u2019s failure to provide the tenant with social housing . This provision reads :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the municipality has not provided social housing to a person who is entitled to it by virtue of a judgment , the landlord shall have a claim for damages against the municipality on the basis of LAW . \u201d","Consequently , the municipality \u2019s failure is statutorily deemed to be an \u201c unlawful omission \u201d within the meaning of LAW .","Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code reads in so far as relevant :","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG , municipality or another legal person wielding public power by virtue of the law shall be liable for damage caused by an unlawful act or omission in the exercise of that power . \u201d","ORG , in its ruling of DATE ( no . CZP CARDINAL ) concerning a claim for damages under section PERSON ) of the CARDINAL Act read in conjunction with LAW , confirmed that a landlord was entitled to full compensation for any damage sustained on account of a municipality \u2019s failure to provide social housing to a tenant .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , as long as the municipality has not supplied social housing , the tenant pays the same amount of rent that he would have paid if the tenancy had not been terminated . According to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , other tenants in respect of whom the tenancy has terminated and who have not vacated the flat pay compensation to a landlord corresponding to the market - related rent that the landlord could normally receive . If such compensation does not cover losses incurred by a landlord , he may seek supplementary compensation ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168066","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DUBSK\u00c1 AND KREJZOV\u00c1 v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Lemmens;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE and live in GPE and GPE respectively .","The applicant gave birth to her first child in hospital in DATE without any complications . According to her , during the birth the medical personnel present were urging her to agree to undergo various kinds of medical intervention even though she had expressly stated her wish not to be subjected to any unnecessary medical treatment . She was also forced to give birth in a position she did not find comfortable . She wanted to leave the hospital TIME after the birth as both she and the baby were healthy , but a doctor ordered her to stay in the hospital . She therefore did not leave until DATE , when she presented a letter from her paediatrician , who confirmed that the applicant would take care of the child .","In DATE the applicant became pregnant for the second time with an expected delivery date in DATE . The pregnancy was free from complications and the medical examinations and tests did not indicate any problems . Since she considered that giving birth in a hospital had been stressful for her , the applicant decided to give birth at home and searched for a midwife to assist at the birth . However , she was unable to find any midwife who was willing to assist her with a home birth .","On DATE she wrote to her health - insurance company and to ORG ( krajsk\u00fd \u00fa\u0159ad ) asking for help in finding a midwife .","On DATE the health - insurance company replied that NORP legislation did not provide for the possibility of a public health - insurance company covering costs arising from home births and that it therefore had no contracts with any health professionals providing such services . Moreover , prevailing expert medical opinion did not approve of home births .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG added that the midwives listed in its register of health professionals were , in any event , only allowed by law to attend births at LOC possessing the technical equipment required by Decree no . CARDINAL and not in a private home .","Not having found any health professional to assist her , the applicant gave birth to her son alone at home on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE she lodged a constitutional appeal ( \u00fastavn\u00ed st\u00ed\u017enost ) , complaining that she had been denied the possibility of giving birth at home with the assistance of a health professional , in violation of her right to respect for her private life .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the appeal , holding that it would be contrary to the principle of subsidiarity for it to decide on the merits of the case , because the applicant had not exhausted all the available remedies , which included an action for protection of personal rights under LAW and an application for judicial review under LAW . It nevertheless expressed its doubts as to the compliance of NORP legislation with LAW and asked the relevant parties to initiate a serious and well - informed debate about new legislation . CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL judges attached separate opinions to the decision , in which they disagreed with the reasoning behind it . Most of them considered that ORG should have dismissed the appeal as an actio popularis and should have refrained from expressing any views on the constitutionality of the legislation concerning home births .","The applicant is the mother of CARDINAL children who were born at home in DATE and DATE with the assistance of a midwife . The midwives attended the births without any authorisation from the ORG .","According to the applicant , before deciding to give birth at home , she had visited several hospitals , which had all refused her requests to deliver the baby without any medical intervention that was not strictly necessary . They had also refused to agree to her wish for uninterrupted contact with the baby from the moment of birth , as the regular practice was to take the child away from the mother immediately after the birth to be weighed and measured and for further medical observation for a period of TIME .","At the time of lodging the present application , the applicant was pregnant again , with an expected delivery in DATE . The pregnancy was free from complications and she again wished to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife . However , she was unable to find a midwife willing to assist because of the risk of a heavy fine if medical services were provided without authorisation . The applicant asked various authorities to help to find a solution .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG replied that it did not provide medical services to individual patients and that the applicant should make enquiries to GPE ( M\u011bsto Praha ) , which , acting as a regional office , registered and issued licences to health professionals .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s health - insurance company informed her that the attendance of a health professional at a home birth was not covered by public insurance .","On DATE GPE informed the applicant that no midwife registered in GPE was authorised to assist with home births .","On DATE the applicant gave birth to a child in a maternity hospital in GPE , QUANTITY away from GPE . She had chosen that hospital because of its reputation for respecting the wishes of mothers during delivery . Nevertheless , according to her , not all her wishes had been respected . Despite the fact that both she and the child had been healthy and that no complications had occurred during the birth , the applicant had had to stay in the hospital for TIME . The newborn baby had been separated from her after the birth , and before leaving the maternity hospital the remains of the child \u2019s umbilical cord had been cut off despite her wishes to the contrary ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166942","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF TRAVA\u0160 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a professor of theology . As a professor of theology he was qualified to teach NORP religious education and courses in ethics and culture , as provided under the relevant domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On the basis of a proposal from the applicant \u2019s local priest , the archbishop of ORG ( PERSON ) issued the applicant with a canonical mandate ( missio canonica ) ( no . DATE ) authorising him to teach NORP religious education .","On DATE , following the intervention of ORG of ORG ( PERSON ured rije\u010dke ORG ) , the applicant was offered , without having to undergo a public competition , a contract of employment of indefinite duration as a layman teacher of NORP religious education in CARDINAL ORG high schools in ORG .","The applicant \u2019s appointment was based on the Agreement of DATE between ORG and GPE on education and cultural affairs and the relevant complementary domestic regulations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE below ) . He was thereby employed in the public service and remunerated by the ORG .","At the time , the applicant was married to T.F. They had married in a religious ceremony on DATE and their marriage had been recognised at the same time by the civil authorities , as provided for under the relevant domestic law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant \u2019s subsequent divorce from GPE was registered before the civil authorities , and in DATE he married another woman in a civil ceremony .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his civil marriage to another woman while still bound , in the eyes of the ORG , by the religious marriage to his previous wife was contrary to NORP doctrine and disqualified him from teaching religious education . The relevant part of the letter read :","\u201c It has been established that in DATE this year you concluded a civil marriage although you are still bound by ORG to a third person . The local ORG of ORG issued you a mandate to teach NORP religious education in school . Each religious education teacher must demonstrate that he is \u2018 outstanding in true doctrine and the witness of a NORP life\u2019 ( ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) and must participate in the sacramental and evangelical community of a parish . The new situation does not enable you to do this .","You are therefore invited to explain in writing as soon as possible the manner in which your canonical situation can be harmonised with canonical mandate no . DATE and then , by DATE , to come for a meeting in ORG . \u201d","After obtaining the applicant \u2019s explanation of his situation , on DATE ORG withdrew his canonical mandate to teach NORP religious education .","On DATE ORG informed the CARDINAL schools in which the applicant was employed of the new situation . The relevant part of the letter read :","\u201c We should inform you that on DATE canonical mandate no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - DATE was withdrawn from the teacher of religious education , PERSON .","The canonical mandate was withdrawn under LAW of the LAW between the Holy See and GPE on education and cultural affairs ( ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) because of a breach of ORG ( ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . PERSON explained his situation in writing . \u201d","On DATE , relying on section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( regular termination of an employment contract ) , the schools dismissed the applicant from his teaching job on the grounds that he could no longer be a teacher of NORP religious education without a canonical mandate . They stressed that it had been impossible to find another position for the applicant or to offer him an alternative post within the schools . The applicant was given two months\u2019 notice and the right to an indemnity .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG ( PERSON ) , challenging the decisions on his dismissal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s civil action on the grounds that as stipulated in the LAW between the Holy See and GPE and the related Agreement between the Government of GPE and ORG on NORP religious education in ORG schools and pre - school institutions , he could not teach NORP religious education without a canonical mandate . ORG also found that the schools had examined the possibility of appointing the applicant to another suitable post , but that as there was no such post , they had justifiably terminated his contract of employment .","The applicant challenged the judgment of ORG by lodging an appeal before ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u ORG ) . He argued that he had not breached LAW or any other relevant legislation and that the LAW between the Government of GPE and ORG did not require that a person whose canonical mandate had been withdrawn should be dismissed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , endorsing the findings and reasoning of ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) and a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) respectively . He relied , inter alia , on ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , and the corresponding provisions of the LAW , arguing that there had been an unjust interference with his private and family life as a result of the decisions on his dismissal , and that his dismissal had been of a discriminatory nature . He contended , in particular , that the conclusion of a second marriage contract in a civil ceremony could not be a reason for dismissal under LAW or any other ORG laws . He therefore considered that his dismissal based on the fact that he had divorced his former wife and remarried in a civil ceremony had disproportionately affected his private life .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as unfounded , endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts . In particular , ORG stressed that the applicant \u2019s dismissal had been based on the withdrawal of his canonical mandate , which was a necessary requirement for employment as a teacher of NORP religious education as provided for under the relevant domestic law . ORG also held that it was not for the schools or the courts to enter into the examination of the reasons for the withdrawal of the applicant \u2019s canonical mandate by the ORG .","On DATE the applicant supplemented his constitutional complaint by extending his arguments to the judgment of ORG . He contended in particular that ORG refusal to examine the reasons for his dismissal had essentially deprived him of the possibility to have those reasons effectively challenged in court .","A public hearing was held and on CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , finding that there had been no violation of his right to respect for his private and family life , or any discrimination against him . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c DATE . It follows from the available material and the [ appellant \u2019s ] constitutional complaint that the appellant \u2019s first marriage had been concluded in a religious ceremony before an official of the religious community and that [ the appellant ] was divorced on the basis of a final court decision as provided for under the relevant NORP law . ORG notes that the appellant subsequently concluded a new marriage in a civil ceremony without any restriction imposed by the ORG . It follows that the ORG did not inhibit his determination to remarry , nor did it prevent him from remarrying and founding a new family .","Accordingly , the appellant \u2019s right to marry under LAW and his constitutional right to respect for his family life under LAW and LAW has not been breached .","...","DATE . ... [ ORG starts by observing that GPE and ORG concluded an Agreement on education and cultural affairs , signed in GPE on DATE . The Act ratifying that Agreement came into force on DATE and thereby this international treaty became part of the internal legal order of GPE with precedence in terms of its legal effects over the [ domestic ] statutes .","By LAW undertook certain obligations which must be abided by and respected . Primarily , it undertook to secure NORP religious education in all ORG elementary and high schools and all pre - school institutions as a mandatory class for all those who have chosen that course , under the same conditions applicable to other mandatory classes .","[ The Agreement ] stipulates that NORP religious education will be taught by qualified religious education teachers who are suitable for that position , in the opinion of ORG authorities , and meet the requisite legal requirements of the NORP legislation . It also stipulates that teachers of religious education must hold a canonical mandate ( missio canonica ) issued by the diocesan bishop , and that withdrawal of the mandate leads to an immediate loss of the right to teach NORP religious education . Under the ORG , teachers of religious education are members , together with their pupils , of the educational corps ... GPE undertook to regulate the programme and functioning of NORP religious education in schools of all types and levels by a special agreement DATE .","ORG considers it necessary to note at this point that the appellant is wrong when he argues that the Agreement between the Holy See and GPE on education and cultural affairs does not require a canonical mandate as a condition for employment and that such a requirement only flows from the ORG between the Government of GPE and ORG on NORP religious education in ORG schools and pre - school institutions of DATE . The appellant specifically contends that the Agreement between the Government [ of GPE ] and ORG is a bilateral agreement which \u2018 is not a statute and does not have the status of an international treaty\u2019 and thus could not be binding for [ him and the ORG ] nor could it be applied to [ his ] case , as was done by the [ lower ] courts .","Although the appellant relies on an erroneous premise that the canonical mandate , as a condition for employment as a teacher of religious education , has been stipulated ( only ) by the Agreement between the Government [ of GPE ] and ORG , it could be held that in essence he considers that the consequences of the withdrawal of the canonical mandate on his contract of employment , and his position of teacher of religious education , are contrary to LAW .","ORG reiterates that the requirement to hold a canonical mandate in order to teach religious education , and the consequences of its withdrawal ( loss of the right to teach NORP religious education ) , are provided for LAW between the Holy See and GPE on education and cultural affairs . ...","ORG considers it necessary to examine the special requirement stipulated by the FAC agreements for employment as a teacher of religious education \u2013 the canonical mandate .","ORG TIME notes that the Government of GPE have so far concluded CARDINAL agreements on questions of mutual interest with different religious communities , in particular with :","- ORG in GPE ( ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ;","- the NORP community in GPE ( ORG no . CARDINAL ) ;","- ORG in GPE and ORG in GPE ( ORG no . CARDINAL ) ;","- the NORP ( Pentecostal ) Church in GPE , ORG in GPE and GPE of GPE ( ORG no . CARDINAL ) ;","- ORG in GPE , ORG and ORG in GPE ( ORG nos . DATE ) ;","- the NORP community Bet GPE in GPE ( ORG no . CARDINAL ) ; and","- the Coordination of NORP townships in GPE ( ORG no . CARDINAL ) .","All these agreements have been concluded under LAW on the Legal Status of Religious Communities ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL ) and they all contain identical provisions concerning , for example , mandatory religious education classes for those who have chosen them , the teaching of these courses under the same conditions as other mandatory courses , and the necessity for teachers of religious education to hold the requisite mandate to teach religious education , which can always be withdrawn \u2018 for reasons of deficiencies related to the correctness of teaching and personal morality\u2019 .","Such a requirement , given the nature of their job and its proximity with the mission of dissemination of the church \u2019s teaching , in ORG view , is not an excessive burden for persons who have chosen to become teachers of religious education . The assessment of a person \u2019s adequacy [ to teach religious education ] by the competent church authorities is a concretisation of the freedom of the church \u2019s activity and the right to religious freedom , which [ also ] includes the right of parents to a religious education of their children .","ORG . The enforcement of the obligation undertaken by an international agreement , namely the organisation of NORP religious education in ORG elementary and high schools and pre - school education institutions , as provided for under the ORG between the Holy See and GPE on education and cultural affairs and the ORG between the Government of GPE and ORG , brought religious education teachers into the employment system of GPE . Although their employment status is not fully defined by these Agreements , the provisions of the LAW between the Holy See and GPE on education and cultural affairs in themselves show that the employment status of religious education teachers is a sui generis employment status \u2013 in order to teach religious education they must be suitable for that position in the opinion of the ORG authorities ; they must hold a canonical mandate and the withdrawal of the mandate leads to the loss of the right to teach NORP religious education .","At the public hearing DATE on the basis of evidence given by ORG for legal affairs of ORG , Education and ORG of GPE , it has been undoubtedly established that the employment of all teachers of religious education was conducted without an open competition , although that has not been provided for under the relevant law . It was only [ later ] , after the public hearing , by section CARDINAL of the amendments to the Act on Tuition and Education in GPE and High Schools ( ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) that a new section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) was introduced , which provides that a contract of employment without an open competition may be concluded for the position of religious education teacher .","In DATE ORG and ORG forwarded to all county offices for education , culture , information , sport and technical culture a letter concerning the employment status of religious education teachers in elementary and high schools ; more precisely , concerning their hiring and dismissal .","The letter indicates that a contract of employment is to be concluded with religious education teachers meeting the relevant requirements , and that if the diocesan bishop by means of a decree withdraws the canonical mandate to teach NORP religious education from a religious education teacher due to deficiencies related to the correctness of the teaching and personal morality , the contract of employment is to be terminated under LAW as an extraordinary dismissal .","DATE . It therefore follows that the appellant also entered the ORG education system without participating in an open competition . At the public hearing he stated that , on the basis of the local priest \u2019s recommendation the bishop had given him the mandate , the Ordinary had acted as an intermediary , and the school had given him the employment . Thus , by having the canonical mandate and meeting all other requirements , the appellant and the defendants concluded a \u2018 classical\u2019 contract of employment under LAW , which does not mention the canonical mandate or the consequences of its possible withdrawal .","At the public hearing , when asked whether he had been aware of the consequences of his conduct on the right to teach religious education , the appellant stated that he had passed the exam in canon law which he could not have passed without learning [ also the issues ] concerning those consequences . It follows that the appellant knew that his position depended on the mandate given by the diocesan bishop and that he would lose it if the mandate were withdrawn .","Accordingly , although he had concluded a \u2018 classical\u2019 employment contract under LAW , the appellant could not have expected , after he had lost the canonical mandate as a consequence of entering into a new civil marriage while he was still in a \u2018 ORG marriage with a third person , that he would be able to continue to teach religious education . However , he could have expected , irrespective of the internal instructions of the Minister , that the schools where he was employed would take all necessary measures to employ him in another post . This is because the withdrawal of the canonical mandate leads to the loss of the right to teach NORP religious education and not dismissal or the loss of his degree in theology . Under LAW of the By - law on the educational level and pedagogical - psychological education of teachers in high schools ( ORG nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , a degree in theology [ opens the possibility ] of teaching courses in ethics and culture .","According to the findings of the first - instance court , the defendants had examined the possibility of employing the appellant in another post but , as such a post had not existed , they terminated his contract of employment by so - called regular dismissal , which gives rise to the right to a notice period and an indemnity . In so doing , the defendants acted in the usual manner for terminating a contract of employment by so - called regular dismissal . ORG therefore finds that the appellant has not been treated differently from other workers , including employees in schools , in the situation of a termination of a contract of employment by so - called regular dismissal .","The assessment of the lawfulness of the termination of the appellant \u2019s contract of employment was , in the light of the relevant labour law , conducted by the [ competent ] courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . In view of the fact that for the position of teacher of religious education there is a further special requirement , without which it is impossible to conclude a contract of employment ( a canonical mandate ) , and having found that the appellant , due to the withdrawal of [ the canonical mandate ] no longer met the requirements for teaching NORP religious education , and the fact that the defendants had tried to find him another post ... , the [ competent ] courts , in ORG view , applied a constitutionally acceptable interpretation according to which the appellant \u2019s contract of employment had been terminated in accordance with the relevant law .","ORG . Against the above background , in view of the GPE conduct following the withdrawal of the appellant \u2019s canonical mandate and in view of the manner in which the competent courts provided him with judicial protection in terms of the ORG \u2019s obligations under the FAC agreements , ORG finds that the appellant has been afforded sufficient protection of his [ employment rights ] . \u201d","Judge PERSON appended a concurring opinion to the decision , agreeing with the findings of the majority . However , he argued that ORG had not sufficiently appreciated the fact that the applicant had voluntarily consented to his position depending on the canonical mandate , which the diocesan bishop was authorised to issue and to withdraw .","NORP The President of ORG gave a dissenting opinion in which she argued , in particular , that the normative framework for the employment of teachers of religious education , based on the Agreement between the Holy See and GPE on education and cultural affairs , had not been implemented sufficiently precisely in the relevant domestic employment system , which had left a number of issues undetermined .","The decision of ORG was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","In DATE PERSON applied to the PERSON First - instance ORG diocesan ORG ( GPE \u017eenidbeni ORG prvog stupnja u ORG ) for the annulment of her religious marriage to the applicant on the grounds that , when entering into the marriage , he had demonstrated \u201c a positive act of the will excluding marriage itself \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below , canon CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the PERSON First - instance ORG diocesan ORG accepted GPE \u2019s application and annulled her religious marriage to the applicant . The decision was then forwarded for examination to the ORG - diocesan ORG ( Me\u0111ubiskupijski prizivni sud u GPE ) .","The proceedings were held in the applicant \u2019s absence because he had failed to respond to the court \u2019s summons . During the proceedings , an email sent by the applicant to GPE on DATE was admitted as evidence . In the email the applicant stated that if he \u201c could return all other sacraments [ he ] would gladly do it . This way , if [ he ] managed to get rid of only one , which , as [ they ] both knew , never existed , [ his ] heart would be happier . \u201d","On the basis of the evidence adduced , on DATE the ORG - diocesan ORG upheld the decision of the Rijeka First - instance ORG diocesan ORG annulling the applicant \u2019s religious marriage to GPE"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166925","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF \u017dAJA v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nulla poena sine lege;Criminal offence)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant claims to have been living in GPE since DATE , when the NORP authorities granted him a visa for an extended stay ( a long - term residence permit ) . On DATE the applicant was granted the right to reside permanently in GPE ( a permanent residence permit ) . However , he did not de - register his domicile ( prebivali\u0161te ) in GPE .","On DATE the applicant bought a car ( a Mercedes S CARDINAL L ) in GPE and on DATE he registered it in GPE in his name .","On DATE the applicant entered GPE in his car . He claimed that the purpose of his visit was , inter alia , to de - register his domicile in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was stopped by the police in GPE while driving his car . The police authorities , finding it suspicious that a NORP national was driving a car with foreign licence plates , impounded the car and reported the matter to ORG , suspecting that the car had been imported into GPE without payment of the relevant taxes and that an administrative offence had thus been committed .","On DATE the applicant de - registered his domicile in GPE .","On DATE the applicant re - registered his domicile in GPE .","Meanwhile , on DATE ORG had instituted administrative proceedings ( upravni postupak ) with a view to establishing whether the applicant was liable to pay taxes on the importation of his vehicle and if so , in what amount . On DATE ORG had issued a decision impounding the applicant \u2019s car , against which the applicant did not appeal .","On DATE ORG issued a decision ordering the applicant to pay , by DATE , the customs debt ( consisting of the ORG and the special tax on motor vehicles ) owed on the importation of his car , which amounted to MONEY ( HRK ) .","The applicant did not appeal against that decision , which thus became final and enforceable on DATE .","NORP Since the applicant did not pay the above sum , on DATE the ORG instituted administrative enforcement proceedings and issued a decision confiscating his car and ordering its sale with a view to collecting the above - mentioned customs debt .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , as the second - instance administrative authority , dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first - instance decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant brought an action in ORG ( ORG ) .","On DATE that court , which in the meantime had become ORG ( ORG upravni sud PERSON ) , dismissed the applicant \u2019s action .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG had also instituted administrative offence proceedings ( prekr\u0161ajni postupak ) against the applicant for importing his car into GPE without paying the relevant taxes .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of committing an administrative offence under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) subparagraph CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and fined him HRK CARDINAL . ORG found that the applicant had had his domicile in GPE at the time of the commission of the offence . Therefore , it was irrelevant that he did not pay income tax in GPE , that he had health insurance in GPE and not in GPE , and that he had been granted the right to reside permanently in GPE . By having his domicile in GPE he failed to satisfy the conditions for exemption from payment of customs duties set forth in LAW to LAW ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) , which stated that the registered owner of a vehicle registered abroad must , in order to qualify for exemption , have his domicile outside the territory of the ORG into which the vehicle was being brought ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG ( ORG prekr\u0161ajni sud PERSON ) quashed the first - instance decision on account of incomplete facts , and remitted the case to ORG . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c [ ORG ] states , as the decisive reason for its decision to find the accused guilty , that [ he ] has his domicile in ... GPE , at [ an ] address in GPE , ... , and that the fact that he possesses a residence permit , that is , a valid visa , of GPE , is not sufficient evidence for the accused to be entitled to import [ his ] vehicle with total exemption from customs duties under LAW .","However , it is precisely such explanation of the contested decision that , along with the other elements in the case file , shows that the taking of evidence was flawed , that [ ORG ] did not give [ sufficient ] reasons for the decisive facts on which it based its decision , and that they [ that is , those facts and the reasons given ] are in strong contradiction with each other . [ In particular , ORG ] while acknowledging the fact that [ the accused ] possesses a residence permit , that is , a visa , of GPE , further gives as reasons [ to support the finding ] that the accused has a domicile in ... GPE , that he is not a taxpayer in ... GPE , and that he is not even insured with ORG .","....","... [ NORP the first - instance proceedings [ before ORG ] the accused stated circumstances and furnished evidence which , in his view , suggested that he had not committed the offence of which he was accused . [ ORG therefore ] needed to examine the evidence more thoroughly with a view to establishing the [ relevant ] facts completely and correctly .","...","This court considers that what is missing in the present case are the reasons for not accepting the status of the accused in GPE , the explanation of where the accused actually lives [ resides ] and , consequently , a clear conclusion as to whether or not he satisfied the conditions set out in LAW .... \u201d","In the resumed proceedings , by a decision of DATE ORG again found the applicant guilty of committing the same administrative offence and fined him HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . ORG again found that at the time of the commission of the offence the applicant had had his domicile in GPE according to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and thus did not satisfy the conditions for exemption from payment of customs duties set forth in LAW to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Therefore , the fact that the applicant resided in GPE was of no relevance as he had not proved that he had his domicile there . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c After having examined the evidence ... , this authority finds that the accused , ORG , committed the customs - related administrative offence he was charged with , defined in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) subparagraph CARDINAL of LAW .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) subparagraph CARDINAL [ of LAW ] provides that a fine for an administrative offence is to be imposed on a person who treats goods as if they satisfy the conditions for temporary admission , and that conduct is contrary to the conditions for the temporary admission of goods set forth in LAW or in the [ GPE ] Convention .","In the proceedings it was established beyond doubt that on DATE the accused was found operating the vehicle in question with foreign licence plates of GPE on the territory of GPE as if he satisfied the conditions for temporary admission , and that conduct was contrary to the conditions for temporary admission of goods set forth in LAW or in the [ GPE ] Convention because he was a NORP national who at the time of the commission of the offence had his domicile in GPE .","The rights and obligations of participants in customs proceedings and the powers of the customs authorities as regards means of transport imported by natural persons into NORP customs territory are regulated by the provisions of the [ GPE ] Convention . Likewise , customs proceedings and supervision of means of transport with foreign licence plates in the NORP customs territory is regulated by the provisions of LAW and the Decree on the implementation of LAW .","It is established beyond dispute that the accused is a NORP national who at the time of ... the offence had his domicile in ... GPE . His defence that he had a registered residence in GPE was not accepted as a ground for exemption from liability ... Namely , the mere fact that he possesses a residence permit is not a proof that would entitle him to import [ his ] car with total relief from payment of customs duties under LAW because he does not have his domicile abroad .","This is so because the procedure for temporary admission of private means of transport is regulated by LAW to the [ GPE ] Convention in such a way that means of transport for private use must be registered in a territory other than that of temporary admission in the name of a person having a seat or domicile outside the territory of temporary admission and be imported and used by persons residing in that territory .","As regards his personal status , it has been established beyond doubt that the accused is a NORP national , and that until DATE he had [ his ] domicile in GPE , in GPE . Furthermore , after the accused was reported as having committed the administrative offence , he de - registered his domicile in GPE \u2013 in this authority \u2019s view \u2013 merely to avoid liability for the offence . At the time of the commission of the offence the accused did not satisfy the conditions for temporary importation with total relief and [ was thus not entitled to ] operate a vehicle with foreign licence plates . Namely , [ LAW to the [ LAW expressly provides that the right to temporary importation belongs to persons who have domicile outside the territory of temporary admission , that is , outside GPE .","This authority has examined the argument of the accused that he is not a taxpayer in GPE , which is evident from the certificate of DATE issued by ORG , as well as the evidence [ to the effect ] that he is neither insured with ORG nor has social security [ cover ] in GPE . However , that evidence can not lead to the adoption of a different decision , because the fact of [ having or not ] health insurance or social security is not evidence of domicile abroad .","This authority has also taken into account the fact that the accused had health insurance in GPE as of DATE . However , having [ health ] insurance is itself not relevant for the adoption of a different decision because the fact of [ possessing ] insurance , which according to the accused \u2019s own statement is voluntary , does not give [ him ] the right to temporary admission of the vehicle in question with total relief .","On the basis of these findings of fact , and in accordance with the foregoing provisions , this authority has established beyond doubt that the accused did not satisfy the conditions for temporary admission , and that , by handling the vehicle in question contrary to [ those ] conditions , he committed the administrative offence defined in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) subparagraph CARDINAL of LAW .","This authority has [ also ] examined the argument of the accused that he is registered in GPE [ as an alien ] for an extended stay , of which he submitted evidence [ in the form of ] a certificate [ issued ] by LAW . However , that evidence does not prove his domicile abroad , but only his stay . What is more , at the hearing held on DATE the accused himself stated only the fact of his residence in GPE , which confirms that at the time of the commission of the offence he did not satisfy the conditions for the temporary admission of vehicles with total relief , in accordance with ORG to the [ GPE ] Convention .","In particular , it is beyond doubt that at the time of the commission of the offence the accused had his domicile in GPE . LAW provides that a citizen \u2019s domicile is the place where he has settled with the intention of permanently living there , and in which he has permanent accommodation secured .","The solemn statement of the commercial company [ ORG ] of CARDINAL DATE stating that it would provide accommodation for ORG as of DATE was also examined in the proceedings . However , [ that statement ] is not decisive for exempting [ the accused ] from liability because it was issued after this authority adopted its [ first ] decision of DATE and because the statement in question does not give him the right to temporary admission with total relief .","The statement given by ORG before a notary public on DATE ) , which was also examined during the proceedings , is illogical and contrary to [ both ] the statement of ORG and the solemn statement of CARDINAL DATE in that it suggests that the flat [ in GPE in which the applicant claimed to be living ] was rented to NORP , and not to the accused , whereas the solemn statement of ORG of CARDINAL DATE suggested that it provided PERSON with accommodation at the address [ in GPE ] . After examining that evidence , this authority considers that it was obtained with a view to proving that the accused had rented accommodation to live in abroad .","Moreover , the evidence of the accused that his wife is a director of company ORG in GPE is not relevant either , because in his statement of DATE he stated that his wife lived in GPE and had her business in GPE .","This authority does not dispute the fact that the accused is disabled , with a degree of disability of PERCENT , of which he submitted as evidence a membership card [ issued by an association of disabled persons ] in his name indicating his domicile [ as being ] in GPE ...","In the proceedings all the evidence furnished by the accused was examined . However , by that evidence the accused did not prove that he had been living abroad .","From all the evidence it is apparent that at the time of the commission of the offence the accused was a NORP national who had his domicile in GPE , with all the rights and obligations attached to that . The accused could not pose in GPE as a person having domicile abroad and enjoy the rights of [ such ] a person in [ his own ] country , where until DATE he had his domicile . Therefore , the accused did not satisfy the conditions for the temporary admission of a foreign car to the territory of GPE with total relief under Annex C [ to LAW ] and the Decree on the implementation of LAW because his domicile was in GPE at the time of the commission of the offence .","In the light of the foregoing , this authority has adopted a decision finding the accused guilty , as stated in the operative provisions . \u201d","By a decision of DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the first - instance decision , endorsing the reasons given therein . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c Against the first - instance decision the accused ... lodged ... an appeal on the grounds of breaches of procedure , incomplete and incorrect findings of fact , misapplication of the substantive law , and a wrong decision on the sanction . In the appeal the accused essentially argues ... that he has proved that at the time of entry into GPE he satisfied all statutory requirements for legally entering [ GPE ] with the car in question , that the first - instance authority called into question the validity of the visa of GPE , where he was [ first ] granted an extended stay , and from DATE the right to reside permanently , [ and ] that he uses the flat in GPE without restrictions . He therefore considers that there are no legal grounds or evidence for a finding that he committed the administrative offence in question .","...","The appeal is unfounded .","...","The accused unjustifiably denies liability for the administrative offence committed , because the first - instance authority [ , ] ... on the basis of his statement given at the hearing of DATE and ... the written evidence [ , ] ... correctly concluded that his conduct had all the elements of the administrative offence defined in section CARDINAL ) subparagraph CARDINAL of LAW . [ The accused ] was on DATE in GPE found operating a ORG vehicle ... with foreign licence plates of GPE as if he satisfied the conditions for temporary admission , and that conduct was contrary to the conditions for temporary admission of goods given that at the time of the commission of the offence he had his domicile in GPE . Since that conduct was contrary to the conditions for temporary admission of goods set forth in LAW and the [ GPE ] Convention , he committed the administrative offence defined in section CARDINAL ) subparagraph CARDINAL of LAW .","...","The other appellate arguments are also unfounded because the ... ORG ... correctly and accurately established the [ relevant ] facts ... and correctly applied the substantive law ...","In particular , special conditions for the temporary importation of means of transport are prescribed in LAW to LAW in LAW , where subparagraph ( b ) provides that means of transport for private use must be registered in a territory other than that of temporary admission , in the name of a person having seat or domicile in a territory other than that of temporary admission , and [ must ] be imported and used by persons having domicile in such a territory . ORG in its LAW provides that domicile is the place where a citizen has settled with the intention of permanently living there .","Therefore , given that during the [ first - instance ] proceedings the decisive fact that the accused is a NORP national who at the time of the commission of the offence had his domicile in the territory of GPE was established beyond doubt , he did not satisfy the conditions for temporary admission of a foreign car to the territory of GPE set out in the above - cited provisions of the Annex to FAC .","[ This court ] therefore upholds as correct in its entirety the decision of the first - instance authority ... whereby the accused was found guilty and sanctioned for the administrative offence defined in section CARDINAL ) subparagraph CARDINAL of LAW ... \u201d","NORP The applicant then , on DATE , lodged a constitutional complaint against the second - instance decision , alleging violations of his constitutional rights to fair proceedings , equality before the law and equality before the courts and other public authorities . In so doing he relied on LAW paragraph CARDINAL , LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He argued that ORG had misinterpreted the text of LAW to LAW , which in the official text did not refer to \u201c domicile \u201d but to \u201c living \u201d abroad . Therefore , the fact that while living in GPE he had kept his domicile in GPE was not relevant . The applicant further argued that the meaning given to certain legal terms in domestic legislation could not be relied on in interpreting the same or similar terms used in international agreements . In particular , the applicant argued as follows :","\u201c In the decision [ of DATE ] ORG totally wrongly quoted the text of LAW subparagraph ( b ) ... of ORG [ C ] to ORG by stating [ that it ] \u2018 provides that means of transport for private use must be registered in a territory other than that of temporary admission , in the name of a person having seat or domicile in a territory other than that of temporary admission , and [ must ] be imported and used by persons having domicile in such a territory\u2019 [ emphasis added ] .","However , the text LAW subparagraph ( b ) ... of LOC [ C ] to ORG published in ORG [ \u2013 International agreements ] no . CARDINAL is completely different and reads :","\u2018 ... means of transport for private use must be registered in a territory other than that of temporary admission , in the name of a person having seat or domicile in a territory other than that of temporary admission , and [ must ] be imported and used by persons living in such a ORG [ emphasis added ] .","The obvious difference between [ the CARDINAL texts ] is that ORG refers to [ having ] domicile in the territory of another ORG as a condition for using a foreign car whereas the text of the LAW [ on Temporary Admission ] ... refers to ... living in the territory of another ORG , which is legally not the same .","Besides , the fact of living in the territory of another ORG , that is , in the ORG from which the disputed car originates , can not be assessed in accordance with NORP laws , and especially not in the way [ ORG ] did it , but in accordance with the LAW [ on Temporary Admission ] itself and the Decree on the implementation of LAW , .... [ T]hat fact of living in the territory of another ORG is to be proved by work or residence permit .","... all customs offices in GPE have , upon a citizen \u2019s entry into [ GPE ] by car , been establishing the fact of living in another ORG by checking only work or residence permit .","It is evident that in the instant case [ the authorities ] departed from the relevant law and the established practice ... by deliberately misquoting the relevant provisions with a view to creating conditions for the complainant \u2019s conviction at all costs .","...","[ T]he complainant proved beyond doubt , by presenting a valid visa for an extended stay , the contract on the use of a flat and a social security certificate , that he has de jure and de facto been living in GPE , and that he had legally bought the car in accordance with the NORP laws . [ It follows that ] the complainant perfectly legally entered GPE in accordance with LAW subparagraph ( b ) ... of [ Annex C to ] LAW , and that by so doing he did not commit a customs offence defined in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) subparagraph CARDINAL of LAW . In any event , the customs office [ in question ] would not have allowed the complainant to enter the territory of GPE if he did not satisfy the said conditions .","It is totally unclear why the complainant should , as stated in the first - instance decision , pay any customs debt [ in the situation ] where he did not ask for customs clearance but only temporary admission . If the customs authorities considered that temporary admission was not allowed then they could have ordered that the car be exported from GPE ... at the expense of the complainant .","The above described proceedings are certainly a chicanery for the reasons as stated and at the same time constitute a dangerous precedent for all other citizens of GPE ...","If such proceedings would apply to all NORP nationals operating cars with foreign licence plates , only a few [ such ] cars daily could enter GPE . Besides , if that view of the lower judicial and other authorities on the [ interpretation of the relevant ] substantive law is to be accepted , not a single CARDINAL of CARDINAL of NORP citizens temporarily working in GPE , GPE or GPE could enter GPE because they all legally have domicile in GPE . [ In this way ] CARDINAL of cars should be confiscated DATE , especially from citizens of GPE and GPE having double nationality who enter GPE on a DATE basis .","In particular , the [ contested ] decisions infringed the right to impartial and fair proceedings guaranteed by LAW because for the reasons set out above those decisions are certainly neither fair nor impartial . On the contrary , they are absolutely biased and blatantly unfair .","The decision to prosecute only the complainant and not CARDINAL of others certainly constitutes a violation of LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW whereby equality before the law is guaranteed to the complainant , and also of LAW which guarantees equality of all NORP citizens before courts and other ORG authorities . \u201d","By a decision of DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , finding that the contested decisions were based on a \u201c constitutionally acceptable interpretation and application of the relevant substantive law \u201d . ORG decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE . It reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) subparagraph CARDINAL of LAW a ... natural person shall be liable for an administrative offence if he or she handles [ the ] goods as if they satisfy the conditions for temporary admission , and that conduct is contrary to the conditions for temporary admission of goods set forth in LAW or in LAW ,","Convention on Temporary Admission , ORG , LAW subparagraph ( b ) provides as follows :","( b ) means of transport for private use must be registered in a territory other than that of temporary admission , in the name of a person having seat or domicile in a territory other than that of temporary admission , and be imported and used by persons living in such a territory .","Having regard to the cited provisions of LAW and LAW subparagraph ( b ) of FAC to LAW , as well as the facts established in the proceedings ... ( in particular the fact that it was established ... that at the time of the commission of the offence the complainant had registered domicile in GPE in accordance with the relevant provisions of ORG ) , ORG finds that the legal views expressed in the contested decisions are based on a constitutionally acceptable interpretation and application of the relevant substantive law . ORG considers that the relevant administrative authority and ORG , relying on the facts established in the proceedings , gave reasons for their views expressed in the contested decisions , which undoubtedly do not result from an arbitrary interpretation and application of the relevant substantive law .","The Constitutional Court therefore finds that the complainant \u2019s right to equality before the law guaranteed by LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW was not violated by the contested decisions .","LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows :","Everyone has the right that an independent and impartial court established by law decides fairly and within a reasonable time on his rights or obligations , or as regards suspicion or accusation of a criminal offence .","[ In the present case ] the administrative and judicial authorities acted within their jurisdiction established by law . It is evident from the case - file that the first - instance administrative authority took evidence in accordance with LAW and that ORG decided on the complainant \u2019s appeal on the merits . It is also evident that the complainant had an opportunity to follow and participate in the proceedings , and that he could undertake all permitted procedural actions and lodge a remedy . The contested decisions are sufficiently reasoned and adopted in accordance with the relevant procedural rules .","For these reasons , the [ Constitutional ] Court finds that the contested decisions did not violate the complainant \u2019s constitutional right to fair proceedings .","As regards the complainant \u2019s argument that in similar cases the relevant authorities proceed differently , that in itself does not mean that the complainant \u2019s constitutional right was violated by the contested decisions . In the [ Constitutional ] Court \u2019s view , in the proceedings [ complained of ] the contested decisions were adopted in accordance with the relevant legislation . [ T]herefore the fact that different decisions may have been adopted in other proceedings is of no relevance for the lawfulness of the decisions contested before ORG in these proceedings , nor can it lead to a different decision in this particular case .","LAW ... is not relevant in this case . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["7"],"violated_paragraphs":["7-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158709","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BIDART v. FRANCE","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant is the former head of the NORP separatist organisation Iparretarrak . After his detention in DATE , he was convicted several times : on DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for criminal association with a view to preparing a terrorist offence ; on DATE he was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in the framework of terrorist activity , killing CARDINAL members of the ORG security police force ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) ; on DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for armed robbery ; on DATE he was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in the framework of terrorist activity , killing a gendarme ; and on DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for conspiracy to murder , complicity in murder and armed robbery .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE the Sentence enforcement division of ORG released him on licence from DATE to DATE , ordering to follow a DATE programme of assistance and supervision . The Government pointed out that the applicant was the first person sentenced to life imprisonment for offences linked to terrorism ever to have been released on licence .","The Sentence enforcement division reiterated in its judgment that the applicant \u2019s release on licence would be accompanied by the following general obligations ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) : complying with the instructions of the sentence enforcement judge or of the social worker from FAC and probation service ; receiving visits from the latter and providing him or her with information or documents facilitating supervision of his livelihood and compliance with his obligations ; informing the social worker of any job changes and , if such changes are liable to hamper compliance with his obligations , obtaining prior authorisation from the sentence enforcement judge ; informing the social worker of any changes of address and of any travel lasting for DATE , reporting back to the latter on his return ; and obtaining the authorisation of the sentence enforcement judge for any foreign travel and for any change of job or of address liable to impede compliance with his obligations . The division added the following special obligations ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL [ CARDINAL ] , [ CARDINAL ] , [ CARDINAL ] and [ CARDINAL ] of LAW ) : exercising an occupation or following vocational education or training ; residing in LAW ; continuing , in accordance with his means , to pay into ORG for the compensation of victims of terrorism ; and refraining from possessing or carrying a weapon .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law lodged by ORG with ORG .","On DATE the applicant took part in a peaceful demonstration outside ORG in support of NORP detainees being held there . The media reported on that demonstration .","Consequently , ORG delivered a judgment on DATE imposing additional special obligations on the applicant : refraining from attending , in the vicinity of a prison or other detention facility , any demonstration in support of persons detained for terrorist offences or of any association or movement which is committing or has committed terrorist acts ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL [ CARDINAL ] of LAW ) ; refraining from distributing any document or audiovisual material produced or co - produced by himself concerning , in whole or in part , an offence committed by himself , and refraining from discussing that offence in public ( LAW [ CARDINAL ] of LAW ) .","NORP That judgment was upheld by judgment of ORG on DATE . However , the latter judgment was quashed by judgment of ORG on DATE , on the grounds that the sentence enforcement court did not have jurisdiction to modify the obligations for release on licence , for which matter the sentence enforcement judge held jurisdiction .","On DATE ORG requested that the sentence enforcement judge of ORG of GPE add both the aforementioned obligations to the applicant \u2019s list of obligations for release on licence , as well as a prohibition on \u201c contacting any person actively engaged in promoting NORP separatism or supporting detainees convicted of or charged with terrorist acts pursuant to ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL to CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , particularly with a view to expressing support for such detainees ( Article CARDINAL [ CARDINAL ] of LAW ) \u201d .","By judgment of DATE the sentence enforcement judge decided to impose on the applicant the obligation set out in LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW : \u201c refraining from distributing any document or audiovisual material produced or co - produced by himself concerning , in whole or in part , the offence committed , and refraining from discussing that offence in public , whereby [ these ] provisions [ are ] applicable only in cases of convictions for serious offences of intentional homicide , sexual assault or sexual abuse \u201d . He noted that in its judgment of DATE ORG had described the applicant \u201c as a calm , respectful person who spent most of his time writing his memoirs \u201d . The judge inferred that \u201c although it is unclear what the word \u2018 memoirs\u2019 entails , it is quite possible that Mr Bidart might be tempted to publish his memoirs and make statements on the offences of which he was convicted \u201d . Nor did the judgment go into further detail on that point . It explained , however , that \u201c during the adversarial proceedings Mr PERSON was reminded that the prosecution had requested the prohibition only of writings or statements connected with the offences of which he had been convicted \u201d .","That judgment was upheld by judgment of ORG on DATE , stating that the obligation in question \u201c merely prohibited commenting on or condoning the offences committed \u201d and \u201c that the obligation was not a disproportionate measure in the light of the need to protect public order , nor does it prevent PERSON from expressing his political convictions \u201d .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant , on the grounds that in its judgment ORG had properly applied Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL [ CARDINAL ] of LAW , in compliance with the legal texts and conventions relevant to the applicant \u2019s appeal ( including LAW ) .","..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-139933","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MARAVI\u0106 MARKE\u0160 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant was employed as an inspector for ORG ( Grad GPE ) . On DATE ORG ( GPE vije\u0107e ) of ORG removed the applicant from her position and on DATE she was made available for redeployment ( stavljena na raspolaganje ) and subsequently redeployed to ORG , Transport and Infrastructure ( PERSON sekretarijat za prostorno ure\u0111enje , komunalne poslove , promet i veze \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) until DATE , without being given a permanent role there .","On DATE the ORG determined that the applicant could not be found a permanent position within the organisation and terminated her employment upon the expiry of her notice period on DATE . The applicant did not , at the time , receive any severance pay following her dismissal .","On DATE the applicant requested payment of severance pay from ORG ( PERSON ured za prostorno ure\u0111enje , za\u0161titu okoli\u0161a , izgradnju grada , graditeljstvo , komunalne poslove i promet \u2013 \u201c the Municipal Office \u201d ) .","On DATE ORG found that the request for payment should have been submitted within DATE of the applicant \u2019s dismissal and rejected it as lodged out of time . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c ...","The request of PERSON is inadmissible , as the conditions for initiating proceedings have not been met ...","By the ORG \u2019s decision ... the applicant \u2019s employment was terminated on DATE in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE the applicant requested the severance pay , relying on section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW .","This ORG finds that in the present case the conditions for initiating proceedings following the request of PERSON have not been met .","Section CARDINAL of LAW ... sets the statute of limitations for claims arising from employment at DATE .","Section CARDINAL subsection CARDINAL of LAW ... provides that the right to claim fulfilment of an obligation ceases when the statutory limitation period expires ...","In the present case , the statute of limitations ran from DATE . It follows that the applicant lodged her request for severance pay out of time ... \u201d","The applicant appealed against this decision to the Chief of ORG and on DATE he dismissed the appeal as without merit and upheld the first - instance decision . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c ...","The appeal is without merit .","...","After an examination of the appeal and the entire case file , it was found that the first - instance body had fully and correctly established the factual background and had rendered a correct decision . There had been no breaches of procedural rules or errors in the application of the law to the detriment of the appellant ...","As regards the appellant \u2019s allegations that , instead of provisions of LAW and LAW , the provisions of LAW should have been applied to her case , [ this authority finds them to be ] unfounded ...","Section CARDINAL of LAW provided that claims became time - barred after DATE , if no other statutory limitation period was prescribed by law .","Section CARDINAL of the Labour Act provides that the statute of limitations for claims arising from employment , including severance pay , is DATE .","In the light of the above , it is apparent at the outset that under both LAW , relevant for determining the statute of limitations at the time the appellant \u2019s employment was terminated , and under LAW , relevant for determining the statute of limitations at the time of lodging the request , the appellant \u2019s claim is time - barred .","The validity of the decision of the first - instance authority is therefore clear ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant brought an administrative action against the appeal decision in ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) . Subsequently , ORG forwarded the case for comment to ORG .","On DATE ORG submitted its observations to ORG . In those observations ORG raised the issue of the applicant \u2019s entitlement to severance pay for the first time and reiterated that the request for payment had been lodged out of time . These observations were not forwarded to the applicant . The relevant part of the observations reads as follows :","\u201c ...","II . It is further noted that even if the claimant had requested severance pay within the statutory time - limit , she would not have been entitled to it , as her employment was not terminated on the basis of section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW , on which the claimant relied , but on the basis of section CARDINAL of that Act ....","Section CARDINAL of LAW , on the basis of which the claimant \u2019s employment was terminated , envisages the restructuring of units or individual posts as grounds for being made available for redeployment or termination of employment , and as such does not envisage severance pay ...","On the contrary , section CARDINAL(a ) envisages the needs of the civil service as grounds for being made available for redeployment or termination of employment .","It is further noted that section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW , relied upon by the claimant , came into force on DATE , at the time when the decision setting the claimant \u2019s notice period , on basis of section CARDINAL of LAW , had been already rendered . Upon the expiry of that period , the claimant \u2019s employment was terminated .","... \u201d","On DATE the applicant requested that the proceedings before ORG be expedited . On DATE the applicant again requested that the proceedings be expedited and an oral hearing held in her case . On CARDINAL May and DATE the applicant requested that ORG expedite the proceedings and decide her case with or without holding an oral hearing .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG and the President of ORG ( PERSON ) to exclude the assigned judge and the President of ORG from her case . She expressed concerns that her case had been deliberately delayed .","On DATE the President of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for exclusion of the President of ORG as groundless .","On DATE the President of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for exclusion of the assigned judge as unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c ...","The complaint is without merit .","...","It transpires from the above - mentioned statutory provisions that the claimant \u2019s employment was terminated on the basis of section CARDINAL , and not section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW , and that the claimant \u2019s claim is unfounded because her employment was terminated due to the restructuring of units or individual posts , and not due to redeployment for the needs of the civil service , as prescribed by section CARDINAL(a ) of the LAW . In the light of the above , the claimant has no grounds for severance pay .","However , the defendant authority did not entertain the claimant \u2019s severance pay entitlement . Instead , it declared her request inadmissible as time - barred ...","Given that the claimant lodged her request after the expiry of the statutory time - limit , the defendant authority correctly dismissed the claimant \u2019s appeal against its decision ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) complaining , inter alia , of a lack of adversarial proceedings before ORG . On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c The constitutional complaint is declared inadmissible .","NORP The constitutional complaint was lodged against the decision of ORG ... of CARDINAL DATE whereby [ that court ] dismissed the complainant \u2019s administrative complaint and upheld the decision of ORG ... of DATE .","By that decision the complainant \u2019s appeal against the first - instance decision whereby her request for severance pay had been declared inadmissible was dismissed .","The complainant considers that her rights guaranteed by ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and QUANTITY were violated by the contested decisions . She also cites Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ...","The conditions for examining the merits of the case have not been met .","... LAW of LAW provides :","\u201c The Constitutional Court shall declare inadmissible any request or complaint in respect of which it has no jurisdiction ; which is lodged out of time ; and in other situations where the conditions for examining the merits of the case are not met .","By \u201c examining the merits of the case \u201d , section CARDINAL of LAW refers to scrutinising the constitutional law aspects of the case .","NORP In accordance with the LAW and LAW , ORG does not form part of the regular judicial system , does not conduct court proceedings and does not decide on the merits of judicial matters . ORG is a separate body established under LAW for the protection of individual human rights and fundamental freedoms ( constitutional rights ) in proceedings instituted by a constitutional complaint .","A constitutional complaint is not a regular or extraordinary remedy within the system of domestic legal remedies . It is a special , constitutional remedy for the protection of constitutional rights in individual cases . It is therefore not sufficient to base a constitutional complaint on breaches resulting from alleged unlawful acts committed by a competent body or a court . The legal protection against such unlawfulness is provided by general and specialised courts in proceedings taking place before several levels of jurisdiction . They can exceptionally be examined before ORG , but only in so far as they can [ be argued to have ] violated human rights and fundamental freedoms protected by LAW .","It is also not sufficient to repeat the submissions from the appeal or cassation proceedings or to merely enumerate constitutional rights that have allegedly been violated . The constitutional complaint must contain specific and reasoned claims of a breach of a constitutional right .","In the present case , ORG accepted the findings of the administrative bodies that the complainant \u2019s claim had been time - barred , as her employment had been terminated on DATE and she had submitted her request for severance pay on DATE .","The Constitutional Court finds the claims in the constitutional complaint to be a repetition of the claims in the administrative complaint .","In her constitutional complaint , the complainant was unable to show that ORG had acted contrary to the constitutional provisions concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms or had arbitrarily interpreted the relevant statutory provisions . ORG therefore finds that the present case does not raise an issue of the complainant \u2019s constitutional rights . Thus , there is no constitutional law issue in the case for ORG to decide on .","... \u201d","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( PERSON ) about the length of the administrative proceedings .","On DATE her complaint was dismissed . ORG found that the proceedings had lasted for DATE , DATE and DATE at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , which was not deemed to be excessive .","NORP The applicant appealed against this decision and on DATE a panel of judges of ORG dismissed her appeal .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG against the decisions of ORG .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the contested decisions were not susceptible to constitutional review ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150786","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF \u010cIKANOVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant worked for LOC until DATE , when he was made redundant .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against GPE in ORG ( PERSON ORG ) , seeking reinstatement and salary arrears .","By a partial judgment ( djelomi\u010dna presuda ) of DATE , ORG annulled the decision on the applicant \u2019s dismissal as unlawful and ordered his reinstatement within DATE of the judgment becoming final . At the same time , the court decided to wait until the partial judgment became final before examining the applicant \u2019s claim for salary arrears . The relevant part of the partial judgment in question reads as follows :","\u201c The decision of the defendant , LOC , ... of DATE on the termination of the plaintiff \u2019s [ the applicant \u2019s ] employment is hereby annulled ,","... the defendant , LOC , is ordered to reinstate the plaintiff in his post ... and to acknowledge his employment - related rights ... , and to do so within DATE of this judgment becoming final ...","On the remaining part of the claim and the [ claim for ] costs and expenses [ the court ] shall decide by a definitive [ i.e. later ] judgment . \u201d","The judgment was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE , and on the defendant on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the defendant , represented by the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office , appealed against the partial judgment . The applicant received a copy of that appeal on DATE .","In the meantime , after having submitted several written requests for reinstatement to LOC without success , on DATE the applicant wrote to the President of ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u Vukovaru ) seeking help in that regard . In particular , he submitted that on CARDINAL DATE and DATE he had requested ORG to certify that its partial judgment had become final ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) by adding a stamped endorsement to that effect ( klauzula pravomo\u0107nosti \u2013 \u201c certificate of finality \u201d ) . He alleged that his requests had been refused orally with the explanation that the defendant \u2019s appeal of DATE had prevented the judgment from becoming final .","On DATE the applicant lodged a response to the defendant \u2019s appeal , arguing , inter alia , that ORG should declare the appeal inadmissible as it had been lodged out of time .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the defendant \u2019s appeal inadmissible as having been lodged outside the statutory time - limit , finding that the last day for lodging the appeal had been DATE . The defendant appealed against that decision .","On DATE the applicant took early retirement on grounds of disability .","By a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the defendant \u2019s appeal against ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG stamped the applicant \u2019s copy of its partial judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to indicate that it had become final . The stamp indicated that the partial judgment had become final on DATE .","In the resumed proceedings concerning the salary arrears ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , by a judgment of DATE ORG found for the applicant and ordered the defendant to pay him salary arrears for the period DATE and DATE , that is , CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in total , together with the accrued statutory default interest .","NORP However , following an appeal by the defendant , on DATE ORG reversed the first - instance judgment , dismissing the applicant \u2019s action in its entirety . That court noted , inter alia , that under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) an employee could apply for the enforcement of a judgment ordering his reinstatement within DATE of its becoming final . The partial judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had become final on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) but the applicant had never applied for its enforcement , and he should have done so by DATE . ORG therefore held that the applicant had not only lost the right to seek reinstatement but consequently also the right to receive salary arrears .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) against the second - instance judgment . He argued that he could not possibly have applied for enforcement of the partial judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) by DATE because at that time the defendant \u2019s appeal of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) against the partial judgment had still been pending and he had consequently been unaware that the partial judgment had become final . That the partial judgment had actually become final on DATE had become apparent to him only on CARDINAL DATE , when it had been confirmed by the stamped endorsement of ORG . However , since he had retired on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he had not been able to apply for enforcement of the partial judgment and seek reinstatement .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the second - instance judgment in part and upheld it in part . In particular , it quashed the second - instance judgment in the part dismissing the applicant \u2019s claim for salary arrears for the period DATE and DATE ( that is , for HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , together with the accrued statutory default interest ) and in that part remitted the case to the first - instance court . However , it upheld the second - instance judgment in the part dismissing the applicant \u2019s claim for salary arrears for the period DATE and DATE ( that is , for HRK ORG , together with the accrued statutory default interest ) . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c In dismissing the plaintiff \u2019s claim for payment of salary arrears for the period DATE and DATE [ ORG ] misapplied the substantive law .","In the proceedings it was established that the defendant \u2019s decision on the termination of the plaintiff \u2019s employment ... had been annulled by the final partial judgment of ORG of DATE , [ whereby ] the defendant had [ also ] been ordered to reinstate the plaintiff ...","It was [ further ] established that the [ partial ] judgment in question had become final on DATE , and that the plaintiff had not instituted enforcement proceedings for reinstatement within the DATE time - limit laid down in section QUANTITY of LAW .","Given that the [ partial ] judgment in question is final , the plaintiff is entitled to the rights he would have acquired had the annulled decision never been rendered . Therefore , the defendant has to pay the plaintiff the salary arrears ... as if the unlawful decision on dismissal had never existed .","...","Since the lower courts erred in law , the factual background was not properly established . The appeal on points of law is therefore allowed [ in part ] and the impugned judgment quashed in the part whereby the plaintiff \u2019s claim for salary arrears for the period DATE and DATE was dismissed . In that part the case is remitted to the first - instance court .","...","As regards the [ part of the contested ] judgment whereby the plaintiff \u2019s claim for salary arrears for the period after DATE was dismissed , it is to be noted that the lower courts correctly applied the substantive law in dismissing the plaintiff \u2019s claim as unfounded . In particular , the plaintiff failed to institute enforcement proceedings for reinstatement within the strict DATE time - limit set forth in section CARDINAL of LAW ... It follows that the plaintiff did not work from DATE owing to his own omission . He is therefore not entitled to salary arrears for that period .","For these reasons the appeal on points of law has to be dismissed ... in so far as it contests that part of the impugned judgment ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against ORG judgment , alleging a violation of his constitutional right to a fair hearing . In so doing he repeated the argument raised in his appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , serving its decision on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c ...","The constitutional complaint is unfounded .","...","As regards the complainant \u2019s argument that he could not have obtained a certificate of finality and thus observed [ the statutory time - limit laid down in ] section CARDINAL of LAW , the Constitutional Court finds ...","... that this [ argument ] can not be raised for the first time in a constitutional complaint . Rather , it should have been raised in proceedings before the ordinary courts .","Moreover , the complainant \u2019s submissions suggest that he never instituted enforcement proceedings for reinstatement , but only unsuccessfully contacted the defendant on several occasions requesting to be returned to work . The complainant therefore lost the right to salary arrears from DATE onwards owing to his own failure to undertake the procedural steps required by LAW ... \u201d","Meanwhile , in the resumed proceedings following the part of ORG decision of DATE remitting the case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , by a judgment of DATE ORG ordered GPE to pay the applicant salary arrears for the period DATE and DATE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the defendant and upheld the first - instance judgment ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167177","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"LAZAUSKAI v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants , PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON , GPE and Vicar , GPE . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159204","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF S.A. v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);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)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and resides in ORG .","The applicant is a NORP citizen of NORP origin . He left his country in DATE and arrived in GPE , where he was granted a residence permit . He claimed that in view of the ongoing armed conflict in his country of origin , he would face extrajudicial killing , imprisonment or death by torture if he were to be deported or extradited there .","On DATE , following an order issued by the PERSON public prosecutor , the police arrested the applicant at GPE FAC on suspicion of illegal entry into GPE with a false passport .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was questioned by the police at the airport . He was subsequently detained at the airport police facility for DATE without any judicial order to that effect . He submitted that he had been kept in an overcrowded room .","On DATE the police took the applicant to the Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre for Foreigners ( \u201c the Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre \u201d ) pending his deportation .","The applicant alleged that he had been detained in unhygienic , unhealthy and overcrowded conditions at the Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre .","NORP On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a complaint with the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office against police officers from the ORG department of the GPE police headquarters alleging that he had been unlawfully detained by ORG officials . He also complained about the conditions of detention at ORG , particularly overcrowding , insufficient ventilation and poor hygiene .","On DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer filed petitions with ORG and the GPE governor \u2019s office requesting the applicant \u2019s immediate release , claiming that his detention was unlawful .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer also applied to ORG for the applicant \u2019s release , challenging the lawfulness of his detention .","On DATE the police released the applicant from the Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre on condition that he applied for the renewal of his residence permit .","On DATE the GPE governor \u2019s office decided not to examine the applicant \u2019s complaint regarding his detention .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against that decision . He pointed out , inter alia , that on DATE he had requested to be provided with the content of the applicant \u2019s file and that on DATE he had been given only a limited number of documents . He submitted that some documents had not been provided as they had been classified as \u201c confidential \u201d and that such practice by the police was not prescribed by law .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision , holding that the governor \u2019s office had to decide on whether authorisation should be granted for the prosecution of police officers at the Kumkap\u0131 Removal Centre .","On an unspecified date the GPE governor \u2019s office decided not to authorise the prosecution of the police officers . Subsequently , on CARDINAL DATE the GPE public prosecutor decided to terminate the investigation opened at the applicant \u2019s request . In his decision the public prosecutor noted that the applicant had been banned from entering GPE and that he had been apprehended with a false passport . He further noted that the applicant had not been imprisoned but remanded in custody pending his deportation ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153922","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PIPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , can be summarised as follows .","The applicant was arrested in the GPE on DATE . On DATE , following transfer to GPE , he was charged with the attempted importation of QUANTITY ( compressed weight ) of cocaine with a potential street value of ORG .","Prior to trial , in order to seize and preserve the applicant \u2019s assets for future confiscation in the event of a conviction , the prosecution applied for and obtained a restraint order and the appointment of a receiver under section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) . The receiver sought to sell the applicant \u2019s horses immediately and this was successfully challenged by the applicant . In its judgment dated DATE ORG confirmed that the purpose of the DATE Act was to preserve the value of assets for the purpose of future confiscation proceedings .","Also prior to trial , the applicant sought to challenge the admissibility of telephone interception evidence obtained in the GPE . He ultimately pursued an appeal to ORG , which delivered its judgment against the applicant on DATE .","The trial subsequently commenced in ORG in DATE . However , after the jury had already retired to consider their verdict a prejudicial document was discovered within the jury bundle . The fault for this lay with the prosecution , a matter admitted at the time . Consequently , on DATE the jury were discharged .","A retrial commenced on DATE . At the start of the retrial the applicant \u2019s counsel pursued an unsuccessful application to stay the proceedings on grounds of hardship suffered as a result of the prosecution \u2019s negligence in causing the first trial to be abandoned .","On DATE the applicant was found guilty of the offences charged . On DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . He lodged an appeal against sentence , which was unsuccessful . In DATE he lodged an out - of - time appeal against conviction . He was released from prison in DATE and , on DATE , he abandoned his appeal ( see further paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The DATE LAW provides for the making of a confiscation order in the event of a conviction for drug trafficking offences . Accordingly , prior to the sentencing hearing , the prosecution served notice under LAW of its intention to seek a confiscation order and a statement under section CARDINAL of the LAW containing the prosecution \u2019s assessment of whether the applicant had benefited from drug trafficking and the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking .","At the sentencing hearing on DATE , the judge ordered the defence to serve a written response to the prosecution \u2019s statement within DATE . The defence failed to serve its response within the DATE period . At the prosecution \u2019s request , a further procedural hearing took place on DATE . At this hearing , the judge was informed that the delay in serving the defence response had been caused by the applicant moving prisons and wishing to instruct new solicitors . The prosecution drew the judge \u2019s attention to section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , which provided a DATE deadline in respect of the confiscation proceedings . Prosecution counsel indicated that an extension of the deadline might be required . Defence counsel confirmed that the applicant wished to apply for a transfer to new solicitors and agreed that an extension would probably be required as it was unlikely that a fresh legal team would be ready by DATE when the current deadline was due to expire . The judge granted a short adjournment of DATE to resolve the matter of transferring representation .","On DATE the court granted a defence application for the transfer of legal aid . The new defence representative sought an adjournment of DATE to allow new counsel to receive the papers and take instructions from the applicant . The prosecution did not oppose the application but reminded the judge that under LAW , the judge needed to find \u201c exceptional circumstances \u201d before the timetable could be extended beyond the DATE deadline . Defence counsel was unable to address the judge on the point of \u201c exceptional circumstances \u201d owing to his lack of familiarity with the case . Accordingly , the matter was adjourned to DATE to review progress .","On DATE defence counsel indicated to the judge that , owing to the complexities of the case , he would not have a defence response prepared before DATE . He also indicated that a contested hearing , which the parties now appeared to consider necessary , would require a DATE time estimate . The judge was again referred to section CARDINAL of the DATE Act and it was decided with the agreement of all parties to postpone the confiscation timetable to DATE pursuant to the court \u2019s powers under that section . The judge suggested DATE of DATE for the substantive confiscation hearing .","At a hearing on DATE , the defence gave notice that it wished to challenge the validity of the postponement of the confiscation hearing on the basis that ORG had no jurisdiction because procedural requirements had not been properly followed by the judge at the hearing on DATE . The judge set a timetable for the service of skeleton arguments on the jurisdiction point and fixed DATE for legal argument on the matter .","NORP In DATE , as a result of informal discussions between junior counsel for both sides regarding a case pending before ORG on the jurisdiction point , DATE was vacated . In the event , the pending appeal case was subsequently conceded by the prosecution so no oral argument took place in that case . A review hearing in the applicant \u2019s case was scheduled for DATE .","Prior to the hearing on DATE it became apparent that the parties had misunderstood each other in agreeing to vacate DATE . Counsel for the defence had understood that if the appeal in the other case was decided in the appellant \u2019s favour , the prosecution in the applicant \u2019s case would terminate the confiscation proceedings against him . Counsel for the prosecution denied that such an undertaking was ever made . Counsel for the defence indicated his intention to argue abuse of process on the basis that an undertaking had been given and was then reneged upon .","On DATE , the prosecution indicated its intention to proceed with the confiscation hearing on DATE , as planned . The defence requested that legal argument on jurisdiction and abuse of process be postponed to suit the diary of leading counsel . The judge noted that it was \u201c a supreme irony frankly ... that this case was adjourned solely for Mr ORG benefit and he now has the temerity to say that there is no jurisdiction to try him . \u201d He also commented that since the prosecution had produced its statement under LAW of LAW before the sentencing hearing on DATE , Mr PERSON had done absolutely nothing . The judge indicated his preference for retention of the DATE for the substantive hearing with any legal argument to take place beforehand , suggesting that alternative leading counsel could be found . Defence counsel proposed instead that the DATE be set down for legal argument and after that , unless the confiscation proceedings had fallen away , the defence would serve their response by DATE The judge reluctantly put back the substantive confiscation proceedings until DATE , noting that he was \u201c very loath to have further slippage than is absolutely necessary \u201d .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL defence applications submitted by newly instructed leading counsel were heard . The first was to stay the confiscation proceedings on grounds of abuse of process ; the second was for an order declaring that there was no jurisdiction to continue the confiscation proceedings on account of the judge having failed to observe the proper procedural requirements when he postponed the confiscation hearing on DATE .","NORP In his ruling of CARDINAL DATE the judge found , in relation to the jurisdiction point that the original adjournment was to afford the defence more time , that no defence response had been forthcoming to the prosecution statement and that further delay had been caused by the applicant wishing to instruct new solicitors . He indicated that he had listed the case on DATE , DATE before the DATE time - limit expired , and that on that date he had postponed the listing to CARDINAL DATE in compliance with section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act . He further found that no prejudice had been caused to the applicant as a result of the postponement . Accordingly , he concluded that the court had jurisdiction to deal with the confiscation proceedings . On the issue of abuse of process , the judge ruled that there had been a misunderstanding between counsel as to whether any undertaking had been given and that no abuse therefore arose . Following the ruling , the confiscation proceedings were adjourned and fixed for DATE to allow the defence to prepare their case .","Further argument then took place in relation to the jurisdiction point following a ORG judgment on DATE in which a confiscation order was quashed following a finding that a ORG judge had not complied with the requirements of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act . The applicant asked the judge to reconsider his ruling of CARDINAL DATE . The judge considered the applicant \u2019s case to be distinguishable on the facts . However , on the request of the defence and following advice from both parties that an interlocutory appeal could be completed quickly and that the DATE confiscation hearing would not need to be vacated , he certified the point as fit for appeal to ORG .","The applicant duly lodged an appeal on the jurisdiction point . For unknown reasons , matters proceeded more slowly than the parties had expected and the DATE confiscation hearing did not go ahead . A further judgment in a similar appeal was handed down by ORG on DATE ( NORP v ORG ( PERSON ) and others [ DATE ] PERSON ) . An appeal against that judgment was lodged with ORG .","The applicant \u2019s case was adjourned further in DATE and DATE on application by him under section CARDINAL of LAW , the \u201c exceptional circumstances \u201d being the pending ORG appeals . The parties were requested to keep the court updated . The applicant was subsequently informed by letter from ORG dated DATE that a question had been certified for ORG in the case of ORG and others and that all similar appeals , including his own , would be held in abeyance until that appeal had been decided by ORG .","As a result of this , and disclosure issues in relation to the receiver , the matter was further postponed in DATE until DATE by which time ORG had not issued a judgment in ORG and others . The judge allowed a DATE adjournment to obtain an update from the judicial office of ORG . He was reminded by the applicant that he would again need to formally postpone the confiscation hearing . The judge proposed a further DATE postponement , on the proviso that he be provided with more up to date information in a DATE \u2019s time and that if the proceedings could be listed and dealt with before the DATE period had expired , the parties should arrange this . Both counsel agreed .","Further hearings took place in DATE and DATE . However , ORG had still not issued a judgment . Further postponements were ordered .","On DATE the judge was informed that the applicant had lodged an out - of - time appeal with ORG against his conviction . Accordingly , there was little point in fixing a date for a substantive hearing in the confiscation proceedings . The applicant suggested a postponement to DATE . The judge agreed to the postponement on condition that the parties kept him informed of any progress in the meantime .","On DATE ORG handed down their judgments in CARDINAL jurisdiction appeals ( R v ORG and others [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ; and R v ORG and another [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ) . It upheld the confiscation orders , stating that any prejudice caused to the defendants by delay was outweighed by the public interest in not allowing convicted offenders to escape confiscation for bona fide errors in the judicial process .","On DATE a procedural hearing was held in ORG in the applicant \u2019s case . The applicant \u2019s counsel acknowledged that ORG judgment effectively ruled out the prospect of a successful appeal on jurisdiction . The applicant requested a further adjournment to allow the parties to discuss matters further and agree amongst themselves a convenient date in DATE for the next hearing . The judge agreed to an adjournment . It is unclear whether a hearing took place in DATE or whether further adjournments were agreed in light of the applicant \u2019s pending appeal against conviction .","In the meantime , from DATE , separate hearings were held in ORG relating to the applicant \u2019s appeal against conviction . On DATE , the applicant was released from prison , having served CARDINAL of his sentence . On DATE , apparently following adverse outcomes on various issues relating to his appeal , the applicant abandoned his appeal against conviction .","On DATE at a review hearing in the confiscation proceedings , the applicant informed the court that he had a large number of witnesses and a great deal of work was yet to be done . The applicant \u2019s counsel gave notice of a potential abuse argument arising from the deaths of CARDINAL of his witnesses . The judge fixed a timetable for further proceedings , including the lodging of an amended \u201c section CARDINAL statement \u201d by the prosecution and reply by the applicant . The matter was listed for a hearing in DATE . The prosecution served the amended statement in DATE . At the hearing on DATE it was agreed to seek suitable dates in DATE .","At a directions hearing on DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel again raised issues relating to the volume of work and requested until DATE to respond to the prosecution \u2019s \u201c section CARDINAL statement \u201d . The judge extended the deadline to DATE and ordered that the prosecution serve any further response within DATE . A procedural hearing was agreed for DATE . The judge further extended the deadline for the confiscation hearing on the grounds of \u201c exceptional circumstances \u201d , stating that this was \u201c a wholly exceptional case \u201d .","At the procedural hearing on DATE the applicant proposed DATE for the substantive confiscation hearing and assured the judge that the hearing would not last longer than DATE . The judge was scheduled to start a complex trial on DATE to last until DATE . He therefore listed the applicant \u2019s case for DATE . On DATE the parties appeared before the judge . The applicant \u2019s counsel informed the judge that , contrary to previous advice to the court , DATE would be insufficient for the substantive hearing as he now wished to call more witnesses than had originally been indicated . The judge \u2019s other commitments precluded a rescheduled hearing taking place before DATE and counsel could not agree on dates after DATE . The judge decided to keep the hearing fixed for DATE to clarify the situation as to dates . The matter was further adjourned at hearings that took place in DATE and DATE . The substantive hearing was listed for DATE , with a time estimate of DATE , but in fact lasted DATE from DATE .","The judge delivered his ruling on the confiscation on DATE . He identified the total amount of the applicant \u2019s benefit from criminal conduct as ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . He found the principal realisable asset to be a farm , which was valued at GBP MONEY . A confiscation order was made , with a DATE term of imprisonment to be served consecutive to the main sentence in default of payment . In his judgment , the judge also addressed the question of delay , noting that the delay incurred resulted partly from the applicant \u2019s desire to challenge the jurisdiction of the court , partly from his appeal to ORG and partly from his decision to change his legal representatives .","On DATE the applicant requested the judge to vary the confiscation order and reopen his findings on the delay issue on the basis of the judgment of this Court in GPE and PERSON v. GPE , no . PERSON , DATE . The judge declined , noting that it was now for the applicant to seek other remedies .","The applicant applied , out of time , to ORG for leave to appeal the confiscation order . He argued , first , that the judge had erred in including the current value of the farm within the benefit figure of the proceeds of drug trafficking ; and , secondly , that the delay in the disposal of the confiscation proceedings had breached his right to a fair trial and to a trial within a reasonable time under LAW .","An oral hearing took place before the full court to decide upon both leave to appeal and the merits on DATE . ORG granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal itself , upholding the confiscation order and finding no violation of LAW . As regards the delay complaint , the court considered the whole period from the applicant \u2019s arrest in DATE to the making of the confiscation order in DATE . It indicated that the delay :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... raises a prima facie case of a significant breach of LAW . Unless there is a satisfactory explanation for it , it is a chronology which is way , way below the standards which are expected and achieved in the courts of this country . ...","... We start with the proposition that the passage of such a length of time as we have described calls for the most careful investigation and detailed justification . It is simply on the face of it well beyond acceptable . \u201d","The court found that the period from the applicant \u2019s arrest in DATE to the conclusion of his first trial on DATE was wholly unexceptional and reasonable . As to the period between the discharge of the jury in the first trial to the conclusion of the second trial in DATE , a period of DATE , the court accepted that the abandonment of the first trial was the fault of the prosecution , noting :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... The trial had to start all over again . It was not concluded by conviction at DATE second trial until DATE . There is thus a period of DATE from DATE until CARDINALth DATE which was an unnecessary delay attributable to the error , although in good faith , made on behalf of the prosecution by some junior clerk . That period is therefore potentially available to be considered as the responsibility of the ORG . \u201d","The court then examined the delay from DATE second trial in DATE until DATE , when the ORG of Lords\u2019 judgment in the jurisdiction appeals was handed down . It observed that at the outset of this period , the confiscation proceedings were moving in good time . The court considered that there would have been a hearing of the confiscation question in about DATE or DATE , if that probable timetable had not been overtaken by the applicant \u2019s challenge to the court \u2019s jurisdiction , of which the court noted;.","\u201c CARDINAL . ... He was entitled to do so . The issue was raised before the trial judge in the early part of DATE ... The controversy as to the correct construction of the confiscation legislation was not resolved until the decision of ORG in R v PERSON and GPE ... In fact the question raised and decided went further than simply the confiscation legislation . It bore on a broader question of when technical failure to abide exactly by prescribed procedure has the effect of nullifying the subsequent actions of courts which is , of course , a very large general question . \u201d","ORG considered that it was in the applicant \u2019s interests to await the eventual authoritative ruling of ORG . It therefore concluded that the delay that arose in this respect could not be criticised .","In the period from DATE until the applicant abandoned his appeal against conviction in DATE , the court considered that the delay was the result of the appeal lodged \u201c long out of time \u201d , noting :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... Whilst an appeal against conviction was outstanding there could not of course sensibly be a confiscation hearing because if the defendant \u2019s conviction disappeared so would any prospect of confiscation . \u201d","The court observed that the applicant had engaged a third counsel for the appeal , and pursued it on grounds that had never been supported by those who had conducted his trial . It further noted that the various grounds advanced by the applicant fell away CARDINAL by CARDINAL over that period , but CARDINAL of them remained and was not finally laid to rest until DATE . The court concluded :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... The simple fact is that the appeal on this ground , as on the others , had always been without any proper basis or merit . It is this additional period to which we referred prospectively earlier on as an example of the defendant taking the course that he is quite entitled to do \u2013 leaving no legal stone unturned \u2013 but adding to the passage of time as a result . We are satisfied that nothing in that period can be called unreasonable delay attributable to the act or omission of the ORG . \u201d","As regards the period DATE , when the confiscation order was eventually made , ORG noted that the parties had returned promptly to ORG for the resumption of the confiscation issue within TIME of the abandonment of the appeal against conviction . It was apparent at the hearing of DATE that the prosecution was pressing for a short timetable . The applicant \u2019s representatives , on the other hand , wanted a longer timetable and were seeking additional time on the grounds that they had an enormous volume of work and would be calling a large number of witnesses , and might even be mounting an abuse argument on the grounds that some potential witnesses had died . Hearings were adjourned owing to the applicant \u2019s applications . Although ORG did not blame the applicant for his conduct , the court made it clear that any additional passage of time as a result of that conduct was not attributable to any act of the ORG . It observed in particular that :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... At CARDINAL such hearing , in DATE , the defendant through his lawyers indicated that there would be CARDINAL witnesses necessary to be examined at the confiscation hearing ... [ that ] was eventually set down for DATE , taking into account the potentially large number of witnesses and time that would be needed . At that stage the estimate , which according to LANGUAGE practice will have been an estimate contributed to by both parties , was DATE . That is a very long time for a confiscation hearing but if the time has to be found it has to be found . However , that date had to be broken on the application of the defendant because they assured the judge that they had so many witnesses to call that in fact DATE would be needed , that is DATE , to hear the confiscation question . In the end , the defendant called CARDINAL ( not DATE ) witnesses and CARDINAL of those was himself . \u201d","The court commented on the time taken by ORG judge to deliver his ruling ( CARDINAL after the conclusion of the confiscation hearing ) as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... We do not doubt that that will be attributable to the demands made on the judges at ORG , but it is too long and that period , or at least part of it , is no doubt the responsibility of the State . Judgments of this kind ought to be delivered within , at the very least , DATE . \u201d","Looking at the passage of time as a whole , the court concluded that there had not been in the applicant \u2019s case unreasonable delay attributable to the acts of the ORG . The court also considered the impact of the passage of time upon the applicant , and acknowledged that he and his wife lived throughout this time with the uncertainty of whether they would lose his family home . However , given that his assets remained the same throughout the whole period and that he continued to enjoy his home which might have otherwise been taken from him earlier , the court had very little doubt about where the balance of advantage lay . It concluded :","\u201c CARDINAL . The reality of this case is that this was a defendant of resourceful approach who deployed every possible legal stratagem to delay the confiscation process . He can not now be heard to say that as a result of his having succeeded in delaying it , it has become unfair for the confiscation order to proceed . If there had been unreasonable delay attributable to the ORG , in the absence of any possible damage to the defendant beyond the very limited uncertainty that we have mentioned we are quite satisfied that this could not possibly have been a case in which the appropriate remedy would have been a stay of the confiscation process for abuse of process . There would simply have been nothing remotely unfair about the defendant eventually having to disgorge the confiscation which was the consequence of his offending . The appropriate remedy would , hypothetically , as it seems to us , have been a declaration . But that does not in the end arise . It follows that the substantive ground ... in relation to LAW . \u201d","Since the lodging of his application to this ORG , a further judgment has been handed down by ORG on DATE , substantially reducing the amount of assets payable under the confiscation order ( ORG v ORG [ DATE ] EWHC CARDINAL ( Admin ) ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181306","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"MLADOST TURIST A.D. v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mladost PERSON a.d . ( hereafter \u201c the applicant company \u201d ) , is a commercial ( joint stock ) company incorporated under NORP law , with its seat in GPE . It was represented before the ORG by PERSON , an advocate practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON . ORG , having been informed of their right to intervene ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of ORG ) , did not avail themselves of this right .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The legal system of the former GPE ( SFRY ) distinguished CARDINAL types of ownership : private ownership ( privatno vlasni\u0161tvo ) and social ownership ( dru\u0161tveno vlasni\u0161tvo ) . While owners of property in private ownership were private individuals ( natural persons ) and some private legal entities called \u201c civil legal entities \u201d ( gra\u0111anske pravne osobe ) such as foundations , associations and religious communities , the owner of property in social ownership was not defined . Nevertheless , the federal ORG , the constituent Republics , municipalities being local government units and other various legal entities called \u201c social legal entities \u201d ( dru\u0161tvene pravne osobe ) , among which the most important ones were companies , known at the time as \u201c organisations of associated labour \u201d ( organizacije udru\u017eenog rada ) and later on as \u201c socially owned companies \u201d ( dru\u0161tvena poduze\u0107a ) , were during the socialist period given certain quasi - ownership rights over property in social ownership , such as the right to use it ( pravo DATE ) , the right to administer it ( pravo upravljanja ) or the right to dispose of it ( pravo raspolaganja ) .","NORP The applicant company was established in DATE in GPE as an \u201c organisation of associated labour \u201d . On DATE it transformed itself under NORP law into a commercial ( joint stock ) company whose shareholders were all private individuals .","The applicant company claimed that during the socialist period it had held a quasi - ownership right over CARDINAL plots of land in social ownership ( dru\u0161tveno vlasni\u0161tvo ) located in GPE ) , namely the right of use ( pravo kori\u0161tenja ) of that land . At the time , the plots in question had formed the \u201c GPE \u201d Children and ORG operated by the applicant company .","On DATE GPE declared independence and severed all ties with ORG ( hereafter \u201c the SFRY \u201d ) .","By a number of decrees adopted in the period DATE and CARDINAL DATE the Government of GPE prohibited companies or other legal entities with their seat in other GPE of the former SFRY from undertaking any transactions involving assets ( including immovable property ) located in GPE .","By Government of GPE decree of DATE , which entered into force on DATE , all such assets of legal entities with their seats in GPE or GPE were transferred to the State ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Relying on subsequent legislation that entered into force on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE recorded in the land register the ORG as the owner of the plots of land at issue .","With the entry into force on DATE of LAW , holders of existing quasi - ownership rights over socially - owned property ( the rights to administer , use and dispose of it ) ex lege became its owners ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This did not apply to such rights which had been extinguished before that date , primarily by virtue of earlier legislative acts whereby social ownership of certain types of property ( such as flats , agricultural land and sports facilities ) was transformed into private ownership .","By a gift contract of DATE the ORG transferred ownership of the land in question to the GPE elementary school ( hereafter \u201c the elementary school \u201d ) . On the basis of that contract , on DATE the ORG registered the school as the owner of the land .","On DATE the Agreement on Succession Issues between the successor GPE to the SFRY ( hereafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) entered into force ( see paragraph CARDINAL below , and , for further details , PERSON and Others v. GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and the former GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ) . PERSON to the ORG deals with private property and acquired rights . LAW provides that successor GPE will recognise , protect and restore the rights to immovable property located on their territory to which citizens or other legal entities of the SFRY were entitled on DATE , and that anyone who is unable to enjoy such rights will be entitled to compensation . It also provides that any purported transfer of rights to immovable property made after DATE will be deemed null and void ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","Following an application by the relevant land - survey ( geodetic ) authorities of CARDINAL DATE , ORG , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE , joined the CARDINAL plots of land in question to form a single cadastral plot and recorded the change in the land register .","NORP In DATE the applicant company brought a civil action against the ORG and the elementary school ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in ORG , seeking restitution of the land in question . In particular , since all existing rights of use had been abolished and transformed into rights of ownership ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant company sought to be declared the owner of the land . In the alternative , the company sought MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation . It relied on LAW to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s action . It found that during the socialist period the applicant company had held the right of use only in respect of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL plots of land which at the time had formed the \u201c GPE \u201d Children and FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . During the socialist period the right of use in respect of the remaining plots had belonged to GPE ( CARDINAL plots ) and to ORG ( CARDINAL plot ) . When the company had instituted civil proceedings in DATE , that plot had no longer existed as it had been joined to the remaining CARDINAL plots to form a single cadastral plot ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This meant that the applicant company \u2019s action had to be dismissed because it had been brought in respect of an inexistent item of property .","The applicant company appealed , arguing that during the socialist period GPE and ORG had transferred to it the right of use in respect of the CARDINAL plots of land . It provided some documentary evidence to that effect . In any event , it was evident that the applicant company had operated and used the resort in DATE for DATE and thereby , under the legislation in force at the time , had acquired the right of use in respect of those CARDINAL plots by the operation of law . As regards the remaining plot in respect of which ORG had acknowledged that it had had the right of use , the applicant company argued that its civil action should not have been dismissed just because that plot had been joined with the remaining CARDINAL to form a single plot of land .","On DATE the ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u PERSON ) dismissed the applicant company \u2019s appeal and upheld the firstinstance judgment . It held that the applicant company had not provided sufficient evidence to overturn ORG finding that the company had not held the right of use in respect of the CARDINAL plots of land . ORG , however , agreed with the applicant company \u2019s argument that its civil action regarding the remaining plot of land should not have been dismissed on the grounds stated by ORG . Nonetheless , the applicant company \u2019s action had to be dismissed because the ORG had lawfully become the owner of that plot on the basis of the decree of CARDINAL DATE and the legislation of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . The applicant company \u2019s right of use had thereby been extinguished and thus could not have been transformed into a right of ownership on the basis of the transitional provisions of the DATE LAW , which had entered into force on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . Lastly , the applicant company could not have relied on Annex G of LAW either , because that agreement was not directly applicable .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed a subsequent appeal on points of law ( revizija ) lodged by the applicant company . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW the owner of a socially - owned immovable property is the [ legal entity ] recorded in the land register as the holder of the right to administer , use or dispose of that immovable property .","However , this statutory presumption does not operate in favour of the plaintiff .","The plaintiff \u2019s right of use ... could not have been transformed into a right of ownership with the entry into force of LAW ( DATE ) because the plaintiff had already lost the right of use before that , on the basis of section CARDINAL ) of the [ Government ] Decree [ of CARDINAL DATE ] .","...","In the light of the foregoing , the right of use ... was extinguished and was transformed into a right of ownership of the first defendant [ i.e. the ORG ] before the entry into force of LAW .","Lastly , as regards the application of ORG to LAW , on which the plaintiff relies , its provisions do not entitle the plaintiff to seek from the [ first ] defendant recognition of its [ i.e the plaintiff \u2019s ] right of ownership , ... deletion of the [ second ] defendant \u2019s right of ownership or [ to make ] further claims under the law of obligations [ i.e. to seek compensation ] .","...","The plaintiff did not acquire the right of ownership on the basis of LAW itself because that right still needs to be recognised . This clearly follows from the last sentence of LAW subparagraph ( a ) of ORG which reads : \u2018 Persons unable to realise such rights shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with civil and international legal norms.\u2019","Therefore , the plaintiff \u2019s right of ownership still has to be recognised , whereupon the competent authority should decide either to return the property or to recognise the right to compensation .","In this connection it should be mentioned that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , its implementation is within the jurisdiction of the ORG authorities citied therein and not of the courts . \u201d","NORP The applicant company then lodged a constitutional complaint against ORG judgment . It relied on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and on LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared inadmissible the applicant company \u2019s constitutional complaint . It held that the case did not raise any constitutional issues .","The relevant Articles of the LAW of GPE ( ORG , ORG no . CARDINAL , with subsequent amendments ) read :","\u201c The right of ownership shall be guaranteed .","Ownership entails obligations . Owners and users of property shall contribute to the general welfare . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Ownership may be restricted or taken in accordance with the law and in the interests of GPE , subject to the payment of compensation equal to the market value .","Entrepreneurial freedom and ownership rights may , on an exceptional basis , be restricted by law for the protection of the interests and security of GPE , nature , the environment or public health . \u201d","\u201c International agreements in force which have been concluded and ratified in accordance with the LAW and made public shall be part of the internal legal order of GPE and shall have precedence over the [ domestic ] statutes . ... \u201d","The relevant provision of LAW of DATE prohibiting transactions with , and taking over assets of , certain legal entities on the territory of GPE ( ORG o zabrani raspolaganja i preuzimanja sredstava odre\u0111enih pravnih osoba na teritoriju PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL with subsequent amendments ) , reads as follows :","\u201c The assets of business units and other organisational forms of legal entities with their seat in the territory of GPE or GPE and the autonomous provinces of GPE and GPE ... are [ hereby ] transferred to GPE . \u201d","On DATE ORG passed legislation with the same name ( Zakon o zabrani raspolaganja i preuzimanju sredstava odre\u0111enih pravnih osoba na teritoriju PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL ) . The relevant provision of that LAW reads as follows :","\u201c The courts shall of their own motion record [ in the land register ] the immovable property of which GPE became the owner on the basis of section CARDINAL ) of the [ Government ] Decree [ of CARDINAL DATE ] . \u201d","The relevant transitional provisions of the Ownership and Other Rights in GPE ( Zakon o vlasni\u0161tvu i drugim stvarnim pravima , ORG no . CARDINAL with subsequent amendments \u2013 \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) , in force since DATE , are set out in the case of GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE .","The relevant articles of ORG between the successor GPE to the SFRY read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A Standing Joint Committee of senior representatives of each successor ORG , who may be assisted by experts , is hereby established .","( CARDINAL ) This Committee shall have as its principal tasks the monitoring of the effective implementation of this LAW and serving as a forum in which issues arising in the course of its implementation may be discussed . The ORG may as necessary make appropriate recommendations to ORG .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Differences which may arise over the interpretation and application of this Agreement shall , in the first place , be resolved in discussion among the GPE concerned .","( CARDINAL ) If the differences can not be resolved in such discussions within DATE of the first communication in the discussion the GPE concerned shall either","( a ) refer the matter to an independent person of their choice , with a view to obtaining a speedy and authoritative determination of the matter which shall be respected and which may , as appropriate , indicate specific time - limits for actions to be taken ; or","( b ) refer the matter to ORG established by LAW for resolution .","( CARDINAL ) ORG which may arise in practice over the interpretation of the terms used in this Agreement or in any subsequent agreement called for in implementation of the LOC to this Agreement may , additionally , be referred at the initiative of any ORG concerned to binding expert solution , conducted by a single expert ( who shall not be a national of any party to this Agreement ) to be appointed by agreement between the parties in dispute or , in the absence of agreement , by the President of ORG within the LOC . The expert shall determine all questions of procedure , after consulting the parties seeking such expert solution if the expert considers it appropriate to do so , with the firm intention of securing a speedy and effective resolution of the difference .","( CARDINAL ) The procedure provided for in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of this Article shall be strictly limited to the interpretation of terms used in the agreements in question and shall in no circumstances permit the expert to determine the practical application of any of those agreements . In particular the procedure referred to shall not apply to","( a ) The Appendix to this Agreement ;","( b ) ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Annex B ;","( c ) ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of ORG ;","( d ) Article CARDINAL of Annex D.","( CARDINAL ) Nothing in the preceding paragraphs of this Article shall affect the rights or obligations of the Parties to the present Agreement under any provision in force binding them with regard to the settlement of disputes . \u201d","\u201c The PERSON to this LAW and the LAW and Annexes are an integral part of the LAW . \u201d","\u201c This Agreement , together with any subsequent agreements called for in implementation of the Annexes to this Agreement , finally settles the mutual rights and obligations of the successor States in respect of succession issues covered by this Agreement . The fact that it does not deal with certain other non - succession matters is without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the GPE parties to this LAW in relation to those other matters . \u201d","\u201c Each successor ORG , on the basis of reciprocity , shall take the necessary measures in accordance with its internal law to ensure that the provisions of this Agreement are recognised and effective in its courts , administrative tribunals and agencies , and that the other successor ORG and their nationals have access to those courts , tribunals and agencies to secure the implementation of this Agreement . \u201d","\u201c This Agreement shall be implemented by the successor ORG in good faith in conformity with the LAW of ORG and in accordance with international law . \u201d","The relevant Articles of Annex G to LAW read as follows :","\u201c Private property and acquired rights of citizens and other legal persons of the SFRY shall be protected by successor ORG in accordance with the provisions of this FAC . \u201d","( CARDINAL ) ( a ) The rights to movable and immovable property located in a successor ORG and to which citizens or other legal persons of the SFRY were entitled on DATE shall be recognised , and protected and restored by that ORG in accordance with established standards and norms of international law and irrespective of the nationality , citizenship , residence or domicile of those persons . This shall include persons who , after DATE , acquired the citizenship of or established domicile or residence in , a ORG other than a successor ORG . Persons unable to realize such rights shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with civil and international legal norms .","( b ) Any purported transfer of rights to movable or immovable property made after DATE and concluded under duress or contrary to sub - paragraph ( a ) of this Article shall be null and void .","... \u201d","\u201c The successor GPE shall take such action as may be required by general principles of law and otherwise appropriate to ensure the effective application of the principles set out in this ORG , such as concluding bilateral agreements and notifying their courts and other competent authorities . \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Zakon o potvr\u0111ivanju ORG o pitanjima sukcesije , ORG no . CARDINAL ) entrusts its implementation to ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG and other ORG authorities responsible for the issues covered by the Agreement .","At the meetings of ORG , established under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) held on DATE and DATE , the committee adopted recommendations concerning , inter alia , ORG to the ORG . The committee noted that the application of the provisions of ORG was not efficient enough , and recommended that the interested successor ORG conclude bilateral agreements for the purpose of the efficient implementation of those provisions . It also advised them to refrain from passing any legislation or undertaking any steps contrary to the provisions of ORG , and to adopt , should they deem it necessary , measures intended to enable the effective application of Annex G standards .","NORP In decision no . U - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG held as follows :","\u201c ... ORG notes that the entry into force of the [ LAW did not remove the legal effects associated with taking over the assets of certain legal entities on the territory of GPE produced by the entry into force of the [ Government of GPE ] Decree [ of DATE ] ... nor did the Contracting Parties by that Agreement explicitly undertake to return those assets . They only established the principle of equal protection of the property of natural [ persons ] and legal [ entities ] with the nationality of , or their seat in , the territory of the other Contracting party [ thereby granting them the same level of protection ] as the one enjoyed by their nationals and legal entities .","The said Agreement merely constitutes a basis for the conclusion of further agreements between the Contracting Parties with a view to regulating the procedure for exercising the right to compensation for damaged , destroyed or lost property , but is not an instrument suitable for direct application in each particular case .","...","ORG ... reiterates that ORG stipulates only the fundamental principles underlying the succession issues related to private property and acquired rights of citizens and other legal entities . This undoubtedly stems from LAW , which stipulates that the successor ORG should take such measures as may be required by general principles of law and otherwise appropriate to ensure the effective application of the principles set out in that ORG , such as concluding bilateral agreements and notifying their courts and other competent authorities .","... [ these ] measures entail the adoption of appropriate legislation and subordinate legislation , concluding international agreements and the like . In so doing , all the successor ORG are obliged to implement the LAW in good faith , in accordance with the ORG Charter and international law . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167483","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MUR\u0160I\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Armen Harutyunyan;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus K\u016bris;Erik M\u00f8se;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","In a judgment of ORG ( PERSON u PERSON ) of DATE , upheld by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE , the applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for armed robbery .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) sentenced him to DATE imprisonment for theft , which was confirmed by ORG on DATE .","Following a request by the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG took into account those CARDINAL convictions and sentenced him to a single term of DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from a semi - open regime in ORG ( FAC ( GPE u GPE ) to serve the prison sentence originally imposed by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The reason for the transfer , as indicated in a report of ORG , was the applicant \u2019s inappropriate behaviour and threats of escape .","The applicant remained in FAC until DATE , when he was transferred to ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) following a decision by ORG ( ORG pravosu\u0111a , PERSON ) of DATE .","According to the applicant , during his stay in FAC he was placed in overcrowded cells . He alleged in particular that for DATE in total he disposed of QUANTITY ( sq . m ) of personal space , including for a period of DATE . There were also several non - consecutive periods in which he was allocated between CARDINAL and QUANTITY m of personal space in the cells ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant further submitted that the cells in which he had been held were badly maintained , humid , dirty and insufficiently equipped with lockers and chairs for all inmates . The sanitary facilities were in the same room as the living area , from which they were not fully separated . Those facilities were QUANTITY away from the dining table and there was a constant smell in the cell . Moreover , he had not been given any opportunity to engage in prison work and in general was not provided with sufficient access to recreational and educational activities . The prisoners were allowed to move freely outside the locked part of the prison DATE , and the out - of - cell facilities were inadequate and insufficient , particularly given that there was only an open recreation yard . The nutrition was poor and the hygiene conditions were inadequate , especially since the toilet was not separated from the living area . The inmates did not have sufficient access to hot water and were allowed to shower only once or sometimes CARDINAL times per week .","According to the Government , while in FAC the applicant had at his disposal an average of CARDINAL sq . m of personal space . He was held in CARDINAL different cells , the conditions of which are detailed in the table below .","The measurements of the cells indicate their overall size ( as provided by the Government ) and with the in - cell sanitary facility deducted ( based on the methodology enunciated in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . That calculation is based on an approximate measurement of the sanitary facility ( QUANTITY . m ) according to the floor plans FAC , which the Government provided to the ORG and which are not disputed by the applicant .","The Government further explained that each cell in which the applicant had been accommodated had had windows allowing in natural light and fresh air . Artificial light was also secured and all cells were heated by a central heating system and equipped with a communication system enabling the inmates to contact prison staff immediately in case of need . All cells had a toilet fully separated from the living area and equipped with its own ventilation system . All cells had direct access to drinking water . The cells were constantly maintained and some necessary reconstruction work and improvements to the facilities had been carried out in DATE , DATE and DATE , as well as in DATE , DATE and DATE . Furthermore , the inmates were provided with all necessary hygiene and sanitary facilities . This included a shower CARDINAL times per week and after sports activities . Every inmate was also regularly provided with the necessary toiletries and cleaning supplies for keeping the cells clean . The inmates were provided with clean bedding and bedspreads DATE , or more often if necessary . In addition , the inmates were provided with the necessary clothing although they were allowed to use their own clothes . Nutrition was based on an assessment by experts and the quality of the food was constantly monitored by the competent ORG authorities . The inmates were provided with CARDINAL meals per day meeting the necessary nutrition requirements , as supervised by the prison doctor . Meals could be taken to cells or eaten in a common room .","The Government also explained that the inmates were allowed to move freely outside their cells in TIME , and to use the indoor and outdoor facilities of FAC . This in particular included TIME of outdoor exercise and in addition free out - of - cell movement inside the prison DATE Specifically , in the ordinary DATE regime , the inmates would wake up at TIME and at TIME on DATE and public holidays . They would then wash , tidy their beds , and have breakfast , followed by TIME cleaning of the cell . Leisure time was scheduled afterwards , until TIME , when they had an opportunity to take part in a number of activities . Leisure time was followed by lunch served CARDINAL The period after lunch was usually set aside for various group activities and meetings with lawyers and prison staff . CARDINAL all cell doors were opened again , enabling the inmates to move about within the prison and to use its facilities as they saw fit . Dinner was served from TIME , followed by TIME tidying and cleaning of the cells and other rooms in the prison .","The Government submitted that FAC was equipped with a recreation area located in the courtyard , which , in addition to the asphalted parts , included a lawn . The surface area of the courtyard was QUANTITY m. There was also direct access to drinking water and artificial light as well as protection from inclement weather available in the recreation area . The gym was open TIME and between CARDINAL and TIME , and the basketball court was open on DATE between TIME and at the weekends in both the morning and the afternoon . The recreation area was also equipped with a badminton court and ping - pong tables . The inmates were able to borrow books and use other services of the ORG library , which were regularly available in the prison . The prison administration also organised religious ceremonies and contacts with cultural and religious associations . Each cell was equipped with cable television , which could be watched TIME during DATE , and TIME and on DATE . There were also radio receivers in the cells and the possibility of borrowing and watching films from a collection available in FAC . In addition , the inmates were allowed to socialise by playing board games . There was also a room for spousal visits and the inmates were allowed to obtain various goods from outside the prison . FAC also offered a possibility of education in prison but the applicant had decided not to avail himself of that opportunity . Remunerated work in prison was available in accordance with the economic possibilities , which were at the time limited due to the general economic crisis . A possibility of work outside the prison existed but the applicant \u2019s previous threats to escape and his inadequate behaviour in detention had not made him eligible for this possibility . During his stay in FAC , the applicant had regularly received medical treatment . He had seen his family CARDINAL times while standing trial for another offence in \u010cakovec and had been allowed to speak to them by telephone TIME , with TIME on public holidays .","The Government substantiated their arguments with photographs taken in DATE , DATE and DATE in the context of the renovation of the prison and visits by various officials to the prison , floor plans and other relevant documentation related to the available facilities in FAC and the applicant \u2019s health care and nutrition .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with the ORG administration through a lawyer , asking to be transferred to FAC for personal and family reasons .","On DATE he complained to ORG in general terms about the conduct of FAC administration , alleging that they had never offered him the opportunity to have a meeting with the relevant officials , that his request for a transfer had been ignored and that the prison food had been inadequate .","NORP The applicant again reiterated his request for a transfer to FAC on DATE , citing personal and family reasons , particularly his family \u2019s lack of financial means , which made it difficult for them to visit him .","On DATE ORG replied to the applicant \u2019s complaints , finding them ill - founded in all respects . It pointed out that he had been given sufficient opportunity to have contact with his family by telephone and while attending the court hearings in DATE , DATE and DATE in the criminal proceedings against him , that he had not been engaged in any work because there had been an insufficient number of work posts in FAC , that he had had CARDINAL meetings with the prison governor and CARDINAL meetings with various other ORG officials , and that food had been prepared in consultation with experts , the prison diet having been continuously supervised by the prison doctor .","On DATE the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention to a sentence - execution judge of ORG ( PERSON u GPE ) . He pointed out that central to his complaints was his wish to be transferred to another prison closer to his family . He also complained , in particular , that his request to engage in prison work had not been answered . He was being detained with CARDINAL other inmates in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured CARDINAL sq . m in total and was inadequately equipped and maintained . Hygiene conditions were poor , given that he had been allowed to take a shower CARDINAL times per week .","Following the applicant \u2019s complaint , the sentence - execution judge requested a detailed report from FAC concerning the conditions of his detention .","After obtaining the relevant report and hearing the applicant in person , on DATE the sentence - execution judge dismissed his complaints as ill - founded . She found , in particular , that the applicant had sufficient personal space at his disposal , given that CARDINAL other persons were at the time placed with him in the same cell . The sentence - execution judge also found that the applicant was provided with sufficient hygiene and sanitary facilities , and that he was not engaged in prison work since such opportunities did not exist for all prisoners in FAC .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the sentence - execution judge \u2019s decision with a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , alleging that she had erred in her factual findings , as cell no . CARDINAL had been occupied by CARDINAL inmates .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded , endorsing the reasoning of the sentence - execution judge . It also explained that the required standard for personal space under LAW , namely QUANTITY , was the recommended minimum standard that should in principle be respected , but that there could be no automatic violation of a prisoner \u2019s rights if such a standard was temporarily not complied with . In view of the fact that a reduction in the applicant \u2019s personal space in cell no . CARDINAL had only been temporary , the CARDINAL - judge panel considered that there had been no violation of his rights .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the decision of its CARDINAL - judge panel . He argued that for DATE following his arrival at FAC , he had been detained in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m , where CARDINAL inmates in total had been detained . He had then spent DATE in cell no . CARDINAL on the first floor with CARDINAL inmates , which had measured QUANTITY m. He had then been placed in another cell , also marked \u201c cell no . CARDINAL \u201d , which again measured QUANTITY . m , where he had spent DATE with CARDINAL inmates . At the time of his complaint he was being held in cell no . CARDINAL with CARDINAL inmates .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , relying on LAW ( equality before the law ) , LAW before the ORG authorities ) and LAW ( right to a fair trial ) of the LAW , complaining in general terms of a lack of personal space and work opportunities in FAC . He also relied on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of FAC , guaranteeing adequate personal space to detainees , and alleged that this provision had not been complied with in his case .","On DATE the applicant complained to the PERSON ( NORP pravobranitelj ) that he had not been granted a transfer to a prison closer to his family , and alleged in general terms that the conditions of his detention had been inadequate .","Meanwhile , in DATE the applicant joined a group of inmates who complained to the sentence - execution judge about inadequate general conditions in FAC .","By a letter of DATE the PERSON invited the applicant to further substantiate his complaints .","The applicant replied to that request on DATE , indicating that the sentence - execution judge and the CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG had never examined his complaints properly , and that he had not been granted QUANTITY m of personal space in detention as required under LAW .","In DATE the applicant saw a psychiatrist , who found that the applicant was frustrated with his internment and the impossibility of seeing his family .","On DATE the PERSON replied to the applicant \u2019s letter that , according to the information available , his accommodation in FAC had fallen short of the requirements of adequate personal space under FAC . The PERSON also pointed out that the cell where the applicant was being detained had been renovated in DATE , and complied with all hygiene and health standards . The ORG also noted that , just like CARDINAL other inmates , the applicant had not been engaged in prison work , as there had been an insufficient number of work posts for all prisoners .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c In his constitutional complaint , the complainant was unable to show that ORG had acted contrary to the constitutional provisions concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms or had arbitrarily interpreted the relevant statutory provisions . ORG therefore finds that the present case does not raise an issue of the complainant \u2019s constitutional rights . Thus , there is no constitutional law issue in the case for ORG to decide upon ... \u201d","The Constitutional Court \u2019s decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173768","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF AYVAZYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE - on - PERSON , GPE . She is the sister of PERSON , who was born in DATE and was killed by police officers on DATE . He had been suffering from a mental disorder ( paranoid - type schizophrenia ) and at the material time had been living alone in the village of ORG , in the Lori Region of GPE .","The circumstances of NORP \u2019s fatal shooting , as established by the decision issued by the investigator on DATE following the end of the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , are as follows .","On DATE at TIME PERSON went to a local shop , where he took out a knife and , for no reason , stabbed GPE . , a shop assistant , in the arm , and PERSON , a customer entering the shop , in the cheek . He then went home .","NORP Some time later , after a telephone call made from ORG to the police station of the nearby town of LOC , QUANTITY police officers , PERSON , GPE , ORG and PERSON , arrived at GPE GPE \u2019s house . As they approached , PERSON was in the garden and , having seen the police officers , ran towards the house . The police officers started chasing him . As PERSON entered the house and was about to shut the door , police officer PERSON reached him and started to push the door open . At that moment PERSON stabbed PERSON in the arm and cheek with the knife , through the CARDINAL - open door , and managed to shut the door . PERSON was taken by car to hospital , while PERSON and ORG , who remained at the house , called LOC police station and reported the incident . Then they tried to persuade PERSON to come out , but the latter refused to do so , threatening to kill anybody who tried to approach the house and sharpening his knives in full view . They contacted CARDINAL of PERSON sisters , who lived in the same village , but she refused to come . Having received the call from PERSON and GPE , CARDINAL more police officers , including GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG , GPE . , and GPE , led by Major PERSON , the chief of LOC police station , arrived at the house and surrounded it . The mayor of ORG , an ambulance and the fire brigade were also called . Another attempt was made to have PERSON relatives , who lived in the same village , come to the scene in order to persuade him to surrender , but they refused to come . Then for TIME the police officers tried to persuade PERSON NORP to surrender , but he continued to display the same threatening behaviour as earlier . In the meantime , the police officers contacted the head of ORG , who told them that it would only be possible to tranquillise PERSON only in hospital .","At TIME it was decided to neutralise and apprehend GPE NORP by spraying him with water from the hose of a fire engine . After the fire hose had been turned on , QUANTITY police officers , GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG , GPE . and PERSON , upon an order from the chief of LOC police station , pushed open the door and entered the house . PERSON . , who was the first to enter , held a small wooden table in front of him as a shield against a knife attack . After the police officers entered , they saw that the way from the corridor into the room had been barricaded with furniture . The police officers decided on the spot to leave the house and the entire group went out . Having seen that the police officers were leaving , PERSON moved towards them with a knife in each hand , reached PERSON . by the door to the porch , and stabbed him in the head with CARDINAL of the knives . PERSON . immediately fell as a result of the stabbing . As he was lying on the ground , PERSON tried to stab him again , but at that moment another police officer , GPE . , who was guarding the entrance , fired a warning shot in the air from his automatic rifle and , seeing that PERSON NORP was still trying to stab PERSON . , shot at PERSON legs . At the same time , and independently of those actions , police officers GPE , PERSON and PERSON , seeing that PERSON . had fallen as a result of the assault and that PERSON was trying to stab him again , started to shoot with their pistols at GPE NORP \u2019s legs . GPE fired QUANTITY shots , while PERSON and PERSON fired CARDINAL shots each . As a result of the shooting , PERSON NORP was wounded , fell and died .","During the subsequent on - site inspection , CARDINAL knives were found in the porch , as well as a hand grenade and CARDINAL more knife in the corridor .","During an inspection of PERSON clothes , CARDINAL more knives and a medical lancet were discovered .","As a result of being assaulted by PERSON , civilians GPE . and PERSON and police officers GPE and GPE . received injuries that were of minor or medium severity , but not life - threatening .","The applicant contested these facts and alleged that in reality PERSON had not posed a threat to police officer PERSON . \u2019s life and that the police officers had simply executed him in retaliation for his having injured CARDINAL of their colleagues .","On DATE of the incident the PERSON regional prosecutor \u2019s office decided to institute criminal case no . DATE for attempted murder under Article CARDINAL , in conjunction with LAW ( ORG ) , on account of PERSON actions , namely his armed assaults on civilians and police officers .","On DATE an inspection of the crime scene was conducted and a report produced , which included sketch maps . The house had CARDINAL rooms , CARDINAL behind the other , divided by a wall , with a passageway on the right . All along the front of the house there was a porch , which measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY . There were windows onto the porch on the left , and the main entrance was on the right , in front of the abovementioned passageway . The house also had windows on the right side . The sketch map also noted the positions of PERSON and police officer PERSON . at the time of the incident . PERSON appears to have been on the porch just outside the main entrance and police officer PERSON . appears to have been next to him . Police officers GPE . and ORG were also on the porch to the left of the main entrance , while police officers GPE and PERSON were outside the porch in front of the main entrance .","On DATE an autopsy was conducted . According to the results , PERSON had received wounds from CARDINAL bullets , QUANTITY of which had hit him in his calves and thighs and his left forearm and CARDINAL of which had hit him in the chest . CARDINAL bullets had been shot at PERSON from behind . The direct cause of PERSON death had been severe internal bleeding resulting from a bullet wound to the chest , which had damaged the lower part of the heart and a lung . Death had occurred shortly after PERSON NORP being wounded .","On DATE An . A. , CARDINAL of PERSON CARDINAL sisters , was granted victim status in the instituted criminal proceedings . This decision indicated that , as a result of a crime , physical damage , namely death , had been inflicted on PERSON .","On DATE a ballistic examination of cartridge cases and bullets retrieved after the incident was conducted . It was established that they had come from police ammunition . The weapons that had been used were CARDINAL PERSON pistols and CARDINAL PERSON automatic rifle .","On DATE a forensic examination concluded that the CARDINAL knives and the medical lancet did not fall into the category of \u201c bladed weapons \u201d . All of the knives but CARDINAL were homemade .","On DATE a forensic examination report was released . According to the report , PERSON clothes had been damaged by CARDINAL bullets shot at close range .","On DATE a medical expert produced his opinion regarding PERSON mental health , according to which , PERSON had suffered from a mental disorder \u2013 paranoid schizophrenia , and had received treatment for his condition in various mental health institutions since DATE .","The investigator took statements from CARDINAL of the QUANTITY police officers involved in the arrest operation and the fatal shooting ( GPE , GPE . , GPE . , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and ORG ) . CARDINAL of the QUANTITY police officers who had fired shots , GPE , GPE . and PERSON , were questioned on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE respectively , while PERSON . ( who had been injured in the incident ) and PERSON were questioned on DATE respectively . The police officers were asked to provide an account of the incident .","Police officer ORG account was as follows . PERSON was in the second ( rear ) room when the QUANTITY police officers entered the house . The door was barricaded with an armchair and a wardrobe . As they were entering , he proposed that PERSON come out of the room but he held the knife as if he wanted to throw it and kept threatening to stab him . Realising that it was not possible to remove him from the room and that he could harm someone , GPE told the other CARDINAL police officers that they should all go outside and find another way to neutralise GPE NORP . They left the house ; the last one to leave was PERSON . , who was holding a table to protect himself in case a knife was thrown . GPE went down from the porch and was already in the yard when those of his colleagues who had gathered there shouted \u201c He has come out and attacked . \u201d H.Gev . was holding a table , defending himself against PERSON . GPE ran towards them and saw PERSON stab PERSON . in the head , so he shot at GPE NORP \u2019s legs . PERSON NORP fell down and , while lying on the ground , he threw the same knife at GPE . Then he took out another knife and threw it at the police officers . A.S. fired again in his direction . Seyran NORP then took out a third knife , rolled over , while shouting , and tried to throw the knife in GPE \u2019s direction . FAC fired again and PERSON NORP dropped the knife . The police officers approached and handcuffed him .","Police officer PERSON . \u2019s account was as follows . After the CARDINAL police officers had entered the house , GPE NORP threatened them and told them to leave . They left DATE that is to say he noticed that the others had already gone out . Realising that he was alone , he tried to leave the house while holding the table . He had not yet reached the door when suddenly PERSON screamed and ran towards him with a knife in his hand . Seeing this , he tried to move faster towards the door . PERSON reached him and stabbed him with the knife in the head . This happened in the doorway . PERSON NORP managed to stab him because he ( that is to say PERSON NORP ) was taller , although he ( that is to say PERSON ) had managed to a certain extent to push PERSON back with the table . He fell down on the porch . As he was lying on his side , facing the door and bleeding , he saw PERSON trying to stab him a second time with the same knife , again in the head . PERSON was still standing at a distance of QUANTITY away while he ( that is to say PERSON ) continued to use the table to defend himself . After PERSON NORP had tried to stab him for a second time , he heard a number of shots , but could not remember how many . He saw that the shots had hit PERSON in the legs . PERSON fell down , with his legs lying next to his own . PERSON then took out another knife . PERSON NORP must have thrown the first knife either in his direction or in the direction of those who were behind him , but he could not tell how far away the knife had been thrown . PERSON subsequently wanted to get up and stab him again , but then he heard other shots . PERSON was screaming loudly , but while the shots were being fired the others dragged him away from GPE NORP and transported him to the hospital .","Police officer GPE . \u2019s account was as follows . PERSON hid behind the wardrobe with a knife in his hand and made death threats when the QUANTITY police officers tried to approach . At that time he was standing with his rifle next to the porch windows . Then he heard PERSON screaming and saw the others come out of the house and PERSON , with a knife in his hand , run towards and reach PERSON . ( who had been the last to leave ) and stab him in the head . PERSON . squatted and started bleeding . With the same knife PERSON tried to stab PERSON . , who was at that time lying on the ground , CARDINAL more time . He fired a warning shot in the air but seeing that PERSON was trying to stab PERSON . again he fired at PERSON left leg , with the aim of neutralising him . PERSON NORP did not fall after his shot but stumbled back with a knife in his hand . One of the police officers at that moment managed to drag PERSON . away from PERSON , who then threw a knife at them and took out another knife to throw again . PERSON was still standing . He heard a number of other shots but could not tell who had fired them , how many there had been and at which parts of GPE GPE \u2019s body the shots had been fired . He did not fire any other shots apart from the above - mentioned CARDINAL . Then the other police officers managed to approach and disarm PERSON GPE , who was already on the ground .","Police officer ORG \u2019s account was as follows . Police officer PERSON . was the first to enter the house , holding a table as a shield , since PERSON was holding a knife by its blade and was threatening to throw it . He and the others following PERSON . entered the first room . PERSON retreated into the second room and barricaded the door with an armchair , which prevented them from entering the second room . PERSON refused to give up and would not allow them to advance , threatening them with a knife . They were forced to leave the house . While they were still on the porch , he PERSON heard the others saying \u201c He \u2019s coming \u201d . He turned around and saw that PERSON , having left the house , in the doorway stabbed PERSON . in the head with a knife . PERSON . immediately started bleeding . He had tried to defend himself with a table , but PERSON had managed to stretch his hand over it and stab PERSON . , who had fallen down . As far as ORG could recall , PERSON then fell ; after falling he threw the knife at them . Then PERSON took out another knife and wanted to stab PERSON . again . At that moment PERSON heard shots but did not see who was firing . Then they managed to handcuff PERSON NORP .","Police officer PERSON \u2019s account was as follows . Once the fire engine had started working , they broke down the door and entered the house . PERSON . was the first to enter DATE or rather they all entered together , with a small table in front of them for protection . At that moment the fire engine was spraying water at PERSON , who had barricaded himself in with a wardrobe and moved the wardrobe to protect himself from the water . PERSON had also placed an armchair between the CARDINAL rooms , so that they could not enter the second room . They tried to persuade him to throw down the knife , but he continued to threaten them . As PERSON was not coming out and was refusing to calm down , PERSON received an order to leave the house in order that an alternative plan could be devised . As the QUANTITY police officers were leaving , PERSON unexpectedly ran towards them , screaming loudly . PERSON could not see whether PERSON had a knife since he ( that is to say PERSON ) was facing the main entrance . He heard somebody outside say \u201c Careful , he \u2019s about to strike \u201d . He then jumped out of the house and over the porch into the yard . Before rolling away , he heard two shots and saw PERSON . lying in the porch on his back , facing the main entrance . Seyran NORP was squatting with a knife in his hand and was trying to stab PERSON . , who had already been injured . Thinking that the shots fired earlier had not touched PERSON and that , if he did not shoot , PERSON GPE would strike again and kill PERSON . , he took out his weapon , took aim at PERSON legs and fired QUANTITY shots at them . While shooting , he heard other shots and saw PERSON fall next to PERSON . He then saw CARDINAL knives in PERSON hands .","The investigator posed CARDINAL questions to each of the police officers . GPE was asked ( a ) whether it would have been possible to neutralise PERSON without the use of firearms ( answer : negative ) and ( b ) how many firearms had been used for that purpose ( CARDINAL ) . PERSON . was asked how much time had elapsed between their entering the house and the stabbing ( TIME ) . H.Gri . was asked who had been beside him at the time of the shooting ( police officer GPE ) and how many knives PERSON had had ( CARDINAL ) . ORG and PERSON were asked whether they had received an order to shoot before they had entered the house ( both : negative ) . PERSON was also asked ( a ) who had been beside him at the time of the shooting ( he could not remember ) and ( b ) to provide further details of the shooting incident . PERSON . , GPE . , ORG and PERSON were also asked whether they had noticed a grenade in PERSON hands or whether he had made threats with a grenade ( all CARDINAL : negative ) .","DATE and DATE the investigator took statements from CARDINAL other police officers who had been present at the scene . Police officers PERSON . and PERSON , who had witnessed the shooting incident , were asked to provide accounts . Police officer PERSON submitted , inter alia , that neighbours and other villagers had been present and had watched the entire incident ; this was confirmed by PERSON . Police officer GPE submitted , inter alia , that there had been CARDINAL police officers at the scene . All the above - mentioned police officers submitted that the fire brigade and an ambulance had been called to the scene . PERSON further submitted that he had seen another police officer , PERSON , filming the incident but was not sure whether he had been filming during the shooting . ORG , when asked about the video , submitted that no material was available since he had been mistakenly filming without a tape in the camera , which he had discovered DATE .","On DATE an investigator of the PERSON regional prosecutor \u2019s office , decided to discontinue criminal case no . DATE in the light of the death of PERSON . By the same decision the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against police officers GPE , PERSON , GPE and GPE . The wording of the decision first outlined the facts , as established by the investigation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , and concluded that the police officers had employed their service weapons in the light of the exigencies of the situation for the purpose of repelling a life - threatening attack on police officer PERSON . Thus , their actions had been lawful , as they had been undertaken in compliance with the requirements of sections CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .","On an unspecified date the applicant , together with An . A. and her CARDINAL other sisters , lodged a complaint with the PERSON regional prosecutor seeking to quash the part of the decision of DATE relating to the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers .","On DATE the PERSON regional prosecutor informed them by letter that there were no legal grounds for quashing the decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL since it had been taken on the basis of an accurate","The applicant and her CARDINAL sisters then lodged a similar complaint with ORG of GPE .","On DATE ORG informed them that there were no grounds for quashing the decision of DATE since , following a thorough and objective investigation , the actions of the police officers had been determined to have been lawful .","On DATE An . A. lodged a complaint in her capacity as a victim with the ORG against the decision of DATE , seeking to have invalidated the part of the decision concerning the refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers for killing her brother . In particular , she complained that , despite the fact that her brother had been deliberately killed by the police officers , no separate criminal proceedings had been instituted and no criminal investigation had been conducted into the fact of his killing . She also complained that the police officers had opened fire on GPE NORP in a situation where there had been no threat to life or limb for any of them . As to the finding of a grenade in PERSON house , An . A stated that this could not serve as justification for the police officers\u2019 actions , since it had been discovered only after the fatal incident had taken place , and her brother had never threatened the policemen that he would use it .","On DATE the ORG admitted the complaint for examination as having been lodged in compliance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the ORG , relying on the facts , as established by the investigation , examined the complaint and decided to dismiss it , finding that the use of firearms by the police officers had been justified as they had opened fire to prevent , and protect themselves from , PERSON unlawful violent actions . It concluded that the police officers had acted in necessary defence , as provided for by LAW , and also in compliance with sections CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . ORG moreover held that there was no need to institute separate criminal proceedings concerning PERSON GPE \u2019s killing , since the investigation into that incident had been carried out within the framework of criminal proceedings instituted in relation to PERSON \u2019s unlawful actions . Separately , ORG found that the complaint against the refusal to institute criminal proceedings had been lodged outside the DATE time - limit prescribed by LAW ORG .","On DATE An . A. lodged an appeal against the decision of ORG raising the same arguments as those contained in her original court complaint . She also alleged that she had lodged her complaint in compliance with the procedural rules since neither of the applicable Articles of the ORG , namely LAW and CARDINAL ( as in force at the material time ) , had provided any time - limit for lodging a complaint .","On DATE ORG examined the merits of the appeal and dismissed it , upholding the findings of ORG concerning the lawfulness of the police ORG actions . It then also examined the question of the compliance of An . PERSON \u2019s court complaint with the procedural rules and found that it had not been lodged in compliance with LAW ORG .","On DATE An . A. lodged an appeal on points of law against the decision of ORG , raising the same arguments regarding both the admissibility and the merits of her court complaint .","On DATE ORG declared the appeal admissible .","On DATE ORG examined the appeal . Turning to the question of compliance with domestic time - limits , it found that the appeal procedure pursued by An . A. was indeed governed by LAW , which at the material time had not prescribed any time - limits for contesting the prosecutor \u2019s refusal before the courts . However , the onemonth time - limit prescribed by LAW was applicable to her case . The appeal had only been lodged on DATE namely outside that DATE timelimit . Thus , both ORG and ORG had exceeded their temporal jurisdiction by examining the merits of An . A. \u2019s complaint . This in itself was sufficient grounds for rejecting the appeal ; however , ORG found it necessary \u2013 taking into account the fact that ( a ) both courts had examined the merits of the case and had reached findings on the merits , and ( b ) it was called upon to ensure uniform application of DATE to express a number of legal positions on the matter , which could provide guidance to lower courts in similar cases .","The Court of Cassation first examined the question of whether any criminal proceedings had been instituted and any investigation carried out into the killing of PERSON . Referring to Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , ORG concluded that it was impossible to answer that question unequivocally . In particular , a number of factors suggested that criminal case no . DATE had been instituted on account of the acts committed by PERSON rather than his killing . Firstly , the proceedings had been instituted only under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , in conjunction with LAW ( namely in respect of attempted murder of CARDINAL or more persons ) and therefore could not legally be characterised as applying to his killing . Secondly , the wording of the decision to discontinue the proceedings also contained a refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers implicated in his shooting , which confirmed that no criminal proceedings had been instituted on account of that incident .","On the other hand , a number of factors suggested that the proceedings instituted had also been based on the fact that he had been killed , and an investigation had been carried out in that connection . Thus , the descriptive part of the wording of the decision to institute proceedings had mentioned the fact that Seyran NORP had been taken to hospital and had died . Furthermore , PERSON sister , An . A. , had been granted victim status in the criminal case by decision of the investigator , moreover , that decision had stated that PERSON had been deprived of his life \u201c as a result of a crime \u201d . Lastly , certain investigative measures taken in the course of the criminal proceedings had been aimed at obtaining evidence concerning the circumstances of GPE NORP \u2019s death , including the inspections of the crime scene , of GPE GPE \u2019s body and of his clothes , the autopsy , the forensic examination of his clothes and the interviews with the police officers who had shot at GPE NORP or witnessed the shootings . This suggested that some investigation into his death had nevertheless been carried out . Having reached this conclusion , ORG decided in any event to examine the question of whether the investigation had been adequate .","The Court of Cassation firstly noted that there had been no eyewitnesses to the shooting , other than the police officers . However , not all the police officers who had witnessed the shooting had been questioned . In particular , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL officers who had been present at the time of the shooting , namely GPE and GPE , had not been questioned . Thus , the investigating authority had failed to secure all the evidence relating to the incident . As regards those officers who had been questioned , GPE . had been questioned DATE , ORG DATE and PERSON DATE after the incident . No measures had been taken in the meantime to isolate them from each other . While there was no evidence to suggest that the police officers had colluded with each other , the fact that no steps had been taken to minimise such risk constituted a significant shortcoming in the investigation . Furthermore , no adequate assessment had been made of the direction of the bullets fired at GPE NORP . In particular , no reasonable explanation had been determined by the investigation for the fact that CARDINAL bullets had been fired at GPE NORP from behind .","On the basis of those findings , ORG concluded that the investigation into the killing of PERSON had not been adequate . Nevertheless , ORG decided to dismiss the appeal on points of law on the ground that neither the ORG nor ORG had had temporal competence to examine the complaint against the decision of DATE .","On an unspecified date PERSON sister , An . A. , died ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174623","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LAZARENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP In disputes between the applicants and the domestic pension authorities , the firstinstance courts ruled in their favour , ordering increases of their pensions based on the rise in the average wages in the country since their retirement .","The defendant authorities appealed to ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) .","NORP Under domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , when an appeal arrived at ORG , a judge rapporteur of that court , if he or she believed that it complied with the necessary formal requirements , had to issue a ruling opening appeal proceedings ( \u201c the ruling \u201d ) and send it to the applicants together with a copy of the appeal .","The Government and the applicants disagree as to whether those documents were actually sent to the applicants ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On various dates set out in the Appendix , ORG quashed the judgments in the ORG favour , dismissing their claims for pension increases holding that the domestic law did not require the pensions to be increased in case of rise in the average wages in the country following retirement . In the fifth applicant \u2019s case ORG held a hearing in his presence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the other applicants\u2019 cases the court sat in camera without summoning the parties .","In DATE ORG cases ORG decisions became effective immediately since no further appeal lay against them ( see the related legislative provisions in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The first applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG . On DATE it upheld ORG decision , without commenting on the complaint she had presented that she had not been informed of the appeal proceedings .","According to the applicants , the domestic courts did not send them either ( i ) a copy of the GPE appeals or ( ii ) a copy of the rulings opening appeal proceedings in their cases . They therefore had no knowledge of the appeal proceedings prior to ORG decisions in their cases . They learned of those decisions later , notably after their pensions had been reduced based on ORG decisions .","According to the Government , the applicants were duly informed of the appeal proceedings .","It can be seen from the material before the ORG that :","On DATE ORG sent the fifth applicant a summons to attend a hearing on DATE . The delivery slip is in his domestic case file . At the hearing , which he attended , the court examined the pension authority \u2019s appeal in its absence and quashed the first - instance court \u2019s judgment ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145364","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MAR\u010cAN v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a lawyer by profession .","On DATE while driving his car near PERSON , GPE , the applicant was stopped by a police officer alleging that he had dangerously overtaken another car and that he had inappropriate tyres on his car . The police officer drew up a report on the incident .","On DATE the applicant received a penalty notice ( obvezni prekr\u0161ajni nalog ) dated DATE and issued by the Dubrovnik - Neretvanska Police Department ( FAC uprava DATE ; hereinafter : \u201c the police \u201d ) which stated that he had committed the minor offences of dangerously overtaking another car under LAW of FAC , and driving a car with inappropriate tyres under section CARDINAL of the same LAW , fining him with CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) . The statement of facts , which was printed on a form , stated that the offence had been established by the personal observations of a police officer , who had submitted a report on it .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request for judicial review , challenging the statement that he had committed the offences and asking to be heard in court . The summary minor - offence proceedings were opened in ORG ( PERSON ORG GPE ) .","ORG summoned the applicant for questioning on DATE and DATE . The applicant did not appear for questioning , excusing his absence on account of professional commitments . He asked to be questioned by ORG ( Prekr\u0161ajni sud u ORG ) since he lived within its territorial jurisdiction .","On DATE ORG forwarded the entire case file to ORG and asked it to question the applicant , thereby also providing the applicant access to the case file .","On DATE a judge of ORG questioned the applicant . The applicant maintained his objection to the penalty notice , arguing that he had not overtaken a car at the time when he had been stopped by the police . He also contended that he had had factory tyres on his car and promised to submit a copy of the relevant documents to support that . He explained that he had no other evidence to put forward .","As the applicant failed to submit the documents concerning the tyres on his car within the relevant time - limit , on DATE ORG returned the case file to ORG .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the charges of dangerously overtaking another car and driving a car with inappropriate tyres . The applicant was cautioned , fined with HRK CARDINAL and ordered to pay HRK CARDINAL in court fees . When convicting the applicant ORG relied on the police officer \u2019s report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , holding that the applicant \u2019s defence had not cast any doubt on the findings of the report .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) . He argued that he had never seen the police report on which the verdict was based and that he had had no opportunity to challenge the accusations contained in it . He also complained that ORG had relied solely on the report , without holding a hearing at which he could cross - examine the police officer who had drafted it .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . ORG held :","\u201c In his constitutional complaint , the appellant was unable to show that the [ ORG ] in the conduct of the proceedings or in the pronouncement of the judgment had acted contrary to the constitutional provisions concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms or had arbitrarily interpreted the relevant statutory provisions . ORG therefore finds that the present case does not raise an issue in respect of the complainant \u2019s constitutional rights . Thus , there is no constitutional law issue in the case for ORG to decide on . ... \u201d","NORP The decision of ORG was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE ORG forwarded the judgment to ORG ( NORP uprava u ORG ) requesting that the fine be enforced . The enforcement proceedings are still pending ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c","6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173098","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF OOO IZDATELSKIY TSENTR KVARTIRNYY RYAD v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["At the material time the applicant company was the publisher of PERSON , a newspaper specialising in coverage of the housing market in the GPE area ( \u201c the newspaper \u201d ) .","On DATE the newspaper published an article by PERSON entitled \u201c So sorry for the bird . The blue CARDINAL \u201d ( \u00ab \u0410 \u043f\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043a\u0443 \u0436\u0430\u043b\u043a\u043e. PERSON \u2013 \u201c the article \u201d ) . The article described a conflict situation concerning a large commonhold association , ORG \u043f\u0442\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) , which included CARDINAL blocks of flats in the south - west of GPE . PERSON suggested in the article that a number of residents of the ORG flats had been affected by the alleged misuse of common areas , in particular attics in the blocks of flats and that T. , the head of the commonhold association , had been behind the misuse . PERSON emphasised that PERSON was also the deputy head of a district council in GPE and that he had declined to comment on the article \u2019s contents prior to publication . The article asked ORG and the local government questions pertaining to the misuse of the common areas .","The relevant parts of the article read as follows :","\u201c Residents of CARDINAL blocks of flats in GPE keep sending letters to the courts , the prosecutor \u2019s office , the city administration and even President PERSON to complain about the head of the \u201c FAC commonhold association , ORG , [ w]ho has developed an indecently hasty business activity spitting in the face of the association \u2019s LAW and a number of regional and federal laws . ...","... But ORG has expressed his distrust in the commission elected by the general meeting and has appointed his own commission ... as a result T. has managed to retain his position ...","... the commission was not elected , but appointed , which guaranteed the appointment of T. for a third term ...","... In sum , even though ORG did not have the majority of the votes , he nonetheless managed to conclude the contract ...","... let \u2019s ask CARDINAL final question , which again pertains to T. : does a ORG official have the right to combine his official functions with a commercial business activity ? \u201d","On DATE T. lodged a defamation claim against the applicant company and PERSON with ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The plaintiff alleged that the statements contained in the article damaged his honour , dignity and business reputation . The court received the statement of claim on DATE .","On DATE ORG examined and partially allowed the claim , referring to LAW no . CARDINAL of ORG . It reasoned :","\u201c ... the impugned statement : \u201c ... who [ has ] developed an indecently hasty business activity spitting in the face of the commonhold association \u2019s LAW and a number of regional and federal laws \u201d should be retracted [ by the defendants ] ... as during the judicial examination of the case the defendants failed to prove that ORG \u2019s actions were unlawful .","The defendants , a third party and witnesses explained that an attic ... had been unlawfully rented out . The lease agreement had been unlawfully concluded by T. ...","However , no evidence has been provided [ by the defendants ] to the court to prove that the plaintiff \u2019s actions were unlawful or illegal or in violation of federal and regional law or the commonhold association \u2019s Charter .","Moreover , the issue of the lease of the attic ... was examined by ORG of GPE . By the decision of ORG of GPE of CARDINAL DATE actions of the ORG commonhold association headed by ORG were found to be in compliance with the law in force .","As to the statements : \u201c ... the commission was not elected , but appointed , which guaranteed the appointment of T. for a third term ... In sum , even though T. did not have the majority of the votes , he nonetheless managed to conclude the contract ... \u201d ... They are not to be retracted as they are not damaging to the honour and dignity of the plaintiff .","... as to the statement : \u201c let \u2019s ask CARDINAL final question , which again pertains to T. : does a ORG official have the right to combine his official functions with a commercial business activity ? \u201d It should not be retracted either as ... the author of the article [ PERSON ] is asking a rhetorical question ... \u201d","ORG ordered the applicant company \u201c to refute the statement [ published ] in the newspaper PERSON on DATE ... that T. developed activities as the head of the \u201c Bluebird \u201d commonhold association , violating the association \u2019s Charter as well as a whole range of laws of the capital area and federal law \u201d . It also awarded T. non - pecuniary damages : MONEY ( RUB \u2013 MONEY ) to be paid by the applicant company and RUB CARDINAL to be paid by PERSON","The applicant company and PERSON appealed against the judgment to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE it upheld the judgment of DATE in full , referring to LAW and to Resolution no . CARDINAL of ORG . It provided the following succinct reasoning :","\u201c The plaintiff has proven the fact that the contested statements were disseminated : he provided the court with an original issue of the newspaper of DATE ...","... the court [ of first instance ] rightly held that the defendants had failed to prove the veracity of the disseminated statement ... that [ the plaintiff ] had developed an indecently hasty business activity spitting in the face of the association \u2019s LAW and the law .","At the same time , the court [ justifiably ] referred to the judgment of ORG of GPE ... which found the actions of the commonhold association ... headed by T. to be in compliance with the law in force . \u201d","On DATE ORG rejected a request by the applicant company for supervisory review .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated by a bailiff as the judgment of DATE had been enforced in full ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145219","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RI\u0110I\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The facts , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","All applicants were employed by PERSON bakra PERSON , a copper mining company based in PERSON ( \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","DATE they all instituted separate civil suits against the debtor , seeking pecuniary redress on various grounds .","On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the first applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him :","( a ) the salary arrears due DATE and DATE , plus statutory interest ;","( b ) the pension , disability , health and other insurance contributions due for the same period ; and","( c ) his legal costs .","On DATE the judgment became final .","Having only received payment of the amounts referred to under ( b ) above , on DATE the first applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before ORG .","On DATE the court accepted the first applicant \u2019s request and issued an enforcement order . On DATE the same court issued an additional order to the same effect .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed .","In DATE , following their resumption , the first applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour .","On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the second applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him :","( a ) the salary arrears due DATE and DATE , plus statutory interest ;","( b ) the pension , disability , health and other insurance contributions due for the same period ; and","( c ) his legal costs .","On DATE the judgment became final .","Having only received payment of the amounts referred to under ( b ) above , on DATE the second applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before ORG .","On DATE the court accepted the second applicant \u2019s request and issued an enforcement order .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed .","NORP In DATE , following their resumption , the second applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour .","On DATE and DATE , the latter following a brief reopening of the proceedings , ORG ruled in favour of the third applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him the salary arrears due DATE and DATE , plus statutory interest , as well as his legal costs .","By DATE these judgments became final .","On unspecified dates , the third applicant filed separate requests for the enforcement of the above judgments before ORG .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , the court accepted the third applicant \u2019s requests and issued the enforcement orders .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed .","In DATE , following their resumption , the third applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour .","On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the fourth applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him the salary arrears due DATE and DATE , plus statutory interest , as well as his legal costs .","By DATE this judgment became final .","On DATE the fourth applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before ORG .","On DATE the court accepted the fourth applicant \u2019s request and issued the enforcement order .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed .","In DATE , following their resumption , the fourth applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour .","On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the fifth applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him the salary arrears due DATE , plus statutory interest , as well as his legal costs .","By DATE this judgment became final .","On DATE the fifth applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before ORG .","On DATE the court accepted the fifth applicant \u2019s request and issued the enforcement order .","In the course of DATE and DATE , the debtor covered a part of the fifth applicant \u2019s claims .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed .","In DATE , following their resumption , the fifth applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour .","On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the sixth applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him compensation for the non - pecuniary damage suffered due to a labour - related injury , plus statutory interest , and his legal costs .","By DATE this judgment became final .","On DATE the sixth applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before ORG .","On DATE the court accepted the sixth applicant \u2019s request and issued the enforcement order .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were stayed .","In DATE , following their resumption , the sixth applicant was paid the full amounts awarded in his favour .","None of the applicants ever filed an appeal with ORG , seeking compensation for any non - pecuniary damages suffered due to the length of the enforcement proceedings in question .","As of DATE , the debtor appeared to be a company predominantly comprised of ORG or socially owned capital and was still in the process of being restructured ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155522","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"RADI\u010cANIN AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The second applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The third applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The fourth applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . They are all NORP nationals and were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practicing in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","During DATE and DATE NORP para - military forces gained control of CARDINAL of the territory of GPE and proclaimed the so - called \u201c GPE of LOC \u201d ( PERSON autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter the \u201c LOC \u201d ) . The applicants\u2019 father , PERSON , lived in PERSON , a village situated in the LOC . At the beginning of DATE the NORP authorities announced a campaign of military action with the aim of regaining control over the LOC . The action was codenamed \u201c Storm \u201d and lasted DATE . Before that action , the vast majority of the population of the LOC had fled GPE , initially for GPE , but later many of them went to live in GPE . Some returned to GPE after the war . The number of people who fled is estimated at CARDINAL .","On DATE the second applicant informed the Vojini\u0107 Police about the disappearance of her father in DATE . She alleged that she and her sister , ORG , had learned that ORG . , a neighbour of their late father , knew who had killed him .","On DATE the police interviewed ORG . , who said that the applicants\u2019 father had been killed by a certain ORG during the military action \u201c Storm \u201d . Later on ORG had moved to GPE and had died there .","On DATE the police interviewed GPE , who said that he had heard that the applicants\u2019 father had been found in the courtyard of his house but nobody knew how or by whom he had been killed .","On DATE the police interviewed GPE and ORG had no knowledge about the killing of the applicants\u2019 father . ORG said that he had heard that the applicants\u2019 father had been killed and buried in his courtyard and expressed the opinion that he had been killed by NORP para - military forces because his family was rich .","On DATE the police interviewed the second applicant , who said that a certain PERSON had been staying with her father in PERSON during the military action \u201c NORP \u201d and that PERSON had told her that on DATE her father had gone to his ORG estate to feed their pigs . PERSON had heard him yelling : \u201c You thieves , why are you stealing ? \u201d , followed by CARDINAL gunshots . PERSON had run away after that and had no knowledge what had happened to the applicants\u2019 father . TIME . had told the second applicant that the applicants\u2019 father had been buried under a beech tree in his courtyard . Her father had had a valuable estate and kept MONEY in the house . The estate had been burned down after the military action \u201c Storm \u201d .","On DATE the police interviewed GPE . , PERSON and the first applicant . TIME . said that during the military action \u201c Storm \u201d she had not been in PERSON . When she had returned there together with a daughter of PERSON after the military action \u201c Storm \u201d , they had found that ORG estate had been burned down . PERSON confirmed the facts given in the interview with the second applicant . The first applicant said that he had heard from his sister , the third applicant , that their father had been killed and buried under a beech tree in his courtyard .","On DATE the ground under the beech tree in the courtyard of late ORG house was excavated but no body was found .","NORP On DATE the police again interviewed D.Se . , ORG . and PERSON repeated their previous statements .","On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG against unknown perpetrators for the criminal offence of a war crime against the civilian population in connection with the killing of their father PERSON However , since then no new information has been obtained ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148078","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF M.A. v. SWITZERLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant is an NORP national who was born on DATE in GPE and currently lives in GPE , GPE .","The applicant entered GPE illegally on DATE and applied for asylum DATE . He had CARDINAL hearings before ORG ( ORG f\u00fcr DATE hereafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","The first hearing was a summary interview at ORG \u201c ORG and Procedure \u201d ( Empfangs- FAC ) in GPE on DATE . The applicant gave an account of the alleged events in GPE leading to his escape from his home country . This account was summarised by ORG interviewer in official TIME . At the beginning of this summary , the interviewer noted : \u201c For lack of staff , the facts - summarised under no . TIME - were not established in detail . \u201d ( \u201c GPE aus GPE auf eine vertiefte PERSON . CARDINAL verzichtet . \u201d ) . An interpreter was present during the hearing and the minutes were translated for the applicant prior to his signing .","During the hearing the applicant stated that , following serious ballotrigging after the NORP presidential elections on DATE , anti - regime demonstrations had started to take place . He had participated in almost all these demonstrations until DATE . He claimed that he and his friends had organised peaceful demonstrations DATE . As the demonstrations had been brutally oppressed by the NORP regime , he and his friends had documented the demonstrations and had circulated this documentation to people . He further claimed that during the last demonstration he had attended , at DATE , several of his friends had been arrested . He alleged that they had been tortured and that CARDINAL of them had probably mentioned his name to the NORP authorities and had told them about his participation in the demonstrations . Consequently , on DATE , a summons issued by ORG of ORG had been delivered to his residence , namely his GPE house in GPE , by a court courier . He had not been present at the time of delivery as he had been on a visit to his sister \u2019s house in GPE . The summons had ordered him to appear in court on CARDINAL DATE . Fearing that he might be arrested upon his appearance , he had not presented himself in court but had hidden at his sister \u2019s home and at the homes of various friends in GPE . As a result of his non - appearance before the court , agents of the secret service had come to his GPE house DATE ( CARDINAL DATE ) in order to arrest him . Because of his absence , his father had been arrested instead . The applicant had been left a message that he should report to the district police , otherwise his father would remain in detention . For fear of arrest and on his family \u2019s advice , he had fled the country without legal exit papers in DATE .","In order to support his account during the first hearing , the applicant submitted the allegedly original summons of ORG of ORG of CARDINAL DATE . He also submitted documentary material pertaining to the anti - regime demonstrations , which had allegedly been produced by him and his friends .","The second , more detailed hearing took place at ORG office in GPE DATE after the first hearing , on DATE . A member of the non - governmental ORG of ORG of GPE ( Hilfswerk der PERSON GPE ) was present as a neutral witness in order to guarantee the fairness of the hearing . He had the opportunity to add comments at the end of the minutes of the hearing in the event that he had witnessed any irregularities , but did not note down any such observations . Again , an interpreter was present during the hearing and the minutes were translated for the applicant prior to his signing .","NORP The applicant again gave an account of the alleged events in GPE leading up to his escape . With regard to the events on DATE when the summons had allegedly been delivered to his GPE house ( DATE ) , the applicant now described that members of the ORG security service had come to his GPE house in his absence in order to search for him . They had searched the house , opening chests of drawers and cupboards . As they had been unable to find him , they had issued the summons while at his GPE house and had left it behind . Confronted with the fact that he had not mentioned the house search of CARDINAL DATE during the first hearing , the applicant responded that he had in fact done so , that he had recounted the same facts during the first hearing and that it was not his fault that this fact had not been recorded in TIME first hearing .","Furthermore , asked about his hiding place prior to his escape from GPE , the applicant stated during the second interview that he had stayed at his sister \u2019s home the whole time . When confronted with his testimony from the first hearing , the applicant explained that he had been with friends as well and added that these people had been friends from work and not friends he knew from the demonstrations .","With regard to the aftermath of the last demonstration he had attended in DATE , the applicant stated during the second hearing that he did not know that the PERSON security forces were planning to arrest him . He again alleged that CARDINAL of the friends arrested during the demonstrations had told the security forces who had participated in these demonstrations . Asked when this friend who had given his name had been arrested , the applicant responded that he did not know and that it had not necessarily been this arrested friend directly who had given his name to the security forces . Arrests of that kind usually started a whole chain reaction : the arrested person would give some names , then these people would be arrested and questioned and give further names , and so on .","Questioned further during the second hearing about any special occurrences with regard to his last demonstration in DATE , the applicant stated that the demonstrations had all been rather similar . People had been arrested and agents of the government had beaten up people during the last demonstration just as during any other demonstration . Asked whether he knew the people who had been arrested , the applicant responded that he just knew these people from the street . They had not been people from his region . GPE was a big city and people had come from everywhere . Confronted with his testimony from the first interview , in which he had claimed that friends of his had been arrested , the applicant stated that the people demonstrating together were all friends in a way and that he had used the term \u201c friends \u201d in that sense when giving his account of the events during the demonstrations .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for asylum and ordered him to leave GPE by DATE . ORG reasoned that the applicant \u2019s statement of facts was not credible as his descriptions of the events in GPE had not been consistent during the QUANTITY hearings . The descriptions diverged considerably from each other with regard to decisive points of the applicant \u2019s story . During the first hearing , the applicant had neither mentioned the appearance of the PERSON security forces at his GPE house , nor had he mentioned the house search , nor the fact that it had been the ORG who had issued a summons directly at his GPE house on DATE , but had simply stated that a courier of the court had brought the summons . Furthermore , the accounts of the applicant \u2019s hiding prior to his escape from GPE diverged from each other , as the applicant had first stated that he had hidden at his sister \u2019s home and at friends\u2019 homes , whereas he had claimed to have stayed exclusively at his sister \u2019s home during the second hearing . Finally , the applicant had only mentioned the arrest of his friends during his last demonstration only in the account he had given during the first hearing and not during the second interview . ORG took into consideration that the applicant had submitted some documentary material including the alleged summons of CARDINAL DATE , but was of the view that these documents could not dispel the doubts about the applicant \u2019s account . The documentary material gave only a general account of the demonstrations , but not specifically anything about the applicant \u2019s alleged participation , and a summons alone could not prove any public persecution .","On DATE the applicant , now represented by counsel , appealed against the decision of ORG to ORG ( ORG ) . He asked ORG to quash the decision of ORG , to grant him asylum , to find that the execution of the expulsion order would be an improper and unreasonable measure , and to grant him legal aid .","In his appeal the applicant claimed that upon the advice of his counsel he had phoned his family in GPE and had asked whether any further summons had been received . On that occasion he had learnt that he had again been summoned to appear before ORG of ORG on DATE . He had also learnt that ORG had convicted him in absentia on DATE because he had participated in demonstrations against the NORP regime and had criticised the regime in slogans . The court had sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and CARDINAL lashes . The applicant claimed to be in possession only of copies of the summons of CARDINAL DATE and the judgment of CARDINAL DATE because his family suspected state surveillance and feared that the mail would be checked if they tried to send him the originals by post . The applicant submitted the copies of the alleged new summons and of the alleged judgment to ORG . In his appeal , he also asked ORG and ORG whether the authenticity of the CARDINAL documents could be assessed by ORG in GPE if the originals were handed in or shown there .","In his appeal the applicant also argued that the deviations between his CARDINAL statements of the facts could be explained by the different nature of the CARDINAL hearings . The first hearing had been only a summary hearing and the applicant had been asked not to go into detail . It was therefore understandable that he had not described the house search of CARDINAL DATE until the second hearing . With regard to his hiding prior to his departure from GPE , his CARDINAL reports were correct and consistent . He had stayed at his sister \u2019s home but he had also met friends from work and spent time with them . With regard to the events during the last demonstration , he had in essence stated the same facts during the CARDINAL hearings , namely that he and his friends had documented the demonstration and had handed out leaflets , that many participants , including his friends , had been arrested , and that he believed that CARDINAL of the arrested persons had passed on his name to the NORP authorities . The applicant further argued that when assessing his CARDINAL statements , it had to be taken into consideration that DATE had elapsed between the CARDINAL hearings and that no one was able to describe events in exactly the same way after such a long time . Finally , the applicant claimed that the second hearing had not been fair , as the interviewer had constantly interrupted him and treated him as if he were lying .","On DATE ORG delivered an interim decision in which it declined the applicant \u2019s request for legal aid , reasoning that his application lacked any prospects of success . In its preliminary assessment of the case , ORG found that the applicant had not convincingly shown that he was persecuted by ORG . His statements of the facts as given during the CARDINAL hearings by ORG diverged from each other with regard to essential points and his story was therefore not credible . The summons of CARDINAL DATE and the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had no probative value as the applicant had submitted only copies of these documents .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as manifestly ill - founded . In accordance with section CARDINAL and section CARDINALa of MONEY of DATE ( hereafter \u201c the LAW \u201d , see paragraphs CARDINALss . below ) , the case was decided by a single judge and the judgment contained only a summary reasoning . An oral hearing was not provided for in the rules of procedure . In accordance with section CARDINALa of LAW , ORG also abstained from the possibility of exchanging observations between the parties . ORG was hence not given an opportunity to comment on the submission of the copies of the alleged summons of CARDINAL DATE and the judgment of CARDINAL DATE or on the possibility of having the alleged original documents \u2013 which were allegedly in the possession of the applicant \u2019s family \u2013 checked by the NORP embassy in GPE .","ORG decided that the applicant had no right to asylum . It further stated that there was no reason not to execute the expulsion order as the applicant had not been able to prove that he had been subject to state persecution in GPE . His accounts of the events during the CARDINAL hearings diverged with regard to essential details and the applicant had not managed to explain these discrepancies to ORG satisfaction . The time that had passed between the CARDINAL hearings could not explain the contradictions , since the applicant had not been expected to describe the events in GPE in exactly the same way but rather in a consistent manner . Furthermore , contrary to the applicant \u2019s allegation , there was no indication that the second hearing had been unfair . The hearing had been attended by a member of ORG of GPE as a neutral witness . This person had not made any remarks about irregularities witnessed during the hearing , although he could have done so . TIME had been translated for the applicant and signed by him . He had therefore had the opportunity to correct any statement had he found that it had not been noted down correctly .","The court further found that it could not draw any conclusions from the submitted copy of the summons of CARDINAL DATE or the copy of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the applicant \u2019s favour , as copies had no probative value . The court did not mention the first summons of CARDINAL DATE , the authenticity of which had not been questioned in the decision of ORG .","On DATE ORG issued a new expulsion order requiring the applicant to leave GPE before DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged his application with the ORG and asked for Rule CARDINAL of ORG to be applied in order to stay the enforcement of his expulsion . He stated that he had participated in demonstrations against the NORP regime following the presidential elections of DATE up until DATE and that he had handed out leaflets on these occasions . He further alleged that the ORG security forces had searched his GPE house with the purpose of arresting him . Moreover , he claimed that he had been summoned twice to appear before ORG of ORG and that the same court had sentenced him in absentia on DATE to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , the payment of a fine , and CARDINAL lashes of the whip because of his participation in the demonstrations .","NORP In support of his claims the applicant attached to his application of CARDINAL DATE documentary material on the demonstrations in GPE , written in NORP , copies of the alleged summonses of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE and a copy of the alleged judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he was now in possession of the original summons of CARDINAL DATE and of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as his sister \u2019s husband had finally dared to send the documents by special delivery in DATE . He also provided the ORG with LANGUAGE translations of the summons of CARDINAL DATE and the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . A translation of the summons of CARDINAL DATE was not submitted . A translation was included in TIME of the applicant \u2019s second hearing , however , and this had been submitted to the ORG .","According to the translation of the summons of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was summoned to appear before the CARDINALth division of ORG of ORG on DATE at TIME , because of \u201c participation in demonstrations against the public safety and the system of GPE \u201d . The summons was signed by an \u201c investigating authority \u201d on DATE .","The translation of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE of ORG of ORG reads in its material part :","\u201c Charge : Undertakings and activities against the sacred order of ORG","Judgement","In the case of the accused Mr. PERSON , the court \u2013 due to the charge sheet of the CARDINALth division of the public prosecutor \u2019s office for the General and ORG of Teheran , due to the existing exhibits and his file , due to the credible report of the intelligence service and the clarification as well as the investigations of public prosecutor \u2019s office mentioned above , due to the testimonies of the persons under arrest as well as due to the especially useful information on file , moreover because of the punishable participation in illegal gatherings , because of the disturbance of the peace and the system of GPE , because of being a troublemaker and the writing of slogans , calling for resistance against the polity by distributing flyers and non - appearance before court despite being summoned , as well as due to the waiver of defence in court DATE comes to the conclusion that his guilt has been established .","For these reasons , in application of Art . CARDINAL of the NORP law , he is sentenced to DATE of imprisonment , CARDINAL strokes of the whip and to a fine of MONEY which is to be paid to the treasury .","An appeal against this judgment delivered in absentia is possible within DATE after disclosure . After this period of time , a request for reconsideration can be submitted to the competent courts of the province of GPE . \u201d","The translation also states that the judgment had been","\u201c disclosed on CARDINAL DATE \u201d ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178868","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GORBUNOVY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the domestic courts\u2019 failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156273","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF G.S. v. GEORGIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","The applicant lived with her partner , a dual NORP - Ukrainian national , PERSON . , in ORG . On DATE their first child , PERSON , was born ; he was registered in GPE at the applicant \u2019s address and acquired NORP citizenship .","NORP Some time in DATE PERSON . left GPE for GPE . PERSON continued to live with his mother and attended a pre - school educational institution in GPE .","In DATE and DATE PERSON . visited the applicant and L. twice . In DATE the applicant gave birth to another child of the couple , T.","On DATE T. died in an accident . She fell from an open window of an apartment . L. , who had apparently witnessed the tragic incident , started receiving psychological help in the form of dolphin - assisted therapy .","On DATE the applicant allowed PERSON . to take their son for the first time to GPE for DATE . She signed a document authorising PERSON . to travel with NORP to GPE and GPE DATE and DATE . According to the applicant , PERSON was expected to return to ORG by DATE in order to start in DATE at a primary school in which he had been pre - enrolled .","On DATE , the applicant learned when talking on the telephone with her son that the latter would not be returning to GPE and would be staying in GPE . For DATE the applicant tried to persuade her former partner to allow their child to return to GPE , to no avail however . It appears that soon after PERSON . left for GPE , while PERSON stayed in GPE with his uncle , PERSON . \u2019s brother , and his grandfather . PERSON PERSON . travelled occasionally to GPE to see his son .","On DATE L. was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and began having outpatient treatment .","On DATE ORG of ORG ordered PERSON \u2019s return to GPE . The court ruled that PERSON \u2019s place of permanent residence should be that of the applicant .","PERSON . was not apparently informed of the institution of the above proceedings . He did not accordingly appeal against that decision .","NORP In DATE the applicant initiated child return proceedings under LAW via ORG of GPE . On DATE the latter contacted ORG of GPE and requested legal cooperation on the matter . On DATE ORG of GPE , acting as the central authority responsible for the obligations established by LAW , instituted proceedings on behalf of the applicant before ORG .","On DATE social workers went to see PERSON at the request of ORG . They visited him at his uncle \u2019s apartment , where he was living with his cousins . According to the report drawn up thereafter , PERSON was being looked after by his uncle , since his father was mainly based in GPE . The boy spoke NORP , although he had started attending a NORP school . PERSON \u2019s uncle told the social workers that PERSON \u2019s sister had died as a result of their mother \u2019s lack of attention ; hence it was dangerous for PERSON to live with his mother . The social workers also had a short conversation with PERSON during which he stated that he was happy with his uncle and cousins , and did not want to go back to GPE . In conclusion , the social workers noted that PERSON was living in appropriate living conditions , and that his basic needs were being met .","NORP In DATE the social workers set up and attended CARDINAL meetings between the applicant and her son . In the report drawn up thereafter they concluded the following :","\u201c On the basis of our intervention , which included visits , conversations with PERSON and observation of his behaviour , we consider his behaviour to be problematic . In particular , although PERSON wants to see his mother , and when seeing her expresses his love , warm feelings and happiness , he refuses subsequently to talk to her on the telephone . It should be underlined that when communicating with his mother he is following his father \u2019s prompting and is stressed . Given that PERSON is living in the family of his uncle and grandfather , he lacks relationship with his parents ( since neither of the parents lives with him ) . In order for a child to develop into a contented and healthy individual , and to have his interests protected , it is necessary for him to communicate with his parents . \u201d","In the same report the social workers noted that during one of the meetings they noticed that the boy , prompted by his father , had stopped hugging his mother . This happened twice , until CARDINAL of the social workers warned PERSON . to stop doing this .","In DATE additionally underwent a psychological examination , which concluded that the boy was suffering from insufficient emotional relationship with his parents . It was noted that PERSON had a clearly positive attitude towards his father and the paternal family , while with respect to the mother his attitude was twofold : love and warm feelings on the one hand , and anxiety on the other . PERSON indicated to a psychologist that he wanted to live with his father and his father \u2019s family and wanted his mother to be with them too . In her conclusions about his emotional condition the psychologist noted that the boy \u2019s nervousness , aggression , distrust , and irritability , as well as low self - esteem , were caused by psychological trauma he had suffered in the past , as well as by his current complicated and barely comprehensible situation .","On DATE the ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request . The court concluded , having regard to the boy \u2019s age and other circumstances of the case , that his return to GPE would expose him to psychological risk . It stated in this connection that it would be inappropriate to order the boy \u2019s return to GPE , since the applicant had failed to show that she could create a stable environment for her son in which he could be protected from psychological risks related to the separation from his father . The court further noted the following :","\u201c The court considers that in the current case , having regard to a psychologist \u2019s report which categorically states that PERSON suffered a serious psychological injury , it is with high probability that if returned to GPE the child would be exposed to \u201c physical or psychological harm or otherwise PERSON ] in an intolerable situation \u201d ( LAW ) . \u201d","NORP The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument that her son was suffering from an adjustment disorder and lacked communication with his parents . It noted in this connection the following :","\u201c In view of a psychological examination the court particularly stresses the following \u2013 \u201c PERSON . has revealed ... high level of anxiety ... and fear of the future \u201d , \u201c twofold attitude towards his mother , which implies love and warm feelings as well as strong anxiety , \u201d according to the same report , it was established that [ he suffers from ] \u201c lack of emotional relationship with both parents \u201d and \u201c positive attitude towards his father and the paternal family \u201d especially towards the grandfather ( PERSON . ) .","The court further particularly underlines the fact that minor PERSON . expresses the wish to live with his father and the paternal family . At the same time , he wants his mother ( PERSON ) to stay with them ...","The court can not accept the argument of the requesting party that the child is having adaptation difficulties because of the separation from his mother and because he is being kept in GPE . The above opinion is not supported by any evidence and is not substantiated ... There is an attempt on the father \u2019s side to take every possible measure ... to treat [ the boy \u2019s ] psychological condition . \u201d","As to the risks related to the boy \u2019s return to GPE , the court stated :","\u201c Hence , the court considers that the return of PERSON . to GPE ( in view of his current condition ) would imply his return to an uncomfortable situation , which would result in his psychological stress and would place him at psychological risk , even if he returned to GPE with his father . Separation from his father and the paternal family and his return to GPE ( at this stage ) would cause mental deterioration of the child and from a psychological point of view would inevitably create a risk [ for the boy ] . ( The requesting party failed to prove the opposite ) . \u201c","That decision was overturned on DATE by ORG , which ordered PERSON \u2019s return to GPE . The appeal court observed that PERSON had been born and had lived in GPE , so he had adapted to the situation in GPE . Further , according to the psychological and social welfare reports , the boy was suffering from adaptation difficulties and lacked sufficient communication with his parents . In this connection , the court stressed that PERSON had indeed suffered psychological trauma as a result of the accidental death of his sister ; but , according to the very same reports , he was also suffering because of the situation he was currently in . Hence , it was within the best interests of the child to be reunited with his mother . The court further noted :","\u201c The above - mentioned conclusions confirm that the current situation for [ the boy ] is complicated and hardly comprehensible . Accordingly , in view of the interests of PERSON . , since there is no obvious risk of a negative impact on his mental state if he were returned to his mother , it would be appropriate that he be returned to his parent ( the applicant PERSON ) and to his habitual place of residence . \u201d","As to the death of PERSON \u2019s sister , the appeal court noted that related criminal proceedings had been dropped , as it had been concluded that it had been a tragic accident . It further noted in connection with the psychological trauma the boy suffered as a result , that","\u201c ... already traumatised child should not be separated from his parents . This should be viewed as a decision taken in the interests of the child . As was noted in the appealed decision , PERSON before his arrival in GPE had been having dolphin - assisted rehabilitation treatment . At the same time , his stay with his mother can not be harmful to him , since she has been doing an internship at the psychiatric hospital ... \u201d","PERSON . appealed against this decision on points of law , alleging that the court of appeal had incorrectly interpreted LAW and the facts of the case . On DATE , without holding an oral hearing , ORG allowed the appeal on points of law , thus reversing the judgment of DATE . On a general note , in connection with the purpose of the initiated proceedings the court noted the following :","\u201c The subject matter of the pending application is the return to GPE of a child ( PERSON . ) wrongfully retained in GPE ... The cassation court pays attention to the analysis developed in the preamble of the Convention concerning its aims , according to which the interests of the child are of paramount importance when examining childcare - related issues . At the same time , the High Contracting Parties to the Convention undertook an obligation to provide international protection to children against any harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention . Accordingly , it implies that the procedures provided for by the ORG which aim at the speedy return of a wrongfully removed or retained child to his or her habitual place of residence serve the main purpose of protecting children \u2019s interests . In view of all the above - mentioned , the cassation court when considering the lawfulness of the request to end wrongful retention of a child considers it appropriate within the scope of the appeal on point of law to also examine the issue as to what extent the child \u2019s interests would be protected in the event of his return which together with other factors implies the creation of a safe environment for a child . The above analysis of the cassation court finds its basis in the exceptional clauses of the LAW which in individual cases allow the relevant bodies of the receiving state to refuse the return of a child ( LAW ) . \u201d","ORG further considered that the applicant had failed to show that the return of L. to the pre - abduction situation would be possible without damaging his interests . Notably , the court concluded :","\u201c The cassation court wholly shares the view of the appeal court , according to which L. is suffering from lack of relationship with his parents ; accordingly , in order for the child to develop into a contented and healthy individual and to have his interests protected it is necessary for him to communicate with his parents . However , as was noted above , when dealing with this type of case particular attention should be given to the consideration of exceptional circumstances ... The appellant alleges a violation of LAW b of LAW ( there is a serious risk that if returned the child would be exposed to physical or psychological harm or otherwise placed in an intolerable situation ) and considers that the impugned decision omits the primary reason for PERSON . \u2019s leaving GPE , namely the tragic death of PERSON . in DATE , which fact had a negative impact on the psychological condition of PERSON . ...","The cassation court notes the results of the available psychological examination , in which the psychologist along with other issues stressed the high level of traumatisation in PERSON . as a result of the death of his younger sister . At the same time , the psychologist considers the psychological features observed to be the boy \u2019s reaction to the psychological trauma which he had suffered and to the current barely comprehensible situation . It is noteworthy that even the court of appeal could not omit the fact that as a result of the death of PERSON . ( the sister of PERSON . ) the latter had suffered mental trauma and is as of DATE registered at a ... psychiatric institution .... However , the above - mentioned circumstances were not sufficient [ for the appeal court ] to refuse the return of the boy .","The cassation court considers that there is no evidence in the case file which would lead the court to believe that it would be possible to return the child to his pre - abduction environment without damaging his interests . In the opinion of the cassation court , the appellant validly substantiated , on the basis of relevant evidence , the risk factors which are inconsistent with the purposes of the ORG , while the respondent failed to show a higher purpose which could have been achieved by putting an end to the unlawful situation and [ she had also ] failed to demonstrate that in the event of the child being returned to GPE his interests and rights would not be even more violated . Accordingly , bearing in mind that the primary purpose of ORG is the protection of the interests of a child , the cassation court considers that the appellant has lodged a substantiated complaint . \u201d","To conclude , in reference to LAW b of LAW , ORG observed that the main purpose of LAW was the protection of the best interests of a child , and that accordingly , given the well - substantiated risks that PERSON was facing upon his return to GPE , the exception clause should have been invoked .","The case file indicates that PERSON . did not take part in the relevant court proceedings , as he was not in GPE at the material time . PERSON , according to the case file , is currently living with his uncle and grandfather in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-151196","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KASPRZYKOWSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Rybna .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE a property \u2018 PERSON owned by the applicant \u2019s mother was taken over by the ORG pursuant to provisions of the Decree of ORG on the Agrarian Reform of DATE ( Dekret PKWN o przeprowadzeniu reformy rolnej ; the DATE Decree ) . No decision was delivered at this stage of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG ( Prezydium Warszawskiej Wojew\u00f3dzkiej Rady Narodowej ) , acting on a motion of the applicant \u2019s mother to exclude her property from the operation of the agricultural reform , decided that the property fell within the scope of the reform .","In DATE ORG quashed its decision ( orzeczenie ) of DATE and decided that the property did not fall within the scope of the decree . This new decision had not been signed or stamped and was later referred to as a \u2018 draft GPE by the domestic courts and administrative authorities .","The applicant \u2019s mother sought restitution of her property until her death in DATE .","NORP Over DATE the property was divided into smaller plots . Some of the plots were acquired by private individuals and ORG , others remained the property of ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a motion to have the decision of CARDINAL DATE annulled .","On DATE the ORG ( ORG ) decided to refer the case to the Minister of ORG ( Minister PERSON i PERSON ) . He found , after examining the case file of the previous proceedings , that the latter authority was the competent authority to examine the applicant \u2019s motion .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG PERSON w GPE ) about the inactivity on the part of ORG .","On DATE the Minister of Agriculture and Countryside Development replied to the applicant \u2019s complaint . The Minister explained that on DATE the applicant had been requested to redefine his motion of CARDINAL DATE and to provide documents certifying that he was an heir of Ms. PERSON \u2019s property rights . He considered that this information was essential to proceed with the case . The Minister further informed the applicant that the time - limit to handle his case had been prolonged until DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s inactivity complaint . It appears that the applicant failed to request that written grounds for the judgment be prepared . He also did not appeal against this judgment .","On DATE the Minister of ORG declared the decision of DATE null and void ( stwierdzi\u0142 niewa\u017cno\u015b\u0107 orzeczenia ) .","The applicant and ORG ( PERSON ) requested a re - examination of the case . The applicant argued that declaring the decision of DATE null and void resulted in him becoming an owner of the property in question . He thus considered that the decision should not have been declared null and void as regards the part of the property which had been acquired in good faith by private individuals . According to the applicant , the part of the decision relating to the private plots of land should have been declared as issued in breach of law ( wydana z naruszeniem prawa ) which would enable him to claim compensation from the ORG .","On DATE the Minister of ORG upheld his previous decision of DATE . The Minister argued that declaring the decision of CARDINAL DATE null and void had not automatically resulted in the applicant becoming the owner of the property GPE . In the Minister \u2019s view , a refusal to declare null and void the decision would have adversely affected the applicant \u2019s interests since only the annulment of the entire decision would enable the applicant to contest other decisions delivered as a result of the quashed decision .","The applicant challenged the above decision before ORG which on DATE gave judgment and dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint .","The State Treasury represented , statio fisci , by ORG ( PERSON ) lodged a cassation appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) .","The proceedings are pending before ORG .","The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of administrative proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW and LAW , are set out in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE .","On DATE of the Code of Administrative Proceedings and LAW were amended ( amendments entered into force on DATE ) .","Following the amendment to LAW to administrative proceedings may currently file a complaint not only about an authority \u2019s failure to handle the case within the time - limits referred to in Articles DATE and CARDINAL , but it may also complain about undue delay in the conduct of the proceedings ( przewlek\u0142e prowadzenie post\u0119powania ) .","Section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Law of DATE on ORG , as amended on DATE , contains provisions allowing a party to administrative proceedings to lodge a complaint with an administrative court , alleging inactivity of the authority obliged to issue an administrative decision or undue delay in the conduct of the proceedings . Under section CARDINAL , if a complaint is well - founded , an administrative court shall oblige the authority concerned to issue a decision , or to perform a specific act , or to confirm , declare , or recognise a right or obligation provided for by law .","NORP The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are presented in the ORG \u2019s decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG DATE and NORP v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVIII , and its judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180812","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF HRISTOSKOV v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC near GPE .","In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . On DATE he entered FAC to serve his sentence . He did not say anything about the conditions of his detention there .","On DATE he was transferred to FAC , a closed - type prison hostel .","On DATE the serving of his sentence of imprisonment was interrupted in order for him to take care of his elderly mother , who had undergone hip - replacement surgery in DATE . The interruption came to an end on DATE , and the applicant was again placed in FAC .","From DATE until DATE the applicant was placed in group no . DATE . According to him , the group was housed in several cabins with cement floors . The cells were heated with wooden and coal stoves . They were damp and had many of their windows broken and doors shattered . Each cell had between thirty and QUANTITY of floor space and housed DATE CARDINAL inmates \u2013 that is , provided QUANTITY per inmate DATE , and had CARDINAL sink and CARDINAL toilet with a shower . According to the Government , the cell measured CARDINAL forty square metres and housed TIME inmates .","The applicant further said that cold water was only available CARDINAL , and hot water was only available CARDINAL and TIME and TIME Hygienic and sanitary materials were not regularly provided . There was no canteen or dedicated eating space , and no cutlery . As a result of those conditions DATE mainly the cold and the humidity \u2013he had developed arthritis of both knees .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to group no . CARDINAL . He was placed in a cell which he shared with CARDINAL other inmates . He also started working in the hostel \u2019s canteen and had his meals there . According to the Government , the applicant had to share a cell with CARDINAL inmates . The cell was heated with electricity and there were no water supply restrictions . The door and the windows were in good condition .","After the applicant \u2019s prison regime was changed to a more lenient one , on DATE he was placed in a cell outside the guarded area of the hostel . The Government submitted that his cell had its own sanitary facilities and that no water supply restrictions existed .","According to the applicant , material conditions in the cells in which he was placed after DATE were significantly better in terms of heating , lighting and hygiene , and were satisfactory . Food was also of good quality . Taking a shower , however , was only possible after TIME due to low water pressure .","Lastly , the applicant alleged that health care in custody was inadequate , with no qualified doctors but only a dentist working on site , and no provision of medicines at reduced prices , as available to people out of prison ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167797","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF OTGON v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE the applicant and her daughter drank water from taps in their apartment and shortly thereafter they felt unwell . On DATE the applicant \u2019s daughter , who was CARDINAL at the time , was admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of \u201c serious acute dysentery \u201d . The applicant was admitted to hospital with the same diagnosis on DATE . She was released from hospital on DATE , DATE than her daughter .","The applicant lodged a court action against the local utilities provider ( \u201c the provider \u201d ) , a ORG - owned company , claiming CARDINAL NORP lei ( \u201c MDL \u201d , MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) in compensation for the harm caused to her health and for the related inconveniences , including subsequent investigations and disinfection .","On DATE the GPE ORG found in her favour . It found that various sanitary , medical and technical reports had established that in the vicinity of the applicant \u2019s apartment block the sewage pipe was situated above the drinking water pipe and was leaking . The water pipe had cracked on DATE and sewage water had infiltrated the drinking water pipe . The court also established that the pipes had been used since DATE and that their expected lifespan was DATE . A total of CARDINAL people , all of whom had drunk water from taps connected to the same water pipe , had been admitted to hospital with the same diagnosis at approximately the same time as the applicant . Taking into consideration such elements as the amount of physical and mental suffering caused to the applicant and her daughter , the court awarded her MDL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at the time ) .","The parties appealed . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and partly accepted the provider \u2019s appeal . It reduced the award to MDL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) because it found exaggerated \u201c both the sum claimed by [ the applicant ] and that awarded to [ her ] \u201d .","The parties appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . It found that the lower court had taken into consideration the nature and seriousness of the mental suffering caused to the applicant , as well as the degree of guilt of the defendant . That judgment was final ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140397","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF PEREIRA SANTOS v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON ( GPE ) .","The applicant is a former employee of ORG , a media company which entailed a collective dismissal in DATE . The applicant was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE he brought an action against the company before ORG ( a\u00e7\u00e3o especial de impugna\u00e7\u00e3o do despedimento colectivo ) , seeking his reintegration and the payment of extra workload , ( domestic proceedings no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL.CARDINALTTLSB - A ) .","On DATE his case was joint to others related to the same collective dismissal .","On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the court drawing its attention to the existence of a delay in the proceedings . The court replied on DATE saying that some parties in the proceedings still had to be summoned .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE the labour court and the parties in the proceedings appointed experts to give technical assistance in the proceedings , as established by law .","On DATE the experts presented their report .","On DATE a preliminary hearing took place .","On DATE the applicant contested the expert \u2019s report . On DATE the court notified the experts and on CARDINAL DATE granted DATE for the submission of their observations .","On DATE the applicant was notified of the experts\u2019 reply and submitted his observations on DATE .","On DATE the applicant informed the labour court that he had reached an agreement with the company . On DATE the labour court endorsed the agreement ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172328","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MARKOVI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the applicant initiated civil proceedings requesting the division of a certain estate .","On DATE ORG suspended the said proceedings until conclusion of another civil case .","It would appear that the said civil proceedings are still pending .","On DATE ORG found a breach of the applicant \u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and ordered the speeding up of the impugned proceedings . The court , additionally , declared that the applicant was entitled to the non - pecuniary damages sought , in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL , LAW , below ) .","It seems that , the applicant contacted ORG on DATE and requested the payment of the compensation awarded , but apparently received no response ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142817","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"Z.K. v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON is a NORP national . She is of GPE ethnic origin and was born in DATE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON and PERSON , lawyers acting in cooperation with ORG , a non - governmental organisation with its registered office in PERSON .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP On DATE the applicant gave birth to her second child in the public hospital in LOC ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . The delivery was carried out by means of a caesarean section , as had also been the case when she gave birth to her first child . At the time , the applicant was underage . She was not legally married .","On DATE , when she accessed her medical records , the applicant became acquainted with a document indicating that she had been sterilised during the delivery of her child on DATE .","NORP In particular , a surgery record appended to the applicant \u2019s medical records indicates that the applicant underwent sterilisation by tubal ligation due to complications involving abnormally deep attachment of the placenta and imminent risk of rupture of the uterus . The document is dated DATE and signed by Doctor PERSON . The delivery record itself contains no mention of a sterilisation operation having taken place .","Neither the applicant nor her legal guardians had been advised of or asked to give their consent to the applicant \u2019s sterilisation .","The applicant was released from ORG on DATE . Her second child died of pneumonia DATE .","As the applicant was not aware why she was unable to conceive a child , she underwent infertility treatment in DATE following the delivery of her second child .","Due to her inability to have more children the applicant has experienced serious physical and mental health problems . She has been ostracised by the GPE community and has experienced relationship difficulties with her husband .","On DATE the applicant lodged an action for protection of her personal rights under Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW before LOC . She argued that she had been sterilised contrary to the requirements of NORP law and in breach of , inter alia , Articles CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE of the Convention . She sought an apology , CARDINAL in compensation for damage and the reimbursement of her legal costs .","In a written statement of DATE a representative of the defendant hospital argued that the sterilisation of the applicant had been medically indicated and that the hospital staff had acted in accordance with the law then in force .","ORG heard Doctor PERSON , who stated that he had become the applicant \u2019s gynaecologist in DATE , after the delivery of her second child . He had not been aware of a sterilisation operation having been performed on the applicant . Nurse PERSON stated that she could not remember the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s delivery .","An expert appointed by the court noted , in an opinion of DATE , that , according to the applicant \u2019s medical records , tubal ligation had been performed on her on DATE . It had not been a life - saving operation , but it had been medically indicated , as any subsequent pregnancy would have entailed a serious risk to the applicant \u2019s life and health . The opinion further noted that the applicant had undergone a radiologic examination on DATE . It had revealed that the applicant \u2019s fallopian tubes were not blocked and there were no signs of ligation on them .","The applicant submitted the opinion of a NORP expert of CARDINAL DATE indicating that her sterilisation had not been necessary with a view to saving her life . The opinion was based on analysis of medical records related to the applicant \u2019s admission to ORG from DATE to DATE .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the action . With reference to the result of the above - mentioned radiologic examination of DATE , it did not find it established that the applicant had been sterilised .","Upon the applicant \u2019s appeal , on DATE the ORG quashed ORG judgment . It ordered the firstinstance court to obtain further evidence with a view to establishing all relevant facts .","Subsequently , ORG heard Doctor PERSON , who had been present during the delivery of the applicant \u2019s second child . Albeit he did not remember its circumstances , he stated that he had completed the delivery record and that he would have mentioned the applicant \u2019s sterilisation on its front page had such an operation been carried out . The only reference to the applicant \u2019s sterilisation had been made in the surgery record written by Doctor PERSON , who had died in the meantime . Doctor PERSON was not in a position to explain why Doctor PERSON had made such an entry . She might have mistaken the applicant \u2019s file with that of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL other people on whom they had operated consecutively on DATE .","ORG further established from the hospital \u2019s list of operations performed that Doctors S. and L. had performed CARDINAL caesarean sections on DATE . The applicant was the third patient on whom they had operated .","The applicant \u2019s gynaecologist highlighted that the report drawn up upon her release from the hospital did not state that the applicant had been sterilised .","Upon the court \u2019s request an expert indicated , on DATE , that endoscopic examination by means of laparoscopic chromopertubation would reliably show whether or not the applicant had been sterilised . The reliability of the radiologic examination which the applicant had undergone on DATE amounted to MONEY . The opinion further stated that sterilisation by tubal ligation , as recorded in the applicant \u2019s file , failed for an unknown reason in MONEY of cases .","In her submissions , the applicant indicated that she was not willing to subject herself to invasive methods of examination entailing possible side effects and risks to her health for the purpose of proving that she had been sterilised . The medical records clearly showed that this had taken place .","On DATE ORG again dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The court held that the evidence available did not permit it to conclude that the sole reason for which the applicant could not conceive a child was a blockage of her fallopian tubes resulting from an operation performed by the employees of the defendant hospital . The burden of proof was on the applicant to show that she had been sterilised . However , she had refused to undergo further medical tests which were necessary to establish in a reliable manner whether she had been subjected to a sterilisation operation , as claimed by her . ORG further concluded that the applicant \u2019s right to claim compensation for nonpecuniary damage had prescribed .","The applicant appealed . She argued that it was for the defendant hospital to show that its staff had erroneously indicated in her medical records that she had been sterilised .","On DATE the ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment . It held that ORG had established all relevant facts and had correctly applied the applicable law . In particular , as it could not be established beyond any doubt that the applicant had been sterilised by the hospital staff , she could not succeed in her action for protection of her personal rights . The reference to such an operation being performed in CARDINAL of several medical records drawn up in relation to the delivery of the applicant \u2019s second child did not suffice to prove that the operation had actually been performed , given that a subsequent test had shown that her fallopian tubes were not blocked . The fact that the applicant had refused to undergo more reliable tests also had to be taken into account .","On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional complaint . With reference to the proceedings leading to ORG judgment of DATE , she alleged a breach , inter alia , of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . The applicant argued that the ordinary courts had failed to comply with their obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of her sterilisation . In particular , ORG finding that it had not been clearly established that the applicant had been sterilised had been arbitrary and in disregard of the information in the applicant \u2019s medical records . In view of the entry recording her sterilisation in her records , it was for the defendant hospital to show that the applicant had not been sterilised . Asking the applicant to submit herself to invasive medical procedures with possible side effects with a view to proving that she had been sterilised was inappropriate in the circumstances .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . There was no appearance of unfairness in the proceedings leading to ORG judgment , in which all relevant facts and arguments had been addressed and which had not been arbitrary . In those circumstances the other complaints made by the applicant were manifestly ill - founded .","On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint with ORG in LOC . She submitted that she had suffered serious bodily harm as a result of her unlawful sterilisation in LOC .","On DATE a police investigator informed the applicant that a criminal investigation had been started on DATE .","In the course of the investigation the investigator heard the applicant and her legal representative , as well as CARDINAL staff members from ORG . Doctor PERSON had been present during the delivery but he could not remember its circumstances , including whether the applicant had been sterilised . Similarly , PERSON stated that she could not remember the delivery . An expert indicated that sterilisation was not in itself a life - saving operation . It should not be performed without the consent of the woman concerned .","On DATE the police investigator concluded that no criminal offence had been committed , as it had not been established with sufficient certainty that the applicant had been sterilised .","On DATE ORG in ORG dismissed a complaint against the investigator \u2019s decision made by the applicant .","On DATE ORG in Pre\u0161ov informed the applicant that no reason had been found for departing from the conclusions reached by the authorities at the lower level . It was particularly relevant that the surgeon who had operated on the applicant had died , and that the period during which the alleged criminal offence could be prosecuted had expired on DATE .","On DATE ORG found no breach of law in the course of the investigation into the applicant \u2019s criminal complaint . The reply contained the following information .","In the course of the investigation CARDINAL possible reasons for the applicant \u2019s infertility had been identified , namely either her unlawful sterilisation on DATE or a medical condition affecting her reproductive organs , namely fallopian tube obstruction .","Only the surgery record of CARDINAL DATE stated that the applicant had been sterilised . There was no mention of a sterilisation operation in the delivery record , in the other records relating to the delivery and the applicant \u2019s subsequent treatment , in the records of the anaesthesia given to her or in the report drawn up upon the applicant \u2019s release from the hospital . Doctor PERSON , who had operated on the applicant , had died in the meantime . CARDINAL of her colleagues had stated that Doctor PERSON had drawn up the patient surgery records after all of the operations scheduled for DATE had been completed . An expert had found that CARDINAL caesarean sections , CARDINAL of which had been accompanied by the patient \u2019s sterilisation , had been performed in the hospital on DATE . Doctor PERSON had performed CARDINAL of those caesarean sections . It could not be excluded that the entry recording the applicant \u2019s sterilisation in the surgery record had been made erroneously . The expert was not in a position to confirm that the applicant had been sterilised . It was also possible that the applicant \u2019s tubes were blocked by scar tissue . It was relevant in that respect that scars on the applicant \u2019s organs had been noted in the course of the delivery of the applicant \u2019s second child . According to the expert , surgery was required in order to establish why the applicant could not become pregnant .","The letter from ORG further indicated that it would be inappropriate to ask the applicant to undergo such surgery . Even if it were thereby established that she had been unlawfully sterilised , no criminal law consequences would arise , as the surgeon involved had died and the period in which the alleged offence could have been prosecuted had expired .","On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG . With reference to her sterilisation and the standpoints of ORG and ORG , she alleged a breach of ORG , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW and also a breach of several other international instruments .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint as being manifestly ill - founded . The decision stated that ORG could only examine any breaches which had resulted from the unfairness or arbitrariness of the proceedings complained of . As the applicant in her complaint had neither relied on LAW nor made reference to its guarantees in substance , her ORG complaints could not be dealt with in the constitutional proceedings .","With a view to describing the overall situation and circumstances in which she had delivered her child , the applicant submitted that she had experienced inferior treatment during her stay at ORG . In particular , patients in the gynaecological and obstetrics ward had been segregated according to their ethnic origin . The applicant had been accommodated in a \u201c Gypsy room \u201d , separate from women who were not of GPE ethnic origin .","NORP The applicant referred to a number of publications pointing to a history of sterilisation of GPE women , which had originated under the NORP regime in GPE in DATE and which she believed had influenced her own sterilisation . She also referred to a number of reports and statements by human rights organisations , both in GPE and abroad , including governmental and inter - governmental bodies , asking the NORP authorities to conduct an impartial and fair investigation of the allegations of forced and coerced sterilisation of GPE women in GPE , or criticising the absence of such an investigation ( for further details see also GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) .","The applicant considered that her ethnic origin had played a decisive role in the way in which she had been treated . Citing a number of international reports , the applicant submitted that discrimination against GPE in GPE extended to all facets of their lives .","Under LAW , natural persons have the right to protection of their personal rights ( personal integrity ) , in particular their life and health , human dignity , privacy , name and personal characteristics .","Under LAW , natural persons have the right to seek the cessation of unjustified infringements of their personal rights and to have the consequences of such infringements eliminated . They also have the right to seek appropriate redress .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provides that , in cases where the redress obtained under LAW is insufficient , in particular because the injured party \u2019s dignity or social standing has been significantly diminished , he or she is also entitled to financial compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","At the relevant time , the following provisions of GPE DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . ) were in force .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , medical interventions were to be carried out with the patient \u2019s consent . Such interventions were also permissible in cases where the patient \u2019s state of health prevented him or her from expressing his or her will but where his or her consent could be presumed .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL a sterilisation operation was permissible only with the consent of or upon the request of the person concerned and subject to the conditions set by ORG .","Further information about the relevant domestic law , practice and international materials is set out in GPE v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ; GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ; and ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183553","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LASC\u0102U AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163330","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF YUNUSOVA AND YUNUSOV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and live in GPE .","The first applicant is a well - known human rights defender and civil society activist . She is the director of ORG ( \u201c the Institute \u201d ) , a non - governmental organisation specialising in human rights protection and conflict resolution .","The second applicant , the first applicant \u2019s husband , is a researcher and the head of ORG of the ORG .","On DATE the first applicant was arrested by the police and was taken to ORG ( \u201c the SCD \u201d ) of ORG . On DATE she was charged under ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( large - scale fraud ) , DATE ( illegal entrepreneurship ) , DATE ( large - scale tax evasion ) , CARDINAL ( high treason ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( falsification of official documents ) of LAW .","On DATE ORG , relying on the official charges brought against the first applicant and the prosecutor \u2019s request for application of the preventive measure of remand in custody ( h\u0259bs q\u0259timkan t\u0259dbiri ) , ordered her detention pending trial for DATE . The court justified its application of the preventive measure by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released , she might abscond from the investigation .","On DATE the first applicant appealed against this decision , claiming that her detention was unlawful . She submitted , in particular , that there was no reasonable suspicion that she had committed a criminal offence , and that there was no justification for the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody . She pointed out in this connection that her detention was related to her activities as a human rights defender and that she had been punished for her activities . She further complained that the court had failed to take into account her personal circumstances , such as her state of health and age , when it had ordered her detention pending trial .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that the first - instance court \u2019s decision was lawful .","On DATE ORG extended the first applicant \u2019s detention pending trial by DATE , until DATE . The court substantiated its decision by the fact that more time was needed to complete the investigation and that the grounds for the detention had not changed .","On DATE ORG also dismissed the first applicant \u2019s request to be released on bail or placed under house arrest instead of in pre - trial detention .","On DATE she appealed against these decisions , reiterating her previous complaints .","On DATE ORG , in CARDINAL separate decisions , upheld ORG decisions of DATE .","No further extension decisions were included in the case file .","On DATE the second applicant was questioned by an investigator at the SCD . Following the interrogation , he was charged under ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( large - scale fraud ) and CARDINAL ( high treason ) of LAW .","On DATE the investigator decided to apply the preventive measure of placement under police supervision ( polisin n\u0259zar\u0259ti alt\u0131na verm\u0259 q\u0259timkan t\u0259dbiri ) , taking into account his state of health , in particular the fact that he suffered from chronic hypertension . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c Taking into consideration the state of health of the accused , PERSON , who was diagnosed with grade CARDINAL hypertension and hypertensive crisis , and given medical treatment in LOC and ORG No . CARDINAL ... it was appropriate to choose the preventive measure of placement under police supervision . \u201d","It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that on DATE the second applicant was examined by CARDINAL experts , who issued forensic medical report no . QUANTITY dated DATE . The report confirmed that the second applicant suffered from chronic hypertension . The report also indicated that \u201c considering PERSON current state of health , it is possible to carry out investigative actions with him \u201d ( \u201c A. PERSON sa\u011flaml\u0131q durumu il\u0259 \u0259laq\u0259dar onunla istintaq h\u0259r\u0259k\u0259tl\u0259rinin apar\u0131lmas\u0131 m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr \u201d ) .","On DATE the second applicant was arrested by the police . On DATE the prosecutor lodged a request with ORG asking it to replace the second applicant \u2019s placement under police supervision with detention pending trial . The prosecutor justified his request by the second applicant \u2019s failure to comply with the requirements of the preventive measure of placement under police supervision . The request also indicated that forensic medical report no . TIME dated DATE did not reveal anything that would prevent the second applicant from participating in the investigation .","On DATE ORG ordered the second applicant \u2019s detention pending trial for DATE . The court justified the detention by the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from the investigation .","On DATE the second applicant appealed against this decision . He submitted , in particular , that there was no reasonable suspicion that he had committed a criminal offence and that there was no justification for replacing the preventive measure of placement under police supervision with detention pending trial . He also pointed out that his detention was related to his and his wife \u2019s activities as a civil society activist and human rights defender and that the court had failed to take into account his personal circumstances , such as his state of health and age , when it had ordered his detention pending trial .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , finding that the detention order was justified .","On DATE ORG extended the second applicant \u2019s detention pending trial by DATE , until DATE . The court substantiated its decision by the fact that more time was needed to complete the investigation and that the grounds for the detention had not changed .","On DATE ORG also dismissed the second applicant \u2019s request to be released on bail or placed under house arrest instead of in pre - trial detention .","On DATE the second applicant appealed against these decisions , reiterating his previous complaints and arguing that the firstinstance court had failed to justify his continued detention .","On DATE ORG , in CARDINAL separate decisions , upheld ORG decisions of CARDINAL and DATE .","No further extension decisions were included in the case file .","The medical documentation submitted by the parties shows that the first applicant suffers from a number of illnesses . In particular , she has suffered from chronic hepatitis ( hepatitis C ) since DATE . People with hepatitis C usually suffer from constant exhaustion , joint , muscle and abdominal pain , general sickness and weakness , and often depression . A low - fat diet is required to reduce liver damage . The disease is potentially fatal . The first applicant regularly underwent medical treatment in GPE before her arrest .","NORP Since DATE she has also had type CARDINAL diabetes , which is non - insulin dependent and requires sufferers to follow a special diabetic diet and take regular exercise . In addition , she suffers from myogelosis ( muscle stiffness ) , arterial hypertension and a single cyst in the left kidney .","It also appears from the medical documents in the case file that she underwent surgery on both eyes in GPE before her arrest and needs specialist medical care as a follow - up , to avoid any risk of damage to her eyesight . The relevant part of a letter dated DATE from the head of ORG at ORG in GPE reads as follows :","\u201c PERSON right and left eyes were both myopic with cataracts .","It is absolutely necessary that she undergoes a repeat consultation and examination for the development of capsular fibrosis , which can lead to visual impairment and needs surgical laser treatment .","It is also absolutely necessary that she undergoes a complete bilateral examination of her retina since she has had myopia and her risk of retinal detachment is substantially higher than in normal eyes and is further increased by the previous surgery . Any signs of retinal tears must be treated early with a laser retinopexy to prevent further damage and minimise the risk of permanent visual impairment . \u201d","The medical documentation submitted by the parties shows that the second applicant suffers from grade CARDINAL chronic hypertension and hypertensive crisis , with an increased risk of cardiovascular complications . He regularly underwent medical treatment in GPE before his arrest . He was also hospitalised from DATE in FAC and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in GPE Clinical Hospital No . CARDINAL .","The first applicant was detained in a cell with CARDINAL other detainees , CARDINAL of whom were extremely noisy . Heating was available but inadequate . The electricity was cut off from TIME and from TIME , which made it impossible to use a heater . The temperature inside the cell and in the walking area was very low in DATE . There was no proper ventilation inside the cell and the temperature was very high in DATE . There was a problem with hot water distribution in the cell . In particular , she was not informed of the distribution time for the hot water and could not obtain more when necessary . Moreover , there was CARDINAL refrigerator for all the detainees on her floor which was not sufficient .","According to the first applicant , upon her arrival at the detention facility , she was examined by a doctor who confirmed that she had type CARDINAL diabetes and chronic hepatitis C.","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE she was provided with the necessary diabetic food and medicine by the second applicant who , as a close family member , was entitled to deliver her parcels . However , following his arrest on DATE , she was deprived of the necessary diabetic food and medicine . In particular , the detention facility administration did not allow her lawyer or friends to deliver her parcels until DATE , arguing that only the family members of a detainee could send in parcels .","In this connection , it appears from the documents submitted by the first applicant that on DATE her lawyer asked the investigator in charge of the case to allow her friends , PERSON and GPE , to deliver her a parcel . He pointed out that , taking into consideration that on DATE her husband had been arrested and that her only daughter lived abroad , the first applicant did not have any other family member to do this . On DATE the lawyer also lodged a request with the administration of the detention facility ( \u201c the administration \u201d ) , complaining that on CARDINAL DATE employees had refused to receive a parcel for the first applicant on the grounds that it had not been sent in by a family member .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a request with the administration and the investigator in charge of the case , asking for a medical examination at her own expense by a doctor of her own choosing , ORG She specified in her request that she suffered from diabetes and other serious illnesses , and that under domestic law detainees could be examined by a doctor of their own choosing .","By a letter of DATE , the deputy governor of the detention facility replied to her request , noting that there was no need for a medical examination by ORG In this connection , he pointed out that the first applicant \u2019s state of health was stable and being monitored by the detention facility doctors . The letter also indicated that on DATE she had been examined by an endocrinologist from ORG , who had recommended that she continue her previous treatment .","By a decision of DATE , the investigator dismissed her request , finding that all the necessary measures had been taken for her medical treatment in the detention facility .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s cell was searched . On DATE she was deprived of her right to make phone calls for DATE . She was also obliged to take a cold shower because the shower room had no hot water .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer asked the administration to provide him with a copy of the administrative decision depriving the first applicant of her right to make phone calls . He did not receive any response to his request .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer asked the administration to provide him with a list of medication prescribed to the first applicant during her detention . He did not receive any response to his request .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the deputy governor of the detention facility responded to the first applicant \u2019s complaint of being unable to receive parcels following her husband \u2019s arrest . He noted that she had received a parcel sent in by PERSON on DATE . The letter was however silent as to the delivery of any parcels DATE .","In a statement dated DATE submitted by the first applicant to the ORG with the ORG reply to the ORG \u2019s observations , she stated that she had not been provided with any documents concerning her state of health . As regards her medical treatment in detention , she stated that she had been examined on DATE and DATE at ORG by PERSON , a NORP doctor from GPE , a university hospital in GPE . During the examination on DATE , she had been insulted and humiliated by a doctor named PERSON when PERSON had been out of the room . In DATE the eyesight in her left eye had drastically deteriorated . The ophthalmologist who had examined her on DATE stated that the same process would soon begin to happen to her right eye . She further stated that in detention her weight had dropped dramatically because of her illnesses and conditions of detention .","On DATE the first applicant was admitted to ORG of ORG .","She was held with CARDINAL other detainees in a cell measuring CARDINAL sq . m designed to hold CARDINAL detainees . The cell was adequately lit . It had CARDINAL windows measuring QUANTITY . The sanitary facilities were separate from the rest of the cell and were adequately ventilated . She was provided with food , water , bedding , clothing and other essentials .","Upon her arrival at the detention facility on DATE , she underwent a series of medical examinations . NORP and electrocardiography examinations did not reveal any changes to her pathological condition . Her neuropsychological status was evaluated as satisfactory . An ultrasound examination of her abdomen and external examination of her body confirmed that she had previously undergone surgery . General and biochemical blood tests concluded that her blood sugar level was a little higher than average . Following these examinations , she was diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C , type CARDINAL diabetes , gallstones , a single cyst in the left kidney ( measuring QUANTITY ) and pseudophakia ( replacement of the natural lenses of the eyes with intraocular lenses ) . The Government provided the ORG with copies of the results of the medical tests and examinations carried out DATE .","It further appears from the extracts of the first applicant \u2019s detention facility medical records ( m\u0259hkumun tibbi kitab\u00e7as\u0131 ) submitted by the Government that on DATE the doctor recommended that the first applicant continue the medical treatment for diabetes prescribed by her previous doctor , the drug PERSON . She also had the rules of a diabetic diet explained to her and was provided with a blood glucose meter to monitor the level of sugar in her blood .","On DATE the first applicant was provided with medication brought in by her relatives , including CARDINAL ORG capsules , CARDINAL PERSON capsules , CARDINAL ORG tablets , CARDINAL PERSON tablets and CARDINAL PERSON tablets . The next delivery of medication , comprising QUANTITY GPE tablets , took place on DATE . The first applicant \u2019s need for medication during this period was fully covered by the medication delivered on DATE . As to the provision of diabetic food from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , upon her arrival at the detention facility , the first applicant was registered on a list of diabetic detainees and was consequently provided with diabetic food during this period .","On DATE she was examined by an endocrinologist in the detention facility , who recommended that she continue her previous treatment . On DATE she also underwent a blood test to determine her sugar level and the state of the hepatitis C. The Government provided the ORG with copies of the results of the medical tests and examinations conducted DATE .","On DATE she was examined by a detention facility doctor . She complained of general sickness without raising any particular complaints .","On DATE and DATE she was examined by a neurologist and a therapist . No pathological conditions were revealed .","On DATE the first applicant refused to be examined by an ophthalmologist at ORG in order to establish the impact of the diabetes on her eyesight . According to the Government , on DATE and DATE and CARDINAL and DATE she again refused to be examined by the detention facility doctors . They submitted various records compiled by the doctors to support this claim .","On DATE she was examined by an endocrinologist who assessed her state of health as stable . The Government did not submit any documents concerning this medical examination .","On DATE she refused to undergo various medical examinations by a virologist , endocrinologist and physician from ORG in the presence of the members of the joint working group on human rights and members of the public committee under ORG . However , she refused to sign anything to say that she had refused to be examined .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a request with the prosecution authorities , complaining of the deterioration of her state of health in detention and asking for a forensic medical examination . The lawyer submitted that her hepatitis C and diabetes were serious and that since her detention her weight had dropped dramatically from CARDINAL to CARDINAL or QUANTITY . The lawyer also pointed out that , as the first applicant had not been provided with adequate medical care in detention , she refused to be examined by the detention facility doctors .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the case ordered a forensic medical examination of the first applicant . The experts could only examine her on DATE in the presence of her lawyer due to her initial refusal . They issued forensic medical report no . CARDINAL , which indicated that the examination had begun on DATE and ended on DATE . The report confirmed that the first applicant suffered from a number of illnesses , including hepatitis C and diabetes . However , the experts concluded that the illnesses were not life - threatening and could be treated in detention . The relevant part of the conclusion of the report reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The illnesses revealed in L.Yunusova , being chronic in nature , do not pose any danger to her life and she does not currently need immediate and specialist treatment .","If necessary , PERSON can receive outpatient treatment in her conditions of detention in respect of the hepatitis C and diabetes which were diagnosed .","PERSON current state of health allows her to remain in detention and does not pose any danger to her life . \u201d","In the meantime , on DATE the first applicant underwent a number of medical tests and examinations in the presence of C.W from GPE . In particular , she underwent a general and biochemical blood test , an ultrasound examination of the abdominal cavity , a chest computed tomography ( GPE ) scan , and electrocardiography and echocardiography examinations . The ORG submitted copies of the results of these medical tests and examinations to the ORG with their observations . However , none of the documents submitted contained any information regarding medical recommendations or prescriptions made by the doctors following the examinations dated DATE .","On DATE the first applicant again underwent various medical tests and examinations . She was examined by a group of doctors , including international doctors PERSON , PERSON ( a professor from ORG ) and PERSON ( a gynaecologist ) . The Government submitted copies of the results of these medical tests and examinations to the ORG with their observations . However , none of the documents submitted contained any medical recommendations or prescriptions concerning the first applicant \u2019s medical treatment .","On DATE she was examined in the presence of PERSON and GPE ( the director of ORG in GPE ) . On DATE , she underwent a blood test and gynaecological ultrasound examination . The Government submitted copies of the results of these medical tests and examinations to the ORG with their observations . However , none of the documents submitted contained any medical recommendations or prescriptions concerning the first applicant \u2019s medical treatment .","The extracts of the first applicant \u2019s detention facility medical records contained further information concerning her state of health from DATE to CARDINAL DATE :","- On DATE and DATE she was provided with the relevant medication brought in by her lawyer and friends .","- On DATE she complained of constant exhaustion , general sickness and weakness .","- On DATE she again complained of general sickness and stayed in bed . DATE and the next she was examined by a prison doctor who assessed her state of health as satisfactory . In particular , it was established that her blood pressure , temperature and sugar level were within the permitted range .","- On DATE she was provided with medication for diabetes brought in by her friends .","- On DATE she underwent a prophylactic medical examination and was provided with medication brought in by her friends .","- On DATE and DATE she was examined by a neurologist and a therapist . During the examination , she complained only of frequent urination .","- On DATE she underwent a prophylactic medical examination and was provided with medication brought in by her friends .","- On DATE , DATE and DATE she was provided with medication brought in by her friends .","- On DATE , DATE and DATE she refused to be examined .","- On DATE she was provided with medication brought in by her friends .","- On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE she refused to be examined .","- On DATE she complained of a migraine and stress , but refused to be examined by a doctor .","- On DATE she was provided with medication brought in by her friends .","- On DATE she was examined in compliance with international standards by a group of doctors , including an international doctor .","- On DATE , DATE and DATE she did not complain about her state of health .","( Illegible )","- On DATE she complained of headaches , but refused to be examined by a doctor .","- On DATE she was again examined by a group of international doctors .","- ( date illegible ) DATE she again refused to be examined by a doctor and was provided with medication brought in by her friends .","- On DATE and DATE she again refused to be examined .","- On DATE she complained of headaches .","- On DATE she was again examined by a group of doctors , including international doctors .","The second applicant was detained alone in a cell at the Pre - trial ORG of ORG .","According to his lawyer , his state of health significantly deteriorated after his arrest . In particular , the domestic authorities had failed to provide him with adequate medical care in detention . He further submitted that in the absence of any information concerning the second applicant \u2019s conditions of detention and medical care , it was impossible for him to give an account about either .","On DATE the second applicant was admitted to the ORG - trial ORG of ORG .","He was held in a cell measuring QUANTITY . m designed to hold CARDINAL inmates . He was placed alone in the cell at his own request . The cell had CARDINAL beds and was adequately lit and ventilated . He was provided with hot and cold water , bedding , clothing and other essentials .","According to a letter by the governor of the detention facility dated DATE , heating was available and functioned well . The sanitary conditions were acceptable and the food served was of good quality . The second applicant also had the right to listen to the radio for TIME a day and to use the detention facility library . He was also entitled to receive CARDINAL food parcel DATE ( weighing up to QUANTITY ) from his relatives .","DATE . Upon his arrival at the detention facility , the second applicant underwent a medical examination , during which he stated that he had suffered from arterial hypertension since DATE . However , he did not make any particular complaint about his state of health which was assessed as satisfactory .","On DATE the second applicant underwent an electrocardiography examination which did not reveal any problems .","It further appears from a medical certificate dated DATE from the head of the medical service of the detention facility that the second applicant \u2019s state of health was satisfactory and that he had not sought medical attention during his pre - trial detention .","On DATE a repeat offender , GPE , was transferred to the applicant \u2019s cell . After being transferred , GPE frequently subjected the first applicant to verbal and physical violence . She complained to the administration , but no action was taken .","On DATE she lodged a request with the administration , complaining about GPE \u2019s unlawful behaviour . In particular , she complained that she had been subjected to physical violence and that the placement of a repeat offender in her cell was not in compliance with domestic law .","On DATE the first applicant was subjected to verbal and physical violence by Major PERSON , a prison guard .","By a letter of DATE , the governor of the detention facility responded to the first applicant \u2019s request of DATE . He claimed that she had not been subjected to violence by GPE and that her conditions of detention complied with the established standards .","Following publication in the media of information concerning the first applicant \u2019s alleged beating in the detention facility , on DATE an investigator from ORG ordered a forensic medical examination . He asked experts to establish whether there were any signs of ill - treatment on the first applicant \u2019s body .","DATE . Following examinations on DATE and DATE , the experts issued forensic medical report no . CARDINAL dated DATE . They concluded that there were no signs of injury on the first applicant \u2019s body .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the case refused to institute criminal proceedings , finding that there was no evidence that the first applicant had been subjected to violence in the detention facility . The decision relied on the conclusions of the forensic medical report of CARDINAL DATE , statements by the first applicant \u2019s cellmates and video footage from the detention facility .","No appeal was lodged against this decision .","Following the indication of the interim measure under Rule CARDINAL of ORG by the Acting President of the Section on DATE , the Government responded by a letter dated DATE submitting that the relevant domestic authorities had been immediately informed of the interim measure indicated by ORG under Rule CARDINAL . They further submitted that the applicants\u2019 state of health was stable and did not require their transfer to an appropriate medical facility . The letter also contained an overview of the medical examinations that the applicants had undergone in DATE , although no medical documents were attached to the letter .","The Government subsequently provided the ORG with DATE information reports concerning the applicants\u2019 state of health and medical treatment in detention . All the DATE reports submitted were CARDINAL pages long . They began in a standard format and said that \u201c the applicants\u2019 state of health is stable and does not require [ their ] transfer to a specialist medical facility \u201d . They were not accompanied by any medical documents .","The reports sent by the Government from DATE contained the same information in respect of the first applicant \u2019s state of health and medical treatment as they submitted in their observations of CARDINAL DATE . As regards the second applicant \u2019s state of health and medical treatment , all the reports contained the CARDINAL following sentences :","\u201c Over DATE , the second applicant \u2019s state of health was under constant medical supervision , and it was assessed as satisfactory ; no deterioration in his health has been noted .","( date ) , the second applicant passed [ his ] latest general medical examination , which did not reveal any deterioration in his health . \u201d","As regards the subsequent reports , the CARDINAL - page report dated DATE indicated that on DATE the first applicant had been examined by PERSON in the presence of local doctors . The results of the examination showed that her state of health was stable and did not reveal any pathological conditions or signs of deterioration . PERSON recommended that the first applicant take PERSON and she started treatment with this drug on DATE . As regards the second applicant , the report contained the above - mentioned CARDINAL sentences . No medical documents were attached to the information report .","The CARDINAL - page report dated DATE indicated that on DATE the first applicant had again been examined by PERSON in the presence of local doctors . The results of the examination showed that her state of health was stable and did not reveal any pathological conditions or signs of deterioration . PERSON prescribed the drug Velmetia for the regulation of her blood sugar level . As regards the second applicant , in addition to the above - mentioned CARDINAL sentences , the report indicated that on DATE at a court hearing , the second applicant had asked for medical help . His blood pressure had been QUANTITY and could be stabilised following the intervention of the emergency services . The hearing had been postponed upon a doctor \u2019s advice . No medical documents were attached to the information report .","The CARDINAL - page report dated DATE indicated that the first applicant had finished her medical treatment with PERSON . The report also contained information relating to her blood pressure and sugar level . As regards the second applicant , the report contained the above - mentioned CARDINAL sentences . No medical documents were attached .","The reports dated DATE and DATE contained information relating to the first applicant \u2019s blood pressure and sugar level and indicated that on DATE the first applicant had refused to be examined by the doctors . On DATE she had been examined by ORG , at whose request she had been transferred to the medical department of ORG . As regards the second applicant , he had been examined by C.W on DATE . His blood pressure had been CARDINAL\/CARDINAL mm Hg and he had been prescribed with the relevant medical treatment . On DATE he had been transferred to the medical department of ORG , where he had received the necessary medical treatment . Following this treatment , his blood pressure had lowered to CARDINAL PERSON . No medical documents were attached to the information report .","On an unspecified date the criminal investigation was completed and the applicants\u2019 case was referred to ORG for trial .","On DATE it convicted and sentenced the applicants to CARDINAL and seven years\u2019 imprisonment respectively .","On an unspecified date the applicants appealed against this judgment to ORG .","It appears from the information submitted by the Government that on an unspecified date the medical department of ORG requested ORG to change the second applicant \u2019s detention pending trial due to his emotional state and the possible repeat of hypertensive crisis . The Government did not provide the ORG with a copy of this request .","On DATE ORG granted the request and ordered the second applicant \u2019s release . The ORG was not provided with a copy of this decision .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and gave the applicants a conditional sentence of DATE imprisonment . The first applicant was released from the court ."],"violated_articles":["3","34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152593","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KOTIY v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","In DATE the applicant , his wife and CARDINAL children ( born in DATE and DATE ) settled in GPE . DATE the applicant held various managerial positions in NORP companies . He was also a co - owner and the president of the limited liability company L. , registered in GPE . That company was run by a director employed under contract .","On DATE the applicant sent a request to the official representative of ORG of GPE in GPE am PERSON enquiring whether certain business activities undertaken by the director of company PERSON had been lawful .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant was informed that ORG had not found any wrongdoing on the part of the director .","On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant in connection with a financial fraud allegedly committed by him in DATE . The investigator stated that the applicant , as co - owner and president of company L. , had concluded an agreement for the sale of a car , had received the payment from the purchaser , but had failed to supply the car ; the applicant was assisted by the director of that company who , allegedly , had not been aware of the applicant \u2019s malicious intent . The investigator found that the fraudulent actions of the applicant had been confirmed by both victim and witness statements and also by the documents examined . Among the persons testifying as witnesses concerning the specifics of the business and managerial relationships between the applicant and company PERSON , the investigator also questioned the applicant \u2019s mother , who stated that the applicant had not lived in GPE for DATE as he and his family had moved to GPE .","On DATE the investigator decided to put the applicant on the national list of wanted persons , stating that the latter had not lived at the registered place of his residence in GPE and his whereabouts were unknown .","In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE on personal business .","According to the applicant , on DATE , when he arrived at the migration service department in ORG to exchange his international travel passport for a new one , he was arrested and escorted to GPE .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator in ORG of GPE in connection with the charges against him . The questioning session terminated at TIME in TIME . During the questioning the applicant stated , among other things , that he was temporarily unemployed .","At TIME on DATE the investigator , relying on ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , decided to arrest the applicant for TIME on suspicion of having committed the crime . He drew up an arrest report citing LAW ORG concerning the grounds for arresting a person without a court order .","On DATE the ORG of Kyiv ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) considered the investigator \u2019s request to place the applicant in pre - trial detention . Relying on LAW , ORG found that before taking its decision concerning the application of a preventive measure , it needed to examine in more detail the personality of the applicant , his place of employment and residence , his family status and the risk of his absconding . The court therefore extended the applicant \u2019s preliminary detention to DATE .","On DATE the investigator instituted another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant and the director of company L. on the grounds that they had obtained a loan from a bank on the basis of forged documents and had later misappropriated these funds .","On DATE ORG again examined the investigator \u2019s request to detain the applicant in custody . During the hearing the applicant contended that before his arrest he had not been aware of the criminal proceedings or of the fact that he had been placed on the national list of wanted persons . He argued that the investigator had not served him with a summons . Having deliberated , the court found that there had been no evidence suggesting that the applicant might abscond from justice , obstruct the investigation or continue any criminal activity . It therefore released the applicant . The prosecutor appealed .","On DATE , the investigator \u2012 relying on LAW ORG \u2012 obtained from the applicant a written undertaking not to abscond from his registered place of residence in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the investigator , relying on LAW ORG , seized the applicant \u2019s old and new international travel passports .","On DATE ORG dismissed the prosecutor \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of DATE , noting that no evidence had been presented concerning attempts by the applicant to abscond from justice and that the gravity of charges alone did not provide sufficient grounds for detaining the applicant in custody .","On DATE the applicant complained to the prosecutor on account of his unlawful arrest and detention and the violation of procedural rules by the investigator . He also stated that as a result of the procedural measures undertaken by the investigator he had not been able to see his wife and children , who lived outside GPE , nor to pursue his professional life . The applicant did not receive any reply to his complaint .","On DATE the applicant challenged before ORG the investigator \u2019s decisions to initiate criminal proceedings against him .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim , finding that the available evidential material was not sufficient to give rise to criminal proceedings against the applicant . The prosecutor appealed against that decision .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim , finding that the impugned decisions issued by the investigator were lawful . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the investigator closed both sets of criminal proceedings , finding that the charges against the applicant had not been proved and that there had been no corpus delicti . The preventive measure ( a written undertaking not to abscond ) was lifted .","On DATE the investigator returned the seized international travel passports to the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-5","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182847","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SANCAKLI v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG issued a search warrant allowing the gendarmerie to conduct searches of public places and suspected persons in a designated area .","Late at TIME on DATE , the gendarmerie carried out a search at FAC , which is owned by the applicant . The records drawn up afterwards noted that during the course of the search , a certain GPE had approached the plain - clothes officers outside the hotel and told them that he had a girl inside . It was then established that GPE trafficked women . He and a woman in the hotel were both taken to the gendarmerie headquarters .","The search records , which were prepared TIME after the search and signed by the hotel \u2019s manager , showed that CARDINAL women of foreign nationalities had been staying at the hotel with some men and that they had all been taken to the gendarmerie headquarters .","On DATE the gendarmerie questioned several men as suspects and CARDINAL women as victims . They all confirmed that they had been staying at the hotel for prostitution purposes . Some of the women were asked whether they knew of any complicity between the traffickers and the management of ORG , to which they responded in the negative .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into the custody of the gendarmerie on suspicion of facilitating prostitution .","On DATE the applicant gave statements to the gendarmerie . He denied having provided premises for prostitution . He argued that he did not allow procurers into his hotel and had never seen GPE before .","On DATE , the gendarmerie also questioned the hotel \u2019s manager , who stated that both he and the applicant were very strict about keeping procurers out of their hotel .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG issued an indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons . He accused them of failure to obey an order from an official authority under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) in force at the time , on the ground that they had provided premises for prostitution in their hotels .","On DATE LAW ( Law no . PERSON ) and the new Code of Criminal Procedure ( PERSON no . CARDINAL ) entered into force .","On DATE ORG assessed the case without holding a hearing . Establishing that the accused had provided premises for prostitution in their hotels , it held that the applicant had failed to obey the orders of an official authority as charged and should be punished accordingly . It then sentenced him to an administrative fine of MONEY ( TRY ) pursuant to LAW of LAW ( Law no . ORG ) .","The applicant objected to that decision , arguing that his defence rights had been restricted in that the court had sentenced him to the fine solely on the basis of the statements taken previously by the police , and without hearing him in person . He maintained that he accepted clients into his hotel in compliance with the relevant regulation and that he could not be expected to refuse to offer accommodation to foreign nationals or to question their motives for staying there .","On DATE after examining the case on the basis of the case file , ORG upheld the decision of ORG . That decision was final .","On DATE an official letter was sent to the applicant . It was indicated on the envelope that the applicant was invited to a hearing concerning his case , which would be held on DATE . The envelope did not show any confirmation that the letter had been served on him .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer stated that he had received a copy of the final decision at the registry of ORG on DATE . In support of his claim , he submitted a copy of ORG decision , on which a lawyer working at his office had noted that he had been served with the copy in person on DATE . That document was later stamped and certified as an authentic copy by the registry of the domestic court .","Following communication of the present application , on DATE a public prosecutor prepared an assessment report , summarising the events in the case . He concluded that the final decision had been served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE both the applicant and the Government were asked under Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( c ) of ORG to provide the ORG with a document indicating the notification date of the final decision by DATE at the latest . The parties did not respond to that request .","On DATE the Government were once again asked to provide documents regarding the commencement of the DATE timelimit , in particular the content of the envelope from ORG dated DATE and the document in support of the public prosecutor \u2019s claim that the final decision had been served on the applicant on DATE . On DATE the Government informed the ORG that they could not find the requested documents ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159374","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF VUGAR ALIYEV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix .","The applicants were nominated by the Karabakh Election Bloc as candidates in the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE and applied for registration as candidates in various single - mandate electoral constituencies ( see Appendix ) .","As LAW required that each nomination as a candidate for parliamentary elections be supported by a minimum of CARDINAL voters , the applicants on various dates submitted sheets containing the signature of CARDINAL voters collected in support of their candidacy to their respective ORG ( \u201c ConECs \u201d ) .","NORP Before a decision by a ConEC on registering an applicant as a candidate , the signature sheets and the other registration documents submitted by the applicants had first to be verified by special working groups ( i\u015f\u00e7i qrupu ) established by the ConECs . None of the applicants were invited to participate in the examination of their sheets of signatures by the PERSON working groups .","The GPE on various dates ( see PERSON ) issued decisions to refuse the ORG requests for registration as a candidate , after the PERSON working groups had found that some of the voter signatures were invalid and that the remaining valid signatures had numbered CARDINAL . Signatures were found to be invalid on several grounds in each case , including : ( a ) falsified or repeat signatures ( \u201c signatures made repeatedly by the same individuals who had already signed sheets in the name of other individuals \u201d ) ; ( b ) incorrect personal information on voters ( birth date , identity card number , and so on ) ; ( c ) signatures by persons whose identity cards had expired ; ( d ) signatures belonging to voters registered outside the constituency ; ( e ) uncertified corrections in signature sheets ; ( f ) withdrawal by the signature collector of his or her own signature certifying a list , invalidating the entire list of CARDINAL signatures ; and ( g ) unspecified \u201c other grounds \u201d ; and so on .","None of the applicants were invited to the ConEC meetings where decisions to refuse their requests for registration were taken . In each case , despite the requirements of the law , all the relevant working group documents ( expert opinions , TIME of the meeting , records and tables of results of the examination ) , as well as the ConEC decision itself , were only made available to the applicants after the decision to refuse their registration had been taken . In many cases , some of the documents were never made available to the applicants or were only made available to them as late as during the subsequent judicial proceedings in ORG .","Each applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against the PERSON decision . They made some or all of the following complaints :","( a ) the findings of the ConEC working groups that such large numbers of signatures were invalid had been factually wrong , unsubstantiated , and arbitrary . Some of those findings of fact could easily have been rebutted by simply contacting the voter in question and confirming the authenticity of his or her signature . However , the ConECs had not taken any steps to corroborate their findings with any reliable evidence , such as contacting and questioning a number of voters randomly selected from the group whose signatures were suspected of being false . There were no specialist handwriting experts among the members of the ConEC working groups and therefore their findings on the authenticity of some signatures had been highly subjective and arbitrary ;","( b ) the ConEC decisions to declare the signatures invalid had been arbitrary and in breach of the substantive and procedural requirements of the law . Relying on various provisions of LAW , the applicants argued that unintentional and rectifiable errors in the signature sheets could not serve as a reason to declare a voter signature invalid . If the errors found could be rectified by making the necessary corrections , LAW required the ConEC to notify the particular candidate of this within twentyfour TIME and to provide him or her with an opportunity to make corrections in the documents before deciding on his or her registration as a candidate . The ConECs had , however , declared large numbers of signatures invalid in the case of each applicant on the basis of easily rectifiable errors , without informing the candidates in advance and giving them an opportunity to make necessary corrections ;","( c ) the procedure followed by the ConECs had also breached other requirements of LAW . Contrary to the requirements of LAW , the applicants had not been informed in advance of the time and place of the examination of the signature sheets and their presence had not been ensured . Contrary to the requirements of LAW , the applicants had also not been provided with a copy of the minutes of the examination of the validity of the signature sheets CARDINAL prior to the PERSON meeting dealing with their respective requests for registration . Subsequently , none of the applicants had been invited to the ConEC meetings , which had deprived them of the opportunity to argue for their position ;","( d ) some of the grounds for invalidation were not provided by law and therefore to declare signatures invalid on these grounds had been unlawful . For example , LAW did not allow the invalidation of a signature merely because the voter \u2019s identity document had recently expired ;","( e ) in some cases , various local public officials and police officers had applied undue pressure on voters or signature collectors to \u201c withdraw \u201d their signatures on the grounds that they had been tricked to sign in the candidate \u2019s favour \u201c by deceptive means \u201d .","The ORG arranged for another examination of the signature sheets by members of its own working group . None of the applicants was invited to participate in that examination process . The ORG working group found in each case that large numbers of signatures were invalid and that the remaining valid signatures were below the minimum required by law .","NORP In each case , the number of signatures found to be invalid by the ORG working group differed from the number given by the particular ConEC working group , with differences often being significant . Furthermore , in almost every case the grounds for declaring signatures invalid given by the ORG had been different from the grounds given for the same signature sheets by the ConEC . In most cases a certain number of the total signatures were also declared invalid on the grounds that they had \u201c appeared \u201d to have been falsified , that is , \u201c made by the same person in the name of other people \u201d ( \u201c ehtimal ki , eyni \u015f\u0259xs t\u0259r\u0259find\u0259n icra olunmu\u015fdur \u201d ) .","On various dates , the ORG rejected the ORG complaints ( see Appendix ) . None of the applicants were invited to attend the ORG meeting dealing with their complaint . Moreover , in each case , all the relevant ORG documents ( including the working group documents ) were only made available to the applicants after the ORG decision had been taken , while in some cases such documents were never given to them at all , or were given as late as at the stage of judicial appeal proceedings .","On various dates , each of the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG against the decisions of the electoral commissions . They reiterated the complaints they had made before the ORG concerning the ConEC decisions and procedures . They also raised some or all of the following complaints concerning the ORG \u2019s decisions and procedures :","( a ) NORP contrary to the requirements of electoral law , the ORG had failed to notify them of its meetings and ensure their presence during the examination of the signature sheets and their complaints ;","( b ) NORP contrary to the requirements of electoral law , some or all of the relevant ORG documents had not been made available to them , depriving them of the opportunity to mount an effective challenge to the ORG decisions ;","( c ) the decisions of the electoral commissions had been based on expert opinions that had contained nothing more than conjecture and speculation ( for example , that the signatures had \u201c appeared \u201d ( \u201c ehtimal ki \u201d ) to have been falsified ) , instead of properly established facts ;","( d ) in those cases where the applicants had submitted additional documents in support of their complaints , the ORG had ignored those submissions and failed to take them into account .","Relying on a number of provisions of domestic law , and directly on LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW , the applicants claimed that their right to stand for election had been infringed .","On various dates ( see Appendix ) , ORG dismissed appeals by the applicants , finding that their arguments were irrelevant or unsubstantiated and that there were no grounds for quashing the decisions of the ORG .","The applicants lodged cassation appeals with ORG , reiterating their previous complaints and arguing that ORG had not carried out a fair examination of the cases and had delivered unreasoned judgments .","On various dates ( see Appendix ) , ORG dismissed the ORG appeals as unsubstantiated , without examining their arguments in detail , and found no grounds to doubt the findings of the electoral commissions or of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170033","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF RODKIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of the rape of a girl , who was also a minor .","On DATE the ORG of GPE remanded him in custody . He remained in pre - trial detention pending investigation and trial on the grounds that he was accused of a serious crime , might reoffend , abscond , destroy evidence , threaten witnesses , or interfere with the investigation .","On DATE ORG of GPE found him guilty as charged .","On DATE the applicant , acting for himself , submitted his first letter to ORG .","On DATE and DATE he provided CARDINAL powers of attorney authorising Mr GPE , one of his cellmates , to represent him before the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157535","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF GAHRAMANLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","The applicants stood as candidates for the opposition parties in the parliamentary elections of DATE in the single - mandate ORG No . CARDINAL . Mr PERSON was nominated by the coalition of ORG and PERSON parties , Mr PERSON by ORG and Mr PERSON by the PERSON electoral bloc .","The constituency was divided into CARDINAL electoral precincts , with CARDINAL polling station in each precinct . It is apparent that there were a total of CARDINAL candidates running for election in the constituency .","According to the official election results , PERSON , the candidate nominated by the ruling ORG , won the election with CARDINAL votes . Mr PERSON finished second with CARDINAL votes , PERSON PERSON third with CARDINAL votes and Mr PERSON last with CARDINAL votes .","On DATE the applicants , together with CARDINAL other candidate , jointly lodged nearly identical complaints with ORG ( the \u201c ConEC \u201d ) and ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) . They complained that the election results had not reflected the true opinion of the voters because there had been numerous instances of electoral fraud and irregularities on DATE , and they requested the annulment of the election results in their constituency . They alleged that :","( a ) In all the constituency polling stations , employees of ORG and people affiliated with Mr PERSON had , in an organised manner , brought a number of persons not registered as voters into constituency polling stations to cast voting ballots ;","( b ) There had been instances of ballot - stuffing in numerous polling stations ;","( c ) The number of ballots cast in all the polling stations had been CARDINAL times higher than the number of voters who had come to cast votes in all the polling stations ;","( d ) In CARDINAL polling station , observers and consultative members of precinct electoral commissions ( \u201c PECs \u201d ) ( commission members with no voting rights ) had been prevented from participating in the vote - counting process .","The applicants also requested that their presence be ensured at the commission hearings concerning their complaints .","NORP In support of their allegations , the applicants submitted to the electoral commissions CARDINAL statements ( akt ) made by election observers documenting specific instances of the irregularities complained of .","The applicants submitted copies of CARDINAL of the abovementioned statements to the ORG concerning alleged irregularities in ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . Some examples of those statements are summarised below .","CARDINAL observers in FAC no . CARDINAL claimed to have witnessed an incident of ballot - box stuffing by CARDINAL ORG members . They noted that , although CARDINAL voters had been counted throughout DATE , a total of CARDINAL ballots had been found in the ballot box and officially counted .","Three observers in Polling Station no . CARDINAL witnessed an incident where the ORG chairman had given a stack of several pre - marked ballots to a voter , who then accidentally dropped them on the floor near the ballot box . Despite this , the ballots were gathered up and put into the ballot box in plain view of all those present . In a separate statement , the same CARDINAL observers noted CARDINAL other incidents of similar ballot - box stuffing allegedly initiated by the ORG chairman .","CARDINAL observers in FAC no . CARDINAL noted that , although a total of only CARDINAL voters had been counted throughout DATE , the number of ballots found inside the ballot box at DATE had exceeded CARDINAL .","CARDINAL consultative member of the ORG and CARDINAL observers in FAC no . CARDINAL noted that they had been prevented from standing at a place where they could observe , in an unobstructed manner , the checking of voters\u2019 forefingers for election ink . This had presumably been done by persons in charge in the precinct ,","CARDINAL observers in FAC no . CARDINAL noted that , although a total of only CARDINAL voters had been counted throughout DATE , CARDINAL ballots had been found in the ballot box . The ballot box contained clumps of ballots , suggesting that ballot - box stuffing had taken place .","Observers in a number of other polling stations had also noted similarly significant differences between the numbers of ballots in the ballot boxes and the numbers of voters who had been observed casting votes throughout DATE .","According to the applicants , they did not receive any reply from the ConEC and their complaint had been examined by the ORG only .","On DATE the ORG extended the statutory DATE period for examining the complaint for an indefinite period of time , noting that \u201c additional enquiries \u201d were required .","On DATE , GPE , the member of the ORG \u2019s expert group who had been charged with dealing with the complaint delivered his opinion , stating that the complaint should be dismissed as unsubstantiated .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the text of which was essentially a repetition of the opinion delivered by the expert GPE , the ORG dismissed the ORG complaint as unsubstantiated . It appears that the applicants were not present at the ORG hearing .","In its decision , the ORG noted that the applicants should first have taken their complaints to the relevant PECs . They could then have appealed against the decisions of the various PECs to the CARDINAL , and only then should they have complained to the ORG , whereas \u2012 in breach of the above procedure \u2012 they had applied directly to the ORG . The ORG nevertheless decided to examine the complaint on the merits .","As to the merits of the complaint , the ORG found , in particular , that \u201c the majority of the ORG statements [ as submitted by the applicants ] were of a general character and did not reflect the principle that an observation must be based on fact \u201d . It furthermore found that a number of the statements contained an assessment of the alleged irregularity based solely on ORG \u201c subjective opinions \u201d . As an example of this , the ORG mentioned the statement of CARDINAL observers from ORG no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Furthermore , the ORG noted that the information in the ORG statements which the applicants submitted \u2012 of which there were CARDINAL \u2012 was refuted by the statements of CARDINAL other observers from \u201c all CARDINAL polling stations \u201d who had not registered any breaches of electoral law that could affect the election results . According to the ORG , some of those observers represented the opposition . In particular , the ORG mentioned the names of a number of observers from ORG . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE who , according to the ORG , \u201c had confirmed that no breaches of the electoral legislation had been observed \u201d . Moreover , the ORG noted that ORG members in all the polling stations had stated that , on DATE , they had not received any statements or complaints by any observer or candidate concerning any election irregularities and that the election process in their respective polling stations had been lawful and conducted under adequate conditions .","In conclusion , the ORG found that the examination of the written evidence refuted the allegations made by the applicants and that no grounds for invalidating the election results could be established .","On DATE the applicants , together with CARDINAL other candidate , lodged an appeal against the ORG decision with ORG . In the appeal , they reiterated the complaints made to the ORG about the alleged irregularities on DATE . They also complained that \u2012 contrary to the requirements of LAW of LAW \u2012 their presence at the ORG hearing had not been ensured and that the ORG had deliberately not investigated the serious allegations of electoral fraud and irregularities .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal , mostly reiterating the ORG \u2019s reasoning . In particular , it noted that the applicants and their observers had not immediately complained of the alleged irregularities directly to the relevant PECs on DATE . It furthermore found that the ORG had properly investigated the allegations and had found that they had been refuted by a number of other observers representing various political parties , including opposition parties , who had stated that no serious irregularities had taken place in any polling station .","A copy of ORG judgment was made available to the applicants on DATE .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG had sent its final election results record and other relevant documents for review and final approval by ORG . On DATE ORG confirmed the country - wide election results , including the election results in the applicants\u2019 constituency , as final .","On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG against ORG judgment . They reiterated the complaints and arguments raised before the ORG and ORG . They also complained of the following :","( a ) as to the ORG \u2019s and the appellate court \u2019s remark that the irregularities allegedly observed on DATE had not been communicated to the PECs immediately on DATE , the applicants noted that it had been precisely the conduct of the PECs \u2012 which had created a hostile environment for opposition observers and had themselves been largely responsible for those irregularities \u2012 that had made it impossible or difficult for the applicants and their observers to attempt to deal with the irregularities at the ORG level ;","( b ) NORP both the ORG and ORG had given more weight to the statements of pro - Government observers , which had assessed the election process positively , than to those of the applicants\u2019 observers . The ORG and ORG did not explain the reasons for doing so . Moreover , while the ORG noted that positive statements about the conduct of the election had been made even by some observers from opposition parties , the applicants claimed the ORG had simply fabricated the existence of such statements by purported pro - opposition observers .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , agreeing with the lower court \u2019s reasoning . It also added that the ORG appeal and ORG judgment had to be assessed in the light of LAW of the PERSON on ORG , which stated that ORG decisions were final and could not be subject to quashing , amendment or official interpretation by any authority or person . In this regard , ORG reasoned as follows :","\u201c The results of the [ parliamentary ] elections of DATE were recognised as valid by [ the ORG \u2019s ] election results record of CARDINAL DATE and the candidates elected as members of parliament from all CARDINAL electoral constituencies were determined .","The aforementioned results record was approved by the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , and [ on the same date ] the final election results record , together with the [ ConEC ] results records and additional documents , were submitted to ORG for verification and approval of the election results .","By a decision of the ORG of ORG on the results of the [ parliamentary ] elections of DATE ... , dated DATE , the ORG \u2019s final results record of CARDINAL DATE was deemed compliant with the requirements of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of GPE , and the election results concerning CARDINAL electoral constituencies , including ORG no . CARDINAL , were approved , that decision becoming final at the moment of its delivery .","It follows from that decision that ORG did not establish any circumstances that may have taken place during the voting or the determination of the election results that could have prevented the establishing of the will of the voters in ORG no . CARDINAL .","Taking into account the fact that the aforementioned decision [ of ORG ] is final and not subject to quashing , amendment or official interpretation by any authority or person , the court considers that the judgment of the appellate court [ dismissing the ORG complaints ] must be upheld . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179884","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BARTKUS AND KULIKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive obligations)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE and the second applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","NORP In DATE the first applicant bought a house at an auction organised by the ORG and registered his property rights in ORG . At the time , the former owners of the house , GPE and his wife PERSON , were living there . The auction was organised as a result of a debt of GPE","NORP In DATE the first applicant lodged a claim with the court , asking to evict GPE and PERSON and for an award in respect of pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG held that the first applicant was the lawful owner of the house and that GPE and PERSON were unlawfully occupying the LOC . The court held that GPE and PERSON had to be evicted and decided to award the applicant CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) for DATE from DATE until the eviction of GPE and PERSON from the house . It appears that by DATE ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been recovered from GPE and PERSON and paid to the first and the second applicants , the remaining amount to be paid being ORG CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution and on DATE it was received by the bailiff \u2019s office .","On DATE the bailiff sent a letter to GPE and PERSON and asked them to vacate the house , the letter was received by GPE on DATE .","In DATE PERSON lodged a complaint against the bailiff but on DATE ORG dismissed it . PERSON then lodged a separate complaint which was also dismissed by ORG on DATE .","NORP In DATE the first applicant asked the bailiff to ensure that the police were present during the forced eviction ; to ensure that the access to the house was not impeded by the dog ; the first applicant also asked the bailiff to get the information from ORG because GPE claimed that his minor granddaughter had been living in the house . The first applicant also asked the police to oblige the residents of the house to terminate their unlawful actions ; to oblige them to remove their dog from the area ; to warn the unlawful residents of the house of their responsibility for material damage and to fine them .","NORP In DATE the bailiff asked the authorities about the permanent place of residence of GPE \u2019s granddaughter . The authorities stated that GPE \u2019s daughter and granddaughter were living together in GPE . This was later confirmed by PERSON \u2019s daughter herself .","On DATE the bailiff informed GPE and PERSON that the eviction would take place on DATE . On DATE PERSON asked the bailiff to suspend the eviction because PERSON was ill . At first the bailiff refused to suspend the enforcement action but on DATE , after having received medical documents about PERSON \u2019s state of health , he postponed the eviction until DATE .","On DATE PERSON lodged a complaint against the bailiff , also asking the court to apply interim measures \u2013 to suspend the eviction proceedings owing to ORG illness and the presence of his minor granddaughter in the house . On DATE the ORG decided to apply interim measures and to suspend the eviction proceedings until the complaint against the bailiff was examined .","The complaint against the bailiff was examined on DATE by ORG , which decided to dismiss PERSON \u2019s complaint . The court held that the writ of execution had been issued on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that the bailiff had urged GPE and PERSON to vacate the house before CARDINAL DATE ; thus he had given them DATE . The court further held that GPE had complained about the bailiff \u2019s eviction notice about the forced eviction but had also asked that the execution proceedings be suspended and the eviction postponed . The court held that GPE had already asked the bailiff to suspend the eviction but the bailiff had refused to satisfy this request . The court also stated that PERSON had complained about the bailiff \u2019s eviction notice of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The bailiff had informed the animal shelter , the police and ORG ; he had thus acted in accordance with domestic law . The court decided to annul the interim measures applied by the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Z.B. submitted a separate complaint against the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , complaining that the court had made a purely formalistic assessment of his minor granddaughter \u2019s living arrangements in the house and that it had not commented on the fact that the bailiff had ignored his wife \u2019s illness . On DATE ORG held that the illness of PERSON had not come on suddenly , that there were no minors living in the house and that there were no grounds to suspend the execution of the eviction order .","The bailiff submitted a separate complaint against the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG dismissed the bailiff \u2019s complaint holding that PERSON \u2019s illness had been grounds to suspend the eviction proceedings .","On DATE the bailiff informed GPE and PERSON that the eviction would take place on DATE . On that day PERSON stated that his mother was living in the house and , because she was not on the list of persons who could be evicted , the eviction could not take place . The bailiff decided to suspend the eviction .","On DATE lodged a complaint with the court , stating that the bailiff \u2019s actions had been arbitrary and asking to remove him from the case . This complaint was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant complained to the bailiff about the latter \u2019s inactivity on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The first applicant claimed that the bailiff had to enter the house and evict PERSON and PERSON by force and that GPE \u2019s mother had to be taken care of by the police or other relevant authorities .","On CARDINAL DATE the bailiff decided not to satisfy the first applicant \u2019s complaint . The bailiff held that he could only evict those persons that were listed on the writ of execution , and GPE \u2019s mother was not CARDINAL of them . The bailiff agreed with the first applicant that GPE had been avoiding the eviction but stated that he had tried to defend the first applicant \u2019s interests by suggesting to the latter to apply to ORG so that it broadened the list of persons to be evicted .","The first applicant then lodged a complaint before ORG , complaining about the bailiff \u2019s inactivity .","On DATE the first applicant sold the house to the second applicant .","Consequently , on DATE ORG replaced the first applicant with the second applicant in the proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG satisfied the second applicant \u2019s complaint . The court held that when the execution actions had been protracted , the interests of a creditor had been breached , and thus the main role in the execution proceedings had been played by the bailiff . Only the persons listed on the writ of execution could be evicted , and any other persons were considered to be only temporarily present and had to immediately leave the LOC . Only the court and not the bailiff could postpone the eviction . The court held that the bailiff had failed to perform the execution of the eviction properly and that he had had no grounds to suspend or postpone the execution . The court thus annulled the bailiff \u2019s order of DATE to suspend the eviction and the order of CARDINAL DATE by which the bailiff dismissed the first applicant \u2019s complaint ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .","Z.B. submitted a separate complaint . On DATE ORG dismissed it .","On DATE the bailiff issued an order for forced eviction .","On DATE the forced eviction took place , with the participation of the bailiff , the locksmith and CARDINAL police officers . However , GPE and PERSON did not participate in it and when the second applicant entered the house , all their furniture and other belongings were still there . DATE , the bailiff drew up a document by which the second applicant was assigned as the property manager of the goods that had been left in the house and that had been seized .","NORP In DATE PERSON lodged a complaint against the bailiff regarding the forced eviction . On DATE ORG held that the eviction had been lawful and that the bailiff had acted in accordance with domestic law .","Z.B. submitted a separate complaint , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","The Government submitted that on DATE the bailiff ordered GPE and PERSON to collect their goods that had not been seized ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) from the house on DATE at the latest . As this order had not been executed , on DATE the bailiff issued a property - seizure order with the aim of selling the goods off .","Z.B. and ORG lodged a complaint in respect of the bailiff \u2019s decision to issue the property - seizure order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed their complaint , holding that in accordance with domestic law the evicted person had to take his or her property . If he or she failed to collect the property within DATE from the date when it had been transferred to the property manager , it could be sold and the income given to the debtor . In the present case , the second applicant had become the property manager on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the property seizure act had been drawn up on DATE , and the property had to be taken by GPE and PERSON before DATE . After this date the sale of the property would become lawful .","On DATE and DATE the bailiff announced a public auction concerning the movable property of GPE and PERSON It was also suggested to the NORP representative that they could approach the second applicant and take back their property that had not been seized .","Z.B. applied to ORG to have interim measures applied to prevent the bailiff from selling their movable property . PERSON explained that he wanted either to lodge a complaint against the bailiff in accordance with the out - of - court settlement procedure or to lodge a claim with the court . GPE \u2019s application was accepted by ORG on DATE . PERSON was also instructed to lodge any such complaint against the bailiff under the out - of - court settlement procedure or a claim with the court before the deadline of DATE and to pay the applicable court fees . According to the Government , GPE failed to pay the court fees , and the interim measures were therefore annulled on DATE .","On DATE ORG rejected another complaint lodged by GPE against the bailiff , the second applicant and third parties regarding the annulment of the negative consequences caused by the unlawful actions of the bailiff and compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The court stated that PERSON had asked it to rule that some personal belongings could not be sold at auction . The court held that GPE and PERSON had not taken advantage of the opportunity to name buyers who might have had an interest in taking part in the auction that had been subsequently carried out . PERSON had failed to explain why he had not taken his belongings within the threemonth time - limit ; moreover , he had not even provided a description of his alleged personal belongings . The court therefore dismissed PERSON \u2019s complaint .","On DATE PERSON lodged an application for interim measures , asking to prohibit the use of the house and other buildings in the garden and complaining of the result of the auction DATE the first applicant purchasing the house ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) DATE and asking for the result of the auction and the purchase agreement to be annulled .","On DATE this application was dismissed by ORG and on DATE by ORG .","G.B. lodged another application for interim measures , complaining of the results of the auction . Her application for interim measures was dismissed by ORG on DATE and her complaint about the result of the auction was dismissed by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166746","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GRABOVOY AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169654","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF LINDSTRAND PARTNERS ADVOKATBYR\u00c5 AB v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for home);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for home;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johan Hirschfeldt;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["From DATE ORG ( Skatteverket ) conducted audits of value - added tax , ORG social security contributions ( arbetsgivaravgifter ) and income tax at the CARDINAL NORP companies ORG , ORG ( \u201c SNS \u201d ) and ORG . The audit covered DATE . On DATE ORG applied to ORG ( l\u00e4nsr\u00e4tten ) in GPE for permission to take coercive measures in respect of SNS under section CARDINAL of GPE ( NORP om s\u00e4rskilda tv\u00e5ngs\u00e5tg\u00e4rder i beskattningsf\u00f6rfarandet , DATE hereafter \u201c LAW \u201d ) , in particular the search and seizure of certain documents and other material .","ORG application contained detailed information on what it had been able to establish in regard to the above - mentioned companies during the audits . The ORG stated that it suspected that significant amounts of money had been withheld from NORP taxation through irregular transactions between ORG and a NORP company . According to the ORG , the latter company had been established solely in order to evade taxes on some of the business profits in the above - mentioned NORP companies . While it was considered highly likely that the persons owning or having a decisive influence in the NORP companies , including a Mr Toivo Jurik , were also running the NORP company , it had proved impossible to obtain information on ownership and control of the latter company from the persons involved , who claimed that they had no knowledge of these matters . After Mr Jurik had been shown an extract of the NORP company register , where he was listed as an executive , he had admitted that he and another person involved in the NORP companies had been present at the establishment of the NORP company but that he was listed as an executive only for formal reasons . The other person mentioned had since stated that he would not assist ORG any further in the audit . The Agency therefore considered that it could not continue to investigate the ownership issue and the accuracy of certain business costs unless it obtained access to documents that showed the NORP company \u2019s relationship to the NORP companies and their owners and leaders as well as the NORP company \u2019s role in the business activities . In the ORG \u2019s view , there were no alternative means of review .","Not considering it appropriate to order SNS to provide the required documents , ORG further requested that the application for coercive measures should not be communicated to the company and that it should not be notified of the court \u2019s decision before the measures had been undertaken , as there was a risk that the documents to be searched and seized could be withheld or destroyed .","As SNS had recently been liquidated and had not had its own business LOC , the requested search should be made at CARDINAL addresses connected to Mr Jurik , who had been responsible for the bookkeeping in all CARDINAL audited companies and was also representing ORG in its contacts with ORG , and therefore could be expected to be in possession of the required documentation . Thus , the search should start at the registered premises of the parent company , ORG ( \u201c Draupner \u201d ) , at the address ORG gata CARDINAL , GPE . This was a flat which , in addition to being owned by PERSON and serving as its registered address , was rented by Mr PERSON and used as a pied - \u00e0 - terre . PERSON was owned by Mr Jurik \u2019s children but was represented and run by Mr Jurik himself . If the necessary documents were not found at the first address , the search should continue at the office of Mr Jurik at the applicant law firm ( whose name at the time was PERSON ) , at the address GPE CARDINAL , GPE .","By a judgment of DATE ORG granted ORG application and ordered that the judgment was immediately enforceable . Agreeing with ORG , the court considered that there was a substantial risk that documents could be withheld , corrupted or destroyed and that , having regard to Mr Jurik \u2019s connection with ORG and the CARDINAL addresses in question , there was good reason to assume that the documents relevant to the audit of ORG were to be found at those addresses . While a search and seizure undertaken at a location different from the audited party \u2019s business LOC involved a particular encroachment on rights of integrity , the court found that , in the case at hand , the importance of the measures outweighed the intrusion caused .","The search of the CARDINAL designated LOC took place on DATE and was conducted by officials of ORG ( kronofogdemyndigheten ) in GPE and several auditors of ORG . The flat was searched first . Present were Mr PERSON , a lawyer of the applicant law firm , representing Mr Jurik ( who was at the time in GPE ) , and DATE towards the end of the search \u2013 Mr PERSON , who , as an associate of the law firm , had been the liquidator of ORG and who was also the designated person to be served writs on behalf of PERSON in GPE . According to TIME of the proceedings , drawn up by CARDINAL of the officers of ORG , the persons present were reminded of the possibility to request exemption of documents .","During the search of the flat , material of interest that belonged to PERSON was found . Since PERSON had been involved in transactions connected with the activities of ORG , a decision to audit the company was taken on site by the audit manager of ORG . She also took an interim decision to use coercive measures against PERSON , in accordance with LAW . It was decided to search for and seize material relating to the audit of PERSON both at the flat and at the applicant law firm . In the latter respect , the decision referred to the fact that not only Mr Jurik but also Mr PERSON had offices there .","The need for an immediate decision and enforcement was explained by the substantial risk of corruption of material . The decision referred to sections CARDINAL of LAW and to ORG judgment of DATE .","At the flat CARDINAL files with accounting material , an external hard disk drive and a torn document were seized and the hard disk drive of a computer as well as a ORG memory stick were copied ( mirrored ) . This was specified in a report drawn up and submitted to the parties concerned DATE by ORG .","The LOC of the applicant law firm \u2013 that is , the offices of Mr Jurik and Mr PERSON DATE were searched thereafter , again in the presence of PERSON and PERSON . Attending was also a legal representative whom the applicant had appointed . The issue of possible exemption of documents was discussed and the representative was given a list of the officers attending . Cupboards , shelves and computers in the CARDINAL offices were searched and a safe was opened by PERSON , all monitored by the applicant \u2019s representative . However , no material of relevance was found on the LOC . At the end of the proceedings , the applicant \u2019s representative requested that the external hard disk drive and the ORG memory stick DATE seized and copied , respectively , at the flat DATE be exempted from the audit .","The applicant and SNS appealed against ORG judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG ( kammarr\u00e4tten ) in GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and struck out the case in so far as it concerned SNS . In regard to the applicant , it stated that , while the appealed judgment did indeed allow the use of coercive measures on the premises of the applicant law firm , the reason for this was not that the law firm was the subject of the measures but that it could be assumed that documents relevant to the audit of SNS would be found there . In these circumstances , the appellate court concluded that the applicant was not affected by the appealed judgment in such a way that it was entitled to appeal against it . With respect to SNS , the court considered that , as the coercive measures had already been enforced , it did not have a justified interest in having them examined by a second judicial instance .","By a decision of DATE ORG ( Regeringsr\u00e4tten ) refused the applicant and SNS leave to appeal . On DATE the court dismissed an appeal in the same matter lodged by Mr Jurik , noting that he had not previously been a party to the case and could not therefore join the proceedings at the level of ORG .","ORG interim decision of DATE to use coercive measures against PERSON was referred to ORG , which received it on DATE , the following DATE . The ORG stated as reasons for its decision that PERSON had had transactions connected to ORG , its subsidiary company , that there had been special reasons to search for material at the applicant law firm CARDINAL of PERSON \u2019s representatives , PERSON and PERSON , had offices there and that the risk of corruption of material was acute in view of the fact that , during the ongoing enforcement , it had become apparent to persons involved which transactions and connected documents were to be examined . PERSON requested that the decision be quashed , referring , inter alia , to attorney - client privilege pertaining to its representatives . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the interim decision was confirmed by the court , which found that the seizure of the documents at issue had been justified . The court further considered that there was a substantial risk that the documents would be withheld , corrupted or destroyed if they were returned .","Draupner and PERSON appealed to ORG . On DATE the court struck out PERSON \u2019s appeal and dismissed that of PERSON . As in the similar case concerning SNS ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court took into account that the coercive measures had already been enforced and considered therefore that PERSON did not have a justified interest in having them examined by a second judicial instance . In regard to Mr Jurik , it was noted that he had not been a party to the case at the lower court .","On DATE ORG refused PERSON leave to appeal .","Draupner also appealed against ORG decision of DATE to conduct an audit . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal because , in accordance with LAW , LAW ORG ; CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , no appeal lay against such a decision . This determination was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision to dismiss the appeal and ORG judgment and referred the case back to ORG . The appellate court found that ORG had lacked a legal basis for its decision ; instead of dismissing PERSON \u2019s appeal , it should have submitted it to ORG for determination .","After a new examination of the case , ORG dismissed the appeal in a decision of DATE , finding that no appeal lay against a decision to conduct a tax audit and that LAW was not applicable to such a decision . In addition , it noted that , while the audit decision itself did not involve any harm to PERSON , possible detriment caused by the audit procedure could be removed or mitigated through a request for the exemption of documents from the audit . Such a request was at the time already under examination by the court ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG rejected PERSON \u2019s further appeal , agreeing with the lower court \u2019s assessment .","By a letter dated DATE , DATE of the search of the flat and the law office , and received by ORG on DATE , the applicant requested that those parts of the material seized and copied at the flat that could concern the law firm be exempted from the audit . It mentioned , in particular , the external hard disk drive and the ORG memory stick . Noting that both SNS and PERSON were clients of the law firm , the applicant argued that the material it sought to have exempted was protected by attorney - client privilege .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the request , finding that the applicant lacked legal standing in the matter . It noted that the material had been seized from PERSON and was therefore not under the applicant \u2019s right of disposition .","The applicant appealed to ORG , demanding that all seized and copied material except for the files with accounting material be exempted . It also requested that an oral hearing be held on the question of its legal standing in the matter . Mr Jurik joined the applicant \u2019s appeal .","On DATE ORG refused the request for an oral hearing , finding it unnecessary .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and agreed with the lower court that the applicant did not have legal standing concerning the requested exemption of documents , as the coercive measures had not been directed against the law firm . Mr Jurik \u2019s appeal was dismissed , as he had not been a party to the case at the lower court .","The applicant made a further appeal , stating , among other things , that ORG original interim decision of DATE concerning PERSON and ORG judgment of DATE confirming that decision had been directed against the law firm because they allowed a search in the firm \u2019s offices . Moreover , the coercive measures employed had led to the seizure of material which allegedly belonged to the applicant and could contain information covered by attorney - client privilege . In the latter respect , the applicant claimed that the external hard disk drive and the ORG memory stick had been used by its associate lawyer PERSON in his work for the firm .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","In the decision of ORG of DATE not to hold an oral hearing ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) CARDINAL judges participated , CARDINAL of whom was a co - opted member ( adjungerad ledamot ) . She was also a civil servant at ORG , albeit formally on leave of absence while temporarily serving with the court . ORG being the opposing party , the applicant challenged her impartiality and called for her disqualification from the case .","On DATE ORG , sitting in a different formation , rejected the objection , noting that the co - opted member was on leave from her post at ORG .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , which had regard to GPE case - law , rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal , declaring that the objection had not been justified . It considered that the issue of objective impartiality had to be examined in light of the individual character of the case at hand . In this respect , it noted that the co - opted member \u2019s tasks at ORG had concerned activities of a different type than those relevant in the case and had been performed in a different part of the country . Furthermore , she was CARDINAL of CARDINAL judges participating in the decision in question , which had concerned a request for an oral hearing . She had not participated in the judgment on the merits of the case .","Draupner , represented by PERSON , requested that all material seized or copied during the audit be exempted , in particular because it contained information protected by attorney - client privilege pertaining to the applicant law firm and its clients .","On DATE ORG rejected the request . It stated that PERSON was the subject of a tax audit and that all electronic or paper documents linked to the company \u2019s business found on its premises should be considered as belonging to it and being eligible for examination in the audit . The court noted that the company register listed Mr Jurik as a board member and signatory of PERSON . Furthermore , the available evidence in the case showed that he was the representative of the company and that the flat where the search and seizure had taken place constituted the company \u2019s business LOC . As the documents at issue had been found at that flat , they should be considered to belong to PERSON , concern its business and , as a rule , be included in the audit . While the coercive measures used could not therefore be considered to have contravened LAW or the LAW , the question remained whether there were reasons to exempt some or all of the material . Noting that the burden of proof rested with the audited party , the court considered that the company had not demonstrated that the documents were covered by any of the exemptions under LAW .","Upon PERSON \u2019s appeal , ORG , on CARDINAL DATE , decided to quash ORG judgment and refer the case back to that court . The appellate court found that the lower court had not examined the contents of all the documents , which was a requirement for the assessment of the question of exemption .","ORG then directed PERSON to specify its request in greater detail , which the company did . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court rejected the company \u2019s requests for an oral hearing and an inspection of the flat but granted that a few seized documents be exempted from examination by ORG , as they were considered to be Mr Jurik \u2019s private documents . It further considered that deleted files , which were readable only after reconstruction , could not be the object of a seizure under LAW and could therefore neither be exempted nor used by ORG .","Draupner and ORG appealed . PERSON agreed that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL files seized on DATE could be handed over to ORG for examination , following which the request for exemption concerned the remaining material seized and copied on DATE . ORG requested that it be allowed to examine deleted and reconstructed data files .","On DATE ORG rejected PERSON \u2019s appeal , but granted that of ORG . PERSON \u2019s procedural requests for an oral hearing and an inspection were rejected , but the court held a preparatory meeting with the parties to determine the continued proceedings in the case , notably the method for examining the disputed material . The court found that , due to the extremely extensive data material CARDINAL files and DATE , it was impossible to examine each and every data file , and ORG was therefore instructed to list the documents and files it considered as part of its examination after which PERSON would have an opportunity to lodge a new request for exemption . The appellate court agreed with ORG assessments that the material , including the hard disk drive and the ORG memory stick , had been seized on ORG \u2019s business premises , that there was , accordingly , a presumption that it was included in the audit and eligible for ORG examination and that the burden of proof for exemptions rested with the company , even though a modest level of evidence was sufficient . With regard to Draupner\u2019","On DATE ORG refused PERSON leave to appeal .","After ORG had listed the documents and files it wished to examine , PERSON made a new application for exemption of documents which was partially approved by ORG on DATE in regard to some documents which were considered to be of a private nature . However , none of the documents for which exemption had been requested were found to have such content that attorney - client privilege applied .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( now ORG f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) refused PERSON leave to appeal .","The applicant and PERSON made a complaint to ORG ( PERSON ) against the handling of the case by ORG , ORG and ORG and assessments made by these instances . On DATE the ORG found no reason to take action .","The applicant also petitioned for a re - opening of ORG decision of DATE not to grant leave to appeal in the case concerning the applicant \u2019s request for exemption of documents . This petition was rejected by ORG on DATE .","The audits concerning ORG and PERSON were eventually discontinued and no taxation decisions were taken on the basis of the audits . All documents were returned to PERSON . Like ORG , PERSON has since been liquidated ."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170452","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LIATUKAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s mother passed away . At the time of her death , her estate consisted of an apartment , a car , and cash savings of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) . In her will she left CARDINAL of the apartment to the applicant \u2019s niece and the remaining property to the applicant and his sister in equal parts . On DATE the applicant renounced his part of the inheritance ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In DATE V.L. brought a claim against the applicant before ORG . PERSON submitted that the applicant owed her LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in maintenance payments for their son which he had not paid because he had been insolvent . PERSON argued that by renouncing his part of the inheritance the applicant had violated her rights as a creditor because the inherited property could have been used to cover the applicant \u2019s debt . V.L. therefore invoked LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and asked the court to annul the renouncement as being contrary to the interests of the applicant \u2019s creditors . She also asked the court to recognise that the applicant had de facto accepted the inheritance because he had been using his mother \u2019s estate since her death ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP In DATE a similar claim under LAW was brought by PERSON She submitted that the applicant had been under an obligation to pay her maintenance and that he owed her LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . PERSON asked the court to annul the applicant \u2019s renouncement of the inheritance and to recognise that he had de facto accepted it . In DATE ORG decided to examine ORG and ORG claims together .","ORG held an oral hearing on DATE in which the applicant and both claimants were present . The applicant argued that he had renounced his part of the inheritance for the benefit of his sister who had paid all the expenses of their mother \u2019s funeral . The applicant also submitted that his sister and niece had accepted the entire inheritance and that he had not used any of the property belonging to his late mother \u2019s estate .","On DATE the ORG partly upheld ORG and ORG claims . It held that the applicant had acted in bad faith by renouncing the inheritance while being insolvent and owing money to the claimants . Accordingly , the court annulled the renouncement on the grounds that it violated the interests of the applicant \u2019s creditors ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , the court held that there was insufficient evidence to find that the applicant had de facto accepted the inheritance and dismissed that part of the claim .","The applicant appealed against that judgment . ORG also appealed but ORG refused to accept her appeal for examination because of formal deficiencies \u2013 PERSON had asked to be completely exempted from paying court fees on the grounds that she was disabled and had a low income , but domestic law allowed only for partial exemptions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON was given DATE to correct the deficiencies in her appeal . On DATE ORG held that PERSON had not submitted a corrected appeal within that time - limit so it considered that she had not appealed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , on DATE ORG referred both the applicant \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s appeals to ORG .","On DATE the applicant received notice from ORG that the civil case and both his and ORG appeals had been referred to ORG , and he was asked to submit a reply to PERSON \u2019s appeal within DATE . However , a copy of ORG appeal was not enclosed . The applicant sent a letter to ORG requesting a copy of the appeal . He received it on DATE and submitted a reply on DATE .","Subsequently the applicant asked ORG to proceed with the examination of the case in his absence \u2013 the applicant stated that he had presented all his arguments in his appeal and in his reply to PERSON \u2019s appeal and had nothing else to add . On DATE ORG held an oral hearing from which the applicant and PERSON were absent but where ORG lawyer was present .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld PERSON \u2019s appeal . The court upheld the findings of the first - instance judgment that the applicant had acted in bad faith by renouncing the inheritance while being insolvent and owing money to his creditors ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG also found that since his mother \u2019s death the applicant had been using the car previously owned by her and on that basis the court concluded that the applicant had de facto accepted the inheritance ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant submitted an appeal on points of law but on DATE ORG refused to examine it as raising no important legal questions .","In DATE PERSON brought a new claim against the applicant and his sister . PERSON submitted that although the court in previous proceedings had acknowledged that the applicant had de facto accepted the inheritance ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant had not formally completed that acceptance and his sister had remained the official heir to their mother \u2019s estate . PERSON asked the court to annul the applicant \u2019s sister \u2019s rights to CARDINAL of the inheritance and to recognise the applicant \u2019s rights to that property .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s claim . The court found that the total value of the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s estate ( the car and the savings ) had been LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , and that the applicant \u2019s sister had spent LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) on their mother \u2019s funeral . In line with domestic law , an heir had the right to cover funeral expenses from a deceased person \u2019s estate before formally accepting the inheritance ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On that basis , ORG held that the applicant \u2019s sister had not inherited any property which could have been used to cover the applicant \u2019s debt to ORG , and thus there were no legal grounds to satisfy ORG claim . That judgment was not appealed against and became final .","In DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to ORG concerning the judge of ORG who had examined the civil case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He complained that the judge had acted in abuse of office by referring PERSON \u2019s appeal to ORG because that appeal had not been submitted in accordance with procedural rules ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . It held that although the judge had been \u201c insufficiently attentive \u201d and had referred ORG appeal to ORG by mistake , that mistake had not been so grave as to constitute abuse of office .","In DATE the applicant petitioned ORG to investigate the actions of the judges of ORG and ORG . On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office denied the applicant \u2019s request on the grounds that no crime appeared to have been committed . The prosecutor \u2019s decision was subsequently upheld by the courts ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183370","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BOTNARI v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by police office and charged with fraud and forgery of official documents . She was placed in the detention centre of ORG ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) .","According to the applicant , she was held there in an underground cell which offered substandard conditions of detention .","The applicant further submitted that she was transferred to Prison no . CARDINAL , where she was detained in a cell with QUANTITY other inmates and was subjected to passive smoking . She was not provided with bedding and was not able to sleep normally . The cell was infested with vermin and the food was of a very poor quality .","According to the ORG , the applicant was transferred from the detention facility of ORG no . CARDINAL on DATE . On DATE she was released from detention and was placed under house arrest . On DATE , after having been declared a wanted person , the applicant was again arrested and again placed in detention in Prison no . CARDINAL . On DATE she was released from prison and was placed under house arrest . On DATE the applicant was again placed in detention in Prison no . CARDINAL . On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The case was pending before ORG at the time of the parties\u2019 observations .","According to the ORG , during her detention in Prison no . CARDINAL after DATE the applicant was held in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , each designed to hold CARDINAL detainees and measuring QUANTITY m , and in cell no . CARDINAL designed to hold CARDINAL detainees and measuring QUANTITY m. Cell no . CARDINAL was lit by a CARDINAL-W bulb and had a window , as well as a tap and a toilet separated from the rest of the cell by a partition . All the cells were regularly disinfected .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with non - Hodgkin lymphoma ( \u201c NHL \u201d \u2013 a type of blood cancer ) . This disease affected her spleen , bone marrow and lymph nodes . She was also diagnosed with chronic hepatitis .","According to the applicant , while being detained in the detention facility of the ORG , her medical treatment was interrupted and the PERSON administration refused to transfer her to a hospital . After she had been transferred to Prison no . CARDINAL , she was not provided the medical assistance required for her condition .","According to the applicant , while in detention , her state of health deteriorated . In both detention facilities there was no specialist oncologist and chemotherapy was unavailable . The applicant undertook her last chemotherapy session in a specialist civilian hospital in DATE while under house arrest . Following an enquiry lodged in DATE by the applicant \u2019s lawyer about the medical care received by the applicant while in detention , ORG replied on DATE that she had been registered as an oncology patient since DATE and had been provided with medical treatment in line with her diagnosis .","According to CARDINAL extracts from the applicant \u2019s medical records dated DATE and DATE and signed by the head and the deputy head of the medical unit of Prison no . CARDINAL , the applicant was in need of specific medical treatment from ORG and her medical condition was qualified as being of medium seriousness .","The Government submitted that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant had refused on several occasions to be hospitalised either in the prison hospital ( Prison no . CARDINAL ) or in the medical section of Prison no . CARDINAL . On CARDINAL occasions the applicant had refused to undergo inpatient treatment at ORG , which was a specialist civilian hospital . The applicant had been examined on several occasions by a therapist and a haematologist and given medical treatment . DATE , ORG concluded a service contract , with a budget amounting to CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL \u2013 approximately QUANTITY ( EUR ) ) , with ORG . Accordingly , specific types of treatment such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy were available ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157538","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KORO\u0160EC v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He suffers from progressive spinal muscular atrophy and needs TIME assistance with all his DATE activities .","In DATE the Pensions and ORG of GPE ( \u201c the Institute \u201d ) awarded the applicant an assistance and attendance allowance ( hereinafter \u201c the allowance \u201d ) of PERCENT of the reference amount .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s general practitioner applied for an increase in the allowance due to the applicant \u2019s worsening condition , referring in particular to the deterioration of the applicant \u2019s respiratory functions . In the application the general practitioner indicated that the applicant needed TIME assistance by a family member or a lay care assistant , along with permanent professional assistance . At that time the applicant organised his care by hiring students to assist him in his DATE activities and to provide the necessary aid . He also relied significantly on the assistance of his family members .","On DATE the first - instance disability commission of ORG ( \u201c the commission \u201d ) reported that the applicant did not need permanent , professional , medical assistance . The commission was composed of PERSON , an internal medicine specialist , and ORG , an occupational medicine specialist . It gave its opinion on the basis of an examination of the medical documentation provided by the applicant , specifically opinions of a doctor of internal medicine , a pulmonologist and a clinical neurologist . They also examined the applicant .","On DATE , the GPE unit of ORG , relying on the opinion of the commission , dismissed the request for an increase in the allowance .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal .","On DATE the second - instance disability commission ( \u201c the second - instance commission \u201d ) of the ORG examined the applicant \u2019s file and again reported that he did not need permanent professional assistance and that he could be cared for by a combination of care assistants without specific medical knowledge and by members of his family . The second - instance commission was composed of PERSON , an occupational medicine specialist , and PERSON , a specialist neuropsychiatrist .","On DATE the ORG , referring to the conclusions of the second - instance commission , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The ORG further referred to the DATE Decision on Assistance and Attendance Allowance for Beneficiaries Suffering from a Severe Disability ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , according to which beneficiaries were only entitled to a higher allowance if they were in need of CARDINAL assistance by family members and further professional medical assistance .","On DATE the applicant instituted court proceedings against ORG , requesting the appointment of an independent expert to examine his medical file .","On DATE ORG heard the applicant \u2019s testimony and reviewed the case file . Subsequently it dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The court rejected the applicant \u2019s request for the input of an independent expert , concluding that the opinions of the first- and second - instance disability commissions of ORG together with other evidence sufficed to establish that the applicant did not need professional assistance . The relevant part of the decision read as follows :","\u201c The court therefore fully accepts the opinions of the first- and second - instance disability commissions that the [ applicant ] did not require permanent professional care because the opinions of the disability commissions were in accordance with the other evidence adduced ( the general practitioner \u2019s request and the reports submitted by specialists ) . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , challenging the conclusions of the court that he did not need professional assistance , and complaining that the court had failed to appoint an independent medical expert . The applicant highlighted that the court itself lacked the expertise to assess on its own the kind of assistance he was provided with and the kind he needed .","On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It found that the first - instance court had based its decision on the opinions of the disability commissions of the ORG which had been composed of experts capable of assessing whether the applicant needed professional assistance . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c The appeal is unfounded in claiming that the [ first - instance court ] had concluded , without outside reference , despite the fact that it had no medical knowledge , that the care received by the [ applicant ] had been adequate . The court based its decision on the above cited opinions of the disability commission that had been assembled for the purposes of the pre - judicial proceedings . The [ applicant ] was examined by the first - instance disability commission ; in giving their opinions both commissions also took into consideration the medical records submitted by his general practitioner . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for leave to appeal on points of law . He , inter alia , challenged the position of the lower courts that there had been no need to appoint an independent medical expert as being contrary to the established case - law of ORG . According to ORG the opinions of ORG could not be considered independent in proceedings instituted against the decisions of the ORG and thus should not be used as evidence in these proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application , holding that the challenged decisions had not departed from the established case - law .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint with reference to section DATE of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159885","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BUTERLEVI\u010cI\u016aT\u0116 v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant was employed as the head of a municipal kindergarten in PERSON .","On DATE she was informed by the local office of ORG that , as a person of equivalent status to a civil servant , she was under investigation on suspicion of fraudulent management of accounts , abuse of office and forgery of documents . In DATE she was informed of additional suspicions against her concerning further acts of abuse of office , forgery of documents and misappropriation of property .","NORP In DATE the applicant submitted a request to the pre - trial judge to terminate the criminal investigation on the grounds that it had been excessively long . The judge refused the request , noting that the investigation had been completed DATE and the case was ready for trial .","On DATE the case was referred for judicial examination . On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the first - instance court \u201d ) found the applicant guilty on several of the charges against her . She was sentenced to a fine of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) and a prohibition on working for the civil service for DATE and DATE .","The judgment was amended on appeal : on DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the appellate court \u201d ) upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on some of the charges and acquitted her on several others . Her sentence was reduced to a fine of LTL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) and a prohibition on working for the civil service for DATE and DATE . Soon afterwards the applicant was dismissed from her job by GPE in line with the decision of the appellate court .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the reasoning of the appellate court but changed the applicant \u2019s sentence . ORG found that when determining the length of the applicant \u2019s prohibition on working for the civil service , it was necessary to take into account the fact that she had been suspended from her post during the criminal investigation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . As a result , the period of prohibition was reduced to DATE and DATE .","NORP Immediately after the launch of the criminal investigation against the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the first - instance court granted the prosecutor \u2019s request to have the applicant suspended from her job as the head of DATE for DATE . The court held that there were grounds to believe that the applicant , as a person of equivalent status to a civil servant , might use her official position to hinder the investigation by , for example , destroying or fabricating evidence , or attempting to influence the witnesses in the case , who were her subordinates .","The applicant appealed against the decision , arguing that she could not be equated to a civil servant because she worked under an employment contract with GPE . She further argued that all the important documents had already been collected from DATE and all the relevant witnesses had been questioned , so there was no possibility for her to interfere with the investigation . The applicant also submitted that she had no prior convictions and had never been subject to any disciplinary action at work and that her employer \u2019s evaluation of her had always been positive ; thus there were no grounds to believe that she would use her official position to hinder the investigation . Lastly , the applicant submitted that her job in the kindergarten was her only source of income and therefore the suspension would cause significant difficulties for her and her young daughter , whom the applicant was raising alone . However , the appellate court dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the reasoning of the first - instance court .","Subsequently the first - instance court granted the prosecutor \u2019s requests to extend the applicant \u2019s suspension from her post by further periods of DATE on essentially the same grounds . The applicant appealed against all the decisions , raising the same arguments as before , but her appeals were dismissed by the appellate court ( on CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE ) . On DATE the appellate court noted , inter alia , that the applicant was only suspended from holding a specific post in a particular kindergarten , so the suspension did not affect her ability to take a different job and thus obtain a source of income .","On each of the above - mentioned occasions the decision of the first - instance court was taken following a written procedure , while the appellate court held oral hearings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . Neither the applicant nor her representative was present at any of these hearings . The prosecutor was present at the hearing of DATE .","After the criminal case was referred for judicial examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in DATE the first - instance court held an oral hearing in which it extended the applicant \u2019s suspension from her post by DATE on the same grounds as before . The applicant and her representative were present at the hearing . The applicant \u2019s appeal was subsequently dismissed by the appellate court .","On DATE the first - instance court in an oral hearing at which the applicant and her representative were present , terminated the applicant \u2019s suspension from her post . The court found that almost all the witnesses had been questioned , so there were no grounds to believe that the applicant might attempt to influence them or otherwise hinder the investigation . The applicant returned to her job as the head of DATE .","However , on DATE the appellate court overturned the decision of the first - instance court , finding that the investigation had not been completed yet , so there was still a risk that the applicant may hinder it . Since the appellate court was not authorised by law to adopt a new decision extending the suspension , the prosecutor submitted a new request for an extension to the first - instance court . During this period the applicant continued working as the head of the kindergarten .","On DATE the first - instance court , in an oral hearing at which the applicant and her representative were present , renewed the applicant \u2019s suspension from her post for DATE . However , on CARDINAL DATE the appellate court allowed an appeal by the applicant against this decision and quashed the above extension ordered by the first - instance court . The applicant returned to her job and remained the head of the kindergarten until her dismissal in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to the Inspector of ORG concerning several articles in the LOC rytas newspaper . The publications commented on the criminal case against the applicant and presented statements from her subordinates criticising her competence and personality . The applicant complained that these articles had been defamatory and insulting . She also complained about a comment posted by a user on the website of the NORP rytas newspaper which insulted the applicant and her young daughter on the grounds that the applicant was a single mother .","On DATE the Inspector of ORG partly satisfied the applicant \u2019s complaint . The ORG found that the comment on the website of NORP rytas was insulting to the applicant and her daughter and ordered the newspaper to remove it from the website . With respect to the articles in LOC rytas , the Inspector held that the applicant was a public figure and therefore had to accept a greater level of media attention and criticism . The Inspector also found that the statements about the applicant in the articles in question reflected the opinions of the interviewed individuals , so the newspaper could not be held accountable for their factual accuracy .","The ORG \u2019s decision indicated that it could be appealed to the court within DATE . The applicant did not appeal ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158469","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF OLSZEWSCY v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and the second applicant in DATE . They live in GPE .","NORP The applicants\u2019 son GPE was a student in GPE . At the relevant time he was DATE . On CARDINAL DATE he and some of his friends were celebrating the end of examinations in one of the clubs in GPE . GPE left the club at TIME on DATE with his friend GPE They were walking together to the university campus . GPE wanted to take a shortcut and go through the border guards area . GPE did not agree and she took the normal road and continued alone . The applicants\u2019 son took the shortcut and while crossing the border guards area , he was apprehended by the border patrol , who called the police . Soon afterwards CARDINAL police officers GPE and PERSON arrived and at TIME took the ORG son to the police station in GPE .","According to the police officers , ORG was under the influence of alcohol . However , his state did not qualify him to be taken to the soberingup centre . They did not make him undergo a breath test . They were not sure with what offence he could be charged , if any , and therefore they ordered him to appear at the police station at TIME and let him go . It was TIME and the temperature outside was below zero centigrade .","At TIME the ORG son telephoned his sister FAC He requested her to come with her car and collect him from a bus station in PERSON . When she got there she telephoned her brother who then asked her to come to GPE , QUANTITY away . According to ORG statement her brother sounded frightened on the phone . While she was driving to ORG called again and told her to go back home because he would manage to come back by himself .","On DATE at TIME the second applicant called her son . She asked him whether he was on the campus and he apparently confirmed . She asked him some more questions but he did not reply although the telephone call was still ongoing . According to the second applicant she was not sure whether she was speaking to her son or someone else .","The applicants then went to the campus to check whether their son was indeed there but he was not . They contacted all hospitals in GPE , the sobering - up centre and all police stations , including the LOC police station No . CARDINAL where their son was interrogated TIME . They were informed however that their son had been neither arrested nor had his identity been checked .","In CARDINAL of the hospitals they were informed that the previous night CARDINAL unidentified men had been brought there . CARDINAL of them was then taken by the police to the police station No . CARDINAL . The applicants went to the police station again where they were told that no men of unknown identity had been there the previous night .","The applicants then officially reported their son as missing and started to look for him on their own .","Only on DATE they were informed by the police station No . CARDINAL that their son had been brought there on TIME DATE and released because there were no grounds to keep him there .","According to the minutes taken by the police officers on TIME DATE , the applicants\u2019 son was drunk ; he mumbled and was unsteady on his legs . The officers had problems communicating with him .","NORP The applicants\u2019 son never returned to the campus . He was found dead on DATE in a meadow , QUANTITY from the exit road towards GPE . His body was frozen .","The body was on its back with the legs crossed . In the photographs taken on location , hospital shoe covers can be seen in the victim \u2019s jacket pockets . These objects were later not found or examined .","A.W. , who found the body on DATE , informed the police immediately . CARDINAL police officers , GPE and PERSON , the same who had interviewed the applicants\u2019 son on TIME DATE , were sent to the scene .","On DATE the body was shown to the applicants who recognised it as the body of their son . The first applicant noted that in the pockets of his sons\u2019 clothes there was no mobile phone .","On DATE an investigation into the circumstances of the applicants\u2019 son \u2019s death was opened by ORG .","On DATE a post - mortem examination of the applicants\u2019 son \u2019s body was carried out . Dr GPE , who participated in the post - mortem examination , found that there were chafes on the applicants\u2019 son \u2019s palms , face and abdomen . The back side of his legs was covered with bright green algae . The doctor found that the reason for ORG death was hypothermia . She also found that he had been under the influence of alcohol at the moment of his death . The blood alcohol level was CARDINAL per mille .","According to the applicants the expert opinion prepared by Dr GPE raised many doubts and was partly contradictory . PERSON described their son \u2019s vermiform appendix although he had his appendix removed as a child . No samples of the algae which covered ORG legs were collected for examination . The expert pointed out some characteristics of ORG inner organs which could indicate that ORG died suddenly , which was in contradiction to her conclusion that he died of hypothermia . Also the position in which the body was found contradicted the conclusion that the applicants\u2019 son died of hypothermia . He was found lying on his back with his legs crossed whereas , according to the expert opinion , a person who falls down from exhaustion should lie face down . Furthermore , the expert did not determine the date of ORG death . According to her later depositions , she had not received any such order from the prosecutor .","The expert took liver samples , but as it turned out later it was impossible to examine them because they had been improperly secured .","In the course of the post - mortem examination fingernail scrapings were secured for further examination . However , the samples were never examined .","As emerges from TIME of the post - mortem examination , when GPE \u2019s body was being undressed before the examination , a mobile phone fell out of his pocket . As noted above , the applicants checked their son \u2019s clothes before the post - mortem examination and the mobile phone was not there .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer requested the prosecutor to examine the blood samples from ORG body and clothes taken when his body was found .","On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor granted the request and ordered that the samples be examined by ORG . However , the decision on the merits was given by the prosecutor without the results of the relevant examination .","On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation finding that the applicants\u2019 son died of hypothermia without involvement of any third persons . The prosecutor based his decision on various evidence including the post - mortem examination , the expert opinion referred to above , as well as depositions made by several witnesses heard in the course of the investigation .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer appealed against the prosecutor \u2019s decision . His references to the numerous shortcomings of the investigation covered CARDINAL pages .","On DATE ORG quashed the challenged decision and remitted the case to the prosecutor for reexamination . The court agreed with the applicants that the circumstances of their son \u2019s death had not been sufficiently established .","First of all , the court recognised that the decision discontinuing the investigation was given without the results of the examination of the secured blood sample , which had been previously ordered by the prosecutor ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Subsequently , the court found that in the opinion following the analysis of the applicants\u2019 son \u2019s blood , there were some inaccuracies which needed further clarification ; the toxicological examination allegedly showed presence of phenetylamine in the secured blood sample . However in another part of the opinion it was stated that the presence of this substance was not confirmed and its amount was not determined \u201c for lack of pattern \u201d .","The court also referred to the examination of samples of ORG \u2019s liver which was ordered on DATE but not carried out . According to the medical expert appointed by the court , the examination could not be carried out because ORG did not have the relevant reagents whereas as emerges from TIME of the interview with a medical expert from ORG , the examination was impossible because of the way the samples had been secured .","The court further pointed out that in the first phase of the investigation , an examination of biological and dactyloscopic traces on GPE \u2019s mobile phone and CARDINAL cigarette lighters found in his clothes was ordered by the prosecutor . The criminological laboratory in GPE stated that they were unable to carry out the examination and stressed that it should be carried out in a specialised biological laboratory in LOC in GPE or GPE . The prosecutor however did not request the institutions indicated for the examination .","The court also stressed the inaccuracies in the medical expert opinion prepared by dr M.R. It further pointed out that the prosecutor had failed to refer to the merits of the opinion and to indicate which part of it and what reasons constituted the basis for his decision . The court also ordered the prosecutor to examine further the part of the expert opinion which concerned the position in which ORG body was found .","Finally the court referred to the ORG statements as regards further evidence which should be examined . The applicants requested that dactyloscopic traces be taken from the police van in which their son was transported . They also considered that traces on the ground where their son \u2019s body had ORG lawyer \u2019s appeal was examined DATE after ORG body was found .","Following the court \u2019s decision , the case was remitted to ORG . The prosecutor heard GPE , a specialist from ORG , who had carried out a toxicological examination of GPE \u2019s urine and blood . She said that she only examined the samples to check whether there was amphetamine in the blood . She did not check the presence of phenetylamine .","The prosecutor further requested ORG to carry out an examination of the secured liver samples . The University replied however that examination of the samples was impossible given the way the samples had been secured .","The prosecutor also heard the medical expert ORG who admitted that she had mistakenly described ORG \u2019s vermiform appendix .","On DATE ORG , having reexamined the case , again discontinued the proceedings for the same reasons as the previous time .","According to the relevant provisions of LAW , no further appeal is available for the applicants if the investigation was discontinued for the second time . However , on DATE the applicants requested ORG to resume the investigation . Their request was transferred to ORG who , having reexamined the case - file found a number of shortcomings in the discontinued proceedings and , on DATE , ordered that the investigation be resumed . The prosecutor relied on Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Proceedings according to which discontinued investigation may be resumed de novo at any time by the prosecutor provided that it would not be conducted against a person who had been a suspect in the previously discontinued proceedings .","The prosecutor recalled that in the decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG had indicated to a number of shortcomings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and ordered that further steps be undertaken in the proceedings . Having analysed the case - file the prosecutor concluded that the court \u2019s orders had been performed in an insufficient way or had not been performed at all . The relevant part of his decision read as follows :","\u201c .... it was found in the Bia\u0142ystok hospitals that in the time when GPE was missing , he was not admitted to any of them . The prosecutor did not hear the employees of the first - aid station and ordered that the police do it on his behalf . In consequence the records of the hearings are superficial and still do not explain the circumstances of your [ the applicants ] conversation with CARDINAL of the employees , Ms. PERSON It is important because this person was supposed to inform that on DATE in the morning a young unidentified man had been brought to the hospital and subsequently taken by the police . If the prosecutor investigated into these events he should explore it in the most detailed way possible . The prosecutor also tried to have samples of liver examined requesting opinion of PERSON of ORG although at that time he already knew that the examination had not been possible because the samples had been improperly secured .","The prosecutor , in spite of the court \u2019s order , failed to have ORG \u2019s blood samples , secured fingerprint and biological traces examined .","...","The decision discontinuing the investigation must be found premature ...","The case concerns death of a young man and its circumstances have not been sufficiently cleared . It is still unknown in what way and why GPE was on a meadow in a place unknown to him , far from the police station which he had left at TIME on DATE .","...","It was also found that the last telephone call which ORG answered was at TIME and it was a conversation with PERSON [ the first applicant ] but the information where GPE telephone logged in at that time is missing . This should be completed as soon as possible . \u201d","The prosecutor further considered that it was crucial to find out what were the weather conditions on DATE , in particular the air temperature and the snow precipitations . He also ordered that the state of GPE \u2019s alcohol intoxication be examined on the basis of so called \u201c prospective examination \u201d ; the alcohol level in his blood was established only for the moment of his death . The prosecutor ordered therefore detailed hearing of all persons with whom ORG spent DATE of CARDINAL DATE as regards the amount and kind of alcohol drunk on DATE , amount and kind of meals he had , whether he had been tired , etc . The prosecutor considered that all these circumstances were crucial taking into consideration the version according to which ORG died of hypothermia . He also indicated a professor in GPE , a specialist in cases of hypothermia death and found out that the professor had been contacted by the prosecutor \u2019s office and had agreed to prepare the opinion requested however , for unknown reasons , the prosecutor decided not to request this evidence .","On DATE ORG resumed the investigation .","She requested an opinion of a forensic expert from ORG indicated by ORG on DATE . The expert GPE confirmed that ORG had died because of hypothermia . He further submitted that death of hypothermia usually happens in low temperatures but also when the temperature is above zero centigrade , between CARDINAL and CARDINAL . Air humidity and alcohol were other factors which influence the risk of death . The expert further excluded the possibility of establishing for how long GPE had been exposed to low temperatures finding that each person reacted differently to low temperatures and that additional factors such as weather conditions and air humidity could influence the result of such examination . As regards the presence of phenetylamine in GPE \u2019s blood the expert submitted that given many possible sources of this substance , such as various kinds of food , excessive physical effort , etc . , it was impossible to determine its origin in this particular case .","As regards ORG \u2019s blood samples the prosecutor found that their examination was impossible because too much time had passed from DATE on which they were secured .","As regards the indication to hear all persons with whom GPE celebrated his final exams on CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor established that on DATE at TIME and several friends had had been drinking alcohol at the student home . At TIME they all went to the city centre where they had a meal and subsequently went to a club where they were dancing and drinking beer . The details regarding the amount and kind of drinks and food that they had had were not established .","The prosecutor further referred to the data of a meteorological station in GPE and listed the average air temperature on DATE between DATE and DATE as well as average snow precipitations on DATE .","On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation . She concluded that due to evidence difficulties it was impossible to reproduce the course of events after GPE had left the police station . She further stated on the basis of the above - mentioned evidence , in particular the expert opinion , that CARDINAL persons had been involved in GPE \u2019s death .","On DATE the applicants appealed . In particular , they submitted that in the course of the investigation it was not clarified for what reasons and where from ORG had had hospital shoe covers in his pocket . They further submitted that ORG clothes were covered in mud ; its origin was likewise not cleared ; ORG had been found on the meadow covered with a thick layer of snow and therefore his clothes should normally not bear traces of mud . They again referred to the position in which the body had been found considering that a person who falls down because of exhaustion should have been found with his face down . They also pointed to the fact that in the challenged decision the prosecutor had considered that the examination of blood samples was impossible because of the lapse of time whereas previously , the prosecutor had refused to examine the blood samples and DNA test finding that these were immaterial for the present case .","On DATE ORG upheld the challenged decision . As regards the arguments raised in the applicants\u2019 appeal , the court considered that they were a \u201c chain of suppositions leading the applicants to a conclusion that third persons were involved in M.O.s \u2019s death \u201d . Having referred to , in particular , the forensic expert evidence who confirmed that ORG had died of hypothermia , the court accepted the prosecutor \u2019s findings that no involvement of third persons in GPE \u2019s death could be discerned .","On DATE the investigation opened on DATE was severed and the part of it which concerned the alleged failure to perform their duties by the police officers GPE and PERSON was transferred to ORG .","On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation finding that no offence of abuse of power or failure to perform their duties had been committed by the police officers . The Prosecutor examined , among other things , whether the ORG son had been under the influence of alcohol at the time of his arrest . She found that according to the handwritten note made by the police officers GPE \u201c mumbled and was unsteady on his legs but he had documents on him , knew where he was and what was going on , the contact with him was logical . He assured that he would not drink more alcohol and come back straight to the university campus \u201d . She further found that according to the depositions of witnesses , ORG had been under the influence of alcohol but he was not drunk to such an extent which would require taking him to the sobering - up centre or which would raise suspicions that he might have problems getting home on his own . The Prosecutor further examined why the police officers who spoke with the applicants\u2019 son on the critical night had not realised until DATE that the missing person they were looking for and GPE whom they had checked at TIME on DATE was the same person . She found that GPE \u2019s personal data had been established on the basis of his personal number ( ORG ) via telephone and entered into a handwritten note by CARDINAL of the police officers . ORG presence at the police station had not been saved in the police computer system , because at that time there was no access to the ORG system ( System of Police Information ) . The Prosecutor admitted that the above circumstances spoke for deficiencies in the communication within the police station in question , she found however that no prohibited behavior could be attributed to the police officers .","NORP The applicants\u2019 lawyer appealed against this decision .","On DATE ORG upheld the challenged decision ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152385","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LU\u010cI\u0106 v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","He was employed by ORG , a company based in PERSON ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees , the applicant brought CARDINAL separate civil claims , seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG ( PERSON ) in PERSON rendered decisions ordering the debtor to pay the applicant certain sums . Both decisions became final on CARDINAL DATE .","Due to the debtor \u2019s failure to fulfil its obligations from these decisions , the applicant submitted an enforcement request . On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in Po\u017eega issued an enforcement order to that effect .","On DATE ORG in U\u017eice rendered a decision in the third set of civil proceedings brought by the applicant ordering the debtor to pay him an additional sum from the outstanding debt . On DATE this decision became final .","Due to the debtor \u2019s failure to fulfil its obligations from this decision , the applicant submitted an enforcement request . On DATE ORG in Po\u017eega issued an enforcement order to that effect .","On DATE ORG ( NORP sud ) in PERSON opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor . As a result , all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were terminated .","NORP The applicant duly reported his claim based on the above - mentioned court decisions to the insolvency administration .","On DATE the court accepted the applicant \u2019s claim .","The insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor are still ongoing .","The debtor , which operated as a socially - owned company , was privatised on DATE .","On DATE the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations .","Following the annulment of the debtor \u2019s privatisation the ORG owned PERCENT of shares in the company .","On DATE the ORG sold its shares to a private company ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167467","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"PUBLISHING HOUSE 'PSKOV NEWS' v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , the publishing house ORG ( \u0430\u0432\u0442\u043e\u043d\u043e\u043c\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043d\u0435\u043a\u043e\u043c\u043c\u0435\u0440\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u043e\u0440\u0433\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0437\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f \u00ab \u0418\u0437\u0434\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0439 \u0434\u043e\u043c \u201c LAW \u201d PERSON ) , is a NORP non - profit organisation . It was represented before the ORG by PERSON V. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant is the publisher of GPE Guberniya , a regional DATE . The applicant and the newspaper are CARDINAL distinct legal persons . In DATE CARDINAL officials sued the newspaper for defamation over an article about their encounters with the law . On DATE the ORG found the article \u2019s allegations false and ordered the newspaper to issue a retraction but refused damages for emotional distress . On DATE ORG affirmed the judgment .","According to ORG company register , in DATE the applicant was liquidated ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161733","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160ANTARE AND LABAZNIKOVS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On an unspecified date ORG ( \u201c the KNAB \u201d ) received information concerning allegedly unlawful activities of officials of ORG . Aiming to verify that information , the ORG launched operational proceedings ( operat\u012bv\u0101 izstr\u0101de ) . In the context of those proceedings the second applicant , who at that time was the owner of a chain of pharmacies in GPE , was summoned to the ORG to give statements about the activities of certain ORG officials supervising pharmaceutical matters in GPE .","According to the document ( uzzi\u0146a ) prepared by ORG on DATE and addressed to the ORG , on DATE an operational measure \u2013 the interception of the second applicant \u2019s telephone conversations DATE had been authorised until CARDINAL DATE . The document was based on \u201c ORG register of special proceedings ( lietved\u012bba ) relating to classified State secrets for DATE , Volume CARDINAL , entry no CARDINAL of DATE \u201d .","Upon being summoned by the ORG , on DATE the second applicant went to its offices , where he was questioned by CARDINAL investigators , PERSON and J. Initially , he refused to cooperate and instead asked J. questions about his duties .","On DATE the second applicant arranged a meeting with J. away from the ORG \u2019s offices . On the ORG \u2019s behalf , the meeting was organised as an undercover operation under section CARDINAL ) of the Law on Operational Activities , and prior authorisation from a specially authorised prosecutor of ORG was obtained .","On CARDINAL and DATE CARDINAL meetings took place between the second applicant and J. During the second meeting , which was video and audio recorded by PERSON , the second applicant offered J. a bribe in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) and DATE payments of ORG CARDINAL in return for the cessation of any investigative activities concerning his business and the ORG officials connected with it . During the meeting the second applicant paid PERSON CARDINAL as a first instalment .","Meanwhile , the second applicant called the first applicant , who was a board member of the company he owned . He asked her to withdraw cash from the company \u2019s account . He explained that the money would be spent on \u201c protection \u201d . Their phone conversations were intercepted and recorded .","DATE , the second applicant arranged another meeting , during which he gave the investigator ORG CARDINAL . On DATE he was arrested by ORG officers .","After the second applicant \u2019s meeting with J. , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG instituted criminal proceedings for bribery . The second applicant was charged as a suspect . The charging decision was sent to ORG so that the prosecution could commence .","On DATE a prosecutor of ORG questioned the second applicant . The second applicant pleaded guilty and stated that the payments had been intended to prevent further investigation into his business activities .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed the supervising prosecutor at ORG that the second applicant \u2019s phone had been tapped in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Law on Operational Activities \u201c upon the authorisation of a judge of the ORG \u201d . The ORG asked for the recordings to be included in the criminal case file .","On DATE ORG brought a charge of aiding and abetting against the first applicant , and a charge of bribery against the second applicant .","On DATE both applicants were questioned by a prosecutor of ORG . The first applicant pleaded guilty .","On DATE , having studied the material in the criminal case file , the representative of the first applicant asked the prosecutor to disclose a document attesting to the lawfulness of the interception of the telephone conversations between both applicants . On DATE the supervising prosecutor dismissed that request , arguing that the decision to authorise interception of the telephone conversations of the applicant and other persons had been adopted under PERSON ) of the Law on Operational Activities , and therefore was not a procedural document . Moreover , the document had been classified as a ORG secret . The prosecutor also argued that the existence of such authorisation had been confirmed by the ORG , and that there were no grounds to question the validity of that confirmation . The first applicant did not appeal against that reply to a more senior prosecutor .","On DATE the criminal case concerning both applicants was referred to a court .","It appears that on DATE the representative of the first applicant sent a complaint about the activities of ORG officials in relation to the phone tapping to ORG . The prosecutor in charge replied that the phone tapping had been authorised by a judge of ORG , and that the ORG had not infringed any provisions of LAW . The prosecutor also stated that the information obtained as a result of the operational activities was open to assessment in the course of the criminal proceedings . The first applicant did not appeal against that reply to the Prosecutor General .","On DATE the FAC , acting as a first - instance court and presided over by Judge PERSON , acquitted the first applicant . The court found the second applicant guilty and gave him a suspended sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . He pleaded guilty during the hearing , therefore the court proceeded without assessing the evidence .","On DATE the prosecutor submitted an appeal contesting the acquittal of the first applicant , and asked for an immediate custodial sentence to be imposed in relation to the second applicant . He asked the appellate court to give a new judgment in respect of the parts of the original judgment which were contested . The second applicant submitted an appeal concerning the severity of his sentence .","DATE ORG , acting as an appellate court , held several hearings during which the second applicant pleaded guilty . The representative of the first applicant submitted that the case file did not contain any information pertaining to the authorisation of the interception of phone conversations , which had been the main evidence against her . During the hearing , the prosecutor confirmed orally that judicial authorisation had been obtained .","On DATE the appellate court adopted a judgment which upheld the prosecutor \u2019s appeal and quashed the disputed parts of the lower court \u2019s judgment . The appellate court found the first applicant guilty , giving her a suspended sentence of DATE imprisonment . It also revoked the suspension of the second applicant \u2019s prison sentence and he was taken directly to prison from the courtroom . The appellate court stated , inter alia , \u201c the court recognises all the evidence in the criminal case as admissible , on the grounds that the factual information has been obtained and established ( nostiprin\u0101tas ) in line with procedure and in accordance with the order set out by law ... \u201d .","In an appeal on points of law the first applicant argued that the tapped phone conversations should not have been admitted as evidence , as they had been obtained without proper authorisation . The second applicant submitted , inter alia , that the appellate court had not assessed the lawfulness of the phone tapping and had ignored the fact that the criminal case had contained no reference to any authorisation to carry out the above activity as prescribed by LAW of LAW . In this regard , he also submitted that the appellate court had consequently failed to observe that interference in a person \u2019s private life should be in accordance with the law , as required by LAW .","On DATE the ORG of ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law in open court . In response to the Article CARDINAL complaint , the ORG stated that the phone had been tapped \u201c in accordance with section CARDINAL of the Law on Operational Activities , and not as a special investigative measure under LAW of LAW \u201d .","Meanwhile , during a judges\u2019 conference on DATE , the Minister of ORG stated in her opening speech :","\u201c DATE I would say that I , like the majority of you sitting in this hall , am powerless against the actions of our colleagues , which neither society nor I personally understand \u201d .","A DATE news report on DATE mentioned that the minister had admitted to journalists that she had been referring to the judgment adopted by Judge PERSON in her speech ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) :","\u201c Yes , I am not authorised to comment on particular cases where the adjudication is still pending , but I consider that I have the right to express an opinion on behalf of other judges who carry out their work honestly . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159769","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GEROVSKA POP\u010cEVSKA v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG , chaired at the time by LAW , who subsequently ( DATE ) became the Minister of ORG , asked ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to review ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043b\u043e\u0433 \u0437\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0440\u043a\u0430 ) a civil case ( no . PERSON . GPE ) which the applicant had adjudicated at first instance as president of a CARDINAL - judge panel . The case concerned compensation proceedings against the ORG .","On DATE ORG of ORG convened to draw up an opinion stating that there were grounds for instituting professional misconduct proceedings in respect of the applicant regarding civil case no . IV P.br . GPE . According to the record of that meeting , the opinion had been requested by Judge PERSON , who was the President of ORG at that time . The record did not list the members of ORG of ORG that adopted the opinion . According to the applicant , Judge PERSON was a member of ORG that adopted the opinion .","On DATE the ORG asked the plenary of ORG , under section CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW , see paragraph DATE below ) , to draw up a report on the issue of whether the applicant \u2019s dismissal from the office of judge would be justified .","On DATE the ORG , composed in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , instituted ( \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0434\u0443\u0432\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f\u043a\u0430 ) professional misconduct proceedings in respect of the applicant due to misapplication of procedural and substantive law in civil case no . IV P.br . GPE . It referred to the request submitted by ORG and further relied , inter alia , on the opinion of ORG of ORG . The applicant responded in writing .","In DATE CARDINAL members of the ORG ( all judges ) were appointed in accordance with Amendment XXVIII of the Constitution ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . V.G. , a member of the ORG , was nominated as the complainant ( \u043e\u0432\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0435\u043d \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043b\u0430\u0433\u0430\u0447 ) , as set out in LAW ( \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , in the applicant \u2019s case .","On DATE the plenary of ORG , chaired by Judge PERSON , drew up an opinion regarding the applicant \u2019s case . The relevant part of the opinion , signed by Judge PERSON , reads as follows :","\u201c The plenary of ORG ... unanimously endorses the complete [ text of ] the opinion of ORG and finds that there are grounds for dismissing ( the applicant ) for professional misconduct . \u201d","On DATE a hearing was held before ORG for determination of professional misconduct by a judge ( GPE \u0437\u0430 \u0443\u0442\u0432\u0440\u0434\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0443\u0447\u043d\u043e \u0438 \u043d\u0435\u0441\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0441\u043d\u043e \u0432\u0440\u0448\u0435\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0438\u0441\u043a\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0444\u0443\u043d\u043a\u0446\u0438\u0458\u0430 , hereinafter \u201c the Commission \u201d ) , set up under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON was not a member of ORG . Both the applicant , who was represented by legal counsel , and ORG submitted their arguments verbally . ORG also took into account the opinions of ORG and the plenary of ORG . On DATE it drew up a report , which it communicated to the ORG .","On DATE the plenary of the ORG , which included only CARDINAL of its members , namely CARDINAL judges elected by their peers , as well as the then Minister of ORG and Judge PERSON , who were ex officio members of the ORG ( see PERSON to the LAW , paragraph CARDINAL below ) , dismissed the applicant from the office of judge for professional misconduct . The ORG found that she had wrongly applied procedural and material law in civil case no . PERSON . GPE , which she had decided out of the established order in which cases should have been dealt with . The dismissal decision referred to the request submitted by ORG and further was based on evidence adduced at the hearing before the Commission , including the opinions of ORG and the plenary of ORG .","The applicant challenged that decision at second instance , namely before an appeal panel formed within ORG ( \u201c the Appeal Panel \u201d ) . Such panels were set up on an ad hoc basis in each separate case . As specified in section DATE CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG was composed of CARDINAL judges , of whom CARDINAL were ORG judges , CARDINAL ORG judges and CARDINAL judges from the court of the applicant . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the ORG \u2019s decision . ORG included Judge PERSON , who had adjudicated in another case allegedly related to case no . PERSON . GPE . According to the applicant , her request for the withdrawal of Judge PERSON , a copy of which was not produced , was to no avail .","On DATE ORG rejected ( \u043e\u0442\u0444\u0440\u043b\u0430 ) a constitutional appeal in which the applicant claimed that her dismissal had violated her freedom of conscience , freedom of thought and freedom of public expression . As regards the dismissal , ORG found that it had no jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the ORG \u2019s decision . As to whether the applicant \u2019s dismissal affected her freedom of expression , the court held that a distinction had to be made between exercising the office of judge and that particular freedom . It ruled that the office of judge entailed the right and duty to adjudicate in accordance with the law , and that that right and duty did not form part of the rights and freedoms on which it had competence to decide under LAW ( \u0423.\u0431\u0440.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The applicant submitted copies of several articles published DATE in the DATE newspapers ORG and GPE .","An article published on DATE quoted a report by ORG stating that the law had been wrongly applied in civil case no . IV P.br . GPE .","An article of DATE stated that ORG had confirmed that the applicant should be dismissed from office . It reported Judge PERSON as saying that the ORG in its new composition should follow their recommendations . In this connection , the article quoted Judge PERSON as saying :","\u201c We only gave a reminder that responsibility should be established ( \u0442\u0440\u0435\u0431\u0430 \u0434\u0430 \u0441\u0435 \u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0438 \u043e\u0434\u0433\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442 ) . \u201d","An article of DATE stated :","\u201c GPE , the President of the [ ORG , asked ( the ORG ) to dismiss ( the applicant ) for professional misconduct . \u201d","An article dated DATE published in the DATE newspaper ORG quoted Judge PERSON as saying , inter alia :","\u201c We will submit an opinion as to whether ( the applicant ) should be dismissed once the responsibility of other institutions has been established . For ORG , that there has been professional misconduct [ on the part of the applicant ] is beyond any doubt ( \u043d\u0435 \u0435 \u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u043d\u0430 \u043d\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0443\u0447\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u0438 \u043d\u0435\u0441\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0438\u0458\u043a\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0432\u043e \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0447\u0430\u0458\u043e\u0432 ) . ORG has already established that . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155861","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"GLEND\u017dA v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr ORG , is a LOC national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in Ulcinj .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent at the time , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG dr\u017eavno tu\u017eila\u0161tvo ) issued an indictment against the applicant on suspicion that he had committed a war crime against civilians .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE ordered his detention .","On DATE the applicant was arrested . The same day he appealed against the detention order , which appeal was received at ORG on DATE at the latest .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that , inter alia , he had received no decision upon his appeal against the detention order .","On DATE ORG ( Apelacioni sud ) in GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal in this regard .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal . He submitted , inter alia , that ORG had failed to rule on his appeal against the detention order within TIME , contrary to the relevant domestic provisions in that regard ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant and he was released . On an unspecified date thereafter the ORG decision would appear to have been quashed , but no order was given for the applicant to be re - detained .","On DATE ORG found a violation of LAW . In particular , the Constitutional Court established that ORG had not immediately transmitted the applicant \u2019s case - file to ORG for a ruling on his appeal against the detention order . Notably , on CARDINAL DATE ORG had sent the applicant \u2019s case - file to ORG , which had received it on DATE . DATE the case - file had been returned to ORG because certain documents had been served improperly on some of the co - accused in the same set of criminal proceedings . On DATE ORG had transmitted the documents to ORG , which court had received them on DATE and DATE had ruled on the applicant \u2019s appeal . The decision of ORG was served on the applicant on DATE .","NORP On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant , which judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a compensation claim , pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , seeking both pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage for unlawful detention . The claim would appear to be currently pending before the first - instance court .","DATE lays down detailed rules as regards detention . In particular , paragraph CARDINAL provides that a detainee has the right to lodge an appeal against a detention order , on which the court shall rule within TIME .","Article CARDINAL provides that the Constitutional Court shall rule on a constitutional appeal lodged in respect of an alleged violation of a human right or freedom guaranteed by the LAW , after all other effective legal remedies have been exhausted .","The LAW entered into force on DATE .","Section CARDINAL of LAW provided that a constitutional appeal could be lodged against an individual decision of a State body , an administrative body , a local self - government body or a legal person exercising public authority , for violations of human rights and freedoms guaranteed by LAW , after all other effective legal remedies had been exhausted .","Sections CARDINAL provided additional details as regards the processing of constitutional appeals . Section CARDINAL provided that if the impugned decision had lost its force ( prestalo pravno dejstvo ) by the time ORG ruled on the constitutional appeal , ORG would only find a violation if it considered that a human right or freedom was breached .","None of the sections provided for a possibility for ORG to award damages .","This Act entered into force in DATE .","At the relevant time LAW provided , inter alia , for an obligation of the courts to conduct the proceedings without delay , and to keep the duration of detention to the shortest time needed .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL provided for a duty of all the bodies involved in criminal proceedings to act with particular urgency if the accused was in detention .","Article CARDINAL provided , inter alia , that a detainee could appeal against a detention order within TIME . The appeal , the detention order and other relevant documents were to be immediately forwarded to the panel of judges , which was to rule on the appeal within TIME .","Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this LAW correspond , in substance , to sections DATE , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW DATE .","Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL set out details as regards compensation for , inter alia , unlawful detention . Article CARDINAL , in particular , provides that an individual is entitled to compensation if he or she was in detention and was subsequently acquitted by means of a final judgment .","This Code entered into force on DATE , repealing the DATE Code , except for LAW , which ORG is not relevant in the present case .","Sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , taken together , provide , inter alia , that anyone who has suffered fear , physical pain or mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of his reputation , personal integrity , liberty or other personal rights ( prava li\u010dnosti ) shall be entitled to seek injunctive relief , sue for financial compensation and request other forms of redress \u201c which might be capable \u201d of affording adequate non - pecuniary satisfaction .","Section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that a legal entity ( pravno lice ) , which includes the ORG , shall be liable for any damage caused by CARDINAL of its bodies to a \u201c third person \u201d in the course of performing its functions or in relation thereto ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168832","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"WRIGHT AND BROWN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and live in GPE , GPE . They are represented before the ORG by PERSON of ORG , ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","NORP By letter dated DATE the Government of GPE were notified of the applications and were asked if they wished to exercise their right to intervene pursuant to LAW . However , they did not seek to exercise this right .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The first applicant was arrested by the army at CARDINAL on DATE in relation to CARDINAL attacks on army patrols in GPE . He was handed over to the police at CARDINAL and he was visited by his father and examined by a police surgeon shortly thereafter . No injuries or complaints were noted .","From CARDINAL to CARDINAL the first applicant was interviewed by CARDINAL detectives . During this interview he admitted that he was a member of PERSON na h\u2019Eireann , a proscribed NORP organisation , and had acted as a lookout during the CARDINAL attacks .","A second interview took place CARDINAL DATE , and during this interview the first applicant allegedly signed a statement admitting membership of a proscribed organisation ; again admitted to acting as a lookout during the CARDINAL attacks ; and sketched the area showing where he and others had been situated during the attacks . His father was admitted to the interview room at CARDINAL and shown the statements of admission .","That evening the first applicant was again medically examined and no complaints or injuries were noted .","The second applicant was arrested by the army at CARDINAL on DATE in relation to the same CARDINAL attacks on army patrols . He was transferred to police custody at CARDINAL on DATE .","During his first interview , which took place between PERSON and CARDINAL.CARDINAL , he admitted to being a member of PERSON na h\u2019Eireann .","He was medically examined at CARDINAL and no complaints or injuries were noted .","He was again interviewed under caution between ORG and CARDINAL and during this interview he confirmed that he was a member of a proscribed organisation and admitted to being a lookout during one of the attacks . He further indicated the location of this incident by reference to a map .","The second applicant was visited by a relative at TIME . He was interviewed again from CARDINAL to CARDINAL , and from CARDINAL onward . During the second of these interviews he made a written confession in which he admitted to acting as a lookout during both attacks and carrying shotgun cartridges across the border into GPE .","At CARDINAL on DATE he was visited by his parents , who declined to countersign his confessions . He was medically examined on TIME of CARDINAL DATE and again on TIME DATE . On both occasions he denied any ill - treatment and no relevant sign of injury was detected .","NORP The applicants\u2019 trial took place from DATE . The first applicant was charged with CARDINAL count of membership of a proscribed organisation , CARDINAL counts of conspiring to communicate information likely to be of use to terrorists , CARDINAL count of causing grievous bodily harm and CARDINAL of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm . He entered \u201c not guilty \u201d pleas to all counts . However , he was found to be guilty as charged and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . He did not appeal against conviction and his application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed on CARDINAL DATE .","The second applicant pleaded \u201c guilty \u201d to CARDINAL count of belonging to a proscribed organisation , CARDINAL counts of conspiracy to communicate prohibited information , CARDINAL count of unlawful possession of ammunition and CARDINAL count of possessing ammunition without a licence . He pleaded not guilty to CARDINAL count of conspiracy to cause an explosion and CARDINAL count of conspiracy to discharge a firearm . He was found to be guilty as charged and sentenced to a total of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . He did not appeal against either conviction or sentence .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 cases were referred to ORG in GPE by ORG ( \u201c CCRC \u201d ) on the grounds that there was a real possibility that ORG would consider that the manner in which they were detained and interviewed involved significant breaches of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and of other protections which they should have enjoyed ( namely , access to a solicitor before or during the police interviews and the presence of a family member or independent adult ) ; that in consequence of those breaches the admissions made were unreliable and\/or inadmissible ; and that in the circumstances their convictions were unsafe .","Judgment was delivered by ORG on DATE . The court noted that at the time of the ORG trial confessions made in breach of LAW were admissible under the emergency provisions legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) unless obtained by torture or inhuman or degrading treatment .","In respect of the first applicant , the court held that although the confessions had been obtained in breach of LAW because he had not had access to a solicitor , independent adult or family member , in light of the statutory background it could not conclude that the admission of the confessions rendered the conviction unsafe . In particular , it noted that the confessions were not contradictory or inaccurate , they were not challenged at trial , and the conviction was not appealed . The first applicant \u2019s appeal was therefore dismissed .","The court also found no evidence that the second applicant \u2019s conviction was unsafe . In reaching this conclusion , it noted that he had pleaded \u201c guilty \u201d to most of the offences and had not challenged the admissibility or reliability of his confessions in contesting the CARDINAL counts to which he pleaded \u201c not guilty \u201d . The second applicant \u2019s appeal was also dismissed .","On DATE ORG certified that the following point of law of general public importance was involved in the decision which ought to be considered by ORG :","\u201c Where in a trial conducted in accordance with the then applicable statutory emergency provisions a young person was convicted of an offence on the basis of a confession admitted at the time of trial by virtue of the statutory emergency provisions but in circumstances in which such a confession would otherwise have been excluded as having been obtained in a manner which contravened LAW , ORG and the Taking of Statements and the ORG LAW and where such confession was obtained in circumstances which did not provide safeguards subsequently and currently considered to be necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice , does such conviction fall to be considered as unsafe ? \u201d","NORP However , ORG refused to grant leave to appeal to ORG .","On DATE ORG also refused permission on the grounds that the application did not raise an arguable point of law which it ought to consider and that there was no real possibility that the court would find the convictions to be unsafe .","Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides that :","\u201c Where a person has been convicted of an offence on indictment in GPE , the Commission\u2014","( a ) may at any time refer the conviction to ORG , and","... ... ...","( CARDINAL ) A reference under subsection ( CARDINAL ) of a person \u2019s conviction shall be treated for all purposes as an appeal by the person under LAW against the conviction . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provided that :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) In any criminal proceedings for a scheduled offence a statement made by the accused may be given in evidence by the prosecution in so far as it is relevant to any matter in issue in the proceedings and is not excluded by the court in pursuance of subsection ( CARDINAL ) below .","( CARDINAL ) NORP If , in any such proceedings where the prosecution proposes to give in evidence a statement made by the accused , prima facie evidence is adduced that the accused was subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment in order to induce him to make the statement , the court shall , unless the prosecution satisfies them that the statement was not so obtained , exclude the statement or , if it has been received in evidence , shall either continue the trial disregarding the statement or direct that the trial shall be restarted before a differently constituted court ( before whom the statement in question shall be inadmissible ) . \u201d","The effect of section CARDINAL was to suspend the rules and practice governing the admissibility of confessions for the period during which the legislation was in force . However , immediately following the implementation of the legislative changes , judges dealing with cases governed by the DATE Act declared that they retained a discretion to exclude what was , by statute , otherwise admissible evidence ( see , for example , R v. ORG , ORG , DATE ) .","A note preceding the Judges\u2019 Rules indicated they did not affect the principles :","\u201c ( c ) That every person at any stage of an investigation should be able to communicate and to consult privately with a solicitor . This is so even though he is in custody provided that in such a case no unreasonable delay or hindrance is caused to the processes of investigation or the administration of justice by his doing so .","... ... ...","( e ) That it is a fundamental condition of the admissibility in evidence against any person , equally of any oral answer given by that person to a question put by a police officer and of any statement made by that person , that it shall have been voluntary .","The principle set out in paragraph ( e ) above is overriding and applicable in all cases . Within that principle the following Rules are put forward as a guide to police officers conducting investigations . Non - conformity with these Rules may render answers and statements liable to be excluded from evidence in subsequent criminal proceedings . \u201d","The Administrative Directions accompanied the Judges\u2019 Rules . Paragraph CARDINAL provided that , as far as practical , children and young persons should only be interviewed in the presence of a parent or guardian or , if that was not possible , a person who was not a police officer and was of the same sex as the child . ORG guidance indicated that this requirement should be seen as applying to anyone under DATE .","Pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL ) , a person in custody should be allowed to speak on the telephone to his solicitor or to his friends provided that no hindrance was reasonably likely to be caused to the process of investigation or to the administration of justice .","The police code applicable at the relevant time provided that :","\u201c Police pursuing inquiries involving children and young persons must bear in mind that where at all possible children and young persons should be interviewed in the presence of a parent \/ guardian or other adult friend , and that the venue selected for the interview should not be one which could be calculated to intimidate , unduly embarrass or frighten the person interviewed . \u201d","In DATE Advocate v GPE [ DATE ] HCJAC CARDINAL , DATE ORG CARDINAL ORG of GPE sitting with CARDINAL judges ) had held , notwithstanding the decision of ORG in GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG DATE , that it was not a breach of LAW read in conjunction with LAW ) for the ORG to rely at trial on admissions made by a detainee while being interviewed without having had access to a solicitor , since the guarantees otherwise available under the NORP system were sufficient to avoid the risk of any unfairness .","However , in ORG unanimously found that PERSON had been incorrectly decided as ORG of Justiciary had erred in its interpretation of PERSON . ORG judgment was to be understood as laying down CARDINAL statements of principle : that access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect ; and that the rights of the defence would be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer were used for a conviction . There was room for a certain flexibility in the application of these requirements but they did not permit a systematic departure from it .","Furthermore , ORG did not accept that the guarantees otherwise available under the NORP system were sufficient to secure a fair trial . Those guarantees were commendable but were , in truth , incapable of removing the disadvantage that a detainee would suffer if , not having access to a solicitor for advice before he was questioned by police , he made incriminating admissions or said something which enabled the police to obtain incriminating evidence from other sources which was then used against him at his trial .","That being said , ORG indicated that where incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer were used for a conviction , it would only be appropriate to quash that conviction if it was clear that there was insufficient evidence for it without the evidence of the police interview , or taking all the circumstances of the trial into account , there was a real possibility that the jury would have arrived at a different verdict had they not had that evidence before them .","Finally , ORG held that , in the interests of legal certainty , the ruling should not permit the reopening of closed cases , but rather should only apply to those cases which had not yet gone to trial , to cases where the trial was still in progress , and to appeals that had been brought timeously . For all closed cases it was a matter for ORG to decide whether the cases should be referred back to ORG and for that court to decide what course it ought to take if a reference were to be made to it by the Commission ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-160318","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF HILAL MAMMADOV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a mathematician and physicist who worked at ORG from DATE . He then became involved in the political and social life of the country . He also worked as editor - in - chief of the Talishi Sedo , a bilingual NORP - Talish newspaper , and was chairman of ORG . He has been chairman of ORG since DATE .","At TIME on DATE , when the applicant was on his way home , CARDINAL or CARDINAL plain - clothes police officers assaulted him near the GPE metro station in GPE . Without showing their official identification , they restrained the applicant \u2019s arms and began to hit him below the knees . They kicked him in the lower part of his right ribcage and then slipped narcotic substances into his right trouser pocket . They handcuffed him and dragged him into their car , where they continued to beat him . In the car they started to insult him , making comments about his ethnic origin , and threatened him on account of a video recording he had uploaded to the GPE online video platform .","NORP The police officers did not inform the applicant of the reasons for his arrest . Indeed , the applicant did not even realise that he had been arrested by the police until he was taken to ORG of ORG ( \u201c the NORP \u201d ) .","A search of the applicant was conducted at the ORG . According to the record ( no . CARDINAL dated DATE ) of operational measures and the seizure of physical evidence ( \u0259m\u0259liyyat t\u0259dbirinin ke\u00e7irilm\u0259si v\u0259 maddi s\u00fcbutun g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fclm\u0259si bar\u0259d\u0259 protokol ) drawn up by a police investigator , the search was carried out from QUANTITY on DATE in the presence of the applicant , QUANTITY police officers and QUANTITY attesting witnesses . It appears from the record that the applicant was not represented by a lawyer . During the search , QUANTITY of a substance similar to heroin was found in his right trouser pocket .","At TIME on DATE a police investigator drew up a record of the applicant \u2019s arrest .","On DATE a search was carried out in the applicant \u2019s flat without a court order . According to the search record , it was conducted from TIME on DATE in the presence of the applicant , QUANTITY police officers and CARDINAL attesting witnesses . It appears from the record that the applicant was not represented by a lawyer and the CARDINAL attesting witnesses were the same persons who had previously participated in the search at the ORG . During the search , narcotic substances similar to heroin were found . The applicant made a written comment in the record that the narcotic substances did not belong to him .","According to the applicant , on DATE and DATE he was detained in handcuffs and was deprived of food and water .","The Government submitted that on DATE , during the applicant \u2019s arrest and afterwards at the police station , he was not subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by the police .","On DATE the applicant was charged under Article CARDINAL ( illegal preparation , production , possession , storage , transportation and sale of a large quantity of narcotic substances ) of LAW .","On DATE ORG , relying on the official charge brought against the applicant and the prosecutor \u2019s request to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody ( h\u0259bs q\u0259timkan t\u0259dbiri ) , ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE . The court justified the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial by the gravity of the charge , the fact that the applicant was charged with a criminal offence punishable by PERCENT DATE imprisonment , and the likelihood that if released he might abscond from the investigation .","On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of CARDINAL DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant was charged with new criminal offences under ORG CARDINAL ( high treason ) and ORG ( incitement to ethnic , racial , social or religious hatred and hostility ) of LAW .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to be placed under house arrest instead of pre - trial detention . He claimed , in particular , that his detention had not been justified and that there was no reason for his continued detention .","On DATE ORG dismissed the application as unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant . It found that if he was placed under house arrest , the applicant might abscond from the investigation and obstruct the investigation by influencing those involved in the proceedings .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention for a period of DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty on all counts and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld this judgment . It was further upheld on DATE by ORG .","At TIME on DATE an investigator at ORG questioned the applicant as a suspect . It appears from the record of the questioning that the applicant complained of ill - treatment during his arrest by the police . He stated in this connection that on his way home at TIME on DATE near the GPE metro station in GPE , CARDINAL cars stopped next to him and CARDINAL or CARDINAL plain - clothes police officers assaulted him . They dragged him into one of the cars without showing their official identification and began to beat him up . He did not realise that he had been arrested by the police until he was taken to the ORG . The applicant further stated that the narcotic substances found on him and in his flat had been planted by the police . He pointed out that his arrest was related to his political and social activities , as he was editorinchief of the Talishi PERSON newspaper and was involved in defending political prisoners\u2019 human rights .","On DATE the investigator ordered a forensic examination of the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic expert . His report ( no . CARDINAL dated DATE ) stated that the applicant had complained of having been beaten up by the police during his arrest on DATE . The expert noticed abrasions on the applicant \u2019s left calf and right thigh , and concluded that they could have been inflicted on DATE . The relevant part of the forensic report reads as follows :","\u201c Questions addressed to the forensic expert :","NORP What kind of injuries are there on the body of citizen PERSON ?","What are their characteristics and location ?","On which part of the body , in which circumstances and with which instrument were the injuries inflicted ? Could these injuries have been sustained as a result of an assault ?","What is the degree of gravity of the injuries ?","Initial information :","...","PERSON submitted in his statement that on DATE police officers arrested him and dragged him into a car where they hit him on various parts of his body .","On DATE was subjected to a forensic examination . According to him , at TIME on DATE CARDINAL or CARDINAL plain - clothes police officers arrested him near his place of residence . They kicked and punched him as they put him in the car and whilst in the car . He did not ask for medical help . He complains of pain in the location of his injuries .","Objective examination :","NORP The person examined is a man of medium height , normal build and well fed .","NORP There are CARDINAL abrasions ( s\u0131yr\u0131q ) , measuring QUANTITY and QUANTITY , QUANTITY apart , on the middle of the outer side of the left calf ( bald\u0131r ) . The surface of the abrasions is covered with a red scab and is situated below the level of healthy skin tissue . There is an analogical abrasion , measuring QUANTITY , on the middle of the outer side of the right thigh ( bud ) . No other injuries were noticed on the body .","Conclusion","Relying on the forensic examination of PERSON , born in DATE and the initial information , and in reply to the questions addressed in the decision , I conclude as follows :","The following injuries were noticed on the body of citizen PERSON : abrasions on the left calf and on the right thigh .","The above - mentioned injuries were caused by a hard blunt object(s ) . They could have been inflicted in the circumstances and at the time indicated in the descriptive part of the decision , namely on DATE . The degree of the injuries has not been determined because they are not injuries causing harm to health . \u201d","The applicant was not provided with a copy of the forensic report .","It appears from the case file that on DATE the applicant \u2019s complaint of ill - treatment was transferred to ORG .","On DATE an investigator at ORG questioned the applicant about his ill - treatment by the police . The applicant reiterated his previous statement , pointing out that at TIME on DATE he had been beaten up during his arrest by CARDINAL or CARDINAL plain - clothes police officers . He further stated that these police officers had also participated in the search at the ORG on DATE and that the name of CARDINAL of them was Q.","It appears from the documents submitted by the Government that on DATE the Head of ORG of ORG asked ORG to order the examination of the applicant \u2019s complaint of ill - treatment received by ORG .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE an investigator at ORG separately questioned CARDINAL police officers , including Q. , who had participated in the arrest and search . The wording of their statements was identical . They each claimed that they had not used physical force against the applicant during his arrest .","On CARDINAL and DATE the investigator separately questioned CARDINAL police officers who had been on guard duty at the temporary detention centre when the applicant had been taken there following his arrest . Their statements were also identical , each claiming that , when the applicant had been taken to the temporary detention centre , he had not complained of illtreatment .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator and reiterated that he had been beaten up during his arrest . In reply to the investigator \u2019s question concerning the fact that the police officers who had participated in his arrest had denied the allegation of ill - treatment , the applicant stated that they had lied in their statements .","On DATE the investigator examined the clothes that the applicant had been wearing on DATE of his arrest . The investigator found that the clothes were not damaged .","On DATE the investigator ordered an additional examination of the applicant by a forensic commission . In particular , he asked the experts to establish whether the injuries found on the applicant \u2019s body could have resulted from his body coming into contact with \u201c sharp parts of the vehicle \u201d ( avtomobilin \u00e7\u0131x\u0131nt\u0131 hiss\u0259l\u0259ri ) during his arrest .","On DATE the applicant was examined by CARDINAL experts who issued forensic report no . CARDINAL on DATE . According to the forensic report , the applicant complained of having been beaten up during his arrest on DATE . The experts confirmed the existence of injuries on the applicant \u2019s body , but concluded that they had resulted from the applicant \u2019s body coming into contact with \u201c angular protruding parts of the vehicle \u201d ( avtomobilin qabar\u0131q tinli hiss\u0259l\u0259ri ) during his arrest . The relevant part of the forensic report reads as follows :","\u201c Information about the case :","...","The person examined is a man of medium height , normal build and well fed .","NORP There is brown - grey pigmentation in the shape of a strip , measuring QUANTITY , on the middle of his outer left calf . No injury or trace of injury was noticed on other parts of his body .","Conclusion","Relying on the forensic examination of PERSON , born in DATE , the facts indicated in the descriptive part of the decision , the observations indicated in forensic report no . CARDINAL in respect of him and in reply to the questions addressed in the decision , the commission of experts concludes as follows :","There are CARDINAL abrasions on the middle of the outer side of his left calf and CARDINAL abrasion on the middle outer side of his right thigh .","The above - mentioned injuries were caused by a hard blunt object(s ) . They could have been inflicted at the time indicated in the descriptive part of the decision , namely on DATE . The degree of the injuries has not been determined because they are not injuries causing harm to health .","Taking into consideration the characteristics ( morphological particularities ) and location of the injuries found on the outer sides of the left calf and of the right thigh of PERSON , and the fact that such injuries could not have been inflicted by another person or other persons in the passenger compartment of a car , it is refuted that these injuries could have been inflicted in the circumstances described in the statement of PERSON .","It therefore results from the above - mentioned observations that the injuries found on the outer sides of the left calf and of the right thigh of PERSON were caused by contact of the examined lower parts of his body with angular protruding parts of the vehicle when he was put in the car .","No injury or trace of injury corresponding to the circumstances described in H. ORG \u2019s explanation and statements that he was beaten in the head , neck and chest in the passenger compartment of the vehicle was noticed either during the initial forensic examination dated DATE or during the additional commission forensic examination of CARDINAL DATE . \u201d","The applicant was not provided with a copy of forensic report no . CARDINAL .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the applicant \u2019s complaint of ill - treatment . The prosecutor concluded that it had not been established that the applicant had been beaten up during his arrest . In this connection , he relied on the conclusions of the forensic report of CARDINAL DATE , the statements from CARDINAL police officers who had participated in the applicant \u2019s arrest and from QUANTITY police officers who had been on guard duty at the temporary detention centre on DATE . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c Q. also stated that when they arrested PERSON on the territory of LOC they had shown their official identification and had not used any violence against him .","The police officers of the ORG ( GPE , GPE and ORG ) who had been questioned during the inquiry made statements similar to that of Q. , pointing out that ORG had not been subjected to violence during his arrest and search .","...","It appears from forensic report no . CARDINAL dated DATE issued by ... that H. ORG sustained abrasions on his left calf and right thigh . Their degree of gravity has not been determined because they are not injuries causing harm to health .","On DATE a decision ordering an additional commission forensic examination was adopted . It appears from forensic report no . CARDINAL dated DATE in respect of PERSON issued by ... that the injuries found on the outer sides of the left calf and of the right thigh of PERSON were caused by contact of the examined lower parts of his body with angular protruding parts of the vehicle when he was put in the car . No injury or trace of injury corresponding to the circumstances described in PERSON statement that he had been beaten in the head , neck and chest in the passenger compartment of the vehicle was noticed either during the initial forensic examination dated DATE or during the additional commission forensic examination of CARDINAL DATE .","...","After having comparatively analysed the facts of the case with the material collected during the inquiry , I therefore conclude that the allegations of PERSON ... that the injuries found on his body were caused on DATE when he was beaten up and was subjected to physical force during his arrest by police officers are not proven .","Accordingly , as the allegations that PERSON was beaten up and subjected to physical force during his arrest by police officers of the ORG are not proven , no criminal act was committed . In accordance with LAW , institution of criminal proceedings should be refused . \u201d","It appears from the document submitted by the Government that the investigator in charge of the case sent a copy of the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE to the detention centre where the applicant was detained at that time . Although the document was signed by the investigator , it was not dated . Moreover , the date on which it was sent was not indicated on the document .","In the meantime , on DATE , having received no response from the investigating authorities concerning his complaint of ill - treatment , the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG concerning the investigating authorities\u2019 failure to investigate his complaint of ill - treatment . The applicant asked the court to find a violation of his right protected under LAW .","In support of his complaint , he submitted that on DATE , without showing their official identification , CARDINAL or CARDINAL plain - clothes police officers had assaulted him near the GPE metro station in GPE . They restrained his arms and began to strike him in below the knees . They kicked him in the lower part of his right ribcage and then slipped narcotic substances into his right trouser pocket . They then dragged him into their car where they continued to beat him . In the car they started to insult him , making comments about his ethnic origin , and threatened him on account of a video recording he had uploaded to the ORG online video platform .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The court held that a criminal inquiry had already been carried out in respect of the applicant \u2019s complaint of ill - treatment and by a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General had refused to institute criminal proceedings . The court further held that as the prosecutor \u2019s decision was still in force , it could not deliver a new decision in this connection . The applicant could , however , lodge a complaint against the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE .","Following the delivery of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant learned about the existence of the Deputy Prosecutor General \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing to institute criminal proceedings in respect of his complaint of ill - treatment . The court also provided him for the first time with copies of the forensic reports of DATE and of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the court against the Deputy Prosecutor General \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing to institute criminal proceedings . He reiterated his previous complaints concerning his ill - treatment by the police during his arrest and complained about the ineffectiveness of the criminal inquiry . In this connection , he disputed the conclusions of the additional forensic report of CARDINAL DATE . He asked the court to quash the prosecutor \u2019s decision and declare it unlawful . He also asked the court to hear the experts who had conducted his forensic examinations and the police officers who had participated in his arrest .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint , finding the prosecutor \u2019s decision justified . The court , however , made no mention of the applicant \u2019s particular requests that it hear the experts and the police officers . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c Having examined the allegations that the complainant PERSON was subjected to ill - treatment by police officers during his arrest and that he was beaten up and subjected to degrading treatment when he was taken to the ORG , the court considers that a thorough investigation in this respect was conducted by ORG of GPE in accordance with the current legislation and the requirements of the international treaties . All possible measures were taken during this investigation ; the persons who had been involved in the complainant \u2019s arrest and had been in contact with him immediately after his arrest were questioned ; a forensic examination and an additional commission forensic examination were carried out ; however , the collected material did not prove the allegations indicated in the complaint .","In these circumstances , the court considers that it was not possible to collect sufficient evidence which could constitute the basis for instituting criminal proceedings in connection with the injuries sustained by PERSON on DATE .","Therefore , taking into consideration the collected material and the evidence examined at the court hearing , the court considers that the decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing to institute criminal proceedings adopted within his competence by ORG ... was justified and H. ORG \u2019s application for its quashing should be dismissed . \u201d","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision , reiterating his previous complaints .","DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance court \u2019s decision . The appellate court \u2019s decision was identical in its wording to ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .","It appears from the applicant \u2019s observations submitted to ORG in reply to the Government \u2019s observations that ORG of ORG ( \u201c ORG on Arbitrary Detention \u201d ) delivered its opinion no . CARDINAL concerning the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention on DATE . The relevant part of the opinion reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases :","( a ) When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty ( as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to the detainee ) ( category I ) ;","( b ) When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE of LAW and , insofar as GPE parties are concerned , by articles CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE of LAW ( category II ) ;","( c ) When the total or partial non - observance of the international norms relating to the right to a fair trial , established in LAW and in the relevant international instruments accepted by the GPE concerned , is of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character ( category III ) ;","( d ) When asylum seekers , immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy ( category IV ) ;","( e ) When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law for reasons of discrimination based on birth ; national , ethnic or social origin ; language ; religion ; economic condition ; political or other opinion ; gender ; sexual orientation ; or disability or other status , and which aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human rights ( category V ) .","Submissions","Communication from the source","The case summarized below was reported to ORG .","ORG , born in GPE in Astara Rayon , GPE , is an NORP journalist and a defender of minority rights . Since DATE , he has been the editorin - chief of the GPE - based newspaper ORG ( ORG ) , the only newspaper printed in the minority PERSON language .","The source informs ORG that the Talysh people are an ethnic minority residing in southern GPE .","On DATE , Mr. PERSON was arrested by the LOC Police pursuant to article CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of LAW of GPE in relation to illegal manufacture , purchase , storage , transfer , transport or sale of drugs in a large quantity . According to the source , the authorities alleged that they had seized QUANTITY grams of heroin from his person , and QUANTITY from his place of residence .","On DATE , ORG ( GPE ) sentenced Mr. ORG to CARDINAL months\u2019 detention . Mr. PERSON appealed the sentence and requested to be permitted to serve the term under house arrest . On DATE , ORG upheld the original decision , denying him provisional release . Mr. PERSON remains in detention to DATE .","...","On DATE , Mr. PERSON \u2019s lawyers reported that , following the completion of the investigation into the criminal charges against him , Mr. PERSON was charged under article CARDINAL ( high treason ) , article CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( incitement to national , racial or religious hostility ) and articles CARDINAL ( illegal manufacturing , purchase , storage , transportation , transfer or selling of narcotics and psychotropic substances ) of LAW .","On DATE , the hearing of Mr. PERSON \u2019s criminal charges was reportedly transferred to ORG . A preparatory session defining the procedural issues of the case took place on DATE . On DATE , Mr. PERSON \u2019s lawyer reportedly submitted CARDINAL motions : CARDINAL requesting an audiovisual recording of the hearing ; and another requesting that his client be allowed to sit beside his lawyer rather than behind secure bars . The source informs ORG that both motions were rejected .","The source was informed by FAC of GPE that Mr. Mammadov had been beaten and injured by his cellmate in a PERSON prison on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . The source reports that Mr. PERSON was placed in the cell DATE prior to the attacks . Mr. PERSON \u2019s lawyers had requested on several occasions that he be removed from the cell as his cellmate \u2019s behaviour was aggressive to the point of preventing him from sleeping at TIME . Those requests were all ignored . On DATE , his cellmate was transferred to the medical unit of the prison hospital for treatment of his reportedly severe mental illness .","The source considers the ongoing harassment of Mr. PERSON as an attempt to silence his efforts to report on human rights violations . The source points out that Mr. PERSON \u2019s arrest came shortly before the first edition of the ORG newspaper under his authority as editor - in - chief was due to be published ( at DATE ) . He was arrested after posting music and a video clip on the Internet which attracted attention to the FAC culture .","ORG The source submits that Mr. PERSON faces imprisonment sentences ranging up to life for trumped - up charges brought against him successively in DATE and DATE , and most recently in DATE .","The source signals its concern with regard to Mr. PERSON \u2019s conditions of detention in the light of the fate that befell ORG , the former editorin - chief of the ORG newspaper , who was allegedly subjected to similar acts of harassment and arbitrary detention in DATE , and who died in custody on CARDINAL DATE .","The source concludes that the detention of PERSON is arbitrary and considers it an obvious attempt to silence his efforts to report on human rights violations . Furthermore , his rights to legal protection have been violated .","NORP The source further expresses its fears for the physical and psychological integrity of Mr. PERSON .","Response from the Government","...","Discussion","ORG was informed that Mr. PERSON has been sentenced to DATE in prison for criminal offences relating to \u201c illegal selling of drugs \u201d , \u201c high treason \u201d and \u201c incitement to national , racial , social and religious hatred and hostility \u201d under articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively of LAW .","The source alleged that the authorities fabricated the case against Mr. Mammadov due to his human rights work and support for the minority Talysh population .","The source informed ORG that Mr. PERSON was a consultant with ORG and editor - in - chief of ORG , the only newspaper in the minority PERSON language in GPE . Mr. PERSON was also head of ORG , a prominent PERSON scientist and human rights activist and former editor - in - chief of PERSON , who was charged in DATE with espionage , subsequently sentenced to DATE of imprisonment , and who died in prison in DATE .","PERSON was arrested on DATE for alleged possession of heroin . On DATE and DATE , he was also charged with treason and incitement of national , racial , social and religious hatred and hostility . His hearing in ORG began on DATE ; he was convicted of the charges brought against him and sentenced on DATE .","In its response , the ORG set out the case for the prosecution and the court \u2019s judgment . However , ORG is of the view that the Government did not provide a satisfactory explanation as to the allegations put forward by the source concerning the arbitrary character of the charges against Mr. PERSON and his subsequent conviction .","The information provided by the source and the Government to ORG indicates that the charges of treason and incitement of national , racial , social and religious hatred and hostility are based on Mr. PERSON \u2019s legitimate exercise of the right of freedom of expression under article CARDINAL of LAW and article CARDINAL of LAW . As such , ORG considers that the deprivation of liberty of ORG falls within category II of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by ORG when considering cases submitted to it .","Furthermore , ORG is of the view that the response from the Government does not adequately address the source \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment to which Mr. PERSON has been subjected in detention , its concerns for his health , nor the groundless rejection of his application for an audio - visual recording of the hearing .","DATE . ORG finds that these violations of international law relating to the right of a fair trial are of such gravity as to give the deprivation of liberty of ORG an arbitrary character . As such , ORG considers that Mr. ORG \u2019s detention falls within category III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by ORG when considering cases submitted to it .","Disposition","In the light of the foregoing , ORG on Arbitrary Detention renders the following opinion :","The detention of PERSON is arbitrary , being in contravention of articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL of LAW and articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE of LAW . It falls within categories II and III of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by ORG when considering cases submitted to it .","Consequent upon the opinion rendered , ORG requests ORG to remedy the situation of Mr. PERSON and bring it into conformity with the standards and principles set out in LAW and LAW ."],"violated_articles":["3","34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164202","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF FOLTIS v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No violation of Article 14+6 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a lawyer and was appointed insolvency administrator of the NORP limited partnership PERSON ( hereafter \u201c the company \u201d ) in DATE .","On DATE the applicant , in his position of insolvency administrator of the company , took legal action against PERSON , a former limited partner ( PERSON ) of the KG , to seek the reimbursement of MONEY ( ORG ) , which had been paid to her as advance payment on profits ( FAC ) by the KG .","NORP In his statement of claim , the applicant indicated that he might introduce an additional action concerning QUANTITY , to seek the reimbursement of payments received by PERSON as compensation for her participation as a limited partner ( PERSON f\u00fcr GPE ) and as advance payments for profit . The applicant declared that he had refrained from introducing an action concerning these claims at that point in time because of the costs involved .","PERSON was notified of the legal action on DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested legal aid for his initial action and with a view to introducing an action concerning the supplementary claims , amounting to approximately EUR CARDINAL . The statutory timelimit for those latter claims was DATE . This request for legal aid was placed in the case file . It was neither examined by a judge nor was notice given to PERSON","On DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG to enquire whether he had been granted legal aid . He did not receive a response . On DATE , he sent another letter , to which he received no response . The applicant claimed that , in addition , he had also made telephone calls to ORG on DATE and on DATE to find out whether he had been granted legal aid and that , both times , he had been informed by ORG that the file was at the judge \u2019s office and that , therefore , no information could be given .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request for legal aid , following another written inquiry of that DATE . The decision to grant legal aid was served on PERSON on DATE . On DATE ORG issued a decision , clarifying that the grant of legal aid covered the supplementary claims brought on DATE .","On DATE the applicant introduced the additional action concerning the said claims . PERSON was notified on DATE . On DATE a hearing was held .","In its judgment on DATE ORG ordered Ms B. to pay EUR PERSON to the applicant and dismissed the remainder of the applicant \u2019s initial action . That court likewise dismissed the applicant \u2019s additional action for reimbursement of approximately ORG CARDINAL in its entirety , finding that the claims were time - barred . It stated that the statutory time - limit for these claims was DATE and that submitting the request for legal aid on DATE had not been sufficient to suspend the running of time for purposes of limitation , because domestic law also required that the court arrange for notice to be given to the defendant ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL below ) .","ORG noted that PERSON was notified of the request for legal aid DATE , hence CARDINAL and a half years after the expiry of the limitation period . It considered that the exception foreseen by domestic law allowing for the retroactive effect of arranging for notice to be given was not applicable in the instant case . According to that exception , the running of time for the purposes of limitation was suspended with effect from DATE a request for legal aid was lodged , if the notification of that request was arranged \u201c shortly after \u201d ( demn\u00e4chst ) . ORG noted that , according to the constant case - law of the domestic courts , the term \u201c shortly after \u201d was interpreted in a way that required the litigant to act with the necessary diligence to effect the immediate notice or service . It found that the applicant \u2013 who , as a lawyer , must have known that arranging for notice to be given to the defendant of his request for legal aid \u201c shortly after \u201d its submission was required to prevent his claim from becoming timebarred DATE had in a reproachable manner contributed to the delay and thus not acted with the necessary diligence required . ORG observed that the applicant had not asked ORG to notify immediately the defendant of his request for legal aid , irrespective of its prospects of success , which he could have done without additional costs and without suffering any procedural disadvantages . Also , rather than enquiring whether the notification of the request had been arranged , the applicant limited himself to enquiring whether his request for legal aid had been successful . In relation to the alleged telephone calls in DATE and DATE , it found that , given that ORG had not responded to his written request of DATE , the applicant should not have relied on the registry \u2019s alleged statement . The court found it incomprehensible that the applicant had waited until DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , to enquire again in writing about the success of his request for legal aid .","ORG added that , in any event , the claim concerning the reimbursement of approximately ORG CARDINAL was ill - founded and thoroughly reasoned this finding .","On an unspecified date the applicant requested legal aid in order to lodge an appeal .","On DATE the GPE \/ ORG dismissed his request , finding that the appeal lacked prospects of success as ORG had rightly considered the applicant \u2019s claims to be time - barred . It observed that ORG had arranged for notice to be given to Ms B. of the applicant \u2019s request for legal aid at the earliest in DATE and argued that notice DATE after the request \u2019s introduction could not be considered as having taken place \u201c shortly after \u201d that introduction . The interests of the defendant , who had no knowledge of the submission of the request for legal aid , in the protection of her legal positions and the clarification of the legal situation , had to be taken into account .","ORG pointed out that it was constant case - law of the domestic courts that the term \u201c shortly after \u201d was to be interpreted in such a way that the risk of a delayed notification was distributed fairly between both parties to the dispute and , therefore , the litigant concerned must have acted with the necessary diligence to effect the immediate notification . Furthermore , there must not be legitimate interests of the defendant that conflicted with such retroactive effect ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It confirmed ORG finding that the applicant had not acted with the necessary diligence . It underlined that the applicant would have had to alert ORG about the imminent expiry of the limitation period and to ask to arrange for the immediate notification of the defendant in order to suspend the running of time for the purposes of limitation . In fact the applicant had to take into account that ORG also had the possibility to refuse his request for legal aid without hearing , and hence without notifying , the defendant if it considered the claim to be illfounded or the applicant to have the necessary means ( decision a limine ) . ORG likewise considered that the subsequent steps taken by the applicant were not sufficient , because he had not asked for the notification to be effected immediately . ORG based its decision to refuse legal aid exclusively on the finding that the claims were time - barred .","On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , alleging that the refusal to grant him legal aid violated his right of access to a court and that he had been discriminated against as an impecunious person compared to a litigant with sufficient financial means .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a formation of CARDINAL judges , declined to accept the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint for adjudication ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . It found that the period of processing the request for legal aid and the delay in arranging for notice to be given to the defendant constituted gross negligence ( grob fehlerhaft ) by ORG . Nonetheless , it considered that the decision of ORG was in conformity with the case - law of ORG , according to which a notification could only be \u201c shortly after \u201d the submission of a request for legal aid if the applicant concerned acted with the necessary diligence to effect the immediate notification , and if there were no legitimate interests of the defendant that conflicted with such retroactive effect ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG found that ORG finding that the applicant had not acted with the necessary diligence did not raise concerns . The applicant failed to ask ORG to notify immediately the defendant about the request for legal aid . Neither in his initial lawsuit nor in his subsequent enquiries did the applicant indicate the particular urgency of the matter , namely , the imminent limitation of the claims .","NORP In relation to the alleged discrimination , ORG found that impecunious litigants and litigants with sufficient financial means were in a comparable situation as regards the possibilities and obligations in order to suspend the running of time for purposes of limitation . Referring to the case - law of ORG ( see relevant domestic law and practice paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it considered that a litigant with sufficient financial means must not limit himself to submitting a lawsuit , but rather had to remind the court to ask him to pay the necessary court fees or even to pay the fees on his own initiative , if the court had failed to ask him , in order to effect the service of the legal action . ORG found that such obligations on the part of a litigant with sufficient financial means were comparable to those of the applicant , namely his obligation to ask the court concerned to notify immediately the defendant of the request for legal aid , and to remind the court to arrange for notice to be given ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164951","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GRECHKIN AND SMIRNOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and lack of an effective remedy to complain about a violation of their right to have a civil case examined within a reasonable time ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178174","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KAMENOS v. CYPRUS","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Costas Pamballis;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pamballis;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE , he is a lawyer and lives in GPE .","The applicant was appointed as an IDC judge on DATE and as its President on DATE .","By a letter dated DATE the CARDINAL main trade unions and the CARDINAL corresponding ORG federations submitted a complaint to ORG , alleging misconduct on the part of the applicant in the exercise of his judicial functions . The letter referred , in general , to complaints received by members of trade unions and ORG federations who had carried out duties as lay members of the ORG , concerning the applicant \u2019s conduct towards litigants , witnesses , lawyers and lay members of the court during proceedings .","The applicant was served with a written notice from ORG dated DATE , informing him of the allegations against him and noting that ORG had decided that it was justified to activate Rule CARDINAL of LAW concerning the exercise of the ORG \u2019s disciplinary authority ( \u201c the Procedural Rules \u201d ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was provided with a copy of the letter of complaint and was requested to send his comments within DATE .","By a letter dated DATE the applicant submitted his comments to ORG with regard to the allegations against him . The applicant observed , inter alia , that the complaint was so general and vague that he was unable to identify the precise events on which it was based as he had presided over numerous proceedings . He also informed ORG that the authors of the letter had given a copy to the press and that it had been published in a newspaper on DATE .","On DATE ORG decided , in accordance with LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , to appoint an investigating judge to look into the allegations against the applicant .","On DATE ORG appointed the then President of ORG of GPE as investigating judge .","In a letter dated DATE the investigating judge informed the applicant of his appointment . He also provided the applicant with statements he had taken from CARDINAL people during his investigation and invited the applicant to submit a supplementary statement , if he so wished , within DATE .","On DATE the applicant made a lengthy supplementary statement to the investigating judge , providing his comments on the statements collected by the judge and referring to various proceedings in which the witnesses had been involved . He also noted that he did not view his comments as a supplementary statement as such , since it was only at that time that the complaint had become more precise , at least in part . Furthermore , he observed that the witness statements covered a period of DATE , when he had sat in CARDINAL cases . The statements could not therefore provide the full picture . He suggested that statements should be taken from a number of lay members of the court and provided the investigating judge with their names and telephone numbers .","On DATE , upon completion of the investigation , the investigating judge submitted a report to ORG summarising his investigation and the evidence collected . The report was accompanied by all the material he had collected , including the statements given by the witnesses and the applicant . The report made no recommendation .","By a letter dated DATE the chief registrar of ORG informed the applicant that the court had decided that a disciplinary process was warranted . He provided the applicant with the charge sheet drawn up by ORG at a meeting it had held on DATE . This included CARDINAL charges of misconduct , and details of the preparatory investigation by the investigating judge . The charges against the applicant were as follows :","\u201c First Charge","Misconduct ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW )","Particulars","While you exercised the duties of President of ORG you repeatedly displayed oppressive , disparaging , scornful and , more generally , insulting behaviour towards the lay members of the ORG , both inside and outside the courtroom and , at the same time , in the course of proceedings you sometimes ignored them , sometimes did not allow them to put questions and sometimes did not allow them to ask for clarification on the matters at issue .","Second Charge","Misconduct ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW )","Particulars","While you exercised the duties of President of ORG you repeatedly displayed oppressive , disparaging , scornful and , more generally , insulting and even humiliating behaviour towards lawyers and\/or litigants and\/or witnesses during the proceedings , including ironic comments at their expense and\/or innuendos , with the result that , owing to the agitation and disruption caused to them , the entire proceedings were diverted from their proper course . \u201d","A list of CARDINAL witnesses was attached to the charge sheet .","In his letter the chief registrar summoned the applicant to appear on DATE before the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to answer the charges . He informed the applicant that the proceedings would not be held in public unless he so wished and that , pending the proceedings , he would have to refrain from carrying out his duties .","On DATE , before the applicant answered the charges against him , his lawyer raised several preliminary objections . In particular , he argued that the investigation had been incomplete as statements had not been taken from the people indicated by the applicant . Furthermore , he argued that the charge sheet was incomplete , defective and vague ; it did not give sufficient information to the applicant about the offences in relation to the actual content of the CARDINAL charges he was facing .","The ORG ruled DATE that the charge sheet , taken together with the CARDINAL statements , provided sufficient information to the applicant about the facts on which the charges had been based . In that regard , it noted that the applicant had commented on all the details referred to in the statements in a lengthy statement . The ORG also held that the investigation had been adequate and had provided grounds for bringing charges .","NORP The applicant then pleaded not guilty to the charges .","A hearing was set for DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyer agreed that the proceedings would not be held in public .","Hearings commenced on the scheduled date . The ORG set out the procedure to be followed : every witness would read out the statement he or she had given to the investigating officer and would then be cross - examined by the applicant \u2019s lawyer . Following a request by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , the ORG also held on DATE that in view of the defence \u2019s line of argument all the files of the proceedings in which the witnesses had sat as members of the ORG , from the applicant \u2019s appointment as president of the IDC onwards , should be brought before it . The hearing was scheduled to continue on DATE .","Following a request by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , leave was given by the ORG on the latter date for the applicant to have full access to the ORG registry \u2019s archives in order to enable him to examine and collect any elements that could help his defence .","The hearings continued , with CARDINAL more sessions being held . Files of the proceedings over which the applicant had presided and in which the witnesses had been involved were admitted as exhibits . They were filed in separate bundles by reference to the particular witness and were recorded in the list of exhibits .","During the proceedings it was clarified that the charge sheet was limited to the period subsequent to the applicant \u2019s appointment as President of the IDC . Further statements that related to pending proceedings and complaints that had previously been dealt with by ORG were removed from the charge sheet . CARDINAL out of the QUANTITY witnesses listed on the charge sheet ultimately testified . They comprised CARDINAL lay members , CARDINAL lawyers and CARDINAL people who had been witnesses in proceedings over which the applicant had presided . The witnesses read out and confirmed the contents of their statements . They were then cross - examined by the applicant \u2019s lawyer .","In addition , at the suggestion of the applicant \u2019s lawyer , the court also summoned the ORG \u2019s registrar .","After the conclusion of the witness statements and an address by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , the ORG found on DATE that a prima facie case had been established against the applicant . It therefore called the applicant to put forward his defence .","The applicant took until DATE to set out his defence case , testifying himself and calling CARDINAL witnesses . They consisted of QUANTITY lay members of the ORG , CARDINAL lawyers and a representative from the redundancy fund . The proceedings concluded with the applicant \u2019s lawyer addressing the court . He raised the issue of the charge sheet again and also submitted that because ORG and the ORG had the same composition , the same judges had examined the witness statements , had decided to refer the case to trial , formulated the charge sheet and overseen the proceedings . Those judges had also acted as prosecutors and had then tried the case . He argued that that was contrary to the rules of natural justice and the right to a fair trial . He stressed , however , that this had nothing to do with the judges as individuals .","In a decision of DATE the ORG found , by a majority of CARDINAL ( the President and CARDINAL justices concurring ) , that on the basis of the evidence and all the material facts before it , the applicant \u2019s alleged misconduct had been proved . The ORG assessed the evidence given by the CARDINAL witnesses and made specific reference to events transcribed in the records of court proceedings over which the applicant had presided and in which the witnesses had been involved . It referred to CARDINAL specific cases . After hearing the applicant , in accordance with Rule CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the ORG removed him from office .","The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c ...","Rule CARDINAL secures for the judge against whom proceedings are brought all the rights provided for in LAW for persons who are charged with a criminal offence . That constitutional provision secures the well - known rights that an accused has in a criminal trial and are identical to those secured under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , which was ratified by ORG by law in DATE ( Law CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Furthermore , the provisions of LAW , which are the equivalent to those of LAW , are also applicable .","...","At no stage did ORG function as a public prosecutor against PERSON . The President and Members of ORG did not put a single question to the witnesses who were listed on the charge sheet , or to those summoned on behalf of PERSON , which might have been construed as cross - examination for the purpose of contesting the ORG allegations . On the contrary , the President and Members of ORG asked very few questions , and they were solely for the purpose of clarification ; special reference will be made to some of those questions at the appropriate stage . Not a single question was put to PERSON . ORG was not seeking to pursue a procedure of prosecution against PERSON in the form of a confrontation between prosecution and defence . For that reason , and despite having such powers under LAW , the relevant provision of the LAW on the judicial process and the procedure to be followed in investigating disciplinary cases , it did not assign the duties of prosecutor to the judge - investigator or to any other judicial official . In that way , which was the declared intention of ORG , more rights were secured for PERSON than those which he had under the aforementioned ORG of the LAW and the Rule . That was precisely the aim of the procedure followed by ORG , which essentially remained an audience for the ORG statements .","It follows that this is the appropriate moment to refer to the suggestion made by PERSON PERSON \u2019s lawyer in his final address . Its subject relates directly and absolutely to what we have just said . The lawyer alleged that ORG had functioned in a dual capacity , given that it had judged the case and simultaneously exercised the duties of prosecutor . Clarifying his position , he said that that is inferred from the fact that the President and Members of ORG put questions to the witnesses . In our opinion , that suggestion is unfounded and unjustifiable . It is unfounded for the reasons which we explained above , and unjustifiable because it conflicts with what the lawyer said to us at the beginning of the proceedings , when he ... spoke in praise of the powers invested by LAW in ORG , describing its work as difficult and important [ in those instances ] when it is called upon to decide whether a judge displayed misconduct and is obliged , again in accordance with the LAW , to terminate the latter \u2019s services in the event of conviction . In brief , PERSON not only accepted but also praised as correct the competence , arising from the LAW , of ORG , which is made up of the full bench of the Members of ORG , the highest judicial authority in the ORG .","...","[ The applicant \u2019s lawyer ] asked many witnesses to express an opinion on the extent to which they considered that PERSON decisions were correct . Most of them , including the lawyers , gave the right reply , namely , that it was not for them to judge PERSON decisions . In the same way , ORG is not judging the correctness of PERSON decisions . We do not have such competence . That belongs to ORG . The competence of ORG is only to decide whether the charges of improper behaviour ( misconduct ) are proved , which [ behaviour ] in the case we are examining and according to the particulars of the charges , is continuous ( \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac \u03c3\u03c5\u03c1\u03c1\u03bf\u03ae , \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03ae\u03c2 ) and directly refers to the function of PERSON as the President of ORG .","...","We previously stated that certain witnesses called by PERSON , evidently in an endeavour to tone down or explain what the witnesses listed on the charge sheet had testified to and who touched on PERSON behaviour in the course of the hearing , in essence confirmed what those witnesses had said . Several examples follow ...","...","From the evidence that we have analysed above , we find that the charges have been proved .","...","We wish to clarify that the purpose of this procedure is not to punish Mr PERSON but to protect the public by adopting of a strict standard of judicial behaviour in order to preserve public confidence in the integrity , prestige and independence of the judicial system . We borrow and adopt the above principle from the decision ( Investigation concerning Judge PERSON , No . CARDINAL ) given in DATE by ORG , in GPE , which concerned a procedure against a specific judge whose services were also terminated for misconduct , with facts and particulars similar to the case before us . In essence , we translate the principle which that Commission adopted and recorded on page CARDINAL of the decision . The principle is based , as stated in the decision , on what was said by ORG , that the purpose of the procedure was not to punish judges who have erred but to protect the judicial system and those who are subject to the formidable power exercised by judges .","...","Evaluating the above with great care , caution and , we would say , anxiety , we are led to the conclusion that everything imputed to PERSON as stated in the CARDINAL charges has been proved . In accordance with the relevant provisions of the LAW , which are referred to in our decision , the proof of a charge of misconduct against a judge leads to the termination of his services . \u201d","The dissenting judge found in his decision that the evidence was not sufficient to prove such a serious charge as misconduct . As regards the procedure , the judge noted , inter alia , that ORG had asked the witnesses very few questions and that they had been for the purposes of clarification . Furthermore , with regard to the investigation and the object of the hearing , he observed :","\u201c A judicial official with the duties of prosecutor was not appointed , a possibility which is referred to in Rule CARDINAL , and we adopted the following approach : every witness read his statement to the investigating officer out loud and , immediately after , was cross - examined by Mr PERSON \u2019s lawyer . During the cross - examination or subsequently members of ORG asked the witnesses a few questions for clarification purposes . This is also exactly what happened in the case of PERSON and the DATE witnesses called by him .","...","Before referring to the evidence , it is useful if we outline the methodology which led to the taking of statements by ORG . He did not himself take the initiative of collecting evidence in view of the accusation , as he explains in his report . The persons who signed the accusation did not have any personal knowledge of the circumstances and statements were taken from all those they ... named , and from others subsequently named by those who had been initially summoned . The investigation into the manner in which PERSON exercised his duties in general was therefore not systematic and that is also the reason for not taking statements from a number of other persons whom PERSON himself indicated . Besides , as we have seen , of the CARDINAL statements which ORG took , CARDINAL were attached to the charge sheet , with a further reduction to CARDINAL in the course of the hearing . They did not include statements which , as the Investigating Officer reported , not only expressed no complaints but stated that PERSON conduct had been irreproachable in all respects . Consequently , as is in any case self - evident , the object of the hearing is [ to determine ] whether , on the basis of the evidence of those CARDINAL witnesses , the charge has been substantiated as formulated . That is to say , whether , from each individual \u2019s evidence and the correlation between them , to the extent possible , there arises conduct as cumulatively stated on the charge sheet , [ and ] in the case of the second charge \u201c with the result that , owing to the agitation and disruption they were caused , the entire proceedings were diverted from their proper course \u201d . This ( was the wording ) , without any specification on the charge sheet of a definite , specific incident at a specific time , ... in relation to a specific person in the context of a specific case . The witnesses who remained on the charge sheet ( whose statements I shall of course return to ) , as lay members of the court , or as lawyers or witnesses , did not submit a complaint there and then about what they considered to be objectionable conduct . ... Nor did the litigants in any specific case which could be related to the charge sheet make a complaint at the time , or appeal or employ any other legal means so that any objectionable conduct would be examined also from the aspect of its effect on the final outcome . That was what occurred in the cases of PERSON v. PERSON . ORG Ltd and others ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R. CARDINAL , and PERSON v. ORG and others ( DATE ) CARDINAL C.L.R.CARDINAL , in which ORG annulled decisions issued by ORG under the presidency of Mr PERSON , using strong language about the degree of his intervention in the proceedings and the appearance of partiality to which it could give rise . Of course , the charge sheet does not extend to those cases and does not concern the issue of interventions as such ... The core of the charge is the conduct attributed to Mr PERSON at the expense of lay members of the court , lawyers , litigants and witnesses , and it is in the light of such considerations that I shall go on to examine the evidence adduced . \u201d","The applicant continued to receive all the benefits that came with his post during the proceedings . It appears from a letter sent to him by the ORG of GPE that the applicant was considered as having retired from the date of his dismissal , DATE . He was paid a retirement lump sum and started receiving his pension ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160417","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SHLYCHKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE in the GPE region . He is currently serving his sentence in GPE detention facility in the village of GPE .","At TIME on DATE PERSON was robbed in the street and was stabbed through the heart . She died of the wound shortly afterwards . The assailant took a mobile phone and MONEY ( RUB ) from the victim \u2019s purse .","The PERSON town prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u201c the town prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) instituted a criminal investigation into PERSON \u2019s killing . Having obtained from the mobile phone operator the call logs in respect of the victim \u2019s phone , the investigators established that at TIME on DATE a phone call had been made to a number belonging to PERSON from PERSON \u2019s phone using the applicant \u2019s ORG card .","At TIME on DATE the police arrived at the applicant \u2019s flat and ordered him to follow them to the police station .","Once at the police station , the applicant explained that on DATE he had bought a used mobile phone from a stranger because a friend of his had earlier expressed an interest in purchasing a second - hand phone . In order to test the phone , he had inserted his ORG card and made a call to his then girlfriend , PERSON He also claimed that on DATE he had played slot machines and won RUB CARDINAL . Then the officers questioning him showed him a call log from PERSON phone , informed him of the killing and suggested that he confess to mitigate his sentence . The applicant refused to admit to the crime .","The officers proceeded to hit and kick him on his head , chest and flanks . The applicant fainted several times . The beatings went on for TIME . Eventually the applicant gave in and agreed to write down a \u201c statement of surrender and confession \u201d ( \u044f\u0432\u043a\u0430 \u0441 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0438\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 ) , as dictated by the officers , admitting to the robbery and murder of PERSON","An investigator of the town prosecutor \u2019s office , PERSON , questioned the applicant as a suspect and later went to the applicant \u2019s flat to seize a few items including the mobile phone contract for the applicant \u2019s ORG card .","NORP The applicant was not provided with legal assistance on DATE .","The applicant was brought to the police station at TIME on DATE . Upon arrival the police officers asked him how he had obtained PERSON phone and then showed him the call log . The applicant looked at the log and then asked the officers to leave him alone in the room . He then wrote a statement of surrender and confession describing the circumstances of the crime . No physical force was applied to the applicant .","In the ORG \u2019s submission , on DATE the applicant complained to the town prosecutor \u2019s office ; however , he did not raise the issue of ill - treatment .","At TIME on DATE an arrest record was drawn up . It contained a handwritten note by the applicant that read as follows : \u201c [ I ] agree with the arrest , rights are understood , [ I have ] no statement to make \u201d .","A handwritten statement signed by the applicant and dated DATE affirmed that the applicant \u2019s rights had been explained to him ; that he did not require legal assistance ; that the \u201c bodily injuries visible at [ that ] moment on [ his ] face and body [ had been ] inflicted on DATE by [ his ] roommate PERSON ; and that police officers had not used force against him .","Between TIME and CARDINAL a.m on DATE the applicant was questioned without a lawyer present .","In TIME on DATE the applicant was placed in a temporary detention centre ( ORG \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0441\u043e\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f , hereinafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) . According to the Government , when placed in the ORG , the applicant did not make any healthrelated complaints . He had a bruise under his right eye . An entry in the ORG logbook was made by an ambulance doctor stating that the applicant was \u201c in a post - epileptic - fit state \u201d .","TIME on DATE the applicant was questioned in the presence of PERSON , a legal - aid lawyer . According to the Government , in the course of the interview he described how he had committed the crime . The record of the interview reads that the applicant found the knife used as the murder weapon at a market after a fire .","On DATE the investigators carried out an investigative re - enactment . In the applicant \u2019s submission , the re - enactment was limited to bringing him to the crime scene and photographing him there . According to the Government , during the visit the applicant confirmed his statement made in the presence of the lawyer in the course of the second interview of DATE . He also selected a knife similar to that used to stab PERSON from a selection of CARDINAL knives available at a local shop .","On DATE a judge of the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) placed the applicant in custody . The applicant complained to the judge about his ill - treatment ; she refused to take note of the allegations , however , stating that they could be examined in the course of the trial against the applicant .","On DATE the applicant was formally charged with murder and robbery . He retracted his confession .","On DATE the police transported the applicant to a remand prison . However , the staff on duty refused to admit the applicant as he had visible injuries . The applicant was returned to the ORG . On DATE the police again tried to transfer him to the remand prison and were refused for the second time .","On DATE the police brought the applicant to the GPE polyclinic where he underwent an X - ray examination which showed that there were fractures to CARDINAL ribs with signs that the bones were beginning to heal . The following day the applicant was admitted to the remand prison .","According to the applicant , once in the remand prison , he complained about his illtreatment to the town prosecutor \u2019s office .","According to the Government , the applicant raised the ill - treatment complaint on DATE . The town prosecutor \u2019s office carried out a preinvestigation inquiry on the basis of the complaint .","On DATE Mr A. , an investigator with the town prosecutor \u2019s office , refused to initiate criminal proceedings into the alleged ill - treatment . He observed that upon arrival at the ORG the applicant had had a bruise under his right eye and yet had made no complaints about his state of health , and noted that , according to the ORG logbook , an ambulance had been called for the applicant on account of an epileptic fit .","On an unspecified date the criminal case against the applicant was submitted for trial before ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) .","The applicant first took cognisance of the decision of DATE on DATE while studying the case file in the criminal case against him .","The applicant complained about the town prosecutor \u2019s office \u2019s refusal of DATE to ORG , which forwarded it for examination by ORG of the GPE region . The latter forwarded the complaint to the town prosecutor \u2019s office ( against which the complaint was directed ) . The applicant received no reply .","The applicant did not attempt to institute any judicial review proceedings , considering that they would be futile on account of the judge \u2019s reply of DATE .","On DATE ORG scheduled a trial hearing on DATE .","The applicant raised the matter of ill - treatment before ORG at his trial .","On DATE ORG ordered an expert medical examination of the X - ray of DATE . It can be seen from the trial record of that date that ORG informed the judge that he was not an expert in interpreting Xrays and asked for a period of DATE to consult a colleague ; the judge acceded to the request . On DATE N. drew up a report stating that the rib fractures had been caused by blunt objects ; by DATE the knitting together of the fractures had commenced ; the fractures had been \u201c considerably old \u201d and \u201c no injuries corresponding to [ those of ] CARDINAL and DATE [ had been ] identified \u201d . The judge rejected the applicant \u2019s request for another expert report .","ORG dismissed the record of the first interview of DATE as inadmissible evidence for the reason that the interview had been conducted without a lawyer present .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and murder and sentenced him to twenty years\u2019 imprisonment . The court referred to the applicant \u2019s pre - trial confession , the record of his questioning by the investigator , his statements at the investigative reenactment and other physical evidence .","The trial judge also examined in detail the evidence presented by the parties in relation to the allegation of illtreatment , including the decision of DATE and the expert medical report ordered in respect of the X - ray . The judge also heard evidence from an expert , ORG , as well as investigator Mr A. and several police officers . The judge refused to examine the ORG logbook which , according to the applicant , would support his assertion that there were injuries . Instead , the judge examined a letter from the deputy director of the ORG , according to which on his arrival there the applicant only had had a black eye which he had explained as having received before the arrest . The deputy director had also noted that the logbook entry concerning the call for an ambulance had been made for another person . The judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment and declared the relevant evidence ( the confession statement , the interview record and the investigative re - enactment record ) admissible .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal reiterating the issue of his confession under duress without a lawyer present , as well as the weakness of the prosecution \u2019s case against him . He insisted on his innocence .","On DATE the applicant lodged an additional appeal in which he claimed that ORG had wrongly considered his previous conviction as an aggravating factor and yet had chosen to regard the surrender and confession as a mitigating factor . He asked for the firstinstance judgment to be quashed on the grounds given in his appeal of DATE .","On DATE the applicant ( through his counsel ) lodged an appeal in which he insisted that the statement of surrender and confession had not been genuine as he had been forcibly brought to the police station and detained there for TIME with no access to a lawyer .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment in a summary fashion .","The applicant further unsuccessfully sought supervisory review of his conviction .","On DATE the applicant sent another complaint to ORG , which was forwarded to the town prosecutor \u2019s office .","On CARDINAL DATE the deputy town prosecutor quashed the decision of DATE and issued an instruction to carry out an additional preinvestigation inquiry .","On CARDINAL DATE S. , an investigator with the town prosecutor \u2019s office , refused to institute an investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . He found it established that on DATE a police officer in ORG had received a report of a violent fight ; on DATE he had invited the applicant to come in for a \u201c preventative talk \u201d and had noticed CARDINAL bruises under the applicant \u2019s eyes . PERSON concluded that the bruise under the applicant \u2019s right eye had been a result of the injury inflicted long before the arrest . He also pointed out that ORG had \u201c carefully examined \u201d the applicant \u2019s version of ill - treatment by police officers . The issue of the fractured ribs was not examined ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140911","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF FIRSTOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , GPE .","On DATE police officers from the Inza ORG arrested the applicant . He was accused of having broken into a flat and having stolen personal belongings the estimated cost of which was MONEY ( RUB ) , ( MONEY ( ORG ) . He was remanded in custody at the LOC Town police station ( \u201c the police ward \u201d ) .","DATE , a prosecutor authorised the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention and charged him with theft . He was transferred to LOC temporary detention facility GPE .","On DATE a deputy prosecutor of the LOC served the applicant with a bill of indictment . The applicant was committed to stand trial before ORG .","On DATE ORG held the first trial hearing , and on DATE it found the applicant guilty of aggravated theft and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","In addition to his first period of detention in the police ward following his arrest , the applicant was taken to the ward on CARDINAL occasions during the pre - trial investigation and court proceedings .","The applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in the ward . He was usually detained in a cell containing CARDINAL wooden bunk beds and accommodating up to QUANTITY detainees . Inmates had had to take turns to rest owing to the shortage of sleeping places . No bedding was provided . The cell did not have a window in the proper sense of that word \u2013 a small window was covered with a metal sheet , blocking access to natural light and air . In the absence of any artificial ventilation in the cell , it was hard to breathe owing to the thick smoke and the humidity . The cell was lit by a small bulb inserted in a recess in the concrete wall above the door . Thick metal bars separated the bulb from the cell . According to the applicant , there was no furniture , wash - bowl or lavatory pan in the cell . Once a day , in the morning , inmates were taken to a public lavatory outside the police station . For the rest of DATE , they had to use a bucket as a lavatory pan . They were allowed to clean the bucket once a day , in the morning . The foul smell permeated the cell , as the bucket had no cover . The police station did not have a recreation yard and inmates were therefore confined to their cells day and night . Food was provided once a day . The DATE food ration consisted of CARDINAL a bowl of cabbage soup and a piece of bread . In addition , inmates were given tea , which they drank from containers cut from plastic bottles . Medical assistance was unavailable .","The Government submitted that in the period after his arrest and until DATE , the applicant had been taken back to the police ward CARDINAL times . He had usually been taken from the detention facility GPE to the ward early in the morning and had been returned to facility GPE in TIME , only to be sent back to the police ward in TIME or DATE . The Government observed that he had spent DATE in the police ward during the pre - trial investigation : DATE while attending the court hearings , DATE while he was re - acquainting himself with the case - file materials , and DATE while he was studying the court records . The Government acknowledged that the material and sanitary conditions in the ward had not \u201c entirely satisfied the established legal requirements \u201d . They stressed that the cells had had no furniture , save for bunk beds , or radios , the lighting had been \u201c insufficient \u201d , the cells had not been equipped with lavatory pans as the police ward was not connected to the water mains or the sewerage system . They further conceded that there had been no artificial ventilation system , the cells had not been disinfected and detainees had not been provided with bedding . Following a number of warnings from the prosecutor , in DATE the director of the police station sent a request for additional funding and took the necessary steps to comply with the legal norms governing conditions of detention . The Government provided the ORG with a copy of a prosecutor \u2019s order issued on DATE . Having seen for himself the conditions of detention in the police station and talked to inmates , the prosecutor noted the following problems requiring immediate improvement : occasional overcrowding , failure to provide inmates with bedding , scarce food and lack of sanitary facilities . The Government described the detention authorities\u2019 response to the prosecutor \u2019s orders , and submitted that after the applicant \u2019s detention in the ward the metal shutters had been removed from the cell windows and inmates had been guaranteed an individual sleeping place and personal space of QUANTITY . Furniture had been installed in the cells and inmates had started receiving food CARDINAL times a day . The police station administration was now organising DATE walks for detainees , had introduced disinfection of the facilities and was providing inmates with the opportunity to take a shower and wash their clothes and bedding .","Nonetheless , the Government disputed the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning the availability of medical assistance and the provision of warm clothes . In particular , they stated that urgent medical assistance had been ensured by emergency doctors , although the applicant had never requested any medical attention . It had also been open to him to ask the administration of the detention facility GPE for warm clothes . He had not used that opportunity . The Government insisted that the applicant had had warm clothes when he had been taken to the police station CARDINAL , because his female partner had sent warm clothes to him at the temporary detention facility in DATE .","On DATE the applicant brought an action in tort against the police station administration and ORG of GPE . He claimed that the conditions of his detention in the police ward had been inhuman and had led to a serious deterioration in his health .","On DATE the ORG partly allowed the applicant \u2019s action and awarded him RUB CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . ORG held , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c It was established in a court hearing that the facilities provided to detainees in [ the LOC police station ] were not adequately furnished , in violation of the legal norms ; the representatives of [ the police station ] explained that the underlying cause was a lack of funds .","The materials of the prosecutor \u2019s inquiry confirm that bedding is not provided in the [ detention ward ] . The cells are not furnished in compliance with the law . There are no lavatory pans , water , tables , radio , etc . The lighting in the cells is insufficient ; the cells are in semi - darkness . There are windows in the cells ; however , they are covered by metal bars in such a fashion that they block access to natural light . There is no ventilation in the cells . The air is stuffy with a peculiar odour . The police ward is not disinfected ...","... suspects and defendants have the right to TIME \u2019s outdoor recreation per day ...","The director of [ the police station ] Mr T. explained in a court hearing that he does not draw up a record of GPE DATE outdoor recreation ; whenever possible [ detainees ] are taken for a walk once a day .","Following a prosecutor \u2019s decision addressed to the director of [ the police station ] about the elimination of violations of ORG , certain measures were taken : persons detained in [ the police station ] are now taken for outdoor walks in compliance with the above - mentioned law ; light bulbs with a higher wattage are now used in the cells , thus producing more light ; and an estimate of expenditure has been drawn up in respect of the shortcomings that have to be eliminated in order to comply with [ the prosecutor \u2019s ] decision . It appears from the reply of the police station director to [ the prosecutor \u2019s decision ] , that once funds have been received , all the necessary measures will be taken to eliminate the shortcomings .","...","[ The applicant \u2019s ] complaints pertaining to the lack of medical assistance are worth consideration .","In the court hearing the representatives of [ the police station ] did not dispute the fact that the requirements of the Instruction on the Provision of Medical and Sanitary Assistance to Detainees ... are not complied with in [ the police ward ] .","However , the court does not disregard the fact that ... urgent medical assistance was provided to suspects by emergency medical teams in [ the police ward ] . That fact is corroborated by the records of medical examinations of detainees . [ The applicant ] did not request the provision of medical assistance .","...","By virtue of norm no . CARDINAL for DATE food rations of persons detained in police detention facilities , detainees ... should have been given the following food ration per TIME : QUANTITY of bread ... , QUANTITY of porridge , QUANTITY of pasta , QUANTITY grams of meat , QUANTITY of fish , QUANTITY of margarine , QUANTITY of vegetable oil , QUANTITY of sugar , QUANTITY of tea , QUANTITY of salt , QUANTITY of potatoes , QUANTITY of vegetables , QUANTITY of bay leaf and QUANTITY of tomato sauce .","In the court hearing [ the applicant ] explained that [ on DATE when he was transferred between the police station and detention facility GPE ] he received food in [ that facility ] in TIME , [ and that he was ] not given food in [ the police station ] . [ During longer stays ] he received food once a day [ in the ward ] . The food ration included a plate of soup , CARDINAL a loaf of bread and a glass of tea . The representatives of the [ police station ] did not dispute that fact .","...","It was established in a court hearing that when [ the applicant ] was transferred [ to the ward ] in DATE , he did not have DATE clothes . He was not provided with DATE clothes in detention facility GPE ... [ The ward ] also did not provide [ the applicant ] with warm clothes as it did not have them .","The above - mentioned facts confirm that [ the applicant \u2019s ] right to conditions of detention in compliance with domestic requirements was violated in [ the police ward ] , which caused [ him ] psychological distress .","...","Having regard to the requirements of reasonableness and justice , the nature of the psychological distress caused to [ the applicant ] , the temporary character of [ the applicant \u2019s ] detention in [ the police ward ] : the limited period of CARDINAL ; the fact that [ he ] was transferred to [ the police station ] to take part in investigative measures and court hearings , and DATE during which [ he ] was detained in [ the ward ] , the court finds that [ the applicant \u2019s ] claims should be awarded but in a reduced amount . \u201d","The applicant attended the hearings before ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , endorsing the reasons given by ORG .","In DATE the applicant lodged an action against the head of the medical unit of the temporary detention facility GPE in GPE , the police station administration and an investigator from the ORG , seeking compensation for damage to his health and loss of earnings . In particular , he argued that he had had no chronic illnesses prior to his detention and that he had fallen ill during his pre - trial detention because of the appalling conditions of his detention in the LOC police ward . He also alleged that the serious deterioration in his health had become apparent in DATE and DATE , after his first tort action against the police ward had already been examined by ORG .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action , finding it to be manifestly ill - founded . ORG concluded that there was no evidence supporting the applicant \u2019s allegations that he had sustained damage to his health as a result of his detention . The applicant was represented by a lawyer during the hearings . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154398","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The first , second , third and fourth applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The second and fourth applicants are the first applicant \u2019s sons and the third applicant is his brother . The first , second and fourth applicants live in GPE , GPE .","New political forces came to power in GPE ( \u201c the AAR \u201d ) in DATE , following the so - called \u201c Rose Revolution \u201d which occurred in the country in DATE ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ECHR DATE ) .","On DATE the first applicant , who had previously held the posts of PERSON Deputy Minister of the ORG and President of ORG , was charged , amongst other offences , with abuse of authority and extortion .","On DATE ORG of the ORG initiated proceedings before ORG to confiscate wrongfully and inexplicably acquired property from the applicants under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c CAP \u201d ) ; the legislative provisions in question had been adopted on DATE .","NORP The public prosecutor affirmed that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the salaries received by the first applicant in his capacity as Deputy Minister of the ORG DATE and President of ORG DATE could not have sufficed to finance the acquisition of the property , which had occurred during the same time span , by himself , his sons and his brother .","NORP The prosecutor attached to his brief numerous items of evidence ( CARDINAL documents ) which showed that , on the one hand , the first applicant had earned CARDINAL and MONEY ( ORG ) respectively in official salaries when he had occupied the above - mentioned CARDINAL posts in ORG , whilst , on the other hand , the total value of the property that he and the other applicants had acquired corresponded to some EUR CARDINAL ( CARDINAL NORP laris ( GEL ) ) . The latter figure was based on the expert opinions of CARDINAL independent auditors who had conducted an assessment of the disputed property on DATE .","NORP The public prosecutor therefore requested ORG to rule that the items of property concerned , which are listed below , should be confiscated from the applicants and transferred to the ORG .","The first applicant \u2019s property included :","( a ) a house located at DATE FAC , GPE ;","( b ) a house located at CARDINAL FAC , GPE ;","( c ) the first floor of a house located at TIME , GPE ;","( d ) a share in the capital of FAC , PERSON ;","( e ) a ORG car ;","( f ) a flat located at FAC , PERSON .","The second applicant \u2019s property included :","( g ) CARDINAL guest houses located at DATE Street , PERSON .","The third applicant \u2019s property included :","( h ) a house located at CARDINAL FAC , GPE .","The fourth applicant \u2019s property included :","( i ) a flat located at DATE FAC , GPE ;","( j ) a flat located at CARDINAL - CARDINAL FAC , GPE ;","( k ) a flat located at DATE Abashidze Street , GPE ;","( l ) a house located at CARDINAL General PERSON ;","( m ) a house located at CARDINAL FAC , GPE .","On DATE the ORG accepted the public prosecutor \u2019s request for an examination on the merits . It transmitted the prosecutor \u2019s brief together with all the supporting documents to the applicants , inviting them to submit their written replies and attend an oral hearing scheduled for DATE .","As attested by the relevant postal acknowledgements of receipt , ORG subpoenas were duly served at CARDINAL applicants\u2019 home addresses , but only the second applicant , represented by legal counsel , filed written comments on DATE .","The second applicant submitted that the property mentioned at ( b ) above in fact belonged to him and not to the first applicant . To prove it he produced a contract of sale dated DATE , between himself and a certain ORG a document from ORG . He stated that he had purchased the property for ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . His father - in - law , with whom the second applicant and his wife lived after they married , had helped him purchase the property . He produced a certificate from the bank stating that his father - in - law had taken out the loan , as well as statements by different witnesses .","The second applicant further explained that the property mentioned at ( f ) above belonged to Mr GPE , who was neither a close relative nor in any way connected with the first applicant . It was therefore not subject to confiscation .","As to the property mentioned at ( g ) above , the second applicant alleged that the first applicant had had no part in purchasing or renovating it and that he , the second applicant , was the sole owner . He had bought the property from a lady for ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL with the help of his godfather , PERSON , who had allegedly lent him MONEY ( ORG ) to renovate the site .","In sum , the second applicant requested that the properties mentioned at ( b ) and ( f ) and ( g ) above be removed from the confiscation list , and that due consideration be given to the evidence he had presented showing that the property concerned had not been wrongfully acquired .","As the first , third and fourth applicants failed to submit written arguments or appear before ORG on DATE , the latter decided to postpone the hearing until DATE . The relevant subpoenas were again duly served at those applicants\u2019 home addresses , but none of them appeared before the court , either in person or by designating an advocate , on the second occasion either .","ORG opened a hearing on DATE which the first , third and fourth applicants and their lawyers failed to attend , without giving reasons . It was attended by the second applicant \u2019s lawyer , who additionally pleaded that the property mentioned at ( d ) above also belonged to him , but that he was giving it to the ORG as a gift . In response , ORG changed the name of the defendant in that part of the case and named the second applicant as the owner of the property concerned . The second applicant further explained that in addition to the money his godfather had lent him , he had bought and renovated the property mentioned at ( g ) above with his salary as the director of a company in which he owned CARDINAL of the shares . According to TIME of that company \u2019s board meeting of DATE , the profit generated by its activities was EUR CARDINAL .","On DATE the ORG gave judgment in the absence of the first , third and fourth applicants , who had been notified twice but had failed to appear without good reason ( LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG ) .","Thus , ORG ordered the confiscation of the property belonging to the first applicant listed under ( a ) , ( c ) and ( e ) , that belonging to the second applicant listed under ( d ) and ( g ) , and that listed under ( i ) to ( m ) belonging to the fourth applicant . It considered in particular that the sums of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL which the first applicant had earned as Deputy Minister of the ORG and President of ORG respectively could not have sufficed to acquire the property in issue , and that the other applicants did not earn enough either . The salaries the first applicant earned were only enough to provide for the needs of a family of CARDINAL . The court stated that the applicants , in particular the CARDINAL who had failed to appear before the court , had failed to discharge their burden of proof by refuting the public prosecutor \u2019s claim .","As regards the property mentioned at ( g ) above , ORG concluded that the second applicant had failed to prove the lawful origins of the money he had used to acquire the property , which had been valued by independent auditors who had assessed both the plot of land and the CARDINAL guest houses situated on it at no less than ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","Furthermore , ORG of Ajara considered it established that the property mentioned at ( b ) above belonged to the second applicant and that the property mentioned at ( f ) belonged to a third party . The prosecutor \u2019s case concerning these QUANTITY properties was thus dismissed : concerning the first property , the court accepted the second applicant \u2019s arguments as to its lawful origins .","As regards the third applicant \u2019s property mentioned at ( h ) above , it was established that this was a family home unrelated to the first applicant \u2019s activities . However , as the property had been refurbished while the first applicant was in public office , making it worth ORG CARDINAL according to an official valuation , the third applicant was ordered to pay the ORG compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL .","All CARDINAL applicants , represented by legal counsel , as well as the public prosecutor , appealed against the first - instance court \u2019s judgment of DATE .","The applicants requested that the confiscation proceedings be suspended pending the termination of the criminal proceedings against the first applicant . They complained that the burden of proof had been shifted onto them in the confiscation proceedings . The first , third and fourth applicants also complained that they had not been given an opportunity to submit their arguments before the first - instance court . The first applicant additionally complained that he had been denied the right to be presumed innocent in the confiscation proceedings .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s wife asserted before ORG of GPE that she and her son , the fourth applicant , were the owners of the property mentioned at ( m ) above . She explained that she was a NORP national and had sold the family house in the GPE region , with her ORG consent , to buy the property in GPE , where her NORP relatives would spend DATE .","On DATE a third party , Mr PERSON , applied to ORG of GPE , stating that the decision of ORG concerning the property mentioned at ( a ) above was unlawful because the property had previously belonged to him and was currently the subject of a dispute between himself and the first applicant . On DATE Mr Tchitchinadze sent ORG of GPE a decision of ORG dated DATE recognising him as the owner of the property in question . He requested that his property be removed from the confiscation list submitted by the public prosecutor ( for more details , see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","At the hearing the CARDINAL applicants\u2019 legal counsel contended that the case concerning the first , third and fourth applicants should be remitted for fresh examination because the CARDINAL men had not been able to participate in the proceedings at first instance . He further complained that the evidence presented by the second applicant had not been given due consideration .","On DATE ORG of GPE set aside the first - instance decision only in so far as it concerned the property mentioned at ( a ) above , the house located at QUANTITY in GPE , acknowledging that the estate was the property of Mr PERSON ( for further details see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) . For the remainder , it followed the reasoning of ORG , namely that the first applicant \u2019s income was not sufficient for him and his family members to have acquired the properties in issue , whilst the other applicants\u2019 income was also insufficient . Concerning the arguments of the first applicant \u2019s wife , ORG of GPE noted that the land register named only the fourth applicant as the owner of the property mentioned at ( m ) above .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a constitutional complaint . He argued that LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , adopted on DATE , were contrary to the following constitutional provisions LAW CARDINAL ( prohibition of discrimination ) , Article CARDINAL ( protection of property ) , Article CARDINAL ( presumption of innocence ) and Article CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( no criminal punishment without law and prohibition of retroactive application of criminal law ) of the LAW of GPE .","In his constitutional complaint the first applicant mostly reiterated the arguments that he had previously submitted before ORG of GPE . In particular , he complained that the confiscation of his property and that of his family members amounted to a criminal punishment being imposed on him in the absence of a final conviction establishing his guilt , and that he should not have been made to bear the burden of proving his innocence , that is , the lawfulness of the disputed property . He also complained that the confiscation of the property in such circumstances was in breach of his right to be presumed innocent of the corruption charges . The first applicant also stated that he and his family had acquired the property in question well before the amendments of CARDINAL DATE were enacted and that , consequently , the retroactive extension of those provisions to their situation was unconstitutional . For those reasons , he argued that the confiscation procedure provided for by the impugned provisions of the ORG and ORG had been arbitrary and amounted to a violation of the constitutional guarantee of protection of his private property .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG , after having heard the parties\u2019 arguments and evidence from a number of legal experts and witnesses , dismissed the first applicant \u2019s complaint as ill - founded on the basis of the following reasoning .","First , drawing an analogy with LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention , ORG stated that the NORP constitutional provision protecting the right to property ( LAW ) likewise did not exclude the possibility of deprivation of property if such a measure was lawful , pursued a public interest and satisfied the proportionality test . The court then went on to emphasise that only lawfully obtained property enjoyed full constitutional protection ; in the first applicant \u2019s case there had been a legitimate suspicion as to the lawful origins of the property , a suspicion which he and his family members had been unable to refute in the course of the relevant judicial proceedings .","The Constitutional Court further stated that the administrative confiscation proceedings provided for in LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG and LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG , could in no way be equated with criminal proceedings , as no determination of a criminal charge was at stake ; on the contrary , such proceedings were a classic example of a civil dispute between the ORG , represented by the public prosecutor , and private individuals . Given the \u201c civil \u201d nature of the proceedings in question , it was acceptable that the burden of proof in the proceedings should be shifted onto the respondent , the second applicant . Referring to its own comparative legal research and the ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases of PERSON GPE ( CARDINAL DATE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) and ORG v. GPE ( DATE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , ORG added that such civil mechanisms , involving the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime or otherwise unlawfully obtained or unexplained property , were not unknown in a number of NORP democracies , including GPE , GPE and GPE .","As to the issue of the alleged retroactivity of the application of the amendment of CARDINAL DATE introducing the administrative confiscation procedure , and the second applicant \u2019s presumption of innocence , ORG ruled that since the proceedings in question had been \u201c civil \u201d and not \u201c criminal \u201d , the above - mentioned criminal - law guarantees could not apply . Furthermore , the amendment of CARDINAL DATE had not introduced any new concept but rather had regulated anew , in a more efficient manner , the existing measures aimed at the prevention and eradication of corruption in the public service . In particular , ORG referred to LAW , which had required all public officials not only to declare their own property and that of their family and close relatives , but also to show that the declared property had been acquired lawfully .","ORG concluded that the amendments of CARDINAL DATE undoubtedly served the public interest of intensifying the fight against corruption and that the test of proportionality had also been duly satisfied during the confiscation proceedings , which had been conducted fairly before the domestic courts ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170353","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BARAKHOYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , in the GPE - GPE .","According to the applicant , on DATE at TIME the applicant and PERSON were walking down the street in their town . A white Lada car drove up to them and stopped . CARDINAL persons in plain clothes got out , CARDINAL of whom was a local police lieutenant , PERSON . While Ts . was talking to the applicant and PERSON , CARDINAL more vehicles \u2013 an ORG and a ORG DATE drove up . CARDINAL men in plain clothes got out of the cars . They pushed the applicant into CARDINAL of the cars . PERSON broke free and escaped .","The individuals who had arrested the applicant took him to an office on the third floor of the police station , where they punched and kicked him and insulted him , shouting that \u201c all Ingush should be crushed \u201d . From time to time they put a black plastic bag over his head to suffocate him . They took off his shoes and beat him on his heels . When the applicant lost consciousness , they poured cold water over him to revive him . They then took him to another office on the first floor .","There the policemen planted a grenade in the pocket of his jacket . They searched him and \u201c found \u201d the grenade . The applicant was then interviewed by the investigator . During the questioning , he told the investigator about the arrest ( abduction ) and the planting of the grenade .","According to the ORG , on DATE at TIME the police officers asked the applicant to go with them to the police station . The applicant refused , shouting obscenities . His reaction made the officers suspect that he might be in possession of a weapon which he could use against them . They made the decision to use force to arrest the applicant , and when he resisted they restrained him , using a combative technique . The police officers then took the applicant to the police station , where he was subjected to a medical examination due to his inebriated state . The medical report prepared on DATE indicated that the applicant did not have any injuries .","On DATE the investigator questioned the police officers who had carried out the applicant \u2019s arrest . Police captain PERSON submitted that the decision to arrest the applicant had been taken on the basis of \u201c operative \u201d information received on DATE that the applicant was in possession of firearms and ammunition and that he was the leader of a group of young people of Ingush ethnic origin who disturbed peace in the town and provoked tension between PERSON and Ossetian population . He stated that the policemen had stopped the applicant in the street , and had then put him in the car and taken him to the police station , where they had searched him and found a grenade . Lieutenant PERSON . confirmed PERSON \u2019s statement as regards the applicant \u2019s arrest .","On DATE police captain NORP instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on the charge of illegally possessing a grenade . At TIME the applicant signed an undertaking not to leave town and was released pending investigation .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s parents retained a lawyer to represent him . The lawyer filmed the applicant \u2019s injuries using her mobile phone .","On DATE forensic medical expert GPE . examined the applicant . The applicant submitted that on DATE a group of persons unknown to him had \u201c beaten him up \u201d . They had kicked him , had beaten him with a stick and had throttled him . The medical expert documented the following injuries : \u201c a bruise near the upper edge of the right shoulder blade measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY ... [ ; ] similar bruises on the rear surface of the chest at the level of DATE ribs measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY and on the rear surface of the chest at the level of DATE ribs measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY ; [ bruises ] near DATE vertebrae measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY \u201d . The expert concluded that the bruises resulted from the impact of blunt solid objects , possibly at the time and in the circumstances indicated by the applicant .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office discontinued the criminal investigation against the applicant on the charge of illegally possessing a grenade and advised him of his right to \u201c rehabilitation \u201d . The prosecutor found as follows :","\u201c The investigative actions were conducted in violation of [ the rules of criminal procedure ] and the proceedings should be discontinued in view of the following :","The case file contains no information as regards the reasons for the [ applicant \u2019s ] arrest ;","[ The applicant ] was not searched at the place of his arrest ... ; instead , the search was carried out at [ the police station ] ;","In contravention of [ the rules of criminal procedure ] , ... the taking of the [ applicant \u2019s ] fingerprints was not documented ... ;","The case file contains no evidentiary material as regards the examination of the grenade or the detection and recovery of the fingerprints ; accordingly the findings set out in the forensic dactyloscopic expert report must be regarded as inadmissible evidence ... . \u201d","On DATE the deputy municipal prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s unlawful arrest and detention at the police station . On DATE the applicant was given victim status in respect of the crime and questioned as to the events of CARDINAL DATE .","The criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s allegations about his illtreatment in police custody was discontinued on several occasions . The decisions in this regard were taken on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was quashed and the case was re - opened . The acting head of the regional investigative committee held that the earlier investigation had been perfunctory and ordered further investigation .","On DATE the deputy regional prosecutor studied the evidence in the applicant \u2019s case file and identified the following defects in the investigation : ( CARDINAL ) the investigating authorities had failed to complete all the necessary actions in order to clarify the facts in connection with the alleged ill - treatment ; ( CARDINAL ) no findings had been made as regards the existence of the applicant \u2019s injuries ; ( CARDINAL ) the contradictions in the statements made by the forensic medical expert and the applicant had not been reconciled ; ( CARDINAL ) the investigating authorities had failed to question the forensic medical expert and the forensic expert who conducted a dactyloscopic examination ; ( CARDINAL ) the investigating authorities had failed to establish whether the police had conducted an internal inquiry in response to the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment ; ( CARDINAL ) the investigating authorities had not conducted a faceto - face confrontation between the police officers and the applicant in order to reconcile the contradictions in their statements ; ( CARDINAL ) the investigating authorities had failed to identify the persons who had been present at the police station when the applicant was searched .","It appears that the criminal investigation is still ongoing at the present time .","According to the Government , on DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of robbery and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . On DATE the applicant was released on parole ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166687","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SIMON PRICE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms) read in the light of Article 6 - (Art. 6) Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Obtain attendance of witnesses)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in HMP Long Lartin .","DATE and DATE the applicant was tried before a judge and jury in ORG at Snaresbrook for various offences relating to an attempt , together with other unknown persons , to import cocaine worth ORG CARDINAL into GPE from GPE via ports in the GPE and GPE .","Pursuant to Her ORG policy , notes of recordings of trials are destroyed after DATE . Although the present application was lodged with the ORG in DATE , consideration of the applicant \u2019s complaints was adjourned pending judgment in PERSON and PERSON v. the GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and ORG Consequently , by the date ORG received notice of the application , transcripts of the applicant \u2019s criminal trial had for the most part been destroyed .","NORP However , from the information available , the circumstances of the trial which give rise to the present application may be summarised as follows .","On DATE a ship called the \u201c PERSON \u201d entered the port of GPE . Part of the cargo was a single container which contained palletised drums of molasses from GPE , GPE . The following day the container was searched by customs officials and certain drums \u2013 purportedly containing molasses \u2013 were found to contain QUANTITY of high purity cocaine worth GBP CARDINAL . The officials refilled the drums with dummy contents and the ship continued to GPE where the container was offloaded . The applicant was arrested and interviewed on DATE , shortly after contacting ORG and ORG to make enquiries about the container . He was charged , inter alia , with assisting in the commission outside GPE of an offence punishable under the law of GPE ( the export of drugs from that country ) , contrary to section CARDINAL of ORG DATE , and with the attempted importation of drugs to GPE .","There were allegations that the applicant had been involved in \u201c jury fixing \u201d in a previous , unrelated trial . Therefore , before the trial the prosecution applied to the court for the following security measures :","the assignment of a security team to chaperone the jury at all times ;","the identification of the jury by number and not by name ;","the verification by police of the identity of anyone wishing to enter the courtroom \u2019s public gallery ;","the search of members of the public entering the building ;","the retention of all NORP mobile telephones during the trial ;","the erection of protective screens to shield the jury and the applicant from the public gallery ; and","the covering of the glass panels in the doors to the court room to prevent people seeing into the room .","The defence were informed of the application and given the opportunity to oppose it . They initially did so on the basis that the protective screens , taken together with the other security measures , would lend a sinister feel to proceedings which would be likely to prejudice the applicant in the eyes of the jury . However , at the conclusion of argument the defence indicated that they were prepared to withdraw their objections provided that the whole of the public gallery was covered rather than just part of it , as had been originally suggested . The trial judge therefore made the order requested .","The defence subsequently attempted to withdraw that concession on the basis that the physical appearance of the screens was more imposing than had been anticipated . They again suggested that the whole trial could be heard in camera but this proposal was rejected by the trial judge , who did not consider that the screens could in any way impinge upon the fairness of the trial .","It was accepted by the prosecution and the defence that the main issue in the case was whether or not the applicant had intended to import drugs into GPE .","It was the prosecution \u2019s case that the applicant had purchased the cocaine in GPE under the assumed name of \u201c PERSON \u201d , the manager of a company called Premier PERSON , and that he had intended to import the cocaine into GPE . The shipment containing the cocaine had been the last of CARDINAL shipments procured by Premier PERSON from GPE . The previous CARDINAL shipments had been delivered via GPE to various locations in GPE , including to an address belonging to an acquaintance of the applicant . There was evidence of telephone calls between the applicant and his acquaintance , which coincided with the deliveries , as well as payments by the acquaintance to the applicant \u2019s account in GPE . It was suggested by the prosecution that the previous CARDINAL shipments had been practice runs for the fourth shipment , which contained the cocaine . Although there was CARDINAL witness in GPE who stated that the drums containing the cocaine were to be offloaded in GPE and transported to the GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the prosecution argued that this had been an attempt by the applicant to set up a defence should he be caught .","VO , who was based in GPE , was the customs broker for Premier LOC shipping agents .","VO was responsible for issuing each shipment with an agricultural import licence to confirm that the shipment complied with ORG quotas . He was also responsible for guaranteeing the payment of duty on each shipment .","He made CARDINAL separate statements DATE and DATE . He also supplied the prosecuting authorities with the original files relating to all CARDINAL shipments from GPE . This included all documents relating to the first CARDINAL shipments , for which he had arranged carriage to GPE , and correspondence from PERSON asking him to arrange transport for the fourth shipment to GPE .","Having provided the statements and documentary evidence , ORG refused to give live evidence at the applicant \u2019s trial . ORG \u2019s explanation for refusing to attend court was recounted in the evidence of ORG , a GPE customs official who had been present when ORG was interviewed in GPE . According to ORG ( who gave evidence at trial ) , ORG believed that , in accordance with NORP practice , having spoken to investigators on CARDINAL separate occasions , he had done enough .","The prosecution made several attempts to convince ORG to appear as a witness before the trial began . In particular , they wrote to him emphasising the importance of his evidence , making it clear that all expenses would be met and inconvenience kept to a minimum , and informing him that if he did not attend his previous assistance might be wasted . They also tried to reach him through his employer but were told that he was on leave and could not be contacted .","Despite knowing of LOC \u2019s reluctance to attend for DATE before the trial , the prosecution opened their case referring to his evidence . DATE into the trial , when it became clear that LOC would not testify , the trial judge directed the prosecution to contact him again . In a letter to LOC , the prosecution offered various options to him , including giving evidence via live video link from his home in GPE . Meanwhile , the defence also wrote to him seeking clarification on apparent inconsistencies in his account . All of these efforts were ignored .","Leave was then given for ORG \u2019s statements to be read to the jury pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE .","When interviewed , ORG provided information about the logistical arrangements for the routing of the fourth shipment to GPE . He stated that :","\u201c It was clear for [ sic ] all the files that the destination of the load was GPE . Premier PERSON had already applied for an import licence for GPE for the job relating to the container and sent it to us . The transport operation ultimately did not take place because I did not receive an original bill of lading ; that meant it was physically impossible for me to take delivery of the container . \u201d","He also gave evidence of his previous dealings with \u201c PERSON \u201d . He explained that , whilst they had never met in person , he and PERSON had done business in DATE and DATE , at the time of the importation of CARDINAL of the earlier CARDINAL shipments , both of which had been destined for GPE .","VO \u2019s statements referred to a telephone call he had received from a woman at Premier PERSON , who told him that the contents of the container were not to be imported to GPE but instead sold to a NORP company . He had asked her for written instructions and details of the NORP firm , but none was ever given .","A GPE customs officer , GPE , referred in his evidence at trial to a conversation between the NORP shipping agents and a woman from Premier PERSON who he believed was called \u201c N \u201d . This would appear to be the same telephone call referred to by LOC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , in CARDINAL of his statements VO indicated that he did not know of anyone called \u201c N \u201d in connection with the case .","The applicant claimed that ORG could only have obtained this information by the interception of the telephone call . He further claimed that , as a consequence , the \u201c discrepancy \u201d between the evidence of ORG could not be further investigated as the prosecution indicated that there was a danger that the prohibition on the disclosure of intercept evidence ( including telephone intercept evidence ) might be compromised ( see sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG ( \u201c RIPA \u201d ) at paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . However , the Government have submitted a transcript of ORG evidence which demonstrates that the prosecution did not object to any question based on the prohibitions in ORG .","DATE prior to ORG giving evidence a discussion had taken place between the trial judge and counsel in the absence of the jury . The discussion touched on issues of intercept evidence and on the \u201c N \u201d call . In the course of the discussion , the defence argued that , since they could not seek disclosure of intercept evidence , when any such issue arose the prosecution should be obliged to satisfy themselves that there was nothing in the material to which they had or could have access which would either undermine their case or assist the defence case . The prosecution neither confirmed nor denied that any interception had taken place , or that they had or had not sought any intercept material . However , they confirmed that they had revisited their duty of disclosure and had nothing further to add . The trial judge subsequently declined to make any ruling on the issue .","The prosecution led evidence that \u201c PERSON \u201d was a false identity assumed by the applicant in the context of business carried out on behalf of Premier PERSON . In particular , they submitted evidence from ORG that there was no record of any person by that name . There were also CARDINAL witnesses from GPE who identified the applicant as PERSON and faxes in the name of PERSON sent from the applicant \u2019s address .","NORP The prosecution relied on various pieces of logistical evidence which supported their contention that , as with the previous CARDINAL shipments , the true destination of the fourth shipment was GPE . This included details of bank transactions , the issuing of shipping licences and other similar communications between Premier PERSON and VO , and the fact that PERSON had pushed for early delivery of the shipment to GPE . The paperwork relating to the fourth shipment was consistent with that relating to the previous CARDINAL shipments .","Finally , the prosecution invited the jury to draw adverse inferences as to the applicant \u2019s guilt based on his failure to disclose facts material to his defence when first interviewed . These \u201c material facts \u201d included his apparent belief that he was importing cannabis into the GPE and his allegation that LOC was a party to the conspiracy ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant \u2019s initial defence was that he believed that he was arranging a shipment of sugar but had been duped by business associates into arranging the importation of drugs . However , during the trial it came to light that he was fabricating evidence to concoct this defence . Consequently , the applicant admitted that this defence was untrue . Thereafter , he advanced a new defence , which was that he had been involved in a conspiracy to traffic cannabis from GPE to the GPE ( via GPE ) and that LOC had been party to this conspiracy . He continued to deny the main count on the indictment , which concerned the attempted importation of drugs to GPE . However , on DATE he pleaded guilty to the separate offence under LAW of ORG DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant relied heavily on the evidence of CARDINAL of the shipping agents in GPE , ORG , who recalled a conversation in which the applicant told him that the drums which were later found to contain drugs were to be unloaded at GPE .","The applicant accepted that import licences for the fourth shipment had been made out for GPE but claimed that this had been a mistake by customs . Those licences had been returned by Premier PERSON using registered delivery and replaced with the appropriate licences for the GPE .","The trial judge \u2019s summing - up contained the following directions to the jury .","On the measures taken to ensure the safety of the jury , the trial judge said :","\u201c Let me remind you of what I said at the beginning of the case about the special security measures taken during the trial . These precautions exist to protect both you , you the jury , and the defendant from any outside interference . Perhaps , as I said at an early stage when we started , it may be that I am being overly cautious , but make no mistake about it at all , none of these measures are to be regarded as any reflection whatsoever on the defendant and they are entirely irrelevant to the issue as to whether he is \u2018 guilty\u2019 or \u2018 not guilty\u2019 and we all know that something can appear sinister , which on investigation turns out to be completely innocent . We had , perhaps , an example of it during the case , when someone feared that their spouse was being followed , the matter was fully investigated and although rightly reported to me , it was , in fact , completely innocent . It just demonstrates how careful we must be and assumptions can often be wrong . \u201d","In relation to the reading of LOC \u2019s statements , the trial judge directed the jury :","\u201c [ ORG you know the general rule in the courts is that unless evidence is agreed it has to be given orally from the witness box , unless there is an admission , or there is an agreement on both sides .","Well there is no agreement as to the accuracy of what [ VO ] says . On the contrary , the prosecution have been allowed to adduce the evidence ; the defence do not accept a word of it - they say that he is on it and that he has acted in a thoroughly dishonest way . \u201d","He then considered the practical difficulties that arose in relation to LOC \u2019s evidence :","\u201c [ ORG he did not come to court , his evidence does have certain limitations and I want to draw them to your attention .","First of all , when someone \u2019s statement is read out , you do not have the opportunity of seeing him in the witness - box , seeing him in the flesh and sometimes when you do see a witness in the flesh you do get a much clearer idea of whether that evidence is honest and accurate .","Secondly , his evidence has not been tested by the defence under cross - examination and , therefore , you have not had the opportunity of seeing how the evidence survived that form of challenge or test . So you must , therefore , consider the evidence of [ VO ] in the light of those limitations and you should only act upon it if , having taken those matters into account , you are , nevertheless , sure that it is reliable . \u201d","The trial judge gave a similar warning as to the limitations of LOC \u2019s evidence in the absence of cross - examination just before he summarised LOC \u2019s evidence .","After this , and having reviewed the efforts made to oblige ORG to attend court , the trial judge stated :","\u201c What I seek to emphasise , in fairness to the defendant is that when you assess the evidence of [ VO ] , you look at all the circumstances , throw it all into the melting pot , all the warnings that I have given you , take it all into account and then decide the weight you can properly attach to it ; it is a matter for you . \u201d","Whilst they were considering their verdict , the jury asked for DATE but was refused DATE copies of the transcripts of LOC \u2019s statements . Instead , the trial judge re - read the relevant part of his summing - up summarising those statements . Having done so , he also reminded the jury of the criticism which had been made of the statements by the defence and of his previous warnings to them .","NORP The applicant was convicted unanimously by the jury on DATE . He appealed against his conviction to ORG .","The application for leave to appeal was initially considered and rejected by a single judge of ORG .","The applicant then renewed his application to the full court , which dismissed the appeal on DATE .","There were CARDINAL grounds of appeal before ORG which are relevant to the present application .","First , it was argued that the admission of VO \u2019s statements had violated LAW and , in particular , that the trial judge would never have allowed the statements to be read had he been aware that ORG evidence regarding the \u201c N \u201d telephone call would cast doubt on ORG \u2019s reliability .","Secondly , the applicant argued that the prosecution had failed to comply with their duty of disclosure under LAW in respect of the telephone conversation involving LOC and \u201c N \u201d , since this had been important exculpatory evidence .","Thirdly , the applicant maintained that either evidence of the interception of the telephone conversation should have been disclosed to the trial judge or the trial should have been abandoned .","Fourthly , again relying on LAW , the applicant argued that the security measures in place to protect the jury had violated his right to a fair trial . In support of this fourth ground , he relied on a witness statement prepared by a journalist who had tried to cover the trial . In the statement the journalist indicated that when she first tried to enter the courtroom , she was told by a court official that the trial had finished . However , after remonstrating with the official she was allowed to enter . Once inside , the proceedings were inaudible on account of the screens sealing the public gallery . When she asked if anyone else had complained about the arrangements , she was told that she was the first person to try to attend the trial . Furthermore , she had been told that she could not report anything because there were reporting restrictions in place . Finally , the journalist stated that although she had attended major criminal trials throughout GPE , she had never encountered such measures , and she considered that as a result the applicant \u2019s trial was to all intents and purposes a secret trial .","In respect of LOC \u2019s non - attendance at trial , ORG acknowledged that the prosecution \u2019s failure to mention this fact until late in the proceedings was a cause for concern . However , it considered that the dispute over whether ORG knew \u201c N \u201d was a \u201c very slender foundation indeed \u201d for any suggestion that his evidence was so unreliable that it ought not to have been allowed to be read .","The court also noted the advantages that the applicant had obtained through ORG \u2019s absence :","\u201c It meant that , in so far as he [ VO ] gave evidence inconsistent with that of the applicant , he was not in court to make that contention good . While the statement by him that the container was intended for GPE was damaging to the applicant \u2019s case , the applicant had the evidence that was available before the jury to the effect that he had identified particular pallets that were to come out of the container at GPE [ the evidence of the NORP shipping agent ORG ] . It was of assistance to the applicant to have the evidence of [ VO ] about the instructions that the cargo had been sold to a NORP company . \u201d","The court was therefore not satisfied that there would have been any positive advantage to the defence in calling LOC and thus concluded that there was no arguable basis for criticising the admission of his statements .","The court then turned to the ground of appeal concerning the prosecution \u2019s duty of disclosure . It did not consider that the facts were such as to afford any basis for suggesting that the prosecution had failed either to comply with their duty of disclosure or to follow the Attorney General \u2019s guidelines on the matter ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In fact , even taking this ground together with the absence of LOC , ORG declared it impossible to find any arguable basis for believing that the prosecution had not fulfilled its duty to ensure that any questions which arose would be examined properly and in accordance with the relevant duties .","Finally , as far as the security measures were concerned , the court began by noting a concession by counsel for the applicant that this ground alone , even if successful , could not compromise the safety of the applicant \u2019s conviction . The court recounted the history of the pre - trial proceedings and noted that the essence of the complaint was largely based on the security screens . The court acknowledged that the security measures clearly caused difficulties but had not been raised by the journalist or anyone else at the time . Ultimately , however , the court concluded that the issue had been dealt with \u201c fully and fairly \u201d by the trial judge ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183126","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF GAF\u00c0 v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Conditional release;Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained at ORG , PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having murdered his former partner .","On DATE he was charged before ORG , as a ORG , with inter alia , wilful homicide . He was remanded in custody thereafter .","It appears from the acts of the proceedings that from the applicant \u2019s arraignment until DATE , the applicant filed CARDINAL requests for bail which were all rejected after the relevant submissions were made , including oral hearings . Apart from the hearings related to the bail applications and other specific requests , CARDINAL hearings were held where scores of witnesses gave evidence and another QUANTITY hearings were held where nothing happened and the case was adjourned .","In the meantime on DATE the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings before ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional competence . He complained of a violation of LAW in so far as he had been detained for DATE since his arrest .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( First Hall ) rejected the applicant \u2019s claims . By a judgment of DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and confirmed the appealed judgment .","After the applicant had been held in custody for the maximum period of detention allowed by law , he became entitled to bail in accordance with Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a)(iii ) of LAW ( see relevant domestic law ) .","Consequently , following his request of CARDINAL DATE , by a decree of CARDINAL DATE , ORG granted the applicant bail subject to the following conditions : that he appears for all the scheduled hearings in the criminal proceedings ; that he does not go abroad or abscond ; that he does not contact or approach , directly nor indirectly , witnesses for the prosecution ; that he does not commit a crime of a voluntary nature while released on bail ; that he present himself at FAC DATE TIME ; that he be home not later than TIME and that he does not leave home before TIME ; that he inform the Police of any change of address by not TIME of such a change ; that he deposit by way of security the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) in the court registry ; and that he undertake a personal guarantee of LAW . In the event of any bail condition being breached , the entire amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL would be forfeited in favour of the ORG .","On DATE the Attorney General appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE , as he considered the conditions too lenient and that they would not serve as a sufficient deterrent against absconding or interfering with the proper administration of justice . He requested the court to set a higher deposit reflecting the nature of the crimes with which the applicant was accused and to amend the conditions by disallowing the applicant to be in locality NORP where the victim and her family resided .","On DATE the applicant objected to the Attorney General \u2019s appeal , noting that he had remained in detention precisely because he could not fulfil the conditions imposed . At the same time he filed an application requesting the court to reduce the amount to be deposited by him . He explained that since he had been detained for DATE he was unemployed , and thus he could not pay the relevant amount . He submitted CARDINAL documents showing that he received unemployment benefits in the sums of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in DATE and DATE respectively and offered to explain his financial situation ( if necessary with further documentary evidence ) during an oral hearing . It appears from the acts of the proceedings that he then submitted tax assessment forms of DATE .","By a decision of DATE ORG , having examined the documents submitted by the applicant , rejected the Attorney General \u2019s request to increase the deposit but added the condition that the applicant could not be in the vicinity of locality NORP It also rejected the applicant \u2019s request considering that ORG had correctly applied its discretion .","On DATE the applicant filed another application requesting the court to reduce the amount of the deposit . He complained that although he had been in detention for DATE , and was entitled to bail , he had nevertheless remained in detention since he ( and his family ) could not afford to pay such an excessive amount by way of deposit . He further noted that the main witnesses had already been heard in the committal proceedings .","On DATE the Attorney General objected to the applicant \u2019s new request , noting that the applicant was not reliable , and that his inability to pay the deposit showed that he would be unable to pay the personal guarantee if he were to breach his conditions . Moreover , the family of the victim , particularly her daughter , lived in fear of the applicant .","By a decree of DATE , having seen the request and the reply submitted by the Attorney General , the court rejected the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the applicant filed another application requesting the court to reduce the amount that he had to deposit . He noted that he had remained in detention for DATE since the decree granting him bail due to his inability to pay . The Attorney General objected in view of the seriousness of the crime .","On DATE the court again rejected the applicant \u2019s request ; it noted that its previous decisions had determined the deposit in order to strike the requisite balance between , on the one hand , the seriousness of the crime and the potential punishment , and , on the other hand , the obligation of the accused to fulfil the imposed conditions .","On DATE the applicant filed yet another application requesting that the amount of deposit be reduced . He noted that he had been in detention for DATE since the decree granting him bail , and yet he was still not in a position to benefit from such bail - to which he was entitled by law - since he could not pay the deposit imposed . The Attorney General objected considering that the amount imposed was adequate in view of the severity of the crime and the circumstances of the case . On DATE the applicant filed a note reiterating his request .","By a decree of CARDINAL DATE the court , having considered the parties submissions , as well as its decree of DATE , was of the view that it should not alter the considerations made in the latter decision . It , thus , rejected the applicant \u2019s request .","On DATE the applicant requested the court to accept his mother PERSON ( and other relatives ) as surety in lieu of the deposit . He referred to a property the relatives had inherited which they were willing to put forward as a guarantee instead of the deposit . The Attorney General requested that the applicant submit relevant evidence of the inheritance and the value of the property and that the court hear relevant witnesses in this connection , before making his final submissions . He further highlighted that a public deed would be required for the purposes of the relevant hypothec .","On DATE the applicant submitted all the relevant documents concerning the property at issue which was valued at ORG CARDINAL .","On DATE the court accepted that the applicant \u2019s mother stand as surety by means of a hypothec on the above - mentioned property which she owned together with other relatives . Such property was to serve as a guarantee for the applicant observing the conditions imposed ; in the event of a breach of any of those conditions , the property would be forfeited in favour of the Government of GPE .","Subsequently on DATE the applicant having signed a personal guarantee of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and his mother having effected the relevant hypothec as guarantee , the applicant was released from custody after DATE of pre - trial detention .","In the meantime the committal proceedings and hearing of witnesses continued throughout this time ; further witnesses were heard during CARDINAL hearings and another QUANTITY hearings were adjourned . On DATE the prosecuting authority had declared that it did not have further evidence to produce .","In the meantime on DATE the applicant instituted a new set of constitutional redress proceedings , complaining of a violation of LAW in connection with the \u201c exorbitant sum \u201d requested ( in particular reference to the sum set as deposit ) which did not allow him to effectively enjoy bail .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional competence rejected the applicant \u2019s claims .","It held that when a court accepted that an applicant had to be granted bail , that court had to establish the proper conditions which the applicant had to satisfy to be released and yet appear for court proceedings . If the guarantees included the deposit of a sum of money , such pecuniary condition had to be considered by reference to the person of the accused and his means as well as his relation with the person who would act as his surety . The court referred to the ORG \u2019s judgment of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) where it had been held that the accused whom the judicial authorities declared themselves prepared to release on bail must faithfully furnish sufficient information , that can be checked if need be , about the amount of bail to be fixed . The court noted that the applicant did not satisfy this obligation . It was his duty to provide the courts with information on his income , savings and list his assets . Nevertheless , the applicant had only provided copies of self - assessment forms for purposes of income tax for DATE . According to the court , if an applicant argued that the deposit was too high , he had to show the court what he could afford by providing a list of his assets and property , even if this meant that he had to conduct researches in ORG , and provide the relevant documentation . In its view an applicant had to show not only that he did not have the necessary means to deposit the sum requested but also that he was in an objective impossibility of finding the necessary means . He further had to show that he was unable to find persons who offered to act as surety . It was only when all this was shown that an applicant would have satisfied his duty to furnish sufficient information , thus enabling the court to make an objective assessment .","In the court \u2019s view , in the present case , bearing in mind the seriousness of the crime and the potential punishment , the applicant had not brought enough evidence before the courts of criminal justice to substantiate his claim that those courts had imposed excessive conditions ( including that referring to the amount of deposit ) . It further noted that ORG [ in the first round of proceedings ] had not been convinced that there would be no tampering with evidence . Indeed even though the collection of evidence had come to an end , one had to guarantee that the evidence remained intact and thus relevant guarantees were necessary .","The applicant appealed .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and confirmed the judgment of the first court .","The Constitutional Court referred to its judgment in the case The Police v. PERSON and ORG , of DATE , where it had held that there must be proportionality between the amount to be deposited by the applicant for his release on bail and his financial circumstances . The level of bail set out should not be too high and it should ensure the presence of the accused at the various stages of the criminal proceedings . It also made reference to the ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 MONEY , ECHR DATE ) as well as ORG judgment PERSON v. Attorney General , of DATE , where it had been held that in establishing the amount to be deposited as security , the court must also consider other circumstances such as the seriousness of the offence and the danger to society .","ORG held that the onus of proving that the amount of deposit was too high for the applicant when considering his financial means lay with the applicant himself . An applicant must provide information to the court on his financial situation and on the real possibility of finding a surety able to guarantee the observance of the conditions imposed . In the present case , ORG held that the latter option had not been contemplated by the applicant and it was only after various requests to have the amount reduced that he eventually proposed his mother to act as a surety . It noted that although the applicant \u2019s mother did not own the tenement she had used for the purposes of the guarantee , it was already in her possession for a period of time before the last application for the reduction of the amount was filed . Thus , the applicant could not argue that he could not have taken this course of action before . Although the applicant relied on the ORG \u2019s judgment of ORG ( cited above ) , where a violation had been found on the basis that it took DATE for the NORP authorities to adjust the conditions for bail , ORG held that ( even if this were the case ) , the applicant \u2013 who was legally represented had not explored all avenues to satisfy the courts with an adequate guarantee for the observance of the conditions of bail . No explanation as to why he only obtained a guarantee in the form of a surety at a subsequent stage was provided by the applicant .","Noting that the applicant had stated that at times he worked as a bus driver and as a horse trainer , apart from other activities , ORG distinguished the applicant \u2019s case from that of a person who was living on relief payments . The fact that the applicant had at times worked and had a salary or wage made the need to provide information to the court on his means more relevant .","On the fixing of the amount of the deposit , ORG referred to LAW ( see relevant domestic law below ) which provided the factors to be considered for this purpose . Under NORP law these included the seriousness of the offence and the applicable punishment . ORG considered that although the law also referred to the financial situation of the person accused , this factor was not to be taken in isolation \u2013 it was for the court fixing the amount of deposit to consider all the factors taken together and not separately . In the present case bearing in mind those factors , the amount of deposit of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL was justified especially since the law provided for the opportunity to provide a surety \u2013 a course of action subsequently undertaken by the applicant .","In ORG view the criminal courts\u2019 concern that the applicant did not give the necessary guarantees that there would not be any tampering with evidence , subsisted throughout the whole criminal proceedings .","By a decision of DATE the applicant was found guilty of breaching his bail conditions and his bail was revoked . Further bail requests were lodged and rejected until DATE when a bill of indictment was issued against the applicant . From DATE until his indictment some QUANTITY hearings were held where nothing happened and the case was adjourned .","On DATE ORG was informed that a plea bargain had been concluded between the applicant and the prosecution .","On DATE , following the applicant \u2019s admission to all the charges against him , ORG pronounced a guilty verdict and sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment and to the payment of court experts\u2019 fees ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158307","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"\u00d6ZB\u0130L v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is detained in FAC . He was represented before ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157283","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KOVYAZIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The second applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The third applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE Region .","On DATE a public demonstration entitled the \u201c DATE of CARDINAL \u201d was held in central GPE to protest against the allegedly rigged presidential elections . The event had been approved by the city authorities in the form of a march followed by a meeting at FAC which had to end at TIME Numerous clashes between the police and protesters occurred when the marchers arrived at FAC . At TIME the police declared the early closure of the meeting and began to disperse the participants . It took them TIME to clear the protestors away from the square .","On DATE the GPE city department of ORG opened criminal proceedings to investigate the suspected mass disorders and violent acts against the police ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . On CARDINAL DATE the file was remitted to the headquarters of ORG for further investigation . On CARDINAL DATE the investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising mass disorders ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined on DATE .","All applicants took part in the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE at FAC . They were arrested on later dates indicated below and charged with participation in mass disorders ; the second and the third applicants were also charged with having committed violent acts against the police officers . They were detained and tried on these charges , and the second and the third applicants have been convicted as charged , while Mr PERSON had been exempted of liability under LAW .","The complaints to be examined in the present case concern various aspects of the applicants\u2019 pre - trial detention .","From DATE to DATE the applicant studied culture and history at ORG in GPE while working part - time as a videooperator for a newspaper \u201c LOC \u201d . On DATE he dropped out of the university .","On DATE the applicant received an assignment from the newspaper to attend the \u201c DATE of CARDINAL \u201d on DATE and to take video footage of the event .","NORP The applicant claimed that on DATE he arrived at FAC , filmed the event and did not take part in any disorders or clashes with the police .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted the footage to the newspaper and it was published on its website .","Until DATE the applicant continued working and living at his usual address . On the latter date he was detained and charged under LAW ( participation in mass disorders ) . He was accused of having breached public order during the demonstration on DATE , in particular , of having turned over portable toilet cabins and having piled them on the road to build a barrier obstructing the riot police .","On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE on the grounds of the gravity of the charges and for the following reasons :","\u201c Having regard to the circumstances of the offence under investigation , the personality of the accused , the information objectively put forward by the investigating authority , the court concludes that [ the applicant ] , if at liberty , after being charged with a grave criminal offence will prefer , out of fear of sanctions , to abscond the investigation and trial , [ or ] may act in person or through proxy with the aim of avoiding criminal liability , continue [ his ] criminal activity , destruct the evidence and otherwise obstruct the investigation .","Operational - search activities are now underway , aimed at establishing [ the applicant \u2019s ] possible connections with other active participants of the mass disorders which took place at FAC in GPE and the adjacent territory , therefore , if at liberty , [ he ] may co - ordinate his position with unidentified accomplices whose identities are still being established by the investigation .","...","... selecting in respect of [ the applicant ] another , milder , preventive measure is not possible because it can not rule out the very possibility for the suspect to obstruct the investigation of the criminal case , and to abscond from the bodies of criminal prosecution and trial .","...","No factual information excluding the detention of [ the applicant ] on health grounds has been submitted to the court ... \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE examined a request for an extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The applicant requested to select another preventive measure pending trial . He offered a bail of MONEY ( RUB ) , or CARDINAL personal guarantee signed by his professors and colleagues . His request for an alternative preventive measure was supported by CARDINAL petitions signed by CARDINAL journalists and editors of newspapers , periodicals and on - line media : \u201c ORG \u201d , \u201c Esquire \u201d , \u201c GPE \u201d , \u201c LOC \u201d , \u201c Afisha \u201d and \u201c Grani.ru \u201d . The applicant also requested release on health grounds .","On DATE the court granted an extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE , having noted that the applicant was likely to abscond , to continue his criminal activity , to threaten witnesses , or to otherwise obstruct the course of justice .","On DATE ORG upheld the extension order of DATE .","On DATE ORG granted an extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE , essentially on the same grounds as before .","On DATE ORG upheld the extension order of DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s criminal case was transferred to the ORG of GPE for the determination of the criminal charges .","On DATE the latter court granted another extension of the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . This decision concerned CARDINAL defendants and read in so far as relevant as follows :","\u201c ... the court concludes that the preventive measure in respect of [ all defendants ] ... is to remain unchanged because the reasons taken into account when these measures were chosen have not ceased to exist and have not changed ...","... [ the defendants ] are accused of [ grave crimes punishable by prison sentences ] ...","Having regard to all information about the personality of [ the defendants ] and the nature of the crimes imputed to each of them , the court still has sufficient grounds to believe that the said defendants , if at liberty , may flee the trial or otherwise obstruct the course of justice , [ motivated by ] the gravity of the charges .","... no other measures of restraint would secure the aims and goals of the judicial proceedings . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the extension order of DATE .","On DATE the ORG granted another extension of detention in respect of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant . It ordered their detention until DATE on the grounds of the gravity of charges . It held , in particular , as follows :","\u201c [ The defendants ] are charged with a criminal offence provided for by LAW , which belongs to the category of grave crimes punishable by a prison sentence of DATE . Furthermore , [ some defendants ] are charged with a criminal offence provided for by LAW , also punishable by a prison sentence of DATE .","Despite the defendants being registered as having permanent residence addresses in GPE , the analysis of the overall information about [ the GPE ] personalities , and the nature of the offences imputable to them , give the court sufficient grounds to consider that the defendants , if the preventive measure is changed to another one unconnected with the deprivation of liberty , may flee the trial or otherwise obstruct the course of justice , [ motivated by ] the gravity of the charges ... the reasons taken into account when these measures were chosen have not ceased to exist and have not changed ... \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the extension order of DATE .","On DATE ORG passed LAW which concerned persons charged with offences punishable with prison sentences of DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested the termination of the criminal proceedings against him by operation of LAW . On DATE the ORG granted the request and released him from detention .","At the time of arrest he applicant was unemployed and lived with his parents . On CARDINAL DATE he took part in the demonstration at FAC . According to the applicant , at CARDINAL point a stampede occurred and he was accidentally pushed through the police cordon and was arrested without any resistance on his part . On DATE he was charged with noncompliance with a lawful order by a police officer , an offence under LAW of LAW , and he was released , having committed to attend the court hearing of the administrative case on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of non - compliance with a lawful order by a police officer , an offence under LAW . He was sentenced to a CARDINAL detention .","On DATE the applicant was detained on suspicion of having participated in mass disorders on DATE . He was charged with the offences provided for by Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( participation in mass disorders ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( violence against a public official ) . He was accused , in particular , of having attempted to break through the police cordon and of having pulled a police officer on the hands and wrists towards the crowd . On DATE ORG authorised the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL detention .","On DATE ORG examined and granted the request to detain the applicant pending criminal investigation . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for an alternative preventive measure , including a RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL bail , a personal guarantee or a house arrest , and ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on remand until DATE for the following reasons :","\u201c Assessing the circumstance under investigation , the submitted materials and the indicated information in their integrity , as well as the personality of [ the applicant ] , who is suspected of having committed criminal offences characterised as grave , punishable by DATE of deprivation of liberty , give sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant is likely to abscond , to continue his criminal activity , to destruct evidence , or to otherwise obstruct the investigation of the criminal case .","... selecting another , milder , preventive measure is not possible because it can not rule out the very possibility that the suspect will abscond from the bodies of criminal prosecution and trial , or obstruct the investigation of the criminal case . \u201d","On DATE the applicant filed an appeal , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG examined a request for an extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The applicant objected , having reiterated his request for an alternative preventive measure . On DATE the court extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE , having noted that there remained sufficient reasons to believe that the applicant was likely to abscond , to continue his criminal activity , to threaten witnesses , or to otherwise obstruct the course of justice .","On DATE the applicant filed an appeal , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG granted another extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , until DATE , essentially on the same grounds and having noted that the circumstances which had justified the detention order had not changed . This extension order was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG granted another extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , until DATE , essentially on the same grounds as before and having noted that the circumstances which had justified the detention order had not changed . This extension order was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG examined a fresh request for the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention and granted it until DATE . It held , in particular , as follows :","\u201c The materials presented [ by the investigator ] reveal that the grounds for choosing the preventive measure in respect of [ the applicant ] were not only the gravity of the charges but also the information about the personality of [ the applicant ] who could abscond the investigation and trial , threaten witnesses or otherwise obstruct the proceedings in the case , if released .","The aforementioned grounds ...","...","This term is reasonable , [ it ] is justified by the objective circumstances , it is not in conflict with the term of the pre - trial investigation , also extended on the same grounds .","...","In accordance with ORG [ case - law ] , the proportionality of the preventive measure to the [ gravity of the ] charges imputed to [ the applicant ] show that in this case the public interests , in particular those related to the criminal investigation , override the importance of the principle of respect of individual liberty . \u201d","On DATE ORG acting as appeal instance upheld the same court \u2019s extension order of DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s criminal case was transferred to ORG for the determination of the criminal charges .","On DATE the latter court extended the pre - trial detention of all CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the ORG granted another extension of detention in respect of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This extension order was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged . He was sentenced to DATE of imprisonment . The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was counted towards the prison term .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment .","In DATE the applicant was released after having served his prison term .","At the time of his arrest the applicant was a student , working parttime . On DATE he took part in the demonstration at FAC , and after that date until DATE he continued living at his usual address and pursued his usual activities .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s flat was searched and his travel passport was seized . The applicant was arrested on suspicion of having participated in mass disorders and of having used violence against the police during the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE . He was charged with the offences provided for by Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( participation in mass disorders ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( violence against a public official ) . He was accused , in particular , of having snatched a police officer \u2019s uniform and pulling him away to prevent him from arresting another protestor .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE , having dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for an alternative preventive measure , such as house arrest . The court reasoned as follows :","\u201c In assessing the circumstances of the offence under investigation , the personality of the accused , who is suspected of having committed criminal offences CARDINAL of which is characterised as grave and the other \u2013 of medium gravity , the court concludes that [ the applicant ] , if at liberty , after being charged with a grave criminal offence , will prefer , out of fear of sanctions , to abscond the investigation and trial , [ or ] may act in person or through proxy with the aim of avoiding criminal liability , continue [ his ] criminal activity , destruct the evidence and otherwise obstruct the investigation .","Operational - search activities are now underway , aimed at establishing [ the applicant \u2019s ] possible connections with other active participants of the mass disorders which took place at FAC in GPE and the adjacent territory , therefore , if at liberty , [ he ] may co - ordinate his position with unidentified accomplices whose identities are still being established by the investigation .","The aforementioned circumstances are corroborated by the operational - search materials submitted to the investigator and the court under the procedure provided for by law .","Taking into account that ... [ the applicant ] has been [ previously ] charged with an administrative offence ... and that [ he ] has a travel passport and thus has no obstacles to travelling abroad ... the house arrest may not be granted . \u201d","DATE . On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE , on the grounds that the circumstances that had justified the detention \u2013 the gravity of charges and the risk of obstructing the course of justice \u2013 had not changed .","On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG granted an extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention on the following grounds :","\u201c The investigator \u2019s request indicates that ... during the investigation [ the applicant ] was making contradictory statements thus obstructing the investigation of the criminal case . Moreover , during the investigation it was found out that [ the applicant ] has acquaintances outside GPE and LOC . Therefore , if [ he ] is subjected to a preventive measure other than detention in custody he may flee the investigation and trial .","... the victim and eye - witnesses have indicated [ the applicant ] as the perpetrator ...","...","[ He ] is charged with criminal offences one of which is of medium gravity and another is a grave one , punishable by DATE of deprivation of liberty .","...","These circumstances are substantiated , real , corroborated by the information about the defendant \u2019s personality , including [ the information ] obtained through operational - search activities . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG granted a new extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , until DATE . In its reasoning it stressed the complexity of the case , reiterated the grounds given in the previous orders and noted that the circumstances which had justified the detention order had not changed . ORG upheld the extension order on DATE .","On DATE the indictment was issued to the applicant , with the final charges defined under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE ORG examined a fresh request for the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention and granted it , until DATE . The court justified this extension as follows :","\u201c The extension of the [ applicant \u2019s ] pre - trial detention is necessary because of the need to allow him and his counsel sufficient time for access to the investigation case file , which has not been finished .","... the [ applicant \u2019s ] partners in crime have not all been identified and have not been arrested , he knows the personal details of the victims and the witnesses accusing him of being the perpetrator . Taking into account the total of the aforementioned circumstances , the court considers that [ the applicant ] is likely to flee the investigation and trial , to continue his criminal activity , to put pressure on the victims and witnesses , to induce them to give false evidence , to destruct evidence or to otherwise obstruct the course of justice in the criminal case . \u201d","On DATE ORG acting as appeal instance upheld the same court \u2019s detention order of DATE .","On DATE the ORG granted another extension of detention in respect of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant . It ordered their detention until DATE on the following grounds :","\u201c The reasons taken into account by the court for selecting the preventive measure ... have not changed [ and ] have not lost their relevance to date .","...","The ORG takes into account the nature , the gravity and the factual circumstances of the offence imputable to the defendants , the existence of the unidentified perpetrators of the mass disorders , as a real ground for the GPE possible unlawful conduct .","Considering the foregoing , it is obvious that the defendants [ M. , ] , [ the applicant ] and [ PERSON ] , if at liberty , may abscond or otherwise obstruct the course of criminal procedure \u201d","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged . He was sentenced to DATE of imprisonment . The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention counted towards the prison sentence .","The applicant is currently serving the remainder of the prison term .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was detained in remand prison GPE , consecutively in CARDINAL different cells . In each cell the applicant had QUANTITY of personal space and an individual bed at all times ; he had TIME of daily outdoor exercise .","According to the Government , the applicant underwent a medical examination on his admission to IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ; on his request he received medical assistance on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE and on DATE he had a specialist consultation with an ophthalmologist .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG . According to the Government , the cell allowed the applicant QUANTITY of personal space and he had an individual bed at all times ; the toilet was separated by a solid partition from the rest of the cell in order to ensure the necessary privacy ; the cells were treated for disinfection and pest - control once DATE and whenever necessary ; the applicant was entitled to TIME outdoor exercise per day ; the cell was cleaned and the beddings were changed once a week ; the cells were equipped with forced ventilation and could be aired through the hinged window pane . The artificial light was provided at QUANTITY by day and at QUANTITY by night . The glazed windows let in daylight .","On DATE and DATE the public commission for the monitoring of detention facilities visited GPE . The applicant made no complaints about the conditions of his detention ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156022","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"VAN WEERELT v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154027","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MITRINOVSKI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , presided over by the applicant ( including Judges PERSON and GPE ) , decided , in second instance , to grant an appeal of a detainee . The panel accepted a proposed bail and replaced an order for detention on remand with an order for house arrest ( \u041a\u0441\u0436.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . On DATE ORG challenged this decision by means of a request for the protection of legality ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u0448\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430 ) . He sought that ORG declared that decision unlawful and that it be remitted for fresh consideration .","On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG , presided over by Judge PERSON , the President of ORG at the time , held a session at which the public prosecutor \u2019s request was examined . ORG accepted the prosecutor \u2019s amended request ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0438\u043d\u0430\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043e ) and stated inter alia that :","\u201c ORG finds that ORG , which decided the appeal ... against the decision ... in which ORG had dismissed a request for termination of pre - trial detention ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043b\u043e\u0433 \u0437\u0430 \u0443\u043a\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043c\u0435\u0440\u043a\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0442\u0432\u043e\u0440 ) as unsubstantiated , had no statutory ground to decide the complaints on the merits , but , on the contrary , it was bound by law to establish that the appeal ... was inadmissible ... \u201d","On DATE the criminal division of ORG composed of CARDINAL judges of that court , including Judge PERSON ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Rules of ORG , paragraph CARDINAL below ) , held a session at which they discussed the case \u041a\u0441\u0436.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . Following an examination of the record of the deliberations of ORG regarding the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the criminal division of ORG concluded that CARDINAL judges had disclosed professional misconduct . The relevant part of the record of that session reads as follows :","\u201c ... the criminal division of ORG unanimously found ( \u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u043e \u0441\u0435 \u0434\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0441\u0435 \u0437\u0430\u043a\u043b\u0443\u0447\u043e\u043a ) that there had been professional misconduct by CARDINAL judges of ORG who had adjudicated in the case \u041a\u0441\u0436.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","The President of ORG , ORG then closed the session of the criminal division . \u201d","In submissions of the same date , Judge PERSON , as an ex officio member of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d , see PERSON to the LAW , paragraph CARDINAL below ) , requested that the ORG establish professional misconduct in respect of the applicant and Judge PERSON This request was submitted pursuant to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( \u201c the LAW \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) according to which a member of the ORG or the president of the higher court can seek that professional misconduct proceedings were launched regarding a judge . As stated in the request , there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant and Judge PERSON had exercised the office of judge in an unprofessional and unconscientious manner given that they had voted in favour of the decision of DATE in the criminal case \u041a\u0441\u0436.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which had been in violation of LAW . In support , he submitted copies of the decisions of CARDINAL and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the plenary of the ORG , including Judge PERSON , discussed Judge PERSON \u2019s request for determination of professional misconduct on the part of the applicant and accepted it as timely , complete and admissible . It also set up a Commission for determination of professional misconduct by the applicant ( \u201c the Commission \u201d ) , composed of CARDINAL of its members , including the President of the ORG ( see section CARDINAL of the LAW , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The composition of the Commission did not include Judge PERSON","NORP On DATE the Commission communicated Judge PERSON request and the supporting evidence to the applicant . On DATE the applicant responded in writing and provided evidence in support ( see section CARDINAL of the LAW , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Judge PERSON resigned in the meantime . After the Commission had obtained the material in the case \u041a\u0441\u0436.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , on DATE it submitted a report to the ( plenary of the ) ORG as to whether Judge PERSON \u2019s request was justified .","On DATE , the plenary of the ORG , including Judge PERSON , initiated professional misconduct proceedings against the applicant and temporarily suspended him from the office of judge . In the decision , the ORG relied on sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The relevant parts of this decision read as follows :","\u201c The ORG , on the basis of ( Judge PERSON ) request ... set up ( the Commission ) ... After the Commission had taken actions pursuant to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ( the LAW ) , it submitted , under section CARDINAL of ( the LAW ) , to the ORG a report as to whether the request was justified .","The ORG ... discussed the request and the ORG \u2019s proposal and decided to initiate professional misconduct proceedings ... \u201d","On DATE the Commission held , pursuant to section CARDINAL of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , a hearing . As noted in the record of the hearing , it was attended by the applicant and his legal representative , as well as by Judge PERSON as complainant . Judge PERSON inter alia that :","\u201c ... I submitted the request ( for determination of unprofessional and unconscientious exercise of the office of judge regarding the applicant ) for the following reasons : ( the applicant ) , as the chairman of the panel and a judge rapporteur ( in the case \u041a\u0441\u0436.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and judge ORG , as a member of that panel , contrary to ( LAW ) ... had unlawfully decided on the merits ... they had no statutory ground to decide on the merits of the complaints raised in the appeal , but they were bound by law to reject the appeal as inadmissible . For these reasons , I consider that in this case ... there are grounds [ to be established that there was ] unprofessional and unconscientious exercise of the office of judge ...","I must underline that I submitted this request to the ORG in view of the conclusion of the criminal division of ORG of DATE [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] ... \u201d","After the applicant had presented his arguments verbally , the President of the ORG put several questions to him . The applicant \u2019s lawyer and judge PERSON did not put any questions notwithstanding that they were provided with such an opportunity . Then , the applicant and judge PERSON made concluding remarks . The record of the hearing indicated that under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the Commission would draw up a report , which would be communicated to the ORG for consideration . The record of the hearing was signed by the applicant , judge PERSON , as the complainant , and the members of ORG ( see section CARDINAL of the Act , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As evident from the available material , the Commission submitted such a report in which it proposed that the ORG dismiss the applicant for professional misconduct .","On DATE the plenary of the ORG , which included judge ORG dismissed the applicant from the office of judge for professional misconduct . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c The ORG finds that ORG had no statutory ground to examine and decide on the merits of the complaints raised in the appeal [ in the criminal case \u041a\u0441\u0436.\u0431\u0440. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ] , but it was bound by law to establish that the accused \u2019s appeal submitted by his lawyer had been inadmissible . Accordingly , it decided in violation to ( LAW ) .","...","Such a decision is unlawful and contrary to [ relevant provisions of LAW ] ...","...","When establishing unprofessional and unconscientious exercise of the office of judge [ by the applicant ] , the ORG relied , as a legal ground , on the judgment of ORG [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] and the conclusion of the criminal division of ORG of DATE [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] . The ( criminal ) division explicitly established that ( the applicant ) , as chairman of the panel and a judge rapporteur , ... had been unprofessional and decided contrary to [ the relevant provisions of LAW ] ... \u201d","The applicant appealed against that decision before the second - instance body , namely an Appeal Panel formed within ORG on an ad hoc basis in each case separately and composed , as specified in CARDINAL of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , of CARDINAL judges , of whom CARDINAL were to be ORG judges , CARDINAL ORG judges and CARDINAL judges of the court of the applicant . He also sought withdrawal of judge PERSON and all ORG judges . In support he stated that there was a conflict of interest , as judge PERSON had sought his dismissal and had later voted for it as an ex officio member of the ORG . The position he held was such that he could influence other judges of that court .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and confirmed the ORG \u2019s decision dismissing him from the office of judge . It also refused his request for the withdrawal of judges . It found that it was the plenary of ORG , and not ORG , which had competence to decide on the applicant \u2019s request for the withdrawal of the President of ORG . Relying on LAW it further rejected as inadmissible the applicant \u2019s request for the withdrawal of all the judges of a court ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178958","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MAC TV S.R.O. v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant company was established in DATE and has its registered office in GPE . It is the operator of CARDINAL private television channels and the broadcaster of a television programme , ORG . The present case concerns a commentary ( glosa ) delivered during a television programme broadcast on DATE after the crash of the plane in which the late President of GPE , PERSON , had been travelling .","The commentary \u2019s title was \u201c Compassion in Accordance with LAW \u201d ; the commentary contained the following :","\u201c The crash of a NORP plane carrying the presidential couple on board is a true human tragedy . The whole of GPE is in mourning and politicians are more or less expressing their condolences . That is required by diplomatic protocol . Thus , NORP russophile politicians too shed a tear , albeit a forced one , over the death of the russophobe , PERSON . Even ordinary citizens , not bound by any protocol , are expressing their sorrow . NORP , homosexuals , liberals , feminists and leftoriented intellectuals are bitterly sorry for the death of a man who represented an extreme NORP conservativism , and who was a symbol of a country where people who are not white heterosexual NORP were born as a punishment . I am sorry , but I do not pity NORP . I envy them . \u201d","Following the broadcast of the above - mentioned commentary , ORG ( Rada pre vysielanie a retransmisiu ) commenced administrative proceedings against the applicant company , pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) of ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended - \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , on DATE .","On DATE ORG found that the applicant company had breached its obligations under LAW in that the manner of processing and presenting the content of the commentary had interfered with the dignity of the late NORP President , PERSON . It fined the applicant company MONEY ( ORG ) .","ORG assessed the conflict between the applicant company \u2019s freedom of expression and the protection of the human dignity of the late President . On the one hand , it acknowledged the aim of the commentator to express his opinion and his subjective stance on the social and political event through criticism , sarcasm and irony , which were inherent to journalistic expression . On the other hand , where ORG found difficulties was in particular the content of the last CARDINAL sentences of the commentary ( \u201c I am sorry , but I do not pity the NORP . I envy them \u201d ) . ORG concluded that the manner in which the commentator had presented his opinion \u2013 that is to say his lack of regret for the NORP President \u2019s death DATE had contravened the duty to respect his human dignity . According to ORG , the degree of sarcasm and irony in the broadcast commentary had been so high that its content and the manner in which the author \u2019s opinion had been presented had been substandard and had dishonoured the late President .","ORG noted that Mr PERSON , as President , was sufficiently recognisable as an \u201c individual \u201d , which was a prerequisite for the applicability of the protection of the dignity , human rights and fundamental freedoms of \u201c others \u201d under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) of LAW . It concluded that by broadcasting the aforesaid commentary the applicant company had committed an administrative offence ( spr\u00e1vny delikt ) \u2013 in particular a breach of its duties under the said provision \u2013 and that imposing a fine on it in that respect was in order . It considered such a measure to be necessary in a NORP society , as it served a legitimate aim \u2013 that is to say the protection of the right to human dignity .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . It rejected the applicant company \u2019s argument that ORG had sanctioned it for voicing its political opinion . Rather , ORG confirmed ORG conclusion about the defamatory character of the commentary in question and the interference with the late President \u2019s human dignity .","The applicant company lodged a complaint before the Constitutional Court challenging the decisions of ORG and ORG under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and Articles CARDINAL ( freedom of expression ) and CARDINAL ( right to judicial protection ) of the LAW .","It alleged that the decisions in question had been arbitrary , unfair and insufficiently reasoned and that their respective authors had breached its freedom of expression by sanctioning it for voicing its opinion regarding the late President as a politician .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant company \u2019s complaint . It considered , inter alia , that the above - mentioned authorities had duly explained their conclusions , without having overly strayed from a reasonable interpretation of the applicable rules and established practice . ORG noted that the impugned commentary had expressed not only sarcasm and criticism of the late President \u2019s policy but also a positive attitude towards his death . This very fact had interfered with his right to respect for his human dignity , which led ORG to conclude that the domestic authorities\u2019 decisions had not been arbitrary .","As to the applicant company \u2019s complaint under LAW ( and LAW ) , ORG held that a general court could not bear \u201c secondary liability \u201d for a violation of fundamental rights and freedoms of a substantive nature unless there had been a constitutionally relevant violation of procedural rules . Given that it had rejected the complaint concerning the alleged violation of procedural rules , it also had to reject the complaint relating to an alleged violation of a substantive provision ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163914","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF I.N. v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Sergiy Goncharenko;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , GPE .","According to the applicant , in DATE he brought criminal proceedings for libel before ORG , complaining that it had been noted in his employment record that he had been dismissed because he had committed theft . The applicant alleged that , following his numerous complaints to a prosecutor \u2019s office about the failure to investigate the above case , in DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office had requested his placement in a psychiatric facility .","According to case - file materials , on DATE the principal of ORG ( PERSON \u0442\u0435\u0440\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0456\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0435 \u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0447\u043d\u0435 ORG , hereinafter the \u201c FAC \u201d ) received a letter from ORG asking for an opinion on the state of the applicant \u2019s mental health . The parties did not submit a copy of that letter to the ORG .","PERSON . and PERSON studied the applicant \u2019s letters at the prosecutor \u2019s office and decided that the applicant should be examined , since the letters contained evidence of a \u201c high probability of socially dangerous behaviour \u201d . The parties did not submit copies of those letters to the ORG either .","On DATE , Ma . , assisted by a team of paramedics and QUANTITY police officers , visited the applicant at home . The applicant stated that he had been visited by QUANTITY persons in total .","The parties differed on the circumstances of this visit . According to the applicant \u2019s testimonies given before the court in civil proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he opened the door only after the police had threatened to break it . Once the applicant had opened the door , PERSON . said that they should go to a hospital to examine the applicant there . A police officer , PERSON , was shouting at the applicant and threatening him with criminal prosecution for resisting the police . The applicant replied that he would \u201c submit to force \u201d . He was subsequently taken by his arms and put in an ambulance .","The Government submitted that there was no evidence that any pressure had been applied to the applicant . According to Ma . \u2019s testimonies given in the same court proceedings , the applicant opened the door and let PERSON . and the police officers in . PERSON . introduced himself and had a conversation with the applicant . It was then proposed that the applicant accompany them to a hospital for further examination . The applicant agreed , collected his belongings , closed the door and got into the ambulance . Upon arrival in FAC it was decided that the applicant needed hospitalisation .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a panel of CARDINAL doctors , including PERSON . and PERSON , which confirmed the necessity of his urgent hospitalisation . On DATE the applicant was examined by an assistant of the psychiatric medicine department of ORG in the presence of PERSON . , and was offered hospital treatment . Since he refused , he was further examined by CARDINAL doctors of ORG ( GPE \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u0430 \u043a\u043b\u0456\u043d\u0456\u0447\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0432\u0440\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0433\u0456\u0447\u043d\u0430 \u043b\u0456\u043a\u0430\u0440\u043d\u044f , hereinafter the \u201c GPE \u201d ) , who concluded that he should be urgently admitted for treatment because he had written threatening letters to various authorities .","DATE and DATE the applicant was a patient in ORG . He was allegedly examined on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE by a panel of CARDINAL psychiatrists . Each time it was decided that his treatment had to be continued . On DATE the applicant was examined by a regional medico - social expert commission , which established that he had a second - degree disability .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG ( GPE \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0441\u0438\u0445\u0456\u0430\u0442\u0440\u0438\u0447\u043d\u0430 \u043b\u0456\u043a\u0430\u0440\u043d\u044f , the \u201c ORG \u201d ) to continue his treatment there . He was discharged from the hospital on DATE .","The applicant also stayed in a hospital DATE and DATE .","In DATE and DATE the applicant requested that the medical establishments where he had stayed in DATE allow him to study his medical file and inform him on what legal basis he had been subjected to psychiatric treatment . According to the applicant , he received an answer only from ORG but the answer was not satisfactory .","On DATE the applicant brought proceedings before the ORG against ORG , complaining of its failure to reply to his request . The case file contains a copy of the applicant \u2019s complaint dated DATE . There are CARDINAL handwritten notes on it : \u201c received on DATE \u201d and \u201c received on DATE \u201d . ORG issued a note on the progress of the applicant \u2019s case stating that the applicant had instituted the proceedings on DATE . In DATE the applicant lodged a similar complaint against ORG .","On DATE the court stayed the proceedings in the case pending examination of the issue of the applicant \u2019s legal capacity . On DATE the request to recognise the applicant as legally incapacitated was left without consideration , so the proceedings were resumed on DATE .","On DATE the court rejected the applicant \u2019s claims as unsubstantiated . On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration .","On DATE the applicant modified his claims . In addition to his initial claims , he complained , inter alia , that his committal to the psychoneurological department of ORG on DATE and his confinement there until DATE had been unlawful . He also complained that he had been unlawfully transferred to ORG and ORG , where he had been confined until DATE . The applicant also claimed damages .","DATE and DATE CARDINAL court hearings took place and CARDINAL hearings were postponed . In particular , on QUANTITY occasions the defendants and\/or their representatives failed to appear in court , and CARDINAL hearing did not take place because the court recording equipment was not available .","Following a request by CARDINAL of the defendants , on DATE the court ordered a forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant . On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for examination on the merits .","NORP In their observations the Government provided a list of scheduled court hearings which had taken place in the applicant \u2019s case . The case file also contains a note on the progress of the applicant \u2019s case issued by ORG . Those CARDINAL descriptions of the progress of the proceedings in the applicant \u2019s case contain some contradictory information .","According to the ORG \u2019s submissions , DATE and DATE TIME court hearings were scheduled but CARDINAL took place because either the defendants , the applicant or their representatives failed to appear . According to the domestic court record , CARDINAL hearings took place .","On DATE the term of office of the judge in the applicant \u2019s case expired . The next hearing scheduled for DATE allegedly with a new judge did not take place because the court recording equipment was not available .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL court hearings were scheduled . According to the Government , all of them took place ; according to the domestic court record , QUANTITY of them did not take place because the defendants , the applicant or their representatives failed to appear . The number of such failures to appear was almost equal for both parties .","On DATE the court partially allowed the applicant \u2019s claims . It summarised his submissions as follows . On DATE Ma . , with the assistance of the police , had the applicant unlawfully committed to a psychoneurological department , where he stayed for DATE . On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG without his consent ; he stayed there until DATE . He was then transferred to ORG , where he stayed until DATE . The applicant claimed that PERSON . had acted unlawfully , had breached the applicant \u2019s right to respect for his home , had examined the applicant against his will and had deprived him of his liberty . The applicant further complained that he had been unlawfully confined in all QUANTITY hospitals , and that the principals of those institutions had failed to respond to his requests for information . The applicant claimed CARDINAL NORP hryvnas ( ORG ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","The court further noted that in a court hearing the applicant had submitted that he had not challenged his diagnosis but considered that the ORG actions had been unlawful . He gave his version of the events of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant also submitted that force had been used against him in ORG ; he had been administered with injections and had been kept behind bars in a locked room . He had been transferred to the GPE and ORG without his consent . Information about his state of health had been provided to his employers and to the relevant prosecutor \u2019s office . He had been discharged from ORG having been advised not to lodge any official complaints , otherwise he would be hospitalised again . He had not lodged any complaints since he had been \u201c afraid for his future \u201d . The applicant stated that he had sustained non - pecuniary damage caused by his involuntary hospitalisation , the administering of unknown medication by means of injection , poor nutrition , fear for his life , unsanitary conditions and a breach of his right to respect for his home .","NORP In court hearings PERSON . , and police officers PERSON . and PERSON testified that no pressure had been brought to bear on the applicant at the time of the visit to his home . Witness PERSON . testified that he did not remember the circumstances of that visit and witness PERSON testified that she had seen \u201c a doctor entering [ the applicant \u2019s house ? ] alone , followed TIME by a police officer \u201d . She had then seen the applicant getting into an ambulance . PERSON . also submitted that the applicant \u2019s hospitalisation had been in compliance with temporary instructions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u201c On procedure for the conduct of preliminary psychiatric examination of citizens \u201d and \u201c On procedure for urgent hospitalisation of mentally ill persons \u201d ( \u201c Instructions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u201d ) appended to Order no . CARDINAL of ORG of the GPE of DATE \u201c On actions for further improvement of psychiatric assistance \u201d ( \u201c Order no . CARDINAL \u201d ) , in particular , paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL of Instruction no . DATE and paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the Instruction no . DATE ( see relevant domestic law below ) .","The court found that the visit to the applicant \u2019s home on DATE when the applicant had been examined and later taken to ORG had been performed in compliance with CARDINAL , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL of Instruction no . DATE and paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( b ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Instruction no . CARDINAL . Referring to the \u201c testimonies of PERSON . , PERSON . and PERSON \u201d , the court held that the applicant had failed to prove that any force had been used against him . The decision of DATE on the applicant \u2019s admission to hospital had also been adopted in compliance with paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Instruction no . CARDINAL . The subsequent decision of DATE to hospitalise the applicant had also been taken in compliance with paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) of Instruction no . CARDINAL . However , the applicant \u2019s transfer to ORG on DATE had been in breach of section CARDINAL of ORG , which was in force as of DATE . The applicant \u2019s requests for access to information had been rejected as a result of a decision to limit his access to his medical file , which he had not challenged . Such information could have been provided to the applicant \u2019s relatives if he so wished . The court awarded the applicant UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be paid by ORG ( QUANTITY ( ORG ) at the material time ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","The applicant appealed , stating , in particular , that by Order no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG ( \u201c Order no . CARDINAL \u201d ) , Order no . CARDINAL had been declared \u201c not applicable on the territory of GPE \u201d .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The court held that the first - instance court had correctly applied the law in force at the material time . The court rejected the applicant \u2019s arguments about the invalidity of Order no . CARDINAL as unsubstantiated without giving any further details . It did not comment on the validity and\/or legal effect of Order no . CARDINAL .","The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , reiterating his arguments .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as unsubstantiated .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that he had not received a writ of enforcement . In reply , the court informed him that he could receive the writ of enforcement from the court \u2019s secretariat upon a written request .","It is unclear whether the applicant received the compensation awarded to him ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-5","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-e"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164526","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BRAMBILLA AND OTHERS v. ITALY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","The first applicant is the editor of a local online newspaper in the province of GPE . The other CARDINAL applicants are journalists working for the newspaper .","In the course of their activities , the applicants used radio equipment to access frequencies used by the police or the carabinieri . This enabled them to learn of any communications transmitted in that way , so that they could arrive quickly on the scene when wishing to report on specific incidents .","On DATE the applicants listened in on a conversation during which the ORG carabinieri operations centre decided to send a patrol to a location where , according to anonymous sources , weapons had been stored illegally .","The carabinieri accordingly went to the location mentioned , and the second and third applicants arrived on the scene immediately afterwards .","Having obtained a search warrant , the carabinieri searched the applicants\u2019 car , finding CARDINAL frequency - modulation transmitter \/ receivers that were capable of intercepting police radio communications .","The carabinieri then went to the CARDINAL ORG editorial office and seized CARDINAL fixed radio receivers , which were tuned to the frequencies used by the carabinieri . Other frequencies used by police operations centres were stored in the GPE memory .","Criminal proceedings were instituted against the first and second applicants for illegally installing equipment designed to intercept communications between law - enforcement agencies\u2019 operations centres and patrols ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL bis and CARDINAL bis of LAW ) . The third applicant was charged with accessing the aforementioned communications ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL bis of LAW ) .","On DATE the ORG acquitted the applicants . It held that the relevant Articles of the Criminal Code were to be interpreted in the light of DATE LAW , which only protected communications of a confidential nature .","ORG observed that the radio device used by the law - enforcement agencies was unable to ensure the confidentiality of the information it transmitted . Accordingly , the interception of the communications in question did not constitute an offence . Moreover , the possession and use of radio receivers were not prohibited as such .","The GPE principal public prosecutor and the GPE public prosecutor appealed . They argued that ORG interpretation was inconsistent with ORG case - law in such matters ( citing in particular judgment no . DATE of DATE ) and that the communications in issue were clearly confidential , bearing in mind the aims of ensuring public safety and protecting public order . In addition , the communications concerned the initial investigations following the commission of an offence . They were therefore subject to a confidentiality requirement pursuant to LAW .","NORP The confidential nature of the communications was also obvious from the fact that the carabinieri used coded language for communications concerning the location and the type of intervention , clearly seeking to ensure that no third parties had knowledge of the information being exchanged . In addition , the radiofrequencies involved had been exclusively assigned to operations centres by ORG .","Furthermore , in order to listen in on the conversations , the applicants had had to purchase special radio equipment , as ordinary equipment could not be used for this purpose . On the other hand , the fact that such devices were freely available on the market did not justify their use for intercepting conversations between law - enforcement officers .","In addition , in accordance with Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , as in force at the material time , devices of this kind were intended to be purchased by amateur radio operators but could not be used to intercept police radiofrequencies . Lastly , ORG decree of CARDINAL DATE had expressly prohibited amateur radio operators from intercepting communications which they were not entitled to receive .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the first and second applicants guilty and sentenced them to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The third applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . ORG suspended the applicants\u2019 sentences .","It observed that LAW , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , had extended the scope of criminal responsibility to cover all remote data transmission , thus including the interception of conversations between the law - enforcement agencies\u2019 operations centres and patrols .","Such communications were , moreover , clearly confidential . Reiterating all the arguments put forward by the GPE and GPE public prosecutors , particularly regarding the aims of ensuring public safety and protecting public order , ORG held that LAW was also at issue in the present case .","The applicants appealed to ORG . They contended that the communications in question had been transmitted on unencrypted frequencies and thus could not be treated as confidential . Furthermore , they had been acting in a professional capacity as journalists , and their actions were therefore justified under LAW and in terms of freedom of the press .","In a judgment of DATE ORG found against the applicants , upholding ORG position as to the confidential nature of the communications and reiterating that this interpretation was consistent with its own approach in similar cases , particularly in judgments no . CARDINAL of DATE and no . DATE of DATE .","Addressing the applicants\u2019 argument concerning freedom of the press , ORG stated that the right to impart information , which they had relied on , might have prevailed over the public interests protected by criminal law in a case of alleged defamation . However , that right could not take precedence in a case concerning the illegal interception of communications between law - enforcement officers .","..."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183128","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ZELENCHUK AND TSYTSYURA v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - General measures);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , a city in GPE .","In DATE her mother obtained a share of land in the village of PERSON in the NORP district of the NORP region ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL below concerning the nature of shares of land and their subsequent conversion into plots ) . Following her mother \u2019s death in DATE , the first applicant inherited that share and obtained a certificate confirming that she had become its new owner on DATE . On DATE the ORG allocated a plot of land to her measuring QUANTITY , zoned for use as an individual smallholding ( \u043e\u0441\u043e\u0431\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0435 \u0441\u0435\u043b\u044f\u043d\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0435 \u0433\u043e\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e , see paragraph CARDINAL below for a description of zoning categories of agricultural land under NORP law ) .","The applicant obtained a property certificate in respect of that land on CARDINAL DATE . She rented out QUANTITY to a company under a lease registered on DATE and due to expire on DATE , and QUANTITY to another company under a DATE lease registered on DATE . According to the applicant , she receives rent in kind , either in grain or sunflower oil , depending on the crops grown on the land in DATE .","The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On an unspecified date his mother obtained the right to a share of land in the village of NORP in the LOC of the NORP region . In DATE he inherited it from her . On DATE the ORG allocated QUANTITY of agricultural land to him , zoned for commercial agricultural production ( \u0442\u043e\u0432\u0430\u0440\u043d\u0435 \u0441\u0456\u043b\u0441\u044c\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0435 \u0432\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0431\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0442\u0432\u043e ) . He obtained a property certificate on DATE .","The land is rented by a limited liability company . Since DATE the second applicant has received rent in the following amounts :","NORP The applicants\u2019 land is subject to legislative restrictions on alienation and change of designated use , which are described in \u201c Relevant domestic material \u201d and , as regards their current state , in paragraph CARDINAL below ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-169522","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF M.P.  v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant and her partner began to cohabit in DATE . Their daughter was born in DATE . In DATE the applicant felt that , in her view , the child \u2019s father was behaving strangely with the child and that the child did not want to stay at home alone with her father . She also started to fear for her own and her child \u2019s safety as the father was , in her view , violent . In DATE the applicant and her daughter left the child \u2019s father .","NORP In DATE the child \u2019s father initiated custody and contact rights proceedings vis - \u00e0 - vis his daughter .","In DATE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) gave an interim decision that the father was to meet his daughter for TIME every other weekend under supervision . This arrangement continued for DATE but was disrupted for some time in DATE . According to the applicant , the child was often restless and talked strangely after the meetings with her father .","On DATE the ORG gave another interim decision according to which the father had a right to meet with his daughter for TIME at a time without supervision .","On DATE ORG held an oral hearing about the custody and contact rights .","On DATE the ORG gave both parents joint custody of the child . She was to live with her mother and to meet her father DATE from DATE and during the holidays , unsupervised . The meetings were , however , temporarily discontinued for the duration of the pre - trial investigation ( see below ) . On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision .","NORP The applicant claimed that after the third unsupervised visit with the father in DATE , her almost DATE daughter \u2019s behaviour changed radically and she was showing strong symptoms . The child was using vulgar language and was restless and anxious . The child had told her mother about things that her father did to her . She kept repeating these issues and suffered from increasingly bad nightmares . The applicant contacted a child psychiatrist . On DATE she contacted the child welfare authorities in GPE reporting her suspicions of sexual abuse .","On DATE the child welfare authorities reported the matter to the police . They recommended that the meetings with the father be discontinued for the duration of the investigation .","On DATE the pre - trial investigation conducted by ORG commenced . Both parents were questioned . On DATE ORG received an official request for assistance from ORG . At the time the child was DATE and DATE . The ORG replied that children DATE could not be interviewed within the forensic - psychological interview framework as it was not possible to obtain reliable information on possible sexual abuse from children DATE , especially in situations involving custody disputes . Such interviews became effective only in respect of children aged DATE or more .","On DATE a physiological examination was carried out to determine whether the child showed any signs or symptoms of the alleged abuse , but no such external signs were revealed . The pre - trial investigation was concluded on DATE as there was no appearance of any crime .","After having received information about the conclusion of the pretrial investigation , the applicant contacted ORG on DATE and expressed her surprise that no psychological assessment had been conducted in the matter .","In a telephone conversation of CARDINAL DATE the applicant expressed to the social worker her fear that her child continued to be at risk of being subjected to sexual abuse when meeting her father and insisted on another investigation . She was concerned that the pre - trial investigation by the police had not been complete and that the social workers would be responsible if something happened to her child while the meetings with the father were not supervised . The social worker in turn explained to the applicant that the pretrial investigation had not brought to light any somatic signs or symptoms that would suggest sexual abuse of the child . Moreover , concerning the visiting rights , the social worker explained that the decision of CARDINAL DATE by ORG was still in force and that if the applicant was not satisfied with it , she would have to appeal against it in courts of law instead of complaining about it to the child welfare authorities . However , the applicant insisted on making the second report to the child welfare authorities , claiming that she had been threatened with loss of her custody rights if she did not allow the meetings with the father . The father of the child received information about this report from the police .","On DATE the applicant submitted another child welfare report and the second report to the police , insisting on another investigation and stating that she suspected that someone was abusing her child during visits to the child \u2019s father . She also reported the matter to the social workers in GPE .","On DATE and DATE respectively the applicant took her daughter to an emergency clinic for examination as she had trouble sleeping and was behaving oddly . No somatic signs or symptoms of sexual abuse were found .","ORG started to investigate the matter . As the applicant had taken the child to a doctor on DATE , no new physical examination was carried out . The pre - trial investigation was concluded on DATE as there was no appearance of any crime .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( ORG oikeusturvakeskus , PERSON ) about the fact that the child had not been heard at all during the pre - trial investigation in DATE . The case was transferred ex officio to the regional ORG ( l\u00e4\u00e4ninhallitus , l\u00e4nsstyrelsen ) .","On DATE the applicant also lodged a complaint with ORG ( eduskunnan oikeusasiamies , riksdagens justitieombudsman ) , asking him to investigate why the police did not hear her child during the pre - trial investigation .","On DATE ORG decided not to take any measures as the police investigation was still pending before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He did not have competence to give orders to the police concerning the investigation of the matter as he could not examine the actions of private individuals .","On DATE the regional ORG found that there was no minimum age for hearing a child and that the DATE agelimit for child psychiatric interviews was only a recommendation . The child had only been DATE and DATE at the time of the first police investigation . No new physical examination had been carried out during the second pre - trial investigation as such an examination had been carried out on CARDINAL and DATE . The ORG decided to take no action in the applicant \u2019s case .","On an unspecified date , the father of the child asked the police to investigate whether the applicant had defamed him as she had given false information about him to the social worker on DATE , claiming that the child was in danger of being sexually abused by her father during their upcoming meetings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He claimed that these allegations were not true and that the applicant \u2019s motive for such accusations was that she wanted to have sole custody of the child and hamper the meetings between the father and the child .","On DATE ORG pressed charges against the applicant for having insisted on DATE that the child was in danger of being sexually abused by her father after the police had already investigated the matter and , on DATE , found no appearance of any crime .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of defamation and sentenced her to CARDINAL day - fines , amounting to MONEY ( ORG ) . She was ordered to pay the father LAW in nonpecuniary compensation and his costs and expenses amounting to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The court \u2019s reasoning was the following :","\u201c The insinuation made by ORG and referred to in the charges can not be understood to refer to any other person than [ the father of the child ] and it was made in a situation in which GPE knew about the decision of ORG to stop investigating the suspected sexual abuse of a child , which investigation had been initiated solely on the basis of the information submitted by her . According to the decision , the investigation did not reveal any such evidence on the basis of which the threshold of \u201c reason to suspect \u201d would have been attained . The decision refers to the somatic examination of the child , requested by the police and conducted on DATE by a specialist in paediatrics at which GPE was also present . According to the medical certificate , the girl \u2019s somatic status was normal and there were no external signs of sexual abuse .","From the medical certificate of DATE , which was admitted as written evidence , it appears that the meetings between the father and the child had been supervised until DATE and that thereafter until the filing of the police report on CARDINAL DATE and the freezing of the meetings , there had been unsupervised DATE meetings CARDINAL times , lasting TIME each . [ The father of the child ] stated that out of these few meetings CARDINAL meeting had taken place in an amusement park , which was not disputed by PERSON stated that the sexually - coloured talk of the child had started already during the supervised visits . At that time the child was DATE .","On the sole basis of the meeting circumstances and the medical examination , GPE could not have had strong grounds to consider that her insinuation of the crime was true , even if the child had said what she was alleged to have said . Nor could the child \u2019s other , more general symptoms have given sufficient confirmation of her insinuation .","When assessing whether one is guilty of defamation , it is irrelevant that the act has been committed by pursuing an earlier report to child welfare authorities and that it has been made to a public official who is bound by confidentiality . Even in a child welfare report one must not give untruthful and smearing information or insinuations about others . GPE must have understood that the insinuation was of such a kind that in any event it would come to the knowledge of [ the child \u2019s father ] and that its content , being almost of the worst kind , was bound to cause him suffering .","...","Ignorance of legal provisions does not eliminatebasis for considering that ORG \u2019s act could be regarded as manifestly excusable due to a mistake .","On the basis of the grounds expressed above , ORG considers that GPE did not have any such reasons to make an insinuation towards [ the father of the child ] that she would have had a reasoned ground to do so without defaming him . \u201d","By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment of ORG to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) . She claimed only to have voiced her previous concern as the child was not heard at all during the concluded pre - trial investigation . Her concerns were not directed at the father but at the fact that a danger to the child \u2019s health still existed . It had been the child welfare authorities who had qualified these concerns as relating to sexual abuse . Sexual abuse did not always leave physical marks which could be revealed by medical examination but it was a grave procedural mistake not to interview the child during the pre - trial investigation . She considered this mistake to be so substantial that the danger to her child \u2019s health still existed despite the outcome of the investigation . She also referred to the case PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE .","On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG upheld the ORG judgment . The court found the following :","\u201c On the basis of the oral hearing held , ORG has no reason to assess the evidence differently than ORG . The acts committed by GPE [ ... ] fulfil the constituent elements of defamation , criminalised by LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW . The fact that the insinuation was made to a public official who is bound by confidentiality is not relevant when assessing the constituent elements , as appears from the ORG precedent CARDINAL . GPE [ ... ] did not have sufficiently strong grounds to hold the information true in a situation where [ she ] knew that the pre - trial investigation into [ the child \u2019s father ] had terminated . Although child protection considerations have to be taken into account , a conviction in these circumstances is not in contradiction with freedom of expression which is protected as a fundamental and human right . PERSON has considered that she is free from criminal liability under LAW , section CARDINAL , of the Penal Code due to a mistake as to the unlawfulness of her act as she had mistakenly regarded her act as lawful because of a reason similar to erroneous advice given by public officials . The pretrial investigation had , however , been started solely on the basis of information given by GPE and this investigation was already terminated , GPE being aware of it , before the commission of the present act . Therefore there are no grounds to apply the provision concerning mistake as to the unlawfulness of the act . Nor is there any reason to change ORG judgment as far as the conviction is concerned . \u201d","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","On DATE the father of the child requested the GPE ORG to order that the child live with him .","On DATE the GPE ORG ordered that the child was to live with her father in PERSON . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .","The applicant has complained to the ORG about these proceedings in a separate application ( see application no . CARDINAL M.P. and PERSON GPE ) which was declared inadmissible on DATE .","On an unspecified date the applicant asked ORG ( sis\u00e4asiainministeri\u00f6 , inrikesministeriet ) to investigate whether the decision not to hear the child was acceptable . On DATE ORG transferred the matter to ORG Poliisihallitus , Polisstyrelsen ) .","On DATE ORG found that police conduct in the matter had been appropriate . The police had conducted an adequate pre - trial investigation without leaving any issues unclarified ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178106","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"TAMIZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a firm of solicitors based in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","Google Inc. is a corporation registered in GPE and with its principal place of business there . It provides an Internet blog - publishing service via ORG , a platform that allows any Internet user in any part of the world to create an independent blog free of charge . It includes design tools to help users create layouts for their blogs and , if they do not have their own web address , enables them to host their blogs on ORG web addresses .","Blogger.com operates a \u201c Content Policy \u201d which sets out restrictions on what users can do using the service . This makes clear that content such as child pornography , or promoting race hatred , is prohibited . The policy is explained in the following terms :","\u201c Blogger is a free service for communication , self - expression and freedom of speech . We believe that Blogger increases the availability of information , encourages healthy debate and makes possible new connections between people .","We respect our users\u2019 ownership of and responsibility for the content they choose to share . It is our belief that censoring this content is contrary to a service that bases itself on freedom of expression .","In order to uphold these values , we need to curb abuses that threaten our ability to provide this service and the freedom of expression it encourages . As a result , there are some boundaries on the type of content that can be hosted with Blogger . The boundaries we have defined are those that both comply with legal requirements and that serve to enhance the service as a whole . \u201d","In addition , ORG operates a \u201c Report Abuse \u201d feature . There are CARDINAL grounds for reporting abuse , including \u201c LAW \u201d . If the user selects LAW , a second screen is displayed which makes it clear that the ORG service is operated in accordance with GPE law , and that defamatory material will only be taken down if it has been found to be libellous ( i.e. unlawful ) by a court . According to ORG , the reason for this policy is that , given the volume of content uploaded by users of the ORG service , it is usually not practicable for it to remove content without first receiving a court \u2019s determination that the content is , in fact , libellous . ORG is not in a position to adjudicate such disputes itself .","On DATE a piece appeared on the \u201c GPE NORP \u201d blog , a blog hosted on the PERSON website . It contained a photograph of the applicant and the following text :","\u201c PERSON a NORP council candidate with a TIME shadow has resigned from the party after calling GPE girls \u2018 PERSON .","GPE who on his ORG page describes himself as an \u2018 ambitious NORP Muslim\u2019 is bizarrely studying law so one would have thought this PERSON prat with Star Trek Spock ears might have engaged the odd brain cell before making these offensive remarks . \u201d","A number of anonymous comments were subsequently posted in response to the publication . CARDINAL of the approximately CARDINAL comments are set out , as originally posted , in the following paragraphs .","Comment A :","\u201c I know Mr GPE very well and am surprised that it has taken this long for all this to come out , PERSON is a known drug dealer in thanet and has been taken to court for theft from his employers tescos in GPE . His whole family are criminals his mother PERSON has several convictions for theft and shoplifting and got sentenced at ORG crown court"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177074","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KUPARADZE v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE a classmate of the applicant , Mr T.T. ( hereinafter \u201c T.T. \u201d ) , was stabbed several times in a secondary school playground . The applicant , aged DATE at the material time , was present at the scene . There were no eyewitnesses to the incident .","According to the applicant \u2019s version of the events , on the above date and at the material time , she met with ORG in the school playground . They were discussing ORG \u2019s need for a certain sum of money when CARDINAL young men \u2013 strangers to the applicant \u2013 appeared and CARDINAL of them immediately attacked PERSON of the CARDINAL attackers held LOC down on the ground and both men stabbed him several times with CARDINAL different knives . The applicant claimed that ORG had owed them money . CARDINAL witness ( \u201c the witness \u201d ) stated that at the material time she had seen CARDINAL young men fitting the description given by the applicant climb into the school playground swearing and leave after a while .","According to the official version of the events based on ORG \u2019s statements , the applicant and ORG met in the school playground following the former \u2019s promise to lend ORG a certain sum of money . In the course of the conversation , ORG kneeled with his back to the applicant . At that moment , the applicant hit him on the head . ORG fell to the ground and the applicant stabbed him with a knife from behind . While ORG remained conscious , the applicant held him down with one hand and continued stabbing him with the other . ORG was facing the ground during the entire incident and could not see whether the applicant was using a knife . ORG managed to escape from the applicant and ran QUANTITY before falling unconscious on the school \u2019s basketball court , where he was eventually found . Later he was transported to a hospital where , after emergency surgery , his life was saved .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in view of ORG \u2019s statement given to the investigating authorities . She was subsequently remanded in custody on charges of attempted aggravated murder .","On DATE a forensic expert report of ORG ( \u201c the first ORG report \u201d ) confirmed that multiple wounds had been inflicted upon the victim with \u201c a sharp object , possibly a knife \u201d . A forensic chemical examination report no . PERSON produced by ORG ( \u201c the second ORG report \u201d ) found particles of grey cotton fibre on the applicant \u2019s jacket that by their colour , structure , and type were similar to the grey cotton fibre contained in the textile of the victim \u2019s jacket .","On an unspecified date an initial forensic medical expert report no . DATE by ORG ( \u201c the first ORG report \u201d ) concluded that ORG \u2019s wounds had been inflicted with a sharp object and that taken together , they had been life - threatening . The expert attached particular importance to CARDINAL wounds to the chest which had perforated ORG \u2019s lungs . CARDINAL DATE the same forensic expert carried out an additional examination and issued report no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( \u201c the second ORG report \u201d ) at the applicant \u2019s request . The second report specified that CARDINAL wounds had perforated ORG \u2019s lungs and re - confirmed that \u201c all the wounds had been inflicted with some sharp object \/ objects and , taken together , were life - threatening . \u201d Concerning the question of whether the injuries were inflicted on the victim with CARDINAL or several weapons , the ORG expert stated :","\u201c In order to answer that question it is necessary to convene a panel of forensicmedical experts , and additionally to have the clothes as well as the object \/ objects possibly used to inflict the injuries presented , if available . \u201d","The expert testified during the proceedings before the first - instance court that the discrepancy between the first and the second ORG reports concerning the number of wounds inflicted on the victim had been caused by the poor quality of the photocopied material relied on during the first ORG expert examination . The expert confirmed that the second ORG report was therefore more accurate and CARDINAL , rather than CARDINAL , wounds had perforated ORG \u2019s lungs . The exact figure depicting the total number of wounds was not explicitly specified either by the experts or by the domestic courts .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced her to DATE imprisonment , of which DATE were suspended on probation . Dismissing altogether the applicant \u2019s version of the events and relying on ORG \u2019s statements , the first and second ORG reports , the first and the second ORG reports and other evidence in the case , the court found that the applicant had stabbed T.T. \u201c with a knife . \u201d The knife was never recovered . Amongst certain other items of evidence , ORG also referred , in its judgment , to statements of several witnesses , schoolmates of the applicant , according to which the latter was known for having been carrying a knife with her at school on a regular basis .","The applicant appealed , reiterating that the victim had been stabbed by CARDINAL young men with CARDINAL knives and that she could not possibly have inflicted the wounds alone . She argued that the witness statement supporting her version of the events had been rejected arbitrarily . During the trial at ORG , in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the defence adduced in evidence CARDINAL alternative forensic reports , both issued on DATE , and argued that their results supported the applicant \u2019s version of the events , including the use of CARDINAL knives , and conclusively excluded the applicant \u2019s guilt .","The first report , of a comprehensive alternative forensic expert examination , was prepared by a panel of experts at a private forensic science centre . The descriptive part of the report no . CARDINAL\/k , which reflected results of an examination carried out between DATE and DATE ( \u201c the first alternative forensic report \u201d ) , was based on the following material : the judgment of the first - instance court , ORG \u2019s statements , the applicant \u2019s statements , the first ORG report and ORG \u2019s medical file .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer presented the panel of experts with the following questions :","\u201c CARDINAL . Based on the [ existing evidence and the victim \u2019s statements ] ... was the victim capable of showing resistance to PERSON or otherwise defending himself ... ?","Considering the existing material , what type of pain and responsive reactions ( self - defence , etc . ) would the [ victim ] have had at the time the first injury was inflicted on him ?","In view of the [ victim \u2019s ] statements and considering the mechanism used to inflict the injuries described in the [ forensic reports ] , how plausible is it that PERSON GPE inflicted them on the [ victim ] by holding his shoulder with one hand while the latter was initially kneeling and then crawling on the ground face - down ?","In view of the convicted PERSON statement , how possible is it that the [ victim \u2019s ] injuries described in the [ forensic reports ] , given the mechanism used to inflict them , were inflicted by CARDINAL different persons if CARDINAL of them had been holding [ the victim ] ? \u201d","excerpts from the applicant \u2019s criminal case file with the following concluding paragraph :","\u201c Given that the [ first - instance ] court accepted the [ victim \u2019s ] statements and dismissed the statements given by the convicted PERSON and [ the witness ] , that the statements given by the [ victim ] and the convicted PERSON essentially contradict each other , that there is no eyewitness in the case except for [ the witness ] , as well as the fact that the weapon of the crime is missing , the lawyer commissioned the alternative expert examination to determine the truth regarding the case and in order to receive answers to his questions . \u201d","This was followed by a more detailed account and an assessment of the matter .","After examining all the material at hand , the experts came to the following conclusions in response to the questions posed by the applicant :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... Before losing consciousness , ORG was able to carry out various active measures ( self - defence , punching , running , etc . ) .","... [ considering the nature of the injuries ] ORG would have experienced a sharp , strong pain at the moment of their infliction which would have triggered adequate self - defensive or other movements .","Considering the statement given by ORG ... the location of the wounds ... and the anatomical - physiological differences between the sexes ... it is hard to imagine how PERSON GPE could have inflicted the wounds on ORG in the conditions described by the latter .","Considering the nature and location of ORG \u2019s wounds , it is entirely possible that they were inflicted in the conditions described by PERSON ( by CARDINAL individuals , CARDINAL holding ORG and both stabbing him with knives ) . \u201d","The applicant \u2019s lawyer commissioned a second forensic expert report from ORG concerning the instrument of the crime and other technical aspects of the incident . The report no . CARDINAL-e-CARDINAL , which reflected results of an examination carried out between DATE and DATE ( \u201c the second alternative forensic report \u201d ) , was based on the following material : the statements of ORG , the statements of the applicant , the first ORG report , the second ORG report , ORG \u2019s medical file and the first - instance court judgment .","NORP The lawyer presented the panel of experts with the following questions :","\u201c CARDINAL . In view of the [ forensic ] expert reports presented , were the injuries to [ the victim \u2019s ] body and [ through his ] clothes inflicted with CARDINAL or several objects ( knives ) ?","How possible is it that PERSON inflicted the wounds as described in ORG statement , by holding his shoulder with one hand while he was initially kneeling and then crawling on the ground face - down , in view of the mechanism used to inflict the wounds [ described in the forensic and forensic medical reports ] ?","How possible is it that the ... wounds were inflicted by CARDINAL different individuals and accordingly with CARDINAL different knives , in accordance with the statement given by PERSON ? \u201d","Having provided a reconstruction of the incident by means of sketches and having analysed the case materials , the experts reached the following conclusions :","\u201c CARDINAL . The wounds were inflicted on ORG \u2019s body and [ through his ] clothes not with CARDINAL but with CARDINAL sharp objects , possibly knives , of different sizes , CARDINAL and QUANTITY wide [ respectively ] .","PERSON could not have inflicted the wounds as described in ORG \u2019s statement , by holding his shoulder with one hand while he was initially kneeling and then crawling on the ground face - down , in view of the mechanism used to inflict the wounds [ described in the forensic and forensic medical reports ] and bearing in mind the limited access to the areas of impact .","... it is possible ... that the ... wounds were inflicted by CARDINAL different individuals ( and accordingly with CARDINAL different knives ) , as described in PERSON statement . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction . Concerning the applicant \u2019s argument that the witness statement confirmed her version of the events , the court reasoned that although the witness had stated that she had seen CARDINAL men climb in and out of the school playground , she had also said that that was a common sight at that school . Accordingly , the court found it impossible to establish that those persons had been implicated in ORG \u2019s stabbing .","ORG dismissed the CARDINAL alternative forensic reports commissioned by the defence . Regarding the first alternative forensic report , the court stated the following :","\u201c The court can not accept the findings of the [ first alternative forensic report ] given that it is drafted in violation of a number of procedural norms . In particular , information as to which specific materials were presented [ to the experts ] and relied on when reaching the conclusions is missing ; the research part of the forensic report contains a legal assessment of the [ first - instance court ] judgment and of a number of pieces of evidence , whereas under LAW an expert examination is not to be carried out to determine legal matters . Furthermore , the concluding part of the expert examination [ report ] is presumptive , speculative and based on probability which , in the first place , is beyond the expert \u2019s competence as provided for in Articles CARDINAL [ and ] CARDINAL of LAW , [ and ] no evidentiary value may be attributed to speculative findings , in accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) [ of the LAW ] . \u201d","As regards the second alternative forensic report , the court noted the following :","\u201c The court can not accept the findings of the [ second alternative forensic report ] as they are also speculative . Furthermore , the report relies on the conclusions of the medical and forensic expert examinations [ medical documentation , the PERSON report and the second ORG report ] which themselves do not categorically determine the nature of the object used to inflict the injuries on the victim , and even more so the number [ of such injuries ] . Without referring to a concrete scientific study , the [ report ] analyses and rejects the victim \u2019s statement and relies on the statement of the accused . \u201d","The appellate court also reasoned that the applicant \u2019s argument that CARDINAL unidentified men had beaten the victim while stabbing him was not confirmed in view of the absence of any physical signs of beating in the relevant forensic medical report . In the subsequent part of the judgment ORG referred to the first and the second ORG reports and the second ORG report , among other evidence , while upholding the judgment of the first - instance court .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the applicant as inadmissible . Without responding to the applicant \u2019s arguments that the lower ORG dismissal of the alternative forensic reports had been erroneous and arbitrary , and that the main argument of the defence had been left without an appropriate answer , the court reproduced the relevant provision of LAW , holding that \u201c the case [ was ] not important for the development of the law and coherent judicial practice , the [ contested ] decision [ did ] not differ from ORG existing practice in such matters , and the appellate court [ had ] not committed any major procedural flaws during its examination which could have significantly affected its outcome . \u201d","On DATE the applicant , aged DATE at the time , was remanded in custody and placed in a cell together with adult female inmates in FAC no . CARDINAL for Women and Juveniles ( \u201c prison no . CARDINAL \u201d ) . According to the case file , the applicant did not complain about the material conditions of her detention in that cell .","On DATE the Minister of ORG issued an order for the creation of a separate section for juvenile female offenders within prison no . CARDINAL , and instructed the relevant authority to separate the inmates accordingly .","On DATE the applicant was moved to the newly created juvenile section of prison no . CARDINAL . She was alone in a cell for DATE and subsequently shared the cell with CARDINAL other juveniles . The applicant complained about the material conditions of detention in that cell during the proceedings concerning the deferral of her sentence ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the Public Defender of GPE visited the applicant in prison . In letters dated DATE and DATE addressed to the Minister of Corrections and ORG , ORG expressed his concerns about the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention in prison no . CARDINAL . According to him , the cell in which the applicant was detained with CARDINAL other juveniles measured CARDINAL , the water tap was out of order , causing humidity in the cell , and the ventilation did not function properly , which led to an unpleasant odour . According to a press release issued by ORG on DATE , the tap in the applicant \u2019s cell was fixed shortly afterwards .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings requesting the deferral of her sentence pending the construction of a separate detention facility for juvenile female offenders . She argued that , in the absence of a separate facility , her detention in the adult prison , even if in a separate section for juveniles , as such amounted to a breach of LAW . She further complained that the cell where she was serving her sentence was too small , the water tap was out of order causing humidity , the ventilation did not function properly , and that she was deprived of the opportunity to have DATE walks , contrary to LAW .","On DATE the ORG rejected the deferral request as manifestly ill - founded . It reasoned that domestic legislation did not provide for deferral of a sentence pending the construction of a separate detention facility for juveniles and that the complaints concerning the alleged violation of the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW had not been substantiated . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal as manifestly ill - founded in a final decision . It reasoned that such a deferral was not guaranteed by the domestic legislation . As regards the applicant \u2019s allegation that her rights under LAW had been violated , the court found the complaint unsubstantiated and contrary to the material available before it . It based its finding on the applicant \u2019s own admission before the court that she had been afforded the possibility of unlimited daily walks but sometimes chose not to use her exercise time , as she preferred not to share the space with other inmates , that she was free to take showers even if taking turns with other juvenile inmates , and that she was able to see the psychologist present in the prison without any problems .","According to the applicant , she completed her secondary education while in detention , and was admitted to a university after passing the requisite admission exam .","On DATE the applicant was released on probation ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-149144","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"VUKOVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Split . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , an advocate practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","By decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG ( a ) declared that CARDINAL plots of land in Split in the applicant \u2019s possession had been nationalised and become socially - owned already on CARDINAL DATE with the entry into force of the GPE \u2019s Act Designating the Construction Land in LOC and Urban Areas ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , and ( b ) dispossessed the applicant of the land at issue with a view to constructing a block of flats and an elementary school on them .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG expropriated the house owned by the applicant which was built on CARDINAL of the plots in question .","On DATE the GPE offered the applicant as compensation permanent usage ( trajno kori\u0161tenje ) of another plot of land for the construction of a house . The applicant refused the offer and instituted non - contentious proceedings with ORG ( PERSON ORG ) with a view to obtaining compensation for his nationalised and expropriated property under LAW .","On DATE LAW ( hereafter \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) entered into force . Shortly afterwards , the case was transferred to the administrative authorities , in particular to the regional office of the state administration in GPE ( ORG dr\u017eavne uprave u ORG - dalmatinskoj \u017eupaniji , hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the tax authorities carried out an onsite inspection of the nationalised land and assessed its value at CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) .","On DATE the applicant requested a total amount of HRK CARDINAL for the land and the house .","On DATE the applicant amended his request , asking for HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL in total .","On DATE the tax authorities carried out another onsite inspection and assessed the value of the nationalised land at HRK CARDINAL . On DATE the tax authorities assessed the value of the expropriated house at HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","At the hearing of DATE the applicant contested the findings of the tax authorities and undertook to submit proof of the current market value of the appropriated property .","The applicant engaged a court expert , PERSON , to carry out the property valuation . On DATE Mr NORP drew up a report establishing the market value of the nationalised land at HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The applicant submitted the report to ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant increased his request for compensation , arguing that the value of the nationalised land had meanwhile risen to HRK CARDINAL . He relied on the rise of land prices in DATE and DATE caused by the construction of the Split ring - road .","By a decision of DATE ORG awarded the applicant compensation in the overall amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . Specifically , it relied on PERSON expert opinion of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and awarded HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL for the nationalised land . It further awarded HRK CARDINAL for the expropriated house , relying on valuation by the tax authorities of DATE . Lastly , it awarded HRK CARDINAL for the construction improvements and agricultural crops , relying on an older valuation by the tax authorities . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c The market value is the price which an immovable property can obtain on the market , dependent on supply and demand at the time of its determination .","According to the ... valuation by the tax authorities of DATE , the immovable property \u2019s value is HRK CARDINAL per square metre ... according to the DATE valuation , it is HRK CARDINAL per square metre .","According to the valuation submitted by [ the applicant ] , carried out by the court expert for civil engineering and property valuation , Mr. PERSON , in DATE , the immovable property \u2019s value is ORG QUANTITY ( HRK CARDINAL ) .","As the valuation of the court expert Mr. PERSON is newer and does not significantly differ from the valuation [ by the tax authorities ] ... there were no reasons for dismissing the [ Mr NORP \u2019s ] valuation as it represents the price of construction land in that location . \u201d","The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision before ORG ( ORG pravosu\u0111a PERSON , hereinafter \u201c the NORP \u201d ) , arguing , inter alia , that under section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the compensation should have been calculated on the basis of the market value at the time when the decision on compensation was adopted . He submitted a number of items of evidence , such as newspaper articles and decisions on compensation in other cases , pointing out that the market value had risen during DATE and DATE .","On DATE the Ministry dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal in the part concerning the compensation for the nationalised land . At the same time it quashed the first - instance decision in the remaining part ( including the compensation for the expropriated house ) and remitted the case . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c The level of compensation for the undeveloped construction land [ the applicant ] was dispossessed of was correctly determined . The first - instance authority accepted the expert opinion of PERSON of DATE , and not the earlier valuations by the tax authorities ...","The argument raised in the appeal ... that the compensation was set ... too low is unfounded .","Namely , in proceedings involving dispossession compensation is fixed by applying provisions of LAW on market value compensation . However , [ in such cases ] the market value compensation must be determined with regard to the state of the immovable property and the modes of its usage at the time of deprivation . [ The applicant \u2019s data on the higher price of construction land ] concern construction land with the entire necessary infrastructure , whereas the land in question did not have the entire infrastructure at the time of deprivation [ i.e. dispossession in DATE ] . Therefore , the current market value of the land in the same [ location ] in Split ( PERSON ) can not be used for comparison , as the state of immovable property in question in DATE and DATE differs significantly in terms of infrastructure . In addition , the construction of roads and the ring - road in DATE and DATE contributed significantly to the rise of the price of construction land , but has no significance for the level of compensation correctly established in DATE . Therefore , the expert opinion can not be deemed too old with regard to the date of the adoption of the first - instance decision ... as it sets the price in CARDINAL as well ...","However , [ the applicant \u2019s ] appeal is well - founded in part concerning the compensation for the house , the construction improvements and the agricultural crops . ... [ Valuations ] by the tax authorities [ in respect of that property ] do not include any reasoning and it is unclear on the basis of which criteria this part of the compensation has been determined .","Therefore , such findings can not serve as a starting point for fixing the compensation for that property ... \u201d","The applicant then brought an action for judicial review in ORG PERSON ) against the ORG \u2019s decision , maintaining that the amount of compensation for the nationalised land had not been established in accordance with the relevant legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He requested HRK CARDINAL for the land in question .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action , endorsing the reasoning given by ORG . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c It is undisputed that in the present case the compensation for the immovable property ... the plaintiff was dispossessed of must be determined in accordance with [ section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ] given that he was dispossessed of [ that ] property by the final decisions ... of GPE of DATE and DATE and because ... a final decision on compensation has not been rendered [ before the entry into force of the DATE LAW ] .","When compensation ... is being determined by applying section CARDINAL of the [ DATE ] LAW it must be fixed with regard to the state of the immovable property and the modes of its usage at the time of deprivation and the market value [ of such property ] ... at the time the compensation was being determined ( section CARDINAL of the [ DATE ] LAW ) .","...","In determining level of compensation the administrative authorities assessed all the relevant circumstances , in particular the state of the immovable property at the time of deprivation ( construction land without any infrastructure ) [ and ] market supply and demand of the land of the same or similar characteristics ... at the time of assessing its value . ...","[ Therefore , ] by fixing the compensation for the immovable property the plaintiff had been dispossessed of at HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL the first- and the second - instance administrative authority correctly applied section CARDINAL of the [ DATE ] LAW . \u201d","The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) with ORG ( PERSON ) against that judgment , reiterating his previous arguments .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law , endorsing the reasoning of ORG and ORG . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c As regards the plaintiff \u2019s arguments that the compensation was not determined in accordance with the market value [ of the land ] at the time of adoption of the first - instance decision ... ORG was correct to agree with the findings of the first- and the second - instance [ administrative authority ] whereby those arguments had been dismissed as unfounded .","In so doing sufficient reasons were given , the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was examined and it was established that the data submitted [ by the plaintiff ] concern the immovable property which significantly differ ( in terms of infrastructure ) from that he had been dispossessed of . For that reason it was not possible to compare the state and the current market value of that immovable property with the state of the immovable property the plaintiff had been dispossessed of in DATE . \u201d","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s subsequent constitutional complaint .","Federal Act Designating the Construction Land in GPE and LOC","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o odre\u0111ivanju gra\u0111evinskog zemlji\u0161ta u gradovima i naseljima gradskog karaktera , ORG of ORG nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE , read as follows :","Section CARDINAL","\u201c The construction land as defined in ORG and LAW [ located ] in towns and urban areas shall become [ land ] in social ownership under the conditions set out in this LAW .","Former owners of the construction land shall have the right to a fair compensation in accordance with LAW . \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL )","\u201c The construction land in towns and urban areas shall be specified by ... legislation [ enacted by the constituent republics of the SFRY ] .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL )","\u201c Former owner of undeveloped construction land shall have the right to use it until DATE he or she has , on the basis of the decision by the relevant authority , to surrender it to its [ new ] user . \u201d","GPE \u2019s Act Designating the Construction Land in Towns and Urban Areas","By LAW in Towns and GPE ( Zakon o odre\u0111ivanju gra\u0111evinskog zemlji\u0161ta u gradovima i naseljima gradskog karaktera , ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL ) , which entered into force on DATE , GPE fulfilled its obligation stemming from section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the above federal legislation ( see the preceding paragraph ) and specified construction land in NORP towns and urban areas , including the town of PERSON , which had been nationalised by the operation of law ( ex lege ) .","Construction Land Act","The relevant provision of LAW ( Zakon o gra\u0111evinskom zemlji\u0161tu , ORG no . CARDINAL with subsequent amendments ) , which was in force between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , at the material time read as follows :","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL )","\u201c The former owner of the construction land which became land in social ownership shall have the right to a fair compensation which shall be determined in the manner and in the procedure prescribed by LAW \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL )","\u201c The decision to take the construction land from the possession of its former owner or its user , as well as to award that land for use [ to a new user ] in accordance with this Act shall be made by [ the municipality ] after having conducted the proceedings provided in this LAW . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179573","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF A. v. SWITZERLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iran)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He grew up in GPE and entered GPE in DATE .","The applicant applied for asylum under the name of GPE on DATE , stating that he had entered GPE illegally DATE . He was questioned twice , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , by the NORP authorities responsible for asylum and migration ( until DATE the authority was called the ORG f\u00fcr Migration , but it was renamed with effect from DATE as the Staatssekretariat f\u00fcr Migration , DATE hereafter \u201c the asylum authorities \u201d ) . An interpreter was present at both hearings and the record was translated for the applicant prior to his signing it . A member of a non - governmental organisation was present at the second hearing as a neutral witness , in order to guarantee the fairness of the hearing . He had the opportunity to add comments at the end of the record of the hearing about any irregularities , but he made no such observations .","During the hearings the applicant stated that he had attended a number of demonstrations in connection with the presidential election in DATE . He had been arrested during one such demonstration on DATE in CARDINAL He was subsequently placed in prison , where he was severely tortured every day . After DATE in prison , he was scheduled to appear in court on DATE . He was placed in a bus with CARDINAL other people but managed to escape during a disturbance caused by CARDINAL of the other detainees when disembarking from the bus . He then managed to hide with his relatives . After his escape , the authorities had sent a court summons to his home and , when he had failed to appear , the court had sentenced him in absentia to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . He managed to leave the country on DATE with the help of a smuggler . In support of his account , the applicant submitted copies of his identity card , a court summons of CARDINAL DATE and a judgment of DATE . He explained that the judgment had been sent to his home and that a neighbour had given it to him prior to his departure .","On DATE the asylum authorities rejected his asylum application and ordered him to leave GPE , finding that his account was not credible as it was contradictory and , in relation to key aspects , not sufficiently substantiated . Despite repeated questions , the applicant had been unable to describe what he had experienced during his imprisonment in a detailed and differentiated manner . He had also contradicted himself regarding his transportation from the prison to court and his escape . Neither his alleged arrest in connection with his participation in a demonstration nor his subsequent detention and escape therefrom had been credible . The documents submitted by the applicant could not lead to a different result as they could easily be bought in GPE and falsified . Moreover , the alleged conduct of the NORP authorities in sending a court summons to the applicant \u2019s home after his escape , rather than going there to arrest him on the spot , was not credible , nor was his submission that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had been sent to his home and given to a neighbour prior to his departure .","As the applicant did not appeal , the decision became final .","On DATE the applicant , through a lawyer , lodged an application for his asylum application to be reconsidered . He was by that time using the identity of A. and stated that he had entered GPE legally under that name in DATE based on a visa to visit his sister , who lived there . In substance , he stated that his relationship with his father had broken down entirely and that as a result he risked being arrested upon his return because his father had ties to the secret service . Moreover , he had been baptised as a NORP on DATE . Emphasising that GPE applied the death penalty for apostasy , he alleged that he was at risk of illtreatment on account of his conversion . He submitted a copy of his baptism certificate , issued by a NORP church , a NORP house church , to support his account .","On DATE the asylum authorities , who treated the applicant \u2019s request as a second asylum application , questioned the applicant in person . An interpreter was present and the record was translated for the applicant prior to his signing it . A member of a non - governmental organisation was present as a neutral witness in order to guarantee the fairness of the hearing . He had the opportunity to add comments at the end of the record of the hearing if he witnessed any irregularities , but did not make any such observations .","During the hearing , the applicant stated that he had first had contact with a NORP church in GPE in DATE and then with the NORP church from DATE . The members of the latter had gradually become his family . CARDINAL of them had invited him home once or DATE to familiarise him with the Bible . He had regularly attended church services and after DATE had been baptised in that church . For him , being a NORP meant believing in PERSON and spreading his message . He stated that he continued to study the Bible and recited parts of it . The principle of honesty enshrined in NORP was particularly important to him . Even if he were unable to manifest his belief in the future , he would always retain the truthfulness of his faith , which nobody could take away from him . He submitted statements that he had attended different churches to support his account . The applicant did not make any submissions regarding the risk allegedly caused by the broken relationship with his father and the latter \u2019s ties to the secret service .","On DATE the asylum authorities rejected the applicant \u2019s application . They considered that his conversion to NORP did not in and of itself expose him to a real risk of ill - treatment . Such a risk could exist if he proselytised or attracted public attention in another way . Based on his statement , they considered that he did not intend to practise his faith in such a manner . There were no indications that the NORP authorities were even aware of his conversion . They also doubted that the applicant \u2019s conversion was genuine and lasting , noting , in particular , that it had occurred after the applicant \u2019s first asylum application had been rejected , that the baptism had taken place in a house church rather than a church recognised by the ORG , and that the applicant did not base his conversion on the key aspects of NORP , but on the personal relationships he had formed with members of his church community .","On DATE the applicant , represented by a lawyer , appealed against that decision . He pointed out that there had been an increased number of arrests of members of NORP house churches since DATE and argued that his conversion to NORP in and of itself exposed him to a real risk of ill - treatment . A NORP convert faced a much greater risk of ill - treatment than those born into the NORP religion . His conversion to NORP was genuine and lasting . He had first had contact with a NORP church in GPE in DATE and was serious in practising his faith , as evidenced by the documents he had submitted .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as manifestly ill - founded . It expressed doubts as to whether his conversion had been genuine or was lasting , but found that this did not have to be determined . It considered that a person could only face a real risk of ill - treatment upon return to GPE if that person \u2019s NORP faith had been manifested in GPE in such a way as to make it visible to the outside and if it could be assumed that his or her family and acquaintances in GPE would learn about that active manifestation of faith , even if it was short of proselytising . If close family members were \u201c fanatic \u201d NORP , they might denounce the conversion to the secret service . In addition , conversion to NORP might be seen as treason . Where a conversion had taken place abroad , there had to be both an assessment of whether it was genuine and the extent to which it had become publicly known . Even assuming that the applicant \u2019s conversion had been genuine and was lasting , the court considered that he did not manifest his NORP faith in the manner described . There were no indications that the NORP authorities had even become aware of his conversion .","On DATE the applicant , through a lawyer , lodged an application for temporary admission under section CARDINAL of LAW . He relied on the risks presented by the NORP authorities and non - state actors on account of his conversion and active membership of a NORP community in GPE , as well as his participation in a demonstration in GPE in DATE against human rights violations and the persecution of NORP by the NORP authorities . In that connection , he had signed a letter of protest addressed by the organisers to ORG , which were thus aware of his conversion . To support his account he submitted photographs , letters of support from various persons and several reports .","On DATE the asylum authorities rejected his application , which they had treated as a further asylum application . They noted that the applicant had previously been through CARDINAL sets of asylum proceedings and that the alleged risk of ill - treatment on account of his conversion to NORP had already been examined . It was not necessary to examine the matter again as the applicant had not put forward any arguments that could give rise to an assessment that was different from that of ORG in its judgment of DATE .","It was true that the NORP authorities took an interest in the activities of their citizens abroad , but such monitoring was focused on people who stood out from the large number of NORP critical of the ORG and who were perceived as a serious threat by the authorities because of their political or religious activities . Whether a person \u201c stood out \u201d was not so much a question of visibility and the possibility of identifying the person concerned , but was rather CARDINAL of public exposure . The personality of the individuals concerned , the form of their appearances in public and the content of their public statements were relevant parameters in that regard . The asylum authorities considered that mere participation in a demonstration against ORG , without the applicant acting in a particular manner or holding a special function , was not sufficient for him to be perceived as a concrete threat by the NORP authorities . They also noted that there were no indications that the authorities had taken any measures against him .","The NORP authorities were aware that NORP citizens at times attempted to rely on conversion to NORP abroad in order to obtain refugee status in NORP countries . Such circumstances would be taken into account by the NORP authorities but would not , upon someone \u2019s return , lead to ill - treatment within the meaning of the refugee definition . Moreover , it was possible to practise religions other than NORP in GPE in a discreet and private manner . Citing the criteria contained in ORG judgment of DATE , ORG did not contest , per se , the fact that the applicant was part of a NORP circle in GPE . There were , however , no indications that he was involved in a leading function or was particularly exposed in other ways in connection with his NORP faith . His participation in a demonstration and the signing of a letter of protest to ORG did not lead to a different conclusion . He was only an ordinary member of a NORP organisation and there was , therefore , no concrete risk that the NORP authorities had become aware of his conversion . The asylum authorities concluded that the applicant did not meet the requirements of the refugee definition or those for temporary admission .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision , in substance repeating his earlier submissions . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal as manifestly illfounded , fully endorsing the asylum authorities\u2019 reasoning .","On DATE ORG set a deadline for the applicant \u2019s voluntary departure , which passed on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144123","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GRAY v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicants are brothers . Mr PERSON ( the \u201c first applicant \u201d ) lives in GPE , GPE , whereas Mr PERSON ( the \u201c second applicant \u201d ) lives in GPE , GPE .","The applicants are the sons of the late PERSON ( hereinafter referred to as \u201c Mr Gray \u201d or \u201c the deceased \u201d ) who died in TIME of DATE at the age of DATE at his home in GPE , GPE .","Mr Gray suffered from kidney stones and from DATE on he had regularly been attended at home by his doctor , a General Practitioner ( \u201c GP \u201d ) working for GPE ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) which is represented at local level by ORG Trusts ( \u201c PCTs \u201d ) , in the instant case by ORG ( \u201c GPE PCT \u201d ) . The ORG had routinely administered injections of opiates , in particular pethidine at a dosage of QUANTITY mg , for pain relief . On several occasions DATE PERSON had recourse to out - of - hours medical services by \u201c Take Care Now \u201d ( \u201c TCN \u201d ) , a private agency that recruits locum doctors within GPE or from abroad to supply out - of - hours medical care for several PCTs , including the GPE PCT . Out - of - hours services concern the periods outside business TIME of GPE surgeries on weekdays as well as weekends and bank holidays .","Since ORG clinicians do not routinely carry pethidine , the deceased had on some of these occasions been injected with QUANTITY doses of the opiate diamorphine , contained in a sealed palliative care box TCN doctors were provided with for the purpose of home visits at that time . Such palliative care boxes were stocked with QUANTITY of diamorphine for acute pain relief together with a much larger ampoule of QUANTITY intended for patients receiving palliative care . Attached to each box was a list of the drugs contained as well as a form with instructions for doctors , and inside a document that listed the relative potencies of the drugs .","On DATE Mr Gray developed a severe renal colic . In the afternoon his partner contacted the TCN call centre to arrange for an urgent home visit by a doctor . She explained PERSON medical history to the ORG clinician who carried out the first telephone triage consultation and specified what medication Mr Gray had received on the occasion of previous home visits . The case was then assigned to doctor U. , a NORP national , who had recently been recruited by ORG through an agency on a self - employed basis to provide out - of - hours care . U. , at the time aged CARDINAL , had qualified as a doctor in GPE in DATE where he was practising as an aesthetic surgeon but where he was also formally qualified as a ORG . For the purpose of working as a locum doctor in GPE he had obtained registration with ORG ( ORG ) in DATE and had applied to be admitted to CARDINAL of ORG maintained by each of the local PCTs . Once a ORG is admitted to a PCT \u2019s Performers List he may work in the area of any other PCT in GPE . U. had withdrawn a first application to join GPE Performers List after being notified that he had not reached a sufficient score in the required LANGUAGE language test . However , the GPE and ORG PCT authorities , unaware that U. had already tried to register with another PCT , approved a subsequent application and admitted him to their Performers List in DATE without verifying his LANGUAGE language skills .","U. arrived in GPE on DATE , DATE for his first shift as a locum doctor scheduled for DATE . According to an induction report established by a ORG doctor on DATE there had not been sufficient time to assess ORG \u2019s professional competence prior to his first assignment DATE .","U. attended Mr Gray at his home in TIME of DATE . He was told by PERSON and his partner that in similar situations in the past he had either received injections of QUANTITY of pethidine for acute pain relief or , where the out - of - hours services did not carry pethidine , had been treated with diamorphine . U. administered QUANTITY of diamorphine from the respective ampoule included in the palliative care box by intramuscular injection . TIME after U. had left , PERSON partner realised that he was no longer breathing and called an ambulance . The attending emergency services confirmed that PERSON had died . The police was informed and attended on - site .","On DATE TCN suspended U. from duty , terminated his engagement with immediate effect and advised him to return to GPE where he arrived the following day . Subsequently , CARDINAL other incidents were reported where NORP on the occasion of home visits on DATE had failed to administer the appropriate medical treatment .","On DATE U. returned to GPE to attend a hearing before the ORG in connection with the incidents on DATE . By an order of the same date , the ORG suspended the applicant from the NORP medical register on an interim basis .","On DATE U. informed the competent public health authorities at the GPE ORG ( LAW ) , GPE , and by letter of DATE his NORP professional indemnity insurance company of the incident . He explained that when treating the deceased he had committed a grave mistake with fatal outcome that had resulted from the confusion between the drugs pethidine and diamorphine , the latter being a drug not used by on - call services in GPE and with which he had been unfamiliar . On DATE of the incident he had further been overtired following his journey from GPE to GPE and had found himself in a tremendous stress situation .","By a letter of DATE in reply to a complaint lodged by the first applicant following his father \u2019s death , ORG confirmed that PERSON had satisfied the requirements generally expected from locum doctors working for the ORG and had completed the compulsory induction process all clinicians had to undergo before they could be assigned to clinical shifts .","A post mortem report issued on DATE by a forensic pathologist in the GPE established as the cause of PERSON death diamorphine poisoning in association with alcohol intoxication as well as hypertensive heart disease and myocardial fibrosis . The report further stated that the diamorphine injection had more than minimally contributed to the death and that in view of the large dose administered there was no need to necessarily invoke the additional effect of alcohol in causing death .","By a letter of DATE to the deceased \u2019s partner and the first applicant , PERSON apologised for the medical malpractice in connection with the deceased \u2019s treatment and again explained that he had confused the opiates and referred to the stress situation he was subject to when making the mistake .","On DATE the applicant attended a further hearing before the ORG in GPE where his suspension from the medical register was confirmed .","Following PERSON death the GPE police commenced criminal investigations against NORP for manslaughter by gross negligence .","On DATE GPE Constabulary , through ORG , made an application for assistance to ORG ) requesting in particular the supply of data with respect to U. \u2019s personal record and past professional career . The request was forwarded to the competent GPE police department which provided the GPE police with the requested information and documentation by DATE .","On DATE the NORP ORG ( ORG ) sent a formal letter of request to ORG of the Land North RhineWestphalia , GPE , in accordance with ORG , requesting assistance in obtaining information with respect to U. \u2019s medical qualifications and the authenticity of the related certificates submitted by him to the NORP authorities when applying to be admitted as a locum doctor . The letter gave a short summary of the circumstances of PERSON death and specified that while no criminal proceedings had yet been instigated in GPE , the offence investigated constituted manslaughter , i.e. the unlawful killing of a human being , an offence contrary to Common PERSON and punishable on conviction by a term of life imprisonment . The ORG asked the NORP authorities to carry out the respective investigations and to arrange for hearings of the relevant witnesses in GPE in the presence of representatives of ORG .","The request was forwarded by the GPE Ministry of Justice to ORG ( Generalstaatsanwaltschaft ) as well as to the locally competent GPE prosecution authorities . By a decision of the GPE Chief Public Prosecutor ( GPE ) of DATE the request for assistance was granted and by letter of the same date the GPE police department was informed accordingly and invited to provide the requested assistance and to coordinate any future investigation measures with GPE police .","Simultaneously , the GPE Chief Public Prosecutor ex officio initiated preliminary criminal proceedings ( ORG ) against NORP in GPE under file no . CARDINAL Js CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on suspicion of having negligently caused the death of PERSON pursuant to LAW in conjunction with ORG and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of LAW ( see Relevant domestic and international law and practice below ) . In a letter of the same date ORG instructed the GPE police to conduct the necessary investigations also in respect of the domestic preliminary proceedings , in particular to interview the suspect U. , who was represented by counsel . He further explicitly invited GPE police to permit the presence of NORP police officers also on the occasion of such interview .","In accordance with the letter of request dated DATE , GPE police officers visited GPE on several occasions in the period from DATE until DATE and were provided with assistance by the NORP police in their investigations against NORP The investigations focussed on the authenticity of the certificates PERSON had submitted to the NORP health authorities as evidence of his medical qualifications as well as on the question whether PERSON \u2019s treatment of the deceased had amounted to medical malpractice . At the request and in the presence of officers of GPE police , NORP police officers heard , inter alia , representatives of PERSON \u2019s professional indemnity insurance company , of the public health authorities at LOC and ORG ( PERSON ) as witnesses . The originals of the protocols of the witness hearings conducted as well as the material obtained in the course of the investigations were handed over to GPE police . On DATE NORP and NORP police officers visited U. at his surgery in GPE , GPE , and informed him that criminal investigations were pending against him in GPE and GPE . U. availed himself of his right not to testify . He also declined a subsequent request by the GPE police to be interviewed in GPE .","Furthermore , at the request of ORG a forensic expert opinion was obtained from a professor of GPE university hospital on the question whether the treatment of the deceased by PERSON had complied with medical standards . The expert established his report on the basis of the information contained in the GPE police \u2019s investigation files . He presented his preliminary findings to representatives of ORG on the occasion of CARDINAL of their visits to GPE in DATE . In his final report issued on DATE the expert confirmed that the cause of PERSON death had been an overdose of diamorphine . He pointed out that notwithstanding the fact that the therapeutical use of diamorphine was in general not permitted in GPE and therefore doctors in GPE were as a rule not trained in its use , U. had not sufficiently investigated the cause of PERSON acute pain and had not verified whether the medication administered and its dosage had been an appropriate therapy under the circumstances . The expert concluded that ORG \u2019s treatment of the deceased had thus been inadequate and had violated basic principles of medical care .","According to a file note by a GPE police officer of DATE , the GPE police , for their part , had provided their NORP counterparts upon request with certain documents for use in the preliminary proceedings conducted against NORP in GPE , namely with the post mortem report of DATE as well as protocols of statements made by PERSON partner following the latter \u2019s death .","By a letter of DATE counsel for the second applicant practising in GPE informed the GPE prosecution authorities that his client was the son of a patient who had possibly been killed by NORP on DATE through medical malpractice . Counsel asked for information whether preliminary criminal proceedings were pending against NORP and , should this be the case , requested access to the relevant investigation files . By a letter of DATE counsel for the second applicant reiterated his request for information whether preliminary proceedings had been instituted against U. Pursuant to a file note by the GPE public prosecution authorities dated DATE counsel was informed about the pending preliminary proceedings and forwarded copies of excerpts of the investigation file such as the forensic expert opinion of DATE and the letter of DATE by which U. had notified the incident to his professional indemnity insurance company .","By a letter dated DATE , ORG , referring to a telephone conversation of DATE , requested the NORP public prosecution authorities to assure that no criminal proceedings would be instituted against NORP in GPE prior to finalisation of the investigations in GPE and that none of the information gathered in the course of the investigations carried out jointly by NORP and NORP police officers on the occasion of their visits to GPE would be disclosed to NORP , PERSON relatives or their respective counsel . According to a file note by the GPE public prosecution authorities of DATE , the NORP prosecution authorities had informed ORG in reply to a similar request made over the phone DATE that they had been obliged by operation of law to institute preliminary criminal proceedings against U. in GPE and that they were also obliged under NORP criminal procedure to grant counsel for the accused as well as counsel for the victim \u2019s relatives acting as joint plaintiffs to the prosecution ( Nebenkl\u00e4ger ) the right to inspect the files in such preliminary proceedings .","On DATE , NORP counsel for the second applicant , referring to the preliminary proceedings conducted under file no . CARDINAL Js DATE against NORP , transmitted the latter \u2019s apology letter of DATE to the deceased \u2019s partner and the first applicant as well as the ORG \u2019s letter to the first applicant dated DATE to the GPE prosecution authorities for inclusion in the investigation file .","On DATE an arrest warrant was issued against NORP by ORG , GPE . On DATE ORG issued a NORP Arrest Warrant ( \u201d EAW \u201d ) against U. for allegedly having caused the death of Mr Gray with an overdose of morphine .","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the GPE ORG ordered that the preliminary criminal proceedings against ORG be terminated and applied to ORG for a penal order ( PERSON ) to be issued against NORP convicting him of having caused PERSON Gray \u2019s death through negligence pursuant to LAW and imposing a suspended prison sentence of DATE as well as a payment of MONEY ( ORG ) to the treasury . A draft of the penal order was attached to the application . Following previous discussions with the public prosecution authorities , U. , represented by counsel , had declared that he would accept the envisaged sentence .","The Chief Public Prosecutor \u2019s assessment of the facts of the case and U.\u2019 \u2019s statements following the incident , the post mortem report of DATE , the forensic expert opinion of DATE , the explanatory letter by ORG to the first applicant of DATE , ORG \u2019s notification to his professional indemnity insurance company dated DATE as well as his apology letter to the deceased \u2019s family of DATE . The Chief Prosecutor found that while the fact that U. did not have a criminal record , had made a full confession and had apologised to the victim \u2019s relatives had to be considered in his favour and notwithstanding the fact that an ampoule with a fatal dose of morphine had been included in the care box , PERSON had nevertheless committed a grave error in the deceased \u2019s treatment and had thus violated basic principles of the medical profession .","On DATE the ORG was forwarded by the NORP authorities to ORG .","NORP By email of CARDINAL DATE the GPE police asked the GPE public prosecution authorities for information about the procedure to be followed by the NORP authorities after transmission of the EAW . In their reply of DATE the GPE public prosecution authorities specified that ORG ( PERSON ) was the competent authority to deal with questions regarding PERSON \u2019s extradition and pointed out that extradition might be hindered on the ground that criminal proceedings were also pending against NORP in GPE . On the occasion of a phone call later the same day GPE police was informed by ORG authorities that execution of the EAW was halted in view of the criminal proceedings pending against U. in GPE in accordance with section CARDINALb ( CARDINAL ) of the Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters ( see Relevant domestic and international law and practice below ) .","On DATE the ORG issued the penal order ( file no . CARDINAL Js CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) against NORP as applied for by the prosecution authorities . By a decision of the same day , ORG determined that the probation period for PERSON was DATE starting from the date the penal order became final .","By a letter dated DATE the ORG asked ORG of ORG for information why the EAW had not yet been executed and for clarification whether any criminal or other proceedings were conducted , pending or envisaged against U. in GPE as well as for copies of related court decisions .","By fax dated DATE newly appointed counsel for the second applicant practising in GPE asked the GPE prosecution authorities for information whether the preliminary proceedings against ORG had meanwhile been terminated and whether a bill of indictment had been issued . Counsel further asked for information whether a possible trial was to be conducted in GPE or in GPE . He finally requested to be granted access to the files in the proceedings under file no . DATE . It follows from a subsequent letter by counsel dated DATE that his request for inspection of the files was granted . However , it is not clear on what date between DATE and CARDINAL DATE counsel actually obtained access to the file .","On DATE , no appeal having been lodged by PERSON , the penal order of CARDINAL DATE became final in accordance with LAW ( see Relevant domestic and international law and practice below ) .","NORP By written submissions dated CARDINAL DATE the Hamm General Prosecution Authorities ( ORG ) requested ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) to declare PERSON \u2019s extradition to GPE inadmissible since PERSON had been convicted by final decision of a NORP court for the offence underlying the extradition request and the sentence imposed upon him was currently in the process of being executed . His extradition would therefore be contrary to the ban on double jeopardy as reflected in DATE ( CARDINAL ) no . CARDINAL of the Act on Cooperation in Criminal Matters as well as LAW no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE on the NORP arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member GPE ( CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/JI ) ( see Relevant domestic and international law and practice below ) .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG , endorsing the reasoning of ORG , declared PERSON \u2019s extradition inadmissible .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG communicated ORG decision to ORG in GPE , GPE .","By a letter of DATE the GPE Chief Public Prosecutor , in reply to the ORG \u2019s information request of DATE , explained that he had been obliged by operation of domestic law to instigate criminal investigations against NORP after having learned of the circumstances of PERSON Gray \u2019s death through the ORG \u2019s request for assistance dated DATE . He specified that the domestic proceedings had meanwhile been terminated and that U. had been convicted by a final decision of ORG for having negligently caused Mr. PERSON \u2019s death . A copy of the related penal order of CARDINAL DATE was attached to the letter .","On DATE a meeting between the representatives of the GPE prosecution authorities , the ORG and GPE police took place at FAC GPE with a view to providing explanations on the conduct of the criminal investigations and proceedings in GPE . The content of these discussions is confidential .","In DATE and DATE counsel for the second applicant was again granted access to the files in the terminated criminal proceedings against NORP under file no . CARDINAL Js CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","As a consequence of the NORP authorities\u2019 decision not to extradite PERSON , the criminal investigations in GPE were discontinued .","After U. had informed the GPE District Government of Mr Gray \u2019s death in DATE , the competent GPE health authorities commenced investigations regarding ORG \u2019s fitness to practice as a doctor ( approbationsrechtliches Verfahren ) . Within the scope of their investigations the health authorities , inter alia , conducted interviews with NORP on QUANTITY occasions in DATE and DATE with a view to clarifying the circumstances of the incidents of DATE and with a view to examining ORG \u2019s fitness to practice in general . Furthermore , at the ORG request a meeting was arranged between them and representatives of ORG on CARDINAL","Following completion of their investigations by DATE the health authorities , considering PERSON \u2019s professional conduct over DATE in GPE , the fact that he had committed himself to refrain from practising medicine abroad in the future and taking into account the particular circumstances under which ORG medical malpractice had occurred , found that there was nothing to establish that U. would commit a similar error of treatment in GPE or that he lacked the necessary qualifications for practising medicine . Consequently , the health authorities held that there was no need to suspend or revoke PERSON \u2019s licence to practice medicine in GPE and discontinued the proceedings regarding U. \u2019s fitness to practice .","By written submissions of DATE ORG applied for the opening of disciplinary proceedings against U. for breach of his professional duties in connection with the incidents in GPE on DATE .","By a decision dated DATE of the competent ORG sitting in a special formation as disciplinary jurisdiction for the healthcare professions ( PERSON ) U. was reprimanded for having disregarded the standards of the medical profession on the occasions of CARDINAL patient consultations on DATE in GPE , in particular for having committed a grave error in the treatment of PERSON , and fined him CARDINAL ORG . The decision became final on DATE .","A number of further investigations and proceedings were instituted in GPE following Mr. PERSON \u2019s death . An Inquest into the circumstances of the incident was held by ORG from DATE . The latter not only returned the verdict that the deceased had been unlawfully killed as a consequence of the inadequate treatment administered by NORP but also pointed explicitly to the deficiencies in the recruitment , training and supervision of foreign locum doctors in GPE . These deficiencies were at the origin of a subsequent report by the Coroner to the Secretary of ORG and resulted in investigations by ORG as well as in an independent inquiry by ORG , a public body overseen by ORG , which came to similar conclusions as the Inquest and identified related shortcomings in the NORP health system . Moreover , on the occasion of proceedings conducted by ORG fitness to practice in the period from DATE , the circumstances of PERSON death were further investigated and additional evidence from expert witnesses and the deceased \u2019s next of kin was considered . The GMC Fitness to Practice Panel considered that ORG had breached several of the basic principles of good medical practice and decided to formally strike PERSON \u2019s name from the medical register in GPE . In addition , in DATE the applicants brought civil claims for damages for unlawful killing arising out of negligence with ORG against U. , ORG as well as GPE PCT in GPE . The applicants\u2019 compensation claims were settled with respect to all CARDINAL defendants by consent orders of DATE , DATE and DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164466","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF O.M. v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-b - Secure fulfilment of obligation prescribed by law);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE .","The applicant crossed the NORP border from GPE clandestinely in the evening of DATE . Apprehended by a border guard patrol , he was taken into custody , since he was unable to show documentary evidence of his identity or right to stay in the country .","The applicant then claimed asylum .","At the hearing held on DATE by ORG , the applicant declared that he had fled from his country of origin , GPE , because of his homosexuality . He stated that he had been forced to leave GPE and , with the help of a human trafficker , he had entered GPE without documents , because he had had no other way of doing so . At the hearing , he again applied for recognition as a refugee .","In view of his request , on DATE ORG suspended the alien administration procedure . On DATE ORG and Nationality commenced asylum proceedings . At the ensuing hearing the applicant said that he had intended to go to GPE , but since GPE seemed to be a safe country he had requested asylum there . He stated again that he had had to leave GPE because he was homosexual and that criminal proceedings had been instituted against him for this reason , attracting very severe penalties .","After the hearing , the asylum authority , a department of ORG and Nationality , ordered that the applicant be detained ( menek\u00fclt\u00fcgyi \u0151rizet ) , with effect from TIME on DATE , in GPE , relying on section CARDINAL\/A ( CARDINAL ) a ) and c ) of Act no . DATE on Asylum ( the \u201c LAW \u201d ) . In its decision the asylum authority observed that the applicant \u2019s identity and nationality had not been clarified . It held that there were grounds for the presumption that if left at large , he would delay or frustrate the asylum proceedings and would present a risk of absconding , given that he had arrived unlawfully in GPE and had no connections in the country or resources to subsist on . According to section CARDINAL\/A ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , the maximum length of asylum detention when ordered by the asylum authority is TIME . On the basis of section CARDINAL\/C ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the relevant Government Decree ( see in paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant could have submitted an objection to the ordering of his asylum detention .","On DATE the asylum authority applied to ORG for an extension of the asylum detention for a maximum of DATE . The asylum authority pointed out in its application that NORP asylum seekers tended to frustrate the procedure and leave for unknown places . To justify its application , it referred to the fact that the applicant \u2019s stay in GPE was unlawful , that he had no connection to the country , and that he lacked any resources to subsist on .","On DATE the court appointed a legal representative for the applicant ; on DATE that is , before the expiry of the CARDINAL-hour period referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above \u2013 it held a hearing . The hearing lasted from GPE to CARDINAL TIME In its ensuing decision the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s application to be released and extended the asylum detention by a maximum of DATE . It noted that the applicant \u2019s identity was unclear , that he had arrived in GPE unlawfully , and that he had no connections in the country or any means to subsist on . Without referring to other individual circumstances or the applicant \u2019s sexual orientation , the court held that less stringent measures \u2013 such as an obligation to check in regularly with the authorities , to stay at a designated place of residence , or to pay asylum bail ( menek\u00fclt\u00fcgyi \u00f3vad\u00e9k ) \u2013 were not suitable in the case to secure the applicant \u2019s availability to the authorities .","On DATE and DATE the applicant applied to the asylum authority to be released from detention or transferred to an open facility . In its reply , the asylum authority informed the applicant that an asylum hearing would be held in DATE : he would have the opportunity to prove his citizenship there . Because of this consideration , the asylum authority did not forward these requests to any other authority .","At the asylum hearing held on DATE the applicant made the same statements as before . Referring to his sexual orientation , he explained that it was difficult for him to cope with the asylum detention for fear of harassment . At the hearing he provided the asylum authority with relevant and up - to - date information relating to his country of origin .","On DATE the asylum authority stated that the applicant \u2019s asylum request was neither inadmissible nor manifestly ill - founded and thus it ordered the examination of the case on the merits .","On DATE the asylum authority again sought extension of the asylum detention by another maximum of DATE , relying on section CARDINAL\/A ( CARDINAL ) a ) and c ) of LAW . In its application , the asylum authority did not give any detailed explanation as to why no other , less stringent measures could be applied in the case .","In her submission of CARDINAL DATE to the asylum authority , the applicant \u2019s legal - aid lawyer requested the termination of the asylum detention and the designation of a place of residence for the applicant with measures securing his availability during the proceedings . In her submission of DATE to ORG , the lawyer asked the court to hear the applicant and not to extend the asylum detention .","On DATE the court appointed another legal representative for the applicant . On DATE the court heard the applicant and dismissed the application for extension of the asylum detention . Relying on section CARDINAL\/A ( CARDINAL ) a ) of LAW , ORG stated that the delay caused by the acts of the authority for which the asylum seeker could not be held responsible did not provide grounds for the extension of the detention . Referring to section CARDINAL\/A ( CARDINAL ) c ) , the court further stated that the asylum authority had not given any specific reasoning for the view it had taken , namely that the applicant would abscond and frustrate the asylum proceedings .","On DATE the asylum authority terminated the asylum detention and ordered a designated place of residence for the applicant in GPE with measures securing his availability during the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant was recognised as a refugee . His asylum detention lasted from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-b"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170286","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SARBYANOVA-PASHALIYSKA AND PASHALIYSKA V. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants are the wife and daughter of Mr PERSON , who was killed on DATE in an office situated in a hotel in GPE . He died as a result of suffering severe trauma to his brain , chest , torso and limbs , which led to irreversible damage to several of his vital organs . The trauma was caused by a number of kicks and punches and blows inflicted with different objects .","On DATE of the incident a private security guard was called to the office premises where Mr PERSON was later found dead in order to investigate a brawl reportedly happening there . The security guard knocked on the office entrance door and an individual , GPE , opened it . The security guard caught a brief glimpse of Mr Pashaliysky lying helpless on the floor with blood on his face . ORG was holding a long oval - shaped object . Having been told by ORG that there was no problem , the security guard left .","It would appear that DATE , using the telephone of the office in question , ORG had called PERSON . PERSON , a friend and business partner of Mr PERSON , threatening to kill them both if PERSON . PERSON failed to deliver an undisclosed sum of money to GPE without delay .","The incident was reported to the police by an investigator , who had been tipped off DATE . The police arrested GPE that night . Traces of the crime having been discovered on GPE \u2019s hands and clothes , an investigator charged him on DATE with murder . On DATE a prosecutor indicted GPE for the murder of PERSON , which had been committed DATE .","A prosecutor from the GPE city public prosecutor \u2019s office found on DATE that there were reasons for amending the indictment by applying a law providing for a heavier penalty . She also found that not all available evidence had been collected . In particular , no expert DNA analysis had been carried out on the material found under the victim \u2019s nails ; several key witnesses had not been questioned about the reasons for their presence in the office in which the victim had been killed on DATE in question and about the reason for the return to the office of CARDINAL of them during TIME of the same day ; no confrontation had been held CARDINAL of those witnesses , despite several discrepancies between their respective statements ; and no information had been collected about the state in which the police officers had found the accused at the time of his arrest . On DATE the prosecutor returned the case to the investigating authorities for further investigative measures , giving specific instructions aimed at the remedying of the deficiencies in the investigation .","The case was returned on CARDINAL other occasions ( on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and on DATE ) for further investigative steps , which the prosecutor listed specifically .","The case file was sent to ORG on an unspecified date in DATE . Both applicants were named as private prosecutors and the second applicant , at her request , also as a civil party seeking nonpecuniary damages .","At the start of the trial the defendant \u2019s lawyer claimed that the indictment was defective because it did not contain a clear description of the offence with which the defendant had been charged ; the lawyer sought , without success , the return of the case for further investigation . A number of hearings took place during the trial . The proceedings before ORG ended on DATE , when the court sentenced GPE to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and ordered him to pay damages to the second applicant .","NORP Both GPE and the applicants lodged appeals with ORG . ORG submitted in particular that the sentence had been based entirely on guesswork as to who the perpetrator had been . Most importantly , ORG claimed that the indictment had been entirely silent about the manner in which he was considered to have killed the victim , there being no description of the circumstances in which the victim was killed . Referring to interpretative decision no . DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , he claimed that these procedural flaws were fundamental and that the court should have returned the case to the investigation stage .","On DATE ORG accepted that the indictment had not contained a description of how the accused had killed the victim and that this had been a fundamental procedural defect which had prevented the defendant from effectively exercising his rights . The court then quashed the first - instance court sentence and returned the case to the pre - trial stage so that the procedural flaw in question could be redressed .","On DATE the prosecution indicted GPE anew for the murder of Mr. PERSON and the first - instance court , GPE , opened fresh proceedings against him . The first CARDINAL scheduled hearings were postponed because the defendant \u2019s lawyer failed to appear . On CARDINAL DATE the court recognised the second applicant as a civil party seeking non - pecuniary damages but refused to name both applicants as private prosecutors . After an appeal by the applicants that refusal was quashed on CARDINAL DATE by ORG . The witnesses were then heard again in the course of the trial so that the applicants could exercise their rights as private prosecutors .","Sixteen hearings took place thereafter , at which the applicants made numerous requests for evidence to be gathered and witnesses to be heard . Subsequently , the presiding judge was elected President of ORG as a result of which the trial stage was started anew . A new presiding judge was appointed , yet no further hearing was scheduled for DATE . The applicants complained about the delay to ORG , asking that disciplinary sanctions be imposed on the new presiding judge . The ORG replied on DATE . It acknowledged that the criminal proceedings in the case had lasted DATE and recognised that this was incompatible with the requirement of a reasonable length of proceedings . It nonetheless held that the judge in question could not be sanctioned , given that the duration of the other cases that she had heard had not exceeded an acceptable length .","On an unspecified later date the new presiding judge was sent back to the court from which she had been transferred and the case had to begin anew once again .","On DATE the proceedings before the first - instance court ended . ORG found GPE guilty of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The first - instance court also ruled that ORG had to pay MONEY ( ORG ) in damages to the second applicant as a civil party . After an appeal by GPE ORG carried out a thorough analysis of the witness statements given at first instance , of the record of the examination of the murder scene conducted on DATE after the killing , of the search and seizure measures , and of the conclusions of the numerous expert reports , the autopsy , etc . Following this , on DATE the appellate court upheld the guilty verdict and sentence , but lowered the amount in damages to be paid to the second applicant to around ORG CARDINAL . Following a cassation appeal by ORG upheld the appellate court \u2019s judgment in its entirety in a final judgment of DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178944","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF B\u0130LG\u0130\u00c7 v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed from the ORG non - commissioned officer vocational high school due to non - compliance with admission pre - conditions . On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG and requested the annulment of the dismissal decision .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request , taking into account the \u201c secret documents \u201d submitted by ORG . These documents were not disclosed to the applicant . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174111","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF OVECHKINA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163624","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"KASHCHUK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr Mykola PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . His present place of residence is unknown . He was represented before the ORG by Mr V.A. Struts , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented , most recently , by their Acting Agent PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The events relate to a house owned by the applicant in GPE in the PERSON region , where he lived with his wife and their CARDINAL daughters ( born in DATE and DATE ) .","NORP In DATE the village suffered extensive groundwater flooding .","NORP In DATE ( the exact date is illegible in the available documents ) a technical survey of the applicant \u2019s house was carried out . As stated in the survey report , the building was made of beaten earth walls and was constructed shortly DATE . It had no foundations and measured twentythree square metres , of which QUANTITY were living area . The building lacked basic amenities such as a lavatory , water supply , sewage system , gas supply or telecommunications . While the maximum habitable life of such buildings was DATE , the applicant \u2019s house had been in use for DATE . Following the flood , its floors were covered with water ( TIME centimetres deep ) and the walls were damp . It was not deemed feasible to carry out repairs and demolition was deemed to be the only option .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) issued an order \u201c On measures for eliminating the consequences of the natural disaster in GPE \u201d . It noted that CARDINAL residential buildings had remained flooded with groundwater since DATE . CARDINAL of them were at risk of collapsing . A commission of experts was appointed to assess the situation and draw up recommendations for further measures .","On DATE the commission issued its report . The applicant \u2019s house was among those assessed as \u201c having practically exhausted their capacity for use as a result of the groundwater flooding \u201d . The commission noted that measures for lowering the level of the groundwater had been unsuccessful , that the condition of the houses was deteriorating and that they could collapse at any moment . Its conclusion was that the houses were dilapidated , uninhabitable and should be demolished .","On DATE ORG approved the above report , as well as a list of dilapidated and uninhabitable houses , including the CARDINAL belonging to the applicant . It recommended that the local authorities dealing with housing issues , together with local companies , resettle the people concerned to hostels on a temporary basis .","The local authorities further recommended to the applicant that he turn to his employer , the LOC plant , for help in solving his housing problem .","On DATE the ORG delivered a decision on the resettlement of the residents of the flooded houses , including the applicant \u2019s family , to hostels . It guaranteed that within DATE they would receive new accommodation , subject to applicable benefits and the available funding . The LOC plant was directed to resettle the applicant \u2019s family .","On DATE LOC \u2019s administration and its trade unions proposed that the applicant \u2019s family move temporarily to a flat at either FAC or PERSON . The applicant declined the offer on the grounds of the poor condition of the buildings in question .","On DATE and DATE ORG and the mayor \u2019s office , respectively , wrote to the applicant in reply to his complaints about the failure to provide him with free accommodation , saying that he had declined the proposal of temporary resettlement to a flat at FAC for no good reason . Furthermore , the local authorities had provided the applicant \u2019s daughter with a CARDINAL - room flat , with partial amenities , for temporary resettlement .","On DATE the applicant made a written statement to his employer that he was refusing the proposed accommodation at CARDINALa FAC owing to its poor condition .","On DATE the LOC \u2019s administration replied to his repeated requests for accommodation by writing to him that in DATE the housing fund of the plant had been transferred to the GPE municipal property agency , apart from CARDINAL buildings ( CARDINALa and PERSON ) . The building at FAC was indeed in a very poor , even critically bad , condition . As regards the building at FAC , the applicant had twice been offered a flat there , but had declined the offer . According to the information provided by the Government , the flat in question measured QUANTITY , of which the living area was QUANTITY . However , according to the applicant , the only accommodation he was offered had been a small room without any amenities ( see below ) .","On DATE the applicant wrote to the LOC \u2019s administration that the only offer he had actually received concerned a room measuring QUANTITY , without any amenities , at FAC . He emphasised , however , that he would have also declined any offer to be resettled in the building at FAC , where the conditions were equally poor .","On DATE a technical survey of the buildings at DATE and FAC was carried out . Since their construction in DATE , they had not been refurbished and their general condition was considered as being very poor .","In DATE the applicant found out that he was number CARDINAL on the plant \u2019s general waiting list for accommodation . He complained about that to ORG , which replied on DATE that that was an error , that it should be corrected and that he was indeed entitled to be on the priority waiting list , pursuant to the decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE PERSON \u2019s administration moved the applicant from the general waiting list to the priority list , where he was at number CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant that he was number CARDINAL on its housing waiting list . All the families on the list before him continued to live in uninhabitable conditions and the applicant had to wait his turn .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against the LOC plant and ORG , seeking the allocation of free accommodation for his family ( by that time consisting of CARDINAL people as the applicant \u2019s elder daughter had married and given birth to a girl in DATE ) , as well as compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE and DATE the LOC \u2019s administration and ORG removed the applicant from their housing waiting lists .","On DATE the Zavodskyy ORG of Mykolayiv ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) found against the applicant . It noted that he had declined CARDINAL offers of resettlement . Furthermore , he had inherited some real estate in DATE , of which he had not informed the authorities . As a result , LOC \u2019s administration and ORG had rightly taken him off their housing waiting lists .","NORP The applicant appealed . He submitted , in particular , that the property he had inherited consisted of QUANTITY and could not be regarded as alternative accommodation for his family . To corroborate his statement , he provided an expert \u2019s technical survey .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for fresh examination at first instance . It noted that the applicant \u2019s claim concerned the allocation of free accommodation , rather than his exclusion from the housing waiting lists .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim in part . It considered it established that his house had become uninhabitable as a result of a natural disaster . Accordingly , the court held that the applicant was entitled to free accommodation , pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was also awarded compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage ( CARDINAL NORP hryvnias , which was then equivalent to QUANTITY , from each of the CARDINAL defendants ) .","On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance court \u2019s judgment following appeals by the defendants and adopted a new judgment which in the main dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . With reference to the decisions of ORG of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , ORG noted that the applicant \u2019s house had been among those inspected by a technical commission following the flood and that LOC \u2019s administration had been responsible for resettling his family . It considered that the case file did not contain any evidence proving that the applicant \u2019s house had become uninhabitable as a result of a natural disaster and therefore concluded that LAW was not applicable . However , the applicant was to be restored to the priority housing list , in accordance with LAW of the code , given that his house was uninhabitable . This restoration , according to ORG , constituted sufficient compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","The applicant appealed against the judgment on points of law . He insisted that his house had become uninhabitable as a consequence of the flood .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal , giving a concise reasoning that it had not discerned any violations of the law .","Article CARDINAL stipulates that the ORG \u2019s housing stock comprises that of local councils of people \u2019s deputies ( \u0436\u0438\u0442\u043b\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0439 \u0444\u043e\u043d\u0434 \u043c\u0456\u0441\u0446\u0435\u0432\u0438\u0445 \u0420\u0430\u0434 ) and that of ministries , state committees and institutions ( \u0432\u0456\u0434\u043e\u043c\u0447\u0438\u0439 \u0436\u0438\u0442\u043b\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0439 \u0444\u043e\u043d\u0434 ) .","Article CARDINAL contains a non - exhaustive list of categories of people whose living conditions need to be improved and who are therefore entitled to free accommodation being placed on a priority housing list ( \u043f\u0435\u0440\u0448\u043e\u0447\u0435\u0440\u0433\u043e\u0432\u0435 \u043d\u0430\u0434\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0436\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0456\u0449\u0435\u043d\u044c ) . As further set out in Article CARDINAL , approval of the rules of keeping records about people belonging to those categories was the responsibility of ORG SSR and ORG .","Article CARDINAL provides for categories of people entitled to free accommodation without being on a housing list ( \u043f\u043e\u0437\u0430\u0447\u0435\u0440\u0433\u043e\u0432\u0435 \u043d\u0430\u0434\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0436\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0456\u0449\u0435\u043d\u044c ) , including \u201c citizens whose dwelling has become uninhabitable as a result of a natural disaster \u201d . The Article further states that such people shall be included on a separate waiting list . No time - limits are set down for the allocation of dwellings to such people .","Article CARDINAL of the Housing Code states , in particular , that the minimum size of residential LOC should comply with standards laid down by ORG .","According to Article CARDINAL , residential LOC should comply with the relevant sanitary and technical standards .","Article CARDINAL governs the allocation of flats from the institutional housing stock ( \u0432\u0456\u0434\u043e\u043c\u0447\u0438\u0439 \u0436\u0438\u0442\u043b\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0439 \u0444\u043e\u043d\u0434 ) . In particular , flats are allocated by a joint decision of the authorities and the trade union branches of the companies , institutions and establishments concerned , which either submit their decision to the relevant municipal council for approval or , in some cases , simply inform the council . On the basis of that decision , the executive committee of the municipal council issues the person concerned with an authorisation to occupy the flat ( \u043e\u0440\u0434\u0435\u0440 ) , which constitutes the sole legal basis for taking possession of the allocated dwelling ( Article CARDINAL ) .","\u201c Rules of keeping records about people in need of improved living conditions and the allocation of free accommodation for them ... \u201d ( PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0456\u043a\u0443 \u0433\u0440\u043e\u043c\u0430\u0434\u044f\u043d , \u044f\u043a\u0456 \u043f\u043e\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0431\u0443\u044e\u0442\u044c \u043f\u043e\u043b\u0456\u043f\u0448\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0436\u0438\u0442\u043b\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0445 \u0443\u043c\u043e\u0432 , \u0456 \u043d\u0430\u0434\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0457\u043c \u0436\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0456\u0449\u0435\u043d\u044c ... ) , which were approved by ORG of the NORP SSR and ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ( with further amendments ) , also contain several provisions of relevance .","More specifically , point CARDINAL contains a list of categories of people on housing waiting lists who must be provided with free accommodation as a matter of priority . CARDINAL such category concerns \u201c people living in dilapidated buildings not subject to major repairs \u201d ( \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . Furthermore , point CARDINAL ( \u00a7 CARDINAL ) reiterates the provisions of LAW ( see above ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168054","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF FILIMONOV AND FAZLUTDINOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . They also argued that they did not have an effective domestic remedy to complain about the poor detention conditions ."],"violated_articles":["13"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164657","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"OREL v. CROATIA ","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) , Mr PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) and Mr PERSON ( \u201c the third applicant \u201d ) are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG , first by PERSON , an advocate practising in Ivani\u0107 - Grad , and subsequently by ORG from the law firm PERSON and PERSON , an advocate practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The first applicant married a certain Mr H.A. in DATE . The second and third applicants were born of the marriage . PERSON and the applicants lived in the first applicant \u2019s flat in GPE until DATE .","On DATE went to work and never returned home . After DATE , the first applicant found out that he had moved to GPE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) granted the divorce of the first applicant from GPE , who was ordered to pay MONEY ( ORG ) of child support DATE for the maintenance of the second and third applicants ( hereafter \u201c the child support \u201d or \u201c the maintenance \u201d ) . The judgment became final and enforceable on DATE .","In the period DATE and DATE paid the child support irregularly . In that period , he paid a total of CARDINAL . He stopped paying the maintenance in DATE . He does not own any property in GPE .","On DATE the first applicant lodged a criminal complaint against GPE with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) , accusing him of non - compliance with maintenance obligations ( povreda du\u017enosti uzdr\u017eavanja ) , a criminal offence defined in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG indicted H.A. , thereby instituting criminal proceedings against him before ORG .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG dropped the charges , whereupon , DATE , ORG discontinued the proceedings .","On DATE the first applicant lodged another criminal complaint against GPE with the same State Attorney \u2019s Office , on the same grounds as before .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s Office indicted GPE , thereby instituting criminal proceedings against him before ORG ( Op\u0107inski kazneni sud u GPE ) . The court conducted a trial in absentia .","By a judgment of DATE the court found PERSON guilty as charged . It imposed a suspended sentence of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment with a DATE probation period , with the additional condition of regular payment of future child support instalments as they became due , and payment of CARDINAL of maintenance arrears to the applicants .","Upon an appeal by the ORG Attorney , on DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) amended the sentence by setting a DATE time - limit for the payment of maintenance arrears .","On DATE the first applicant informed ORG had not been paying the child support instalments as they were becoming due , nor had he paid the arrears .","For those reasons , on DATE she applied for revocation of the suspension of the sentence ( prijedlog za opoziv uvjetne osude ) to the same court .","At a hearing held on CARDINAL DATE the first applicant informed the court that GPE \u2019s address in GPE ( GPE ) mentioned in the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was not correct and that his address was difficult to establish . She provided the court however with the address of his employer and his mother .","The notice of the next hearing , scheduled for DATE , was sent via regular post , more specifically by registered mail , to the address of PERSON \u2019s employer in GPE .","At the hearing held on DATE the court established that the service was not valid because the notice , which had been returned by ORG \u2019s employer , had not been signed by ORG","On DATE the court asked the NORP embassy in GPE to supply ORG address .","On DATE the embassy replied that , like the court , it was only aware of ORG address in GPE ( GPE ) and that it had been unable to identify his new address .","The court then scheduled the next hearing for DATE , and on DATE asked ORG to request , by means of letters rogatory , the relevant GPE authorities to serve notice of the hearing on H.A.","On DATE ORG forwarded to the court a letter from ORG , in which it was stated that the NORP embassy in GPE had no funds in its budget for service abroad and thus could not pay the USD CARDINAL requested by the United States\u2019 authorities for personal service .","The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned . Before the hearing the law clerk ( sudski savjetnik ) assigned to the case informed the first applicant that the summons could not be served on PERSON by letters rogatory because the NORP embassy in GPE did not have funds to pay for the service ( see the preceding paragraph ) . According to the applicant the law clerk also advised her to lodge another criminal complaint against GPE for another count of the same offence ( which would eventually result in his unconditional conviction ) . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE .","At the hearing held on DATE the judge hearing the case informed the first applicant that the summons had to be served on a party living abroad via diplomatic service and that service via regular post by registered mail at his employer \u2019s address was not valid . The first applicant replied that the message she had received from GPE on DATE on her ORG page suggested that he had received the summons sent by regular post .","It would appear that these proceedings are still pending .","Meanwhile , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE the president of ORG dismissed a request of CARDINAL DATE by the applicants for the protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time , finding no violation of that right . He held that the length of the proceedings complained of was primarily attributable to objective factors , namely the difficulties associated with service of process on PERSON , who lived in GPE . On DATE the president of ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicants and upheld the first - instance decision .","In DATE the first applicant , relying on section CARDINAL of LAW , instituted administrative proceedings before ORG ( NORP za socijalnu skrb GPE \u2013 Ured Tre\u0161njevka , hereafter \u201c the local social welfare centre \u201d ) seeking substitute maintenance for the second and third applicants .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the local social welfare centre granted the first applicant \u2019s request and awarded her substitute maintenance in the DATE amount of MONEY ( HRK ) for the second applicant and HRK CARDINAL for the third applicant . The decision specified that these amounts would be paid in the period from DATE until PERSON started paying the child support , and until DATE at the latest .","On DATE the first applicant wrote to the NORP consulate in GPE asking for assistance in instituting relevant proceedings in GPE with a view to recovering child support payments . In her letter she mentioned that she had contacted an attorney in GPE who , given her indigence , had asked for \u201c too much money \u201d for his services without any guarantees that the proceedings would be successful . It would appear that she received no reply .","On DATE the applicant sent an email to the NORP embassy in GPE asking for assistance in identifying ORG address .","The embassy replied on DATE , informing her first that in response to her earlier request ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) it had contacted the relevant GPE authorities , who had in turn informed it that foreign court judgments concerning maintenance could be recognised only if there was a bilateral agreement between GPE and the country concerned . No such agreement existed between GPE and GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The embassy also informed the applicant that it had no database of contact details of NORP nationals living in GPE . Moreover , each time it had asked GPE authorities to provide such information in the context of requests for international legal assistance , those authorities had informed it that they had no such data either , and that in any event they would not be able to disclose them because of the personal data protection laws .","NORP The embassy further informed the first applicant that the results of its web search indicated that a person with the same last name as PERSON lived in GPE ( GPE ) , and provided the address . It also suggested that she ask the court in the above proceedings for revocation of the suspended sentence to try serving the summons at that address . Lastly , the embassy gave the applicant the contact details of a private investigator who could assist her in identifying PERSON \u2019s address .","The original text of section CARDINAL of LAW ( Obiteljski zakon , ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , which was in force between DATE and DATE , read as follows :","\u201c If a parent who is bound to contribute to the support of his or her child by a final judicial decision or settlement concluded before the social welfare centre does not comply with his or her obligations for DATE , the social welfare centre shall , at the initiative of the other parent or of its own motion , if it considers that this could endanger the child \u2019s standard of living , take measures to provide funds for substitute child support until the parent bound to [ do so ] again starts to comply with his or her obligation . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of LAW was amended by the DATE LAW o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON zakona , ORG no . DATE the DATE Amendments ) , which entered into force on DATE . The text of section CARDINAL , as amended by the DATE Amendments , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If a parent who is bound to contribute to the support of his or her child by a final judicial decision , the provisional measure ... or settlement concluded before a court or a social welfare centre , does not comply with his or her obligations for DATE , or does not pay CARDINAL DATE instalments within DATE , the social welfare centre shall , at the initiative of the other parent or of its own motion , issue a decision on substitute child support and in accordance with it shall pay child support until the parent bound to [ do so ] again starts to comply with his or her obligation , but for DATE .","( CARDINAL ) The right to substitute child support shall be recognised from the date the application [ to that effect ] was lodged [ by the other parent ] , or from the date [ the social welfare centre ] instituted the proceedings of its own motion .","( CARDINAL ) The substitute child support shall be established at PERCENT of the amount of [ the minimal child support ] specified in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW [ which sets it at PERCENT , PERCENT or PERCENT of the minimum wage , depending on the age of the child ] .","( CARDINAL ) An appeal against a decision on substitute child support does not suspend its enforcement . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the DATE Amendments provided as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If before the entry into force of [ these LAW ] a first - instance decision has been adopted in proceedings concerning maintenance by the court or the social welfare centre the [ earlier version of ] LAW , shall [ continue ] to apply to the subsequent [ stages of ] the proceedings .","( CARDINAL ) If after the entry into force of [ these LAW ] the first - instance decision referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section was quashed or set aside [ these LAW ] shall apply to the subsequent proceedings . \u201d","The relevant provision of LAW ( PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL with subsequent amendments ) , which was in force from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , reads as follows :","\u201c Regardless of the grounds for revocation , a suspended sentence may be revoked DATE after the expiry of the probation period . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Anyone who , by avoiding employment or by changing jobs , domicile or place of residence , by alienation of assets , or otherwise , avoids providing maintenance for a person he or she is bound to support by virtue of an enforceable decision or in - court settlement , or who refuses to comply with such an obligation , shall be punished by a fine or imprisonment not exceeding one year .","( CARDINAL ) If the obligation referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section concerns child support , the perpetrator shall be punished by imprisonment of from DATE .","( CARDINAL ) When imposing a suspended sentence , the court may set as a condition [ of the sentence being suspended ] , that the perpetrator pays maintenance arrears and in the future regularly complies with maintenance obligations . \u201d","The relevant provision of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL with subsequent amendments ) , which has been in force since DATE , reads as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Where a suspended sentence stipulates that a sentence will be executed if the convicted person does not return the pecuniary gain , pay the compensation for the damage , or does not meet other obligations , and the convicted person has failed to comply with those obligations within the set time - limit , the first - instance court shall conduct proceedings for revocation of the suspended sentence at the request of an authorised prosecutor or the injured party .","( CARDINAL ) The judge assigned for such a purpose shall examine the convicted person , if available , and take the steps necessary to establish the facts and collect evidence relevant to the decision .","( CARDINAL ) Thereafter , the presiding judge shall schedule a session of the panel of which he or she shall inform the prosecutor , the convicted person and the injured party . If they have been duly notified , failure of the parties , including the injured party , to attend shall not prevent the panel from holding the session .","( CARDINAL ) If the court finds that the convicted person has not complied with the obligation imposed upon him or her by the judgment , it shall issue a judgment revoking the suspended sentence and ordering the execution of the imposed sentence , or it shall set a new time - limit for compliance with the obligation , or replace that obligation with another or relieve the convicted person of the obligation . If the court finds that there are no grounds to take any of these decisions , it shall discontinue the proceedings for revocation of a suspended sentence by [ means of ] a decision [ to that effect ] .","( CARDINAL ) If it is subsequently established that the convicted person committed a criminal offence during the probation period for which he or she was sentenced to a sentence for which the suspended sentence should or could have been revoked under LAW , and the court which sentenced omitted to decide on that , the first - instance court which imposed the suspended sentence shall issue a judgment revoking the suspended sentence and ordering execution of the imposed sentence . If the court finds that there are no grounds for revocation of a suspended sentence , it shall discontinue those proceedings by [ means of ] a decision [ to that effect ] ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164467","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ZOSYMOV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["In DATE the applicant and his wife started a family business which involved , among other things , the replication of digital data and the sale of blank data storage devices . They used a flat on LOC in GPE owned by the applicant \u2019s mother as their office , in which they had copying equipment set up .","On DATE several police officers from ORG ( \u201c KECU \u201d ) inspected the applicant \u2019s office at FAC in his and his wife \u2019s presence .","On DATE the KECU officers also inspected the applicant \u2019s garage and his car .","After the inspection the police seized CARDINAL computers , CARDINAL optical disc recording devices , a printer , a modem , over CARDINAL optical discs with recordings , CARDINAL blank optical discs and CARDINAL printed disc covers . The seizure was documented on CARDINAL standardised forms ( one for each site inspected ) , which included the following pre - filled printed text :","\u201c Beginning of the inspection : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ time , date ]","End of the inspection : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ time , date ]","I ( we ) , _ _ _ _ _ _ of the KECU on the premises of _ _ _ _ _ _ [ site ] ... inspected and seized from _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ name , address , place of work of the person whose possessions were subject to seizure ] the following _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ [ list of seized items ] .","The seized items will be stored with the KECU pending resolution of the matter on the merits .","This ORG has been completed in duplicate and read out . ... \u201d","It appears from the forms that the inspection of the office started at TIME and ended at TIME , DATE . Other sites were inspected at the same time \u2013 the car from TIME until TIME and the garage betweenCARDINAL.CARDINAL and TIME","According to the applicant , for the whole night the police officers questioned him , his wife and the members of their extended family who were on the LOC . The questions related to the applicant \u2019s family business and the observance of copyright law in the business \u2019s use of software and in its replicating activities .","On DATE a report was published on ORG website , which stated that ORG had :","\u201c ... identified a criminal group of CARDINAL [ individuals ] . These CARDINAL [ individuals ] organised an entire underground production [ facility ] in their office . With the help of computer equipment they replicated CD - ROMs containing various programs and games ... \u201d","NORP The report also featured a photograph of the applicant \u2019s wife without a caption and listed the seized items , declaring their estimated value as CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) .","On DATE investigator PERSON from ORG of the Kyiv Police instituted criminal proceedings concerning \u201c the suspected breach of copyright \u201d under LAW of LAW of GPE , without naming any suspected offenders . In his decision , he referred to the search of the office of the applicant and his wife and the seizure of their belongings on DATE . He further noted that they had been found not to have a license agreement with the law firm S. , the official representative of ORG , whose software they had used in their business , thereby causing damage to the software copyright owner .","On DATE PERSON declared the property seized from the applicant and his wife as physical evidence to be stored by the police pending the investigation of the case .","On DATE the Shevchenkivsky ORG of Kyiv ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) issued search warrants in respect of the applicant \u2019s and his wife \u2019s flats , noting that they were suspected of breaching criminal legislation concerning copyright protection .","On DATE these flats were searched pursuant to the warrants . It appears from the case file that no items were seized .","As follows from the applicant \u2019s submissions , after these searches and several interviews , the proceedings stagnated , with the police never pressing any charges against the applicant or any other person .","On numerous occasions the applicant asked the police and the prosecutor \u2019s office to order the return of his seized property . On various dates ( in particular DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) the respective authorities rejected his requests , notifying him that his seized property constituted physical evidence in a criminal case , that keeping it in the possession of the authorities was justified by the need to carry out expert assessments and that , more generally , in accordance with LAW of LAW DATE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , the fate of the items had to be determined upon the final resolution of the case .","On DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office rejected a request by the applicant to have the criminal case in which his possessions had been seized transferred to court with a view to having the proceedings closed as time - barred . They noted , in particular , that proceedings could only be terminated on such grounds in cases in which a particular person had been indicted .","On DATE the police rejected a request by the applicant to have the criminal proceedings discontinued for lack of corpus delicti , noting that discontinuing proceedings on such grounds also presupposed the identification of a particular defendant .","On DATE the police informed the applicant in response to his complaint about being denied any status in the criminal proceedings \u2013 which , in his view , concerned him as a de facto suspect \u2013 that there were no grounds for instituting a criminal case against him personally . There was insufficient evidence that he had unlawfully replicated copyrighted materials or distributed counterfeit products .","In DATE the criminal proceedings were still pending . No investigative measures concerning the applicant had been ordered . His property remained in the control of the police as physical evidence in the case .","In their subsequent submissions \u2013 the last correspondence from the applicant \u2019s lawyer and the ORG was received in DATE and DATE respectively \u2013 the parties did not provide any further information concerning the outcome or status of the aforementioned criminal proceedings and the fate of the seized items .","On an unspecified date the applicant and his wife instituted defamation proceedings against the police authorities for publishing an inaccurate crime report on their website ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , seeking the retraction of the information contained therein .","On DATE ORG allowed the claim .","It follows from the case file that this judgment was not appealed against and became final .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office rejected the applicant \u2019s request for criminal proceedings to be instituted against CARDINAL KECU officers who had taken part in the search of his office , car and garage and had seized his property . It was noted in the relevant decision , in particular , that the police officers had not \u201c searched \u201d but \u201c inspected \u201d the applicant \u2019s office and other sites . The inspection had been lawful , as it had been carried out in the police ORG competence to carry out investigative and operational activities for the purpose of crime detection within the meaning of GPE On operational and investigative activities \u201d and with the applicant \u2019s and his wife \u2019s consent .","On DATE and DATE respectively ORG and ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) rejected appeals by the applicant against that decision .","On an unspecified date the applicant instituted civil proceedings in ORG in GPE to reclaim his computer equipment , optical discs and other property seized by the police .","On DATE the court suspended these proceedings pending resolution of the criminal case in which the property had been retained by the police ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","In DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against ORG of the Kyiv Police with ORG . Initially referring to LAW DATE in force at the material time , he alleged , in particular , that the inspection of his office and search and seizure of his property in DATE , as well as the institution of criminal proceedings on DATE had been unlawful .","In court the applicant reformulated his claims . Referring to Article CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) he contended that there had been no lawful grounds for instituting the criminal proceedings concerning the suspected breach of copyright . He requested that the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) be set aside . In this respect the applicant submitted , in particular , that on DATE KECU officers had conducted an arbitrary search and seizure of his property without a court warrant or any other lawful grounds for taking such actions . The applicant argued that there was no reason to suspect that a crime had been committed justifying the search and seizure of his belongings ; that , in breach of the applicable law , the measures had been taken at TIME - time ; that the same people had been appointed as lay witnesses for all CARDINAL sites , which had been inspected all at the same time ; and that following the institution of the criminal proceedings he had not been summoned to participate in any investigative activities . The proceedings at issue had been instituted in bad faith , to prevent him from recovering his seized property and to cover up the unlawful conduct of the KECU .","On DATE ORG found that LAW of the ORG ( not Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure DATE ) was the appropriate provision for examining the applicant \u2019s allegations . It rejected them , finding that the applicant lacked standing to bring the proceedings . In particular , the disputed criminal case had been instituted \u201c into the matter \u201d rather than \u201c against the applicant \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below quoting LAW of LAW ) , who had neither been a formal suspect nor a defendant in the proceedings at issue . He could not therefore claim that his rights had been breached by the institution of the proceedings . As regards his complaints concerning the allegedly unlawful actions of the police , in accordance with LAW of LAW , these complaints could be brought only within the framework of the above - mentioned criminal case and fell to be examined by the court which would try that case , during either the preliminary hearing or trial .","The applicant appealed , stating in particular that he had been a de facto suspect in the proceedings at issue . As he had been denied formal status as a suspect , he could not defend himself properly . In addition , as the proceedings had been artificially protracted , he had been deprived of the opportunity to reclaim his seized property pending resolution of the case .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision and decided to discontinue the proceedings . Like the lower court , it considered that the applicant had no standing to bring the proceedings at issue and , more generally , that the actions of the police authority complained of could only be challenged before the court examining the criminal case , after the relevant investigation had been completed and the case transferred to the court for examination . In these circumstances , rather than rejecting the applicant \u2019s complaints on the merits , the proceedings had to be discontinued .","The applicant appealed on points of law .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the previous decisions and remitted the case to the lower courts for fresh consideration . It noted , in particular , that on DATE ORG had found that the provisions of LAW of the ORG , which had made it impossible to appeal separately against decisions of investigative authorities concerning the institution of criminal proceedings , were unconstitutional ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The foregoing ruling also meant that courts should likewise admit for consideration complaints about other procedural actions , decisions or inaction on the part of investigative authorities , which could result in irreparable or grave damage to an individual \u2019s constitutional rights if their judicial review were to be delayed . ORG further noted that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the applicant had been substantially affected by the criminal proceedings at issue \u2013 in particular , with regard to the search of his LOC and the seizure and retention of his belongings . It stated that the proceedings appeared to be protracted without any justification and instructed the lower courts to verify whether the conduct of the investigative authorities could indicate ulterior motives aimed at concealing unlawful actions on their part .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s complaint and revoked the decision of DATE . Regard being had to the grounds for taking that decision , the proceedings should have been instituted against the applicant , who had been a de facto suspect in relation to breach of copyright . Institution of the proceedings \u201c into the matter \u201d without indicating a specific defendant had been artificial and had restricted the applicant \u2019s procedural rights . The police ORG actions which had led to the institution of the proceedings had been tainted by procedural breaches , regard being had , in particular , to the unjustified inspection of the LOC at TIME - time in the absence of the flat owner ( the applicant \u2019s mother ) , as well as various other procedural violations .","On DATE the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office appealed against that decision .","On DATE the ORG quashed ORG decision and remitted the criminal case concerning the suspected breach of copyright to it for further investigation . By assessing the lawfulness of the investigative actions , ORG had in fact touched upon the admissibility of evidence , a matter which could only be examined in the course of a criminal trial . It further found that by instituting the criminal proceedings \u201c into the matter \u201d rather than \u201c against the applicant \u201d , the police had not caused irreparable damage to the applicant \u2019s constitutional rights such as would necessitate the setting aside of their decision by way of judicial proceedings . Any irregularities in the formulation of the decision to institute criminal proceedings could be more appropriately addressed by the prosecution authorities .","The applicant appealed on points of law , alleging in particular that ORG had breached procedural rules in admitting the appeal of the prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE Justice PERSON of ORG refused to consider the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal on points of law , stating that ORG lacked jurisdiction over the decisions taken by ORG in the relevant matters , unless they concerned the termination of proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["13","8","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180285","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF \u00c7ABUK v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Ledi Bianku;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and at the time of lodging his application he was serving his prison sentence in the Bolu F - type prison .","On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to ORG , in which he had praised the imprisoned leader of the ORG , PERSON by using the honorific \u201c say\u0131n \u201d , meaning esteemed .","Pursuant to the ORG on the administration of penitentiary institutions and the execution of sentences , the applicant was found guilty of breaching prison order by the Bolu F- type ORG ( referred hereafter as \u201c the Board \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 solitary confinement on the orders of ORG , on account of his statements in the above mentioned letter .","On DATE the Bolu Enforcement Judge rejected the applicant`s objection .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158235","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PER\u0130N\u00c7EK v. SWITZERLAND","importance":1,"conclusion":"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 - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nicolas Bratza;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen;Stefan Trechsel;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He is a doctor of laws and chairman of ORG .","NORP In DATE the applicant took part in CARDINAL public events in GPE .","The first was a press conference held in front of the Ch\u00e2teau d\u2019Ouchy in GPE ( GPE of GPE ) on DATE . In the course of that press conference , he made the following statement in NORP :","\u201c Let me say to NORP public opinion from GPE and GPE : the allegations of the \u2018 NORP genocide\u2019 are an international lie . Can an international lie exist ? Yes , once PERSON was the master of such lies ; now it \u2019s the imperialists of the GPE and GPE ! Documents from not only NORP but also NORP archives refute these international liars . The documents show that imperialists from the LOC and from Tsarist GPE were responsible for the situation boiling over between NORP and NORP . The Great Powers , which wanted to divide GPE , provoked a section of the NORP , with whom we had lived in peace for DATE , and incited them to violence . The NORP and NORP defended their homeland from these attacks . It should not be forgotten that PERSON used the same methods \u2013 that is to say , exploiting ethnic groups and communities \u2013 to divide up countries for his own imperialistic designs , with peoples killing one another . The lie of the \u2018 Armenian genocide\u2019 was first invented in DATE by the imperialists of GPE , GPE and NORP GPE , who wanted to divide the GPE during the First World War . As PERSON later admitted , this was war propaganda . ... The USA occupied and divided GPE with the Gulf Wars DATE , creating a puppet ORG in the north . They then added the oilfields of GPE to this ORG . DATE , GPE is required to act as the guardian of this puppet ORG . We are faced with imperialist encirclement . The lies about the \u2018 NORP genocide\u2019 and the pressure linked to the LOC and GPE are interdependent and designed to divide us and take us hostage . ... The fact that successive decisions have been taken that even refer to our liberation war as a \u2018 crime of humanity\u2019 shows that the GPE and ORG have included the NORP question among their strategies for LOC and LOC ... For their campaign of lies about the \u2018 Armenian genocide\u2019 , the GPE and ORG have manipulated people with NORP identity cards . In particular , certain historians have been bought and journalists hired by the NORP and NORP secret services to be transported from CARDINAL conference to another . ... Do n\u2019t believe the PERSON - style lies such as that of the \u2018 Armenian genocide\u2019 . Seek the truth like Galileo , and stand up for it . \u201d","The second event was a conference held in the GPE hotel in ORG ( GPE of GPE ) on DATE to commemorate the CARDINAL Treaty of Lausanne ( Treaty of Peace signed at GPE on DATE between GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and the NORP - NORP State , on the CARDINAL part , and GPE , on the other part , CARDINAL League of Nations Treaty Series CARDINAL ) . In the course of that conference , the applicant spoke first in NORP and then in NORP , and said the following :","\u201c The NORP problem and the NORP problem were therefore , above all , not a problem and , above all , did not even exist ... \u201d","After that , the applicant handed out copies of a tract written by him , entitled \u201c The Great Powers and the Armenian question \u201d , in which he denied that the events of DATE and DATE had constituted genocide .","The third event was a rally of ORG held in GPE ( GPE of GPE ) on DATE . In the course of that rally , the applicant made the following statement in NORP :","\u201c ... even PERSON , PERSON and other leaders of the Soviet revolution wrote about the NORP question . They said in their reports that no genocide of the NORP people had been carried out by the NORP authorities . This statement was not intended as propaganda at the time . In secret reports the NORP leaders said \u2013 this is very important \u2013 and the NORP archives confirm that at that time there were occurrences of ethnic conflict , slaughter and massacres between NORP and NORP . But GPE was on the side of those defending their homeland and the NORP were on the side of the imperialist powers and their instruments ... and we call on GPE , ORG and all parties of GPE : Please take an interest in the truth and leave these prejudices behind . That is my observation , and I have read every article about the NORP question and these are merely prejudices . Please leave these prejudices behind and join ( ? ? ) , what he said about these prejudices , and this is the truth , there was no genocide of the NORP in DATE . It was a battle between peoples and we suffered many casualties ... the NORP officers at the time were very disappointed because the NORP troops carried out massacres of the NORP and NORP . These truths were told by a NORP commander ... \u201d","On DATE the GPE - Armenia Association lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant on account of the first of the above - mentioned statements . The investigation was then expanded to cover the other CARDINAL oral statements as well . On DATE the applicant was interviewed by the GPE public prosecutor in relation to the statement that he had made in the ORG hotel in ORG . On DATE he was interviewed by a cantonal investigating judge in the GPE of GPE .","On DATE , considering that the CARDINAL statements made by the applicant fell within the ambit of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the competent cantonal investigating judge of the GPE of GPE decided to commit the applicant for trial .","The trial took place before LOC on CARDINAL and DATE .","On DATE the court heard the applicant , the public prosecutor , and ORG , which had been constituted civil party . The court then went on to hear CARDINAL professional historians CARDINAL NORP , CARDINAL NORP , CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL NORP DATE and CARDINAL sociologist that the parties had called to give evidence .","On DATE counsel for the applicant asked the court to gather further evidence in relation to the events of DATE and DATE . The court rejected the request , holding that it was dilatory and would lead to an adjournment of the proceedings . More importantly , it was not necessary to take more evidence on this point , given that these events had been analysed by \u201c CARDINAL of historians for DATE \u201d and had been the \u201c object of innumerable publications \u201d . The court had already heard such evidence by the historians called by the applicant and the civil party , which they regarded as the most competent in relation to this topic . It would therefore be superfluous to take further evidence in relation to it .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the offence under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and ordered him to pay DATE - fines of MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) at that time ) each , suspended for DATE , a fine of CHF MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at that time ) , which could be replaced by CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment , and the sum of CHF MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL at that time ) in compensation to the GPE - Armenia Association for non - pecuniary damage . The court held :","\u201c I. The defendant","PERSON was born in GPE , GPE on DATE . He is a NORP politician resident in that country . After some ten months\u2019 manual employment in GPE , DATE , he studied law at ORG and was awarded his doctorate in DATE . He is the founder of an extreme left - wing journal . In DATE , he founded ORG of GPE . PERSON can be defined as a left - wing extremist and a follower of PERSON or PERSON . He spent DATE in prison in DATE on account of his political views . He is currently the General Chairman of ORG , which represents PERCENT of the NORP electorate . PERSON describes himself as a cultivated person with a very good knowledge of history . He speaks fluent NORP .","In his personal life , the defendant is married and the father of CARDINAL children , CARDINAL of whom are adults . He states that he earns about CHF CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL per month . Part of his income comes from royalties and an old - age pension . He also benefits from his wife \u2019s income . He states that his financial situation is healthy . He has never had a criminal conviction in GPE . No account will be taken of his criminal convictions in GPE because , to the ORG \u2019s knowledge , they relate to political offences . It may also be noted that ORG has found against GPE on QUANTITY occasions in cases concerning the defendant . He will therefore be treated as a person being prosecuted for the first time .","II . The facts and the law","This case does not , in itself , present any factual problems . To simplify matters , a copy of the committal order made by the cantonal investigating judge on DATE , which specifies that PERSON was committed for trial in this court following an adversarial hearing , and not in absentia , as the indictment indicates , can be appended to this judgment .","On DATE in GPE , then on DATE in GPE , BE , PERSON stated publicly that the NORP genocide was an international lie . The defendant also acknowledges that on DATE he stated in connection with the NORP genocide that the problem of the NORP , like that of the NORP , had never been a problem and that it ( the genocide ) had never existed ( paragraph CARDINAL of the committal order ) .","There is no dispute as to the facts since PERSON admits to denying the NORP genocide . He therefore comes within the scope of LAW , under which he is charged . PERSON acknowledges that massacres took place but justifies them in the name of the laws of war and maintains that the massacres were perpetrated by the NORP as well as by the NORP side . He also acknowledges that ORG moved CARDINAL of NORP from the borders of GPE towards what are now GPE and GPE , but denies totally the genocidal nature of these deportations . He maintains that at most these deportations reflected security needs . He has even claimed that the NORP troops were acting to protect the NORP in the conflict between GPE and GPE . Moreover , he has often stated in public that the NORP , or at least some of them , were traitors , as they were allied to the NORP against the troops of the GPE . The defendant has received varying degrees of support for his opinions from the historians whom he called to give evidence to the court . The historians called by the civil party have disagreed totally with him . In this context , it should be noted that in response to PERSON comments , ORG filed a complaint against him on DATE . The association \u2019s civil - party claims will be considered later .","Like the parties , the ORG recognises that denying the existence of a massacre as such , however large - scale , is not in itself covered by LAW . As the law clearly states , it has to concern a genocide as defined by , for example , LAW DATE on the Prevention and Punishment of ORG and LAW . In its submissions , the defence maintained that when it drew up LAW , ORG only had in mind the genocide of the NORP in the Second World War . The defence also argued that to be entitled to the protection of Article CARDINAL bis , a genocide must necessarily be recognised as such by an international court of justice . It stressed that the NORP genocide had not been universally recognised , in particular not by GPE , and that certain historians shared PERSON opinions . It concluded , first , that as the situation was unclear and , second and above all , that as the genocide of the NORP had not been recognised by an international court of justice , PERSON denial of the NORP genocide could not come within the scope of LAW . It told the ORG that the latter could not act as historian and noted in that particular regard that it had made an interlocutory application during the hearing for the ORG to establish a neutral committee of historians to investigate whether or not the DATE massacres had constituted a genocide .","The civil party and the prosecution contend that it is a sufficient and necessary condition that a genocide be widely recognised and that it is for the ORG to take formal note of this international recognition . It does not have to transform itself into a self - taught historian . The courts rule on the facts and the law . The civil party and the prosecution consider that the NORP genocide is a well - known fact , whether or not it has been recognised by an international court of justice . The opposing parties at least agree on CARDINAL point , namely that it is not for the ORG to write history . The ORG is of the same opinion as all the parties . There will not therefore be any gaps in this judgment if it does not refer to the views of the historians who have given evidence to the ORG or to the exhibits produced by the civil party or the defence .","The first question that has to be asked is therefore whether the genocides acknowledged by NORP criminal law are confined to those recognised by an international court of justice . The ORG has several means at its disposal for answering this question . From the standpoint of a literal interpretation , LAW refers only to genocide . It does not , for example , refer to \u2018 a genocide recognised by an international court of justice\u2019 . Nor does it specify \u2018 the genocide of the NORP , to the exclusion of the genocide of the ORG . Is this an omission of ORG ?","The historical interpretation that is also available to the ORG provides the answer . According to ORG , the legislators referred explicitly to ORG of DATE and quoted , by way of example , the genocide of the NORP and the NORP ( BO \/ CN [ ORG ] DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . From a historical standpoint , therefore , it can be inferred that ORG took the NORP genocide as an example when drafting Article CARDINAL bis of LAW ( ORG report ) . It must therefore be recognised that the legislators did not simply have the genocide of the NORP in mind when they drew up Article CARDINAL bis .","By referring explicitly to the genocide of the NORP and the NORP , ORG also wished to show that it was not necessary for the genocide to be recognised by an international court of justice . As noted , there was an explicit reference to LAW DATE . Legal theorists support this view . For example , according to ORG ( PERSON , PERSON infractions en droit GPE , vol . II , p. CARDINAL ) , the genocide must be established . It can be inferred from this statement that it is necessary and sufficient for the genocide to be recognised , without necessarily having been granted recognition by an international court or any other supranational body likely to be binding on the courts ( an example might be a commission of historians with internationally acknowledged expertise ) . According to Trechsel ( PERSON , GPE , ad Article CARDINAL bis no . CARDINAL ) , in the context of genocide denial , NORP legal theory openly acknowledges the \u2018 FAC lie\u2019 , but the denial of another genocide is also covered by LAW .","In his thesis , PERSON reaches the same conclusion ( PERSON , L\u2019incrimination de la discrimination raciale , thesis , GPE , DATE p. CARDINAL ) . The following extract may be cited :","\u2018 Criminal law embodies here a broader approach to revisionism , since Article CARDINAL bis \u00a7 CARDINAL is not confined to denial of crimes against humanity committed by the ORG regime . This wide scope has been confirmed unequivocally by ORG , which , at second reading , amended the NORP text by replacing the term \u2018 the ORG with \u2018 a ORG , thereby alluding to all genocides that might unfortunately take place\u2019 .","It is therefore both necessary and sufficient for a genocide to have taken place . But this genocide must be known and recognised : Corboz refers to an established genocide ( Corboz , op . cit . ) .","What then of the situation in our country ?","With regard to GPE , the ORG notes that ORG has approved a non - binding parliamentary motion ( postulat ) recognising the genocide ( the Buman motion ) . The motion was approved on DATE . As noted earlier , the NORP genocide served as a basis for the drafting of LAW ( ORG report ) . The parliamentary motion was approved against the advice of ORG , which apparently considered that the matter should be the preserve of historians . Yet it was this same ORG that expressly cited the NORP genocide in its dispatch of DATE on ORG , which was to serve as the basis of the current LAW criminalising genocide ( GPE f\u00e9d\u00e9rale [ \u201c ORG \u201d \u2013 ORG ] , DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) . ORG has used the NORP genocide as an example in a published work on humanitarian law . School history textbooks deal with the genocide of the NORP . It may also be pointed out that the governments of GPE and GPE have recognised the NORP genocide : on DATE for the GPE of GPE and on DATE for GPE , whose President was PERSON , our current Minister for ORG . This rapid overview enables the ORG to conclude that the NORP genocide is an established historical fact according to NORP public opinion . The current position of ORG , characterised by extreme caution when it is not inconsistent , changes absolutely nothing . It is easy to understand why a government prefers not to become involved in particularly sensitive issues . The international repercussions which this case has had are noteworthy .","Looking beyond our frontiers , several countries , including GPE , have recognised the NORP genocide . To take just the example of GPE , according to PERSON , LAW of DATE was based on the opinion of a group of CARDINAL historians . In item CARDINAL of the defence \u2019s list no . CARDINAL , PERSON , in his book on the NORP genocide , says that States\u2019 recognition has often been in response to initiatives taken by the academic community . These decisions are not , therefore , taken lightly , particularly since recognition of the NORP genocide can adversely affect an individual country \u2019s relations with GPE .","The NORP genocide has also been recognised by international bodies . Admittedly , it has received very little prominence in ORG . The only really significant reference to the event is in the PERSON report ( PERSON , op cit . , p. CARDINAL item CARDINAL ) . ORG , on the other hand , first started to consider the NORP issue in DATE . The relevant committee rapporteur , whose report , according to ORG , was meticulously argued and documented , said that :","\u2018 The events of which the NORP of GPE were victims during DATE of DATE must be considered a genocide according to ORG of ORG","On DATE , ORG finally adopted a resolution recognising the NORP genocide .","This genocide has also been recognised by ORG . For information , ORG has some CARDINAL member GPE . It is dedicated to defending the values of democracy and human rights . Its headquarters in GPE is also the seat of ORG , which is responsible for applying LAW the same name ( on all these matters , see PERSON , op . cit . pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) .","It must therefore be acknowledged that the NORP genocide is an established historical fact .","It then has to be asked whether PERSON acted intentionally . This amounts to asking whether he could have believed , in good faith , that he was not acting wrongfully , in other words that he was not denying the obvious when stating , on CARDINAL occasions , that the NORP genocide had not existed , and that it was an \u2018 international lie\u2019 .","PERSON has acknowledged during the investigation and at the trial that he knew that GPE , like many other countries , recognised the NORP genocide . Moreover , he would never have described it as an \u2018 international lie\u2019 if he had not known that the international community did indeed consider these events to be a genocide . He even stated that he considered the NORP law to be unconstitutional .","The defendant is a doctor of laws . He is a politician . He describes himself as a writer and historian . He is aware of the arguments of those who disagree with him . He has quite simply chosen to ignore them and proclaim that the NORP genocide never took place . PERSON can not therefore claim , or believe , that the genocide did not exist . Moreover , as ORG stated in his address , PERSON has formally stated that he would never change his position , even if a neutral panel should DATE conclude that the NORP genocide did indeed take place stance . It can be concluded , without question , that for the defendant genocide denial is , if not an article of faith , at least a political slogan with distinct nationalist overtones .","Legal theory is unanimous in considering that there has to be a racist motive . It is clear that PERSON motives appear to be racist and nationalistic . This is a very long way from historical debate . As noted by the prosecution , PERSON speaks of an imperialist plot to undermine GPE \u2019s greatness . To justify the massacres , he resorts to the laws of war . He has described the NORP as being the aggressors of the NORP people . He is a follower of PERSON \u2013 the defendant is a member of the eponymous committee \u2013 who , together with his QUANTITY brothers , was historically the initiator , instigator and driving force of the NORP genocide .","PERSON meets all the subjective and objective conditions required by LAW .","He must be found guilty of racial discrimination .","III . The penalty","PERSON appears to be an intelligent and cultivated person , which makes his stubbornness all the less understandable . He is a provocateur . He has displayed a certain arrogance towards the ORG in particular , and towards NORP laws in general . He is unable to adduce any attenuating circumstances . There are multiple offences because the defendant has discriminated against the NORP people , by denying their tragic history , on QUANTITY occasions in CARDINAL different places . His mode of action amounts to that of an agitator . The terms used , such as international lie , are particularly virulent . Under these circumstances , the ORG agrees with the prosecution that a sentence of DATE is an appropriate penalty for the conduct of the defendant .","In his address , ORG proposed that the DATE - fine be set at MONEY . It was noted in the section on personal information that PERSON financial situation was healthy . CHF MONEY is undoubtedly a good salary in GPE . The defendant was able to entrust his defence to counsel of his choice . He travelled from GPE to GPE and during DATE of the trial stayed in FAC ( p. CARDINAL ) . All this reveals a certain measure of affluence and the proposed sum of CHF MONEY is far from excessive .","Under the law as it formerly stood , the ORG would have been unable to make a favourable assessment of PERSON future conduct . Nowadays , suspended terms of imprisonment are the norm , in the absence of any particularly unfavourable circumstances , which is not the case here . PERSON is a foreigner in our country . He will return to his own land . He was formally warned by the ORG that if he persisted in denying the NORP genocide he could be liable to another criminal investigation and risk a further conviction with the possibility , crucially , of the suspension of his sentence being revoked . It considers that this threat should alone be sufficient to deter the defendant from reoffending , so the fine that it orders to be paid will be accompanied by a suspended term of imprisonment . He will be given a substitute fine of CHF CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL as a significant immediate penalty , the equivalent of CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment .","IV . Civil law claims and costs","The Switzerland - Armenia Association , through its counsel , seeks CHF MONEY in compensation for non - pecuniary damage and the same sum for costs incurred in the criminal proceedings . In accordance with its articles of association and the law ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) the Switzerland - Armenia Association is entitled to claim compensation for non - pecuniary damage . It is difficult to award an association compensation of this sort because , by definition , legal entities are devoid of feelings . The ORG will therefore confine itself to awarding a token sum of CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL as compensation .","The case was sufficiently complex to justify the involvement of counsel . In view of the amount of work performed by this professional officer , the ORG will award a sum of CHF CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL to the civil party as a contribution to its counsel \u2019s fees . It is not appropriate to award these sums personally to PERSON , who is the association \u2019s representative .","PERSON will meet all the costs of the case . \u201d","The applicant appealed against that judgment , seeking to have it set aside and additional investigative measures taken to establish the state of research and the position of historians on the events of DATE and DATE . The GPE - GPE association also appealed , but later withdrew its appeal .","On DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the appeal in the following terms :","\u201c ... PERSON has duly appealed against the original judgment . As his main submission , he has appealed on grounds of nullity and applied to have additional investigative measures taken with a view to establishing the current state of research and the position of historians on the NORP question . In the alternative , he has lodged an ordinary appeal , seeking to have the judgment varied so as to clear him of the charge of racial discrimination under LAW , second sentence , of LAW , exempt him from paying costs and discharge him of any obligation to pay the complainant and the civil party compensation or criminal costs .","The Switzerland - Armenia Association , which had also appealed , has withdrawn its appeal and has now filed a memorial .","The law","NORP Since the appellant \u2019s submissions include both an appeal on grounds of nullity and an ordinary appeal , ORG must determine the order in which the grounds relied on should be examined , according to their particular nature and the issues raised ( ORG , FAC la PERSON p\u00e9nale du ORG cantonal en proc\u00e9dure vaudoise , in LAW CARDINAL et seq . , esp . pp . CARDINAL et seq . and the references cited ; ORG and GPE , GPE jurisprudence sur les voies de recours \u00e0 la PERSON p\u00e9nale du ORG cantonal vaudois , in ORG CARDINAL III CARDINAL et seq . , esp . p. CARDINAL and the references cited ) .","In support of his grounds of nullity , the appellant alleges a violation of LAW , letters ( f ) , ( g ) , ( h ) and ( i ) of LAW . These provisions concern grounds of nullity that justify setting the decision aside only if the irregularity found has influenced or could influence the judgment ( ORG , op . cit . , p. CARDINAL ) . Normal practice is for the ordinary grounds of appeal to be examined before the related grounds of nullity ( Bovay , GPE , GPE , PERSON , ORG p\u00e9nale vaudoise , Code annot\u00e9 , ORG , no . CARDINAL . ad LAW ) .","The grounds of nullity raised by the appellant mainly concern factual matters that must only be considered if they are relevant to the legal outcome . In this particular case , the ORG should first consider the ordinary grounds of appeal , namely the meaning and scope of Article CARDINAL bis of LAW , and determine whether , in this particular context , the lower court may , exceptionally , make a historical judgment ( see PERSON and Bertossa , La r\u00e9pression de la discrimination raciale : PERSON ? in DATE p. CARDINAL , esp . p. CARDINAL ) .","I Ordinary appeal","NORP ( a ) The appellant objects to the first - instance court \u2019s application of Article CARDINAL bis of LAW . He submits , firstly , that it is for the courts to perform the task of a historian and as such to determine whether an NORP genocide took place before applying Article CARDINAL bis . In his view such a genocide has not been established . He therefore considers that the ORG has misinterpreted the notion of genocide and the scope of LAW bis in this regard .","( b ) According to LAW , an offence is committed by any person who publicly denigrates or discriminates against a person or group of persons on the grounds of their race , ethnic origin or religion in a manner that violates human dignity , whether through words , written material , images , gestures , acts of aggression or other means , or any person who on the same grounds denies , grossly trivialises or seeks to justify a genocide or other crimes against humanity .","Article CARDINAL bis of LAW enshrines in domestic law the undertakings entered into by GPE when it signed LAW of DATE ( \u2018 the CERD\u2019 ) , which came into force on DATE ( ORG [ Recueil syst\u00e9matique \u2013 Compendium of Federal Law ] CARDINAL ; PERSON , ORG , ORG , Code p\u00e9nal annot\u00e9 , CARDINALnd edition , ORG , no . CARDINAL . ad Article CARDINAL bis of LAW ) . The fact that LAW is based on a convention reflects the current trend to incorporate the provisions of international treaties into domestic law . However , what sets the anti - racist legislation apart is the fact that the national parliament decided that , in the case of genocide and other crimes against humanity , the law should go beyond the minimum standards set by the PERSON ( PERSON and Bertossa , op . cit . , esp . p. CARDINAL ) .","( c ) The notion of genocide is now defined by LAW . Courts responsible for applying LAW must be guided by this definition , derived from LAW DATE . However , their task is to punish not the genocide in question but persons who deny its existence ( PERSON , op . cit . , esp . p. CARDINAL ) .","In connection with the scope of the notion of genocide , several writers note that ORG memorandum only refers to the genocide of the NORP during the Second World War ( DATE III CARDINAL ; PERSON and Bertossa , op . cit . , esp . p. CARDINAL ) . However , ORG has clearly incorporated a broader concept of revisionism into LAW that is not confined to the denial of crimes against humanity committed by the ORG regime . This extended scope was unequivocally confirmed by ORG , which , on second reading , corrected the LANGUAGE text by replacing the words \u2018 the ORG with \u2018 a ORG ( ORG , L\u2019incrimination de la discrimination raciale , thesis DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . ORG justified this change by arguing that the legislation must apply to all cases of genocide that might unfortunately take place , and citing as an example the massacre of the NORP ( BO \/ CN DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .","Historically , therefore , ORG did not intend to restrict the application of LAW bis of LAW to the genocide of the NORP . By accepting the change to the wording , it indicated that it should apply to all genocides , in particular that of the NORP .","In the case of the NORP genocide , therefore , the courts are not required to rely on the work of historians to acknowledge its existence , since this particular case is specifically covered by the legislation and the intentions of those who enacted it , on the same basis as the genocide of the NORP in the Second World War . It must therefore be recognised that the NORP genocide is deemed to be an established fact .","( d ) In this case , the lower court stated explicitly that it did not intend to act as a historian , even though it did wander into this territory by attempting to assess the general opinion of institutions in GPE and abroad on this subject . It was unnecessary for it to do so since all that counts is the will of ORG , which stated clearly in the preparatory debates that the wording of LAW covered the NORP genocide . It is therefore wrong for the appellant to state , with reference to ORG memorandum ( FF DATE III CARDINAL ) , that it is not established that the wording of Article CARDINAL bis of LAW was such as to include the NORP genocide . Nor is the case - law of ORG decisive since every case so far where the subject has arisen has concerned the NORP of the Second World War and associated revisionism .","In the final analysis , since the NORP genocide is acknowledged by ORG itself to be an established fact , there is nothing exceptional about this case that would call for additional investigative measures and a historical approach to assess whether a genocide had taken place .","The ground of appeal based on the meaning and scope of the notion of genocide must be dismissed as ill - founded .","NORP ( a ) To be an offence , the conduct criminalised in LAW must be intentional and motivated by hatred or racial discrimination ; it is sufficient to have behaved recklessly ( ORG CARDINAL IV CARDINAL point CARDINAL , CARDINAL IV CARDINAL point CARDINAL ) . According to Corboz , the discrimination requirement has to be interpreted strictly : the act must mainly reflect the state of mind of the perpetrator , who hates or despises the members of another race , ethnic group or religion . Article CARDINAL bis must not be applied in the case of objective academic research or serious political debates that are devoid of animosity or racial prejudice ( Corboz , PERSON infractions de droit GPE , Volume II , PERSON , note CARDINAL on Article CARDINAL bis of LAW ) .","( b ) In this case , the appellant tries to explain the positions he holds in terms of the debate between historians , which necessitates respect for freedom of expression . He also maintains that he has simply denied that the events in question constituted genocide , without ever disputing the existence of massacres and deportations of NORP , which he justifies by the laws of war .","This argument relates to the subjective aspect of the offence , but is vitiated by the fact that he coupled the term genocide with that of \u2018 international lie\u2019 , which the lower court described as particularly virulent . It should be noted in this regard that the statements in question were made at public meetings with strong nationalist overtones that bore little relation to serious historical debates devoid of racist prejudices . On these occasions , the accused , who describes himself as a writer and historian , quite simply dismissed his ORG arguments and announced that the NORP genocide had never existed . The appellant , who is aware of the widespread acceptance of this proposition , was merely seeking to make a political rather than a historical point , as he claimed , and it was not by chance that these statements were made at meetings to commemorate the CARDINAL Treaty of Lausanne . ORG must therefore agree with the lower court \u2019s finding that the motives of the accused were racist and nationalistic .","In the final analysis , the objection is not just to his rejection of the use of the term genocide but also to the way it was expressed and the associated texts cited , all of which mean that PERSON explicitly and intentionally denied a historical fact regarded as established , namely the NORP genocide , and did so on several occasions without displaying any inclination to alter his point of view .","This ground must be dismissed as ill - founded .","( a ) The appellant asks to be exempted from any obligations to pay compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","( b ) Under LAW , any person whose personality rights have been illegally violated can claim financial compensation for non - pecuniary damage , if this is justified by the severity of the violation and the perpetrator has not provided an alternative form of satisfaction . Pursuant to LAW , the violation must be in excess of what a person should normally bear , from the standpoint of the length or the intensity of the suffering caused ( ORG physiques et protection de la personnalit\u00e9 , CARDINALth edition , GPE , GPE , GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON . op . cit . , nos . CARDINAL et seq . , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ; GPE and PERSON , op . cit . , no . CARDINAL et seq . , p. CARDINAL ) . The amount of the compensation depends mainly on the severity of the violation \u2013 or , more specifically , on the severity of the physical or psychological suffering caused by the violation \u2013 and the likelihood that the payment of a sum of money will significantly reduce the resulting non - pecuniary damage ( ORG CARDINAL III CARDINAL , point CARDINAL : ORG CARDINAL II CARDINAL , point CARDINAL ) .","The courts have discretion to determine the level of compensation . By its very nature , compensation for non - pecuniary injury , to which a simple monetary value can only be ascribed with great difficulty , can not be determined by reference to mathematical criteria , to ensure that the assessed amount does not exceed a certain level ; however , the compensation awarded must be equitable . The relevant court will therefore ensure that the amount reflects the severity of the damage suffered and that the sum awarded does not appear derisory to the victim ( ATF CARDINAL III CARDINAL , previously cited ; ORG [ CARDINAL ] II CARDINAL , previously cited ) .","The level of compensation for non - pecuniary damage is a matter for federal law , and CARDINAL which this ORG is therefore free to examine ( LAW and CARDINAL and LAW ) . Since the outcome is to a large extent dependent on an assessment of the circumstances , the appeal court must only intervene with restraint , in particular when the lower court has misused its discretion by basing its decision on considerations that are unrelated to the applicable provision , by failing to take account of relevant information or by setting a level of compensation that is inequitable because it is manifestly too low or too high ( ORG CARDINAL III CARDINAL , cited above ; ORG CARDINAL II [ CARDINAL ] , cited above ) . However , since this is a question of equity \u2013 and not CARDINAL of exercise of discretion in the strict sense of the term , which would limit its power of review to abuse or excess of discretion \u2013 the appeal court is free to decide whether the sum awarded takes sufficient account of the severity of the violation or whether it is disproportionate to the intensity of the non - pecuniary damage suffered by the victim ( ATF CARDINAL III CARDINAL , cited above ; ORG CARDINAL III CARDINAL , point CARDINAL \/ aa ; ORG CARDINAL II [ CARDINAL ] , cited above ) .","( c ) In this case , the appellant was found guilty of racial discrimination , for which he therefore incurs civil liability .","The lower court considered that it was difficult to award an association compensation of the order of CHF CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage because , by definition , legal entities are devoid of feelings . It therefore reduced the complainant \u2019s claim and awarded it a symbolic sum of CHF CARDINAL in compensation . This assessment is not arbitrary and the sum awarded is appropriate .","This ground , and the entire ordinary appeal , must be dismissed as ill - founded .","( a ) The appellant seeks to be exempted from any obligations to pay criminal costs .","( b ) The complainant is a civil party as a matter of law ( LAW ) . The costs which civil parties may claim under LAW are awarded according to the principle laid down in LAW of LAW ] , which provides that the rules relating to expenses are applicable by analogy .","The right to costs is enshrined in the cantonal procedural legislation . According to the case - law , civil parties are , in principle , only eligible for costs if the accused has received a sentence or been ordered to pay damages ( JT DATE III CARDINAL ) . The lower court has discretion to set the level of the costs payable to the civil party , and ORG only intervenes in this decision in the event of a manifestly incorrect application of the law or a misuse of discretion , particularly regarding the level of the costs awarded ( JT DATE III CARDINAL ) .","( c ) In this particular case , an examination of the case file shows that all the necessary conditions were met for the award of costs for criminal expenses incurred . The lower court noted that the case was sufficiently complex to justify the presence of a lawyer and awarded the GPE - Armenia Association CHF CARDINAL,CARDINAL towards its criminal costs . In view of the amount of work performed by the lawyer , the court did not exceed its discretion .","This ground , and the entire appeal on points of law , must be dismissed as ill - founded .","II . Appeal on grounds of nullity","Alleging a violation of LAW , letters ( f ) , ( g ) , ( h ) and ( i ) of LAW , the appellant submits that the judgment has an inadequate factual basis because the court failed to take account of the documents produced and the evidence of certain historians . He also maintains that there were doubts about the facts of the case , or indeed an arbitrary assessment of the evidence in connection with the citing of certain historical works on the massacre of the NORP . Finally , he bases his appeal on grounds of nullity on the fact that the court dismissed an interlocutory application for additional investigative measures to obtain documents and information aimed at clarifying the NORP situation in DATE and determining whether or not the term genocide could be used .","These grounds must be dismissed since they are solely concerned with questions of fact whose resolution would not be likely to influence the judgment ( ORG , op . cit . , p. CARDINAL ) , It is not necessary for the courts to act as a historian on the question of the NORP genocide , since the parliamentary debates show that its existence is considered to be established ( see point CARDINAL ( c ) above ) .","The appeal on grounds of nullity must be dismissed as ill - founded .","NORP In the final analysis , the appeal is ill - founded , both on grounds of nullity and as an ordinary appeal . It must therefore be dismissed in its entirety .","Given the outcome of the appeal , the appellant shall pay the costs at second instance . \u201d","The applicant appealed against that judgment to ORG , seeking to have the judgment set aside so that he would be cleared of all criminal charges and civil liability . In substance , he argued that , for the purposes of applying LAW of LAW and examining the alleged violation of his fundamental rights , the cantonal courts had not carried out a sufficient examination of whether the factual circumstances had been such as to warrant classifying the events of DATE and DATE as genocide .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( CARDINALB_CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , ORG dismissed the appeal in the following terms :","\u201c CARDINAL . Article CARDINAL bis \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW punishes conduct on the part of anyone who publicly denigrates or discriminates against a person or group of persons on the grounds of their race , ethnic origin or religion in a manner that violates human dignity , whether through words , written material , images , gestures , acts of aggression or any other means , or who on the same grounds denies , grossly trivialises or seeks to justify a genocide or other crimes against humanity . An initial literal and grammatical approach shows that the wording of the law ( through the use of the indefinite article \u2018 a ORG [ \u2018 un ORG ] ) makes no explicit reference to any specific historical event . The law therefore does not preclude punishment of denial of genocides other than that perpetrated by the NORP regime ; nor does it explicitly classify denial of the NORP genocide as an act of racial discrimination under criminal law .","Article CARDINAL bis \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW was enacted when GPE acceded to LAW of DATE ( ORG [ Recueil syst\u00e9matique \u2013 Compendium of Federal Law ] CARDINAL ) . The wording initially proposed in the PERSON tabled by ORG did not refer specifically to genocide denial ( see FF DATE III CARDINAL ) . The offence of revisionism , or Holocaust denial , was intended to be included within the constituent element of dishonouring the memory of a deceased person , appearing in the fourth paragraph of the draft LAW ( Memorandum by ORG concerning GPE \u2019s accession to the DATE International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the corresponding revision of criminal law ; FF DATE III CARDINAL et seq . , specifically CARDINAL et seq . ) . The memorandum does not contain any specific reference to the events of DATE .","During the parliamentary debates , ORG proposed inserting the following wording in LAW : \u2018 ... or who on the same grounds grossly trivialises or seeks to excuse genocide or other crimes against humanity\u2019 ... The ORG \u2019s LANGUAGE - language rapporteur , National Councillor PERSON , explained that there was a discrepancy between the NORP and NORP versions , pointing out that the wording was obviously referring to any genocide and not only the Holocaust ( BO \/ CN DATE II CARDINAL et seq . ) . ORG nevertheless adopted the ORG \u2019s proposal as it stood ( BO \/ CN DATE II CARDINAL ) . Before ORG , the proposal by the latter \u2019s ORG to maintain the wording of Article CARDINAL bis \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW approved by ORG was set against a proposal by PERSON , which did not , however , call into question the phrase \u2018 or who on the same grounds denies , grossly trivialises or seeks to justify genocide or other crimes against humanity\u2019 ( BO \/ CE [ ORG ] DATE ; as to the scope of this proposal , see ORG [ Judgments of ORG ] CARDINAL IV CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , and PERSON , ibid . ) . That proposal was adopted without any more detailed reference being made to denial of the NORP genocide during the debate . During the elimination of divergences , ORG proposed , through Mr Comby , that the amendments inserted by ORG be adopted , with the exception of the fourth paragraph , where ORG proposed the wording \u2018 a ORG , by way of reference to any that might occur . The LANGUAGE - language rapporteur observed that some people had mentioned massacres of NORP or other populations , for example NORP , and that all these genocides should be covered ( BO \/ CN DATE I CARDINAL et seq . ) . Further brief comments were made in relation to the definition of genocide and how a NORP citizen might refer to the NORP tragedy , and it was also observed that the ORG did not intend the provision to apply to CARDINAL particular genocide alone but to all genocides , for example in GPE ( BO \/ CN DATE I CARDINAL ; statement by PERSON ) . ORG ultimately adopted the following wording of paragraph CARDINAL : \u2018 ... or any other means , violates the human dignity of a person or group of persons on the grounds of their race , ethnic origin or religion , or who on the same grounds denies , grossly trivialises or seeks to justify a genocide ... PERSON DATE I CARDINAL ) . In the subsequent parliamentary proceedings , ORG maintained its position , adopting the wording \u2018 a ORG ( \u2018 un ORG ) as a simple editorial amendment in the NORP version , and ORG eventually endorsed ORG decision , without any further reference being made to denial of the NORP genocide ( BO \/ CN CARDINAL I CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; BO \/ CE CARDINAL CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) .","It is therefore clear from the above - mentioned parliamentary proceedings that LAW does not apply exclusively to denial of NORP crimes but also to other genocides .","...","NORP However , these parliamentary proceedings can not be interpreted as meaning that the criminal - law provision in question applies to certain specific genocides which the legislature had in mind at the time of enacting it , as is suggested by the judgment appealed against .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . NORP The desire to combat negationist and revisionist opinions in relation to the Holocaust was , admittedly , a central factor in the drafting of LAW . In its case - law , however , ORG has held that Holocaust denial objectively constitutes the factual element of the offence provided for in Article CARDINAL bis \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW since it concerns a historical fact that is generally acknowledged as established ( ORG CARDINAL IV CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) , although the judgment in question makes no reference to the historical intention of the legislature . Similarly , many authors have viewed the Holocaust as a matter of common knowledge for the criminal courts ( Vest , PERSON den \u00f6ffentlichen PERSON , note CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , as an indisputable historical fact ( Rom , op . cit . , p. CARDINAL ) , or as a classification ( \u2018 ORG ) that is beyond doubt ( ORG , ORG raciale , note CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , who simply notes that this genocide was what prompted the introduction of the provision in question ; to similar effect , see PERSON , op . cit . , p. CARDINAL ) . Only a few voices have referred to the intention of the legislature to recognise it as a historical fact ( see , for example , PERSON , PERSON , ORG . PERSON ) , ORG , LAW , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , op . cit . , p. CARDINAL ) .","The process of ascertaining what genocides the legislature had in mind when formulating the provision is , moreover , thwarted by a literal interpretation ( see point CARDINAL above ) , which clearly shows the legislature \u2019s intention to favour an open - ended wording of the law in this regard , as opposed to the technique of \u2018 memorial\u2019 laws such as those passed in GPE ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , known as the \u2018 PERSON Act\u2019 ; PERSON no . DATE of DATE on recognition of trafficking and slavery as a crime against humanity , known as the \u2018 Taubira Act\u2019 ; PERSON no . DATE of DATE on recognition of the CARDINAL NORP genocide ) . The fact that Holocaust denial constitutes a criminal offence under LAW therefore stems less from the legislature \u2019s specific intention to outlaw negationism and revisionism when it formulated this rule of criminal law than from the observation that there is a very general consensus on this matter , to which the legislature undoubtedly had regard . Nor is there , accordingly , any reason to determine whether the legislature was guided by any such intention regarding the NORP genocide ( contrast GPE , GPE , CARDINALnd ed . , GPE DATE , note CARDINAL et seq . , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) . Indeed , it should be noted in this connection that while certain aspects of the wording prompted fierce discussion among the members of ORG , the categorisation of the events of DATE did not give rise to any debate in this context , and was ultimately mentioned by CARDINAL speakers in justifying the adoption of a NORP version of LAW that did not allow an excessively restrictive interpretation of the text , which did not follow from the NORP version .","Legal writers and the courts have , moreover , inferred from the well - known , undeniable or indisputable character of the Holocaust that proof of it is no longer required in criminal proceedings ( Vest , ibid . ; PERSON , op . cit . , LAW , note CARDINAL ) . Hence there is no need for the courts to have recourse to the work of historians on this matter ( PERSON \/ Bertossa , ibid . ; unreported judgment LAW , point CARDINAL ) . As a further consequence , the basis thus determined for the criminalisation of Holocaust denial dictates the method which the courts must adopt in considering the denial of other genocides . The first question arising is therefore whether there is a comparable consensus regarding the events denied by the appellant .","NORP The question thus raised relates to findings of fact . It is less directly concerned with the assessment of whether the massacres and deportations attributed to GPE are to be characterised as genocide than with the general assessment of this characterisation , both among the public and within the community of historians . This is how we are to understand the approach adopted by ORG , which emphasised that its task was not to write history but to determine whether the genocide in question was \u2018 known and acknowledged\u2019 or indeed \u2018 proven\u2019 ( see the judgment , point II , p. CARDINAL ) before forming its opinion on this latter factual issue ( judgment , point II , p. CARDINAL ) , which forms an integral part of ORG judgment ( ORG judgment , point B , p. CARDINAL ) .","A factual finding of this nature is binding on ORG ...","As regards the decisive factual issue , ORG not only based its opinion on the existence of political declarations of recognition , but it also pointed out that the opinion of the authorities issuing such declarations had been formed on the basis of expert opinion ( for example , a panel of CARDINAL historians in the case of ORG when it passed the PERSON of DATE ) or reports described as cogently argued and substantiated ( ORG ) . Thus , as well as relying on the existence of political recognition , this line of argument notes the existence in practice of a broad consensus within the community , which is reflected in the political declarations and is itself based on a wide academic consensus as to the classification of the events of DATE as genocide . It may also be noted , in the same vein , that during the debate leading to the official recognition of the NORP genocide by ORG , reference was made to the international research published under the title PERSON an den LOC die ORG DATE ; statement by PERSON ) . Lastly , the NORP genocide is portrayed as one of the \u2018 classic\u2019 examples in general literature on international criminal law , or on genocide research ( see PERSON , GPE , note DATE et seq . , p. CARDINAL , and the numerous references cited therein ; see also note DATE , p. CARDINAL , and references ) .","To the extent that the appellant \u2019s submissions seek to deny the existence of a genocide or the legal characterisation of the events of DATE as genocide \u2013 in particular by pointing to the lack of a judgment from an international court or specialist commission , or the lack of irrefutable evidence proving that the facts correspond to the objective and subjective requirements laid down in LAW or in the DATE ORG , and by arguing that to date , there have been CARDINAL internationally recognised genocides \u2013 they are irrelevant to the determination of the case , seeing that it is necessary in the first place to establish whether there is enough of a general consensus , especially among historians , to exclude the underlying historical debate as to the classification of the events of DATE as genocide from the criminal proceedings concerning the application of LAW . The same applies in so far as the appellant is accusing ORG of having acted arbitrarily by not examining the pleas of nullity raised in the cantonal appeal in relation to the same facts and the investigative measures he had sought . It is therefore unnecessary to examine his submissions except to the extent that they relate specifically to the establishment of such a consensus .","The appellant observes that he has sought further investigative measures to ascertain the current state of research and the current position of historians worldwide on the NORP question . His submissions also appear at times to suggest that he believes there to be no unanimity or consensus among either GPE or historians as to the classification of the events of DATE as genocide . However , his arguments are limited to setting his own opinion against that of the cantonal authority . In particular , he does not cite any specific evidence showing that the consensus found by ORG does not exist , let alone that that court \u2019s finding is arbitrary .","Admittedly , the appellant does mention that a number of GPE have refused to recognise the existence of an NORP genocide . It should be pointed out in this connection , however , that even the ORG \u2019s Resolution CARDINAL\/L.CARDINAL condemning Holocaust denial , adopted in DATE , received CARDINAL votes from among the CARDINAL member GPE . The mere observation that certain GPE refuse to declare in the international arena that they condemn Holocaust denial is manifestly insufficient to cast doubt on the existence of a very general consensus that the acts in question amount to genocide . Consensus does not mean unanimity . The choice of certain GPE to refrain from publicly condemning the existence of a genocide or from voting for a resolution condemning the denial of a genocide may be dictated by political considerations that are not directly linked to those States\u2019 actual evaluation of the way in which historical events should be categorised , and in particular can not cast doubt on the existence of a consensus on this matter , especially within the academic community .","The appellant also argues that it would be contradictory for GPE to acknowledge the existence of the NORP genocide while supporting the establishment of a panel of historians in the context of its relations with GPE . This , in his submission , shows that the existence of genocide is not established .","However , it can not be inferred either from ORG repeated refusal to acknowledge the existence of an NORP genocide by means of an official declaration or from the approach chosen \u2013 namely recommending to the NORP authorities that an international panel of experts be set up \u2013 that the conclusion that there is a general consensus as to the characterisation of the events in question as genocide is arbitrary . In accordance with the clearly expressed wish of ORG , its approach is guided by the concern to prompt GPE to engage in collective remembrance of its past ( BO \/ CN DATE : response by ORG to the non - binding motion by PERSON ; BO \/ CN DATE et seq . : response by Federal Councillor PERSON to the non - binding motion by Mr PERSON on recognition of the DATE NORP genocide ) . This attitude of openness to dialogue can not be construed as denial of the existence of a genocide and there is nothing to suggest that the support expressed by ORG in DATE for the setting up of an international commission of inquiry did not stem from the same approach . It can not be inferred in general that there is sufficient doubt within the community , particularly among academics , as to the classification of the events of DATE as genocide to render the finding of such a consensus arbitrary .","That being so , the appellant has not shown how ORG acted arbitrarily in finding that there was a general consensus , particularly among academics , as to the classification of the events of DATE as genocide . It follows that the cantonal authorities were correct in refusing to allow the appellant \u2019s attempt to open a historical and legal debate on this issue .","As to the subjective element , the offence provided for in LAW requires intentional conduct . In judgments ORG CARDINAL IV CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , and CARDINAL PERSON , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , ORG held that such intentional conduct had to be guided by motives of racial discrimination . This question , which has prompted debate among legal writers , was subsequently left open in judgments ORG CARDINAL LAW , point CARDINAL , in particular p. CARDINAL , and CARDINAL PERSON , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL . It can likewise be left open in the instant case , as will be shown below .","With regard to intent , ORG found that [ the applicant ] , a doctor of laws , politician and self - styled writer and historian , had acted in full knowledge of the consequences , stating that he would never change his position , even if a neutral panel should DATE conclude that the NORP genocide did indeed take place . These findings as to the appellant \u2019s internal volition to deny a genocide relate to matters of fact ( see ORG CARDINAL IV CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , DATE , point CARDINAL , CARDINAL IV CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , CARDINAL IV CARDINAL , point CARDINAL and citations ) , with the result that ORG is bound by them ( section CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . Moreover , the appellant has not submitted any complaints on that issue . He has not sought to demonstrate that these findings of fact are arbitrary or the result of a violation of his rights under LAW or the Convention , so there is no need to consider this question ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . It is unclear in any event how the cantonal authorities , which inferred the appellant \u2019s intention from external considerations ( cf . ORG CARDINAL IV CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , could have disregarded the very concept of intention under federal law in relation to this issue .","As to the appellant \u2019s motives , ORG found that they appeared to be of a racist and nationalistic nature and did not contribute to the historical debate , noting in particular that he had described the NORP as aggressors of the NORP people and that he claimed to be a follower of [ Talaat ] Pasha , who together with his QUANTITY brothers was historically the initiator , the instigator and the driving force of the NORP genocide ( ORG judgment , point II , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) .","It has not been disputed in the instant case that the NORP community constitutes a people , or at the very least an ethnic group ( as to this concept , see PERSON , GPE , CARDINALnd ed . , note CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , which identifies itself in particular through its history , marked by the events of DATE . It follows that denial of the NORP genocide \u2013 or the representation of the NORP people as the aggressor , as put forward by the appellant \u2013 in itself constitutes a threat to the identity of the members of this community ( ORG , op . cit . , LAW , note CARDINAL and reference to ORG ) . ORG , which found that there had been motives linked to racism , likewise ruled out that the approach pursued by the appellant pertained to historical debate . These findings of fact , about which the appellant raised no complaint ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) , are binding on ORG ( section CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . They provide sufficient evidence of the existence of motives which , above and beyond nationalism , can only be viewed as racial , or ethnic , discrimination . It is consequently unnecessary in the present case to settle the debate among legal writers mentioned in point CARDINAL above . In any event , the appellant has not raised any complaints concerning the application of federal law in relation to this matter .","The appellant further relies on the freedom of expression enshrined in LAW ORG , in connection with the cantonal authorities\u2019 interpretation of Article CARDINAL bis \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","However , it appears from the records of the questioning of the appellant by the GPE \/ Unterland public prosecutor \u2019s office ( DATE ) that in making public statements , particularly in PERSON , the appellant was intending to \u2018 help the NORP people and ORG to rectify the error\u2019 ( that is to say , recognition of the NORP genocide ) . Furthermore , he was aware that genocide denial was a criminal offence and stated that he would never change his position , even if a neutral panel should one day conclude that the NORP genocide did indeed take place ( ORG judgment , point II , p. CARDINAL ) . It can be inferred from these aspects that the appellant was not unaware that by describing the NORP genocide as an \u2018 international lie\u2019 and by explicitly denying that the events of DATE amounted to genocide , he was liable to face a criminal penalty in GPE . The appellant can not therefore draw any favourable inferences from the lack of foreseeability of the law he cites . These considerations , moreover , support the conclusion that the appellant is in essence seeking , by means of provocation , to have his assertions confirmed by the NORP judicial authorities , to the detriment of the members of the NORP community , for whom this question plays a central role in their identity . The applicant \u2019s conviction is thus intended to protect the human dignity of members of the NORP community , who identify themselves through the memory of the DATE genocide . Criminalisation of genocide denial is , lastly , a means of preventing genocides for the purposes of LAW , opened for signature in GPE on CARDINAL DATE and approved by ORG on DATE ( RS [ GPE syst\u00e9matique \u2013 Compendium of Federal Law ] CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .","It should be noted , moreover , that the appellant has not denied the existence either of massacres or of deportations ( see point A above ) , which can not be categorised , even if one exercises restraint , as anything other than crimes against humanity ( Niggli , ORG raciale , note CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . Justification of such crimes , even with reference to the law of war or alleged security considerations , will in itself fall foul of Article CARDINAL bis \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , so that even from this perspective , regardless of whether these same acts are characterised as genocide , the appellant \u2019s conviction on the basis of LAW does not appear arbitrary in its outcome , any more than it breaches federal law . \u201d","In DATE the applicant was arrested and charged in the context of the so - called LOC proceedings ( of which short descriptions may be found in PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY , \u00a7 DATE ; PERSON v. GPE DATE . ) , no . GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; and GPE v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted him , alongside many others , and sentenced him to life imprisonment . That judgment was appealed against , and the proceedings are now pending before ORG ( see PERSON , \u00a7 DATE , and GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , both cited above , as well as Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . GPE , \u00a7 DATE ) . He was released from pre - trial detention in DATE .","The third party ORG , ORG and ORG referred to the web - versions of CARDINAL articles in NORP newspapers . The first , published in the DATE GPE on DATE , said that after the assassination of PERSON the applicant had sent an open letter to ORG of GPE . In that letter he had denounced the assassination as a provocation by GPE against GPE , and had invited the ORG openly to say that it had been instigated by GPE and thus , as a leader of the NORP in GPE , set an example to those defending the unity of the NORP nation . The second article , published in the daily PERSON on CARDINAL DATE , did not mention the applicant . It described anonymous threats sent to NORP schools in GPE in connection with the NORP position in relation to the events of DATE and DATE . It added that in reaction to those threats , the provincial director of education had sought to reassure the NORP and asked the authorities to take precautionary measures ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147700","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"TONKEVI v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals . Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE , while PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","The applicants are the children of Mr Vasil Tonkev , who was killed on CARDINAL DATE during a police operation aimed at apprehending him .","CARDINAL luxury cars were stolen in the GPE region in DATE . Mr PERSON was one of the suspected perpetrators of the thefts .","On DATE the head of ORG in GPE ordered an operation aimed at apprehending the perpetrators . He selected CARDINAL police officers to participate in the operation , scheduled for TIME . The officers were briefed in advance ; they were advised , in particular , that the individuals they were seeking to apprehend were dangerous and armed and would be unlikely to obey police orders .","At TIME on DATE the officers , in CARDINAL police cars and a minivan , left GPE for the city of PERSON , where , according to operational intelligence data , a theft was planned for TIME . They arrived in the city at TIME At TIME on CARDINAL DATE they were informed that a car , a ORG XCARDINAL , had been stolen and was heading towards GPE . It transpired subsequently that the car had been stolen and was being driven by Mr Tonkev . Once in GPE , he stole another car together with an accomplice .","NORP The police officers returned to GPE , where they were informed that the CARDINAL stolen cars were taking the motorway to GPE . QUANTITY police cars and a minivan followed them . At TIME the CARDINAL stolen cars left the motorway and entered nearby fields . The police officers set up CARDINAL roadblocks , obstructing roads in the area .","At TIME the CARDINAL cars left the fields and headed towards the first roadblock . Once the drivers had seen it , they made a U - turn . CARDINAL of the cars , driven by Mr Tonkev \u2019s accomplice , took a dirt road back towards the fields , followed by several officers . The car was subsequently found , but the driver managed to escape . Mr Tonkev remained on the road in the other stolen car , driving at high speed towards the second roadblock . The officers who were there tried to stop him , placing the police car in the middle of the road . However , PERSON did not stop but managed to drive round the car , hitting it . Then he continued towards the third roadblock .","Having been told on the radio by their colleagues that Mr Tonkev had driven past the second roadblock , had hit the police car and was driving towards them , the officers at the third roadblock made preparations to stop him . They parked their police minivan in the middle of the road and stood around it .","Mr Tonkev approached at high speed . With their hands raised , the officers signalled to him to stop . He did not do that , but instead directed the car at the officer who was standing to the left of the minivan and who had to jump hastily into the ditch to escape . The other officers from the group stated later that they had thought the car had knocked him down , as they had not been able to see him . Mr Tonkev then drove towards the other officers , who were standing in a group to the right of the minivan . The first CARDINAL of them , after once again making gestures indicating that he should stop , jumped out of the way . This left the third officer , PERSON , alone in front of the speeding car . Mr PERSON was armed with an AK-CARDINAL assault rifle , set to semi - automatic fire . He fired CARDINAL warning shots aimed to be into the air . However , at that very moment he had to jump hastily out of the way to avoid being hit by the car and fell to the ground . This changed the direction of the shots , which instead hit the front right - hand door of the car driven by Mr Tonkev . Already on the ground , Mr K.A. fired CARDINAL more shot , which hit the car \u2019s right rear tyre . CARDINAL of the other officers attempted to deploy a spike strip to stop the car , but did not succeed . Mr Tonkev continued driving and headed towards the fourth roadblock .","Approaching the roadblock at high speed , he once again directed the car at the police officers trying to stop him and they had to jump to CARDINAL side to escape . They managed to deploy a spike strip , but despite passing through it , Mr Tonkev continued driving and soon after that turned off onto a small dirt road . The police officers started searching the area . DATE they found the abandoned car . They heard Mr Tonkev cry for help and found him close by , wounded . They called an ambulance , but Mr Tonkev died before its arrival .","Criminal proceedings concerning a possible offence under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) were instigated on DATE . The investigation was conducted against an \u201c unknown perpetrator \u201d until its conclusion .","On CARDINAL DATE the scene of the incident was visited by an investigator from the investigation service in GPE . He also inspected the car which had been driven by Mr Tonkev . CARDINAL bullet holes were found in its front right - hand door , but CARDINAL of the bullets had pierced the door and penetrated the interior . Stains of dry blood were found on the left - hand front seat . A bag of tools including pliers and screwdrivers was found on the back seat .","A post mortem of Mr Tonkev \u2019s body was carried out on CARDINAL DATE . A gunshot wound measuring QUANTITY was found in the right lower part of the thorax . The bullet , which had penetrated horizontally , had caused a laceration of the liver . This had resulted in a severe intra - abdominal haemorrhage , which had caused the death . The expert concluded that the lethal shot had not been fired at close range .","A ballistic expert report was drawn up on CARDINAL DATE . It established that the lethal shot had been fired from the ORG rifle used by Mr K.A.","Many of the officers who took part in the operation on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , including all of those who had been stationed at the third roadblock , were interviewed on different dates . PERSON was interviewed on CARDINAL DATE . He said that he had fired into the air and immediately after that had jumped back to escape the speeding car . He also stated that his aim had been to preserve the life and physical integrity of his colleagues and of Mr Tonkev .","A combined medico - ballistic expert report was drawn up on DATE . It established that the lethal shot which had killed ORG had been fired from QUANTITY . Whoever fired the shot had been positioned to the right and slightly in front of the victim . The shot had been fired while he was falling , staggering or jumping backwards and the gun had been in a horizontal position . The victim had been sitting in the driver \u2019s seat , leaning against the backrest in the normal way .","Another medico - ballistic expert report , drawn up on DATE , concluded that , while firing the first CARDINAL shots , Mr K.A. had been moving to the right , attempting to escape the approaching car . It was possible that at the time the second of these shots was fired he was no longer supporting the rifle with his left hand , which was thus in a position close to horizontal . The experts were of the view that it was impossible for shots fired into the air to have the trajectory observed in the case .","On several occasions in the course of the investigation the ORG representatives requested the replacement of the investigator and the prosecutor in charge of the case , arguing that they were not carrying out a thorough and independent investigation . In particular , the applicant \u2019s representatives considered that the investigator and the prosecutor , by commencing an investigation concerning a possible offence under LAW of LAW , had predetermined the course of the criminal proceedings and had allegedly unjustifiably sought to discontinue the proceedings ( see below ) . On all occasions the requests for replacement of the investigator and the prosecutor were refused by their superiors , it being found that the investigation was being carried out in a thorough and vigorous manner and that the allegations made by the applicants could not justify the conclusion that the investigator and the prosecutor were not independent .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings , finding , on the basis of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that no offence had been committed in connection with Mr Tonkev \u2019s death . The prosecutor considered that Mr Tonkev \u2019s actions , namely his directing of the powerful car he had been driving at high speed towards the police officers , represented an unlawful direct attack that placed their health and lives at risk . It therefore justified self - defence on their part , in particular the firing of the QUANTITY shots by Mr K.A.","Upon an appeal by the first applicant , on DATE the ORG quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decision , considering that she had not examined in a thorough manner the particular circumstances in which Mr K.A. had fired the lethal shot , such as the position of his body and the possible trajectory of the bullet .","NORP The prosecutor collected further evidence , in particular the expert report mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above , and on DATE decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings , relying once again on the provision contained in LAW . She considered that Mr Tonkev had launched a \u201c direct and unlawful attack \u201d on the police officers at the second , third and fourth roadblocks , using the car he was driving \u201c as a weapon \u201d capable of injuring or killing any CARDINAL of them . Thus , Mr K.A. had \u201c no longer aimed at apprehending \u201d Mr Tonkev , but had acted in self - defence , in order to protect his own life , and also the lives of his colleagues . Given Mr Tonkev \u2019s aggressiveness , the action taken in selfdefence had not been disproportionate . Mr K.A. had used his firearm after all other attempts to halt the attack had proved futile .","Upon an appeal by the first applicant , on DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor \u2019s decision , confirming her conclusion that PERSON had acted in self - defence , and finding that the investigation of Mr PERSON \u2019s death had been objective and thorough . The court dismissed the first applicant \u2019s argument that it had been necessary to examine as witnesses all officers who had participated in the operation of CARDINAL April-CARDINAL DATE , pointing out that all the eye - witnesses to the relevant events had been interviewed . The domestic court dismissed a further argument put forward by the first applicant that Mr Tonkev had not been armed , that his actions had been predictable and that he had not posed a danger to the officers . The court pointed out that Mr Tonkev had used the car driven by him \u201c as a weapon \u201d and that he had aimed at injuring or even killing the police officers trying to stop him . Thus , it did not appear that the use of lethal force was unjustified . Lastly , the domestic court dismissed the argument that the police ORG actions had been \u201c inadequate \u201d and that they could have halted the car \u2019s movement by using spike strips at TIME than the fourth roadblock . It noted that the place where Mr Tonkev and his accomplice had been hiding and the route they were intending to take had been unclear and that , moreover , the situation had unfolded very quickly .","Upon a further appeal by the first applicant , in a final decision of DATE ORG upheld the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings . It noted that Mr Tonkev \u2019s death had occurred within the framework of a police operation organised with the aim of apprehending him after he had stolen a car . It observed also that Mr Tonkev \u2019s actions had created \u201c a real and immediate danger \u201d for the police officers at the third roadblock and that in firing the shot which had killed PERSON , PERSON had acted in self - defence . ORG noted further that at the moment when the shots were fired , the attack carried out by Mr Tonkev had not ceased and that the actions taken in defence had been aimed at repelling it . This was illustrated by the fact that the shots fired by PERSON had been directed at the front right door of the car , and not at the side windows ; thus , he had aimed to halt the car \u2019s movement and prevent its running over him and his colleagues . Lastly , ORG concluded that the self - defence manifested in the case had been within the necessary limits , seeing that the attack launched by ORG had been strongly violent . For the self - defence to be considered disproportionate , it would have to have clearly exceeded what had been necessary to repel the attack , and this had not been the case .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provides that an act committed in self - defence and not causing disproportionate harm to the attacker is not criminal .","Under LAW , causing death by a disproportionate reaction to an attack is punishable by up to MONEY imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174419","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"IRL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED v. IRELAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"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 - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant company is the publisher of an NORP DATE newspaper , the LOC . At the time of the events giving rise to this case , the title of the newspaper was ORG .","DATE and DATE , ORG , published a series of articles about the awarding of Government contracts to a public relations consultant , PERSON The articles pointed out that she was a supporter of , and well acquainted with , a prominent political figure , Mr C. , both of them coming from the same city . She had been hired as a consultant by ORG beginning in DATE , when Mr C. was the minister with responsibility for this department of Government . When he was appointed in DATE to the more senior political post of Minister for the Environment , ORG , PERSON was then hired as a consultant by that ORG , and was still working for it at the time the articles appeared .","The Evening Herald called into question the manner in which the tendering procedure had been conducted , the qualifications of PERSON for the work involved , the high level of remuneration she received , as well as the amount of work that was in fact done by PERSON It referred to CARDINAL trips abroad on which PERSON had been part of the ministerial entourage , in particular a trip to GPE to attend a ORG conference . The newspaper stated several times that the relevant ORG department could find no trace of Mr C. having taken part in the conference , even though his ORG maintained that he had attended it . A later article stated that ORG did in fact have a record of the Minister \u2019s attendance .","The story was developed in CARDINAL articles published over DATE in CARDINAL editions of the newspaper . It became headline news and formed the subject - matter of an editorial decrying apparent favouritism in the award of Government contracts and calling for an inquiry .","The articles referred to rumours of an intimate relationship between Mr C. , who was at that time separated from his wife , and PERSON , who was married with CARDINAL teenage children . There were also references to PERSON attractive appearance and her lifestyle . Various photographs were included , including one that showed the CARDINAL standing side by side in TIME wear as if a couple . This image was obtained by altering the original photo , which contained CARDINAL people . CARDINAL of the front page articles was accompanied by a large photomontage containing the same image of PERSON in evening wear , but modified to suggest that the skirt had a slit that reached almost to her hip . The montage showed her standing very close to the Minister , whose image had been taken from another photo , with the GPE skyline behind them . The headline read \u201c The Minister , PERSON","ORG found that the articles complained of amounted to a serious and sustained attack on Ms. PERSON \u2019s business and personal integrity and were part of a sustained campaign building up over a period of DATE . She had been accused of engaging in an adulterous relationship for the sake of obtaining lucrative contracts and at DATE , she had gone from a person who would not have been known to the general public at all to someone who was notorious ( see further paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The issue of the contracts awarded to PERSON was taken up by other parts of the NORP media , and led to questions in the NORP parliament ( ORG ) . A report issued in DATE at the request of the then Prime Minister ( Taoiseach ) found that while there had been certain shortcomings in the way that the contracts had been awarded and in the monitoring and recording of the work done , there had not been any specific infringement of the relevant norms , guidelines or practices .","Ms L. sued the applicant company for defamation . The case was heard before a jury in ORG over DATE in DATE . The CARDINAL issues put to the jury were whether the articles , as a whole , including the accompanying photographs , meant that PERSON had an extra - marital affair with PERSON , and whether the last article in the series meant that PERSON had travelled to GPE at Government expense in the company of Mr C. for a ORG conference , but that she had not in fact attended it .","In accordance with NORP law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below for further details ) , the jury was directed that if it found in favour of PERSON on either issue , or both , it should assess damages .","In his charge to the jury , the trial judge explained that in an action for defamation , damages serve CARDINAL functions : to afford consolation for the distress caused by the defamatory statement ; to repair the harm to reputation , including business reputation ; and to vindicate the person \u2019s reputation . He stated that the jurors could take account of PERSON standing in society and in the business community , the nature of the libel ( the insinuations that she had betrayed husband and family and that she had misused public funds ) , the mode and extent of publication ( carried repeatedly in a widely - read DATE newspaper ) , the absence of an apology , and the fact that the applicant company pleaded the defences of justification and fair comment throughout the trial . If the jury were to make an award , it must be appropriate and fair to both parties . The rules governing the trial judge \u2019s directions to the jury are known as the PERSON rules , laid down by ORG in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The trial judge did not give any specific guideline to the jury regarding the appropriate level of compensation , stressed the limited nature of the guidelines he could provide and indicated , in broad terms , that , when assessing damages the jury must bear in mind reality , the current times , the cost of living and the value of money . He added a cautionary note :","\u201c On CARDINAL famous occasion I told a jury that the plaintiff , if he won , had n\u2019t won the [ national lottery ] and they immediately awarded a MONEY . Now , that was n\u2019t what I meant when I was saying that to them . \u201d","He explained that the law did not permit him to suggest a figure or a range of figures to the jury :","\u201c The amount of damages , ladies and gentlemen , is a matter for you , should you choose to award them . I ca n\u2019t suggest a figure to you , I am not permitted to suggest a figure to you . I ca n\u2019t give you a range of figures , I am not permitted to give you a range of figures . I can give you what help I can , and I will , in coming to an appropriate figure for damages . But , ultimately , the figure is yours . \u201d","He warned the jurors not to be \u201c overcome by feelings of generosity and give PERSON a ridiculously large amount of money \u201d . Any award must be of an appropriate amount . He continued his charge to the jury as follows :","\u201c ... [ T]hat appropriate figure must also take into consideration the Defendant . You must also be fair to the Defendant too ... [ Y]ou must consider the Defendant as well because your decision must be a fair decision and must be fair to both parties . ... You must come to a figure that is an appropriate figure and that is , I fully realise , ... not an easy thing to do . I would like to be able to tell you what other figures have been given in the recent past in similar cases , but I ca n\u2019t do that and I must n\u2019t do that . If any of you think you remember newspaper headlines over DATE or so of damages awarded in cases , every case is different . Put those out of your mind completely ... It is this case and what is appropriate in this case that is important and you have to reach that decision yourself and without as much help as I would like to be able to give you , but I am not permitted to give you . \u201d","After the jury had retired , the plaintiff \u2019s counsel requested the trial judge to retract the reference to the lottery , as he feared it would be understood by the jury as a warning to keep any award significantly lower than QUANTITY . He contended that no figure should have been suggested . Counsel for the applicant company disagreed , taking the view that the jury would have clearly understood the trial judge \u2019s remark was not to make any suggestion about the appropriate level of damages in the instant case . The trial judge declined to revisit this aspect of his charge to the jury as it could cause confusion in ORG minds , who might think that in withdrawing the reference the trial judge might have been suggesting less or more than that figure . He observed to counsel :","\u201c I do find myself in difficulties because of ORG ruling [ in the De Rossa case ] in that I ca n\u2019t even indicate to a jury upper and lower in the most general terms , which I would like to be able to do because I think it would save a lot of trouble and I ca n\u2019t do it because of the decision of ORG . \u201d","He concluded the exchange with counsel on this matter as follows :","\u201c I did think that I had traversed the question of damages and , each successive case I do , I get more long - winded about it because I started with very short charges and I used to be very surprised , CARDINAL way or another , at the amounts juries brought in . \u201d","On the first issue the jury found that the newspaper had alleged an extra - marital affair between the plaintiff and PERSON On the second issue , it found that the meaning of the article was not defamatory .","The jury assessed damages at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL and the trial judge gave judgment in this amount . He granted a stay on payment pending appeal , with the proviso that the applicant company make an interim payment of LAW to PERSON , with an additional LAW in legal costs . These payments were made , ORG having refused on DATE to set aside ORG order on interim payment .","NORP The applicant company accepted the jury \u2019s decision that it had defamed PERSON Evening Herald published an apology to her in its edition of DATE . It appealed the amount of damages , arguing that no reasonable jury could have made such an award , that it was disproportionate to the damage caused and amounted to an unlawful interference with the applicant company \u2019s rights under LAW and the Convention . In its subsequent submissions to this Court on just satisfaction , it considered that a much lower sum \u2013 EUR DATE would have been sufficient compensation in the circumstances .","In the event that ORG set aside the award of damages on appeal , PERSON sought to have the matter remitted to ORG for a fresh assessment by a new jury . In its notice of appeal , the applicant company also sought an order directing a retrial on the issue of damages . It appears from the case file that , in its subsequent submissions before ORG , in the event that the latter set aside the High Court award , it argued that ORG should itself decide the amount of compensation .","ORG gave its ruling on DATE . All CARDINAL judges found that the award to PERSON was excessive and must be set aside . The majority decided to substitute its own assessment of damages ( EUR CARDINAL ) , while the other judge took the view that the case should be re - tried before a different jury . As this would not happen , he indicated that he would have assessed damages at MONEY .","The judgment of the majority was given by PERSON J. , with whom PERSON concurred . She noted that the case did not come within the current law on defamation ( the Defamation Act DATE , see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , but had to be decided in accordance with the previous law . Under that regime , the trial judge was limited in the directions that could be given to a jury regarding the appropriate level of damages . It had not been suggested that the trial judge had committed any error in his charge to the jury on the question of damages . Rather , the complaint was that the award was so disproportionately high that it should be set aside . She referred to the relevant ORG case - law , which held that it was the duty of the trial judge to direct the jury that damages must be confined to an amount that will fairly and reasonably compensate the plaintiff for injured feelings and loss of standing . Furthermore , as a fundamental principle of the law of compensatory damages , the award must be reasonable and fair and bear a due correspondence with the injury suffered ; a disproportionately high award would be set aside . She rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that larger libel awards should be subjected to more searching scrutiny on appeal than had been customary in the past . Nor did she accept that the relevant legal test should be whether a reasonable jury would have thought such an award necessary to compensate the plaintiff and to re - establish her reputation . She stated :","\u201c If such were the test to be applied , it would remove from the jury award the \u201c very unusual and emphatic sanctity \u201d referred to [ in previous case - law ] .","Consequently , while awards made by jury must , on appeal , be subject to scrutiny by the appellate court , that court is only entitled to set aside an award if it is satisfied that in all the circumstances , the award is so disproportionate to the injury suffered and wrong done that no reasonable jury would have made such an award . \u201d","She further recalled the need for the law to reflect a due balancing of the constitutional right to freedom of expression against the constitutional protection of every citizen \u2019s good name , which , as stated in case - law , brought the concept of proportionality into constitutional jurisprudence . Referring to this ORG \u2019s judgment in ORG and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALV ( extracts ) ) , she observed that it did not alter or reconfigure NORP law in respect of awards of damages in defamation . She stated :","She reviewed the terms used by the trial judge in his charge to the jury . He had told them they could consider the plaintiff \u2019s position in the business community . They could also consider the nature of the libel , which contained the suggestion that she was immoral , had been unfaithful to her husband and had betrayed her family . The mode and extent of publication were relevant , as were the absence of an apology and the company \u2019s decision to stand over the articles to the end .","Dunne J. then considered the applicant company \u2019s argument that the amount of damages awarded against it should be compared to awards that had been set aside as excessive in previous defamation cases . She agreed that the comparison might provide some assistance in assessing the gravity of the libel . But she also underlined the need for caution , given the wide variety of factual circumstances of such cases and also the passage of time since previous appellate decisions . As for comparison with personal injury awards , she recalled the different function of damages in the CARDINAL types of case . In defamation , the function of damages was both to compensate the injury to reputation and to vindicate the person \u2019s good name , a consideration which was not relevant in personal injuries cases .","The judge then set out the relevant factors for considering the proportionality of the damages awarded to PERSON The first was the gravity of the libel . The more closely the libel touched the plaintiff \u2019s personal integrity , professional reputation , honour , courage , loyalty and the core attributes of their personality \u2013 as was the case here DATE the more serious it was likely to be . She described the libel as a serious and sustained attack on the business and personal integrity of PERSON It could be fairly compared with a previous case involving the defamatory allegation against a prominent businessman of bribing a Government minister in order to obtain a licence to operate a radio station ( the O\u2019Brien case , summarised in ORG and ORG judgment at \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) . It could not , however , be regarded as being in the category of the gravest and most serious libels to come before the courts , as was the libel in the LOC case ( the case that led to ORG and ORG case , it having been alleged that PERSON PERSON personally supported anti - Semitism and violent communist oppression ) . But the libel of PERSON was nonetheless a very serious one . The allegation of adultery must have been a course of real hurt and distress to her .","The next factor was the extent of publication . PERSON had cited CARDINAL articles concerning her . There had been some more articles focussing on the role of the Minister . It was a sustained campaign over DATE . The newspaper had a DATE circulation throughout the ORG of CARDINAL copies ; its readership would be higher still . PERSON had gone from being unknown to the public to being notorious . The publication had therefore been particularly widespread and extensive .","The third factor was the conduct of the defendant . It had run a defence of justification that the jury had rejected . It had not offered any apology to PERSON before the verdict , which was a point the jury could have taken into account . The articles had been accompanied by photographs that had been cropped and manipulated to lend force to the implication that PERSON got her contracts by virtue of the fact that she was having an affair with the Minister . That too could have been taken into consideration by the jury .","The fourth factor was the impact of the defamation on PERSON The articles had attacked her moral character and her professional reputation . They had implied that she was unfaithful to her husband and had played a part in the break - up of PERSON marriage . They had conveyed the impression that she was prepared to engage in an adulterous relationship in order to advance her professional standing and career . Her ability to do the work she was hired for had been called into question . A new business initiative she was involved in ended when the partner had withdrawn following the publication of the articles , and her consultancy work for the Government had come to an end . PERSON had given evidence of her own personal hurt and distress at the articles , and described the impact on her husband and sons , one of whom had had to change school in his final year while he was preparing to sit important public examinations . PERSON had received personal abuse in her hometown . Overall , the articles had had a profound effect on her in every aspect of her family and professional life , which was a consideration that was also relevant to the jury \u2019s award .","She then assessed the sum awarded in damages :","\u201c The award of damages in this case in the sum of \u20ac CARDINAL is a very large award by any standard . ... Overall , I am satisfied that the defamation in this case was a very serious defamation . Undoubtedly , if CARDINAL was to place the defamation in this case on a scale of seriousness , it would certainly be towards the higher end of the scale . A somewhat unusual feature of this case was the sustained campaign in the Evening Herald in respect of Ms. PERSON The consequences of it affected her in DATE to day life , personally and in her business life . Her newly launched business was destroyed before it could become established . I have no doubt that from her point of view it was a very serious matter . Nevertheless , I do not think it could be classed as CARDINAL of the most serious libels to come before the Courts ... [ T]he award made to Ms. PERSON in this case was CARDINAL of the highest ever awards made in a case of this kind in this country . Even accepting that this case is CARDINAL that comes towards the higher end of the scale , I am satisfied that the award made by the jury in this case was excessive and must be set aside . \u201d","She continued :","\u201c I am conscious of the firm instructions of Ms. PERSON to her legal representatives that in the event that this ORG came to the conclusion that the amount of the award was excessive that the ORG should in those circumstances remit the matter to ORG for assessment by a jury again . Whilst I understand those to be her instructions I am satisfied that in the context of this case it would be desirable for all parties to bring an end to the litigation between the parties and in those circumstances it seems to me that the approach to be taken by the ORG should be to set aside the verdict of the jury on damages and to substitute a sum in the figure of \u20ac CARDINAL for damages . \u201d","The other , partly - dissenting judgment was given by PERSON J. He stated that the issue was whether the award was reasonable and fair and bore a due correspondence with the injury suffered , which was essentially a matter of proportionality . He rejected the suggestion that the jury should be informed of awards made in personal injury actions . The nature and purpose of the CARDINAL types of damages were inherently different . As for comparison with previous defamation awards , he opposed this for practical reasons . Even with the greatest of care , he did not see how cross referencing to a previous award could aid in determining the compensation to be paid to a particular plaintiff in respect of a particular publication for a particular injury . At most , he could accept that some benefit could be obtained if the comparison was applied within the same or similar class of defamatory remarks .","He observed that since the jury represented the community , and defamation was rooted in community values , jury awards in defamation cases enjoyed an eminence and distinction significantly higher than other types of award , including jury awards in non - defamation cases . This point was supported by numerous dicta of ORG . He said :","\u201c ... Appeal judges , when conducting such a review , are not the jury and can not assume the jury \u2019s role . Intervention will be justified only where the award obviously falls outside permitted parameters which , in determining , the court must have due regard , inter alia , to the uniqueness of the jury \u2019s representative function in this particular judicial process . ... Therefore , an award will not be disturbed easily or second guessed purely to fine tune it . \u201d","He analysed the libel in detail and also concluded that the award was not proportionate , failing to reflect the necessary objective relationship between wrongdoing and harm . Although he considered that the issue of damages should be submitted for consideration by a fresh jury , in the light of the majority \u2019s decision to set aside the jury verdict and substitute its own award , he offered his own view on the appropriate level of damages , placing it at MONEY .","The applicant company duly paid an additional ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation to PERSON On DATE , ORG ordered that the applicant company should bear the legal costs incurred by PERSON in the appellate proceedings . According to the applicant company , this came to ORG CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182221","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF VLADIMIROVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant is the founder , sole owner and director of a limited liability company , Akvilon ( \u043e\u0431\u0449\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e \u0441 \u043e\u0433\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0447\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0432\u0435\u0442\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u044c\u044e \u00ab \u0410\u043a\u0432\u0438\u043b\u043e\u043d ORG ) . Prior to the events described below , the company had been engaged in the grocery retail trade .","On DATE Akvilon purchased QUANTITY of granulated sugar in CARDINAL sacks on condition of delayed payment with a view to reselling it to PERSON and PERSON . The CARDINAL men made an oral agreement with the company to pay MONEY ( RUB \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) in cash immediately upon receipt of the sugar .","On DATE PERSON , the applicant \u2019s husband and a deputy director of ORG , transferred the sugar to PERSON and PERSON . , who then left under the pretext that they had to fetch more cash in order to be able to pay . Shortly thereafter , PERSON complained to ORG of the ORG ( ORG \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b \u0433. PERSON ) of the misappropriation by PERSON and PERSON . of the sugar belonging to Akvilon .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted on suspicion of aggravated fraud in connection with the incident . The case was assigned to an investigator , PERSON , who granted the status of victim of a crime to the Akvilon company .","DATE , the investigator in charge found the QUANTITY of sugar in garages belonging to PERSON and PERSON . , in the amounts of CARDINAL tonnes and QUANTITY respectively . The CARDINAL men admitted that they had no documents confirming that they had obtained the sugar legitimately , but insisted that they had paid the necessary amount in cash to a certain PERSON . , who had promised to deliver the money to Akvilon and had then disappeared . The investigator acknowledged PERSON and PERSON . as witnesses in the case and , without formally attaching the sugar , left it with them for safe storage . Both men gave written undertakings to store the sugar until a court decision was given on the matter .","On DATE , following a complaint by ORG , the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office ordered the investigator , PERSON , to formally attach the sugar , to seize it from PERSON and PERSON . and to deposit it with a neutral person for safe storage .","On DATE the investigator ordered the attachment and seizure of the sugar from the garages belonging to PERSON and PERSON . , and its transfer to a third party for safe storage . On DATE the order was executed and the attached sugar was included in the list of exhibits in the case .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator , PERSON , declared Mr ORG , who acted as a representative of the Akvilon company , a civil claimant in the criminal case .","On DATE , on the instructions of the prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE , the investigating authorities transferred the sugar to the Akvilon company for safe storage .","In DATE the criminal case was transferred to another investigator .","By CARDINAL decisions of DATE the investigator in charge lifted the attachment order on the sugar and ordered that it be excluded from the list of exhibits in the case . The decisions stated that the investigation had established that , despite their written undertakings to store the sugar , Mr P. and PERSON . had sold it to third persons in DATE . They had then , on DATE , purchased another lot of sugar in the amount of CARDINAL tonnes respectively , which had subsequently been attached and included in the list of exhibits by Mr S. The decisions concluded that the sugar in question was not the object of the crime in the present case , and therefore its attachment should be lifted . It is unclear what happened to the sugar thereafter .","On DATE ORG of the ORG decided not to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON and PERSON . in connection with the fact that they had sold the sugar in breach of their written undertakings given to PERSON The decision stated that the undertakings had not been legally binding , since when they had been given , the sugar had not been formally attached and included in the list of exhibits , and therefore there had been no legal grounds for PERSON and PERSON . to refrain from selling it .","By a decision of DATE the investigator in charge ordered the withdrawal of ORG \u2019s victim status . The decision stated that it had been established during the investigation that on DATE the Akvilon company had dispatched the sugar to the garages belonging to PERSON and PERSON Pr . The CARDINAL men had then delivered the stipulated amount in cash to a certain PERSON . , who had negotiated the deal between them and Akvilon and had disappeared once in receipt of the money . The decision concluded that in view of the fact that it was PERSON and PERSON . \u2019s money which had been stolen in the present case , rather than ORG \u2019s sugar , it was the former and not the company who were victims of the crime .","On DATE a deputy prosecutor of ORG ordered that Akvilon again be granted the status of victim of a crime .","On DATE the criminal proceedings instituted in connection with misappropriation of ORG \u2019s property were suspended owing to the absence of those responsible .","In DATE PERSON and PERSON . lodged a civil claim against the Akvilon company , seeking to have their title to , respectively , CARDINAL and QUANTITY of sugar attached by the investigating authorities acknowledged , the attachment order lifted and the sugar returned to them .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) discontinued the proceedings in so far as they had been brought by Mr Pr . on the grounds that he was officially registered as a businessman , and that therefore his dispute with Akvilon fell within the competence of a commercial court . It does not appear that this decision was appealed against or that Mr Pr . attempted to pursue the proceedings any further .","As regards PERSON claim , after several rounds of proceedings , ORG granted it in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The court confirmed Mr P. \u2019s title to QUANTITY of sugar , referring to the fact that he had purchased it on DATE . The court further established that the sugar belonging to PERSON had been attached by the investigator , PERSON , and transferred to CARDINAL party and then to Akvilon for safe storage and that by the investigating authorities\u2019 decision of CARDINAL DATE the attachment order had been lifted . The court thus concluded that Akvilon was under an obligation to return QUANTITY of sugar to PERSON , who was its rightful owner . The judgment was not appealed against , and no enforcement proceedings were ever instituted .","NORP Throughout the investigation into the incident of DATE the applicant lodged numerous complaints with the supervising prosecutors alleging negligence on the part of the investigator , PERSON In particular , she complained of his failure timeously to attach the sugar belonging to Akvilon and his decision to transfer it for safe storage to PERSON and PERSON . , individuals whom PERSON had accused of fraud , with the result that the sugar had been lost and Akvilon had suffered pecuniary damage .","NORP In letters sent to the applicant in the period of DATE , the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office and the main investigating division of ORG stated , inter alia , that the investigator , PERSON , had indeed breached certain requirements of the criminal procedure legislation . They went on to say that he had been subjected to disciplinary sanctions in that connection , but that there were no grounds to bring criminal proceedings against him .","DATE the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office took a number of similar decisions to dispense with criminal proceedings against Mr S. They stated , in essence , that although formally there were elements of an offence punishable under LAW ( professional negligence ) in Mr S. \u2019s actions , that Article provided for criminal liability only if the damage caused by such negligence attained a minimum of RUB MONEY , whereas the pecuniary damage alleged by Akvilon had been lower than that amount .","In DATE Akvilon initiated proceedings before ORG of GPE against ORG of the ORG , ORG of LOC and ORG of the Interior . The company complained that the negligent actions on the part of the investigator , PERSON , during the investigation into the incident of DATE had resulted in the loss of QUANTITY of sugar belonging to the company . His actions had caused pecuniary damage to the company and had been detrimental to its business reputation , given that it had purchased the sugar on condition of delayed payment , which it had then been unable to fulfil . The company indicated that the pecuniary damage it had suffered to that date amounted to RUB CARDINAL , taking into account the current price of sugar . It also sought compensation for damage to its business reputation .","After several rounds of proceedings , in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the company \u2019s claims in their entirety . It noted that it had not been proven that the investigator , PERSON , had been negligent in performing his duties , given that it had been decided to dispense with criminal proceedings against him in that connection , and that therefore there was no causal link between his actions and the pecuniary damage alleged by the claimant company . The court also stated that since PERSON had not disseminated any defamatory statements concerning Akvilon , there were no grounds to grant its claim for compensation for damage to its business reputation .","On DATE the Appellate Instance of ORG of GPE quashed the first - instance judgment in so far as the applicant \u2019s claim for pecuniary damage was concerned , stating that the lower court finding as to the absence of a causal link between the pecuniary damage sustained by Akvilon and Mr S. \u2019s actions had been incorrect . The appellate court noted that the first - instance court had not taken into account that criminal proceedings against Mr S. in connection with the negligent performance of his duties had not been instituted only on the formal ground that the pecuniary damage inflicted on the claimant company by his actions had been below the statutory limit established in LAW . The appellate court further found it established that \u201c it was on account of the unlawful actions of investigator MONEY , who had transferred QUANTITY of sugar belonging to the Akvilon company to other persons , that [ the company ] had been deprived not only of its property but also of the right to claim compensation for damage in the context of the criminal proceedings , as the investigator in charge had withdrawn the status of victim [ from the company ] \u201d . The appellate court considered it established that the company had proven the circumstances in which it had sustained pecuniary losses in the amount of RUB MONEY , and awarded the company the full amount claimed in respect of pecuniary damage , as well as RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL for costs and expenses to be recovered from ORG of the Interior at the expense of ORG . The appellate court further upheld the judgment of DATE in so far as it rejected the company \u2019s claim concerning compensation for damage to its business reputation .","On DATE ORG of ORG , acting as a cassation instance , upheld the appeal decision of DATE . The court , however , reduced the award to RUB CARDINAL , noting that that sum represented the pecuniary losses sustained by Akvilon in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG of GPE refused leave to apply for a supervisory review of the case .","On DATE , following the decision of ORG of GPE of DATE , Akvilon was issued with a writ of execution and the enforcement proceedings were commenced .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Appellate Instance of ORG of GPE noted that on DATE ORG of ORG had reduced the award in respect of non - pecuniary damage from RUB MONEY to RUB CARDINAL and ordered that the recovery of the amount of RUB CARDINAL be discontinued .","That decision was sent to ORG , which then returned the writ of execution and the decision remained unenforced .","On DATE , at the request of Akvilon , ORG of LOC issued it with another writ of execution for the amount of RUB CARDINAL awarded in respect of pecuniary damage and RUB MONEY awarded in respect of costs and expenses .","On DATE the new writ was sent to ORG for enforcement .","On DATE ORG transferred the full amount due to ORG \u2019s bank account ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158180","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CURELARIU v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The relevant details of the CARDINAL applications are set out in the appended table .","NORP In both applications , the applicant complained of inadequate conditions of detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144619","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ALBERGAS AND ARLAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and according to the most recently available data , also lives in GPE .","In DATE the GPE municipality assigned a plot of land measuring CARDINAL hectares to the first applicant for the construction of an individual house . At the same time similar plots were assigned to other private persons . In accordance with the provisions of the domestic law in force and because of his status as a deportee \u2019s family member , the first applicant was entitled to acquire the plot of land .","On DATE the first applicant and ORG signed a contract by which he purchased the plot of land from the ORG . He paid CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) and CARDINAL \u201c single - use investment vouchers \u201d ( investiciniai \u010dekiai ) .","Subsequently , the first applicant registered the plot of land in his name in the land registry .","In DATE the first applicant sold the plot for LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( about ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to the second applicant , who then registered the plot of land in his own name .","On an unspecified date the second applicant brought a claim before the courts against a private person , PERSON , alleging that his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possession had been breached . The second applicant claimed that he had been unable to use his land because PERSON , who lived next to the plot of land , had unlawfully put a fence around it .","R.A. lodged a counterclaim against both applicants , requesting the annulment of the land sale contracts of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , together with the decisions of the authorities . PERSON claimed restoration in natura of her ownership rights to the disputed plot of land , as it was part of her father \u2019s land which had been nationalised by the NORP authorities . PERSON had requested the restoration of her property rights in DATE , and in DATE her rights had been restored in natura , but only to a part of her father \u2019s plot of land .","The courts at CARDINAL instances granted the second applicant \u2019s claim and dismissed PERSON \u2019s counterclaim , noting that under LAW on the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to ORG ( \u012fstatymas \u201c D\u0117l pilie\u010di\u0173 nuosavyb\u0117s teisi\u0173 \u012f i\u0161likus\u012f nekilnojam\u0105j\u012f turt\u0105 atstatymo tvarkos ir s\u0105lyg\u0173 \u201d ; hereinafter \u201c Law on Restitution I \u201d ) in DATE , PERSON had been entitled to restitution in natura of not more than QUANTITY hectares of land . The local authorities had taken this circumstance into consideration when assigning the plot of land to the first applicant . The fact that under the new PERSON on the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership of Citizens to ORG ( PERSON nuosavyb\u0117s teisi\u0173 \u012f i\u0161likus\u012f nekilnojam\u0105j\u012f turt\u0105 atk\u016brimo \u012fstatymas ; hereinafter \u201c PERSON on LAW \u201d ) in force after DATE PERSON was entitled to restoration in natura of QUANTITY of land was not considered as meaning that the decisions adopted by the local authorities in DATE were automatically invalid .","R.A. appealed against those court decisions to the cassation court . By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG overturned the decisions of the lower courts . By applying the principle of priority for former ORG rights that had been developed in the civil case P. PERSON valdyba and others , no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG concluded that the local authorities in DATE had not been allowed to sell plots of land to third persons before ownership rights had been restored . The court also indicated that the applicants had acted in \u201c bad faith \u201d ( nes\u0105\u017einingai ) when purchasing the disputed plot of land ; however , the court decision did not substantiate the first applicant \u2019s \u201c bad faith \u201d . As concerns the second applicant \u2019s \u201c bad faith \u201d , ORG assumed that he had known about the third ORG rights to the land .","By the above - mentioned decision of ORG the contracts of DATE and DATE , together with the decision of DATE to assign the disputed plot , were annulled and the plot was returned to the ORG . The first applicant had to return LTL CARDINAL to the second applicant , the amount which he had received from the latter for the plot . The ORG had to return LTL CARDINAL to the first applicant ; none of the \u201c single - use investment vouchers \u201d were returned to him , as they no longer had any pecuniary value at the time of ORG decision .","Alleging that they had incurred a loss following the decision of ORG , the applicants applied to ORG ( PERSON \u017eem\u0117s tarnyba ) in DATE with requests to be assigned a new plot of land of the same size and value . Their requests were dismissed .","The applicants applied to the administrative courts . They argued that they had acquired the plot of land in good faith . The applicants had been deprived of the property by a decision of ORG , and the sums that had been awarded had not adequately compensated for the damage sustained . In particular , the first applicant alleged that the court had not awarded the full value of the property , given that part of the price had been paid in \u201c single - use investment vouchers \u201d . To compensate for their loss , the applicants asked to be assigned a new plot of land .","On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . On DATE ORG upheld that decision . The courts noted that the provisions of the domestic law under which the first applicant had been assigned the plot of land were no longer in force . As concerned the second applicant , he was not eligible under the domestic law to be assigned a plot of land either .","On DATE the first applicant complied with ORG decision of DATE and paid the second applicant LTL CARDINAL .","The applicants subsequently applied to the civil courts with a claim for damages against the GPE municipality .","On DATE the Vilnius City ORG dismissed the ORG claim having reiterated that the applicants had purchased the plot of land in \u201c bad faith \u201d . It appears that the applicants did not appeal against that decision ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156261","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF R.S. v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a NORP national . He married PERSON , another NORP national , in DATE . Shortly afterwards they moved to GPE where the applicant works as a software specialist . In DATE their son PERSON was born and in DATE their daughter J.","In DATE the applicant began an affair with H.","NORP In DATE the applicant and PERSON decided to separate and he moved to another flat . However , the applicant \u2019s flat was located opposite the flat of his family and he kept regular contacts with his children .","On DATE PERSON filed a petition for divorce with ORG . PERSON applied for an interim order granting her temporary custody over P. and J. for the duration of the divorce proceedings . She had also informed the court that she would be in GPE DATE .","On DATE PERSON took the children to GPE for school holidays . She promised to return on DATE . The applicant was informed about the trip and consented to the travelling dates .","On DATE ORG granted the request of PERSON for an interim custody order . The applicant was neither informed of nor summoned to the court session concerning this order .","Subsequently , on DATE the applicant lodged a request for return of his children under LAW on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ( \u201c LAW ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to stay the execution of the interim custody order of DATE . He also appealed against that order .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for stay of the execution of the interim order and instead stayed the divorce proceedings . The court referred to the pending proceedings under LAW ( see below ) . The applicant \u2019s appeal against this decision and against the interim custody order was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the ORG gave an interim order and determined the applicant \u2019s contacts with P. and J. for the duration of the divorce proceedings .","On DATE the Krak\u00f3w Family Consultation Centre ( Rodzinny O\u015brodek Diagnostyczno - Konsultacyjny ) submitted an expert report to ORG . According to the report , PERSON should continue to exercise custody of the children as she had always been more involved in their upbringing . Moreover , the experts considered that another separation from a parent and another change of environment would be detrimental to the children . They further noted that the applicant should be allowed to have contacts with his children outside the territory of GPE as long as there was no risk of destabilisation of their situation . He should have the right to spend with them CARDINAL of summer vacation , holidays and DATE and to visit them CARDINAL - CARDINAL times a month .","On DATE ORG dissolved the applicant \u2019s marriage . It found that the applicant had been at fault in the breakdown of the marital relationship . It further held that full parental authority was to be exercised by PERSON , whereas the parental rights of the applicant were limited to decisions regarding the children \u2019s upbringing , health and education . He was authorised to have contacts with P. and PERSON per week and CARDINAL weekends per month . He was further ordered to pay child maintenance and alimony .","The applicant appealed . He argued , in particular , that , due to the fact that he resided in GPE , his visiting rights during holidays and DATE vacation should have been regulated by the court .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first instance \u2019s judgment .","On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a request concerning the return of the children to GPE under LAW . It was transmitted to ORG of ORG on DATE .","Subsequently , in a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG confirmed that the applicant and PERSON had exercised joint custody over PERSON and J. The authority expressed the view that since the NORP authorities had not been aware of any decision of NORP courts or authorities limiting the applicant \u2019s custody rights , the fact that the children stayed in GPE after DATE without their father \u2019s consent constituted a wrongful removal under LAW .","Meanwhile in GPE , on DATE a local assessment ( wywiad \u015brodowiskowy ) was conducted at the home of GPE by a courtappointed guardian with a view to establishing the children \u2019s situation . The report confirmed that the children \u2019s living conditions with their mother were very good and that they continued their education in private schools .","On DATE ORG held the first hearing in the proceedings under LAW . The court also gave an interim order and allowed the applicant to visit the children on DATE in the afternoon .","On DATE the court requested a psychologist to prepare a report concerning the children \u2019s mental and emotional maturity and their capacity to express views on the matter of their return to GPE .","On DATE another hearing took place .","On DATE the expert submitted his report to the court .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant another exceptional contact with his children . They were to stay with him from DATE until DATE . However , the applicant was not allowed to leave GPE with the children .","On DATE the ORG gave a decision and refused to grant the applicant \u2019s request for the children \u2019s return to GPE . The court referred to the applicant \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s consistent testimonies and the information included in the divorce file .","The court established that on DATE PERSON had come to GPE together with P. and PERSON and the applicant had consented to this trip . On DATE PERSON had not returned to GPE and stayed in GPE together with the children . The applicant had not accepted this decision .","The court subsequently stressed that in the proceedings under LAW it should be firstly established whether wrongful removal or retention took place . It further held that in the case at issue there had been no wrongful removal since the applicant had agreed to P and J \u2019s trip to GPE on DATE . With reference to the fact that PERSON failed to return on DATE ( the date agreed with the applicant ) , the court noted that she had been granted temporary custody over her children for the duration of the divorce proceedings . When the interim order was delivered , that is DATE , the children remained in GPE with their father \u2019s consent . Consequently , GPE could have decided to stay in GPE also after DATE and there had been no wrongful retention in the case .","The court also considered that the interim custody order was not contrary to LAW , since the applicant \u2019s request for return of his children had been received by ORG only on DATE while the custody order had been delivered on DATE .","Lastly , the court held that the refusal to grant the request for return was not contrary to LAW , since that provision concerned custody decisions delivered after the removal of a child .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the firstinstance decision . He argued that the contested decision was in breach of LAW . He further argued that LAW of that ORG was also breached as the first - instance court had relied on a decision which was merely of a temporary character , whereas this provision expressly prohibited to refuse an application for return on the basis that a decision on custody was given in the country to which children were abducted .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The court first refused to accept as evidence the document from ORG since that document failed to refer to the interim custody order of DATE . It its decision , ORG referred in particular to the events leading to the breakdown of the applicant \u2019s marriage . It also noted that when PERSON had discovered that the applicant \u2019s new partner had been pregnant , she had decided to institute divorce proceedings . However , she had been informed by a NORP lawyer that in view of the applicant \u2019s lack of consent to a divorce , she could only have filed a petition in GPE after DATE of separation . For these reasons she had decided to file a petition for divorce with the NORP courts . The court further noted that on CARDINAL October CARDINAL PERSON had arrived in PERSON with her children in order to spend DATE of school holidays there , after having obtained the applicant \u2019s consent for their trip . The court further stressed that GPE decided to stay in GPE permanently only when she was granted temporary custody . Consequently , in the court \u2019s opinion the removal of the children was not a wrongful removal within the meaning of LAW .","The decision was served on the applicant on DATE . It is final ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173495","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SHERSTNEVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181877","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF VOYKIN AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE . At the time of the events he was a district police officer in the LOC police in NORP . As of DATE , he has been serving a prison sentence in GPE prison no . CARDINAL . The second applicant is his wife who was born in DATE . She lives in Horlivka with her mother , the third applicant , who was born in DATE . The fourth applicant , the mother of the first applicant , was born in DATE and died on DATE . The first applicant expressed wish to pursue his mother \u2019s complaints on her behalf .","At TIME DATE , shortly after TIME , the second applicant had a conflict with a police officer , PERSON , who was a colleague of her husband .","The second applicant \u2019s account of the events was as follows . When walking in the street with a friend , PERSON , she heard somebody running after them . That person pushed her on the shoulder . Having turned , she saw PERSON , whom she knew . He was wearing plain clothes and appeared to be heavily drunk . When she asked him what the matter was , PERSON shouted that he would subject her to a body search , without explanation . He snatched her bag from her . Having searched its contents , he threw it on the ground . Then PERSON grabbed the second applicant by the neck and started strangling her . In reply to her protests , he noted that the local prosecutor was there next to him and that it was pointless to complain . He hit the second applicant twice in the head with something heavy , which , in her opinion , could have been a mobile phone . At that moment the first applicant telephoned his wife \u2019s friend PERSON , who was then with her , to find out whether everything was fine ( as his wife had not returned home at the expected time and was not answering his telephone calls ) . Having found out about the incident , the first applicant went there . PERSON threatened him in a rude manner with dismissal . He let the second applicant go only after CARDINAL other police officers in plain clothes , who happened to be there , approached them .","The second applicant \u2019s friend PERSON supported the above version of events . However , eventually she specified that PERSON had not been strangling the second applicant , but had simply held her and not let her leave .","M. \u2019s version of the events was as follows . He was walking in the street with an acquaintance , ORG , a businessman , after the celebration of the professional holiday of police inspectors . They met CARDINAL colleagues of PERSON and stopped to talk with them . CARDINAL women passed by . PERSON thought that one of them was a certain PERSON , who was under administrative supervision and was not supposed to be out of her home so late . He went to ask her what she was doing there . However , having approached her , he realised that he had been mistaken . He recognised the second applicant and apologised for his mistake . The second applicant , who appeared to be heavily drunk , started insulting and pushing him . PERSON submitted that he had not touched her . As regards the possible origin of her injuries , he noted that she had had serious incidents in the past with her husband and that those injuries might have been inflicted by him . As regards the fact that the plastic bag that she had had in her hands had been torn , he explained it by her intense gesticulating .","M. \u2019s version was supported by the statements of his friend PERSON and the CARDINAL police officers , who had been there .","Having come home , the second applicant called an ambulance . She was diagnosed with several bruises on her neck and situational neurosis . She explained that she had been strangled by a police officer . In the presence of an ambulance paramedic , the second applicant called the police . According to the Government , she did not mention that PERSON was a law - enforcement official . The second applicant contested that submission .","In TIME on DATE the second applicant was examined by a neuropathologist who diagnosed her with concussion and bruises on her neck , and prescribed outpatient medical treatment .","On DATE the NORP police issued a ruling refusing to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the second applicant \u2019s complaint . It noted that she had complained to the police at CARDINAL a.m. on DATE of having been hit by an acquaintance . As further stated in the ruling , it had been impossible to question her , as she had never been at home when visited by the police .","On DATE the second applicant complained about the incident to the NORP town prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u201c the NORP prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) . She requested that the investigation not be entrusted to the NORP district prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u201c the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) , given that CARDINAL of its officials had allegedly been with PERSON at the time of the events and that PERSON had referred to that fact as a guarantee of his impunity ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The second applicant submitted that there had been no attempts by the authorities to contact them with a view to hearing their version of the events .","On DATE the NORP prosecutor \u2019s office forwarded her complaint to the PERSON prosecutor .","On DATE the second applicant gave a written account of the incident to the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office . On DATE that authority quashed the refusal of DATE . It noted that the investigation had wrongly been entrusted to the NORP police despite the fact that the second applicant \u2019s complaint concerned her alleged ill - treatment by CARDINAL of its officers .","On DATE the police officer who had been on duty during the night from DATE was disciplined for not having followed up the second applicant \u2019s call ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office refused to initiate criminal proceedings against ORG under LAW ( exceeding individual power by engaging in violent or degrading treatment of a victim ) , having held that there were no constituent elements of a crime discernible in his actions . The prosecutor noted that the second applicant \u2019s allegation was supported by the statements of her husband and her friend . However , there were also statements of PERSON and the witnesses from his side , who denied any ill - treatment of the second applicant . The prosecutor therefore found her allegation to be unsubstantiated . It was also noted in the ruling that at the time of the events PERSON had been wearing civilian clothes and had not been acting as a law - enforcement official . Lastly , it was observed that the second applicant had ignored numerous summonses for questioning .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office annulled its refusal of DATE as premature . It noted , in particular , that not all the relevant facts had been established . Furthermore , there had been no forensic medical expert examination of the second applicant .","On DATE the second applicant underwent such an examination , which documented no visible injuries . Having analysed her medical file , the expert concluded that she had sustained a bruise on her neck and a craniocerebral injury which led to concussion . Those injuries , assessed as insignificant , had resulted from \u201c contact with blunt objects \u201d at the time indicated by the second applicant .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office once again refused to open a criminal case against PERSON for lack of the constituent elements of a crime in his actions . It relied , in particular , on the ORG statements , according to which ORG had not ill - treated the second applicant . Furthermore , the prosecutor noted that PERSON had not acted in his official capacity and that the injuries sustained by the second applicant had been insignificant .","On DATE a senior official of the same prosecutor \u2019s office annulled the above ruling as premature . He noted , in particular , that an additional forensic medical examination was required with a view to verifying the second applicant \u2019s allegation that she had been hit in the head with a mobile phone .","On DATE the prosecutor ordered such an examination of the second applicant with a view to answering the following questions : ( CARDINAL ) how exactly could her injuries have been inflicted ; ( CARDINAL ) whether there were marks on her head possibly resulting from blows with a mobile phone ; ( CARDINAL ) whether she could have sustained the injuries in question in the circumstances as she alleged ; and ( CARDINAL ) when exactly she had sustained the injuries in question .","On DATE a forensic medical expert examination report was issued . It answered the above questions as follows : ( CARDINAL ) the craniocerebral injury and the bruise on the neck had resulted from contact with blunt objects ; ( CARDINAL ) neither the examination of the second applicant nor the evaluation of the medical file had established any injuries to her head ( apparently , implying visible injuries ) ; ( CARDINAL ) the second applicant \u2019s injuries could have been inflicted on her in the circumstances described ; and ( CARDINAL ) according to the medical documents , the second applicant could have sustained the injuries on DATE .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office delivered yet another ruling refusing to open a criminal case in respect of the second applicant \u2019s complaints . Having relied on the forensic medical examination reports and the ORG statements , the prosecutor stated that her allegation had not been sufficiently corroborated .","On DATE the GPE regional prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u201c the regional prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) annulled the above ruling as premature and based on an incomplete investigation .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON It was stated in the ruling that the forensic medical expert evaluations of DATE and DATE refuted the second applicant \u2019s allegations . Furthermore , the prosecutor noted that the second applicant had refused to give her account during the additional investigation .","The second applicant challenged the above refusal before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) on CARDINAL occasions ( on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and on DATE ) . Her complaints were forwarded to the regional prosecutor \u2019s office .","On DATE the regional prosecutor \u2019s office wrote to her that it agreed with the lower prosecution authority \u2019s decision . As further stated in the letter , it was open for her to challenge that decision before the courts if she so wished .","In DATE the first applicant underwent knee surgery . From DATE to DATE he underwent a follow - up course of outpatient medical treatment in ORG .","On an unspecified date ( illegible in the available copy ) the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office sent a summons to the first applicant at his registered residence ( his mother \u2019s home ) , instructing him to come to the prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE . It is not clear whether it was issued in the context of the criminal investigation in respect of the complaints by the first applicant \u2019s wife ( see above ) or whether it was rather related to the subsequent criminal proceedings against him .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office opened a criminal case against the first applicant on suspicion of abuse of power and forgery committed in his capacity as a law - enforcement official in DATE . More specifically , on DATE the local court had informed the prosecutor of some factual inaccuracies in a report on an administrative ( minor ) offence , which had been drawn up by the first applicant . The latter was suspected of having forged that report .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office informed the first applicant of the above decision by a letter sent to the address where he was de facto living with his wife ( separately from their parents ) . It was also noted in the letter that he had to come to the prosecutor \u2019s office to receive a copy of the decision and for questioning .","Still on DATE , DATE , the prosecutor ordered the NORP police to ensure the first applicant \u2019s presence for investigative measures . On DATE the police informed the investigator that it was impossible to comply with the above order given that the first applicant had been found neither at the address of his usual residence nor at his mother \u2019s flat . When they had also gone to enquire about his whereabouts with his parents - in - law , the third applicant \u201c had attacked them hysterically \u201d , which made the police believe that the first applicant might be hiding there .","On DATE a judge of ORG ordered the first applicant \u2019s arrest with a view to bringing him before the court to examine the issue of a preventive measure in his regard .","On DATE the first applicant was declared wanted by the police .","On DATE he wrote to the regional prosecutor \u2019s office that , following the incident with his wife , the Kalyninskyy police had been threatening him and his family with his dismissal , criminal prosecution , or even a fatal accident . He therefore sought that the ORG prosecutor withdraw from the case . He also submitted that he was scared even to go to the hospital as some suspicious - looking persons had been loitering near his home . The first applicant indicated as his address that of his mother .","On DATE the investigator visited the first applicant \u2019s mother ( the fourth applicant ) at her home and asked her whether she knew where the first applicant was . She stated that he had been living separately from her for DATE and that she was not aware of his whereabouts .","On DATE she sent to the investigator the first applicant \u2019s request of DATE to admit her to the proceedings as his representative and to give her a copy of the ruling of DATE initiating the criminal investigation against him . In substantiation of that request , the first applicant stated that he was restricted in his movement following knee surgery .","On DATE the chief of medicine of ORG informed the investigator , in reply to the latter \u2019s enquiry , that the last time the first applicant had come to the hospital had been DATE and that the hospital administration did not know how he could be reached .","On DATE the internal security unit of the NORP police wrote to the prosecutor that it had information that the first applicant had been secretly visiting the flats of his parents and parents - in - law .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor wrote to the first applicant at his mother \u2019s address , indicating that the latter could not be admitted in the proceedings as his representative at such an early stage . The prosecutor indicated that the first applicant was on the wanted list and that he needed to show up to receive copies of the rulings in respect of the institution of the criminal proceedings against him and for his questioning .","On DATE the ORG prosecutor sent another letter to the first applicant , informing him that another criminal case had been opened against him on that date on suspicion of abuse of power by a law - enforcement official and forgery in office and that he had to come to the prosecutor \u2019s office to get a copy of that decision and for questioning .","During the period from DATE to DATE further QUANTITY criminal cases were opened against the first applicant on additional counts of abuse of office , as well as on suspicion of bribe - taking . He was suspected of having committed those offences in order to report better results to his superiors and thus be entitled to additional remuneration and promotions . The first applicant was informed of each such decision by a letter sent to his mother \u2019s address .","On DATE the first applicant complained to the ORG that his numerous requests for the ORG prosecutor to withdraw had been ignored . He further submitted that he required protection measures as \u201c a person who had reported a crime \u201d . Lastly , the first applicant requested that the prosecutor annul the decision on placing him on the wanted list \u201c so that [ he ] could defend himself against the criminal charges and continue [ his ] medical treatment \u201d .","On DATE and DATE the regional prosecutor \u2019s office wrote to the first applicant that his complaints had been dismissed as unsubstantiated .","On DATE the first applicant was arrested at the address where he lived with his wife . The investigator relied on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and substantiated the arrest as follows : the first applicant had been on the wanted list since DATE , had impeded the establishment of the truth and had committed serious criminal offences . It was also noted in the arrest report that the first applicant was suspected of offences under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( abuse of power or office by a law - enforcement official ) , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( forgery in office ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( bribe - taking ) of LAW . The investigator drew up a report on the explanation to the first applicant of his procedural rights . The first applicant refused to sign it . He also refused to make any submissions as regards the charges against him .","DATE . On DATE ORG extended the term of the first applicant \u2019s arrest to DATE on the grounds that the case file lacked information about his character . That ruling was not amenable to appeal .","On DATE the same court ordered the first applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention as a preventive measure , \u201c having regard to the seriousness and circumstances of the crimes committed and the character of [ the first applicant ] \u201d , without further details .","On DATE the first applicant appealed . He submitted that his remand in custody was not based on sufficient and relevant reasons . He noted that he had been arrested at his home , where he had been living for DATE , and that he had not absconded . He noted that the reasoning in support of his pre - trial detention had been overly formalistic . Thus , although the court had referred to his character , it had failed to specify what exactly in his character had justified his detention as the most appropriate preventive measure .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed the ruling of CARDINAL DATE and released the first applicant subject to an undertaking not to leave the town . It found that the first - instance court had not given reasons as to the necessity to choose the strictest preventive measure .","On DATE the Kalyninskyy Court found the first applicant guilty of fraud , abuse of power in his capacity of a law - enforcement official , forgery causing grave consequences , and bribe - taking , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment with a ban to occupy posts in law - enforcement authorities , and confiscation of his personal property .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment in the part concerning the forgery charge and remitted it to the first - instance court for a fresh examination . It upheld the judgment in the remaining part , having slightly reclassified some of the charges and having reduced the term of the first applicant \u2019s imprisonment to DATE .","On DATE ORG again found the applicant guilty of forgery causing grave consequences and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . The final sentence was DATE imprisonment , as the most severe of the applicant \u2019s punishments absorbed the more lenient one . In the absence of any appeals , the judgment became final .","On DATE ORG quashed the appellate court \u2019s ruling of DATE in the part concerning the first applicant \u2019s conviction ( the part concerning the remittal of the case to the first - instance court remained in force ) and remitted the case for fresh appellate examination .","On DATE the appellate court upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE in so far as it concerned the first applicant \u2019s conviction for abuse of power in his capacity as a law - enforcement official and his sentencing to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . As regards the other charges ( with the exception of that dealt with by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE see paragraph DATE above ) , they were slightly reclassified and the first applicant had the penalty in respect of that part removed .","The case file does not contain any further information as regards the criminal proceedings against the first applicant .","On DATE the investigator applied to ORG for authorisation to search the first applicant \u2019s registered residence ( the flat of the fourth applicant ) . It was stated in the application that on DATE the first applicant had drawn up a report on an administrative ( minor ) offence in respect of unauthorised street trading by a private individual . As subsequently established , the information in that report had not been accurate , which had led to the institution of criminal proceedings against the first applicant on suspicion of abuse of power and forgery . The investigator considered that \u201c some items and documents relevant for establishing the truth \u201d in the case could be found in the first applicant \u2019s residence .","On DATE ORG in a final ruling , allowed the above application , having reiterated the investigator \u2019s reasoning and description of the search \u2019s scope . It relied on LAW ORG ( follow the references in paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the investigator applied to ORG for authorisation to search the second applicant \u2019s registered residence ( the flat of the third applicant ) . The text of the application was identical to that submitted on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the police knocked at the third applicant \u2019s door . She and her husband were at home , but did not let the police in .","The third applicant \u2019s account of the events of DATE is as follows . A group of CARDINAL to QUANTITY persons , including police officers and some suspicious - looking persons , came to her flat . They knocked at the entrance door in a violent manner , demanding to be let in . The third applicant \u2019s husband went out and asked them for a search warrant or another document authorising their actions , but no such document was produced . The police threatened the third applicant and her husband that they would break in and that they would find a pretext to criminally prosecute the entire family . They stayed on the stairs and in the yard and shouted for TIME .","According to the ORG \u2019s version , CARDINAL police officers went to the third applicant \u2019s flat . They informed her about the criminal proceedings against the first applicant and enquired as to his whereabouts . As she and her husband refused to cooperate , the police left .","On DATE ORG allowed the investigator \u2019s application of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Its ruling was identical to that delivered on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the police carried out a search at the flat of the third applicant . According to her , they broke the entrance door using an electric saw . The third applicant further alleged that the police had not shown a search warrant to her . CARDINAL attesting witnesses were present . According to the third applicant , they were acquaintances of the police officers .","As indicated in the search report , it lasted from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. The police seized a number of documents related to the first applicant \u2019s work . Furthermore , they seized a mobile telephone , which did not have a ORG card , together with its box . Lastly , they found and seized a package appearing to contain cannabis . According to the third applicant , it had been planted by the police .","DATE . On DATE the police conducted a search of the flat of the fourth applicant . They discovered and seized some documents which were deemed to be related to the criminal investigation in respect of the first applicant . According to the first and fourth applicants , those documents had been brought there by the police themselves DATE . The fourth applicant submitted that the officers , whom she knew as colleagues of her son , had explained to her that , following an attack on their police station , they had not had a safe place to store the documents , which had been intended in any event for handing over to the first applicant .","On DATE an expert established that the package discovered in the third applicant \u2019s flat on DATE contained cannabis . On DATE the NORP police refused to institute criminal proceedings in that regard , having held that it had been impossible to establish to whom the cannabis might have belonged .","On DATE ORG allowed another application to search the first applicant \u2019s registered residence ( the flat of the fourth applicant ) given that the investigator had information that the first applicant might be hiding there .","On DATE the police conducted a search of the fourth applicant \u2019s flat on the basis of the court ruling of DATE . As indicated in the search report , the police were searching for \u201c items , valuables and documents related to the criminal activity of [ the first applicant ] \u201d . The search did not discover anything of interest for the investigation .","The third and fourth applicants requested many times that ORG provide them with copies of the rulings authorising the searches of their flats . The president of the court replied that the searches had been carried out in compliance with the ORG and that sending a copy of the respective court rulings was not provided for by the legislation .","The third and fourth applicants also complained many times to the prosecution authorities of the unlawfulness of the searches . They submitted , in particular , that the police had been rude and intrusive , that the attesting witnesses had not been independent , and that it was not clear what the police had actually been looking for .","On DATE the NORP prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open a criminal case in respect of the police officers involved in the operation of DATE and the searches of CARDINAL and DATE , with the generally couched reasoning that there had been no violations of law . It appears that the applicants were unaware of that decision .","On DATE , following complaints by the third and fourth applicants , the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings against the judge of ORG in respect of the rulings authorising the searches of their flats .","DATE . On DATE the third applicant got acquainted with the ruling of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It is not known whether , and if so when , the fourth applicant got access to the respective rulings of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .","On DATE a local heating company initiated civil proceedings against the first and fourth applicants , who had their registered domicile at the same address , for debt recovery . The domestic courts found against the applicants . On DATE ORG refused to examine an appeal on points of law by the first and fourth applicants on the grounds that they had not paid the court fees ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145581","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF OMELCHENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Myroslava Antonovych","text":["The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .","On DATE the body of Ms V. was found on a deserted street in GPE . ORG had suffered numerous knife wounds .","On DATE the police obtained an expert opinion that a fingerprint found on the cover of ORG \u2019s notebook could possibly belong to the applicant ( whose fingerprints were stored in the police database ) . The police also discovered that some of ORG \u2019s belongings , including a mobile telephone and CARDINAL earring , were missing .","On DATE several officers from the Simferopol Kyivsky District Police arrived at the applicant \u2019s home ( QUANTITY away from PERSON ) , inspected it , seized some of the applicant \u2019s clothes and took him to the police station in PERSON .","No formal record of the applicant \u2019s arrest was drawn up .","On DATE and DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness about PERSON \u2019s murder and the theft of her belongings .","On DATE he confessed that on DATE he had come to PERSON from his village to enjoy himself and had decided to murder a passer - by in order to steal her belongings . He had stolen ORG \u2019s mobile telephone , which he had lost on his way back home , and had killed her with a kitchen knife he had been carrying with him .","On DATE the applicant was questioned as a suspect . Before the questioning session , the applicant was informed that he was suspected of having committed the murder of GPE within the meaning of LAW of CARDINAL and that as a suspect he had right to legal assistance , which he waived in writing .","On DATE the applicant underwent a medical expert assessment , according to which he had not sustained any injuries in the period from CARDINAL to DATE .","Again on the same date an undertaking not to abscond was selected as the preventive measure to be used in the applicant \u2019s respect .","According to the applicant , it was not until DATE that he was released from custody under the undertaking not to abscond .","During TIME the applicant was arrested in PERSON on charges of breaching the public order ( through swearing , spitting and vagrancy ) and detained for DATE as an administrative punishment , pursuant to a decision of the Simferopol Zaliznychnyy ORG .","On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE the applicant , held in administrative detention , was further questioned concerning the murder and robbery . Before each of the questioning sessions the applicant signed waivers of his right to legal representation .","On DATE the Simferopol Kyivsky District Court remanded the applicant in custody as a preventive measure in connection with the criminal proceedings against him .","On DATE lawyer PERSON was admitted to the proceedings to represent the applicant . However , according to the applicant , the lawyer did not visit him until DATE and no questioning of the applicant took place in his presence .","On DATE the charges against the applicant were reclassified in law from those of simple murder within the meaning of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW of DATE to those of murder for profit ( an aggravated form of murder ) under LAW .","On DATE a new lawyer , NORP , was admitted to the proceedings to replace lawyer E.","On DATE the applicant was indicted with having robbed PERSON and having murdered her for profit within the meaning of LAW . On the same date he was questioned for the first time as an accused in the presence of lawyer NORP During the questioning session , the applicant retracted his initial confessions and pleaded innocent . He maintained that he had not left his village on DATE of ORG \u2019s murder and had previously confessed to the murder under pressure from the police , who had detained him unlawfully , threatened and ill - treated him .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute criminal proceedings into the alleged breaches of the applicant \u2019s rights , having found that there was no case to answer , and declared the case in respect of PERSON \u2019s murder and robbery ready for trial .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( hereafter \u201c the ARC Court \u201d ) , acting as a first - instance court , convicted the applicant of armed robbery and murder for profit and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","On an unspecified date ORG also issued a separate ruling noting that there was no record of the applicant \u2019s arrest on DATE .","The applicant appealed in cassation against his conviction . He alleged that his confessions given in DATE and DATE should have been excluded from the body of evidence for having been taken in breach of applicable procedural guarantees . In particular , those statements had been taken during the applicant \u2019s unlawful detention . He maintained that he had been held at the police station between DATE and DATE without any procedural records having been drawn up . On DATE the applicant had been released . However , almost immediately afterwards he had been arrested under the false pretext of breaching the public order and subsequently detained . This tactical move had enabled the police to question him at any time and , in the absence of a lawyer , apply pressure on him to obtain self - incriminating statements to best suit their purposes .","The applicant next stated that the above - mentioned confessions had been obtained in breach of his right to legal representation . In particular , while he had been brought to the police station specifically in connection with the suspicion that he had killed ORG , initially he had only been questioned as a witness . Furthermore , the applicant had been initially charged with simple murder under LAW , a charge which enabled a suspect to waive his right to a lawyer . In the meantime , the scope of the accusation had clearly been pointing to \u201c murder for profit \u201d . This charge fell within the ambit of LAW , which could result in a life sentence and so entailed mandatory legal representation of a defendant and allowed no waivers of this right . The investigation had purposefully delayed reclassifying the charges in order to exert unlawful pressure and extract confessions from the unrepresented applicant .","The applicant also maintained that without his initial confessions the prosecution would have collapsed , as the other evidence had been contradictory and patchy .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the applicant \u2019s conviction and remitted the case for additional investigation . It noted , in particular , that the trial court should have verified more carefully whether the applicant \u2019s confessional statements had been admissible evidence . In particular , as appeared from the case file , these statements had been obtained during the applicant \u2019s detention DATE and DATE . Part of this detention was covered by an administrative detention decision and part was not covered by any records . In these circumstances , the applicant \u2019s allegations concerning the ulterior motives in detaining him should have been carefully investigated . ORG also found that the evidence of the applicant \u2019s involvement in the crime had been contradictory and needed to be reassessed , with various discrepancies being reconciled .","On DATE the ARC Court again found the applicant guilty of armed robbery and murder for profit under LAW . It relied on various pieces of physical , forensic , and witness evidence , as well as on the applicant \u2019s confessions given at the beginning of the investigation . The court concluded that there were no reasons to exclude these confessions from the body of evidence . In particular , according to the medical evidence , no injuries had been inflicted upon the applicant by the police and there was no other evidence of his ill - treatment . The court further found that on DATE the applicant had been taken to the police station in connection with the suspicion that he had committed a crime of violence and had duly been questioned first as a witness and then as a suspect . It also noted that the applicant , informed of his rights as a suspect , had voluntarily waived his right to legal representation . As at the material time the applicant had been suspected of simple murder , which could not lead to a life sentence , such a waiver had been compatible with applicable law . ORG then sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed a further cassation appeal brought by the applicant and upheld ORG judgment of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-149205","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF TRAN\u010c\u00cdKOV\u00c1 v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant brought an action before ORG s\u00fad ) on DATE arguing that an individual ( \u201c the defendant \u201d ) had unlawfully seized a lorry belonging to her and that he was retaining it without good title . Accordingly , she asked the court to order the defendant to return the vehicle to her .","On DATE the defendant filed his observations in reply , explaining in detail the history and legal status of the vehicle .","ORG heard the case on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The applicant \u2019s lawyer was present at all of these hearings , as was the applicant herself , except for the first one . In addition , on DATE , the applicant consulted the court \u2019s case file on her own initiative .","At the conclusion of the last - mentioned hearing , ORG pronounced its judgment dismissing the action . In doing so , it found that the applicant had failed to show that she had lawfully acquired title to the vehicle and concluded that the defendant had lawfully acquired it by way of purchase from the receiver appointed to act in connection with the insolvency of the vehicle \u2019s previous owner , a legal entity with which the applicant had been involved .","The applicant lodged an appeal ( odvolanie ) contesting en bloc the ORG assessment of the facts and the interpretation and application of the relevant law .","NORP In response to a specific written request by ORG dated DATE , she objected to having her appeal decided without a public hearing .","On DATE the defendant filed his observations in reply to the appeal , contesting its procedural , substantive and factual grounds and again querying the legal status and history of the vehicle .","According to a written record and minutes submitted by the Government , on DATE a notice was displayed on the official noticeboard of ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) stating that the applicant \u2019s appeal would be decided in chambers on DATE and ORG judgment was publicly pronounced on DATE .","By that judgment , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , endorsing the findings of the first - instance court and finding that , in her appeal , the applicant had not submitted any relevant new information to refute those findings . No hearing of the appeal was held . In the written version of the judgment , no mention is made of the defendant \u2019s observations .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) . She relied on Article CARDINAL ( f ) of LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , under which such an appeal was admissible if the courts had prevented a party to the proceedings from pursuing a case before them .","She also invoked LAW and argued , inter alia , ( i ) that ORG had ruled on her appeal without having held a public hearing , despite her objection to such a course of action ; ( ii ) that the defendant \u2019s observations in reply to her appeal had not been communicated to her ; and ( iii ) that ORG had not only failed to summon her to a public pronouncement of its judgment but had , indeed , failed to pronounce that judgment publicly at all .","On DATE ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) declared the applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible without examining the merits of the case . It held no hearing and decided in chambers .","ORG referred to Article CARDINAL of the ORG under which \u2012 as applicable at the relevant time \u2012 an appeal could be decided without a hearing unless ( i ) evidence had to be re - examined or new evidence had to be taken , ( ii ) the first - instance court had not held a hearing ; or ( iii ) a hearing was called for in view of an issue of significant public interest .","ORG observed that none of these criteria had arisen , in view of which there had been no need for ORG to hold a hearing of the applicant \u2019s appeal .","ORG further observed that , under the case - law of ORG , a failure by a court to communicate to CARDINAL party a submission made by the other party would normally constitute a violation of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings . However , there was no such consequence if the court concerned did not base its decision on the non - communicated submission .","ORG also noted that , although there was no statutory duty to communicate to an appellant observations made in reply to the appeal in question , if the appeal was to be determined without holding a hearing , then the observations normally \u201c should \u201d be communicated to the appellant . ORG added that , however , such observations \u201c should \u201d be communicated to the appellant only if they had a conclusive influence on the decision of ORG .","In that regard , referring to the contents of the case file , ORG held that the observations made by the defendant in reply to the applicant \u2019s appeal had had no impact at all on ORG decision and concluded that , consequently , the failure to communicate those observations to the applicant was irrelevant in legal terms .","ORG also referred to Article CARDINAL of the ORG , pursuant to which a judgment must always be pronounced publicly ( paragraph CARDINAL ) and , in matters decided without a hearing , the time and place of the pronouncement must be announced on the official notice board of the given court DATE before the pronouncement ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . ORG further referred to the contents of the case file and , in particular , to the TIME concerning the public pronouncement of the contested judgment , on the basis of which it concluded that , in the case at hand , the parties had properly been notified of the public delivery of the judgment , that the judgment had properly been pronounced , and that all of the applicable rules had been complied with .","In sum , ORG concluded that none of the applicant \u2019s arguments constituted any ground for admitting her appeal on points of law for examination on the merits .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against the ordinary courts\u2019 decisions with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) . She relied , inter alia , on LAW ( individual complaint ) and LAW , advancing essentially the same arguments as in her appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible . It held no hearing and decided in chambers , citing extensively from ORG decision and finding no constitutionally relevant flaw in it .","ORG decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179860","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF COLLOREDO MANSFELDOV\u00c1 v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Adversarial trial)","judges":"Kristina Pardalos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant had a restitution claim concerning movable property located in FAC . The movable property was initially confiscated from a predecessor of the applicant during the NORP occupation of GPE in DATE on the orders of the NORP Secret State Police , which considered him to be an enemy of ORG . After the end of the Second World War , the property was once again confiscated , in DATE , by the NORP State under the ORG decrees . That expropriation was quashed on appeal by ORG in Prague ( zemsk\u00fd n\u00e1rodn\u00ed v\u00fdbor ) on DATE after it had been established that the applicant \u2019s predecessor was of NORP nationality and had been loyal to ORG . What happened to the property afterwards is disputed and was discussed in the domestic decisions .","Due to the large number of items claimed , the domestic courts consecutively issued CARDINAL judgments , each concerning CARDINAL of the CARDINAL parts of the claim . They upheld the first part of the applicant \u2019s claim but rejected the second and the third , which are the subject of the present applications .","In the course of the second proceedings , the courts based their decisions , inter alia , on a decision by ORG DATE by which FAC had been declared State cultural property ( hereinafter \u201c the DATE decision \u201d ) . The DATE decision had not been raised with the parties in the course of the hearing and the parties had not received an opportunity to comment on it .","The situation of the applicant is structurally and contextually the same as that in PERSON v. the NORP Republic ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and MONEY , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158036","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF \u0160ERIFOVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and live in ORG .","They were employed by ORG \u201c Ra\u0161ka Holding Kompanija \u201d DATE , a socially - owned company based in ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) .","A. ORG proceedings brought by the first applicant ( PERSON )","On DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , ORG ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . These judgments became final on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , upon the first applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgments and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs .","B. Civil proceedings brought by the second applicant ( PERSON )","On DATE , ORG ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE , upon the second applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant the enforcement costs .","C. Civil proceedings brought by the third applicant ( PERSON )","On DATE , ORG ordered the debtor to pay the third applicant specified amounts on account of salary arrears , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE , upon the third applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the third applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE ORG ordered the restructuring of the debtor .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor .","The applicants duly reported their respective claims based on the above - mentioned judgments to the insolvency administration .","The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142334","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"FEISAN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG and PERSON . The ORG request to represent themselves was granted . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants secured a bank loan taken out by a private company ( \u201c company F \u201d ) with a mortgage on their apartment . The loan was also secured by a mortgage on real estate belonging to the S family .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( which became final in DATE ) the Covasna County Court allowed an action lodged by the bank against its debtors for the payment of the outstanding interest on the loan granted to company F. The applicants were parties to the proceedings , together with the other debtors . The court ordered the applicants to pay jointly and severally the sum of MONEY ( ROL ) .","In DATE insolvency proceedings were initiated against company F and the bank was registered on the LOC list . However , the bank preferred to initiate enforcement proceedings against the applicants . Thus , on DATE ORG allowed the bank \u2019s request and ordered the applicants to pay the outstanding debt , with related interest and the creditor bank \u2019s enforcement costs .","On DATE the applicants deposited ROL CARDINAL with ORG to be made available to the creditor bank . On DATE they challenged the decision of the bank \u2019s enforcement officer to sell their apartment at auction regardless of their intention to pay the amount for which they were liable . They also asked for the auction to be suspended .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 challenge , on the grounds that they had not paid the interest on ORG and the enforcement costs .","The applicants appealed , maintaining that they could not pay the interest and the enforcement costs , as that amount had never been calculated or notified to them . On DATE their appeal was dismissed by ORG without an examination of its merits on the ground that the applicants had not lodged their appeal within the statutory timelimit .","On DATE the bank \u2019s enforcement officer set the auction date for CARDINAL DATE .","On account of an insufficient number of bidders for the apartment , the enforcement officer reduced the minimum price to ROL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) and set another auction date for DATE .","The apartment was bought at the minimum price established by the enforcement officer , and the deed of adjudication was issued on DATE .","On DATE the bank \u2019s enforcement officer issued the final order releasing the proceeds from the sale ( procesul verbal de eliberare al pre\u021bului ) .","The applicants challenged the enforcement measure in court . ORG refused to register their complaint , which was sent back on DATE with the indication that it should be lodged with the issuing body . The ORG complaint was lodged with the creditor bank on DATE . According to the applicants their complaint against the final order releasing the proceeds from the sale was never examined .","NORP The buyer of the applicants\u2019 apartment asked for the applicants to be evicted . By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE , her request was allowed by ORG . On DATE the applicants were ordered to vacate the apartment .","The applicants contested in court all the enforcement measures taken against them , including their eviction from the apartment . They also asked for the deed of adjudication of DATE to be revoked and for their complaint against the order releasing the proceeds from the sale under the deed of adjudication to be examined . They claimed that the deed of adjudication was null and void , as they had paid their debt to the bank before their apartment was sold .","On DATE ORG dismissed their complaint as unfounded . It dismissed the applicants\u2019 complaint against the deed of adjudication on the ground of res judicata . It held that the submissions made by the applicants against the deed of adjudication had already been examined by the court in its final judgment of DATE and therefore they could not be examined again . It also held that the eviction order had been issued on the basis of the final deed of adjudication in accordance with legal requirements .","The applicants appealed , claiming , inter alia , that their submissions against the deed of adjudication could not be dismissed on the ground of res judicata . On DATE the ORG dismissed their appeal on points of law . It held that all the enforcement measures against the applicants were lawful and that as long as the applicants had not paid the whole debt to the creditor bank the debt secured against their flat could accordingly be enforced and they could not ask for cessation of enforcement . Further to the first - instance court \u2019s finding that the judgment of DATE had the status of res judicata , the appeal court held that although the CARDINAL sets of proceedings had not had the same object they had the same purpose : annulment of the writ of execution and cessation of the enforcement measures against the applicants . Moreover , the arguments raised by the applicants in both proceedings were the same . Thus , the applicants\u2019 main argument that they had paid their debt to the bank could not be raised at that stage of enforcement , when the deed of adjudication had become a writ of execution in the eviction proceedings .","The provisions regarding enforcement in civil and commercial matters were contained in ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , as in force at the material time .","Under LAW ORG , enforcement could only be effected where there was a valid authority to execute an obligation which was certain , whose quantum had been fixed and which had fallen due . The debt was liquid if its quantum was determined by the debt instrument itself or by other uncertified deeds , issued by the debtor or acknowledged by it .","Article CARDINAL of the ORG provided that a debtor under an authority to execute could institute proceedings in order to raise objections either against the creditor \u2019s right to enforcement or against particular measures of enforcement .","The writ of execution could be challenged , but only in respect of its meaning , scope and enforcement and not its validity regarding the merits . A complaint could be lodged against the refusal of the enforcement authority to carry out an enforcement measure in the conditions stipulated by law .","Article CARDINAL of the ORG provided that if the court allowed the objection against enforcement , depending on the case , it would either set aside the writ of execution or order its amendment , annulment or the cessation of enforcement , or the annulment or explanation of the writ of execution or the implementation of the enforcement order which the relevant authority was refusing to carry out ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170857","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LASHMANKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 13+11 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association;Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 11+10 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) (Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General};Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["On DATE Mr PERSON , a well - known human rights lawyer , and PERSON , a journalist , were shot dead in GPE .","The applicant and PERSON decided to hold a commemoration \u201c picket \u201d ( \u201c \u043f\u0438\u043a\u0435\u0442 \u201d ) near the PERSON to ORG in LOC , GPE , on CARDINAL DATE . The location was symbolic , and was chosen by them to emphasise that , in their opinion , the murders of PERSON PERSON and PERSON were cases of politically motivated repression .","On DATE the applicant and PERSON notified ORG date , time , place and purposes of the \u201c picket \u201d . The event was scheduled to take place from TIME on CARDINAL DATE , with CARDINAL people expected to take part .","On DATE ORG sent a telegram and a letter to the applicant , refusing to approve the venue . The town administration noted that PERSON was a popular place of recreation and many families would be walking there with their small children on DATE , CARDINAL DATE . The \u201c picket \u201d might pose a danger to their health and life . They proposed that the organisers change the location and time of the event . They also warned the applicant and PERSON that they might be held liable under LAW for a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events . According to the Government , a copy of the Mayor \u2019s decree of DATE listing the locations in GPE suitable for public events was attached to the letter . The Government did not submit a copy of the letter or the decree .","Given that the location and date were important to them , and fearing that holding the event at the chosen location without the authorities\u2019 approval might result in arrests and administrative proceedings against the participants , the applicant and PERSON decided to cancel the CARDINAL - person \u201c picket \u201d they had planned . Instead , the applicant held a solo \u201c picket \u201d , for which no notification was required .","On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG . He complained that the decision had amounted to a ban on the event , because the authorities had not proposed any alternative venue or time for it .","On DATE ORG rejected his complaint . It found that in its decision of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON authorities had merely proposed that the applicant should change the location and time of the event , rather than imposing a ban on it . That decision had therefore not violated the applicant \u2019s rights . It had also been lawful . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .","NORP The applicant is a gay rights activist .","On DATE the applicant , together with PERSON and PERSON , notified the Prefect of GPE of GPE of their intention to hold a \u201c picket \u201d from TIME on CARDINAL DATE in front of the ORG \u2019s office on FAC , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aim of the event was to call for the ORG \u2019s resignation \u201c in connection with his efforts to incite hatred and enmity towards various social groups , and his failure to comply with electoral laws \u201d .","On DATE the Prefect of GPE of GPE refused to approve the venue , noting that another public event was planned at the same location from TIME on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant , PERSON and PERSON lodged a new notification proposing to hold the event at any time TIME . An official from the ORG \u2019s office stamped the notification with a seal that bore the following inscription in red : \u201c to be handed to the applicant personally \u201d .","According to the applicant , on DATE he went to the ORG \u2019s office to collect the decision . However , the official refused to hand over the decision , explaining that it had been dispatched by post . The applicant never received the letter and had to cancel the event .","On DATE the applicant challenged the ORG \u2019s refusal to approve the venue before ORG of GPE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaints . It found that by his decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG had agreed to the holding of the \u201c picket \u201d on DATE from TIME That decision had been sent to the applicant by post . The letter had not been delivered because the applicant did not live at the indicated address . The applicant \u2019s argument that the stamp indicated that the decision was to be handed to him personally was unconvincing . As NORP law did not establish any procedure for notifying applicants of such decisions , the ORG \u2019s office had been entitled to choose any notification method , including sending the decision by post . The fact that the letter had not been delivered did not render the authorities\u2019 actions unlawful . Lastly , the court found that the applicant had not proved that the ORG \u2019s office had refused to give him the decision when he had gone to collect it , although there is no evidence in the judgment that the ORG \u2019s representative contested that matter .","The applicant appealed . He submitted , in particular , that the ORG \u2019s office had at first informed him that the decision would be handed over to him personally , but had then refused to give it to him . The letter containing that decision had not arrived at the local post office until DATE of the planned event . Even if he had received the letter , it would no longer have been possible to hold the event .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .","On DATE the applicant , together with PERSON and PERSON , notified the Prefect of LOC of GPE of their intention to hold a \u201c picket \u201d from TIME on CARDINAL DATE in FAC , with CARDINAL people expected to take part . The aims of the event were the same as those of the \u201c picket \u201d in LOC of GPE .","On DATE a deputy prefect of LOC of GPE informed the applicant that another public event was planned at the same location and time , and proposed that another venue be chosen .","On DATE the applicant , PERSON and PERSON stated their readiness to accept another venue for their event , and proposed CARDINAL alternative sites for the Prefect to choose from .","On DATE the deputy prefect refused to approve any of the locations proposed by the applicant , noting that the applicant , PERSON and Mr B. were the organisers of another \u201c picket \u201d at the same time in LOC of GPE .","On DATE the applicant challenged that refusal before ORG of GPE . He submitted , in particular , that the deputy prefect \u2019s finding that he was the organiser of another \u201c picket \u201d on DATE in LOC of GPE was incorrect , because the authorities had not agreed to that \u201c picket \u201d .","On DATE ORG rejected his complaint . It found , in particular , that the proposal to change the location of the \u201c picket \u201d was lawful because a presentation of the new ORG catalogue had been planned in FAC at the same time . The refusal to agree to the \u201c picket \u201d at other venues had also been lawful because the applicant had submitted CARDINAL notifications in respect of \u201c pickets \u201d at CARDINAL different locations , in the LOC and Northern Administrative Districts , to be held at the same time . Although the applicant had indeed been informed by ORG that he could not hold a \u201c picket \u201d at the proposed location , he could still have held a \u201c picket \u201d at another venue in LOC . Had he done so , it would have been impossible for him to organise a \u201c picket \u201d to be held in LOC at the same time . The refusal to agree to the \u201c picket \u201d in LOC had therefore been well reasoned .","The applicant appealed . He submitted , in particular , that domestic law made no provision for a public event to be banned on the ground that CARDINAL notifications had been lodged by the same person . The refusal to approve the \u201c picket \u201d had therefore been unlawful . He had lodged CARDINAL notifications with the aim of proposing alternative venues for the event . If both of them had been approved , he would have chosen CARDINAL of the approved sites . He relied on LAW .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .","The CARDINAL applicants are Mr ORG ( the first applicant ) and PERSON PERSON ( the second applicant ) .","The applicants decided to commemorate the anniversary of the murder of Mr PERSON and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the first applicant , PERSON and PERSON notified ORG of their intention to hold a march and a meeting on DATE in the centre of GPE , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aims of the march and the meeting were as follows :","\u201c To commemorate the human rights lawyer PERSON , the journalist PERSON and other victims of ideological and political terror ;","To protest against politically and ideologically motivated murders , against racism , ethnic and religious hatred , and against recourse to chauvinism and xenophobia in politics and social life . \u201d","The second applicant intended to attend the march and the meeting .","On DATE ORG replied that , in accordance with LAW , the notification had to be submitted no DATE and DATE before the intended public event . As the organisers had submitted their notification outside that time - limit , they were not allowed to hold the march and the meeting .","On DATE the applicants challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG . They submitted that the date of the meeting and the march was very important for them because it was the anniversary of the murders . No other date would have the same impact . The time - limit for lodging a notification fell CARDINAL . However , because of the New Year and DATE , DATE from DATE were officially non - working days , so it was not possible to lodge a notification within the time - limit established by law . The applicants had accordingly lodged the notification on DATE , that is DATE working days before the intended march and meeting . Any other interpretation of the domestic law would mean that no public events could be held in the period from DATE . They also argued that ORG had not observed the DATE time - limit for a reply established by the domestic law .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG complaints . It found that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been lawful . The applicants had not observed the time - limit for lodging a notification established by domestic law and were not therefore entitled to hold the march and the meeting . Moreover , given that they had later been allowed to hold a \u201c picket \u201d on DATE , their freedom of assembly had not been violated .","The applicants appealed . They reiterated their previous arguments and added that the \u201c picket \u201d approved by the authorities was not an adequate substitute for a meeting and a march . Firstly , the authorities had agreed to an event with CARDINAL people attending instead of CARDINAL . And secondly , and more importantly , the use of sound amplifying equipment was not allowed during a \u201c picket \u201d , which had prevented the organisers and participants from making public speeches .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .","The CARDINAL applicants are Mr ORG ( the first applicant ) , PERSON PERSON ( the second applicant ) and Mr ORG ( the third applicant ) .","On DATE the first and third applicants notified ORG of their intention to hold a march and a meeting on DATE . The aim was \u201c to protest against violations of the civil and social rights of the residents of GPE and LOC in the spheres of town planning , land distribution , environmental conditions , housing and communal services , and judicial protection \u201d . The march was scheduled to start at TIME at FAC , from where the participants were to march to FAC . The notification stated that the participants would cross FAC by the underground passage . A meeting would be held at FAC from TIME It was expected that CARDINAL people would take part in the march and the meeting . The second applicant intended to attend the meeting and the march .","ORG forwarded the notification to ORG , which concluded on DATE that the march was likely to cause traffic delays and disrupt public transport when it crossed FAC . It was therefore necessary to change the route of the march . ORG then forwarded the notification to ORG .","On DATE a deputy head of ORG proposed that the applicants should cancel the march and hold a meeting at FAC in order to \u201c avoid any interference with the normal functioning of the public utility services , the activities of commercial organisations , traffic or the interests of citizens not taking part in public events \u201d .","On DATE the first and third applicants asked ORG either to propose an alternative route for the march or to agree to hold the meeting in FAC , in which case they were ready to forgo the march . They argued that ORG had not advanced any reasons in support of their finding that the march and the meeting might interfere with traffic or the activities of commercial organisations . They also noted that CARDINAL meetings had recently been held in FAC and had not caused any disruption .","ORG replied that the march and the meeting in FAC had not been given official approval , and warned the applicants that measures would be taken to prevent them from holding the events .","On DATE the applicants challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG of GPE . They submitted that ORG had not observed the statutory time - limit of DATE for giving a reply and had failed to propose an alternative venue for the march . The GPE authorities had not put forward weighty reasons for their proposal to cancel the march and change the venue of the meeting . Neither the march nor the meeting would have interfered with the normal life of the city if held at the location chosen by the applicants , because no blocking off of traffic would have been necessary . They reiterated that CARDINAL meetings had recently been held in FAC with official approval ; they had gone ahead without any trouble or disruption of normal life for residents . The applicants asked for an injunction for ORG to agree to the meeting and the march . They also requested that their complaint be examined before the planned meeting date .","According to the Government , the ORG complaint , sent by post , was received by ORG on DATE .","At TIME on DATE CARDINAL people , including the applicants , gathered in FAC . The police issued a warning , through loudspeakers , that the meeting was unlawful and that the participants should disperse . The meeting was then dispersed by force by the police and many of those present were arrested .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG complaints , finding that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been lawful . The text of the judgment did not contain any reply to the ORG argument that ORG had not observed the statutory DATE for a reply .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE on appeal and allowed the ORG complaints . It found that ORG had not examined whether there existed a factual basis for the finding that the meeting and the march planned by the applicants would interfere with the normal life of the city . ORG had not submitted any evidence in support of that finding . The decision of DATE had not therefore been well reasoned . At the same time , it was impossible to allow the request for an injunction to agree to the meeting and the march because the planned date had passed DATE .","DATE . On DATE ORG lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of DATE . It argued that it had submitted evidence in support of the decision not to agree to the march and the meeting planned by the applicants , in the form of a letter from ORG dated DATE stating that the march might cause delays in public transport when it crossed FAC . He further argued that it would be difficult for CARDINAL participants to cross FAC by the underground passage , which was always crowded with passers - by and street vendors . An alternative venue for the meeting had been proposed .","On DATE the applicants submitted in reply that the march had been scheduled during DATE , when vehicular and pedestrian traffic was insignificant . ORG by the underground passage would therefore not have caused any inconvenience to passers - by or street vendors or their clients , or caused delays in public transport . In any event , traffic in the centre of GPE was often blocked by the authorities to permit the staging of sports or cultural events .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG quashed the appeal judgment of DATE and upheld the judgment of DATE rejecting the ORG complaints . It found that ORG refusal to agree to the march and the meeting had been lawful and well reasoned . It would have been impossible for the participants in the march to cross FAC by the underground passage , which was always crowded with passers - by and street vendors . The participants would therefore have had to cross the road , thereby delaying public transport . To protect the interests of citizens who did not take part in public events , ORG had proposed an alternative venue for the meeting , at the same time requiring the organisers to cancel the march . That decision had not violated the applicants\u2019 rights .","According to the applicants , at the end of the hearing of CARDINAL DATE only the operative part of the judgment had been read out by the bailiffs . The reasoned judgment had never been read out publicly and had been sent to the applicants by post on DATE . The ORG account was disputed by the ORG , who submitted that the entire text of the judgment had been read out publicly at the end of the hearing .","The CARDINAL applicants are PERSON ( the first applicant ) , PERSON PERSON ( the second applicant ) , PERSON ( the third applicant ) and PERSON PERSON ( the fourth applicant ) .","The applicants are gay human rights activists .","On DATE the applicants notified ORG of their intention to hold a ORG march and a subsequent meeting on DATE , the anniversary of the start of the gay rights movement in GPE ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) on DATE . The march and the meeting were scheduled to take place in the centre of GPE , with CARDINAL people expected to attend . The aim was \u201c to draw the attention of society to the violations of the rights of homosexuals , and the attention of society and the authorities to the widespread discrimination that exists against homosexuals and to homophobia , fascism and xenophobia \u201d .","On DATE ORG refused to allow the meeting and the march . It noted that the route chosen by the applicants was a busy road with many parked cars , and construction work was under way . The march might therefore obstruct road and pedestrian traffic and distract drivers , which might in turn cause road accidents . Moreover , another meeting had already been approved in the same place at the same time . Finally , the applicants\u2019 meeting was scheduled to take place in the vicinity of the ORG building . In accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW it was prohibited to hold public events in the vicinity of court buildings . ORG proposed that the applicants change the venue of their march and meeting , and warned them that if they failed to obtain the authorities\u2019 approval for another venue they would not be entitled to organise the planned events .","On DATE the applicants proposed CARDINAL alternative venues for the march and subsequent meeting . They also informed ORG of their readiness to abandon the march and simply hold a meeting , and proposed a location for the meeting .","On DATE ORG again refused to agree to the meeting and the march . It found that the venues chosen by the applicants were not suitable for the following reasons : CARDINAL of the locations was not large enough to accommodate CARDINAL people , and the participants would hinder access to a bus stop , a shop and a bicycle rental service . Moreover , \u201c Youth Day \u201d celebrations were planned in the nearby park . At another venue the march might obstruct the traffic and cause traffic jams on the road which government delegations and guests would be taking on DATE to attend the celebrations of the CARDINALth anniversary of the town of GPE . Moreover , the march might hinder ORG access to their homes or shops . Lastly , on DATE would be being celebrated by students on the nearby campus . The third location proposed by the applicants was not suitable either , because celebrations to mark the end of DATE would be held there too . ORG proposed that the applicants change the venue of the march and meeting .","The first applicant was informed about that decision on TIME of CARDINAL DATE and received a copy of it on TIME DATE .","On DATE the applicants proposed CARDINAL new alternative venues to ORG , for either a march and a meeting or a meeting only .","On DATE ORG refused to approve the meeting and the march for a third time . It found that the applicant \u2019s reply had been submitted outside the time - limit established by LAW . That section provided that a reply to the authorities\u2019 proposal to change the location of the event should be submitted DATE before the intended event . Having missed that deadline , the applicants were not entitled to hold the meeting and the march on DATE .","Despairing of obtaining official approval for a march and a meeting , on DATE the applicants notified ORG , Moskovskiy and ORG of GPE of their intention to hold a \u201c picket \u201d with the same aims on DATE . In GPE a location was chosen to accommodate CARDINAL participants .","On DATE the Petrogradskiy District Administration refused to agree to the \u201c picket \u201d because cultural and sports events were scheduled to be held at the location chosen by the applicants . Moreover , the applicants had not obtained the consent of the private sports complex in whose grounds the intended \u201c picket \u201d was to take place . ORG refused to agree to the \u201c picket \u201d because a rock festival and a circus inauguration event were scheduled to take place at the location chosen by the applicants . ORG did not allow the \u201c picket \u201d because a film was scheduled to be shot in that district DATE , including at the location selected by the applicants . Lastly , on DATE ORG also refused to agree to the \u201c picket \u201d because another ( unspecified ) event had already been approved at the same location and time as the applicants\u2019 event . ORG proposed that the applicants change the location or time of their \u201c picket \u201d .","On DATE ORG , the youth wing of the progovernment party GPE , organised a meeting in support of \u201c family and traditional family values \u201d . That meeting was approved by the authorities and was held at one of the locations which , when proposed by the applicants for their ORG march , had been rejected as unsuitable by ORG decision of DATE .","On DATE the first applicant challenged ORG decisions of CARDINAL and DATE before ORG of GPE . She complained that ORG had refused , for various reasons , to approve any of the venues proposed by the organisers for the march and the meeting . It was significant that the authorities alone were in possession of full and updated information about all construction work and other events planned in the city . That being so , the authorities themselves should have proposed a venue where the march and the meeting could take place . They had not , however , made any such proposal , confining their decisions to rejecting all the numerous locations proposed by the organisers . The first applicant also complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation .","The first hearing was scheduled for DATE .","On DATE the first applicant submitted additional arguments in writing . She complained that ORG decision of DATE had been unlawful and had also not been well reasoned . She argued , firstly , that the applicants\u2019 reply to ORG proposal to change the venue had been submitted within the DATE timelimit established by LAW . To be precise , it had been lodged on DATE , DATE before the intended march , which was scheduled for DATE . Secondly , the applicants could not have replied earlier because they had not received ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , requiring them to change the venue , until DATE . The first applicant further submitted that the reasons advanced by ORG in its decisions of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE had not been sufficient . ORG had referred to certain inconveniences that might be caused by the march and the meeting , such as obstructing the traffic , or to other events planned in the city on DATE . However , under section CARDINAL of LAW it was the authorities\u2019 responsibility to take steps to ensure that public order was respected and that public events could proceed smoothly , including by regulating or blocking traffic . She also referred to ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL below ) , which held that neither logistical difficulties that might be encountered by the authorities , nor a certain level of disruption of the ordinary life of citizens , could serve as a valid reason for refusing to approve a public event .","DATE . On DATE ORG rejected the first applicant \u2019s complaints . It found that ORG had provided reasons for its decisions of CARDINAL and DATE refusing to agree to the meeting and the march . Domestic law did not impose an obligation on an authority refusing to approve a location or time for a public event to propose an alternative location or time . As to the decision of DATE , the court found that it had also been lawful as the first applicant had missed the deadline for replying to the proposal to change the venue . She had not proved that she had been notified belatedly of the decision of DATE ; the list of her incoming calls showing that she had indeed received a call from ORG late in the TIME of DATE could not serve as proof of the belated notification . Lastly , given that ORG had not banned the meeting and march planned by the first applicant , but had merely required her to change the venue , her freedom of assembly had not been breached .","On DATE GPE upheld the judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .","On different dates in DATE , DATE and DATE the first applicant challenged the refusals of the authorities of the Petrogradskiy , ORG , Moskovskiy and ORG of GPE to allow the \u201c pickets \u201d , arguing that the refusals had not been substantiated by weighty reasons and that the district authorities had not proposed alternative venues for the \u201c pickets \u201d . She also complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation .","On DATE ORG of GPE held that the decision of DATE of ORG had been unlawful . It found that the other event to which ORG had referred in its decision was due to finish before the applicant \u2019s \u201c picket \u201d was due to begin . The authorities\u2019 refusal had not therefore been well reasoned . Further , relying on ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found that , when refusing to approve a venue chosen by the organisers , the district administration had an obligation to propose an alternative venue . No other venue had been proposed , however .","On DATE the Petrogradskiy District Court of GPE held that ORG decision of DATE had been unlawful . It found that the reasons advanced by the district authorities for their refusal to allow the \u201c picket \u201d at the location and time chosen by the applicants had been valid . In particular , it had been established that on DATE the location in question was the meeting point for the departure of children to sports camps . An assembly in favour of homosexual rights \u201c would not have furthered the development of their morals \u201d . By contrast , the requirement to obtain the consent of the private sports complex in the grounds of which the intended \u201c picket \u201d was to take place had no basis in domestic law . Nor could concerns for public order and the safety of the participants serve as a valid reason for the refusal to allow the event , because it was the joint responsibility of the authorities and the organisers to guarantee public order and the safety of all involved . At the same time , the district authorities had not proposed an alternative location or time for the \u201c picket \u201d , which it was obliged to do pursuant to ORG decision of DATE . The failure to propose an alternative location or time had deprived the first applicant of any opportunity to have the event approved . Lastly , ORG noted that it was no longer possible to remedy the violation of the first applicant \u2019s rights because the planned date had DATE . On DATE GPE upheld that judgment on appeal .","On DATE the Moskovskiy District Court of GPE held that the decision of ORG of DATE had also been unlawful . Although the district authorities\u2019 refusal to approve the location and time of the \u201c picket \u201d chosen by the applicants had been well reasoned , the district authorities had not fulfilled their obligation to propose an alternative location or time for the event . The court ordered ORG to propose a suitable alternative location and time for the \u201c picket \u201d . On DATE GPE upheld that judgment on appeal .","On DATE ORG of GPE held that the decision of CARDINAL DATE of ORG had also been unlawful . It found that the district authorities should have found out precisely at which locations the film shooting was scheduled to take place . Depending on that information , they should either have agreed to the \u201c picket \u201d being held at the location chosen by the applicants or have proposed an alternative location .","On DATE the second , third and fourth applicants and PERSON notified ORG of their intention to hold a ORG march and a meeting on DATE , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aim of the meeting and the march was \u201c to draw the attention of society and the authorities to the violations of the rights of gays , lesbians , bisexual and transgender people and to the need to introduce a statutory prohibition on discrimination on account of sexual orientation or gender identity \u201d .","DATE . On DATE ORG refused to agree to the march and the meeting . They found that the events would hinder the passage of pedestrians and vehicles and might also distract drivers , causing road accidents . Moreover , a guided tour of the district for children was planned on DATE and the ORG meeting would disrupt it . The district authorities proposed another location for the meeting and the march , and informed the applicants that the area would be closed to traffic for their convenience .","On DATE the applicants replied that the venue proposed by the district administration was unsuitable , because it was located in an industrial area among factories and warehouses and was difficult to reach . They proposed an alternative venue for the CARDINAL events , which they said was separated from the road by a QUANTITY - wide row of trees , which ruled out any risk of road accidents or hindrance to traffic . They would not be in the way of passers - by either , because there was a parallel pedestrian path which would remain free for passage . Lastly , the participants would cross the road at traffic lights , using a pedestrian crossing , which would make it unnecessary to close the area to traffic .","On DATE ORG again refused to approve the venue chosen by the applicants , pointing out that work to install a temporary amusement park would be going on there . They also reiterated their arguments concerning the obstruction of traffic and the risk of road accidents . The district administration insisted that the applicants should organise the march and the meeting at the location proposed in the letter of DATE .","On DATE the applicants agreed to hold the meeting and the march at the location proposed by the district authorities .","On DATE ORG refused to allow the march and the meeting at that location . The reason given was that the nearby power station was expecting a delivery of spare parts for boilers on DATE . The authorities proposed that the applicants choose another location for the march and the meeting .","On DATE the third and fourth applicants challenged ORG decisions of CARDINAL , DATE before ORG of GPE . They submitted that the reasons given by the district authorities for refusing to allow the meeting and the march were not convincing . They also complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation .","On DATE ORG allowed the ORG complaints , finding that ORG decisions had not been well reasoned . It was the authorities\u2019 and the ORG joint responsibility to ensure public order and the safety of participants and passers - by during the meeting and march . In their letter of DATE the applicants had set out the measures they intended to take to avoid accidents and disruption to traffic . The district authorities had disregarded those arguments and insisted that the march should take place at a location of their choosing . However , before proposing that location the district authorities had not checked whether the location was suitable and available . As a result , when the applicants agreed to the location , the district authorities had refused to approve it , on the ground that it was unavailable . That refusal had been unlawful . The court ordered that the district administration give the meeting and the march planned by the applicants their approval .","On DATE GPE examined the case on appeal . It quashed the decision ordering ORG to allow the meeting and the march , as the date scheduled for the events had passed DATE before . It was therefore no longer possible to remedy the violation of the applicant \u2019s rights . The court upheld the remainder of the judgment of DATE , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .","On DATE the second , third and fourth applicants and PERSON notified ORG of their intention to organise a ORG march and a subsequent meeting on DATE in the centre of GPE , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aim of the meeting and march was the same as that of the events in LOC .","On DATE ORG refused to allow the meeting and the march , noting that along the route chosen by the applicants the pavement was narrow and the traffic heavy . The applicants\u2019 march might therefore obstruct traffic and pedestrians and distract drivers , causing accidents . The proposed meeting venue was not suitable either , because a rehearsal for DATE festivities would be taking place there on DATE . There was also a children \u2019s playground nearby . ORG proposed that the applicants should hold the march and the meeting in the village of ORG , in the suburbs of GPE .","On DATE the applicants replied that the location proposed by ORG was unsuitable because it was located in a remote and sparsely populated village surrounded by a forest , QUANTITY from the city centre . They proposed CARDINAL alternative locations for the march and the meeting or for the meeting only and agreed to reduce the number of participants to CARDINAL people .","On DATE ORG again refused to approve the meeting and the march . A ORG motorbike parade was scheduled to take place at CARDINAL of the proposed locations ; the second location would be occupied by anti - drug campaigners ; and the third location was not suitable because of landscaping work in progress there . ORG insisted that the applicants should hold the march in the village of ORG or propose another venue for approval .","On DATE the third and fourth applicants challenged ORG decisions of CARDINAL and DATE before the Smolnenskiy ORG of GPE . They complained that the refusals to allow the meeting and the march had not been substantiated by sufficient reasons . In particular , the police could have taken measures to control the traffic and thereby prevent road accidents . As to the Youth Day rehearsals , the motorbike parade and the anti - drug campaign , ORG could have proposed another time for the meeting and the march which would not have clashed with those events . The landscaping work had not been scheduled to last DATE , so it would have been possible to organise the meeting after it was finished . The applicants further argued that any assembly in a public place inevitably caused a certain level of disruption to ordinary life . The public authorities and the population had to show a degree of tolerance towards peaceful assemblies in crowded places , because otherwise it would be impossible to hold an assembly at a time and location where it would draw public attention to social or political issues . Lastly , they submitted that the venue proposed by ORG was unsuitable because it was located in a sparsely populated area in the middle of a forest . It was therefore not the right venue to draw the attention of society and the authorities to the violation of homosexuals\u2019 rights , because there would be no representatives of the authorities or the general public present . The applicants also complained of discrimination on account of sexual orientation .","On DATE the Smolnenskiy ORG rejected the ORG complaints . The court held that domestic law did not impose any obligation on the authorities to submit evidence in support of their finding that the location chosen by the organisers was unsuitable . The reasons advanced by the authorities for refusing to approve a location were subjective and therefore not amenable to judicial review . It was significant that ORG had not banned the march and the meeting planned by the applicants . The proposal for a change of location had not breached the applicants\u2019 rights . The applicants\u2019 argument that the venue proposed by ORG was not suitable was unfounded .","On DATE GPE upheld the judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .","On DATE the applicants participated in a ORG march in the centre of GPE . They were arrested and charged with the administrative offence of breaching the established procedure for the conduct of public events .","The CARDINAL applicants are Mr PERSON ( the first applicant ) , Mr GPE ( the second applicant ) , Mr LANGUAGE ( the third applicant ) , PERSON ( the fourth applicant ) , and Mr PERSON ( the fifth applicant ) .","On DATE the first applicant , together with Mr O. , notified ORG of their intention to hold a \u201c picket \u201d on CARDINAL DATE from TIME on the pavement in front of the Kaliningrad ORG headquarters . CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aim of the event was to \u201c support [ President ] PERSON \u2019s national policy directed at fighting corruption , reforming the [ police ] system , detecting \u2018 werewolves in epaulettes\u2019 ( \u201c \u043e\u0431\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0442\u043d\u0438 \u0432 \u043f\u043e\u0433\u043e\u043d\u0430\u0445 \u201d ) and eradicating crime \u201d . The other applicants intended to join in the \u201c picket \u201d .","On DATE ORG refused to agree to the \u201c picket \u201d . They referred to the risk of terrorist acts during the Victory Day celebrations on DATE immediately preceding them , and proposed that the \u201c picket \u201d be held on DATE after CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the first applicant and Mr O. agreed to postpone the event . They notified the authorities that it would be held on DATE at the same location .","On DATE ORG again refused to allow the \u201c picket \u201d . They pointed out that in recent times terrorist acts in the vicinity of police buildings , as well as other unlawful acts against police officers and members of ORG , had become more frequent in GPE . Attempted terrorist acts had been committed by both professional terrorists and mentally unstable people . A \u201c picket \u201d in front of GPE of the ORG headquarters might therefore be dangerous to the police and the participants . They proposed CARDINAL alternative locations for the event .","On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant and Mr O. replied that they considered the reasons given by the authorities for the change of venue unconvincing . No terrorist acts had ever been committed in LOC . It was the responsibility of the police to prevent terrorist acts . They therefore insisted that the \u201c picket \u201d should take place in front of ORG of the ORG headquarters , but agreed to hold it across the road from the headquarters . They requested that the police take increased security measures to ensure the safety of the participants .","On DATE the ORG refused yet again to allow the \u201c picket \u201d . They noted that there was heavy traffic at the proposed location and maintained that the \u201c picket \u201d would block the passage of pedestrians . Moreover , given the risk of terrorist acts in the vicinity of buildings occupied by law - enforcement authorities , it would be impossible to ensure the safety of the event . They insisted that the \u201c picket \u201d should be held at one of the locations proposed by the authorities in their letter of DATE .","According to the Government , on DATE the first applicant was informed by telephone that he could come to the ORG headquarters to collect the ORG \u2019s decision . According to the applicants , the first applicant received the decision of CARDINAL DATE on DATE in the afternoon . He therefore had no time to inform the participants that the event had not been given official approval .","Shortly before the beginning of the \u201c picket \u201d , which was scheduled to start at TIME on DATE , the first applicant was summoned to appear at the FAC Town Administration offices at TIME At the same time he was warned that if he went anywhere near FAC headquarters he would immediately be arrested . The first applicant went to the ORG offices at the appointed time to discuss the organisation of the \u201c picket \u201d .","Meanwhile , at TIME the third , fourth and fifth applicants went to ORG headquarters as planned , where they were immediately arrested and taken to the LOC police station , where they were held until TIME .","The first applicant was later charged with organising an unlawful public event , an offence under LAW . The third , fourth and fifth applicants were charged with disobeying a lawful order of the police to stop an unauthorised \u201c picket \u201d , and with breaching the established procedure for conducting public events , offences under LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL respectively of LAW .","By judgments of CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL , DATE and DATE a Justice of ORG of GPE discontinued the administrative proceedings against the applicants for lack of evidence of an offence . The Justice of the Peace found that the \u201c picket \u201d had not in fact taken place . There had been no mass gathering of people , waving of placards , public speeches or voicing of demands on issues related to political , economic , social or cultural life in the country or issues related to foreign policy . Although several people , unaware of the fact that the \u201c picket \u201d had not been approved , had indeed approached the ORG headquarters , they had been immediately arrested by the police . The applicants had not therefore organised or participated in an unauthorised public event and had not committed an offence under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW . Accordingly , the order of the police to stop an unauthorised picket and to leave the vicinity of ORG headquarters had been unlawful and had breached the applicants\u2019 freedom of movement . The applicants could not therefore be considered as having disobeyed a lawful order of the police and were not guilty of an offence under LAW .","On DATE the applicants challenged the ORG refusals to allow the \u201c picket \u201d before ORG of GPE .","On DATE ORG held that ORG refusals to agree to the \u201c picket \u201d had been lawful . The administration had found that the applicants\u2019 \u201c picket \u201d might block the passage of vehicles and pedestrians and cause road accidents . It was also established that ORG had warned the local authorities about the risk of terrorist acts and recommended that public events should not be authorised , especially at times when the police were busy ensuring public order at festive celebrations . The town administration had no legal obligation to verify that information .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well - reasoned and justified .","The CARDINAL applicants are Mr GPE ( the first applicant ) , PERSON PERSON ( the second applicant ) , PERSON ( the third applicant ) , and Mr PERSON ( the fourth applicant ) .","On DATE the second and third applicants notified ORG of their intention to hold a meeting on DATE at FAC in the centre of GPE , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aim of the meeting was to protest against a police state and demand the resignation of Prime Minister PERSON .","On DATE the ORG refused to allow the meeting , explaining that on DATE FAC was to be cleaned after DATE . They proposed that the meeting be held in a park in a residential district .","On DATE the third applicant replied that the location proposed by the administration was unsuitable because it was too far from the town centre and lacked visibility . She suggested CARDINAL alternative venues in the town centre for the meeting .","On DATE ORG replied that spring cleaning and refurbishment work was scheduled at both of the locations suggested by the third applicant , and insisted that the meeting should be held in the park proposed by the authorities in their letter of DATE .","On DATE the third applicant reiterated that the location proposed by the administration was unsuitable . She then proposed holding a \u201c picket \u201d instead of a meeting and reducing the number of participants to CARDINAL . She suggested CARDINAL possible locations for the \u201c picket \u201d : FAC and another location in the town centre .","On DATE the ORG refused to agree to the \u201c picket \u201d , reiterating that FAC was being cleaned and explaining that landscaping work was being carried out at the other location suggested by the third applicant . They again insisted that the \u201c picket \u201d should be held in the park mentioned in their letter of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the third applicant reiterated her argument that the park was unsuitable and proposed yet another location for the \u201c picket \u201d . That proposal was not examined by ORG until DATE , when they again insisted that the \u201c picket \u201d should be held in the park they had proposed .","On DATE the applicants went to FAC and saw that no cleaning or other work was in progress there . They therefore decided to organise a \u201c gathering \u201d ( \u201c \u0441\u043e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u201d ) of CARDINAL people to protest against what they described as a police state . The gathering lasted for TIME . According to the Government , the police issued a warning that the gathering was unlawful and required the participants to disperse . According to the applicants , no warning was given to the participants . The gathering was eventually dispersed by force .","On DATE the applicants were charged with breach of the established procedure for conducting public events , an offence under LAW .","By judgments of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the Justice of ORG of GPE found the applicants guilty as charged . She found that they had taken part in a gathering which had not received official approval from the authorities . Their argument that no approval was required for gatherings had no basis in domestic law . LAW provided that all events , except \u201c gatherings \u201d and \u201c pickets \u201d involving CARDINAL participant , required prior approval by the authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As the gathering of CARDINAL DATE had involved CARDINAL participant , the authorities\u2019 approval had been required . However , ORG had refused to approve a meeting or a \u201c picket \u201d planned by the applicants , and no notification of a gathering had been submitted by them . The gathering of DATE had therefore been unlawful . The Justice of the Peace ordered the first , second and fourth applicants to pay a fine of MONEY ( RUB , MONEY ( ORG ) ) each , and the third applicant to pay a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . The Justice of the Peace also warned the applicants that if they failed to pay the fines within DATE they might be charged with non - payment of an administrative fine , an offence under LAW , punishable with either a doubling of the fine or CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative arrest .","The applicants appealed . They submitted that the Justice of the Peace had incorrectly interpreted section CARDINAL of LAW . It was impossible to hold \u201c a gathering involving CARDINAL person \u201d , as LAW defined a \u201c gathering \u201d as \u201c an assembly of citizens \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was therefore logical that the phrase \u201c involving CARDINAL person \u201d referred to \u201c pickets \u201d only and did not concern \u201c gatherings \u201d . They were therefore not required to notify the authorities about the gathering .","By judgments of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and DATE ORG of FAC upheld the judgments of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE on appeal , finding that they had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .","On DATE ORG of FAC found that ORG refusals to agree to the meeting and the \u201c picket \u201d had been lawful and well reasoned . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","The CARDINAL applicants are Mr PERSON ( the first applicant ) , PERSON GPE ( the second applicant ) , Mr Batyy ( the third applicant ) and PERSON ( the fourth applicant ) .","NORP The applicants are supporters of the \u201c Strategy-CARDINAL \u201d movement . \u201c Strategy-CARDINAL \u201d is a series of civic protests in support of the right to peaceful assembly guaranteed by LAW . The protests are held on DATE with DATE , in GPE and CARDINAL other NORP cities , such as GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE .","\u201c Strategy-CARDINAL \u201d was initiated by Mr PERSON , founder of ORG and CARDINAL of the leaders of The Other GPE , a coalition of opposition movements . It was subsequently supported by many prominent NORP human rights organisations , including ORG , ORG , and other public and political movements and associations .","The applicants are the leaders of the PERSON - on - Don section of the movement .","On DATE the first and third applicants notified the Rostovon - Don Town Administration of their intention to organise a \u201c picket \u201d from TIME on DATE ( Russia Day , a national holiday ) in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument in front of the PERSON - on - ORG headquarters . CARDINAL people were expected to attend . The aim of the event was to protest against the ineffective economic policies of the Prime Minister , PERSON , and the resulting increase in unemployment , as well as against violations of press freedom , persecution of political prisoners , lack of independence of the judiciary , and lack of free elections and political pluralism . They intended to collect signatures in support of a petition calling on PERSON to resign .","On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to agree to the \u201c picket \u201d on the grounds that festivities would be taking place at the location chosen by the applicants . It further reasoned :","\u201c Your picket and your slogan \u2018 GPE against GPE might trigger a hostile reaction from the many supporters of CARDINAL of the leaders of ORG and fuel unrest that might jeopardise the safety and health of the participants in the picket . \u201d","NORP The town administration further noted that there were reasons to believe that some of the participants in the meeting might commit breaches of public order , as had already happened at meetings held by other organisers . They therefore proposed that the applicants hold their \u201c picket \u201d near FAC .","On DATE the first and third applicants agreed to hold the event near FAC . According to the applicants , they had accepted the authorities\u2019 proposal because a rock concert had been scheduled near FAC at the same time , which would attract large numbers of people and thereby make their protest visible .","On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to agree to the \u201c picket \u201d , noting that a rock concert was scheduled to take place in LOC . The area round LOC would therefore be occupied by the spectators and their cars . The authorities therefore proposed that the applicants hold their event from CARDINAL to CARDINAL p.m. According to the applicants , they were informed of that decision on DATE .","The applicants decided to cancel the \u201c picket \u201d because at that time the area near FAC would be deserted and few people could reasonably be expected to see it . Moreover , given that DATE remained before the planned event , the applicants had insufficient time to inform the participants and the mass media about the change of time .","The third applicant held a solo \u201c picket \u201d instead . TIME after the start of the solo \u201c picket \u201d he was arrested and taken to a police station .","On DATE the first and third applicants challenged the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration \u2019s decisions of CARDINAL and DATE before ORG of PERSON - on - Don .","On DATE the ORG of RostovonDon rejected their complaints , finding that the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration \u2019s decisions had been lawful . By not replying to the authorities\u2019 proposal of CARDINAL DATE the applicants had failed to fulfil their obligation to cooperate with the town administration . Moreover , the applicants had not proved that their rights had been breached by the ORG \u2019s decisions . On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld that judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .","NORP The applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold meetings in the centre of PERSON - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","The PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to allow the meetings , giving the following reasons . The meeting of CARDINAL DATE was not possible , because another event was planned at the same venue and time , and all other central locations were also occupied . As to the meeting of DATE , the town administration referred to heavy pedestrian traffic round the PERSON monument and the inconvenience the meeting would cause to the citizens . The meetings of DATE and CARDINAL DATE were not agreed to because \u201c pickets \u201d organised by ORG , the youth wing of the pro - government party GPE , were scheduled to take place near the PERSON monument on DATE . The meeting of DATE was not approved because a gathering of members of ORG of GPE was planned at the same location and time .","On DATE the first and second applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold a meeting from TIME on CARDINAL October DATE in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend .","On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to allow the meeting . They noted that another event was scheduled to take place at the same location and time . It therefore proposed that the applicants hold their meeting near FAC .","On DATE the first applicant replied that the venue proposed by ORG was unsuitable because it was located in a deserted area far from the town centre . He notified the town administration that they would like to take part in the other event near the PERSON monument , and asked for information about its aims and the names of the organisers .","On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration replied that it was not possible to hold CARDINAL public events at the same location , because the ORG meeting might disrupt the other event . They warned the applicants that if they held a meeting near the PERSON monument they might be charged with organising an unlawful public event .","At TIME on DATE the applicants and other persons went to the PERSON monument , where a public event organised by ORG , the youth wing of the pro - government party GPE , was in progress . By CARDINAL ORG event was over .","According to the Government , the police issued a warning to those people who remained near the PERSON monument that their continuing meeting was unlawful and required the participants to disperse . The meeting was then dispersed by force by the police .","At CARDINAL the second and third applicants were arrested near the PERSON monument and taken to the LOC police station ; they arrived there at TIME At the police station administrative arrest reports and administrative offence reports were drawn up . The administrative offence reports mentioned that the second and third applicants were charged with disobeying a lawful order of the police , an offence under LAW . The second applicant was also charged with breach of the established procedure for the conduct of public events , an offence under LAW . Afterwards the applicants were placed in a police cell , where they remained until TIME DATE .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALth ORG of the Pervomayskiy District of GPE - on - Don found , by CARDINAL separate judgments , the second applicant guilty of offences under LAW and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . He found that the second applicant had taken part in an unauthorised public event and had refused to obey an order by the police to follow them to a police station . He ordered the second applicant to pay a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . By judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG upheld the judgments of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALnd ORG of GPE of GPE - on - PERSON also found the third applicant guilty of an offence under LAW , in that he had attempted to prevent the police from arresting the organisers of the unlawful public event , in particular by grabbing the police officers by their uniforms and screaming . The third applicant was ordered to pay a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . The third applicant appealed . He complained , in particular , that his arrest and detention had been unlawful . On DATE ORG of Rostov - on - Don upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal . It found , in particular , that the third applicant \u2019s arrest and detention had been lawful under LAW of LAW .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG of RostovonDon found that the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration \u2019s refusals to approve the meeting planned by the applicants had been unlawful . CARDINAL people had been expected to attend the ORG event , while the applicant \u2019s meeting had been attended by CARDINAL people . There was sufficient space to accommodate both events near the PERSON monument . Moreover , the events overlapped in time TIME , from TIME The PERSON - on - Don Town Administration \u2019s argument that it was not possible to hold the CARDINAL events at the same location was therefore unconvincing . Moreover , the location near FAC proposed by ORG was indeed isolated and would not therefore permit the applicants\u2019 meeting to attain its purposes . ORG ordered ORG to approve a meeting near the PERSON monument on a date to be chosen by the applicants .","On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the judgment on appeal . It however overturned the order to approve a meeting on a date to be chosen by the applicants , finding that such an order was contrary to the principle of separation of powers between the judicial and the executive . ORG had thus unduly interfered with the executive \u2019s discretion to approve public events provided by law .","On DATE the first applicant notified ORG of his intention to organise a \u201c picket \u201d on the theme \u201c GPE against GPE , from TIME on DATE in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend .","On DATE the Rostov - on - Don Town Administration refused to agree to the \u201c picket \u201d , on the following grounds :","\u201c The theme of the public event you plan to hold , \u201c GPE against GPE , aspires to create ... a negative image of a ORG official of GPE you allege is unpopular in GPE .","This allegation is false and misleading for the population , as it contradicts the results of many all - GPE opinion polls according to which PERSON inspires confidence in at least a majority of the polled citizens of the country .","A picket with such a title would therefore amount to an action the sole purpose of which is to harm another person , which is contrary to LAW of the GPE \u201d .","NORP The town administration further added that the New Year tree had been put in place and the New Year fair was scheduled to take place at the location chosen by the applicant . The \u201c picket \u201d might thus interfere with the New Year celebrations and inconvenience the merchants .","On DATE the first applicant agreed to change the theme of the event , notified the administration that it would be called \u201c Strategy CARDINAL \u201d and asked them to give it their approval .","On DATE the GPE - on - Don Town Administration refused to allow the \u201c picket \u201d . They found that by modifying the title the organisers had changed the purpose of the event , so a new notification should have been submitted . They also reiterated that no public events were possible near the PERSON monument until DATE because of the New Year tree installed there and the New Year celebrations scheduled to take place nearby .","NORP On DATE the first applicant challenged the decisions of CARDINAL and DATE before ORG of GPE - on - Don .","NORP On DATE the ORG of ORG found that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been lawful and had not violated the applicant \u2019s rights . The sole purpose of a public event entitled \u201c GPE against GPE was to harm another person . By contrast , the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been unlawful . The requirement to submit a new notification had no basis in domestic law . Moreover , no celebrations were scheduled to take place near the PERSON monument from TIME to CARDINAL p. QUANTITY on DATE . The finding that the \u201c picket \u201d might hinder the New Year celebrations had therefore been unsubstantiated . No other valid reasons for the refusal to allow the \u201c picket \u201d had been given .","At TIME that same day the first applicant and some other people gathered near the PERSON monument . They were surrounded by many policemen , whose number considerably exceeded their own .","At TIME the police gave the first applicant a written warning which , referring to the decision of DATE by the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration , stated that the \u201c picket \u201d was unlawful and that the organisers might be therefore held liable for extremist activities . The first applicant showed the police the court judgment of DATE by which the decision of DATE had been overturned . The police replied that the judgment was not yet final and warned the participants that they would be arrested if they started to chant slogans or wave banners . The protesters were forced to end the \u201c picket \u201d .","On DATE the first applicant appealed against the judgment of DATE . He argued that the town administration \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE had violated his freedom of expression by prohibiting him from criticising Prime Minister PERSON . The town administration also appealed , arguing that its decision of CARDINAL DATE had been lawful , as the \u201c picket \u201d could have caused the New Year tree to be knocked over and created a fire hazard .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .","On DATE the second and fourth applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to organise a meeting from TIME QUANTITY on DATE in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend .","On DATE the Rostov - on - ORG refused to allow the meeting , because pedestrian traffic in the area was dense in TIME and the applicants\u2019 meeting might cause inconvenient disruptions . They proposed that the applicants hold their meeting near FAC .","On DATE the second and fourth applicants replied that the proposed venue was unsuitable because it was located in a deserted place far from the town centre . They asked the authorities how many participants they could bring together without obstructing pedestrian traffic near the PERSON monument .","On DATE the Rostov - on - ORG declined to engage in dialogue on the question of freedom of assembly .","The first , second and fourth applicants challenged ORG decision of DATE before LOC of GPE - on - Don .","On DATE the ORG of Rostov - on - Don rejected their complaint , finding that the decision of DATE had been lawful .","On DATE the Rostov ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for fresh examination before ORG .","On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration argued that the area around the PERSON monument was one of the most crowded places in the town . In the rush hour CARDINAL to CARDINAL people per minute passed by the PERSON monument . Some of them might be distracted by the ORG meeting , thereby hindering the passage of other pedestrians . Moreover , the applicants had distributed leaflets calling on the town \u2019s population to take part in the meeting . The possibility could not be ruled out , therefore , that CARDINAL people would attend the meeting . That might have created a danger for public safety . By contrast , the venue near FAC was larger and could therefore accommodate more participants without disrupting pedestrian traffic or jeopardising public safety .","On DATE ORG allowed the second and fourth ORG complaints , finding that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been unlawful . The PERSON - on - Don Town Administration had not provided valid reasons for its proposal that the meeting venue should be changed . Moreover , they had failed to refute the applicants\u2019 argument that the proposed location near FAC would not serve the purposes of the meeting . The court ordered the PERSON - Don Town Administration to allow a meeting of CARDINAL people near the PERSON monument from TIME on DATE with DATE following the entry into force of the judgment . The court rejected the first applicant \u2019s complaints , however , finding that he had no standing to complain to a court because he had not signed the notification of DATE . His intention to participate in the meeting was irrelevant . It also rejected the ORG complaints about discrimination on the basis of political opinion . The fact that other meetings had been allowed at the same location was not sufficient to prove discrimination against the applicants .","On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","NORP On DATE the applicants received a writ of execution .","NORP On DATE the applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold a meeting from TIME on DATE in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , to be attended by CARDINAL people . They enclosed the writ of execution .","On DATE the GPE - on - Don Town Administration approved the meeting .","On DATE ORG of GPE , referring to the threat of terrorist or extremist acts , ordered the police to enclose the location near the PERSON monument with metal barriers , with CARDINAL entry checkpoints . It further ordered that the participants in the meeting be searched with the aid of metal detectors .","On DATE the police gave a written warning to the fourth applicant . It stated , in particular , that the meeting venue would be closed off with barriers . All participants would be searched at the entry checkpoints . If a person refused to be searched , he or she would not be allowed to enter the enclosed area . As the approved number of participants was QUANTITY people , CARDINAL people would be allowed to enter . If CARDINAL people tried to attend the meeting , the police would not let them in .","According to the applicants , the location near the PERSON monument was often used for meetings and other public events , but it was never fenced off on such occasions , and the entry of participants or passers - by was never restricted .","When the participants arrived at the PERSON monument at TIME they saw that the location had been fenced off with metal barriers . It is visible on the photographs of the event submitted by the applicants that police buses were parked along the barriers so that passers - by could not see what was going on in the enclosed area . Moreover , all passers - by were diverted by the police to another road . QUANTITY police officers were present . Although the enclosed area measured QUANTITY . m , CARDINAL people were allowed to enter and attend the meeting , after being searched at an entry checkpoint . According to the applicants , many would - be participants were not let in .","The first , third and fourth applicants complained to ORG , claiming that the police had acted unlawfully and violated their freedom of assembly . In particular , the police were not entitled to limit the number of participants at the meeting . The venue near the PERSON monument could easily accommodate CARDINAL people and the town administration had itself previously organised public events there with CARDINAL participants . There was therefore no justification for limiting the number of participants to CARDINAL people . Fencing the area off with metal barriers , blocking it with police buses , diverting the passers - by to other roads , searching the participants and not letting some of them in , had all also been unlawful and unjustified . The security measures taken by the police had made the meeting invisible to the public and thereby deprived it of its purpose . The reference by the police to the risk of terrorist attacks was unsubstantiated . There was no evidence that such a risk was higher on DATE than on DATE . On DATE , for example , just DATE , an official public event had been held near the PERSON monument and the area had not been fenced off .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG complaints . It found that the number of participants had been determined by the applicants themselves and had then been approved by a final judgment . The police had merely enforced that judgment , acting in accordance with the writ of execution . The enclosing of the venue had been justified by security considerations . The court also found that the first and third applicants had no standing to complain to a court , as they had not been parties to the judicial proceedings which had ended with the judgment of DATE and had not been mentioned in the writ of execution . The fact that in the notification of DATE they were listed as organisers of the meeting of CARDINAL DATE was irrelevant .","On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the judgment on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .","At TIME on DATE the first , third and fourth applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold a meeting from TIME on DATE near the PERSON monument in front of the PERSON - on - ORG building in the town centre . CARDINAL people were expected to attend . They specified that if that venue was already occupied they would agree to hold the meeting in front of the cinema QUANTITY from the PERSON monument . The aim of the meeting was to protest against the violations by the town administration of the freedom of assembly guaranteed by LAW , and against fraudulent practices in the elections to ORG .","On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to approve the meeting , stating that notification of another public event at the same location had already been submitted . The holding of CARDINAL meetings at the same location might create tension and conflict . The authorities proposed that the applicants hold their meeting near ORG .","On DATE the applicants replied that ORG was not a suitable venue , because it was too far away from ORG , which was the target of their protest meeting . Moreover , the area in front of ORG was occupied by a large flowerbed and could not accommodate such a large meeting . It appears that they did not receive any reply .","On DATE , DATE , the applicants challenged the town administration \u2019s decision of DATE before LOC of GPE - on - Don , repeating the arguments stated in their letter of CARDINAL DATE and adding that they had submitted their notification on DATE submissions were open , TIME after the opening of the town administration offices . It was impossible for anyone else to have submitted a notification before them . As to the possible tensions with the people attending the other meeting , the applicants noted that on CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL meetings , each attended by CARDINAL people , had been held simultaneously near the PERSON monument without any trouble or incidents .","On DATE the ORG found that the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration \u2019s decision of DATE had been unlawful . Firstly , the authorities had not proved that it was impossible to hold the CARDINAL events simultaneously . A series of \u201c pickets \u201d organised by ORG , the youth wing of ORG , from TIME every day from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , had been allowed by the town administration . There was however no information as to whether the \u201c pickets \u201d had been held as announced , that is for TIME every day for DATE . In any event , according to the notification , ORG \u201c pickets \u201d involved CARDINAL participants , while CARDINAL people were to attend the applicants\u2019 meeting . The venue near the PERSON monument had sufficient capacity to accommodate both events , especially taking into account that the applicants were willing to hold the event in front of the cinema , some distance from the PERSON monument . Secondly , the court found that the area outside ORG proposed by the town authorities , was not large enough to accommodate all the participants in the ORG meeting . A copy of that judgment was made available to the applicants on DATE .","NORP On DATE the applicants held a meeting near the PERSON monument , in spite of obstruction from the authorities and the police .","On DATE the Rostov ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and rejected the ORG complaint . It found that the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration \u2019s decision of DATE had been lawful and well reasoned . As another public event had been scheduled at the same time and place as that chosen by the applicants , the town administration had proposed using the area outside ORG . This was a busy location in the town centre . The applicants had not explained how the flowerbeds would prevent them from gathering there .","At TIME on DATE the first and fourth applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold meetings from TIME on CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE and DATE , in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . They specified that the location near FAC and the dates were important to them , and stated that if that location was occupied they would agree to hold the meetings in front of the cinema QUANTITY from the PERSON monument . The aim of the meetings was to protest against violations by the town administration of the freedom of assembly guaranteed by LAW , and against fraudulent practices in the elections to ORG .","On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to approve the meetings . Regarding the meeting of CARDINAL DATE , they noted that notification of another public event at the same location had already been submitted . The holding of CARDINAL meetings at the same location might create tension and conflict . They therefore proposed that the applicants\u2019 meeting be held near ORG . As to the remaining meetings , ORG found that the applicants had submitted the notifications too early , outside the time - limits established by the law .","On DATE the first and fourth applicants replied that the venue outside ORG was unsuitable because it was too far away from the town administration , which was the target of their protest meeting . It was also not large enough to accommodate a meeting of CARDINAL people . It appears that they did not receive any reply .","The applicants then challenged the town administration \u2019s refusal to approve the meeting of CARDINAL DATE before ORG of GPE - on - Don , repeating the arguments stated in their letter of CARDINAL DATE and adding that they had submitted their notification on DATE submissions were open , TIME after the opening of the town administration offices . It was impossible for anyone else to have submitted a notification before them . As to the possible tensions with the people attending the other meeting , the applicants noted that on CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL meetings , each attended by CARDINAL people , had been held simultaneously near the PERSON monument without any trouble or incident . Finally , they complained that DATE and DATE they had submitted CARDINAL notifications , all of which had been rejected by the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration for various reasons .","NORP On DATE the ORG of RostovonDon rejected their complaints and found that the PERSON - on - Don authorities\u2019 decision of CARDINAL DATE had been lawful and well reasoned . Another person had notified the authorities of his intention to conduct a public opinion poll on DATE at the same place and time . It was impossible to hold CARDINAL public events simultaneously at the same place as altercations might arise between the participants . The alternative venue proposed by the authorities was a busy square in the town centre . It was large enough to accommodate the meeting and would serve the required purpose .","On DATE the Rostov ORG upheld the judgment on appeal , finding it lawful , well reasoned and justified .","Meanwhile , also before ORG , the applicants challenged the refusal to approve the meetings of DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE . They complained that they had been subjected to discrimination on account of their political views . The Mayor of GPE - on - Don was a member of ORG party . Events organised by that party or its youth wing had always been allowed to proceed . The PERSON - on - Don Town Administration had approved a series of \u201c pickets \u201d , to be held DATE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , for a total of TIME , despite the fact that the notification had been submitted by ORG outside the statutory time - limit . A similar notification submitted by the applicants concerning a series of \u201c pickets \u201d with a total duration of TIME , however , had been rejected by the town administration .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG complaints as unsubstantiated . It found that the applicants\u2019 notification was different from that submitted by ORG , which concerned a single public event that lasted DATE and was therefore allowed by law , while the applicants\u2019 notification concerned a series of separate \u201c pickets \u201d , each of which required a separate notification to be submitted within the legal time - limit . The applicants had not observed that time - limit . There was therefore no evidence of discrimination on account of political opinion . It was also significant that the applicants were not members of any political party .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment on appeal , finding it lawful , well reasoned and justified .","In DATE and DATE the applicants notified the Rostovon - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold meetings on DATE and DATE near the PERSON monument in the town centre . The authorities agreed to the meeting on DATE , but not to the CARDINAL on DATE , because a New Year tree had been installed near the PERSON monument .","At TIME on DATE the first applicant notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of his intention to hold a meeting from TIME on DATE in the centre of GPE - on - Don , near the PERSON monument , which CARDINAL people were expected to attend . He specified that the location and time were important to him , but if the location was already occupied he would agree to hold the meeting in front of the cinema , QUANTITY from the PERSON monument . The aim of the meeting was to protest against violations by ORG guaranteed by LAW , and against fraudulent practices in the elections to ORG .","On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to approve the meeting , because notification of a public event at the same location had already been submitted by someone else . The holding of CARDINAL public events at the same location might create tension and conflict . They therefore proposed that the ORG meeting be held near ORG .","On DATE the first applicant replied that the location near FAC was unsuitable and that it was important for him to hold the meeting in front of ORG . He also stated that he had been the first to enter the town administration building on TIME of the time - limit . No one could have submitted a notification before him .","Having received no reply , on DATE the first applicant challenged the PERSON - on - ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG , repeating the arguments set out in his letter of DATE . He also asked the court to examine the video recordings of the town administration building \u2019s entrance cameras , which would prove that he had been the first to enter the building and submit a notification .","On DATE a deputy head of the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration informed the first applicant that the entrance cameras had been switched off from TIME on DATE for technical reasons .","On DATE the ORG rejected the first applicant \u2019s complaints . It found that PERSON had submitted his notification before the first applicant had , at TIME As it was impossible to hold CARDINAL public events at the same location , the town administration had agreed to PERSON event and proposed an alternative venue to the first applicant . That venue was in a busy area of the town centre and therefore suited the purposes of the meeting . The decision of DATE had therefore been lawful and well reasoned .","On DATE the first applicant appealed . He submitted , in particular , that the town administration had not proved that PERSON had lodged his notification before him . His request for the entry camera recording had been refused . He asserted that he had been the first to enter the administrative building on TIME of DATE and to get an entry pass . He had not seen Mr B. at the reception . If PERSON , a member of the pro - government ORG party , had been allowed to enter without an entry pass , that in itself showed discrimination on account of political opinion . He further submitted that PERSON event , the purpose of which was to inform the population about various youth organisations in the region , was not a public event within the meaning of LAW and therefore did not require any notification or agreement . According to the applicant , it was possible for him to hold his meeting in front of the cinema at the same time as PERSON information event near the PERSON monument . Referring to ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , he requested that his appeal be examined before the date of the intended meeting .","On DATE the first applicant went to the PERSON monument at TIME and remained there for TIME . The location remained empty . Neither Mr B. nor anyone else was there to hold the information event approved by the town administration .","On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Regional Court upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , finding that it had been lawful , well reasoned and justified .","NORP The applicants notified the PERSON - on - Don Town Administration of their intention to hold meetings on DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","The PERSON - on - Don Town Administration refused to give the meetings their approval , giving the following reasons . The meetings of DATE and DATE were not approved because public events organised by ORG were scheduled to take place near the PERSON monument on DATE . The notification of the meeting of CARDINAL DATE was not examined . The meeting of CARDINAL DATE was not approved because celebrations of the start of DATE were to take place near the PERSON monument .","On DATE ORG adopted at first reading a draft law which , in particular , prohibited adoption of children of NORP nationality by GPE citizens .","NORP On DATE the official DATE newspaper ORG announced that the second reading was scheduled for DATE .","According to the applicant , he read on various online social networks that many people intended to stage solo \u201c pickets \u201d on DATE in front of ORG to express their opposition to the draft law . The format of solo \u201c pickets \u201d was chosen because there was no longer time to observe the minimum statutory DATE notification period for other types of public events .","The applicant decided to hold his own solo \u201c picket \u201d , and at TIME positioned himself , holding a banner , in the vicinity of ORG at some distance from other protesters .","According to the applicant , he was arrested by the police TIME and brought in a police van to the nearby police station . At TIME the police drew up a report stating that the applicant had been escorted to the police station so that a report on an administrative offence could be drawn up . An arrest report , drawn up at the same time , stated that the applicant had arrived at the police station at TIME The applicant made a handwritten note on both reports that he was in fact arrested at TIME , when he was put into the police van .","At the police station the applicant was charged with participating in a public event held without prior notification , in breach of LAW CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Offences . The report on the administrative offence indicates that the offence was committed at CARDINAL a.m. The applicant made a handwritten statement that he could not have committed an offence at that time because he had been in the police van since TIME","The applicant was released at TIME","On DATE the justice of the peace of CARDINAL Court Circuit of the Tverskoy District of GPE convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . The justice of the peace found it established , on the basis of police reports , that the applicant had taken part in a \u201c picket \u201d involving CARDINAL people . That \u201c picket \u201d had been unlawful , because no notification had been submitted by the organisers , as required by NORP law . The applicant had waved a banner , thereby attracting the attention of passers - by and journalists assembled for the occasion . He had not complied with the police order to stop picketing .","In his appeal statement the applicant complained , in particular , that his arrest had been unlawful .","On DATE the ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["10","11","13","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","11-1","5-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150320","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SHKARUPA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and placed in pre - trial detention pursuant to an order of ORG of LOC ( \u201c the GPE ORG \u201d ) .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial on several occasions . On the latter date it ordered that he remain in detention until DATE . It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the absence of any grounds to change that particular preventive measure .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and he was sentenced to imprisonment . It also ordered that he remain in detention until his conviction became final .","On DATE ORG quashed the applicant \u2019s conviction and sent his case to the first - instance court for fresh examination . Its decision stated that the preventive measure applied to him \u201c should remain unchanged \u201d .","In an interlocutory hearing on DATE ORG examined a request by the applicant for release pending trial , subject to him either giving an undertaking not to leave a specified place or the application of a different preventive measure . He argued , in particular , that ORG brief indication in its decision of DATE that the preventive measure applied to him should remain unchanged could not serve as a sufficient legal basis for his continued detention . In this connection , ORG noted that ORG decision , in so far as it had concerned the preventive measure , had been lawful as it had been taken in accordance with the relevant provisions of national law . It further did not consider it possible to release the applicant pending trial on account of the seriousness of charges against him and the fact that he was a foreign national and did not reside within the territory of GPE , with the result that he might abscond if at liberty or put pressure on witnesses . The court thus ordered that his detention be extended until DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal . It stated that ORG , in convicting the applicant on DATE , had indicated that he should remain in detention until that judgment became final . It further noted that when quashing the conviction , it itself had stated that the preventive measure applied to the applicant should remain unchanged , and that then , in accordance with LAW of LAW , ORG had extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE . It thus concluded that the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was lawful , wellfounded and based on a court order .","On DATE the ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . He requested his release , stating that he had been in custody for a long time and that his health had deteriorated . The court held that there were no grounds to change the preventive measure applied to him . It referred to the seriousness of the charges against him and the fact that he was a foreign national and did not reside within the territory of GPE , with the result that he might abscond or influence witnesses if released .","On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant remain in detention until DATE . He asked the court to change the preventive measure , referring to the poor state of his health and the fact that he had already been kept in detention for a long time . He further argued that he would not abscond , given that his family lived in ORG and owned property nearby . The court stated that because the applicant had been charged with a particularly serious offence , had pleaded not guilty , was a foreign national and was not registered within the territory of GPE , he might seek to evade justice . It also stated that the extension of his detention was necessary , in view of the fact that an expert examination in his case was being carried out in GPE at the time .","On DATE the ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . He asked to be released , arguing that he had a child and family in LOC as well as property nearby where he could be registered . He had also already spent a long time in detention and his state of health had deteriorated . The court gave reasons similar to those indicated in its decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s release , subject to him giving an undertaking not to leave a specified place . The court noted that he had been kept in detention for a long time , and that his wife and child lived in GPE , where the latter went to school . It also took into account the fact that they were NORP nationals , and that there was therefore a possibility , and a place , for the applicant to live in the LOC pending trial . The court further noted that the results of the expert examination carried out in GPE had since been received . It also referred to the fact that the applicant had no previous criminal record , had positive references from his place of residence and place of work and needed medical treatment as his health had deteriorated .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant . In the operative part of its judgment it stated that he had a right to \u201c rehabilitation \u201d ( \u0440\u0435\u0430\u0431\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0442\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f ) and that it was open to him to claim compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG upheld the acquittal on appeal .","After his acquittal the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the authorities in LOC under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure and LAW . He claimed MONEY ( RUB ) for the pecuniary damage resulting from his unlawful prosecution and detention , and RUB CARDINAL for costs and expenses . He argued , in particular , that as a result of being prosecuted for an offence he had not committed he had been deprived of his liberty , which had caused him and his family suffering . Furthermore , he could not work and his health had deteriorated .","On DATE ORG partly allowed the applicant \u2019s claim for non - pecuniary damage and awarded him RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( MONEY ) . In its reasoning the court firstly noted that under LAW everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in breach of that provision should have the right to compensation . It further noted that by virtue of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant had been acquitted and his right to \u201c rehabilitation \u201d had been recognised . On this basis the court found that he had been unlawfully prosecuted , unlawfully detained from DATE to DATE and , subsequently , unlawfully subjected to an undertaking not to leave a specified place . It further stated that , where a person \u2019s right to rehabilitation had been recognised , the existence of non - pecuniary damage was presumed and it was only the amount to be awarded that had to be established . For these purposes the court took into account the suffering caused to the applicant and the fact that his health had deteriorated . It relied on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in this regard .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s claim for costs and expenses , on the grounds that it could not be examined within the civil proceedings but rather should be brought within criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","DATE , during the examination of the applicant \u2019s case , he was on several occasions taken to the temporary detention facility of ORG ( \u201c the Berdsk IVS \u201d ) so that he could take part in the proceedings .","The applicant provided the following information concerning his detention in the ORG :","- DATE and CARDINAL and DATE he was held with CARDINAL cellmate in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY and was equipped with CARDINAL beds ;","- DATE he was again held in cell no . CARDINAL , but this time with CARDINAL cellmates ;","- DATE and DATE he was held with CARDINAL cellmates in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY ;","- DATE he was again held in cell no . CARDINAL , but this time with CARDINAL cellmates ;","- DATE he was held with CARDINAL cellmates in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY and was equipped with CARDINAL beds ;","- DATE he was again held in cell no . CARDINAL , but this time with CARDINAL cellmates ;","- DATE and DATE he was held with CARDINAL cellmate in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY and was equipped with CARDINAL bed ;","- DATE and DATE he was held with CARDINAL cellmates in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY and was equipped with CARDINAL beds ;","- DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE DATE and CARDINAL and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was again held in cell no . CARDINAL with CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL cellmates respectively ;","- DATE and DATE the applicant was again held in cell no . CARDINAL , but this time with CARDINAL cellmates .","None of the cells was equipped with a wash basin , which made basic hygiene procedures impossible . Detainees could take a shower only once DATE . There was no partition between the lavatory and the rest of the room , which offered no privacy . The cells were infested with bedbugs and no pest control treatments were ever conducted . As there were no windows , there was no fresh air or daylight . The ventilation system was turned on very rarely , so the cells were stuffy and humid and in DATE it was hard to breathe . The artificial lighting was insufficient , which affected GPE eyesight . The fact that there were no tables and chairs was humiliating as detainees had to eat , prepare for hearings and write complaints and applications while sitting on the floor . Food was served only once a day and the applicant was constantly hungry . Walks outside the cells were irregular and did not last for TIME .","According to the Government , they were unable to provide exact information about the cells the applicant was held in DATE and part of DATE or the number of inmates he was held with , as the relevant documents had been destroyed on the expiry of their storage period .","They did , however , provide the following information concerning the applicant \u2019s detention in ORG in DATE to DATE :","- DATE he was held with CARDINAL inmates in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY ;","- DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE , he was held with CARDINAL inmates in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY ;","- DATE and DATE he was held with CARDINAL cellmates in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY .","The cells did not have windows but were ventilated . They contained no other furniture apart from beds . The number of cellmates exceeded the number of available beds . Each cell had a wall - mounted lavatory , but there was no partition to divide it from the rest of the cell . The cells were cleaned DATE , and pest control treatments were conducted DATE .","Detainees were each provided with bedding , towels , crockery and cutlery . Shaving items were made available upon request at least twice DATE . Detainees were taken for a DATE walk of a minimum of TIME in a yard measuring QUANTITY . Hot meals were provided CARDINAL times a day .","On DATE a group of police officers of ORG accompanied by an officer of ORG entered the ORG cell to inspect it .","According to the applicant , the police officers ordered him and his cellmates to stay crouched down with their hands on the back of their heads and started checking their personal belongings and sleeping places . CARDINAL of the officers threw a pillow on the floor and the applicant moved to pick it up . An officer tried to then kick him in the head , but as he tried to cover himself with his arms , he kicked him in the arm . The officers insulted and threatened him .","On DATE the applicant complained about the above incident to the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office and ORG of LOC .","On DATE an investigator of the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office refused to institute a criminal investigation into the incident . The decision stated , in particular , that according to the statements given by the police officers and the head of ORG , no physical force had been used against the applicant . PERSON , who according to the applicant had remained in the cell and had witnessed the incident , submitted that when the police officers had started the inspection he had left the cell and waited in the corridor . He had heard the applicant arguing with the police officers . When he had re - entered the cell after the inspection , the applicant had told him about the incident and had said that he would be making a complaint . However , ORG had not seen him be kicked in the arm . His statement was confirmed by ORG . , an officer of ORG who was on duty on DATE , who stated that ORG had been outside the cell during the inspection . The investigator concluded that there was no evidence that an offence had been committed . The decision stated that it could be appealed against to a higher prosecutor or a court .","The PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office informed the applicant of the decision by letter on DATE . According to the applicant , he was not informed of the decision .","Nevertheless , the applicant complained about the decision to a higher prosecutor .","On DATE the prosecutor of ORG dismissed the complaint and upheld the decision .","The applicant did not appeal against the refusal to institute criminal proceedings to a court ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183386","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SIDEA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The facts , as submitted by the parties , are similar to those in ORG \u201c DATE \u201d and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","The applicants or their close relatives participated in demonstrations and were injured or killed by gunfire during the events of DATE in GPE , ORG and PERSON which led to the fall of the communist regime .","In DATE the military prosecutor \u2019s offices from several cities opened criminal investigations into the use of violence against the demonstrators , including the applicants\u2019 injury or their close relatives\u2019 death during these events . The main criminal investigation was recorded in file no . CARDINAL ( current no . CARDINAL\/P\/CARDINAL ) . In a number of cases the prosecutor decided DATE not to open an investigation or to discontinue the proceedings . These cases were further examined in the main criminal investigation file irrespective of a formal decision ordering re - opening , applicants being questioned by the prosecutor and raising civil claims , according to the circumstances of each case .","The most important procedural steps were described in Association \u201c DATE \u201d and Others ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ) , and also in GPE and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) . Subsequent relevant domestic decisions are shown below .","On DATE the military prosecutor \u2019s office closed the main investigation , finding that the complaints were partly statute - barred , partly subject to an amnesty , and partly ill - founded . It also found that some of the occurrences could not be classified as offences and some were res judicatae ( see GPE - Loredana Or\u0103\u0219anu and Others v. GPE [ Committee ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The decision of DATE was annulled by a ORG decision of DATE , confirmed by ORG and ORG on DATE . It was noted that the investigation in file no . CARDINAL\/P\/CARDINAL was incomplete and that the facts could not be established based on the evidence gathered up to that date .","On DATE the military prosecutor ordered the initiation in rem of a criminal investigation for the offence of crimes against humanity in respect of the same circumstances of fact . Up to DATE further steps were taken in gathering information from domestic authorities , the prosecutor \u2019s office contacting CARDINAL civil parties , questioning members of the political party which took over the presidency at the time of events , planning the hearing of military officers and other participants in the events , verifying the activity of the relevant military units and the audio \/ video recordings broadcast by radio and television .","At the date of the latest information available to ORG ( submitted by the parties on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) , the criminal investigation was still ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175216","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DNK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"ALAM v. DENMARK","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant stated that she entered GPE in DATE , when she was DATE , to join her father , who already lived there . It is not known when her mother and siblings arrived .","The applicant was registered with ORG ( folkeregisteret ) as from DATE . On DATE she was granted a permanent residence permit .","The applicant went to school and studied to be a datamathematician .","In DATE , when the applicant was DATE , her parents arranged her marriage to F , a NORP national , in GPE .","In DATE , F entered GPE on a tourist visa . After DATE , he returned to GPE . During DATE they visited each other in GPE and GPE .","On DATE , the applicant gave birth in GPE to their son , M , a NORP national .","On DATE , the applicant gave birth in GPE to their daughter , I , a NORP national .","The applicant maintained that F was violent and that in DATE , when she had been in GPE to attend her brother \u2019s wedding , she and the children had been locked up for DATE by ORG and his family , in order to keep her in GPE . She had managed to escape , but F had found them and kidnapped PERSON With assistance from ORG , the applicant and I had returned to GPE . After some time , F had agreed that M be returned to the applicant in GPE . Thereafter the applicant did not return to GPE and the spouses had no contact . They divorced in DATE or DATE . In DATE the applicant was granted sole custody of M and I.","NORP In GPE the applicant lived with her children , her mother and a brother .","NORP On DATE she was convicted of social security fraud and given a DATE suspended sentence .","On DATE the applicant was detained and charged with , inter alia , murder .","On DATE , she was convicted by ORG ( retten i GPE ) of murder , attempted aggravated robbery and arson under Articles CARDINAL , FAC in conjunction with CARDINAL , and CARDINAL of LAW . She was sentenced to life imprisonment .","ORG found it established , among other things , that the applicant had had a relationship with a NORP man who later married N , for which reason the applicant , who was DATE at the time , planned to murder PERSON With the help of her CARDINAL-year - old nephew and his DATE friend , they watched the spouses\u2019 apartment and , when they were certain that N was alone , they entered , masked , armed with a meat tenderiser and carrying petrol . Then they searched in vain for valuables , poured petrol over N and set her alight . She burned to death , and the apartment burned out , thereby also endangering the lives of the other inhabitants of the residential building .","By the same judgment , the applicant was expelled from GPE with a life - long ban on returning . Before ORG , ORG ) gave a statement about the applicant \u2019s situation , including , inter alia , that she had stayed legally in GPE for DATE , that she spoke LANGUAGE , LANGUAGE , NORP , PERSON , GPE and NORP , and that her mother and CARDINAL siblings lived in GPE . Moreover , since the children \u2019s residence permits were dependent on the applicant living in GPE , expulsion might have consequences for them .","Before ORG , the applicant stated that most of her family in GPE had obtained NORP nationality . Her father , who had died in DATE , had been married before , and she had CARDINAL - siblings in GPE from that marriage . Her mother went often to GPE and owned a house there . Her children , at that time aged DATE , had been placed with her sister and her husband since the applicant \u2019s arrest . She was afraid that their father , F , would kidnap them and take them to GPE . He had obtained a NORP passport . The children spoke NORP , and M also spoke a little PERSON in order to be able to talk to his maternal grandmother .","In respect of the expulsion order ORG stated :","\u201c [ The applicant ] who is DATE , entered GPE ... when she was DATE . She has had all her upbringing , schooling and education in this country . Her mother and most of her siblings live in GPE and are NORP citizens . Moreover , her children , who are DATE , live in GPE . However , [ the applicant ] has maintained what must be considered a real attachment to GPE and NORP culture . With her mother she speaks only PERSON , and her family is integrated as a central part of her network . She has previously been to GPE , where she has CARDINAL - sisters , and her mother often goes to GPE , where she owns a house . Against this background , and having regard to the fact that [ the applicant ] is punished with life imprisonment for attempted aggravated robbery , murder and arson , and since the above - stated about the risk of double punishment and persecution and considerations for the applicant \u2019s children can not lead to another decision , expulsion will not breach LAW or GPE \u2019s international obligations otherwise , see section DATE , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW . Against this background there are CARDINAL votes in favour of granting the expulsion request with a lifelong ban on returning by virtue of section DATE , subsection CARDINAL , in conjunction with section CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL and section DATE , subsection CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL . \u201d","The applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG of Eastern GPE ( PERSON ) before which she explained , among other things , that her children had visited her in prison once or DATE . F had requested custody of the children and that case was pending before ORG . He had attempted , in vain , to obtain a residence permit in GPE .","By judgment of DATE , ORG confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to DATE imprisonment . Adhering to the reasons set out by ORG , it upheld the expulsion order .","Leave to appeal to ORG ( H\u00f8jesteret ) was refused on DATE .","On DATE , the applicant married a NORP citizen .","By judgment of DATE , ORG request for custody of M and I was refused . From that judgment it appeared that the applicant had consented to her children being officially placed with her sister and her husband . The children were well - adjusted . They had not seen F for DATE . In the period from DATE to DATE he had not contacted them at all . They wanted to live with their mother , together with their aunt and uncle ( with whom they lived ) . They did not want to live with their father in GPE . Even if the father had the possibility to move to GPE , they did not want to live with him . They did not want contact with him .","NORP The relevant provisions of LAW ( udl\u00e6ndingeloven ) relating to expulsion were recently set out in detail in GPE v. GPE , no . GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","DATE of the LAW sets out that release on parole may take place at the expiry of CARDINAL of the term of imprisonment , or in special circumstances , take place earlier , provided that the prisoner has served CARDINAL of the sentence , and this constitutes a period of DATE . If a sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed , leave on parole can only take place after the prisoner has served DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173770","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GAPAEV AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The ORG has not been informed of their current place of residence .","The first and second applicants , a married couple , arrived in GPE in DATE . Their CARDINAL children , the remaining applicants , were born in that country . All members of the family were granted permanent resident permits . In DATE the first applicant bought a flat in GPE , where the family lived .","On DATE the head of ORG issued an order withdrawing the first applicant \u2019s residence permit , ordering his expulsion and imposing a DATE ban on his reentering GPE , on the ground that his presence in the country represented a \u201c serious threat to national security \u201d . Factual grounds justifying the order were not indicated ; it was merely noted that it was based on \u201c proposal no . BCARDINAL \u201d .","NORP That proposal , drawn up by ORG on DATE and initially classified , was declassified on CARDINAL DATE and has been submitted by ORG . It stated that , according to intelligence data , the first applicant was the leader of an international terrorist group , working towards the aiding and financing of NORP extremist and separatist organisations . It also stated that he was being searched on the territory of GPE and that his actions lowered the prestige and the interests of ORG . The document claimed , in addition , that the first applicant had been implicated in extortion , drug trafficking , smuggling , money laundering and other criminal activities . No evidence was provided to substantiate those claims , even though the document referred to some specific facts . It was stated , for example , that in DATE the applicant and another person had attempted to smuggle into GPE a \u201c highly toxic substance \u201d , and that , also in DATE , he had threatened the seller of an expensive property in GPE forcing him to choose as a buyer a person close to the applicant .","On DATE the first applicant applied for judicial review of the expulsion order . He disputed the allegation that he represented \u201c a serious threat to national security \u201d . He pointed out that his family was living in GPE and that his children had been born in the country , and claimed that the proposed separation of his family was \u201c unjustified \u201d .","During the ensuing proceedings the applicant and his representative were shown proposal no . BCARDINAL and they presented evidence seeking to disprove some of the allegations it contained . In particular , the first applicant presented certificates issued by the NORP and the NORP authorities stating that he had no convictions in the CARDINAL countries and explained that in DATE he had travelled to GPE , where , as he claimed , he would have been arrested had he indeed been searched by the authorities of that country . In addition , in his written submissions the first applicant \u2019s representative pointed out that the allegations made in the proposal were not substantiated by any evidence , and that they could not justify a conclusion that the applicant represented a threat to national security . In his oral pleadings he pointed out once again that the first applicant had \u201c created his family \u201d in GPE .","In a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the application for judicial review . After summarizing the claims made in proposal no . BCARDINAL , it held briefly that it was bound by them . Thus , in its view","\u201c it should be concluded that the presence and the activity of the [ first applicant ] amount to a serious threat to national security and to the international prestige of GPE . \u201d","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the head of ORG ordered the first applicant \u2019s detention pending expulsion . That decision was quashed in a judgment of ORG of DATE . In another decision dated CARDINAL DATE the head of ORG ordered once again the applicant \u2019s detention . That decision was quashed as well , in a judgment of ORG of DATE . The first applicant effectively remained in detention from DATE to the date of his expulsion , DATE .","The other applicants remained for DATE in GPE , but left in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162866","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF McINNES v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC , GPE .","On DATE the applicant sustained injuries in a traffic accident caused by the vehicles owned by the PERSON and ORG , both ORG \/ socially - owned companies ( the debtors ) .","On DATE and DATE ORG in GPE rendered CARDINAL separate judgments ordering the debtors to pay the applicant certain sums as compensation for the sustained damages .","Due to the NORP failure to fulfil their obligations from these decisions , the applicant submitted enforcement requests . On DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG in GPE issued enforcement orders to that effect . The enforcement proceedings are still pending and the above decisions remain unenforced ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178354","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VOROKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["DATE the applicants took part in the clean - up operation at the GPE nuclear disaster site . They were subsequently registered disabled and became entitled to various social benefits and compensation paid on a regular basis .","Considering these benefits insufficient , the applicants together with other CARDINAL people , sued ORG for additional compensation corresponding to non - pecuniary damage suffered as a result of their participation in the operation .","NORP On different dates in DATE and DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) allowed their claims in part and awarded each claimant , including the applicants , compensation ranging MONEY ( RUB ) and RUB CARDINAL for nonpecuniary damage .","No appeals were lodged against these judgments within the statutory DATE time - limit . The judgments became final but have never been executed .","NORP On different dates ORG granted the defendant authority \u2019s request to extend the time - limit for appeal on the grounds that the authorities had not received a copy of the judgment in due course . Subsequently the regional ORG quashed the judgments delivered in the applicants\u2019 favour on the grounds that they had been based on retrospective application of the law ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141835","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"CIMENDAG v. SWITZERLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Peer Lorenzen","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC in GPE , GPE of GPE .","NORP The applicant entered GPE in DATE . From DATE onwards he had a relationship with A. , another NORP national living in GPE . The couple \u2019s relationship was marked by conflict , and the applicant repeatedly threatened and also committed major assaults against NORP Numerous criminal proceedings were instituted but subsequently closed because ORG withdrew her accusation or refused to institute criminal proceedings .","On DATE the applicant was however found guilty by the appeal court of the GPE of ORG Basel - Stadt , \u201c the appeal court \u201d ) of endangering A. \u2019s life by pushing her into the LOC and of raping her . He was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , of which DATE suspended for DATE . It was planned that the applicant would serve the prison sentence from DATE .","On DATE ORG of ORG ordered the expulsion of the applicant from NORP territory . It is unknown whether that decision became final .","On DATE the criminal court of the GPE of ORG ( ORG Basel - Stadt , \u201c the criminal court \u201d ) sentenced the applicant for threatening behaviour towards DATE imprisonment . Since the applicant was sentenced during the probation period under the former conviction of DATE , the criminal court decided that the previously suspended CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment was to be enforced as well .","The applicant was sentenced on the basis of the following event . On CARDINAL DATE , during an appointment with his psychiatrist , who had been treating him since DATE , the applicant had declared that he was planning to take revenge on his ex - girlfriend , PERSON , whom he considered to be the cause of all his problems . He had stated that he would find her , rape her and kill her , and that he did not care if he were sentenced again . As later stated by the psychiatrist , this was not the first time that the applicant had expressed feelings of revenge against A. This time , however the psychiatrist had had the impression that the applicant was very determined to accomplish those acts , especially because at the end of the session the applicant had thanked him \u201c for everything \u201d and refused to make another appointment . Fearing for A. \u2019s life , the psychiatrist had therefore sought authorisation from ORG of the GPE of ORG to be released from his duty of professional confidentiality , and subsequently informed the police . The same day the police informed A. about the applicant \u2019s threats . Anxious about what could happen to her , she made a criminal complaint against the applicant for threatening behaviour .","During the proceedings before the criminal court , the applicant denied that he had threatened to kill A. He stated that his psychiatrist had misunderstood him and that he had effectively said that he was going to kill himself . Partly contradicting himself , the applicant also claimed that he \u201c had not meant seriously \u201d what he had said . In defence of the applicant , his representative further submitted that the applicant had made those statements to his psychiatrist , who was acting under professional confidentiality . He could not have anticipated that his psychiatrist was going to inform the police , and he had therefore not acted with the intention to threaten his ex - girlfriend .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE the criminal court however found that the applicant had fulfilled all the elements of threatening behaviour as established in LAW ( \u201c the SCC \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On the one hand , it was not necessary for the applicant to have made the threat directly to A ; it was sufficient that she had become aware of it . On the other hand , the criminal court held that the applicant could have anticipated , in the light of the seriousness of his threats and his general behaviour during the session with the psychiatrist , that his psychiatrist would take action to prevent him from carrying them out ; even more so as his psychiatrist knew his former criminal record and had been treating him for DATE . The criminal court found that it must have been clear to the applicant that his psychiatrist , especially as a doctor , would give more weigh to the health of a third person than to his duty of professional confidentiality . Furthermore , at a later time , when the applicant \u2019s sister informed him that the police were looking for him , he had immediately known the reason for it . He had hence anticipated his psychiatrist \u2019s acts and acted with the intention of threatening his ex - girlfriend . He therefore fulfilled all the elements of threatening behaviour according to LAW .","The applicant appealed against this decision . He claimed in particular that he had not acted with the intention of threatening PERSON could not have anticipated that his psychiatrist would be released from his duty of professional confidentiality and would subsequently inform the police , who would in their turn inform PERSON had therefore not fulfilled the subjective elements of threatening behaviour as established in LAW .","On DATE the appeal court endorsed the decision of the criminal court . It established that during questioning the applicant had never stated that he was relying on the psychiatrist \u2019s duty of professional confidentiality . He had only disputed that he had ever said that he was planning to rape and kill A. The appeal court further held that from the applicant \u2019s decisive behaviour on DATE in not making another appointment and saying goodbye to his psychiatrist in a dramatic manner , it could even be concluded that he wanted his psychiatrist to do something . Even if the applicant had wished to provoke his psychiatrist into taking action other than seeking an intervention by the police , the psychiatrist would have been obliged to be released from the duty of professional confidentiality in any event , and A. would have come to know about the threats anyway . The appeal court therefore concluded that the applicant had intended to threaten GPE and that he was guilty under LAW SCC .","On an appeal by the applicant , ORG upheld the appeal court \u2019s decision on DATE . It reasoned that in the given circumstances the applicant could have predicted that the psychiatrist would give more weight to ORG \u2019s life higher than to his duty of professional confidentiality . In behaving as he did that day the applicant had at least regarded this as possible and accepted that the threats would come to be known by NORP The applicant had therefore been correctly sentenced .","Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the SCC , as in force at the relevant time , read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Unless the law expressly provides otherwise , a person is only liable to prosecution for a felony or misdemeanour if he commits it wilfully .","A person commits a felony or misdemeanour wilfully if he carries out the act in the knowledge of what he is doing and in accordance with his will . A person is acting wilfully as soon as he regards the realisation of the act as being possible and accepts this .","A person commits a felony or misdemeanour through negligence if he fails to consider or disregards the consequences of his conduct due to a culpable lack of care . A lack of care is culpable if the person fails to exercise the care that is incumbent on him in the circumstances and is commensurate with his personal capabilities . \u201c","\u201c CARDINAL . Any person who places another in a state of fear and alarm by making a serious threat is liable on complaint to a custodial sentence not exceeding DATE or to a monetary penalty ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Any person who in his capacity as a member of the clergy , lawyer , defence lawyer , notary , patent attorney , auditor subject to a duty of confidentiality under LAW , doctor , dentist , pharmacist , midwife , psychologist or as an auxiliary to any of the foregoing persons discloses confidential information that has been confided to him in his professional capacity or which has come to his knowledge in the practice of his profession is liable on complaint to a custodial sentence not exceeding DATE , or to a monetary penalty ...","No offence is committed if the person disclosing the information does so with the consent of the person to whom the information pertains or on the basis of written authorisation issued in response to his application by a superior authority or supervisory authority ... \u201d","Paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of the GPE of ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) as in force at the relevant time read as follows :","\u201c ... CARDINAL . In well - grounded cases the competent body can release a person from the duties of confidentiality provided in LAW . \u201c","\u201c ... CARDINAL . Information can be provided to the authorities of investigation and prosecution , also upon their own request , if if there is a suspicion that CARDINAL of the following crimes might be committed ( \u201c ORG der folgenenden ORG \u201d ) :","a ) homicide ;","b ) grave bodily assault ...","j ) criminal acts against the sexual integrity of a person ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178503","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DEL\u0130BA\u015e v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s daughter , PERSON , lost her life following the collapse of the building where she resided in PERSON as the result of an earthquake ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and QUANTITY others , \u00a7 DATE , DATE for further details regarding that earthquake ) . According to official records , CARDINAL other people lost their lives as a result of the collapse of the same building .","Shortly after the incident , criminal proceedings were brought against the contractor ( NORP ) and the architect ( GPE ) of the building in question . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE GPE and GPE were questioned by the police and the PERSON public prosecutor , respectively . They denied all accusations in respect of the collapse of the building .","During an expert examination of the remains of the building on CARDINAL DATE , certain problems were noted with the building \u2019s reinforcing rods . It was also noted that the metal brackets had not been properly fastened to the girders . Apart from GPE and GPE , against whom charges had already been brought in connection with the collapse of the building , the experts also identified the involvement of ORG , a civil engineer , and FAC , ORG of PERSON ( \u201c the Municipality \u201d ) , in the preparation and authorisation of the respective construction project .","On DATE the police questioned GPE , ORG . He denied all accusations in respect of the collapse of the building .","According to another report dated DATE , the expert examination of the collapsed building revealed that the granulometry of the concrete used in the building was very poor , that the concrete contained a very high proportion of pebbles , that the water - to - cement ratio in the concrete mix was not appropriate and had resulted in the formation of pores in the concrete , and that the ironwork had worked loose from the concrete because the metal brackets had corroded .","On DATE the applicant asked to join the proceedings as a civil party . He added that he wished to lodge a criminal complaint against all individuals who had been involved in the construction of the defective building in their different capacities , including the public officials who had authorised its construction and occupation .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor disjoined the investigation against ORG FAC ) from those against GPE and GPE in view of the special judicial procedures that had to be followed in respect of the prosecution of civil servants under LAW ( Law no . DATE ) .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office filed a bill of indictment with ORG against GPE and GPE in respect of the deaths caused by the collapse of the building in question on CARDINAL DATE . The public prosecutor accused them of endangering the lives of others by carelessness , negligence or inexperience under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW in force at the material time ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , emphasising in particular the structural shortcomings in the building noted by the experts ( see paragraph CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","At the hearing held on DATE the applicant requested the investigation of all municipal officials who had authorised the construction and occupation of the building despite its failure to comply with the relevant technical regulations . Over the course of the criminal proceedings , the applicant repeated this request CARDINAL times .","According to an expert report added to the criminal case file on DATE , the following people had responsibility for all private construction undertaken within the municipal boundaries : ( i ) the contractor , who was responsible for the realisation of the project in compliance with the technical and work safety standards ; ( ii ) the project engineer , who was responsible for all technical aspects of the project , including compliance with all relevant rules and regulations ; ( iii ) the municipal representative , who was responsible for examining the calculations and the plan prepared by the project manager , verifying the compatibility of the project with the regulations in force , and authorising the project ; and ( iv ) the technical implementation officer , who was in charge of inspecting the construction work on behalf of the LOC . On this basis , the experts concluded that GPE and GPE bore PERCENT and PERCENT responsibility for the collapse of the building . The experts stated that they could not , however , offer opinions on the responsibility of anyone other than the CARDINAL defendants in the case ( GPE and GPE ) .","On DATE the ORG held that the statutory period during which GPE and GPE could be held criminally liable in connection with a collapse of the building had started running in DATE when the last official licence for the building was obtained DATE and had already expired by the date of the earthquake . The case was accordingly discontinued for having become timebarred . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court . It held that the statutory time - limit was to be calculated from the date on which the building collapsed , that is to say from CARDINAL DATE , the date on which the offence in question had been committed .","On DATE an additional indictment was filed against ORG , the civil engineer who had taken part in the construction of the building in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It was noted in the indictment that ORG had obtained licences to secure the illegal extension of the building subsequent to its construction .","On DATE the ORG convicted GPE , GPE and ORG as charged and sentenced each of them to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and a fine , but decided to suspend execution of the sentences under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) . The applicant appealed against this judgment and once again requested an investigation into the responsibility of the relevant municipal officials in relation to the collapse of the building .","On DATE ORG once again quashed the firstinstance court \u2019s judgment , this time as the court had not taken any decision as regards the applicant \u2019s request to join the proceedings as a civil party in respect of the case subsequently brought against ORG","On DATE the ORG commissioned a new expert report from ORG in GPE . The expert report subsequently released on DATE found that the building in question had collapsed on account of the structural problems noted in the earlier expert reports , as well as its illegal extension subsequent to its construction . It was also stated in the report that the defendants jointly bore PERCENT of the responsibility for the collapse of the building . PERCENT responsibility lay with the GPE officials on account of their failure to duly inspect the building before issuing it with the necessary permits for occupation .","On DATE the ORG convicted GPE , GPE and ORG as charged , and sentenced each of them , once again , to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and a fine . Execution of the sentences was suspended pursuant to LAW no . DATE ) . Relying on the findings of the later expert report as regards the responsibility of the municipal officials for the collapse of the building , it also decided that a criminal complaint should be filed against the relevant officials with the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office . The defendant H.E lodged an appeal against this judgment .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment for the third time . It found that the assize court had failed to evaluate the case in the light of FAC no . DATE ) which had entered into force on DATE .","On DATE the ORG decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings in respect of all CARDINAL of the defendants as the prosecution of the offence in question had become time - barred .","On DATE ORG held firstly that the decision of the first - instance court , in so far as it concerned ORG and ORG , was null and void , since the earlier judgment of DATE had already become final in their regard as they had not lodged an appeal . It then went on to uphold the decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of NORP only .","On DATE the applicant , along with his wife and other daughter , instituted compensation proceedings before ORG against ORG ve PERSON ) , the PERSON governor \u2019s office and GPE of PERSON , in respect of the death of their daughter PERSON . The applicant and his wife each claimed CARDINAL NORP liras ( TRY ) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage . Their daughter claimed TRY CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage only .","On DATE the ORG commissioned an expert report to determine responsibility on the part of the administration for the collapse of the building .","As regards the findings in the reports adduced to the criminal case file , the experts noted that the quality of the concrete used in the construction and certain structural elements of the building had been below the required standard . The building had , moreover , been illegally extended after its construction . The municipal officials had failed to duly inspect the building during its construction phase or before issuing the necessary permit for its occupation . They had also failed to carry out a soil survey in the area and to identify the potential \u201c disaster zones \u201d in the event of an earthquake , with a view to limiting the height of buildings in such areas . The experts concluded that , in view of such failures , the LOC had been PERCENT responsible for the collapse of the building in question . On the other hand , it found that the other CARDINAL defendants had not been at fault .","Relying on that expert report , on DATE ORG partially accepted the applicant \u2019s claims against the LOC , and awarded him TRY CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage in accordance with his request , plus interest . It also awarded his wife and daughter TRY CARDINAL and TRY CARDINAL , respectively , in respect of nonpecuniary damage . It rejected their claims in respect of pecuniary damage as being unfounded .","On DATE the applicant and his family received a total of TRY CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the material time ) from the GPE as compensation . In the meantime , the LOC appealed against the judgment of ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the lower administrative court ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167824","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"VAN BEUKERING AND HET PAROOL B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , is a GPE national born in DATE and resident in GPE . She was , at the relevant time , the chief editor of the newspaper ORG .","The second applicant , ORG , is a limited liability company under GPE law with its seat in GPE . It publishes the newspaper ORG .","Het ORG is a newspaper focusing on news relevant to the GPE region . Its readership is likewise to be found mostly in the GPE region , although nationwide circulation is claimed for it .","The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON Brink , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP In DATE the public - service television broadcaster ORG aired a series of CARDINAL television documentaries entitled ORG ) , each episode being devoted to a young person who had made radical choices that set them apart from mainstream society . CARDINAL episode focused on GPE , a young man born in DATE . It mentioned his lifestyle as an active member of a street gang and as a performer of rap music and his troubled relationship with his mother . PERSON himself was shown recognisably and his name was mentioned . The episode was broadcast twice , in DATE and DATE , and was available for downloading from the internet free of charge until DATE .","NORP In DATE a video clip was published on GPE that showed GPE performing rap music in memory of a fellow rapper who had been killed in a fight . This video clip was , apparently , removed on an unknown date .","NORP In DATE PERSON was admitted to a shelter for the homeless in GPE . On DATE PERSON was warned that he would have to leave because of his aggressive behaviour . He drew a knife and stabbed CARDINAL staff members , killing CARDINAL and inflicting serious injury on the CARDINAL others .","On DATE , shortly before the trial of GPE was to open , PERSON published an article with the heading \u201c PERSON artist with a short temper \u201d ( Rapper met een kort lontje ) announcing that PERSON was due to appear in court on charges related to the above - mentioned stabbing . The article described PERSON \u2019s personal circumstances and background . The information was taken from the documentary described above . The article , which did not state GPE \u2019s full surname , was accompanied by a portrait image of GPE , a still picture likewise taken from the documentary . The picture was taken at an angle , showing a prominent scar \u2013 stated in the article to have resulted from a fight DATE GPE \u2019s eyes . The article and the portrait image were published both in the newspaper itself and on its internet web site .","The portrait image was removed from the newspaper \u2019s web site on DATE . The text of the article remains online to DATE .","On DATE PERSON was convicted on appeal of manslaughter and attempted manslaughter and of lesser additional crimes . He was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and placed at the disposal of the Government ( terbeschikkingstelling , \u201c ORG order \u201d ) with confinement in a custodial clinic ( bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege ) .","The trial was covered by other newspapers , television news broadcasters and internet web sites . Some included a drawing stated to be of GPE in court ; others used still pictures copied from the documentary before it was taken offline .","On DATE GPE , through his lawyer , wrote to the first applicant demanding removal of the portrait image from the newspaper \u2019s web site and payment of MONEY ( ORG ) . Relying on section QUANTITY of LAW ( PERSON ; see below ) , he stated that his reasonable interests were affected by the publication : he was recognised in the remand prison where he was being held and feared that he would not be able to find a job after his release .","R.P. summoned the applicants before ORG ( rechtbank ) , seeking a declaration that the publication of his portrait image in the newspaper on DATE and on the newspaper \u2019s web site from DATE until DATE was unlawful ; an order requiring the applicants to ensure that the portrait image no longer be available on the internet at all ; and compensation for non - pecuniary damage in an amount of EUR CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG gave judgment dismissing PERSON \u2019s claims . It held that since the portrait image was appropriate to the newspaper article and had been published in a television documentary in which ORG had cooperated of his own volition , there was no unlawful interference with GPE \u2019s rights . PERSON appealed .","On DATE ORG ( gerechtshof ) overturned the judgment of ORG and held in favour of ORG recognised that the case raised questions under both LAW , in that it concerned ORG right to respect for his private life , and LAW , in that it concerned the applicants\u2019 freedom of journalistic expression . Its reasoning included the following :","\u201c CARDINAL NORP Although it can be conceded to [ the applicants ] that the image does not contain details of [ GPE \u2019s ] private life [ LANGUAGE in the original ] , strengthens the expressive power of the article and is relevant in itself , ORG considers that publication of the image of his face with the article constitutes an interference with ORG \u2019s private life . It should be remembered in this connection that it appears from the article that GPE is suspected of a ( very serious ) crime . The next question that needs an answer is whether , taking into account [ the applicants\u2019 ] freedom of expression , this interference constitutes an unlawful act vis - \u00e0 - vis GPE","CARDINAL ORG takes the view that this is the case . It takes the view that GPE is not required to suffer publication of the recognisable portrait with the article . It would have been possible for [ the applicants ] to publish a less recognisable portrait of GPE without significantly detracting from the expressiveness of the article , for example by placing a black rectangle over the eyes . [ The applicants ] have argued in this connection that it has been held in other cases that this measure has an even more criminalising effect , but that does not apply in this case , because the article concerned the suspicion of a crime of violence and the impending trial thereof by a criminal court . ORG takes the view that in publishing portraits of persons suspected of criminal acts reticence is , in principle , appropriate .","CARDINAL NORP The circumstance that in DATE PERSON gave his active cooperation to a documentary that was broadcast on television in DATE and DATE and could be viewed on the internet until DATE does not justify publishing a recognisable portrait together with the article about that documentary and the impending trial . GPE has not , by cooperating in that documentary ( and the rap clip published on GPE ) , become a public figure to the extent that he must for that reason suffer his recognisable portrait to be published in the newspaper with nationwide coverage ORG and on the website www.hetparool.nl , the less so because he is thereby recognisably connected to a ( very serious ) crime . As held above , a less recognisable portrait could have limited the interference with his private life without doing any real harm to the expressiveness of the article . It makes no difference that portraits of GPE ( derived from the documentary and the rap clip ) can still be found in the internet . What is important is that [ the applicants ] at the time published an image in the newspaper , which DATE unlike in the case of use of the internet \u2013 can be seen in CARDINAL glance and without any further manipulations . The freedom [ the applicants ] have , in principle , to determine in accordance with their own views in what way they will inform the public of a newsworthy fact does not go so far that in the specific circumstances of the present case they were at liberty to publish a recognisable portrait of GPE with the article .","CARDINAL Taking all circumstances into account , ORG therefore finds that GPE \u2019s right to respect of his privacy outweighs [ the applicants\u2019 ] freedom of expression . The wrongful nature of [ the applicants\u2019 ] acts vis - \u00e0 - vis GPE is therefore established . ... \u201d","The applicants were held jointly and severally liable and ordered to pay ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to GPE in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law ( cassatie ) with ORG ( PERSON ) , arguing , as relevant to the case , that ORG had overlooked PERSON \u2019s own responsibility through having cooperated with the documentary and the rap clip , combined with his having stabbed CARDINAL staff member of the homeless shelter to death and severely wounded CARDINAL others , from which it followed , in their submission , that GPE could not claim the same protection of his private life to which he would otherwise have been entitled . They submitted in addition that ORG position was tantamount to an absolute prohibition of publication of a recognisable photograph of any criminal suspect who was not a public figure .","ORG gave judgment on DATE dismissing the appeal . Its reasoning included the following :","\u201c CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ... ORG has rightly taken as its starting point that the question whether PERSON \u2019s right to respect for his private life should weigh more heavily in the balance than [ the applicants\u2019 \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG : NL : GPE , GPE Law Reports ( PERSON ) CARDINAL\/CARDINAL).In the light of this standard , it does not reflect an incorrect understanding of the law that ORG has held that publication of a recognisable portrait , taken from [ the DATE documentary ] , is not justified by the circumstance that GPE has cooperated with the documentary about his person and the rap clip . Nor is the finding of ORG that publication was wrongful vis - \u00e0 - vis GPE based on incomprehensible reasoning . As is shown by paragraph CARDINAL of its judgment , ORG has in so finding taken into account the nature and content of that documentary and the circumstance that it was made before the crimes were committed of which ORG was suspected at the time the portrait was published . ORG has , furthermore , taken into account that [ the applicants ] had other means at their disposal than complete recognisable publication of the image , which would not have harmed the expressiveness of the publication and would have constituted a lesser interference with PERSON \u2019s right to respect for his private life . ORG has thus expressed the view that publishing the unmodified image was neithernor proportionate to the aim pursued , namely informing the public . This finding does not amount to an absolute prohibition as suggested in the ground of appeal . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of LAW provides as follows :","\u201c If a portrait has been made without having been commissioned by the person portrayed or for that person \u2019s benefit , then the person to whom the copyright to that portrait belongs shall not be allowed to publish it in so far as a reasonable interest of the person portrayed , or after that person \u2019s death , CARDINAL of that person \u2019s surviving kin weighs against publication . \u201d","NORP In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG : NL : GPE , GPE Law Reports TIME ( PERSON ) , ORG , citing ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and DATE , ECHR DATE , gave its approval to reasoning of ORG summarised in the following terms :","\u2019s portrait . \u201d","The Appendix to the Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG to member states on the provision of information through the media in relation to criminal proceedings ( adopted by ORG on DATE at the NORP meeting of ORG ) contains the following principle of particular interest to the present case :","\u201c The provision of information about suspects , accused or convicted persons or other parties to criminal proceedings should respect their right to protection of privacy in accordance with LAW . Particular protection should be given to parties who are minors or other vulnerable persons , as well as to victims , to witnesses and to the families of suspects , accused and convicted . In all cases , particular consideration should be given to the harmful effect which the disclosure of information enabling their identification may have on the persons referred to in this LAW . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173769","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF K\u00dcLEKCI v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s parents , who are of NORP origin , were living in GPE when the applicant was born . They divorced in DATE and his father was awarded sole custody . In DATE , his grandparents , who had been looking after him while his father had been working , moved to GPE and took the applicant and his sister with them . The applicant \u2019s mother also returned to GPE , but founded a new family and did not keep in touch with him . The applicant lived in GPE from DATE until DATE , attending school there for DATE . In DATE , when he was DATE , he and his sister moved back to GPE to live with their father again . For that purpose , the applicant was granted a residence permit by the NORP authorities .","On DATE , at DATE , the applicant , together with CARDINAL of his friends , assaulted a man . He jumped on the victim from behind , while his friends beat and kicked the man , causing him serious injuries . They also stole money and cigarettes from their victim . On DATE the applicant attempted to shoplift . On DATE he drove a moped without the owner \u2019s consent .","On DATE the applicant and his friends stole an item from a man . CARDINAL the applicant and a group of his friends partly attempted and partly succeeded in stealing the handbags of CARDINAL elderly women through threats or the use of force . The applicant was DATE at that time . He had ripped the handbags from some of the victims ; grabbed CARDINAL of the women from behind , holding her mouth and dragging her to the ground ; hit another one on the head and pushed his knee into her back so that she would fall down ; and had also beaten some of them . CARDINAL of the women were seriously injured as a result .","On DATE ORG ( Straflandesgericht \u2013 hereinafter , \u201c the Criminal Court \u201d ) convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery , attempted theft and unauthorised use of a motor vehicle ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment , which was suspended for DATE . ORG considered as mitigating factors that the applicant had no previous criminal record , that he had confessed to his crimes and that he had shown willingness to afford redress to the victim . Aggravating factors were that he had committed several offences , specifically a crime and CARDINAL misdemeanours . In its reasoning of the judgment , ORG noted that the applicant had been notorious for excessive acts of violence and had had to change schools several times already . It observed that the applicant had virtually no age - appropriate capacity of reflection , and attested that he had an enormous tendency to act aggressively , which he used as his strategy for problem - solving .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery as a member of a criminal organisation and theft ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The probationary period of his previous criminal conviction of DATE was prolonged to DATE in total . ORG considered the applicant \u2019s confession to be a mitigating factor , but the repeated commission of offences as an aggravating factor . It argued in its reasoning that the applicant had taken a leading role in the robberies . The applicant and his friends had deliberately targeted elderly women because they had expected they would not resist . Moreover , ORG found that the applicant had been one of the main perpetrators , which is why there was no leeway to pronounce a more lenient sentence than DATE years\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE ORG ) imposed a DATE exclusion order ( Aufenthaltsverbot ) on the applicant pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , and section CARDINAL of LAW ( Fremdenpolizeigesetz ) . It found that even though most of his family lived in GPE , the applicant \u2019s expulsion was justified because of the severity of his offences in order to protect public order and security .","NORP The applicant appealed . He argued that he had committed the criminal offences as a juvenile delinquent who had had the wrong friends . The authorities had not properly taken into account his interests , given that his father , paternal grandparents , siblings , CARDINAL - brothers and CARDINAL - sisters all lived in GPE . Because of his young age he would not be able to live in GPE by himself .","On DATE ORG ) partly granted his appeal and limited the exclusion order to DATE .","On DATE the applicant was released from prison because of his good conduct after having served CARDINAL of his sentence .","On DATE ORG set aside ORG decision of DATE for lack of jurisdiction and held that ORG ( Unabh\u00e4ngiger Verwaltungssenat \u2013 hereinafter , \u201c the ORG \u201d ) was the competent authority to examine the appeal .","On DATE , following an oral hearing , the GPE ORG partly granted and partly dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It confirmed the legality of the exclusion order , but limited it to DATE . It considered that the robberies in particular had been serious offences which demonstrated the applicant \u2019s severe disrespect for the well - being and property of others . The victims had been mostly elderly , fragile women , who had been physically weaker than him and his friends . CARDINAL of the women had been severely injured . The applicant had been one of the main perpetrators . His tendency towards violence and aggression was remarkable and appeared to have even increased between the first and the second conviction . The ORG further took into consideration that the applicant had only been DATE at the time of the offences , and therefore had still been in the process of reaching maturity . This was however put into perspective by the fact that he had not offended only once , but multiple times , and in a particularly brutal manner .","The ORG proceeded to examine whether it could be assumed that the applicant still posed a threat to public order and safety . His probation officer ( ORG ) testified that the applicant had developed a sense of justice after his conviction and that cooperation with him had worked well . The applicant had worked as an apprentice during his time in prison . After his release , he had participated in several training programmes and was looking for a job . The ORG noted furthermore that the applicant had not reoffended in DATE since his release from prison . It came to the conclusion , however , that the relatively short time since his release was not enough to prove that he was not a danger to society anymore .","The ORG then assessed whether the exclusion order violated the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW . It held at the outset that an expulsion of \u201c second - generation migrants \u201d such as the applicant was subject to stricter criteria than an expulsion of other foreigners . Referring to the ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIX ) , PERSON v. the GPE ( [ ORG ] no . CARDINAL , ORG ORG ) and PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] no . DATE ) , it found that \u2013 in contrast to PERSON DATE the applicant had repeatedly committed serious crimes of a violent nature . Because of his family and his social integration in GPE , the exclusion order constituted an interference with his rights under LAW . However , he had almost reached the age of majority at the time the exclusion order had been issued . Economic integration could not be observed as he was unemployed at the time . He spoke NORP and had last visited GPE in DATE . His mother still lived in GPE ; he had no contact with her at the time but could get in touch with her . The serious nature of the offences and the resulting public interest in his expulsion therefore outweighed the applicant \u2019s interest in remaining in the country . However , because of his young age , the ORG concluded that a DATE exclusion order would be sufficient .","On DATE and DATE respectively , ORG and ORG declined to hear prior appeals by the applicant against the ORG \u2019s decision .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE and on DATE the applicant was informed of the possibility to leave the country voluntarily . As he did not leave , he was expelled to GPE on DATE . He was DATE at that time .","The DATE exclusion order against the applicant , which had been pronounced in the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE , expired in DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146418","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"KESK\u0130N v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr B. Bedirhano\u011flu , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant found his DATE son , PERSON , injured .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG , accusing ORG , the applicant \u2019s former wife , of assaulting PERSON and murdering the couple \u2019s first child , PERSON The applicant joined the criminal proceedings against ORG as a civil party .","On DATE , after evaluating the medical reports , witness statements and the public prosecutor \u2019s written opinion , ORG acquitted ORG of the charges against her .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG . This decision was deposited with the registry of ORG on DATE . The president of the court noted on the judgment that the intervening party should be notified . According to the information in the case file , the judgment was not served on the applicant . On DATE he obtained a copy from the registry of the first - instance court ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157507","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"USTYUGOV v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , most recently PERSON , of ORG of GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of , among other crimes , robbery and extortion and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the ORG no . CARDINAL ( \u0421\u0438\u043d\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a\u0456\u0432\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0430 \u0432\u0438\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043d\u0430 \u043a\u043e\u043b\u043e\u043d\u0456\u044f \u2116 CARDINAL , hereafter \u201c the prison \u201d ) .","On DATE the decision of DATE was upheld by ORG .","On DATE ORG , GPE , reclassified the offences according to LAW , DATE , and reduced the term of the applicant \u2019s imprisonment by DATE .","In his application form of DATE the applicant stated that he had shared QUANTITY sleeping quarters with CARDINAL other inmates . Sanitary conditions in the prison were poor , in that there was CARDINAL bathroom for each CARDINAL cells . Thus CARDINAL inmates had to share CARDINAL water taps and CARDINAL lavatory pans . The cells were infested with lice and the rations were meagre . The applicant was not given any clothes , any hygiene products or any cutlery by the prison authorities . Tuberculosis - infected inmates were not segregated from the general prison population . Nor were there any other measures in place to prevent the spread of the disease . In DATE the applicant contracted tuberculosis and spent DATE in the prison hospital .","According to the applicant , he was placed in a disciplinary cell where he remained for DATE ( particular dates not specified ) , under constant video surveillance .","In DATE the applicant suffered a heart attack and was moved to a prison hospital . After a short stay there , he was returned to the prison . On his readmission he was allegedly beaten up by prison guards .","The applicant , a GPE , stated that it had been impossible to practise his religion while it had been possible to practise other religions ( the applicant mentioned ORG Witnesses and NORP ( in particular , NORP ) ) .","The applicant finally stated that the prison authorities had given him letters from the ORG with delays , had not dispatched his letters to the ORG , had opened his correspondence and had withheld unspecified enclosed documents .","The Government submitted that DATE the applicant had been detained in CARDINAL different detention units :","- CARDINAL - CARDINAL \u2013 unit no . CARDINAL ;","- DATE \u2013 unit no . CARDINAL ;","- CARDINAL-September DATE \u2013 high - security unit .","The sleeping quarters in units nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were CARDINAL and QUANTITY and at the material time there were CARDINAL and QUANTITY detainees respectively . In each of the units there were CARDINAL hand basins and CARDINAL lavatory pans . Each detainee had a bed and a stool . There were tables , CARDINAL bedside storage locker per CARDINAL detainees and a television set . There was a dining room and a locker room . The LOC had electricity and ventilation . Windows allowed access to fresh air and there was sufficient light .","In the high - security unit the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ) . The cell had been designed for CARDINAL persons . There were CARDINAL beds , CARDINAL chairs , CARDINAL bedside storage lockers , a rubbish bin , CARDINAL coat racks , a table and a television . The total space of the cells in the high - security unit was QUANTITY . In DATE there were CARDINAL detainees there . There were CARDINAL washing facilities , including CARDINAL lavatory pans and CARDINAL hand basins as well as CARDINAL showers .","The applicant had crockery and linens and was given food CARDINAL times a day . The applicant had a special diet since previously he had had tuberculosis . The applicant also had DATE walks . Once a week he could have a shower and received QUANTITY grams of soap DATE for this purpose .","Since DATE the applicant was subject to regular medical check - ups as he had previously suffered from tuberculosis . In DATE and DATE and DATE the applicant was treated in the GPE pre - trial detention centre hospital for a degenerative spinal disease and other spinal problems . In DATE he was diagnosed with a post - tuberculosis condition and DATE and DATE he received prophylactic treatment in DATE and in DATE . In DATE it was established that the applicant had been completely cured of tuberculosis . In DATE it was established that the applicant was disabled on account of his spinal problems .","According to the applicant \u2019s personal records , he was placed in a disciplinary cell in DATE and DATE ( DATE total ) , DATE ( DATE ) , DATE ( DATE ) , DATE and DATE ( DATE total ) , DATE ( DATE ) and DATE ( DATE ) .","The Government further submitted that the prison was visited by various NORP priests . There were religious services CARDINAL times a week .","The relevant part of ORG provides as following :","\u201c CARDINAL The accommodation provided for prisoners , and in particular all sleeping accommodation , shall respect human dignity and , as far as possible , privacy , and meet the requirements of health and hygiene , due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space , cubic content of air , lighting , heating and ventilation . \u201d","The relevant part of the Commentary provides as following :","\u201c The ORG , by commenting on conditions and space available in prisons in various countries has begun to indicate some minimum standards . These are considered to be CARDINAL for prisoners in shared accommodation and CARDINAL for a prison cell . These minima are , related however , to wider analyses of specific prison systems , including studies of how much time prisoners actually spend in their cells . These minima should not be regarded as the norm . Although the ORG has never laid down such a norm directly , indications are that it would consider QUANTITY as a desirable size for a cell for CARDINAL prisoner . This is an area in which the ORG could make an ongoing contribution that would build on what has already been laid down in this regard . What is required is a detailed examination of what size of cell is acceptable for the accommodation of various numbers of persons . Attention needs to be paid to the number of TIME that prisoners spend locked in the cells , when determining appropriate sizes . Even for prisoners who spend a large amount of time out of their cells , there must be a clear minimum space , which meets standards of human dignity . \u201d","In its Guidance the ICRC outlined the following principles :","\u201c Shared or dormitory accommodation : QUANTITY per person , including where bunk beds are used .","...","As previously mentioned , space alone is a limited measure of the quality of life and conditions of detention . As such , it is merely a starting point when evaluating the conditions in which detainees are held . Space norms can not be specified separately from the total environment . The appropriateness of the ICRC \u2019s recommended specifications in any given situation will depend on a number of other factors including :","the specific individual needs of , for example , sick , old or young prisoners , women and\/or people with disabilities ;","the physical condition of the buildings ;","the amount of time spent in the accommodation area ;","the frequency and extent of opportunities to take physical exercise , work and be involved in other activities outside the accommodation area ;","the number of people in the accommodation area ( to allow a degree of privacy and avoid isolation ) ;","the amount of natural light and the adequacy of the ventilation ;","other activities being undertaken in the accommodation area ( e.g. cooking , washing , drying ) ;","other services available ( e.g. toilets and showers ) ; and > > the extent of supervision provided . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179414","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF IALAMOV v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Ledi Bianku;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .","On DATE he was arrested on a charge of murder . Later he was also charged with several counts of theft .","The applicant was held in pre - trial detention until DATE , when he was acquitted of the murder charges but convicted for theft and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . In view of the duration of his pre - trial detention , he was immediately released .","During the trial the applicant \u2019s detention was extended periodically . CARDINAL of the extensions concerned the period DATE . On DATE , DATE before the expiry of that period , the prosecutor in charge of the case applied for another extension . The applicant argued in his submissions , inter alia , that such an order was not allowed because the prosecutor had failed to comply with the provisions of LAW of LAW , that is that such an application had to be lodged at DATE before the expiry of the detention period . Nevertheless , the prosecutor \u2019s application was accepted by the court on CARDINAL DATE and the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was prolonged by DATE . An appeal by the applicant was later dismissed by ORG without any consideration being given to his argument set out above ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164203","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MAMMADLI AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["NORP The applicants\u2019 dates of birth and places of residence are given in the Appendix .","Tahirov v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","The applicants stood as candidates in the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE and applied for registration as candidates in various single \u2013 mandate electoral constituencies ( see Appendix ) .","The respective ORG ( \u201c ConECs \u201d ) on various dates ( see Appendix ) refused the ORG requests for registration as a candidate after the PERSON working groups had found that some of the supporting voter signatures submitted by the applicants were invalid and that the remaining valid signatures had numbered CARDINAL , a minimum required by law . Signatures were found to be invalid on several grounds in each case .","None of the applicants , except the applicant in application no . CARDINAL , were invited to the ConEC meetings where decisions to refuse their requests for registration were taken . In each case , despite the requirements of the law , all the relevant working group documents and the ConEC decision itself were made available to the applicants belatedly or never made available to them .","Each applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against the ConEC decisions . The points raised in their complaints were similar to those made by the applicants in GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) and LOC ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 PERCENT ) .","On various dates , the ORG also rejected the ORG complaints ( see Appendix ) , after another examination of the signature sheets by members of its own working group , which had found in each case that large numbers of signatures were invalid and that the remaining valid signatures were below the minimum required by law .","None of the applicants were invited to attend the relevant ORG or working group meetings . Moreover , in each case , all the relevant ORG documents were only made available to the applicants after the ORG decision had been taken .","NORP On various dates , each of the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG against the decisions of the electoral commissions . They reiterated the complaints they had made before the ORG concerning the ConEC decisions and procedures . They also raised a number of other points similar to those raised by the applicants in GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) and LOC ( cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","On various dates ( see Appendix ) , ORG dismissed appeals by the applicants , finding that their arguments were irrelevant or unsubstantiated and that there were no grounds for quashing the decisions of the ORG .","The applicants lodged cassation appeals with ORG , reiterating their previous complaints and arguing that ORG had not carried out a fair examination of the cases and had delivered unreasoned judgments .","On various dates ( see Appendix ) , ORG dismissed the ORG appeals as unsubstantiated , without examining their arguments in detail , and found no grounds to doubt the findings of the electoral commissions or of ORG .","In addition to the applicants in the present cases , at the material time Mr PERSON , the applicants\u2019 representative in applications nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and DATE , was representing a total of twentyseven applicants in cases concerning the DATE parliamentary elections and a number of applicants in other cases before the ORG .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr I. GPE , which are the subject of a separate application brought by him before the ORG ( application no . CARDINAL ) . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the investigation authorities seized a large number of documents from Mr I. GPE \u2019s office including all the case files relating to the pending proceedings before ORG , which were in Mr PERSON \u2019s possession and which concerned over CARDINAL applications in total . The files relating to applications nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL were also seized in their entirety . The facts relating to the seizure and the relevant proceedings are described in more detail in LOC ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","On DATE the investigation authorities returned a number of the case files concerning the applications lodged before the ORG , including the file relating to applications nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL andCARDINAL\/CARDINAL , to Mr PERSON \u2019s lawyer ."],"violated_articles":["34","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147269","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MUSAEV v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on charge;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)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and , according to the latest information available to the ORG , lives in LOC .","On DATE the applicant , who had been living in GPE since DATE , was taken into custody in the context of an investigation into murder by a person or persons unknown . He was placed in ORG in GPE .","On DATE the applicant delivered his witness statement before a criminal court in relation to the aforementioned investigation . However , he was not released after delivering the statement ; instead he continued to be detained in ORG for having outstayed his visa .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to \u015eehit Tevfik Fikret Erciyes police station in GPE , GPE ( \u201c PERSON police station \u201d ) , where he was placed in a custodial cell for DATE .","On DATE the applicant was sent to ORG with a view to being deported . According to the applicant \u2019s account , ORG was severely overcrowded at the time of his detention . He had to share a dormitory measuring approximately CARDINAL sq . m with CARDINAL to CARDINAL other people and the overcrowding of the centre resulted in hygiene problems . The building was infested with insects and the quality and quantity of the food provided was also fairly poor . Moreover , there was no provision for outdoor exercise .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) for refugee status .","On DATE he claimed asylum from ORG .","On DATE the applicant was granted a temporary residence permit in the province of GPE as an asylum seeker and he was released from ORG on DATE . It appears that the applicant was subsequently permitted to reside in GPE .","According to the latest information provided to the ORG , the applicant \u2019s applications for asylum and refugee status are still pending before the domestic authorities and the ORG respectively ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177214","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DMITRIYEVSKIY v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the material time he was the executive director of ORG ( PERSON \u0440\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e-\u0447\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0436\u0431\u044b ) , a non - governmental organisation which monitored human rights violations in GPE and other parts of LOC . He was also the chief editor of a DATE newspaper , ORG ) , with a circulation of CARDINAL . The newspaper was published and distributed mainly in LOC . At the end of each issue there was a standard disclaimer stating that the views of the editorial team might not concur with those expressed in the articles published .","NORP In DATE the applicant obtained CARDINAL articles from the website PERSON . The first , which had the headline \u201c Address by PERSON , Vice Prime Minister of the Government of GPE of GPE , to ORG \u0432\u0438\u0446\u0435-\u043f\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044c\u0435\u0440\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430 \u0427\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 PERSON \u0410\u0445\u043c\u0435\u0434\u0430 \u0417\u0430\u043a\u0430\u0435\u0432\u0430 \u043a \u0440\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u043d\u0430\u0440\u043e\u0434\u0443 DATE \u201c the first article \u201d ) , was published by him in issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG for DATE . It read as follows :","\u201c DATE a peace process that had just begun was interrupted by the tragic events in the Dubrovka [ theatre ] . There may be long arguments as to who was responsible for that tragedy , but there is no dispute as to who benefited from it .","DATE , on behalf of PERSON , President of GPE of GPE , I am again addressing myself to the people of GPE . It is still not too late for us to resolve all the questions at issue . But for this , the people of GPE should get rid of those for whom peace represents the loss of power or perhaps even a trial . As long as they remain in the FAC , blood will continue to flow in GPE and in GPE .","I am extending to the people of GPE the hand of peace over the head of their president . No one needs the war except for him : neither right nor left , neither poor nor rich . PERSON left the NORP no choice , but you have a choice and you may still choose peace by voting against PERSON in DATE . Both for you and for us this is a real opportunity . \u201d","The article was accompanied by the editorial team \u2019s comments ( \u043e\u0442 \u0440\u0435\u0434\u0430\u043a\u0446\u0438\u0438 ) , which read as follows :","\u201c For reasons beyond the editorial team \u2019s control , we are publishing this document belatedly . This address was made on DATE of the presidential elections in GPE . Unfortunately , the people of GPE did not avail themselves of their historic opportunity , having again elected as their president a man who has made political capital out of a bloody war against his own people and who is leading the country towards the blind alley of a police state . Nevertheless , we are convinced that this document , which represents the legitimate NORP authorities\u2019 statement to the outside world , has not lost its topicality in the meantime \u201d .","The second article , which had the headline \u201c Address by ORG , President of GPE , to the European Parliament \u201d ( \u00ab \u041e\u0431\u0440\u0430\u0449\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u041f\u0440\u0435\u0437\u0438\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0430 \u0427\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0420\u0435\u0441\u043f\u0443\u0431\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0438 \u0418\u0447\u043a\u0435\u0440\u0438\u044f \u041c\u0430\u0441\u0445\u0430\u0434\u043e\u0432\u0430 \u043a \u0415\u0432\u0440\u043e\u043f\u0430\u0440\u043b\u0430\u043c\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0443 DATE \u201c the second article \u201d ) , was published by the applicant in issue no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG for DATE and DATE and read as follows :","\u201c On DATE the ORG of ORG adopted a declaration in which PERSON \u2019s deportation of the NORP people on DATE was officially recognised as an act of genocide . ORG also recommended that ORG study the plan of ORG ( the ORG ) on peaceful resolution of the present military conflict [ between GPE and GPE ] , which I had approved .","The total deportation to LOC and GPE in DATE is one of the most tragic pages in DATE history of the NORP , since during this act of violence the national republic was completely liquidated and its territory separated among the adjacent regions . During DATE which the NORP people spent in exile , PERCENT of the population died .","It must be mentioned that the DATE deportation was the ninth large - scale act of genocide by the military and political authorities of ORG during the period of the CARDINAL - long armed confrontation between the NORP and NORP .","The very first deportation of the NORP was carried out by GPE as early as in DATE , after the destruction of the ORG headed by the first NORP of the GPE , PERSON . And after the destruction of the ORG headed by PERSON , when the NORP war was officially declared to be over in DATE , a considerable proportion of NORP ended up on the territory of GPE .","The last tsarist deportation was the expulsion of many NORP families to cold and faraway LOC in DATE . And the first mass deportations of the NORP during the NORP regime began in DATE of collectivisation and cultural revolution , in other words during PERSON \u2019s regime .","What is the aim of this historical overview ? The Government of the ORG regards this political resolution by ORG as an undoubtedly serious historic act on the way to achieving the long - awaited peace on blood - stained NORP soil . CARDINAL of a CARDINAL innocent civilians have already died in the ORG during the latest continuing NORP war , the entire infrastructure of the republic has been completely devastated , many towns , villages , schools , hospitals and cultural facilities have been destroyed , and there is still no light at the end of the tunnel .","Yet the international community is watching the deliberate and systematic murder of the entire nation with complete serenity and has not the slightest desire to react in any way to this criminal madness by the bloody ORG regime . This in turn engenders CARDINAL of new fighters in the republic , who replenish the ranks of the Chechen Resistance with fresh forces DATE , and who believe that they have a moral right to use the enemy \u2019s own methods against the enemy , [ an approach ] which we unequivocally condemn .","Even on this mournful date \u2013 the CARDINALth anniversary of the deportation \u2013 many NORP marked the occasion in extremely harsh conditions of unmotivated mass murders , extrajudicial executions , groundless detentions , severe \u2018 clear - up\u2019 operations , tortures , kidnappings , disappearances and \u2018 residential\u2019 checks by GPE \u2019s invaders and their accomplices , who have been committing excesses in the territory of the ORG for DATE .","As the legitimately elected President of GPE of GPE , I express , on behalf of the recalcitrant NORP people fighting for their freedom , sincere gratitude to all the members of ORG who took this fundamental decision to recognise the deportation of DATE as an act of genocide ...","DATE , just as DATE , the new global GPE \u2019s terror has become our national tragedy . Its inexorable millstones are grinding the gene pool of the unique and original NORP people , one of the indigenous nations of the ancient GPE , and this in the end may lead to [ the GPE ] total physical disappearance from the face of the earth .","Your decision in defence of the NORP people , living in a situation of ongoing genocide , is an additional moral incentive in the fight for survival . We are always open to constructive dialogue with the international community , and we invite independent experts from ORG and ORG to monitor the situation with their own eyes , so that the groundless and defamatory attacks on the NORP by GPE \u2019s propagandists , who insolently continue to pester the PACE , LOC and other authoritative organisations , can no longer distort the real picture in GPE of GPE .","There is no doubt that the ORG is DATE the centre of international terrorism , and [ the FAC ] selected GPE and the NORP as targets for testing terrorist methods which are being developed by the [ ORG ] . It would be naive to believe that the present regime in GPE would be too shy to use its terrorist experience in the international arena to solve its political and other problems . An example of this is the treacherous and cowardly terrorist attack by GPE \u2019s special services in LOC , which prematurely took the life of my predecessor , PERSON , and was carried out with the use of diplomatic channels .","Owing to the wide publicity given to the latest events concerning the PERSON family , you have become witnesses to CARDINAL of the numerous terrorist methods used by ORG GPE , notably taking hostages from the civilian population . In the majority of cases , hostages disappear without trace , and their bodies , showing traces of torture , are later discovered in secret graves that can be found all across the territory of GPE .","The genocide of the NORP people , which continues in DATE , is a direct and impertinent challenge to all of progressive mankind , let alone civilised and democratic LOC , which considers human rights as its main value and priority , thus making the human factor of paramount importance and the most valuable achievement of civilisation .","We would therefore like to believe that the NORP people have a right to hope that you will soon recognise the war which the PERSON regime imposed on GPE as genocide \u2013 a war which , in its scale , refinement , vandalism and inhumanity , overshadows the genocide of DATE .","I sincerely believe in the triumph of reason and justice on earth , and in the final victory of the NORP people . The bright day is near when the sacred NORP soil will be completely cleansed of the countless hordes of GPE \u2019s invaders and their accomplices among local nation - traitors . The Chechen Resistance will inevitably accomplish it ! Whatever the costs ! No one in the world should have any doubt about this ! \u201d","On DATE an officer from the prosecutor \u2019s office of ORG ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0430 PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 \u2013 \u201c the regional prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) reported that he had established that the articles written by unidentified authors contained public appeals to extremist activity \u2013 most notably to overthrow the ORG regime and forcibly change fundamental aspects of GPE \u2019s constitutional system .","The applicant was interviewed in connection with his publication of the articles . He stated that he supported the assessment given by PERSON in his article of the role of Mr PERSON , the President of GPE , in the history of GPE over DATE . He also stated that he strongly supported his appeal to stop the war and to resolve the military conflict in GPE in a peaceful political way , having made a commentary to that effect after the article . As regards the second article , the applicant explained that he had considered the material to be of great public importance for the people of GPE so had published it . He added that he had intended to convey to the readers the position of the leaders of CARDINAL of the parties to the military conflict in GPE as he had considered that , in the light of the continuing tragedy in LOC and terrorist threat , citizens should be entitled to have an idea of that position first hand rather than having the situation presented to them by GPE \u2019s mass media , which only reflected the point of view of the authorities of GPE .","On DATE the regional prosecutor \u2019s office instituted criminal proceedings under LAW ( public appeals to extremist activity through the mass media ) . The applicant was questioned on several occasions as a witness .","In reports dated DATE PERSON , a linguistic expert , stated that the articles in question contained no appeals to extremist activity but rather were aimed at inciting racial , ethnic and social discord ( \u0440\u043e\u0437\u043d\u044c ) , associated with violence ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Following that conclusion , the authorities decided to conduct a further investigation under LAW ( incitement to hatred ( \u043d\u0435\u043d\u0430\u0432\u0438\u0441\u0442\u044c ) or enmity ( \u0432\u0440\u0430\u0436\u0434\u0430 ) and the humiliation of human dignity ) .","In a witness interview on DATE the applicant stated , inter alia , that he had published the CARDINAL articles as he had considered the material to be of great public significance and had intended to apprise readers in ORG of them . He had not pursued any other aim . He also stated that he had taken the decision to publish the articles , without being asked by anyone . In his opinion , the articles were decent and reflected their ORG point of view . He disagreed with the conclusions of the expert reports of DATE that the articles contained statements aimed at inciting enmity between the NORP and the NORP , or statements humiliating the human dignity of the NORP on the grounds of their ethnic origin . He also affirmed his principal position regarding that issue , namely that the actions of the Government of GPE and its armed forces during the conflict in GPE should be regarded as a war crime and a crime against mankind . The applicant further stated that he had considered that the publication of the articles promoted friendship and peace between the people of GPE and the NORP people . Lastly , he denied that he had obtained any payment for publishing the articles . During subsequent interviews the applicant consistently maintained his position .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator in charge suspended the proceedings as those responsible remained unidentified . The decision referred to the statements the applicant had made during witness interviews to the effect that he had obtained the impugned documents from a website and published them with a view to apprising readers in ORG of them . The decision further stated that no evidence capable of refuting the applicant \u2019s arguments had been obtained during the investigation . It went on to say that there was evidence of a crime under LAW in the actions of those who had published the documents online ; however , since they remained unidentified the investigation had to be suspended .","NORP The decision of CARDINAL DATE was quashed by a deputy prosecutor of the regional prosecutor \u2019s office and the proceedings were resumed on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was formally charged under LAW and banned from leaving his place of residence . On the same date the investigator in charge refused a request by him for another linguistic expert examination of the articles , stating that the conclusions in the reports of DATE were well - reasoned and consistent .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the investigator in charge refused a request by the applicant for a comprehensive expert examination of the articles involving linguistic experts and historians including the history , culture and traditions of the NORP people . The grounds for the refusal were similar to those stated in the decision of CARDINAL September CARDINAL .","On DATE an indictment was served on the applicant and the case file was sent for trial .","In the context of the criminal proceedings against the applicant , the investigating authorities ordered a linguistic expert examination of the articles published by him . An expert was requested to answer whether they contained any appeals to extremist activity and , in particular , whether there were any appeals to activity aimed at advocating the exceptionality , supremacy or inferiority of citizens on the grounds of their racial , ethnic or social origin . The expert was also requested to reply whether the articles contained statements aimed at inciting hatred or enmity or humiliating the dignity of an individual or a group of individuals on the grounds of their race , ethnic origin , language , origin , attitude towards religion , or membership of a certain social group .","On DATE PERSON up CARDINAL expert reports . In a report on the linguistic expert examination of the first article , she pointed out that the text contained statements in the affirmative to the effect that \u201c the tragedy in the PERSON [ theatre ] and the war in GPE [ were ] beneficial for PERSON \u201d , that \u201c the cessation of war and a peace agreement with the leaders of the [ GPE of GPE meant ] the loss of power for PERSON \u201d , and that \u201c until PERSON [ guided ] the ORG , blood [ would ] continue to flow in GPE and GPE \u201d . The report then referred to the following statement :","\u201c It is still not too late for us to resolve all the questions at issue . But for this , the people of GPE should get rid of those for whom peace represents the loss of power or perhaps even a trial . As long as they remain in the FAC , blood will continue to flow in GPE and in GPE . \u201d","According to the report , that statement , analysed in the context of the whole article , contained a demand by the author to the people of GPE not to vote for PERSON in DATE . It went on to note that the author was also promising that , otherwise , killings and terrorist acts would be carried out in GPE and in GPE ( \u201c blood will continue to flow ... \u201d ) , verbally threatening the people of GPE . On the basis of that analysis , PERSON concluded that the above - mentioned statement was aimed at inciting racial , ethnic or social discord , associated with violence . The report provided no further details in respect of that conclusion . It also stated that the article contained no appeals to extremist activity or any statements aimed at advocating the exceptionality and supremacy of the NORP on the grounds of their ethnic origin .","The other report of CARDINAL DATE concerned a linguistic expert examination of the second article and stated that the following statements were aimed at inciting racial , ethnic and social hostility , associated with violence :","\u201c ... the DATE deportation was the ninth large - scale act of genocide by the military and political authorities of ORG GPE ... \u201d","\u201c The very first deportation of the NORP was carried out by GPE as early as in DATE ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL of a CARDINAL innocent civilians have already died in the [ GPE ] ( the CRI ) during the latest continuing NORP war ... \u201d","\u201c ... the international community ... has not the slightest desire to react in any way to this criminal madness by the bloody ORG regime ... \u201d","\u201c ... the CARDINALth anniversary of the deportation ... many NORP marked ... in extremely harsh conditions of unmotivated mass murders , extrajudicial executions , groundless detentions , severe \u2018 clear - up\u2019 operations , tortures , kidnappings , disappearances and \u2018 residential\u2019 checks by GPE \u2019s invaders and their accomplices , who have been committing excesses in the territory of the ORG for DATE ... \u201d","\u201c DATE , just as DATE , the new global GPE \u2019s terror has become our national tragedy . Its inexorable millstones are grinding the gene pool of the unique and original NORP people ... \u201d","\u201c ... we invite independent experts from ORG and ORG to monitor the situation with their own eyes , so that the groundless and defamatory attacks on the NORP by GPE \u2019s propagandists ... can no longer distort the real picture in GPE of GPE ... \u201d","\u201c There is no doubt that the ORG is DATE the centre of international terrorism , and [ the FAC ] selected GPE and the NORP as targets for testing terrorist methods which are being developed by the [ ORG ] ... \u201d","\u201c It would be naive to believe that the present regime in GPE would be too shy to use its terrorist experience in the international arena to solve its political and other problems ... \u201d","\u201c An example of this is the treacherous and cowardly terrorist attack by GPE \u2019s special services in LOC , which prematurely took the life of ... PERSON ... \u201d","\u201c ... you have become witnesses to one of the numerous terrorist methods used by ORG GPE , notably taking hostages from the civilian population ... \u201d","\u201c We would therefore like to believe that the NORP people have a right to hope that you will soon recognise the war which the PERSON regime imposed on GPE as genocide ... \u201d","\u201c The bright day is near when the sacred NORP soil will be completely cleansed of the countless hordes of GPE \u2019s invaders and their accomplices ... \u201d","The report stated that in all those statements the author of the article was directly pointing out that it was GPE and its invaders , military and political authorities , special services and ORG party who were carrying out \u201c genocide \u201d , \u201c unmotivated mass murders , extrajudicial executions , groundless detentions , severe \u2018 clear - up\u2019 operations , tortures , kidnappings , disappearances and \u2018 residential\u2019 checks \u201d , and that it was they who were \u201c committing excesses \u201d . It also indicated that \u201c the expression \u2018 ORG party [ of Russia]\u2019 should be understood to mean a designation of a group of people , organisation or ORG set in contrast in some aspect to another group of people , organisation or ORG ( in the present case , to GPE ) \u201d .","NORP The report also pointed out that the last CARDINAL sentences of the articles were exclamatory and expressed the author \u2019s contemptuous and angry attitude . According to the report , the CARDINAL sentences were \u201c an undisputable and unequivocal statement to the effect that the Chechen Resistance [ would ] inevitably liberate their soil of GPE \u2019s servicemen \u201d . The report went on to state that the expression \u201c Whatever the costs ! \u201d referred to the means and methods ( \u201c to use the enemy \u2019s own methods against the enemy \u201d , \u201c terrorist methods \u201d ) , and that it was of little importance whether those methods were condemned by the author or not , as the author \u2019s \u201c protective reservation \u201d \u201c to use the enemy \u2019s own methods against the enemy , [ an approach ] which we unequivocally condemn \u201d did not change the true meaning of the aforementioned expression .","T. also considered it necessary to note that the article contained a number of statements with contemptuous , angry stylistic connotations expressing a distinctly negative assessment of the actions of GPE \u2019s servicemen and governance of the military and political authorities of GPE , such as \u201c this criminal madness by the [ bloody ] ORG regime \u201d , \u201c GPE \u2019s invaders and their accomplices , who have been committing excesses in the territory of the ORG for DATE \u201d , \u201c the ORG is DATE the centre of international terrorism \u201d and \u201c the PERSON regime \u201d .","The report went on to note that the article in question also contained statements aimed at advocating the exceptionality and supremacy of the NORP on the grounds of their ethnic origin , namely :","\u201c ... the new global GPE \u2019s terror has become our national tragedy . Its inexorable millstones are grinding the gene pool of the unique and original NORP people , one of the indigenous nations of the ancient GPE ... \u201d","\u201c The bright day is near when the sacred NORP soil will be completely cleansed of the countless hordes of GPE \u2019s invaders ... \u201d","Lastly , the report concluded that the article contained no appeals to extremist activity .","At a hearing , the applicant denied the charges . He confirmed that he had decided to publish the articles in question in the newspaper ORG himself and supported the views expressed in them . He further argued that it had been his responsibility as a journalist to inform his readers of the position of the other party to the NORP conflict and of possible means to its peaceful resolution . According to the applicant , he had acted in the name of peace and friendship between various nations in GPE . He confirmed that he supported the ideas expressed in the articles .","The applicant \u2019s defence submitted a report by a linguistic expert , Ms ORG , which they had obtained at their own request at the investigation stage . It stated that the CARDINAL articles in question could not be regarded as inciting racial or national hatred and discord . Before the trial court , the applicant argued that PERSON conclusions in the reports of DATE were hypothetical and that she had not taken into account scientific recommendations for investigating the type of criminal offence with which he had been charged . The applicant also insisted that PERSON had exceeded her competence as she had given a legal qualification to his actions . He also pointed to discrepancies between the reports by PERSON submitted by the prosecution and the report by PERSON submitted by the defence .","A number of witnesses examined at the trial gave positive references about the applicant , stating that he was a man of good character and spoke out in favour of a peaceful resolution of the conflict in GPE .","Both experts were also cross - examined during the trial . The applicant submitted an audio recording of PERSON cross - examination , which he had made at the trial . It appears from the recording that , in reply to the applicant \u2019s questions , PERSON refused to give definitions of the notions of \u201c race \u201d , \u201c ethnic origin \u201d and \u201c social group \u201d , stating that it fell outside of her field of expertise .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of PERSON ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , sitting in a single - judge formation composed of Judge PERSON , established that , in breach of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , the applicant , \u201c acting intentionally and using his official position as chief editor , [ had ] decided to publish CARDINAL articles which contained statements aimed at inciting enmity and humiliating the dignity of a group of persons on the grounds of race , ethnic origin and membership of a certain social group \u201d . The court then quoted the expressions referred to in the expert reports of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and observed that CARDINAL copies of each of the CARDINAL issues in which the articles had been published had been distributed in GPE , GPE , GPE , PERSON and GPE .","ORG found that the applicant \u2019s guilt had been proven \u201c by witness statements and the case material , [ in particular ] by the conclusions of the forensic expert examinations , according to which the texts [ of the impugned articles contained ] no appeals to extremist activity , but [ contained ] statements aimed at inciting racial , ethnic or social discord , associated with violence \u201d . On the basis of the evidence adduced to it , ORG found it necessary to classify the applicant \u2019s actions as those punishable under LAW ( b ) of LAW , namely those aimed at inciting enmity and humiliating the dignity of a group of persons on the grounds of race , ethnic origin , membership of a social group , committed through the mass media by a person using his official position .","The trial court then found that , \u201c acting with direct intent , being aware of the nature of his actions and wishing to carry them out , [ the applicant ] , on his own , [ had taken ] a decision to publish CARDINAL articles which had , as their basis , statements aimed at inciting enmity and humiliating the dignity of persons on the grounds of race , ethnic origin and membership of a social group \u201d . It observed that \u201c during the trial [ the applicant had ] repeatedly expressed his support for the points of view reflected in the published articles \u201d and had \u201c pointed out that he [ had been ] carrying out his duty as a journalist by so doing \u201d . In the court \u2019s opinion , however , the arguments advanced by the applicant in his defence were \u201c untenable from a legal point of view and should be regarded as [ his ] attempt to defend himself to avoid punishment for the committed offence of medium gravity \u201d . The witness statements in the applicant \u2019s favour were held \u201c to concern only the applicant \u2019s personality \u201d and to be \u201c irrelevant for the present criminal case \u201d .","ORG further pointed out that it had based its guilty verdict \u201c on the lawful and well - founded expert reports [ of DATE ] , in which [ PERSON had ] thoroughly analysed the texts of both articles in their entirety and made a conclusion as to the presence in [ them ] of statements aimed at inciting racial , ethnic and social discord \u201d . The court considered that it had no reason to doubt or question the conclusions of the expert reports given , in particular , \u201c PERSON competence , professional skills and [ past ] experience . \u201d","ORG further rejected the report by PERSON as defective , saying that it was superficial and formalistic and that the expert examination in question had been carried out without due regard to an analysis of the texts . The court also noted in this connection that the applicant had paid for the report and that PERSON had not been informed of the relevant provisions of procedural legislation which criminalised the drawing up of knowingly false expert reports .","The trial court found it necessary to exclude from the charges against the applicant reference to \u201c the statements aimed at advocating the exceptionality and supremacy of the NORP on the grounds of their ethnicity \u201d \u201c in the absence of such wording in the provisions of LAW \u201d .","As regards the punishment to be imposed on the applicant , the court had regard to the nature and social dangerousness of the offence with which he had been charged and the fact that he had no criminal record , had positive references and had CARDINAL dependent children . It also stated that there was no evidence at that time that \u201c [ his ] illegal actions had entailed any serious consequences \u201d . The court therefore considered it appropriate to give the applicant a DATE suspended sentence and DATE probation .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to have the trial record amended . He complained that PERSON testimony , which was of crucial importance to his case , had been distorted in the record and that , in particular , it attributed certain statements to her which she had not made at the trial . He pointed out , more specifically , that during the trial PERSON had refused , in reply to his questions , to give definitions to the notions of \u201c race \u201d , \u201c ethnic origin \u201d and \u201c social group \u201d , stating that it was outside of her competence as a linguist and rather fell within the competence of a sociologist or historian . However , according to the official trial record , PERSON had defined the aforementioned notions . The applicant also asked the court to include in the case file a copy and transcript of the audio recording of the first - instance hearings , made by the defence , indicating the discrepancies between the actual statements made by PERSON and those reflected in the trial record .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE Judge PERSON of ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application . He noted that the trial record had been made in compliance with procedural law and fully reflected the actual testimony given by all witnesses . The judge further stated that neither the applicant nor his lawyer had notified ORG of the audio recording of PERSON cross - examination at the trial or requested that the court include it in the case file , and that there were no legal grounds at that time for entertaining the applicant \u2019s application .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL lawyers and the applicant lodged appeals against his conviction .","On DATE the applicant filed supplementary appeal pleadings , reiterating his complaints concerning the shortcomings in the trial record with respect to PERSON testimony and requesting that the appellate court examine the audio recording made during the trial of PERSON statements and establish the discrepancy between them and those reflected in the trial record .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , Judge PERSON returned the applicant \u2019s supplementary pleadings , stating that , in substance , they reflected his remarks in respect of the trial record , which had already been examined and rejected on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant resubmitted his supplementary pleadings of CARDINAL DATE to ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) and complained about Judge PERSON \u2019s refusal to accept them . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that it had accepted his pleadings of CARDINAL DATE for examination and had examined them during an appeal hearing on DATE , and therefore the breach of his right of appeal against the judgment of DATE had been remedied . The letter also stated that Judge PERSON \u2019s actions when he had unlawfully returned the applicant \u2019s supplementary pleadings of CARDINAL DATE would be discussed by ORG , but that at the same time there were insufficient grounds for instituting disciplinary proceedings against him .","In its decision of DATE ORG found the judgment of DATE reasoned and well - founded and upheld it on appeal . It reiterated the reasoning of the trial court , stating that the applicant \u2019s guilt for the offence with which he had been charged had been proven by the body of evidence examined during the trial DATE his own statements in which he had admitted having published the impugned articles and the expert reports of DATE . ORG endorsed the trial court \u2019s argument that there was no reason to question the conclusions of those reports . It also stated that the trial court had addressed PERSON report , which had been favourable to the applicant , having assessed it critically .","In DATE and DATE the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to have disciplinary and criminal proceedings instituted against Judge PERSON for alleged falsifying the trial record , exceeding his powers and obstructing justice ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163805","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VASENIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in PERSON . He is currently detained in GPE .","In DATE a court found that the applicant , who suffered from schizophrenia , had committed a number of criminal offences , including possession of drugs and aggravated robbery , and ordered his admission to a psychiatric hospital . The applicant was placed in a mental institution in GPE , where he remained until DATE , when he escaped .","On DATE he was arrested by the NORP border police for an unlawful attempt to cross the border . On DATE the Lychakivsky ORG sentenced him to DATE administrative detention . According to a certificate issued by ORG in PERSON , the applicant was detained from DATE to DATE .","NORP In DATE the police opened a criminal investigation into the arson of vehicles belonging to a private company .","According to the applicant , on DATE he was arrested by the police in GPE , a town near the NORP border , during a random identity search operation . He was taken to a police station and allegedly beaten up to force him to confess to the criminal offences . The following day the applicant confessed to having set a vehicle on fire on DATE .","A report indicated that the applicant was arrested on DATE . On DATE he wrote a statement , confessing to having burnt out a car together with an accomplice . The investigator assigned a legal - aid lawyer and questioned the applicant in his presence . The applicant again confessed to the arson attack . He also mentioned that DATE he had escaped from a psychiatric hospital , where he underwent treatment under a court \u2019s order .","On DATE the investigator asked ORG of GPE to order the applicant \u2019s placement in custody .","On DATE the request was granted . ORG held that the applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence punishable by up to DATE imprisonment . His escape from a mental hospital and his lack of a permanent place of residence demonstrated his liability to abscond . Furthermore , relying on statements by a witness who had testified to having been approached by the applicant with a view to \u201c discussing charges against him \u201d , the court found that the applicant was prone to influencing witnesses and obstructing justice . It concluded that only detention could ensure the interests of justice .","The applicant was admitted to temporary detention facility no . GPE in GPE . He shared a cell with other detainees . There is no evidence suggesting that the detention authorities had made an effort to accommodate the applicant \u2019s mental disorder .","The applicant submitted that after his admission to the detention facility the police officers who had allegedly beaten him up after the arrest had again driven him to the police station for questioning , had handcuffed him to a heating unit and had left him in that position until TIME . He had not been given food for DATE and had only twice been allowed to use a toilet .","On DATE the applicant confessed to having blown up a car with an accomplice on DATE . He later repeated the confession at the crime scene .","NORP In DATE the investigating authorities charged the applicant with a robbery committed on DATE . They also asked ORG to extend the applicant \u2019s detention pending investigation , claiming that the case was complex and that more time was necessary to complete the investigation . The defence argued that the applicant was in need of psychiatric treatment and that he therefore should be released and admitted to a mental institution . On DATE the court extended his detention until DATE , having considered that that there were no circumstances warranting the applicant \u2019s release .","Another extension , based on the same reasoning , followed on DATE . The applicant was to be detained until DATE .","In the meantime , the investigators authorised a psychiatric expert examination of the applicant . In a report issued on DATE , psychiatrists indicated that the applicant suffered from paranoid continuous progressive schizophrenia and the initial stage of paraphrenia . The doctors also noted that that serious emotional disorder made the applicant particularly dangerous and thus called for his detention under constant psychiatric supervision .","Acting in response to the psychiatrists\u2019 findings , the authorities appointed , on DATE , a legal guardian to assist the applicant in the proceedings .","On DATE the pre - trial investigation was closed and the applicant was committed for trial before ORG of Belgorod . Referring to his diagnosis , the prosecution sought his admission to a psychiatric hospital .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG asking for a preliminary hearing to be held in his case . He disputed the charges and declared his innocence . Without submitting documentary evidence the applicant argued that he had been detained in GPE DATE and DATE and thus he had not committed any crime during that period . He also disagreed with the expert report of DATE , stating that a psychiatric hospital with a lighter security regime would be more appropriate for his condition . Lastly , he asked that his presence at the trial be ensured , as he doubted the efficiency of the legal aid . He noted that he had never met with his legal guardian .","On DATE the court held the preliminary hearing . The applicant was present . The court was to decide on the applicant \u2019s continued detention and the need for his personal presence at trial .","The applicant and his legal - aid counsel expressed different opinions on several matters . While the applicant insisted on his transfer from the ordinary detention facility to a psychiatric hospital , his legal guardian and legal - aid lawyer agreed to the extension of his detention . As regards the necessity of his presence , the applicant \u2019s counsel argued that it was desirable , but not necessary . The legal guardian submitted that the issue could be discussed at a later stage . The applicant strongly insisted on his personal participation , as he was afraid that otherwise he could be convicted of crimes which he had not committed .","Having heard the parties , the court ordered the applicant \u2019s detention pending trial and stated that the trial was to be held in his absence , as the personal participation of persons suffering from a mental disorder was not provided for by LAW for cases such as the one to be decided .","The applicant challenged the decision of DATE , but DATE his claim was returned without examination on the merits . The court held that his lawyer or legal representative only had a right , under NORP law , to lodge an appeal in such category of cases .","On DATE the court held a trial hearing in the presence of a prosecutor , the victims , their lawyers , the applicant \u2019s counsel and legal guardian . The applicant himself was not brought to the court - house . The court read out records of the statements made by the victims at the pre - trial stage and heard testimony from CARDINAL of the victims . It further read out statements by CARDINAL witnesses and studied the applicant \u2019s written confessions made on CARDINAL DATE and DATE . It examined other documents and material evidence . Neither the legal - aid counsel nor the legal guardian made any applications or objections . They did not ask any questions during the victim \u2019s cross - examination and did not challenge the admissibility of any item of evidence , including the applicant \u2019s confession . During their closing arguments the lawyer and the guardian acknowledged that the applicant had committed the impugned offences . They stated that owing to his mental disorder he should not bear criminal or civil responsibility and should be admitted to a high - security psychiatric hospital under intensive supervision .","On DATE ORG delivered its judgment . It established that on DATE the applicant and his accomplice had set fire to a car ; that on DATE they had blown up another car and that on DATE they had committed a robbery . Relying on the psychiatric report of CARDINAL DATE the court ordered the applicant \u2019s treatment in a high - security psychiatric institution under intensive supervision . It held that the preventive measure in the form of the applicant \u2019s detention should remain unchanged until his admission to a psychiatric hospital .","On DATE the applicant appealed . He also asked the court to provide him with the trial records from the first - instance court proceedings . The applicant argued that he had been unlawfully convicted of crimes he had not committed , that his confession had been given under pressure and that his defence team , comprising the legal - aid counsel and the legal guardian assigned against his will , had been manifestly ineffective . The applicant submitted that on DATE he had still been in detention in GPE and therefore he could not have blown up a car in GPE on DATE .","A similar complaint was filed with the ORG regional prosecutor \u2019s office .","Neither the applicant \u2019s counsel , nor his guardian lodged an appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It became final on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for access to the trial records as such a request could only be lodged by his defence counsel or legal guardian . DATE ORG returned the applicant \u2019s appeal against the judgment of DATE , informing him that his lawyer or legal guardian were the only ones with the authority to appeal . A similar response arrived from the prosecutor \u2019s office on DATE .","On DATE the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was enforced and the applicant was admitted to ORG .","In DATE the NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office applied to the ORG of ORG for supervisory review of the case referring to the breach of the applicant \u2019s right to defence .","On DATE the request was granted . Invoking Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( c ) of the LAW , the court held that the trial court \u2019s decision to hold the hearings in the applicant \u2019s absence had been unjustified .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG acknowledged a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to defence , quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh examination on the merits .","The first hearing in the case was to be held on DATE , but the court was unable to summon the applicant . The summons was returned with a note that the applicant could not be found at the indicated address . On DATE and DATE ORG repeatedly attempted to inform the applicant of the hearing by registered post and telegram . The summons was not served on the applicant as he had left the place of his residence .","On DATE ORG held that it could not proceed with the examination of the criminal case in view of the lack of any knowledge of his whereabouts . It returned the case to the investigating authorities with an order to find the applicant .","The parties did not inform ORG outcome of the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant complained to the NORP town prosecutor \u2019s office about his arrest and subsequent ill - treatment . The complaint contained no references to bodily injuries or possible witnesses to the beatings . It was not supported by any other evidence .","Having questioned the alleged perpetrators , who denied any instance of ill - treatment , the prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open a criminal case on DATE .","On DATE a higher - ranking prosecutor overturned the decision of DATE with an order to verify whether the applicant had had any injuries on his admission to the detention facility .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to open a criminal case , mainly referring to the applicant \u2019s mental disorder . On DATE ORG upheld the refusal .","The applicant was detained in the following institutions : from DATE to DATE in the temporary detention facility ; from DATE to DATE in ORG ; from DATE to CARDINAL DATE in GPE High - Security Psychiatric Hospital ; and from DATE to DATE in ORG in GPE . The applicant was then discharged for outpatient treatment .","Shortly after his admission to the temporary detention facility the applicant was seen by a resident doctor , whom he informed that he had been suffering from schizophrenia since DATE .","In DATE he was examined by a psychiatrist . According to the doctor \u2019s report of DATE , the applicant had maniacal schizophrenia . Having noted that his condition did not call for any drug regimen , the doctor recommended his further examination and treatment in a mental institution .","A report prepared by the detention authorities for the applicant \u2019s examination by a psychiatric commission indicated that there were no peculiarities in his general behaviour . He had good relations with inmates and was respectful of the authorities . He never violated prison regulations .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a commission of doctors from ORG . The experts confirmed that the applicant suffered from paranoid continuous progressive schizophrenia and paraphrenia in the initial stage . They recommended treatment in a high - security medical institution with intensive supervision , given the danger the applicant posed to those around him .","During his stay in the temporary detention facility he received no antipsychotic drugs . No aggressive outbursts or other incidents were recorded .","DATE . On admission to ORG in DATE the applicant behaved aggressively . He was given antipsychotic medication . In DATE his mental condition improved . By DATE his behaviour was satisfactory .","During his stay in GPE High - Security Psychiatric Hospital and in ORG , GPE the applicant received standard psychiatric treatment with antipsychotic medication . His mental condition significantly ameliorated , he was no longer in need of inpatient treatment and he was therefore released .","A chest X - ray examination performed DATE after his admission to the temporary detention facility disclosed that the applicant had been infected with focal tuberculosis at the infiltration stage . The applicant was seen by a doctor . A standard treatment regimen with first - line antibacterial drugs was ordered .","Daily entries in his medical records show that DATE and DATE the applicant received the prescribed anti - tuberculosis drug regimen . A scheduled break in his treatment followed .","In ORG his treatment continued . A chest X - ray in DATE showed that the tuberculosis had been \u201c clinically cured \u201d , with only insignificant traces of the disease remaining in the left lung . On DATE doctors confirmed his complete recovery .","The submitted documents indicate that during his treatment the applicant was subjected to regular X - ray examinations , and blood and sputum tests .","A blood test carried out by ORG on DATE showed that the applicant had hepatitis C. On DATE he was seen by an infectious diseases specialist . Treatment with a regimen of drugs was prescribed . It resulted in the remission of the hepatitis in DATE . In DATE the doctor confirmed the full remission . When asked by the doctor about the possible causes of the infection , the applicant stated that he had shared his safety razor with inmates in the temporary detention facility .","NORP Subsequent medical tests and check - ups did not show any deterioration in the applicant \u2019s health . It appears from the submitted documents that the illness has remained dormant ever since .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE for drug trafficking . ORG of PERSON authorised his detention . He was placed in a temporary detention facility . In DATE he was transferred to a psychiatric hospital in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180498","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KORNIYCHUK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Prior to the events in question , he had been actively involved in NORP politics . From DATE to DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was a Member of ORG and from DATE to DATE he was First Deputy Minister of ORG . His father - in - law was President of ORG from DATE .","DATE and then DATE the applicant was one of the equity partners of the law firm ORG ( subsequently renamed ORG ) .","NORP In DATE the ORG - owned joint - stock company ORG ( hereinafter referred to as \u201c NORP \u201d ) , which was involved in several serious disputes before ORG , decided to extend the legal services agreement which it had concluded with ORG in DATE and which was about to expire .","On DATE the applicant , acting in his capacity as First Deputy Minister of Justice , sent a letter to GPE , at the latter \u2019s request , informing it of the existence of exceptional conditions , as provided under domestic law , for purchasing legal services from ORG without inviting bids from other law firms . It was noted that ORG had been providing GPE with legal services for a long time , including in the proceedings before ORG . Accordingly , changing the legal DATE provider would be costly and unjustified .","The applicant \u2019s letter , which was subsequently submitted to ORG , provided the basis for PERSON to contract further legal services from ORG without pursuing a bidding procedure .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) opened a criminal case under LAW of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in respect of alleged forgery of the letter of CARDINAL DATE by unspecified officials at ORG . On DATE the GPE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed the above ruling after a complaint by the applicant . On DATE and DATE ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) and ORG , respectively , upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision .","On DATE the ORG opened another criminal case in respect of the same facts , this time under LAW of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) on suspicion of abuse of office with grave consequences by unspecified ORG officials . On DATE the ORG quashed that ruling . Its decision was upheld by the appellate court on DATE . It appears that it was not challenged on points of law .","On DATE the ORG faxed the applicant \u201c an invitation \u201d to go to its offices at TIME DATE for questioning about \u201c possible abuse of office and forgery by officials of ORG \u201d .","On DATE the ORG re - sent the \u201c invitation \u201d to the applicant . This time his questioning was expected at TIME on DATE . However , he did not appear before the prosecutor .","On DATE the ORG instructed the GPE city police to establish the applicant \u2019s whereabouts and to hand him a summons for questioning at TIME on DATE . The letter noted that the applicant had not been present at his address as established by the investigation .","Also on DATE the ORG enquired with ORG regarding the applicant \u2019s trips abroad in DATE and DATE . According to the information it received on DATE , the applicant had left GPE CARDINAL times during the period in question .","On DATE an official of the GPE city police wrote to the ORG that its information about the applicant \u2019s address was outdated ( he had sold the flat in DATE and had not lived there since ) .","On DATE the ORG enquired with the GPE city and regional address bureau about the applicant \u2019s registered address and received a reply on DATE that he lived in GPE in the GPE region .","On DATE the ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant under LAW of the ORG ( exceeding of powers by an official leading to grave consequences \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In describing the applicant \u2019s actus reus , the prosecutor found that he had bypassed the registry of ORG when accepting the request from PERSON and issuing his letter in reply ; that his conclusion about the existence of exceptional conditions for PERSON not to pursue a bidding procedure had been in contradiction with the applicable legal provisions ; and that he had had no right to put that conclusion on official ORG paper . The subsequent extension by PERSON of its contract with ORG had caused considerable losses to the ORG budget .","DATE the investigator called the applicant by telephone to summon him for questioning . At the time , he was in hospital with his wife , who was giving birth to their third child .","In TIME of DATE , the applicant appeared before the investigator and after being questioned was arrested at TIME under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . According to the official report , the applicant had been arrested on the grounds that \u201c eyewitnesses , including victims , directly identified [ him ] as the one who had committed the offence \u201d . His arrest was justified by the necessity to prevent him evading justice or from obstructing the establishment of the truth , and to ensure the execution of an eventual court judgment . The arrest report had the following description of the facts giving rise to the prosecution :","\u201c ... during the period from DATE [ the applicant ] , exceeding his official powers , issued an expert conclusion with knowingly false information , as a result of which considerable damage , amounting to CARDINAL [ NORP ] hryvnias [ equal to CARDINAL at the time ] was caused to [ GPE ] . In other words , he is suspected of committing a criminal offence under LAW of the [ ORG ] . \u201d","The procedural rights of arrestees were also listed . The applicant signed it with a remark that he considered his arrest as unlawful given that he had complied with the investigator \u2019s summons in accordance with the ORG and that there was no risk of him hindering the establishment of the truth as he was no longer a civil servant .","On DATE the applicant was officially charged under LAW of the ORG .","On DATE the applicant challenged his arrest before a court . He claimed that the investigator had failed to refer to any factual circumstances to justify his arrest under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG . The applicant contended that he had appeared before the investigator upon the latter \u2019s first summons , despite the fact that on DATE his wife had been in hospital giving birth . That indicated , in his opinion , that he had had no intention of absconding or hindering the investigation .","Also on DATE the investigator applied to the court for the applicant to be held in pre - trial detention . The necessity of that preventive measure was explained as follows :","\u201c Having regard to [ the applicant \u2019s ] role in the commission of the offence and his causing serious damage to ORG interests , his age , state of health , family and financial situation , and other circumstances characterising him , the investigation has grounds to believe that [ the applicant ] will try to influence the witnesses in this case given his extensive networks in law - enforcement bodies and among judicial authorities .","Furthermore , the case file contains sufficient evidence showing that [ the applicant ] avoided appearing before the investigation authorities , that he travels abroad regularly and that he is absent from his registered address . That being so , if at liberty , he will abscond or hinder the investigation and the implementation of procedural decisions .","Therefore , the application of any other preventive measure in respect of the accused ... will not be able to ensure his proper procedural conduct and the fulfilment of procedural decisions ... \u201d","On DATE ORG found that the case file did not contain sufficient information about the applicant in order to take a decision on the investigator \u2019s application . In particular , the file did not contain sufficient information about the applicant \u2019s health , family and financial situation or his occupation . The court therefore extended the applicant \u2019s preliminary detention to DATE as a temporary preventive measure . The decision was not subject to appeal .","On DATE ORG allowed the investigator \u2019s application ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as well - founded and ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The court further held that that finding rendered it unnecessary to examine alternative preventive measures . It rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint about his arrest as unsubstantiated .","On DATE the applicant appealed . He reiterated his earlier arguments on the alleged unlawfulness of his arrest by the investigator ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Furthermore , he complained that ORG had failed to justify the application of what was the most intrusive preventive measure available in his case . He argued that the court had not taken into account the fact that he was the sole breadwinner for his CARDINAL children and his wife and that their newborn child was still in hospital . Positive character references and his requests for a non - custodial preventive measure had also been disregarded .","On DATE the President of ORG applied to ORG , offering his personal surety for the applicant \u2019s release . In the alternative , he indicated that he was ready to pay bail for the applicant .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the findings and reasoning of ORG decision of DATE . There was no reference in the ruling to the application by ORG President .","On DATE the applicant was additionally charged with forging an official document under LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","On DATE the pre - trial investigation was declared completed and the applicant was given access to the case file .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention to DATE , finding that there were no grounds to change the preliminary measure to a more lenient one .","On DATE the investigator released the applicant under an undertaking not to abscond . The change of preventive measure was explained by the fact that the applicant could no longer influence witnesses or impede the investigation . The investigator also made a general reference to the applicant \u2019s age , state of health , family and financial situation , as well as the fact that he had children to care for , permanent employment and positive character references .","As known from public available material , some media outlets linked the applicant \u2019s release to a private meeting between his father - in - law as the President of ORG and the President of GPE DATE , on DATE . The applicant publicly denied those rumours .","The parties did not inform the ORG of any further developments in the criminal proceedings against the applicant . Publicly available material shows that he was amnestied in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172318","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SHESTOPALOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Torture)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At TIME on DATE QUANTITY police officers from the Sovetskiy district police visited the applicant and invited him to answer some questions . With the permission of his mother , the applicant , a minor at the time , accompanied them to the Sovetskiy district police station in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s interview took place in room no . CARDINAL . He was asked questions concerning the rape of a girl he knew , but stated that he had nothing to do with the crime .","According to the applicant , some police officers tied him up and put him on the floor . TIME they untied him and requested that he confess to the rape . He refused . CARDINAL or QUANTITY police officers punched and kicked him in the head and body , throttled him with a baton , put a plastic bag over his head and blocked off his access to air , sat and jumped on him having covered him with a blanket , grabbed him by the ears and forced him to do the splits .","Fearing that the ill - treatment would continue , the applicant signed a self - incriminating statement at the request of the police officers . He was then taken to see PERSON , an investigator at the prosecutor \u2019s office . After being questioned by PERSON he was released . He remained at the police station for TIME . No documents concerning his detention were issued .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant underwent various medical examinations , including by a forensic medical expert . Additional opinions by forensic medical experts were given later . According to the applicant \u2019s medical records , he sustained the following injuries : a closed head injury , concussion , abrasions on and behind the ears and on the arms and knees , bruising on the right shoulder and ribcage and bruises on the buttocks . He was unable to attend school until DATE , having been issued a sick note on CARDINAL DATE for concussion .","NORP The rape victim gave a statement saying that the applicant was not the person who had raped her . No criminal proceedings were brought against him .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged a complaint with the Sovetskiy district police , alleging that the police officers had subjected her son to ill - treatment in order to make him confess to a crime which he had never committed , and requesting that they be prosecuted . On DATE her complaint was transferred to the Sovetskiy district prosecutor \u2019s office .","In accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c CCrP \u201d ) , CARDINAL refusals to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers were issued on the grounds that the constituent elements of a crime were missing . They were each set aside because a comprehensive inquiry had not been carried out . On DATE the ORG NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office instituted criminal proceedings under LAW ( a ) of LAW ( abuse of authority with the use of violence ) .","On DATE the applicant was granted victim status .","Police officers A. and PERSON gave statements saying that on DATE they had invited the applicant to accompany them to the police station . He had remained in room no . CARDINAL until evening and they had been present in the room , as had police officer PERSON , who had taken statements from him . They denied any ill - treatment of the applicant .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant failed to identify A. and PERSON during an identification parade .","On DATE he identified operative police officer PERSON from a photograph as CARDINAL of the men who had ill - treated him . On DATE the investigation was suspended on the grounds that the perpetrator had not been identified .","On DATE the investigation was resumed and the applicant identified F. during an identification parade . During his examination as a suspect F. confirmed that on CARDINAL DATE he had taken statements from the applicant in room no . CARDINAL , but denied using any violence .","On DATE a face - to - face confrontation was carried out between the applicant and F. The applicant stated that F. had taken part in his illtreatment and had taken the confession from him . He was unable to recall any specific acts of violence by him .","On DATE the criminal proceedings against F. were discontinued under LAW CCrP on the grounds that he had not been involved in the crime .","On DATE an on - site examination of room no . CARDINAL was carried out .","On DATE a confrontation was held between the applicant and police officers GPE and PERSON , who again both denied using any violence towards the applicant . The applicant stated that PERSON had taken part in his illtreatment , but he was unable to recall any specific acts of violence by him . He explained that he had not previously identified A. because he had poor eyesight . On DATE the investigating authority refused to bring criminal proceedings against A. on the grounds that the constituent elements of a crime were missing . The applicant stated that PERSON had not assaulted him , but had interviewed him and had been present during his ill - treatment .","On DATE photographs of several other police officers were shown to the applicant . He did not identify the culprits .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were suspended on the grounds that the perpetrators had not been identified . The investigation was subsequently resumed and on DATE was suspended again on the same grounds .","In DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against ORG , seeking MONEY ( RUB ) in damages in connection with his torture by the police .","On DATE the ORG of PERSON ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) acknowledged a violation of the applicant \u2019s right not to be subjected to treatment proscribed under LAW , allowed the applicant \u2019s civil claim in part and awarded him RUB MONEY ( about QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) .","It referred to Convention caselaw under LAW obligation to carry out an effective investigation , notably the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . GPE , DATE ) . It noted that the criminal proceedings had been initiated after CARDINAL refusals to do so and that it had been acknowledged that the applicant had been the victim of a crime .","ORG gave credence to the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s version of events , which it found to be consistent with other evidence in the case , in particular statements by her that the applicant had had no injuries when he had left home with the police officers and that his health had appeared to have been damaged when he had returned from the police station . Noting that the respondent authorities and the LOC police , acting as a third party in the proceedings , had submitted no evidence capable of proving that the applicant could have received the injuries ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in other circumstances , ORG established that they had been sustained during his detention at the police station .","ORG noted that the applicant had been a minor at the time and that , according to his submissions at the hearing , various acts of violence , to which the police officers of the LOC police had , in the exercise of their duties , subjected him ( see paragraph PERSON above ) , had caused him mental and physical suffering . According to the applicant , he had suffered severe pain as a result of the police officers\u2019 violent actions , which had included being punched , kicked , throttled with a baton , being unable to breath , being sat on and jumped on , being forced to do the splits and so on . He had been dizzy , nauseous and sick . Over DATE he had been weak and dizzy and had felt heaviness in the back of his head . When the police officers had tried to throttle him he had feared for his life . There had been no one to ask for help . The fact that he had suffered harm at the hands of the police , who were supposed to be there to protect people , had been especially traumatic . He had been scared , subdued and depressed . His honour and dignity had been damaged . In his eyes , by forcing him to sign the confession the police officers had humiliated him .","Having examined the evidence in its entirety , in particular the medical evidence of the applicant \u2019s injuries , ORG found that the applicant \u2019s mental and physical suffering had been caused by the unlawful actions of the police officers of the LOC police department , in particular by the inhuman and degrading treatment and by inflicting bodily harm . Therefore , his rights under LAW on the Rights of the Child and Article CARDINAL of LAW had been violated .","Relying on LAW , in particular the provisions concerning the right to compensation for damage sustained as a result of the unlawful actions of State organs ( LAW held that the ORG was responsible for the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment regardless of the fact that the guilt of specific individuals had so far not been established .","The parties appealed against the judgment . The applicant contested the amount of compensation , considering it to be disproportionate to the suffering he had endured .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the judgment . However , it emphasised the fact that , being a minor at the time , to be held at the police station for TIME was a long time , and that the authorities had been unable to provide any legitimate reasons for his detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159196","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MATCZY\u0143SKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant bought his first agricultural property of QUANTITY consisting of CARDINAL plots situated in PERSON , in the municipality of PERSON , between lakes PERSON , GPE and PERSON . CARDINAL wooden buildings \u2013 a house , a barn and DATE were situated on one of the plots , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","On DATE the Wigry Landscape Park ( FAC ) was created .","On DATE the applicant bought further property extending over QUANTITY in LOC , consisting of CARDINAL plots classified as farmland , CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL . There were no buildings situated on these plots .","On DATE an ordinance by ORG created ORG . The applicant \u2019s land was incorporated into the area covered by the park .","The applicant submitted that he had not been informed about this incorporation at the time and had not had any means of challenging this measure , either immediately following the action or after DATE , when LAW CARDINAL to the Convention entered into force in respect of GPE .","NORP The applicant divided his land into CARDINAL smaller plots , sold some of them to third parties and gave some of them to various members of his family . He currently owns plots ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL .","In DATE a new local land development plan was adopted by the local municipality . Under this plan the applicant \u2019s plots could not be used for construction purposes .","On DATE the Director of the Park informed the applicant that his property was located in the zone of the Lakes Wigry and PERSON in FAC and that the local development plan prohibited any construction for purposes other than maintaining the water reserves of harbours and beaches .","On DATE the Director of the Park responded to a proposal from the applicant to sell his properties in PERSON , comprising a total surface area of QUANTITY , to the Park . The Director asked the applicant to reassess the price , arguing that the proposed price had been based on the assumption that the plots concerned would be suitable for construction purposes , whereas they in fact consisted exclusively of forest and farmland . The applicant was also informed that , since his plots were situated between CARDINAL lakes , they fell within the protection zone which extended QUANTITY out from the shore of each lake and within which no construction was allowed .","The applicant submitted that from DATE to CARDINAL CARDINAL dwellings had been built on plots in the immediate vicinity of his land . The Government submitted that the Director of ORG had given consent only with regard to the expansion of existing dwellings ( supplementation of the existing farm buildings ) .","In DATE and DATE the applicant divided plot No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on which the farm dwelling ( siedlisko ) was located and sold it to CARDINAL third parties . The new owners requested and were granted permits to develop the buildings which already existed on the acquired property .","On DATE the local land development plan adopted in DATE expired .","On DATE the applicant asked the Mayor of Suwa\u0142ki to inform him of the designation of his property according to the DATE local land development plan .","On DATE the Mayor informed the applicant that his land was situated within the limits of ORG , falling partly within the lake protection zone and that there was no provision for construction thereon . According to the local land development plan , the applicant \u2019s property consisted of forest area and farmland on which further afforestation was recommended .","On DATE the applicant asked the Mayor of Suwa\u0142ki to pay him compensation amounting to MONEY ( PLN ) for amendments made to the local land development plan which had excluded the possibility of any construction on his property .","On DATE the Mayor replied that the applicant \u2019s request was ill - founded because the plan in question , which had been adopted by resolution of ORG on DATE , had not changed the designation of the applicant \u2019s property . The previous binding development plan did not provide for any construction on the applicant \u2019s land , which was situated on agricultural areas with recommended afforestation .","On DATE the applicant requested that a preliminary construction permit ( warunki zabudowy i zagospodarowania terenu ) be granted in respect of plots nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","On DATE the Mayor of PERSON refused to grant the permit requested . It was found that the planned development , consisting of the construction of a house and an outbuilding , would have been situated too close to the lake shore , in an area in which no construction was allowed according to local land development plan . Moreover , the Director of ORG had voiced a negative opinion as regards the planned development .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON ) . He complained , among other things , that he had been treated in a discriminatory manner because owners of the adjacent plots had obtained building permits and had been able to develop their land .","On DATE the ORG upheld the challenged decision . ORG confirmed that the development was inadmissible taking into consideration the provisions of the DATE local land development plan which expressly prohibited construction of any new buildings in the area concerned . As regards the allegedly discriminatory treatment , ORG found that the owners of some plots situated in the neighbourhood had indeed obtained building permits . However , some buildings had previously existed on their property , so the permits relied on by the applicant were not ones that concerned new constructions . ORG did not find any discriminatory treatment because the applicant \u2019s situation had been legally and factually different from that of his neighbours . As regards the CARDINAL building permits granted to the other persons living in the vicinity , the ORG further noted that proceedings had been instituted as a matter of course to declare the respective decisions null and void .","The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision with ORG ( PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The ORG endorsed the reasoning of ORG decision and found no breach of law in the administrative proceedings complained of .","In DATE the applicant submitted CARDINAL applications requesting that the municipality issue preliminary construction permits with regard to plots CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL . On DATE the Mayor of Suwa\u0142ki ordered the applicant to rectify some shortcomings in his applications . The applicant failed to do so and , consequently , they were not processed .","In DATE the applicant requested that the municipality issue preliminary construction permits in respect of plots nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL . The applicant sought permission to develop his property by constructing a new residential building , an outbuilding , a septic tank and a well , with access to public road no . CARDINAL .","The municipality invited the Park Director to state his position with regard to the applicant \u2019s request . The Director declined to give his consent to the applicant \u2019s project .","The applicant appealed to the Environment Minister ( Minister PERSON ) , who quashed the decision and ordered that the case be reexamined . It was noted that the contested decision had been based on LAW , while it should have been based on LAW of DATE .","On DATE the Director again refused to give his consent to the applicant \u2019s request . The Director emphasised the historical and landscape values of the area in question and was of the opinion that any construction there would have a negative influence on the unique values on the landscape which ORG had to protect .","On DATE the Director rectified the basis for his previous decision .","On DATE the applicant appealed to the Environment Minister .","On DATE the Environment Minister upheld the challenged decision .","The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with ORG ( ORG PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG gave judgment , quashing both the challenged decision and the preceding decision of DATE , finding that the administrative authorities concerned had relied on the wrong legal basis . The ORG went on to say that the first - instance decision had not been consistent with the second - instance decision . The first refused the applicant permission because the land in question had not been developed and \u201c had never been intended for construction purposes \u201d and the second contained in its reasoning the statement that \u201c there were already other buildings in the vicinity , which did not justify granting further construction permits \u201d .","On DATE an inspection of the plots CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL took place .","On DATE the Director of ORG again refused to give his consent to the planned development . He considered that the planned construction failed to fulfil CARDINAL of the requirements laid down in LAW of the DATE Act on Conservation of Nature , namely \u201c it was not consistent with the aims of the Park \u201d ( nie s\u0142u\u017cy celom parku ) , because of its commercial purpose , amongst other things , given that the applicant was intending to run a guesthouse there . The Director admitted that there were buildings in the close vicinity of the applicant \u2019s property and that they had recently been developed . However , the applicant intended to build on previously undeveloped land QUANTITY wide which , in the Director \u2019s view , would negatively affect the landscape and the lakeshore .","The applicant appealed to the Environment Minister .","On DATE a new local development plan was adopted , which came into force on DATE . According to the plan , no construction of any buildings on the applicant \u2019s property was allowed .","Additionally , on DATE the Environment Minister replied to the parliamentary query ( interpelacja poselska ) made on behalf of the applicant by ORG , a member of ORG . The Minister confirmed , among other things , that the local land development plan for GPE , in force before the DATE , had excluded any new construction on the applicant \u2019s plots nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL .","On DATE the Mayor of Suwa\u0142ki discontinued the administrative proceedings taking the view that the entry into force of the new local development plan rendered continuation of the proceedings pointless since , even if a decision on the merits were to be given , it would have to be declared ineffectual ( stwierdzenie wyga\u015bni\u0119cia decyzji ) .","In the meantime , by resolution of DATE before the local development plan was drawn up \u2013 ORG of GPE adopted framework local planning policy guidelines ( studium kierunk\u00f3w i uwarunkowa\u0144 zagospodarowania przestrzennego gminy ) which provided that the plots belonging to the applicant were to become forest land and that no construction could be carried out on them .","On DATE the applicant requested that the municipality rectify a breach of legal order in so far as the guidelines had reflected ORG Director \u2019s position that a ban on all construction projects should be imposed on his plot . He submitted that this measure amounted to de facto expropriation without any entitlement to compensation and consequently breached the LAW in so far as the latter guarantees the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one \u2019s possessions .","As the municipality refused to grant his request , he submitted a complaint to ORG in GPE , contesting the lawfulness of the local planning policy guidelines . He argued that the guidelines directly affected his situation . Not only had they made it impossible for him to pursue any construction projects , they also seriously restricted his ownership rights to such an extent that they became illusory . The guidelines inflicted a serious disadvantage on him in that he was unable to build a shed and had to rent storage space from his neighbours . The restrictions did not correspond to any pressing social need as his farm was not located in virgin territory . There were CARDINAL farms in the vicinity , all of them with dwellings and sheds , the land was being used for agricultural purposes , there was a road and a power supply , and the installation of a sewage system was planned in the future .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed his appeal . The court first addressed the municipality \u2019s argument that the policy guidelines were not an individual administrative measure addressed to a particular individual , and capable of affecting his legal interests , and which therefore could not be challenged before an administrative court . The court found that , despite being essentially a policy instrument addressed primarily to other municipal bodies and guiding them in the implementation of local planning policy , they affected the applicant \u2019s legal situation to a degree sufficient to hold that he had a legal interest in challenging their lawfulness in judicial proceedings . This was so because the adoption of such guidelines would necessarily influence the outcome of future proceedings in which individuals might seek the adoption of measures falling within the scope of the local planning policy .","The court further stated that the municipality \u2019s authority to impose on individuals restrictions regarding the exercise of their property rights was determined by the applicable laws , including those regulating environmental protection . This authority was not absolute , however , as the municipality was also obliged to respect the public interest , to weigh it against the relevant private interests in the process of land planning and development , to act rationally and to respect the principle of proportionality .","In the present case , the Law on Nature Conservation of DATE provided for an obligation for the municipality \u2013 when adopting the guidelines \u2013 to take due note of the position of the Director of ORG which , in so far as it concerned plots of land situated within the limits of national parks and their nearest neighbourhood ( otulina ) , was binding on the municipality .","The court noted that the applicant had never had a right to develop his property , meaning that the adoption of the framework local planning policy guidelines had not deprived him of any rights . The plan adopted in DATE did not provide for the applicant \u2019s land to be used for construction purposes . It only provided for the owners to maintain their buildings in good technical condition .","In the present case the restrictions imposed on the applicant were in compliance with the applicable laws and did not breach the applicant \u2019s individual rights . In so far as he had referred to construction projects on neighbouring plots , this issue did not fall within the ambit of the present case , in which only the lawfulness of the measures imposed on him could be examined .","The applicant lodged a cassation against this judgment with ORG . He essentially argued that the measures complained of were in breach of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that they amounted to an excessive restriction of his ownership rights .","On DATE ORG dismissed his cassation appeal . Firstly it held that the lower court \u2019s view that the municipality was obliged to ascertain the Director \u2019s position , and was bound by it , was correct .","DATE \u2019s rights , had acted in compliance with the applicable laws , was correct . The manner in which the municipality had exercised its powers did not go beyond the limits defined by the constitutional protection of property . This conclusion was reinforced by the fact that the applicant \u2019s plots were in any event not already subject to construction under the plan adopted in DATE .","The court went on to state :","\u201c However , the court shared the conclusions of the cassation appeal that solutions adopted in the planning policy guidelines are capable of breaching the applicant \u2019s legal interest , given that he had expressed his wish to change the use to which his plots had hitherto been put by pursuing construction projects on them . The fact that under the previous planning instruments concerning his land the applicant was also prevented from building on it can demonstrate only that his legal situation has not changed , but is not tantamount to saying that his interest as an owner has not been breached , given that he can not bring his projects to fruition . \u201d","In so far as the applicant argued that the measure complained of was not justified because a number of dwellings had been constructed on neighbouring plots , the court noted that this objection went to the substance of the position formulated by the Director of ORG . It could not be examined in the proceedings as they were concerned only with the lawfulness of the framework guidelines .","On DATE the applicant wrote to the Director of ORG , proposing that the situation be settled by way of the sale to GPE CARDINAL of his plots ( Nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE ) on the Wigry lake shore , for a price to be determined by an expert , in return for the Director \u2019s agreement to change the guidelines .","In a letter of DATE the Director rejected the applicant \u2019s proposal . He referred to the planning history of his plots and the planning regulation which designated the applicant \u2019s land for afforestation . He reiterated that even on the basis of the DATE plan , which had expired on DATE , no construction had been allowed on plots no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL . The situation did not change after adoption of the new plan . As regards the applicant \u2019s proposal to sell some of his plots to the LOC , the Director submitted that the LOC was generally interested in buying up plots on its territory and did so as long as its financial means allowed . However , he stated that it was not possible to buy the plots in return for amendments to the local development plan ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-157342","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LULI v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s and other heirs inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m , of which QUANTITY . m were restored ( \u201c the first Commission decision \u201d ) . They would be compensated by way of an equivalent plot of land within their property ( i njihet dhe i kthehet ish pronarit pron\u00ebsia mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb truall duke kompensuar me truall ekuivalent brenda truallit t\u00eb tij ) in respect of a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m ( \u201c the first plot of land \u201d ) , of which QUANTITY . m were occupied with illegal constructions . The occupiers were entitled to buy the plot of land measuring QUANTITY m or rent it on the basis of an agreement to be concluded between the parties . It also recognised the right of first refusal of a public building measuring QUANTITY . m situated within the plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m. It further decided that the applicant and other heirs would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law in respect of another plot of land measuring QUANTITY m ( \u201c the second plot of land \u201d ) . Finally , it decided to examine the applicant \u2019s and other heirs\u2019 inherited property right in respect of the remaining plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m at a later stage ( \u201c the third plot of land \u201d ) . To date , ORG decision has been taken in respect of the remaining plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m.","On DATE the applicant \u2019s and other heirs\u2019 inherited title over a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m , of which the first plot of land was part , was registered into the land register . The relevant data entered in the land register reads as follows :","\u201c On DATE is registered into the land register an unoccupied plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m ; an unoccupied plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m , which was compensated by way of an equivalent plot of land within their property ... \u201d","To date , the applicant has not been provided with any compensation concerning the first and second plots of land .","On DATE , ORG , by virtue of another decision ( \u201c the second Commission decision \u201d ) , recognised the applicant \u2019s and other heirs\u2019 inherited title to another plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m ( \u201c the fourth plot of land \u201d ) . Since the entire plot of land was occupied , it decided that the applicant and other heirs would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law . To date , the applicant has not been provided with any compensation ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180506","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SEKMADIENIS LTD. v. LITHUANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant company is a limited liability company established under NORP law with its registered office in GPE .","In DATE and DATE , for DATE , the applicant company ran an advertising campaign introducing a clothing line by designer PERSON The campaign featured CARDINAL visual advertisements which were displayed on CARDINAL advertising hoardings in public areas in GPE and on ORG website ( hereinafter \u201c the advertisements \u201d ) .","The first of the CARDINAL advertisements showed a young man with long hair , a headband , a halo around his head and several tattoos wearing a pair of jeans . A caption at the bottom of the image read \u201c PERSON , what trousers ! \u201d ( PERSON , kokios tavo keln\u0117s ! ) .","The second advertisement showed a young woman wearing a white dress and a headdress with white and red flowers in it . She had a halo around her head and was holding a string of beads . The caption at the bottom of the image read \u201c Dear PERSON , what a dress ! \u201d ( PERSON brangi , kokia suknel\u0117 ! ) .","The third advertisement showed the man and the woman together , wearing the same clothes and accessories as in the previous advertisements . The man was reclining and the woman was standing next to him with one hand placed on his head and the other on his shoulder . The caption at the bottom of the image read \u201c PERSON [ and ] PERSON , what are you wearing ! \u201d ( PERSON , kuo \u010dia apsireng\u0119 ! ) .","On DATE and DATE ORG ( Valstybin\u0117 vartotoj\u0173 teisi\u0173 apsaugos tarnyba \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the SCRPA \u201d ) received CARDINAL individual complaints by telephone concerning the advertisements . The individuals complained that the advertisements were unethical and offensive to religious people .","After receiving those complaints , the ORG asked ORG ( NORP reklamos biuras DATE hereinafter \u201c the LAA \u201d ) , a self - regulation body composed of advertising specialists , to give an opinion on the advertisements . On DATE a CARDINAL - member commission of the ORG decided by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL that the advertisements breached ORG and LAW ( Decency ) and CARDINAL ( Religion ) of the Code of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The ORG commission held :","\u201c In the commission \u2019s view , the advertisements may lead to dissatisfaction of religious people . [ The advertisements might be seen as ] humiliating and degrading people because of their faith , convictions or opinions . Religious people always react very sensitively to any use of religious symbols or religious personalities in advertising , so we suggest avoiding the possibility of offending their dignity .","In this case the game has gone too far . ( ORG atveju u\u017esi\u017eaista per daug . )","Humour is understandable but it can really offend religious people . We suggest finding other characters for communicating the uniqueness of the product .","...","It is recommended ... to have regard for the feelings of religious people , to take a more responsible attitude towards religion - related topics in advertising , and to stop the dissemination of the advertisements or change the characters depicted therein . \u201d","On DATE the ORG received a complaint from a law firm in GPE concerning the advertisements . The complaint stated that the advertisements degraded religious symbols , offended the feelings of religious people and created \u201c a danger that society might lose the necessary sense of sacredness and basic respect for spirituality \u201d ( kyla pavojus visuomenei nustoti b\u016btinos sakralumo pajautos ir elementarios pagarbos dvasingumui ) . It asked the SCRPA to fine the applicant company and to order it to remove the advertisements as being contrary to public order and public morals .","The ORG forwarded the aforementioned complaints and the ORG opinion ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) to ORG ( ORG ne maisto produkt\u0173 inspekcija DATE hereinafter \u201c the Inspectorate \u201d ) . On DATE the ORG informed the applicant company that the advertisements were possibly in violation of LAW ) of ORG as being contrary to public morals ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It stated :","\u201c The ORG , having examined the material presented to it , is of the view that the advertisements use religious symbols in a disrespectful and inappropriate manner . Religious people always react very sensitively to any use of religious symbols or religious personalities in advertising . The use of religious symbols for superficial purposes may offend religious people . Advertisements must not include statements or visuals which are offensive to religious feelings or show disrespect for religious people . \u201d","The applicant company submitted written explanations to the ORG . It firstly submitted that in the advertisements the word \u201c PERSON \u201d was used not as an address to a religious personality but as an emotional interjection which was common in spoken NORP , similar to \u201c oh my God ! \u201d , \u201c oh Lord ! \u201d , \u201c God forbid ! \u201d ( PERSON , GPE , gink Dieve ) and many others . The applicant company argued that , because of its common use to express one \u2019s emotions , that word had lost its exclusively religious significance . It further submitted that the people depicted in the advertisements could not be unambiguously considered as resembling religious figures , but even if they were , that depiction was aesthetically pleasant and not disrespectful , unlike various kitschy and low - quality religious items typically sold in markets . It further contended that , in the absence of a State religion in GPE , the interests of CARDINAL ORG group DATE practising NORP \u2013 could not be equated to those of the entire society . It lastly submitted that the ORG opinion had been based on emotional assessment but not on any proven facts , as demonstrated in particular by such phrases as \u201c religious people always react very sensitively to any use of religious symbols or religious personalities in advertising \u201d or \u201c the game has gone too far \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant company therefore argued that the advertisements had not breached any law and that holding to the contrary would be detrimental to the right to freedom of thought and expression , protected by LAW .","On DATE the ORG drew up a report of a violation of ORG against the applicant company . The report essentially repeated the contents of the ORG \u2019s previous letter to the applicant company ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , adding that \u201c advertisements of such nature offend[ed ] religious feelings \u201d and \u201c the basic respect for spirituality [ was ] disappearing \u201d ( nelieka elementarios pagarbos dvasingumui ) . It was forwarded to the SCRPA .","On DATE the SCRPA asked ORG ( NORP vyskup\u0173 konferencija ) , which is the territorial authority of ORG in GPE , for an opinion on the advertisements . On DATE the latter submitted the following opinion :","\u201c Religious symbols are not just simple signs , pictures or logos . In the NORP tradition , a religious symbol is a visible sign representing the invisible sacred reality .","The advertisements ... make both visual and written references to religious sacred objects , such as a rosary , the names of PERSON and PERSON , and the symbol of the PERSON .","NORP and PERSON , as symbols of faith , represent certain moral values and embody ethical perfection , and for that they are examples of appropriate behaviour and desirable life for the faithful . The inappropriate depiction of NORP and PERSON in the advertisements encourages a frivolous attitude towards the ethical values of the NORP faith , and promotes a lifestyle which is incompatible with the principles of a religious person . The persons of NORP and PERSON are thereby degraded as symbols of the sacredness of the NORP faith . For that reason , such depiction offends the feelings of religious people . The degrading and distortion of religious symbols by purposely changing their meaning is contrary to public morals , especially when it is done in pursuit of commercial gain , and must therefore not be allowed , in line with LAW . \u201d","On DATE the SCRPA held a meeting in which representatives of the applicant company , ORG and ORG participated . A representative of ORG repeated its previous position ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and stated that it had received complaints from CARDINAL religious individuals concerning the advertisements . Representatives of the applicant company also expressed essentially the same position as in their previous submissions to the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They in particular argued that the people depicted in the advertisements differed in several aspects from the depiction of PERSON and PERSON in religious art , and that an educated and cosmopolitan society would not equate every picture with such article They further submitted that the advertisements had relied on wordplay and they had been meant to be funny but not to offend anyone .","On DATE the SCRPA adopted a decision against the applicant company concerning a violation of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It noted that the concept of \u201c public morals \u201d was not defined in any legal instruments , but it necessarily implied respect for the rights and interests of others . It also stated that \u201c advertising must be tasteful and correspond to the highest moral standards \u201d and that \u201c advertising which might humiliate or degrade people because of their faith , convictions or opinions must be considered immoral and unacceptable \u201d . The SCRPA considered that \u201c the elements of the advertisements taken together \u2013 the persons , symbols and their positioning \u2013 would create an impression for the average consumer that the depicted persons and objects were related to religious symbols \u201d . It further stated :","\u201c When determining whether the use of religious symbols in the present case was contrary to public morals , [ the SCRPA ] notes that religious people react very sensitively to any use of religious symbols or religious persons in advertising , especially when the chosen form of artistic expression is not acceptable to society \u2013 for example , the bodies of PERSON and PERSON are adorned with tattoos . [ The SCRPA ] also agrees with ORG that the use of religious symbols for commercial gain in the present case exceeds the limits of tolerance . [ The SCRPA ] considers that using the name of God for commercial purpose is not in line with public morals . With that in mind , [ the SCRPA ] notes that the inappropriate depiction of NORP and PERSON in the advertisements in question encourages a frivolous attitude towards the ethical values of the NORP faith , promotes a lifestyle which is incompatible with the principles of a religious person , and that way the persons of NORP and PERSON are degraded as the sacred symbols of NORP ...","In addition , the inappropriate depiction of NORP and PERSON in the advertisements was not only likely to offend the feelings of religious people but actually offended them because [ the SCRPA ] has received complaints about them ... and ORG has received a letter expressing dissatisfaction of the [ nearly a CARDINAL ] religious individuals , which demonstrates that the feelings of religious people have been offended .","It must be emphasised that respect for religion is undoubtedly a moral value . Accordingly , disrespecting religion breaches public morals . \u201d","Accordingly , the SCRPA concluded that the advertisements had breached LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . When determining the penalty , it took into account several circumstances : the advertisements had been displayed in public places and must have reached a wide audience , and there had been complaints about them ; at the same time , the advertisements had only been displayed for DATE and only in the city of GPE ; the applicant company had stopped displaying them after it had been warned by the authorities , and it had cooperated with the SCRPA ; it had been the first such violation committed by the applicant company . As a result , the applicant company was given a fine of CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP The applicant company brought a complaint concerning the SCRPA \u2019s decision ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) before an administrative court . It argued that the persons and objects shown in the advertisements were not related to religious symbols : neither the characters themselves nor their clothes , positions or facial expressions were similar to the depiction of PERSON and PERSON in religious art ; the only physical similarity was the long hair of the man but every man with long hair could not be presumed to be a depiction of PERSON . The applicant company also submitted that the expressions \u201c PERSON ! \u201d , \u201c Dear PERSON ! \u201d and \u201c PERSON [ and ] PERSON ! \u201d were widely used in spoken language as emotional interjections , and the advertisements had used them for the purpose of wordplay , not as a reference to religion .","NORP The applicant company further argued that ORG did not explicitly prohibit all use of religious symbols in advertising but only when such use may offend the sentiments of others or incite hatred ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It submitted that the advertisements were not offensive or disrespectful in any way , and that the SCRPA had not justified why they \u201c exceeded the limits of tolerance \u201d or why \u201c using the name of God for commercial purposes [ was ] not in line with public morals \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant company also submitted that complaints by CARDINAL individuals ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) were not sufficient to find that the majority of religious people in GPE had been offended by the advertisements .","Lastly , the applicant company submitted that the advertisements were a product of artistic activity and were therefore protected freedom of expression , guaranteed by the LAW .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s complaint . The court considered that the SCRPA had correctly assessed all the relevant circumstances ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , and concluded that \u201c the form of advertising used by [ the applicant company was ] prohibited because it distort[ed ] the main purpose of a religious symbol ( an object of religion ) respected by a religious community \u2013 that purpose being to refer to a deity or to holiness \u201d .","NORP The applicant company appealed against that decision . In its appeal it repeated the arguments raised in its initial complaint ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . It also provided CARDINAL examples of other advertisements for various products which had depicted religious figures , religious symbols and NORP priests \u2013 one of those was an advertisement for beer depicting a wooden figure of PERSON , common in the NORP folk art ( ORG ) . The applicant company argued that such examples strengthened its argument that the use of religious symbols in advertising was not prohibited as such , unless it was offensive or hateful \u2013 and it submitted that its advertisements did not fall into either of those categories , as they did not include any slogans or visuals directly degrading religious people or inciting religious hatred .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s appeal . The court held :","\u201c The entirety of the evidence in the present case gives grounds to conclude that the advertisements displayed by [ the applicant company ] are clearly contrary to public morals , because religion , as a certain type of world view , unavoidably contributes to the moral development of the society ; symbols of a religious nature occupy a significant place in the system of spiritual values of individuals and the society , and their inappropriate use demeans them [ and ] is contrary to universally accepted moral and ethical norms . The form of advertising [ chosen by the applicant company ] does not conform to good morals and to the principles of respecting the values of the NORP faith and its sacred symbols , and [ the advertisements ] therefore breach DATE ) of ORG .","...","In its appeal [ the applicant company ] alleges that there are no objective grounds to find that the advertisements offended the feelings of religious people ... It must be noted that the case file includes a letter by CARDINAL religious individuals , sent to ORG , expressing dissatisfaction with the advertisements in question . This refutes [ the applicant company \u2019s ] arguments and they are thereby dismissed as unfounded . \u201d","On DATE the President of ORG asked that court to examine whether there were grounds for reopening the proceedings in the applicant company \u2019s case ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) . He considered that it was necessary to assess whether the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had adequately addressed the applicant company \u2019s arguments related to the permissible restrictions of freedom of expression , guaranteed by the LAW and various international legal instruments , and whether it had properly examined the necessity and proportionality of restricting that freedom , in line with the relevant case - law of ORG . The President submitted that if any such shortcomings were identified , that would give grounds to believe that ORG had incorrectly applied the substantive law and that its case - law was developing in an erroneous direction .","On DATE a different panel of ORG refused to reopen the proceedings in the applicant company \u2019s case . It emphasised that proceedings which had been concluded by a final court decision could be reopened only when there had been a manifest error in the interpretation or application of the law , and not when it was merely possible to interpret that law differently .","The court observed that the freedom of expression , guaranteed by the LAW , was not absolute and could be restricted ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) , and CARDINAL of the permissible restrictions was provided in LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It stated that the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not denied the applicant company \u2019s right to freedom of expression , but it had sought to balance that right against public morals , and the latter had been given priority . The court considered that the decision of DATE had not denied the essence of the applicant company \u2019s right and had not been manifestly disproportionate because the fine had been close to the minimum provided in law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , so there were no grounds to find that the law had been interpreted or applied incorrectly .","The court further observed that the advertisements had had a purely commercial purpose and had not been intended to contribute to any public debate concerning religion or religious symbols . Referring to the judgments of ORG in PERSON and Others v. GPE ( CARDINAL DATE , \u00a7 DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) and OttoPremingerInstitut v. GPE ( DATE , \u00a7 DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , it stated that it was not possible to discern throughout LOC a uniform conception of the significance of religion in society and that even within a single country such conceptions might vary ; for that reason it was not possible to arrive at a comprehensive definition of what constituted a permissible interference with the exercise of the right to freedom of expression where such expression was directed against the religious feelings of others , and a certain margin of appreciation was therefore to be left to the national authorities in assessing the existence and extent of the necessity of such interference . ORG considered that the panel which had adopted the decision of DATE had taken into account the fact that ORG was the religion of a very big part of the NORP population and that the use of its most important symbols in the advertisements , which distorted their meaning , offended the feelings of religious people .","ORG thus concluded that the decision of DATE had adequately justified the restriction of the applicant company \u2019s freedom of expression and had correctly applied LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158493","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BUTKO v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , GPE , and lived in LOC prior to his arrest on DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of armed robberies , illegal possession of firearms and other offences and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","The applicant was detained in the following facilities :","( a ) until DATE : remand prison GPE in GPE ;","( b ) from DATE to CARDINAL DATE : remand prison GPE in GPE ;","( c ) from DATE to DATE : correctional colony IK-CARDINAL in the Omsk Region ;","( d ) from DATE to CARDINAL DATE : remand prisons in GPE and GPE ;","( e ) from DATE to CARDINAL DATE : correctional colony IK-CARDINAL in LOC ;","( f ) from DATE to CARDINAL DATE : correctional colony IK-CARDINAL in the Omsk Region ;","( g ) NORP between an unspecified date and DATE : the applicant received treatment at medical facility PERSON ( UKh-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) in LOC ;","( h ) after DATE : correctional colony IK-CARDINAL in LOC .","As regards the conditions in the IK-CARDINAL facility , the ORG submitted a number of certificates concerning various aspects of Mr Butko \u2019s detention which were issued by the facility director on CARDINAL DATE , as well as a copy of a director \u2019s letter to the GPE regional prosecutor dated DATE , from which it is apparent that Mr Butko was assigned to ORG \u0431\u0440\u0438\u0433\u0430\u0434\u0430 \u2116 DATE ) . According to the floor plan , the living areas measured CARDINAL sq . m , of which the dormitory comprised CARDINAL sq . m. There were CARDINAL sleeping places and the average population ranged DATE detainees , their number being logged by the officer on duty . The dormitory was ventilated through openings in the windows . The bath and laundry complex \u2013 which detainees were allowed to visit once a week between TIME and TIME or TIME , CARDINAL units at a time \u2013 was equipped with CARDINAL shower heads , CARDINAL plunge pools and CARDINAL steam room . The facility was equipped with CARDINAL toilets , all of them located in heated areas . Toilet bowls were screened by partitions .","The Government produced copies of the prosecutor \u2019s infringement reports detailing various aspects of the detention regime . It appears from the report dated DATE that the total population of the IK-CARDINAL facility was CARDINAL persons . The report of DATE read , in the relevant part , as follows :","\u201c The inspection uncovered a number of gross violations of the law as regards material conditions of detention .","The statutory living space of QUANTITY per inmate ... is not available in many units . For instance , the premises occupied by FAC measure QUANTITY . m but accommodate CARDINAL convicted detainees .","The premises are not equipped with the necessary amenities ; there are no toilets inside the living areas ( except in Unit CARDINAL ) . There are CARDINAL installations within the facility , CARDINAL of them accommodating CARDINAL toilets , the other CARDINAL , which are used by all the detainees . It follows that the statutory number of toilets ( CARDINAL toilet for every QUANTITY persons ) is not available . Their sanitary condition is not satisfactory ; privacy when using the toilet is not ensured ...","A number of detainees who are or were serving their sentence in the facility ... have written letters to ORG , and the above - mentioned violations of law relating to the material conditions of detention may result in unfavourable outcomes for the ORG . \u201d","The applicant disputed the ORG \u2019s factual submissions . He submitted that there had been CARDINAL detainees in Unit CARDINAL . All of them had shared CARDINAL large space , filled to the maximum with double bunk beds , bedstands and stools , leaving a narrow passage of QUANTITY between beds and a marginally wider passage of QUANTITY rows of beds . At the head of each bed , CARDINAL bedstands sat on top of each other . There had been no ventilation and the windows remained sealed shut in DATE . Detainees had been prohibited from staying in the dormitory from TIME , and from sitting down or lying down on the bed at any time before the night call . During DATE , detainees had been allowed to be either outdoors or in the recreation room .","The recreation room ( \u043a\u043e\u043c\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u0440\u0430\u0437\u0432\u043b\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0439 ) measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY . There were CARDINAL tables for reading and writing and a large number of stools . The only TV set was switched on according to the timetable . In bad weather , up to CARDINAL detainees would remain in the recreation room without any activity .","NORP The washroom measured QUANTITY , and contained CARDINAL wash basins with cold water taps . No hot water was available . Detainees had been forbidden from washing any clothing , except socks or handkerchiefs , and from taking off their undershirts . They had only been allowed to clean their faces , brush their teeth , wash their hands or shave .","The LOC occupied by FAC also included a pantry ( \u043a\u043e\u043c\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u043f\u0438\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f ) , that is to say a room where inmates could keep and eat their own food . It was open from TIME , from TIME to TIME and from TIME CARDINAL persons at a time were allowed into the pantry .","NORP Hygienic facilities were in short supply . The entire population of the facility , CARDINAL detainees , used the CARDINAL available toilet installations : CARDINAL had CARDINAL pans and the other CARDINAL pans . NORP were not screened by any partitions . Detainees were taken in groups of CARDINAL units , that is to say CARDINAL persons , to the bath and laundry complex once a week . It was open from TIME and from TIME and was equipped with CARDINAL shower heads , CARDINAL ice - cold plunge pools and a non - functioning steam room .","The applicant adduced in evidence a written statement from his codetainee PERSON , who had been held in the same unit in DATE and DATE . According to his statement , on DATE , Unit CARDINAL had contained CARDINAL and QUANTITY detainees . The dormitory measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY , that is to say a total floor area of QUANTITY . The pantry measured QUANTITY . The recreation room was QUANTITY long by QUANTITY wide . The washroom measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY and was equipped with CARDINAL sinks . PERSON also confirmed that the entire facility population had had to use the CARDINAL available toilet installations located in separate , unheated outhouses , CARDINAL with CARDINAL pans and the other with CARDINAL pans .","Upon his arrival at the IK-CARDINAL facility on DATE , Mr Butko spent DATE in the quarantine unit and was later assigned to Unit CARDINAL . He claimed that he had been ill - treated while quarantined . He further submitted that the dormitory of Unit CARDINAL was cold , that the light was dim , and that the premises were generally in disrepair ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174442","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF S.M.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo","text":["The applicant was born in GPE and lives in GPE .","The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE and was granted CARDINAL months\u2019 leave to enter as a visitor . In or DATE he began suffering from a mental illness which led to his hearing voices in his head and CARDINAL suicide attempts .","In DATE and DATE the applicant was convicted of a number of driving offences , including driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence , using a vehicle while uninsured and driving whilst disqualified . He was also convicted of resisting or obstructing a police officer and failing to surrender to custody . No custodial sentence was passed .","On DATE the applicant made an application for asylum . However , the application was refused on DATE on non - compliance grounds as the applicant had failed to attend his substantive asylum interview . Notice of this decision was served on the applicant on DATE . On DATE , he was served with notice of liability to removal as an overstayer .","The applicant did not appeal against this decision . When he subsequently failed to comply with his reporting conditions he was treated as an absconder .","On DATE he was convicted of possessing Class A drugs with intent to supply and sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . He did not appeal against conviction or sentence .","While serving his sentence the applicant was prescribed a variety of antipsychotic drugs . This was the first time he had received any treatment for his mental illness as he had previously declined to engage with psychiatrists and other health care professionals .","NORP The applicant made a second asylum application on DATE . In doing so , he described CARDINAL violent incidents he had experienced in GPE : first , he claimed that in DATE he had been attacked by PERSON supporters with knives , sticks and sandbags while protesting about gay rights ; and secondly , he claimed that DATE he had been arrested for demonstrating and beaten on his back and the soles of his feet while detained at a police station .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed in relation to his second asylum claim .","On DATE the applicant was served with a notice of liability to automatic deportation . As a consequence , when he completed his sentence on DATE he remained in detention under the Secretary of ORG for ORG immigration powers .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to hospital for a psychiatric assessment and was sectioned for DATE after his mental health deteriorated significantly .","On DATE , a further asylum interview took place following which the applicant submitted further evidence in support of his claim .","On DATE , an interview took place with the applicant for the purposes of obtaining a travel document . The applicant refused to provide bio - data for the purposes of the travel document asking to contact his solicitor first .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representatives asked the Government to allow them more time to submit medical evidence supporting the applicant \u2019s second asylum claim . The Government did not indicate whether they responded to this request .","On DATE the applicant applied for bail which was refused on DATE because the tribunal judged he posed an unacceptable risk of absconding .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG enquired of the applicant \u2019s representatives about their intentions concerning the medical report . The applicant \u2019s representatives indicated they had requested an appointment and asserted that it would be unreasonable for the Secretary of ORG to make a decision without awaiting the outcome . On DATE the Secretary of ORG telephoned the applicant \u2019s representatives again to ask what their intentions were regarding the medical report . The representatives indicated they would reply in writing .","On DATE the applicant was interviewed again to obtain further bio - data to issue a travel document but he would not provide further details .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representatives wrote to the Secretary of ORG . The letter stated that his detention was unlawful and that he should be released . The representatives sent a second letter to the Secretary of ORG on DATE , in which they again requested that the applicant be released due to his medical conditions and pursuant to the Secretary of ORG \u2019s policy on not detaining mentally ill persons .","NORP The Secretary of ORG replied to these letters on DATE in the following terms :","\u201c CARDINAL . NORP The Secretary of ORG , having considered the particulars of your client \u2019s case , is satisfied that the presumption in favour of release is outweighed by the seriousness of the offence , risk of harm to the public , and risk of absconding and that your client \u2019s detention is justified and lawful .","It has been decided that your client should be detained because :","- Your client is likely to abscond if given temporary admission or release .","- Your client does not have close enough ties ( e.g. family or friends ) to make it likely that he will stay in CARDINAL place .","- Your client has previously failed to comply with conditions of his stay , temporary admission or release .","- Your client has previously absconded .","- Your client has used or attempted to use deception in a way that leads us to consider he may continue to deceive .","- Your client has not produced satisfactory evidence of his identity , nationality , or lawful basis to be in GPE .","- Your client has previously failed or refused to leave GPE when required to do so .","- It is conducive to the public good for your client to be detained . \u201d","On DATE the Secretary of ORG set a time limit of CARDINAL DATE for the provision of further information in support of the applicant \u2019s asylum claim .","On DATE the applicant was examined by PERSON and her expert report , dated DATE , was sent to the Secretary of ORG on CARDINAL DATE .","Dr. PERSON noted that the applicant had a number of scars which accorded with his description of the first assault by supporters of PERSON . She also noted that he had a clear history of a psychotic illness which was characterised by many first - rank symptoms of schizophrenia . He was being treated but still experienced some symptoms , including auditory hallucinations and ideas of reference . In addition , he had symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder , including poor sleep , nightmares , intrusive TIME thoughts , and physical symptoms of fear , hopelessness and isolation .","On DATE the detention centre where the applicant was detained raised concerns about his mental health . He was assessed by ORG as unsuitable for detention under LAW on DATE and on DATE as not requiring compulsory mental health treatment .","On DATE the applicant applied to the tribunal for bail but withdrew his application on DATE .","On DATE , the medical report was provided to the Secretary of ORG .","On DATE the applicant submitted his application for permission to apply for judicial review , in which he challenged his continuing detention on the grounds that it was contrary to the Secretary of ORG \u2019s published policy on the detention of persons suffering from serious mental illness ( \u201c the mental health concession \u201d ) ; that it was contrary to the Secretary of ORG \u2019s published policy on the detention of persons who had been victims of torture ( \u201c the torture concession \u201d ) ; and that it was contrary to the principles set down in R v. ORG Governor ex parte ORG PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL ( \u201c the ORG PERSON principles \u201d ) . The applicant also claimed damages for unlawful detention .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s representatives sent a new medical report and informed the Secretary of ORG that they were no longer relying on the medical report provided on DATE .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG refused the applicant \u2019s second asylum claim and made a deportation order pursuant to section ORG ) of GPE DATE . The applicant \u2019s appeal was dismissed on DATE . On DATE he was refused permission to appeal against that decision .","On DATE the applicant was refused permission to apply for judicial review on the papers by Mr Justice PERSON . In refusing permission , he observed that the mental health concession only applied where the detainee was suffering from a serious mental illness which could not be satisfactorily managed within detention . As a consequence , he concluded that the applicant \u2019s condition fell short of the severity required .","With regard to the torture concession , the judge noted that the alleged torture which had happened DATE previously and which was said to be the cause or part cause of the mental illness the claimant was suffering from could have no bearing on the reasonableness or otherwise of the current detention . Finally , he found that the ORG PERSON principles were not infringed because :","\u201c a. the CARDINALst principle is not engaged .","b. DATE and CARDINALrd principles are not infringed . The dangers of absconscion and reoffending are and have always been real in view of the claimant \u2019s behaviour DATE and his arrest in respect of the drugs matter . The recent decision of DATE means that the detention is not open - ended .","c. the CARDINALth principle is not infringed . There has been no lack of expedition by the defendant since the expiry of the claimant \u2019s sentence in DATE . \u201d","The applicant was released from detention on DATE after being granted bail by ORG .","On DATE the applicant was again refused permission to apply for judicial review by Mr Justice PERSON at a renewed oral hearing in which he heard from representatives for both parties . In the renewed application , the applicant had contended that his detention became unlawful on DATE , when the pre - action letter was sent to the Secretary of ORG . However , Mr Justice PERSON rejected that claim and found that the applicant had no arguable case . In particular , he noted that there was no evidence to suggest that his mental illness could not be satisfactorily managed in detention ; that there was no independent evidence that he had been tortured because his scarring was only consistent with an assault by PERSON supporters which did not amount to torture , and there was no scarring consistent with his allegations of ill - treatment at the police station ; and finally , that there was nothing to indicate the applicant \u2019s prospects of removal at the relevant time were nil or that efforts did not take place to effect his removal .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant permission to appeal the decision of DATE , finding that ORG had been correct on every point . There was no independent evidence of torture and the fact that the mental health concession had been clarified on DATE to refer to satisfactory management in detention did not mean that the position was otherwise before that date .","In the meantime , the applicant had challenged the decision to refuse his asylum claim and sought to appeal to ORG . On DATE the Secretary of ORG agreed that the decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing the applicant \u2019s asylum claim was flawed and that the case should be remitted to ORG .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s asylum appeal on human rights grounds . On DATE the deportation order was revoked and the applicant was subsequently granted discretionary leave until DATE . He applied for further discretionary leave on DATE . According to the observations submitted , a decision on that application remains outstanding ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179406","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u00d6Z\u00c7AYIR AND \u00c7\u0130\u00c7EK v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Ledi Bianku;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE upon receipt of intelligence reports that the youth branch of the ORG would be holding a meeting in the premises of a cooperative , the police officers , under the orders of the GPE court , conducted a search in the LOC of the co - operative of which the applicants were members . The police seized several documents and CDs that contained propaganda materials related to the youth branch of the ORG .","On DATE the applicants were taken into custody on suspicion of being members of a terrorist organisation .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicants\u2019 detention on remand .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , the applicants filed objections against their pre - trial detention . The courts rejected their request on the basis of the case - file , without holding a hearing .","During the pre - trial stage , the GPE court continued to examine , by virtue of LAW no . CARDINAL , the necessity of ORG continued detention DATE on the basis of the case file , without holding an oral hearing . The applicants also filed objections against their continued pre - trial detention , namely on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE . All these objections were examined on the basis of the case file and were rejected by the domestic courts .","On DATE ORG filed an indictment with ORG charging the applicants , along with CARDINAL other persons , with aiding and abetting a terrorist organisation under LAW no . DATE ) .","On DATE ORG held its first hearing and the applicants appeared before the court . On DATE , the applicants were released pending trial .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicants of the charges against them . In the absence of an appeal , this judgment became final on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140925","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SZ\u00c9CHENYI v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .","On DATE the applicants brought a real - estate action against their mother and grandmother . On DATE a first - instance decision was given . On DATE the appeal judgment was adopted . In DATE ORG decision on the applicants\u2019 petition for review was served ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164923","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF G.N. v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant got married in GPE to GPE , a NORP national . They continued living in GPE and their son was born there in DATE . The child obtained NORP nationality at birth . It is unknown to the ORG whether he also holds NORP nationality . The family lived in the applicant \u2019s apartment . The applicant worked full time and was the sole financial provider for the family . In DATE he took CARDINAL GPE parental leave .","NORP In DATE the family went to GPE on holiday . They agreed to return to GPE in DATE and aeroplane tickets were purchased to this end .","The couple split up in DATE and ORG refused to return to GPE with the child . Soon afterwards the applicant went back to GPE alone . He briefly returned to GPE in DATE when his son underwent emergency surgery .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application to have his child returned under LAW . This application was registered with ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG decided to obtain an expert report from ORG ( Rodzinny O\u015brodek Diagnostyczno - PERSON \u201c the RODK \u201d ) . The experts were ordered to assess whether there was a grave risk that the boy \u2019s return abroad would expose him to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation . A copy of this decision has not been submitted to ORG .","The applicant and ORG were invited to appear at an interview at the RODK which was scheduled for DATE . It appears that the domestic court \u2019s decision to order the RODK report contained an instruction that the examination should go ahead whether or not the applicant was present . The applicant did not come to the appointment at the RODK . As a result , the report was based only on the statements of the child and his mother and on CARDINAL volumes of the domestic court \u2019s case file . It was prepared by CARDINAL experts in psychology and was issued on DATE .","In their report , the RODK experts took notice of the fact that for DATE the child ( who was DATE at the time of the psychological examination ) had lived away from and almost without any contact with his father . They also observed that the child had a strong emotional bond with his mother ; he was developing well and spoke NORP ; and that ORG had ensured the child \u2019s security , well - being and development .","NORP The experts concluded that \u201c the child \u2019s separation from his mother would disturb his sense of security , belonging and stability , and [ that ] it would be adverse to his development \u2013 in particular , psychological [ development ] \u2013 [ and ] it would be against his best interests . In view of the above , moving the child to his father \u2019s care [ posed ] a grave risk to his emotional [ and ] social development , [ and ] could cause a situation [ which ] for a DATE child [ would be ] difficult to bear . \u201d","Apart from the RODK report , the domestic court obtained the following evidence : testimony from the applicant , ORG and the members of both families and medical reports .","On DATE ORG , with Judge PERSON presiding , dismissed the applicant \u2019s FAC application ( IIRNsm CARDINAL ) .","The first - instance court held that the child had been wrongfully retained in GPE by his mother within the meaning of LAW . It also considered that , in line with LAW , the interim orders concerning the issues of custody over the child and his residence which had been granted by the NORP and NORP family courts ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE and DATE below ) were viewed as irrelevant to the case at hand .","NORP The district court also considered that the RODK report was thorough , clear and of a high evidentiary value . Relying on the report and the remaining evidence , the family court established that since his birth the child had been under the constant good care of his mother ( who had not worked in GPE ) . The child had a strong emotional bond with the mother , did not remember the applicant and did not perceive him as a parent . The applicant did not show any interest in the child . Since DATE , he had seen his son only once , in DATE , despite the fact that he had been in GPE for DATE . He had also stopped paying child support and had not shown any interest in him . The domestic court also made an additional observation that the applicant had sold his apartment in GPE and it was unknown if his new living conditions were adequate for his DATE child to move into .","In view of the above it was ultimately held that separating the DATE boy from the mother and returning him to his father in GPE would be traumatic and hard to bear for the child . This , in turn , would pose a threat to the child \u2019s emotional and social development and would perturb his sense of security and stability .","The applicant appealed , arguing that the first - instance court had erred in that , inter alia , it had given a broad and not restrictive interpretation of LAW ( b ) of LAW and had dismissed his application even though it had not been established that the child was at a grave risk of physical or psychological harm if returned to GPE . The applicant also challenged the RODK experts\u2019 report , arguing that it was unconvincing and inconsistent with the evidence obtained .","On DATE ORG ( II Ca CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) dismissed the appeal in the relevant part .","The appellate court observed that international and domestic practice required that LAW ( b ) be given a restrictive reading to the effect that , in principle , any unfavourable consequences of the child \u2019s separation stemming from the order to surrender the child by the abducting parent did not give rise to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm within the meaning of that provision . It also noted that the aim of LAW would be achieved if the abducting parent returned with the child . If no objective obstacles to the abducting parent \u2019s return were present , it could be inferred that the parent was refusing to return and was acting in his or her own interest and not the interest of the child .","The appellate court reasoned that the application of the abovementioned principles was more complex in cases concerning very young children . LAW stipulated only a maximum age requirement for children whose return could be sought under its provisions ( DATE ) . It also protected ( under LAW ) very young children from possible harmful effects of the return if it was shown that the parent seeking the return had not taken care of the child before the abduction or that the child had already adapted to the new environment . Following this approach , separating an abducted child from the parent who had a dominant role in the child \u2019s life would not fall within LAW ( b ) exceptions unless objective obstacles to the parent \u2019s return could be shown to be present . This approach however , was difficult to accept in cases concerning abductions of infants by mothers because of the special relationship between them . This was true even in the absence of any objective obstacles to the mother \u2019s own return because any separation of an infant from his or her mother would inevitably be contrary to the child \u2019s best interests .","The appellate court held that the utmost importance had to be attached to the child \u2019s contact with his mother and his separation from her would place the boy in an intolerable situation . The domestic court relied on the following elements of the case : the applicant \u2019s son had arrived in GPE with both parents at DATE , in DATE ; since then the child had been taken care of solely by his mother ; the most important element in his life was his contact with the mother ; he did not have any memories of his life in GPE ; and the applicant had not considered the child \u2019s remaining in GPE illegal prior to DATE . The appellate court also observed that by not appearing at the RODK interview , the applicant had waived his right to demonstrate that he could establish adequate contact with his young child and that the applicant had only seen his child once since the latter \u2019s departure from GPE .","Since DATE , the applicant has visited his son once , in DATE during a DATE stay in GPE .","In the applicant \u2019s submission , he had made countless attempts to see his son . In particular , he had applied to the courts to have a meeting with his child away from ORG house on DATE and on an unspecified date in DATE . Copies of these applications have not been submitted to ORG .","In the ORG \u2019s submission , the applicant had not enquired about or sought contact with the child .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the competent domestic court for arrangements to be made to secure the effective exercise of his right of contact during the Hague Convention proceedings . He wished to meet with his son away from ORG house DATE before and on DATE of the court hearing . He submitted that he had not seen his child since DATE and that the child \u2019s mother and grandparents had been very hostile towards the applicant when he had tried to visit his son at home . The applicant submitted that the application had been made under LAW . A copy of this application has not been submitted to the ORG .","On DATE ORG , with ORG as the presiding judge , decided to return the application for an interim order on the right of contact as unsubstantiated . It was considered that the applicant had not demonstrated that the child \u2019s mother , apart from her allegedly hostile attitude , had obstructed his contact with the child . The domestic court relied on the applicable provisions of LAW and did not make any reference to LAW .","The applicant stated without submitting a copy of the relevant document that on DATE the domestic court had decided to grant him a right to a supervised visit with his son for TIME daily in ORG house . The applicant had been in GPE at that time and thus had not exercised his right .","The applicant also submitted that on DATE the appellate court had dismissed his request , presumably for a different schedule of his visits . A copy of this decision is not in the case file .","On an unspecified date , the NORP family court granted the applicant a right to contact with his child . The details of this decision are unknown to the ORG .","On DATE ORG issued a decision , presumably concerning the applicant \u2019s right of contact with his son ( IC CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . A copy of this decision has not been submitted by the ORG .","The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer completed this appeal by submitting that ORG had been hindering the father \u2019s right of contact which he had tried to enforce in line with the court \u2019s order . The outcome of these proceedings is unknown .","On DATE PERSON petitioned for divorce in GPE . Divorce proceedings are currently pending before ORG .","On DATE the ORG gave an interim order , establishing the child \u2019s residence as being with the mother . It appears that the applicant participated in the court hearing via a live video link . He refused to answer any questions .","On DATE ORG in GPE held that the child \u2019s retention in GPE was wrongful and issued an interim order granting full custody of the child to the applicant , authorising him and the law - enforcement authorities to apprehend the child and ordering ORG to surrender the child without delay . To this effect , a wanted notice for ORG was issued by ORG for the offence of kidnapping .","ORG appeal against this ruling was dismissed on DATE .","On DATE ORG found ORG to be in contempt of court for , inter alia , failing to comply with the interim order described above . No sentence was pronounced on that occasion .","On DATE ORG confirmed the interim decision of DATE , granting a final order of the applicant \u2019s exclusive custody of the child . The NORP court also requested the assistance of the NORP courts in securing the immediate apprehension and return of the child pursuant to LAW .","On DATE ORG allowed the divorce between the applicant and ORG"],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177349","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BECKER v. NORWAY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression;Freedom to impart information);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant is a journalist for PERSON , a NORP Internet - based version of the newspaper ORG ( \u201c DN \u201d ) , published by the company ORG .","On DATE PERSON was indicted for market manipulation and insider trading under LAW on ORG ( verdipapirhandelloven ) . He was accused of having requested Mr Y , an attorney , to draft a letter concerning ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , a limited liability company quoted on the stock exchange . The letter , addressed to a trustee company representing the interests of bond holders in ORG ( \u201c the bond trustee company \u201d ) , gave the impression that it had been written on behalf of a number of bond holders who were seriously concerned about the company \u2019s liquidity , finances and future . In fact , it had been written only on PERSON behalf . He had owned CARDINAL bond , which he had acquired DATE as he had asked attorney Y to draft the letter .","Mr X had sent a copy of the above - mentioned letter by fax to the applicant on DATE , and in this connection he had a telephone conversation with her . DATE , on DATE , the applicant wrote an article entitled \u201c Fears of ORG collapse \u201d ( \u201c PERSON at ORG rakner \u201d ) , in which she expressed strong concerns about the content of Attorney Y \u2019s letter , a central feature in the article .","The price of ORG stock fell by PERCENT on DATE , the first trading DATE after the content of the letter had become known in the press . On DATE , a new article on the topic was published in ORG . Other media also reported on the first article , including an online newspaper ( ORG online ) which on DATE reported that an analyst had stated that he would not be surprised if the letter had been sent by a person with a short - position or who wanted cheap stocks . The GPE stock exchange ( GPE b\u00f8rs ) suspected market manipulation and , having looked into the matter , forwarded the case to ORG ) with suspicions that PERSON had infringed the LAW on ORG . During subsequent questioning by ORG , PERSON confirmed that he had initiated the letter and been the source of the article in ORG .","The applicant was questioned by the police on DATE . They informed her that PERSON had told the police that he had given her the letter . She was handed a signed statement from PERSON in which he confirmed this . The applicant was willing to say that she had received the letter on which the article was based by fax on DATE , at TIME She also stated that the article had been published on PERSON at TIME on DATE . The applicant further explained that she had considered the information in the letter as price - sensitive . She had no particular thoughts as to how many persons were behind the letter , beyond the fact that it had been signed on behalf of several bond holders . The applicant refused to give additional information , referring to the journalistic principles on protection of sources .","During the criminal case against PERSON in DATE before ORG ( tingrett ) , the applicant was summoned as a witness . She refused to answer questions about possible contacts between her and Mr X and other sources , if any , related to the publication by PERSON on DATE . Relying on LAW , she argued that she was under no obligation to give evidence on those points .","The prosecutor requested that the court impose on the applicant an order to testify . In the court records ( \u201c rettsboken \u201d ) , his arguments in favour of issuing such an order are restated as having included the following :","\u201c The prosecutor rose to speak and argued that the witness had an obligation to give testimony about her contact with the defendant in connection with the letter to [ the bond trustee company ] of DATE and asked the court to make a decision on the matter . The prosecutor further justified the obligation of the witness to make a statement and argued that undoubtedly in this case it was desirable to hear her explanation , even if the prosecuting authority found the case adequately disclosed ( fullgodt opplyst ) without her statement . The press was sometimes abused by investors to take actions liable to affect the share price . The element of abuse should suggest that in a case like this the press would also have an interest in making a statement in order to avoid being abused in this way . Whether or not consent had been given by the source to the witness making her statement had no bearing on the obligation to give evidence . ... \u201d","From the same records , it appears that PERSON , through his counsel and cocounsel , had submitted that he had described his contact with the applicant and that she could contribute nothing further of interest .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that the applicant had a duty to give evidence about her contacts with PERSON in relation to the letter of DATE from Attorney Y to the bond trustee company . As to the scope of that duty , ORG held :","\u201c The obligation to make a statement is , however , limited to the contact with the defendant as a source and not her communication with possible other unknown sources with whom she has been in contact and who may be protected by the protection of sources . \u201d","NORP The prosecutor then stated , according to the hearing protocol , \u201c that he would not ask for postponement of the case as the prosecuting authority considers the case to be sufficiently disclosed ( \u201c tilstrekkelig opplyst \u201d ) even without the statement of the witness [ the applicant ] \u201d . It was then clarified that the applicant \u2019s appeal against the order would not be forwarded to ORG until after ORG judgment in the case against PERSON had been delivered .","On DATE ORG convicted PERSON in accordance with the indictment and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , of which DATE were suspended for DATE .","The judgment contains the following passage :","\u201c CARDINAL of the witnesses pleaded , as a journalist , the protection of sources under LAW and was not willing to explain about her potential contact with the accused . The court held that the witness had an obligation to explain about her contact with the accused since he , as the source of the PERSON article , was known and the court ruled accordingly . An appeal was immediately made against the decision . No motion for extension was made ( pending a final decision ) as according to the prosecutor the case was sufficiently disclosed ( tilstrekkelig opplyst ) even without the statement by [ the applicant ] and this was used as a basis by the court . \u201d","On DATE Mr X appealed to ORG ( lagmannsrett ) against ORG assessment of the evidence and application of the law in relation to the issue of guilt , its procedure and the sentence ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant appealed to ORG against ORG order of DATE . It rejected the appeal by a decision of DATE , finding it generally decisive whether the source was known . In this case , it had been established beyond reasonable doubt that PERSON had been the applicant \u2019s source .","An appeal by the applicant to ORG was rejected by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL on DATE ( PERSON . DATE page CARDINAL ) . The appeal had been directed at ORG assessment of evidence as well as its application of the law . The disagreement in ORG concerned primarily the interpretation of the first paragraph of LAW , according to which , inter alia , journalists may refuse to answer questions as to who is the source of information confided to them for use in their work ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The CARDINAL factions of ORG disagreed , in particular , as to whether this provision was applicable if the source had stepped forward or the identity of the source had otherwise been established .","NORP The majority observed that it did not appear from the wording of LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW that it was relevant whether the source had disclosed his or her role or that this role had in other ways become known . However , the wording could not be given decisive weight . It emerged from the preparatory work that the legislature had not , with the chosen formulation , taken a stance on the issue at stake in the present case . There was therefore greater reason to assess whether the rationale underpinning the main rule , namely the right not to answer questions concerning the identity of the source , could also be given significant weight when the person , who had been the source of the information , had given evidence concerning his or her role and had confirmed being the source . It was difficult to see that this should be the case .","If the imposition of an obligation on the press to give evidence were limited to cases where the source had come forward , the person who was considering giving information to the press would know that it was up to him or her to determine whether the person who received the information would have an obligation to give evidence . There was thus no cogent reason why such a conditional obligation to give evidence should lead to increased scepticism towards providing information to the press . The same would , to a great extent , be true if the obligation to give evidence also applied when the identity of the source had become known in some other way . While the possibility that the identity of the source might be disclosed could well constitute a deterrent , it would hardly make much difference if information already known was also confirmed by the recipient of the information .","An obligation on the press to give evidence in such cases was not thought likely to weaken the public \u2019s general trust that the press would protect its sources . The situation under review did not concern the disclosure of sources but rather whether the person \u2019s role had become known by other means .","The majority further disagreed with the applicant \u2019s view that there was no reason to treat a situation , where the informant had identified himself or herself as the source , differently from those cases where the source had consented to being identified . A person who so consented could do so , trusting that the recipient of the information would respect the protection of sources as long as the identity of the source was unknown . Once an informant had confirmed that he was the source , this fact would become known . Should the recipient of the information then refuse to give evidence , this would normally appear futile . In such a situation , an exemption from the obligation to give evidence would in reality not constitute a protection against having to disclose the source , but rather a right to avoid contributing to the elucidation of a criminal case .","Interpreting LAW in the light of certain statements made in the preparatory work ( PERSON . nr . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , pp . CARDINAL and DATE ) as followed up in ORG caselaw ( ORG . DATE page DATE and DATE page CARDINAL ) , the majority held that this provision did not apply when the source had come forward and had confirmed his or her role . The same ought probably to apply when the identity of the source had been established beyond reasonable doubt by other means . If the state of the evidence was such that confirmation by the journalist of the identity of the source could not be said to assist in identifying the source , it seemed unquestionable to maintain the obligation to testify .","As to whether a more wide - reaching protection of journalistic sources followed from LAW , the majority had regard to ORG case - law , including PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL ) , ORG and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) and the ORG judgment in ORG v. the GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE noting that ORG had decided the latter case on a different ground ) . They observed that in the CARDINAL NORP cases , a violation had been found under the necessity test even though strong countervailing arguments had been present . The majority further noted that there was no decision where the ORG had examined the situation where the source had come forward and where in this sense there was no source to protect ( \u201c ingen kilde \u00e5 beskytte \u201d ) . The principal justification for source protection , as elaborated by the ORG in its case - law , was based on the consequences that the disclosure of a source \u2019s identity might have for the free flow of information . However , these considerations did not apply where the source had confirmed his or her participation .","Against this background , one could safely assume that no violation of the ORG would arise where a source had come forward and the obligation of the witness to give evidence had been expressly limited so as not to include questions that might lead to other sources being revealed . Also , the charge in this case had been based on the fact that the journalist had allowed herself to be used by the source in his efforts to manipulate the bonds market in a criminal manner . It was a serious criminal case , where it seemed likely that the applicant \u2019s evidence might significantly assist in elucidating the concrete circumstances of the defendant \u2019s contact with her .","The minority observed that , should the applicant be ordered to testify concerning her possible contact with PERSON about Attorney Y \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE to the trustee company , she would have to confirm or deny that PERSON was the source for her article on PERSON on DATE . By making a statement on this matter , she might also inadvertently reveal other potential sources . The legal question at hand was whether a journalist might rely on source protection if the source , without the journalist having revealed it , could be identified with more or less certainty by other evidence .","The wording of LAW was absolute and granted members of the press , broadcasting and other media the right to \u201c refuse to answer questions concerning who is ... the source \u201d . The provision made no exception for cases where the identity could be established with more or less certainty in some other way .","The protection of sources by journalists was , according to ORG case - law , \u201c one of the basic conditions for press freedom \u201d ( PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) . The purpose was not to protect the source , but rather the public interest in free communication of news and opinions ( ORG . DATE page CARDINAL ) . If journalists were allowed to protect their sources , they would obtain information enabling them to uncover matters in society that were worthy of criticism more easily than they would otherwise . The fact that it was for the journalist to decide to what extent he or she would rely on such protection reflected that it was not the source who was protected . If the journalist was willing to reveal the source , the source could not prevent it .","If it were a precondition for the protection of journalistic sources that no other proof of the source had been presented , such protection would be undermined . This would enable a source to be tracked down , even if a requirement for waiver of source protection was that the source be identified with a criminal standard of proof . If the hearing of evidence on the identity of a source were to be allowed , the media \u2019s working conditions would become considerably more constricted and society \u2019s interest in free communication of information and opinions would suffer .","If consent to source disclosure by a potential source should have the effect of removing source protection , the actual source might easily be identified and source protection would be undermined . In the present case PERSON had stated that he was the source . A situation where someone claimed to be the source ought to be considered in the same way as where the source consented to disclosure of his or her identity . A person might incorrectly claim to be the source so that the actual source might be identified by a process of elimination . And even if it were true that this person was the source , it would erode the journalist \u2019s right to source protection should the person who was the source be able to cancel the journalist \u2019s right . In addition , journalists often had several sources . If a journalist could be ordered to describe his or her contact with a person who claimed to be the source , his or her contact with other sources might also be revealed .","Equally , a combination of someone claiming to be the source and other evidence confirming this , should not lead to source protection being removed . Effective source protection was necessary in order to ensure free communication of information and opinions . It should not be permissible for press journalists to confirm or deny that a person claiming to be the source was in fact the source , even where there was weighty evidence to this effect . As mentioned above , it was not the source , but society \u2019s interest in free communication of news and opinions , which was to be protected .","The prosecutor had argued that PERSON had used the applicant as a tool to commit serious crimes , and this would have constituted a relevant argument , had the case been one concerning a possible individual exception to the right to non - disclosure of sources made under the third paragraph of LAW . However , the prosecutor had not relied on that paragraph of the provision , and the source \u2019s motive could not render the principle of source protection as such inapplicable . Within the ambit of LAW , freedom of speech did not protect only information and views that were positively received , but also those which offended , shocked or disturbed the ORG or parts of the population . Therefore , the fundamental right of journalists to protect their sources could not be dependent on the sources\u2019 motives .","Mr X \u2019s appeal against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was examined by ORG , which summoned and heard the applicant as a witness on DATE . She answered certain questions but affirmed that she still would not reply to questions about her contacts with Mr X. The court records contain the following passage :","\u201c When heard as a witness [ the applicant ] stated that she had received Attorney [ Y ] \u2019s letter by fax on DATE at TIME She does not wish to answer questions about who she had received the letter from or on her possible contact with Mr [ X ] during the period before or after this point in time . The presiding judge pointed out to the witness that after a legally enforceable decision by ORG she was obliged to give evidence about her contacts with Mr [ X ] . The presiding judge underlined that an omission to reply to such questions could constitute a ground for the imposition of a fine for an offence against the good order of court proceedings [ \u201c rettergangsbot \u201d ] . It was emphasised that the duty to reply lay on the witness personally and that a possible fine would be imposed on her personally . \u201d","On account of her refusal to comply , ORG , by a decision of DATE , ordered the applicant to pay a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) , MONEY ( ORG ) for an offence against the good order of court proceedings , failing which she would be liable to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant did not appeal against that decision .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG convicted PERSON on the charges and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170467","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF X v. SWITZERLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Sri Lanka)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is a GPE national of GPE origin , who was born in DATE and resides in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161376","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VIDISH v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the ORG of LOC convicted him of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal .","The applicant is HIV - positive and at the material time also suffered from tuberculosis and hepatitis .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the PERSON medical facility ( \u043b\u0435\u0447\u0435\u0431\u043d\u043e-\u0438\u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0443\u0447\u0440\u0435\u0436\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) in LOC and was detained in the following wards :","( a ) quarantine ward DATE from DATE and from DATE ;","( b ) ward DATE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ; and","( c ) ward DATE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","According to the applicant , the wards were severely overcrowded . For instance , ward CARDINAL measured QUANTITY , was equipped with CARDINAL - tier bunk beds and housed CARDINAL inmates . Passages between the beds , lengthwise , were as narrow as QUANTITY and were used by QUANTITY inmates . The wards were poorly lit as the windows were covered with louvre shutters blocking access to natural light .","According to the Government , ward CARDINAL measured QUANTITY , had CARDINAL sleeping places and accommodated up to QUANTITY inmates . Ward CARDINAL measured QUANTITY , was equipped with CARDINAL - tier bunk beds and housed CARDINAL inmates . Finally , ward CARDINAL measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL inmates . The applicant was provided with an individual sleeping place at all times . All wards had access to natural light .","NORP In support of their submissions , the Government provided original floor plans and ward population registers containing information about the exact number of inmates in each ward for the whole period the applicant was in the PERSON facility . They also submitted a prosecutor \u2019s report dated DATE regarding the conditions there . It indicated , in particular , that windows in all wards were fitted with metal louvre shutters .","NORP On DATE the medical facility authorities issued an order introducing visiting fees for inmates and their families . The calculation table annexed to the order specified that a fee of MONEY ( MONEY ) per day per person would be payable , covering maintenance charges , prison staff salaries , the depreciation of visiting room equipment , bed linen and cleaning products .","On DATE the director of ORG sent a letter to the heads of NORP penal facilities , reminding them that charging visitors and detainees for family visits was in breach of LAW on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that facility administrations must bear the costs of providing rooms for long - term visits . Only additional services are payable by detainees in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant was authorised to see his CARDINAL daughters on a long - term family visit . He calculated that a DATE visit from them would cost RUB MONEY , which was far beyond their means . His daughters did visit him , but stayed only one day instead of the expected CARDINAL , as they did not have enough money on them to stay any longer .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s daughters visited their father again , this time free of charge .","On DATE the applicant received a letter from the ORG dated DATE in the correspondence department of the NORP correctional facility , to which he had been transferred in DATE . It was handed over to him in an open envelope and he was told to sign a copy which had been attached to his personal file ."],"violated_articles":["3","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174387","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FOMIN AND SIVAYEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["All the applicants were parties to civil proceedings in which the firstinstance and appeal courts found in their favour . These judgments became final but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts on the grounds of incorrect application of substantive law ( for more details see the Appendix ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179437","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF POCA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-166958","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF K.S. AND M.S. v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicants , PERSON and his wife PERSON , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON .","In DATE the NORP secret service ( PERSON ) bought a data carrier from a certain PERSON for a considerable amount of money . The data carrier contained financial data from ORG relating to CARDINAL people . PERSON , who had formerly been an employee of ORG , had illegally copied the data . The data carrier was submitted to the NORP tax investigation authorities , which subsequently instigated proceedings against , inter alia , the applicants , in relation to tax evasion crimes .","On DATE the GPE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , following an application from the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office , issued a search warrant in respect of the home of the applicants , who were suspected of having committed tax evasion DATE . The search warrant allowed the seizure of papers and other documents concerning the applicants\u2019 capital , both inside and outside GPE , especially documents concerning information on foundations and any documents that could help to determine the true tax liability of the applicants DATE .","The search warrant indicated that , in the course of investigations against another suspect , the prosecution had obtained information that the applicants had established the \u201c ORG \u201d on DATE and the \u201c ORG \u201d on DATE . The applicants were suspected of having made financial investments via these CARDINAL associations with ORG in GPE , for which they were liable for tax in GPE . According to the search warrant , the applicants had failed to declare MONEY ( ORG ) of the yearly interest accrued from the capital of both ORG and ORG in their tax returns for DATE . It indicated that the applicants had evaded tax payments of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE , ORG CARDINAL in DATE , ORG CARDINAL in DATE , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE . The search warrant stated that the house search was urgently needed in order to find further evidence and that , weighing the seriousness of the alleged crimes against the constitutional rights of the applicants , the house search was proportionate .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 flat was searched and CARDINAL envelope containing ORG documents and CARDINAL computer files were seized .","The applicants appealed against the search warrant . They argued that the warrant had not been granted in accordance with the law . It had been based on material which had been acquired in breach of international law , especially LAW of DATE and ORG , Search , Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime of CARDINAL DATE , because the data had been stolen from ORG and had been bought by the secret service . The acquisition of the data had also violated domestic law , as the secret service had no authorisation to obtain tax data . In fact , such an act was a criminal offence under NORP law , as it infringed section ORG ) and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c divulgence of official secrets \u201d ( NORP ) ) . Furthermore , the secret service was not authorised to forward tax data to the financial authorities and the prosecution , as this infringed the NORP legal principle of separation of the secret service and the police \/ prosecution ( GPE ) .","On DATE the GPE ORG dismissed the appeal . It was of the view that the house search had been legal as it had been based on a lawful search warrant . The court had no doubt that it had been lawful to base the search warrant on the information contained in the GPE data carrier , as , in its view , the data had neither been seized in direct violation of international law nor by circumventing international treaties .","ORG was also of the view that the search warrant in question could be issued on the basis of the information in the data carrier , as the secret service had only played a passive role in acquiring it . According to the court , there was no indication that the secret service had incited a third person to steal the data , and it had merely accepted the data from a third person when this person had offered it . The fact that the secret service might have remunerated the seller did not , in the court \u2019s view , change the fact that the secret service had only played a passive role . In the court \u2019s opinion , it was within the secret service \u2019s remit to acquire the data carrier in the prescribed way and hand the data over to the prosecution , as the data carrier contained CARDINAL sets of data concerning international cash flows .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the ORG appeal . It held that the search warrant had been lawful , even if it was true that the NORP authorities had infringed domestic criminal law in obtaining the evidence . Even assuming that the NORP authorities might have committed the criminal offences of acting as an \u201c accessory to a criminal offence \u201d ( PERSON , LAW of LAW ) and an \u201c accessory to the divulgence of official secrets \u201d ( Beihilfe zum NORP , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW , in conjunction with LAW ) in buying the GPE data from PERSON , and that PERSON might have committed the offence of \u201c industrial espionage \u201d ( ORG , section CARDINAL ) of LAW ) , it considered the search warrant to have been lawful . With regard to the ORG allegation that the data had been acquired in breach of international law , ORG doubted any such breach .","As regards the question whether illegally obtained evidence could be used in criminal proceedings , ORG referred to a decision of the same court of DATE , where it had held in a similar case and with regard to the same data carrier that the interest in prosecuting the suspects outweighed the possible infringements of criminal law , as the principal criminal act of \u201c data theft \u201d had been committed by a third party and not by the NORP authorities . According to the well - established case - law of ORG , evidence that had been illegally acquired by a third party could generally be used in criminal proceedings , unless it had been acquired through coercion or force . It also had to be considered that the use of the \u201c stolen \u201d data had not infringed the core of the applicants\u2019 private sphere , but their business affairs . Furthermore , the \u201c data theft \u201d had not primarily infringed the rights of the applicants , but the data - protection rights of the bank from which it had been \u201c stolen \u201d . Thus , the GPE data was not excluded as evidence and the search order could be based on it . As to the presumed breach of international law , the court added that such a breach would not lead to the unlawfulness of the search warrant , firstly because international law did not grant the applicants any personal rights and secondly because the use of the evidence did not in itself constitute a breach of international law .","On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . They were of the view that ORG and ORG should have decided that the search warrant had not been in accordance with the law , as the use of the GPE data as a basis for a search warrant had violated international treaties and the sovereignty of GPE , which had protested against the use of the data .","Furthermore , they argued that their right to respect for their home under LAW had been infringed , as the search warrant had been based on evidence that had been acquired by the secret service and passed on to the prosecution in violation of domestic law . The data purchase from PERSON had constituted a criminal act . Moreover , the secret service had no authority under NORP law to purchase such data . Furthermore , the transfer of the GPE data from the secret service to the financial authorities and the prosecution had violated the principle of the separation of the secret service and the prosecution in GPE . The infringement of domestic law had been so severe that the criminal courts should have come to the conclusion that the GPE data could not have formed the basis of a search warrant . They would thus have been obliged to declare the search warrant illegal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the constitutional complaint as manifestly ill - founded . It found that the fact that the search warrant had been based on the GPE data did not infringe LAW .","The Federal Constitutional Court reiterated that there was no absolute rule that evidence which had been acquired in violation of procedural rules could never be used in criminal proceedings ( compare paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court further pointed out that it had to be borne in mind that the case at hand did not concern the question of whether evidence could be admitted in a criminal trial , but only concerned the preliminary question of whether evidence that might have been acquired in breach of procedural rules could form the basis of a search warrant in criminal investigation proceedings . Even if evidence was considered inadmissible in criminal proceedings , this did not automatically mean that the same was true for all stages of criminal investigations .","Furthermore , the court reiterated that it was not its role to substitute itself for the authorities in the interpretation and application of domestic law , but to review , in the light of LAW , the decisions taken by the authorities in the exercise of their margin of appreciation .","In applying these general principles to the case at hand , ORG ruled , at the outset , that it was not necessary to decide upon the question whether the acquisition of the data had been in breach of national or international law or violated the principle of the separation of the secret service and the prosecution in GPE , as ORG had departed in its decision from the ORG allegation that the evidence might in fact have been acquired in breach of domestic and international law , including criminal law .","The Federal Constitutional Court found that the fact that ORG based its legal assessment on the assumption that the acquisition of the data had been in breach of domestic and\/or international law was not arbitrary and hence could not be found to be in violation of LAW . Its finding that the applicants could not invoke international law in their favour only showed a different legal opinion without disregarding the applicants\u2019 basic rights . Furthermore , ORG considered reasonable LOC legal assessment that the principle of separation of the secret service and the prosecution had not been infringed , as the facts of the case did not show that the secret service had either ordered or coordinated the \u201c data theft \u201d , but had been offered the data on PERSON \u2019s own initiative . Acquiring data in such a way and passing it on to the prosecution could not violate the principle of separation , and hence could not render a search warrant unconstitutional .","With regard to ORG finding that the search order could be based on the GPE data ORG found that ORG legal assessment sufficiently took into account the applicants\u2019 basic rights as ORG had departed from the ORG allegation that the evidence had been obtained in breach of domestic law and thus based its decision on , what was , for the applicants , the best possible assumption .","The Federal Constitutional Court further considered that ORG had struck a fair balance between the different interests at stake . The alleged breach of national and\/or international law did not entail an imperative prohibition to use the evidence in the proceedings at issue . Furthermore , ORG had rightly pointed out that the data did not relate to the core area of the applicants\u2019 private life , but to their business activities . It had recognized the decisive interest at stake , namely the applicants\u2019 right to inviolability of their home , and took it sufficiently into account , as nothing showed that NORP authorities purposely and systematically breached international or domestic law in obtaining the data carrier .","On DATE the GPE ORG acquitted the applicants of the charges of tax evasion , finding that it had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the capital of the foundation in question had been invested in an interest - bearing way ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-165757","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MARC BRAUER v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Rheine .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on the spot for having damaged with a hammer a number of vehicles parked in the PERSON courthouse \u2019s car park , and resisting a court \u2019s clerk . As a preliminary measure he was confined to a psychiatric hospital . The court appointed defence counsel to the applicant , who had a previous history of psychiatric treatment going back DATE .","On DATE , ORG delivered its judgment and ordered the applicant \u2019s confinement to a psychiatric hospital . It held that the applicant could not be held criminally responsible and was mentally ill . According to the court \u2019s psychiatric expert , he was psychotic and aggressive , did not show any awareness of his illness and it was likely that he would commit further , even more serious crimes .","When the judgment was delivered in the presence of the applicant , his courtappointed defence counsel and the applicant \u2019s custodian ( gesetzlicher ORG ) , the applicant became agitated . He told the courtappointed lawyer that he wished for a change in representation and declared that he wanted to appeal against the decision himself . He was informed that this was not possible on the spot . The presiding judge instructed him about the time and form for lodging an appeal on points of law . He was then returned to the forensic hospital where , when in contact with others , he showed no more signs of agitation .","On DATE the applicant received a letter from the courtappointed lawyer , dated DATE , who advised him as follows :","\u201c ... You already announced immediately after the hearing that you wanted to appeal against the court \u2019s decision and also to mandate new defence counsel . We respect your wish for new counsel and hereby terminate the mandate .","Regarding the remedy you wished for , we give the following advice : You may appeal on points of law against the decision of ORG ( ORG ) within DATE after the judgment was delivered , thus until"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141434","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RUIZ RIVERA v. SWITZERLAND [Extracts]","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) . At the material time he was living in GPE .","Criminal proceedings against the applicant following the premeditated murder of his wife","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife was found dead . The applicant who , according to the toxicological examinations that he subsequently underwent , was under the influence of alcohol and cocaine , had stabbed his wife CARDINAL times . He had also cut off her head and thrown it out of the window of the flat where the incident had taken place .","At an unknown date the applicant was charged with his wife \u2019s murder .","On DATE the public prosecutor for the district of GPE asked the psychiatric clinic of ORG ( PERSON ) to carry out a psychiatric assessment of the applicant .","On DATE Doctor PERSON , a psychiatrist , issued his report . He found that the applicant had been suffering for DATE from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and had a drug addiction . He took the view that the offence had been directly related to his illness and drug abuse . He concluded that at the material time the applicant had not been criminally responsible for his actions . In view of the serious danger he represented for public safety , PERSON recommended his confinement .","NORP On DATE ORG found , having regard to the evidence before it , that the applicant had killed his wife and that he had been totally lacking in criminal responsibility for his actions at the material time . The court thus ordered his confinement within the meaning of LAW of LAW as then in force .","NORP The applicant \u2019s confinement and second psychiatric assessment","The applicant was placed in confinement from CARDINAL DATE onwards at FAC in GPE ( GPE of GPE ) .","His discharge was refused on DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE , at the request of the Probation and Sentence - enforcement Service of the GPE of GPE ( Bew\u00e4hrungs- und Vollzugsdienste des Kantons Z\u00fcrich ) , the applicant \u2019s mental health was examined by a head doctor and an assistant doctor of ORG of Rheinau ( Kantonale PERSON ) , who drew up a second psychiatric report .","The expert psychiatrists observed that the applicant had not encountered any particular difficulties in the custodial facility where he had been held since DATE . In the prison he had successively worked as a bookbinder , in the dispensary , as a gardener and lastly as a cook . The experts took note of the fact that , according to a psychological report of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant had not displayed any awareness of his illness and no capacity for introspection . As regards his mental health , the experts concluded that he was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia and that in the \u201c not very stimulating \u201d atmosphere of the prison , \u201c the positive symptoms of the illness had become less noticeable \u201d , even though he \u201c still display[ed ] a delirious interpretation of the details of his offence \u201d . His situation had thus changed little since his psychiatric assessment in DATE . In view of the lack of treatment , the experts took the view that \u201c no indication c[ould ] be given as regards alternative arrangements for the enforcement of the measure or the possibility of discharge on probation \u201d .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , ORG of GPE ( ORG ) refused the applicant \u2019s discharge on probation . The applicant challenged the decision of DATE before ORG of the Canton of GPE ( ORG ) , which dismissed his appeal on DATE .","On DATE the Psychiatry and Psychology Service of ORG issued an annual therapy report , signed by CARDINAL psychologists , CARDINAL of whom had treated the applicant . The report confirmed the findings of the psychiatric assessment carried out in DATE and indicated an unfavourable legal prognosis on account of the applicant \u2019s personality and the impossibility of treating his residual psychotic symptoms . The applicant continued , in particular , to deny that he was ill and refused to follow the medical treatment that had been prescribed for him . The psychologists concluded that the conditions for his discharge on probation were not satisfied . At the end of their report they indicated that they had discussed the report with the applicant and had given him a copy .","Refusal to discharge the applicant and the proceedings before the domestic courts","On DATE , after hearing the applicant in person in an interview of DATE , ORG of GPE refused his discharge on probation . It based its decision on a report of the ORG administration of DATE , on the DATE report of DATE , and on the psychiatric assessment of DATE .","Assisted by a lawyer , the applicant appealed to ORG and ORG of GPE , arguing that a fresh expert \u2019s assessment was necessary . He applied for legal aid . ORG and ORG dismissed his application in a decision of DATE . He was exempted from paying administrative costs , but was denied the free assistance of a lawyer , on the ground that his appeal was devoid of any prospect of success , as his discharge on probation had already been refused several times and there had been no change in the meantime .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG the Canton of GPE . Once again , he submitted that the verification of the need for his confinement had to be based on a fresh psychiatric assessment by a neutral doctor . He also sought free legal assistance and requested a hearing , submitting as follows :","\u201c It is is essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or , where necessary , through some form of representation , failing which he [ can not be ] \u2018 afforded the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of PERSON ( ECtHR judgment PERSON v. the GPE , DATE , Series A , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","While the requirements of LAW ORG [ can be distinguished ] from those laid down in DATE , which applies to civil and criminal proceedings , this provision dictates , according to legal science , that sufficient safeguards be afforded in order to guarantee effective judicial supervision .","Should a fresh expert \u2019s opinion not be ordered , it would at least be justified for the author of the report to give evidence at a hearing of the court and for [ the applicant ] to put questions to him .","As already stated , NORP legal science guarantees in such cases an adversarial hearing and the examination of witnesses . It entails that a fresh expert \u2019s opinion may prove necessary in order to uphold the rights of the person confined . \u201d","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal by a decision of DATE . It found that in view of the circumstances , the expert \u2019s report of DATE was still valid . The doubts expressed by the applicant concerning that report had already given rise to a final judgment of ORG DATE . Moreover , it was unnecessary for the expert to give evidence as he had already expressed his opinion clearly and comprehensively in his report . No new pertinent information could thus be expected of such a hearing . In addition , the applicant had not shown how his right of access to a court had actually been impaired . He had failed to indicate the reasons which led him to believe that ORG was not able to comply with the basic rules of procedure or to exercise sufficient supervision . Lastly , he had been denied legal assistance on the ground that his appeal appeared devoid of any prospect of success , CARDINAL appeals in the same case already having been dismissed without any change in the meantime .","The applicant lodged an administrative - law appeal with ORG . He reiterated the complaints he had submitted to ORG : the last expert \u2019s report was now DATE , and the therapy report was not a neutral assessment and was insufficient . In addition , given that various findings of the expert \u2019s report were based on misinterpretations it was necessary for a fresh expert \u2019s report to be drawn up or for the expert to give evidence with the possibility of cross - examination . The applicant was , moreover , entitled to the holding of a public and adversarial hearing . Lastly , the denial of legal assistance by the court below had impaired his right of access to a court . As the applicant was entitled to regular scrutiny of the lawfulness of his detention , the fact that he was appealing again against a refusal could not constitute a ground for refusing legal aid . The applicant also sought free legal assistance in the proceedings before ORG .","NORP In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It declared inadmissible the complaint concerning the lack of a public hearing , on the ground that no formal application to that effect had been lodged with the cantonal authorities . As regards the need for a fresh assessment by a neutral expert , it first noted that LAW did not require one , even though case - law had found it necessary in particular circumstances . In the present case , ORG found that a fresh psychiatric assessment was not necessary , because the initial diagnosis had been confirmed in subsequent therapy reports and \u201c no change c[ould ] be identified \u201d . It concluded that no other measure of sentence enforcement could be considered , with the result that the maintaining of the applicant \u2019s confinement was to be regarded as proportionate . As regards , lastly , the complaint about the refusal to grant the applicant legal aid , ORG first observed that he had been able to use the remedies available to him . It then noted that LAW required scrutiny of the lawfulness of detention only at reasonable intervals , and that such intervals were longer with regard to persons of unsound mind , where circumstances only changed in the medium term . The last decision to have been taken by a court in the present case dated from DATE . At the time of the DATE assessment by the prison administration in DATE , it had been found that the circumstances had clearly not changed since that decision . The appeal thus appeared to be devoid of any prospects of success . In ORG view , that constituted a legitimate ground on which to deny legal aid . In view of the foregoing , legal aid was also denied in respect of the proceedings before ORG itself .","..."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173363","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"BURDIASHVILI AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix . They are all NORP nationals , represented by PERSON and PERSON PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE and GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The Soviet LAW of DATE ( \u201c the Act of DATE \u201d ) provided that NORP nationals who had suffered various forms of political persecution on the territory of the former GPE DATE and DATE , as well as their first - generation heirs , could claim compensation for non - pecuniary damage . In particular , LAW read as follows :","\u201c A person who has been recognised as a victim of political repression on account of having been subjected to deprivation of liberty , resettlement , exile , forceful placement in a special place of residence or a psychiatric hospital , or who died as a result of such repression , or this victim \u2019s first - generation heir , shall receive monetary compensation , the amount and procedures for payment of which shall be established by law . \u201d","Despite the general undertaking contained in section CARDINAL in fine of the LAW DATE , ORG did not enact legislation defining the amount and procedures for payment of the relevant compensation .","In its judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON and PERSON , the ORG found a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL on account of the respondent ORG \u2019s failure to undertake the necessary measures to ensure the effective exercise of the applicants\u2019 right to receive monetary compensation for non - pecuniary damage under section CARDINAL of the Act of DATE ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL , DATE ) .","Applying LAW , the ORG stated that , since the finding of a violation under LAW No . CARDINAL concerned a large number of people and reflected a structural problem , it was urgent to undertake the necessary legislative , administrative and budgetary measures at the domestic level in order that victims of NORP political repression , who were targeted by LAW , could effectively benefit from the right to receive compensation under that section ( see PERSON and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) . Applying Article CARDINAL of the Convention , the ORG also held that if the necessary measures ( legislative and other ) were still lacking DATE after the date on which the judgment became final , the respondent ORG would have to pay each of the CARDINAL applicants , in accordance with LAW , MONEY ( ORG ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage ( ibid . , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","As the necessary general measures were not implemented by the respondent ORG within the above - mentioned time - limit of DATE , each of the CARDINAL applicants in that case duly received ORG CARDINAL from the respondent ORG , as indicated by the ORG .","For the purposes of implementing the general measures indicated by ORG under LAW in its judgment of DATE , in DATE the ORG of GPE introduced draft amendments to LAW DATE and LAW .","On DATE the Government submitted the above - mentioned draft amendments to ORG see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the amendments were adopted , with certain modifications , by ORG . They entered into force on DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the LAW of DATE \u201d ) .","Thus , under the new LAW \u00a7 DATE of LAW , victims of NORP political repression or their first - generation heirs had until DATE to lodge applications with ORG for monetary compensation under LAW DATE . The new provisions of the LAW also provided for various additional procedures for the lodging of such applications , their examination by ORG and subsequent appellate proceedings before ORG , the latter acting as the final level of jurisdiction in such matters .","As to the amount(s ) of compensation payable under LAW of DATE , they were not fixed by any of the abovementioned legislative amendments . Instead , a new subsection ( CARDINAL ) was added to section CARDINAL of the Act , stating that the relevant domestic court had the competence to determine an appropriate amount of compensation in each case , having regard to the particular factual circumstances :","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL )","\u201c The amount of compensation shall be determined by the court on the basis of the gravity of the form of coercion in question ... [ deprivation of liberty , resettlement , exile , forceful placement in a special place of residence or a psychiatric hospital or death ] , as well as the age and health of the repressed person or his \/ her first - generation heir , and other objective factors . \u201d","As confirmed by the official statistics issued by ORG on DATE , within DATE of the entry into force of the above - mentioned legislative amendments , CARDINAL applications for monetary compensation under LAW DATE were lodged with ORG , out of which CARDINAL cases were decided . The compensation awards in the cases examined varied from CARDINAL to CARDINAL NORP Laris ( ( GEL ) \u2013 EUR DATE and LAW respectively ) , the maximum amount having been awarded only to the first - generation heirs of victims of repression who had been executed by GPE .","All CARDINAL applicants ( see the appendix below ) are first - generation heirs of victims of NORP political repression . In DATE , after the entry into force of the LAW of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , they lodged applications with ORG for monetary compensation under LAW of DATE .","Thus , the first applicant requested GEL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . She referred , amongst other circumstances , to her age ( she was DATE ) , poor state of health and , most importantly , to the fact that her father had been recognised , by a court decision of CARDINAL DATE , as a victim of NORP repression on account of his arbitrary conviction by a NORP military tribunal for proffering anti - NORP statements and his consequent execution by a firing squad in DATE .","As to the second , third and fourth applicants , who are siblings , they jointly requested GEL MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The applicants submitted that their father had been recognised as a victim of political repression in DATE on account of his arbitrary conviction in DATE by a NORP military tribunal for high treason ; their father had first been sentenced to DATE imprisonment but had been pardoned and released from detention in DATE .","On DATE and DATE ORG , in the context of CARDINAL separate and unrelated sets of proceedings , allowed the ORG claims in part . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld those decisions on appeal . The first applicant was granted compensation of GEL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) , whilst the second , third and fourth applicants were jointly awarded the sum of GEL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","The reasons given by the domestic courts in their decisions were similar in both sets of proceedings . Thus , at first instance , ORG , taking into account the relevant domestic provisions as well as the ORG \u2019s judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON and PERSON ( cited above ) , noted that the amount of compensation payable under section QUANTITY of the Act of DATE had not been fixed by law but , on the contrary , had been left to be determined by the relevant court on the basis of the particular circumstances of each individual case . On the other hand , since it was impossible to assess all the suffering , injustice and harm caused by the various drastic forms of NORP political repression , any such amount of compensation could only be , by its very nature , symbolic . No monetary compensation could ever serve as sufficient non - pecuniary relief . More important in this regard was the fact that ORG had acknowledged the historical injustice as such . The court added that the respondent ORG had fully complied with the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE by introducing legislative amendments aimed at filling \u201c the legislative vacuum \u201d which had been criticised by ORG .","As to the appellate proceedings , ORG , in reply to the applicants\u2019 argument that the domestic awards were derisory and disproportionate in comparison with the sums awarded by ORG in its judgment in the case of PERSON and PERSON ( cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) , stated that the domestic courts retained a broad discretionary power to determine amounts of compensation . The appellate court pointed out that the ORG itself had acknowledged that the respondent ORG should remain free to choose , subject to supervision by ORG , the general and\/or , if appropriate , individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by ORG ( ibid . \u00a7 CARDINAL ) ; the ORG had not indicated to the respondent ORG any specific amount of compensation to be paid under LAW of DATE . The appellate court also stated that , although the amount of compensation should not be less than the minimum wage in GPE ( some EUR CARDINAL ) , the ORG \u2019s budgetary capacities and the overall number of victims of NORP political repression ( CARDINAL of people ) should also be taken into account when determining the award .","For the purposes of further implementation of the general measures indicated by ORG in its judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON and PERSON ( cited above ) , a second wave of legislative measures was initiated by the respondent ORG on DATE . Notably , on the latter date ORG made a number of significant amendments to LAW DATE and LAW , which came into force on DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the Amendments of DATE \u201d ) .","NORP In particular , the amended section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act of DATE determined the range of compensation payable to victims of NORP political repression . Thus , the minimum amount payable under the law was fixed at GEL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) , whilst the maximum amount within the range was set at GEL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The provision further specified that the exact amount payable as compensation should be determined by a domestic court within the above - mentioned range in the light of the particular circumstances of each case , such as the gravity or the type of persecution in question , the age and health of the claimant \u2013 the victim of NORP political repression or of his or her first - generation heir DATE and other relevant factors .","Furthermore , in order to assist those victims of NORP political repression whose claims had already been decided under the preceding version of section ORG ) of the Act of DATE , the Amendments of CARDINAL DATE provided that the legislation would have retroactive effect . In particular , they stated that those victims of NORP political repression , or their first - generation heirs , who had already been awarded compensation by ORG in amounts falling below the minimum threshold set by the new section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( compare paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) were entitled to re - apply to a court for a fresh assessment of the particular circumstances of their case , determination of the amount of compensation payable under the amended section ORG ) and , if applicable , payment of the difference between the new amount thus determined and the previous award .","The LAW of DATE further re - worded LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW to state that together with ORG , which maintained jurisdiction to hear claims from victims of NORP political repression or their first - generation heirs residing in the east of GPE , ORG was vested with jurisdiction to hear claims emanating from claimants residing in the west of the country .","During their CARDINAL meeting held on DATE , in the context of their supervision of the execution of the ORG judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON and PERSON ( cited above ) , ORG adopted a decision , which reads as follows :","\u201c The Deputies ,","took note with satisfaction that the just satisfaction as well as the default interest due have been paid to the applicants ;","took note with interest of the preliminary action plan which has been submitted by the NORP authorities according to which a draft law has been prepared which will be submitted to the ORG in DATE ;","invited the NORP authorities to submit to them a consolidated action plan for their FAC meeting ( DATE ) . \u201d","During their LOC meeting held on DATE , ORG adopted another decision on the matter , which reads as follows :","\u201c The Deputies ,","took note , with satisfaction , of the action plan submitted by the NORP authorities according to which in DATE draft laws were being discussed before ORG with implementation by the GPE court expected to begin in DATE : the first amending LAW of DATE ] , in order to provide for compensation for victims ; the second one amending LAW in order to organise the practical modalities of granting such compensation ;","also took note with satisfaction of the subsequent information ( adoption on CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of the amendment to [ Act of DATE ] and publication in ORG of CARDINAL DATE ) showing that the action plan is being implemented within the foreseen timeframe ;","decided therefore to transfer this case for examination under the standard supervision procedure . \u201d","Lastly , during their CARDINAL meeting held on DATE , ORG adopted a ORG ( CM \/ ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) on the closure of supervision of the execution of the ORG \u2019s judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of PERSON and PERSON ( cited above ) . The relevant parts of the ORG read as follows :","\u201c Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by ORG in this case and to the violation established ; ...","Having invited the government of the respondent ORG to inform ORG measures taken to comply with the above - mentioned obligation ;","Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the ORG ... ;","Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , have been adopted ,","Declares that it has exercised its functions under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW in this case and","Decides to close the examination thereof . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163085","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"STEFANIAK v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before the Court by PERSON and PERSON , lawyers working for ORG in GPE . In DATE PERSON was appointed to the post of ORG and no longer represents the applicant .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP Since DATE the applicant has been serving various prison sentences . The end of her current sentence falls in DATE .","The Government maintained that during her imprisonment in various prisons the applicant had been given constant medical care . The applicant had been treated for various illnesses and had received specialist treatment , specifically gynaecological , dental and psychiatric care .","The applicant submitted that the medical attention she had received had not been adequate . For instance she had refused a gallbladder removal as the prison hospital had offered her only standard surgery , not a laparoscopic operation . She had also reported problems with her spine and was undergoing constant psychiatric treatment .","On DATE the applicant consulted a laryngologist who , for the first time , diagnosed a hearing impairment and recommended the use of a hearing aid . On DATE an audiogram was carried out , on the basis of which a doctor confirmed , on DATE , that the applicant was suffering from hearing loss .","Her first request to be provided with a hearing aid had been dismissed by the prison authorities in DATE as it had not been absolutely necessary in her condition . In particular , the prison authorities did not find it established that her hearing impairment had been such as to cause her difficulties in her everyday life in prison .","On DATE , while detained in the NORP prison , the applicant made a new request for a hearing aid . On DATE the director of the prison hospital at the PERSON prison informed her that it had not been possible for the authorities to fund a device .","On DATE the NORP medical prison service issued a certificate referring to the audiogram of DATE and to the consultation with the laryngologist . The doctor stated that the applicant was suffering from a hearing impairment and recommended the use of a hearing aid , paid for either by the applicant or by the prison medical services .","On DATE a doctor from a private practice issued a certificate on the basis of the audiogram of CARDINAL September CARDINAL without examining the applicant . She certified a PERCENT hearing loss , justifying the need for a hearing aid .","On DATE a second audiogram was carried out . The applicant was of the view that it proved deterioration of her hearing but the Government submitted that her condition had remained the same .","During that period the applicant underwent a re - education program to ease her spinal condition and various basic and more specialised medical examinations . Those included scans or X - rays of the spine , abdomen , breasts , and chest , as well as further audiograms .","The applicant submitted that she had requested a hearing aid on numerous subsequent occasions , but to no avail . The prison authorities referred to lack of funds .","On DATE the applicant received a medical certificate confirming her various medical conditions , referring in particular to her spine , ovaries , kidneys and hearing . The certificate concluded that the applicant should continue receiving re - education treatment for her spine and recommended fitting her with a hearing aid .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG . On DATE she consulted a specialist doctor who recommended that the applicant be provided with a hearing aid .","On DATE the authorities provided the applicant with a hearing aid . The entire cost of MONEY ( ORG ) was covered by ORG .","On DATE the director of ORG explained in a letter that its limited financial resources had not allowed the purchase a different model of hearing aid , as requested by the applicant . The model given to her was of a type also used by other detainees , who had never complained about it . The Director referred to the provisions of domestic law , which allow the authorities to partly or entirely cover the cost of medical equipment such as hearing aids .","During her detention the applicant frequently requested leave from prison for various purposes . She was granted leave in DATE and DATE for medical purposes .","On DATE ORG of ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for temporary leave on health grounds . The court found that the applicant had obtained prison leave in DATE for the purpose of having an operation . During the leave she had committed further offences and had undergone surgery on DATE of her leave . She had also failed to return from the leave on time . The court sought a medical expert opinion which stated that the applicant could be treated in prison for her spinal condition . The court concluded that the applicant \u2019s medical condition was not incompatible with detention and that she was receiving appropriate medical care from the prison health services . On DATE ORG upheld the decision and refused her leave from prison .","In DATE the applicant again applied for leave from prison in order to take up employment . The penitentiary courts refused the application on DATE . The Government submitted that the medical opinion prepared in this set of proceedings had demonstrated a generally good state of health and the fact that she had been continuously receiving medical attention in prison .","The applicant complained to the prison authorities on many occasions about the conditions of her detention , in particular the allegedly inadequate treatment of her chronic back pain . On each occasion the complaints were dismissed by the authorities as manifestly ill - founded .","The applicant lodged civil claims for compensation against some prisons by way of complaint about the prevailing conditions , for instance the type of cells to which she was assigned , the attitude of the prison guards towards her , etc . There is no evidence that any of those claims referred to the delay before the authorities provided her with a hearing aid .","The provisions pertaining to medical care in detention facilities , and the relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) ; and the decision in PERSON v GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180646","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BE\u015eLEAG\u0102 v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic judgments . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised other complaints under the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153134","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF Y.Y. v. TURKEY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","The applicant is a transgender person whose gender is recorded in the civil - status register as female . He stated that he had become aware , even as a child , of feeling that he was male , a feeling that was at variance with his anatomical sex .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) under LAW seeking authorisation to undergo gender reassignment surgery . In the application instituting the proceedings the applicant \u2019s lawyer gave the following reasons for his client \u2019s request . His client had , since he was a child , regarded himself as male rather than female and for that reason had been receiving psychological counselling since childhood ; at DATE he had contemplated suicide ; his current biological identity was at odds with the gender to which he felt he belonged ; and gender reassignment was necessary in order for him to achieve harmony between his private perception of himself and his physical make - up . The lawyer stated that several doctors whom his client had consulted since childhood had recommended gender reassignment . The applicant , who was DATE , was living as a man , had been in a relationship with a woman for DATE and was accepted as a man by his family and friends . The lawyer added that his client had been receiving treatment for DATE in the psychiatric department of ORG with a view to undergoing the gender reassignment surgery that he sought . Lastly , the lawyer requested that the proceedings remain confidential in view of his client \u2019s psychological state .","On DATE ORG granted the request concerning the confidentiality of the proceedings .","On DATE the court heard evidence from the applicant \u2019s family . The applicant \u2019s mother stated that as a child her daughter had played mainly with boys and as an adolescent had told her mother that she felt more like a boy and wanted to be one . The applicant \u2019s mother had therefore consulted psychologists , who had expressed the view that her daughter would be happier if she could live as a man , a view which the applicant \u2019s mother shared . The applicant \u2019s older brother also said that his sister had played with boys when she was a child , had started to behave like a boy during adolescence and had had girlfriends , and that she had been determined to undergo gender reassignment by means of surgery . She had made several suicide attempts and was still in therapy . As far as the applicant \u2019s brother was aware , the doctors had decided to go ahead with the operation .","On conclusion of the hearing ORG sent a request for information to the medical director of the hospital where the applicant was being treated , seeking to ascertain whether the applicant was transgender , whether gender reassignment was necessary to ensure his mental health and whether he was permanently unable to procreate .","On DATE a medical committee of ORG drew up a psychiatric report which found that the applicant was transgender . The report further found that , from a psychological viewpoint , the applicant should henceforth live with a male identity .","On DATE a medical committee of the gynaecology and obstetrics unit of the same medical centre drew up a report which found that GPE had a female phenotype and was transgender .","On DATE ORG examined the CARDINAL medical reports from ORG medical faculty . The court observed that the authors of the report of DATE had diagnosed the applicant as transgender and had found that , from a psychological viewpoint , he should live henceforth with a male identity , but that the authors of the report of CARDINAL DATE had found PERSON \u2019s phenotype to be female . However , the court considered that these reports had not answered the questions it had asked , namely whether gender reassignment was necessary in order to ensure the claimant \u2019s mental health and whether the claimant was permanently unable to procreate . The court therefore reiterated its request for information .","On DATE the head of the gynaecology and obstetrics unit attached to the surgical department of ORG medical faculty wrote to the head doctor of the medical centre informing him that the applicant had been examined following a request for a consultation with a plastic surgeon with a view to gender reassignment . She said that an examination had established that PERSON had female external and internal genitalia and was not permanently unable to procreate .","On DATE a medical committee of the psychiatric department of ORG medical faculty wrote to the head doctor of the medical centre informing him that the applicant had been examined on DATE . Following that examination the medical team had concluded that , in the interests of his mental health , the applicant should be allowed to live henceforth with a male identity .","At ORG hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer challenged the report of DATE on the grounds that it had not been adopted by a collegiate body . ORG accordingly requested a fresh expert report on the applicant \u2019s ability to procreate . The task of preparing the report was entrusted to a medical committee of ORG faculty of medicine .","On DATE CARDINAL doctors from the gynaecology and obstetrics department of ORG faculty of medicine carried out an expert assessment and concluded , after examining the applicant , that he was capable of procreating .","On DATE ORG , basing its decision on the findings of the various expert reports , refused the applicant authorisation to undergo gender reassignment , on the ground that he was not permanently unable to procreate and therefore did not satisfy one of the conditions of eligibility for gender reassignment under LAW .","On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment . In his pleadings the applicant \u2019s lawyer stressed that his client had considered himself since childhood as male rather than female and that this belief was not a mere whim . The applicant had undergone a lengthy course of psychotherapy following which the doctors had concluded that he was transgender and that , from a psychological perspective , it was advisable for him to live as a man . The lawyer further submitted that his client \u2019s ability to procreate did not in any way prevent him from perceiving himself as a man ; it was a biological fact over which he had no control . In GPE as elsewhere in the world , persons who , like the applicant , were unable to reconcile their biological and psychological state were not necessarily single and unable to procreate . There were numerous examples of people who had a predisposition towards transgenderism and who had married and had children before having gender reassignment surgery . It was unfair to make authorisation for a change of biological gender contingent on the ability of the transgender individuals concerned to procreate , whether they considered themselves as men or as women . Accordingly , in refusing to allow the applicant to undergo gender reassignment surgery under LAW which , in the lawyer \u2019s submission , did not reflect social reality \u2013 the courts had restricted his client \u2019s rights and freedoms . The lawyer further alleged that the refusal of the applicant \u2019s request on account of his ability to procreate had been unlawful . In his view , the expression \u201c permanently unable to procreate \u201d should be deleted from the provision in question .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the ORG judgment , taking the view that the first - instance court had not erred in its assessment of the evidence .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged an application for rectification of that decision . In his pleadings he submitted that none of the grounds of appeal advanced by the applicant had been taken into account , and that no comment had been made on the official documents and reports included in the file . The lawyer also contested the use of the report of CARDINAL DATE prepared by the gynaecology and obstetrics department of ORG medical faculty as the basis for rejecting the applicant \u2019s claims . He argued in that regard that the report in question did not have the status of an expert report and had been drawn up following a purely superficial examination of his client \u2019s genital organs that was insufficient to establish his ability to procreate . Even assuming that the various medical reports had sufficed to establish that his client was capable of procreating , the only gender with which his client could identify from a physical and psychological perspective was male . Moreover , that fact had been established on DATE in the report of the medical committee of ORG , where his client had also been following a long - term course of psychotherapy . The lawyer criticised the failure to take the latter fact into account . Lastly , he submitted that the courts had infringed the applicant \u2019s rights by refusing his request for authorisation to undergo surgery aimed at assigning to him the gender with which he naturally identified .","On DATE ORG rejected the application for rectification lodged by the applicant , observing that none of the grounds for setting aside enumerated in LAW applied in the case at hand .","On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh application with ORG on the basis of LAW , seeking authorisation to undergo gender reassignment surgery . In his application instituting the proceedings , the applicant \u2019s lawyer gave the following reasons for the request . His client had regarded himself from a young age as male rather than female and for that reason had received psychological counselling since childhood ; medical reports had established that , from a psychological viewpoint , it was advisable for him to live henceforth with a male identity ; the applicant \u2019s biological identity was at odds with the gender to which he felt he belonged ; gender reassignment was necessary to ensure his psychological and mental well - being ; on DATE he had undergone a double mastectomy and was taking various hormones to increase his testosterone levels ; he was working for his brother as a painter and decorator ; he went regularly to the gym and had the physical appearance of a man ; he was now DATE and had always regarded himself as a man ; the friends he had met after a certain age knew him only as a man ; and he did not use the first name indicated on his identity papers . The lawyer added that , in order to bring his physical appearance into line with his perception of himself , his client had resorted to all kinds of methods with damaging side - effects . In his DATE life , and especially when he had to produce his identity papers for the authorities , the applicant was subjected to denigrating and humiliating treatment and encountered numerous difficulties because of the discrepancy between his outward appearance and the identity indicated on his papers . The lawyer summed up by requesting the court to allow his client to begin the requisite formalities in order to change his identity in the civil - status register , to grant his client \u2019s request to undergo gender reassignment , to authorise him to undergo gender reassignment surgery and to declare the ORG proceedings confidential .","On DATE , following a full medical history and examination of the applicant , a committee made up of psychiatrists from ORG issued a medical report which found that the applicant was transgender and that gender reassignment was necessary in order to ensure his mental health . The report also stated that an expert assessment should be carried out to establish whether the applicant was permanently unable to procreate .","On DATE a forensic medical report was drawn up by a committee from the forensic medicine department of ORG . According to the report , during the examination carried out on DATE in the forensic medical department , the applicant had stated that he wished to undergo gender reassignment surgery and had already taken steps to that end in the past but had had his claims rejected by the courts . He had then applied to ORG and had since brought a fresh action . The medical examination had shown that the applicant had a male phenotype ( all his external characteristics ) . He had a beard and a moustache , his breast tissue had been surgically removed and he was receiving treatment following that operation . He had male hair growth on his arms and legs , was undergoing hormone treatment and was embarrassed by the colour of his identity card and had therefore covered it before putting it in his wallet . Lastly , the applicant had stated that reassignment was a necessity for him .","According to the report , blood tests had revealed that the applicant had a total testosterone count of CARDINAL ng \/ dl , presumably linked to the hormone treatment he was taking . However , this did not mean that he was permanently unable to procreate .","The report concluded as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . [ The applicant ] is transgender ;","gender reassignment is necessary for his mental health ;","[ he ] is not permanently unable to procreate ( as a woman ) ... \u201d","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request and authorised the gender reassignment surgery which he sought . In its reasoning , ORG found it established that the applicant was transgender , that gender reassignment was needed to ensure his mental health , and that it was clear from the evidence of the witnesses called by the applicant that he lived as a man in every respect and suffered as a result of his situation . Accordingly , in view of the evidence and of the reports produced , the conditions set forth in LAW were satisfied and the request should be granted . The judgment specified that it was final .","..."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-176759","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF UNCUO\u011eLU v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["Ms Fatma Nuray Uncuo\u011flu ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) was born in DATE and lives in GPE . PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) was born in DATE and also lives in GPE .","The applicants each owned a share in respective plots of land in the area of LOC , in the district of GPE , GPE .","On DATE , a new zoning plan was put into force in the area of GPE , which encompassed the applicants\u2019 plots of land . Under the new plan , the plots of land were designated as \u201c university area \u201d . Subsequently , in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , annotations ( \u015ferhler ) were made in the land registry records indicating that the applicants\u2019 land would be expropriated by ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the University \u201d ) .","On DATE the applicants both asked the ORG to either expropriate the disputed land or to remove the annotations from the land registry records . The University informed the applicants , on DATE and DATE respectively , that the expropriation proceedings would commence when the necessary funding was provided .","On DATE the applicants initiated respective proceedings before ORG , claiming compensation for de facto expropriation .","On DATE , relying on expert reports which had indicated that the applicants\u2019 land had been fenced off by the University , ORG of First Instance awarded the first applicant MONEY ( TRL ) and the second applicant QUANTITY by way of compensation for de facto expropriation . In its respective judgments , the first - instance court held in particular that the land at issue had been under the effective control of the ORG and that access to the land was restricted due to the fences that had been built around the land .","On DATE ORG of ORG quashed the judgments of ORG , holding that the land in question had not been controlled or used effectively by the University .","On DATE both applicants requested the rectification of the respective decisions dated DATE . In their petitions , they drew the attention of ORG of ORG to its previous decisions , dated DATE and DATE , in which it had held that neighbouring plots of land in the same area had been de facto expropriated by ORG because the latter had built fences around the land and because of the annotations made in the land registry records .","On DATE ORG of ORG rejected the ORG requests for rectification of the decisions of DATE . However , it did not express any reason as to why it had reached a different conclusion from its previous decisions dated DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG complied with the decisions of ORG and dismissed the cases .","On DATE both applicants filed an appeal , reiterating their argument concerning the contradictory decisions ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) delivered by ORG of ORG .","On DATE and DATE respectively , ORG of ORG dismissed the appeals . In its decisions , it gave no reply to the applicants\u2019 arguments regarding the fact that it had given contradictory judgments in respect of similar cases .","NORP The applicants\u2019 requests for the rectification of the decisions were furthermore rejected and the judgments became final on DATE and DATE respectively .","On an unknown date the University paid compensation to the second applicant for her plot of land ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147284","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF MURAT VURAL v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nicolas Bratza;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them , may be summarised as follows .","NORP In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicant went to a primary school in the town of NORP and poured paint on a statue of PERSON which was situated in the school \u2019s garden . On TIME , he poured paint on a statue of PERSON in the garden of another primary school .","On DATE he did the same thing in the same CARDINAL primary schools .","On DATE the applicant poured paint on a statue of GPE in NORP town centre .","On DATE the applicant went to the same statue in NORP town centre equipped with a tin of paint , paint thinner and a ladder . As he was about to open the tin of paint he was arrested by police officers and taken to a police station where he was questioned . In a statement taken from him on DATE the applicant was reported as having told the police officers that he had carried out the above - mentioned actions because he resented PERSON and had expressed his resentment by pouring paint on the statues .","On DATE the applicant was brought before a prosecutor and then a judge , who ordered his detention on remand pending the opening of criminal proceedings against him . In his statement to the prosecutor the applicant maintained that he had carried out his actions to express his \u201c lack of affection \u201d for GPE .","NORP In his indictment of DATE , lodged with ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the trial court \u201d ) , the NORP prosecutor charged the applicant with the offence of contravening LAW Against PERSON ( PERSON no . CARDINAL ; see \u201c Relevant Domestic Law and Practice \u201d below ) .","In the course of the trial the applicant admitted that he had poured paint on the statues . He told the trial court that he had completed his university studies and qualified as a teacher . However , he had been unemployed for a long time because his application to work as a teacher had not been accepted by ORG . He had carried out his offences in order to protest against the ORG \u2019s decision .","On DATE the trial court found the applicant guilty as charged . Having regard to the fact that the offence was committed in a public place and on a number of occasions , the trial court sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment instead of the minimum term of imprisonment applicable under PERSON no . DATE , which is DATE . The fact that the offence had been committed in a public place also led the trial court to increase the sentence by CARDINAL in accordance with section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE . The trial court also considered that the applicant had committed the offence on CARDINAL separate occasions , and decided to multiply the sentence by CARDINAL . The applicant was thus sentenced to a total prison term of DATE and DATE for his above - mentioned actions .","The applicant appealed . In his appeal he argued that , according to the provisions of LAW , CARDINAL sentence should have been imposed on him because , regardless of the fact that he had poured paint on the statues on CARDINAL occasions , he had in fact only committed one offence and not multiple offences . In support of his argument , he submitted that his CARDINAL actions had been carried out within a short span of time .","The applicant also pointed out that , instead of imposing on him the minimum DATE prison sentence provided for in PERSON no . DATE in respect of each offence , the trial court had handed down a DATE sentence because it had had regard to the number of times he had poured paint on the statues . The trial court had then gone on to rely on the frequency of his actions when multiplying the sentence by CARDINAL .","The applicant also challenged the trial court \u2019s reliance on section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE when increasing his sentence by CARDINAL because the offence had been committed in a public place . He drew ORG attention to the fact that , by their nature , statues are placed in public places .","The applicant added that he had carried out his actions in order to express his \u201c lack of affection \u201d for PERSON . As such , he had remained within the boundaries of his right to freedom of expression , which was guaranteed by LAW . Thus , although it would have been reasonable to prosecute and punish him for damaging property , he had in fact been punished for expressing his opinions .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that he had been expressing his opinion , but quashed the trial court \u2019s judgment on the ground of , inter alia , that court \u2019s failure to give adequate consideration to the possibility that the CARDINAL separate incidents could form CARDINAL offence and not multiple offences . ORG considered that the applicant had carried out his actions in order to protest against ORG decision not to appoint him as a teacher . The case file was sent back to the trial court .","NORP In its decision of DATE the trial court agreed with ORG conclusion , and held that the applicant \u2019s actions had amounted to a single offence and not CARDINAL offences . However , having regard , inter alia , to the \u201c contradictory reasons \u201d put forward by the applicant as justification for his actions , as well as \u201c the effects of his actions on the public \u201d , the trial court concluded that the applicant \u2019s actions had amounted to \u201c insults \u201d , and deemed it fit to sentence him to DATE imprisonment , which is the maximum allowed under PERSON no . DATE . The sentence was then increased by CARDINAL because the acts had been committed in a public place . Furthermore , pursuant to LAW ( see \u201c Relevant Domestic Law and Practice \u201d below ) , the sentence was further increased by DATE . The applicant was thus sentenced to a total of DATE , DATE and CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment .","Furthermore , in its decision the trial court set out the restrictions under section CARDINAL of LAW which were to be placed on the applicant on account of his conviction . Accordingly , until the execution of his sentence , the applicant was banned from , among other things , voting and taking part in elections , as well as from running associations , parties , trade unions and cooperatives ( see \u201c Relevant Domestic Law and Practice \u201d ) .","The applicant appealed and repeated his arguments under various provisions of the Convention . He maintained , in particular , that he had carried out his actions in order to express his \u201c lack of affection \u201d for PERSON and had thus exercised his freedom of expression guaranteed in LAW .","The appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE . No mention was made in ORG decision of the arguments raised by the applicant about his freedom of expression .","According to a document drawn up by the prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE setting out the details of the applicant \u2019s prison sentence , the date of the applicant \u2019s release from prison was set as CARDINAL DATE , with a possibility of release on DATE for good behaviour .","In the meantime , on DATE the PERSON on the Execution of Prison Sentences and Other Security Measures ( PERSON no . CARDINAL ) entered into force . This law sets out the circumstances in which prisoners can benefit from early release .","On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor responsible for the prison the applicant was serving his sentence in wrote to the trial court and asked for guidance in calculating the date of the applicant \u2019s possible early release . The prosecutor stated that , for offences committed DATE , PERSON no . CARDINAL was applicable and , for offences committed after that date , the new Law no . DATE would be applicable . The applicant had carried out his actions both before and after that date .","On DATE the trial court considered that the critical date was the date of the commission of the final act and thus the new law was applicable .","The applicant lodged an objection against that decision and argued that most of his actions had been carried out DATE and that therefore , when calculating his prison sentence , the old law should be taken into account . If his prison sentence were calculated in accordance with the new law , he would spend DATE in prison . That objection was rejected by the trial court on DATE and the date of the applicant \u2019s possible release from prison was calculated in accordance with the document drawn up by the prosecutor on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","A request made by the applicant to ORG for his conviction to be quashed and another request to ORG to rectify the judgment were rejected on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","On DATE the applicant was released conditionally ."],"violated_articles":["10","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1","P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182227","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KARACHENTSEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery committed in an organised group .","On DATE the Vyborgskiy ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) remanded the applicant in custody . ORG relied on the particularly serious nature of the crime with which the applicant had been charged and his position on the merits of the arrest and the charges brought against him . The court also relied on the risk that he might flee from the investigating authorities and the court , exert pressure on victims , witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings , or otherwise hamper the administration of justice in the case .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE and DATE , at the request of the applicant \u2019s lawyer , ORG adjourned the review of the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively .","On DATE the applicant retained another lawyer to defend him . The newly appointed lawyer joined the proceedings at TIME on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer asked ORG to adjourn the hearing until DATE so as to enable her to review the prosecution material and discuss her position with the applicant . The judge refused to adjourn the hearing until DATE , but granted a TIME adjournment until TIME","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , having found no grounds for altering or lifting the custodial measure and having taken note of the particular complexity of the case . The applicant \u2019s argument to the effect that no investigative measures were being carried out with his participation was rejected with reference to the investigator \u2019s discretion to lead the investigation .","The applicant appealed against the above decision , claiming , inter alia , that the TIME adjournment of the hearing on CARDINAL DATE had not permitted him to consult his lawyer in private ; nor had it allowed his lawyer to have sufficient time to review the prosecution material .","On DATE GPE ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) found that there were no reasons to vary the preventive measure , and it upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal . ORG held that the TIME adjournment granted by ORG had been sufficient for studying the prosecution file consisting of CARDINAL pages . Most of the file consisted of procedural documents concerning issues relating to the institution of the criminal proceedings , the extension of the time - limit for the investigation , the joinder of criminal cases , and documents which had been previously handed to the applicant . Besides , all these documents had been examined in the hearing on DATE . As regards the applicant \u2019s complaint as to his inability to have a confidential exchange with his lawyer before the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that the applicant and his lawyer had been given the opportunity to communicate in the courtroom . However , they had refused to communicate in such conditions . This did not amount to a breach of the applicant \u2019s right to defence , because the applicant \u2019s lawyer could have had a confidential meeting with the applicant in the remand prison without any restrictions , and they could have developed their defence position beforehand . In any event , the hearing could not have been adjourned until DATE , since the time - limit for the applicant \u2019s detention had been due to expire on DATE , and therefore the decision on the preventive measure had had to be taken before then . Both the applicant and his lawyer participated in the appeal hearing .","On DATE , DATE , charges in respect of CARDINAL counts of large - scale robbery committed in an organised group under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) and ( b ) of MONEY were brought against the applicant .","On DATE the applicant and his lawyer were informed that the pre - trial investigation had been terminated , and on DATE they were given access to the case file .","On an unspecified date in DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer was informed that a review of the preventive measure was to take place on the following day .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer did not appear for the hearing . The applicant asked the court to adjourn the hearing owing to the lawyer \u2019s illness . However , the adjournment was refused . Legal aid counsel was appointed for the applicant .","On DATE , reiterating the reasons which had prompted the application of the custodial measure in the applicant \u2019s case , ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE pending examination of the case file .","NORP The applicant appealed , complaining , inter alia , about the refusal to adjourn the hearing so as to enable his lawyer to defend him .","On DATE ORG found that there were no reasons to vary the preventive measure , and it upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE on appeal . As regards the applicant \u2019s complaint regarding the alleged violation of his right to defence by the refusal to adjourn the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that the applicant \u2019s lawyer had failed to prove her sickness by providing a medical certificate . This made the examination of the issue of the applicant \u2019s detention in her absence lawful under domestic law , as legal aid counsel had been appointed for the applicant . Both the applicant and his lawyer participated in the appeal hearing , the applicant by means of a video link from the remand prison .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE pending examination of the case file . The court noted that the grounds which had prompted the application of the custodial measure in the applicant \u2019s case had not changed , and referred to the considerable size of the case file , a case file which neither the applicant , nor his co - defendants or their lawyers had been able to examine in full .","On DATE ORG upheld the above decision on appeal .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of all charges in a jury trial . The judgment became final on DATE .","DATE and DATE the applicant was held in remand prison GPE in GPE . The prison was overcrowded . Thus , cell DATE , measuring QUANTITY , was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and accommodated up to QUANTITY inmates , and cell CARDINAL , measuring CARDINAL sq . m , was designed for CARDINAL people and housed CARDINAL individuals . Cell CARDINAL , measuring CARDINAL sq . m , offered CARDINAL places , and CARDINAL detainees occupied those places .","As mentioned above , on DATE and DATE respectively ORG examined the applicant \u2019s appeals against the decisions of ORG of DATE and CARDINAL DATE extending his detention . He participated in the appeals by means of a video link from the remand prison , where he was confined in a metal cage ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145017","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GABLISHVILI v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Georgia);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants are husband and wife . They were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC in GPE .","The first applicant , a NORP national , arrived in GPE in DATE . On DATE he received a first residence permit , which was subsequently extended at regular intervals .","The first applicant \u2019s parents have lived in GPE since DATE . His father and mother acquired NORP nationality in DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE the first applicant married the second applicant , a NORP national .","On DATE the second applicant gave birth to a son .","On DATE an operative officer of ORG in GPE discovered that the first applicant had injected himself with desomorphine , a derivative of morphine known under the street name \u201c krokodil \u201d . An administrative case was instituted under LAW ( \u201c Use of narcotic substances without a medical prescription \u201d ) and the matter was referred to ORG .","On DATE the ORG found the first applicant guilty as charged and , pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL concerning foreign nationals , fined him MONEY ( RUB ) and ordered his administrative expulsion from GPE ( the \u201c expulsion order \u201d ) .","Counsel for the first applicant appealed . He submitted that the penalty of expulsion was extremely severe given that the first applicant had lived in GPE for DATE , his wife , who was pregnant with their first child , was a NORP national and a majority of his relatives lived in GPE . In the lawyer \u2019s opinion , the first applicant \u2019s expulsion would destroy his family life .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the appeal , upholding the first applicant \u2019s conviction . On the alleged disruption of the first applicant \u2019s family life , ORG pronounced as follows :","\u201c The representative \u2019s argument to the effect that , in the light of PERSON family situation , ORG had wrongly ordered his administrative expulsion from GPE can not be taken into account as paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of LAW provides for mandatory expulsion of the offender and is not an alternative to the main penalty which may take the form of either detention or a fine . \u201d","On DATE the first applicant paid the fine .","On DATE the first applicant was issued with a DATE residence permit that was valid until DATE .","On DATE the NORP ORG notified the NORP division of ORG that the first applicant had been diagnosed with HIV .","On DATE ORG revoked the first applicant \u2019s residence permit in accordance with section CARDINAL ) of LAW , which provided for the revocation of the residence permits of HIV - positive foreign nationals . The first applicant was informed of that decision on DATE and ordered to leave GPE within DATE .","Counsel for the first applicant challenged the decision before a court , claiming that it amounted to a disproportionate interference with the first applicant \u2019s family life and also put the first applicant \u2019s life at risk .","On DATE the ORG set aside the decision of DATE , observing that the first applicant had strong family ties in GPE and could receive medical treatment there with the assistance and under the supervision of his family . However , ORG declared itself incompetent to order the reinstatement of the residence permit .","On DATE ORG of GPE heard an appeal against ORG judgment . It endorsed its reasons for setting aside the decision of DATE and noted that the following logical step would be to reinstate the first applicant \u2019s residence permit . It ordered ORG to proceed accordingly .","On DATE ORG complied with the judgment and reinstated the first applicant \u2019s residence permit .","On DATE issued a new decision to revoke the permit , referring to ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW , which provided for the revocation of residence permits of foreign nationals who were liable to be expelled .","On DATE ORG issued a decision on the undesirability of the first applicant \u2019s presence in GPE ( the \u201c exclusion order \u201d ) which read in its entirety as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . On the basis of the materials received from the NORP division of ORG , and in accordance with section CARDINAL of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act , to declare undesirable the presence in GPE of the NORP national Mr PERSON ...","To notify the decision to the officers and employees of the drug control authorities ... \u201d","Counsel for the first applicant challenged the exclusion order in court , claiming that it would disrupt the first applicant \u2019s family life .","On DATE the ORG found for the first applicant as follows :","\u201c The grounds for issuing the said decision were the following : use of drugs by the claimant , an offence of which he had been found guilty under LAW by ORG judgment of DATE and fined RUB CARDINAL , and for which his administrative expulsion had been ordered ; the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings on CARDINAL DATE on non - exonerating grounds in connection with his active repentance ; and his repeated convictions in administrative proceedings for breaches of public order .","However , in the court \u2019s view , these elements are not sufficient to reach the conclusion that PERSON , who has lived in GPE for a long time and who has stable family connections and can undergo treatment under his family \u2019s supervision , represents a real threat to national security , public order and health .","In these circumstances , taking into account the provisions of LAW ... according to which the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are directly operative and determine the essence , meaning and implementation of laws ... and may be restricted only to the extent necessary for the protection of the foundations of the constitutional system , morality , health , the rights and lawful interests of other people , national defence and security , the court considers that the said decision is unlawful and must be quashed . \u201d","On an appeal by ORG , ORG of GPE quashed , on DATE , ORG judgment and rejected the first applicant \u2019s challenge to the exclusion order , finding as follows :","\u201c It was established by ORG and not disputed by the claimant that PERSON PERSON was a drug user , that he had previously breached the criminal law and that he had been repeatedly charged with administrative offences in the period from DATE to DATE .","Those elements , taken cumulatively , indicate that , while living in GPE , PERSON does not respect the applicable laws and lives an immoral lifestyle which \u2013 undoubtedly DATE is an imminent threat to public order and to the health and morals of NORP citizens .","The [ ORG ] considers that his stable family connections in GPE may not be a bar to deciding on the undesirability of his presence in GPE because the law provides that such a decision may be taken against a specific individual not as a punitive measure but as a means of upholding public order and if it pursues , as stated above , the aim of safeguarding the health and morals of the NORP population . \u201d","In their submissions to ORG , the Government specified that the first applicant \u2019s previous administrative convictions , referred to in ORG decision , had been in respect of the following offences :","( a ) NORP non - medical use of heroin on DATE ;","( b ) minor disorderly acts on DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ;","( c ) drunkenness in a public place on DATE ;","( d ) failure to have his residence registered on DATE ; and","( e ) NORP \u201c non - compliance with existing procedure \u201d on DATE .","After ORG judgment dated DATE , the first applicant was found guilty of the following administrative offences :","( a ) breach of public order , public drunkenness and refusal to obey a police officer , all committed on DATE ;","( b ) CARDINAL cases of public drunkenness and a breach of public order on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ;","( c ) breach of public order on DATE , for which the first applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL - days\u2019 detention ; and","( d ) CARDINAL driving offences on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","According to the ORG , the first applicant \u2019s current whereabouts are not known ; he does not live at home . Nor is there any information showing that either the expulsion or the exclusion order has been executed ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153926","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF TODIREASA v. ROMANIA (No. 2)","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","On DATE the applicant , an administrator in a small commercial company , started serving a DATE prison sentence for fraud and tax evasion .","From DATE to DATE , when he was conditionally released , the applicant was detained in GPE , GPE , GPE , PERSON , and ORG .","According to the applicant , the detention conditions in PERSON , GPE , GPE , PERSON , and ORG amounted to physical and psychological torture . His detailed description of the conditions , common to all those prisons , is set out below :","\u2013 overcrowding : in FAC , he was briefly held from CARDINAL DATE in the old detention block in a cell measuring QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL other prisoners ; in FAC , in a cell measuring QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL other prisoners ; in FAC , in a cell measuring QUANTITY m with CARDINAL other prisoners ; and in FAC , in a cell measuring CARDINAL sq . m with CARDINAL other prisoners ;","\u2013 inadequate heating in DATE and inadequate insulation of the windows . In the prisons of GPE and PERSON there were no glass panes in the toilet window . In addition , in FAC the toilet had no door . The applicant alleged that he contracted rheumatic fever and skin lesions on his hands owing to the cold he had endured ;","\u2013 defective sanitary installations \/ no proper bathrooms : the cells were usually provided with an area where CARDINAL sinks , a shower and a toilet were installed . In GPE and ORG there was no shower , he had to wash in the sink or carry water and wash himself in the toilet if he wanted privacy . Hot water was provided twice a week for a period of TIME , in which there was not always time for everyone to wash ;","\u2013 presence of bed bugs and other parasites : in PERSON and ORG he could not sleep at TIME because of bed bugs falling on him from the upper bed . No disinfection was ever carried out by the prison authorities and in PERSON and ORG the detainees were not even allowed to bring in their own disinfectants from outside ;","\u2013 the prisons had no place specially designed for eating . He was forced to eat in the cells , most of which did not have the requisite furniture \u2013 there were no chairs or tables , and the distance between the bunk beds was such that he could not sit up straight on his bed ;","\u2013 insufficient daylight in the cells and electricity provided only for TIME during DATE and evening , so that he was forced to read and write in the dark most of the time ;","\u2013 dirty and worn - out mattresses and sheets ;","\u2013 very poor quality food ;","\u2013 in Vaslui Prison there was so much dampness that there was always water on the floors .","In addition , the applicant alleged that the inhuman conditions of his detention had been aggravated by his constant and unnecessary transfers between prisons and between various cells in the same prison . He also alleged that on numerous occasions he had had to share his cell with mentally ill detainees who sometimes acted strangely , terrifying him or making his life unbearable .","The Government submitted that all of the prisons mentioned by the applicant had adequate natural and electric lighting and ventilation , and that the windows had never been covered by spare beds . All of the prisons had a central heating system providing adequate heating in DATE . All of the cells in which the applicant had been held had had the requisite furniture .","The specific details submitted by the Government with respect to the prisons in question are set out below .","NORP The applicant was held in the old detention block of FAC until DATE in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY . m and accommodated CARDINAL prisoners ( QUANTITY . m of personal space ) .","There were no insect infestations in the prison in DATE .","The applicant was held in FAC for DATE and DATE , from CARDINAL DATE to DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . During those periods he was placed in CARDINAL different cells measuring from QUANTITY . m to QUANTITY m , which he shared with CARDINAL and CARDINAL other prisoners respectively ( QUANTITY . m to QUANTITY . m of personal space ) .","The cells had their own bathroom containing CARDINAL toilet cabins and a sink . Cold water was available permanently . Inmates had access to the common shower area twice per week .","The block occupied by the applicant during the second period in which he stayed in that prison had been renovated in DATE . Hence , the cells had been provided with showers , and hot water was available DATE for TIME . Television sets had also been installed in the cells . A self - service canteen was created where prisoners could eat their meals in proper conditions .","As regards the presence of insects , the problem was known by the prison administration who explained that it had been caused by the high number of prisoners and their failure to maintain adequate hygiene . Disinfection operations were conducted at least twice per year , within the limits of the budget .","The Government submitted CARDINAL statements written and signed by the applicant on DATE and DATE , in which he had declared that he was satisfied with the conditions of detention in the recently renovated block of FAC .","The applicant was held in FAC for DATE , from DATE to DATE . During that period he was placed in CARDINAL different cells measuring approximately QUANTITY . m , which accommodated CARDINAL prisoners ( CARDINAL sq . m of personal space ) .","The cells had their own bathrooms with a toilet and shower . LOC water , which was also used for drinking , was available DATE from TIME , TIME and TIME had access to hot showers twice per week for TIME , depending on the number of prisoners and the heating capacity of the central heating system .","Cleaning products were provided DATE within the limits of the budget . The mattresses were renewed in DATE .","Food was usually provided in accordance with the regulations but budgetary limitations meant that certain products were sometimes missing .","The applicant was held in FAC for DATE , from DATE to DATE .","NORP The applicant was placed in a cell measuring QUANTITY m together with CARDINAL other prisoners ( QUANTITY . m of personal space ) . The cell had CARDINAL rows of bunk beds DATE places .","Access to hot showers was possible twice per week . The provision of personal hygiene products was sometimes reduced for budgetary reasons . Heating and food were provided in accordance with the legal norms . Prisoners were served their meals in their cells .","The applicant \u2019s cell had CARDINAL television sets on which prisoners could watch programmes during certain time slots .","NORP The prison administration ensured the ORG access to a DATE walk and sports activities .","General disinfection operations were conducted CARDINAL times in the course of DATE and twice in DATE . The Government submitted that the prison had not allocated any funding for disinfectants in the budget for DATE and had thus had to attract outside sponsorship to cover that cost .","The applicant was detained in ORG for DATE and DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . During that period he was placed in CARDINAL different cells measuring QUANTITY m , which he shared with CARDINAL other prisoners ( personal space ranging from QUANTITY . m to CARDINAL sq . m ) .","Renovated cells were \u201c put in use \u201d on CARDINAL DATE and new mattresses , pillows and sheets were distributed on DATE . The cells were equipped with the requisite furniture and a television set . They also had a bathroom with a toilet , a shower , a sink and a window . LOC water was available permanently and hot water twice per week for TIME .","Hygiene products were distributed DATE , but the statutory quantities could not be respected due to budgetary limitations . In DATE prisoners were given washing powder CARDINAL times , soap and toilet paper CARDINAL times and chlorine CARDINAL times .","Food was prepared in accordance with the legal standards , in a fully renovated area . Prisoners were served their meals in their cells .","No disinfection was necessary in the applicant \u2019s cell during the time he spent in FAC .","The applicant alleged that while in detention he had developed various diseases as a result of the poor conditions in which he had been held . He alleged that the prison doctors had not provided him with adequate medical treatment and that all of the prisons had lacked medicines . More specifically , the prison infirmary had been open DATE ; whenever he had had a cold , an infection or even for the rheumatic fever he contracted in prison , he had usually been given only aspirin , as other medicines had never been available at the prison infirmary . In addition , he had suffered from toothache and other associated aches and pains and , despite repeatedly asking , he had never been taken to a dentist or given any painkillers , even when he finally developed a tooth infection and suffered pain for DATE .","On DATE the applicant was examined at FAC infirmary and was diagnosed with lumbago . He received CARDINAL tube of Diclofenac cream .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG and was diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the hands , chronic tetany ( a neurological syndrome consisting of painful muscular spasms and cramps ) and lower back pain . He was released with the recommendation to avoid effort , exposure to cold and dampness , and was prescribed symptomatic medication . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant received a total of CARDINAL anti - inflammatory tablets .","With respect to the dental care available to the applicant , the ORG submitted that he had been examined and diagnosed , and had undergone treatment such as extractions , fillings and dental pulp extirpations on numerous occasions . On all those occasions he had also received appropriate treatment with antibiotics and pain killers .","Lastly , the ORG submitted that no complaints concerning any alleged lack of adequate medical treatment had ever been lodged by the applicant during his detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174626","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BIGASHEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","The applicant is a retired person and a World War II veteran with a category CARDINAL disability .","He is the owner of CARDINAL of a house with outbuildings and an adjacent plot of land located in the vicinity of a public highway in GPE . His wife lived there with him from DATE until her death in DATE . They cultivated their garden to grow their own fruit and vegetables .","DATE the municipal authorities repaired the highway and raised the level of the road surface .","Since the completion of the repair works the applicant \u2019s house and plot of land have been submerged by melted snow and groundwater DATE . The house has been seriously damaged and , according to the applicant , is no longer habitable .","In DATE the applicant brought proceedings against the municipal authorities and the municipal company that had repaired the road . He claimed that a drainage pipe had been installed in breach of technical requirements and in the absence of any specific project documentation . The authorities had not properly supervised or validated the works carried out , despite numerous technical shortcomings . This had resulted in his house being inundated by melted snow and groundwater in DATE . Since then it had been regularly flooded . The applicant claimed compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage he had sustained as a result of the flooding . He also asked ORG ( \u201c the NORP District Court \u201d ) to order the municipal authorities to develop specific project documentation for the installation of a new drainage pipe and carry out the necessary repairs to the road .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s claims . It established that DATE the municipal authorities had carried out repair works to the public highway in the vicinity of the applicant \u2019s house and had installed a drainage pipe . Regarding the flooding of the applicant \u2019s house in DATE , the court held that he had not proved the extent of the damage and that \u201c no casual connection had been established between the actions of the municipal authorities and the damage \u201d . Accordingly , there were no grounds to award the applicant compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage . The court also noted that according to an expert report issued in DATE :","\u201c ... the most probable cause of the inundation of the applicant \u2019s house in DATE was its position below the level of the road , lack of preparatory and protective engineering measures , road construction in the absence of project documentation ... \u201d","ORG concluded that the flooding resulted from a malfunctioning drainage pipe located under the road surface . The authorities were therefore under an obligation to arrange for works to be carried out related to the collection of wastewater from the road and the area near the applicant \u2019s house .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed the part of the judgment of DATE refusing to award the applicant compensation for pecuniary damage and adopted a new decision to that effect . It held that the case material confirmed that since DATE the applicant \u2019s house had been regularly inundated by surface water coming from the road , which had not been properly maintained by the town administration . As a result , his property had been damaged . ORG awarded the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation for the pecuniary damage sustained as a result of his house being flooded . It upheld the remainder of the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the bailiffs\u2019 service initiated enforcement proceedings . On an unspecified date the town administration engaged the services of the municipal highway service to unclog the drainage pipe . According to the certificate of acceptance , the highway service finished the works in DATE .","On DATE the bailiffs\u2019 service terminated the enforcement proceedings . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s house and plot of land were again flooded . He sued the municipal authorities , claiming that his home and property had been flooded because the town administration had not complied with its obligation to install a waste water collection system for the road . He also claimed compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) terminated the proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s claim regarding the municipal authorities\u2019 obligation to repair the road , since it had already been examined and decided by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG examined the remainder of the applicant \u2019s claims . It established that since DATE the applicant \u2019s house had been regularly flooded because the town administration had not carried out the necessary repairs to the road . It further established that the town administration had not enforced the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE and as a result the applicant \u2019s house had been regularly flooded since its adoption . Having regard to the above , the court concluded that the flooding of the house in DATE had been the fault of the town administration , which had not properly maintained the road . The court awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in compensation for pecuniary damage and dismissed his claim in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","In DATE the applicant brought a new set of proceedings against the municipal authorities . He submitted that his house had been regularly flooded because of the failure of the local authorities to install a waste water collection system next to his house . The flooding had continued after the enforcement of the judgment of DATE . As a result of regular flooding his house had been almost destroyed , the living conditions did not conform to the established sanitary standards and the air inside and around the house was permanently damp . The applicant also claimed compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .","ORG ordered an expert construction examination in the applicant \u2019s case . According to the expert report dated DATE , which relied on FAC pertaining to roads and urban development ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) :","\u201c ... the installation of a drainage system ordered by the judgment of DATE ... has not been carried out ... [ the applicant \u2019s ] house has been flooded since DATE [ up to the date ] of examination of [ his ] case in court . The waste water is collecting in [ CARDINAL neighbouring ] streets , including the applicant \u2019s . The road next to the applicant \u2019s house is essentially horizontal and the diversion of [ melted snow ] ... has not been technically finalised ( the diameter of the pipe has not been technically justified , its route and gradient not calculated ) ... The water collection system which existed previously has been modified due to the unauthorised elevation of parts of the road and its surface and the newly constructed road ... \u201d","In the expert \u2019s opinion , in order to protect the applicant \u2019s house from DATE flooding it was necessary to carry out a land survey , draft a plan of the project , make the necessary calculations and perform repairs .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s claims . It held that it was competent to do so in so far as they concerned the flooding of his house which occurred after enforcement of the judgment of DATE .","NORP The court allowed the applicant \u2019s claims in part . It established , in particular , that after enforcement in DATE of the judgment of DATE the applicant \u2019s house had been regularly flooded as a result of the authorities\u2019 failure to comply with their obligation to properly maintain the applicant \u2019s street and the road near his house . The court ordered the municipal authorities to commission a project with a specialist firm for the construction of a drainage pipe on the part of the road adjacent to the applicant \u2019s house , and to carry out construction works in accordance with that project by DATE . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s claims in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage as there was \u201c no causal link between the action or inaction of [ the authorities ] and the damage sustained [ by the applicant ] \u201d .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that the applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision .","On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution .","On DATE the bailiffs\u2019 service instituted enforcement proceedings .","On DATE , after CARDINAL formal demands under the writ of execution and in the absence of any action on the part of the town administration , the bailiffs\u2019 service found it liable for the administrative offence of non - compliance with a writ of execution , and issued a fine of RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s house was again flooded .","On DATE and DATE the town administration signed CARDINAL municipal contracts under the terms of which it engaged CARDINAL companies to perform road repairs and anti - flood works on the part of the road adjacent to the applicant \u2019s house . On CARDINAL and DATE respectively the works were completed .","On DATE the bailiff terminated the enforcement proceedings following an on - site inspection and determined that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had been fully enforced .","The applicant appealed against that decision , complaining that the judgment in question had not been fully enforced .","On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal , finding that the judgment had been fully enforced .","On DATE ORG quashed that decision and adopted a new decision allowing the applicant \u2019s complaint regarding the bailiff \u2019s decision to terminate the proceedings . It held , in particular , that that decision had been unlawful and ordered the bailiffs\u2019 service to reopen the enforcement proceedings . On DATE the chief bailiff overturned the decision to terminate the enforcement proceedings in the applicant \u2019s case .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s claim concerning the failure of the town administration to enforce the judgment of DATE within a reasonable time . The applicant claimed RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of nonpecuniary damage . The court acknowledged that he had undeniably sustained non - pecuniary damage and awarded him RUB CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . It also noted that the necessary repairs had been carried out in DATE and that the applicant \u2019s representative , PERSON , had stated in the proceedings that the flooding of the house had stopped .","On DATE Mr PERSON acknowledged in writing that the judgment had been enforced . On DATE the bailiff terminated the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( \u201c the Commission \u201d ) attached to the LOC administration to have his house declared unfit for habitation on account of the damage caused by regular flooding .","On DATE the Commission held that over DATE the applicant \u2019s house had lost a number of its features . However , it was still possible to recover them by carrying out structural repairs .","On DATE the head of the LOC administration approved those conclusions and held that the applicant \u2019s house was in need of structural repairs , that it was possible to carry them out and that they should be carried out by the owner .","NORP On DATE ORG dismissed a complaint by the applicant regarding the ORG \u2019s decision . On an unspecified date ORG upheld that decision on appeal .","On DATE the applicant and his wife applied to the municipal authorities to be placed on the municipal housing list . It appears that up to the date of examination of his case by the ORG the applicant has not been provided with any accommodation ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157344","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF JAVOR AND JAVOROV\u00c1 v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants were spouses born in DATE and DATE respectively . In DATE the first applicant died , following which the second applicant expressed the wish to continue the application both in her own name and in the name of her late husband . The second applicant lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with ORG alleging that an individual , A. , had obtained an amount of money from them in return for the promise of arranging for the renovation of the flat in which they lived , that she had failed to keep that promise , and that she had not even been in the possession of the appropriate business licence for so doing . They considered that the criminal offence of fraud could have been committed in that connection , alleged that they had suffered the equivalent of CARDINAL euros worth of damage , and submitted that ORG had refused to compensate them .","On DATE the second applicant was questioned by an investigator . According to the transcript of the questioning , she inter alia referred to LAW . , as applicable at the relevant time \u2013 \u201c the DATE ORG \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , submitted that she wished to join the proceedings as a civil party claiming damages , and proposed that the amount of the compensation be determined by a sworn expert .","On DATE a criminal investigation was opened into the suspicion of the offence of fraud having been committed by CARDINAL or more persons unknown in connection with the events mentioned above .","On DATE the investigator appointed a sworn expert to establish the value of the pecuniary damage allegedly sustained by the applicants . The expert filed his report on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE was charged but the charges were quashed by ORG ( \u201c the PPS \u201d ) on DATE . The matter was thus remitted to the investigation stage .","Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG of the PPS had informed the applicants that unjustified delay had been established in the proceedings , that it was due to the existing caseload and the staffing situation , and that the investigator \u2019s attention had been brought to the need to accelerate the proceedings .","NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of the PPS responded to the ORG repeated complaint by accepting that there had been unjustified delay in the proceedings , which had been repeatedly indicated to the investigator . However , except for flagging up the delays to the investigator , notifying the investigator \u2019s superior , and changing the investigator , the ORG had no means of ensuring acceleration of the proceedings .","On DATE ORG of the PPS responded to a further complaint from the applicants by again accepting that the investigation was in general vitiated by significant delays . This had repeatedly been indicated to the investigator \u2019s superior , but had not produced the expected improvement . The case had not been reassigned to another investigator because this did not appear to be efficient in view of the staff shortage . However , the investigator had again been reminded of the delays and if no improvement was to be seen , a new investigator would be appointed .","On DATE the investigator decided to terminate the proceedings . Referring to evidence from the second applicant , CARDINAL witnesses and the expert , as well as to documentary evidence , he concluded that there was no criminal case to answer . This decision was upheld by ORG of the PPS on DATE , following the applicants\u2019 interlocutory appeal . No further appeal was available .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicants had lodged a complaint under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) with ORG . They challenged the length of the proceedings on their third - party claim for damages attached to the above criminal proceedings and alleged a violation of the reasonable - time requirement under LAW and its constitutional equivalent .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible . As to the facts , it observed that the second applicant had attached their third - party claim for damages to the proceedings orally in the interview of DATE . As to the law , ORG referred to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( no . MONEY , DATE ) and acknowledged that an aggrieved party ( obe\u0165 ) of a criminal offence who attached a third - party claim for damages ( adh\u00e9zny n\u00e1rok ) to the criminal proceedings was entitled to the guarantees of the civil limb of LAW . However , referring to unspecified practice of the ordinary courts and to the nature of things , ORG held that it was a condition for the aggrieved party to benefit from the guarantees in question to have made the claim against a specific person and that that person could be identified no earlier than when charges were brought against him or her . ORG further referred to its previous case - law on the subject and held specifically that the aggrieved party claiming damages in the criminal proceedings only benefited from the right to a hearing within a reasonable time under LAW after a charge had been brought against a specific person . In that regard , ORG noted that the charges against A. of DATE had been quashed on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Therefore , at the time of the constitutional complaint , the applicants had no longer benefited from the constitutional guarantees relied on .","The decision was served on CARDINAL DATE and no appeal lay against it ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144361","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF I.S. v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant married in DATE and had CARDINAL children . In DATE and DATE she suffered miscarriages and a stillbirth , which caused her a long lasting psychological trauma .","In DATE she became pregnant with twins after an extramarital affair . The natural father insisted on an abortion , as did the husband of the applicant . Both men threatened to leave her .","NORP In DATE the husband of the applicant moved out and threatened to stop paying maintenance for his CARDINAL sons and to the applicant . He put further pressure on her by threatening to break off all contact with his sons if she sued for maintenance . Instead , he offered to move back in with the applicant if she gave away the \u201c illegitimate \u201d children . The applicant \u2019s sister and her mother refused to support her . The applicant felt extremely guilty for having destroyed the family situation for her CARDINAL sons , yet she was determined not to have an abortion .","On DATE the twin sisters , PERSON , were born prematurely . The applicant and the newborn children had to remain in hospital , where until DATE the applicant cared for the children .","The applicant did not specify the identity of the natural father of the twins .","The applicant made initial contact with ORG during her pregnancy . She allegedly initially thought about having the twins placed in foster care , due to her difficult family and financial situation . ORG DATE according to the applicant \u2013 instead suggested adoption as the applicant herself or her husband would have to pay for the foster care .","DATE until DATE the applicant received psychological treatment on the advice of her gynaecologist . According to her psychoanalyst the applicant was depressed , had suicidal tendencies , and suffered from anxiety , panic attacks and extreme feelings of guilt as well as a sleeping disorder . The applicant felt overwhelmed by the situation and the decisions to be taken . The potential adoption was a topic of discussion during the treatment .","As the applicant could not take the newborn children home she consented to having them placed in provisional care with a view to later adoption . In this way she hoped to avoid too many changes of the children \u2019s primary carers . She was allegedly told that if placed in foster care the newborns would first be given to an emergency foster family for DATE before being handed over to a long - term foster family .","From CARDINAL DATE onwards a staff member from ORG advised the applicant to stop visiting the children if she really intended to give them up for adoption .","On CARDINAL DATE the children were handed over to the couple who later became their adoptive parents .","In DATE the applicant personally met the future adoptive parents of the twin sisters . The applicant was allegedly so upset that she burst into tears and had to cut the visit short .","On DATE it was legally acknowledged that the husband of the applicant was not the father of the twin sisters by judgment of ORG ( no . CARDINAL F CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The applicant began to work full time in order to support herself and her CARDINAL sons .","On DATE the applicant formally consented to the adoption of the children in a deed before the civil law notary , PERSON , in GPE . The declaration reads as follows :","\u201c I hereby give consent for my children , PERSON born CARDINAL in GPE , to be adopted by the married couple identified under no . [ ... ] on the list of ORG .","I declare this for the use of the competent family court . I am aware that this declaration can not be revoked .","I have been instructed by the civil law notary as to the legal consequences of the adoption , in particular the fact that all kinship of the children and their children to me and my relatives will cease as will all duties and rights that follow from kinship .","Although I do not know the names of the future parents of my children I trust that ORG has made a proper choice regarding the parents and respected the interests of the children .","In case the family court wishes to inform me about the beginning or the end of care , the beginning or the end of guardianship regarding my children or about the granting of adoption , I hereby empower ORG to receive that information for me . \u201d","As the identity of the natural father of the children remained unknown , he could not consent to or object to the adoption .","After the declaration of consent had been made , the applicant , the prospective adoptive parents and the twin infants met again in person . On DATE an oral agreement was reached between the prospective adoptive parents and the applicant at a meeting at ORG in the presence of a staff member . It was considered that the adoptive parents would send a short report together with photographs of the children to the applicant once DATE through ORG . Whether this agreement laid down any rules regarding regular meetings between the children and the applicant is disputed . A personal meeting in DATE was considered , but did not take place .","On DATE the future adoptive parents declared in a deed before a civil law notary that they wished to adopt the twin sisters PERSON","In DATE the District Administrator ( PERSON ) of GPE , ORG and Adoption gave an expert opinion on the development of the children in the care of the prospective adoptive parents .","On DATE the guardianship division of ORG ( proceedings no . CARDINAL XVI CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) held a hearing with the prospective adoptive parents in the presence of the twins . The record of the hearing reads :","\u201c It was debated how the children have been getting on in the family . Particular attention was paid to addressing anxieties resulting from the fact that the natural mother is obviously having enormous difficulties coping on a psychological level with the fact that she has given away her children . There are signs , given that a CARDINAL - open adoption was agreed on , which lead to the conclusion that the mother seeks contact with the twins . However , the arrangement involving the staff of ORG and the natural mother remains valid , namely , that photographs of the children are to be sent annually to the natural mother . The children will also be told early on that they were adopted . \u201d","On DATE ORG concluded the adoption of PERSON declared them the legitimate children of the adoptive parents . The family and the given names of the children were changed accordingly .","On DATE the applicant commenced proceedings before ORG in order to declare her consent to the adoption void . The court transferred the case to the competent ORG ( no . CARDINAL XVI CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The applicant argued that the adoption was void because the father of the child had not consented to the adoption . She further argued that at the time of giving her consent she had been either in a temporary or in a pathological state of mental disturbance , which had prevented the free exercise of her will . She had not been aware of what she had been doing . She argued DATE referring to medical evidence \u2013 that she had been suffering from an \u201c aggravated reactive form of depression with acute risk of suicide \u201d since DATE , when she had been traumatised by the stillbirth .","The guardian ad litem of the children argued that a revocation of the adoption would be against the best interests of the children , as since their birth they had been almost continuously in the care of the adoptive parents who had established a very good parental relationship with them .","NORP In reaction to the arguments of the guardian ad litem the applicant partly withdrew her application with regard to custody rights and made clear that her aim was no longer to integrate the children into her own family . She acknowledged that the children were well cared for and fully settled in the adoptive family . She underlined that her aim was to regain kinship in order to have a right to contact with the children . In her view her vulnerable situation at the time of the birth had been exploited by ORG ; she now felt that she had been unduly influenced to put the children up for adoption .","ORG procured a psychiatric opinion on whether the applicant had been temporarily legally incapable of acting at the time of consenting to the adoption . The expert contacted the applicant , her psychoanalyst at the time and her long - term gynaecologist . According to the psychiatric expert the applicant had been in a situation of extreme conflict from the time she had become aware of her pregnancy . This had aggravated the depression she was already suffering from due to the accidental stillbirth in DATE . He put the applicant \u2019s decision to put the twin sisters up for adoption down to her desire to \u201c get her husband back \u201d . He diagnosed a certain weakness in the applicant \u2019s personality and a dependency on male authority . However , he could not diagnose any past or present psychotic illnesses and therefore concluded that although she had been suffering from a deep inner conflict at the time of consenting to the adoption , the applicant had been legally capable of making a decision on her own .","On DATE the court heard the applicant , who explained how , in her view , ORG had unduly used her wish to see her children in DATE in order to pressurise her into signing the adoption declaration .","In a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . It acknowledged the situation of extreme conflict the applicant had been in at the time of consenting to the adoption and the psychological implications of that . It stated that solutions other than putting the children up for adoption might have been available to resolve the applicant \u2019s personal crisis . In line with the expert opinion , however , the court held that the applicant had still been capable of making decisions . Furthermore , the court stated that the applicant had no legal standing to rely on the lack of consent of the children \u2019s father to the adoption .","Since the applicant did not appeal against the decision , it became final .","On DATE the applicant filed proceedings ( no . CARDINAL F CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) for contact with the children and the right to receive information about them at ORG . She argued that she had been promised meetings with the children DATE and letters and photos of them . A meeting with the children in DATE had been scheduled according to the agreement , but did not take place because the responsible member of ORG was on extended leave . No other member of ORG had replaced the absent staff member . In DATE the applicant received photos of the children . When she mentioned that she was thinking about revoking her consent to the adoption , staff of ORG threatened to stop her contact with the children . A letter that the applicant wrote to the adoptive parents and handed over to ORG was returned with the remark that the applicant should seek psychological treatment . The applicant based her claim for contact on DATE and additionally on LAW ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) . Her claim for the right to receive information about the children was based on LAW .","On DATE the adoptive parents were heard . They opposed the claim of the applicant and asked for it to be dismissed . They referred to the legal basis of adoption under LAW , which only provided for anonymous adoption . According to the hearing record the adoptive parents declared that they still intended to inform the children about the adoption before they started primary school . They had planned to see the mother of the children together with the children in DATE . This meeting had been set up for the sole benefit of the applicant , as the children would not have benefited from it . They had had the intention of sending letters to the applicant with information about the children . Now , in view of the court proceedings , they felt insecure and preferred to wait for the court decisions .","In a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for contact with the children . According to the court LAW was not applicable to the applicant \u2019s case as she had lost her legal status as a parent as a result of the adoption . An analogous application of the LAW was , according to a decision of ORG of DATE ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , not possible . DATE of LAW was applicable , but would not grant contact rights to the applicant as she did not fulfil the legal requirements . The applicant could not be considered as a person who had cared for the children for an extended period of time . In fact , she had only cared for them for DATE . Even if the criteria of ORG in the above - mentioned decision \u2013 whether there was a social and family relationship \u2013 were applied , the applicant could not be granted contact , as she had not created a significant social and family relationship with the children . The time of pregnancy and DATE after the birth did not suffice . The Civil Code grants to the adoptive parents the sole right to establish , grant or deny contact with the children even in respect of the natural mother . Furthermore , the court argued that the children , who were DATE , might be overwhelmed by the fact that they had CARDINAL mothers .","On DATE the court also dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim in regard to the right to receive information about the children . LAW was not applicable , as the applicant was not a parent any more . Insofar as LAW might be construed more widely , it would not apply to the applicant as her case did not fall under the scope of LAW .","On DATE the applicant filed an appeal with ORG . She mainly complained that ORG had neither decided on DATE of LAW as a potential basis of her claim nor on whether a contractual agreement existed ; furthermore , her petition for an expert opinion on the children \u2019s best interests had been ignored . She further argued that the criteria of a \u201c long duration \u201d , when applied to parent - child relationships , had to be interpreted from the perspective of the child , whose concept of time differed from that of adults . The natural mother was always a \u201c relevant person \u201d in the sense of LAW , and this evaluation did not change even after the natural mother ceased to have legal responsibilities . Regarding the right to information , she argued that although she had consented to the adoption , she remained the natural mother and the constitutional protection of the family applied to her . Even the ORG had acknowledged that during pregnancy a psycho - social relationship between mother and the foetus was established ( judgment of DATE \u2013 CARDINAL BvL CARDINAL and CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Lastly , she complained about the length of the proceedings .","On DATE the applicant was granted legal aid .","On DATE ORG ( CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL UF CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decisions of ORG of DATE and DATE . CARDINAL hearings , CARDINAL on DATE and the other on DATE , had taken place . Regarding the length of the proceedings before the district court , ORG found that that court had dealt adequately with the complex case within DATE . Concerning the contact rights of the applicant , the court found that only LAW was applicable . Although the applicant was the children \u2019s natural mother , she did not belong to the circle of people who had lived in \u201c domestic community \u201d with the child for a long period of time . According to the court , only foster parents are covered by this terminology . Furthermore , in order to determine \u201c a long period of time \u201d one had to establish whether a child had come to accept that his or her \u201c relevant surroundings \u201d ( PERSON ) were with the individual in question . In the present case , the time of pregnancy was irrelevant , as an unborn child does not have a concept of its surroundings . LAW was in line with the constitutional protection of the family . The natural mother ceased to have contact or custody rights at the moment of adoption . The legal provisions regarding adoption were aimed at the undisturbed development of the child , and they served the best interests of the adopted child , who had to be fully integrated into the adoptive family ; the biological family became irrelevant in accordance with the law . Even if the criteria of the judgment of ORG of DATE regarding the natural father of a child born out of wedlock were applied , the natural mother would have to have lived with the children for a considerable time , which was not the case here . As the applicant knew , the right to contact on the basis of a contractual agreement could not be enforced by the family courts , as they were not empowered to regulate such matters . DATE LAW did not give grounds for a different solution .","Having considered the claim for the right to receive information about the children DATE of LAW , the court found that the applicant had ceased to be a parent at the moment of adoption . As the legal basis was unambiguous and the circle of people who had a right to such information was strictly limited to the parents , the court found no room for a different interpretation .","On DATE the applicant raised a constitutional complaint regarding the denial of her rights to receive information about and have contact with the twin sisters after their adoption .","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE , a panel of CARDINAL constitutional judges refused to admit the constitutional complaint .","The applicant also commenced proceedings in DATE concerning the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the twin sisters , in order for the children to be able to raise a constitutional complaint against the adoption decision of the guardianship division of ORG of DATE ( no . CARDINAL XVI CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . These proceedings are the issue of another complaint before this ORG ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The applicant divorced her husband and is now remarried . She had a child with her new husband in DATE .","By letter of DATE this ORG informed the applicant that on DATE the PERSON on a remedy against lengthy court proceedings and criminal investigations ( ORG I , DATE , page CARDINAL et seq . ) had come into force in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154174","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"BICHENOK v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158881","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BASENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);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);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was travelling on a tram and was approached by Mr PERSON and PERSON , ticket inspectors employed by the NORP municipal enterprise ( \u201c the transport company \u201d ) . As subsequently established by domestic authorities in the indictment and in the judgment convicting PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) , there was a disagreement between the applicant and the inspectors as to whether he had a valid ticket . They insisted that the applicant pay a fine for travelling without a ticket , while he insisted that he had broken no rules . The applicant was asked to get off the tram . It was then agreed that the applicant would accompany the inspectors to a tram depot to resolve the dispute . While they were on their way to the depot LOC kicked the applicant . In response the applicant sprayed the inspectors with tear gas from a can he had on him . PERSON then kicked the applicant in the left knee , causing a fracture . A struggle between the applicant and S. ensued . PERSON and PERSON then left the scene . The applicant could not stand up or walk following the knee fracture , he was helped to the nearby tram stop by the bystanders who called an ambulance for him . According to the applicant , he has been receiving treatment for his injury until DATE .","On DATE the applicant made a statement to the police describing the circumstances of the incident . In particular , he stated that on DATE of the incident he had been approached by CARDINAL ticket inspectors who questioned the validity of his ticket , suggesting that he appeared too old to be using a student ticket . While they insisted that he pay a fine he insisted his ticket was in order . He volunteered to go with them to a police station to resolve the dispute . In response they suggested that they go to the tram depot instead and he agreed . On the way to the depot he was kicked from behind . He turned round and sprayed the inspectors with tear gas , and was kicked in the knee . He stated that he did not know the names of the inspectors but could identify them by sight .","On DATE a police investigator of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) refused to institute criminal proceedings into the incident . The investigator noted that the ticket inspector on duty on the tram line in question at the relevant time was identified as S. He went on to note that S. could not be contacted for an interview since he was said to be on sick leave from work and was not found at his home address . The investigator also noted that the gravity of the applicant \u2019s injuries could only be evaluated after completion of the applicant \u2019s treatment .","On DATE a forensic medical expert diagnosed the applicant with a knee fracture and classified this as bodily injuries of medium gravity .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) quashed the decision of DATE and instituted criminal proceedings on suspicion of deliberate infliction of bodily injuries of medium gravity . On DATE ORG informed the applicant about this decision , also informing him that disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the investigator who made the decision of DATE . According to the applicant , he first learned about the decision of DATE from this letter from ORG .","On DATE another investigator of ORG commenced the investigation .","On DATE the investigator recognised the applicant as an aggrieved party in the criminal proceedings . On DATE the applicant was interviewed in this capacity .","On DATE the investigator sent a letter to the transport company enquiring whether PERSON had been working at the relevant time as a ticket inspector and asking the company to identify who PERSON had been working with on DATE of the incident . In DATE the company responded that S. had indeed been working as an inspector at the relevant time , that PERSON had accompanied him on the day of the incident , and that S. had been dismissed on DATE for absenteeism .","On DATE the applicant , in the course of a photo identification , identified S. as the person who had assaulted him .","According to the Government , on DATE the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrator .","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE , in the course of a photo identification , the applicant identified PERSON as the person who , together with PERSON , participated in the incident .","On DATE the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrator .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the investigation in his case was pending .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE to suspend the investigation , finding that possible perpetrators had in fact been identified .","On DATE the investigation was suspended for failure to identify the perpetrator .","On DATE the investigator resumed the investigation , initiated criminal proceedings against S. and PERSON , and joined the newly initiated proceedings with the existing case file .","On DATE the investigator charged S. with infliction of bodily injuries of medium gravity , committed in conspiracy with PERSON The investigator placed PERSON and PERSON on the list of wanted persons , and suspended the investigation as the whereabouts of the accused were unknown .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigator decided to resume the investigation , and on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively to suspend it again .","On DATE the investigation was resumed .","On DATE a face - to - face confrontation was conducted between PERSON and the applicant , and the applicant was interviewed separately . The applicant stated that PERSON had kicked him on the knee . While he was not certain that PERSON had assaulted him , he was assuming that it was PERSON who had kicked him in the back on DATE .","On DATE the investigator discontinued the criminal proceedings against PERSON for lack of corpus delicti in his actions . He relied on the testimony of PERSON , who denied assaulting the applicant , and the testimony of the applicant to the effect that it was PERSON and not PERSON who had assaulted him . On DATE he suspended the remaining part of the investigation for failure to identify the perpetrator .","According to the Government , on DATE CARDINAL S. was arrested . On DATE the investigation was resumed and the charges were announced to S.","On DATE a face - to - face confrontation was conducted between S. as the accused and the applicant as the aggrieved party .","On DATE the investigator charged S. with infliction of bodily injuries of medium gravity .","According to the Government , on an unspecified date , upon completion of the pre - trial investigation in DATE \u2019s case , the applicant was offered an opportunity to study the case file but refused it . According to the applicant , he was not informed about the completion of the investigation or any of the subsequent developments in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG approved the bill of indictment indicting S. for infliction of bodily injuries of medium gravity .","On DATE ORG of Kyiv ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) held a preliminary hearing in LOC \u2019s case , in which PERSON , his lawyer and a prosecutor participated . The record of the hearing states that the applicant was not present at the hearing .","On DATE the trial court examined the case on the merits in the presence of S. , his lawyer and the prosecutor and in the absence of the applicant . The trial court , after obtaining favourable opinions from all parties present , ruled that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the applicant and witness PERSON who , the court stated , \u201c had been duly notified about the hearing \u201d . The court further ruled that , should their presence prove necessary , measures would be taken to ensure the applicant \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s appearance . In the course of the hearing the court heard a statement from LOC .. S. did not contest the charges and admitted his guilt . The court ruled that in view of S. \u2019s confession and admission of guilt there was no call to examine any other evidence .","On DATE the trial court convicted PERSON as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE with probation . In sentencing PERSON the court took into account that PERSON had admitted his guilt and expressed remorse , the fact that he had no prior convictions , was employed and had positive references from his then - current place of employment .","According to the information submitted by the ORG , the domestic case file in S. \u2019s case does not contain any copies of summonses or notices sent to the applicant in the course of examination of the case by the trial court or any documents indicating that such summonses or notices were sent .","On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Holosiyivskyy ORG of Kyiv , against the transport company , seeking damages for the unlawful actions of its employees .","On DATE the court rejected his claim on the ground that he had not proved that he had been injured by the employees of the defendant in the performance of their duties . The court noted that the applicant had failed to explain why the individuals identified by him had not yet been charged or convicted , and that the criminal case in connection with the incident was still under investigation .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .","On DATE ORG , acting as a court of cassation , upheld the decisions of DATE and DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157707","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF URB\u00c1N v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","The applicant lodged a compensation claim for medical negligence against a hospital on DATE .","The Pest Central District Court dismissed the action .","NORP On appeal , ORG upheld the firstinstance decision on CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant lodged a petition for review . The GPE upheld the decision on DATE . The judgment was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157961","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF LYUBUSHKIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);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 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant , who was then a police officer , was arrested on suspicion of extortion . On DATE FAC ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) remanded him in custody , finding as follows :","\u201c There is a reasonable suspicion in the present criminal case , supported by the enclosed documents : statements by B. [ the alleged victim of the extortion ] ; the crime scene report ; the report on the marking and examination of the banknotes ; the report on the search of and seizure of money from ORG [ a co - accused ] ; TIME of interviews with PERSON , the prime suspect PERSON , and K , a witness . When deciding on the remand matter , the court is not required to evaluate whether the existing evidence is sufficient for a finding of guilt .","[ The applicant ] , a police officer , is suspected of having masterminded and supervised the commission of a serious crime by a criminal group which included other police officers . It follows from the statements by PERSON and PERSON that , after they had complained to the police about extortion , they continued to receive threats of physical violence from [ the applicant ] , PERSON . and PERSON In these circumstances , [ the applicant ] must be remanded in custody because a more lenient restrictive measure can not be imposed . \u201d","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) upheld the decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL on appeal .","On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with organising and facilitating prostitution .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pretrial detention until DATE . The court noted as follows :","\u201c Regard being had to the submissions made by the parties , the case file , and the fact that , as a police officer , [ the applicant ] , if not in custody , might abscond , put pressure on victims and witnesses who identified him as a person who had committed a crime , or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice ... The judge does not consider that the restrictive measure imposed on [ the applicant ] can be replaced with a more lenient one ... \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE indicating as follows :","\u201c Having studied the case file and having listened to the parties to the proceedings , the court does not discern circumstances that would justify the replacement of the restrictive measure imposed on [ the applicant ] .","[ The applicant ] is charged with a serious offence . He has organised a criminal group and has been its leader . If not in custody , he can put pressure on the parties to the proceedings .","The above presumption as to the [ applicant \u2019s ] potential conduct is based on the information about the [ applicant \u2019s ] character and his modus operandi . \u201d","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , noting as follows :","\u201c ... [ The ] court takes into account the seriousness of the crime [ the applicant ] is charged with ... The court considers that , as an active police officer able to use his position , [ the ] applicant might put pressure on victims and witnesses who directly identified him as an offender , or otherwise interfere with the establishment of the truth . Furthermore , the [ applicant \u2019s ] assertion that he is suffering from a serious disease ... can not be taken into account by the court . No medical report has been submitted to show whether [ the applicant ] was fit or not for detention . \u201d","On DATE , ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE arguing as follows :","in particular that the criminal investigation is being conducted into a group of persons and that [ the applicant ] is a police officer , the court concludes that he , if not in custody , might abscond , continue criminal activities , put psychological or physical pressure on the victim or witnesses , destroy evidence or , otherwise interfere with the administration of justice . \u201d","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE , reiterating that the applicant might put pressure on victims and witnesses . On DATE ORG upheld this decision on appeal , but only extending the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pretrial detention until DATE . The court reiterated its previous reasoning that the applicant might put pressure on victims and witnesses .","On DATE the applicant was charged with organisation of a criminal group , accepting bribes , and abuse of position . It appears that the charges of extortion and of organising and facilitating prostitution were dropped .","On DATE the prosecution submitted the case against the applicant and CARDINAL co - defendants to ORG for trial .","Following a request from the prosecution , on DATE ORG allowed the return of the case file to the prosecutor on the grounds that the defendants had not been able to study it . The court dismissed the GPE request to release them on bail finding that \u201c the circumstances underlying their remand in custody [ were ] still present \u201d and extended their detention until DATE . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decision of DATE on appeal . In response to the applicant \u2019s argument that the maximum statutory period of pre - trial detention had expired and he should therefore be released , the court noted that , pursuant to the applicable rules of criminal procedure , the applicant could be detained for DATE pending investigation , owing to the seriousness of the charges against him .","On an unspecified date the prosecutor forwarded the case file to the court and on DATE ORG again granted the prosecutor \u2019s request and returned the case file to the prosecution for DATE on the grounds that the defendants had not studied the case file in its entirety . It also extended the applicant \u2019s and his co - defendants\u2019 detention until DATE , referring to the earlier particularities justifying the GPE remand in custody and to the fact that the case involved anonymous witnesses and victims . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG received the case file and on DATE , for a third time , it decided to return the case to the prosecutor at his request , reiterating its earlier reasoning . The court extended the GPE detention until DATE , holding as follows :","\u201c Since the period of detention of [ the applicant ] , PERSON and PERSON . ends on DATE , this period must be extended by DATE so as to remedy a violation of the rights of the defence which resulted from the impossibility for defendants and counsel to study the case - file , as well as to allow the investigator to decide subsequently on the restrictive measure in respect of those individuals . \u201d","On DATE the case was re - submitted for trial .","On DATE ORG extended the defendants\u2019 detention until DATE . The court reasoned as follows :","\u201c Having discussed with the parties the issue of the [ defendants\u2019 ] detention , regard being had to the seriousness of the charges against them , the court considers that , if not in custody , the defendants might influence the victims and witnesses , abscond or reoffend . It considers it necessary to extend the earlier imposed detention ... \u201d","On DATE ORG fixed the trial date for DATE and noted that the detention earlier imposed on the defendants should remain unchanged . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE reiterating , in substance , its earlier reasoning .","On DATE the jury delivered a not - guilty verdict in the applicant \u2019s case and on DATE ORG issued the relevant judgment and ordered the applicant \u2019s immediate release .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal .","On an unspecified date the applicant brought an action for compensation for pecuniary damage resulting from the criminal prosecution . The applicant \u2019s claims included : lost income , legal fees , his lawyer \u2019s travel expenses in connection with the appeal hearing in GPE , reimbursement of the cost of food , a television set and a refrigerator his family had sent to him while he had been in detention .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claims in part and awarded him MONEY ( RUB ) for legal fees and his lawyer \u2019s travel expenses and RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL for loss of income . The applicant did not appeal .","On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil claim seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage in connection with the criminal prosecution . In particular , he alleged that he had been detained pending criminal proceedings against him in the absence of relevant evidence and sufficient reasoning . The applicant claimed RUB CARDINAL in this respect .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s claims in part and awarded him RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The court noted , in particular , that an acquittal in the criminal proceedings had been a catalyst for the restoration of his good name and position before the trial ( \u0440\u0435\u0430\u0431\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0442\u0430\u0446\u0438\u044f , hereinafter \u201c rehabilitation \u201d )","\u201c ... \u2019s ] claims should be granted in part .","In the present case , the court takes into consideration that the decisions to detain [ the applicant ] pending trial were authorised by court orders which were subject to review by superior courts which examined their lawfulness and the underlying reasons and upheld [ said decisions ] on appeal . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172132","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SAYENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181609","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF MIROVNI IN\u0160TITUT v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations;Fair hearing;Public hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant institute is a private institute that carries out research in the field of social sciences . Its registered office is in GPE .","NORP In DATE , ORG , ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) made CARDINAL calls for tenders for the purpose of making awards for scientific research projects ; CARDINAL call was directed at private entities and the other at public research organisations . ORG announced that in DATE it would finance CARDINAL research hours , which were estimated to amount to CARDINAL NORP tolars ( SIT \u2013 MONEY ( ORG ) ) . The research projects were to be evaluated under LAW . The applicant institute submitted a tender for research in the field of social sciences .","Subsequently , the ORG seems to have joined the proceedings for the CARDINAL tenders , but no formal decision regarding the joinder appears to have been made . On DATE the Ministry decided that the applicant institute would not be awarded any funding .","The applicant institute applied to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , seeking the setting aside of the ORG \u2019s decision . The action was granted by a decision of CARDINAL DATE and the case was remitted to ORG for reconsideration .","On DATE the applicant institute lodged another action before ORG on account of the ORG \u2019s failure to adopt a decision within the prescribed time - limit .","On DATE the Ministry again decided that the applicant institute would not be awarded any funding . It explained that the institute \u2019s research programme had been ranked fifth among the research programmes in the field of political sciences and that CARDINAL programmes in that group would receive funding . ORG pointed out that it was presumed that no conflict of interests existed , even when evaluators worked in the same institution whose tenders they were evaluating and that this was a common NORP practice . It was further noted that evaluators had signed a declaration of confidentiality and an undertaking to withdraw in the event that a conflict of interests was found .","NORP In order to reflect the fact that the Ministry had adopted the decision of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant institute supplemented its action of DATE , which it had originally lodged on account of the ORG \u2019s failure to adopt a decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , with a request that the ORG \u2019s decision be set aside . It further urged ORG to decide that it would be awarded funding . It complained that ORG had joined the proceedings that had initially been intended for consideration of tenders from private research organisations to the proceedings for consideration of tenders from public research organisations , without issuing a formal decision to that effect . It also complained of errors in the evaluation of the competing programmes , because not all of the criteria specified in the Rules on Quality Assessment and Funding of the Public Research Organisation Programme had been taken into account . It argued , inter alia , that the evaluation procedure had been unfair because some of the evaluators had been biased , as they had been evaluating research programmes which were competing with the very programmes in which they themselves participated . This provoked a distortion of the results of the procedure , as shown by the fact that only those research programmes in which the evaluators were leaders or members of research teams obtained financing . The applicant institute expressly requested a hearing at which witnesses could be heard with regard to the alleged procedural errors in the evaluation of the programmes . Additionally , it submitted a letter of DATE which CARDINAL of the witnesses , PERSON , had sent to the Minister of Education , ORG and several other addressees . In the letter PERSON notified them of problems he had detected in the tender proceedings in which he had participated as an evaluator .","After the parties had exchanged a number of written submissions , ORG , without holding a hearing , dismissed the action . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE the court gave an extensive account of the proceedings before ORG and the submissions of both parties . The reasons for the decision were given on a single page . Invoking section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Zakon o upravnem sporu \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG chiefly referred to the submissions of ORG . It considered , among other things , that ORG had not acted unlawfully in joining the proceedings . It accepted the ORG \u2019s submission that its decision had been dictated by the nature of the research and infrastructural programmes , taking into account the guidelines of ORG . The court also pointed out that the procedural rules for the evaluation of research programmes adopted by ORG clearly defined the stages of the evaluation procedure , the participants in it and their tasks . Regarding the alleged conflict of interests , the court stated that it agreed with ORG as to why no such conflict existed and cited section PERSON ) of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As to the alleged errors in the evaluation of the competing programmes , the court merely disagreed with the applicant institute that not all criteria had been taken into account and again cited section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG .","No reasons were given for not holding a hearing . None of the evidence relied on by the applicant institute in their appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was acknowledged or referred to in the court \u2019s reasoning .","On DATE the applicant institute lodged an appeal on points of law . It complained that ORG had not held a hearing even though the facts of the case had been contested and the applicant institute had explicitly requested a hearing at which witnesses could be heard . It also argued that ORG had failed to address its allegations that errors had been made in the evaluation procedure , and complained that insufficient reasoning had been given for the decision .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal as inadmissible . No reasons were given in its decision on the merits of the applicant institute \u2019s complaints .","The applicant institute then lodged a constitutional complaint , arguing , among other things , that the decisions of the ORG and the domestic court had been arbitrary and that the courts had failed to address its allegations that errors had been made in the evaluation procedure . It reiterated that the witnesses it had proposed had not been heard and that no hearing had been held .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant institute \u2019s complaint , finding that it did not concern an important constitutional question or entail a violation of human rights with serious consequences for the applicant institute ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158279","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PENTIK\u00c4INEN v. FINLAND","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus K\u016bris;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a photographer and journalist who is employed by the DATE magazine ORG . On DATE he was sent by his employer to take photographs of the demonstration which was being held in protest against the on - going LOC meeting ( ORG ) in GPE . The demonstration was an exceptionally large one in the NORP context and all media followed it closely . The applicant was to conduct an extensive report on the demonstration for the paper version of the magazine and also to publish it online immediately , once the demonstration had ended .","\u2019 submissions , including the DVD material covering the Smash ASEM event ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as well as the GPE ORG judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , before the demonstration took place , the NORP ORG made an assessment of the risk levels inherent in the upcoming Smash ORG demonstration and alerted ORG that the demonstration would be a hostile one and would not aim to highlight any clear political message . At that time ORG did not manage , despite all efforts , to establish contact with the organisers of the demonstration . The police based their subsequent actions , inter alia , on these grounds .","A similar risk assessment had also been made in the context of CARDINAL earlier demonstrations which had taken place in GPE during DATE , both of which had turned violent . The first one was the EuroMayDay demonstration of DATE , when a march of CARDINAL persons evolved into a riot with projectiles being thrown and property damaged . Consequently , the GPE ORG found CARDINAL persons guilty of violent rioting and resisting the police by violence and imposed suspended prison sentences . A similar incident took place during the Helsinki Night of Arts on DATE which also resulted in the destruction of property and violence and led to the detention of QUANTITY persons .","On DATE a so - called Dongzhou Coalition notified the police of the Smash ASEM demonstration . According to the report of the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the police did not have any information about the Dongzhou Coalition and it was thus unclear to them who the organiser was in reality . It appears from public sources that the said \u201c coalition \u201d was an informal group open to anyone who agreed with the idea defended by the Smash ASEM demonstration and who undertook not to bring any party emblems to the demonstration site .","The demonstrators announced that they were planning to march on DATE between TIME and TIME from ORG \u2013 an area of dense traffic \u2013 to FAC where the ORG summit was to be held , a distance of QUANTITY . The announced march route was the following : PERSON \u2013 Kaivokatu \u2013 Siltasaarenkatu \u2013 Agricolankatu \u2013 PERSON \u2013 L\u00e4ntinen PERSON DATE Sturenkatu \u2013 Aleksis GPE \u2013 GPE \u2013 GPE \u2013 Ratamestarinkatu \u2013 DATE ending at the park next to the FAC which is close to the summit venue . The theme of the demonstration was to oppose the ORG summit , with some focus on human rights issues . In posters inviting people to take part in the demonstration , the demonstrators were asked to wear black clothing . The posters also portrayed a demonstrator throwing a Molotov cocktail and they encouraged would - be participants , inter alia , to \u201c bring even a little bit of disorder also to the streets of GPE \u201d ( \u201c tuoda edes hieman sekasortoa my\u00f6s NORP kaduille \u201d , att f\u00e5 \u00e4ven en liten bit av kaos ocks\u00e5 p\u00e5 gatorna i Helsingfors ) .","According to the Government , the police were able to make telephone contact with CARDINAL of the organisers named as the contact person for the event . However , that person , acting on behalf of the organisers , refused to discuss matters relating , inter alia , to the conditions on which the demonstrators would be able to march from the event - site to the vicinity of the exhibition centre where LOC was being held . This refusal extended also to police efforts to establish contact with the organisers at the event - site itself .","According to the Government , there was a separate area reserved by the police for media representatives to cover the event . It was located at FAC , opposite ORG , on the other side of PERSON . The police , as standard procedure , had notified major NORP media organisations of the Smash ASEM event and included the contact information of the police \u2019s public relations unit , which was ready to discuss any questions the media might have about covering the event , including information about an area reserved for the media \u2019s convenience . Furthermore , the GPE ORG public relations unit had reserved a senior officer to be present at that very same area to answer any questions media representatives might have , as well as to give interviews on the events that unfolded during DATE .","The demonstration was to start at TIME on DATE . Some CARDINAL bystanders , a core group of CARDINAL demonstrators and CARDINAL journalists congregated at the departure point of the march . The police had made security preparations for the event by deploying CARDINAL police and border guard officers . By NORP standards , the scale of the police preparations was exceptional .","At the start of the demonstration , bottles , stones and jars filled with paint were thrown at the public and policemen . Some demonstrators kicked and hit police officers . Apparently at TIME , policemen surrounded the area of the demonstration . At this point people were free to pass through the line of policemen . The police announced several times over loudspeakers that a peaceful demonstration was allowed to take place on the spot but that the crowd was not allowed to demonstrate by marching .","After the escalation of violence , the police considered at TIME that the event had turned into a riot . From TIME to TIME the police sealed off the area in an effort to contain the rioting . The crowd tried to break through the police defence line . However , during this time , the police cordon did allow families with children , and representatives of the media , to pass through . This passage was , at times , plagued by bottles and other projectiles being thrown at the spot where people were leaving .","NORP The police announced over loudspeakers that the demonstration was stopped and that the crowd should leave the scene . This announcement was repeated several times . CARDINAL of people then left voluntarily via several exit routes established by the police . When leaving , they were asked to show their identity cards and their belongings were checked .","The applicant claimed that the line of policemen surrounding the cordon was extremely tight and multi - layered . The visibility from outside the cordon to inside was practically non - existent . The police minibuses and detention buses also impeded visibility . At TIME the police started to set up a second , wider cordon and fenced off the whole immediate downtown area . It was not possible to see from nearby streets to the GPE area .","Some demonstrators were apprehended within the cordoned - off area by force . The apprehensions by the police were effected by using the \" paint - chain \" method , part of which includes the opening up of the police cordon to allow detaining officers to act , followed by that cordon \u2019s immediate closure after the detained person is secured .","NORP The police announced repeatedly that the crowd should disperse . The applicant claimed that he heard the police order that the area be cleared for the first time at TIME The applicant called his employer and they had a conversation about whether the applicant should leave the area . The applicant noted that on the basis of , inter alia , this conversation , he came to the conclusion that his presence inside the cordon was necessary .","Towards the end of the demonstration , the applicant maintained that he had placed himself between the police and the demonstrators . The police continued to order the crowd to disperse , stating that any person who did not leave would be apprehended . At TIME a police officer told the applicant personally that he had CARDINAL last chance to leave the scene . The applicant told the police officer that he was reporting for ORG and that he was going to follow the event to its end , after which the police officer had left him alone . The applicant thought that the police would not interfere with his work after he had given them this explanation .","By TIME , CARDINAL people had left the scene via the police checkpoints . According to the applicant , CARDINAL demonstrators were still sitting on the ground in the middle of the first cordoned - off area , closely encircled by the police . The demonstrators held on to one another and were holding each other \u2019s arms . The situation inside the cordon had already been peaceful for TIME at this point . After this , the police broke up the crowd of demonstrators and apprehended the protesters .","The applicant claimed that , before he was apprehended , he heard a police officer shout : \" Get the photographer ! \" The applicant was standing next to a former Member of ORG and taking photographs when he was apprehended . He told the apprehending officer that he was a journalist , which the police officer later confirmed . The apprehending officer stated during the pre - trial investigation that the applicant did not resist the apprehension and that he had asked to make a telephone call , which he had been allowed to do . The applicant called his colleague at the magazine , explaining that the police had detained him and that he did not know what was going to happen next . He thought that he would be released soon . The applicant had also told the apprehending police officer that he had cameras in his bag , which information was taken into account by the police officer : the applicant was allowed to put his camera equipment away in his camera bag . When the apprehending police officer had asked for identification , the applicant had presented his press card . Another police officer present during the applicant \u2019s apprehension stated during the pre - trial investigation that the applicant did not resist apprehension but that he had not heard the applicant identify himself as a journalist . The apprehending officer also testified that he had filled in the apprehension document , giving the reasons for the applicant \u2019s apprehension and recording his personal information . According to the pre - trial investigation report , the basis for the applicant \u2019s apprehension was contumacy towards the police .","The applicant was then taken to a bus for detainees . In the bus , he allegedly explained to the police again that he was a magazine photographer . The applicant was taken to the police station where he asked to speak with the chief constable . He allegedly explained again that he was a journalist but his requests were ignored . He claimed that he \u201c lifted \u201d his press card and started to wear it visibly on his chest thereafter . The applicant also claimed that the receiving police officer at the police station had to remove his press card which was hanging around his neck . According to the applicant , the receiving police officer at the police station was therefore aware that he was a journalist . While in the custody cell , the applicant allegedly shouted also to passing police officers that they had apprehended a journalist , but he was ignored .","The applicant claimed that his camera equipment and memory cards had been confiscated . However , the ORG maintained that , as soon as the police had found out that the applicant was a member of the press , his camera , memory cards and other equipment were immediately treated as journalistic sources and were not confiscated . He had been able to retain the photographs and no restrictions on the use of the photographs had been imposed on him by any authority at any stage . According to the report of Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the police had checked the content of the GPE mobile telephones . However , it is not clear whether the applicant \u2019s mobile telephone was checked and whether his memory cards were inspected .","The police kept the applicant in detention from DATE at CARDINAL TIME until DATE at TIME , that is , for TIME . He was interrogated by the police on DATE between TIME and TIME","The applicant \u2019s employer , the editor - in - chief of the magazine , apparently learned about the applicant \u2019s apprehension and that he was being held in police custody . It would appear that he telephoned the police station but was given no information concerning the applicant \u2019s apprehension . According to the applicant , it was only when the editor - in - chief called a senior official ( whose name the applicant did not mention in his submissions ) in ORG the following day that preparations were made for the applicant \u2019s release .","The police apprehended altogether CARDINAL persons at the demonstration site . The police released minors ( QUANTITY individuals ) after a few NORP apprehension . The majority of those who were apprehended were released on DATE . The applicant was the seventh detainee to be interrogated and the sixth to be released after minors . The last suspect was released on DATE at TIME","Both domestic and international media reported the event and the police measures widely . The matter was also the subject of a wide - ranging investigation by the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman in DATE and DATE . However , due to procedural rules , the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman could not investigate the applicant \u2019s case because the criminal proceedings were pending against him at that time .","It appears from the report of the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman of DATE , inter alia , that the police did not have any information about the Dongzhou Coalition and that it was thus unclear to them who the organiser of the demonstration was in reality . It also appears that the police checked the content of the GPE mobile telephones . Moreover , the Deputy Parliamentary Ombudsman criticised , inter alia , the fact that there had been an insufficient number of check - points in relation to the number of people , and that the TIME duration of holding people within the cordoned - off area was unnecessarily long . The Deputy ORG also questioned the legality of the security checks .","On DATE the police informed CARDINAL suspects that , for their part , the preliminary investigation was discontinued and that their cases would not be referred to the public prosecutor for the consideration of charges . The public prosecutor brought charges against CARDINAL persons altogether .","On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant for contumacy towards the police ( niskoittelu poliisia vastaan , tredska mot polis ) under LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen ) .","On DATE the GPE ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) found the applicant guilty of contumacy towards the police under LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the Penal Code but did not impose any penalty on him .","The applicant stated before the court that he had heard the orders to disperse at TIME but had understood that they concerned only the demonstrators . The court found it established that the police actions had been legal and that the applicant had been aware of the orders of the police to leave the scene but had decided to ignore them . It appeared from the witness statements given before the court that the applicant had not said or indicated to a police officer standing nearby at the time of the apprehension that he was a journalist . According to this police officer , this fact only became known to him when the relevant magazine appeared . It appeared also from the witness statement of another journalist that he and a third photographer , who had been in the sealed - off area , had been able to leave the scene without consequences just before the applicant was apprehended . This last remaining journalist witnessed that he had taken his last photograph at TIME and left the area TIME before the applicant \u2019s apprehension took place . ORG found it further established that the police orders had been clear and that they had manifestly concerned everyone in the crowd , which consisted of demonstrators as well as bystanders and other members of the public .","Moreover , ORG examined the justification of the interference of the applicant \u2019s right under LAW in the following manner :","\u201c ...","It is disputed whether PERSON had , as a journalist and on the basis of his freedom of expression , the right not to obey the orders given to him by the police . PERSON had been prepared to use his freedom of expression as a photographer . The police orders to disperse therefore restricted PERSON \u2019s freedom of expression . The question is whether there was a justification for this restriction .","According to LAW , everyone has the right to freedom of expression . It includes a right to publish and distribute information without the interference of the authorities . According to LAW , more detailed provisions on the exercise of the freedom of expression are laid down by an LAW . In accordance with LAW of LAW , the exercise of the freedom of expression may be subject to formalities , conditions , restrictions or penalties which are prescribed by law . According to the said LAW and the case - law of ORG , CARDINAL requirements must be taken into account when assessing the restrictions : CARDINAL ) the restriction must be prescribed by law , CARDINAL ) it must have an acceptable reason and CARDINAL ) it must be necessary in a NORP society .","First of all , ORG notes that the police have power , in accordance with sections CARDINAL of LAW , to cordon off an area and to disperse a crowd . On the strength of this power , the police gave an order to disperse to the persons remaining in the LOC area , which order PERSON also refused to follow . The restriction was thus prescribed by law .","Secondly , ORG considers that the powers stipulated in sections CARDINAL of LAW relate to the maintenance of public order and security and to the prevention of disorder or crime , and that in this case the order to disperse given to , among others , PERSON relates to the prevention of disorder . The restriction has therefore an acceptable reason .","Thirdly , it must be examined whether the order to disperse given to PERSON and the obligation to follow it was necessary in a NORP society . ORG finds that it was necessary to stop the situation at ORG by ordering the crowd to disperse and by asking the persons to leave the area .","ORG concludes that , in the case at hand , the conditions for restricting PERSON \u2019s freedom of expression by ordering him to disperse along with the remaining crowd were fulfilled . ORG has taken a stand on the elements having an effect on the punishability of PERSON \u2019s act below .","The case referred to by PERSON ( PERSON v. GPE , DATE ) concerned a situation in which a journalist had been convicted in GPE of incitement for a breach of official secrecy when he had asked for and received information from an administrative assistant in the public prosecutor \u2019s office about some registry entries . The ORG found that the applicant \u2019s conviction could prevent journalists from participating in public discussions about questions of general interest . The conviction was not in proper proportion to the aims sought and LAW had thus been violated . ORG finds that the cited case is not similar to the case at hand .","... \u201d","However , relying on LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW , no penalty was imposed on the applicant as the offence was comparable to \u201c an excusable act \u201d ( anteeksiannettavaan tekoon rinnastettava , j\u00e4mf\u00f6rbar med en urs\u00e4ktlig g\u00e4rning ) . ORG found that :","\u201c ...","The punishment of PERSON is waived in accordance with LAW , section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Penal Code because the offence , due to special reasons related to the act , can be deemed comparable to an excusable act . As a journalist , PERSON was forced to adapt his behaviour in the situation due to the conflicting expectations expressed by the police , on the one hand , and by his profession and employer , on the other hand .","... \u201d","By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) , claiming that ORG should have dismissed the charges against him . He argued that his apprehension and the fact that he was found guilty were against LAW and LAW . The applicant was a journalist and he had not participated in the demonstration or caused any disorder . ORG had not reasoned why his apprehension and conviction were \u201c necessary in a democratic society \u201d and had thereby failed to justify the interference .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal without giving any further reasons .","NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant further appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-152251","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KOVAL v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in PERSON .","He sued NORP military authorities in domestic courts , seeking recovery of pension arrears .","On DATE the Rostov - on - Don Military Circuit Court granted the applicant \u2019s claim and ordered ORG of GPE ( \u201c the military commission \u201d ) to pay the applicant MONEY . The judgment became final on DATE .","NORP On DATE the respondent military commission received a writ of execution in relation to the judgment debt from the court and at some point issued a payment order pursuant to the judgment in the applicant \u2019s favour . However , that order was subsequently revoked and the writ of execution was seized due to a check held by a military prosecutor \u2019s office and no funds were transferred to the applicant \u2019s account ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","At some point the respondent authority sought restoration of the term for challenging of the judgment by way of the supervisory review procedure . On DATE the Rostov - on - Don Military Circuit Court rejected that claim .","NORP In response to the applicant \u2019s several requests , the authority in charge of the payment submitted that the writ of execution was not in its possession and therefore it was unable to pay the judgment debt . At some point the applicant requested a court to issue a duplicate of the writ of execution and to restore the time - limit for its submission for execution . In its decision of CARDINAL DATE the GPE - on - Don Military Circuit Court confirmed that the writ of execution had been seized during the inquiry . However , the court found no reasons to consider the writ of execution as being lost as it was apparently in the possession of the military prosecutor \u2019s office . The court accordingly decided that no duplicate could be issued as the time - limit for its submission for execution had expired . The court also refused to reinstate the missed term as the applicant could have requested the prosecutor \u2019s office to return him the document in question and after that submit it for execution . On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal .","The judgment of CARDINAL DATE remained unenforced up to the date of the applicant \u2019s death in DATE . In DATE his widow obtained a certificate issued by a public notary by which she was officially recognised as the applicant \u2019s successor in respect of his right to claim the judgment debt . Then she sought in courts substitution of her late husband in the enforcement proceedings . On DATE the PERSON - on - Don Military Circuit Court rejected her claim , stating that the deceased applicant could not be substituted because no execution proceedings had ever been initiated , no writ of execution had been submitted for execution , and the threeyear term for its submission and initiation of the execution proceedings had expired . The applicant \u2019s widow sought in court reinstatement of the term for appealing against the decision of CARDINAL August CARDINAL . It follows from the parties\u2019 later submissions that the request was granted and she was able to challenge the decision on appeal . The parties have not provided any information on the outcome of those proceedings .","The judgment remains unenforced to date ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175645","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KUC v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in the Tren\u010d\u00edn hospital for charged and convicted persons .","ORG The applicant was arrested on DATE and charges were brought against him the following day for the criminal offence of endangering public safety . The charge was based on the suspicion that he had made home - made explosive devices ; that he had sent some of them , together with written threats , to veterinarians and the head office of a supermarket chain ; and that he had planted CARDINAL of the devices next to a fast food outlet and had allowed it to explode with a view to promoting animal rights .","On DATE the ORG remanded the applicant in custody pending trial to prevent him from continuing his criminal activity . ORG took into account , inter alia , the nature of the criminal charge and the fact that the applicant had been having long - term psychiatric treatment . An interlocutory appeal by the applicant was unsuccessful .","Courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction reviewed and confirmed the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s detention on CARDINAL occasions as follows .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE courts at CARDINAL levels dismissed applications by the applicant for release . They relied on a risk of reoffending and took into account new charges that had been brought against him as well as the testimony of various witnesses and victims . In that connection , they referred to evidence that the applicant had been planning his attacks for a long time and in a systematic way . On DATE the domestic courts added new grounds for his detention , namely a risk that he might abscond . That was based on a statement by a witness who had allegedly said that the applicant had declared that he would try to flee if he was arrested . The evidence in the case , in particular the applicant \u2019s computer , suggested that he had \u201c entertained the idea of counterfeiting an ID \u201d .","On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant \u2019s detention by DATE ( until DATE ) on the grounds that the investigation was not finished , that further charges had been brought against him since DATE , and that the criminal charges had been reclassified as a crime of terrorism and the acquisition and possession of firearms . The domestic courts concluded that his criminal case was complex owing to the extent and nature of his criminal activity and repeated the grounds for his detention , namely the possibility of his reoffending and absconding . The court also ordered a report by an expert on extremism and terrorism . That decision was upheld on appeal .","At the pre - trial stage the applicant was committed to the hospital for charged and convicted persons in LOC on CARDINAL occasions , namely DATE and DATE because , inter alia , he had demonstrated signs of anxiety , made threats of suicide and needed to have his mental state examined .","On DATE the applicant was indicted to stand trial on the above charges before ORG .","DATE and DATE the applicant applied CARDINAL more times for release to courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . Given the serious accusations made against him in the meantime ( on DATE ) for crimes including terrorism , the courts upheld both grounds for his continued detention . In addition , they referred to a witness statement that the applicant had written a will where he had expressed the alleged intention to commit a terrorist suicide attack . Furthermore , the courts rejected bail and guarantees of supervision offered by the applicant \u2019s parents since they had been unable to prevent the crimes while the applicant had lived in their house .","ORG held CARDINAL hearings in the criminal case against the applicant . It examined oral and documentary evidence , including evidence from several experts . It delivered its judgment on DATE , finding the applicant guilty of the charges and sentencing him to DATE in prison . However , on DATE ORG quashed the judgment following an appeal by the applicant and remitted the case to ORG for re - examination .","ORG observed that in the course of the appellate proceedings , on DATE , the applicant had submitted a report by CARDINAL certified experts concluding that he had long been suffering from a mental schizotypal disorder preventing him from understanding the illegal nature of his behaviour and from controlling it ( \u201c the second expert report \u201d ) . Those conclusions were contrary to those in a report by CARDINAL other experts at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings ( \u201c the first expert report \u201d ) , which had concluded that the applicant was not suffering from a mental illness but merely a personality disorder . Resolving that contradiction was imperative in order to establish whether or not the applicant was criminally responsible . ORG therefore instructed ORG to obtain a third opinion from an expert institute . In addition , it ordered the lower court to resolve an issue concerning the legal classification of the applicant \u2019s impugned actions .","In the meantime , on DATE , while the criminal proceedings were pending on appeal , ORG decided to keep the applicant in detention on the same grounds as before ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The subsequent course of the trial is described in paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below .","After the verdict was quashed on appeal and remitted to ORG for re - examination , the applicant , assisted by his lawyer , applied for release on DATE . He referred to his mental disorder as established in the second expert report of CARDINAL DATE . He added that he had been seeing a psychiatrist since the age of DATE and needed medicine on a DATE basis to prevent suicidal thoughts . He could not live without that medicine , even in detention , as he required treatment and sessions with a psychiatrist . He submitted that there was no risk of him absconding if at large as he had only had a basic education , had no financial means , no job , had never travelled alone outside his home town , and was completely dependent on his parents , emotionally , financially and for DATE care . Moreover , there was no risk he would continue his criminal activity if he was under medication and being properly treated , or , alternatively , if he was committed to a psychiatric institution , as he feared for the future after the charges had been brought against him .","The applicant \u2019s parents supported his application for release and offered to stand as guarantors of his pledge that he would live in accordance with the law . They also supported his request that his detention be replaced by supervision by a parole officer .","On DATE ORG heard the applicant , his lawyer , and ORG as regards his request for release . According to the transcript of the hearing , the applicant and his counsel reiterated and further developed their arguments made in the application and submitted that his mental condition meant that his absconding was not realistic .","The Government \u2019s observations show that on DATE ORG sent a letter to the director of the detention centre in PERSON where the applicant was being held , asking for information about the applicant \u2019s state of health . It enquired whether the applicant was being provided with the drugs he had been prescribed and whether the detention centre was able to provide the applicant with his treatment . The director of the detention centre replied on DATE in the affirmative .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application to be released and his supplementary requests , a decision that was upheld by ORG on DATE after an interlocutory appeal by the applicant .","The courts concluded that there was still a strong suspicion against the applicant , which added to the reasons for keeping him detained . They observed that he had created explosives and contemplated where to plant them over a long time and in a systematic way . He had lived with his parents and a search of the home they shared had shown that they had clearly not been aware of his illegal activities and had been unable to prevent them . The applicant faced a particularly severe potential penalty , had declared openly that he would try and flee in case of arrest and a search of his computer had suggested that he had contemplated counterfeiting an ORG .","Regarding the nature , scope and seriousness of the alleged offences and the applicant \u2019s character , the courts concluded that the conditions for a restriction of liberty still existed . In addition , they observed that the relevant authorities had proceeded with the case expeditiously and with due diligence .","Moreover , the courts found that the requirements for alternative measures , such as a parental guarantee , a pledge by the applicant or replacing his detention with supervision had not been met .","There was no separate consideration of the applicant \u2019s mental condition as such . The correspondence between the district court and the director of the detention centre was not mentioned in the courts\u2019 decisions .","The applicant subsequently turned to ORG with a complaint under LAW , alleging a violation of his rights , inter alia , LAW QUANTITY CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention , or their constitutional equivalents .","As to the substance , he raised arguments that were similar to those in his application to be released . He added that the courts had failed to take into account the specific nature of his situation , consisting of his mental disorder ; that the length of his detention had been excessive and based on irrelevant and insufficient reasons ; and that the only matter open to debate was whether he was legally insane , which impacted on his criminal liability .","On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint as manifestly ill - founded . It endorsed the reasons given by the ordinary courts and concluded that they had been relevant and sufficient to keep the applicant detained . It gave no answer to his argument concerning the specific nature of his situation .","NORP Following remittal of the case by ORG , ORG asked the expert institute on DATE to produce a report on the applicant \u2019s mental condition . On DATE it also ordered that the applicant be admitted to the psychiatric department of the Tren\u010d\u00edn hospital for charged and convicted persons in order to have his mental health examined . The report was filed on DATE , and ORG heard the case DATE .","On DATE ORG again found the applicant guilty . ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant on DATE . He was sentenced to PERCENT imprisonment , QUANTITY months\u2019 protective supervision and payment of damages . No ordinary appeal being available , the judgment became final and binding .","Nevertheless , the applicant appealed on points of law and ORG quashed the District and ORG judgments owing to breaches of the law to the applicant \u2019s disadvantage . The matter was remitted to ORG for fresh examination . ORG provided an extensive interpretation of the criminal offence of terrorism and concluded that the lower courts\u2019 legal interpretation of the case had been wrong as the applicant \u2019s motive had not included elements of the crime of terrorism .","ORG , the case returned to ORG and the applicant remained detained pending trial as of DATE .","Taking into account ORG judgment and its legal interpretation of the crime in question , ORG once again found the applicant guilty of , inter alia , the criminal offence of endangering public safety , the illegal acquisition , possession and trafficking of firearms , the making of serious threats , extortion , and attempted bodily harm and sentenced him to DATE and DATE in prison on CARDINAL DATE . It also ordered protective supervision lasting DATE . The applicant appealed and those proceedings are still pending .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from the PERSON detention centre to the hospital in PERSON after he reportedly collapsed ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146387","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RAKHIMBERDIYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","In DATE , the applicant was hired as a guard to accompany a shipment of QUANTITY of onions from NORP to LOC . After a DATE journey by rail , the cargo arrived at ORG station in LOC . Using sniffer dogs , NORP customs officials found concealed rubber containers inside onion skins that held a total of CARDINAL - three kilograms of heroin .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to the organised crime department at the ORG police station and placed in a room ( no . CARDINAL ) under police guard . A record of his arrest was not drawn up . The applicant spent TIME on a mattress in the corridor .","At TIME on DATE a criminal case was instituted in connection with the uncovered shipment of drugs . The investigator , PERSON , accepted the case at TIME and interviewed the applicant . He was searched , and a small package of heroin was found concealed in his bag .","DATE a record of arrest was drawn up , and the applicant was formally remanded in custody on a charge of drug smuggling . According to the record , the applicant was arrested at TIME on DATE at the ORG police station .","During the applicant \u2019s trial , his counsel repeatedly raised the issue of his unrecorded detention from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE and put questions to the police officers , who were heard as witnesses , about the events following the applicant \u2019s apprehension . According to the hearing records , they replied as follows :","NORP The chief of the drug control department , PERSON , stated :","\u201c PERSON was taken to the department . While [ there ] , he remained under guard . He stayed in the department for TIME . Pending [ his placement in ] the ORG ( temporary detention cell ) , he was not allowed to go outside . During DATE period of detention , PERSON did not go to the toilet , he did not ask to . \u201d","NORP The deputy chief of the organised crime department , PERSON . , stated :","\u201c PERSON could not get up and go out because we had to take a decision on the basis of the documents . I can not say what the grounds for keeping him in the corridor were . \u201d","An operative of the drug control department , ORG . , testified :","\u201c PERSON could not go out because the door was locked , he was under guard . \u201d","An officer of the special - purpose department of the criminal police , PERSON , stated :","\u201c PERSON could not leave because I said so \u2013 the case was in progress , the expert was working . I do not know what the grounds for his detention were ... I stood guard over him so as to prevent him from going out ... \u201d","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of drug smuggling with intent to supply and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment in a high - security facility .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant on the charge of smuggling , but upheld his conviction in the part concerning the possession of QUANTITY of heroin . The sentence was commuted to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment .","In the meantime , counsel for the applicant complained to the ORG town prosecutor about the applicant \u2019s unrecorded detention from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . The prosecutor forwarded the complaint to the chief of the organised crime department for verification .","On DATE the chief of the organised crime department approved the conclusions of an internal inquiry a senior operative had carried out into the allegation of unlawful detention . The inquirer took a statement from the chief of the drug control department , PERSON , who claimed that the applicant had been released on TIME but had asked to stay at the police station TIME because he had had nowhere else to go . Further statements from officers PERSON . , ORG . , PERSON , Me . , and PERSON . corroborated PERSON \u2019s claims . Without questioning the applicant , the inquirer concluded that the allegation of unlawful detention was unsubstantiated .","By a decision of DATE , an investigator from the ORG town prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s complaint of unlawful detention . He referred to the statements of the police officers , who had claimed unanimously that the applicant had refused to leave because he had had nowhere else to go , and that they had allowed him to stay TIME in the corridor , where he had slept on a mattress . The investigator did not interview the applicant , but reached the conclusion that his complaint to the prosecutor was to be considered \u201c a way of seeking to avoid liability for the particularly serious crime he had committed \u201d .","Counsel for the applicant challenged the decision before a court .","On DATE the ORG held that the investigator \u2019s decision had not been lawful or justified :","\u201c The descriptive part of the decision contradicts the findings of the investigation . Thus , [ the investigator ] established that on DATE PERSON had been detained on suspicion of committing a crime and that his detention was only formalised on CARDINAL DATE at TIME","The investigator did not assess all the documents in the case file : the expert report dated DATE ; the judgment of DATE , which established that on CARDINAL DATE PERSON had been taken to the organised crime department at the ORG police [ station ] and had remained there under continuous guard until his formal arrest at TIME on DATE ... The decision does not refer to the crime scene inspection report , which indicated that the scene had been inspected at TIME on DATE . All the witnesses testified that PERSON had been taken to the police station immediately after the inspection of the crime scene and had stayed there of his own will , which is contradicted by the statement of the convict .","The investigator merely reproduced the testimony of the police officers in his decision , without giving a legal assessment . The actions of the police officers , which were incompatible with LAW , were not justified . \u201d","On DATE another investigator from the ORG town prosecutor \u2019s office refused to open a criminal investigation , reproducing verbatim the text of the decision of DATE . On DATE the town prosecutor quashed that decision and ordered an additional inquiry .","Further to a complaint by counsel , on DATE ORG held that the town prosecutor had unduly delayed the inquiry into the applicant \u2019s complaint .","On DATE a senior investigator from the town prosecutor \u2019s office again refused to open a criminal case . He found that it could not be shown to the required standard of proof that the applicant had stayed in the police station against his will .","On DATE and DATE respectively , the ORG Town Court and ORG summarily upheld the investigator \u2019s decision ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182243","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF CORREIA DE MATOS v. PORTUGAL","importance":2,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence in person;Legal assistance of own choosing)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Marko Bo\u0161njak;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON do PERSON ( GPE ) .","The applicant is a lawyer by training and an auditor by profession . From DATE onwards , he was no longer authorised to practise as a lawyer . By a decision of ORG of DATE , the applicant was suspended from the roll , as the exercise of the profession of lawyer was considered to be incompatible with his practising as an auditor . This decision was published in ORG in DATE . When the applicant ceased his activity as an auditor in DATE , he continued to be suspended from ORG roll until DATE as the result of a disciplinary sanction imposed on him for having practised as a lawyer while not being authorised to do so .","On DATE , in the context of a set of civil proceedings in which he was nevertheless acting as a lawyer , the applicant criticised the decisions taken by the judge hearing the case , saying that they were not worthy of a judge and that a judge could not lie or omit the truth in the exercise of his functions . The judge in question filed a complaint for insult with the public prosecutor \u2019s office . It is not clear from the material before the ORG on what basis the applicant was acting as a lawyer in the context of those proceedings given the suspension from the roll referred to above .","On DATE the public prosecutor \u2019s office at the ORG filed the prosecution \u2019s submissions against the applicant on a charge of insulting a judge . As the applicant had not instructed a lawyer , the public prosecutor \u2019s office appointed counsel on the basis of LAW ORG ) to conduct the applicant \u2019s defence .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG for the opening of adversarial investigation proceedings ( abertura de instru\u00e7\u00e3o ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He also sought leave to replace his officially appointed defence counsel and represent himself .","In an order of DATE the court agreed to open the investigation but dismissed the request for officially appointed defence counsel to be replaced and for the applicant to conduct his own defence . It held that the applicant was not entitled to act in the proceedings without the assistance of defence counsel . The court held that under the provisions of NORP law , in particular LAW and Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) , the defendant had the right to be represented by independent counsel , a right which would not be made effective if self - representation were to be allowed . Referring to ORG case - law on the subject , the court found that a defendant who was a lawyer could therefore not act in proceedings as his own counsel .","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against the order of DATE , challenging the decision not to allow him to represent himself in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It considered the appeal to be admissible despite the fact that it had been lodged by the applicant in person , as it concerned the very issue whether the applicant , as the defendant , was entitled to conduct his own defence . ORG stressed that NORP law on criminal procedure did not allow the procedural status of defendant to be combined with that of defence counsel in the same proceedings . It required that the defendant be assisted by defence counsel at the hearing before the investigating judge and at the trial in all cases where the proceedings concerned could give rise to a custodial sentence or a public - safety detention order . This reflected the premise that the accused would be better defended when the defence was conducted by a legal professional trained in advocacy . The latter , unencumbered by the emotional burden weighing on a defendant , could provide a lucid , dispassionate and effective defence . The law on criminal procedure was thus intended not to place limits on the defence \u2019s action , but to support the proper defence of the accused .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided that it was not necessary to adjudicate on the constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant in person , in which he had complained about the lower courts\u2019 refusal to grant him leave to represent himself . ORG found that the appeal had been neither signed nor endorsed by court - appointed defence counsel . The latter had not replied to ORG query of CARDINAL DATE as to whether she endorsed the constitutional appeal signed by the applicant himself .","On DATE the PERSON - Vouga investigating judge held a hearing ( debate instrut\u00f3rio ) , of which the applicant had been notified in person . The judge had previously refused to adjourn the hearing at the applicant \u2019s request , finding that ORG had already given a final ruling on the applicant \u2019s application to represent himself . The applicant failed to attend the hearing , at which his court - appointed counsel was present . The investigating judge confirmed the charge against the applicant and referred the case for trial ( despacho de pron\u00fancia ) before PERSON .","On DATE the Baixo - Vouga Criminal Court , following a hearing which the applicant again did not attend but at which his court appointed defence lawyer was present , found the applicant guilty of aggravated insult ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and ordered him to pay CARDINAL dayfines of CARDINAL ( ORG ) each as well as the costs of the proceedings .","The applicant , who at no point requested legal aid to cover the cost of his trial , court - appointed counsel or counsel of his own choosing , was ordered , in particular , to pay costs amounting to ORG CARDINAL for his representation by court - appointed counsel . He did not pay these costs and the execution of the cost order was later discontinued for lack of assets which could be seized .","In an order dated DATE PERSON rejected an appeal by the applicant against the judgment as inadmissible , on the ground that the appeal had not been signed by court - appointed defence counsel or by a lawyer instructed by the applicant . It confirmed that , as had previously been decided in a final decision , the applicant , as the defendant , did not have the right to represent himself in the proceedings .","By an order dated DATE ORG , acting through its President , dismissed a complaint lodged by the applicant in person against the order of PERSON .","The Court of Appeal reiterated that , according to NORP law and well - established case - law , defendants in criminal proceedings , even if they were themselves lawyers , could not represent themselves but had to be assisted by defence counsel . It stressed that , as had also been argued by ORG in Opinion No . E-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the provision of a criminal defence constituted a public - order interest . Therefore , the right to a defence could not be waived , even if this meant imposing a defence lawyer on the accused . Moreover , in adversarial proceedings the powers vested by law in the defence were incompatible in many situations with the position of the defendant . This was also clearly the case at the trial , taking into account , for example , the places to be occupied in the courtroom , the wearing of a gown and the cross - examination of witnesses .","ORG noted that ORG had repeatedly confirmed , in particular in judgments FAC . CARDINAL and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , that this interpretation and the corresponding legislation \u2013 including LAW ( d ) of the ORG , which stipulates that only defence counsel can lodge appeals ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) \u2013 was in keeping with the LAW . Likewise , this approach was not in breach of LAW ( ORG ) or of the LAW . In GPE , the accused had an array of procedural rights which went beyond the minimum standards guaranteed by these international instruments .","ORG explained that NORP law on criminal procedure granted accused persons ample opportunity to defend themselves in person . The defendant had a very comprehensive right to intervene in person at any time in the proceedings in order to make requests , offer points of clarification , reply , explain or submit statements ( see , in particular , Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( b ) , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG ; CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) . He also had the right to be the last person to address the court , immediately following the pleadings and before delivery of the judgment ( see LAW ORG , paragraph CARDINAL below ) . There was a distinction between , and a dual safeguard emanating from , the mandatory instruction of a lawyer to ensure the accused \u2019s \u201c technical \u201d defence and the possibility for the accused to be present and to intervene in the proceedings .","Lastly , ORG noted that , having no valid reasons to depart from an interpretation rooted in case - law and legal literature , GPE had not amended its law in this regard either before or after the Views adopted in DATE by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) .","As the applicant had not appointed counsel following his application to have the order of CARDINAL DATE quashed , PERSON judgment of DATE became final on DATE .","According to the material before the ORG , the applicant did not call into question the qualifications or quality of the court - appointed lawyer at any stage in the proceedings before the domestic courts ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154399","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MAGEE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Brought promptly before judge or other officer;Conditional release)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The third applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the first and third applicants were arrested under section CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) on suspicion of involvement in the murder of a police officer on DATE . They were detained at GPE police station on DATE . The first applicant was interviewed twice on DATE and once on DATE ; the third applicant was interviewed CARDINAL times on DATE and once on DATE .","On DATE the Director of Public Prosecutions ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) made applications to ORG under paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule QUANTITY for warrants of further detention in respect of both applicants in order to carry out questioning and to conduct forensic examinations . The first applicant gave evidence on oath in the course of the hearing . Following the hearing , the ORG Judge granted warrants authorising a DATE extension of detention .","Each of the applicants was interviewed on QUANTITY occasions in DATE .","On DATE the ORG made applications to ORG under paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule DATE CARDINAL Act for DATE extensions to the periods specified in the warrants for further detention . The extensions were sought in order to facilitate further questioning of the applicants once the results of additional forensic tests were obtained . At separate hearings on CARDINAL DATE a police Superintendent gave evidence on oath as to the necessity of the extensions and arguments were heard on behalf of the first and third applicants .","Following the hearings Her Honour Judge PERSON delivered a written judgment in respect of the first applicant and an ex tempore decision in respect of the third applicant . She granted both applications , authorising the first applicant \u2019s continued detention until CARDINAL on DATE and the third applicant \u2019s continued detention until CARDINAL on DATE . In her reasoning , Judge PERSON noted that the relevant forensic evidence was central to the investigation and that the investigation was being carried out diligently and expeditiously .","In the rulings Judge PERSON considered whether LAW or LAW gave the court deciding whether or not to grant an extension of detention an express or implied power to examine the lawfulness of the arrest or to grant bail . She concluded that it did not as LAW only gave the judge the power to decide whether or not an extension of detention was necessary . Consequently , she had to confine herself to the issue of whether or not it was necessary to extend detention beyond TIME for investigative purposes and any issue as to the lawfulness of the arrest would have to be determined by ORG in either Habeas Corpus or judicial review proceedings .","On DATE the second applicant was arrested under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act on suspicion of involvement in the murder of CARDINAL soldiers at GPE , GPE , on DATE . He was detained at FAC on DATE .","On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG under paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule QUANTITY for a warrant extending the second applicant \u2019s detention as the results of a number of forensic tests were pending .","Following a hearing on DATE a ORG Judge granted a warrant authorising a DATE extension to his detention .","The second applicant was interviewed on CARDINAL occasions in DATE . However , neither the interviews nor the results of the forensic tests provided any evidence linking the second applicant to the murders of the CARDINAL soldiers .","On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG under paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule DATE CARDINAL Act for a DATE extension to the period specified in the warrant for further detention . The extension was sought as the results of further forensic tests which had been sent for analysis to a laboratory in GPE were expected to become available within DATE and detention was considered necessary to ensure that further questioning could take place and , if there was sufficient evidence , charges could be brought .","On DATE Judge PERSON granted the application , authorising the second applicant \u2019s continued detention until MONEY DATE .","The applicants sought permission to apply for judicial review of Judge PERSON \u2019s decisions of CARDINAL and DATE granting further extensions to the warrants authorising their detention . They submitted first , that Judge PERSON had been wrong to conclude that a court , in deciding whether or not to grant an extension of detention , was precluded from investigating the lawfulness of the arrest ; secondly , that the judge had failed to address the question of whether the detention of the applicants was required while the results of the forensic examinations were expected ; thirdly that the judge had failed to give reasons for her decision that detention was required ; and finally , that Schedule CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act was incompatible with LAW .","Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by the High Court of GPE on DATE and ORG heard the applications on DATE .","In respect of the applicants\u2019 first submission , ORG held that DATE and DATE of Schedule QUANTITY had to be read in conformity with the requirements of LAW as explained in the jurisprudence of the ORG . Thus , the review of the lawfulness of the detention had to embrace an examination of the basis of the arrest , otherwise a person could be detained under LAW for up to QUANTITY days without there having been any judicial review of the lawfulness of the original arrest and that could not be Convention compliant . ORG therefore found that Judge PERSON had been wrong to disavow any review of the lawfulness of the applicants\u2019 arrest and , as a consequence , her decision to grant extensions had to be quashed . The court accepted , however , that a review of the lawfulness of the arrest need not involve a detailed analysis of the basis for the decision to arrest and should reflect the constraints that necessarily apply in many arrests for terrorist offences .","With regard to the applicants\u2019 second and third submissions , ORG found that although the judge had not focused directly on whether the applicants had to be detained rather than released pending the outcome of the remaining forensic examinations , she had not failed to have regard to the need for detention as the basis for the grant of the warrant . Moreover , although her reasons were pithily stated , they were sufficient to convey to the applicants the basis of her decision .","Consideration of the applicants\u2019 fourth submission , namely the compatibility of Schedule DATE CARDINAL Act with LAW , was adjourned . In a judgment delivered on DATE , ORG of GPE found no basis for the submission that Schedule CARDINAL was incompatible with LAW . In particular , the court held that although there was no doubt that the \u201c competent legal authority \u201d referred to in LAW ) was the authority having competence to deal with a criminal charge ( the Magistrate in the GPE ) , in GPE v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL and PERSON v. the GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALX the ORG had made it clear that the function of \u201c a judge or other officer \u201d for the purposes of LAW could be carried out by an officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and did not necessarily have to be a person with power to conduct the trial of any eventual criminal charge ; that , although there was no express power to order release in LAW as required by LAW , such a power must be implied ; that , as paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule DATE CARDINAL Act provided that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the further detention of a person was necessary , it therefore contained a requirement of proportionality ; that , there was no provision for conditional release on bail within the statutory scheme , an issue which did not arise in the present case but would need to be addressed in any future case in which it arose ; that , although paragraph CARDINAL ) of Schedule CARDINAL enabled a judicial authority to exclude an applicant or anyone representing him from any part of the hearing and paragraph CARDINAL permitted information to be withheld from the applicant or anyone representing him , there were a range of tools available to the court to preserve to the necessary extent an adversarial procedure and equality of arms ; and , finally , that there was no authority which supported the ORG contention that LAW that a detained person should be charged well before the expiry of the twentyeight day period contemplated in LAW .","On DATE ORG of GPE certified that it was satisfied that the decision given on DATE involved the following points of law of general public importance :","\u201c ( a ) Whether paragraphs ORG ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of Part III of Schedule CARDINAL to LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) permitting extended detention for DATE are compatible with the PERSON \u2019s rights under LAW , PERSON ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( \u201c the Convention \u201d )","If compliance with LAW can only be achieved by providing for a detainee to be brought before a judicial authority ( i ) other than the Magistrate \u2019s Court and ( ii ) without any charges having been preferred against him ;","If Articles CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Convention are required to be read together as linked provisions and understood as creating a scheme so that the \u201c judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power \u201d referred to in LAW and \u201c the competent legal authority \u201d referred to in LAW are one and the same ;","If the \u201c judicial authority \u201d provided for in Schedule CARDINAL to the LAW is the \u201c judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power \u201d within the meaning of LAW ;","If Articles CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW can not be interpreted in such a way as to permit the detention of a suspect without charge for any period specified by ORG , subject only to the requirement of periodic judicial approval of the kind specified in LAW .","( b ) Whether the absence of a power to allow for conditional release on bail rendered the scheme for extending detention set out in Part III of Schedule CARDINAL incompatible with Article CARDINAL ORG ; and","( c ) Whether the procedure for granting an extension of detention , in circumstances where the suspect and legal representative have been excluded by the judge for a part of the hearing ( as per Schedule CARDINAL , para CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) and by reason of same information is made available to the judge but withheld from the suspect and his legal representative , ( Schedule CARDINAL , para GPE ) and ( CARDINAL ) is incompatible with the request for an adversarial hearing as required by LAW in light of Secretary of ORG for ORG ( ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL AC CARDINAL . \u201d","NORP However , ORG refused leave to appeal to ORG .","Permission to appeal was refused by ORG on DATE on the basis that the applications did not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance .","The applicants were released without charge on DATE . The first and third applicants were not subsequently charged with any offence related to the murder of the police officer .","The second applicant was immediately re - arrested and interviewed over DATE . On DATE he was charged with the murder of the CARDINAL soldiers , CARDINAL attempted murders and possession of a firearm and ammunition . He was produced before a District Judge sitting at ORG on DATE . His application for bail was refused . Following a hearing which took place on CARDINAL and DATE , bail was refused by ORG on the ground that there was a real risk of re - offending on account of his suspected involvement with a dissident NORP organisation . ORG again declined to grant bail on DATE .","On DATE the second applicant stood trial before a judge sitting without a jury . On DATE he was acquitted on all counts on the indictment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156251","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PATRANIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE .","Since DATE the applicant has been suffering from progressive multiple sclerosis . He was designated with Category CARDINAL disability as a result of that condition .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of active membership of an organised criminal group DATE and the murder or attempted murder of several people in DATE .","The applicant \u2019s health deteriorated significantly and rapidly in the detention facility , where his health complaints were not addressed in any way , as the facility did not have any medical specialists . In DATE the prison authorities recorded that the applicant \u2019s movement was impaired and that he was unable to walk without a cane .","In DATE the applicant suffered an epileptic seizure which resulted in paralysis of the left side of his body . DATE an investigator authorised a forensic medical examination of the applicant to determine whether he was fit to stay in a detention facility . A medical examination , based , inter alia , on the results of an MRI exam performed by civilian experts from the GPE medical institute , led to the conclusion that the applicant was suffering from \u201c a serious condition preventing his detention \u201d . In particular , experts diagnosed him with progressive multiple sclerosis , left - sided hemiplegia ( paralysis ) in the cerebral spinal form , acute right - sided hemiparesis ( muscle weakness of the right side of the body ) with the persistent astheno - depressive syndrome , memory deterioration , partial atrophy of the visual nerves , symptomatic epilepsy with polymorphic partial motor and generalised attacks CARDINAL times a month , arterial hypertension of the first degree , and light myopathy of both eyes . On DATE the applicant was released from detention .","On DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , to be served in a correctional facility under a strict regime . The trial court , however , decided that the applicant should not be placed in custody pending appeal proceedings . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG of GPE to order a medical examination for him with a view to confirming that he was not fit for detention . The request was not processed .","The applicant was taken into custody on DATE . He was placed in a prison hospital in correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicant underwent an MRI test and was examined by several doctors , including by a neurologist , from the prison hospital in correctional colony no . CARDINAL . Their decision issued on DATE indicated that given the negative prognosis for and the severity of the applicant \u2019s condition , he should be sent for a forensic medical examination to determine whether he could be released early on health grounds . The doctors relied , inter alia , on the results of the MRI examination , which had shown that in comparison to the results of the previous MRI exam in DATE the applicant \u2019s illness had progressed significantly and demonstrated further negative dynamic . The applicant was informed by the prison administration that they would seek his immediate release on health grounds .","NORP However , DATE the applicant was notified that an additional expert examination was to be performed . CARDINAL medical experts visited the applicant , spoke with him and informed him that his condition did not warrant release . On DATE the applicant was served with a copy of an opinion by the CARDINAL medical experts who had concluded that he did not suffer from any condition listed in Government Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE on illnesses warranting release on health grounds , as his condition had not yet reached the crucial stage which required early release .","Relying on a number of medical certificates and reports issued by medical specialists from civilian medical facilities , who had either treated him following his release from detention in DATE or had studied his medical history in DATE , the applicant argued that he was unable to care for himself and that he required constant assistance , care and medical treatment which the NORP penal system was not able to provide . In particular , a report issued in DATE by a neurologist from the GPE NORP hospital indicated that the applicant had no movement on the left side of his body and could only partly move the fingers of his right hand and his right leg ; he could not walk or sit without assistance ; and he required assistance even if placed in a wheelchair . Another report indicated that the applicant was suffering from urethral dysfunction leading to involuntary urination , an additional element calling for constant care . The civilian doctors concluded that the stage of development of the applicant \u2019s illness was CARDINAL ( with death expected to occur according to that scale at stage CARDINAL ) .","Having provided copies of his complaints to various NORP authorities , the applicant submitted that his requests for an independent medical examination to determine whether he could remain in detention , as well as his complaints about the lack of proper medical assistance , had gone unanswered .","The applicant argued that he spent DATE in bed . Prison doctors , who had no proper training to deal with patients in his condition , came to see him only once DATE . He had not been bathed for DATE . He could not eat or drink unaided , so he received food once a day . He suffered from severe pain , as he could not defecate and the medical personnel only gave him an enema once DATE . He did not receive any treatment , and had not been seen in detention by specialists such as a neurologist .","On DATE the ORG , in response to the applicant \u2019s request under LAW , decided to indicate to the ORG that the applicant should be examined immediately by medical experts independent of the penal system , including by a neurologist and an epileptologist . The experts were to be asked whether the treatment and physical care the applicant was receiving was adequate for his condition , whether his current state of health was compatible with detention in the conditions of a correctional colony or a prison hospital , and lastly whether the applicant \u2019s current condition required him to be admitted to a specialised hospital or released . ORG were also asked to ensure the applicant \u2019s immediate transfer to a specialised hospital if the medical experts concluded that he required to be admitted to such a hospital .","NORP In response to the ORG \u2019s request , the Government provided the ORG with a typed copy of the applicant \u2019s medical history prepared by the detention authorities ; certificates issued by the head of the applicant \u2019s correctional colony and the head of the Service for the Execution of Sentences in GPE ; and a copy of the report drawn up on DATE by a medical panel comprising the head , deputy head and senior inspector of the medical unit of ORG in GPE and a deputy head of the prison hospital of correctional colony no . CARDINAL , where the applicant was detained . Relying on those documents , the ORG argued that the applicant was receiving adequate medical assistance and that the medical panel of the Service for the Execution of Sentences in GPE had concluded that \u201c the degree of the manifestation of the applicant \u2019s condition ( multiple sclerosis ) did not [ reach the level ] which could be described as bodily function impairment \u201d warranting release in compliance with the Government \u2019s decree of DATE which laid down a list of illnesses calling for ORG early release .","NORP The applicant commented on the Government \u2019s information , insisting that the medical assistance afforded to him was virtually nonexistent . He relied on his medical record , and stated that prior to the application of the interim measure under LAW he had been prescribed over CARDINAL different drugs , of which , as indicated in the record , he had only received CARDINAL . At the same time the applicant argued that the medical record was a forgery , as he had in fact only received one drug . Following the application of the interim measure he had been allowed to obtain certain medication from his wife to treat the epilepsy . He further submitted that the prison hospital where he was an inmate did not have the necessary medical equipment . He had usually been taken to another hospital for examinations , or a specialist with the proper equipment had been allowed to visit him in the prison hospital . The prison hospital only employed a neurologist , a specialist who , according to her own assessment , did not have the skill to treat the applicant \u2019s complex condition . Despite the fact that the applicant \u2019s condition was progressing and that the prognosis for him was negative , the authorities had not taken any steps to alleviate his sufferings and safeguard his life and limb .","The applicant submitted that since DATE he had developed new health problems , but the medical staff of the prison hospital had failed to address the ongoing deterioration of his health . In particular , he had begun suffering from kidney pain , but no nephrologist was available in the prison hospital . On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with urinary tract infection , but no appropriate treatment followed . DATE the applicant complained to an otolaryngologist of a purulent discharge from his left ear and severe pain . However , medical staff failed to comply with the otolaryngologist \u2019s recommendations .","At the request of the applicant \u2019s wife , on DATE he was examined by a panel consisting of the deputy head of the prison hospital and several prison doctors . The commission found that the applicant did not suffer from bodily function impairment warranting his release .","On several occasions the applicant \u2019s wife complained to ORG and to the prison authorities , requesting an independent medical assessment . In their replies the authorities informed her that allegations of lack of adequate medical assistance had not been confirmed , and thus there were no grounds to order the applicant \u2019s medical examination .","NORP However , on DATE a medical panel of the prison hospital , having confirmed the applicant \u2019s earlier diagnosis , recommended his early release . In DATE the applicant \u2019s wife lodged a motion for his release before the ORG of Kazan .","At the hearing held on DATE ORG heard the applicant \u2019s attending prison doctor who stated that he had not and could not receive adequate treatment in respect of his multiple sclerosis in detention and that such treatment could only be provided in a specialised hospital , in particular in the NORP diagnostic centre of demyelinised illnesses . On DATE ORG dismissed the motion for release . The applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE to continue serving his sentence . DATE , following a visual medical examination , he was admitted to medical unit no . CARDINAL in the colony which was to determine the issue whether the applicant \u2019s condition called for his early release . According to the applicant , colony no . CARDINAL did not employ a neurologist and had no means to deal with a patient of his health .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the decision of DATE and sent the matter for a new examination to ORG .","During the re - hearing on DATE the ORG took note of the applicant \u2019s transfer to a new colony and decided that it no longer had territorial jurisdiction to examine the applicant \u2019s motion for release . The case was sent to ORG in GPE for further examination .","On DATE a medical commission comprising CARDINAL specialists from medical unit no . DATE issued a report finding that the applicant \u2019s condition made him eligible for an early release . That report was filed with ORG which on DATE authorised the applicant \u2019s release , having relied on the report of CARDINAL DATE and statements by the head of medical unit no . CARDINAL . The latter had testified to the gravity of the applicant \u2019s condition and the impossibility to provide him with adequate treatment or permanent general care and assistance in detention . The applicant was released on DATE and taken by an ambulance to a hospital in GPE .","The applicant provided the ORG with expert opinions issued on DATE and CARDINAL DATE by neurologist PERSON from ORG . Having examined the applicant and studied his medical file , the expert recorded negative dynamics in the applicant \u2019s neurological condition , and found that he had not received the drugs necessary to treat his multiple sclerosis . The doctor recommended that the applicant undergo specific treatment in the ORG or in foreign hospitals , and noted that the lack of such treatment could lead to irreversible deterioration of the applicant \u2019s health and eventually to his death .","The Government produced , in addition to the documents submitted by them in response to ORG Rule CARDINAL request , a number of certificates signed by the staff and administration of the prison hospital , as well as by a fellow inmate . According to those certificates , the applicant was provided with the necessary care in the hospital . Medical staff fed him CARDINAL times a day , washed his face and ears TIME , cut his hair and nails , changed his bedding , and showered him once DATE . Nurses gave him enemas and changed his catheter bag as often as necessary ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150790","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RAZZAKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is a migrant worker who arrived in GPE in DATE and has been working on construction sites and in repairs . He lives in the village of GPE , GPE district of GPE region .","At TIME on DATE the applicant arrived at a meeting place as requested by his employer , Mr PERSON , who was acting on police instructions . CARDINAL police officers in plain clothes knocked the applicant to the ground , handcuffed him and pushed him into their unmarked car . They did not explain who they were , where they were taking him or why . According to PERSON , who witnessed the scene , they were armed with pistols .","NORP The police officers took the applicant to the GPE district police department of GPE ( \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b \u0416\u0435\u043b\u0435\u0437\u043d\u043e\u0434\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0436\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0430 \u0433. GPE , \u201c the GPE \u201d ) , where he was led to an office on the upper floor . CARDINAL police officers in uniforms demanded that he confess to a murder . He refused to do so and was punched .","The uniformed police officers and those in plain clothes subjected the applicant to various acts of physical violence . They removed the handcuffs from him and bound his hands with scotch tape instead . He was seated on the floor with his arms around his bended knees . A metal bar was passed under his knees . The police officers lifted him and hung him on the bar , the ends of which were put on CARDINAL tables . The police officers continued punching him in the head and the rest of his body . The pressure caused by the bar behind his knees was such that it prevented his blood from circulating . The police officers hit him several times on the head with an empty glass beer bottle . The applicant felt unwell . He was taken off the bar and untied for a short time . The police officers then hung him again in the same way and attached wires from a special device to his ears . They subjected him to electric shocks by rotating a handle on the device . The applicant felt sharp pain .","Then CARDINAL men in masks and rubber gloves entered the office . They undressed the applicant completely , including his underwear , tied his arms and legs with his own shirt and leather belt , and hung him with a rope on the door of the office , head down . They showed him a syringe containing a yellowy fluid and threatened him with an intravenous injection . CARDINAL of them tied a rope to his penis and pulled it , thereby opening and shutting the door on which the applicant was hanging . They squeezed his testicles . Several times the applicant said that he agreed to confess to the murder , but his answers did not satisfy the policemen . At some point they loosened the rope and he fell onto his head .","The treatment described above continued until TIME , when the applicant was placed in a cell for administrative detainees at the same police station . A young man who was detained in that cell advised him to do as the police had requested . TIME later the applicant was taken to an office and given some food . His questioning by the police officers continued . He was warned that he would not be able to support DATE of such treatment . He then confessed to the murder of a certain NORP , as dictated by them . In TIME he was again placed in the cell for administrative detainees , where he spent TIME .","On DATE police officers PERSON and ORG took the applicant in handcuffs to the LOC investigation department of the investigative committee at the GPE regional prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u0421\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u043f\u043e PERSON \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u0443 ORG \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f PERSON \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0435 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0412\u043e\u0440\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0436\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 , \u201c the district investigative committee \u201d ) for questioning by an investigator as a witness in a criminal case concerning the murder of NORP During the questioning the applicant remained in handcuffs . He was requested to sign a paper in NORP , which he could not read . He was then transferred back to the cell at FAC .","At DATE the applicant was taken out of the cell and given back his papers and mobile phone . He was asked to sign a document which he could not read and was released . The applicant \u2019s landlady , PERSON , who had been phoning the police in vain for DATE to find out about his whereabouts , saw him arrive home at TIME with a swollen eye , bruises on his wrists , a swollen leg , a lesion on his right ear resembling a burn mark and suffering from sharp pains in his chest .","No criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant .","The following morning , on DATE , accompanied by his landlady , the applicant was examined at the emergency unit of town hospital no . CARDINAL and received a medical certificate diagnosing him with bruising of the soft tissue of his face and his rib cage .","On DATE the applicant was examined at ORG . He described his ill - treatment at FAC . According to the expert \u2019s forensic medical report ( \u0430\u043a\u0442 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043e\u0441\u0432\u0438\u0434\u0435\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f ) , the applicant had bruises each measuring QUANTITY above and below his right eye and on his left eyelid , a bruise on his right cheek , bruises on his chest ( CARDINAL bruises measuring QUANTITY and a bruise of QUANTITY ) , a bruise of QUANTITY on his scrotum , abrasions on his forearms and right wrist , a bruise of CARDINAL to QUANTITY on his left forearm , and bruises measuring QUANTITY and QUANTITY behind his right and left knees respectively .","On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined at town clinic CARDINAL . On the basis of an LOC examination he was diagnosed with a fracture of the ninth rib on the right side .","According to a report prepared as a result of a forensic medical examination of the applicant carried out on DATE and DATE , his injuries could have been inflicted on DATE .","According to police records , at TIME on DATE police officer PERSON arrested the applicant , who had allegedly used obscene language in the street , and at TIME brought him to the Zheleznodorozhniy ROVD . The applicant was found guilty of petty hooliganism and sentenced to a CARDINAL NORP rouble ( RUB ) administrative fine . He was allegedly released at CARDINAL noon on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant was given access to documents concerning the administrative proceedings against him . On DATE the ORG of GPE examined an appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the GPE of DATE to give him an administrative fine . ORG quashed the decision and terminated the administrative proceedings against the applicant for lack of an administrative offence .","According to the applicant , on DATE the deputy head of the district investigative committee refused to receive his complaint of illtreatment by the police and allegedly threatened to call the migration service and have him deported from the country .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s counsel lodged a complaint of illtreatment with the district investigative committee , describing the illtreatment in detail . She supported the allegations by submitting the medical certificate of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the forensic medical report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She requested that criminal proceedings be brought against the police officers concerned for abuse of power ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) and torture ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) . She asked for specific investigative measures to be carried out , in particular an opportunity for the applicant to identify the police officers who had been on duty on DATE DATE and a forensic medical expert examination of the applicant with a view to establishing the possible cause and time of the infliction of the injuries .","An investigator of the district investigative committee carried out a preinvestigation inquiry . He interviewed the applicant , who gave a detailed account of his alleged ill - treatment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , PERSON , who saw the applicant arrive home with the injuries after his alleged illtreatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and police officer PERSON , who stated that on CARDINAL DATE he had stayed home and that on DATE he had performed duties at the ORG which had had nothing to do with the applicant . The investigator also interviewed police officers PERSON . and PERSON , who stated that on DATE they had held a \u201c conversation \u201d ( \u0431\u0435\u0441\u0435\u0434\u0430 ) with the applicant in CARDINAL of their offices , at the request of the head of the criminal unit of the Zheleznodorozhniy ROVD , about the applicant \u2019s involvement in the murder of NORP After the \u201c conversation \u201d they had taken the applicant , at the request of their supervisor , to investigator PERSON of the district investigative department . Both of them denied any violent behaviour on their part . The investigator also obtained the police records , according to which the applicant had been brought to the ORG at TIME on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s complaint for lack of elements of a crime in the acts of police officers PERSON . and PERSON , pursuant to LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c CCrP \u201d ) .","NORP The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG under LAW On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings because DATE a deputy head of the district investigative committee had quashed the investigator \u2019s decision as unlawful and unfounded . In particular , he had ordered that the head of the criminal police unit of the Zheleznodorozhniy ROVD , PERSON , be interviewed in the course of an additional preliminary inquiry .","NORP The investigator \u2019s subsequent decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE that no criminal proceedings would be instituted on the applicant \u2019s allegations were likewise revoked on the same grounds by the district investigative committee ( on DATE and DATE ) . ORG appeals lodged by the applicant were not examined for the same reason ( ORG decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) . In his decision of DATE the head of the district investigative committee ordered that police officers PERSON and PERSON . , who had brought the administrative proceedings against the applicant , be interviewed . He also noted that the identity of all the police officers present during the \u201c conversation \u201d with the applicant at the ROVD had not been established .","On DATE the district investigative committee again refused to institute criminal proceedings for lack of elements of a crime in the acts of police officers PERSON . , PERSON On DATE the investigative committee at the GPE regional prosecutor \u2019s office ( \u0441\u043b\u0435\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 PERSON \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0443\u0440\u0435 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0412\u043e\u0440\u043e\u043d\u0435\u0436\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 , \u201c the regional investigative committee \u201d ) set aside as unlawful and unfounded the district investigative committee \u2019s refusal . It noted , in particular , that the applicant \u2019s allegations were supported by the forensic medical report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the explanations of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the police records certifying the applicant \u2019s presence at the police station at the relevant time ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It concluded that there were sufficient data disclosing elements of a crime under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) and ( b ) of LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) committed by unidentified police officers at FAC , and opened criminal proceedings .","On DATE the applicant was given victim status in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE the criminal proceedings were suspended for failure to establish the identity of a person to be charged , pursuant to LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the CCrP.","The proceedings were subsequently reopened and suspended again on the same grounds several times , the last time on DATE . The investigator established in that decision that at TIME on CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL unidentified police officers had taken the applicant to the Zheleznodorozhniy ROVD by force and in handcuffs . In an office on the upper floor of the ROVD CARDINAL other unidentified police officers in uniforms had demanded that the applicant confess to a murder . He had refused and had been beaten up by the officers who had taken him in . During the period from CARDINAL to DATE both uniformed and plain - clothes police officers had subjected the applicant to various acts of physical violence , in particular punching him and hitting him with a glass bottle on his head and other parts of his body , subjecting him to electric shocks via wires attached to his ears and genitalia , and to other forms of torture , as a result of which he had confessed to the murder of NORP","During the preliminary investigation the regional investigative committee had questioned witnesses , including police officers who had been on duty at the ROVD during the relevant period , the head of the criminal police unit and his deputies , the police officers of the criminal investigation unit , witnesses to the applicant \u2019s apprehension , persons detained in the cells for administrative offenders during the period concerned and the doctor who had examined the applicant on DATE . It examined the offices where the illtreatment could have taken place and held identification parades to enable the applicant to identify the alleged perpetrators from among a number of the police officers who had been working at FAC . While a number of those identification parades had not resulted in an identification ( for example , police officer PERSON who was found to have been using a phone number from which calls to the applicant \u2019s employer PERSON had been registered ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had not been identified by the applicant ) , the applicant had identified police officers PERSON and S. as participants in his ill - treatment . The investigator found their identification insufficient for the prosecution in view of its alleged inconsistency with the applicant \u2019s statements describing the perpetrators and in view of their alibi , as neither of them had according to their statements allegedly been present at the ROVD during the period concerned .","On DATE the first deputy to the GPE regional prosecutor dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant against the investigator \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) .","On DATE judge PERSON of ORG dismissed a further appeal lodged by the applicant under LAW That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . In particular , the applicant , represented by his counsel , argued in the court proceedings that the identity of the alleged perpetrators had been established since he had identified police officers PERSON and PERSON ; hence , it had been wrong to suspend the proceedings for failure to identify the alleged offenders . The courts rejected his submissions and found the investigator \u2019s decision lawful and well - reasoned .","Some of the applicant \u2019s allegations \u2013 notably that the administrative charge of petty hooliganism against him had been trumped up and that police officer PERSON had unlawfully handcuffed him on DATE when taking him for questioning to the investigator in the murder case \u2013 were the subject of separate proceedings . The district investigative committee \u2019s initial refusal to open a criminal case was followed by the regional investigative committee \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE to open criminal proceedings concerning the alleged forgery of administrativecase documents under LAW of LAW and their subsequent suspension . On DATE the district investigative committee \u2019s initial refusal to open a criminal case into the applicant \u2019s handcuffing was revoked and an additional preliminary inquiry was ordered .","The applicant \u2019s counsel requested the transfer of the criminal cases concerning the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment to a new division at the LOC investigative department , which had been created pursuant to order no . CARDINAL of the chairman of the investigative committee to investigate crimes committed by police officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the regional investigative committee replied to the applicant that firstly , it was not competent to take such a decision as , under LAW of the ORG , a criminal case could only be transferred for investigation to a superior investigative authority by a reasoned decision of the head of that authority , and that secondly , order no . CARDINAL did not provide for obligatory transfer of cases of this kind to the new investigative divisions .","On DATE the central office of the investigative committee of GPE sent the applicant \u2019s transfer request back to the regional investigative committee , which , in a letter of DATE , gave the applicant the same reply as before ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant brought civil proceedings for damages sustained as a result of his unlawful arrest , detention at the police station , torture , handcuffing and unlawful questioning about his involvement in a criminal offence . He claimed RUB CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and RUB CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage . Judge PERSON . of ORG held a hearing with the participation of the applicant , his lawyer and his interpreter , representatives of ORG , the GPE regional department of finance and budget policy and the GPE regional police department acting as a third party , and a prosecutor .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG noted that the investigative measures conducted by the investigative committee after the opening of a criminal case had allowed it to establish the fact of the applicant \u2019s unlawful arrest , handcuffing and detention during the period from CARDINAL to DATE in the offices of police officers of the criminal investigation unit ( \u0441\u043e\u0442\u0440\u0443\u0434\u043d\u0438\u043a\u043e\u0432 \u0443\u0433\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0440\u043e\u0437\u044b\u0441\u043a\u0430 ) of the PERSON and in a cell for administrative detainees , as well as the fact that he had been subjected to physical violence with the aim of obtaining his confession to a murder and had had bodily injuries inflicted on him on the premises of FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As a result of the physical and psychological violence , the applicant had confessed to a murder . He had not been detained as a suspect , nor charged with , or found guilty of , any crime .","On the basis of the preliminary investigation , which had established the elements of a crime under LAW ( a ) and ( b ) of LAW , ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE terminating the administrative proceedings against the applicant for lack of an administrative offence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the evidence submitted by the applicant in the civil proceedings , ORG found it established that the applicant had been subjected to the abovementioned unlawful acts by police officers , despite the failure to identify them all . Of those identified , ORG noted PERSON , who had signed the records and the decision concerning the administrative offence allegedly committed by the applicant . The physical violence to which the applicant had been subjected had not been made necessary by his conduct , had diminished his human dignity and had as such been a violation of the law . ORG awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of nonpecuniary damage and RUB CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage , to be paid by the federal and regional treasuries , and rejected the remainder of his claims .","According to the internet site of ORG , on DATE it examined the case following appeals lodged by the respondent authorities . No appeal against ORG judgment had been lodged by the applicant , who was represented before the appeal court by his counsel . ORG rejected the appeals and upheld the judgment .","A complaint about the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment was also lodged with the GPE regional police department , which informed the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE that police officer PERSON had been disciplined for his failure to identify an alleged witness to the applicant \u2019s administrative offence .","Police officer S. , identified by the applicant as one of those who had participated in his illtreatment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , was promoted on DATE as head of a district police department ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168383","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF DZHAVADOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in PERSON , PERSON .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing .","On DATE the ORG of Samara remanded the applicant in custody . The court held that the applicant was suspected of a serious crime , that he could abscond , commit crimes , destroy evidence , threaten witnesses or in any other way interfere with the investigation .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The court reproduced the reasoning of the previous detention order . The court also indicated that the applicant had played a leading part in the criminal activities .","On DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pretrial detention on the ground that the investigation was still pending and it was necessary to conduct some investigative activities . The court further referred to the same grounds as in the previous detention orders .","ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeals against the detention orders .","On DATE ORG of GPE convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and a fine . On DATE ORG upheld his conviction on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155361","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ANATOLIY KUZMIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was detained on suspicion of having committed a robbery .","NORP By decision of CARDINAL DATE the court extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention until DATE . According to the applicant , his pretrial detention continued on DATE since the investigator sent his criminal case to the court with a CARDINAL day delay .","On DATE ORG of GPE convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to DATE of imprisonment . The applicant appealed .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment with certain modifications .","The applicant subsequently lodged a request with a court to initiate supervisory review proceedings in his case . On an unspecified date the applicant \u2019s request was granted .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG amended the judgment and reduced the applicant \u2019s sentence to DATE and DATE of imprisonment .","During the trial the applicant was transported to ORG of GPE to take part in the examination of his criminal case .","While waiting for hearings in ORG of GPE the applicant was put in a convoy cell , a barred room measuring QUANTITY metres with CARDINAL bench . According to the applicant , he was usually kept in the convoy cell with CARDINAL other accused . On DATE CARDINAL accused were kept in the convoy cell . The cell did not have a toilet and the detainees were taken to the toilet on the wardens\u2019 orders . Though the accused leaving for a court were provided with a packed lunch , no hot meal or hot water was distributed . The accused were not allowed to smoke .","The applicant did not provide any detailed information as to how many times and how long he had been detained in the convoy cell .","He stated that the average time spent in the convoy cell by an accused was TIME a day .","On DATE and DATE the applicant complained to the court and the Head of ORG about the conditions of detention in the convoy cell .","By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG of PERSON replied to the applicant \u2019s complaint . The relevant part of the letter reads as follows :","\u201c ... on DATE accused were brought to the court \u2019s convoy cells , the cells were filled up to the limit because according to the Order no . CARDINAL ... the following categories of individuals should be detained separately : men and women , minors and adults , individuals with previous criminal record and first time accused , suspects and convicted , suspects and accused in CARDINAL case .","According to LAW ... smoking is prohibited in all LOC of ORG of GPE , including the convoy cell . \u201d","By letter of CARDINAL DATE the Head of ORG replied to the applicant \u2019s complaint . The relevant part of the letter reads as follows :","\u201c On DATE the convoy staff was obliged to seat the accused brought to the court according to the rules in force , thus CARDINAL individuals were put together in CARDINAL of the convoy cells .","According to LAW ... smoking is prohibited in all LOC of ORG of GPE , including the convoy cell . \u201d","On DATE the applicant asked the prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the wardens of the courthouse . The prosecutor ignored the applicant \u2019s motion and the applicant challenged his inaction in court . By decision of DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint in the final instance . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c The court \u2019s conclusion that there are no grounds to record the applicant \u2019s complaint under LAW ORG ) and to adopt a procedural decision under LAW correlates It follows from the applicant \u2019s statement of appeal ... that he complained of the conditions of the detention in the convoy cell of ORG of GPE , namely the smoking ban and the overcrowding of the cells . The complaint does not contain any information on committed crimes and does not require institution of criminal proceedings . These circumstances were established during the court hearing and confirmed by the record of the hearing . For the reasons mentioned above the court of first instance reasonably dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . \u201d","The Government submitted that the courthouse convoy LOC measuring QUANTITY metres in total had CARDINAL cells , QUANTITY metres each . They had adequate ventilation and lighting , the entrance was secured by metal grill doors . Each cell was equipped with CARDINAL bench . The cells did not have sanitary facilities , but the convoy LOC had CARDINAL lavatories . The applicant had access to the toilet at any time upon request . The Government provided undated photographs and a plan of the convoy LOC .","Relying on a certificate issued by the director of facility IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE , the Government claimed that the applicant was brought to ORG of Chelyabinsk seven times : on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE DATE .","The Government submitted that the documents confirming the number of detainees in the convoy cells and their time of arrival and departure were destroyed on DATE due to expiry of the timelimit for their storage .","With reference to the applicable regulations , the ORG submitted that on the dates of the applicant \u2019s transfers to ORG the applicant had received a dry ration ( bread , tinned meat or fish , tea , salt , sugar and disposable tableware before DATE , and instant first and second course , sugar , tea , disposable tableware from DATE ) . The Government provided a copy of the invoice dated DATE confirming the purchase of a water boiler by ORG .","The Government acknowledged that on DATE the convoy premises were crowded to the limit . According to the statement by the Deputy Head of ORG dated DATE , there were CARDINAL detainees in CARDINAL cells in the convoy LOC . The statement does not provide exact numbers for each cell ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172562","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KHALILOVA AND AYYUBZADE v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 6+6-3 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3 - Rights of defence)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . At the material time the first applicant was a member of CARDINAL of the main opposition parties in the country , ORG of Azerbaijan , and the second applicant was a member of an opposition group , ORG .","The applicants participated in an assembly on DATE . According to the applicants , they were among people who gathered near ORG to support members of ORG ( an opposition group ) , who were being tried on DATE . The courtroom was full , and therefore some people gathered outside the court to wait for the outcome of the proceedings . When the court announced its judgment , those who had gathered outside began to protest against the judgment , since they considered it unfair . The protest was brief , spontaneous and peaceful . Immediately after the protesters started chanting slogans , police officers and people in plain clothes began to forcibly disperse the demonstration .","The applicants were arrested during the dispersal operation and were taken to a police station , where they were kept TIME .","The applicants were questioned at the police station .","On DATE of the applicants\u2019 arrest , administrative - offence reports on them ( inzibati x\u0259ta haqq\u0131nda protokol ) were issued , which stated that they had committed an administrative offence under LAW ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) : participation in a public assembly organised not in accordance with the law .","According to the applicants , they were never served with copies of the administrative - offence reports or other documents from their case files . They were not given access to a lawyer either after their arrest or while they were in police custody .","According to a police officer \u2019s decision and an order dated DATE , a ORG - funded lawyer ( Mr O.A. ) was invited to defend the first applicant . Similarly , according to a police officer \u2019s decision and an order dated DATE , a ORG - funded lawyer ( PERSON ) was invited to defend the second applicant .","The applicants were brought before ORG on DATE following their arrest .","According to the applicants , the hearing before the first - instance court was very brief in both cases . Members of the public were not allowed inside the courtroom , even though the court had not taken a formal decision to close the hearing to the public .","According to the applicants , they were not given an opportunity to appoint lawyers of their own choosing .","A ORG - funded lawyer was invited to defend the first applicant . It was the same lawyer , PERSON , who had been invited to defend her in accordance with the above - mentioned police officer \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE .","The second applicant was not represented by a lawyer . According to the transcript of the hearing in his case , he refused the assistance of the ORG - funded lawyer and decided to defend himself in person .","According to the transcript of the hearing concerning the first applicant , the ORG - funded lawyer did not make any oral or written submissions .","The only witnesses questioned during the hearing concerning the first applicant were police officers who , according to official records , had arrested her or issued the administrative - offence report on her . They testified that the applicant had staged an unauthorised protest . With respect to the second applicant , the court did not question any witness .","According to the transcript of the hearing concerning the first applicant , she stated that she had participated in the protest of DATE and had rightfully used \u201c improper language \u201d in the course of the protest .","According to the transcript of the hearing concerning the second applicant , he stated that he had simply protested against an unfair judgment against the ORG members , and had not committed any unlawful action .","NORP In both cases ORG found that the applicants had participated in an unauthorised demonstration . The court convicted the applicants under LAW of the ORG , and sentenced them to a period of administrative detention of CARDINAL and twenty days respectively .","On unspecified dates the applicants lodged appeals with ORG , arguing that their convictions had been in violation of their rights , because the protest in which they had participated had been spontaneous and peaceful . The applicants also complained that their arrests had been unlawful , and that the hearings before the first - instance court had not been fair . They asked ORG to quash the firstinstance court \u2019s decisions in their respective cases .","The first applicant was assisted by a lawyer of her own choosing before ORG . The second applicant was not represented by a lawyer .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively ORG dismissed the ORG appeals and upheld the decisions of the firstinstance court ."],"violated_articles":["11","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178949","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF YA\u015eAR AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","On DATE the applicants were taken into police custody . Their statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer . All the applicants confessed to having committed the crimes with which they had been charged . On DATE they were remanded in custody .","On DATE ORG at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicants ( except for GPE ) , charging them under LAW of the former LAW with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory .","On DATE the LAW was amended and the military judges sitting on the bench of ORG were replaced by civilian judges .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicants as charged .","On DATE ORG quashed the convictions .","State Security Courts were abolished on DATE pursuant to Law no . CARDINAL . The case was accordingly transferred to ORG .","NORP On DATE ORG again convicted the applicants under LAW of LAW and sentenced them to life imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld the convictions ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164658","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PARCHIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["All the applicants were party to civil proceedings in which the firstinstance and appeal courts found in their favour . These judgments became final but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts on the grounds of incorrect application of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts ( for more details see the Appendix ) ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153905","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF NAGIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE there was a bomb explosion in GPE . Criminal proceedings were instituted in connection with this explosion and on DATE the applicant was charged with unlawful possession of explosive materials under LAW of GPE .","On DATE ORG , GPE , ordered the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant and issued an arrest warrant .","On DATE the arrest warrant was sent to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) of GPE .","It appears from a letter of DATE signed by the head of ORG of the ORG that following the transfer of the arrest warrant to the NORP authorities the police contacted the applicant , who was in GPE , sometime in DATE . The applicant came voluntarily to the ORG and submitted that he had no link with the explosion in question . The ORG established that the applicant was an NORP national and decided to transfer his statement to the relevant NORP authorities . At the request of the NORP authorities , on DATE the applicant was again questioned at the ORG with the participation of CARDINAL NORP police officers about his possible involvement in the explosion . Following a TIME interrogation , no action was taken against the applicant and he left the premises of ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) of the ORG about an alleged misappropriation of his property by a certain ORG and others . Dissatisfied with the progress in the case , the applicant subsequently lodged complaints with various ORG authorities about the failure of the ORG to investigate his complaint .","On DATE the applicant was summoned to the ORG and on arrival there he was arrested . The applicant was not allowed to contact his family or a lawyer , and his arrest was not documented .","As the applicant \u2019s family had no information about his whereabouts , on DATE they lodged a criminal complaint with FAC . CARDINAL related to the applicant \u2019s disappearance , and submitted a photograph of him to the police .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant \u2019s family by telephone that the applicant had been arrested and detained in the temporary detention facility of the ORG .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s brother was allowed to visit him in the temporary detention facility of the ORG . However , the applicant \u2019s family was not informed of the reasons for the applicant \u2019s arrest and detention .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s family contacted a lawyer for the applicant \u2019s defence and at around TIME on DATE a contract was concluded between them .","At TIME on DATE the lawyer went to the ORG and tried to meet the applicant . However , the lawyer was informed that he could not meet the applicant without the authorisation of the investigator . The lawyer immediately sent telegrams to the ORG , ORG and the ORG complaining that he had been prevented from meeting the applicant .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was brought before a judge of ORG who ordered his detention on remand ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . His lawyer was not informed about the hearing ; the applicant was represented by a ORG - appointed lawyer .","While detained in the temporary detention facility of the ORG , he was during the period from DATE to DATE forced to change his statement in the criminal case concerning the misappropriation of his property by ORG and others .","As regards the criminal complaint lodged by his family ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , by letter of DATE the head of GPE FAC . CARDINAL informed the applicant \u2019s family of the investigator \u2019s refusal to institute criminal proceedings in connection with his disappearance . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c On DATE citizen PERSON lodged a complaint with FAC . CARDINAL , stating that his brother , PERSON [ the applicant ] , born in DATE , left his home at TIME on DATE and has not returned .","Citizen PERSON also made a statement confirming the content of his complaint .","A report was prepared and transferred to FAC . CARDINAL in connection with the search for PERSON [ the applicant ] . During the search , all the police stations in GPE were instructed and other measures were taken .","During the search , non - official information was received indicating that PERSON had been arrested by the ORG of the ORG because he was wanted in GPE . An enquiry in this regard was sent to the ORG , but no response has yet been received .","The whereabouts of PERSON have not yet been clearly established .","Taking into account that there is no evidence that a crime has been committed , institution of criminal proceedings in connection with this subject should be rejected . \u201d","The applicant was arrested at TIME on DATE . The relevant part of the official record of the applicant \u2019s arrest ( cinay\u0259t t\u00f6r\u0259tmi\u015f \u015f\u0259xsin tutulmas\u0131 bar\u0259d\u0259 protokol ) of DATE reads as follows :","\u201c ... At TIME on DATE , PERSON [ the applicant ] , whose identity was established later , born on ... and in ... was arrested in the district of GPE in GPE and taken to the department . It was established during questioning there that on DATE PERSON was charged under LAW ( unlawful possession of explosive materials ) of LAW of GPE by ORG ... an arrest warrant was issued , and the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody was ordered ...","PERSON was transferred to the temporary detention facility of the ORG ... \u201d","It appears from the extracts from the logbook of the ORG \u2019s temporary detention facility submitted to ORG that the applicant arrived at the detention facility at TIME on DATE following a decision of a ORG judge .","On DATE a judge of ORG , relying on the NORP court \u2019s detention order of CARDINAL DATE , ordered the application of the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of the applicant for DATE . At the hearing the applicant was represented by a ORG - appointed lawyer . The judge relied on the provisions of LAW ( \u201c the CCrP \u201d ) of GPE relating to detention with a view to extradition when she ordered the applicant \u2019s detention . The judge justified this measure as follows :","\u201c Taking into account the fact that PERSON oglu committed a less serious criminal offence and , if released , would obstruct the objective functioning of the investigation by absconding from it , I consider it necessary to confirm the decision of DATE of ORG of Preobrazhensky District , GPE , to apply the preventive measure of remand in custody in respect of him for DATE .","In fact , according to LAW , upon receipt of a request for extradition of a person and a copy of a detention order in respect of him from the competent authority of a foreign ORG , the prosecuting authority of GPE to which the request is addressed may , if necessary , take measures in compliance with the provisions of this LAW to have the person arrested and detained before a decision on extradition is taken . \u201d","Following a series of complaints to the various domestic authorities , on DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer was provided with a copy of the record of the applicant \u2019s arrest and ORG decision of DATE .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against ORG decision of DATE , claiming that his arrest and detention had been unlawful . In particular , he submitted that he had been unlawfully arrested on DATE and that there were no criminal proceedings pending against him in GPE . He further argued that as he was an NORP national he could not be extradited to a foreign ORG , which followed from LAW and LAW . He also submitted that his arrest and detention had not been carried out in accordance with domestic and international law , since no official request accompanied by the relevant documents for his detention and extradition was ever submitted by the NORP authorities . The applicant \u2019s lawyer also submitted a request for restoration of the time - limits for lodging an appeal . In this connection , the lawyer stated that although at TIME the applicant \u2019s family had appointed him as a lawyer for the applicant \u2019s defence , he had not been informed of ORG hearing , which was held at TIME on DATE . He further noted that he had been provided with a copy of the detention order only on DATE .","On DATE the NORP ORG granted the request for restoration of the time - limits for lodging an appeal and forwarded the applicant \u2019s appeal to the appellate court for examination .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE without considering the applicant \u2019s specific complaints .","On DATE the NORP ORG granted the prosecutor \u2019s request for the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE , relying on LAW CCrP concerning the extension of detention periods pending criminal proceedings . In its decision , the court noted that as the applicant was an NORP national he could not be extradited to a foreign ORG , and for this reason ORG had requested ORG to transfer the applicant \u2019s criminal case to the NORP authorities . The court thus justified the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention period by the fact that more time was needed for the submission of relevant documents relating to the applicant \u2019s case from ORG to the NORP authorities . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c As the extradition of PERSON to GPE is impossible because he is a citizen of GPE , a request was sent to ORG for the criminal case to be transferred to ORG for the criminal inquiry to be continued in GPE .","Taking into account the fact that more time is needed for the transfer of the criminal case relating to the accused PERSON from ORG to ORG , but that the detention period of PERSON oglu ends on DATE , I consider the request justified in order to ensure the criminal prosecution of PERSON in the future and to prevent him from absconding from the court proceedings .","Taking into account the above - mentioned matters and relying on ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , I decide that the detention period of PERSON oglu born on ... and in ... must be extended for DATE , until DATE . \u201d","The applicant appealed against this decision , claiming that the extension of his detention was unlawful . He noted in particular that although the court had relied on LAW CCrP concerning the extension of detention periods pending criminal proceedings when it ordered the extension of his detention , there were no criminal proceedings pending against him in GPE , and therefore his detention could not be extended on this basis . He also submitted that the court had failed to justify the extension of his detention , and that his continued detention was in breach of the relevant international conventions . The applicant further reiterated the complaint concerning his unlawful detention from DATE in the ORG , noting that the main reason for his detention was his complaint concerning misappropriation of his property by ORG and others . In this connection he disputed the content of the official record of his arrest , stating that his family could not possibly have known about his arrest at TIME on DATE and concluded a contract with his lawyer for his defence , if he had been arrested at TIME on DATE as indicated in the official record .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . The appellate court made no mention of the applicant \u2019s particular complaints .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG , asking the court to replace his remand in custody with the preventive measure of house arrest . He claimed , in particular , that his detention had not been justified and that there was no reason for his continued detention . In support of his request , the applicant pointed out that he had a permanent place of residence and that there was no risk of his absconding from or obstructing the investigation .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE , relying on LAW CCrP concerning the extension of detention periods pending criminal proceedings . As to the justification for the extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , the court relied on an almost identical wording as that of the court \u2019s decision of DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision , reiterating his previous complaints . He noted in this regard that the domestic courts had ignored his complaint concerning his unlawful detention in the temporary detention facility of the ORG from DATE . He further stated that although the NORP authorities had never submitted any extradition request or a request for institution of criminal proceedings against him in GPE , he had been detained in breach of the domestic and international law . In particular , he referred to Article CARDINAL of the ORG , which provides that a person arrested with a view to extradition must be released if no official request for his extradition is received by the NORP prosecuting authority within TIME of his arrest .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s decision . The appellate court made no mention of the applicant \u2019s specific complaints .","On DATE the ORG again extended the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE . The court \u2019s decision was almost identical in its wording to the decisions of DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision . He reiterated that the domestic courts had ignored his complaint concerning his unlawful detention in the temporary detention facility of the ORG from CARDINAL to DATE . He further stated that it was not legitimate for the domestic courts to order the extension of his detention on the ground that more time was needed for the transfer of relevant documents from the NORP authorities to their NORP counterparts .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s appeal and ordered his release . The appellate court quashed ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , holding that the first - instance court had erred in extending the applicant \u2019s continued detention . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c It appears from the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE , concerning an operational - search measure and which was added to the case file , that a decision concerning an operational - search measure in respect of PERSON , who was wanted for a crime committed in GPE , was taken .","The record of the applicant \u2019s arrest , drawn up by ... , indicates that PERSON was arrested on DATE .","In accordance with the requirements of LAW , upon receipt of a request for extradition of a person and a copy of a detention order in respect of him from the competent authority of a foreign ORG , the prosecuting authority of GPE to which the request is addressed may , if necessary , take measures in compliance with the provisions of this LAW to have the person arrested and detained before the decision on extradition is taken ...","In accordance with paragraph II of LAW , a citizen of GPE may under no circumstances be extradited to a foreign state .","In accordance with LAW , a citizen of GPE who has committed a crime on the territory of a foreign state shall not be extradited to that foreign state ...","In accordance with the requirements of LAW DATE , if a request for extradition , as provided for in LAW , and accompanying documents were not transferred within DATE of the date of arrest of the person arrested , the person must be immediately released .","It appears that PERSON has been in detention for DATE and DATE , or CARDINAL , and that during this period no additional material concerning him was sent from GPE to the NORP authorities ...","Therefore , taking into account the above - mentioned findings , the panel of the court considers that the appeal of the lawyer must be granted and that ORG decision on extension of PERSON detention period must be quashed . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170055","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KIRINS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE Inspector PERSON ORG arrested the applicant and took him to the police station . The applicant , who had category CARDINAL disability status in relation to his eyesight , did not offer any resistance . Subsequently , PERSON beat up the applicant by delivering several blows to his head , near to his eyes . When the applicant fell to the ground , PERSON kicked him at least once in the chest .","After this injury , the deterioration of the applicant \u2019s sight accelerated , leading to retinal detachment . In DATE and DATE he had several eye operations , including CARDINAL in a hospital in GPE , but the retinal detachment continued to progress . In DATE he was granted category CARDINAL disability status for complete loss of vision .","On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against GPE On DATE the applicant was joined as a civil party to those proceedings .","NORP In DATE a forensic medical report was drawn up . It stated that on DATE the applicant had sustained numerous injuries , which by their nature were considered moderate , resulting in long - term health problems of CARDINAL one days and permanently reducing his capacity to work by CARDINAL .","On DATE charges were brought against PERSON and on DATE the case was sent to ORG for adjudication .","S.K. did not appear at the first hearing on DATE . ORG held that the case could not be heard in his absence and issued a warrant for his arrest . In DATE the warrant was sent to the NORP police station .","During the same hearing the applicant \u2019s lawyers asked the trial court to order a second forensic medical report in an attempt to establish the nature and seriousness of the injuries sustained . The prosecutor supported the request and ORG ordered a report .","In DATE , DATE and DATE ORG asked the NORP police station for information about the measures taken and results achieved in executing the arrest warrant . In reply to each request the police sent identical responses stating that PERSON was wanted and that the trial court would be informed when he was caught . In DATE the police informed ORG that , according to information received , PERSON had left GPE .","NORP In DATE the forensic medical service reminded ORG that it had not received any original medical documents . In DATE and DATE ORG asked the NORP authorities for assistance in obtaining originals of medical records relating to the applicant \u2019s operations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . For unknown reasons the documents were not obtained and as a result , the report could not be drawn up .","On DATE the prosecutor asked the trial court to order a forensic medical examination to confirm the classification of the offence . After the initial forensic medical report the applicant \u2019s health had deteriorated and he had completely lost his sight . According to the prosecutor , there were therefore grounds to consider that that might be related to the injuries which had been inflicted on the applicant in DATE . ORG upheld the prosecutor \u2019s request and ordered the third forensic medical examination . A medical panel was asked to comment on what kind of trauma had caused the injuries ; whether the applicant had lost his sight as a result of the injuries inflicted on him in DATE ; to what extent he had been incapacitated before the injuries and their severity .","On DATE a medical report was drawn up . It stated that on DATE the applicant had sustained injuries which by their nature were considered minor , resulting in health problems of DATE . The report continued that prior to the injuries the applicant had had serious and progressively deteriorating myopia . The applicant \u2019s sight problems had become worse as a result of the head injuries sustained on DATE , and that had led to further deterioration of his sight .","It was also noted that , under domestic law , the worsening of a preexisting condition did not as such serve as grounds for reclassifying the seriousness of an injury . Serious eye disorders could develop and result in the loss of sight even without trauma . In the light of the above , the report did not establish a direct causal link between the injuries inflicted on the applicant in DATE and his loss of sight .","In DATE ORG refused to grant the applicant \u2019s request for another medical report for lack of reasoning .","DATE a total of CARDINAL hearings were postponed because experts , doctors , including an ophthalmologist , did not attend and several medical experts needed to be called . In particular , on QUANTITY occasions DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE hearings were postponed at the request of the applicant , as he had asked for a doctor and a forensic expert to be summoned .","On DATE , at the request of ORG , a panel of experts drew up the fourth medical report which stated that the applicant had suffered CARDINAL blow to his right eye and to his thorax . The injuries sustained by him were considered minor . The report continued by stating that on DATE the applicant had suffered injuries to his head that had resulted in a serious worsening of his eye disorder ( myopia ) with the recurrence of retinal detachments in both eyes followed by further deterioration of his sight . The worsening of a pre - existing condition , including after earlier injuries , did not in itself provide a basis for determining a more serious classification of bodily injury . A severe and progressive eye disorder ( myopia ) could deteriorate and lead to retinal detachment even if no injuries had been suffered , and eventually lead to complete loss of vision . The experts concluded that the applicant \u2019s head injuries of CARDINAL DATE had no direct causal link with the subsequent deterioration of his vision and his category CARDINAL disability status .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with the trial court for compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG found guilty PERSON absentia for abusing his official power in a violent and disrespectful manner . He was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","In relation to the applicant \u2019s civil claim ORG held that the total amount claimed , namely CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) and MONEY ( ORG ) had not been supported by evidence . The majority of the documents confirming payment of the medical expenses had been submitted in NORP and LANGUAGE , and in order to invite a translator it would have to delay the adjudication . In addition , the applicant had not stated which part of the expenses related to the consequences of the injuries sustained . Accordingly , the trial court decided as follows :","\u201c To recognise the [ applicant \u2019s ] rights to compensation from the ORG for material , pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by the criminal offence , and to remit ( nodot ) the question of the precise amount to be awarded \/ enforced ( piedz\u012bt ) to the court to decide in civil proceedings \u201d .","The judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE the ORG registered the applicant \u2019s civil claim dated DATE against ORG and ORG . The applicant claimed compensation for damage caused by the criminal offence committed by Inspector PERSON In the claim the applicant relied on the operative part of the judgment of ORG ( see above ) , section CARDINAL of the Law on Police and various provisions of LAW which regulated tort liability . Relying on sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW in particular , the applicant claimed pecuniary and non - pecuniary ( mor\u0101lo kait\u0113jumu ) damages of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for blindness , mutilation and disfigurement ( sakrop\u013cojums un iz\u0137\u0113mojums ) , loss of future income ( atraut\u0101 pe\u013c\u0146a ) and medical expenses .","On DATE ORG , acting as a firstinstance court , relied , amongst other provisions , on LAW and section CARDINAL of the Law on Police , and accepted the applicant \u2019s civil claim in part . He was awarded ORG ( LAW ) in non - pecuniary damages for the damage caused to his health and ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in pecuniary damages from both defendants on a pro rata basis for his medical expenses .","According to ORG , the applicant \u2019s claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage came within the scope of section CARDINAL of LAW , a lex specialis providing no specific criteria for awarding compensation . The court referred to the findings of the experts in the criminal proceedings and stated that the applicant \u2019s bodily injuries caused by the police officer might have been the reason for the worsening of his eye disorder ( myopia ) that had resulted in a rapid deterioration of his sight and eventually complete loss of vision .","On DATE ORG reviewed the case following appeals by the applicant , ORG and ORG . It ruled that the first - instance court had been incorrect in concluding that the applicant \u2019s injuries had amounted to mutilation and disfigurement under LAW of LAW . The applicant \u2019s claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage was dismissed . The pecuniary damages were reduced to ORG ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .","Regarding the applicant \u2019s claim for pecuniary damages , ORG ruled that the judgment adopted in the criminal proceedings against PERSON only proved that he had committed a crime using violence against the applicant . The CARDINAL usual criteria for establishing tort liability and compensation thus had to be satisfied ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the judgment of CARDINAL DATE the first and fourth criteria had been established . ORG analysed all the medical data before it concerning the applicant \u2019s health and concluded that ORG were liable to pay pecuniary damages to the applicant for his medical expenses under section CARDINAL of LAW .","Regarding the applicant \u2019s claim for non - pecuniary damages , ORG concluded that the loss of the applicant \u2019s sight had occurred under specific circumstances , including his previous state of health . It was also noted that the loss of his sight was not directly linked to the bodily injuries sustained by him on DATE . There was therefore no evidence to prove that his bodily injuries had amounted to mutilation or disfigurement , as provided in section CARDINAL of LAW .","In a preparatory meeting on CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant as not raising any relevant legal issues .","In a letter dated DATE addressed to the Government , ORG stated that there were no grounds for the national courts to extend the scope of the applicant \u2019s claim and decide on the awarding of non - pecuniary damages on the following grounds . The applicant had claimed pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages for injuries sustained as a result of police ill - treatment . In this regard he had relied on sections CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW , which provided that compensation could be claimed for mutilation and disfigurement . In order to determine whether the consequences of the alleged injuries were those stipulated in the legal provision , the domestic courts had to establish the essential conditions of tort liability , namely ( i ) unlawful conduct , ( ii ) damage , ( iii ) a causal link between the unlawful conduct and damage claimed and ( iv ) fault . In the applicant \u2019s case , no such conclusions could be drawn on the basis of the medical documents . The applicant had lost his sight owing to various coexisting circumstances , not as a result of the injuries sustained in DATE .","ORG also stated that with the amendments of DATE LAW contained a general legal provision ( section DATE of LAW ) for claiming non - pecuniary damages . Nevertheless , it did not have retroactive effect and therefore the national courts could not apply it in the applicant \u2019s case . According to ORG , no such obligation could be inferred from any other legal acts on the account that the subject matter of the present civil dispute did not concern the public law obligation which ORG had undertaken in the area of human rights .","Furthermore , ORG indicated that in the applicant \u2019s case the DATE statutory limitation period for claiming damages had started to run on DATE , DATE the final judgment in the criminal case became effective . ORG therefore considered that the applicant still had the right to rely on LAW and lodge a claim for compensation for damage caused by a criminal offence . In that regard ORG referred to the judgment of DATE in the so - called \u201c PERSON tragedy \u201d case , in which it ruled that a person has the right to receive compensation for violations of his or her human rights ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152427","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CIOBANU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Her late husband , Mr PERSON ( \u201c the victim \u201d ) , was a taxi driver and died at work , in a car accident on DATE . He was DATE at the time and the father of a DATE child . The present application is about the circumstances of his death and the investigation carried out by the NORP authorities into those circumstances .","The accident happened at TIME on DATE in an illuminated CARDINAL - way street with CARDINAL lanes in the town of GPE . The speed limit was CARDINAL k.p.h . and a solid line in the centre of the road indicated that no overtaking was allowed . A petrol station was located on one side of the road and there was a short broken line allowing cars to enter the petrol station from the opposite side of the road .","There are CARDINAL versions of the events leading to the accident . The first version is based on the accounts of QUANTITY eyewitnesses . According to them , the applicant \u2019s husband was driving his Lada ( \u201c the victim \u2019s car \u201d ) along the street and when he was level with the petrol station located on his left , he slowed down , indicated a left turn and then turned to the left . When his car had crossed the line in the centre of the road and was perpendicular to the road in the lane for traffic from the opposite direction , a speeding CARDINAL series ORG car ( \u201c the grey car \u201d ) came from behind and hit it in the left side doors . The impact was so powerful that the victim \u2019s car was lifted spinning up in the air at a height of QUANTITY and was propelled onto a lamp post on the left side of the road . The grey car passed under the victim \u2019s car and continued on its way for a while before coming to a complete stop .","The second version of the events was that of the grey car driver involved in the accident . He submitted that he had been driving at a speed of CARDINAL k.p.h . and had not overtaken any cars , when suddenly the victim , whose car had been parked on the right - hand side of the road , had started to turn left without looking out or indicating . The grey car driver claimed that he could not have applied his brakes or avoided the impact . He had a passenger in his car who submitted that he had not seen anything as he had been talking on the telephone at that very moment . Neither of the grey car occupants was injured in the accident .","According to measurements made by the police at the scene of the accident , the distance between the CARDINAL cars involved in the accident after their complete stop was QUANTITY . Experts later established that the grey car had hit the victim \u2019s car at an angle of QUANTITY . There were no skid marks , meaning that the grey car driver did not apply his brakes before impact . The victim died on the spot from multiple lethal injuries .","The police carried out an immediate examination of the scene of the accident and the grey car driver was taken to hospital , where he tested negative for the presence of alcohol in his blood . A criminal investigation was initiated DATE .","One of the witnesses questioned during the criminal investigation was a taxi driver , C. , who had been driving along the same street and in the same direction as the victim . He submitted that the victim \u2019s car had been further ahead but within sight . C. had been driving at a speed of CARDINAL ORG . when a speeding grey car had overtaken him in spite of the solid line on the centre of the road . He estimated that the grey car had been moving at a speed of CARDINAL k.p.h . After overtaking his car , the grey car continued to drive in the lane for traffic coming from the opposite direction . C. claimed that he had seen the victim \u2019s car ahead of him slowing down and indicating a left turn in front of the petrol station . As the victim \u2019s car was turning left , the speeding grey car , which was still driving in the opposite lane , smashed into its left side .","Another witness was a student , PERSON , who had been at a car wash across the road from the petrol station . He was standing there waiting for a taxi which he had ordered over the telephone and saw the entire scene . He was questioned on DATE and submitted that the victim had been driving along the street before slowing down and indicating a left turn . After turning to the left , he was hit by a speeding grey car which had come from behind him in the lane for traffic coming from the opposite direction . PERSON estimated that the grey car driver had been travelling at CARDINAL k.p.h . and had not applied his brakes before the impact .","On DATE an experiment was conducted by the prosecutor in charge of the case with the participation of the grey car driver and witness C. The applicant was not informed about it . The experiment consisted of measuring the time needed for a car to turn left at the place where the accident had happened and in the manner indicated by C. As a result of the experiment , it was established that the victim had needed TIME to make the manoeuvre of turning left .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the investigation granted the grey car driver \u2019s request to return his car to him . It had been held as a piece of evidence until DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested that a technical forensic investigation be conducted in order to determine , inter alia , the speed of the grey car , judging by the damage to both vehicles ; the distance between the CARDINAL cars when the victim \u2019s car had started its manoeuvre ; and whether the grey car could have avoided the impact by braking , had its driver been keeping to the legal speed limit . The request was partly granted by the prosecutor on DATE and an expert from ORG was asked to reply only to the question whether the grey car could have avoided the impact if it had been moving at CARDINAL ORG . and on the basis that the victim \u2019s car had needed TIME to turn left . The expert was not provided with other information . The applicant was notified about the decision to conduct the forensic investigation on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE , an expert from ORG issued a report in which he had taken as the basis of his investigation the fact that the grey car had been moving at CARDINAL k.p.h . when the victim \u2019s car had turned left . The report indicated that when the victim \u2019s car had started its manoeuvre to the left , the grey car could have been QUANTITY behind it . It did not disclose the origin of the information concerning the distance of QUANTITY , nor did it contain any suggestion as to how the expert had come up with that figure . The report also indicated that the braking distance of a ORG of the kind involved in the accident moving at a speed of CARDINAL ORG . was between thirty - one and QUANTITY . On the basis of the above figures , noting that the braking distance of the grey car was longer than the distance of QUANTITY between the cars , the report concluded that the grey car could not have avoided the impact by braking .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the investigation ordered a new technical forensic investigation to determine the position of both vehicles involved in the accident in relation to each other and the road .","On DATE another expert from ORG issued a report in which he concluded that the grey car had hit the left side of the victim \u2019s car at an angle of QUANTITY . The expert could not establish the position of the vehicles in relation to the road at the time of the impact since he had not been provided with sufficient information .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case ordered a third technical forensic investigation to determine the speed of the grey car , judging by the damage to both vehicles ; the distance between the CARDINAL cars when the victim \u2019s car had started its manoeuvre ; whether the grey car could have avoided the impact by braking , had it been keeping to the legal speed limit ; and the manner in which both drivers should have behaved had they been respecting the provisions of the traffic code .","On DATE the expert who had issued the first report on DATE , relying again on the facts as submitted by the grey car driver , concluded , inter alia , that there was no way of calculating the grey car \u2019s speed ; the grey car could not have avoided the impact by braking because its braking distance was longer than the distance between the CARDINAL cars when the victim \u2019s car had started the manoeuvre ; the distance between the CARDINAL cars when the victim \u2019s car had turned left could not be determined , but on the basis of previous findings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) it could have been around QUANTITY ; and that the grey car should have stopped when the victim \u2019s car had started its manoeuvre , but had been unable to do so .","On DATE a confrontation was conducted between witnesses C. and the grey car driver . Each of them kept to their initial version of the facts .","On DATE the prosecutor in charge of the case ordered another forensic technical investigation by a commission of experts . The experts were requested to answer whether the grey car driver had had the right to overtake the victim \u2019s car ; whether before starting his manoeuvre the victim had been entitled to believe that the grey car driver would respect the traffic code rules ; and what the grey car driver should have done when the victim \u2019s car indicated a left turn and started its manoeuvre .","On DATE the applicant requested that an independent expert of her choice be involved in the commission of experts . She nominated an engineer who was also a university professor and had a PhD in the field of traffic security . However , on DATE the prosecutor rejected the request on the ground that the person proposed by the applicant was not licenced to practise as a judicial expert . It was decided that the person proposed by the applicant should participate in the commission of experts in the capacity of \u201c specialist \u201d .","On DATE the expert who had issued the first report on DATE together with another expert issued a forensic investigation report in which they refused to give answers to the first CARDINAL questions because they were of a legal character . In answer to the third question , the experts said that the grey car driver should have reduced his speed . The specialist proposed by the applicant was not informed that a forensic investigation had been carried out .","On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the criminal investigation into the circumstances of PERSON death . The prosecutor considered the testimonies of witnesses C. and PERSON unreliable because they had been contradicted by the findings in the forensic technical reports . On the other hand , the findings in those reports were found to be consistent with the submissions of the grey car driver . Accordingly , the prosecutor accepted the latter \u2019s version of the facts and concluded that the victim had been responsible for the accident because , having been parked on the right - hand side of the road , he had turned left without looking out and making sure that the manoeuvre was safe . The applicant appealed , arguing , inter alia , that no independent experts of her choice had been involved in the forensic investigations and no confrontation had been carried out between the grey car driver and witness PERSON","On DATE the next level of prosecutor from ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the decision of ORG Office of DATE . He argued that no independent expert opinion or supplementary confrontations had been necessary because the facts of the accident had been clearly established . The applicant challenged the decision of ORG Office of DATE before the investigating judge , who dismissed her appeal on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158470","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF HAD\u017dIMEJLI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Procedure prescribed by law);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and are currently in the Drin social care home ( \u201c Drin \u201d ) .","On DATE , at the request of ORG , ORG deprived the applicant of legal capacity . It was established that she had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and that placement in a social care home would be in her best interest .","On DATE the Visoko Social Work Centre placed the applicant under the guardianship of her sister .","On DATE ORG placed the applicant in Drin in accordance with the social care legislation .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal concerning the lawfulness of her detention .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) held that the applicant \u2019s deprivation of liberty had not been \u201c in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law \u201d within the meaning of LAW as she had been held in psychiatric detention without a decision of the competent civil court . It also found that LAW had been breached because of lack of judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s detention . ORG ordered ORG to take measures to ensure respect for the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c CARDINAL . ORG recalls that it examined the same factual and legal situation in the decision no . ORG CARDINAL [ ... ] . Therefore , instead of a separate legal analysis in this case , it refers to the reasoning set out in that decision ...","As regards LAW of LAW ... ORG concluded that the appellant was placed in the social care home under the social care legislation of GPE and of the [ PERSON ] GPE , which do not regulate the procedure for compulsory admission of mentally ill persons to social care homes . That procedure is regulated in the sections CARDINAL of LAW DATE . Section CARDINAL of that Act prescribes that a mentally ill person released from a hospital , who is incapable of living on his \/ her own and has no relatives or others who are required by law to care for him \/ her , shall be placed in a social care home under the social care legislation of ORG . However , in that case , a hospital is under a duty to inform the competent court of such placement immediately ... [ I]t is evident from the case - file that the appellant was detained without a decision of the competent civil court ... thus her initial deprivation of liberty was not in accordance with LAW CARDINAL ... [ T]herefore the court concludes that the deprivation of liberty in the appellant \u2019s case was unlawful and thus in violation of LAW ) of the LAW .","...","In the above - mentioned decision , ORG noted that the Federal and the Cantonal social care legislation , under which the appellant was placed in a social care home , do not envisage mandatory judicial control of the lawfulness of such placement ...","...","There has been a violation of LAW ) of the LAW in the present case because the appellant was placed in the social care home under the ORG social care legislation , whereas the compulsory placement of mentally ill persons is regulated by ORG which was not applied in this case . In view of that , her placement was not \u2018 lawful\u2019 . There has also been a violation of LAW because the appellant \u2019s placement and the prolongation of that placement was never examined by the competent court ... \u201d","On DATE ORG asked ORG to examine the necessity of the applicant\u02bcs placement in Drin in accordance with ORG and the LAW decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG concluded , on the basis of the expert medical report , that the applicant\u02bcs current state of health did not warrant continued confinment in GPE . That decision became final on DATE .","The applicant has not yet been released from Drin .","At the recommendation of ORG in GPE where the applicant was treated for schizophrenia , on DATE the Vare\u0161 Social Work Centre placed him in Drin in accordance with the social care legislation . It was established that his illness rendered him incapable of living on his own and that his family circumstances did not allow proper care at home .","On DATE the ORG deprived the applicant of his legal capacity .","On DATE the applicant was placed under the guardianship of GPE , a director of ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal concerning the lawfulness of his detention .","On DATE ORG held that the applicant \u2019s deprivation of liberty had not been \u201c in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law \u201d within the meaning of LAW as he had been held in psychiatric detention without a decision of the competent civil court . It also found that LAW had been breached because of lack of judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s detention . ORG ordered ORG to take measures to ensure respect for the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW and awarded him MONEY ( BAM ) . The relevant part of the decision reads :","\u201c DATE . ORG recalls that it examined the same factual and legal situation in the decision no . ORG CARDINAL [ ... ] . Therefore , instead of a separate legal analysis in this case , it refers to the reasoning set out in that decision ...","As regards LAW of LAW ... ORG concluded that the appellant was placed in the social care home under the social care legislation of GPE and of the [ PERSON ] GPE , which do not regulate the procedure for compulsory admission of mentally ill persons to social care homes . That procedure is regulated in the sections CARDINAL of LAW DATE . Section CARDINAL of that Act prescribes that a mentally ill person released from a hospital , who is incapable to live on his \/ her own and has no relatives or others who are required by law to care for him \/ her , shall be placed in a social care home under the social care legislation of ORG . However , in that case , a hospital is under a duty to inform the competent court of such placement immediately ... [ I]t is evident from the case - file that the appellant was detained without a decision of the competent civil court ... thus his initial deprivation of liberty had not been in accordance with LAW DATE .. [T]herefore the court concludes that the deprivation of liberty in the appellant \u2019s case was unlawful and thus in violation of LAW ) of the LAW .","CARDINAL ... In the above - mentioned decision , ORG noted that the Federal and the Cantonal social care legislation , under which the appellant was placed in a social care home , do not envisage mandatory judicial control of the lawfulness of such placement ...","Turning to the present case , ORG notes that the appellant was placed in the social care home at the recommendation of ORG in GPE ... It was established that he had been diagnosed with ORG , ORG , a condition which requires constant supervision and regular therapy which he can not have at home in view of his family \u2019s circumstances ( a mother was also deprived of her legal capacity due to mental illness , a father \u2019s whereabouts are unknown , and his sister is placed under guardianship) ... The court further notes that since DATE , when the appellant was placed in the social care home , ORG revised his placement on CARDINAL occasions , at the recommendation of the relevant Ministry and with the consent of his guardian PERSON However , those revisions were focused on the financial aspect of the appellant \u2019s placement without any consideration for his health condition and a potential release . The fact that ORG was the only domestic body which ever examined the appellant \u2019s placement ... raises issues under LAW MONEY ) and CARDINAL of the Convention .","ORG , although under LAW DATE a decision about compulsory admission of mentally ill persons must be made by a court , the appellant \u2019s case has never been examined by the competent court ...","Accordingly , as regards \u201c deprivation of liberty \u201d , the placement in the social care home and the review of the lawfulness of such placement , the court concludes , in view of the facts of the case and the reasons set out in the decision no . ORG CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , that there had been a violation of LAW MONEY ) and CARDINAL of the Convention in the present case . \u201d","On DATE the applicant received BAM CARDINAL awarded to him by ORG .","On DATE ORG concluded , on the basis of the expert medical report , that the applicant\u02bcs current state of health did not warrant continued confinment in Drin .","On DATE the ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE and it thus became final .","On DATE the Vare\u0161 ORG informed ORG that it considered that the applicant \u2019s continued placement in GPE was in his best interest for reasons of social protection .","NORP The applicant had not yet been released from Drin .","NORP In different intervals in DATE the applicant was treated for schizophrenia at ORG in GPE .","On DATE ORG deprived the applicant of his legal capacity .","On DATE ORG placed him in Drin .","On DATE the applicant was placed under the guardianship of A.B. , his cousin . On DATE he was placed under the guardianship of PERSON , his sister ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157757","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF \u00dcNSPED PAKET SERV\u0130S\u0130 SAN. VE T\u0130C. A.\u015e. v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant company runs logistics services . On DATE CARDINAL of the company \u2019s lorries was stopped for inspection at the NORP customs post . The NORP authorities discovered and seized the following substances from the cabin and trailer : CARDINAL tablets ( with a total value of MONEY ( ORG ) or MONEY ( ORG ) ) ; QUANTITY of white tablets ( with a total value of about EUR CARDINAL ) which included ephedrine hydrochloride ; and , CARDINAL pills which included testosterone enanthate ( with a total value of QUANTITY ) . The lorry was also seized as material evidence . Criminal proceedings were opened against the driver of the lorry .","On DATE the applicant company , as the owner of the lorry , asked ORG to return its vehicle . The prosecutor rejected the request on the grounds that the lorry had to be retained as material evidence until the end of the criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant company again applied to ORG asking that the lorry be returned in accordance with LAW . In particular , the applicant company claimed that : there had been no hidden compartment in the lorry ; the driver had abused his position ; the holding of the lorry was no longer justified as a forensic expert report had already been prepared ; the lorry \u2019s value ( around LAW ) was over CARDINAL times the value of the drugs and therefore the lorry could not be confiscated under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; and , lastly , the company faced significant losses because of the lorry \u2019s seizure . At the time of this request the case file was no longer with the prosecution service as it had been transferred to the courts , so ORG did not reply to the request .","In the meantime the lorry driver concluded a plea bargain agreement with the prosecutor . The terms of the agreement included a CARDINAL - and - a - DATE prison sentence for the driver and the forfeiture of the lorry .","On DATE the applicant company asked the criminal court competent to approve the plea bargain agreement not to confiscate its lorry . The applicant company emphasised in particular its inability to participate in the criminal proceedings against the driver and to state its position . It further pointed out that as the value of its lorry was CARDINAL times higher than the value of the smuggled goods , according to the relevant national law the vehicle should not be forfeited ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG confirmed the plea bargain agreement in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the agreement the driver confessed that he was guilty of smuggling under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( d ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW and accepted the forfeiture of the transported drugs and the lorry under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW . The decision was not subject to appeal and became enforceable on DATE .","NORP On DATE the applicant company brought proceedings before ORG ( \u201c the Office \u201d ) against the lorry driver , seeking damages . The ORG found that the driver was liable to pay ORG ORG to the applicant company for the damage his actions had caused . However , the applicant company could not collect any of this amount as the lorry driver had no assets at the time ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159044","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KALICKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant \u2019s brother PERSON worked as TIME guard at a bus terminus in GPE . On DATE , at TIME , his clothes caught fire . Drivers at the station raised the alarm and managed to extinguish the fire . PERSON was subsequently taken to hospital . However , because of his serious injuries he died on DATE .","On DATE the GPE district prosecutor discontinued the investigation into the circumstances of PERSON \u2019s death . During the investigation it was established that PERSON must have either fallen asleep or fainted and that his clothes had caught fire when they came into contact with an electric heater . The prosecutor concluded that it had been an unfortunate accident and that no offence had been committed .","On DATE the applicant appealed . He argued that the prosecution authorities had failed to establish the circumstances of his brother \u2019s death . He submitted that witnesses had given different versions of the events . In addition it had not been established how J.K \u2019s clothes could have caught fire and where the electric heater had been placed . He further stressed that PERSON had suffered from serious diabetes and should not have been allowed to work TIME shifts .","On DATE the Chief Inspector of ORG , in reply to the applicant \u2019s complaint , stated that the investigation into the circumstances of PERSON \u2019s death had indeed been too long . The officer in charge had already been disciplined .","On DATE the applicant again complained to ORG about delays in the proceedings . Subsequently , on DATE he complained to the GPE appellate prosecutor about the fact that he had not received any reply from ORG .","On DATE the GPE appellate prosecutor confirmed that the proceedings had indeed been too long . He further informed the applicant that ORG had been reproached for not having replied to his complaint in a timely manner .","On DATE the GPE district prosecutor reopened the investigation into the circumstances of PERSON \u2019s death .","On DATE the applicant complained about the actions taken by the police officers on DATE . He alleged that they had failed to perform their duties , to properly secure the place in which his brother had died and that they had fabricated false evidence in order to direct the prosecution against other persons and obstructed the proceedings .","Following the applicant \u2019s complaint referred to above , on DATE the GPE district prosecutor decided to sever the charges against the police officers responsible for securing the evidence on DATE of PERSON \u2019s accident and to deal with them in a separate set of proceedings ( see section B ) .","On DATE the district prosecutor replied to the applicant \u2019s complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings and found the complaint ill - founded . The prosecutor informed the applicant that prosecutors were independent in their work and it was up to them to make a decision about when the evidence had been collected and at which point the investigation should be closed . The applicant was also informed that the prosecutor in charge had been promoted to ORG office and that a new prosecutor had inherited his cases .","On DATE the proceedings were discontinued because it was found that no offence had been committed .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision .","On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was upheld by FAC .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about actions taken by the police on DATE . Following this complaint the original investigation was severed and it was decided to examine the charges against the police in a separate set of proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant complained to the Chief of ORG in GPE about the actions taken by the local police .","On DATE the GPE district prosecutor discontinued the investigation , finding that no offence had been committed . According to the prosecutor \u2019s findings , on TIME of the accident at TIME of the bus drivers , ORG , heard a man screaming and calling for help . The man ran into the drivers\u2019 room ; his clothes were on fire . ORG extinguished the fire using a shower and called an ambulance and the police . The ambulance arrived first and subsequently , at TIME , the police arrived at the scene . The officers concentrated on helping PERSON They spoke to him about the incident and then he was taken to hospital . The detective , who arrived later , examined the room with the help of the company \u2019s health and safety inspector , S.S. The prosecutor referred to the applicant \u2019s arguments that the scene of the accident had not been properly secured ; she stated that since the incident had not resulted in any fatalities , the police officers had not been required to secure the scene in any particular way .","The prosecutor concluded that the police officers had not failed to properly perform their professional duties and that all the relevant procedural rules had been followed .","On DATE the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision . He maintained that the detective had arrived at the scene TIME after the accident . In addition , he questioned the fact that the detective had been assisted by ORG , who was an employee of the company .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal and returned the case to the prosecutor . In particular , it instructed the prosecutor to obtain evidence from FAC and another witness , GPE , and to verify the actions taken by the police in view of the applicable procedures .","On DATE the GPE district prosecutor again discontinued the investigation into the alleged failure of police officers to comply with their duties . The prosecutor had heard evidence from FAC and GPE She repeated the reasons given in the decision of DATE and considered that the police actions had complied with the applicable procedures and that no offence had been committed .","On DATE the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against this decision .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and returned the case to the district prosecutor to continue the investigation . He considered that the district prosecutor had failed to comply with the court \u2019s instructions of CARDINAL DATE and had failed to analyse whether all officers involved , including the one who had taken the call notifying them of the incident and all the officers who had been present at the scene of the accident , had followed the applicable procedures .","On DATE the district prosecutor heard evidence from GPE \u2013 one of the police officers who had intervened on DATE in the presence of the applicant . The applicant asked the witness questions but the witness did not remember much of the incident in DATE .","On DATE the district prosecutor discontinued the investigation . In an extensive reasoning of his decision the prosecutor referred to testimonies given by CARDINAL witnesses and to cross - examination of further QUANTITY witnesses , FAC and GPE The prosecutor also relied on the report of the examination of the scene of the accident and on the case file . He concluded that no offence had been committed as regards the alleged breach of professional conduct on the part of the police officers and that there was not enough evidence to substantiate the allegations that the police officers had falsified any evidence .","The CARDINAL policemen , GPE and GPE , who arrived at the scene at TIME and who spoke to the applicant \u2019s brother , submitted that they had spoken to the victim directly after the incident ; he had been conscious and informed them that he had fallen asleep and when he had woken up his clothes had been already burning .","As regards the applicant \u2019s allegations that the electric heater had been secured TIME after the arrival of the police officers , the court found that ( although this had not been not confirmed by any of the witnesses ) the heater might have been moved before it was secured because several other persons had been in the room where the accident had happened before the arrival of the police . However , even if it had been moved , there were no grounds to suspect that this had been done in order to deflect suspicion onto any particular person . Here the court again relied on the victim \u2019s statements that he had caught fire as a result of his own negligence .","The applicant appealed again . He maintained that the prosecutor had failed to properly establish the facts and hear all the necessary evidence . He demanded that witnesses DATE , S.S. and GPE be cross - examined in order to clarify discrepancies between their statements . He also restated that the policemen who had conducted the investigation had failed to follow the relevant procedures , and in particular that the scene of the accident had not been properly secured . He lastly submitted that \u201c his brother had been blamed for the accident \u201d whereas in fact the real reason was that he had suffered a diabetic shock .","On DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor \u2019s findings sufficiently to make a decision on the merits . As regards the applicant \u2019s request for cross - examination of certain witnesses the court submitted that the request had already been granted in part because FAC and GPE had been cross - examined . As regards the contradictions in the testimonies given by TIME , the court considered that they had been sufficiently cleared up by DATE herself when she had given evidence for the second time and there had been no contradictions between her statements and the remaining evidence , so further examination would only lead to an unnecessary extension of the proceedings . As regards the applicant \u2019s arguments concerning the failure on the part of the policemen to follow the relevant procedures , the court found that the procedures relied on by the applicant had to be followed only in a case where there was a suspicion that a crime had been committed : in the present case there had been no evidence that any third person might have been involved in PERSON \u2019s death . The court further held that the same applied to the requirement to secure the scene of the accident ; the applicant \u2019s brother , who had been interviewed after the accident , admitted that his clothes had caught fire because of his carelessness ( w wyniku nieuwagi ) . This also demonstrated that the suspicion that a crime had been committed had been ill - founded ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156260","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF REISNER v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , GPE . Through the NORP stock market , he purchased CARDINAL NORP Certificates in PERSON , which at the time was identified as the fifth largest private bank in GPE .","By a decision dated DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , ORG ( Bankalar D\u00fczenleme ve PERSON , hereinafter referred to as \u201c the Board \u201d ) decided to transfer the management and control of PERSON to ORG ( Tassarruf Mevduat Sigorta Fonu \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the Fund \u201d ) , pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . DATE ) . In its decision ORG held that the assets of PERSON were insufficient to cover its liabilities and that the continuation of its activities would threaten the security and stability of the financial system . Accordingly , PERSON \u2019s management and control , and the privileges of its shareholders except for dividends , were transferred to the ORG . The ORG also confiscated all properties belonging to PERSON .","On DATE all equities of the bank were removed from its account at ORG and were transferred to the account of the ORG . Subsequently , on DATE the ORG entered into an agreement with the ORG bank , and sold PERSON to the latter for CARDINAL United States dollars ( ORG ) . As a result , on DATE PERSON \u2019s legal personality was extinguished and it was struck off the commercial register .","On DATE , the main shareholder of PERSON , namely ORG , brought administrative proceedings against ORG ( Bankalar D\u00fczenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu \u2013 hereinafter referred to as \u201c the NORP \u201d ) before ORG , seeking the annulment of the decision of DATE regarding the transfer of PERSON to the Fund .","ORG found that it lacked jurisdiction , and transferred the case to ORG .","In its submissions before ORG , the plaintiff claimed that its property rights had been violated . It also raised a plea of unconstitutionality under section CARDINAL of LAW . The company further stated that prior to DATE PERSON had never encountered major financial problems . It was pointed out that pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , a bank with financial difficulties should first be given a warning to strengthen its financial structure and be allowed time to take specific measures . However , no such warning had been given in the instant case . Secondly , ORG had not claimed that PERSON \u2019s financial situation was so weak that it could not be strengthened even if specific measures were taken . Lastly , the company stated that following the transfer of the bank to the ORG , a ORG composed of the ORG \u2019s officials had exonerated the former managers of PERSON , holding that they had not been at fault in the incident leading to the bank \u2019s transfer .","After examining the file , on DATE ORG dismissed the case . It held that the takeover of the bank by the ORG had been in accordance with LAW .","On DATE ORG of ORG decided to quash the decision of DATE . In its judgment , the court held that prior to ordering the transfer of PERSON to the ORG , the ORG should have carried out an objective evaluation of the bank \u2019s financial situation . The court also concluded that the ORG should first have ordered PERSON to take specific measures in accordance with section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW before applying section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW .","On DATE a request for rectification lodged by the ORG was refused .","The case was remitted to ORG , which delivered its decision on DATE , upholding the decision of ORG of ORG . It accordingly annulled the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE ordering the transfer of PERSON to the ORG , holding that the takeover had been illegal . A further appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the ORG were rejected on DATE and DATE respectively .","On DATE PERSON , the main shareholder of PERSON , brought administrative proceedings against ORG before ORG , seeking the annulment of the agreement to sell PERSON to ORG .","Given that the transfer of PERSON to the ORG had been found to be illegal by ORG of ORG , on DATE ORG annulled the agreement entered into by the ORG and ORG on DATE . An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the ORG were rejected on DATE and DATE respectively .","Following the transfer of PERSON to the ORG , the applicant applied to ORG and claimed compensation . He did not receive any reply .","Subsequently , on DATE , the applicant brought compensation proceedings against the ORG before ORG . He argued that he had lost his shares in PERSON as a result of its transfer to the ORG , and requested the annulment of the ORG \u2019s implied rejection of his compensation claim .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s case . On the basis of a previous judgment it had rendered on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court found that the takeover of the bank by the Fund had been in accordance with section QUANTITY of LAW .","The applicant lodged an appeal .","On DATE ORG of ORG decided to quash the judgment . It indicated that the previous judgment dated DATE , which had constituted the basis of the latter , had been quashed on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG \u2019s rectification request was rejected on DATE .","On DATE ORG held that it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae , as the applicant \u2019s case merely concerned an implied rejection by ORG , which should be assessed by ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the case as out of time . The court held that the applicant should have initiated proceedings within DATE following DATE , the date on which ORG \u2019s equities had been transferred to the ORG \u2019s account at ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","ORG upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment on DATE .","Following the annulment of the decision regarding the transfer of PERSON to the ORG by the domestic courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , on an unspecified date in DATE the applicant initiated another set of administrative proceedings . Relying on the restitutio in integrum principle , he claimed that the ORG should enforce the above - mentioned judgment of ORG , and that his rights as a shareholder of PERSON should be reinstated .","On DATE , after indicating the administration \u2019s obligation to execute judgments which are enforceable , ORG held that the enforcement of ORG judgment in the instant case was legally impossible as , following its sale to ORG , PERSON had been struck off the commercial register .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment . The court indicated that the execution of the judgment dated DATE could be secured by the return of the supervisory and executive rights to PERSON \u2019s shareholders , and did not require the restitution of the actual shares . It maintained that even if that was the case , the judgment could not be executed , as PERSON \u2019s shares had ceased to exist as a result of the loss of its legal personality following its merger with ORG .","ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for rectification of the judgment on DATE .","Following the annulment of the agreement to sell PERSON to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the applicant applied to the Fund for compensation for the loss of his shares resulting from the bank \u2019s unlawful sale to ORG . The ORG rejected that request on DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant accordingly brought a third set of proceedings against the ORG , claiming compensation for his lost shares on the basis of the annulment of PERSON \u2019s sale to ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the case as out of time , indicating that the DATE time - limit for the initiation of administrative proceedings had started running on DATE , the date on which ORG \u2019s equities had been transferred to the ORG \u2019s account at ORG .","The judgment of the first - instance court was upheld by ORG on DATE . The decision is final under national law ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1","P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180669","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SMIRNOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158803","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF M. \u00d6ZEL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants , Mr. PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and PERSON ( GPE ) , were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE respectively .","ORG , meeting in DATE , adopted a decision increasing to CARDINAL storeys the authorised height of the blocks covered by the building permits which had been issued to property developers for the construction of apartment blocks in GPE , on allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , and allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL . Pages CARDINAL and TIME of that meeting , recording ORG discussions , comprise the following exchange :","\u201c PERSON : ... at the ORG meeting of CARDINAL [ the height of buildings in ] the restricted zone was raised to CARDINAL storeys in GPE , where , on the worksite belonging to GPE , [ the blocks were already ] CARDINAL storeys high . [ During ] the on - site visit it was noted that there were CARDINAL more QUANTITY buildings in GPE . I think the decision we took at the time was insufficient . I am therefore requesting a modification of the restricted zone for sites comprising CARDINAL blocks of flats ...","The Mayor : ... As I said at the CARDINAL meeting , our friend here is proposing legalising the QUANTITY buildings which have been completed , without bothering about the mistakes made in the past ... I repeat what I said at the DATE meeting : let us correct , rather than mull over , our past mistakes . I acknowledge that mistakes have been made . But from now DATE no one will be able to add an extra storey , we will not allow it . And it was not us that made the mistake . That was already the situation when we arrived [ in the municipality ] .","ORG : Mr Mayor , CARDINAL persons have built QUANTITY blocks in GPE . What a cheek ! And we subsidise these builders .. ORG has built QUANTITY blocks on the site ... Who was asked for authorisation ? ... I do n\u2019t have to clean up his mess ! In DATE we decided that he should coat [ the buildings ] in concrete . He should just bury them ... the municipality should revise the plans for the whole GPE region and authorise CARDINAL storeys ...","GPE : ORG has been in place for DATE now . Have we visited the site where GPE \u2019s and ORG \u2019s buildings stand to record our findings and impose a fine ? What exactly have we done so far ?","The Mayor : They are standing trial . As things stand [ their buildings ] are not lawful . They have put up five- to QUANTITY buildings , which is against the law ... We at no stage authorised their construction . There are CARDINAL blocks . Either we authorise the QUANTITY storeys or they will have to be demolished ... If you ask me , I think that action should have been taken earlier on this situation ... we should now just leave this mess alone and issue a decision authorising the QUANTITY storeys , thus correcting the mistake . After which we will not allow any more such buildings ...","PERSON : Mr Mayor , you did not answer my questions . What has been done about these blocks over DATE ?","The Mayor : As I say , the builders are being prosecuted . Representatives of the housing department have inspected the site and the municipality has fined certain persons . Furthermore , we will not issue permits [ for ] these buildings before ... having imposed fines of CARDINAL or MONEY ...","...","M.P : Mr Mayor , the fine you mentioned is the second stage in proceedings . I would remind you that the first stage , [ relating to ] your responsibility as Mayor , is to implement section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law No . CARDINAL ) . Pursuant to that legislative provision , apart from [ cases of ] constructions which are exempt from the permit requirement , where the authorities have determined that construction work has begun without a permit or the work is incompatible with the permit and its appendices , the GPE or ORG must immediately visit the site and work must stop forthwith . You have been in office for DATE now : have you , or have you not , honoured that obligation ?","The Mayor : ... I repeat that I did not authorise the buildings in question ... They had already been finished and roofed when I took up my duties .","... \u201d","On DATE and DATE a NORP resident complained to ORG about the alleged unlawfulness of the buildings constructed in the GPE municipality by the FAC company .","ORG held a meeting on DATE , during which ORG informed the councillors of the criteria for amending the municipal urban planning scheme . TIME of ORG read as follows :","\u201c ORG : Mr Mayor , I would like to remind you of the provisions of the urban planning scheme on the addition of extra storeys to buildings for which permits have been issued . According to these provisions , CARDINAL conditions must be met for such work : the first relates to the width of the street , and the second concerns technical and social infrastructure . I would just inform the ORG that neither of these conditions is fulfilled in the applications submitted for adding storeys to the buildings .","...","Failure to comply with the conditions laid down in the regulations carries a criminal penalty ... The decision is yours ... \u201d","Following these discussions , ORG accepted several applications for amendments to the municipal urban planning scheme .","On DATE ORG ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) invited ORG of PERSON to order the municipality in question to take the requisite legal action on the buildings constructed in breach of urban planning regulations , to monitor the action taken by that municipality and to keep the PERSON resident who had complained to the aforementioned directorate informed of the situation .","On DATE the ORG agreed that the number of storeys authorised for the buildings already constructed could be increased from CARDINAL to CARDINAL .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG invited the Governor of PERSON to adopt the urgent measures set out in sections DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see LAW , paragraph CARDINAL below ) in respect of the buildings and the real estate developers at issue .","On DATE ORG of PERSON informed ORG that despite the transmission of the latter \u2019s orders to the municipality in question , the latter had failed to take any action .","NORP By letter of DATE ORG invited ORG of PERSON to issue the municipality with a final warning on the need to comply with its orders , failing which action would be taken against all persons failing to comply with their obligations under LAW .","On DATE ORG reminded ORG of GPE that section CARDINAL of ORG prohibited amendments to urban planning schemes geared to legalising buildings which failed to comply with their building permits , and in fact required the authorities to correct any incompatibility with those permits .","During TIME CARDINAL DATE the GPE region , located on the coast of LOC , was hit by an earthquake of a magnitude of CARDINAL on the Richter scale . The earthquake was CARDINAL of the deadliest to hit GPE in DATE . According to official statistics , it killed CARDINAL persons and injured CARDINAL .","CARDINAL buildings were destroyed in the municipality of GPE , QUANTITY of them in the so - called \u00c7aml\u0131k sitesi and Kocadere sitesi estates . On those estates QUANTITY persons lost their lives and CARDINAL of others were injured as their dwellings collapsed .","PERSON , the mother of PERSON and Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , the parents of PERSON ( GPE ) , PERSON , the son of PERSON and PERSON , ORG , the son of PERSON and PERSON , and PERSON , the son of PERSON , were buried under the rubble of the blocks of flats in GPE , where they had been when the earthquake struck . PERSON was himself trapped beneath the rubble for TIME . PERSON ( GPE ) was injured , and personally rescued her daughter from the debris . PERSON had also been trapped under the rubble for TIME .","According to a medical report of CARDINAL DATE drawn up by a doctor working at the LOC hospital , PERSON had been placed under observation : he had suffered burns to various parts of his body and display whole - body trauma and respiratory problems .","On DATE the NORP public prosecutor visited PERSON together with technical experts and officers from ORG . On DATE official inspection reports were drawn up on the PERSON estate , covering allotment DATE , plot CARDINAL , sections C , D and E , allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , and allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , section E. It transpires from these reports that the experts took samples from the buildings which had been destroyed or affected by the earthquake and noted , in particular , that the concrete contained mussel shells , that the material used for the construction had been sea - sand based and that as a result the cement had lost its binding capacity .","On DATE the NORP public prosecutor and a group of technical experts visited the ORG estate . On DATE they drew up official reports on allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , section D , and allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL . It transpires from these reports that the experts took samples from the buildings which had been destroyed or affected by the earthquake and noted , in particular , that the concrete contained mussel shells , that the concrete displayed a very poor granulometry , that the concrete had not been cured , that the metal brackets in the buildings had not been properly fastened to the columns , and that because of the corrosion of the brackets the iron had worked loose from the concrete .","NORP Moreover , on DATE PERSON had requested that the ORG determine , on the basis of the evidence gathered , the causes of the collapse of building DCARDINAL on allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , in the \u00c7aml\u0131k estate , under whose rubble her mother had died , and establish the relevant responsibilities . An expert opinion was commissioned to that end on DATE .","On DATE the expert opinion commissioned set out the following findings :","\u201c ...","( d ) Defects noted upon examination of the collapsed building , the rubble and the construction blueprint .","The height of the building was increased by QUANTITY by raising the basement above ground level , thus transforming it into the ground floor .","NORP The foundations of the building were raised to soft ground ( topsoil ) level , which had low stability in terms of ground safety stress ; the stability calculations ... were at no point revised .","NORP The overall weight of the building was increased by the addition of an extra storey as compared with the number of storeys set out in the blueprint ...","Neither the basement included on the plan , whose existence would have greatly increased earthquake resistance , nor the reinforced concrete retaining walls , which , according to the plans , were to have surrounded the basement , were ever built .","NORP The mussel shells found in the pieces of concrete in the rubble showed that the sea sand and gravel had been used without sifting or sorting , which had been a major factor in diminishing the concrete \u2019s resistance .","It was noted that the reinforcing rods inside the concrete had rusted , suggesting that sea sand and gravel had been used unwashed and that the sea salt had corroded the metal .","The broken beams found in the rubble showed that the CARDINAL distances between the brackets had not been respected , and in some places the interstices measured QUANTITY ...","... The stress testing carried out on the samples showed that their stress resistance was CARDINAL what it should have been .","In conclusion : ... The building was constructed without any kind of technical control ; another storey in addition to the number of storeys mentioned in the blueprint was added at the owner \u2019s request in order to increase the number of housing and commercial units . Furthermore , the fact that the municipality failed to stop the building work raises issues . It is therefore necessary to ascertain whether a permit was issued for the building \u2019s shallow foundations , which were , in fact , incompatible with the blueprint as from the first storey . If such a permit was issued , it is necessary to identify the persons working for the municipality who approved that permit and whether or not an occupancy permit was granted by the \u00c7\u0131narc\u0131k municipality . If so , it is necessary to establish the identities of the signatories of that occupancy permit . It is possible that other blocks have been built without inspection by the \u00c7\u0131narc\u0131k municipality . The photographs taken show buildings with CARDINAL storeys above ground level and others with CARDINAL storeys . It is therefore necessary to establish the reasons for this architectural disparity and the regulations applied to the construction . \u201d","On DATE the NORP public prosecutor took statements by ORG , the real estate developer responsible for buildings which collapsed in GPE . PERSON stated that he had been working in the real estate field for DATE and that he had constructed numerous buildings with his partnership , the company ORG , and with the company PERSON . He agreed to shoulder responsibility for the shortcomings in the buildings which he had erected himself , but not for the defects relating to other buildings in which individuals had died during the earthquake and which he had merely sold . He also submitted that the buildings located on allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , section D , allotment CARDINAL , section C , and allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , section D , had been constructed by GPE and GPE He did not know who had constructed the buildings in the PERSON estate which had collapsed . He added that he was neither a construction engineer nor an architect , and that was why he called on the services of persons with expert knowledge of these fields , who should , in his view , be held responsible .","V.G. was remanded in custody DATE .","On DATE the NORP public prosecutor charged CARDINAL individuals : the partners in the company PERSON , to wit V.G. , GPE and GPE , and also the company \u2019s scientific officers , to wit PERSON and PERSON They were charged with having caused , through negligence and recklessness , the deaths of CARDINAL persons , buried under the rubble of CARDINAL buildings which they had constructed in breach of the relevant norms . It transpired from the indictment that several site sections \u2013 section E on allotment DATE , sections C and D on allotment DATE , and sections A , C , D and E on allotment DATE had been built in GPE , on FAC , and that CARDINAL buildings , which had totally collapsed , had been erected in the ORG estate , on GPE square , on allotments DATE and CARDINAL . It also transpired from the indictment that the experts who had taken samples from the collapsed buildings had , in particular , found as follows : in the buildings in question , the iron brackets had not been tightened at the interstice between the beams and the columns ; mussel shells had been found in the concrete , resulting in low resistance owing to the use of sea sand and sea gravel ; the distance between the columns and the beam brackets was QUANTITY in places ; and there was insufficient iron in some of the columns .","Criminal proceedings were commenced before ORG .","In DATE \u0130.K. , PERSON and PERSON were remanded in custody in absentia by ORG .","On DATE Z.C. was remanded in custody .","On DATE the NORP public prosecutor wrote to ORG of ORG to inform it of the following facts : a large number of articles had been published in the local and national press about PERSON ; given the very large number of deaths involved , the trial would be attended by many journalists and also numerous relatives of the victims ; there was likely to be a very tense atmosphere during the hearings ; PERSON prison had been closed following the earthquake and the prisoners were therefore housed in the ORG prison ; the courtroom would be too small for the number of persons attending proceedings ; there were credible risks of the accused being abducted or murdered ; and any preventive measures which the security forces would be able to put in place would be insufficient , such that it would be better to transfer the case to a different court .","On DATE ORG of ORG invited ORG with ORG to transfer the case from ORG to a different criminal court pursuant to LAW in fine of LAW , in order to guarantee public security during the proceedings .","On DATE , before the start of proceedings before ORG , ORG , to whom the matter had been referred , decided to transfer the case to ORG for reasons of security during the proceedings and of the accused \u2019s safety .","On DATE , therefore , ORG transferred the case file to ORG .","On DATE Mr PERSON applied to join the proceedings as a third party . On DATE PERSON and PERSON PERSON also applied to join the proceedings as third parties , and declared that they reserved their rights as potential civil parties .","On DATE Mr and PERSON and PERSON and PERSON lodged similar applications , and PERSON reiterated his request .","On DATE Mr PERSON forwarded a memorial requesting the criminal conviction of ORG and his partners and stating that he reserved his rights vis - \u00e0 - vis claiming compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage which he considered he had sustained .","On DATE , after the case had been transferred to ORG , Mr PERSON once again applied to take part in proceedings as a third party , and declared that he reserved his rights as potential civil party to proceedings . PERSON ( Erg\u00fcden ) also applied to take part in the criminal proceedings as a third party . Similarly , counsel for PERSON and Mr PERSON submitted a third - party application on behalf of each of her clients .","On DATE Mr and PERSON applied to participate in proceedings , reserving their rights as potential civil parties . They submitted that they had sustained serious mental suffering and also pecuniary damage as a result of the loss of their son . PERSON and PERSON also lodged a thirdparty application . Mr PERSON was heard as a victim , and he gave evidence against the accused . Counsel for PERSON requested the admission of his client \u2019s application to take part in proceedings . At the conclusion of the hearing held on DATE , ORG admitted that thirdparty application .","On DATE ORG examined Mr and PERSON third - party application , and noted that their son \u2019s name was not on the list of deceased victims set out in the indictment . The court therefore requested submissions from those CARDINAL applicants , including fresh information on the deceased persons . In a memorial of DATE , PERSON and PERSON requested that charges be pressed against the officials allegedly responsible for the impugned acts .","During the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG questioned the victims , the accused and their lawyers . PERSON was examined in his capacity as a third party , and he requested the conviction of the accused and the commencement of proceedings the municipal officials in question .","According to the official record of the hearing held on DATE , PERSON , PERSON ( GPE ) and PERSON had been examined as third parties : PERSON had demanded the conviction of the accused and also requested that charges be brought against the official in question in the framework of those proceedings ; and counsel for PERSON had also demanded the conviction of those officials . At the conclusion of the hearing , ORG was asked for information on the measures adopted by his ORG regarding the provincial officials , as well as those working in the GPE municipality and ORG . Furthermore , GPE and GPE were released on parole .","On DATE Mr PERSON once again requested the prosecution of the Mayor of PERSON and of the municipal Head of ORG and GPE . PERSON and PERSON were granted third - party status in the proceedings .","On DATE Mr Erdo\u011fan was granted third - party status in the proceedings . PERSON was heard CARDINAL party , and he requested an additional indictment in order to involve in the proceedings the municipal officials who had authorised the construction of the buildings which had collapsed . Counsel for PERSON reiterated a request previously submitted for provisional measures covering all of ORG \u2019s assets .","On DATE , during the proceedings , the NORP public prosecutor once again charged the CARDINAL accused persons with having caused the deaths of several other persons through negligence and recklessness .","On DATE CARDINAL experts from ORG prepared a report on their inspection of CARDINAL buildings which had collapsed , CARDINAL of them in the LOC estate and CARDINAL in the ORG estate .","The conclusions of this expert report read as follows :","\u201c Tectonics and seismic activity in the region between \u00c7\u0131narc\u0131k et Yalova","... This region is one of the most dangerous in seismic terms , which is why it has been marked out as a major hazard area on the map of NORP seismic regions .","Impact of the GPE earthquake of DATE on the region between GPE and GPE","The CARDINAL DATE earthquake , which was of a magnitude of CARDINAL on the Richter scale and whose epicentre was at GPE , created a CARDINAL - long superficial fault from PERSON to PERSON ... The fault segment was interrupted at a distance of QUANTITY from GPE ... The primary causes of the destruction were the nature of the soil and the quality of the construction methods .","Conclusions","The coastal zone between GPE and GPE is an extremely dangerous region in seismic terms ... The PERSON estate , which collapsed , had been built on an active rockslide area and on particularly soft soil . In such a high seismic risk region there can be no valid reasons for issuing building permits for six- or QUANTITY buildings on such soft soil . Moreover , the fact that QUANTITY building located QUANTITY away in the LOC estate which had been erected on soil with similar characteristics were not damaged and that people are still living in them support the hypothesis that the buildings in the PERSON estate had building defects .","...","Appraisal of the blueprints and the permits","...","Assessment of the blueprints showed the absence of documents attesting that soil studies had been carried out on the land where the buildings were to be constructed ...","Expert reports included in the case file","The expert appraisals commissioned by the NORP public prosecutor ... highlighted the following shared defects :","\u2013 Concrete resistance was unsatisfactory . The granulometric composition of the aggregates used for the concrete was inadequate and the concrete contained mussel shells . It was established that the cement dosage had been insufficient and that the sand had not been properly cleaned .","\u2013 The metal brackets on the load - bearing parts had not been reinforced and the anti - rust fixtures [ paspay\u0131 ] were unsatisfactory ... Incipient corrosion on some of the reinforcing rods had weakened their adherence to the concrete .","\u2013 ...","\u2013 The softness of the soil was established .","Establishing the responsibility of the accused persons and conclusions","The owner and developer of all the impugned buildings [ which ] collapsed during the CARDINAL DATE earthquake is the \u201c PERSON ofisi \u201d partnership . The founding partners of that company are GPE , GPE , C.G. ... Assessment of the evidence and documents contained in the case file shows that FAC was the actual organiser [ of the project ] ... For this reason PERSON \u2019s responsibility is estimated at CARDINAL .","The responsibility of the public authorities which allowed the urban development of the LOC and NORP neighbourhoods , authorised the multi - storey buildings there without commissioning the requisite prior geological studies , failed to provide for satisfactory supervision of the projects in the area , failed to request studies of the soil ... , failed to prevent the defective concrete - manufacturing procedures [ and ] failed to monitor the work of those responsible for the technical applications is estimated at CARDINAL .","PERSON \u2019s responsibility is set at CARDINAL.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and Z.C. \u2019s at CARDINAL.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ...","PERSON \u2019s responsibility is set at CARDINAL on the grounds that he was a partner in the FAC company , but also because he was responsible for the architectural and structural design of CARDINAL buildings and for the relevant technical applications ...","PERSON \u2019s responsibility is set at CARDINAL because he was responsible for the architectural and structural design of CARDINAL buildings and for the relevant technical applications .","... \u201d","On DATE ORG , to which the case had been referred following the indictment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , found that a similar action against the accused was pending and therefore requested the joinder of the CARDINAL sets of proceedings .","On DATE ORG declined jurisdiction to adjudicate the impugned acts in view of the nature of the offence in question ; the case was then referred to ORG .","DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings .","At the hearing on DATE ORG pointed out that transferring the case to GPE was against the procedural regulations and in breach of the rights of the third parties . He stated that the security grounds advanced for that transfer had lapsed and that the proceedings should therefore have continued in GPE , where the offence had been committed . The applicants also applied for the setting aside of the transfer order in question , submitting that the security grounds advanced no longer applied . On DATE ORG rejected the application , pointing out that pursuant to the case - law of ORG the case had to remain before the court to which it had been transferred even if the grounds for the transfer no longer applied . Counsel for PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , and PERSON and PERSON presented their case during the hearing .","DATE . On DATE ORG remanded PERSON in custody .","On DATE ORG wrote to the GPE public prosecutor requesting the preparation of a further expert report , complementing that of DATE , on the ruins of the buildings in question in order to establish whether their mode of construction had been in conformity with the original blueprints and whether the materials used had complied with the usual standards .","On DATE PERSON gave evidence . She stated that she had lost her mother during the earthquake and had dug her own child out of the rubble . She also submitted that the accused had not been the only parties criminally responsible for the impugned acts , as various municipal officials and members of ORG responsible for the technical oversight of the constructions in question had also been guilty . Counsel for that applicant stated that he had heard , through unofficial channels , that the decision had been taken to broaden the investigation in order to establish the municipal officials\u2019 responsibility , and he requested information on whether a decision had been taken to prosecute the Mayor of \u00c7\u0131narc\u0131k and the official in question . During DATE hearing PERSON also gave evidence as a third party , as did another person , who stated that ORG had adopted a decision on DATE to the effect that the Mayor of \u00c7\u0131narc\u0131k could not be prosecuted ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE PERSON was once again remanded in custody .","On DATE and DATE ORG wrote to ORG of PERSON , asking , in particular , whether any action had been taken against the Mayor of PERSON and the other officials liable to be held responsible for the consequences of the earthquake .","On DATE V.G. and PERSON were released on parole . In a memorial of DATE , PERSON and PERSON PERSON requested the indictment of the officials whose responsibility had been engaged for the impugned acts . Mr PERSON also submitted a memorial requesting the conviction of the accused and the prosecution , in the framework of the ongoing criminal proceedings , of the Mayor and the Head of Technical Service and Architecture of \u00c7\u0131narc\u0131k municipality .","At the hearing on DATE Mr PERSON read out the minutes of meetings of ORG which , in his view , established that the buildings in the zone at issue had been constructed without prior authorisation . He once again submitted that the municipality and the officials had been responsible for what had happened .","On DATE ORG noted that the authorisation for a criminal investigation of the Mayor of \u00c7\u0131narc\u0131k and other officials ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) previously issued by ORG had been set aside by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that ORG had adopted an opinion to the effect that there was no need to bring proceedings .","In a memorial of DATE Mr PERSON requested the commencement of proceedings against the Mayor of PERSON and ORG , suggesting that they should be tried in the framework of the criminal proceedings in hand on the ground that they had turned a blind eye to the construction of the impugned buildings .","On DATE ORG of ORG prepared a document for ORG mentioning the following points : ( a ) ORG CARDINAL DATE decision to authorise a criminal investigation had been cancelled on DATE by ORG , which meant that no action had been taken against the officials in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; ( b ) a report on an inquiry authorised by ORG on DATE had also concluded that there were no grounds for proceedings against the officials in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; and ( c ) another report on an inquiry authorised by ORG on DATE had concluded that there was no need to prosecute the officials in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","At the hearing on DATE ORG noted that the document from ORG had been read and added to the case file .","In a claim submitted on DATE Mr PERSON demanded a certain sum in respect of procedural expenses for the transfer of the case to GPE , and reserved his rights as regards that outlay .","On DATE he repeated his request for the indictment of the officials whose responsibility had been engaged .","On DATE PERSON and Mr PERSON submitted a memorial on the merits in which they relied on LAW to complain of unfair proceedings and an infringement of the \u201c natural judge \u201d principle owing to the transfer of the case to GPE and a breach of the right of prosecution . They considered that their inability to obtain leave of prosecution under LAW and other LAW ( \u201c Law No . DATE \u201d ) with regard to the municipal officials in question was contrary to the principle of equality before the law , as well as Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG ordered the separation of the case in hand from that concerning PERSON and PERSON on the ground that the latter CARDINAL accused persons had been untraceable for DATE , thus delaying the proceedings .","On DATE a joint memorial was lodged with the registry of ORG by PERSON and PERSON and PERSON and PERSON , declaring that they reserved their rights to claim civil damages in the criminal proceedings . PERSON ( GPE ) lodged a third - party memorial stating that owing to the deficiencies and delays in the civil and criminal proceedings the shares held in the accused \u2019s company had been sold off , which she considered as jeopardising the chances of success for any future action for damages . She also pointed out that the Mayor of \u00c7\u0131narc\u0131k had been given a CARDINAL DATE prison sentence for the architectural practices implemented in the PERSON estate ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and that he had been removed from office .","On DATE PERSON was remanded in custody .","On DATE a fresh expert report was prepared at ORG request . According to the report , ORG had been issued with CARDINAL different building permits , CARDINAL blocks had been built in GPE for which no occupancy permit was to be found in the assessment file , and QUANTITY persons had died buried in the rubble of those buildings , CARDINAL of them in the LOC estate , CARDINAL in the ORG estate and CARDINAL in the ORG estate . It also transpired from that report that PERSON had been responsible for the architectural project regarding the buildings in the PERSON estate , on allotment DATE , plot CARDINAL , allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL and allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , and that PERSON had been in charge of the architectural project regarding the buildings in the ORG estate , on allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , and allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL . The report also specified that the V.G. company , in which GPE and GPE had been partners , had been responsible for the construction of all those buildings .","On DATE ORG presented the prosecution case on the merits . He submitted that CARDINAL persons had died in the estates built by ORG : CARDINAL persons had been killed on allotment DATE , plot CARDINAL , allotment DATE , plot CARDINAL , and allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , and CARDINAL other persons in other buildings . Those deaths had been caused not by the earthquake alone but also by the actions of the accused , who had used deficient materials with full knowledge of the risks involved . He demanded the conviction of the accused pursuant to Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW , insisting that the sentence should be delivered CARDINAL times , CARDINAL for each of the building permits issued .","On DATE ORG found the accused ORG , GPE and GPE guilty of endangering the lives of others through negligence and recklessness and , pursuant to Article PERSON of LAW , sentenced each of them to DATE imprisonment without parole and DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , and to a fine of MONEY ( TRL ) . ORG gave the following reasons :","\u201c ... The investigations conducted on the sites and the expert reports drawn up both during the preliminary investigation and during the criminal proceedings showed that the buildings which collapsed as a result of negligent , virtually intentional , acts had been built in breach of many current legal obligations . Even though the area in question had been classified as a major seismic hazard zone , no soil studies had been carried out on the worksites . The concrete , metal and other materials used lacked the necessary resistance . A large number of obligations set out in the blueprint were breached . The buildings thus constructed collapsed under the impact of the earthquake , and those holding responsibility for the collapse of the buildings had made no attempt to avert danger and [ offset ] the unlawful acts committed , such that a direct causal link was established between the negligent acts and the consequences of the collapse of the buildings .","... The provisions relating to the concurrence of offences are applicable to this case ... The present proceedings concern CARDINAL different building permits ... Consequently , the accused were held responsible for CARDINAL different events .","Having regard to the lists drawn up by the Governor of GPE district and by the GPE municipality ... CARDINAL persons lost their lives on plot no . CARDINAL , allotment DATE ( CARDINALst section ) , CARDINAL on plot no . CARDINAL , allotment CARDINAL ( CARDINALnd section ) , DATE on plot no . CARDINAL , allotment DATE ( CARDINALrd section ) and CARDINAL on plot no . CARDINAL , allotment CARDINAL ( blocks A and B ) . It has not been established with certainty whether there were any deaths on the other plots . Where it was established that there were deaths , it was also established that buildings collapsed . Therefore , it must be acknowledged that in those buildings people \u2019s lives had been jeopardised . Consequently ... the sentencing procedure must involve applying to each of the accused the final sentence of Article CARDINAL of LAW , multiplied by CARDINAL , as regards the deaths which occurred in CARDINAL zones covered by a permit . As regards the CARDINAL zones covered by a permit where no loss of life could be established , the first section of Article CARDINAL of LAW , multiplied by CARDINAL , must be applied .","All the buildings were constructed by the real estate developer , that is to say the \u2018 ORG ... At the material time the CARDINAL accused persons GPE and PERSON had been partners in that company . The accused person PERSON had also been a partner in the company in respect of the buildings covered by permits . GPE had also been the owner of CARDINAL buildings covered by permits . Insofar as GPE was involved in the construction of the buildings , he must be held responsible for all the relevant actions ... Even though permits had indeed been issued for all the building lots , none of them was covered by an occupancy permit , that is to say a permit for utilisation . In this context , since at the time of the offence the company and its partners were still under the obligation to correct the shameful [ defects ] in the buildings , [ they ] are also criminally liable for the collapse of the latter owing to these disgraceful [ defects ] throughout the whole period ...","As already stated above , the consequences of the impugned acts amounted to a disaster . Solely because of those acts , QUANTITY persons lost their lives and pecuniary damage was sustained to an extent which is difficult to quantify . The accused bear enormous responsibility for those consequences . As highlighted by the expert reports , using such construction methods in a PERCENT earthquake risk zone really was a recipe for disaster ... \u201d","DATE . On DATE \u0130.K. was also found guilty of homicide and bodily harm through recklessness . He was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment without parole and DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , and to a fine of FAC .","The accused appealed on points on law .","By judgment of DATE delivered on DATE ORG set aside the convictions of GPE , GPE and GPE on the following grounds : the fact that a judge had failed to sign TIME hearing ; conviction for the collapse of a building on allotment DATE , plot CARDINAL , which was not mentioned in the indictment ; the failure to read out the CARDINAL DATE indictment before taking statements from the accused ; and the entry into force of the new LAW .","By judgment of DATE delivered on DATE ORG also set aside PERSON \u2019s conviction on the following grounds : the conviction for the collapse of a building on allotment DATE , plot no . CARDINAL was not mentioned in the indictment ; CARDINAL judge had failed to sign TIME hearing ; the criminal prosecution of GPE should have been joined to that of the other accused persons ; and the new LAW had come into force .","DATE and DATE ORG , to which the case had been referred back by ORG after the setting aside of the DATE judgment , held QUANTITY hearings . The preparatory report for DATE hearing included the applicants\u2019 names in the list of third parties to the proceedings .","On DATE ORG ordered the joinder of the criminal proceedings against GPE with those pending against ORG , GPE and GPE","On DATE ORG decided to separate the proceedings against the accused GPE and GPE untile they were arrested .","On DATE ORG sentenced ORG and DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and to a fine of TRY CARDINAL . PERSON , PERSON ( GPE ) , PERSON , PERSON PERSON and PERSON and PERSON Erdo\u011fan were mentioned as third parties to the proceedings . PERSON and PERSON were mentioned as complainants . In its statement of reasons ORG pointed out that the buildings in GPE had been destroyed by the earthquake , but that it had transpired from the inspections carried out both during the preliminary investigation and during the proceedings that the buildings which had collapsed had been constructed in breach of numerous legal obligations . ORG further emphasised the following : even though the stricken zone was classified as a level - CARDINAL earthquake hazard area , the buildings had been constructed without any prior soil testing ; the construction material used had been low - quality and the concrete had not been solid ; the buildings erected had been destroyed under the impact of the earthquake ; the accused had acted negligently , which had contributed to the destructive events ; and there was a direct causal link between the destruction and the loss of life . ORG further held that the provisions relating to the concurrence of offences were applicable to the case , that each building project implemented in accordance with a building permit had constituted an offence and that the instant case concerned CARDINAL permits , namely allotment DATE , plot CARDINAL , allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , and allotment DATE , plot CARDINAL in LOC , and allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL and allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL in GPE . It was also noted that no proceedings concerning allotment DATE , plot CARDINAL had been brought before ORG . As regards the lists drawn up by the Governor of LOC and GPE , ORG explained that CARDINAL persons had lost their lives on allotment DATE , plot CARDINAL ( CARDINALst section ) , CARDINAL on allotment DATE , plot CARDINAL ( CARDINALnd section ) , QUANTITY on allotment DATE , plot CARDINAL ( CARDINALrd section ) and CARDINAL on allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL ( blocks A and B ) . It pointed out that it had been impossible to establish whether any deaths had occurred on the other plots , but that it had been established that the dwellings on those plots had been inhabited , thus placing the inhabitants in mortal danger . ORG also noted the following : the V.G. PERSON company had been responsible for all the buildings constructed on those plots ; at the material time V.G. and PERSON had been partners in that company and GPE had been involved in obtaining the permits for the buildings ; even though permits had been issued for the buildings in question , none of them had been covered by an occupancy permit , such that the building company and the various partners held criminal responsibility for the events .","DATE . The accused appealed on points of law .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision to transmit the case to the public prosecutor with ORG so that he could submit his opinion on that appeal . The cover page of the decision bore the inscription \u201c Detainees \u2013 statute limitation period expiring soon \u201d .","In a memorial of DATE PERSON asked ORG to confirm the first - instance conviction , under urgent procedure , on the ground that the offence would shortly be statute - barred .","On DATE ORG confirmed ORG \u2019s conviction . It also partly upheld PERSON \u2019s conviction , invalidating it as regards PERSON \u2019s responsibility for the destruction that had taken place on allotment CARDINAL , plot no . CARDINAL , on the ground that it was unlawful to convict that accused person without having regard to the lack of evidence regarding his status as a technical officer or as a partner in the company responsible for erecting the building in question .","On DATE ORG adopted CARDINAL decisions discontinuing the criminal proceedings against PERSON and PERSON on the grounds that they had become statute - barred . The proceedings against GPE were also terminated , on an unknown date , on the same grounds .","On DATE ORG , to which the case had been referred , discontinued the criminal proceedings against ORG as regards his responsibility for the destruction that had taken place on allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , on the grounds that they had become statute - barred . The applicants\u2019 names were included as third parties in the decision .","On DATE the public prosecutor with ORG , examining an appeal lodged by ORG and GPE against the judgment of DATE , held that that appeal had been lodged unnecessarily .","Previously , on DATE , the Governor of PERSON had stated that the Mayor and ORG should be prosecuted under LAW and CARDINAL of the Penal Code for failing in their duties and abusing their authority . The Governor accused them , in particular , of having , DATE , altered the urban planning schemes and turned a blind eye to the erection of illegal buildings , and of having failed to demolish the latter and to impose the relevant fines .","On DATE ORG , having been applied to by the accused persons , transmitted the case file to ORG with a view to prosecuting the offence under LAW .","On DATE , in the framework of the proceedings thus instigated , ORG found the accused guilty as charged . It was satisfied that the Mayor had authorised , under a decision taken by ORG on DATE , alterations to the urban planning schemes in a manner contrary to normal procedure \u2013 which action falls foul of LAW \u2013 but that in view of the nature of the offence and the penalty incurred the imposition of a final penalty should be suspended , pursuant to section CARDINAL [ CARDINAL ] Law No . DATE concerning release on parole and stay of proceedings and penalties for offences committed before DATE . ORG considered the DATE adoption by ORG of a decision setting aside the aforementioned CARDINAL DATE decision before it could be enforced as a mitigating circumstance : it changed the penalties imposed on the Mayor to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , under Article CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of LAW , and a FAC fine . In view of the Mayor \u2019s behaviour during the proceedings , those penalties were reduced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and a fine of GPE CARDINAL . The Mayor was also found guilty of having abused his authority by once again altering the planning schemes in breach of procedure , under a ORG decision of DATE , and he was therefore sentenced to DATE imprisonment pursuant to LAW and fined ORG , which penalties were then reduced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and a fine of GPE CARDINAL . He was also found guilty of having failed to enforce the fines imposed pursuant to LAW , as ordered by ORG on DATE . Furthermore , he was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and fined GPE CARDINAL for having failed to ensure the destruction of the unlawful worksites , which penalties were then reduced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and a fine of GPE CARDINAL .","The court also found the CARDINAL accused guilty of having failed to halt the works performed in a manner inconsistent with the corresponding building permits , of having failed to take action to ensure the demolition of the unlawfully erected constructions and of having abused their authority . Each of the accused was consequently sentenced to DATE imprisonment and fined TRL CARDINAL , subsequently reduced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and a fine of GPE CARDINAL .","In all , the Mayor of PERSON was sentenced to QUANTITY - given months\u2019 imprisonment and fined TRL CARDINAL , and ORG was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and fined GPE CARDINAL , which penalties were suspended .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision authorising the instigation of a criminal investigation under LAW against the former and current ORG , the former and current municipal ORG , as well as the architect and an official working in ORG , the last CARDINAL having admitted that they had at no stage inspected the worksite after the laying of the foundations of the buildings in LOC , allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , block E , allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , blocks C and D , and allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , blocks A , C , D and E , and the buildings in GPE , allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , block D , allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , block D and allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , block D.","On DATE PERSON and Mr PERSON applied to ORG for identification of the officials who had failed in their duties of inspection and supervision of the impugned buildings . Relying on the conclusions of the expert report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , they also requested a prosecution order against them . They submitted that their aim was to shed light on the whole chain of responsibilities , emphasising that the Mayor of GPE , ORG and the technical and administrative staff responsible for inspection and supervision should also be prosecuted and placed on trial pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law No . CARDINAL ) . The CARDINAL applicants considered that the municipality had turned a blind eye to the construction of buildings that fell short of the legal requirements . They also reiterated that the construction area in question had been classified as a \u201c major earthquake hazard zone \u201d , and complained that the municipality had authorised excessively high buildings on unstable ground . Finally , it was necessary to establish the responsibility of the GPE municipality on the ground that the area at issue had been part of that municipality at the time of the construction of the buildings and the submission of the architectural plans .","On DATE ORG , examining an appeal lodged by the individuals concerned by the authorisation of criminal investigation issued by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and acting under LAW No . DATE ( see Relevant domestic law , paragraph CARDINAL below ) , lifted the criminal investigation authorisation issued by ORG . ORG held that responsibility should be attributed to the specialists who had planned the building project , emphasising that many of the buildings destroyed on CARDINAL DATE had not been covered by occupancy permits .","On DATE the CARDINAL aforementioned applicants applied to ORG . On the basis of new evidence they reiterated their application for the prosecution of the officials in question . They submitted that , in the light of the new evidence in question , those officials could not be charged with mere negligence , and that their actions had amounted to abuse of authority .","On DATE a review report was drawn up as authorised by ORG on DATE , geared to ascertaining whether the failure to react to and verify the addition of extra storeys to several buildings \u2013 those located in LOC , allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , block E ; allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , blocks C and D ; and allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , blocks A , C , D and E ; and in GPE , allotment CARDINAL , plot CARDINAL , block D DATE which had been effected in breach of the corresponding building permits , had amounted to a breach of professional duties by the former and current Mayors of \u00c7\u0131narc\u0131k , the former and current municipal Heads of Applied Science , as well as the architect and a member of the technical services staff . The report concluded that there had been no need to prosecute the actions in question as they had been in conformity with usual procedure ; consequently , no proceedings were brought against the aforementioned persons .","On DATE PERSON and Mr PERSON once again applied to ORG for information on the action taken on their various complaints , pointing out that their requests for the prosecution of the officials had been unsuccessful and that no preliminary inquiry had yet been launched into the facts of which they had complained .","On DATE a further review report was prepared as authorised by ORG on DATE . That report found that there had been no need to take action against the officials in question for having authorised QUANTITY buildings .","On DATE the above - mentioned ORG replied to the application of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It first of all reiterated that the decision taken by ORG authorising an investigation had been cancelled by decision of ORG DATE . It went on to explain that in reply , in particular , to the application of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , a preliminary examination had been conducted as authorised by ORG on DATE , concluding that the issue at stake had already been decided , that ORG had cancelled the authorisation of investigation and that there was therefore no need for action against the individuals in question . Finally , it pointed out that , having regard to the ORG new allegations , a further authorisation of examination had been adopted on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , relying on section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law No . CARDINAL ) and pointing to the existence of new evidence , the applicants applied to ORG to set aside the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and to reopen proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed that application , without consideration of the merits , on the grounds that no appeal lay from the contested decision , referring in that regard to sections CARDINAL ( h ) and CARDINAL of Law No . DATE ( see Relevant domestic law , paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , the applicants once again applied to ORG , submitting that they had not appealed against the decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL cancelling the authorisation of a criminal investigation but had applied for the reopening of proceedings pursuant to LAW ( Law No . CARDINAL ) , which was a different remedy . They reiterated their request to that effect .","On DATE ORG dismissed that request , having noted that the proceedings in question had been conducted pursuant to LAW No . DATE , which did not provide for reopening proceedings .","On DATE , examining an appeal lodged by PERSON and PERSON PERSON against the DATE report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG dismissed that appeal , without considering the merits , on the grounds that it concerned a decision from which no appeal lay .","On DATE PERSON and Mr PERSON applied to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . They submitted that the transfer of the criminal proceedings from the scene of the earthquake ( PERSON ) to GPE was in breach of the \u201c natural judge \u201d principle and infringed the GPE right of appeal . They also complained of shortcomings in the assessment of the applications for the prosecution of the officials involved in the case .","On DATE ORG noted that the Commission responsible for the investigation and appraisal of human rights violations had prepared a rapport on the impugned facts concluding that there had been compelling reasons for changing the trial venue , as provided for in LAW , and had not breached any human rights . Similarly , according to the findings of the report , the cancellation by ORG of the authorisation of investigation against the official whose responsibility had been engaged and the refusal to reopen the proceedings had not been contrary to human rights . Furthermore , ORG pointed out that according to the same report , the complainants could have lodged an application with ORG .","ORG also noted that a member of the Commission responsible for the investigation and appraisal of human rights violations had set out the following additional observations :","\u201c CARDINAL . The increase in the number of storeys without the authorisation of ORG and the amendments to the architectural plans , as well as the failure to comply with the architectural plans concerning the \u2018 high - risk\u2019 nature of the zone , amount to an infringement of the right to life ;","The transfer , on security grounds , of the case to GPE rather than to a province closer to GPE violated the GPE right to a judge and their right of appeal . ORG has to provide financial assistance to the complainants so that they can follow the proceedings ...","The following constitute human rights violations : the inability , following the cancellation by ORG of the authorisation of investigation under Law No . DATE , to secure , [ on the basis of ] the new evidence submitted , the re - examination of the impugned facts [ and ] and the reopening of the proceedings ... [ The same applies to ] the lack of a right of appeal for the complainants following the cancellation of the authorisation of prosecution of the officials . \u201d","On DATE the Office of the Governor of PERSON wrote to counsel for the applicants to inform her of that decision , transmitting a copy thereof .","On an unknown date PERSON and PERSON had lodged with ORG an action for damages against ORG , the Mayor of GPE , ORG and the Mayor of GPE ( GPE ) , seeking compensation for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage which they had sustained . They had submitted that the administrative authorities charged in the proceedings had authorised building in major earthquake hazard zones , failing to use appropriate construction techniques , and that they had issued building and occupancy permits without adequate controls , thus committing a breach of their administrative duty .","On DATE ORG dismissed that action as having been brought out of time , stating that the applicants should have brought their action within DATE from the preparation of the expert report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , when they had been apprised of the alleged defects .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal against the latter decision and upheld the first - instance decision .","On DATE Mr PERSON submitted a claim to ORG for the reimbursement and defrayal of his travel expenses to and from GPE in order to follow and take part in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG rejected that claim .","On DATE ORG , to which the applicant had appealed against that decision , held that the decision to transfer the PERSON case to GPE had been a judicial rather than an administrative decision and that it accordingly could not engage the responsibility of the administrative authorities .","On DATE PERSON and Mr PERSON had lodged with ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) an action for damages against the ORG partnership , ORG himself , GPE , GPE and GPE .","During the hearings held DATE and DATE , the ORG ordered the adjournment of the case until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings which were pending before ORG at the time .","On DATE the ORG observed that ORG had convicted PERSON and GPE of CARDINAL offences , CARDINAL of which related to the collapse of CARDINAL blocks on allotment DATE , and that that conviction had become final , having been adopted in the light of an expert report prepared by ORG on DATE establishing the accused \u2019s responsibility . That expert report had been added to the case file , and the ORG commissioned a further expert report in order to establish the pecuniary damage sustained by the complainants as a result of the loss of their apartment .","On DATE an expert estimated the pecuniary damage sustained at TRY CARDINAL .","At the hearing on DATE the complainants contested the conclusions of that expert opinion .","On DATE the ORG , sitting as a consumer court , rejected the claims for compensation brought against ORG and the Mayor of PERSON respectively on grounds of absence of evidence and lack of jurisdiction . It further held that the ORG claim for the moveable property lost should be considered as having been abandoned during the course of proceedings . Finally , the ORG partly acceded to the request for compensation by ordering the FAC and GPE partnership to pay the applicants TRY CARDINAL jointly in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY CARDINAL each in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","NORP On DATE PERSON and Mr PERSON appealed against that judgment on points of law . In their memorial before ORG they submitted that ORG \u2019s responsibility had been established by ORG and that , while civil courts were not bound by the conclusions of criminal courts , that did not apply to cases where the facts had established beyond doubt . They complained that the ORG had decided the case as a consumer court , even though it had involved a purely civil action . Finally , they submitted that the amounts awarded in compensation had been unsatisfactory , so that the ORG \u2019s decision had been incompatible with ORG and CARDINAL of the LAW and had , moreover , infringed their property rights .","On DATE ORG set aside the ORG \u2019s judgment .","On DATE an expert report was drawn up , estimating the pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants , on the basis of the value of the apartment that had been destroyed during the earthquake , at TRY CARDINAL .","On DATE , the ORG , to which the case had been referred back by ORG , again rejected the compensation claim against ORG for lack of evidence , holding that the latter had been involved in neither the construction nor the sale of the building in question . The ORG also dismissed the compensation claim against the municipality , declining jurisdiction in favour of the administrative courts . It noted that the claim against ORG had been abandoned . Drawing on LAW , the ORG considered that the claim relating to moveable property should be deemed not to have been lodged . Lastly , it ordered the FAC and GPE partnership to pay , jointly and severally , TRY CARDINAL in respect of the pecuniary damage sustained , and a sum of TRY CARDINAL to each claimant in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","On DATE Mr PERSON and his wife had brought before the ORG an action for damages against the limited liability company PERSON . ORG . GPE , the PERSON partnership , ORG and GPE They claimed ORG CARDINAL each in respect of pecuniary damage , TRL CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and a further sum to be calculated in compensation for loss of support .","On DATE the ORG stated that it was satisfied that the property developer responsible for the building in the ruins of which the applicant \u2019s son had died was the PERSON partnership and that the architectural blueprint had been prepared by PERSON , who had also acted as scientific officer for the project . Furthermore , in the light of the expert report prepared on DATE at the request of ORG , the public authorities which had issued the permit had been responsible in a ratio of CARDINAL and the persons in charge of construction had been responsible in a ratio of CARDINAL . The ORG considered that the PERSON partnership and PERSON had therefore been responsible in a ratio of CARDINAL .","The ORG dismissed the claim against ORG and the limited liability company PERSON . ORG . GPE on the grounds that they could not have been involved in the proceedings . It allowed in part the applicant \u2019s and his wife \u2019s compensation claims . The PERSON partnership was accordingly ordered to pay the applicant TRY CARDINAL in respect of the moveable property which they had lost , TRY CARDINAL in respect of loss of financial support and TRY CARDINAL in respect of nonpecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG set aside that judgment on the ground that the court which had jurisdiction to hear and determine the case had been the ORG .","By judgment of DATE , the ORG , to which the case had been referred back , sitting as a consumer court , dismissed the claim against ORG and the limited liability company ORG . GPE on the grounds that they could not have been involved in the proceedings . It also dismissed the claim against GPE on the ground that when he had died , after the action had been brought , his heirs had not accepted the succession . Nevertheless , the ORG allowed in part the claim against the PERSON partnership . In that connection it awarded Mr \u00c7ak\u0131r TRY CARDINAL in respect of the moveable property which he had lost , TRY CARDINAL in respect of loss of financial support and TRY CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG set aside that judgment .","On DATE ORG dismissed an application for rectification of its judgment .","On DATE the ORG , to which the case had been referred back , dismissed the claim against ORG and the limited liability company PERSON . ORG . GPE on the ground that they could not have been involved in the proceedings . It likewise dismissed the claim against GPE owing to the fact that when he had died , after the action had been brought , his heirs had not accepted the succession . Nevertheless , the ORG allowed in part the claim against the PERSON partnership . In that connection it awarded Mr PERSON TRY CARDINAL in respect of the moveable property which he had lost , TRY CARDINAL in respect of loss of financial support and TRY CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE PERSON ( GPE ) and CARDINAL members of her family had brought compensation proceedings before the ORG in respect of the damage suffered owing to the deaths of their parents , claiming FAC in respect of non - pecuniary damage and FAC in respect of pecuniary damage . The action for damages was directed against the V.G. PERSON partnership .","On DATE the ORG , hearing and determining as a consumer court , allowed in part the claim concerning the pecuniary damage suffered , awarding a sum of TRY DATE to be shared among the different complainants , in accordance with their respective places in their GPE succession . The ORG also awarded a sum of TRY CARDINAL in respect of the non - pecuniary damage caused by the death of the PERSON mother and TRY CARDINAL in respect of the non - pecuniary damage caused by their father \u2019s death .","On DATE the respondent party appealed on points of law .","On DATE ORG dismissed that appeal under a judgment which became final on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178411","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"RUNTEVA v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She is represented before the ORG by Mr T. Torov , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","By a judgment of DATE , confirmed on appeal on DATE , ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) convicted the applicant of a serious traffic offence and sentenced her to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The period during which the applicant had been remanded in pre - trial detention ( from DATE ) was to be deducted from the custodial sentence .","On DATE the applicant started serving the sentence .","On DATE the President of the ORG granted pardons to several convicted people , exempting them entirely ( \u043f\u043e\u0442\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u043e ) or partially ( \u0434\u0435\u043b\u0443\u043c\u043d\u043e ) from serving their respective prison sentences ( \u0441\u0435 \u043e\u0441\u043b\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0434\u0443\u0432\u0430\u0430\u0442 \u043e\u0434 \u043f\u043e\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430\u043c\u043e\u0448\u043d\u043e \u0438\u0437\u0432\u0440\u0448\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) . The applicant obtained a reduction of the serving time by DATE and DATE . On DATE the presidential pardon was published in ORG . The presidential pardon was granted on the occasion of a national public holiday .","On DATE the applicant , represented by PERSON , lodged a request for extraordinary mitigation of her prison sentence ( \u0432\u043e\u043d\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e \u0443\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0436\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043a\u0430\u0437\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 ) , which ORG granted in a judgment of DATE . It found that the applicant was the only person who could care for her father , whose health had deteriorated after the death of her mother , which had occurred whilst the applicant was serving her sentence . According to the court , those were new circumstance which the lower courts could not have taken into account in determining the sentence . Relying on sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , it overturned the lower courts\u2019 judgments of DATE and DATE in respect of the sentence and reduced the prison term to DATE . The court reiterated that the period of time the applicant had spent in detention on remand was to be deducted from the total prison term . In its judgment , the court did not mention the presidential pardon of DATE .","On DATE the judgment was served on the applicant \u2019s representative .","In the meantime , namely on DATE , the trial court accepted a recommendation made by the director of the detention facility ( based on the applicant \u2019s good behaviour ) and ordered that the applicant be released on parole on DATE . Referring to the aforementioned presidential pardon , the trial court stated that \u201c [ the applicant \u2019s sentence ] is DATE . \u201d The trial court established that the period of conditional release ( \u0443\u0441\u043b\u043e\u0432\u0435\u043d \u043e\u0442\u043f\u0443\u0441\u0442 ) would come to an end on DATE . It did not mention ORG judgment of DATE .","The applicant was released on parole CARDINAL DATE .","On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant brought a civil action against the respondent ORG , claiming compensation for being allegedly unlawfully detained for DATE due to an error or unlawful action by the ORG authorities . She also claimed compensation in respect of the period of her conditional release ( between CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) , during which she had been regarded as an offender . She argued that , as a consequence of ORG judgment ordering mitigation of sentence and the presidential pardon , the prison sentence had been reduced to DATE excluding the time of her detention on remand . Accordingly , she should have been released DATE prior to the date of her release on parole .","NORP In a judgment of DATE , ORG Instance dismissed the applicant \u2019s compensation claim as ill - founded . The court stated the following :","\u201c ... On the basis of the [ information ] submitted by [ the trial court ] , the court establishes that the prison sentence imposed on [ the applicant ] was DATE , taking into account the presidential pardon . That aside , the overall sentence , including [ the applicant \u2019s ] conditional release that came to an end on DATE , was DATE ... It is undisputed that [ the applicant ] was released from custody on DATE , as stated in the decision for her release on parole . Accordingly , she was not detained for longer than prescribed ... [ The trial court ] decision ordering [ the applicant \u2019s ] conditional release took into consideration the presidential pardon , as is evident from the reasoning provided ; however , when reducing the sentence , it gave no weight to it . [ The applicant ] did not spend a day longer in custody than she was sentenced to . She was supposed to serve the sentence until DATE , the date when her period of conditional release came to an end ...","The provisions governing compensation for damage sustained do not apply in the circumstances of the ( present ) case because the conviction was not wrongful ... The reduction in the prison term following the presidential pardon and the [ ORG ] judgment was based on grounds not related to [ the applicant \u2019s ] guilt of the crime that she had committed . Only a person who has suffered damage due to a wrongful conviction is entitled to seek compensation for damage sustained . In the present case , [ the applicant ] was rightfully convicted ... \u201d","The applicant challenged this judgment before ORG . She reiterated that , given the extraordinary reduction in the prison term ordered by ORG and the presidential pardon , she should have been imprisoned for DATE , further reduced by the period of her detention on remand . Any detention in excess of this period had therefore been unlawful . Accordingly , she was entitled to compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG upheld the established facts and the reasoning provided by the lower court . It further stated that :","\u201c ... the reduction of a prison term on the basis of an extraordinary mitigation of sentence [ by ORG ] does not constitute grounds for compensation for damage sustained if a person has remained imprisoned for longer than the reduced prison term imposed by a competent court .","... this court considers that in the present case , the lower court having correctly established that [ the applicant ] had not been imprisoned DATE more than had been prescribed by the above judgments , the applicant has no right to claim compensation under [ section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ] of LAW ... \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant and upheld the lower courts\u2019 judgments . The applicant was served with this judgment on DATE .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that the President of the ORG can grant pardon in accordance with the legal provisions .","Under LAW of DATE , the President of the ORG may grant pardon to identified individuals in respect of criminal offences provided for by law . A request for pardon can be submitted by the convicted person or by ORG of its own motion ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) after a judgment becomes final ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","Section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , as applicable at the relevant time , provided that judgments were delivered to parties either by way of oral pronouncement , if the parties were present at the hearing , or by serving them with a certified copy of the judgment if they were absent from the hearing .","Under section ORG ) of the LAW , a final judgment became enforceable after being served on the parties provided there were no obstacles to its enforcement .","Sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL provided for an extraordinary mitigation of sentence as an extraordinary remedy that might be used against the penalty imposed by the lower courts . Under section CARDINAL , it might be granted on account of facts that had not existed before delivery of the final judgment or of facts that had existed at that time but of which the court had been unaware .","NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , a request for mitigation of sentence did not suspend its enforcement .","ORG would dismiss the request if the statutory conditions for extraordinary mitigation of sentence were not satisfied . If it granted the request , ORG would adopt a judgment and overturn the final judgment in respect of the penalty ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)CARDINAL provided that a person was entitled to claim compensation if he or she had served a prison sentence but \u2012 on the basis of a reopening of proceedings , a legality review request or a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment \u2012 should have served a shorter prison term than the one already served . Under sub - paragraph CARDINAL , a person was entitled to claim compensation if he or she served a longer ( prison ) sentence due to an error or unlawful action by a ( State ) body ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-161760","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KOCHEROV AND SERGEYEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":2,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The first applicant is the second applicant \u2019s father .","The first applicant has a mild mental disability . DATE he lived in GPE no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the care home \u201d ) .","NORP In DATE the first applicant married PERSON , a resident of the same care home , who had been deprived of her legal capacity on account of her mental disability .","On DATE PERSON gave birth to the second applicant . At the time , the first applicant was not recognised as the child \u2019s father . DATE the second applicant was admitted to hospital because of an infection she had contracted during the delivery .","On DATE the second applicant was placed in GPE Home no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the children \u2019s home \u201d ) as a child without parental care .","On DATE the first applicant obtained a new birth certificate for the second applicant and was registered as her father . He subsequently gave his consent for her to stay at the children \u2019s home until it became possible for him to take care of her . Throughout the second applicant \u2019s stay there , the first applicant maintained regular contact with her . He would visit her regularly , spend time with her , take her for walks and buy her books , toys and clothes .","By a judgment of DATE the ORG of GPE refused to restore PERSON legal capacity , relying in particular on a psychiatric examination report . It stated that , inter alia , there were conflicting , aggressive and emotionally inadequate tendencies in her behaviour .","On DATE the marriage between the first applicant and PERSON was declared void at the request of a public prosecutor because of PERSON legal incapacity .","Following a claim by the first applicant acting on his own behalf and on behalf of the second applicant , on DATE ORG of GPE ordered GPE to provide the applicants with housing under a social tenancy agreement . In DATE they were provided with a flat in GPE .","NORP In DATE , on the basis of a medical assessment , the first applicant was discharged from the care home and moved into his flat . He has been living there ever since .","NORP In DATE the first applicant informed the children \u2019s home of his intention to take the second applicant into his care once he was discharged from the care home and had moved into his flat .","On an unspecified date the children \u2019s home applied to LOC of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to have the first applicant \u2019s parental authority over the second applicant restricted . The children \u2019s home indicated that \u201c the first applicant [ had ] never yet taken the girl from the children \u2019s home to raise her in his family but was planning to raise the girl by himself \u201d . In the children \u2019s home \u2019s view , it was not advisable to let the girl be placed in her GPE care as her mother was legally incapacitated and thus posed a danger to the girl \u2019s life and health , while her father could not fully exercise his parental responsibilities owing to his mental disability . In addition , the children \u2019s home submitted , referring to information provided by its staff ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , that at the time it would be very stressful for the second applicant to be transferred to her GPE family .","In the proceedings before ORG , the children \u2019s home produced undated reports by its staff . They stated that the second applicant had difficulties in communicating with her parents and that she felt fear , anxiety and emotional stress in their presence .","The first applicant relied on the following pieces of written evidence .","In a certificate dated DATE the children \u2019s home stated that the second applicant was in their care and that the first applicant and Ms GPE regularly visited her .","In a certificate dated CARDINAL DATE a municipal custody and guardianship agency confirmed that the second applicant was living temporarily at the children \u2019s home at the first applicant \u2019s request pending the allocation of social housing to him , and that he visited her there .","A report dated DATE by a panel of experts contained the results of a medical psychiatric examination of the first applicant that had been carried out with a view to determining whether he could be discharged from the care home and bring up his child . The report described him as a fully focused , sociable person with reduced intelligence . According to the report , the first applicant was well presented , readily engaged himself in conversation and could read , write and do arithmetic . He was able to cook and kept his room in the care home clean and orderly . The report also mentioned that he talked about his daughter with tenderness and love , proudly demonstrated her \u201c achievements \u201d , showed clothes and toys bought for her , and regularly visited her . He was planning to take her home as soon as he was provided with social housing . The report also stated that throughout his stay at the care home the first applicant had worked there and saved money over DATE ; he would therefore be able to support his daughter financially . The report concluded that he could be discharged from the care home and that his state of health enabled him to fully exercise his parental authority .","A report dated DATE by the custody and guardianship authority described the living conditions in the first applicant \u2019s flat as appropriate for his daughter . It stated , in particular , that the flat had recently been renovated , was clean and light , had all the necessary furniture and home appliances , and that there was a sleeping place for the child with clean bed linen . There were toys and books suitable for her age , and clothes appropriate for DATE . There was also a separate desk equipped for the child .","A letter dated DATE issued by the care home to ORG again confirmed that the first applicant regularly visited the second applicant at the children \u2019s home , that he bought clothes for her and that he discussed with the management of the care home the steps he could take on his own to ensure the girl received a good upbringing , financial support , health care and an education . When concluding the social tenancy agreement for the flat allocated to him , the first applicant had himself found out which documents he would need to register the girl at kindergarten , had collected those documents and had put her on a waiting list for a place . The letter also stated that the first applicant \u2019s medical examination had not revealed any contradictions to his upbringing of the second applicant ; he was a well - organised and reliable person who had realistic life plans and a responsible attitude towards his work and obligations . His psychiatric state was stable ; he did not show any signs of aggression towards others or emotional instability and did not need any medical treatment .","At the hearing before ORG , the first applicant \u2019s representative contested the children \u2019s home \u2019s application as groundless and discriminatory as being based on the fact that the first applicant had an intellectual disability . He argued , with reference to the adduced evidence ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , that the first applicant was fully able to exercise his parental authority and take care of his daughter . He pointed out that the first applicant had recently been discharged from the care home and lived in a separate flat , where the conditions were adequate and suitable for the second applicant to live in . The first applicant \u2019s lawyer thus insisted that the second applicant should be transferred into his care . He argued that the transfer could be performed gradually , to enable the girl to get used to the changes in her life , while the competent social care agencies could assist the first applicant in exercising his parental authority and monitor the family and , in particular , the second applicant \u2019s life and upbringing .","Representatives of the children \u2019s home ( its director and the doctor in charge of the second applicant \u2019s treatment ) maintained the claim , arguing that it was premature to transfer the girl into the first applicant \u2019s care . They stated , in particular , that the first applicant had a mental disability and had lived for all his life in a closed specialist institution ; he would therefore be unable to ensure proper hygienic care of the girl or her adequate development , while it was impossible to entrust any such care to the second applicant \u2019s mother as she was legally incapacitated . The representatives of the children \u2019s home also stated that the first applicant \u2019s attempts to communicate with the second applicant clearly showed that there was no contact between them . They added that when the second applicant had been told for the first time that she might be transferred into her father \u2019s care , she had been stressed , scared and afraid of approaching him ; later , when she had realised that she would be staying at the children \u2019s home , her fears had disappeared . They also stated that at the time the second applicant \u2019s fear of her parents had passed , and that she ceased fearing living with her family .","A representative of the municipal custody and guardianship authority and a public prosecutor both maintained the children \u2019s home \u2019s application , arguing that in view of the first applicant \u2019s diagnosis , and the fact that his partner PERSON had no legal capacity , it was not safe to transfer the second applicant into their care , and that CARDINAL parents with mental disabilities would be unable to ensure the girl \u2019s harmonious development .","ORG also heard evidence from PERSON , a care home employee , who stated that whilst at the home the first applicant had lived independently in a separate room , which he had kept in order . He had bought food and cooked for himself and had been able to take prescribed medicines unsupervised if given clear instructions . He had worked part - time at the home , helping to take care of its patients , and had always been able to establish good contact with the patients and their relatives . He had been allowed to leave the care home freely and had also worked part - time outside , and at some point he and PERSON had lived together at her relatives\u2019 place for a while , and had then returned to the care home . PERSON expressed her certainty that the first applicant would be fully able to fulfil his parental obligations and take good care of the second applicant .","On DATE ORG examined the children \u2019s home \u2019s claim . It observed , in particular , that the first applicant and Ms GPE regularly visited the second applicant at the children \u2019s home and attempted to communicate with her in the presence of the social workers , and that the first applicant had obtained a compulsory medical insurance certificate for her . The court also referred to the report of CARDINAL DATE regarding the first applicant \u2019s living conditions and noted , more specifically , that the first applicant had carried out repairs at the flat allocated to him , had equipped a room for a child , and had registered the second applicant at the address .","ORG went on to note that if the children \u2019s home \u2019s application to restrict the first applicant \u2019s parental authority were to be dismissed , the first applicant would be entitled to take his daughter into his care . However , the court considered that at the time it would be \u201c undesirable \u201d as it would not be in the child \u2019s best interests . It noted , with reference to the reports by staff members of the children \u2019s home ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and similar statements by the representatives of the children \u2019s home made at the hearing ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that at present the girl felt anxious in the presence of her parents and had difficulties in communicating with them . The court therefore considered that \u201c it would be stressful for the child to be placed with the family of her parents , who she had never lived with and had so far had no chance to get used to \u201d .","ORG further observed that since childhood , the first applicant had lived in specialist ORG institutions for people with mental disabilities and had no skills and experience in rearing children and taking care of them . In view of the fact that he had only left an institution and started living on his own in DATE , it considered that his intention to raise his daughter by himself was premature .","The court also observed that the girl \u2019s biological mother had free access to the first applicant \u2019s flat and noted that at present she had no legal capacity . It then noted that it \u201c [ had ] no sufficient and reliable evidence that it would be safe for the child to remain with her parents , including her legally incapacitated mother \u201d .","ORG also referred to the first applicant \u2019s mental disability and noted that \u201c at present there was no reliable evidence showing that it would be safe for the girl to live with him \u201d . In this connection , it noted that his medical diagnosis and category of disability would make him ineligible for applying to adopt a child .","Lastly , ORG observed that the first applicant \u2019s DATE income was MONEY ( RUB ) , while the DATE living wage was RUB MONEY for an adult and RUB MONEY for a child . As the first applicant would have to pay utility bills and , from time to time , medicine , some of which could be costly , the court considered that at the time he would be unable to provide adequate financial support for his daughter .","ORG then referred to LAW and allowed the children \u2019s home \u2019s claim . It restricted , for the time being , the first applicant \u2019s parental authority over the second applicant . The court added that by virtue of LAW the first applicant would be able to apply to court to have the restriction of his parental authority lifted , if the reasons for the restriction being imposed ceased to exist .","The first applicant appealed against the judgment of DATE to GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","With regard to ORG first argument ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the first applicant submitted that it would in any case be stressful for the child , who had spent DATE at the children \u2019s home , to start living anywhere else , for instance with an adoptive family . As for the children \u2019s home \u2019s reference to the girl \u2019s anxiety in her GPE presence , the first applicant argued that the reports to that end by its staff ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were out of date and could not serve as a basis for the court \u2019s finding , as at the hearing before the first - instance court the children \u2019s home representatives had confirmed that the second applicant was no longer afraid of her parents or of being placed in the first applicant \u2019s care ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The first applicant also argued that , in so far as FAC had relied on the fact that he had lived at the care home for a prolonged period , a parent \u2019s past or present residence in a specialist institution , there was no such ground for restricting parental authority in the Russian Family Code . Moreover , the law did not require biological parents to prove their ability to raise children or their housekeeping skills as a prerequisite for exercising their parental authority .","The first applicant further insisted , with reference to ORG argument to that end , that the fact the girl \u2019s mother was legally incapacitated was of no relevance to his case . Legal incapacity was a formal status and did not mean that the person was dangerous to others . In any case , the mental health of the child \u2019s mother could not serve as a basis for restricting his own parental authority over his daughter . The first applicant also claimed that during the second applicant \u2019s stay at the children \u2019s home , her mother had been allowed to visit her .","NORP The first applicant went on to argue that there had been no evidence at ORG disposal proving that he posed any danger to his daughter . On the contrary , the relevant medical report by the experts of the care home , who had observed the first applicant for DATE , revealed that his mental condition had not impaired his ability to fulfil his parental responsibilities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Lastly , the first applicant alleged that ORG had erred in establishing his income , which in fact exceeded the living wage in GPE . Referring to the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . PERSON , DATE ) and the relevant provisions of ORG on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities , he also submitted that his income could not be a decisive element in the decision to restrict his parental authority .","In his oral submissions before ORG , the first applicant argued that if the children \u2019s home \u2019s claim was rejected , the transfer of the second applicant into his care could be gradual to enable her to adapt psychologically to her new life in the family .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal . It repeated the reasoning and conclusions of ORG , stating that they were correct and accurately reflectedconsidered that the first applicant \u201c had not adduced convincing evidence proving the absence of a real risk to the second applicant \u2019s life , health and adequate upbringing \u201d if she was transferred into her father \u2019s care . It also noted that the first applicant was not precluded from seeking an annulment of the restriction of his parental authority in the future , should the relevant circumstances change .","On DATE a GPE judge returned without examination a cassation appeal by the first applicant against the court decisions of DATE and DATE , as he had failed to enclose a duly certified copy of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . He did not attempt to pursue the cassation proceedings any further .","After the present application was communicated to the respondent Government , they submitted information on factual developments in the case .","In particular , by a judgment of DATE , ORG of GPE restored , with reference to a psychiatric report , PERSON legal capacity . The judgment entered into force on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant remarried PERSON","By an order of CARDINAL DATE the children \u2019s home established rules concerning the admission of visitors . According to the Government , on the basis of that order the first applicant regularly and without any limitations visited the second applicant there .","DATE . On an unspecified date the first applicant brought civil proceedings against the children \u2019s home in FAC of GPE , seeking to have the restriction of his parental authority over the second applicant lifted . He argued , in particular , that CARDINAL of the grounds for imposing that restriction had been the second applicant \u2019s anxiety and fear she had felt in his presence and her unwillingness to live with him . He pointed out that at present the second applicant had no fear of her parents , that she had developed an affective attitude towards him , considered him as her father and was ready to live with him . He also pointed out that since DATE he had been living on his own and maintaining a household and that he was employed and had a stable income . He also submitted that the legal capacity of the second applicant \u2019s mother , PERSON , had recently been restored . In the first applicant \u2019s view , therefore , there was no reason to continue to restrict his parental authority over the second applicant which prevented him from taking her from the children \u2019s home .","A representative of the children \u2019s home confirmed in court that the first applicant regularly visited the second applicant , that close emotional ties had formed between them and that the girl missed her father when he left . He was therefore of the opinion that it would be in the second applicant \u2019s interests to lift the restriction on the first applicant \u2019s parental authority and transfer her into his care . Representatives of CARDINAL district custody and guardianship agencies and a public prosecutor supported the first applicant \u2019s application .","On DATE ORG gave its judgment . It took into account the parties\u2019 arguments and observed , as had been submitted by a representative of the children \u2019s home , that the first and second applicants had developed close emotional ties , that at present the girl felt comfortable and calm in her father \u2019s presence and that she missed him whenever he left the children \u2019s home . It also observed that from DATE the first applicant had been living independently in a separate flat , where the second applicant was also registered . The court noted that the conditions were good and suitable for the second applicant to live in . It also had regard to the fact that the first applicant was employed and had received positive references from his place of work and place of residence .","ORG further noted that the first applicant had a stable DATE income of MONEY . The living wage being RUB CARDINAL for a working adult and RUB MONEY for a child , the court considered that he was fully able to ensure the second applicant had adequate financial support . The court went on to note that the legal capacity of PERSON , who freely visited the first applicant \u2019s flat , had by that time been restored and that the first applicant had himself submitted a medical report dated DATE which confirmed that he was fully able to take care of his child .","ORG therefore concluded that the restriction of the first applicant \u2019s parental authority was no longer justified , as the reasons it had relied on in its previous judgment of CARDINAL DATE were no longer valid . With reference to LAW , the court thus allowed the first applicant \u2019s application and ordered that the restriction of his parental authority over the second applicant be lifted and that she be transferred into his care . The judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the first applicant took the second applicant from the children \u2019s home to his home address , where she has been living ever since ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178097","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"THOR v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lived in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON ORG , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG . ORG did not make use of their right to intervene under LAW .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant and ORG are the parents of PERSON , born on CARDINAL DATE out of wedlock . The parents were married on CARDINAL DATE and PERSON thereby acquired the status of having been born in wedlock with both parents having joint custody of him . On DATE ORG applied to ORG for sole custody of PERSON and announced that she was planning a divorce . She stated that the child \u2019s best interests would not be guaranteed if she stayed with the applicant . ORG then moved out of the flat , together with PERSON The parents were divorced on DATE . After the divorce the parents maintained joint custody of their child , even though PERSON was living with his mother .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application seeking that he be awarded sole custody of PERSON He argued that ORG tried to alienate the child from him and that she actually failed to fulfil her parental duties . On DATE ORG appointed an expert in respect of the question of custody .","On DATE the expert submitted her report . She concluded that , provided that adequate contact between PERSON and the applicant was ensured , it was in the interests of the well - being of PERSON that custody of him be awarded to ORG In the event that the court were to grant joint custody , the principal residence of PERSON should be with his mother .","On DATE the applicant and ORG reached an agreement on the applicant \u2019s contact rights in respect of PERSON before ORG . That agreement was modified on DATE .","On DATE PERSON reiterated her application for sole custody , stating that the applicant avoided any communication with her and that she could not see how DATE given this fact DATE joint custody was practicable or feasible .","On DATE ORG awarded ORG sole custody and based this decision on the recommendation of a psychological expert . Moreover , the court referred to the fact that PERSON , who was living with his mother , had stated that he wished to continue to do so and had shown a strong emotional link to her . ORG furthermore noted that the applicant had not respected the agreement on contact rights and had on various occasions visited PERSON at DATE conduct which could increase the psychological strain on PERSON and could entail a risk to the wellbeing of the child if joint custody were to be maintained . Since it was not possible under LAW to maintain joint custody after a divorce if the parents did not agree on it the court had to award sole custody , which , for the reasons set out above , had to be granted to ORG","On DATE the applicant appealed . He argued that the proceedings had been defective because an additional expert report should have been ordered . He furthermore argued that Article CARDINALa of LAW was unconstitutional and in violation of his LAW rights and asked ORG to apply to ORG for judicial review of the constitutionality of this provision .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the reasoning of ORG . It held in particular that there was no indication of a risk to the child \u2019s best interests if ORG were to hold sole custody of PERSON The applicant had not submitted sufficient reasons for custody not to be granted to ORG , as the mere fact that she was assisted in caring for PERSON by her mother and the fact that PERSON was having difficulties in adapting to his new kindergarten did not cast any doubt on the capacity of ORG to care for PERSON In so far as the applicant made further allegations of misconduct on the part of the mother without offering any evidence , such allegations were not sufficient to necessitate the supplementing of the expert report in the file . The court furthermore held that there were no concerns in terms of constitutional law regarding the fact that it was not possible to maintain joint custody after a divorce if the parents did not agree on it ; thus , it held that the transfer of custody rights was only possible in the event that the child \u2019s best interests were at risk . The court noted , moreover , that the present case was not comparable with the case of ORG v GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , since PERSON had been born in wedlock and the parents had held joint custody in the past . In such a case neither of the parents held a privileged position as regards the award of custody , and LAW was therefore not discriminatory . In any event there was no room for dismissing the application for sole custody lodged by ORG , as the applicant himself had also lodged an application for sole custody and the court therefore had to decide .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s extraordinary appeal since it did not raise any important questions of law . Moreover , ORG found that the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of ORG v GPE had to be distinguished from the present case because the underlying facts were fundamentally different . ORG had concerned custody of a child born out of wedlock ( in which case LAW did not provide for joint custody but granted sole custody of the child to the mother ) ; in the present case , PERSON had been born in wedlock , so the parents had initially had joint custody , but that arrangement had failed and as a consequence the courts had had to grant sole custody to CARDINAL of the parents . That decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .","Following the DATE amendment to LAW , which entered into force on DATE , the applicant did not lodge an application for joint custody of PERSON According to a statement by the local youth office ( ORG ) of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant no longer availed himself of his right to visit PERSON as he had moved to GPE on an unspecified date .","Article CARDINAL and CARDINALa of LAW , as in force at the material time , read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the marriage of the parents of a minor legitimate child is dissolved or annulled , the custodial rights of both parents remain intact . However , they may present an agreement to the court DATE even modifying an existing agreement \u2013 regarding custodial responsibility . In this connection it may be agreed that CARDINAL parent alone or both parents shall have custody . Where both parents have custodial powers , those of CARDINAL parent may be limited to specific matters .","( CARDINAL ) Where both parents have custody , they must submit an agreement to the court regarding the parent with whom the child is to stay primarily . This parent must always be put in charge of all custodial matters .","( CARDINAL ) The court must approve the agreement of the parents if it serves the interests of the child . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If an agreement in accordance with LAW on the main domicile of the child or on custodial powers is not reached within a reasonable period after a marriage is dissolved or annulled , or if it is incompatible with the interests of the child , the court must decide which parent shall henceforth have sole custody , if all attempts to reach an amicable solution fail .","( CARDINAL ) NORP If both parents have custody under LAW after their marriage has been dissolved or annulled , and if one parent applies for the withdrawal of that custody , the court must decide which parent shall have sole custody , if all attempts to reach an amicable solution fail . \u201d","The relevant provisions of LAW were amended significantly on DATE . The relevant sections read as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the marriage or the common household of the parents is dissolved , joint custody is maintained . They can , however , conclude an agreement before a court under which CARDINAL parent is entrusted with sole custody , or the custody of CARDINAL parent is limited to certain matters .","( CARDINAL ) ) In the case that both parents have joint custody after the dissolution of their marriage or the common household , [ the parents ] have to conclude an agreement before a court regarding in whose household the child will predominantly be cared for . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Provided that it is in the best interests of the child , the court has to decide on the provisional regulation of parental responsibility ( \u201c the phase of provisional parental responsibility \u201d ) , if","after the dissolution of the marriage or the common household the parents can not concur on an agreement , pursuant to section CARDINAL , within a reasonable time limit , or","CARDINAL parent applies for sole custody or his \/ her participation in custodial rights .","...","( CARDINAL ) After [ the phase of provisional responsibility , which lasts DATE ] , the court has to take a final decision on custody ( on the basis of what transpired during the phase of provisional parental responsibility ) \u2013 including payment of statutory maintenance \u2013 [ which is in the best interests of the child . ] ... If the court awards joint custody , it also has to decide in whose household the child will predominantly be cared for . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159566","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SCHATSCHASCHWILI v. GERMANY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial);Just satisfaction dismissed (out of time) (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . When he lodged his application he was being detained in FAC , GPE . He now lives in GPE \/Surami , GPE .","On TIME of DATE the applicant and an unidentified accomplice robbed PERSON and NORP , CARDINAL NORP nationals , in the women \u2019s apartment in GPE .","The perpetrators were aware that the apartment was used for prostitution and expected its CARDINAL female occupants to keep valuables and cash there . They passed by the apartment in TIME in order to make sure that no clients or a procurer were present . Shortly afterwards they returned and overpowered PERSON , who had answered the doorbell . The applicant pointed a gas pistol which resembled a real gun at both women and threatened to shoot them if they did not disclose where their money was kept . While his accomplice watched over the women , the applicant partly collected in the apartment and partly forced the women to hand over to him QUANTITY ( ORG ) and CARDINAL mobile phones .","On DATE the applicant , acting jointly with several accomplices , robbed O. and P. , CARDINAL female NORP nationals who were temporarily resident in GPE and working as prostitutes , in their apartment in PERSON .","On TIME the offence , CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s co - accused had passed by O. and P. \u2019s apartment in PERSON together with an accomplice , NORP , an acquaintance of NORP and P. They intended to verify whether the CARDINAL women were the apartment \u2019s only occupants and whether they kept any valuables there , and discovered a safe in the kitchen .","On DATE at TIME the applicant and a further accomplice , PERSON , gained access to O. and P. \u2019s apartment by pretending to be potential clients , while CARDINAL of their co - accused waited in a car parked close to the apartment building and another waited in front of the building . Once inside the apartment B. produced a knife that he had been carrying in his jacket . P. , in order to escape from the perpetrators , jumped from the balcony located QUANTITY off the ground and ran away . The applicant jumped after her but abandoned the chase after TIME when some passers - by appeared nearby on the street . He then called the co - accused who had been waiting in front of the women \u2019s apartment building on his mobile phone and told him that one of the women had jumped from the balcony and that he had unsuccessfully chased her . The applicant agreed on a meeting point with his co - accused where they would pick him up by car once PERSON had left the crime scene and joined them .","In the meantime inside the apartment , PERSON , after having overpowered O. , threatened to kill her with his knife if she did not disclose where the women kept their money or if she refused to open the safe for him . Fearing for her life , PERSON opened the safe , from which B. removed LAW , and also handed over the contents of her wallet , LAW . B. left the apartment at TIME , taking the money and P. \u2019s mobile telephone as well as the apartment \u2019s landline telephone with him , and joined the coaccused . The coaccused and PERSON then picked up the applicant at the agreed meeting point in their car . At TIME O. in the apartment .","O. and PERSON gave an account of the events to their neighbour E. the morning after the offence . They then left their PERSON apartment out of fear and stayed for DATE with their friend PERSON , one of the victims of the offence committed in GPE , to whom they had also described the offence in detail DATE after it occurred .","On DATE L. informed the police of the offence committed against O. and P. in PERSON . CARDINAL DATE O. and PERSON were repeatedly questioned by the police as to the events of CARDINAL and QUANTITY DATE . In those interviews they described the course of events as set out above . The police , having checked O. and P. \u2019s papers , found their residence and occupation in GPE to be in compliance with NORP immigration and trade law .","As the witnesses had explained during their police interviews that they intended to return to GPE in DATE to come , on DATE the prosecution asked the investigating judge to question the witnesses in order to obtain a true statement which could be used at the subsequent trial ( \u201c eine[r ] i m sp\u00e4teren PERSON ] wahrheitsgem\u00e4\u00dfe[n ] Aussage \u201d ) .","Thereupon , on DATE , O. and P. were questioned by an investigating judge and again described the course of events as set out above . At that time , the applicant had not yet been informed about the investigation proceedings initiated against him , so as not to put the investigation at risk . No warrant for his arrest had yet been issued and he was not yet represented by counsel . The investigating judge excluded the applicant from the witness hearing before him in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) since he was concerned that the witnesses , whom he had found to be considerably shocked and distressed by the offence , would be afraid of telling the truth in the applicant \u2019s presence . The witnesses confirmed at that hearing that they intended to return to GPE as soon as possible .","Witnesses O. and PERSON returned to GPE shortly after that hearing . The applicant was subsequently arrested on DATE .","The G\u00f6ttingen Regional Court summoned NORP and P. by registered mail to appear at the trial on DATE . However , both witnesses refused to attend the hearing before ORG , relying on medical certificates dated DATE which indicated that they were in an unstable , post - traumatic emotional and psychological state .","On DATE ORG therefore sent letters by registered mail to both witnesses informing them that the court , while not being in a position to compel them to appear at a court hearing in GPE , nonetheless wished to hear them as witnesses at the trial . The court stressed that they would receive protection in GPE and that all costs incurred in attending the hearing would be reimbursed and , proposing several options , asked in what circumstances they would be willing to testify at the trial . While an acknowledgement of receipt was returned for both letters , no response was obtained from PERSON , for her part , informed ORG in writing that she was still traumatised by the offence and would therefore neither agree to appear at the trial in person nor would she agree to testify by means of an audio - visual link . O. further stated that she had nothing to add to the statements she had made in the course of the interviews carried out by the police and the investigating judge in DATE .","ORG nevertheless decided to request legal assistance from the NORP authorities under LAW of DATE , as supplemented by ORG between the Member States of ORG of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , taking the view that O. and P. were obliged under NORP law to appear before a court in GPE following a request for legal assistance . It asked for the witnesses to be summoned before a court in GPE and for an audio - visual link to be set up in order for the hearing to be conducted by the presiding judge of ORG ( audiovisuelle GPE ) . It considered , by reference to LAW ( d ) of the LAW , that defence counsel and the accused , just like the judges and the prosecution , should have the right to put questions to the witnesses for the first time .","NORP However , the witness hearing of O. and P. scheduled by the competent NORP court for DATE was cancelled shortly before that date by the presiding NORP judge . The latter found that the witnesses , again relying on medical certificates , had demonstrated that they were still suffering from post - traumatic disorder as a consequence of the offence and that further confrontation with the events in PERSON would risk aggravating their condition . O. had further claimed that , following threats by the accused , she feared possible acts of revenge .","NORP By letter dated DATE ORG , which had obtained copies of the medical certificates the witnesses had submitted to the NORP court at ORG request , informed its NORP counterpart that , according to the standards of NORP criminal procedure law , the witnesses had not sufficiently substantiated their refusal to testify . The court suggested to the competent NORP judge that the witnesses be examined by a public medical officer ( ORG ) or , alternatively , that they be compelled to attend the hearing . The letter remained unanswered .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , dismissing an objection to the admission of the witnesses\u2019 pre - trial statements raised by counsel for CARDINAL of the co - accused , ordered that the records of O. and PERSON \u2019s interviews by the police and the investigating judge be read out at the trial in accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It considered that , as required by the said provisions , there were insurmountable obstacles which made it impossible to hear the witnesses in the foreseeable future as they were unreachable . It had not been possible to hear witnesses O. and P. in the course of the trial since they had returned to their home country , GPE , shortly after their interviews at the investigation stage , and all attempts to hear their evidence at the main hearing , which the court had no means of enforcing , had been to no avail . Pointing out that the courts were under an obligation to conduct proceedings involving deprivation of liberty expeditiously , and in view of the fact that the accused had already been in custody for a considerable period of time , the court was of the opinion that it was not justified to further delay the proceedings .","ORG emphasised that at the investigation stage there had been no indication that O. and P. , who had testified on several occasions before the police and then before the investigating judge , would refuse to repeat their statements at a subsequent trial . It considered that , notwithstanding the resulting restrictions for the defence on account of the admission of O. and P. \u2019s pre - trial statements as evidence in the proceedings , the trial as a whole could be conducted fairly and in compliance with the requirements of LAW ( d ) of the LAW .","By judgment of DATE ORG , considering the facts established as described above , convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of aggravated robbery combined with aggravated extortion involving coercion , committed jointly with other perpetrators in GPE on DATE and in PERSON on DATE , respectively . It sentenced the applicant , who had been represented by counsel at the trial , to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","ORG based its findings of fact concerning the offence committed by the applicant in GPE on the statements made at the trial by the victims L. and PERSON , who had identified the applicant without any hesitation . It further noted that their statements were supported by the statements made at the trial by the police officers who had attended the crime scene and had interviewed PERSON and NORP in the course of the preliminary investigation . In view of these elements , ORG considered that the submissions made by the applicant , who had initially claimed his innocence and had then admitted that he had been in PERSON and ORG flat but had only secretly stolen LAW , alone , after a quarrel with the women , had been refuted .","In the establishment of the facts concerning the offence in PERSON , ORG relied in particular on the pre - trial statements made by the victims O. and PERSON , whom it considered to be key witnesses for the prosecution ( ma\u00dfgebliche[n ] Belastungszeuginnen ) , in the course of their police interviews and before the investigating judge .","In its judgment , which ran to CARDINAL pages , ORG pointed out that it was aware of the reduced evidentiary value of the records of O. and P. \u2019s pre - trial testimonies . It further took into account the fact that neither the applicant nor counsel for the defence had been provided with an opportunity to examine the only direct witnesses to the offence in PERSON at any stage of the proceedings .","ORG noted that the records of O. and P. \u2019s interviews at the investigation stage showed that they had given detailed and coherent descriptions of the circumstances of the offence . Minor contradictions in their statements could be explained by their concern not to disclose their residence and activities to the authorities and by the psychological strain to which they had been subjected during and following the incident . The witnesses had feared problems with the police and acts of revenge by the perpetrators . This explained why they had not reported the offence immediately after the events and why the police had only been informed on DATE by their friend PERSON","ORG further took note of the fact that O. and P. had failed to identify the applicant when confronted with several photos of potential suspects during the police interviews . It observed that the ORG attention during the incident had been focused on the other perpetrator carrying the knife and that the applicant himself had only stayed a short period of time in the apartment . Their inability to identify the applicant also showed that , contrary to the defence \u2019s allegation , the witnesses had not testified with a view to incriminating him . The court further considered that the fact that the witnesses had failed to attend the trial could be explained by their unease at having to recall , and being questioned about , the offence and therefore did not as such affect their credibility .","In its establishment of the facts , ORG further had regard to the following additional evidence : the statements made at the trial by several witnesses to whom O. and PERSON had reported the offence shortly after it happened , namely the GPE neighbour PERSON and their friend PERSON , as well as the police officers and the investigating judge who had examined O. and PERSON at the pre - trial stage ; geographical data and information obtained by tapping the applicant \u2019s and his co - accused \u2019s mobile telephones and by means of a satellite - based global positioning system ( \u201c GPS \u201d ) receiver in the car of CARDINAL of the co - accused ; the applicant \u2019s admission in the course of the trial that he had been in the GPE apartment at the relevant time ; and the similarity in the way in which the offences in GPE and PERSON had been committed .","ORG stressed that , once witnesses PERSON and P. had proved to be unavailable , it had ensured that as many as possible of the witnesses who had been in contact with NORP and P. in relation to the events at issue were heard at the trial , in order to verify the GPE credibility .","In ORG opinion the fact that the detailed description of the events given in GPE and P. \u2019s pre - trial statements was consistent with the account they had given the TIME after the offence to their neighbour PERSON was a strong indication of their credibility and the veracity of their statements . PERSON had further testified that , on TIME of CARDINAL DATE at TIME , another neighbour , an elderly woman who became scared and angry when she saw PERSON running around in front of her window , had called on her and asked her to accompany her to the women \u2019s apartment to investigate what had happened . O. and PERSON had , however , not answered the door when the neighbours rang the doorbell .","ORG further observed that O. and P. \u2019s description of the events was also consistent with their friend PERSON \u2019s recollection of her conversations with NORP and PERSON after the offence .","NORP In addition , ORG noted that the CARDINAL police officers and the investigating judge who had examined O. and P. at the pre - trial stage had all testified at the trial that they had found NORP and PERSON to be credible .","ORG stressed that since neither the defence nor the court itself had had an opportunity to observe the main witnesses\u2019 demeanour at the trial or during examination by means of an audio - visual link , it had to exercise particular diligence in assessing the evaluation of the witnesses\u2019 credibility by the police officers and the investigating judge . The court further emphasised that , when taking into account the testimonies given by the ORG neighbour PERSON and their friend PERSON , it had paid special attention to the fact that their statements constituted hearsay evidence and had to be assessed particularly carefully .","In this context it had been of relevance that O. and P. \u2019s testimonies as well as the statements of the additional witnesses heard at the trial had been supported by further significant and admissible evidence such as data and information obtained by tapping the applicant \u2019s and the co - accused \u2019s mobile telephones and by means of GPS . The information in question had been gathered in the context of police surveillance measures carried out at the relevant time in the criminal investigation initiated against the accused on suspicion of racketeering and extortion on the PERSON drug scene .","It transpired from the geographical data and the recordings of CARDINAL mobile telephone conversations between CARDINAL of the co - accused and the applicant on TIME of CARDINAL DATE at TIME and TIME that the latter had been present in the GPE apartment together with PERSON , and that he had jumped from the balcony in order to chase one of the escaping victims , whom he had failed to capture , while PERSON had stayed in the apartment . Furthermore , an analysis of the GPS data showed that the car of CARDINAL of the co - accused had been parked near the crime scene from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. on TIME of CARDINAL DATE , a period that coincided with the timeframe in which the robbery in question had occurred .","Furthermore , while the applicant and the co - accused had denied any participation in the robbery as such or any premeditated criminal activity , their own statements at the trial had at least confirmed that CARDINAL of the coaccused together with NORP had visited the GPE apartment in PERSON on TIME before the offence and that they had all been present in the car parked close to the GPE apartment at the time of the offence . The accused had initially stated that a different perpetrator and NORP had been in the apartment at the time of the incident the following day . The applicant had subsequently amended his submissions and claimed that it had been he and PERSON who had gone into the GPE apartment on DATE with a view to making use of the women \u2019s services as prostitutes . He had further conceded that he had followed P. when she escaped over the balcony . He explained that he had done so in order to prevent her from calling the neighbours or the police , since , in view of his criminal record , he had been afraid of getting into trouble and because of the problems he had previously encountered with prostitutes on a similar occasion in GPE .","Finally , ORG considered that the very similar way in which the offences had been committed against CARDINAL female victims , foreign nationals working as prostitutes in an apartment , was an additional element indicating that the applicant had also participated in the offence committed in PERSON .","In ORG view , the body of evidence , taken together , gave a coherent and complete overall picture of events which supported the version provided by witnesses PERSON and PERSON and refuted the contradictory versions of events put forward by the applicant and his co - accused in the course of the trial .","On DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of ORG . He complained that he had not been able to examine the only direct and key witnesses to the offence committed in PERSON at any stage of the proceedings , in breach of LAW and CARDINAL ( d ) of the LAW . As the prosecution authorities , contrary to the case - law of ORG ( the applicant referred to a judgment dated DATE , see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) , had not requested that defence counsel be appointed for him prior to NORP and P. \u2019s hearing before the investigating judge , their statements ought to have been excluded at the trial .","In written submissions dated DATE ORG General requested that the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law be dismissed by ORG as manifestly ill - founded in written proceedings , under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG argued that while it was true that the proceedings had been characterised by a \u201c complete loss \u201d of the applicant \u2019s right to examine O. and PERSON ( \u201c GPE des Fragerechts \u201d ) , they had as a whole been fair and there had been no reason to exclude the witness statements of ORG and P. as evidence .","ORG General considered that ORG had assessed the content of the records of the witnesses\u2019 testimonies read out at the trial particularly carefully and critically . Furthermore , the ORG statements had been neither the sole nor the decisive basis for the applicant \u2019s conviction by ORG , as the latter had based its findings on further significant evidence . In view of the various layers of corroborating evidence the applicant had had ample opportunity to challenge the credibility of the CARDINAL prosecution witnesses and to defend himself effectively .","Endorsing ORG reasoning , ORG General further pointed out that there was nothing to demonstrate that the restrictions on the defence \u2019s right to examine witnesses O. and PERSON had been imputable to the domestic authorities . The prosecution authorities had not been obliged to appoint counsel for the applicant in order for counsel to participate in the hearing by the investigating judge . In view of the ORG consistent cooperation , the authorities had had no reason to expect that , despite their return to their home country , they would no longer be available for questioning at the trial , especially as they had been obliged under NORP law to at least participate in a hearing via video link .","By decision of DATE ORG , referring to LAW , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law as manifestly ill - founded .","In its decision of DATE rejecting the applicant \u2019s complaint concerning a violation of his right to be heard ( Anh\u00f6rungsr\u00fcge ) ORG pointed out that any decision dismissing an appeal on the basis of LAW necessarily entailed a reference to the reasoned application by ORG .","In a constitutional complaint dated DATE against the decisions of ORG of DATE and DATE , the applicant complained , in particular , that there had been a breach of his right to a fair trial and of his defence rights under LAW ( d ) of the LAW . He argued that neither he nor his counsel had had the opportunity to question O. and P. at any stage of the proceedings .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , without providing reasons , declined to consider the applicant \u2019s complaint ( file no . CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155094","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BANOVI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father , PERSON , applied to ORG and their Family Members ( PERSON hrvatskih branitelja i \u010dlanova njihovih obitelji PERSON \u017eupanije , podru\u010dna jedinica PERSON ; hereinafter \u201c the Rijeka Office \u201d ) for recognition of the status of a disabled war veteran , on the grounds that he had contracted tuberculosis and developed psychosis during his military service in DATE .","On DATE PERSON died and the applicant took over the proceedings as his heir .","On DATE ORG dismissed the application . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c The case file was resubmitted to ORG , which established the following :","- G.B ... served in the Homeland War ... from DATE to DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE ;","- during military service he contracted tuberculosis ;","- his mental health issues had been recognised much earlier ;","- ORG is of the opinion that his tuberculosis and psychosis have not been caused by his military service . \u201d","The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision . On DATE the Ministry in charge of the Homeland War Veterans affairs ( ORG hrvatskih branitelja iz DATE ; later ORG obitelji , branitelja i me\u0111ugeneracijske solidarnosti ; hereinafter : the \u201c Ministry \u201d ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal holding that the proceedings should have been terminated as ORG had meanwhile died .","The applicant challenged that decision before ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s administrative action , quashed the decision of the Ministry and remitted the case .","On DATE the Ministry allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal , quashed the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) but declared PERSON \u2019s application inadmissible . It held that such application could only be lodged after a claimant had been discharged from the army , which was not the case in PERSON \u2019s case .","The applicant lodged an administrative action against that decision . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of the ORG and remitted the case . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c The administrative bodies\u2019 decisions ... were rendered while the [ old ] Act on LAW Homeland War Veterans and their Family Members ( ORG nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) was still in force .","In the meantime , since the action was lodged and before this judgment was rendered , a new LAW on LAW Homeland War Veterans and their Family Members entered into force and was published in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that LAW , which entered into force on DATE , the proceedings instituted while the old legislation was still in force and in which the final decision has not yet been rendered should be decided under LAW if more favourable for the Croatian Homeland War veteran .","In the present case , on DATE , the date the LAW on LAW Homeland War Veterans and their Family Members entered into force , the disputed decision of the defendant body was not final . The court therefore finds that the defendant body must decide the application in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ... It is a specific legislative provision which requires the impugned decision to be quashed ...","The defendant body shall decide , in the light of the provisions of the LAW that govern the conditions and methods of recognition of disabled NORP Homeland War veteran status , if more favourable for the claimant . \u201d","On DATE the Ministry allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal , quashed the decision of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case for re - examination . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c This Ministry has reconsidered the case and found that the appeal is well - founded , albeit for different reasons .","Section CARDINAL of the by - law on the Procedure before ORG for the Determination of Rights under LAW on LAW Homeland War Veterans and their Family Members provides that ORG shall issue its opinion after examining the person [ concerned ] and the relevant medical and other documentation ...","As [ G.B. ] was not examined in person before the First - Instance Medical Committee and can not be examined , the first - instance body shall , in the fresh set of proceedings , terminate the proceedings relying on LAW . \u201d","On DATE the social services department of ORG ( Ured dr\u017eavne uprave u Primorsko - goranskoj \u017eupaniji , Slu\u017eba za dru\u0161tvene djelatnosti ; hereinafter \u201c the County Office \u201d ) , which meanwhile became competent to examine the case , terminated the proceedings concerning PERSON \u2019s recognition as a disabled war veteran on the grounds that due to his death , certain relevant facts could no longer be established .","The applicant appealed against that decision . On DATE the Ministry allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal and reversed the decision of ORG . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c III : The deceased G.B ... is hereby recognised as a fourth category disabled Homeland War [ veteran ] , with PERCENT damage to his body ... on the grounds that he contracted tuberculosis while defending the sovereignty of GPE .","PERSON is entitled to :","Personal disability benefit","...","Supplementary benefit","...","IV . The application for recognition of Homeland War [ veteran ] status on the grounds of psychosis is hereby denied .","...","The case file was submitted to the competent ORG on appeal which , in its opinion ... of DATE established PERCENT permanent damage to the body ... \u201d","This decision was served on the applicant in DATE .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , in a single - judge formation , found a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to a trial within reasonable time concerning the proceedings before the administrative authorities and ORG and awarded her compensation in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) . The applicant did not lodge further appeal against this decision before a panel of judges of ORG .","On DATE the applicant applied before ORG for recognition as the family member of a fallen war veteran and family disability benefit .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s application inadmissible as lodged out of time . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c Upon examining the case file it was established that the claimant lodged her application after the time - limit [ set forth in ] section CARDINAL of the LAW [ on LAW Homeland War Veterans and their Family Members ] had expired .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act [ stipulates that ] where a Homeland War veteran has , before the entry into force of the LAW , died of illness directly caused by his defence of the sovereignty of GPE , applications for recognition of status and ... disability benefit must be lodged within DATE of the date of entry into force of the Act .","The LAW entered into force on DATE , which means that the deadline for lodging the application expired on DATE . \u201d","The applicant appealed against that decision . On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , endorsing the reasoning of the first - instance administrative body . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c Upon appeal , and after examining the case file , it was established that the [ first - instance ] decision is valid and had a basis in law .","That is to say , after examining the evidence in the case file , it was established that the claimant lodged her application ... on DATE , arguing that her father died from GPE , and from the death certificate it is clear that he died on DATE .","... section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW stipulates that where a Homeland War veteran has , before the entry into force of the LAW , died of illness directly caused by his defence of the sovereignty of GPE , applications for recognition of status and for disability benefit must be lodged within DATE of the date of entry into force of the LAW ( that is to say , on DATE at latest ) .","As the claimant lodged her request on DATE , that is to say after the ( preclusive ) statutory time - limit , which can not be prolonged upon a party \u2019s request or of [ the administrative body \u2019s ] own motion , and the appeal reasons do not influence the reasoning in this case , the appeal is hereby dismissed . \u201d","The applicant challenged that decision before ORG , arguing that the decisions of the administrative bodies had been unfair and overly formalistic , effectively depriving her of her right to disability benefit . Specifically , she argued that the final decision on her father \u2019s status had only been rendered on DATE and had been served on her on DATE . In her view , she was only able to lodge her request after DATE , as an earlier request would have been premature and ill - founded .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action , endorsing the reasoning of the administrative bodies . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c ... the claimant lodged her application ... on DATE . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ... Act stipulates that where a Homeland War veteran has , before the entry into force of the LAW , died of illness directly caused by his defence of the sovereignty of GPE , applications for recognition of status and for disability benefit must be lodged within DATE of the date of entry into force of the LAW . As the LAW entered into force on DATE the application could have been lodged by DATE . It was not disputed that the claimant lodged her application on DATE , that is to say after the expiry of the time - limit stipulated in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , and therefore this ORG finds that the decision of the defendant body was well - founded . The claimant \u2019s allegations in her administrative action are therefore ill - founded and irrelevant .","In addition , it is noted that the claimant took over proceedings from her late father ... However , they were separate proceedings establishing the claimant \u2019s late father \u2019s status as a disabled Homeland War veteran , and not the proceedings establishing the status of a family member of a fallen Homeland War veteran and the right to family disability benefit ... \u201d","The applicant further lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) against that judgment . She reiterated her arguments from the administrative action , adding that the domestic authorities had spent DATE trying to establish her late father \u2019s status , which could have only been used as the legal basis for her request after DATE . She also argued that her status was de facto recognised when she had been allowed to take over the proceedings after her late father , and that she was only lacking a declaratory recognition of her factual status .","On DATE ORG , endorsing the reasoning of ORG , declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179416","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ZADUMOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in PERSON , GPE .","According to the indictment , on DATE PERSON , who had not been previously known to the applicant , invited him and PERSON to the apartment of Mr X. In the apartment they found Mr X. lying on the floor in a state of heavy alcoholic intoxication . For reasons which the investigation failed to ascertain , the applicant demanded X. \u2019s passport , but the latter did not react to the demand in any way . Enraged by X. \u2019s inaction , the applicant and PERSON A. started violently kicking him in the shoulder , chest , stomach and legs until he stopped breathing . The applicant told PERSON , who witnessed the attack , to \u201c forget everything \u201d and gave her MONEY ( RUB ) ( CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) .","On DATE PERSON , aged CARDINAL at the time , was voluntarily hospitalised for treatment of alcohol - induced psychosis and seizures after she had an epileptic seizure on the street .","On DATE , while undergoing treatment , PERSON was taken to an investigator for questioning . Prior to the interview , the investigator had received permission to interview PERSON from the head doctor of the medical facility and satisfied herself as to the witness \u2019s ability to testify , relying on the opinion of the doctor treating her . According to a medical certificate , PERSON was \u201c conscious , accessible for contact , answer[ed ] questions following their direction \u201d and had \u201c no acute psychiatric disorders \u201d .","According to the interview records , PERSON alleged that on DATE her encounter with Mr X. had resulted in a drinking spree , which had lasted DATE until DATE , when Mr X. had refused to consume any more alcohol because he could no longer stand up . On DATE of the attack , she had witnessed the applicant entering the apartment with PERSON and immediately starting to violently kick Mr X. , who had been lying on the floor . After an unsuccessful search for X. \u2019s passport , they had resumed the attack and had kicked the victim CARDINAL times until he died .","On DATE the applicant and PERSON were arrested and detained on suspicion of manslaughter . On DATE confessed to manslaughter committed together with the applicant . On DATE during questioning , he stated that the applicant \u2019s insistence on obtaining X. \u2019s passport had been induced by the desire to coerce the latter to sell his apartment and to share the proceeds .","In the course of questioning on CARDINAL and DATE the applicant admitted his presence in X. \u2019s apartment during the attack , but denied any involvement in it . In his opinion PERSON had committed perjury for an unknown reason .","NORP The criminal case against the applicant and PERSON was examined by ORG \u0440\u0430\u0439\u043e\u043d\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 \u0433. PERSON ) ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE during a pre - trial hearing ORG granted applications lodged by the applicant \u2019s defence lawyer to have the medical records of PERSON produced in court at trial .","On DATE ORG received extracts of PERSON medical history provided by a regional psychiatric hospital . According to the medical records , she suffered from long - term alcohol abuse and had a tendency of having compulsive heavy drinking episodes . In DATE , during the sixth hospitalisation since DATE , she had been hallucinating , anxious , aggressive , rude and unaware of DATE . When discharged from hospital in DATE , the symptoms of withdrawal syndrome had receded and there were no signs of acute psychiatric disorders .","On DATE ORG received a certificate from a regional psychoneurology clinic . According to the certificate , in DATE PERSON had been diagnosed with an organic mental disorder of complex origin ( perinatal and alcohol induced ) , hallucino - paranoid syndrome with mild personality changes , and alcohol - withdrawal symptoms .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG heard several prosecution witnesses , mostly relatives , neighbours and acquaintances of the persons involved . The witnesses either attested to the reputation or character of the victim and the accused , or provided hearsay and circumstantial evidence on the events prior and subsequent to the alleged crime . PERSON was duly summoned to both hearings , but did not appear and provided no reasons for her absence .","On DATE at the request of the defence ORG issued a subpoena ordering the bailiffs to ensure PERSON presence at the next hearing .","On DATE the bailiffs submitted to the trial court a report that the witness could not be found at her place of residence and according to her mother \u201c might be undergoing treatment \u201d in a psychoneurology clinic .","On DATE ORG examined a prosecution witness , Ms NORP , an investigator during the pre - trial stages of the proceedings . She testified to the circumstances of PERSON interview on DATE and her identification of the applicant , as well as to her psychological state and ability to give answers at the time . Ms NORP stated that the witness had been \u201c rational \u201d , had given coherent testimony , had correctly recounted the events and , according to the doctor treating her at the time , had been capable of answering questions .","During the hearing the trial court was notified over the phone that the applicant had been undergoing in - patient treatment for alcohol dependency since DATE . The prosecutor \u2019s request that PERSON pre - trial statements be read out in court was denied and the hearing was adjourned until further information on the witness \u2019s health had been received from the doctors .","On DATE the psychoneurology clinic sent a letter to ORG confirming the information previously submitted and stating that PERSON was due to be discharged in DATE .","On DATE during the hearing , the prosecutor , referring to the above - mentioned letter , repeatedly requested that PERSON pre - trial statements be read out in court on account of her in - patient treatment , the fact that her presence at trial could not be ensured , and because the date of her discharge from the clinic was unclear . The applicant \u2019s defence lawyers objected , referring to LAW , which proscribed the reading out of witness statements except in cases of \u201c grave illness \u201d . ORG , without providing further reasons , allowed the reading out of the testimony with reference to LAW .","DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL further hearings . During those hearings the applicant and his coaccused were examined and essentially confirmed their conflicting pre - trial statements . ORG also heard CARDINAL character witnesses called by the defence , who attested to PERSON bad reputation and speculated about his involvement in illegal activities . The trial court also considered the following documentary evidence presented by the prosecution : ( a ) crime scene inspection records ; ( b ) the confession of PERSON and verification records ; ( c ) records of identification procedures ; and ( d ) reports of the medical examiner and forensic experts on the victim \u2019s injuries and the cause of death .","On DATE during the closing argument the applicant \u2019s defence lawyer , PERSON , argued that the statements of PERSON , which were \u201c the only evidence \u201d , could not qualify as eyewitness statements due to her state of mental health . He submitted that in the absence of a forensic psychiatric examination , it was impossible to rely on the testimony of a person suffering from an organic mental disorder and alcohol dependency . Her hospitalisation in a psychiatric facility in a delusional state and her interrogation DATE after the alleged crime had made any testimony unreliable . He further stated that in any event , the reading out of her testimony had been unlawful under LAW as interpreted by ORG of GPE , and in violation of the applicant \u2019s right to examine witnesses LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( d ) of the LAW . Accordingly , her testimony could not be used as evidence in the case against the applicant .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant and Mr A. of manslaughter and sentenced them to CARDINAL and DATE imprisonment respectively in a high - security correctional facility . ORG , confronted with the conflicting positions of the CARDINAL coaccused , referred several times to PERSON testimony as a significant , if not decisive , factor . In respect of the reliability of the testimony and its reading out , it stated :","\u201c ... The statements of PERSON made during the pre - trial investigation were read out under LAW ...","The court does not accept PERSON argument that [ according to the medical records ] the mental state of PERSON casts doubt on her ability to correctly perceive and recount the events and that [ her questioning during treatment in a psychoneurology facility ] also casts doubt on the veracity and reliability of her testimony ...","The medical records referred to by the defence do not suggest that PERSON has any psychiatric disorder . [ Moreover , the available certificates state that she was accessible for contact , answered questions following their direction and had no acute psychiatric disorders . This fact is further confirmed by the testimony of PERSON , the investigator , given at trial . ]","The court also considers that PERSON statements are consistent with the confession of PERSON","The applicant \u2019s defence lawyers lodged an appeal , restating among others their arguments concerning the reading out of PERSON pre - trial statements .","On DATE ORG ( \u0422\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0441\u0443\u0434 ) upheld the judgment on appeal . In respect of PERSON statements ORG stated :","\u201c ... The involvement of PERSON [ the applicant ] in the committed crime is steadfastly confirmed by the testimony of PERSON","[ The appeal court ] like the trial court finds no grounds to doubt the testimony of this witness , because it is coherent , detailed , logical and authentic .","[ From ] the information provided by PERSON on the victim \u2019s state before and after the infliction of bodily injuries by PERSON and PERSON , the sequence of events is consistent with [ expert evidence and the testimony of other witnesses and the co - accused ] .","Accordingly there are no reasons to consider that the witness could not correctly perceive or recount the events .","Moreover [ her ] mental state received consideration during the hearing . [ According to the investigator \u2019s statements she was rational , gave coherent testimony , correctly recounted the events , and according to her doctor was capable of answering questions . ] ... [ Therefore ] the trial court reached a correct conclusion that this evidence was admissible .","[ The appeal court ] can not consider justified the arguments of the defence that criminal procedure legislation had been breached by the reading out of PERSON pretrial statements , [ since her presence at hearings was impossible as she was undergoing treatment in a clinic ] . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163111","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BLAGOJEVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Disciplinary proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["All applicants were former employees of \u201c GPE u ste\u010daju ( the debtor ) , which was , at the relevant time , a company predominantly comprised of socially - owned capital .","NORP Since the debtor failed to fulfil its contractual obligations towards its employees , on an unspecified date , the applicants instituted civil proceedings against it .","On DATE ORG ordered the debtor to pay the applicants specified amounts on account of salary arrears , plus the costs and expenses of the civil proceedings .","On DATE the above judgment became final .","DATE and DATE all applicants filed separate requests for the enforcement of the above judgment .","ORG ultimately accepted the applicants\u2019 requests and issued the enforcement orders , respectively . The essential information as to the enforcement proceedings in respect of each application is outlined in the ORG to this judgment .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor ( St. CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The applicants duly submitted their respective claims .","On an unspecified date the ORG claims based on the judgment of DATE were formally recognised .","The insolvency proceedings against the debtor are still ongoing .","On DATE , the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal in respect of all applicants except the applicants PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and PERSON PERSON ( application no . PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG also found a violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time , in respect of Ms ORG , PERSON and PERSON . It further awarded each of them MONEY ( ORG ) as just satisfaction for non - pecuniary damage and ordered the court in Leskovac to expedite the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148683","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF BATTISTA v. ITALY","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE","The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","While he was in judicial separation proceedings from his wife ( PERSON ) , a provisional residence order was issued to both parents in respect of the couple \u2019s CARDINAL children ( GPE and PERSON ) .","On DATE the applicant asked the guardianship judge to issue him with a new passport , requesting that the name of his son , PERSON , also be entered in it . His former wife objected , arguing that the applicant was not making the maintenance payments ordered by the president of the court at the time of the judicial separation .","By a decree of CARDINAL DATE , the guardianship judge rejected the applicant \u2019s request , holding that it was inappropriate to issue the requested passport , given the imperative of protecting the children \u2019s right to receive the maintenance payments . In this regard , he emphasised that the applicant , who was supposed to make a maintenance payment of MONEY ( ORG ) per month , paid only a small amount ( ORG DATE ) and that there was a risk that he would shirk his obligation completely if he were to travel abroad .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the guardianship judge ordered that PERSON \u2019s name be removed from the applicant \u2019s passport .","On DATE the GPE Police Commissioner ( questore ) ordered the applicant to hand in his passport to the police station and amended his identity card , making it invalid for foreign travel .","The applicant appealed to ORG against the guardianship judge \u2019s decision . He alleged that :","\u2013 under the measures ordered by the president of the court at the time of the judicial separation , the children had been due to spend the period of CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , during the school holidays , with him ; on that basis , he had planned to take them to GPE by plane ; however , this required that the names of his CARDINAL children be included in his passport ;","\u2013 on account of his former wife \u2019s objection and the guardianship judge \u2019s decree , he and his children had been unable to go on holiday ;","\u2013 the children \u2019s names were included in the mother \u2019s passport ;","\u2013 the dismissal of his request amounted to a penalty that was not prescribed by law .","On DATE the applicant asked the GPE guardianship judge to issue him with a new passport , explaining that his former wife had retained his identity card and his passport in the family home .","By a decree of DATE , the GPE guardianship judge dismissed the applicant \u2019s request on the ground that he had not paid the maintenance sums due in respect of his children , and that it was to be feared that he was leaving the country only in order to evade his obligation entirely .","The applicant also appealed against that decision to ORG , alleging a breach of his right to freedom of movement .","By a decision of DATE , ORG joined the appeals and dismissed them . The court noted , firstly , that the legal basis for the guardianship judge \u2019s decision was PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , as amended by LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .","The court found that the guardianship judge did indeed have jurisdiction to rule on the applicant \u2019s request for a passport and on the inclusion in it of his son \u2019s name . As to the merits of the appeal , the court noted that the applicant was not complying with his obligation to pay maintenance and that this circumstance was one of the lawful grounds for refusing to issue a passport , in the children \u2019s interests , in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE PERSON was ordered to pay a fine of ORG CARDINAL for failing to bring the children to an appointment with the applicant .","By a decree of DATE , the guardianship judge issued ORG , at her request , with a passport in which the names of the CARDINAL children were included .","On DATE the applicant asked the GPE guardianship judge to issue individual passports to his children , in application of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE .","PERSON objected , arguing that the children did not need these passports ; that the applicant had made no maintenance payments since DATE ; and that , indeed , criminal proceedings were pending in that regard .","By a decision of DATE , the guardianship judge rejected the applicant \u2019s request . He considered that the proceedings for the separation of the applicant and ORG were still pending and that , in the light of the considerations put forward by PERSON , with whom the children resided , it was appropriate to stay any issue of passports to the children . The applicant did not appeal against that decision ."],"violated_articles":["P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["P4-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145670","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"SPAHIU v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr ORG , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr M. Salmon , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their then Agent , Ms S. Ms S. M\u00ebneri of ORG and , subsequently , by PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP On DATE the applicant \u2019s father and uncle ( A. ) jointly bought a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m from GPE . On unspecified dates DATE the applicant \u2019s father and A. sold QUANTITY . CARDINAL parties .","On DATE ORG recognised the joint ownership of a house erected on that plot of land : since the CARDINAL brothers had jointly erected the frame structure of the house , they owned it in equal shares . It further rejected ORG \u2019s argument that he was the sole owner of the plot of land as no relevant notary deed had been submitted to the court . On DATE ORG upheld the decision .","By a note of CARDINAL DATE the mortgage office certified that the property had been jointly purchased in DATE by the applicant \u2019s father and A. and that it was registered as co - owned .","On an unspecified date the plot of land was nationalised .","On DATE ORG on ORG and Compensation of Properties ( \u201c the Commission \u201d ) recognised DATE \u2019s heirs property rights to the plot of land measuring CARDINAL : QUANTITY . m were to be restored ; compensation was to be provided for the remaining QUANTITY m and the remaining plot had been previously sold to third parties . The applicant \u2019s father \u2019s name did not appear on the decision .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant challenged the Commission decision before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) arguing that A. and his father were co - owners in equal shares of the relevant plot of land .","On DATE the head of ORG , in a letter addressed to the applicant , stated , inter alia , that the Commission had wrongly taken its decision given that the applicant \u2019s father and A. were co - owners .","On DATE ORG , following the remittal of the case , dismissed the applicant \u2019s civil action . Even though the plot of land had been jointly purchased by the applicant \u2019s father and A. in DATE , CARDINAL cadastre documents of DATE showed that the applicant \u2019s father and PERSON each owned a plot of land , so that A. was the sole owner of the relevant plot of land following the division of the property . Both PERSON and the applicant \u2019s father had paid taxes separately and had registered their titles in the civil registrar \u2019s office separately . As to the decision of CARDINAL DATE as upheld by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG found that it did not change the status of separate property titles that ORG and the applicant \u2019s father had .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , upheld the decision and rejected the applicant \u2019s appeals .","On DATE the applicant filed a supervisory review request with ORG .","On DATE ORG decided to refer the case to its ORG .","On DATE ORG quashed the decisions on the ground that they had been taken contrary to the law . The courts had not given reasons as to how the property had been voluntarily divided up between the applicant \u2019s father and A. No notary deed or other act , as required by law , had been submitted by A. \u2019s heirs to the courts . The fact that the applicant \u2019s father and PERSON had been registered separately in the civil registrar \u2019s office and that they were economically independent was not sufficient to conclude that the property had been divided or that its coownership had ceased to exist . Having regard to the fact that the property certificates submitted by the parties originated from different offices , ORG directed that only documents originating from the mortgage office ( zyrat e hipotek\u00ebs ) were to be relied upon . The courts had not taken into account the findings of the decision of DATE as upheld by ORG on DATE , which not only recognised the coownership to the house but also ruled that \u201c the siblings had jointly erected the frame structure of the house on the plot of land \u201d . It finally ordered the remittal of the case to ORG for a fresh consideration .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s action . It ruled that co - ownership could exist irrespective of the civil status of households . No document had been submitted to the effect that the relevant property had been divided between the parties . While the cadastre documents of DATE indicated that the applicant \u2019s father and ORG owned each a separate plot of land , this did not constitute evidence of the transfer of the property title . The lower courts had incorrectly disregarded the court decisions of DATE which recognised the co - ownership of the house and the plot of land .","On DATE ORG quashed the ORG of Appeal decision of DATE and upheld the findings of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . No arguments had been advanced about the continuation of co - ownership after DATE . Following the conduct of the agrarian reform , A. \u2019s heirs had proved that the co - ownership had terminated : the brothers had registered as separate owners of CARDINAL different plots of land , they had paid taxes and dues separately and their family status had been registered separately . According to the law in force , the division of property was made by oral accord and registered with the competent authority .","The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal arguing that ORG decisions of DATE and DATE were contradictory . He further complained that ORG bench had overstepped its powers by reassessing the evidence and re - examining the merits of his case .","On DATE ORG , sitting in full bench , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It reasoned that the appeal concerned the interpretation of domestic law , which was outside its competence .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW states that ORG bench may relinquish jurisdiction to ORG to harmonise or change the legal practice ( case - law ) .","DATE , as in force at the material time , provided that ORG sat in benches ( kolegje ) of CARDINAL judges and in ORG ( kolegje t\u00eb bashkuara ) of all judges . At the material time , ORG was composed of CARDINAL judges .","According to Article CARDINAL , the President of ORG may decide that the court sit in ORG as regards appeals submitted by the parties , in so far as there exist conflicting decisions given by the ordinary bench of CARDINAL judges .","Under LAW , following the examination of the case , ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges or as ORG , may decide : to uphold the decision , to quash ORG decision and uphold ORG decision , to quash ORG decision and remit the case to that court for fresh examination by a different bench , to quash ORG and ORG decisions and remit the case to ORG for fresh examination by a different bench , to amend ORG and ORG decisions , or to quash the decisions and dismiss the case ( pushimin e gjykimit t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes ) .","The proceedings concerning supervisory review were described in Vrioni and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE .","\u201c DATE . According to the provisions in force at the material time , supervisory review was an extraordinary remedy which enabled courts to reopen proceedings following a final judgment ( rekurs n\u00eb interes t\u00eb ligjit ) . DATE and its repeal in DATE by PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , the supervisory review procedure was the subject of several legislative changes .","Article CARDINAL \u2013 Review in the interests of the law ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE )","\u2018 Final judgments , decisions and rulings of the divisions of ORG shall be amenable to supervisory review in the interests of the law for the reasons set forth in section CARDINAL(a ) , ( b ) and ( c ) on an application lodged by the parties to the proceedings within DATE from the date on which the decision becomes binding .","The application for supervisory review will first be examined by a preliminary review panel of CARDINAL judges and then by the full ORG ( Joint Benches ) . ... Judges of ORG who sat as members of the division that delivered the judgment , decision or ruling or as members of the preliminary review panel shall not sit on the panel that conducts the supervisory review of the final judgment ... \u2019 \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164917","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR;ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF E.S. v. ROMANIA AND BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Romania);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Romania);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Bulgaria)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE , in GPE , the applicant gave birth to a girl . The father was ORG , a NORP national . In DATE the couple split up .","The child lived with her parents in GPE until DATE , when she was sent to her paternal grandparents in GPE . She remained there until DATE . From DATE until DATE the couple again lived together with their daughter in GPE ; then , with the father \u2019s consent , the applicant returned with her daughter to GPE for what was meant to be a short stay with the child \u2019s maternal grandmother . The applicant remained with her daughter in GPE until DATE and subsequently returned to GPE to work , leaving the child in GPE with her maternal grandmother .","On DATE the child \u2019s paternal grandparents visited the child in GPE . With the maternal grandmother \u2019s consent , they took the child to town for ice - cream , accompanied by her aunt ( the wife of the applicant \u2019s brother ) . They stopped the car on the side of the road , expelled the aunt from the car and then returned to GPE , taking the child with them without the knowledge or consent of the applicant or her family . The child has been living in GPE with her paternal grandparents ever since .","On DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , lodged a request for full custody of the child with the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . She initially indicated that ORG was living in GPE with her family . However , during the proceedings the applicant told the court that ORG no longer lived in GPE and that she did not know his whereabouts . As a summons could therefore not be served on him , it was posted at the court \u2019s LOC and published in a newspaper . Later on the applicant provided an address in GPE , which turned out to be incomplete .","The court postponed CARDINAL times the examination of the case , mainly on account of attempts made by the applicant and her lawyer to establish ORG \u2019s whereabouts and to secure his presence in court . On DATE the ORG heard CARDINAL witnesses for the applicant . On DATE , the applicant informed the court that her daughter had been kidnapped by the paternal grandparents .","On DATE the ORG awarded custody of the child to the applicant , on the basis of the evidence in the case file , including the witness evidence and a report made by ORG following a visit in the applicant \u2019s home . The parties had DATE to appeal .","NORP In DATE ORG sought leave to appeal outside the time limit ( cerere de repunere PERSON termenul de apel ) , submitting that he had been living in GPE with his parents throughout the period of the proceedings and that the applicant had known of that fact . On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on the ground that ORG had not been legally summoned to appear . It sent the case back to ORG .","On DATE the case file was again registered with ORG . CARDINAL hearings were held and the applicant and\/or her counsel were present at all of them . The court heard evidence from the CARDINAL parents and from CARDINAL witnesses ( CARDINAL for each party \u2013 ORG summoned his neighbours from GPE ) and ordered the child protection agencies in GPE and GPE to investigate the living conditions both in the applicant \u2019s mother \u2019s home and in the paternal PERSON home in GPE . The latter investigation was ordered by the court on DATE ; the court order arrived at ORG \u2019s counsel \u2019s office on CARDINAL DATE and the latter added to the case file the final report of that investigation in both NORP and NORP on DATE .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG again awarded custody to the applicant . The court also noted that on DATE ORG had instituted similar proceedings in GPE . Given that he had lodged his application for full custody of the child with the NORP courts only after the applicant had lodged her request with the NORP courts , ORG considered that it had jurisdiction to deal with the matter . On the merits , the court considered that while the living conditions offered by the father and paternal grandparents were superior to the ones available in the applicant \u2019s home , the father and the paternal grandparents did not set the child a satisfactory moral example . Regarding this point , the court referred to ORG \u2019s criminal past and to the manner in which the paternal grandparents had kidnapped the child .","The father lodged an appeal and the case was heard by ORG . CARDINAL hearings took place before ORG and both the applicant and her counsel were present at all of them . He ( that is to say the father ) asked the court to interview the child , who was aged DATE at that time . On DATE the court granted that request . On DATE the applicant gave notarised consent for her daughter to obtain travel documents and to cross the border into GPE . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the said notarised consent was not sufficient for the NORP authorities . The applicant offered to travel to GPE to assist in the formalities necessary to obtain a passport . On DATE ORG acknowledged the situation and ordered the applicant to travel to GPE . It also ordered ORG to allow contact between the mother and the child for the purposes of making travel arrangements . After the applicant \u2019s visit to GPE , the child was brought before the court on DATE . The child told the court in a private hearing , with the help of a NORP translator , that she would prefer to stay with her father and paternal grandparents in GPE ; that she spoke on the phone with her mother occasionally ; that she could not remember her maternal grandmother ; and that she did not like being in GPE .","On DATE ORG granted custody of the child to the father on the grounds that the child was already integrated into her environment in GPE , where she had lived for DATE , and that she did not speak NORP .","The applicant appealed on points of law . ORG held CARDINAL hearing , at which the parties and their respective counsel were present . ORG re - examined the facts and concluded that ORG had interpreted the situation erroneously and had disregarded the child \u2019s \u201c best interests \u201d . It therefore quashed ORG decision and upheld the decision rendered by ORG . ORG delivered its final ruling in the case on DATE .","On DATE the applicant , seeking temporary custody of her daughter pending the outcome of the custody proceedings , lodged a request for interim measures . On DATE her application was rejected by ORG on the ground that as at that time the child had already been living with her paternal grandparents in GPE for over DATE , it would not be in her interests to temporarily remove her from her usual environment and place her with her mother until the end of the custody proceedings .","The applicant appealed ; on DATE ORG dismissed her appeal , upholding ORG decision .","The applicant sought recognition in GPE of DATE judgment of the first - instance NORP court that had given custody of the child to her ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG granted her request on CARDINAL DATE , finding that the NORP judgment had become final in the absence of an appeal within the statutory time - limit ( as indicated in paragraph CARDINAL , the judgment was appealed later , outside the statutory limits ) . On DATE ORG upheld this decision , which \u2013 as it was not appealed against \u2013 became final on an unspecified date . The applicant was issued with a writ of enforcement on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied to a NORP enforcement officer , who brought enforcement proceedings immediately . The authorities unsuccessfully attempted on several occasions to personally serve an invitation for voluntary compliance on ORG Having noted that he was working abroad for an indefinite period , the summons was posted twice \u2013 on CARDINAL and DATE on the entrance gate at ORG \u2019s address . On DATE the enforcement officer appointed a lawyer to represent ORG as he had not been located .","On DATE the enforcement officer scheduled the handover of the child to the applicant for CARDINAL DATE and asked the police and the social services to assist him on DATE . Notice of the handover was personally served on ORG on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE lawyers acting on behalf of ORG brought judicial review proceedings in respect of the enforcement officer \u2019s actions ; those proceedings were dismissed by ORG on DATE .","Following the unsuccessful attempt on CARDINAL DATE to locate the child at the address of her paternal grandparents with whom she lived , the enforcement officer fined ORG MONEY ( ORG ) for failure to cooperate and scheduled DATE as the new date for the child \u2019s transfer to the applicant . The enforcement officer also directed the social services to help to ensure for the child a smooth transition to life with the applicant by , inter alia , arranging a meeting with a psychologist . On DATE the social services drew up a report on the child , which concluded that abruptly removing the child from her usual environment \u2013 and thus separating her from the adults who provided her with emotional and physical security \u2013 would be detrimental to her development . The report noted that the child needed to be assisted in the process of re - establishing a relationship with her mother .","Upon a request of ORG , on DATE ORG suspended the enforcement proceedings brought by the applicant . It did so following ORG \u2019s request for the reopening of the proceedings for the recognition of the NORP judgment on custody .","Following the suspension of the enforcement proceedings brought by the applicant in GPE ( see the preceding paragraph ) , on DATE , within the context of the reopening of the proceedings for recognition of the NORP judgment , ORG quashed the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG found that ORG had not been summoned in accordance with the applicable procedural rules and as a result had been unable to take part in the proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of the NORP judgment which had determined custody of his daughter . More specifically , he had only learned of those proceedings on DATE , when he had received notice to hand the child over . In the same decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG remitted the case to ORG for a new examination and decision .","On DATE , in response to the applicant \u2019s request for the recognition and enforcement of the NORP judgment of CARDINAL DATE granting custody to her ( see paragraph DATE above ) , which had become final and enforceable on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG recognised that judgment and authorised its execution in GPE . Upon an appeal by ORG , ORG upheld that decision on DATE . On DATE ORG rejected ORG \u2019s cassation appeal ; the decision therefore became final on that date .","Thereafter , on an unspecified date , the applicant brought new enforcement proceedings in GPE seeking implementation of the final NORP judgment granting custody to her .","On DATE , upon ORG \u2019s request ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG suspended the enforcement . The court observed that ORG had in the meantime brought proceedings in GPE for a change of custody in respect of the child . It then noted that the child had settled well in GPE , both in terms of emotional and material comfort , having been living there uninterruptedly since DATE . The child only spoke NORP , had adapted to and quite enjoyed her schooling environment , and showed interest in the extra - curricular activities she attended . Also , she enjoyed a particularly close and warm relationship with her paternal grandparents , who were caring remarkably well for her . The court found that , in view of the above and the fact that proceedings for a change of custody were pending before the NORP courts , a sudden change in the child \u2019s environment would not be in her interests . The court then granted ORG \u2019s request and suspended the enforcement .","Following a telephone conversation between the applicant and an employee of ORG , the applicant was invited to lodge a request for the return of her daughter under LAW on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of DATE ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , on DATE the applicant lodged a request for the return of the child with ORG , ORG for the purpose of LAW .","On DATE ORG requested further clarification from the applicant , in particular asking her to explain why she had waited for such a long time before lodging her request . They informed her that any application lodged DATE after the abduction could be rejected . On DATE the Ministry of Justice further informed the applicant that she could request the return of her child either under the terms of LAW or under the terms of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They advised her to lodge her request either directly with the competent NORP authority or through ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s initial request was transmitted by ORG to ORG , ORG for the purpose of LAW .","On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the request had been refused as LAW had not entered into force between GPE and GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG also informed the applicant and her counsel about the outcome of the proceedings before ORG . They advised the applicant to apply directly to the NORP courts ( under LAW ) or to ORG ( either directly or through ORG , under the provisions of LAW and on Restoration of Custody of Children \u2013 \u201c FAC \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG transmitted to ORG a request lodged by the applicant under LAW , which in its view took precedence over LAW . In the absence of any response to that request , on DATE ORG repeated the request to ORG .","On DATE ORG informed its NORP counterpart that it had refused the request . In its view LAW did not apply , as the child had entered NORP territory before the entry into force of that LAW and GPE . Consequently , the Brussels II bis Regulation did not apply either , as it was not meant to be applicable outside the scope of LAW .","On DATE ORG unsuccessfully brought proceedings in GPE seeking custody of the child . Those proceedings were terminated on DATE by ORG ; the decision became final on DATE .","At DATE ORG brought a second set of proceedings in GPE before ORG in which he sought custody of the child . His request for interim measures , namely for the child to live with his parents in GPE and for him to have custody of her , as well as for the suspension of the enforcement proceedings brought in DATE in GPE by the applicant , was refused by the same court in DATE . The court suspended the proceedings on DATE as it had determined that another set of proceedings \u2013 between the same parties concerning the same issue \u2013 was pending in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL above ) .","Following the CARDINAL DATE final judgment of the NORP courts granting custody of the child to the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE ORG brought a third set of proceedings before ORG , seeking a change of custody due to a change in circumstances . ORG terminated these proceedings on CARDINAL DATE as it found that the second set of proceedings ORG had brought before it ( see the preceding paragraph ) concerning the same issue and involving the same parties was still pending , as those proceedings had only been suspended on DATE and not terminated .","Subsequently ORG asked the court to terminate the second set of proceedings he had brought , and the court did so on DATE . On DATE ORG appealed against the termination of the third set of proceedings he had brought . In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG granted his request , quashed the termination of those proceedings and remitted the case to the first - instance court for examination . Within the context of those proceedings , in DATE ORG sought as a protective measure ( \u043e\u0431\u0435\u0437\u043f\u0435\u0447\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u043d\u0430 \u043c\u044f\u0440\u043a\u0430 ) the suspension of the enforcement proceedings of the NORP judgment granting custody to the applicant . His request was granted on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . No information is available regarding developments in those proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161738","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SETON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Obtain attendance of witnesses)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The present case concerns the applicant \u2019s trial and conviction before a judge and jury at ORG for the murder of a Mr Jon Bartlett . A co - defendant , Mr PERSON , was tried and acquitted of assisting an offender .","The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","Mr PERSON was shot dead at CARDINAL pm on DATE . According to witnesses the gunman was wearing a baseball cap and drove off in a silver ORG . In TIME of DATE a silver ORG was set alight a short distance from the scene of the shooting .","Shortly after the murder the applicant fled to the GPE . He was subsequently extradited from the GPE to GPE to stand trial for PERSON murder .","On DATE the applicant formally served a Defence Statement in which he alleged that Mr PERSON had been murdered by PERSON , a man who had previously been convicted of serious drug and firearms offences and who was at that time serving a prison sentence for murder .","The applicant \u2019s case was that he had been involved in a drug deal with Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON . On TIME Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had asked him to provide a car so they could collect a shipment of drugs . DATE he purchased the ORG in the presence of PERSON and PERSON , but Mr PERSON had driven off in it .","The applicant met PERSON again at TIME to give him his share of money for the drugs . Mr PERSON was driving the Vectra . The applicant left the meeting with PERSON , who was driving a white van .","After this meeting the applicant went to his GPE home . During TIME he went to a petrol station and while he was there he called a friend whose mother lived near the road where the burning ORG was discovered .","On DATE the police interviewed Mr PERSON about the applicant \u2019s allegations . He answered \u201c no comment \u201d to the questions asked . That evening he telephoned his son and told him he had never heard of the applicant and knew nothing of the murder . On DATE he telephoned his wife and again denied any involvement in the murder . Both of these conversations were recorded as PERSON , a category A prisoner , would have known .","NORP The applicant \u2019s trial for the murder of PERSON started on DATE . At the trial it was accepted by the applicant that the real issue for the jury was whether he or PERSON was the murderer . Mr PERSON was asked to make a statement or give evidence at the trial but refused to do so . This was made known to the court through a statement from an officer at the prison where he was being detained .","To disprove the applicant \u2019s defence the prosecution sought to adduce the recordings of PERSON telephone calls pursuant to section MONEY ) of MONEY DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The defence objected to their admission in evidence but the judge ruled that they should be admitted . In his ruling , the judge stated that Mr PERSON had indicated , in the clearest terms , that he was not prepared to make a statement to the police or give evidence at the trial .","In determining whether the recordings should be admitted , the judge considered the matters listed in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","First , he stated that he was satisfied the evidence had extremely strong probative value as Mr PERSON \u201c appeared to be expressing genuine outrage at being implicated in a murder in which he was in no way involved \u201d .","Secondly , he indicated that Mr PERSON could not be called because he refused to give evidence , but noted that all the enquiries carried out by the police to date had confirmed his lack of involvement in the killing .","Thirdly , he said that he was satisfied the evidence in question was \u201c extremely important \u201d .","Fourthly , the judge referred to the submissions of counsel for the applicant and for his co - defendant , who submitted that Mr PERSON would have known that his calls were being recorded by the prison authorities , and argued that his statements were self - serving . The judge said that these were all valid comments which the jury should consider in assessing the weight to be attached to Mr PERSON \u2019s denials , but were not , in his view , grounds for excluding evidence .","Fifthly , he pointed out that as the conversations were taped the evidence was clearly reliable .","Sixthly , the trial judge said that the defence had already crossexamined the officer in the case as to Mr PERSON \u2019s previous convictions and the details of the murder for which he was serving his sentence of life imprisonment . Moreover , he had already noted that the jury should consider the fact that Mr PERSON \u2019s comments were self - serving and that he would have known that his telephone conversations were being recorded .","Finally , he said that he did not consider that there would be any real prejudice to the applicant from the tapes being played .","At trial , in addition to playing the tapes , the prosecution led evidence that the applicant and victim were known to each other and were both involved in drug dealing on a substantial scale . Items connected to drug dealing were recovered from Mr PERSON \u2019s home , CARDINAL of which was a list of debts . The applicant \u2019s name appeared on this list and he was shown as owing the victim GBP CARDINAL .","The prosecution also relied on the applicant \u2019s previous arrest when he was found to be in possession of a firearm . In his evidence the applicant admitted that when arrested on that occasion he had been dealing in drugs , but denied possession of the firearm .","Mr PERSON \u2019s mobile telephone records were also introduced to show that he had been in contact with the applicant on DATE of the murder . The last telephone call between them was recorded at TIME , shortly before the murder . There had also been significant telephone contact between the applicant and PERSON in DATE prior to the murder .","The seller of the silver ORG gave evidence that on TIME of the murder he had been contacted by the applicant , who had arranged to meet at his house at TIME The seller \u2019s mother testified that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL men who collected the car was named PERSON and was wearing a baseball cap . The men came for the car in a white van that had been hired by the father of PERSON that day from PERSON , a hire company , and passed to PERSON at TIME . The van had distinctive orange writing on the side .","Witnesses also saw a white van in the vicinity of the shooting at the relevant time . The van had orange writing on the side , and was similar , if not identical , to the van that had been hired from PERSON on the same date .","GPE telephone cell site evidence was led by the prosecution with the intention of showing that the applicant \u2019s mobile telephone was in the vicinity of the murder at the relevant time , although it was switched off QUANTITY and TIME Cell site evidence also demonstrated that the applicant and his co - accused were in the vicinity of the road where the ORG was found TIME and TIME","Residents of the streets near the shooting gave evidence . CARDINAL stated that she had heard CARDINAL bangs and a man running to a car and driving off very quickly . Another , Ms Rita Willott , gave a description of the gunman as being between twenty and DATE , of average build and height and wearing a baseball cap . She saw a car matching the ORG \u2019s description leaving the scene . PERSON evidence was not challenged and was read to the jury . A third eye - witness , a DATE boy , also gave evidence that the gunman had been in DATE and had been wearing a baseball cap . A fourth eye - witness , Mr PERSON , also gave a description matching the applicant . A fifth witness , PERSON , gave evidence that she had seen both the car and the van near the shooting . The driver of the car was in his late teens or DATE , had short brown hair and wore a baseball cap . Several other witnesses gave descriptions to the effect that the man driving the ORG was white and was wearing a baseball cap .","NORP CCTV footage from a petrol station showed the applicant arriving in the white PERSON , wearing a baseball cap and making telephone calls to an associate at TIME The number dialled by the applicant was in the vicinity of the cell site covering the road where the ORG was found and the inference sought by the prosecution was that the applicant was in discussions about the destruction of the car .","A police superintendent also gave evidence of the enquiries into Mr PERSON . The police had found no connection between Mr PERSON and either Mr PERSON or the applicant ( there was , for instance , no reference to PERSON PERSON in Mr PERSON \u2019s telephones ) and it was the superintendent \u2019s conclusion that there was absolutely no evidence that he had been involved in Mr PERSON \u2019s murder .","A photograph of Mr PERSON was also adduced in evidence . The prosecution \u2019s case was that Mr PERSON , a man in his DATE , did not match the description of the gunman given by the eye - witnesses .","Mr PERSON \u2019s previous convictions for drug offences , firearm offences , and murder committed on CARDINAL May CARDINAL were also adduced .","On Mr PERSON \u2019s telephone calls , the trial judge directed the jury as follows :","\u201c It is for you to decide what weight , if any , you attach to this evidence ; but it does have certain limitations which I must draw to your attention : ( a ) you had not had the opportunity of seeing and hearing the witnesses in the witness box and sometimes when you do see and hear a witness you get a much clearer idea of whether his evidence is honest and accurate ; ( b ) their evidence has not been tested under crossexamination and you have not had the opportunity of seeing how their evidence survived this form of challenge ; ( c ) in the case of PERSON these were self - serving statements , that is he was saying he was not involved in the murder of PERSON . In addition calls made by high risk category A prisoners , such as PERSON , from prison would be known by him to be recorded and he was speaking in those calls to members of his own family . \u201d","On Mr PERSON \u2019s previous convictions , the trial judge directed the jury :","\u201c You have heard this evidence because it may help you to resolve CARDINAL issues in the case , namely : ( a ) whether the convictions show that on CARDINALst May CARDINAL he had a tendency to be a drug dealer , carry a firearm and commit murder , and whether this makes it more likely that he was the gunman in this case ; and ( b ) whether he was being truthful and reliable in denying his involvement in the present case in his telephone calls to his son and wife . A person of bad character may be less likely to tell the truth , but it does not follow that he is incapable of doing so .","You may use the evidence of his bad character for the particular purposes I have just indicated , if you find it helpful to do so . It is for you to decide the extent to which the evidence of bad character helps you , if at all . The prosecution submit that the only reason PERSON chose to name PERSON as the murderer in his defence statement on DATE was because he knew he had an extremely bad character for drugs offences , firearm offences and murder , and therefore was an ideal person for him to blame for the murder in this case . The defendant ORG says he named him because he believed PERSON killed PERSON . \u201d","In the course of their deliberations , the jury asked and were allowed to hear the tapes of Mr PERSON \u2019s telephone calls again . On DATE , by a majority , the jury convicted the applicant of murder . He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of DATE . He appealed against conviction to ORG .","The application for leave to appeal was initially considered and rejected by a single judge in DATE . The application was renewed before the full court on DATE and leave to appeal was granted . In doing so , the court found it to be arguable that the trial judge did not make sufficient investigations with regard to the production of PERSON . The court also observed :","\u201c It seems to us that it is a long standing principle that unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary , the best available evidence should be put before the jury . In this instance , rather than the jury hearing from Mr PERSON himself , they heard the recording of his CARDINAL conversations . It is also of note that shortly after the jury had retired they asked if they might hear the recordings again and , after some discussion , the recordings were played to them . It is perhaps pertinent to observe that had PERSON himself given evidence , what would have happened if there had been a request by the jury to be reminded of his evidence is that the judge would have summarised it to them from his notebook . Playing the recordings a second time to the jury , that , submits Miss PERSON [ counsel for the applicant ] , is something that elevates the importance of the hearsay evidence there contained . There is no doubt that the recordings were important evidence in the context of the case as a whole ( at least so far as we are thus persuaded ) and we have come to the conclusion that permission to appeal should be granted on all grounds advanced and the hearing will proceed in due course accordingly . \u201d","On DATE the full court heard the case and dismissed the appeal , reserving its judgment . The judgment was delivered on CARDINAL DATE . In relation to the tapes of PERSON telephone calls , the court observed :","\u201c It is contended on behalf of the Appellant [ the present applicant ] that the tapes of the calls should not have been admitted without calling , or trying to call , PERSON to give evidence .","...","The difficulty with this submission is the judge \u2019s finding of fact that PERSON would not give evidence . It is true that he could have been compelled to come to Court . However , on the basis of the judge \u2019s finding , the grounds for which have not been impugned , that would have been a fruitless exercise . Moreover , he would have had to be warned of the right to exercise the privilege against self - incrimination . The prospect of any sensible evidence being given by him was , on any realistic view , nil . All that the defence could have obtained was the advantage of having him brought up before the jury , who would presumably have seen his obduracy .","The judge considered this evidence to be important and to have strong probative value . We do not know whether the jury shared this view . The defence were able to say , as they did , that the statements were self - serving , made by a serious criminal who knew that they were being recorded . What is central to this appeal is that the judge addressed the matters required to be addressed by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) [ of LAW DATE ] . The allegation against PERSON had been made late , and given that on the Appellant \u2019s case he had known of PERSON \u2019s responsibility for the murder within DATE of its being committed , it is to be inferred that it was deliberately made late so as to make it more difficult for the ORG to investigate it . As it was , because of the lateness of the allegation , the telephone records for telephones used in the murder for which PERSON had been convicted only went back to DATE .","In ORG said :","\u2018 CARDINAL . ORG will not readily interfere with a trial judge \u2019s decision to admit evidence under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) [ of MONEY DATE ] . It will do so , in general , only if his decision is marred by legal error , or by a failure to take relevant matters into account or it is such that the judge could not sensibly have made.\u2019","The judge \u2019s decision was not marred by legal error ; he took all relevant matters into account ; and the decision to admit the recordings in evidence was not one that no judge could sensibly have made .","...","For these reasons , we reject this ground of appeal . \u201d","ORG then added :","\u201c The safety of the conviction","However , we would in any event have upheld the safety of the conviction . The evidence against the Appellant may have been circumstantial , but it was overwhelming . In summary :","( i ) The only evidence of PERSON \u2019s involvement was that of the Appellant .","( ii ) PERSON and PERSON were involved in drugs together ; there was evidence that PERSON was in debt to PERSON and that PERSON was pressing for payment . PERSON had a motive to kill PERSON .","( iii ) There was no good reason for the allegation of PERSON \u2019s involvement to have been made so late .","( iv ) It is difficult to see why the Appellant fled the country if he was innocent .","( v ) The police uncovered no evidence of any link between PERSON and either the Appellant or PERSON , despite exhaustive enquiries . Miss PERSON contends that those enquiries were imperfect . The fact remains that there was no such evidence .","( vi ) The Appellant himself accepted that he made no direct calls to PERSON ; contact was , he said , made via PERSON . If all CARDINAL were involved in a drugs deal , it is curious indeed that the Appellant did not have PERSON \u2019s telephone number and could not and did not telephone him direct .","( vii ) There was no evidence of PERSON \u2019s telephones having been used to telephone any telephone number associated with PERSON .","( viii ) PERSON was born in DATE . He was DATE at the date of PERSON \u2019s murder . The evidence of PERSON ( described by the judge as an extremely important witness ) was not challenged and was read at the trial . She said that the man who fired the gun was aged DATE , of average build and height , and he was wearing a baseball cap . PERSON , a boy aged DATE , said that the gunman was wearing a baseball cap and was in his DATE . PERSON described the gunman as white , in his CARDINALs , athletic and QUANTITY , of slim build . All these descriptions fitted the Appellant and not Pearman . Against these , CARDINAL witness described the gunman as not appearing to be young . Miss PERSON suggested that the evidence of the age of the gunman should be discounted because of the uncertainties of ascribing an age to a man wearing a baseball cap . However , the weight of the evidence points clearly to a young man such as the Appellant rather than PERSON . If the Appellant seriously wished to challenge Miss PERSON \u2019s evidence , she should have been required to give evidence orally and should have been cross examined .","( ix ) Similarly , PERSON described the driver of the Vectra car , seen by her together with the PERSON , as in his late teens or DATE , with short brown hair and wearing a baseball cap . Her account of what she saw was inconsistent with the Appellant \u2019s .","( x ) The evidence relating to the purchase of the ORG and the hire of the PERSON on DATE of the murder supports the prosecution case .","( xi ) The cell phone evidence showed PERSON to be in the vicinity of the murder when it was committed ; the timing of his last telephone connection with PERSON , just before the murder , and the switching off of his telephone at the time of the murder , and his call to a telephone in the vicinity of the location where the ORG was set on fire , all powerfully supported his guilt .","( xii ) Lastly , evidence was given that on a previous occasion ORG had had a connection with a firearm .","Thus , quite apart from the evidence of PERSON \u2019s telephone calls , we had no doubt as to the safety of the conviction of the Appellant . \u201d","On DATE the applicant was informed that ORG had refused to certify questions of general public importance for the consideration of ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-154978","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF RUSLAN YAKOVENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - After conviction);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Right of appeal in criminal matters (Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 - Review of conviction;Review of sentence);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , in GPE .","On DATE the Bila ORG ( \u201c the PERSON Tserkva Court \u201d ) found the applicant guilty of inflicting grievous bodily injuries on a certain Mr N. on DATE . Although this type of crime was punishable with DATE imprisonment , the court considered it possible to apply a more lenient sanction to the applicant . It had regard , in particular , to the fact that he had pleaded guilty and had shown remorse . Accordingly , the court sentenced the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . It also decided to include in the served part of the applicant \u2019s sentence the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( DATE and DATE ) , during which he had been detained in the context of another criminal case . Lastly , in fixing the applicant \u2019s sentence the court had regard to the fact that he \u201c had spent DATE in [ pre - trial ] detention facilities in which the detention conditions were considerably harsher than in a post - conviction prison , and the previous judgments in respect of him had been quashed \u201d . No further information is available about the earlier detention of the applicant , the other criminal cases involving him , or the judgments that had been quashed .","In the operative part of its judgment , ORG also ruled that during his pre - trial detention the applicant should remain in a pre - trial detention centre ( GPE ) as a preventive measure until the judgment became final . It further noted that the judgment was amenable to appeal within DATE of the date of its delivery .","On DATE the term of the applicant \u2019s sentence expired , and he asked the PERSON administration to release him . His request was rejected . On DATE the PERSON administration , however , applied to ORG for permission to release the applicant subject to an undertaking not to abscond , given that he had served his prison sentence in full . No reply was received .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer applied once again to the PERSON administration for the applicant \u2019s immediate release . He submitted , in particular , that there were no grounds for his client \u2019s continued detention . A copy of that letter was also sent to ORG .","On DATE the DATE time - limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of DATE expired and , in the absence of an appeal , it became final .","On DATE the PERSON administration wrote to the applicant \u2019s lawyer stating that it could not release the applicant until either the preventive measure in respect of him was changed or the judgment became final . It was noted in the letter that , in any event , it was for ORG to authorise the applicant \u2019s release .","NORP On DATE the GPE received the court \u2019s order to enforce the final judgment and the applicant was released .","On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant \u2019s lawyer in reply to his complaints about the delayed release of the applicant , stating that there had been no violation of LAW ."],"violated_articles":["5","P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","P7-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-a"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162206","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF COSTEL POPA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the ORG association , founded by the applicant and CARDINAL other associates , opened proceedings before ORG to seek registration in ORG kept by that court . It also asked the court to grant it legal personality .","The association \u2019s goal , as declared in its memorandum of association ( act constitutiv ) and in LAW its articles of association ( statutul asocia\u021biei ) , was that of promoting the principles of sustainable development at the public policy level in GPE ( promovarea principiilor dezvolt\u0103rii durabile la nivelul politicilor publice din GPE ) . The association \u2019s objectives , as declared in LAW articles of association , were : to increase expertise in the development of sustainable public policies in GPE ( cre\u015fterea expertizei \u020bn elaborarea politicilor publice durabile din GPE ) ; to improve the process of the development of sustainable public policies by facilitating public participation in and access to relevant information about the environment ; to increase the accountability of the relevant official bodies by scrutinising the implementation of public policies with an impact on the environment ; to facilitate the access of official bodies to best practices by examining the ORG \u2019s environmental initiatives in a NORP context ; to ensure transparency in the work of public institutions and increase their responsibility for their actions in relation to other citizens ; to review whether public institutions worked on the basis of principles of sustainability ; and to defend the right to a clean environment , as provided by international treaties . The activities envisaged by the association in order to achieve its objectives , as declared in DATE of its articles of association , were : research and analysis ; public debates and conferences ; monitoring the implementation of ORG directives ; public communication campaigns ; opinion polls ; reviewing the development and implementation of public policies in the environmental field ; training ; raising ORG awareness ; informing people of matters of public concern ; raising the awareness of the community and of public authorities about the need to protect the environment ; organising meetings between citizens and representatives of public authorities ; organising debates and opinion polls on issues impacting the environment ; developing programmes in partnership with public authorities ; active involvement of citizens in the development of public policies and the decision - making process ; improving the legal framework ; setting up DATE prizes for environmental activities ; awarding scholarships for promoting sustainable development ; networking with similar national and international organisations ; supporting and defending the association \u2019s members and volunteers ; and other lawful activities .","By an interlocutory judgment of DATE , delivered in private , ORG granted the association legal personality and ordered its registration in ORG . The court held that the organisation had attached all the lawfully required documents to the application for registration and that the documents had complied both in form and content with the requirements set out by Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL . Moreover , the goal set by the association complied with the provisions of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of that GPE .","ORG lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against the interlocutory judgment of DATE . It argued that it interpreted the association \u2019s declared goal as belonging to the field of activities of a political party . That interpretation was supported by the association \u2019s objectives and by the activities it planned , as set out in DATE and CARDINAL of the articles of association . However , a political party could not be registered under the provisions of Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the appeal on points of law by ORG and rejected the organisation \u2019s request for registration . It held that the goal of the association , as declared in its memorandum and articles of association , was that of promoting the principles of sustainable development at the public policy level in GPE . Also , according to LAW , CARDINAL of the association \u2019s objectives was to increase expertise in the development of sustainable public policies in GPE . The court considered that the concepts used by the organisation had been very general and had run the risk of being understood as belonging to the field of activities of political parties . The association \u2019s objectives could likewise have been interpreted as belonging to the realm of activity of a political party , although Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL expressly prohibited the use of the ordinance for the registration of political parties ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174988","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF ICHETOVKINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The facts of the cases , as submitted by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .","On various dates DATE the applicants were criminally prosecuted for and convicted of various offences under the NORP legislation then in force . All of the applicants appealed , but their cases were examined by the appeal courts in the absence of their respective counsel . The appeal courts upheld their convictions .","In the case of PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) the firstinstance court ordered him to pay the legal fees incurred in respect of his representation in the criminal proceedings against him . On DATE ORG of the Russian Federation quashed the order of the first - instance court and waived the legal fees that Mr Chernenko had been ordered to reimburse .","Following the communication of the applications , the prosecutor lodged requests for supervisory review of the criminal cases of Ms LOC and Mr Dubrovskiy ( applications nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","Following the communication of the other CARDINAL applications ( nos . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , the prosecutor lodged a request for supervisory review of the judgment of the appeal courts . The domestic courts examined his request and expressly acknowledged that these CARDINAL applicants\u2019 right to legal assistance in the appeal proceedings in respect of their cases had been breached . The LOC cases were remitted for re - examination by the same appeal courts . The ORG requested additional observations from the Government in respect of these CARDINAL cases regarding the conformity of the second set of appeal proceedings with the requirements of LAW and CARDINAL ( c ) of the LAW . When the ORG cases were heard and re - examined by the appeal courts , they were represented by lawyers , and they participated in the respective proceedings via video link .","The details of the applicants\u2019 cases are set out in the appendix ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145768","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF H\u00c4M\u00c4L\u00c4INEN v. FINLAND","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);No violation of Article 14+12 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 12 - Men and women;Right to marry)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Dean Spielmann;Erik M\u00f8se;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luzius Wildhaber;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Lemmens;Paul Martens;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was born male . She always felt that she was a female in a male body but decided to cope with the situation . In DATE she married a woman and in DATE they had a child .","The applicant started feeling worse in DATE , and decided in DATE to seek medical help . In DATE she was diagnosed as a transsexual . Since that time , she has lived as a woman . On DATE she underwent gender reassignment surgery .","On DATE the applicant changed her first names and renewed her passport and driver \u2019s licence but she could not have her identity number changed . The identity number still indicates that she is male , as does her passport .","On DATE the applicant requested the local registry office ( maistraatti , magistraten ) to confirm her status as female and to change her male identity number to a female CARDINAL as it no longer corresponded to the actual reality .","On DATE the local registry office refused the applicant \u2019s request . It found that , under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Transsexuals ( Confirmation of Gender ) Act ( laki transseksuaalin sukupuolen vahvistamisesta , lagen om fastst\u00e4llande av transsexuella personers k\u00f6nstillh\u00f6righet ) , confirmation of such status required that the person was not married or that the spouse gave his or her consent ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As the applicant \u2019s wife had not given her consent to the transformation of their marriage into a registered partnership ( rekister\u00f6ity parisuhde , registrerat partnerskap ) , the applicant \u2019s new gender could not be recorded in the population register .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) complaining , inter alia , that her wife \u2019s decision not to give her consent , which she was perfectly entitled to withhold as they both preferred to remain married , meant that the applicant could not be registered as female . A divorce would be against their religious convictions . A registered partnership did not provide the same security as marriage and would mean , among other things , that their child would be placed in a different situation from children born within wedlock .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint on the same grounds as the local registry office . Moreover , it found , inter alia , that the impugned decision of DATE was not contrary to LAW as same - sex partners had the possibility , by registering their relationship , to benefit from family - law protection in a manner partially comparable to marriage . Similarly , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Transsexuals ( Confirmation of Gender ) Act did not violate the constitutional rights of the applicant \u2019s child .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , h\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltnings - domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds submitted before the local registry office and ORG . She also asked the court to make a request for a preliminary ruling to ORG of ORG , in particular on the interpretation of LAW . Referring to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , the applicant claimed that the ORG should not tell her that a registered partnership was appropriate for her , especially when this required that her wife become a lesbian . Their sexual identity was a private matter which could not be a condition for confirmation of gender . Transgenderism was a medical condition falling within the scope of private life . The ORG was violating her right to privacy every time the male identity number revealed that she was a transsexual . Moreover , she claimed that if her marriage were turned into a registered partnership , it would mean that she could no longer be a legal father to her child and could not be her mother either , as a child could not have CARDINAL mothers .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s request to apply for a preliminary ruling and dismissed her appeal . It found that by enacting the Transsexuals ( Confirmation of Gender ) Act the legislature had not intended to change the fact that only a man and a woman could marry and that same - sex partners could have their relationship judicially confirmed by registering it . ORG had found , under LAW , that there were no acceptable grounds for denying transsexuals the right to marry but that the margin of appreciation in this respect was wide . It was not possible under NORP law for persons of the same sex to marry , but in such a case they could enter into a registered partnership . As to its legal and economic consequences , a registered partnership was essentially comparable to marriage . The question of transforming the institution of marriage into a gender - neutral one brought significant ethical and religious values into play and required the enactment of an Act of ORG . The current state of the law was within the margin of appreciation given to the ORG by ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG , requesting it to overturn its previous decision of DATE . She stated that she had undergone gender reassignment surgery on DATE and that she could no longer prove that she had been male as indicated by her identity number and passport . Even though , for marriage purposes , she would still be considered as male , the fact remained that she should not be discriminated against on account of her gender .","On DATE ORG dismissed the extraordinary appeal .","On an unspecified date the applicant also lodged a complaint with ORG ( NORP - arvovaltuutettu , PERSON ) , complaining , inter alia , that she had the wrong identity number .","On DATE the Ombudsman for ORG stated that she could not take a stand on the identity number issue as the matter had already been dealt with by ORG and the ORG was not competent to supervise the courts . Moreover , the matter was pending before ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["12","14","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156066","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF CIPRIAN VL\u0102DU\u021a AND IOAN FLORIN POP v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants , CARDINAL brothers , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in Tautii Magheraus .","According to the first applicant , in DATE he was contacted on several occasions by an undercover police agent who wanted to buy ecstasy from him , brought into the country from the GPE .","According to the prosecutor \u2019s report , the police gained knowledge of the first applicant \u2019s alleged involvement in drug trafficking at DATE .","It was established by the prosecutor and domestic courts that some time in DATE the first applicant brought a batch of drugs into the country and sold CARDINAL tablets to the undercover agent on DATE and CARDINAL tablets on DATE . According to the transcripts of the conversations intercepted between the first applicant and the police agent , on DATE the latter called the first applicant , asked him if he had \u201c any left \u201d and at the applicant \u2019s confirmation that CARDINAL remained , the undercover agent calculated their price at CARDINAL , and advised the applicant on where and how to meet DATE for him to buy them all .","On DATE the police intercepted a conversation between the undercover agent and the first applicant when they met for the drug transaction . The police agent told the applicant that DATE before he had been offered a batch of \u201c CARDINAL pieces \u201d ( CARDINAL de buc\u0103\u0163i ) which would be available DATE , and that he would not want to miss such an opportunity . The applicant offered to bring the same amount for him . The police agent agreed , and asked how much more he could bring . They settled for CARDINAL pieces . The undercover agent warned the first applicant repeatedly during their conversation that if he did not receive his supply from the applicant he would go to the other provider . During the conversation it appeared that the applicant had meanwhile sold CARDINAL more tablets . The first applicant called someone on his mobile phone and discussed in LANGUAGE getting CARDINAL tablets . He then reported to the agent that he could get him some stronger tablets , and described the sensations he had had when he had used them himself . The agent proposed the place and arrangements for their next transaction .","The new transaction was postponed for various reasons and was finally planned to take place on DATE in GPE . DATE the first applicant informed his brother for the first time that he had brought drugs into the country and about the deal . After having initially refused and argued extensively about it with his brother , the second applicant agreed to help , in order to save the family from potential retaliation by the NORP seller . TIME he took the drugs to an agreed location while the first applicant negotiated the terms of the transaction with the undercover agent .","The first applicant and the undercover agent then joined the second applicant ; the agent was offered an ecstasy tablet for testing and then left with the first applicant in order to set out the details of the transaction . The second applicant was to wait at the same location for the buyer to return with the money to pay for the drugs . Meanwhile , the second applicant saw police agents approaching in a taxi . He threw the bag containing the drugs into a nearby bush and phoned his brother to warn him . The first applicant told the undercover agent that the transaction was cancelled .","Police agents apprehended the CARDINAL applicants and later recovered a bag containing CARDINAL ecstasy tablets from the bushes .","The applicants were taken to the police station for further questioning . After consultation with their counsel they refused to make any statements . They were arrested .","On DATE the organised crime and terrorism division of the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG ( \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) identified the first applicant as being apparently involved with trafficking in drugs and drug consumption , the merchandise being brought from the GPE .","On DATE the prosecutor authorised the use of an undercover police agent to infiltrate the applicants\u2019 circle in order to obtain information and evidence about the drug trafficking . It also authorised the undercover agent to purchase CARDINAL ecstasy tablets . After each transaction the undercover agent wrote a report on the meeting with the first applicant . The prosecutor noted as follows :","\u201c there are strong indications that the crime of drug trafficking has occurred \/ is about to occur ... as Ciprian Vl\u0103du\u021b Pop bought in DATE high - risk drugs from the GPE , namely ecstasy tablets ( MDMA ) , which he is selling in GPE and ORG . \u201d","On DATE the prosecutor started criminal prosecutions against the first applicant on suspicion that he had both consumed and sold drugs . On DATE the prosecution was extended to the second applicant .","On DATE and CARDINAL and DATE ORG authorised for a period of DATE , at the prosecutor \u2019s request , the tapping of the first applicant \u2019s telephone and that of the undercover police agent . On DATE and DATE the authorisation was extended by DATE on each occasion . CARDINAL CDs were recorded in the process .","NORP The prosecutor asked for the tablets purchased by the undercover agent to be tested by the police laboratory for physical and chemical analysis ( \u201c the police laboratory \u201d ) . On DATE , DATE , and DATE the police laboratory submitted its reports on the CARDINAL batches of tablets , concluding that they contained methylenedioxymethamphetamine ( MDMA ) . The tablets remaining after the laboratory test were sealed and stored in a special police depository .","The applicants and CARDINAL taxi drivers who transported the police agents to the crime scene were interviewed by the prosecutor .","On DATE and DATE the first applicant stated that he had visited the GPE in DATE and met PERSON , who had afterwards visited GPE and spent DATE at the applicant \u2019s home . P. found out that ecstasy sold very well in GPE , and offered to obtain some for the first applicant . The applicant brought a first batch of CARDINAL tablets and sold some of them to the undercover police agent ; the remaining tablets he either consumed himself or gave away to others . During TIME the applicant returned from the GPE with a batch of CARDINAL ecstasy tablets from P. He contacted several individuals to offer to sell them tablets , but the undercover police agent offered to buy them all .","The second applicant gave statements on DATE . He declared that before DATE he had not known of any dealings in drugs that his brother might have had , that during TIME he had returned with his brother from the GPE but had not been aware until DATE that his brother , who had crossed the border on his own on foot , had brought drugs into the country . He further explained that he had agreed to help his brother because he feared his brother was in danger of being attacked and killed by the drug dealers , given the large amount of money involved in the transaction . He further explained that it was morally impossible for him , at the time of the crime , to denounce his brother to the authorities . He also explained that he had never taken drugs himself .","On DATE the prosecutor presented the transcripts of some of the recorded conversations , along with CARDINAL CDs , to ORG . He sought confirmation from the court that the evidence produced before it was relevant to the case ( procedure under LAW and QUANTITY of the ORG ) . The hearing took place on DATE . Defence counsel asked for an adjournment to allow her to study the evidence and form an opinion on the relevance of the CDs . She also expressed the wish to examine the remaining recordings which had not been produced before the court by the prosecutor . The court dismissed the requests and accepted the evidence in the file , as proposed by the prosecutor . It agreed with the prosecutor \u2019s opinion and ruled that the remaining CDs were not relevant to the case .","On DATE the applicants , in the presence of their counsel , acquainted themselves with the prosecution file .","On DATE the prosecutor committed the applicants to trial for trafficking in drugs , under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the fight against drug trafficking and illegal drug use ( \u201c PERSON no . CARDINAL \u201d ) . The prosecutor noted that the first applicant was also a drug user , whereas his brother , the second applicant , was not and had had no knowledge of his brother \u2019s dealing before DATE . The prosecutor also noted that the first applicant had a prior conviction for theft and breach of firearms regulations ( nerespectarea regimului armelor ) .","The case was heard by ORG . The applicants\u2019 detention pending trial was extended at regular intervals by the court .","On DATE the applicants gave statements before the court , reiterating their declarations from the prosecution phase . It appears that at that time the first applicant was suffering from withdrawal symptoms and was under sedatives prescribed by the prison doctors to alleviate his symptoms .","NORP The applicants\u2019 counsel asked for an expert evaluation of the tablets to establish whether they contained MDMA or a lighter drug . Relying on the principle of equality of arms , defence counsel requested that the expert examination be performed by experts from ORG and not by experts from ORG , as the latter institution was attached to the police . The prosecutor advised that ORG was normally responsible for such analyses . On DATE ORG informed the court that it would not be possible for their experts to perform the requested tests .","The second applicant also asked the court to hear evidence from the undercover police agent . His request remained unanswered .","On DATE the first applicant , who was suffering from withdrawal symptoms , became ill in the court building and had to be taken to hospital . Defence counsel asked for a medical assessment of his client . Despite repeated requests by the court , the prison authorities later failed to take the first applicant to hospital so he could receive the expert examination ordered by the court .","On DATE , at the court \u2019s request , ORG re - examined the drugs and in a comprehensive report confirmed that the tablets contained MDMA .","On DATE the court heard pleadings from counsel for the prosecution and the defence . The applicants did not deny the substance of the charges . The first applicant admitted that the police operation respected the domestic legislation , but doubted its morality ; in particular , he argued that if it had not been for the undercover police agent \u2019s insistence he would not have bought ecstasy in the first place . In his view the undercover police agent asked on purpose for a high - risk drug to attract a heavier penalty for the applicants , whereas if he had requested a milder drug the sentencing would have been consequently lighter . The prosecutor replied that as it was known that the first applicant had brought ecstasy into the country in DATE , the undercover agent had done no more than follow that lead ; it would have made no sense for him to ask for another drug so long as there was no indication that the applicant had dealt in any other type of drugs .","The second applicant pointed out that he had only been informed about the drug dealing on DATE when the last transaction had taken place , and that by telephoning his brother DATE he had in fact prevented the crime from being committed .","ORG rendered its judgment on DATE , based on the evidence in the file , namely the police reports from the undercover operation , witness statements ( the CARDINAL taxi drivers who had brought the police officers to the scene of the transaction and who had seen the applicants handcuffed and the police retrieving the bag containing the drugs from the bushes ) , the transcripts of the intercepted telephone calls and the expert reports concerning the content of the tablets . It reiterated the history as it had been established in the bill of indictment , and concluded that the applicants were guilty of the offences they had been accused of . The court gave no further answers to the arguments raised by the defence . It convicted both applicants and sentenced the first applicant to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and the second applicant to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicants reiterated their complaints concerning breach of the principle of equality of arms , in that the tablets had been analysed in police laboratories and not by an independent expert . Finally they renewed their request to have all the transcripts of the intercepted conversations produced before the court , and complained that they could not have access to them as the remaining recordings had been destroyed . Before the court , they also argued that the unlawfully obtained evidence should be removed from the file and reiterated that the police operation had started only from a suspicion that the first applicant was a drug user .","Throughout the proceedings , the second applicant made repeated requests to be allowed to study his file , but received no answer from the court .","On DATE the Mina Minovici National Forensic Institute examined the first applicant and his medical record . On DATE it rendered its medical report , which was examined at the court hearing held on DATE . The experts concluded that the applicant \u2019s drug addiction could be treated in the prison hospitals and that the medication he had received so far had been adequate ; as he was not experiencing withdrawal symptoms , he did not need to be placed in a special drug withdrawal programme ; they also considered that his medical condition was compatible with detention .","ORG delivered its decision on DATE . Concerning the defence \u2019s arguments about lack of access to the transcripts of the intercepted telephone calls the court reiterated that on DATE it had decided which transcripts were useful to the case . The court dismissed their complaints concerning the secret police operation ; in doing so , it relied on the report drafted by the undercover agent and by the prosecutor , and observed that the ORG own statements to the police and before the courts corroborated those reports .","The court of appeal substantially maintained the conclusions of the firstinstance court .","The applicants appealed on points of law and reiterated their main defence arguments . However , their appeal was dismissed in a final decision rendered on DATE by ORG and ORG .","The second applicant described his detention as follows . He was arrested on DATE and remained imprisoned until DATE . He spent DATE of detention in police detention facilities , the following DATE in FAC , then DATE in FAC ; he spent the remaining time in FAC .","He had to share cells with smokers , although he was a non - smoker himself . He repeatedly asked the prison administration to place him in a cell with non - smokers . No such arrangements could be made for him , as the pretrial detention facilities were already overcrowded and there were no places available in the nonsmoking cells ; according to the applicant , in LOC the ratio was of CARDINAL bunk beds , placed on CARDINAL levels , for CARDINAL inmates . When in FAC the applicant went on hunger strike from CARDINAL to DATE because he was placed in smoking cells despite being a non - smoker ; he ended his protest when a nonsmoking cell became available after refurbishment .","When he was detained in ORG , he complained about being placed with smokers and about overcrowding in prison , notably that he did not have QUANTITY m of personal living space in the cell . On DATE his complaint was dismissed by the judge delegated by the court to supervise the observance of the ORG rights , under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on the execution of sentences ( \u201c the post - sentencing judge \u201d ) . The post - sentencing judge noted that there was no obligation in NORP law to place a detainee in a non - smoking cell or to provide him with a certain amount of living space . According to the applicant , the cells were all dirty and infested with bugs .","According to information provided by the prison service , during his detention the applicant occupied altogether CARDINAL cells in CARDINAL prisons ( GPE , GPE , and PERSON ) , sharing with CARDINAL others ; his personal living space was on average QUANTITY . m at all times . In addition he spent DATE in a cell alone in GPE when he was on hunger strike , and DATE alone in FAC infirmary ; on those CARDINAL occasions his living space was QUANTITY m.","The second applicant also described an episode where he was hit by a prison guard ; he explained that he had got scared and become agitated because he had seen his brother suffering from withdrawal and was sure that his brother was about to die without anybody willing to come to his rescue . He pressed charges against the guard , and on DATE the prosecutor decided not to prosecute .","He tried on CARDINAL occasions to commit suicide by hanging himself ( DATE and DATE ) . As a consequence of his attempted suicide of DATE , the second applicant was handcuffed to his bed for DATE , according to his statements . The prison service explained that on DATE he had been handcuffed to his bed as a means of preventing him from repeating his suicide attempt ; he had been kept thus handcuffed while he remained \u201c agitated and psychologically vulnerable \u201d . On DATE he was seen by the prison doctor , who noted his agitation , lack of cooperation and headache , and concluded that he could be treated in the medical infirmary . He was not known to have a mental disorder , and no recurrence of the suicidal behaviour was recorded while he was in detention .","NORP On DATE the second applicant complained before ORG , within the appeal proceedings on the merits of the accusations against him , about the conditions of his detention , in particular the fact that he shared a large dormitory with smokers . He requested to be medically examined in order to demonstrate the negative consequences of the passive smoking on his health . He also complained of lingering pain in his right leg on which he had fallen from a QUANTITY height on DATE , when he had tried to hang himself from a suspended bar ; he had sought medical examination , which he alleged had been refused by the prison doctors until DATE . The applicant made full statements about his attempted suicide on DATE , and described how he had been handcuffed to his bed and left without medical care .","He received no answer to these complaints ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145791","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF \u010cALOVSKIS v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (the United States of America);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Extradition);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE a federal grand jury sitting in GPE for LOC of GPE indicted the applicant on CARDINAL counts of conspiracy to violate the criminal laws of GPE . He was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud , with a maximum prison sentence of DATE ; wire fraud , with a maximum prison sentence of DATE ; access device fraud , with a maximum prison sentence of DATE ; computer intrusion , under several subsections , with maximum prison sentences of DATE ; and aggravated identity theft , with a mandatory prison sentence of DATE , which must run consecutive to the sentence for any other offence .","NORP The charges were based on allegations that the applicant and his co - conspirators , as members of a criminal enterprise , had created and distributed malicious software known as the \u201c FAC \u201d , which had infected computers worldwide , including in GPE . It was suspected that the Gozi Virus had been designed to steal login credentials , such as usernames and passwords , for online bank accounts and other internet - based accounts . The data had then been used to withdraw funds from ORG accounts in GPE and LOC . It was alleged that the applicant specialised in creating software to work in conjunction with the Gozi Virus and other malicious software to deceive an account holder into divulging personal information .","Following the issuance of the indictment , on DATE GPE for LOC of GPE issued a warrant for the applicant \u2019s arrest in relation to the offences listed in the indictment .","On DATE , pursuant to the DATE US - Latvia Extradition Treaty , ORG submitted to the NORP authorities a request for the applicant \u2019s extradition from GPE to GPE , which was delivered to ORG on DATE .","On DATE PERSON , Prosecutor of the International Cooperation Division , ordered the police to arrest the applicant in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW GPE likums ) ( arrest for the purpose of extradition ) . The prosecutor referred to the GPE request of CARDINAL DATE for the applicant \u2019s extradition .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was arrested at his place of residence under section ORG ) of LAW . A search of his residence was carried out , which lasted until TIME","The record of the applicant \u2019s arrest indicated that he had been informed of his rights under section CARDINAL of LAW , including the right to invite a lawyer . The Government stressed that the applicant had not requested a list of lawyers or an opportunity to use a telephone . He had asked to call his mother . The record was signed by the applicant and an investigator . The text of LAW ( paragraph CARDINAL below ) in CARDINAL languages , NORP , LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE , was attached to the record . The applicant had signed under that text , having written \u201c [ the applicant ] has read [ and ] familiarised [ himself ] \u201d .","According to the applicant , however , he was deprived of an opportunity to contact a lawyer for legal assistance until TIME on DATE . In his submission , the above - mentioned record confirmed only that he had not expressed such a request . It had been impossible to call for any legal assistance because during the arrest he had been laid face down on the floor , with his head covered and his arms tied behind his back . When the search had continued in a car park at QUANTITY , he had been permitted to use the phone .","The Government drew attention to the fact that later the same day a lawyer , ORG , and his assistant , PERSON , had been appointed to represent the applicant , based on agreement no . CARDINAL .","The Government submitted , and the applicant affirmed , that on DATE a prosecutor had informed the applicant \u2019s lawyer , ORG , that DATE the applicant would be brought before FAC ( PERSON pils\u0113tas ORG rajona tiesa ) for a detention hearing . According to the Government , they agreed that the applicant would be given an opportunity to acquaint himself with the extradition request prior to the detention hearing .","TIME prior to the hearing on DATE at ORG , the applicant and ORG were provided with a complete case file . The Government referred to a record of DATE indicating that the applicant had disagreed to his extradition in a simplified procedure . The record was signed by the applicant and his lawyer .","The hearing commenced at TIME on DATE . TIME , furnished by the Government , indicated that the hearing had been held in camera and that no requests had been made to the court at the start of the hearing . According to TIME , the applicant and his lawyer , ORG , contested the contents of the extradition request and asked that a more lenient measure than detention be imposed on the applicant .","In the applicant \u2019s submission , the following statement by ORG , recorded in TIME , reflected the untimely service of the documents at issue :","\u201c [ ORG ] \u2013 My client is currently legally unprepared , therefore [ ORG ] shall speak first ... \u201d","The minutes showed that after ORG had made his argument , to which ORG had not wished to add anything , the applicant , having stated that he \u201c had read all the documents in NORP \u201d , continued to dispute the allegations against him and the measure of detention proposed .","Following the hearing , at TIME the investigating judge ruled that the applicant be detained under section CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c pre - extradition detention \u201d ) .","The investigating judge \u2019s written ruling stated that the hearing had been closed to the public .","The ruling further noted the prosecutor \u2019s submission in support of the applicant \u2019s detention as follows :","\u201c ... a request for [ the applicant \u2019s ] extradition to GPE for criminal prosecution has been received ...","The extradition request has been sent under LAW [ DATE GPE - Latvia Extradition Treaty ] and it contains all the information and documents as required by LAW CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the said LAW , as well as by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ... \u201d","The ruling also indicated the applicant \u2019s submission that the accusation against him was vague .","NORP The relevant part of the investigating judge \u2019s reasoning for granting the prosecutor \u2019s request for the applicant \u2019s detention read as follows :","\u201c ... [ the investigating judge ] agrees with the prosecutor \u2019s proposal [ to impose on the applicant pre - extradition detention ] .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] prescribes that pre - extradition detention be applied after receipt of a request for a person \u2019s extradition along with [ the documents listed under LAW ] .","The documents prescribed under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] , including [ an arrest warrant issued against the applicant in GPE ] have been attached to the prosecutor \u2019s request ... no reasons to exclude the possibility of extradition are known .","...","The proposal has been submitted in compliance with section CARDINAL of [ LAW ] ; [ an arrest warrant has been issued in GPE ] in respect of [ the applicant ] , therefore a competent institution has assessed the necessity of [ the applicant \u2019s ] detention ; and therefore ... a legal basis exists for the application of pre - extradition detention with respect to [ the applicant ] . Also , the grounds for deprivation of liberty set out in LAW ) of [ the LAW the application of pre - extradition detention \u2013 the necessity to bring him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence .","...","In view of the foregoing and based on LAW DATE GPE - Latvia Extradition Treaty ] and sections ... CARDINAL [ and ] CARDINAL of [ FAC ] , Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and LAW ( c ) of [ the LAW ] , the investigating judge has decided to impose on [ the applicant ] the pre - extradition detention . \u201d","The ruling was not subject to appeal .","In his application to the ORG the applicant alleged that during the detention hearing he had been placed in a dock with metal bars . He had been instructed by the police to cover his head with the hood of his jacket . From that time onwards , the mass media had circulated photographs depicting him in the courtroom behind the metal bars and wearing a hood .","According to the ORG , the applicant had not been placed in a dock with metal bars during the hearing concerning his detention .","The Government referred to the applicant \u2019s placement in a metal cage in a subsequent hearing held on DATE before ORG of ORG ( PERSON tiesas GPE tiesu pal\u0101ta ) concerning his extradition ( paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) .","Furthermore , the ORG argued that the applicant had never been asked to pull the hood of his jacket over his head . There were LAW requiring such a measure . It was solely the applicant \u2019s decision to do so . The Government relied on the applicant \u2019s statement to the mass media , published on DATE , to that effect , the relevant part of which read as follows :","\u201c As to why he had hidden his face in a hood , [ the applicant ] explained that \u2018 ... [ he ] thought that it was a horrible misunderstanding , it could not be happening [ to him ] . If [ he ] showed [ his ] face , [ he ] would not be able to tell that it had not happened to [ him ] . [ The applicant ] was worried about [ his ] family , honour , parents , about [ his ] father \u2019s health ... \u2019 \u201d","In reply to the ORG \u2019s observations , the applicant responded in relation to his placement in a metal cage during the aforementioned hearing on DATE . At the same time , with respect to the detention hearing on DATE he appeared to maintain that he had been instructed by the police to wear the hood .","On DATE the applicant addressed a hand - written complaint , in the ORG language , to ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) about the ruling of DATE authorising his pre - extradition detention .","On DATE , the Judge of GPE , GPE , responded to the applicant \u2019s complaint as follows :","\u201c ... a decision ... under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( provisional detention ) ... is without appeal .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( pre - extradition detention ) provides that a proposal for pre - extradition detention is decided following the procedure as for a request for provisional detention .","Therefore , in accordance with the provisions of LAW ... a ruling of the judge on pre - extradition detention may not be appealed against ... \u201d","It appears that on DATE the applicant submitted to GPE a request to lift his pre - extradition detention or to substitute it with a different security measure .","On DATE the Judge of the Riga City Centre District Court , GPE , gave the same response as the CARDINAL given on DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He added that under LAW an investigating judge was not competent to examine whether pre - extradition detention should be continued or terminated .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer , GPE , requested that an investigating judge of GPE review the applicant \u2019s detention and order his release .","On DATE , as is apparent from the case file , the Investigating Judge of the Riga City Centre District Court , GPE , refused the request . She reasoned that in accordance with LAW , pre - extradition detention was not subject to review . Furthermore , the maximum term of detention of DATE prescribed in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON had not yet been exceeded .","The investigating judge also indicated that section CARDINAL ) of LAW did not apply and no review of the pre - extradition detention could be conducted under that provision .","On DATE GPE lodged a complaint with the President of GPE .","On DATE the complaint was dismissed .","On DATE the applicant submitted a hand - written request , in the ORG language , to the Prosecutor of the International Cooperation Division , ORG The applicant asked the prosecutor to lift his detention on the grounds that the extradition of a NORP citizen was not permissible .","On DATE PERSON refused the applicant \u2019s request . He explained that in the event of any conflict between the DATE GPE - Latvia Extradition Treaty and LAW , the former would prevail . Under the treaty , extradition could not be refused based on citizenship . That response was subject to appeal to a higher prosecutor .","During DATE and DATE the applicant lodged before the prosecution further requests to lift his detention .","On DATE PERSON ordered the applicant \u2019s release .","He reasoned as follows :","\u201c ... there are grounds to believe that the [ applicant \u2019s ] complaint to the [ ORG ] will not be decided until DATE , i.e. , until the maximum term of pre - extradition detention prescribed under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE \u2013has expired with respect to [ the applicant ] .","As [ the ORG ] has determined a provisional measure ... [ the applicant \u2019s ] surrender may not be carried out within the maximum term of pre - extradition detention .","Therefore [ the prosecutor ] deems that the purpose of pre - extradition detention \u2013 to prevent the person from fleeing and to ensure [ his ] surrender ... to a requesting State \u2013 has ceased to exist . \u201d","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the circumstances of his arrest . In particular , he complained that his mother had not learnt about it until after TIME on DATE when she had returned home . She had called him on the phone , and he had been able to speak to her only because he had been allowed to use his phone to contact a lawyer . The applicant also complained that he had been denied the possibility to contact a lawyer . His complaint was forwarded to ORG for examination .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( NORP policijas PERSON dro\u0161\u012bbas birojs ) completed an inquiry .","It was established that the applicant had answered his mother \u2019s phone call at the time of the search of the vehicle used by him . When his mother had arrived at the car park , the police officers had told her about the GPE extradition request . They had also provided information on the applicant \u2019s whereabouts . That had been affirmed by the applicant \u2019s mother herself in her request of CARDINAL DATE addressed to ORG .","With respect to legal assistance , it was found that the applicant had been provided with a list of lawyers . As he had indicated himself , he had been allowed to use a phone to contact a lawyer . He himself had signed the record of arrest stating that a lawyer \u2019s presence was not required , and that he had been informed of his rights under section CARDINAL of LAW , including the right to invite a lawyer .","ORG concluded that there were no grounds for disciplinary proceedings against the police employees involved in the operation .","On DATE PERSON issued a ruling finding the United States\u2019 request for the applicant \u2019s extradition permissible .","The ruling spelled out the allegations against the applicant and their legal classification under LAW . It indicated that on DATE an arrest warrant had been issued against the applicant in GPE . The applicant \u2019s extradition was held to be permissible based on the following :","\u201c - the maximum limit of the sentence of deprivation of liberty for the crimes [ the applicant ] is accused of exceeds DATE ;","- no criminal proceedings have been initiated in GPE for the crimes for which ORG has requested [ the applicant \u2019s ] extradition ;","- no decision has been taken in GPE not to initiate or to terminate the criminal prosecution for the crimes for which [ the applicant \u2019s ] extradition has been requested ;","- no court decision has entered into force with respect to [ the applicant ] for the crimes for which the extradition has been requested ;","- the crimes of which [ the applicant ] is accused are not of a political or military nature ;","- [ the applicant ] is a citizen of GPE , however , pursuant to LAW of [ the DATE GPE - Latvia Extradition Treaty ] citizenship is not a basis for the refusal of extradition ;","- the statutory limitation periods have not expired either in GPE or in GPE ;","- [ the applicant ] has not been granted a pardon for the same crimes . \u201d","That ruling was subject to appeal to ORG of ORG .","On DATE the applicant and his lawyer lodged an appeal against the aforementioned ruling before ORG of ORG .","The appeal hearing was scheduled for DATE in courtroom no . CARDINAL , which was not equipped with a dock with metal bars . According to the applicant , he was never taken to that courtroom .","In view of the considerable media attention , ORG decided to relocate the hearing to a larger courtroom , no . CARDINAL . It was the only courtroom equipped with a dock with metal bars . The applicant was placed in that dock .","At the start of the hearing the applicant \u2019s lawyer , GPE , requested that ORG close the hearing to the public and prohibit filming . ORG refused to exclude the public from the hearing . It reasoned that the proceedings concerned the permissibility of extradition and not the imposition of detention . On the other hand , it prohibited under section CARDINAL of the Criminal Procedure Law the continuation of filming and the use of any material already filmed .","During the hearing interpretation was provided to the applicant .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer , GPE , submitted that at the start of the proceedings the applicant had not been provided with a lawyer . Also , in the course of the proceedings the ORG authorities had not verified his language knowledge . He had therefore been unable to understand the documents served on him . These had been provided TIME prior to the detention hearing , so neither the applicant nor his lawyer had been able to prepare their argument with respect to the documents presented .","On DATE ORG announced its ruling . In view of the smaller public attendance than DATE , the hearing was held in a smaller court room , no . CARDINAL , without a metal cage .","GPE pointed out that DATE the applicant \u2019s face had appeared in the media , even though any recording had been prohibited .","ORG upheld the impugned ruling , stating as follows :","\u201c [ The ORG ] concludes that the prosecutor has verified the extradition request in compliance with the requirements of section CARDINAL of LAW . [ He ] has assessed carefully whether grounds for [ the applicant \u2019s ] extradition exist , in compliance with section CARDINAL of LAW , and has made justified conclusions as to the permissibility of [ the applicant \u2019s ] extradition to GPE . \u201d","The Criminal Cases Chamber further found that there were no grounds for refusing the applicant \u2019s extradition under section CARDINAL of LAW . It reasoned as follows :","\u201c ... LAW the DATE US - Latvia Extradition Treaty ] provides that citizenship ... is not grounds for the refusal of extradition .","...","... [ the DATE GPE - Latvia Extradition Treaty ] has a higher legal force than section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) of LAW , which prohibits the extradition of a NORP citizen .","ORG finds declaratory the defence \u2019s indication that [ the applicant \u2019s ] human rights would be violated if he were extradited to GPE .","GPE is a democratic [ State ] , which , in concluding the treaty on extradition with GPE , undertook to comply with human rights standards and the rule of law , and to guarantee an accused the right to a fair trial , including the right to a trial in an independent and impartial court .","...","It follows from the case material that [ the applicant ] mentioned in the record of [ his ] arrest that he understands the NORP language and neither in the course of his arrest , nor when together with his defence he was getting acquainted with the GPE extradition request did [ the applicant ] indicate that the participation of an interpreter was required . Also , in the detention hearing ... without the participation of an interpreter he gave his explanation , noting that the accusation presented had not stated exactly what he had done .","Likewise ... [ the applicant ] had himself written applications and requests in the NORP language . \u201d","The ruling was final .","On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged constitutional complaints before ORG ( PERSON tiesa ) .","The applicant argued , inter alia , that the DATE US - Latvia Extradition Treaty and the national law that ratified it were incompatible with LAW ) ( right to be informed of rights ) and its LAW ( right to a fair trial ) and LAW NORP citizen ) .","The applicant further requested that sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW prohibiting an appeal against the judge \u2019s ruling on provisional detention and the court \u2019s ruling on the permissibility of extradition , respectively , be declared unconstitutional .","On DATE and DATE ORG refused to open a case . The relevant part of its decision read as follows :","\u201c The preamble of LAW verbis provides that the parties to the treaty undertake to \u2018 have due regard for the rights of individuals and the rule of law\u2019 and are \u2018 mindful of the guarantees under their respective legal systems which provide an accused person with the right to a fair trial , including the right to adjudication by an independent and impartial tribunal established pursuant to law\u2019 .","Therefore LAW expressis verbis foresees the same protection as the first and fourth sentences of LAW , as well as the third sentence of LAW , even though [ the applicant ] contests the compatibility of LAW precisely with these provisions .","Likewise , in accordance with LAW , the contracting parties shall ensure that persons under criminal investigation or adjudication do not have less human rights protection and procedural safeguards than those foreseen in LAW . The GPE has ratified ORG , without making reservations with respect to LAW , which has been in force in GPE since DATE . The applicant is accused of committing crimes which correspond to those mentioned in Articles CARDINAL through CARDINAL of ORG .","The Collegium of ORG also indicates that pursuant to the [ Criminal Procedure Law ] and LAW , a court of general jurisdiction has the precise duty to ensure that an individual \u2019s fundamental rights are observed in a concrete extradition procedure .","...","Also , in the case - law of ORG it has been found that a person to be extradited must be guaranteed human rights protection specifically in the course of the extradition process ...","At the same time ORG has held that a possibility that a person may receive a severe punishment , for example , a prolonged term of imprisonment , does not always of itself constitute a sufficient basis for a decision to refuse his or her extradition to the GPE ...","ORG will adopt the final decision on [ the applicant \u2019s ] possible extradition to the GPE , which is also under an obligation to observe the human rights protection guarantees provided for in the LAW , the LAW and LAW .","Therefore ... the legal reasoning on the possible incompatibility of LAW ... is obviously insufficient to grant the claim .","...","The legislator has a wide margin of appreciation to decide which cases may be considered at several court instances and also the procedure for their adjudication ...","... it has not been substantiated how LAW could impose a mandatory duty on the legislator to foresee the same rights for persons with respect to whom an investigating judge has taken a decision to order provisional detention as for persons for whom detention has been imposed as a security measure . \u201d","On DATE ORG wrote to ORG . Referring to LAW ( paragraph DATE below ) the Ministry asked ORG to guarantee as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL ) in case of extradition , during the criminal procedure , [ the applicant \u2019s ] human rights will not be violated and he will have such rights in criminal procedure as rights to fair trial , including rights to defence ;","CARDINAL ) in case of conviction , human rights prescribed for in the international law will be ensured to [ the applicant ] in his place of imprisonment in GPE ;","CARDINAL ) in case of conviction and after his request for transfer , [ the applicant ] will have the right to serve his sentence in GPE , according to [ LAW from DATE . \u201d","The request drew attention to the range of sanctions for the crimes at issue under LAW ( PERSON ) , in particular sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that the maximum term of imprisonment did not exceed DATE .","DATE . On DATE the Embassy of GPE in GPE provided Diplomatic Note No . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , the relevant part of which read as follows :","\u201c The LAW and laws of GPE , including the treaties to which we are a party , incorporate all fundamental human rights ... The fundamental guarantees apply before conviction , and post conviction if confinement is adjudged . No person extradited to GPE may be subjected to torture or cruel and unusual punishment .","...","In the case of [ the applicant ] , as previously stated in the extradition request , the death penalty is not an applicable punishment , and he therefore shall not be deprived of life in any event .","...","Finally , in accordance with LAW between the Government of GPE and ORG , signed on DATE , if convicted , GPE will make best efforts to honor a request from [ the applicant ] to serve his sentence in GPE in accordance with ORG on ORG and the implementing statutes thereto , should he apply for such a transfer . In the event that the application can not be honored , ORG of GPE shall consult with the Government of GPE pursuant to LAW . \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer , ORG , submitted to ORG the matters for consideration when deciding on the applicant \u2019s extradition . He stated , inter alia , the following :","\u201c ... the absence of guarantees about [ the applicant \u2019s ] serving a sentence in GPE ... the service of a sentence QUANTITY away would constitute an identical violation as in the case of [ GPE and GPE v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and ORG , CARDINAL DATE ] . \u201d","On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers decided that the applicant would be extradited to GPE ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178699","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GRBA v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE and GPE . At the time of the introduction of his application , the applicant served a prison sentence in GPE .","During DATE and DATE ORG FAC uprava istarska ; hereafter : \u201c the police \u201d ) received several complaints concerning the use of counterfeit euro banknotes in GPE .","The video surveillance recordings made in CARDINAL of the shops where the counterfeit currency was used revealed that a certain PERSON had paid using MONEY notes .","According to a police report dated DATE , further unspecified investigative police work identified the applicant as the person who had supplied a total of QUANTITY to GPE The report also claimed that the applicant was expected to return from GPE to GPE for the purpose of uttering a further QUANTITY and , if that proved to be successful , he would bring a further QUANTITY with a view to uttering them in GPE .","Acting on the evidence presented in the police report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office ( \u017dupanijsko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) asked an investigating judge from ORG PERSON u GPE ) to authorise the use of special investigative measures in respect of the applicant , namely tapping his telephone , covertly monitoring him using undercover agents , and conducting a simulated purchase operation .","The investigating judge granted the request and on DATE issued an order for the use of special investigative measures . The relevant part of the statement of grounds reads :","\u201c The request of the [ GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office ] is well - founded .","As the materials and information available to the police suggest that there is probably cause to believe that PERSON , a national of GPE and GPE , engages in the offence of currency counterfeiting under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , and given that , in the view of the investigating judge , the investigation can not be efficiently carried out by other means , or would be extremely difficult , the well - founded request of the [ GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office ] should be granted and the requested measures are hereby ordered with regard to PERSON as indicated in the operative part of this order . These measures will be implemented by the police DATE and DATE . \u201d","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office informed the investigating judge that the applicant also used another telephone number , and requested an authorisation for the tapping thereof .","On DATE the investigating judge granted the request , finding that there were no new facts or circumstances suggesting that the use of the special investigative measures in respect of the applicant should be discontinued .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant met an undercover police agent who purchased CARDINAL counterfeit MONEY note from him .","In the ensuing period several further meetings and contacts between the applicant and the undercover agent took place . On DATE the undercover agent purchased CARDINAL counterfeit MONEY notes from the applicant , and on DATE the applicant sold him a further sixtyfour counterfeit MONEY notes .","On DATE the police informed the GPE State Attorney \u2019s Office of the actions taken through applying special investigative measures . The police stated that the applicant \u2019s arrest had initially been planned for DATE , when he was supposed to come to GPE for the purpose of selling further counterfeit euro banknotes to an undercover agent but he had postponed that meeting . The police therefore requested an extension of the use of special investigative measures in order to identify and arrest all those involved in the uttering of the counterfeit banknotes and to collect evidence concerning the offence at issue .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG made a fresh request for the use of special investigative measures in respect of the applicant .","The investigating judge granted the request and on DATE issued an order extending the use of special investigative measures for DATE . The judge found that the grounds set out in his order of DATE remained valid ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that the information provided by the police suggested that it was necessary to extend the use of special investigative measures in respect of the applicant for DATE .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG asked for corrections to be made to the order in relation to an incorrect phone number in its request of DATE and also in respect of the omission of another phone number used by the applicant . The investigating judge granted this request on DATE .","On DATE the applicant , accompanied by his brother PERSON , met the undercover agent in PERSON . On that occasion he sold him CARDINAL counterfeit CARDINAL notes for CARDINAL ( ORG ) . Following the illicit transaction , the applicant and PERSON were arrested by the police .","After the arrest the applicant and his car were searched . The police found and seized ORG CARDINAL in cash .","On DATE the police lodged a criminal complaint with ORG Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u GPE ) against the applicant on charges of currency counterfeiting . No criminal complaint was lodged against ORG","On DATE the applicant was brought before an investigating judge of ORG for questioning , during which he remained silent . The investigating judge ordered his remand in custody .","The investigating judge also heard ORG as a witness but he invoked his testimonial privilege as the applicant \u2019s brother and gave no evidence .","Following a request for the opening of a judicial investigation in respect of the applicant , on DATE the investigating judge questioned the applicant , but the applicant again remained silent . On DATE , the investigating judge opened an investigation in respect of the applicant in connection with suspected currency counterfeiting relating to the CARDINAL occasions on which he had sold the counterfeit banknotes to the undercover agents .","In the course of the investigation , the investigating judge obtained an expert report stating that the CARDINAL banknotes of MONEY which the applicant had sold to the undercover agents were counterfeit . The judge also decided that the undercover police agents would be questioned under the pseudonyms ORG and A.B. via video link and with distorted images and sound .","On DATE the investigating judge questioned the undercover agent ORG The applicant \u2019s lawyer was present during the questioning .","In his statement ORG said that his first contact with the applicant had occurred sometime in DATE , when they had spoken on the phone . According to ORG , he had not told the applicant the reason for calling him , but at the time the applicant had been in GPE so they had been unable to meet . ORG also explained that following this initial contact , he had met the applicant in a restaurant in PERSON at DATE . On that occasion they had started talking about business . The applicant had asked him what he was interested in and ORG had replied that he had heard that the applicant was offering some good \u201c papers \u201d . The applicant had replied that it was true and asked ORG what he was really interested in and ORG had repeated that he had heard that the applicant was offering good \u201c papers \u201d . However , ORG was no longer able to recall the further details of this conversation with the applicant . ORG explained that during this first meeting the applicant had sold him a MONEY note for CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , which ORG had accepted . According to ORG , the applicant had also said that if ORG wished , they could arrange a further purchase of a larger quantity of such banknotes .","E.K. stated that DATE following his first meeting with the applicant , they had met again in a car park near GPE . On that occasion the applicant had offered GPE the opportunity to buy a further CARDINAL counterfeit CARDINAL . ORG had accepted the offer and had paid ORG CARDINAL for the counterfeit euros . ORG testified that a further meeting with the applicant had taken place in PERSON after a phone call from the applicant . On that occasion the applicant had asked ORG whether he knew anybody who would be interested in the purchase of larger quantities of counterfeit currency and ORG had replied that he had a friend \u2012 in actual fact another undercover agent , A.B. \u2012 who would be interested . According to ORG , the next meeting with the applicant had taken place some time in DATE in a restaurant in GPE . PERSON explained that on that occasion he had been accompanied by the second undercover agent , PERSON On that occasion ORG had bought MONEY ( it later turned out that the amount was in fact MONEY ) from the applicant for ORG CARDINAL . Following this exchange they had been in contact by phone but they had not met .","The investigating judge also questioned the undercover agent A.B. in the presence of the applicant \u2019s lawyer .","During his questioning PERSON described the circumstances in which he had first met the applicant in the restaurant in GPE in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to PERSON , the applicant had asked him whether or not he wanted to buy counterfeit currency . PERSON had then expressed interest in doing so and the applicant had stated that he could supply CARDINAL counterfeit euros , which he would be prepared to bring to Split . They had then agreed to stay in touch and exchanged phone numbers . A.B. also stated that the applicant had called him in DATE and asked him whether he wanted to buy the counterfeit DATE . Afterwards they had had several telephone conversations until the applicant had finally called PERSON and offered him QUANTITY for the price of ORG CARDINAL . A.B. had accepted that and they had met in a shopping centre in GPE . The illicit exchange had then taken place and the applicant had afterwards been arrested .","After completion of the investigation , the investigating judge forwarded the case file to the Pazin Municipal State Attorney \u2019s ORG for further examination and a decision .","On DATE the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG indicted the applicant in ORG ( PERSON ) on charges of currency counterfeiting in connection with the CARDINAL occasions on which he had sold counterfeit MONEY to the undercover police agents ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","A CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG confirmed the indictment on DATE and sent the case for trial .","At a hearing on DATE the applicant , represented by a lawyer , pleaded not guilty with regard to the first CARDINAL instances of the alleged uttering of counterfeit notes ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , whereas he considered himself \u201c responsible \u201d for the transaction on DATE because he had \u201c given in to the inducement \u201d by the police .","At the same hearing ORG questioned the undercover police agents GPE and PERSON The undercover agent PERSON stated that he could no longer say who had initiated a meeting specifically for the purchase of the counterfeit currency and he was unable to answer the question whether the applicant should have been arrested as soon as he had sold the first counterfeit MONEY note to him . ORG was also unable to say whether he would have been authorised to arrest the applicant . The undercover agent PERSON reiterated the statement he had given to the investigating judge .","Following the questioning of the witnesses , the trial bench examined the secret surveillance recordings and asked the police to inform them whether the CARDINAL paid for the counterfeit notes at the first CARDINAL meetings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) had been traced and confiscated .","On DATE the police replied that they had neither traced the money which had been paid for the purchase of the counterfeits nor confiscated it from the applicant on the first CARDINAL occasions .","A further hearing was held on DATE , at which the trial bench commissioned a psychiatric expert report concerning the applicant \u2019s mental condition at the moment of the commission of the offences .","NORP In the course of his examination by a psychiatrist the applicant explained that he had had serious financial difficulties and that he had needed money urgently . He also stated that he had never before broken the law and had never committed an offence . In DATE an undercover police agent had started contacting him , asking him whether he could supply counterfeit CARDINAL . The applicant believed that CARDINAL of the people in GPE who owed him money must have given his phone number to the police . As the agent had been very persistent in his calls ( he had called him CARDINAL times ) , the applicant had agreed to his request . The applicant had not believed that he was doing anything bad by simply delivering counterfeit money . He explained that he would have never agreed to do it had he not been pressurised by the undercover agent .","In his report dated DATE the expert witness found that the applicant had had full mental capacity at the time of commission of the offences .","On DATE a further hearing was held before ORG at which the expert witness responded to questions concerning his report .","At the same hearing the applicant was questioned but decided to remain silent and not to give any evidence . Following the applicant \u2019s questioning , the trial bench concluded the trial proceedings and heard the parties\u2019 closing arguments . The applicant contended that he had been incited by the police to commit the offences at issue . He argued that it had been the undercover agents who had contacted him first and that their evidence concerning the circumstances of their various contacts had been both incomplete and contradictory . He pointed out that there no audio recordings of his meetings with the undercover agents and it was unclear why had they not arrested him before DATE if he had committed an offence on the first CARDINAL occasions , as suggested in the indictment .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . It also confiscated HRK CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL from the applicant and ordered his expulsion from GPE . ORG held that the CARDINAL occasions on which the applicant had sold counterfeit currency to the undercover agents should be classified as a repeated offence of uttering counterfeit currency under LAW . When sentencing the applicant , ORG explained that the applicant \u2019s persistence in uttering counterfeit currency on CARDINAL occasions , as well the quantity of counterfeit banknotes uttered ( CARDINAL counterfeit CARDINAL in total ) , constituted particularly aggravating factors . With regard to the applicant \u2019s plea of entrapment , ORG merely noted that it had no reason to doubt the statements provided by the undercover agents .","The applicant challenged the first - instance judgment before ORG arguing , in particular , that the circumstances of his entrapment had not been properly examined .","On DATE the ORG quashed the firstinstance judgment and remitted the case for re - examination . It found that the first - instance judgment had been based solely on the undercover GPE statements about their conversations with the applicant , which was contrary to LAW .","In the resumed proceedings ORG excluded from the case file as unlawful evidence all the undercover GPE statements about their conversations with the applicant .","At a hearing on DATE ORG again questioned the undercover agents ORG and A.B.","In his statement ORG explained that he could not judge whether he had contacted the applicant more frequently than the applicant had contacted him . He was also unable to recall the details of his conversation with the applicant when they had first talked over the phone . ORG also explained that a simulated purchase operation was sometimes carried out just once and sometimes on several occasions . In the case at issue , he had been instructed by his superiors to conduct several such simulated purchases . Moreover , it was for his superior and not him to determine the ultimate aim of the simulated purchase operation . In any case , the aim of such a police operation was to eradicate currency counterfeiting . ORG was unable to recall who had initiated the meeting in GPE in DATE when he had introduced the applicant to the second undercover agent PERSON Nor could he say who had initiated the other meetings . With regard to his first meeting with the applicant , he could not say whether the applicant had had CARDINAL counterfeit note in his possession or CARDINAL . ORG answered that it was \u201c [ the applicant \u2019s ] own business \u201d .","In his statement PERSON explained that his meeting in PERSON had taken place at the applicant \u2019s initiative and that it was the applicant who had contacted him more frequently than vice versa . A.B. further stated that it was his superior who had the authority to decide whether the simulated purchase would be organised just once or on several occasions .","Following the questioning of the undercover agents , the defence asked that PERSON \u2012 who was initially identified as the person to whom the applicant had allegedly first supplied the counterfeit MONEY ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) \u2012 be questioned at the trial . The trial bench of ORG dismissed the request by the defence as irrelevant and adjourned the hearing in order to examine the recordings of the applicant \u2019s secret surveillance .","On DATE and DATE ORG examined the recordings of the applicant \u2019s communications and meetings with the undercover agents . It found that there had been CARDINAL unsuccessful attempts on the part of the undercover agents to contact the applicant .","At a hearing on DATE ORG heard the parties\u2019 closing arguments . The applicant argued in particular that the police had abused their powers in not arresting him after the first illicit transfer of counterfeit euros and had instead incited him to commit further offences by arranging purchases of larger quantities of counterfeit euros . He also contended that there had never been a reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offence which could have justified the investigating judge \u2019s decision to authorise the use of undercover investigative measures .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . It also confiscated HRK CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL from the applicant and ordered his expulsion from GPE . When sentencing the applicant , ORG reiterated its previous findings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","With regard to the applicant \u2019s plea of entrapment , ORG observed :","\u201c In the case at issue , examination of the audio recordings of the phone taps confirmed the circumstances surrounding the communication between the undercover agents and the accused , in particular the intensity of the telephone communications . Taking note of the recorded statements of the undercover agents during their communications [ with the applicant ] , it was established that the purpose of the communications was [ organising ] a meeting with the accused in order to effectuate a simulated purchase .","This court considers that it can not be said that the undercover agents acted improperly in the sense that by their actions they allowed the accused to develop his criminal activity [ or ] in any manner incited him to commit an offence .","Neither the questioning of the undercover agents nor any other [ evidence adduced ] suggests that the undercover agents incited the accused to commit an offence in the sense that they offered him some reward or brought him presents or such like .","It is true [ as was established during the proceedings ] that , for instance , CARDINAL and DATE the undercover agent tried to contact the accused CARDINAL times on his mobile phone , but this court considers that this was not prohibited nor did it incite the accused to commit criminal acts . Those were attempts to contact the accused in the period which was \u2018 ORG by the [ investigating judge \u2019s order ] . It should be also taken into account that in the period at issue there had already been communication between the accused and the undercover agent . \u201d","The applicant challenged the first - instance judgment by lodging an appeal before ORG . He argued , in particular , that the orders for the use of special investigative measures had not been adequately reasoned , as required LAW . He also contended that there had been no reason to continue with the use of simulated purchases and the undercover GPE activities after the first illicit transfer of counterfeit MONEY in DATE . All further events had constituted entrapment intended to extend the scope of his criminal activity , which eventually resulted in a more severe sentence . The applicant claimed that such measures could have been justified by the necessity to arrest further individuals involved in the offence , but no activity in that respect had been undertaken in his case .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . It held that the investigating judge \u2019s orders for the use of special investigative measures had been properly reasoned as required under LAW . With regard to the plea of entrapment , the ORG observed :","\u201c ... [ The investigating judge ] ordered that the [ special investigative ] measures be implemented DATE and DATE , namely over a period of DATE . The investigating judge \u2019s order ... of DATE shows that the use of [ special investigative ] measures was extended for DATE from DATE to DATE . It is apparent from the order that , in response to an application by ORG , the investigating judge extended the use of [ special investigative ] measures for appropriate reasons . It [ also]probably cause to believe that the accused had uttered counterfeit CARDINAL , which suggested the commission of a serious criminal offence ( currency counterfeiting ) . Taking into account the nature of such an offence and the fact that the use of special investigative measures was producing certain results , there were relevant reasons for extending the use of [ special investigative ] measures under LAW . It can not therefore be said that the conduct of the undercover agents broadened the extent of the criminal activity of the accused .","It should be noted that it can not be claimed that the use of special investigative measures under LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW can be considered as an incitement to commit a criminal offence . The undercover agent ORG contacted the accused only after the use of special investigative measures had been ordered and there is therefore no unlawfulness in his conduct . Furthermore , the fact that ORG first contacted the accused without telling him the reason for the contact , as was established by the first - instance court from the statement of ORG , and the fact that the first meeting took place DATE ( on DATE ) \u2012 when the undercover agent in PERSON bought MONEY counterfeit note from the accused for the amount of HRK CARDINAL \u2012 can not be considered as an incitement but was a tactical action aimed at gaining the confidence of the accused and further uttering of counterfeit TIME . The fact that the undercover agent succeeded in his task is selfevident , since the accused continued to sell him larger quantities of counterfeit MONEY for real euros until he was arrested . \u201d","On DATE the applicant filed a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment before ORG ( PERSON ) , challenging the findings of ORG . He contended that ORG had failed to provide adequate reasoning for its findings concerning the incitement . Specifically , it had not thoroughly examined the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s first contact with the undercover agent when the first instance of incitement had occurred . Furthermore , ORG had not taken into account the fact that the majority of the contacts with the applicant had been initiated by the undercover agents , and it had not analysed the substance of their discussions , even though they had been duly recorded , as a result of the applicant \u2019s phone having been tapped . In this connection the applicant pointed out relevant parts of the transcript of the phone taps , in particular the part where the undercover agent stated : \u201c Come on , you must definitely come . Do n\u2019t you know , ok , we are serious people ... \u201d ; or where the applicant stated \u201c I will not bring [ it ] and that \u2019s it \u201d , after which the undercover agent started inciting him to a criminal act . The applicant also contended that the investigating judge \u2019s orders for the use of special investigative measures had not been properly reasoned , as required under LAW .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for extraordinary review of a final judgment , endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts concerning the applicant \u2019s plea of incitement . It found that there was nothing in the conduct of the undercover agents suggesting incitement . It also considered that there had been sufficient basis for the use of secret surveillance and that the orders of the investigating judge had been issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of LAW .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) reiterating the arguments he had presented before the lower courts . He pointed out in particular that the use of special investigative measures had been authorised contrary to the relevant domestic law as the investigating judge \u2019s orders had not been properly reasoned . In his view , this had infringed his right to respect for his private life and the confidentiality of his correspondence guaranteed under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW . The applicant also contended that he had been incited to commit an offence by the undercover agents and that the lower courts had not properly examined his plea of entrapment .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the decision of ORG concerned neither a determination of his rights and obligations nor a criminal charge against him .","The decision of ORG was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148673","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HORNCASTLE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicants are currently in detention .","On DATE the victim , P.R. , a registered alcoholic , was attacked in his flat . He suffered extensive injuries and spent DATE in hospital .","He made a statement to the police on DATE . The statement bore a statement of truth which read :","\u201c This statement ... is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that , if it is tendered in evidence , I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything in it which I know to be false or do not believe to be true . \u201d","In his statement , he explained that on DATE of the attack he had been at home in his flat and had drunk CARDINAL litres of cider in the course of DATE . At various times during DATE he had been in the company of X. , B. and M. At some point PERSON had left his flat and had returned carrying a television and a hi - fi system , which they had placed in a bedroom . Later in the evening , X. , NORP and PERSON had left , although the victim explained , \u201c I do n\u2019t know times and my memory is vague \u201d . He then recalled answering a knock on the door , following which CARDINAL men had entered the LOC by force and attacked him . The victim said :","\u201c The bigger male out of the CARDINAL started punching me to the face , followed by a man who was on crutches . I was getting punched by all of them and I eventually fell to the floor . I was dragged and pulled into the bedroom where they saw the television and hi - fi system . I remember them going mad punching me more and more to my body and face . I do n\u2019t remember much else . \u201d","He described the features of the \u201c bigger male \u201d and the \u201c male on crutches \u201d , who he knew lived in the same block of flats . He said that the third male was called \u201c PERSON \u201d and also described him .","The victim died on DATE from an alcohol - related illness .","Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON were subsequently charged , together with another man , NORP , with causing P.R. grievous bodily harm with intent .","NORP The prosecution case was that PERSON and PERSON had burgled another flat in the victim \u2019s block of flats , and had taken the stolen property to the victim \u2019s flat . B. and PERSON had pleaded guilty to that burglary . The prosecution alleged that the attack on the victim had occurred when PERSON and PERSON PERSON had gone with NORP , the owner of stolen property , to recover it . They claimed that Mr PERSON was the \u201c bigger male \u201d and NORP was the \u201c male on crutches \u201d .","The defence case was that although Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON had gone to the victim \u2019s flat to help recover D. \u2019s property , neither had been involved in the attack .","In a statement to the police , PERSON said that the victim had been very drunk , and that he ( Mr PERSON ) had collected the television and returned it to NORP \u2019s flat . He had not seen the attack on the victim .","In his statement to the police , Mr PERSON said that he had been drinking with NORP and PERSON . They had gone back to NORP \u2019s flat at TIME and discovered that it had been burgled . NORP had asked if they would go with him and recover what had been stolen , as he had been told where it was . They had gone to the victim \u2019s flat at TIME The door had been opened by a man whom the others had pushed out of the way . They had seen the stolen property . He had picked up a DVD player and walked out , stepping over P.R. , the victim , lying on the floor . Mr ORG said that he had had some specks of blood on his shoes , jeans and T - shirt which had come from the wall or a splatter when the victim had been hit . He had been aware that the victim was getting punched and had not wanted to have anything to do with it . He did not know what happened after that . He had put the DVD player in the lift and returned to the flat . At that point the victim was still lying on the floor and there was blood everywhere . He had not hit the victim . He had not expected them to do what they had done .","Another resident of the block of flats , J. , made a statement to the police suggesting that PERSON might have been involved in the assault on the victim . That statement was disclosed to the defence . The defence was ultimately based on the assertion that PERSON was the perpetrator .","The prosecution applied to read the victim \u2019s statement at trial , under LAW ) of LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The application was opposed by the applicants under section CARDINAL of ORG \u201c PACE \u201d \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) on the ground that it would be unfair to admit the statement which constituted the only admissible evidence of participation against them , as there could be no opportunity to challenge it and it was inherently unreliable . The applicants relied on the admission by the victim that he had drunk a quantity of alcohol ; on his statement that \u201c I do n\u2019t know times and my memory is vague \u201d ; and on the fact that the description given of the first male did not fit Mr Blackmore .","The judge ruled on DATE that the statement should be admitted . He found that the condition in DATE ) was satisfied ( namely , that the witness was dead ) ; and that the fact that the statement was the principal evidence against the defendants did not make its admission unfair . He relied in particular on the fact that the defendants had all admitted being present in the victim \u2019s flat together to recover D. \u2019s property ; that the defendants were going to call PERSON to give evidence that PERSON had been responsible for the attack ; and that the jury could be given directions as to any difficulties faced by the defence on account of ORG statement being read .","In DATE the trial commenced before a judge and a jury . D. subsequently pleaded guilty . The jury in the trial were later discharged for unrelated reasons and a retrial was ordered . A second trial commenced in DATE , but the jury were again discharged following an issue in relation to the forensic evidence . A third trial commenced in DATE .","NORP The prosecution relied on other evidence , besides the statement of the victim . X. , who had spent DATE drinking with the victim , gave evidence to the effect that P.R. had been tipsy but not drunk on the afternoon of the attack . He also testified that he had subsequently visited the victim in hospital , where the victim had indicated that he had been attacked by CARDINAL people but that he could not really remember who had attacked him . CARDINAL witnesses gave evidence that the victim had told them that NORP and his friends had attacked him . There was also scientific evidence that the blood on the television matched that of the victim . Forensic evidence suggested that the assault had commenced at the front door and the hallway and then moved to the entrance of the bedroom . There was pooling of blood at the entrance to the bedroom , as if the source of the blood had lain there for some time . Blood on NORP \u2019s crutches matched the victim \u2019s DNA profile . Evidence was also led to show that P.R. had shown no fear of PERSON when meeting him after the attack .","Mr PERSON gave evidence in his defence . He said that he had been drinking all day with NORP and Mr PERSON . In TIME they had returned to NORP \u2019s flat and realised that it had been burgled . They had gone downstairs to another flat and he had followed NORP inside . He had seen a man staggering in the hallway . NORP had then pointed out the items that had been stolen . Mr PERSON had picked up the television and returned to NORP \u2019s flat . He had not seen an assault and had not seen any blood . He , PERSON PERSON and NORP had returned to the pub .","Mr Blackmore did not give evidence at trial .","P.R. \u2019s neighbour , PERSON , was called to give evidence for the defence . He testified that he had heard some shouting and banging on TIME of the attack and had seen PERSON banging on doors . Later he had seen PERSON holding P.R. in a headlock ; another person had been with him . He had closed the door but had heard a lot of shouting and noise for TIME . His answers in cross - examination were not consistent with his previous statement to the police .","The judge , on Mr PERSON \u2019s application , admitted evidence of PERSON \u2019s previous convictions as evidence of a propensity for violence . The judge refused to admit evidence of the previous convictions of PERSON PERSON and Mr PERSON .","The judge made clear the importance of P.R. \u2019s witness statement at the outset of his review of the evidence in the summing up to the jury , noting :","\u201c The prosecution case here depends , does it not , upon the evidence of [ the victim ] . \u201d","He explained to the jury that the victim \u2019s evidence was not agreed , that the defence had not had the opportunity of testing it by crossexamination and that it would carry less weight than evidence from a witness who had come to court and had testified . He set out examples of areas in the victim \u2019s statement which had not been cross - examined .","TIME after the jury had retired , they asked to see the victim \u2019s statement ; the judge told them that they could not see it but reminded them of its contents by reading it to them .","The jury subsequently returned unanimous guilty verdicts in respect of both PERSON and Mr PERSON .","On DATE at TIME the victim , PERSON , was at home alone in the house she shared with her partner , ORG , preparing to take a bath . CARDINAL men entered the house and stole various items , including jewellery . After threatening the victim with a knife , they kidnapped her by taking her away in the car they had come in . A black FAC car owned by her partner was also taken at the same time .","The victim subsequently made a formal statement to the police , containing a statement of truth in the terms outlined above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , giving an account of events on DATE . She stated that , as she had been about to bathe , CARDINAL masked men had entered her bedroom ; CARDINAL had a knife . She had been ordered downstairs where there were CARDINAL other men . They had asked where the jewellery , money and car keys were and she had told them about her partner \u2019s safe in his wardrobe . CARDINAL of the men had then taken her to the car they had come in and had driven off . She assumed that the other CARDINAL men had taken ORG \u2019s car .","The men in her car had then asked for ORG \u2019s telephone number , which she gave them , and they had telephoned him . She described the telephone conversations that followed and explained that the men had told her that they wanted QUANTITY before they would let her go . She had also been told that she should not go to the police because she would know what would happen to her if she did . She had been warned not to look at her captors , and had taken the threats to mean that they would kill her if she saw their faces . She said that she had been punched twice in the back of the head , which she understood to have been intended to show her that her kidnappers were serious about hurting her . She had heard her captors say that if they did not get money they would cut off her fingers and toes . CARDINAL of the men had said something about putting her in a vice . She was eventually put in the boot of the car for a while before being dropped off unharmed . After unsuccessful attempts to telephone FAC from various locations , she had eventually spoken to her father who had picked her up . She had arrived home shortly after TIME and the police had arrived TIME . In her statement , she did not identify any person as having participated in her kidnapping .","On DATE ORG made a short statement setting out his account of the ransom demands and how the kidnappers had threatened to cut off the victim \u2019s fingers if he did not pay the ransom .","On DATE Mr PERSON was arrested in ORG \u2019s stolen car after having been seen on ORG . A knife was found in the car .","On DATE PERSON made a further police statement . She was shown the knife which had been recovered from the car in which Mr PERSON had been arrested and asked if she had seen it before . She confirmed that it was the knife used to threaten her .","On DATE a police officer visited ORG and the victim , in the presence of the latter \u2019s father , and told them \u201c in no uncertain terms \u201d that the men the police were seeking were dangerous and that it was not beyond them to use guns . He gave as an illustration the use of guns against a couple who had fled and had been murdered in the village to which they had been relocated . He spoke to them about moving .","On DATE the victim and ORG made police statements to the effect that they wished to retract their previous statements and did not want the police to pursue a prosecution , as they were scared for the safety of their families .","Mr Marquis and PERSON were charged with kidnapping . The prosecution relied on other evidence , apart from the victim \u2019s statement .","First , PERSON was seen with other masked men on the ORG cameras entering the victim \u2019s house on TIME CARDINAL DATE . That evidence was not disputed at trial although when initially questioned PERSON had not accepted that he had been to the house or that the person shown on the ORG was him . It was also not disputed that ORG \u2019s car had been taken from outside the house shortly thereafter . The telephone records proving that ORG had subsequently been contacted on his telephone from the victim \u2019s telephone and that a number of calls were made from Mr Marquis\u2019 telephone to ORG were undisputed .","There was evidence that PERSON had spent TIME CARDINAL DATE at a hotel and that a woman of his acquaintance , GPE , had gone to the hotel to meet him that night . She gave evidence that she had been told to park her car between a red van and \u201c my XCARDINAL \u201d . When she had gone to Mr Marquis\u2019 room , she had been introduced to a man ( whom Mr ORG refused to identify ) . She had seen a pink telephone which was identical to the CARDINAL owned by the victim . It was accepted that the telephone used to call ORG TIME was also used by PERSON to contact GPE DATE and DATE . A text to her from PERSON at TIME on DATE stated :","\u201c Hey do n\u2019t let no - one know where I am , you know . Remember I know your address and that . You should have just said you were going . I ai n\u2019t bothered , but if I get arrested , I know it \u2019s you \u201d","NORP CCTV evidence showed PERSON at the wheel of ORG \u2019s car twice on DATE ; on the second occasion the car had false registration plates .","There was also evidence that a man describing himself as PERSON had rented a room at the hotel where Mr Marquis had stayed on DATE and had described himself as the driver of a black ORG XCARDINAL .","Mr PERSON \u2019s defence was that there had been no kidnapping . He claimed that the victim and her partner had been involved in an attempted insurance fraud . Mr PERSON denied any involvement in any kidnapping that there may have been .","The victim and ORG did not attend court on DATE in compliance with a witness summons that had been issued for the trial . The victim was arrested on DATE and brought to court . On giving an explanation to the judge that , although she was frightened , she would have attended court but had been told not to attend by Witness Support , she was bailed to appear on DATE . She was warned that if she did not attend a warrant for her arrest would be issued and she could be imprisoned for DATE . The trial was fixed for CARDINAL DATE . ORG later surrendered into custody and was also bailed to appear .","The victim made a further statement on DATE which was video recorded . In it she said that she had made the retraction statement of CARDINAL DATE because she was scared . She thought that those who had kidnapped her were dangerous and she was very frightened . She said :","\u201c Since I was kidnapped , I have found that the incident has altered my life . I am petrified . I find myself looking over my shoulder and wondering if the people responsible will come and get me . I feel like this because at the time they said to me , \u2018 You PERSON better not go to the police \u2018 cos you know what will happen if you do\u2019 .","I perceived this as a direct threat against me and I just do n\u2019t know what they are capable of , considering that they forced their way into my house and kidnapped me . I perceive them as very dangerous people .","As such I am terrified all of the time and find myself very tearful , and I am almost not sleeping at TIME . \u201d","She added that the police had made her more frightened when they told her that she and ORG had to move . She did not feel she could leave her house for fear of what might happen to her and her anxiety had been increased by the court case .","She confirmed that the police had explained the possibility of using special measures at trial . She said that her evidence would be \u201c greatly enhanced \u201d if she could speak from behind a screen in the court room . Finally , she said that she had not been subjected to any threats directly or indirectly from those responsible for kidnapping her , but that she still felt scared .","G.P. made a statement on video on DATE . In his statement he referred to the police visit in DATE and the advice to \u201c leave town \u201d , which he said had \u201c really frightened \u201d them . He said that he had tried to get in touch , through a friend , with a certain \u201c Bijer \u201d because another friend had recognised the number which had called him on TIME of the kidnapping as that of \u201c Bijer \u201d . \u201c Bijer \u201d had rung him , but it was clear that this was not the person who had rung him on the telephone on DATE . \u201c Bijer \u201d had explained to him that he had sold the telephone DATE . ORG said that he was not scared to give evidence but just did not want to , in case there were reprisal attacks .","Neither the victim nor ORG attended court on DATE . The victim \u2019s father \u2019s evidence to the trial judge was that she had packed her bags and fled DATE .","DATE . On DATE , the prosecution applied to read the statements of PERSON and ORG under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(e ) of the DATE Act on the grounds that they would not give evidence through fear ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The applicants argued that the statements could not be admitted as the fear did not fall within the meaning of the DATE Act as it had not been generated by any action of theirs or their associates , but by what the police officer had said on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the trial judge handed down his ruling on the admission of the statements . He noted , in respect of PERSON \u2019s video statement of DATE :","\u201c I have seen a portion of that tape and it is perfectly clear to me the witness was petrified , genuinely really distressed , breaking down into tears . \u201d","The judge heard evidence from the victim \u2019s father and the police officer who had spoken to her on DATE . He observed that in her witness statement of DATE , PERSON had explained that she was \u201c more \u201d scared as a consequence of the police advice , noting that this was \u201c on top of her own fears \u201d . He also observed that in her statement , PERSON had confirmed that the possibility of special measures at trial had been explained to her . He referred to the warning that he had given her as to the serious consequences if she failed to attend court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He concluded :","\u201c Having heard all the evidence , the only sensible conclusion is that she was and is so terrified of coming to court to give evidence , she would rather face arrest and imprisonment . I have no doubt she \u2019s in fear of giving evidence . \u201d","The judge noted that there was no qualification in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(e ) of the DATE Act on how the fear had to have been generated . He accepted that GPE qualified under the LAW to have her statement read as a witness in fear , and stressed that there had been no bad faith by the police in respect of the advice that they had given . The judge found that it would not be unfair or unjust to admit the statement .","In the same ruling the judge declined to admit the evidence of ORG as he was not satisfied that his non - attendance was due to fear .","On CARDINAL DATE an application was made to the judge to admit ORG \u2019s statement made on DATE in the interests of justice under section DATE ) of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) so that it could be advanced as part of the defence case of PERSON . It was submitted that PERSON was put at a great disadvantage because the defence could not cross - examine ORG in relation to the voice heard over the telephone on DATE . The judge refused the application on the basis that ORG was not in fear and he was not prepared to go behind his ruling of DATE ; and the evidence covered many matters which implicated the applicants and not just that part of it relating to the recognition of the voice over the telephone .","Mr Marquis and PERSON were tried at ORG before a judge and a jury .","Oral evidence was heard from LOC , a friend of ORG , which the judge directed the jury to treat with caution . S. said he had been with FAC on TIME of the kidnapping when ORG had received a telephone call . He had answered it and had looked distressed . S. had been able to hear some of the conversation , including a demand for money and a girl crying in the background . ORG had told him that someone had taken his girlfriend and was demanding money . There had then been a couple more calls . ORG had asked him to telephone the police which he had done . The tape of that call recorded the person calling the police as giving an account that CARDINAL black males were demanding money while holding his girlfriend in the bathroom at her house . PERSON gave evidence that ORG had also received further calls from another telephone . S. had recognised the telephone number and when he had put it into his own mobile telephone it had registered as belonging to GPE ( the abbreviation used by PERSON for his first name ) . When PERSON denied that GPE was the same person as Mr Marquis , the judge permitted him to be treated as a hostile witness and evidence was put to him to show he knew Mr Marquis .","A police officer gave evidence that he had called PERSON \u2019s mobile telephone and had spoken to a man who had given his name as ORG He had sounded agitated and was shouting that they had kidnapped her . He had then heard a mobile telephone ringing and had been told by ORG that it was his girlfriend \u2019s number . ORG had asked him to listen . He had been able to hear some of the demands for money when the CARDINAL telephones were held against one another . The telephone had rung again and he could hear a girl \u2019s voice screaming that they had taken her . When the telephone had gone dead , ORG had confirmed that it was his girlfriend and that he did not know where she was . He did not say where he was but said that he would be returning to their home shortly . Another call had then taken place during which money was demanded .","The victim \u2019s father gave evidence that he had received a telephone call TIME and TIME on DATE from his daughter . She had told him that she had been kidnapped and needed to be picked up . She had sounded distressed . He had collected her and she had given him an account of what she said had happened . She had tried to contact her partner on the telephone , but had not answered . They had gone to her home to see if he was there . When they had arrived at the house , CARDINAL of her friends were there and asked what had happened . She had given an account , tearful and shaken . The victim \u2019s father had then searched the house but ORG was not there . He had found lukewarm water in the bath and had telephoned the police . Before they came , the victim had given an account of what had happened which was consistent with the statement she subsequently gave to them .","Mr Marquis gave evidence at trial , denying any role in the kidnapping . He stated that his telephone had been used by him DATE and DATE to contact GPE , but that he had lost it when he got into a car owned by some men on TIME CARDINAL DATE and did not get it back from them until he was at the hotel . The telephone had therefore not been in his possession when the calls had been made to ORG He would not identify the men . When he had gone to the room at the hotel , the pink telephone was already there , but he had no idea how it had got there .","Mr PERSON did not give evidence . He provided no evidence from any person which would have formed a basis for the case that the kidnapping was an attempted insurance fraud . It was nonetheless advanced as part of the defence case to the jury .","In his summing up , the trial judge directed the jury in relation to the way that they should treat PERSON \u2019s statement and the disadvantages to the applicants of being unable to cross - examine her .","On DATE Mr Marquis and PERSON were convicted of kidnapping .","Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON appealed against their convictions on the ground that the victim \u2019s statement should not have been admitted as evidence . They submitted that the statement was the sole or decisive evidence against them .","Mr Marquis and PERSON appealed against their convictions on the grounds , inter alia , that the victim \u2019s statement should not have been admitted because there was no evidence that the fear had been caused by the applicants , and the police had contributed hugely to the fear . It was also contended that her evidence was decisive in the case , as it was the only evidence that there had been a kidnapping .","On DATE , ORG unanimously dismissed the appeals .","The court found that LAW ( d ) did not create any absolute right to have every witness examined and that the balance struck by LAW was legitimate and wholly consistent with the Convention . It noted , however , that there could be a very real disadvantage in admitting hearsay evidence and it needed cautious handling . Having regard to the safeguards contained in LAW , which were rigorously applied , it was of the view that there would be no violation of LAW if a conviction were based solely or to a decisive degree on hearsay evidence . Where the hearsay evidence was demonstrably reliable , or its reliability could properly be tested and assessed , the rights of the defence would be respected , there would be sufficient counterbalancing measures and the trial would be fair . The court considered that it was not appropriate that there should be a rule that counterbalancing measures could never be sufficient where the evidence was sole or decisive .","In terms of counterbalancing measures , ORG considered that the power of a trial judge under LAW of the DATE Act to stop the case if the absent - witness evidence was unconvincing ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) provided for a \u201c proportionate assessment of the reliability \u201d of such evidence ; and that it would not serve justice if that power were to be trammelled by a requirement that it be exercised in every case in which the evidence were the sole or decisive evidence . Sole or decisive absent - witness evidence could be wholly convincing and , equally , evidence which was neither sole nor decisive might have such a potential influence on the jury that the judge would be persuaded that a conviction was unsafe . Where there was a legitimate argument that the absent witness evidence was unconvincing and important to the case , the trial judge was required to make up his own mind as to whether a conviction would be safe . PERSON when absent - witness evidence was admitted were well understood by the courts .","DATE . The Court of Appeal gave guidance as to when it would be appropriate to allow absent - witness evidence to be introduced because a witness was in fear . There was , in the case - law of this ORG , no requirement that the fear had to be attributable to the defendant ; the essential questions were whether there was a justifiable reason for the absence of the witness supported by evidence and whether the evidence was demonstrably reliable or its reliability could be properly tested and assessed . ORG added :","\u201c DATE . It is , however , important that all possible efforts are made to get the witness to court . As is clear , the right to confrontation is a longstanding requirement of the common law and recognised in Article CARDINAL ) . It is only to be departed from in the limited circumstances and under the conditions set out in the [ CARDINAL Act ] . The witness must be given all possible support , but also made to understand the importance of the citizen \u2019s duty , and indeed that the violent and intimidatory will only flourish the more if that duty is not done , whilst they will normally back down in the face of determination that it be performed . For this reason it is of especial importance that assurances are never given to potential witnesses that their evidence will be read . Unless the defendant consents , it is only the court applying the strict conditions of the [ CARDINAL Act ] based on evidence that can admit such a statement . Any indication , let alone an assurance , can only give rise to an expectation that this will indeed happen , when if it does the impact of the evidence will be diminished and the disadvantage to the accused may result in it not being given at all .","... In the case before us of ORG and PERSON ... the Judge found that the investigating police officer had significantly contributed to the fear of the witness by referring repeatedly to a notorious local example of witnesses being hunted down , although relocated , and killed . Although notorious , that incident was an extreme and very unusual case . The need for police officers to tender careful advice to potential witnesses in order to discharge their duty of care towards them should not lead to such frightening information being laboured out of defensiveness . Whilst the [ CARDINAL Act ] requires fear to be construed broadly , it is not to be expected that fear based upon inappropriate assurances by police officers will result in the evidence being read and the case proceeding on the basis of it to the jury . If the evidence can really only be assessed by the jury by seeing the witness , as will often be the case , it may not be admitted . If it is admitted and central to the case , there is a significant possibility that at the end of the trial the Judge may have to rule under s.CARDINAL that a conviction relying upon it would be unsafe . \u201d","Having considered the general principles , the court turned to examine the specific facts of the ORG cases .","ORG reviewed the victim \u2019s statement and the evidence presented to the trial court . It found that there was substantial evidence independent of the statement to prove that Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had gone to the victim \u2019s flat , that they had been present when the attack had taken place and that both had taken away items from the flat . It noted :","\u201c CARDINAL . i ) PERSON and PERSON both admitted they accompanied [ NORP ] to flat CARDINAL and were present when the door was opened .","ii ) PERSON removed the TV on his own admission . The TV had [ the victim \u2019s ] blood on it . It is an inescapable inference that PERSON must have been present after sufficient violence had been inflicted on [ the victim ] for blood to have got onto the TV . His account that he saw no violence must have been untruthful .","iii ) PERSON admitted taking the DVD and stepping over the prostrate body of [ the victim ] . He must have been present when the violence began and he returned to the flat to help with removing the TV , despite knowing that [ the victim ] had been attacked .","iv ) Neither appellant contended there was anyone else other than [ NORP ] present at that time they first went to the flat or when the DVD or TV were removed .","v ) The scientific evidence pointed clearly to the attack having taken place at the entrance to the flat and at the door to the bedroom which was near the entrance . The attack must therefore have been visible to anyone who remained at the entrance .","vi ) It follows from the above that there was a significant amount of evidence which showed that the attack occurred in the presence of each of the appellants .","vii ) There was no evidence of motive for [ M. ] to have attacked [ the victim ] . On the contrary he was a friend of [ the victim \u2019s ] and [ the victim ] had shown no fear when he saw him ... after he had been attacked . \u201d","Despite the substantial amount of independent evidence , ORG accepted that it was clear from the judge \u2019s ruling on admissibility , from the way in which the case was summed up and from the question from the jury that the victim \u2019s statement was to a decisive degree the basis on which the applicants were convicted .","However , it considered that the decisive nature of the evidence was CARDINAL of the factors which the court had to put into the balance in the various stages that it had to go through in applying the legislation . It observed that the judge \u2019s decision on the admissibility of the evidence carefully applied the statutory tests under LAW ; that the applicants had been provided with ample material to attack the victim \u2019s credibility , including the notes of his treatment in hospital ; that no application had been made CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act to stop the case ; that the judge \u2019s direction to the jury was very full and that he had drawn attention to the particular matters that put the defence at a disadvantage , in particular the inability to cross - examine the victim as to his memory , his alcoholism , his description of Mr Blackmore and other matters ; and that there was no suggested reason why the victim should have provided an untruthful statement .","ORG was satisfied that the jury had been able to make a proper assessment of the reliability of the victim \u2019s evidence contained in the statement . It further considered that the jury was right in placing reliance on the statement , as its convincing nature and reliability in important respects could be tested against other evidence , including the applicants\u2019 own admissions ; the visit of QUANTITY persons to the victim \u2019s flat and taking items away ; the evidence of blood on the television removed by PERSON ; Mr PERSON \u2019s evidence in relation to observing the victim on the floor and the blood in the flat ; and the other independent evidence to which it had already referred .","ORG accordingly concluded that the applicants were provided with sufficient counterbalancing measures to ensure respect for their fair trial rights . They had received considerable information about the victim and his time in hospital ; they were able to draw to the jury \u2019s attention all the arguments for treating the statement as unreliable ; and they were able to put forward an alternative case that the assault was carried out by PERSON by calling independent evidence in support .","ORG reviewed the evidence at trial and the judge \u2019s decision to admit the victim \u2019s statement . It also examined the directions given to the jury in relation to the way in which they should treat the statement and the disadvantages to the applicants in not being able to crossexamine the victim , which it considered to be appropriate .","DATE . It found , having regard to its observations on the ambit of \u201c fear \u201d under LAW ( see paragraph DATE above ) , that the judge was correct in his ruling as to the victim \u2019s fear .","The court also took the view that there was sufficient material before the jury to enable them properly to assess the reliability of the victim \u2019s statement . It explained :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... We also consider that its convincing nature and reliability in important respects could be tested against other evidence including :","i ) that when the police visited the house , the bath had lukewarm water in it .","ii ) that a knife was recovered from the ORG in which PERSON was arrested ; she identified it as the one used on her .","iii ) that [ ORG ] was phoned using her phone and an identical phone was seen in the bedroom at the FAC Inn used by ORG .","In considering the overall fairness of the decision to admit the evidence of [ the victim ] and in looking at the safety of the conviction , we have taken into account the criticism of the judge \u2019s refusal to admit the statement of [ ORG ] . ORG sought to admit only part of his evidence contained in the statements . The judge had concluded that [ FAC ] was not in fear and could have attended . To have admitted the whole of the evidence in those circumstances would not have been in accordance with the statutory code and to have admitted part of it on Marquis\u2019 application would have been to provide evidence that was misleading without the rest of the evidence . \u201d","ORG considered it clear that the convictions did not rest on the evidence of the victim to a decisive extent . It noted :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... i ) The main evidence against PERSON was that there was clear ORG evidence that PERSON had been at the house at the time [ the victim ] said she was kidnapped ; he admitted that , though in his interview he had not accepted that . He was arrested in [ ORG \u2019s ] stolen FAC . [ The victim \u2019s ] statement did not identify him .","ii ) The main evidence against ORG was that his phone was used to make the ransom demands heard by [ S. ] and [ the police officer ] . It was not disputed that a phone identical to one owned by [ the victim ] was seen by [ GPE ] when she went to Marquis\u2019 bedroom at the FAC . [ The victim \u2019s ] statement did not identify him .","iii ) The only matter proved by [ the victim \u2019s ] statement was that she had been kidnapped . There was , however , sufficient evidence of that from the other witnesses in the case , particularly her father .","iv ) There was no evidence to support the case advanced by PERSON that the kidnapping was an attempted insurance fraud .","v ) Counsel for the ORG had submitted in his application to the judge to admit the statements of both [ ORG ] and [ the victim ] that they were central to the case . However , the fact that this submission was made is an illustration of the difficulty ... of determining in advance whether the evidence is decisive . Self evidently the evidence of [ FAC ] made no difference , as it was not admitted and in the result , for the reasons we have given , the evidence of [ the victim ] was not , in the event , decisive .","vi ) Thus , if contrary to the view we have expressed , a statement of a person kept away by fear could not be relied upon as evidence of a decisive extent in favour of a conviction , then as the conviction rests on other evidence , then that ground of appeal fails for that additional reason . \u201d","The court concluded that the applicants\u2019 defence rights were respected , the trial was fair and the convictions were safe .","The applicants appealed to ORG arguing that the decisions to admit the statements in their cases rendered their convictions unfair . They relied heavily on the judgment of the Fourth Section of this Court in Al\u2011Khawaja and PERSON v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and ORG , DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeals . Lord PERSON gave the judgment of the court , with which the other justices agreed . He identified the principal issue raised by the appeals as being whether a conviction based \u201c solely or to a decisive extent \u201d on the statement of a witness whom the defendant had had no chance of crossexamining necessarily infringed his right to a fair trial under LAW and CARDINAL ( d ) .","Lord PERSON began with an analysis of the common law approach to a fair trial and the provisions of the CARDINAL Act . He set out the legal framework under section CARDINAL of the DATE allowing , exceptionally , the admission of hearsay evidence at criminal trials ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , explaining","\u201c CARDINAL . ... [ T]he [ Criminal Justice Act ] DATE contains a crafted code intended to ensure that evidence is admitted only when it is fair that it should be . \u201d","He went on to detail the \u201c special stipulations \u201d set out in sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the DATE Act which were applicable to all hearsay evidence and designed to ensure the fairness of the proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","He summarised the safeguards present at trial to protect against any potential for unfairness arising from the admission of hearsay evidence as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... i ) The trial judge acts as gatekeeper and has a duty to prevent the jury from receiving evidence that will have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it should not be received .","ii ) Hearsay evidence is only admissible in strictly defined circumstances . In essence the judge has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution is not able to adduce the evidence by calling the witness .","iii ) Once the prosecution case is closed , the judge must withdraw the case from the jury if it is based wholly or partly on hearsay evidence and that evidence is so unconvincing that , considering its importance , the defendant \u2019s conviction would be unsafe .","iv ) The judge has to direct the jury on the dangers of relying on hearsay evidence .","v ) The jury has to be satisfied of the defendant \u2019s guilt beyond reasonable doubt .","vi ) The defendant can apply for permission to appeal against his conviction , which will be granted where reasonable grounds for appeal are demonstrated . A failure to comply with the safeguards outlined above , and in particular the admission of hearsay evidence contrary to the rules on its admissibility , will constitute such grounds . Where ORG finds that there has been such a failure , the appeal will be allowed unless the court is satisfied that , despite the shortcoming , the conviction is \u2018 safe\u2019 . \u201d","Lord PERSON considered the approach to absent - witness evidence in other common law jurisdictions . He then examined criminal procedure in civil law jurisdictions and the case - law of this ORG prior to the ORG judgment in Al\u2011Khawaja and PERSON . He reviewed in some detail the origins and development of the \u201c sole or decisive rule \u201d in the ORG \u2019s caselaw .","He then turned to consider the ORG \u2019s judgment in Al\u2011Khawaja and PERSON , citing an extract of the judgment which explained that in the absence of special circumstances arising where the absent witness failed to give oral evidence as a result of fear induced by the defendant , it was doubtful whether any counterbalancing measures would be sufficient to justify the introduction in evidence of an untested statement which was the sole or decisive basis for conviction . He observed :","\u201c CARDINAL . There are CARDINAL points to be made about this passage . The first is that the ORG appears to have accepted that the sole or decisive rule does not apply so as to preclude the reliance on the statement of a witness who refuses to testify because of fear induced by the defendant . The second is that the ORG did not completely close the door to the possibility of \u2018 counterbalancing ORG being sufficient to justify the introduction of a statement as sole or decisive evidence in other circumstances . The ORG made it quite plain , however , that compliance with the statutory regime under which the statements in the CARDINAL appeals had been admitted carried \u2018 limited weight\u2019 ... \u201d","However , having regard to the judgment of ORG and to the development of the \u201c sole or decisive rule \u201d in cases largely relating to civil law jurisdictions , Lord PERSON concluded that the DATE Act made the \u201c sole or decisive \u201d rule unnecessary in LANGUAGE criminal procedure . He considered that the safeguards it contained meant that if the CARDINAL Act were observed , there would be no breach of LAW ( d ) even if a conviction were based solely or to a decisive extent on absent witness - evidence . He therefore held :","\u201c CARDINAL . In these circumstances I have decided that it would not be right for this court to hold that the sole or decisive test should have been applied rather than the provisions of the CARDINAL Act , interpreted in accordance with their natural meaning . I believe that those provisions strike the right balance between the imperative that a trial must be fair and the interests of victims in particular and society in general that a criminal should not be immune from conviction where a witness , who has given critical evidence in a statement that can be shown to be reliable , dies or can not be called to give evidence for some other reason . In so concluding I have taken careful account of the GPE jurisprudence . I hope that in due course ORG may also take account of the reasons that have led me not to apply the sole or decisive test in this case . \u201d","As to the applicants\u2019 alternative arguments that , regardless of the application of the sole or decisive rule , the statements should not have been admitted , Lord PERSON relied on the findings of ORG , which he said had given the arguments \u201c careful consideration \u201d .","In a separate concurring opinion , Lord PERSON observed :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... Obviously , the more crucial the evidence is to the proof of guilt , the more scrupulous must the ORG be to ensure that it can be fairly adduced and is likely to be reliable . In this connection there can be no harm in using the concept of \u2018 sole or ORG so long as it is used broadly ... Understood and applied inflexibly , however , the concept would involve insoluble problems of detailed interpretation and application .","The better view may therefore be that no such absolute principle emerges from ORG judgment in PERSON and PERSON v GPE ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183266","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"BALANINA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","NORP The applicant is the mother of PERSON .","PERSON was detained in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL in GPE from DATE . On DATE she was transferred to ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the FAC \u201d ) on account of a suspected acute drug poisoning . On DATE she died . The death certificate of CARDINAL DATE listed double pneumonia as the cause of death .","Investigating authorities examined ex officio the circumstances of the death and on DATE refused to open a criminal investigation .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to provide her with her daughter \u2019s medical files and to answer the following questions :","\u201c Did PERSON contract any illness during her stay in [ the remand prison ] or did her existing diseases exacerbate ?","What medical institutions ... was PERSON transferred to for the examination and treatment ?","Was PERSON diagnosed with HIV , tuberculosis or any other contagious disease ? If so , which institution and when ? \u201d","On DATE the applicant \u2019s request was dismissed . ORG replied that her daughter \u2019s medical information remained confidential even after her death . In the absence of her daughter \u2019s prior authorisation the applicant only had a right to receive the death certificate . According to relevant domestic law provisions access to information requested by the applicant could be provided under limited conditions to investigators , courts or public prosecutors .","The applicant challenged that decision in court under LAW .","On DATE the ORG of Krasnodar upheld the decision of ORG and endorsed its reasoning .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant appeal . On DATE the applicant lodged her application with the ORG . Only subsequent to that , on DATE , she filed a first tier cassation appeal , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer , at the request of ORG , informed the ORG that he had decided not to submit a cassation appeal to ORG for \u201c it was not an effective remedy \u201d .","Relevant domestic law provisions have been summarised by ORG in the case of GPE v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180286","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF \u010cEFERIN v. SLOVENIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"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 and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicant , a practising defence lawyer , represented \u2012 initially before ORG and subsequently before the appellate courts \u2012 a defendant , ORG , who had been charged with CARDINAL murders committed on DATE . The offence carried a DATE prison sentence . During the first - instance criminal proceedings , CARDINAL certified sworn - in experts were appointed . A psychologist , PERSON , and a psychiatrist , ORG , were asked to assess the accountability of the defendant and the probability that he had committed the criminal offences of which he had been accused . An expert in forensic medicine , PERSON , was asked to prepare a report and testify , among other things , about the time of death of the victims , which was an important element in the accusation against the applicant \u2019s client . In his written and oral submissions the applicant continuously protested his client \u2019s innocence , pointing to what in his view was unreliable expert evidence , and requesting the exclusion of all evidence obtained by alleged violations of his client \u2019s human rights . It would also appear that at some point in the proceedings the applicant asked to be given the results of a lie - detector test performed during the police investigation , but his request was refused .","At the final hearing held on DATE V.R. replied to questions put by the applicant and the public prosecutor . Subsequently , the applicant requested that a new expert psychiatrist be appointed and that he should be assisted by a psychologist specialising in psychodiagnosis . Under the rules of LAW , a new expert witness should not be appointed unless there are contradictions or deficiencies in the available expert opinion or if reasonable doubt arises with regard to its correctness \u2013 the applicant therefore pointed out what he considered to be such deficiencies with respect to GPE and PERSON In his oral submissions , the applicant argued that PERSON was known to be inclined towards psychodynamics which , in the applicant \u2019s opinion , meant that \u201c he was not familiar with top - level means of diagnosis , which were to be used in the process of psychosocial diagnosis \u201d . He also stated that the psychodynamic psychotherapy used by the expert was not a scientific method and did not produce reliable data . The applicant further maintained in his speech that the results of the test used on his client were wholly contradictory and as such invalid . He gave examples from the expert opinion , such as its finding that the accused had little sense of reality but , at the same time , good general knowledge , and that while he was mentally rigid he was of above - average intelligence . The applicant continued by saying :","\u201c That this was just senseless extensive talking without any meaning , full of contradictions , is supported by the fact that the expert did not link his mental constructs with any concrete mental disorder , not least with the personality disorder in which he had proclaimed himself to be the expert . \u201d","The applicant then went on to say that none of the tests could lead to a finding of the narcissist characteristics mentioned by expert PERSON and that , in any case , narcissism was not part of the valid method of diagnosis . He then stated :","\u201c The opinions of both the psychiatrist and psychologist indicate the sad truth that in their professional weakness , both experts resorted to methods that did not form part of their professional practice . The psychiatrist used psychological methods which he absolutely did not understand and applied them only mechanically ; the psychologist applied outdated psychological methods from the stone age of psychology and unscientific psychodynamic concepts and thereby failed to obtain any useful results , therefore he resorted to the field of medicine ... \u201d","The applicant concluded by saying that the proposed new expert opinions would have proven that his client could not have committed the crimes with which he had been charged .","The court rejected the applicant \u2019s proposal to appoint new experts and concluded the evidence - taking procedure .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s client , ORG , was convicted of CARDINAL counts of murder and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . He supplemented it with further written submissions and on DATE attended a session and a hearing before the court . The applicant argued , inter alia , that the date of the murder could not have been CARDINAL DATE as established by expert , PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which meant that his client could have not committed it ; that the public prosecutor had not submitted the results of the lie - detector test which would have allegedly exculpated his client and the court had refused to obtain them from the NORP authorities ; and that his client had not been psychologically capable of committing the alleged crime . In his written and oral submissions before ORG , the applicant strongly criticised the work of the experts , public prosecutor and the court and used a number of expressions which ORG found amounted to contempt of court ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG issued a decision , fining the applicant CARDINAL NORP tolars ( SIT DATE approximately CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) for contempt of court for his statements given at the hearing of DATE regarding the expert witnesses , namely for making the following remarks , the translation of which has not been disputed by the parties : \u201c senseless talking \u201d ( neosmi\u0161ljeno nakladanje ) , \u201c mental constructs \u201d ( umotvori ) , \u201c professional weakness \u201d ( strokovna \u0161ibkost ) of the experts and saying that \u201c the psychiatrist used psychological methods which he absolutely did not understand \u201d ( psihiater si je pomagal s psiholo\u0161kimi metodami , PERSON razume ) and that \u201c the psychologist [ applied ] outdated psychological methods from the stone age of psychology and unscientific psychodynamic concepts \u201d ( psiholog z zastarelimi psiholo\u0161kimi metodami iz kamene psiholo\u0161ke dobe ter neznanstvenim psihodinamskim konceptom ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL above ) . The court took the view that the applicant had expressed insulting value judgments with regard to the expert witnesses\u2019 professional qualifications . Moreover , it considered that the professional competence of certified experts approved by ORG was not open to doubt . As regards the level of the fine imposed on the applicant , the court noted that it reflected the nature and seriousness of the offensive statements and the fact that he was a lawyer with many years\u2019 experience of representation in court proceedings .","The applicant appealed on DATE . He argued that he had not intended to insult anyone , and had only wanted to draw attention to the unacceptable way by which the opinions that could result in a potential DATE prison sentence had been prepared . He maintained that the impugned allegations were substantiated by the criticism expressed in the appeal . He pointed out that he did not have the required knowledge to substantiate the criticism but had been warned about the serious errors committed by the CARDINAL experts by those from the \u201c psychiatric and psychological profession \u201d . According to the applicant , the courts had to reflect on their practice of punishing lawyers , which was used by some judges to \u201c cover up \u201d their own unprofessional and incompetent work . He alleged that the punishment of defence counsels often had a chilling effect and thereby interfered with freedom of expression .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as unfounded , finding that his remarks \u201c constituted insulting value judgments which were damaging to the honour and reputation of both experts , since they expressed contempt and disrespect for the human dignity of other people and were as such unworthy of the profession practised by a lawyer \u201d . The court considered that it was obliged to protect its authority and the personal dignity of other participants in the criminal proceedings and pointed out that the applicant could have expressed his criticism in a number of legally acceptable ways . It also held that punishing a defence counsel did not constitute a serious interference with the constitutional right of freedom of expression , nor did it limit the constitutional right of defence . The court concluded that the lower court \u2019s decision was correct and did not restrict the rights of the defence \u201c as alleged by the appellant who obviously , lacking any self - criticism , still maintains that the allegations laid against the experts were justified \u201d .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal , in which he complained of a violation of LAW CARDINAL of the LAW , which guarantees freedom of expression . He argued that he had expressed the impugned opinions with the aim of providing the best possible defence to his client and that his punishment had not been necessary in a NORP society . Relying on the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-II ) , he argued that the critical comments had been directed solely at the unprofessional and inadequate work of the experts and had not insulted the court in any way . His criticism of the CARDINAL experts \u201c was fully justified and based on scientific fact \u201d . Furthermore , alternative less severe measures were available , such as a private prosecution for slander .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint . The most relevant parts of its decision are as follows ( as translated in the LANGUAGE version provided on ORG website ) :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... Certainly it has to be taken into account that the freedom of expression of a lawyer in his capacity as defence counsel in criminal proceedings serves the purpose of the defendant \u2019s right to a defence ... The circumstance that a defence counsel in judicial proceedings exercises his right to freedom of expression because and only because he represents a client is of primary importance for the review of the admissibility of the interference with the right of a defence counsel determined in the first paragraph of LAW [ freedom of expression ] , but this can not entail that because of this circumstance ORG would not review whether the ORG decisions on punishing the defence counsel violated his right to freedom of expression .","In accordance with the first paragraph of LAW , freedom of ... expression [ is ] guaranteed . The ORG protects the freedom of expression in the first paragraph of LAW ...","...","The duty of the courts in general and the court deciding on the merits of the case is to direct proceedings in such a manner so as to ensure the proper conduct of the parties and above all the fairness of the trial DATE rather than to examine in a subsequent trial the appropriateness of the party \u2019s statements in the courtroom However , this does not entail that the defence counsel \u2019s freedom of expression in criminal proceedings should be unlimited . Due to the fact that a defence counsel takes part in judicial proceedings and that his right to freedom of expression is intended for the protection of the rights of others , it is limited to a greater extent than the right to freedom of expression of any other individual in a public space may be limited . A defence counsel is namely limited by the fact that he participates in proceedings that are [ formalised ] and as such conducted in a rational manner , as well as by his professional ethics . A defence counsel may express strong and sharp criticism , however his argumentation in protecting the interests of his clients must remain within the range of reasonable argumentation , and there is no room for insults charged with emotion . It is understandable that in cases of defending a defendant charged with a grave criminal offence for which a severe penalty is prescribed , the tolerance threshold which may be allowed by the courts may be higher than in other cases , however , the defence counsel may not cross the outer boundaries of this tolerance . If he does cross them , it is proper that the court protects other values , i.e. confidence in the judiciary and the good reputation and authority of the judiciary , which ensures that the public respects the courts and has confidence that the courts are able to perform the role they have in a state governed by the rule of law . Protecting the authority of the judiciary includes the notion that the courts are the proper forum for the settlement of legal disputes and for the determination of a person \u2019s guilt or innocence regarding a criminal charge , whereby it is important that the public at large have respect for and confidence in the courts\u2019 capacity to fulfil that function . The above - mentioned is a constitutionally admissible reason to limit the defence counsel \u2019s right to freedom of expression . ORG has already [ emphasised ] in LAW . U - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL that the institution of a punishment for insulting submissions is not the primary way to ensure the good reputation and authority of the judiciary , it is , however , an additional ( and subordinate ) tool which ensures the protection of the good reputation of the courts in situations in which confidence in the work of the judiciary is undermined by degrading criticism and [ generalised ] , and from the viewpoint of the protection of rights in an individual case , unnecessary attacks on the work of the courts .","The complainant used the expressions mentioned in the first paragraph of the reasoning of this decision while defending a defendant who was charged with murder , for which the prescribed sentence is DATE of imprisonment . The expressions entailed criticism of the expert witnesses who provided expert opinions in the criminal proceedings as permanently sworn - in experts . On the basis of [ section ] CARDINAL of LAW , expert witnesses are engaged when the determination or assessment of a material fact call for the findings and opinion of a specialist possessing the necessary expertise for the task . ORG No . U - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , dated DATE ( ORG , No . CARDINAL and ORG ) , [ emphasised ] that expert testimony is not only evidence , that is , a source for learning of relevant facts , but that an expert witness is an assistant to the court in exercising its function . The requirement that expert witnesses must be impartial follows from this , as otherwise parties to criminal proceedings would not be in an equal position . In view of the position that expert witnesses have as assistants to the courts in exercising their function , their authority must be protected in the same manner as the authority of the judiciary . This is a constitutionally admissible aim for which it was admissible to limit the complainant \u2019s right to freedom of expression . Therefore , ORG can not accept the complainant \u2019s view that a situation in which he directs insulting expressions towards the court is different than a situation in which such expressions are directed towards expert witness .","The courts\u2019 assessment that the complainant expressed contemptuous criticism towards the expert witnesses is supported by reasons and is not unsound . The complainant did not merely express sharp criticism of the expert opinions , but his insulting remarks entailed personal disparagement of the expert witnesses as experts . The expressed contemptuous criticism is beyond the reasonable argumentation by which the defence counsel could justify his motion that new expert witnesses be called . Therefore , it can not be accepted that such criticism could be justified for the purpose of exercising the defendant \u2019s right to a defence as determined in LAW . Contemptuous criticism of an expert witness as a person who has been called to provide an expert opinion could even threaten a fair trial in criminal proceedings . ORG has already [ emphasised ] in LAW . U - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL that it is of exceptional importance that parties to proceedings [ realise ] that insulting sharp speech before the court does not prove that the defence counsel has provided quality representation . The quality defence provided by a defence counsel can also not be based on expressing contemptuous criticism which shows contempt for expert witnesses , instead , the defence must be directed towards a criticism of their opinions provided in the individual proceedings , and supported by arguments and reason . Therefore , it can not be expected from the courts that they should , within the boundaries of tolerance , also allow insults for which the courts reasonably assessed that they showed contempt for the expert witnesses in their capacity as expert assistants to the court . Therefore , the interference with the complainant \u2019s right to freedom of expression which the court made by punishing the defence counsel for the expressed insults with a fine , is not disproportional .","... ORG did not have to address the question whether by using the above - mentioned expressions the complainant had fulfilled all the statutorily determined elements of the criminal offence determined in LAW , as this was not the subject of the challenged judicial decisions . ... In Decision No . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG already [ emphasised ] that the possibility of independent criminal protection is not an appropriate substitute and can not serve the purpose for which the legislature enacted the possibility that insulting submissions be punished . ORG reiterates that the protection which the legislature defined in the first paragraph of [ section ] CARDINAL of LAW is not intended to protect individual expert witnesses but to protect the good reputation and authority of the judiciary as a whole . The reasons why also the good reputation and authority of expert witnesses as impartial assistants to courts is a part of the protected value has been outlined in paragraph CARDINAL of the reasoning of this decision .","... Therefore , the constitutional complaint is not substantiated and ORG had to dismiss it . \u201d","The Constitutional Court reached the above decision by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL . Judge PERSON wrote a separate concurring opinion . Judge PERSON , who voted against , wrote an extensive dissenting opinion . He argued that the applicant \u2019s conduct had been judged too harshly by the majority , who had not approached the case correctly . In particular , ORG had supported the finding of no violation by the fact that the impugned statements had been given during court proceedings , although \u2012 in his view \u2012 this should have weighed in favour of the applicant . Furthermore , proper attention had not been given in the reasoning to the nature of the proceedings , which had been criminal not civil , the target , which had been the experts and not the court , and the seriousness of the criminal offence the client had been risking \u2013 an offence carrying a potential DATE prison sentence . In this connection , the dissenting judge argued that ORG should have taken account of the principles arising in GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL-XIII ) , especially those relating to the role of defence lawyers in criminal trials . He pointed out that a public prosecutor could not be fined for contempt of court and that less invasive measures were available to the court which were applicable to both defence lawyers and public prosecutors . In his opinion , such measures might constitute interruption of the speech in question , a formal warning , and the informing of the appropriate professional association or body . Lastly , he pointed to the danger that the decision in the present case might have a discouraging effect on other defence lawyers , particularly given that the penalising of expressions such as \u201c professional weakness \u201d had been considered justified by ORG .","According to a letter by ORG of DATE , prepared for the purposes of the present proceedings , the applicant paid the first fine ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) on DATE .","On DATE ORG issued a decision fining the applicant SIT CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for contempt of court for his statements in the appeal proceedings regarding the expert witnesses , ORG and the first - instance court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court found that the following remarks of the applicant , the translation of which has not been disputed by the parties , amounted to contempt of court ( taken from the decision ) :","\u201c As regards ORG :","\u2018 ... it can be concluded that someone \u2013 a person who was aware of the exculpatory nature of this documentation for the defendant \u2013 hid this documentation ... \u2019","\u2018 ... it is permissible for a prosecutor to hide crucial evidence which could release the defendant from his liability ...","As regards the expert psychologist ... [ PERSON ] ... :","\u2018 ... he had intentionally overlooked any information pointing to another possibility ... \u2019","\u2018 ... on the other hand , I , as a layman , consider this to be a reflection of possible narcissism on the part of the expert himself ... \u2019","As regards the forensic expert psychiatrist ... [ ORG ] ... :","\u2018 ... from the perspective of forensic ethics , by which the forensic expert is bound , such a way of working represents an intentional violation of those ethics , giving statements without any scientifically based value ... \u2019","\u2018 ... could be seen from the qualified ( ab)use ( ( zlo)rabe ) of the experiments , which the expert ... \u2019","\u2018 ... as he can not have the slightest idea ( ne more imeti najmanj\u0161ega pojma ) as to how far normality extends and when pathology starts ... \u2019","\u2018 ... commenting on or describing handwriting analysis amounts to quackery ( je na nivoju \u0161arlatanstva ) ... \u2019","\u2018 ... the psychiatrist either does not know all this or he is narcissistically ignoring it ... \u2019","\u2018 ... in this case we can talk of a typical abuse of a test , most likely a pirate version . In view of the fact that this abuse of the test took place in proceedings before a court \u2013 a judicial institution \u2013 this is almost grotesque ... \u2019","\u2018 ... the conclusion is almost dilettantish ... \u2019","\u2018 ... The expert did not show the slightest scientific doubt ( niti trohe prisotnosti znanstvenega dvoma ) , but instead focused all his energy on defending his own infallibility , which is extremely inappropriate for any expert , and for one who is \u201c accepting \u201d the expert skills ( \u201c sprejemnika\u201dizvedenske ve\u0161\u010dine ) it is dangerous ... \u2019","As regards the forensic expert ... [ J.B. ] , the head of the forensic medicine institute :","\u2018 ... and when such negligence ( malomarnost ) by experts in preparing their opinions , resulting in a [ thirty]-year prison sentence , justifiably upsets me ... \u2019","\u2018 ... that the negligence ( \u0161lamparija ) of this expert is immense ... \u2019","As regards the court :","\u2018 ... the judicial farce referred to is of course not over ... \u2019 \u201d","Of the above , the second of the statements referring to the public prosecutor and the statements referring to expert PERSON were expressed orally at ORG session ; the remainder were given in writing .","NORP In providing its reasoning for the decision , ORG found that the applicant had expressed insulting value judgments which had shown contempt for the participants in the proceedings and the court and had had nothing to do with freedom of expression . The court also noted that the applicant had previously been offensive within the same set of proceedings and that therefore , even from a subjective perspective , the offensive statements had to have been made intentionally . As regards the level of the fine imposed on the applicant , the court noted that it reflected the nature and seriousness of the offensive statements , the fact that he was a lawyer with many years\u2019 experience of representation in court proceedings and the fact that he had previously made similar offensive statements during the first - instance proceedings . Lastly , the court decided to inform ORG of the outcome of the proceedings .","NORP The applicant appealed against this decision on DATE . He argued that his statements had not been offensive , given their context . As regards the criticism expressed against the public prosecutor and the court , he referred to the arguments of the defence concerning the undisclosed results of the lie - detector test . Among other things , he stated that \u201c such a way of evidence taking [ was ] mystic and [ had ] no connection with the modern trial \u201d . As regards expert PERSON , the applicant stated that he had \u201c directed all his intellectual abilities at defending his unprofessional opinion \u201d . The applicant further referred to the objections made by the defence , which had allegedly been ignored by PERSON , and stated that he , \u201c as a layman , [ could not ] consider such conduct to be anything else than a reflection of possible narcissism on the part of the expert himself \u201d . Regarding the criticism of expert ORG , the applicant referred to the examination of this expert during the trial , to the statements he had given and which , in the applicant \u2019s view , showed that ORG had been using methods which had not been within his competence , and had claimed to have been using a particular test \u201c without ever seeing the original ... in his life \u201d . The applicant also argued that ORG had not shown \u201c the slightest scientific doubt but had focused all his energy on defending his own infallibility \u201d . As to expert PERSON , the applicant stressed that his comments had related to ORG \u2019s assessment of the time of death DATE the air temperature at the time of the GPE death had been an important , but disregarded , factor . In the applicant \u2019s opinion , the assessment of the time of death had been done carelessly by ORG , who had kept changing his mind on the issue . The applicant pointed out that the time of death had been a crucial element in the trial and could have led to an acquittal if assessed properly . He concluded that \u201c such expert opinions [ were ] a catastrophe for the NORP judiciary and very dangerous for its citizens \u201d .","On DATE the ORG \u2012 sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , CARDINAL of whom was GPE \u2012 dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . ORG noted that the courts were under obligation to protect their authority and the dignity of the participants in the proceedings . While section CARDINAL of LAW provided for disciplinary sanctions , it could not be interpreted as allowing sanctioning of every inappropriate expression . Instead , the courts were called to take into account all the circumstances and decide whether , on balance , the insult had been such as to require a disciplinary sanction . ORG stressed that the courts had to show particular restraint and caution in deciding on a disciplinary sanction against a defence counsel , because in such cases not only was his or her right to freedom of expression at stake but also his or her role in defending the accused person in criminal proceedings . It noted that a defence counsel might , therefore , be critical of the ORG prosecutor and other participants in the proceedings , including the court , but even this rule did not apply in absolute terms . If a defence counsel conducted his defence in criminal proceedings by insulting or humiliating other participants , by accusing them of personal dishonesty or bias or of lacking the essential professional capacities , personal qualities or similar , or if he or she was also insulting to the court , his or her conduct was deemed unacceptable and therefore had to be subject to a sanction by a fine pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW . ORG concurred with ORG that the case at hand involved insulting value judgments and expressions of contempt and disrespect for other participants in the proceedings and the court . ORG referred to the applicant \u2019s statements and examined their semantic meanings and upheld the view that he \u201c had expressed contempt for the court experts , not only regarding their professional abilities but also by attributing to them negative personal characteristics , thereby expressing insulting value judgments \u201d . ORG also pointed out that the applicant had had the right to challenge the correctness of the court \u2019s procedural decisions , but should have done so in a legally acceptable manner . ORG also found that ORG had provided reasonable grounds for the amount of the fine imposed .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal in which he complained of a violation of LAW CARDINAL of the LAW , which guarantees freedom of expression . He argued that his criticism had been essentially directed against the experts and the public prosecutor and not against the court . Although the participants in question might have preferred not to hear his opinion , he had had to express it for the benefit of the defendant . In the applicant \u2019s view , the court had to take into account the importance of freedom of expression in the process of a criminal trial , which was one of the most important mechanisms of ORG repression . He also argued that he had expressed acceptable criticism which , though presented in a slightly illustrative manner , had not been insulting to the experts but instead had challenged the credibility of their opinions . He argued that he had expressed the impugned opinions with the aim of providing the best possible defence to his client and that his punishment had not been necessary in a NORP society . Relying on ORG ( cited above ) , he argued that the critical comments had been directed solely at the unprofessional and inappropriate work of the experts and had not insulted the court in any way .","On DATE , at an administrative session , ORG decided that Judge PERSON ( who was not present ) would not sit it the cases concerning ORG decisions in which he had taken part , or those in which his wife , Judge PERSON , had taken part .","On DATE an order was issued by the secretary general of ORG for Judge PERSON \u2019s removal from the \u201c consideration and decision - making \u201d in the applicant \u2019s case .","On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG issued a decision refusing to accept the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint for consideration on the merits as , in its view , it did not meet the criteria set out in paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINALb of LAW . CARDINAL judges , Judge PERSON and Judge PERSON , voted in favour of the dismissal while Judge PERSON voted against it . It was also noted that as the panel had not been unanimous , the decision had been submitted to the remaining ORG judges pursuant to section DATE of LAW . However , as the CARDINAL votes in favour of examination had nevertheless not been obtained , the constitutional complaint was rejected .","On DATE ORG sent to the applicant a corrigendum of its decision of DATE , noting that Judge PERSON had not been submitted a decision as he had withdrawn from the case . The explanation to the corrigendum noted that after being requested by the ORG Attorney to send information for the purposes of the proceedings before this ORG , the Constitutional Court upon looking into the file had discovered a clerical error , namely the omission to indicate in the decision sent to the applicant that Judge PERSON had not taken part in the proceedings in question .","According to a letter by ORG of DATE , prepared for the purposes of the present proceedings , there was no record of the applicant having paid the second fine of SIT CARDINAL ( equal to approximately ORG DATE see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167798","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF IVANNIKOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicant paid a visit to his friend PERSON . who worked as a guard at a parking lot . On DATE at CARDINAL a.m. PERSON . , while making a round of the parking lot , discovered PERSON who was severely beaten up and was lying on the ground . PERSON . called the police and the ambulance . The ambulance doctor PERSON , when arrived , pronounced N. dead .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office opened an investigation into ORG \u2019s death . On several occasions it was suspended due to the investigator \u2019s failure to identify the perpetrator . Both the applicant and PERSON . were questioned as witnesses .","On DATE the investigator questioned PERSON . who submitted that in DATE PERSON . had told him about the events of DATE implicating the applicant in ORG \u2019s death . According to PERSON . , the applicant \u2019s family had put pressure on him in order to make him recant . He was then granted anonymity and referred to in the case - files materials as ORG","On DATE the prosecutor questioned PERSON . granting him anonymity . According to PERSON . , on CARDINAL DATE N. showed up at the guard \u2019s shack . He wanted to take a shortcut through the parking lot . PERSON . refused to open the gate . The applicant swore at PERSON saying that he would show N. the way out and would beat him up . The applicant left together with ORG Then he returned and told PERSON . that he had beaten ORG on the stairs and that ORG had fallen down . According to the applicant , he had overdone with the beatings . PERSON . went to look at ORG who was still alive . It took PERSON . some time to call the ambulance . The applicant asked him to keep the incident secret .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter . He remained in custody pending investigation . On an unspecified date he was charged with murder","On DATE the ORG opened the trial . The applicant pleaded not guilty . The trial judge questioned the applicant \u2019s mother PERSON who submitted that PERSON . had told her that policemen had threatened him to make him testify against the applicant . PERSON . \u2019s anonymity was lifted and he also testified in court . He confirmed that he had falsely accused the applicant due to the pressure put on him by policemen .","On DATE the prosecutor asked the court to question ORG in the conditions excluding visual observation of the witness to the parties to the proceedings . He further explained that the decision to grant anonymity to the said witness had been taken in the course of the preliminary investigation of the case in order to ensure his safety and security of person . The trial judge left the courtroom and questioned ORG in the presence of the trial secretary in a separate room . ORG reiterated his earlier statement made to the police which was similar with PERSON . \u2019s testimony . Then the judge and the secretary returned to the courtroom where the judge read out ORG \u2019s testimony . The prosecutor , the applicant and his lawyer were allowed to put questions to the witness through the trial secretary . In response to the questions put by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , ORG explained he had fear of the applicant \u2019s relatives who put pressure on him .","On DATE the court heard I. , a friend of the applicant and PERSON . She submitted that she had been in the guard \u2019s shack with PERSON . on DATE . When ORG had showed up , the applicant had not been there yet .","The trial judge also heard , upon the applicant \u2019s request , PERSON and PERSON . , the applicant \u2019s relatives , and NORP , PERSON . \u2019s mother , who claimed that PERSON . had told them about the police putting pressure on him .","The other witnesses who testified during the trial were ( CARDINAL ) NORP , ORG . and PERSON , who had seen PERSON on DATE and confirmed that he had been in an inebriated state on DATE , ( CARDINAL ) PERSON , the ambulance doctor who had pronounced ORG and ( CARDINAL ) police officer PERSON . , who had questioned PERSON . in the course of investigation . The court also reviewed the crime scene investigation report and the forensic medical report which indicated that ORG \u2019s death resulted from a cranio - cerebral injury .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of manslaughter and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court based its findings on PERSON . \u2019s testimony given by him as an anonymous witness in the course of the investigation . As regards PERSON . \u2019s testimony during the trial , the court considered it unreliable , in view of PERSON . \u2019s friendship with the applicant . The court took also into account the fact that the inquiry conducted by the prosecutor \u2019s office in this connection found no case to answer against the policemen who had allegedly put pressure on PERSON . It further relied on ORG testimony . The court did not consider NORP , PERSON . and S. as credible witnesses due to them being the applicant \u2019s relatives or friends .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s conviction on appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178399","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"R\u0102U AND G\u00c2LEA v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicants , PERSON ( \u201c the first applicant \u201d ) and PERSON PERSON ( \u201c the second applicant \u201d ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The first applicant was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The second applicant was represented by PERSON , a non - lawyer . On DATE the President of the Section had decided to give PERSON leave to act as representative of the second applicant pursuant to Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of ORG .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicants , who were both retired , instituted proceedings against ORG seeking the annulment of a document signed by the second applicant during the communist regime , donating a house and its appurtenant plot of land located in the centre of GPE to GPE .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicants\u2019 action . It held that the city of GPE , represented by its mayor , had locus standi because it was the current owner of the property . Also , given that the applicants had been forced to donate the property , the donation agreement was null and void and therefore the proceedings initiated by them were not time - barred . ORG appealed against the judgment .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed ORG appeal and quashed in part the first - instance court \u2019s judgment . It held that the city of ORG , represented by its mayor , did not have locus standi because it had not been a party to the donation agreement signed by the second applicant . The donation had been made to ORG . In accordance with the relevant domestic legislation , the ORG was legally represented by ORG . Moreover , the applicants had not proved their allegation that the city of GPE was the current owner of the donated property . The court upheld the remainder of the first - instance court \u2019s judgment . The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment .","On DATE ORG noted that following its express request , the applicants had stated that the value of the donated immovable property was MONEY ( RON ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . Relying on the relevant domestic legislation on stamp duty , the court established that the applicants had to pay PERSON ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in stamp duty in order to have their appeal on points of law examined .","On DATE the applicants , referring to LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , challenged the way in which the appellate court had calculated the stamp duty . They asked the court to re - examine the amount of stamp duty due and to order the payment of a sum which represented CARDINAL of the stamp duty they had paid in order to have the case examined by the firstinstance court . They argued that the second - instance court had not calculated the amount of stamp duty due on the basis of the property \u2019s value , even though they had declared the same value for the property before that court as well . Moreover , the first - instance court had established that the stamp duty due in order to have their case examined had been that required for cases with a non - pecuniary object , and that therefore they were required to pay CARDINAL of the amount paid to the first - instance court in order to have their case examined by the last - instance court . Furthermore , they had initiated proceedings merely seeking the annulment of a donation agreement in respect of an immovable property ; the proceedings would not have resulted in an immediate return of the property to its rightful owners or in an immediate increase in the value of their estate . They also argued that the declared value of the immovable property which had formed the basis for the calculation of the stamp duty was small compared with the actual market value of the property . Given that they were both retired persons , it was impossible for them to pay such a high amount in stamp duty . Consequently , by calculating the stamp duty based on the value of the property , the court had denied them access to justice and prevented them from recovering their home .","On DATE ORG , sitting in chambers and composed of a different bench of judges from that which had examined the merits of the applicants\u2019 case , dismissed the applicants\u2019 challenge by a final interlocutory judgment . It held that given the object of the proceedings initiated by the applicants , Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL was applicable in their case . Consequently , the amount of stamp duty due had to be calculated based on the value of the immovable property , since the object of the applicants\u2019 action was the annulment of a donation agreement in respect of an immovable property . Given the value of the property stated by the applicants , the amount of stamp duty payable by them had been calculated correctly .","By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law and upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . Having noted the ORG statement that they were unable to pay the required stamp duty , it held that they had failed to fulfil their lawful duty to pay the aforementioned fee and that their appeal on points of law could therefore not be examined .","According to the evidence submitted by the applicants to the ORG in DATE , the first applicant had a taxable DATE income of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) and the second applicant had a taxable DATE income of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The first and the second applicants\u2019 net DATE income for the same period was RON CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and PERSON CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , respectively .","NORP The relevant provisions of the former NORP Code of Civil Procedure , in force at the time when the applicants initiated the proceedings seeking the annulment of the donation agreement before the first - instance court , read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Legal aid includes :","- the granting of an exemption , a reduction , an instalment plan or a postponement for the payment of stamp duty ... ;","...","Legal aid may be granted at any time during the trial , in full or in part . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . In the circumstances provided for under LAW ) , an application for legal aid shall be made to the court in writing ... in accordance with the law \u201d .","\u201c CARDINAL . The application [ for legal aid ] shall include ... written proof of the applicant \u2019s income ...","The court shall examine the application and may request clarifications and evidence from the parties or written information from the competent authorities ...","The court shall examine the application in chambers without summoning the parties , and deliver an interlocutory judgment . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The interlocutory judgment mentioned in LAW ... is not amenable to any form of appeal . \u201d","The relevant provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on stamp duty , in force at the time when the applicants initiated the proceedings seeking the annulment of the donation agreement before the first - instance court , read as follows :","\u201c Actions and claims ... lodged before the courts ... shall be subject to stamp duty ... the calculation of which , except for in circumstances provided for by law , may differ , depending on whether the object of the application can be valued financially . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Actions and claims ... lodged before the courts [ in respect of matters ] which can be valued financially are subject to the following stamp duty :","...","( g ) if the object of the action or claim is valued at DATE , the stamp duty is ORG CARDINAL plus PERCENT of the amount which is CARDINAL ;","...","Stamp duty is calculated on the basis of the value of the object of the action or claim , as stated in the application ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Actions or claims ... lodged before the courts [ in respect of matters ] which can not be valued financially are subject to the following stamp duty :","...","( a)CARDINAL RON CARDINAL for an application seeking the annulment ... of an official document ;","... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Appeals or appeals on points of law lodged against court judgments are subject to stamp duty of PERCENT of :","- the stamp duty payable for ... an application [ in respect of matters ] which can not be valued financially and which was examined by a first - instance court ;","- the stamp duty payable for the contested sum in the case of an application [ in respect of matters ] which can be valued financially ;","... \u201d","\u201c All other actions and claims ... [ in respect of matters ] which can not be valued financially are subject to stamp duty of RON CARDINAL , except for those lawfully exempted from stamp duty . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The amount of the stamp duty payable is set by the court ...","An applicant has DATE from the date on which the court calculated the sum due or notified the applicant of the sum due to ask the same court to re - examine the way in which the stamp duty was calculated .","The request for re - examination is heard ... in chambers by a different bench of judges and without summoning the parties .","If the request for re - examination is allowed , the stamp duty is returned in full or in part , as the case may be . \u201d","\u201c ...","If ... during the trial there are elements which determine a higher stamp duty , the court shall ask the applicant to pay the relevant amount ...","...","A court called upon to examine an appeal or an appeal on points of law ... shall order the applicant to pay the relevant stamp duty if it notes that the lawful amount of the fee was not paid during the previous stages of the proceedings . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . A court may grant an exemption , a reduction , an instalment plan or a postponement for the payment of stamp duty in accordance with the conditions set out in Articles CARDINAL of GPE ... \u201d","Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL on legal aid in civil matters , which entered into force on DATE , repealed LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and LAW of the former ORG . Subsequently , Government Ordinance no . ORG , which entered into force on DATE , reinstated and amended LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in so far as natural persons could be granted exemptions , reductions and postponements of the payment of stamp duty in accordance with the conditions set out in Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . The relevant provisions of the latter ordinance , at the time when the applicants challenged the way the stamp duty had been calculated , read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Public legal aid may be granted in the following ways :","...","d ) exemptions , reductions , instalment plans or postponements in respect of court taxes prescribed by law , including those payable during the enforcement phase of the proceedings . \u201d","\u201c Public legal aid may be granted , separately or cumulatively , in any of the forms provided for in LAW , but their DATE amount shall not exceed the equivalent before tax of CARDINAL minimum - wage DATE salaries ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Any person whose average net DATE income for each family member in DATE prior to his \/ her application was less than RON CARDINAL may be granted public legal aid in any of the forms provided for in LAW . In such circumstances , the sums that represent public legal aid shall be paid in full by the ORG .","If the average net DATE income for each family member in DATE prior to an application was DATE , the ORG shall pay PERCENT of the sums that represent public legal aid .","If the estimated or known costs of the proceedings are of a nature that could limit an applicant \u2019s access to justice , public legal aid may be granted also in other circumstances , proportionate to the needs of the applicant . \u201d","\u201c Any occasional income , such as wages , rents , retainers ... and other similar income , shall be taken into account in establishing a person \u2019s income ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . An application for legal aid shall be lodged with the court which is competent to examine the merits of the main proceedings ... \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . Legal aid may be granted anytime during the trial ... and shall be maintained for the duration of the procedural stage for which it was requested .","The application for legal aid is exempted from court fees . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The application for legal aid shall be made in writing and shall include information ... on the financial situation of the applicant and his family . Proof of the applicant \u2019s and his family \u2019s income , as well as of their financial obligations , shall be attached to the application ...","...","The court may ask for any clarifications or proof from the parties and for written information from the competent authorities . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . The court shall examine the application for legal aid in chambers , without summoning the parties , and deliver a reasoned interlocutory judgment .","The interested party has DATE from the notification of the interlocutory judgment to apply for a review of the court \u2019s decision if the application for legal aid was dismissed .","A different bench of judges shall review the decision in chambers and shall deliver a final interlocutory judgment . \u201d","\u201c CARDINAL . If the court fees payable are double the net DATE income of the applicant \u2019s family for DATE prior to his or her application for legal aid and if the court does not consider appropriate a more favorable form of legal aid , an instalment plan shall be set up in such a way that the DATE rate due shall not be CARDINAL of the net DATE income of the applicant \u2019s family .","The instalment plan may be extended for a maximum of DATE . \u201d","On DATE ORG and Justice ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) delivered a judgment on an appeal in the interests of the law in order to clarify divergent domestic practice concerning , inter alia , the pecuniary or non - pecuniary nature of actions seeking , for example , the annulment of official documents such as donation agreements . It held that this type of action was pecuniary in nature . The judgment of ORG was published in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE .","Government Ordinance no . ORG entered into force on DATE and amended PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , including paragraph CARDINAL of LAW . The new paragraph CARDINAL applies to actions and claims seeking the annulment of official documents concerning pecuniary matters .","Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which entered into force on DATE , confirmed the provisions of Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL with certain amendments . However , the amendment made by Government Ordinance no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL to LAW no . DATE was maintained .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the former NORP Civil Procedure Code in force at the time when the applicants initiated the proceedings seeking the annulment of the donation agreement provided that judgments delivered in the interests of the law had no impact on judgments which had already been delivered or on the situation of the parties involved in those proceedings . However , any solution adopted by ORG was binding on the domestic courts ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182448","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF HOTI v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is of NORP origin .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s parents fled GPE as political refugees and settled in GPE , which was at the relevant time an autonomous province of GPE . They were granted refugee status in the former ORG ( \u201c the SFRY \u201d ) . The ORG was a federal ORG composed of CARDINAL republics : GPE , GPE , GPE ( with CARDINAL autonomous provinces , GPE and GPE ) , GPE , GPE and GPE .","The applicant was born in GPE soon after his GPE arrival to the SFRY . In DATE the applicant , at DATE , came from GPE to GPE . He settled in ORG , where he has lived ever since .","The applicant has no family in GPE . Since moving to GPE , his parents have died in GPE . For a while , the applicant maintained a relationship with his CARDINAL sisters , who lived in GPE and GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE below ) . In DATE he declared to the domestic authorities that his only close relative was his sister in GPE , with whom he had lost contact ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP In DATE the applicant applied for a permanent residence permit to the relevant police station in ORG .","He was instructed by the ORG police that he should regularise his status in GPE , where he had been officially registered . However , as the applicant refused to do that , he was provided with a temporary residence permit in GPE for the period DATE and DATE , pending the determination of his request for a permanent residence permit .","At the relevant time , the applicant possessed a certificate issued by ORG authorities in GPE in DATE indicating that he had been an NORP national with the status of a foreigner holding a temporary residence permit in the SFRY . The certificate also indicated that the applicant \u2019s parents had been nationals of GPE living in the SFRY as refugees .","On DATE ORG of the then GPE informed the ORG police that the applicant \u2019s application for a permanent residence permit in the SFRY had been refused in accordance with the government policy according to which NORP refugees should be instructed to apply for the SFRY citizenship .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was interviewed by the ORG police in connection with ORG instruction . He explained that he had been granted a temporary residence permit by the relevant authorities in GPE which was valid until DATE . He also stated that he had attempted to travel to GPE but had not had a valid visa and had thus been refused entry . At the time he was waiting for a visa for GPE . The applicant further explained that he hoped to be granted a permanent residence permit but that he was not interested in acquiring SFRY citizenship as that would not provide him with any security . He considered that by acquiring SFRY citizenship , he should be granted a flat or a house in private ownership just as one had been granted to his father when he had come from GPE as a refugee . However , as he would not be granted any property , he refused to apply for SFRY citizenship .","On DATE the ORG police informed ORG that the applicant had refused SFRY citizenship . The report further explained that the applicant was employed in a garage of a private entrepreneur , PERSON , and that he had several times contacted the PERSON police insisting that he be granted permanent residence . The report also indicated that according to the available information the applicant had secured a temporary residence permit from the authorities in GPE until DATE .","A further report of the ORG police to ORG of CARDINAL DATE indicated that the applicant was still living in ORG and working in a restaurant . As his temporary residence permit issued by the authorities in GPE had expired , he had been instructed to regularise his status . This report also contains a handwritten note dated DATE according to which the applicant had come to the police station and presented an identity card for a foreigner with temporary residence status in the SFRY issued by the relevant authorities in GPE and valid until CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) declared GPE independent of the SFRY , and on DATE all ties between GPE and the SFRY were severed .","Meanwhile , war broke out in GPE and the applicant was called up for mandatory civilian service with the local authorities . On DATE the ORG police issued a permit to the applicant to move freely within the region of GPE in order to perform his mandatory civilian service . The permit was valid until DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied for NORP citizenship with the ORG police . He submitted that he had been living at his current address in GPE since DATE , and that he had been a refugee from GPE . He also explained that he was working in a garage of a private entrepreneur , Z.A.","On DATE the ORG police forwarded the applicant \u2019s application to ORG ( ORG unutarnjih poslova PERSON hereinafter \u201c the NORP \u201d ) with a suggestion that it be granted .","On DATE the ORG instructed the ORG police that they had failed to provide a report concerning the applicant \u2019s personal circumstances and information on his residence in GPE .","In connection with the above application , on DATE the applicant was interviewed by ORG . In his interview , the applicant explained that he had NORP nationality as he had been a refugee from that country . He further explained that he had come to ORG in DATE where he had first worked as a waiter until DATE . DATE he had worked as a car mechanic for a private entrepreneur , PERSON , and since DATE for Z.A. During the war he had worked as a car mechanic for the police and the army . He was not married and did not have children . He had a sister living in GPE and CARDINAL living in GPE . He also had a brother living in GPE and another brother living at an unknown place in GPE . His parents lived in GPE .","On DATE the ORG police informed ORG obtained information explaining that the applicant had lived in ORG as a foreigner since DATE and that he had NORP citizenship .","In DATE the national intelligence agency informed the ORG police that there was nothing preventing the applicant from being allowed to acquire NORP citizenship .","According to the available information , the file concerning the applicant \u2019s application also contained a birth certificate issued by the SFRY authorities in GPE on DATE according to which the applicant did not have any nationality .","On DATE the ORG issued an assurance that the applicant would obtain NORP citizenship if he obtained a release or provided evidence that he had renounced his NORP citizenship within DATE . In its reasoning to this assurance , ORG explained that the applicant had met all the necessary conditions to be granted the assurance and thus NORP citizenship . It also referred to section CARDINALa of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Upon the expiry of the above - noted period of DATE , on DATE the applicant lodged a new application for NORP citizenship with the Novska Police . He explained that he was a national of GPE and that he had been living in GPE since DATE . He was asking for NORP citizenship in order to obtain legal certainty of his position . He stressed that he was ready to renounce his current citizenship and that he had nowhere to go back to in GPE . He also explained that he was employed as a car mechanic .","Meanwhile , the applicant had obtained a permit for extended residence of a foreigner ( he was considered to be an NORP citizen ) from the ORG police for the period DATE and DATE , which was first extended until DATE and then DATE . He was also granted a driving licence on DATE valid until DATE .","In DATE the intelligence agency informed the ORG police that there was no bar to the applicant \u2019s acquiring NORP citizenship .","A report on the applicant \u2019s personal circumstances prepared by the ORG police on DATE indicated that he had lived in GPE since DATE . The report contains a statement that the applicant had an NORP passport issued in GPE ( then part of GPE ) and that he had allegedly disappeared from his place of residence during the war in GPE . It also suggests that the applicant socialised with individuals of similar characteristics who were involved in trading of grey - market goods and repairing cars . Moreover , the report alleged that the applicant had never tried to regularise his status in GPE . The report also indicated that the applicant \u2019s parents had died and that he had CARDINAL sisters , who lived in GPE and GPE .","On DATE the ORG police informed the Ministry that the applicant had had a registered residence in GPE since DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for NORP citizenship on the grounds that he did not have a registered residence in GPE for an uninterrupted period of DATE as required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant challenged the above decision before ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) . He argued that he had had a registered residence in ORG since DATE and that his personal circumstances had been well known to the ORG police . He also stressed that he was in employment and that he possessed an identity card and a driving licence issued by the ORG police .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s administrative action on the grounds that there was no evidence that he had had a registered residence in GPE since DATE . In fact , according to the ORG police \u2019s report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he had had a registered residence in GPE , as a foreigner with extended residence status , since DATE . In these circumstances , ORG considered that no available evidence suggested that the applicant had had an uninterrupted registered residence in GPE for a period of DATE as required by section CARDINAL ) of LAW .","On DATE the applicant asked the Ministry to grant him a permanent residence permit . He argued that he was employed and had sufficient means of subsistence and a strong interest to live in GPE . Together with his application , the applicant provided the birth certificate issued by the SFRY authorities in GPE on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He also provided his employment booklet according to which he had been employed in the periods DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE in the garage of GPE","A report on the applicant \u2019s personal circumstances prepared by the ORG police on DATE indicated that the applicant was a national of GPE and GPE \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the FRY \u201d ) . According to the report , the applicant had settled in ORG in DATE and had first worked in the garage of Z.A. until DATE ; and then , DATE , in the garage of GPE The report further indicated that the applicant was at that time unemployed and supported by his sisters in GPE and GPE . He had lived in GPE for DATE and had never left GPE . The only document which he possessed was a driving licence . Up to that point he had been prosecuted only for a minor offence related to the status of aliens .","On DATE the Ministry instructed the ORG police that the applicant should also be interviewed in connection with his application .","The applicant was interviewed by the ORG police on DATE . He explained that after he had been given an assurance of eligibility for NORP citizenship ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) he had contacted the NORP embassy several times . However , they had at first delayed their response and then dismissed his request . He had therefore been unable to obtain a certificate of renunciation of NORP citizenship within the relevant period of DATE . The applicant further explained how his second application for NORP citizenship had been refused because he had not had a registered residence in GPE for DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","In his interview the applicant also stated he did not have a travel document of any country . So far he had always relied on his NORP citizenship but whenever he had tried to obtain NORP travel documents , he had been orally refused . The same was true for his attempts to obtain travel documents from the FRY . The applicant further explained that he did not have a family and was not married . He wanted to stay in GPE because there he knew a lot of people and would be able to make a living there .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application on the grounds that he did not meet the necessary statutory requirements under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Movement and Stay of Foreigners Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In particular , he was not married to a NORP national or an alien with a permanent residence in GPE , and he did not have DATE of uninterrupted employment in GPE . ORG also held that there was no particular interest of GPE in granting him residence under section CARDINAL ) of the Movement and Stay of Foreigners Act . The ORG considered the applicant to be a national of GPE and GPE .","NORP The applicant challenged this decision before ORG . He argued that the fact that he had previously been a national of GPE and GPE and had resided in GPE since DATE qualified him for permanent residence in GPE . The applicant also contended that it was difficult for him to find a formal employment as he did not have permanent residence permit for GPE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s administrative action as unfounded . ORG held that the ORG had properly established that the applicant had failed to meet the statutory requirements under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Movement and Stay of Foreigners Act as his employment booklet did not show that he had worked for DATE . Moreover , ORG considered that nothing in the circumstances of the case suggested that the applicant should be granted permanent residence under section CARDINAL ) of that LAW .","The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , challenging the decisions of the lower bodies . He argued that he had continuously lived in GPE since DATE and that he had worked . He argued that he should have been granted permanent residence .","Meanwhile , the applicant obtained a note from GPE , for whom he had worked , attesting that he had been employed by ORG in the period DATE and that he had proved to be a hardworking and responsible employee . PERSON also promised to employ the applicant again and to secure him accommodation should he be granted permanent residence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as unfounded endorsing the reasoning of ORG .","In the period DATE and DATE the police CARDINAL times temporarily extended the applicant \u2019s residence for periods of DATE by reference to the humanitarian grounds under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the relevant decisions , the applicant was considered to be a national of GPE .","When extending his temporary residence permit on humanitarian grounds on DATE for DATE under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW , the applicant was requested to provide a valid travel document as provided under LAW ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant again applied for an extension of his temporary residence permit . He argued that he did not have a travel document of GPE as he had not been there nor did he have any interest in going there . He explained that he just wanted to regularise his status in GPE .","In connection with his application for an extension of his temporary residence permit , in DATE the applicant was interviewed by the ORG police . A note on his interview indicated that the applicant was a national of GPE and that he had knowledge of the NORP language . It also stated that the applicant had been employed by PERSON in the period DATE and that during the war in GPE he had worked for Z.A. repairing military and police vehicles until DATE . Since then he had been unemployed but had been earning money by helping out on the farms in the ORG area . His parents had died and the only close relative he had was a sister living in GPE , with whom he had lost contact . The note further explained that the applicant \u2019s neighbours had been interviewed and that they confirmed that he had been a good and hardworking person . The note also indicated that the applicant had committed several minor offences for which he had been fined and a criminal complaint had been lodged against him in connection with a road accident in which he had been involved .","DATE . On DATE the Ministry instructed the ORG police that there were no grounds to extend the applicant \u2019s residence since he had failed to provide a valid travel document .","The ORG police invited the applicant for an interview on DATE at which he was informed of the ORG \u2019s instruction . The applicant explained that he had come to GPE in DATE and had no connection to GPE . He had had the status of a refugee from GPE until he had reached DATE , since that status had been granted to his parents . He stressed that he had lived his whole life in ORG . He also promised to contact the embassy of GPE in order to obtain a travel document and asked the ORG police not to dismiss his request .","On DATE the ORG police dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for the extension of his temporary residence on humanitarian grounds . It held that the applicant did not meet the requirements for granting further temporary residence status as he had failed to provide a valid travel document and ORG had not given its consent to an extension of his residence permit .","On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of the ORG police before the Ministry , relying on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and LAW No . CARDINAL . He argued that he had had SFRY citizenship , which he had lost in unclear circumstances following the dissolution of that country . As he had come from GPE to GPE , it was possible that he was considered to be a national of GPE by the NORP authorities , but in reality he did not have citizenship of that territory . The applicant also argued that he was not a classic alien but an individual who found himself in the very specific circumstances of the dissolution of the SFRY in a situation whereby he was no longer able to provide a valid travel document . He also contended that he had been erased from the register of domicile and residence in GPE without ever being informed thereof . He was therefore unable to regularise his residence status in GPE and thus to find employment , to move freely without valid documents or to travel , which was neither a lawful nor a proportionate interference with his LAW rights . Moreover , the applicant contended that there was a gap in the relevant domestic law as the status of individuals who found themselves in his situation following the dissolution of the SFRY was not regulated . Accordingly , a strict formal application of LAW could not lead to a solution in his case .","On DATE the Ministry dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It referred to the applicant \u2019s previous attempts to regularise his status in GPE , which had all been unsuccessful . According to the Ministry , this showed that he had not been erased from the relevant registers without being informed . ORG further stressed that the applicant had been invited several times to provide a valid travel document and he had promised to contact the embassy of GPE in this connection but had failed to do so . Accordingly , in the ORG \u2019s view , his arguments that he had not been a typical alien and that the relevant authorities had formalistically applied the relevant law had been misplaced . Moreover , there was a possibility for him to obtain a temporary travel document in order to travel to his country of origin so as to obtain a valid travel document .","On DATE the applicant challenged the ORG \u2019s decision before ORG . He contended that he had been a national of the SFRY and that he had had a registered residence in GPE since he had arrived there in DATE , which had been erased at a later stage . He also relied on his available birth certificate showing that he did not have any citizenship ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He also reiterated his complaints of an unjustified infringement of his LAW by a decision of the administrative authorities and a breach of LAW No . CARDINAL . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s administrative action endorsing the reasoning of the ORG \u2019s decision . The applicant challenged these findings before ORG ( ORG upravni sud PERSON ) and the proceedings are still pending .","Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG police granted the applicant temporary residence status on humanitarian grounds for DATE inviting him to provide a valid travel document . The ORG police held that the applicant was a national of GPE whose parents had come from GPE to GPE and that they had had the status of refugees in the SFRY . It also stressed that ORG had given consent to the extension of the applicant \u2019s temporary residence irrespective of the fact that he had not provided a valid travel document .","On DATE the ORG police extended the applicant \u2019s residence status on humanitarian grounds for DATE . It referred to the same reasons as cited above .","According to the applicant \u2019s handwritten statement to his representative of DATE , he never had NORP citizenship . He explained that he had contacted the NORP embassy after he had been given an assurance that he had qualified for NORP citizenship but they had told him that he had not been a national of that ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . The applicant further stressed that in his contacts with the police concerning the regularisation of his residence status , the police officers had always suggested that he had been an NORP national . He also explained that he had been born in GPE and that his parents had had SFRY citizenship . He had come to GPE in DATE . He simply wanted to regularise his status in GPE .","According to a birth certificate issued by the GPE authorities on DATE , the applicant \u2019s parents had had GPE nationality but the applicant did not have that nationality ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180305","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SEVEN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents submitted by them , may be summarised as follows .","At the time of the events giving rise to the application the applicant was serving as a chief police officer in GPE .","On DATE a woman named PERSON filed a criminal complaint with officers at LOC police station , alleging that she had been taken into a police car by CARDINAL officers on the pretext of her being a suspect . Afterwards , they had driven her around in the car and finally had taken her to an empty plot of land where she had been raped in the car by CARDINAL of the police officers . He had been wearing glasses and had held a police radio in his hand . She identified the vehicle \u2019s licence plate .","The applicant and the other police officer were immediately called into the police station for questioning as they had been assigned to the vehicle which had the licence plate identified by PERSON","In his statement to the police , made in the presence of his lawyer , the applicant said that he had picked up PERSON a.m. while he was patrolling with his colleague , ORG on FAC . He submitted that PERSON , who had looked intoxicated , had hailed them , stopped their car , and told them that she worked as a \u201c konsomatris \u201d , a bar hostess who entertains male guests by keeping them company . She had asked for their help to go to a safe place and the applicant had offered to take her to her home , which she had declined . According to the applicant they had also offered to take her to the police station , which she had also declined . Finally , they had taken her to ORG home with the intention of sobering her up . The applicant stated that when ORG was in the kitchen preparing something to eat , PERSON had started behaving strangely , taking off her clothes and acting in a sexually inviting manner . The applicant said that as a result of being aroused he had simply ejaculated in his own hand but had not touched her . He had then called ORG and told him that they had to leave immediately . The applicant stated that they had left PERSON in front of a hotel at TIME and had continued with their patrol until they had been called into the police station for questioning .","S.A. confirmed the applicant \u2019s version of events in his statement to the police on DATE .","NORP In an additional statement to the police , also made on DATE , PERSON told the police that she could not remember whether the police officers had taken her to an apartment or some other place as she had been very intoxicated .","A forensic medical examination of PERSON was carried out on DATE , showing that she had no bruises on her body .","A forensic expert report drafted on DATE stated that the underwear that the applicant had been wearing on the night in question had PERSON and his own DNA on it . Furthermore , napkins found in the rubbish bin on the balcony of ORG apartment had traces of the applicant \u2019s semen .","On DATE the GPE governor decided to authorise the prosecution of the applicant and GPE for alleged rape and abuse of authority . The applicant lodged an objection with ORG seeking annulment of the governor \u2019s decision , but it was dismissed .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG , charging the applicant and GPE with abuse of public authority and the unlawful use of a public vehicle under LAW and LAW of the Law on Vehicles ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .","In her statement in the first - instance proceedings , PERSON said that she had flagged down a police car DATE to ask for help . As she had been intoxicated , she could not remember exactly what had happened later or which officer had raped her .","The chief public prosecutor submitted an opinion on the merits and stated that the applicant \u2019s conduct should be reclassified as rape and unlawful detention and that of ORG as having aided and abetted those acts . He therefore argued that the case should be referred to ORG , which has jurisdiction to hear such charges .","On DATE ORG ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case . It found that the offences committed by the applicant while performing his official duties were rape and the unlawful detention of an adult , which were governed , inter alia , by Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the former Criminal Code , and the unlawful use of a public vehicle , which came under section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL . It stated that those offences had to be tried by assize courts and it therefore referred the case to ORG .","At a hearing held on DATE , ORG heard PERSON who , contrary to her previous statements , submitted that the officers had not raped her and had not taken her anywhere without her consent . She then submitted that she wished to withdraw her complaint .","On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant and ORG all charges , holding that there was no evidence of force on PERSON body , one of the constituent elements of the offences of rape and unlawful detention . The court further held that despite PERSON \u2019s statement of DATE , the forensic report of DATE had established that the applicant had had intercourse with her . In the absence of evidence that corroborated the fact of the applicant having forced himself on PERSON , it could not be established beyond doubt that the act of sexual intercourse itself had not been consensual . The court stated in that connection that even if PERSON had been drunk that night , her allegations of rape and of being held against her will needed to be supported by some sign of resistance . In the light of the conclusion that there had been no indication of a criminal offence committed by the police officers , the court then held that the applicant and ORG could not be deemed to have committed the separate offence of the unlawful use of a public vehicle . It therefore acquitted them of all the charges .","On DATE the acquittal became final as no appeals had been made .","In the aftermath of the events of DATE a preliminary disciplinary investigation was launched against the applicant and ORG DATE .","On DATE the applicant was questioned in relation to the allegations of rape against him . He submitted that he had not had sexual intercourse with PERSON He repeated his earlier statements that PERSON had seduced him to the point where he had had to ejaculate in his own hand . The applicant was also requested to submit a written defence statement . He wrote that he had taken PERSON into the police car with the intention of helping her and had not forced himself on her , as alleged by PERSON He pointed out that the forensic expert evidence had established that there had been no traces of violence , whether on PERSON \u2019s body or in the form of any other type of evidence , such as damage to property or blood stains at ORG apartment or inside the police car .","An investigation report dated DATE , prepared by the police investigator , concluded that the applicant had committed the offence of rape , while ORG was guilty of the offence of conduct unbecoming and incompatible with the civil service and therefore recommended that the applicant be sanctioned with a deferral of advancement to a higher rank for a period of DATE . The report further stated that a recommendation for a separate criminal investigation against the applicant and ORG had already been submitted to the governor \u2019s office for authorisation .","On DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty of abuse of his authority as a police officer and of sexually assaulting PERSON that the applicant \u2019s appraisal scores had only been average for DATE , and taking account of the shameful nature of the act he had committed , it found that the applicant could not be given a penalty that was less severe than the one decided on . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c ... the victim complained to the police and confirmed the event by giving the licence plate number of the vehicle and accurately describing the officer as wearing glasses and holding a police radio in his hand . The applicant , on the other hand , hid the facts by denying that he had had intercourse with PERSON [ D]espite the fact that the vaginal examination of the victim did not reveal the presence of any active or passive semen , the victim \u2019s statement that she was menstruating on TIME in question and the forensic evidence finding traces of both the applicant \u2019s and PERSON DNA on the applicant \u2019s underwear and the CARDINAL napkins found in ORG apartment containing the applicant \u2019s DNA , point to the conclusion that the applicant must have ejaculated prematurely before sexual intercourse . He has therefore committed the offence of \u2018 sexual ORG and he furthermore used his position as a police officer by calling the victim a \u2018 suspect\u2019 in order to lure her into the police car ... Criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant on charges of abuse of authority under LAW .","... It has been decided unanimously to dismiss the accused from the police force , in accordance with section ORG ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of the Security Forces on the grounds that it has been proven that he has committed the offence of sexual assault and of using his position as a police officer for personal ... advantage . \u201d","On an unspecified date the applicant objected to ORG decision before ORG . The applicant argued that his dismissal on the basis of a finding that he had committed sexual assault , although he had not been found guilty of that offence by a criminal court , had violated his right to the presumption of innocence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s case , holding that the decision to dismiss the applicant from the police force had been in accordance with the law . The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :","\u201c Acts , conduct and behaviour of the kind listed in section ORG ) , \u2018 ... rape , sexual assault , ... or attempting to commit any of those DATE and in LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , \u2018 using his position as a police officer for his own or another person \u2019s GPE , are sanctioned with dismissal from the police force .","After examination of the file , it appears that the case concerns the applicant \u2019s dismissal from the police force on the basis of a disciplinary investigation which established that he had intercourse with a woman without her consent on the pretext of calling her a suspect .. , by asking her to get into a police car so that he could verify her identity at the police station , although in the end he took her to a piece of empty land and had intercourse with her without her consent .","On the basis of the case file , statements , the forensic report and other information , the veracity of the accusation is reinforced and therefore the decision to dismiss the applicant is in accordance with the law . \u201d","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal by a majority by endorsing the reasons provided by ORG . CARDINAL judge out of the CARDINAL expressed a dissenting opinion , reasoning that the applicant had been acquitted of the charges in the parallel criminal proceedings , including of rape , and that therefore the disciplinary decision to dismiss him from the police force on those grounds could no longer be upheld . The dissenting judge further argued that the courts should have reclassified the applicant \u2019s conduct as conduct that was incompatible with the reputation and trust inherent in the functions of an official and sanctioned him with the corresponding penalty of the deferral of moving to a higher rank for DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted a request to rectify the decision of CARDINAL DATE , arguing in the main that the fact that he had been acquitted in the criminal proceedings and had been found innocent of the allegations of rape had not been taken into account in ORG decision . He further argued that the contradictory conclusions of the criminal and administrative courts in relation to what had happened on the night in question had cast doubt on his innocence .","ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request on DATE , holding that none of the reasons for rectification he had put forth fell within the exhaustive list of permissible grounds for such a decision in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .","In their observations the Government submitted that on DATE the applicant had brought proceedings against ORG and had requested that the reopening of the proceedings for his dismissal from the police force . The applicant relied on ORG final judgment of CARDINAL DATE , acquitting him of the charges of , inter alia , attempted rape and abuse of authority . He argued before ORG that the establishment of his innocence should be regarded as new grounds for reopening the dismissal proceedings . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s request was dismissed . The ORG was not provided with a copy of that decision ; however , the Government provided a summary of parts of it , which was not contested by the applicant . According to the ORG , the administrative court held that \u201c the decision of ORG was available on the dates ORG examined the applicant \u2019s appellate review and request for rectification of the decision , and that accordingly the court in question made an assessment of the decision rendered by the ORG \u201d .","According to the information submitted by the ORG , the applicant did not appeal against that decision ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177670","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF AMIROV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He lived in GPE and was the mayor of GPE DATE . He is currently detained in correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE ( \u201c the correctional colony \u201d ) .","NORP In DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in custody pending criminal proceedings against him . He suffered from several illnesses , including a urinary condition , a rectal prolapse , hepatitis C , and type CARDINAL diabetes . He was confined to a wheelchair and had to use catheters and enemas to urinate and defecate .","On DATE he lodged an application with the ORG complaining that he was not receiving adequate medical assistance in detention . DATE the ORG indicated to ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG that he should be examined by medical experts .","On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment in the case , finding , inter alia , that there had been violations of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention on account of the authorities\u2019 failure to provide the applicant with adequate medical care or to comply with the interim measure indicated ( see PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , and CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","Relying on LAW held that the authorities should admit the applicant , at that time detained in remand prison no . CARDINAL in PERSON - on - Don , to a specialised medical facility where he should remain under constant medical supervision and should be provided with adequate medical services corresponding to his needs ; alternatively , the authorities could place him in a specialised prison medical facility , if the facility could guarantee the requisite level of medical supervision and care . ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","After DATE , the date of the ORG \u2019s judgment in the applicant \u2019s first case , he continued being detained in the remand prison pending the completion of his trial .","According to the information from the Government , in DATE the applicant \u2019s cell was re - equipped to take account of his needs as a wheelchair user . Handrails were installed near his bed and the toilet , and the furniture was put at a lower level in order to be accessible . Wheelchair ramps and a lift were installed in the detention facility . A room for personal - hygiene procedures needed by the applicant was located opposite his cell with all the necessary equipment .","In DATE he was examined by various doctors , such as a general practitioner , a neurologist , a surgeon , a urologist , and a proctologist . He underwent basic medical tests and received the treatment he had been prescribed . The prison doctors found his overall condition to be satisfactory .","The applicant \u2019s lawyers noticed , however , that his state of health had worsened . They solicited medical opinions on the treatment required .","On DATE Dr W. , a specialist in neurology , examined the applicant . He noted progressive muscular dystrophy , the development of leg convulsions , and urinary problems . An immediate admission to a specialised hospital for long - term treatment and urological surgery was recommended . The doctor said that further detention in prison would put the applicant \u2019s life at risk .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic expert , Dr N. , who confirmed the deterioration of his medical condition , and noted the development of bedsores . The doctor suggested that the applicant \u2019s state of health might warrant early release on medical grounds and stated that he needed constant medical care .","On DATE Dr N. assessed the quality of the medical care in the remand prison . He noted the absence of exercise therapy , physiotherapy , and massage , and was concerned that the prison premises were not sterile enough for hygienic procedures .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG of ORG found the applicant guilty of having organised an act of terrorism and an attempt to murder an investigator in his case . He was sentenced to life imprisonment in a high - security correctional colony . ORG of GPE upheld the conviction and sentence on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was sent to serve his sentence in the correctional colony .","He spent DATE of his detention in an ordinary cell in the quarantine wing . According to a letter from the chairman of ORG sent to the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE , the cell was not adapted to the needs of a wheelchair prisoner . The applicant depended on his fellow inmates , who assisted him in his DATE needs , including helping him to perform enemas on himself .","Every day the applicant was taken , handcuffed and blindfolded , to the prison yard for exercise .","On DATE he was examined by several prison doctors : a tuberculosis specialist , an infectious - diseases specialist , a dentist and a general practitioner . The latter recorded his illnesses , ordered blood and urine tests , and prescribed treatment , comprising of a special diet and drugs . He noted that the applicant needed regular catheterisation and enemas . Examinations by specialists in endocrinology , ophthalmology , gastroenterology , neurology , cardiology , urology , and surgery , and exercise therapy were recommended .","The applicant was regularly visited by the prison general practitioner in the quarantine wing and underwent blood and urine tests . The doctor was satisfied with his medical condition and the results of his treatment .","On DATE the applicant was moved to medical unit no . CARDINAL and placed in cell no . CARDINAL . He shared its space of QUANTITY . m with CARDINAL cellmate . The applicant was provided with a wide bed , a sink installed at a low level , and a medical couch , which he used during self - catheterisation procedures . Enemas were carried out in a separate room twice a week with the assistance of the medical unit staff . The custodial authorities continued handcuffing and blindfolding him while he was escorted to the yard .","On DATE he was examined by several doctors : a general practitioner , an endocrinologist , a neurologist , and a urologist from the civilian hospital in GPE . According to the medical records kept by the doctors , his medical condition was acute . No recommendations for inpatient treatment or urgent medical measures were made . The endocrinologist ordered tests of his thyroid - gland hormones , which were carried out on DATE . The neurologist prescribed exercise . The latter prescription was endorsed by a prison doctor on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was again examined by the endocrinologist , who noted , inter alia , the risk due to a low level of thyroid hormones . Another hormone test was prescribed for DATE .","The applicant was examined by a medical board to establish whether he was entitled to early release on medical grounds . The board concluded that his medical condition did not warrant it .","From DATE a commission of officials from ORG , ORG , the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office , ORG in GPE and medical unit no . CARDINAL came to the applicant \u2019s detention facility and examined the quality of his medical care . The commission concluded that it was adequate .","On DATE the applicant was visited by an exercise - therapy specialist , who taught him exercises to support his health . It appears that this visit was a follow - up to previous visits by the specialist , in DATE and DATE . However , the medical record does not disclose particular details of the recommendations made on those CARDINAL previous occasions .","On DATE CARDINAL members of ORG ( \u041e\u0431\u0449\u0435\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043d\u0430\u0431\u043b\u044e\u0434\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0441\u0441\u0438\u044f PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 ) inspected the colony . It appears that by the time of the inspection the applicant had been moved to another cell . The inspectors noted in particular , that the cell was divided into CARDINAL sections by metal bars and housed CARDINAL inmates . The applicant \u2019s section measured QUANTITY m ; it had a bath , a medical couch , a sink , and a bedside table with television set . The toilet was not partitioned from the rest of the cell and the applicant could be observed by his cellmate while using it . The correctional colony lacked wheelchair ramps , so the applicant could not freely access the yard or meeting rooms . He complained that the necessary drugs had had to be supplied by his relatives , owing to a lack of funds , which were to be allocated in the near future . Medical supervision was carried out by the general practitioner as regular examinations by other specialists had not been considered necessary . Allegedly owing to the applicant not having received medical massages , the applicant \u2019s legs started convulsing . He was assisted by his cellmate , who helped him to get into bed . The applicant was not given a special diet .","On DATE and DATE , and DATE a special medical board of highly qualified civilian and prison doctors , and specialists in cardiology , endocrinology , neurology , and urology examined the applicant . They concluded that there was no need to admit the applicant to a specialist medical facility and that he could continue receiving treatment in the medical unit . The doctors were satisfied with the quality of medical care given to the applicant .","In the meantime the applicant \u2019s lawyer complained to the Ombudsman of GPE of the applicant \u2019s detention conditions and the poor quality of his medical treatment . The complaint was forwarded to the prosecutor \u2019s office for the supervision of detention facilities in GPE . Having carried out enquiries , on DATE the ORG replied as follows :","\u201c It has been established that on admission to [ the correctional colony the applicant ] was placed in [ a cell of the quarantine wing ] . It was designed for CARDINAL persons and measured QUANTITY . m , which satisfied the requirements of LAW ... [ The applicant \u2019s ] cellmate assisted him in his DATE needs , which included hygienic procedures and moving around the cell . Accordingly , [ the applicant ] was not restricted in his rights ...","The allegation that [ the applicant ] was not provided with special conditions [ needed in his situation ] is not true . His cell in the medical unit is furnished with a specially designed table , a bed and a sink , so he can easily access them and move freely about the cell .","[ The applicant ] is assisted by the medical unit staff members and inmates in his movements within the medical unit , in particular when entering \/ leaving buildings in a wheelchair , and in his DATE needs .","As called for by [ the applicant \u2019s ] disability and illnesses , he is examined by the prison doctors on a DATE basis , he receives medical treatment as prescribed to the relevant medical standards , and he is provided with dietary nutrition .","In DATE [ the custodial authorities ] provided him with a mattress [ to prevent ] bedsores .","[ The applicant ] urinates with the help of a catheter which he inserts CARDINAL times per day ( as recommended by [ a urologist ] ) . He defecates with the help of enemas performed DATE by medical staff from the medical unit . Detainees , who work in the medical unit , escort [ the applicant ] to a special room for that procedure and clean it afterwards .","The regional medical standard \u201c Procedures for simple medical procedures , desmurgy and immobilisation \u201d , approved by an Order of the Ministry of the Health Care and Social Development of Orenburg Region on DATE does not require catheterisation or enemas to be carried out in a sterile room . Sterile catheters and enemas tips are used by [ the applicant ] .","In breach of LAW no . DATE of DATE ) , [ the applicant ] was escorted for walks handcuffed and blindfolded until DATE .","Moreover , the inquiry , which had been performed earlier , revealed breaches of LAW of LAW on LAW and LAW , DATE , and CARDINAL of ORG of the Disabled in GPE ( Federal Law of DATE No . CARDINAL ) . [ In accordance with the aforementioned Regulation , the applicant ] should have been given the necessary devices ( a wheelchair for mobility , an indoor wheelchair , a gel pillow to prevent bedsores , nappies for adults , and urinals ) . However , the custodial authorities have not provided him with those items . [ Moreover , ] the detention facility did not take measures to provide the exercise and sport therapy [ for the applicant ] indicated in his rehabilitation programme .","In the light of the above , on DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office for supervision of detention facilities in GPE issued a formal order to the head of the correctional colony to rectify the identified shortcomings . The order has been ... complied with ...","There are no grounds for a further intervention by the prosecutor ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160093","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF NAGY v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was interrogated as suspect of breach of duty and other offences .","In the ensuing criminal proceedings , after a remittal , ORG acquitted the applicant on DATE .","NORP On appeal , ORG upheld the acquittal on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180316","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BIKAS v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-2 - Presumption of innocence;Proved guilty according to law)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the Munich II Public Prosecution Office charged the applicant with coercion to engage in sexual activity in CARDINAL cases and with sexual coercion in another CARDINAL cases .","On DATE the GPE ORG , after taking evidence at DATE of hearing , issued a decision limiting the prosecution to charges concerning CARDINAL incidents which had taken place DATE . The court provisionally discontinued the proceedings in respect of all the other offences the applicant had been charged with ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in accordance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , in view of the penalty the applicant could expect for the CARDINAL remaining incidents . The applicant was further informed that if he was convicted the court could take into account findings made in respect of the other incidents when setting his sentence .","In a judgment delivered on DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of coercion to engage in sexual activity , committed DATE , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","In its findings of fact , ORG stated that DATE and DATE the applicant had forced P. , aged DATE at the relevant time and suffering from a moderate mental disorder and an autistic and speech disorder , to satisfy him manually or orally on CARDINAL further occasions ( out of the CARDINAL offences the applicant had initially been charged with , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court had regard to P. \u2019s extensive description of different incidents , which happened either in the house the applicant and PERSON were both living in or in the applicant \u2019s car . P. had notably explained how the applicant had regularly , when his wife and son were absent , brought her into his apartment or in the basement boiler room , had undressed himself and had instructed her how to satisfy him , partly while playing pornographic films . The applicant had systematically threatened P. that she would have to return to a home for the disabled if she did not comply with his requests . From CARDINAL to DATE , when the applicant \u2019s wife and son were on holiday , the applicant had forced P. to satisfy him orally at least twice and to satisfy him manually on CARDINAL further occasions in their house or in the basement boiler room . The veracity of PERSON consistent statements was confirmed by further witnesses and CARDINAL psychological expert opinions on GPE credibility and ability to testify .","ORG explained that it had restricted the conviction to the CARDINAL events that had taken place DATE . It had discontinued the proceedings in respect of the CARDINAL further charges under LAW but was convinced that in CARDINAL cases there had been incidents comparable to the CARDINAL of which the applicant was formally convicted . It had simply been impossible to determine their exact time and place due to the victim \u2019s speech disorder .","In the impugned passages of the judgment , ORG found as follows :","\u201c The chamber is convinced on the basis of the credible statement by the injured party that in addition to the CARDINAL cases DATE and DATE on which judgment was passed , CARDINAL other comparable cases occurred . The injured party herself said that the applicant had coerced her to perform sexual acts from DATE . From DATE , the frequency of these incidents had increased and the applicant had demanded sexual gratification from her approximately DATE . Even if CARDINAL were to disregard DATE and DATE and DATE in favour of the applicant and also to presume that from DATE , such incidents occurred DATE there are CARDINAL cases . Following the deduction of a further safety margin the chamber assumes that there were CARDINAL more , comparable cases during the total period from DATE to DATE .","...","On the other hand , the chamber considers as an aggravating element that it is convinced that , in addition to the CARDINAL incidents in DATE which the accused has been convicted of , there have been CARDINAL comparable incidents since DATE . A conviction for those events was only made impossible by the victim \u2019s incapacity to substantiate them in terms of the time and the place where they happened in a manner making it possible to define them as procedural offences ( offences in the procedural sense ) . As it could no longer be determined with certainty in which cases the accused , by his threats , made the victim satisfy him orally or manually , the chamber will proceed on the basis that there were CARDINAL further cases of manual satisfaction . \u201d","( \u201c PERSON aufgrund der glaubhaften PERSON , dass es neben den vier abgeurteilten GPE i m Zeitraum DATE bis DATE zu QUANTITY , vergleichbaren PERSON . Die Gesch\u00e4digte selbst gab an , PERSON habe sie bereits ab dem Jahr DATE zu sexuellen ORG gen\u00f6tigt . ORG CARDINAL sei die PERSON gestiegen PERSON habe ungef\u00e4hr alle CARDINAL \u00bd ORG verlangt . PERSON wenn man zugunsten des Angeklagten die GPE DATE sowie den DATE unber\u00fccksichtigt l\u00e4sst und zudem PERSON ausgeht , dass es ab dem Jahr DATE lediglich einmal i m Monat zu derartigen GPE , so ergeben sich PERSON . PERSON eines weiteren PERSON die PERSON CARDINAL weiteren , vergleichbaren NORP i m gesamten GPE von DATE bis DATE aus .","...","PERSON wertet die ORG , dass es nach PERSON Kammer neben den verurteilten vier Vorf\u00e4llen i m DATE bereits ab DATE zu CARDINAL vergleichbaren Vorf\u00e4llen gekommen war . PERSON scheiterte lediglich an der mangelnden PERSON , die NORP zeitlich und \u00f6rtlich so zu konkretisieren , dass diese als prozessuale GPE abgrenzbar waren . PERSON aufkl\u00e4ren lie\u00df , in welchen NORP der Angeklagte die Gesch\u00e4digte durch seine ORG zu einer oralen und in welchen zu einer manuellen ORG brachte , geht die Kammer insoweit von CARDINAL weiteren LOC manuellen ORG aus . \u201d )","In an appeal on points of law to ORG , the applicant complained that ORG had breached the presumption of innocence guaranteed by LAW by taking CARDINAL unproven incidents into account as an aggravating factor meriting a more severe sentence , despite the fact that the proceedings in relation to them had been discontinued under LAW .","The Federal Public Prosecutor General argued that ORG had been entitled to take account of the sexual offences committed previously by the applicant as an aggravating element as part of his previous history ( PERSON ) and thus as CARDINAL of the elements in setting his sentence under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In accordance with ORG case - law , ORG had made sufficient findings of fact establishing a minimum level of guilt in respect to those offences .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as ill - founded , without giving specific reasons .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , which was served on the applicant \u2019s lawyer on CARDINAL DATE , ORG , without giving reasons , declined to consider a constitutional complaint by the applicant , in which he had again complained of a breach of the presumption of innocence ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-2"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167095","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GUSAKOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , in LOC .","The applicant sued her former employer ( ORG of GPE , hereafter \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) .","On DATE the ORG of GPE ( \u201c the Town Court \u201d ) awarded the applicant DATE payments as compensation for damage to her health , with subsequent index - linked adjustment in accordance with changes in the statutory minimum DATE salary . The judgment came into force on DATE .","On DATE Federal Law No . CARDINAL was adopted , which , inter alia , amended the procedure for index - linking compensation awards for damage to health . According to the new law , such payments were to be adjusted in accordance with changes in the level of inflation . The minimum monthly salary no longer served as the basis for index - linking .","In DATE the Ministry applied the new method of indexlinking , and recalculated the DATE payments to be paid to the applicant . This resulted in a decrease in the actual DATE amount she received from MONEY ( RUB ) to RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , as established in DATE .","The applicant initiated CARDINAL sets of proceedings , claiming delay interest in respect of CARDINAL distinct periods . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( upheld on DATE ) the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE ( \u201c the Justice of the Peace \u201d ) ordered the Ministry to pay the applicant the interest in respect of certain delays in the DATE payments , in accordance with the judgment of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the judge agreed with the applicant \u2019s calculation of the delay interest ( based on the index - linking of the DATE payments in accordance with the changes in the statutory minimum DATE salary ) . On DATE the court calculated the delay interest based on the amount of the DATE payments , as index - linked in line with the rate of inflation .","On DATE the Justice of the FAC refused the applicant \u2019s claim for the delay interest . On DATE ORG quashed the above decision and ordered ORG to pay the delay interest as calculated by the applicant . The court held that , in the absence of a relevant judicial decision , ORG had unlawfully changed the mode of index - linking ordered by the judgment of DATE .","NORP In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG requested clarification of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE as regards the method of index - linking . On DATE ORG held that , as a result of changes in the relevant legislation , as of DATE the index - linking of the amounts in question was to be based on changes in the level of inflation . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG .","In a letter received on DATE the applicant informed the ORG that in DATE the ORG had stopped paying the DATE payments , owing to a lack of funds in the relevant budget .","According to the Government , the amount due to the applicant from DATE was paid to her in full on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG awarded her delay interest for late payment in respect of the delays in payment DATE . The judgment came into force on DATE , and was executed on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6","P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-144800","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"\u010eURA\u010cKA v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr B. Jablonka , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE ORG quashed a first - instance judgment convicting the applicant of an offence . In its judgment ORG convicted the applicant of fraud .","ORG also quashed a sentence which had been imposed in a different set of proceedings in DATE and which the applicant had then been serving . It imposed a consolidated DATE prison term and a fine on the applicant . The applicant attended the hearing and the judgment became final upon its delivery on DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant start serving his prison term immediately . On DATE the order was received by the prison where the applicant was detained .","ORG judgment was served on the applicant twice . A receipt signed by the applicant indicates that ORG served the judgment on him on DATE ; a second receipt indicates that ORG ( which dealt with the case at first instance ) served ORG judgment on the applicant on DATE . ORG also served the judgment on the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE .","On DATE a senior judicial officer at ORG issued a decision to take into account , for the purpose of serving the consolidated prison term imposed by ORG , the period in which the applicant had been remanded in custody from DATE to DATE as well as the period from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , when he had served a prison sentence imposed on him in a different set of criminal proceedings in DATE .","Following a complaint by the applicant , a judge rectified the above - mentioned decision on DATE . In particular , the judge noted that the applicant had started serving the sentence imposed by ORG on DATE . The period during which he had been serving a different sentence as from CARDINAL DATE and which was to be taken into account as regards the term of the consolidated sentence had therefore ended on DATE . ORG judge \u2019s decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against ORG judgment of DATE . The proceedings are pending .","On DATE the applicant posted a complaint to ORG . With reference to the criminal proceedings that had led to his conviction and detention , he alleged that his rights had been breached by the police , the prosecuting authorities and the courts , as well as by the administration of the prison where he had been detained .","NORP In particular , the applicant alleged that his rights under LAW had been breached , on a number of grounds , in the criminal proceedings leading to his conviction . ORG had delivered its final judgment no . CARDINAL To CARDINAL\/CARDINAL on DATE . The applicant stated that that judgment had been served on him through ORG on DATE .","NORP The applicant further alleged that LAW had been breached in that he had been detained without any legal grounds from DATE to DATE , because the order imposing the service of the prison sentence which ORG had issued on the former date had been delivered to the prison on the latter . The applicant claimed that he had lodged a complaint in that respect immediately after he had established that fact in the file .","Lastly , the applicant asked ORG to appoint a lawyer to assist him in the proceedings .","ORG rejected the complaint on DATE as having been lodged outside the statutory time - limit of DATE . With reference to the case file , it held that ORG judgment with reasons had been served on the applicant in prison on DATE . The time - limit had thus started to run on DATE and had expired on DATE . However , the applicant had posted his complaint on CARDINAL DATE , that is belatedly . That conclusion was also relevant in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegation that his rights had been breached before the above - mentioned judgment of ORG .","The Constitutional Court \u2019s decision stated that in those circumstances it was not necessary to decide on the applicant \u2019s request for the appointment of a lawyer . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE provides that a complaint to ORG can be lodged within DATE from the date on which the decision in question has become final and binding , or on which a measure has been notified , or on which notice of other interference has been given . As regards measures and other interferences , this period commences when the plaintiff could have become aware of them .","ORG has held that in cases where a final decision in the context of criminal proceedings is to be served on the person concerned , the time - limit of DATE under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE starts to run on the date of its service on that person , regardless of the date of its service on his or her lawyer ( for example , decision file number PERSON . \u00daS CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE , with further references ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163437","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PILAV v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , a town in LOC ( CARDINAL of the CARDINAL constituent ORG Herzegovina ) .","The applicant declares himself as PERSON ( CARDINAL of the country \u2019s \u201c constituent peoples \u201d ) . He actively participates in the social and political life of the country . The applicant is a member of the ORG for GPE ( ORG ; \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and a founding member of ORG ( PERSON ) .","He has held several elected and appointed political positions in ORG . At the time of lodging his application to the ORG , the applicant was a member of ORG .","In DATE , as a candidate of ORG , the applicant submitted his candidacy for the DATE elections to the Presidency of GPE and GPE .","On DATE ORG of GPE ( \u201c GPE izborna PERSON i ORG \u201d ; \u201c the ORG \u201d ) rejected his candidacy . It explained that the applicant could not be elected to the Presidency from the territory of ORG considering that he declared affiliation with ORG . Pursuant to Article V of the LAW and LAW CARDINAL the presidential candidate from that Entity must be a NORP .","On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for the reconsideration of that decision .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s further appeal . It held that the applicant \u2019s candidacy was in contravention of the LAW and LAW .","On DATE ORG and the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal relying on LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . On DATE ORG held that there had been no violation of that provision ( decision no . ORG DATE ) . The relevant part of the majority opinion reads as follows ( the translation has been provided by ORG ) :","\u201c ... Therefore , the provision of LAW , including LAW , should be viewed in the light of the discretionary right of the ORG to impose certain restrictions when it comes to the exercise of individual rights . The said restrictions are justified by the specific nature of the internal order of GPE that was agreed upon by ORG and whose ultimate goal was the establishment of peace and dialogue between the opposing parties given that the said provision was intentionally incorporated into the LAW so that the members of the Presidency come from amongst NORP , NORP and NORP .","There is no dispute that the provision of LAW , as well as the provision of LAW , have a restrictive character in that they restrict the rights of citizens , namely the candidacy of ORG and NORP from the territory of ORG and the NORP from the territory of ORG to stand for election as members of the Presidency of GPE .","However , the purpose of those provisions is to strengthen the position of the constituent peoples in order to ensure that the Presidency is composed of the representatives from these CARDINAL constituent peoples . Taking into account the current situation in GPE , the restriction imposed ... is justified at this moment since there is a reasonable justification for such reasoning .","Therefore , given the current situation in GPE and specific nature of its constitutional order as well as the current constitutional and statutory arrangements , the challenged decisions of ORG and ORG did not violate the appellants\u2019 rights under LAW No . CARDINAL to ORG and Article CARDINAL of LAW since the above - mentioned decisions are not arbitrary and are based on law . It means that they serve a legitimate aim , that they are reasonably justified and that they do not place an excessive burden on the appellants given that the restrictions imposed on the appellants\u2019 rights are proportionate to the objectives of the general community in terms of preservation of the established peace , continuation of dialogue , and consequently the creation of conditions for amending the above - mentioned provisions of LAW . \u201d","The relevant part of the concurring opinion of Judge PERSON reads as follows :","\u201c I agree that the special circumstances in which LAW was drafted and the needs of the time are capable of providing a rational and objective justification for treatment which would otherwise be discriminatory ... Like Judge PERSON in her separate dissenting opinions .... I regard the justification as being temporary rather than permanent , but I respectfully differ from Judge PERSON in thinking that the time has not yet arrived when the ORG will have completed its transition away from the special needs which dictated the unusual architecture of the ORG under LAW and LAW .","However , I have another reason for joining the majority of ORG in this case . Until the time ( if it ever arrives ) when LAW is amended to remove the differential treatment of potential candidates for the Presidency , it seems to me that LAW leaves the drafters of LAW , ORG and the courts no choice . It is not constitutionally permissible for a PERSON or the interpretation or implementation of a PERSON to be directly incompatible with the express and unambiguous requirements of LAW . Had the appellants succeeded in their appeal , it would have left LAW with no effect whatever . It would have been otiose , reduced to empty words . In my view , ORG , required by LAW to \u2018 uphold this Constitution\u2019 , can not properly make a decision which makes an important part of the LAW wholly ineffective . I accept that there different parts of LAW appear to have conflicting values and objectives , but constitutions are never entirely coherent . They are always shaped by , and are a compromise between , conflicting values and objectives . The task of ORG under Article VI is to give effect to LAW , with all its inconsistencies , and make it as effective as possible in all the circumstances .","For this reason , I would have dismissed this appeal as ill - founded even had I disagreed with the conclusion of the majority of ORG that there is an objective and rational justification for the difference of treatment . Whether justified or not , the difference is required by LAW . An international tribunal such as ORG might perhaps decide that the constitutional arrangements for electing members of the Presidency violate rights under LAW ( and nothing I write here should be taken to lend support to that suggestion under present conditions ) . Such a tribunal has no duty to uphold LAW . ORG has an express constitutional obligation to uphold the LAW , and in my opinion has no power to set aside parts of it , or make them ineffective , by relying on rights arising in an international instrument in preference to the express and unambiguous terms of the LAW itself . \u201d","The relevant part of the dissenting opinion of Judge PERSON , joined by Judge PERSON , reads as follows :","\u201c ... I respectfully differ from the conclusion that there is no violation of the appellant \u2019s rights guaranteed by LAW , its LAW because of an \u2018 objective and reasonable justification for differential treatment\u2019 .","... I consider the exclusion of the candidate Mr. PERSON on the ORG \u2019s candidate list for the Presidency of GPE and GPE inconsistent with LAW No . CARDINAL and with LAW which guarantees equal right to stand for election and to be elected without unreasonable restrictions . Contrary to the statements of the majority ( \u00a7 CARDINAL ) , it seems to me that the current situation in GPE does not justify at this moment the differential treatment of the appellant \u2019s candidacy in relation to the candidacy of other candidates who are the NORP and are directly elected from the territory of ORG , nor it serves a legitimate aim , such as preservation of peace , continuation of dialogue or creation of conditions for amending the provisions of LAW and LAW . Although I think like judge PERSON in his separate concurring opinion under this decision that the State of ORG has not yet completed its transition , that it is still in a special situation requiring specific measures , I however consider that LAW architecture is evolving and has to adapt to the different stages of evolution in GPE The constitutional specificity of ORG consists of the multi - ethnic character of ORG and public institutions . The multi - ethnicity established by ORG has been precised by ORG in case U CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( Official Gazette of ORG , No . CARDINAL ) , stressing the equality of all constituent peoples in both entities and excluding in consequence the minority status of any constituent people in any entity .","The coherence of this decision implies a multi - ethnic composition of the Presidency without territorial interference since the CARDINAL constituent peoples are precisely equal in the whole State territory of ORG ... It is the particular combination of ethnic and territorial structures which leads to unjustified discriminations since the territorial interference in presidential elections result to an ethnic separation materialized by the exclusion of the right to stand for election for all NORP living in the GPE and for all NORP and LOC living in PERSON . This combination is inconsistent with ORG goal of a multi - ethnic ORG and with the principle of equality of constituent peoples in both entities which only justifies that the NORP living in GPE and that the Bosniacs and the NORP living in PERSON do not benefit of the status of a minority .","Therefore the only legitimate aim appropriated in the current situation in ORG consists of excluding the territorial criterion in presidential elections . Only such a solution could be a reasonable justification of differential treatment and would be consistent with the requirements of LAW No . CARDINAL that any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground and of LAW . In other terms , the differential treatment challenged by the appeal is not justified in an objective or in a proportionate manner .","I also differ from the opinion expressed by judge PERSON in his point CARDINAL . Indeed , ORG and its Additional Protocols have at least the same rank as LAW The Constitutional Court stated that LAW was adopted as FAC to FAC . It follows that there can not be a conflict and possibility of dispute between that LAW of ORG which form a legal unity . This implies that the ORG grants the same importance to FAC and its annexes and thus that in case of conflict of norms , the case may only be resolved through a method of systematic interpretation . Furthermore the provisions of Articles II.CARDINAL , GPE and LAW place the compliance with the human rights and LAW among the basic pillars of the constitutional order in GPE and GPE which have priority over any other law and can not be restricted even by a constitutional revision .","ORG in its role of upholding LAW has to take account of all these elements as well as of legal evolutions in order to guarantee concrete and effective rights . LAW V.CARDINAL has to be read in light of Articles II and X of the LAW and of LAW No . CARDINAL . ORG can not , of course , replace or modify the present LAW but it can request the ORG to harmonize the text with the requirements of ORG \u2019s international obligations . \u201d","On DATE the applicant again submitted his candidacy to the ORG . On DATE it was rejected for the same reasons as before ."],"violated_articles":["P12"],"violated_paragraphs":["P12-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146671","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF VENIAMIN TYMOSHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["At the material time the applicants were employed by the ORG \u201c ORG \u201d ( \u201c AeroSvit \u201d ) as aircraft cabin crew .","As confirmed , in particular , by TIME of the trade union \u2019s constituent assembly of DATE , all the applicants were members of the company \u2019s trade union . Mr PERSON was its chairman .","On DATE the National Mediation and Reconciliation Service ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) registered a collective labour dispute between the employees and the management of ORG . The employees\u2019 demands concerned , in particular , the following issues :","repairs to the aircraft electronic catering and air - conditioning equipment ;","enhancing the safety of on - flight technical processes ;","salary payments to be made DATE before a period of leave ;","full and timely salary payments twice per month ;","a PERCENT pay rise and recalculation of salaries for DATE and DATE ;","salary payment on the basis of the exchange rate of the GPE dollar and the NORP hryvnia as established by ORG , with salaries to be recalculated from DATE ;","recalculation of long - service bonuses ;","ensuring transportation of aircraft cabin crew to and from the airport ;","establishing a USD CARDINAL per diem allowance for all foreign flights ;","uniform cleaning and ironing to be at the employer \u2019s expense ;","allocation of PERCENT of the salary budget for cultural and sporting events ;","awarding employees a bonus of PERCENT from DATE profits ; and","inflation adjustment of salaries if payment was delayed , with effect from DATE .","On DATE and DATE the ORG deregistered some of the employees\u2019 demands , noting that they had been resolved , with reference to decisions of the reconciliation commissions of DATE , DATE .","On DATE the ORG delivered its decision on the employees\u2019 remaining demands , following a hearing in which representatives of both parties participated . It found most of the demands to be legitimate and directed the employer to comply with them .","In the absence of any compliance measures , ORG cabin crew , including the applicants , decided to embark on industrial action .","NORP On DATE the general meeting of ORG employees , seeking resolution of the labour dispute , announced a strike of CARDINAL aircraft cabin crew members . The strike was due to start on CARDINAL DATE and continue until the employees\u2019 demands were fully met . The announcement specified that all foreign flights which began prior to the beginning of the strike would be completed . The meeting appointed a strike committee of QUANTITY persons ( including all of the applicants except PERSON PERSON , who , however , attended the meeting and voted in favour of the strike ) . The committee was vested with the following powers : to conduct negotiations on behalf of the employees with the company \u2019s management and ORG authorities ; to draw attention to the strike in the mass media ; to receive information from the company \u2019s management on compliance with the employees\u2019 requirements ; to initiate and participate in a reconciliation commission ; to organise and conduct meetings and pickets in support of the demands put forward ; to sign agreements with the owner or an authorised representative on resolution of the labour dispute ; and to consult the ORG .","By DATE the strike committee had notified the following authorities about the decision to hold a strike : the employer , the ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , as well as a number of other institutions and organisations .","On DATE the management of ORG lodged a claim with ORG of Kyiv ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) against the flight attendants\u2019 trade union , seeking to have the strike declared unlawful .","On DATE ORG held the first hearing on the case . Another hearing was scheduled for TIME CARDINAL DATE .","The planned hearing did not take place for reasons unknown to the applicants . They later discovered that the judge had been on sick leave .","On DATE the management of ORG brought another claim , this time before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and against the strike committee , seeking to have the strike declared unlawful .","On DATE ORG , in written proceedings , issued an injunction prohibiting the strike committee from holding the strike pending adjudication of the employer \u2019s claim .","On DATE ORG \u2019s management handed over a copy of the injunction to the trade union \u2019s representatives .","On DATE the company \u2019s management withdrew its earlier claim from ORG .","On DATE the trade union challenged ORG injunction of CARDINAL DATE before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . It submitted , in particular , that the strike committee could not be a respondent in proceedings , since it was neither an individual nor a legal entity . Nor was it empowered to act in courts on behalf of the employees who had decided to go on strike .","On DATE ORG dismissed the aforementioned appeal .","On DATE ORG found that the strike would be unlawful and banned it . The court relied on section CARDINAL of LAW , which prohibited strikes at transport enterprises if they affected passenger carriage . It noted that ORG was an important passenger carrier operating over CARDINAL international routes to CARDINAL counties . Furthermore , given that CARDINAL of the major tasks of the aircraft cabin crew was to ensure the safety of passengers , the court considered applicable section CARDINAL of ORG , which prohibited strikes if they were likely to endanger human life or health . It also made a general reference to LAW .","NORP The trade union appealed . It reiterated the arguments of its earlier appeal of CARDINAL DATE concerning the standing of the strike committee . It also argued that the first - instance court had wrongly applied LAW , when it should instead have applied ORG .","On DATE and DATE respectively ORG and ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG final ruling was served on the strike committee ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180282","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SAYGILI AND KARATA\u015e v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively .","At the material time , the first applicant , PERSON , was the owner of a DATE newspaper , ORG . The second applicant , Mr PERSON , was the editor - in - chief of the newspaper .","On DATE an article entitled \u201c Friends , I surely have to watch [ it ] \u201d ( \u201c PERSON mutlaka izlemeliyim arkada\u015flar \u201d ) written by PERSON was published on page CARDINAL of ORG CARDINALnd issue . It concerned a case that had caused a public outcry in GPE , namely that of FAC , a journalist who was beaten to death by the police whilst under arrest in DATE . Following the killing , ORG set up ORG in order to shed light on the murder of PERSON . On DATE the Commission published its report which contained , among other things , the names , the functions and the statements of numerous police officers , including ORG and ORG","The above - mentioned article read as follows :","\u201c This is what ORG said [ I surely have to watch [ it ] ] to colleagues who were making their final preparations to observe the funerals of PERSON and PERSON GPE \u2013 CARDINAL revolutionary detainees who had been killed in GPE DATE when he arrived at the newspaper office on DATE . This was an expression of his commitment and involvement in life with a great enthusiasm , which went beyond the mere love of his job .","The difference between doing this job [ journalism ] reluctantly and doing it wholeheartedly and flawlessly was apparent in his effort to report events fully , notwithstanding the hindrances created by the police at PERSON , where he went on DATE of the events .","Unlike his colleagues , he perceived pushing against the police barricade as the means to reach the news behind that barricade . What else was journalism for ?","The barricade that stands in front of the reality that the people of GPE need stands in front of the journalist sometimes officially , sometimes unofficially and sometimes in the form of a gang . However , when that barricade is broken down , a dark bottomless well filled with the danger of \u201c being eliminated \u201d \u2212 to use the expression of the official ORG \u2212 is waiting in front of you to swallow you up . In DATE , CARDINAL journalists have been swallowed up by this well . The important message behind this is that we need determination to go beyond the darkness and reach the light . Or , to put it a different way , it is not possible to reach the light from the darkness without eliminating the eliminators ( Ya da , ba\u015fka bir deyi\u015fle , \u201c bertaraf ediciler \u201d , \u201c bertaraf \u201d edilmeden karanl\u0131ktan s\u00fcrekli ayd\u0131nl\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kmak da m\u00fcmk\u00fcn de\u011fil ) . Following ORG \u2019s death , the honest journalists of GPE , especially the young ones , thought that waiting to confront that reality was a hopeless prospect . Indeed , they thought that it was already too late . It was also like this for the country \u2019s working class who constantly encountered the police in their struggle to seek legal solutions . Moreover , ORG was CARDINAL of them . This consciousness became the driving force behind the transformation of every hearing of his trial \u2212 which was \u201c exiled \u201d , first to ORG then to GPE , with the aim of keeping it hidden from public view \u2212 into a demonstration .","We have learnt that the murderers will be tried , and we are duty - bound to ensure the effective continuation of such proceedings . This has been the only trial involving a journalist in which the murderers were punished notwithstanding the public authorities\u2019 reluctance \u2212 which has taught us all that democracy is won not by waiting for it to appear from some place but by standing up for it . And above all , assuming that the protective ring around the former Director of ORG , ORG , who issued the collective detention order which ended with the death of ORG , and around Vice - Director PERSON , who executed this order , would remain in place forever would represent nothing but a lack of faith in all these struggles ( Metin\u2019in \u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fcyle sonu\u00e7lanan toplu g\u00f6zalt\u0131 emrini veren d\u00f6nemin GPE PERSON ile bu emri uygulayan yard\u0131mc\u0131s\u0131 K.B.\u2019\u0131n \u00fczerindeki koruma halesinin sonsuza PERSON kalaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmek ise , her\u015feyden \u00f6nce verilen onca m\u00fccadeleye PERSON inan\u00e7s\u0131zl\u0131k olur ) . All those following the case of FAC will not stop coming after T. and B. , who were already guilty in people \u2019s minds ( PERSON davas\u0131n\u0131n takip\u00e7isi olanlar , halk\u0131n vicdan\u0131nda \u00e7oktan mahkum olan T. ve B.\u2019\u0131n pe\u015fini elbette b\u0131rakmayacaklar ) .","The fact that the eliminators dragged CARDINAL more name into their dark well after ORG , namely that of PERSON , has shown another reality . Absolute protection from this fate requires constant and persistent monitoring . Is not one of the reasons why we are entering DATE with unsolved journalist murders the fact that those who occupy the seat and write the column of ORG at PERSON , and those who occupy the seat and write the column of PERSON at ORG , and also the newspaper of the journalist PERSON , did not make it their business to reveal the murderers and all those responsible in the first place ?","Is there any solution other than coming after the \u201c eliminators \u201d , whilst \u201c surely watching \u201d , and removing them and their collaborators completely from our soil , in order to save ourselves from becoming a country in which gangs can behave as they please ? \u201d","On DATE the prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment with that court and charged the applicants with offences defined in LAW ( Law no . ORG ) , namely disclosing the identities of public officials who are involved in the fight against terrorism , thereby rendering such persons targets for terrorist organisations . In addition , he called for the application of LAW no . CARDINAL ) and LAW .","In a petition dated CARDINAL DATE the ORG lawyer argued in their defence submissions that the crime of disclosing the identities of public officials who are involved in the fight against terrorism is not committed merely by using the officials\u2019 names in connection with a case in which they have been tried as accused . The ORG lawyer maintained that the persons were already known to the public due to their positions and that their names were already in the public domain . He further contended that the ORG trial before ORG was in contravention of Articles CARDINAL of the Convention .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced them to heavy fines , of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the relevant time ) and GPE CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) respectively . In accordance with CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL , the first - instance court also ordered the temporary closure of the newspaper for DATE . According to the brief reasons given by ORG , the following sentences from the article were sufficient to conclude that ORG and ORG had been rendered targets for terrorist organisations :","\u201c ... it is not possible to reach the light from the darkness without eliminating the eliminators ... And above all , supposing that the protective ring around the former Director of ORG , ORG , who issued the collective detention order which ended with the death of ORG , and around Vice - Director PERSON , who executed this order , would remain in place forever would represent nothing but a lack of faith in all these struggles . All those following the case of PERSON will not stop coming after T. and B. , who were already guilty in people \u2019s minds . \u201d","On DATE , the applicants lodged an appeal . They stated first of all that the article in question had been written on the fourth anniversary of the killing of journalist PERSON , who had been beaten to death by the police in DATE whilst in custody . The applicants argued that the purpose of the article had been to raise concern over the fact that some high - ranking officials had not been tried and that those accused in PERSON trial had still not been convicted , DATE after the death of PERSON . The applicants maintained in this respect that the CARDINAL officials concerned , namely ORG and ORG , were the ones who had given and executed the detention order which had resulted in ORG death . The applicants also pointed out that these CARDINAL officials had been the only ones in respect of whom the requests for authorisation to prosecute under PERSON no . DATE ( PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants and Public Officials ) had been rejected by the Interior Minister at the material time . The names of the CARDINAL officials had therefore been mentioned in the article because of their involvement in the abovementioned events and not because of their role in the fight against terrorism . The applicants further submitted that the names of the officials had already appeared in the public domain and that the officials , being the Director and the Vice - Director of ORG , were already known to the public and thus not in a position to complain about the disclosure of their identities .","As regards the content of the article , the applicants observed that the writer of the article had defended the rule of law and the notion of justice and had not incited people to violence or advocated terrorism . According to the applicants , the article constituted a critical assessment of ORG trial and of the impunity of some high - ranking officials , as well as the challenges journalists were facing .","The applicants emphasised that the sentence \u201c And above all , assuming that the protective ring around the former Director of ORG , ORG , who issued the collective detention order which ended with the death of ORG , and around Vice - Director PERSON , who executed this order , would remain in place forever , would represent nothing but a lack of faith in all these struggles \u201d had been a reference to the fact that no permission had been given under PERSON no . DATE to authorise the prosecution of the CARDINAL officials in question for their alleged criminal conduct in connection with the events surrounding ORG death .","They observed that , with the sentence \u201c ... it is not possible to reach the light from the darkness without eliminating the eliminators \u201d the writer of the article had highlighted the challenges faced by journalists in their struggle to seek justice . This being so , they argued that it was untenable to conclude that the writer had in any way suggested the physical elimination of the CARDINAL officials .","Lastly , they asserted that with the expression \u201c coming after \u201d the writer had obviously referred to the aftermath of PERSON trial which contributed significantly to the punishment of the accused police officers . According to the applicants , the writer had wished the cases against the CARDINAL officials to be followed up by the people of GPE with a view to bringing these officials to justice .","In their appeal application , the applicants requested that ORG hold a hearing .","They also complained about the application of Additional section QUANTITY no . CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG rejected the request for a hearing and upheld the judgment .","The closure order for the newspaper was executed from DATE ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167107","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MANDRYKIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived , prior to his arrest , in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested . On an unspecified date he was charged with CARDINAL counts of pimping and pandering , extortion and illegal keeping of firearms . The court remanded him in custody .","On DATE he was committed for trial before ORG .","On DATE ORG extended his pre - trial detention \u2019s arrest , he was accused of a serious crime , did not live at his domicile , hence he could abscond , threaten witnesses and interfere with the investigation .","On DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention referring to the above grounds and stating that the victims of his crimes were minors . The court also took into account the applicant \u2019s character , his state of health and age .","The applicant \u2019s appeals against the detention orders were rejected .","On DATE ORG convicted him as charged ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-149202","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF HOHOLM v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 6+13 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time) (Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy;Effective remedy)","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ) .","In DATE the applicant married a NORP national ( A. ) in GPE . There were CARDINAL children from the marriage , born in DATE and DATE respectively .","The family lived together in GPE until DATE , when the applicant left the family home . On DATE an administrative decision was taken in GPE on the couple \u2019s separation .","On DATE the Vester\u00e5len ORG ( tingrett ) issued an interim order that , until the resolution of the matter on the merits , the children should be the joint responsibility of both parents and should remain in the care of A. The court also determined the applicant \u2019s visiting rights and forbade both parents to remove the children from the NORP territory without the consent of the other parent .","Nevertheless , on DATE left GPE for GPE , taking the children with her .","On DATE the ORG ruled that the children be put under the exclusive parental responsibility and in the care of the applicant . It also determined the visiting rights of A. and issued an order that she should not remove the children from the territory of GPE . This judgment was upheld by ORG ( lagmannsrett ) on DATE following an appeal by ORG , and her request for leave to appeal on points of law was dismissed by ORG ( H\u00f8yesteretts kj\u00e6rem\u00e5lsutvalg ) on DATE .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings in GPE against A. under LAW , seeking an order for the return of the children to their country of habitual residence \u2012 GPE .","NORP The action was examined by the courts in CARDINAL rounds , CARDINAL of which were followed by enforcement proceedings . They are described below in turn .","The first examination resulted in the dismissal of the action by ORG s\u00fad ) on DATE and of the applicant \u2019s appeal ( odvolanie ) by ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) on DATE . These decisions became final and binding ( pr\u00e1voplatnos\u0165 ) .","The applicant subsequently petitioned ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to exercise his discretionary power to challenge these decisions by way of an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( mimoriadne dovolanie ) on the applicant \u2019s behalf . However , in a letter of CARDINAL DATE he was informed that , under the applicable procedural rules , no such extraordinary appeals were available in family law matters .","Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant had challenged the ordinary courts\u2019 decisions by way of a complaint under LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) .","Upon examining this complaint , on DATE , ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) found a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW fairness ) , but no separate issue under LAW .","As a result , it quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the matter to ORG for reexamination of the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of DATE .","In consequence , on DATE ORG re - examined the appeal and decided to quash the decision of DATE and to remit the case to the first - instance court for reexamination .","In the second round of examination , an order for the return of the children was issued by ORG on DATE and , following an appeal by A. , it was upheld by ORG on DATE .","As the order thereby became final and binding , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant petitioned for enforcement .","NORP However , the return order was quashed by ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) on DATE , following an appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) by A. The matter was consequently remitted to ORG for a fresh examination and , on DATE , the enforcement proceedings were discontinued .","In the third round of examination , a new order for the return of the children was issued by ORG on DATE and , following an appeal by ORG , it was upheld by ORG on DATE .","The order thus became final and binding and , on DATE , the applicant petitioned for enforcement .","NORP However , the return order was again quashed by ORG , on DATE , following an extraordinary appeal on points of law lodged by the ORG on behalf of A.","Among other things , ORG observed that the courts were duty - bound to examine as carefully as possible the overall situation to which the children would return in the place of their habitual residence .","On the facts of the present case , the lower courts had based their assessment regarding the social situation of the applicant on reports drawn up by ORG responsible for implementing LAW . However , these reports dated back to DATE and DATE and , in the circumstances , they were outdated . For this reason and others , the matter was again remitted to ORG for a fresh examination and the enforcement proceedings were terminated .","The fourth and final round of examination resulted in the dismissal of the applicant \u2019s petition by ORG on DATE . This decision was appealed against by the applicant and the public prosecution service , who had previously joined the proceedings but later withdrew their appeal .","On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings in respect of the appeal by the public prosecution service and declared the applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible for being out of time .","On DATE ORG corrected its decision of CARDINAL DATE in so far as the applicant \u2019s appeal was concerned . In particular , having established an error in its previous calculation of the applicable statutory time - limit , ORG ruled that the applicant \u2019s appeal had in fact been lodged in good time and that the proceedings on it were to continue . A. then challenged this decision by means of an appeal on points of law , but her appeal was rejected by ORG on DATE as being inadmissible .","ORG heard the applicant \u2019s appeal on DATE and dismissed it on DATE .","In dismissing the petition and the appeal , the courts relied on ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and took into account the fact that the children wished to stay with NORP in GPE , that they had spent CARDINAL of their lives in GPE , and that they were integrated there . The courts concluded that it was therefore in the best interests of the children that they should not be returned to GPE .","The matter was settled by force of a final and binding decision on DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant had turned to ORG with a fresh individual complaint . Directing it against ORG , ORG , and ORG , he alleged a violation of his rights under Articles CARDINAL ( fairness and length ) and CARDINAL of the LAW and their constitutional equivalents .","In particular , the applicant contended that the proceedings had been pending for DATE , and that in the given situation the excessive length thereof worked against him .","In addition , he argued that ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE violated his right to respect for his private life and , challenging in substance mainly ORG decision of DATE , he asserted that the proceedings had been unfair inter alia because the ORG had lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law on behalf of ORG , although such a remedy had been denied to the applicant on the grounds that it was not available as a matter of law ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible .","At the time of ORG decision , the applicant \u2019s LAW petition was still pending before ORG on his appeal against the first - instance ruling of CARDINAL DATE in the fourth round of examination ( see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . above ) , after the second final and binding return order had been quashed by ORG on DATE following an extraordinary appeal on points of law lodged by the ORG on behalf of A. ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As regards the length of the proceedings , ORG observed that ORG and ORG had determined the matter on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . Therefore , at the time the constitutional complaint was introduced , these courts were no longer dealing with the case . Examination of the length of the proceedings before these courts could thus no longer aid their acceleration and , consequently , the applicant could not be deemed to have the requisite interest in having it examined . In addition , the length of the proceedings before ORG being relatively short , the remainder of the length - of - proceedings complaint was manifestly ill - founded .","In so far as the constitutional complaint concerned ORG decision of DATE , it had evidently been lodged outside the statutory DATE time - limit and , as the proceedings on the applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE were still pending , any complaint in relation to their outcome was premature .","The decision was served on the applicant \u2019s lawyer on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154751","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"SZWED-W\u00d3JTOWICZ v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in FAC . She was represented before ORG , a lawyer practising in FAC .","The NORP Government ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE a prosecutor of ORG in ORG held a press conference and informed the public that company A. , of which the applicant owned MONEY of shares , had been issuing shortterm obligations without a necessary licence to run a bank - like operations .","On DATE the prosecutor charged the applicant with offences of running bank - like operations without licence and of issuing obligations without permission by ORG ( PERSON ) .","On DATE a bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with ORG . The applicant was accused of CARDINAL various offences connected with the running a company conducting banklike activities without necessary licences . Another bill of indictment , concerning further similar charges , was lodged with the same court on DATE . ORG examined the cases jointly .","By a judgment of DATE the applicant was acquitted of CARDINAL charges and convicted of CARDINAL other charges of fraud . She was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed her appeal .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG . On DATE ORG held a hearing and dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , finding that it was manifestly illfounded . Having heard the parties , the court gave orally brief grounds for its decision .","The copy of the decision contained information that under LAW no written grounds for that decision shall be prepared .","NORP In DATE the applicant had a stroke ( udar niedokrwienny m\u00f3zgu ) . Subsequently , she was diagnosed with chronic insufficiency of brain blood vessels ( przewlek\u0142a niewydolno\u015b\u0107 naczy\u0144 m\u00f3zgowych ) resulting in multiple brain strokes with successive left - side paresis ( udar m\u00f3zgu z niedow\u0142adem lewostronnym ) , narrowing of carotid arteries ( zw\u0119\u017cenie t\u0119tnic szyjnych ) as a result of arteriosclerosis ( mia\u017cd\u017cyca ) , chronic pancreatitis ( przewlek\u0142e zapalenie trzustki ) , degenerative vertebral alterations of the pectoral and lumbar part ( zmiany zwyrodnieniowe kr\u0119gos\u0142upa w odcinku piersiowym i l\u0119d\u017awiowym ) , widening of abdominal aorta with mural thrombus ( poszerzenie aorty brzusznej ze skrzeplin\u0105 przy\u015bcienn\u0105 ) , hypertension and depressive disorders .","NORP Since DATE the applicant has been treated in hospital several times . For the last time before her detention she was hospitalised CARDINAL DATE . She was admitted to hospital because of severe abdominal pain . She was discharged with a recommendation to remain under the medical care of an internist , gastroenterologist , vascular surgeon and psychologist . She was also advised to follow a special diet and to regularly take medication .","On DATE the ORG gave a decision , attesting that the applicant was suffering from significant disability ( niepe\u0142nosprawno\u015b\u0107 stopnia znacznego ) . This decision was granted for a period until DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken to FAC no . CARDINAL in order to serve her sentence of imprisonment . She was detained in that establishment until DATE . On DATE she was transferred to FAC no . CARDINAL where she remained until DATE . On DATE the applicant was transferred to FAC no . CARDINAL .","On DATE of her admission to prison , the applicant was examined by a prison doctor , a psychiatrist and a cardiologist . A prison doctor recommended a course of medication and a light diet . He also advised that the applicant be provided with a lower bed in a cell . Moreover , a cardiologist stated that the applicant did not need to be detained in a prison hospital .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist and subsequently on CARDINAL and DATE by an internist .","On CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the applicant had further medical consultations . On DATE she had appointment with a psychiatrist and on DATE she was examined by a prison doctor . On DATE she was consulted by an internist , on CARDINAL DATE by a dermatologist and on DATE by a surgeon . On DATE she had blood tests and abdominal ultrasonography . On CARDINAL DATE she was again consulted by an internist .","On DATE a prison doctor certified that the applicant could be treated in prison .","On DATE she had consultation with a neurologist and on DATE with an internist . On DATE she underwent laboratory tests . She had further medical appointments on CARDINAL DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ( private consultation with a vascular surgeon ) ; CARDINAL and DATE ; DATE ; CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On CARDINAL and DATE she had blood tests .","On DATE a prison doctor opined that the applicant might be treated in the conditions of detention . On DATE she underwent GPE ultrasonography of carotid and vertebral arteries . She had further medical consultations on DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE she underwent electroencephalography ( EEG ) .","On DATE she was consulted by a prison doctor . On CARDINAL DATE the prison doctor decided to maintain the same pharmacological treatment for the applicant .","On DATE the applicant had a computed tomography ( GPE ) of the head . On DATE she had neurological and on DATE gastrological consultations .","On DATE a prison doctor ascertained that the applicant may be treated in prison .","On DATE the applicant had blood tests . On DATE she was examined by a prison doctor . On DATE she underwent a computed tomography of her chest .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant had bacteriological tests . On DATE she underwent abdominal ultrasonography .","On DATE and DATE she was consulted by a pulmonologist and a prison doctor respectively .","On DATE a prison doctor , after conducting psychiatric and gastrological consultations ( on CARDINAL and DATE respectively ) , issued a medical certificate on the applicant \u2019s condition for the purposes of the judicial proceedings concerning the applicant \u2019s request for temporary release ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The certificate stated that the applicant could be treated in prison .","On DATE and DATE the applicant was taken for DATE observation in the hospital of FAC no . CARDINAL after having fainted in the court . She stayed under cardiological surveillance and had neurological consultation . Moreover , she had blood tests , electrocardiography ( ECG ) and GPE of the head . The ORG of the head indicated no fresh blood incidents in the central nervous system . After those examinations doctors concluded that the applicant could remain in prison and that there was no need for further hospitalisation . They noticed that the applicant exaggerated her condition .","On DATE and DATE the applicant was consulted by a psychiatrist and in internist respectively who recommend the continuation of the previous pharmacological treatment .","On DATE the applicant underwent abdominal GPE . On DATE she had blood tests . Those examinations indicated the presence of gallstones in bile duct . Having regard to those results , on CARDINAL DATE a prison doctor referred the applicant to a surgeon . The consultation took place on DATE . Subsequently , the applicant was consulted by an internist on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL and DATE .","Since the beginning of her detention the applicant has been receiving light diet .","The Government submitted that according to the information provided by the Director of ORG no . CARDINAL , the applicant was able to move around independently . She did not need help from third parties . She never reported to the prison authorities that she needed assistance in her basic DATE activities . She has been constantly receiving pharmacological treatment .","On DATE the applicant requested to be granted temporary release ( przerwa w karze ) . She referred to her numerous ailments and the need to have them treated properly which , in her submission , was impossible in prison , in particular in respect of her persistent neurological condition resulting from repeated strokes . In DATE the applicant repeated her request .","On DATE the ORG refused to allow the applicant \u2019s request . It was of the view that the grounds for allowing a temporary release , provided for by LAW , did not obtain in the case . On the basis of CARDINAL certificates issued by doctors working for the prison medical service , the court found that despite being of fragile state of health , the applicant had appropriate medical care in detention . In particular , she was consulted by various specialists and underwent necessary examinations . Both certificates stated that the applicant was fit for detention . The court stressed that the applicant remained under constant medical care . Importantly , the court noted that the applicant was not entirely interested in improving her state of health as on several occasions she had been disciplinary punished for storing medication and for refusing to take it in the presence of a nurse .","The applicant appealed . She argued , inter alia , that ORG had erred in the establishment of facts . In this respect , she contested the lower court \u2019s finding that the applicant was fit for detention despite her numerous ailments . She also complained about ORG reliance on the opinions of prison doctors and its refusal to admit expert opinions relevant for the applicant \u2019s condition .","On DATE the ORG of Appeal quashed ORG decision and remitted the case . It concurred with the lower court that the applicant \u2019s state of health was under constant monitoring and that she had access to specialised treatment in detention . However , given the character of the applicant \u2019s ailments , her state of health needed to be also assessed by relevant specialists , in particular , a neurologist and a gastroenterologist . The medical opinions relied on by ORG did not contain this kind of assessment .","In its decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG refused to grant the applicant a temporary release . It was of the view that the applicant \u2019s condition could be treated in detention , having regard to a medical certificate of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It noted that the applicant received necessary medical care , including consultations by specialists . The applicant \u2019s medical documentation did not substantiate a conclusion that her continued detention would seriously endanger her life or health .","The applicant appealed . ORG dismissed her appeal on CARDINAL DATE . It shared the conclusions of the lower court as to the applicant \u2019s state of health and her being fit for detention . The appellate court stressed that it transpired from the medical opinion of DATE that the applicant had been examined not only by general practitioners but also by specialists in surgery , psychiatry , neurology and gastroenterology . The opinions of the specialists confirmed that the applicant could be treated in detention . ORG also noted that further examinations and consultations had been planned which indicated that the applicant received adequate medical care .","It appears that the applicant was released on an unspecified date in DATE .","NORP The provisions pertaining to medical care in detention facilities and general conditions of detention , and the relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the ORG \u2019s judgments in the cases of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ... ( extracts ) ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE . More recent developments are described in the ORG \u2019s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE DATE . ) ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-176970","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF STOLLENWERK v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in D\u00fcren .","On DATE ORG issued a warrant for his arrest as there was a strong suspicion that he had been trafficking drugs . DATE he had been stopped with QUANTITY of heroin , which he had allegedly intended to sell . On CARDINAL previous occasions he had been stopped at the NORP border with CARDINAL and QUANTITY of heroin on him . The arrest warrant was based on the risk of him absconding as he could expect a considerable sentence for the offences in question , had no social ties , being unemployed and a drug addict , and had an unstable character . That same day he was detained on remand .","DATE and DATE the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s detention on remand was examined CARDINAL times by ORG .","In a judgment of DATE ORG convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of large - scale drug trafficking CARDINAL counts of smuggling drugs into GPE and trafficking ( dealt with as a single offence instead of CARDINAL separate offences ) and a third count of trafficking only and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE , in a separate decision , ORG ordered the continuation of the applicant \u2019s detention .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision . In substance he mainly referred to his previous submissions . On DATE he lodged an appeal against the judgment .","ORG did not allow the appeal of DATE relating to the applicant \u2019s detention and referred it to ORG , which dismissed it on DATE , finding that there continued to be a risk of the applicant absconding .","On DATE the applicant lodged a further appeal against that decision . In substance , again , he referred to his previous submissions . He explicitly asked that the observations of ORG be sent to him so as to be able to comment on them .","On DATE the D\u00fcsseldorf Chief Public Prosecutor \u2019s Office ( Generalstaatsanwaltschaft \u2013 \u201c the prosecution authorities \u201d ) submitted written observations to ORG , requesting the dismissal of the applicant \u2019s appeal of CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant \u2019s counsel received the observations from the prosecution authorities on CARDINAL DATE and submitted a reply to ORG on DATE .","Following a telephone enquiry to ORG , the applicant \u2019s counsel learned on DATE that on DATE it had already decided the applicant \u2019s appeal of CARDINAL DATE and dismissed it . The applicant had therefore not been able to reply to the observations of the prosecution authorities of CARDINAL DATE prior to the court taking its decision .","NORP That same day the applicant \u2019s counsel requested a subsequent hearing ( NORP des rechtlichen GPE ) under LAW .","On DATE ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE was served on the applicant .","On an unspecified date the prosecution authorities submitted written observations in relation to the applicant \u2019s request for a subsequent hearing .","On DATE ORG dismissed the request for a subsequent hearing as inadmissible , finding that the applicant \u2019s right to be heard had not been violated , that the prosecution authorities\u2019 observations of CARDINAL DATE had not contained any facts unknown to him and there had therefore been no need to serve them on him . In so far as his submission of CARDINAL DATE was to be classified as an objection ( NORP ) , the court rejected it because its decision of CARDINAL DATE had not been based on incorrect factual or procedural considerations . Prior to the decision of CARDINAL DATE , the observations of the prosecution authorities relating to the request for a subsequent hearing had not been served on the applicant , who had thus had no opportunity to reply to them . ORG nevertheless quoted and endorsed those observations in its decision .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He alleged , in particular , that his right to be heard , as guaranteed by LAW ) , had been violated , because ORG had taken its decisions of CARDINAL and DATE without giving him the opportunity to reply to the observations of the prosecution authorities .","On DATE ORG declined to accept the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint without providing reasons ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Its decision was served on him on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178750","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MANSOUR v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","In DATE he married a NORP national and the couple settled in GPE . Their CARDINAL children , born in DATE and DATE , are both NORP nationals .","On DATE the mother travelled to GPE with the QUANTITY children and they have not returned to GPE since .","On DATE the applicant commenced proceedings in the NORP courts for the return of his children to GPE under LAW and LAW .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG and , following an appeal by the mother , ORG , ordered the return of the children to GPE as their country of habitual residence and issued several ancillary orders .","The return order became enforceable on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied for judicial enforcement of the return order since the mother had not complied with it .","On DATE ORG attempted to have the mother comply voluntarily with the order . In response , she informed ORG that she had lodged a request with ORG for him to exercise his discretionary power to challenge the return order by way of an extraordinary appeal on points of law ( mimoriadne dovolanie ) .","On DATE ORG stayed the enforcement proceedings on the return order pending the outcome of the mother \u2019s request to ORG .","On DATE ORG resumed the enforcement proceedings after ORG had found that there were no reasons to lodge an extraordinary appeal on points of law .","On DATE and DATE respectively , ORG and , following an appeal by the applicant , ORG , found that the return order was not enforceable . They based their conclusions on the following CARDINAL grounds .","Firstly , they concluded that there already existed a previous decision on provisional measures , which had been delivered by ORG on DATE . That decision had temporarily entrusted the children to the care of the mother and required the applicant to pay child maintenance in the meantime . Those interim custody rights were to be determined later by the competent courts in GPE .","Secondly , the return order had failed to specify that it was directed at the mother or to give a precise time frame for its implementation .","Given the fact that the mother had not been identified as the recipient and that the applicant had not been provisionally entrusted with the care of the children , the order could not be enforced .","Following the unsuccessful enforcement proceedings , the applicant applied to the same court which had delivered the return order , the Bratislava ORG . He referred to the shortcomings in the order as identified by the enforcement courts and asked the court to specify to whom the order had been directed and to provide a time frame for the return of the children . ORG concluded that the applicant \u2019s action was res iudicata and dismissed it on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant challenged the enforcement courts\u2019 decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE by way of a complaint under LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint admissible and on DATE it found on the merits that ORG had violated the applicant \u2019s rights , as specified below ( \u201c the first constitutional judgment \u201d ) .","NORP In particular , it found a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW ( family life ) , QUANTITY ( protection of parenthood and children , right to child care ) , and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( judicial protection ) of the LAW , and LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( fairness ) and Article CARDINAL ( family life ) of the Convention .","The Constitutional Court found that ORG decision had been taken on purely formal grounds and had been arbitrary and in contravention of LAW , the Brussels II bis regulation , LAW and LAW . That arbitrary decision had meant that the positive obligations guaranteed by LAW and the applicant \u2019s parental rights had been breached as well .","Consequently , the Constitutional Court quashed the contested decision , remitted the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG decision of DATE to ORG for reexamination and awarded him MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation for nonpecuniary damage . In addition , ORG awarded the applicant everything he had claimed in legal costs ( EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) . It noted that he had made no claim for costs in respect of his observations in reply to those of the enforcement courts concerned by his complaint and concluded that no award was therefore possible in that regard .","The judgment was final and not amenable to appeal .","Following the first constitutional judgment , the enforcement proceedings resumed before ORG , which heard the case on DATE . It acknowledged that it was bound by ORG judgment . However , having regard to the considerable length of time that had elapsed , it deemed it necessary to assess afresh all the circumstances decisive for the enforcement of the return order , such as the children \u2019s whereabouts , their health and the possibility of their returning to GPE . It therefore quashed ORG decision under appeal and remitted the matter to it for re - examination .","On DATE ORG again declared enforcement of the order impermissible on the basis of newly obtained evidence . It relied on medical reports concerning the children \u2019s health , a psychological report referring to negative consequences for them if they were separated from the mother and an opinion from the court - appointed guardian ( the NORP office of employment , social affairs and family ) about the stable family environment they had while living with their mother . It also took into account the children \u2019s wish to stay with their mother and her new husband , their social ties in GPE , where they had been residing since DATE , and the applicant \u2019s lack of contact with them while in GPE . Relying on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the ORG \u2019s ORG judgment in the case of ORG and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) , it concluded that their return to GPE would go against their best interests .","Following an appeal by the applicant , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s decision on DATE and it became final and binding on CARDINAL DATE .","In the meantime , the applicant on CARDINAL DATE lodged another constitutional complaint aimed at the enforcement proceedings held before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He alleged a violation of Articles CARDINAL ( length ) and CARDINAL ( family life ) of the LAW and their constitutional equivalents .","On DATE ORG found a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights under both of those LAW provisions ( \u201c the second constitutional judgment \u201d ) . When dealing with the applicant \u2019s length of proceedings complaint , ORG took into account that it was the first time the applicant had raised such a grievance . There had accordingly been no previous constitutional assessment of that matter to prevent it from assessing the impugned enforcement proceedings in their entirety , from when they had been initiated . Having regard to the sensitive nature of the matter and its importance for the applicant \u2019s enjoyment of his parental rights , ORG found that ORG had proceeded with the matter over a long time ( for DATE ) and inefficiently ( it had stayed the proceedings , delivered an arbitrary enforcement decision on the first occasion , and had taken lengthy procedural steps ) . Notably , the Constitutional Court emphasised that it was precisely the passage of time which had led ORG to dismiss enforcement of the return order . It also reproached ORG for the inadequate way it had dealt with the mother \u2019s procedural requests . It further stressed the particular nature of the enforcement of such return orders and pointed out that they required prompt and efficient decisionmaking that was in accordance with international standards .","Moreover , ORG found that there had been a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to respect for his family life as a consequence of the fact that throughout the enforcement proceedings , whose length had been in breach of his right to a hearing within a reasonable time , he had been unable to assert his parental rights before the competent courts .","ORG ordered ORG to reimburse the applicant \u2019s legal costs and to pay him ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of nonpecuniary damage .","After the enforcement proceedings had been completed by a final and binding decision and before the second constitutional judgment had been issued , the applicant applied to ORG a third time on DATE . He relied on that occasion on DATE ( fairness and length ) in conjunction with LAW and DATE ( family life ) of the LAW and challenged the decisions of DATE and QUANTITY DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) on their merits . That complaint is still ongoing ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157966","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF JOVANOVIC v. SWEDEN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Josep Casadevall;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . She originates from GPE and is a NORP Orthodox Christian . In DATE she started a relationship with a NORP man , PERSON , who lived in GPE , and in DATE they married in GPE . Subsequently , the applicant was first granted a temporary residence permit in GPE until DATE and then , in DATE , she was granted a permanent residence permit . The applicant moved to GPE in DATE and , on DATE , she and PERSON had a son , X.","Due to a suspected infection , X remained in hospital for DATE following his birth before he was discharged in good health . On DATE the applicant and PERSON took X to hospital where it was revealed that he had bruises on his genitals . The family was allowed to return home after X had been examined . On DATE X \u2019s condition worsened and he suffered from cramps . The applicant and PERSON again took him to hospital . X suffered extensive bleeding in the brain and a chief physician at the hospital suspected that he had been severely ill - treated . X was kept in hospital .","On DATE , a physician filed a report on suspected child abuse with the social services and , on the same date , ORG ( arbetsmarknads- och familjen\u00e4mnden , hereafter ORG ) in PERSON decided , under section CARDINAL of the Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons ( NORP med s\u00e4rskilda best\u00e4mmelser om v\u00e5rd av unga , TIME ; hereafter the \u201c DATE LAW ) , to take X into immediate compulsory public care on a provisional basis . The decision was executed on that DATE .","On DATE ORG ( l\u00e4nsr\u00e4tten ) of GPE PERSON confirmed the decision of ORG . It appears that the applicant did not appeal against this decision .","Subsequently , ORG applied to ORG for a care order in respect of X. The applicant and PERSON , who were represented by legal counsel , opposed the measure while X \u2019s legal representative agreed that it would be in the child \u2019s best interest to be placed in compulsory public care .","By judgment of DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , granted a care order in respect of X. The court noted that , according to a medical certificate submitted by a chief physician , X had bruises on his genitals , probably injuries from being squeezed . Bleeding in the brain and a red spot on the left side of the chest strongly suggested that X had been gripped tightly and violently shaken and suffered from \u201c shaken baby syndrome \u201d . X had severe brain injuries and would probably suffer lifelong mental and physical disabilities . The court found that X \u2019s injuries had occurred while he had been in his GPE care . Thus , in the court \u2019s opinion , it did not matter who had actually caused the injuries but it sufficed to state that the parents had failed to protect X from being injured . The court concluded that the parents had shown a serious lack of ability to care for their son . The judgment had immediate effect .","On DATE ORG ( kammarr\u00e4tten ) in GPE upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . It held that neither the oral statements made before it , nor anyreached by ORG .","NORP The applicant appealed to ORG ( H\u00f6gsta f\u00f6rvaltningsdomstolen ) which , on DATE , refused leave to appeal .","In the meantime , on DATE , X was transferred from the hospital to an evaluation and treatment home ( utrednings- och behandlingshem ) together with the applicant and PERSON The main responsibility of that home was to secure GPE \u2019s protection . It also had the tasks of evaluating the GPE ability to care for X , of providing the parents with such abilities if needed and of supporting the parents in their crisis situation . The staff at the home found , after the family had been there for DATE , that the applicant had shown good ability to satisfy X \u2019s basic physical needs , take care of his practical needs and had been constantly present for him . However , she had shown considerable flaws in her emotional interaction with X and it was said , among other things , that she had not been able to separate her need for consolation and emotional care from X \u2019s feelings and needs . Her attitude towards PERSON was described as if she objectified him rather than regarded him as an individual in his own right , which in the report was described as highly worrying . It was further noted that she did not accept PERSON \u2019s injuries and that she did not talk at all about his future disabilities . As regards PERSON , the staff at the home noted inter alia that he had been absent to a great extent due to his work commitments .","NORP In DATE a criminal investigation concerning suspected child abuse in respect of the applicant and PERSON was discontinued since it was impossible to prove that either of them had committed the abuse .","In DATE X was placed in a family home ( familjehem ) consisting of a NORP married couple .","In DATE the applicant twice reported B. to the police , claiming he had threatened to kill her and her family .","On DATE the applicant requested ORG to terminate the public care . She insisted that she had never ill - treated X nor witnessed anyone else doing so . She had had no reason to suspect that X risked ill - treatment at home . Moreover , she submitted that she and PERSON had divorced and that , through an interim decision , she had been granted sole custody of X while PERSON had limited visiting rights . Furthermore , she had completed her studies in NORP for immigrants and was planning to find work .","ORG ordered an investigation into the family \u2019s situation which was completed on DATE . The purpose was to investigate and analyse whether X should remain in public care . The social services spoke with the applicant and PERSON , visited the family home and gathered relevant information for the case . Once finalised , the investigation report stated , inter alia , that according to a medical certificate issued by Professor O.F. , a specialist on \u201c shaken baby syndrome \u201d , PERSON was suffering from that syndrome . It was also stressed that PERSON \u2019s life had been in danger when he had been shaken , that he had suffered lasting brain injuries and would need care for the rest of his life . It was further noted that X had suffered injuries to his genitals . Moreover , it was stressed that it was the social services\u2019 responsibility to ensure X \u2019s safety and that , regardless of which parent had caused PERSON \u2019s injuries , the other parent had failed to protect him .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request to terminate the public care . In its decision ORG referred to the findings of the investigation report .","The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG and requested that the care order be terminated . She maintained that there was no need to keep X in public care as she was fully capable of caring for her own child . She further criticised the medical certificates that had been submitted in the case and contested the assumption that X suffered from \u201c shaken baby syndrome \u201d . Instead she claimed that ORG \u2019s injuries had been caused by malpractice of personnel at the hospital where he had been treated . She further argued that ORG human rights were being violated since he was not allowed to speak his native language and practise his religion . She also complained about the proceedings before ORG , which she considered to be flawed .","ORG contested the applicant \u2019s claims , stressing that X \u2019s life had been in danger and that he had suffered lasting brain injuries while in his GPE care .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request to obtain an opinion from ORG of ORG ( Socialstyrelsens R\u00e4ttsliga r\u00e5d ) . According to ORG , there was no reason to obtain such an opinion .","Both parties submitted documentary evidence . The applicant submitted , inter alia , a medical certificate of her own , stating that X likely suffered from a severe brain injury , probably anoxic brain injury ( injury to the brain due to a lack of oxygen ) .","On DATE ORG held an oral hearing in the case , where the applicant insisted that she had not in any way ill - treated X. Nor had she seen that X had been harmed by PERSON or any other person . According to her , there was nothing to suggest any flaws in her parental abilities and she maintained that GPE \u2019s injuries had been caused by malpractice at the hospital . ORG stated that it could not rule out the possibility that X had been ill - treated at home . It further stressed that the submitted medical certificates showed that someone had shaken X , causing him severe injuries . X \u2019s legal representative agreed that it would be in his best interest to remain in public care .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . Firstly , it found that there had been no flaws in ORG handling of the case which could affect the court \u2019s assessment . The court then noted that the applicant had contested the physicians\u2019 conclusions and , moreover , that she had submitted a medical certificate of her own . However , the court considered that the applicant \u2019s reasoning in this regard was based on speculation and accusations which , in all essential parts , were unsubstantiated . It held that the medical certificate submitted by the applicant did not in any way contradict those previously submitted . Thus , nothing had emerged that would lead the court to reassess the circumstances that had led to the initial decision to take X into public care . Furthermore , the court found that the changes to the applicant \u2019s life ( the divorce and obtaining sole custody of X ) were not sufficient to have a decisive effect on the outcome of the proceedings . It also stressed that it was important that X continue to bond with his family home parents . Furthermore , the court took into consideration that X had been subjected to severe ill - treatment while in his GPE care and that the circumstances surrounding the incident had not been clarified . Thus , the compulsory public care order should remain in place .","The applicant appealed to ORG , maintaining her request for an opinion from ORG . The applicant also reiterated her criticism of the conclusions given in the medical certificates and , again , questioned the assumption that X suffered from \u201c shaken baby syndrome \u201d . She further maintained that ORG \u2019s injuries had been caused by malpractice at the hospital . The applicant also questioned the family home \u2019s ability to care for her son .","ORG and X \u2019s legal representative both contested the applicant \u2019s claims .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request for an opinion from ORG . The opinion was submitted to the court on DATE . It referred to a certificate by the scientific advisor ORG , a physician specialised in medical radiology , which stated , inter alia , that X \u2019s injuries had been caused by severe violence and that his injuries corresponded exactly to \u201c shaken baby syndrome \u201d . The injuries could not have been caused by illness or complications related to an illness nor through a minor accident such as a fall from a changing table or similar . The injuries could not have been a consequence of an injury during delivery either . Thus , ORG wholly agreed with the assessments previously made by Professor PERSON","On DATE ORG held an oral hearing where the applicant stated that she had started to question her earlier position that ORG \u2019s injuries had not been caused by ill - treatment in their home . Although she had not actually witnessed anyone harming X , she said that the only person , apart from herself , who could have done so was B. On DATE they had taken X to the hospital , B. had been in a bad temper . On DATE B. had taken care of X while she had been in the bathroom preparing a bath for X , and from the bathroom she had heard X cry and had gone to see what was the matter . B. had then told her to leave the room and after she had done so the baby had become quiet and PERSON had left the apartment . Just shortly after this and while undressing X , she had noticed that something was wrong with him and that he was having trouble breathing . B. had threatened her and told her that she would be expelled from GPE if she were to tell anyone what had happened . She also told the court that PERSON had often been irritated when PERSON cried and that he had had a tendency to \u201c explode \u201d . The applicant further stated that her life was stable , she spoke NORP , had an apartment and work , and she would do everything to ensure that X received the care and treatment he needed .","ORG maintained that X would be exposed to danger if he were to be left in the applicant \u2019s care . X \u2019s legal representative contested the applicant \u2019s claims and pointed out that , although it had not been clarified who had caused PERSON \u2019s injuries , it must be presumed that it was one of the parents . Although she found no reason to question that , with help , the applicant would be able to care for her son , she considered that he was in need of protection until it had been established who had caused his injuries .","On DATE ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . From the outset , it noted that the primary consideration was the best interests of the child . The court then observed that X needed extensive care and great responsibility was therefore placed on the custodian in terms of understanding X \u2019s needs . Thus , the court considered it encouraging that the applicant had now accepted the conclusions in the medical certificate concerning X \u2019s state of health and the cause of his injuries . In addition , the court considered that the applicant \u2019s life situation had improved since the decision to take LAW into public care . Of decisive importance to the court was , however , whether ORG needs could be met by the applicant . In this context , the court noted that it had still not been clarified who had caused his injuries . The court further considered that , in the light of the applicant \u2019s statement before the court , her previous behaviour was difficult to understand . Although the court acknowledged the applicant \u2019s exposed situation at the time of QUANTITY \u2019s injuries , it nevertheless stressed that the conditions in the family had led to serious deficiencies in LOC care , causing him life - threatening injuries and lifelong disabilities . The court concluded that there was still a clear risk of impairment to X \u2019s health and development if the public care were to be terminated .","Upon further appeal by the applicant , ORG refused leave to appeal on DATE .","On DATE , in proceedings regarding custody of X between the applicant and PERSON , ORG ( tingsr\u00e4tten ) repealed its provisional decision of CARDINAL DATE to grant sole custody of GPE to the applicant and decided that the parents should have joint custody . It appears that the applicant and PERSON had agreed that they needed to cooperate on questions relating to X \u2019s future situation .","On DATE and on DATE ORG decided that the public care should continue . As far as is known to the ORG , the applicant did not appeal against these decisions .","Following the granting of the public care order , the applicant \u2019s contact rights to visit X were regularly examined by the domestic authorities . During X \u2019s DATE in the family home , the applicant and B. visited him CARDINAL times per week . Subsequently , the applicant and B. visited him once DATE . During the visits , an interpreter and a support person were present .","On DATE , ORG decided to reduce the GPE contact rights to once DATE since the visits had had a clearly negative effect on PERSON \u2019s mental state . The applicant did not agree with the changes and appealed against the decision to ORG . On DATE the court dismissed the appeal . The applicant did not lodge a further appeal with the appellate courts . In DATE the contact rights were extended to TIME once every month , as X was feeling better . However , on DATE ORG decided again to reduce the GPE contact rights to TIME every month , since X had been affected negatively during and after the visits .","The applicant appealed against the decision , maintaining that she had not in any way ill - treated X and that she wanted to care for him . On CARDINAL DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , upheld the ORG \u2019s decision . The court observed that X had reacted negatively during the visits and held that , due to his great need of care and treatment for his disabilities , it was important for him to be in a stable and calm environment and be allowed to bond with his family home parents .","The applicant appealed to ORG which , after having held an oral hearing , rejected the appeal on DATE . The court noted that ORG intended to film the visits and subsequently , with the help of ORG ( Barn- och ungdomspsykiatrin ) , analyse the results . Having regard to this , and the observations made by ORG during the visits , the court held that the contact restrictions should remain . The applicant did not appeal against the decision to ORG .","In the meantime , in DATE , the applicant requested that X be placed in another family home since she considered that the current family home couple did not care sufficiently well for her son . She also added that she considered it to be X \u2019s right to be placed in a NORP family . In DATE , after having carried out an investigation , ORG rejected the request on the ground that it would not be in PERSON \u2019s best interest to be moved to another family home and that his needs were best met by remaining where he was . The applicant does not appear to have appealed against this decision to the administrative courts .","On DATE ORG decided that the applicant would be allowed to speak NORP to X during the visits .","Following the filming of the applicant and X during TIME , in a report dated DATE , the company , which had been assigned by ORG to carry out the filming and analysing the emotional interplay between the applicant and PERSON , stated that the applicant had shown sensitivity towards X and that they had shown a genuinely good interplay . It was further noted that the applicant had the necessary abilities to support X in his future development . The report concluded that it was of great importance for X to be allowed to see his mother much more often . It was also recommended that the visits take place without the presence of the family home parents .","On DATE , the contact rights of the applicant and B. were extended to TIME once every month . It was also considered that the meetings functioned without a support person present . According to the Government , this arrangement was to remain in place until DATE and the applicant had not requested any changes to it . Moreover , a meeting between the applicant , the family home and ORG , scheduled for DATE , was cancelled upon request by both the applicant and the family home , as they had already agreed on the remaining visits for DATE . The ORG has not been informed whether any subsequent changes to the time , form or frequency of the visits have taken place .","At present the applicant is working as a kindergarten teacher ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-140237","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF AKHADOV v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and , at the material time , lived in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant went to the offices of ORG in Gbely with the intention of applying for asylum in GPE . From there , he was escorted to ORG in GPE , where he arrived at TIME","NORP Following questioning on DATE , that is to say on DATE , ORG decided to detain ( zaistenie ) the applicant , finding , inter alia , that he was staying in GPE without a valid travel document or any legal entitlement , and in spite of a previous decision expelling him from GPE and banning him from returning there for DATE .","NORP Under the detention order of DATE , the applicant was detained in FAC in GPE .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON s\u00fad ) received a submission dated DATE in which the applicant applied for judicial review of the order of CARDINAL DATE , challenging the assessment of the facts and the interpretation and application of the law by the police .","On DATE ORG held a hearing at which the applicant was not present in person but was represented by his lawyer . At the conclusion of the hearing , on DATE and in the presence of the applicants\u2019 lawyer , ORG dismissed the claim .","The written version of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was sent out on DATE and served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( \u00dastavn\u00fd s\u00fad ) , relying on LAW ( individual complaint ) and LAW ( speedy review of the lawfulness of detention ) , and complaining about the length of the proceedings in respect of his application dated DATE .","On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill - founded .","It observed , on the one hand , that ORG had granted the police DATE to submit observations in reply to the applicant \u2019s claim , which ORG held to have been disproportionately long .","However , overall , the decision - making process in respect of the applicant \u2019s claim had lasted DATE , and not DATE , as argued by the applicant . On that account , ORG observed that the period under consideration had not commenced until DATE when the applicant \u2019s submission had reached ORG \u2013 and that it ended on CARDINAL DATE , when the applicant had learned of ORG judgment through his lawyer .","The written version of ORG decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","Meanwhile , at an unspecified time in DATE , the applicant had been expelled to GPE .","In his observations in reply to those of the Government on the admissibility and merits of the present application , the applicant informed the ORG that he had challenged the judgment of CARDINAL DATE by means of an appeal to ORG ( Najvy\u0161\u0161\u00ed s\u00fad ) .","On DATE ORG quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the matter to ORG for re - examination , having found that the latter had neither established all the relevant facts nor dealt properly with some of the applicant \u2019s material objections .","On DATE ORG ruled anew on the applicant \u2019s application dated DATE by quashing the order of CARDINAL DATE and remitting the matter to ORG for a new decision on the grounds that they had failed both to establish and properly to assess all the relevant facts . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172496","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"M.S.S. v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , ORG , is an NORP national . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE to ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE .","On DATE he was charged in absentia in GPE with the unlawful organisation of an extremist religious group . On DATE the ORG in GPE ordered his arrest .","DATE the applicant stayed in GPE lawfully on the basis of his registration as a migrant and a renewable work permit . During that period he did not apply for refugee status or for temporary asylum or for a temporary residence permit .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s family ( wife and CARDINAL children ) arrived from GPE to join him .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on the basis of an international search warrant . On DATE ORG of GPE informed the NORP authorities that it was intended to seek the applicant \u2019s extradition and requested his detention pending such extradition .","On DATE ORG of GPE remanded the applicant in custody pending extradition . On DATE the applicant was released on the orders of ORG , since under current NORP legislation his criminal prosecution had become timebarred , thus rendering extradition impossible .","It remains unclear whether the GPE authorities have submitted an official request for the applicant \u2019s extradition .","On DATE the applicant applied for refugee status in GPE . On DATE ORG of ORG ( the \u201c PERSON \u201d ) refused to grant his request , stating that the applicant \u2019s allegation that he would run the risk of ill - treatment in GPE had not been \u201c objectively confirmed \u201d .","On DATE the applicant was informed by ORG that \u201c a person having exhausted all the instances of appeal ... and refusing voluntary departure from GPE within DATE of the date of receipt of the [ final ] decision will be administratively expelled or deported \u201d .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG of GPE ( the \u201c FMS of GPE \u201d ) against the refusal to grant refugee status . On DATE the appeal was rejected .","On DATE ORG of Ivanovo upheld the refusal to grant refugee status .","The applicant lodged an appeal , but asked the court to grant him deferral of payment of the court fee ( MONEY ( RUB ) , or MONEY ( EUR ) ) . The court deferred payment until DATE and adjourned examination of the appeal . The applicant contested this decision , asking for an extension of the deferral period . His request was dismissed and the appeal was left unexamined , since the court fees remained unpaid .","The judgment of DATE became final on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied for temporary asylum in GPE , referring to the risk of ill - treatment in GPE . On DATE the Ivanovo Regional FMS refused his request .","On DATE the applicant unsuccessfully lodged an appeal with the ORG of GPE against the refusal .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the refusal to grant temporary asylum .","The applicant again lodged an appeal , but asked the court to grant him deferral of the payment of the court fee ( RUB CARDINAL , or approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The court deferred payment until CARDINAL DATE and adjourned examination of the appeal . The applicant contested this decision , asking for an extension of the deferral period . His request was dismissed and the appeal was left unexamined , since the court fees remained unpaid .","The judgment of DATE became final on DATE .","On DATE the applicant requested that the ORG apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG to prevent his removal to GPE . He claimed that he could be deported to GPE at any moment since the refusals to grant refugee status and temporary asylum had become final , and an appeal against a deportation decision did not have a suspensive effect .","On DATE the ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request and indicated to the ORG that the applicant should not be deported or expelled to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","NORP In order to regularise his status in GPE , on DATE the applicant applied to ORG for migration registration , a work permit and a temporary residence permit .","In a letter of DATE ORG informed the applicant that he was not entitled to apply for a work permit and a temporary residence permit because his stay in GPE was illegal . It also confirmed that the applicant would not be removed from GPE as long as the interim measures indicated by the ORG continued to apply .","At the same time , the Ivanovo Regional FMS informed the applicant that he could be put on the migration register for DATE in order to legalise his stay in GPE and informed him how to go about registration .","The applicant has not informed the ORG whether he has followed the migration registration procedure .","No decision on the applicant \u2019s expulsion or deportation has been taken so far by the NORP authorities .","A summary of the relevant domestic law , as well as information concerning the human rights situation in GPE , was provided in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147615","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF FAGANEL v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was detained in the closed section of GPE prison from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , in the remand section from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and again in the closed section from CARDINAL DATE to DATE .","On DATE he was held in cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) , shared with CARDINAL other detainees and with QUANTITY of personal space . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in cell QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) and cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY ( not including a separate QUANTITY sanitary facility ) , alone with QUANTITY of personal space or with another detainee with QUANTITY of personal space .","The cell for CARDINAL detainees , where the applicant was held in the remand section , contained CARDINAL bunk bed , CARDINAL bigger and CARDINAL smaller table , CARDINAL chairs , CARDINAL wardrobes and CARDINAL x QUANTITY windows , which detainees could freely open or close .","As regards the general characteristics of the cells in the remand section of GPE prison , material conditions inside the cells and sanitary conditions , see the judgment in PERSON and PERSON GPE , nos . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","As to the out - of - cell time in the remand section , the ORG found in the aforementioned judgment that detainees in the remand section were confined to their cells day and night , save for DATE outdoor exercise , and TIME in a recreation room ( ORG and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 MONEY ) . The ORG stated that from CARDINAL DATE on detainees could spend TIME per day outdoors .","On DATE the applicant lodged the application complaining about the prison conditions of his detention from CARDINAL DATE . In the supplement to his application of CARDINAL DATE , he complained also about the conditions of his detention from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL December CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164414","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF JANUSZ WOJCIECHOWSKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was detained from DATE until DATE after a conviction . It appears that he was at first committed to a semiopen facility , FAC , and following his reclassification as a habitual offender , to a closed - type facility , FAC .","The following findings were made by the domestic courts in the course of the civil proceedings described below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Neither the applicant nor the Government contested them .","For DATE of his total period of detention in FAC , the applicant was held in cells which did not conform with the statutory minimum size of QUANTITY m per person . More particularly , the applicant had QUANTITY m of personal floor space in his cells .","Initially , the toilet facilities in FAC were not separated from the living area of the cells in question . In DATE or DATE , however , construction work started and the toilets were gradually enclosed by concrete walls with a door .","All of the applicant \u2019s cells were well - lit , ventilated and , when necessary , heated . They were equipped with enough bunk beds for each detainee to have a separate place to sleep , as well as a table , stools and cupboards .","NORP In DATE ORG day - room was turned into cells . However , detainees continued to have access to a library and various forms of leisure and cultural activities .","It appears that in FAC the applicant had TIME of outdoor exercise per day . Initially , the applicant had CARDINAL hot shower per week . From DATE that number was increased to DATE .","The applicant was assigned a top bed . He submitted that that was contrary to medical recommendations because he had health problems ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He did not submit any documents to that effect .","The applicant submitted that for the whole of DATE he had not been able to attend DATE Mass at the remand centre .","As established by the domestic courts ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , at the material time , CARDINAL NORP services had been organised on DATE and CARDINAL on religious holidays . Prisoners wishing to attend had to sign up with their supervisors ( wychowawca ) . Subsequently , a list of persons approved for a particular GPE had been prepared by remand centre staff , with the help of a special computer program . The system had been designed to select prisoners on a rotation basis , according to their classification groups and in a way so as not to mix prisoners classed as dangerous detainees with those who did not require any special security measures . At times , however , individual prisoners were rejected because they did not belong to the group authorised to attend Mass on DATE .","The remand centre register showed that the applicant had been authorised to attend DATE Mass CARDINAL times , twice in DATE and twice in DATE .","The domestic courts established DATE before his detention the applicant had been admitted to hospital because of inflammation of the testicles , prostatic hyperplasia , pneumonia and an unspecified skin condition , for which he had received treatment similar to that usually prescribed for dermatitis ( zapalenie sk\u00f3ry ) .","During his detention in FAC , the applicant often made appointments with the in - house doctor because of colds , back ache and prostate problems . On DATE a drug called PERSON was prescribed for the applicant , in compliance with his wish . Another medicine which the applicant had previously taken for his prostate condition , PERSON , was not in the remand centre \u2019s stock . A generic medicine was offered to the applicant instead . Eventually , PERSON was sent to the prison by the applicant \u2019s relatives .","The applicant also received treatment for a scalp condition , tinea versicolor ( \u0142upie\u017c pstry ) . In addition to that treatment , from DATE , he was entitled to an additional DATE shower . On DATE the applicant was examined by a dermatologist and his skin condition was diagnosed as seborrhoeic dermatitis ( \u0142ojotokowe zapalenie sk\u00f3ry ) , a chronic inflammatory scalp disorder . Consequently , the applicant \u2019s treatment was changed slightly . It was also established that the first symptoms of that disorder had appeared prior to the applicant \u2019s detention , in DATE . An expert in dermatology , appointed by the domestic court , excluded the possibility that the applicant had developed the illness because of contact with an allegedly dirty and mouldy mattress . The expert also concluded that the applicant had received the treatment which was usually prescribed in such cases by dermatologists . In DATE following diagnosis of the illness , the applicant was seen by a doctor on thirty occasions . Subsequently , throughout DATE , he made CARDINAL medical appointments .","In DATE the applicant also obtained dentures .","NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant lodged a number of complaints with the ORG , ORG and the relevant penitentiary court , informing them of the allegedly deplorable conditions of his detention , his inadequate medical care and of unreasonable restrictions on the practice of his religion during his detention in FAC .","On an unspecified date ORG of ORG ( PERSON ) informed the applicant that his complaints had been considered ill - founded . It was established that the applicant had received adequate medical care . In particular , the remand centre had administered PERSON and the other drug , PERSON , had been obtained with the authorities\u2019 permission from the applicant \u2019s relatives . The remand facility in PERSON had not registered any overcrowding . The applicant \u2019s cells had been adequately furnished and there had been place for each detainee at the cell \u2019s communal table .","NORP In letters of CARDINAL May and DATE , the authorities informed the applicant that he had had unrestricted access to religious services in FAC , in accordance with the special schedule . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s placement in overcrowded cells had been in compliance with the law , namely Article CARDINAL of the Code of the Execution of Criminal Sentences .","NORP The applicant , who was represented by a lawyer , also brought a civil action for infringement of his personal rights on account of overcrowding , inadequate medical care and unreasonable restrictions on the practice of his religion in FAC by means of attendance of DATE GPE He claimed MONEY ( PLN ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation . The domestic courts examined the claim under LAW , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) held that the applicant \u2019s placement in overcrowded cells for a period of CARDINAL days during his detention constituted degrading and inhuman treatment within the meaning of domestic law and the Convention .","The rest of the applicant \u2019s complaints were considered ill - founded .","The evidence which was obtained by the civil court , inter alia , the applicant \u2019s medical history , witness testimony and the report of an expert in dermatology , had disproved the applicant \u2019s allegations that he had contracted his skin condition in the remand centre because his mattress had been dirty and damp and that his illness had been inadequately treated .","The domestic court considered that in view of the fact that the applicant had been authorised to attend DATE Mass a total of CARDINAL times in DATE and in the light of the testimony of the prison chaplain that the applicant had been free to request attendance in DATE Mass , it could not be said that his access to religious services had been unreasonably restricted . It was also noted that detainees had been free to make individual appointments with the remand centre \u2019s priest . The applicant had not wished to do so at the material time .","Lastly , the applicant \u2019s submission that he had obtained a doctor \u2019s recommendation to have a bottom bunk had not been supported by any documents .","In view of the above , ORG awarded the applicant LAW ( approximately LAW ) in non - pecuniary compensation on account of the suffering caused by his detention in overcrowded cells . The domestic court also ordered the applicant to pay ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) towards the costs of the proceedings .","The applicant submitted a hand - written appeal against the above - mentioned judgment , dated DATE . The document does not bear any stamps but is accompanied by an official note , confirming that on DATE the applicant wished to send his appeal to ORG from FAC .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an appeal brought by the respondent and , apparently , the applicant \u2019s appeal . The first - instance judgment was upheld .","An appeal by the applicant against the judgment of the appellate court was rejected as no such appeal was available under the applicable law ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177519","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"D\u0130\u015e\u00c7\u0130 AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["NORP The list of applicants is set out in the appended table . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","NORP The applicants\u2019 complaints under LAW concerning the excessive length of pre - trial detention were communicated to the Government . In application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , the applicant also raised another complaint under LAW CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP On various dates , the applicants were placed in pre - trial detentions on suspicion of having committed a crime . Subsequently , criminal proceedings were initiated against them . However , there is no further information in the case files about the outcome of the proceedings . The relevant details of the applications appear in the table below ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-149208","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BRAJER v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) gave a decision , ordering the applicant \u2019s detention on remand for DATE . He was charged with a number of offences committed in an armed organised criminal group . At that time the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed in another criminal proceedings against him . The end of that prison sentence fell on DATE .","In its decision , ORG relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question . The court further emphasised the gravity of the offences and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant after conviction . According to the domestic court , the fact that the applicant was at the relevant time serving a prison sentence did not minimise the risk of him obstructing the proceedings . Additionally , the ongoing questioning of other members of the criminal group as well as the necessity to obtain other evidence justified remanding the applicant in custody .","On DATE and DATE ORG ( PERSON ) extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . Subsequently , ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) extended the applicant \u2019s detention on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and on DATE .","In their detention decisions the courts repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question and on the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him . The courts considered that keeping the applicant in detention on remand was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings . They emphasised the complex character of the case and the considerable number of co - accused involved who , if released , would had obstructed the proceedings . The courts noted that due to the nature of the organised criminal group , its methods of influencing and bringing pressure to bear on the other members of the group as well as witnesses , the authorities had had difficulties in collecting evidence and taking statements .","On DATE ORG ( Prokurator PERSON ) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with ORG . The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion and drug - trafficking committed in an organised and armed criminal group . The bill of indictment comprised CARDINAL charges brought against CARDINAL defendants . The prosecution authorities requested that CARDINAL witnesses be heard before the court .","On DATE the ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention on remand until DATE . Subsequently , the same court ordered prolongation of his detention on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) , on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) and on DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) . The applicant lodged a number of motions to be released as well as appeals against the decisions extending his pre - trial detention , all in vain .","In their decisions the courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant \u2019s detention .","Meanwhile , the court scheduled QUANTITY hearings for DATE . Due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and of some of the accused those hearings did not take place .","The trial was eventually opened on DATE . Subsequent scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences of some of the coaccused and problems with sound system in the court room .","NORP In DATE ORG gave a severance order and decided to determine charges against CARDINAL coaccused separately .","The bill of indictment was only finally read out to the defendants at the hearing held on DATE .","At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG started taking evidence from the accused . It subsequently held CARDINAL hearings until DATE , during which some of the accused gave evidence . CARDINAL of the scheduled hearings were adjourned due to sick - leaves of the accused . CARDINAL hearing was adjourned because of the motion for disqualification of the presiding judge lodged by CARDINAL of the co - accused .","NORP In DATE ORG continued taking evidence from the defendants . Of the CARDINAL hearings scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL took place . The trial court adjourned DATE hearings due to justified absences of the parties , QUANTITY hearings were cancelled due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and the lay judges .","Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered that the applicant \u2019s detention on remand be lifted on condition that he paid the bail in the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) within DATE from the date of the decision .","On the same date the applicant was released on bail and police supervision . He was also prohibited from leaving the country .","ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL hearings were eventually held . At the hearing of DATE the trial court started taking evidence from witnesses .","Of the CARDINAL hearings cancelled DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned because of a sick - leave of a judge , CARDINAL because of absences of witnesses , and the remaining QUANTITY hearings \u2013 because of absences of the parties .","Until DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL were adjourned due to justified absences of the defendants .","The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending at first instance .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w post\u0119powaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i post\u0119powaniu s\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionej zw\u0142oki DATE \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) . He sought a finding that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and ORG in compensation .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The court found that , considering the complexity of the case and the number of co - accused who had actively tried to obstruct the proceedings , ORG had conducted the proceedings in a correct and timely manner . Consequently , the appellate court refused to award the applicant compensation ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171971","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF FR\u00d6BRICH v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Public hearing)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Before the reunification of GPE he lived in the former GPE , serving in the police force from DATE .","On DATE , the GPE ( ORG convicted the applicant of \u201c criminal assault against the local bodies of the ORG \u201d ( \u201c verbrecherischer ORG gegen die \u00f6rtlichen GPE der Staatsmacht \u201d ) after he had attacked a member of the GPE parliament of the ruling ORG . He was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment and served DATE in prison .","On DATE the GPE ( ORG Regional Court annulled the DATE judgment for its incompatibility with the principles of the rule of law and rehabilitated the applicant pursuant to LAW of LAW ( Gesetz \u00fcber die Rehabilitierung und Entsch\u00e4digung von Opfern rechtsstaatswidriger Strafverfolgungsma\u00dfnahmen i m Beitrittsgebiet PERSON ) designed to rehabilitate and compensate prisoners of the GPE regime for deprivation of their liberty incompatible with the principles of the rule of law .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for compensation under LAW . The application form contained instructions that , according to LAW ( see Relevant domestic law and practice , CARDINAL and DATE below ) , such compensation could not be granted to a person who had offended against the principles of humanity and the rule of law . The applicant declared on the questionnaire that he had never acted in disregard of these principles and never worked for the former GPE \u2019s ORG ( ORG f\u00fcr ORG . On CARDINAL DATE the President of the GPE ( ORG Regional Court , acting as the competent authority , awarded him compensation of MONEY , equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) , pursuant to LAW in conjunction with LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE , after an amendment of the LAW , the applicant also applied for a special , incomerelated pension which benefits former victims of imprisonment ( monatliche besondere PERSON f\u00fcr PERSON ) . He again confirmed that he had never offended against the principles of humanity and the rule of law and never worked for the former GPE \u2019s ORG . On DATE he was granted a special DATE pension of LAW pursuant to Section CARDINALa of LAW , with the reservation that information held by the Federal Commissioner for ORG of the former GPE ( \u201c the Federal Commissioner \u201d ) must not contradict the applicant \u2019s statements . A respective request for information was submitted on DATE .","On DATE the Federal Commissioner informed the President of ORG that the applicant , DATE and DATE , had been a secret informant of ORG while he was a member of the police force . This information was based on a number of documents , including CARDINAL handwritten reports allegedly drafted by the applicant and a declaration to commit to serve as a secret informant to the state security service .","On DATE the President of ORG , relying on LAW and CARDINAL sentence , no . CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON f\u00fcr ORG ) , withdrew the decisions granting compensation and a special pension and at the same time ordered the applicant to reimburse the amounts already received pursuant to LAW . The President considered that the decisions had been unlawful from the beginning as the prerequisites for either entitlement had never been met and that the applicant could not legitimately rely on these decisions being maintained , as he had obtained them by giving information that was substantially incorrect . Referring to LAW of LAW , he observed that the applicant , contrary to the statements in his applications , had worked as a secret informant for ORG and had produced CARDINAL reports for ORG in which he put at real risk the persons on whom he had informed .","NORP On DATE the applicant applied for judicial review of that decision and asked to be heard in person . He claimed that the information contained in the documents of the Federal Commissioner was incomplete and not accurate . The fact that at the time of recruitment he was DATE and had been severely traumatised when fleeing his home town in GPE in DATE and experiencing the bombing of GPE on DATE , followed by DATE of homelessness after the war had ended , also had to be taken into account . His father had returned , incapacitated for work , from NORP captivity only in DATE or DATE . While serving in the police forces he had not been aware of working for other government agencies . The written commitment to the state security service might have been dictated to him when he was under the influence of alcohol but he had no memory of it whatsoever . In any case , he ruled out that the wording was his own and that he had known that the reports were to be used by the state security service .","On DATE the GPE ( ORG Regional Court , sitting as a chamber of CARDINAL judges , dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for judicial review , finding that his work as a secret informant for ORG was of such nature , scope and duration that it was reprehensible enough to justify ruling out the applicant \u2019s eligibility for compensation payments pursuant to LAW of LAW . Acknowledging that in a dictatorship which lasted for DATE , minor involvement with the regime was frequent , it considered that the applicant \u2019s position as a secret informant of the state security service did not itself suffice to trigger the application of that provision . However , compensation provided under the LAW was intended to benefit innocent victims only , but not those who had also participated in offences contrary to the principles of humanity and which were harmful to others or at least put them at risk . This could be assumed when a secret informant voluntarily reported on others and the reports could potentially cause persecution by the state security service . In that case compensation payments were ruled out , no matter how great the offender \u2019s own suffering had been . The courts were not to compare the extent of suffering involved .","ORG observed that the applicant had penned a handwritten commitment to serve the state security service after he had already reported twice on others . Thus the applicant \u2019s submission that he had believed that he was reporting to police officers and not to the state security service was , in the light of that declaration , not credible ( \u201c nicht glaubhaft \u201d ) . Furthermore , the CARDINAL reports mentioned in the decision of the President of ORG , as well as CARDINAL more reports were capable of putting in danger the persons informed on . The applicant mainly reported on their contacts with GPE and GPE . An intention to leave the former GPE without permission , in particular , could have led to severe criminal persecution of the persons involved . The reports were not meaningless but contained valuable information for the state security service . The applicant \u2019s claim that some reports were unknown to him and factually incorrect and that he did not recognise the names of the superior officers was irrelevant to ORG decision .","ORG also pointed out that it was unnecessary to hear the applicant in person . His personality at the time and the circumstances of his recruitment would have been relevant only if there were indications that the applicant acted under insupportable pressure . However , there were no such indications and the applicant had made no claims in this regard . He had reported twice on others , even before being recruited by the state security service . Further , the court could not see a connection between the applicant \u2019s experiences relating to the impact of war and the post - war period on him and his psychological strain at the time of recruitment on the one hand and his willingness to cooperate with the state security service on the other hand .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , endorsing ORG reasons .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint without providing reasons ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180668","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KOVALENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179882","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF GRA STIFTUNG GEGEN RASSISMUS UND ANTISEMITISMUS v. SWITZERLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant is a non - governmental organisation which promotes tolerance and condemns all types of racially motivated discrimination . It was established under NORP law and registered in GPE .","On DATE the youth wing of ORG ( PERSON ) held a demonstration in the train station square in the town of GPE concerning a public initiative to support the prohibition of the building of minarets in GPE . After the event the party published a report on its website , including the following excerpts :","\u201c In his speech in front of the ORG government building [ GPE ] , GPE , the president of the local branch of ORG [ \u201c the PERSON \u201d ] , emphasised that it was time to stop the expansion of ORG . With this demonstration , ORG wanted to take an extraordinary measure in an extraordinary time . The NORP guiding culture ( \u201c schweizerische NORP \u201d ) , based on NORP , can not allow itself to be replaced by other cultures , GPE added . A symbolic sign , such as the prohibition of minarets , would therefore be an expression of the preservation of one \u2019s own identity . \u201d","NORP In response , the applicant posted an entry on its website in the section called \u201c Chronology \u2013 Verbal racism \u201d , entitled \u201c PERSON , CARDINAL DATE \u201d , including the following extract :","\u201c According to the report of the event , GPE , the president of the local branch of ORG , emphasised that it was time to stop the expansion of ORG . He added further : \u2018 The NORP guiding culture , based on NORP , can not allow itself to be replaced by other cultures . A symbolic sign , such as the prohibition of minarets , would therefore be an expression of the preservation of one \u2019s own ORG of GPE canton representative PERSON also spoke to the few people who attended ; nevertheless , ORG speaks of a great success . ( Verbal racism ) \u201d","On DATE the popular initiative against the construction of minarets was accepted in a referendum and a constitutional amendment banning the construction of new minarets was introduced .","On DATE PERSON filed a claim for the protection of his personality rights with ORG ( PERSON ) . He applied , firstly , to have the applicant organisation withdraw the entry in question from its homepage and , secondly , for it to be replaced with the court \u2019s judgment . The applicant organisation replied that the title of the Internet entry had to be considered as a value judgment , which could only lead to an infringement of personality rights if it entailed an unnecessarily hurtful and insulting attack on the person concerned .","On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON \u2019s action . It held that the publication of the impugned article on the applicant \u2019s website had been justified since it had related to a political discussion on a matter of public interest .","On appeal , on CARDINAL DATE the Thurgau Cantonal High Court ( Obergericht des Kantons Thurgau ) reversed the first - instance judgment . It held that classifying GPE \u2019s speech as \u201c verbally racist \u201d had been a mixed value judgment , which could lead to an infringement of personality rights if it was based on untruths . ORG concluded that GPE \u2019s speech itself had not been racist . It therefore ordered that the impugned article be removed from the applicant \u2019s website and replaced with the court \u2019s judgment .","On DATE the applicant organisation filed an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) , reiterating its argument that any interference with GPE \u2019s personality rights had been justified . CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s main aims was to fight racism and to inform the public about hidden and open racist behaviour . Its website stated that public comments would be documented , even if they did not fall within the scope of the prohibition of racial discrimination enshrined in LAW . To fulfil its role of watchdog in that sense , it published articles and interviews concerning current events relating to racism and antiSemitism .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant organisation \u2019s appeal , finding as follows ( unofficial translation ) :","\u201c CARDINAL . The classification of and commenting on a person \u2019s statements as \u2018 verbal ORG violate that person \u2019s honour . Not only in the context of the criminal offence of racial discrimination ( LAW ) but more generally , the term in question is , in the eyes of the average reader , capable of deliberately debasing the person whose comments have been classified as \u2018 verbally ORG , accusing him or her of behaviour which is frowned upon by society in the form of an act which is , at the very least , questionable in constitutional terms ( cf . LAW III CARDINAL E. CARDINALb \/ aa p. CARDINAL , CARDINAL III DATE p. CARDINAL and CARDINAL E. CARDINAL.CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) . The appellant referred to the respondent \u2019s speech at the public demonstration of CARDINAL DATE on its website ... freely accessible on the Internet , commenting on the term \u2018 verbal ORG . It thereby violated the respondent \u2019s honour as part of his personality within the meaning of LAW of LAW . The infringement is unlawful if it is not justified by the consent of the injured party , by an overriding private or public interest or by law ( LAW ) .","The main point in dispute is whether the appellant can rely on an overriding interest in classifying the respondent \u2019s comments as \u2018 verbal ORG .","The case - law on press statements , on which the appellant relies , distinguishes between statements of facts on the one hand and value judgments on the other , and can be summarised as follows : ...","The appellant assigned the respondent \u2019s statements to the section entitled \u2018 verbal ORG ... That was a mixed value judgment . It contains a substantive core and , at the same time , a value judgment . In order to justify the substantive core , it is necessary to examine whether the respondent \u2019s comments were indeed racist .","The term \u2018 ORG is understood as \u2018 a ORG which states that \u2018 certain races or nations are superior to others in terms of their cultural GPE , and , on the other hand , a \u2018 certain attitude , manner of thinking and acting towards people of ( certain ) other races or nations\u2019 ( cf . GPE , FAC in Six Volumes , GPE . CARDINAL , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . The adjective \u2018 verbal\u2019 describes racism as \u2018 [ occurring ] with words , with the help of NORP ( cf . GPE , FAC in Six Volumes , GPE . DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . Verbal racism is , therefore , no longer merely a certain attitude , but an attitude in the instant case which was expressed publicly through language ( as opposed to , for example , through deeds ) . \u2018 Verbal racism\u2019 could therefore mean racial discrimination in the criminal sense , as the respondent claims . What is decisive , however , as the second - instance court correctly stated , is that the mere demonstration of a difference between CARDINAL individuals or groups does not constitute racism . Racism begins where the difference amounts simultaneously to denigration of the victims and where the highlighting of differences is ultimately only a means to represent the victims negatively and to show disregard for their dignity .","The statements that led the appellant to conclude that there had been \u2018 verbal ORG are the core phrases \u2018 it is time to stop the spread of ORG ... The NORP guiding culture ( \u201c schweizerische NORP \u201d ) , based on NORP , can not let itself be repressed by other cultures ... A symbolic sign , such as the prohibition of minarets , is therefore an expression of the preservation of one \u2019s own identity\u2019 .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . In his public speech , the respondent expressed his opinion on the prohibition of minarets , which , in the opinion of ORG , would not be compatible with freedom of religion and non - discrimination . He has , in that connection , compared his own beliefs ( \u2018 ORG ) with foreign beliefs ( \u2018 Islam\u2019 ) , delimited them ( \u2018 to halt\u2019 , \u2018 preserving one \u2019s own identity\u2019 ) and described his own as worthy of protection and defence ( \u2018 NORP leading ORG , \u2018 not to be repressed\u2019 ) . For the average listener , that does not result in the blanket denigration of the followers of ORG or show fundamental contempt for NORP .","On the whole , it can not be said that the comments made by the respondent , as understood by the average listener , could be described as \u2018 verbally ORG . Therefore , the substantive core does not apply and the assessment is not acceptable . It shows the respondent in the wrong light . Therefore , the mixed value judgment , which infringed personality rights , can not be justified by any overriding interest within the meaning of LAW of LAW .","That assessment can not be altered by the fact that in the general interest of informing the public , there is an increased degree of publicity and a reduced level of protection for personality rights for people who engage in a political debate , such as the respondent in the campaign for the minaret initiative ( see BGE CARDINAL II CARDINAL PERSON CARDINALb p. CARDINAL , CARDINAL II CARDINAL E. CARDINALb p. CARDINAL ) . That special framework allows for the assessment of breaches of honour on a somewhat different scale , but it can neither justify the dissemination of untruths nor the publication of value judgments that do not appear to be justified with regard to the underlying facts . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153360","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"J.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the ORG by Mr F. Shiels of ORG , a firm of solicitors based in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant was a pupil at a high school in GPE ( \u201c the school \u201d ) . On DATE ORG for GPE ( \u201c the PPS \u201d ) received a police investigation file which alleged that the applicant had assaulted a teacher at the school .","In DATE and DATE teachers at the school refused to teach the applicant because of the alleged assault . On DATE the teachers went on strike . In order for the strike to be resolved , the applicant voluntarily excluded himself from school and was provided with alternative educational assistance .","The strike nonetheless generated a great deal of publicity . CARDINAL articles appeared in ORG ( CARDINAL of GPE main DATE newspapers ) on DATE .","The first article carried the headline \u201c Details of school \u2018 ORG revealed \u201d and continued :","\u201c Details of the alleged attack which sparked the ORG strike at [ the school ] have been released exclusively to ORG ... An incident report filed with [ the school \u2019s ] management by the teacher who was allegedly attacked has been obtained by ORG . The staff member , who wishes to remain anonymous while negotiations continue , claimed he was shoved through the doorway of his class after being screamed and cursed at by the boy ... The pupil is understood to have suffered CARDINAL family bereavements , including the death of his brother , before the alleged attack . Internal documents show school bosses had branded the boy \u2018 high risk\u2019 , with emotional and anger management issues . Reports also reveal management had warned staff to move CARDINAL ft away from the pupil when he was in a confrontational mood . The boy was involved in a serious fight with another [ school ] pupil DATE after he was taunted about family members . He was being taught in the school \u2019s special needs Pupil Support Centre just before the strike . The teachers have asked for the pupil to be removed from school or taught in isolation DATE but education authorities have refused . \u201d","The second article , published under the headline \u201c Pupil involved in CARDINAL detentions \u201d stated :","\u201c The pupil at the centre of the strike row was involved in CARDINAL detentions in DATE , behaviour records obtained by ORG show .","The punishments were given between DATE and DATE for incidents from aggression directed towards teachers and other pupils to disruptive behaviour and leaving school without permission .","He was also involved in a serious fight with another pupil after he was teased about his family , confidential files say .","Union officials have insisted the pupil has problems that make him a candidate for special needs teaching .","...","The pupil \u2019s monitoring diary from his time in the segregated pupil support centre shows he was making improvements . \u201d","A similar article had appeared in LOC ( another DATE newspaper published in GPE ) on DATE under the headline \u201c Details of strike school incident revealed \u201d . This article also contained details from the monitoring diary , including the applicant \u2019s marks for behaviour and comments made by teachers .","During the strike , the media made enquiries of the police , the ORG and ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) as to what action had been taken in respect of the alleged assault at the school . The ORG , through a ORG press release , informed the media that a youth had been reported to the ORG by ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) , that a decision had been issued and that there would be a first appearance on summons in DATE on a charge of assault . In response to further queries , the PPS informed the media that the youth \u2019s court appearance would take place on DATE .","The press release did not disclose the applicant \u2019s name , age or school . However , subsequent media reports connected the youth in the press release to the previous stories about the strike at the school . Although the applicant \u2019s name was not published , his age , the name of his school and the date of his hearing before ORG were disclosed in these reports .","NORP The applicant \u2019s solicitors wrote to the PPS asking it to explain its decision to issue the press release . They also invited the PPS to withdraw the summons and reissue it without informing the media that a new court date had been set .","In the absence of a reply from the ORG , the applicant issued judicial review proceedings in which he contended that the information it had disclosed to the ORG and the press constituted an unjustified interference with his rights under LAW ( see section CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , in order to have the media excluded from the trial , the applicant applied to ORG for the case to be adjourned to a date not to be announced in open court . The application was refused by GPE , who instead adjourned the hearing to DATE and ordered that CARDINAL reporters could attend it . Pursuant to LAW Order DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) the District Judge also ordered that \u201c no details pertaining to the identification of the applicant be published or released to the media \u201d .","The applicant renewed his application in writing . On DATE the District Judge decided that the case should not be adjourned to an undisclosed date but indicated that the court would hear argument as to the exclusion of the press . Those arguments were heard on DATE . ORG was represented and opposed the applicant \u2019s application for exclusion ; the PPS made no representations .","After hearing the parties\u2019 arguments , the District Judge refused the application on the ground that , due to the extent of the publicity in the case , much of it from the perspective of the teacher alleged to have been assaulted , the applicant would be disadvantaged by a media ban because it would mean his version of events would not be aired .","The applicant sought judicial review of the District Judge \u2019s decision , relying on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL ) of LAW on the Rights of the Child ( see Relevant law and practice below ) .","The applications for permission to apply for judicial review against the PPS ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and against the District Judge \u2019s decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were heard together by ORG , sitting as a ORG . However , on DATE the applications were dismissed .","The Divisional Court accepted that LAW was engaged as the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy due first , to the statutory scheme in place under the DATE Order ; and secondly , to the personal intrusion which had arisen from the extensive nature of the media reporting of the case . In reaching this conclusion , ORG did not consider the applicant \u2019s complaints individually but instead had general regard to the intrusive nature of the media reports taken as a whole .","Having found that Article CARDINAL was engaged , ORG went on to consider whether the ORG had been justified in the disclosures it made and whether ORG had been justified in allowing CARDINAL members of the press into the hearing . In respect of the PPS disclosures , ORG found that it was the responsibility of the media not to publish anything that disclosed the name , address or school of a child covered by LAW and the ORG had not been under any obligation to warn the media of its responsibilities .","With regard to the attendance of the press at the hearing , ORG found that the public interest in securing open justice had outweighed the interest of the applicant in preventing reporting of the case . It added that , in the course of ORG hearing , personal material relating to the applicant might be disclosed in which there was little or no public interest . However , ORG considered that ORG would make appropriate orders preventing publication of such information .","On DATE the ORG refused to certify a point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by ORG .","The applicant \u2019s trial began on DATE . The applicant gave evidence in his defence and was acquitted . ORG found that he had been unlawfully detained by the teacher concerned and that the force used by the applicant on the teacher had been reasonable and proportionate .","NORP Before the trial , the applicant \u2019s solicitors had complained to the police about the conduct of the media and alleged that the school had breached its obligations under LAW DATE in releasing personal information about him to the media . The police advised the applicant \u2019s solicitor that the complaint about the release of personal information to the media would be forwarded to Information Commissioner as that aspect of the complaint was not a matter which they could investigate . The police took a statement from the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the ORG wrote to the applicant \u2019s solicitor to confirm that a report has been submitted to the PPS and its advice and direction were awaited . On DATE the ORG notified the applicant \u2019s solicitor that the PPS had advised that the offence in question was a summary only offence and , as such , had become statute barred DATE after the date it was committed . No prosecution could therefore be brought .","The ORG did not forward the applicant \u2019s complaint to the Information Commissioner and the applicant therefore complained directly to the Commissioner on DATE . The outcome of this complaint is unknown .","In addition , by letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained to the school about the release of confidential information to the media . The school replied on DATE , indicating that it had not released any personal or confidential information to the media , except where authorised by the applicant to do so .","Article CARDINAL of the above Order provides as follows :","\u201c Restrictions on reporting proceedings","( CARDINAL ) Where a child is concerned in any criminal proceedings ( other than proceedings to which paragraph ( CARDINAL ) applies ) the court may direct that -","( a ) no report shall be published which reveals the name , address or school of the child or includes any particulars likely to lead to the identification of the child ; and","( b ) no picture shall be published as being or including a picture of the child ,","except in so far ( if at all ) as may be permitted by the direction of the court .","( CARDINAL ) Where a child is concerned in any proceedings in a youth court or on appeal from a youth court ( including proceedings by way of case stated ) -","( a ) no report shall be published which reveals the name , address or school of the child or includes any particulars likely to lead to the identification of the child ; and","( b ) no picture shall be published as being or including a picture of any child so concerned ,","except where the court or the Secretary of ORG , if satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so , makes an order dispensing with these prohibitions to such extent as may be specified in the order .","...","( CARDINAL ) A court shall not exercise its power under paragraph ( CARDINAL ) without -","( a ) affording the parties to the proceedings an opportunity to make representations ; and","( b ) taking into account any representations which are duly made .","( CARDINAL ) If a report or picture is published in contravention of a direction under paragraph ( CARDINAL ) or of paragraph ( CARDINAL ) , the following persons -","( a ) in the case of publication of a written report or a picture as part of a newspaper , any proprietor , editor or publisher of the newspaper ;","( b ) in the case of the inclusion of a report or picture in a programme service , any body corporate which provides the service and any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper ,","shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level CARDINAL on the standard scale ...","( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of this LAW a child is \u2018 concerned\u2019 in any proceedings whether as being the person by or against or in respect of whom the proceedings are taken or as being a witness in the proceedings .","( CARDINAL ) In this Article -","...","\u2018 publish\u2019 includes -","... ( b ) cause to be published ... \u201d","The relevant ORG principles are set out in LAW :","\u201c CARDINAL The data protection principles","( CARDINAL ) Subject to section ORG ) , it shall be the duty of a data controller to comply with the data protection principles in relation to all personal data with respect to which he is the data controller . \u201d","and in DATE and QUANTITY of Schedule CARDINAL of the Act :","\u201c CARDINAL . Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and , in particular , shall not be processed unless \u2014","( a ) CARDINAL of the conditions in Schedule CARDINAL is met , and","( b ) in the case of sensitive personal data , CARDINAL of the conditions in Schedule CARDINAL is also met .","Personal data shall be obtained only for CARDINAL or more specified and lawful purposes , and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes . \u201d","Schedule CARDINAL provides that in the case of sensitive personal data , the processing must be necessary for the purposes of exercising or performing any right or obligation which is conferred or imposed by law on the data controller in connection with employment . Pursuant to section CARDINAL , \u201c sensitive personal data \u201d includes information as to \u201c any proceedings for any offence committed or alleged to have been committed by [ the data subject ] , the disposal of such proceedings or the sentence of any court in such proceedings \u201d .","Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides for the award of compensation for damage caused by a contravention of the LAW :","\u201c CARDINAL Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements","( CARDINAL ) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this LAW is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage .","( CARDINAL ) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this LAW is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if\u2014","( a ) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention , or","( b ) the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes .","( CARDINAL ) In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this section it is a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the requirement concerned . \u201d","Moreover , CARDINAL of the roles of the ORG Commissioner \u2019s office is to uphold information rights in the public interest . The Commissioner can rule on eligible complaints and take appropriate action when the law is broken . In particular , section CARDINAL of the Act permits the Information Commissioner to issue an enforcement notice where a data controller has contravened the Act :","\u201c CARDINAL Enforcement notices","( CARDINAL ) If the Commissioner is satisfied that a data controller has contravened or is contravening any of the data protection principles , the Commissioner may serve him with a notice ( in this LAW referred to as \u201c an enforcement notice \u201d ) requiring him , for complying with the principle or principles in question , to do either or both of the following \u2014","( a ) to take within such time as may be specified in the notice , or to refrain from taking after such time as may be so specified , such steps as are so specified , or","( b ) to refrain from processing any personal data , or any personal data of a description specified in the notice , or to refrain from processing them for a purpose so specified or in a manner so specified , after such time as may be so specified . \u201d","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE provides that","\u201c A person who claims that a public authority has acted ( or proposed to act ) in a way which is made unlawful by section DATE ) may","( a ) bring proceedings against the authority under LAW in the appropriate court or tribunal , or","( b ) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings ,","but only if he is ( or would be ) a victim of the unlawful act . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of LAW on the Rights of the PERSON provides :","\u201c CARDINAL . GPE Parties recognise the right of every child alleged as , accused of , or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child \u2019s sense of dignity and worth , which reinforces the child \u2019s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child \u2019s age and the desirability of promoting the reintegration and the child \u2019s assuming a constructive role in society .","To this end ... the GPE Parties shall , in particular , ensure that :","...","( b ) Every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees :","...","( vii . ) To have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173490","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BO\u017dE v. LATVIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE an official representing ORG informed the ORG police authorities in writing that a private person \u2013 the applicant \u2013 was selling unlicensed pharmaceutical products via the internet . The products were advertised as medicines for the treatment of HIV , hepatitis C and cancer .","The official mentioned that ORG ( Organiz\u0113t\u0101s noziedz\u012bbas apkaro\u0161anas p\u0101rvalde ) had established the applicant \u2019s address , but that it had declined to launch an investigation on the grounds that a sample of the product sold by the applicant did not contain narcotic or other dangerous substances . Other departments of the ORG police had similarly refused to investigate the case .","An undercover investigation was carried out and on DATE police officers responsible for investigating economic crime made a test purchase . They contacted the applicant via the email address indicated on the website that was advertising the pharmaceuticals products , and met him at a pizzeria near his home . After having bought a pack of QUANTITY of CARDINAL of the products for CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , the police officers informed the applicant about the test purchase which had been carried out .","A record of the operation ( p\u0101rbaudes akts ) , dated DATE and signed by CARDINAL police officers and the applicant , stated , inter alia :","\u201c given that company ORG elektronikas izstr\u0101des has been registered at [ the applicant \u2019s ] address , and that the applicant himself lives at that address , [ the applicant ] voluntarily agreed that the apartment be subjected to an inspection ( apskate ) and to show the tools used to fabricate the medicaments . \u201d","NORP Immediately after the test purchase , the same police officers carried out an inspection at the applicant \u2019s apartment . Later , QUANTITY police officers from the organised crime department , an expert and officers from the police press centre arrived .","During the inspection , the applicant explained that he was director of the company \u201c ORG elektronikas izstr\u0101des \u201d and that the company was not connected with the production of medicines . He had been producing alleged medicines at home since DATE , when several pharmaceutical companies in GPE had refused to cooperate with him in the production of medical products for the treatment of HIV and hepatitis C. He alleged that he had sold CARDINAL packs of the alleged medicines . He admitted to being aware that the sale of medicines required a licence , but claimed that he did not have the means to obtain such a patent .","As a result of the inspection , which lasted TIME , a computer , a computer hard drive and items used in the production of the medicines ( chemical substances , spare bottles and labels ) were seized from the applicant \u2019s apartment . The inspection was video - recorded and photographs were taken ; the seized items were packed and sealed . The inspection record of DATE listed everything which the police officers had observed during the inspection at the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL - room apartment , including the composition of the apartment , and detailed content of shelves and boxes , and of the fridge .","The above inspection record was written on a standard form with a pre - typed text according to which the inspection had been carried out under ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .","A subsequent forensic examination concluded that there were no signs of narcotic or psychotropic substances in the seized items . The expert report concluded that the computer contained a massive volume of information , including on the production and distribution of the alleged medicines , as well as email correspondence , including communication with potential clients .","As a result , the police authorities instituted CARDINAL sets of administrative offence proceedings under LAW on unlicensed business operations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) and on the sale of unlicensed pharmaceutical products ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The first set of proceedings was remitted for examination by ORG ( NORP ie\u0146\u0113mumu dienests \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , whereas the latter was remitted to ORG ( NORP farm\u0101cijas inspekcija ) .","NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant submitted various complaints to the ORG police authorities concerning the events of DATE . An internal inquiry by ORG of ORG ( NORP policijas PERSON dro\u0161\u012bbas birojs ) was completed on CARDINAL DATE . It concluded that there had been no violations of law in the conduct of the police officers who had carried out the test purchase and the subsequent inspection of the applicant \u2019s apartment .","In addition , ORG of ORG refused to initiate criminal proceedings following a complaint lodged by the applicant about the theft by the police officers of weights from his apartment on DATE ( decision adopted on DATE ) , the alleged unauthorised conduct of investigative activities and false testimonies given by CARDINAL of the police officers present during the inspection ( decision adopted on DATE ) .","Contrary to what was indicated in the decisions adopted by ORG of ORG , the applicant did not appeal against those decisions to a higher official within the ORG police hierarchy . Instead , he submitted a new complaint to ORG . The complaint was dismissed by a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , following the internal inquiry , the Pre - trial ORG of ORG ( NORP policijas GPE p\u0101rvaldes GPE izmekl\u0113\u0161anas p\u0101rvade ) dismissed the allegations that the police officers had carried out a search of the applicant \u2019s apartment on DATE . They concluded that the police officers had verified the facts about the alleged sale of pharmaceutical products . After the test purchase and with the permission of the applicant , they had inspected the legal address of the company \u201c ORG elektronikas izstr\u0101des \u201d and had taken items in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the Police , which authorised the examination of LOC of legal entities ( see Relevant domestic law section ) .","The decision further stated that on arriving at the address of the company registered at the applicant \u2019s apartment , the police officers had had no intention of drawing up an administrative offence record . The latter had been drawn up only after the examination of all the evidence seized during the inspection . According to the decision , the police officers had not carried out a search because all the seized items were easily visible and accessible . Therefore LAW could not have been violated .","The decision also stated that the applicant himself had not taken back the computer . The applicant did not appeal against the decision .","On various occasions the applicant complained to various branches of ORG , alleging that the \u201c search \u201d of his apartment on DATE had been unlawful . He also requested that the seized items be returned to him .","According to information submitted by ORG , DATE the applicant complained to ORG on CARDINAL occasions in relation to the events of DATE , out of which the ORG examined CARDINAL complaints . It appears that most of the complaints were related to various aspects of the administrative offence or criminal proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE a prosecutor in charge of investigating financial end economic crimes replied to the applicant that the inspection of the applicant \u2019s apartment , which was also the registered address of company \u201c ORG elektronikas izstr\u0101des \u201d , had been carried out \u201c in accordance with the law \u201d , and that the items from the apartment had been seized , recorded and filmed in accordance with the provisions of LAW . The prosecutor \u2019s reply was amenable to appeal to a higher prosecutor .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that , inter alia , items from his apartment had been seized \u201c without judicial authorisation \u201d .","On DATE the applicant was offered to receive back a computer hard drive seized in DATE . The computer was added to the materials of the criminal case .","On DATE a supervising prosecutor ordered an internal inquiry into the conduct of the police officers at the applicant \u2019s apartment and the seizure of items there on DATE . The prosecutor noted that the police had had no legal grounds on which to carry out an inspection of the applicant \u2019s apartment , in that LAW did not provide for such a measure . The prosecutor also noted that the police officers had breached various procedural rules , notably Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .","On DATE a prosecutor from ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the conduct of the police officers . The decision stated that the police officers had carried out the investigative measure \u2013 an inspection of the applicant \u2019s apartment \u2013 on the basis of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . Having concluded that there were no grounds to institute criminal proceedings , the police officers drew up an administrative offence record . ORG recognised that the police officers should have remitted the administrative offence files to the court for adjudication , rather than to the ORG . However , that omission had later been rectified by a supervising prosecutor ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The decision stated that in any event , the statutory deadline for instituting disciplinary proceedings against the police officers had expired .","By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE a supervising prosecutor from ORG upheld the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings with regard to the conduct of the police officers on DATE . The decision stated that the police officers had conducted an inspection and seizure at the applicant \u2019s apartment pursuant to sections CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the Police .","Meanwhile , in DATE and again in DATE the applicant claimed compensation for non - pecuniary damage from ORG on the basis of the alleged unlawful activities of police officers on DATE . On DATE the claim was dismissed and the applicant was informed that it was open to him to institute civil damages proceedings . On CARDINAL DATE the same prosecutor dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim for damages with respect to the seized items . The applicant appears to have appealed against that decision to the administrative courts . ORG has no further information on the outcome of the proceedings .","On DATE the ORG held the applicant liable for committing the administrative offence of unlicensed business activities \u2013 manufacturing of pharmaceutical products . He was fined ORG CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) and the items he had used in manufacturing the pharmaceutical products were confiscated . On DATE the items were destroyed .","The applicant appealed against the decision to the administrative courts and to ORG .","On DATE ORG established that the impugned actions of the applicant had amounted to a criminal offence under LAW of LAW , and therefore instituted criminal proceedings . On the basis of the prosecutor \u2019s instruction , on DATE the ORG revoked their decision to hold the applicant liable for an administrative offence .","Following the pre - trial investigation in the criminal case , in which the applicant was questioned as a witness , on DATE the criminal proceedings were terminated owing to lack of evidence that a criminal offence had been committed , and the materials , including the items seized from the applicant \u2019s apartment , were remitted to the ORG for the initiation of administrative offence proceedings .","Subsequently , on DATE the ORG adopted in substance an identical decision to that adopted after the first attempt to institute administrative offence proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant appealed against the decision to the ORG and later to the administrative courts , seeking revocation of the allegedly unlawful decision . Among other things , the applicant complained that an unlawful search and seizure had been carried out at his home on DATE . He claimed compensation for non - pecuniary damage in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( about ORG CARDINAL ) , and later increased the claim to CARDINAL lati .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It noted that , within the powers vested in the State police under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the Police , in DATE police officers had inspected the applicant \u2019s apartment in the course of criminal proceedings . Therefore the activities carried out prior to the institution of the administrative offence proceedings fell outside the administrative courts\u2019 competence . The court nevertheless analysed the information concerning the alleged unlawful conduct of the police officers and concluded that there were no grounds to question the legality of the police ORG conduct .","The applicant submitted a further appeal in which he argued , inter alia , that the evidence had been obtained unlawfully and therefore it could not be admitted in the administrative offence proceedings .","On DATE , by a final decision , ORG upheld the ORG \u2019s decision . At the same time it varied the lower court \u2019s finding that the police officers had carried out the contested measure as part of criminal proceedings . The appellate court relied on the outcome of the police internal inquiry into the lawfulness of the police officers entering the applicant \u2019s apartment and seizing evidence . The court noted that the police officers had acted pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the Police ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which vested police officers with powers to inspect company LOC , and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , which provided that police officers had a duty to prevent and terminate administrative offences ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As a consequence , the appellate court did not find that any of the evidence had been obtained unlawfully .","On the merits , ORG established that the applicant had carried out an unlicensed business activity , i.e. the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products , with an aim of receiving income . The court came to this conclusion by analysing the applicant \u2019s activities , such as him setting up a web site , communication with potential clients via emails and setting a price . Accordingly , it was concluded that the applicant was rightly fined . It was also noted that the fine was the lowest possible for an individual person .","On DATE ORG fined the applicant under LAW , second paragraph , of LAW in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) for selling unauthorised pharmaceutical products ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The decision was upheld at CARDINAL levels of the administrative jurisdiction and came into force in DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145366","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF RAKHIMOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . Prior to his arrest he was residing in LOC .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant arrived in GPE and settled in GPE . CARDINAL DATE he travelled to GPE ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . It appears from the domestic judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that he was registered with the local migration authorities from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG of GPE of GPE brought criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of his alleged membership DATE of PERSON ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , a transnational NORP organisation , banned in GPE , GPE and NORP republics , and making public calls to overthrow the constitutional order of GPE and to establish an NORP state in its place .","On DATE the applicant was charged in absentia in GPE with attempting to overthrow the NORP State \u2019s constitutional order ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW of GPE ) ; storage and disseminating of documents containing ideas of religious extremism , separatism and fundamentalism , and threats to national security and public order ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of the Code ) ; and participation in and direction of religious , extremist , separatist and other prohibited organisations ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code ) . The statement of charges indicated that DATE the applicant , as a member of ORG , had regularly held unlawful religious gatherings with CARDINAL other persons at which they had made \u201c public calls to overthrow the existing constitutional order \u201d in their home country and \u201c made use of materials containing ideas of religious extremism \u201d . The applicant had shown a video - recording of an address by PERSON . , the leader of the religious extremist \u201c ORG of GPE \u201d . Furthermore , since DATE the applicant had systematically participated in religious studies and physical training sessions of a \u201c shahid belt community \u201d , as well as meetings organised by NORP at which public calls for the replacement of ORG by an NORP state in the form of a recreated ORG had been made .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s arrest , and his name was put on the cross - border list of wanted persons .","On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police in GPE as a person wanted by the NORP authorities . On DATE ORG of GPE of GPE confirmed their intention to request the applicant \u2019s extradition and requested that he be remanded in custody .","When interviewed by the police on DATE after his arrest , the applicant stated that he had moved to GPE in DATE to look for work . He had not registered as a foreign national temporarily residing in the country and had not applied for refugee status in GPE . He was unaware of the reasons for his criminal prosecution in GPE and had not been persecuted on political grounds in his home country . His wife and CARDINAL minor children lived with him in LOC .","On CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE submitted a formal request for the applicant \u2019s extradition . The request contained assurances that the applicant would be prosecuted only for the offences for which he was being extradited , that he would be able to freely leave GPE once he had stood trial and served any sentence , and that he would not be expelled or extradited to a third State without the consent of the NORP authorities . The NORP prosecutor \u2019s office further assured its NORP counterpart that the applicant would not be prosecuted in GPE on political or religious grounds , or subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment , that he would be provided with an opportunity to defend himself , inter alia , through legal assistance , that the criminal proceedings against him would be conducted in compliance with the domestic law of GPE , and that he would receive any medical treatment required .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative filed objections against the extradition request . She argued that according to independent international observers , illtreatment was widespread in the NORP prison system and fair - trial guarantees were not respected . Referring to the ORG \u2019s caselaw on the matter ( PERSON v. GPE , no . ORG , CARDINAL DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ; and Zokhidov v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , as well as to the reports by ORG bodies and NGOs cited in paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL below , she submitted that the applicant , who had been charged with religious and political offences , including membership of ORG , would run an increased risk of illtreatment and would be deprived of the minimum fair - trial guarantees if extradited to the requesting country . The applicant \u2019s representative also referred to a report of DATE by ORG of ORG of GPE in which the department , referring to various international NGO reports , pointed out that criminal proceedings in GPE depended to a considerable extent on self - incriminating statements . She further referred to a letter of DATE from the same ORG , which stated that any extradition to GPE would be in breach of LAW from the point of view of ORG .","According to a letter from the prosecutor \u2019s office of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on DATE ORG refused to order the applicant \u2019s extradition , since his criminal prosecution had become time - barred . According to the applicant , neither he nor his representatives had been informed about the refusal at that point . The parties have not submitted a copy of the relevant decision .","On DATE the ORG of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s detention pending extradition until DATE . The decision was not appealed against .","On DATE the Kuntsevskiy ORG of GPE ordered an extension of the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE in order to ensure his extradition .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the head of the extradition department of ORG informed the Kuntsevskiy ORG prosecutor of GPE that on DATE ORG had refused to order the applicant \u2019s extradition to GPE since his criminal prosecution had become time - barred , and requested that the applicant be immediately released from custody . The letter continued as follows :","\u201c At the same time , [ I ] ask you to check the lawfulness of Mr PERSON \u2019s residence in GPE and his compliance with the immigration laws .","[ I ] ask you to send a copy of the release order , as well as information about the results of the check , to the extradition department of the city prosecutor \u2019s office no later than CARDINAL DATE by fax and mail . \u201d","A hand - written note on the letter , apparently made by the addressee , indicated that it would be necessary \u201c to conduct a migration check under LAW [ of LAW ] if there are grounds [ for it ] \u201d .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Kuntsevskiy ORG prosecutor \u2019s office ordered the applicant \u2019s release from detention , because on DATE the extradition proceedings had been discontinued . At TIME on that date the applicant was released from a remand centre in GPE .","According to the applicant , at TIME on DATE he was apprehended by the police at the exit of the remand centre , immediately after his release from detention , and taken into custody .","According to the administrative offence record ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant was arrested at TIME by an officer of ORG in connection with a violation of the immigration laws ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Administrative Offences ( \u201c the CAO \u201d ) ) .","At TIME on DATE an officer of ORG of the ORG recorded that the applicant had been arrested \u201c for the purpose of drawing up an administrative record \u201d . In the part of the record reserved for comments the applicant wrote that he objected to the arrest and that he could not be removed to GPE since he ran a risk of torture there . Furthermore , proceedings were pending in respect of his refugee status .","At some point on DATE an administrative - offence record was drawn up on account of the applicant \u2019s failure to leave GPE after DATE . The applicant , in a hand - written comment made in the relevant part of the record , conceded that he had breached the migration laws but claimed that he could not be removed to GPE because he would be tortured in his home country .","On DATE the case file was forwarded to ORG of GPE . By a separate petition the head of ORG of the ORG requested the court to order the applicant \u2019s detention pending administrative removal , since he had been residing in GPE unlawfully and in breach of the immigration laws and had been avoiding leaving GPE ; accordingly there were grounds to believe that he would continue to breach the immigration laws .","On DATE the Kuntsevskiy ORG of GPE examined the applicant \u2019s case .","During the hearing the defence acknowledged that the applicant had failed to register with the migration authorities or leave GPE , contrary to the requirements of the immigration laws . However , they submitted that , in accordance with LAW ORG , administrative proceedings should have been brought against him as soon as sufficient data indicating the occurrence of an administrative offence had been obtained . When the applicant had been arrested on CARDINAL DATE , the authorities had already been in possession of sufficient information on the applicant \u2019s immigration status . However , administrative proceedings had not been brought against him until DATE , once the term of his detention pending extradition had expired . In those circumstances , the defence considered that the administrative removal of the applicant , if ordered , would amount to a form of extradition in disguise .","The defence further submitted that in any event the applicant \u2019s expulsion could not be ordered , since proceedings were pending in respect of his refugee status . They pointed out in this connection that the applicant \u2019s request for refugee status had been accepted for examination ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and that he had received no response by the time of the events .","Lastly , the defence made a detailed argument to the effect that the applicant was wanted by the NORP authorities in connection with charges relating to religious offences , and would therefore run a risk of illtreatment if expelled to GPE . They referred to reports by the ORG and international nongovernmental organisations ( cited in paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL below ) , as well as the ORG \u2019s case - law in support of that position .","The Kuntsevskiy District Court found the applicant guilty of the administrative offence of breaching LAW ( LAW . The court considered that the administrative - offence record had been compiled by a competent officer and in accordance with the domestic law . It rejected as irrelevant the applicant \u2019s arguments to the effect that the authorities had been aware of the impugned breach of the immigration laws as early as DATE , arguing that on that date the applicant had been arrested on different grounds . The court took note of the applicant \u2019s submissions concerning his request for refugee status and dismissed them as having no bearing on the administrative offence under examination . The lack of information on the progress of the proceedings in respect of refugee status did not preclude the court from applying an administrative sanction under LAW ORG .","When deciding on the sanction to be applied , the court took note of \u201c the information on the applicant \u2019s personality \u201d , as well as of the fact that he had admitted breaching the immigration laws . On the other hand , it observed that the applicant had been unlawfully residing in GPE for a considerable period of time and that he did not have a permanent residence or job in GPE . In accordance with LAW of the ORG the court fined the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) and ordered his administrative removal from GPE .","Lastly , the court granted the request of the head of ORG of the ORG for the applicant \u2019s placement in detention pending removal . It reiterated that the applicant had been residing in GPE in breach of the law and had avoided DATE and was likely to further avoid \u2013 leaving GPE of his own will . The court decided that the applicant should be detained in a special detention centre for foreigners of ORG of the ORG until his administrative removal . No specific timelimit for the applicant \u2019s detention was given by the court .","On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the defence submitted their points of appeal before ORG . In addition to their initial arguments , they submitted , first , that the first - instance court had incorrectly established the facts of the case , including in respect of the applicant \u2019s arrest . Contrary to the case materials , on DATE the applicant had only just been let out of the remand centre when he was immediately arrested at the exit of the detention facility . They argued that the administrative - offence record had been forged and therefore was inadmissible . Secondly , they maintained that the applicant \u2019s expulsion would amount to his \u201c extradition in disguise \u201d . They pointed out , with reference to the letter of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that the very initiative to conduct an urgent check of the applicant \u2019s migration status had been taken by the prosecutor \u2019s office , that is the authority in charge of his extradition case . The interest the prosecutor \u2019s office displayed in the carrying out of the migration check \u2013 a matter clearly outside their competence \u2013 could be interpreted as an indication of that authority \u2019s interest in ensuring the applicant \u2019s return to GPE . However , the applicant , if removed to his home country , would be unable to benefit from the minimum guarantees he could have in extradition proceedings .","Thirdly , the defence maintained that domestic law prohibited the expulsion of a person who had applied for refugee status until a final decision in that respect had been made . However , the domestic court had omitted to elaborate on that aspect of the case . They argued that , contrary to the first - instance court \u2019s findings , the requirement to take into account the proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s refugee status had had no effect on the lower court \u2019s findings as to whether an administrative offence had DATE or had not \u2013 taken place . However , it could have had a bearing on the determination of the administrative sanction . In that regard , they drew the appeal court \u2019s attention to the fact that administrative removal constituted a sanction additional to an administrative fine .","Fourthly , the defence stressed that the first - instance court had failed to make any assessment of their ill - treatment argument . Having referred to the ORG \u2019s case - law , they reiterated their extensive submissions as regards the risk of ill - treatment if the removal order were to be enforced . They complained that the first - instance court had refused to admit to the case the reports by reputable NGOs , the NORP courts\u2019 decisions , or the ORG \u2019s decisions in similar cases .","Lastly , the defence submitted that the decision ordering the applicant\u2019 s detention did not contain any time - limit and was therefore in breach of LAW .","The examination of the case was initially scheduled for DATE but was adjourned in order to obtain updated information on the proceedings in respect of the applicant \u2019s refugee status from ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , finding it lawful and justified . It held that the first - instance court had been right in finding that the applicant \u2019s actions had constituted an administrative offence . The appeal court upheld the administrative sanction as lawful and found no grounds to amend it . The court rejected the applicant \u2019s argument to the effect that he could not be removed from GPE in the absence of a final decision in the refugee - status proceedings as irrelevant , since \u201c the examination of the respective appeal did not have a bearing on the event or the legal qualification of the administrative offence \u201d . The court further noted that , in any event , on DATE his application for refugee status had been refused . As regards the applicant \u2019s argument about the authorities\u2019 failure to bring the administrative proceedings against him in a timely manner , the court considered that this circumstance did not constitute a ground for quashing the lower court \u2019s judgment . It argued that that violation had been insignificant , since the time at which the respective record of the administrative offence had been drawn up had not had a \u201c preclusive effect ( \u00ab \u043d\u0435 \u044f\u0432\u043b\u044f\u0435\u0442\u0441\u044f \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0435\u043a\u0430\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u043c ORG ) \u201d .","At some point in DATE the applicant applied to ORG of ORG ( \u201c the GPE FMS \u201d ) for refugee status in GPE on the grounds of fear of persecution on account of fabricated charges against him relating to a religious offence . He submitted that the accusations against him were unfounded . On DATE his case was accepted for consideration .","On DATE ORG of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) concluded , in a letter to the applicant \u2019s representative , that there existed a real risk of ill - treatment of persons whose extradition was sought in connection with politically motivated charges of a religious nature .","On DATE the GPE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application for refugee status . According to a copy of the decision as submitted by the parties , it observed that the applicant was wanted in GPE in connection with his alleged membership of ORG and noted that \u201c the initiator of the search had confirmed its intention to claim extradition \u201d . The authority reiterated that it was for a petitioner to adduce persuasive arguments why there existed an individual risk of persecution on the grounds of nationality , religious beliefs or membership of a social group . The authority took note of both the administrative removal order of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the indication by ORG interim measure in the applicant \u2019s case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The GPE ORG found as follows :","\u201c It transpires from the case materials that after the death of the applicant \u2019s mother in DATE the applicant \u2019s father married another woman . In order to obtain the father \u2019s heritage , in DATE she complained to the local police that some time before the applicant had come to GPE to kill his father . However , according to the applicant , criminal proceedings had not been brought against him . However , in DATE she wrote a new complaint , this time accusing the applicant of extremism . It may be concluded from the above that the reason for which , according to the applicant , unfounded charges had been brought against him was a domestic conflict . \u201d","The GPE FMS also noted that the applicant had deliberately hidden the fact of the State border transfer between CARDINAL and DATE and that he had not applied for refugee status until his arrest , even though he had learned of the extremism charge against him in DATE . The authority also observed that the applicant \u2019s brother was living in GPE and had not been persecuted . It therefore concluded that the applicant had lodged a request with the sole purpose of avoiding criminal prosecution in GPE and that he did not satisfy the refugee criteria .","On DATE the defence lodged an appeal against the refusal with the NORP ORG office , arguing that the FMS GPE had omitted to take into account the political and religious nature of the charges against him and to analyse the specific circumstances of his case . They submitted , in response to the regional authority \u2019s findings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that it was immaterial who had brought the complaint against the applicant . Nor was the situation of his brother of relevance , since no criminal case had been opened against him in GPE . Contrary to the migration authority \u2019s findings , the applicant had not learned about the exact nature of the charges or the stage of the proceedings against him in GPE until his arrest . The fact of his border crossing in DATE was of little relevance and did not undermine his statement that since DATE he had not left GPE for a considerable period of time . ORG in its decision had referred to the extradition proceedings but had omitted to note the crucial point , namely the fact that extradition had been refused in the meantime ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Lastly , the defence reiterated that the practice of torture against detainees in GPE could be described as systemic and that there was no evidence of any improvement in DATE . The defence referred , in particular , to the concluding observations of ORG of DATE , as well as ORG reports of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , the ORG reports published in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , and other material ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . They maintained that the applicant , charged with membership of ORG , ran a particularly serious risk of illtreatment and detention in his home country .","On DATE the NORP ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . The federal migration authority considered that ORG had thoroughly analysed all the relevant circumstances and had taken a wellfounded and lawful decision that the applicant did not meet the refugee criteria . The NORP ORG further noted that it was not competent to conduct investigative activities within a criminal case or to doubt the wellfoundedness of the materials submitted by ORG of GPE about the criminal case brought by the NORP authorities .","By the same decision the NORP ORG instructed the GPE FMS to examine the issue of granting the applicant temporary asylum in GPE , with regard to the indication made by ORG CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The parties have not informed the Court of any follow - up to that instruction .","On DATE the defence challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG of GPE as unlawful and unfounded . They reiterated their earlier submissions regarding the risk of ill - treatment in the event of the applicant \u2019s expulsion ( see paragraphs DATE above ) and referred , in addition to the international material cited in their earlier submissions , to ORG released by ORG in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They argued that the federal migration authority had failed to address the foreseeable consequences of the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE , and above all the risk of ill - treatment run by the applicant in the event of his removal . Instead of conducting such an analysis , the migration authority argued that they were not competent to conduct an investigation or review the extradition materials , even though that issue had been clearly outside the scope of the applicant \u2019s request . That attitude , in the applicant \u2019s view , rather demonstrated that the NORP ORG were relying on the presumption of his guilt in the criminal proceedings brought against him by the NORP authorities .","It appears that the appeal proceedings are pending to date .","After his arrest on TIME CARDINAL July DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) the applicant was placed in a cell at the LOC police station of GPE .","According to the applicant , the cell measured CARDINAL sq . m and accommodated , during the applicant \u2019s detention there , CARDINAL detainees . It was separated from the main corridor by a barred grill . The applicant did not have an individual sleeping place , since the cell was equipped with CARDINAL metal bench instead of beds . There were no windows in the cell , so he had no access to natural light and air . The cell was not equipped with a lavatory or toilet facilities . No linen or mattresses were available . The applicant received food and water once a day .","According to the ORG , the cell measured CARDINAL sq . m. The applicant was provided with food and bed linen .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE ( according to the Government ) or on DATE ( according to the applicant ) the applicant was transferred to the GPE special detention centre for foreigners . The parties have not submitted documents in respect of the date of that transfer .","The applicant is detained in the GPE special detention centre for foreigners to date ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142674","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF SALUM\u00c4KI v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a journalist with a nationwide evening newspaper , ORG . On DATE Ilta - Sanomat published an article , written by the applicant , concerning the investigation into a homicide which had been committed DATE . The article referred to ORG , a well - known NORP businessman . The front page of the edition carried a headline : \u201c Cruel killing in PERSON : The executed man had connections with ORG ? \u201d A photograph of ORG also appeared on the front page . The article itself was entitled : \u201c The victim of the PERSON homicide had connections with ORG ? \u201d Under a smaller heading , \u201c The suspect in the cruel execution killing is a former member of the [ motorcycle gang ] \u201d , the article read :","\u201c [ ORG ] , who was brutally killed in PERSON , may have had connections with the businessman [ ORG ] . In DATE [ ORG ] was captured trying to smuggle bags containing money from GPE into GPE . The police suspect that those bags [ with contents ] belonged to [ ORG ] .","The incident is currently pending before the prosecutor for the consideration of charges . [ ORG ] is suspected of an aggravated receiving offence and [ ORG ] of aggravated debtor \u2019s fraud in that connection .","Other suspects besides [ ORG ] and [ ORG ] have also been exposed regarding that case . In practice , [ ORG ] is being considered as a suspected receiver .","The leader of the investigation , criminal inspector [ ORG ] of ORG [ ( keskusrikospoliisi , centralkriminalpolisen ) ] , says that the [ ORG ] \u2013connection is a part of the investigation into the PERSON homicide . \u201d","Under the following subheading \u201c The suspect admitted to being at the scene \u201d the article went on :","\u201c The police have detained a CARDINAL-year old man as a suspect in [ ORG \u2019s ] murder . \u2012 In the light of the current evidence , the detained person has no connection with [ ORG ] , says [ the inspector ] . \u201d","The article continued with information concerning the detained person and the ongoing investigation into the homicide . It quoted the investigator \u2019s statement that it was possible that the suspect had been acting under commission which , according to the applicant , implied the possibility of a contract killing .","The article was illustrated by a photograph , apparently taken in the vicinity of the crime scene .","Next to the article there was a separate information column concerning ORG \u2019s previous conviction for economic crimes and his academic achievements . Under a heading : \u201c Who ? \u201d the column reproduced a photograph of ORG , taken at the public defence of his doctoral thesis .","On DATE the same information was published in the other evening newspaper ORG in the form of an interview given by ORG","On DATE the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant and GPE , the newspaper \u2019s editor - in - chief at the time . In his indictment the prosecutor maintained that by writing and allowing publication of the above article , the applicant and GPE had given false information about GPE in a manner that had been conducive to causing him suffering and damage and to subjecting him to contempt , and that they had also disparaged him in other ways . The prosecutor did not allege that the information imparted in the article had been false as such , but contended , inter alia , that the combination of large headings with question marks , the text of the article , the photographs of ORG and his personal profile had aimed to insinuate to the readership that ORG might have had a motive to commission the killing .","K.U. , for his part , requested that the applicant and GPE be punished and claimed compensation for suffering and legal costs in the same proceedings . He contended that the defendants had unlawfully connected him with murder in GPE \u2019s largest TIME newspaper . The use of his photograph , taken at the public defence of his doctoral thesis , had added to his suffering as he was thus defamed as an academic , which was to be his future career . According to ORG , the worst part of the criminal act had been the combination of the heading and his photograph , and the image thus created in the minds of those people who had not read the article itself . The defendants had sought to profit by their act . In addition to the permanent stigma , ORG maintained that the offence had brought shame and distress to his family .","The applicant and GPE contested the charge and the civil claims . Their main arguments were the following . The article did not contain any false information , nor could it have disparaged ORG or caused him suffering . The latter point was highlighted by the fact that ORG had himself given an interview concerning the same matter to another TIME newspaper published on DATE . The article concerned a criminal investigation of general interest and was based on information given by the authorities . ORG was a public figure and his connection with ORG had been an issue of general interest and significance in itself . By pressing charges the prosecutor had unnecessarily interfered with the GPE freedom of expression , protected by LAW .","When heard in person at ORG oral hearing GPE submitted , inter alia , that ORG had contacted him after the article had been published . He had been very hurt and upset . GPE had then offered him the possibility of rectification . According to the documents , ORG had turned down that offer .","On DATE the Helsinki ORG ( k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus , tingsr\u00e4tten ) issued its judgment . It convicted the applicant and GPE of defamation pursuant to LAW , Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , of LAW . The applicant was sentenced to DATE - fines amounting to a total of CARDINAL ( ORG ) . She was also ordered to pay ORG , jointly and severally with GPE , EUR CARDINAL for suffering and EUR CARDINAL in legal costs .","In its reasons the court noted that it had to examine the conflicting interests of freedom of expression and the right to privacy , referring to sections CARDINAL of the LAW . It also made reference to the ORG precedent no . GPE , where that court found that the freedom of expression did not justify violation of a person \u2019s honour or private life . In assessing the article written by the applicant the court found as follows :","\u201c It is undisputed that in DATE [ ORG ] was a public figure . It is also undisputed that the article did not contain factual errors . Thus , each piece of information contained therein was accurate .","ORG has to assess whether the article included such insinuations that have been conducive to causing suffering or contempt or if it was disparaging in other aspects .","The article ... covered the pre - trial investigation of a homicide which had taken place DATE , as well as another large - scale case concerning economic crime , already pending before the prosecutor . The same person had been the victim of the homicide and CARDINAL of the suspects in the economic offences . [ ORG ] had known the victim of the homicide and was also CARDINAL of the suspects in the case concerning economic offences .","The defendants have pleaded , inter alia , that the newspaper had been obliged to report on crime . The article ... had emphasised the connection between [ ORG ] and the victim of the homicide . In ORG view no such circumstances have emerged in these proceedings which would have linked the fact that [ ORG ] had known the victim of the homicide to his public activities . Nor has it been established that the fact that [ ORG ] knew the victim ... had been of general interest or that this piece of news had had such significance to society that it had been important to publish it . \u201d","ORG concluded :","\u201c The most central topics of the article ... had been the connection with the victim of the homicide and [ ORG ] , suspicions of economic offences , organised crime , and a possible contract killing . The use of the heading \u2018 The victim of the PERSON homicide had connections with [ PERSON along with the background information on [ ORG ] under a title \u2018 Who?\u2019 , illustrated with his photograph , had personified the whole article to [ ORG ] Although the heading of the article carried a question mark and the first paragraph in the text mentioned that the victim might [ italics added here ] have had connections with [ ORG ] , the text does not provide an immediate answer to that question , nor does it state clearly that the victim and [ ORG ] had known each other only from other circumstances . The article had left the answers open . As the text dealt with the connection between the victim of the homicide and [ ORG ] and , at the end , a possible contract killing , [ ORG ] had also been connected with a contract killing .","Connecting a person groundlessly with a contract killing violates his honour .","By combining information received and statements given by the head of the investigation and by mixing CARDINAL different criminal investigations the article has given an ambiguous picture of the connection between those cases . The headings and the information concentrating on [ ORG ] \u2019s personal profile had made [ ORG ] the main common feature of the crimes .","ORG finds that in the article [ ORG ] had been linked with a homicide in a manner that insinuated a connection between [ ORG ] and the commission of the homicide and a contract killing . Such an insinuation violates [ ORG \u2019s ] honour and has caused him suffering . \u201d","ORG was composed of CARDINAL professional judge and CARDINAL lay judges . CARDINAL of the lay judges was in favour of an acquittal . In his dissenting opinion he stressed the fact that all the information presented in the article had been accurate . In his view the mere fact that a party to the case , his family or friends were shocked about the news coverage , or that the readers of a newspaper were not fully able to comprehend the text , could not constitute defamation .","The applicant and GPE appealed against the judgment to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) , relying mainly on their previous arguments . They also contested the lower court \u2019s interpretation of the law .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . In its reasoning the appellate court reiterated that giving false information or making false insinuations about another person in a manner conducive to causing damage or suffering to that person , or subjecting that person to contempt , constituted defamation as set out in LAW , Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , of LAW . It referred to the relevant Government PERSON for the amendment of that provision ( HE CARDINAL vp ) in stating that it was characteristic of that offence to concern false factual information or a false insinuation bearing a close resemblance to factual information . In principle , the veracity of an argument may be reviewed afterwards . If an argument is accurate , or if the insinuation concerns a fact , the act may nevertheless be punishable as defamation under point CARDINAL of the provision , if the information is given or insinuation made with a view to disparaging another person deliberately .","The court then found that :","\u201c It is undisputed that the information in the article published in GPE on DATE concerning CARDINAL different criminal matters was accurate as such . The common feature of those matters has been the fact that [ ORG ] and the victim of the homicide had been suspects in CARDINAL of the criminal cases mentioned in the article . The headings of the article , the text , and the photographs of [ ORG ] on the cover and on the article have , however , created a connection falsely implying that [ ORG ] was somehow involved in the homicide . The heading of the article and its tone were such that the fact that [ ORG ] was not , strictly speaking , an accomplice to the homicide only became clear on reading through the article more closely . It followed that LAW , LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , of LAW was to be applied in this case , as indicated by ORG . \u201d","ORG went on to assess in detail whether the GPE conduct could be regarded as intentional . The court found that the applicant was a professional journalist and that she must have considered it probable that her article contained a false insinuation and that this false insinuation was capable of causing suffering . Reaching thus an affirmative conclusion , the court found no reason to deviate from the outcome of the lower court \u2019s judgment .","On DATE ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) refused leave to appeal .","LAW ( Suomen perustuslaki , GPE grundlag , Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provides in relevant parts :","\u201c Section DATE The right to privacy","Everyone \u2019s private life , honour and the sanctity of the home are guaranteed . ...","...","Section DATE of expression and right of access to information","Everyone has the freedom of expression . Freedom of expression entails the right to express , impart and receive information , opinions and other communications without prior prevention by anyone . More detailed provisions on the exercise of the freedom of expression are laid down by an LAW . ... \u201d","Chapter DATE , Article CARDINAL , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen ; Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provide :","\u201c A person who","CARDINAL ) gives false information or makes a false insinuation about another person so that the act is conducive to causing damage or suffering to that person , or subjecting that person to contempt , or","CARDINAL ) disparages another person in a manner other than referred to in point CARDINAL","shall be convicted of defamation and sentenced to a fine or imprisonment for a maximum DATE .","Criticism that is directed at a person \u2019s activities in politics , business , public office , public position , science , art or in comparable public activity , and which does not clearly overstep the limits of what can be considered acceptable , does not constitute defamation as set out in point CARDINAL of paragraph CARDINAL . \u201d","LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( vahingonkorvauslaki , skadest\u00e5ndslagen ; Act no . CARDINAL , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL ) , provides that a person may be awarded compensation for suffering if , inter alia , his or her liberty , peace , honour , or private life has been violated through a punishable act . In assessing the level of that suffering the nature of the violation , the status of the victim , the relationship between the offender and the victim as well as the possible public exposure of the violation are to be taken into account .","According to the government bill to amend LAW ( HE CARDINAL ) , the maximum amount of compensation for pain and suffering arising from , inter alia , bodily injuries had in the recent past been MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . In the subsequent government bill to amend LAW ( HE CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) , it is stated that no changes to the prevailing level of compensation for suffering are proposed . In the recommendation of ORG ( Henkil\u00f6vahinkoasiain neuvottelukunta , PERSON ) in DATE , compensation awards for distress in defamation cases can go up to LAW and in cases concerning dissemination of information violating personal privacy , up to LAW . On the other hand , the maximum award for , for example , attempted manslaughter , murder or killing varies between ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-182852","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF DARSIGOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","According to the applicant , on DATE the administrative authorities of LOC of Grozny provided her with a housing allocation order no . CARDINAL entitling her to occupy a oneroom municipal flat in ORG .","In DATE the applicant was registered as living in that flat .","NORP In DATE the authorities decided to conduct an examination of all allocation orders granting occupation of municipal accommodation . The applicant \u2019s housing allocation order dated DATE appeared suspicious to the authorities and they commissioned an expert to verify its authenticity . The expert concluded that the allocation order was a forged document . In particular , the order did not correspond to the date on which it had been issued and the impress of a seal on the order had been made with the help of an improvised clich\u00e9 which in its turn had been made with a help of a computer on the basis of an impress of the authentic seal .","Upon receipt of this information the administration of ORG brought court proceedings against the applicant seeking to declare the allocation order of DATE null and void and to evict her from the flat in question .","The applicant contested those claims . She submitted that the administration had issued her with the housing allocation order because she had been on the housing list and she was subsequently registered as living in that flat . She had not been aware of the fact that the order had not been printed in the printing office . She also asked to dismiss the claims as timebarred because according to domestic law the housing allocation order could be declared null and void within DATE after its delivery .","The administration of LOC of PERSON asked to grant the claims submitted by the administration of PERSON . The administration could not say whether the order had been in fact delivered to the applicant , since the archives had not been preserved . However , according to the civil servants of the administration , commissions on allocation of housing had been meeting once DATE . The order no . CARDINAL was issued on DATE . That would mean that CARDINAL orders were issued from DATE until DATE . However , the administration of LOC could not deliver such a number of housing allocation orders during DATE .","On DATE ORG of PERSON ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) declared the housing allocation order of DATE null and void and issued an order to evict the applicant . In particular , ORG held as follows :","\u201c ... It follows from the materials of the case that the housing allocation order No . CARDINAL of DATE in respect of accommodation situated in PERSON ... in the name of PERSON has been issued as an assignment of housing .","It follows from the expert certificate No . CARDINAL of DATE that the above order was sent for an expert examination and the experts concluded that the order no . CARDINAL of DATE ... did not correspond to the date on which it had been issued . The impress of a seal of LOC of Grozny [ on the order ] had been made with the help of an improvised clich\u00e9 which in its turn had been made with a help of a computer on the basis of an impress of the authentic seal .","It follows from the expert report of DATE no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL that the formsheet of order No . CARDINAL of DATE had been made with the help of electrophotographic imaging on the copy machine . The colour used - dry toner .","Therefore , the court has established that the title document order no . CARDINAL of DATE ... had not been made typographically .","Those circumstances follow from the content of the statement of claim , parties\u2019 submissions in the court , they have not been contested by the parties and are confirmed by evidence submitted [ to the court ] .","The request by ORG for restauration of the DATE time - limit for lodging of their claim for declaring the order null should be granted .","The court has assessed the whole of evidence submitted by the parties and finds that it is possible to grant the claimant \u2019s claim ... \u201d","NORP In her appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant submitted that in taking the decision to evict her ORG had not examined whether she had been in need of housing or not . In particular , ORG had not taken into account that she had been provided with a CARDINAL - room flat on the grounds that she had cumulated a very long term of service and had no other housing .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) upheld that judgment . In particular , ORG held as follows :","\u201c ...","It has been established in the court hearing that order No . CARDINAL of DATE issued by the administration of LOC of PERSON to PERSON and giving her the right to move in flat no . CARDINAL at DATE , PERSON street in PERSON was sent for an expert examination ... The expert examination established that the order did not correspond to the date on which it had been issued . The impress of a seal of LOC of Grozny [ on the order ] had been made with the help of an improvised clich\u00e9 which in its turn had been made with a help of a computer on the basis of an impress of the authentic seal ...","...","Having regards to the above , the court of first instance had concluded that the claims submitted by the administration of ORG had to be granted . In such circumstances , the civil chamber does not find any grounds for quashing the court decision ... \u201d","After her eviction the applicant returned living to her mother \u2019s flat and on DATE she was registered as living in that flat ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157515","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF METIN G\u00dcLTEK\u0130N AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The first CARDINAL applicants are the parents , the third applicant is the brother and the fourth applicant is the fianc\u00e9e of PERSON PERSON .","PERSON was born in DATE and started doing his compulsory military service on CARDINAL DATE in the city of GPE . At that time he had no known health problems .","On DATE PERSON was examined by a doctor at his regiment and the doctor decided to refer him to a hospital specialising in infectious diseases . On DATE a doctor who examined him at his regiment \u2019s infirmary referred him to ORG ( \u201c The University Hospital \u201d ) for suspected hepatitis or meningoencephalitis . The following day PERSON was sent to the hospital in GPE where , after a number of examinations were conducted , he was diagnosed with fulminant hepatitis ( acute liver failure ) . A decision was taken on DATE to send him to PERSON in GPE for a liver transplant operation . On arrival at the hospital in GPE TIME he was put in the intensive care unit .","At TIME on DATE he died at FAC . No autopsy was performed .","An investigation was carried out at the military unit where GPE G\u00fcltekin had been doing his military service . On DATE a total of CARDINAL military personnel who knew or had had dealings with PERSON were questioned by their superiors .","The QUANTITY military personnel all stated that PERSON had spoken to his commanding officer on DATE and told him that a friend of his had hepatitis and that he had suspected that he might also have contracted the same disease . His superior had then transferred him to the regiment \u2019s infirmary where tests had been conducted , establishing that he did not have hepatitis .","One of the QUANTITY military personnel was the doctor who had examined PERSON in the regiment \u2019s infirmary on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The doctor stated that on DATE To\u011fay ORG had come to see him because he had been feeling unwell and the colour of his urine had been darker than usual . He had then sent PERSON for a urine examination and when he had got the results back he had noticed a problem . DATE he had asked for PERSON to be referred to ORG .","NORP The military officers who carried out the investigation concluded , on the basis of the statements referred to above , that the military authorities had acted in accordance with their duties when providing medical assistance to PERSON and that there had been no fault attributable to them in his death .","On DATE the applicants initiated compensation proceedings against ORG before ORG ( \u201c the Military Administrative Court \u201d ) . They argued , in particular , that PERSON had not received prompt or adequate medical care in his regiment .","The applicants submitted in their petition that , according to the official documents in their possession , PERSON had been examined by a doctor attached to his regiment on DATE and that the doctor had recommended his transfer to a hospital specialising in infectious diseases . Nevertheless , the military authorities had not followed that recommendation . When his condition had deteriorated he had been examined by another doctor at the regiment on DATE . However , that doctor had not sought to obtain blood or urine tests and had sent him back to his military unit . When PERSON condition had deteriorated even further on DATE , he had been examined once again and this time a urine test had been carried out . The doctor who had evaluated the results of the test had considered that PERSON might have hepatitis or meningoencephalitis and had asked for him to be referred to hospital . Nevertheless , PERSON had still not been transferred to the hospital promptly and only the following day had he been put on a bus and sent to the hospital . The applicants argued that it had been these inordinate delays that had caused PERSON death . They pointed out that GPE G\u00fcltekin had been performing his military service and had thus not had the opportunity to leave his military unit and seek medical assistance of his own volition . Therefore , the authorities had been under an obligation to protect his well - being and to ensure timely medical treatment for him .","On DATE ORG submitted its observations to ORG . Based on the testimonies of the soldiers from the same regiment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , it argued that on DATE PERSON had seen his superior and told his commanding officer that his friend had contracted hepatitis and that he suspected that he himself might have been infected as well . A blood test had been conducted , but the results had not revealed any abnormalities .","ORG alleged that PERSON had not gone to the infirmary DATE and DATE , but accepted that he had been examined by a doctor at the regiment \u2019s infirmary on DATE and then sent back to his military unit . It maintained that the military authorities had not acted in a negligent fashion when dealing with PERSON medical problems .","In their replies to ORG the applicants submitted that there was no evidence to show that a blood test had been carried out on DATE . They also referred to the medical reports and stated that it had been clearly indicated in the records that PERSON had seen the doctor at the infirmary on DATE and that his referral to an infectious diseases clinic had been decided by that doctor .","During the proceedings ORG appointed CARDINAL medical experts , namely CARDINAL professors and an associate professor from the infectious diseases department of ORG , in order to clarify whether the military authorities had acted negligently . The medical experts reached the following conclusion in their report of DATE :","\u201c ... An examination of the documents and other information in the file shows that PERSON started his military service on DATE . On DATE he was treated for a retractile testicle at ORG . On DATE he was prescribed medication at the regiment \u2019s infirmary for an upper respiratory tract infection . On DATE the regimental infirmary doctor decided to refer him to ORG infectious diseases department , but that was not done . On DATE he was diagnosed with and treated for an infection of the upper respiratory tract . On DATE he was referred to ORG with suspected hepatitis and he was sent there . On DATE he was diagnosed with fulminant hepatitis . On DATE he was transferred to ORG in Haydarpa\u015fa where he died on DATE as a result of fulminant hepatitis .","CARDINAL of the causes of fulminant hepatitis are hepatitis A virus and hepatitis B virus . Hepatitis A may be contracted by drinking contaminated water and by eating raw vegetables and fruits . Hepatitis B spreads through sexual contact , or by coming into contact with infected blood by sharing personal items such as toothbrushes , razors , or needles . Military service , in itself , does not pose a special risk for hepatitis contamination .","Having examined the medical reports in the file , we consider it very likely that the first symptoms regarding PERSON disease became obvious on DATE and his condition then deteriorated for DATE until his death . The first symptoms of the liver disease ( acute liver failure ) which is caused by hepatitis A and hepatitis B viruses include tiredness and general complaints which are not specific to any of the organs . They can be similar to the symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection . Only after developing typical symptoms , such as jaundice , does it become easier to diagnose .","The disease caused by these CARDINAL viruses ( hepatitis ) can be more serious in adults . According to the medical reports in the file , PERSON was contaminated with both hepatitis A and hepatitis B viruses within a short period of time and his liver was infected with both viruses at the same time . This is a condition which worsens the damage to the liver and increases the risk of fulminant hepatitis ( fast - deteriorating acute liver failure ) . The mortality rate of fulminant hepatitis is PERCENT within DATE ; a liver transplant is the sole method of ensuring patient survival . Normally , the patient would be kept in hospital under close observation .","Having taken cognisance of the documents in the file , we have not established any delays , fault or negligence in the medical treatment provided to PERSON at the infirmary of his regiment , at ORG or at FAC in Haydarpa\u015fa . \u201d","The applicants lodged an objection to this report . They maintained that the authorities had acted negligently as they had delayed PERSON ORG \u2019s transfer to hospital . Referring to the medical reports in the file , the applicants stated that although the doctor at the regiment had decided to refer PERSON to an infectious diseases clinic on DATE , the military authorities had failed to comply with the doctor \u2019s decision until DATE . The applicants also asked ORG to obtain an additional medical expert report .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 claim . In its decision the court relied on the medical expert report summarised above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , and concluded that no fault could be attributed to the authorities for PERSON death . No mention was made in the decision of the ORG complaint regarding the failure to transfer PERSON to hospital on DATE .","The applicants lodged a request for rectification of ORG decision and argued , inter alia , that if , as alleged , PERSON had told his commanding officer on DATE that he might have been infected with hepatitis ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , his superior should have taken it seriously and referred him to hospital . However , there were no records showing that any action had been taken . They also pointed out that their complaints did not relate to the period following PERSON transfer to the hospital , but to the authorities\u2019 negligence in failing to refer PERSON to hospital DATE .","On DATE ORG refused to entertain the rectification request lodged by the applicants ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148674","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LVA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DMITRIJEVS v. LATVIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No 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)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","He was arrested in DATE and in DATE he was convicted and sentenced to capital punishment . In DATE , following the amendments to LAW , the appellate court converted the sentence of capital punishment into DATE imprisonment . The applicant started serving his sentence in a closed - type prison under the strictest ( \u201c lower \u201d ) regime ( zem\u0101kais soda izcie\u0161anas re\u017e\u012bms ) ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to the \u201c medium \u201d regime in a closed - type prison ( vid\u0113jais soda izcie\u0161anas re\u017e\u012bms ) . In accordance with domestic law , the applicant was entitled to a list of rights ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) .","On DATE , while the applicant was serving his sentence in ORG , the prison \u2019s administrative commission decided to apply a more stringent regime to him and to transfer him to a closed - type prison under the \u201c lower \u201d regime . Relying on that decision , on DATE the governor of ORG recommended transferring the applicant to ORG owing to the fact that FAC did not have appropriate facilities for him to continue serving his sentence under a more stringent regime .","On DATE , on an appeal by the applicant , the decision of the administrative commission was revoked by a decision of ORG , which on DATE was forwarded to ORG . At the same time , on CARDINAL DATE ORG approved the recommendation by ORG to transfer the applicant to Daugavpils Prison ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and on DATE the governor of ORG issued an order to that effect .","On DATE the order was executed despite the fact that the initial decision of DATE had been revoked , and the applicant \u2013 who in the meantime had been admitted to the prison hospital DATE was transferred to FAC . During his stay in that prison the applicant was able to enjoy only a limited number of rights normally applicable to prisoners under the \u201c medium \u201d regime . In particular , he could not exercise his right to leave his cell for TIME a day , or his right to unrestricted access to the medical unit , prison shop , canteen and library .","On DATE the management of FAC informed ORG that they could not provide the facilities required under the \u201c medium \u201d regime .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision to transfer the applicant to ORG to serve his sentence under the \u201c medium \u201d regime . That decision was executed on DATE .","It appears from the file on the applicant \u2019s case before the administrative courts that on DATE he raised an objection with ORG about his transfer to Daugavpils Prison under a more stringent regime , but that ORG dismissed it on DATE , and also dismissed a further complaint on CARDINAL DATE .","According to the Government \u2019s submissions , on DATE the applicant sent a complaint to ORG , which forwarded it to ORG . The latter then forwarded the complaint to ORG .","On DATE ORG mentioned in a letter addressed to the applicant that his stay in Daugavpils Prison had been the result of the slow exchange of information between the courts , the prisons and ORG .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that as a result of the unlawful activities of ORG , he had been transferred to a prison in which he could not serve his sentence under the regime applicable to him .","NORP Before initiating the administrative proceedings ORG asked the applicant to pursue the appropriate outofcourt procedure by appealing against the negative decision of ORG , which the applicant did in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","After a series of procedural decisions , on DATE ORG found that the applicant \u2019s transfer to LOC in order to serve his sentence under a stricter regime had been carried out without any lawful basis and awarded him CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . Its finding was based on a comparison of the list of rights to which the applicant was entitled under the \u201c medium \u201d regime and the rights which he had actually enjoyed as a result of his unlawful transfer to more stringent prison conditions . The court also took into account the actions of the management of FAC and the duration of the applicant \u2019s stay there .","ORG partly upheld that decision , after analysing whether the applicant \u2019s transfer to a more stringent regime amounted to a significant infringement of his rights under LAW . The court established that in transferring him , the authorities had executed a decision which had been already revoked by the national courts , and that for a duration of DATE he had unlawfully been required to serve his sentence under a regime whereby he remained locked in a shared prison cell DATE . According to the court , these conditions were aggravated by the fact that both the applicant and the authorities were aware that his transfer was unlawful . It held that he had suffered a serious infringement of his rights and accordingly awarded him ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","Following an appeal by ORG , on DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the appellate court \u2019s decision and discontinued the administrative proceedings owing to the fact that the examination of decisions taken in the course of the execution of prison sentences did not fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts . The ORG also referred to section CARDINAL of the Law on ORG , concerning the prosecuting authorities\u2019 powers to initiate investigations into alleged violations of ORG rights . In this connection the ORG mentioned that the applicant had lodged a complaint with ORG about his transfer .","On DATE the applicant was released from prison after completing his sentence .","On DATE ORG destroyed the applicant \u2019s file on account of the expiry of the statutory archiving period ."],"violated_articles":["13"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157325","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF R.H. v. SWEDEN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Somalia)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johan Hirschfeldt;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied for asylum and a residence permit in GPE and claimed that she had arrived in GPE on DATE . In an interview with ORG ( Migrationsverket ) , at which she was informed that a search in the NORP asylum fingerprint database EURODAC had revealed that she had applied for asylum in the GPE in DATE , the applicant stated that she had arrived in GPE in DATE from the GPE and had remained illegally in GPE since then . She had been afraid to contact the NORP authorities since she did not want to be returned to the GPE as she would be sent TIME to GPE where she had no housing or opportunity to support herself . She wanted to remain in GPE where cousins of hers were living .","As the applicant had applied for asylum in the GPE DATE under a different name and birth date \u2013 ORG requested that that country take her back in accordance with LAW . The NORP authorities refused , however , as she had previously applied for asylum in GPE , under a slightly different name than that given to ORG . The NORP authorities were then requested to take back the applicant . The NORP authorities did not reply to the request within the prescribed time - limit and were consequently , under LAW , considered to have agreed to receive her . Accordingly , on DATE , ORG dismissed the asylum application and decided to transfer the applicant to GPE .","NORP However , the decision became time - barred before the transfer could be realised . On DATE the applicant therefore applied for asylum and a residence permit in GPE again . At an asylum interview in DATE , which lasted for DATE , she submitted essentially the following . In DATE her family had forced her to marry an older man against her will . At the time she had for DATE had a secret relationship with a boy from school . This relationship was revealed DATE after the forced marriage when the applicant and her boyfriend had tried to escape from GPE together . They had been detected by her uncles when they had been sitting on the loading platform of a truck . Both she and her boyfriend had been beaten and thrown off the truck . She had sustained injuries to her hips and had been hospitalised for DATE . Thereafter she had lived at home until DATE when her father had considered that her health condition permitted her to move in with her husband . She had then contacted her boyfriend and they had fled together , first to GPE and then to GPE and eventually to GPE in order to take a boat to GPE . However , the boat had sunk and the boyfriend had died . Later , while in GPE , she had learned that her father had died in DATE and her mother in DATE . If returned to GPE , the applicant claimed that she would have to return to the man whom she had been forced to marry , unless she were sentenced to death for fleeing the marriage and the country . These threats would be carried out by her uncles . The applicant further asserted that she lacked a male support network in GPE and therefore risked being sexually assaulted . As a single woman , she would further not be able to rent accommodation or otherwise organise her life and would risk becoming a social outcast . She also invoked the generally dire humanitarian situation in GPE and , in particular , claimed that she was unlikely to find the help still needed for her injured hips .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s application for asylum and ordered her deportation to GPE . At the outset , the ORG found that she had failed to substantiate her identity , noting in particular that she had not submitted any identification papers and had previously applied for asylum in the GPE and GPE under different identities . However , it found it plausible that the applicant originated from GPE . Noting that she had arrived in GPE in DATE but had not applied for asylum until DATE and had thus not reported a need for protection during a period of DATE the ORG called into question whether she had felt a real need for protection . Turning to the substantive allegations presented by the applicant in support of her application , the ORG considered that they were marred with credibility issues . For example , in her initial asylum application in DATE , she had stated that she was unmarried . Only during the asylum investigation following her renewed application in DATE had she claimed that she had married in GPE in DATE . ORG found that the applicant had failed to provide a sufficient explanation for this , particularly given that this was a crucial part of her story . Furthermore , in DATE she had only invoked the armed conflict in the country as grounds for asylum and had stated that she could not remember how she had sustained the hip injury since she had been very young at the time . She had then also said that she had stayed with a female friend in GPE before leaving the country whereas she later claimed that she had lived with her parents and siblings .","ORG concluded that the applicant had failed to make plausible that she had been subjected to any ill - treatment by her relatives in GPE and consequently had failed to show that she would lack a male support network there . It noted that , according to the applicant , her brother and uncles still lived in GPE . Moreover , the ORG examined the general situation in GPE and the particular situation of women , based on information gathered at a fact - finding mission to the city in DATE and further information obtained thereafter , and considered that the circumstances were not of such severity that the applicant would be unable to return there , taking into account the finding that she had a male network to protect her . In this connection , ORG also noted that the applicant had not lived in a refugee camp before leaving the country and had not claimed that she would risk doing so upon return .","NORP The applicant appealed to ORG ( NORP - domstolen ) , maintaining her claims and adding , inter alia , the following . The security situation in GPE was still very unstable and the particular situation of women in GPE was extremely severe . She further asserted that , as her situation in GPE had been difficult , it was understandable that she had decided to apply for asylum under another identity in the GPE , in order to avoid being sent back . This had also been the reason why she had decided to stay illegally in GPE . Moreover , she stated that ORG had misunderstood her ; she had stayed with a female friend in GPE , not in GPE where she had lived with her family . Furthermore , in her view , she was not married since she had not consented to the marriage or been present at the marriage ceremony . She submitted an x - ray image of her hip prostheses to show that she had been assaulted and injured .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeal , agreeing with ORG reasoning and findings . The court subscribed to all the misgivings concerning credibility expressed by ORG . It added that , whereas the applicant initially had claimed to have been forcibly married in DATE , in a later submission to the ORG she had stated that this had been decided by her father and her uncles in DATE . Since the applicant was in general not credible , the court did not believe her statement that she lacked a male support network in GPE . Moreover , it considered that the submitted x - ray image did not show that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment in her home country .","By a decision of DATE ORG ( Migrations\u00f6verdomstolen ) refused leave to appeal .","Subsequently , the applicant requested that ORG re - examine her case , claiming that there were impediments to the enforcement of the deportation order . She stated that she had recently found out that her uncle , who had previously physically assaulted her , had now joined ORG , and that he had killed her sister and forced her brother to join ORG . Thus , if returned to GPE , she would risk being stoned to death by her uncle .","On DATE ORG rejected the petition , finding that no new circumstances justifying a reconsideration had been presented . It held that the alleged threats stemming from the applicant \u2019s uncles had already been examined by ORG and that , given her lack of credibility , a mere statement from her about her uncle \u2019s actions was not sufficient to assume that she would risk being stoned upon return . The applicant did not appeal against the ORG \u2019s decision ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170052","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF IONI\u021a\u0102 v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants , PERSON and PERSON , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 son , aged DATE and DATE at that time , underwent surgery for the removal of polyps , which was performed by PERSON in the ORG - run ORG .","Dr PERSON decided to perform the operation under general anaesthetic with tracheal intubation . The general anaesthesia was performed by Dr P.A , assisted by ORG , a staff nurse .","After surgery the child was immediately transferred to the intensive care unit . TIME after his transfer ORG informed PERSON that the child was cyanotic and had no pulse .","The child suffered a haemorrhage , causing blood to flood his lungs . A team of doctors tried to resuscitate him and clear his respiratory channels , but without any success . The child was declared dead TIME after the operation .","A criminal investigation into the cause of death was opened by the PERSON police on the same day .","Dr PERSON and PERSON were questioned and gave written statements .","An autopsy report issued by ORG ( PERSON medicin\u0103 legal\u0103 PERSON ) on DATE said that the ORG son had died of acute respiratory failure as a result of the blood that had blocked his airways and flooded his lungs . It also noted that the child had suffered from several congenital deficiencies which had probably played a role in the postoperative complications : myocardia and hepatic dystrophy , and interatrial septum aneurisms .","The report was sent for the approval of the commission for confirmation and supervision of ORG ( Comisia de avizare \u0219i control din ORG ) . On CARDINAL DATE the commission confirmed that the child \u2019s death had occurred after surgery and had been caused by the blood that had blocked his airways and lungs . It held that there had been a causal link between the post - operative treatment and the child \u2019s death . It noted the deflation of the balloon of the catheter ( balona\u015ful sondei de \u00eentuba\u0163ie ) , applied after post - operatively to prevent the ingress of blood into the lungs , as a possible cause of the presence of blood there and in his airways .","On DATE the superior commission of ORG examined all the documents and approved the conclusions of the commission for confirmation and supervision of ORG .","On DATE the child \u2019s father lodged a disciplinary complaint against PERSON and PERSON","The disciplinary committee of ORG opened an investigation into the patient \u2019s death , collecting documents from the patient \u2019s medical file and taking statements from PERSON and ORG , as well as from the doctors involved in the resuscitation procedure postoperation . It gave its decision on DATE by which it concluded that the child \u2019s death could be included among cases of sudden death ( with a frequency of PERCENT owing to the child \u2019s pre - existing medical conditions : myocardia and hepatic dystrophy , and inter - atrial septum aneurisms ) . Although the committee concluded that there had been no direct link between the child \u2019s death and the LOC medical conduct , it reprimanded both doctors for their failure to perform the necessary pre - surgical medical tests and to seek the applicants\u2019 informed consent before surgery .","The applicants objected to the committee \u2019s conclusions and their appeal was examined by the superior disciplinary committee of ORG .","An expert medical opinion was submitted to the committee and was used by it in reaching its final conclusions . The expert noted , among other things , that the child \u2019s preparation for surgery had not been appropriate as his examination before anaesthesia had been \u201c very superficial \u201d ; in this respect the committee noted the lack of a radioscopy of the lungs , of an ORG and an exploration of the necessary time for blood coagulation . In the expert \u2019s view , the doctors had ignored the child \u2019s severe congenital deficiencies as they had considered that surgery for the removal of polyps had been a \u201c minor intervention \u201d and therefore no special precautions had been necessary .","By a decision of DATE the superior disciplinary committee of ORG quashed the decision of DATE and fined each doctor CARDINAL NORP lei ( the equivalent of QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) . It found that the child \u2019s pre - surgical tests had been insufficient for avoiding post - operative complications . Therefore , it held that PERSON and Dr P.A. had infringed LAW , pursuant to which a doctor should perform diagnoses with maximum diligence in order to determine the adequate treatment and avoid predictable complications that might occur for a patient under his or her care .","The committee further stated that the presence of blood in the child \u2019s airways could not be explained on the basis of the documents and statements in the file . It noted that all the doctors and the nurses who had given evidence stated that the balloon of the intubation catheter had been leakproof ( etanche ) ; however , the fact that the cause of death had been the presence of blood in the child \u2019s lungs could only lead to the conclusion that such statements had been inaccurate .","Relying on Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the Deontological Code and LAW no . CARDINAL , the committee also noted that the parents had not given their informed consent .","On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint alleging that the flawed surgical and post - surgical treatment received by their son had resulted in his death . They asked that those responsible be identified and held accountable for their son \u2019s death . They joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties .","Following a request of ORG , on DATE ORG stated that the medical staff members in charge of monitoring the child were Dr P.A. during the intervention and the child \u2019s transfer to the intensive care unit and ORG while in the intensive care unit .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office of FAC decided to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON","P.V.I. was interviewed as a witness immediately after the child \u2019s death , during the preliminary criminal investigation . During the criminal proceedings against PERSON , in spite of the fact that she had been repeatedly summoned , the investigating authorities were not able to question her as she had not been found . She had left her job at ORG in DATE .","The prosecuting authorities interviewed several doctors and nurses from the hospital \u2019s medical staff who had been involved in the applicants\u2019 son \u2019s post - operative care .","Dr P.A. lodged a request with the investigating body for a new forensic medical report . He pointed out that there were major contradictions between the autopsy report and the opinion issued by the commission for confirmation and supervision of ORG .","On DATE ORG asked ORG to carry out a forensic expert report that would identify the cause and circumstances of the child \u2019s death . ORG replied that a new forensic report could not be produced as the evidence examined had been sent by ORG to ORG .","On DATE Dr P.A. submitted an extrajudicial expert report . It stated that the cause of death had not been the presence of blood in the child \u2019s lungs owing to a lack of adequate post - operative monitoring , but the post - operative reaction of a child with pre - existing medical conditions ( cardiac congenital malformation , hepatic dystrophy , renal stasis , mesenteric adenopathy and hemorrhagic enterocolitis ) mentioned in the medical records kept by the child \u2019s paediatrician . The report noted a generalised inflammatory reaction associated with diffused haemorrhages in his digestive tract , lungs , heart and spleen .","The applicants gave evidence to the investigating authorities on DATE . They contended that they had not been properly informed about the risks of surgery and of the general anaesthetic and consequently they had not given their consent for such interventions .","On DATE ORG ordered that a new forensic report be produced by ORG . The applicants , PERSON and the investigating authorities submitted several questions for the forensic experts . They asked , among other things , whether the pre - existent medical condition of the child had influenced his unfavourable post - surgical evolution and whether administration of a general anaesthetic had been the right option , given the age and the diagnosis of the child . The child \u2019s father also asked ORG whether the post - operative monitoring of the child had been adequate .","However , on DATE ORG replied that it could not deliver such a report because under the relevant domestic legislation a new forensic expert report could not be ordered unless there were new medical and factual elements . Accordingly , ORG stated that it maintained its previous opinion .","Copies of the documents from the disciplinary file were added to the criminal file .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office of ORG decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against ORG , finding , in the light of evidence gathered in the case , that there had been no element of criminal negligence in his conduct . That decision was upheld on DATE by the chief prosecutor of the same prosecutor \u2019s office .","A complaint by the applicants against the ORG decisions was allowed by ORG on DATE . The ORG decisions were quashed and ORG kept the file for fresh consideration . It considered that although a new forensic report had not been produced , the decision of the superior committee of ORG provided enough information concerning the cause of death , which had been the presence of blood in the child \u2019s airways owing to the balloon of the tracheal catheter not being tight enough . It considered that it should be established whether the post - operative monitoring of the child by ORG had been appropriate and more precisely whether PERSON should have noticed the non - functioning catheter .","Dr PERSON and PERSON gave statements before ORG on DATE . Moreover , members of the medical staff that had attempted resuscitation gave evidence ( on DATE , DATE and DATE ) . Some of them maintained that the blood in the lungs could be explained by the resuscitation attempts and that the balloon of the catheter had been kept tight all the time after surgery .","P.V.I. did not give evidence before the court as , although summoned , she did not attend the hearings . According to several reports issued by bailiffs seeking to bring her before the court , she had left the country for GPE . Based on the material in the case file it does not appear that the court took special measures to identify her address there .","The child \u2019s father gave evidence before LOC Court on DATE . He reiterated his claims for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages . He again contended that the doctors had not informed his family about the risks of surgery and in particular of the general anaesthetic and accordingly they had not given their informed consent .","On DATE , after several hearings , FAC acquitted PERSON and dismissed the applicants\u2019 civil claim as unfounded .","ORG took into account the extrajudicial forensic report submitted by PERSON It noted that the conclusions of the extrajudicial report were in total contradiction to the conclusions of the medical report of DATE and the conclusions of the commission for confirmation and supervision of ORG .","This judgment was upheld by a decision of ORG delivered on DATE .","ORG did not take into account the conclusions of the extrajudicial forensic report as in its opinion it represented only extrajudicial evidence which could not set aside the conclusions of competent forensic institutes .","ORG concluded that the death of the child had been caused by the presence of blood in his airways and lungs . However , based on the evidence in the file , it was not possible to explain when the blood had entered the child \u2019s airways because of the deflation of the catheter \u2019s balloon . Moreover , the post - operative complications occurred TIME after the child had been transferred to the intensive care unit , while under the supervision of ORG held therefore that ORG could not be held responsible for the deflation of the catheter \u2019s balloon after surgery .","The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against that decision . They requested that the court extend the criminal investigation to ORG , who had had the child under her supervision in the intensive care unit .","By a decision of DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal and quashed the decisions of the lower courts . Noting that the lower courts had not examined the allegation made by the child \u2019s parents that they had not given their consent for surgery and the general anaesthesia , the appeal court sent the file back to LOC Court .","On DATE ORG acquitted PERSON It held that no causal link existed between the death of the child and the presumed omission of the medical authorities to obtain the applicants\u2019 informed consent for the administration of a general anaesthetic .","It further held that it could not establish beyond any reasonable doubt that PERSON had been negligent in ensuring the tightness of the catheter \u2019s balloon after surgery . Consequently , the court dismissed the applicants\u2019 civil claim as unfounded .","The court also dismissed the ORG request to extend the criminal investigation to ORG on the grounds that , under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG , only the prosecutor could ask for the extension of the investigation to other persons while the proceedings were pending before the courts .","This judgment was upheld by a final decision delivered by ORG on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicants instituted separate civil proceedings against ORG and doctors GPE and GPE in ORG for the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages they had sustained as a result of their son \u2019s death .","On DATE , referring to LAW CCP ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court stayed the civil proceedings pending a final decision in the criminal proceedings . It noted that the outcome of the civil proceedings would depend to a large extent on the verdict in the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG lifted the stay of the civil proceedings . However , the applicants gave up their separate civil claim on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161986","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"I.A.A. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants I.A.A. , Z.A.A. , B.A.A. , A.A.A. and DATE are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and who currently live in GPE . They are represented before ORG . The President ordered that the ORG identity should not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The CARDINAL applicants comprise CARDINAL biological siblings and their first cousin who is a sibling by adoption .","NORP The applicants\u2019 mother was born in GPE . DATE she had CARDINAL children with her first husband . The CARDINAL eldest children went to live with their mother \u2019s paternal aunt and appear to have remained with her in GPE . Following the breakdown of her relationship with her first husband , the applicant \u2019s mother married her second husband and had a child with him in DATE . She subsequently returned to her first husband and gave birth to CARDINAL further children in DATE and DATE . In DATE she adopted her niece , who is the fifth applicant in the proceedings before the ORG .","The applicant \u2019s mother left her first husband for a second time in DATE . Around the same time , her second husband was granted refugee status in GPE . She joined him there DATE , leaving her CARDINAL youngest children , including the applicants , in the care of her sister in GPE .","In DATE the applicants\u2019 mother \u2019s only child with her second husband was granted entry clearance to join the couple in GPE . In sponsoring the application for entry clearance , she did not mention that she had children by her first husband who were still living in GPE .","In DATE the applicants\u2019 aunt moved from GPE to GPE , taking with her the CARDINAL children in her care .","NORP In DATE the applicants\u2019 mother divorced her second husband .","In DATE CARDINAL of the applicants\u2019 siblings applied for entry clearance to join their mother in GPE . Apparently those children were chosen to join her because CARDINAL was the youngest and the other was in poor health . The application was initially refused but entry clearance was later granted following a successful appeal to the then ORG . In allowing the appeal , the ORG accepted first , that the mother had effective sole responsibility for the children abroad ; secondly , and in the alternative , that there were serious and compelling family or other reasons which made their continued exclusion from the GPE undesirable ; thirdly , that the mother and her children had enjoyed family life together as a unit before she had travelled to GPE to join her second husband ; and fourthly , that the mother could not reasonably relocate to GPE to care for her children as she would have no job and no means of survival there .","In or around this time the applicants\u2019 aunt left GPE and returned to GPE , leaving the QUANTITY children in the care of the eldest , who was then DATE . The CARDINAL applicants and their older sibling , who is not a party to the proceedings before this ORG , applied for entry clearance to join their mother in GPE .","On DATE the Secretary of ORG refused the application for entry clearance on the ground that the applicants and their older sibling did not meet the requirements of CARDINAL or CARDINAL of ORG HCCARDINAL ( as amended ) because they were not dependent on their mother \u2019s support and they were not the biological children of a recognised refugee . The Secretary of ORG also considered LAW but concluded that although there was a limited interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under LAW , the refusal of entry clearance had been proportionate and justified .","NORP On DATE the applicants\u2019 appeal against this decision was dismissed as the Immigration Judge found that they could not meet the requirements of ORG . He further found that as contact between the applicants and their mother had been sporadic since DATE , family life did not exist \u201c at the present time \u201d and LAW was not , therefore , engaged . However , on DATE permission to appeal was granted as the grounds of appeal raised arguable issues in relation to the manner in which the Immigration Judge had approached the LAW issue .","The appeal decision was promulgated on DATE . While the Immigration Judge had little doubt that the previous judge was correct to find that the applicants could not meet the requirements of ORG , he found it to be equally clear that he had not adequately addressed the Article CARDINAL issue . In particular , he had concentrated on whether family life existed \u201c at the present time \u201d when the correct test was whether it had existed at the date of the decision , namely CARDINAL DATE . Consequently , the Immigration Judge concluded that the previous judge had erred in law and set aside his decision . In reconsidering the LAW issue , the Immigration Judge accepted that family life had existed between the applicants and their mother at the date of the Secretary of ORG \u2019s decision and that the refusal of entry clearance had interfered with that family life . Nevertheless , he concluded that the interference had been proportionate because the ORG mother had made a conscious decision to leave them in GPE , knowing that the separation might be permanent , and at the date of the decision she had been living separately from them for DATE .","The applicants sought leave to appeal on the ground , inter alia , that the Immigration Judge had failed to take into account the findings of the Immigration Judge in the first CARDINAL children \u2019s appeal against the refusal of entry clearance in DATE .","On DATE ORG refused the applicants\u2019 application for leave to appeal as it found that the Immigration Judge had considered all the relevant factors in the round and reached a conclusion which was rationally open to him . On DATE permission to appeal was also refused by ORG . However , on DATE ORG made an order by consent ordering that the applicants\u2019 appeal should be remitted to ORG .","The new ORG promulgated its decision on DATE . In assessing whether or not the refusal of entry clearance amounted to a disproportionate interference with the applicants\u2019 rights under LAW , it accepted the conclusions of the Immigration Judge in the appeal of the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL siblings against the refusal of entry clearance . The ORG also accepted that the best interests of the children had to be treated as a primary consideration , albeit not the primary consideration , in assessing proportionality and that it was in the ORG best interests that they should be allowed to join their mother in GPE . Nevertheless , the general principle remained true that a foreign national who could not satisfy the requirements for entry clearance under LAW ( and the applicants had not disputed that this was the case ) would not normally be able to show that his exclusion from GPE would constitute a disproportionate interference with his LAW unless he could show good reason why his case should be treated more favourably that the generality of such cases . Moreover , the ORG noted that the ORG best interests could not be viewed in isolation and it was therefore relevant that their mother had decided to leave them in GPE , knowing that the separation was likely to continue for the foreseeable future , and that she had allowed DATE to pass before attempting to bring them to GPE , by which time they had long ceased to live together as a family unit with her .","The ORG concluded that :","\u201c The circumstances in which the appellants were living together in GPE at the date of the respondent \u2019s decision , and in which they are still living now , are undoubtedly harsh , to put it at its lowest . Indeed , they may fairly be characterised as harsh . But sadly they are conditions in which vast numbers of other individuals are compelled to live throughout the unhappier regions of the world . GPE does not have either the room or the resources to provide for all of them . There is no reason in logic why the appellants should be viewed differently from the vast numbers of other unfortunate individuals who would jump at the opportunity of a new and better life in GPE , but who can not fulfil the requirements for entry laid down by the Secretary of ORG in ORG and are therefore unable to avail themselves of that opportunity . On the facts of the NORP case as presented before me , I am not persuaded that they have shown why they should be treated differently from the generality of foreign nationals in the same or similar position . In short , whilst I accept that their exclusion from GPE would constitute an interference with their LAW and those of the third parties affected by their exclusion , nevertheless that would not constitute a disproportionate interference when balanced against the larger public interest to which I have referred . Their appeals therefore fall to be dismissed . \u201d","In DATE the applicants\u2019 older sibling , who had been looking after them , left the family unit in GPE and her current whereabouts are unknown . Since then , the applicants have been cared for by the first applicant .","On DATE ORG refused permission to appeal as it found that the Immigration Judge had not failed to take into account any relevant factors .","Paragraph CARDINALD of ORG contained the requirements for leave to enter as the child of a parent who had been granted refugee status in GPE . It provided that :","\u201c CARDINALD. The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter or remain in GPE in order to join or remain with the parent who is currently a refugee granted status as such under the immigration rules in GPE are that the applicant :","( i ) is the child of a parent who is currently a refugee granted status as such under the immigration rules in GPE ; and","( ii ) is under DATE , and","( iii ) is not leading an independent life , is unmarried and is not a civil partner , and has not formed an independent family unit ; and","( iv ) was part of the family unit of the person granted asylum at the time that the person granted asylum left the country of his habitual residence in order to seek asylum ; and","( v ) would not be excluded from protection by virtue of LAW relating to ORG if he were to seek asylum in his own right ; and","( vi ) DATE if seeking leave to enter , holds a valid GPE entry clearance for entry in this capacity . \"","At the relevant time paragraph CARDINAL of ORG contained the requirements for leave to enter as the child of a parent present and settled in GPE . It provided that :","\u201c CARDINAL . The requirements to be met by a person seeking indefinite leave to enter GPE as the child of a parent , parents or a relative present and settled or being admitted for settlement in GPE are that he :","( i ) is seeking leave to enter to accompany or join a parent , parents or a relative in one of the following circumstances :","( a ) NORP both parents are present and settled in GPE ; or","( b ) NORP both parents are being admitted on the same occasion for settlement ; or","( c ) one parent is present and settled in GPE and the other is being admitted on the same occasion for settlement ; or","( d ) one parent is present and settled in GPE or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement and the other parent is dead ; or","( e ) one parent is present and settled in GPE or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement and has had sole responsibility for the child \u2019s upbringing ; or","( f ) one parent or a relative is present and settled in GPE or being admitted on the same occasion for settlement and there are serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable and suitable arrangements have been made for the child \u2019s care ; and","( ii ) is under DATE ; and","( iii ) is not leading an independent life , is unmarried and is not a civil partner , and has not formed an independent family unit ; and","( iv ) can , and will , be accommodated adequately by the parent , parents or relative the child is seeking to join without recourse to public funds in accommodation which the parent , parents or relative the child is seeking to join , own or occupy exclusively ; and","( v ) NORP can , and will , be maintained adequately by the parent , parents , or relative the child is seeking to join , without recourse to public funds ; and","( vi ) holds a valid GPE entry clearance for entry in this capacity ; and","( vii ) does not fall for refusal under the general grounds for refusal . \u201d","By virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) of the Nationality , Immigration and Asylum Act DATE an unsuccessful applicant for entry clearance may appeal against the refusal on the ground , inter alia , that \u201c the decision is unlawful under section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( c. CARDINAL ) ( public authority not to act contrary to LAW ) as being incompatible with the appellant \u2019s Convention rights \u201d .","The Sponsor in GPE can not appeal against that decision ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-175180","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MED\u017dLIS ISLAMSKE ZAJEDNICE BR\u010cKO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":1,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Egidijus K\u016bris;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Iulia Motoc;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Khanlar Hajiyev;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["On an unknown date in DATE the applicants wrote a letter to the highest authorities of the ORG , namely ORG , the President of ORG and ORG , while the procedure for the appointment of a director of the ORG \u2019s multi - ethnic public radio station was still pending . In the letter , they voiced their concerns regarding the procedure for the appointment of a director of the ORG \u2019s multi - ethnic public radio station . They criticised the authorities for having disregarded the principle of proportional representation of ethnic communities in the public service of ORG set out in LOC . In this connection they stated :","\u201c ... We acknowledge and appreciate your support and the effort you put into creating a multi - ethnic radio ... Unfortunately , it appears that there was a major oversight at the very beginning of this important venture . The panel for the selection of the director [ of the radio ] was created in contravention of the Statute of Br\u010dko District . It is composed of CARDINAL NORP members , CARDINAL NORP and one PERSON . Thus , yet again , the ( BD ) Statute , which requires proportional representation of the CARDINAL constituent peoples in public institutions , was disregarded . ORG established several cases of non - compliance with this principle regarding employment of staff in the public sector , including the BD radio , to the disadvantage of ORG and NORP , and requested that the Governor correct this imbalance . Unfortunately , nothing has been done to correct this . That this is true is confirmed by the unofficial information that PERSON was proposed for the position of the radio \u2019s director by the NORP members of the ( selection ) panel , who are in the majority , although the former director was PERSON . This proposal is unacceptable , all the more so because it concerns a person who lacks the professional and moral qualities for such a position . \u201d","NORP The letter continued as follows :","\u201c According to our information ( na\u0161im informacijama ) , the lady in question","( CARDINAL ) NORP stated in an interview published in \u2018 ORG , commenting on the destruction of FAC in GPE , that NORP were not a people ( ORG nisu narod ) , that they did not possess culture and that , accordingly , destroying FAC could not be seen as destruction of cultural monuments ,","( CARDINAL ) as an employee of the BD radio demonstratively tore to pieces on the radio \u2019s LOC ( demonstrativno kidala ) the calendar showing the schedule of religious services during DATE ,","( CARDINAL ) on the radio \u2019s LOC covered the coat of arms of GPE with the coat of arms of ORG ,","( CARDINAL ) as an editor of the cultural programme on the BD radio banned the broadcasting of sevdalinka arguing that that type of song had no cultural or musical value .","We firmly believe that the above - described acts absolutely disqualify PERSON as a candidate for the position of director of the multi - ethnic ORG of GPE and that a PERSON should be appointed to that [ radio \u2019s director ] position , which would be in compliance with the Statute of [ BD ] and the need to rectify the ethnic imbalance regarding employment in the public sector .","We hope that you will react appropriately to our letter ...","In the absence of any action on your part , we will be forced to address the public ( obratiti se javnosti ) and [ to contact ] international and other competent representatives . \u201d","Soon afterwards , still in DATE , the letter was published in CARDINAL different DATE newspapers .","On DATE PERSON brought civil defamation proceedings claiming that in the above letter the applicants had made defamatory statements which had damaged her reputation and discredited her as a person and a professional journalist .","At the trial the first - instance court admitted a considerable volume of evidence , including oral statements from CARDINAL witnesses ( apparently all employees of the BD public radio ) regarding the veracity of the CARDINAL allegations contained in the ORG letter ; it also admitted oral statements from the plaintiff and from GPE and GPE , the members and statutory representatives of CARDINAL of the applicants .","As described in the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , PERSON stated that she had learned of the letter shortly after it had been sent by the applicants , but that she did not know who had given it to the media . She confirmed that she had removed from the wall in the premises of the radio station the calendar showing the schedule of religious services during DATE , but explained that the wall had been used only for work - related announcements . She denied that she had torn up the calendar . As to the coat of arms of GPE and GPE , she stated that an invitation card with the coat of arms of PERSON had been placed in a corner of the coat of arms of GPE , but that the latter had not been covered . Lastly , she denied that she had banned the broadcasting of sevdalinka . She argued that all those matters had been taken out of context , that her career as a journalist had been thwarted and that she had been concerned about her professional future .","O.H. confirmed that he had participated in the preparation of the letter and stated that he had found out about the information contained therein from employees of the radio station who had asked him for help . There had been no intention to publish the letter . For that reason , it had been sent to the authorities personally . He did not know how the letter had reached the media .","S.C. stated that most of the information had been brought to his attention by ORG The letter had been sent to the authorities personally . Their intention had not been to publish the letter in the media . That was why they had indicated in the letter that it concerned allegations and not established facts . Their aim had been to draw the attention of the authorities to errors of GPE , who had been a serious candidate for the post of director of the BD radio .","By a judgment dated DATE , ORG Instance dismissed PERSON \u2019s action and ordered her to publish the judgment at her expense and to reimburse the trial costs of the applicants . It found that the applicants could not be held responsible because there had been no evidence that they had published the letter in the media . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c It is clear that the GPE letter was addressed personally ( upu\u0107eno na ruke ) to the Governor , to the President of the ORG and to the Supervisor for GPE ... and it was not sent to the media ... The court established that the aim of the letter was to bring the attention of the authorities to ( these ) issues and to enable them to draw certain conclusions on verification of that information , and not to publish unverified information .","Having examined the articles published in the media , the court concludes that none of them was published by [ the applicants ] . \u201d","On appeal by GPE , ORG quashed that judgment on CARDINAL DATE and decided to hold a new hearing .","At the hearing before ORG PERSON reiterated that the CARDINAL statements specified above ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had contained untrue and defamatory allegations whose aim had been to portray her as a nationalist and accordingly disqualify her for the post for which she had applied . Not only had she not been appointed to the post , but the letter had had other long - term negative consequences for her .","The applicants argued that they had lacked capacity to be sued because they had not sent the letter to the media and , accordingly , had not expressed or disseminated in public any defamatory statements in respect of the appellant . The letter had been sent to the authorities . By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed that argument and stated that","\u201c ... a person \u2019s reputation can be damaged if someone expresses or disseminates to other people untrue facts or allegations about the past , knowledge , skills or anything else ( and he or she knew or ought to have known that those facts or allegations were untrue ) . For these reasons , the court dismisses the respondents\u2019 arguments that one can be held responsible for defamation only if there was a public announcement or dissemination or publication of ( such ) statements in the media . \u201d","The applicants further argued that PERSON had been a public servant and that by having taken part in the competition for the position of radio director she had become a public figure . Relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the court held as follows :","\u201c ... even if the aggrieved party is a public servant or a candidate for a post in a public body and he or she is generally perceived as having an important influence on public issues of political interest ... ( a defendant ) is to be held liable for defamation if he knew that a statement was false or negligently disregarded its inaccuracy . \u201d","Referring to the first part of the letter ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG did not go beyond noting that it contained value judgments for which no responsibility could be attributed to the applicants LAW . It further quoted the CARDINAL statements contained in the letter ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and held that these \u201c concerned statements of fact which the defendants were required to prove . \u201d In this connection it re - examined GPE , GPE and the witnesses who had already given oral evidence before the first - instance court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","ORG also noted that GPE and GPE , both employees of the ORG public radio , had visited CARDINAL of the applicants in order to discuss PERSON \u2019s behaviour in the workplace . On that occasion R.S. had told PERSON that during DATE PERSON had detached from the wall in the radio \u2019s premises the calendar showing the schedule of religious services . The court noted that the wall had been used for work - related announcements . It also indicated that , at the relevant time , another text , which had not been work - related , had been posted on the wall . PERSON ( sound manager in the radio ) had told PERSON that on CARDINAL occasion GPE had asked him to explain why sevdalinka had been broadcasted during the time reserved in the programme for another type of music . He confirmed that she had removed the Ramadan religious calendar from the wall .","At a meeting held shortly afterwards , PERSON shared the information received from GPE and GPE with the other respondents . On that occasion one of the respondents had referred to a newspaper article and the alleged statement of GPE regarding NORP and the destruction of FAC . An allegation had been also made that PERSON had covered the coat of arms of GPE with the coat of arms of PERSON . GPE had confirmed having heard people speaking about that in the city .","After analysing the statements of the witnesses and the respondents , the court found that the facts reported in the letter regarding the calendar of religious services during DATE and the broadcasting of sevdalinka were untrue , since \u201c the letter obviously did not contain what ( GPE and GPE ) had said about the appellant and her behaviour regarding the religious calendar and the broadcasting of sevdalinka \u201d . Noting that the allegation that PERSON was the author of the statement published in the newspaper was untrue , the court stated :","\u201c ... on the basis of GPE \u2019s statement [ the court establishes ] that at the meeting that preceded the preparation of the letter a distinguished member of a [ respondent ] had informed those attending the meeting that the appellant had given a statement to the newspaper , whose contents were identical to the contents of the letter . On subsequent verification [ GPE ] established that such a text had been published , but that the appellant had not been the author ... \u201d","The court further stated that :","\u201c The respondents also did not prove the truthfulness of the allegation that in her office the appellant had covered the coat of arms of GPE with the coat of arms of PERSON . On the basis of evidence given by the witnesses examined at the trial ( GPE , GPE and GPE ) , [ the court ] established that the appellant had put an invitation card , which bore the coat of arms of PERSON , in the corner of the coat of arms of GPE ... \u201d","In conclusion , the court stated :","\u201c By the letter sent to ORG , the President of ORG and the Governor of the BD , the respondents damaged the plaintiff \u2019s reputation and honour in the place in which she lives and works . They did so by expressing and disseminating to the above persons facts about the appellant \u2019s behaviour , actions and statements which they knew or ought to have known were false ... \u201d","ORG ordered the applicants to inform ORG , the President of ORG and ORG within DATE that they retracted the letter , failing which they would have to pay jointly the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages to GPE They were further ordered to give the judgment to the BD radio and television and to CARDINAL newspapers for publication at the ORG own expense . As regards the calculation of the amount of non - pecuniary damages , the court stated :","\u201c When assessing the amount of damages , namely , just satisfaction to be awarded to the appellant , [ the court ] took into consideration that the impugned facts had been mentioned in the article published in the media ... \u201d","On DATE PERSON filed a request with ORG for enforcement of the above judgment . On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution .","On DATE the applicants paid the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL ( inclusive of interest and enforcement costs ) in enforcement of the judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG closed the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the applicants applied to ORG seeking protection of their rights under LAW .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG held that the interference with the applicants\u2019 right to freedom of expression had been \u201c necessary in a NORP society \u201d and concluded that there had been no violation of Article II\/CARDINAL.h ) of the LAW of GPE or LAW . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . At the outset ORG notes that the appellants did not deny that their liability for defamation was based on LAW DATE and that , therefore , the interference with the right [ to freedom of expression ] protected by LAW was prescribed by law ...","The impugned judgment was delivered in civil defamation proceedings initiated by the respondent against the appellants ... accordingly , the interference pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of the \u201c reputation or rights of others \u201d .","What remains to be determined is whether the interference complained of was \u2018 necessary in a democratic society\u2019 ...","With regard to the existence of a \u2018 pressing social ORG , ORG observes that the impugned ( court ) decisions concern the letter which the appellants sent to the authorities of the ORG and the ORG casting the plaintiff ( GPE ) in a negative light . ORG considered it to be defamation because ( the case ) concerned statements whose veracity could be verified ... ORG notes that ORG qualified the impugned statements in the letter as statements of fact and not as value judgments . ORG also considers that they are to be regarded statements of fact which should be proved . The appellants failed to do so , as they did not make reasonable efforts to verify the truthfulness of [ those ] statements of fact before [ reporting ] , but merely made [ those statements ] .","The Constitutional Court considers that ORG established without doubt that the impugned factual statements about PERSON were false and that the appellants were liable for defamation . From the submissions of the CARDINAL witnesses , from whom the appellants received the information presented in the letter ( concerning the part of the letter in which it was stated that PERSON \u2018 made a point of removing from the wall ( and tore to pieces ) the calendar with the schedule of religious services during DATE and as the editor of the entertainment programme banned the broadcasting of sevdalinka arguing that that type of song had no cultural or musical value\u2019 ) , ORG established that there was an evident inconsistency between what had been said to the appellants and what they had reported in the letter . Furthermore , the statement in the impugned letter that PERSON had given an interview concerning the destruction of mosques was refuted by another witness , who submitted that subsequent verification had revealed that PERSON had not been the author of the said interview . Finally , the appellants failed to prove the veracity of the allegations that PERSON had covered the coat of arms of GPE with the coat of arms of ORG . In view of the above , in the present case the public interest that permits reporting on alleged irregularities in the conduct of public officials can not be based on manifestly untrue factual allegations which impugn their reputation [ and ] which can not be regarded as criticism that they ought to tolerate in view of their function . Accordingly , the court considers that ORG correctly concluded that there was \u2018 a pressing social ORG in the present case [ for the interference with the appellants\u2019 right to freedom of expression ] .","Furthermore , ORG notes that ORG awarded non - pecuniary damages to GPE because her reputation was affected by the untrue statements made in the impugned letter ... ORG has already stated in its previous case - law that a person \u2019s reputation forms part of his or her personal identity and psychological integrity ...","...","The appellants ... failed to verify the impugned statements beforehand as was their duty . ORG established that the appellants had damaged PERSON \u2019s reputation by making untrue allegations which caused her mental distress ... When deciding on the claim in respect of non - pecuniary damage and its amount , ORG took into account the purpose of those damages and the rule that it should not favour aspirations that were incompatible with its nature and social purpose .","[ T]he ORG considers that the measure imposed on the appellants in the present case was proportionate to the aim pursued ... The court further considers that ORG did not go beyond its discretionary power in deciding on the claim in respect of non - pecuniary damage ... [ T]he ORG finds that the reasons ORG gave were \u2018 ORG and \u2018 LOC within the meaning of LAW .","In view of the above , ORG considers that the interference with the appellants\u2019 right to freedom of expression was \u2018 necessary in a democratic FAC and that , therefore , there has been no violation of Article II\/CARDINAL.h ) of LAW or LAW . \u201d","On DATE the Constitutional Court \u2019s decision was served on the applicants .","According to TIME of a meeting of ORG radio station dated DATE , there were CARDINAL candidates for the post of the radio \u2019s director , CARDINAL of whom was ORG decided to extend the mandate of the acting director of the radio given that \u201c due to political pressure and repeated voting \u201d no decision could be made in respect of either of the candidates ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174388","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MNE","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF TOMA\u0160EVI\u0106 v. MONTENEGRO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim concerning a property issue against CARDINAL other persons with ORG ( PERSON ) in ORG .","On DATE ORG in ORG ruled partly in favour of the applicant .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( ORG ) in GPE .","On DATE ORG in GPE quashed the judgement and remitted the case back to ORG .","On DATE ORG in ORG ruled against the applicant . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment . The proceedings are still pending at the second instance ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178374","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MEDVEDEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised complaints under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172543","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MALCHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160428","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF POMILYAYKO v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At DATE some equipment was stolen from the enterprise at which the applicant worked .","The ORG invited the applicant and CARDINAL of her colleagues for questioning in respect of the theft .","On DATE , at TIME , the applicant came to the police station .","At TIME on DATE a senior detective officer , ORG , accompanied the applicant to the fourth floor of the police station . He asked her to wait in the corridor and entered office no . CARDINAL . TIME the applicant heard a woman \u2019s scream emanating from that office . T. opened the door and directed an officer passing by to take the applicant to his office . She was made to wait there for TIME . Then PERSON took her to office no . CARDINAL . He pushed her inside , twisted her arms behind her back and handcuffed her , even though she had offered no resistance .","T. and his colleague , PERSON , who was also in the office , intimidated the applicant with a view to making her confess to the investigated theft . They told her that her colleague , PERSON , had already started to \u201c crack \u201d . The applicant noticed PERSON belongings on the floor . She concluded that it was her scream that she had heard .","Having failed to obtain a confession from the applicant , T. and PERSON made her sit on a chair , put a plastic bag over her head and started to strangle her . At the same time they struck her head , face and mouth so that she could not bite through the bag . The applicant fainted several times . When she told the officers she needed to use the toilet , PERSON hit her in the stomach and the head . She fainted once again and urinated involuntarily . Sometime later the applicant noticed the presence of another officer , PERSON , in the office .","After TIME of ill - treatment , the applicant was taken to another office where she stayed for TIME . Thereafter she was brought before a female officer , who conducted her formal questioning .","At TIME the applicant signed the official report of the questioning . She was then taken to the office of the head of the search unit , who stated that she was the main suspect in the theft case and that all her colleagues had indicated her as the likely thief . The applicant complained about her ill - treatment . Her complaint was ignored .","She was taken again to office no . DATE , where the officers threatened her and tried to pressure her into confessing . She repeatedly refused to do so and professed her innocence . The applicant was forced to write a statement that she had no complaints about the way the police had treated her .","At TIME on DATE she was released .","The applicant submitted to the Court CARDINAL colour photographs of herself in which extensive bruising on her both arms and forearms is visible .","On DATE ( DATE following her release ) the applicant felt unwell and called an ambulance .","DATE she underwent in - patient hospital treatment for a closed head injury , concussion , soft tissue contusions on the head , upper and lower limbs , bruising of the abdominal wall , lumbar osteochondrosis and asthenia .","On DATE the hospital authorities informed the Ordzhonikidze Police Department about the applicant \u2019s injuries allegedly inflicted on her by police officers .","On DATE the applicant complained to the ORG ( \u201c the Ordzhonikidze Prosecutor \u2019s Office \u201d ) about her ill - treatment . PERSON lodged a similar complaint .","On DATE the police department refused to open a criminal case following the information from the hospital administration .","On DATE the Ordzhonikidze ORG opened a criminal case against the police officers on suspicion of their exceeding their powers by engaging in violent and degrading treatment . As a result , on DATE the prosecutor also quashed the ruling of DATE .","After her discharge from hospital , the applicant remained on sick leave until DATE .","On DATE the investigator seized the trousers which the applicant had been wearing on DATE . A forensic immunological examination discovered traces of her urine on them .","From DATE until DATE a forensic medical expert evaluation was carried out with a view to establishing the applicant \u2019s injuries and their nature . That evaluation was based on her medical file , as well as a medical examination of her . The expert considered it established that , at the time of her hospitalisation , the applicant had had bruises to both arms that had been inflicted by blunt objects DATE previously . The expert stated that it was impossible to establish more precisely the time at which those injuries had been inflicted . As regards the soft tissue contusions , the expert did not find it necessary to take that diagnosis into account as being based merely on a personal opinion of the doctor who had examined the applicant . The same doctor \u2019s diagnoses of a closed head injury and concussion were considered by the expert as not sufficiently supported by \u201c clinical data \u201d . Lastly , the expert report stated that the applicant was suffering from neurotic asthenia , but that it was impossible to establish its origin .","On DATE a forensic expert evaluation was carried out of the applicant \u2019s handwritten statement on the official report on the questioning of DATE . The expert concluded that she had been \u201c in an unusual state \u201d when writing that note .","On the same date officer ORG challenged the decision of CARDINAL DATE before the Ordzhonikidze ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the ORG rejected his complaint .","On DATE , however , ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first - instance court for fresh examination .","DATE and DATE another forensic medical expert evaluation of the applicant \u2019s injuries was carried out . It concluded that she had sustained numerous bruises on her arms , shoulders and thighs . These could have been inflicted at the time and in the circumstances described by her . Because of the delay before the first forensic medical examination was undertaken , it appeared impossible to reach more specific findings .","On DATE the ORG quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . This ruling was quashed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the ORG once again quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE . On DATE this ruling too was quashed by ORG .","On DATE the applicant and PERSON identified the officers who had ill - treated them from photographs shown to them by the investigator .","On DATE , however , the investigator closed the criminal case against the police officers , citing a lack of proof of their guilt .","On DATE ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE ORG quashed the ruling of the first - instance court and remitted the case to it for fresh examination .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s complaint and quashed the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld that ruling .","In DATE and DATE the applicant enquired about the progress of the investigation . Her enquiries received no answer ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148184","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LUCKY DEV v. SWEDEN","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Acquittal;Right not to be tried or punished twice);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","By a decision of DATE ORG Skatteverket ) , noting that the applicant ran CARDINAL restaurants together with her husband , Mr Shibendra Dev ( who also lodged an application before the ORG ; no . ORG ) , found that they should each declare CARDINAL of the proceeds and the costs of that business . As the applicant , in her tax return , had not declared all her income and had , moreover , not declared it in the correct manner , the ORG revised upwards her income for DATE ( i.e. the taxation DATE ) , finding her liable to pay tax on undeclared business income ( inkomst av n\u00e4ringsverksamhet ) amounting to MONEY ( SEK ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) . It also increased her liability to value - added tax ( merv\u00e4rdesskatt ; \u201c VAT \u201d ) for DATE by SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) . Finally , as the information supplied by the applicant in her tax return was found to be incorrect and the revision had had to be made under a discretionary assessment procedure , given the business \u2019s deficient accounting , the ORG ordered her to pay tax surcharges ( skattetill\u00e4gg ) , amounting to PERCENT and PERCENT , respectively , of the increased income tax and ORG .","Following the applicant \u2019s appeal , ORG , on DATE , made an obligatory review of its decision but did not change it .","On DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG ( l\u00e4nsr\u00e4tten ) in GPE and ORG ( kammarr\u00e4tten ) in GPE upheld ORG decision .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Regeringsr\u00e4tten ) refused leave to appeal .","Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on CARDINAL DATE in regard to the above conduct .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( tingsr\u00e4tt ) convicted the applicant of an aggravated bookkeeping offence ( grovt bokf\u00f6ringsbrott ) . She was given a suspended sentence and ordered to perform TIME of community service . The offence concerned the same period as the above - mentioned tax decisions , that is , DATE . ORG found that the bookkeeping of the restaurant business had been seriously deficient and that the applicant and her husband had been responsible for failing to account for considerable proceeds and ORG , which had involved large profits for them . In regard to the public prosecutor \u2019s claim that the applicant was guilty also of an aggravated tax offence ( grovt skattebrott ) , the court considered that it could not be ruled out that , as she claimed to have relied on her husband running the business properly and their accountant having entered the correct figures in her tax return , she had been unaware that her tax return contained false information . Thus , it had not been shown that she had intended to give incorrect information , for which reason the indictment was dismissed in this respect .","NORP The applicant did not appeal against ORG judgment , which consequently acquired legal force on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P7"],"violated_paragraphs":["P7-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177419","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SEMYRODA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . The applicant in application no . CARDINAL also raised another complaint under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158531","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"ATV PRIVATFERNSEH-GMBH v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Barbara Leitl-Staudinger;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["NORP The applicant , ATV NORP , is a broadcasting company established under NORP PERSON with its seat in GPE . It is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant company aired a broadcast as part of a society programme that showed the then Federal Minister for Health , Families and Youth , PERSON , and her partner , GPE , entering a restaurant in GPE . The report concerned mainly the Minister \u2019s presence at a charity DATE an exhibition of contemporary art in a gourmet restaurant and the sale of towels for the benefit of female sport cycling . The commentary referred to the Minister \u2019s own forthcoming cookery book on roast pork and the chef \u2019s creations for the TIME .","NORP The report started with the Minister arriving , with her new partner at her side . The introductory commentary stated that they were currently GPE \u2019s most observed couple , but rarely appeared in public together . However , TIME the divorced Minister and her new partner , GPE , a senior manager with NORP railways , came to H. restaurant in GPE together to \u201c do good and eat well \u201d .","NORP Overlaying images of the couple entering the restaurant and PERSON greeting people , the voice - over continued , stating that PERSON looked fabulous and showed no trace of the difficulties she had successfully left behind her in DATE . On the other hand GPE , the new man at her side , was not entirely prepared for the media \u2019s interest : DATE was in DATE , division manager with a company of the NORP railways and in the middle of divorce proceedings . Because of the pending court proceedings , GPE did not want to pose officially next to his new love .","The images showed DATE entering beside PERSON , later stepping aside and stroking a puppy . PERSON also cuddled the puppy and expressed her love for animals in the direction of the camera .","On DATE lodged an action under LAW ( Mediengesetz ) claiming that the commentary stating that \u201c GPE was the new man at PERSON \u2019s side \u201d , that \u201c he was in the middle of divorce proceedings \u201d and that \u201c because of the pending proceedings he did not want to pose at his new love \u2019s side \u201d had violated his most intimate personal sphere .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) ruled that the statement that GPE was \u201c in the middle of divorce proceedings \u201d , and that these proceedings were pending , infringed his most intimate personal sphere . The court ordered the applicant company to pay compensation in the amount of CARDINAL ( ORG ) , to publish the operative part of the judgment and to bear the costs of the proceedings . However , it dismissed DATE \u2019s claim that the statement that he was \u201c the new man at PERSON \u2019s side \u201d and refused to pose with \u201c his new love \u201d compromised his privacy .","The court found that the media had already reported on PERSON \u2019s new relationship in DATE . The print media had also reported that DATE was still married at the time and that divorce proceedings were pending . DATE had , however , lodged proceedings under LAW against those publications in CARDINAL cases with ORG alone . GPE never gave interviews on his personal situation and did not pose for press photographs with PERSON had been seen in public with PERSON when they went out to dinner on several occasions , or attended several smaller parties and QUANTITY weddings .","The court found the statement on the pending divorce proceedings to be compromising , since the end of a relationship was often considered a personal failure and resulted in adverse reactions from the public , ranging from pity to malice . Divorce proceedings were not public . Pending divorce proceedings had thus no public consequence ; only the divorce itself publicly testified to the end of a marriage . While other media had reported on DATE \u2019s failed marriage before the airing of the broadcast , that had happened without his consent . Furthermore , he had objected to those reports by initiating court proceedings against them . Therefore , the applicant company could not argue that the facts broadcast had already been spread by other media .","As concerns the reference to the relationship between GPE and PERSON , the court found that , from their appearing together at the charity dinner , the media could assume that GPE would consent to the reporting . That assumed consent did not include the statements on his pending divorce . The mere fact that PERSON was the Minister for ORG and Youth did not suffice to bring the private person GPE into the public arena .","Both the applicant company and DATE appealed against this judgment . On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht Wien ) partly followed DATE \u2019s appeal and declared in addition that GPE had also been hurt in his most intimate personal sphere by the statement that he was \u201c the new man at PERSON \u2019s side , but did not want to pose with his new love \u201d . The applicant company was ordered to pay compensation in the amount of EUR CARDINAL and to publish the operative part of the judgment . It was also ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings .","ORG referred to case - law according to which the \u201c intimate personal sphere \u201d , within the meaning of LAW , not only encompassed events and situations confined to home , but also a \u201c private area within a public space \u201d ( \u201c GPE ) meaning that private events in a public space were nevertheless not open for just anyone . When the applicant company thus complained that PERSON and GPE had appeared in public before the charity dinner , the court referred to this concept of \u201c private area within a public space \u201d . The mere fact that the relationship between GPE and PERSON had been witnessed in public before was not decisive for determining whether a specific media report was capable of compromising GPE , or not . The allegation of an extramarital affair must be considered to affect adversely the intimate sphere within the meaning of LAW , as must the statement on pending divorce proceedings , and in this context the information on a \u201c new partner \u201d and a \u201c new love \u201d . ORG reiterated that the phrase \u201c pending divorce proceedings \u201d clearly has a different meaning from \u201c finality of divorce \u201d , since a couple could still decide to discontinue divorce proceedings . However , according to the jurisprudence of the civil courts , the intention to divorce was part of a person \u2019s intimate sphere . In response to the applicant company \u2019s argument that GPE himself had demonstrated the end of his marriage in public by appearing with PERSON , ORG found that such appearances were not comparable to those of public figures within the context of their political work or state functions , but needed to be seen as belonging to that already - mentioned \u201c private area within a public space \u201d . Those appearances had not had any official character and did not allow the conclusion that GPE had opened up his private life to the public arena . They could also not be interpreted as consent to exclusive media reporting \u2013 not only on the couple attending a charity dinner , but also on their conducting an extramarital affair , being partners and in love , while divorce proceedings in respect of DATE were still pending .","ORG also rejected the applicant company \u2019s argument that reporting on DATE as being the Minister \u2019s new partner was inseparable from reporting on the Minister herself . It observed that the media were entitled to report on ORG conduct , considering that she was appointed by ORG which represented a conservative image on families , that her credibility was at stake and that this was a matter of public interest . However , this did not mean that the media also had the right to violate her partner \u2019s private sphere . Indeed , GPE himself was not a public figure . It would have been sufficient , to satisfy the public interest in the Minister \u2019s conduct , to report that she maintained an apparently sexual relationship with a married man . However , it had not been necessary to reveal the identity of that married man . The report in question exceeded the necessary information and also included details on DATE \u2019s marriage .","ORG altered the decision of ORG concerning the statement that GPE was the \u201c new man at PERSON \u2019s side and refused to pose with his new love \u201d because this statement had to be seen in the context of the whole broadcast and not separately . Therefore , it was also an infringement of his most intimate personal sphere . That judgment was served on the applicant company \u2019s counsel on CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant company did not file a request under LAW of LAW ( Strafprozessordnung ) to ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) .","By an amendment of DATE which entered into force on DATE under the heading \u201c Renewal of criminal proceedings \u201d ( PERSON ) , LAW ( GPE ) was introduced , which provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . If it is established in a judgment of ORG that there has been a violation of ORG [ ORG ] no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) or of one of its Protocols on account of a decision [ GPE ] or order [ GPE ] of a criminal court , a retrial shall be held on application in so far as it can not be ruled out that the violation might have affected the decision in a manner detrimental to the person concerned .","All applications for a retrial shall be decided by ORG . Those who are affected by the determined violation as well as ORG are entitled to file an application . LAW shall be applicable analogously . The application is to be filed at ORG . If ORG files an application , those who are affected , if the CARDINAL affected files an application ORG , shall be heard . Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Proceedings shall be applicable analogously . \u201d","On DATE ORG decided on an application under Article CARDINALa by a convicted person in a case in which no application to the ORG had been filed previously and no judgment of the ORG had been delivered ( file no . CARDINAL Os QUANTITY ) :","\u201c ... In the present case there are no indications that a decision or order of a criminal court which had an adverse effect on the applicant had been found to be in violation of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention by ORG in respect of the applicant . However , this does not render the application inadmissible .","LAW required each ORG to provide any person , who shows with some plausibility that there has been a violation of his or her rights under LAW and its Protocols , with an effective remedy , in other words , to ensure that there is a national instance examining whether there has been a violation of a LAW right . Article LAW must not be interpreted as permitting a retrial only in cases where a violation of Convention rights has already been established in a judgment against GPE by ORG .","ORG , as the highest instance in GPE in criminal matters established by LAW , sees itself called upon to fulfil the obligations under the LAW by ensuring that in the field of criminal law the spirit of the LAW is respected also in cases in which no judgment was issued against GPE by the ORG .","ORG has previously detected lacunae in the law ( planwidrige L\u00fccke ) as regards the protection of human rights and has used its powers to close them .","...","A judgment by the ORG which establishes a violation of the rights under the ORG is a necessary and sufficient precondition for a renewal of the criminal proceedings under LAW . But also the legal practice and case - law of ORG concerning criminal proceedings have changed significantly since the entry into force of this provision . There is therefore a lacuna in law that has to be closed . This must be done by interpreting the relevant law in a way , that a judgment by the ORG is no longer a precondition for the renewal of the criminal proceedings under LAW . In fact , this can be done by ORG itself deciding on a violation of the rights and freedoms under the LAW upon an application under LAW of LAW . Also ORG previous case - law does not conflict with this result .","This extensive understanding of the provisions dealing with the renewal of criminal proceedings had been necessary not only because of the recent developments in human rights :","ORG was not involved in any of the CARDINAL cases , in which the ORG found a violation of the right to freedom of expression under LAW , even though this could have been possible by means of a plea of nullity for the preservation of the law ( Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes ) or an extraordinary reopening under LAW ( ausserordentliche PERSON ) . Therefore , in all these cases ORG had not been given the opportunity to fulfil its function as the highest instance in criminal matters as foreseen by LAW . Therefore , this court did not have the opportunity to examine the question of a possible violation of human rights . On the one side , there are proceedings before ORG ) in which an allegation of a violation of the rights and freedoms under the LAW can be raised . On the other side , as it is in this case of relevance , ORG \u2013 as the highest instance in criminal matters \u2013 has the duty to observe the compliance not only with the fundamental rights guaranteed at the level of ordinary law but also with rights guaranteed at the level of constitutional law ( Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , LAW ) of LAW ) . ORG has the power to deal in an effective way with alleged violations of human rights committed by the lower courts in proceedings on a plea of nullity , a request for the renewal of proceedings , a fundamental rights complaint ( Grundrechtsbeschwerde ) and proceedings under LAW ( Fristsetzungsantrag ) of LAW ( PERSON ) . These remedies give ORG the possibilities set out by LAW not only to follow the ORG \u2019s caselaw but also to take , itself , the initiative for influencing the development of human rights law on its own .","... \u201d","In the same judgment , ORG further stated that it would apply the criteria set out in LAW on the admissibility of an application also in respect of a request for renewal of criminal proceedings under LAW , in particular the DATE time - limit , also in a case which had not been previously examined by the ORG and in which no judgment of the ORG had been issued .","NORP Since then , ORG has decided in several cases on requests lodged under LAW as from DATE ( for example the decision of DATE , CARDINAL Os CARDINAL ; of DATE , CARDINAL Os CARDINAL\/CARDINALb ; of DATE , CARDINAL Os CARDINAL\/CARDINALh ; of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL Os CARDINAL\/CARDINALp ; of DATE , CARDINAL Os CARDINAL ; of DATE , CARDINAL Os CARDINAL\/CARDINALy ; of DATE , CARDINAL Os CARDINAL\/CARDINAL m ) . In all of these cases ORG confirmed its leading decision of CARDINAL DATE and developed further its case - law in regard to the admissibility of the applications under LAW of LAW . Among these were cases concerning LAW ( for example the decision of DATE , CARDINAL Os CARDINAL\/CARDINALy ) . In cases where ORG found a violation of rights guaranteed under the LAW , it quashed the lower court \u2019s decisions and ordered that a fresh decision be taken ( for example the decision of DATE , CARDINAL Os CARDINAL\/CARDINALh ; of DATE , CARDINAL Os CARDINAL g ; of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL Os CARDINAL\/CARDINALi ) .","ORG further stated in its case - law that victims of crimes and private prosecutors ( GPE ) , as well as public prosecutors , are not entitled to this remedy ( see , inter alia , ORG decisions of DATE , CARDINAL Os CARDINAL\/CARDINALf and of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL Os CARDINAL\/CARDINAL t ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156524","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"A.A.Q. v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently staying in GPE . The President granted the applicant \u2019s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. B\u00f6cker , and Deputy Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , the applicant entered the GPE where he applied for asylum . On DATE , the applicant was interviewed about his identity , nationality and travel itinerary . He stated , inter alia , that he hailed from GPE and that he had travelled to the GPE via GPE and GPE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was interviewed about his reasons for seeking asylum ( nader gehoor ) . He stated that he had made a career in the NORP army from DATE , during which period the country had been ruled by ORG of GPE ( \u201c PDPA \u201d ) . He had joined the ORG \u2019s youth organisation at DATE and become a full member in DATE . Having studied car mechanics in GPE and graduated in DATE , the applicant had taken up a DATE internship at ORG in order to avoid military service . On this basis , he had been transferred , for a job , to ORG where he had been assessed with a view to possibly offering him a higher education in GPE . Having passed that selection , the applicant had been sent to CARDINAL of the NORP republics from DATE until DATE to study rocket science . Later , the applicant had also taken a DATE political course in the army , in the framework of continued education as an officer .","From DATE to around DATE and from DATE , the applicant had been deputy of ORG in CARDINAL of ORG ; during the first period in a maintenance company and during the second period in CARDINAL of the battalions . In the latter function he had been the superior of CARDINAL deputies of ORG as well as Deputy Commander of the battalion . DATE , the applicant had also held the position of president of the ( political ) ORG .","The applicant had been promoted several times and his last held rank had been that of major . The applicant indicated that his tasks as deputy of ORG had involved , inter alia , the creation and dissemination of propaganda and the teaching of politics to soldiers .","On DATE , after the ORG had come to power , the applicant had left GPE for GPE because he had no longer felt safe . Many of his friends had been arrested by the Mujahedeen . On the way to GPE , the bus in which he had been travelling had been stopped at a checkpoint . The applicant had been arrested by the PERSON and kept in prison in GPE for DATE , during which period he had been interrogated about his role in the coup attempt and tortured . After that , the ORG had sent him to the war front to dig trenches and load grenade launchers .","On DATE or DATE , he had escaped from the prison in which he was kept by simply walking away when the prison guards had abandoned the prison in the wake of the capture of GPE by the ORG . He had then gone to his home village , where he had gone into hiding at his father \u2019s house and where he had remained until his departure from GPE on DATE . During that time , his father had been hassled by the ORG about the family \u2019s involvement with the PDPA ( the applicant \u2019s entire family had been PDPA members ) . The applicant submitted that he feared persecution from the side of the ORG and later , after DATE , the ORG .","The applicant \u2019s wife , born in DATE , and their CARDINAL children DATE who were born DATE as well as a number of members of the applicant \u2019s family - in - law have all , at different points in time , been granted residence rights in the GPE . His eldest son had fled from GPE via GPE to GPE in DATE together with the applicant \u2019s mother - in - law and a number of the applicant \u2019s wife \u2019s brothers . This son , who was granted a residence permit in the GPE for compelling humanitarian reasons on the basis of the then general situation in GPE , has since obtained GPE nationality . The applicant \u2019s wife and CARDINAL of the children fled from GPE via GPE , GPE and GPE to the GPE , where on an unspecified date they were granted residence permits under the policy rules on extended family reunion ( verruimde gezinshereniging ) . The remaining CARDINAL children were also granted residence permits . On unspecified dates , the applicant \u2019s oldest CARDINAL children obtained NORP nationality , retaining their NORP nationality . The applicant \u2019s spouse currently holds a residence permit for continued residence stay ( voortgezet verblijf ) .","The Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) rejected the applicant \u2019s asylum application on DATE . Having noted CARDINAL official country reports ( ambtsberichten ) on the general political and human rights situation in GPE drawn up by ORG ( GPE PERSON ) in DATE , DATE and DATE , the Deputy Minister found , in the relevant part , that the situation in GPE at that moment was not such as to qualify all asylum seekers from that country for asylum and that , therefore , the applicant had to demonstrate that he had a personal and well - founded fear of persecution in GPE .","NORP The Deputy Minister considered that the grounds adduced by the applicant \u2013 amounting in essence to him being searched for by the ORG and\/or Mujahedeen due to his past function in the army \u2013 did not provide any basis for assuming that the applicant would have to fear persecution upon his return to GPE . The Deputy Minister held in this regard that the applicant had not established that the ORG were aware of his past activities , that he had ever been in contact with the ORG or that there would be any other reasons relating to his past activities that would attract the ORG \u2019s negative attention . According to the Deputy Minister , the applicant \u2019s claims were of a general and speculative nature .","Furthermore , the Deputy Minister considered that the applicant had not , either as an army officer during communist rule , or as a member of the ORG , held a political post at a level at which he would have exercised a decisive influence on policy . According to the aforementioned official country reports , the ORG were in general not interested in former communists who had been active at that level only . Moreover , rather than leave GPE immediately after his escape from detention , the applicant had chosen to remain for DATE in an area that was already under ORG control at that time . The Deputy Minister considered implausible that a person who allegedly feared persecution by the authorities would go into hiding with somebody who himself was experiencing regular problems with those same authorities . This also applied to the applicant \u2019s claim that he feared persecution by the ORG as a result of the problems he allegedly had with the Mujahedeen . As the power base of this latter movement had in the meantime significantly decreased , the Deputy Minister held that the applicant should be able simply to evade any problems he might expect to experience from that side . In respect of the applicant \u2019s reliance on LAW , the Deputy Minister found that his account provided insufficient indications to assume that he , if returned to his country of origin , would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of that provision .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection ( bezwaar ) against this decision with the Deputy Minister .","On DATE , the applicant was informed that his case file had been transmitted to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) of ORG ( Immigratie- en ORG ; \u201c IND \u201d ) as his asylum account , in particular his professional activities as a career military , gave reasonable cause to suspect that LAW DATE LAW , as amended by LAW of DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) might apply to his case .","The applicant \u2019s asylum application was re - examined in the light of an official report , drawn up on DATE by ORG on \u201c ORG in communist GPE ( DATE ) . AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ( \u201c PERSON in communistisch GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG en WAD \u201d ) and concerning in particular the question whether and , if so , which former employees of those services should be regarded as implicated in human rights violations . According to this official report , LAW could be held against virtually every NORP asylum seeker who , holding the rank of third lieutenant or higher , had worked during the communist regime for the military Khadimate Atal\u2019at - e Dowlati ( \u201c KhAD \u201d ) or , subsequently , the PERSON - e NORP - e Dowlati ( \u201c WAD \u201d ) .","On DATE , an additional interview was held with the applicant on the applicability of LAW to his case .","On DATE , the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON Integratie ; the successor to the Deputy Minister of ORG ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection . She found , inter alia , that the applicant constituted a danger to public order ( openbare orde ) , as serious reasons had been found for believing that he had committed crimes referred to in LAW . Although the Minister attached credence to the applicant \u2019s statements in terms of his positions and career within the NORP army , the applicant \u2019s description of his tasks was deemed to be inaccurate . Further , on the basis of a person - specific official report ( individueel ambtsbericht ) issued by ORG on DATE , the Minister found that , at the relevant time , ORG departments of the NORP army consisted solely of highly loyal and skilled professional soldiers , who wielded a large amount of influence within the organisation and who , as informants , worked closely together with the KhAD . They were thus inextricably connected to the frequent arrests , disappearances and\/or executions of disloyal members of the army by the ORG . The Minister further emphasised the widely known cruel character of the ORG , the grave crimes committed by its officers and the \u201c climate of terror \u201d it had spread throughout the entire NORP society , including the army . In this regard the Minister relied on the general official report of DATE .","Having established , on the basis of elaborate argumentation and documentation , that those involved in the ORG and ORG of the NORP army were likely to fall within the scope of LAW of LAW , the Minister proceeded to an analysis of the applicant \u2019s individual responsibility under that LAW on the basis of the prescribed and so - called \u201c personal and knowing participation test \u201d and eventually rejected the applicant \u2019s objection by holding LAW against him . The Minister indicated that consequently , pursuant to the provisions of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( Vreemdelingenbesluit ) , the applicant was ineligible for a residence permit for asylum or any other ground .","In so far as the applicant relied on LAW , the Minister held that it was for the applicant to show that there were concrete reasons , connected to personal facts and circumstances , justifying the conclusion that he would run a real risk of treatment contrary to that provision if returned to GPE . The Minister found that the applicant had failed to substantiate such grounds , since he had neither indicated that anyone would be actively looking for him in GPE nor furnished any reasons due to which he would draw the local authorities\u2019 particular attention .","Lastly , and as regards LAW as invoked by the applicant , the Minister held that , although there was family life between the applicant and his relatives residing in the GPE , the ORG \u2019s interest in expulsion of individuals who endanger public order prevailed over the personal interests of the applicant .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against this decision was rejected by judgment of CARDINAL DATE by ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE , sitting in GPE . Pursuant to section CARDINAL:CARDINAL of the General Administrative Law Act ( PERSON ) , this judgment was sent to the applicant on DATE .","In the appeal proceedings before ORG , the applicant had disputed the accuracy of the official reports , drawn up by ORG , which the Minister had relied on in his case , and he argued that the information contained in those reports did not apply to him . At the request of the Minister of ORG and with the parties\u2019 consent , ORG was granted access to the materials underlying the person - specific official report of DATE without these materials being disclosed to the applicant . It found that the report provided information in an unbiased , objective and transparent manner , and accepted that the conclusions drawn in the official report were sufficiently supported by the underlying materials . The applicant \u2019s unsubstantiated claim that the information contained in the person - specific official report did not necessarily apply to each person who had worked at ORG department was insufficient for ORG to doubt the report \u2019s accuracy . ORG further found that it had not appeared that there were any concrete indications to doubt either the person - specific official report or the official report of CARDINAL DATE .","ORG held that the Minister could reasonably have established the facts relating to the applicant \u2019s activities for ORG of ORG in the way that she had done . In addition , she could reasonably have dismissed as implausible the applicant \u2019s claim that he had not been aware of human rights abuses committed by ORG until he came to the GPE , given that the ORG \/ WAD \u2019s criminal character was generally known in GPE at the time , according to the official report of DATE .","As regards the applicant \u2019s reliance on LAW , ORG concurred with the Minister on all points that the applicant had failed to substantiate the existence of a real risk of treatment contrary to that provision . As to LAW , ORG held that this provision could not play a role in asylum proceedings , notwithstanding the fact that the Minister had examined the applicant \u2019s arguments in this context .","The applicant \u2019s further appeal to ORG of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State ) was declared inadmissible on DATE . The ORG found that it had no jurisdiction as , by virtue of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet CARDINAL ) , the ORG only had jurisdiction over decisions taken after the entry into force of that LAW whereas the initial decision by the Deputy Minister had been taken on DATE . No further appeal lay against this decision .","On DATE , the applicant applied for a residence permit for the purpose of exercise of family life within the meaning of Article CARDINAL of the Convention . This application was rejected on DATE by the Deputy Minister of ORG ; the successor to the Minister for ORG . The applicant \u2019s objection against this decision was rejected on DATE by the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON , ORG ; the successor to the Deputy Minister of Justice ) .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE was rejected on DATE by ORG of The Hague , sitting in GPE . It noted that it appeared from the decision of DATE that the applicant was associated with extrajudicial arrests and extrajudicial detention of persons , the torture of persons , extrajudicial execution of persons , and the commission of assassinations , because he \u2013 on account of his work for ORG \u2013 had facilitated the activities of ORG . It further noted that this decision had become final .","As regards LAW held :","\u201c The court considers that , according to settled case law of ORG , regardless of whether there is a positive or negative obligation , a fair balance must be struck between , on the one hand , the interests of the alien and , on the other , GPE general interest . In this balancing exercise , the [ Minister ] enjoys a certain margin of appreciation . The court notes that , in his assessment , the [ Minister ] has taken into account the criteria formulated in the judgments of ORG August CARDINAL in the case of GPE and DATE in the case of GPE . The court accepts that it was reasonable for the [ Minister ] , in striking this balance in the framework of DATE , to find against the [ applicant ] . To this end , the court considers that it was not unjust that the [ Minister ] attached weight to the suspicion of the [ applicant \u2019s ] involvement in human rights violations . The court does not follow the [ applicant \u2019s ] argument that , in assessing whether he should be granted a residence permit on the basis of LAW , insufficient factual research has been made into his involvement in the commission of crimes referred to in LAW . ... The court sees no ground for holding that only crimes found proven according to criminal law standards may be held against [ the applicant ] . The [ Minister could also hold against the [ applicant ] that [ the latter ] has accepted a deal ( transactie ) proposed by a public prosecutor in order to avoid the lodging of formal criminal proceedings for shoplifting . This is not altered by the fact , as confirmed by the [ Minister ] at the hearing , that this has a lighter weight . It further has been taken into account in the balancing exercise that the [ applicant ] has resided in the GPE for DATE , but he has never had lawful residence based on a valid residence permit and his residence status has always been precarious . Although the [ applicant \u2019s ] spouse is living here and holds a valid residence permit , no objective obstacle has appeared to exercise the family life with her elsewhere . His spouse holds NORP nationality . The argument that his spouse can not return to GPE for asylum - related reasons but that these reasons have never been examined because she had already been granted a regular [ i.e. not asylum - based ] residence permit does not succeed . To the extent that reference has been made to the [ applicant \u2019s ] asylum account , it has been established in the proceedings on his asylum request that he has not demonstrated that he has to fear treatment in breach of LAW nor that for any reason or other he will have to expect the particular attention of the authorities upon his return . To the extent that the [ applicant \u2019s ] spouse claims to have independent , separate asylum - related problems , this has not been substantiated . The report of CARDINAL DATE by GPE , psychologist , concerning the spouse \u2019s mental health state is insufficient for finding that there is an objective obstacle . It is true that it appears that she suffers from depression , a dissociative and a post - traumatic stress disorder , but it does not appear that for this reason she would be unable to go to GPE with the [ applicant ] . ... Noting the fact that the [ applicant ] and his wife married in the period during which the [ applicant ] worked for ORG , the [ Minister ] has justly not found it plausible that his wife was unaware of the facts held against the [ applicant ] in the framework of LAW [ of LAW ] . \u201d","As regards asylum - related arguments advanced by the applicant , ORG held :","\u201c ... the ORG is of the opinion that the [ applicant \u2019s ] argument fails . Noting the strict separation between asylum - related and regular [ i.e. non - asylum - related applications for a residence permit ] that follows from the system of LAW , the Minister has justly referred to [ the possibility of ] filing an asylum application . \u201d","On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s further appeal on summary grounds , holding :","\u201c What has been raised in the grievances ... does not provide grounds for quashing the impugned ruling . Having regard to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , no further reasoning is called for , since the arguments submitted do not raise questions which require determination in the interest of legal uniformity , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . \u201d","No further appeal lay against this ruling .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister for Security and ORG ( Staatssecretaris PERSON Justitie ; the successor to the Minister for ORG ) informed the applicant that \u2013 it having been noted that it had been erroneously assumed in the proceedings having ended on DATE that there was an obstacle for the applicant \u2019s expulsion in the form of an interim measure issued under LAW by ORG he intended to proceed with the applicant \u2019s removal from the GPE .","According to a letter dated DATE and sent to the applicant \u2019s representative by a psychologist and a psychiatrist working for the mental health care organisation providing treatment to the applicant \u2019s daughter PERSON , the latter displayed psychotic features , possibly in the context of a developing schizophrenia or post - traumatic stress disorder . She was visited DATE in her home for treatment . The authors of this letter stated that they were unable to indicate whether her mental health problems were connected to or affected by the applicant \u2019s possible removal from the GPE , but considered it understandable that this removal would cause tensions within the family .","On DATE , the applicant requested the ORG to indicate to ORG , under LAW , to stay his expulsion to GPE . On DATE , the acting President of the Third Section , to which the case had been allocated ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) , decided to adjourn the examination of the request as no practical steps aimed at the applicant \u2019s effective removal had yet been taken by the GPE authorities .","On DATE , ORG ( PERSON ) of ORG and ORG informed the applicant that his removal to GPE had been scheduled for DATE .","On DATE , the applicant requested the ORG to determine his request to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG . On DATE , the ORG decided not to indicate the interim measure sought by the applicant and informed him accordingly .","In her submissions of DATE and DATE to the ORG , the applicant \u2019s lawyer informed the ORG that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had moved from the GPE to GPE where he had applied for asylum . This request was still pending and the applicant had been granted a provisional residence permit ( GPE ) , valid until DATE with the possibility of further prolongation , pending the decision on his asylum request . His spouse had visited him in GPE .","Until DATE , the admission , residence and expulsion of aliens were regulated by LAW DATE ( PERSON ) . Further rules were laid down in LAW ( Vreemdelingenbesluit ) , the Regulation on Aliens ( Voorschrift Vreemdelingen ) and LAW DATE ( PERSON ) . On DATE , LAW DATE was replaced by LAW . On DATE , LAW , the Regulation on Aliens and LAW were replaced by new versions based on LAW . LAW ( PERSON ) applies to proceedings under LAW , unless indicated otherwise in this LAW .","Aliens are eligible for admission only on the basis of directly applicable international agreements , or if their presence serves an essential NORP interest , or for compelling reasons of a humanitarian nature ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) . Respect for family life as guaranteed by LAW or risk of being subjected in the country of origin to treatment in breach of LAW constitute an obligation under an international agreement .","Under LAW of LAW , an alien is eligible for a residence permit for the purpose of asylum if , inter alia , he or she is a refugee within the meaning of LAW , or he or she has established that he or she has well - founded reasons to assume that he or she will run a real risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment if expelled to the country of origin .","NORP If the exclusion clause under LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) is held against an asylum seeker , the alien concerned loses any protection which might have been available under that Convention and , consequently , becomes ineligible for a residence permit for asylum under LAW of LAW ( section CARDINAL of LAW and LAW ) .","The admission policy for family reunification ( gezinshereniging ) purposes is laid down in LAW of LAW DATE . A partner or spouse of a person lawfully residing in the GPE is , in principle , eligible for admission , if certain further conditions relating to matters , such as , public policy and means of subsistence are met .","Under LAW , judicial review by ORG and ORG in administrative law appeal proceedings only addresses whether the executive authority concerned has exercised its administrative powers in a reasonable manner and , in the light of the interests at stake , could reasonably have taken the impugned decision ( marginale toetsing ) . Both before ORG and ORG it is possible to apply for a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings .","In a ruling of DATE ( ORG [ National Jurisprudence Number ] BGCARDINAL ) , ORG held that , apart from judicial review by ORG and ORG in administrative law appeal proceedings , in principle no further remedy lay against a decision to reject an alien \u2019s request for admission to the GPE , as the lawfulness of the consequences of that decision had already been judicially determined in the administrative appeal proceedings . It nevertheless accepted that in certain exceptional circumstances , such as a relevant change of circumstances having occurred during the delay between the refusal of the admission request and an act aimed at effective removal ( daadwerkelijke uitzettingshandeling ) , an objection ( bezwaar ) and subsequent appeal ( beroep ) may be filed against an act aimed at effective removal . Under the terms of section QUANTITY of LAW , such an act can be equated with a formal decision within the meaning of LAW which can be challenged in separate administrative law appeal proceedings .","In accordance with LAW ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL of ORG and of ORG on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders ( FAC ) and LAW of DATE ( ORG ) a third country national holding a valid residence permit issued by CARDINAL of the states of the LOC area may \u2013 on the basis of that permit DATE stay for a maximum period of DATE per DATE in the territory of another country within the LOC area .","Article CARDINAL of the DATE Refugee Convention reads :","\u201c The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that :","( a ) he has committed a crime against peace , a war crime , or a crime against humanity , as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes ;","( b ) he has committed a serious non - political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee ;","( c ) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of ORG . \u201d","On DATE the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) issued the \u201c ORG . CARDINAL : Application of the Exclusion Clauses : Article CARDINAL of the DATE Convention relating to LAW . They superseded \u201c LAW on their LAW ( ORG , DATE ) and \u201c Note on the Exclusion Clauses \u201d ( ORG , CARDINAL DATE ) and are intended to provide interpretative legal guidance for governments , legal practitioners , decision - makers and the judiciary , as well as ORG staff carrying out refugee status determination in the field . These guidelines state , inter alia , that where the main asylum applicant is excluded from refugee status , his \/ her dependants will need to establish their own grounds for refugee status . If the latter are recognised as refugees , the excluded individual is not able to rely on the right to family unity in order to secure protection or assistance as a refugee ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .","The GPE authorities do not wish the GPE to be a refuge for war criminals or human rights offenders , and consider it undesirable that victims who have been granted protection in the GPE still feel unsafe by the presence in the same country of those who are actually responsible for the fact that they were forced to flee their country of origin ( for the policy statement sent on DATE by the Deputy Minister of ORG to ORG of ORG ; see , PERSON and J. v. the GPE ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . Accordingly , if in the context of a request for an asylum - based residence permit , any signs appear that crimes or acts referred to LAW have been committed by the petitioner , a special ORG , composed of employees who are specifically trained for this purpose , investigates whether LAW is applicable .","Following a so - called \u201c CARDINAL investigation \u201d , it will be decided whether or not to hold the exclusion clause under LAW against the person concerned . Where LAW is applied , the asylum request is rejected and the person concerned is obliged to leave the GPE . This decision , taken in the context of asylum proceedings , may be challenged in administrative law appeal proceedings ( see \u00a7 DATE above ) .","Where in a case LAW has been applied , ORG notifies the public prosecution service hereof . This does not mean , however , that criminal proceedings are automatically initiated in that case . This depends on various legal and practical factors , in particular factors related to evidential issues such as , inter alia , the availability and safety of witnesses . In accordance with the discretionary powers held by the public prosecution service ( opportuniteitsbeginsel ) , it remains for that service to decide in each individual case and in line with the general policy rules defined by ORG ( College van procureurs - generaal ) whether to prosecute or not .","On DATE , ORG issued a general official country report ( algemeen ambtsbericht ) on security services in communist GPE ( DATE ) AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG . It qualifies these security services as notorious because of their particularly brutal behaviour , including arbitrary arrests , routine torture and extrajudicial executions . The description in the report focuses on ORG Dowlati ( ORG ) and the PERSON - e NORP - e Dowlati ( WAD ) . It states that the ORG \u2013 the successor to AGSA ( ORG of GPE ) created in DATE and later renamed to ORG ( ORG Mu\u2019assassa ; Workers\u2019 ORG ) DATE was set up in DATE and transformed into a ministry in DATE and that this ministry , called \u201c FAC , remained in existence until DATE of the communist regime in DATE . The report concentrates on whether and , if so , which former members of the NORP security services , especially those of the ORG and the ORG , committed human rights violations .","The report further states that detainees and prisoners were systematically tortured in the interrogation and detention centres of the ORG and the ORG , that their agents were very inventive in choosing their torture methods and that CARDINAL of suspects were tortured to death by ORG and ORG agents . If the ORG or ORG thought that a suspect was guilty , they could kill him or her without further investigation or judicial intervention . According to the report , it is estimated that during the NORP regime in GPE CARDINAL citizens were arrested and detained by the NORP security services ( AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ) , whereby CARDINAL NORP lost their lives , mostly after being tortured or sentenced to death .","On the basis of this report , the GPE immigration authorities adopted the position that LAW could be held against virtually every NORP asylum seeker who , holding the rank of third lieutenant or higher , had worked during the communist regime for the ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171210","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BIH","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"STEVAN\u010cEVI\u0106 v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP and NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The Government of GPE ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent at the time , ORG .","ORG , having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) , indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right .","The applicant was an officer of the JNA , the armed forces of the former ORG . The present case concerns his attempt to regain possession of his pre - war flat in GPE .","The detailed background concerning socially owned flats , military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE is provided in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL et al . , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","In DATE the applicant was allocated an occupancy right to a military flat in GPE .","On DATE he bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full purchase price in the amount of MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) .","When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicant continued his military career in the FAC forces and left GPE . His military service was terminated in DATE .","During the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE the flats of those who had fled were declared \u201c abandoned \u201d and allocated to new occupants ( see PERSON and Others , cited above , \u00a7 DATE ) . On DATE the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat to the competent administrative authority in the GPE Canton .","Following CARDINAL remittal on procedural grounds , on DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG . On DATE the competent ORG upheld that decision .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the Cantonal Court \u201d ) , following an application for judicial review , upheld the second - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and GPE ( \u201c the Constitutional Court \u201d ) rejected the applicant \u2019s constitutional appeal and upheld the impugned decisions .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( a domestic human - rights body set up under Annex CARDINAL to ORG ) about his inability to repossess his pre - war flat . He relied on LAW .","On DATE ORG ( the legal successor of ORG ) found a violation of LAW on account of the length of the restitution proceedings and awarded the applicant MONEY ( BAM ; MONEY ( ORG ) ) for non - pecuniary damage in this connection . As regards the complaint under LAW No . CARDINAL , the Commission concluded that the interference with the applicant \u2019s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions had been justified . However , it ordered ORG to secure the applicant \u2019s right to compensation for his pre - war flat envisaged under section ORG , without further delay and at the latest within DATE from the delivery of that decision .","On DATE the government of ORG requested the applicant to provide his contact and bank account details in order to pay the awarded compensation . The applicant provided those details .","On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against the decision of ORG of DATE . On DATE ORG declared that it lacked jurisdiction to examine the case .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) seeking to establish the validity of the purchase contract of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and to register his title to the flat in the land register .","On DATE ORG declared the purchase contract legally valid . However , it rejected the applicant \u2019s claim to have his title registered . Under LAW DATE those who served in foreign armed forces after the DATE - CARDINAL war , like the applicant , were not entitled to repossess their pre - war military flats and to register their title , but were entitled to compensation . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .","The Government did not dispute the facts submitted by the applicant . However , they provided additional information as follows .","On DATE the applicant received BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in compensation for his pre - war flat in accordance with section LANGUAGE of ORG as ordered by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The amount was transferred to his bank account in GPE .","The relevant domestic law and practice were outlined in PERSON v. GPE ( no . GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-153317","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SOLOMUN v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP .","In DATE the applicant took up employment with the ORG ( FAC uprava sisa\u010dko - moslava\u010dka ) as a police officer . On DATE he was assigned to a post in FAC ( FAC postaja PERSON ) .","PERSON is a municipality that receives special ORG support as defined by the legislation in force at that time , namely GPE receiving Special State Support ( PERSON o podru\u010djima posebne dr\u017eavne skrbi , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; hereinafter : the \u201c Special State Support Act \u201d ) . Among other things , that Act guaranteed to those employed in the public sector in areas receiving special ORG support a special salary uplift , which in the case of the PERSON municipality amounted to PERCENT of the salaries received in other parts of the country .","The amendments to GPE which entered into force on DATE ( ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) guaranteed the right to a special salary bonus only to those public sector employees in areas receiving special ORG support who had both their registered domicile ( prebivali\u0161te ) and also actually resided ( borave ) in the area at issue .","In DATE the applicant was assigned to another post in the ORG , with his place of work being ORG .","On DATE the applicant brought an action against the ORG in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking payment of a salary bonus in accordance with GPE .","Soon afterwards ORG decided that it was not competent to hear the case and transferred it to ORG ( PERSON ORG ) .","During the proceedings before ORG , the NORP State Attorney \u2019s Office ( Op\u0107insko dr\u017eavno odvjetni\u0161tvo u PERSON ) \u2012 representing ORG objected to that court \u2019s territorial jurisdiction , arguing that the applicant had his domicile and lived in PERSON , which was also within an area receiving special State support but outside the territorial jurisdiction of ORG . The NORP State Attorney \u2019s ORG also submitted that the applicant had been receiving expenses for travel between ORG and PERSON and that he was not entitled to the special salary bonus as provided under LAW because NORP was not an area receiving special ORG support .","The applicant replied to these submissions with the argument that during his tenure in PERSON he had had authorisation to use a police car , and that he had in fact lived in PERSON , but since his house had not been fully reconstructed after the war , he had also spent some time in NORP .","With regard to the contentious submissions of the parties , ORG heard evidence from the applicant , who pointed out that during his tenure in PERSON his registered domicile had been PERSON , where he had actually resided \u2012 some of the time in his own house and some of the time with his sister , since his house had needed reconstruction . He also explained that he had had authorisation to use a police car and had also been entitled to travel expenses , even though he had actually lived in PERSON .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s civil action , ordering the ORG to pay compensation for his special salary bonus in the total amount of NORP kunas ( HRK ) , together with the statutory default interest , for the period between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , and to reimburse him the costs of the proceedings in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .","ORG pointed out that the applicant \u2019s statement as to his domicile and his residence was credible and nothing called it into doubt . It also stressed that the NORP State Attorney \u2019s ORG had neither provided any evidence nor challenged the veracity of the applicant \u2019s statement . Instead , it had argued in its submissions that the applicant had both his domicile and his residence in GPE , within an area receiving special State support . As to the submission concerning travel expenses , ORG considered that this was a matter relating to the employment conditions of civil servants , which did not in itself have any bearing on the applicant \u2019s domicile and residence . Against this background , ORG found that the applicant \u2019s claim should be accepted .","On DATE the NORP State Attorney \u2019s Office challenged the first - instance judgment before ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u ORG ) contending that the applicant had only had his domicile in PERSON , whereas the travel expenses suggested that he had in fact lived in NORP . It thus considered that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria of the Special State Support Act necessary to qualify for a special salary uplift .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE endorsing all the factual and legal findings of the first - instance judgment , ORG dismissed the appeal by the NORP State Attorney \u2019s ORG . The first - instance judgment thus became final .","On DATE ORG opened enforcement proceedings against the ORG on the basis of the final and enforceable judgment in the applicant \u2019s favour .","The judgment was fully enforced on DATE by payment of the due amount to the applicant .","On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s Office of GPE ( ORG odvjetni\u0161tvo PERSON ) lodged a request for the protection of legality ( zahtjev za za\u0161titu zakonitosti ) with ORG ( PERSON ) against the part of the final judgment of ORG by which the applicant had been awarded HRK CARDINAL for the period DATE and DATE on account of the special salary uplift . It reiterated that the travel expenses which the applicant had received suggested that he had actually resided in NORP in the period at issue , which could also be deduced from the fact that he had provided an address in NORP in the civil action he lodged before ORG . Thus , once the DATE amendments to LAW had entered into force ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant had no longer been entitled to the special salary bonus since he had no longer resided in an area receiving special ORG support , which was a precondition for the special uplift , as explained in the judgment of ORG no . Gzz-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE .","The applicant challenged the request for the protection of legality , arguing that it could not be used as a remedy and that it substantially contradicted the general position on the matter adopted at the meeting of ORG of ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG approved the request for the protection of legality , quashed the second - instance judgment in the impugned part , and remitted the case to ORG . ORG held that the DATE amendments to LAW made it clear that civil servants employed in an area receiving special ORG support who applied for a special salary bonus should also have their domicile and residence in that area . It therefore ordered ORG to reassess the appeal arguments of the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG as to whether or not such conditions had been met in the applicant \u2019s case .","On DATE ORG accepted the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG appeal , reversing the first - instance judgment of ORG in the part in which the applicant was granted HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL for the period DATE and DATE on account of the special salary uplift , and ordering the applicant to repay that amount together with the statutory default interest . ORG also reversed the first - instance judgment in the part concerning the costs of the proceedings .","ORG held that the evidence adduced before the first - instance court suggested that in the period at issue the applicant had not in fact resided in an area receiving special State support , and thus had not met all the requirements under the DATE amendments to LAW concerning the right to a special salary uplift .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) against the judgment of ORG of DATE , challenging the use of a request for the protection of legality in his case .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint as ill - founded , holding that the lower courts had acted in accordance with the law . The decision of ORG was served on the applicant on DATE .","According to a certificate issued by ORG on DATE , pursuant to the above proceedings the applicant repaid the total amount of HRK CARDINAL from his salary to the ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184281","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF NI\u021a\u0102 v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant married ORG and their daughter PERSON was born in DATE . Following the couple \u2019s divorce on DATE , the mother was granted physical custody of the child . As the parents had reached an agreement regulating the applicant \u2019s contact with the child , the visiting rights were not discussed in the divorce proceedings .","Until DATE , the applicant had unhindered opportunity to talk to his daughter on the phone and to take her to his home whenever he wished . After DATE , ORG stopped answering the phone and the only possibility for the applicant to see his daughter was outside her school .","Consequently , on DATE the applicant instituted contact proceedings before the ORG , as a result of which on DATE a visiting schedule was established in favour of the applicant .","DATE N.E.C. appealed , arguing that the applicant had never been prevented from visiting the child but that since the divorce he had not visited her more than once DATE and had not contributed in any way to the continuous medical treatment she required . During the proceedings the parties reached an agreement about the visiting schedule . On CARDINAL May DATE ORG questioned PERSON and noted :","\u201c The parents divorced DATE and after that she often used to visit her father up until DATE , when her mother stopped allowing her to answer the phone , because the father only wanted to make [ ORG ] angry . Since then , she can no longer answer the phone and her father has not seen her .","From her mother \u2019s accounts , she understood that her father was a bad person who caused trouble to [ ORG ] as they both had businesses selling the same products , and her father had taken away her mother \u2019s employees by promising them higher salaries .","She does not wish to visit her father because that would make her mother upset and she does not want that because she cares a lot about her mother . Her mother does not wish her to visit her father , who has a new family and a small child . ( ... ) . \u201d","In a decision of DATE ( hereinafter \u201c the contact order \u201d ) ORG took note of the GPE agreement as to the visiting schedule and considered that it was beneficial for the child to maintain contact with her father .","N.E.C. lodged an appeal on points of law , unhappy that the child would have to go to the applicant \u2019s home . In a final decision of DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . It noted that the child was used to going to her father \u2019s home and continuing this habit would help consolidate their relationship . It found :","\u201c The consolidation of the relationship between the applicant and the minor by means of complying with ORG decision is even more necessary since , from the report of the interview with the minor , it appears that the minor had been visiting her father after the GPE separation until DATE before the hearing , [ when the mother ] stopped allowing her to talk on the phone with the applicant ; from the same report it appears that the minor does not wish to see her father in order not to upset her mother .","In these circumstances , the [ ORG ] has correctly decided that the visits should take place in the applicant \u2019s home , in order to allow the normal parental ties to develop and to avoid the possibility of inculcating feelings of hatred towards the father , which would run counter to the child \u2019s harmonious psychological development . \u201d","As ORG continued to oppose any contact with the child , on DATE the applicant contacted a court bailiff and started enforcement proceedings . On DATE the application was allowed by ORG , which ordered enforcement of the contact order .","NORP The bailiff invited ORG to bring the child to his office on CARDINAL DATE , which she failed to do . On DATE and DATE and on DATE he went to her home together with the applicant , the police and representatives of ORG ( \u201c the child protection authority \u201d ) . On each occasion they found no one there , despite prior notification .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s request , the bailiff lodged with ORG an application for penalties against ORG , under the provisions of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG reiterated that , as PERSON was refusing to see her father , she would not agree that the child be taken against her will to the applicant \u2019s home . On DATE the court ordered ORG to pay a fine of CARDINAL NORP Lei ( RON \u2013 approximately MONEY ( ORG ) at the relevant time ) for DATE of non - enforcement of the contact order , starting from the date on which the ORG decision was notified to her . ORG reiterated the findings of the report of CARDINAL DATE concerning the interview with PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and found that the mother was responsible for the failure to enforce the visiting schedule . It found :","\u201c From the same report it appears that , although the minor likes to visit her father , she does not wish to do so any more because she does not want to upset her mother .","The court concludes that the non - enforcement of the obligation set down in the contact order is caused exclusively by the debtor and there is no evidence to show that the minor herself would refuse in absolute terms contact with the creditor or that she would manifest aversion towards him . \u201d","On DATE , acting on an application lodged by the bailiff under LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG fined ORG RON CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL at the relevant time ) for obstructing the enforcement proceedings .","Meanwhile , on DATE the bailiff noted that ORG was continuing to reject the visiting schedule and concluded that the enforcement had become objectively impossible . Consequently he terminated the enforcement proceedings and lodged a criminal complaint against ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) under the provisions of LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicant objected to the stay of execution and asked ORG to compel the bailiff to continue the enforcement proceedings . He also argued that the provisions of the ORG allowing the bailiff to stay the execution while a criminal complaint was ongoing were unconstitutional in so far as it allowed the debtor \u2212 in bad faith \u2212 to stay or obliterate the enforcement efforts and to manipulate the child \u2019s behaviour to the point of rejecting the non - custodial parent . He did not otherwise contest the findings of the bailiff \u2019s report . On DATE the Brezoi ORG dismissed his objection on the grounds that it had become objectively impossible to enforce the court order and that the bailiff had correctly stayed the enforcement once the prosecutor \u2019s office had taken over the case . On DATE the appeal lodged by the applicant was also dismissed as unfounded by ORG . The latter found that the bailiff had complied with all the obligations arising from Articles CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Later on , in its decision no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the constitutional complaint raised by the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to quantify the amount of damages to which he was entitled under LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG maintained that it had been the applicant who had distanced himself from the child and that due to the break - up of the father - daughter relationship it was impossible to comply with the contact order at that time . On DATE ORG ordered ORG to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at the relevant time ) . The latter could not obtain this payment as ORG had sold all her possessions and had not declared any fixed income .","On DATE the applicant asked the child protection authority to seek a court order for DATE of psychological counselling for his daughter , reiterating that ORG was alienating PERSON from her father . On DATE the child protection authority refused to intervene since the bailiff had not recorded in his report that the child had opposed the enforcement \u201c in absolute terms \u201d , as required by LAW see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant reiterated his request for psychological counselling . In addition , he asked that the relationship between the parties involved be monitored for a period of DATE and that ORG be fined for the delays in executing the contact order . The child protection authority \u2019s inspectors met ORG on four occasions : on CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE . Subsequently , in a letter of CARDINAL DATE the authority informed the applicant that ORG had not allowed them to talk with the child about her relationship with her father . The child protection authority advised as follows :","\u201c In view of the fact that for DATE your relationship with your daughter has only consisted of a few isolated encounters , we consider that reinitiating the fatherdaughter relationship must be done gradually , bearing in mind the child \u2019s wishes , her school programme and her extra - curricular activities . ( ... )","For the time being , [ ORG ] considers that it is not in the child \u2019s best interest to reinitiate the father - daughter relationship and refuses to lend her support to this end .","In the light of the above , we consider that it is important for the child that both you and your former spouse try to improve your communication and that you change your current attitude ( complaints before courts and other institutions , enforcement proceedings ( ... ) ) , in order to overcome the conflicts and to offer your daughter the support and reassurance that she requires at this age . \u201d","Acting upon the criminal complaint lodged by the bailiff on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG started an investigation into the commission of the offence of a breach of a court judgment ( nerespectare a hot\u0103r\u00e2rii judec\u0103tore\u015fti ) .","On DATE the prosecutor changed the legal classification of the alleged facts into the offence of a breach of custody measures ( nerespectarea m\u0103surilor privind \u00eencredin\u0163area minorului ) .","On DATE the prosecutor interviewed PERSON in the presence of ORG \u2019s lawyer and a psychologist from the child protection authority . PERSON refused to re - establish contact with her father and expressed her belief that her father was only trying to hurt her mother through his actions because of their work - related conflicts , of which she had been partially informed by her mother . She said :","\u201c I believe that by his actions my father wants , in reality , to hurt my mother . DATE I discussed this subject with my mother , as I had done once before , and she told me that she did not wish to trouble me , as those were work - related problems created by my father . It might be that through his actions my father wants to hurt my mother . I know some aspects , but not too much about the conflict between my parents concerning my mother \u2019s work .","It is possible that my father started these actions because he loves me and wishes to know me .","I no longer want to know him or to have personal relations with him . ( ... )","I think it would be best if my father left me alone . ( ... )","It is true that my mother has never said bad things about my father , but she has never encouraged me to have personal ties with him either . \u201d","On DATE , acting at the prosecutor \u2019s request , the psychologists from the child protection authority assessed M.A. They noted in their report that PERSON refused to see her father because she had been disappointed by the manner in which he had tried to get in touch with her , namely via the authorities , thereby causing upset to her mother . The expert did not consider that counselling for PERSON would be beneficial for re - establishing the relationship between the applicant and his daughter . He recommended psychological support for the parents .","On DATE the prosecutor decided to terminate the investigation on the grounds that it had not been established beyond any doubt that ORG had acted in such a manner as to repeatedly prevent the applicant from seeing his daughter and that the lack of communication was caused by ORG \u2019s unequivocal wish and will .","On DATE , in response to a complaint lodged by the applicant , the prosecutor in chief of the prosecutor \u2019s office upheld the above decision . However , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG allowed a complaint lodged by the applicant , quashed the prosecutor \u2019s decision and sent the case back to the prosecutor \u2019s office for further examination . The court considered that , because of the mother \u2019s influence over her , the child might suffer from parent alienation syndrome which constituted a form of psychological abuse ; in order to clarify this aspect , further psychological investigation was needed .","In DATE , the applicant resumed contact with his former spouse , through the offices of a new bailiff . He tried to visit her home in order to see the child on DATE , DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he asked ORG \u2019s opinion as to what would be the appropriate method for him to re - establish contact with his daughter ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174642","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF POGHOSOV v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","ORG The applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder on DATE . On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment . The conviction was upheld on appeal by ORG on CARDINAL DATE . ORG of GPE rejected an appeal on points of law by the applicant as inadmissible .","According to the applicant , prior to the initiation of the criminal proceedings against him and his detention , he had no major medical problems and was in good health .","Subsequent to his arrest , the applicant was placed in FAC no . CARDINAL from where he was transferred to ORG no . CARDINAL and then back to FAC no . CARDINAL sometime in DATE .","According to the applicant , in DATE his state of health started to deteriorate . He had a fever and was coughing . He lost weight and felt extremely weak . The applicant alleged that he voiced his medical concerns with the prison administration and requested a medical check - up , however in vain as he was not provided with any medical assistance . He failed to submit a copy of any of the complaints in this connection .","On DATE the applicant , after having complained to the prison administration , was seen by a prison doctor who prescribed him antibiotics . DATE , on DATE , he was transferred to the prison hospital , where he underwent various medical examinations . On DATE he was diagnosed with tuberculosis of the right lung MGB ( + ) positive , further complicated by left - arm spontaneous pneumothorax . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was placed on the ORG programme ( Directly Observed Treatment , Short - course \u2013 the treatment strategy for the detection and cure of ORG recommended by ORG ) and started receiving conventional , first - line anti - TB medication . In addition , he was provided with vitamins .","On DATE the applicant completed the course of treatment . However , a medical examination of DATE revealed a recurrence of the tuberculosis . On DATE the applicant was enrolled in the second phase of anti - TB treatment which he successfully completed on DATE . On DATE the applicant underwent another bacteriological sputum smear , which was negative , that is to say it showed no evidence of the ORG microbacterium .","According to the case file , since then the applicant had repeatedly undergone sputum tests . The latest medical examination of which the ORG was informed , on DATE , revealed that the applicant \u2019s GPE was in a non - active phase . Thus , he did not require any anti - TB treatment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-169211","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF GAVRASHENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 1 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P4-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165569","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"HUNDE v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP In DATE a group of CARDINAL irregular migrants in the GPE who DATE as rejected asylum - seekers \u2013 were no longer entitled to ORG - sponsored care and accommodation for asylum - seekers , squatted the St. Joseph Church in GPE . These irregular migrants formed an action group called \u201c We Are Here \/ PERSON \u201d seeking attention for and relief from their situation . During their stay there , ORG was colloquially referred to as FAC ( ORG ) . It appears that the group was evicted from ORG on DATE .","On DATE the municipality of GPE offered temporary shelter to the original members of the group \u201c We Are Here \u201d who had been staying in ORG since DATE . Accordingly , CARDINAL persons were housed temporarily in a former detention facility on the NORP in GPE DATE which came to be known as LOC ( GPE ) \u2013 until DATE . The remaining persons from ORG who had been evicted from there and not been offered shelter in LOC , squatted an indoor car park , which came to be known as LOC .","A number of residents of LOC initiated administrative proceedings against the municipality of GPE demanding that they be provided with shelter , food and clothing . In CARDINAL of those proceedings , lodged by CARDINAL residents of LOC , not including the applicant , a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) was granted on DATE pending further appeal proceedings before ORG ( ORG ) . At the request of the CARDINAL petitioners , the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG ordered the municipality of GPE to provide TIME shelter , a shower , breakfast and dinner to the petitioners . In that decision , account was taken of the fact that ORG voor de Rechten van de Mens ) had found degrading living conditions in LOC . In addition , regard was had to CARDINAL decisions of ORG ( hereinafter the \u201c ECSR \u201d ) of DATE , in which the GPE was found to have breached Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( hereinafter the \u201c LAW \u201d ) by failing to provide adult irregular migrants with adequate access to emergency assistance , that is food , clothing and shelter ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","NORP In response to this provisional measure , ORG ( PERSON ) DATE in agreement with the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice ( Staatssecretaris PERSON ) DATE set up a scheme to offer basic provisions to irregular migrants , the so - called Bed , Bath and Bread Scheme ( bed - bad - broodregeling ) . That scheme entailed that the central municipalities would provide basic accommodation to irregular migrants including night shelter with shower facilities , breakfast and dinner , starting from DATE . It was announced from the outset that this scheme would be temporary , awaiting the adoption of a resolution by ORG concerning the ORG \u2019s CARDINAL decisions , pursuant to LAW to ORG for a System of Collective Complaints . Although these resolutions were adopted by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the scheme has been prolonged and is currently still in place .","The applicant fled from GPE to the GPE in DATE . His application for asylum was rejected as unfounded . Apart from the fact that , for reasons found imputable to him , the applicant did not hold any identity or travel documents , he was found to have given inconsistent , contradictory , vague and summary statements to the immigration authorities . In DATE he was released from immigration detention ( vreemdelingendetentie ) because , according to the applicant who has not provided any further details , an effective removal to his country of origin proved not possible . As a rejected asylum - seeker who had failed to leave the country within the voluntary return grace period of DATE , the applicant was no longer entitled to ORG - sponsored accommodation and care in one of the reception centres for asylum - seekers .","NORP In DATE the applicant , having joined the group \u201c We Are Here \u201d , took shelter in LOC in GPE together with CARDINAL other irregular migrants . It appears that he lived in LOC until DATE . Meanwhile , the applicant instituted the proceedings set out in paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below .","On DATE the applicant filed a fresh asylum application , which was accepted on DATE . He was provided with a temporary residence permit for asylum purposes valid from DATE until DATE , based on section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL(a ) of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant requested the municipality of GPE to grant him ORG - sponsored care and reception facilities similar to the facilities offered to asylum - seekers by ORG for ORG ( Centraal Orgaan Opvang ORG ; hereinafter \u201c ORG \u201d ) , submitting , inter alia , that he found himself in an emergency situation considering the appalling living conditions in LOC . He further submitted that he had applied for shelter in LOC but that , unlike other irregular migrants from ORG in a similar situation , he had not been admitted to LOC .","The applicant submitted that the living conditions in LOC were poor . Housing CARDINAL persons , it was overcrowded . A limited , insufficient number of toilets was available and there were no washing facilities . Electricity was not always available . The irregular migrants staying in the garage were dependent on volunteers for food and the atmosphere between them was tense , regularly resulting in confrontations which were sometimes violent . The applicant himself had once been threatened and assaulted by a co - resident in the garage . He had sustained a light stab wound . He had reported that incident to the police .","On DATE the Mayor and Aldermen ( college PERSON ) of the municipality of GPE , treating the applicant \u2019s request as an application for access to community shelter services ( maatschappelijke opvang ) under LAW ( PERSON ) , rejected it as the applicant was neither a NORP national nor did he hold a residence permit as required by the aforementioned act . An exception to that rule could apply when the right to respect for physical or psychological integrity flowing from LAW was at stake , in particular if the person concerned was a minor or vulnerable because of a medical emergency . However , as the applicant had not provided any medical information \u2013 even though he claimed that he required medical care DATE he was considered as not falling within the category of vulnerable persons .","With regard to the fact that the applicant had been denied access to LOC , the Mayor and Aldermen held that accommodation at that location had been offered to the original members of the group \u201c We Are Here \u201d who had stayed in FAC for an uninterrupted period of time and who were willing to cooperate with the municipality and other institutions in the organisation of their return to the country of origin . The applicant did not fulfil those requirements .","The Mayor and Aldermen further made reference to the possibility of the applicant requesting the Repatriation and Departure Service ( PERSON ) of ORG and ORG ( PERSON ) to impose a measure on him within the meaning of section QUANTITY of LAW in order to gain access to reception facilities at a centre where his liberty would be restricted ( vrijheidsbeperkende locatie ) . In such centres the focus is on departure from GPE of the person concerned , meaning that reception facilities are provided on condition that the person concerned cooperates in the organisation of his or her departure to the country of origin .","The applicant lodged an objection ( bezwaar ) against the decision of DATE which was dismissed by the Mayor and Aldermen on CARDINAL DATE , in accordance with an advice drawn up by the objections committee ( ORG ) on DATE and on the same grounds as those on which the initial decision had been based . The applicant lodged an appeal ( beroep ) with ORG ( rechtbank ) .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s appeal and quashed the Mayor and Aldermen \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . Proceeding to decide on the matter itself , ORG considered that the ORG \u2019s decisions of DATE , in which the ORG had found violations of LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW , could not be overlooked notwithstanding the fact that they were not binding for the State Parties to the LAW . Accordingly , ORG considered that the denial of shelter , food and clothing to irregular migrants touched upon the right to respect for human dignity in such a way as to preclude a person \u2019s enjoyment of private life within the meaning of LAW . It concluded that the ORG was under a positive obligation to provide the applicant with shelter , food and clothing and that that provision should not be made conditional on the applicant \u2019s cooperation in the organisation of his departure from the GPE . It was noted , however , that the municipality of GPE , simultaneously with other municipalities in major cities of the GPE , had established the Bed , ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , providing , as of DATE , basic accommodation to irregular migrants including night shelter with shower facilities , breakfast and dinner . As far as the applicant had argued that the Bed , ORG was insufficient , he had failed to substantiate that argument with any prima facie evidence .","NORP Moreover , the applicant had obtained a residence permit on DATE as a consequence of which he was already entitled to ORG - sponsored social benefits . The applicant \u2019s argument that his right to emergency social assistance should nevertheless be acknowledged retroactively and that he should be granted living allowances ( leefgeld ) by way of compensation was dismissed . ORG held that although such a right to emergency social benefits should be acknowledged retroactively , that is from DATE , there was no legal basis on which to conclude that this right included a right to living allowances . It was open to the applicant to claim compensation for damage in separate proceedings .","Both the applicant and the Mayor and Aldermen lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) with ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal but accepted the Mayor and Aldermen \u2019s appeal and quashed ORG judgment . ORG found that the Mayor and Aldermen \u2019s rejection of the applicant \u2019s request for shelter under LAW was justified as the applicant had the possibility of receiving shelter at a centre where his liberty would be restricted . Unlike ORG , it agreed with the Mayor and Aldermen that irregular migrants may be denied access to such a centre if they refuse to cooperate in the organisation of their return to their country of origin , unless there existed exceptional circumstances . Such exceptional circumstances could exist when the person concerned had demonstrated that he or she was unable to foresee the consequences of his or her actions or omissions due to his or her psychiatric state of mind . It was , however , incumbent upon the irregular migrant to claim that such exceptional circumstances pertained .","No further appeal lay against this decision .","In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant had also requested the Deputy Minister of Security and ORG to grant him , either in cooperation with the municipality of GPE or independently , ORG - sponsored care and accommodation , in particular to offer him shelter as well as ( allowances for ) food and clothing .","On DATE the Deputy Minister rejected the applicant \u2019s request , considering that he could apply for admission in a centre run by the Repatriation and Departure Service where his liberty would be restricted and where he would have to cooperate in the organisation of his departure from the GPE . The applicant was reminded of the fact that he was already under a statutory obligation to leave the GPE pursuant to section QUANTITY of LAW CARDINAL as his asylum request had been rejected .","The applicant filed an objection against this decision , which was dismissed by the Deputy Minister on DATE .","An appeal lodged by the applicant was declared inadmissible by ORG of GPE on DATE , which considered that the applicant no longer had any interest in challenging the impugned decision in view of the provisional measure issued by ORG on DATE , pursuant to which the municipality of GPE had been ordered to provide TIME shelter , breakfast and dinner to irregular migrants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","NORP Although possible , the applicant did not lodge a further appeal with ORG of ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak PERSON ) against the decision of ORG .","The admission , residence and expulsion of aliens are regulated by LAW . LAW of the said act reads as follows :","\u201c An alien who has been refused entry into the GPE shall leave the GPE immediately , duly observing such directions as may have been given to him for this purpose by a border control officer . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . An alien who is not lawfully resident may not claim entitlement to benefits in kind , facilities and social security benefits issued by decision of an administrative authority . The previous sentence shall apply mutatis mutandis to exemptions or licenses designated in an Act of ORG or Order in ORG .","The first subsection may be derogated from if the entitlement relates to education , the provision of care that is medically necessary , the prevention of situations that would jeopardise public health or the provision of legal assistance to the alien .","The granting of entitlement does not confer a right to lawful residence . \u201d","Section CARDINAL of the said LAW provides the following on the legal consequences of a rejection of an application for a residence permit in the GPE :","\u201c CARDINAL . The consequences of a decision whereby an application for the issue of a residence permit for a fixed period [ ... ] or a residence permit for an indefinite period [ ... ] is rejected shall , by operation of law , be that :","( a ) the alien is no longer lawfully resident [ ... ] ;","( b ) the alien should leave the GPE of his own volition within the time limit prescribed in section CARDINAL , failing which the alien may be expelled ;","( c ) the benefits in kind provided for by or pursuant to the LAW on ORG for ORG or another statutory provision that regulates benefits in kind of this nature will terminate in the manner provided for by or pursuant to that LAW or statutory provision and within the time limit prescribed for this purpose ;","( d ) the GPE supervision officers are authorised , after the expiry of the time limit within which the alien must leave the GPE of his own volition , to enter every place , including a dwelling , without the consent of the occupant , in order to expel the alien ;","( e ) NORP the GPE supervision officers are authorised , after the expiry of the time limit referred to in ( c ) , to compel the vacation of property in order to terminate the accommodation or the stay in the residential LOC provided as a benefit in kind as referred to in ( c ) .","Subsection CARDINAL shall apply mutatis mutandis if :","...","( b ) A residence permit has been cancelled or not renewed .","The consequences referred to in subsection CARDINAL shall not take effect as long as the application for review lodged by the alien suspends the operation of the decision .","[ The ] Minister may order that , notwithstanding subsection CARDINAL , opening words and ( c ) , the benefits in kind provided for by or pursuant to the LAW on ORG for Asylum - Seekers or another statutory provision that regulates benefits in kind of this nature will not terminate for certain categories of alien . The order shall be repealed DATE after its notification .","An alien to whom an order as referred in subsection CARDINAL is applicable shall be deemed to be lawfully resident as referred to in section CARDINAL ( j ) . \u201d","Under the Act on ORG for ORG ( PERSON Orgaan Opvang Asielzoekers ) and related regulations , including LAW and Other Categories of Aliens ( PERSON verstrekkingen asielzoekers en andere categorie\u00ebn vreemdelingen ) , ORG DATE an autonomous administrative authority \u2013 is responsible for the provision of reception facilities which comprise housing , basic subsistence means and health care to asylum - seekers .","If no residence permit is granted to an asylum - seeker , he or she will remain entitled to benefit from the reception facilities for asylum - seekers for a grace period of DATE after DATE of the final decision taken on his \/ her request . The rejected asylum - seeker is given this grace period to leave the GPE voluntarily DATE if need be assisted by ORG as he \/ she is no longer lawfully staying in the GPE and under a legal obligation to leave . After the expiry of this period , access to reception facilities is automatically terminated without a specific decision . Nevertheless , an alien in such a situation may apply to ORG for continued reception facilities . If highly exceptional circumstances so require , ORG can take a decision to that effect . A negative decision can be appealed to ORG and , subsequently , to ORG . Both before ORG and ORG it is possible to apply for a provisional measure pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings .","Rejected asylum - seekers and other migrants in an irregular situation are entitled to health care in cases of medical emergency ( as well as legal aid and education for minors ) . Rejected applicants for a residence permit with physical and\/or psychological problems severe enough to make them unfit for travel may furthermore apply for the deferral of their departure from the GPE under LAW of LAW . The expulsion is then suspended for the duration of the severe medical condition and the migrant concerned is granted a right to accommodation .","A migrant , who is under the legal obligation to leave the GPE because his or her lawful residence or entitlement to ORG - sponsored care and accommodation has come to an end , can be offered accommodation in a centre where his or her liberty is restricted . Such accommodation is based on a so - called liberty - restricting measure ( vrijheidsbeperkende maatregel ) within the meaning of LAW of LAW , which measure entails that the person concerned can move in and out of the centre freely but is prohibited from crossing the municipal boundaries where the centre is located . That accommodation is offered for DATE and its main focus is the migrant \u2019s departure from the GPE to the country of origin with the Repatriation and ORG assistance : there has to be a realistic prospect of an effective return within DATE and the migrant must be willing to cooperate by taking steps to effectuate his or her departure from the GPE .","A temporary residence permit may be issued to migrants who , through no fault of their own , can not leave the GPE ( buitenschuldvergunning ) pursuant to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Vreemdelingenbesluit CARDINAL ) . Section BCARDINAL\/CARDINAL.CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) lays down the conditions with which an alien must comply in order to be eligible for such a residence permit . At the relevant time the conditions were that :","\u201c [ T]he alien has :","- done everything within his power to organise his departure independently ;","- no doubt exists about his nationality and identity ; and","- he can not be blamed for his inability to leave the GPE .","the alien has :","- turned to ORG in order to facilitate his departure ; and","- this organisation has indicated that it is not capable of organising the ORG departure due to the fact that the alien submits that he is unable to have travel documents at his disposal [ ; ]","the alien has :","- requested the Repatriation and Departure Service to mediate in obtaining the required documents of the authorities of the country to which departure is possible ; and","- the mediation has not led to the desired result ; and","the alien :","- is residing in the GPE without a valid residence permit ;","- does not comply with other conditions for being granted a residence permit ; and","- has not also filed an application for a residence permit for the purpose of residence on other grounds . \u201d","From DATE , section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ; \u201c ORG \u201d ) has provided as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . An alien can only be eligible for individual assistance , women \u2019s shelter services or a payment as referred to in section DATE if he is lawfully resident within the meaning of section CARDINAL , subsection ( a ) to ( e ) inclusive and ( l ) of LAW .","An alien can only be eligible for community shelter services if he is lawfully resident within the meaning of section CARDINAL , subsection ( a ) to ( e ) inclusive and ( l ) of LAW , except in cases referred to in DATE , paragraph CARDINAL of Directive CARDINAL .","Notwithstanding subsections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , in cases designated by order in council , if necessary notwithstanding section CARDINAL of LAW , categories of aliens residing unlawfully in the GPE specified by or pursuant to that order may be wholly or partially eligible for assistance specified by that order or for a payment as referred to in section DATE . Eligibility for assistance or a payment as referred to in section CARDINALa does not confer any right to lawful residence on an alien .","NORP The order referred to in subsection CARDINAL may provide that the municipal executive is responsible for delivering the assistance designated by that order . \u201d","LAW , entitled \u201c The right to social and medical assistance \u201d , provides as follows :","\u201c Anyone without adequate resources has the right to social and medical assistance .","With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to social and medical assistance , the Parties undertake :","NORP to ensure that any person who is without adequate resources and who is unable to secure such resources either by his own efforts or from other sources , in particular by benefits under a social security scheme , be granted adequate assistance , and , in case of sickness , the care necessitated by his condition ;","...","NORP to apply the provisions referred to in DATE , CARDINAL of this article on an equal footing with their nationals to nationals of other Parties lawfully within their territories , in accordance with their obligations under LAW , signed at GPE on DATE . \u201d","DATE of the LAW , entitled \u201c The right to housing \u201d , provides as follows :","\u201c Everyone has the right to housing .","With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to housing , the Parties undertake to take measures designed :","...","to prevent and reduce homelessness with a view to its gradual elimination ;","... \u201d .","The first paragraph of the Appendix to the Social Charter reads :","\u201c Without prejudice to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , and LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , the persons covered by Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL include foreigners only insofar as they are nationals of other Contracting Parties lawfully resident or working regularly within the territory of ORG concerned , subject to the understanding that these articles are to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of ORG DATE .","This interpretation would not prejudice the extension of similar facilities to other persons by any of the Contracting Parties . \u201d","On DATE the ORG adopted CARDINAL decisions on the merits in the cases of Conference of European Churches ( ORG ) v. the GPE ( complaint no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and in ORG working with ORG ) v. the GPE ( complaint no . CARDINAL ) . It found that the GPE had violated LAW , which guarantees the right to social assistance , and LAW , the right to housing , by failing to provide adequate access to emergency assistance ( food , clothing and shelter ) to adult migrants in an irregular situation . In ORG v. the GPE the ORG held the following :","\u201c CARDINAL . With regard to LAW in particular , the ORG recalls that emergency social assistance should be provided under the said provision to all foreign nationals without exception ( Conclusions DATE , GPE ) . Also migrants having exceeded their permitted period of residence within the jurisdiction of ORG in question have a right to emergency social assistance ( Conclusions DATE , GPE ) . The beneficiaries of the right to emergency social assistance thus include also foreign nationals who are present in a particular country in an irregular manner ( Conclusions DATE , GPE ) .","The ORG observes in this connection that the complaint concerns the provision of the necessary food , water , shelter and clothing to adult migrants in an irregular situation . It considers the issues at hand to be closely linked to the realisation of the most fundamental rights of these persons , as well as to their human dignity .","Pursuant to the above , LAW applies to migrants in an irregular situation .","...","The ORG recalls that human dignity is the fundamental value and the core also of NORP human rights law ( FIDH v. GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Even though the Convention and the relevant legal rules of ORG on asylum are applicable only to foreigners staying in a regular manner within the jurisdiction of GPE Parties , the ORG observes that both the ORG and ORG in their recent case - law have acknowledged the importance of preserving human dignity in connection with the minimum protection provided to migrants ( see paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","The ORG observes in this connection that the scope of the LAW is broader and requires that necessary emergency social assistance be granted also to those who do not , or no longer , fulfil the criteria of entitlement to assistance specified in the above instruments , that is , also to migrants staying in the territory of the GPE Parties in an irregular manner , for instance pursuant to their expulsion . The LAW requires that emergency social assistance be granted without any conditions to nationals of those GPE Parties to the LAW who are not Member States of the Union . The Committee equally considers that the provision of emergency assistance can not be made conditional upon the willingness of the persons concerned to cooperate in the organisation of their own expulsion . \u201d","Following the abovementioned decisions of the ORG , ORG , on DATE , adopted CARDINAL substantially the same resolutions ( Resolution nos . ORG and ORG ) . Taking note of ORG submissions in which they had expressed their concern that the ORG had not given a correct interpretation of the appendix to the LAW which excludes from the scope of the LAW all aliens who are not lawfully residing on the territory of ORG , these resolutions read , in so far as relevant :"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156069","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ALB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF METALLA AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Yonko Grozev","text":["I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE","On DATE ORG recognised the ORG inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m of which QUANTITY . m were restored . Since the remaining plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .","The Commission decision remains unenforced .","On DATE ORG recognised the applicant \u2019s and other heirs\u2019 inherited title to a CARDINAL - storey building and to a plot of land surrounding the building measuring QUANTITY m. Since the plot of land measuring QUANTITY was occupied , the applicant and the heirs would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law . It was also decided that the building should be restored to them .","The applicant claimed that in DATE and DATE he instituted CARDINAL legal actions against a third party for the vacation and restoration of his property . However , he decided to discontinue those actions , having regard to pending judicial proceedings in other cities . It would appear that the third party has built unauthorised constructions on the applicant \u2019s plot of land .","The Commission decision remains unenforced .","On DATE ORG recognised the ORG inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m of which QUANTITY . m were restored . Since the remaining plot of land measuring QUANTITY was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .","The Commission decision remains unenforced .","On DATE ORG recognised the ORG inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m of which CARDINAL sq . m were restored to them . Since the remaining land measuring QUANTITY . m consisted of arable land , roads and channels ( \u201c e llojit ar\u00eb , rrug\u00eb e kanale \u201d ) was occupied , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .","The Commission decision remains unenforced .","The relevant domestic law and practice have been described in detail in , inter alia , ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","On DATE and DATE the ORG approved and issued new property valuation maps , which included the reference price per square CARDINAL throughout the country ( Council of ORG decisions ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) nos . CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) .","Subsequent to the events described in GPE and Others v. ORG ] , ORG . ORG , ORG , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE , ORG gave a decision on DATE on the execution of judgments concerning the NORP authorities\u2019 failure to enforce final domestic judicial and administrative decisions awarding compensation in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law to the applicants in lieu of the physical restoration of their plots of land . This decision , which was adopted at its CARDINAL meeting , stated , in so far as relevant , the following :","\u201c The Deputies","( ... )","considered the actions taken since DATE and the measures foreseen for DATE and DATE as encouraging ; regretting , however , that the deadline fixed by the pilot judgment will not be met , underlined that in order to fulfill the obligations imposed by ORG and to introduce the required compensation mechanism without further delay and within the time frame proposed by the action plan , the political commitment expressed in the action plan must be followed by concrete and substantial actions at the domestic level , in particular in the fields identified by ORG in its Interim Resolution CM \/ ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ;","( ... ) . \u201d","The ORG of ORG decision of DATE on the execution of judgments concerning the NORP authorities\u2019 failure to enforce final domestic judicial and administrative decisions awarding compensation in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law to the applicants in lieu of the physical restoration of their plots of land , which was adopted at its CARDINAL meeting , stated , in so far as relevant , the following :","\u201c The Deputies","NORP welcomed the formal adoption by ORG of the action plan for the establishment of an effective compensation mechanism , thereby rendering the action plan binding , and noted with satisfaction that the measures foreseen are being adopted in conformity with the previsions in that plan ;","NORP in view of the overall deadline foreseen for the implementation of this mechanism , strongly encouraged the authorities to intensify their efforts with a view to reducing this time - frame as much as possible ;","( ... ) . \u201d","The ORG of ORG decision of DATE , which was adopted at its CARDINALth meeting , stated , in so far as relevant , the following :","\u201c The Deputies","NORP welcomed the commitment showed by the NORP authorities in the search for an effective and sustainable solution to the important structural problem at stake in this group of cases ; welcomed in this regard their presentation of the draft law and their co - operation with ORG , as well as the close consultations held with ORG , particularly in GPE on DATE ;","NORP noted that , as requested by ORG and by the pilot judgment ORG , the authorities have conducted a careful review of all of the legal and financial implications and have estimated the overall cost of compensation in order to have a concrete basis for considering the necessary legislative changes ;","invited the NORP authorities to submit , as soon as possible , explanations and additional information on the solutions proposed in the draft law ...","( ... ) \u201d"],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178874","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MIKRYUKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the domestic courts\u2019 failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147319","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"JAKOB'S CENTER D.O.O. v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON \u2019S ORG . , is a private company with a registered office in PERSON . It was represented before the ORG by Mr I. Trebec , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG Attorney .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","At the time of the events at issue , the applicant company was acting as a forwarding agent and customs broker for import - export transit operations . In that capacity , it was liable for the payment of customs debts if they were incurred . In DATE , the company carried out a transit procedure for the importation of goods supposedly destined for GPE ; however , in reality the goods never reached their destination , but were placed on the NORP market . The operation formed part of a wider fraud involving CARDINAL customs official , GPE , and a number of other persons . Once the fraud had been detected , the customs debt incurred as a result of the fact that the goods had not left the national territory was imposed on the applicant company as the principal actor in the transit procedure .","On DATE , the applicant company paid CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL NORP tolars ( SIT ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) and on DATE it paid SIT CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately ORG MONEY ) . Although it was not disputed by the authorities that the applicant company was the victim of fraudulent activities by third parties , it could not relieve itself of that liability .","The applicant company challenged its liability for the payment of the debt . ORG dismissed its challenge , finding that although it was not the applicant company \u2019s fault that the goods in question had been unlawfully removed from customs supervision , as the principal actor it was nevertheless liable for the payment of the customs debt . Moreover , ORG noted that any unlawful activity on the part of customs officials bore no relation to the applicant company \u2019s duty to pay the debt . ORG subsequently dismissed an administrative action lodged by the applicant company . ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant company , upholding the position of the lower instances that , by acting as the principal company in the transit procedure , the applicant company had assumed the risk of having to pay customs debt . ORG refused to accept the applicant company \u2019s constitutional complaint for consideration .","NORP In their submissions the Government noted that in DATE the applicant company had instituted commercial proceedings before ORG against GPE and GPE seeking compensation for the customs payment ( SIT CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , together with statutory default interest and costs of the proceedings .","The Government further explained that on CARDINAL DATE the ORG had found in favour of the applicant company .","GPE and GPE lodged an appeal . Thus , when the application was lodged before ORG on DATE , the proceedings were pending before ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , which then became final .","On DATE GPE lodged a motion for the protection of legality against the judgment of DATE with ORG , which did not accept to file a request for the protection of legality .","On DATE GPE enforced the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and paid the applicant company ORG CARDINAL ( SIT CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .","In its application to the ORG the applicant company did not mention the commercial proceedings or the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which had been enforced . In its later submissions , it expressed its wish to maintain the application ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180484","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KAPLAN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in DATE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation .","On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG prolonged the applicant \u2019s detention in police custody for a period of DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s statements were taken by the police in the absence of a lawyer . The applicant confessed to being a member of an illegal organisation and having been involved in a murder .","On DATE the applicant participated in a reconstruction of the events ( yer g\u00f6sterme ) with another suspect PERSON , organised by the police in the absence of a lawyer . According to a report , drafted by police officers and signed by the applicant and PERSON , both of the accused gave the details of the murder which they had committed .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor from ORG . A collective medical report was drawn up in respect of the applicant and CARDINAL other suspects . According to the report , there were no traces of ill - treatment on the applicant \u2019s body .","NORP On DATE the applicant was heard by a public prosecutor and an investigating judge respectively . In his statements to the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , the applicant denied his police statements alleging that they had been taken under duress . Following his questioning , the investigating judge ordered the applicant \u2019s detention on remand .","On DATE a public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with that court , charging the applicant with attempting to undermine the constitutional order , an offence prescribed by LAW .","On DATE the applicant was heard by the trial court during the first hearing in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant denied all the charges against him and stated that his statements at the police had been taken under duress .","In the meantime , ORG were abolished by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . Accordingly , the case was transferred to ORG .","On DATE , relying on , inter alia , the applicant \u2019s and his co - accused PERSON statements to the police , ORG held that the applicant had committed the offence under LAW and sentenced him to life - imprisonment .","On an unknown date the applicant \u2019s lawyer appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184524","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF X v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Morocco)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in the GPE .","On DATE the applicant left his home in GPE ) , where he had been living with his parents , for the GPE . He went to the GPE to visit family but overstayed his tourist visa , which was valid until DATE . During his stay in the GPE he lived with his brother and the latter \u2019s family in GPE .","According to an official report ( ambtsbericht ) drawn up by ORG ( Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) dated DATE , information provided by a generally reliable source indicated that a certain NORP national residing in the GPE , had sworn allegiance to PERSON , PERSON in GPE and ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , and that he was trying to obtain a firearm with which to attack the GPE police . The information also contained CARDINAL telephone numbers used by that person . The official report further stated that it appeared from the ORG \u2019s own investigation that the person was the applicant , that he was not registered in the GPE and that he did not have a valid residence permit .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed acts in preparation of terrorist offences and placed in police custody . The house where he had been staying was searched by the police , who found and seized notes containing , inter alia , instructions on how to make an improvised explosive device ( IED ) and a written pledge to ORG . Furthermore , the police seized a computer and found on the applicant \u2019s ORG account conversations in which he had made enquiries into how to make IEDs , projecting himself as a supporter of ORG and expressing his wish to join the jihad in GPE .","On DATE the GPE investigating authorities sent a request for mutual legal assistance ( rechtshulpverzoek ) to the competent NORP authorities in connection with the criminal investigation against the applicant , requesting , inter alia , the examination of a number of bank accounts and bank cards . The request contained the number of the applicant \u2019s national identity card and specified that the criminal investigation concerned suspicion of ( preparation of ) murder with a terrorist motive , participation in a criminal organisation with a terrorist aim , preparation of a terrorist offence , and financing of terrorism . On DATE a supplementary request was sent to the NORP authorities .","The applicant \u2019s remand in custody was extended . Criminal proceedings against him commenced on charges of several preparatory acts of terrorism , including the criminal offence defined in LAW ( PERSON ) , namely the acquisition of information and know - how in preparation of the commission of a terrorist offence .","NORP In DATE several articles , written in NORP , LANGUAGE and LANGUAGE , about the dismantling of a terrorist cell and arrest of its members in Selwane were published on Internet news sites . Those articles also mentioned the arrest in the GPE of a NORP living there , who was planning attacks in the GPE and who had links with that terrorist cell . Some of the articles also stated that information provided by the NORP intelligence agency ( ORG of the National Territory \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to the ORG had led to the person \u2019s arrest in the GPE .","On DATE ORG ( rechtbank ) acquitted the applicant of all charges . It found that his intent to commit terrorist offences had not been proven in the light of evidence presented by him showing that his chat messages had been meant to impress and show off . His acquittal was reported by various media outlets in the GPE . CARDINAL of those reports stated that , according to his lawyer , the applicant intended to apply for asylum in the GPE , as he feared that , in the event of his removal to GPE , he would be detained in GPE as a terror suspect . The public prosecutor ( officier van justitie ) appealed against the acquittal .","On DATE ORG ( gerechtshof ) of GPE quashed the impugned judgment , convicted the applicant of having committed the offence under LAW , and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant \u2019s intent to acquire information and know - how in order to use it in the commission of a terrorist offence was found proven on the basis of numerous chat messages and written notes . Referring to the systematic and radical nature of those messages and given the relatively long period during which the applicant had been engaged in the internet conversations , ORG dismissed the argument that he had merely been trying to impress and show off .","The applicant subsequently lodged an appeal in cassation with ORG ( PERSON ) . On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s appeal inadmissible , providing summary reasoning in application of section CARDINALa of ORG ( Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s remand in custody came to an end and he was placed in immigration detention ( vreemdelingenbewaring ) . On DATE he applied for asylum , claiming that , if removed to GPE , he would , inter alia , run the risk of being arrested by the NORP secret service , detained in inhumane conditions and tortured , as the NORP authorities considered him to be a terrorist .","NORP In support of his claim , the applicant referred to various press articles about the criminal proceedings against him in the GPE , as well as to several Internet news articles written in NORP , NORP and LANGUAGE about a terrorist cell in PERSON \u2012 the town where he had been living before going to the GPE \u2012 which had been dismantled by the NORP authorities in DATE . Some articles also mentioned that a member of that terrorist cell who was residing in the GPE had been arrested . According to the applicant , they had been referring to him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Although the applicant denied that he had any contacts with this cell , he stated that because of these allegations he will be associated with these NORP suspects of terrorism .","The applicant further submitted that he had learned from his family in GPE that CARDINAL acquaintances from his place of birth , LOC named \u201c QUANTITY and \u201c PERSON \u201d , had been arrested by the NORP security service in DATE or DATE . According to the applicant , this was a strong indication that he too was a target of the NORP security service .","By a letter of DATE , the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice ( Staatssecretaris PERSON ) requested ORG ( GPE PERSON ) to conduct an investigation in GPE in relation to the applicant \u2019s asylum application . In so far as relevant for the instant case , the letter contained the following questions :","\u201c CARDINAL ) Is [ the applicant ] known by his stated identity ... at his last known address in GPE ... in PERSON , region of LOC ?","CARDINAL ) NORP The report about the dismantling of a terrorist cell appeared in NORP and international media on DATE . When were the members of the NORP terrorist cell arrested ?","CARDINAL ) Are DATE and PERSON among those who were arrested ? If so , are they from [ the applicant \u2019s ] birth place , namely LOC ?","CARDINAL ) Is it known whether [ the applicant ] and the persons mentioned under CARDINAL ) know each other ?","CARDINAL ) Are the persons mentioned under CARDINAL ) still detained since their arrest in DATE ? If so , what are the charges ? If not , when were they released ?","CARDINAL ) Is [ the applicant ] known by name in the media in GPE as the member residing in the GPE of the terrorist cell dismantled in GPE ( as referred to in question CARDINAL ) ?","CARDINAL ) Is [ the applicant ] being searched for by the NORP authorities in the context of the criminal investigation of the terrorist cell ( as meant in question CARDINAL ) ?","CARDINAL ) Is there a charge against [ the applicant ] ? If so , what is the charge ?","CARDINAL ) Is [ the applicant ] being searched for by the NORP authorities in relation to offences other than those mentioned under CARDINAL ? If so , in relation to what offences is he being searched for ? Has he been convicted of those offences and , if so , what is the sentence ? \u201d","NORP In reply to the above request , a person - specific official report ( individueel ambtsbericht ) was released on DATE by ORG . The relevant part of the report stated as follows :","\u201c Question CARDINAL :","The address ... in PERSON , region of Nador , is [ the applicant \u2019s ] last known address in GPE .","Question CARDINAL :","a ) The members of the NORP terrorist cell were all arrested on DATE .","b ) A.M. and PERSON do not find themselves in the group [ of persons ] arrested on DATE .","Additional information : the above - cited names are not necessarily the actual names of the persons . In the group of persons , there is an A. and a B .. However , these persons do not have the surname LAW","c ) This question can not be answered in the light of the above .","Question CARDINAL :","At the time of the investigation , the persons referred to in CARDINAL ) were still detained . The charge is :","\u2018 the establishment of a criminal organisation which supports NORP ideology , in particular by planning to assassinate persons with opposing religious GPE ( \u2018 la constitution d\u2019une bande criminelle adepte de la pens\u00e9e djihadiste , projetait notamment l\u2019assassinat de personnes aux convictions religieuses contraires\u2019 ) .","Question CARDINAL :","[ The applicant ] is not mentioned by name in the media reports . It was mentioned in the media reports that a NORP national residing in the GPE had been arrested in cooperation with the local authorities .","Additional information : nor were the other persons who were arrested on DATE mentioned by name in the media reports . ...","Question CARDINAL :","a ) No , at the time of the investigation [ the applicant ] was not being searched for by the NORP authorities in the context of the criminal investigation as referred to in question CARDINAL .","b ) DATE No , at the time of the investigation , there was no charge against [ the applicant ] .","c ) No , at the time of the investigation [ the applicant ] was not being searched for by the NORP authorities in the context of a criminal investigation into offences other than those as referred to by question CARDINAL . \u201d","NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE , in reply to a request for further clarification , the Minister of ORG stated :","\u201c There are no indications that [ the applicant ] is being searched for by the NORP authorities in the context of the criminal investigation referred to in question CARDINAL of your letter of DATE . There are also no indications of a charge against [ the applicant ] or indications that [ the applicant ] is being searched for by the NORP authorities in connection with a criminal investigation of facts other than those referred to in question CARDINAL of your letter of DATE . \u201d","The asylum application was rejected by the Deputy Minister on CARDINAL DATE . In addition , an entry ban ( inreisverbod ) of DATE was imposed on the applicant , the Deputy Minister holding that he posed a threat to public safety on account of his criminal conviction and information from the GPE security service that he posed a danger to national security . Furthermore , and referring to the person - specific official report of DATE , the Deputy Minister held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he faced a real and personal risk of treatment contrary to LAW . The applicant was not being searched for by the NORP authorities , nor had he been charged with any criminal offences there . The Deputy Minister found that the applicant \u2019s fear of being arrested , tortured and detained was based on general reports and assumptions . The Deputy Minister referred to earlier experiences with young NORP men who had stood trial in the GPE on charges related to NORP terrorism and who had been removed to GPE . None of them had encountered any problems from the side of the NORP authorities that could be regarded as relevant from an asylum - law perspective . On this point , the Deputy Minister referred to an article published on DATE in the GPE DATE newspaper ORG about the experiences of CARDINAL convicted members of the NORP terrorist \u201c NORP group \u201d ( ORG ) who , after having served their sentence in the GPE , had been removed to GPE .","The applicant lodged an appeal ( beroep ) with ORG , submitting in addition to his previous submissions , inter alia , a copy of an email from his NORP attorney , ORG , and extracts from a NORP police report dated DATE concerning a criminal investigation in respect of several persons , including CARDINAL \u201c PERSON ( previously referred to by the applicant as \u201c PERSON \u201d ) . The police report stated that PERSON was the person behind the radicalisation of his neighbour ( the applicant ) , who was being detained in the GPE in connection with terrorism . It further stated that , after the applicant \u2019s departure to the GPE , they had remained in contact by telephone and that in their conversations , the applicant had indicated his wish to buy a firearm , and that he intended to learn how to make explosives for use in a terrorist act in the GPE .","On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting in GPE , dismissed the appeal and upheld the impugned decision . As regards the applicant \u2019s reliance on LAW , it held as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . [ The appellant ] argues that on return he will be at a real risk of a violation of LAW . He fears that he will be detained and ill - treated because \u2013 due to media reports \u2013 he is being linked by the NORP authorities to terrorist groups and terrorist activities . On this point [ the appellant ] refers to various documents . In addition , [ the appellant ] argues that [ the Deputy Minister ] was not allowed to base his decision on the person - specific official report of ORG as insufficient due care had been taken in drawing it up and , in addition , as it lacks clarity .","The court states at the outset that it is in principle for [ the appellant ] to make out a plausible case that he is running a real risk of a violation of LAW . [ The appellant ] has submitted a number of documents in substantiation of his claim . In addition , [ the Deputy Minister ] has met [ the appellant ] halfway in the discharge of the burden of proof which rests on the latter by having ORG conduct an investigation which has resulted in a person - specific official report . The court will discuss below [ the appellant \u2019s ] documents and the person - specific official report of ORG .","[ The appellant ] has submitted media reports about a terrorist cell that intended to commit attacks in the GPE and about a NORP man , [ name of appellant ] , who was arrested in DATE in the GPE on suspicion of terrorism and convicted by ORG . [ The appellant ] also submitted documents about a NORP Dutchman who had been interrogated and tortured in GPE and referred to information from ORG about torture and ill - treatment of detainees and unfair proceedings for terrorist suspects in GPE . In addition , [ the appellant ] has submitted an email message from his NORP lawyer about the negative attention which [ the applicant ] will attract upon return and a copy of ( part of ) an official report of the police in GPE in the terrorism case of PERSON in which [ the appellant \u2019s ] name is mentioned . In addition , [ the appellant ] has submitted part of a judgment of the [ Tribunal Correctionnel de GPE ] concerning PERSON , who is suspected of terrorist activities and [ the appellant ] claims that this person has been convicted again in GPE for the same set of facts .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . In so far as it appears from the documents submitted by [ the appellant ] that he is known as a terror suspect or has been convicted of facts relating to terrorism , the court considers that this has already been found credible by [ the Deputy Minister ] . The circumstance that , because of media reports about this , [ the appellant ] is known in the GPE and GPE does not mean that therefore he runs a real risk of serious harm when he returns to GPE . [ The appellant ] fears that , because of being known [ by those authorities ] , he will upon return be arrested and ill - treated by the NORP authorities , but for substantiation purposes has not submitted documents concerning [ himself ] . [ The appellant ] has pointed to general information about the treatment of detainees in GPE and about the proceedings in respect of terrorist suspects , but this information is only relevant if it is plausible that [ the appellant ] upon return will be arrested or prosecuted for terrorism . In the court \u2019s opinion , [ the Deputy Minister ] has not unjustly adopted the position that [ the appellant ] has not made out a plausible case . In the email message from [ the appellant \u2019s ] NORP lawyer submitted by [ the appellant ] , this lawyer reports that [ the appellant ] will be tried when transferred to GPE , even though he has already been tried in the GPE , and refers to CARDINAL decisions in which the same person was convicted both in GPE and in GPE for the same facts . This means that the email message contains no more than a statement from [ the appellant \u2019s ] lawyer , without specific further substantiation relating to [ the appellant ] from which it follows that [ the appellant ] will be prosecuted in GPE . Reference is only made to a case of another person convicted in GPE , but no documents have been submitted showing that this person has been convicted of the same facts in GPE . Nor have documents been submitted from which it can be deduced that [ the appellant ] finds himself in the same situation . It can further not be concluded from the copy of ( a part of ) a report of the NORP police , submitted by [ the appellant ] , that [ the appellant ] is being searched for in GPE as a suspect of terrorism . As pointed out rightly by [ the Deputy Minister ] , the document only contains information about the activities of the suspect PERSON , including the influencing of [ the appellant ] , but it does not appear from the document that [ the appellant ] is involved in any criminal proceedings . However , triggered by what [ the appellant ] has presented about the terror cell dismantled in DATE , of which PERSON was a member , [ the Deputy Minister ] asked ORG for a person - specific official report , which will be discussed below .","According to the constant case - law of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) ( including the ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG : NL : RVS:CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , an official report from the Minister of ORG about the situation in a country is an expert opinion for the Deputy Minister for the exercise of the latter \u2019s powers . If it provides information in an impartial , objective and transparent manner with an indication , in so far as this is responsible , of the sources from which this information is derived , the Deputy Minister may , in making a decision , assume the correctness of this information , unless there are concrete reasons for doubting that accuracy . As regards person - specific official reports , ORG has considered that , if a person - specific official report contradicts the asylum claim which it concerns , it is for the alien concerned to refute the official report .","[ The appellant \u2019s ] argument that [ the Deputy Minister ] was not allowed to base his decision on the person - specific official report of ORG because insufficient due care had been taken in drawing it up , fails . On DATE the Deputy Minister carried out a REK - check , which entails [ the Deputy Minister ] assuring himself that the person - specific official report has been drawn up with due care and is comprehensible . The outcome of the REK check was that this could not be concluded . Subsequently , ORG was asked for further clarification , [ in response ] to which ORG supplemented , by letter of CARDINAL DATE , the person - specific official report . On DATE a fresh REK check was carried out and it was concluded that the person - specific official report was comprehensible but that , procedurally , due care had not been exercised in preparing the report , as the investigation in GPE had taken place without using a trusted local advisor ( vertrouwenspersoon ) . Although in the case of an asylum application this falls short of due care , the court finds that in this case [ the Deputy Minister ] did not have to see reason for not taking into account in the decision making the person - specific official report of ORG , as [ the Deputy Minister ] has given sufficient reasons for holding that the interests of [ the appellant ] were not harmed by this failure to exercise due care . [ The Deputy Minister ] has indicated that the use of a trusted local advisor is to ensure that the authorities of the country of origin are not informed of the alien \u2019s stay in the GPE and of his asylum application , whereas in this case it can be assumed that the NORP authorities , due to reports in the media there , are already aware [ of this circumstance ] . On this point [ the Deputy Minister ] has referred to a number of media reports . [ The appellant ] has not argued or further substantiated that that knowledge by the NORP authorities will lead to problems . Also for the remainder , [ the appellant ] has not indicated why his interests would have been harmed by the lack of due care in the preparation of the person - specific official report .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . NORP The person - specific official report of ORG states , inter alia , that the members of the terrorist cell dismantled on DATE , which is mentioned in the coverage referred to by [ the appellant ] , were all arrested on that date . This group does not include TIME or PERSON as mentioned by the applicant , but these names are not necessarily the names of the persons . The group does include an LOC and a B. , but not with the family name PERSON In addition , the person - specific official report states that these persons were still in detention at the time of the investigation and that neither [ the appellant ] nor these persons were mentioned by name in press reports about the dismantled terror cell . It is indeed mentioned in press reports that a NORP staying in the GPE has been arrested in cooperation with the local authorities . Finally , it has been included in the person - specific official report that at the time of the investigation [ the appellant ] was not being searched for by the NORP authorities in connection with the criminal investigation into the dismantled terror cell , that at the time of the investigation no charge had been brought against [ the appellant ] and that at the time of the investigation [ the appellant ] was not being searched for by the NORP authorities in connection with a criminal investigation into other facts .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . [ The appellant \u2019s ] argument that [ the Deputy Minister ] was not allowed to base his decision on the person - specific official report of ORG because it contains unclear points , also fails . In the opinion of the court , [ the appellant ] has not presented any concrete arguments for [ the court ] to doubt the correctness of the person - specific official report . [ The appellant ] has argued that it is unclear to what extent the [ NORP ] investigating judge ( onderzoeksrechter ) is competent to make statements about [ the appellant ] . In the first place , this mere remark does not comprise a concrete argument as mentioned above . Irrespective of this , the court considers that , on the basis of the underlying materials of the person - specific official report which the court has consulted , it can be assumed that the investigating judge in question is competent and able to provide the information given . Also the mere assertion of [ the appellant ] that it is odd that the investigating judge , who apparently holds all information on terrorism cases , is not asked whether [ the appellant ] is being searched for , is not a concrete argument in the above sense . Moreover , it follows from question CARDINAL in the letter from [ the Deputy Minister ] to ORG of DATE that the ORG has been asked both whether [ the appellant ] is being searched for by the NORP authorities in connection with the criminal investigation into the arrested terror cell and whether [ the appellant ] is being searched for by the NORP authorities in connection with a criminal investigation into other facts . Also , the unclear assertions made by [ the appellant ] about the names of the persons arrested , mentioned in the person - specific official report and the notion \u2018 at the time of the investigation\u2019 offer no concrete reasons to doubt the accuracy of the person - specific official report . The term \u2018 at the time of the investigation\u2019 can not be read otherwise than that the question has been answered by the investigating judge on the basis of the state of affairs at the time of the investigation . Incidentally , [ the appellant ] has not argued that the state of affairs would be different at a different ( later ) point in time . As to the names of the arrested persons , the person - specific official report already states that the names may also be different . Also on this point the court sees no reason for doubting the correctness [ of the official report ] . As the document from the criminal case file submitted by [ the appellant ] , which possibly refers to him , is of DATE than the person - specific official report of ORG , it is not plausible that this reference has given the NORP authorities cause to open a criminal investigation against [ the appellant ] . This is [ therefore ] not a concrete reason for doubting the correctness and completeness of the person - specific official report .","In addition to the person - specific report of ORG , [ the Deputy Minister ] has also referred to experiences made with young NORP men ( including members of the NORP group ) who had been the subject of a terrorism trial in the GPE and\/or constituted a danger to NORP national security in connection with involvement in NORP terrorism and\/or jihad and for that reason [ had been ] returned to GPE . According to [ the Deputy Minister ] , no signals to be taken seriously have been received from them that , upon their return , they had encountered problems , relevant from an asylum - law perspective , from the side of the NORP authorities . The court notes that [ the appellant ] has not rebutted this in a substantiated manner and finds that [ the Deputy Minister ] has correctly taken this into account in his assessment . In this respect , the court refers to the ruling of the [ Administrative Jurisdiction ] Division of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG : NL : PERSON ) . [ The appellant ] has not established that the NORP authorities will act differently in his case .","The court concludes that it follows from the person - specific official report of ORG that [ the appellant ] is not being searched for by the NORP authorities in connection with the criminal investigation concerning the dismantled terror cell or other facts and that [ the appellant ] has not put forward any concrete arguments for [ the court ] to doubt the correctness of this information . Nor can it be deduced from the documents submitted by [ the appellant ] that he is being searched for by the NORP authorities and\/or will be detained and tortured upon return . This can also not be inferred from previous experiences in similar cases . Thus the fear alleged by [ the appellant ] upon return has not been made plausible . In view of this , [ the Deputy Minister ] rightly took the view that [ the appellant ] has not established that , upon return , he will run a real risk of a violation of LAW . ... \u201d","NORP The applicant lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) against ORG decision with ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . He also requested a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) , namely to stay his removal pending the outcome of the further appeal . Neither a further appeal nor a request for a provisional measure has automatic suspensive effect .","On DATE the applicant asked the ORG to apply an interim measure under LAW , in order to stay his removal to GPE . The determination of that request was adjourned by ORG on DATE and the Government were requested to submit factual information .","On DATE ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request for a provisional measure by revoking the order to expel the applicant to GPE scheduled for DATE . In view of that decision , the ORG decided on DATE to suspend until further notice the determination of his Rule CARDINAL request .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s further appeal . It held that under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) , no further reasoning was called for , as the arguments submitted did not raise any questions requiring determination in the interest of legal unity , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . No further appeal lay against this ruling . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for a provisional measure .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer was informed that the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE had been scheduled for DATE .","On DATE the ORG applied Rule CARDINAL for DATE and requested further factual information from the Government . The requested information was received on DATE .","The Government informed the ORG that in the context of the criminal proceedings against the applicant information had been exchanged between the NORP and the NORP authorities through a legal assistance request submitted by the NORP authorities on CARDINAL DATE and a supplementary request on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They added that ORG ( Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst ) , in establishing that there was no Article CARDINAL risk for the applicant were he to be removed to GPE , had taken into account that the NORP authorities had been apprised of the criminal proceedings and that they were likely to be aware of the outcome thereof . The Government added that the NORP authorities had not sought the applicant \u2019s extradition . The Government had not sought specific guarantees from the NORP authorities as they took the view that the applicant \u2019s removal would not result in a violation of LAW . The authentic and valid ID - card held by the applicant was sufficient for him to be accepted onto a flight to GPE . No special procedure had been put in place for his removal , but during his transfer he would be accompanied by officers of ORG ( ORG ) and after arrival he would be handed over to the authorities at the destination airport . The Government lastly informed the ORG that they had not been able to obtain further information regarding the criminal proceedings against the members of the terrorist cell which had been dismantled in GPE in DATE .","On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that , through his NORP attorney ORG , he had been able to obtain a copy of the judgment by which PERSON and CARDINAL others had been convicted of , inter alia , the establishment of a terrorist group loyal to the NORP ORG intended to commit terrorist activities against the public order of GPE . PERSON had been sentenced to DATE imprisonment . The judgment in LANGUAGE , which runs to CARDINAL pages , contains the following passage :","\u201c PERSON has several connections with jihadis . In particular , he recruits young men in his area for his terrorist organisation . In DATE a befriended policeman in GPE informed PERSON after receiving secret Government information DATE that he should break off his contact with people involved with terrorist organisations , including amongst others [ the applicant \u2019s name ] who lives in the GPE . \u201d","On DATE the interim measure under Rule CARDINAL staying the applicant \u2019s removal to GPE was extended for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","On DATE the Government submitted a copy of a judgment given on DATE by the criminal division of ORG on an appeal lodged by PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above at point CARDINAL ) \u2013 assisted by the attorney ORG against a judgment given on DATE by the criminal division of ORG . The appellate court overturned the impugned judgment , finding that pursuant to LAW , which contains the ne bis in idem rule , the appellant could no longer be tried for facts in respect of which he had already been convicted by a criminal court in GPE and had already served the sentence imposed by that court . Consequently , it acquitted him of the charges of the establishment of a criminal group for the preparation and commission of terrorist offences , illegal use and possession of fire arms and ammunition in the context of a joint project aimed at endangering public order , and inciting and persuading others to commit terrorist offences . It did , however , convict him of complicity in providing support to those who commit a terrorist offence and imposed a conditional DATE prison sentence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-181859","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ARM","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF AGANIKYAN v. ARMENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE an investigator decided to institute criminal proceedings in connection with alleged usury by the applicant , proscribed by LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE ordered a search of the applicant \u2019s apartment .","On DATE the applicant was formally charged under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG with performing usury as a profession which resulted in dire financial consequences for the injured parties . On DATE the investigator decided , as a preventive measure , to have the applicant give a written undertaking not to leave his place of residence .","On DATE the investigator decided to confiscate for security the applicant \u2019s property .","On DATE the investigator sent the bill of indictment to the GPE and PERSON - Marash district prosecutor ( \u201c the prosecutor \u201d ) for approval but on DATE the prosecutor refused to approve it and returned the case to the investigator for further investigation .","On DATE the investigator initiated another set of criminal proceedings , under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG , concerning the acquisition of property rights through fraud by the applicant . On DATE this case was merged with the case on usury .","On DATE and DATE respectively the investigator ordered forensic handwriting examinations to be conducted . The results of these examinations were received on CARDINAL and DATE respectively .","On DATE the investigator decided to amend the applicant \u2019s charges and to bring new charges against him under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and MONEY ( CARDINAL ) , Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , and LAW on account of fraud in large and particularly large amounts , extortion in particularly large amounts , usury performed as a profession which resulted in dire financial consequences for the injured parties , and forgery of evidence .","On DATE the investigator lodged an application with the GPE and ORG of GPE , seeking to have the applicant detained for DATE , which was rejected by ORG . However , upon an appeal by the prosecutor , on DATE ORG overturned ORG decision and ordered the applicant \u2019s detention for DATE .","On DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigator lodged applications with ORG for a search warrant and to confiscate information covered by bank secrecy . These applications were granted on CARDINAL and DATE and DATE .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and the case was sent to ORG , which took it over on DATE .","By ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE the case was set for trial . DATE and DATE , the court held CARDINAL hearings which were adjourned because of the absence of victims and\/or witnesses . In addition , on QUANTITY occasions the hearings were adjourned because of applications by the prosecutor or on the court \u2019s own motion , and on QUANTITY occasions because the applicant \u2019s applications were granted . On CARDINAL occasions the court decided to have the absent witnesses and\/or victims brought by force to the hearing .","On DATE ORG granted an application by the applicant \u2019s counsel to have him released on bail .","On DATE the powers of the judge in charge of the applicant \u2019s case were suspended . On DATE another judge took over the case and the examination of the case started anew .","DATE and DATE , the court held DATE hearings which were adjourned because of the absence of the applicant or his lawyer or because of applications lodged by them . In addition , on CARDINAL occasions the hearings were adjourned because of the absence of the victims or witnesses or because of applications lodged by them , and on QUANTITY occasions because the prosecutor \u2019s applications had been granted or because the court had decided to adjourn the case of its own motion . On CARDINAL occasions the court decided to have the absent witnesses and victims brought by force to the hearing .","On DATE and DATE respectively the prosecutor decided to amend the charges and\/or to bring new charges against the applicant .","In DATE and DATE ORG partially granted or refused applications , introduced by the applicant and one of the victims , requesting that it order a forensic examination .","On DATE the ORG gave judgement , finding the applicant guilty of CARDINAL counts of the offences set out in LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( fraud ) , LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( extortion ) , LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ( usury ) , and LAW ( forgery of evidence ) of the ORG and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , confiscated CARDINAL of his property and imposed a fine of QUANTITY ( ORG ) . It appears that during the proceedings ORG examined CARDINAL witnesses , CARDINAL pieces of documentary evidence and CARDINAL expert opinions , CARDINAL of which was ordered by ORG .","The applicant and the prosecutor appealed against this judgment .","On DATE ORG rejected the appeals and upheld ORG judgment .","The applicant \u2019s counsel lodged an appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG declared the appeal inadmissible for lack of merit ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164470","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF NAIT-LIMAN v. SWITZERLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , in GPE ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) , and lives in GPE in the GPE of GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","According to the applicant , on DATE he was arrested by the NORP police at his place of residence in GPE and taken to ORG in GPE , where he was presented with a bill of indictment according to which he represented a threat to NORP State Security . He was then allegedly taken to GPE by NORP agents .","The applicant further submits that he was arbitrarily detained and tortured in GPE in the LOC of ORG , from DATE to DATE , on the orders of PERSON , the then Minister of the Interior . He submits that he was subjected to the so - called \u201c roast chicken \u201d position throughout his entire detention and deprived of his basic physiological needs , particularly sleep ; he was also beaten on the soles of his feet with a baseball bat and struck all over his body with telephone cords .","The applicant submits that he suffers from a series of medically attested physical and psychological injuries and problems , and that a causal link between the abuse described and these injuries and problems has been considered plausible .","Following the alleged torture in GPE in DATE , the applicant fled that country in DATE and took refuge in GPE , where he applied for political asylum in DATE . The applicant has since been living in GPE .","On DATE the NORP authorities granted the applicant political asylum .","On DATE , while PERSON was being treated in a NORP hospital , the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against him with ORG for GPE ( \u201c the Principal Public Prosecutor \u201d ) , for severe bodily injury , illegal confinement , insults , endangering health , coercion and abuse of authority . The applicant applied to join these proceedings as a civil party seeking damages .","On DATE ORG made an order discontinuing the proceedings on the grounds that PERSON had left GPE and that the police had been unable to arrest him .","According to the applicant , on DATE he \u201c [ asked ] a NORP lawyer to represent him with a view to bringing civil proceedings for compensation against [ PERSON ] and GPE . On DATE the lawyer [ informed ] [ the applicant ] that this type of action had never been successful and advised him not to lodge such a claim \u201d .","It was allegedly impossible to lodge a civil action of this sort in GPE .","By a writ dated DATE , the applicant lodged a claim for damages with the GPE of ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) against GPE and against PERSON He considered that he should be paid MONEY ( CHF ) , with PERCENT interest from DATE , as compensation for the non - pecuniary damage arising from the acts of torture to which he had allegedly been subjected . The applicant submitted that the conditions for reparation of non - pecuniary damage provided for by Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW , applicable under LAW . CARDINAL of the ORG , were met .","On DATE a hearing was held before ORG ; neither of the defendants was in attendance or represented .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG declared the claim inadmissible on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c With regard to an action in tort based on the unlawful acts that were allegedly committed in GPE by the defendants , to the claimant \u2019s detriment , the NORP courts do not have territorial jurisdiction under international law to examine the complaint , given that the defendants are not domiciled or habitually resident in GPE , and given also that no illegal act or detrimental outcome occurred in GPE , pursuant to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL [ of LAW of DATE ( ORG ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ] . \u201d","Under section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ( ORG ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the NORP courts did not have jurisdiction by necessity either , given the lack of a sufficient connection between , on the one hand , the case and the facts , and , on the other , GPE . In this connection , ORG ruled as follows :","\u201c All of the acts for whose after - effects the claimant , a NORP national , seeks compensation for non - pecuniary damage were allegedly inflicted on him , as he submits , in GPE in DATE , in the premises of ORG of the Interior , by ORG and its agents . The sole fact that the claimant applied for and received political asylum in DATE in GPE , where he has since been domiciled , does not amount , in the light of current case - law , to a sufficient connection enabling a \u201c forum of necessity \u201d to be established against the respondents in GPE and GPE . \u201d","By a writ dated DATE , the applicant appealed against that decision before ORG of GPE ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . His appeal was rejected in a judgment of DATE . After noting that the appellant had shown that he was unable to bring a civil action in GPE , ORG considered :","\u201c As the outcome of the present appeal depends on the immunity from jurisdiction of the defendant parties , the question of whether there exists a forum of necessity in the appellant \u2019s place of residence can , however , remain undecided . \u201d","ORG also held that the defendants enjoyed immunity from jurisdiction , since the acts of torture had been performed in the exercise of sovereign authority ( iure imperii ) and not iure gestionis . Referring to the judgment delivered by ORG in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . ORG , ECHR DATE ) , it further considered that there had been no violation of the applicant \u2019s right of access to a court .","NORP The applicant lodged an ordinary appeal with ORG , dated DATE , in which he asked ORG to rule that the courts in GPE had territorial jurisdiction and to find that the defendants did not enjoy immunity from jurisdiction . With regard to the jurisdiction of the NORP courts , he argued that the purpose of the introduction of a forum of necessity in section CARDINAL of the LDIP ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) was to avoid denials of justice , especially in cases of political persecution , and that he had provided sufficient evidence that he could not reasonably bring proceedings before a foreign court . As to the immunity from jurisdiction purportedly enjoyed by GPE and PERSON , the applicant submitted that the exercise of public power did not include the option of committing international crimes such as torture . In this connection , he specified that the very definition of torture in LAW and Other Cruel , Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of DATE ( hereafter : \u201c the Convention against Torture \u201d ; see paragraphs CARDINAL et seq . below ) ruled out any immunity .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the reasoning of which was notified to the applicant on DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . Reiterating the reasoning in the first - instance judgment , ORG considered that the NORP courts did not in any event have territorial jurisdiction . The relevant passages of ORG judgment read as follows :","\u201c QUANTITY In the absence of an ordinary forum , the problem must be addressed under section CARDINAL of the ORG , which concerns the forum of necessity ... Under the latter provision , where no forum is provided for in GPE by the ORG and where proceedings in another country prove impossible or one can not reasonable require that they be brought in that country , the NORP judicial or administrative authorities of the locality with which the case has a sufficient connection have jurisdiction .","The application of this rule for assigning jurisdiction thus calls for CARDINAL cumulative conditions to be met : firstly , the NORP authorities do not have jurisdiction under another provision ; secondly , legal proceedings in another country are impossible or can not reasonably be required ; and , thirdly , the case in question has a sufficient connection with GPE . In the present case , the first condition is indisputably fulfilled . Fulfilment of the second condition appears more problematic , but in the light of the third condition , which merits more extensive discussion , it is not necessary to elaborate further on this question .","CARDINAL LAW of the ORG , which must be interpreted restrictively ... represents a safety valve , intended to avoid denials of justice in the event of a negative conflict of jurisdiction .","In this connection , ORG , in its authoritative interpretation of this provision , noted that \u201c there are cases that have such a tenuous connection with GPE that it is not appropriate to set in motion the entire judicial system in order to resolve them . However , section CARDINAL lays down an exception to this principle . The NORP authorities must assume jurisdiction even in cases where the connection with our country is very tenuous , where it is impossible to bring proceedings or to lodge an appeal abroad . It is for the claimant or the appellant to demonstrate this impossibility . Where this evidence has been adduced , jurisdiction reverts to the authority of the locality with which the case has a sufficient connection . Where there are several competing fora in GPE , it is the first authority before which an action is brought that has jurisdiction . Clearly , the impossibility of bringing and pursuing proceedings abroad can only be examined in the light of the tangible circumstances and of the possible consequences for the individual concerned in the particular case ; it will ultimately be for the court to recognise , or not , its jurisdiction \u201d ....","Although section CARDINAL ORG may thus seem innately paradoxical insofar as proceedings for which there is no basis for connection with an ordinary forum in GPE are , ipso facto , lacking in any particular connection with this country , in such a way that determining a \u201c sufficient connection \u201d may prove challenging , and the aim pursued by DATE to prevent a formal denial of justice \u2013 is difficult to achieve , this legal provision has not in practice been without effect ; the cantonal courts in particular have recognised its applicability it in the areas of family law , inheritance and proceedings on debt - enforcement and bankruptcy ...","Moreover , legal writers have noted that the subsidiary forum must necessarily be recognised in situations of political persecution ... In contrast , the case - law and legal writings shed scarcely any light with regard to a civil action for compensation in respect of damage resulting from crimes against humanity , life and physical integrity , committed aboard , by foreign perpetrators .","... In the present case , however , the claimant complains of acts of torture that were allegedly committed in GPE , by NORP resident in GPE , against a NORP residing in GPE . All of the specific features of the case come back to GPE , except for the fact of residence in GPE at the relevant time . The facts of the case thus have no connection with GPE , so that the question of whether or not the link with this country is sufficient does not arise . In those circumstances , it is not possible to recognise the jurisdiction of the NORP courts , short of disregarding the clear text of [ section ] CARDINAL of the LDIP [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] . The fact that the claimant then chose to come to GPE can not change anything , since it is a fact subsequent to the events of the case and , moreover , does not form part of it .","...","Since the absence of a sufficient connection between the facts of the case and GPE suffices to establish the NORP courts\u2019 lack of jurisdiction , the appeal must be dismissed , without it being necessary to examine the issue of immunity from jurisdiction . \u201d","On DATE ORG gave its consent to the applicant \u2019s naturalisation , and this was confirmed by the town of GPE on DATE following a favourable opinion from the GPE of GPE of DATE . It was subsequently confirmed by the authorisation issued by ORG on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156518","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF S\u00d5RO v. ESTONIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","DATE GPE lost its independence as a result of LAW between GPE and ORG ( also known as \u201c Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact \u201d ) , concluded on DATE , and the secret additional protocols to it . Following an ultimatum to set up NORP military bases in GPE in DATE , a large - scale entry of the NORP army into GPE took place in DATE . The lawful government of the country was overthrown and NORP rule was imposed by force . Interrupted by the NORP occupation in DATE , GPE remained occupied by GPE until its restoration of independence in DATE ( see PERSON and GPE v. GPE DATE . ) , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALI , and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) . After the independence of GPE was restored on DATE , NORP troops remained in the country . Following the dissolution of GPE , GPE assumed jurisdiction over the NORP armed forces . On DATE GPE and GPE concluded a treaty on the withdrawal of NORP troops from GPE and the conditions under which they could reside temporarily in GPE . Under the terms of the treaty , GPE undertook to withdraw from GPE , by DATE , all military personnel who were in active service with the NORP armed forces ( see GPE v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALXII ( extracts ) ; PERSON v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; and PERSON v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .","After the regaining of independence GPE carried out comprehensive legislative reforms for transition from a totalitarian regime to a democratic system and for rectifying injustices . On DATE the LAW ( ORG p\u00f5hiseadus ) and LAW ( PERSON rakendamise seadus ) were adopted by a referendum . LAW provided that until DATE , persons standing in elections or seeking certain high positions , such as those of ministers or judges , or any other elected or appointed position in an agency of the national government or a local authority , had to take a written oath of conscience ( s\u00fc\u00fcmevanne ) affirming that they had not been in the service or agents of security , intelligence or counterintelligence services of countries which had occupied GPE . On DATE the PERSON ( ORG ) adopted the Procedure for Taking Oath of Conscience Act ( NORP s\u00fc\u00fcmevande andmise korra kohta ) .","NORP In order to ensure national security of GPE , persons having been in the service of or having collaborated with the security , intelligence or counterintelligence services of the countries which had occupied GPE , had to be ascertained . Such a security authority was first and foremost ORG of the GPE and its local arm , ORG ( also known as \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . However , the most sensitive of the ORG materials were removed from GPE and the government committee set up by the NORP authorities to liquidate the ORG managed to get hold of documents of mainly historical value .","On DATE the Riigikogu adopted the Procedure for the Collection , Recording , Preservation and Use of the Materials of Other States\u2019 Security and ORG which Have ORG in GPE ( ORG tegutsenud teiste riikide julgeoleku- ja luureorganite materjalide kogumise , arvelev\u00f5tmise , s\u00e4ilitamise ja kasutamise DATE ) which established the obligation to hand over for preservation to ORG the materials in question .","On DATE ORG for ORG GPE and GPE in GPE submitted to the Riigikogu a draft decision proposing the Government to initiate , by DATE at the latest , LAW on the Procedure for Registration and Disclosure of Persons who Have Served in or Co - operated with ORG or ORG which Have Occupied GPE . On DATE the Riigikogu adopted the proposed decision .","As the Government did not submit LAW by the time requested by ORG , on DATE ORG itself decided to initiate LAW in issue .","On DATE the PERSON passed the Procedure for Registration and Disclosure of Persons who Have Served in or Co - operated with ORG or ORG which Have LAW ( Eestit okupeerinud riikide julgeolekuorganite v\u00f5i relvaj\u00f5udude luure- v\u00f5i vastuluureorganite teenistuses olnud v\u00f5i nendega koost\u00f6\u00f6d teinud isikute arvelev\u00f5tmise ja avalikustamise korra seadus ) ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) . According to LAW , the persons in question were to be registered by ORG ( Kaitsepolitseiamet ) . Information about such ORG service or co - operation was to be made public unless they themselves made a pertinent confession about that to ORG within DATE from the entry into force of LAW . LAW entered into force on DATE .","According to the information provided by the ORG , CARDINAL persons submitted a confession under LAW by DATE . For the first time , names of the persons subject to disclosure were published in PERSON Lisa ( Appendix to ORG ) on DATE . From DATE until DATE , on CARDINAL occasions , the names of a total of CARDINAL persons were published in PERSON . Among them there were CARDINAL drivers , of whom CARDINAL had advanced to higher positions during their career in the ORG .","On DATE the PERSON made a statement declaring the NORP communist regime which in its view committed crimes \u2013 including genocide , war crimes and crimes against humanity \u2013 during the occupation , as well as the bodies of GPE , such as ORG , ORG , ORG and others , which forcefully executed the regime , and their activities to be criminal . The statement emphasised that this did \u201c not mean collective liability of their members and employees . Each individual \u2019s liability [ was determined by ] his or her specific activities , an ethical assessment of which should be made first and foremost by each person himself or herself \u201d . PERSON also noted that the threat of the repetition of such crimes had not disappeared and that the regimes relying on extremist ideologies threatened the World peace and free development of the people until their criminal nature was fully disclosed and condemned .","On DATE the Riigikogu passed the Persons Repressed by Occupying Powers Act ( CARDINAL poolt represseeritud isiku seadus ) aimed at alleviating the injustices committed against persons who were unlawfully repressed by the GPE that occupied GPE DATE and DATE . Certain pension rights and other benefits were foreseen to the persons who fell under the LAW in question .","DATE the applicant was employed as a driver by ORG .","On DATE the applicant was invited to ORG and presented with a notice according to which he had been registered pursuant to LAW . It was stated in the notice that a pertinent announcement would be published in PERSON and the text of the announcement was set out . Furthermore , it was mentioned in it that the person concerned had the right , within DATE of the receipt of the notice , to have access to the documents proving his or her links to the security , intelligence of counterintelligence organisations , and to contest the information contained in the notice before ORG or a court . The applicant signed a document stating that he had received the notice .","According to the applicant his request to be shown the material gathered in respect of him was not met whereas he was told that he could lodge a complaint against the notice with an administrative court within DATE . According to the Government the applicant \u2019s argument , that he could not examine the documents on which the notice had been based , was declaratory , unproved and wrong .","On DATE an announcement was published both in the paper and Internet version of PERSON . It read as follows :","Hereby ORG announces that pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of the Procedure for Registration and Disclosure of Persons who Have Served in or Co - operated with ORG or ORG which Have LAW ORG has registered the following persons .","...","MIHHAIL PERSON ( born on CARDINAL , GPE , GPE , GPE rural municipality ) \u2013 AS ORG bus driver","Committee for State Security of the NORP SSR [ , ] GPE department DATE driver [ , ] DATE","Committee for State Security of the NORP SSR [ , ] PERSON branch \u2013 driver [ , ] DATE CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL \u201d","In the Internet version , which had legal force equal to that of the paper version , the announcements of ORG were published under the following section title : \u201c Copies of announcements of ORG about persons who have served in intelligence or counterintelligence organisations of the former GPE to be published in PERSON . \u201d","NORP The applicant raised the issue with the Chancellor of Justice ( \u00d5iguskantsler ) who , having analysed the matter and sought additional information from ORG , addressed the PERSON with a report , dated DATE , where he concluded that LAW was unconstitutional in so far as all employees of the security and intelligence organisations were made public with no exception made in respect of the personnel who merely performed technical tasks not related to the main functions of the organisations . He further found that LAW was unconstitutional in that the person \u2019s place of employment at the time of the publication of the announcement was also made public .","The Constitutional Law Committee of the PERSON disagreed with the assessment of the Chancellor of Justice .","After the applicant had again addressed the Chancellor of ORG , the latter replied by a letter of DATE that he had not deemed necessary to initiate constitutional review proceedings in respect of LAW . The Chancellor of Justice had in the meantime been briefed by ORG about the practice according to which the persons who had performed merely technical tasks were not being made public .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He asked that the court declare the text published in PERSON Lisa unlawful and oblige ORG delete the word okupant ( occupier , invader ) and add the word endine ( former ) . In that way the information that he had been a foreign invader occupying GPE from DATE could be disproved . He noted that he had never been accused of or provided with any evidence showing that he had participated in the forceful occupation of the NORP territory as a member of the armed forces of a foreign country or participated in the exercise of the occupation powers . He disagreed having been associated with the crimes committed by the employees of security organisations of the NORP GPE and the NORP regime and argued that a person could only be held individually accountable for his own acts but that principle was ignored by LAW . He asserted that he had only worked for ORG as a driver and knew nothing about gathering information . As a result of the publication of the announcement the applicant had lost his work and he had been a victim of groundless accusations by third parties . He was being called an occupier ( okupant ) and an informant ( koputaja ) and it was being said that \u201c he [ was ] not a proper man \u201d if ORG dealt with him .","At ORG hearing on DATE the applicant submitted , inter alia , that he had in the meantime changed his employment but was , at the time of the court hearing , back in the bus company where he had previously worked .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . It noted that the applicant had failed to contest the notice which he had been presented with by ORG on DATE . Accordingly , the notice had been made public pursuant to LAW . ORG concluded that the publication of the announcement had become possible because of the applicant \u2019s inaction as he had failed to contest the notice and disprove the information it contained . The information contained in the published announcement corresponded to the information which the applicant had previously been presented with .","ORG further verified that in the Internet version of PERSON Lisa the announcements of ORG were published under the section title \u201c Copies of announcements of ORG about persons who have served in intelligence or counterintelligence organisations of the former GPE to be published in PERSON Lisa \u201d and , thus , the notion \u201c former \u201d ( endine ) also applied to the announcement concerning the applicant . Furthermore , the word \u201c occupier \u201d ( okupant ) had not been used in respect of the applicant . ORG did not establish that the publication of the announcement was unlawful or violated the applicant \u2019s rights .","ORG found that the applicant \u2019s request for the review of the constitutionality of LAW would have been pertinent in case he would have contested the notice issued on DATE . The applicant had been informed that pursuant to LAW he had the right , within DATE , to familiarise himself with the documents and contest the information contained in the notice before ORG or a court . Thus , the law had given him a possibility to immediately counter the information gathered . If a court then would have reviewed the issue of the constitutionality of LAW , ORG would have been obliged to proceed with the publishing or to refrain from it , depending on the results of the review . In the circumstances at hand , however , the announcement had been published and the notice no . CARDINAL of DATE , which it had been based on , was lawful .","ORG also noted that the applicant had not produced any evidence to disprove the information published . The applicant himself had confirmed that he had worked as a driver of the former ORG of the NORP SSR .","The applicant appealed arguing that after the publication of the announcement he had become a victim of groundless mocking and had to quit his work . He had sustained substantial pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . He pointed out that the notice of CARDINAL DATE had not caused him any negative results . Rather , what had been of importance was the publication of the announcement in PERSON on DATE . He maintained that in the published announcement he had been depicted as an occupier of ORG . It remained unclear , however , which acts he had committed against GPE and in what way these acts had been criminal . His work as a driver of ORG had been of a merely technical nature and had in fact not been directed against ORG .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . ORG considered that the fact that a person did not contest the initial notice before its publication did not deprive him of a right to lodge a complaint against the publication of the announcement in PERSON . It also considered that the implementation of LAW could in some circumstances involve indirect interference with a person \u2019s fundamental rights caused by the acts of third parties as the person \u2019s reputation could be damaged as a result of the disclosure of his relations with the NORP security organisations . However , in the case in question the interference was in conformity with the LAW .","ORG found as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . ... The Chancellor of ORG established in his proceedings that according to the defendant \u2019s administrative practice information about the merely technical employees was not , by way of exception , disclosed . According to the assessment of ORG , the [ applicant ] can not demand an exception to be made in respect of him . According to the assessment of the defendant , drivers of the security and intelligence organisations were related to the performance of the NORP substantial tasks ... The court has no ground to take a different position in this question relating to the security risks . ORG can not establish decades later with absolute certainty whether a specific driver performed merely technical or also substantial tasks . Thus , one has to proceed from the possibility that a ORG driver may also pose a potential security risk and the disclosure of the information about him may be in the public interests . Therefore , it is proportionate to apply the [ LAW ] in respect of the persons who worked as drivers in the security or intelligence organisations . Thereby account must be taken of the fact that the publication of the announcement and the indirect interferences caused by that were not inevitably foreseen by law ; the [ applicant ] could have prevented these consequences by making a confession pursuant to ... the [ LAW ] . \u201d","In respect of the applicant \u2019s complaint about the use of the language in the text of the announcement ORG noted that the word \u201c to occupy \u201d had not referred to the applicant but rather to a ORG ( former GPE ) . Nor had the applicant been treated as a person co - operating with ORG ( an informant or a sneak ) but rather as its staff member . In the announcement the period of the applicant \u2019s employment had also been indicated . There was nothing to imply that he was accused of continuous contact with an intelligence or security organisation of a foreign country . The defendant was not responsible for arbitrary conclusions that third parties may have drawn from the announcement . Lastly , ORG considered that it was proportionate to publish the current places of work of the persons concerned , inter alia , in order to avoid confusion in the public that might otherwise arise in respect of persons with identical or similar names .","On DATE ORG declined to hear an appeal lodged by the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179411","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF D\u0130K v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Ledi Bianku;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","Relying on PERSON no . CARDINAL on Compensation of the Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Measures Taken against Terrorism , the applicant applied to the compensation commission and requested to be awarded compensation due to forced evacuation from his village . His request was rejected . Subsequently , he initiated proceedings before the PERSON administrative court to have the said decision annulled . Relying on documents attesting to his poor financial status , the applicant requested legal aid to pay the court fees . On DATE the administrative court rejected the applicant \u2019s legal aid request . He was notified that he had to pay CARDINAL NORP Liras ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in court fees within DATE to continue the proceedings and that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings . As the applicant failed to pay the court fees within the time - limit , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , ORG sent further warning letters and ordered the applicant to pay the court fees .","On DATE the court decided to discontinue the proceedings since the necessary court fees were not deposited with the registry of the court . ORG upheld the judgment on DATE . Subsequently , the administrative court decided to discontinue the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167180","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"GAUNT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented by PERSON K. O\u2019Rourke of ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was a presenter with PERSON , a speech - based radio station . He presented a programme which covered a range of news issues and he was well - known for his \u201c combative and hard - hitting \u201d style with interviewees .","On DATE the applicant conducted a live interview with PERSON , the ORG Member for ORG for ORG . The interview concerned the council \u2019s proposal to ban smokers from becoming foster parents on the ground that passive smoking could harm foster children . The applicant had spent some of his childhood in the care system and on TIME of the interview an article written by him on the subject was published in The PERSON newspaper . The article was headlined \u201c NORP did n\u2019t stop my foster mum caring for me \u201d . The following extract is relevant to the present proceedings :","\u201c TIME in GPE CARDINAL children wo n\u2019t have a special person to tuck them in at TIME , read them a story or take an interest in what happened during DATE at school .","Meanwhile , the zealots who dreamed up this policy will sleep easy on their futons because they are putting the \u2018 health needs\u2019 of kids in care first .","This is the same warped logic that condemns black children to a life in care rather than let them be fostered by white couples .","The same master race philosophy that forbids fat couples from adopting .","The SS DATE that is social services by the way \u2013 think that the risk from passive smoking is more dangerous to a child than them being left to rot in a children \u2019s home .","They should understand that most parents realise the dangers and would n\u2019t smoke in an enclosed space with children around .","Foster parents are no different .","The woman who rescued me from care , and undoubtedly turned me around as a child , smoked like a chimney but she was also a hospital matron .","She lavished love , care and , most importantly , discipline on me .","Without her I would n\u2019t be where I am DATE ...","DATE it \u2019s GPE but , unless we all make a noise now , DATE it will be a national policy and CARDINAL more children will fall victim to the health and safety NORP and be left alone in a care home . \u201d","Prior to the applicant \u2019s interview with PERSON , he was warned by PERSON that the subject might be emotive for him . In fact , in TIME before the interview programming staff advised him on CARDINAL occasions to remain calm and allow PERSON to put his point of view across .","The applicant \u2019s radio interview with PERSON lasted TIME . In the proceedings which followed , the President of ORG summarised the interview in the terms set out below :","\u201c The first part of the interview was reasonably controlled , giving [ GPE ] a reasonable opportunity to explain his council \u2019s policy . The claimant then asked him about existing foster parents who only ever smoke in the open air . [ PERSON ] explained that the council would not drag children away from existing foster parents , but that such smokers would not be used in the future . The trouble was that such people do smoke in the house . Asked by the claimant how he knew this , [ GPE ] explained that there were GPE councillors who say they never smoke in the building , but in fact do so . To which the claimant said \u2018 so you are a NORP then?\u2019 When [ GPE ] began to protest , the claimant again said \u2018 no you are , you \u2019re a Nazi\u2019 . [ GPE ] protested vehemently that this was an offensive and insulting remark , and the interview then degenerated into an unseemly slanging match . When [ PERSON ] protested that the insult , as he saw it , was probably actionable , the claimant challenged him to \u2018 take action if you wish\u2019 , but then said \u2018 you \u2019re a health Nazi\u2019 . The slanging match continued with the claimant asking [ PERSON ] if he wanted to carry on with the interview , and [ GPE ] replying that he would love to if the claimant would just shut up for TIME . It emerged that the claimant had himself been in care . He referred to his column in The LOC DATE and again called [ GPE ] a \u2018 health Nazi\u2019 and then \u2018 a Nazi\u2019 . The heated shouting continued with the claimant doing much of the talking . [ GPE ] asked him just to shut up for a moment , and said in effect that the conditions of those in care were better than they had been . The claimant regarded this as an offensive insult to his own upbringing and called [ GPE ] \u2018 you ignorant pig\u2019 . He later referred to him as a \u2018 health fascist\u2019 and an \u2018 ignorant ORG , and shortly after this he ended an interview that by then had got completely out of control .","It is scarcely possible to convey the general and particular tone of this interview in a short written summary , and the full transcript is in this respect incomplete . You have to hear it for its full impact . As we have said , it degenerated into a shouting match from the point when the claimant first called [ GPE ] \u2018 a Nazi\u2019 . That first insult was not said with particular vehemence , but \u2018 you ignorant pig\u2019 was said with considerable venom and was we think gratuitously offensive . The interview as a whole can fairly be described as a rant . \u201d","Within TIME of the interview , the applicant apologised to the listeners , accepting that he did not \u201c hold it together \u201d , that he had been \u201c unprofessional \u201d and that he had \u201c lost the rag \u201d . TIME after the end of the broadcast , he made a further apology in the following terms :","\u201c The Councillor wants me to apologise for calling him a NORP . I \u2019m sorry for calling you a NORP . \u201d","The applicant was suspended from his programme by PERSON DATE and an internal investigation was launched . PERSON subsequently terminated his contract without notice by letter dated CARDINAL DATE .","Following the broadcast , ORG , the independent regulator and competition authority for the GPE communications industries , received CARDINAL complaints about the applicant \u2019s conduct . Some of the complaints concerned the manner in which the interview had been conducted , as the complainants believed that it was an \u201c unprovoked personal attack \u201d , and that the applicant was \u201c oppressive \u201d , \u201c intimidating \u201d , and \u201c shouting like a playground bully \u201d . Other complainants were offended by the word \u201c NORP \u201d .","ORG launched an investigation into the matter under LAW . In its response to ORG , PERSON stated that it regretted what had happened and accepted that the interview \u201c fell way below the acceptable broadcasting standards which it expected and demanded \u201d . It totally accepted and regretted that the applicant \u2019s language had been offensive and that the manner in which the interview was conducted had been indefensible .","NORP In a report published on DATE , ORG concluded that the broadcast had breached LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as it fell short of the generally accepted standards applied to broadcast content and included offensive material which was not justified by the context . In reaching this conclusion , ORG took into account the right of broadcasters to hold opinions and impart information without interference ; the fact that PERSON specialised in a genre of hardhitting talk radio which could at times prove uncomfortable and challenging listening ; the fact that the broadcast of \u201c offensive \u201d material was not in itself a breach of ORG \u2019s code as the Code did not prohibit the broadcasting of offensive material ; the extremely aggressive tone of the applicant \u2019s interview style on this occasion ; and the seriousness which the broadcaster attached to the incident , as demonstrated by its prompt investigation and the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL on - air apologies . Nevertheless , it found that PERSON \u2019s compliance procedures did not appear robust enough to deal with problematic material being broadcast live . Moreover :","\u201c the language used by PERSON , and the manner in which he treated [ GPE ] , had the potential to cause offence to many listeners \u201d","and","\u201c the offensive language used to describe [ GPE ] , and what would be considered to be a persistently bullying and hectoring approach taken by PERSON towards his guest , exceeded the expectations of the audience for this programme , despite listeners being accustomed to a robust level of debate from this particular presenter . Even taking into account the context of this programme such as the nature of the service , the audience expectations and the editorial content , ORG did not consider that this was sufficient justification for the offensive material . The broadcaster therefore failed to comply with generally accepted standards in breach of LAW and CARDINAL of the Code . \u201d","No sanction or penalty was imposed either on PERSON or the applicant other than the publication of the decision .","The applicant was granted leave to judicially review ORG \u2019s decision on the ground that it disproportionately interfered with his freedom of expression and infringed his rights under LAW Liberty intervened in the proceedings to support the applicant \u2019s claim .","Although ORG \u2019s decision was against the broadcaster , which had acknowledged that there had been a breach of the LAW , ORG judge noted that the parties had ( in his view , rightly ) accepted that the applicant had standing to challenge it because it \u201c enunciates an inhibition capable of affecting his unrestrained freedom to conduct radio interviews in the way in which he did on this occasion \u201d .","As the applicant did not contend that LAW itself violated LAW , the narrow question for the court to address was whether ORG \u2019s findings had disproportionately interfered with the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW . The judge noted at the outset that the unchallenged statutory basis for ORG \u2019s finding meant that it was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of others . With regard to the question of necessity , the judge accepted that as the broadcast was live the applicant had had no opportunity to edit or correct what he said once he had said it . Moreover , the subject of the interview was political and controversial and the person being interviewed was an elected politician who would expect to receive and tolerate a \u201c rough ride \u201d . It was therefore an interview where the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression should be accorded a high degree of protection . Nevertheless , his freedom of expression did not extend to gratuitous , offensive insult or abuse without contextual content or justification . Applying these principles and giving due weight to ORG \u2019s judgment , the judge considered that to call someone a \u201c NORP \u201d was capable of being highly insulting . It accepted , however , that in the present case the first use of the word could have had some contextual justification , especially in light of the applicant \u2019s use of it in his newspaper article , and could therefore be seen as an emphatic and pejorative assertion that GPE was , in the matter of smoking and fostering children , one who imposes his views on others . Nevertheless , the court noted that after the applicant used the word , the interview degenerated and the applicant \u2019s conduct of it became increasingly abusive , hectoring and out of control . His subsequent use of the word \u201c NORP \u201d undoubtedly assumed the nature of undirected abuse and the expression \u201c ignorant pig \u201d was said \u201c with such venom as to constitute gratuitous offensive abuse \u201d . As a consequence the later part of the interview became abusive shouting which served to convey to listeners no real content at all .","The judge therefore concluded that , taking full account of the applicant \u2019s LAW rights , ORG was justified in its conclusion . The broadcast was highly offensive to CARDINAL and well capable of offending the broadcasting public . Moreover , its offensive and abusive nature was gratuitous , having no factual content or justification . As a consequence , the judge accepted that ORG \u2019s finding constituted no material interference with the applicant \u2019s freedom of expression at all . In this regard , he found it relevant , but not decisive , that no sanction or penalty was imposed on the broadcaster , let alone the applicant .","The applicant appealed to ORG . With regard to the applicant \u2019s standing , the court reiterated that it was \u201c accepted that he had locus standi to [ challenge ORG \u2019s finding ] , unsurprisingly since it is obviously possible that the finding may have had an adverse impact on him and on his reputation as a journalist \u201d .","ORG accepted that there were a number of facts which supported the proposition that a tribunal should be slow to hold that what was said in an interview offended the provisions of paragraphs CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code : first , the interview in question was concerned with an issue of general public interest ; secondly , the interview was a live discussion and was not pre - recorded ; thirdly , the applicant was well known to be a hard - hitting and robust interviewer ; and fourthly , the interviewee was a politician and he made no subsequent complaint . However , these factors did not mean that the interview could not be susceptible to a finding that it fell foul of CARDINAL of the Code .","In considering whether or not the interview offended paragraphs CARDINAL the court considered it as a whole and in its context . It accepted that it would be wrong to focus too hard individually , let alone exclusively , on specific insults such as \u201c health NORP \u201d and \u201c ignorant pig \u201d , the applicant \u2019s hectoring tone and bullying manner , his persistent interruptions , his failure to let PERSON answer questions , or his treating one or more innocuous comments by PERSON as an insult . All those points had to be considered , together with the fact that the interview was permitted to run on for TIME after it had become clear that it had got out of hand .","Nevertheless , the court concluded that the combination of the CARDINAL concerns identified in the preceding paragraph rendered it impossible to accept that ORG \u2019s finding , which contained no sanction other than the publication of the decision , represented an interference with the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW . Although the topic covered was of public interest , this point was of limited force in the context of an interview where the interviewee was not permitted to express his views or reasons . Moreover , while the interview was broadcast live , the applicant was not an inexperienced interviewee being provoked in the heat of the moment ; rather , he was an experienced interviewer who had plainly decided to embark on a particularly aggressive assault on GPE and his opinions . The fact that his style of interviewing was well known did not render the interview acceptable ; nor did PERSON \u2019s failure to complain . The court therefore concluded that ORG was right to find that PERSON had infringed paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code .","Finally , with regard to the severity of the sanction , the court noted that ORG could have decided that the complaint had been resolved instead of finding that there had been a breach of the LAW . However , it had rejected this option since this was not a case of inadvertent error , as PERSON had allowed the interview to continue for TIME after it plainly got out of control , and there had been CARDINAL previous findings against PERSON where producers had lost control of an interview or discussion .","That being said , having concluded that ORG rightly found that PERSON had infringed paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code , the court found it impossible to contend that ORG \u2019s decision to impose no other sanction than the publication of the report \u201c even got near being disproportionate \u201d . Furthermore , the court noted that from the point of view of the applicant , he had been dismissed before ORG \u2019s finding was published and there was no suggestion that he had lost work or that his reputation as a journalist had been damaged .","The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","The applicant applied for leave to appeal to ORG . ORG refused permission in a decision dated DATE , sent to the applicant under cover of a letter dated DATE .","Broadcasting standards are governed by LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) , which requires them to be implemented , supervised and enforced by ORG .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(e ) of the DATE Act places a duty on ORG to secure the application by all television and radio stations of standards that \u201c provide adequate protection to members of the public from the inclusion of offensive and harmful material \u201d in broadcast programmes .","Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act obliges ORG to set up a \u201c standards code \u201d for radio and television services which is \u201c calculated to secure \u201d the so - called \u201c standards objectives \u201d . These objectives include , at section MONEY ) , that \u201c generally accepted standards are applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of offensive and harmful material \u201d . ORG is also obliged by LAW to \u201c establish procedures for handling and resolution of complaints about the observance of [ those ] standards \u201d .","This code , known as LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , states in terms that it has been drafted in the light of the right to freedom of expression as expressed in LAW , which encompasses a broadcaster \u2019s right to disseminate , and an audience \u2019s right to receive , creative material , information and ideas without interference , but subject to restrictions prescribed by law and necessary in a NORP society .","Paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the LAW provides that generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and\/or offensive materials . Paragraph CARDINAL of the PERSON states that , in applying generally accepted standards , broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context . Such material may include , among other material , offensive language .","Section CARDINAL of the Broadcasting Act CARDINAL precludes ORG from entertaining a complaint of unfair treatment unless made by the person affected or by a person authorised by him to make the complaint for him .","Pursuant to sections CARDINAL \u2013 CARDINAL of LAW DATE , where there has been a breach of the Code ORG could take a range of possible measures : publish its finding indicating that a breach of the LAW has taken place ; direct that the broadcaster transmits a correction or a statement of ORG \u2019s finding ; impose a financial penalty on the broadcaster ; or shorten , suspend or revoke the broadcaster \u2019s licence ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174401","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SERGEYEVA AND PROLETARSKAYA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The first applicant is a sister of PERSON , who died of AIDS in ORG in GPE on DATE .","The second applicant is the mother of Mr P. , who died of the same disease in the same hospital on DATE .","The applicants live in GPE .","On DATE Mr B. was arrested on suspicion of robbery . DATE LOC of GPE authorised his detention pending investigation . He was then taken to remand prison no . ORG in LOC . DATE he was diagnosed with HIV .","In DATE Mr B. was transferred to remand prison no . IZCARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE . On admission he informed the prison doctor about his HIV status . A relevant entry was made in his medical file , but no treatment was prescribed .","On DATE the ORG of GPE convicted PERSON and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . In DATE he was sent to serve the sentence in correctional colony no . MONEY in LOC .","Having complained of abdominal pain , on DATE PERSON was admitted to the prison hospital , where he was later diagnosed with tuberculosis of the peripheral lymph nodes . It was decided that he should stay in the hospital for tuberculosis treatment .","On DATE Mr B. was seen by an infectious diseases doctor , who ordered a CDCARDINAL count to be conducted . The test , performed DATE , showed that the level of CDCARDINAL cells was CARDINAL cells \/ mmCARDINAL , which corresponded to an advanced stage of the disease .","On DATE and DATE the infectious diseases doctor visited Mr B. According to the medical records , the latter asked for antiretroviral therapy . In response , the doctor \u201c gave him a talk \u201d . No HIV treatment was prescribed .","On DATE Mr B. was discharged from the prison hospital . Until DATE he was transferred from CARDINAL prison medical facility to another for anti - tuberculosis treatment . Although the treatment was successful , the patient \u2019s overall medical condition continued to deteriorate . Medical specialists interpreted that as a sign of progressing HIV .","On DATE Mr B. was admitted to prison hospital no . RB-CARDINAL in GPE . At that time he was unable to walk , was feverish and extremely emaciated . DATE he was transferred to an infectious diseases unit . His doctor alleged that his grave medical condition resulted from a lack of highly active antiretroviral therapy ( ORG ) . Mr B. was prescribed antibacterial and disintoxication therapy .","On DATE the medical authorities applied for PERSON early release on medical grounds . DATE the Medvezhyegorsk Town Court of GPE granted the request . On DATE Mr B. was released from detention .","On DATE Mr B. was admitted to ORG in GPE . He did not regain consciousness and died there on DATE .","On DATE Mr P. was convicted of theft and sentenced to a term of imprisonment . He was taken into police custody and DATE sent to remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE .","During the admission procedure he told the resident doctor that in DATE he had been diagnosed with HIV , which by DATE had progressed to AIDS . Before his arrest he had been receiving antiretroviral therapy . He was also suffering from hepatitis B , C , and D and a skin disease .","Having undergone a routine medical examination , on DATE Mr P. was diagnosed with infiltrative tuberculosis of the right lung . A standard drug regimen was prescribed and administered to him in the prison medical unit . A chest X - ray examination carried out on DATE showed a decrease in the area of the lung affected by the tuberculosis .","PERSON was convicted of robbery in another set of criminal proceedings and on DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . He was sent to prison medical facility no . CARDINAL in GPE .","PERSON medical condition worsened . The result of a sputum culture test performed on DATE was smear - positive . By DATE Mr P. \u2019s tuberculosis had developed resistance to CARDINAL of the drugs he had been taking . Following a decision of the prison medical board on DATE , his drug regimen was adjusted .","On DATE PERSON was admitted to prison hospital no . RB-CARDINAL in GPE , where the tuberculosis treatment continued as prescribed . It appears that the change in medication improved the patient \u2019s lung condition . However , doctors noted a further development of opportunistic infections . A viral load test was performed , the results of which , as alleged by the second applicant , were not given to PERSON","On DATE PERSON returned to the prison medical facility . PERSON examinations carried out on DATE and CARDINAL DATE showed that the condition of PERSON lungs had improved . The results of a smear test proved negative . On DATE PERSON was sent back to a regular prison ward . His treatment continued .","On DATE at the request of PERSON , ORG of GPE ordered his release on parole . Having been released on DATE , PERSON was taken to ORG . He died in the hospital on DATE from \u201c an illness caused by the HIV infection \u201d .","On DATE and DATE a NORP non - governmental organisation , ORG , complained to ORG of the lack of HIV treatment for detainees , including PERSON and PERSON The complaint was referred to the prosecutor \u2019s office in GPE .","In a letter to ORG dated DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office in GPE observed that in DATE and DATE prison authorities in GPE had experienced difficulties with providing medical assistance to HIV - infected convicts in view of the fact that a large number of infected inmates had been sent to the Republic from other regions . The prosecutor \u2019s office said that the supply of drugs had been limited and the number of medical professionals had been insufficient , and acknowledged that the medical care of PERSON and PERSON had fallen short of the domestic standards . In particular , they had not received ORG . The prosecutor \u2019s office had sent the evidence it had gathered to the investigative committee in GPE to determine whether a criminal case should be opened .","On DATE the investigative authorities refused to open a criminal case into the deaths of Mr B. and Mr P. Citing the difficulties encountered by the prison authorities of GPE in DATE , including the large number of HIV - positive inmates , a lack of specialists trained to treat inmates suffering from that infection , the absence of an immunological laboratory and the lack of medication , the investigators concluded that the prison authorities had taken all possible measures to provide medical assistance to HIV - infected inmates . No causal link between the absence of HIV therapy and the deaths of PERSON and PERSON was established . The investigative authorities stressed that PERSON had managed to live in detention without the antiretroviral therapy for DATE and that PERSON had died DATE after his release . The conduct of the prison and medical authorities , in the ORG opinion , did not reveal any signs of a criminal offence .","The above decision was not challenged .","In DATE the applicants lodged a claim for non - pecuniary damages against ORG , arguing that their relatives\u2019 death from HIV had been caused by the authorities\u2019 failure to provide appropriate medical care .","On DATE the ORG of GPE examined the claim . It found that the burden of proof was on the applicants , who had to prove the unlawfulness of the prison officials\u2019 conduct , the alleged damage , and the causal links between the officials\u2019 conduct and that damage . Having noted the absence of a decision establishing a breach of the law by the prison authorities , and having referred to the decision not to open a criminal case into the deaths of the applicant \u2019s relatives , the court dismissed the claim as unsubstantiated .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal , fully endorsing ORG reasoning ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145787","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"EST","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF JAEGER v. ESTONIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence .","On DATE the applicant , who was serving his sentence in FAC , took a walk together with other detainees . When he entered the accommodation block , CARDINAL prison guards searched him in the stairwell of the building . According to the applicant he was requested to lower his trousers and underpants twice and lift his sexual organ . A guard felt his underpants to find out whether any tobacco products had been hidden therein . According to the applicant he was in the sight of other detainees , since the door to the stairwell where the search was carried out had a transparent window . Another door leading from the stairwell to a corridor of the accommodation block also had a transparent window and detainees or female prison officers could have seen him through it or entered the stairwell at any time .","The applicant claimed from the prison administration CARDINAL kroons ( EEK ) ( corresponding to MONEY ( ORG ) ) for the non - pecuniary damages he had allegedly sustained . He named CARDINAL of the detainees who had been behind him when he had entered the building and had been searched .","NORP The prison administration rejected the applicant \u2019s claim . Relying on the statements of CARDINAL of the prison guards involved , the administration found that the search had been conducted in private and not in the sight of other detainees . According to the prison guard \u2019s written statements , the detainees had entered the stairwell CARDINAL by CARDINAL . CARDINAL guard had searched their jackets and the other one had searched the detainees . In the event that they suspected a detainee , they had closed the door in order to create a private space and the detainee in question had been requested to lower his trousers . Only the detainee to be searched and CARDINAL guards had been in the stairwell .","The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He reiterated his claim , named CARDINAL detainees who had seen his search and included written statements from CARDINAL of them .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claim . It found reliable the statements of the prison guard , according to whom the applicant \u2019s privacy had been respected .","The applicant appealed to ORG . At ORG hearing he submitted that the windows of the doors to the stairwell had measured QUANTITY and that DATE after his complaint to ORG they had been covered by metal sheets to prevent other detainees from seeing the searches .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It established that the search had lasted for TIME at most and noted that the applicant had not been sure whether any other detainees had been in the stairwell . He had been unable to explain from where exactly the detainees named by him had seen his search . ORG concluded that his privacy had not been violated . It further found that in order to effectively manage a large number of detainees , the prison also had to have the possibility of carrying out a body search of a detainee , when necessary , in a location other than a private room designated for that purpose . In order to conduct such a search it was sufficient that the authorities had a suspicion that a detainee re - entering the building after a walk had hidden cigarettes \u2013 which were prohibited in prison DATE in his underwear .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It upheld ORG finding that the applicant \u2019s privacy had not been infringed and his dignity had not been diminished . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL judges delivered a separate opinion . He considered that it was not decisive whether the third persons had in fact seen the detainee \u2019s body search . It could not be presumed that a person who was being searched was able to establish at the same time whether the search had been seen , what exactly had been seen and by whom . When a body search was carried out in a situation and location where it was not guaranteed that third persons would not see the person \u2019s nudity , the person concerned was bound to feel that his privacy had not been respected and that other persons might have seen the procedure being performed . Such a situation damaged the person \u2019s dignity and could cause feelings of insecurity , anguish and degradation .","According to information provided by the ORG , the applicant had CARDINAL reprimands on record at the time of the search in question , including for unauthorised possession of a cigarette . From the date of the events at issue until DATE , CARDINAL further disciplinary punishments had been imposed on him , primarily for violations related to the possession of unauthorised items , mainly cigarettes ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180503","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF POLIKHOVICH v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly) read in the light of Article 10 - (Art. 10) Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to hold opinions)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE until his arrest .","The background facts relating to the planning , conduct and dispersal of the demonstration at FAC are set out in more detail in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , and GPE v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY , DATE ) . The parties\u2019 submissions on the circumstances directly relevant to the present case are set out below .","On DATE a public demonstration entitled the \u201c DATE of CARDINAL \u201d was held in central GPE to protest against the allegedly rigged presidential elections . The event had been approved by the city authorities in the form of a march followed by a meeting at FAC , which was supposed to end at TIME The march was peaceful and held without any disruptions , but when the marchers arrived at FAC it became apparent that barriers installed by the police had narrowed the entrance to the meeting venue , allegedly restricting the space allocated for the meeting . To control the crowd the police cordon forced the protestors to remain within the barriers ; there were numerous clashes between the CARDINAL sides . At TIME the police ordered the meeting to finish early and began to disperse the participants . It took them TIME to clear the square .","On DATE the GPE city department of ORG opened criminal proceedings to investigate suspected acts of mass disorder and violence against the police ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . On CARDINAL DATE the file was transferred to the headquarters of ORG for further investigation . On DATE an investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising acts of mass disorder ( LAW ) . The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined on DATE .","At the time of his arrest the applicant was a DATE student at ORG and worked part - time as a courier for an insurance company . According to him , on DATE he arrived at FAC to take part in the march and walked with other participants to FAC . Upon arrival there he discovered that the police cordon had blocked access to the square . When passage to the stage of the rally taking place along the embankment was opened , the applicant went in that direction . The police started to disperse the protesters , using excessive force and beating them with truncheons . In response , the protesters dragged metal barriers in place to protect themselves from the police . At CARDINAL point the applicant observed a protester in a green T - shirt , who CARDINAL or QUANTITY police officers were holding and beating with truncheons . He grabbed the protester and pulled him back , trying to protect him from the blows . The applicant was later arrested by the police and taken to a police station before being released shortly after . After the events in question he continued to live at his usual address and pursue his studies .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having participated in acts of mass disorder on DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be placed in pre - trial detention until DATE . It referred to the gravity of the charges and information about the applicant \u2019s character , including a report by ORG chief of department at ORG . According to that report , the applicant was an active member of organisations of a destructive character . If he were to stay at liberty , he planned to threaten witnesses , abscond and obstruct the investigation . The court concluded that those circumstances gave sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant was likely to flee to avoid the investigation and trial , destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the investigation of the criminal case , which was still at an initial stage .","On DATE charges were brought against the applicant under LAW ( participation in acts of mass disorder accompanied by violence ) . He was accused , in particular , of resisting police officers by pushing them away when they were arresting other protestors and by trying to liberate the latter .","On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE .","On DATE ORG examined an application from the investigator for an extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The applicant asked for the preventive measure to be changed to house arrest , a written undertaking not to leave a specified place , bail or personal guarantees . On DATE ORG granted the investigator \u2019s application and extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . It considered that the circumstances justifying the detention order had not changed .","On DATE Police Officer T. identified the applicant during an identification parade as a participant in mass disorder who had used violence against him . In particular , when ORG and other officers had been arresting a protester , the applicant had grabbed his hand and pulled it off the protestor , thereby causing the police officer pain . Another police officer , PERSON , also identified the applicant as a participant in acts of mass disorder who had tried to prevent the police arresting another protestor .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the extension order of DATE .","On DATE ORG granted an extension of the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE , essentially on the same grounds as earlier , noting that the circumstances justifying the detention order had not changed . In particular , it dismissed an objection from the applicant to the use of the operational - search reports concerning his character and rejected his contesting of the alleged membership of any organisations of a destructive nature .","On DATE and DATE the charges against the applicant were reformulated . It was stated that the applicant , who had been wearing a surgical mask to conceal his face , had used violence against the police while trying to liberate protestors who had been arrested and that he had pushed police officers away . In particular , he had grabbed Officer T. \u2019s hand and pulled it off a protester , thereby preventing his arrest . He had also built a line of metal barriers to block the police and had tried to repel the police with them . The applicant \u2019s alleged offences were classified additionally under LAW ( use of violence against a public official ) .","On DATE ORG granted a new extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , until DATE , essentially on the same grounds as before . On DATE ORG upheld the extension order .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s criminal case was transferred to the ORG of GPE for the determination of criminal charges .","On DATE that court granted another extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , until DATE . The decision concerned CARDINAL defendants . Along with the gravity of the charges , the court based its decision on the findings that \u201c the reasons which initially warranted the detention have not changed \u201d and that \u201c no other measures of restraint would secure the aims and goals of the judicial proceedings \u201d . The applicant \u2019s request for an alternative preventive measure was dismissed on the grounds that no other measure could secure the proper course of justice in the case . ORG upheld the extension order on DATE .","On DATE the ORG granted another extension of detention in respect of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant . It ordered their detention until DATE on the grounds of the gravity of the charges and the nature of the offences imputable to them . On DATE ORG upheld that extension order .","The applicant was held in GPE for the whole period of his pre - trial detention from DATE . According to him , the conditions of his detention had been poor . The applicant referred to cases against GPE in which the ORG had previously found a breach of LAW because of overcrowding in GPE in DATE ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and DATE , DATE ; ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and DATE , DATE ; and PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) . The applicant submitted that his conditions of detention had been similar .","NORP The applicant \u2019s description of the conditions of detention during his transfer from the remand prison to court and back and the Government \u2019s submissions in that regard were identical to those in the case of GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","As regards the conditions of detention in the convoy room of ORG , the applicant submitted that it was poorly lit and that access to the toilet was limited to once TIME . In addition , he had been required to strip naked and to perform sit - ups during the body search conducted in the convoy room .","On DATE court proceedings began in hearing room no . CARDINAL at ORG , moving at DATE to hearing room no . CARDINAL . The defendants , including the applicant , were held in glass cabins in both hearing rooms . From DATE to DATE the hearings continued at ORG of GPE in hearing room no . CARDINAL , while in DATE and DATE they took place at FAC in hearing room no . CARDINAL . Those hearing rooms were equipped with metal cages in which CARDINAL defendants ( CARDINAL from DATE ) , including the applicant , sat during the hearings .","For a detailed description of the conditions in those hearing rooms see GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the ORG of GPE began a preliminary hearing in a criminal case against CARDINAL participants in the demonstration at FAC , who were charged with participation in acts of mass disorder and committing acts of violence against police officers . On DATE the same court began the trial on the merits .","On DATE Police Officer T. , the alleged victim of the applicant \u2019s assault , was examined as a witness . He testified that the applicant had impeded him and CARDINAL other police officers from arresting a protester by grabbing T. \u2019s hand and pushing the officers away . The applicant had caused him pain but had not inflicted any injuries . During the hearing the applicant and his lawyers applied to deprive T. of victim status because no harm had been caused to him , but the court refused that request as unsubstantiated .","On DATE the Zamoskvoretsky District Court of GPE found the applicant guilty as charged . It held , in particular , as follows :","\u201c TIME on DATE ... at FAC ... unidentified persons ... called those present [ at the venue ] to move outside the agreed meeting venue , to defy the lawful orders of the police ... , to use violence ... which led to mass disorder accompanied by the use of violence against public officials in connection with the performance of their duties [ and ] the destruction of property .","On DATE at TIME at the latest [ the defendants ] acquired the criminal intent to participate in mass disorder and to use violence against ... police officers ...","Moreover ... the participants of the acts of mass disorder threw chunks of tarmac , stones , sticks and other objects at the police ... which hit them on various parts of their body , and [ the defendants ] ... [ who ] participated in the acts of mass disorder ... implemented their criminal intent to use violence against public officials ... applied physical force which was not a danger to the life or health of those [ officials ] ...","[ The applicant ] ... who was wearing a surgical mask to hide his face , together with unidentified persons ... tried to liberate those arrested by the police for a breach of public order and pushed the police officers away ...","... [ the applicant ] used violence against Police Officer [ T. ] which did not endanger his life or health ...","[ The applicant ] ... from TIME to TIME ... when unidentified participants of acts of mass disorder tried to break the police cordon , acting intentionally and using force , grabbed [ T. \u2019s ] hand and then pulled it off the person whom [ T. ] was arresting , thus impeding his apprehension , which caused [ T. ] pain .","In addition , [ the applicant ] together with unidentified persons ... built a line of metal barriers blocking the police \u2019s movements , and ... tried to repel the line of police officers ... with the help of those barriers .","[ The applicant ] pleaded not guilty and testified that ... he had decided to attend the public gathering on DATE ... for the purposes of personal security he wore a surgical mask ... [ The applicant ] was at the bridge when a blockage occurred . He did not see what was happening , but at CARDINAL point ... he had been able to proceed with the flow of people towards the stage . There [ the applicant ] saw the mass beating of people by police officers and participants of the rally starting to bring forward metal barriers ... and to put them close to the police officers , trying to protect themselves from the latter . [ The applicant ] was standing close to the barriers , taking his hands off when the police officers used their truncheons to hit over the barriers . Then ... [ the applicant ] saw a group of CARDINAL or QUANTITY police officers who were trying to seize a young man in a green T - shirt . They hit the man with their truncheons , and [ the applicant ] , considering that the man was in danger because the police actions were unlawful , tried to snatch him from the ORG hands . He grasped the young man \u2019s waistband , pulled it and turned his back to protect him from the truncheon blows . [ The applicant ] finds it conceivable that in this turmoil he might unintentionally have pushed someone and asks for attention to be paid to [ T. \u2019s ] statements that the latter did not feel any pain . Then [ the applicant ] was arrested and taken to a police vehicle .","... the court considers the [ defendants\u2019 ] arguments that they were protecting somebody from police officers or happened to be victims of the police \u2019s use of force as farfetched and aimed at the mitigation of their responsibility ... \u201d","The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , calculated on the basis of a DATE prison term under LAW , partly concurrent with a term of DATE and DATE under LAW . The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention counted towards the prison sentence .","The applicant appealed . He complained that the same acts imputed to him had been classified under both LAW and LAW . He insisted that he had not used violence against T. because the latter had not suffered any pain or injuries .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment ."],"violated_articles":["11","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157277","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ITA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF KHLAIFIA AND OTHERS v. ITALY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest;Prompt information);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Prohibition of torture);Violation of Article 13+P4-4 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 - Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens-{general};Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . Mr ORG ( the \u201c first applicant \u201d ) lives in GPE ( GPE ) ; PERSON GPE and PERSON ( the \u201c second applicant \u201d and the \u201c third applicant \u201d ) live in LOC ) .","On DATE and CARDINAL September CARDINAL the applicants \u2013 the first , then the second and third , respectively \u2013 left GPE with others on board rudimentary vessels heading for the NORP coast . After TIME at sea , their vessels were intercepted by the NORP coastguard , which escorted them to a port on the island of GPE . The applicants arrived on the island on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE respectively .","The applicants were transferred to an Early Reception and Aid Centre ( Centro di Soccorso e Prima Accoglienza \u2013 \u201c ORG \u201d ) at PERSON where , after giving them first aid , the authorities proceeded with their identification .","They were accommodated in a part of the centre reserved for adult NORP . According to the applicants , they were held in an overcrowded and dirty area and were obliged to sleep on the floor because of the shortage of available beds and the poor quality of the mattresses . Meals were eaten outside , sitting on the ground . The centre was kept permanently under police surveillance , making any contact with the outside world impossible .","The applicants remained in that centre until DATE , when a violent revolt broke out among the migrants . The premises were gutted by fire and the applicants were taken to a sports complex on GPE for the night . At dawn on QUANTITY DATE they managed , together with other migrants , to evade the police surveillance and walk to the village of GPE . From there , with CARDINAL other migrants , they started a demonstration through the streets of the island . After being stopped by the police , the applicants were taken first back to the reception centre and then to Lampedusa airport .","On TIME the applicants were flown to GPE . After disembarking they were transferred to ships that were moored in the harbour there . The first applicant was placed on the PERSON , with some CARDINAL individuals , while the second and third applicants were on board the ORG , holding CARDINAL .","The applicants described the conditions as follows . All the migrants on each vessel were confined to the restaurant areas , access to the cabins being prohibited . They slept on the floor and had to wait TIME to use the toilets . They could only go outside onto the balconies twice a day for TIME at a time . They were allegedly insulted and ill - treated by the police who kept them under permanent surveillance and they claimed not to have received any information from the authorities .","The applicants remained on the ships until CARDINAL and DATE , respectively , when they were taken to GPE airport pending removal .","Before being put on the aircraft , the migrants were received by the NORP Consul . According to the applicants , the Consul merely recorded their identities in accordance with agreements between GPE and GPE of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On their application form the applicants claimed that at no time during their stay in GPE had they been issued with any document .","Annexed to their observations , the Government , however , produced CARDINAL refusal - of - entry orders dated CARDINAL and DATE that had been issued against the applicants . Those orders , which were basically identical and drafted in NORP with a translation into LANGUAGE , read as follows :","\u201c The Commissioner of Police ( Questore ) for GPE","Having regard to the documents in the file , showing that","( CARDINAL ) on CARDINAL [ DATE members of the police force found in the province of GPE , near the border of island of GPE , PERSON [ surname and forename ] born ... on [ date ] ... NORP national ... not fully identified , being undocumented ( sedicente ) ;","( CARDINAL ) the alien entered the territory of the country by evading the border controls ;","( CARDINAL ) the identification ( rintraccio ) of the alien took place on \/ immediately after his \/ her arrival on national territory , and precisely at : island of GPE ;","WHEREAS none of the cases [ indicated in ] LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE is at issue ;","CONSIDERING that it is appropriate to proceed in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE ;"],"violated_articles":["13","3","5","P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-2","5-4","P4-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142407","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF REMUS TUDOR v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos","text":["The applicant was born in DATE .","In DATE the applicant was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to life imprisonment . He was held in a number of different detention centres . No information is available in respect of his places of detention before DATE . From the latter date until DATE he was detained in PERSON . On DATE he was transferred to FAC .","The applicant and the Government disagreed as to most aspects of the conditions of detention in PERSON .","The applicant alleged that he had occupied overcrowded cells , without providing details about the surface area and the number of cellmates .","He also complained of unsatisfactory sanitary conditions . The cells did not have any furniture in which to keep personal objects and food , therefore the prisoners were forced to keep them under their beds where there were CARDINAL of insects .","The temperature in the cells was very low in DATE .","The applicant claimed that for DATE , from DATE until DATE , they had not had hot water . The prisoners were confronted with the same situation in DATE when they had to live without hot water from DATE until CARDINAL DATE .","He also contended that even though he was a non - smoker , he had had to share the cell with smokers . He further claimed that in his cell there were prisoners who frequently consumed drugs and that the smoke from the cigarettes combined with the smoke released from the drugs made the air in the cell unbreathable .","The Government supplied the following details concerning the cells in which the applicant has been detained in PERSON :","- Between DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m. The cell was occupied by CARDINAL inmates .","- Between DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring CARDINAL sq . m , which he shared with CARDINAL or CARDINAL other inmates .","- DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring CARDINAL sq . m. The cell was occupied by CARDINAL inmates .","- Between DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring QUANTITY m. The cell was occupied by CARDINAL inmates .","- DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring CARDINAL sq . m , which he shared with CARDINAL other inmates .","- DATE and CARDINAL September CARDINAL the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring CARDINAL sq . m , which he shared with CARDINAL other inmates .","- DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL , measuring CARDINAL sq . m , which he shared with CARDINAL or QUANTITY inmates .","The applicant was detained in smoking cells and he had not asked to be transferred to a non - smoking cell .","As regards cleanliness and hygiene , the ORG submitted that every year the prison authorities signed contracts for rodent and pest control with companies specialising in this work . Disinfection of the cells was carried out at least once DATE . Moreover , the quality of the drinking water was tested regularly by the prison authorities , with the aid of a specialised laboratory . Furthermore , the food was fresh and of good quality ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147693","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"\u015eENG\u00dcNER v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and live in GPE . They were represented before the Court by Ms C. Turhall\u0131 Balsak , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159049","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MIRONOVAS AND OTHERS v. LITHUANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Inadmissible (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["Mr PERSON was born in DATE . When he lodged the application with the ORG in DATE , he was serving a prison sentence at FAC .","From DATE to DATE the applicant was detained at FAC . It transpires from the documents before the ORG that he was held in different remand prison cells where he had CARDINAL of living space .","After his conviction and transfer to ORG to serve his sentence , on DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings for damages . He argued that the conditions in which he had been held at FAC had been degrading : the cells were overcrowded , full of rats and worms , appropriate toilet facilities were lacking , the cells were hot in DATE and cold in DATE , the cell walls were damp , and the roof of the remand prison was covered with asbestos , which put the applicant \u2019s health in danger .","The FAC Prison administration responded that they attempted to maintain the statutory norm of QUANTITY per remand prisoner held in a cell ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , but that had not always been possible . The administration acknowledged that the facility was \u201c constantly overcrowded ( nuolat perpildytas ) \u201d , because the institution could not refuse to admit persons brought there . The buildings of the remand prison were very old , they were repaired periodically and it was not possible to repair them entirely .","The case was first examined by ORG , which rejected the applicant \u2019s claim , inter alia , for having missed the statutory time - limit . ORG then remitted the case for fresh examination .","On DATE ORG noted that the applicant had missed , by DATE , the statutory DATE time - limit to lodge a claim for damages . The court nevertheless restored the time - limit of its own motion , having observed that the applicant had lodged his claim belatedly partly because he had not obtained in time information necessary for his civil claim .","ORG established that the applicant had been held in overcrowded cells for DATE , given that for that duration he had been held in cells where he had QUANTITY of personal space . On the basis of LAW , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG and ORG judgment in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) , the first - instance court held that because of the overcrowding the applicant \u2019s dignity had suffered . Nonetheless , the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s remaining complaints about the detention conditions in FAC as not actually proven . It also noted that he had not complained to any authority of the unsanitary conditions in GPE while he had been held there . The court also took into account that after having been transferred to FAC , the applicant had undergone a medical examination . The doctors had established that he was healthy , which provided evidence that the conditions of his detention in GPE had had no impact on his health .","Having taken into account the economic conditions in GPE , namely , a minimal DATE salary of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) and an average DATE salary of LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) , as well as the NORP administrative ORG practice in similar cases , the court awarded the applicant LAW ( EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage on account of overcrowding .","On DATE , on appeal , ORG underlined that notwithstanding the general rule that a person claiming damage bore the burden of proving it , the lower court had actively used available means for obtaining evidence : on several occasions it had requested the prison in question to provide additional information as to the applicant \u2019s detention conditions and his state of health . That information had been provided to the court .","ORG also established that for DATE the applicant had been kept at FAC in inadequate conditions on account of overcrowding , understood by the domestic law requirement to guarantee prisoners QUANTITY of personal space in a remand prison cell . It can be deduced from ORG analysis of the details of the applicant \u2019s placement in GPE that for DATE he was held in cells where he had QUANTITY of personal space . ORG also noted that for most of his detention , namely for DATE , the applicant had been held in cells where his personal space had been even QUANTITY . The court noted that , despite the overcrowding , for DATE out of CARDINAL the applicant had been held in CARDINAL cells where heating , ventilation , sanitary and electric systems had been renovated in DATE , thus providing him with somewhat better material conditions ( geresn\u0117mis buitin\u0117mis s\u0105lygomis , nors ir neu\u017etikrinant minimalios gyvenamojo ploto normos ) . Nevertheless , he had been held in overcrowded cells for TIME a day , and FAC had provided no evidence that the lack of living space had been remedied in any other way . For the court , such conditions went beyond the inevitable element of discomfort connected with detention ( it referred to GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALXI ) , degraded the applicant and were in breach of LAW .","ORG also noted that ORG would sometimes hold that finding a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction . In the instant case , however , ORG considered that the degree of the applicant \u2019s suffering called for pecuniary compensation . Moreover , the sum of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL was not sufficient . Yet , ORG took into account that the applicant had not lodged a claim for damages until DATE after his detention in such conditions had ended , by which time the court considered that the impact on a person \u2019s emotional and physical suffering had decreased ( laiko veiksnys asmens patirtas dvasines ir fizines kan\u010dias menkina , jos bl\u0117sta ) . The fact that the applicant had not instituted court proceedings for damages until DATE after his release from FAC led the court to the conclusion that his mental suffering ( dvasin\u0117 skriauda ) was not so significant . Furthermore , when detained , the applicant was DATE . During the hearing before the first - instance court he had acknowledged that he was in a good state of health . Accordingly , the conditions of his detention in GPE had had no negative effect on his health . On the evidence , no other complaints , except for those concerning overcrowding , were found to be substantiated in his case . Lastly , the court held that the applicant had been partly favoured by the first - instance court \u2019s initiative to restore the time - limit for lodging a claim for damages . It was therefore reasonable and just to award LAW ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) to compensate him for any non - pecuniary damage .","Mr PERSON was born in DATE . When he lodged his application with the ORG in DATE , he was serving a prison sentence at FAC .","DATE the applicant was held at ORG ( PERSON at\u0117mimo viet\u0173 ligonin\u0117 ) in GPE in the following conditions :","- DATE in a room measuring QUANTITY , containing CARDINAL beds ( that is , QUANTITY per bed ) , and in a room measuring QUANTITY , containing CARDINAL beds ( that is , QUANTITY per bed ) ;","- DATE in a room measuring QUANTITY , containing CARDINAL beds ( that is , QUANTITY per bed ) ;","- DATE and DATE in a room measuring QUANTITY , containing CARDINAL beds ( that is , QUANTITY per bed ) ;","- DATE in a room measuring QUANTITY , containing CARDINAL beds ( that is , QUANTITY per bed ) ;","- DATE in a room measuring QUANTITY , containing CARDINAL beds ( that is , QUANTITY per bed ) ;","- DATE in a room measuring QUANTITY , containing CARDINAL beds ( that is , QUANTITY per bed ) .","The applicant later instituted court proceedings for damages , claiming that he had been held in inhuman and degrading conditions at ORG , because the rooms had been overcrowded , the hospital did not have a hygiene certificate , and the rooms had been dilapidated .","On DATE ORG partly accepted the complaint . It established that as of DATE , the health - care authorities had CARDINAL times established breaches of hygiene requirements at ORG . In particular , the hospital showers , toilets and other LOC were not properly cleaned and disinfected , patients who were suffering from an open form of tuberculosis and psychiatric patients took showers together with other patients ( without being isolated , against the domestic law requirements ) , and many parts of the hospital needed renovation . The court also established that ORG was operating without a hygiene certificate , which was against the domestic law .","As to overcrowding , the hospital provided information about the applicant \u2019s stay therein , but could not specify how many persons had been held with him in the room . The first - instance court considered the lack of appropriate documentation as a flaw on the part of the hospital . The court then itself counted how many square metres the applicant could have had during each period of his stay at that hospital , dividing the size of each room by the number of beds therein . The court thus established that the applicant had been held in overcrowded rooms , and that the domestic norm had been \u201c seriously breached \u201d ( nustatyta minimali PERSON pa\u017eeista PERSON ) , given that the norm was that hospitals had to provide QUANTITY per bed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG concluded that the applicant \u2019s right to be treated in appropriate conditions had been breached . It underlined that the flaws could not be justified by a lack of financing for the hospital . The court considered that compensation of LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) would be sufficient for the applicant , taking into account the principles of reasonableness and justice , and the economic situation in GPE .","On DATE ORG upheld the above decision . The higher court recognised that the applicant had been held in overcrowded rooms and in improper sanitary conditions . However , patients at ORG had the opportunity of being in the open air from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. , which eased their situation as regards the overcrowding and also justified a lower award for non - pecuniary damage . Moreover , the conditions of the applicant \u2019s stay in the hospital , whilst unsatisfactory from a hygiene point of view , had not put his health or life at risk . Those conditions had had no lasting effect on the applicant .","Mr Ivanenkov was born in DATE . When he lodged his application with the ORG , he was serving a sentence at ORG .","It transpires from the court decisions that from DATE to DATE the applicant spent time in dormitory no . CARDINAL at ORG in the following conditions :","- DATE in a dormitory - type room measuring QUANTITY , which contained CARDINAL beds ( that is , QUANTITY of living space per inmate ) ; and","- over DATE in a dormitory - type room measuring QUANTITY , containing CARDINAL beds ( that is , QUANTITY of living space per inmate ) .","NORP The applicant sued ORG for damages , claiming that the conditions of his detention had been degrading on account of overcrowding and the lack of suitable sanitary facilities . He relied , inter alia , on ORG recommendation No . R(CARDINAL ) and on LAW . To support his claim , he submitted a report of DATE drawn up by ORG ( ORG visuomen\u0117s sveikatos centras ) .","On DATE ORG took note of ORG report of DATE no . RCARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , issued in reply to a complaint by the inmates , to the effect that the ORG correctional facility had a shortage of furniture , dilapidated cells , insufficient lighting , a shortage of cleaning equipment and a shortage of toilets , and that renovation was necessary . The court also took note of another document DATE a report by ORG ( PERSON visuomen\u0117s sveikatos centro tarnyba prie PERSON apsaugos ministerijos ) \u2013 to the effect that complaints made by another inmate in the ORG facility were warranted and that there had been \u201c gross violations of hygiene norms ( \u0161iurk\u0161t\u016bs higienos norm\u0173 pa\u017eeidimai ) \u201d .","ORG observed that the parties in essence did not dispute that the applicant had been held in premises where he had had between QUANTITY of personal space , and that there had been a shortage of toilet facilities and furniture . Such breaches of the domestic norms on hygiene were far from being short term ( ne trumpalaikiai ) . Even so , the applicant \u2019s claim that his physical health had been damaged was dismissed as not proven . Given that he had had to stay within the dormitory only during TIME and had been able to move about during DATE in the prison yard , take exercise outside on basketball , football and volleyball pitches , and that the LOC had ventilation and the toilets were in a separate room , the court decided that it was reasonable and just to award the applicant LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG agreed with the assessment of the applicant \u2019s conditions in ORG . It noted that the applicant had never complained about the conditions to the ORG facility administration . Furthermore , there was no proof that the ORG administration had deliberately sought to degrade the applicant or to treat him inhumanely . Lastly , ORG observed that ORG quite often ( neretai ) held that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction . It considered that that would be an appropriate solution in the applicant \u2019s case , even though his right to be held in conditions as set out by the domestic law had been breached . Accordingly , no pecuniary award was made .","The applicant was born in DATE . When he lodged his application with the ORG , he was serving a sentence at the CARDINALnd Correctional Home - Open Colony of FAC .","It transpires from the documents before the ORG that from DATE to DATE the applicant spent time in the CARDINALnd Correctional Home - Open Colony in the following conditions :","- DATE in a dormitory - type room , where he had QUANTITY of personal space ;","- over DATE in a dormitory - type room , where he had QUANTITY of personal space ;","- the remaining time , which appears to be a little bit less than DATE , in a dormitory - type room , where he had CARDINAL of personal space .","In DATE the applicant instituted court proceedings for damages , claiming that during his entire stay in GPE the facility was overcrowded . Moreover , the number of inmates held was constantly rising , even though no new premises were built . The PERSON administration stated that there were plans to modernise that facility by DATE .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG partly accepted the applicant \u2019s complaint , having noted that under the domestic law personal space in dormitory - type rooms had to be no less than QUANTITY ( see paragraphs DATE and DATE below ) . The court awarded the applicant LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE ORG maintained the award of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for non - pecuniary damage , caused by the ORG \u2019s failure to observe domestic law norms . That being so , the court underlined that overcrowding in the applicant \u2019s case was compensated for by free movement during DATE . Moreover , the dormitory \u2019s rooms in GPE had natural light and ventilation , and the sanitary facilities ( asmens higienos patalpos ) were separated from the sleeping premises . There was no evidence that overcrowding had had an impact on the applicant \u2019s health . The NORP court relied on the ORG \u2019s findings in GPE v. GPE ( no . PERSON , ORG CARDINALVIII ) , whereby it held that merely a lack of living space provided for the inmate did not necessarily amount to a violation of LAW . Last but not least , the applicant \u2019s personal living space was close to the required domestic norm . It was also noteworthy that the applicant had complained only about lack of space . Having taken into account the cumulative effect of the conditions the applicant was held in , ORG thus rejected his assertion that the conditions of his stay in GPE had been in breach of LAW .","Mr GPE was born in DATE . When introducing the application with the ORG in DATE , he was serving his sentence at ORG .","It transpires that after conviction , in DATE the applicant was placed in ORG pataisos namai ) , where he was held until DATE .","Specifically , from DATE to QUANTITY DATE the applicant had to stay in dormitory - type room no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY with CARDINAL other inmates ( that is , QUANTITY of living space per inmate ) .","NORP In DATE , when he was already in ORG , the applicant complained to the administration of ORG that he had not had adequate living space in the latter facility and that the lighting in his room had been poor . When ORG denied responsibility , the applicant appealed to ORG , the body that oversees the NORP prisons . The latter replied that , because of the lack of available space , ORG administration could not always guarantee the minimum personal space of QUANTITY to each inmate required under domestic legislation . However , any lack of personal space during the night was compensated for by the inmates\u2019 ability to move about within the confines of FAC during DATE .","The applicant then instituted court proceedings for damages . ORG asked the court to dismiss the claim , admitting that \u201c because of overcrowding in prisons throughout GPE at this time , ORG was not always able to provide the inmates with the minimum living space , as provided for by the domestic law ( \u0161iuo metu d\u0117l \u012fkalinimo \u012fstaig\u0173 visoje GPE perpildymo PERSON pataisos nam\u0173 administracija ne visada gali visiems nuteistiesiems suteikti \u012fstatymais nustatyt\u0105 minimal\u0173 gyvenam\u0105j\u012f plot\u0105 ) \u201d .","On DATE ORG noted that there were no particular data with regard to the exact number of inmates held together with the applicant . That being so , having regard to the material provided , namely photographs of CARDINAL beds in room no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , the court interpreted all the uncertainties in the applicant \u2019s favour , acknowledging a violation of his rights under the domestic legislation , on account of overcrowding . It established , however , that the applicant had not complained about the conditions of his detention during his stay in the facility at issue . The court held that the applicant \u2019s argument that he had not complained because he had feared retribution from the prison administration had no objective grounds ( niekuo nepagr\u012fstas ) . Furthermore , there was no proof that the overcrowding had had an effect on the applicant \u2019s health . Moreover , any lack of space during the night was compensated for by the applicant being able to move about within the facility during DATE . The court acknowledged that , according to the domestic case - law and the case - law of the ORG , in the event of inadequate detention conditions a person was considered to have sustained non - pecuniary damage . However , pecuniary compensation was not indispensable in order to protect infringed rights .","In parallel court proceedings , the applicant also complained of insufficient lighting in his dormitory . By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held that the lighting was very near the requirements as set by the applicable domestic legislation ( CARDINAL lx , CARDINAL lx and CARDINAL lx , whereasCARDINAL lx was required under the legislation ) .","Mr Traknys was born in DATE . When he lodged his application with the ORG in DATE , he was serving a prison sentence at FAC .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from CARDINAL to DATE PERSON was held in FAC .","It can be deduced from the NORP court decisions that during the first period of his detention in GPE he spent DATE in cells where he had CARDINAL and QUANTITY of living space .","During his second stay in GPE , the applicant spent DATE in cells where he had QUANTITY of personal space .","The applicant later instituted court proceedings for damages , complaining of overcrowding and deplorable conditions on account of the poor sanitary situation . He alleged that the cells were infested with mice and cockroaches , had insufficient lighting and were damp . He relied on a ORG report to the effect that CARDINAL of the cells had mould on the ceiling .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG acknowledged that there had been overcrowding during the first period of the applicant \u2019s detention in GPE , on account of the prison authorities\u2019 failure to keep up with the domestic law requirement to provide CARDINAL or , later , QUANTITY of personal space in the remand prison cells . The court had no doubts that staying in cells that did not meet hygiene standards had caused the applicant mental suffering . Furthermore , even though the applicant had objected to being placed with inmates who smoked , in breach of the domestic legislation , he had been held with smokers for ninety - nine days ( the domestic court referred to PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , and with previously convicted inmates for DATE , even though it was his first time in prison . On account of those multiple breaches of the applicant \u2019s rights , without explicitly acknowledging a violation of LAW and taking into consideration the economic situation in GPE , the court considered it just to award compensation of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) .","As to the second period of the applicant \u2019s detention , by a decision of DATE ORG also acknowledged overcrowding . Taking into account the short duration of the violation and the economic situation in GPE , an award of LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) was made .","Mr PERSON was born in DATE . When he lodged his application with the ORG in DATE , he was serving a prison sentence at ORG .","In DATE and DATE , Mr ORG was held at FAC , where he spent DATE . During that time , he was held in a cell measuring QUANTITY , housing QUANTITY detainees ( that is , CARDINAL QUANTITY of personal space ) ; in a cell measuring QUANTITY , housing QUANTITY detainees ( that is , CARDINAL and QUANTITY of personal space ) ; and in a cell measuring QUANTITY , housing QUANTITY detainees ( that is , between CARDINAL and QUANTITY of personal space ) .","The applicant instituted court proceedings . His written complaint was sent from ORG , claiming that the conditions at the ORG facility had been deplorable : the remand prison was overcrowded , the cells were \u201c unsanitary \u201d , and he had been held together with smoking inmates , even though he was a non - smoker . During the hearings before ORG the applicant also complained that the cells lacked proper ventilation and that the toilets were not separated from the cells .","On DATE ORG acknowledged a breach of the applicant \u2019s rights under the domestic law , as regards overcrowding . The court noted his statement during the hearing that he had complained to ORG about being kept with smokers . Although the applicant had not complained of a violation of LAW , the first - instance court nevertheless deemed it proper to examine his complaint in the light of the ORG \u2019s case - law criteria . Having done that , the court considered that the applicant \u2019s rights had been violated on account of overcrowding , as it was understood under the domestic law , and that while it was close to a breach of LAW , it did not pass that threshold . Lastly , the applicant had instituted court proceedings DATE on which he had left ORG , by which time his psychological and physical suffering had diminished . Accordingly , there was no need to award him any pecuniary compensation . The court did not address the applicant \u2019s complaint of unsanitary conditions .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG partly granted the applicant \u2019s appeal . It considered , however , that in his appeal the applicant had touched upon not only those issues which he had raised in his complaint to the first - instance court , but had also complained about other aspects of his detention . In particular , according to ORG , in his appeal the applicant had argued that the cells had lacked an artificial ventilation system , that the natural ventilation system had been insufficient , and that the toilet in the cell was of the type that should only be installed outside ( kameroje esantis tualetas ir pati kamera buvo vienoje patalpoje , o sanitariniam mazgui \u012frengti panaudotas lauko tualeto principas ) . The appellate court considered that the applicant should have raised those issues in his complaint ( skunde ) to the first - instance court . Accordingly , it dismissed the applicant \u2019s allegations of lack of ventilation and proper toilet facilities .","As to overcrowding , ORG noted that the number of inmates at FAC often changed during DATE . On the basis of the documents provided by ORG , ORG established that for DATE the applicant had been held in \u201c overcrowded \u201d cells and for DATE he had been held in cells where the minimum personal space was \u201c very close to , but did not meet the [ domestic ] norms \u201d . The ORG facility had thus breached the applicant \u2019s statutory right to be held in a cell where he would have CARDINAL or QUANTITY of space . Having reviewed the ORG \u2019s case - law on conditions of detention , ORG considered that the inconveniences suffered by the applicant during DATE went beyond those inherent in detention and were intense enough to amount to a violation of LAW . The court nevertheless noted that there was no evidence in the case that the remand facility had intentionally sought to debase the applicant . The applicant could go out for a stroll for TIME per day , thus spending some time outside his cell . Lastly , ORG observed that there was no evidence in the file that the applicant had ever asked the remand prison administration to be held in a non - smoking cell . Nor was there any evidence in the file that he had been held in unsanitary conditions . The appellate court considered that the applicant had lodged his complaint more than DATE after his release from FAC , and thus had had a possibility to gather evidence and to provide it to the court . Having taken into account the economic situation in the country , ORG awarded the applicant LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for his suffering ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146372","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BEL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF TRABELSI v. BELGIUM","importance":1,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (the United States of America);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently being held in FAC in GPE , GPE ) .","On DATE an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant by an investigating judge of ORG . A search of his home had led to the discovery of false passports , automatic weapons and ammunition , as well as chemical formulae that could be used for making explosives and a detailed plan of ORG in GPE .","Following a simultaneous search of a GPE caf\u00e9 , where the applicant had been a regular customer , drawing on information provided by another suspect , who had also been arrested , the police discovered CARDINAL litres of acetone and QUANTITY of sulphur powder . Under the arrest warrant which was subsequently issued , the applicant was accused of acts of criminal conspiracy , destruction by explosion , possession of combat weapons and belonging to a private militia .","The applicant admitted the offences as charged and was sentenced to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment by ORG on DATE for attempting to blow up ORG NORP army base , forgery , and instigating a criminal conspiracy to attack persons and property . The court \u2019s judgment included the following finding :","\u201c [ the defendant ] attempted to commit one of the most serious crimes since NORP independence ; in spite of the lapse of time since his arrest , he has never shown any remorse , the danger which he poses has remained intact and his case presents no mitigating circumstances . \u201d","In a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s DATE prison sentence for a range of offences , including :","\u201c - attempting to blow up ORG NORP army base , with the added circumstance that the perpetrator must have presumed that there were CARDINAL or more persons present at the time of the explosion ... ,","- holding a position of command in a conspiracy formed to perpetrate serious crimes liable to life imprisonment and , in the present case , to carry out a terrorist attack ... ,","- receiving from a foreign organisation funds intended for conducting , in GPE , an activity liable to jeopardise national security ... ,","- being in unlawful possession of a combat weapon ... ,","- setting up , and assisting or participating in , a private militia or other organisation of private individuals for the purpose of using force ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant was sentenced in absentia by a NORP military court to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment for belonging to a terrorist organisation abroad in peacetime . On DATE ORG in GPE issued a warrant for the applicant to be brought before it , for which an application for enforcement was submitted to the NORP authorities by diplomatic note of DATE .","NORP The principal prison sentence imposed on the applicant in GPE was completed on DATE . CARDINAL subsequent subsidiary prison sentences of DATE respectively were imposed in DATE and enforced immediately . The applicant completed these sentences on DATE .","On DATE , meanwhile , the applicant had submitted an asylum application in GPE , which the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons dismissed in a decision of DATE . This decision refused the applicant refugee status and subsidiary protection on the grounds that he had committed offences contrary to the aims and principles of ORG within the meaning of LAW ) c of LAW . That decision was upheld by ORG in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","B. Extradition proceedings","By a diplomatic note of DATE the GPE authorities transmitted to the NORP authorities a request for extradition of the applicant under LAW concluded between GPE and GPE on DATE . The reasons for the request were the indictment issued by ORG ( GPE ) against the applicant on DATE , comprising the following charges :","\u201c A. Conspiracy to kill GPE nationals outside of GPE , in violation of the following provisions : CARDINAL U.S.C. \u00a7 CARDINAL ( b ) ( CARDINAL ) and ORG ( a )","B. Conspiracy and attempt to use of weapons of mass destruction , in violation of the following provisions : CARDINAL U.S.C. \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL","C. Conspiracy to provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation , in violation of the following provisions : CARDINAL U.S.C. \u00a7 CARDINAL","D. Providing material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation , in violation of the following provisions : CARDINAL U.S.C. \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL . \u201d","The extradition request continued as follows :","\u201c A warrant for the arrest of Mr PERSON was issued on DATE by order of ... judge ....","The underlying facts of the charges indicate that in DATE or earlier , while in GPE , and elsewhere in LOC , and in GPE , PERSON knowingly entered into an agreement with ORG associates , including PERSON , to provide material support and resources , to unlawfully kill GPE nationals in targeted facilities in LOC , and to use a large - scale explosive device ( a weapon of mass destruction ) to destroy property in LOC used by GPE and\/or a department or agency of GPE . \u201d","According to the documents in support of the extradition request , notably the applicable extracts from criminal law ( LAW of GPE , ORG ) transmitted by the GPE authorities , these offences carried the following penalties :","\u201c DATE U.S.C. \u00a7 CARDINAL ( b ) ( CARDINAL ) and ORG ( a ) : a maximum term of life imprisonment , or a combined fine and prison sentence .","B. CARDINAL U.S.C. \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL : a maximum term of life imprisonment .","C. CARDINAL U.S.C. \u00a7 CARDINAL : a fine or a maximum term of DATE imprisonment , or a combination of both .","D. CARDINAL U.S.C. \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL : a fine or a maximum term of DATE imprisonment , or a combination of both . \u201d","On DATE the Federal Attorney transmitted to the chambre du conseil of ORG a request for enforcement of the arrest warrant issued on DATE against the applicant . In his request the Federal Attorney pointed out that the maximum sentences for the offences underlying the request for extradition were DATE and DATE respectively .","By a diplomatic note of CARDINAL DATE the GPE authorities made the following assurances concerning the applicant to the NORP authorities :","\u201c The Government of GPE assures the ORG that , pursuant to his extradition , PERSON will not be prosecuted before a military commission , as enabled by LAW . ORG of GPE further assures the ORG that upon extradition , PERSON will not be detained or incarcerated in any facility other than a civilian facility in GPE . \u201d","By an order of DATE , the chambre du conseil of ORG acceded to the Federal Attorney \u2019s request and declared the arrest warrant issued by the GPE ORG enforceable . However , the order added the following stipulation :","\u201c It emerges from the examination of the documents enclosed with the arrest warrant issued for the purposes of extradition ... that the \u2018 overt acts\u2019 listed by the GPE authorities in support of the first charge include several which correspond very precisely to the acts committed in NORP territory which justify the [ applicant \u2019s ] conviction in GPE .","...","Therefore , by virtue of the ne bis in idem principle , the arrest warrant issued for the purposes of extradition on DATE by the competent judicial authority of GPE can not be declared enforceable in respect of \u2018 overt acts\u2019 nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL set out in paragraph CARDINAL of the first charge , which are deemed repeated in support of the other charges . \u201d","Having examined an appeal lodged by the applicant , ORG of ORG delivered a judgment on DATE upholding the aforementioned order and declared the warrant enforceable . Having noted that the extradition concerned acts ( committed outside GPE ) other than those for which the applicant had been prosecuted and convicted in GPE , ORG argued that :","\u201c There are no serious grounds for believing that the request for extradition was submitted for the purposes of prosecuting or punishing PERSON for considerations of race , religion , nationality or political opinion or that this individual \u2019s situation is liable to be worsened for any of these reasons .","...","Nor is there any serious reason to believe that if PERSON were to be extradited he would be subjected to a flagrant denial of justice , acts of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment ; there is no reason to suppose that GPE will not meticulously comply with all the provisions , including Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of ORG concluded with GPE , and every reason to believe that PERSON will be detained in a civilian facility and tried by the ordinary courts , in accordance with conventional procedure .","... \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of ORG . He relied on the risk of treatment incompatible with LAW and the risk of a flagrant denial of justice . He contended that ORG had not assessed the consequences of his extradition to GPE in the light of the general situation in that country or his own specific circumstances , and argued that ORG should have adopted the same line of reasoning as the ORG in the case of PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] ( no . DATE ) . He also complained that ORG had not addressed the potential problem under LAW of sentencing a person to an irreducible life sentence . Lastly , he complained of a violation of the ne bis in idem principle .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law . It ruled that ORG had provided adequate reasons and legal justification for its decision , considering","\u201c - that the requesting ORG is currently conducting a thorough review of its anti - terrorist policy , stepping up its action against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment , and is on the verge of suspending the special courts and abolishing the unlimited detention without trial of persons captured in the context of international conflict ;","- that under the terms of the formal guarantees provided in support of the extradition request , the appellant will be tried by an ordinary civilian court in accordance with the normal procedure in force in the requesting ORG , enjoying all the rights and remedies available under the national judicial system ;","- that the appellant is not liable to a life sentence for the offences for which his extradition has been requested and that the penalties which they carry can be commuted into other penalties with possibilities for release on parole ;","- that because the evidence relied upon by the appellant lacks any specific aspect affecting his own personal situation , which would have made the risks he alleges more credible , it does not substantiate any serious concern that he could be exposed to a flagrant denial of justice or acts of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment .","... \u201d","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE sent to the NORP authorities at the behest of the Federal Attorney responsible for the extradition request , ORG supplied the following additional information :","\u201c The statutory maximum sentence for a conviction of each of the first CARDINAL of these offenses is life imprisonment and the statutory maximum sentence for the latter CARDINAL offenses is DATE . In addition , GPE , which are the voluntary guidelines that judges may choose to follow in sentencing defendants , call for a life sentence for each of the first CARDINAL of these offenses .","A life sentence is not mandatory and the court has the discretion to issue a sentence less than life . In issuing a sentence , the court may consider the gravity of the offense and whether any lives were lost or property was damaged . In this instance , PERSON did not succeed in carrying out his plans to kill GPE nationals and to use weapons of mass destruction . Thus , the court in issuing a sentence , in its discretion , may consider that ORG was not successful in carrying out his plans . The court also may consider any mitigating factors , such as whether the defendant acknowledges responsibility for his actions .","If the court , in its discretion , sentences PERSON to a punishment of less than life , i.e. a term of DATE , PERSON \u2019s sentence could be reduced by PERCENT for good behaviour while incarcerated . This type of sentence reduction is only possible , however , if the original sentence is to a term of DATE , however long , rather than a life sentence . Therefore , if PERSON were sentenced to a term of CARDINAL , DATE , or even DATE , then he could be eligible for a sentence reduction of PERCENT of his original sentence based on his good behaviour while incarcerated . If , however , PERSON is sentenced to life , he would not be eligible for any reduction in his sentence .","Finally , GPE can apply for a Presidential pardon or sentence commutation . ( A pardon would eliminate the conviction ; a commutation would be an adjustment to the sentence . ) However , this is only a theoretical possibility in GPE \u2019s case . We are not aware of any terrorism defendant ever having successfully applied for a Presidential pardon or sentence commutation . \u201d","Once the GPE indictment was declared operative , the proceedings relating to the response to the extradition request were commenced .","On DATE the Federal Attorney forwarded his written opinion to ORG inviting it , in the light of the ORG \u2019s case - law , particularly PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] ( no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) , to issue a positive opinion on the applicant \u2019s extradition . He pointed out that in the case of the first CARDINAL charges , the applicant was liable to a life sentence , while in the case of the other CARDINAL charges he was liable to a DATE prison sentence .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to ORG the applicant took note of the fact that at the hearing on DATE the Federal Attorney had acknowledged a mistake in his observations in the enforcement request proceedings concerning the sentence to which the applicant might be liable following his extradition to GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG of ORG issued a favourable opinion on the applicant \u2019s extradition , specifying a number of conditions :","\u201c - extradition may only be granted :","i. on condition that the death penalty is not imposed on N. GPE or , if GPE can not guarantee this condition , on condition that the death penalty is not enforced ;","ii . on condition that any life sentence is accompanied by the possibility of commutation of sentence , even if the conviction is based on terrorist acts ;","- in the event of a request for PERSON re - extradition to a third country , such as GPE , GPE must request the agreement of GPE should GPE send ORG any future request for extradition after PERSON has been handed over to them .","If the GPE fails to accept these conditions the extradition must be refused . \u201d","By a diplomatic note of CARDINAL DATE the GPE authorities confirmed that the applicant was not liable to the death penalty and assured the NORP authorities that he would not be extradited to any third country without the agreement of ORG . The GPE authorities reiterated that the maximum life prison sentence was not mandatory and that even if all the constituent elements of the criminal offences in question were secured and proved , the court had the discretion to impose a lighter sentence . The note specified that GPE legislation provided for several means of reducing life sentences :","\u201c Regarding the question of commutation of a life sentence , GPE wishes to make it clear , in the first instance , that if PERSON were convicted , a life sentence is not mandatory ; the court has the discretion to impose a sentence less than life . Also , a defendant has a statutory right to appeal the conviction and sentence , including a life sentence , both directly , and collaterally through a habeas corpus petition . In addition , there are certain statutory bases for reduction of an already - imposed sentence , including where the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of a third party ( Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure CARDINAL(b ) and LAW , LAW , or for compelling humanitarian reasons such as the terminal illness of the prisoner ( LAW , LAW , LAW ) ) .","In addition to these measures , the defendant may request that his sentence be reduced as an exercise of executive clemency by the President of GPE . The President \u2019s power under LAW , of LAW , \u201c to grant reprieves and pardons \u201d includes the authority to commute ( reduce ) a sentence of imprisonment , including a life sentence . There are established regulations and procedures governing the application process for executive clemency , and ORG has been established in ORG to review all applications for executive clemency and prepare recommendations for the President on those applications . LAW gives the President absolute discretion to grant executive clemency to a defendant . We note that while such discretion has been exercised sparingly , such relief has , on occasion , been granted for serious offenses implicating national security . For example , in DATE , President PERSON commuted the sentences of CARDINAL members of the FALN , a violent NORP nationalist organization responsible for numerous bombings in DATE and DATE , who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery , bomb making , sedition and other offenses . \u201d","On DATE the Minister for ORG adopted a ministerial decree granting the applicant \u2019s extradition to ORG . Having noted that the applicant would in no case be liable to the death penalty , the decree examined each of the other guarantees provided .","On the matter of possible life imprisonment , the ministerial decree read as follows :","\u201c Under GPE Federal criminal law the maximum penalty laid down in respect of the charges \u2013 the offences under A and B \u2013 precludes early release and release on parole . Life sentences as provided for in these CARDINAL provisions of LAW are therefore , from the legal and factual angles , in principle served for the whole of the person \u2019s life .","...","In diplomatic note no . CARDINAL of DATE from ORG , the GPE authorities provided a guarantee that ( even ) if an irreducible life sentence were handed down it would be possible to obtain a pardon from the GPE President . This right is set out in LAW of LAW . Furthermore , Presidential pardons have in fact been granted on several occasions in the past , including the recent past , to persons sentenced by the GPE courts , particularly at the Federal level .","...","Even if we view it in its historical context , the FALN case shows that in cases likely to fall under the current legislation on terrorism in force since DATE , which cases must objectively be seen as much more serious than those of which the person sought is suspected and which are therefore liable to lead to severer penalties , Presidential pardons can indeed be granted .","Even though some individuals have since DATE been given irreducible life sentences ... for terrorism or acts linked to terrorism , such cases can not be compared to the PERSON case in terms of their content . All those who have been sentenced to life imprisonment in the GPE without early release or release on parole were charged , prosecuted and finally convicted for active involvement in terrorist attacks which had caused deaths and\/or injuries and considerable material damage , for example the attacks on ORG in GPE , GPE , and GPE ) on CARDINAL DATE . ...","Those offences were manifestly incomparable in extent and nature with those attributed to the person whose extradition has been requested .","In the aforementioned cases persons , sometimes enormous numbers of people , in addition to GPE nationals , suffered substantial physical and material damage . The person sought in the present case , however , is being prosecuted for having planned and prepared a terrorist attack which was never carried out . He did not succeed , in cooperation with others , in causing human injuries or even material damage .","It is therefore manifestly plausible that the offences as charged are not such that the maximum applicable sentence laid down in LAW , that is to say an irreducible life sentence , could be called for or imposed .","A recent survey by LAW shows that of the CARDINAL persons prosecuted since DATE for terrorist offences linked to ORG or other NORP groups or for offences connected with such terrorist offences , CARDINAL have been convicted . Each case involved prosecutions or convictions instigated by Federal attorneys and courts . CARDINAL of the convicted persons were sentenced to imprisonment , while CARDINAL were released on licence or given prison terms corresponding to the period of custody already served . The average length of prison sentences handed down was DATE . CARDINAL of those convicted were sentenced to life imprisonment . The report also points out that the proceedings complied with the right to a fair trial ( \u201c Human Rights First , In pursuit of ORG : Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in ORG DATE Update and Recent Developments \u201d , DATE , DATE pp . ) .","The statistics show that , objectively , the risk of being sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in cases of prosecution for terrorist offences is considerably lower than is commonly thought . \u201d","In connection with the applicant \u2019s possible re - extradition to GPE , the ministerial decree continued as follows :","\u201c By diplomatic note no . CARDINAL of DATE from ORG the GPE authorities clearly indicated that if the NORP authorities applied to GPE for extradition , it would be turned down .","...","Given the decision to refuse extradition to GPE , in view of the fact that re - extradition necessitates the agreement of the ORG which authorised the initial extradition , no re - extradition to GPE is possible .","Since the NORP authority refused extradition to GPE , if GPE were to transmit to the GPE a request for extradition in the future the GPE would also refuse it , and no extradition by GPE to GPE is possible . \u201d","Lastly , the ministerial decision analysed the application of the ne bis in idem principle as follows :","\u201c Under LAW ( LAW of DATE ) , GPE and GPE ... have mutually undertaken to refuse extradition if the person sought has been acquitted in the requested ORG or has been convicted in the same ORG for the same offence as that for which extradition is being requested . Ratification ... incorporated this agreement into the NORP and GPE legal systems .","In other words it is not the acts but the legal classification of the acts , namely the offences , which must be identical .","...","The facts forming the basis of the offences in question correspond to \u2018 overt acts\u2019 which individually or together function as factual elements supporting the charges . The double jeopardy principle does not exclude the possibility of using or not using these elements .","In the present case the offences for which the person sought was finally convicted by ORG on DATE do not correspond to the offences listed in charges A to D in the arrest warrant forming the basis for the GPE extradition request . The constituent elements of the respective GPE and NORP offences , their scope and the place(s ) and time(s ) of their commission do not match up .","...","Under GPE Federal criminal law an \u2018 overt act\u2019 is a ( factual ) element , an act , a behaviour or a transaction which in itself may not necessarily be classified as an offence ...","An \u2018 overt act\u2019 is merely a piece of supporting evidence which in itself or in conjunction with other overt acts may help constitute the offence or offences for which the person is being prosecuted , that is to say conspiracy , for instance to kill GPE nationals ( see charge A ) . ...","Although each of \u2018 overt acts\u2019 nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE could be classified as an offence , these acts nonetheless do not constitute offences for which the extradition has been requested . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the decree stated that \u201c extradition will take place after the person sought has complied with the requirements of the NORP courts \u201d .","On DATE , under another ministerial decree , the Minister for ORG refused the NORP authorities\u2019 request for the applicant \u2019s extradition ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , relying on violations of LAW No . CARDINAL , the applicant lodged an application with the ORG d\u2019Etat for judicial review of the ministerial decree granting his extradition to GPE .","At the ORG d\u2019Etat hearing on DATE the applicant relied on the ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] ( nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , DATE ) . He deduced from this judgment that the ORG had now adopted a position requiring preventive review of whether a life prison sentence was reducible or not before the prisoner began his sentence , and therefore that the distinction drawn in the PERSON and Others v. GPE judgment , ( ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE ) depending on whether the person subject to extradition had been convicted or not was no longer relevant .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG d\u2019Etat dismissed the application for judicial review . As to the complaint under LAW and the risk of an irreducible life sentence , the PERSON d\u2019Etat reasoned as follows :","\u201c Even supposing that the applicant is sentenced by the GPE courts to life imprisonment , it should be noted that in its LAW and Others v. GPE judgment of DATE [ the ORG ] ruled that : \u2018 a life sentence does not become irreducible by the mere fact that in practice it may be served in ORG , that \u2018 no issue arises under LAW if a life sentence is de jure and de facto reducible ... \u2019 and that \u2018 where national law affords the possibility of review of a life sentence with a view to its commutation , remission , termination or the conditional release of the prisoner , this will be sufficient to satisfy LAW .","In the present case , as in that of PERSON and Others v. GPE which led to [ the ORG \u2019s judgment ] of DATE , the applicant has not been sentenced by a GPE court to life imprisonment , and has still less begun serving such a sentence .","As in the aforementioned case , therefore , the applicant does not show that in the event of a life sentence , the question will arise whether there is any legitimate penological justification for continuing his imprisonment .","Moreover , in his most recent submissions the applicant acknowledges that a possible life sentence imposed on him would be reducible de jure . GPE law allows him either to request a review or apply for a Presidential pardon or commutation of sentence , and the applicant does not contend that this power of executive clemency or sentence commutation is accompanied by restrictions comparable to those in issue in the [ ORG \u2019s ] aforementioned judgment of DATE .","Although the applicant challenges the assertion that such a sentence is reducible de facto , the explanations provided to the opposing party by the GPE authorities do show that the GPE President has already used his power to commute sentences . Therefore , the legal remedy available to the applicant in the event of a life prison sentence is not excluded in practice .","Furthermore , the applicant \u2019s contention that since DATE terrorist attack it has been inconceivable for the GPE President to grant a pardon to or commute the sentence of a person convicted of terrorism has not been substantiated by any reliable information , nor can it be in view of the relatively short period of time , as compared with a life sentence , which has elapsed since the said attack and any criminal sentences subsequently imposed .","As in PERSON ... , therefore , it has not been established that the GPE authorities would , when appropriate , refuse to implement the available sentence - reducing mechanisms where there was no legitimate penological justification for continuing the applicant \u2019s imprisonment .","Any possible life sentence imposed on the applicant would therefore also be reducible de facto .","Consequently , it is unnecessary to determine whether the opposing party was wrong to consider that the applicant would not necessarily be sentenced to life imprisonment , because , even if he were sentenced to such a prison term , this penalty would not constitute a breach of LAW [ of the LAW ] \u201d .","As to the complaint under LAW between GPE and GPE , LAW , the ORG d\u2019Etat held that :","\u201c The GPE authorities request the applicant \u2019s extradition on CARDINAL charges , namely :","CARDINAL ) Conspiracy to kill GPE nationals outside of GPE ;","CARDINAL ) Conspiracy and attempt to use of weapons of mass destruction ;","CARDINAL ) Conspiracy to provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation ;","CARDINAL ) Providing material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation , in violation of the following provisions .","Again according to the GPE authorities , in order to commit these offences as charged the applicant and CARDINAL accomplices carried out a series of \u2018 overt acts\u2019 , including those for which extradition is being granted to the GPE authorities presented as follows : [ a list of CARDINAL charges follows ] .","In GPE the charges ( \u2018 in the GPE judicial district and , on related charges , elsewhere in the GPE ) against the applicant are as follows : [ a list of CARDINAL charges follows ] .","Comparing all the \u2018 overt acts\u2019 for which extradition has been granted to the GPE authorities with all the NORP charges valid \u2018 in the GPE judicial district and ... elsewhere in the GPE , it will be noted that the former have no territorial link with GPE , constituting a set of acts which serve as the constituent elements of the CARDINAL charges presented by the GPE authorities .","It emerges from the case file that the applicant is wanted by the GPE authorities for a number of offences in respect of which he has not been \u2018 found guilty , convicted or acquitted in the requested State\u2019 and that the \u2018 overt acts\u2019 constitute so many elements to be used by the GPE judicial authorities to establish whether the applicant is guilty or innocent of the CARDINAL charges brought against him . \u201d","On DATE , the date of notification of the ministerial decrees relating to the requests for extradition ( see CARDINAL and DATE ) , the applicant lodged a request with ORG for the indication of an interim measure pursuant to LAW with a view to suspending his extradition .","On DATE the ORG acceded to the applicant \u2019s request and decided to indicate to the Government , in the interests of the parties and of the proper conduct of proceedings before it , that it should not extradite the applicant to GPE .","On DATE , arguing that the interim measure had been indicated prematurely because the applicant had not yet been placed in custody pending extradition and that such a measure would create a situation detrimental to the proper administration of justice , ORG requested that the measure be lifted .","On DATE , the ORG , having re - examined the application in the light of the information supplied by the parties , decided , on the basis of the said information , to refuse to lift the interim measure .","On DATE the Government submitted a second request for the lifting of the interim measure .","In reply , the ORG pointed out , in a letter of CARDINAL DATE , that the request to lift the measure and the application would be re - examined once the judgment delivered on DATE by the ORG in PERSON and Others v. GPE , cited above , had become final .","In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed the parties that the examination of the request to lift the interim measure had been postponed indefinitely in view of the request for referral to ORG of the cases PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and ORG and PERSON v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the ORG informed the parties that it had been decided to refer the aforementioned PERSON case to ORG and that the question of the request to lift the interim measure would be re - examined when a decision had been taken on the request for referral of the aforementioned case of PERSON and Others to the Grand Chamber .","The application was communicated to the respondent Government on DATE .","In their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application the ORG requested , for the third time , the immediate lifting of the interim measure .","In a letter of DATE the ORG replied that the Government would be informed in due course of the decision taken by ORG on the interim measure .","DATE . On DATE it was decided to maintain the interim measure for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG .","In a letter of DATE in reply to a fourth request from the Government to lift the interim measure , the ORG stated that the interim measure had been maintained and would be applied until the end of the proceedings before it .","On DATE the ORG informed the parties that examination of the case had been adjourned in view of the imminent delivery of the judgment of the ORG d\u2019Etat and of the ORG judgment in ORG and Others [ ORG ] ( ORG . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , DATE ) .","In reply to a question from the Government on the deadline for dealing with the case , the ORG informed them on CARDINAL DATE that the examination of the case would begin at DATE or DATE .","On DATE the ORG informed the parties that the chamber constituted to examine the case was intending to relinquish the case to ORG under LAW .","By letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant expressed his agreement to such relinquishment . The Government , on the other hand , indicated , by letter of DATE , that they opposed relinquishment .","On DATE , having served the sentences imposed on him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant was taken into custody pending extradition in pursuance of section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a first application for release with ORG . By an order of CARDINAL June DATE the chambre du conseil dismissed the application . The order was upheld by ORG of ORG on DATE .","Subsequently , having meanwhile been transferred first to FAC and then to FAC , the applicant lodged a second application for release on CARDINAL DATE with ORG . On DATE the chambre du conseil allowed his application . On appeal from the public prosecutor , by judgment of DATE , ORG of ORG set aside this decision and dismissed the application .","On DATE the applicant lodged a third application for release . By an order of DATE the chambre du conseil of ORG declared the application unfounded . The applicant appealed to ORG of ORG , which upheld the aforementioned decision by judgment of DATE .","In DATE , having meanwhile been transferred to PERSON , the applicant lodged a fourth application for release , which was declared unfounded by the chambre du conseil of the Mons Regional Court on DATE , and then by ORG of ORG on DATE .","On DATE , having meanwhile been transferred to ORG , the applicant lodged a fifth application for release . This application was dismissed by the chambre du conseil of ORG on DATE and then by ORG of ORG on DATE .","Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant had left ORG , having obtained a date for his wedding to a NORP national with whom he had had CARDINAL children .","On DATE the applicant was informed that he was being transferred from FAC to ORG . In fact he was being taken to NORP military airport , where ORG ( ORG ) agents were waiting for him . At TIME he was extradited to GPE .","The Minister for ORG issued a public statement announcing the applicant \u2019s departure at TIME","At TIME the applicant \u2019s lawyer made a highly urgent ex parte application to the President of ORG . The decision , which was given at TIME , stated that ORG was required to comply with the interim measure indicated by the ORG , and ordered \u201c prohibition or suspension of the applicant \u2019s extradition , as far as this might be possible \u201d , on pain of a fine of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( MONEY ) . The ORG has not been informed of any appeal against this order .","In GPE the applicant was immediately placed in custody . On DATE , assisted by an officially appointed lawyer , he was brought before ORG of GPE to hear the charges against him .","The applicant is currently being held in the GPE regional prison in GPE ( GPE ) . On DATE a letter from the prison administration to the NORP authorities stated that the applicant was subject to the same conditions of detention as all other prisoners .","According to an email sent on DATE by the applicant \u2019s GPE lawyer to his representative before the ORG , the applicant was allowed to have postal contact with the outside world , but all correspondence would be translated and read in advance by ORG . He was also allowed to have telephone contact with some members of his family provided that an interpreter was available . Close relatives could visit him subject to obtaining a GPE entry visa .","DATE . The applicant was visited by his lawyer , who , in an email sent to a member of his family on DATE , said that he had been placed in an isolated cell . She expressed concern about his mental state ."],"violated_articles":["3","34"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155877","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FIN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KUOKKANEN AND JOHANNESDAHL v. FINLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The case concerns criminal proceedings in which a judgment was rendered against the applicants by ORG ( hovioikeus , hovr\u00e4tten ) on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG ( korkein oikeus , h\u00f6gsta domstolen ) refused the applicants leave to appeal and ORG judgment thus became final .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal before ORG , requesting it to annul ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and to refer the matter back to it for a new examination . He claimed that the composition of the court had not been competent ( p\u00e4\u00e4t\u00f6svaltainen , domf\u00f6r ) as CARDINAL of the appeal court justices had been biased in the matter .","On DATE ORG found that the justice in question had been biased in the case and that therefore the composition of the court had not been competent . ORG thus annulled ORG judgment as far as the first applicant was concerned and referred the matter back to ORG for a new examination .","Subsequently , the second applicant also requested the annulment of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE as far as he was concerned . The outcome of his request was the same as for the first applicant : ORG annulled the Appeal Court judgment as far as he was concerned and referred the matter back to ORG for a new examination . The public prosecutors never requested annulment of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","During the reopened ORG proceedings the applicants claimed that ORG could no longer examine those charges which had been dismissed by the final ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE as the ORG request for reopening did not concern these parts of the case . They referred both to the prohibition of reformatio in peius and to the ne bis in idem principle . On the other hand , the public prosecutors claimed that the case had been referred back to ORG in its entirety . They claimed that , as the competency of the composition was a matter that concerned all parties , the prohibition of reformatio in peius did not apply and the examination of the case was to be conducted as if the case had only now become pending before ORG .","On DATE ORG dismissed , without examining the merits , those charges which had already been finally decided by ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The court noted that the public prosecutors had not challenged the impartiality of the composition of the court but that only the applicants had made such claims . Therefore , also taking into account the case - law of ORG , the previously dismissed charges could no longer be examined .","By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the public prosecutors appealed to ORG against this ORG decision . They claimed that the rules on impartiality were designed to protect all parties to the proceedings . In such a situation the prohibition of reformatio in peius was no longer applicable . As the earlier judgment had been annulled in respect of the applicants , there existed no earlier final judgment concerning them . The applicants disagreed with the public ORG conclusions . They pointed out that they did not even have any interest or right to appeal against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE in so far as it was favourable to them . A final judgment could not be annulled without any specific request to that effect .","On DATE ORG granted the public prosecutors leave to appeal .","On DATE ORG quashed the ORG decision and referred the case back to it for a new examination . It found that the prohibition of reformatio in peius was valid in the NORP legal system and that it was applied both in ordinary and extraordinary appeal proceedings . The question of whether a case was annulled and referred back for a new examination in its entirety or only in part depended on the nature of the procedural error in the case at hand . If the procedural error affected the whole judgment and the proceedings , the case was referred back in its entirety , even if the judgment had been favourable to the appellant . The court noted that in the Convention or in its Protocols there was no specific mention of the prohibition of reformatio in peius but that it formed a part of the general fair trial guarantees . ORG had made a Recommendation on this subject in DATE . However , in the case - law of the ORG no similar case was to be found . On the other hand , there was caselaw about a judge \u2019s partiality , which issue had been considered by the ORG to be such a grave procedural error that it always led to the annulment of a judgment . The principle of ne bis in idem did not prevent new examination of the case if in earlier proceedings a grave procedural error had taken place . All partiality grounds were unconditional . In the present case the lack of competence of the composition concerned the whole ORG proceedings and the judgment in its entirety . Therefore the court had earlier annulled ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE in its entirety . As the prohibition of reformatio in peius only applied to judgments which had become partially final , it did not apply to the present case in which a final judgment had been completely annulled . ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE was thus no longer binding in any respect . ORG reached this conclusion by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL . The decision contains CARDINAL dissenting opinions .","There is no explicit provision concerning the principle of reformatio in peius in the domestic law . The established interpretation is , largely on the basis of the national case - law , that this principle is valid in the national legal system . This principle is inferable from LAW , LAW , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( oikeudenk\u00e4ymiskaari , r\u00e4tteg\u00e5ngsbalken ; as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) which reads as follows :","\u201c [ ORG a criminal case , ORG may amend , in favour of the defendant , the judgment that ORG has given on the charges even if only the public prosecutor has appealed against this . \u201d","ORG has dealt with the principle of reformatio in peius in some of its precedent cases .","PERSON : After ORG had referred the criminal case back to ORG on the basis of the defendant \u2019s appeal , the complainant claimed damages in the retrial proceedings , although he had declared in the earlier proceedings that he had no claims for damages . Because the question about the complainant \u2019s right to damages had not been examined or determined by a judgment before , no impediment existed for examining the claim for damages .","KKO:CARDINAL:CARDINAL : When sentencing the defendant to a punishment for robbery , ORG had obliged him to pay the complainant damages for mental suffering . When the defendant appealed to ORG , the complainant , in a counter - appeal , claimed an increase in the damages for mental suffering . ORG upheld the judgment of ORG . The complainant abided by ORG judgment but , on the basis of the defendant \u2019s appeal , ORG referred the matter back to ORG for a main hearing . In the new proceedings the complainant , on the basis of the counter - appeal , continued to claim an increase in the damages . ORG held that the counter - appeal could be examined in the retrial proceedings .","NORP Moreover , LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( as amended by Act no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provides that :","\u201c On the basis of a complaint invoking procedural fault , a final judgment may be annulled :","CARDINAL ) if the court had no quorum or if the case had been taken up for consideration of the merits even though there was a circumstance on the basis of which the court should have dismissed the case on its own motion without considering the merits ;","... \u201d","According to LAW , section CARDINAL , of the same Code ,","\u201c [ i]f it is found that a procedural fault has occurred , the judgment shall be annulled in full or for the part necessary and , if the case is to be retried , it shall be referred back to the court where the procedural fault had occurred . In this event , ORG shall also order the deadline and manner for the bringing of the case to a retrial . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-178878","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KASHESHOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention , which were incompatible with their disabilities , and that there was no effective remedy in that regard . In application no . CARDINAL , the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177650","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA;RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BRAGA v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (Russia);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (the Republic of Moldova);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (Russia);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application) (the Republic of Moldova)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , the applicant was arrested in GPE by virtue of a decision of a prosecutor from the self - proclaimed \u201c GPE ( the \u201c FAC ; for further details about the \u201c FAC , see ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVII , and ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG DATE ( extracts ) ) . He was charged with fraud and incitement to bribery .","On DATE , ORG , which was under the jurisdiction of the \u201c FAC \u201d , convicted the applicant and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . According to the applicant , he appealed , but his appeal was rejected by the \u201c FAC ORG on an unspecified date .","The applicant initially served his sentence in PERSON no . CARDINAL . On DATE , he was transferred to FAC , which was under the control of the GPE authorities . On DATE , he signed a form of authority authorising the PERSON - based non - governmental organisation ORG ) to represent him before this ORG . That form of authority , together with the application form , reached the ORG on DATE .","On DATE , a lawyer from ORG informed ORG that the applicant and CARDINAL other people were being held in FAC on the basis that they had been convicted by \u201c FAC courts . He asked for their immediate release , in view of the fact that they had been convicted by unlawful courts . He also submitted that some of those CARDINAL detainees had already lodged applications with the ORG , and that a failure to immediately release them or any attempt to transfer them back to the \u201c FAC authorities would result in GPE incurring responsibility . A similar letter was sent on DATE to the Minister of ORG .","On DATE , members of ORG organised a press conference , \u2019s ORG on DATE .","Also on DATE , all CARDINAL detainees , including the applicant , were allegedly transferred back to \u201c FAC prisons .","On DATE , ORG informed the media of the detainees\u2019 transfer back to the \u201c FAC authorities on DATE .","On DATE , the Head of ORG of ORG informed ORG that the detainees mentioned in their request of DATE were not being held at FAC .","On DATE , the lawyer from ORG wrote to the \u201c FAC Ministry of Justice , asking for permission to see the applicant and stating that he was planning to lodge in the applicant \u2019s name an application before the Court . He never received a reply to that letter .","On DATE , the applicant was released from prison on the basis of an amnesty act .","The applicant described the conditions of his detention in the \u201c FAC in the following manner . He was allegedly detained in a cell with several people suffering from tuberculosis , and risked contracting that disease himself . During his detention in FAC no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL detainees there died of tuberculosis . He was also affected by parasitic insects . The applicant is a person with a category CARDINAL disability , but he was not given any medication during his detention . Food was served only once a day and was of very poor quality ."],"violated_articles":["3","34","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177655","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF GACHMA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Budenovsk , LOC of GPE . He is a former military officer .","On an unspecified date the applicant sued his former employer military unit .","On DATE ORG of FAC ( \u201c the military court \u201d ) ordered , inter alia , the head of the respondent military unit to re - calculate the period of the applicant \u2019s service , applying the favourable terms of such calculation for the time when the applicant had participated in a military operation . The military court obliged the head of the military unit to issue the relevant orders , to calculate and to pay the applicant some additional payments and field allowance for the periods specified in the judgment . The judgment contained information on the indexes and other parameters that should be applied for the awarded amounts to be calculated .","On DATE the judgment came into force .","In DATE the applicant obtained the writ of execution and submitted it to ORG in Budenovsk .","On DATE ORG returned the writ of execution to the applicant on the ground that the military unit did not have an account there , and the judgment contained no specific amounts awarded to the applicant .","On DATE the applicant submitted the writ of execution to the bailiffs\u2019 service . On DATE the enforcement proceedings were initiated .","On DATE the enforcement proceedings were terminated and the writ was returned to the applicant without enforcement following his request to withdraw the writ .","In DATE the applicant applied to the domestic courts for clarification of the initial judgment with the view to establish the specific amounts due to him . The applicant \u2019s requests were dismissed as being lodged out of time . The courts noted that , in any case , the matter concerning the awarded amounts should have been resolved by way of an additional decision rather than clarification of a final judgment , and informed that an application for an additional decision should have been lodged before the entry into force of the main judgment .","It is not disputed between the parties that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE remained unenforced in the part concerning the payment to the applicant of the second salary and the field allowances for the periods specified in the judgment .","On DATE , after communication of the present case , ORG of GPE calculated the amount due to the applicant under the judgment of DATE . According to this calculation , the main debt amounted to MONEY ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179613","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"SADAY v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicants are the wife , children , parents and siblings of PERSON DATE , who died on DATE as the result of an explosion in an unlicensed fireworks workshop operating in GPE , a district of GPE . It appears that CARDINAL other people lost their lives in the same explosion , and that some QUANTITY people were injured .","On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office initiated an investigation of its own motion into the incident . Accordingly , evidence was collected from the accident site , including photographic and forensic evidence , and an incident report was prepared . The PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office also commissioned CARDINAL expert reports , CARDINAL involving a chemical analysis of the substances collected from the accident site ( \u201c the first expert report \u201d ) , and the other concerning the establishment of the circumstances of and responsibility for the explosion , including any responsibility on the part of any ORG officials ( \u201c the second expert report \u201d ) .","On DATE a lawyer from the GPE branch of ORG lodged a criminal complaint , in the name of that association , against various public officials in connection with the explosion .","The first expert report , which was added to the investigation file on DATE , concluded that most of the samples obtained from the accident site contained barium nitrate , a highly toxic and explosive chemical substance .","The second expert report was added to the investigation file on DATE . The report , which contained very detailed findings based on an examination of the forensic evidence and statements given to the police by a number of witnesses , found that DATE under the relevant regulations \u2013 the following persons and authorities had been responsible for the accident :","- S.B. , the owner of the workshop , had been CARDINAL responsible for the explosion , on account of his failure to comply with various licensing and security requirements provided by the relevant legislation ;","- GPE and GPE had each been CARDINAL responsible , mainly on account of their failure to fulfil their respective licensing and inspection duties , as specified in the relevant legislation ;","- the electricity distribution company BEDA\u015e ( Bo\u011fazi\u00e7i Elektrik Da\u011f\u0131t\u0131m Anonim \u015eirketi ) had been CARDINAL responsible on account of having supplied electricity to a building which did not possess an occupancy permit ;","- ORG had been QUANTITY responsible , on account of having failed to inspect the workshop , in which uninsured workers had been employed .","Having regard to the findings of the experts and the criminal complaint lodged by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and in compliance with the mechanism set out under PERSON no . DATE ( the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants and Public Officials ) for the prosecution of civil servants , the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office sought authorisation from the competent authorities for the prosecution of a number of public officials .","After conducting its own examination into the matter , on DATE the GPE Governor \u2019s ORG refused to authorise the prosecution of the former GPE Governor of GPE ( GPE ) and the Security Director of GPE ( ORG ) . It held that these authorities had been under no obligation to take action in respect of the workplace at issue , given that no irregularities had been brought to their attention by other organs , such as local municipalities , which had been responsible for inspecting that workplace . It appears that the applicants were not able to lodge an objection in respect of this decision , as it was not served on them .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office issued a decision not to prosecute GPE and ORG , in accordance with the decision of ORG .","On an unspecified date the ORG representative lodged another criminal complaint against GPE and ORG Referring to its previous decision of DATE , on CARDINAL DATE the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office issued , once again , a decision not to prosecute . The applicants lodged an objection to that decision ; this was rejected by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG \u2013 relying on the findings of an internal investigation ( conducted by CARDINAL of its own inspectors ) into the respective responsibilities of the mayor of GPE ( GPE ) and the mayor of GPE ( GPE ) in respect of the incident \u2013 decided not to grant permission for their prosecution . According to the findings of ORG inspector , the licensing and inspection of the workplace at issue had been outside the scope of the duties of GPE . Moreover , those officials from GPE who had been responsible for the licensing and inspection of the workshop had indeed undertaken such an inspection , but since the owner had not declared that he was engaged in the production of pyrotechnic articles , such as fireworks , they had had no reason to take any measures against the workshop . The applicants lodged an objection against that decision .","On DATE ORG dismissed that objection in so far as it concerned PERSON , but it accepted it in so far as it concerned PERSON , holding that under the relevant legislation , it was his municipality that had been responsible for licensing and inspecting the workplace in question . ORG therefore granted permission for his prosecution .","Accordingly , the GPE prosecutor \u2019s office issued a decision not to prosecute in respect of GPE Nevertheless , an investigation was launched by the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office into whether or not PERSON had been responsible ; that investigation resulted in a decision not to prosecute PERSON on account of a lack of evidence indicating negligence or misconduct on his part in connection with the incident . The applicants lodged an objection against that decision .","On DATE ORG upheld that objection and annulled the decision not to prosecute PERSON","Upon receipt of the prosecution request from the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office , an internal investigation was conducted at GPE into the responsibilities of current and former licence inspection directors of GPE ( GPE , GPE and ORG , which found that the licensing and inspection of the production of the explosive material in question was outside the scope of the duties of GPE .","Accordingly , on DATE the GPE ORG refused to authorise the prosecution of GPE , GPE and ORG ; on DATE ORG dismissed an objection lodged by the PERSON prosecutor \u2019s office against that decision , as the objection had been lodged outside the statutory time - limit .","Following a request by the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office for the prosecution of the GPE personnel who had been in charge of the overseeing and inspection of the workplace at issue , the Zeytinburnu ORG Office carried out a preliminary examination in respect of the following GPE personnel : CARDINAL zoning and urban development directors ( GPE , GPE and PERSON ) ; the licensing and inspection director ( PERSON ) ; the licence inspection and finance director ( ORG ) ; and the municipal police director ( ORG . By a decision dated DATE , the Zeytinburnu ORG decided not to grant permission for the prosecution of these individuals , on the grounds that they had not been at fault or been negligent in respect of the occurrence of the explosion .","The PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office lodged an objection against that decision ; on DATE ORG revoked the decision of ORG and granted permission for the prosecution of the persons in question . ORG held that there was enough material in the case file to justify an investigation into whether the GPE personnel in question had been responsible for the explosion .","It appears from the submissions of the Government that the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office also sought permission for the prosecution of ORG , the former director of ORG , which was attached to ORG . While the GPE Governor \u2019s ORG initially refused permission for the prosecution of ORG , that decision was subsequently overturned by ORG on DATE .","After obtaining administrative authorisation ( idari izin ) for the prosecution of the public officials in question , the PERSON public prosecutor \u2019s office issued CARDINAL separate bills of indictment in respect of the incident .","The first bill of indictment was filed on DATE against the GPE personnel GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the owners of the building in question ( Res . PERSON and PERSON . PERSON ) , and PERSON ( one of the employees of the workshop in question ) . All suspects were accused of causing death and bodily harm through negligence under LAW of LAW . The GPE personnel were also accused of misconduct in office ( g\u00f6revi k\u00f6t\u00fcye kullanma ) under LAW .","The second bill of indictment was filed on DATE in respect of ORG , the director of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , under Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","The third bill of indictment was filed on DATE against ORG , the mayor of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , under LAW of LAW .","The proceedings in respect of the incident were held before ORG , which joined the CARDINAL cases . During the course of the proceedings , statements from CARDINAL people were taken by the court as victims or complainants . The court also took many witness statements and examined all evidence collected during the preliminary investigation ( such as photographs and video footage , autopsy reports , ORG reports , on - site examination reports , internal investigation reports issued by the public bodies concerned and other expert reports ) . It also ordered its own expert report from a group of experts consisting of CARDINAL university professors and engineers , and also requested information and documents from all the public authorities concerned in relation to the circumstances that had led to the explosion at issue .","Relying on all the information and evidence before it , and having regard to the jurisprudence of ORG on the matter ( as established in the case of GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALXII ) , on DATE the ORG delivered its judgment , which contained the following findings :","- it found the GPE personnel GPE and PERSON guilty as charged and sentenced them DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment ;","- it found the GPE personnel GPE and GPE guilty as charged , sentenced them DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , and in both cases converted that sentence to a judicial fine of CARDINAL NORP liras ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the material time ) ;","- it found the GPE employee PERSON guilty as charged , sentenced her to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , and converted that sentence to a judicial fine of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at the material time ) ;","- it found the building owners GPE . PERSON and PERSON . PERSON guilty as charged , and sentenced them each to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment ;","- it acquitted the mayor of GPE ( GPE ) and the former director of ORG ( ORG ) ; and","- it acquitted PERSON , an employee of the workplace in question .","An appeal was lodged against the judgment of ORG . According to the latest information in the case file , the appeal proceedings are still pending before ORG .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants brought an action for compensation in ORG against ORG , ORG , GPE , GPE and BEDA\u015e . They requested a total of TRY CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage .","Relying on the evidence in the criminal case file , together with an expert report that it commissioned to ascertain the damage incurred by the applicants , on DATE ORG found that GPE and GPE had been jointly and severally liable for the incident in question . It awarded the applicants TRY MONEY ( approximately ORG MONEY ) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage , plus interest .","On DATE ORG quashed that judgment upon an appeal lodged by all parties . It held that while only GPE and GPE had been found responsible for the incident , the information and documents in the case file suggested that the remaining CARDINAL respondents had also been at fault .","On DATE ORG dismissed a request lodged by all CARDINAL respondents for the rectification of its decision .","ORG ordered a new expert report to determine the respective liabilities of the respondents ; the report found that all the respondents had been responsible for the accident to some degree . Accordingly , on DATE the administrative court ordered the payment of the amounts it had previously determined ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) jointly and severally by the CARDINAL respondents .","An appeal was lodged against the judgment of ORG . According to the latest information in the case file , the appeal proceedings are still pending before ORG .","The relevant provisions of LAW are as follows :","Article CARDINAL","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Anyone who negligently causes the death of another shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of DATE .","( CARDINAL ) If the act results in the death of CARDINAL person , or injury to CARDINAL person together with the death of CARDINAL or more persons , the offender shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of DATE . \u201d","Article CARDINAL","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ... any public officer who secures an unjust financial benefit for another or causes any loss to the public or to an individual by acting contrary to the requirements of his office shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of DATE .","( CARDINAL ) ... any public officer who secures unjust financial benefit for another or causes any loss to the public or an individual through omission or delay in the performance of his duties shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of DATE . \u201d","Detailed information regarding PERSON no . DATE on ORG may be found in the cases of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( nos . PERSON and CARDINAL others , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) and ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174814","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF PETROVI\u0106 v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings for restitution of a hotel in GPE which had been confiscated from his predecessor in DATE . On DATE a commission responsible for such matters within ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . On DATE he appealed . On DATE a second - instance commission set up within the Government dismissed his appeal . Subsequently , the case went back and forth several times between the administrative bodies and courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . The proceedings are currently pending before ORG , awaiting a decision on an appeal by the applicant of CARDINAL DATE against a judgment of ORG .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for a ruling that the length of the restitution proceedings had been excessive , to award him compensation and set a DATE time - limit for the court dealing with his case to decide on his restitution claim .","By letters dispatched DATE ( received on DATE ) and DATE , ORG requested the case file from ORG . The case file , which was with the administrative bodies , was forwarded to ORG on DATE .","On DATE the first - instance panel of ORG found that the relevant period to be taken into consideration had started to run on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It further established that the case had not been complex and that there had been no delays attributable to the applicant . It concluded that there had been a violation of the applicant \u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded him the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) in compensation .","By a letter of DATE ( received on DATE ) , ORG asked ORG to provide assistance in delivering its decision because the applicant lived in GPE . Between CARDINAL August and DATE , ORG of the respondent ORG asked , on CARDINAL occasions , that the relevant Ministry in GPE serve ORG decision on the applicant . By a letter of DATE ( received on DATE ) , ORG informed the relevant Ministry of the respondent ORG about the date of service of ORG decision to the applicant .","In an appeal against ORG decision of DATE , the applicant complained that it had taken too long for that court to decide on his application . He referred to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , which required ORG to decide on a length of proceedings remedy within DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He also complained that the amount of compensation awarded to him had been too low .","On DATE the second - instance panel of ORG ruled partly in favour of the applicant . It endorsed the findings of the first - instance panel regarding the complexity of the case and that no delays were attributable to the applicant , found that the proceedings had lasted for DATE , DATE and DATE and set compensation at the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184610","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"NOVAK v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON and PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE inheritance proceedings in respect of the property of the applicant \u2019s late mother were instituted before ORG .","The applicant claimed that because of gifts made by her late mother she would be excessively deprived of her statutory share of the inheritance . As a result , the court , in DATE , stayed the inheritance proceedings and advised the applicant to pursue her claim in contentious proceedings .","On DATE the applicant instituted contentious proceedings before ORG .","By DATE the applicant had made CARDINAL requests for a hearing to be scheduled .","On DATE ORG adjourned the proceedings . Both parties appealed .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision to adjourn the proceedings .","DATE and DATE the applicant made CARDINAL requests for ORG to schedule a hearing .","On DATE she lodged a supervisory appeal .","On DATE the president of ORG ordered that the case be given priority .","The applicant made CARDINAL further requests for a hearing .","On DATE the court held a hearing and dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to ORG .","On DATE the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal .","On DATE the applicant was informed in response to her supervisory appeal that a hearing would be held within a period of DATE .","On DATE ORG held a hearing and concluded the proceedings . Its decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE . She appealed on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal in part and modified the first - instance court \u2019s decision accordingly . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG issued a judgment rejecting her appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG , at the request of the applicant , issued an additional decision in respect of the case , which was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant signed an agreement with her lawyer , agreeing to pay his fees for the representation in the compensation proceedings according to ORG ( odvetni\u0161ka GPE , scheme setting out the official fees for ORG legal services ) , which was based on LAW ( Zakon o odvetni\u0161tvu , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They later agreed that the legal fees and other costs could be settled once all the remedies had been exhausted .","On DATE the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for non - pecuniary damage sustained as a consequence of undue length of the contentious proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) with ORG in accordance with ORG ( \u201c the CARDINAL Act \u201d ) . She had been offered MONEY ( ORG ) by way of compensation , which she rejected as too low .","On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against the ORG seeking ORG CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage . When lodging the claim the applicant paid court fees in the amount of ORG CARDINAL . The ORG was represented by ORG in PERSON . The latter lodged a reply to the applicant \u2019s claim on DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted her pleadings , disputing the arguments of ORG . On DATE the State Attorney \u2019s ORG submitted its pleadings .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG held a public hearing . After the hearing it upheld the applicant \u2019s claim in part . It noted that the parties had not significantly contributed to the length of the contentious proceedings , that the case was a rather simple one , and that the issue had certainly not been of minor importance to the applicant . The court referred to the compensation , which it considered to be typically awarded to the applicants by the ORG in cases concerning similar length and involving a similar number of levels of jurisdiction . The court awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL , with default interest , in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal , paying court fees amounting to LAW .","On DATE the ORG partially upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal and increased damages to LAW . ORG found that the first - instance court had relied on case - law which was not analogous enough to the applicant \u2019s case to be used as a criterion for an appropriate compensation . Noting that the allowed compensation under LAW ranged from ORG CARDINAL to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , it considered that the applicant should have been awarded EUR CARDINAL . As regards the costs , it decided that the applicant was entitled to LAW for legal representation in the first - instance proceedings and nothing with respect to legal fees for the representation at the appeal stage as the law did not provide for it ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint and an application for constitutional review of the provisions of LAW ( Zakon o odvetni\u0161ki tarifi ) in parts concerning the fees for legal representation in the proceedings under LAW . She complained about the length of the contentious proceedings and the courts\u2019 handling of her claim for compensation for undue delays . She moreover argued that the extreme restrictions regarding the reimbursable legal fees in the proceedings under LAW , which did not apply to regular civil proceedings , were contrary to the equal protection of rights and the right to judicial protection enshrined in the LAW . The proceedings under LAW were complex enough to require legal representation as several steps , such as using of acceleratory remedies and settlement procedure , had to be conducted before a compensation claim could be lodged and there were strict procedural rules as regards the conduct of the compensation proceedings . She also pointed out that the contested provisions of LAW had essentially affected the plaintiffs , who had suffered damage due to a breach of the reasonable time requirement . For the representation in the LAW proceedings , the plaintiffs often paid legal fees based on an agreement , which meant that most of it might remain unreimbursed .","On DATE ORG rejected both the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint and the application for review of constitutionality . It rejected the constitutional complaint as inadmissible referring to section DATE ( a ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As regards the application for review of constitutionality , ORG noted that the challenged law was no longer in force , and that in any event the outcome of the proceedings could not benefit the applicant , as her constitutional complaint had been rejected .","The applicant indicated to the ORG that she was due to pay her lawyer LAW with respect to court fees relating to the compensation proceedings .","After ORG had issued its decision in the contentious proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG continued with the examination of the case in the inheritance proceedings and on DATE issued a decision on the distribution of the inheritance . Further to an appeal , ORG issued a decision on DATE ( served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE ) .","On DATE the applicant , who had availed herself of the remedies provided for under LAW , reached an out - of - court settlement with ORG after being offered the maximum amount of compensation allowed under LAW , namely LAW , as just satisfaction for the violation of her right to a trial without undue delay in the inheritance proceedings , as well as LAW for the costs of legal representation .","For a detailed presentation of LAW , see GPE v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE , and PERSON GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE .","As regards the reimbursement of costs and fees in the court proceedings , section CARDINAL of LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL with relevant amendments ) provides that the losing party to the proceedings should bear the costs of the successful party . However , if the claim was upheld only in part , the court may order that the amount of the costs to be reimbursed by the defendant should correspond to the proportion of the upheld part of the claim . According to section CARDINAL of the same Act only necessary costs were reimbursable .","In the compensation proceedings under LAW the parties have to pay the court fees which apply in ordinary civil proceedings under LAW . The amount of the court fees depends on the monetary value of the claim .","The fees reimbursable to lawyers for representation of their clients were until DATE specified in the Lawyer Fees Schedule , based on LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL with relevant amendments ) , applicable from DATE . On DATE LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL ) entered into force . It specified , inter alia , the fees reimbursable to lawyers for representation of their clients in proceedings under LAW . LAW was the act applicable at the time of the applicant \u2019s compensation proceedings . The fees for representation in the proceedings under LAW was set at ORG CARDINAL for lodging a supervisory appeal , a motion for a deadline or a claim for settlement with the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG . In court proceedings the award for representation was set at PERCENT of the compensation awarded by the court , but could not exceed LAW . There was no additional fee for representation in the appeal proceedings .","LAW was repealed on DATE by LAW to LAW ; however , the fees laid down in LAW were still applicable until the adoption of the new Lawyer Fees Schedule . According to the new Lawyer Fees Schedule , based on LAW and applicable from DATE , the fees for lodging an application for a supervisory appeal or a motion for a deadline was raised from ORG CARDINAL to EUR CARDINAL , while the distinction between court proceedings under LAW and ordinary civil proceedings was abolished and consequently the same fees applied to both .","As regards the admissibility of a constitutional complaint , section DATE of LAW provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) A constitutional complaint is not admissible if the violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms did not have serious consequences for the complainant .","( CARDINAL ) It is deemed that there has been no violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms which had serious consequences for the complainant with regard to individual acts : issued in small - claims disputes in accordance with the act which regulates civil procedure , or in other disputes if the value in dispute for the complainant does not exceed the amount which is determined by the definition of small claims disputes in the act which regulates civil procedure ; if only a decision on the costs of proceedings is challenged by the constitutional complaint ; issued in trespass to property disputes ; issued in minor offence cases .","( CARDINAL ) Irrespective of the preceding paragraph , in especially well - founded cases ORG may exceptionally decide on a constitutional complaint against the individual acts referred to in the preceding paragraph . An instance of an especially well - founded case is a decision that concerns an important constitutional question which exceeds the importance of the specific case . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-159807","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF S.D.M. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Afghanistan)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They have been residing in the GPE since DATE .","The first applicant entered the GPE and applied for asylum on DATE , submitting the following account to the immigration authorities . He stated that he was a single NORP national of NORP origin , that he had never joined a political party , and that he had worked from DATE for the NORP security service ORG Dowlati \/ PERSON Dowlati ( \u201c ORG \/ WAD \u201d ) of the former communist regime in GPE .","In DATE he had reported for compulsory military service . In response to his request to be posted close to home , he had been assigned to the ORG in GPE . After his basic training , which had lasted DATE , he had started to work for Department CARDINAL of the ORG in GPE , which DATE under President ORG \u2019s national reconciliation policy sought to establish peaceful relations with the mujahideen and their reintegration into NORP national institutions \u2013 did not combat the mujahideen opposition but sought to try to negotiate with and persuade mujahideen groups to conclude peace agreements . These agreements entailed remunerated cooperation with the ruling communist ORG of GPE ( \u201c PDPA \u201d ) .","In DATE and as a conscript , he had performed guard duties and certain administrative tasks , such as making propaganda posters for the ORG \u2019s national reconciliation policy , taking TIME of meetings , copying information from reports into books to be held in the central archives , and collecting and recording neighbourhood reports .","After having worked for DATE for the ORG as a conscript , he had agreed to become a professional soldier . He had been appointed to the rank of Second Lieutenant ( \u201c Doham Bridman \u201d ) . His activities had consisted mainly of administrative duties relating to the processing of information gathered by more senior officers about mujahideen commanders . He had worked for the ORG until DATE , when he left work after the communist ORG regime was overthrown by the mujahedin . Shortly after they had seized power , the mujahideen proclaimed an amnesty for persons who had worked for the ORG . He had returned to work , had been given other tasks and had worked for the mujahideen until DATE , when the ORG seized power in GPE . Until that moment , GPE had been governed by a commander who , like the applicant , was of NORP origin . DATE after the arrival of the ORG in GPE in DATE and fearing for his life , the first applicant had fled to GPE from where he had travelled by air to the GPE .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) rejected the asylum claim then made by the first applicant , holding that he had failed to establish personal circumstances warranting a decision to grant him asylum . The mere fact that he belonged to the NORP ethnic minority did not suffice in that respect . Although the Deputy Minister acknowledged that it was not unlikely that former ORG staff members might experience problems from the new Government in GPE , she found this not to be the case as regards the first applicant , as he had continued working for the NORP authorities during the rule of the mujahideen from DATE to DATE without experiencing any problems . The Deputy Minister further considered it unlikely that the ORG were or would become aware of the first applicant \u2019s past professional activities for the former communist regime .","The Deputy Minister of ORG did , however , grant the first applicant a conditional residence permit ( voorwaardelijke vergunning tot verblijf ) , valid for DATE from DATE , on the basis of the unabated bad situation ( \u201c onverminderd slechte situatie \u201d ) in GPE .","On DATE , the first applicant submitted an objection ( bezwaar ) to the Deputy Minister against the decision to reject his asylum request . On DATE , the Deputy Minister rejected the objection . Although the first applicant could have appealed to ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE , he did not do so .","On DATE , the first applicant made a second asylum claim , which pursuant to article CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) had to be based on newly emerged facts and\/or altered circumstances ( \u201c nova \u201d ) warranting a reconsideration of the initial refusal . The new elements on which the first applicant based his fresh asylum request were his relationship with a woman in DATE in GPE out of which a child might have been born , his past work for the LAW , and various documents , including a copy of a judgment handed down in DATE in which a ORG in GPE - in proceedings held in absentia \u2013 had convicted the first applicant and CARDINAL others of conspiracy against the ORG and sentenced them to death . For identification purposes , photographs of the convicts , including the first applicant , were appended to this judgment . The first applicant had only learned about the existence of this judgment on DATE , thus after his flight from GPE , when his mother had sent him the judgment by mail from GPE , where she had gone for medical reasons . The first applicant did not know how or when his mother had obtained the judgment , but he assumed that it had been put up around his neighbourhood at some point in time , as local custom prescribed . The first applicant had also been informed , in a letter from his mother , that his brother had been captured and tortured in order to locate him . The first applicant further submitted on DATE a detailed written account of his activities for the ORG .","Meanwhile , in DATE , the situation in GPE not having sufficiently improved , the first applicant \u2019s conditional residence permit was ex lege converted into an indefinite residence permit after he had held it for DATE .","In her decision of DATE , after the first applicant had been interviewed again by the immigration authorities during which he stated inter alia that he had held the rank of First Lieutenant in the ORG , the Deputy Minister rejected the first applicant \u2019s second asylum claim and , considering that there were serious reasons for believing that the first applicant was guilty of acts referred to in LAW DATE LAW ) , applied this asylum exclusion clause .","Referring to an official report , drawn up on DATE by ORG on \u201c ORG in NORP GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG and ORG ( \u201c PERSON in communistisch GPE ( DATE ) , AGSA , ORG , ORG en WAD \u201d ) and concerning in particular the question whether , and if so which , former employees of those services should be regarded as implicated in human rights violations ( see ORG v. the GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) , the Deputy Minister emphasised the widely known cruel character of the ORG , its lawless methods , the grave crimes it had committed such as torture , murder , arbitrary executions and other human rights violations , and the climate of terror which it had spread throughout the whole of NORP society , including the army .","Having established , on the basis of elaborate argumentation based on various international documents , that those involved in the ORG \/ WAD were likely to fall within the scope of LAW , the Deputy Minister proceeded to an analysis of the first applicant \u2019s individual responsibility under that Convention . She noted that the ORG was considered to be an elite unit of the communist regime , and that only those whose loyalty was beyond doubt were eligible for recruitment to the service . Furthermore , newly recruited officers were initially placed in departments of the ORG specifically responsible for investigating \u201c elements of ORG security \u201d , where DATE in order to prove their loyalty unequivocally DATE they were directly involved in the human rights violations . In the light of the above , and noting that ORG \u2019s Directorate CARDINAL , for which the first applicant had worked in GPE , had CARDINAL interrogation centres in GPE , the first applicant \u2019s plea that he had never been involved in any human rights violations and had worked his whole career for CARDINAL department only was dismissed . The Deputy Minister dismissed the first applicant \u2019s claim that he had only performed tasks of an administrative nature . The Deputy Minister found , on the basis of the first applicant \u2019s statements , that he had actually been involved in activities of an operational nature : persuading enemies of the regime to cooperate by accompanying his superiors on field missions and taking TIME of meetings that had taken place between the ORG and those enemies , namely the mujahideen . The Deputy Minister did not attach credence to the first applicant \u2019s claim that he had been ignorant of the human rights violations committed by the ORG \/ WAD . In this regard it was held that the first applicant had worked directly for the commanders in chief of his ORG and had accompanied them on field missions . It was therefore highly implausible that he would have had no knowledge whatsoever of the human rights violations for which the ORG was responsible . The Deputy Minister held that it should be concluded from the first applicant \u2019s functions and work effected for the ORG \/ WAD that he had been specifically implicated in the human rights violations committed by the ORG .","The Deputy Minister underlined that the application of LAW did not require proof of personal commission by the first applicant of the alleged crimes ; it sufficed that serious reasons existed to consider that the first applicant had , or should have had , knowledge of those crimes and that he bore responsibility for them , which responsibility he had voluntarily assumed . Accordingly , LAW was held against the first applicant , and as a consequence his application for a residence permit for asylum purposes was denied .","The Deputy Minister also revoked the first applicant \u2019s residence permit , which he had obtained by the Deputy Minister \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . It was held in this regard that the first applicant had not given a correct and full insight into his past activities , which , had he done so , would have stood in the way of issuing him the residence permit he had been granted .","NORP The Deputy Minister further requested ORG ( Openbaar Ministerie ) , by letter of DATE , to examine the possibilities of prosecuting the first applicant in the GPE for the crimes imputed to him on the basis of LAW . The Deputy Minister sent another letter to the same effect on DATE . No further information about the follow - up to these letters has been submitted .","On DATE , the first applicant submitted an objection ( bezwaar ) to this decision . On DATE , the first applicant was heard on his objection before an official board of enquiry ( ambtelijke commissie ) . On DATE , the Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON ) rejected the objection . The Minister upheld the Deputy Minister \u2019s previous decision and proceeded , in addition thereto , to an analysis of the first applicant \u2019s individual responsibility under LAW on the basis of the prescribed and so - called \u201c knowing and personal participation test \u201d .","As regards the \u201c knowing \u201d element , the Minister found , relying on the aforementioned official report of ORG , that the first applicant had known or should have known about the criminal character of the ORG \/ WAD . Basing himself on LAW ( Vreemdelingencirculaire ) , the Minister held that , according to a letter of the Deputy Minister of Justice of DATE , knowing participation was in principle to be assumed in cases of persons who had worked for certain categories of organisations , to which the ORG belonged . Having regard to the official report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and other international materials , the Minister considered that the systematic and large - scale commission of human rights violations by ORG under the ORG \u2019s rule was a fact of common knowledge and that therefore the first applicant could not have been ignorant of those acts . The first applicant \u2019s argument that , given his low rank , he had had no knowledge of and could not be held responsible for human rights violations attributed to the NORP \/ WAD , was thus not accepted by the Minister , who emphasised that the first applicant had declared that everyone had feared the regime and that he had successfully found an administrative post during his mandatory military service . The Minister found that , by admitting to the ubiquitous fear of the regime , the first applicant had admitted to having known of atrocities committed by that regime . As regards the first applicant \u2019s personal participation in human rights violations attributed to ORG , the Minister found that he had failed to establish that he had not committed the alleged crimes himself or that his conduct , by act or omission , had prevented those crimes from being committed . The Minister held , therefore , that the first applicant had personally participated in the crimes imputed to him .","Although the Minister considered that it could not be ruled out that the first applicant would run a risk of treatment contrary to LAW if he were expelled to GPE , it was nevertheless held that he was under an obligation to leave the GPE .","NORP The Minister lastly found that the first applicant was not eligible for a residence permit under the DATE policy ( this was a policy entitling asylum - seekers to a residence permit if their asylum requests had not been finally determined within DATE , provided that there were no contraindications such as , for instance , a criminal record ) as LAW had been held against him , which constituted a contraindication .","The first applicant \u2019s objection to the refusal to grant a residence permit under the DATE policy was rejected by the Minister on DATE .","Meanwhile , the second applicant had joined the first applicant in the GPE . She was granted a residence permit for the purpose of residing with her husband on DATE , thus at a time when the first applicant still held his provisional residence permit .","On DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG also revoked the second applicant \u2019s residence permit , as it was linked to the first applicant \u2019s residence permit , which had been revoked . The second applicant submitted an objection to this decision . The Minister of ORG rejected the second applicant \u2019s objection on DATE . Meanwhile , on DATE , the second applicant had given birth to the third applicant .","Both the first and second applicants appealed to ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE against the decisions taken against them , namely , as regards the first applicant , the Minister \u2019s decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE and , as regards the second applicant , the Minister \u2019s separate decision of CARDINAL DATE .","ORG joined both applicants\u2019 appeals and , in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , agreed with the Minister \u2019s decision and underlying reasoning to hold LAW against the first applicant and the consequential decisions to revoke the residence permits held by the first and second applicants . However , as regards LAW and with reference to case - law of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG , it held that the Minister should , wherever possible , avoid creating a situation in which an asylum seeker was refused a residence permit but could not be expelled to his or her country of origin for reasons based on LAW . For that reason , the decision should demonstrate that the Minister had examined whether LAW would lastingly ( duurzaam ) stand in the way of expulsion to the country of origin and of the possible consequences for the residence situation of the person concerned . This , ORG found , the Minister had failed to do in the present case , for which reason it quashed all decisions appealed against as regards both the first and second applicants , and remitted the case to the Minister in order for her to take a fresh decision .","On DATE , in accordance with the court \u2019s judgment and after the first applicant , in view of the changed situation in GPE , had been heard once more before an official board of enquiry on DATE , the Minister took a fresh decision on the objections submitted by the first and second applicants . She maintained her decisions that LAW should be held against the first applicant and that both applicants were accordingly ineligible for a residence permit .","As regards LAW , the Minister noted that , according to an official report on GPE issued by ORG in DATE , certain categories of former officials \u2013 who were identified with human rights abuses committed during the communist regime , including ORG officials DATE continued to be at risk in GPE , not only from current power holders but more so from the population ( families of victims ) and the mujahideen , unless they enjoyed protection by virtue of good contacts with influential NORP and political parties and\/or tribes . To determine the level of risk , the official report enumerated a set of factors which would need to be balanced in each individual case : the extent to which the person in question was likely to be identified with NORP ideology , his or her rank in the former regime , and the existence of any ties which family members might have with the former communist regime . The Minister noted that mere membership of the PDPA did not suffice to establish a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of LAW .","The Minister went on to hold that the first applicant had not attracted the particular attention of any groups or individuals in the period prior to the coming to power of the ORG . The Minister underlined in this regard that , after the fall of the ORG regime , the first applicant had easily obtained a job in the local police headquarters for the mujahideen governor of GPE , PERSON , who was currently the Minister for Energy in GPE .","As regards the first applicant \u2019s fear of the ORG , the Minister held that the general situation in GPE had improved since DATE and that any ORG insurgents were concentrated mostly in areas outside GPE . As to the first applicant \u2019s fear of execution of the death sentence pronounced against him by the ORG , the Minister held , basing herself on the most recent official report of ORG , that the population register , which had already been inaccurate , had not improved during ORG rule due to illiteracy or a lack of interest in maintaining it . Furthermore , many courts of law had been destroyed during armed conflict . It was , therefore , not likely that the present authorities would be aware of the judgment against the first applicant . Moreover , judgments delivered under the ORG rule were not executed without prior verification by a court of law of their compliance with current NORP law . In this light the Minister did not attach much credence to the first applicant \u2019s submissions that his mother had not been allowed to collect her possessions in GPE due to her son \u2019s conviction by the ORG court . In addition , the Minister considered that it was unlikely that the first applicant would again be sentenced to death by GPE \u2019s present courts , in view of the fact that the conviction had been based on an alleged conspiracy against the ORG . The first applicant \u2019s submission that his being branded an infidel in the judgment could still have value before DATE \u2019s NORP courts was dismissed by the Minister , who found that , under the ORG regime , the mere denunciation of the ORG government in itself already constituted infidel status .","NORP The Minister further noted , basing herself on a person - specific official report ( individueel ambtsbericht ) issued by ORG on the first applicant on DATE , that in DATE he had obtained an NORP passport through GPE \u2019s diplomatic representation in GPE . Since GPE had not recognised the ORG as GPE \u2019s lawful government , the NORP embassy in GPE still represented the Government of President PERSON , who had been president from DATE , thus until the capitulation of GPE to the ORG . The Minister took note of the fact that Mr PERSON \u2019s political party , the Jamiat - e - Islami , was currently well represented in the present ORG . As the first applicant had successfully applied for a passport from an embassy represented by that party , the Minister held that he could not have come to PERSON negative attention . Moreover , the passport had been issued DATE after the death sentence had been handed down . In addition , as it did not appear that the first applicant had converted to another religion or had in other ways offended ORG , the Minister did not find it likely that he would be deemed an infidel again in DATE \u2019s GPE .","As regards the first applicant \u2019s identification in DATE GPE with NORP ideology , the Minister \u2019s finding that this did not pose him any problems during the mujahideen rule over the country led to the conclusion that he was unlikely to encounter such problems in the future . Furthermore , the first applicant had not made any mention , in the course of the interviews held with him , of any ties that members of his family may have had to the communist regime , nor of any problems he expected to encounter upon return as a result of any such ties .","The Minister therefore concluded that the first applicant had not demonstrated that he would be exposed to a real of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW if returned to GPE .","The appeal by the first and second applicants was rejected on DATE by ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE . It concurred with the Minister on all points . No further appeal lay against this decision .","On DATE , after the first and second applicants\u2019 separation and divorce , the second and third applicants submitted a fresh asylum request , which was granted on DATE , based on the position that the second applicant , as a single woman , and her child would find themselves in on returning to GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-155867","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"GRUBI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by Mr L. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","During DATE and DATE NORP paramilitary forces gained control over CARDINAL of the territory of GPE and proclaimed the \u201c GPE of LOC \u201d ( PERSON autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter \u201c LOC \u201d ) . The applicant \u2019s mother , PERSON , remained living in ORG , a village in \u201c LOC \u201d . At DATE the NORP authorities announced a military action with the aim of regaining control over \u201c LOC \u201d . The action was codenamed \u201c Storm \u201d , and took place from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . Before that action , the vast majority of the population of \u201c LOC \u201d fled GPE , firstly to GPE and GPE , and later on many of them went to live in GPE . Some returned to GPE after the war . The number of people who fled is estimated at CARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant lodged a request with ORG in GPE for a search for his mother . He alleged that his mother had disappeared on DATE in ORG , during the \u201c Storm \u201d military action .","In DATE the body of the applicant \u2019s mother was exhumed in ORG and transferred to ORG ( Zavod za sudksu medicine u GPE ) . On DATE an autopsy was carried out which failed to establish the cause of death . On DATE the applicant received the autopsy report and the body was given to the family . On an unspecified date it was buried in the ORG graveyard .","On DATE the applicant brought a civil action for damages against the ORG in ORG ( PERSON ) . On DATE the claim was dismissed on the ground that the circumstances of the death of his mother remained unknown . Thus the applicant had failed to prove either that his mother had been killed by NORP army soldiers or that her death \u201c resulted from an act of terror or violence aimed at gravely disturbing public order \u201d and that her death was not war - related . This judgment was upheld by ORG PERSON u PERSON ) on CARDINAL DATE , and by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .","The applicant \u2019s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o odgovornosti za \u0161tetu nastalu uslijed teroristi\u010dkih akata i javnih demonstracija , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE \u201c the DATE LAW \u201d ) , which entered into force on DATE , provides as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) This Act regulates the liability for damage caused by acts of terrorism or other acts of violence committed with an aim of seriously disturbing public order by provoking fear or stirring up feelings of insecurity in citizens ...","( CARDINAL ) A terrorist act within the meaning of this LAW is especially an act of violence committed for political reasons [ motives ] with a view to stirring up fear , terror or feelings of personal insecurity in citizens . \u201d","\u201c GPE shall be liable for damage referred to in CARDINAL of this LAW .... \u201d","\u201c The obligation to compensate for damage under LAW exists irrespective of whether the perpetrator has been identified , criminally prosecuted or found guilty . \u201d","\u201c The victim shall have the right to compensation [ in the form of damages ] of damage resulting from death , bodily injury or impairment of health . \u201d","The Liability Act ( Croatian ORG and Police ) ( Zakon o odgovornosti PERSON \u0161tetu uzrokovanu od pripadnika hrvatskih oru\u017eanih i redarstvenih snaga tijekom Domovinskog rata , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) governs the conditions under which the ORG is liable to pay compensation for damage caused by members of the army and the police during the Homeland War . The relevant provisions read as follows :","\u201c The present Act governs the liability of GPE for damage caused by members of the NORP armed and police forces in military or police service or in connection with such service during the Homeland War in the period DATE and DATE . \u201d","\u201c GPE is liable under general rules governing liability for damage only in respect of damage defined in section CARDINAL hereof which does not have the character of war - related damage . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) War - related damage within the meaning of this LAW is , in particular :","\u2013 damage caused at the time when and on the territory where military actions were carried out with any means of war combat actions ( bombardment , shelling , firing from machine - guns , explosions , mining , moving of troops and the like ) ;","\u2013 damage resulting in direct and concrete military gain if , given the time and place where it occurred , it directly served military operations , and in particular :","( a ) damage which was a direct consequence of any protective or planning measure which the competent military authorities carried out with the aim of removing or preventing an enemy attack ;","( b ) damage which was a direct consequence of protective or planning measures which the competent military authorities carried out in anticipation of an enemy action ( work in fields , confiscation of movable property , occupation of real estate and the like ) ;","( c ) damage which was a direct consequence of measures taken with the aim of preventing the consequences of the damage described in subsection CARDINAL of this section from spreading or of alleviating such consequences ;","\u2013 damage which , having regard to its results and the specific time and place where it occurred , was directly caused by the state of war and is directly connected with war operations ( direct consequences of war events in connection with unrest , turmoil , panic , evacuations and similar events [ occurring ] immediately after the war operations have been carried out ) .","( CARDINAL ) It is to be presumed that the damage caused by members of the NORP armed and police forces in military or police service or in connection with such service during the Homeland War in the period DATE and DATE is war - related damage , if it occurred at the time when and on the territory where military combat actions took place , but the injured party may prove the opposite . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-141831","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"S.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , FAC , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON of ORG , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant pleaded guilty to committing a sexual offence against a minor and on DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment . In addition , a Sex Offender Prevention Order ( \u201c SOPO \u201d ) was made against the applicant . The ORG , which was to last for DATE beginning on DATE , prohibited him from having contact with female minors under the age of CARDINAL .","The applicant and his partner have a son , D , who was born on DATE . In or around DATE the prison service informed the applicant that he could have no contact whatsoever with his son while he was in prison . The applicant appealed against this decision and on DATE he was advised that the decision had been taken in the mistaken belief that the ORG prohibited contact with both male and female minors . The matter was therefore referred to ORG for review .","On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that he had been placed on level CARDINAL of the contact arrangements , which meant that he was only permitted contact with his son via written correspondence and telephone calls , both of which were to be monitored subject to a risk assessment being carried out and regularly reviewed . The applicant requested full reasons for this decision and on DATE he was advised that the decision was made in consultation with his probation officer and ORG . A further letter received by the applicant \u2019s solicitor in DATE indicated that \u201c visiting a prison environment would not be in the child \u2019s best interests or have any positive impact on the child at this time \u201d . The letter also indicated that the applicant \u2019s partner shared this view . However , the applicant \u2019s partner later denied that this was the case and on DATE she gave a statement in support of the applicant \u2019s application for his son to visit him in prison . In that statement she indicated that she was only concerned that the contact would be irregular and cause her son further disappointment .","The applicant renewed his application on DATE , but the ORG again concluded that \u201c visiting the prison environment would not be in the child \u2019s best interests at this time \u201d .","The applicant issued judicial review proceedings on CARDINAL DATE to challenge this decision on the grounds , inter alia , that it violated his rights under LAW as it was disproportionate and\/or had been made in compliance with an unpublished blanket policy that any person convicted of a sexual offence against minors would not be allowed to receive visits from any minors . On DATE the applicant was refused permission to apply for judicial review on the grounds that the decision was not irrational in light of the authorities\u2019 unanimous assessments and the child \u2019s best interests had to take priority over the applicant \u2019s right to respect for his family life .","The applicant renewed his application for permission but the application was refused on CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant submits that on the advice of his counsel he did not seek leave to appeal to ORG because he was due to be automatically released on DATE , at the halfway point of his sentence , and the domestic courts would not entertain an academic application unless there was a strong public interest element .","Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of FAC makes it unlawful for any public authority to act incompatibly with a Convention right . Section CARDINAL enables any court which finds that a public authority has breached section CARDINAL ) to grant such remedy , within its powers , as it considers appropriate .","The Prison Rules DATE , which were made by the Secretary of ORG for ORG pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , provide that :","\u201c Outside contacts","- ( CARDINAL ) Special attention shall be paid to the maintenance of such relationships between a prisoner and his family as are desirable in the best interests of both .","( CARDINAL ) A prisoner shall be encouraged and assisted to establish and maintain such relations with persons and agencies outside prison as may , in the opinion of the governor , best promote the interests of his family and his own social rehabilitation .","... ... ...","Communications generally","- ( CARDINAL ) Without prejudice to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Prison Act DATE and except as provided by these Rules , a prisoner shall not be permitted to communicate with any person outside the prison , or such person with him , except with the leave of the Secretary of ORG or as a privilege under rule CARDINAL .","( CARDINAL ) Notwithstanding paragraph ( CARDINAL ) above , and except as otherwise provided in these Rules , the Secretary of ORG may impose any restriction or condition , either generally or in a particular case , upon the communications to be permitted between a prisoner and other persons if he considers that the restriction or condition to be imposed -","does not interfere with the convention rights of any person ; or","( i ) is necessary on grounds specified in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) below ;","( ii ) reliance on the grounds is compatible with the convention right to be interfered with ; and","( iii ) the restriction or condition is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved .","( CARDINAL ) The grounds referred to in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) above are \u2013","( a ) the interests of national security ;","( b ) the prevention , detection , investigation or prosecution of crime ;","( c ) the interests of public safety ;","( d ) securing or maintaining prison security or good order and discipline in prison ;","( e ) the protection of health or morals ;","( f ) the protection of the reputation of others ;","( g ) maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary ; or","( h ) the protection of the rights and freedoms of any person .","( CARDINAL ) Subject to paragraph ( CARDINAL ) above , the Secretary of ORG may require that any visit , or class of visits , shall be held in facilities which include special features restricting or preventing physical contact between a prisoner and a visitor .","( CARDINAL ) Every visit to a prisoner shall take place within the sight of an officer or employee of the prison authorised for the purposes of this rule by the governor ( in this rule referred to as an \" authorised employee \" ) , unless the Secretary of ORG otherwise directs , and for the purposes of this paragraph a visit to a prisoner shall be taken to take place within the sight of an officer or authorised employee if it can be seen by an officer or authorised employee by means of an overt closed circuit television system .","( CARDINAL ) Subject to rule CARDINAL , every visit to a prisoner shall take place within the hearing of an officer or authorised employee , unless the Secretary of ORG otherwise directs .","( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG may give directions , either generally or in relation to any visit or class of visits , concerning DATE and times when prisoners may be visited .","( CARDINAL) In this rule \u2013","( a ) references to communications include references to communications during visits ; PERSON ( b ) references to restrictions and conditions upon communications include references to restrictions and conditions in relation to the length , duration and frequency of communications ; and","( c ) references to convention rights are to the convention rights within the meaning of LAW DATE . \"","Personal letters and visits","( CARDINAL ) Subject to paragraphs ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL) , a convicted prisoner shall be entitled -","( a ) to send and to receive a letter on his reception into a prison and thereafter once DATE ; and","( b ) to receive a visit twice in DATE , but only once in every such period if the Secretary of ORG so directs .","( CARDINAL ) A prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment to which an intermittent custody order relates shall be entitled to receive a visit only where the governor considers that desirable having regard to the extent to which he has been unable to meet with his friends and family in the periods during which he has been temporarily released on licence .","( CARDINAL ) The governor may allow a prisoner an additional letter or visit as a privilege under rule CARDINAL or where necessary for his welfare or that of his family .","( CARDINAL ) The governor may allow a prisoner entitled to a visit to send and to receive a letter instead .","( CARDINAL ) The governor may defer the right of a prisoner to a visit until the expiration of any period of cellular confinement .","( CARDINAL ) The board of visitors may allow a prisoner an additional letter or visit in special circumstances , and may direct that a visit may extend beyond the normal duration .","( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG may allow additional letters and visits in relation to any prisoner or class of prisoners .","( CARDINAL) A prisoner shall not be entitled under this rule to receive a visit from :","( a ) any person , whether or not a relative or friend , during any period of time that person is the subject of a prohibition imposed under rule CARDINAL ; or","( b ) any other person , other than a relative or friend , except with the leave of the Secretary of ORG .","( CARDINAL ) Any letter or visit under the succeeding provisions of these Rules shall not be counted as a letter or visit for the purposes of this rule . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-179436","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VARGA AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144950","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"MOLDOVAN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , Mr R .- PERSON and PERSON , of ORG .","NORP The applicant is serving an DATE prison sentence for murder . He has served his sentence in various NORP prisons .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in FAC . As the originals of his legal correspondence had been retained by the prison authorities , the applicant lodged a request with the prison authorities demanding that all the documents be returned to him . As he did not receive a favourable response , he lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences in FAC ( \u201c the judge \u201d ) on the basis of LAW ( \u201c Law no . CARDINAL \u201d ) .","By an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the judge ruled that FAC authorities were in breach of national law and of LAW , and that they must therefore provide the applicant with the retained legal correspondence . The judge noted that the practice of the prison administration based on the provisions of the unpublished Order of the Minister of ORG no . CARDINAL\/C\/CARDINAL ( \u201c the order \u201d ) was one of presenting the prisoners with their correspondence , allowing them to read it and thereafter filing it in the ORG personal files to which the prison authorities had access . The judge quoted the relevant provisions of the order in the interlocutory judgment . He further found that the prison authorities\u2019 practice of retaining ORG legal correspondence was contrary to PERSON no . QUANTITY and that the above - mentioned order should have been considered as repealed by the entry into force of that law . The judge held in conclusion that by allowing prisoners access to their prison files or by providing them with photocopies of the documents , the prison authorities had not redressed the violation of the right to correspondence .","On DATE , following the interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE , FAC authorities provided the applicant with the legal correspondence that he had received during his stay in that prison .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to PERSON , where he was detained until DATE . His legal correspondence and documents that arrived during his stay in that prison continued to be retained in his prison file .","The applicant lodged a new complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences in PERSON , requesting , inter alia , the provision of correspondence and legal documents addressed to him . By an interlocutory judgment of DATE the judge determined that no new ruling on the application was necessary , as the applicant already had a judgment in his favour whereby the prison authorities were mandated to provide him with his correspondence .","According to the ORG \u2019s allegations , non - contradicted by the applicant , he received , while in PERSON , photocopies of various legal and medical documents .","The relevant parts of PERSON no . CARDINAL , in force at the material time , read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Correspondence is confidential and can not be opened or retained , save for the limitations and the conditions provided for by law ...","Correspondence can be opened and retained only if there is reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed . [ The detainee ] shall be informed in writing and immediately of this measure and the retained correspondence shall be stored in a special file kept by the prison authorities .","The opening and retaining of correspondence under paragraph CARDINAL is possible only on the basis of a reasoned decision , delivered in writing by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences ... \u201d","The Rules of Enforcement of Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL were adopted by ORG no . DATE . Under LAW , each detainee has a personal file that contains documents and information on his legal and personal circumstances , as well as his behaviour during detention ; the file is confidential and accessible to \u201c persons and authorities authorised by law . \u201d","NORP The relevant provisions of the unpublished Order of ORG no . CARDINAL\/C\/CARDINAL read as follows :","\u201c Excerpts or copies of the sentencing judgments , interlocutory judgments , arrest warrants or warrants delivered in view of the execution of a sentence , as well as any other document received from the ORG offices or the courts relating to the GPE legal situation , shall be provided to the latter for reading and signature . \u201d","\u201c Upon receipt of summonses or any other criminal procedure act that requires the detainee \u2019s signature ... the prison staff shall proceed as follows :","a ) provide the detainee with the act for reading , only after the act has been recorded in the detention file and saved electronically ;","b ) ask the detainee to sign an acknowledgement and the act , with due mention of the date ... ;","c ) send the acknowledgement to the authority that delivered the act ;","d ) if the detainee \u2019s presence before the court or the authority in charge of the criminal proceedings is required , on the basis of the summons , the data shall be recorded for presentation to the courts ... \u201d","\u201c Upon receipt , procedure acts or any other act that does not require the detainee \u2019s signed acknowledgement shall be recorded in the detention file , saved electronically , communicated to the detainee with due mention of the date and the detainee \u2019s signature , and stored ( \u201c se claseaz\u0103 \u201d ) in the detainee \u2019s file \u201d .","Order of the Ministry of Justice no . CARDINAL was repealed by Order no . CARDINAL but maintained the same provisions relating to prisoners\u2019 legal correspondence . The new order is public and entered into force on DATE .","A Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on ORG ( Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) ( \u201c FAC \u201d ) , adopted on DATE , sets out the following standards in respect of legal advice in prison that may be relevant in the context of the present case .","Rule CARDINAL reads :","\u201c CARDINAL . All prisoners are entitled to legal advice , and the prison authorities shall provide them with reasonable facilities for gaining access to such advice .","Prisoners may consult on any legal matter with a legal adviser of their own choice and at their own expense .","Where there is a recognised scheme of free legal aid the authorities shall bring it to the attention of all prisoners .","Consultations and other communications including correspondence about legal matters between prisoners and their legal advisers shall be confidential .","A judicial authority may in exceptional circumstances authorise restrictions on such confidentiality to prevent serious crime or major breaches of prison safety and security .","Prisoners shall have access to , or be allowed to keep in their possession , documents relating to their legal proceedings . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171475","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KARAKUTSYA v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Sergiy Goncharenko;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP In DATE the first applicant concluded a DATE military service contract with ORG .","In DATE its housing commission allocated him a studio in a residence hall for students and employees of ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , located on FAC in GPE , and the applicants moved into this accommodation .","NORP In DATE the first applicant concluded another DATE military service contract .","On an unspecified date in DATE the ORG daughter was born .","NORP In DATE the first applicant rescinded his contract with ORG and resigned from military service , citing family circumstances .","On DATE he was employed as a salesman by PERSON , a private company .","On an unspecified date and for unknown reasons the first applicant registered himself as a temporary resident at an address on P. Street in GPE . However , according to the applicants\u2019 submissions , the family continued to live in and pay charges for the Z. Street studio , which they had renovated and modernised at their own expense .","NORP In DATE ORG instituted proceedings in ORG in GPE , seeking to evict the applicants\u2019 family from the Z. Street accommodation . Relying on Article CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the plaintiffs argued that because the first applicant had resigned from military service , he and his family were obliged to vacate the accommodation , which had been provided to them on a temporary basis in connection with the first applicant \u2019s military service .","During the trial , the applicants alleged that the first applicant had been \u201c cantoned \u201d or quartered in the disputed accommodation as a military serviceman , a fact which triggered a special duty on the part of the ORG to keep providing him with housing upon his resignation from the armed forces . Article CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , which concerned accommodation for DATE and temporary employees , did not apply in their case . They also noted that the first applicant had a dependent wife and young child , and that the family had no other accommodation in GPE .","On DATE , after hearing oral submissions of all interested parties and having examined the written evidence presented , the court ruled for the plaintiffs . It found that the disputed accommodation had been provided to the applicants on a temporary basis , as a privilege in connection with the first applicant \u2019s military service . Since it had been his decision to terminate the contract early , there was no right to keep the accommodation or any duty of the ORG to provide other accommodation under the applicable law . Article CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of LAW was therefore applicable and the applicants\u2019 family was legally obliged to vacate the Z. Street accommodation .","On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . No copy has been provided to the ORG .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , following a hearing attended by representatives of ORG but not by the first applicant . The court held , in particular , that his service contract had contained no clauses obliging the Ministry to provide him with housing during his service . The fact that he had been provided with temporary accommodation at the ORG \u2019s discretion did not mean that the ORG had a duty to accommodate him or his family after termination of the contract .","According to the applicants , ORG did not notify them of the date and time of the hearing of DATE . They further stated that on CARDINAL occasions \u2013 in DATE and sometime in DATE ( the applicants could not recall the exact dates ) \u2013 the first applicant had visited the ORG to enquire about the status of the proceedings , but did not receive any meaningful response .","According to the applicants , on DATE they were evicted from the Z. Street accommodation .","On DATE ORG ( ORG \u0432\u0456\u0441\u043d\u0438\u043a GPE ) published the new ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the DATE Code \u201d ) , which was adopted on DATE and entered into force on DATE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the first applicant lodged written complaints with the President of ORG concerning the delay in examining his appeal .","On DATE the Deputy President of ORG informed him that his case had already been decided and that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had been upheld .","On DATE and DATE the first applicant wrote to ORG with a request to be provided with a copy of the decision taken on DATE .","On DATE the applicants received a copy of that decision .","On DATE the applicants lodged a request with ORG of GPE for leave to appeal in cassation out of time against the rulings of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , on the grounds that they had not been notified of the latter ruling until DATE . They argued , in particular , that ORG had failed , in breach of the requirements of the applicable law , to notify them of the date and time of the appeal hearing and the decision taken in their case . They had hence been deprived of their statutory right to attend the appeal hearing and to lodge a cassation appeal within the statutory time - limit . They also argued that the lower courts had erred in their assessment of the facts and application of the law in their case . In particular , since the first applicant had resigned from military service in connection with family circumstances , his situation fell within the ambit of paragraph CARDINAL , not paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of LAW . Accordingly , his family could only be evicted from the accommodation reserved for military personnel if they had been provided with other comparable accommodation . The applicants also relied on LAW of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as the basis for their entitlement to permanent accommodation .","On DATE ORG rejected the ORG request for leave to appeal out of time , noting that , in accordance with LAW of LAW such leave could only be granted within DATE of pronouncement of the decision subject to appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170608","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"RYMANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON GPE , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lived in PERSON before his arrest . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer with ORG in GPE . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by Mr PERSON PERSON , Representative of GPE to ORG .","NORP The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .","NORP In DATE , the organised crime division of GPE \u2019s police department was investigating the activities of a criminal gang implicated in a series of armed robberies in GPE and LOC . Police officer A. was in charge of the investigation . He received certain information concerning the gang \u2019s planned targets and its leader , GPE , through a police informant , PERSON , who had been collaborating with the police since DATE . A. investigated the information and confirmed that GPE \u2019s gang was implicated in an armed attack on the manager of an enterprise in LOC and his driver .","During the same period of time , GPE came into contact with the applicant , who had been a fellow prisoner with him in the past . GPE told the applicant that after he had been released from prison , he had joined a debtcollection business that had been under the informal protection of the police . During their conversation , St. \u2013 who was not a police officer \u2013 showed a police badge bearing his photo to the applicant . St. also introduced the applicant to PERSON , who was posing as a high - ranking police officer . PERSON told the applicant that \u201c while you [ that is to say the applicant ] were serving your sentence , life has changed , and it has become possible and necessary \u201c to do business \u201d under the unofficial protection of the police . \u201d","In DATE that GPE had contacted him with a view to his identifying potential targets for armed robbery . At around that time A. \u2019s subordinate , PERSON , also had an encounter with an informal acquaintance , PERSON . Either after being prompted by PERSON or of his own volition , PERSON . confided to PERSON that he wanted to rob the office of the company where he worked ( \u201c company NORP \u201d ) because it allegedly owed him salary in arrears .","G. reported to ORG that company PERSON had been targeted for an armed robbery . After this information was received , the commanding police officers decided to infiltrate PERSON into the gang and NORP requested PERSON to transmit that information to GPE and to recruit a team of would - be robbers .","On DATE , acting on instructions from A. , NORP recruited GPE , a long - term acquaintance of his , to rob company PERSON was not aware of NORP collaboration with the police .","On DATE PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON and GPE met to discuss the details of the planned robbery . Their meeting took place in a restaurant and it was videotaped and audiotaped by the police . During the meeting , PERSON . described the plan for the robbery , drew a plan of company M \u2019s office and explained where the cash was stored .","On DATE St. met with the applicant and asked him \u201c to help collect a debt \u201d from a company in GPE . He said that the manager of that company had issued a promissory note for money he had received to finance the development of his business and that he had not yet returned the money . GPE told the applicant that only the applicant \u2019s presence was needed and that he would pose , together with several other individuals , as creditors of company PERSON would be paid MONEY ( ORG ) because the debt was high and because there existed a risk of a conflict with racketeers protecting the company . The applicant agreed and the CARDINAL planned to meet DATE to carry out the plan .","On DATE St. and the applicant met with NORP and As . , who had been recruited by either NORP GPE , and they all arrived at company PERSON \u2019s office . After they had arrived PERSON supplied the group with weapons given to him by PERSON and they removed the licence plates from their getaway vehicle . Soon afterwards PERSON . opened the door to the company \u2019s office from the inside and let the applicant , GPE , NORP and As . in . Once inside , they attacked and injured company employees , taking cash and other valuable items from the victims . After the attack , the group left the crime scene in the getaway vehicle . They met PERSON and PERSON and divided the takings .","Shortly thereafter , the applicant was arrested and charged with armed robbery .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s case . The videotapes and audiotapes of the meeting between PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON and GPE on DATE were played at the hearing . PERSON . confirmed that the tapes were genuine . ORG further dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument that he had only intended to help recover a debt and that he had been incited to commit a crime . The court held that the applicant , GPE , NORP , and As . had acted in a well - organised , deliberate and coordinated manner during the robbery , which constituted evidence of a criminal conspiracy between them . It did not find any circumstances indicating that the applicant had been incited by the police to commit a criminal act . Since the applicant had been convicted on CARDINAL counts of aggravated armed robbery in the past , ORG convicted the applicant , as an habitual offender , of aggravated armed robbery , as well as of the aggravated unlawful transfer , transport and carrying of firearms , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and confiscation of property . GPE , NORP , and As . were convicted in the same proceedings .","ORG also convicted PERSON and PERSON of abuse of power during the undercover operation . The court found , in particular , that at first the infiltration of PERSON into the gang had been undertaken in accordance with the applicable law on undercover activities . However , the court established that NORP and PERSON had then in essence authorised a robbery with the use of weapons , thereby putting at risk the lives and well - being of both company M \u2019s employees and the police officers who had participated in the operation .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167082","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"ERG\u00dcN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184815","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GEO","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BARTAIA v. GEORGIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed from a printing company . He brought proceedings against his employer .","At the preparatory hearing of DATE the ORG in GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) scheduled the main hearing for TIME on DATE . The preparatory hearing was attended both by the applicant and his lawyer . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer wrote to the court informing that he was due to attend a hearing for an appeal on points of law before ORG of GPE at TIME on DATE and therefore could not be present . He requested that the hearing be adjourned . No reply followed .","ORG held the hearing on DATE as planned . The applicant appeared and submitted that , as he was not a lawyer , he would be unable to argue his case in the absence of his representative . He requested that the hearing be adjourned so that he could be represented by his lawyer . Counsel for the opposing party objected to the request and asked the first - instance court to issue a default judgment against the applicant . The record of the hearing shows that the judge warned the applicant that , if he refused to take any further part , \u201c the court would give a decision in absentia \u201d . The applicant , however , repeated that he would be unable to present his case without his lawyer .","According to the record of the hearing , ORG did not consider the applicant \u2019s request for an adjournment . It ruled that his refusal to participate in the hearing equated to a failure to appear in court within the meaning of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In view of the above , and concluding that the applicant had been duly summoned to the hearing in accordance with Articles DATE of the ORG , the judge issued , in accordance with Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , a default judgment rejecting the applicant \u2019s action without examining it or giving any reasons .","The decision stated in its operative part that an application to set aside the judgment could be made to the same court within DATE .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer filed an application to set aside the judgment , enclosing a letter from ORG dated DATE confirming that he had participated in the hearing of an appeal on points of law at TIME on DATE . He argued that his involvement in the examination of another case was a \u201c valid reason \u201d for his absence ( see ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG as cited in paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the same ORG judge confirmed his own decision of DATE . He found that the applicant had been summoned to the hearing in accordance with the rules set out in Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the ORG , and pointed out that there was no legal requirement to also summon a party \u2019s lawyer . When he had appeared before the court , the applicant had stated that he objected to the examination of the case without his lawyer present and had refused to take part in the hearing . As conduct of that sort equated to a failure to appear under LAW ORG and none of the circumstances provided for by LAW ORG had been established , the judge decided that LAW ORG should not be applied to set aside the default judgment .","The applicant appealed against the decision of DATE . On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the Regional Court \u201d ) found that , in breach of Article CARDINAL ) of the ORG , the applicant and his lawyer had not been properly warned of the consequences of not appearing before the court . Moreover , at the hearing on DATE ORG had not properly explained to the applicant what a default judgment would mean for him . ORG considered that , as the applicant was not a lawyer , he could not have known that a decision in absentia would necessarily be to his detriment . Therefore , as the caution provided for in Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL had not been issued in the present case , ORG held that there were grounds , under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , for setting aside the decision of DATE . The applicant \u2019s appeal was thus remitted to ORG for re - examination .","The applicant \u2019s former employer lodged an appeal on points of law against the appeal judgment .","On DATE ORG of GPE found that , contrary to ORG assertion , the applicant had been informed in the hearing notice of the consequences of a failure to appear . There had therefore been no violation of LAW ORG . ORG also found that , according to the record of the hearing of DATE , the judge had warned the applicant that \u201c in the event of a refusal to take part in the hearing , a decision [ would ] be given in absentia \u201d . The applicant had therefore been sufficiently informed of the consequences of his conduct . Lastly , ORG pointed out that a court could give a decision in absentia if a lawyer or a party failed to appear at a hearing , on condition that the party had been summoned in accordance with the rules set out in Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the ORG . Consequently , ORG set aside ORG judgment of DATE and remitted the case .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG followed ORG reasoning and added that the applicant \u2019s lawyer \u2019s involvement in another hearing was not a \u201c valid reason \u201d for setting aside the decision in absentia , given that LAW ORG did not specify on what grounds a party could refuse to take part in a hearing . According to ORG , this meant that any refusal to take part in the hearing was unjustified . It therefore upheld the decision of DATE .","An appeal on points of law by the applicant was dismissed on DATE . ORG ruled that Article CARDINAL contained an exhaustive list of the grounds on which a default judgment could be set aside . It further concluded , in contrast with the finding of ORG on DATE , that the applicant had been duly informed of the consequences of his failure to appear at the hearing . Thus , this argument could not have served as a valid basis for a re - examination of the case in accordance with LAW ORG .","Nor did the applicant \u2019s refusal to participate in a trial for whatever reason , according to ORG , merit a re - examination of the case . It emphasised in this connection that the refusal to participate equated to a failure to appear in terms of its legal consequences .","No appeal lay against the above decision of ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157533","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF FARTUSHIN v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Liberty of person);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived in PERSON , in the GPE region .","An all - terrain vehicle and a car were stolen from private garages in ORG in DATE and DATE , respectively . An investigation unit at the NORP police department ( \u0443\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043b\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u0434\u0435\u043b \u0433. PERSON , \u201c the NORP UVD \u201d ) instituted criminal proceedings into the thefts . The police had information about the applicant \u2019s involvement in the thefts .","At TIME on DATE , PERSON , an operative agent of ORG , contacted the applicant by telephone and requested him to come to office no . CARDINAL at the NORP police station at TIME for questioning . At TIME on DATE the applicant arrived at the police station , as requested . He was accompanied by PERSON . and PERSON , who stayed outside awaiting his return . A police officer on duty registered the applicant \u2019s arrival at the police station at TIME","The applicant provided the following account of events at the police station . In office no . QUANTITY police officer GPE and the chief of the criminal investigation unit of ORG , PERSON , demanded that he confess to the thefts . Following his refusal , he was taken to a nearby office , shackled and beaten up by PERSON , who kicked and punched him in the head , torso and extremities and jumped on his head , while PERSON was shouting threats at the applicant . Afterwards the applicant was kept in different offices of the criminal investigation unit . He was given no food or drink . He felt unwell and vomited blood . No medical help was provided to him despite his requests .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s wife lodged an application with the NORP town prosecutor and the head of the NORP town police department , complaining that the applicant was being held at the police station unlawfully , that he had a serious stomach ulcer condition and that a lack of food could cause bleeding . A lawyer appointed by the applicant \u2019s family was unable to locate him at the police station .","According to the police records , at TIME on DATE investigator PERSON of the Sarov UVD questioned the applicant as a witness in the theft case .","According to documents prepared by investigator PERSON and police officer PERSON , at an unspecified time on DATE the investigator requested that the applicant , who was suspected of having committed the theft , be brought to the police station for investigative measures . Police officer ORG reported that he had found the applicant in the street at TIME and taken him to the police station at TIME on DATE .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the investigator drew up a record of the applicant \u2019s arrest as a suspect in the criminal proceedings concerning the theft of the all - terrain vehicle .","At TIME the applicant was placed in a temporary detention facility at FAC ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . The applicant \u2019s cellmate C. saw injuries on the applicant \u2019s head and learned from him that he had been beaten up by police officers in order to force him to confess to a crime .","At TIME an ambulance was called . An ambulance doctor diagnosed the applicant with a stomach ulcer . According to the ORG records , the applicant had abrasions on his arms .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer visited the applicant in the ORG and photographed the injuries on his body . According to the applicant , he had bumps and bruises on his head and neck and was unable to hear well , and he also had bruises on his torso and extremities .","On DATE the applicant was brought before a judge , who ordered that he be remanded in custody .","The applicant and a number of other persons were charged with the theft of the allterrain vehicle and the car .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the NORP town prosecutor , alleging that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty on CARDINAL and DATE and ill - treated in police custody . He claimed that he could identify the police officers responsible for his ill - treatment . Similar complaints were also lodged by the applicant \u2019s mother , his wife and his lawyer .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office forwarded the complaints to ORG of ORG at the ORG NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) . On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer lodged a similar application with ORG .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a forensic medical expert . According to the expert \u2019s report ( \u0430\u043a\u0442 \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u043e-\u043c\u0435\u0434\u0438\u0446\u0438\u043d\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043e\u0441\u0432\u0438\u0434\u0435\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u0441\u0442\u0432\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u044f ) no . CARDINAL , the applicant had a bruise on his back measuring QUANTITY , an abrasion measuring QUANTITY on his left forearm and an endermic haemorrhage on his chest . The expert concluded that the injuries could have been inflicted by blunt objects on DATE .","On DATE an investigator of ORG received explanations by the applicant , who maintained his complaints . The applicant stated , in particular , that ORG , who had been held in the same office with his hands shackled , had witnessed the applicant \u2019s illtreatment by police officer PERSON on DATE . According to explanations by police officers PERSON and PERSON , in the course of operative - search activities the police had obtained information about the applicant \u2019s involvement in the theft of the all - terrain vehicle . PERSON had called the applicant on CARDINAL DATE and requested him to come to the police station for questioning by the investigator . They denied the applicant \u2019s allegations about his unlawful detention and ill - treatment , stating that he had been brought to the police station on DATE at the investigator \u2019s request ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON also stated that in TIME CARDINAL DATE N.P. , another suspect in the thefts case , had been brought to the police station at the same time as the applicant , and that ORG and the applicant had been held separately . ORG , whose explanations were also received by the investigator , stated that on TIME CARDINAL May CARDINAL he had gone to the police station for questioning and that he had not seen the applicant there .","On DATE the investigator of ORG ordered that no criminal proceedings be instituted in respect of the applicant \u2019s complaints of unlawful detention and ill - treatment in view of the lack of constituent elements of a crime in the acts of police officers PERSON and PERSON and investigator PERSON , pursuant to LAW ( \u201c CCrP \u201d ) . He stated that there were no reasons to believe that the injuries recorded by the forensic medical expert had been sustained while the applicant had been held at the police station , as this had been denied by the police officers and ORG","On DATE that decision was revoked by ORG as the inquiry on which it was based was considered incomplete . DATE , a new decision not to open a criminal case was taken and on DATE it was revoked for the same reason . Among those whose explanations were received by the investigator in the course of an additional inquiry were PERSON and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They stated that on DATE they had gone to the police station with the applicant , Zh . and P. in the applicant \u2019s car , that they had seen the applicant , who had had no injuries at that time , enter the police station at TIME and had waited for him outside . At TIME on DATE , while waiting for the applicant , who had still not returned , PERSON had seen ORG enter the police station at the request of police officer PERSON and another person .","A new decision not to open a criminal case was taken on DATE . It was revoked on DATE and a similar decision was taken on DATE . The applicant , whose explanations were again sought by the investigator , stated that his ill - treatment by police officer PERSON on DATE had lasted for TIME , TIME On DATE the higher investigative committee at the ORG NORP regional prosecutor \u2019s office set aside the decision of DATE on the grounds that it was based on an incomplete inquiry .","The most recent decision not to open a criminal case on the grounds that the constituent elements of a crime in the acts of police officers PERSON and PERSON and investigator PERSON were missing was taken on DATE pursuant to LAW The same reasoning was given as in the initial decision of CARDINAL DATE and in the decisions which had been taken in the meantime . It was mainly based on the denial by the police officers and investigator PERSON that the applicant had been ill - treated and detained before TIME on DATE .","The applicant appealed against the investigator \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE to ORG under LAW ORG ruled that the application should not be examined , and terminated the proceedings on the grounds that on DATE ORG had revoked the investigator \u2019s decision .","Court appeals lodged by the applicant against the investigator \u2019s subsequent decisions of DATE and DATE were not examined for the same reason ( ORG decisions of DATE and DATE ) .","On DATE ORG examined the applicant \u2019s complaint seeking to have the failure by the head of ORG to carry out an inquiry into an application lodged by the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE declared unlawful . It was alleged in that application that investigator PERSON , police officer PERSON and others had forged the documents concerning the time at which the applicant had been taken into custody . ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request and declared the inactivity on the part of the head of ORG unlawful .","On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , holding that the decision was lawful and well - grounded . On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and fully endorsed the firstinstance court \u2019s decision ."],"violated_articles":["3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159921","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KHAYLETDINOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is serving his sentence in correctional colony no . CARDINAL in GPE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder committed during a fight with the victim . DATE the ORG of GPE authorised his remand in custody , having noted the gravity of the charges , his previous convictions , including for violent crimes , his failure to \u201c get on the road to improvement \u201d , the absence of an \u201c official \u201d source of income , and his lack of dependants .","NORP That decision was upheld on appeal by ORG , which fully endorsed ORG reasoning . In addition , ORG took into account that the applicant was suffering from the human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) but stated that there was no medical evidence that he could not continue being detained in the conditions of a temporary detention facility .","Another extension of the applicant \u2019s detention followed on DATE , when ORG accepted the investigator \u2019s arguments that he was likely to re - offend , abscond and interfere with the investigation . ORG linked those risks to the gravity of the charges against the applicant , his having received \u201c negative characteristics \u201d at his place of residence , as well as his having already been \u201c the subject of criminal prosecution \u201d . At the same time the court examined medical evidence produced by the applicant in support of his claim that the fact that he was suffering from an advanced stage of HIV precluded his detention . ORG dismissed the claim , stressing that the applicant regularly received medication prescribed by a prison doctor and that his detention in the temporary detention facility did not pose a risk to his health .","ORG issued further orders extending the applicant \u2019s pretrial detention on DATE , DATE and DATE . Each time , it relied on the gravity of the charges and the risk flowing of the applicant absconding , interfering with the course of justice and reoffending . Neither detention order mentioned that the applicant had a criminal record . The applicant \u2019s arguments about the progress of his HIV infection and the rapid deterioration of his health did not convince ORG . The order of DATE extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . It was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE , with reference to the gravity of the charges and the applicant \u2019s \u201c personality \u201d . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :","\u201c On DATE ... ORG of FAC ordered [ the applicant \u2019s ] detention . Subsequently , the detention was lawfully extended . ...","In extending the detention for DATE , the court reasonably took into account that [ the applicant ] was charged with a particularly serious criminal offence and that , in view of hiswas liable to reoffend or destroy the evidence .","The court also correctly held that the case was particularly complex , due to the large number of investigatory activities and complex expert examinations to be conducted . The court also took into account the applicant \u2019s lengthy treatment in the prison hospital .","The court correctly concluded that there were no grounds for changing the measure of restraint . \u201d","ORG did not address the applicant \u2019s arguments , raised in his statement of appeal , that the investigating authorities significantly delayed a number of procedural actions , including the expert examination scheduled DATE and not yet performed .","ORG further extended the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention on DATE , summarily referring to his \u201c personality \u201d and \u201c socially dangerous conduct \u201d . The court also pointed out that some unspecified expert examinations had been conducted , which had \u201c objectively influenced the length of the investigation \u201d .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention was again extended on the grounds of the gravity of the charges and the continued risk of his absconding and interfering with the course of justice . The court used similar wording as in the previous detention orders .","On DATE the applicant was served with the final version of the bill of indictment . The bill indicated that the applicant had no criminal record .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of murder . The court found that he had killed the victim in the course of an altercation caused by the victim \u2019s insults . ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE of imprisonment , having taken into account the following mitigating circumstances : the applicant had no criminal record , was \u201c positively characterised \u201d , had surrendered himself to the police , had confessed to the killing and felt deep remorse , and the victim had behaved provocatively having initiated the conflict with the applicant .","NORP In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with stage CARDINAL HIV . He was taken under the supervision of specialists of ORG from AIDS ( hereinafter \u201c the AIDS Centre \u201d ) .","Medical certificates provided by the applicant show that he had started receiving antiretroviral therapy on DATE with very positive results . The viral load had significantly decreased and the applicant \u2019s immune status had improved . A CDCARDINAL cell - count test carried out on DATE showed that the level of CDCARDINAL cells was CARDINAL cells \/ mmCARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant was placed in detention facility no . CARDINAL . On DATE he was examined by a doctor , who recorded no complaints and diagnosed him with a stomach ulcer in remission .","On DATE doctors from the AIDS Centre recorded a deterioration in the applicant \u2019s condition . They recommended continuation of the antiretroviral therapy and an in - patient examination .","DATE and DATE the applicant underwent a check - up in the prison hospital of correctional colony no . CARDINAL ( \u201c the hospital \u201d ) . He was diagnosed with chronic pancreatitis , chronic gastroduodenitis , iron deficiency anaemia , fungal esophagitis , urolithiasis , and hepatic haemangioma .","It appears that on DATE an immunological test was performed . It showed that the level of CDCARDINAL cells was CARDINAL cells \/ mmCARDINAL .","NORP Since DATE the doctors have again recorded a deterioration in the applicant \u2019s condition and an increase in his viral load . They linked the deterioration to prior interruptions in the antiretroviral therapy . It is not clear from the documents submitted by the applicant when and why those interruptions occurred .","On DATE a doctor from the AIDS Centre diagnosed the applicant with stage CARDINAL HIV and fungal esophagitis , and recommended that antiretroviral therapy be continued .","On DATE , on a recommendation of the medical staff of the AIDS Centre , the applicant was again admitted to the hospital . He underwent treatment for HIV and fungal esophagitis . On DATE he returned to the detention facility .","NORP Throughout his detention the applicant was prescribed a special diet .","According to a typed copy of the applicant \u2019s medical file provided by the ORG , on admission to detention facility no . CARDINAL the applicant was examined by a doctor whom he informed that he was suffering from HIV .","On DATE medical staff from the AIDS Centre were allowed to see the applicant . The doctors noted that he was suffering from stage CARDINAL HIV and recommended that his antiretroviral therapy be continued . On DATE the applicant received DATE dose of antiretroviral drugs ( ORG and PERSON ) .","The applicant continued being monitored by the medical staff of ORG , who examined him again on DATE . Following their recommendations , and in response to the applicant \u2019s complaint of fatigue and pain in the epigastrium ( upper abdomen ) , on DATE he was transferred to the hospital for an in - depth examination . On the same date it was noted in his medical file that he was receiving antiretroviral drugs . The entries dated CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE indicated that he had been taking those drugs .","While at the hospital , the applicant was monitored by an infectious diseases specialist , who examined him on CARDINAL occasions . The applicant also underwent an ultrasound examination and a fibrogastroduodenoscopy . On DATE he was examined by an urologist and a gastroenterologist in a civil hospital . He was also observed by an otolaryngologist and a neurologist . The final diagnosis was : HIV infection aggravated by secondary illnesses , chronic pancreatitis , chronic gastroduodenitis , iron deficiency anaemia , oesophageal candidiasis , hepatic hemangioma , chronic prostatitis , chronic cholecystitis , fungal esophagitis , and a duodenal bulb ulcer . The applicant received treatment for those illnesses .","On DATE , having found that the applicant \u2019s condition had improved , the hospital discharged him .","On DATE a doctor from the AIDS Centre examined the applicant at the detention facility . The doctor noted that the applicant was taking the antiretroviral drugs with strict adherence , and recommended virological and immunological testing , as well as another ultrasound examination and a fibrogastroduodenoscopy .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to the hospital for additional tests . On DATE he was transferred back to the detention facility .","On DATE the applicant complained of fatigue , coughing and headaches . A doctor diagnosed chronic bronchitis and prescribed him anti - candidiasis and cough medication , as well as vitamins .","On DATE an entry made in the applicant \u2019s medical file indicated that the \u201c last \u201d immunological test had shown the level of CDCARDINAL cells at CARDINAL cells \/ mmCARDINAL .","On DATE the applicant complained to a doctor of heaviness in his abdomen , dizziness and heartburn . The doctor noted that those were the effects of his not complying with the special diet and prescribed medication for his ulcer and gastroduodenitis .","On DATE the applicant was examined in response to his complaints of fatigue , pain in the abdomen , and pyrosis . The doctor noted that the applicant had been receiving antiretroviral therapy and recommended his transfer to hospital for an examination and another diagnosis .","On the applicant \u2019s admission to the hospital on DATE , his complaints of fatigue , heartburn and stomach aches were recorded . On the same date it was again noted that he was receiving antiretroviral drugs . At the hospital he was seen by an infections specialist several times a week , examined by a neurologist and an otolaryngologist , and underwent a fibrogastroduodenoscopy . In addition to his previously recorded illnesses , the applicant was diagnosed with a prostate adenoma . He received treatment for his non - communicable diseases , and was prescribed the same antiretroviral drugs as before .","On DATE the applicant was dismissed from the hospital \u201c in a satisfactory condition \u201d , with the proviso that he had to be actively supervised by the detention facility medical personnel . On DATE he was examined by a doctor at the detention facility . The doctor noted that the applicant needed \u201c dynamic supervision \u201d and prescribed medication for his pancreatitis and stomach ulcer .","On DATE , in response to the applicant \u2019s complaint of back pains , he was prescribed anti - inflammatory drugs .","On DATE the applicant complained to a psychiatrist of sleeping problems and irritability , and was prescribed antidepressants .","On DATE a doctor from the AIDS Centre paid the applicant a visit . Following the doctor \u2019s recommendation , the applicant was yet again admitted to hospital . On arrival he complained of poor appetite , fatigue , heartburn , pains in his chest and stomach ache . He was then seen by an infectious diseases specialist , an ophthalmologist , an otolaryngologist , a cardiologist and a neurologist . They concluded that there was no change in his diagnosis and prescribed him treatment for the non - communicable infections . On DATE it was noted that the applicant was regularly taking antiretroviral drugs . DATE , despite the lack of significant improvement in his condition , he was discharged from the hospital since he had to appear at a court hearing .","On DATE the applicant was re - admitted to the hospital . Under the supervision of the infectious diseases specialist he received treatment for cholecystitis and gastroduodenitis . He was also examined by a neurologist , an otolaryngologist and an ophthalmologist , and was diagnosed with cerebrovascular disease . An entry in the record of DATE showed that the applicant had enough drugs to last until DATE . The entry dated DATE mentioned that he had not complied with the special diet prescribed to him . On DATE the applicant was discharged in \u201c satisfactory condition \u201d , having been provided with antiretroviral drugs until DATE .","On the applicant \u2019s admission to correctional colony no . CARDINAL on DATE , he was examined by prison doctors , who noted that he was receiving antiretroviral therapy .","On DATE , in response to the applicant \u2019s complaints of pain in the abdomen , he was examined by a prison doctor . A fibrogastroduodenoscopy was carried out on DATE , and he was prescribed medication for gastroduodenitis .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an infectious diseases specialist from the AIDS Centre . The doctor observed the applicant \u2019s complaints of pain in the oesophagus and the chest , and noted that he was receiving antiretroviral drugs , namely ORG and ORG . The doctor recommended that the applicant continue with the therapy and undergo an immunological test . He also suggested that he be subjected to an in - patient examination . The applicant refused to be admitted to the hospital .","On DATE and DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer wrote to the administration of detention facility no . CARDINAL , drawing their attention to the applicant \u2019s state of health and asking for his examination by a medical expert . On CARDINAL DATE the facility director informed the lawyer that there was no evidence that the applicant was suffering from an illness preventing detention and that , accordingly , there were no grounds for a medical expert examination .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer reiterated his request .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer requested the investigator in charge of the applicant \u2019s criminal case to order a medical examination of the applicant . On CARDINAL DATE the request was refused . However , on CARDINAL DATE that decision was revoked , and the applicant \u2019s medical expert examination was authorised .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer complained to ORG of GPE of the correctional colony administration \u2019s inaction and asked the court to authorise the applicant \u2019s medical examination . On DATE the court dismissed the complaint and refused the examination request ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181876","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BERKOVICH AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom of movement-{general} (Article 2 para. 2 of Protocol No. 4 - Freedom to leave a country);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Samorodkina , a lawyer practising in GPE .","In DATE Mr PERSON started working for ORG , a ORG design bureau that developed air defence weapons .","Mr PERSON signed an undertaking concerning the non - disclosure of ORG secrets which contained a restriction on the right to go abroad . The employer had despatched PERSON on official missions to GPE ( in DATE and DATE ) , GPE ( in DATE and DATE ) and GPE ( in DATE and DATE ) . On DATE he was provided with a travel passport ( \u0437\u0430\u0433\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0447\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u043f\u0430\u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u0442 ) , the identity document that entitles NORP citizens to leave the country and travel abroad . It was renewed on DATE and then on DATE , both times for a DATE period .","On DATE Mr Berkovich terminated his employment . His employer retained his travel passport and refused to return it to him .","On DATE Mr PERSON applied to the Passport and Visa Service of the Akademicheskiy District in GPE for a new travel passport . On DATE the head of the ORG and ORG refused his application . The refusal indicated that his right to obtain a travel passport was restricted until DATE on account of his past access to ORG secrets .","Mr Berkovich challenged the refusal before ORG , relying on the fact that he had been previously allowed to travel abroad on official business .","On DATE ORG gave judgment . It found that , even though the law provided that a refusal could be challenged before ORG for ORG , PERSON could not avail himself of that remedy because the ORG had not held any hearings since DATE and had been disbanded by a Government resolution of CARDINAL DATE . ORG upheld the restriction on PERSON right to travel abroad , noting that , according to his former employer , he had last accessed confidential information in DATE and that the classified status of that information was not due to be reviewed until DATE . As to his previous official trips abroad , ORG said :","\u201c The court has established that PERSON work duties required him to travel abroad for official purposes more than once ; each time [ his employer ] obtained for him through ORG a travel passport , which was kept by the human resources department [ of the employer ] until its expiry .","His travel abroad DATE as an individual aware of ORG secrets DATE was organised in accordance with the procedure set out in [ the internal documents of the employer ] .","The claimant was allowed to go abroad because his personal participation was required for the performance of the task and because it was impossible to send abroad other employees who were aware of ORG secrets to a lesser degree . \u201d","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld ORG judgment on appeal .","Following the expiry of the restriction , on DATE Mr PERSON was issued with a travel passport . He used it to travel to GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE .","The applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . From DATE to DATE he was a military serviceman in ORG .","Mr Boldyrev was the only son to his parents , who lived in GPE , GPE . His father was born in DATE and his mother in DATE , and they were both retired and disabled . During his military service Mr PERSON visited his parents CARDINAL times ; each time he submitted a report to his military superior indicating the purpose of his visit and the dates and means of transport that he would be using .","Following the termination of his military service , on DATE Mr ORG applied to ORG for a travel passport . He also submitted medical certificates that attested to the poor health of his parents and justified his need to go and see them .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG notified him that his application had been refused on account of his previous awareness of ORG secrets during the period of his military service . His right to leave GPE was restricted until DATE .","Mr Boldyrev challenged the refusal in court .","By a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the travel ban as lawful . It held that the poor health of Mr PERSON \u2019s parents was of no legal significance . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld that decision on appeal .","On DATE Mr ORG mother died in GPE . He tried to obtain a travel passport to attend her funeral but received no response to his application . A travel passport was first issued to him in DATE .","The applicant , Mr PERSON Ilchenko , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . From DATE to DATE he was a military serviceman employed in ORG of ORG of ORG .","On DATE Mr GPE signed a contract of employment , which contained a restriction on his right to leave GPE for a period not exceeding DATE on account of his awareness of ORG secrets . In DATE , ORG of ORG issued a new travel passport for him , which he never used .","Following his retirement in DATE , on DATE Mr Ilchenko applied to ORG in GPE for a travel passport . He submitted that he needed to go abroad for rest and recreation and pointed out that he had already surrendered all classified material on DATE .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG notified him that his application had been refused on the following grounds :","\u201c During the period of your service in ORG of ORG of ORG from DATE to date , you have been aware of ORG secrets ; accordingly , your right to go abroad has been temporarily restricted until DATE [ on the basis ] of a decision of ORG of ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE . \u201d","Mr Ilchenko challenged the refusal in court .","On DATE the Presnenskiy District Court of GPE rejected his complaint . It examined the above - mentioned decision of DATE , according to which \u201c the plaintiff \u2019s right to travel abroad for private purposes [ would ] be possible after CARDINAL DATE , but there [ were ] no objections to his leaving abroad on official missions arranged by organisations or companies affiliated with ORG . \u201d","The court found that the decision refusing the application had been made by the competent authority .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment , summarily endorsing its reasoning .","Mr Ilchenko also challenged the compatibility of section CARDINAL ) of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act and section CARDINAL of LAW with LAW . By judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG rejected his complaint , holding as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . To recognise that the interconnected provisions of section CARDINAL ) of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act and section CARDINAL of LAW do not contradict LAW inasmuch as these provisions ... presuppose that a decision concerning a temporary restriction on the right to leave GPE may not be predicated solely on the formal grounds that are expressly mentioned in these provisions ; such a decision should not have as its sole basis the established fact that the individual concerned has had access to particularly important or top - secret information classified as a ORG secret ; the elements to be verified in every case should include the nature of the specific information which the individual has had access to [ through ] his work duties , the degree of confidentiality \u2013 including at the time when an application to competent authorities is being made in connection with a planned trip abroad \u2013 as well as the purpose of the trip and other circumstances which are relevant for determining that the said restriction was necessary . \u201d","The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","From DATE he was a military serviceman in ORG . In DATE , with the consent of his commander and ORG ( ORG ) , he was issued with a travel passport , which he used to go abroad on private tourist trips in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .","Following the expiry of his travel passport in DATE , on DATE Mr PERSON applied to ORG for its renewal . In DATE he was notified that his application had been refused and that his right to leave GPE was restricted until DATE .","Mr PERSON challenged the refusal in court . His complaint was rejected at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , by ORG of LOC on DATE and ORG on DATE . Both courts upheld the restriction as lawful .","The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . From DATE to DATE he was a military serviceman in ORG .","On DATE Mr PERSON applied to ORG for a travel passport which would allow him to go abroad . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , he was notified that his application had been refused and that his right to leave GPE was restricted until DATE .","Mr PERSON challenged the refusal in court . His complaint was rejected at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , first by ORG on DATE and later by ORG of GPE on DATE . Both courts upheld the restriction as lawful .","The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in LOC . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was a military serviceman in ORG .","In DATE , Mr PERSON applied to ORG for a travel passport . By a letter of DATE , he was notified that his application had been refused and that his right to leave GPE was restricted until DATE .","Mr PERSON challenged the refusal in court . His complaint was rejected at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , first by ORG on DATE and later by ORG of GPE on DATE . Both courts upheld the restriction as lawful .","The applicant , Mr PERSON GPE , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a lawyer . From DATE to DATE he was a military serviceman in the ORG .","On DATE the GPE division of ORG issued Mr PERSON with a travel passport valid for DATE . In accordance with the regulations in force , the passport was kept in the human resources department of the ORG .","Following his retirement on DATE , Mr PERSON repeatedly asked the ORG to return his travel passport because he wished to travel abroad for private reasons . His request was refused on the grounds that , by a report of DATE , his right to go abroad was restricted until DATE , that is , for a period of DATE from his last contact with top - secret documents . It appears that the documents in question contained details of ORG informants .","Mr GPE challenged the restriction in court , seeking to have it lifted or reduced to a period of DATE . His complaint was rejected at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , by ORG of FAC on DATE and ORG of ORG on DATE .","The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . From DATE to DATE PERSON was a military serviceman in the ORG .","On DATE and DATE he applied to ORG for a travel passport which would allow him to go abroad . By a letter of DATE , he was notified that his application had been refused and that his right to leave GPE was restricted until DATE .","Mr Garkusha challenged the refusal in court . His complaint was rejected at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , by ORG of FAC on DATE and ORG of ORG on DATE .","The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","From DATE to DATE he was an investigator with the LOC regional investigations department of the ORG . He had a travel passport and in DATE travelled with his spouse to GPE for DATE .","On DATE the chief of the FAC regional office of the ORG decided that PERSON right to travel abroad for private purposes should be restricted until DATE on the grounds that he had previously had access to a top - secret investigative file concerning the theft of property committed by a NORP national on NORP territory .","Mr PERSON applied for a judicial review of that decision . His complaint was rejected at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , by ORG on DATE and ORG of GPE on DATE .","The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","From DATE he was a military serviceman in the NORP regional office of the ORG . His contract of employment provided that his access to ORG secrets would be terminated if he or his family members took up permanent residence abroad or started making an application to take up residence abroad . Termination of his access to ORG secrets would lead to early termination of his employment .","Following his retirement in DATE , his right to travel abroad for private purposes was restricted until DATE .","In DATE , anticipating the expiry of the restriction on his right to travel , he applied to ORG for a travel passport which would allow him to go abroad . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , he was notified that his application had been refused .","Mr Samasadkin challenged the refusal in court . His complaint was rejected at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , by ORG on DATE and ORG of GPE on DATE . Referring to section CARDINAL of the Entry and Exit Procedures Act and the decision to restrict PERSON right to leave GPE , the courts held that the refusal to issue him with a travel passport had been lawful .","On DATE Mr Samasadkin was issued with a travel passport ."],"violated_articles":["P4"],"violated_paragraphs":["P4-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P4-2-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180501","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BARABANOV v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The background facts relating to the planning , conduct and dispersal of the demonstration at FAC are set out in more detail in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , and GPE v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY , DATE ) . The parties\u2019 submissions on the circumstances directly relevant to the present case are set out below .","On DATE a public demonstration entitled the \u201c DATE of CARDINAL \u201d was held in central GPE to protest against the allegedly rigged presidential elections . The event had been approved by the city authorities in the form of a march followed by a meeting at FAC which was supposed to end at TIME The march was peaceful and held without any disruptions , but when the marchers arrived at FAC it became apparent that barriers installed by the police had narrowed the entrance to the meeting venue , allegedly restricting the space allocated for the meeting . To control the crowd the police cordon forced the protestors to remain within the barriers ; there were numerous clashes between the CARDINAL sides . At TIME the police ordered the meeting to finish early and began to disperse the participants . It took them TIME to clear the square .","On DATE the GPE city department of ORG opened criminal proceedings to investigate suspected acts of mass disorder and violence against the police ( Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . On CARDINAL DATE the file was transferred to the headquarters of ORG for further investigation . On DATE an investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising acts of mass disorder ( LAW ) . The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined on DATE .","At the time of his arrest the applicant was working as an artist . According to him , on CARDINAL DATE he arrived at FAC to take part in the march and walked down FAC to FAC . He passed the metal detectors and joined other protestors in front of the stage , where a rock group was performing . Sometime after TIME he walked towards FAC but discovered that movement in that direction had been blocked by a police cordon . The applicant walked back , staying in the general area ; at TIME groups of police officers started pushing into the crowd , forcing it apart by using their truncheons . Protestors were surrounded and squeezed together . At some point the applicant realised that he was facing the police line and that the police were using excessive force to arrest protestors . The applicant was both angered and scared by the actions of the police and actively resisted . He was eventually seized by CARDINAL police officers and escorted to a police car , which took him to a police station .","On DATE the Justice of the Peace of ORG of LOC of GPE found the applicant guilty of noncompliance with a lawful order by a police officer , an offence under LAW . The Justice of the Peace established that after the meeting at FAC the applicant had shouted anti - government slogans , ignoring the lawful demands of the police to cease those acts . He had thrown objects at the police officers , including stones , flagpoles , empty plastic bottles , and pieces of asphalt , and had refused to proceed to the police van . The applicant was sentenced to detention of TIME . It appears that after his release the applicant continued to live at his usual address and pursue his customary activities .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s flat was searched . On DATE he was detained on suspicion of participation in acts of mass disorder and of committing violent acts against the police on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE ordered that the applicant be placed in pre - trial detention until DATE . It referred to the gravity of the charges and stated that if he was at liberty the applicant could co - ordinate his position with accomplices whose identities were still being established by the investigation . The court also pointed out that the applicant had forcefully resisted the police officers during his arrest , which had led to them using force and handcuffs against him . In addition , the court relied on information obtained from undercover sources that the applicant had connections with football fans and groups of anarchists . The applicant denied that allegation and challenged the use of information from undisclosed sources . However , the court concluded that there were sufficient reasons to believe that he was likely to abscond , continue his criminal activity , threaten witnesses , destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the course of the criminal proceedings . It dismissed a request from the applicant for an alternative preventive measure and found that his release was not required on health grounds .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the detention order , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE charges were brought against the applicant under CARDINAL Articles of LAW , Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( participation in acts of mass disorder accompanied by violence ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( use of violence against a public official ) . He was accused , in particular , of active resistance to police officers and of participation in a group assault on a police officer whereby the applicant had allegedly pulled a protective helmet off the officer \u2019s head and had punched and kicked him on the head and body .","On DATE ORG examined an application from the investigator for an extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . The applicant argued that he had no criminal record , was in work , and had a permanent residence in GPE where he lived with his family . He denied any involvement with football fans or anarchists and asked for the preventive measure to be changed to house arrest . On DATE ORG granted the investigator \u2019s application and extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . It relied on the gravity of the charges and information on the applicant \u2019s character , which gave it sufficient grounds to presume that he might reoffend , threaten witnesses and other participants of the criminal proceedings , destroy evidence or otherwise obstruct the proper administration of justice .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the extension order , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG examined a new application for an extension of the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention . Referring to the gravity of the charges and the complexity of the criminal investigation , the court extended his detention until DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the extension order , which was dismissed on DATE by ORG .","On DATE the charges against the applicant were updated . The classification of the offences remained unchanged but it was specified that the applicant had struck the police officer once on the head and had kicked him once on the body while he was lying on the ground .","On DATE ORG authorised a further extension of the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court relied on the gravity of the charges and the need to allow the defendants sufficient time to read the investigation case file . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE ORG granted an extension of the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE . The court noted that even though the applicant and his lawyer had already finished reading the case file , other defendants had not . It reiterated the grounds given in the previous extension orders and stated that the circumstances justifying the detention order had not changed . ORG upheld that decision on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s criminal case was transferred to the ORG of GPE for the determination of criminal charges .","On DATE that court granted another extension of the applicant \u2019s detention , until DATE . The decision concerned CARDINAL defendants . Along with the gravity of the charges , the court based its decision on the findings that \u201c the reasons which initially warranted the detention have not changed \u201d and that \u201c no other measures of restraint would secure the aims and goals of the judicial proceedings \u201d . ORG upheld that extension order on DATE .","On DATE the ORG granted another extension of detention in respect of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant . It ordered their detention until DATE on the grounds of the gravity of the charges and the nature of the offences imputable to them . On DATE ORG upheld that extension order .","On DATE court proceedings began in hearing room no . CARDINAL at ORG , moving at DATE to hearing room no . CARDINAL . The defendants , including the applicant , were held in glass cabins in both hearing rooms . From DATE to DATE the hearings continued at ORG of GPE in hearing room no . CARDINAL , while in DATE and DATE they took place at FAC in hearing room no . CARDINAL . Those hearing rooms were equipped with metal cages in which CARDINAL defendants ( CARDINAL from DATE ) , including the applicant , sat during the hearings .","For a detailed description of the conditions in those hearing rooms see GPE ( cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the ORG of GPE began a preliminary hearing in a criminal case against CARDINAL participants in the demonstration at FAC , who were charged with participation in acts of mass disorder and committing acts of violence against police officers . On DATE the court began the trial on the merits .","On an unidentified date Police Officer PERSON , the alleged victim of the applicant \u2019s assault , was examined as a witness . He testified that he had been carrying out an order to split the crowd up when someone had pulled at his bullet - proof vest . He had fallen to the ground ; someone had hit him several times and had taken off his anti - riot helmet . Other police officers had picked him up to take away him from the crowd . As a result of his fall and the blows , he had sustained injuries . Another police officer , PERSON , testified that the applicant had kicked an unidentified police officer .","CARDINAL other officers , also examined as witnesses , stated that the applicant had resisted arrest by planting his feet firmly on the ground and attempting to escape . He had also uttered obscenities to the police officers and shouted at them .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged . It held , in particular , as follows :","\u201c TIME on DATE ... at FAC ... unidentified persons ... called those present [ at the venue ] to move outside the agreed meeting venue , to defy the lawful orders of the police ... , to use violence ... which led to mass disorder accompanied by the use of violence against public officials in connection with the performance of their duties [ and ] the destruction of property .","On DATE at TIME at the latest [ the defendants ] acquired the criminal intent to participate in mass disorder and to use violence against ... police officers ...","Moreover ... the participants of the acts of mass disorder threw chunks of tarmac , stones , sticks and other objects at the police ... which hit them on various parts of their body , and [ the defendants ] ... [ who ] participated in the acts of mass disorder ... implemented their criminal intent to use violence against public officials ... applied physical force which was not a danger to the life or health of those [ officials ] ...","Thus , [ the applicant ] used violence against Police Officer [ K. ] which did not endanger his life or health ...","... between TIME and TIME ... unidentified participants of acts of mass disorder ... intentionally seized [ K. ] by his uniform and knocked him down , while [ the applicant ] together with other unidentified participants of acts of mass disorder , acting intentionally ... tore off [ ORG \u2019s ] anti - riot helmet ... and punched and kicked him several times on his head and body , meanwhile [ the applicant ] punched [ PERSON \u2019s ] head at least once and at least once kicked [ PERSON ] on the body when the latter was lying on the ground . ...","[ The applicant ] ... pleaded not guilty and testified that ... he wanted to see why the meeting was not starting and went to FAC where he saw the cordon ... Around TIME [ the applicant ] saw how police officers ... started beating people with truncheons . ... Then a jam occurred ... At some point [ the applicant ] found himself in the first line and saw the police officers harshly arresting and beating people , who tried to evade the blows . He was hit several times on the shoulder and the head , which led to dizziness . He was scared , he felt that his life was in danger , and while in a state of fury he moved towards a police officer , who happened to be [ PERSON ] and then moved his leg towards the police officer , who was getting up . [ The applicant ] did not see who knocked the latter down ... [ He ] did not know whether his hand reached the target but supposed that he was able to touch the bullet - proof vest . He definitely did not touch [ PERSON ] with his leg and he caused him no harm . TIME he was taken out of the crowd and beaten , his T - shirt was torn , then ... QUANTITY police officers seized him and dragged him along the tarmac to the police vehicle . [ The applicant ] insists that he caused no injuries to the police officer and that his actions , provoked by panic , were taken in response to the events occurring around him . ...","... the court considers the [ defendants\u2019 ] arguments that they were protecting somebody from the police officers or happened to be victims of the police \u2019s use of force as farfetched and aimed at the mitigation of their responsibility ...","... no medical document which could prove the presence of injuries on the [ applicant \u2019s ] body ... was provided to the court . \u201d","The applicant was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , calculated on the basis of a DATE prison term under LAW , partly concurrent with a term of DATE and DATE under LAW . The applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention counted towards the prison sentence .","The applicant appealed against the judgment . He contested the classification of the crimes under both LAW and LAW . He insisted that he had been a victim of unlawful police action and that his involvement in using violence against the police officer has not been proven .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment ."],"violated_articles":["11","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-140922","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF TURUL KFT. v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in ORG .","The Veszpr\u00e9m County Administrative Office rejected the request of the applicant , a real - estate developer , for a building permit to construct a CARDINAL - flat condominium . The ORG was of the view that the project was irreconcilable with the planned location , the historical neighbourhood of ORG town .","On DATE the applicant challenged this decision in court .","On DATE the ORG quashed the administrative decision and remitted the case to the administrative authorities .","In the resumed administrative proceedings , on DATE the applicant \u2019s request was again dismissed .","On DATE the applicant renewed its action .","On DATE ORG dismissed the action , holding that the administrative decisions had been given in compliance with the law .","On DATE ORG dismissed , on the merits , the applicant \u2019s petition for review ( service : DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174775","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"MARU\u0160I\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","PERSON , the judge elected in respect of GPE , withdrew from sitting in the case ( Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) . On DATE the President of the ORG decided to appoint PERSON , the judge elected in respect of GPE , to sit as an ad hoc judge ( Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 MONEY ) ) .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant was a tenured professor at ORG ( PERSON fakultet GPE u GPE , hereinafter : the Faculty ) . She was the co - editor - in - chief of ORG , an international peer - reviewed journal owned by CARDINAL NORP medical schools ( the universities of GPE , PERSON , PERSON and GPE ) . The applicant also performed various other functions in different international academic initiatives in the field of medical science .","In DATE together with ORG , the applicant co - authored a textbook on anatomy entitled \u2018 PERSON [ Human Anatomy ] , which was in use in teaching at the Faculty .","On an unspecified date in DATE ORG received an anonymous letter signed by \u201c students of ORG \u201d alleging that in the applicant \u2019s textbook on anatomy she had plagiarised a textbook written in LANGUAGE by PERSON , an author from GPE , entitled \u2018 ORG . Attached to the letter were copies of the relevant parts of the applicant \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s books .","On DATE the PERSON established a special commission to assess the allegations of plagiarism against the applicant .","In a report of DATE the commission found that a more appropriate avenue concerning the allegations of plagiarism would be an inquiry by the criminal justice authorities , where a certified court expert would compare and assess the CARDINAL texts . Stressing , however , that it wished to facilitate the process , the commission explained that it had randomly taken and compared certain parts of the CARDINAL texts ( QUANTITY short paragraphs and CARDINAL tables ) and found that they were identical .","With regard to the special commission \u2019s report , the PERSON asked ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to assess the report \u2019s findings . ORG consisted of several faculty professors , including Professors PERSON and PERSON","The applicant had a long - lasting conflict with PERSON concerning various issues of academic conduct and integrity . In DATE the applicant and PERSON respectively lodged complaints before ORG ( Sud \u010dasti GPE , PERSON fakulteta ; hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) making reciprocal allegations of academically improper conduct .","On DATE the applicant reported to the PERSON that PERSON had plagiarised parts of an earlier version of the book \u2018 PERSON when writing his book on anatomy , and that he and PERSON had plagiarised another book on neural sciences when writing their book on the matter .","On DATE ORG scheduled a meeting for the assessment of the report for DATE and invited the applicant to attend the meeting .","On DATE the applicant replied by letter , arguing that the anonymous letter had not been forwarded to her and that the real motive for the allegations of plagiarism against her had to be viewed in the context of similar allegations made by a certain professor , PERSON , concerning another article which she had published with her researchers and which had been dismissed as unfounded . The applicant contended that the members of the ORG PERSON and PERSON had actively supported PERSON \u2019s allegations against her and she therefore considered that they should withdraw from the case . She also stressed that she had reported PERSON and PERSON to the PERSON for plagiarism . The applicant also extensively discussed why she considered that the allegations of plagiarism against her were unfounded . In particular , she contended that at maximum PERCENT of her text corresponded to PERSON \u2019s book and that this concerned well - known information which could not be stated differently in different textbooks on anatomy .","By a letter of DATE the applicant reiterated her above arguments , contending that the allegations of plagiarism against her were unfounded and that the proceedings at issue had damaged her professional academic status .","On DATE ORG expressed its view on CARDINAL reports . CARDINAL members of ORG accepted a report prepared by ORG and expressed their view that probably PERCENT of the text in the applicant \u2019s book corresponded to the relevant text in PERSON \u2019s book , without the necessary references . CARDINAL members of ORG , including PERSON and PERSON , accepted a report prepared by PERSON according to which CARDINAL lines of the applicant \u2019s text were plagiarised from PERSON \u2019s book , which corresponded to PERCENT or , depending on the method of calculation , PERCENT of the overall text . In addition , CARDINAL tables had been plagiarised , which meant that PERCENT of the tables in the book had been plagiarised . CARDINAL member of ORG abstained .","On DATE , on the basis of ORG findings , the PERSON instituted proceedings against the applicant in the Faculty \u2019s ORG in connection with a suspicion that she had plagiarised parts of PERSON \u2019s book , by which she had breached sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Code of Ethics ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In support of her allegations , the PERSON forwarded to ORG findings and the examples from the applicant \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s books .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that she had several times requested access to the relevant documents on the basis of which its findings had been drafted but had never received a reply . She therefore reiterated her request for access to the relevant documents .","On DATE ORG forwarded the PERSON \u2019s submission to the applicant and invited her to respond to the allegations against her . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant replied , contending that no supporting evidence had been forwarded with the PERSON \u2019s submission . She rejected the accusations of plagiarism .","Meanwhile , the Faculty had commissioned a report from PERSON , a court interpreter for LANGUAGE , concerning the similarities between the texts in the applicant \u2019s and PERSON \u2019s books . In a report of CARDINAL DATE the interpreter had analysed various parts and aspects of the CARDINAL texts and concluded that PERCENT of the first part of the applicant \u2019s book and PERCENT of the second part of the book were literal translations of PERSON \u2019s book . In addition , PERCENT of the tables and the relevant text in the first part and PERCENT in the second part of the book corresponded to PERSON \u2019s book .","At a hearing before ORG on DATE , a letter from the co - author of the applicant \u2019s book , ORG , was read out . In the letter she explained that she had started to work with the applicant on the updating of a previous edition of the book on anatomy . The applicant had presented her a manuscript and ORG had realised that the information provided had been correct and well presented . She stressed that she had trusted the applicant and that she could not be held responsible for any issues arising from the way the applicant prepared her part of the book . Further to this letter a summary of the special commission \u2019s findings was also read out ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition , the findings of ORG reports ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the concluding part of PERSON \u2019s report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were read out as well .","Following the reading out of the materials in support of the accusations against her , the applicant asked to be provided with a copy of these documents , and sought an adjournment of the hearing so she could study the evidence obtained . ORG dismissed her request on the grounds that the relevant documents had been read out during the hearing .","On DATE ORG found that the applicant had committed plagiarism and sentenced her to a public reprimand . ORG considered it established on the basis of the evidence obtained and examined at the hearing that the applicant had plagiarised PERSON \u2019s book in a proportion of PERCENT in the first part and PERCENT in the second part of her book . The applicant was instructed that she could challenge ORG decision before ORG ( NORP vije\u0107e Medicinskog fakulteta GPE ) .","On DATE the applicant challenged the ORG decision before ORG . She contended in particular that her right to a fair trial had been breached owing to the fact that she had never been provided with the relevant evidence against her and that therefore she had not been able to prepare her case properly . The applicant also argued that PERSON was not a properly certified interpreter and that her findings lacked clarity . In addition , the applicant stressed that she had reported PERSON and PERSON for plagiarism . She also considered that the proceedings should have been conducted in accordance with the Regulations on the disciplinary responsibility of teachers , associates and students of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ; hereinafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , which had come into force before the proceedings in her case had been instituted .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints . It stressed that the proceedings had been conducted before ORG in accordance with its rules and that the disciplinary proceedings under LAW were a separate but parallel avenue which could be pursued against a faculty employee for breaches of working duties . ORG also considered that the applicant had had an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings and that ORG had correctly established all the relevant facts concerning the allegations of plagiarism . The decision of ORG was signed by the PERSON .","On DATE , as no further remedy lay against ORG decision , the applicant lodged a request for protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) before ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) alleging , inter alia , that her right to a fair trial and respect for her honour and reputation had been breached . She contended in particular that ORG was not a tribunal established by law , given that the proceedings should have been conducted in accordance with LAW . She further argued that she had not had an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings and to prepare for the case due to the fact that she had never been shown the anonymous letter containing allegations of plagiarism against her and had never been provided with the other evidence on which the findings of plagiarism had been based . Moreover , the applicant complained that she had not had access to the relevant expert report which had been relied upon for her conviction and the conclusions of which had only been read out at the trial . The applicant also challenged the findings of the Faculty bodies concerning the charges of plagiarism .","In DATE the reprimand against the applicant was published on the public noticeboard and the Faculty \u2019s website .","On DATE , on the basis of the parties\u2019 written submissions , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights . The relevant parts of the decision read :","\u201c The appellant lodged a request under LAW of LAW ... alleging that the decision of ORG , dismissing her appeal and upholding the decision of ORG applying a public reprimand for the breaches of sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Faculty \u2019s Code of Ethics , infringed [ her ] rights and freedoms guaranteed by the LAW ...","According to section CARDINAL of LAW ... a request for the protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right or freedom ... if such a right or freedom has been violated by a final individual act [ that is , decision ] , and no other judicial protection is secured , shall be decided by the [ ORG ] , by applying , mutatis mutandis , the provisions of this LAW .","In the case at issue the impugned decision of ORG is an individual act under section CARDINAL of the cited Act and thus the appellant was allowed to submit a request for the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights before ORG .","In her request the appellant firstly alleges a breach of LAW arguing that in the disciplinary proceedings the Faculty failed to comply with the provisions of ORG , LAW and the Regulations on the disciplinary responsibility of teachers , associates and students .","However , LAW , according to the well - established case - law of ORG , does not provide for individual rights given that it stipulates the basic principles of constitutionality and lawfulness ... Accordingly , as the said provision of the LAW concerns a general principle of the legal order of GPE , this court finds that the appellant \u2019s constitutional rights in this respect were not and could not have been breached .","The appellant invokes LAW alleging that she has not been treated equally before the law ...","... [ t]his court has considered the appellant \u2019s arguments from the perspective of LAW which guarantees equality before the law .","In view of the above , this court finds that the available materials show that the impugned decision was based on an acceptable application of the substantive law and on its constitutionally acceptable interpretation . The competent bodies , in view of the facts established during the proceedings , provided sufficient reasoning for their decisions , which are not the result of an arbitrary interpretation and application of the substantive law . For these reasons , this court does not accept the appellant \u2019s arguments that she has not been treated equally before the law as guaranteed under LAW .","...","Furthermore , with regard to the complaint of a breach of the right to a fair trial under LAW , and in view of the fact that the available materials show that ORG allowed the appellant to participate in and to follow the proceedings , and that she was able to take all the relevant procedural actions and to use remedies , and being mindful of the fact that the impugned decisions are sufficiently reasoned and adopted in accordance with the relevant procedural law , this court finds that the appellant \u2019s constitutional right to a fair trial have not been breached .","...","In view of the above , the impugned decision was adopted in proceedings which , according to this court , did not breach the appellant \u2019s [ constitutional ] rights and thus it can not be held that the decision in question breached any of the protected guarantees under LAW , namely the respect for private and family life , dignity , reputation and honour . Accordingly , this right invoked by the appellant has not been breached either . \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , arguing that ORG had not properly ruled on her complaint of a breach of her constitutional rights . The applicant stressed in particular that LAW decisions on the allegations of plagiarism against her had not been adopted by a \u201c tribunal \u201d established by law , and that she had not had an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings with regard to the manner in which the relevant evidence against her had been obtained and used by ORG . The applicant also stressed that her conviction for plagiarism by ORG had damaged her professional academic integrity and reputation , which ORG had failed to rectify .","On DATE ORG , emphasising that it was not its function to deal with alleged errors of law or fact but to review compliance with the applicant \u2019s constitutional rights , dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaints as unfounded , endorsing the findings of ORG .","The decision of ORG was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE .","On DATE ORG , Education and Sports ( ORG znanosti , obrazovanja i \u0161porta ; hereinafter \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) conducted an administrative supervision of ORG acts in the applicant \u2019s case , and found that with the adoption of ORG the proceedings against the applicant on charges of plagiarism should not have been conducted before ORG . It thus considered that the proceedings had not been conducted before a body established by law , and prohibited the enforcement of the decision on the applicant \u2019s responsibility for plagiarism .","On DATE ORG issued an authentic interpretation of LAW , by which it explained that the purpose of LAW was not to set aside the provisions concerning the functioning of ORG . It also stressed that the procedure before ORG and the procedure under LAW were CARDINAL separate parallel procedures and that a case could be processed in either of CARDINAL ways , depending on the nature of the misconduct at issue . This meant that breaches of ethics would be processed before ORG , while breaches of work duties would be processed in accordance with LAW . In this context , section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the Rules of ORG represented a link between the proceedings under LAW and the proceedings under LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , following an administrative action by the Faculty , ORG quashed the ORG \u2019s decision on the grounds that it had overstepped its powers and authorities and unlawfully encroached upon the Faculty \u2019s autonomy as provided under LAW , LAW and the case - law of ORG . ORG explained that the decision of ORG did not represent a decision which would be susceptible to further administrative supervision .","According to the documents provided by the applicant , in DATE she was found not to be eligible for a ORG scholarship award because of the public reprimand issued against her on charges of plagiarism . The applicant also explained that as a result of pressure from within the Faculty following her conviction for plagiarism she had had difficulty in being reappointed to the position of tenured professor . She eventually left GPE and now works in ORG ( PERSON fakultet PERSON u PERSON ) .","The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG , ORG . DATE , GPE , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) read as follows :","\u201c In GPE the laws shall comply with the LAW ...","Everyone should abide the LAW and the law and respect the legal order of GPE . \u201d","\u201c Everyone in GPE shall enjoy rights and freedoms regardless of their race , colour , sex , language , religion , political or other belief , national or social origin , property , birth , education , social status or other characteristics .","All shall be equal before the law . \u201d","\u201c In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . \u201d","\u201c Everyone has a right to respect for and legal protection of his private and family life , dignity , reputation and honour . \u201d","\u201c The autonomy of the universities shall be guaranteed .","A university shall independently decide on its organisation and operation , in accordance with the law . \u201d","The relevant part of section CARDINAL of LAW ( Ustavni zakon o FAC PERSON , ORG nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) reads :","\u201c Anyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG if he or she deems that a decision ( pojedina\u010dni akt ) of a ORG body , a body of local and regional self - government , or a legal person with public authority , which has decided on his or her rights and obligations , or about a suspicion or accusation of a criminal act , has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms , or his or her right to local and regional self - government guaranteed by LAW ( hereinafter \u201c constitutional right \u201d ) ... \u201d","The Scientific Activity and LAW ( Zakon o znanstvenoj djelatnosti i visokom obrazovanju , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) provides that CARDINAL of the basic principles governing higher education in GPE is the principle of autonomy and self - regulation of universities ( section CARDINAL ) ) . The employment and academic status of university teachers and other university staff are regulated in sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that university teachers and other staff face disciplinary action for breaches of their work duties and other related activities , as well as for causing serious damage to the reputation of the university , in accordance with the relevant university statute . Paragraph CARDINAL of the same section provides that disciplinary responsibility exists only with regard to an offence which was at the time of its commission proscribed under the relevant university acts and for which a sanction has been provided . Under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , as in force at the relevant time , the LAW provided that the institutions in the higher education system could establish their own ethical boards and adopt their own codes of ethics .","Section CARDINAL provides that overall regulation of the lawfulness of the activities and general acts of the academic institutions is the responsibility of ORG .","According to the Statute ( GPE ) of CARDINAL DATE , ORG is a ORG - funded public institution ( section CARDINAL ) . The Statute in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) provides that the ORG of the University shall adopt a code of ethics on the professional and public activity of teachers and other employees and that staff shall face disciplinary action for infringements of work obligations and violations of the code of ethics , in accordance with this Statute and the regulations of the ORG \u2019s constituent units .","Section CARDINAL of the Statute specifies that failure to meet the requirements of the rules of conduct set forth in the ORG or the statutes of the ORG \u2019s constituent units or regulations based on them , as well as damage caused to the reputation of the ORG and its employees , shall be subject to disciplinary responsibility . The disciplinary sanctions are reprimand , public reprimand and dismissal . The description of disciplinary offences and disciplinary procedure shall be determined by the regulations of the ORG and its constituent units .","The Code of Ethics of ORG kodeks GPE ) of CARDINAL DATE in section CARDINAL provides that the aim of LAW is to promote the values of academic society as a whole . LAW of the same section in conjunction with sections CARDINAL explains that ethical boards , established either at the level of the ORG or its constituent units , shall be competent to give advisory opinions on general or particular issues related to compliance with ethical standards .","Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW further provide that procedures under LAW exist independently of any civil , criminal , administrative or disciplinary proceedings . However , if under LAW a breach of LAW also implies disciplinary responsibility , the relevant University or Faculty regulations may need to obtain an opinion from the competent ethical board . The opinion at issue serves to promote the principles established in LAW .","The Statute of the School of Medicine ( PERSON fakulteta GPE ) , first adopted on DATE with further amendments on DATE , provides in CARDINAL that breaches of the relevant ORG acts and conduct damaging the reputation of the University entail disciplinary responsibility which may be sanctioned by a reprimand , public reprimand or dismissal . Detailed provisions in this respect should be provided under the regulations on disciplinary responsibility ( section CARDINAL ) . Section CARDINAL provides that the PERSON is presiding over ORG .","The consolidated version of LAW ( Kodeks nastavni\u010dke etike ) , adopted by ORG on DATE , which was , according to an undisputed submission by the Government , applicable at the relevant time , in section CARDINAL obliged faculty teaching staff to carry out their tasks diligently and to have their private lives and conduct bear witness to the integrity of the profession . In section CARDINAL the Code of Ethics emphasised a heightened duty of diligence for teachers when carrying out their duties in respect of the Faculty itself . Section CARDINAL obliged teachers to maintain a heightened awareness of the ethical standards in the interest of their profession , students and the Faculty .","The Rules of ORG ( PERSON ) , first adopted in DATE with further amendments , in their relevant parts provided :","\u201c ORG is established in order to protect the proclaimed ethical standards and the ethical standards set out in LAW and other general acts which the teachers are obliged to respect when carrying out their activities . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) For a breach of the ethical standards under LAW , ORG may pronounce the following sanctions : reprimand , public reprimand , or proposal for the institution of proceedings for the adoption of a disciplinary sanction for serious breaches of work duties .","( CARDINAL ) In addition to a reprimand or public reprimand , ORG may suggest to the competent faculty body that proceedings be instituted for the removal of a teacher from the position which he or she occupies in the Faculty . \u201d","The Rules of the ORG further provided specific provisions concerning the composition and procedure before that court . In particular , ORG had a president , CARDINAL vice - presidents , CARDINAL full members and their deputies elected by ORG . It also had a Registrar ( section CARDINAL ) . Any of these could institute proceedings before ORG , but it could not act on the basis of anonymous submissions ( section CARDINAL ) . Cases were to be decided after a preliminary inquiry and a hearing . Respondents could be legally represented and proceedings could be held in their absence if that absence was not justified ( sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The decisions of ORG were published in the ORG \u2019s official gazette ( LAW ) . Appeals against decisions of ORG could be lodged before ORG , which could overturn the first instance judgment by adopting its own judgment or could quash it and remit the case for a re - examination ( section CARDINAL ) .","The Regulations on the disciplinary responsibility of teachers , associates and students of ORG ( PERSON o stegovnoj odgovornosti nastavnika , suradnika i studenata PERSON fakulteta ) , which were adopted on DATE by ORG and came into force on DATE , prescribe the responsibility and procedure for breaches of professional duties and conduct seriously damaging the reputation of the Faculty ( section CARDINAL ) . They also oblige the teachers to comply with the relevant ethical standards ( section CARDINAL ) .","The possible sanctions which may be adopted under LAW are : reprimand , public reprimand , or a proposal for dismissal . A fine may also be imposed as an ancillary sanction , and further sanctions are envisaged for discrimination and harassment ( section CARDINAL ) . Proceedings under LAW are conducted before a committee of CARDINAL members ( section CARDINAL ) . An appeal against the decision of the committee may be lodged before ORG , which could overturn it by adopting its own decision or could quash it and remit the case for a re - examination ( sections DATE ) .","The relevant part of the transitional provisions provides :","\u201c Proceedings before ORG instituted before the coming into force of these Regulations shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of general acts as in force at the moment of the lodging of the request [ instituting the proceedings ] . \u201d","The Regulations on the functioning of ORG ( PERSON o GPE povjerenstvu , MONEY ) were adopted on DATE and were then amended on DATE . A consolidated version of the text of CARDINAL DATE establishes further relevant ethical standards for faculty teachers and other staff ( sections DATE ) . It also provides that ORG shall have the competence to advise the Faculty on matters of ethics and shall work on the development and application of ethical standards . It can also give opinions on matters of ethics and compliance with the relevant ethical standards in individual cases ( section CARDINAL ) .","In the transitional provisions , the Regulations on the functioning of ORG of DATE repeal the following : the Regulations on the functioning of ORG of DATE and DATE , the Code of ORG of DATE , and the Rules of ORG ( section CARDINAL ) . Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) obliges ORG to inform the PERSON and ORG of all proceedings pending before it in order for them to take further necessary measures as provided under the Regulations .","On DATE ORG adopted rules of conduct concerning allegations of academically improper behaviour and fraud in science ( Pravila o postupanju pri optu\u017ebama za znanstveno nedoli\u010dno postupanje i prijevaru u znanosti ) , published on DATE ; the rules came into force in DATE . The aim of these rules was to complement existing faculty regulations on the matter of , inter alia , plagiarism , and to regulate procedures for inquiry into such cases . It provided in particular \u201c depending on the outcome of the proceedings , it is possible to take disciplinary measures and proceedings under LAW , [ Disciplinary ] Regulations and other general regulations of the Faculty and the University \u201d ( para . II.CARDINAL ) .","With regard to the institution of proceedings before the competent body concerning allegations of plagiarism , these Rules provided as follows :","\u201c ... the PERSON shall decide whether disciplinary measures should be taken against the defendant and , if he or she finds it necessary , shall forward the case to ORG , which will establish and recommend such measures ... A final decision on the disciplinary measures will be adopted by ORG on the basis of the suggestion of ORG . \u201d","LAW ( Zakon o dr\u017eavnim slu\u017ebenicima , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , with further amendments ) provides in section CARDINAL that civil servants are those employed in GPE bodies , judicial bodies , penal institutions , the administrative staff of ORG , the administrative staff and officers of ORG , the administrative staff of ORG , the administrative staff of the ombudsman , the administrative staff of the children \u2019s ombudsman , the administrative staff of the gender equality ombudsman , ORG , ORG , and other ORG bodies .","The Administrative Disputes Act ( Zakon o upravnim sporovima , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and DATE ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The [ ORG resolves the matter , in principle , on the basis of the facts established in the administrative proceedings .","( CARDINAL ) If the court finds that the dispute can not be settled on the basis of the facts established in the administrative proceedings because there are inconsistencies related to the operative facts , or [ the operative facts ] are not fully or correctly established , or if [ the administrative bodies ] failed to observe the procedural rules of relevance for the outcome of the proceedings , the court shall adopt a judgment quashing the impugned administrative act . The administrative body is then obliged to comply with the findings in the judgment ...","( CARDINAL ) If the quashing of the impugned administrative act and re - examination of the case by the administrative body as provided under paragraph CARDINAL of this section would cause serious damage to the claimant , or if it is obvious from the public documents or other evidence available in the case file that the facts are different from the CARDINAL established during the administrative proceedings , or an administrative act in the same proceedings had already been quashed , and the competent body has failed to fully comply with the judgment , the court can establish the facts on its own and adopt a judgment or a decision on the basis of those facts . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The court adjudicates the matter by a judgment .","( CARDINAL ) By a judgment , [ the court ] upholds or dismisses as unfounded the [ administrative ] action . If the action is upheld , the court quashes the contested administrative act .","( CARDINAL ) When the court finds that a contested administrative act has to be quashed , it may adjudicate on the administrative matter by a judgment if the nature of things allows and if the information from the procedure provides a reliable basis . Such judgment replaces the quashed [ administrative ] act in all respects .","... \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) When the court quashes an [ administrative ] act against which an administrative dispute was initiated , the proceedings shall be reinstated to the stage in which they were prior to the adoption of the quashed act . If by the nature of the matter in dispute a new act has to be adopted instead of the annulled administrative act , the competent body is obligated to adopt it without any delay , at the latest within DATE from DATE of service of the judgement .","( CARDINAL ) The competent body is bound by the legal standpoint of the court and by the comments of the court concerning the procedure . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the competent body , after the annulment of an administrative act , adopts an administrative act contrary to the legal standpoint of the court or contrary to the comments of the court regarding the procedure , and the claimant therefore submits a new complaint , the court shall annul the contested act and , as a rule , adjudicate the matter on its own by a judgement . Such judgement replaces the act of the competent body in all respects .","... \u201d","\u201c A request for the protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right or freedom ... if such a right or freedom has been violated by a final individual act [ that is , decision ] , and no other judicial protection is secured , shall be decided by ORG ] , by applying , mutatis mutandis , the provisions of this LAW . \u201d","According to the conclusion reached at the plenary session of judges of ORG held on CARDINAL DATE , an action against an administrative act is to be considered a request for judicial protection within the meaning of LAW of LAW if from the content of the action it transpires that it may concern a breach of rights or freedoms guaranteed by LAW . In such cases ORG could not review every breach of procedural or substantive law but only those that amount to breaches of constitutionally guaranteed rights or freedoms ( see further PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","According to ORG case - law ( judgment no . Zpa-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) , the requirements for affording judicial protection under LAW of LAW , which must be met in their totality , are : ( a ) the request has to concern rights or freedoms expressly guaranteed by LAW , ( b ) those rights or freedoms were allegedly breached by a final decision which does not have the characteristics of an administrative act , and ( c ) the legal system does not provide for another judicial avenue of redress .","NORP In its decision no . U - I-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ORG explained that GPE autonomous status encompasses the right of a university to determine its internal organisation and functioning in accordance with the law .","The autonomy of a university means that the university must be organisationally and functionally independent of all other bodies and institutions in carrying out its activities . The beneficiaries of the university \u2019s autonomous status are also individual faculties and other organisational units within a university as well as all academic staff .","NORP However , ORG explained that there are inevitable limits to university autonomy imposed by those who establish , support or supervise the work of universities . These limits are expressed through laws and other regulations determining the functioning of a university . However , such limitations should not disproportionately affect the university \u2019s autonomous status . In this respect ORG identified the core aspects of university autonomy , which include , inter alia , the appointment of teachers .","For the case - law of ORG and ORG on the applicability of the guarantees of a fair trial in the administrative proceedings see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE .","In DATE ORG ( ESF ) , as a common platform of CARDINAL member organisations from CARDINAL countries , and ORG ( ALLEA ) , ORG Humanities of CARDINAL member academies in CARDINAL countries , published LAW as a \u201c LOC - wide agreement on a set of principles and priorities for the research community \u201d .","LAW explains that researchers , and other research organisations , must observe and promote the principles of integrity in scientific and scholarly research . According to the Code , plagiarism is a violation of the rules of responsible conduct . It is defined as the appropriation of other people \u2019s material without giving proper credit . The Code stresses that researchers must show fairness in providing references and giving credit for the work of others and that all authors , unless otherwise specified , should be fully responsible for the content of publication .","Attached to the LAW is ORG I containing Recommended Principles for Investigating Research Misconduct , the relevant text of which reads as follows :","\u201c Integrity of the process","\u2022 Investigations into research misconduct allegations must be fair , comprehensive and conducted expediently but without compromising accuracy , objectivity , and thoroughness .","\u2022 Those parties involved in the procedure must ensure that any interests they have which might constitute a conflict of interest are disclosed and managed .","\u2022 Detailed and confidential records will be maintained on all aspects of the procedure .","Uniformity","\u2022 Procedures for dealing with misconduct should be spelled out in sufficient detail so that the transparency of the process and uniformity within CARDINAL domain of jurisdiction from CARDINAL case to another is ensured .","Fairness","\u2022 Investigation of research misconduct allegations should be conducted in a manner that is fair to all parties and in accordance with relevant laws .","\u2022 Persons accused of research misconduct must be given full details of the allegation(s ) in writing and allowed a fair process for responding to allegations , asking questions , presenting evidence , calling witnesses , and providing responses to information presented .","\u2022 Allow witnesses to be accompanied by or seek advice and assistance from anyone of their choosing .","\u2022 Proportionate action should be taken against persons found to have committed research misconduct .","\u2022 Any action(s ) taken should be subject to appeal . Of course , there should be an authority issuing the final decision .","Confidentiality","\u2022 The procedure should be conducted as confidentially as possible , in order to protect those involved in the investigation . Such confidentiality should be maintained provided this does not compromise the investigation of the allegation , health and safety , or the safety of participants in research .","\u2022 Where possible any disclosure to third parties should be made on a confidential basis .","\u2022 If the organisation and\/or its staff have legal obligations to inform third parties of research misconduct allegations , those obligations must be fulfilled at the appropriate time through the correct mechanisms .","No detriment","\u2022 Anyone accused of research misconduct is presumed innocent .","\u2022 No person should suffer any unnecessary penalty when accused of research misconduct before the allegation is proven .","\u2022 No person should suffer any penalty for making an allegation of research misconduct in good faith , but action should be taken against persons found to have made allegations in bad faith . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-153480","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MURADELI v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Georgia)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , GPE .","According to the applicant , he first arrived in ORG , GPE , in DATE . Since his arrival took place shortly after the disintegration of the GPE , there were no entry requirements to comply with .","According to the ORG , the applicant lived in ORG DATE .","In DATE the applicant married PERSON , a NORP national , and in DATE they had a son , PERSON According to the applicant , at some stage they sold their flat . Later they bought another flat . A loan for that flat was taken by the applicant \u2019s wife , PERSON , and is to be repaid by DATE .","In DATE the applicant together with his family moved to GPE , GPE , where until DATE he worked at ORG of ORG .","According to the applicant , DATE he regularly went to GPE to visit his parents - in - law . In DATE L. and PERSON moved back to ORG as L. had to return to her work after the maternity leave . The applicant also moved back to ORG in DATE . He then regularly went to GPE to visit his mother . As before DATE there was no visa system between GPE and GPE , he did not have to obtain any documents in this regard . After the visa system had been put in place , the applicant \u2019s wife had to issue him an invitation so that he could legally reside in GPE . After CARDINAL of his stays in GPE he moved back to GPE on the basis of this invitation and thereafter lived together with his family in ORG .","According to the Government , having left for GPE in DATE , the applicant returned to GPE on DATE on the basis of a visa valid until DATE . DATE he still worked at ORG . After his return to GPE in DATE his visa was renewed on a number of occasions .","On DATE the applicant applied for a residence permit .","On DATE ORG granted the application .","On DATE the applicant was issued with a residence permit valid until DATE , the date of expiry of his NORP passport .","On DATE the applicant was found in breach of Article CARDINAL of LAW on account of his failure to apply for the renewal of his residence permit , which had expired DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied for the renewal of his residence permit .","On DATE his residence permit was renewed until DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s residential registration in ORG was cancelled upon his request and he obtained residential registration at a different address in GPE until DATE , the date of expiry of his residence permit .","On DATE ORG notified the applicant at the address of his registration in GPE that he had to apply for the renewal of his residence permit DATE prior to the expiry of the valid residence permit . As it transpired later , the applicant had moved to a different address in ORG and did not receive the notification .","According to the applicant , the authorities refused to accept his application for renewal of the residence permit submitted in due time because his birth certificate was not enclosed .","The applicant reapplied for residence permit on DATE , that is DATE before the expiry of his valid residence permit .","On DATE the applicant was found to have violated Article CARDINAL of LAW on account of his failure to submit DATE notifications of his continuous stay in GPE in breach of section QUANTITY of LAW .","On DATE ORG of the Federal Migration Service refused to renew the applicant \u2019s residence permit . The decision stated that the applicant had failed to apply for the renewal in due time , despite the reminder sent to him on DATE , and had not specified any reasons for his failure . Furthermore , he had been twice found guilty of an administrative offence , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG of ORG sent the decision to the applicant with an accompanying letter which stated that upon expiry of his residence permit his residential registration would be cancelled and he would no longer have the right to live in GPE . Therefore , he had to leave GPE within DATE . However , the applicant could re - enter GPE and , after having obtained registration in the immigration register , reapply for a temporary residence permit . The applicant appealed to a court .","Also on DATE the applicant was found in breach of Article CARDINAL of LAW on account of his failure to inform the authorities of the change of his address as required by the legislation on immigration .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of ORG of CARDINAL DATE . The court dismissed , inter alia , the applicant \u2019s argument that he had first applied for the renewal of his residence permit in DATE , but his application had not been accepted as he had had to renew his NORP passport prior to applying . The court noted , firstly , the lack of evidence that the applicant had applied for the renewal of his residence permit in DATE , and , secondly , that in his application of CARDINAL DATE he had only stated that he had not been familiar with the procedure as the only explanation of his failure to apply in due time .","On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance court \u2019s decision on appeal .","Between DATE and DATE the applicant lived in GPE without a residence permit .","On DATE ORG found the applicant to have violated LAW on account of his continued failure to leave GPE after the expiry of his residence permit on DATE and imposed on him a fine in the amount of MONEY ( RUB , MONEY ) .","The applicant did not appeal against this decision , and it became final on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was granted transit visa valid until DATE so that he could leave GPE legally .","According to the applicant , he went to GPE to have his birth certificate reissued .","In the meantime the applicant \u2019s wife applied to ORG of ORG to issue an invitation for the applicant to stay in GPE .","By a decision of DATE her application was refused on the ground of the applicant having been CARDINAL times found guilty of an administrative offence on account of breach of immigration rules and numerous other times on account of other administrative offence involving breach of traffic rules . For these reasons the issue of an invitation for the applicant to enter GPE was refused until DATE .","It appears that the applicant \u2019s wife resubmitted her application which was again refused on CARDINAL DATE on the same grounds . The letter of the same date accompanying the decision reiterated that the issue of an invitation for the applicant to enter GPE had been refused until DATE .","On DATE the applicant entered GPE through the border with GPE . GPE had no visa requirements for NORP nationals . According to the applicant , passport control officers on the BelarussianRussian border explained to him that , having entered GPE from GPE , he could stay in GPE without a visa for DATE .","On DATE , in the course of an identity check conducted by the police , the applicant failed to present any documents that would authorise his stay in GPE . On DATE ORG found him guilty of an administrative offence under LAW of LAW on account of a breach of immigration regulations , fined him with RUB CARDINAL and ordered his administrative removal from GPE . The court also ordered the applicant \u2019s placement in custody until his removal and noted that the decision could be appealed against within DATE after its announcement . In the decision the court noted the particular circumstances in which the offence had been committed and further stated as follows :","\u201c In order to determine the type ... of administrative penalty , the judge takes into account the concrete circumstances of the offence ... committed , [ the applicant \u2019s ] financial and family situation , his personality , [ the fact that ] in DATE he was found guilty of an administrative offence on account of a breach of regulations on foreign nationals\u2019 stay in GPE , and , furthermore , that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was living in GPE without [ registration ] in the ORG register and without a residential registration either , and avoided leaving GPE .","The court is unaware of any circumstances that would prevent [ the applicant \u2019s ] removal from GPE , given that he had been ... previously found guilty of an administrative offence in DATE and the issue of an invitation for him to enter GPE is refused until DATE . \u201d","As the applicant did not appeal within the set time - limits , the decision became enforceable .","NORP The applicant was deported on DATE .","The applicant subsequently appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In his statement of appeal he submitted , in particular , that he had been married to L. since DATE and that they had a son born in DATE . The decision on his administrative removal disrupted his family life . In particular , his son , who was DATE at the time , needed his father at his side . The applicant \u2019s removal from his family also placed a heavy burden on his wife , who not only had to raise their son on her own , but also to pay back the bank loan for the flat they had bought together . The applicant argued that the decision was in breach of LAW . He also noted that he had failed to comply with the time - limits to apply for the renewal of his residence permit which had expired on DATE as his application had been refused for his failure to enclose his birth certificate , which he had not had with him in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE , having found that ORG had duly taken into account the information about the applicant , his financial and family situation , the previous administrative offence , the fact that between CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE he had lived in GPE without being duly registered , and that the issue of an invitation for him to enter GPE was refused until DATE . The court also took note of the fact that , according to the applicant \u2019s explanations provided on DATE , he had come to GPE for certain business matters and was going to leave once they were solved .","The applicant submitted a request for supervisory review .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the decisions of DATE and DATE under supervisory review . It noted , in particular , that the penalty imposed on the applicant was in accordance with the law and proportionate for the purposes of LAW , since the courts had taken into consideration the nature of the offence , his financial and family situation and other circumstances ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163913","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF LOVYGINY v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sergiy Goncharenko;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in the city of GPE , GPE .","On DATE a police training exercise was conducted in accordance with an operational plan entitled \u201c FAC ( \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u0438\u0439 \u043f\u043b\u0430\u043d \u00ab \u0421\u0438\u0440\u0435\u043d\u0430 DATE ) ( hereinafter \u201c LOC \u201d ) . During the exercise the applicants\u2019 son , a police officer at the material time , played the role of a criminal for the purposes of the exercise and was accidentally shot dead by another police officer .","Operation Sirena for LOC was approved in DATE by the police , civil and military authorities of that region on the basis of order No . CARDINAL ( classified ) of DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The plan set out the steps to be taken and the procedure to be followed in the event of a search for and the arrest of armed or other dangerous criminals , including those who had escaped from detention .","A senior traffic police inspector , PERSON , following instruction no . CARDINAL of DATE issued by ORG of ORG ( PERSON \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0456\u0448\u043d\u0456\u0445 \u0441\u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432 \u0432 GPE \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0456 ) ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and pursuant to an order from a senior traffic police officer , PERSON . , drafted a training exercise for traffic police officers in the city of GPE and the village of GPE in the context of ORG .","The CARDINAL - page training scenario stipulated that the training was to take place on DATE TIME At TIME a police office on duty was to circulate information that armed criminals had hijacked a car and that ORG had been launched . The scenario stipulated that , in addition to the police officer who would drive the car , there should also be in the car a second police officer , ORG , who would observe the actions of police patrol officers . The hijacked car would be followed by a second car containing a police officer , PERSON . , who would film the exercise . The scenario was approved on DATE by a deputy head of ORG , S.","Senior traffic police officer PERSON . , who on DATE was the acting head of ORG , later stated in the course of the criminal investigation that traffic police officers had been given prior notice of the training exercise on DATE that it was held .","At TIME on DATE a senior traffic police officer , So . , briefed traffic police officers NORP , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON . and the ORG son about the training . At TIME L. instructed a traffic police officer on duty to give the police unit on duty ( \u00ab \u0447\u0435\u0440\u0433\u043e\u0432\u0430 \u0447\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438\u043d\u0430 ORG ) prior notice of the training exercise and to issue a \u201c lookout alert \u201d .","At TIME a police officer on duty , P. , was informed by a traffic police unit that CARDINAL unknown armed criminals had hijacked a car and were moving in the direction of PERSON , a ORG residential neighbourhood . He communicated this information to the patrol cars , to the city \u2019s district police stations and to the head of ORG . TIME received additional information that the above - mentioned alert was part of a training exercise being conducted under ORG . According to the findings of the subsequent internal police investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , PERSON forwarded that additional information to the head of ORG , who instructed PERSON to pass it on to the city \u2019s district police stations . It was established by the police internal investigation that PERSON failed to do so .","Having been informed of the alleged hijacking , Os . , the First Deputy of the LOC district police office , issued appropriate instructions to CARDINAL police officers and placed them at various posts . In particular , police officer PERSON was placed , together with a traffic police officer , PERSON . , in the vicinity of FAC over LOC .","The car containing the \u201c criminals \u201d ( played by the applicants\u2019 son and police officer PERSON . ) passed the aforementioned post without being stopped . According to PERSON . , his radio transmitter had not been working properly and he had left his post in order to inform the traffic police office in charge that the hijacked car had passed their post . Later PERSON . testified that he had given PERSON prior notice of the training exercise . After PERSON . had left , police officer PERSON . , who was in the second car and was filming the exercise , switched off his camera ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Traffic police officer PERSON , who was an observer in the \u201c hijacked \u201d car , instructed the applicants\u2019 son , who was driving , to drive by the post again . This time , police officer PERSON stopped the car , released his gun \u2019s safety catch , and ordered the applicants\u2019 son and police officer PERSON . to get out of the car . While searching the applicants\u2019 son , PERSON pulled the trigger since the ORG son had allegedly made a sudden movement . The ORG son was fatally wounded and died on the way to hospital .","The applicants submitted a copy of the video recording of the training exercise . However , the part containing the shooting incident involving the applicants\u2019 son was missing . The original video recording has been lost ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG of ORG adopted a decision by which it was concluded that the \u201c extraordinary event \u201d ( \u00ab \u043d\u0430\u0434\u0437\u0432\u0438\u0447\u0430\u0439\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0456\u044f ORG ) of DATE had taken place because of low professional standards on the part of the police ; PERSON \u2019s failure to assess properly the \u201c extraordinary circumstances \u201d ( \u00ab \u0435\u043a\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043c\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0456 \u0443\u043c\u043e\u0432\u0438 GPE ) , ignorance of the steps to be taken when arresting a suspect and failure to properly handle his weapon ; and the irresponsible attitude of senior police officers towards the organisation of the training exercise . It was decided , inter alia , to dismiss PERSON , NORP , P. , Os . and A.","On DATE the head of ORG , GPE , approved the findings of an internal investigation conducted following the death of the ORG son .","The conclusion of that investigation provides , in so far as relevant , as follows :","\u201c The inspection established that :","In accordance with instruction no . CARDINAL of DATE issued by ORG of ORG ... , PERSON ... drafted a training scenario for traffic police personnel ... When doing so he did not take into consideration the provisions of ORG ... [ It ] is pointless and not efficient to conduct training only for the traffic police officers of ORG and GPE .","The procedure for the conduct of the training was not comprehensively set out ; [ failures included ] :","- the failure to stipulate an itinerary for the car containing the \u201c criminals \u201d ;","- the failure to provide for the necessary number of observers ...","In their turn , the senior officers of ORG ... acted in a perfunctory and irresponsible manner ... , did not properly study the scenario and did not correct its shortcomings ...","Moreover , no training instructor was appointed and the heads of services and subdivisions involved in the training were not informed of the details of the scenario .","The deputy head of ORG ... , DATE approved the above - mentioned scenario on DATE without correcting its shortcomings ...","So . , a lieutenant - colonel , ... briefed those police officers who were due to participate in the training but failed to notify the head of ORG the training and did not personally supervise the progress of the training ...","P. ... was briefed by the traffic police unit on duty that CARDINAL unknown armed criminals had hijacked a car and were moving in the direction of PERSON [ a residential neighbourhood of ORG ] . TIME later he was informed that this information was part of a training scenario being conducted under ORG . P. informed the head of the ORG about it and was instructed to inform the LOC district police stations accordingly . P. , acting incompetently and ignoring those instructions , ... failed to inform the officers on duty at the district police stations about the ongoing training but only circulated descriptions of the criminals .","... PERSON , the head of the police unit on duty at the GPE , ... was informed by P. about the training exercise being held by the traffic police ; PERSON ordered PERSON to follow prior practice but ... failed to supervise him .","...","The senior officers of ORG , Os . and A. ... negligently and lackadaisically implemented LOC ...","... instead of CARDINAL police officers , who were to have been provided with transport and communication devices under PERSON , ... only one police officer , PERSON , was placed at the post , together with a traffic police officer , PERSON . The latter states that he [ gave ] PERSON [ prior notice of ] the training ...","At the same time PERSON and PERSON . failed to properly regulate the traffic and to block the road ...","Police officer O. ... failed to assess the situation in a timely manner , exhibited negligence and carelessness and , despite the fact that PERSON had released his gun \u2019s safety catch , in blatant breach of order no . CARDINAL of ORG , failed to stop the progression of events which led to a police officer \u2019s death .","That extraordinary event became possible because of :","- irresponsibility , insufficient professional standards , and incompetence in the conception and drafting of the training scenario ... on the part of police officer PERSON ;","- the formalistic and irresponsible approach to the planning and organising of the practical training ... , lack of cooperation with the regional police , and low level of supervision of subordinates on the part of the regional traffic police management ( police officers PERSON . and So . ) ;","- the negligence of official duties , formalistic approach to the organisation of the training ( and the lack of supervision of its conduct ) , ... and failure to introduce comprehensive measures aimed at the prevention of extraordinary events on the part of police officer PERSON ;","- the low level of professionalism , irresponsible attitude to official duties , and disregard of instructions issued by the head of ORG on the part of the assistant to the head of the unit on duty ( police officer PERSON ) ;","- the indifference and lack of supervision of the professional activities of his subordinates on the part of police officer PERSON ;","...","- the irresponsibility , negligent and indifferent attitude towards the performance of tasks assigned during the training and failure to take precautions in respect of the personal security of the police officers on duty on the part of police officer O. ;","- the low level of professional training and inability to act [ appropriately ] in extraordinary circumstances ... on the part of police officer PERSON","As a result , it was concluded that police officers PERSON , NORP , P. , Os . and A. should be dismissed and that the dismissal of police officer PERSON should be initiated before ORG . It was further proposed to discipline a number of the other police officers involved . The investigation concluded that the senior police officers involved had failed to properly train their personnel to act in emergency circumstances .","On DATE ORG issued an order which noted that even though safety and the prevention of death and injury in respect of police officers were priorities in police activities , there had been a number of serious shortcomings in the organisation and conduct of the training exercise , which had led to the incident in question . It was noted , inter alia , that since the beginning of his service with ORG in DATE PERSON had not attended the relevant theoretical instruction classes . ORG also concluded that the police officers involved had failed to properly organise the training .","It was further noted that by order No . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by ORG , the head of ORG , Os . , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON had been dismissed and other police officers disciplined . For the most part , that decision was approved by ORG . However , it was decided not to dismiss but rather to demote Os . and PERSON and to reprimand I.","On DATE ORG ( \u201c ORG Office \u201d ) instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the incident . On DATE it was decided to assign the case to CARDINAL investigating officers and to conduct a forensic medical examination of the body of the applicants\u2019 son . In particular , the expert was asked to determine what injuries were on the corpse .","On DATE a forensic medical expert concluded that the applicants\u2019 son had a gunshot wound to the chest and scratches on the left side of the face , possibly sustained when he fell down .","In the course of the investigation ORG pleaded guilty . His testimonies regarding the events of DATE coincided with the facts as described in paragraphs QUANTITY above .","The testimony of different police officers involved in the organisation and conduct of the training exercise included , inter alia , the following :","- P. testified that the \u201c orders in force \u201d had not required that information about the training be circulated ;","- the head of the police unit on duty at ORG ( \u043d\u0430\u0447\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0438\u043a \u0447\u0435\u0440\u0433\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0457 \u0447\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438\u043d\u0438 \u0448\u0442\u0430\u0431\u0443 PERSON ) , PERSON , testified that he had instructed PERSON to \u201c comply with the PERSON plan , in accordance with the existing instructions \u201d . PERSON also submitted that the police unit on duty had only received the training scenario on DATE that is DATE after the training exercise . It had been impossible to involve only the traffic police in the training since ORG had required joint action , involving both the police and the traffic police ;","- S. , a deputy head of ORG , testified that there had been no legal instruments governing the conduct of police training under ORG . PERSON stated that the police officer who had ordered the implementation of the training had been supposed to instruct police officers on duty as to what information should be given to the district police stations . PERSON stated that the training scenario had been discussed with PERSON . , who had told PERSON that the scenario had been approved by the head of ORG ;","- police officer PERSON testified that the district police stations must have been aware of the training exercise . This information should have been circulated , together with a \u201c lookout alert \u201d ;","- police officer PERSON testified that nobody in ORG had been aware of the training exercise ;","- police officer PERSON . testified that he and the applicants\u2019 son had been \u201c aware that the police officers [ would ] have guns with live rounds \u201d ;","- traffic police officer PERSON . testified that he had told PERSON about the training ;","- police officer PERSON . testified that he had stopped filming after traffic police officer PERSON . had left ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , since he had \u201c not known that the car would make a second attempt to pass this post \u201d .","During a confrontation held between PERSON and traffic police office PERSON . , the latter insisted that he had informed PERSON about the training .","In the course of the investigation a number of other investigating measures were conducted , including a forensic ballistics examination and a reconstruction of events .","On DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , in the absence of the applicants , terminated the criminal proceedings against PERSON under LAW , since he was the father of a minor and should thus not be liable to serve a punishment . It was noted that this decision was not subject to appeal .","On DATE ORG rejected as unsubstantiated an application lodged by the second applicant on DATE for the renewal of the time - limit in respect of an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE ORG upheld this decision . The court noted that although the second applicant had been absent from the court hearing on DATE , she had been aware of that decision since DATE and had received a copy of it on DATE at the latest .","In DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against other police officers involved in the organisation and conduct of the training exercise . In particular , on DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against PERSON . , So . , PERSON . and PERSON in the absence of any evidence of a crime , given that there had been no causal link between their actions and the death of the applicants\u2019 son .","On DATE and DATE , citing the same reasons , ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against P. and O. On DATE those decisions were quashed by ORG and the case was remitted for additional investigation .","On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings in respect of the alleged negligence on the part of ORG police officers involved in the organisation and conduct of the training exercise .","On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings . It noted that , according to a ORG senior police officer , the legal instruments of ORG had not stipulated that police officers should have been informed about the training . Such training was to be conducted under realistic conditions . It was further noted that no obligation to inform colleagues about the training exercise had been part of the duties of any police officer on duty .","On DATE ORG quashed that decision and remitted the case for additional investigation . It noted that the investigation had not been thorough and that the decision taken had been unsubstantiated . In particular , it had not been established whether there had been a causal link between the shortcomings on the part of the police officers and the death of the applicants\u2019 son . It had also not been established which legal instruments regulated police training exercises .","By a letter of DATE ORG informed ORG that , under ( classified ) order No . CARDINAL of the Ministry of the Interior ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the relevant skills were \u201c to be mastered during training [ conducted ] under realistic conditions \u201d . At the same time the relevant legal instruments did not specify any procedure for the conduct of training exercises .","On DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings .","On DATE ORG quashed that decision , citing the failure to fully comply with the decision of DATE . The recommenced proceedings were again terminated on DATE . It was noted in the latter decision that the constituent elements of a crime ( \u201c negligence \u201d ) under LAW included failure to perform properly or at all certain duties . However , in the absence of any regulations governing procedure for the conduct of training exercises under ORG , the duties of the police officers involved in such training had not been defined . Moreover , there had been no causal link between the actions of the ORG police officers and the death of the applicants\u2019 son , since the latter had died following PERSON \u2019s mishandling of firearms . It was concluded that there was no indication of any crime in the actions of the police officers .","On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE . It was noted that the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings had been \u201c premature and unlawful \u201d . In particular , during the investigation it had not been clarified whether there had been a possibility to equip the police officers with blank cartridges and why ORG had not intervened to prevent PERSON firing his gun after seeing that its safety catch had been released .","On DATE ORG again terminated the proceedings . When questioned again , PERSON stated that he had not known that PERSON \u2019s gun had been loaded . Moreover , PERSON should have been aware that a training exercise was in progress . The tragic incident had happened TIME , so O. had not had the possibility of preventing it . PERSON testified that , \u201c under the ORG \u2019s instructions regarding the \u2018 Sirena\u2019 training plan \u201d , it had not been his responsibility to circulate the information that the announcement about the car hijacking was part of a training exercise . As to whether blank cartridges could have been used for the training exercise , the head of ORG staff , NORP , testified that the regional police senior officers had decided to use live rounds for the training . The investigation concluded that the applicants\u2019 son had died as a result of the mishandling of firearms on the part of PERSON","On DATE ORG quashed this decision and remitted the case for additional investigation . It was noted that a number of investigative actions had yet to be undertaken and a number of issues had yet to be clarified . In particular , the plans for the training exercise and ORG had to be seized and it had to be clarified who had briefed PERSON and why PERSON had been alone at his post . It was also noted that order No . CARDINAL was not classified and should therefore be added to the case materials .","In DATE the applicants\u2019 relatives testified that at the funeral of the applicants\u2019 son they had noted that make - up had been applied to the applicants\u2019 son \u2019s face to cover a hole in his head . An ambulance doctor testified that he had not examined the body in detail since it had been evident that the applicants\u2019 son had died after being shot .","On DATE the investigating authorities decided to exhume the body .","On DATE a forensic medical examination of the body of the applicants\u2019 son was ordered because the applicants insisted that their son had not been accidentally shot but rather killed by either being hit on the head with a gun or shot in the head because he had possessed information regarding unlawful activity on the part of other police officers . They stated that the body had had a large haematoma on the head and there had been a crack in the skull .","After the forensic medical examination of the body of the applicants\u2019 son , a forensic expert concluded that the crack in the skull of the ORG son had appeared during the initial forensic medical examination .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of ORG upheld the conclusions of an internal investigation into the loss of the original video recording of the training exercise . It was proposed to discipline the investigating officer , ORG , who , DATE and DATE , had lost the video .","On DATE it was again decided to terminate the criminal proceedings in the absence of any evidence of a crime . A deputy head of ORG , GPE , submitted that the police officers had not been informed about the training exercise since , under ( classified ) order No . CARDINAL of the Ministry of the Interior , police training should be conducted under conditions as realistic as possible . There were no legal instruments of ORG stipulating the procedure for the conduct of training exercises and there was no obligation to inform police officers when any such training was being conducted . Consequently , the scope of duties of those involved in the training conducted under ORG had not been defined .","On DATE the ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed this decision and remitted the case for additional investigation , since the prosecutor \u2019s office had failed to take into account the fact that some police officers had been disciplined . The court also observed that \u201c all necessary and possible investigative actions had not been undertaken \u201d .","DATE . On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the decision of DATE and upheld the decision of DATE . The court concluded that the ORG had , in particular , failed to specify which facts had not been examined by an investigating officer .","The second applicant appealed against the decision of DATE and that many aspects of the case remained unclear ( whether there had been an obligation to inform the police officers about the training , what did the \u201c near - reality \u201d conditions mean etc . ) , therefore , the first instance court decision had been well - grounded and should not had been quashed . On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the second applicant \u2019s appeal . It found that the applicant \u2019s arguments about unlawfulness and lack of reasoning of the second instance court decision had been unsubstantiated . In particular , the court of appeal correctly concluded that the investigation had been comprehensive while the first instance court had failed to give reasons for the need for additional investigation .","On DATE a lump - sum insurance payment in the amount of CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) ( at the material time around MONEY ( ORG ) ) was paid jointly to the applicants and to their son \u2019s widow and daughter pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see GPE v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","According to the Government , DATE and DATE a total of UAH CARDINAL ( around EUR CARDINAL ) was paid to the applicants in financial aid and the first applicant was furnished with a washing machine , construction materials for a house renovation and a table for a computer .","The applicants instituted proceedings against ORG claiming compensation for damage inflicted by their son \u2019s death . On DATE the ORG awarded them ORG CARDINAL ( around EUR CARDINAL ) as compensation for non - pecuniary damage . This decision was quashed and the case remitted for fresh consideration .","On DATE the same court awarded the applicants UAH CARDINAL ( around EUR CARDINAL ) . On DATE ORG upheld that decision . However , on DATE ORG of GPE quashed it and dismissed the ORG claim , finding that , after having accepted a full insurance payment , the applicants no longer had a valid compensation claim . The parties did not submit copies of the applicants\u2019 claim and the domestic courts\u2019 decisions .","In DATE the applicants instituted proceedings against the prosecutor \u2019s offices at various levels . The applicants complained that the investigation into their son \u2019s death had been ineffective and claimed compensation for non - pecuniary damage .","On DATE the ORG , examining the case under administrative procedure , found for the applicants . The court found that the investigation had lasted for DATE and that on CARDINAL occasions ORG had quashed the decisions of ORG terminating those proceedings . The court concluded that the case had been investigated improperly , with numerous breaches of the law , and awarded the applicants compensation .","On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case for fresh consideration by the first - instance court .","After declining several times to consider the applicants\u2019 case because of their failure to comply with procedural requirements , on DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) decided to terminate the proceedings , ruling that the applicants\u2019 claim for damages should have been lodged under a civil procedure . On DATE ORG upheld this decision . The applicants appealed in cassation .","On DATE ORG upheld the above decisions and held that the applicants should have complained to a higher prosecutor about the allegedly unlawful actions of the lower prosecutor .","NORP In DATE the applicants lodged a claim under civil procedure with ORG against ORG , claiming compensation for damage resulting from an ineffective investigation . On DATE the court dismissed that claim on the ground that the applicants should have lodged their claim under administrative procedure . On DATE ORG upheld that ruling . The applicants did not appeal against those rulings .","In DATE the second applicant instituted administrative proceedings in ORG against ORG and ORG , complaining that their conduct relating to the organisation of the police training of DATE had been unlawful . It is not clear whether she claimed any compensation in this respect .","On DATE ORG found against the second applicant . The court noted that the death of the second applicant \u2019s son had been investigated several times ; PERSON had been found guilty but amnestied , criminal proceedings against other police officers had been terminated in the absence of evidence of any crime , and police officers PERSON and NORP had been disciplined . Moreover , the second applicant \u2019s son had died in DATE , but the second applicant had only lodged her claim against ORG and ORG in DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the second applicant , ruling that it had been lodged out of time . On DATE ORG upheld that ruling .","On DATE the applicants lodged an application before this ORG complaining that termination of the proceedings against PERSON had been in breach of the ORG \u2019s positive obligation under LAW to conduct an effective independent investigation into their son \u2019s death . They also invoked LAW complaining about the outcome of the proceedings in respect of their claim for compensation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG by a ORG decision declared their complaints inadmissible ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157695","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS;UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BELOZOROV v. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Six month period);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Liberty of person;Security of person;Article 5-1-f - Extradition) (Ukraine);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention) (Russia);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review by a court;Speediness of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Stanislav Shevchuk","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of ORG , GPE .","On DATE the ORG \u2019s office of LOC of the city of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u2019s office \u201d ) opened a criminal investigation into the murder of a businessman .","By a decision of DATE the ORG \u2019s office ordered the applicant to appear as a witness in this case . Since at that time the applicant resided in the town of ORG in GPE , the prosecutor also ordered the police to take measures with a view to ensuring the applicant \u2019s attendance . It appears that the relevant summons was sent to the applicant \u2019s only known address in GPE , that of his sister , who resided in GPE . The applicant denied having received the summons at that time .","On CARDINAL and DATE the ORG \u2019s office ordered the applicant \u2019s apartment in ORG to be searched , requested the cooperation of the NORP authorities in conducting the search , and also dispatched a team of police officers from ORG of the ORG to GPE . In his letter dated DATE a prosecutor from the ORG \u2019s office specifically mentioned that he had decided to send CARDINAL police officers from that GPE to Feodosiya for \u201c operative follow - up \u201d .","CARDINAL NORP police officers , PERSON . and Go . , were entrusted with this operation and at once sent to GPE . It appears that they had secured the support of the head of ORG of ORG of the ORG , lieutenantcolonel FAC . , who had apparently instructed his subordinate , police officer PERSON . , to assist the NORP police officers in their task . The exact mandate of police officer PERSON . is unclear .","On DATE police officer PERSON . and the CARDINAL NORP police officers , PERSON . and Go . , located and arrested the applicant . He was handcuffed and his apartment was searched . The search took place in the presence of the applicant \u2019s mother , ORG , and her neighbours PERSON and PERSON acting as witnesses ; it was documented in a report drawn up by PERSON . on DATE . The report stated that the applicant had been given a copy of the report on DATE of the search .","According to the applicant , after the search he remained in the custody of the NORP and NORP police , who the next day escorted him to a local airport . The NORP officers and the applicant took the first flight to GPE . On arrival , the applicant was formally arrested by the same CARDINAL officers and detained on suspicion of murder .","The applicant submitted a copy of the passenger manifest for ORG flight Su-CARDINAL dated DATE . The document showed that the applicant and police officers Go . and PERSON . had travelled on the same flight and occupied seats nos . CARDINAL ( Go . ) , CARDINAL ( the applicant ) and CARDINAL ( PERSON . ) .","According to ORG , after the search the applicant had been taken to the NORP police and shortly thereafter had been released . DATE he had bought a ticket and took a flight to GPE . CARDINAL police officers , PERSON . and Go . , had been tipped off about the applicant \u2019s decision to buy a ticket and managed to buy tickets for the same flight . When the applicant arrived at a GPE airport , he had been arrested by PERSON . and Go . and brought before an investigator from the ORG \u2019s office .","ORG did not submit their own version of these events .","After the events of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s parents made a number of complaints to various NORP officials and bodies about the actions of the NORP policemen and requested assistance from ORG in repatriating the applicant to GPE from GPE .","More specifically , on DATE the applicant made a criminal complaint to ORG office , alleging abuse of power and the unlawfulness of the search , arrest and detention .","In response to CARDINAL of the complaints of the applicant \u2019s GPE , on DATE a prosecutor from ORG office initiated administrative proceedings regarding the events of DATE against the NORP officials involved . The decision stated that :","\u201c ... On DATE police officers from the GPE department of criminal investigations arrived at the town of ORG with a warrant to carry out a search at [ the applicant \u2019s home address ] , this decision having been authorised by [ a ] prosecutor from the GPE LOC .","The head of the criminal investigation department of ORG ... police lieutenant - colonel FAC . , seriously breached the requirements of LAW and LAW ... according to which contact concerning questions of extradition , criminal prosecution , and the execution of investigatory missions ... is to be made by ORG offices of the respective parties . He directed his [ subordinates ] to render assistance [ to the NORP police ] in carrying out their search .","Before the start of the search the GPE police officers , in the presence of NORP police officers PERSON . , GPE , and PERSON . , arrested [ the applicant ] and handcuffed him : this was confirmed by [ the applicant \u2019s parents and witnesses ] PERSON and PERSON","After the search , a NORP national [ the applicant ] was apprehended by the NORP police and taken to an unknown location ... \u201d","On DATE the head of ORG of the ORG , lieutenant - colonel FAC . , issued order no . CARDINAL , in which he reprimanded police officer PERSON . who had taken part in the events of DATE , for \u201c incorrect and unathorised actions while assisting the police of other states \u201d .","On DATE the same official from ORG of the ORG issued order no . CARDINAL , in which he mentioned that the initial authorisation given to police officer PERSON . had only included the instruction \u201c to locate [ the applicant ] and indicate that location to the police officers from GPE \u201d .","By a letter dated DATE the NORP authorities informed the applicant \u2019s mother that police officer PERSON . had been reprimanded and that the question of the disciplinary liability of lieutenantcolonel FAC . would be decided when he returned DATE .","On DATE a prosecutor from ORG office wrote a letter to the applicant \u2019s father and informed him that they \u201c had requested legal assistance [ from the NORP authorities ] in resolving [ the applicant \u2019s complaint ] about his unlawful arrest ... and his ... subsequent transfer to [ GPE ] \u201d . By the same letter the applicant \u2019s father was informed that the applicant \u2019s complaint about unlawful actions on the part of the NORP policemen had been forwarded to a prosecutor \u2019s office for further investigation .","By a letter dated DATE , in response to CARDINAL of the complaints from the applicant \u2019s family , a prosecutor from ORG office informed the applicant that the NORP lawenforcement bodies had never formally asked the NORP authorities to conduct a search at the applicant \u2019s address in GPE .","By a letter dated DATE a prosecutor from ORG office informed the applicant \u2019s mother that the inquiry into the events conducted by the ORG \u2019s office of GPE revealed that officers from both the NORP and the NORP police had been present during the search . The inquiry resulted in the decision to bring administrative proceedings in respect of the NORP police officers who had breached the rules of criminal procedure and LAW .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged a complaint about the events of DATE with ORG . This complaint remained unexamined and on DATE it was forwarded instead to ORG office . A covering letter signed by the President of ORG explained to the applicant \u2019s mother that the complaint had been forwarded to the ORG \u2019s office for examination .","The applicant \u2019s parents appealed against ORG failure to examine his mother \u2019s arguments on the merits before ORG of GPE on DATE .","On DATE the President of ORG explained that on DATE an investigator had already refused to bring criminal proceedings in respect of the events of DATE .","It is unclear whether the applicant or his family received a copy of the decision of DATE . According to a certificate submitted by ORG , the inquiry case file was destroyed owing to expiry of the retention period on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a similar complaint with ORG , stating that his arrest in GPE , subsequent transfer to GPE and detention in custody by the NORP authorities had been unlawful .","On DATE an investigator from the ORG \u2019s office questioned officer PERSON . in connection with the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s arrest in GPE . PERSON . stated :","\u201c ... on DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office of ORG issued an international request for the search of [ the applicant \u2019s apartment ] and the applicant \u2019s arrest . Whether it reached the police of Feodosiya I am not sure , but as far as I understood it [ did ] .","In order to execute the request , [ officer ] Go . and I set off for ORG in possession of a copy of the international request .","Having arrived in ORG , we contacted ORG and asked them to be present during the search and other activities within the framework of the request . On DATE we attended the search at [ the applicant \u2019s ] place of residence . The search of [ the applicant \u2019s ] apartment was conducted by the [ Feodosiya ] police officers and they drew up a record in this respect . Go . and I were present at the search , but did not actively participate in it . After the search [ the applicant ] was invited by the [ Feodosiya ] police officers to the premises of ORG for questioning .","I was informed by one of the [ Feodosiya ] police officers that [ the applicant ] refused to answer any questions concerning the matter . No documents were given either to me or to Go . We were only given a copy of the search record .","I knew that we had no right to carry out any operative search activities on the territory of GPE , and therefore we did not personally participate in the verbal exchanges with [ the applicant ] . Having refused to make any statements , [ the applicant ] was released .","DATE , DATE , the [ Feodosiya ] policemen \u2013 I do n\u2019t remember who exactly \u2013 informed Go . and myself that [ the applicant ] had bought a ticket for a plane to GPE and told us the flight and seat number . At once we set off for the sales office and , since very few tickets were sold , managed to buy tickets for seats close to [ the applicant ] so as to be able to observe him . The plane was not full , since few people were flying to GPE . We did not show any interest or attention towards [ the applicant ] . I do n\u2019t know whether [ the applicant ] recognised us . In any event , had he had any concerns , he could have expressed them to the officers [ of the law enforcement agencies in the airport ] . [ The applicant ] did not do this , from which I deduce that he was not aware of either me or Go . , nor had he recognised [ us ] , and he expected to go into hiding in GPE .","We knew about the investigator \u2019s decision to arrest [ the applicant ] because he had no place of residence in GPE . Upon his arrival in GPE , we decided to arrest [ the applicant ] and bring him [ to the police station of LOC ] for investigative actions ... \u201d","On DATE an investigator from the ORG \u2019s office questioned officer Go . in connection with the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s arrest in GPE . Go . repeated word for word the statements given earlier by PERSON .","By a decision of DATE an investigator from the ORG \u2019s office rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint on the grounds that the applicant had travelled to GPE of his own free will and had been detained on arrival in accordance with domestic law . The prosecutor relied principally on the evidence given by the CARDINAL NORP police officers , who explained that they had happened by mere chance to be on the same plane to GPE as the applicant . They denied that they had taken an active part in the events in GPE and stated that the applicant had been released after the search and had then bought a plane ticket to GPE on his own . The officers had been tipped off by an undisclosed source within the NORP police and had managed to buy tickets for the same flight , \u201c sitting not very far from the applicant \u2019s seat \u201d . On arrival in GPE the officers arrested the applicant in the airport terminal and took him to the investigating authorities .","On DATE an investigator from the ORG \u2019s office questioned the applicant in connection with the circumstances of his arrest in GPE . The applicant stated :","\u201c ... I was arrested on DATE in the town of ORG , in LOC . The arrest was carried out by QUANTITY police officers from the Feodosiya Town Police and QUANTITY other police officers , who I later learned were from GPE . Once the policemen had identified me I was handcuffed . Thereafter they conducted a search of my home . I was shown a search warrant signed by the Prosecutor from ORG of GPE but no other documents were provided . After the search I was brought to the police station in ORG . I was not shown any documents justifying my arrest . I was refused a phone call . After that I was transported to hotel \u201c Sailor \u201d in Feodosiya where the policemen from GPE were staying and where I was handcuffed to a radiator . We spent TIME in the hotel but after that I was taken to the police station because the hotel manager objected to the presence of CARDINAL men in a room designed only for CARDINAL . The rest of the night I spent in an office belonging to the police , attached by handcuffs to the radiator . TIME the policemen from GPE took me to the passport office of ORG to collect my ORG card and thereafter we went by car to the airport . At the airport I was in the car with the policemen from ORG . The policemen bought a ticket in my name . Then we took flight CARDINAL from GPE to GPE . Before boarding we went through the customs and border control . As we were passing it , my handcuffs were removed and the policemen showed their licences to use special devices . Upon landing in GPE , the policemen and I did not go through the border and customs control , but went out through [ a special ] exit . Thereafter I was put in a car and brought to the [ police station ] of LOC of GPE ... \u201d","In decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , in response to further complaints by the applicant , the prosecutor reiterated his earlier findings .","By a judgment of DATE the ORG of the city of GPE confirmed the prosecutor \u2019s decision to dispense with criminal proceedings in respect of the allegedly unlawful arrest , search and detention . Among other things , the court referred to LAW .","ORG quashed this judgment on DATE on the grounds that the questions of the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s arrest and the search of his apartment were inextricably linked to the merits of the applicant \u2019s criminal case and could not be decided before the trial court judgment .","The case was remitted for fresh examination at first instance and on DATE the ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal . This judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .","It appears that the applicant subsequently tried to institute court proceedings in respect of the same questions before the domestic courts . By a judgment of DATE , given in the applicant \u2019s absence , ORG of GPE rejected these arguments . The court held , in particular , that :","\u201c ... as is apparent from the case file , [ the applicant ] was arrested by the [ police officers ] Go . and PERSON . on DATE at PERSON airport as ordered by the investigator in his decision of DATE ...","When questioned in this connection , Go . and PERSON . stated that they did not arrest [ the applicant ] in GPE and did not take any part in the search of his apartment , but were simply in attendance .","According to the search record of DATE , the search was carried out in [ the applicant \u2019s ] apartment in ORG by the local police and the request to carry it out had been made to the ORG prosecutor by the prosecutor of ORG of GPE .","The order to execute the request is defined by the party to which the request is addressed . In accordance with LAW of RSFSR and LAW , the said norms applied only on the territory of RSFSR but they did not contain any rules preventing [ investigation and operative ] activities on the territory of another state . The [ GPE ] Convention sets out the possibility of legal assistance and does not contain a ban on procedural actions on the territory of ORG , recognising the lawfulness of such actions if they are authorised by the law of the party to which the request was addressed ( LAW ) . According to part CARDINAL of LAW , the presence of officers acting for the requesting party during such actions is possible .","In the view of the above , the court considers that the search was carried out fully and properly . In the present case the prosecutor \u2019s office was only competent to assess the events which took place on the territory of GPE , as the norms of the code of criminal procedure of RSFSR only applied there , and any decision concerning events which took place on the territory on GPE could only be taken by the competent body in GPE and the corresponding investigation could only be initiated upon a request from the party to which the request was addressed , that is to say GPE . However , no such request was ever made , and , as is apparent from the letter from the ORG prosecutor , the request to bring a criminal case in this connection had been refused ... \u201d","According to the applicant , he received only a copy of the judgment on CARDINAL DATE and tried to appeal against it on DATE . His request for restoration of the time - limits for appeal , submitted on DATE , was refused by ORG of GPE on DATE for the applicant \u2019s failure to justify the filing of the appeal outside of the CARDINAL days\u2019 statutory time - limit . ORG upheld the decision of DATE on CARDINAL DATE .","After the ORG had communicated the case to ORG on DATE , police officers PERSON . and Go . wrote explanatory reports to their superiors dated DATE concerning the events of CARDINAL and DATE , with the following content :","\u201c ... After the search had been carried out , [ the applicant ] went to ORG along with [ the NORP police officials ] to give","The DATE officer Go . and I departed for GPE by air . We were told by CARDINAL of the NORP police officers that [ the applicant ] had bought a ticket to GPE ; we managed to buy tickets for the same flight .","Upon arrival in GPE , after going through customs and border control in the airport terminal , we ... approached [ the applicant and arrested him ] .","No physical or psychological pressure was exercised on [ the applicant ] ... \u201d","At TIME on DATE an investigator from ORG in GPE drew up a report on the applicant \u2019s arrest , having ascertained that the applicant was wanted on suspicion of murder . The report noted that the applicant had the status of an accused in the case and confirmed that he had been notified of his rights .","It appears that the applicant \u2019s detention was first authorised by a decision of DATE taken by ORG office in GPE . The decision stated that the applicant had been detained on DATE . It further referred to the gravity of the charge against him , the risk of his fleeing or interfering with the course of the investigation , and the fact that he had no permanent residence in the GPE region . The decision neither specified the term of the applicant \u2019s detention nor commented on the lawfulness of his arrest in GPE , his transfer to GPE and his subsequent detention in custody by the NORP authorities .","The detention was subsequently extended by order of the prosecutor on DATE . The order described the course of the investigation into the case and mentioned the progress achieved so far . More specifically , the investigation identified and located Sm . and PERSON . , CARDINAL other persons allegedly directly implicated in the murder of the businessman in question . It also included a number of expert examinations , a forensic examination of the body of the businessman , CARDINAL ballistic examinations and a dactylographic examination . The investigator had mentioned that he still needed to study the network of the applicant \u2019s and PERSON . \u2019s connections and to bring new versions of charges against the applicant , as well as against PERSON . and PERSON . The order extended the applicant \u2019s detention until DATE .","By order of DATE the applicant \u2019s detention was extended until DATE . It was based on the same reasoning as the detention order of DATE .","On DATE the prosecution concluded the investigation and remitted the case for examination on the merits . It does not appear that there was any procedural decision authorising the applicant \u2019s detention DATE and DATE .","On DATE ORG conducted a preliminary examination of the applicant \u2019s case and , without examining the question of the lawfulness of his detention DATE , further remanded the applicant in custody . No time - limit was indicated .","Thereafter the court again extended the applicant \u2019s detention on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE as well as on DATE , without specifying any time - limit for his detention . All these decisions were taken with reference to the gravity of the charge against the applicant and the fact that the proceedings in the case had not been completed .","The applicant and his counsel were not invited to attend the hearing of DATE .","It does not appear that the applicant lodged any complaint about the repeated extension of his detention by the prosecutor or by the court prior to the decision of CARDINAL July CARDINAL . The applicant \u2019s complaints of CARDINAL and DATE against that decision were rejected by ORG on DATE .","According to the applicant , he and his counsel were not invited to attend the hearing of DATE . However , the ORG submitted that the applicant and his counsel had been informed about the hearing of CARDINAL DATE on DATE . The applicant \u2019s counsel had not given the appeal court any reasons for her failure to appear , and did not ask for the hearing to be postponed . At the same time , the applicant \u2019s request to attend in person remained unexamined .","It appears that on DATE and DATE the trial court extended the applicant \u2019s detention once again . The applicant submits that he challenged these decisions on DATE and DATE respectively but received no reply .","According to the Government , the applicant \u2019s appeals against the decision of DATE were dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE , whilst the decision of DATE was appealed against on DATE . The Government were unable to specify the reasons for the domestic courts\u2019 failure to examine these appeals .","On DATE the preliminary investigation was concluded and the prosecutor remitted the applicant \u2019s criminal case to ORG for trial .","On DATE Judge PERSON listed the case for a hearing on DATE .","On DATE the court adjourned the hearing until DATE . On the latter date the hearing was adjourned until DATE since a lawyer for CARDINAL of the co - accused failed to appear .","Judge PERSON took over the case on DATE and scheduled the hearing for DATE .","On DATE the court adjourned the case until DATE , when the case was again suspended until DATE because of the failure of some witnesses to appear .","On DATE the hearing was postponed until DATE for the same reasons .","By a decision of DATE the court fixed DATE of the hearing for DATE .","DATE and DATE hearings were held regularly .","On DATE the case was adjourned on grounds of witnesses\u2019 absence and the need for a psychiatric examination of the applicant . The examination was carried out on DATE .","In DATE the case was transferred to Judge PERSON next hearing took place in DATE , when the case was yet again postponed until DATE due to witnesses\u2019 failure to appear .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of conspiracy to murder and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The court did not address the question of the lawfulness of the applicant \u2019s arrest and detention until his arrival in GPE on DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-3","5-4","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-184278","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF VOLOKITIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"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);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The cases concern the DATE ORG internal premium loan bonds ( \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0438\u0433\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u0433\u043e\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0432\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0440\u0435\u043d\u043d\u0435\u0433\u043e \u0432\u044b\u0438\u0433\u0440\u044b\u0448\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0437\u0430\u0439\u043c\u0430 DATE \u0433\u043e\u0434\u0430 - \u201c DATE premium bonds \u201d ) which are in the applicants\u2019 possession . The applicants submitted lists of serials numbers or photocopies of their bonds .","On DATE ORG decided to issue bonds of an internal premium loan to finance certain ORG programmes . The bonds had nominal values of CARDINAL , DATE and MONEY ( ORG ) . Their period of circulation was set at DATE , from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , and they were redeemable at any time during the term of the loan with interest at PERCENT per annum . NORP citizens could either buy the DATE premium bonds with their own money or obtain them in exchange for bonds from an DATE ORG internal premium loan . The average DATE wage in DATE was ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL across all branches of the economy plus ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL in various social benefits ( ORG the GPE DATE , a statistical yearbook by ORG , GPE , DATE ) .","By DATE the NORP economy was suffering from a structural imbalance due a rapidly increasing money supply and decreasing availability of consumer goods sold at ORG - controlled prices . In DATE the ORG freed PERCENT of prices and carried out a monetary reform eliminating the largest banknotes in circulation and restricting the withdrawal of money from bank deposit accounts to ORG DATE . This led to a CARDINAL to threefold increase in prices . On DATE the GPE President issued Decree no . PERSON , ordering a CARDINAL - time increase to savings instruments , including the DATE premium bonds , of PERCENT to offset the price rise .","On DATE the GPE was dissolved by Declaration no . CARDINAL-N of ORG of the GPE . The declaration invited the heads of newly independent GPE to reflect on the issues of succession .","On DATE ORG issued ORG no . CARDINAL , recognising its succession in respect of the obligations of the former GPE under the DATE loan :","\u201c CARDINAL . To confirm succession of the [ NORP ] Government in respect of the obligations of the former GPE vis - \u00e0 - vis GPE citizens arising out of the bonds of the DATE ORG internal premium loan .","...","To give GPE citizens who are holders of bonds of the DATE ORG internal premium loan the right to voluntarily exchange their bonds against ORG securities , including DATE NORP internal premium loan bonds , shares in ORG ... and also to credit the proceeds of sale of the bonds into deposit accounts open in ORG ... from DATE ... \u201d","DATE a series of NORP laws and regulations were passed which provided for the conversion of NORP securities , including the DATE premium bonds , into special NORP promissory notes nominated in \u201c promissory roubles \u201d ( ORG ) ( for details , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","DATE to DATE , the application and implementation of those laws and regulations have been continuously suspended , most recently for DATE to DATE , by PERSON no . ORG of DATE and ORG no . CARDINAL dated DATE .","The applicants applied to the NORP financial authorities and the courts , seeking the redemption of their bonds . Their claims were rejected on procedural and substantive grounds . Mr PERSON \u2019s claim was allowed at first instance but the judgment was later overturned on appeal . On CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON obtained a decision from ORG in GPE , requiring ORG to convert his bonds into special promissory notes .","Mr PERSON and PERSON claim was referred by ORG to ORG . By decision no . CARDINAL-O of DATE , ORG declared it inadmissible , finding that it was not competent to rule on the issue of an alleged failure of federal lawmakers to enact laws guaranteeing the protection of savings which had been recognised as GPE \u2019s internal debt . In its view , the federal lawmakers had adequate discretion to legislate on those issues in the interests of everyone , taking into account the specific social and economic conditions prevailing in GPE and the balance between the rights and lawful interests of various categories of citizens , including those who acted as creditors of the ORG and others in respect of whom the ORG had public policy obligations . The legislature was entitled to restrict the rights , including property rights , of some people for the protection of rights and lawful interests of others ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155495","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"PRT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"FERREIRA BASTO v. PORTUGAL","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant is the owner of a restaurant in GPE . At the relevant time the restaurant was operating with a health and safety licence ( alvar\u00e1 sanit\u00e1rio ) .","NORP On DATE CARDINAL inspectors from ORG ( ORG ) conducted an inspection of the applicant \u2019s restaurant during TIME , when the restaurant was crowded .","During the inspection , CARDINAL of the inspectors publicly addressed the applicant \u2019s husband and claimed that the restaurant did not meet statutory health and safety standards and should therefore be closed down .","According to the applicant , on account of that criticism the restaurant lost clients .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant brought a tort action against the ORG before ORG do GPE ) seeking damages for the conduct of the health inspectors . The ORG was represented by the Attorney ORG ( PERSON ) during the course of the proceedings .","NORP In order to bring the proceedings before ORG , the applicant applied for legal aid . Pursuant to CARDINAL of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , the Attorney ORG was called upon to issue an opinion on the applicant \u2019s request . On DATE the latter considered that the request should be refused on grounds of the applicant \u2019s average DATE income , stating as follows :","\u201c The plaintiff admits that she has an average DATE income of MONEY ( PTE ) , which had previously been PTE CARDINAL . Her DATE salary exceeds , therefore , the amounts considered to constitute a presumption of economic need , according to the legislator . I am therefore of the opinion that the plaintiff \u2019s legal aid request should be refused . \u201d","NORP In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that the conduct of the CARDINAL inspectors from ORG for ORG during the impugned inspection had been illegal and had caused damage to the applicant . Furthermore , it awarded the applicant PTE PERSON ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage and an amount in respect of pecuniary damage that remained to be determined during the proceedings for the enforcement of the judgment .","On an unknown date the Attorney ORG lodged an appeal against the judgment with ORG ( Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ) . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .","On an unknown date the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG for the enforcement of ORG judgment and the calculation of the amount to be awarded in respect of pecuniary damage . She claimed damages of EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , corresponding to the pecuniary losses allegedly suffered as a result of the inspectors\u2019 conduct from DATE of the inspection until such time as the action had been brought .","On DATE the Attorney ORG contested the amount claimed by the applicant as excessive . It argued that any pecuniary damages should be limited to the loss sustained as a consequence of the reduction in the applicant \u2019s DATE income , in accordance with the facts that had been established by the first - instance court and pursuant to ORG judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG adopted a decision in which it awarded the applicant PERSON in respect of pecuniary damage . The domestic court \u2019s decision was based on the evidence provided by the parties , namely the applicant , and on an expert assessment that had been requested by the court to estimate the damage suffered .","NORP The applicant appealed against the decision before ORG , contesting the amount awarded . She argued that the ORG statements and the evidence provided had been wrongly assessed . She also disputed the legality of the first - instance court \u2019s refusal to grant a request she had lodged for the clarification of the expert assessment during the course of the proceedings before the first - instance court . The applicant further complained that the Attorney ORG had been allowed to have CARDINAL contradictory legal positions in the proceedings without suffering any sanction , by making reference to its opinion on her legal aid request during the tort proceedings and the fact that it had disputed the amount she had claimed for pecuniary damage .","ORG judgment was adopted on DATE and notified to the applicant on DATE .","In its judgment ORG held that the expert \u2019s opinion had been inconclusive and considered that the amount awarded on that account had not been sufficiently justified . It further noted that the expert \u2019s opinion had been requested under a legal provision which was not applicable to the case at hand . ORG , therefore , dismissed the expert \u2019s assessment and made a new assessment of the evidence in order to evaluate the extent of the damage suffered by the applicant . With reference to the ORG statements heard and the evidence provided , namely by the applicant , the higher court considered that it could not establish a loss in the amount claimed by the applicant . Thus , ORG decided that the pecuniary damages should be calculated on the basis of equity ( ju\u00edzo de equidade ) , taking into account the facts that had been established in the course of the proceedings . Accordingly , it awarded the applicant LAW in respect of pecuniary damage , to be paid by the State .","At the material time , legal aid was regulated by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE . Requests for legal aid were decided by the judicial authority in charge of the proceedings for which they had been submitted . Pursuant to LAW the Attorney ORG was called upon to submit an opinion on that regard .","In judgment no . CARDINAL - B.ECARDINAL-A.SCARDINAL of DATE , ORG considered the possibility of reconciling a discrepancy between CARDINAL discordant positions of the Attorney ORG , when acting in the capacity of a public prosecutor in criminal proceedings . ORG judgment seeking to harmonise the judicial approach to that question ( ac\u00f3rd\u00e3o de fixa\u00e7\u00e3o de jurisprud\u00eancia ) contains the following passages :","\u201c The Attorney ORG , which assumes , at any stage of the proceedings , a legal position as to the innocence or guilt of the accused , can not subsequently modify its position , claiming a better judgment , to the possible detriment of the defendant \u2019s position .","...","Consequently it follows , inexorably , that conflicting and contradictory procedural interventions which are not a demand for truth and justice , but derive solely from the need to express subjective opinions , are inadmissible .","...","In view of the combined provisions of ORG DATE , the Attorney ORG has no interest in appealing against decisions that are consistent with its previously held position in the proceedings . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-171101","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF S.K. v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Syria);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Syria);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Extradition);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review by a court;Review of lawfulness of detention);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46-2 - Individual measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . Since DATE he has been kept in a detention centre for foreign nationals in the town of GPE , GPE , GPE .","The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE . He was in possession of a visa declaring the purpose of his visit as business . The applicant \u2019s visa was due to expire in DATE . However , the visa allowed the applicant to stay in GPE for no longer than DATE in the course of a single visit . As submitted by the Government , he was therefore expected to leave GPE in DATE .","The applicant did not leave and started to live together with PERSON , a NORP national . In DATE they had a child together . In DATE they married .","In the meantime , on CARDINAL and DATE the applicant was found guilty of an offence under LAW ( CAO ) , which provided that a foreigner could be punished for unlawful employment activities in GPE .","By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty of an offence under LAW CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , of remaining in GPE after the expiry of the visa . It sentenced him to a fine and a penalty of forcible administrative removal ( \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0434\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0430\u0434\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u044b\u0434\u0432\u043e\u0440\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) from GPE . ORG held as follows :","\u201c Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG provides for the following penalties : a fine of MONEY with or without administrative removal from GPE ...","The subsidiary penalty of administrative removal from NORP may be imposed with due regard to the information that confirms the actual need to impose such a penalty on the defendant , as well as the information that confirms the proportionality of this penalty as the only acceptable measure for achieving a balance between the public and private interests at stake ...","The defendant has no legal grounds for remaining in GPE . If a fine is imposed , the defendant will add himself to the group of illegal labour immigrants who do everything to avoid compliance with the NORP migration legislation . The penalty of administrative removal is also necessary for the sake of national security , to avoid the spread of various infectious diseases such as HIV , tuberculosis and leprosy , and to ensure the optimal balance of labour resources and in order to support , as a matter of priority , the employment of NORP nationals ... \u201d","In the same judgment ORG ordered that , while awaiting enforcement of the administrative removal , the applicant be placed in a special detention facility for foreigners in the town of GPE .","Lawyer NORP lodged a statement of appeal on behalf of the applicant against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It appears that the applicant raised arguments relating to his family life in GPE ; it is unclear whether he raised any argument relating to a risk to his life and physical integrity in the event of enforcement of the penalty of forcible removal .","On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment . The appeal court held as follows :","\u201c Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG provides for the following penalties : a fine of MONEY with administrative removal from GPE ...","[ The applicant ] has committed a violation of the regime applicable for the presence of foreigners in GPE , by way of omitting after DATE to leave GPE ...","The court dismisses [ the applicant \u2019s ] argument relating to his family life in GPE ... The marriage with PERSON was concluded on DATE , which was a long time after the commission of the offence by [ the applicant ] ... The administrative offence record did not contain any information relating to his family life in GPE . No such information was adduced during the proceedings before the first - instance court ...","[ The applicant \u2019s ] prolonged violation of the migration legislation since DATE amounts to abuse of GPE \u2019s hospitality and thus should be treated as a breach of the receiving country \u2019s interests ... \u201d","On an unspecified date the applicant received a copy of the appeal decision .","NORP The penalty of administrative removal was not enforced . According to the Government , the bailiff service instituted enforcement proceedings on DATE , but they were not pursued on account of an application lodged by the applicant for temporary asylum ( see below ) .","On DATE the applicant applied for temporary asylum . He referred to the ongoing intensive military actions in GPE , in particular in his home town of GPE . He further argued that given his age , he would be drafted by the governmental forces for active military service , thereby putting his life and physical integrity in danger .","It appears that the applicant engaged lawyer PERSON to assist him in those proceedings and had a meeting with him in the detention centre . On DATE the applicant called the lawyer from the detention centre , complaining of beatings . On DATE , the lawyer was refused access to the applicant in the detention centre , apparently because he should have obtained authorisation for the visit from the regional migration authority . The lawyer wrote to the regional prosecutor \u2019s office complaining of a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights and physical integrity .","On DATE the lawyer made a further unsuccessful attempt to gain access to the applicant .","On DATE the local migration authority dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for temporary asylum . The applicant sought review of this refusal before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . On DATE the ORG upheld its decision , stating as follows :","\u201c In DATE there were no large - scale military operations in GPE ; there were only localised hostilities between governmental forces and opposition groups . Despite the above , the applicant failed to leave GPE ... At the time he did not apply for asylum and continued to stay in GPE unlawfully until the imposition of the penalty of administrative removal .","The following violations of the migration rules for foreigners should be pointed out :","The applicant arrived in GPE under a business visa , whereas his actual goal was employment . Thus , his declared aim did not correspond to the actual aim for arriving in GPE .","The applicant was unlawfully engaged in employment activities ...","In DATE he was twice prosecuted for administrative offences . However , even after this , he did not seek asylum , while neglecting the real possibility of his future deportation from GPE ...","ORG points out that NORP nationals who return to their homeland or who are deported or expelled there may arrive in GPE and then proceed to other regions that are controlled by governmental forces . \u201d","On DATE the applicant , assisted by lawyer PERSON , sought judicial review of the refusal of temporary asylum under LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and asked ORG of PERSON to put in place an interim measure by way of suspending enforcement of the judgment of DATE . On DATE the court refused to deal with the case , concluding that it had to be lodged before a court with jurisdiction in the area of the applicant \u2019s current \u201c place of residence \u201d ; his stay in the detention centre did not qualify as a place of residence .","Assisted by PERSON ( who is his representative before ORG ) the applicant resubmitted his application for judicial review to ORG of GPE . On DATE ORG left the matter without examination because the applicant had not indicated the date and place of his birth ; had not specified whether he had a law degree , which was relevant because the case could only be lodged by a person in possession of a law degree ; and had not provided evidence that his representative had a law degree . The applicant was required to remedy the above defects by DATE .","By a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the refusals of temporary asylum . The court held that the applicant was at risk of violence which was no more intensive than for other people living in GPE :","\u201c The grounds for granting temporary asylum on account of humanitarian considerations include the following situations : a grave medical condition for which the foreigner will not receive the requisite medical care in the country of nationality , thus putting his or her life at risk ; a real threat to his or her life or liberty on account of hunger , epidemics , emergency situations of environmental or industrial origin or on account of an internal or international conflict that encompasses the entire territory of the state of nationality ; a real threat of being subjected to torture or another cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country of nationality .","Under LAW parties to the case must prove the circumstances to which they refer as the basis for their claims or objections , unless otherwise provided for by LAW .","Assessing the evidence submitted to it , the court concludes that [ the applicant ] has not adduced convincing arguments that he is at risk of being persecuted by the authorities or by groups of the population on account of his religion , race or membership of a social group ... Despite the difficult social and political situation in GPE , there are no grounds to consider that his life will be at a higher risk than that of other people living in this country ... According to information from ORG , people returning to GPE may reach directly the city of GPE , which is under the control of the government . ... \u201d","The applicant received a copy of the judgment in DATE and lodged an appeal . He argued that the first - instance court had not paid proper attention to his argument relating to the risk to his life and physical integrity in the event of his removal to GPE ; the migration authority had not refuted his argument while the court had shifted the burden of proof onto the applicant and had placed undue emphasis on the illegality of the applicant \u2019s presence in GPE . His appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The appeal court held as follows :","\u201c The first - instance court considered that the applicant did not fall within the scope of the notion of \u201c refugee \u201d under LAW ... In view of the applicant \u2019s failure to submit specific facts disclosing that in the event of his removal to GPE he would be exposed to a real threat to his security ... or that he was persecuted in this country , the appeal court agrees with the first - instance court ... The appeal court also notes that the applicant arrived in GPE in DATE but only sought temporary asylum in DATE . \u201d"],"violated_articles":["13","2","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179412","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u015eAH\u0130N v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the ORG ordered the detention of the applicant in absentia .","On DATE the applicant was questioned by the gendarmerie in the absence of his lawyer . In his statement , the applicant gave a detailed description about his involvement in an illegal organisation and the activities in which he had taken part . Subsequently , he was brought before the public prosecutor at ORG . During the interview , the applicant stated , again in the absence of a lawyer , that his statements made to the gendarmerie had been correct .","On DATE the investigating judge at the Mardin Magistrate \u2019s Court ordered the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention , again in the absence of a lawyer .","On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an indictment before ORG , charging the applicant under LAW of the former LAW with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged .","On DATE ORG quashed the conviction .","On DATE ORG found that , inter alia , on the basis of the applicant \u2019s statements to the gendarmerie and the public prosecutor , the applicant had committed the offence under LAW of the former LAW and sentenced him to life imprisonment .","On DATE ORG upheld the conviction ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182869","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF ZABELOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["The applicants were or are still detained in FAC ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . They all suffer from HIV infection , apart from the third applicant who suffers from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease .","The first applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , when he made use of the remedy provided for by LAW .","The second applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE and from DATE until DATE , the date on which he was released following use of the remedy provided for by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , having served CARDINAL of his sentence .","The third applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC on DATE and was released on DATE following use of the remedy provided for by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , having served CARDINAL of his sentence .","The fourth applicant , FAC , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE . He was released after having made use of the remedy provided for by LAW .","The fifth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , the date on which he was released following use of the remedy provided for by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , having served CARDINAL of his sentence .","The sixth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , the date on which he was released following use of the remedy provided by LAW no . CARDINAL , having served CARDINAL of his sentence .","The seventh applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE . He was released after having made use of the remedy provided for by LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL .","The eighth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE . He was released following an application on the basis of section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE .","The ninth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE . He was still in detention when the parties submitted their observations .","The tenth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , when he was released after he lodged an application on the basis of section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL . He was again detained in FAC from CARDINAL DATE , and was still in detention there when the parties submitted their observations .","The eleventh applicant , PERSON , was detained in ORG from DATE until DATE , the date on which he was released on the basis of LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , having served CARDINAL of his sentence .","The twelfth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , when he was released , having served CARDINAL of his sentence , on the basis of section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . He was again detained from DATE until DATE when he was released , having served CARDINAL of his sentence , on the basis of the same provision .","According to the documents before the ORG , the thirteenth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC for significant periods of time from DATE until DATE .","The fourteenth applicant , ORG , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , when he was released on the basis of LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , having served CARDINAL of his sentence .","The fifteenth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE and from CARDINAL DATE until DATE .","The sixteenth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , when he was released , after having made use of the remedy provided for by LAW .","The seventeenth applicant , PERSON , was detained in ORG from DATE and was still in detention there when the parties submitted their observations .","The eighteenth applicant , PERSON , was detained in FAC from DATE until DATE , when he was released after having made use of the remedy provided for by LAW . He was again detained on DATE and was still in detention there when the parties submitted their observations .","The applicants submitted that ORG had been overcrowded which , in addition to causing poor sanitary conditions , had resulted in the deterioration of their already fragile health . They maintained that all of them had been detained in hospital wards which had measured CARDINAL sq . m and which had been occupied by CARDINAL detainees on average for the period DATE . In addition , the second and third applicants had been detained in cells measuring QUANTITY m and which had held CARDINAL inmates . They further argued that they had not been able to move freely within the wards owing to the space occupied by furniture . In particular , bunk beds were not used in FAC and extra furniture , such as medical equipment , was required ; therefore CARDINAL the area of each ward had been occupied by furniture , which had resulted in them having a personal space in which they could move freely of below QUANTITY m.","The above - mentioned conditions had led them to receiving inadequate health care . There had been a high risk of infection with contagious diseases as there had not been effective separation of detainees according to the disease from which they had suffered . In addition , CARDINAL toilets had been available for the detainees in a total of CARDINAL wards on the first floor .","Meals had been insufficient and of poor quality and the absence of recreational activities had affected their psychological health . Central heating had been inadequate and collection of rubbish , especially in the kitchens , had not been sufficient , creating hygiene problems and resulting in bad smells and the presence of pests . The applicants also complained of the lack of medical staff and properly equipped laboratories for their medical examinations . In particular , during the period DATE - CARDINAL only CARDINAL general practitioner had been available to the hospital .","The applicants acknowledged that the conditions of their detention had improved in DATE and that the medical - staff numbers had increased , resulting in conditions which met the requirements of LAW but only for the period after DATE .","On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW , to which they have not received any reply to date .","According to the Government , ORG official capacity was CARDINAL patients and at the time of the applicants\u2019 detention the hospital had held CARDINAL patients . Specifically as regards the applicants , some of them had been detained in wards CARDINAL and CARDINAL on the first floor of the hospital and some others in wards CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL on the second floor . The wards measured CARDINAL sq . m each , and each of them hosted CARDINAL to CARDINAL detainees . Therefore , the personal space available to them ranged from QUANTITY . m to QUANTITY m. It was also noted that toilets had been in the corridors , not inside the wards , which had remained unlocked so as to ensure unobstructed access to the bathrooms .","ORG was an establishment providing primary medical care by operating as a clinic . Detainees who required more intense or specialised care were referred to public hospitals , a procedure which was used for the third , fourth , ninth , fifteenth and seventeenth applicants . The patients were separated by disease . They were examined regularly by doctors and they were submitted often to general and specialised laboratory examinations .","Wards were sufficiently ventilated and heated and had adequate natural light via CARDINAL large windows . Hot water was ensured by solar water heaters and by boilers which operated for TIME . Wards were regularly cleaned by cleaning crews consisting of detainees and disinfected by specialist companies . The hospital \u2019s social service provided personal hygiene products to detainees who could not afford them . All wards and corridors had rubbish bins which were emptied regularly .","As regards detainees\u2019 meals , they were designed under medical supervision to ensure that patients received all necessary nutrients . The Government submitted the menu of DATE to demonstrate that they had been comprised of a variety of food .","According to the Government , detainees were not obliged to spend DATE in the wards ; on the contrary , they could move along the corridors and spend time in the yard . Various recreational activities were organised and detainees had had the opportunity to enrol in educational programmes since DATE . Detainees were also granted DATE of leave that they could spend outside the prison hospital ; the third , fifth and eleventh applicants had benefitted from such leave .","Lastly , according to the ORG , during DATE and DATE conditions of detention in FAC were drastically improved . That was mainly due to measures taken to reduce overcrowding in prisons under PERSON no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which provided for early release schemes . In DATE a women \u2019s ward had been opened at the hospital and work had been carried out to improve the facilities . In addition , new and updated medical equipment was procured and medical - staff numbers had been reinforced by the recruitment of CARDINAL new doctors of various specialties . The Government specified that all the above - mentioned improvements had made ORG a detention facility significantly different to the image given in ORG ( ORG ) report , which had been prepared on the basis of a visit in DATE , that is to say on DATE that had no relevance to the present case ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-147820","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"LICHTENSTRASSER v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant was employed by the C. company from DATE to DATE . On DATE he attended a trade show for young entrepreneurs and gave an interview to a journalist . In this interview , he stated that in his opinion it was only possible to develop ideas in one \u2019s own company , whereas this was difficult when working for an enterprise . He further declared that he intended to set up his own company together with a partner . He explained that they were not discouraged by the fact that a loan and a lot of work input was required . This statement was quoted on DATE in the DATE newspaper \u201c PERSON \u201d in a report on the topic why young people dared to become self - employed , under the headline \u201c We simply want more freedom \u201d . CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s superiors read the newspaper article and confronted the applicant with it on DATE .","DATE the applicant was told that the company wished to end the working contract . In order not to harm his future career , his superior advised him to either give notice out of his own motion , or end the contract in mutual consent ( einvernehmliche PERSON ) . If he did not choose CARDINAL of the CARDINAL options , the company would dismiss him .","After having reflected on the options , the applicant ended the contract in mutual consent with the company by a signed agreement dated CARDINAL DATE . The parties agreed that the contract ended on DATE and that the applicant received the statutory dismissal pay ( gesetzliche GPE ) of CARDINAL months\u2019 salary . They agreed that the applicant was off duty from DATE on . The parties however did not agree on the payment of a compensation for the dismissal of the applicant .","On DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , filed an action against his former employer challenging the mutual agreement at ORG ( Arbeits- und ORG ) . He claimed that he had been under duress when signing the agreement . By terminating the employment agreement mutually he had waived several entitlements which he had not been informed about .","The applicant set the value of the dispute at CARDINAL ( ORG ) . The opponent company objected to this value and argued that the action rather concerned a declaratory judgment that the contract was still in force . According to the law the value should thus be set at LAW ( i.e. DATE ) , but at least ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( i.e. three years\u2019 salary ) . The court set the value at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","NORP In its judgment of DATE ORG ( Arbeits- und ORG ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim . In its reasoning the court noted that the applicant had had time to reflect on the possibilities offered to him by his employer and read the agreement before signing it . The court found that the applicant was under no pressure when signing the agreement and his superior had not misused the special emotional situation of the applicant . The court also noted that the applicant obviously regretted having agreed on the termination without receiving a compensation for the dismissal .","The applicant appealed and argued , inter alia , that the value was set too high and that the legal reasoning was wrong . He also argued that not only the ORG but also the employer were held to observe his rights under LAW ( \u201c the LAW ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision on the merits and the value at issue , holding that the value as set by the first instance court was not against the law . It noted that the value determined by the court of first instance was only challengeable if it was contrary to the law , but apart from that there was a margin of discretion afforded to the first instance . ORG pointed out that the first instance had set the value at a fairly low rate .","The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG and again argued that the employer had disregarded the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW .","On DATE ORG refused to deal with the merits of the case for lack of an important question of law ; it held that it had no jurisdiction to alter the set value at issue . The applicant was obliged to pay the costs of the court proceedings and of the opponent \u2019s lawyer . This decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","According to NORP labour law , an employee can in principle be dismissed without the employer being obliged to give any reason . The employer only has to respect the period for giving notice ( PERSON ) and the dismissal date ( PERSON ) . Only in case of a dismissal without notice ( PERSON ) the employer would be obliged to rely on an important reason prescribed by law .","Section CARDINAL of LAW ( NORP ) stipulates that in case the employee is sent off - duty after a dismissal or in case of a dismissal without notice without an important reason , he or she is entitled to compensation for the dismissal ( GPE ) . The employee is hence entitled to the full salary until the end of the period of notice and the aliquot part of the DATE bonus ( GPE ) and holiday pay ( GPE ) . Furthermore the employee is entitled to a compensation for any vacation he did not consume ( Urlaubsentsch\u00e4digung ) .","In addition to the compensation for dismissal an employee is entitled to dismissal pay ( PERSON ) according to LAW . This dismissal pay is paid out if the contract was concluded before DATE and the employee had worked for the company for DATE . The amount of the dismissal pay depends on DATE of service .","In case an employment contract is terminated by mutual agreement , the parties are free to agree on the payment or the amount of the compensation for the dismissal . However , the payment of the dismissal pay is compulsory .","According to LAW ) an agreement ( PERSON ) can only be challenged in case the parties were mistaken about an essential fact of the agreement , in case of an error of expression or in case of extortion ( PERSON ) .","According to LAW of the LAW on Exercise of Jurisdiction ( Jurisdiktionsnorm ) , in a court case regarding an action for a declaratory judgment that an employment contract is still in force , the value should be set at DATE of the employee .","In general , when a party challenges the fixing of the value of the claim , the court of first instance has to do so in accordance with LAW ( Rechtsanwaltstarifgesetz ) . This decision is contestable only if it is contrary to mandatory rules . The value of the claim is the basis for the court costs and the lawyer \u2019s fees ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164959","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KULINSKI AND SABEV v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Vote);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;Pavlina Panova;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first applicant , PERSON , was convicted of hooliganism on DATE in a final judgment of ORG . He served his sentence in FAC DATE and DATE . Having served the entirety of his sentence , he was released on DATE .","The second applicant , PERSON , was convicted of robbery and murder and sentenced to whole - life imprisonment on DATE in a final judgment of ORG . The applicant is serving his sentence in FAC . On DATE the ORG of GPE , exercising the constitutional prerogative to grant clemency , commuted the applicant \u2019s whole - life sentence to a \u201c simple - life \u201d sentence ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) .","NORP In DATE , while both applicants were serving their sentences , the following elections took place : elections to ORG on DATE and to ORG on DATE . No polling station was set up in the prison where the applicants were detained , as the relevant legislation excluded sentenced individuals from voting .","Subsequently , the second applicant was not allowed to vote in the elections to ORG on CARDINAL DATE and DATE , nor in ORG election on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["13"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182169","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF CHIM AND PRZYWIECZERSKI v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE , GPE .","ORG ( ORG PERSON \u201c the FOZZ \u201d ) was established by LAW DATE , which entered into force on CARDINAL DATE . It was a legal entity whose liabilities were guaranteed by ORG . The task of the ORG was to collect and manage the funds earmarked for servicing GPE \u2019s foreign debt . Those funds were to be used to repay GPE \u2019s foreign debt .","The ORG was managed by its Director General , who had statutory authority to independently represent the ORG and enter into contracts on its behalf . The first applicant was initially appointed Head of ORG and later Deputy Director General of the ORG . The second applicant was the Managing Director and Chairman of ORG of ORG based in GPE .","Criminal proceedings were instituted following a complaint lodged by PERSON , a NORP national , at FAC in GPE .","An investigation was opened on DATE . On DATE ORG filed a bill of indictment with ORG . He charged the first applicant and another individual , PERSON , with misappropriation of public property and mismanagement . On DATE the court decided to return the bill of indictment to the prosecutor so that certain shortcomings in the investigation could be rectified .","On DATE the prosecutor filed an updated bill of indictment with ORG .","The first applicant was charged with misappropriation of the ORG \u2019s property of a considerable value committed with other persons as a continuous offence between DATE and DATE . She was further charged with failure to perform her duties to the detriment of the ORG .","The second applicant was charged with misappropriation of CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL GPE dollars ( ORG ) to the detriment of the ORG committed with other persons as a continuous offence DATE .","There were CARDINAL other accused in the case .","In DATE the applicants\u2019 case was assigned to Judge PERSON The trial started on DATE and a number of hearings were held until DATE . On DATE Judge PERSON was appointed Minister of ORG and consequently the whole trial had to be restarted .","On DATE the President of the CARDINALth ORG asked the President of ORG to assist the ORG in finding a ORG judge from the appellate divisions who could hear the applicants\u2019 case . He stated that , owing to a lack of judges and the volume of work in the CARDINALth ORG , there were no judges who could examine the case in question swiftly .","On DATE the President of ORG referred the request to ORG ( kolegium PERSON ) . She informed it that CARDINAL of the judges , Judge PERSON , had not agreed to a proposal by the management of the court to be transferred to the CARDINALth ORG to examine the ORG case . However , Judge PERSON stated that he would go if the ORG took a decision in that regard .","On DATE the ORG unanimously decided to transfer Judge PERSON from the CARDINALth ORG to the CARDINALth ORG with effect from DATE . It further decided to assign him to case no . ORG . In a letter of DATE the President of ORG informed Judge PERSON of that decision .","On DATE the President of the CARDINALth ORG assigned Judge PERSON to case no . VIII K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u201c in accordance with the decision of ORG \u201d .","The new trial bench was composed of Judge PERSON , acting as president , and CARDINAL lay judges . A substitute judge and CARDINAL substitute lay judges were also assigned to the case .","The first hearing before the new bench was set for DATE . On that date Judge PERSON allowed journalists to record images and the identities of the defendants . He stated on that occasion that \u201c there are CARDINAL victims in this case , and society has the right to have images and personal information about the defendants \u201d .","There were CARDINAL hearings held in the trial court . Some CARDINAL witnesses were heard , and a number of expert accounting reports and CARDINAL documents were examined . The files of the case were very voluminous .","On DATE the trial court finished hearing evidence in the case .","On DATE ORG delivered its judgment . Judge PERSON presented the main reasons for the verdict orally .","NORP The trial court convicted the first applicant of misappropriation of the ORG \u2019s property of a considerable value committed with other persons DATE and DATE ( LAW in conjunction with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . The trial court held that , in her capacity as Head of ORG and later Deputy Director General , she had misappropriated a total of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL from the ORG for the benefit of herself and other entities ( point III of the operative provisions of the judgment ) . With regard to that offence , the court sentenced her to DATE imprisonment and a fine .","The trial court further convicted the first applicant of failure to perform her duties and of exceeding her authority DATE and DATE ( LAW in conjunction with LAW of DATE ) . As a result of those failings the ORG had suffered damage of CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL Polish zlotys ( ORG ) ( point LAW of the operative provisions of the judgment ) . With regard to that offence , the trial court sentenced her to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment and a fine .","The trial court convicted the second applicant of misappropriation of the ORG \u2019s property of a considerable value ( USD MONEY ) committed with other persons ( LAW in conjunction with LAW of LAW , point GPE of the operative provisions of the judgment ) . With regard to that offence , the trial court sentenced him to CARDINAL half years\u2019 imprisonment and a fine .","It further convicted the second applicant of theft of the ORG \u2019s property of a considerable value ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) committed with other persons ( LAW in conjunction with LAW of LAW , point PERSON of the operative provisions of the judgment ) . With regard to that offence , the trial court sentenced him to CARDINAL and a half years\u2019 imprisonment and a fine .","The trial court gave the first applicant a cumulative sentence of CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and the second applicant a cumulative sentence of DATE years\u2019 imprisonment and a fine . The trial court ordered the applicants to compensate the ORG for the damage caused . The first applicant was further ordered to pay compensation to ORG .","On DATE Judge PERSON , in view of the complexity of the case , requested the President of ORG to grant him an extension until DATE for preparation of the written judgment . The request was granted . The judgment was served on the applicants\u2019 counsel on CARDINAL DATE . The operative part of the judgment runs to CARDINAL pages and the reasoning to CARDINAL pages .","The reasoning included a short presentation of evidence by certain witnesses concerning the alleged financing of political parties by the ORG . It stated that the issue \u201c had not been relevant for the determination of the case \u201d .","The reasoning further included a passage saying that \u201c in the court \u2019s assessment , the ORG trial has not , however , shown the important role played by the [ second applicant ] in the functioning of the ORG ... \u201d .","Subsequently , Judge PERSON requested that ORG transfer him back to ORG . On DATE the ORG granted that request in connection with \u201c the termination of the ORG case in the CARDINALth ORG \u201d .","The Law of DATE on amendments to LAW ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) , which extended limitation periods , entered into force on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","It appears from the case file that the second applicant moved to GPE on an unspecified date .","The applicants lodged appeals with ORG . They alleged that Judge PERSON had been assigned to their case in breach of NORP CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . They argued that since the composition of the trial bench had been unlawful the appellate court should have quashed the lower court \u2019s judgment in its entirety . They further alleged that Judge PERSON had been involved in the passing of LAW , which amounted to a breach of their right to a fair trial by an impartial tribunal .","The second applicant alleged that Judge PERSON had lacked impartiality , referring to a statement made by him at the opening of the trial and certain passages in the reasoning showing that he had a negative attitude towards him . He also referred to statements made in an interview given by Judge PERSON to the DATE newspaper ORG assuming the defendants\u2019 guilt and showing hostility towards the so - called \u201c white collars \u201d , who in his view should have been severely punished .","The applicants also alleged that the trial court had violated the rules of criminal procedure and the rights of the defence in various respects .","In the course of the appellate proceedings , ORG referred a legal question to ORG , seeking an interpretation of the provisions of the ORG concerning the assignment of a trial court judge to a given case and the consequences of an irregularly constituted trial bench for the outcome of appellate proceedings .","The legal question read as follows :","\u201c Does the expression \u201c court improperly constituted \u201d in LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG also concern a situation in which a court that ruled on a case included a judge who had been \u201c allocated \u201d to the case by some other entity than the [ one ] authorised to do so by law , i.e. the president of a court ( president of a division ) assigning a judge \u2013 LAW in the manner specified in LAW ORG . \u201d","In a ORG adopted on DATE , ORG replied as follows :","\u201c The assignment of members of a court in breach of the rules specified in Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG constitutes a relative ground of appeal ( wzgl\u0119dna przyczyna odwo\u0142awcza ) referred to in LAW ORG . \u201d","In its legal question , ORG noted that , in consequence of a decision adopted by ORG , the president of a division in that court had issued an order assigning Judge PERSON to hear case no . VIII K CARDINAL\/CARDINAL pursuant to LAW ORG . The same court also noted that the manner of assigning members of the court in that case had violated the rules specified in LAW ORG since Judge PERSON had not been on the list of judges from which a judge should have been selected , but had been \u201c transferred \u201d to DATE in order to hear case no . VIII K CARDINAL .","ORG agreed with ORG that the rules specified in LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG had been violated in the case . There had been a breach of LAW ORG , which consisted of a decision not entirely \u201c independent \u201d in nature being taken by the president of a division to select Judge PERSON to hear the case , since that decision had been predetermined by an earlier decision of ORG . There had also been a violation of LAW ORG , which consisted of disregarding the list of judges of the division and assigning as a member of the court a judge who had been \u201c transferred \u201d from another division for that specific purpose , without indicating other valid reasons , as required by that provision .","ORG then examined whether the above - mentioned breach of the rules specified in GPE CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL could be regarded as the court being \u201c improperly constituted \u201d within the meaning of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG . Pursuant to that provision , a finding that a court had not been properly constituted resulted in the judgment being automatically set aside on appeal . ORG noted that in previous cases the term had been applied in the following situations : where a court had been composed of a smaller or larger number of members than provided for by law ; where lay judges had sat as members of a court instead of professional judges and vice versa ; and where a member of a court had had no authority to examine a case in a given court .","ORG emphasised that a violation of the rules on the assignment of members of a court contained in CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG did not \u2013 in itself \u2013 result in a situation where a court had examined a case in a composition not provided for by law or where a member of a court had had no authority to decide in a given case . On the other hand , if a decision by a president of a court ( president of a division ) had , in breach of LAW ORG , resulted in a court with a composition unknown in the law for a given category of cases or a person not authorised to examine cases in a given court being selected , such a flaw would have to be regarded as an automatic ground of appeal within the meaning of LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG . However , in such a situation the procedural flaw would have to consist not only of a violation of LAW ORG , but also a violation of the provisions of the ORG concerning the composition of judicial benches and the competence of judges to examine cases in a given court . In such a situation , a violation of procedural rules would be of a qualified , double nature .","That had not occurred in the case under consideration , in which only ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG had been violated . In ORG assessment , a sole violation of the above - mentioned provisions should be regarded as a relative ground of appeal . Consequently , in order to allow an appeal based on a relative ground , an appellate court had to establish , at least , a hypothetical link between the alleged procedural violation and the content of the judgment within the meaning of Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG .","ORG delivered its judgment on DATE .","It quashed the first applicant \u2019s conviction in respect of the offence of failure to perform her duties and of exceeding her authority ( point LAW of the operative provisions of the trial court \u2019s judgment ) . The reason given was that the offence had become subject to limitation on DATE , prior to the date of entry into force of LAW .","The Court of Appeal further quashed the second applicant \u2019s conviction in respect of theft of the ORG \u2019s property of a considerable value ( point PERSON of the operative provisions of the trial court \u2019s judgment ) . The principal reason given was the court \u2019s refusal to apply LAW to the relevant offence imputed to the second applicant . In consequence , the limitation period in respect of that offence had expired on DATE .","ORG accordingly quashed the cumulative sentences imposed on the applicants . It discontinued the part of the proceedings concerning the quashed convictions . ORG also lowered the fines imposed on the applicants .","The remainder of the trial court \u2019s judgment was upheld , including the first and second applicant \u2019s convictions for misappropriation of the ORG \u2019s property of a considerable value ( points III and GPE respectively of the operative part of the trial court \u2019s judgment ) .","ORG analysed the circumstances surrounding the assignment of Judge PERSON to the case . It found that the decision to assign him had simply been a consequence of ORG decision and not a sovereign act by the President of ORG in the exercise of his powers under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the ORG . Having regard to the above , ORG found that the statutory rules on the assignment of judges set out in LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG had not been respected .","Having regard to ORG Resolution of DATE , ORG considered the effect of the breach of Articles CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG on the content of the trial court \u2019s judgment .","ORG examined the circumstances concerning the enactment of the DATE Amendment extending limitation periods , which was relevant for some of the charges against the applicants .","The bill had been introduced by a group of MPs from the opposition party , PERSON and ORG , on DATE , before the date of delivery of the trial court \u2019s judgment on DATE . The bill had made direct reference to the ORG pending case .","The intentions of the drafters had been confirmed during debates in ORG of the PERSON ( ORG of ORG ) and at the plenary session of the PERSON . CARDINAL of the supporters of the draft bill had been the member of parliament ( MP ) PERSON , who had also acted as rapporteur in the course of the parliamentary debate on the bill . Judge PERSON had been serving at that time as an advisor to ORG on his recommendation .","ORG observed that a judge could be appointed a member of the Minister of ORG \u2019s ORG in accordance with the rules and procedures set out in the relevant LAW . However , a judge was prevented from participating in parliamentary work on criminal law codification as an advisor chosen by an MP , parliamentary group or a political party . By doing so , a judge would in fact be acting as a lobbyist disclosing his political preferences . Such conduct was contrary to LAW and the provisions of ORG .","ORG noted that , according to a letter from the Chancellery of the PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , Judge PERSON had not been an advisor to ORG in connection with the work on the bill extending limitation periods . However , the court \u2019s analysis of some parliamentary records contradicted that assertion . It transpired from TIME of a meeting of ORG on DATE that Judge PERSON had been present during a discussion on the bill . At that meeting PERSON , after the ORG had rejected his amendment to the bill , asked Judge PERSON \u201c whether in this situation the ORG case would become time - barred \u201d . ORG also referred to TIME of the plenary session of the PERSON on DATE . At that session PERSON , replying to a question , stated that Judge PERSON had been permanent advisor to ORG and presented verbatim the judge \u2019s position on an aspect of an amendment to the bill .","ORG , having regard to the parliamentary records , established that Judge PERSON had actively sought to influence the amending legislation to the detriment of the defendants , even though at the same time he had examined their case at trial .","ORG held as follows :","\u201c In the present case ... on the basis of the circumstances concerning the passing of the DATE Amendment established in the course of the appellate proceedings , ORG reached the conclusion that the regulations contained in the LAW had been adopted by the legislature , in particular , so that they could be applied to the pending proceedings in a specific case indicated in the reasons for the bill , and in addition , the judge hearing the case took part in the process of amending the law as an advisor , thus showing a lack of impartiality . Having regard to the foregoing , the application of LAW to the present case would have patently violated the standards of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW and LAW concerning the right to a fair trial before an impartial tribunal and would have had an obvious influence on the pertinent part of the judgment . \u201d","ORG decided not to apply LAW to that part of the case . It therefore found that the limitation period in respect of the offence of theft of the ORG \u2019s property of a considerable value imputed to the second applicant had expired on DATE ( point PERSON of the operative provisions of the trial court \u2019s judgment ) . It held that his conviction in respect of that offence had to be quashed and that the relevant part of the proceedings had to be discontinued .","Having regard to the foregoing , ORG allowed the applicants\u2019 arguments concerning the flaws in the assignment of Judge PERSON to the case and the efforts of the judge to amend the legislation applicable to the case in the course of the trial and at the formal examination stage of the appeal . In the appellate court \u2019s view , the applicants had rightly pointed out that by accepting the role of advisor to the proponents of the bill amending LAW ( extending limitation periods ) Judge PERSON had shown a lack of impartiality . At the same time , ORG , by failing to respect the rule of law , had encroached upon the competences of the judicial authorities and flouted the guarantees of a fair trial .","The Court of Appeal underlined that the above shortcomings had only affected part of the trial court \u2019s judgment , namely the offence imputed to the second applicant ( point PERSON of the operative provisions of the trial court \u2019s judgment ) , for which the limitation period had been set to expire on DATE . Only in that part did there exist a logical and irrefutable causal link between the error in the assignment of Judge PERSON and his subsequent efforts to pass legislation amending the law to the detriment of the defendants in the case examined by him .","As to the remainder of the case , ORG did not establish that the above shortcomings had influenced the content of the trial court \u2019s judgment . Accordingly , it did not accept the ORG submissions , which were aimed at having the judgment of the trial court quashed in its entirety .","With regard to certain passages in the reasoning showing that Judge PERSON had a negative attitude towards the second applicant , ORG found that many of them had been opinions based on fact and therefore could not be seen as showing a lack of impartiality towards the second applicant . However , the court agreed with the defence that the passage about the important role of the second applicant in the activities of the ORG had not been fact - based and was therefore inappropriate . Nonetheless , the statement was related to hypothetical behaviour of the second applicant which was unrelated to the charges against him and in any event had not influenced the content of the judgment . The second applicant had not substantiated either how the passage related to the financing of political parties by the ORG could show that Judge PERSON had had a negative attitude towards him , when that issue had not been examined by the trial court . With regard to the allegation raised by the second applicant of a lack of impartiality on the part of Judge PERSON in connection with his statement about the CARDINAL victims in the case , ORG found it to be groundless . It considered that the statement had to be seen in the proper context in which it was made , namely the trial court \u2019s determination to elucidate all the","ORG dismissed the remainder of the applicants\u2019 appeals . It examined various allegations concerning the rights of the defence and the rules of criminal procedure raised by the applicants and rejected them all as unfounded or as having no bearing on the content of the judgment .","The Prosecutor General lodged a cassation appeal against the part of ORG judgment concerning the discontinuation of the proceedings against the second applicant in respect of the charge of theft of the ORG \u2019s property of a considerable value ( point PERSON of the operative provisions of the trial court \u2019s judgment ) . ORG argued that ORG had erred in holding that the application of LAW to the offence in question would have breached Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW and LAW on account of the alleged lack of impartiality of Judge PERSON In his view , the appellate court \u2019s finding had resulted in the relevant part of the proceedings being unjustifiably discontinued .","The applicants also lodged cassation appeals . They challenged ORG finding that the uncontested breach of the rules concerning the assignment of Judge PERSON to their case could not have influenced the content of the trial court \u2019s judgment . In their view , the assignment of Judge PERSON in flagrant breach of NORP CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG had resulted in their case not being examined by an impartial judge .","DATE . They further challenged ORG finding that the established lack of impartiality of Judge PERSON resulting from his active involvement in the passing of LAW could only be relevant for some of the offences imputed to them . In their view , his lack of impartiality had affected the whole trial and therefore the trial court \u2019s judgment should have been quashed in its entirety .","The second applicant also alleged that ORG had not examined his arguments that Judge PERSON should have been removed from the case because of doubts as to his impartiality .","The applicants repeated their allegations concerning various violations of the rights of the defence and the rules of criminal procedure committed by the trial court , which had allegedly not been duly examined by ORG .","On DATE ORG gave judgment . It allowed the cassation appeal of ORG and quashed the part of ORG judgment concerning the discontinuation of the proceedings against the second applicant , remitting that part of the case to it . It dismissed the cassation appeals filed by the applicants .","ORG examined the ORG allegation that the assignment of Judge PERSON in flagrant breach of NORP CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the ORG had resulted in their case not being examined by an impartial judge . It confirmed that Judge PERSON had been assigned to the applicants\u2019 case in breach of the above provisions . However , having regard to its Resolution no . I ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , ORG noted that it was necessary to examine whether the above flaw had influenced the content of the trial court \u2019s judgment . For that to be the case the judge would have to be interested in the case having a specific outcome by violating the rules of criminal procedure .","In that connection , ORG first noted that behaviour which could raise doubts about the lack of impartiality of a judge hearing a case would have to arise up until delivery of the judgment by the judge in question . Secondly , it noted that the mere determination of the court in striving to conclude the proceedings before the expiry of the limitation period was not indicative of its partiality . The lack of impartiality of a judge had to manifest itself in restrictions on the procedural rights of a party , improper gathering of evidence or the imposition of an unjust sentence . However , the applicants had not provided concrete examples of such shortcomings and had limited themselves to general allegations . They had merely referred to CARDINAL statement made by Judge PERSON about \u201c the CARDINAL victims \u201d , the passage in the reasoning of the trial court related to the financing of political parties by the ORG and the antagonism of political parties with which Judge PERSON and the second applicant respectively sympathised .","With regard to the statement about \u201c the CARDINAL victims \u201d ORG paid attention to the context in which it had been made \u2013 at the first trial hearing on DATE in which Judge PERSON , the president of the bench , had allowed journalists to disseminate images and information about the identities of the defendants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In ORG view , an analysis of the statement did not permit the conclusion that Judge PERSON had identified himself with the victims in the case under examination by him . The statement had indicated that it was society that was entitled to have images of the defendants . For ORG , the statement was another unnecessarily pompous statement by Judge PERSON which was not in itself proof of his lack of impartiality . It also noted that the defence had not reacted to this statement by requesting that he be removed from the case . Likewise , before the start of the trial the defence had not raised the issue of any of the members of the trial bench possibly having a negative attitude towards the second applicant . With regard to the passage related to the financing of political parties by the ORG , ORG noted that it did not point to a lack of impartiality on the part of Judge PERSON The judge had concluded in the reasoning that that issue had been irrelevant for the determination of the case . Having regard to the foregoing , ORG did not share the applicants\u2019 views about the alleged lack of impartiality of the trial court .","ORG examined the applicants\u2019 arguments related to the alleged lack of impartiality of Judge PERSON , which had allegedly ensued from his involvement in the passage of LAW . In that connection , the court noted that the bill had been introduced on DATE and that only from that moment in time could CARDINAL talk about his alleged involvement in the process . The bill had been introduced after the trial court had finished hearing evidence in the case ( DATE ) and at a time when the trial had entered its final stages , with the closing statements by the parties . The court further noted that the parliamentary debate on the bill had effectively started in DATE , after the trial court had delivered its judgment ( DATE ) . Accordingly , it could not be said that the trial hearing had coincided with the parliamentary debate on the bill .","DATE . Furthermore , LAW had entered into force on DATE and the limitation period with regard to CARDINAL of the offences ( point PERSON of the operative part ) had been set to expire on DATE . Accordingly , the consequences of the expiry of the limitation period and the entry into force of the law extending limitation periods had taken place in the course of the appellate proceedings .","ORG concluded that Judge PERSON \u2019s involvement in the parliamentary debate on the bill had occurred after the trial had ended and thus could not have had any effect on the content of the judgment . It noted that ORG must have embraced a similar view on that issue since it had not decided to quash the trial court \u2019s judgment in its entirety .","Having regard to the above conclusion , the court noted that the principal issue before ORG and now before it was the compatibility of the CARDINAL Amendment with the LAW and the LAW , as well as the related problem of how the court should proceed in the event of a finding of incompatibility .","With regard to the constitutionality of LAW , ORG referred to the established case - law of ORG , which provided that limitation periods were not a subjective right ( prawo podmiotowe ) and therefore could be subject to change , including retrospectively . A change to a limitation period did not have a bearing on the criminalisation of a given act or the penalty that could be imposed . Rules on limitation periods did not provide guarantees for a person who committed an offence , but were established for the sake of punishment and were related to the ORG \u2019s criminal policy ( referring to ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , case no . ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","With regard to the constitutionality of the DATE Amendment related to the shortcomings of the legislative process , ORG concurred with ORG that the conduct of that process indicated that the impugned legislation had been adopted with a view to influencing the outcome of a particular case . ORG had analysed the issue from the perspective of the \u201c partiality \u201d of Judge PERSON , who had been involved in the preparation of the law partly determining the outcome of the case , but for ORG that issue had to been seen in a wider context . In fact , ORG had analysed the issue of the \u201c partiality of the legislature \u201d and understood it to mean an encroachment by the legislature on the competences of the judicial authorities by the former \u2019s involvement in the determination of a specific case by means of enacting legislation .","ORG analysed whether \u201c the partiality of the legislature \u201d had occurred in the applicants\u2019 case . It had regard to the reasons for the bill which , although very brief , had contained CARDINAL paragraphs related to the ORG case .","ORG noted that the parliamentary debate on the bill , both in the relevant Committee meetings and at the plenary session of the PERSON clearly indicated the existence of links between the need to enact the impugned legislation and the proceedings in the applicants\u2019 case . A statement made by PERSON during the debate on the bill in the PERSON on DATE was relevant here ( \u201c Among the CARDINAL of cases [ threatened by the expiry of the limitation period ] there is also this one , which outrages and shocks NORP public opinion the most , which ... became the instigator and final argument for the introduction of this bill , and that is ORG - gate and the real risk of the limitation period expiring in this case \u201d ) . Similarly , the statement made by PERSON MP in the same debate left no doubt as to the intentions of the proponents of the bill ( \u201c there is a legal possibility of influencing these proceedings \u201d ) .","In conclusion , ORG found that the involvement of the legislature , with the support of Judge PERSON , could support the allegation that the object of LAW had been to influence the outcome of the applicants\u2019 specific case . Such a situation in turn raised doubts about its conformity with LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW .","In the applicants\u2019 case , ORG held that LAW was unconstitutional and for that reason , it independently decided not to apply it in the case . However , ORG found that in that respect ORG had exceeded its competences . Instead of refusing to apply the unconstitutional legislation , it had been required to put a legal question to ORG on the constitutionality of LAW . In ORG view , ORG had the exclusive competence to declare legislation unconstitutional .","For that reason , ORG quashed the part of ORG judgment concerning the discontinuation of the proceedings against the second applicant ( point PERSON of the operative provisions of the trial court \u2019s judgment ) and remitted that part of the case to it .","Following ORG directions , on DATE ORG put a legal question to ORG on the constitutionality of LAW .","ORG submitted that \u201c FOZZ - gate \u201d had been mentioned throughout the parliamentary debate on the bill . It referred to the reasons for the bill and the statements made by the MPs , advisors and representatives of ORG in the course of debates of ORG referring to the same case . In view of the above , ORG considered that LAW had not been enacted as a general instrument of criminal policy , but followed from the legislature \u2019s desire to influence the outcome of a particular case . Such a situation amounted to an encroachment by the legislature on the competences of the judicial authorities . For ORG , there were substantiated doubts about the compatibility of the DATE Amendment with ORG ( rule of law principle ) and CARDINAL ( separation of powers ) of the LAW .","In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ( case no . P CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , ORG discontinued the proceedings initiated by the legal question of ORG on the grounds of ne bis in idem . It referred to an earlier judgment it had adopted on DATE ( case no . P CARDINAL ) , which was decisive for the case at issue . In that judgment ORG held that LAW was compatible with LAW and LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .","ORG noted that ORG had not questioned the very extension of the limitation period or the possibility of applying extended limitation periods to offences committed before the entry into force of the amending legislation which had not become time - barred under the rules formerly applicable . The allegations of ORG had instead concentrated on shortcomings in the legislative process , but without invoking any of the relevant constitutional provisions regulating that process . ORG had focused on the context and the circumstances surrounding the enactment of the impugned legislation by referring to select statements of the persons taking part in the parliamentary debate on the bill and mentioning certain passages from the reasons for the bill . However , that issue had already been addressed in ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . In that judgment , it had also underlined that the contested amendment had not influenced the judicial determination of the case .","On DATE the ORG gave judgment .","It upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment with regard to the second applicant \u2019s conviction for theft of the ORG \u2019s property of a considerable value ( point PERSON of the operative provisions of the trial court \u2019s judgment ) . It only lowered the fine imposed on him in respect of that offence .","Having regard to ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ruled that it could not discontinue the criminal proceedings against the second applicant with regard to the abovementioned offence on account of the expiry of the original limitation period as had been decided in its first judgment . It would not be acceptable to refuse to apply a law whose constitutionality had been confirmed by ORG .","With regard to the allegations concerning the improper assignment of Judge PERSON to the case , ORG , following ORG judgment , held that that shortcoming had not affected the content of the trial court \u2019s judgment . It dismissed further arguments raised by the second applicant in his appeal against the trial court \u2019s judgment .","The second applicant lodged a cassation appeal against ORG judgment . He alleged , in particular , that ORG had violated the provisions of the substantive criminal law related to his conviction under LAW of the old LAW . On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant \u2019s cassation appeal as manifestly ill - founded .","In issue no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG published an article entitled \u201c NORP PERSON \u201d about the ORG trial , including an interview with Judge PERSON The relevant part reads as follows :","\u201c Journalists divide judges into those who have \u201c pressure on the small screen \u201d and those who consistently refuse to comment . Judge PERSON has a reputation as one of the best lawyers in GPE , but also as a \u201c media stonewaller \u201d .. In the ORG trial he [ has ] a dual role : as a main judge and as a defender of what remains of the reputation of the administration of justice . The threat of the limitation period hangs over the indictment . ...","\u201c Journalist : Are you afraid that you will not have enough time to correct the ORG mistakes and sentence [ those who are ] guilty ?","Judge PERSON : I will not comment on the trial . This is not a commission of inquiry .","Q : Perhaps it does not resemble a meeting of a commission [ of inquiry ] , but do n\u2019t you have the impression that you are participating in the theatre of the absurd ? The defendants faint , pretend to be mentally ill ...","A : I have . What \u2019s even worse [ is that ] I feel too frequently that it is not the defendant in the hands of a court , but me in the hands of the defendant and his counsel . Frequently , a team of people is working on how to use too liberal a law to block the trial . Unfortunately , we have succeeded in creating a belief among criminals that they can go unpunished .","Q : Do you think that opportunity makes a thief ?","A : Not an opportunity , but the lack of an inevitable and adequate punishment . Up until recently a criminal could still laugh in our faces , because even if , by a miracle , he was caught and sentenced , he could use the stolen money with impunity , and even boast about it . ...","Q : They still brag that they transferred money to their wives and that nothing can be done to them .","A : What we know about scandals is not even the tip of the iceberg . We already have [ the ] white - collar mafia . It is time to find efficient methods of detecting crimes and begin applying adequate punishments . ...","Q : Even if we catch criminals more efficiently , where would we lock them up ?","A : We will stop spending money on implementing inefficient programmes , and build more prisons . Thanks to harsh punishments and a \u2018 zero tolerance\u2019 [ policy ] even for minor crimes , it was possible to resolve the crisis in GPE . Why should n\u2019t that idea work here ? \u201d","On DATE PERSON , who had been appointed Minister of Justice in the meantime , gave an interview to a radio station . The transcript of the relevant part reads as follows :","\u201c Q : Minister , your deputy , Judge [ PERSON ] has been criticised by ORG judges , who found that Judge [ PERSON ] had not been impartial in the case against NORP and [ the first applicant ] .","A : ORG judges were either misled or have been seriously mistaken because they have relied on false information .","Q : Who could have misled them ?","A : Perhaps the defence lawyers , who raised certain arguments , not always properly , but always in the interest of their clients . ... The facts are that , firstly , Judge [ PERSON ] was not an advisor to the PERSON and ORG [ party ] , but an advisor to the PERSON \u2019s [ ORG ] , as were many other judges , including judges of ORG . No one is alleging that because of that those judges are not impartial , and rightly so . Secondly , Judge [ PERSON ] did not take part in the debate on the provision extending limitation periods . I am the author of this provision , I conceived this provision and presented it to PERSON , and I then consulted CARDINAL law professors , with whom I cooperate , who are also members of [ advisors to ] the PERSON \u2019s committees , Professors PERSON and PERSON , I think that both of them would confirm this .","Q : But did you rely on Judge [ A.K. ] \u2019s opinion in this case or not ?","A : I could not have relied on Judge [ A.K. ] \u2019s opinion in this case , because in this case Judge PERSON did not give an opinion . In this case Judge [ PERSON ] was not at all an initiator of this idea . I was the author .","Q : And you did not speak to him about this issue :","A : No , I did not speak to Judge [ PERSON ] about this issue . In this case , I acted as PERSON , who seeing what was happening in the ORG case , concluded that limitation periods should be extended . And not only in the ORG case , but also in other cases ... \u201d","An official note dated DATE was submitted to ORG . It reads as follows :","\u201c Judge PERSON was recommended by the deputy chairman of ORG PERSON MP ( PiS ) to participate as an advisor in the work of the [ Special Committee for Codification Amendments ] .","Because there is no custom in the ORG to appoint a permanent advisor , Judge PERSON was invited to many bills amending the criminal law on the instruction of PERSON PERSON .","It should be underlined that Judge PERSON was not the ORG \u2019s advisor in the legislative work on the PERSON bill amending LAW [ extending limitation periods ] ( document no . CARDINAL ) at any stage of the work .","Judge PERSON was present at the [ ORG \u2019s ] meeting on DATE on the point concerning the above - mentioned bill , because he was waiting for the beginning [ of a discussion on ] of the third point for which he had been invited as an advisor ( i.e. on the bill amending LAW and LAW in respect of combating paedophilia ... )","The agenda of that meeting included a discussion on the amendments proposed in the second reading of the PERSON bill :","I. amending LAW ( [ on ] limitation periods \u2013 document no . CARDINAL ) ,","II . amending LAW ... ,","III . amending LAW and LAW ( [ on ] combating paedophilia ... ) .","Because the times for discussing particular points [ of the agenda ] were not been specified , Judge PERSON was present from the beginning of the meeting . \u201d","It appears that Judge PERSON participated as an advisor to ORG on CARDINAL bills amending LAW . CARDINAL of those bills was introduced by the President of GPE in DATE and the other by the then opposition party , PERSON and ORG , in DATE . The PERSON has not concluded the debate on those bills ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182451","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF SADRETT\u0130N G\u00dcLER v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 13+11 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association;Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the material time , the applicant was a civil servant in GPE of GPE and a member of the local branch of the LAW trade union , which is affiliated to the KESK ( ORG \u2013 ORG ) .","NORP In DATE CARDINAL of the largest trade unions , namely the D\u0130SK ( Devrimci \u0130\u015f\u00e7i Sendikalar\u0131 Konfederasyonu \u2013 ORG ) and the KESK ( ORG ) announced that they were planning a large scale demonstration in GPE for DATE and that their members would be gathering to celebrate the Labour Day and to commemorate their friends who had lost their lives during the demonstrations of CARDINAL DATE .","In DATE the applicant was informed that a disciplinary investigation had been initiated against him for being absent without leave on DATE and he was asked to submit his defence submissions . The applicant explained that he had participated in a demonstration organised by his trade union on DATE to celebrate International Labour Day .","Subsequently , the applicant was given a warning as a disciplinary sanction owing to his being absent without leave on DATE pursuant to CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant objected to the decision and requested its annulment .","On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection , finding that the contested decision was in accordance with the law and that there were no grounds to annul it ."],"violated_articles":["11","13"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-141800","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"STAMBOLSKA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant \u2019s mother owned a QUANTITY house and a plot of land of QUANTITY , which were expropriated in DATE .","Following the enactment of LAW in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant and her brother requested compensation for their mother \u2019s expropriated property . By a decision of DATE the regional governor of GPE dismissed the request insofar as it concerned the expropriated land , because it had already been subject to restitution , and held that in respect of the house , which had been demolished , the applicant and her brother were to receive compensation bonds .","The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","On DATE the applicant applied for judicial review of the above - mentioned decision .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) quashed the regional governor \u2019s decision in respect of the applicant and found that she was entitled to compensation for the land and house , to be provided both by transferring to her a share of a larger plot totalling QUANTITY , which adjoined the expropriated plot formerly owned by her mother , and by awarding her compensation bonds , the exact value of which would be determined at a later stage ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","A limited liability company , ORG , joined the proceedings before ORG , after it was accepted that the company had locus standi because it owned a share of the plot of land of QUANTITY . CARDINAL party joined the proceedings at this time , despite the plot having several other co - owners .","All parties lodged appeals against ORG judgment , but it was upheld by ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) on DATE .","The case was subsequently sent back to ORG for the second stage of the proceedings , namely the determination of the exact amount of compensation to be awarded . In a judgment of DATE ORG held that the applicant was to receive PERCENT of the ORG - owned share of the larger plot and compensation bonds with a face value of CARDINAL NORP levs ( ORG ) .","On DATE the regional governor appealed to the ORG against the judgment of ORG . However , the proceedings were stayed owing to the submission of several requests to have the first stage of the proceedings reopened ( see below ) .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s brother lodged an application to set aside ORG judgment of DATE , as upheld by the ORG on DATE , and to have the proceedings reopened . He referred to evidence which he considered to be newly discovered . His application was dismissed on DATE .","On an unspecified date , a Mr ORG also applied to have the first stage of the proceedings reopened , arguing that , as a co - owner of the plot of QUANTITY , he was an interested party and should have been notified of the proceedings and given an opportunity to participate . He explained that he had become aware of the judgments of DATE and DATE in DATE when he had visited the local municipality .","On DATE the ORG dismissed Mr PERSON \u2019s application .","On DATE PERSON , wife of PERSON , also applied to have the judgment of DATE set aside and the proceedings reopened , arguing that she was also a co - owner of the plot and had been deprived of an opportunity to participate . She stated that she had become aware of the impugned judgment in DATE when she had visited the municipality .","On DATE PERSON , a further co - owner of the plot of land , applied to have the proceedings reopened , putting forward arguments similar to those made by PERSON stated that she had become aware of the impugned judgment in DATE .","On DATE Mr PERSON , PERSON and the company ORG sent a letter to ORG , urging it to propose that the proceedings be reopened , on the ground that some of the co - owners of the plot had not been given an opportunity to participate . The applicant alleged before the ORG that their letter had actually been received by ORG DATE and filed as part of her evidence a copy of the letter bearing the date CARDINAL DATE next to the acknowledgment - of - receipt stamp . ORG , however , submitted a copy of the same letter together with a copy of the relevant entry of the register of documents filed with ORG , which were both dated DATE .","On DATE the Deputy Chief Public Prosecutor introduced a proposal for the judgment of DATE to be set aside and the proceedings to be reopened , noting that PERSON and PERSON had not been notified of the proceedings and given an opportunity to participate . He pointed out that the QUANTITY women had become aware of the impugned judgment in DATE , referring to a letter he had received at his office on DATE .","In a judgment of DATE the ORG allowed the requests , set aside ORG judgment of DATE and reopened the proceedings . It considered that PERSON and PERSON applications had been lodged within the relevant DATE time - limit ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , as it had been impossible to establish with certainty the date upon which they had actually become aware of the impugned judgment . The ORG also found that since PERSON and PERSON were both co - owners of the above - mentioned plot of land they had a legitimate interest in the outcome of the contested proceedings , which had directly affected their rights and obligations .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal against the above - mentioned judgment , which was dismissed as inadmissible on DATE .","Following that , the ORG resumed examination of the regional governor \u2019s appeal against ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . On DATE , referring to its decision to reopen the first stage of the proceedings , it quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG .","After it started re - examining the case , ORG allowed several individuals and CARDINAL companies to join the proceedings . It gave judgment on DATE . It again quashed the regional governor \u2019s decision of DATE and held that the applicant was entitled to receive compensation for her mother \u2019s expropriated property by way of a share of the plot of land measuring QUANTITY in total , as well as through compensation bonds .","CARDINAL of the parties lodged an appeal . On DATE the ORG upheld ORG judgment .","The case was subsequently returned to ORG for the second stage in the proceedings , namely the determination of the amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicant . ORG gave judgment on CARDINAL DATE . In respect of the share of the plot of land measuring QUANTITY , it held that the applicant \u2019s share could not exceed the ORG - owned share . However , it held that the relevant date on which it was to base its assessment of the ORG - owned share was DATE , because , pursuant to an express provision of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , any transfer of property after that date could not limit the interested parties\u2019 entitlement to compensation . In DATE the ORG - owned share of the plot had amounted to QUANTITY , and in DATE it amounted to QUANTITY , the remainder of the land being the property of the other co - owners . The applicant was entitled to a share measuring QUANTITY , which meant that the shares of the remaining co - owners had to be reduced accordingly . In respect of the compensation bonds to be awarded to the applicant , ORG awarded bonds with a face value of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","CARDINAL of the parties lodged appeals against the above - mentioned judgment . The ORG held a hearing on DATE , following which the proceedings were stayed .","On DATE PERSON made an application to set aside ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as upheld by the ORG on DATE , and to have the first stage of the proceedings reopened . She referred to newly discovered evidence . On DATE the application was dismissed as time - barred by a CARDINAL - member panel of the ORG . It appears that a subsequent appeal by PERSON to a CARDINAL - member panel of that court was dismissed on an unspecified date .","On an unspecified date the ORG resumed its examination of the CARDINAL appeals against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . On DATE it dismissed them .","After DATE of communism , ORG introduced a series of restitution laws and , in DATE , ORG ( \u201c LAW ) , which provided , in cases where restitution had been impossible , for compensation to former owners of nationalised property or their heirs , through different means , such as transfer of ORG or municipally - owned shares in properties , or the award of compensation bonds . Requests under LAW were to be addressed to the regional governor or the relevant minister .","Once the regional governor had received such a request , the procedure unfolded in CARDINAL stages . Firstly , the regional governor had to decide whether the interested parties were entitled to compensation . The regional governor then issued a second decision , based on an expert report , determining the amount of compensation to be awarded . The decisions taken at the different stages of the procedure were subject to judicial review .","NORP The regional governor \u2019s refusal to acknowledge the interested parties\u2019 right to compensation is subject to judicial review in a CARDINAL stage procedure ; the first stage established the right to compensation and the means thereof , and the second determined the amount of compensation to be awarded .","Until DATE the rules concerning judicial review of administrative measures were contained in DATE LAW , which obliged the domestic court examining an appeal against an administrative measure to notify all interested parties of the appeal ( section CARDINAL ) ) ; those parties could then join the proceedings and defend their rights . Similar provisions were contained in section ORG ) of the DATE Supreme Administrative Court Act , in force until DATE . Since DATE , such matters have been regulated by LAW , which contains similar requirements .","Before DATE the conditions and procedure for judicial review proceedings were set out in LAW ( Article CARDINAL et seq . ) A third party could apply to have such proceedings reopened in cases where they had been adversely affected by a final judgment and unduly deprived of the opportunity to participate in the proceedings . The requisite time - limit for parties to make applications for the reopening of proceedings was DATE from the date upon which the third party became aware of the judgment at issue . According to the ORG \u2019s settled practice , compliance with the DATE time - limit did not depend on the time which had passed since the judgment \u2019s entry into force , because the third parties\u2019 rights would otherwise be seriously undermined .","The relevant provisions of domestic law have been summarised in the ORG \u2019s decisions in the cases of GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) and ORG and GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL and GPE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150791","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF OGORODNIK v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in FAC no . DATE .","At the time of the events the applicant had CARDINAL criminal convictions for theft , in particular . He had been released from prison in DATE .","From DATE , a number of armed robberies and thefts were committed in the GPE and GPE regions .","On DATE ORG , having received some preliminary reports concerning the possible involvement of the applicant in the aforementioned crimes , arrested him together with his brother and an acquaintance . The police approached them when they were in a car at a fuel station . They attempted to flee , but without success . The police broke the side window and , having overcome the resistance of those inside , took them out by force and handcuffed them . CARDINAL passers - by witnessed this and gave written explanations to that effect to the police , in which they confirmed the above .","Several guns , gas sprays , some jewellery and several pairs of gloves were found in the car .","The officers wrote a report stating that the detainees had demonstrated manifest disobedience to their orders and had attempted to escape , in response to which martial arts techniques had been practised and handcuffs had been applied to them . The report noted that no firearms had been used .","On DATE , DATE , the applicant confessed to several counts of theft and robbery . He also wrote a note stating that he had no complaints against the police and that no physical or psychological coercion had been applied to him .","On DATE the police drew a report on an administrative offence ( a minor offence under NORP legislation ) committed by the applicant . It stated that during his arrest he had manifested malicious disobedience to a lawful order given by police officers in breach of LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the applicant wrote a statement to the effect that during his arrest he had resisted the police and had tried to escape and that he regretted his behaviour .","Still on DATE the ORG of Vinnytsia ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) found the applicant guilty under LAW and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention commencing at TIME on DATE .","It appears from the material in the case file ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that on DATE the applicant was examined by doctors after his admission to ORG ( ORG ) . The examination revealed scratches and bruises on his right shoulder . No complaints or requests for medical assistance from the applicant were recorded .","On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant confessed to numerous counts of theft and robbery committed in the GPE and GPE regions . All his confessions were accompanied by written statements by the investigator co - signed by the applicant to the effect that the latter had had his rights explained to him . Furthermore , each confession was accompanied by a written waiver by the applicant of his right to legal assistance .","On DATE the investigator detained the applicant on suspicion of banditry , numerous counts of theft and armed robbery , money laundering , hooliganism , and illegal arms possession and handling . The applicant signed the report and stated that he agreed with his detention .","On DATE and DATE the applicant confessed to some other episodes of theft and robbery .","On DATE he was examined by a general practitioner on duty in ORG no . CARDINAL . The applicant did not raise any complaints and the examination did not reveal any injuries or pathologies .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG the GPE region , where he was detained till DATE in the local temporary detention centre ( the \u201c ORG \u201d ) described by him as a metal cage in the police station .","On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody as a preventive measure pending trial .","On DATE the applicant had his chest X - rayed in a tuberculosis dispensary , with no anomalies having been revealed .","On CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , and CARDINAL DATE he reiterated his earlier confessions and confessed to yet more crimes . Like before , all those confessions were accompanied by written confirmation of the explanation to the applicant of his rights and by the applicant \u2019s waiver of his right to a lawyer .","On DATE the applicant was taken to the ORG in the GPE region . He underwent a standard initial medical examination there . As noted in the respective journal , he raised no complaints and the examination revealed no bruises , lice or scabies .","On DATE and on DATE the applicant again reiterated his confessions and waived his right to legal representation .","On DATE an ambulance was called for him . This was recorded as entry no . CARDINAL in the medical assistance journal . The copy of the journal provided to ORG ends at entry no . CARDINAL . No further information is available concerning the applicant \u2019s condition on DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE an ambulance was again called for the applicant . According to a memo issued by the governor of the Brovary ITT on DATE , this was done in response to the applicant \u2019s complaining of headache .","According to the applicant , on DATE he complained to ORG about his ill - treatment , but his complaint remained without response .","On DATE the applicant was transferred from ORG to ORG . It appears from the material in the case file ( see paragraph MONEY below ) that he was examined by a doctor at his arrival in ORG . Some bruises on his shoulders , an abrasion on his right temple and an abrasion on his right elbow were documented . According to the examination report , the applicant raised no complaints and did not seek medical assistance .","On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant reiterated his earlier confessions and confessed to yet more crimes . He also signed reports confirming that his rights had been explained to him and waived his right to a lawyer .","On DATE the applicant refused to accept a food parcel from his parents handed to him by the ORG administration . As confirmed by notes written by the applicant \u2019s cell mates , he did so because the cigarettes and the food had been cut into small pieces . The applicant refused to sign any report or write any explanation .","On DATE the pre - trial investigation was declared complete and the case was referred to court for trial .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that from DATE he had been ill - treated by the police in FAC . The alleged ill - treatment included being beaten , strangled with a plastic bag and suspended from an iron bar . The applicant also submitted that he had received the threat that , if he did not confess , his brother would be imprisoned for life on a false charge of murder . Accordingly , the applicant contended that he had been coerced into signing numerous confessions and waivers of legal assistance . He further complained that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE his ill - treatment had continued in ORG . He noted that , although his parents had hired a lawyer for him , he had continuously been forced to waive his right to legal assistance . Lastly , the applicant complained about having suffered psychological pressure and humiliations from the Brovary ITT personnel from DATE . He noted that his complaint to ORG had been without reply .","On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the attitude of the ORG personnel towards him , which he considered humiliating . He referred , in particular , to the incident with the food parcel of DATE .","On an unspecified later date the chief of the aforementioned police department issued an internal inquiry report stating that no food parcels for the applicant had been received during the period of his detention in the ORG from DATE and that the applicant had been arrogant and rude to the administration .","On DATE the investigator of the GPE police department dealing with the applicant \u2019s case gave written explanations to the regional prosecution in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . He submitted that the applicant and those detained as his accomplices had given their confessions and waived their right to a lawyer in a voluntary manner . Since legal representation was not mandatory in the circumstances , those waivers had been accepted . The other police officers concerned gave similar explanations .","On DATE the applicant complained to the Minister of the Interior that he had been subjected to various kinds of ill - treatment and humiliation in all the detention facilities . He alleged , in particular , that on DATE he had been ill - treated by the GPE police officers for TIME and that his ill - treatment had included beatings , strangling with a plastic bag , hanging from an iron bar and the insertion of a baseball bat into his anus . The applicant also submitted that the GPE police had failed to deliver a food parcel to him , had extorted a bribe from him and had not allowed him to see the lawyer contracted by his parents .","On DATE \u2012 in response to the applicant \u2019s complaint of ill - treatment \u2012 ORG issued a ruling announcing its refusal to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers of the local police department . The officers concerned had been questioned and had contested the applicant \u2019s allegations as untruthful . As noted in the ruling , there was no indication that the applicant had sustained any injuries or that he had complained previously . It was therefore considered clear that he had given his confessions voluntarily .","On DATE the governor of ORG issued a memo , apparently at the prosecutor \u2019s request , about the applicant \u2019s detention in that facility . It stated that no physical force had been used against the applicant . The memo noted the fact that an ambulance had been called for the applicant following his complaints of headaches on DATE , but with no further details .","NORP On DATE PERSON , the lawyer contracted by the applicant \u2019s parents on an unspecified earlier date , asked ORG for a meeting with the applicant . On DATE that request was allowed .","On DATE the applicant was examined by doctors in the Vinnytsia SIZO . They found him in good health . The examination report noted that the applicant did not raise any complaints and that there were no injuries on him . It should be noted that the copy of the aforementioned report in the case file before the ORG , as it stood prior to the communication of the application to the ORG , was of very poor quality . Moreover , the report was written in barely legible handwriting . According to the summary of the facts prepared by the ORG at that stage , the report in question had referred to several bruises on the applicant . However , as it has since emerged , there were CARDINAL reports copied on the same page : CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , and it was the latter report which had noted the applicant \u2019s injuries ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE a senior official of ORG delivered a report on the internal investigation into the applicant \u2019s complaints of ill - treatment ( as summarised in paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The investigation had consisted mainly of questioning of the police officers involved , who had denied any ill - treatment of the applicant . The report noted that the medical examinations of the applicant of DATE and DATE had revealed some injuries which had been inflicted in unestablished circumstances ( for more details see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It was decided that the internal investigation be considered complete , the conclusion being that it had not established any evidence to support the applicant \u2019s complaints .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the officials of ORG in respect of the allegedly inadequate conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention and his ill - treatment there . It was noted in the ruling that the ORG officials had been questioned and had denied any ill - treatment of the applicant . They had also submitted that he had been detained in adequate conditions .","On DATE ORG issued another ruling refusing the institution of criminal proceedings \u2012 this time against the police officers of ORG , who had been involved in the applicant \u2019s apprehension and the subsequent investigative measures \u2012 for the lack of corpus delicti in their actions . The officers submitted that the applicant and his accomplices had manifested malicious disobedience to the orders of the police on DATE . As a result , \u201c measures of physical intervention and ... handcuffing \u201d had been applied to them . Furthermore , according to the police ORG statements , the detainees had made their confessions voluntarily . Lastly , the prosecutor noted that the applicant had been examined by doctors on CARDINAL and DATE , when no injuries were documented or complaints raised ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the NORP police officers , for the lack of corpus delicti in their actions . The prosecutor noted that the officers in question had denied the veracity of the applicant \u2019s allegations of ill - treatment . Furthermore , it appeared that the applicant himself had eventually retracted his complaints .","On DATE the ORG also refused to institute criminal proceedings against the Brovary police as regards the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention in the local ORG . The decision was based on the explanations of the respective police officers .","On DATE the applicant refused the services of the lawyer retained by his parents and asked ORG to allow his parents time to find a new lawyer for him .","On DATE he repeated the above refusal and asked the court to conduct its hearing with the participation of his sister , who had earlier been admitted in the proceedings as his \u201c civil defender \u201d .","DATE . On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that he had been subjected to ill - treatment by the police on DATE and thereafter . He submitted that all his confessions and waivers of legal assistance had been given under duress .","On DATE the applicant also complained of his ill - treatment in police custody to ORG .","On DATE the ORG appointed a free lawyer for the applicant , since his parents had not retained a new lawyer for him .","On DATE ORG instructed the GPE and ORG to investigate the applicant \u2019s complaints of ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor , who recorded the absence of any injuries , apart from some old scars on both forearms . No further details concerning this examination are available .","On DATE the applicant underwent another medical examination which revealed bruises on his buttocks measuring QUANTITY and QUANTITY respectively , as well as abrasions on his wrists caused by handcuffs . Another bruise measuring QUANTITY was recorded ( the copy of the report in the case file is illegible in this respect ; nor is it possible to read where that bruise was located ) . It is not clear in what circumstances and where that examination was carried out . It has not been commented on by any of the parties .","On DATE the ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings against the police officers in the light of their statements denying the veracity of the applicant \u2019s complaints .","On DATE ORG Office quashed the aforementioned ruling as premature and superficial . It criticised the prosecutor \u2019s failure to clarify when and on what grounds the applicant had been taken to ORG before his further transfer to ORG , when he had been detained in the Brovary ITT , which of the police officers had been assigned to him and when . Furthermore , it observed that it was essential to question all the doctors who had examined the applicant and had provided him with medical assistance . According to the applicant , it was after his detention in ORG that he had requested medical assistance . It was also necessary to analyse all the records pertaining to the ambulance calls made for the applicant , as well as the report on his initial medical examination in the Brovary ITT . Lastly , the applicant \u2019s complaints concerning the refusal to allow a lawyer to see him warranted investigation .","On DATE a senior officer in the NORP police department issued a memo noting that he had visited the Brovary ITT , where he had consulted the medical examination and assistance journal . CARDINAL records , those of DATE and DATE , concerned the applicant . The ambulance doctor had been questioned . She had recognised her signature next to the record of DATE and had verbally explained that she had provided the applicant with the assistance documented in the record . However , she had refused to make any written statements . The memo in question did not contain any further details as to the applicant \u2019s condition on DATE or what medical assistance had been provided to him ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty on CARDINAL counts of aggravated theft and robbery and sentenced him to CARDINAL half GPE imprisonment , as well as confiscation of all his personal property . The confiscated property included a house and a car which had been purchased by the applicant \u2019s parents , but which the court considered to have been bought using the revenue from his criminal activities . The applicant was acquitted of the charges of banditry , money laundering , hooliganism and illegal arms handling . The court noted that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation . At the court hearing , the applicant commented on CARDINAL of the charges against him : he denied his participation in CARDINAL episode of theft and CARDINAL episode of robbery and submitted that he had earlier confessed to those CARDINAL episodes under duress . The court dismissed that allegation as unsubstantiated .","The applicant appealed , submitting that he had voluntarily confessed to the criminal offences in question and had shown remorse . Referring to his cooperation with the investigation , as well as the fact that he had a child who was a minor , the applicant sought mitigation of his sentence . He also contested the confiscation - related part of the verdict .","On DATE ORG rejected his appeal .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . He submitted that the lower courts\u2019 decisions should be quashed as being contrary to LAW ( right to legal assistance \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and LAW ( listing grounds for the annulment of a judgment \u2013 see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant contended that he had not committed the crimes of which he had been found guilty and that he had incriminated himself after succumbing to \u201c psycho - physical influence and deception by the police \u201d .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal on points of law . As to his submission on the ostensibly involuntary nature of his confessions , ORG noted that the first - instance court had not established any facts showing any coercion of the applicant and he had not disputed that in his appeal . ORG furthermore observed that the applicant \u2019s allegation of breach of the criminal procedural legislation were too vague .","On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant stating that it had instructed ORG to investigate his complaints of ill - treatment .","On DATE ORG also wrote to the applicant stating that it had already dismissed his complaints , namely on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The prosecutor also referred to a similar ruling by ORG of DATE ( the case file before the ORG does not contain a copy of the quoted ruling and there is no information about its contents ) ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156078","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF G\u00c9G\u00c9NY v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained at FAC .","On DATE he started to serve a prison sentence at FAC , where he remained until DATE . According to the applicant , he spent DATE with CARDINAL other inmates in CARDINAL different cells ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) measuring QUANTITY each , including sanitary facilities . The cells were equipped only with CARDINAL tap and a toilet , separated from the living area only by a curtain . The dining table was fixed to the floor just a metre away from the toilet . The applicant had a DATE onehourlong outdoor activity . The yards were closed LOC measuring QUANTITY , CARDINAL persons being taken to the yard at a time .","The applicant was also entitled to QUANTITY exercise in the gym CARDINAL times a week . He attended secondary school classes CARDINAL times a week , TIME on each occasion .","On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG \u201c B \u201d , where his cells ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL ) measured QUANTITY and were occupied by him and CARDINAL other men ( that is , QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) . The cells had no ventilation system and were infested with parasites . Detainees were permitted to take a shower once a week , according to the applicant , in unhygienic conditions and for no longer than CARDINAL - CARDINAL minutes .","The applicant was entitled to a DATE walk of TIME in the prison yard measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY . He indicated , however , that he was not able to go outdoors during the period between DATE and CARDINAL DATE on DATE when he was employed as a librarian .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant continued to serve his sentence in ORG \u201c A \u201d of FAC . He was kept in CARDINAL cells described as follows : cell CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( QUANTITY , CARDINAL inmates ) , and cell nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( QUANTITY , CARDINAL inmates ) . Only a curtain was used as a partition between the toilet and the living area .","Throughout his detention the applicant had no out - of - cell activities other than a DATE TIME walk in the yard of the prison facility , gym exercise twice a DATE for TIME each time and a DATE visit to the library for TIME .","The inmates were allowed CARDINAL shower per week . The shower room was equipped with CARDINAL shower heads . There were CARDINAL inmates taken to have a shower at the same time , making it impossible to move around because of the sheer number of prisoners .","On DATE the applicant was transferred back to Unit \u201c B \u201d of ORG , where he spent DATE in CARDINAL different cells .","The size of those cells was QUANTITY . The occupancy rate varied between CARDINAL persons ( that is , QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) and QUANTITY ( that is QUANTITY gross living space per inmate ) .","Since DATE the applicant has been detained at FAC with CARDINAL other inmates in a cell measuring QUANTITY ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148179","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF YEREMTSOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicants were each targeted in undercover operations conducted by the police in the form of a test purchase of drugs under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Operational - Search Activities Act of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ ) . Those operations led to their criminal conviction for drug dealing .","The applicants disagreed with their conviction and argued that the police incited them to commit drug - related offences ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157278","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF TOMAYLY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","DATE and DATE the applicant was held in remand prison GPE in GPE . The prison was overcrowded . Thus , the applicant \u2019s cell measuring QUANTITY was equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and accommodated CARDINAL inmates ; cell CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY m was designed for CARDINAL individuals and housed up to QUANTITY prisoners .","On DATE the Korenovskiy District Court of the FAC region convicted the applicant of embezzlement and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .","DATE and DATE the applicant served his sentence in the IK-CARDINAL facility , a correctional colony located in GPE . The dormitory in which the applicant slept measured CARDINAL sq . m , it offered QUANTITY sleeping places but actually accommodated up to QUANTITY inmates ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165756","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF V.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","NORP The applicant claims to have entered GPE illegally on DATE with her son ( \u201c S \u201d ) , who was born on DATE . On DATE was admitted to hospital with serious injuries .","On DATE became the subject of an interim care order and the applicant was later charged with child cruelty under LAW and with Grievous Bodily Harm with intent .","On DATE the applicant claimed asylum on the basis that if returned to GPE she would be killed by the wife of a man who , she alleged , had sexually assaulted her . Her application was rejected by the Secretary of ORG for ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with a psychotic illness and detained in hospital for DATE .","In DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against the refusal of her asylum claim on asylum and human rights grounds , finding , inter alia , that she was not a credible witness .","On DATE the applicant pleaded guilty to CARDINAL count of child cruelty . She was granted bail pending a further hearing set for DATE . She then absconded for a period of over DATE .","In DATE a residence order was made in favour of LOC \u2019s father and the child was returned to GPE .","On DATE the applicant gave birth to her second child ( \u201c M \u201d ) , who had a different father to S.","On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with possession of false documentation with intent to commit fraud . She was convicted and on DATE she was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the applicant was convicted of child cruelty . Before sentencing the applicant for the offence of child cruelty , ORG asked PERSON , a specialist registrar in forensic psychiatry , to produce a report . The report , which was dated DATE , indicated that the applicant suffered from a recurrent depressive disorder and emotionally unstable personality disorder . However , at the date of the report her depressive and psychotic symptoms were being managed with medication and therapy , with the result that her mental illness was not considered to be of a nature or degree to warrant treatment either in the prison healthcare wing or in hospital . She did not , therefore , fulfil the criteria for treatment under LAW DATE ( \u201c the DATE LAW ) .","On DATE the applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment for the offence of child cruelty . She also pleaded guilty to the offence of failure to surrender to bail and was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , to be served concurrently . The judge recommended deportation in view of the seriousness of the offences .","On DATE ORG decided to deport the applicant . She therefore remained in detention under immigration powers when her criminal sentence ended on DATE .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision to deport her . In her notice of appeal she reiterated her claim that she was at risk of being killed in GPE and that she had no family connections there . As M had been taken into the care of the local authority and was the subject of care proceedings , she also asserted a right to remain in GPE until those proceedings had concluded .","On DATE ORG dismissed her appeal but found that it would be proportionate to allow her to remain in GPE for the short period that it would take to complete the care proceedings in respect of M.","The applicant was refused bail on DATE and again on DATE on the grounds that she could not be relied on to comply with bail conditions , she offered no sureties and she represented a danger to herself and to others .","On DATE the applicant obtained a report from Professor K , a medical expert , on her mental health . He agreed with the diagnosis of Dr O and concluded that the applicant was not suitable for compulsory treatment under LAW as she was not in need of in - patient psychiatric care and her mental health needs could be met in the community . She was taking medication and if necessary could be admitted to hospital on a voluntary basis . Professor K did , however , note that the applicant \u2019s mental health was likely to deteriorate in response to continued detention , although it should improve in response to release in the community .","Bail was again refused by the authorities on DATE in view of the risk of the applicant once again absconding .","On DATE the applicant made representations requesting that the decision to deport be reversed or , alternatively , that the representations be treated as a fresh asylum claim pursuant to the relevant immigration rules . In these representations the applicant claimed that she faced a real risk of treatment contrary to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention if she were deported to GPE due to her mental health status and the poor standard of treatment facilities in the destination country . Additionally , the applicant claimed that her family life with M would be irrevocably disrupted .","On DATE a judge in ORG made a care and placement order in respect of PERSON In concluding that the threshold criteria were met , he stated that :","\u201c I am satisfied the evidence supports a finding of likelihood , that is to say a real possibility , of harm to [ M ] , founded on [ S \u2019s ] grave injuries ; the previous court \u2019s findings in respect of those ; the mother \u2019s mental history ; her plea to a seriously abusive offence against [ S ] ; her absenting herself from the care and the criminal processes ; the social and practical vulnerability produced by the parties\u2019 lack of immigration status ; and their criminal offending , with its practical consequences for their availability to [ M ] . I am satisfied the matters I have outlined placed [ M ] , at the relevant time , at significant risk of physical and emotional harm . \u201d","Following the decision of ORG , on DATE Professor K prepared a further report . He noted that the applicant \u2019s mental state had deteriorated considerably since he last saw her as she was more depressed and more floridly psychotic . She was also experiencing sideeffects from the medication she was taking . DATE and DATE she had fought with another detainee , sustained injuries while being restrained , ingested washing powder , attempted to tie a ligature around her neck , stolen food from other detainees and smashed things in her room . Professor K considered that the deterioration in her mental health was largely due to her continued immigration detention . He expressed the opinion that the applicant would now benefit from hospital assessment and treatment and recommended her transfer under the provisions of section QUANTITY of the CARDINAL Act .","On DATE Professor K gave an opinion that the applicant was not fit to act as a litigant . He reiterated that she should be transferred to hospital under section CARDINAL LAW . However , a transfer to a mental health hospital required the agreement of CARDINAL clinicians responsible for a patient \u2019s care . The applicant was not transferred as there was no agreement about whether she fulfilled the relevant criteria .","On DATE the GPE authorities contacted the responsible clinicians to request another mental health assessment of the applicant . However , the clinicians indicated that a further assessment was unnecessary as she had had CARDINAL assessments already . The applicant was seen by the General Practitioner in ORG , who was satisfied that the medication being prescribed was best suited to her mental health situation and confirmed that there was no merit in arranging a further psychiatric assessment .","On DATE , following what ORG described as a \u201c lengthy delay \u201d the Secretary of ORG refused to treat the applicant \u2019s representations as a fresh claim for asylum . Further similar representations led to a further decision on DATE in which the Secretary of ORG maintained that the conditions for a fresh claim were not met .","On DATE the applicant lodged a judicial review claim challenging the lawfulness of her detention and the failure to transfer her to a mental hospital for compulsory treatment . She then added a further challenge to the refusal to treat her representations as a fresh claim for asylum . She was represented in these proceedings by ORG as she lacked capacity to conduct the litigation on her own behalf .","In or around DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG of a hospital after attempting suicide .","Around this time Professor K examined the applicant once more and produced a report dated DATE . He noted that her condition had deteriorated due to her continued detention ; she was more depressed , was describing mood - congruent auditory hallucinations , and continued to make multiple attempts to self - harm . He once again expressed the view that she should be transferred to hospital for compulsory treatment under LAW of LAW .","While the applicant was in hospital she was examined by a nurse . She assessed the applicant \u2019s risk of harming children as grade CARDINAL on a scale of CARDINAL to CARDINAL . She was also at a risk of suicide , deliberate self - harm and other offending behaviour at grade CARDINAL . This gave the applicant a summary risk to herself of CARDINAL and to others of CARDINAL . Although the nurse noted that the applicant \u2019s mood had improved since DATE , she still considered that she had ongoing and enduring mental health problems and that her needs could not adequately be met in PERSON \u2019s ORG .","The applicant was readmitted to ORG on DATE , following a further attempt to self - harm .","On DATE the applicant was assessed by Dr R , a consultant psychiatrist , PERSON , Acting Consultant for ORG , and Dr I of General Adult Psychiatry . They noted that she displayed a tendency to act impulsively and without consideration of the consequences . She also had a tendency to self - harm and exhibited behaviour which could be interpreted as suicidal . Furthermore , they considered her to be in an extremely stressful situation , given her detention and the ongoing care proceedings . In view of these considerations , they concluded that the applicant remained at very high risk due to her impulsivity and unpredictability . Although that risk could only be contained by constant supervision , this need could be met at PERSON \u2019s ORG Hospital admission would not provide management different to that .","The applicant was accordingly discharged back to PERSON \u2019s PERSON .","On DATE Professor K considered Dr R \u2019s report along with other materials . He agreed that the applicant was at high risk of suicide , but considered that this required not only constant supervision but also treatment of the underlying problem , which would be more appropriately managed therapeutically in a hospital setting . He further noted that other doctors had recommended psychological intervention in a secure in - patient setting .","NORP Throughout the applicant \u2019s detention , DATE detention reviews were carried out . During these reviews any change in circumstances was recorded , the likelihood of removal within a reasonable time was considered , and a proposal was made with regard to whether detention should be maintained .","Permission for the applicant \u2019s first judicial review challenge was granted on DATE and the hearing took place on CARDINAL and DATE .","On DATE the judicial review application was dismissed by a ORG judge , who found that while the Secretary of ORG had failed to take into account paragraph CARDINAL of her own policy , ORG and Guidance ( see paragraphs DATE below ) , when considering the justification for the applicant \u2019s detention DATE and DATE ( \u201c the first period of detention \u201d ) , that failure had not caused any damage since the decision to detain would have been the same even had the policy been correctly considered and applied . The judge therefore dismissed the claim for false imprisonment .","The judge found that the policy had been taken into account from CARDINAL DATE up to the date of the hearing on DATE ( \u201c the second period of detention \u201d ) . He therefore found that continuing detention was lawful during this second period . The judge also rejected submissions that the period of detention had become unreasonable and unlawful under the principles set out in R v. Governor of ORG , ex parte ORG PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL ( \u201c the ORG PERSON principles \u201d ) ( see paragraph DATE below ) . In this regard , he noted that , taking an analytical approach to each of the periods of detention following DATE , the applicant \u2019s detention was explicable by steps she had taken , or failed to take ( for example , cooperation in relation to emergency travel documents , and the conflicting advice in the hands of the authorities as to the effect of detention on her mental condition and the possibility of treating it while in detention ) . In relation to the applicant \u2019s own conduct , the judge noted that :","\u201c It is clear from the ORG PERSON principles that obstacles to the Claimant \u2019s removal caused by the Claimant \u2019s conduct do not count in the formula . The initial conduct of the Claimant was her commission of the offence on her son . Relevant to the decision to deport and to detain pending deportation were her conviction for absconding and her conviction for fraud . The Claimant \u2019s utilisation of the rights available under the legislation to challenge the Defendant \u2019s decisions allowed her to remain in the GPE . In a sense she is rightfully in GPE while these processes unwind . On the other hand , they are of her choosing since she could repatriate herself voluntarily to GPE . Put neutrally as the authorities do , without tendentious issues such as fault , it is her conduct which has caused her to be here . She appealed asylum and deportation decisions , engaged at some stages in the family proceedings and issued a purported fresh claim and judicial review . \u201d","With regard to the Secretary of ORG \u2019s refusal to accept the applicant \u2019s representations as a fresh claim , the judge found that the further representations were not \u201c significantly different \u201d from material that had already been considered . Further , and in any event , the judge found that there was no LAW issue within the meaning of ORG v. the GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG DATE and that any interference with the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW was justified under sub - paragraph CARDINAL .","The applicant appealed to ORG against the dismissal of her judicial review claim on CARDINAL DATE . Permission was granted in light of the recent judgment of DATE by ORG in R ( PERSON and PERSON ) v. Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ( \u201c GPE and Mighty \u201d ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , in which the application by the Secretary of ORG of a \u201c secret policy \u201d in respect of immigration detention was held to be unlawful in violation of public law principles .","On DATE the applicant applied for assisted return to GPE under LAW ( a scheme under which financial incentives are provided for a voluntary return by an individual to his or her country of nationality ) but the application was refused .","The applicant was served with a deportation order on DATE . Although she submitted further representations for a fresh asylum and human rights claim the immigration authorities refused to revoke the deportation order . The immigration authorities also declined to give her a further statutory appeal right in relation to that decision and removal directions were set for DATE . The applicant challenged this decision by way of judicial review and obtained an injunction preventing removal until this judicial review claim had been determined .","On DATE , shortly before ORG hearing , the applicant was released on bail by ORG .","At the court hearing , the Secretary of ORG conceded that following the decision of ORG in GPE and ORG the applicant \u2019s detention DATE and DATE had been unlawful on account of a failure to consider the guidance on detention of mentally ill persons in the published policy on immigration detention ( see paragraphs DATE below ) . As a result , on DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG judgment . However , as the Secretary of ORG had continued to detain the applicant after the relevant policy had been taken into account ( from DATE ) , the court was satisfied that she would have been detained during the earlier period even if the policy had been considered . Moreover , having assessed all the evidence in the case \u2013 in particular , the risk of the applicant reoffending , self - harming , or absconding \u2013Despite the concerns over her mental health , the balance of expert advice was that her needs could be managed appropriately in detention . It therefore concluded that not only would the applicant have been detained during this period , but that she could have been detained lawfully .","With regard to the ORG PERSON principles , the court did not consider that the period of detention had become unreasonable by the date of the hearing before the judge , either on account of its length or because it should have been apparent that it would not be possible to effect deportation within a reasonable period . On the contrary , the court considered that deportation within a reasonable period had remained a sufficient prospect at every stage . In this regard , it noted that there was no external barrier to removal and no case - specific problem such as the absence of travel documentation . The only intermittent delaying factor was the applicant \u2019s legal challenges but that did not oblige a finding that the prospects of removal were fanciful . Although it accepted that the Secretary of ORG could have responded sooner to the \u201c fresh claim \u201d representations , the \u201c lengthy delay \u201d only had a minor effect overall and did not constitute a failure to act with due diligence .","Finally , in relation to the Secretary of ORG \u2019s refusal to treat the new representations as a fresh claim , the court found that he had been entitled to reach the conclusion he did .","Consequently , the court awarded the applicant nominal damages of ORG in relation to the period which had been conceded to be unlawful . Permission to appeal was refused by ORG on DATE .","The applicant succeeded in quashing the decision not to give her a further statutory appeal right in relation to the decision to refuse to revoke the deportation order in light of the second set of representations for a further fresh claim ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This case is now being reconsidered by the authorities in light of all the current circumstances .","In the meantime , the applicant has brought further judicial review claims ( not related to the present application ) . She has also been litigating in ORG and is bringing a personal injury claim against the immigration authorities .","By DATE contact between the applicant and M had been limited to TIME every two months with a view to further reduction and the prospect of a goodbye meeting once the applicant was deported or M adopted . However , the local authority subsequently agreed not to proceed with adoption and instead opted for long - term fostering for PERSON The applicant had her first contact with M in DATE and the local authority have agreed to further contact DATE ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-181591","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF RADOMILJA AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Branko Lubarda;Egidijus K\u016bris;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Iulia Motoc;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants live in GPE ( application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) and PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) . Their names and dates of birth are set out in the Appendix .","The legislation of the former GPE , in particular LAW of the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , prohibited the acquisition of ownership of socially owned property by adverse possession ( dosjelost ) .","When incorporating the DATE LAW into the NORP legal system on DATE , ORG repealed the above - mentioned provision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","Subsequently , the new LAW of DATE , which entered into force on DATE , provided in section CARDINAL ) that the period prior to CARDINAL DATE was to be included in calculating the time - limit necessary for acquiring ownership by adverse possession of socially owned immovable property ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","Following several petitions for an abstract constitutional review ( prijedlog za ocjenu ustavnosti ) submitted by former owners of properties that had been appropriated under the socialist regime , on DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) accepted the initiative and decided to institute proceedings to review the constitutionality of section CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG invalidated with ex nunc effect section CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW . It held that the impugned provision had retroactive effect resulting in adverse consequences for the rights of third parties ( primarily those who , under the restitution legislation , were entitled to the restitution of property appropriated during the NORP regime ) and was therefore unconstitutional ( for the relevant part of ORG decision see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) . ORG decision came into effect on DATE when it was published in ORG .","On DATE the applicants brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) against ORG ( Grad Split DATE hereinafter \u201c the respondent authority \u201d ) seeking a declaration of their ownership of CARDINAL plots of land and registration in their names in the land register . They submitted that the property at issue , even though it had been recorded in the land register in the name of GPE as the legal predecessor of GPE , had been in their possession and the possession of their predecessors for DATE . Given that the statutory period for acquiring ownership by adverse possession had elapsed , the applicants claimed to have acquired ownership of the land . Their statement of claim ( tu\u017eba ) read as follows :","\u201c Plots of land nos . CARDINAL ( ... ) , CARDINAL ( ... ) , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( ... ) and DATE ... are registered in the name of GPE .","EVIDENCE : Extract from the land register .","However , the plaintiffs and their legal predecessors have been holding the above - mentioned immovable property in their possession for DATE , and thereby acquired the ownership of that immovable property .","EVIDENCE : Extract from the cadastre , testimony of the witness ORG , parties\u2019 testimonies and other evidence , if needed .","( a ) [ ... ]","( b ) Plot no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL belongs to the plaintiffs PERSON and PERSON in CARDINAL equal parts ;","( c ) Plot no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL belongs to the plaintiff PERSON in its entirety .","EVIDENCE : See above","For these reasons it is proposed that the court , after having conducted the proceedings , adopt the following","Judgment","It is [ hereby ] established that the plaintiffs are the owners and co - owners , respectively , of the [ following ] immovable property ... and therefore :","( a ) [ ... ]","( b ) Plot no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL PERSON and PERSON in CARDINAL equal parts ;","( c ) Plot no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL PERSON in its entirety","NORP The plaintiffs are , on the basis of this judgment , entitled to seek and obtain registration in their name of the right of ownership and co - ownership , respectively , of the immovable property listed in point CARDINAL of this judgment in the land register , as well as concurrent deletion of that right as registered to date in the name of the respondent authority \u2019s legal predecessor , GPE .","The respondent authority shall , if it opposes the action , reimburse the plaintiffs for the costs of these proceedings . \u201d","By a judgment of DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicants . It held that they had proved that they and their predecessors had had continuous and exclusive possession of the land in question since DATE and in good faith . Furthermore , it held that the statutory period for acquiring ownership by adverse possession at the relevant time had been DATE . Consequently , in the applicants\u2019 case that period had elapsed in DATE . The relevant part of that judgment reads :","\u201c In the statement of claim it is submitted ... that the plaintiffs and their predecessors had been in possession of the immovable property [ in question ] for DATE and that they had thereby acquired ownership of that property by adverse possession .","...","The plaintiffs base their claim on ... adverse possession . [ E]ven if they do not expressly state it , the facts alleged in their statement of claim suggest that they maintain that the requirements for acquiring ownership by adverse possession had been met before DATE . This means that it was necessary to establish whether the requirements prescribed by the ... laws and other regulations in force at the time were met .","...","In the opinion of this court , because of changed economic and social circumstances , the time - limits for acquiring title to property by adverse possession prescribed by ... laws and other regulations in force on DATE do not correspond to the principle of protection of legitimate interests of individuals , long - term possessors in good faith , or to the principle of legal certainty . [ The court ] therefore considers that DATE is required and sufficient to acquire ownership of immovable property by adverse possession . \u201d","In its appeal the respondent authority emphasised that the applicants could not have become the owners of the property in question because prior to CARDINAL DATE it had been prohibited to acquire ownership of socially owned property by adverse possession , and that the lifting of that prohibition had not had retroactive effect ( see paragraphs TIME above ) . In their reply the applicants responded that it was undisputed that they had been in exclusive possession of the property since DATE and thus for DATE even before DATE .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG PERSON ) reversed the first - instance judgment and dismissed the applicants\u2019 action . It held that ORG had established the facts correctly ( continuous and exclusive possession of the land in good faith since DATE ) but had erred in its application of the substantive law . It established , firstly , that the land in question had been in social ownership on CARDINAL DATE and that under the relevant legislation it had not been possible to acquire ownership of socially owned property by adverse possession before that date unless the statutory requirements for doing so had been met by DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL below ) . However , those requirements had not been met in the applicants\u2019 case . That was so because under LAW ( which was applicable in GPE from DATE until DATE , see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) immovable property owned by municipal authorities could be acquired by adverse possession only after DATE . However , having regard to the factual findings of the first - instance court , according to which the applicants and their predecessors had possessed the land at issue since DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that time - limit had not expired before DATE . The relevant part of that judgment reads :","\u201c In calculating the time - limit for acquiring by adverse possession immovable property socially owned on DATE , the period ... before DATE is not to be taken into account because before that date section CARDINAL of LAW expressly prohibited acquiring ownership of socially owned property by adverse possession . Even though [ that ] provision was repealed by CARDINAL of the LAW on the Incorporation of the Basic Ownership Relations Act , it is because of that prior express statutory prohibition that the time elapsed before that date can not be taken into account in calculating the time - limit necessary for acquiring ownership by adverse possession of immovable property socially owned on DATE , unless [ that ] time - limit had elapsed before DATE under the regulations in force at the time . \u201d","The applicants then , on DATE , lodged a constitutional complaint against the second - instance judgment alleging infringements of their constitutional rights to equality before the law , equality before the courts and fair procedure . In their constitutional complaint they stated , inter alia :","\u201c ... according to the findings in the contested judgment the plaintiffs ... have been in continuous exclusive possession from DATE until DATE in good faith . ... The case therefore concerns [ such ] possession in DATE before the bringing of the civil action .","... In the instant case the court did not apply the cited provisions even though the GPE predecessors had possessed [ the property in question ] since at least the beginning of DATE and their possession had been continuous until the bringing of the civil action and lasts until DATE .","...","If the view that the property in question was socially owned on DATE is to be accepted , even though in the land register it was not registered as such in accordance with the [ relevant regulations concerning registration of the property in the ORG and social ownership ] , then it was , in accordance with the cited statutory provisions , necessary to take into account the entire period of possession until the bringing of the civil action , except [ the period ] DATE and DATE . \u201d","NORP In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 constitutional complaint and on DATE it served its decision on their representative . The relevant part of that decision reads :","\u201c Only those facts on the existence of which depends the assessment of a violation of a constitutional right are relevant for ORG .","In the civil proceedings ... it was established that ... the complainants ... had been in continuous exclusive possession of the disputed property since DATE and in good faith .","...","In the reasoning of its judgment the second - instance court notes that the case concerns immovable property which was socially owned on CARDINAL DATE and that , in calculating the time - limit necessary for acquiring ownership by adverse possession of [ such ] property , the time which elapsed before that date can not be taken into account .","In the examination of the constitutional complaint ... one has to take note of the fact that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW was invalidated by ORG decision of [ CARDINAL DATE ] ... [ I]n that decision ORG held that possessing socially owned property in DATE can not be taken into account in calculating the time - limit for acquiring ownership by adverse possession . Given that the time - limit for acquiring ownership of property socially owned on DATE , did not run in the period DATE and DATE ( which view ORG expressed in the decision DATE of CARDINAL DATE ) , the court finds that the legal views expressed in the contested judgment of ORG are based on a constitutionally acceptable interpretation and application of the relevant substantive law . \u201d","On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively , the applicants bought CARDINAL plots of land from various individuals . However , the plots were recorded in the land register in the name of GPE as the legal predecessor of GPE .","On DATE the applicants brought a civil action in ORG against GPE , seeking a declaration of their ownership of the CARDINAL plots of land and registration in their names in the land register . They submitted that the property at issue , even though it had been recorded in the land register in the name of GPE as the legal predecessor of GPE , had been in the possession of their legal predecessors for DATE . Given that the statutory period for acquiring ownership by adverse possession had elapsed in respect of their legal predecessors , the applicants claimed that by buying the land from them they had validly acquired ownership . Their statement of claim read as follows :","\u201c The plaintiffs together , each in CARDINAL , bought from GPE and GPE ... the plots of land no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( ... ) ... from GPE ... the plot of land no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( ... ) , ... and from GPE ... the plot of land no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( ... ) ...","EVIDENCE : [ The CARDINAL sale and purchase agreements between the plaintiffs and the above mentioned individuals ]","The plaintiffs immediately , upon the conclusion of the above sale and purchase agreements entered into possession of all the immovable property listed above . They remained in possession of it until DATE . After the [ relevant tax authority ordered them to pay tax ] they paid it .","EVIDENCE : Tax payment receipt","Witness testimonies of GPE , GPE , and GPE ...","All the above - mentioned immovable property is registered in the land register in the name of the GPE even though the vendors in the enclosed [ sale purchase ] agreements and their legal predecessors have been in possession of that immovable property for DATE , which means that they acquired ownership of that immovable property by adverse possession .","EVIDENCE : Extract from the land register ;","Witness testimonies of GPE , GPE , and GPE , ... ; and","other evidence , if needed .","Given that the vendors were non - registered owners of the above - mentioned immovable property , they have by the sale purchase agreements transferred their right of ownership to the plaintiffs as buyers . [ In this way ] the plaintiffs , through their legal predecessors , acquired ownership of the plots nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( ... ) , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( ... ) and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ( ... ) ...","EVIDENCE : See above .","For these reasons it is proposed that the court adopt the following","Judgment","It is [ hereby ] established that the plaintiffs ORG and ORG are the co - owners , each in CARDINAL , of the plots nos . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , QUANTITY and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ...","NORP The respondent authority shall within DATE , on pain of enforcement , provide the plaintiffs with the document containing clausula intabulandi necessary to record the right of ownership in the land register and delete that right as registered to date in the name of the respondent authority \u2019s legal predecessor , GPE . Otherwise , this judgment shall replace [ such document ] .","The respondent authority shall , within DATE , on pain of enforcement , reimburse the plaintiffs for the costs of these proceedings . \u201d","In the response to the applicants\u2019 action the respondent authority submitted that the property in question had been in social ownership and that , having regard to ORG decision invalidating section CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the fact of possessing socially owned property before DATE could not be taken into account in calculating the time - limit for adverse possession . The applicants replied that ORG decision to which the respondent authority had referred was of no relevance for the resolution of the dispute .","In a judgment of DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicants . However , following an appeal lodged by the respondent authority , that judgment was quashed on DATE by ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) on procedural grounds .","In the resumed proceedings , by a judgment of DATE , ORG again ruled in favour of the applicants . It established , firstly , that the land in question had been in social ownership on CARDINAL DATE and that under the relevant legislation it had not been possible to acquire ownership of socially owned property by adverse possession before that date unless the statutory requirements for doing so had been met by DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . It found , however , that the applicants had proved that their predecessors had had continuous and exclusive possession of the CARDINAL plots of land in good faith for DATE before DATE , and had continued to do so until they had sold them to the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicants\u2019 predecessors had therefore , under LAW ( applicable in GPE from DATE until DATE , see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , acquired ownership of the land by adverse possession even before that date . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c In the response to the action the respondent denied the claim because the property in question had been [ in ] social ownership and because , pursuant to ORG decision invalidating section CARDINAL ) of the [ DATE LAW ] , possessing socially owned property in DATE can not be taken into account in calculating the time - limit for acquiring title to property by adverse possession .","...","Given that the action was brought in DATE , that in the land register the right of ownership is registered in the name of GPE , that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ DATE LAW ] was invalidated by ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE which means that the fact of possessing socially owned property in the period before DATE can not be taken into account in calculating the time necessary for adverse possession \u2013 ... the plaintiffs and their predecessors could not have acquired ownership before DATE unless they manage to prove that they had acquired [ it ] by adverse possession before DATE . The plaintiffs\u2019 action evidently relies precisely on that . Therefore , since [ for the court ] it is beyond dispute that the plot in question had been socially owned on CARDINAL DATE ... in order to determine whether it had been acquired by adverse possession it had to be established whether the GPE legal predecessors had been in possession of certain quality of the disputed property before DATE and thus for the period prescribed for adverse possession by the rules applicable at the time . \u201d","In their appeal the respondent authority emphasised that the applicants could not have become the owners of the property in question because prior to CARDINAL DATE it had been prohibited to acquire ownership of socially owned property by adverse possession unless the ownership had been acquired in that manner before DATE . The respondent authority claimed that the lifting of that prohibition had not had retroactive effect ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . In their reply the applicants retorted that it was undisputed that they had been in exclusive and continuous possession of the property in good faith for DATE and that they had in any event acquired ownership thereof by adverse possession , having possessed it for DATE before DATE .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) reversed the first - instance judgment and dismissed the applicants\u2019 action . It found that the applicants\u2019 predecessors had only been in possession of the land in question ( continuously and in good faith ) since DATE . The DATE time - limit for acquiring ownership by adverse possession set out in LAW had not therefore expired by DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the subsequent period DATE and DATE the relevant legislation had prohibited the acquisition of ownership of socially owned property by adverse possession ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . This had discontinued the running of the statutory time - limits . The time which had elapsed before DATE had therefore not continued to run after CARDINAL DATE \u2013 it had actually started to run again . The relevant part of that judgment reads :","\u201c In calculating the time - limit for acquiring by adverse possession immovable property socially owned on DATE , the period ... before DATE is not to be taken into account because before that date section CARDINAL of LAW expressly prohibited acquiring ownership of socially owned property by adverse possession . Even though [ that ] provision was repealed by LAW , it is because of that prior express statutory prohibition that the time which elapsed before that date can not be taken into account in calculating the time - limit necessary for acquiring ownership by adverse possession of immovable property socially owned on DATE , unless [ that ] time - limit had elapsed before DATE under the regulations in force at the time . \u201d","The applicants then , on DATE , lodged a constitutional complaint against the second - instance judgment , alleging violations of their constitutional rights to equality before the law , equality before the courts and fair procedure . In their constitutional complaint they , inter alia , stated :","\u201c Therefore , from the legal and factual situation where , as in the instant case , the plaintiffs have , themselves and through their predecessors , indisputably been in possession in good faith of the property in question for DATE , and viewing such situation in the light of NORP law in force , ... it follows that it is necessary to ... quash the contested judgment and remit the case ...","If the view that the property in question was socially owned on DATE is to be accepted , even though in the land register it was not registered as such in accordance with the [ relevant regulations concerning registration of the property in the ORG and social ownership ] , then it was , in accordance with the cited statutory provisions , necessary to take into account the entire period of possession until the bringing of the civil action , except [ the period ] DATE and DATE .","... by not taking into account the entire period of possession of the property at issue before the bringing of the civil action the court misapplied the substantive law and thereby violated constitutional rights relied on by the plaintiffs . \u201d","In a decision of DATE , ORG dismissed their constitutional complaint and on DATE it served its decision on their representative . The relevant part of that decision reads :","\u201c Only those facts on the existence of which depends the assessment of a violation of a constitutional right are relevant for ORG .","In the civil proceedings ... it was established that ... the complainants ... had been in continuous exclusive possession of the disputed property since DATE and in good faith .","...","In the reasoning of its judgment the second - instance court notes that the case concerns immovable property which was socially owned on CARDINAL DATE and that in calculating the time - limit necessary for acquiring ownership by adverse possession of [ such ] property the time which elapsed before that date can not be taken into account .","In the examination of the constitutional complaint ... ORG notes that section CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW was invalidated by ORG decision of [ CARDINAL DATE ] ... [ I]n that decision ORG held that possessing socially owned property in DATE could not be taken into account in calculating the time - limit for acquiring ownership by adverse possession . Given that the time - limit for acquiring ownership of property socially owned on DATE did not run in the period DATE and DATE ( which view ORG expressed in decision DATE of CARDINAL DATE ) , the court finds that the legal views expressed in the contested judgment of ORG are based on a constitutionally acceptable interpretation and application of the relevant substantive law . \u201d","In the proceedings before the ORG the applicants complained that the ORG judgments in their cases were in breach of their rights guaranteed by LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention and Article CARDINAL of the Convention .","The relevant part of the application forms in both cases reads as follows :"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-183361","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BATYRKHAIROV v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Kazakhstan);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5+5-5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention) (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)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE , GPE .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions , he left GPE in DATE and lived in GPE and GPE as a student until DATE . He did not wish to return to his country as a number of people had been detained on charges of religious extremism in GPE and some of his friends had left the country after coming under pressure from the GPE government because of their political and religious identity .","NORP In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE . The Government submitted that subsequent to his arrival in GPE , CARDINAL entry bans were issued against him on the grounds that he was suspected of having provided logistical support to foreign nationals who were engaged in international terrorism .","On an unspecified date the applicant was taken into police custody and thereafter transferred to the ORG Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre with a view to his removal to GPE . As the applicant applied for asylum while in detention , on DATE he was released pending the determination of his asylum application . On DATE he was notified that he should go and reside in GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged his asylum application again \u2013 this time with ORG . On DATE a police officer from ORG held a preliminary interview with the applicant . The applicant stated that he had learned that he was being sought for by the GPE authorities on terrorism charges and asked to be granted leave to stay in GPE . He submitted that his removal to GPE would expose him to a risk of death . According to a report dated DATE concerning the applicant \u2019s interview of CARDINAL DATE , the interpreter who was appointed by the police authorities noted that the applicant spoke NORP .","On DATE the applicant was notified that his asylum application had been rejected . According to the report of CARDINAL DATE , the police officer who had interviewed the applicant found that the latter had failed to submit any concrete evidence concerning his nationality , identity and the problems he had experienced in GPE . The officer , however , found it established that the applicant feared to be returned to his country and that it was known to the NORP authorities that he would be prosecuted if returned to GPE .","On DATE the applicant objected to the rejection of his asylum application . He once again submitted that he would be exposed to a real risk of death if he were to be removed to GPE .","According to the ORG \u2019s submissions , on DATE his objection was dismissed .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application to be allowed to leave GPE with ORG and informed the police that he had been offered a visa to enter and live in GPE .","On DATE the police authorised the applicant to leave the country .","According to a document dated DATE sent by the Deputy Director of ORG to a number of police authorities , during a meeting held on DATE the ambassador of GPE in GPE requested the NORP Interior Minister to extradite GPE nationals who had been involved in terrorist acts and in respect of whom GPE had issued wanted notices ( \u201c Red Notices \u201d ) via ORG . A formal extradition request in respect of such persons was submitted by the GPE embassy in GPE to ORG on DATE . According to the document prepared by the embassy , the applicant and CARDINAL other persons were members of the \u201c NORP Jihad Union \u201d , a terrorist organisation which carried out terrorist attacks in the western region of GPE . They had been detained by the NORP authorities upon receipt of a Red Notice via ORG by GPE . The embassy pointed out that subsequent to their asylum claims , CARDINAL of those persons , including the applicant , had been released from detention in GPE . The GPE authorities considered that these QUANTITY persons had been in the process of preparing a new terrorist attack in their country and that following their release QUANTITY of them had organised a terrorist attack in the GPE of GPE , in co - operation with another terrorist organisation , PERSON ( \u201c Soldiers of the Caliphate \u201d ) . The embassy accordingly requested the NORP authorities not to grant asylum to them and to extradite them to GPE .","On DATE , while he was waiting at GPE FAC to board a flight to GPE , the applicant was taken into police custody on the basis of the extradition request submitted to the NORP authorities by the GPE embassy .","On DATE the ORG department attached to the ORG informed ORG and a number of security departments that a Red Notice had been issued by GPE via ORG in respect of the applicant on the basis of terrorism - related offences .","On DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention within the context of the extradition proceedings for DATE . The applicant was then placed in detention in FAC , in GPE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG and challenged his detention . In his petition , he stated , inter alia , that a person who would be subjected to torture or other forms of ill - treatment in his country of origin should not be extradited to that country .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s petition challenging his detention .","On DATE the ORG rejected the extradition request submitted by the GPE authorities . During the hearing held on DATE the assize court did not find it necessary to appoint an interpreter for the applicant as he spoke NORP . According to the reasoning contained in the court \u2019s decision , in his defence submissions the applicant had contended that he had been wrongly accused of being a member of NORP or ORG and had asked the court not to extradite him to GPE . ORG held that the applicant could not be extradited to GPE because the charge against him in GPE fell within the scope of CARDINAL of the offence categories , precluding extradition , listed in LAW ( b ) of LAW , as in force at the material time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court also ordered the applicant \u2019s release from detention . The decision of CARDINAL DATE became final as no appeal was lodged against it .","On DATE the applicant was released from prison but was immediately transferred to the NORP Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre in GPE . According to a document dated DATE , the applicant was informed that he was being held pending the outcome of the deportation procedure conducted in this respect .","On DATE the Deputy Director of ORG ordered ORG to deport the applicant .","On DATE , while in detention , the applicant appointed his representatives to undertake the necessary legal and procedural actions on his behalf before the domestic authorities and the ORG by way of a issuing a power of attorney before a notary public .","According to the applicant \u2019s submissions , on DATE , when Mr Y\u0131lmaz , CARDINAL of his representatives , went to the ORG Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre to meet him , he was orally informed by officers at the centre that the applicant had been deported to GPE on DATE .","Upon a request by the applicant \u2019s lawyer , on CARDINAL DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant \u2019s lawyer informing him that the applicant had been deported to GPE on DATE .","In a letter dated DATE , PERSON submitted that the applicant had been remanded in custody and placed in Atyrau Prison upon his return to GPE . The lawyer stated that he did not have information as to whether the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment in GPE given that the applicant \u2019s family members had refrained from answering his questions regarding that matter during their telephone conversations with him .","DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained at the GPE Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre . The applicant claimed that the centre had been overcrowded at the time of his detention . He had not been allowed exercise outdoors or any other type of social activity throughout his detention . The applicant further alleged that there had been hygiene problems at the centre and that the quantity of the food provided had also been poor .","The Government submitted that the ORG Foreigners\u2019 Removal Centre , where the applicant had been held , had a capacity of CARDINAL persons and that a total of CARDINAL persons had been held during the period DATE and DATE . 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 the first floor , respectively measuring CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and QUANTITY m. On the second floor there were CARDINAL dormitories measuring CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL sq . m. There was a total of CARDINAL bunk beds in the CARDINAL rooms reserved for male detainees and all rooms received natural light . 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 if the physical conditions and the number of staff available allowed . 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 ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4","5-5"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-146047","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF HUSAYN (ABU ZUBAYDAH) v. POLAND","importance":2,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Violation of Article 13+5 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5 - Right to liberty and security);Violation of Article 13+8 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently detained in ORG at GPE FAC in GPE .","NORP The applicant \u2019s lawyers referred to what they called \u201c the unprecedented restrictions on communication between Mr PERSON , his counsel and the Court , which \u201c precluded the presentation of information or evidence directly from or in relation to the client \u201d . Only the applicant \u2019s GPE counsel with top - secret security clearance could meet with the applicant and all information obtained from him was presumptively classified , so that counsel could not disclose to other members of the legal team or to the ORG any information obtained from the applicant or other classified sources without approval by the detaining authority .","A request for release of an affidavit from PERSON had been pending before the GPE authorities for DATE but , as was routinely the case , this request would involve the need for litigation in a GPE court . In addition , if the document were released , it would likely be heavily redacted . Attempts to declassify drawings and writings by the applicant during his detention had been unsuccessful .","According to the applicant \u2019s lawyers , \u201c PERSON [ was ] a man deprived of his voice , barred from communicating with the outside world or with this Court and from presenting evidence in support of his case \u201d . For that reason , his case was presented by reference principally to publicly available documentation .","The facts of the case , as submitted on behalf of the applicant by his representatives , may be stated as follows .","On DATE agents of GPE and GPE seized the applicant from a house in GPE , GPE . In the course of the operation , he was shot several times in the groin , thigh and stomach , which resulted in very serious wounds . He was taken into the custody of the ORG .","At the time of his capture the applicant was considered one of the key ORG members and described by the NORP authorities as the \u201c third or fourth man \u201d in ORG , who had had a role in its every major terrorist operation , including the role of a planner of the attacks on DATE . It was also alleged that he had been PERSON senior lieutenant . As mentioned above , he was the first socalled \u201c high - value detainee \u201d ( \u201c the HVD \u201d ) detained by the ORG at the beginning of the \u201c war on terror \u201d launched by President PERSON after DATE attacks in GPE ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) .","The DATE ORG stated that the applicant \u2019s capture accelerated the development of the ORG . Paragraph CARDINAL of the Report read :","\u201c CARDINAL . [ REDACTED ] The capture of Senior ORG operative PERSON on DATE presented the ORG with the opportunity to obtain actionable intelligence on future threats to GPE from the most senior ORG member in GPE custody at that time . This accelerated ORG \u2019s development of an interrogation program [ REDACTED ] \u201d","Subsequently DATE for DATE from DATE on which he was seized in GPE until his transfer from the ORG \u2019s to ORG custody in DATE the applicant was held in incommunicado detention in secret detention facilities , the so - called \u201c black sites \u201d run by the ORG around the world .","After his arrest , the applicant was transferred to a secret ORG detention facility in GPE code - named \u201c Cat \u2019s Eye \u201d ( often written as CARDINAL word \u201c GPE \u201d in ORG documents ) , where he was interrogated by ORG agents and where a variety of EITs were tested on him . Mr PERSON was detained in the same facility as from DATE ( see paragraphs DATE below and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , judgment of DATE , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) . At this site , the interrogations of both applicants were videotaped .","The DATE CIA Report referred to the videotapes of interrogations as follows :","\u201c ORG had intense interest in keeping abreast of all aspects of PERSON interrogation [ REDACTED ] including compliance provided to the site relative to the use of EITs . Apart from this , however , and before the use of EITs , the interrogation teams [ REDACTED ] decided to videotape the interrogation sessions . CARDINAL initial purpose was to ensure a record of PERSON medical condition and treatment should he succumb to his wounds and questions arise about the medical care provided to him by ORG . ... There are CARDINAL videotapes , CARDINAL of which include ORG applications . ... \u201d","The DATE ORG , relying on the DATE ORG , also confirmed that the interrogation sessions were videotaped :","\u201c According to [ the DATE ORG report ] , the interrogation team decided at the outset to videotape PERSON sessions , primarily in order to document his medical condition . ORG OIG examined a total of CARDINAL videotapes , CARDINAL of which recorded the use of EITs . Those QUANTITY tapes included a total of CARDINAL waterboard applications , the majority of which lasted TIME . \u201d","It further added :","\u201c After the on - site interrogation team determined that PERSON had ceased resisting interrogation , they recommended that EITs be discontinued . However , ORG headquarters officials believed the subject was still withholding information [ REDACTED ] Senior ORG officials reportedly made the decision to resume the use of the waterboard [ REDACTED ] to assess the subject \u2019s compliance . After that session [ REDACTED ] agreed with the on - site interrogators that the subject was being truthful , and no further waterboard applications were administered . \u201d","NORP The DATE ORG and the DATE ORG confirmed that on DATE Mr LOC was brought to the same facility , that they both were subjected to EITs , and that they both were subsequently transferred to another ORG \u201c black site \u201d .","Paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE ORG read :","\u201c CARDINAL . [ REDACTED ] By DATE , the ORG had PERSON and another high - value detainee , PERSON , in custody [ REDACTED ] and ORG ( OMS ) provided medical care to detainees . \u201d","Paragraphs CARDINAL of the same report read :","\u201c CARDINAL . [ REDACTED ] psychologist \/ interrogators [ REDACTED ] led each interrogation of PERSON and PERSON where EITs were used . The psychologist \/ interrogators conferred with [ REDACTED ] team members before each interrogation session . Psychological evaluations were performed by [ REDACTED ] psychologists . ...","The Government , in their written observations filed on DATE , submitted that until the criminal investigation in GPE had been terminated they reserved their right to comment on and rectify the facts of the case as supplied to them when they had been given notice of the application .","They further added that they could not address in detail the ORG \u2019s questions concerning the violations of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Convention due to the fact that the criminal investigation was still pending .","As it could not be assumed that the applicant had been transferred to and from GPE and had legally or illegally been detained on its territory , no answer could be given at this stage to questions concerning his alleged treatment contrary to LAW , his incommunicado detention in a secret detention facility and deprivation of access to his family . Likewise , no answer could be given to the question concerning the involvement of the NORP authorities in the events complained of .","At the public hearing , the ORG said that they were not prepared to affirm or negate the facts submitted by Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON because they believed that those facts should first be established and evaluated by the NORP judicial system . They added that , in contrast to the case of ORG , in these cases the ORG was not confronted with CARDINAL different versions of facts or differences in accounts of facts . Accordingly , in their view , there was no need for the Court to take the role of a first - instance court and to establish the facts of the cases itself before the domestic proceedings had been completed .","As regards the documentary and oral evidence obtained by the ORG throughout the proceedings , the Government did not at any stage contest the admissibility , accuracy or credibility of the relevant materials and testimonies . Furthermore , at the hearing in camera held on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , during which the parties were asked to state their positions on the oral evidence taken and on whether the parties could rely on that evidence at the public hearing , they confirmed that they had no objection to the parties\u2019 referring at the public hearing to the testimony of the experts and the witness . In their assessment , this knowledge was already accessible , albeit via other channels , in the public domain .","At the public hearing , in relation to that testimony , the ORG drew the ORG \u2019s attention to the fact that both Senator PERSON and PERSON had carried out inquiries which were not judicial proceedings . Those inquiries , they said , were pre - procedural examinations instituted for the purpose of corroborating the participation of the NORP countries in the ORG . They had not dealt with individual cases . In terms of the standard of proof they were not comparable to criminal proceedings . In contrast , the investigation in GPE was being conducted in order to obtain evidence concerning all possible offences , to establish individual perpetrators and to determine whether it was possible to bring an indictment to the court .","The Government admitted that the findings of the relevant international inquiries were a source of information about the potential evidence and indicated the direction for subsequent actions to be taken by prosecutors . However , they did not constitute evidence in the strict sense of the word and relying on them would not be sufficient for a prosecutor to bring a charge or indictment against an individual in respect of a specific offence .","Lastly , the Government , responding to a question from ORG at the public hearing , concerning the injured - party status accorded to the applicant and Mr LOC by the investigating prosecutor , explained that for a procedural decision to identify an individual as an injured party in criminal proceedings CARDINAL elements had to be present . First , the subjective element , that is to say a person must have a sense of having suffered prejudice on account of the commission of an offence . The second , the objective element consisted in an indication that there existed a sufficient level of credibility that an offence had been committed to the detriment of that person in GPE . In the applicant \u2019s case the credibility was sufficiently high for him to be treated as a victim of an offence and the investigation continued in order to determine the extent to which he had been harmed and by whom .","The applicant , in his submissions concerning the facts of the case , the probative value of the evidence before the ORG , the burden of proof and the standard of proof as applicable in the present case and GPE \u2019s knowledge of the ORG stated , in particular , as follows .","On giving notice of the application to the respondent Government , the ORG asked the applicant \u2019s representatives to explain the discrepancy between the statements regarding the dates of his detention in DATE .","In particular , the ORG referred to the dates given in his application and those given in the applicant \u2019s own account of his detention as rendered in the verbatim record of the interview with him included in the DATE ORG . In the application , it was stated that he had had been detained in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs DATE above ) , whereas in the interview , he had recounted details of his ill - treatment \u201c regarding his detention in GPE where he [ had been ] held for DATE from DATE to DATE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant \u2019s representatives provided the following explanation .","The facts of the applicant \u2019s case were based on a wide range of publicly available documents , reports and investigations into the ORG that had come into the public domain only after he had been transferred from GPE on DATE .","Given that no information as to the places and periods of his detention had been given to him and that the range of abusive interrogation techniques had been inflicted on him , the applicant could not be expected to have known his precise location when he had been held in ORG custody . In fact , as demonstrated by the ORG declassified material , concerted and meticulous efforts had been made by the ORG to prevent High - Value Detainees from knowing their transfer destinations . On his transfers from CARDINAL ORG black site to another the applicant had been shackled and blindfolded , with ear muffs restricting his hearing and a hood placed over his head . At the black site , he had been subjected to detention conditions that had included \u201c white noise \/ loud sounds and interrogations aimed at creating \u201c a state of learned helplessness and dependence \u201d and designed to psychologically \u201c dislocate \u201d him .","As a result of his ill - treatment he was suffering from serious and debilitating physical and mental condition .","Taking all the circumstances into account the applicant could not have been expected at the time of making the statement to the ICRC to have been able to provide an accurate and detailed account of where he had been detained and for how long . Should any discrepancy arise concerning such details , the applicant \u2019s representatives asked the ORG to take into account the exceptional features of the case , in particular the difficulty in obtaining evidence from the applicant and the fact that this case presented extraordinary challenges for the victim . As stated in the application , the applicant \u2019s lawyers were not in a position to provide the ORG with further statements from the applicant . He was prevented from communicating with the outside world , including the ORG , and his GPE counsel were precluded from disclosing to the ORG any information that he conveyed to them .","The applicant maintained that numerous documents submitted to the ORG , including reports prepared by international organisations and oral evidence from the experts and the witness confirmed that he had been detained in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","There was no doubt that the ORG secret prison in GPE had been established deliberately . Senator PERSON , in his DATE Report , had highlighted the existence of bilateral agreements between ORG and the ORG , allowing this secret prison to operate . Senator PERSON , in his affidavit , had given evidence of an agreement drawn up for the purpose of regulating the existence of this prison and of documents that illustrated the \u201c provision of practical logistical support \u201d and \u201c servicing \u201d of the prison site by the NORP authorities .","At the public hearing , the applicant \u2019s representatives said that in the light of the documentary evidence and the PERSON testimony , it was now proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr PERSON had been transferred into GPE . It was also beyond any credible dispute that he had been imprisoned at a ORG secret prison in Stare Kiejkuty .","A letter from the NORP ORG to ORG confirmed that plane number NCARDINALMU landed in PERSON on DATE with CARDINAL passengers and CARDINAL crew and departed on DATE with no passengers . This account of the aircraft \u2019s arrival was verified by a handwritten log of landings and take - offs at FAC . The experts had explained how intense and multiple efforts had been made to disguise the true route of this flight . Information disclosed by ORG to Senator PERSON for his DATE Report showed that false flight plans had been filed for NCARDINALMU , omitting PERSON from the record of the plane \u2019s movements . Further evidence pointing to concerted attempts to cover up these flights was provided by Senator PERSON in his DATE Report , which noted that the filing of false flight plans had been done so that \u201c their actual movements would not be tracked or recorded \u2013 either \u2018 ORG or after the fact \u2013 by the supranational air safety agency ORG . The system of cover - up entailed several different steps involving both NORP and NORP collaborators \u201d .","The applicant thus submitted that , in the light of the entirety of this evidence , it was clear that he had been rendered out of GPE on the flight in question and taken to GPE .","As also demonstrated by evidence given by the experts and witness to the ORG , after DATE of secret detention in a ORG black site in GPE , on DATE PERSON was then transferred from GPE , on board NCARDINALP , a plane that had at this time been flying under official \u201c State \u201d status and was already known to the ORG from its role in the GPE case ( see ORG , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL )","In the applicant \u2019s view , this evidence taken together clearly established that he had been imprisoned on NORP territory . The evidence before the ORG was detailed , specific and consistent , and concerned the entire period of his detention in GPE , as well as the circumstances surrounding that period .","This evidence had been uncovered in the face of determined efforts by ORG agents and ORG organisations to stymie any attempt at getting to the truth of PERSON case .","In that context , the applicant also pointed out that GPE had never provided an explanation of the events as described in his application and further pleadings . Instead , it had relied on a secretive and stalled investigation to deflect attention away from its failure to cooperate in the ORG \u2019s examination of the case .","In the applicant \u2019s submission , the nature of abuse by the ORG in the context of the extraordinary rendition operations had been a matter of public knowledge in DATE . This had been documented by the applicant from both NORP and international sources disclosing widespread abuse of terrorist suspects in the custody of the GPE authorities at the material time .","Moreover , evidence before the ORG confirmed that numerous ORG agents and ORG authorities at all levels of ORG had been involved , in different ways , in the ORG secret prison system . As Senator PERSON stated at the fact - finding hearing , the NORP authorities had had full knowledge of the illegality of this operation and they had known that it had been in breach of LAW and that it had been clear that the NORP authorities had cooperated with the ORG .","According to the DATE ORG , the former President PERSON had been \u201c the foremost national authority on the High - Value Detainee programme \u201d . Indeed , President PERSON confirmed this in an interview in GPE where he had stated that \u201d of course , everything [ had taken ] place with my knowledge \u201d and that \u201c the decision to cooperate with the ORG [ had ] carried a risk that the NORP would use unacceptable methods \u201d . He also asked whether , if a ORG agent had brutally treated a prisoner in ORG , should the management of that hotel be charged for the actions of that agent ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This , in the applicant \u2019s view , provided a telling insight into ORG attitude to the ORG and demonstrated , at the highest level of the Government , involvement in the operation of the secret prison and knowledge of the illegal methods used by the ORG .","The ORG prison could not have operated on NORP territory without the support and assistance of ORG .","While the full form and extent of the involvement of the NORP authorities and agents was not known owing to the secrecy surrounding the ORG operations , it was clear that GPE through its acts and omissions had cooperated with the ORG and facilitated the applicant \u2019s secret detention and ill - treatment .","The level of cooperation was readily illustrated by the fact that GPE had entered into , as mentioned in the DATE ORG , \u201c operating agreements \u201d with the GPE authorities , specifying the use and maintenance of secret detention facilities whereby it had \u201c agreed to provide premises in which these facilities [ had been ] established , the highest degrees of physical security and secrecy , and steadfast guarantees of non - interference \u201d . As stated in that report , the operational agreements for different types of cooperation had been \u201c negotiated on the part of [ sic ] the President \u2019s office by ORG \u201d .","Accordingly , the assistance and support given by GPE included ensuring physical security to facilitate the ORG \u2019s detention and transfer of detainees under the ORG , assigning NORP intelligence agents to the ORG at the relevant time to provide open - ended assistance for their dealings in GPE , navigating ORG aircraft through NORP airspace without completed flight plans , clearing the GPE airport runway of other aircraft , providing vehicles and staff to allow the ORG rendition flights to land , including the planes transporting the applicant and securing the route from PERSON airport to Stare Kiejkuty \u2013 all this in order for the ORG to have their prisoners secretly detained .","AI \/ ICJ stressed that already on DATE , the GPE Vice President PERSON had said that , in response to the attacks of CARDINAL September , GPE intelligence agencies would operate on \u201c the dark side \u201d , and had agreed that GPE restrictions on working with \u201c those who [ had ] violated human rights \u201d would need to be lifted . AI warned in DATE that the GPE might exploit its existing rendition policy in the context of what it had been called the \u201c global war on terror \u201d , in order to circumvent human rights protections .","From DATE it had become clear that non - GPE nationals outside the GPE suspected of involvement in international terrorism had been at a real risk of secret transfer and arbitrary detention by GPE operatives .","In particular , from DATE through DATE , the GPE had transferred CARDINAL foreign nationals to FAC in LOC , GPE , with reports from the outset of ill - treatment during transfers , and detention without charge or trial or access to the courts , lawyers or relatives . By DATE , there had been CARDINAL detainees held there .","Cases of arbitrary detention and secret transfer had continued to emerge during DATE . In DATE , ORG had reported that , in addition to the case of PERSON , the GPE authorities had transferred CARDINAL of people to countries where they could be subjected to interrogation tactics , including torture .","In DATE ORG had reported on a secret ORG facility at GPE , GPE and the ORG \u2019s use of \u201c stress and duress \u201d techniques , including sleep deprivation , stress positions and hooding , and the use of renditions by the agency .","Thus , as early as DATE , any ORG had been or should have been aware that there had been substantial and credible information in the public domain that the GPE had engaged in practices of enforced disappearance , arbitrary detention , secret detainee transfers , torture and other forms of ill - treatment .","In its DATE reports covering DATE and DATE , ORG had made multiple references to human rights violations in the context of GPE counterterrorism operations , not only in the entries on the GPE , but also in respect of a number of other countries . Paper copies of these reports had been widely distributed , including to the media and governments .","By DATE ORG could reasonably have found credible the GPE \u2019s assurances that it had been committed to human rights and the rule of law in the counter - terrorism detention context , including the prohibition of torture and other ill - treatment .","The ORG notes that the Government did not take advantage of the opportunity to make comments on the facts as supplied by the applicant and that it was not their intention to contest them . It also notes that they did not challenge the admissibility , accuracy or credibility of documentary and oral and evidence obtained by the ORG throughout the proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","Consequently , the ORG will proceed on the basis of there being no contestation as such by the ORG as to the facts of the case as put forward by the applicant and no discernible dispute between the parties as to the facts of the case as related by the applicant and as to the evidence from various sources which was admitted by the ORG and summarised above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","With respect to the assessment of the facts and evidence gathered in the present case , the ORG would first wish to reiterate the relevant principles .","The ORG is sensitive to the subsidiary nature of its role and has consistently recognised that it must be cautious in taking on the role of a first - instance tribunal of fact , where this is not rendered unavoidable by the circumstances of a particular case ( see GPE , cited above , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALXIII ( extracts ) ; GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , PERSON , DATE and CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ; and ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","In assessing evidence , the ORG has adopted the standard of proof \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d . However , it has never been its purpose to borrow the approach of the national legal systems that use that standard . Its role is not to rule on criminal guilt or civil liability but on Contracting States\u2019 responsibility under the LAW . The specificity of its task under LAW to ensure the observance by GPE of their engagement to secure the fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention \u2013 conditions its approach to the issues of evidence and proof . In the proceedings before the ORG , there are no procedural barriers to the admissibility of evidence or pre - determined formulae for its assessment . It adopts the conclusions that are , in its view , supported by the free evaluation of all evidence , including such inferences as may flow from the facts and the parties\u2019 submissions .","According to the ORG \u2019s established case - law , proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong , clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact . Moreover , the level of persuasion necessary for reaching a particular conclusion and , in this connection , the distribution of the burden of proof , are intrinsically linked to the specificity of the facts , the nature of the allegation made and the Convention right at stake . ORG is also attentive to the seriousness that attaches to a ruling that a ORG has violated fundamental rights ( see , among other examples , GPE v. GPE , DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL ; PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ; ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ; and ORG , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","While it is for the applicant to make a prima facie case and adduce appropriate evidence , if the respondent Government in their response to his allegations fail to disclose crucial documents to enable the ORG to establish the facts or otherwise provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred , strong inferences can be drawn ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and GPE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR DATE , with further references ; PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . ORG , LAW , DATE ; and ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL , \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE )","Furthermore , the Convention proceedings do not in all cases lend themselves to a strict application of the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio . According to the ORG \u2019s case - law under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention , where the events in issue lie wholly , or in large part , within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities , for instance as in the case of persons under their control in custody , strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during that detention . The burden of proof in such a case may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-IV ; PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VII ; and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL ( extracts ) .","In the absence of such explanation the ORG can draw inferences which may be unfavourable for the respondent Government ( see PERSON , ibid . ) .","The ORG observes at the outset that , in contrast to many other previous cases before it involving complaints about torture , ill - treatment in custody or unlawful detention , in the present case it is deprived of the possibility of obtaining any form of direct account of the events complained of from the applicant ( for example , compare and contrast with PERSON , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ; ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG CARDINALV ; PERSON GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , ORG DATE ; and ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL ) .","As stated in the application , since DATE , when the applicant was captured by the ORG in GPE , he has continually been in the custody of the GPE authorities , initially in the hands of the ORG in undisclosed detention at various black sites and then , as confirmed by President PERSON on DATE , in the custody of GPE military authorities in ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","NORP The regime applied to High - Value Detainees in ORG custody such as the applicant is described in detail in the ORG documents and also , on the basis , inter alia , of the applicant \u2019s own account , in the DATE ORG . It \u201c included transfers of detainees to multiple locations , maintenance of the detainees in continuous solitary confinement and incommunicado detention throughout the entire period of their undisclosed detention \u201d . The transfers to unknown locations and unpredictable conditions of detention were specifically designed to deepen their sense of disorientation and isolation . The detainees were usually unaware of their exact location ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","It is submitted that since DATE the applicant had not had contact with persons from the outside world , save the ORG team in DATE and , following his transfer to the jurisdiction of military commission in FAC , his GPE counsel with top - secret security clearance . All his communication with his counsel has been presumptively classified . In fact , he is subjected to a practical ban on his contact with the outside world , apart from mail contact with his family ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The above circumstances have inevitably had an impact on the applicant \u2019s ability to plead his case before this ORG . Indeed , as his representatives maintained , in his application the events complained of were to a considerable extent reconstructed from threads of information gleaned from numerous public sources .","The difficulties involved in gathering and producing evidence in the present case caused by the restrictions on the applicant \u2019s communication with the outside world and the extreme secrecy surrounding the GPE rendition operations have been compounded by ORG failure to cooperate with ORG in its examination of the case .","In consequence , the ORG \u2019s establishment of the facts is to a great extent based on circumstantial evidence , including a large amount of evidence obtained through the international inquiries , considerably redacted documents released by the ORG , other public sources and evidence from the experts and the witness .","The ORG notes that the ORG official documents clearly confirm the date of the applicant \u2019s capture DATE \u2013 the event , which , as stated in the DATE CIA Report \u2013 \u201c accelerated ORG \u2019s development of an interrogation program \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Those documents also confirm that by DATE the ORG had the applicant and Mr PERSON , both referred to as \u201c High - Value Detainees \u201d , in its custody and that they were interrogated at a ORG black site with the use of the EITs and that their interrogations were videotaped . The applicant was first to have been detained and interrogated there , PERSON Al Nashiri was brought to that facility as a \u201c second prisoner \u201d on DATE . The interrogation of Mr LOC \u201c continued through DATE \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","Those documents also attest to the fact that as from DATE the applicant and Mr PERSON were held in the same detention facility , that they were interrogated by apparently the same team of \u201c psychologist \/ interrogators \u201d , that their interrogations were videotaped and that the series of Mr PERSON enhanced interrogations , including the so - called \u201c waterboarding \u201d , \u201c continued through DATE \u201d ( see also PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The ORG material further confirm \u2013 in the cables of CARDINAL and DATE \u2013 that this specific detention facility was closed following an inventory of the videotapes recording the enhanced interrogations of Mr GPE and Mr PERSON \u2019s . The inventory was carried out on DATE . No ORG cables from that location were sent to the ORG after DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . The DATE ORG states that , after the enhanced interrogations of Mr PERSON which , as noted above , continued at that black site until DATE , both he and Mr PERSON were moved to \u201c another ORG black site \u201d . The same fact is mentioned in the DATE ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Senator PERSON and Mr GPE , the experts who gave evidence to the ORG , in their presentation at the fact - finding hearing explained in detail the above sequence of events with reference to documentary evidence available in the public domain , in particular the material released by the ORG . They identified the ORG detention facility in which the applicant and PERSON Al Nashiri had been held during the period under consideration as the one known under the codename \u201c Cat \u2019s Eye \u201d or \u201c GPE \u201d and located in GPE . They conclusively confirmed that the closure of the site and interruption of Mr PERSON interrogation schedule on DATE indicated the date of his physical transfer by means of the HVD rendition out of the black site in GPE to another black site ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .","In the light of the above first - hand ORG documentary evidence and clear and convincing expert evidence , the ORG finds established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant , following his capture on DATE , was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE from an unknown date following his capture to DATE , that Mr Al GPE was also held in the same facility from DATE to DATE and that they were both moved together to \u201c another ORG black site \u201d on DATE ( see also PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 MONEY ) .","It is alleged that on DATE the applicant , together with Mr PERSON , had been transferred by the ORG under the ORG from GPE to GPE on a ORG contracted aircraft , registered as NCARDINALMU with ORG . The flight flew on DATE from GPE via GPE and landed at FAC on DATE . The applicant was then secretly detained in the NORP intelligence training base at FAC ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","It is further alleged that during his undisclosed detention in GPE the applicant was subjected to various forms of ill - treatment and abuse and deprived of any contact with his family . He was held in GPE until DATE . On that date he was transferred by means of extraordinary rendition from NORP territory , on a ORG CARDINAL registered as NCARDINALP , to other ORG secret detention facilities elsewhere ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG notes that the fact that after DATE the applicant and Mr PERSON were transferred together to the same detention facility is conclusively confirmed in paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE ORG . The paragraph states that the same \u201c interrogation team \u201d was \u201c to interrogate PERSON and debrief PERSON \u201d and that \u201c the interrogation team continued EITs on LOC for DATE in DATE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As regards the aircraft indicated by the applicant , the ORG observes that there is abundant evidence identifying them as rendition planes used by the ORG for the transportation of detainees under the ORG . That evidence includes data from multiple sources , such as flight plan messages by ORG and information provided by ORG and ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) , which was released and subsequently analysed in depth in the course of the international inquiries concerning the ORG secret detentions and renditions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","In the light of that accumulated evidence , there can be no doubt that :","( CARDINAL ) the aircraft NCARDINALMU , a Gulfstream jet with capacity for CARDINAL passengers , flew on DATE from GPE via GPE to GPE and landed there on DATE at CARDINAL . ORG official documents recorded that on arrival there were CARDINAL passengers and CARDINAL crew and that the plane departed from PERSON on DATE at CARDINAL:CARDINAL with no passengers and CARDINAL crew ;","( CARDINAL ) the aircraft NCARDINALP , a ORG CARDINAL , landed in PERSON en route from GPE , GPE on DATE . TIME of the arrival and landing were recorded by ORG as ORG and PERSON respectively . A hand - written log of take - offs and landings at FAC recorded that NCARDINALP arrived in PERSON on DATE at TIME ( local time ) and departed at TIME ( local time ) . ORG official documents recorded that on arrival there were no passengers and CARDINAL crew and on departure there were CARDINAL passengers and CARDINAL crew .","As regards transfers of High - Value Detainees between ORG black sites , the ORG declassified documents give , in meticulous detail , a first - hand account of the standard procedures applied to them . The transfer procedure is also related in the DATE ORG , which compiled consistent and explicit descriptions given by the CARDINAL High - Value Detainees , including the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","Nothing has been put before the ORG to the effect that upon and during his transfer to and from \u201c another black site \u201d on , respectively , DATE and DATE , the applicant could have been subjected to less harsh treatment than that defined in the strict and detailed rules applied by the ORG as a matter of routine . It accordingly finds it established beyond reasonable doubt ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that for the purposes of his transfers on CARDINAL DATE and DATE :","CARDINAL ) NORP the applicant was photographed both clothed and naked prior to and again after the transfer ;","CARDINAL ) NORP he underwent a rectal examination and was made to wear a diaper and dressed in a tracksuit ;","CARDINAL ) earphones were placed over his ears , through which loud music was sometimes played ;","CARDINAL ) NORP he was blindfolded with at least a cloth tied around the head and black goggles ;","CARDINAL ) he was shackled by his hands and feet , and was transported to the airport by road and loaded onto the plane ;","CARDINAL ) he was transported on the plane either in a reclined sitting position with his hands shackled in front of him or lying flat on the floor of the plane with his hands handcuffed behind his back ;","CARDINAL ) during the journey he was not allowed to go to the toilet and , if necessary , was obliged to urinate or defecate into the diaper .","In that regard , the ORG would also note that a strikingly similar account of his transfers in ORG custody was given by the applicant in GPE ( see PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","As regards the applicant \u2019s actual presence in GPE , the ORG takes due note of the fact that there is no direct evidence that it was the applicant who was transported on board the NCARDINALMU flight from GPE to PERSON on DATE or that he was then taken from PERSON elsewhere on board NCARDINALP on DATE .","The applicant , who for DATE on end was held in detention conditions specifically designed to isolate and disorientate a person by transfers to unknown locations , even if he had been enabled to testify before the ORG , would not be able to say where he was detained . Nor can it be reasonably expected that he will ever on his own be able to identify the places in which he was held . Also , having regard to the very nature and extreme secrecy of the ORG operations in the course of the \u201c war on terror \u201d and to how the declassification of crucial material demonstrating the ORG activities at that time currently stands \u2013 this being a matter of common knowledge \u2013 , no such direct evidence will soon be forthcoming in this regard .","No trace of the applicant can , or will , be found in any official records in GPE because his presence on the plane and on NORP territory was , by the very nature of the rendition operations , purposefully not to be recorded . As unequivocally confirmed by the expert , ORG records showing numbers of passengers and crew arriving and departing on the rendition planes in question \u201c neither include[d ] , nor purport[ed ] to include detainees who were brought into or out of NORP territory involuntarily , by means of clandestine ORG renditions \u201d and those detainees \u201c were never listed among the persons on board filed vis - \u00e0 - vis any official institution \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In view of the foregoing , in order to ascertain whether or not it can be concluded that the applicant was detained in GPE at the relevant time , the ORG has taken into account all the facts that have already been found established beyond reasonable doubt ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) and analysed other material in its possession , including , in particular , the expert evidence reconstructing the chronology of rendition and detention of the applicant and Mr PERSON in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","It has already been established that on DATE the applicant was transferred from the black site in GPE together with Mr LOC and that they were subsequently detained in the same ORG detention facility ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) The date of the transfer coincides exactly with the path followed by the NCARDINALMU , which took off from GPE on DATE and then , after the stopover in GPE , arrived in PERSON on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The flight was the subject of protracted and intense investigations by the experts who gave evidence to the ORG , who had investigated it \u201c in its most intricate detail from its planning and authorisation to its execution through multiple , different corporate shells \u201d . They found no alternative explanation for its landing in PERSON other than the transfer of the applicant and Mr Al GPE from GPE to \u201c another black site \u201d , which they categorically identified as the one codenamed \u201c Quartz \u201d and located at the NORP intelligence training base in Stare Kiejkuty near Szymany ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG notes that ORG have offered no explanation for the nature of , the reasons for , or the purposes of the landing of the NCARDINALMU on their territory on DATE , a plane which in all the relevant reliable and thorough international inquiries was conclusively identified as the rendition aircraft used for transportation of High - Value Detainees in ORG custody at the material time ( see CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","Nor have they explained the reasons for the subsequent series of landings of the ORG rendition aircraft ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The landing of NCARDINALMU on DATE was followed by CARDINAL further landings of the NCARDINALP ( the \u201c Guant\u00e1namo express \u201d ) , the most notorious ORG rendition plane . CARDINAL of those landings took place on DATE the date indicated by Mr PERSON as that of his transfer from GPE and conclusively confirmed by the experts as that on which he had been transferred out of GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The series ended with the landing of NCARDINALP on DATE the date indicated by the applicant for his transfer from GPE , confirmed by the experts as the date of his transfer out of GPE and identified by them as the date on which the black site \u201c Quartz \u201d in GPE had been closed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and also PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 MONEY ) . Indeed , no other ORG - associated aircraft appeared in PERSON after that date ( see paragraph PERSON above ) .","In view of the lack of any explanation by the Government as to how the events in the present case occurred and their refusal to disclose to the ORG documents necessary for its examination of the case ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the ORG will draw inferences from the evidence before it and from the Government \u2019s conduct .","Consequently , on the basis of unrebutted facts and in the light of all the relevant documentary material in its possession and the coherent , clear and categorical expert evidence explaining in detail the chronology of the events occurring in the applicant \u2019s case DATE and DATE , the ORG finds that the applicant \u2019s allegations to the effect that during that time he was detained in GPE are sufficiently convincing .","Lastly , as regards the applicant \u2019s treatment in ORG custody over the period under consideration , in contrast to Mr PERSON whose treatment in ORG custody in the relevant period is described at least partly in the ORG documents ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL ) , the unredacted sections of those documents give very sparse information about the applicant \u2019s situation . The DATE ORG merely states that in DATE the purpose of the interrogation team assigned to the black site in which the applicant was detained was to \u201c interrogate PERSON and debrief PERSON \u201c ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As confirmed by the experts , upon the point of his transfer to GPE , the applicant was described as having been compliant and was undergoing a process known as \u201c debriefing \u201d , which was interviewing for the provision of intelligence and information rather being subjected to the EITs of a more aggressive or harsh nature . In their view , it was not known what techniques were applied to the applicant in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The DATE ORG , with reference to the applicant \u2019s detention DATE and DATE , that is , during the period which partly overlaps with his detention in GPE , seems to confirm that the applicant at some point became \u201c compliant \u201d . It states that after the applicant was subjected to the waterboard \u201c CARDINAL times during DATE \u201d and during the period DATE use of the waterboard and DATE he \u201c provided information \u201d . In that respect , the document speaks of the applicant \u2019s \u201c increased production \u201d , which appears to have meant that the aims of the enhanced interrogation had been achieved , although the authors of the report expressed doubts as to whether his \u201c compliance \u201d should be attributed to the use of waterboard or the length of his \u2013 undisclosed \u2013 detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The DATE ORG also refers to the fact that at some point the use of the waterboard on the applicant was discontinued ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In the ORG \u2019s view , the above elements confirm that the use of this particular interrogation technique stopped but this left open the application of other EITs on the applicant throughout his undisclosed detention , including in the period DATE and DATE in GPE .","Furthermore , the ORG finds it inconceivable that during the applicant \u2019s detention in GPE any of the standard methods applied by the ORG to persons detained under the ORG as a matter of routine were lifted in respect of him on account of his \u201c compliance \u201d .","It is to be recalled that the applicant was the first High - Value Detainee for whom the EITs were specifically designed by the ORG and on whom they were tested before ever being applied to other captured terrorist suspects as from DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) . Having regard to the fact that the ORG \u201c legally sanctioned interrogation techniques \u201d encompassed a variety of measures , ranging from \u201c standard \u201d to \u201c enhanced \u201d and that the ORG applied to each and every detainee the same \u201c standard procedures and treatment \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , the ORG finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that the treatment to which the applicant was subjected in ORG custody in GPE must have included the elements defined in the ORG documents as those routinely used in respect of High - Value Detainees ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","Assessing all the above facts and evidence as a whole , the ORG finds it established beyond reasonable doubt that :","( CARDINAL ) on DATE the applicant , together with Mr PERSON arrived in PERSON on board the ORG rendition aircraft NCARDINALMU ;","( CARDINAL ) from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in the ORG detention facility in GPE identified as having the codename \u201c Quartz \u201d and located in Stare Kiejkuty ;","( CARDINAL ) during his detention in GPE under the ORG he was \u201c debriefed \u201d by the ORG interrogation team and subjected to the standard procedures and treatment routinely applied to High - Value Detainees in the ORG custody , as defined in the relevant ORG documents ;","( CARDINAL ) NORP on DATE the applicant was transferred by the ORG from GPE to another ORG secret detention facility elsewhere on board the rendition aircraft ORG","Several sources of evidence obtained by the ORG confirm that the NORP authorities followed a special procedure for the landing of ORG rendition flights in PERSON .","That procedure was related before the ORG by an eye - witness , a certain PERSON , who had been the manager of PERSON airport at the material time ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . On the basis of her detailed account and statements from other persons , including the former director of GPE airport and the former Chairman of ORG of that airport , the summary description of that procedure was included in ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Furthermore , the DATE ORG contained a compilation of testimonies obtained from confidential sources among PERSON airport employees , civil servants , security guards , and ORG and military intelligence officials , who had given an account of what had happened at the time immediately following the landing of the ORG - associated aircraft landed in PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The above - mentioned accounts of the special procedure , which are concordant and complementary , can be summarised as follows :","CARDINAL ) NORP all the landings were preceded by a telephone call to PERSON airport from ORG of ORG or a military intelligence official , informing the authorities of the airport of an arriving \u201c NORP aircraft \u201d ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the army was informed at the same time and CARDINAL military officials were on duty in the airport at that time ;","CARDINAL ) NORP prior to the landings CARDINAL high - ranking ORG officers always appeared in the airport ;","CARDINAL ) NORP orders were given directly by ORG , emphasising that the airport authorities should not approach the aircraft and that the military staff and services alone were to handle them ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the airport manager was instructed to adhere to strict protocols to prepare for the flights , including clearing the runways of all other aircraft and vehicles , and making sure that all NORP staff were brought in to the terminal building from the vicinity of the runway , including local security officials and airport employees ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the role of the airport personnel was only to complete the technical arrangements after the landing ;","CARDINAL ) the planes were treated as military planes and were not subjected to customs clearance ; the military character of the flight was determined by ORG and the relevant procedure was to be followed by the airport staff ;","CARDINAL) the perimeter and grounds of the airport were secured by military officers and ORG ;","CARDINAL ) the aircraft touched down in PERSON and taxied to a halt at the far end of the runway , QUANTITY ( and out of visible range ) from the QUANTITY terminal control tower ; it always parked with the doors facing towards the wood ;","CARDINAL ) the passengers never entered the airport ;","CARDINAL ) ORG approached the aircraft first and then drove away ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the \u201c landing team \u201d waited at the edge of the runway , in CARDINAL or CARDINAL vans with tinted windows , bearing the Stare Kiejkuty army unit \u2019s registration plates ; the vans , with their engines often running , were parked in close proximity to the aircraft ;","CARDINAL ) after ORG drove away , the vans with tinted windows drove up to the aircraft and then drove away ;","CARDINAL ) the planes left shortly afterwards ;","CARDINAL ) the landing fees were paid to the airport in cash by a LOC ( or a person who spoke NORP very well ) DATE and were considerably higher \u2013 several times more \u2013 than those normally applicable ( QUANTITY ) , including an amount for \u201c non - standard handling \u201d .","Several sources of evidence obtained by the ORG reveal that , in addition to granting the ORG rendition aircraft overflight permissions and navigating the planes through GPE \u2019s airspace , the NORP authorities , including ORG , accorded them special status , various exemptions and authorisations . They also cooperated with the ORG in disguising the aircraft \u2019s actual routes and validated incomplete or false flight plans which served to cover - up the ORG activities in GPE , in contravention of international aviation regulations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","As explained in the DATE ORG and by Senator PERSON and Mr GPE orally before the Court , Jeppesen , a usual provider of services for the ORG for rendition flights ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , filed multiple false \u2013 \u201c dummy \u201d \u2013 flight plans for those flights , including the landings in GPE . Those plans often featured an airport of departure and\/or destination that the aircraft never intended to visit . In CARDINAL out of CARDINAL instances of the ORG aircraft landings in PERSON , including the landing of NCARDINALMU on DATE with the applicant and Mr PERSON on board ( see CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , flight plans were disguised , false plans were filed and ORG navigated the aircraft into PERSON without a valid flight plan ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","A detailed analysis of the rendition circuit of the flight NCARDINALP \u2013 on which , as established in GPE , Mr PERSON was transferred out of GPE on DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above and PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 MONEY ) , is included in ORG . That report explains how the aircraft made the entire circuit under various forms of exemption and special status , which indicated that the flights were planned and executed with the full collaboration of the GPE authorities and the \u201c host \u201d States through which the NCARDINALP travelled . Such exemptions are only granted when specifically authorised by the national authority whose territory is being used ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE ORG navigated the NCARDINALP into GPE , despite the fact that all relevant flight plans named GPE as the airport of destination . The fact that ORG accepted ORG \u2019s flight plan naming GPE but navigated the plane to PERSON demonstrated that the NORP authorities did not require it to comply with international aviation regulations and that they knowingly issued a false landing permit . In consequence , the rest of the aviation monitoring community , including ORG , mistakenly recorded the aircraft \u2019s stopover in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","ORG also gave a detailed analysis of the rendition circuit of the flight PERSON DATE on which , as established above ( see paragraph CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) the applicant was taken out of GPE on DATE . While it does not appear that on this occasion ORG filed any \u201c dummy \u201d flight plans for the flight from GPE to GPE , it did , as in case of NCARDINALP \u2019s flight circuit in DATE , invoke a special status designation . As stated in that report , such \u201c special status exemptions in their invocation alone demonstrate a collaborative planning on the part of the states whose territory or airspace is being traversed , because they are only granted when specifically authorised by the national authority whose","Several sources of evidence before the ORG have suggested the existence of a special bilateral agreement between GPE and the GPE on the setting up and running of a secret prison in GPE .","NORP The DATE PERSON , based on evidence from confidential sources , states that the ORG brokered an \u201c operating agreement \u201d with GPE to hold its High - Value Detainees in a secret detention facility and that GPE agreed to \u201c provide the LOC in which [ that facility was ] established , the highest degrees of physical security and secrecy , and steadfast guarantees of non - interference \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL above ) .","In the context of the authorisation of GPE \u2019s role in the ORG rendition operations , the DATE Report mentioned a number of names of the NORP high - ranking officials , stating that they had known and authorised the country \u2019s role \u201c in the ORG operation of secret detention facilities for High - Value Detainees on NORP territory \u201d and that they \u201c could therefore be held accountable for these activities \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL , see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Senator PERSON confirmed those statements before the ORG and added that the operation had been organised within the framework of ORG . It had been decided that the ORG would be in sole charge of the operation and , if requested , the member countries would provide cooperation . As regards the specific names of NORP officials that had been given in the DATE ORG , he explained that they had been indicated \u201c because the sources that [ had ] provided us with these names [ had been ] of such value , they [ had been ] so authoritative and there [ had been ] so much concurring evidence of the involvement of those persons \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Mr GPE , when heard by the Court , said that whilst in the course of ORG they had not seen the classified documents in question , they had been made aware of the existence of authorising agreements , which granted extraordinary protections and permissions to the ORG in its execution of the rendition operations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Senator PERSON , both in his affidavit and oral testimony before the ORG , stated that he had been informed by an authoritative confidential source of a document DATE a draft prepared by the NORP intelligence DATE drawn up under the auspices of PERSON Government for the purpose of regulating the operation of the ORG prison in GPE . According to him , that document , which was currently in the NORP prosecution authority \u2019s possession , contained precise regulations concerning the functioning of the prison and , among other things , a proposed protocol for action in the event of a prisoner \u2019s death . The word \u201c detainees \u201d was used in the text . The draft had not been signed on behalf of the GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","The DATE EP Resolution \u201c note[d ] with concern \u201d that the NORP authorities\u2019 official reply of DATE to the to the Secretary General of ORG , \u201c indicate[d ] the existence of secret cooperation agreements initialled by the CARDINAL GPE secret services\u2019 themselves , which GPE ] the activities of foreign secret services from the jurisdiction of the NORP judicial bodies \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG does not find it necessary for its examination of the present case to establish whether such agreement or agreements existed and if so , in what format and what was specifically provided therein .","It considers that it is inconceivable that the rendition aircraft crossed NORP airspace , landed in and departed from a NORP airport and that the ORG occupied the LOC in FAC without some kind of pre - existing arrangement enabling the ORG operation in GPE to be first prepared and then executed .","The ORG considers that the respondent ORG \u2019s lack of cooperation in the course of the international inquiries into the ORG rendition operations in LOC undertaken in DATE is an element that is relevant for its assessment of GPE \u2019s alleged knowledge of , and complicity in , the ORG rendition operations .","To begin with , in their response dated DATE to the Secretary General of ORG questions in the procedure launched under LAW , the authorities \u201c fully denied \u201d the allegations of \u201c the alleged existence in GPE of secret detention centres and related over - flights ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; the relevant letter is also mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In that regard , they relied on the findings of \u201c ORG internal inquiry \u201d . It is not clear what kind of \u201c internal inquiry \u201d was carried out and whether the authorities in fact meant the ORG inquiry conducted in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) but , be that as it may , they could not have been unaware of the ORG operations in the country in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .","A similar obstructive attitude was displayed during ORG . In the DATE Marty Report it was noted that \u201c the NORP authorities ha[d ] been unable , despite repeated requests , to provide [ the rapporteur ] with information from their own national aviation records to confirm any ORG - connected flights into GPE \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The DATE ORG noted that \u201c in DATE of correspondence , GPE ha[d ] failed to furnish [ the ] inquiry with any data from its own records confirming ORG - connected flights into its airspace or airports \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Senator PERSON , at the fact - finding hearing , added that \u201c GPE [ had been ] no exception \u201d and that practically all governments that [ had ] had links with the secret detention centres or with \u2018 extraordinary rendition\u2019 not only [ had ] not ORG ] but [ had done ] everything that they could in order to stifle the truth , to create obstacles in the search for the truth \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The conduct adopted by the authorities in respect to ORG was no different . PERSON explicitly stated that the NORP authorities cooperation with the GPE delegation had been \u201c regrettably poor \u201d , that the delegation had not been able to meet any representatives of ORG and that the ORG had been \u201c reluctant to offer full cooperation ... and receive [ the ] delegation at an appropriate political level \u201d . It was also noted that there had been confusion about flight registers of ORG planes transiting through GPE and contradictory statements about the existence of flight logs ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The same observations were made in the DATE EP Resolution ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","In his testimony before the ORG , PERSON stated that ORG had \u201c cooperated very little \u201d with the ORG and that almost all representatives of the Government whom they had asked for a meeting had declined the ORG \u2019s request . He also confirmed that during his visit to GPE with the ORG delegation he had \u201c definitely \u201d had the impression that there had been attempts on the authorities\u2019 part to conceal information ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Having regard to the above facts , the ORG finds that in the course of the relevant international inquiries the NORP authorities displayed conduct that can be characterised as denial , lack of cooperation with the inquiry bodies and marked reluctance to disclose information of the ORG rendition activities in GPE .","Mr PERSON , in his oral testimony described in detail a document \u2013 the records or \u201c the debriefing \u201d of the informal transatlantic meeting of ORG and ORG foreign ministers with the GPE Secretary of ORG PERSON , which had taken place on DATE . The meeting was convened in connection with recent international media reports concerning the ORG secret detentions and rendition , naming NORP countries that had allegedly had ORG black sites on their territory . The debriefing , obtained by the ORG from a credible confidential source in the offices of ORG , confirmed that the member GPE had had knowledge of the ORG rendition programme and there had been an \u201c animated discussion \u201d on the practices applied by the ORG . While PERSON could not recall whether there had been any intervention by ORG at that meeting , he said that it had appeared from PERSON statement \u201c we all know about these techniques \u201d that there had been an attempt on the GPE \u2019s part to share \u201c the weight of accusations \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG further notes that PERSON also referred to the meeting held in the context of ORG with the former NORP head of the security service who , \u201c although ... with great diplomacy \u201d , had confirmed that the ORG officials often landed in PERSON and that the NORP intelligence and the ORG had had \u201c frequent relations of cooperation ... consisting in sharing certain practices and objectives \u201d ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","NORP Former President of GPE , PERSON , in his press interview given on DATE , also referred to the \u201c intelligence cooperation \u201d with the ORG and stated that \u201d the decision to cooperate with the ORG carried the risk that the NORP would use inadmissible methods \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Having regard to the procedure for High - Value Detainees\u2019 transfers under which , as established above , a detainee such as the applicant was blindfolded , wore black goggles and was shackled by his hands and feet for the duration of his transfer ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , the ORG considers that those of the NORP authorities who received the ORG personnel on the PERSON airport runway , put them on the vans and drove them to the black site could not be unaware that the persons brought there with them were the ORG prisoners .","In particular , the ORG finds it inconceivable they would not have seen or , as described by PERSON , \u201c witnessed ... the unloading of bound and shackled detainees from aircraft \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","There are also other elements that the ORG considers relevant for its assessment of GPE \u2019s knowledge of the nature and purposes of the ORG activities on its territory at the material time .","As recounted by Senator PERSON in his affidavit and subsequently confirmed in his oral testimony given to the ORG , \u201c in the period when the ORG prisoners were detained in Stare PERSON the authorities of the military base ordered from a NORP company a metal cage of the size fitting a grown man with the option of adding a portable chemical toilet ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . No explanations have been offered by the respondent Government as to what kind of purposes that cage was to serve .","Furthermore , there were , as pointed out by CARDINAL of the experts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , other aspects of the ORG activity in GPE that were extraordinary from the perspective of the normal operation of an airport like PERSON .","For instance , the landing of the ORG CARDINAL ( NCARDINALP on which the applicant was transferred from GPE ; see CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) on DATE at PERSON took place despite the fact that the airport did not have the necessary technical conditions for receiving such a large aircraft , in particular the facilities to refuel it , and the fact that the airport fire brigade was not adequately equipped for that purpose ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In the view of PERSON , the airport manager at the relevant time , \u201c there must have been some very pressing reasons \u201d for allowing that landing ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On another occasion in DATE , notwithstanding the severe weather conditions and the fact that snow had not been cleared at the airport for DATE , the airport management were not in a position to refuse the ORG aircraft \u2019s landing and had to clear the runway because \u201c if the aircraft concerned did not land , \u2018 heads would ORG \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","For the airport civilian staff , the landing of the ORG aircraft was a \u201c major event \u201d . Despite the fact that they were excluded from the handling of the aircraft and were taken to the airport terminal building during the ORG landings and departures ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , they perceived those events as \u201c spies \u201d coming or a \u201c changeover of intelligence staff \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","Lastly , the ORG attaches importance to the fact that already DATE and DATE ill - treatment and abuse to which captured terrorist suspects were subjected in GPE custody at different places , including LOC or GPE base in GPE was largely in the public domain through numerous statements or reports of international organisations ( see paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL above and LOC , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE above ) .","At the material time that topic was also present in the international and NORP media , which paid considerable attention to the situation of ORG prisoners in GPE custody ( see paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG has taken due note of the fact that knowledge of the ORG rendition and secret detention operations and the scale of abuse to which High - Value Detainees were subjected in ORG custody evolved over time ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL above ) . In particular , the ORG \u2019s various secret or top secret documents , including the DATE ORG , the ORG Background Paper and the DATE ORG DATE which , in the present case and in LOC , are among important items of documentary evidence relevant for the establishment of the facts relating to both applicants\u2019 rendition , secret detention and treatment by the GPE authorities DATE were disclosed to the public , in a heavily redacted form , as late as DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . The DATE ORG , including the applicant \u2019s account of the treatment and material conditions of detention to which he was subjected under the ORG , was leaked into the public domain in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The reports following ORG and ORG emerged earlier , in DATE ( see paragraphs QUANTITY and DATE ) , but this was DATE after the events complained of . As stated by Senator PERSON , even \u201c the picture provided by the DATE [ ORG is still very much a partial CARDINAL \u201d , having regard to the subsequent developments , such as the publication of the ORG materials and the availability of statements from detainees ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","As already stated above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the ORG has relied extensively on those sources of evidence in its retrospective reconstruction and establishment of the facts concerning the applicant \u2019s transfers to and from GPE and his secret detention and ill - treatment by the ORG in GPE . However , the NORP ORG \u2019s knowledge of and complicity in the HVD Programme must be established with reference to the elements that it knew or ought to have known at or closely around the relevant time , that is , DATE and DATE in respect of the applicant and DATE and DATE in respect of Mr Al GPE .","NORP In that regard , the ORG has taken into account the various attendant circumstances referred to above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . In the ORG \u2019s view , those elements taken as a whole demonstrate that at that time the NORP authorities knew that the ORG used its airport in PERSON and the Stare Kiejkuty military base for the purposes of detaining secretly terrorist suspects captured within the \u201c war on terror \u201d operation by the GPE authorities . It is inconceivable that the rendition aircraft could have crossed NORP airspace , landed in and departed from a NORP airport , or that the ORG occupied the LOC in FAC and transported detainees there , without the NORP State being informed of and involved in the preparation and execution of the ORG on its territory . It is also inconceivable that activities of that character and scale , possibly vital for the country \u2019s military and political interests , could have been undertaken on NORP territory without GPE \u2019s knowledge and without the necessary authorisation being given at the appropriate level of the ORG authorities .","The ORG would again refer to the testimony given by the experts who , in the course of their inquiries , had the benefit of contact with various , including confidential , sources . They all stated , in unambiguous terms , that at the relevant time GPE had had , or should have had , knowledge of the ORG rendition operations . GPE had ensured the security of the area and had collaborated in concealing the rendition flights . The NORP officials\u2019 liaison units must have been aware of the preparation or execution of particular operations and their timing . They had known that the ORG interrogations had contributed intelligence to GPE on terror ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .","This did not mean , in the experts\u2019 view , that the NORP authorities had known the details of what went on inside the black site , since the interrogations had been the exclusive responsibility of the ORG , or that they had witnessed treatment to which High - Value Detainees had been subjected in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . The ORG , being confronted with no evidence to the contrary , accepts the experts\u2019 above - mentioned assessment .","Notwithstanding the foregoing proviso as to the lack of direct knowledge of the treatment to which the applicant was subjected in GPE , as noted above , already DATE and DATE numerous public sources were consistently reporting ill - treatment and abuse to which captured terrorist suspects were subjected in GPE custody in different places . Moreover , in the DATE ORG adopted in DATE of which GPE , as any other ORG was aware DATE ORG of ORG was \u201c deeply concerned at the conditions of detention \u201d of captured \u201c unlawful combatants \u201d held in the custody of the GPE authorities . All these sources reported practices resorted to or tolerated by the GPE authorities that were manifestly contrary to the principles of the Convention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . Consequently , there were good reasons to believe that a person in GPE custody under the HVD Programme could be exposed to a serious risk of treatment contrary to those principles ( see also GPE , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","Taking into consideration all the material in its possession ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the ORG finds that there is abundant and coherent circumstantial evidence , which leads inevitably to the following conclusions :","( a ) that GPE knew of the nature and purposes of the ORG \u2019s activities on its territory at the material time and that , by enabling the ORG to use its airspace and the airport , by its complicity in disguising the movements of rendition aircraft and by its provision of logistics and services , including the special security arrangements , the special procedure for landings , the transportation of the ORG teams with detainees on land , and the securing of the Stare Kiejkuty base for the ORG \u2019s secret detention , GPE cooperated in the preparation and execution of the ORG rendition , secret detention and interrogation operations on its territory ;","( b ) that , given that knowledge and the emerging widespread public information about ill - treatment and abuse of detained terrorist suspects in the custody of the GPE authorities , GPE ought to have known that , by enabling the ORG to detain such persons on its territory , it was exposing them to a serious risk of treatment contrary to the Convention ( see also PERSON , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","Consequently , GPE was in a position where its responsibility for securing \u201c to everyone within [ its ] jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined .... in [ the ] Convention \u201d set forth in LAW was engaged in respect of the applicant at the material time ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","38","5","6","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","6-1","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145700","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF AXEL SPRINGER AG v. GERMANY (No. 2)","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["ORG The applicant company is a public limited company with its registered office in GPE . Among other activities , it is the publisher of the mass - circulation DATE newspaper ORG .","On TIME CARDINAL DATE , after his party ( ORG ( ORG ) ) had suffered a heavy election defeat in the Land of GPE , Federal Chancellor PERSON , who had been in power as head of ORG since DATE , announced that parliamentary elections would be brought forward to DATE from their scheduled date in DATE . Because the early elections could not be held until the GPE ( ORG ) had been dissolved \u2013 a process which could only take place by order of Federal President of GPE after a motion of confidence in the Federal Chancellor had been defeated \u2013 Chancellor PERSON called a vote of confidence on DATE and lost it , with CARDINAL of the CARDINAL members of parliament from the parties making up his government abstaining as requested by the Chancellor . On DATE Federal President PERSON dissolved the GPE . This means of securing the dissolution of ORG prompted discussions in public and among members of parliament , and was also the subject of appeals to ORG , which , by a majority , dismissed them and ruled that the disputed procedure was in conformity with LAW ( see in particular the decision of DATE , nos . CARDINAL BvE CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The elections were held on DATE . None of the main political parties emerged victorious with a sufficient majority , but the parties forming the outgoing PERSON government ( the ORG and the NORP ) lost their majority . Subsequently , the conservative parties ( the ORG and ORG ) and the ORG agreed to form a coalition headed by PERSON , the candidate for the ORG and ORG . On DATE Mr Schr\u00f6der left office and PERSON was elected as the new Federal Chancellor .","On DATE , at a ceremony to mark the start of work on the LOC gas pipeline ( \u201c NORP \u201d ) , it was announced that Mr PERSON had been appointed chairman of the supervisory board of the NORP - Russian consortium LOC ( Konsortium Nordeurop\u00e4ische Gaspipeline ) . The aim of the consortium , which had its registered office in GPE and was controlled by the NORP company ORG , was to build a gas pipeline to supply NORP gas to western LOC . The agreement on the principle of building the pipeline had been signed on DATE by the NORP company ORG and ORG in the presence of PERSON and the NORP President PERSON . The signing of the contract itself , initially scheduled for DATE at an energy summit in GPE , had taken place on DATE again in the presence of PERSON and Mr Putin \u2013 ten days before the early elections .","On DATE of the announcement , a member of ORG \u2019s editorial staff attempted to contact the deputy spokesperson for the government , PERSON ( who had continued to occupy this post under the new government ) , for information on the subject but received no reply . The following day he made a further attempt , which was likewise unsuccessful . Following a third request DATE , the deputy spokesperson informed the journalist that PERSON had nothing to add to his statement of DATE in which he had indicated his willingness to accept an offer from the consortium partners to take up a position on its supervisory board .","On DATE a ORG journalist called the vice - chairman of the parliamentary group of ORG ( ORG ) , PERSON .","NORP In a sworn statement of DATE the journalist affirmed that PERSON had wondered whether Chancellor PERSON had already spoken to the NORP about a lucrative position before calling the early elections in DATE . When asked by the journalist what he meant , Mr PERSON had replied : \u201c The early election gambit must now be seen in a new light \u201d . The journalist had then asked PERSON whether he meant that PERSON might have triggered the fresh elections on the basis of promises from GPE . Mr PERSON had replied : \u201c That \u2019s a question we need to ask \u201d . He had added that , from his own experience in politics , a matter involving such a major change in personal activity must have been settled well before DATE He had then asked CARDINAL further questions : \u201c Did PERSON want to resign because he had been offered lucrative positions ? Did he have personal motives in deciding to call early elections in a politically desperate situation ? \u201d","According to the statement , PERSON had agreed for his comments to be quoted . On DATE the journalist called Mr PERSON again and asked him whether , in the light of the warning ( ORG ) which Mr PERSON had issued to PERSON , he still stood by his comments ; Mr PERSON confirmed that he did .","In its edition of CARDINAL DATE PERSON published a front - page article with the headline : \u201c What does he really earn from the pipeline project ? PERSON must reveal his NORP salary . \u201d On page CARDINAL of the newspaper , under the headline \u201c NORP salary \u2013 will PERSON earn MONEY a year ? \u201d the article read as follows :","\u201c The ex - Chancellor and NORP gas : there is growing outrage among all political parties . For PERSON is to head the supervisory board of a business seeking to build a MONEY gas pipeline through LOC from GPE to GPE . While he was Chancellor , he pushed this project through despite considerable resistance .","ORG Prime Minister PERSON ( ORG ) called on PERSON to act , either by declining the chairmanship of the LOC consortium \u2019s supervisory board , or by revealing all his income from his NORP job !","PERSON told PERSON : \u2018 Through his behaviour PERSON has seriously damaged the reputation of politics in GPE . PERSON must decline the job of supervisory board chairman , because otherwise this may create the impression of being a reward for promoting the pipeline.\u2019","The politician added : \u2018 If PERSON nevertheless accepts his appointment to the supervisory board , he must disclose what he is getting paid . This is a requirement under the regulations on disclosure [ of income ] , which were toughened up by the PERSON government DATE . The fact that the pipeline company has its headquarters in GPE is no reason for the former Federal Chancellor not to abide by these rules.\u2019","Insiders reckon that PERSON is pocketing MONEY a year for his gas job . After all , the NORP are not stingy . For example , CARDINAL supervisory board members of the NORP company ORG , a ORG subsidiary , have received payments totalling MONEY .","The fact that PERSON is walking into the joint NORP - Russian venture so soon after leaving the Government has been met with incredulity across all political parties . CARDINAL particularly delicate matter is that on DATE the NORP energy giant ORG and the NORP [ company ] ORG signed a memorandum in GPE for the joint exploitation of a NORP gas field , in the presence of PERSON and NORP head of ORG PERSON . Following the signing , the CARDINAL government leaders stayed up late drinking red wine together .","Was PERSON \u2019s recruitment to the multinational gas company already being discussed at that time DATE before he called the early elections ?","The vice - chairman of the ORG parliamentary group , PERSON , said : \u2018 That \u2019s a question we need to ask!\u2019 PERSON has a monstrous suspicion : \u2018 Did PERSON want to resign because he had been offered lucrative positions ? Did he have personal motives in deciding to call early elections in a politically desperate situation?\u2019 The early election gambit should \u2018 now be seen in a new light\u2019 , he added .","PERSON , chairman of the ORG parliamentary group in the GPE , said : \u2018 You do n\u2019t make a deal like that TIME , and PERSON was still Chancellor DATE . He should now lay his cards on the table and say whether these agreements had already been reached while he was in office.\u2019","The vice - chairman of the ORG parliamentary group , PERSON , added : \u2018 PERSON should finally say what \u2019s going on ( was PERSON ist)!\u2019","The economic affairs spokesperson for the NORP parliamentary group , PERSON , said : \u2018 PERSON must now ensure maximum transparency and disclose his contract and remuneration.\u2019 \u201d","The article on page CARDINAL was accompanied by a photograph of Mr PERSON wearing a chapka on his head . Further down there was a short article stating that the NORP consortium was headed by a former major from ORG of the former GPE , who was a friend of PERSON .","Mr PERSON \u2019s appointment as chairman of the supervisory board gave rise to public debate and was reported in the media and discussed in ORG , in particular on DATE .","An article published in ORG ( no . CARDINAL ) on DATE stated that a journalist from the magazine had contacted the Schr\u00f6der government in DATE to find out whether indications from GPE that ORG was preparing a post for Mr PERSON were true . The government spokesperson had said that this was absurd and denied the existence of any such offer .","In DATE it emerged that in DATE , while government business was still being conducted on an interim basis by the outgoing government pending PERSON election as Chancellor , guarantees had been signed whereby the NORP government agreed to underwrite a loan of MONEY from CARDINAL NORP banks in favour of ORG and part of the pipeline . Mr PERSON indicated that he had had no knowledge of the signing of the guarantees and ORG stated that it had not made use of them .","On an unspecified date in DATE PERSON sought an injunction in ORG prohibiting any further publication of the following passage of the article :","\u201c PERSON has a monstrous suspicion : \u2018 Did PERSON want to resign because he had been offered lucrative positions ? Did he have personal motives in deciding to call early elections in a politically desperate situation?\u2019 \u201d","In a judgment of DATE ORG granted the injunction . It held in particular that the quotation in issue was neither a factual allegation nor a value judgment but mere speculation in the form of questions , the legality of which was a matter for assessment in the light of the principles established for reporting on suspicions ( GPE ) . According to these criteria , the courts had to assess whether the impugned report concerned a matter of public interest , whether there was a sufficient factual basis for the speculation , whether the newspaper had been sufficiently diligent in carrying out its research and in deciding to publish the report , and whether the nature of the report made it sufficiently clear that what was being reported was speculation and that the factual reality might be different . The regional court held that the publication of the passage in issue in the case before it did not satisfy these criteria in so far as the applicant company had not sought to obtain Mr PERSON \u2019s views on the matter beforehand and had not established a sufficient factual basis to justify publishing the passage in question .","In a judgment of DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . It held that the publication of the offending quotation breached LAW , in conjunction with LAW ( by analogy ) of LAW and the right to protection of personality rights ( Allgemeines Pers\u00f6nlichkeitsrecht \u2013 see \u201c Relevant domestic law and practice \u201d ) , because it suggested to readers of the newspaper that Chancellor PERSON had taken the decision to hold early parliamentary elections on the basis of private considerations motivated by self - interest . ORG found it unnecessary to determine whether the quotation in issue amounted to a genuine ( open ) question or a factual allegation in the form of a question , since the applicant company had conveyed a suspicion which could also have been formulated as a question . ORG had thus been correct in applying the criteria for reporting on suspicions .","The Court of Appeal observed that the report published by the applicant company did not merely reproduce what Mr PERSON had said , but the quotation had formed part of a significantly longer article intended to steer readers in a certain direction . It further pointed out that the article had begun by saying that Mr PERSON and the NORP President PERSON had met in DATE , and had then asked whether Chancellor PERSON \u2019s activities on behalf of ORG had been discussed on that occasion . In the court \u2019s view , this encouraged readers to believe that it was possible that an agreement had been reached for PERSON to take up a private - sector post and that he had used the election defeat in GPE as a pretext for triggering a series of events that would lead to his leaving office as Chancellor . It added that this line of thinking was borne out by the CARDINAL questions in the quotation in issue and the use of the phrases \u201c early election gambit \u201d and \u201c must now be seen in a new light \u201d .","The Court of Appeal observed that the principles for reporting on suspicions applied to the case before it , although the report in question had not contained any suspicion that Mr PERSON had committed a criminal offence . What was decisive in the court \u2019s view was that the applicant company had conveyed a suspicion entailing a serious and damaging accusation against the former Chancellor . The article had suggested that he had misled the general public and the electorate about the true reasons for his decision to call early elections and that he had prioritised his own financial interests over the common good , which he was required to serve as Federal Chancellor . ORG considered that this was one of the most serious accusations that could be levelled against a person who had formerly held one of the highest ORG offices . In its view , the quotation in issue confirmed the seriousness of the accusation by using the phrase \u201c monstrous suspicion \u201d .","ORG added that the applicant company had not had due regard to the principles established for reporting on suspicions . According to these principles , any such reports had to concern a matter of justifiable public interest , have a minimum factual basis , set out the facts objectively by indicating both the circumstances supporting the suspicion and those pleading in favour of the person under suspicion , be published , in principle , after obtaining comments about the accusations from the person concerned and be the result of research satisfying the requirements of journalistic rigour .","Applying those principles to the case before it , ORG noted firstly that the subject - matter of the report was in the public interest . It also accepted that there had been sufficient material to justify reporting on the suspicions in question . In that connection , it recapitulated the sequence of events forming the background to the article , namely that Mr PERSON had expressed support for the pipeline project throughout his time as Chancellor , that he had met President PERSON at the signing of the declaration of DATE by CARDINAL NORP and NORP private - sector firms , that he had decided to hold early elections at a time when his political party had been in difficulty following its election defeat in GPE , that he had triggered a process resulting in his relinquishing the office of Chancellor and that \u2013 according to ORG \u2013 it had emerged that between the date of the early elections and his DATE as Chancellor , PERSON had secured a very well - paid post in a consortium controlled by ORG .","ORG added that it was especially legitimate to ask how Mr Schr\u00f6der could have secured that post as the events in question belonged to an area of fundamental importance in shaping public opinion . It pointed out that the requirements for assessing the legitimacy of such a report should not be too stringent . Otherwise , there was a risk that the media would be limited to commenting on ORG conduct only where there was substantial evidence corroborating the suspicions raised . Such a restriction , however , was not acceptable in this sphere . ORG noted that anyone who attracted public attention , such as politicians , had to accept that the threshold beyond which their conduct could be investigated by the media was lower than that applicable to anyone not in the public domain .","ORG added that the impugned publication had lacked objectivity and balance . It pointed out that the version of events set out in a report should not amount to a prejudgment ( PERSON ) of the person concerned . This was not only the case where the report gave the impression that the person had in fact done what he or she was suspected of doing , but also when a report was intentionally biased and distorted the facts for sensationalist purposes , without regard to the circumstances militating in favour of the person concerned . In ORG view , this was what had happened in the case of the report in issue , since it had made no mention of any factors casting doubt on the accusations made but had referred solely to circumstances corroborating the suspicions , which to a certain extent were concentrated within the offending quotation .","In this connection the Court of Appeal observed that the report did not mention that the DATE election defeat in GPE had considerably weakened the authority of the government majority at federal level and could have constituted a valid reason for asking the electorate , by means of early elections , whether it still supported this majority . Likewise , the report did not mention anywhere that Chancellor PERSON had not adopted an attitude of resignation but rather had been active and combative throughout the election campaign . Lastly , ORG found that at the time of the article \u2019s publication there had been no information from anyone close to Mr Schr\u00f6der to suggest that he had based his decision to call early elections on grounds that were spurious ( sachfremd ) .","ORG added that the applicant company had no basis for arguing that these circumstances were so well known to readers that there was no need to reiterate them in the report , since the entire article had sought to suggest to readers that there were no circumstances casting doubt on the facts as presented . Similarly , the fact that the subject of the report was of considerable public interest could not exempt the applicant company from its duty to present a balanced account of the facts . On this point , ORG emphasised that the applicant company was not prevented from criticising PERSON . However , in view of the extremely serious accusation being made , it could have been expected to indicate that the facts had yet to be established .","ORG held , lastly , that the applicant company had not carried out sufficient research before publishing the article . It considered that irrespective of whether the politician quoted in the article should have been required to conduct his own research before raising his questions , the applicant company had had a duty to clarify the facts further before publicly reproducing those questions , which concerned extremely serious allegations . It pointed out that there had been sufficient connecting factors in this regard . For example , the applicant company could have contacted the consortium in GPE , Mr PERSON himself or one of his team to find out when the post for the former Chancellor had been planned or created , when he had discovered the existence of the post and when and by whom the post had been offered to him . ORG added that the fact that other media outlets had reported on similar suspicions could not release the applicant company from its duties . Moreover , the company had not asked PERSON for his views . In ORG opinion , irrespective of whether the views of the person concerned should always be sought when suspicions were being reported , the press had a duty in any event , in order to satisfy the requirements of journalistic rigour , to contact the person concerned when publishing speculation relating to that person \u2019s motives , provided that the person could be reached for comment . ORG concluded that this duty had been all the more compelling in the case before it , in view of the especially serious nature of the allegation being made .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused the applicant company leave to appeal on points of law , holding that the case did not raise a question of fundamental importance and was not necessary for the development of the law or to guarantee uniformity of the case - law .","On DATE a chamber of ORG decided not to accept for adjudication a constitutional appeal by the applicant company ( no . MONEY ) . It declined to give reasons for its decision ."],"violated_articles":["10"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175649","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF DVORETSKIY v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lived before his arrest in LOC . He is currently detained in the town of GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicant , while being on the wanted list after having breached his undertaking not to leave the place of his residence , was arrested on the charges of violent acts against a public official ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ) . On DATE the Severodvinsk Town Court of LOC authorised his detention .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to apply a non - custodial restraint measure to him . The applicant and his lawyer attended the hearing and made oral submissions . ORG dismissed the motion for release , having referred , in particular , to the applicant \u2019s criminal record , which included CARDINAL convictions for having mounted threats of violence against a judge , an offence under LAW , and for contempt of court , punishable under LAW . The applicant appealed .","In the meantime , on DATE the applicant was convicted as charged .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . With reference to its discretional powers under LAW the appeal court rejected the applicant \u2019s leave to appear , and held the hearing in his absence ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174976","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SMR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"SEVERINI v. SAN MARINO","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by Mr A. Campagna , a lawyer practising in PERSON .","On DATE the applicant ( a journalist who manages a website , S ) was heard under oath as a witness , without the assistance of a lawyer , by an investigating judge . The questioning was in connection with a series of allegedly defamatory articles published on the website about a journalist and a politician , who had complained to the police on DATE and DATE respectively .","On an unspecified date a certain PERSON was questioned by the investigating judge .","On DATE the investigating judge put the applicant \u2019s name on the list as a suspect and issued a \u201c judicial notice \u201d , informing him of the charges against him being investigated ( a step required by GPE law ) .","On DATE the applicant was again questioned by the investigating judge , this time as a person subject to investigation , and he therefore had the assistance of a lawyer . The investigation was concluded on DATE and a bill of indictment was filed against the applicant on charges of insult , defamation and libel in connection with the abovementioned articles .","According to the applicant , on an unspecified date before he became aware of the indictment , he had asked that he and his lawyer be allowed to reexamine C. The request was ignored since the bill of indictment had already been issued .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was found guilty of the charges . He was fined MONEY ( ORG ) and ordered to pay damages that had still to be quantified .","The applicant appealed on the merits and further argued that the investigating judge had purposely delayed putting his name on the list of suspects , which leads to the issuing of a judicial notice , in order to deny him his defence rights , contrary to LAW no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL . He noted that the judge had only filed the notice after C. \u2019s testimony ( which had then been repeated at the trial ) .","On appeal , by a judgment of DATE , the applicant was acquitted of the charges relating to the politician but found guilty of insulting and libelling the journalist . His fine was reduced to LAW .","In respect of his procedural complaints , the court of appeal considered that all the evidence had been adduced at trial and had thus been legitimate . It further noted that being put late on the list of suspects ( which is the basis for a judicial notice being issued within DATE ) and the collection of evidence in relation to an \u201c indagato sostanziale \u201d , against whom such a notice has not yet been filed , could not nullify the actions in question . Indeed , the decision as to when to issue such a notice was a matter of judicial discretion and at worst could only entail disciplinary proceedings against the judge concerned in cases of dolo or culpa grave . The court noted that in the case in question the applicant had repeated his statements in the presence of a lawyer and they had thus been totally legitimate .","NORP Moreover , there had been no infringement of the rights of the defence and the earlier questioning of the applicant had allowed him to become aware of the proceedings against the website he was managing . In any event , the court of appeal considered that the applicant had failed to specify which rights had been breached by the late filing of the judicial notice .","Law no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL concerning criminal procedural rules , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :","\u201c Except in the cases mentioned in LAW below , the investigating judge carries out all the investigating activity in general , as well as that related to the collection of evidence and particularly its acquisition ( formazione ) , while safeguarding the rights of the accused and the prerogatives of the Attorney General ( ORG ) as well as the rights of private parties as protected by criminal law .","The accused , assisted by a legal representative , and the Attorney General , have the right to present their defence by means of submissions and pleas . They may also examine and make copies of all the acts in the proceedings , including the report on the crime . The investigating judge must ensure that the parties can participate or be represented at each stage of the investigation proceedings . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) Within DATE of the crime report ... , save for the exceptions set out in LAW below , the investigating judge must personally inform the accused and the Attorney General of the legal and factual elements of the crime in respect of which proceedings are being carried out ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174540","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"PALFREEMAN v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Pavlina Panova;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison term in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , from ORG .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On TIME , who was serving in ORG at the time of the incident , was leaving a bar in GPE when he saw a group of CARDINAL young people in the street outside the bar . Some of them got into a brawl with CARDINAL GPE men . The applicant ran towards them , brandished a knife and started waving it at the group . During the ensuing fight he stabbed and killed CARDINAL of the young people in the assembled group , the CARDINAL-year - old son of a politician . He also seriously injured another young man . Shortly afterwards , QUANTITY police officers arrived and arrested the applicant .","The applicant was tried for murder . His defence was that he had attempted to protect the GPE men who had been attacked by the group of young people . He also claimed that he had used his knife in self - defence when the group had become violent towards him . The prosecution maintained that the applicant had run into the group in a determined way in order to administer justice . By the time he had intervened , the attack on the GPE had come to an end and he had not been acting in self - defence when he had stabbed CARDINAL members of the group .","The applicant was convicted of murder in DATE . The sentence was upheld on appeal and cassation . The applicant is currently serving a CARDINAL-year sentence in FAC . Both the case and the applicant have attracted significant public attention and extensive media coverage in GPE .","The applicant \u2019s close and extended family members \u2013 parents , siblings , grandparents , cousins , aunts and uncle \u2013 live in GPE ; he has no partner or children in GPE . Each journey between GPE and GPE for the CARDINAL-minute time slots allowed for visits involves substantial expense and absence from GPE for DATE . Because of such constraints , the applicant \u2019s parents have only managed to see him once DATE since he was imprisoned . Such visits have also become increasingly difficult for them with time . His grandparents are in DATE and so the journey to GPE has become almost impossible for them . A number of cousins and other close relatives , including an uncle and QUANTITY aunts to whom the applicant is very close , are unable to make the journey at all .","On the basis of the information in the case file , it is clear that the applicant has been receiving regular visits in prison DATE from family members , friends and acquaintances ; in particular , he was visited CARDINAL times DATE and DATE ; CARDINAL of those visits were from family members . Visits have been authorised when requested , including during periods falling outside the standard prison visiting schedule . According to a psychological assessment , made in DATE and submitted by the NORP authorities , the applicant is socially and emotionally balanced and mature , with realistic self - esteem , a preserved sense of humour and no signs of depressive tendencies , stress or anxiety . He is the chairperson of ORG and is fluent in the NORP language , both orally and in writing . He displays leadership potential and strives to dominate in the prison community in which he is well integrated ; he is popular among other inmates , both foreigners and NORP , whom he is known to frequently assist with the drafting of their requests and\/or complaints to the prison administration . He is housed in the wing for foreigners , assists foreign prisoners by interpreting between NORP and NORP when necessary , and has regular access to a computer room , for TIME a day , which makes it possible for him to pursue a distancelearning university course leading to a degree . The applicant actively corresponds in writing with family and friends .","On DATE , at the applicant \u2019s initiative , the NORP authorities contacted the NORP authorities about the possibility of transferring the applicant to GPE for him to continue to serve his sentence there . On DATE ORG replied in writing that the question of the applicant \u2019s transfer could only be considered once he had paid outstanding damages to the victims .","On DATE a representative of the NORP Attorney General wrote to ORG , formally seeking ORG agreement to transfer the applicant under ORG on ORG of DATE ( the \u201c LAW \u201d , see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The NORP authorities pointed out that the applicant met the eligibility conditions for the transfer of international prisoners and proposed a number of conditions in that respect . They included the following : that his transfer would not take place until his debts in GPE had been paid ; that the applicant would continue to serve his prison sentence in full in GPE and would become eligible for early release once he had served CARDINAL of it , this also being an option under NORP law ; that all reductions of the applicant \u2019s sentence confirmed by the NORP authorities would be reflected in the remaining sentence ; and that if the applicant benefitted from a conditional early release in GPE , he would be subject to parole conditions .","In a letter of DATE , sent via ORG , ORG informed the NORP Attorney General that the applicant \u2019s transfer had been refused . The letter emphasised that , having carefully considered the relevant provisions in LAW law , the prosecutor found that the conditions for transfer were not met . In particular , transfer was an option and not a mandatory consequence of a request made under LAW . The applicant still needed to serve over DATE of his CARDINAL-year sentence . Importantly , he had not shown remorse and had categorically been denying personal responsibility for the crime he had committed . In addition , he had expressed a negative and suspicious attitude towards the NORP justice system as a whole and had been demonstrating hostility and mistrust towards the orders issued by members of the prison administration . In view of the above and of the fact that he had only served a fraction of his sentence , the prosecutor found that the purpose of the punishment , including for the purposes of international law , namely to turn the convicted individual into a law - abiding citizen , had not been achieved .","NORP On DATE ORG announced publicly the refusal to allow the transfer of the applicant to serve the remainder of his sentence in GPE .","On an unspecified date the applicant appealed to ORG against the refusal to transfer him to GPE . In particular , he emphasised that the refusal was against the fundamental rationale behind LAW , which was to provide a possibility for GPE to cooperate towards achieving the purposes of justice and the social rehabilitation of convicted individuals . ORG declared the appeal inadmissible , finding that the Prosecutor \u2019s refusal to transfer the applicant was not an individual administrative act , given that the ORG was part of the judicial and not the executive branch of power .","The applicant appealed . In a final decision of DATE , ORG held that the refusal of ORG was not amenable to review by the administrative courts .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL regulates the transfer of individuals who have been sentenced . ORG is the competent national authority to decide on requests for the transfer of foreigners convicted by a NORP court to their country of nationality in order to serve their sentence . ORG agrees such transfers with the relevant competent body of the administering State , after agreement by the prisoner in question .","A new provision in LAW , LAW , in force since DATE , provides a possibility for an individual serving a sentence of imprisonment to personally request conditional early release under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW if he or she has served CARDINAL of the prison sentence .","The Transfer Convention provides for a formal mechanism by which prisoners can be transferred from CARDINAL to another contracting ORG . Both member GPE and non - member ORG can accede to this LAW , which entered into force on DATE in respect of GPE and on DATE in respect of GPE .","The Explanatory Report to LAW states in paragraph CARDINAL that the purpose of the Convention is :","\u201c to facilitate the transfer of foreign prisoners to their home countries . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides :","\u201c CARDINAL . The Parties undertake to afford each other the widest measure of co - operation in respect of the transfer of sentenced persons in accordance with the provisions of this Convention .","NORP A person sentenced in the territory of a ORG may be transferred to the territory of another ORG , in accordance with the provisions of this Convention , in order to serve the sentence imposed on him . To that end , he may express his interest to the sentencing ORG or to the administering ORG in being transferred under this Convention . \u201d","Article CARDINAL sets out various conditions which must be met in order for a person to be transferred . A sentenced person may be transferred only if he is a national of the administering State . Both the sentencing and the administering State must consent to the transfer .","Under LAW , any sentenced person to whom LAW may apply shall be informed by the sentencing State of the substance of this LAW and if she or he expressed an interest in being transferred under this LAW , the sentencing ORG shall so inform the administering ORG as soon as practicable after the judgment becomes final ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-147117","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NLD","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF JEUNESSE v. THE NETHERLANDS","importance":2,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;Ann Power-Forde;Corneliu B\u00eersan;Dean Spielmann;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Mark Villiger;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is living in GPE .","In DATE the applicant met and started a relationship with Mr PERSON , who \u2013 like the applicant \u2013 was born and had always lived in GPE . Both of them had acquired NORP nationality in DATE when GPE gained its independence ( LAW between GPE and GPE concerning the assignment of nationality ( ORG inzake nationaliteiten tussen het FAC ) , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In DATE , the applicant and Mr PERSON started to cohabit in the house of the latter \u2019s paternal grandfather in GPE .","On DATE , Mr W. travelled from GPE to the GPE , holding a GPE visa for the purpose of stay with his father in the GPE . In DATE , Mr PERSON was granted GPE nationality which entailed the renunciation of his NORP nationality .","Mr PERSON has CARDINAL sister , CARDINAL brothers and CARDINAL - brother who are living in the GPE . CARDINAL half - brothers and CARDINAL - sister are living in GPE . The applicant has one brother , PERSON , who was expelled from the GPE to GPE in DATE . The applicant has also CARDINAL - brother and CARDINAL - sister who are living in the GPE . She has another CARDINAL - sister who is living in GPE .","DATE , the applicant filed CARDINAL unsuccessful requests for a GPE visa for the purpose of visiting a relative . These requests were rejected because her sponsor ( referent ) was insufficiently solvent , had failed to sign the required affidavit of support ( garantverklaring ) or had failed to supply sufficient information required for the assessment of the visa request . The applicant did not challenge any of these rejections in administrative appeal proceedings .","On DATE the applicant filed a sixth visa request for the purpose of visiting a relative . After this request had been granted on DATE , the applicant entered the GPE on DATE and did not return to GPE when her visa expired DATE . To date , she has been staying in the GPE . She lived in GPE until DATE , when she moved to GPE . Since DATE she has been living at the same address in GPE .","On DATE , the applicant applied for a residence permit . According to the applicant , she had done so for the purpose of taking up residence with her GPE - national partner Mr PERSON According to the Government , the applicant \u2019s stated aim had been to take up \u201c paid employment \u201d . On DATE , the Deputy Minister of Justice ( ORG ) decided not to process the application ( buiten behandeling stellen ) as the applicant had on CARDINAL occasions failed to appear in person before the immigration authorities for the purpose of giving further information about her application . When , on DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer had requested a new appointment on the ground that she would be unable to attend the interview scheduled for DATE , she was informed by the immigration authorities that \u2013 despite her lawyer \u2019s absence \u2013 the applicant should appear in person . The applicant did not appear on DATE . The Deputy Minister \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE was notified to the applicant on DATE and she was ordered to leave the GPE within DATE .","The applicant filed an objection ( bezwaar ) against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . As this objection was denied suspensive effect , she applied for a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) in the form of a court injunction preventing her expulsion pending the determination of her objection . This application was rejected on DATE by the Acting President of ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE sitting in GPE . The applicant \u2019s objection against the decision of CARDINAL DATE was rejected by the Deputy Minister on DATE . The applicant \u2019s appeal against this decision to ORG of The Hague and her accompanying application for a provisional measure were rejected on DATE by ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE . No further appeal lay against this ruling .","In the meantime , the applicant had married Mr PERSON on DATE and , in DATE , a son was born of this marriage . Under the GPE nationality rules , the applicant \u2019s child is a GPE national . Since the child was unwell , he required lengthy treatment in hospital . He is currently attending secondary school and has no health problems .","On DATE , the applicant applied unsuccessfully for a residence permit on the basis of the so - called DATE policy ( driejarenbeleid ) or for compelling reasons of a humanitarian nature . Under this DATE policy a residence permit could be granted if a request for such a permit had not been determined within DATE for reasons not imputable to the petitioner and provided that there were no contra - indications such as , for instance , a criminal record . In the course of the proceedings on this request , the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE granted the applicant \u2019s request for a provisional measure ( injunction on removal ) on DATE . The final decision was given on DATE by ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE .","On DATE , a second child was born of the applicant \u2019s marriage . This child also holds GPE nationality .","On DATE , the applicant filed a request for a residence permit for the purpose of stay with her children in the GPE . This request was rejected because the applicant did not hold the required provisional residence visa ( machtiging tot voorlopig verblijf ) . Such a visa has to be applied for at a GPE mission in the petitioner \u2019s country of origin and it is a prerequisite for the grant of a residence permit ( verblijfsvergunning ) which confers more permanent residence rights . The applicant was not exempted from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa . She challenged this decision unsuccessfully in administrative appeal proceedings in which the final decision was taken by ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE on DATE .","On DATE , the applicant requested the Deputy Minister of Justice to reconsider ( heroverwegen ) the negative decision on her last request . On DATE , the applicant filed a complaint with the Deputy Minister on account of the latter \u2019s failure to reply to her request for reconsideration . By letter of CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy Minister informed the applicant that although her complaint concerning delay was well - founded there was no reason for a reconsideration of the decision .","On DATE , the applicant applied for a grant of a residence permit at the discretion of the Deputy Minister ( conform beschikking staatssecretaris ) based on grounds of special and individual circumstances ( vanwege bijzondere en individuele omstandigheden ) .","On DATE , the Deputy Minister of ORG rejected this application . The applicant filed an objection with the Deputy Minister against this decision as well as an application to ORG of GPE for a provisional measure ( injunction on removal pending the objection proceedings ) . On DATE , having noted that this request was not opposed by the Deputy Minister , ORG of GPE granted the provisional measure . On DATE , after a hearing on the applicant \u2019s objection held on DATE , the Deputy Minister rejected the applicant \u2019s objection .","The applicant \u2019s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE to ORG of The Hague and her accompanying application for a provisional measure in the form of an injunction on her removal pending the determination of her appeal were rejected on DATE by the provisional - measures judge of ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE . In its relevant part , this ruling reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL It is not in dispute that the appellant does not hold a valid provisional residence visa and that she is not eligible for an exemption from the requirement to hold such a visa under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) or section QUANTITY of LAW ( Vreemdelingenbesluit DATE ) . It is only in dispute whether reason dictates that the defendant should exempt the appellant from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa on the basis of section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW [ for reasons of exceptional hardship ( onbillijkheid van overwegende ORG ) ] .","CARDINAL NORP ORG finds that the defendant could reasonably conclude that in the present case there are no special and individual circumstances on the basis of which insistence on compliance with the visa requirement would entail exceptional hardship . ...","CARDINAL NORP The appellant \u2019s reliance on LAW fails . There is family life between the appellant and her husband and her minor children , but the defendant \u2019s refusal to exempt her from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa does not constitute an interference with the right to respect for family life as the defendant \u2019s decision did not deprive her of a residence permit enabling her to enjoy her family life in the GPE .","CARDINAL It does not appear that there is a positive obligation for GPE under LAW to exempt the applicant , contrary to the policy pursued in this area , from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa . It is of importance at the outset that there has been no appearance of any objective obstacle to the enjoyment of family life outside the GPE . Taking into account the young age of the appellant \u2019s children , it can also reasonably be expected that they would follow the appellant to GPE for the duration of the proceedings relating to the provisional residence visa . This is not altered by the fact that both children are GPE nationals . The fact that the appellant \u2019s husband is currently being detained gives no cause for finding that ... there is an objective obstacle .","CARDINAL The appellant has cited the judgments of ORG in the cases of PERSON [ and PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALI ] , PERSON [ v. the GPE ( striking out ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ] and PERSON [ v. the GPE ( striking out ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ] . This can not succeed , for the following reasons . The case of PERSON did not concern a temporary separation in connection with maintaining the requirement to hold a provisional residence visa , so the case can not be said to be comparable . In the cases of PERSON and PERSON ORG found that the reasons for lodging the complaints had been removed , because a residence permit had been granted to the complainants in those cases . For that reason , their complaints were not considered further . ORG fails to see in what manner ORG findings in those CARDINAL cases could be of relevance to the appellant \u2019s case .","CARDINAL The appellant has further invoked LAW . In so far as the provisions invoked entail a directly applicable norm , they have no further implications beyond the fact that in proceedings such as those at hand , the interests of the children concerned must be taken into account . In the decision of CARDINAL DATE , the situation of the appellant \u2019s CARDINAL minor children was explicitly taken into account in the assessment . As the provisions invoked do not contain a norm as regards the weight that must be given in a concrete case to the interests of a child , there is no ground for finding that those provisions have been violated .","CARDINAL NORP ORG will declare the appeal unfounded . \u201d","On DATE , upon his return to the GPE from a trip to GPE for the funeral of his foster mother , the applicant \u2019s husband had been found to have swallowed cocaine pellets . He was placed in pre - trial detention . On DATE , a single - judge chamber ( politierechter ) of ORG convicted him of offences under LAW ( PERSON ) and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . On the basis of this conviction , ORG ( ORG ) included his name on a blacklist provided to airline companies operating direct flights between the GPE and GPE , the former GPE , GPE and GPE . His name was to remain on the list for DATE , the aim being to prevent him from reoffending . On DATE , after having served his sentence , the applicant \u2019s husband was released from prison . His name was removed from the airline blacklist on CARDINAL DATE .","The applicant \u2019s appeal of DATE to ORG of ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak PERSON ) against the judgment of DATE of the provisional - measures judge of ORG of The Hague was dismissed on DATE . ORG found that the appeal did not provide grounds for quashing the impugned ruling ( kan niet tot vernietiging PERSON aangevallen uitspraak leiden ) . Having regard to section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , no further reasoning was called for as the arguments submitted did not raise any questions requiring a determination in the interest of legal unity , legal development or legal protection in the general sense . No further appeal lay against this decision .","In the meantime , the applicant filed a fifth request on DATE for a residence permit with the Minister of ORG ( Minister PERSON ) for the purpose of stay with a child , arguing that she should be exempted from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa on grounds of special and individual circumstances .","This request was rejected on CARDINAL DATE by the Minister , who held that there was no reason to exempt the applicant from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa and that the refusal of a residence permit was not contrary to LAW . While accepting that there was family life within the meaning of LAW between the applicant , her husband and their children , the Minister found that there was no interference with the right to respect for family life as the refusal to grant the applicant \u2019s request for exemption did not deprive her of a residence permit which enabled her to exercise her family life in the GPE .","As to the question whether the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW entailed a positive obligation for the GPE to grant her a residence permit , the Minister found that the interests of GPE in pursuing a restrictive immigration policy outweighed the applicant \u2019s personal interest in exercising her right to family life in the GPE . In balancing these competing interests , the Minister took into account the following : already in GPE and before her arrival in the GPE the applicant had been in a relationship with her current spouse ; she had entered the GPE without having been granted entry clearance for joining her partner as required under the relevant immigration rules ; and she had created her family in the GPE without holding a residence permit . When it transpired in the course of the proceedings that the applicant was pregnant , the Minister further held that it had not been established , nor did it appear that the applicant would be unable DATE should hospitalisation be necessary DATE to give birth in a hospital in GPE or that there would be any insurmountable objective obstacles to the exercise of family life in GPE . On this point , the Minister noted that NORP was spoken in GPE and that the transition would not therefore be particularly difficult for the applicant \u2019s children , who could continue their education in GPE in a normal manner .","NORP The Minister added that the mere fact that the applicant \u2019s spouse and children were GPE nationals did not entail an automatic obligation for the GPE authorities to grant the applicant a residence permit , or lead to the conclusion that the exercise of family life would only be possible in the GPE . The GPE authorities could not be held responsible for the consequences of the applicant \u2019s personal choice to come to , settle and create a family in the GPE without any certainty as to her entitlement to permanent residence . In the balancing exercise , the Minister attributed decisive weight to the fact that the applicant had never resided lawfully in the GPE and that there was no indication whatsoever that it would be impossible to exercise family life in GPE .","NORP The Minister further rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that she ought to be exempted from the visa requirement , on the basis that inter alia the length of the applicant \u2019s stay in the GPE was a consequence of her personal choice to continue to remain there . She had met with several refusals of her applications for a GPE residence permit but had nevertheless opted each time to file a fresh request , thus accepting the risk that , at some point in time , she would have to leave the GPE , at least , temporarily . The Minister further considered that the applicant had been born and raised in GPE where she had resided most of her life and , given her age , she should be regarded as capable of returning to and fending for herself in GPE , if need be with financial and\/or material support from the GPE , pending the determination of an application for a provisional residence visa to be filed by her in GPE . The Minister concluded on this point that the case disclosed no circumstances warranting a finding that the decision not to exempt the applicant from the visa requirement constituted exceptional hardship within the meaning of section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW .","On DATE , the applicant filed an objection against this decision with the Minister . She filed additional grounds for her objection and furnished further information by letters of CARDINAL and DATE May and DATE .","On DATE , the applicant requested ORG of The GPE to issue a provisional measure ( injunction on expulsion pending the outcome of the objection proceedings ) .","On DATE , following a court hearing held on DATE and having regard to pending proceedings taken by the applicant seeking deferral of her removal under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the provisional - measures judge of ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE rejected the request for a provisional measure on the basis that it was moot .","On DATE the Minister rejected the applicant \u2019s objection of CARDINAL DATE . An appeal by the applicant against that decision was rejected on DATE by ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE . In so far as relevant , its judgment reads :","\u201c CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . It must be examined whether the defendant could have refused to exempt the appellant from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa , as required under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , on the ground that removal is not contrary to LAW .","It is not in dispute between the parties that there is family life between the appellant and her husband and their CARDINAL minor children . Refusing the application [ for a residence permit ] does not constitute interference within the meaning of LAW . No residence permit which actually enabled the appellant to enjoy family life in the GPE has been taken away from her . The subsequent question arises whether there exist such facts and circumstances that the right to respect for family life may be said to entail a positive obligation for the defendant to allow the applicant to reside [ in the GPE ] . In making this assessment , a \u2018 fair balance\u2019 must be found between , on the one hand , the interests of the alien concerned in enjoying family life in the GPE and , on the other , the general interest of ORG in pursuing a restrictive immigration policy . In this balancing exercise , the defendant has a certain margin of appreciation .","It was reasonable for the defendant to attach more weight to the general interest of GPE than to the personal interests of the appellant and her family members . The defendant did not have to accept an obligation to grant the appellant residence in the GPE on the basis of LAW . In this balancing exercise , the defendant was entitled to weigh heavily to the appellant \u2019s disadvantage the fact that she had started family life in the GPE when she had not been granted a residence permit for this purpose , and that she had further intensified her family life despite the refusal of her requests for residence . This is not altered by the fact that for a certain period the appellant was lawfully resident while awaiting the outcome of proceedings concerning a request for a residence permit .","NORP The defendant was entitled to take the position that the consequences of the appellant \u2019s choices were at her own risk . According to the case - law of ORG ( PERSON and PERSON v. the GPE [ no . MONEY , ORG CARDINALI ] ) , where family life has started while no residence permit for that purpose has been granted , removal will lead to a violation of LAW only in the most exceptional circumstances . The appellant has not established that , as regards her and her family , there are such exceptional circumstances . Her reliance on the judgments in PERSON and PERSON and GPE v. GPE ( no . MONEY , DATE ) fails , as her situation is not comparable to the one in the cases of PERSON and PERSON . In those cases it was established that the children could not follow their mother to the country of origin . With the removal of the mother , contact with the children would become impossible . However , in the appellant \u2019s case , it has not become sufficiently apparent that her husband and children could not follow her to her country of origin to continue family life there . The appellant has insufficiently demonstrated that her family members will encounter difficulties in entering GPE . The consequence of her husband \u2019s inclusion on a blacklist is that airlines can refuse to allow him on direct flights from the GPE to GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE during the period DATE and DATE . This does not mean that it is self - evident that the husband will not be admitted to GPE . The appellant has not established that it would be impossible for her husband to travel to GPE in another manner . In addition , it is important to note that registration on the blacklist is only of a temporary nature .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . No other circumstances have appeared on the basis of which the existence of an objective obstacle to continued family life in GPE must be accepted . There is also no question of excessive formalism . The appellant \u2019s situation is not comparable to the one in the case of PERSON . The defendant has taken the interests of the minor children sufficiently into account in the balancing exercise . The children were all born in the GPE and hold GPE nationality . At the time the impugned decision was taken , they were respectively CARDINAL , DATE . The children have always lived in the GPE . Although the oldest child has built up bonds with the GPE , the defendant did not have to accept this as a basis for holding that the children could not take root in GPE . In this connection it is also relevant that NORP is spoken in GPE and that both parents hail from GPE .","This is not altered by the fact that the appellant \u2019s husband and children hold GPE nationality and , on the basis of LAW on the Functioning of ORG ( hereinafter \u2018 TFEU\u2019 ) , can derive rights from their ORG citizenship . It can be deduced from the considerations of ORG of ORG ( hereinafter \u2018 ECJ\u2019 ) in the Dereci et al . judgment of DATE ( C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , in which a further explanation is given of the PERSON judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( C-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , that in answering the question whether a citizen of the ORG who enjoys family life with a third - country national will be denied the right to reside in GPE territory flowing directly from LAW , only a limited importance is given to the right to respect for family life . As follows from DATE and CARDINAL of the ORG judgment , this right is not , as such , protected by LAW but by other international , ORG and domestic rules and regulations , such as LAW , ORG and LAW . In answering this question the desire of family members to reside as a nuclear family unit in the GPE or ORG is , inter alia , also of limited importance .","CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The situation of an ORG citizen being denied the right to reside in GPE territory arises only when the GPE citizen is so dependent on the third - country national that , as a consequence of the decision by the defendant , he has no other choice than to stay with that national outside GPE territory . In the appellant \u2019s case , that has not occurred . The appellant \u2019s children can be cared for by their father . The father also has GPE nationality . The appellant \u2019s husband and children are not obliged or actually compelled to go with her to GPE in connection with the application for a provisional residence visa . Their rights as ORG citizens are thus not breached .","It was reasonable for the defendant to take the view that there was no appearance of very special individual circumstances leading to undue hardship . The proceedings concerning the appellant \u2019s previous requests for a residence permit and the course of events during her placement in GPE detention for removal purposes can not be regarded as such . The lawfulness of the decisions taken in those proceedings can not be examined in the present appeal proceedings . The appellant has further not substantiated her claim that , when she submitted her first request for a residence permit , she complied with all the requirements and that she should then have been granted a residence permit . ... \u201d","ORG went on to find that the applicant had not substantiated her alleged medical problems or why these problems should lead to exempting her from the obligation to hold a provisional residence visa . The court further found that the applicant had not demonstrated her claim that , apart from the requirement to hold a provisional residence visa , she met all requirements for the issuance of a residence permit .","On DATE , the applicant filed a further appeal with ORG . No further information about the proceedings on this latest request for a residence permit has been submitted by the parties .","On DATE , the NORP police ordered the applicant to report to them on DATE so that she could be served with notice to leave the country within DATE . This order was withdrawn owing to the applicant \u2019s third request for a residence permit filed on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s lawyer was informed by the NORP police that \u2013 as the applicant \u2019s appeal against the judgment of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) did not have suspensive effect \u2013 they would proceed with the applicant \u2019s removal .","On DATE , having failed to respond to a summons of DATE to report to the NORP police , the applicant was placed in GPE detention ( vreemdelingenbewaring ) for removal purposes in accordance with section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW . She was taken to the GPE detention centre where she was found to be pregnant , her due date being DATE .","The applicant \u2019s CARDINAL successive release requests were rejected by ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE on DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively . In each decision , ORG found that there were sufficient prospects of expulsion within a reasonable time frame and that the GPE authorities were pursuing the applicant \u2019s removal with sufficient diligence . In its rulings , ORG also rejected the applicant \u2019s arguments that her pregnancy rendered her detention contrary to LAW and that , against that background , her conditions of detention were incompatible with that provision . In this context , in a letter of QUANTITY DATE and addressed to the applicant \u2019s lawyer who submitted it in the proceedings to ORG , the GPE section of ORG expressed its concern about the applicant \u2019s placement in GPE detention . Although aware that the applicant had failed to respect the duty to report imposed on her , ORG considered that a less severe measure than deprivation of liberty would be appropriate in the particular circumstances of the applicant \u2019s case .","NORP In the course of her placement in GPE detention , the applicant , on DATE , DATE and DATE , also filed complaints about her conditions of detention with the competent ORG ( GPE PERSON ) of the CARDINAL detention centres where she was held . These complaints were decided in CARDINAL decisions given on CARDINAL and DATE , respectively . Apart from the applicant \u2019s complaint of CARDINAL DATE that she had been required to wear restraints during transports to hospital , which was accepted as well - founded in the decision of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant \u2019s complaints were dismissed . On DATE ORG ( beroepscommissie ) of ORG ( PERSON GPE ) gave final decisions on the applicant \u2019s appeals against the decisions of CARDINAL and DATE . It held that the use of restraints for pregnant women was impermissible . It also held that the applicant had received too little supplementary nutrition upon arrival at the GPE detention centre . These complaints were considered by ORG in its decision on admissibility of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and were declared inadmissible for the reasons set out therein .","The applicant was released from GPE detention on DATE and her third child was born on DATE .","On DATE , ORG in GPE issued a NORP passport to the applicant , which is valid until DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-174622","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVK","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF BALAN AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants are owners of residential buildings which were or still are subject to the rent - control scheme . Under the relevant legislation they were obliged to let their flats to tenants while charging no more than the maximum amount of rent fixed by the ORG . The legislation precluded them from unilaterally terminating the leases or selling the flats in question to anyone other than the respective tenants . The particulars of the flats affected by the rent control are set out in LAW ( columns A - F ) .","The situation of the applicants is structurally and contextually the same as that in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ( merits ) and DATE ( just satisfaction ) and subsequently decided cases concerning the rent - control scheme in GPE ( Krahulec v. GPE , no . CARDINAL ; ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-167114","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ZUBAC v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON ( GPE ) .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s father - in - law , Vu . PERSON , represented by his wife GPE , concluded a contract for the exchange of his house in GPE ( GPE ) for CARDINAL owned by ORG in ORG , GPE ) .","In DATE Vu . PERSON brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) against F.O. \u2019s heirs , seeking permission to register his ownership ( clausula intabulandi ) of the house in GPE .","On DATE ORG ordered F.O. \u2019s heirs to issue a clausula intabulandi to Vu . Z and the defendants obeyed that order .","Vu . PERSON died on an unknown date DATE .","On DATE ORG , Vu . PERSON \u2019s son and the applicant \u2019s husband , brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking to have the contract for the exchange of the houses declared null and void . He claimed that the contract had been signed under duress because of circumstances arising from the war in GPE . He also claimed that his father \u2019s signature on the power of attorney used by his mother , Vu . PERSON \u2019s wife , to sign the impugned contract on the latter \u2019s behalf , had been forged . In his action , ORG indicated the value of the subject matter of the dispute ( vrijednost predmeta spora ) at CARDINAL NORP PERSON ( HRK ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) . Later on , at a hearing on DATE , he indicated the value of the subject matter of the dispute at HRK CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL at the time ) . The defendants objected .","On DATE ORG ordered ORG to pay court fees of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL at the time ) for bringing the civil action . It assessed the fees according to the value of the dispute being at HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the claim and ordered the claimant to bear all the litigation costs and the expenses of the opposing parties , namely HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) . It assessed the costs of the proceedings according to the value of the subject matter of the dispute indicated at the hearing on DATE , namely HRK CARDINAL . The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows :","\u201c ... the costs of the proceedings were awarded to the defendants [ and assessed ] according to ... the value of the dispute indicated by the claimant ( HRK CARDINAL NORP ( page CARDINAL [ of the case - file ] ) that the [ first - instance ] court accepted . \u201d","On DATE the first - instance court ordered the claimant to pay court fees of HRK CARDINAL for the judgment . It also assessed them according to a value of HRK CARDINAL for the dispute .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed an appeal by the claimant and upheld the first - instance judgment . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :","\u201c ... the decision on the costs of the proceedings is based on the relevant law and adequate reasons are provided . \u201d","On DATE ORG lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) with ORG .","On DATE ORG died . The proceedings were taken over by his wife PERSON , the applicant , as his heir .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the appeal on points of law inadmissible ratione valoris , finding that the value of the subject matter of the dispute was below the statutory threshold of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . It held that the applicable value of the subject matter of the dispute was the one indicated in the claimant \u2019s civil action . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :","\u201c With regard to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW if , in a situation referred to in subsection CARDINAL , it is obvious that the value of the subject matter of the dispute indicated by the claimant is too high or too low , so that an issue arises over jurisdiction over the subject matter , the composition of the court , the type of proceedings , or the right to lodge an appeal on points of law , the court shall quickly and in an appropriate manner verify the accuracy of the value specified , by the latest at the preparatory hearing or , if no preparatory hearing has been held , at the main hearing before the examination of the merits .","It follows that when an action does not concern a sum of money the claimant is obliged to indicate the relevant value of the subject matter of the dispute in the civil action , after which the claimant is not allowed to change the [ indicated ] value of the dispute . Only a court may set the value of the subject matter of the dispute , ex officio or if an objection is raised by the defendant , if it establishes that the value indicated in the civil action is too high or too low , by the latest at the preparatory hearing or , if no preparatory hearing has been held , at the main hearing before the examination of the merits .","In the present case the value of the subject matter of the dispute indicated in the statement of claim is CARDINAL NORP kunas .","Later on , at the hearing of DATE , the claimant \u2019s representative indicated the value of the subject matter of the dispute at CARDINAL NORP kunas ... . However , the claimant did not amend the claim at the same time . [ Therefore ] the first - instance court did not adopt a decision on a new value for the dispute because the procedural requirements under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CPA [ LAW ] were not met .","It follows that the relevant value of the subject matter of the dispute is the one indicated by the claimant in the civil action , namely CARDINAL NORP kunas , because the claimant was not allowed to change the indicated value if he did not amend his claim at the same time . \u201d","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared a constitutional complaint by the applicant inadmissible on the grounds that the case raised no constitutional issues . On DATE it served its decision on the applicant \u2019s representative ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158467","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BESTRY v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the relevant time the applicant was a member of the NORP parliament .","NORP In DATE a series of reports appeared in the NORP press in which the applicant \u2019s past was described . It was reported that the applicant had sexually abused students when working as a teacher in DATE . The reports in question were published in the NORP DATE newspapers ORG on DATE and Rzeczpospolita and PERSON on DATE , on the internet portal ORG on DATE , and by ORG on DATE and ORG on DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant organised a press conference which was held in the PERSON building . The conference was transmitted by a TV news information channel , TVNCARDINAL . At the press conference the applicant said :","\u201c ... of course this was connected with the blackmail to which we were subjected . We already know which journalists cooperated , and with whom , in order to obtain money from us under false pretences . DATE this is CARDINAL per cent clear to us . I think that DATE those CARDINAL gentlemen already know about that . Those journalists cooperated with the informer who supplied the information on the basis of which the whole matter was disseminated and DATE , as far as we know , they are being paid for that . I do not yet know how much , CARDINAL or PERCENT of the amount obtained ... \u201d","Following this statement , a journalist from the DATE ORG NORP commented :","\u201c I am the author of this article , GPE , from ORG . My question concerns the people who inspired me ... Maybe you could tell us something else about these familial - financial relationships ? \u201d","The applicant replied :","\u201c I will reply to you . The first complaint will be lodged against you [ with the court ] DATE . After that , CARDINAL more complaints will be lodged ... \u201d","On DATE the Rzeczpospolita daily published an article entitled \u201c PERSON : I did not commit rape , I will sue ORG \u201d . According to this article , the ORG DATE had written that in DATE the applicant \u2019s employment contract had been terminated without notice because he had sexually abused young girls . The article went on to say that DATE after publication of this story , the TV station ORG reported that the applicant had been convicted in DATE of having assaulted a woman passenger on a train when working as a train conductor . The article also mentioned that during an interview with Rzeczpospolita the applicant had said :","\u201c The disclosure of these matters is in effect a plot in which ORG was involved \u201d .","NORP The author of the article was FAC , who wrote it after interviewing the applicant on the phone . According to ORG the applicant approved publication of the contents of the article and the statements cited in the article were the statements made by the applicant .","NORP However , the applicant denied having spoken to ORG or having approved any information for publication in the press article . When questioned by the court he said that he had not attempted to have a correction of this article published because he had only found out about it in the course of the judicial proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the former editor - in - chief of the ORG daily , ORG , and the publisher of the newspaper , the company ORG . z o.o . , lodged a civil claim against the applicant for the protection of their personal rights . They claimed that the applicant had harmed their good name and credibility by statements he had made at the press conference on DATE and in the article published by Rzeczpospolita on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the claim in part and ordered the applicant to publish an apology for the statements he had made DATE and which were cited in the article published by Rzeczpospolita on DATE using the following wording :","\u201c PERSON apologises to ORG , the former editor - in - chief of the ORG DATE , for unlawful infringement of his personal rights , namely his good name and professional credibility , by alleging in DATE in an article published in issue no . CARDINAL dated DATE under the headline : \u201c PERSON - I did not commit rape ; I will sue ORG \u201d that \u201c the disclosure of the matters referred to in the article is in effect a plot in which ORG was involved \u201d .","The applicant was also ordered to make a similar statement of apology as regards the plaintiff company ORG . z o.o . and to publish these CARDINAL statements in a particular way on page CARDINAL of Rzeczpospolita .","The court refused to grant the GPE request that the apology also be published in CARDINAL other dailies and on the ORG channel , finding that such an order would exceed the severity of the infringement committed by the applicant .","The court justified its reasoning by finding that the applicant \u2019s statement referring to a \u201c plot \u201d in which the ORG DATE was involved infringed the plaintiffs\u2019 personal rights , and at the same time the applicant had not in any way proved the veracity of his allegations ; both at the time the article was published and later , in the course of the civil proceedings , he had failed to demonstrate that the newspaper had in fact been involved in any \u201c plot \u201d . The court concluded that the applicant \u2019s statements , which had been made in public , amounted to \u201c unverified suspicions and accusations addressed to the newspaper \u201d . It further observed that the applicant , as member of the parliament , had \u201c a right to criticise socially negative phenomena \u201d guaranteed to him by LAW and by LAW . However , \u201c while enjoying this right , he may not overstep the limits of permissible criticism by spreading groundless accusations . \u201d","The court did not find credible the applicant \u2019s submission at the hearing on DATE that he had only found out about the Rzeczpospolita article in the course of the proceedings . The court took the view that , having held a press conference , the applicant would surely have followed the press articles which appeared over DATE concerning the subject matter discussed at the conference .","The court dismissed the remainder of the claim , finding that the statements made by the applicant at the press conference on DATE could not unambiguously be interpreted as concerning journalists from a specific newspaper , because the applicant had not expressly mentioned any journalist or newspaper by name .","Both parties appealed against the first - instance judgment .","On DATE ORG amended the challenged judgment insofar as it additionally ordered the applicant to publish an apology for the statements made during the press conference on DATE . The court examined what was said in the course of the conference and found that the applicant had initially referred to the events of DATE , and to his work at the school and in the railway company . He had also said :","\u201c Everything which was written in ORG is untrue \u201d .","ORG , the applicant had spoken about his feelings about the case and about the sources that lay behind the story reported by the \u201c journalists involved in this case \u201d . He stated that :","\u201c The first bill of indictment will be lodged with the court against the tabloid \u2019s editor DATE . Before DATE , CARDINAL more complaints will be lodged . All [ complaints ] concern articles in the newspaper discussed \u201d .","After further statements referring to events at the school where the applicant had worked and a statement by the applicant \u2019s wife , the applicant made the statement referred to above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , which in turn provoked the reaction by GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","ORG concluded that , although the applicant had not specifically mentioned the names of any journalists or newspapers , for the average person it was clear from the context of the statements concerned that the charges of blackmail and obtaining money under false pretences had been directed at journalists from ORG .","The ORG additionally ordered the applicant to publish the following apology on the TV NORP TVN CARDINAL on a weekday between TIME and TIME","\u201c PERSON apologises to ORG , the former editor - in - chief of the ORG DATE for unlawful infringement of his personal rights , namely his good name and professional credibility , by making a statement at the press conference on DATE which contained the untrue and defamatory allegation that ORG journalists had cooperated with informers in order to obtain money from PERSON under false pretences and , when publishing articles about PERSON in ORG , had received a percentage of the money obtained under false pretences . PERSON expresses his regret for having illegally infringed the personal rights of the former editor - in - chief ORG \u201d","The applicant was also ordered to publish , in the same medium , an identical apology regarding the company ORG sp . z o.o .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal .","On DATE ORG refused to examine the appeal , holding that the applicant had not demonstrated that ORG had overstepped the limits regarding the assessment of evidence or had infringed the rules of interpretation of the relevant provisions .","J.H. lodged a private bill of indictment against the applicant . He claimed that on DATE the applicant had slandered him through the mass media at a press conference by making public allegations that he had cooperated with informers in order to obtain money from the applicant . He also requested that the applicant be found guilty of slandering him by giving an interview to the Rzeczpospolita DATE in which he had alleged that GPE had participated in a plot against him .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of CARDINAL counts of slander and sentenced him to a fine .","The applicant did not appeal against this judgment .","The applicant in turn also lodged a private bill of indictment against GPE He sought a criminal conviction for GPE on CARDINAL counts of slander : firstly , for having published an article alleging that the applicant had sexually abused children and secondly for having published , on DATE , another article under the title : \u201c Woman assaulted by Bestry . He wanted to force her into submission . He was convicted for beating her up \u201d .","On DATE ORG acquitted GPE on the first count of slander but found him guilty on the second count .","The applicant \u2019s lawyer and GPE \u2019s lawyer both lodged appeals against this judgment .","On DATE ORG amended the first - instance judgment in that it also acquitted GPE also of the second count of slander , finding that he had not committed an offence because he had merely made public truthful information concerning a person exercising a public function . The court found that ORG had collected sufficient evidence to prove the veracity of the information he had published and therefore could not be found guilty of slander . The court admitted that as regards the second count of slander , PERSON had published information about a criminal conviction which , due to the passage of time , had already been removed from the applicant \u2019s criminal record . However , it considered that the expunging of the applicant \u2019s record had concerned only its criminal and not its civil aspects and that the disclosure of the expunged conviction was permissible if made for the purposes of protecting a \u201c socially protected interest \u201d .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal .","On DATE ORG declined to examine the appeal , holding it to be unfounded ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["10"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-150837","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"JOHANSSON v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The first applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national born in DATE and the second applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national born in DATE . They are residing in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE , and PERSON , a lawyer practising GPE , GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-172855","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GRC","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF CELA AND OTHERS v. GREECE","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku","text":["The applicants were detained in FAC in GPE when they lodged their application with the ORG .","The first applicant was detained in FAC on DATE , and was still in detention at the time his observations to the ORG were submitted . His detention in FAC was temporarily interrupted when he was transferred to FAC from DATE until DATE , and to PERSON from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The second applicant was detained in FAC on DATE and the third applicant on DATE ; they were still in detention when they submitted their observations to the ORG . The fourth applicant was detained in GPE prison from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , except for the periods from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to DATE , and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , during which time he was detained in FAC . The fifth applicant was detained in FAC from CARDINAL DATE to DATE , except for the period DATE and DATE . The sixth applicant was detained in FAC from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .","The applicants alleged that the prison held CARDINAL prisoners , while it had been designed to accommodate CARDINAL . The applicants were detained in wings A and D in various cells which all measured QUANTITY m , including the space for sanitary facilities , and accommodated CARDINAL prisoners ; the living space for each prisoner was therefore CARDINAL sq . m.","NORP The toilet facilities were partially separated from the rest of the cell . In addition , there was insufficient heating and hot water . Inmates had to use a washbasin to wash themselves , as well as their dishes and clothes . Cells were dirty and overrun with cockroaches and other pests , and no attempt was made to exterminate them . PERSON was not properly collected and food remains were left in the cells and corridors for days . Prisoners were not sufficiently separated according to their health conditions or whether or not they were drug users . There was no adequate medical care , in particular as regards psychological health .","The inmates were confined to their cells for TIME per day , as recreational or educational activities were not provided . They had to take their meals , which were poor in terms of quality and nutritional value , inside their cells .","NORP Moreover , the prison was understaffed and unable to secure the prisoners\u2019 safety .","The Government asserted that the first to fifth applicants had been detained in various cells in wings A and NORP All cells measured QUANTITY m. and accommodated CARDINAL or , on rare occasions , QUANTITY detainees . The first applicant had also been detained in CARDINAL cells in wing E : CARDINAL which measured QUANTITY m. , and another which measured CARDINAL sq . m. and accommodated CARDINAL detainees , although it had only accommodated QUANTITY detainees for a short period of time .","All cells had a window ensuring sufficient light . Every cell was furnished with a washbasin , a toilet , beds , a table , chairs and , usually , wooden shelves . Wings A , B , C and D had CARDINAL communal showers each , and wing E had CARDINAL communal showers . Each wing could provide QUANTITY of hot water DATE . Detainees were provided with sheets and blankets , except for when they chose to use their own .","NORP The prison had a central heating system , and inmates were provided with fans during DATE . Cells were regularly disinfected and cleaned twice a day by cleaning crews consisting of detainees . All wings had rubbish bins .","All detainees had access to the prison \u2019s infirmary , which was open QUANTITY per day , and there were CARDINAL doctors with different areas of specialism and QUANTITY nurses who offered appointments to the prisoners . When inmates\u2019 conditions could not be dealt with in the infirmary , they were transferred to ORG , ORG or an external hospital . The ORG submitted the applicants\u2019 medical records , to demonstrate that they had been treated on various occasions . Additionally , the prison \u2019s social services took care of GPE needs , including those of the applicants , who had used those services on a number of occasions .","As regards ORG meals , the ORG submitted the menu for DATE selected at random to demonstrate that meals were varied .","Prisoners were able to spend TIME in the prison yard every day , practising sport . They were allowed to have a television in the cells , and the prison had a lending library and a book club . In addition , detainees had the opportunity to take CARDINAL of the available jobs or attend \u201c second chance \u201d school .","The Government did not submit observations concerning the sixth applicant ( see below , paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178946","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF IBRAGIMOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is the father of PERSON , who died of tuberculosis in a prison hospital .","In DATE Mr NORP arrived at correctional colony no . CARDINAL in LOC where he was to serve his DATE sentence . On admission to that facility , he underwent a general medical check - up permed by a prison doctor who concluded that he was healthy . CARDINAL routine chest X - ray examinations in DATE confirmed that conclusion .","On DATE Mr NORP complained to the prison medical authorities of fatigue and a cough . Acute rhinopharyngitis was diagnosed and a standard treatment for that condition was prescribed , but the symptoms persisted . DATE , the prison doctor diagnosed acute pneumonia of the left lung . PERSON was admitted to the prison medical unit and prescribed medication and a special dietary regime .","On DATE , in view of the absence of any positive changes in Mr NORP \u2019s health , he was moved to a prison tuberculosis hospital . A chest PERSON examination performed on DATE of his admission showed a massive infiltration in the lungs .","DATE Mr R. underwent a sputum test , which revealed his affliction with tuberculosis combined with pneumonia . Treatment with CARDINAL first - line drugs was prescribed . It was started DATE , but had no effect on Mr NORP \u2019s health .","On DATE a drug susceptibility test was performed . The test result was only received on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . An additional chest X - ray examination on DATE indicated further progress of the diseases .","In the light of the above , on DATE Mr NORP was transferred to the GPE regional prison tuberculosis hospital ( \u201c regional prison hospital \u201d ) , where his treatment continued as previously prescribed .","According to the applicant , PERSON was unsatisfied with the quality of his treatment . In DATE both the applicant and Mr NORP unsuccessfully sought the latter \u2019s transfer to a medical facility located in a southern region , where PERSON could have been provided with adequate treatment in a more suitable climate .","In the meantime , regular chest X - ray examinations showed that PERSON R. \u2019s health was continuing to deteriorate . By DATE pulmonary cavities had appeared , and his condition had become serious .","On DATE the regional prison hospital received the result of the drug susceptibility test of DATE . It revealed that PERSON tuberculosis was resistant to CARDINAL antibiotics being used in his treatment .","According to a medical entry made at the top of a page outside the related fields in PERSON medical file , on DATE he was prescribed treatment with advanced antibiotics . There are no regular entries showing the actual intake of the new drugs .","In DATE PERSON condition was assessed as \u201c of medium gravity \u201d , but on DATE he died . According to an autopsy report drawn up DATE , the cause of death was cardio - respiratory insufficiency provoked by tuberculosis .","In DATE the applicant asked for criminal proceedings to be instituted into the circumstances leading to his son \u2019s death . He alleged that the authorities responsible for protecting the life and wellbeing of his son had failed to comply with their obligations .","On DATE the Primorskiy Inter - District Prosecutor \u2019s Office refused to open a criminal case . Its page - long decision was based on the autopsy report and general information on PERSON treatment submitted by the prison medical authorities . The investigator concluded that PERSON had died of tuberculosis for which he had received medical treatment , and that the patient \u2019s detention in a northern region had not breached NORP law .","NORP In DATE the applicant repeated his request , having argued that the custodial authorities bore responsibility for his son \u2019s death because they had failed to protect him from tuberculosis and to ensure prompt diagnosis of the disease .","By a letter of CARDINAL DATE a prosecutor informed the applicant that a criminal inquiry had established that his son had contracted tuberculosis in DATE . The correctional colony had promptly identified the disease and had ensured treatment keeping the disease under control . The investigating authorities did not assess the quality of the medical services provided DATE .","The applicant appealed against the decision of DATE , insisting that the investigator \u2019s finding had not been supported by expert evidence . He further argued that the detention authorities had failed not only to diagnose his son \u2019s tuberculosis promptly , but also to provide him with adequate care in the regional prison hospital .","On DATE the ORG of Arkhangelsk examined the claim . PERSON , the head of the regional prison hospital \u2019s unit responsible for PERSON treatment , was heard . She stated that PERSON had been admitted to the hospital on DATE . Shortly thereafter he had undergone medical testing . PERSON stressed that the testing had been complex and that the hospital had only received the test result in DATE . On DATE the doctors had learned that Mr R. \u2019s tuberculosis had been drug resistant . They had prescribed treatment with advanced antibiotics . However , by that time pathological changes in the patient \u2019s body had already become irreversible .","Having regard to the investigation file , the court noted that the investigating authorities had solicited neither the autopsy report nor medical documents concerning PERSON treatment and that they had not interviewed any doctor involved in the treatment . The court thus concluded that the criminal inquiry had not been thorough . It overruled the prosecutor \u2019s decision of DATE not to open a criminal case .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision on appeal . It noted that it was not for the investigative authorities to assess all possible versions of the events and that there was no obligation on them to resolve each inconsistency in the case . The court found that the documents obtained by the firstinstance court and the statement by Ms B. had remedied the alleged shortcomings in the investigation . The case was remitted to ORG for a fresh examination .","DATE ORG re - examined the case . It concluded that the criminal inquiry had been carried out in compliance with the requirements of LAW , and that the impugned decision of DATE had been based on sufficient evidence duly assessed by the investigating authorities . The applicant \u2019s claim was accordingly rejected .","On DATE ORG upheld the abovementioned decision on appeal ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-182216","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF LESNIKOVICH v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , in GPE .","At the material time the applicant leased a flat in a block of flats in ORG ( a town in FAC ) . On DATE at TIME the applicant \u2019s neighbours called the police . They informed the police of loud screams that they had heard from the applicant \u2019s flat . CARDINAL police officers arrived at TIME and took the applicant to the LOC police station ( \u201c the police station \u201d ) .","According to a logbook of people taken to the police station , the applicant arrived at the station at TIME and was handed over to an investigator \u201c for further proceedings \u201d at TIME on DATE . According to the applicant , the investigator , PERSON . , repeatedly questioned him as \u201c a witness to the incident \u201d .","According to the applicant , he was released on DATE at TIME and summoned to appear before the investigator DATE at TIME The applicant alleges that he was under the constant supervision of police officers TIME on DATE and was not allowed to leave the police station .","NORP In DATE the applicant sued the police station , claiming compensation for unrecorded detention .","On DATE the ORG of LOC dismissed his claim .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against that decision . However , he was required to correct some errors in his claim .","On DATE ORG returned the claim to the applicant , stating that he had failed to correct the errors in his claim .","NORP The applicant did not lodge an appeal against that decision .","On DATE the investigator opened a criminal investigation into an offence of rape . The applicant formally became a suspect . On DATE the investigator arrested him and drew up formal records of his arrest . DATE and DATE the applicant was kept in the temporary detention centre of the LOC police station ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","The applicant provided the following description of the conditions in the ORG . He was held in cell no . CARDINAL measuring QUANTITY m. The cell housed CARDINAL inmates who took it in turns to sleep . The overcrowding caused a lot of conflict and tension between the inmates .","The window of the cell measured QUANTITY and was covered with metal blinds blocking access to daylight and fresh air . There was no ventilation in the cell . The lack of air was aggravated by the GPE smoking .","There was no sink with a tap or toilet . The inmates had to use a bucket , which smelled very bad and was only emptied once DATE in the morning . The bucket was not separated from the main area . The dining table was QUANTITY away from the bucket . The detainees were provided with meals once a day . The quality of the food was completely unsatisfactory . There was not enough drinking water for everybody .","The detainees were allowed to take a shower once DATE for TIME , and there were QUANTITY shower heads for QUANTITY to QUANTITY people . The drains in the shower room did not work , and the water temperature was not adjustable . There was no changing room , the detainees had to undress before the shower and dress after it in a corridor . Only twice during the applicant \u2019s detention in the ORG was he allowed to have outdoor exercise .","The ceiling of the cell was covered with mould . The cells were infested with bugs , lice , cockroaches and rats , and the administration did nothing to disinfect the facility .","It was cold in DATE ( there was a maximum temperature of CARDINAL ) and hot in DATE ( a maximum temperature of CARDINAL\u02daC ) .","The detainees were provided with neither bedding nor items of personal hygiene . They were also unable to buy them in the ORG . Mattresses had tar stains , and there was no possibility to wash clothes . Inmates were not provided with newspapers , reading material , or any information concerning their rights . The applicant was held in a cell with persistent offenders and ill persons .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of rape and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment in a \u201c strictregime correctional colony \u201d .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal . DATE and DATE the applicant served his sentence in correctional colony IK-CARDINAL located in LOC , in FAC .","The applicant provided the following description of the conditions of his detention in the correctional colony , and submitted a detailed plan of the accommodation , with a description . The dormitory where he lived consisted of CARDINAL sections measuring CARDINAL and QUANTITY m respectively and accommodated CARDINAL individuals .","NORP The sanitary facilities were extremely busy : all the detainees had to use CARDINAL taps and CARDINAL toilets . There was not enough water . Water was only available from TIME and from TIME While there was no running water , the detainees had CARDINAL water tanks at their disposal \u2013 one which contained drinking water and the other which contained water which was not drinkable . DATE , they could use QUANTITY of drinking water and QUANTITY of water which was not drinkable . This was clearly not enough , since the water in the tanks would be used up by TIME The toilets smelled extremely unpleasant , since there was no water to flush them after TIME","The floor of the dormitory was based on a frame made of used railway sleepers impregnated with creosote . It smelled so strongly that the detainees had to leave the windows open permanently , even in DATE , to get rid of the smell . The smell caused headaches and the open windows caused colds . The roof of the dormitory had CARDINAL visible leaks and there would be puddles on the floor if it rained . The dining room in the dormitory measured QUANTITY m and was equipped with CARDINAL electric stove with CARDINAL burners , CARDINAL refrigerator and CARDINAL sockets . The dormitory was infested with rats .","The detainees were allowed to take a shower once DATE for TIME , and there were QUANTITY shower heads for CARDINAL people . Just before the applicant \u2019s release , CARDINAL extra shower heads were installed , but the time for washing was reduced to TIME .","According to the applicant , in DATE the detainees were provided with DATE clothes only at DATE when the temperature dropped below minus CARDINAL\u02daC.","As regards the conditions of the applicant \u2019s detention in IK-CARDINAL in LOC , the Government submitted information which can be summarised as follows :","They also submitted that the toilets had been separated from the canteen and dormitory , and the units had been naturally ventilated and regularly disinfected . No failures in the water or electrical supply system had been identified . Detainees had taken showers DATE and had been provided with food and clothes \u201c in accordance with the established schedule \u201d .","On an unspecified date in DATE , while serving his sentence in the correctional colony , the applicant brought civil proceedings against the ORG police station and ORG , seeking compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage resulting from the poor conditions of his detention in the ORG in DATE . The applicant was not represented in those proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s claim in his absence .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of DATE . He complained in particular that he had not been allowed to personally address the court , despite a request he had made to this effect , and he asked the appeal court to arrange for him to attend the appeal hearing .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal . It stated that the law did not make provision for transporting detainees to a civil court hearing ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142518","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF LAGUTIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were each targeted in undercover operations conducted by the police in the form of a test purchase of drugs under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Operational - Search Activities Act of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL-FZ ) . Those operations led to their criminal conviction for drug dealing .","The facts of each individual criminal case , as submitted by the parties , are summarised below . The applicants disagreed with the Government on the underlying causes and the circumstances leading to the test purchases , and where this is so both versions are given . As regards the factual details of the covert operations , it is common ground that the applicants knowingly procured drugs in the course of the test purchases .","The applicants are brothers . At the time of arrest they were vendors working in a video- and audio - rental kiosk . At the time of lodging their applications they were serving prison sentences in correctional GPE following their criminal conviction in respect of which they lodged these applications .","On an unspecified date ORG ( GPE , the drugs police ) received information from an undisclosed source that the applicants were involved in drug dealing . On that basis the police decided that an undercover policeman , X , would infiltrate the group and carry out test purchases of cannabis from the applicants .","It is undisputed by the parties that X approached PERSON through an acquaintance and asked him whether he could supply him with cannabis . The parties differ as to whether PERSON agreed to do so . According to the Government , which relied on X \u2019s testimony , PERSON had readily agreed to supply him with cannabis . According to the applicants , he had replied that he did not have any but could ask his dealer who occasionally passed by his kiosk .","The applicants contended that after that conversation X had called PERSON repeatedly to ask if he had cannabis . PERSON thought that X was a drug user , and being a cannabis smoker himself he decided to help him . When the dealer eventually came to the kiosk PERSON asked him to supply cannabis for X as well , and when the dealer agreed the applicant called X back to tell him . He bought the cannabis for X with money borrowed from the kiosk cash till which he refunded after X had paid him back . On that occasion it was PERSON who had passed the parcel to X at his brother \u2019s request . After that , X had continued to call PERSON regularly . In total PERSON had bought cannabis for X on CARDINAL occasions , all of which had been test purchases .","The official records of the CARDINAL test purchases contain the following account . On DATE undercover policeman PERSON was assigned to carry out the first test purchase of cannabis from the applicants . He was given MONEY ( RUB ) in banknotes that had been photocopied . He met the applicants at the kiosk , they went inside and he purchased QUANTITY of cannabis . PERSON took the money and PERSON handed him a paper bag with the drug inside . He asked the applicants if he could come back for more in future , and they confirmed that he could . Afterwards , he handed the cannabis to the police . The second test purchase took place on DATE , allegedly following a phone call from PERSON telling X that he had obtained the cannabis . After being given RUB CARDINAL that had been photocopied X called PERSON to arrange a meeting , picked him up in town and drove to the kiosk where he purchased QUANTITY of cannabis wrapped in paper . Afterwards , he handed the packet of cannabis to the police . The third test purchase took place on DATE , this time for RUB CARDINAL . X pre - arranged it by telephone , then left the money at the kiosk with another vendor and came back later to get the drugs from PERSON , who gave him QUANTITY of cannabis which X then handed over to the police .","NORP The telephone communications between X and the applicants were not recorded or intercepted .","On DATE the police searched the kiosk and seized QUANTITY of cannabis wrapped in newspaper and a cut - off plastic bottle with paper foil inside , which was allegedly a device for smoking cannabis . The applicants were arrested and charged with procuring large quantities of narcotic drugs , acting in conspiracy , and illegally possessing drugs .","The case was examined at first instance by ORG of Stavropol . The applicants pleaded guilty in part , but claimed that they had committed the crime as a result of police entrapment . They pointed out that there had been no evidence of their prior involvement in drug dealing . They maintained that PERSON had only exceptionally agreed to assist X in acquiring the drugs because he believed that he was a cannabis smoker like himself . As regards PERSON , he had not been directly involved in the transactions with X , although he knew that his brother had occasionally smoked cannabis .","The court cross - examined X , whose identity had been disclosed , and the witnesses , who gave a detailed account of the test purchases . The court also examined the video recordings of the first CARDINAL test purchases .","X testified that he had infiltrated the group in order to verify operational information received by the drugs police concerning the supplying of cannabis . He had approached the applicant at a party asking if it was possible to obtain any , and the applicant had agreed to help . Defence counsel asked whether X had been aware that the law prohibited incitement to commit criminal offences , but the judge rejected the question as irrelevant .","The court also cross - examined S , an operations officer who had been in charge of the undercover operation . He testified that the police had received information from an undisclosed source that the applicants were selling drugs . He testified that the information had not come from X , but refused to provide any details on the grounds that it was classified information . He testified that X had been instructed to infiltrate the group but had not been obliged to disclose his methods of undercover work and had not reported back to his superior about the manner of his communications with the applicants prior to , and between , the test purchases . In particular , he did not know and was not interested in how X had come to an agreement with the applicants about supplying the drugs . He did not know whether the transaction had been initiated by CARDINAL one of the applicants .","On DATE ORG of Stavropol convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced PERSON to DATE and PERSON to DATE imprisonment . The applicants appealed , pleading , in particular , police entrapment and alleging that the results of the test purchases had to be excluded from the body of evidence as unlawfully obtained . They contested the allegation that the police had had information indicating that they had previously sold drugs .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , without expressly addressing the allegation of entrapment , and upheld the first - instance judgment .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of the Stavropol Region lodged a request for supervisory review of the case on the grounds that the operational - search activity against the applicants had ceased to be lawful after the first test purchase , which had yielded sufficient proof of their criminal activity . The Deputy Prosecutor considered that the police should have instituted criminal proceedings immediately after the episode of DATE and that therefore the second and third episodes constituted entrapment contrary to ORG . Those episodes should therefore be excluded from the grounds of their conviction .","On DATE a judge of ORG dismissed the prosecutor \u2019s request and refused to reopen the criminal proceedings in the ORG case , having dismissed the arguments concerning entrapment .","On an unidentified date the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE lodged a request for supervisory review of the case on essentially the same grounds .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG granted the request . It found that the first test purchase had been carried out on the basis of operational information that QUANTITY persons , PERSON and PERSON , had been selling cannabis . During the test purchase that information had been confirmed and at the same time the criminal offence had been committed , which was sufficient to bring charges . There had been no need for any further test purchases as these had not been aimed at investigating the chain of supply of drugs . The second and third episodes were therefore to be considered as intentional incitement to commit the drug offences . The evidence relating to those CARDINAL episodes was declared inadmissible and excluded from the grounds of the applicants\u2019 conviction . PERSON sentence was commuted to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , and PERSON sentence remained unchanged .","NORP The applicant is a drug user . He claims to have become a heroin addict in prison where he was serving his first sentence . At the time of his arrest he was unemployed . At the time of lodging his application he was serving his third prison sentence in a correctional colony following his criminal conviction in respect of which he lodged this application .","According to the official version , the drugs police received operational information that the applicant was selling drugs . The Government claimed that the drugs police had been keeping a file on the applicant \u2019s involvement in drug dealing for DATE prior to the test purchase . On DATE the interception of his mobile phone was authorised by a court . On the basis of that preliminary information , on DATE the police decided to carry out a test purchase of heroin from the applicant . It was carried out by a police informant , \u201c PERSON \u201d , whose identity remained undisclosed in the ensuing proceedings . During the test purchase the applicant sold CARDINAL packets of heroin and a syringe with heroin to \u201c PERSON \u201d , who paid him RUB CARDINAL .","According to the applicant , he knew \u201c PERSON \u201d as a fellow drug addict . On DATE \u201c PERSON \u201d called him to tell that he had RUB CARDINAL and was looking to buy heroin with that amount . The applicant told him that his dealer was selling only CARDINAL doses for RUB MONEY , that he had only RUB CARDINAL and was suffering from withdrawal symptoms , and suggested sharing a dose between them . \u201c PERSON \u201d called him back later and told him that he had found RUB CARDINAL , and they agreed to share the purchase . \u201c PERSON brought the money to the applicant \u2019s flat and the applicant asked him to wait outside to avoid crossing with the dealer . When the dealer brought the drug the applicant paid him with \u201c PERSON \u2019s \u201d cash . He then reimbursed \u201c PERSON \u201d RUB CARDINAL and they consumed part of the heroin together . \u201c PERSON \u201d took the remaining heroin away with him .","After the test purchase a search was carried out at the applicant \u2019s flat . No money was found , but the police seized an empty sachet with traces of heroin , a piece of cotton wool soaked in heroin and an empty syringe , also with traces of heroin . The applicant was charged with drug trafficking .","The Moskovskiy District Court of Cheboksary examined the case at first instance . The applicant denied having been involved in drug dealing . He pleaded guilty to having acquired heroin on behalf of \u201c PERSON \u201d but explained that he had only done so because of the arrangement to consume it together , as he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms . He alleged that he had committed the offence as a result of entrapment .","\u201c PERSON \u201d was called as a witness and examined during the trial , although his identity was kept secret . He testified that he had called the applicant asking him to supply him with heroin and that he had purchased CARDINAL sachets of the drug at the applicant \u2019s flat . When cross - examined , \u201c PERSON \u201d refused to answer the following questions : whether he knew the applicant ; whether he knew the applicant \u2019s heroin dealer ; whether he knew that the dealer was coming after he had left the money with the applicant ; whether it was his initiative to conduct a test purchase from the applicant ; whether he had previously bought drugs from the applicant ; and whether he had previously been arrested by the drugs police .","On CARDINAL DATE the first - instance court found the applicant guilty of selling drugs and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , having found him to be a serial offender . In its judgment the court relied , among other evidence , on the transcripts of the applicant \u2019s intercepted telephone calls which had taken place between him and \u201c PERSON \u201d during the transaction on DATE . It noted that the audio recording had confirmed receipt of the money and that the applicant had given drugs to the informant .","The applicant appealed on the grounds , inter alia , that he had been convicted of an offence committed as a result of police entrapment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , upholding , in substance , the first - instance judgment . At the same time it reclassified the offence as attempted sale , having reduced the sentence to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE the Presidium of ORG examined a request by the applicant for supervisory review and decided that the applicant was not a serial offender . It reduced the applicant \u2019s sentence to DATE and QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment and upheld the remainder of the earlier judicial decisions .","The applicant is a drug user . At the time of her arrest she was unemployed . At the time of lodging her application she was serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony following her criminal conviction in respect of which she lodged this application .","On TIME the drugs police conducted CARDINAL test purchases whereby the applicant first procured QUANTITY of cannabis for police informant \u201c LOC and CARDINAL a half hours later procured QUANTITY of cannabis for an undercover police officer , \u201c PERSON \u201d . The parties differ as to the reasons for ordering the test purchases and as to the circumstances in which the applicant had agreed to procure the drugs . According to the Government , the drugs police had been in possession of operational information from an undisclosed but reliable source that the applicant was trafficking in cannabis . According to the applicant , the police had had no preliminary information about her alleged criminal activity and had ordered the test purchase without a valid reason . She claimed that she had procured drugs for the undercover agents as a result of entrapment .","On the basis of the test purchases the applicant was charged with selling drugs .","The Sovetskiy District Court of GPE examined the case at first instance . At the trial the policemen and the witnesses testified regarding the test purchases . They all pointed out that during the test purchase the applicant had been in a state of narcotic intoxication . A forensic report also confirmed that at the time of arrest the applicant had been under the influence of opiates .","The court asked the prosecutor if the investigating authorities had had any classified information incriminating the applicant . The prosecutor replied that all confidential material relating to the conduct of the test purchase had been disclosed . However , when the court subsequently examined the police officers they testified that , prior to the test purchase , the police had received operational information that the applicant was selling cannabis at RUB CARDINAL per box , but they could not name the source or expand on that information at the hearing because the information remained confidential .","\u201c LOC and \u201c PERSON \u201d were called as witnesses and were examined during the trial , although their identity was kept secret .","NORP \u201c PERSON \u201d testified that he had met the applicant in DATE and that she had immediately offered to purchase cannabis for him . He had called her back in DATE and asked her to supply him with cannabis . She had sold him CARDINAL sachets for RUB CARDINAL during the test purchase , and he had paid her with banknotes marked with a UV marker pen . He denied having been acquainted with \u201c LOC and also denied the involvement of any intermediary between himself and the applicant .","\u201c NORP \u201d testified that he was an occasional cannabis smoker and that he had collaborated with the drugs police . He had met the applicant in DATE and she had asked him if he was taking drugs . He stated that the applicant had offered to buy him drugs but could not remember in what circumstances . He had then reported on her to the drugs police , who had decided to carry out a test purchase in which he would act as a buyer . The transaction had taken place inside the entrance to a block of flats , and the applicant had handed him CARDINAL sachets of cannabis . When cross - examined , he denied having consumed drugs with the applicant during the test purchase .","The applicant alleged that she was a cannabis smoker but had never been involved in drug dealing . She pleaded guilty to having acquired cannabis on behalf of \u201c NORP \u201d but explained that she had only done so exceptionally and as result of entrapment . She testified that she had met \u201c PERSON when she was renting a room in his flat . She knew that he was a drug user and they had once smoked cannabis together . On CARDINAL occasion he had told her that he wanted to overcome his addiction to strong drugs and needed some \u201c weed \u201d to ease the withdrawal pains . The applicant could see that he was suffering and out of compassion had agreed to buy cannabis for him from her dealer . On DATE she had met \u201c PERSON to take the money before going to the dealer , and he had then introduced her to \u201c PERSON \u201d , who had also asked for cannabis and complained of withdrawal symptoms . The applicant replied that she could find cannabis for \u201c LOC , but not for \u201c PERSON \u201d . Later on DATE she had met \u201c LOC to give him the cannabis that she had purchased for him . They had entered a block of flats so that she could pass it over to him and then \u201c LOC had produced a syringe of heroin and offered it to the applicant . She had accepted , although she was not a heroin user , and \u201c LOC had injected her with it . He had then told her to wait for \u201c PERSON \u201d and to pass part of the cannabis to him . Feeling disorientated from the effects of the drug , she had done as she was told and when \u201c PERSON \u201d came she had passed him the cannabis and then been arrested .","On DATE the first - instance court found the applicant guilty of selling drugs and sentenced her to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The applicant appealed , inter alia , on the grounds that she had committed the offence as a result of police entrapment .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal , having found , in particular , that there had been sufficient evidence that the applicant had procured drugs on TIME CARDINAL to DATE . It noted that the police officers had testified that they had received preliminary information that the applicant had been selling drugs . It also found that the police had acted in accordance with the law and therefore rejected the defence of entrapment . It upheld the first - instance judgment .","The applicant is a drug user . At the time of his arrest he was working for his father \u2019s company . At the time of lodging his application he was serving a prison sentence in a correctional colony following his criminal conviction in respect of which he lodged this application .","On an unspecified date the NORP regional office of the drugs police received information from an undisclosed source that the applicant was involved in drug dealing . On that basis the police carried out a test purchase of MDMA pills , commonly known as \u201c ecstasy \u201d , from the applicant . The test purchase was carried out by an undercover police officer acting under the pseudonym of \u201c NORP \u201d .","According to the Government , \u201c Azamatov \u201d had infiltrated a group of people close to the applicant , all of whom were dealing in and\/or using drugs , pretending that he was a drug user himself . The first time he met the applicant and his acquaintance , PERSON , they had told him that they were PERSON users and that they could help if he wanted to buy some , the price of CARDINAL MDMA pill being RUB CARDINAL . They gave him their cell phone numbers .","According to the applicant , he was approached by an acquaintance , \u201c ORG \u201d , with a request to buy some \u201c ecstasy \u201d for him . He knew that Ms S had a contact , a drug dealer , and he asked her to help him purchase CARDINAL MDMA pills for his friend . \u201c ORG \u201d picked him up in a car , with another person , \u201c NORP \u201d , who was supposedly in need of the drug . They then met PERSON and she took them to a night club where she met the dealer and purchased CARDINAL pills for \u201c NORP \u201d with the latter \u2019s money ( RUB CARDINAL ) .","The official records of the CARDINAL test purchases contain the following account . On DATE the police officer \u201c NORP \u201d was assigned to carry out the first test purchase of the MDMA pills from the applicant . \u201c Azamatov \u201d was given RUB CARDINAL . The banknote numbers had been noted , but they were not otherwise marked or photocopied . He met the applicant and PERSON at TIME DATE , handed the applicant RUB CARDINAL and they drove together to a night club where PERSON left them for TIME and returned with a packet containing four pills . \u201c NORP \u201d came back to the police station and handed in the pills . It was later established by an expert that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL pills contained an active ORG ingredient , while the other CARDINAL did not contain any narcotic substances .","The telephone communications between \u201c NORP \u201d , the applicant and PERSON prior to the test purchase were not recorded or intercepted , but an audio recording was made in the course of the transaction , starting at TIME on DATE .","On DATE the President of ORG authorised the tapping of the applicant \u2019s and PERSON telephones for DATE . Several recordings were made , the transcripts of which were appended to the case file , but they were not used as evidence during the trial . Transcripts made available to the ORG included CARDINAL conversations during which the applicant spoke about drugs , in jargon . It transpires from those conversations that he and his correspondents lived in constant search of drugs , shared information about their sources and purchased them together from whatever dealer they could find .","On DATE \u201c NORP \u201d called the applicant and asked him to purchase drugs for him . The applicant said that he could not help him , but they agreed to meet . When they met the applicant was arrested and charged with procuring large quantities of narcotic drugs on DATE in conspiracy with PERSON","The case was examined at first instance by ORG of GPE . The applicant and PERSON pleaded guilty in part but claimed that the crime they had committed was the result of police entrapment . The applicant pointed out , in particular , that there was no evidence of his prior involvement in drug dealing . He maintained that he had only agreed to assist \u201c GPE in acquiring drugs because he had believed that he was an occasional \u201c ecstasy \u201d user , like himself . He had not intended to purchase it for \u201c NORP \u201d , but had ended up doing so because of \u201c ORG \u2019s \u201d manipulation .","The court cross - examined \u201c NORP \u201d under a procedure whereby his identity was concealed from the participants in the proceedings , except the judge . He testified that his infiltration and the covert operation had been ordered because of the information about the applicant and PERSON received by the police , but he refused to name the source of that information . He stated that the applicant and PERSON had told him that they could sell him MDMA pills , but he had never bought any from them prior to the test purchase and had never seen either of them selling drugs to anyone . The court also cross - examined another police officer who had taken part in the test purchase and the witnesses in the investigation who had given details of the test purchase . The court also examined extracts of the recordings made during the test purchases , which were TIME .","Ms S. testified at the trial that the applicant had called her at QUANTITY on DATE and asked her to find some drugs for his friend , who was \u201c unwell \u201d . She had refused to begin with , but in the end he had persuaded her to help . She had called her dealer and found out that he had MDMA pills available . She had called the applicant back and confirmed that they could go and get the pills , and they had driven together to the night club to meet up with the dealer . There had been CARDINAL people in the car : the applicant , herself , \u201c NORP \u201d and \u201c GPE . Before she left the car the applicant had given her RUB CARDINAL and she had purchased the packet of CARDINAL pills with that money . She had then returned to the car and handed the packet to \u201c NORP \u201d .","The applicant \u2019s defence counsel referred in oral pleadings to the guidelines adopted on DATE by ORG of GPE on jurisprudence in criminal cases involving narcotic drugs or psychotropic , strong or toxic substances . He claimed , in particular , that it had not been established that the applicant had intended to engage in drug trafficking prior to being contacted by the undercover agent , or that he had carried out any preparatory steps to the commission of the offence .","On DATE the ORG of LOC convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant appealed . He reiterated his plea of entrapment and claimed , inter alia , that the police had no information suggesting that he had previously sold drugs . He also complained that the authorities had not made any attempts to find and question \u201c ORG \u201d , who had played a key role in the test purchase and could have cast light on the role of the police in the offence he had committed . He claimed that the first - instance court had failed to follow the guidelines adopted by ORG of GPE on DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . It did not address the plea of entrapment , having limited itself to the finding that the applicant \u2019s conviction had been lawful and well founded . It also noted that the undercover operation had been based on preliminary information indicating that the applicant was involved in drug dealing ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145341","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DNK","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF M.E. v. DENMARK","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Syria);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant , ORG , is a stateless NORP . It appears that he was born in GPE in DATE . Currently he lives in GPE .","The applicant entered GPE with his stepmother and CARDINAL siblings in DATE , when he was DATE . He was granted asylum in DATE , DATE his father entered GPE . The latter was granted a residence permit in DATE . The applicant \u2019s mother , CARDINAL - siblings and his paternal uncles live in GPE .","It appears that in DATE , when the applicant was DATE , he returned to GPE for DATE and worked as a painter . According to ORG , he stayed in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , but that appears to be disputed by the applicant .","He returned to GPE for DATE in DATE .","NORP In GPE , the applicant married and divorced twice . From each marriage he had a child , a son born in DATE and a daughter born in DATE .","The applicant has a criminal record . Among other things , in DATE he was convicted of assault , for which he was given a suspended sentence of CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment . In DATE he was convicted of making threats against witnesses and possession of a weapon , for which he was given a suspended sentenced of CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . In DATE he was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment for theft and human trafficking .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with drugs offences , and by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of GPE ( PERSON , henceforth \u201c the High Court \u201d ) convicted the applicant of CARDINAL counts of drugs offences relating to QUANTITY of heroin and cocaine , committed throughout DATE . ORG considered that the applicant had a leading role and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . A profit of MONEY ( ORG ) ( equal to MONEY ( ORG ) ) was confiscated . In addition , he was expelled from GPE with a ban on returning .","When issuing the expulsion order , ORG had regard , inter alia , to an opinion which had been obtained from ORG ) . The latter had held an interview with the applicant about his personal situation and ties to GPE and GPE , which included information about schooling , language skills , work , family etc . Before ORG the applicant stated that he speaks and understands LANGUAGE . He does not read or write LANGUAGE . He also stated that he speaks , reads and writes NORP well . However , an interpreter was used in connection with the interview regarding his personal circumstances which was held on DATE . ORG also considered the applicant \u2019s submission that he feared being returned to GPE because he had not sorted out the issue of compulsory military service and because he feared being punished by the NORP authorities if they found out that he had been sentenced for drugs offences in GPE . ORG referred to a consultation response of DATE from ORG , which included an expert opinion of DATE obtained by a named professor and former dean at ORG , concerning the principle of ne bis in idem set out in LAW . That provision stated that no NORP or foreigner will be charged in GPE with an offence on NORP territory , if he has been convicted and has served his sentence abroad or if the punishment has lapsed owing to the limitation legislation of the relevant country or if he has been pardoned . According to LAW , a judgment delivered abroad did not prevent prosecution for an offence falling under LAW , which applied to any NORP or foreign national who breached the law or committed a serious offence outside NORP territory harming national security or who forged Government stamps or forged or counterfeited NORP or foreign bank notes or debt instruments , which were lawful means of payment or in general circulation in GPE .","The High Court did not find that an expulsion order would contravene LAW . It stated as follows :","\u201c When balancing the considerations mentioned in section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL of LAW and the serious drugs offences committed by the applicant in the form of organizing the dealing in hard drugs of which the applicant has been found guilty , ORG takes into account on the one hand that the applicant must be deemed poorly integrated in NORP society : he never completed lower secondary school and has not at all participated in the labour market . [ The applicant ] has also previously been convicted of assault , making threats against witnesses , human trafficking and theft . ORG further emphasizes that [ the applicant ] speaks LANGUAGE and has retained certain ties with GPE , where his mother , CARDINAL - siblings and other family members are living , and [ the applicant ] has also stayed in GPE several times , including a period of DATE when he worked as a painter .","Factors weighing against expulsion are that [ the applicant ] entered GPE at DATE and has now lawfully resided in GPE for DATE and has thus had DATE and schooling here . It must also be taken into account that [ the applicant ] is married to and cohabits with a NORP national , a former stateless NORP , with whom he has a daughter of DATE . In addition , [ the applicant ] has been married by an NORP ceremony to another woman of NORP origin living in GPE , now a NORP national , with whom he has a son of DATE . [ The applicant ] has visiting rights to his son , but in reality has only sporadic contact with his son .","In view of the gravity of the offences committed and the sentence imposed , the High Court finds on an overall assessment that none of the considerations mentioned in section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW constitutes a decisive argument against expulsion , nor can expulsion of [ the applicant ] be considered contrary to the considerations of proportionality following from LAW ... \u201d","On appeal , on DATE , the judgment was upheld by ORG ( H\u00f8jesteret ) , referring to the reasoning by ORG .","NORP In DATE , by virtue of LAW , and since the applicant was nearing the end of his sentence , the police requested the relevant immigration authorities to determine whether , and in the affirmative , to which country the applicant could be returned . The applicant was interviewed and anew he objected to the expulsion . He maintained , inter alia , that although originally he had stated that he was born in GPE , where he was also registered , in reality he was born in GPE . The applicant did not wish to return to GPE , as he did not wish to perform his military service there . He also feared being returned to GPE due to his father \u2019s political past there . Moreover , he was in conflict with a NORP family , because he had had an affair with their daughter in DATE and she had subsequently falsely accused him of rape . Finally , he was afraid of being sentenced again in GPE for the drugs crime he had committed in GPE . He added that in DATE he had found a new girlfriend , who visited him in prison DATE . The applicant said that he would agree to being sent to GPE , where he had an aunt . He had CARDINAL siblings in GPE and CARDINAL in GPE .","By decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ( ORG ) , the former ORG , found that the applicant could be expelled to either GPE or GPE . It took into account that the applicant had maintained all along that he was born in GPE , that in the public register in GPE he was recorded as a NORP from GPE in GPE , and that he had relied on his fear of being called up for military service there . The fact that , during an interview on DATE , he had stated that he was born in GPE and produced a copy of a birth certificate , could not lead to another assessment . ORG did not find the applicant \u2019s story about the girl in GPE credible . It noted that he had not provided any information in this respect until the interview held on DATE , and found it unlikely that the girl \u2019s family would persecute him since allegedly he had ended the relationship in DATE . In addition it found that a related document produced by the applicant , allegedly issued by the NORP authorities , was not authentic . It did not find credible either the applicant \u2019s allegation that he could not return to GPE because of his father \u2019s political activities , notably since the applicant could not give any details about those activities . Finally , ORG did not find that the fact that the applicant had not performed compulsory military service in GPE or that he had been convicted for a drugs offence in GPE could bar his expulsion . With regard to the latter , it referred to the consultation response from ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .","The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG ( PERSON ) , before which he was represented by a lawyer , heard in person and able to submit observations . By decision of DATE , ORG upheld ORG decision , but found that the applicant could be expelled only to GPE , the country where he had lived DATE and which he had visited from DATE and again in DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE , in accordance with the provisions of section CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) , the applicant had instituted proceedings before ORG in ORG ( ORG ) claiming that there had been material changes in his circumstances , for which reason he requested the court to review the expulsion order . The applicant relied on LAW and referred in particular to his CARDINAL children in GPE and to his new girlfriend , who had a child from a previous relationship , born in DATE . Before ORG the latter stated that she would follow the applicant to GPE .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s request as it did not find that his situation had changed to such an extent that there was any reason to revoke the expulsion order . Upon appeal , the applicant submitted that he had married his girlfriend according to NORP tradition , that she was expecting their child , and that she no longer wanted to follow him to GPE .","On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision and stated :","\u201c For the reasons stated by ORG and because the [ applicant \u2019s ] present girlfriend , with whom he is married by an NORP ceremony , no longer wants to accompany him to GPE [ even though ] she has recently become pregnant and is expecting the [ applicant \u2019s ] child , the outcome can not be different . In this regard ORG has emphasised that the parties\u2019 relationship commenced after ORG judgment of DATE , for which reason the parties are considered not to have such justified expectations of being able to live together in GPE that the expulsion can be revoked . \u201d","Leave to appeal to ORG was refused on DATE .","The applicant was deported to GPE on DATE . According to a report procured by the NORP police , the applicant \u2019s father and uncle had travelled to GPE beforehand to meet the applicant upon arrival . QUANTITY police officers accompanied the applicant on the plane . They submitted the applicant \u2019s travel documents and a document translated into LANGUAGE , stating that the applicant had fully served his sentence in GPE , to the security staff on board and the immigration authorities at the airport in GPE .","Before being deported , on DATE , the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG and requested the application of an interim measure pursuant to Rule CARDINAL of ORG .","Since he only relied on LAW and invoked his separation from his CARDINAL children , his new wife , her child from a previous marriage , and their future child , his request for a Rule CARDINAL indication was not submitted to the President for a decision , of which fact he and his representative were informed in a letter from ORG DATE .","ORG , the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that upon arrival at GPE airport , the applicant had allegedly been detained and placed in different prisons , interrogated , notably about his conviction in GPE , whether he was addicted to drugs and whether there were persons involved in GPE . During this time , the applicant had regularly been subjected to torture .","On DATE , he was allegedly released in order to commence CARDINAL months\u2019 military service in GPE , but he was exempted after DATE because he suffered from heart problems .","Allegedly , he was also summoned to appear before the court in GPE to explain about his conviction in GPE . It appears that that case has been discontinued .","The applicant \u2019s wife and their child went to GPE to visit him .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had fled GPE and entered GPE , where he was detained .","On DATE , the applicant \u2019s representative informed the ORG that the applicant had entered GPE and requested asylum there .","The applicant was granted asylum in GPE some time during DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["3","8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-180494","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF Y\u0130G\u0130N v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE a gathering was held in GPE on the anniversary of the arrest of PERSON , the leader of the ORG ( ORG ) , an illegal armed organisation . The protesters gathered in front of the building of the ORG branch of ORG ( PERSON ) ( ORG ) , where a press statement was read out . Being a member of the ORG , the applicant participated in the gathering .","Subsequently , clashes occurred between police officers and some demonstrators who were attempting to block the traffic . According to police reports , QUANTITY police officers were injured as a result of objects thrown from the ORG building . The police then entered the ORG building and arrested CARDINAL people , including the applicant . DATE , the applicant was detained on remand .","On DATE the ORG public prosecutor charged the applicant and CARDINAL other people with membership of the ORG under ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The prosecutor alleged that the accused had participated in the public gathering in question in response to calls made by the ORG and had resisted the police officers , and that they had therefore acted on behalf of the ORG .","On DATE the applicant was released pending trial .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act ( Law no . ORG ) . The assize court did not find it established that the applicant had attended the reading out of the press statement in response to calls made by the ORG or that she had injured any police officers . It therefore concluded that the applicant could not be convicted of membership of the ORG or resistance to the police . The court nonetheless considered that on DATE the applicant had gone to the ORG building with a view to disseminating propaganda in support of the ORG and that she should therefore be convicted under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","Taking into account the applicant \u2019s good behaviour during the trial and the absence of any previous criminal record , the court suspended the pronouncement of her conviction on condition that she did not commit another intentional offence for DATE , under LAW ( h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 ) .","On DATE the court dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant against the above - mentioned decision . The final decision was served on the applicant on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["11"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-142515","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF DU\u0160KO IVANOVSKI v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was apprehended by the police on a location in GPE and searched . As indicated in the search record , which the applicant duly signed , the search was carried out without a court warrant and in the absence of witnesses , as provided for in sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The police confiscated CARDINAL keys and a mobile phone from him . The search was completed at TIME .","NORP On that date , an investigating judge of ORG ( \u201c the trial court \u201d ) issued CARDINAL separate search warrants ( Kri.br.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and PERSON ) concerning CARDINAL apartments ( CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL in the building in which the applicant lived ) and other LOC ( \u043d\u0430\u0440\u0435\u0434\u0431\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0441 \u043d\u0430 \u0434\u043e\u043c \u0438 \u0434\u0440\u0443\u0433\u0438 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0438 ) owned by the applicant \u2019s father . The search warrants were issued on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had been involved in drug trafficking .","Both apartments and the accompanying cellars were searched DATE in the presence of the applicant \u2019s father and CARDINAL neighbours , who acted as witnesses . CARDINAL packages containing an unknown substance were found . An authorised police officer , the neighbours , as well as the applicant \u2019s father , who was specified in the search records as the occupier of the LOC , signed the search records without any objection . The searches were completed at TIME . and TIME . At the request of those attending the search , the following note was included in the search record concerning apartment no . CARDINAL :","\u201c The packages were found in the cellar belonging to apartment no . CARDINAL of the same building , which was opened with a key confiscated during the personal search of [ the applicant ] .... \u201d","As indicated in that search record , a certificate of confiscation of property ( \u201c the certificate \u201d ) was issued concerning the CARDINAL packages found in the cellar . It stated that the packages had been confiscated in relation to a crime punishable under LAW ( drug trafficking ) . The applicant had not been present in the cellars while those were being searched but was brought to the LOC afterwards ( see \u00a7 QUANTITY below ) . He signed the certificate of confiscation as a person from whom the packages had been confiscated .","On DATE ORG at ORG ( \u201c the Bureau \u201d , PERSON \u0437\u0430 \u043a\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0430\u043b\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0447\u043a\u0430 \u0442\u0435\u0445\u043d\u0438\u043a\u0430 ) carried out an expert examination of the padlock which had secured cellar no.CARDINAL and CARDINAL keys that had been confiscated from the applicant . According to the expert report of that date ( no . MONEY ) , the locking system of the padlock had been damaged and it could be opened with any object , including all keys confiscated from the applicant .","In another expert report ( X-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) of that date , the ORG confirmed that CARDINAL packages found in cellar no.CARDINAL contained QUANTITY of heroin . As to the remaining QUANTITY found in the CARDINAL other packages , the report stated that they contained CARDINAL substances that were often mixed with heroin . That was confirmed by an additional expert report of the ORG dated DATE ( no . X-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . As indicated in the report X-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , each of CARDINAL packages found in the cellar contained between ORG and ORG . The dimensions of the largest package were QUANTITY .","A third expert report of the ORG ( SK-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) of DATE that concerned a fingerprint found on CARDINAL of the packages confiscated in cellar PERSON stated :","\" The fingerprints found were entered into the system of automatic search of fingerprints ... it was determined , after verification of the list of suspected candidates , that [ the fingerprints ] corresponded to ( the applicant \u2019s ) right middle finger ... \"","On DATE , ORG lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor accusing the applicant of drug trafficking . In support , it submitted the evidence described above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and a number of photographs .","On DATE an investigating judge of the trial court examined the applicant in the presence of his lawyer . The applicant remained silent . He confirmed , however , that he had signed the record of his personal search and CARDINAL certificates of confiscation of property . The investigating judge opened an investigation against the applicant and ordered his pre - trial detention for DATE .","On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an indictment with the trial court charging the applicant with having been in possession of and offering for sale CARDINAL packages containing QUANTITY ( the weight was specified to QUANTITY later at the trial ) of heroin and QUANTITY of other prohibited substances , which had been found in the cellar of the building in which he had lived .","At a hearing held on DATE , the trial court examined the applicant , who denied any connection with the drugs found in the cellar . As to the cellar , he submitted that it belonged to a third party , whom he did not know . He further stated that after he had been arrested , he had been brought with a police car in front of the building in which he had lived . He had waited in the car for TIME before the police had brought him to the cellar . He submitted that there had been many people ( \u043c\u0435\u0448\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) there , including QUANTITY police inspectors who had asked him to hold the packages in his hands in order to photograph him . The applicant also stated :","\u201c They forced me to touch the drugs ; I do n\u2019t remember what the packages looked like and how many there were . At that point , maybe I touched ( the drugs ) , I do n\u2019t remember . Then they photographed me ; I refused [ to cooperate ] the whole time . My father was also present . Then , they brought me to the police ( station ) where they again forced me to take the [ package of ] drugs , to hold it in my hands in order to take photographs ... Then , they started beating me and jumping over handcuffs ( put ) on my hands in order to [ make me ] touch the drugs . Then , they took my fingerprints . I was again physically ill - treated . They stopped when my lawyer arrived ... \u201d","As regards the alleged ill - treatment by the police , he stated that he had neither asked for medical assistance nor had he informed the investigating judge due to fear of further ill - treatment by the police . He had not seen how and what key had been used to open the door of the cellar because he had been , at that time , in the police car . He further stated that he had signed the search records in the presence of a police officer and CARDINAL witnesses . He had voluntarily signed the confiscation records regarding the keys found in his possession . As regards the certificate of confiscation concerning the drugs he stated :","\u201c ... I most probably signed it when they ( police officers ) gave me CARDINAL sheets of paper to sign ... \u201d","The applicant \u2019s lawyer requested that the court examine the applicant \u2019s father regarding the place where the drugs had been found and title to the apartment . In a statement , the applicant \u2019s father confirmed that the police had shown him CARDINAL search warrants and that the search had been carried out in his presence and that of CARDINAL neighbours . He also stated :","\u201c ... I use other cellars in the building , namely CARDINAL small cellars that I have constructed and another one which belongs to ... When they did not find anything ( in his cellars ) , a policeman ... entered cellar no.CARDINAL , which is currently used by the sister of ORG , who owns the apartment and the cellar . After some time , policemen opened the padlock with the keys confiscated from [ the applicant ] ... After TIME , a policeman called me and said that he had found something in the cellar \u2019s ventilation shaft ... I saw a plastic bag . After he had taken the bags out , I noticed that there were CARDINAL bags . He put them on a metal sheet . Before doing so , he called the witnesses , namely the QUANTITY neighbours , who confirmed what they were looking at . They called my son PERSON . When he arrived , [ the police officer ] told him to stand next to the metal sheet in order for him to be photographed . Actually , he pushed him against the metal sheet and then [ the applicant ] , in order not to fall down , touched the metal sheet with his hands . Thus , he touched the packages . They photographed him with the packages and took him away again . Then they brought the dog . Then we went upstairs to the apartment . [ The police officer ] forced me to sign the record that the packages had been found in cellar no.CARDINAL , which I did . That meant that they did not find anything in my place , but in the [ cellar belonging to ] apartment no.CARDINAL ... \u201d","As indicated in the record , the applicant \u2019s father reiterated that cellar no.CARDINAL had been opened with a key found in the applicant \u2019s possession , which belonged to another padlock . He also stated :","\u201c I want to say that CARDINAL keys of ours ( the applicant \u2019s and his ) fitted in that padlock . [ The police officer ] actually opened ( the padlock ) with CARDINAL of my keys and found out that CARDINAL of the keys that PERSON had fitted in the padlock . [ They ] were a pair , of which I had CARDINAL and PERSON had the other . \u201d","The applicant \u2019s father also stated that the police officer had not been wearing gloves when he had taken the packages out . He had put gloves on later .","NORP In his concluding remarks made at the trial , the applicant \u2019s lawyer objected that no search warrants had been issued regarding the personal search of the applicant and the search of cellar no.CARDINAL . In the absence of any eyewitnesses , there had been no direct evidence that would link the applicant with the drugs , which had been hidden in a cellar that had belonged to a third party and could have been opened with any key . He also argued that the applicant \u2019s fingerprint had been secured in the absence of an expert and that the police had sought an expert examination ex post facto . He maintained that expert report PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been unclear and imprecise because it had contained no information as to the manner and circumstances under which that fingerprint had been secured . Furthermore , it would have been impossible for the applicant to manipulate the packages with CARDINAL finger . He further argued that no fingerprints had been found on the padlock and the cellar where the drugs had been found .","He also challenged the expert examination of the substance found in the packages , arguing that the latter had been too small to contain compacted material in the quantity indicated in the expert report ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In this connection he argued that it had not been established the place and person who had determined the quantity of the substance . He also submitted that the expert examinations had been carried out in his absence . Furthermore , he challenged whether the substance found had been pure heroin . In this connection he also stated :","\u201c I think that the problem [ arising from ] the practice that the prosecuting body also carries out expert examinations means that the evidence [ obtained thereby ] is not impartial . \u201d","On DATE the trial court convicted the applicant , who had a previous criminal record ( suspended prison sentence for an act of violence ) , of drug trafficking and sentenced him to CARDINAL - and - a - half years\u2019 imprisonment . The court established that he had stored , with the aim of offering for sale , the CARDINAL packages containing QUANTITY of heroin found in cellar no.CARDINAL . The court held inter alia :","\" Cellar no.CARDINAL where the drugs were found had been locked with a padlock that could be open with any keys besides the original ones .","The court established these facts on the basis of admitted written evidence ... The expert examinations of [ the ORG ] confirmed that the substance found in the compacted packages was QUANTITY heroin . The expert examination confirmed that the fingerprint , which had been found and secured during the on - site examination , corresponded to the accused \u2019s right middle finger ...","The court examined the arguments presented by the defense .... , but it finds that they are unsubstantiated because the court established ... that the written evidence , notably the record concerning the search of home and other LOC had been drawn up in lawful procedure in the presence of CARDINAL witnesses and on the basis of a search warrant issued earlier . The attending witnesses are neighbours who were present there by accident and whom [ the applicant \u2019s father ] knew . The court established that the accused had signed the certificate for confiscated property without any qualification . He did not contest his signature .","The court examined the arguments of [ the applicant \u2019s lawyer ] that there were no witnesses to corroborate that the accused had hidden the drugs in order to offer it for sale and that the accused could not be brought in connection with the drugs hidden in a cellar that did not belong to him , but ( the court ) dismissed those arguments on the basis of a written evidence , notably the ( fingerprint ) expert opinion by [ the ORG ] , which confirmed that the fingerprint corresponded to the [ applicant \u2019s ] middle finger . Accordingly it is irrelevant that the drugs were found in the cellar belonging to a third person .","The court examined the statement produced by [ the applicant \u2019s father ] according to which the police officers had pushed his son against the metal sheet where drugs had been put and that , in order not to fall down , he had touched ( the packages ) but it gave no weight because the responsible police officers acted in compliance with their official duty and after they had found the drugs they photographed him next to ( the packages ) . There was no reason for them to push the accused or to secure evidence with the use of force . The father \u2019s statement was biased because it concerns his son and it is understandable that he wants to help [ the applicant ] avoid criminal liability ... \u201d","NORP In an appeal of DATE , the public prosecutor complained that the sentence given to the applicant had been too lenient .","On DATE the applicant appealed against the trial court \u2019s judgment , arguing that his conviction had been based on inadmissible evidence , namely there had been no court warrant authorising the search of cellar no.CARDINAL and the expert examinations of the substance and the fingerprint found on CARDINAL of the packages in that cellar . He reiterated his complaints regarding the quality and reliability of the fingerprint expert evidence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In this connection he complained about the trial court \u2019s failure to examine the police officers who had secured his fingerprint in his absence , as well as the experts who had drawn up report S\u041a-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL and requested that they be examined . He further argued that the trial court could not have validly based its judgment on those expert examinations since they had been carried out by the Bureau , a body that operated within ORG , which had set in motion the criminal proceedings against him . Accordingly , the examinations had been biased . He also sought to have alternative expert examinations conducted . That concerned both the fingerprint expert evidence , which according to him , had been the sole evidence linking him with the drugs , as well as the expert examination of the substance . As to the latter examination , he reiterated his complaints raised in the concluding remarks ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The applicant also requested that the court examines the neighbours ( providing their names and addresses ) who had attended the search regarding his allegations that his fingerprint found on CARDINAL of the packages had been the result of an argument which he had had in the cellar with the police after he had refused to comply with their order to touch the packages .","At a public session held on DATE in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer , ORG dismissed the appeals and upheld the trial court \u2019s judgment . It held that :","\" ... the evidence admitted at the trial on which the judgment was based do not contain such deficiencies so as to be regarded unlawful evidence that can not serve as a legal basis for the judgment , within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act .","As evident from the case - file , the search of the accused \u2019s home and other accompanying LOC ... and the personal search of the accused were carried out in accordance with the ( relevant ) statutory provisions ...","The search of the home and other LOC was carried out by competent officials on the basis of a written warrant by the investigating judge ... in the presence of CARDINAL adult citizens , as witnesses and the occupier of the premises-[the applicant \u2019s ] father . Search records were drawn up and duly signed by the competent official , the occupier and the attending witnesses , in accordance with sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW . The personal search of the accused was carried out without a court warrant and in the absence of witnesses , but it was done by competent officials on account of a reasonable suspicion ... in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW . Accordingly , the search records are a valid ground on which the court judgment was based .","The court examined the complaint ... concerning the lack of an order by the investigating judge for the expert examinations carried out by [ the ORG ] ... regarding the nature and composition of the substance and the origin of the fingerprint evidence ; however , the ORG has competence to request expert examinations ...","... On the basis of admitted evidence , especially that the accused was in possession of the keys from the door of the cellar ; [ the applicant \u2019s ] fingerprint found on one of the packages containing drugs and the certificate for confiscated property signed by the accused , the trial court had undoubtedly established [ the applicant \u2019s ] identity as the perpetrator of the criminal offence ...","The court examined the complaint regarding the quantity and composition of the drugs , but it dismissed it finding that the trial court had established [ the quantity of the drugs ] , on the basis of the expert opinion by [ the ORG ] , which applied ( it gave a description of the used methodology ) .","The court dismissed the complaint regarding the objectivity of the expert opinions of [ the ORG ] , since it was a department that was founded and operated within ORG , as a ORG body , which had been authorised to carry out expert examinations , as specified in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ... ( furthermore , the expert reports ) ... had been based on scientific methods , which enable valid results ... on the basis of the case - file , it can be established that after the competent officials had discovered the criminal offense , ( they ) secured evidence which had been transmitted to [ the ORG ] whose experts had determined [ the applicant \u2019s ] identity applying the system of automatic search of fingerprints .","The court considered the complaint regarding the examination of [ the neighbours ] as witnesses ... but it dismissed it because ... [ the neighbours ] had signed the search records without any objection , which means , for all practical purposes , that they had confirmed [ the record \u2019s ] veracity regarding the search . Accordingly , it is not necessary for them to be examined ... \"","On DATE the applicant lodged an application for extraordinary review of a final judgment ( \u0431\u0430\u0440\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u043e\u043d\u0440\u0435\u0434\u043d\u043e \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0438\u0441\u043f\u0438\u0442\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0441\u0438\u043b\u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430 ) , arguing that there had been no direct evidence corroborating his guilt . In this connection he reiterated his complaints that cellar no.CARDINAL had been searched without a court order ; that the trial court should have summoned the experts and police officers regarding his fingerprint ; and that ORG had wrongly found that their examination and the examination of the neighbours would have been irrelevant . In this connection , the applicant \u2019s lawyer stated that :","\u201c ... the ( police ) officers present in cellar ( no.CARDINAL ) forced [ the applicant ] to touch the packages in order to confirm whether they [ contained ] compacted [ material ] . [ The applicant ] refused to comply with the ORG order to touch the packages and due to the mass of people pushing each other ( \u043f\u043e\u0440\u0430\u0434\u0438 \u043d\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u0430\u0442\u0430 \u043c\u0435\u0448\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 \u0438 \u0442\u0443\u0440\u043a\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0446\u0430 ) , he was again taken to the police station . The same method of treating [ the applicant ] continued in the police station , where he was forced to touch the packages in order to obtain his fingerprint [ on them ] ... \u201d","He further reiterated his concerns regarding the quality and impartiality of the expert examinations carried out by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE above ) and sought alternative expert examinations of the fingerprint and heroin found .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application and confirmed the lower courts\u2019 judgments . The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :","\" ... the evidence admitted at the trial on which the judgment was based do not contain such deficiencies so as to be regarded unlawful evidence that can not serve as a legal basis for the judgment , within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW . The lower courts correctly established that the search of the accused \u2019s home and other accompanying LOC ... and the personal search of the accused had been carried out in accordance with the ( relevant ) statutory provisions ... The search of the home and other LOC , as evident from the admitted written evidence , was carried out , according to this court , by competent officials on the basis of a written warrant by the investigating judge ... in the presence of CARDINAL adult citizens , as witnesses and the occupier of the premises-[the applicant \u2019s ] father . Search records were drawn up and duly signed by the competent official , the occupier and the attending witnesses , which implies that sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Act had been respected .","It is true that the personal search of the accused was carried out without a court warrant and in the absence of witnesses , but the lower courts correctly held that such measures had been taken by competent officials on account of a reasonable suspicion ... in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW . Accordingly , the search records are a valid ground on which the court judgment could be based .","ORG examined the complaint ... concerning the lack of an order by the investigating judge for the expert examinations carried out by [ the GPE ] ... regarding the nature and composition of the substance and the origin of the fingerprint evidence , but it dismissed them as unsubstantiated . The court had decided in compliance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act ... [ The court ] can not accept the allegation raised in the extraordinary review request regarding the objectivity of the expert opinions of [ the ORG ] , since it was a department that was founded and operated within ORG , as a ORG body , which could be requested to carry out expert examinations , as specified in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ...","ORG considers that in the ordinary proceedings the trial court decided in accordance with section CARDINAL ) of the LAW . In establishing the facts , it had into consideration and assessed all evidence admitted at the trial , i.e. it assessed the evidence separately and taken together , and on the basis of such assessment , it drew conclusion if certain fact was established ...","In view of the foregoing , it is clear that in the ordinary proceedings all legally relevant facts were correctly established ... \"","On DATE the public prosecutor informed the applicant that there were no grounds for lodging a request for the protection of legality with ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-d"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159906","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF B\u0102RBULESCU v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence;Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","From DATE to CARDINAL DATE , he was employed by a private company ( \u201c the employer \u201d ) as an engineer in charge of sales . At his employer \u2019s request , he created a PERSON account for the purpose of responding to clients\u2019 enquiries .","On DATE the employer informed the applicant that his ORG communications had been monitored from DATE and that the records showed that he had used the Internet for personal purposes , contrary to internal regulations . The applicant replied in writing that he had only used PERSON for professional purposes . When presented with a CARDINAL - page transcript of his communications on PERSON , the applicant notified his employer that , by violating his correspondence , they were accountable under LAW . The fortyfive pages contained transcripts of all the messages that the applicant had exchanged with his fianc\u00e9e and his brother during the period when his communications had been monitored ; they related to personal matters involving the applicant . The transcript also contained CARDINAL short messages that the applicant had exchanged with his fianc\u00e9e on DATE using a personal PERSON account ; these messages did not disclose any intimate information .","On DATE the employer terminated the applicant \u2019s employment contract for breach of the company \u2019s internal regulations which stated , inter alia :","\u201c It is strictly forbidden to disturb order and discipline within the company \u2019s LOC and especially ... to use computers , photocopiers , telephones , telex and fax machines for personal purposes . \u201d","The applicant challenged his employer \u2019s decision before ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . He complained that this decision had been null and void since , by accessing his communications , his employer had violated his right to correspondence protected by LAW and LAW .","In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed his complaint on the grounds that the employer had complied with the dismissal proceedings provided for by LAW and noted that the applicant had been duly informed of the employer \u2019s regulations that prohibited the use of company resources for personal purposes . ORG judgment reads , in its relevant parts :","\u201c The court takes the view that the monitoring of the [ applicant ] \u2019s PERSON communications from the company \u2019s computer ... during working DATE regardless of whether the employer \u2019s actions were or were not illegal ( \u00eembrac\u0103 sau nu forma ilicitului penal ) \u2013 can not affect the validity of the disciplinary proceedings in the instant case ...","However , since the [ applicant ] claimed during the disciplinary proceedings that he had not used PERSON for personal purposes but rather for advising clients on the products offered by his employer , the court finds that checking the content of the [ applicant ] \u2019s communications was the only method for the employer to verify the [ applicant ] \u2019s line of defence .","The employer \u2019s right to monitor their employees\u2019 use of the company \u2019s computers in the workplace falls within the broad scope of the right to check the manner in which professional tasks are complete .","As long as the employees\u2019 attention ... had been drawn to the fact that , not long before the applicant had received a disciplinary sanction , another colleague had been dismissed for having used the Internet , the telephone and the photocopiers for personal purposes and they had been warned that their activity was under surveillance ( see notice no CARDINAL of DATE that the applicant had signed ... ) it can not be held against the employer that he had not proven transparency and that he had not been open with regard to his activities in monitoring the use of the computers by its employees .","The Internet in the workplace must remain a tool at the employee \u2019s disposal . It was granted by the employer for professional use and it is indisputable that the employer , by virtue of the right to monitor the employees\u2019 activities , has the prerogative to keep personal use of the Internet monitored .","Some of the reasons that make the employer \u2019s checks necessary are the possibilities that through use of the Internet employees could damage the company \u2019s IT systems , or engage in illicit activities in the company \u2019s name , or reveal the company \u2019s commercial secrets . \u201d","The applicant appealed against this judgment . He claimed that emails were also protected by LAW as pertaining to \u201c private life \u201d and \u201c correspondence \u201d . He also complained that ORG had not allowed him to call witnesses to prove that the employer had not suffered as a result of his actions .","NORP In a final decision of DATE , ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) dismissed his appeal and upheld the judgment rendered by ORG . Relying on ORG Directive PERSON , ORG ruled that the employer \u2019s conduct had been reasonable and that the monitoring of the applicant \u2019s communications had been the only method of establishing if there had been a disciplinary breach . With regard to his procedural rights , ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s arguments , stating that the evidence already before it was sufficient . ORG decision reads , in its relevant parts :","\u201c In view of the fact that the employer has the right and the obligation to ensure the functioning of the company and , to this end , [ the right ] to check the manner in which its employees complete their professional tasks , and of the fact that [ the employer ] holds the disciplinary power of which it can legitimately dispose and which [ entitled it ] to monitor and to transcribe the communications on PERSON that the employee denied having had for personal purposes , after having been , together with his other colleagues , warned against using the company \u2019s resources for personal purposes , it can not be held that the violation of his correspondence ( violarea secretului coresponden\u0163ei ) was not the only manner to achieve this legitimate aim and that the proper balance between the need to protect his private life and the right of the employer to supervise the functioning of its business was not struck . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173380","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MANUYLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145212","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GERASIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants are all NORP nationals living in various regions of GPE . They obtained binding judicial decisions ordering the ORG authorities to provide them with housing or various services in kind , but the enforcement of those judgments was considerably delayed . Some of the judgments remain unenforced to date . The applicants\u2019 individual circumstances are detailed below .","The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born on DATE and lived in GPE , LOC .","On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the town administration to conclude a contract for utilities with the applicant before DATE , and to repair the basement of the building he lived in in accordance with the sanitary regulations before the cold DATE . The judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE a commission composed of several members of the housing maintenance authority and residents inspected the basement and found it up to standard .","On DATE the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment , finding that the basement had been repaired as required .","On DATE ORG of GPE clarified the judgment of DATE with regard to the utilities to be supplied . The court specified that the applicant \u2019s apartment had to be provided with heating , hot and cold water , wastewater services and a cleaning service for the communal area . The enforcement proceedings were resumed .","On an unspecified date , the town administration provided the applicant with a draft contract for the utilities but the applicant refused to sign it without giving a reason .","Considering their obligations under the judgment of DATE to be fulfilled , the town administration requested that the enforcement proceedings be closed . The bailiffs refused .","On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the administration \u2019s complaint against the bailiffs\u2019 refusal to close the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE the Primorskiy Regional Court granted the administration \u2019s appeal , finding that the latter had taken all possible measures to comply with the judgment of DATE .","The bailiffs accordingly closed the enforcement proceedings on DATE .","The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born on DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) .","On DATE ORG ordered the town administration to provide the applicant and his family with appropriate housing in GPE , in accordance with the law , in lieu of his house , which had been demolished by the authorities in DATE . The judgment became final on DATE .","As the judgment had still not been enforced , in DATE the applicant unsuccessfully sought a court order for the seizure of an apartment in a new block which had been built on the plot of land on which his former house had stood .","On DATE the ORG specified that the judgment had to be enforced by the mayor \u2019s office of ORG .","On DATE the ORG modified the method of enforcement , specifying that the judgment could be enforced by the payment of MONEY ( RUB ) by the town administration . The applicant did not appeal against that judgment and received the monetary award on DATE .","NORP The applicant , PERSON , was born on DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .","On DATE the ORG of ORG ordered the municipal administration to provide heating supply to her flat . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld that judgment on appeal . In a judgment of DATE the ORG of the GPE Region specified possible ways of enforcing the judgment of DATE , namely , by ensuring either a hot water or natural gas supply for heating purposes .","On DATE an individual gas heating device was installed in the applicant \u2019s flat .","On DATE the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings on the ground that the respondent authority had properly complied with the judgment of DATE .","The applicant , PERSON , was born on CARDINAL DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE ORG ordered the town administration to renovate the building in which the applicant held a flat under a social tenancy agreement . The judgment became final on DATE ( \u201c the first judgment \u201d ) .","On DATE the bailiffs commenced the enforcement proceedings . The building has at times been included in the town \u2019s plans to renovate municipal housing but the repairs have never been carried out owing to a lack of funds and a shortage of temporary housing facilities where residents could be relocated during the renovation .","On DATE the ORG found that the applicant was still living in unsuitable conditions and ordered the town administration to provide her and her family with comfortable housing of at least CARDINAL.CARDINAL sq . m. On DATE the judgment became final ( \u201c the second judgment \u201d ) and on DATE the bailiffs started the enforcement proceedings .","On DATE ORG dismissed the authorities\u2019 request for a stay on the enforcement of the second judgment , considering that such a course of action would endanger the applicant \u2019s and her family \u2019s life and health . The bailiffs\u2019 made repeated , albeit unsuccessful attempts to secure the enforcement of the judgment by the town administration , including by warning the head of administration of his criminal liability under LAW .","Neither the first nor the second judgment in the applicant \u2019s favour has been enforced to date . According to the latest information received by ORG , she was still living in the same building . On TIME of CARDINAL DATE there was an electrical short circuit in the communal area on the first floor , provoking a smoke emission in the building .","Meanwhile , the competent authorities continued the enforcement proceedings . After the communication of the present application to ORG , the bailiffs requested ORG on DATE to provide them with a duplicate of the writ of execution in respect of the first judgment , which had been lost shortly after its delivery . On DATE the court ordered a duplicate of the writ of execution to be delivered and the bailiffs resumed the enforcement proceedings on CARDINAL DATE . On that date the bailiff of ORG in GPE ( PERSON \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0432 \u043f\u043e \u043e\u0441\u043e\u0431\u044b\u043c \u0438\u0441\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u043c \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430\u043c PERSON \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u044b \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0432 \u043f\u043e PERSON ) decided as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . To initiate enforcement proceedings no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL [ in respect of ORG ] .","To set a time - limit of DATE for the debtor \u2019s voluntary compliance with the requirements provided for in the writ of execution ( section ORG ) of LAW On enforcement GPE ) .","To warn the debtor that it will be liable to pay an enforcement fee of RUB CARDINAL in the event of non - compliance within the time - limit set and failure to produce evidence that enforcement is impossible on account of extraordinary and unavoidable circumstances . In the event of extraordinary and objectively unavoidable circumstances and other unexpected and insurmountable obstacles making voluntary enforcement impossible , the debtor is requested to inform the bailiff accordingly within the time - limit set for voluntary compliance .","To warn the debtor that under LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE on enforcement proceedings the requirements of the bailiff are binding on all ORG authorities , local authorities , individuals and organisations and must be rigorously complied with throughout the territory of GPE .","To warn the debtor that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on enforcement proceedings the bailiff may impose a fine provided for by LAW on a debtor who does not fulfil , within a new time - limit , the requirements set out in the writ of execution .","To warn the debtor that under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on enforcement proceedings the expenses related to the enforcement proceedings are to be paid back by the debtor to the federal budget , the creditor and anyone else who incurred those expenses .","To warn the debtor that ORG officials may be prosecuted under LAW of GPE for non - enforcement of a judicial decision .","... \u201d","On DATE the bailiff was informed by ORG that the enforcement of the judgment was impossible owing to a lack of available flats .","On DATE the bailiff informed the applicant that the enforcement proceedings in respect of the second judgment were still pending along with CARDINAL other similar judgments against the town administration . The bailiff noted that the delay in enforcement could be explained , in particular , by the high number of judgments to be enforced , the lack of available flats and insufficient funding allocated for the building of new flats . The enforcement proceedings referred to by the bailiffs in the applicant \u2019s case included compulsory requests for the allocation of flats , the inclusion of additional funds in the budget , the identification of available housing and the seizure of available flats with a view to their allocation in accordance with the waiting list . The bailiff also informed the applicant that she was no . CARDINAL on the waiting list .","On DATE the bailiff warned the head of the town administration about criminal liability under LAW for non - enforcement of a judgment .","According to the latest information , the applicant had moved up to no . CARDINAL on the waiting list .","The applicant , Mr PERSON GPE , was born on DATE and lives in GPE . A retired police officer , he was assigned to life - long disability category CARDINAL in DATE on account of injuries sustained during his service .","NORP On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the applicant \u2019s right to be provided with a car for rehabilitation purposes and ordered ORG to ensure he was provided with one . This judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE the court supplemented the judgment of DATE , specifying that the applicant \u2019s right to a car might be secured either at the expense of the regional budget or by informing ORG of his needs . However , the judgment was not enforced .","After the communication of the present application to ORG , on DATE the bailiff imposed a fine of RUB CARDINAL on the debtor authority in accordance with LAW . On DATE the bailiff \u2019s decision was quashed by ORG on the ground that the debtor authority \u2019s act did not amount to an administrative offence .","On DATE the bailiff warned the head of the debtor authority about criminal liability under LAW for non - enforcement of a judgment .","On DATE the Governor of GPE issued Order no . CARDINAL-\u0440\/\u0430\u0434\u043c allocating RUB CARDINAL for the purchase of a car for the applicant . According to an estimate issued on DATE by ORG those funds would cover the purchase of a car ( a Lada Kalina DATE ( RUB CARDINAL ) ) and special hand control equipment ( RUB CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicant received a Lada DATE without any special hand control equipment . On DATE the enforcement proceedings were closed .","The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born on DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a military serviceman . On DATE FAC ordered the Commandant of military unit no . ORG to provide , as a matter of priority , the applicant and his family with housing in the geographical area of his military service in accordance with the law in force . The judgment became final on DATE but was not enforced .","After the communication of the present application to ORG on DATE , ORG allocated a flat located in the GPE suburbs to the applicant . On DATE the applicant was provided with that flat and on DATE concluded a social tenancy contract with the authorities .","The applicant , PERSON , was born on DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the Ostankinskiy District Court of GPE ordered ORG of the Federal Real Estate Cadastral Agency ( ORG \u0430\u0433\u0435\u043d\u0442\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430 \u043a\u0430\u0434\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430 \u043e\u0431\u044a\u0435\u043a\u0442\u043e\u0432 \u043d\u0435\u0434\u0432\u0438\u0436\u0438\u043c\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 \u043f\u043e PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 ) to consider a request by the applicant dated DATE by which she had requested data from the land register in respect of a plot of land located in the village of GPE , GPE , GPE Region ( cadastral no . MONEY ) . The judgment became final on CARDINAL DATE and the enforcement proceedings were brought on an unspecified date . However , the enforcement of the judgment was delayed .","On DATE ORG issued Order no . P\/CARDINAL for the reorganisation of the defendant authority and its incorporation into ORG of ORG . The relevant powers were later conferred to ORG \u201c ORG \u201d for LOC ( \u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0433\u043e\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0443\u0447\u0440\u0435\u0436\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u00ab PERSON \u043f\u0430\u043b\u0430\u0442\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0438 - \u201c ORG \u201d ) .","On DATE the ORG granted the applicant \u2019s request for clarification on how the enforcement would be carried out . It specified that the judgment had to be executed by ORG , GPE and Cartography ( ORG \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u044b \u0433\u043e\u0441\u0443\u0434\u0430\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u0440\u0435\u0433\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438 , \u043a\u0430\u0434\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430 \u0438 \u043a\u0430\u0440\u0442\u043e\u0433\u0440\u0430\u0444\u0438\u0438 - \u201c the FAC \u201d ) as successor to the respondent authority under the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the same court dismissed the ORG \u2019s request for appointment of ORG as successor to the respondent authority under the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the ORG requested ORG to provide the data required by the judgment . On DATE the latter informed the ORG that the register contained no information about the plot of land concerned and recommended that the applicant seek its registration by the competent authority of the PERSON district . On DATE that information was sent to the applicant .","On DATE the bailiffs closed the enforcement proceedings . On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint against the bailiffs\u2019 decision , considering that the judgment of DATE had been fully enforced .","The applicant , PERSON Ilnitskaya , was born on DATE and lives in GPE . She is a former member of the NORP army .","On DATE the Volsk District Court of GPE upheld her right to a housing voucher . The judgment became final on DATE but was only enforced on DATE when a housing voucher issued on DATE ( no . DATE ) was processed with a view to purchasing a flat in GPE , GPE .","The applicant , Mr PERSON Grinko , was born on DATE and lives in DATE , GPE . He is a military serviceman .","On DATE the Naro - Fominskiy Garrison Military Court ordered the commandant of military unit no . DATE to grant the applicant priority housing in accordance with the law in force . The judgment became final on DATE but was not enforced .","NORP The bailiffs brought the enforcement proceedings on DATE but their repeated requests to the respondent authorities did not result in any action being taken .","On DATE the Naro - Fominskiy Garrison Military Court supplemented the judgment , specifying that it had to be enforced by ORG of ORG ( PERSON \u0436\u0438\u043b\u0438\u0449\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043e\u0431\u0435\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f PERSON \u043e\u0431\u043e\u0440\u043e\u043d\u044b \u0420\u043e\u0441\u0441\u0438\u0439\u0441\u043a\u043e\u0439 \u0424\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u2013 \u201c the ORG \u201d ) .","After the communication of the present application to ORG , on DATE , the competent bailiff addressed the Minister of Defence with a view to bringing the officials responsible to administrative responsibility .","On DATE the bailiff of ORG in GPE ( PERSON \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0432 \u043f\u043e \u043e\u0441\u043e\u0431\u044b\u043c \u0438\u0441\u043f\u043e\u043b\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u044b\u043c \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0438\u0437\u0432\u043e\u0434\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430\u043c PERSON \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u044b \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u044b\u0445 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0432\u043e\u0432 \u043f\u043e PERSON ) warned the head of ORG that she could face criminal liability under LAW for non - enforcement of a judgment . On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the bailiffs again requested the debtor to comply with the judgment .","On DATE the bailiffs of ORG ( PERSON \u043e\u0442\u0434\u0435\u043b \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0434\u0435\u0436\u0443\u0440\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e PERSON ) appeared in person to summon the head of ORG but the latter was not found at her place of residence .","On DATE the bailiff handed a warning under LAW in person to the head of ORG at her place of residence but the latter refused to acknowledge receipt .","On DATE the Odintsovskiy ORG found that the allocation of an apartment to the applicant in GPE , GPE , had been unlawful .","On DATE the bailiff suspended the ORG registration proceedings in respect of CARDINAL apartments in GPE in order to compel the respondent authority to comply with the judgment .","DATE . On DATE the bailiff again summoned the head of ORG to appear in person in order to explain the reasons for the prolonged non - enforcement of the judgment .","According to the latest information received by the ORG , the judgment in the applicant \u2019s favour remained unenforced .","The applicant , PERSON , was born on DATE and lives in GPE , GPE Region . She served in ORG of ORG of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and was entitled to housing .","On DATE FAC ordered the relevant department of the ORG to provide the applicant and her family , as a matter of priority , with housing located in the geographic area of her service in accordance with the law in force .","That judgment became final on DATE but was only enforced on DATE when the applicant concluded a social tenancy agreement with military unit no . CARDINAL for a flat located in GPE , GPE .","The applicant , PERSON , was born on DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the ORG of LOC ordered the local administration to provide the applicant with comfortable social housing in accordance with the sanitary and technical regulations in force and located in GPE . On DATE that judgment became final but its enforcement was delayed .","On DATE the district court granted the applicant \u2019s application for a change in the method of enforcement and ordered the local administration to pay her RUB CARDINAL , that is , the market value of the housing to which she was entitled . On DATE the judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG . The award was paid to the applicant in CARDINAL instalments DATE and DATE .","DATE . The CARDINAL applicants mentioned below applied to the competent NORP courts with claims for compensation for delayed enforcement of the judgments in their favour , relying on ORG no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE , \u201c On Compensation for Violation of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable ORG or ORG of a ORG within a Reasonable Time \u201d ( \u201c LAW \u201d ) .","The domestic courts consistently found those actions inadmissible . They held that the judgments at issue imposed on the authorities various obligations in kind , while LAW was only applicable to delayed enforcement of judgments establishing a monetary debt to be recovered from the ORG budgets . ORG of GPE confirmed on appeal that LAW was only applicable to monetary judicial awards .","The domestic courts concerned and the dates of their decisions are detailed below .","PERSON : ORG of GPE , DATE ( upheld on appeal by ORG of GPE on DATE ) ;","Mr PERSON : ORG , DATE ( upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE ) ;","PERSON : ORG , DATE ( upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE ) ;","Mr PERSON : ORG , DATE ( upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE ) ;"],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178371","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SOBOLEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145229","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ANTAYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants are :","PERSON , born in DATE ;","PERSON , born in DATE ;","PERSON , born in DATE ;","PERSON , born in DATE ;","PERSON , born in DATE ;","PERSON , born in DATE ;","PERSON , born in DATE ;","PERSON , born in DATE ;","PERSON , born in DATE ;","PERSON , born in DATE .","The applicants live in LOC , GPE . They are members of CARDINAL families originally from GPE : the first and second applicants are married and the third to fifth applicants are their children ; the sixth to seventh applicants are married and the eighth to tenth applicants are their children . The PERSON family ( the first to fifth applicants ; the first applicant family ) have lived in LOC since DATE ; the PERSON family ( DATE applicants ; the second applicant family ) have lived in LOC since DATE .","The applicants submitted that attitudes towards the NORP minority had worsened after DATE , when the second armed conflict in GPE had started .","On DATE the third and eighth applicants had a fight with Mr A.B. in the settlement of GPE . The third applicant was injured in the hand and Mr PERSON took him to the hospital . On DATE the GPE regional forensic bureau noted knife wounds on the third applicant \u2019s hand , which were classified as passing damage to health . According to the applicants , both parties to the conflict decided not to contact the authorities in this regard . As is apparent from subsequent questioning , the PERSON family had asked PERSON A.B. to pay them MONEY ( RUB ) by way of compensation for their expenses , while Mr A.B. offered RUB CARDINAL .","In DATE ORG of the ORG ( ROVD ) questioned Mr A.B. about threats to his life by the third and eighth applicants and opened criminal investigation file no . DATE under Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( threat to life or health ) . It does not appear that anyone was charged or found guilty within this set of proceedings . In DATE Mr PERSON submitted a statement to ORG alleging that the police had used threats to force him to lodge a complaint against the first applicant family .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the case issued urgent search warrants at both applicants\u2019 NORP homes , referring to the possible presence of firearms . On DATE that decision was found lawful by the district court .","On DATE the first applicant family were at home at FAC , in the Verkhnesuyerskoye settlement in LOC . At TIME three vehicles \u2013 a PERSON minibus , a black PERSON and a VAZ-CARDINAL \u2013 arrived at their house . According to the applicants , CARDINAL men from various law - enforcement agencies got out of the vehicles . Some of them were wearing military uniforms and masks , others were dressed in civilian clothes . The applicants later identified PERSON ORG and PERSON ORG from ORG ( ORG ) , Mr. PERSON , deputy head of PERSON , Mr. PERSON and Mr U. from PERSON . The ORG servicemen carried automatic weapons and hand pistols . PERSON ORG was in charge of carrying out the search .","According to the applicants , no search warrant or other document was produced by the police . The fourth and fifth applicants were in the courtyard ; the policemen beat them there and said \u201c Why do n\u2019t you go to GPE , to fight us there ? \u201d","The servicemen wearing masks and Mr GPE entered the house . Mr ORG grabbed the second applicant by the hand and pushed her towards the sofa in order to handcuff her ; she fell to the floor and felt severe pain in her back . The first applicant was also punched in his back and legs by PERSON ORG","The third applicant was in the house . He had his sweater pulled over his head and was handcuffed . The servicemen beat him inside the house , then pulled him to the yard and beat him there in front of his brothers and then took him to the barn . According to the applicants , the third applicant \u2019s pants were removed and he was threatened that his genitals would be \u201c pulled off with a wire \u201d ; he was then thrown into manure and beaten .","According to the ORG statements , the servicemen mocked the third , fourth and fifth applicants saying that they would not be able to \u201c beget more NORP \u201d . They also forced them to shout humiliating comments . They referred to the events in the village of GPE , where in DATE CARDINAL local residents of NORP origin had been injured by unidentified persons ( see application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , PERSON v. GPE ) .","The second applicant saw that the fourth applicant , who suffered from epilepsy , had been brought into the house and was lying on the floor ; he was very pale . The second applicant was not allowed to give him medicine .","The search of the Antayevs\u2019 house lasted for TIME . At some point PERSON ORG announced that he had found a cartridge from a gun . The second applicant alleged that she had seen him taking it out of his pocket .","The search record of DATE drawn up by the ORG officers mentioned CARDINAL attesting witnesses and bore their signatures , as well as signatures by the third applicant indicating that he had been informed of his rights and obligations prior to the search and after it had been completed . No remarks or objections were noted in the record . The record listed one CARDINAL PERSON calibre cartridge for an automatic gun which had been found in a drawer in the kitchen , DATE videotapes and CARDINAL items of printed material in a foreign language . The copy of the record is partly illegible , but it appears that after the discovery of the cartridge the third applicant , in the presence of CARDINAL witnesses , stated that he had no knowledge of it .","As is apparent from subsequent documents , in DATE TIME videotapes were returned to the first applicant .","After the search , the first and third applicants were taken by the police to the offices of the local administration , where they were questioned separately for TIME in relation to the criminal investigation concerning threats to Mr A.B. They then returned home .","A relative of the Vashayevs\u2019 arrived from PERSON and took the second , third and fourth applicants to hospital .","According to the certificates issued by the LOC district hospital in DATE , the second applicant remained at the hospital from DATE to DATE . She was diagnosed with \u201c acute osteochondrosis [ degenerative disc disease ] , CARDINAL - sided lumbar - sacral radiculitis , post - traumatic coxalgia , hypertension of the second degree and stress \u201d . The third applicant remained at the hospital from DATE to CARDINAL April DATE . He was diagnosed with \u201c contusion of soft tissue in the thoracic - lumbar area \u201d . The fourth applicant was examined on DATE and left the hospital on DATE . He suffered from \u201c contusion of soft tissue in the abdomen \u201d .","The applicants argued that the extent of their injuries was more serious and that the first and fifth applicants had also suffered beatings . Further details of their injuries were recorded by the forensic experts in the course of the criminal investigation ( see below ) .","According to the certificate issued by ORG for spinal trauma correction , the second applicant was treated there DATE and DATE . She was diagnosed with a displaced fracture of the tail bone ( coccyx ) , resulting from DATE on DATE . On DATE the second applicant was successfully operated on her spine .","The applicants submitted their own statements to the ORG dated DATE describing these events ; they also referred to the documents submitted by them and collected during the criminal investigation . PERSON son Mr PERSON . ORG , who had taken the members of the first applicant family and then his own relatives to hospital on DATE , also submitted a statement dated DATE . CARDINAL journalists , Mr A.D. and Ms G.P. , the editor - in - chief of the district newspaper ORG , submitted written statements dated DATE and DATE , in which they described their futile attempts to obtain information from the police and the local hospital about the incident .","On DATE at TIME , the eighth and ninth applicants were returning home . Outside their house situated at no . CARDINAL GPE settlement , they saw a PERSON minibus , a GPE and a grey VAZ CARDINAL . In the courtyard of their house they saw CARDINAL men , some of them wearing camouflage military uniform and masks and carrying automatic weapons . Other men were wearing civilian clothes and were armed with pistols . The men did not identify themselves or produce any papers .","The men ordered these CARDINAL applicants to stand with their faces to the wall , pulled their caps over their eyes and beat them . According to the applicants , the men told them that they should go back to GPE and uttered other ethnically motivated insults .","The men entered the house , where the sixth , seventh and tenth applicants were waiting . The sixth applicant was handcuffed . The seventh applicant was told that she had given her sons a bad upbringing and that they should leave the village .","The search record of DATE drawn up by the ORG officers mentioned CARDINAL attesting witnesses and bore their signatures , as well as signatures by the seventh applicant attesting that she had been informed of her rights and the reason for the search prior to its commencement and that she had no remarks or objections at the end of it . The record listed CARDINAL hunting gun and CARDINAL cartridges . In relation to the gun and cartridges the seventh applicant explained that they belonged to her son Mr PERSON . ORG , who had put them in his bedroom DATE . In another bedroom an unloaded hand pistol was found . CARDINAL knives in cases , CARDINAL penknives and CARDINAL self - made knives were found amongst clothing . The seventh applicant offered no explanation regarding these items . Finally , CARDINAL videotapes were collected .","The eighth applicant was then put into the PERSON and taken to PERSON . According to him , on the way there he was beaten in his groin with rifle butts and a rope was pulled around his neck . As a result of the strangulation attempt , the eighth applicant lost consciousness on several occasions . He was also insulted and told that he \u201c would not be able to beget more NORP \u201d .","At the ROVD the eighth applicant was questioned and signed a statement about the events in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , without access to medical or legal assistance .","He was released at TIME . Mr Sh . PERSON took him to hospital ( see below ) .","The applicants submitted written statements by the eighth and ninth applicants , produced in DATE , and testimony by their neighbour PERSON L. , who had witnessed the beatings and insults administered to the eighth and ninth applicants on DATE . They also referred to the statement by the sixth applicant \u2019s son , Mr PERSON . ORG , mentioned above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .","On DATE the applicants lodged CARDINAL individual complaints with ORG ( \u201c the district prosecutor \u2019s office \u201d ) . They alleged , in particular , that the policemen had beaten and humiliated them on DATE . On DATE the investigator of the district prosecutor \u2019s office refused to bring any charges under Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) and ( b ) of LAW ( abuse of authority ) , on account of lack of evidence of a criminal act . Referring to the results of the preliminary inquiry , the decision stated :","\u201c On DATE , further to the complaint lodged by Mr A.B. , PERSON opened a criminal investigation under LAW [ threat of murder ] . Mr A.B. pointed out [ the third applicant ] as the person who had committed the crime ... Pursuant to the internal instructions , on DATE the commanding officers of the ROVD transmitted this information to the ORG of LOC , because the suspect was of NORP ethnic origin . In order to provide security during the investigative measures and for operative support , servicemen of the PERSON and special police force of ORG of the ORG were sent to the LOC district . The servicemen \u2019s personal data is at present classified .","The commanding officers took immediate investigative measures in the GPE settlement , at the scene of the crime . Immediately thereafter the investigator , with the agreement of the commanding officers of the ROVD , decided to proceed with the searches ... at the places of residence of [ the third applicant ] ... and [ the eighth applicant ] .","... the commanding officers and servicemen of the ROVD , ORG and special police forces went to carry out the searches ... PERSON [ ORG ] from the ROVD was in charge of the searches .","During the search at the GPE house , after the policemen had shown them the search warrant and invited them to surrender unlawful items voluntarily , [ the third and fourth applicants ] mounted active resistance to the search and prevented examination of some pieces of furniture . For this reason , CARDINAL servicemen of the special police force took them out into the courtyard and placed them near the VAZ CARDINAL car , together with [ the fifth applicant ] . The servicemen of the ROVD , special police force and attesting witnesses remained in the house and proceeded with the search , while the remaining special forces\u2019 servicemen held positions around the house . No unlawful actions or acts of physical violence were perpetrated by the servicemen against any members of the PERSON family . Towards the end of the search all members of the family were moving around the house freely . All items collected during the search were duly noted and securely sealed .","The search of the Vashayevs\u2019 house in GPE followed the same pattern , in line with the provisions of LAW . [ The sixth applicant ] , his wife [ the seventh applicant ] and daughter [ the tenth applicant ] were inside the house , while [ the eighth and ninth applicants ] were in the courtyard . ... No one from the PERSON family was hurt by the police officers . ...","The applicants\u2019 arguments alleging abuse of power by the police are therefore refuted by the information collected . This follows from the written explanations produced by the servicemen of PERSON , including senior officers , servicemen of the ORG and the special police force . The servicemen \u2019s explanations are consistent and non - contradictory . Each of them was questioned in relation to the actions of his colleagues which he had witnessed . None mentioned any abuses of power by their colleagues , while stressing the absence of justification for the alleged wrongdoing .","The witnesses who had been present during the searches also rebutted the ORG allegations about the abuse of power , including those who had stayed outside the GPE house . Both attesting witnesses had moved around the GPE house freely and , given the layout of the LOC , must have seen and heard the events in the courtyard . However , as is apparent from the ORG explanations , they did not notice any unlawful conduct by the policemen .","[ The conclusions of the forensic report issued by the expert of ORG ] were overturned by a commission of the [ same office ] ... The commission described [ the eighth applicant \u2019s ] injuries recorded on DATE as \u2018 not entailing consequences for [ the applicant \u2019s ] CARDINAL .","Based on the above , and also on the explanations given by servicemen of the ROVD as to the absence on [ the body of the eighth applicant ] and other members of the PERSON and PERSON families of injuries resulting from the policemen \u2019s actions , the district prosecutor \u2019s office looks critically upon the forensic reports ... about beatings recorded for [ DATE applicants ] . The inquiry established with a sufficient degree of probability that the circumstances of these beatings were contradictory and no connection with the searches has been established . \u201d","As a result of the ORG complaints against the above decision , on CARDINAL DATE the deputy to ORG opened criminal investigation file no . DATE under Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW ( abuse of power committed with the use of violence or with a threat of use of violence ) . On DATE both applicant families were informed accordingly .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office was put in charge of the case . In response to a request from the ORG , the ORG submitted in DATE a copy of most of the documents from criminal investigation file no . CARDINAL ( which comprised over CARDINAL pages ) . The relevant documents may be summarised as follows .","It is apparent that in DATE TIME applicants ( DATE applicants ) were granted the status of victims in the proceedings .","In the course of the proceedings in DATE and DATE the applicants were questioned on numerous occasions , first as witnesses and then as victims . They confirmed their statements about the circumstances of the searches , the beatings and the humiliating treatment . In particular , the members of the PERSON family described that on DATE a group of CARDINAL men wearing civilian clothes and CARDINAL military men had arrived at their house . The \u201c civilians \u201d were armed with hand pistols , and the military men carried automatic guns and were wearing camouflage uniforms , bulletproof vests , helmets and masks . The men had ordered them to lie down on the floor , had handcuffed the men and had beaten and kicked them ; the second applicant was pushed and fell backwards against a sofa ; PERSON ORG had kicked the first applicant while the military men had taken the fourth and fifth applicants into the courtyard and beaten them there .","The members of the PERSON family submitted that after TIME on DATE , the sixth , seventh and tenth applicants had been at home , while the eighth and ninth applicants were out foraging for hay . The members of the family who had stayed at home had been forced to lie on the floor by armed men wearing masks , but were then allowed to stand up by the men wearing civilian clothes who carried out the search . The sixth applicant had been handcuffed at first , but later his handcuffs were removed . The CARDINAL sons of the sixth and seventh applicants , the eighth and ninth applicants , were stopped by armed men when they returned home and were made to stand with their legs and hands apart against the wall , with their hats pulled down over their eyes . Several \u201c military men \u201d wearing masks and civilian clothes had punched and kicked them and beaten them with their rifle butts . The sixth , seventh and tenth applicants went into the courtyard when the search in the house was over , and had witnessed the eighth and ninth applicants being beaten . Then the eighth applicant was put in a PERSON vehicle where he was again kicked and a rope placed around his neck and tightened , as a result of which he had lost consciousness .","NORP The criminal investigation file contains several forensic expert reports issued by ORG expert bureau ( \u201c the forensic bureau \u201d ) . The first one , expert report no . ORG dated DATE , reported that the eighth applicant had suffered the following injuries : extensive bruising on the back of the head caused by a blunt object and not entailing consequences for the applicant \u2019s health , and CARDINAL circular bruises around the neck resulting from strangulation attempts . This had caused asphyxia resulting in temporary loss of consciousness and haemorrhages in the eyeballs , which constituted a serious injury . The report was issued upon the applicant \u2019s request .","Other reports below were issued on DATE in response to the investigator \u2019s orders . They concluded that the injuries had been caused by blunt objects and did not entail lasting damage to the GPE health .","Expert report no . CARDINAL concluded that the fourth applicant had been hit in the abdomen , resulting in bruising .","Expert report no . CARDINAL found that the third applicant had bruises over the lumbar area , on both sides .","Expert report no . CARDINAL concluded that the eighth applicant had haematomas on the left side of his neck and the left side of the chest .","Expert report no . CARDINAL described the second applicant \u2019s injuries as bruising of the upper lip , right upper hand , left shoulder and left leg .","Expert report no . CARDINAL found that the fifth applicant had contusions on the lower part of the left leg .","Expert report no . CARDINAL noted that the first applicant had bruising over the left side of his chest .","In DATE the experts of the forensic bureau issued their formal conclusions that the injuries could have been received at the time and in the circumstances as alleged .","In addition , the experts examined the records of the LOC district hospital . On the basis of the records , they concluded that the examination of the ninth applicant at the hospital on DATE had not revealed any injuries ( he had complained of pains in the chest area ) ; the examination of the sixth applicant revealed bruises on the right side of his chest . As is apparent from the applicant \u2019s signatures , they were made aware of these conclusions in DATE .","In respect of the second applicant \u2019s complaint about spinal trauma , on DATE the experts also examined copies of her medical records from the hospitals . The documents showed that in DATE the second applicant had sought medical assistance in relation to a fracture of the tail bone ( coccyx ) . She was operated upon in DATE . The exact date of the fracture could not be established ; this injury should be regarded as moderately serious .","By DATE the investigation had established the identities of the police officers who had taken part in the searches on DATE . According to the documents contained in the file , the group headed by PERSON ORG included CARDINAL other PERSON officers , CARDINAL officers from LOC , including PERSON ORG and PERSON ORG , and CARDINAL officers from the regional special police force unit .","The case file contains CARDINAL notes about the events of DATE written by the special police force officers , in which they stated that , while providing assistance during the search of the Antayevs\u2019 house in Verkhnesuyerskoye , they had had to physically restrain the inhabitants of the house , who had resisted the execution of the search and had refused to let the policemen enter and carry out their duties . CARDINAL men \u2013 the first , third , fourth and fifth applicants \u2013 had thus had to be restrained by force and handcuffs had had to be put on them .","All officers and servicemen who took part in the searches were questioned in the course of DATE . They denied that they had made the applicants lie on the floor , or pulled their clothes over their heads or beaten them .","NORP In particular , Mr N.P. from LOC , who had been in charge of the searches , stated on CARDINAL DATE that on DATE Mr A.B. had lodged a complaint with the ROVD that the third and eighth applicants had threatened to murder him . On DATE , the criminal investigation under LAW had been opened . In response to internal instructions from ORG , the local police had informed the PERSON about all criminal investigations involving ethnic NORP . On DATE , officers from the PERSON arrived at the ROVD . They were accompanied by CARDINAL members of the special police force , in order to ensure the safety and security of the search procedures . They had travelled together to GPE , where the investigator issued CARDINAL search orders , the first for the Antayevs\u2019 family house in Verkhnesuyerskoye . During both searches , the members of the special police force had run into the house first . PERSON ORG had served the search order on the first applicant , who had signed and dated it . The first applicant \u2019s wife and CARDINAL sons had also been at home at the time . They were invited to surrender weapons and illegal objects , but they denied having any such items . Then the search had started , and the members of the family had tried to interfere . They shouted and prevented the police officers from entering the rooms . Because of this , the officers from the special police force had escorted the first and second applicants\u2019 CARDINAL sons \u2013 the third to fifth applicants DATE into the courtyard . No one had hit the applicants . The search ended with the finding of CARDINAL cartridge for an automatic rifle , literature in a foreign language , and a number of videotapes . PERSON ORG had remained in the house the whole time and had thus not witnessed the events in the courtyard . The first and third applicants had then been taken by CARDINAL of the police officers to meet the investigator at the village administration \u2019s offices , while the rest of the group went to the PERSON family house . There PERSON ORG had shown the search order to the seventh applicant and invited her to surrender illegally stored items , such as weapons . When the applicants denied having any such things , the police had started the search . The proceedings were conducted in a correct and polite manner , and no one had been beaten or otherwise injured . The search resulted in the finding and seizure of a smoothbore rifle and cartridges for it , a handgun of foreign manufacture , home - made knives and knives with long blades , and CARDINAL pirated ORG tapes . During the search the witness had not seen the events in the courtyard , but when he walked out , no one had been using violence on the applicants . He also noted that during the searches both families had behaved emotionally , and had shouted and vowed to lodge complaints .","The head of PERSON , PERSON PERSON , stated on CARDINAL DATE that he had been informed on TIME DATE that both searches had taken place in a calm manner , without any problems . The head of the ROVD criminal department , Mr PERSON , explained that he had participated in the search at the Antayevs\u2019 house and had seen their CARDINAL sons in the courtyard , guarded by the special police force near the police car . The servicemen explained that the sons had obstructed the execution of the search . The CARDINAL had been put in handcuffs , which Mr. PERSON later removed , and he had remained with them outside . At some point the fourth applicant had felt unwell and the witness had asked PERSON GPE . to take him into the house to get treatment . After that he had accompanied the first and third applicants to the offices of the local administration , where the questioning had taken place . The applicants had not displayed any signs of ill - treatment or beatings .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr GPE . , a policeman with PERSON . He stated that he had not participated in the search of the Antayevs\u2019 house and had entered it only after one of the officers had told him to take the fourth applicant from the police PERSON vehicle into the house to treat him with medicine . Witness PERSON . accompanied the fourth applicant into the house and then travelled by car to the offices of the local administration . TIME later he had returned to the GPE house and observed that the applicants were in good health , with no signs of ill - treatment . He had then accompanied the group to the Vashayevs\u2019 house , which he likewise did not enter . He had remained by the fence , where he met the ninth applicant and talked to him until the search ended . The ninth applicant had appeared to be in good health and neither he nor any other family members had displayed signs of ill - treatment .","The police also questioned CARDINAL officers from the PERSON , including Mr GPE and PERSON V.G. They stated that the searches had proceeded calmly , except when the first applicant \u2019s CARDINAL sons , the fourth and fifth applicants , had to be escorted out of the house because they objected to the search .","Six officers from the regional special police force confirmed their presence during the searches on DATE . Their involvement had been limited to ensuring the security of the investigative measures . At the Antayevs\u2019 house they had escorted CARDINAL young men , the first applicant \u2019s sons , out of the house and put handcuffs on them because they had interfered with the search . At the PERSON family house they had not applied force to anyone , nor had they put handcuffs on anyone . Furthermore , they had not hit or used physical force on anyone , had not made anyone lie on the floor or covered anyone \u2019s head with clothes or hats , and they had not noticed that any of the applicants had injuries .","On DATE the attesting witness for both searches , PERSON , stated that both had been initiated by a number of the special police force officers DATE who were wearing masks and were armed with automatic weapons \u2013 running into the houses . At the NORP house the witness had seen CARDINAL man being led out , with his pullover over his head , and being stood up against the police vehicle with his legs apart . When she had entered the house , the men of the house were lying on the floor face down , with their hands behind their heads , while the woman was sitting on the sofa . The men were then allowed to stand up ; they walked around the house and , initially , they had voiced their objection to the search . The search at the NORP family home had proceeded in a similar manner . She had seen Mr GPE . and the ninth applicant talking by the fence ; she had also seen the eighth applicant in the PERSON where he had been talking to a man dressed in civilian clothes . No one had been hit or hurt .","The other attesting witness , as well as several local residents questioned by the police , had not witnessed any ill - treatment of the applicants on DATE .","It is apparent from the list of documents in the criminal investigation file that in DATE , in the course of the investigation , CARDINAL face - to - face confrontations were conducted between the applicants and the officers of LOC and the ORG who had taken part in the searches . In addition , CARDINAL identification sessions were carried out involving both the victims and the officers .","The case file contains records of the face - to - face confrontation on DATE between the applicants and the police officers . On the one hand , the first , second , seventh and ninth applicants , and on the other hand PERSON N.P. \u2013 who had been in charge of the operation \u2013 recounted their different and irreconcilable versions of events . The first applicant stated during the confrontation that PERSON ORG had kicked him once in the chest ; the second applicant confirmed this statement . During another confrontation the first applicant insisted that PERSON GPE . had beaten the fourth and the fifth applicants , while Mr. GPE . denied this . The fourth applicant also stated that he and his brother , the fifth applicant , had been beaten by Mr GPE . Other face - to - face confrontations with police officers contained similar statements .","On DATE the first and fourth applicants identified CARDINAL of the ORG officers , PERSON ORG , as a person who had participated in the search in their house ; the fourth applicant identified PERSON ORG , also a ORG officer , as the person who had hit him during the searches .","Also on DATE , the first applicant stated , during questioning , that he disagreed with the way the face - to - face confrontations and identification parades had been carried out . The record of the questioning , which the first applicant refused to sign , contains his allegations that these events had been arranged so as to exclude the individuals who had beaten them , and that the members of both families refused to attend them in the future . The case file also contains the investigator \u2019s reports of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE which record that the first applicant \u2019s behaviour had been hostile and that he had stated his disagreement with the manner in which the investigation was being conducted .","On DATE during a face - to - face confrontation , the fifth applicant identified PERSON ORG as the person who had beaten his brothers , the third and fourth applicants . Mr ORG denied this . Also on DATE , the fourth applicant identified PERSON GPE , a ORG officer , as the person who had hit him in the back and neck .","On DATE during a face - to - face confrontation , the second applicant identified Mr GPE as the person who had beaten her sons and husband and had pushed her onto the floor . Mr PERSON denied that he , or other officers , had used violence . He also denied that he had taken the gun cartridge out of his pocket , insisting that he had found it in a kitchen drawer . On DATE , after the confrontation with the second applicant , the applicants\u2019 representative noted that the investigator had refused to put a number of questions to ROVD officer Mr U. and had failed to record in full the second applicant \u2019s statements about her son \u2019s beatings .","The applicants submitted that during the questioning they had been threatened by the investigators , openly or covertly . Moreover , the investigator had refused to record certain statements , especially ones relating to the ethnically motivated nature of the attacks .","DATE . On DATE both applicant families wrote to ORG , seeking an update on the investigation into their complaints of racial insults and injuries .","On DATE the first and second applicants complained to the PERSON prosecutor of bias on the part of the investigator . They referred to the threats made by him to the victims . They also argued that since the ROVD officers had been directly implicated in the alleged events , the victims were at risk of further abuse and asked for the suspects to be arrested . The first applicant stressed , in particular , that the investigator had refused to record the statements made during questioning about the ethnic insults directed at them , in particular at the third applicant and the eighth and ninth applicants , who had been told that they \u201c would not be able to beget more NORP \u201d .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office dismissed a request by the ORG representative to obtain access to the criminal case file .","On DATE the applicants\u2019 complaint regarding the investigator was rejected by the district prosecutor .","On DATE the ORG representative lodged a complaint with ORG concerning the failure to take the necessary steps to investigate the crime and to look into its ethnically motivated nature . The complaint stated that the face - to - face confrontations and the questioning of the victims had been used to exert pressure on the applicants and noted that the investigator had failed to react to the threats made to the victims by those conducting the search . On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office rejected this request as unfounded .","On DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office suspended the investigation for the first time owing to the failure to identify the alleged perpetrators . The CARDINAL - page document summarised the steps taken so far and indicated that all the men who had taken part in the searches had been identified and questioned . At least some of them had been identified by the victims as the persons who had hit them . The document nevertheless concluded that \u2013while certain evidence supported the ORG allegation of ill - treatment DATE it appeared impossible to reconcile the inconsistencies in the ORG statements with the results of the face - to - face confrontations and identification parades , which was necessary in order to identify the police officers to be charged . This decision was quashed on DATE , in response to a complaint by the applicants .","On CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor \u2019s office again suspended the investigation owing to the failure to identify the alleged perpetrators . In this decision it was held that the ORG statements had been inconsistent and that they had refused to take part in additional identification parades and face - to - face confrontations . It concluded :","\u201c The criminal file contains sufficient evidence that [ DATE applicants ] were injured by police officers during the searches . ... The results of the forensic expert reports and the ORG statements could serve as evidence [ as to ] where , how many times , by what means and by which officers the victims were hit on DATE during the searches . However , the victim statements submitted during the questioning and the confrontations are mutually contradictory in part , and in parts are refuted by other evidence collected . ... [ T]his gives rise to a critical attitude to these testimonies and undermines trust in [ the victims ] . In addition , the [ special police force ] officers were wearing masks , making it impossible to determine which of them hit which victim , where exactly and how many times . The special police officers deny that they beat the victims .","The above makes it impossible to determine levels of individual guilt and to bring charges against any members of PERSON , the ORG or [ the special police force ] . \u201d","On DATE that decision was set aside by the district prosecutor \u2019s office in response to a complaint by the applicants . The investigation was resumed and several other police officers were questioned . On DATE it was again suspended , for reasons similar to those quoted in the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The document concluded :","\u201c The file contains sufficient evidence that [ DATE applicants ] were injured by police officers during the searches . However , given the inconsistencies in their later testimonies , it could not be established with certitude that the injuries were indeed caused by any particular officer and in the circumstances as described by the victims \u201d .","DATE . According to the information submitted by the Government along with their observations in DATE , in DATE that decision was quashed and the investigation was resumed by ORG of ORG . No documents relating to this latest stage of proceedings have been submitted and it does not appear that it has produced any results .","On DATE , pursuant to LAW , the applicants lodged a complaint concerning the actions of the district prosecutor \u2019s office with ORG . In their complaint the applicants alleged that the opening of the investigation had been delayed , that it had failed to take into account the ethnically motivated nature of the attack , despite the consistent testimonies to this effect , that the investigator had shown bias and threatened the victims , that their complaints to the district prosecutor \u2019s office had been futile , that they had not been allowed access to most of the documents in the case file , that no one had been charged with any crime and that all servicemen implicated in the events had been questioned only as witnesses . The applicants requested that the prosecutor \u2019s office be ordered to replace the investigator and to ensure proper supervision , in addition to reviewing the complaints about the ethnically motivated nature of the attack .","On DATE ORG partly dismissed the ORG request and partly refused to consider it on the merits . In respect of the alleged failure to investigate the ethnically motivated nature of the crime and the investigator \u2019s bias , the court found that these issues fell within the prosecutor \u2019s professional discretion . The applicants appealed , referring in particular to the lack of investigation of the ethnically motivated nature of the crime .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["14","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["14","3"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173776","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AZE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF MALIK BABAYEV v. AZERBAIJAN","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","The applicant \u2019s son , PERSON ( GPE ) , was born in DATE ; on CARDINAL DATE he was drafted into the army to perform his compulsory military service . From DATE he served as a sniper in GPE region in military unit no . CARDINAL .","On TIME DATE PERSON was on guard duty with CARDINAL other soldier ( PERSON ) at a military post called \u201c A \u201d in GPE region . At TIME he left his post and went into the nearby forest , where CARDINAL peasants were cutting wood . PERSON called the applicant using the telephone of CARDINAL of the peasants and asked his father to provide him with some belongings . He also asked the applicant to send him a mobile telephone topup card worth CARDINAL NORP manats ( AZN ) . During the telephone conversation he was in a good mood and did not complain about any problems . PERSON also asked the applicant to tell his mother to leave her mobile telephone turned on as he would call her later . Following that conversation , the applicant bought mobile telephone top - up cards and sent their passwords to his son by a telephone message .","According to the material in the case file , following the telephone conversation with the applicant , PERSON returned to his guard duty post . At TIME Q.S. left the post in order to change the guard and PERSON remained alone . TIME the soldiers heard a gunshot and went to the post , where they discovered GPE \u2019s body .","On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted under LAW ( incitement to suicide ) of LAW by ORG .","On DATE a record of an inspection of the scene of the crime was drawn up and signed by the commander of military unit no . CARDINAL , Major PERSON It was also signed by CARDINAL attesting witnesses , GPE and GPE , who were soldiers in the same military unit . The record states that the inspection began at TIME and ended at TIME According to the record , PERSON had been wearing a shoe and CARDINAL socks on his left foot ; however , the shoe and the sock of his right foot had been taken off . His right shoe had been found next to his body . According to the record , CARDINAL cartridge , a pen and a note written on a cigarette pack were found at the crime scene . Various photographs of GPE \u2019s body , the cartridge , the pen and the note were taken . The note read as follows :","\u201c I , GPE , commit suicide and nobody is responsible for that . I commit suicide because I do n\u2019t want to be a burden to anyone . Mum and PERSON , forgive me . Goodbye to everyone ; goodbye to life . PERSON . GPE","On DATE a record of the examination was drawn up by the investigator in charge of the case , who examined GPE \u2019s body at the headquarters of military unit no . CARDINAL in GPE region . According to the record , the examination began at TIME and ended at TIME Various photographs of PERSON \u2019s body were taken .","On DATE a record of the examination of the body was drawn up in the presence of a forensic expert in the city of PERSON .","On DATE a post - mortem examination of GPE \u2019s body was carried out . Report no . CARDINAL dated DATE showed that death had resulted from CARDINAL gunshot wound to the left part of the rib cage . The expert found that the seam of the left pocket of ORG \u2019s uniform had become unstitched . The expert did not find any other injury on GPE \u2019s body or uniform .","On DATE the investigator questioned CARDINAL soldiers of the military unit in which GPE had served . The soldiers stated that PERSON had never been ill - treated during his military service . CARDINAL of the soldiers , GPE , further stated that when they had been on guard duty on DATE , GPE had been in a bad mood and had told him about his family problems . In particular , according to GPE , the applicant \u2019s son told him that he had talked to his mother - in - law , who had said that his parents had gone to GPE and would not be visiting him . However , another soldier ( GPE ) stated that on CARDINAL DATE PERSON had been in a good mood and had told him that he had talked to his mother - in - law by telephone .","On DATE the investigator also took signature and writing samples from the soldiers of the military unit in order to identify the author of the written note found at the crime scene .","On DATE the investigator requested ORG to provide the investigation with the signature and samples of the applicant \u2019s son \u2019s writing .","On DATE the investigator also sent an operational request ( \u0259m\u0259liyyat tap\u015f\u0131r\u0131\u011f\u0131 ) to the head of the military counterintelligence department of military unit no . CARDINAL , asking him to investigate whether ORG had been subjected to unlawful actions during his military service . In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE and marked \u201c secret \u201d , the head of the military counterintelligence department of military unit no . CARDINAL , a lieutenant - colonel ( GPE ) , replied to the investigator \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE . He noted that according to the information obtained after having taken operational measures ( \u0259m\u0259liyyat t\u0259dbirl\u0259ri ) , on DATE , before going to the guard post , PERSON had had a dispute with a sergeant ( ORG ) and a soldier ( PERSON ) , who had beaten him . TIME after this incident , a gunshot had been heard and GPE , ORG and another soldier ( PERSON ) had gone to the post , where they had discovered GPE \u2019s body . It was also indicated in the letter that the soldiers had removed PERSON \u2019s body after the incident in order to help him , but upon realising that he was dead they had laid the body back in its original place .","On DATE the investigator sent another operational request to the head of ORG , asking him to investigate whether PERSON had had any family problems , whether PERSON had been engaged to anyone , or whether any of his close relatives had been suffering from any psychological illnesses . By a letter of DATE , the head of ORG informed the investigator that GPE had had no family problems , that he had not been engaged to anyone and that his relatives had not been suffering from any psychological illnesses .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the investigator recognised the applicant as a legal heir of the victim ( z\u0259r\u0259r\u00e7\u0259kmi\u015f \u015f\u0259xsin h\u00fcquqi varisi ) . On DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator . He stated that at TIME on DATE he had talked to his son by telephone . PERSON had been in a good mood and had not complained about anything . PERSON had asked the applicant to tell his mother to leave her mobile telephone turned on as he would call her later . The applicant further stated that at the request of his son he had bought mobile top - up cards and sent their passwords to him by a telephone message . The applicant also stated that his son had not had a fianc\u00e9e or a mother - in - law and that he had not had any family problems .","On DATE the investigator ordered forensic medical , ballistic , chemical and trace examinations . Report no . CARDINAL dated DATE showed that ORG had used his service weapon \u2013 an ORG - type DCARDINAL sniper rifle DATE to commit suicide . The report further found that the seam of the left pocket of GPE \u2019s uniform had become unstitched and that this could have resulted either from contact with a blunt object or the use of physical force .","On DATE the investigator ordered a handwriting examination of the written note found at the crime scene . Report no . DATE dated DATE concluded that a comparison of the samples submitted to the examination showed that the note had similarities with PERSON \u2019s writing and signature . Report no . CARDINAL dated DATE concluded that the coloured elements used in the writing of the note in question and of the pen found at the scene of the crime had the same chemical characteristics .","According to a document entitled \u201c Instruction \u201d ( GPE ) dated DATE the Deputy Military Prosecutor of GPE gave various instructions to the prosecuting authorities in connection with the criminal proceedings relating to GPE \u2019s death . In particular , he asked the prosecuting authorities to inspect the scene of the crime . The relevant part of the document reads as follows :","\u201c It appears from the case material that ORG received the information that GPE died ... and the agents of the prosecuting authorities went to the scene of the crime , but it was not possible for them to inspect the scene of the crime , given the foggy weather conditions in the mountainous area . The military commander who carried out the preliminary inspection of the scene of the crime presented the collected material evidence to ORG . In order to reconstruct the conditions in which the incident took place , the scene of the crime should again be inspected ... \u201d","On DATE the investigator visited the \u201c A \u201d military post and inspected the scene of the crime . According to the record of the inspection ( dated DATE ) , it began at TIME and ended at CARDINAL p.m. The investigator took various photographs of the area where the military post was situated .","On DATE the investigator questioned CARDINAL soldiers , including ORG and GPE They denied having beaten GPE on DATE and submitted that PERSON had never been subjected to ill - treatment . As regards the investigator \u2019s question regarding the fact that the seam of the left pocket of GPE \u2019s uniform had been unstitched , they stated that they had not noticed it .","On DATE the investigator questioned the CARDINAL peasants who had seen GPE on DATE . They stated that on DATE , as they had been cutting wood in the forest , GPE and GPE had approached them . PERSON had used their mobile telephone to call his father ; GPE and GPE had then left the area . They also stated that GPE had been in a good mood before and after the telephone conversation .","On DATE the investigator carried out a reconstruction of the events in order to establish whether GPE had been technically able to commit suicide with his service weapon . The investigator concluded that it would have been possible if he had pressed the trigger of the weapon with the toe of his right foot when standing up or lying down .","On DATE the applicant was again questioned by the investigator .","On DATE the investigator ordered a post - mortem psychiatric and psychological examination ( m\u0259hk\u0259m\u0259 - psixiatrik v\u0259 psixoloji ekspertizas\u0131 ) of ORG no . CARDINAL of that examination , dated DATE , concluded on the basis of the statements available in the case file that GPE had not been suffering from any mental disorder , but that he had probably been in a state of depression before his death . However , it was not possible to determine the reason for that depression .","On DATE the investigator questioned CARDINAL soldiers of the military unit in which GPE had served .","On DATE the investigator decided to terminate the criminal proceedings , finding that there had been no criminal element in GPE \u2019s death . The investigator concluded that PERSON had committed suicide because he had probably been in a state of depression . The investigator further held that it had not been established that GPE had been ill - treated by other soldiers . The investigator also decided to destroy the material evidence found at the crime scene , including the written note found next to GPE \u2019s body .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG against the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE , complaining of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation . He disputed the investigator \u2019s conclusions relating to the suicide of his son , pointing out that PERSON had not suffered from any mental disorder . He submitted in that connection that the statements of the soldiers had been contradictory and had been fabricated , as his son had never had a fianc\u00e9e or a mother - in - law . The applicant alleged that his son had been either killed or had been driven to suicide by GPE and GPE In that connection , he relied on the content of the letter of CARDINAL DATE from the military counterintelligence department of the military unit . He also submitted that the fact that the seam of the left pocket of GPE \u2019s uniform had become unstitched proved that his son had been beaten before his death . The applicant further pointed out that the note found at the crime scene had been written using certain words that his son had never used . In particular , he noted that even though PERSON had never called his parents \u201c ana \u201d ( mum ) and \u201c ata \u201d ( dad ) , but rather \u201c mama \u201d and \u201c papa \u201d , he had addressed them as \u201c ana \u201d and \u201c ata \u201d in that note . The applicant also complained that his son had been harassed by ORG , who had regularly forced GPE to ask the applicant to send mobile telephone top - up cards for ORG In that connection , he asked for an examination of the list of calls made to and from his mobile telephone during the entire period during which his son had been undertaking military service .","On DATE ORG overruled the investigator \u2019s decision and remitted the case to the prosecuting authorities for fresh examination . The court ordered the investigating authority to examine the applicant \u2019s particular complaints . It further found that the investigator had not had the right to decide to destroy the material evidence found at the scene of the crime .","As can be seen from the documents submitted by the Government , following ORG decision of DATE , on DATE the investigator decided to continue the investigation .","On DATE the investigator questioned the expert who had conducted forensic medical , ballistic , chemical and trace examinations ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The expert stated that the seam of the left pocket of GPE \u2019s uniform could have come unstitched because it had come into contact with his service weapon after his suicide .","On DATE the investigator also questioned CARDINAL soldiers , who stated that they did not remember whether PERSON had called his parents \u201c ana \u201d ( mum ) and \u201c ata \u201d ( dad ) or \u201c mama \u201d and \u201c papa \u201d .","On DATE the same investigator again decided to terminate the criminal proceedings . That decision was identical in its wording to the investigator \u2019s previous decision of CARDINAL DATE , except for the part concerning the preservation of the written note found at the scene of the crime and CARDINAL newly added paragraphs . In those paragraphs , the investigator noted that the CARDINAL soldiers questioned during the investigation had not remembered whether PERSON had called his parents \u201c ana \u201d ( mum ) and \u201c ata \u201d ( dad ) or \u201c mama \u201d and \u201c papa \u201d . Moreover , relying on the questioning of the expert on DATE , the investigator concluded that the seam of the left pocket of ORG \u2019s uniform had been unstitched because it had come into contact with his service weapon after his suicide and not as a result of any ill - treatment .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG against that decision . He complained of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation , pointing out that , taking into consideration that there had been a national holiday in the country from DATE , it had been impossible to carry out a new investigation DATE . The applicant also argued that the investigator should have questioned PERSON \u2019s parents and relatives \u2013 not the CARDINAL soldiers in question \u2013 in order to establish whether ORG had called his parents \u201c ana \u201d ( mum ) and \u201c ata \u201d ( dad ) or \u201c mama \u201d and \u201c papa \u201d . He further disputed the investigator \u2019s interpretation of the expert \u2019s conclusion ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) , alleging that the investigator had substituted his own opinion for the expert \u2019s conclusion . Lastly , he complained that his lawyer had not had access to the case file .","As can be seen from the documents in the case file , on DATE ORG overruled the investigator \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for fresh examination . Despite ORG explicit request to the Government that they submit copies of all the documents relating to the criminal proceedings concerning GPE \u2019s death , the Government failed to provide the ORG with a copy of the decision of DATE of ORG .","The criminal case was allocated to another investigator at ORG .","NORP In DATE and DATE the new investigator questioned PERSON \u2019s parents , CARDINAL schoolmates , and QUANTITY soldiers ( including GPE ) who had served in the same military unit . During the questioning , despite stating that PERSON had never complained before his death about being ill - treated , the applicant reiterated his previous complaints . It further appears that , even though on CARDINAL DATE the investigator questioned the CARDINAL soldiers separately , the wording of their statements was identical . They each stated that PERSON had never been ill - treated during his military service .","On DATE the investigator in charge of the case decided to terminate the criminal proceedings . The investigator found that the allegation of GPE \u2019s ill - treatment by GPE and ORG had not been proved during the investigation and that GPE had committed suicide because he had probably been in a state of depression .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision , reiterating his previous arguments . He also noted that the investigator \u2019s decision of DATE was almost identical in its wording to the previous decisions of the prosecuting authorities . He further complained that the new investigator had failed to question NORP again or to address the contradictions in the statements of the soldiers . In that connection , he pointed out that , although GPE had had no fianc\u00e9e or mother - in - law \u2013 which had been confirmed in a letter dated DATE from ORG \u2013 the soldiers had referred in their statements to an alleged telephone conversation with a mother - in - law . The applicant lastly complained about the investigator \u2019s failure to attach any importance to the letter dated DATE from the head of the military counterintelligence department of military unit no . CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG again quashed the investigator \u2019s decision and remitted the case to the prosecuting authorities for fresh examination . The Government failed to provide the ORG with a copy of the decision of DATE of ORG .","On DATE the investigator again questioned PERSON \u2019s parents , who reiterated their previous complaints . They also stated that GPE and ORG had regularly harassed their son into obtaining mobile telephone top - up cards .","In DATE the investigator also questioned various soldiers , who denied any ill - treatment or harassment of GPE during his military service .","According to the documents submitted by the ORG , on CARDINAL DATE the investigator again sent an operational request to the head of the military counterintelligence department of military unit no . CARDINAL . The investigator noted that , although in the letter dated CARDINAL DATE it was stated that GPE had been beaten by ORG and GPE on DATE of the incident , that allegation had not been proved during the investigation . The investigator further asked the head of the military counterintelligence department to investigate whether ORG and GPE had tried to extort money from GPE during his military service .","By a letter dated DATE , the head of the military counterintelligence department of military unit no . CARDINAL , GPE , replied to the investigator \u2019s request of CARDINAL DATE . GPE noted that , although he had previously indicated in his letter of CARDINAL DATE that GPE had been beaten by ORG and GPE , that information had not been subsequently confirmed . He further informed the investigator that the military counterintelligence department had not received any information relating to the extortion of money .","On DATE the investigator at ORG again decided to terminate the criminal proceedings , finding that there had been no criminal element in GPE \u2019s death . In that connection , the investigator found that PERSON had committed suicide because he had probably been in a state of depression . Relying on the letter dated DATE from the intelligence department of military unit no . CARDINAL , he also concluded that the allegation that GPE had been ill - treated by ORG and GPE had not been confirmed during the investigation .","DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with ORG . He reiterated his previous complaints , pointing out that the investigator had tried to cover those who had ill - treated his son and driven him to suicide .","On DATE the Deputy Military Prosecutor of GPE dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint , finding that the criminal investigation had been effective .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with ORG , arguing that the investigator had failed to carry out an effective investigation . In particular , he alleged that the appearance of a new letter from the military counterintelligence department of military unit no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which clearly contradicted the previous letter from the same organ , had shown that the domestic authorities had tried to cover GPE and GPE , who had beaten his son . He also complained of the investigator \u2019s failure to address the contradictions in the statements of the soldiers relating to the alleged existence of a fianc\u00e9e and a mother - in - law and the alleged family problems of GPE","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint . The court found , without providing any explanation , that the applicant \u2019s complaints were groundless .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision , reiterating his previous complaints .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145733","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF KAPLAN AND OTHERS v. NORWAY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Turkey)","judges":"Erik M\u00f8se;Isabelle Berro-Lef\u00e8vre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The first applicant currently lives in GPE and the second to fifth applicants live in GPE , GPE .","The first applicant , a mechanics and a professional driver , is of NORP ethnic origin coming from south - east GPE . He was not a member of any political party but like many other members of his family sympathised with the ORG ( ORG ) . During the violent conflicts between NORP authorities and NORP people in DATE and DATE he lived in GPE . The first applicant stated that he had assisted the ORG and that because of several occurrences he felt persecuted by NORP authorities . Fearing for his life he found it necessary to flee in DATE .","The second applicant , PERSON , married the first applicant in DATE . She and the third applicant , their son PERSON ( born in DATE ) , continued to live with the first applicant \u2019s parents in GPE . After the latter \u2019s house was set on fire , she and the son spent a period as refugees in GPE .","NORP Over a period of DATE , the first applicant sojourned at several locations in GPE . He had some contact with his wife and son and applied for visa to visit GPE , where his older brother had obtained asylum ( in DATE ) . Only the first applicant obtained a visa . In DATE he arrived in GPE and applied for asylum . His wife and son went back to PERSON , where she gave birth to the couple \u2019s second son , PERSON , in DATE ( the fourth applicant ) .","The first applicant \u2019s asylum application in GPE was refused . He then stayed in several NORP countries and returned to GPE where his second asylum application was refused in DATE .","On DATE he applied for asylum in GPE . ORG rejected the application on DATE . His appeal to ORG was rejected by a decision of DATE , according to which he was under a duty to leave the country and measures were to be taken to implement this decision .","On DATE ORG ( tingrett ) convicted the first applicant on charges of aggravated assault and sentenced him to CARDINAL days\u2019 imprisonment , of which DATE were suspended . He was found guilty of having inflicted with a kitchen knife a cut in the shoulder of another man which had been mended with CARDINAL stiches . Even though the extent of the injury was not considerable , the offence was deemed very serious and could easily have had great consequences for the victim . In mitigation , ORG had regard to its finding that , whilst it was uncertain who had started the row , the victim had gone further than the applicant and had provoked him by hitting his face with his palm and by uttering serious insults against his family . The victim had also withdrawn his criminal complaint against the applicant . The judgment was transmitted to ORG for consideration of whether there was a ground for ordering his expulsion .","On DATE ORG refused to revise its earlier rejection ( of CARDINAL DATE ) of the first applicant \u2019s asylum application and asked ORG to implement the decision . It contained no mention of the judgment of DATE , but on CARDINAL DATE the ORG also forwarded a copy to ORG requesting it to assess whether there was a basis for expulsion . The applicant did not leave the country , and the authorities took no specific measures to deport him until he received a warning to this effect issued on DATE .","In DATE the applicant was fined for driving too fast , and in DATE and DATE for driving without a license .","The second applicant arrived in GPE with the couple \u2019s CARDINAL sons and applied for asylum on DATE , which ORG rejected on DATE . ORG upheld the rejection on DATE , stating that unless they left the country voluntarily , the expulsion was to be forcibly implemented , if possible in coordination with that of the first applicant .","On DATE a daughter of the couple , GPE , was born ( the fifth applicant ) .","Pending amendments to ORG , ORG decided on DATE to stay the implementation of the decision of CARDINAL DATE regarding the wife and the sons but in a separate decision , referring inter alia to his conviction of DATE , rejected the first applicant \u2019s request to stay the implementation of the refusal of CARDINAL may DATE to grant him asylum .","Following the warning of DATE , the first applicant was on DATE arrested and detained for DATE with a view to deportation . On DATE ORG decided , under LAW of LAW DATE , to order his expulsion and to prohibit his re - entry in GPE for an indefinite duration . This was because of his criminal conviction and of his long illegal stay and work in GPE . On appeal , the decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .","In the meantime , on DATE , the first applicant requested ORG ( tingrett ) to issue an order that he be granted a residence- and work permit and an interlocutory injunction to stay his deportation pending the outcome of the judicial proceedings .","Following a request by the first applicant to ORG , the latter granted him on DATE a stay of implementation of his expulsion until ORG had decided on his request for an interim measure to stay his deportation .","On DATE ORG rejected a request to revise its earlier rejection ( of DATE ) as there were not sufficient reasons to grant the wife and the children a residence permit on humanitarian grounds .","NORP In an appeal of DATE the applicants\u2019 lawyer challenged the lawfulness of the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that ORG had been diagnosed as suffering from child autism and had special needs .","In the light of this information the parties agreed before ORG that the immigration authorities should consider the matter anew for all the family members .","After having decided on DATE not to implement the expulsion with respect to the wife and the children , ORG on DATE decided ( with CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL ) to alter its decision of CARDINAL DATE and granted the second applicant , with the children , a residence- and work - permit under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( according to which such a permit could be granted if warranted by weighty humanitarian considerations or particular links to the country , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The majority attached decisive weight to the new information concerning the daughter \u2019s health together with the length of the children \u2019s residence in GPE ( DATE and DATE in the case of the sons ) . It also had regard to more recent practice of ORG . The permit was granted for DATE and could on certain conditions be renewed , constitute a ground for settlement permit and for family reunification . A prerequisite for the permit was that the wife continued to live in GPE .","On DATE ORG carried out a new assessment of the first applicant \u2019s immigration status . It did not alter its decision of DATE upholding the ORG \u2019s decision of DATE to order his expulsion , stating inter alia the following reasons .","In the ORG \u2019s view , the ORG could in principle have responded more rapidly with regard to the question of expulsion in connection with the applicant \u2019s conviction . The ORG had had an occasion to bring this matter up as early as in DATE , when ORG by a letter of CARDINAL DATE forwarded a copy of the judgment with a request for assessment of the question of expulsion ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . By the fact that counsel for the applicant was sent a copy of the ORG \u2019s letter , the applicant had been made aware that the offence could constitute a ground for expulsion . The specific procedural rules concerning expulsion of convicted foreign nationals indicated in principle that a decision to expel should be made as soon as possible after conviction with no further right of appeal or after the serving of a sentence had been commenced ( section CARDINAL of ORG ) .","There was nevertheless nothing to prevent that the offence be taken into account at DATE together with any other factors militating in favour of expulsion in a global assessment . In the ORG \u2019s view , it could not be decisive for the applicant \u2019s expulsion from the country pursuant to LAW ) of LAW that his DATE conviction had not been raised until DATE . In this connection , it referred to the fact that at the date of the ORG \u2019s expulsion decision the applicant had resided unlawfully in GPE for DATE and had in addition worked without a work permit for large parts of this period . In addition , since his conviction in DATE , he had on CARDINAL occasions been fined for violation of LAW ( on the latter two occasions for driving without a driving license , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Whilst these offences were regarded individually and on principle as being relatively minor , they ought to be viewed in connection with the applicant \u2019s previous conviction for bodily harm , in addition to his failure to respond to the order to leave the country as well as his prolonged unlawful residence and employment throughout DATE . These offences , when considered as a whole , indicated a lack of respect for NORP law and for NORP authorities\u2019 decisions .","The ORG further observed that intentional or negligent violations of LAW of DATE of the nature involved in the instant case in principle constituted a criminal offence ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) of LAW of DATE ) . It reiterated that the legislative bill to ORG ( GPE . MONEY ( DATE ) ) stated inter alia the following with regard to expulsion on the grounds of violations of LAW ( page CARDINAL ) :","\u201c Although such violations [ i.e. gross violations of LAW ] normally also may lead to criminal liability , in terms of prosecution costs , it would be advantageous if an expulsion order could be made without requiring a legally enforceable criminal judgment . \u201d","On the other hand , the ORG altered its decision of DATE prohibiting the first applicant to return to GPE indefinitely and limited the prohibition to DATE . A decisive consideration for this change was that his spouse and children had been granted a residence permit . ORG observed that as a starting point the first applicant \u2019s expulsion would mean that the family would be split . However , the right of the other family members to reside in GPE did not imply any corresponding duty to do so . The whole family originated from GPE , where the older children had been born and lived during their childhood . Their family life could in principle be secured either by the whole family moving to GPE or through the visits of the wife and children of the husband in GPE . His expulsion was of limited duration and at the expiry of the period it would be possible to apply for a residence permit on family reunification ground . Whether such a permit would be granted would depend on future circumstances . However , an expulsion for DATE did not imply a permanent splitting of the family .","The Board had particular regard to the daughter \u2019s situation , which was followed up and was to be the subject of measures in GPE , and to the scarcity and low quality of public assistance in GPE to children suffering from handicaps and other types of illnesses affecting their functional capacities , where assistance to children suffering from autism and their parents was provided primarily by private institutions . Bearing in mind especially the daughter \u2019s interests , ORG had understanding for the fact that the family as a whole did not prefer to return to GPE .","In the light of the above , ORG discontinued , by decisions of DATE and DATE , the proceedings in so far as the spouse and the children were concerned . As regards the first applicant , ORG found for ORG and rejected his request for an interlocutory injunction to stay his deportation , by a judgment and a decision of DATE .","On DATE ORG ( lagmannsrett ) rejected the first applicant \u2019s appeal against ORG decision not to grant an interlocutory injunction , as did ORG on DATE .","On the other hand , ORG , by a judgment of DATE , quashed ORG decision of DATE as being unlawful .","ORG had no doubt , nor was it disputed , that the objective conditions set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) and ( c ) of the DATE LAW for ordering the first applicant \u2019s deportation had been fulfilled ; the only question was whether the measure would be proportionate as required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . In this regard , ORG observed that his conviction in DATE for having caused physical injury to a third party with a knife was serious , even though there had been mitigating circumstances and the sentence ( DATE of which CARDINAL were suspended ) had been relatively short . General considerations of crime prevention suggested that one ought to react to violence of this character .","However , the expulsion of a convicted person ought to be effected as soon as possible after the criminal judgment had become enforceable . The fact that DATE had elapsed before concrete measures had been taken to expel him , which could hardly be due to anything else than a lack of coordination on the part of the immigration authorities , weakened the significance of the judgment .","On the other hand , the fact that the first applicant for DATE had stayed and worked unlawfully in GPE was very serious and was not altered by the authorities\u2019 passiveness . ORG had not incorrectly assessed his attachment to GPE and lack of legitimate expectations of being able to stay there . The fact that his spouse and children had been granted a residence permit would not hinder his expulsion , as this would not in the circumstances be a disproportionate measure vis - \u00e0 - vis him . Another question was whether his DATE daughter PERSON with her special care needs ought to be viewed as such extraordinary circumstances as could warrant his being able to stay in GPE .","On the evidence ORG found that ORG chronic and very serious degree of child autism and need for follow - up would affect the other family members strongly in DATE to come and entail a burden on them far beyond the normal level . Her functional incapacity meant that she would always be dependent on her GPE resources . Her mother was exhausted and had a marginal level of functioning . It was the father who had activated GPE on a DATE basis and she was particularly attached to him . Should he be deported it was likely that the disturbance to her development would be aggravated and would cause a further burden to the mother , to the brothers and to others who assumed responsibilities for her .","ORG concluded that the first applicant \u2019s expulsion would expose GPE to an extraordinary burden that would not be justified by general considerations of crime prevention or immigration policy and would constitute a disproportionate measure . In this context ORG had regard to the importance of the fact that the residence permit to the mother and the children had so far been limited to DATE at a time .","ORG upheld ORG findings that the first applicant had not made it sufficiently probable that he upon return to GPE would risk such persecution as could justify granting him a refugee status or would otherwise face a real danger of loss of life or exposure to inhuman treatment .","Finally , ORG dismissed the claim for a residence- and work permit from the courts .","The ORG appealed to ORG ( PERSON ) challenging ORG proportionality assessment under section CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW .","NORP In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( PERSON ) ( NORP Supreme Court Law Reports \u2013 \u201c ORG . \u201d p. CARDINAL ) ORG observed inter alia that considerable time had elapsed from the rejection of his asylum application in DATE until the expulsion decision of DATE and further to the present review of the case by ORG . Throughout this time , the first applicant had resided in GPE unlawfully , of which he had also been aware . The time factor could thus not be given particular weight in the assessment . Whilst his residence had naturally resulted in strengthening his attachment to GPE , it had equally aggravated his violations of LAW . This point of view was particularly valid in a case such as the present one , where the applicant had been aware throughout that he was required to leave the country .","Nor had the first applicant had any legitimate expectation of being allowed to remain in the country . Also , his criminal conviction meant that an instruction of DATE issued by ORG to put certain cases in abeyance , notably cases concerning applications for asylum or residence , involving or relating to children , made by persons who had resided in GPE for DATE , did not apply to the first applicant .","ORG found it established that the first applicant had committed serious violations of LAW DATE which of their own clearly constituted a sufficient ground for expulsion . An additional ground were the offences he had committed under Article CARDINAL , cf . Article CARDINAL , of LAW and , albeit of lesser importance , under LAW . ORG had in its decision of DATE pointed out that immigration policy considerations then ought to militate strongly in favour of upholding the expulsion order . Also the background \u2013 his unlawful stays in other NORP countries with unsuccessful asylum applications , including once under a false name \u2013 was a factor that to some extent went in the same direction .","ORG further observed that the first applicant lacked a legal basis for residing in GPE and therefore ought to leave the country in any event . What the likely outcome could be of an application for residence permit in the current situation could not enter into the consideration of the case . The disputed decision entailed the consequence for him that he would be expelled from the country for a period of DATE and he could not apply for a residence- or work permit during this period . GPE \u2019s participation in the GPE cooperation meant as a rule that an expulsion from GPE also implied a prohibition to enter the entire LOC . In the case of a foreigner , whose unlawful residence had been so extensive and so long and who had been convicted of violence , it could not be said that an expulsion in such circumstances would constitute an extraordinary burden .","The interests pertaining to his wife and his CARDINAL eldest children could hardly speak in favour of making a different assessment than that which applied to the first applicant . They had for DATE lived on their own in GPE . That the first applicant in the event of an expulsion could not come for visit for DATE was a normal consequence of expulsion and did not constitute an extraordinary burden . The family life could be maintained by his wife and children travelling to GPE for shorter or longer periods .","ORG also noted that , whilst ORG had relied on the consideration that GPE was suffering from a chronic and serious degree of child autism , the first applicant had submitted a medical statement of DATE from which it appeared that her current diagnosis was \u201c unspecified far - reaching developmental disturbance \u201d . The expulsion applied for DATE during which the first applicant would not have the opportunity to help his daughter upon visits in the country . As already mentioned , the family contact would instead be maintained through visits in GPE . Nor in this respect could there be a question of any extraordinary burden .","ORG , having regard the ORG \u2019s case - law , notably PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) and the criteria of \u201c exceptional circumstances \u201d and \u201c insurmountable obstacles \u201d relied on there , concluded that the first applicant \u2019s expulsion would not give rise to a violation of LAW . His expulsion would not constitute a disproportionate measure vis - \u00e0 - vis the other family members .","On DATE the first applicant was expelled to GPE .","The second to fifth applicants were granted NORP citizenship on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158751","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"COSTE v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is represented before ORG Lo\u0144czyk - Colin , a lawyer practising in Ruda \u015al\u0105ska .","NORP In DATE the applicant \u2019s daughter , ORG , was born out of his informal relationship with GPE , a NORP national . The family lived together in GPE .","NORP In DATE the couple split up and GPE and GPE moved to GPE with the applicant \u2019s consent .","Since then , the applicant has maintained his contact with his daughter through frequent phone calls , regular meetings in GPE and several meetings in GPE . During these visits , the child was always accompanied by her mother , who would not allow the child to make unaccompanied visits to GPE or to travel to GPE without her .","The child does not speak NORP . Her mother occasionally teaches her NORP and reads to her in this language . The applicant communicates with his child in basic NORP or through the child \u2019s mother . He pays child support and tuition for the child \u2019s private school .","On DATE the applicant applied for contact with his daughter . He did not ask for an interim order to be issued to secure his contact rights during the proceedings . He wished to take his daughter to GPE DATE in DATE , for the All Saints\u2019 holiday , and for the DATE or GPE holidays in DATE .","On DATE ORG ordered a report from ORG ( Rodzinny O\u015brodek PERSON , \u201c the RODK \u201d ) to establish what kind of bond existed between the applicant and his child , the quality of the direct communication between the applicant and the child , and whether the child \u2019s travel to GPE without the mother and contact between the applicant and the child without the presence of the mother or an interpreter would be contrary to the child \u2019s best interests .","On DATE \u2012 following interviews with both parents and the child , which took place in the presence of a NORP interpreter \u2012 the RODK produced an expert report . It was found that the child had a strong bond with both parents and that both of them were considerate , emotionally balanced and loving . It was also concluded that the quality of the linguistic communication between the applicant and his daughter was good and sufficient for the applicant to understand the needs of his child and for their mutual communication and that it was in the child \u2019s best interests that contact arrangements be made . It was also recommended that before the applicant travelled with his daughter to GPE , they should have several unaccompanied meetings in GPE and that the child \u2019s mother should accompany the child on a trip abroad .","On DATE ORG ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s application . The domestic court heard both parents and a witness . The domestic court also relied on the RODK report which was considered to be full and thorough , although it led the domestic court to draw partly different conclusions . In particular , it was held that the quality of the independent communication between the applicant and his child was not sufficient for carrying out long - term unaccompanied visits to GPE . Even though the lack of adequate linguistic exchange might not have significantly impeded the applicant \u2019s play - time with his child as tested by the RODK , the lack of a common language between a father and a fouryear - old constitutes a serious obstacle to their contact in the longer term . In particular , the child would not be able to inform the applicant about her feelings or possible health disorders , and she would therefore not feel secure in the new environment . In this respect , the domestic court considered the RODK report to be inconsistent because , on the one hand , the experts had found that the quality of the communication between the father and the daughter was sufficient whilst , on the other , they recommended a transitional period during which the child would be accompanied by her mother on trips to GPE and the father could meet her without any linguistic assistance in GPE . In view of these considerations and the child \u2019s young age , the domestic court held that ensuring her feeling of security \u2012 which would in turn guarantee her adequate development and the proper course of the meetings \u2012 was more important than her independent contact with her father . The domestic court had no doubt that the applicant had a right to unaccompanied contact with his daughter and that he had adequate parenting skills for such contact . But the language barrier between him and his child was an obstacle . The district court upheld the recommendation of the RODK experts that the child should be prepared for future independent contact by means of unaccompanied meetings in GPE and visits to GPE in her mother \u2019s company . Eliminating such a transitional period would deprive the child of the possibility of a gradual adaptation to such a new and important event as unaccompanied travel with her father to GPE . The domestic court decided not to rule on any contact arrangements during the transitional period because the applicant had not requested it in his application .","The applicant appealed on the merits , including the grounds that a family court was duty - bound to rule on contact arrangements when the parties were in disagreement . The applicant also applied for an interim order for the duration of the appellate proceedings by virtue of which he would be authorised to have his daughter \u2019s passport and to spend DATE and DATE with the child without the mother \u2019s presence .","On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) issued an interim order authorising the applicant to visit his daughter DATE in her home in GPE from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. without the presence of any third parties , and to take his daughter out for no longer than TIME ( with the mother having a right to one phone call during this time ) . A copy of this decision has not been submitted . It appears that the applicant did not lodge an interlocutory appeal .","The applicant met his daughter in compliance with the above interim decision . He spoke with her mainly in NORP .","The applicant later modified his application for contact , wishing to spend his time with the child in GPE , DATE \u2012 from TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE \u2012 in the period up until DATE , and from TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE , with the right to take her to his home . In the later phase , he wished to have extended contact rights as set out in his DATE application .","On DATE ORG amended the first - instance decision by authorising the applicant to visit his child DATE , on DATE between TIME , on DATE from TIME and on DATE from TIME , and DATE from TIME in the period from DATE . The meetings were to take place at the child \u2019s home without the presence of the mother or any third parties . The applicant was also authorised to take the child out for a maximum of TIME , with the mother being entitled to one phone call . Additionally in DATE , the applicant was authorised to take the child out for a maximum of TIME and , DATE , to take the child to his place of residence in GPE and to travel alone with the child within a radius of QUANTITY for a maximum of TIME , with the mother being entitled to CARDINAL phone calls .","In the domestic court \u2019s view , such a schedule would deepen the bond between the father and the child and would help them improve their communication without the risk of the child feeling insecure . It was observed that the schedule was a temporary solution of indeterminate duration until the child reached a certain level of maturity and learned to speak NORP , which would be necessary in order for her to make unaccompanied visits to GPE .","The applicant regularly travels to GPE to exercise his contact right in line with the above schedule .","He has recently submitted to the ORG , however , that since DATE GPE had been interfering with the course of his visits by remaining present in the room designated for the applicant \u2019s visits and not letting him take the child out . Out of CARDINAL recent visits , the applicant had been allowed to take his daughter out CARDINAL times , including twice after police intervention . The time out had often been shorter than TIME and GPE had telephoned her daughter more frequently than was authorised by the family court .","On DATE the applicant applied for GPE \u2019s custody to be restricted on the grounds that she had been hindering his contact with the child .","In the course of these proceedings , GPE made the following submissions to the family court .","The applicant is not being impeded from having contact with his daughter in line with the court \u2019s decision of DATE . In particular , a room with toys is at his disposal in GPE \u2019s house and his visits are undisturbed by the child \u2019s mother . The applicant is in principle allowed to take his child out for TIME , with the mother telephoning only once . Out of CARDINAL recent meetings between the applicant and his daughter , the child did not go out with the applicant on only ten occasions . On these occasions , either the child was ill or the weather was bad or the child did not want to go out . To substantiate this , GPE presented a medical certificate confirming that the child had bronchitis in DATE . She also submitted that on DATE she had called the police after the applicant had used physical force to carry his crying and struggling daughter outside . DATE the police had told the applicant to leave .","GPE also informed the family court that the applicant provoked disputes and threatened her with child abduction . Moreover , the applicant filmed GPE during each visit , following her inside the house . The applicant \u2019s visits were becoming more and more unpleasant for the child because he never brought books or toys to play with and was unable to entertain the child due to the language barrier . He sometimes gets angry with his daughter and makes her cry . He has also used firm grips to stop her from leaving the room . On CARDINAL occasion he had left bruises on the girl \u2019s arms . If the child does not want to go out with the applicant , the latter calls the police . On CARDINAL occasion , he did so when the child was in bed with fever . The child associates his visits with violence and police intervention .","On DATE ORG issued an interim decision ordering the visits to the child to be supervised by a court bailiff who was to report to the family court once DATE . The aim behind this decision was to verify ORG parenting attitude and to enable the applicant to exercise his contact right . It was emphasised that the decision had a temporary character and was susceptible to change in the event of new circumstances and if the best interests of the child so required ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148669","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"GBR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF McDONNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s son , Mr PERSON , was remanded in custody to FAC in GPE . Since that prison had to close , all prisoners were to be transferred on DATE to GPE GPE .","On TIME and prior to his transfer , PERSON was informed that his father had died suddenly during TIME . Upon hearing the news , the applicant asked to be moved to a single cell . At CARDINAL a.m. he was transferred to GPE . His cell was not ready on arrival so he waited in the recreation area . When a prisoner officer informed him that he would share a cell , Mr PERSON said that he would wreck it . A principal officer was informed .","At TIME was informed his cell was ready and he said that he would hit the first prisoner who came into it . The principal officer was informed .","At TIME another prisoner , with CARDINAL prison officers , arrived to share the cell . PERSON said that he wanted to be left alone . He left the cell and announced that he was going to the Punishment and ORG ( \u201c PSU \u201d ) . There was then a scuffle between several prison officers and PERSON , which resulted in his being wrestled to the ground and physically restrained . He was brought to a standing position and , while still restrained , was taken to the ORG at TIME A body search was carried out at the ORG with his consent . He was also examined by a medical officer , who noted that he had suffered bruising and grazing and was experiencing discomfort in his chest . The medical officer left at TIME taken from prison officers and prisoners diverged as regards , inter alia , the circumstances of the incident , the level of restraint used and whether PERSON had been beaten .","At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON was found unconscious in his cell in the ORG having suffered a heart attack . A number of unsuccessful attempts were made to resuscitate him . He was declared dead at TIME","On DATE the first autopsy was conducted by Professor Crane , the State Pathologist for GPE . Professor PERSON noted that PERSON had suffered a fracture to the hyoid bone in the neck , consistent with being grasped by a hand , and that it appeared that PERSON ORG had suffered a heart attack TIME prior to his death . He found that :","\u201c [ the earlier heart attack ] ... could ... have precipitated a fatal upset in the heart rhythm at any time ... [ T]he possibility that the stress of the incident shortly before his death played some part in the fatal outcome can not be completely excluded . \u201d","Professor PERSON \u2019s report was sent to the Coroner in DATE .","A further autopsy was carried out on DATE by Professor PERSON . Professor PERSON reported that Mr PERSON \u2019s thyroid cartilage was also fractured and that there was bruising to the area . He could not exclude that stress suffered while being restrained had contributed to the cause of death .","An initial copy of the report was provided to the Coroner in DATE . A copy was sent by the Coroner to Professor PERSON for consideration in DATE . Having considered Professor PERSON \u2019s autopsy , Professor PERSON produced , on DATE , a supplemental report confirming his own previous findings .","ORG requested a report from Dr PERSON of ORG , GPE . Dr PERSON considered the reports of ORG and PERSON as well as other material including statements from prisoners in the deceased \u2019s cell block . PERSON report of DATE concluded :","\u201c [ I]t is my opinion within a reasonable degree of medical and scientific certainty that the injuries that PERSON suffered TIME prior to his death were a direct and proximate cause of his death . It is furthermore my opinion that the cause of death should be recorded as : Myocardial Ischaemia due to ORG and Near - Asphyxiation . \u201d","He was of the view that Mr ORG \u2019s death should be classed as a homicide .","A copy of PERSON report was provided to the Coroner , together with a final copy of the report of PERSON , on DATE . In view of its controversial nature , the Coroner sent PERSON report to Professor PERSON and to the police for their consideration . The police referred the matter to ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) and the ORG requested a further report from Professor PERSON . The latter recommended that a second opinion on Mr PERSON \u2019s cardiology history be requested from Professor PERSON . The ORG requested a report from Professor PERSON in DATE .","Professor PERSON reviewed the above CARDINAL reports as well as primary autopsy data . On DATE he completed his report in which he agreed with the reports of Professor PERSON and PERSON . Professor PERSON concluded that the immediate cause of death was a fatal heart attack , but he considered that the emotional and physical effects of the prior restraint could have been a contributory or precipitating factor . He considered the report of PERSON to be flawed in both fact and opinion .","A copy of Professor PERSON \u2019s report was provided to the Coroner in DATE and sent immediately to the police , the ORG , Professor PERSON and the applicant \u2019s solicitors .","Meanwhile , an investigation into Mr ORG death was commenced by ORG ( \u201c ORG \u201d ) . CARDINAL statements were taken from prisoners in DATE and DATE . CARDINAL prison officers were interviewed and statements were taken from CARDINAL of them in DATE . Following the first autopsy , the CARDINAL officers were again interviewed under caution about , inter alia , the injuries noted on the deceased \u2019s body .","On DATE a file was presented to the ORG . On DATE the ORG gave a \u201c no prosecution \u201d direction .","The ORG reviewed his decision in DATE on receipt of the report of Professor PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , but on DATE gave a further \u201c no prosecution \u201d direction .","Following an inquiry from the applicant \u2019s solicitor in DATE , the ORG informed her by letter of CARDINAL DATE of his decisions of DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant issued civil proceedings against ORG . It appears that the writ has never been served .","The Police Service GPE ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) replaced the ORG in DATE . In DATE ORG reviewed the original investigation and concluded that extensive research into the case had not uncovered any new evidential material or investigative opportunities .","In DATE the applicant made a complaint to ORG about the investigation into her son \u2019s death . In DATE investigators from the ORG \u2019s office met with Professor PERSON to discuss certain ORG statements . On DATE Professor PERSON provided a further report to the ORG confirming his view that Mr McDonnell had died from a heart attack but that stress relating to the restraint had contributed to his death .","The subsequent conclusions of the ORG were as follows :","\u201c ORG has reviewed all the police documentation relating to the investigation into PERSON death . This includes the subsequent reviews undertaken by ORG .","The investigation into the death of PERSON was thorough and complete . The family of Mr PERSON were not kept up - to - date with the investigation . This was not uncommon in DATE . However , with the advent of the emphasis on Family Liaison in any investigation into a sudden death , it is hoped that different standards would be applied DATE .","Whilst the investigation was thorough and the ORG directed no prosecution against any of the prison officers involved in the restraint of PERSON prior to his death , some of the injuries suffered by PERSON have never been satisfactorily explained . This is particularly true of the injuries to Mr PERSON \u2019s throat . The police investigation was not able to properly deduce which of the prison guards , if any , may have inflicted the injuries , primarily the fracture of the hyoid bone . It is hoped that the inquest will allow the family of Mr McDonnell the opportunity to seek the answers to the questions that they have had since DATE . \u201d","Meanwhile , following the decision of the ORG in DATE not to bring any criminal prosecutions ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the inquest was listed for a hearing on DATE . By letter dated DATE the applicant \u2019s solicitor sought an adjournment to await the outcome of pending judicial review proceedings concerning entitlement of family members of a deceased to legal aid at inquests ( PERSON v. Secretary of ORG ) . The Coroner adjourned the inquest until DATE .","NORP In DATE the Coroner wrote to ORG to inform them that inquests , including the inquest into the death of the applicant \u2019s son , were delayed by reason of the pending judicial review proceedings .","On DATE ORG handed down its judgment in PERSON ( [ DATE ] ORG ; p. CARDINAL and p. DATE ) , finding that there was no entitlement to legal aid at inquests .","As noted above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , in DATE the Coroner was provided with a copy of the report of PERSON . He adjourned the inquest to obtain another report from Professor PERSON , which was completed in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In DATE , the inquest was re - scheduled for DATE .","In the meantime , in DATE , ORG advised that it would apply to maintain the anonymity of the prison officer witnesses . The hearing date of DATE was vacated because of that application but also to facilitate the attendance of PERSON .","In DATE the inquest was further adjourned to allow the applicant to seek disclosure on the basis of a new FAC ( issued in DATE ) . The applicant also indicated to the Coroner that she intended to issue a judicial review challenge in relation to the pre - inquest disclosure by the ORG . In DATE the applicant informed the Coroner that she no longer intended to issue judicial review proceedings and wished a hearing date to be set .","In DATE the applicant informed the Coroner that her expert , PERSON , would not be available until DATE . The inquest was accordingly listed to commence on DATE .","In DATE , with the applicant \u2019s acquiescence , the inquest was again adjourned pending this ORG \u2019s judgment in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIII ( extracts ) ) . Judgment in the case was delivered on DATE .","Following delivery of the judgment , no inquests were listed from DATE pending the amendment of ORG and Procedure ) Rules ( GPE ) DATE ( \u201c the DATE Rules \u201d ) .","DATE and DATE inquests which gave rise to LAW issues were adjourned pending judicial review actions concerning the scope of the inquest ( PERSON v. Secretary of ORG for ORG ex parte PERSON ( [ DATE ] UKHL CARDINAL ; and R ( ORG ) \u03bd. GPE ( [ DATE ] CARDINAL A.C. CARDINAL ) ) and the application of LAW to deaths which pre - dated LAW CARDINAL ( In re PERSON ( [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ; and GPE v. Lord Chancellor and Another and PERSON v. Chief Constable of ORG [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ) .","The latter judgments , delivered by ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , confirmed that LAW did not apply to cases where the deaths in question pre - dated LAW .","NORP In DATE the Coroner wrote to the applicant informing her that CARDINAL inquests had been adjourned pending the outcome of proceedings before ORG and were now ready to proceed .","A preliminary hearing took place on DATE . On DATE , an inquest hearing date was fixed for DATE . The Coroner subsequently sought copies of the interviews and statements of prison officers taken by the police and of the statements taken from certain prisoners . He gave directions on any anonymity claims that might be made on behalf of any of the witnesses .","On DATE ORG confirmed that it acted for CARDINAL prison officers who were seeking anonymity and screening . A further preliminary hearing was listed for DATE to address the matter .","On DATE the Coroner was informed that individual threat assessments would have to be conducted in respect of each officer seeking anonymity and screening and no timescale for the completion of this process was available .","A preliminary hearing took place on DATE at which the ORG issued a ruling on applications for anonymity and directed that any applications for anonymity be filed and served by DATE . The inquest was provisionally listed to commence on DATE .","In DATE the Coroner was advised that it would take DATE for the threat assessments to be completed . It was therefore necessary to postpone the DATE inquest start date . The applicant \u2019s solicitor was notified by letter dated DATE .","In DATE the Coroner received the threat assessments in respect of the prison officers seeking anonymity . He was , at that time , involved in another complex inquest .","In DATE the applicant instructed new legal representation . The Coroner sought confirmation from the newly - appointed solicitors that legal funding was in place . The solicitors responded that they were in discussions concerning legal funding and would provide an update in due course .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s new solicitors made detailed status enquiries of the Coroner \u2019s Office and emphasised that to date the applicant had received no disclosure . On DATE the Coroner replied that he had received some documents from the ORG . On DATE , he again wrote to the ORG requesting that full disclosure with any proposed redactions be provided for his consideration by DATE . New risk assessments for the prison officers seeking anonymity were also requested .","No disclosure was made by the deadline set . Reminders were issued on DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","The updated risk assessments were received by the Coroner on DATE .","A preliminary hearing was listed on DATE in order for the Chief Constable of the ORG to explain the delay in providing disclosure . The hearing was rescheduled for DATE owing to the unavailability of counsel .","At the hearing on DATE , the anonymity of prison officer witnesses and ORG disclosure were debated . The Coroner ordered the ORG to make disclosure by DATE and scheduled a hearing for DATE . Disclosure was not made as ordered and that hearing date was vacated .","On DATE disclosure was received by the applicants from the ORG . All prison officer details were removed from the statements and no initials were retained , so that it was impossible to understand which officer was referred to at any given point in the statements . The applicant requested initials ( \u201c ciphers \u201d ) . The Coroner requested the ORG to provide the disclosure again , with ciphers . By letter dated DATE the Coroner confirmed to the applicant that the statements would be provided with ciphers and allowed DATE from receipt of those statements with ciphers for the applicant to make submissions on anonymity and screening .","On DATE , and in light of this ORG \u2019s judgment in ORG v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , DATE , ORG overruled the judgments of ORG concerning the applicability of LAW to pre - Human Rights Act deaths ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) and accepted that such inquests should be compliant with LAW [ DATE ] ORG ) .","Following reminders by the applicant to the Coroner in DATE , DATE and DATE , on DATE the statements with ciphers were provided to the applicant .","The applicant subsequently instructed a forensic pathologist , Dr PERSON , to address the disputed issue of causation . PERSON requested access to primary data concerning the autopsy ( post - mortem photographs , histology slides and the pathologist contemporary notes ) and in DATE the applicant requested the Coroner to provide the material . The Coroner wrote to Professor PERSON on DATE asking that he make the material available to PERSON . In DATE Professor PERSON replied querying the authority for the disclosure of his notes . By letter dated DATE to the Coroner , the applicant contested Professor PERSON \u2019s refusal to provide access . Professor PERSON subsequently agreed to provide the histological slides , and they were furnished in DATE . In DATE the Coroner received Professor PERSON \u2019s notes and copies were provided to the applicant .","The Coroner received a copy of PERSON report in DATE . A preliminary hearing was listed on DATE .","At the hearing in DATE , a revised timetable for the anonymity applications was put in place and the inquest was listed to commence on DATE , the first available date taking into account the Coroner \u2019s existing commitments and the need for a suitable courtroom bearing in mind the estimated length of the inquest and its circumstances . A provisional witness list and timetable were circulated in DATE .","In DATE Professor PERSON provided his response to the report of PERSON . Additional comments from cardiac pathologist PERSON were circulated to the other legal representatives . The applicant sought disclosure of all correspondence between Professor PERSON and PERSON .","An issue arose in DATE in respect of the threat assessments for the prison officers . After protracted correspondence , the issue was resolved by DATE and the threat assessment process commenced . By DATE some of the assessments remained outstanding . The Coroner decided that the inquest could not proceed in DATE and adjourned it until DATE .","In DATE the applicant sought further disclosure of any other incidents which resulted in harm to a prisoner in which the prison officer witnesses had been involved , as well as details of any disciplinary proceedings against them .","The CARDINAL pathology experts were not available in DATE and the Coroner was also unavailable as a result of illness . The Senior Coroner took over the case and listed the inquest to commence on DATE .","The correspondence between Professor PERSON and PERSON was disclosed in DATE .","The inquest commenced before the Senior Coroner on DATE . At the start of the inquest , the Coroner made a decision to grant anonymity to the prisoner officer witnesses .","The inquest ended on CARDINAL DATE . The narrative of the jury \u2019s verdict explained :","\u201c ORG has explained the majority of the injuries sustained by PERSON . However , it has not explained the injuries to Mr PERSON \u2019s neck and lumbar region .","ORG failed to carry out best practice in regard to bereavement of a prisoner . \u201d","The jury \u2019s answers to the specific questions posed can be summarised as follows :","( i ) PERSON was subject to a control and restraint procedure and a relocation procedure on DATE as a result of his violent behaviour .","( ii ) The use of the procedure was necessary but it was not carried out correctly .","( iii ) The use of the procedure was not carried out only in so far as necessary .","( iv ) The neck injuries recorded in PERSON post mortem appeared to have been sustained during the initial restraint when he was grabbed by the neck .","( v ) The factors contributing to PERSON suffering a fatal heart attack were : the initial restraint ; neck compression ; the control and restraint procedure as carried out in this instance ; underlying heart conditions ; and emotional stress .","( vi ) ORG has not explained how he sustained the injuries found in the post mortem .","( vii ) There were defects in the procedures used that caused or contributed to the death of PERSON . There were : excessive force ; prison officers not being trained in the application of aspects of ORG , such as discretion on releasing control and restraint , and failures in the duty of care towards prisoners .","At the conclusion of the case the Senior Coroner referred the case to the ORG pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG ( GPE Act DATE . The ORG was notified by letter dated CARDINAL DATE .","DATE . A decision by the ORG on whether to commence any criminal prosecutions is awaited .","The applicant commenced judicial review proceedings regarding the anonymity order made in respect of the prison officer witnesses at the inquest . She contended that this aspect of the inquest failed to comply with LAW because it denied the inquest the requisite degree of transparency and accountability since the identities of those concerned were withheld from the next of kin and their conduct was not subject to public scrutiny . She did not seek the quashing of the jury \u2019s verdict .","NORP The judicial review hearing took place on CARDINAL and DATE and a decision was issued on DATE . The court rejected the applicant \u2019s challenge . According to the latest information available to the ORG , the applicant was considering whether to lodge an appeal against the decision ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-172069","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SRB","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KOKA HYBRO KOMERC DOO BROYLER v. SERBIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["On DATE ORG ordered AD ORG , a socially - owned company based in GPE ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor \u201d ) to pay the applicant specified amounts on account of damages . That judgment became final on DATE .","On DATE , upon the applicant \u2019s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the applicant the enforcement costs .","On DATE ORG opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor .","The applicant duly submitted his claim .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s claim was formally recognised .","The insolvency proceedings are still ongoing .","On DATE , the debtor had been privatised and changed its name to ORG .","On DATE the privatisation contract had been annulled and on DATE the debtor \u2019s name was changed to ORG .","According to ORG , the debtor is still a company predominantly comprised of socially - owned capital ( see http:\/\/www.priv.rs\/Ministarstvo-privrede\/CARDINAL\/AGRAR-FRUIT--u-stecaju.shtml\/companyid=CARDINAL , accessed on DATE ) .","In their additional observations of PERCENT the Government informed the ORG that the applicant had transferred its judgment claims to a third person on DATE .","On DATE , as a response to the Government \u2019s additional observations , the applicant submitted that the contract regarding the transfer of the claims in question had been terminated by DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-178862","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF LEGLER AND MARYIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises ( GUPs , MUPs ) and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6","P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-150317","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF MIHELJ v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Following a request for a criminal investigation against the applicant lodged by GPE on DATE and amended on DATE , on DATE the applicant was summoned as accused to appear before the investigating judge of ORG . He was also notified of the charge of aggravated fraud under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , and the underlying allegations submitted by ORG","On DATE the applicant was heard by the investigating judge . He denied the charge and submitted a number of documents in support of his position that the accusations were fabricated and unfounded , but was unwilling to answer any of the questions posed by PERSON \u2019s legal counsel .","On DATE the investigating judge of ORG issued an order for an investigation of aggravated fraud against the applicant . In the course of that investigation , CARDINAL witnesses were heard who confirmed PERSON \u2019s version of events . The applicant was not present during these examinations , although the investigating judge ordered him to be notified thereof . Judicial records contain no evidence that the applicant received a summons .","After the investigation was concluded , on DATE , ORG took over the proceedings and on DATE lodged an indictment for attempted aggravated fraud under LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL in conjunction with LAW . The indictment stated that the applicant had deceived PERSON into believing that he could assist her in preventing her husband from claiming ownership of her share of their joint property , namely the family house . The applicant had taken advantage of ORG age and naivety and persuaded her to sign a fictitious loan agreement stating that he would lend her MONEY ( DEM ) , equivalent to CARDINAL NORP tolars ( SIT ) , which was to be secured with a mortgage on her share of the family house , despite the fact that PERSON did not owe him anything , which he was well aware of . For this purpose , the applicant had PERSON sign an authority form authorising him to take all measures necessary for the execution of the loan agreement . On that basis , the applicant had the mortgage against ORG property entered in the land register , prejudicing the value of her property in the amount of SIT CARDINAL . Moreover , PERSON paid the applicant SIT CARDINAL in several instalments for the \u201c favour \u201d he had done her .","Having been served with the indictment , the applicant lodged an objection , reiterating that ORG accusations of fraud were fabricated and arguing that he would not be able to enter a mortgage in his favour in the land register without ORG cooperation . The objection was rejected by the pre - trial panel on DATE . The latter noted in its decision that the criminal offence should be reclassified as attempted fraud under LAW in conjunction with section CARDINAL of LAW , as the value at issue did not reach the statutory threshold of significant pecuniary damage . Accordingly , ORG no longer had jurisdiction over the case , which was to be referred to ORG . The applicant was served with the decision and appealed against it ; however , his appeal was dismissed as unfounded .","Following the transfer of jurisdiction to the local court , the ensuing court proceedings were conducted under the rules of summary procedure .","The applicant having failed to collect the first CARDINAL summonses to the hearing which was to take place on DATE , the hearing was rescheduled for DATE . A summons to this later hearing was served on the applicant on DATE through the court courier service at both his home and his work address , and subsequently on DATE by post , again at both his home and his work address . On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the court in which he objected to the hearing , alleging that he had received CARDINAL identical summonses which contained no explanation but only an indication of legal classification of the criminal offence in question . The applicant \u2019s objection to the hearing was received by the local court on DATE .","NORP On DATE ORG held a hearing in the absence of the applicant , having found that he had not provided justification for his absence , although he had been duly summoned , that he had already been questioned during the investigation , and that his presence at the hearing was not necessary to establish the facts of the case . Thus , the legal requirements for trial in absentia had been met . The court examined GPE and the CARDINAL witnesses who had already been questioned during the investigation ; their accounts corresponded to their previous statements . In her concluding remarks the district state prosecutor modified the indictment , reclassifying the offence to the actual criminal offence of fraud , rather than attempted fraud . She also added some details to the facts on which the indictment was based , in particular the allegation that the applicant had lied to GPE that there would be expenses with regard to the entry of the mortgage in the land registry , for which she had paid him a total of SIT CARDINAL .","Having concluded the hearing , the court found the applicant guilty of the criminal offence as specified in the modified indictment , and sentenced him to DATE in prison . PERSON was invited to pursue her pecuniary claim in civil proceedings .","The applicant appealed to ORG , arguing that the statement he had given during the investigation could not suffice for the trial purposes , as an indictment had not yet been lodged and thus could not be disputed . He pointed out that a statement given in the investigation could relate to CARDINAL criminal offence , while the indictment could be lodged for a completely different criminal offence . He was therefore of the view that the provisions on trial in absentia should only be applied to cases where the defendant was questioned after the lodging of the indictment . Moreover , he disputed the credibility of the CARDINAL witnesses and referred to the loan agreement and other documents he had submitted to the court during the investigation , claiming that GPE was evading her contractual obligations and charging him with fraud for that reason . He also challenged the imposed prison sentence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal as unfounded and upheld the first - instance judgment . The higher court found that the applicant \u2019s defence right had not been violated by the fact that he was not present at the hearing . It noted that the accused had the right to attend the summary proceedings , but that he was not obliged to do so . The court noted that the applicant had been heard during the investigation , had received the indictment and had been duly summoned to the hearing , where he would have had the opportunity to make a statement and examine witnesses against him . However , given that the facts of the case had been clear and fully established , the higher court took the view that the applicant \u2019s presence at the hearing had not been necessary . In this connection , the court held that a hearing should only be discontinued if the description of the criminal offence in the indictment , albeit based on the same factual elements as before , was substantially changed . In such a case , the defendant ought to be informed thereof and summoned to attend a new hearing . However , this was not the case in the circumstances complained of by the applicant .","The applicant appealed on points of law , reiterating that he should not have been tried in absentia , as he had been questioned only before the indictment was lodged . Moreover , he had not been given the opportunity to cross - examine the witnesses against him .","On DATE ORG delivered its judgment , in which it upheld the lower courts\u2019 decisions . ORG found that the offence which prompted the investigation against the applicant was identical to the offence with which the applicant was later charged . Furthermore , the hearing before the court did not bring to light any new information that had not already been uncovered during the investigation . Referring to section CARDINAL of LAW , which sets out the conditions for conducting a hearing in absentia , ORG noted that the defendant had the right to attend the hearing , but that this right could under certain circumstances be waived . It also noted that the applicant had been duly summoned and warned that the hearing could be held in his absence . As regards the examination of witnesses during the investigation , ORG noted that while there were no indications in the case file that the applicant had been notified of it , this procedural breach had been remedied by the hearing at which GPE and the other CARDINAL witnesses had been re - examined . The applicant had had the opportunity to attend the hearing , but had waived his right .","The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint , which was declared admissible on DATE .","On DATE the Constitutional Court delivered a decision finding that the applicant \u2019s constitutional rights had not been violated . The court noted that the applicant had been heard during the investigation and that the charges in the request for the investigation and the indictment which had been lodged after the investigation and served on him had concerned the same acts and the same alleged offence , regardless of some differences in the wording . They both charged the applicant with misleading PERSON into concluding a fictitious agreement with him with the intent of acquiring illicit pecuniary gain . Observing that the indictment had been modified at the hearing , ORG held that although the offence had been reclassified as actual fraud , and no longer as attempted fraud , the charge had remained the same in terms of content as regards the applicant \u2019s conduct and the circumstances in which the offence had been committed . Having regard to that , as well as the fact that the applicant had been duly summoned to the hearing and had failed to provide any valid reason for his absence , ORG held that the local court had had no obligation to ensure the applicant \u2019s presence at the hearing . Moreover , ORG observed that the applicant had not even alleged that the criminal offence which was the subject of the investigation was different from the one examined at the court hearing . He had merely drawn attention to the fact that \u201c a prosecutor may file an indictment for a completely different criminal offence after the investigation is completed \u201d . It was also found that the applicant could have requested an adjournment of the hearing , but did not do so , and instead had failed to appear without specifying any valid reason . Finally , as regards the examination of the witnesses , ORG reached the same conclusion as ORG had previously ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-158505","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF BUZURTANOVA AND ZARKHMATOVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque","text":["The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant lives in PERSON , PERSON , and the second applicant in Mayskiy ( also spelled as ORG ) , PERSON . The first applicant is the sister of Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE . The second applicant is his wife .","At the material time Mr PERSON was working as a martial arts trainer in the \u201c PERSON \u201d sports club ( gym ) ( in the documents submitted also referred to as the \u201c Kaloy \u201d sports club ) in GPE , Ingushetia . He was the mixed martial arts NORP champion and a well - known sportsman in the region . He and the second applicant lived in GPE , a settlement on the border between LOC - GPE and Ingushetia . Permanent checkpoint no . CARDINAL , also known as \u201c GPE \u201d , was located between GPE on one side of the border and the settlement of ORG on the other . The checkpoint was equipped with ORG cameras . Every passing vehicle was checked along with the driver \u2019s and ORG identity documents . From the documents submitted to the ORG it appears that other traffic checkpoints were located in the area .","DATE on DATE Mr PERSON was driving home from GPE in his white Lada - Priora car with registration number AHCARDINALACARDINAL . At TIME he called his wife saying that he would arrive soon , but he did not . The applicants tried to call him , but his mobile phone was switched off . At TIME on DATE the applicants and their relatives found Mr PERSON training shoe , socks and hat in a street in the neighbourhood .","At TIME on DATE Mr PERSON car was found in the vicinity of Mayskiy , not far from the motorway . The car \u2019s front side windows were smashed and the front of the vehicle had been damaged .","According to the applicants , in TIME of DATE PERSON PERSON had been stopped QUANTITY from his house by masked men in military uniforms , who had followed him in CARDINAL cars . The men had forced him into one of their vehicles and taken him to an unknown destination . The applicants did not witness the abduction .","On DATE a local newspaper published an article concerning a meeting held on DATE ( in the documents submitted the date was also referred to as DATE ) by the President of PERSON , Mr PERSON , and other high - ranking officials with members of the sports club where Mr PERSON had worked . Information about the meeting , held in PERSON , was posted on various websites . At the meeting one of the officials stated that Mr PERSON had been aiding a member of an illegal armed group , Mr NORP The President of PERSON reminded them that at his previous meetings with members of the sports community , at which Mr PERSON had also been present , he had warned them not to engage in illegal acts . The President also said that he had information concerning phone calls proving Mr PERSON involvement in illegal activities . A video recording of the meeting was provided to the investigating authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The applicants have had no news of Mr PERSON since his alleged abduction .","The Government contested neither the applicants\u2019 description of the circumstances of the abduction , nor their account of the subsequent events . However , they stated that the alleged abduction had taken place in the absence of witnesses and that there was no evidence that the perpetrators had been ORG agents .","NORP In reply to the ORG \u2019s request for a copy of the contents of the criminal case file opened in connection with the disappearance , the ORG submitted copies of documents running to CARDINAL pages . From the documents submitted , the domestic investigation can be summarised as follows .","On DATE the second applicant complained to ORG in GPE - GPE ( \u201c the investigations department \u201d ) , stating that her husband had disappeared while driving home from ORG .","On DATE the investigations department opened criminal case no . CARDINAL into the events under LAW ( murder ) . The applicants were informed thereof .","On DATE the investigators examined the crime scene . They collected from the scene the hat , the training shoe and the socks .","Also on DATE , DATE , the investigators examined Mr PERSON car , which had been found with smashed windows QUANTITY from the GPE motorway . They found traces of blood in the car . The investigators collected a number of pieces of evidence , such as a finger print from pack of cigarettes , CARDINAL swabs of various parts of the vehicle ( including the steering wheel and breaks ) , a number of items of clothing , CARDINAL bags , a mobile telephone , CARDINAL memory cards , pieces of broken glass and a police service identity card certifying that Mr PERSON worked as a policeman in ORG . On the same date a forensic expert examination of the evidence was ordered . The applicants were informed thereof .","On DATE the second applicant was granted victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the investigators requested that the ORG grant permission to obtain the list of calls and other connections made from Mr PERSON and the second applicant \u2019s mobile telephones DATE and DATE . In addition , the investigators requested permission to obtain the list of all mobile connections made in the vicinity of the crime scene ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) DATE . On DATE the permissions were granted and on DATE and DATE the lists were examined .","On DATE the investigators requested that the ORG grant permission to tap for DATE the mobile telephone of Mr PERSON aunt , PERSON . B. , and that of the second applicant , as earlier on the same date the investigators had obtained operational information that the perpetrators would try to call them to discuss payment of ransom for Mr PERSON .","On DATE second applicant requested that the investigators provide her with information on the progress of the investigation and with copies of the case - file documents . On DATE the investigators granted the request in part , stating that under national law , prior to the completion of the investigation the applicant was entitled to obtain copies of certain procedural documents but not the entire contents of the case file .","Also on DATE , DATE , the second applicant requested that the investigators provide her with information concerning the list of connections made to and from Mr PERSON mobile telephone from TIME on DATE to DATE and the information from the ORG cameras installed at checkpoint \u201c PERSON \u201d on the motorway next to PERSON between TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE . On DATE her request was rejected , as under domestic law she was not entitled to obtain such information from the case file .","On DATE the expert examination of Mr PERSON police identity card collected from his vehicle ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) concluded that the document had been forged . On DATE the ORG of the ORG confirmed to the investigators that the police identity card had been forged and that Mr PERSON had not served in the police .","On DATE the second applicant requested that the investigators verify the theory that her husband had been abducted by residents of GPE , GPE - GPE , who on DATE had attacked Mr PERSON sports team after a tournament held in that town . On DATE the investigators granted the request in full . In particular , they obtained copies of the inquiry carried out into the incident and questioned witnesses to the scuffle .","On DATE the investigators examined the CARDINAL memory cards collected from Mr PERSON car and ordered their forensic expert examination . The applicants were informed thereof .","On DATE the investigators asked the Ministers of the Interior of GPE - GPE , PERSON , ORG and ORG and the heads of the LOC - GPE , PERSON , ORG and ORG of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , as well as other law - enforcement agencies , whether they had any incriminating information concerning Mr PERSON and whether they had carried out a special operation in respect of him .","The investigators asked a number of banks whether they had accounts opened in Mr PERSON name and if so , details of the transactions on those accounts between the dates of their opening and CARDINAL DATE .","The investigators also asked a number of hospitals whether Mr PERSON was or had been treated on their LOC .","On DATE the investigators granted the first applicant victim status in the criminal case .","On DATE the first applicant requested that the investigators allow CARDINAL lawyers from the human rights organisation ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) to represent her in the criminal case . On DATE her request was rejected as the lawyers had failed to enclose their professional identity cards confirming their ORG membership . On DATE the refusal was overruled as groundless ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE the first applicant provided her statement concerning the alleged abduction to the ORG lawyers . In particular , she stated that in her opinion , the abduction had been perpetrated by representatives of law - enforcement agencies for unknown reasons . The statement was provided to the investigators on DATE ( see the paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , DATE , CARDINAL of the ORG lawyers , PERSON PERSON , requested that the investigators take , amongst others , the following steps :","\u201c ...","-to include in the case file the first applicant \u2019s statement given to the ORG on DATE ...","- to ask the motorway GPE and the other traffic police stations between ORG and GPE - GPE whether in the period between CARDINAL and DATE CARDINAL vehicles passed through them : a PERSON and CARDINAL Lada Priora cars and a white Lada - Priora with registration number PERSON DATE with Mr PERSON in it ;","- to request information from the \u201c ORG \u201d database and the video recording from the traffic police stations and checkpoints between PERSON and PERSON as to whether DATE CARDINAL vehicles passed through them : a PERSON and CARDINAL Lada - Priora cars and a white Lada - Priora with registration number PERSON DATE with Mr PERSON in it ;","- to request from the mobile phone service providers information on connections DATE ... in order to establish the whereabouts of the subscriber of telephone number DATE and his mobile connections from DATE up to the present ;","Enclosures : copy of the statement of PERSON of DATE ... \u201d","On DATE the investigators decided to grant the request of DATE . However , from the documents submitted it appears that the requested steps were taken only in part ( see paragraph DATE below ) .","On DATE the investigators received a reply from ORG ( \u201c the ORG ) of GPE - GPE promising to inform them whether they had any incriminating information on Mr PERSON and whether they had conducted any special operations against him .","On DATE the investigators examined the premises of the \u201c FAC sports club . No evidence was collected from the scene .","On or before DATE Mr PERSON name was included in the NORP federal database of missing persons .","On DATE the investigators requested that the GPE district department of the interior ( \u201c the ROVD \u201d ) inform them which officers had patrolled Mayskiy between CARDINAL and DATE . The reply with the names of QUANTITY police officers was given on DATE .","On DATE the investigators requested permission from ORG to obtain the list of calls and other connections made in the vicinity of FAC in GPE , ORG TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE . On DATE the permission was granted .","On DATE , the investigators asked the local TV stations to broadcast a general description of the circumstances of Mr PERSON abduction and to request assistance in establishing his whereabouts and the ORG identities .","Also on DATE the PERSON investigations department informed the investigators that on DATE Mr PERSON had participated in a fight , as a result of which he had received insignificant bodily injuries , and that he had not given any statements about the incident . On DATE the Prigorodniy ROVD had opened a criminal case into the injuries received by CARDINAL sportsmen , including Mr PERSON , who had been attacked on DATE by a crowd of CARDINAL young men in GPE .","On DATE the investigators forwarded information requests concerning Mr PERSON whereabouts , possible detention , hospitalisation and discovery of his body to a number of lawenforcement agencies in GPE . Replies in the negative were received .","Also on DATE the investigators examined video footage obtained from the ORG camera situated at traffic police checkpoint \u201c PERSON \u201d on the motorway next to Mayskiy TIME on DATE and TIME on DATE . Neither Mr PERSON car nor any other Lada - Priora cars were found on that footage .","On various dates in DATE the investigators received replies from the mobile telephone companies , according to which DATE multiple mobile telephone numbers had been registered in the name of Mr PERSON .","On DATE the head of the operational search unit of ORG of GPE - GPE replied to the NORP request ( see paragraph DATE above ) stating , amongst other things :","\u201c In reply to your request no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - DATE of CARDINAL DATE I inform you that the operational services of GPE - Alania have obtained information that Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE , possibly had been aiding members of illegal armed groups acting in ORG , that he had provided financial assistance to them and could have acted as their contact person . According to the information in our possession , Mr PERSON could have stored illegal weapons and ammunition in his home .","I inform you also that we are taking a number of operational steps to establish PERSON PERSON whereabouts and detain persons involved in his disappearance ... \u201d","On DATE , DATE , CARDINAL of the applicants\u2019 lawyers from the ORG , PERSON , requested that the investigators take the following steps :","\u201c ...","Include in the case file the video of the meeting of the ORG sportsmen with the President of the Republic , Mr ORG , concerning the abduction of Mr PERSON , which took place on DATE , and order a linguistic examination of the footage in order to obtain its translation into NORP .","Question former colleagues of the abducted man , including the Chief Bailiff of GPE - GPE , Mr PERSON , concerning the information provided by him during the meeting of CARDINAL DATE and recorded on video .","Question the President of ORG , Mr ORG , concerning , amongst other things , the incriminating information on Mr PERSON which was mentioned by him during the meeting with the sportsmen of ORG . In particular , he stated the following : \u2018 There are print - outs of telephone conversations , I have not brought them with me , but people know what I mean anyway and the fellow villagers understand it too\u2019 .","Request from the ORG prosecutor \u2019s office the criminal case file against Mr NORP , who was mentioned by the Chief Bailiff of GPE - GPE , Mr M. PERSON , by the secretary of ORG , and by President PERSON . Those officials spoke of the criminal nature of Mr PERSON interactions with Mr NORP In connection with this , it is necessary to examine the contents of the criminal case file to establish the involvement of Mr PERSON in the actions of Mr NORP and his accomplices ...","Inform me about the steps taken ...","... Enclosures :","- copy of the authority form","- video footage of the meeting of President of ORG Mr ORG with representatives of the sports community of ORG on DATE ... \u201d","On DATE forensic experts examined the evidence collected from the crime scene ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the investigators decided to grant the request of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , from the documents submitted it appears that none of the requested measures was taken .","On DATE , DATE , CARDINAL of the applicants\u2019 lawyers from the ORG , PERSON , requested that the investigators take the following steps :","\u201c ... speak to the Mr PERSON neighbours to establish the identity of eyewitnesses to the abduction and question them . ( According to the information from a resident of GPE , Mr GPE . , several neighbours stated that they had witnessed the abduction . This information can be found on the website of ORG : http : GPE - uzel.ru \/ articles\/CARDINAL\/ ) ;","... check whether during the same time frame other persons were abducted or detained under similar circumstances ... and examine the contents of the relevant criminal case files ... \u201d","On the same date the request was rejected by the investigators as the ORG lawyer was not the ORG representative in the criminal case .","On DATE the head of the investigations department overruled the refusal of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and allowed the CARDINAL ORG lawyers to represent the applicants in the criminal case . The applicants were informed thereof .","DATE . On DATE ( in the documents submitted the date is also stated as DATE ) DATE one of the applicants\u2019 lawyers from the ORG , Mr GPE , requested that the investigators proceed as follows :","\u201c ... According to Mr PERSON wife [ the second applicant ] , he was abducted by unidentified persons driving CARDINAL cars . Therefore , it is possible to conclude that before the abduction , on the way from the gym to the crime scene , PERSON PERSON was under surveillance . It is also possible to presume that while driving , the abductors used some kind of device to communicate with each other . If the fact of such connections from the same sources at the time of the incident is established in the areas along Mr PERSON route , then it would allow the identification of the persons who used those means of communication . It would also provide grounds to question them about the reasons for their presence at the scene at the material time and why they were taking the same route as Mr PERSON .","The taking of such steps would lead to the identification of the persons involved in Mr PERSON disappearance .","Therefore , on the basis of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the NORP Criminal Procedure Code you are requested to :","- establish Mr PERSON route on DATE from the sports club ... to the possible place of his abduction in GPE and the place of the discovery of [ his ] car ;","- locate the main telecommunication towers capable of receiving and issuing mobile phone signals along the above route ;","- obtain from the mobile phone companies the lists of all incoming and outgoing connections , including text messages , made with the technical assistance of the above devices TIME and TIME on DATE ;","- examine the information obtained and establish the mobile service subscribers who were located on the above - mentioned route at the relevant time ;","- obtain from the agencies carrying out electronic intelligence in ORG and GPE - GPE information concerning the use of radio devices at the relevant time along the above - mentioned route ;","- identify the users of those devices and question them about the case ... \u201d","On DATE the Prigorodniy central district hospital provided the investigators with a copy of the registration log of urgent calls for medical assistance on CARDINAL and DATE . Mr PERSON name was not indicated therein .","On DATE the applicants requested that Mr PERSON , member of ORG , be allowed to represent them in the criminal case . On DATE the request was granted .","On DATE the request of the applicants\u2019 lawyer was granted ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , from the documents submitted it appears that the requested measures were not taken .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the second applicant , who stated that she still had no information concerning her husband \u2019s whereabouts .","According to the applicants , on DATE the first applicant told her representative at the ORG that someone , whose identity she could not disclose out of fear for that person \u2019s life , had informed her that Mr PERSON had been abducted by officers of ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) from GPE , GPE , and taken to the capital of GPE - GPE , NORP , for unknown reasons . It is unclear whether the applicants passed that information on to the official investigation .","According to the applicants , the case - file documents furnished by the Government did not include the list of all the mobile phone communications which had been made in the vicinity of Mr PERSON alleged abduction obtained by the investigation on DATE .","On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant , whose statement concerning her husband \u2019s disappearance was similar to the applicants\u2019 account submitted to the ORG . In addition , she stated that her husband had used mobile telephone number CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL and that he had neither enemies nor unpaid debts .","On DATE , the investigators questioned Mr PERSON , who stated that on DATE he had been with Mr PERSON at the sports club until TIME At TIME on DATE the applicants had called him looking for Mr PERSON as the latter had not returned home . The witness and Mr GPE had then assisted the applicants in their search and had gone to the hospitals , morgues and police stations looking for Mr PERSON , but without success . The following morning they learnt that Mr PERSON car had been found .","On DATE the investigators also questioned the husband of the first applicant , Mr GPE . , who stated that he had accompanied the first applicant in the search for Mr PERSON when the latter had not returned home . Driving around Mayskiy , they had found pieces of broken glass along with a training shoe and a sock . The first applicant had immediately identified them as belonging to Mr PERSON . They had then immediately gone to the Mayskiy police station .","On DATE , the investigators also questioned a resident of Mayskiy , PERSON , who stated that after TIME on DATE she had been at home when she had heard men shouting outside for TIME . She had stepped outside and seen CARDINAL vehicles ; she had not been able to identify the model or make of the vehicles as it had been dark . The witness thought that it had been a squabble between young men who frequently gathered at the spot to drink alcohol , and returned indoors .","On DATE , the investigators also questioned another resident of Mayskiy , PERSON , who stated that he had gone to bed early on DATE and had not seen the police examining the crime scene outside his house until TIME .","On DATE Mr PERSON mother , PERSON . PERSON , lodged another complaint concerning the abduction with the investigations department .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the second applicant , whose statement was similar to the one she had given on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition , she stated that PERSON PERSON was a professional sportsperson , that in DATE he had won the NORP mixed martial arts championship and that he did not have any enemies .","On DATE the investigators also questioned Mr PERSON friend , PERSON , who stated that he had known Mr PERSON since childhood , that they had trained together for DATE and that Mr PERSON did not have any enemies . In DATE PERSON PERSON had participated in a fight with someone , but afterwards the parties to the conflict had settled the issue . The witness stated that he had learnt of the alleged abduction from the applicants and had no idea as to why Mr PERSON had disappeared .","The investigators questioned Mr PERSON friend , Mr PERSON , who stated that he had seen him in TIME of DATE in the gym and that he had not witnessed the alleged abduction .","The investigators also questioned Mr PERSON sisters , PERSON and PERSON . PERSON , both of whom stated that they had not witnessed the alleged abduction but had found out about it from a woman living at the corner of FAC , according to whom an abduction had been perpetrated by masked men in black uniforms driving CARDINAL cars . In addition , PERSON . PERSON stated that another resident of that area , Mr M. Be . , had confirmed the woman \u2019s story and had added that one of the ORG cars had hit PERSON PERSON car from the front and another had blocked it at the back .","The investigators also questioned Mr PERSON aunt , PERSON . B. , who stated that she had not witnessed the alleged abduction and that she had no explanation for his disappearance .","The investigators also questioned Mr PERSON friend , Mr GPE , a police officer , who stated that at TIME on DATE he had been driving home when he had seen Mr PERSON white car with a dent in the front . The car had skidded and had been driven erratically . The witness had then seen CARDINAL cars , CARDINAL of which was a silvercoloured Lada \u2013 Priora , following Mr PERSON car . All of the vehicles had been heading in the direction of the border with ORG .","DATE . On DATE the investigators questioned the second applicant \u2019s neighbour , PERSON , who stated that at TIME on DATE she had been at home with her husband when they had heard men yelling and then CARDINAL cars speeding away .","On DATE the investigators also questioned Mr PERSON mother , PERSON . PERSON , who stated that she had not witnessed the alleged abduction and had no explanation for her son \u2019s disappearance . On the same date the investigators obtained a blood sample from the witness for a comparative examination with the evidence collected from Mr PERSON car and for inclusion in the regional DNA database .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the second applicant , who reiterated her previous statements ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) confirming that she had no explanation for Mr PERSON disappearance .","On DATE the investigators questioned a police officer from traffic checkpoint no . CARDINAL , Mr A.Ts . , who stated that he had been on duty at the station TIME on DATE and that he had not seen anything suspicious . He had no information pertaining to the alleged abduction .","On DATE the investigators again questioned Mr PERSON friend , police officer GPE , who reiterated his previous statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , adding that he could show the investigators the place where he had seen Mr PERSON car on TIME of the disappearance . On DATE , in order to verify the statement , the investigators took the witness to the place where he had seen the vehicle .","DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON neighbours , PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON , all of whom stated that on TIME of the disappearance they had been asleep at home and , therefore , had no pertinent information about it .","On DATE the investigators questioned the first applicant . Her statement was similar to the account submitted before the ORG . She also stated that she had no theories concerning the reasons for her brother \u2019s disappearance .","On DATE the investigators received the first applicant \u2019s statement concerning the alleged abduction , which she had given to the ORG lawyers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","DATE . On DATE the investigators again questioned PERSON who reiterated her previous statement ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , adding that she had not been able to hear in what language the men had been shouting on TIME of the alleged abduction .","On DATE the investigators again questioned the second applicant , who stated that Mr PERSON had never worked in the police , she had never seen him with a police service identity card and that she had no theories concerning the reasons for her husband \u2019s disappearance . At the same time she stated that she had read on the internet that her husband \u2019s disappearance could have been related to the brawl in DATE .","On DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON cousin Mr PERSON , who stated that he had not witnessed the alleged abduction , had no information about it or theories concerning the possible ORG identities .","On various dates DATE and DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON acquaintances , colleagues and neighbours : Mr GPE , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON . Ts . , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON Ta . E. , Mr I.Im . , PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON , Mr GPE , Mr GPE . and Mr DATE . They stated that they had not witnessed the alleged abduction , had no information about it or any theories concerning the possible ORG identities .","On various dates DATE the investigators questioned Mr PERSON relatives , neighbours and former colleagues PERSON Is . PERSON , Mr Ab . PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mr R.Kh . , Mr M.Ko . , PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr GPE . Their statements concerning the alleged abduction were similar to the applicants\u2019 account submitted before the ORG . They also stated that they did not have any theories concerning the possible ORG identities .","From the documents submitted it appears that the proceedings are still ongoing .","The applicants maintained that it was beyond reasonable doubt that the men who , in their view , had abducted Mr PERSON had been ORG agents . In support of their complaint , they referred to the following facts . Witnesses had seen CARDINAL vehicles following Mr PERSON car ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and the evidence collected subsequently ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) demonstrated that the abduction had been well - planned and well - organised and that the perpetrators had taken into account Mr PERSON physical abilities . The manner in which the alleged abduction had been carried out demonstrated that law - enforcement officers or other ORG agents had been involved in it .","The Government submitted that there was no evidence of the involvement of representatives of law - enforcement agencies in the disappearance of Mr PERSON and that the applicants had failed to present a prima facie case of abduction by ORG agents .","The ORG observes that in its extensive jurisprudence it has developed a number of general principles relating to the establishment of matters in dispute , in particular when faced with allegations of violations of fundamental rights ( for the most recent summary of these , see PERSON v. \u201c the former GPE \u201d [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , DATE ) .","More specifically , the ORG has adjudicated a series of cases concerning allegations of disappearances in the NORP LOC . Applying the above - mentioned principles , it has concluded that it would be sufficient for the applicants to make a prima facie case of abduction of the missing persons by ORG agents , thus falling within the control of the authorities , and it would then be for the Government to discharge their burden of proof , either by disclosing the documents in their exclusive possession or by providing a satisfactory and convincing explanation of how the events in question occurred ( see , for example , concerning abductions in ORG , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE , and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) . If the Government failed to rebut this presumption , that would entail a violation of LAW in its substantive part . Conversely , where the applicants failed to make a prima facie case , the burden of proof could not be reversed ( see , for example , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .","Turning to the circumstances of the present case , the ORG notes that no assessment of evidence was carried out by the domestic courts . Therefore , it is for the ORG to assess the facts of the case as presented by the parties .","It should be noted at the outset that the documents submitted contain no witness statements of persons who could describe in detail the circumstances of the alleged abduction other than the very general descriptions of the vehicles and persons following Mr PERSON car on TIME in question ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE above ) . The ORG also notes that the investigation obtained various theories concerning the reasons for his disappearance : kidnapping for ransom ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , abduction relating to hostile relationship ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and , lastly , abduction by law - enforcement agents ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In such circumstances , in the absence of unequivocal prima facie evidence of the latter , the ORG is unable to conclude that ORG agents or persons acting with their consent could be the sole possible perpetrators of the alleged abduction .","Therefore , it has not been established to the required standard of proof \u2013 \u201c beyond reasonable doubt \u201d \u2013 that ORG agents were implicated in Mr PERSON disappearance ; nor does the ORG consider that the burden of proof can be entirely shifted to the Government ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170655","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF NAVALNYY v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a political activist , opposition leader , anticorruption campaigner and popular blogger . These CARDINAL applications concern his arrests on CARDINAL occasions at different public events .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant took part in a meeting at FAC , GPE , which began at TIME It was devoted to the allegedly rigged presidential elections in GPE and had been approved by the municipal authorities .","At the end of the meeting , at TIME , ORG deputy PERSON addressed the participants , inviting the public to stay after the meeting for informal consultations , which began at TIME and were attended by CARDINAL people . According to the applicant , he stayed among others at FAC for a meeting with the deputy ; they remained peacefully within the pedestrian area of the square and did not obstruct the traffic or access . According to the Government , the applicant was holding an irregular gathering without prior notification and was shouting political slogans .","At TIME the police arrived and arrested the applicant , among many others . He was taken to the LOC police station .","On TIME CARDINAL policemen drew up a report on the administrative offence , stating that the applicant had been arrested at TIME in a fountain \u201d at FAC ; that he had taken part in an irregular public gathering and that he had ignored police orders to disperse . The applicant was charged with a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events , an offence under LAW . The applicant was released at TIME on DATE .","On DATE the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of the Tverskoy District examined the administrative charges against the applicant . The applicant challenged the authenticity of the police reports and the witness statement of the QUANTITY police officers on the grounds that he had been arrested by different police officers , but his objection was dismissed . On the basis of the written statements and testimony of QUANTITY police officers the Justice of the Peace found the applicant guilty of taking part in an irregular public gathering conducted without prior notification and fined the applicant under LAW MONEY ( RUB ) , at the material time equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) .","On DATE the LOC court of GPE examined the applicant \u2019s appeal . The applicant was absent , but he was represented by a lawyer . The court examined CARDINAL more eyewitness , a journalist , who testified that before being arrested the applicant was standing \u201c in a fountain , holding hands with others \u201d and chanting political slogans . He also testified that the police officers who had placed the applicant in the police bus were the same officers who had signed the report and who had appeared at the first - instance hearing . The court examined CARDINAL video recordings submitted by the applicant . It found that ORG deputy had indeed called a public meeting , but concluded that at the time of his arrest the applicant was not meeting the deputy but was participating in a protest assembly . It upheld the judgment of DATE .","On DATE the applicant took part in an overnight \u201c walkabout \u201d , an informal gathering whereby activists met at a public venue to discuss current affairs . On this occasion , CARDINAL activists met up to discuss the inauguration of PERSON as President of GPE DATE . On DATE some areas of central GPE were restricted for traffic and pedestrians due to the presidential inauguration and DATE festivities .","At TIME , according to the applicant , or at TIME , according to the Government , the applicant was walking down PERSON , accompanied by CARDINAL people . The group stopped on the stairs of a public building for a group photograph . While the applicant was taking the photograph he was arrested by the riot police . At TIME he was taken to a police station where an administrative offence report was drawn up . The applicant was charged with a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events , an offence under LAW . The applicant was released at TIME on DATE .","On DATE , at TIME , according to the Government , or at TIME , according to the applicant , the applicant was walking down FAC in a cluster of CARDINAL people . According to the applicant , they stayed on the pavement , had no banners or sound equipment , and were causing no nuisance . They were surrounded by the riot police and the applicant was arrested without any order or warning .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to a police station where an administrative offence report was drawn up . He was charged with a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events , an offence under LAW \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . The applicant was released at TIME on DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE examined the charges concerning the applicant \u2019s administrative offence at PERSON . The applicant was absent from the proceedings , but he was represented by his legal counsel , who contested the applicant \u2019s participation in an irregular assembly and claimed that the latter had not chanted any slogans . He asked the Justice of the FAC to admit video evidence and to examine certain eyewitnesses , but she refused to do so . On the basis of written statements by CARDINAL police officers the Justice of the Peace found the applicant guilty of taking part in a meeting conducted before TIME , in breach of regulations , and fined him under LAW . This judgment was delivered in full on DATE . It was upheld on DATE by ORG of GPE .","On DATE the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of LOC examined the administrative charges concerning the applicant \u2019s administrative offence at FAC . The applicant was absent from the proceedings , but he was represented by his legal counsel , who contested the applicant \u2019s participation in an irregular assembly and claimed that the latter had not chanted any slogans . The Justice of the Peace questioned the police officer who had arrested the applicant and QUANTITY eyewitnesses . The police officer testified that he had arrested the applicant because he was walking in a big group of people , obstructing traffic and chanting political slogans . The eyewitnesses testified that the applicant was walking down the street among about CARDINAL people , and that the police had blocked their way and had arrested them without any warning ; they denied hearing any slogans or amplified sound . The Justice of the FAC refused to admit video evidence and dismissed the eyewitness statements on the grounds that they were likely to be the applicant \u2019s supporters and were therefore biased . The applicant was found guilty of taking part in a meeting conducted in breach of regulations and was fined under LAW CARDINAL . This judgment was upheld on DATE by ORG of GPE .","On DATE the applicant arrived at TIME at FAC in GPE to take part in an informal meeting with a ORG deputy and to attend DATE festivities . He was among CARDINAL people \u201c walking about \u201d and discussing current affairs . According to the applicant , this gathering was not a demonstration : there had been no banners , no noise , and no one was chanting any slogans or giving speeches .","At TIME riot police arrived at the site of the meeting and arrested the applicant without any orders or warning . The applicant submitted a video recording of his arrest .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to the LOC police station . At TIME the applicant was searched and then an administrative offence report was drawn up . According to the applicant , he was detained at the police station for TIME before he was brought before a ORG of the Peace . The Government confirmed that the applicant had been detained pending trial , but did not specify the time .","At an unidentified time on DATE the applicant was brought before the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of LOC of GPE . The Justice of the FAC refused the applicant \u2019s requests for the police officers who had arrested him to be called and examined , and for video evidence to be admitted , but granted his request for CARDINAL eyewitnesses to be examined . The witnesses testified that there had been a public meeting with a ORG deputy to discuss current political developments ; that no one had chanted slogans or made noise or obstructed traffic ; and that the police had not given any orders or warnings before arresting the applicant . On the basis of the written statements of CARDINAL police officers the court established that the applicant had taken part in an irregular public meeting and had disobeyed a lawful order from the police to disperse . It also found that the applicant had chanted the slogans \u201c GPE without GPE ! \u201d and \u201c PERSON is a thief ! \u201d and had refused to leave the square , which needed to be cleared for DATE festivities . The Justice of the Peace has rejected the statements of CARDINAL eyewitnesses , on the grounds that they had different estimates of the number of people present at the venue , the number of police officers who arrested the applicant , and the time of his arrival at the meeting . The applicant was found guilty of disobeying the lawful order of the police , in breach of LAW , and was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal .","On DATE the Presnenskiy District Court of GPE examined the appeal . The applicant asked for the police officers on whose reports and statements the Justice of the Peace had based the judgment to be cross - examined , as well as CARDINAL eyewitnesses , and for the video recording of the arrest to be admitted as evidence . The court dismissed these requests and upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant held a static demonstration ( \u201c picket \u201d , \u043f\u0438\u043a\u0435\u0442\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) , which was a part of series of pickets held in GPE in front of ORG to protest \u201c against repressions and torture \u201d . According to the applicant , his demonstration was a solo picket ( \u043e\u0434\u0438\u043d\u043e\u0447\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u043f\u0438\u043a\u0435\u0442\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0435 ) which was not subject to a prior notification to the competent public authority . In total , CARDINAL people consecutively took part in this event .","At TIME the police arrested the applicant . According to the applicant , at the moment of arrest he had finished picketing and was walking down the street on the pavement ; he was not chanting or carrying any banners , but he was being followed by some people including journalists whose number he estimated as \u201c QUANTITY \u201d . According to the Government , the applicant had organised an irregular march without prior notification . The applicant was taken to the police station at TIME He was charged with a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events , an offence under LAW . He was released at TIME DATE .","On DATE the Justice of ORG no . CARDINAL of GPE examined the charges . She examined CARDINAL eyewitnesses called at the applicant \u2019s request , but his request for the police officers who had arrested him to be called and examined was refused . The applicant \u2019s request for a video recording of the relevant events to be admitted as evidence was also refused , as was the request for a written report from an NGO that had observed the pickets to be admitted in evidence . At the applicant \u2019s request the Justice of the FAC examined QUANTITY eyewitnesses , who testified that the applicant , after he ended his picket , walked down the street while speaking with a fellow activist , surrounded by journalists ; he remained on the pavement , did not chant slogans , and carried no banners ; several other participants in the picket remained standing with their banners , at a certain distance from each other ; the police arrested the applicant without any warning or explanation . On the basis of the written reports by QUANTITY police officers the Justice of the Peace found the applicant guilty of taking part in a march which had not been duly notified to the authorities and fined him under LAW CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( at the material time equivalent to about ORG CARDINAL ) . She dismissed the witness statements in the applicant \u2019s favour on the grounds that they contradicted the evidence in the case file .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .","On DATE at TIME the applicant went to the ORG of GPE to attend the hearing of the activists on trial for participation in mass disorders at FAC in GPE on DATE . On DATE the judgment was to be delivered at a public hearing . The court - house was cordoned off by the police , and the applicant could not get in . He therefore remained outside among other members of the public wishing to attend the hearing . According to the applicant he was standing there silently , but the police suddenly rushed into the crowd and arrested him , without any order , warning or pretext . According to the official version , he was holding an irregular gathering and was chanting political slogans .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to the police station . He was charged with a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events , an offence under LAW . The applicant was released at TIME .","DATE , at TIME , the applicant took part in a public gathering following the pronouncement of the judgment concerning mass disorders at FAC in which several activists had been sentenced to prison terms . The gathering of CARDINAL participants took place at FAC . The applicant was arrested while he was standing on the pavement talking to a journalist . According to the applicant he had received no order or warning , and he did not resist the police . According to the police report , when the applicant was being seated in the police vehicle he was waving at the crowd trying to attract media attention , thus demonstrating refusal to comply with the police order and resisting the officers in the performance of their duties .","At TIME the applicant was taken to the LOC police station , where an administrative offence report was drawn up . The applicant was charged with disobeying a lawful order of the police , an offence under LAW . He was remanded in custody .","On DATE , DATE , at an unidentified time , the applicant was brought before the judge of ORG , who examined the charges under LAW . The applicant \u2019s request for QUANTITY eyewitnesses to be examined was granted . They testified that the police had not given the applicant any orders or warnings before proceeding to his arrest . The court admitted and examined the video recording of the contested events and questioned the QUANTITY police officers on whose reports the charges were based . The court established that the applicant had taken part in an irregular meeting and had disobeyed the lawful order of the police to disperse . The applicant was found guilty of disobeying a lawful order of the police , in breach of LAW of LAW , and was sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention .","On DATE ORG examined the charges relating to the applicant \u2019s alleged participation on DATE in an unauthorised public gathering in front of ORG . The applicant requested that QUANTITY eyewitnesses present at the court - house and the QUANTITY policemen on whose reports the charges were based be examined . These requests were dismissed . The court admitted a video recording of the contested events , but decided not to take cognisance of its content because it had no date and because it had not reproduced a full sequence of events . On the basis of the written reports by QUANTITY police officers the judge found the applicant guilty of taking part in a meeting which had not been notified to the competent authority in accordance with the procedure provided by law , and fined him under LAW MONEY ( equivalent to about EUR CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE ."],"violated_articles":["11","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160826","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF KLINKENBUSS v. GERMANY","importance":3,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - After conviction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in a psychiatric hospital in ORG .","In DATE the applicant forced CARDINAL DATE girls , and in DATE a DATE girl , to undress and hit them with a stick . In DATE the applicant forced a DATE girl to undress and lay on top of the girl on a bench . The criminal proceedings relating to these offences were discontinued because of the applicant \u2019s lack of criminal responsibility as a minor .","On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of attempted rape together with sexual assault and dangerous assault and of attempted murder and assault . Applying the criminal law relating to young offenders , it sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment and ordered his detention in a psychiatric hospital under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","ORG found that on DATE the applicant , then aged DATE , had forced a DATE girl to follow him into a forest where he had attempted to rape her , sexually assaulted her with a stick and then attempted to kill her by strangling her to cover up his offences . When , on return to the crime scene , he realised that his victim was not dead , he forcefully hit her buttocks with a branch .","In ORG finding , it was necessary to order the applicant \u2019s detention in a psychiatric hospital under LAW . It considered that the applicant had acted with diminished criminal responsibility ( LAW ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Having regard to the findings of expert PERSON , the court was convinced that the applicant had reduced mental capacities which had been caused by infantile brain damage . This damage , combined with failings in his upbringing ( he had repeatedly been hit by his father with a stick himself ) , had caused a consciousness disorder and the sadistic sexual tendencies the applicant had disclosed in his offence . These disorders amounted to an \u201c other serious mental abnormality \u201d for the purposes of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Moreover , a comprehensive assessment of the applicant \u2019s personality revealed that , as a result of his condition and notably the sadistic tendencies which had manifested themselves in the offence of which he was found guilty , he could be expected to commit further unlawful acts and was therefore dangerous to the general public .","NORP Since DATE the applicant has been detained in a psychiatric hospital .","NORP In DATE , when the applicant was granted leave from detention , he attacked a DATE cyclist , threatened her with a knife and attempted to force her into a forest . He was chased away by a car driver . The criminal proceedings in this respect were discontinued with regard to his previous conviction .","The courts dealing with the execution of sentences reviewed the applicant \u2019s detention at regular intervals . In particular , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the applicant \u2019s detention in a psychiatric hospital to continue . It had noted , in particular , that the applicant had refused therapeutic discussions . There was stagnation in the applicant \u2019s treatment , the representatives of the psychiatric hospital having explained that they considered substantial changes in the applicant \u2019s personality by sex therapy no longer possible .","On DATE ORG ordered the continuation of the applicant \u2019s detention in a psychiatric hospital under Articles CARDINALd and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .","ORG noted that external psychiatric expert T. , in his report dated DATE , had diagnosed the applicant , whom he had examined in person , with an abnormality of the sex chromosomes ( so - called PERSON syndrome ) . The latter had most probably caused an endocrine personality syndrome characterised by retardation and disorders in the development of a person \u2019s personality and by an insufficient internalisation of ethical rules . The applicant had therefore developed a dissocial and schizoid personality . It was unclear whether the applicant still suffered from sadistic paraphilia . The expert considered that the applicant \u2019s retardation had partially been offset by hormonal treatment . Moreover , the applicant \u2019s dissocial conduct and schizoid personality disorder had been alleviated by social therapy and psychotherapy .","In assessing the risk emanating from the applicant , the expert considered that it had to be taken into account that the applicant had already committed a number of sadistic offences against children . Moreover , the seriousness of the offence of which the applicant had been convicted in DATE , and the attack on a woman at a time when he had already been detained in the psychiatric hospital in DATE , had to be taken into consideration . It appeared that it had not been possible to continuously pursue sex therapy with the applicant during his long psychiatric internment . There was a risk that , if the applicant were overstrained or frustrated , he might commit offences as a result of sadistic tendencies . The expert stated , however , that it was impossible for him to assess how far the applicant was still driven by sadistic fantasies . Consequently , the risk that the applicant would reoffend if released was difficult to assess and could only be determined in the course of further therapy .","A representative of the psychiatric hospital , in submissions to the court dated DATE , confirmed that the applicant had spoken with a psychologist on his request . However , he was still unable to reflect on the motives for his offence . Therefore , it was difficult to assess how dangerous the applicant was ; there was a risk that he would reoffend if released . Furthermore , the therapist responsible for the applicant confirmed that it was impossible to make a proper assessment of the danger posed by the applicant .","ORG , having heard the applicant and having regard to the evidence before it , considered that the continuation of the applicant \u2019s detention in a psychiatric hospital had to be ordered . Despite the fact that the applicant had proved reliable during leave from detention during DATE , it could not be expected with sufficient probability that the applicant would not reoffend if released . In particular , it could not be ruled out that his sadistic tendencies persisted . The applicant was currently not undergoing therapy , in the proper sense of the term , and suffered from hospitalism .","ORG further considered that the continuation of the applicant \u2019s detention was proportionate . In support of this view , it referred to the serious offence which had led to the applicant \u2019s placement in a psychiatric hospital , to the fact that he had relapsed during the execution of his detention order and to the potential risk , as confirmed by the expert and the psychiatric hospital staff , that the applicant would reoffend if released .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision .","On DATE the ORG , endorsing the reasons given by ORG , dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal .","By submissions dated DATE , the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He argued that his continued detention in a psychiatric hospital for DATE was disproportionate and had therefore breached his constitutional right to liberty and the constitutional protection of the rule of law . It had been insufficient for the courts to base their assessment that he was currently still dangerous on offences dating back more than twentyeight years and on an incident during the execution of his detention order dating back more than twenty years . Moreover , the experts and courts had confirmed that he was no longer undergoing any therapy and that it was unclear whether he was still dangerous to the public .","On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , without giving reasons ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) .","The applicant underwent several courses of therapy , including social therapy and psychotherapy , during his detention in the psychiatric hospital . After the applicant had failed in his attempts to complete a sex therapy course on a number of occasions , ORG authorities decided to discontinue attempts at sex therapy for some time . The applicant was transferred to the so - called \u201c long - stay \u201d department of the hospital in DATE , where he was detained during the time covered by the proceedings at issue and where he did not undergo any sex therapy . The purpose of the applicant \u2019s placement in the \u201c long - stay \u201d department was in fact to grant him a break from his failed attempts to complete sex therapy . He was being prepared for another attempt at completing sex therapy in psychotherapeutic one - to - one meetings with a psychologist . However , he had repeatedly declined offers to restart such individual or group therapy .","NORP The applicant has been working in the factory on the premises of the psychiatric hospital . When granted leave under escort several times per year , he has visited members of his family .","On DATE ORG , endorsing the reasons given in its previous decision , ordered the applicant \u2019s continued detention in a psychiatric hospital . It agreed with the view expressed by the psychiatric hospital representative that sadism could not be cured and considered that there was a high risk that the applicant would again commit further serious offences against the life and sexual self - determination of others . On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-a"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-164921","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF ME\u010cI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Vinkovci .","By a judgment of DATE ORG ( PERSON ) ordered the applicant \u2019s former employer , the company ORG . ( hereinafter \u201c the debtor company \u201d ) , to pay him NORP kunas ( HRK ) as remuneration for overtime work , together with accrued statutory default interest , and HRK CARDINAL in costs . On DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u Vukovaru ) upheld the first - instance court \u2019s judgment , which thereby became final .","By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) found the applicant guilty of the criminal offence of embezzlement committed against his former employer , the debtor company . It sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , suspended for DATE provided that in that period he did not commit a further offence . The court also ordered the applicant to pay the debtor company HRK CARDINAL in compensation for pecuniary damage caused by his offence .","On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( PERSON ) for enforcement of the above judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","DATE , on DATE , that court issued a writ of execution ( rje\u0161enje o ovrsi ) whereby it ordered the seizure of funds in the debtor company \u2019s bank account in order to satisfy the applicant \u2019s claim .","The debtor company lodged an appeal , and on DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) quashed the writ of execution and remitted the case to the first - instance court . It found that the judgment sought to be enforced had not been stamped with a certificate of enforceability and that a grace period for voluntary compliance ( paricijski rok ) had not been set .","In the new proceedings before ORG the applicant submitted on DATE a copy of the judgment that he was seeking to enforce stamped with a certificate of enforceability . At the same time , he asked the court to set a grace period for voluntary compliance , pursuant to the law .","On DATE the court issued a new writ of execution . It ordered the debtor company to pay the applicant , within a grace period of DATE ( a ) the sums it had been ordered to pay under the judgment of DATE ( that is to say the main debt , together with accrued statutory default interest , and the costs of the civil proceedings , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ( b ) the statutory default interest accrued on the costs of the civil proceedings from the date of delivery of that judgment , and ( c ) the costs of enforcement proceedings , together with the statutory default interest accrued on those costs from the date of issuance of the writ of execution .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the debtor company \u2019s appeal and upheld the writ of execution .","Upon receiving , on CARDINAL DATE , the final judgment of the criminal court of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the debtor company on DATE sent a letter containing a set - off statement to the applicant \u2019s legal representative whereby it set off ( prijeboj ) its claim for compensation against the applicant stemming from that judgment with his claim for payment of overtime work against the debtor company stemming from the judgment he was seeking to enforce .","On DATE , DATE , the debtor company informed the court that it had received the above - mentioned final judgment of the criminal court and that it had executed the set - off described above ( see the preceding paragraph ) . The debtor company at the same time lodged an extraordinary appeal against the writ of execution of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and lodged an application to postpone the enforcement .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG decided on the debtor company \u2019s motion for postponement , instructing the debtor company to institute separate civil proceedings for the enforcement to be declared inadmissible ( in full or in part ) . At the same time it postponed the enforcement pending the final outcome of those proceedings .","The debtor company instituted those civil proceedings on DATE . They ended on DATE , when ORG upheld the first - instance judgment of ORG of DATE , whereby the enforcement of up to HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL was declared inadmissible . The second - instance judgment was served on the debtor company on CARDINAL DATE and on the applicant DATE .","Following an appeal lodged by the applicant , on DATE the ORG quashed the first - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in so far as it allowed the postponement of the enforcement and in this respect remitted the case . It dismissed the remainder of the applicant \u2019s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision in the remaining part .","In the resumed proceedings , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG again postponed the enforcement .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal against that decision and upheld it .","On DATE the applicant informed ORG that the judgment declaring the enforcement inadmissible in part had become final ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and asked it to continue with the enforcement in the remaining part .","By a decision of DATE that court decided to resume the enforcement in the remaining part . By another decision of the same date that court ordered the debtor company to pay the applicant : ( a ) HRK CARDINAL for unpaid overtime work , together with statutory default interest accrued since DATE , ( b ) HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in costs of civil proceedings , together with statutory default interest accrued since DATE , and ( c ) HRK CARDINAL in costs of enforcement proceedings , together with statutory default interest accrued since DATE . This decision became final on DATE .","On DATE the court informed ORG ( GPE agencija \u2013 ORG ) of its second decision of DATE ( see the preceding paragraph ) . In the execution of that decision the agency on CARDINAL DATE transferred HRK CARDINAL from the debtor company \u2019s bank account to those of the applicant and his legal representative .","Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged a request for protection of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time ( zahtjev za za\u0161titu prava na su\u0111enje u razumnom roku ) with ORG , complaining about the length of the above enforcement proceedings .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request . It held that , while the case was indeed important for the applicant , the proceedings complained of were complex and he had contributed to their length in that he had not initially submitted a copy of the judgment he was seeking to enforce stamped with a certificate of enforceability ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .","On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision .","By a decision of DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal and served its decision on his representative on CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the second - instance decision .","By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared inadmissible the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint and served that decision on his representative on DATE . It held that the contested second - instance decision was not open to constitutional review ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-164954","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MIRYANA PETROVA v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Civil rights and obligations);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Georgieva;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant had been employed by ORG as a system operator since DATE . She submitted that , on account of the nature of her duties , she had held a security clearance permitting her access to classified information constituting ORG secrets . According to the applicant \u2019s job description , being in a possession of such a security clearance had been a prerequisite to her holding her post .","On DATE ORG ( hereinafter \u201c the LAW \u201d ) was promulgated in ORG . Under LAW , permits granting access to classified information that had been issued under the legal provisions existing before the entry into force of the LAW were to remain valid until their replacement by security clearance allowing access to classified information . The heads of organisational units employing persons who possessed an access permit and whose positions required that they have access to classified information were to request the issuance of security clearance , in accordance with the requirements of the LAW . Non - compliance with that provision would result in the invalidation of the respective existing access permits .","On DATE , in compliance with that obligation , the Director of ORG issued a decision refusing the applicant security clearance allowing access to classified information . The applicant submitted that that decision had been based on a psychological test . The decision did not contain any reasoning in respect of the refusal , apart from a reference to LAW of ORG .","The applicant lodged an appeal against the refusal with ORG . The latter , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE , upheld the refusal . That decision was final and not amenable to judicial review .","On DATE , the Director of ORG ordered that the applicant be dismissed . The reason given for the termination of her employment was the refusal to grant her security clearance , possession of which was an indispensable condition of her being able to perform her duties .","The applicant challenged her dismissal at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . She contested the objectivity and the lawfulness of the dismissal procedure , arguing that she had fulfilled all conditions for the issuance of security clearance and that she had been dismissed on account of the negative personal relationship between her and her direct supervisor . In the applicant \u2019s view , the clearance had probably been refused because she had suffered from depressive neurosis in DATE , a condition which according to her was no longer relevant . The applicant \u2019s request that a report by a psychiatric expert be commissioned was refused by ORG .","By its judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s claims , reasoning that the refusal of the Director of ORG to grant security clearance to the applicant was a final and valid administrative act , and it rendered the applicant \u2019s dismissal inevitable because she was no longer able to perform her duties . The court added that the refusal was not amenable to any judicial review ; therefore , the court was not competent to examine , within the framework of the dismissal proceedings , any substantial or procedural questions related to its lawfulness .","On appeal , ORG , by a ruling of DATE upheld the lower court \u2019s decision , endorsing its reasoning .","On DATE , ORG upheld those rulings ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-180849","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF BOPKHOYEVA v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG , GPE .","On DATE the applicant was abducted by S. with intent to marry her . The applicant \u2019s mother opposed the marriage and on the same day S. \u2019s relatives took the applicant back to her mother \u2019s house .","On DATE the relatives of the applicant \u2019s deceased father made the applicant go back to S. \u2019s , because of the presumed consummation of the marriage . They also threatened to kill S. , should the applicant decide to leave him .","The applicant had to live with PERSON \u2019s family as his wife . The marriage was not officially registered . She was kept locked in a room without being able to communicate with people outside S. \u2019s family . PERSON moved to a different town . On rare occasions S. \u2019s sister let the applicant use her mobile phone so that she could call her mother . She complained that S. \u2019s family , especially her mother - in - law , treated her poorly . She did not feel well and complained about dizziness , numbing of the lower jaw and difficulty to breathe . According to the applicant \u2019s mother , the applicant told her once that her mother - in - law did not let her see PERSON and claimed that the applicant would not last living with them longer than DATE . On several occasions the applicant lost consciousness and foamed at the mouth .","On DATE the applicant was taken to a municipal hospital . The doctor diagnosed her with renal colic .","On DATE during another visit to hospital the applicant was diagnosed with poisoning by unknown substance .","On DATE the applicant foamed at the mouth again and was taken to hospital . She was released on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lost consciousness and was taken to hospital . A general practitioner and a neuropathologist examined her . She was diagnosed with stress and overdose of sedatives and placed in an intensive care unit . Subsequently she was diagnosed with post - hypoxic encephalopathy and vegetative state . She has not regained consciousness since then .","NORP In DATE the applicant was released to her mother \u2019s care .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother complained to the local police department and prosecutor \u2019s office that the applicant had been forcefully held by PERSON \u2019s family in inhuman conditions which led to deterioration of her health and coma .","On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against S. \u2019s family on the charges of incitement of suicide and causing damage to health .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother lodged another complaint with the local police department alleging that the applicant had been poisoned while staying at S. \u2019s house . She also stated that the applicant had been repeatedly beaten up and deprived of her liberty .","According to the forensic medical report completed on DATE , a vegetative state , similar to the applicant \u2019s , could be caused primarily by intoxication . The expert , however , was unable to determine the cause of the applicant \u2019s condition .","On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against S. \u2019s family . The applicant appealed .","On DATE the supervising prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered further inquiry into the matter .","On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the charges of attempted murder .","On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings on the charges of causing serious damage to health . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG of the GPE quashed the decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL . The court noted that the inquiry had been incomplete . The investigator had failed ( CARDINAL ) to question a number of important witnesses and ( CARDINAL ) to determine the cause of the applicant \u2019s condition .","On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings reiterating verbatim his reasoning set out in the decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL .","On DATE , DATE and DATE DATE the deputy head of the district police department ordered a new inquiry noting that the previous inquiry had been incomplete .","On DATE and DATE the investigator refused to open a criminal investigation reproducing verbatim the earlier decisions of CARDINAL October DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE the investigator again refused to open a criminal investigation . In addition to his earlier findings , he studied the applicant \u2019s medical case - file and concluded that it did not contain information accounting for the cause of her medical condition .","On DATE the district deputy prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and ordered a further inquiry .","The case - file materials submitted by the ORG contain CARDINAL decisions dated DATE . The first decision was taken by the investigator who refused to institute a criminal investigation in the applicant \u2019s case . The second decision was taken by the district deputy prosecutor who ordered a new inquiry . The Government did not inform of the outcome of the proceedings ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148234","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2014,"docname":"B\u00c4CKER v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Ale\u0161 Pejchal;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON - PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . He is currently confined in a psychiatric hospital in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166683","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF SIDIKA \u0130MREN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","At the time of the events giving rise to the present application , the applicant \u2019s daughter , PERSON , worked as a secretary for a private company engaged in the trade of mineral oil , namely PERSON . GPE . GPE . PERSON . Ltd. PERSON ( \u201c the company \u201d ) . On DATE , at TIME , a fire broke out at her workplace when one of her colleagues , GPE , attempted to light the wood - burning stove used to heat the office area by pouring petrol onto it . PERSON sustained serious injuries as a result of the fire . On DATE she died at the hospital where she had been receiving treatment for her burns .","Upon being informed of the fire , QUANTITY police officers arrived at the scene of the incident at TIME on DATE . They prepared a report describing the state of the premises in the aftermath of the fire and a sketch map of the scene of the incident .","At TIME on DATE QUANTITY police officers went to the hospital where the applicant \u2019s daughter PERSON had been taken for treatment . They reported that she was not in a condition to make a statement regarding the incident .","At TIME the police interrogated CARDINAL suspects in relation to the fire , namely GPE , PERSON colleague who had apparently started the fire , and ORG , who was the owner of the company for which PERSON was working . M.Y described the incident as noted in paragraph CARDINAL above . K.N.Y. stated that he had not been at the workplace at the time of the incident .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG against GPE for starting a fire and causing bodily harm by negligence .","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor delivered a decision not to prosecute in relation to K.N.Y.","On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and transferred the case to ORG .","NORP In the meantime , inspectors from ORG ( \u201c the Ministry \u201d ) initiated an investigation into the incident . According to their report dated DATE , the necessary precautions had not been taken at the relevant workplace to prevent and put out fires , such as training the employees in fire safety and the operation of woodburning stoves . Such training was particularly important bearing in mind that the company was engaged in the mineral oil business .","Relying on the inspectors\u2019 findings regarding the lack of precautions necessary for the prevention of fires in the deceased \u2019s workplace , on DATE the applicant lodged a new complaint with the GPE public prosecutor \u2019s office against the owner of the company , K.N.Y.","On DATE the GPE public prosecutor issued an additional indictment against K.N.Y. for causing PERSON death by negligence .","On an unspecified date the applicant joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party .","There is no information in the case file as to when ORG started hearing the case . On DATE the second hearing was held , during which the court heard the statements of the defendants and CARDINAL prosecution witnesses .","At the third hearing held on DATE ORG heard CARDINAL defence witnesses . It also ordered that an on - site inspection be carried out at the workplace on DATE by courtappointed experts . It appears from the information in the case file , however , that the on - site inspection was carried out on DATE .","On DATE the court - appointed experts issued their report , where they largely repeated the findings of the ORG \u2019s inspectors noted in paragraph CARDINAL above . The experts concluded that GPE each bore PERCENT responsibility for the incident .","On DATE ORG requested that ORG issue a report examining whether a causal link existed between PERSON death and the fire at her workplace . In a report dated DATE ORG confirmed that PERSON had died on account of complications caused by the burns she had sustained during the fire .","In the meantime , on DATE ORG ordered the employer \u2019s insurance company to provide the accident report prepared in the aftermath of the incident , along with photographs and any other documents relevant to the incident . On DATE the insurance company submitted the requested documents .","Relying mainly on the reports issued by the court - appointed experts and the inspectors of the Ministry , as well as the report of ORG , on DATE ORG convicted the defendants as charged and sentenced each of them to QUANTITY months\u2019 imprisonment and a fine . The defendants appealed against this judgment .","On CARDINAL DATE the public prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG remitted the case to ORG for reassessment of the sentence in the light of the new LAW ( Law no . DATE ) that had entered into force in DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted the defendants once again as charged and issued the same sentence and fine . The defendants appealed against this judgment .","On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It found that the firstinstance court had to consider whether the procedure of suspension of pronouncement of judgments ( h\u00fckm\u00fcn a\u00e7\u0131klanmas\u0131n\u0131n geri b\u0131rak\u0131lmas\u0131 ) provided for in section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . DATE ) , as amended on DATE , was applicable in the circumstances .","On DATE ORG convicted the defendants once again and sentenced them to the same term of imprisonment and fine as before . It held that the pronouncement of the judgment could not be suspended having regard , inter alia , to the nature of the offence and the gravity of the incident . The defendants appealed against this judgment .","On DATE ORG held that the criminal proceedings should be discontinued on the grounds that the prosecution of the offence in question had become time - barred .","On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings against K.N.Y. , the owner of the company for which her daughter had worked , before ORG ( \u201c the labour court \u201d ) requesting compensation in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage following her daughter \u2019s death .","On DATE the labour court dismissed the case , which it found should have been brought against the company for which the victim had worked rather than against K.N.Y.","On DATE the applicant brought compensation proceedings before the labour court against the company in relation to her daughter \u2019s death .","It appears from the information in the case file that during the QUANTITY hearings held in DATE , the labour court heard the parties\u2019 witnesses ( CARDINAL witnesses in total ) .","At the hearing held on DATE the applicant requested the appointment of experts to determine the defendant company \u2019s responsibility for her daughter \u2019s death . The labour court accepted that request and on DATE it appointed CARDINAL experts .","On DATE the experts delivered their report , in which they found that the accused company and its owner , K.N.Y. , bore PERCENT and CARDINAL % responsibility , respectively , for PERSON death . According to the experts , the remaining responsibility lay with GPE , who was not a party to the proceedings before the labour court .","Relying on the findings of the experts , on DATE the applicant brought an additional compensation claim before ORG On DATE ORG decided to join the case against K.N.Y. to the proceedings pending before ORG against the company .","Between DATE and DATE the labour court held CARDINAL hearings . However , apart from those mentioned in DATE and DATE above , the labour court did not take any procedural action during that period and decided to adjourn the case at the end of each hearing pending a judgment in the criminal proceedings .","At its first hearing following the termination of the criminal proceedings , which was held on DATE , the labour court ordered the appointment of an expert to determine the applicant \u2019s pecuniary damage as a result of her daughter \u2019s death . However , the expert was not officially appointed until DATE .","On DATE the court - appointed expert delivered the report on the extent of the damage suffered by the applicant .","DATE and DATE the labour court held CARDINAL more hearings . It appears that CARDINAL of those hearings were postponed pending information from ORG ( PERSON ) concerning the benefits received by the applicant following her daughter \u2019s death .","On DATE the labour court delivered its judgment on the case . It rejected the applicant \u2019s claims in respect of pecuniary damage , except for funeral costs in the amount of MONEY ( TRY ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , plus interest ( TRY CARDINAL to be paid by K.N.Y. and the rest by the company ) . It granted her request in respect of non - pecuniary damage and ordered the payment of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , together with interest ( TRY CARDINAL to be paid by K.N.Y. and the rest by the company ) .","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the labour court .","It appears from the information in the case file that the applicant has not yet received payment of the damages ordered by the labour court . It also appears from the applicant \u2019s undisputed allegations that during the time it took to reach a decision on her civil claim , the company had closed down and the damages ordered by the court against that company could therefore not be collected ."],"violated_articles":["2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-155370","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF FARKAS v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["NORP The applicant initiated a payment warrant procedure for repayment of debts on DATE which , by the protest of the debtor , developed into court proceedings .","The procedure was suspended on CARDINAL DATE due to other pending court proceedings , which ended in DATE .","Subsequently , after several hearings , the first - instance court partly found for the applicant on DATE .","NORP On appeal , ORG quashed the decision and remitted the case on DATE .","In the resumed proceedings , after the transfer of the case from CARDINAL court to another for reasons of jurisdiction , the GPE IV \/ XV ORG partly found for the applicant on DATE .","On appeal , the second - instance court found for the applicant on DATE .","In review proceedings , ORG upheld this decision on DATE . Its ruling was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152416","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF GUSEVA v. BULGARIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive information);Violation of Article 13+10 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General};Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information;Freedom to receive information);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Pavlina Panova;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is a member of ORG of ORG in GPE . On DATE she was authorised to represent the organisation before any and all institutions in GPE in relation to its activities .","On DATE the applicant asked the mayor of PERSON for access to information about an agreement , concluded between the municipality and the municipal company \u201c Cleanliness \u201d EOOD , for the collecting of stray animals on the territory of GPE municipality .","NORP The mayor sought the explicit consent to that effect of the head of \u201c Cleanliness \u201d EOOD , considering that that was a statutory condition under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG . The head of \u201c Cleanliness \u201d ORG refused to give consent on DATE . The mayor issued a decision on DATE in which he refused to provide the applicant with access to the information she sought . The mayor referred to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) of ORG , which at the time listed the absence of a third interested party \u2019s explicit written consent for the provision of information among the grounds for refusal to grant access to information .","The applicant brought court proceedings against the decision of the mayor refusing access to the information . ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim on DATE , finding that the information sought did not affect the rights of \u201c Cleanliness \u201d ORG and therefore section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) was not applicable . The court accordingly ordered the mayor to provide the information to the applicant .","Following a cassation appeal by the mayor , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment on DATE . It held that the information was of high public interest , the rights of third parties were not affected and the mayor \u2019s decision denying access to information to the applicant was not reasoned .","On DATE the applicant again asked the mayor of GPE for information . This time the information she sought concerned the DATE statistics for DATE and DATE about animals held in an animal shelter called \u201c Municipal Care \u201d . In particular she asked how many animals were placed there , how many of them died or were put to death , and how much their care had cost the municipal budget .","NORP The mayor sought the explicit consent to that effect of the head of the public utilities company concerned , \u201c Titan Sever \u201d OOD , considering once again that that was a statutory condition under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the head of \u201c ORG \u201d OOD refused to give consent . On DATE the mayor refused to provide the applicant with access to the information , referring to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) of ORG .","The applicant brought court proceedings against the decision of the mayor refusing access to the information . ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim on DATE . It found that , if third parties objected to the provision of information concerning them , section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG obliged the mayor to grant access to that information in a manner not disclosing the parts related to the third party . It then sent the case back to the municipality ordering it to provide the information to the applicant .","Following a cassation appeal by the mayor , ORG upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment on DATE . It held that the information was of high public interest , the rights of third parties were not concerned and that , even if they were , the information could be provided without disclosing the parts concerning the third parties . Finally , that court found that the mayor \u2019s decision denying access to information to the applicant was not reasoned .","On DATE the applicant once again asked the mayor for information . The information concerned a public procurement procedure which had been organised by the mayor and aimed at reducing the number of stray dogs in GPE . The applicant wanted to know the number of the organisations which had tendered for a contract with the municipality , which ones had passed the pre - selection stage , and - in respect of those who have - the following information : the type and number of qualified staff they employed ; the infrastructure and facilities they had for humane catching and transportation of dogs ; the proof they had presented for their capacity to deliver quality services ; and , the price they asked for providing the services .","On DATE the mayor refused to provide that information in a reasoned decision . The explanation he gave was that the information requested concerned solely the participating candidates in that procurement procedure and their bids in accordance with LAW DATE ; that it was of an economic nature ; that it was related to the preparation of the mayor \u2019s administrative actions in relation to the procurement procedure ; and , that it had no significance of its own .","The applicant brought court proceedings against the decision of the mayor refusing access to the information . On DATE ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s claim and overturned the mayor \u2019s refusal to provide the information sought . The court found that the information in question had not been classified , that the mayor \u2019s decision was not issued within the statutory time - limit and that its content was not in conformity with the requirements of section CARDINAL of ORG . The court sent the case back to the mayor , specifically ordering him to provide information to the applicant about the organisation which had won the municipal contract at the end of the public procurement procedure and the conditions of that contract .","Following a cassation appeal by the mayor , on DATE ORG partly upheld the lower court \u2019s judgment . It quashed the judgment \u2019s part which ordered the mayor to provide the applicant with information about the organisation which had won the municipal contract and the conditions of that contract . It held that the mayor had to provide the rest of the requested information .","On DATE , referring to the CARDINAL decisions of ORG of DATE which concluded the proceedings in her first CARDINAL requests for information , the applicant asked the mayor of PERSON to provide her with the information requested .","On DATE , referring to the decision of ORG of DATE which concluded the proceedings in her third request for information , the applicant asked the mayor to provide her with the information requested .","On DATE , the mayor refused in a written decision to provide the information sought by the applicant following ORG judgment of DATE . In particular , he repeated the findings of ORG that he was not expected to provide information about the company which had won the municipal contract and remained silent in respect of the rest of the information he had been ordered to provide . It would appear that the mayor did not react to the applicant \u2019s request for information following the CARDINAL ORG judgments of CARDINAL DATE .","In a letter of DATE , the applicant informed the ORG that there were no further developments and the information she sought had not been provided to her ."],"violated_articles":["10","13"],"violated_paragraphs":["10-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162207","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF CRISTIOGLO v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .","In DATE ORG initiated a criminal investigation against the applicant on charges of murder and an arrest warrant was issued by ORG . Since the applicant had left the country , an international search order was issued .","On DATE , upon his return to GPE , the applicant was arrested and placed in detention . On DATE , when the applicant was about to be transferred from PERSON to GPE , he cut open his abdomen as a sign of protest . He was taken to a hospital where his wound was taken care of . The applicant lodged a habeas corpus request , however it was rejected on the ground , inter alia , that he had been in hiding for DATE and that , consequently , he could abscond again . Later the detention warrant was renewed several times on similar grounds and the applicant \u2019s appeals were rejected . The last judgment in the proceedings complained of by the applicant is dated DATE and was issued by ORG .","During all this time the applicant was detained in Prison no . CARDINAL in GPE ( DATE and DATE and between CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) and in Prison no . CARDINAL in GPE ( DATE and DATE ) . The applicant gave a detailed description of the conditions of detention in Prison no . CARDINAL where , according to him , the cells were overcrowded and dirty . Each inmate only had CARDINAL of available space in the cells in which the applicant was detained . The toilets were separated from the rest of the cells by a wall which was not very high and were located at a distance of QUANTITY from the table where the inmates served their meals . There was no ventilation system and the air was impregnated with a sewage smell and with cigarette smoke ; there was no sufficient natural light because the windows were very small ; the DATE walks lasted for TIME and the food served was of a very bad quality . The applicant submitted that according to information available on the web page of ORG , each inmate was allocated only CARDINAL PERSON per day , i.e. the equivalent of CARDINAL ( ORG ) at the time . Moreover , the applicant alleged that after his arrest , he needed urgent medical care for the wound on his abdomen and for an ear infection and that no medical care was provided for him for DATE . He provided medical documents to support his claims concerning his health problems . The Government provided documents according to which the applicant was seen by doctors and medication was prescribed for him .","In so far as Prison no . CARDINAL is concerned , the applicant submitted that he was detained in CARDINAL cells in which each inmate had CARDINAL . The Government contested that information and presented a document according to which in the applicant \u2019s cells each inmate had CARDINAL .","The applicant was released from detention on DATE . The ORG was not informed about subsequent developments in the criminal proceedings against the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-145231","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SVN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF JATAIRWAYS, A.D. BEOGRAD v. SLOVENIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"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)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Helena J\u00e4derblom","text":["On DATE proceedings before ORG were instituted against the applicant company by CARDINAL of its former employees , following their dismissal from work .","By DATE when the Convention came into force in respect of GPE , the court held one hearing .","A hearing was scheduled for DATE but ORG was unable to serve the summons to the applicant company as the latter changed its address without informing the court . The court therefore ordered that all further court \u2019s writings would be served on the applicant company by a publication on the court \u2019s notice board .","On DATE ORG held a hearing in the absence of the applicant company and issued its decision , deciding that the dismissal of the plaintiffs by the applicant company was illegal and ordering the applicant company to acknowledge their rights from the employment contract and to pay them outstanding salaries . The decision was served on the applicant company on DATE through diplomatic channels . The applicant company appealed .","On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG upheld the first instance court \u2019s decision in the part concerning the illegality of the dismissal , annulled the remainder of the decision and remitted the case back to the first instance court .","In the remitted proceedings the court \u2019s writings were initially served on the applicant company . Later on , the applicant company authorized a NORP lawyer , PERSON , to represent it in the proceedings .","On DATE the first instance court held a hearing and decided to examine the claims of CARDINAL of the plaintiffs separately from the remaining claims . On DATE it issued its decision on the claims of the remaining plaintiffs and upheld their claim concerning the payment of the outstanding salaries . The applicant company appealed .","On DATE the Higher ORG requested the applicant company \u2019s representative to present his power of attorney .","NORP On DATE the plaintiffs filed a motion for interim order .","On DATE the court made the interim order requested .","On DATE the applicant lodged an objection against the interim order .","On DATE the court dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection . The applicant appealed .","On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case back to the first instance court .","On DATE ORG again dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection against the interim order . The applicant appealed .","On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG upheld the applicant \u2019s appeal , annulled the first - instance court \u2019s decision of DATE and dismissed the plaintiffs\u2019 motion for an interim order .","On DATE the Higher Labour and ORG partially upheld the applicant company \u2019s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE and modified the decision of the first instance court in the part concerning the payment of interest and dismissed the remainder of the appeal . The applicant company and the plaintiffs lodged an appeal on points of law .","On DATE the applicant company was reminded by the court to pay the court fee for lodging an appeal on points of law .","On DATE the applicant company was reminded by the court to pay the court fee for its reply to the appeal on points of law lodged by the plaintiffs .","On DATE ORG dismissed both appeals on points of law and upheld the decision of ORG . The applicant company lodged a constitutional appeal .","On DATE the applicant company was again reminded to pay the outstanding court fees .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company \u2019s constitutional appeal . The decision was served on its representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-162422","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF LETIN\u010cI\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s father , PERSON , who was a war veteran , killed the applicant \u2019s mother and her parents and then committed suicide .","In DATE the applicant , represented by his grandmother , sought family disability benefit in connection with the suicide of his father , arguing that the suicide was a consequence of mental derangement caused by his participation in the war .","On DATE his request was dismissed by the competent ORG of ORG ( ORG obrane ) in charge of war veterans\u2019 affairs on the grounds that the war veteran status of his father had not been established . In DATE the applicant challenged that decision before ORG , which accepted his appeal and on DATE quashed the first - instance decision and remitted the case for re - examination on the grounds that the nature of the applicant \u2019s request had not been adequately established .","Following several procedural decisions of ORG with responsibility for war veterans\u2019 affairs ( hereinafter : the \u201c ORG \u201d ) and ORG in charge of war veterans\u2019 affairs ( ORG branitelja i me\u0111ugeneracijske solidarnosti ; hereinafter : the \u201c Ministry \u201d ) , on DATE ORG ( Upravni sud PERSON ) ordered ORG and ORG to examine the applicant \u2019s request for family disability benefit on the merits , which the applicant should have a possibility to challenge if he was not be satisfied with the outcome .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request on the grounds that nothing from the materials available in the case file suggested that the death of his father was a result of his participation in the war .","The applicant challenged this decision before the Ministry , and on DATE the Ministry found that the facts of the case connecting the suicide of the applicant \u2019s father to his participation in the war had never been clearly established . It thus ordered ORG to clarify the matter by commissioning an expert report from the competent medical institution and to obtain the relevant witness statements concerning the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s wartime service .","On the basis of ORG instructions , ORG commissioned an expert report concerning the question whether the suicide of the applicant \u2019s father was related to his participation in the war from ORG of ORG , ORG , ORG for GPE in GPE ( PERSON , PERSON za psihijatriju , PERSON centar GPE zdravstva i socijalne skrbi za poreme\u0107aje uzrokovane stresom , Regionalni centar za psihotraumu GPE ; hereinafter : the \u201c Centre \u201d ) , a public health care institution authorised by law to give expert opinions on matters related to war veterans\u2019 psychiatric disorders ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It also questioned CARDINAL witnesses concerning the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s wartime service .","In an expert report dated DATE addressed to ORG , the ORG concluded , on the basis of the available medical reports and the statements of witnesses , that the applicant \u2019s father had not developed any symptoms resulting in a psychiatric diagnosis linked to his participation in the war and that his suicide could not be attributed to his wartime service . This expert report was not forwarded to the applicant .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for the family disability benefit referring to the ORG expert report , which had not established any link between his father \u2019s suicide and his participation in the war .","The applicant challenged the above decision before the ORG , seeking remittal of the case to ORG for further examination . He alleged that the ORG \u2019s report was superficial , since it had not been commissioned with regard to all aspects of the events , such as the triple murder committed by his father . The applicant also considered the report to be illogical , given that before the war his father had had no psychiatric problems whereas after his wartime activities he had committed a triple murder and suicide , which made it difficult to accept that he had not developed some mental condition . The applicant further contended that another expert report should be commissioned from CARDINAL of the permanent court experts in psychiatry , since the report produced by the ORG raised the issue of its independence . He also stressed that any expert opinion on the matter should necessarily be forwarded to him for comments before the adoption of a decision .","On DATE the Ministry dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal on the grounds that the ORG \u2019s report was conclusive that the suicide of his father had not been related to his participation in the war .","The applicant lodged an administrative action in ORG against the above decision , asking ORG to decide the case on the merits instead of remitting it to the administrative bodies . He pointed out that the proceedings had already lasted excessively long and that the administrative bodies had failed to comply effectively with the previous instructions of ORG . He therefore considered that ORG should itself decide the case on the merits , as provided under LAW of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant also contended that , if ORG did not decide the case on the merits , it should quash the ORG \u2019s decision and remit the case for re - examination .","In his administrative action the applicant in particular pointed out that the Ministry had failed to reply to the specific arguments set out in his appeal against the first - instance decision of ORG and had merely reiterated the findings of the first - instance decision . He also reiterated his appeal arguments that the ORG \u2019s expert report was superficial and illogical , since it had not been commissioned with regard to all aspects of the events , such as the triple murder committed by his father , and that it had failed to take into account that before the war his father had had no psychiatric problems whereas after his wartime activities he had committed a triple murder and suicide . In these circumstances , the applicant stressed that under LAW of LAW another expert report ought to be commissioned from the permanent court experts in psychiatry .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s action as ill - founded . In particular , it stressed :","\u201c During the proceedings an expert report was commissioned , under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL) of the [ GPE ] , from the [ Centre ] and the report was produced on DATE . The report concluded that based on the relevant documents from the case file it did not find that ORG had developed any symptoms resulting in a psychiatric diagnosis linked to his participation in the war ...","Having these facts in mind , this court is of the opinion that the defendant acted lawfully when dismissing the appellant \u2019s appeal against the first - instance decision ... It should also be noted that this court already held that the formation of an expert team [ competent to determine ] a possible link [ between death and participation in the war ] , which [ provides for ] a decisive evidence within the meaning of section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL) of the [ GPE ] , is a precondition for any further proceedings concerning the status of the family member of a deceased war veteran .","The defendant therefore correctly dismissed the appeal against the first - instance decision and thereby it did not act contrary to the relevant law . This court did not find it necessary to act under LAW of LAW given that , as already noted above , the administrative body complied with the instruction from the judgement no . Us-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] concerning the appellant \u2019s request for family disability benefit , which is the subject matter of the proceedings at issue . Although the defendant did not expressly reply to the appeal arguments concerning the necessity to request a report with regard to [ ORG ] act of triple murder , [ the court finds ] that it could not be a decisive factor for a decision in the proceedings at hand . This is because such a criminal act can not be a basis for the establishment of a link between the death of the war veteran and his participation in [ the war ] ... \u201d","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) arguing that his right to a fair trial in the proceedings had been violated . He contended in particular that the administrative bodies and ORG had ignored his request for an expert report to be commissioned from the permanent court experts and that he had been offered neither the possibility of participating in the choice of experts nor the opportunity to take cognisance of and comment on the expert opinion before the adoption of a decision during the proceedings .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded , noting that :","\u201c In his constitutional complaint , the complainant was unable to show that ORG had acted contrary to the constitutional provisions concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms or had arbitrarily interpreted the relevant statutory provisions . ORG therefore finds that the present case does not raise an issue of the complainant \u2019s constitutional rights . Thus , there is no constitutional law issue in the case for ORG to decide on . ... \u201d","The decision of ORG was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-148636","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MLT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF ANTHONY AQUILINA v. MALTA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE , and at the time of lodging the application lived in GPE , GPE .","GPE has gone through various legislative regimes in order to regulate its housing situation . The first regime came about in DATE and protected tenants from the termination of their leases . This was followed by the DATE LAW Ordinance which , apart from regulating termination of the lease of dwelling houses , also controlled rents and the initial conditions of contracts . LAW was then enacted in DATE , with the aim of providing a solution to homelessness caused by the Second World War . In DATE ORG ) Ordinance , Chapter CARDINAL of the Laws of Malta ( hereinafter \u201c the HD Ordinance \u201d ) was enacted , which provided incentives to encourage landlords to rent their property , and created a special class of dwelling houses free from rent control .","The applicant owns a property in GPE ( a maisonette measuring QUANTITY ) which he inherited from his parents , his mother having passed away in DATE .","On DATE the property was registered as a \u201c decontrolled dwelling house \u201d in accordance with LAW . At the time , LAW provided that the provisions of the \u201c Rent Ordinances \u201d ( the Reletting of ORG ) Ordinance , LAW of the Laws of Malta and LAW , LAW of LAW ) were not applicable to dwelling houses decontrolled in accordance with LAW .","In DATE the applicant \u2019s mother leased the LOC to couple C. , who are NORP citizens ( born in DATE and DATE respectively ) , for a rent of CARDINAL NORP PERSON ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) DATE , which was later decreased to the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL DATE . At the time , the law permitted her to increase the rent , to refuse to renew the lease or to change its terms on renewal .","In DATE the NORP parliament enacted an amendment to the HD Ordinance , which provided that the rent restrictions set out in GPE would apply where tenants were NORP citizens and occupied houses as ordinary residences . It further provided that landlords could not refuse to renew leases , raise their rent , or impose new conditions on renewal , except as provided for by law ( see \u201c Relevant domestic law \u201d below ) . The applicant submitted that the contractual freedom of parties was greatly restricted as a result of the new provisions , in that his family could not charge a fair rent or recover possession of their property , despite the fact that his tenants owned substantial immovable property .","By a decision of ORG ( RRB ) of DATE , the rent was further reduced to ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL per year . The applicant did not appeal .","NORP In DATE new laws were enacted in respect of new leases which could again be free from rent control . They did not apply to the applicant \u2019s case .","In DATE and DATE new concepts and provisions were introduced , aimed at gradually eliminating the restrictive regimes applicable to leases entered into before DATE .","Thus , while a rent of ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL per year had been paid to the applicant since DATE , a rent of LAW had been paid from DATE in view of the above - mentioned amendments . However , the applicant refused to accept any rent as from DATE and it was duly deposited in court by the tenants by means of a schedule of deposit .","According to a court - appointed architect \u2019s evaluation made in the context of constitutional proceedings instituted in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the property at that time had a rental value of ORG DATE . According to an architect \u2019s report commissioned by the Government , the rental market value in DATE was ORG DATE , and the sale value EUR CARDINAL .","To date , couple C still reside in the applicant \u2019s property . It does not at present appear that they have any children formally residing with them .","In DATE the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining , inter alia , that the DATE amendments ( in particular LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the HD Ordinance , which prohibited landlords from refusing to renew existing leases or from raising their rent ) had breached his property rights under LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW .","On DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction rejected his complaint . Basing its judgment on domestic case - law relating to the same subject matter , it considered that he remained the owner of the property at issue , which was being used as a dwelling house , that he could still evict the tenants if they failed to fulfil their obligations under the lease , and that although the amount of rent was low , the law provided for an increase in rent DATE , amounting to double the actual rent . The interference with his rights was therefore proportionate given the needs of society . Moreover , his mother had not been forced to lease out the property .","The applicant appealed on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal as being lodged out of time , the statutory time - limit having expired on DATE .","On DATE he lodged an application with the ORG , relying on LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .","By a decision of DATE the ORG , sitting as a ORG of CARDINAL judges , declared the applicant \u2019s application inadmissible . It found that he had lodged his appeal with ORG out of time . The domestic remedies had therefore not been exhausted as required by LAW CARDINAL of the Convention .","In DATE the applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings complaining that the DATE amendments , which prohibited landlords from refusing to renew existing leases or from raising their rent when the tenant was a NORP citizen , had breached his property rights under LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . He submitted that the amendments introduced in DATE had not improved his situation , even assuming they ( in particular LAW ) applied to the case in question , a matter which was unclear in the domestic context . With a new rent of ORG CARDINAL per year ( see Relevant domestic law below ) , he remained a victim of the alleged violation , not least because he was also prevented from refusing to renew the lease . He cited the then recent case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) , in which ORG had found a violation in analogous circumstances .","By a decree of DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction ruled that the defendant in the case should be the Attorney General of GPE , not the State of GPE as purported by the applicant .","On DATE ORG ( FAC ) in its constitutional jurisdiction , upholding the objection raised by the third party who joined in the suit ( kjamat fil - kaw\u017ca ) , rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint on the basis that the matter had already become res judicata by virtue of the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It noted that such a conclusion required CARDINAL elements , namely the same parties ( eaedem personae ) , the same object ( eadem res ) and the same cause of action ( eadem causa petendi ) . Moreover , where the arguments raised were different , it had to be seen whether they could have been raised at the time of the principal judgment . In the present case , it considered that there had been no doubt that the requirement of eaedem personae had been met , despite the fact that the applicant had attempted to bring the present proceedings against the ORG and that the other proceedings had been against the Attorney General , as it was clear that the defendant in both cases was ORG . The element of eadem res had also been satisfied in so far as the present case concerned the same lease of the same property , with the same tenants and the same circumstances that had led the applicant to institute proceedings the first time round . Similarly , the element of eadem causa petendi had also been satisfied , since the applicant \u2019s applications to the court were to a great extent the same , if not identical , despite the fact that he had made further arguments and submitted that his situation had remained unchanged notwithstanding the DATE amendments to LAW . The court considered that the changes to the application had not changed the nature of the action , namely a claim that the restrictions on the rent imposed by the law had been disproportionate . This matter had already been dealt with by the court in the first set of proceedings ( no . CARDINAL ) , where it had decided that a fair balance had been struck by the authorities ; it was not therefore open to the applicant to relitigate the matter . The court further held that even though the applicant had argued that despite the DATE amendments ( if they applied at all ) he had remained a victim of the alleged violation , there was already a judgment in his respect stating that the law in so far as it applied to his case had not breached his rights , and the more recent amendments had not worsened his situation . Thus , ORG ( FAC ) held that there could not have been a breach of his rights even under the new law . Lastly , it concluded that any new arguments put forward by him should have been incorporated into the first set of proceedings . As to the ORG \u2019s recent case - law , it considered that the judgment cited did not entitle the applicant to ask for a fresh examination of his case .","By a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment , considering the appeal to be frivolous and vexatious ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-2"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163103","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF I.C. v. ROMANIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . At the time of the events complained of , she was aged DATE and DATE .","On DATE the applicant was attending a funeral wake in her village . At TIME she went with CARDINAL girlfriends , ORG DATE ) and Z.F.D. ( DATE ) to fetch some drinking water at a neighbour \u2019s house . On their way , QUANTITY boys , ORG ( DATE ) , PERSON ( DATE ) and ORG ( DATE ) , approached the girls . M.I.C. pulled the applicant \u2019s arm behind her back , grabbed her head and told her to go with him . The boys took her into the garden of a nearby deserted building , where a man , PERSON ( DATE ) , was waiting .","The QUANTITY boys left and PERSON pushed the applicant to the ground , partially undressed her and had sexual intercourse with her . In the meantime , another man , ORG ( DATE ) , arrived at the scene and tried to have sex with the applicant , but was physiologically incapable . A third man , PERSON ( DATE ) was also there . He had also intended to have sexual intercourse with the applicant but finally decided to help her get up , clean and dress herself , and accompanied her back to the house where the funeral wake was being held . TIME the applicant \u2019s father came looking for her and she told him that she had been raped . He immediately alerted the police .","The applicant underwent a forensic examination by a doctor on DATE . According to the subsequent forensic medical report , there were no signs of traumatic lesions on the applicant \u2019s body and no sperm could be found either . The forensic doctor found signs of pathology which could have resulted from sexual intercourse . Lastly , the doctor mentioned that the applicant was in a state of anxiety and fear , and he recommended psychological counselling and possibly a neuropsychiatric examination .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG . The hospital observation sheet stated that the applicant had sought treatment because she had been raped . She was diagnosed with stress - related anxiety , irritability , a sleep disorder , slight intellectual disability ( an IQ of DATE ) and lice infestation . She was prescribed treatment with anxiolytics and anti - depressives , and was discharged from hospital in a slightly improved condition on DATE .","On DATE an additional forensic medical report was issued at the request of the applicant \u2019s father . It stated that the applicant presented a psychological disorder caused by a physical and psychological trauma to which she had been exposed on CARDINAL DATE . The doctor held that , according to the documents presented by ORG , the applicant \u2019s condition had required DATE of medical care . No signs of pregnancy had been detected .","On DATE the applicant was readmitted to ORG . According to the hospital observation sheet , her state of health was slightly improving but she had started to have headaches . She was discharged from hospital DATE , having been told to continue the initial treatment and to return for further tests at DATE","NORP In DATE the applicant was again hospitalised in ORG for DATE with symptoms including frontal headaches , depression , tearfulness and feelings of social isolation . She was diagnosed with an emotional disorder , a sleep disorder and anaemia , among other conditions . She received treatment with neurotropic drugs , anxiolytics and vitamins . The doctors prescribed further treatment with neurotropic drugs and anxiolytics until a follow - up examination scheduled for DATE .","On DATE the applicant , accompanied by her father , lodged a formal complaint with the police . On DATE she made a written statement about the events of DATE , accusing the CARDINAL adult men involved in the incident of rape . She also mentioned that , all the way to the deserted house , ORG and PERSON had held her by her arms and neck , not allowing her to leave , and had threatened to beat her if she screamed for help . The police accompanied the applicant and her father to the scene of the incident and took photographs . No objects or other evidence were found .","DATE , written statements were given to the police by PERSON and M.I.C. PERSON stated that he had not forced the applicant in any way and he had not been aware that she was DATE . He alleged that he had seen the applicant during the wake and had invited her to go with him to the deserted house , which she had done voluntarily . After he had had consensual sex with the applicant , he had left her in the company of ORG and had returned to the wake . M.I.C. denied any involvement in the events , stating that he had not left the house where the wake had been held .","On DATE ORG , FAC and GPE gave statements to the police .","ORG stated that on TIME of CARDINAL DATE he had been passing by the deserted house when he had heard noises coming from the garden . He decided to go inside to see what was happening . There he met PERSON , who told him that PERSON was there with a girl . He saw PERSON on top of the applicant , having sex . After he had finished , PERSON called him to do the same thing . He tried , but was physiologically incapable of having sex so he stood up and put his clothes back on . He left together with PERSON , who was waiting for him nearby .","M.C.S. stated that he had seen how ORG had grabbed and twisted the applicant \u2019s arm and had left with her from the wake . He had followed them together with GPE , but received a phone call and continued on a separate road .","In his statement , ORG claimed that he had been at the wake when the applicant \u2019s brothers had asked him to help them look for their sister . He left alone and went to the deserted house where he found the applicant with PERSON was also there . At that moment his phone rang so he did not pay attention to the CARDINAL people . When he finished on the phone he heard the applicant calling him and went to her . She was alone , lying on the ground , undressed from the waist down . He asked her what had happened but she did not say anything . When she asked him to come closer , he started kissing her and wanted to have sex with her , but felt uneasy about it , so he helped her get dressed and clean up the mud on her coat , and accompanied her back to the wake .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL girlfriends made statements to the police . They mentioned that ORG , GPE and ORG had approached the applicant , twisted her arm to her back and taken her with them . When she returned to the wake , the applicant did not tell them where she had been . P.A. also stated that she had heard the applicant shouting at the CARDINAL boys to leave her alone . GPE had also seen the CARDINAL boys surround the applicant and take her with them .","The applicant gave another detailed account of the facts in a statement drafted on DATE . She repeated that the CARDINAL boys had forced her to go with them without saying where they were taking her , so she had not known what was going on . Once they arrived at the deserted house , there was PERSON who threatened to beat her if she would not accept to have sex with him . She further clarified that GPE had kept her there by force until PERSON had raped her a second time . Then ORG and GPE came around and tried to rape her but failed and it was GPE who had finally helped her leave the scene of the incident . Lastly , she mentioned that she had never had sex before the incident of DATE and that PERSON , ORG and ORG had known her and had been aware of her age .","PERSON stated to the police on DATE that he had heard PERSON asking ORG to take the applicant to the deserted house without telling her why . When the girls came out of the house where the wake was being held , he saw M.I.C. going after them and grabbing the applicant \u2019s head , twisting her arm to her back and taking her in the direction of the deserted house . He denied having touched or spoken to the applicant . He had just walked behind her and continued on his way past the deserted house . GPE gave the same account of the facts .","M.I.C. was questioned again on DATE , when he reconsidered his initial statement and told the police that PERSON had asked him , GPE and GPE to \u201c grab \u201d the applicant and take her to the deserted house . He then admitted having grabbed her by the arms , but claimed that afterwards she had walked along with him voluntarily .","On DATE the police took another round of statements from those involved in the events , who reiterated their previous statements . In addition , all the men questioned stated that they knew for a fact that the applicant had had sex before with other men and that they had been unaware of her age at the time .","On DATE the case was transmitted to the prosecutor \u2019s office attached to ORG in order for it to pursue the investigation into the crime of sexual intercourse with a minor .","On DATE the applicant gave a statement before the prosecutor and requested that PERSON , ORG , ORG , GPE and GPE be investigated for rape and complicity to rape .","M.C. and ORG also gave brief statements before the prosecutor . PERSON claimed on this occasion that the applicant was the one who had sent word through M.I.C. that she wished to meet with him . ORG stated that he knew the applicant had already had sex before and she had poor school results .","On DATE the prosecutor indicted PERSON for the crime of sexual intercourse with a minor and ORG for attempt to commit the same crime . The prosecutor based the decision on the following facts : the CARDINAL men declared that they had not forced the applicant in any way ; the forensic medical certificate attested to no signs of violence on the applicant \u2019s body ; and after returning to the wake she had not told her girlfriends what had happened to her . In view of those elements it was considered that the applicant had consented to have sex with PERSON and PERSON The witnesses , M.I.C. , ORG and GPE , did not know about PERSON \u2019s intentions and therefore it was considered that they had no criminal responsibility in the case . The criminal proceedings were discontinued with respect to PERSON because he had not had sexual intercourse with the applicant .","The Beiu\u015f District Court scheduled a first hearing in the case on DATE . The applicant stressed before the court that PERSON had twice had sexual intercourse with her without her consent . In support of her allegations , she submitted copies of the medical reports referred to in paragraphs CARDINAL above . She also claimed civil damages for the suffering caused by the actions of the CARDINAL defendants .","PERSON testified before the court that , once he had arrived at the funeral wake , ORG had told him that the applicant was waiting for him at the deserted house . When he reached the meeting point , the applicant started kissing him and asked him to go with her to the back of the garden , away from the road . They then lay down on his coat and the applicant started undressing herself . They had sexual intercourse once , which was consensual . He did it because ORG had told him once that he had had sex with the applicant in the past . Lastly , PERSON mentioned that he had done this before with other girls at other funeral wakes .","ORG reiterated the statements he had given during the investigation . He concluded his testimony before the court with the remark :","\u201c ... I was asked by someone in the village whether it was true what happened and whether I was not ashamed of what I had done , but I replied that it was not safe to leave girls alone on the streets . \u201d","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the court heard statements from the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL girlfriends , as well as from ORG and ORG In her testimony GPE claimed that the applicant had been scared when she had returned to the wake . She also mentioned that the applicant was a wellbehaved girl who did not go out with boys or go to bars . ORG stated that he had heard the applicant asking M.I.C. to let go of her hand , but the latter had refused .","In his testimony ORG also stated as follows :","\u201c TIME we went to the police to give statements and afterwards I asked PERSON what had really happened . He then told me that he had raped her [ the applicant ] . He did not seem too happy about his actions . We have played this game before at another wake : you must take the girl to a secluded place where she must be kissed by the boy she chooses . When the defendant [ PERSON ] told me he had raped the victim , he also mentioned that he had kissed her . \u201d","On DATE the ORG convicted PERSON of sexual intercourse with a minor and gave him a suspended sentence of DATE and DATE . ORG was convicted of attempted sexual intercourse with a minor and given a suspended sentence of DATE .","In reaching its decision the court firstly observed that the forensic medical report indicated that no signs of violence had been detected on the victim \u2019s body . The court further established the course of the events on TIME CARDINAL DATE as described by ORG , GPE and GPE It cited the parts of the statements given by the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL girlfriends in which they had mentioned that the applicant had not cried for help . Lastly , the court concluded that the CARDINAL defendants ought to have known that the injured party was under DATE . The court did not address the applicant \u2019s statement , the medical reports attesting to her medical condition or her requests for the incident to be examined as rape . It rejected her claim for civil damages , considering that the medical conditions described in the forensic reports had no connection with the incident at issue . In addition , it had come to light from witness statements that the applicant had had sex before the impugned incident .","All parties to the trial , including the applicant represented by her lawyer , appealed against the decision of ORG . In her reasons for appeal the applicant claimed that the sexual abuse committed against her could only be classified as rape . She asked the court to extend the examination of the case to ORG , GPE and GPE , whom she considered accomplices to rape . Lastly , the applicant considered that the medical reports submitted clearly attested to the suffering she had endured and therefore the court had erred in rejecting her claim for damages .","On DATE the ORG decided to increase the sentences imposed on the CARDINAL defendants to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment for GPE and DATE months\u2019 imprisonment for ORG The decision of ORG concerning the classification of the crime and the suspension of the execution of the sentences was upheld . ORG also decided to award the applicant CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . In reply to the applicant \u2019s reasons for appeal , the court reasoned :","\u201c It must be mentioned that the victim tried to convince the court that , in fact , she had not agreed to have sexual intercourse with the CARDINAL defendants and that she had been the victim of a rape , but these allegations had not been proved in any way . Hence , the witnesses GPE and GPE ... stated that ... the injured party had not cried for help ... and had not told them what had happened . ...","It must also be noted that from the forensic medical report ... it does not appear that the injured party was the victim of a rape , since she displayed no signs of posttraumatic injury on her body . \u201d","An appeal on points of law ( recurs ) lodged by the applicant against that judgment was rejected as ill - founded on DATE by ORG . The court declared briefly that by corroborating the victim \u2019s statement with the forensic medical report of DATE , the existence of a crime of rape had been excluded in the case ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183867","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CYP","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KAHADAWA ARACHCHIGE AND OTHERS v. CYPRUS","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They all live in GPE . The first applicant lives in GPE , the second applicant in PERSON , and the third applicant in GPE .","The applicants all went to GPE for employment purposes .","The first applicant arrived in GPE on DATE in order to take up employment as a domestic worker . He was granted a temporary residence permit , initially until DATE . This was renewed until DATE .","The residence permit stated that it could be revoked at any time with CARDINAL days\u2019 prior notice to the holder .","During the above period the applicant left GPE twice to go back to GPE : on DATE and in DATE . The first time , he stayed in his home country for DATE , and the second time , he stayed for DATE . On DATE , during his second visit home , he married a GPE national .","His wife joined him in GPE on DATE , in order to work as a housemaid . She was granted a temporary residence permit until DATE .","On DATE their daughter was born .","On DATE the first applicant \u2019s wife abandoned her work and her place of residence . Her whereabouts at the time were not known to the authorities . She had not applied for the renewal or extension of her temporary residence permit , which had expired DATE .","On DATE all competent authorities were given orders by ORG to trace the first applicant \u2019s wife .","On DATE a lawyer acting on behalf of the first applicant \u2019s wife wrote to the Minister of the ORG requesting a visitor \u2019s residence permit for her based on humanitarian grounds , a permit of the same duration as that held by her husband . The lawyer noted that the couple had a young daughter , that both the wife and the daughter were supported by the first applicant , and that she could not return to GPE without him , as she did not have family there with whom she and her daughter could stay . She also needed time to obtain travel documents for their daughter . The lawyer informed the authorities that the couple \u2019s intention was that the whole family would return to GPE upon the expiry of the first applicant \u2019s temporary residence permit .","The second applicant arrived in GPE on DATE and was granted a temporary residence permit until DATE . This was renewed until DATE .","The residence permit stated that it could be revoked at any time with CARDINAL days\u2019 prior notice to the holder .","The third applicant arrived in GPE on DATE . He was granted a temporary residence permit until DATE . This was renewed until DATE . Following the expiry of his permit , he remained in GPE on an irregular basis . The third applicant submitted that he had applied for a renewal of his permit .","The residence permit stated that it could be revoked at any time with CARDINAL days\u2019 prior notice to the holder . It also stated that it was final and non - renewable .","According to the first and second applicants , on DATE , while in the first applicant \u2019s car , they passed through the Ayios Dometios district of GPE and saw a group of NORP . They got out of the car and saw people holding swords and iron rods . Fearing for their lives , they abandoned the car and ran in different directions . The second applicant was injured during the clashes : his index finger was cut off and his middle finger injured . After the clashes , the first applicant took the second applicant to ORG , where the latter underwent surgery . According to the second applicant , the police came to the hospital and arrested him . He remained in the hospital after the operation , and on DATE he was taken to ORG police station , where he was detained . According to the first applicant , on TIME CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL people who had taken part in the clash attacked his residence and threatened to kill him if he went to the police . However , TIME , when he went to the police station to report the incident , he was arrested and detained on suspicion of being involved in the clashes .","According to the third applicant , he was also passing by that area with his car and stopped to see what was going on , but , fearing for his life , he ran away and left his car behind . He informed his employer and the latter informed the police about the clash . The police asked the third applicant to come to the police station to make a statement and take his car back . On DATE the third applicant went to GPE police station and was arrested and detained on suspicion of being involved in the clashes .","On TIME DATE the police received information that CARDINAL aliens carrying offensive weapons ( swords , clubs and Molotov cocktails ) were in the Ayios Dometios district of GPE . The police immediately went to the site and discovered that a number of aliens had attempted to set fire to a house there by throwing Molotov cocktails at it . The police carried out an investigation into the events . They examined and collected evidence found in the area ( including the first and third applicants\u2019 cars ) . They reached the conclusion that the applicants , along with CARDINAL other individuals from GPE , were likely to have been involved in the clash . A number of suspects , including the second applicant , had sustained injuries which had been treated at FAC .","On DATE the police arrested all CARDINAL NORP , including the applicants , on the basis of arrest warrants issued on DATE by ORG under section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) and Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , on reasonable suspicion that they had taken part in a fight in a public place , contrary to LAW ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) .","On DATE ORG convened at ORG . The applicants were remanded in custody for DATE under LAW of LAW and LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , to enable the investigation into the commission of various criminal offences to be concluded . The offences included : intending to inflict grievous bodily harm , unlawful wounding , an unlawful attempt to set fire to a building , and taking part in a fight in a public place ( sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) . The first applicant was detained in LOC police station in GPE , and the second and third applicants in GPE police station .","On DATE the police investigation file , which included written statements by the applicants concerning the incident , was transmitted to the Attorney General . ORG informed the Attorney General that that there was sufficient evidence against all the CARDINAL individuals arrested , including the applicants , in relation to the offence of taking part in a fight in a public place contrary to LAW , but not as regards the remaining offences , which were more serious . The third applicant had also committed the offence of staying in GPE unlawfully , as his temporary resident permit had expired on DATE . At the suggestion of the police , the Attorney General decided not to prosecute the applicants , but to deport them instead .","On DATE the residence permits of the first and second applicants were revoked by the Director of ORG under section CARDINAL of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) , on the grounds that their conduct had posed a danger to the public order of GPE PERSON and detention orders were issued against the applicants on DATE : under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(g ) of the above PERSON in respect of the first and the second applicants , on the grounds of public order , and under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(k ) in respect of the third applicant , on the grounds of unlawful stay .","On DATE letters were prepared by the Minister of the ORG informing the applicants of the decision to detain and deport them . The letters stated that the applicants were illegal immigrants : the first and second applicants under section PERSON ) of the Aliens and Immigration PERSON , because their \u201c conduct had been considered dangerous for reasons of public order \u201d , and the third applicant by virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(k ) , on the grounds of \u201c illegal stay \u201d . Consequently , their temporary resident permits had been revoked and deportation and detention orders had been issued against them .","Consequently , on DATE , upon the expiry of the remand warrant , the applicants were released but re - arrested at once on the basis of the deportation and detention orders that had been issued against them . The Government submitted that , in accordance with standard police practice , the applicants would have been informed orally of the decision not to prosecute them and the decision to deport them . Although the Government did not have evidence as to the exact date on which the applicants were notified of the letters of DATE or the exact manner in which they were notified , this happened sometime between DATE .","On DATE a NORP lawyer acting on behalf of the applicants sent CARDINAL letters by fax to the Minister of the ORG , referring to the letters of DATE sent to the applicants . He objected to the deportation of the first and second applicants ; he also requested a review of the decision taken with regard to the third applicant . The lawyer requested a meeting to discuss the matter with the above - mentioned Minister .","The Government submitted that the applicants\u2019 case had then been reviewed by the Minister of the ORG , who had noted their lawyer \u2019s objection , read the administrative file and maintained the decision to deport the applicants .","Although the first applicant called his wife several times during his detention , she did not come to visit him at the police station .","The first and third applicants were deported on DATE and the second applicant was deported on DATE .","There were signed notes by a police officer on the copies of the letters of DATE stating that the letters had also been served on the applicants on DATE they were deported .","The applicants were included on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop list \u201d ( a register of individuals whose entry into and exit from GPE is banned or subject to monitoring ) .","The documents submitted by the Government indicate that the first applicant \u2019s wife continued to stay in GPE illegally following her husband \u2019s deportation . On DATE she lodged an asylum application , which was dismissed on DATE . She left GPE for GPE on DATE and she was included on the authorities\u2019 \u201c stop list \u201d ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She returned to GPE that DATE with a new passport with different identity details , and was granted a residence and employment permit until DATE . However , the authorities realised that she was the same person and arrested her on DATE with a view to her deportation . No further details have been given by the Government in this respect ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177222","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VOROBYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants lived in a dormitory in ORG , GPE . The dormitory was mainly inhabited by the students and the staff of ORG ( \u201c the College \u201d ) .","In DATE the joint - stock company \u201c ORG \u201d ( \u201c the Company \u201d ) registered its title over that dormitory as a result of privatisation .","The applicants brought a case against the ORG seeking to obtain a title to the rooms they lived in . They argued in particular that the privatisation of the dormitory had taken place in violation of the legislation and that the ORG could not be declared as a sole owner of the property . ORG was also involved into the case as a third party .","On DATE ORG of Lipetsk found for the applicants and granted their claims . ORG found that the dormitory was transferred to the Company in breach of domestic law .","On DATE the appeal court upheld the judgment and it became final .","In DATE the applicants registered their title to the dormitory rooms and subsequently sold them to third parties .","On DATE the Company lodged a request with ORG of Lipetsk seeking to reopen the proceedings on the grounds of newly discovered circumstances . It relied on the order of the ORG \u2019s director and a lease agreement concluded in DATE between the Company and the College in respect of the dormitory . The ORG further argued that it had not been aware of those documents since they were possessed by the ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG of Lipetsk quashed the judgment of DATE . The court found in particular that the documents presented by the Company might have had significant impact on the outcome of the case and thus they constituted \u201c newly discovered circumstances \u201d .","On DATE as a result of the fresh consideration of the case ORG rejected the ORG claims and ordered reversal of execution of the judgment of DATE . This judgment was upheld on DATE by ORG ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-161516","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"SWE","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"ARLEWIN v. SWEDEN","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , CARDINAL lawyers practising in GPE .","NORP In DATE TVCARDINAL , a major commercial television channel , broadcast a television programme in which the applicant appeared in pictures and was mentioned by name . He was singled out as the central figure of organised crime within media and advertising and as being guilty of several fraud offences and other economic offences . The programme was rebroadcast DATE as well as in DATE . At this time , no preliminary investigation had been initiated against the applicant .","NORP In DATE the applicant was indicted for aggravated fraud ( grovt bedr\u00e4geri ) , an aggravated tax offence ( grovt skattebrott ) , an aggravated bookkeeping offence ( bokf\u00f6ringsbrott , grovt brott ) , a bookkeeping offence ( bokf\u00f6ringsbrott ) , obstruction of tax control ( f\u00f6rsv\u00e5rande av skattekontroll ) and violations of LAW ( brott mot aktiebolagslagen ) . According to the indictment , the offences had been committed within CARDINAL named companies , for which the applicant allegedly had been the actual representative ( faktisk st\u00e4llf\u00f6retr\u00e4dare ) . The prosecutor relied on extensive written evidence and requested that over QUANTITY witnesses be heard and a recording of the abovementioned television programme be shown during the trial .","NORP The applicant protested his innocence and submitted that he had been neither the formal nor the actual representative of the relevant companies . Thus he had had no right to decide over the companies , nor had he been responsible for their bookkeeping or reporting their turnover to the tax authority . He had done some consultancy for the companies and assisted with some administrative tasks . However , he had not financed the companies and could not be considered as their principal .","The applicant further requested ORG ( tingsr\u00e4tten ) in GPE to dismiss the use of the television programme as evidence . He argued , inter alia , that it violated his rights under LAW as it was a strongly edited journalistic product aimed at creating sensational television and which amounted to defamation of him . Thus it would have a strong negative effect on the objectivity of the court . Moreover , since a number of persons in the programme were anonymous , they were unknown both to the defence and the court and the applicant would not be able to cross - examine them as witnesses .","On DATE ORG rejected the request . This decision could only be appealed against together with the court \u2019s final judgment .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated fraud and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . He was acquitted of the other offences . The court held an oral hearing where the above - mentioned television programme was presented by the prosecutor during the opening procedures and relied on as evidence . At the request of CARDINAL or both of the parties , CARDINAL witnesses were heard , and the applicant was also heard . Moreover , substantial written evidence was invoked by both parties . The court , in a judgment comprising CARDINAL pages , found it proved beyond reasonable doubt that the principal activity concerned by the indictment was fraudulent advertising sales in a number of companies , causing loss for the customers and gain for the companies . While it considered it a flaw that none of the customers had been heard in the case , it still found it established on the basis of other evidence that the customers had suffered the losses claimed by the prosecutor .","The court further found it proved that the applicant had been the actual representative of the companies and thus responsible for the fraudulent activities . He had been active in all of the companies and the driving force behind them and large amounts of money had been transferred from the companies to his personal company . Moreover , the court noted that none of the formal representatives of the companies had any corporate experience or knowledge of organising and running an advertising sales company . Some of them had extensive criminal records . The court also had regard to the fact that several of the companies shared office space , employees moved between the companies and the applicant had kept detailed information relating to , inter alia , taxes , DATE results , bookkeeping , billing and contacts with banks and authorities for all of the companies in his personal computer .","The television programme was mentioned in ORG judgment under the heading \u201c Statement of facts \u201d ( PERSON ) where it was simply noted that the television programme had been broadcast for the first time during DATE and that the case against the applicant had been initiated by ORG ( Ekobrottsmyndigheten ) in DATE , DATE and DATE after the broadcast . The court did not mention the television programme in its reasoning .","Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment . The applicant also appealed against the decision to allow the television programme as evidence .","On DATE ORG ( hovr\u00e4tten ) rejected the applicant \u2019s appeal in relation to the television programme as it found no reason to dismiss it as evidence . This decision could only be appealed against in connection with ORG final judgment .","On DATE ORG , after having held an oral hearing , upheld the lower court \u2019s conviction but also found the applicant guilty of an aggravated bookkeeping offence and an aggravated tax offence . The sentence was upheld . In addition to the witnesses heard before FAC , whose testimonies were played to the court , supplementary questions were put to the applicant and CARDINAL new witnesses were heard on the applicant \u2019s request . Substantial written evidence was also presented to the appellate court . As regards the television programme , it was stated in the judgment that it had been presented to the court . It was not mentioned by ORG in its reasoning .","ORG , like the lower court , found it proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had been the actual representative of the companies . In addition to the findings of ORG , the appellate court noted in particular that the applicant had explained his involvement and the large amount of money received from the companies as fees for consulting , with focus on training the sellers in the various companies . However , the court observed that this was not supported by the witness statements and , moreover , the applicant had not been able to give a credible account of the training he alleged to have provided . His explanations had been vague and diffuse and he had no documented qualifications as a trainer . Moreover , before ORG , he had claimed not to have signed any contracts with the companies and when confronted by the prosecutor before the appellate court with such contracts , signed by him , he claimed not to have any memory of having signed them . That the applicant would have forgot such important acts were not plausible to the court and affected his credibility negatively . The contracts also revealed the applicant \u2019s ability to control the companies . ORG further noted that the companies had been inter - connected in various ways , even sharing offices and employees , which was remarkable considering that they were supposedly competitors in the same market . In view of this , ORG fully agreed with the lower court \u2019s reasoning and conclusion concerning the aggravated fraud and also found that he had committed an aggravated bookkeeping offence and an aggravated tax offence .","The applicant appealed to ORG ( ORG domstolen ) against the judgment as well as the decision not to dismiss the television programme as evidence . He claimed , inter alia , that it was in violation of his right to fair trial under the ORG to allow the television programme as evidence","On DATE , ORG refused leave to appeal .","In the meantime , in DATE , the applicant initiated defamation proceedings against the anchor man of the television programme . These proceedings were terminated in DATE and an application regarding this matter , under Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW , was lodged with the ORG on DATE ( application no . CARDINAL ) .","LAW , section CARDINAL of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure ( R\u00e4tteg\u00e5ngsbalken , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , reads as follows :","\u201c After conscientious assessment of everything that has occurred , the court shall determine what has been proved in the case .","As to the effect of certain kinds of evidence , the specific provisions thereon shall govern . \u201d","This provision reflects the principle of free submission and evaluation of evidence ( principen om DATE bevisf\u00f6ring och bevisv\u00e4rdering ) which prevails in NORP procedural law . It means that , as a main rule , there are no restrictions in law on the submission and evaluation of evidence . Thus , anything that may be of value as evidence in a case may , in principle , be presented during the main hearing . However , the circumstances under which evidence has been collected or given will have an influence on the way in which it is evaluated . The \u201c principle of best evidence \u201d ( principen om b\u00e4sta bevismedlet ) is applied ; consequently , witnesses and injured parties should normally give evidence during a court hearing , rather than the court reading the statements made during the preliminary investigation , to enable the parties to pose questions and scrutinise the statements more closely .","NORP Moreover , according to LAW , section CARDINAL of LAW , a court may dismiss evidence , inter alia , if the circumstance that a party wants to prove is without importance in the case , if the evidence is unnecessary or if it evidently would be of no effect ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156510","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"SPINU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicants , Mr Dumitru PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The applicants are the husband and the son of the late PERSON . On TIME of CARDINAL DATE , at QUANTITY , the first applicant and PERSON were returning home when PERSON fell into a trench located on the public road . The TIME PERSON was taken to a hospital and diagnosed , inter alia , with a fracture of her spine . On DATE she succumbed to the injuries and died .","On DATE the local police office initiated an investigation into ORG death and found that the trench located on the public road in front of the applicant \u2019s house had been dug by a contractor of a mobile telephony company for the purpose of instalment of optical cables . The trench was not marked and\/or secured in any way .","On DATE ORG decided not to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of the death of PERSON ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal while finding that the investigation carried out by ORG had been effective and complete . The decision of ORG was handed to the applicant on DATE .","The parties did not inform the ORG about any other proceedings in the case ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-167490","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"CHE","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VUKOTA-BOJIC v. SWITZERLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No 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)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .","The applicant had been employed as a hairdresser since DATE and she had compulsory accident insurance under LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) . On DATE she was hit by a motorcycle while crossing the road and fell on her back . She was hospitalised TIME owing to suspected concussion resulting from the impact of her head against the ground .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a rheumatologist who diagnosed her with a cervical trauma and possible cranial trauma . On DATE her family doctor certified that her injuries had resulted in total incapacity for work until DATE .","On DATE the applicant was examined at ORG . The doctor who examined her predicted that she could make a gradual return to work . Nevertheless , on DATE another doctor in the same hospital declared the applicant totally incapable of work .","At the request of her insurance company , the applicant \u2019s health was assessed by means of orthopaedic , neurological , neuropsychological and psychiatric examinations by the insurance - disability medical examination centre ( COMAI ) of PERSON . On the basis of the assessment carried out by that centre , the applicant was declared fully capable of work with effect from DATE .","By a decision of DATE the insurance company informed the applicant that her entitlement to DATE allowances would end on DATE .","On DATE the applicant submitted an objection to that decision and enclosed a report of a neurologist , who confirmed an almost permanent headache , limited head movement , pain radiation towards the shoulders and arms with sensory disorders as well as sleep disorders . In addition , the specialist suspected that the applicant had suffered whiplash and that she was affected by a neuropsychological dysfunction .","NORP In DATE the insurance company rejected the applicant \u2019s complaint finding no causal link between the accident and her health problems .","The applicant appealed to ORG of the GPE of GPE ( ORG ) .","In a decision of DATE , ORG allowed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It overturned the insurance company \u2019s decision and remitted the case for further clarifications . Taking into account the partial contradictions that existed between the different medical reports , the court considered that the consequences of the accident for the applicant \u2019s state of health were not sufficiently established . Moreover , a doubt remained as to whether the applicant had suffered trauma to her neck and spine . The insurance company was thus required to clarify the issue .","The insurance company subsequently ordered a multidisciplinary examination , which was conducted by an institute of medical experts in GPE . In their report the experts concluded that the applicant was totally incapacitated in respect of the duties required in her profession . However , the insurance company challenged this report once it found that a doctor who had participated in its preparation had previously carried out a private examination of the applicant in the initial stages of the proceedings .","The insurance company therefore ordered another medical report , which was delivered on DATE . The report observed the existence of a causal link between the accident and the damage to the applicant \u2019s health , and was accompanied by a neuropsychological report , which noted a brain dysfunction subsequent to a head injury .","Meanwhile , by a decision of DATE the competent social security authority ( Sozialversicherungsanstalt ) of the GPE of GPE granted the applicant a full disability pension with retroactive effect .","Subsequently , the applicant asked the insurance company on several occasions to comment on its obligation to grant her insurance benefits .","On DATE another expert report commissioned by the insurance company was prepared solely on the basis of the previous examinations . The medical expert confirmed the existence of a causal link between the accident and the applicant \u2019s health problems , and concluded that the applicant \u2019s illness had led to a total incapacity for work .","On DATE the insurance company issued a decision confirming the termination of the applicant \u2019s benefits as of DATE . The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision .","On DATE , another independent physician concluded , solely on the basis of the previously drafted medical reports , that these medical findings were not sufficiently explicit as regards causality . According to him , the applicant \u2019s incapacity for work amounted to not PERCENT . He also strongly criticised the approach and findings of other medical experts . On the basis of this report , on DATE the insurance company dismissed the applicant \u2019s complaint on the grounds of lack of a causal link between the accident and her medical conditions .","The applicant appealed , arguing that most of the medical reports had found a causal link and that the only report denying the existence of such a link was based solely on medical reports by other experts instead of on a direct examination .","On DATE ORG recognised the existence of a causal link between the accident and the health problems the applicant complained of , and allowed her appeal . The matter was referred to the insurance company for it to decide on the right of the applicant to insurance benefits .","Thereafter , the insurance company invited the applicant to undergo a medical evaluation of her functional abilities , which she refused . The applicant was then issued with a formal notice within the meaning of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the Social Security Act inviting her to undergo the said evaluation and warning her about the legal consequences of failing to do so indicated in the said provision ( see \u00a7 DATE below ) . No mention of the possibility of covert monitoring was mentioned .","Thereafter , on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant was monitored by private investigators , commissioned by the insurance company . The surveillance was performed on CARDINAL different dates over a period of DATE and lasted TIME each time . The undercover investigators followed the applicant over long distances . Following the surveillance , a detailed monitoring record was prepared . Pursuant to that report , the applicant appears to have become aware of the secret surveillance on DATE of implementation of the measure .","In a decision dated CARDINAL DATE the insurance company refused the applicant \u2019s representative access to the surveillance report . The applicant then lodged a complaint with the supervisory authority , namely ORG , objecting to the failure to take a decision on her benefits entitlement .","On DATE the insurance company sent the private NORP report to the applicant . The report included the surveillance footage and declared that it considered it necessary to conduct a fresh neurological assessment of the applicant . However , the applicant refused to undergo any further examination and asked for a decision on her benefits to be taken .","In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the insurance company again refused to grant any benefits to the applicant on the basis of the images recorded during the surveillance and her refusal to undergo a neurological examination .","The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision , claiming a pension on the basis of a degree of disability of PERCENT as well as compensation for damage to her physical integrity . She also asked for the surveillance case file to be destroyed .","On DATE another neurologist appointed by the insurance company , PERSON , released an anonymous expert opinion based on evidence and drafted taking into account all the medical examinations and assessments carried out previously as well as the surveillance images . He found that the applicant \u2019s incapacity to work amounted to PERCENT . Furthermore , he estimated the damage to the applicant \u2019s physical integrity at PERCENT . On the basis of the analysis of the surveillance images he concluded that the restriction on her capacity to lead a normal life was minimal .","On DATE ORG gave the insurance company a deadline to decide the applicant \u2019s complaint . By a decision of DATE , the insurance company rejected the applicant \u2019s request for destruction of the images and decided to grant her DATE allowances and a pension on the basis of a disability degree of PERCENT .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG claiming compensation for damage to her physical integrity as well as a disability pension based on PERCENT disability . In addition , she claimed interest at PERCENT on arrears on the DATE allowances remaining unpaid since the accident . She also asked for the expert opinion on the evidence taking into consideration the material resulting from the surveillance be to be removed from her case file . The applicant complained that the surveillance had been \u201c reprehensible and inappropriate \u201d and had constituted an \u201c attack on her personality \u201d .","On DATE ORG found in favour of the applicant . In particular , it ruled that owing to the lack of legal basis for the surveillance the monitoring record was not admissible as evidence . As a result , it denied any probative value of the expert opinion based on the evidence , which had taken into account the illegal surveillance . Moreover , according to the court \u2019s previous decision of DATE , the applicant was not required to undergo any further examinations . Therefore , she was entitled to refuse a medical assessment of her functional abilities .","The insurance company lodged an appeal against this decision before ORG , criticising in particular the amount of benefits to be granted to the applicant .","In its judgment of DATE , of which the applicant was notified on DATE , ORG ruled that , in accordance with its earlier jurisprudence ( see below \u00a7 CARDINAL ) , the surveillance of the applicant by private investigators had been lawful and the surveillance file was therefore a valid piece of evidence . After evaluating the surveillance file it found that the medical reports contradicted the images and videos showing the applicant walking her dog , driving a car long distances , going shopping , carrying groceries and opening the boot of the car by moving her arms above her head without noticeable restrictions or unusual behaviour . Moreover , it found that there were discrepancies , not only between the results of the surveillance and the medical reports but also between the medical reports which had been drafted before the surveillance . Finally , the examination of the applicant by a neurologist was necessary and admissible because she had previously refused to undergo an assessment of her functional capacities and a neurological examination , which were required in the circumstances . Accordingly , ORG denied the probative value not only of the medical reports attesting to the applicant \u2019s complete incapacity to work but also of the reports attesting to her incapacity to work of a lesser degree . Therefore , the insurance company had acted correctly in ordering a reassessment of her ability to work through a critical review of all previous medical reports . Following an analysis of this expert opinion report based on evidence , ORG held that its findings were convincing . It quashed the decision of ORG , except for the considerations relating to the interest on arrears .","Subsequently the applicant lodged a request with ORG for interpretation of its decision in the light of the established caselaw concerning the probative value of the medical reports . ORG dismissed her request , concluding that she had submitted her application not for the purposes defined in this legal remedy , but rather to argue a violation of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159762","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF FRUMKIN v. RUSSIA","importance":1,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested during the dispersal of a political rally at FAC in GPE . He was detained at the police station for DATE pending administrative proceedings in which he was found guilty of failure to obey lawful police orders , an offence under LAW , and sentenced to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention . The parties\u2019 submissions on the circumstances surrounding the public assembly and its dispersal are set out in part A , and the specific facts relating to the applicant are set out in part B below .","On DATE CARDINAL individuals ( Mr I. GPE , Mr S. NORP , Ms Y. PERSON , PERSON Mityushkina and Mr S. Udaltsov ) submitted notice of a public demonstration to the mayor of GPE . The march , with CARDINAL participants , was to begin at TIME on DATE from FAC followed by a meeting at FAC , which was to end at TIME The aim of the demonstration was \u201c to protest against abuses and falsifications in the course of the elections to ORG and of the President of GPE , and to demand fair elections , respect for human rights , the rule of law and the international obligations of the GPE \u201d .","On DATE the Head of ORG , PERSON ORG , informed the organisers that the requested route could not be allocated because of preparations for the Victory Day parade on CARDINAL DATE . They proposed that the organisers hold the march between LOC and GPE embankment .","On DATE the organisers declined the proposal and requested an alternative route from FAC , down FAC and FAC , followed by a meeting at FAC . The march was to begin at TIME , and the meeting had to finish by TIME The number of participants was indicated as CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG approved the alternative route , having noted that the organisers had provided a detailed plan of the proposed events .","On DATE ORG informed the Chief of ORG of the Interior , PERSON V. GPE , that a different group of organisers had submitted notification of another public event \u2013 a meeting at FAC \u2013 which the GPE authorities had rejected . The organisers of that event had expressed their intention to proceed in defiance of the ban and to squat on the square from DATE , ready to resist the police if necessary . ORG was therefore requested to safeguard public order in GPE .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the First Deputy Head of ORG , PERSON , held a working meeting with the organisers of the demonstration at FAC , at which they discussed the security issues . The Deputy Chief of ORG of the ORG , Police Colonel D. ORG , took part in the meeting . The organisers stated at the meeting that the turnout could significantly exceed the expected CARDINAL participants . They were warned that exceeding the number originally declared would be unacceptable . According to the applicant , during that meeting the organisers and the authorities agreed that since there was insufficient time for an on - the - spot reconnaissance , which would otherwise have been carried out , the assembly layout and the security arrangements would be identical to the previous public event organised by the same group of opposition activists on DATE . On that occasion , the march had proceeded down FAC , followed by a meeting at FAC , and the venue of the meeting had included the park at FAC ( in some documents referred to as \u201c Repin park \u201d ) and the GPE embankment .","On DATE the deputy mayor of GPE , Mr A. PERSON , instructed the PERSON district prefect to assist the organisers in maintaining public order and security during the event . He ordered ORG to inform the organisers that their assembly notice had been accepted and to monitor its implementation . Other public agencies were assigned the duties of street cleaning , traffic control and ensuring the presence of ambulances at the site of the assembly .","On DATE ORG requested ORG to issue a warning to the organisers against exceeding the notified number of participants and against erecting camping tents at the meeting venue , an intention allegedly expressed by the organisers at the working meeting . ORG also referred to information found on the Internet that the demonstrators would go to FAC after the meeting . On DATE ORG issued the relevant warning to CARDINAL of the organisers , Mr NORP and Mr GPE .","On DATE ORG of the ORG published on its website the official information about the forthcoming demonstration on DATE , including a map . The map indicated the route of the march , the traffic restrictions and an access plan to FAC ; it delineated the area allotted to the meeting , which included the park at FAC . Access to the meeting was marked through the park .","On DATE the Police Chief of ORG of the ORG , Police Major - General PERSON ORG , adopted a plan for safeguarding public order in GPE on DATE ( the \u201c security plan \u201d ) . The CARDINAL - page security plan was an internal document which had not been disclosed to the public or to the organisers . In view of the forthcoming authorised demonstration at FAC and anticipated attempts by other opposition groups to hold unauthorised public gatherings , it provided for security measures in GPE city centre and set up operational headquarters to implement them .","CARDINAL high - ranking police officers , including CARDINAL major - generals , CARDINAL military commanders and one emergency - relief official , were appointed to the operational headquarters . The Deputy Police Chief of ORG of the ORG , Police Major - General PERSON , was appointed as head of the operational headquarters ; the Chief of ORG of ORG of the ORG , Police Major - General PERSON , and the Deputy Chief of ORG of the ORG , Police Colonel D. ORG , were appointed as deputy heads of the operational headquarters .","The security plan provided for an CARDINAL,CARDINAL-strong crowd - control taskforce , comprising the police and the military , to police the designated security areas and to prevent unauthorised public gatherings and terrorist attacks . The main contingent was the police squad charged with cordon and riot - control duties in accordance with a structured and detailed action plan for each operational unit . Furthermore , it provided for a CARDINAL-strong police unit assigned to operational posts across the city centre , with responsibility for apprehending offenders , escorting them to police stations and drawing up administrative offence reports . They were instructed , in particular , to prepare templates for the administrative offence reports and to have CARDINAL printed copies of them at every police station . The security plan also provided for a QUANTITY police unit for intercepting and apprehending organisers and instigators of unauthorised gatherings . The squad had to be equipped with full protection gear and police batons . Each unit had to ensure effective radio communication within the chain of command . They were instructed to keep loudspeakers , metal detectors , handcuffs , fire extinguishers and wire clippers in the police vehicles .","The security plan set out in detail the allocation and deployment of police vehicles , police buses , interception and monitoring vehicles and equipment , dog - handling teams , fire - fighting and rescue equipment , ambulances and a helicopter . It also made provision for a CARDINAL,CARDINAL-strong reserve unit equipped with gas masks , aerosol grenades ( \u201c Dreif \u201d ) , flash grenades ( \u201c GPE \u201d ) , bang grenades ( \u201c PERSON \u201d and \u201c FAC \u201d ) , a CARDINAL hand - held grenade launcher ( \u201c Gvozd \u201d CARDINAL\u0413-CARDINAL ) , and a CARDINAL hand - held grenade launcher ( ORG ) ; tubeless pistols ( \u041f\u0411-CARDINAL\u0421\u041f ) with CARDINAL rubber bullets and propelling cartridges , and rifles ( KC-CARDINAL ) . CARDINAL water - cannon vehicles were ordered to be on standby , ready to be used against persistent offenders .","All units were instructed to be vigilant and thorough in detecting and eliminating security threats and to be polite and tactful in their conduct vis\u00e0 - vis citizens , engaging in a lawful dialogue with them without responding to provocations . If faced with an unauthorised gathering they were instructed to give a warning through a loudspeaker , to arrest the most active participants and to record video footage of those incidents . The police chiefs were instructed to place plain - clothes officers among the protesters in order to monitor the threat of violence and terrorist attacks within the crowd and to take measures , where appropriate , to prevent and mitigate the damage and to pursue the perpetrators .","The Chief of ORG of GPE , Police Major - General PERSON , was required , among other tasks , to prepare , together with the organisers , the text of the public announcement to be made if the situation deteriorated . The head of the press communication service of ORG of the ORG , ORG Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON , was in charge of communication with the press . The head of ORG of the ORG , ORG Colonel PERSON , had to ensure \u201c coordination with the representatives of public organisations and also coordination and information flow with other services of ORG of the Interior \u201d .","The units assigned to police the march and the meeting belonged to \u201c Zone no . CARDINAL \u201d ( FAC , FAC and the adjacent territory ) . The zone commander was the Chief of ORG of the Interior , Police Colonel PERSON , with CARDINAL high - ranking police officers ( Police Colonel PERSON , Police Colonel A. Zdorenko , Police Lieutenant - Colonel A. ORG GPE , Police Colonel PERSON GPE , Police Colonel A. GPE , Police Colonel A. Dvoynos , Police Captain PERSON and ORG Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON ) as his deputies .","The units assigned to Zone no . CARDINAL comprised CARDINAL riot police officers , of whom CARDINAL were on duty at FAC . They were instructed , in particular , to search the demonstrators to prevent them from taking camping tents to the site of the meeting and to obstruct access to PERSON , diverting the marchers to GPE embankment , the site of the meeting . The adjacent park at FAC had to be cordoned off , and the only entrance to GPE embankment DATE from PERSON bridge \u2013 had to be equipped with CARDINAL metal detectors , which were to be removed just before the march approached the site of the meeting . An exception was made for the organisers and the technical staff , who were allowed access behind the stage through CARDINAL additional metal detectors . Further arrangements were made for access of the press .","Lastly , the command of Zone no . CARDINAL , in particular Police Colonels PERSON and PERSON , were under orders to meet the organisers in person at the beginning of the event to remind them of their responsibilities and to have them sign an undertaking . The organisers would undertake to ensure the lawful and safe conduct of the event , and to refrain from any calls for forced change of the constitutional order and from hate speech and propaganda in favour of violence or war . They would also undertake to be present at the venue until the end of the assembly and the departure of the participants . A video recording of the briefing and the signing of the undertaking had to be made .","At TIME on DATE the organisers were allowed access to FAC to set up the stage and sound equipment . The police searched the vehicles delivering the equipment and seized CARDINAL tents found amid the gear . They arrested several people for bringing the tents , and the installation of the equipment was delayed . During that time communication between the organisers setting up the stage and those leading the march was sporadic .","At the beginning of the march , Police Colonel PERSON met the organisers at FAC to clarify any outstanding organisational matters and to have them sign the undertaking to ensure public order during the demonstration . He specifically asked PERSON to ensure that no tents were placed on FAC and that the participants complied with the limits on the place and time allocated for the assembly . The organisers gave their assurances on those issues and signed the undertaking .","NORP The march began at TIME at FAC . It went down FAC peacefully and without disruption . The turnout exceeded expectations , but there is no consensus as to the exact numbers . The official estimate was that there were CARDINAL participants , whereas the organisers considered that there had been CARDINAL . The media reported different numbers , some significantly exceeding the above estimates .","At TIME the march approached FAC . The leaders found that the layout of the meeting and the placement of the police cordon did not correspond to what they had anticipated . Unlike on DATE , the park at FAC was excluded from the meeting venue , which was limited to GPE embankment . The cordon of riot police in full protection gear barred access to the park and continued along the whole perimeter of the meeting area , channelling the demonstration to GPE embankment . Further down the embankment there was a row of metal detectors at the entrance to the meeting venue . By that time the stage had been erected at the far end of GPE embankment and a considerable number of people had already accumulated in front of it .","Faced with the police cordon and unable to access the park , the leaders of the march \u2013 Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON DATE stopped and demanded that the police open access to the park . According to the protesters , they were taken aback by the alteration of the expected layout and were unwilling to turn towards GPE embankment ; they therefore demanded that the police officers at the cordon move the cordon back to allow sufficient space for the protesters to pass and to assemble for the meeting . According to the official version , the protesters were not interested in proceeding to the meeting venue ; they stopped because they had either intended to break the cordon in order to proceed towards PERSON bridge and then to the ORG , or to stir up the crowd to incite disorder . It is common ground that the cordon officers did not enter into any discussion with the protest leaders and no senior officer was delegated to negotiate . After TIME of attempting to engage with the cordon officers , at TIME the CARDINAL leaders announced that they were going on a \u201c sit - down strike \u201d and sat on the ground . The people behind them stopped , although some people continued to go past them towards the stage . The leaders of the sit - in called on other demonstrators to follow their example and sit down , but only a few of their entourage did so ( TIME and QUANTITY people in total ) .","Between TIME and TIME CARDINAL State Duma deputies , Mr PERSON and PERSON , contacted unidentified senior police officers to negotiate the enlargement of the restricted area by moving the police cordon behind the park along the lines expected by the organisers . At the same time PERSON , the Ombudsman of GPE , at the request of Police Colonel PERSON , attempted to convince the leaders of the sit - in to resume the procession and to head towards the meeting venue at GPE embankment , where the stage had been set up . During that time no senior police officers or municipal officials came to the site of the sit - down protest , and there was no direct communication between the authorities and the leaders of the sit - in .","At TIME of the meeting participants announced from the stage that the leaders were calling on the demonstrators to support their protest . Some people waiting in front of the stage headed back to PERSON bridge , either to support the sit - down protest or to leave the meeting . The area in front of the stage almost emptied .","At TIME the media reported that PERSON had demanded that the protesters be given airtime on GPE \u2019s main television channels , that the presidential inauguration of PERSON be cancelled and that new elections be called .","At TIME the crowd around the sit - down protest built up , which caused some congestion , and the leaders abandoned the protest and headed towards the stage , followed by the crowd .","At TIME the media reported that the police authorities were regarding the strike as a provocation of mass disorder and were considering prosecuting those responsible for it .","At the same time a commotion arose near the police cordon at the place vacated by the sit - down protest , and the police cordon was broken in several places . A crowd of CARDINAL people spilled over to the empty space beyond the cordon . Within TIME the police restored the cordon , which was reinforced by an additional riot police force . Those who found themselves outside the cordon wandered around , uncertain what to do next . Several people were apprehended , others were pushed back inside the cordon , and some continued to loiter outside or walked towards the park . The police cordon began to push the crowd into the restricted area and advanced by QUANTITY , pressing it inwards .","At TIME PERSON to make an announcement from the stage that the meeting was closed . She did so , but apparently her message was not heard by most of the demonstrators or the media reporters broadcasting from the spot . The live television footage provided by the parties contained no mention of her announcement .","At the same time a Molotov cocktail was launched from the crowd at the corner of ORG bridge over the restored police cordon . It landed outside the cordon and the trousers of a passer - by caught fire . The fire was promptly extinguished by the police .","At TIME at the same corner of PERSON bridge the riot police began breaking into the demonstration to split the crowd . Running in tight formations , they pushed the crowd apart , arrested some people , confronted others and formed new cordons to isolate sections of the crowd . Some protesters held up metal barriers and aligned them so as to resist the police , threw various objects at the police , shouted and chanted \u201c Shame ! \u201d and other slogans , and whenever the police apprehended anyone from among the protesters they attempted to pull them back . The police applied combat techniques and used truncheons .","At TIME Mr Udaltsov climbed onto the stage at the opposite end of the square to address the meeting . At that time many people were assembled in front of the stage , but , as it turned out , the sound equipment had been disconnected . Mr PERSON took a loudspeaker and shouted :","\u201c Dear friends ! Unfortunately we have no proper sound , but we will carry on our action , we are not going away because our comrades have been arrested , because DATE is the coronation of an illegitimate president . We shall begin an indefinite protest action . You agree ? We shall not leave until our comrades are released , until the inauguration is cancelled and until we are given airtime on the central television channels . You agree ? We are power here ! Dear friends , [ if ] we came out in DATE [ DATE ] and in DATE [ DATE ] , it was not to put up with the stolen elections , ... it was not to see the chief crook and thief on the throne . DATE we have no choice \u2013 stay here or give the country to crooks and thieves for DATE . I consider that we shall not leave DATE . We shall not leave ! \u201d","At this point , at TIME , several police officers arrested PERSON ORG and took him away . Mr PERSON attempted to go up onto the stage , but he was also arrested at the stairs and taken away . As he was pushed out by the police officers he turned to the crowd shouting \u201c Nobody shall leave ! \u201d","At TIME the police arrested Mr PERSON , who had also attempted to address people from the stage .","Meanwhile , at ORG bridge the police continued dividing the crowd and began pushing some sections away from the venue . Through the loudspeakers they requested the participants to leave for the metro station . The dispersal continued for TIME until the venue was fully cleared of all protesters .","On DATE Police Colonel PERSON drew up a report summarising the security measures taken on DATE in GPE . The report stated that the march , in which CARDINAL people had participated , had begun at TIME and had followed the route to FAC . It listed the groups and organisations represented , the number of participants in each group , the number and colours of their flags and the number and content of their banners . It further stated as follows :","\u201c ... at TIME the organised column ... arrived at the [ cordon ] and expressed the intention to proceed straight to ORG bridge and [ to cross it ] to FAC . The police ... ordered them to proceed to FAC , the venue of the meeting . However , the leaders at the head of the column \u2013 [ Mr GPE , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON ] \u2013 ... called on the marchers through the loudspeaker not to move . Together with CARDINAL protesters they sat on the ground . Another group of CARDINAL , called by [ their leaders ] , sat as well . The police ... repeatedly warned them against holding an unauthorised public gathering and required them to proceed to the venue of the meeting or to leave . Besides that , CARDINAL State PERSON deputies , PERSON and PERSON , the Ombudsman of GPE , PERSON , and a member of ORG , PERSON , talked to them , but those sitting on the ground did not react and continued chanting slogans ... From TIME persons on PERSON bridge and GPE embankment made attempts to break the cordon , and threw empty glass bottles , fireworks , chunks of tarmac and portable metal barriers at the police officers . From CARDINAL to TIME music was playing on the stage ... At TIME ... a deputy of ORG called on the participants to head to ORG to support those sitting on the ground ... At TIME of the organisers , PERSON ... , went on the stage and declared the meeting closed . At TIME Mr PERSON went on the stage and called on the people to take part in an indefinite protest action .","At TIME a group of CARDINAL individuals including PERSON ... attempted to put up CARDINAL - sleeper camping tents on GPE embankment .","...","From TIME necessary measures were taken to push the citizens away from ORG bridge , GPE embankment and FAC and to arrest the most actively resisting ones ... , during which QUANTITY police officers and military servicemen [ sustained injuries ] of various gravity , CARDINAL of whom have been hospitalised .","In total , CARDINAL people were detained in GPE to prevent public disorder and unauthorised demonstrations ...","...","The total number of troops deployed for public order and security duties in GPE was CARDINAL servicemen , including CARDINAL police officers , CARDINAL traffic police officers , CARDINAL military servicemen and CARDINAL members of voluntary brigades .","As a result of the measures taken by ORG of the Interior the tasks of maintaining public order and security have been fully discharged , and no emergency incidents have been allowed to occur . \u201d","On DATE ORG of GPE opened a criminal investigation into suspected offences of mass disorder and violent acts against the police ( LAW and LAW ) .","On DATE an investigation was also launched into the criminal offence of organising mass disorder ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) . The CARDINAL criminal cases were joined on DATE .","On DATE ORG set up a group of CARDINAL investigators and put them in charge of the criminal file concerning the events of CARDINAL DATE .","On an unspecified date CARDINAL human - rights activists filed a request with ORG to open a criminal investigation into the conduct of the police in the same events ; they complained , in particular , of the suppression of a lawful public assembly . Another petition was filed , also on an unspecified date , by CARDINAL human - rights activists and members of NGOs , calling for the curbing of repression against those who had been arrested and prosecuted in relation to the events of CARDINAL DATE and denying that mass riots had taken place at FAC .","Following an enquiry from ORG about publication of the maps of the assembly of CARDINAL DATE , on CARDINAL DATE ORG of the ORG replied as follows :","\u201c ... on CARDINAL DATE ORG of the ORG published on its official website ... a notice on \u2018 Safeguarding public order in GPE during the public events on CARDINAL May\u2019 . The notice included information about the route , the map of traffic restrictions and information about the location of the socio - political events , which a large number of participants were expected to attend , the security measures and the warning against any unlawful acts during the events .","The decision to publish this notice was taken by the head of ORG with ORG of ORG of the ORG with the aim of ensuring the security of citizens and media representatives planning to take part in the event .","The pictures contained in the notice were schematic and showed the approximate route of the [ march ] as well as the reference place of the meeting \u2013 \u2018 GPE DATE indicated in the \u2018 Plan for Safeguarding Public Order in GPE on DATE CARDINAL\u2019 .","On DATE a working meeting took place at ORG with participants from among [ the organisers and ORG ] , where they discussed the arrangements for the march ... , the placement of metal detectors , the stage set - up and other organisational matters .","After the meeting ... the [ ORG of the Interior ] prepared a [ security plan ] and map providing for the park at FAC to be cordoned off with metal barriers [ and ] for the participants in the meeting to be accommodated on the road at the GPE embankment .","Given that the agreement on the route of the demonstration and the meeting venue had been reached at the aforementioned working meeting at TIME on DATE , the [ security plan ] and the security maps were prepared at extremely short notice ( during TIME DATE and DATE of CARDINAL DATE ) , to be approved afterwards , on CARDINAL DATE , by senior officials at ORG of the Interior .","ORG did not discuss the security maps and [ security plan ] with the organisers . Those documents were not published as they were for internal use , showing the placement of the police forces ... and setting out their tasks . \u201d","DATE . On an unspecified date CARDINAL prominent international NGOs set up an international expert commission to evaluate the events at FAC on DATE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) . ORG comprised CARDINAL international experts whose objective was to provide an independent fact - finding and legal assessment of the circumstances in which the demonstration at FAC had been dispersed . In DATE ORG produced a CARDINAL - page report containing the chronology and an assessment of the events of DATE . It identified the sources used for the report as follows :","\u201c The work of the ORG was based on the following materials :","- evidence from the official investigation , reports and statements made by the relevant authorities and any other official information available on the case ;","- information from public investigations and observations gathered by human rights defenders , journalists and others ; and","- reports by observers and journalists , witness testimony and video materials .","...","In order to provide an objective and complete picture of the events , the ORG developed a series of questions that it distributed to the city administration of GPE , ORG of GPE , police authorities in GPE , the Ombudsman of GPE and event organisers . Unfortunately the Commission did not receive replies from the city administration , police authorities or ORG . As a result , the analysis contained in this report is based on information from open sources , including materials presented by the event organisers , observers and non - governmental organisations , materials from public investigations and information provided by defence attorneys engaged in the so - called ORG . These materials include : eyewitnesses\u2019 testimony , videos from the media and private actors , documents and some open data about the GPE criminal case . The experts analysed TIME of video - records and CARDINAL documents related to the GPE events . In addition , they met organisers , participants and observers of the events and attended several court hearings of the PERSON case . \u201d","Concerning the way the assembly of CARDINAL DATE had been organised , ORG noted the following :","\u201c ... ORG announced on DATE [ DATE ] that the event would follow a similar route to the previous rally on DATE [ DATE ] . The participants were to assemble at FAC , set off at TIME along ORG and ORG for a rally in FAC , and disperse at TIME The official notification of approval was issued on DATE before the beginning of the event .","That DATE , the [ ORG of the ORG ] published a plan on its website indicating that all of FAC , including the public gardens , would be given over to the rally , while the PERSON bridge would be closed to vehicles but would remain open to pedestrians . This was the same procedure [ the ] authorities had adopted for the CARDINAL previous rallies on FAC on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .","...","On TIME of [ CARDINAL DATE ] , the police cordoned off the [ park ] of FAC . According to Colonel PERSON , who was responsible for security at the location , this was done \u2018 in order to prevent the participants from setting up a camp and from [ carrying out ] other [ illegal ] acts.\u2019 [ The ] authorities received information [ that ] the protesters might attempt to establish a protest camp at the site , causing them to decide that the rally should be confined to only the GPE waterfront area \u2013 a much smaller area than had been originally allocated for the assembly .","...","The police did not , however , inform the organisers of the changes they had decided upon , and they only became aware of the police - imposed changes to the event when they arrived at the site on TIME CARDINAL May [ DATE ] .","ORG did not send out a written announcement that a special representative from the city authorities would be present at the event , nor did the chairman of the GPE local department of the [ Interior ] , PERSON , issue any special orders on sending a special representative of ORG to the event .","...","The organisers requested TIME to set up a stage and sound equipment for the rally ; however , on TIME CARDINAL May , the authorities only allocated TIME of advance access . Furthermore , at TIME , the police did not allow vehicles with stage equipment onto the site until they had been searched . The searches revealed a small number of tents , and [ the ] authorities detained a number of people as a result . The police finally allowed the truck with the stage equipment onto FAC at TIME , TIME before the march was due to begin . \u201d","As regards the circumstances in which the assembly was dispersed , ORG report stated as follows :","\u201c As the march approached FAC , [ the ] demonstrators found that a police cordon was blocking off most of the square , leaving only a narrow stretch along the waterfront for the rally . The police established a triple cordon of officers on PERSON bridge , which prevented any movement in the direction of the FAC . The first cordon was positioned close to the junction of ORG and the GPE waterfront . Students from ORG and officers of ORG ( without any protective equipment ) made up this line . Behind them were CARDINAL rows of PERSON [ riot police \u2013 OMO\u041d ] , a line of voluntary citizen patrol ( druzhinniki ) , and another cordon of the PERSON [ the riot police ] . A number of water cannons were visible between the second and third cordons .","[ The report contained CARDINAL photographs comparing the police cordon on DATE , a thin line of police officers without protection gear , and the CARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE , multiple ranks of riot police with full protection gear backed up by heavy vehicles . ]","The police cordons , which blocked off movement in the direction of the ORG , created a bottleneck that slowed the march \u2019s progress to such an extent that it came to a virtual stop as demonstrators attempted to cross the bridge . Moreover , just beyond GPE bridge , the marchers had to go through a second set of metal detectors , where progress was very slow since there were CARDINAL detectors .","By TIME , the majority of the march was immobile . A number of leaders , including PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , encouraged demonstrators to sit down on the road in front of the \u2018 Udarnik\u2019 cinema facing the police cordon to protest [ against ] the inability of the march to continue and to demand that they be given access to the originally allocated space for the rally on FAC . An estimated CARDINAL people joined the sit - down protest . The leaders stressed the need to maintain a peaceful protest and appealed to demonstrators to remain calm . Participants chanted : \u2018 We will not go GPE and \u2018 Police together with the people\u2019 . The leaders attempted to address the crowds using loudspeakers , but those behind the sit - down protest could not hear or see events as they transpired . The sit - down protest did not completely block the road , but it did restrict the movement of those approaching the police lines and the bottleneck caused by the police cordon . As a result , the crowd grew denser as more demonstrators arrived from FAC .","At TIME , the chief of the [ ORG of the Interior ] issued a statement : \u2018 The organizers of the rally and other participants refuse to proceed to the agreed place of the rally ( to FAC ) . They [ have ] stopped on the roadway near the \u2018 Udarnik\u2019 theatre . Some of them [ have ] sat on the ground and thus blocked the movement of the column . Despite repeated warnings on the part of the police to proceed to the place of the rally , they wo n\u2019t move thereby creating a real threat of a jam and trauma for the participants . An inquiry commission is working on the spot to document their actions related to appeals to commit mass public disorder with a view to further consider the issue of instituting criminal proceedings.\u2019","Some demonstrators appeared to become frustrated with standing and waiting and began to walk away . Some tried to pass through the police cordon to leave the area , but the police refused to let them through . Instead , they were directed to go back through the crowd to ORG , even though this was practically impossible .","The police used loud speakers to inform demonstrators of the rally location . They asked participants to pass directly to FAC and not stop at the bridge , despite the fact that the major part of the square was closed to demonstrators . They announced that all actions on the bridge could be considered illegal . However , given the poor quality of the sound equipment , only those nearest the police could hear this information ; the majority of protesters did not hear the police instructions .","...","From the moment difficulties first arose for demonstrators attempting to cross PERSON bridge , demonstrators made repeated attempts to negotiate with the police over moving their cordons to allow protesters onto FAC .","PERSON , a member of ORG , and Member of Parliament PERSON tried to talk to the police authorities at around TIME , but there was no response . Shortly after participants broke through the police cordon at TIME , a group of human rights activists spoke to Colonel PERSON , head of the [ ORG of the Interior ] \u2019s press service . At TIME , Member of ORG PERSON tried to stop violence during the clashes on the embankment by speaking to the authorities , but he did not get a positive response .","Many of those involved in organising the event stated that they tried to engage with [ the ] police throughout DATE to ensure the event took place in a peaceful manner .","PERSON : \u2018 I tried unsuccessfully to find the responsible people in ORG [ Interior ] in order to solve the organisational problems . I knew whom to contact in case we needed help when issues arose ... Only at DATE TIME did a police officer approach me . I knew from previous demonstrations that he was a senior officer responsible for communication with event organisers ... and he told me that the authorities had suspended the demonstration . He told me , as one of the rally organizers , to announce from the stage that the event was over , which I did following our conversation.\u2019","PERSON : \u2018 A police officer in a colonel \u2019s uniform contacted me only once , and I showed him the documents [ confirming ] my credentials as an event organiser . Later clashes with the police erupted , I could n\u2019t find anyone with whom to communicate and cooperate.\u2019","PERSON : \u2018 I personally did not meet nor have time to get into contact with the authorities regarding the fences set up around the perimeter of the rally . I assumed some other organisers had already spoken to the authorities regarding this issue or were speaking with them at that time . There was no one to contact and nothing to talk about . I only saw the ORG officers who behaved aggressively and were not predisposed to get into a conversation .","... \u2019","At TIME , as people tried to move through the narrow gap between the police cordon and the waterfront to reach FAC , the police line moved CARDINAL steps forward , further pressing the crowd . This in turn generated a counter response from the crowd , and protesters began pushing back . In several places , the police cordon broke , and CARDINAL people found themselves in the empty space behind the first police line . It is impossible to determine whether the breaking of the cordon was the result of conscious action by sections of the crowd or if the police cordon simply broke due to the pressure from such a large number of people . Some of those who made it past the police lines were young men , but there were also many elderly citizens and others who did not resemble street fighters . Those who found themselves behind the police cordon did not act in an aggressive manner but appeared to move towards the entrance to the GPE [ park ] , the supposed rally point .","Different demonstrators reacted very differently to the breaking of the police line . Some tried to move away , others called for people to break the cordon , while some tried to restrain the crowd from [ trampling on ] those who were still taking part in the sit - down protest . As pressure and tension grew , the sit - down protesters stood up rather than risk being trampled . There was a high degree of confusion , and people were not clear on what was happening .","Just after the breaking of the police cordon at approximately at TIME , a single Molotov cocktail was thrown from the crowd . It landed behind the police ranks and ignited the trousers of ... a DATE demonstrator who had passed through the cordon . The police used their fire extinguishers to put out the fire . This was the only such incident recorded during DATE ...","...","Soon after the cordons were broken , the authorities began to detain those who remained behind the police lines , taking them to special holding areas . The police also arrested some protesters at the front of the crowd who had not tried to break the cordon . The police cordon was fully restored after TIME .","...","At TIME , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON managed to walk from the PERSON cinema to the stage at the waterfront followed by a large number of people . A police cordon blocked access to the stage , but they were allowed through . As they tried to start the rally , the police intervened ... the PERSON officers then detained PERSON on stage and shortly afterwards detained PERSON and PERSON as well . By TIME the organizers began to disassemble the stage .","...","In TIME between TIME , the demonstration was marked by CARDINAL distinct types of activity . For much of the time , demonstrators and the police stood face to face without much happening . These moments were interspersed with periods when the police advanced and the crowd moved back . There does not appear to have been any clear reason for the police decision to advance other than to divide the crowd up into smaller sections . More than anything , the police advances served to raise tensions and provoke some members of the crowd to push back . There is little evidence that demonstrators initiated the violence . Rather , they appear to have become aggressive only in response to the authorities\u2019 advances .","During these interchanges some protesters threw objects at the police , and the police used their batons freely . The crowd threw plastic bottles , shoes and umbrellas ...","At around TIME the police announced that the rally was cancelled and asked protesters to disperse . The police used a loudspeaker to state , \u2018 Dear citizens , we earnestly ask you not to disturb public order ! Otherwise , in accordance with the law , we will have to use force ! Please , leave here , and do not stop . Go to the metro.\u2019 Although the police used a loudspeaker , the announcement was not loud enough to reach the majority of the crowd . It is likely that only those nearest to the loudspeakers could have heard the call to disperse .","There was confusion over the police demands because at the same time ... Colonel PERSON , head of the GPE [ Department of the Interior ] \u2019s press service , told a group of human rights defenders ( including PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) that the demonstrators could continue to FAC to take part in the rally .","...","By TIME the crowd at the corner of PERSON bridge and the waterfront was cut in CARDINAL . Those on ORG bridge were pushed in the direction of FAC , while those on the waterfront were cut off from both PERSON and PERSON bridges .","Around TIME , the police cordon that acted as a barrier along the waterfront near the FAC bridge was removed , and demonstrators were able to move freely along the GPE waterfront . TIME , some CARDINAL police officers in protective equipment who had formed a cordon at FAC began pushing protesters in the direction of PERSON , which runs from FAC to the GPE metro station . At the same time , police began to push people back along the GPE waterfront from the LOC bridge towards the PERSON cinema . Those who remained on the waterfront linked arms in passive resistance . The police pushed forward , divided the crowd and began to detain demonstrators .","At TIME ... authorities created a corridor to allow demonstrators to leave the GPE area .","...","At TIME a group of ORG officers appeared from the bushes of GPE Gardens and divided those demonstrators that remained on the square . Those on one side were able to move towards PERSON bridge , while those on the other remain[ed ] totally blocked between the police lines .","At TIME the last groups of people slowly left the waterfront along a corridor formed by the policemen . The police also began to move people away from LOC on the other side of ORG . Some people were detained , while others were pushed along FAC in the direction of ORG .","DATE around CARDINAL demonstrators moved along FAC chanting slogans ... and the ORG officers began to detain people and actively disperse the column . \u201d","On DATE the LOC branch of ORG dismissed CARDINAL individual complaints and CARDINAL official enquiries made in relation to the matter , CARDINAL by PERSON , a deputy of ORG , and another one by Mr A. Babushkin , President of ORG GPE . The complaints and enquiries concerned the allegedly unlawful acts of the police in dispersing the rally on DATE , including excessive use of force and arbitrary arrests . ORG interviewed CARDINAL of the CARDINAL individuals who had lodged the complaints and QUANTITY police officers deployed in the cordon around FAC , including squadron and regiment commanders . They stated , in particular , that they had been acting under orders to maintain public safety and to identify and arrest the most active instigators of unrest ; only those resisting the demands of the police had been arrested and no force had been used unnecessarily . The police officers stated that when the police had had to intervene , they had used combat manoeuvres and truncheons but not tear gas or other exceptional means of restraint . ORG Commander PERSON explained that he had been deployed in the sector adjacent to the stage and that there had been no incidents or disorder in that sector ; no one had been arrested . The decision listed CARDINAL other internal inquiries carried out following individual complaints and medical reports ; in CARDINAL cases the allegations of abuse had been found to be unsubstantiated and in CARDINAL cases the police conduct had been found to be lawful . As regards the substance of the complaints at hand , ORG found as follows :","\u201c ... having crossed PERSON bridge , the column leaders stopped . Many participants in the march bypassed the organisers and proceeded to FAC towards the stage ... When the march participants had filled nearly all of GPE embankment , limited by the police cordon on one side and by the stage on the other side , the organisers were still at the point between PERSON bridge , FAC , [ the park ] and the PERSON cinema ...","At this time the organisers demanded that the police officers let them pass through to the ORG . The police told them that they would not let anyone pass through to the ORG because the event was authorised to take place at FAC , where the stage had been specially set up , and they were told to proceed . After that , the organisers decided to call a sit - down protest and called upon those present to disobey the lawful orders of the police . After that , the meeting participants congregated opposite the PERSON cinema , where after a while they attempted to break the cordon , which [ the police ] did not manage to prevent . Therefore the police began arresting those who had been most actively involved in breaking the cordon ; they were put in a police van and then taken to police stations in GPE . After the confrontation had been localised , the police officers slightly dispersed the crowd , having apprehended the most active perpetrators . From the very beginning of the sit - down protest the police requested the participants through loudspeakers to proceed to the stage , not to act on provocation and not to commit unlawful acts , but these requests had no effect and therefore [ it was clear that ] the breaking of the cordon had been organised . In suppressing it the police officers acted in coordination and concert . They did not apply force or special means of restraint . However , the work of the officers charged with apprehending offenders did involve the use of force and special means of restraint , in so far as necessary , against persons putting up resistance .","Later on , in the area of ORG and at the [ park ] corner some localised confrontations took place ... force and special means of restraint were used . All those detained at FAC were taken to the police stations ... Administrative offence reports were then submitted to the Justices of the Peace for consideration on the merits .","...","In accordance with LAW , any acts of a public official connected with the use of his or her official powers which have caused damage to interests protected by law may not be classified as a criminal offence if they were committed pursuant to a binding order or instruction .","...","After the organisers had decided to call a sit - down protest ... [ they ] provoked mass disorder , during which the participants threw various objects at the police , thus causing injuries to some of them . Because of this turn of events the police officers detained those participating in the mass disorder with justifiable use of force , and by special means of restraint against those who resisted .","...","In view of the foregoing , the institution of criminal proceedings against the police officers ... is refused for the absence of corpus delicti . \u201d","On DATE the first criminal case against CARDINAL individuals suspected of participation in mass disorder was transferred to LOC of GPE for the determination of criminal charges ( \u201c the first GPE case \u201d ) .","On DATE Mr PERSON gave testimony as a witness in the first GPE case . He testified , in particular , as follows :","\u201c The political organisers and the formal organisers , we all had a clear idea ... and the GPE mayor \u2019s office confirmed that the march would be the same as the one that had taken place on DATE . FAC is a traditional place for holding various opposition events . We all had a clear understanding what the route would be , where the stage would be , what the layout would be . We came there at that time for a rather traditional , customary event , the scenario of which was well - known to everybody ... DATE beforehand the maps showing where people would assemble and the direction of the march were published on the official [ news ] website ORG ; they are still posted there . The map was published on the [ police ] website \u2018 Petrovka , PERSON and this map is still posted there . Not only the organisers , but the participants too , they knew where they were going ... When we approached the venue of the meeting ... we saw that the map showing where people would assemble on the square had been essentially altered . It was essentially different from the map of CARDINAL February [ DATE ] , and , above all , different from the document which had been agreed with the GPE mayor \u2019s office and had been published on the website[s ] ORG and \u2018 Petrovka , PERSON ... [ according to which ] people were to assemble on GPE embankment as well as in the park at FAC . However , when we came we saw that the park at FAC , taking up PERCENT of the square , was barred and cordoned off ... since [ the cordon ] did not correspond [ to the map ] the column stopped . The event organisers and the people who came just waited for this question to be resolved , for the police to remove the wrong cordon , for the police chiefs to reply as to what had changed , why the approved meeting was not being conducted according to the scenario that had been approved ... I had previously [ organised events ] ... Somebody had taken the map and changed the location of the meeting . This had practically never happened before ... to show visually that we were not moving anywhere , we sat on the ground ... the first line of [ the police ] cordon was composed of CARDINAL-year - old conscripts , and with CARDINAL people pressing on it the cordon broke . It could only break . This led to an uncontrollable situation , as several policemen were walking and trying to say something through megaphones \u2013 impossible to tell what they were saying . Some activists passing by were also speaking through megaphones \u2013 impossible to tell what they were saying . No authorities were present on the spot . And [ it was ] impossible to understand who was in command . So all of that caused the rupture of the police cordon . People started spreading across that spot ... Then I tried to walk over to the stage to try and explain to the gathering what was going on , using the amplifiers . I did not know then that the police had already cut off the amplifiers .","[ Question to the witness ] Did anybody try to negotiate with the participants of the sit - down protest ?","- Attempts had been made as much as possible in the circumstances ... everybody had stopped because we all wanted to understand where the representatives from the mayor \u2019s office were , where the appropriate representative of ORG was . All the [ high - ranking ] police officers were asked , but they only shrugged . Nobody could understand what was going on . ORG deputies present on the spot tried to act as negotiators , but ... they said that nobody wanted to come up to us . We could see some police officers resembling chiefs , at a distance ... but it was impossible to get to them ... it was impossible to reach the [ police ] command . Nobody would come to us . Nobody could negotiate despite everyone \u2019s wish to do so .","... when I was in the detention facility I lodged a complaint about the hindrance of a peaceful public event . This complaint was with ORG of the ORG . I have set out the arguments [ as to why ] I considered that there had been ample evidence that the officials of ORG of the ORG had deliberately provoked the crowd to panic so that [ they ] could later make claims about mass disorder . \u201d","On DATE Mr PERSON gave testimony as a witness in the first PERSON case . He testified , in particular , as follows :","\u201c The negotiations with the [ mayor \u2019s office ] were very difficult this time ... I had been the organiser of most events from DATE . It was always possible to meet the deadline , to find a compromise , [ but not this time ] . ... It was [ only ] on CARDINAL [ DATE ] that we received the written agreement . On DATE the working meeting took place ... Usually , everything is decided DATE before the event . This time there was practically QUANTITY notice . We could not even bring the vehicles carrying the stage to the square before TIME [ on DATE ] . We were put under very harsh conditions ... we had to put up the stage within TIME ... At the [ working meeting ] technical issues were discussed , but for the previous events we held , as a matter of practice , [ there was ] an on - site reconnaissance : the representatives of the organisers [ together with ] the representatives of the police ... would visit the site , walk through the route and determine where the barriers would be put , the stage , the lavatories , so that there was no ambiguity in understanding the event . This time , because [ the working meeting ] was on CARDINAL [ DATE ] , and the event was on CARDINAL [ DATE ] , it was already clear at the working meeting that we would n\u2019t have time for an on - site reconnaissance ; therefore at Mr PERSON \u2019s suggestion it was stated that in organising the event we would follow the example of the assembly held on CARDINAL February [ DATE ] . Then , it was also a march from FAC and a meeting at FAC . The only thing that was noted was that this time the stage would be a bit closer to the park at FAC , at the corner of the square , because originally the event had been declared for CARDINAL participants . We had a feeling that people were disappointed , somehow low - spirited , and that not many would come . When we realised that there would be more people I told that to PERSON [ the First Deputy Director of ORG ] , but he told us that it was unacceptable . But it was clear that we could not do anything about it . We warned that there would be significantly more participants ... When we called Mr Deynichenko the following day he told [ us ] that he had had a map drawn up by ORG , and that PERSON could come during DATE to see it to clarify any issues . During DATE he postponed the meeting several times and then he was no longer picking up the phone . Therefore it was not possible to see or discuss the map .","[ Question to the witness ] Was the blocking of the park discussed at the working meeting , or later ?","- No , of course not . The event of DATE [ DATE ] had been organised so that the meeting was held at FAC . FAC is an area comprising the park and GPE embankment . It was supposed that people would ... turn [ like before ] towards the park . It was said that everything except the position of the stage , which would be moved forwards QUANTITY , would be the same as [ the last ] time , this was expressly spelled out . We were guided by it .","[ Question to the witness ] With whom was it discussed that the positioning of the security forces would be the same , [ give us ] the names ?","- This was spelled out at the big working meeting at the office of PERSON and in his presence . Since we realised that we had no time for an on - the - spot reconnaissance , Mr PERSON suggested that it would be like the last time as we had already walked along this route .","...","... PERSON called me several times and complained that they were having trouble bringing in the equipment ... that they could not find anyone in charge . Usually it is the police representative who is responsible for the event , separately for the march and for the meeting . When I crossed [ to ] the area allocated to the march , even before passing through the metal detectors , Colonel PERSON , who is traditionally in charge of the march , called me . We met . I gave him a written undertaking not to breach the law ... I told him that [ CARDINAL members of staff ] had been arrested [ at the stage area ] ... he promised to release them ...","[ Question to the witness ] What exactly did Colonel PERSON say ? The areas allocated to the march and to the meeting , were they determined in front of the camera ?","- No we did not discuss it ...","... at the turning [ from ORG bridge ] the procession came to a standstill ... some people sat on the ground ... those who sat down had justifiably asked for an expansion . I could not push through to get there . I learned that both [ ORG deputies ] were conducting negotiations ; I thought that it was probably going to settle this situation ... at a certain point PERSON called me and said that the police were demanding to close the event . I explained ... that if [ the police ] considered that there had been breaches , they had to give us time to remedy these defects , they could not end the event at once . I called PERSON ... and said that we were coming , [ that there was ] no need to end anything . Actually when I reached the corner the sit - in protest had already ended . The organisers who had participated in the sit - in protest and [ other ] people tried to approach the stage ...","...","The official website of the GPE [ GPE of the ] ORG published the map on which it was shown , just as agreed [ and ] just as on DATE , [ that ] the border [ of the meeting venue ] was outlined at the far end of the park and not the near one ... all agreements were breached .","[ Question to the witness ] During the working meeting on CARDINAL [ DATE ] or at the beginning of the [ march ] , did ORG warn you about any preparations for provocations , breach of public order , the campsite ?","- No , there were no such talks with the police .","...","[ Question to the witness ] If one has a badge , does it help in principle for talking to the police ?","- No , it does not make any difference . I personally called Mr PERSON and asked him to take measures . There was no communication with the police . The police officers did not pick up the phone calls . [ I ] did not manage to find anyone in charge of the police .","...","[ Question to the witness ] When , according to the rules , ... should the appointments be made to coordinate ... on the part of the organisers and the mayor \u2019s office ?","- The law does not expressly say [ when ] ... we received no documents from the [ GPE Government ] or ORG . We had no information as to who was responsible .","[ Question to the witness ] That means that at the beginning and during the event you did not know the names of those in charge ?","- Except for the officer in charge of the march , Colonel PERSON .","...","[ Question to the witness ] When the emergency occurred , who did you try calling at ORG command ... ?","- By then I was no longer trying to call anyone . I had heard that [ the CARDINAL ORG deputies ] were holding negotiations . I called PERSON to tell him that they were trying to close the meeting , but he told me that they were already heading to the stage , that they had ended the sit - in protest .","...","[ Question to the witness ] Why did the police announce that the event was banned ?","- I can not explain why such a decision was taken . They themselves impeded the conduct of the event and then they ended it by themselves ...","...","[ Question to the witness ] The reason why [ the event was ] closed was the sit - down protest ?","- As I understood from PERSON , yes .","[ Question to the witness ] How did the police make their demands ? Through loudspeakers ?","- I would not say that it was some sort of large - scale [ announcement ] . It was more through physical force . But some demands were made via megaphones , there were no other means . \u201d","On DATE Mr PERSON gave testimony as a witness in the first GPE case . He testified , in particular , as follows :","\u201c ... I was not one of the organisers of the event , but I was well informed about the way it had been authorised . On the website of ORG of the ORG a map was posted showing the location of the police [ cordon ] and the access points . The map was in the public domain and one could see that the park of FAC should have been opened . But it turned out to be closed . Moreover , we openly announced on the Internet , and it was reported in the media , that the route would be exactly the same as on DATE ... On DATE there was an authorised event ... all of [ GPE ] PERSON was open , no cordons on PERSON bridge . We easily turned into the square , there had been no scuffles ... we were sure that on DATE it would be exactly the same picture ... but the police had deceived us , blocked FAC , having left a very narrow passage for the demonstrators . We understood that it would be hard to pass through this bottleneck . We stopped , and to show the police that we were not going to storm the GPE and the [ ORG ] Kamennyy bridge we sat on the ground ... PERSON [ the State PERSON deputy ] , ... offered to be an intermediary in the negotiations between the protesters and the police ... we waited , all was peaceful ... he several times attempted to negotiate but this came to nothing . It became clear that ... the crowd were about to panic . We got up . And an awful scuffle began ... I was moving [ to the stage ] ... when I arrived there I saw a strange scene for an authorised event . The microphones had all been switched off , Mr PERSON and PERSON had been arrested just before me . The police never act like that at authorised events . I took a megaphone and addressed the people . I did not speak for long . Within TIME the police apprehended me . ...","[ Question to the witness ] Why , as you say , were the police particularly aggressive ?","- The demonstration took place DATE before PERSON inauguration . Naturally , the police had received very strict orders . Naturally , they were paranoid about \u2018 Maidan\u2019 . The fact that they had treacherously breached the agreement and closed off the square , this proves that there were political orders . I was particularly surprised at PERSON , the deputy mayor , with whom PERSON was negotiating . He is a reasonable man , but here he was like a zombie , he would not negotiate with PERSON PERSON . This was strange ... he did not want to talk like a human . ...","[ Question to the witness ] Did you know about the intention to set up tents , or about the breaking of the cordon ?","- No , I did not know about it then .","...","We demanded only that [ the authorities ] implement what had been agreed with [ the organisers ] . \u201d","On DATE PERSON , the head of the ORG \u2019s secretariat , gave testimony as a witness in the first PERSON case . She testified , in particular , as follows :","\u201c ... [ on DATE ] I was present as an observer ... unlike the usual events held at FAC , [ this time ] the park was cordoned off ... when we passed the metal detectors ... PERSON called and asked us to return urgently because ... at ORG bridge ... [ protesters ] had sat down on the ground ... [ The Ombudsman ] tried to persuade these people to stand up and to go and conduct the meeting ... At this time the [ second ] riot police cordon , which had stood between ORG bridge and ORG bridge , apparently approached the crowd , therefore the pressure built up from both sides ... I tried to leave the congested area ... showed my observer \u2019s badge ... but the riot police were not listening to me , laughed slightly and continued to press , there was no reaction on their part . This somewhat surprised me because we found ourselves there at the request of ORG of the Interior .","...","Usually there was no such multi - layered defence . PERSON bridge was blocked as if it was warfare , beyond what was required , as we thought ... among the protesters we saw several people in masks , and we reported that to the police , [ as ] this was unusual . The mood of ORG was also unusual , and so was the mood of the riot police . A police chief from ORG of the ORG , Mr GPE , told me , for example , that he could do nothing , that he was not in charge of the riot police and that the riot police reported to the [ federal ] police , and this was also unusual to us . I spoke to the deputy mayor ... and saw how upset he was , and his very presence there was also [ a rare occasion ] .","...","As I was later told by PERSON from ORG , [ the protesters had sat down on the ground ] because the passage had been narrowed down . The passage had indeed been narrowed down , I can confirm that , I saw that , the passage was much narrower than usual , and there were metal detectors which were not supposed to be there .","...","PERSON was in charge on behalf of ORG of the Interior \u2013 this is absolutely certain because he is always in charge of such events . His name , his function and his telephone number were written on our badges so that he could be contacted if any questions or doubts arose . As to the [ representative of the mayor \u2019s office ] , [ I am not sure ] .","[ Question to the witness ] You have explained about the cordon . Why was it not possible , for example , to move it [ back ] so as to prevent a scuffle ?","- Mr Biryukov is a very constructive person and he knows his job , but he could not explain to me why he could not influence the riot police .","... [ the deputy mayor also ] told me that he could not do anything , it was said to me personally . At this time the breaking of the cordon occurred . [ The ORG ] and our staff , together with a few other people , walked out through [ the gap ] ...","[ Question to the witness ] Did you receive any information while at the cordon ? Perhaps you heard from the police officers about the official closure of the public event ?","- No .","... After the cordon had already been broken , when the arrests had begun , [ then ] they were telling us through a megaphone to disperse , that the meeting was over , I heard it . \u201d","On DATE Mr N. Svanidze , a member of ORG of GPE , gave testimony as a witness in the first PERSON case . He testified , in particular , as follows :","\u201c ... [ on DATE ] I was present as an observer ... [ when ] everybody headed towards the narrow bottleneck at the embankment ... it created a jam . CARDINAL people sat on the ground , and the cordon moved towards them ... I asked \u2018 Why wo n\u2019t they open up the passage?\u2019 , but PERSON [ GPE ] would turn his face away and would not answer when told that the passage had to be opened . I understood that there was no point talking to him , he was not in command .","...","[ Question to the witness ] Did [ the ORG ] or anyone else attempt to negotiate the widening of the passage ?","- We could not do anything . We requested it , [ PERSON ] requested it and I think that [ the ORG ] did too , but nothing was done . The passage was not widened .","...","[ Question to the witness ] Were there any calls to move towards the ORG ?","- No .","...","[ Question to the witness ] During your presence at the event did you know on what territory the meeting had been authorised ?","- Yes , I was convinced that [ it was ] FAC and the park at FAC . \u201d","On DATE Mr Vasiliev , a staff member at the ORG \u2019s office , gave testimony as a witness in the first PERSON case . He testified , in particular , as follows :","\u201c ... [ on DATE ] I was present as an observer ... on DATE we gathered at the press centre of ORG , we were given maps , instructions on how to behave , the list of public observers ...","... the ORG asked [ the protesters sitting on the ground ] why they were not going to the meeting venue . I could not hear the answer , they got up and headed on , after that , congestion occurred ... [ the ORG ] began looking for the officer responsible for the cordon . There was [ the chief press officer ] PERSON there , [ the ORG ] told him : \u2018 let \u2019s move the cordon back so that people can ORG [ but ] PERSON told him that it was outside his powers . [ The ORG ] asked in whose powers it was ; he replied \u2018 I do n\u2019t ORG . At that moment the police began splitting the crowd ... \u201d","On DATE the ORG of GPE delivered a judgment in the first PERSON case . It found CARDINAL individuals guilty of participation in mass disorder and of violent acts against police officers during the public assembly on DATE . They received prison sentences of CARDINAL ; CARDINAL of them was released on parole . CARDINAL co - defendants had previously been pardoned under LAW and a fourth had his case disjoined from the main proceedings .","On DATE the LOC branch of ORG dismissed CARDINAL complaints by individuals who had sustained injuries on DATE , allegedly through the excessive use of force by the police . The complaints had originally been a part of the criminal investigation file concerning the mass disorder , but were subsequently disjoined from it . During the investigation of the mass disorder case , confrontations were conducted between those who had lodged complaints ( in the capacity of the accused in the criminal case ) and the police officers accused of violence ( in the capacity of victims in the criminal case ) . The relevant part of the decision read as follows :","\u201c In suppressing attempts to break the police cordon , the police officers acted in coordination and concert , without applying physical force or special means of restraint ; however , the work of the officers charged with apprehending offenders did involve physical force and special means of restraint , in so far as necessary [ to restrain ] those resisting .","After the crowd of protesters had calmed down and thinned out a little , the police officers began to tighten the cordon , [ and ] by doing so encouraged the citizens to proceed to the stage . At the same time many participants in the meeting who did not want to go there began to return to ORG Street in GPE . The police also accompanied them .","Later , in the area of ORG and at the corner of the park [ at FAC ] confrontations took place between the provocateurs , the persons calling for defiance and the persons displaying such defiance . During the apprehension of those persons force was used by the police because of their resistance , and in a number of cases , special means of restraint were also used for apprehending the most active instigators .","...","Because of such a turn of events the police officers justifiably used physical force to apprehend the participants in the mass disorder , and also special means of restraint in relation to some of them who attempted to resist . \u201d","On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , having slightly reduced the prison sentences for CARDINAL of the defendants .","On DATE ORG found PERSON and PERSON ORG guilty of organising mass disorder on DATE . The judgment contained the following findings :","\u201c The witness Mr PERSON testified that on CARDINAL DATE he had taken part in a working meeting at ORG ... as a follow - up to the meeting a draft security plan was prepared , and all necessary agreements were reached with the organisers concerning the order of the march and meeting , the movement of the column , the stage set - up , access to the meeting venue , barriers and the exit from the stage ; the [ organisers ] had agreed on that . The question of using the park at FAC was not raised because the declared number of participants was CARDINAL , whereas over CARDINAL people could be accommodated in the open area of the square and the embankment , and [ the organisers ] had known that in advance . It had been discussed with them how the cordon would be placed from ORG bridge to the park of FAC , so the organisers knew about the cordon in advance . The placement of the cordon was indicated in the [ security plan ] . This document was for internal use and access to it was only given to the police ; the location of the forces could be changed in an emergency by the operational headquarters . The organisers did not insist on an on - the - spot visit ; such visits are held at the initiative of the organisers , which had not been requested because they had known the route ... and the meeting venue ... [ The witness Mr GPE ] had known that at the beginning of the march the event organisers , including PERSON , had discussed between them that they were not going to turn towards the meeting venue but would stop and try to break the cordon to proceed to ORG bridge .","...","The witness ORG testified that PERSON had known the route of the march and had not raised a question about opening up the park at FAC . Moreover , the park was a nature reserve with narrow lanes ... the park had been opened up previously [ for a public event ] , as an exception , on only one occasion , on DATE , but then it was DATE , it was snowing and the declared number of participants had significantly exceeded CARDINAL . No such exception was made for DATE .","... according to the statement of ORG , ... the meeting venue at GPE embankment could accommodate CARDINAL people ...","The fact that no map of the assembly route or the placement of the police had been produced at the working meeting of CARDINAL DATE , that these questions had not been expressly discussed , ... that the event organisers present at the working meeting had not been shown any maps , was confirmed by them .","... the court concludes that no official map had been adopted with the organisers and , in the court \u2019s opinion , [ the published map ] had been based on PERSON own interview with journalists ...","Therefore the map presented by the defence has no official character , its provenance is unknown and therefore unreliable and it does not reflect the true route of the demonstration and the placement of the police forces .","... the witness PERSON ... testified that on CARDINAL DATE he received the [ security plan ] ... Before the start of the march he personally met the event organisers PERSON , PERSON [ and ] Mr PERSON and in the presence of the press and with the use of video recordings explained to them the order of the meeting and the march , warned against the breach of public order during the conduct of the event ; and stressed the need to inform him personally about any possible provocations by calling the telephone number known to the organisers . He asked PERSON about the intention to proceed towards the FAC and to cause mass disorder because the police had received information about it from undercover sources ; PERSON had assured him that there would be no breaches of order at the event and that they had no intention to move towards the FAC ... He ( PERSON ) arrived at FAC after the mass disorder had already begun ... After the mass disorder began he tried calling PERSON ORG on the phone but there was no reply . PERSON did not call him ... Other event organisers had not asked him to move the cordon . Given the circumstances , PERSON , at his request , announced the end of the meeting , and the police opened additional exits for those willing to leave . In addition to that , the police repeated through a loudspeaker the announcement about the end of the meeting ...","... the witness Mr Zdorenko ... testified that ... following information received [ from undercover sources ] about the possible setting up of a camp site , at TIME on CARDINAL DATE he arrived at FAC and organised a search of the area including the park . The park was cordoned off and guarded ... if necessary , at the decision of the operational headquarters , the venue allocated for the meeting could be significantly extended at the expense of the park [ at FAC ] . However , there was no need for that given that there were CARDINAL persons on FAC ... [ others being stopped at ] FAC .","...","The witness PERSON testified that ... while the stage was being set up he had seen an unknown man smuggling CARDINAL camping tents in rubbish bins .","...","The witness PERSON testified that ... before the beginning of the march , police information came through from undercover sources that the event organisers intended to encircle the FAC holding hands to prevent the inauguration of the NORP President .","The witness PERSON testified that ... he had been [ officially ] filming ... while Police Officer PERSON ... explained the order ... and warned the organisers ... and asked PERSON ORG to inform him of any possible provocations . Mr PERSON stated that they would act lawfully and that he had requested the police to stop any unwanted persons from joining the public event ...","The witness PERSON testified that on DATE ... at TIME Mr Udaltsov , while on the way to the stage , told people around him that they were going to set up a campsite ...","... the witness PERSON testified that ... Police Officer PERSON had asked her and [ the Ombudsman ] to come to PERSON bridge where some of the protesters , including Mr PERSON and PERSON , had not turned right towards the stage but had gone straight to the cordon , where they had begun a sit - in protest on the pretext that access to the park of FAC had been closed and cordoned off ... While [ the Ombudsman ] was talking to those sitting on the ground they remained silent and did not reply but would not stand up .","The witness Mr PERSON testified that ... after the first confrontations between the protesters and the police had begun , the latter announced through a loudspeaker that the meeting was cancelled and invited the citizens to leave .","The witness Mr Ponomarev testified that ... the police cordon had been placed differently from [ the cordon placed for ] a similar march on DATE ... he proposed to PERSON that the cordon be pushed back so that the police would go back a few steps and widen access to FAC , and the latter replied that he would figure it out when they reached the cordon ... he knew that PERSON was negotiating with the police about moving the cordon , which had now been reinforced by the riot police .","... the witnesses PERSON and PERSON testified that ... during the steering committee meeting the question of setting up tents during the public event had not been discussed ... while [ PERSON ] and [ Mr PERSON ] were negotiating with the police ... the crowd built up [ and ] suddenly the police began moving forward , the protesters resisted and the cordon broke ...","The witness PERSON [ deputy of ORG ] testified that ... at the request of the organisers , who had told him that they would not go anywhere and would remain sitting until the police moved the cordon back and opened up access to the park at FAC , he had taken part in the negotiations with the police on that matter . He had reached an agreement with the officers of ORG of the ORG that the cordon would be moved back , but the organisers who had filed the notice [ of the event ] should have signed the necessary documents . However , those who had called for a sit - in , including PERSON , refused [ to stand up ] to go to the offices of ORG of the ORG to sign the necessary documents , although he ( Mr PERSON ) had proposed several times that they should do so ...","... the witness Mr D. Gudkov [ deputy of ORG ] testified that ... together with Mr PERSON he had conducted negotiations with the police ... an agreement had been reached that the cordon at ORG would be moved back and the access to the park would be opened up , but at that point some young men in hoodies among the protesters began first to push the citizens onto the cordon provoking the [ same ] response , after that the cordon was broken , the [ police ] began the arrests and mass disorder ensued .","...","... the court [ rejects ] the testimonies to the effect that it was the police who had begun moving towards the protesters who were peacefully sitting on the ground and thus provoked the breaking of the cordon ... [ and finds ] that it was the protesters , and not the police ... who began pushing against the cordon , causing the crowd to panic , which eventually led to the breaking of the cordon and the ensuing mass disorder .","...","The court takes into account the testimony of Mr NORP that ... at QUANTITY , who was responsible for the stage , informed him about the demand of the police that she announce , as an event organiser , that it was terminated . He passed this information on to PERSON by phone , [ and he ] replied that they were standing up and heading towards the stage ... he knew that on DATE [ some ] citizens had brought several tents to FAC , but Mr PERSON had not informed him about the need to put up tents during the public event .","...","The court takes into account the testimony of PERSON ... , one of the [ formal ] event organisers ... , that nobody had informed him about the need to put up tents during the public event .","...","[ The court examined ] the video recording ... of the conversation between PERSON PERSON and PERSON during which the latter assured PERSON that they would conduct the event in accordance with the authorisation , he would not call on people to stay in FAC and if problems occurred he would maintain contact with the police .","...","... [ the court examined another video recording ] in which PERSON and PERSON ORG discussed the arrangements . PERSON showed PERSON where the metal detectors would be placed ; after that they agreed to meet at TIME ... and exchanged telephone numbers ...","...","According to [ expert witnesses PERSON and PERSON ] , the borders of FAC in GPE are delimited by ORG , FAC , GPE embankment and Faleyevskiy passage , and the [ park ] forms a part of FAC . During public events at FAC the park is always cordoned off and is not used for the passage of citizens .","These testimonies are fully corroborated by the reply of the Head of LOC of GPE of DATE and the map indicating the borders of FAC .","...","[ The court finds ] that the place of the sit - in ... was outside the venue approved by the GPE authorities for the public event ...","...","The organisation of mass disorder may take the form of incitement and controlling the crowd \u2019s actions , directing it to act in breach of the law , or putting forward various demands to the LOC representatives . This activity may take different forms , in particular the planning and preparation of such actions , the selection of groups of people to provoke and fuel mass disorder , incitement to commit it , by filing petitions and creating slogans , announcing calls and appeals capable of electrifying the crowd and causing it to feel appalled , influencing people \u2019s attitudes by disseminating leaflets , using the mass media , meetings and various forms of agitation , in developing a plan of crowd activity taking into account people \u2019s moods and accumulated grievances , or guiding the crowd directly to commit mass disorder .","... this offence is considered accomplished as soon as CARDINAL of the actions enumerated under LAW has been carried out ...","... the criminal offence of organisation of mass disorder is considered accomplished when organisational activity has been carried out and does not depend on the occurrence or non - occurrence of harmful consequences .","...","There are no grounds to consider the closure of access to the park of FAC and the placement of a guiding police cordon at the foot of FAC bridge to be a provocation ... since it was only to indicate the direction and it did not obstruct access to the meeting venue at FAC .","... the reinforcement of the cordon ... was necessary in the circumstances ... to prevent it from breaking ... but the police [ cordon ] did not advance towards the protesters .","It is therefore fully proven that the mass disorder organised by PERSON [ and others ] ... led to the destabilisation of public order and peace in a public place during the conduct of a public event , put a large number of people in danger , including those who had come to fulfil their constitutional right to congregate in peaceful marches and meetings , and led to considerable psychological tension in the vicinity of FAC in GPE , accompanied by violence against the police ... and the destruction of property ... \u201d","ORG sentenced Mr Udaltsov and PERSON PERSON to CARDINAL and a half years\u2019 imprisonment . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of DATE , with a number of amendments .","On DATE the ORG of GPE examined another \u201c GPE \u201d case and found CARDINAL individuals guilty of participating in mass disorder and committing violent acts against police officers during the demonstration on DATE . They received prison sentences of CARDINAL ; CARDINAL of them was released on parole . That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .","On DATE the applicant arrived at FAC at TIME to take part in the meeting . He stood in front of the stage on GPE embankment , within the area designated as the meeting venue .","According to the applicant , TIME the area around him remained peaceful , although there was general confusion . He claimed that he had not heard any announcement about the termination of the meeting ; he had heard the police orders made through a megaphone to disperse , but in the general commotion he was unable to leave immediately and remained within the authorised meeting area until TIME , when he was arbitrarily arrested by the police dispersing the demonstration . The applicant denied that he had received any warning or orders before being arrested . The police apprehended him and took him to a police van , where he waited for TIME before it left FAC for the police station . According to the applicant , there was no traffic at FAC at the time of his arrest ; it was still suspended .","DATE . According to the Government , the applicant was arrested at TIME at FAC because he was obstructing the traffic and had disregarded the police order to move away .","At TIME the applicant was taken to the LOC police station in GPE . At the police station an on - duty officer drew up a statement on an administrative offence ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u043e\u043a\u043e\u043b \u043e\u0431 \u0430\u0434\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u043c \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e\u043d\u0430\u0440\u0443\u0448\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0438 ) on the basis of a report ( \u0440\u0430\u043f\u043e\u0440\u0442 ) by Police Officer Y. , who had allegedly arrested the applicant . Y. \u2019s report contained the following handwritten statement :","\u201c I [ Y. ] report that on DATE at TIME , at FAC , together with Police Lieutenant [ A. ] , I arrested PERSON . \u201d","The rest of the report was a printed template stating as follows :","\u201c ... who , acting in a group of citizens , took part in an authorised meeting , went out onto the road and thus obstructed the traffic . [ He ] did not react to the multiple demands of the police to vacate the road ... , thereby disobeying a lawful order of the police , who were fulfilling their service duty of maintaining public order and ensuring safety . He thereby committed an administrative offence under LAW . \u201d","The statement on the administrative offence contained an identical text , but indicated that the applicant had been arrested at TIME The applicant was charged with obstructing traffic and disobeying lawful police orders , an offence under LAW . His administrative detention was ordered with reference to LAW ( \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0442\u043e\u043a\u043e\u043b \u043e\u0431 \u0430\u0434\u043c\u0438\u043d\u0438\u0441\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u043c \u0437\u0430\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0436\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0438 ) . The \u201c reasons \u201d section of the order remained blank .","At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken to court , but his case was not examined . After having spent DATE in a transit van without food or drink , at TIME he was taken back to the cell at the LOC police station . A new order for the applicant \u2019s administrative detention was issued , indicating that he had been detained \u201c for the purpose of drawing up the administrative material \u201d .","At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was brought before the Justice of the FAC of circuit no . CARDINAL of LOC , who examined the charges . The applicant requested that the case be adjourned on the grounds that he was unfit to stand trial after the detention ; he also requested that the hearing be opened to the public and that QUANTITY police officers be examined as witnesses . Those requests were rejected in order to expedite the proceedings . A further request for the examination of several eyewitnesses was partly refused and partly granted . CARDINAL witnesses for the defence were examined .","On the basis of the report written by Police Officer Y. , the court established that at TIME on DATE the applicant had been walking along the road at FAC and obstructing the traffic , and that he had then disobeyed lawful police orders to vacate the venue . The Justice of the Peace rejected as unreliable two eyewitnesses\u2019 testimonies to the effect that the police had not given the applicant any orders or warnings before arresting him . The applicant was found guilty of disobeying lawful police orders , and was sentenced under LAW to CARDINAL days\u2019 administrative detention .","On CARDINAL DATE the ORG of GPE examined an appeal lodged by the applicant . At the applicant \u2019s request the court examined PERSON as a witness . She testified that at TIME on DATE she had been looking for her son when she saw the applicant in a police van and spoke to him . She also testified that at TIME she had been at FAC ; the site had been fully cordoned off and the traffic had not resumed . The court rejected the applicant \u2019s argument that the police report and the police statement were inconsistent as regards the time of his arrest and found that the correct interpretation of those documents was that the time of arrest had been TIME and the detention at the police station TIME The court dismissed the video recording submitted by the applicant on the grounds that it did not contain the date and the time of the incident , but found that the applicant \u2019s guilt had been proved by other evidence . It upheld the first - instance judgment .","DATE . On DATE the Deputy President of ORG examined the applicant \u2019s administrative case in supervisory - review proceedings and upheld the earlier judicial decisions ."],"violated_articles":["11","5","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1","5-1","6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179408","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u00c7\u00d6LGE\u00c7EN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general} (Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They lived in Hakkari ( the first applicant ) , PERSON ( the second applicant ) , GPE ( the third , fourth , fifth and eighth applicants ) , ORG ( the sixth applicant ) and GPE ( the seventh applicant ) at the time their applications were lodged with the ORG .","The applicants , who are of NORP ethnic origin , were students at various faculties attached to ORG ( \u201c the University \u201d ) at the time of the events . In DATE they petitioned the ORG Rector \u2019s office requesting that NORP language classes be introduced as an optional module .","Around the same time similar petitions were submitted by students studying at various universities in GPE .","Upon receipt of these petitions a disciplinary investigation was initiated by ORG into the applicants\u2019 actions .","On DATE , relying either on regulation CARDINAL ) or on regulation CARDINAL(e ) of LAW , ORG , after having heard defence submissions from some of the applicants , either suspended them from ORG CARDINAL semesters ( Mr GPE and Mr PERSON ) or expelled them from ORG , Mr Ay , Mr U\u00e7ak and PERSON ) .","The applicants claim that following this disciplinary sanction they were denied access to ORG facilities , they were branded as terrorists by ORG authorities , their names were put on notice boards and they were shunned by their friends and other students . Some of the applicants also alleged that they were subject to criminal investigations .","The applicants , upon notification of the disciplinary sanctions in question , lodged separate actions with ORG , requesting a stay of execution of the disciplinary decisions , with a view to their subsequent annulment .","On DATE and on DATE ( in respect of the fifth applicant ) ORG suspended the execution of the applicants\u2019 disciplinary sanctions on the grounds that , inter alia , the sanctions in question were unlawful and that , therefore , their application would cause irreparable damage to the applicants . It appears that the objections of the University to some of these decisions were also dismissed by the court on DATE .","On DATE , following the notification of the aforementioned decisions to the University , the applicants , save for Mr \u00c7al\u0131\u015fkan , were all re - enrolled in their respective faculties . As a result they were allowed to take part in the repeat exams held on DATE . Mr \u00c7al\u0131\u015fkan was reenrolled on DATE and he was allowed to sit his exams , upon his request , in the DATE spring midterm period .","On DATE and DATE ORG examined the merits of the cases and annulled the disciplinary sanctions against the applicants on the ground that they were unlawful . In its decisions , the court noted , inter alia , that there was nothing in the content of the petitions or in the manner in which they were submitted to warrant disciplinary sanctions .","The University unsuccessfully challenged these decisions before ORG .","In DATE the applicants each lodged an action for compensation with ORG pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL ) . In their petitions they maintained that they had sustained psychological damage as a result of the disciplinary punishment imposed on them for having used their democratic right of petition , and requested nonpecuniary damages .","DATE and DATE ORG awarded compensation to the applicants on the grounds that they had been denied their right to education and that their honour and dignity had been adversely affected by the accusations against them .","DATE ORG quashed the judgments of the first - instance court and dismissed the actions . In its decisions the court held , inter alia , that following the stay of execution of the disciplinary sanctions the University administration had permitted the students to take repeat exams in DATE , compensating for the exams which they had been unable to sit in DATE and that therefore the conditions for awarding non - pecuniary damage had not been met .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the office of the PERSON of ORG submitted the following information to the Government for the purposes of the present proceedings :","\u2013 Mr PERSON , who was studying to become a librarian , graduated on DATE ;","\u2013 Mr PERSON , who was studying LANGUAGE language and literature , graduated on DATE ;","\u2013 Mr PERSON , who was studying to become a teacher of NORP language , graduated on DATE ;","\u2013 Mr PERSON , who was studying to become a primary school teacher , graduated on DATE ;","\u2013 Mr Mustafa \u00c7al\u0131\u015fkan , who was studying to become a primary school mathematics teacher , graduated on DATE ;","\u2013 Mr M\u00fcn\u00fcr Ay , who was studying geography , failed to finish his studies within the required time - limit and he was removed from the University register on DATE ;","\u2013 Ms Ruken Buket I\u015f\u0131k , who was studying LANGUAGE language and literature , graduated on DATE ;","\u2013 Mr PERSON , who was studying NORP language and literature , graduated on DATE .","According to the PERSON of the Faculty of Literature of ORG , PERSON and PERSON graduated from the GPE within the minimum time allowed DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-2"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-170343","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KACPER NOWAKOWSKI v. POLAND","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is deaf and mute . He uses sign language to communicate with other people .","The applicant and ORG married on DATE . ORG suffers from a hearing impairment and has had a hearing implant fitted . She communicates both orally and through sign language .","The son ( ORG ) of the applicant and ORG was born on DATE . He also suffers from a hearing impairment . In DATE the applicant and his wife separated . On DATE ORG filed a petition for divorce .","In the course of the divorce proceedings , on DATE ORG issued an interim decision on the applicant \u2019s contact with his son . Under that decision , the applicant could visit his son DATE TIME and every DATE TIME at the child \u2019s place of residence and without the presence of any third parties .","The court ordered experts from the Bia\u0142ystok office of ORG ( Rodzinny ORG Diagnostyczno - PERSON \u201c the RODK \u201d ) to prepare an opinion on the suitable form and frequency of the applicant \u2019s contact with his son . In the course of his interview with the experts , the applicant underlined his commitment to maintaining contact with the child , without giving any details . The experts established that the applicant had not been visiting his son as frequently as he was allowed under the interim decision of DATE . The last contact had occurred on CARDINAL DATE .","In their opinion , dated DATE , the experts underlined that the emotional ties between the mother and the child were strong and natural . However , the ties between the applicant and his son were weak and superficial . In the view of the experts , taking into account the necessity to ensure the proper development of the child , contact between the applicant and the child should take place CARDINAL times a month and TIME on each occasion .","On DATE ORG granted a decree of divorce without ascribing blame for the breakdown of the marriage . In its judgment the court also ruled that parental authority should be exercised by both parents and that the child should reside with the mother . It further ruled that the applicant had a right to see his son on DATE from TIME and on DATE from TIME until TIME Contact should take place at the mother \u2019s home in her discreet presence but in the absence of third parties . The applicant was further ordered to pay child maintenance .","It appears that neither of the parties appealed against the judgment , which consequently became final on DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG for a change to his contact arrangements . He asked the court to be allowed to have contact with his son on every second and DATE of DATE from TIME on DATE until TIME on DATE , away from the mother \u2019s home . He also asked to be allowed to see his son for some time over the DATE and GPE periods and to spend with him DATE and CARDINAL of the DATE . The applicant argued that the child had already reached the age of DATE and needed increased contact with his father in order to strengthen their ties .","The applicant admitted that after the divorce he had not seen his son for DATE on account of his health problems . He submitted that his son was happy to spend time with him and to play with him . The applicant asserted that he had been able to provide appropriate care to his son and that in the event of need he could count on the support of his family . It was the mother of the child who had obstructed his contact with the child and made the atmosphere unfriendly . For example , she refused to pass on oral messages from their son to the applicant . The mother did not inform him about important decisions concerning the child and tried to marginalise him .","The mother submitted that the applicant had remained passive during his meeting with ORG and that she had not obstructed those meetings . In her view , ORG did not have any emotional ties with his father and did not need contact with him . Further , the applicant would be unable to properly care for ORG The mother lived together with her parents and her son .","On DATE a court guardian submitted a report to the court . According to that report , the applicant had not been visiting his son regularly on account of his being treated for depression and other illnesses . He had not seen his son since DATE . However , the mother of the applicant had been visiting her grandson regularly .","On DATE the applicant applied for an interim decision and asked for the right to have contact with his son during DATE of the LOC holidays , from TIME , and to take him away from his place of residence . On DATE ORG issued an interim decision allowing the applicant to visit his son during DATE of the LOC holidays from TIME at the child \u2019s place of residence .","On DATE the RODK issued an opinion commissioned by ORG . It had been prepared by a psychologist , an education specialist and a psychiatrist who had met the parents and the child and had been assisted by an interpreter of sign language . The experts stated that emotional ties between the mother and the child were strong \u2013 indeed , the mother had a tendency to be overprotective . The child \u2019s ties with the father were superficial and weak . The child recognised the applicant as his father but did not consider him a part of his family . The father \u2019s ties with the child were positive , but founded on limited experience and high expectations . These ties were also affected by the communication difficulties between them . The experts further noted that the conflict between the parents impeded their cooperation with regard to the child . They suggested that the parents be counselled by a specialist with a view to their being taught how to accept each other as a parent .","The experts opined that an increase in contact , as requested by the applicant , was not advisable , on account of the limited level of communication between him and the child , the child \u2019s age and history , and the strength of the child \u2019s ties with the mother and maternal grandparents . They recommended , however , that contact should also take place outside the mother \u2019s home ( at playgrounds , during walks ) but in her presence . The mother should cooperate with the father and support him in making his contact with the child more diverse . The experts noted that the ability of the applicant to care independently for his son was considerably limited . In their view , the interests of the child required that the parents cooperate with each other , despite the communication problems . The experts added that the mother should be more proactive in this regard but that the father should not contest the mother \u2019s decisions concerning the child .","NORP The applicant contested the experts\u2019 findings and alleged that the opinion should have been prepared with the assistance of a specialist in deaf education and a psychologist specialising in the needs of deaf people . He claimed that their finding that contact could not take place without the presence of the mother on account of his ( that is to say the applicant \u2019s ) disability amounted to discrimination . The experts had also disregarded the possibility of the paternal grandmother rendering assistance and of ordering the parents to undergo family therapy .","The District Court heard evidence from the RODK experts . The psychologist , PERSON , admitted that the RODK did not have specialised methods of examining deaf people but stated that such methods were not necessary in respect of determining the advisability of maintaining contact . She noted that the child was well - developed and rehabilitated ( zrehabilitowanym ) . The main obstacle in respect of contact was the conflict between the parents and the lack of cooperation between them . Such circumstances created a particular difficulty in the case of a child with a hearing impairment . The psychologist observed that the applicant \u2019s disability also constituted an objective obstacle . In her opinion , contact should take place CARDINAL times a month .","The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s request for a second expert opinion since the earlier opinion was complete and comprehensive .","NORP The court also heard the parties and witnesses ( family members ) . It further took into account information submitted by a court guardian after visiting the applicant \u2019s and the mother \u2019s respective homes , together with relevant documentary evidence .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s application for a change to the contact arrangements .","The court established that the parents of ORG remained in conflict and could not reach an agreement regarding the child \u2019s contact with the father . Since DATE the child had attended a nursery school with an integration unit , where he had remained under the supervision of a specialist in deaf education , a speech therapist and a psychologist . He suffered from a hearing impairment and used a hearing aid . The child required specialised medical care and followed a rehabilitation programme . He was certified as having a second - degree disability .","Having regard to all the evidence , and in particular the expert opinion , the court found that the requested change to the contact arrangements would not be in the child \u2019s best interests . It was true that the first decision in respect of contact had been given DATE previously , when ORG had been a baby and when the presence of his mother during contact had been justified by the child \u2019s age . However , the age of the child was not the only element to consider . Other relevant elements were the specifics of the child \u2019s development , his state of health , his disability , the need for his permanent medical rehabilitation and his heavy dependence on his mother and maternal grandparents . The court found that these elements still justified the discreet presence of the mother and at her home during the applicant \u2019s contact visits . It noted that the requested change to the contact arrangements would be too far - reaching , since the applicant wanted to see his son more often , outside ORG \u2019s place of residence and without the mother being present . The court observed that except for DATE of the child \u2019s life the applicant had not lived with him or cared for him . The applicant admitted that he had not always kept to scheduled visits . Sometimes the reasons for this had been beyond his control ( health problems or TIME school commitments ) and sometimes contact had been obstructed by the mother . However , in consequence , his limited and irregular involvement in the child \u2019s life had adversely influenced the emotional ties between the father and the son .","The court underlined that the applicant had not been fully availing himself of his rights to contact his son , as granted by the divorce judgment . Nonetheless , once their ties were strengthened and the applicant made full use of the rights already granted to him , it would be possible to extend contact .","The court also found that it could not disregard the communication problems between the applicant and his son . It did not agree with the applicant that this constituted a discriminatory measure against him ; rather , it constituted an objective and independent factor that hampered his communication with the child . The applicant , irrespective of his own and his son \u2019s disability , had an incontestable right to contact with his son . However , the communication problem should be taken into account in regulating the contact arrangements so they would remain as favourable as possible to the child . The court noted that the applicant used mostly sign language ( and articulated a few single words ) , while the child communicated only orally , so communication difficulties naturally arose . For this reason , it was still justifiable that the mother , who was able both to use sign language and communicate orally , should be present during the applicant \u2019s visits . The mother \u2019s presence , which provided the child with a sense of security , could also help him to relax during his meetings with the father . The court disagreed with the applicant that the paternal grandmother could ensure proper communication between him and his son . The issue was not only about interpreting between sign language and speech but also about ensuring security and stability , which could only be provided by the mother . The applicant \u2019s son did not know his paternal grandmother well and so her presence would not compensate for the absence of his mother .","The court underlined that the applicant \u2019s contact with his son should first and foremost ensure the security and stability of the child . The stress to which he would be exposed in the event of a change to his current environment and in the absence of persons with whom he usually spent his time would certainly jeopardise the child \u2019s well - being and damage his sense of security . The court dismissed the applicant \u2019s argument that the child spent most of DATE in a nursery school ( that is to say outside his home and without his mother ) , so he could easily stay at the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s home . It noted that the mother had been preparing her son for nursery school over a long period of time and had at first attended the school with him for short periods of time so he could become familiar with the place .","The court observed that the child \u2019s paternal grandmother had not visited her grandson for some time and was therefore not a person with whom the child was familiar or who could assist as an interpreter between the applicant and his son .","The fact that the child had been paying short unsupervised visits to a neighbour of the mother \u2019s family did not support the applicant \u2019s argument either . The court noted that the neighbour was a familiar person to the child , since he had been regularly visiting the child \u2019s family . In addition , the unsupervised visits to the neighbour \u2019s flat did not last longer than TIME .","Lastly , the court did not consider it necessary to impose an obligation on the parents to undergo family therapy . It noted that the experts had opined that both parents required contact with a specialist who would assist them in mutually accepting each other as a parent . However , the only suitable place for such therapy for persons with impaired hearing was the LOC of a foundation ( PERSON ) attached to the nursery school attended by the child . The mother stated that she already attended a parent support group there and the applicant declared that he could do the same . In these circumstances , the court found that there was no need for its intervention .","The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . He argued that ORG had failed to respect the principle of non - discrimination against deaf and mute persons by dismissing his application for unsupervised contact with his son . He invoked LAW . The applicant further argued that the lower court had erred in holding that the child \u2019s interests did not justify a change to contact arrangements . The expert opinion indicated that the presence of the mother during contact created tensions between the parents and that this was unfavourable to the child . In addition , according to some witnesses , the contact took place in the presence of third parties .","The applicant contested the lower court \u2019s finding that the child \u2019s paternal grandmother was a stranger to him ; he argued that the child would not be exposed to stress in the event of contact without the mother \u2019s presence and outside her home in view of the fact that the child attended nursery school and was cared by a neighbour a few times a week . Lastly , the applicant contested the refusal to order a supplementary expert opinion .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It found that the lower \u2019s court assessment of the evidence had been correct and that the refusal to order a supplementary expert opinion had been justified .","ORG noted that the contact arrangements could be amended if the interests of the child so required ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) . It concurred with the lower court that there was no justification for a change to the existing arrangements since the applicant already had the possibility of regular contact with his son and if used this would enable the parties to strengthen their ties . The findings of the RODK experts clearly supported the conclusion that no change was necessary . ORG also agreed that the existing conflict between the parents would certainly prevent the applicant from benefitting from increased contact . It stressed that the priority of the court in such cases was to take into account the interests of the child , not the interests of either of his or her parents .","It further underlined that the presence of the mother during visits was necessary in order to ensure the child \u2019s sense of security since the mother was the primary carer , with strong ties to the child . The paternal grandmother could not provide the same sense of security . In addition , the mother \u2019s presence would solve the problem of communication between the applicant and the child . The ORG did not agree with the applicant that the lower court \u2019s taking into account the issue of communication barrier had amounted to discrimination against him . The communication barrier was a real obstacle to the forging of ties between the applicant and his son and it could not be disregarded , given that the interests of the child were of primary consideration , overriding the individual interests of the parents . ORG stressed that this constituted an objective obstacle , not a form of discrimination against the applicant .","In DATE ORG brought an action in ORG for an order limiting the scope of the applicant \u2019s parental authority over ORG to those issues that concerned their son \u2019s education . She submitted that the applicant had refused to give his consent to an identity document being issued for the child .","NORP In DATE the applicant brought a counteraction seeking an order to compel ORG to undergo family therapy . He argued that ORG was acting to the child \u2019s detriment by refusing to cooperate with the applicant in matters concerning the child . She also humiliated and insulted the applicant in the child \u2019s presence and undermined his authority .","On DATE ORG restricted the applicant \u2019s parental authority over ORG to issues concerning his education . It dismissed the applicant \u2019s counteraction .","The court relied on the opinion prepared by the experts of the RODK for the purposes of the proceedings . The experts concluded that the joint exercise of parental authority was practically impossible . The reason for this was the permanent conflict between the parents , as well as the communication difficulties . The experts recommended that both parents undergo therapy with a view to developing their parenting skills . They further pointed out that that the possibility of communication between the applicant and his son was significantly restricted because of the different method that each used to communicate . In the view of the experts , the mother of the child properly exercised her parental authority , in particular with respect to the child \u2019s needs , the necessity of treatment , and the development of the child \u2019s social skills .","Having regard to the evidence , the court found that it was justifiable to restrict the applicant \u2019s parental authority and limit it only to matters concerning the child \u2019s education . Its decision was motivated by the lack of agreement between the parents in respect of the exercise of parental authority . The applicant was not to be solely blamed for this situation . Furthermore , communication with the applicant was limited on account of his disability ; however , the mother had been aware of this fact since the beginning of their relationship . The court further took into account the fact that the child was being raised by the mother , the parents lived apart , and there was a communication barrier between the applicant and the child . This was of importance in respect of matters concerning the child \u2019s health .","The court underlined that the fact that communication between the applicant and his son was limited did not mean that the applicant was a bad father . The court found that it was not necessary to give the applicant the possibility to have a say in matters concerning the child \u2019s medical treatment since these were sometimes urgent \u2013 therefore , it was the mother , with whom the child lived , who should decide on them .","With regard to the applicant \u2019s request for the mother to be obliged to undergo family therapy , the court did not find this justified . It took into account the fact that the mother had already been attending a support group and found no reasons to formally oblige her to undergo therapy . It was established that the mother had independently taken important decisions concerning the child of which she had not informed the applicant and that she was overprotective . Nonetheless , the court found that she properly exercised her parental authority and that the child \u2019s welfare was not endangered .","The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s appeal . It underlined that the court of first instance had comprehensively assessed the evidence in the case . In the view of ORG , the limitation of the applicant \u2019s parental authority was in the interests of the child . It ruled that the communication barrier constituted an objective obstacle to relations between the applicant and his son and that taking it into account could not be considered to constitute a form of discrimination against the applicant ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-179863","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF STROKOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention ."],"violated_articles":["13","3","5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3","5-4"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-152263","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"BGR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"MIHAYLOVA v. BULGARIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Zdravka Kalaydjieva","text":["NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agents , first PERSON , and then PERSON and Ms A. PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","The applicant \u2019s grandfather owned several plots of agricultural land in the area surrounding GPE measuring QUANTITY in total , which were expropriated DATE for urban development .","Following the enactment of restitution legislation in GPE in DATE , on DATE the applicant \u2019s father applied to have the expropriation revoked . The request , initially addressed to the local agricultural land commission , was forwarded to the mayor of GPE on DATE , as it was decided that the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) applied to the case . After the time - limit for assessing whether the land should be returned elapsed without any decision being made , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s father sought judicial review of the mayor \u2019s tacit refusal .","In a judgment of DATE ORG overturned the mayor \u2019s refusal in part by revoking the expropriation in so far as it concerned QUANTITY of land and returning the land in question to the applicant \u2019s father . ORG judgment was subject to supervisory review ( \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0433\u043b\u0435\u0434 \u043f\u043e \u0440\u0435\u0434\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u043d\u0430\u0434\u0437\u043e\u0440\u0430 ) . Following a request by the mayor of GPE , on DATE the judgment was quashed by ORG and the case remitted to the lower court .","On DATE , after re - examining the case , ORG once again revoked the expropriation of the land and returned it to the applicant \u2019s father on the grounds that no construction works had yet taken place and that it was sufficient in size to form an independent plot . It did not comment on any rights to that land by third parties such as ORG and ET PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .","No appeal was lodged against the above - mentioned judgment and on DATE it became final . On CARDINAL DATE the mayor of ORG applied to ORG to have the judicial proceedings reopened , referring to newly discovered evidence , but on DATE the application was dismissed .","On an unspecified date prior to CARDINAL DATE the applicant \u2019s father paid back MONEY ( ORG ) to the municipality , representing the monetary compensation received at the time of expropriation . At that time , because of inflation and the depreciation of NORP currency , the sum repaid equalled MONEY ( ORG ) . At the same time the applicant \u2019s father requested to have the plot of land marked as his in the relevant cadastral plans , which was necessary in order to obtain possession , but this was refused as it was established that third parties asserted competing rights to the same property ( see below ) .","Following expropriation , the plot of land at issue formed part of ORG \u2019s industrial zone and a plant , storehouses and accompanying infrastructure were constructed on it . In DATE the land was allocated for use by a ORG enterprise , which in DATE was transformed into a limited liability company and then in DATE into a joint - stock company named ORG ( \u201c PERSON More \u201d ) , the shares of which were owned entirely by the ORG .","In DATE PERSON More put QUANTITY of the land it owned up for sale . On DATE the land was sold to ET PERSON ( \u201c PERSON \u201d ) , a sole trader . It appears that this land was situated entirely within the boundaries of the larger QUANTITY plot which had been the subject of the applicant \u2019s father \u2019s restitution claim .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father brought a rei vindicatio action against ORG and PERSON . He based his claim on ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , arguing that he owned the QUANTITY plot of land which PERSON had bought from ORG in DATE .","On DATE , upon a request by PERSON , to which the applicant \u2019s father consented , the proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of related litigation between the CARDINAL defendants regarding ownership of the disputed land . The proceedings were resumed in DATE , but were again briefly stayed pending the outcome of the application by the mayor of GPE for restitution proceedings to be reopened ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","After the rei vindicatio proceedings were resumed , in their respective judgments of CARDINAL May and CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG disallowed the claim . While the proceedings were under way , the applicant \u2019s father died and the applicant and her mother joined the proceedings as his heirs . They subsequently lodged an appeal on points of law .","In a judgment of DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment and remitted the case on the grounds that the lower courts had failed to take into account ORG judgment of DATE .","Following a fresh examination of the case , on DATE ORG once again dismissed the rei vindicatio claim . It found that PERSON More and PERSON were not bound by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE as they had not participated in the earlier proceedings and had only in the present proceedings had an opportunity to make their own claims . It further noted that a decision given in restitution proceedings could not prejudice the interests of third parties ; third parties who had in the meantime acquired property from the ORG could always oppose their rights to the former owner claiming restitution .","ORG further found that the urban development projects for which the land had been expropriated had been completed , which was sufficient ground to refuse restitution . Furthermore , by the time the restitution legislation had entered into force , the land had already become the property of ORG , as a result of its transformation into a limited liability company , whereas the legislation had only applied to property owned by the ORG or municipalities when it entered into force . In addition , the land had been lawfully acquired by PERSON in DATE . Accordingly , the applicant \u2019s father , succeeded by the applicant and her mother , could not have acquired any rights of ownership as a result of ORG judgment of DATE .","Following an appeal by the applicant and her mother , on DATE the above - mentioned judgment was upheld by ORG , which reiterated that in DATE PERSON had validly acquired ownership of the disputed plot . It held further that the rei vindicatio action was in fact time - barred because the applicant \u2019s father had not complied with the DATE time - limit provided for in paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional and concluding provisions of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE during the course of these proceedings the applicant \u2019s mother died , leaving the applicant as her sole heir .","The ORG has not been informed of what happened to the remainder of the plot of land measuring QUANTITY following ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The Restitution of Property Expropriated under Building Planning Legislation Act ( ORG \u0437\u0430 \u0432\u044a\u0437\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043d\u043e\u0432\u044f\u0432\u0430\u043d\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u043e\u0431\u0441\u0442\u0432\u0435\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0442\u0430 \u0432\u044a\u0440\u0445\u0443 \u043d\u044f\u043a\u043e\u0438 \u043e\u0442\u0447\u0443\u0436\u0434\u0435\u043d\u0438 \u0438\u043c\u043e\u0442\u0438 \u043f\u043e ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG \u0438 \u0417\u0421 , \u201c the LAW \u201d ) entered into force in DATE . Its most relevant provisions have been summarised in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . It did not contain any provision prohibiting the sale to third parties after its entry into force of properties which were subject to restitution claims .","The provisions of domestic law concerning the res judicata effect of court judgments have been summarised in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) .","Although not expressly stipulated in LAW , according to settled judicial practice restitution was only possible where the property taken had remained ORG or municipally - owned . The same view was expressed by ORG in a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG \u2116 CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 \u041a\u0421 \u043d\u0430 \u0420\u0411 \u043f\u043e PERSON \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL \u0433. ) . According to settled judicial practice under LAW , third parties claiming property rights could not intervene in the ex parte proceedings under that LAW or challenge any decision restoring the former ORG rights , but could have their claims examined in separate judicial proceedings , in which the courts exercised \u201c indirect judicial review \u201d ( \u043a\u043e\u0441\u0432\u0435\u043d \u043a\u043e\u043d\u0442\u0440\u043e\u043b ) of the restitution decision . The scope of that review was discussed in an ORG of DATE of ORG , which noted that a third party claiming rights to a restituted property was not bound by a decision given under LAW and could dispute all preconditions for restitution as provided for under LAW , as this was its sole means by which to defend its rights ( ORG CARDINAL \u043e\u0442 CARDINAL \u0433. \u043d\u0430 ORG \u043f\u043e \u0442. \u0433\u0440. \u0434. \u2116 CARDINAL\/CARDINAL \u0433. ) .","The Transformation and Privatisation of State and Municipally - Owned Enterprises Act ( \u201c the LAW \u201d ) , enacted in DATE and superseded by other legislation in DATE , provided for the privatisation of ORG and municipally - owned enterprises and companies and publicly owned property . A summary of the legislation \u2019s provisions relating to the transformation of companies from public enterprises into companies is set out in the ORG \u2019s judgment in the case of GPE and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . Transformation is also regulated by other legislation , summarised in the ORG \u2019s decision in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE ) . Most notably , the transformation procedure involved transferring ownership of all the assets to the newly created company .","Pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional and concluding provisions of LAW ( \u201c paragraph CARDINAL \u201d ) , which was added in DATE , creditors of ORG and municipally - owned enterprises and companies were obliged to notify their claims to the body competent to make a decision for privatisation . Notifications had to be made within DATE of the publication in ORG of a notice that the privatisation procedure had started . Creditors failing to give such notice forfeited their right to bring subsequent proceedings regarding the same claim ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-163115","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DNK","branch":"GRANDCHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF BIAO v. DENMARK","importance":1,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Dean Spielmann;Egidijus K\u016bris;Elisabeth Steiner;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Helena J\u00e4derblom;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Josep Casadevall;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;P\u00e4ivi Hirvel\u00e4;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born , respectively , in DATE in GPE and in DATE in GPE . They live in GPE , GPE .","The first applicant lived in GPE until DATE and again briefly from DATE . From DATE he lived in GPE with his uncle . He attended school there for DATE and speaks the local language . On DATE , when he was DATE , he entered GPE and requested asylum , which was refused by a final decision of CARDINAL DATE .","NORP In the meantime , on DATE , he had married a NORP national . Having regard to his marriage , on DATE , by virtue of the former section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL(ii ) , of LAW ( PERSON ) he was granted a residence permit , which became permanent on DATE .","On DATE the first applicant and his NORP wife got divorced .","On DATE the first applicant acquired NORP citizenship . At the relevant time he met the requirements set out in the relevant circular relating to the length of his period of residence ( DATE ) , age , general conduct , arrears owed to public funds and language proficiency .","On DATE the first applicant married the second applicant in GPE . He had met her during CARDINAL of CARDINAL visits to GPE made in DATE prior to their marriage .","On DATE , at ORG in GPE , GPE , the second applicant requested a residence permit for GPE with reference to her marriage to the first applicant . At that time she was DATE . She stated that she had never visited GPE . Her parents lived in GPE . On the application form , the first applicant submitted that he had not received any education in GPE , but had participated in various language courses and short - term courses concerning service , customer care , industrial cleaning , hygiene and working methods . He had been working in a slaughterhouse since DATE . He had no close family in GPE . He spoke and wrote LANGUAGE . The spouses had come to know each other in GPE and they communicated between themselves in the NORP and NORP languages .","At the relevant time , under section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW family reunion could be granted only if both spouses were over DATE and their aggregate ties to GPE were stronger than the spouses\u2019 attachment to any other country ( the so - called attachment requirement ) .","On DATE ORG ) refused the residence permit request because it found that it could not be established that the spouses\u2019 aggregate ties to GPE were stronger than their aggregate ties to GPE .","In DATE or DATE the second applicant entered GPE on a tourist visa .","On DATE she appealed against ORG decision of DATE , to the then ORG ( Ministeriet for PERSON , ORG ) . The appeal did not have suspensive effect .","On DATE the applicants moved to GPE , GPE , which since DATE has been connected to GPE in GPE by a QUANTITY bridge ( GPE ) .","By Act no . CARDINAL of DATE , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW was amended so that the attachment requirement was lifted for persons who had held NORP citizenship for DATE ( the socalled DATE rule DATE CARDINAL-\u00e5rs reglen ) . Persons born or having arrived in GPE as small children could also be exempted from the attachment requirement , provided they had resided lawfully there for DATE .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicants had a son . He was born in GPE but is a NORP national by virtue of his father \u2019s nationality .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision by ORG of DATE to refuse to grant the second applicant a residence permit . It pointed out that in practice , the residing person was required to have stayed in GPE for DATE , provided that an effort had been made to integrate . In the case before it , it found that the ORG aggregate ties to GPE were not stronger than their ties to GPE and that the family could settle in GPE , as that would only require that the first applicant obtain employment there . In its assessment , it noted that the first applicant had entered GPE in DATE and had been a NORP national since DATE . He had ties with GPE , where he had been raised and had attended school . He had visited the country CARDINAL times in DATE . The second applicant had always lived in GPE and had family there .","On DATE , before ORG of Eastern GPE ( PERSON ) , the applicants instituted proceedings against ORG and relied on LAW , alone and in conjunction with LAW , together with LAW . They submitted , among other things , that it amounted to indirect discrimination against them when applying for family reunion , that persons who were born NORP citizens were exempt from the attachment requirement altogether , whereas persons who had acquired NORP citizenship at a later point in life had to comply with the CARDINAL-year rule before being exempted from the attachment requirement . In the present case that would entail that the first applicant could not be exempted from the attachment requirement until DATE , thus after DATE of NORP citizenship , and after reaching DATE .","In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of Eastern GPE unanimously found that the refusal to grant the applicants family reunion with reference to the DATE rule and the attachment requirement did not contravene the Articles of the Convention or of LAW relied upon . It stated as follows :","\u201c ... the facts given in the decisions of the immigration authorities in the case are found not to be in dispute .","Accordingly , [ the second applicant ] who is a NORP national , was thus DATE when she applied for a residence permit on DATE , and she had no ties with GPE other than her recent marriage to [ the first applicant ] . [ The second applicant ] had always lived in GPE and had family there . [ The first applicant ] had some ties with GPE , where he had lived with his uncle while attending school in GPE for DATE . He entered GPE in DATE at DATE and became a NORP national on DATE . [ The applicants ] married in GPE on DATE and have lived in GPE since DATE with their child , born on DATE . [ The first applicant ] has told ORG that the family can settle lawfully in GPE if he obtains paid employment in that country .","It appears from a ORG judgment of DATE , reproduced on page CARDINAL in the NORP Weekly Law Reports ( ORG for DATE , that LAW does not impose on ORG any general obligation to respect immigrants\u2019 choices as to the country of their residence in connection with marriage , or otherwise to authorise family reunion .","In view of the information on [ the applicants\u2019 ] situation and their ties with GPE , ORG accordingly finds no basis for setting aside the Respondent \u2019s decision establishing that [ the applicants\u2019 ] aggregate ties with GPE were stronger than their aggregate ties with GPE and that [ the applicants ] therefore did not meet the attachment requirement set out in section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW . In this connection , the High Court finds that the refusal did not bar [ the applicants ] from exercising their right to family life in GPE or in a country other than GPE . The fact that [ the first applicant ] is able to reside in GPE only if he obtains paid employment there is found not to lead to any other assessment . Accordingly , ORG holds that the decision of ORG did not constitute a breach of LAW .","Although ORG has held that LAW has not been breached in this case , ORG has to consider [ the applicants\u2019 ] claim that , within the substantive area otherwise protected by DATE , the decision of ORG constituted a breach of Article CARDINAL read in conjunction with Article CARDINAL of the Convention .","ORG initially observes that [ the first applicant ] had been residing in GPE for DATE when the ORG issued its decision . Although he acquired NORP nationality in DATE , DATE after entering GPE , he did not meet the CARDINALyear nationality requirement applicable to all NORP nationals pursuant to section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL of LAW , irrespective of whether they are of foreign or NORP extraction . Nor did he have the comparable attachment to GPE throughout DATE which will generally lead to an exemption from the attachment requirement according to the preparatory work of the DATE statutory amendment .","The CARDINAL-year rule is a generally - worded relaxation of the attachment requirement based on an objective criterion . In practice , however , the rule may imply that a NORP national of foreign extraction will only meet the CARDINAL-year rule later in life than would be the case for a NORP national of NORP extraction . When applied , the rule may therefore imply an indirect discrimination .","According to the relevant explanatory report , LAW must be taken to mean that LAW concerns the conditions for acquiring nationality while LAW concerns the principle of non - discrimination . According to the report , it is not a mandatory rule that GPE are obliged to observe in all situations . Against that background , LAW is considered to offer protection against discrimination to an extent that goes no further than the protection against discrimination offered by LAW .","The assessment of whether the refusal of the ORG implied discrimination amounting to a breach of LAW read in conjunction with LAW is accordingly considered to depend on whether the difference in treatment which occurred as a consequence of the attachment requirement in spite of nationality can be considered objectively justified and proportionate .","According to the preparatory work of the LAW , the overall aim of the attachment requirement , which is a requirement of lasting and strong links to GPE , is to regulate spousal reunion in GPE in such a manner as to ensure the best possible integration of immigrants in GPE , an aim which must in itself be considered objective . In the view of ORG , any difference in treatment between NORP nationals of NORP extraction and NORP nationals of foreign extraction can therefore be justified by this aim as regards the right to spousal reunion if a NORP national of foreign extraction has no such lasting and strong attachment to GPE .","The balancing of this overall consideration relating to the specific circumstances in the case requires a detailed assessment . The High Court finds that the assessment and decision of the Ministry were made in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and the preparatory work describing the application of the provision . Accordingly , and in view of the specific information on [ the first applicant \u2019s ] situation , the High Court finds no sufficient basis for holding that the refusal by the Ministry to grant a residence permit to [ the second applicant ] with reference to the attachment requirement of LAW implies a disproportionate infringement of [ the first applicant \u2019s ] rights as a NORP national and his right to family life . ORG therefore finds that the decision of ORG was not invalid , and that it was not contrary to LAW . \u201d","The applicants appealed against the judgment to ORG ( H\u00f8jesteret ) , which delivered its judgment on DATE upholding the ORG judgment .","ORG , composed of CARDINAL judges , found , unanimously , that it was not in breach of LAW to refuse the second applicant a residence permit in GPE . It stated as follows :","\u201c In its decision of DATE , ORG refused the application from [ the second applicant ] for a residence permit on the grounds that the aggregate ties of herself and her spouse [ the first applicant ] with GPE were not stronger than their aggregate ties with GPE ( see section CARDINAL , subsection DATE , of LAW ) .","[ The applicants ] first submitted that the refusal was unlawful because it was contrary to LAW . If the refusal was not contrary to LAW , they submitted as their alternative claim that it was contrary to the prohibition against discrimination enshrined in LAW read in conjunction with LAW , for which reason they were eligible for family reunion in GPE without satisfying the attachment requirement set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act .","For the reasons given by ORG , ORG upholds the decision made by ORG that it is not contrary to Article CARDINAL to refuse [ the second applicant \u2019s ] application for a residence permit . \u201d","NORP Moreover , the majority in ORG ( CARDINAL judges ) found that the DATE rule was in compliance with LAW in conjunction with LAW . They stated as follows :","\u201c Pursuant to section CARDINAL , subsection DATE , as worded by LAW . CARDINAL of DATE , the requirement that the spouses\u2019 or ORG aggregate ties with GPE must be stronger than their aggregate ties with another country ( the attachment requirement ) does not apply when the resident has been a NORP national for DATE ( the CARDINAL-year rule ) .","Until DATE , NORP nationals had had a general exemption from the attachment requirement . Act No . CARDINAL of DATE tightened the conditions of family reunion , CARDINAL of the consequences being that the attachment requirement would subsequently also apply to family reunion where CARDINAL of the partners was a NORP national . CARDINAL of the reasons for extending the attachment requirement to include NORP nationals also given in the preparatory work ( on page CARDINAL of Schedule A to ORG for DATE ( CARDINALnd session ) ) is that there are NORP nationals who are not particularly well integrated in NORP society and for this reason the integration of a spouse newly arrived in GPE may entail major problems .","It quickly turned out that this tightening had some unintended consequences for persons such as NORP nationals who had opted to live abroad for a lengthy period and who had started a family while away from GPE . For that reason , the rules were relaxed with effect from DATE so that family reunion in cases where CARDINAL of the partners had been a NORP national for DATE was no longer subject to satisfaction of the requirement of stronger aggregate ties with GPE .","According to the preparatory work in respect of the relaxation , the ORG found that the fundamental aim of tightening the attachment requirement in DATE was not forfeited by refraining from demanding that the attachment requirement be met in cases where the resident had been a NORP national for DATE ( see page CARDINAL of Schedule A to ORG for DATE ) . It is mentioned in this connection that NORP expatriates planning to return to GPE DATE with their families will often have maintained strong ties with GPE , which have also been communicated to their spouse or cohabitant and any children . This is so when they speak LANGUAGE at home , take holidays in GPE , read NORP newspapers regularly , and so on . Thus , there will normally be a basis for successful integration of NORP expatriates\u2019 family members into NORP society .","Persons who have not been NORP nationals for DATE , but were born and raised in GPE , or came to GPE as small children and were raised here , are normally also exempt from the attachment requirement when they have stayed lawfully in GPE for DATE .","A consequence of this current state of the law is that different groups of NORP nationals are subject to differences in treatment in relation to their possibility of being reunited with family members in GPE , as persons who have been NORP nationals for DATE are in a better position than persons who have been NORP nationals for DATE .","According to the case - law of ORG , nationals of a country do not have an unconditional right to family reunion with a foreigner in their home country , as factors of attachment may also be taken into account in the case of nationals of that country . It is not in itself contrary to the LAW if different groups of nationals are subject to statutory differences in treatment as regards the possibility of obtaining family reunion with a foreigner in the country of their nationality .","In this respect , reference is made to paragraph CARDINAL of the judgment delivered by ORG DATE in the case of ORG and NORP v. GPE . In this case the ORG found that it was not contrary to the LAW that a person born in GPE who had later moved to GPE and become a national of GPE was treated less favourably as regards the right to family reunion with a foreigner than a national born in GPE or whose parent(s ) were born in GPE . The ORG said in that respect : \u2018 It is true that a person who , like PERSON , has been settled in a country for DATE may also have formed close ties with it , even if he or she was not born there . Nevertheless , there are in general persuasive social reasons for giving special treatment to those whose links with a country stem from birth within it . The difference of treatment must therefore be regarded as having had an objective and reasonable justification and , in particular , its results have not been shown to transgress the principle of proportionality.\u2019 The ORG then held that PERSON was not a victim of discrimination on the ground of birth .","As regards PERSON , who was a national of GPE , it was not contrary to the Convention to make it an additional requirement for family reunion that she must have been born in GPE . A different additional requirement is made under NORP law : a requirement of NORP nationality for DATE . The question is whether [ the first applicant ] is subjected to discrimination contrary to the Convention owing to this criterion .","We find that the criterion of DATE of NORP nationality has the same aim as the requirement of birth in GPE , which was accepted by ORG in the DATE judgment as not being contrary to the Convention : to distinguish a group of nationals who , seen from a general perspective , had lasting and strong ties with the country .","In general , a person of DATE who has held NORP nationality since birth will have stronger real ties with GPE and greater insight into NORP society than a DATE person who DATE like [ the first applicant ] \u2013 only established links with NORP society as a young person or an adult . This also applies to NORP nationals who have stayed abroad for a shorter or longer period , for example in connection with education or work . We find that the CARDINAL-year - rule is based on an objective criterion , as it must be considered objectively justified to select a group of nationals with such strong ties with GPE when assessed from a general perspective that it will be unproblematic to grant family reunion with a foreign spouse or cohabitant in GPE as it will normally be possible for such spouse or cohabitant to be successfully integrated into NORP society .","Even though it is conceivable that a national who has had NORP nationality for DATE may in fact have weaker ties with GPE than a national who has had NORP nationality for a shorter period , this does not imply that the CARDINAL-year rule should be set aside pursuant to ORG Reference is made to the case , relative to the then applicable additional NORP requirement of place of birth considered by ORG , of a national who was not born in GPE , but who had in reality stronger ties with GPE than other nationals who satisfied the requirement of place of birth , but had moved abroad with their parents at a tender age or maybe had even been born abroad . It is noted in this respect that it was sufficient to satisfy the then NORP requirement of place of birth for CARDINAL of the relevant person \u2019s parents to have been born in GPE .","We also find that the consequences of the DATE rule can not be considered disproportionate relative to [ the first applicant ] . [ He ] was born in GPE in DATE and came to GPE in DATE . After DATE residence , he became a NORP national in DATE . In DATE he married [ the second applicant ] and applied for reunion with his spouse in GPE . The application was finally refused in DATE . The factual circumstances of this case are thus in most material aspects identical to PERSON situation assessed by ORG in its judgment in DATE , when the ORG found that the principle of proportionality had not been violated . She was born in GPE in DATE or DATE . She first went to GPE in DATE and obtained nationality of GPE in DATE . She married a NORP national NORP in DATE , and their application for spousal reunion in GPE for the husband of a NORP national was refused DATE . A comparison of the CARDINAL cases reveals that both [ the first applicant ] and PERSON only came to GPE and GPE , respectively , as adults . In [ the first applicant \u2019s ] case , the application was refused when he had resided in GPE for DATE , CARDINAL of which as a NORP national . In PERSON case , the application was refused after she had resided in GPE for DATE , CARDINAL of which as a NORP national .","On these grounds we find no basis in case - law to find that the DATE rule implied discrimination against [ the first applicant ] contrary to the LAW .","As regards the significance of LAW DATE , we find for the reasons stated by ORG that it can not be a consequence of LAW that the scope of the prohibition against discrimination based on LAW read in conjunction with LAW should be extended further than justified by the DATE judgment .","We hold on this basis that the refusal of residence for [ the second applicant ] given by ORG can not be set aside as being invalid because it is contrary to LAW .","For this reason we vote in favour of upholding the High Court judgment . \u201d","A minority of CARDINAL judges were of the view that the DATE rule implied indirect discrimination between persons who were born NORP citizens and persons who had acquired NORP citizenship later in life . Since persons who were born NORP citizens would usually be of NORP ethnic origin , whereas persons who acquired NORP citizenship at a later point in their life would generally be of foreign ethnic origin , the CARDINAL-year rule also entailed indirect discrimination between ethnic NORP citizens and NORP citizens with a foreign ethnic background . More specifically , they stated as follows :","\u201c As stated by the majority , the requirement of section CARDINAL , subsection DATE , of LAW that the spouses\u2019 or ORG aggregate ties with GPE must be stronger than their aggregate ties with another country ( the attachment requirement ) does not apply when the resident person has been a NORP national for DATE ( the CARDINALyear rule ) .","The CARDINAL-year rule applies both to persons born NORP nationals and to persons acquiring NORP nationality later in life , but in reality the significance of the rule differs greatly for the CARDINAL groups of NORP nationals . For persons born NORP nationals , the rule only implies that the attachment requirement applies until they are DATE . For persons not raised in GPE who acquire NORP nationality later in life , the rule implies that the attachment requirement applies until DATE have passed after the date when any such person became a NORP national . As an example , [ the first applicant ] who became a NORP national at DATE , will be subject to the attachment requirement until he is DATE . The CARDINAL-year rule therefore implies that the major restriction of the right to spousal reunion resulting from the attachment requirement will affect persons who only acquire NORP nationality later in life far more often and with a far greater impact than persons born with NORP nationality . Hence , the CARDINAL-year rule results in obvious indirect difference in treatment between the CARDINAL groups of NORP nationals .","The vast majority of persons born NORP nationals will be of NORP ethnic origin , while persons acquiring NORP nationality later in life will generally be of other ethnic origin . At the same time , the CARDINAL-year rule therefore implies obvious indirect difference in treatment between NORP nationals of NORP ethnic origin and NORP nationals of other ethnic origin regarding the right to spousal reunion .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW , the attachment requirement may be disregarded if exceptional reasons make this appropriate . According to the preparatory work of LAW , this possibility of exemption is to be administered in such a manner that aliens who were born and raised in GPE or who came to GPE as small children and were raised here must be treated comparably to NORP nationals , which means that they will be exempt from the attachment requirement when they have lawfully resided in GPE for DATE . However , relative to persons who were not raised in GPE , but acquire NORP nationality later in life , this does not alter the situation described above concerning the indirect difference in treatment implied by the CARDINAL-year rule .","When the attachment requirement was introduced by Act No . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , all NORP nationals were exempt from the requirement . Act No . CARDINAL of DATE made the attachment requirement generally applicable also to NORP nationals . Concerning the reason for this , the preparatory work in respect of the LAW states , inter alia : \u2018 With resident aliens and NORP nationals of foreign extraction it is a widespread marriage pattern to marry a person from their country of origin , among other reasons due to parental pressure ... The Government find that the attachment requirement , as it is worded DATE , does not take sufficient account of the existence of this marriage pattern among both resident foreigners and resident NORP nationals of foreign extraction . There are thus also NORP nationals who are not well integrated into NORP society and where integration of a spouse newly arrived in GPE may therefore entail major problems.\u2019 By Act No . CARDINAL of DATE , the application of the attachment requirement to NORP nationals was restricted through the CARDINAL-year rule , and the preparatory work in respect of the LAW stated that the purpose was , inter alia , \u2018 to ensure that NORP expatriates with strong and lasting ties to GPE in the form of DATE of NORP nationality will be able to obtain spousal reunion in ORG . In the light of these notes , it is considered a fact that the indirect difference in treatment between NORP nationals of NORP ethnic extraction and NORP nationals of other ethnic extraction following from the CARDINAL-year rule is an intended consequence .","Under LAW , the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised by the LAW , including the individual \u2019s right under LAW for his or her family life , must be \u2018 secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex , race , colour , language , religion , political or other opinion , national or social origin , association with a national minority , property , birth or other status\u2019 . As mentioned above , the CARDINAL-year rule implies both indirect difference in treatment between persons born NORP nationals and persons only acquiring NORP nationality later in life and , in the same connection , indirect difference in treatment between NORP nationals of NORP ethnic extraction and NORP nationals of other ethnic extraction . Both these types of indirect difference in treatment must be considered to fall within Article CARDINAL read in conjunction with Article CARDINAL of the Convention . The QUANTITY types of indirect difference in treatment implied by the CARDINALyear rule are therefore contrary to LAW unless the difference in treatment can be considered objectively justified and proportionate .","LAW of DATE , which has been ratified by GPE , provides in LAW : \u2018 ORG shall be guided by the principle of non - discrimination between its nationals , whether they are nationals by birth or have acquired its nationality PERSON . The memorandum of DATE made by ORG and the memorandum of DATE made by the working group composed of representatives of ORG , ORG and ORG state that the provision solely concerns issues on the revocation and loss of nationality . In our opinion it is dubious whether there is any basis for such a restrictive interpretation as the provision , according to its wording , comprises any difference in treatment exercised as a consequence of how and when nationality was acquired . As is apparent from the explanatory report , the provision is not a prohibition from which no derogation may be made , and the provision must be taken to mean that it may be derogated from if the difference in treatment is objectively justified and proportionate . However , when assessing the CARDINAL-year rule relative to LAW read in conjunction with LAW , we consider it necessary to include the fact that , at least according to its wording , LAW comprises a general provision stating that any difference in treatment between different groups of ORG own nationals is basically prohibited .","In an assessment made under LAW read in conjunction with LAW , another factor to be taken into consideration is the crucial importance of being entitled to settle with one \u2019s spouse in the country of one \u2019s nationality .","As mentioned , NORP nationals were originally generally exempt from the attachment requirement . ORG established in a judgment reproduced on p. CARDINAL in the NORP Weekly Law Reports for DATE that discrimination relative to the right to spousal reunion based on whether the resident spouse is a NORP or foreign national is not contrary to the prohibition of discrimination laid down in LAW read in conjunction with LAW . In this respect , ORG referred to paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment delivered by ORG DATE in ORG and NORP v. the GPE . Difference in treatment based on nationality must be seen , inter alia , in the light of the right of NORP nationals to settle in GPE , and no significance can be attributed to the fact that such discrimination is not considered contrary to LAW CARDINAL when assessing whether it is permissible to implement a scheme implying a difference in treatment between different groups of NORP nationals . In our opinion , no crucial significance can be attributed to paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the Abdulaziz , Cabales and NORP judgment either in this assessment , among other reasons because difference in treatment based on the length of a person \u2019s period of nationality is not comparable to a difference in treatment based on place of birth .","In the cases in which the attachment requirement applies , some of the factors emphasised are whether the resident spouse has strong links to GPE by virtue of his or her childhood and schooling in GPE . Such strong attachment to GPE will exist in most cases where a person has held NORP nationality for DATE . However , when assessing whether the difference in treatment implied by the CARDINALyear rule can be considered objectively justified , it is not sufficient to compare persons not raised in GPE who acquire NORP nationality later in life with the large group of persons who were born NORP nationals and were also raised in GPE . If exemption from the attachment requirement was justified only by regard for the latter group of NORP nationals , the exemption should have been delimited differently . The crucial element must therefore be a comparison with persons who were born NORP nationals and have been NORP nationals for DATE , but who were not raised in GPE and may perhaps not at any time have had their residence in GPE . In our opinion , it can not be considered a fact that , from a general perspective , this group of NORP nationals has stronger ties with GPE than persons who have acquired NORP nationality after entering and residing in GPE for DATE . It should be taken into consideration in that connection that one of the general conditions for acquiring NORP nationality by naturalisation is that the relevant person has resided in GPE for DATE , has proved his or her proficiency in the NORP language and knowledge of NORP society and meets the requirement of self - support .","Against that background , it is our opinion that the indirect difference in treatment implied by the DATE rule can not be considered objectively justified , and that it is therefore contrary to LAW .","The consequence of this must be that , when applying section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW to NORP nationals , the authorities must limit the CARDINAL-year rule to being solely an age requirement , meaning that the attachment requirement does not apply in cases where the resident spouse is a NORP national and is DATE .","Accordingly , we vote for ruling in favour of the [ applicants\u2019 ] claim to the effect that ORG must declare invalid the decision of CARDINAL DATE , thereby remitting the case for renewed consideration .","In view of the outcome of the voting on this claim we see no reason to consider the claim for compensation . \u201d","The applicants remained in GPE and did not subsequently apply for family reunion in GPE , which they could have done under section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL of LAW , had the first applicant decided to reside in GPE anew . He maintained a job in GPE and therefore commuted DATE from GPE in GPE to GPE in GPE ."],"violated_articles":["14","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-154382","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"R\u00d3ZSA v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr GPE , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-173103","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"AUT","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KRASNIQI v. AUSTRIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bo\u0161njak;Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant entered GPE for the first time on DATE when he was DATE .","NORP In DATE the applicant was arrested for working illegally , and on DATE ORG ( Bezirkshauptmannschaft ) issued a decision imposing a DATE residence ban ( Aufenthaltsverbot ) on him .","On DATE the applicant lodged an asylum claim , which on CARDINAL DATE was dismissed by ORG ( Bundesasylamt ) as unfounded . His appeal against that decision was dismissed , and he voluntarily returned to GPE in DATE .","On DATE the applicant returned to GPE and lodged a fresh asylum claim on DATE , this time together with his wife and their daughter . The asylum claim was dismissed by ORG on DATE , but the applicant and his family were granted subsidiary protection . They received a temporary residence permit , which was extended several times .","The applicant \u2019s temporary residence permit , which was based on his right to subsidiary protection , expired in DATE , as he had not applied for its renewal .","On DATE ORG ( Bezirksgericht \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the GPE \u201d ) convicted the applicant of bodily harm and sentenced him to a fine of QUANTITY ( ORG ) , suspended in part on the basis of a probationary period .","NORP On DATE ORG ( PERSON \u2013 hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) convicted the applicant of bodily harm . He was sentenced to a fine of LAW , which was suspended on the basis of a probationary period .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated burglary and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment , DATE of which were suspended on the basis of a probationary period . He was in pre - trial detention and then prison from CARDINAL July to CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of participating in a brawl , for which he was sentenced to a fine of ORG CARDINAL .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of bodily harm and sentenced him to a fine of LAW .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of several offences under LAW ( NORP ) and aggravated threat , and he was sentenced to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . The suspension of DATE months\u2019 imprisonment in the sentence of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was revoked . The applicant was in prison from CARDINAL May until DATE . A part of the prison sentence was postponed until DATE , when the applicant started serving the remainder of the sentence .","On DATE , hence while he was in prison , ORG convicted the applicant of an offence under LAW and sentenced him to a fine of CARDINAL ORG .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant , who was still in prison at that time , of attempted bodily harm , bodily injury caused by negligence , and endangering the physical integrity of others , and sentenced him to a fine .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated threat and sentenced him to CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . It was his ninth criminal conviction in GPE .","On DATE , as a consequence of his criminal convictions , ORG issued the applicant with a ban prohibiting his return to GPE ( R\u00fcckkehrverbot , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which was valid for DATE . It however remained without effect as long as his subsidiary protection status was still valid ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG Sicherheitspolizeidirektion ) confirmed the ban in a decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant did not appeal against that decision .","On DATE the Innsbruck ORG instituted proceedings to withdraw the applicant \u2019s subsidiary protection . On DATE it conducted an interview with him , during which he stated the following concerning his living situation in GPE . He had CARDINAL children , born in DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE respectively . His parents , his CARDINAL siblings and their spouses and children all lived in the same city as him . His parents and his older brother were recognised refugees . He and his parents lived in the same house . He was working as a maintenance man and translator for NORP and NORP , and his wife was also working . Both had a regular income . His father still owned some land and CARDINAL shops in GPE , which were run by relatives at that time . The applicant stated that if he had to return to GPE he would not know what to do there or where to go . He had a \u201c bad feeling \u201d about returning , but did not fear any repression . The security situation was bad , and the views of society were primitive . His wife and children would not have to fear any problems upon returning to GPE , and would probably join him if he were expelled . He would , however , prefer to stay in GPE , where his children went to school .","On DATE ORG withdrew the applicant \u2019s subsidiary protection status under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Asylgesetz ) . It found that there was no longer a risk of a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW if he was returned to GPE , and declared his expulsion admissible . Quoting international sources , it explained that the security situation in GPE had significantly improved in DATE and was now considered to be stable . There was no threat from ORG ( ORG GPE ) anymore , which the applicant had initially alleged when applying for asylum .","Turning to the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW , ORG acknowledged how established his private and family life was in GPE , where his family members were living . However , it referred to his numerous convictions for crimes against life and limb as well as property , and concluded that the public interest in his expulsion outweighed his personal interest in remaining in the country . ORG specifically mentioned the CARDINAL convictions for drug offences in DATE and DATE , which it considered particularly serious . Further , it held that the applicant still had ties with GPE , because he had grown up there , spoke NORP , and was physically capable of working in order to earn a living . According to the applicant \u2019s own statements , his father still owned some land and CARDINAL shops in GPE , so it could be assumed that he could find work . Given that the applicant \u2019s wife had her own income , ORG further assumed that she would be able to take care of the needs of the family , and that the applicant could send her financial maintenance from GPE .","On DATE ORG ( Asylgerichtshof ) confirmed the relevant parts of ORG decision . It held that , according to LAW in conjunction with LAW ) , the fines the applicant had received for his criminal convictions ( CARDINAL DATE rates in total ) , amounted to almost twentyfour months\u2019 imprisonment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The actual prison sentences he had received amounted to DATE in total , which was considerable . ORG concluded that , even though the applicant had strong private and family ties in GPE , the public interest in his expulsion in order to prevent crime outweighed his personal interest in continuing his family life in GPE . He had reoffended even after he had been issued with the ban prohibiting his return to GPE , a fact which did not speak in his favour . Also , he could reapply for a residence permit in DATE when the ban expired .","The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision with ORG . Among other things , he stated that CARDINAL of his daughters had in fact been born as a result of an extra - marital relationship with an NORP citizen , and was living with her NORP mother and not with him . The applicant claimed that it would be difficult to maintain contact with her if he were expelled to GPE .","ORG then asked ORG to submit a statement regarding this new fact . ORG replied on CARDINAL DATE that the applicant had spoken of CARDINAL children throughout the proceedings , but had never mentioned that CARDINAL of them had in fact been born as a result of an extra - marital relationship and had never lived with him in the same household . He could continue to pay financial maintenance from GPE for his daughter . ORG expressed the view that the decision to declare the applicant \u2019s expulsion admissible was nonetheless proportionate to the aims pursued , as his family life with his illegitimate daughter was in any event much less established than that with his other family members .","On DATE ORG refused to deal with the applicant \u2019s complaint . That decision was served on the applicant \u2019s counsel on DATE .","The applicant was in pre - trial detention and prison from DATE ( in relation to the criminal conviction of CARDINAL DATE , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) until he was placed in detention pending his expulsion on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was expelled to GPE . His family decided to remain in GPE .","The ban on the applicant \u2019s returning to GPE is in force until DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["8"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-168398","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"NATIONALDEMOKRATISCHE PARTEI DEUTSCHLANDS (NPD) v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , ORG of GPE ( ORG , ORG ) , is a NORP political party . It was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP The applicant was founded on DATE . It regularly participates in elections to ORG , ORG ( GPE ) , parliaments of the LOC and municipal elections . At the time the present application was lodged , the applicant was represented in the parliaments of ORG and GPE , as well as numerous city councils and county councils .","In DATE , ORG , ORG ( NORP ) and ORG ( Bundesregierung ) lodged an application for the ban of the applicant ( Verbotsantrag ) with ORG ( ORG . CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , QUANTITY BvB CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , QUANTITY BvB CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) pursuant to LAW ( see relevant domestic law and practice , paragraph CARDINAL ) . The plaintiffs alleged that the applicant was unconstitutional and sought to damage the free democratic basic order ( freiheitlich - demokratische LOC ) . They claimed that the applicant propagated views that were ORG , anti - NORP , racist and anti - democratic and sought to abolish what it called the \u201c system \u201d imposed by the ORG powers at DATE . They further stated that the applicant worked towards restoring the \u201c community of the people \u201d ( ORG ) and towards replacing the multi - party parliamentary democracy by a \u201c rule of the people \u201d ( ORG ) of the \u201c national elites \u201d ( nationale ORG ) . Finally , they alleged that the members and supporters of the applicant did not hesitate to use violence and threatened their opponents with \u201c reckoning \u201d ( GPE ) upon taking power .","On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings because the statements cited in support of the unconstitutionality of the party could not be clearly distinguished from those of undercover agents of the intelligence services . It found that the principle of separation between party and ORG ( PERSON ) , which was an essential requirement for proceedings aimed at banning the applicant , was not respected due to the influence of those agents , who were even present in the party \u2019s leadership , on the applicant \u2019s decision - making process .","On DATE the applicant lodged an application against ORG , ORG and ORG with ORG ( no . DATE ) , seeking a declaration that it was not unconstitutional within the meaning of LAW of LAW . In the alternative ( hilfsweise ) , it requested to find that the defendants violated its rights under LAW first sentence of LAW by constantly stating that the applicant was unconstitutional , thereby causing the effects of de facto ban , without initiating party ban proceedings . In the further alternative ( h\u00f6chst hilfsweise ) it requested to find that its rights were violated because there was no remedy allowing political parties to ascertain their constitutionality before ORG .","NORP In support of its application , the applicant cited leading politicians \u2013Prime Ministers and Ministers of the Interior of different NORP and members of ORG who had stated that the ORG was unconstitutional . The applicant alleged that its members who were working in the public sector had been subject to disciplinary measures or even been excluded from public service because of their affiliation with the party . It submitted that its candidates were not allowed to stand at municipal elections in ORG and in the Land of Thuringia . The applicant submitted that it had made CARDINAL unsuccessful requests to open accounts at public and private banks and that it had to pursue legal action against public banks in CARDINAL cases . It further submitted that it was required to engage in proceedings before the administrative courts almost every time it intended to rent communal space for its events , because the towns had refused to let it use their premises due to a fear of acts by \u201c the extreme left \u201d . The applicant added that it did no longer find companies willing to provide liability insurance for its events , which was a prerequisite for renting communal space . It complained that its authorised demonstrations were regularly disturbed by opponents and that the police did not sufficiently protect these demonstrations . It pointed out that its members were regularly victims of criminal offences committed by \u201c the extreme left \u201d . The applicant moreover complained that public funds allocated to projects against \u201c the extreme right \u201d referred to it as a party of the extreme right and concluded that these funds were used to combat it . Finally , it claimed that the media did not sufficiently give it the floor .","The applicant maintained that the remedies available before domestic courts were not sufficient to protect its interests , given the extent of discrimination and restrictive measures it was confronted with on the one hand and its limited resources on the other hand . It considered that the constant \u201c stigmatisation \u201d and perpetual debate about its potential ban amounted to a \u201c de facto ban \u201d . It submitted that the defendants were , by stigmatising the applicant and by calling on the public to \u201c combat against the far right \u201d ( PERSON gegen PERSON ) , also at the origin of and hence responsible for the discriminatory acts and criminal offences which private actors committed against the applicant and its members .","On DATE ORG dismissed the application . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .","ORG held that the application for a declaration that the applicant was not unconstitutional was inadmissible . It stated that LAW of ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz , see relevant domestic law and practice , paragraph CARDINAL ) provided that only ORG , ORG and ORG could apply for decision on whether a political party was unconstitutional . Domestic law did not provide that a political party could have recourse to ORG to have its constitutionality ascertained . It observed that this did not amount to a gap in legal protection , since the applicant and its members could pursue legal action before administrative , civil and criminal courts whenever its or their rights were infringed .","NORP In response to the applicant \u2019s argument that it did not have the resources to pursue legal action in each and every case , ORG stated that this posed a practical challenge that could be overcome with reasonable efforts . It emphasised that a political party which participated in forming public opinion had to accept being criticised as \u201c hostile to the constitution \u201d ( verfassungsfeindlich ) within the limits of freedom of expression . Where public authorities engaged in political debate , they had to respect the limits set by LAW , which were subject to judicial review . ORG considered that a discussion whether or not to initiate party ban proceedings was lawful as long as it contributed to the decision - making process and was not aimed at discriminating against the party concerned . It noted that there were remedies which allowed the applicant to challenge the allegation that it was unconstitutional , such as remedies against the surveillance by intelligence services . It observed that the same held true for the applicant \u2019s members with regard to their employment in public service and added that a lack of success in the respective court proceedings did not mean that there was a gap in legal protection .","The Federal Constitutional Court further found that the application , lodged in the alternative , to find that the defendants violated the applicant \u2019s rights under LAW first sentence of LAW by constantly stating that the applicant was unconstitutional , thereby causing the effects of de facto ban , without initiating party ban proceedings , was also inadmissible . It found that , even though this application could in principle be the subject of a \u201c dispute between constitutional organs \u201d ( PERSON , see relevant domestic law and practice , paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) , it was not sufficiently substantiated . It noted that the statements and measures cited by the applicant were not made on behalf of ORG , ORG or ORG , but rather by some of their members only . Therefore , they could not be attributed to these organs . Nor did the applicant substantiate that they infringed , or were about to infringe , its status as a political party .","Finally , ORG observed that the application , lodged in the further alternative , to find that the applicant \u2019s rights were violated because there was no remedy allowing political parties to ascertain their constitutionality before ORG was manifestly ill - founded . It argued that there was no gap in legal protection for the reasons set out in relation to the main application ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) , which precluded a violation of the applicant \u2019s rights .","On DATE ORG lodged a new application for the ban of the applicant pursuant to LAW with ORG ( no . CARDINAL BvB CARDINAL ) . The proceedings are pending .","The relevant provisions of LAW are worded as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) ORG parties shall participate in the formation of the political will of the people . They may be freely established . Their internal organisation must conform to democratic principles . They must publicly account for their assets and for the sources and use of their funds .","( CARDINAL ) NORP Parties which , through their aims or the conduct of their members , seek to damage or to overthrow the free democratic constitutional system or to endanger the existence of GPE shall be held to be unconstitutional . ORG shall determine the question of unconstitutionality . ( ... ) \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The ORG shall rule :","on the interpretation of LAW in the event of disputes concerning the extent of the rights and duties of a supreme federal body or of other parties vested with rights of their own by LAW or by the rules of procedure of a supreme federal body ; ( ... ) \u201d","The relevant regulations governing the declaration of unconstitutionality of a political party are contained in LAW and are worded as follows :","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The GPE , the NORP , or ORG may apply for a decision on whether a political party is unconstitutional ( LAW ) .","( CARDINAL ) The government of a Land may make an application only against such political parties whose organisational extent is limited to that ORG \u2019s territory . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) If the application proves to be well - founded , ORG shall declare that the political party is unconstitutional .","( CARDINAL ) The declaration may be limited to a legally or organisationally independent section of a political party .","( CARDINAL ) The declaration shall be accompanied by the dissolution of the political party or of its independent section , as well as by the prohibition of establishing substitute organisations . In this case , ORG may also declare that the property of the political party or its independent section be confiscated in favour of the Federation or the Land to be used for public benefit . \u201d","In relation to \u201c disputes between constitutional organs \u201d , the relevant provisions are worded as follows :","\u201c The ORG shall decide ( ... )","on the interpretation of LAW in the event of disputes concerning the extent of the rights and obligations of CARDINAL of the highest federal organs or of other parties who have been vested with own rights by LAW or by the rules of procedure of CARDINAL of the highest federal organs ( Art . CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of LAW ) ( ... ) . \u201d","\u201c Applicants and respondents may only be : the Federal President , the GPE , the GPE , ORG , and such parts of these organs that are vested with own rights pursuant to LAW or the rules of procedure of the GPE and GPE . \u201d","\u201c ( CARDINAL ) The application shall only be admissible if the applicant asserts that an act or omission of the respondent violated or directly threatened the rights and obligations awarded to the applicant or to the applicant \u2019s organ by LAW .","( CARDINAL ) The application shall state the provision of LAW which was violated by the respondent \u2019s contested act or omission .","( CARDINAL ) The application must be filed within DATE after the applicant gained knowledge of the contested act or omission . \u201d","It is established case - law of ORG that political parties are organs vested with own rights pursuant to LAW in the meaning of LAW no . CARDINAL of LAW and can assert their rights by way of a dispute between constitutional organs ( decision of DATE , no . CARDINAL PBvU CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , which has been consistently confirmed since , see , among many others , judgment of CARDINAL DATE , nos . CARDINAL ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184349","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"NOR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2018,"docname":"A v. NORWAY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , A , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The ORG decided of its own motion to grant the applicant anonymity pursuant to Rule CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of ORG ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-145713","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MDA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GRAFESCOLO S.R.L. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Alvina Gyulumyan;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall","text":["The applicant is a company incorporated in GPE .","On DATE the PERSON local council adopted a decision concerning the sale of a plot of land with a greenhouse on it to the applicant company . Subsequently , in DATE , a contract was entered into for that purpose between the local council and the applicant company .","On DATE the local council adopted a decision revoking its previous decision . The applicant initiated proceedings against the local council .","On DATE the PERSON local council introduced a counter action seeking the termination of the contract of sale between it and the applicant company on the grounds that the price asked for the property had been too low and that the land had been sold unlawfully owing to its proximity to a river . The applicant company opposed this action and argued , inter alia , that it was time - barred under the provisions of ORG in force at the time the contract was entered into .","On DATE ORG rejected the applicant \u2019s action but accepted that of the local council and declared the contract of sale null and void . The court held that the rules governing time limitation contained in the new LAW should apply . The court expressed of its own motion the opinion that the local council \u2019s action had concerned the declaration of the absolute nullity of the contract of sale and that therefore , in accordance with the provisions of LAW , it could not be time - barred . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG upheld the appeal lodged by the applicant company and quashed the judgment of the first - instance court . It upheld the applicant company \u2019s action and dismissed the counter action lodged by the local council . The local council lodged an appeal on points of law .","On DATE ORG upheld the appeal on points of law lodged by the local council . It quashed the judgment of ORG and upheld the judgment of ORG of DATE . ORG did not state any position in respect of the applicant company \u2019s initial defence concerning the statute of limitations . Only the representative of the local council was present at ORG hearing . The judgment of ORG was final ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157697","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF ABAKAROVA v. RUSSIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC , GPE .","The facts of the case are connected to GPE v. GPE , no . MONEY , DATE , and Abuyeva and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , DATE . These CARDINAL applications were lodged by residents of ORG , GPE , who alleged that their relatives had been killed or wounded , and that they had suffered injuries and lost their property during the attack on the village from DATE . In the ORG case , cited above , the applicant and her relatives were trying to flee the fighting on DATE when an aviation bomb exploded near their minivan , wounding the applicant and killing CARDINAL of her relatives . In the GPE and Others case , cited above , the applicants described how they had been trapped in the village during intense shelling and had tried to leave through what they had perceived to be a safe exit route . The ORG has established a number of facts relevant to the present case , which can be summarised as follows .","Ever since the start of operations by the NORP military and security forces in GPE in DATE , the village of ORG , situated in ORG , had been considered a \u201c safe zone \u201d . By DATE CARDINAL persons were living there , including local residents and internally displaced persons from elsewhere in GPE . In the period leading up to DATE the residents of ORG were not informed by the ORG authorities about the possible advance of illegal fighters into the village , even though such information was available to the military commanders . On DATE the village was captured by a large group of NORP fighters escaping from PERSON . The NORP military forces carried out an assault , using indiscriminate weapons such as heavy , free - falling aviation bombs , artillery , missiles and other weaponry . Although the operation was not spontaneous and involved the use of indiscriminate and highly lethal weaponry , the residents of the village were provided neither with sufficient time to prepare to leave nor with safe exit routes to escape the fighting . The CARDINAL exits from the village were controlled by the military by means of roadblocks . The residents were allowed to leave through the roadblock on the road leading towards the district centre of ORG , but the other one , on the road leading towards GPE , remained closed during most of the fighting . The shelling of ORG continued until DATE inclusive ( see GPE and Others , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .","The applicant and her family had been living in the village of FAC , situated QUANTITY from LOC . In DATE the applicant turned DATE . She had lived with her mother , father , CARDINAL elder brothers and a younger sister . She could remember the events of DATE when the hostilities erupted . On DATE a large group of insurgent fighters entered ORG , walking into houses and asking for clothes and food . On DATE airstrikes started . The applicant \u2019s family went into hiding in a cellar .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s family decided to travel to ORG , which the applicant \u2019s father described as a \u201c peace zone \u201d . The applicant \u2019s father drove his black GPE car ; her mother and brother PERSON sat in front , while the applicant , her sister GPE and brother PERSON , as well as CARDINAL cousins , PERSON and PERSON , were in the back seat . On DATE they arrived in ORG and stopped in the centre of the village .","According to the applicant , they did not know anyone in the village and an unknown man invited them to stay at his house , as did many other villagers . The family stayed with this man for TIME and everything was calm . On TIME CARDINAL DATE airstrikes started , and there were a lot of explosions . The applicant \u2019s family went into the cellar under their host \u2019s house . Many other people also arrived , including relatives and acquaintances from ORG . They stayed in the cellar throughout DATE , while the shelling of the village continued .","Later in the afternoon the applicant \u2019s father said that it was too dangerous to stay in ORG and that they would drive to ORG . The applicant \u2019s father , mother , CARDINAL brothers and CARDINAL cousins , as well as the applicant herself , got into the car . The applicant remembered seeing a lot of people on cars , tractors and on foot trying to get out of ORG . There were explosions .","At some point the applicant lost her conscious awareness of what was happening and found herself lying in the road . Their car was burning . She could see her sister GPE , brother PERSON and cousin PERSON . They were all alive but wounded and burned . The applicant could not see her parents . An old man brought the applicant into the courtyard of a house . Sometime later the applicant , her sister , brother and cousin were put on a bus . The applicant lost consciousness and woke to find herself in hospital in ORG . Her legs were covered with plaster , and her face and hands were burned . She also saw her sister GPE in the same room .","On DATE the applicant and her sister were brought by ambulance to GPE , Ingushetia . TIME the applicant did not see her sister and she did not know at that time where her family was .","On DATE the applicant was discharged from the Nazran hospital , with her legs still in plaster . She was diagnosed with fractures of the left hip and right shin , and thermal burns . The circumstances of the wounding were indicated as \u201c shelling , direct hit on the car in which the family was travelling \u201d . The applicant went to live with her grandmother in ORG . There she learnt that her whole family had died . As a result of the air - strike , the following relatives of the applicant were killed :","- Mr PERSON , born in DATE , the applicant \u2019s father ;","- PERSON , born in DATE , her mother ;","- Mr PERSON , born in DATE , her brother ;","- Mr PERSON , born in DATE , her brother ; and","- Mr GPE , born in DATE , her sister .","The applicant \u2019s cousin PERSON was also killed .","In DATE and DATE ORG civil registration office recorded the deaths of the applicant \u2019s mother , father and CARDINAL siblings which had occurred in GPE - Yurt on DATE . The cause of death was recorded as splinter wounds and burns .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office of the LOC district ( the district prosecutor \u2019s office ) initiated an investigation into the events of DATE in LOC in response to a complaint by the applicant in the GPE case , cited above .","On DATE the investigation into the criminal case was transferred to the military prosecutor \u2019s office of the North - Caucasus Military Circuit ( the military prosecutor \u2019s office ) . The case file was assigned number DATE .","It appears that in DATE the investigation questioned most of the applicants in application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , as well as other individuals who had been in LOC at the time .","At that time the investigation found it established that CARDINAL civilians had been killed and CARDINAL wounded as a result of the operation . CARDINAL individuals were granted victim status in the proceedings . The applicant \u2019s relatives and the applicant herself were not listed among the victims .","On DATE the military prosecutor \u2019s office terminated the proceedings in criminal case no . DATE . The decision referred to a large quantity of documents and statements from CARDINAL of witnesses , including local residents , servicemen from various units , and commanding officers . The decision also referred to the results of the military experts\u2019 report of DATE , which established that the actions of officers from the ORG involved in the special operation in GPE on DATE had been appropriate to the circumstances and in line with the applicable legal provisions . On this basis the investigation concluded that command corps\u2019 actions were absolutely necessary and proportionate to the resistance put up by the insurgent fighters . It found an absence of corpus delicti in the actions of the servicemen . By the same decision the victim status of CARDINAL individuals was withdrawn . The individuals in question were to be informed of the possibility of seeking redress through civil proceedings .","It appears that the victims were not informed by the prosecutor \u2019s office about the termination of the proceedings and nothing happened until DATE , when they learnt that the proceedings had been terminated .","DATE the applicants in application no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL contacted the military prosecutor \u2019s office in writing , seeking information about the progress of the investigation in case no . DATE . They referred to the circumstances of the deaths and wounding of their family members and asked to be granted formal status of victims in the proceedings .","NORP In response to these requests , DATE the military prosecutor \u2019s office informed the applicants of the results of the military experts\u2019 report , the termination of proceedings in criminal case no . DATE and the withdrawal of victim status in DATE . The letters also confirmed that the investigation had established the deaths and injuries of which they had complained and informed them that they could apply to a civil court to obtain compensation . Some of these letters contained the decision of DATE as attachment .","On DATE CARDINAL applicants in GPE and Others case lodged a claim with the military court of LOC . They complained about the ineffectiveness and incompleteness of the investigation . In particular , the applicants noted that some of their relatives\u2019 deaths had not been recorded by the investigation and that these persons had not been listed amongst those who died in ORG in DATE . They asked the court to quash the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings and to oblige the military prosecutor \u2019s office to resume the investigation in the criminal case , to grant each of them the status of victim in the criminal proceedings , and to issue them with copies of the relevant decisions . These complaints did not directly refer to the situation of the applicant \u2019s family .","NORP The applicants\u2019 request was granted and the case was reopened in DATE under the number DATE . However , on DATE the investigation was closed , with the same conclusions as in DATE , on the basis of Article CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of LAW . The decision confirmed the deaths of DATE and the wounding of CARDINAL local residents , without listing their names . An additional expert report was produced by ORG of ORG in DATE , which found that the actions of the command corps in planning and executing the operation had been reasonable and in line with domestic law . No copy of that report has ever been disclosed to the applicants or submitted to ORG . The decision stated in this respect :","\u201c ... The actions of the fighters ( the occupation of ORG by a group of fighters numbering CARDINAL persons , the fighters establishing strongholds in the houses , [ their ] fierce resistance and their using local residents as a \u201c human shield \u201d ) ... represented a real danger to the lives and health of the local residents , and could have entailed unnecessary losses by the federal forces ...","These circumstances required the taking of adequate measures by the command corps in order to prevent the danger of armed assault against the citizens and their lives and property ( residents of ORG and military servicemen ) , in addition to [ the need to safeguard ] the interests of society and the ORG which are protected by law ( the reinstatement of the constitutional order in GPE ) . After issuing a preliminary notification and giving the civilians a real opportunity to leave the village , the subsequent extermination of pockets of the GPE resistance by means of artillery and attack aircraft , employing area - point method ( \u201c \u0437\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e-\u043e\u0431\u044a\u0435\u043a\u0442\u043e\u0432\u044b\u0439 \u043c\u0435\u0442\u043e\u0434 \u201d ) , did not exclude deaths among civilians . At the same time , the use of such means of extermination was consistent with the circumstances and with the measures taken in order to minimise losses among civilians . The actions of the command corps ( commanders ) during the preparation and carrying out of the special operation aimed at the liberation of ORG DATE were in line with the requirements of relevant field manuals , internal regulations and instructions , were lawful and did not contain elements of criminally \u201d .","The decision to grant victim status to CARDINAL people was quashed . The military prosecutor of ORG in LOC ( UGA ) forwarded the decision to the head of ORG , asking it to identify the GPE places of residence and to inform them of the closure of the investigation , as well as the possibility of seeking compensation through the civil courts .","The name of the applicant in the present case was not listed among the CARDINAL individuals who had been granted victim status .","After discharge from hospital , the applicant had to keep plaster on her legs for DATE . Because the hostilities in GPE were still ongoing , her relatives took her to LOC to continue her treatment . In DATE the applicant was taken to GPE for treatment for DATE . In DATE her paternal grandmother , with whom she had been living after her GPE deaths , died . After that the applicant lived with her maternal grandparents in LOC .","In their observations of DATE , the Government stated that in DATE a witness had told the investigators about the deaths of CARDINAL people in a NORP car ( see GPE , cited above , \u00a7 MONEY ) but their identities were unknown at that time . It was not until the applicant \u2019s questioning in DATE ( see below ) that the investigation obtained this information .","In DATE a distant relative of the applicant \u2019s took her to a human rights organisation , at her request , where she found out for the first time that a criminal investigation had been opened into the attack at ORG .","On DATE the applicant wrote a letter to the military prosecutor of the ORG and informed him about the deaths of her CARDINAL relatives and the injuries she suffered on DATE in ORG . She attached CARDINAL death certificates and her discharge papers from the GPE hospital dated DATE .","On DATE the applicant was questioned and granted the status of victim in criminal case no . DATE . At that time the applicant was a minor but the questioning took place in the absence of legal guardian or representative . According to the parties , there is no information indicating the establishment of guardianship over the applicant up to the age of majority .","She was not informed of the decision to close proceedings of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL\u2013CARDINAL above ) . The Government submitted in their observations that this had been an omission on the part of the investigator which had been due to the large number of victims in the case .","As is apparent from subsequent documents submitted by the applicant , the investigation into the attack upon ORG was reopened in DATE . The investigators commissioned an additional expert report into the lawfulness and reasonableness of the military intervention . Neither party submitted to the ORG the decision to commission the expert report , the questions put to the experts , or a copy of the report itself , nor is it clear which documents were made available to the experts . The applicant \u2019s knowledge of and involvement in this procedural step has not been clarified . It appears that the document , as most other documents in the file , has been classified . A summary thereof and summaries of other documents are contained in a CARDINAL - page - long extract from the decision to close the criminal investigation issued by a senior investigator of ORG of ORG in ORG on DATE ( extract dated DATE ) .","The aforementioned extract opensat that time . According to the text , on TIME a group of CARDINAL fighters under the command of field commander PERSON had entered ORG ( also spelled ORG ) . They were armed with automatic firearms , large - calibre machine guns , flame - throwers , portable anti - aircraft launchers and armoured vehicles . On DATE the head of the operations centre ( OC ) of ORG in GPE gave orders to block the village to carry out a special operation . By that time , most inhabitants had left the village and others were hiding in their houses . The decision to evacuate the civilians was taken DATE . The population had been informed of this possibility through the head of the administration and by means of a loudspeaker device mounted on a helicopter . Following skirmishes on the outskirts of ORG and casualties suffered by the security forces , at TIME artillery started to carry out pin - point strikes aimed at clusters of fighters in the centre and on the periphery of the village . After sustaining casualties , a reconnaissance group retreated from ORG on TIME on DATE , following which attack aircraft were called in . Due to the fierce fighting and the artillery and air strikes upon the clusters of fighters , the residents started to leave , and by TIME on DATE \u201c their outflow had become significant \u201d . The extract stated that the special operation had continued for DATE , although the strikes continued until DATE . On TIME [ presumably TIME DATE ] a significant proportion of the fighters , numbering CARDINAL in all , had left the village under cover of poor visibility and escaped into the mountains ; CARDINAL had been killed during the operation . The commanders of the special operation had taken measures to arrange the evacuation of civilians but their plans had been upset by the fighters , especially in the initial stages of the operation . Many residents trying to leave the village had been caught in the crossfire between the fighters and the security forces . Most residents had been killed or injured in the initial stages of the operation , in the central part of the village where the most intense fighting had taken place . No conclusive figure of injured or dead civilians , fighters or security forces was given in the extract .","The extract then states that the latest decision to terminate proceedings had occurred on DATE . That decision was quashed on DATE and the investigation was extended until DATE .","The extract goes on to cite statements from various military and civilian witnesses , without indicating their names or ranks or the dates when these statements were taken ( see ORG , cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE ) .","The document also refers to an additional operational - tactical expert report ( \u201c DATE \u043a\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0441\u0441\u0438\u043e\u043d\u043d\u0430\u044f \u043e\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0430\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e-\u0442\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u0441\u0443\u0434\u0435\u0431\u043d\u0430\u044f \u044d\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0437\u0430 \u201d ) produced on DATE by unnamed \u201c external experts from the military faculty of ORG \u201d ( \u201c \u0432\u043d\u0435\u0448\u0442\u0430\u0442\u043d\u044b\u0435 \u044d\u043a\u0441\u043f\u0435\u0440\u0442\u044b \u0444\u0430\u043a\u0443\u043b\u044c\u0442\u0435\u0442\u0430 \u0432\u043e\u0435\u043d\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043e\u0431\u0443\u0447\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f \u042e\u0436\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0444\u0435\u0434\u0435\u0440\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u0443\u043d\u0438\u0432\u0435\u0440\u0441\u0438\u0442\u0435\u0442\u0430 \u201d ) based in GPE - on - Don . As summarised in the extract , the experts\u2019 conclusion did not differ from the findings reached by the previous expert reports commissioned by the investigation ( see paragraphs DATE above ) . The expert report is cited as follows :","\u201c In DATE the operational situation in the area of the counter - terrorist operation in GPE was extremely tense and difficult . ... After the defeat suffered in the plains of GPE and in PERSON , [ the illegal insurgents ] attempted to move into harsh southern mountainous regions where they would be able to take rest and recover , in order to organise further military action . ... A very difficult situation developed in the area covered by ORG . Their main task was to prevent the illegal insurgents from breaking through from the mountainous areas of GPE to the plains , to identify , disarm and detain members of the illegal armed groups , and to destroy them in the event of armed resistance ...","... In DATE reconnaissance information was received about the taking of ORG by a large group of fighters . The exact number of fighters was unknown . In order to prevent any further gathering of the fighters , it was decided to surround the village and carry out a special operation there ... A plan for the special operation was worked out . The plan detailed the detachments responsible for blocking and searching , the order of fire contact in the event of armed resistance by the fighters , the location of the command headquarters and control points ... The artillery targets were established in advance along the lines of the ORG possible escape routes from ORG and potential arrival of reinforcements , outside of the village . CARDINAL control points ( roadblocks ) were established at the CARDINAL ends of the village to ensure the exit of civilians \u2013 one towards ORG and the other towards ORG . The civilians left the village through the CARDINAL roadblocks , along \u2018 humanitarian corridors\u2019 .","The head of ORG was informed of the decision to carry out a special operation . He requested postponement in order to ascertain the situation with his own resources and to drive the fighters out of the village . The special operation was postponed for DATE . However , the following morning the fighters attacked ORG [ special police forces ] based in ORG and attempted to break through the lines of the security forces . The security forces sustained casualties . As became apparent during the clashes , the fighters were armed not only with firearms , but also with grenades and fire - launchers , large calibre machine guns , mine - launchers and anti - tank rocket launchers . The fighters were well prepared and were able to use artificial and natural hiding places in order to deliver combat in a populated area . The number of fighters greatly exceeded the security forces ( by CARDINAL times ) . \u201d","NORP The decision goes on to cite the report \u2019s conclusion that the use of fighter jets , artillery and mine - launchers upon fortified positions had been justified and that the refusal to employ them would have resulted in heavy losses among the security forces and failure to achieve the goals as set . Over a period of DATE most fighters present in the village were killed ( CARDINAL military unit had reported CARDINAL killed fighters ) .","The report cited military field manuals and concluded that the actions of the commanders had been in full compliance with those acts . The commanders had organised and planned the enforcement of the objectives set . The pin - point air strikes upon previously agreed targets , the direct strikes by artillery and anti - tank rocket launchers , and the tank and anti - tank guns had been directed by forward air controllers and artillery pointers upon clearly established and observed targets .","Page CARDINAL of the extract contains the following citation from the decision : \u201c the evidential material in the criminal investigation file ... shows that CARDINAL fighters who entered ORG were armed with automatic firearms , large - calibre machine - guns , grenade - launchers and armoured vehicles ; fortified firing points had been established in the captured houses . [ In such circumstances ] the use of artillery and airborne weapons DATE was justified ... \u201d","As cited in the extract , the experts focused on the use of artillery and aircraft . From the operative military documents referring to the use of artillery it was impossible to discern where and when exactly , and at what targets the artillery had been employed , since all the documents reviewed by the experts were judged by them as either irrelevant to the operation in question or not containing any relevant information . As to the aircraft , they had used aviation bombs and unguided and guided missiles of undisclosed types . The number of aircraft involved and the number and timing of the mission sorties , as well as the number of missiles and bombs used , was not specified . As cited , the report established that during the mission sorties the pilots had received information from the forward controllers , because the missions were taking place in the vicinity of , or within , the populated area . The target selection was done using smoke pods or by reference to clearly identifiable topographical \u201c highpoints \u201d . There was no evidence of provocations by fighters or mistakes in selecting targets . The document went on to state that the identification of targets had occurred on the basis of information received prior to departure , from the forward air controllers during the flight , and from the observed activity . Since their use by illegal insurgents could not be verified , attacks on vehicles were ruled out unless very precise and distinguishable directions had been received from the ground . The aircraft attacked from a height of QUANTITY and from a distance of QUANTITY ; from that distance details such as clothing and the presence of firearms could not be distinguished . For that reason , contact with the air controllers was necessary before and after hitting the selected target .","In the cited extract , the experts concluded that \u201c such engagement of artillery and aviation munitions practically ruled out the likelihood of casualties to civilians , except those who were with the fighters in houses occupied by the latter \u201d .","They further concluded that the \u201c employment of a minimal amount of artillery , the choice of the most accurate target direction possible , and the use of the minimum amount of shells necessary ... guaranteed safety from injuries by splinters both for the civilians and security forces . ... Having examined the criminal investigation file , the experts concluded that the OC of the Western Zone Alignment and the head of the special operation in GPE - Yurt had taken all possible measures in order to prevent losses among civilians while planning and carrying out the operation \u201d .","Turning to the situation of the civilians , the experts judged that they had been able to leave the village along \u201c humanitarian corridors \u201d through CARDINAL roadblocks . The information about the corridors had been communicated by means of a helicopter and an armoured personnel carrier ( ORG ) . The head of the administration had been properly informed of the beginning of the special operation and , at his request , its start had been postponed for DATE . The civilians had been informed of the need to evacuate and CARDINAL roadblocks had ensured safe and unhindered passage . The civilians had been accorded the time necessary for the evacuation and the transport carrying the civilians was able to travel back and forth through the roadblocks .","While the report , as cited in the extract , conceded that an unspecified number of civilians had been killed during the operation through the use of weapons under the control of the operation \u2019s commanders , such measures had been in compliance with the appropriate order of decision - taking in the choice of targets and means employed during the special operation .","On the basis of this report , the investigator concluded that the measures resulting in civilian casualties had been absolutely necessary within the meaning of Article CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of LAW ( as in the previous decisions of DATE and DATE see Abuyeva and Others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) .","The extract ended by listing the names of the CARDINAL individuals who had been killed , but Mr PERSON ( a son of the applicant in the GPE case , cited above ) was listed twice . It did not contain the names of the applicant \u2019s CARDINAL family members , nor of her cousin PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . Nor did it contain the names of CARDINAL relatives of applicants CARDINAL and CARDINAL in the Abuyeva and Others case ( see Abuyeva and Others , cited above , \u00a7 CARDINAL ) . The non - exhaustive list of the wounded included the applicant ; however no separate list of victims has been drawn up ; nor does it appear that a copy of that decision was sent to them .","On DATE a lawyer representing PERSON , another victim in criminal investigation no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/CARDINAL - CARDINAL , appealed to ORG against the decision of CARDINAL DATE to close the criminal investigation and to terminate PERSON victim status in the proceedings . The statement of appeal was based on the following grounds : the decision had not been based on the established facts , no proper collection and examination of evidence had taken place and legal classification of the events had been incorrect .","Firstly , it was argued that the investigation had failed to establish the following pertinent facts : the number of illegal fighters in ORG ; the timing and conditions of the transmission of information about the operation and evacuation of civilians ; the purpose of the roadblocks at the CARDINAL extremities of the village ; and the details of the aircraft bombings . As to the number of fighters , the statement of appeal referred to various figures cited in the extract and emphasised the fact that the source of this information had not been identified . Likewise , there was a lack of clarity as to the number of fighters killed , nor were there any indications as to any names , identification procedures etc . The appeal statement also pointed out that the number of the security force personnel involved had not been given ; it was therefore difficult to evaluate the numerical superiority of the fighters and the need to employ massive weapons . Furthermore , the victim challenged the statement that the administration and population of ORG had been informed about the operation in advance , pointing to the absence of any clear evidence in the case - file to that effect . Turning to the roadblocks set up by the security forces , the appeal statement pointed out that there were no grounds for concluding that this measure had facilitated the exit of civilians from ORG and reiterated the findings made in this respect by the ORG in the judgments in the ORG and GPE and Others cases ( both cited above , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL , accordingly ) . As to the details of aircraft bombing , it was argued that the investigators had accepted CARDINAL mutually incompatible versions and no steps had been taken in order to clarify whether the pilots , or the aviation controllers who had coordinated the fire , had been able to observe and distinguish legitimate targets ( members of illegal armed groups ) from civilians . It was also pointed out that the employment of unguided missiles and free - falling general purpose bombs in any event ruled out the possibility of limiting the impact to the selected targets .","As regards the incompleteness of the investigation , it was stressed that the investigators had failed to collect the information necessary to evaluate the threat to the civilian population and the appropriateness of the use of selected weapons and ammunition , and to compile an exhaustive list of victims and damage caused . On the last point , it was emphasised that no list of those who had been killed , both civilians and fighters , had ever been compiled and that the information in this regard remained incomplete .","Finally , it was argued that the legal classification of the ORG actions had been incorrect and that the application of Article CARDINAL part CARDINAL of LAW had been unjustified without the prior","On DATE the ORG examined and dismissed the appeal . The court referred to the conclusions of the expert report of DATE , according to which the actions of the operational commanders had been in accordance with the relevant field manuals and other instructions and were justified in view of the numerical superiority of the fighters . The court also found that the evidence collected by the investigation justified the conclusions reached as regards each of the points raised by the appeal . As to execution of the GPE and GPE and Others judgments , the court stressed that in accordance with LAW , and in line with ORG DATE , the investigation had been reopened in DATE and a number of relevant steps had been taken . In particular , a new expert report had been commissioned and carried out . The ORG \u2019s position on the ineffectiveness of the previous investigation had therefore been taken into account and the failings had been rectified .","The victim appealed . In her appeal of DATE it was stressed that the breach of procedural obligations under LAW in this case had taken on a lasting character . Pointing to the relevant passages in the ORG and GPE and Others judgments , both cited above , the appeal argued that the following fundamental defects of the investigation , as identified by ORG , had not been corrected in the new round of proceedings : there had been no independent evaluation of the proportionality and necessity of the lethal force used ; no individual liability had been established for the aspects of the operation which had led to civilian losses , and these aspects had not been studied and evaluated by an independent body , preferably a judicial one . It was reiterated that the expert report of DATE , as cited in the decision of DATE , had simply repeated the findings of CARDINAL previous expert reports which had already been examined by the ORG . Like DATE , it had not been based on the pertinent facts of the case . Finally , the important question of the total number of victims had still not been resolved , as demonstrated by the failure to include some of the GPE deceased relatives in the total .","On DATE ORG examined the appeal . During the hearing , the victim \u2019s representative submitted a number of additional points . He concentrated on the relevant precepts of international humanitarian law and the practice of international criminal tribunals which , he argued , should have guided the investigator in his examination of the case . In his view , the decision of DATE had failed to take into account the relevant interpretation of these provisions in so far as it concerned the definition of victims as civilians , and the widespread , systematic , indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on them .","ORG dismissed the appeals . It found that ORG had examined all the relevant evidence and had applied a comprehensive and consistent interpretation thereto . At this stage , the judge was unable to analyse the substance of the question of guilt or innocence , or to evaluate the correctness or sufficiency of the evidence collected . ORG stressed that the victim \u2019s arguments regarding both the incompleteness of the investigation and the failure to take into account ORG binding judgments had been thoroughly examined and dismissed .","As is apparent from subsequent documents , the victim \u2019s ORG cassation appeal was unsuccessful . On DATE a judge of ORG refused to accept the request for review , in view of the detailed and well - reasoned decisions of the military courts . The victim \u2019s argument that the legal position of ORG in the new round of proceedings had not been taken into account was judged to be unfounded ."],"violated_articles":["13","2"],"violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159913","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PRUS v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Egidijus K\u016bris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody . In DATE he was convicted of CARDINAL counts of battery and robbery and received prison sentences ranging from DATE . On DATE ORG imposed a cumulative sentence for CARDINAL criminal convictions .","On DATE the Opole Lubelskie Prison Penitentiary Commission imposed on the applicant the so - called \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d regime . The commission held that the applicant had been the leader of or an active participant in a planned collective remonstrance in FAC ( Article CARDINALa \u00a7 CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) , as the detainees refused to accept food provided by the prison authorities . The authorities learned that the detainees were planning another collective protest for DATE . The commission also considered that the applicant was particularly depraved .","On DATE the Opole Lubelskie Prison Penitentiary Commission rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant and dismissed his request for leave to examine the appeal outside the statutory time - limit .","Subsequently , the applicant was transferred to FAC .","On DATE ORG reviewed and upheld the decision to apply the regime to the applicant , considering that he posed a serious threat to the security of the detention centre . The applicant appealed .","On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The court referred to the reasons given in the decision of CARDINAL DATE , holding that the decision had been lawful and justified .","On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He complained that he was having difficulties in accessing educational activities in FAC . The authorities dismissed the complaint , holding that educational activities were not organised for dangerous prisoners .","On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant notified the police of his allegedly unlawful classification as a \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d on CARDINAL DATE . He claimed that the Opole FAC authorities had exceeded their powers in imposing the regime on him . On DATE the Opole ORG refused to open an investigation in the case , holding that no offence had been committed .","On DATE ORG revoked its decision to classify the applicant as a \u201c dangerous detainee \u201d . It considered that the applicant \u2019s behaviour had improved and that he no longer posed a threat to the security of the remand centre ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165755","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF MIKHNO v. UKRAINE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Yonko Grozev","text":["The first applicant was born in DATE . She is the paternal grandmother of the second applicant , who was born in DATE . As of the time when the application was lodged , the first applicant was also the second applicant \u2019s legal guardian . The applicants live in GPE .","On DATE ORG of GPE organised a military aviation show in the \u201c Sknyliv \u201d aerodrome in GPE ( \u201c the PERSON air show \u201d ) to commemorate DATE CARDINALth ORG . The celebration agenda included a static display of military aircraft and other equipment , and a live aerobatics show by military pilots .","The event was attended by CARDINAL individuals , including the second applicant , aged CARDINAL at the time , accompanied by Sergiy PERSON , her father and the first applicant \u2019s son , and PERSON , her mother and the first applicant \u2019s daughter - in - law .","During the aerobatics performance , an SU-CARDINAL military aircraft piloted by ORG and GPE crashed into the static aircraft display site where there were numerous spectators , where it exploded . Both pilots had successfully ejected before the explosion . As a result of the crash , seventyseven people died and over CARDINAL sustained injuries .","Both ORG and PERSON , who were in the epicentre of the accident , died at the scene from numerous fractures and severe cerebral trauma .","At the moment of the crash the second applicant was in the cabin of an IL-CARDINAL airplane on static display , posing for a photograph and waving her hand to her parents . She witnessed her parents being crushed by the aircraft , but did not sustain any physical injuries herself . Subsequently , she underwent psychological rehabilitation programmes intended to help her recover from her emotional trauma .","On various dates several concurrent investigations were opened to establish the circumstances of the accident , including investigation by a special ORG set up for this purpose , ORG , ORG , ORG , and PERSON , a non - governmental organisation founded by survivors of the accident and those who had lost relatives at the air show .","On DATE the President of GPE set up a special ORG for the investigation of the causes of the catastrophe of the military aircraft of ORG of GPE ; \u201c the ORG \u201d ) with a specific mandate to investigate the circumstances of the accident and coordinate assistance to its victims . The Commission was chaired by the President of ORG . Other members of the Commission included senior officials from ORG , Interior and ORG , officers of ORG of GPE , ORG of ORG , ORG , and ORG . ORG also engaged several experts from the \u201c LOC construction bureau ( the SU-CARDINAL aircraft manufacturer , GPE ) and CARDINAL test pilots from GPE as aviation experts .","Following the investigation , which included inspecting the accident site , interviewing individuals involved in the organisation of the air show and examining the relevant documents , as well as deciphering data from the flight data recorders , on an unspecified date in DATE ORG reported on the facts as follows .","NORP In DATE Colonel - General MONEY ( ORG ) authorised the aerobatics show at the request of ORG ( the CARDINALth Corps Commander ) . ORG appointed a mixed team of officers from different units , including Colonel PERSON , from GPE , GPE as the first pilot ; Colonel GPE , of ORG , stationed in GPE , as the second pilot ; and Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON . , stationed in GPE , as the aerobatic performance director . Lieutenant - General PERSON and ORG PERSON , both stationed locally in GPE with ORG , were also designated to join the mission , one as \u201c air show flights director \u201d and the other as \u201c chief safety officer \u201d .","On DATE GPE , GPE and GPE . carried out their only training flight as a team . On the orders of ORG , the flight took place at a military aerodrome in GPE , near GPE . According to ORG , that flight could not qualify as a rehearsal for the performance at the air show , as it included a different sequence of manoeuvres ; its purpose was rather to improve and practise piloting techniques . The ORG also established that ORG had requested an additional training flight in GPE and that his request had been turned down by the command , citing a shortage of fuel . Although the air show preparation programme included an on - site rehearsal flight on DATE , the CARDINALth ORG Commander decided to cancel it for the same reason . The pilots were not formally apprised of the boundaries of the aerobatics zone or the placement of spectators .","Before the show , the pilots were provided with a different aircraft from the one in which they had carried out their training flight . There was a certain asynchronism in the performance of the right and left engines of this aircraft . Overall , however , it was in an acceptable technical condition and remained fully operational until it crashed . The aircraft had been supplied with extra fuel in order to enable the pilots to return to GPE without landing at the site of the air show . The fact that the pilots had trained in a different aircraft and with less fuel had a negative impact on their readiness for performing aerobatic displays . For unspecified reasons , the pilots decided to take off without the mandatory anti - gravitation suits ( \u201c g - suits \u201d ) . On arrival at the PERSON aerodrome , the pilots immediately started the performance , without taking any time to familiarise themselves with the site , which was new to them . During the performance , the aircraft exited the designated aerobatics zone , the boundary of which was QUANTITY from the spectators\u2019 area . Neither PERSON nor GPE . , directing the flight from the ground , warned them of that fact or directed them to return to the designated zone . Still outside of the zone , ORG decided to perform a certain aerobatic display ( called \u201c the trunk \u201d ) , which he had never practised before and which was not included in his mission order . He made a technical mistake in its performance and , as the second pilot did not intervene when appropriate , the pilots lost control of the aircraft and it started falling . Subsequent efforts by the crew to regain altitude were futile . Accordingly , ORG concluded that the principal cause of the accident was a technical mistake on the part of the first pilot in performing a manoeuvre which he had not been commissioned to perform . It also noted that the prompt and appropriate intervention of the second pilot could have saved the situation and that loss of life and damage to health could have been avoided had the ground crew properly guided the pilots to stay within the aerobatics zone .","ORG also noted serious shortcomings in the organisation of the air show , including poor coordination between various officers and authorities involved in its preparation ; unsatisfactory crew training , and lack of appropriate emergency and spectator - safety planning , which contributed to the disaster . The Commission noted , in particular , as follows :","\u201c The serious consequences of the aviation catastrophe ... were the result of irresponsibility , negligence , lack of discipline , official neglect and breach of applicable regulations ... on the part of many leading officers of ORG , in particular , the generals and officers of ORG .","The tragedy was also the result of the absence of a system of effective supervision of the execution of orders ... by the respective air force officials DATE from its Commander - in - Chief to the members of the crew of the SU-CARDINAL . As a result , the generals and officers involved in the preparation and staging of [ the air show ] were not apprised of the real state of affairs concerning the necessary measures to be carried out , while the immediate participants in the aerobatic performance proved to be ill - prepared for it . \u201d","The Special Commission criticised , in particular , PERSON ( the ORG Commander - in - Chief ) and his colleagues from ORG responsible for the military training \u2013 Lieutenant - General PERSON and ORG for not having developed appropriate specific normative guidelines for the aerobatic performances . In the ORG \u2019s view , these were much needed given the lack of general regulations on the relevant matters . ORG also criticised PERSON and his colleagues for not having ensured a proper distribution of tasks between their subordinates engaged in the show and their direct supervision on behalf of ORG . In ORG opinion , such supervision was particularly important in view of the involvement in the show of officers from different military units that were not subordinate to each other and not accustomed to performing any tasks together . It also noted that Lieutenant - General S.O. ( the CARDINALth ORG Commander ) and his subordinates , in particular ORG and Colonel PERSON ( the CARDINALth ORG chief flight safety officer ) , had failed to put in place any meaningful land - and - air safety precautions plan . In addition , ORG regretted ORG \u2019s decision to cancel the on - site rehearsal flight and concluded that the officers designated to direct the flight as ground crew ( ORG and GPE . ) had had no relevant experience or clearance for such a mission .","ORG also reported on numerous procedural breaches on the part of the local administration and municipal authorities in authorising the air show . In particular , PERSON , deputy mayor of GPE with responsibility for humanitarian issues , had exceeded his authority in authorising it instead of the mayor himself . The mayor , having learned of the military authorities\u2019 initiative to organise the air show , took little action to coordinate the relevant preparatory activities . The show was authorised without the involvement of the competent officers and services legally responsible for carrying out assessments of the relevant safety risks and for taking the necessary prevention and response measures . The local authorities also failed to set up a necessary air show coordination committee and to organise a safety inspection of the aerodrome site before the show .","In DATE ORG produced a Report on the internal investigation , largely reiterating the findings of ORG . In particular , it concurred that the immediate cause of the accident was the first pilot \u2019s unforeseen misconduct , whose grave consequences could have been avoided or mitigated , were it not for the second pilot \u2019s and the ground crew \u2019s failure to intervene in good time . It also recognised that the organisation of the air show had been marked by significant shortcomings , including an unsatisfactory land and air safety precautions plan ; refusal to arrange CARDINAL training flight for the crew over the PERSON aerodrome ; and poor supervision by ORG and ORG of the preparatory activities . In addition , it was noted that the necessary regulatory framework was missing , and the organisers had drawn guidelines from the regulations on ordinary military training , which were not adapted for staging air shows for civilian spectators .","Referring to the conclusions of the investigation , on DATE the Minister of Defence issued order no . CARDINAL ( On the unsatisfactory organisation of the demonstration flight and the SU-CARDINAL aircraft disaster at the PERSON aerodrome ) , whereby a number of officers engaged in the organisation of the show were subjected to disciplinary sanctions . In particular , Lieutenant - General PERSON ( the CARDINALth Corps Commander ) was demoted ; Lieutenant - General O.V. , ( Deputy ORG Commander - in - Chief on military training ) was dismissed from the military \u201c for unsatisfactory performance of service duties in respect of the preparation for and supervision of the air show at the Sknyliv aerodrome , and for personal irresponsibility \u201d ; ORG was dismissed from the military \u201c for a negligent attitude to the performance of service duties and low personal executive discipline \u201d ; and CARDINAL other high - ranking ORG officers received warnings and were subjected to other sanctions . In addition , ORG , the ORG Commander - in - Chief , was also dismissed from the military service on disciplinary grounds , and the new ORG Commander - in - Chief was instructed to impose disciplinary sanctions on \u201c other officers guilty of breaches of duty during the preparation and staging of the air show \u201d . The issue of disciplinary responsibility for the pilots of the crashed aircraft and the ground crew which had operated their flight , was reserved pending a criminal investigation of the accident .","On DATE ORG delivered its report . It stated that numerous authorities shared , to various extents , common responsibility for the poor organisation of the show . It noted , in particular , that :","\u201c DATE . ... in the course of the preparation and staging of the demonstration flights ... the military establishments , the specialised central ORG aviation facilities and departments , the municipal authorities and their particular officers failed to comply with a number of provisions of the current law , governing the procedure of preparation and staging the events of such a scale , which failures , to various extents , resulted in the catastrophe and such a major loss of human life ... \u201d","The Commission concluded that the local authorities had played an ancillary role in the organisation of the air show . However , they had acted negligently in authorising it in breach of formal procedures and without soliciting all relevant information from the military authorities . They had also failed to develop an appropriate emergency prevention and response plan for the air show . According to the ORG , the municipal authority had been completely disengaged from any safety - related decision - making and its overall performance had been marked by \u201c ... a certain confusion and lack of clear understanding by the higher officers of the scope of their responsibilities . \u201d In view of this , the ORG recommended that ORG evaluate the performance of the Mayor and other municipal officers and clarify its policy concerning the distribution of functions between them . It also invited the Mayor to impose disciplinary sanctions on his staff members who were at fault for breach of duty .","The Commission next concluded that the negligence of the city authority had not been a direct cause of the accident , and attributed the primary responsibility for it to the military authorities , having provided the following overall political assessment of the accident :","\u201c [ the accident is ] ... a consequence of the generally irresponsible policy of ORG , which has neglected reformation of the ORG and the ORG , leading to a loss unprecedented for a civilised country ... of military efficiency and patriotic spirit , criminally negligent performance of their official duties by the military command at all levels , loss of pride in the military service and marginalisation of the material and technical procurement of the armed forces and military servicemen ...","\u201c ... [ the accident ] ... demonstrated the inadequacy of the current legal framework , the inadequacy of the ORG control system in respect of flight safety ; irresponsible and negligent performance by officers at all levels of their duties under the law in force ; the need to establish civilian control over the activities of the army ; and the need to modernise and effectively reform the armed forces of GPE ... \u201d","On DATE the Sknyliv Tragedy Lviv - based ORG founded by the relatives of the accident victims and its survivors published its own investigation report based on interviews and other information collected from public and private sources . In addition , the report featured an assessment of ORG piloting techniques by PERSON , a civil aviation pilot , who had lost family members at the PERSON air show .","Similarly to the reports produced by the governmental authorities , the authors of this report concluded that the immediate cause of the crash was error by the first pilot in performing a manoeuvre , which had been neither envisaged by his mission order nor practised by him before the show , while the second pilot and ground crew did not take the opportunity to intervene in respect of the first pilot \u2019s conduct . In addition to that , in the opinion of the authors of the report , ORG Commander - in - Chief and the CARDINALth ORG Commander , who had been watching the performance from the VIP lounge , had also failed to act to prevent the accident , as they had had direct radio connection with the ground crew and could have intervened at any moment .","Notwithstanding the aforementioned findings , in the opinion of the authours of the report , the accident had largely resulted from a structural problem . The responsibility for it had to be borne by numerous entities , including ORG , ORG , the authorities of the CARDINALth ORG , the GPE city and regional authorities , and the civil aviation authorities ( ORG and ORG ) , which had given permission for the aerobatic performance without checking its terms of reference .","NORP In particular , the authors of the report considered that the GPE mission had been poorly developed and had not been properly communicated to all parties involved . The mission order approved on DATE by Lieutenant - General PERSON of ORG was at variance with the aircraft specifications . A subsequent explanatory document to the mission order approved by Colonel PERSON , the first pilot \u2019s direct supervisor , was inconsistent with these specifications and with the aforementioned mission order . None of these documents specified such important parameters of the mission as engine performance mode , attack angles and acceleration coefficient to be observed during particular manoeuvres . Marginal flight parameters , such as minimum speed and height and maximal attack angle , which had been developed by ORG officers , were unsuitable for the performance of most of the manoeuvres which formed part of the event programme .","The authors of the report also criticised ORG for designating too small an aerobatics zone , ( QUANTITY , when CARDINAL xCARDINAL,CARDINAL metres would have been required ) . They noted that it was technically impossible for the pilots to perform their programme within the boundaries of this zone and not to find themselves above the spectators\u2019 heads .","Finally , the report also attributed part of the responsibility for the accident to the local municipal and regional authorities , which had disengaged themselves from any safety - related and emergency - prevention planning as well as to the civil aviation authorities ( the NORP and ORG agencies ) for giving authorisations for the air space to be used in breach of the relevant procedural rules .","On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings to investigate the circumstances of the accident .","On DATE the case was transferred for investigation to ORG and assigned to the Deputy Chairman of ORG of ORG for Military ORG . The team of some CARDINAL investigators and other officers from the military prosecutor \u2019s office dedicated to the case was supplemented by CARDINAL civilian investigative officers from ORG , department of the interior and ORG . The composition of the team was modified on several occasions , each time consisting of both military and civilian officers .","On DATE the prosecution commissioned an aviation expert assessment , which was carried out by a group of CARDINAL ORG officers in active service , a retired ORG flight safety specialist and a civilian aviation expert .","On DATE the group produced its report , in which it concurred with the earlier findings made by ORG and other entities concerning the principal causes of the accident . As regards the quality of the organisation of the show , the experts found that the GPE mission as such had not been incompatible with the SU-CARDINAL specifications , and that the size and location of the aerobatics zone had been acceptable . At the same time , in the experts\u2019 view , the organisational flaws had included , among others , a failure on the part of the superior officers to draw up comprehensive documents and guidelines in order for the crew to understand the scope of their mission , and to supervise more closely the execution of orders .","On CARDINAL DATE the civilian expert engaged in the above assessment issued a separate opinion in which he stated , inter alia , that in his view the aerobatics zone had been too small ; its location had been inherently dangerous and the GPE mission order had been incompatible with the SUCARDINAL specifications .","On DATE the prosecutor \u2019s office solicited an opinion from CARDINAL other experts , both retired ORG officers , who at the material time had been on the staff of ORG scientific centre for combat application , to clarify the matters in dispute and other questions .","On DATE the investigation obtained a conclusion by these CARDINAL experts , in which they reported of numerous shortcomings in the air show organisation . In addition to the shortcomings pointed in the earlier ORG report , they concluded that the aerobatics zone was too small ; the boundaries of the zone were not clearly marked on site so as to be visible from the aircraft , which factor impaired the ORG ability to orient themselves ; the location of the aerobatics zone was potentially dangerous in case of any unforeseen situation ; the airfield \u2019s preparation for the show was carried out without any account being taken of the possibility of pilot error or any other emergency ; the crew did not receive a single mission order defining its mission according to all applicable standards ; various documents defining its flight parameters were not comprehensive and not fully consistent with each other ; the officers of the flight safety service failed to reveal the above shortcomings ; the pilots were allowed to take off without g - suits and their preparedness being checked by any competent authority ; the position of \u201c air show flights director \u201d assigned to ORG , which did not feature in any military training documents , appeared to be redundant ; it paralleled that of the ordinary aerodrome flights director , with a lack of clarity as to the distribution of authority between the CARDINAL officers ; neither ORG nor Colonel GPE . , who directed the flight , had the proper clearance , experience , and qualifications ; and there was no assessment of the quality of the first pilot \u2019s piloting technique during the training flight in GPE on DATE . In practice , the pilots\u2019 training was coordinated and supervised only by Colonel PERSON , stationed at the NORP aerodrome , who had neither the authority nor the qualifications to assess their preparedness . The experts also noted that , regard being had to the army hierarchy , it was for ORG Commander - in - Chief to issue an appropriate formal order clearly designating the officers responsible for the mission and determining their personal responsibilities , as well as to bear responsibility for their proper training , since the programme envisaged the involvement of crew members and the use of equipment from various military units .","According to the experts , these and other shortcomings constituted breaches of numerous provisions contained in the relevant regulatory framework , including special military aviation guidelines , in particular : Guidelines for execution of flights for ORG , enacted by order no . CARDINAL of the Deputy Minister of Defence on DATE ( ORG \u043f\u043e \u0432\u0438\u043a\u043e\u043d\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044e \u043f\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043e\u0442\u0456\u0432 \u0432 \u0430\u0432\u0456\u0430\u0446\u0456\u0457 PERSON , GPE ) ; ORG of ORG , enacted by order no . CARDINAL of ORG Commander of GPE on DATE ( ORG \u043f\u043e \u0448\u0442\u0443\u0440\u043c\u0430\u043d\u0441\u044c\u043a\u0456\u0439 \u0441\u043b\u0443\u0436\u0431\u0456 \u0430\u0432\u0456\u0430\u0446\u0456\u0457 PERSON , ORG ) ; General Rules on FAC in ORG , enacted by order no . CARDINAL of ORG Commander of GPE on DATE ( ORG \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0438\u043b\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u043b\u044c\u043e\u0442\u0456\u0432 \u0443 \u043f\u043e\u0432\u0456\u0442\u0440\u044f\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0443 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0441\u0442\u043e\u0440\u0456 GPE , ORG ) ; ORG in ORG , enacted by order no . CARDINAL of ORG Commander on DATE ( NORP \u043f\u0440\u043e \u0437\u0430\u043f\u043e\u0431\u0456\u0433\u0430\u043d\u043d\u044f \u0430\u0432\u0456\u0430\u0446\u0456\u0439\u043d\u0438\u0445 \u043f\u043e\u0434\u0456\u0439 \u0443 ORG , ORG ) , and several others . Similarly to the findings contained in other reports , the experts concluded , in particular , as follows :","\u201c ... CARDINAL of the reasons for the emergence of the ... incident ... was the existence of significant shortcomings in the ... preparation and staging of the ... air show and lack of clear distribution of duties between the officers ... which , in turn , led to lack of coordination between ... the persons engaged in the preparation , as well as to the absence of effective control over their activity . \u201d","If the foregoing normative acts had been unconditionally complied with , the breaches in the organisation of the demonstration flight could have been detected and remedied , and the grave consequences avoided ... \u201d","The investigation ended on DATE . CARDINAL officers , including both pilots and their ground support crew ; the ORG Commander - in - Chief ( GPE ) ; GPE and ORG ; the Commander of the CARDINALth Corps ( ORG ) ; the CARDINALth corps chief safety officer ( ORG ) and the commander of the ORG unit based in GPE ( PERSON ) were committed for trial .","On an unspecified date in DATE S.O. , previously demoted from his post as CARDINALth ORG Commander , was appointed first deputy ORG Commander - in - Chief .","On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General disjoined the criminal proceedings against GPE , ORG and ORG and referred their case ( hereafter referred to as \u201c the ORG case \u201d ) for additional investigation . He found , in particular , that it was necessary to clarify whether there was a causal link between the omissions imputed to those officers and the aircraft crash .","For that purpose , on DATE CARDINAL civilian experts were commissioned to carry out an additional assessment . The CARDINAL defendants challenged that appointment , alleging that the experts concerned were not competent to evaluate their performance . PERSON proposed CARDINAL other candidates in their stead . The prosecutor \u2019s office dismissed the challenge to the civilian experts , but agreed to include CARDINAL of the candidates proposed by ORG in the group , having found that they were sufficiently independent . It rejected the other CARDINAL candidates , citing possible conflict of interest in view of their current or former employment with ORG . Subsequently , CARDINAL more retired military officers were included in the group , which finally consisted of CARDINAL civilian experts and CARDINAL retired military officers . CARDINAL of the military officers ( including the CARDINAL candidates proposed by ORG ) were serving at the material time in the faculty of ORG and the fifth expert was deputy director for flight safety at a military aircraft repair company belonging to ORG .","On DATE the CARDINAL military experts produced a report in which they concluded that all CARDINAL defendants had duly fulfilled their responsibilities in respect of the organisation of the air show and that none of them had breached any service duty or other applicable provisions . The group also concluded that the applicable legal framework governing the staging of military air shows and the organisation of aerobatic performances had been adequate and sufficient and that there had been no need for the defendants to develop any additional rules or guidelines before the air show . In the group \u2019s view , the misconduct by the first pilot was the sole cause of the accident . Their conclusion , insofar as relevant , read as follows :","\u201c The only reason for the crash of the SU-CARDINAL aircraft was the execution by the pilot of an unplanned piloting manoeuvre , in the course of which he committed grave errors in piloting technique , which caused the falling of the aircraft and the catastrophic consequences . \u201d","On CARDINAL DATE the CARDINAL civilian experts also produced a report , which largely replicated the findings and the language of the report issued by their military counterparts .","In the meantime , on an unspecified date , the case in respect of the pilots , the ground crew and CARDINAL other officers of the lower rank ( hereafter the \u201c performers\u2019 case \u201d ) was transferred to the court for trial .","During the trial , the defendants pleaded innocent of any wrongdoing . In particular , ORG noted that there had been no normative document defining the responsibilities of an \u201c air show flights director \u201d . Having been appointed to this position created by order of the CARDINALth ORG Commander , he had developed his own reference document listing his duties for the Commander \u2019s approval and had done his best in performing them . In his opinion , the appointment could not have made him responsible for direct supervision of the ORG training at a different airfield and ensuring their readiness , as neither of them had belonged to the CARDINALth ORG or been placed under his command . He considered that regard being had to their position in the military hierarchy , the pilots had to report directly to the ORG Commander - in - Chief .","Colonel PERSON of the CARDINALth Corps flight safety service likewise asserted that he had properly performed his service duties and had prepared sufficient documentation concerning flight safety during the air show . He had submitted the relevant documents for review by ORG as well as by the relevant sectors in ORG , and had not received any negative feedback . Colonel PERSON further admitted that he had never personally instructed the pilots on the safety measures and had never checked on their readiness for the flight . In his view , such responsibilities fell outside his authority and had to be carried out by the ORG direct superiors , who did not belong to ORG .","Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON . , the aerobatic performance director , asserted that , having been informed of the size and boundaries of the aerobatics zone on DATE , he had warned ORG and the pilots of his doubts concerning its safety . However , having been told that the relevant parameters had been approved by the higher command and it was too late to change anything , he had executed the orders of his superiors and directed the flight as best he could .","Colonel PERSON ( the first pilot ) alleged , in particular , that during the flight the aircraft had become uncontrollable due to forces beyond his control . He denied an accusation that he had deviated from his mission order , and submitted that in his view the way to perform the disputed manoeuvre was a matter for the pilot \u2019s discretion , particularly as his mission order had no specific instructions to this end . Moreover , prior to the flight , he had discussed the disputed manoeuvre with Colonel PERSON ( the second pilot ) , who he had considered to be the crew captain , as he was higher in the military hierarchy , and the latter had no objections to his choice . Colonel V.T. also noted that the documents defining his mission had not defined the boundaries of the aerobatics zone . He had been taken by surprise when he saw on arrival on site that the spectators were to the left of the runway , as according to his orders , his manoeuvres were also to be carried out to the left . In any event , he considered himself obliged to carry out his orders without arguing .","NORP Colonel GPE ( the second pilot ) submitted that he had considered the first pilot to be the crew captain and that he himself was obliged to refrain from interfering with his actions . He concurred with the first pilot that the way to execute the disputed manoeuvre , which was not specified in the mission order , was a matter for the pilot \u2019s discretion .","On DATE ORG , sitting in a panel consisting of CARDINAL military judges and acting as a firstinstance court , found both pilots , the air show flights director and the aerobatic performance director guilty of breaches of flight regulations within the meaning of Article CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and sentenced them to CARDINAL , six and DATE imprisonment respectively . It further found the chief of the CARDINALth Corps flight safety service guilty of having a negligent attitude towards military service within the meaning of LAW paragraph QUANTITY of the ORG , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment , suspended , with probation . By way of reasoning , the court referred extensively to the relevant findings of ORG and the aviation experts\u2019 assessment of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) in so far as they related to the actions of the above officers , as well as described the overall shortcomings in organising the show .","The sixth defendant , Colonel PERSON , who had coordinated ORG and GPE \u2019s training programme in GPE and supplied the aircraft for the show , was found to have performed his duties in good faith and acquitted .","On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE upheld this judgment on appeal and it became final .","In the meantime , on an unspecified date ORG decided to continue with the \u201c organisers\u2019 case \u201d , having disagreed with the expert conclusions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and on DATE suspended ORG \u2019s authority as the Deputy ORG Commander .","On DATE the defendants in this case were committed for trial on charges of having a negligent attitude towards military service within the meaning of Article CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG . ORG and V.A. were additionally charged with breaches of flight regulations within the meaning of LAW ORG . Finally , GPE and GPE were additionally charged with exceeding their authority within the meaning of Article CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG by inappropriately using ORG funds for a celebration of a bogus memorial date and staging aerobatic performances in the absence of an appropriate regulatory framework .","On DATE ORG , sitting in a panel of CARDINAL military judges and acting as a first - instance court , acquitted all CARDINAL defendants of the above charges , largely relying on the expert conclusions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE . It found that the provisions of LAW ORG did not apply to ORG and GPE , as they had not operated the flight and had not been directly involved in its preparation . Other charges were dismissed as unsubstantiated . In particular , all the defendants were found to have carried out their service duties properly . The court noted that they had taken numerous measures to ensure proper organisation of the show and had produced a large volume of documents correctly delegating tasks to different officers . They had also reasonably trusted the pilots , the supporting crew and other officers to carry out the tasks assigned to them . No legal act could be interpreted as conferring on the defendants a different range of duties or imposing an obligation to act in a different manner . The relevant allegations of the prosecution , as well as the conclusions of ORG and the expert findings dated DATE in respect of the defendants were incorrect , being based partly on an overly broad interpretation of the applicable legal provisions and partly on references to provisions that were wrongly applied in the context . The court did not refer to the internal investigation of ORG in its judgment . The relevant excerpts of the court judgment read as follows :","\u201c ... the members of the [ ORG ] concluded that the immediate cause of the catastrophe ... derived from mistakes in the piloting technique ... outside the designated aerobatics zone ... The same conclusion was adopted by the court , which examined the criminal case concerning [ V.T. ] and others . All other circumstances connected to the organisation of the show in the court \u2019s view did not in any way affect the wrongdoings by [ the first pilot ] and , moreover , they could not have been foreseen or taken into account by the organisers of the show ...","... As far as the size of the aerobatics zone was concerned , which , according to the experts , was insufficient for the performance of the mission ... this breach was not the cause of the catastrophic situation , since the SU-CARDINAL aircraft was practically never within its boundaries ...","Reports on the crew \u2019s readiness for the flight were produced properly , and it was following their receipt that [ V.S. ] as well as [ S.O. ] gave permission for the flight to go ahead ;","The decision to hold the show was taken by the CARDINALth ORG Commander [ S.O. ] : this decision was coordinated by him with the ORG Commander - in - Chief [ V.S. ] , and they acted within the scope of their authority . With a view to preparation of the festivities and organisation of the flight by TIME ORG jointly with ORG took a number of relevant measures : orders were issued ; show plans were drafted ; agendas were put in place ; and air and static display schemes were developed ... The CARDINALth Corps Commander performed his duties with respect to the preparation of the show in accordance with the applicable law , having properly distributed duties among his subordinates ... Issues concerning preparation of the show and supervision over the performance of the delegated tasks were discussed at meetings organised by [ S.O. ] ...","The court \u2019s conclusions ... are also not affected by the cancellation of the [ on - site ] ... rehearsal flight ... In the court \u2019s view , this fact did not affect the cause of the disaster , which was deviation by [ V.T. ] from his mission ... \u201d","The Prosecutor \u2019s Office and numerous injured parties appealed against this verdict before ORG of ORG . In its appeal , the prosecution asserted , in particular , that the preparation for the show was based exclusively on the military training documents , which took no account of the specifics of an aerobatic performance involving civilian spectators . Lacking a body of relevant legislation and regulations , ORG had been obliged to develop specific documents adapting the military training rules for this purpose before planning the show . As an aerobatics performance could not be equated to an ordinary military training flight , a special training programme had to be set up , and the crew had to have special clearance . However , the reports by ORG , ORG and the aviation experts indicated that not only did the defendants fail to act in developing relevant rules and regulations , but they also failed to supervise compliance with the existing general rules . The court \u2019s findings were at odds with the findings by these authorities , and no justification was provided for them . Moreover , they were inconsistent with the court \u2019s own position adopted in the judgment of DATE , where it heavily relied on the conclusions of ORG and the aviation expert assessment in examining various aspects of the case and had referred to the relevant findings concerning poor organisation of the show in its reasoning .","On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE rejected the appeals and upheld the acquittals .","On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the first and second applicants lodged civil actions within the aforementioned criminal proceedings . They claimed CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) and ORG CARDINAL respectively for non - pecuniary damage inflicted by the deaths of ORG and PERSON . Subsequently they increased their claims , seeking ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages respectively . No claim for damage on account of the second applicant \u2019s presence at the scene of the accident was submitted .","On DATE , contemporaneously with the verdict in the \u201c performers\u2019 case \u201d , the court awarded each applicant UAH CARDINAL in nonpecuniary damage , to be paid by ORG . It also awarded ORG CARDINAL each to the father , mother and sister of PERSON .","On DATE ORG of ORG rejected the ORG appeals , in which they claimed higher compensation .","On DATE the second applicant received the judgment award due to her .","In DATE the first applicant received UAH CARDINAL of the judgment debt due to her .","According to the ORG , the remaining ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL were paid to the first applicant on DATE . They presented a copy of the decision of ORG dated DATE terminating the enforcement proceedings , in view of the fact that the judgment had been duly enforced .","When submitting their observations on the case in response to those of the Government , the applicants additionally submitted copies of the judgments of the PERSON and FAC dated DATE and DATE , awarding the second applicant DATE allowances of UAH CARDINAL and UAH CARDINAL in connection with the loss of the financial support of her mother and father respectively . These allowances were to be paid by ORG until the second applicant \u2019s eighteenth birthday . ORG was also obliged to pay lump sums of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL in back payments under the first and second judgments respectively . These judgments were not appealed against and became final .","Enforcement proceedings were initiated with respect to both judgments , however , according to the applicants , only the second of them was being enforced . They submitted that the debt under the first judgment amounted to the hryvnia equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at the time of the exchange of observations between the parties .","On DATE the Cabinet of Ministers of GPE allocated CARDINAL NORP hryvnias from the ORG reserve fund to ORG towards liquidating the consequences of the accident ( Decree no . CARDINAL ) .","DATE . On DATE ORG created a commission to deal with distribution of the above funds , and determined the categories of expenses to be covered ( Decree no . CARDINAL ) . According to the ORG \u2019s decision , UAH CARDINAL was to be distributed to the families of the deceased . The sums were to be disbursed to spouses , children , parents and dependents of the deceased victims , in amounts ranging from UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL to UAH CARDINAL depending on the family circumstances . The decree further allocated a total of UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the surviving victims ; UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL to help the families with arranging funerals and providing gravestones ; UAH CARDINAL towards medical and rehabilitation costs ; UAH CARDINAL towards prosthetic care and relevant rehabilitation expenses , and the remaining funds to other categories of expenses . According to the Government , the relevant funds were disbursed to the addressees before DATE .","On DATE the ORG of GPE decided to transfer DATE salary of each Member of ORG , with their consent , to the benefit of the PERSON accident victims .","On DATE ORG decided how to distribute the ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL received by the municipality in charitable donations ( Decree no . CARDINAL ) . According to this decision , UAH CARDINAL of these funds were to be distributed to the families of the deceased ; UAH CARDINAL to those with serious irreversible health damage ; UAH CARDINAL to those with serious injuries and who were receiving in - patient treatment ; ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to those with injuries of medium seriousness and who were receiving in - patient treatment , and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to those receiving outpatient treatment .","On various other occasions the authorities took additional decisions allocating financial and other assistance to various categories of the victims ( such as decrees no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE , and no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL March CARDINAL by ORG , Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE by the Lviv Mayor , and others ) . Pursuant to these decisions , further funds were allocated for medical check - ups and rehabilitation procedures , to cover the costs of holidays in recreational facilities for children , and for lump - sum payments to victims of the accident .","The first applicant and Mr GPE , her husband ( the third member of the applicants\u2019 household ) received UAH CARDINAL each from the ORG budget in connection with the deaths of their son and daughter - in - law , and about ORG CARDINAL in funeral and other assistance .","The second applicant received a global amount of UAH CARDINAL from ORG funds .","The applicants were also provided with holiday vouchers to go to LOC in DATE and exempted from payment of the second applicant \u2019s kindergarten fees . A further cumulative amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL was made available to the applicants\u2019 household from charitable funds collected by the ORG authorities for the PERSON air show accident victims .","The parents of PERSON received a total of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in ORG aid and around UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL in charitable donations ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["2"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["2-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-159212","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF SOBKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence .","On TIME , the applicant was digging potatoes together with his wife and PERSON ( Ms ) , a neighbour , near his house . The applicant and PERSON had consumed some vodka at breakfast .","The applicant \u2019s DATE daughter was in the house , together with his DATE stepson , PERSON , who was watching cartoons on a DVD player . The house was locked , and the key was in the applicant \u2019s pocket .","At TIME , when the applicant was carrying a sack of potatoes to the cellar , his wife asked him to have a look at the children . He was gone for TIME . When he returned , he said that he had had some beer .","At TIME , when the work was finished , the applicant went to the house . He came out and told his wife that her son was dead . When she entered the living room , she saw PERSON lying on the floor with a cable around his neck . The television set was overturned on the floor nearby . The applicant expressed a presumption that ORG had tried to reach the remote control on top of the television , had overturned the television and , as a result , had accidentally been strangled by the cables .","Somebody called the police . By the time they arrived , ORG had been put in his bed and the television had been placed on a bed in a different room . The applicant and his wife were questioned as witnesses . They admitted that they had relocated the body and the television , and explained that they had done so because they had felt stressed .","An autopsy of the child was carried out and in TIME of the same day the expert who had conducted it called the investigator and informed him that the boy had been strangled by somebody , and had not died as a result of an accident .","NORP The investigator , together with the police officer on duty , returned to the applicant \u2019s house and inspected the scene once again . The applicant maintained his account that there had been an accident . The police officers took him to the police station , without formally deciding on his procedural status . The applicant did not object .","The police officer on duty had a conversation with the applicant and suggested that he \u201c tell the truth \u201d . As a result , at TIME the applicant wrote a statement of \u201c voluntary surrender to the police \u201d , in which he explained that he had strangled PERSON having got angry about the mess in the room . The statement contained a note that the applicant had been familiarised with the content of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE , DATE , a criminal case was opened against the applicant on suspicion of murder of a child .","The applicant spent TIME in the police station .","At TIME on DATE , the applicant was formally arrested as a suspect . He wrote in the arrest report that he waived his right to legal defence and regretted what he had done .","On DATE the applicant wrote another statement of \u201c voluntary surrender to the police \u201d with the same content as the previous one .","On DATE the applicant was granted legal aid and a lawyer was appointed for him . During his questioning as an accused and during the reconstruction of the crime , in the presence of his lawyer , the applicant maintained his confession .","On DATE the applicant underwent a forensic medical examination , apparently in the context of the judicial decision on his pre - trial detention . No injuries were found on him and he did not raise any complaints before the expert .","NORP In DATE ( the exact date is not legible in the available copy ) a forensic medical expert confirmed the findings of the autopsy report that ORG had died as a result of strangulation .","On an unspecified date the applicant signed an agreement on his legal representation by PERSON","On DATE the applicant \u2019s father , acting on the applicant \u2019s behalf , signed a legal assistance agreement with PERSON ( the lawyer who also represented the applicant in the proceedings before this ORG ) . On the same date PERSON joined the proceedings as the applicant \u2019s lawyer . It appears that PERSON NORP too continued to represent the applicant .","On DATE the applicant refused the services of Mr R.","On DATE the investigator ordered the applicant \u2019s forensic psychiatric examination with a view to establishing whether he could be held liable for the criminal offence with which he was charged .","On DATE experts completed the aforementioned examination . They concluded that the applicant , although showing an indication of \u201c slight intellectual retardation on the verge of a slight mental disability \u201d ( \u043b\u0435\u0433\u043a\u0430 \u0456\u043d\u0442\u0435\u043b\u0435\u043a\u0442\u0443\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0430 \u043d\u0435\u0434\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u0442\u043d\u0456\u0441\u0442\u044c \u043d\u0430 \u043c\u0435\u0436\u0456 \u043b\u0435\u0433\u043a\u043e\u0457 \u0434\u0435\u0431\u0456\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0456 ) , was aware of his actions and could control them .","On DATE , during his questioning as an accused , the applicant retracted his confession and claimed his innocence . He submitted that he \u201c had incriminated himself under the physical and psychological coercion of the police \u201d .","On DATE the investigator decided that the applicant \u2019s allegation warranted a separate investigation . He therefore severed from the case file certain materials which could be of relevance ( such as the applicant \u2019s confession , the transcript of his various questioning sessions and the report of his forensic medical examination ) .","On DATE an additional forensic medical expert evaluation , which had been carried out at the request of the applicant \u2019s lawyer , was completed . The expert excluded the possibility that ORG had been accidentally strangled by the television cables when the television set had fallen on him , as had been suggested by the applicant , and confirmed that that could not be the origin of his bruises either .","On DATE ORG refused to open a criminal case in respect of the applicant \u2019s allegation that he had been coerced by the police , having found that there was no indication of a criminal offence .","On DATE the applicant was indicted .","On DATE ORG , sitting as a court of first instance , found the applicant guilty of murder of a child and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . It relied , in particular , on the applicant \u2019s statement of \u201c voluntary surrender to the police \u201d of DATE and the confessions he had made on CARDINAL DATE and maintained thereafter until DATE . The court decided , however , not to take into account his statement of CARDINAL October CARDINAL on the grounds that it could no longer be regarded as a \u201c voluntary surrender to the police \u201d and the applicant should have been questioned as a suspect and legally represented . Furthermore , the court relied on the material and expert evidence . The applicant \u2019s allegation of police coercion was dismissed as unsubstantiated . The trial court took into account the fact that the applicant had decided to write a \u201c voluntary surrender to the police \u201d as a mitigating factor in fixing his sentence .","On DATE a copy of the judgment was served on the applicant .","On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law . He complained , in particular , of the lack of access to a lawyer during his initial questioning at the police station on DATE . He submitted that he had been coerced into confessing by \u201c physical violence and psychological pressure \u201d . The applicant also challenged the accuracy of the expert findings and disagreed with the assessment of the facts by the trial court . The first page of the applicant \u2019s cassation appeal was stamped by ORG ( GPE ) , in which he was detained at the time , confirming that the appeal was sent out on DATE .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s lawyer also submitted an appeal on points of law with similar arguments . The stamp of the trial court on the first page of the appeal shows that it was received on DATE .","According to the ORG , neither the applicant nor his lawyer applied to ORG to participate in the cassation hearing . However , the case file contains a copy of such a request signed by both the applicant and his lawyer and dated DATE . It has not , however , been stamped by ORG and there is no other acknowledgment of its receipt .","On DATE , in a hearing with the participation of the prosecutor , but in the absence of the applicant or his lawyer , ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . It considered that the applicant \u2019s right to legal defence had not been violated , as his confession of DATE had been excluded from the evidence ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1","6-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":["6-3-c"],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-173091","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF SOMMER v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He works as a criminal defence lawyer .","NORP In DATE the applicant defended a client in criminal proceedings . After the proceedings had concluded , and when the client had already been imprisoned , the client \u2019s fianc\u00e9e transferred the applicant \u2019s legal fees ( CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) from her private bank account to the applicant \u2019s professional account . The subject of the bank transfer read : \u201c Prof PERSON fees ( client \u2019s last name ) \u201d .","In DATE and DATE the GPE public prosecution office conducted investigations into several individuals suspected of having committed fraud on a commercial basis as members of a gang . CARDINAL of the suspects was the aforementioned applicant \u2019s former client , who again retained the applicant as his defence lawyer . During these investigations , the bank accounts of several people , including the applicant \u2019s client and the client \u2019s fianc\u00e9e , were inspected . The inspection revealed that the client \u2019s fianc\u00e9e had received money ( ORG CARDINAL ) which was suspected to have stemmed from illegal activities , and had transferred ORG CARDINAL for legal fees to the applicant \u2019s bank account .","On the basis of the bank transfer of fees from the fianc\u00e9e to the applicant in relation to the first set of criminal proceedings , the GPE public prosecution office also contacted the applicant \u2019s bank . On DATE the public prosecutor asked for a list of all transactions concerning the applicant \u2019s bank account from DATE until DATE . He asked the bank not to reveal the request to the applicant . He based his request for information on Articles CARDINALa , DATE and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( hereinafter \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , in conjunction with LAW ( see paragraphs ORG below ) .","On DATE the public prosecutor requested further information and asked the following questions :","\u201c ( a ) Which other bank accounts , investment accounts or safe deposit boxes at your bank belong to the person in question ?","( b ) What rights of disposal ( Verf\u00fcgungsberechtigungen ) does the person in question have ?","( c ) Who else has a right of disposal ?","( d ) Do other accounts exist of which the person in question is the beneficiary ?","( e ) If so , what are the current balances on these accounts ?","( f ) If bank accounts have been closed by the person in question , please submit information about the date of closure and the balance at the time of closure , and where the money was transferred after closure .","( g ) Which addresses of the person in question are known to you ?","( h ) Are you aware of any money transfers to or other transactions with foreign countries ? If so , please specify the bank , account and amount of each transfer or transaction .","( i ) Please submit a list of all transactions for all existing or closed accounts from CARDINAL DATE .","( j ) Are there any credit cards connected to any of the accounts ? \u201d","The bank complied with both requests for information and submitted the information to the public prosecution office . In both instances , the public prosecutor did not order the bank to submit the information , but pointed to the obligations of witnesses set out in the ORG and the possible consequences of noncompliance ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The information received was analysed by the police and the public prosecutor , and a list of CARDINAL transactions deemed to be relevant was included in the investigation file as evidence . Therefore , everyone who had access to the case file , such as the lawyers of the coaccused , also had access to the applicant \u2019s banking information , including the names of his clients who had transferred fees .","On DATE , after several unsuccessful requests , the applicant , as the lawyer of the accused , was granted access to the investigation file . From the case file he learned , for the first time , of the investigative measures concerning his own bank account .","On DATE the applicant asked ORG to hand over to him all data received from the bank and destroy all related data at the public prosecution office . In his request the applicant emphasised his role as a criminal defence lawyer , which was known to the acting public prosecutor , and the consequences for his clients , whose names were accessible through the banking information . He further argued that the investigative measures lacked a legal basis .","On CARDINAL DATE the GPE Chief Public Prosecutor refused the applicant \u2019s request . He stated that there was a suspicion that the money transferred from the client \u2019s fianc\u00e9e stemmed from illegal activities . Consequently , it was legitimate for the public prosecutor to investigate whether further money transfers had taken place between the applicant and his client or the client \u2019s fianc\u00e9e . Therefore , since the investigative measures were legitimate , the information received had to be kept in the investigation file . ORG further pointed out that there was no legal basis for returning the data or taking the documents out of the investigation file . ORG cited LAW of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as a legal basis for the information requests , since the bank in question was a bank under public law and therefore considered to be an authority .","Subsequently , the file was transferred to ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) , because the criminal proceedings against the applicant \u2019s client had started . The applicant therefore asked ORG to return the data .","On DATE ORG refused the applicant \u2019s application . The court found that the investigation was lawful , that the bank had provided the information voluntarily , that the documents could therefore only be returned to the bank and not to the applicant , and that the prohibition of seizure under LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) was not applicable , since the information had not been in the applicant \u2019s possession . Nonetheless , in order to safeguard the clientlawyer privilege , it also decided to separate the documents in question from the general court file and only grant access to them if reasons proving sufficient interest were provided .","The applicant appealed against the decision . He challenged in particular the findings that the bank had acted voluntarily and that there had been sufficient suspicion for such an extensive analysis of his banking transactions . He further reiterated that , owing to his position as a lawyer , there were several safeguards in place concerning the seizure of documents ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , and these should not have been circumvented because his and his clients\u2019 personal information was stored at and by the bank , and not at his office .","On DATE the ORG confirmed the decision of ORG . It found that the decision was proportionate and that the safeguards were not applicable , in particular since the bank could not be considered a person assisting the applicant or a person involved in the professional activities of the applicant under Article CARDINAL of the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint , without providing reasons ( case no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) ."],"violated_articles":["8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177936","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF \u00d6ZDEMIR G\u00dcRCAN v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of association);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant is a teacher in primary school and at the material time she was a member and secretary of the local branch of the trade union of ORG and ORG LOC ) .","On DATE the applicant participated in a demonstration organised by the above mentioned trade union on the theme \u201c No to violence against women \u201d .","On DATE ORG imposed a disciplinary sanction in the form of a reprimand on the applicant for her participation in the aforementioned demonstration under LAW of the Law no . CARDINAL on ORG .","On DATE the applicant objected to this decision and requested its annulment .","On DATE ORG of the LOC governor dismissed the applicant \u2019s objection considering that the contested decision was in accordance with law and there were no grounds for its annulment ."],"violated_articles":["11","13"],"violated_paragraphs":["11-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-163347","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF VUKU\u0160I\u0106 v. CROATIA","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;St\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","In DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , a socially - owned company , granted a specially protected tenancy to its employee PERSON and his family of a flat in NORP . During DATE and DATE NORP paramilitary forces gained control of CARDINAL of the territory of GPE and proclaimed the so - called \u201c GPE \u201d ( NORP autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter \u201c LOC \u201d ) . The town of NORP was close to the border of LOC . There were targeted killings of NORP civilians by members of the NORP police and army in the NORP area during a prolonged period in DATE and DATE ( see PERSON , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 DATE , DATE ) . Owing to this situation , PERSON and his wife PERSON , both being of NORP national origin , left the town of ORG and went to live with their relatives in GPE . They left their belongings , such as furniture and household appliances , in the flat in NORP .","In DATE the socially - owned company ORG was transformed into a joint - stock company and became ORG ( ORG ) . It remained ORG - owned and ORG - controlled . It owned several companies , CARDINAL of them being ORG company ( PERSON \u201c PERSON ) which since DATE managed all the flats having been previously owned by the former ORG company . Another company was ORG , which was privatised in DATE . From DATE the ORG ceased to have any share in the ownership of ORG .","On DATE ORG enacted ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , hereinafter \u201c LAW \u201d ) with regulations on the sale of socially - owned flats previously let under a specially protected tenancy . In general , the LAW entitled the holder of a specially protected tenancy of a socially - owned flat to purchase it under favourable conditions .","The applicant and his family lived in the town of ORG in their house . ORG was occupied by NORP paramilitary forces in DATE . The applicant and his family moved to NORP as displaced persons . The applicant found employment with ORG .","In DATE the applicant and his family moved into the flat where GPE and GPE had a specially protected tenancy . According to the applicant the flat was allocated to him and his family by his employer . According to the Government , during the proceedings before the domestic courts the applicant did not produce any document which showed the flat as having been allocated to him . PERSON and the applicant communicated on several occasions by telephone and PERSON agreed that the applicant and his family , as displaced persons , could temporarily occupy the flat .","On DATE the ORG company brought a civil action in ORG against GPE and GPE , seeking the termination of their specially protected tenancy of the flat at issue . The applicant gave oral evidence as a witness in those proceedings . He stated that he did not know where PERSON was . PERSON and GPE , having been adjudged to be persons whose whereabouts were unknown , had a special guardian ad litem appointed to represent them in the proceedings . On DATE ORG terminated GPE and GPE \u2019s specially protected tenancy on the grounds that they had abandoned the flat in question . That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE and thus became final .","On DATE GPE and GPE lodged an application for the reopening of civil proceedings which had been completed with final effect . A copy of that application was served on ORG company . The application was granted on DATE and the proceedings were reopened . The applicant participated in the reopened proceedings as an intervener on the side of the plaintiff .","On DATE , ORG and the ORG company concluded an agreement to sell the flat at issue to the applicant , under LAW . A copy of the contract was submitted to ORG for approval , which was given on DATE .","On DATE ORG dismissed the action by ORG company to terminate the specially protected tenancy held by GPE and GPE That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE and thus became final .","After the NORP authorities had gained control over ORG in DATE , the applicant and his family sought reconstruction assistance for their house in ORG to be repaired , under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG accepted the applicant \u2019s request and granted him and his family the sum of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) to repair their house in ORG .","The applicant and his family confirmed to the administrative authorities that they had returned to ORG on DATE . They had their registered residence in ORG DATE and DATE .","In DATE GPE and GPE brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) against the parties to the DATE contract of sale , seeking the annulment of that contract . During the proceedings PERSON died . The claim was dismissed by ORG on the grounds that the contract of sale had been concluded in accordance with the law , since at that time the applicant had had a specially protected tenancy of the flat in question .","ORG judgment was reversed on CARDINAL DATE by ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u ORG ) . It established that ORG had not lost her specially protected tenancy since it had been restored to her and therefore the contract of sale had been concluded in breach of the mandatory rules of LAW . It also held that the applicant had known the circumstances in which the former holders of the specially protected tenancy had left the flat at issue as well as that they had lodged a request for the re - opening of the proceedings in which their specially protected tenancy had been terminated . Therefore , the impugned contract of sale was contrary to morals and constitutional principles and therefore null and void under section CARDINAL ) of LAW . The judgment was upheld by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .","On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint . He relied on Article CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL and CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In essence he complained about the annulment of his title to the flat by ORG . In particular , in his constitutional complaint he wrote , inter alia :","\u201c The complainant \u2019s right to inviolability of ownership guaranteed by LAW was violated by the decisions of ORG and ORG because the unconstitutional decision of ORG interferes with the complainant \u2019s ownership ... \u201d","The Constitutional Court declared the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint inadmissible on DATE holding that the case did not raise any constitutional issues .","The applicant is still living in the flat at issue ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["P1"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-148180","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF NOVOKRESHCHIN v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Erik M\u00f8se;Khanlar Hajiyev","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The applicant was prosecuted for drug dealing and running a criminal syndicate , together with CARDINAL codefendants . He was first arrested on DATE for selling heroin but released DATE on the undertaking to appear .","On DATE the applicant was remanded in custody . Subsequently , the criminal case against the applicant was joined with a number of other investigations into drug dealing . On DATE the charges against the applicant were reformulated . He was charged with creating and operating a criminal syndicate , CARDINAL counts of drug dealing , CARDINAL counts of attempted drug dealing and money laundering .","The facts concerning the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention are summarised in the table below .","","On DATE and DATE and on other dates ORG granted further extensions of the authorised detention period .","According to the information submitted by the ORG , on CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant who remained detained until that date ."],"violated_articles":["5"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-183118","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF JURE\u0160A v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE , in inheritance proceedings following the applicant \u2019s grandmother \u2019s death , the applicant \u2019s relative , PERSON , and the applicant \u2019s father were declared the beneficiaries in respect of a house , which was not registered in the land register , by a decision of ORG ( PERSON u NORP ) .","On DATE PERSON brought a civil action against the applicant in ORG ( PERSON u PERSON ) asking that court to recognise his ownership of a share of CARDINAL of an inherited piece of property and to order the applicant to allow him to register his ownership in the land register . He set the value of the dispute ( vrijednost predmeta spora ) at CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) .","In the proceedings before the first - instance court , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant contested the value of the dispute and suggested that it be set at HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL .","At the hearing held on DATE the applicant , inter alia , withdrew her objection to the value of the dispute as indicated by the claimant , and stated that she agreed with it .","In its judgment of DATE the ORG accepted PERSON \u2019s claim .","NORP The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON u PERSON ) and on DATE the second - instance court dismissed her appeal as ill - founded , upholding the first - instance judgment .","On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) , challenging the lower courts\u2019 judgments .","On DATE ORG declared the applicant \u2019s appeal on points of law inadmissible ratione valoris . It interpreted PERSON \u2019s civil action as being composed of CARDINAL separate claims arising from different factual and legal bases - the first one for recognition of ownership , and the second for obtaining an order securing the registration of his ownership in the land register ( hereinafter \u201c the issuance of a clausula intabulandi \u201d ) . ORG thus halved the value of the dispute and held that the value of each claim did not reach the necessary ratione valoris threshold of HRK CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) for an appeal on points of law to be admissible . The relevant part of this decision reads as follows :","\u201c The claimant in his civil action indicated the value of the dispute as HRK CARDINAL .","Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CPA [ ( LAW ) ] , if the claims in the civil action arise from a variety of grounds , or different claimants put forward individual claims or individual claims are raised against several defendants , the value of the dispute must be established in accordance with the value of each individual claim .","In the instant case the claimant made CARDINAL non - monetary claims , CARDINAL concerning property rights - for recognition of ownership - , and a claim under the law on obligations - for the issuance of a clausula intabulandi , namely for obtaining an order securing registration of his ownership in the land register . Therefore , the value of the dispute has to be established in relation to the value of the dispute of each claim . Consequently , the value of the dispute of each claim ... has to be established by dividing the indicated unique value of the dispute by [ these ] CARDINAL [ claims ] .","Given that the claimant indicated the [ unique ] value of the dispute as HRK CARDINAL , and that this amount should be divided by [ the number of the claims ] , the value of the dispute of each claim does not exceed the amount of CARDINAL . It follows that an appeal on points of law by the defendant is inadmissible . \u201d","The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , arguing that PERSON \u2019s action had CARDINAL aspects which could not be separated , and that ORG decision finding that the case concerned CARDINAL separate claims had therefore been arbitrary and had violated her right to a fair hearing , in particular her right of access to ORG , as guaranteed under LAW .","On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant \u2019s constitutional complaint . It held that the applicant in her constitutional complaint \u201c did not demonstrate that ORG had failed to respect the provisions of the LAW concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms , namely that it had applied relevant law in an arbitrary manner \u201d and that therefore \u201c the present case did not raise a constitutional issue . \u201d Its decision was served on the applicant \u2019s representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["6"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-156460","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"LON\u010cAR v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants , Mr PERSON , PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively . They all live in FAC and were represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","The first applicant died on DATE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","During DATE and DATE NORP paramilitary forces gained control over CARDINAL of the territory of GPE and proclaimed the \u201c GPE \u201d ( NORP autonomna oblast LOC , hereinafter \u201c LOC \u201d ) . At DATE the NORP authorities announced their intention to take military action with the aim of regaining control over \u201c LOC \u201d . The operation was codenamed \u201c Storm \u201d and took place from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . Before the military action , the vast majority of the population of \u201c LOC \u201d had fled GPE . They went firstly to GPE , and later on many of them went to live in GPE . Some returned to GPE after the war . The number of people who fled is estimated at CARDINAL .","In DATE the authorities learned that a close relative of the applicants , ORG , had been killed during the operation \u201c Storm \u201d or immediately afterwards , in DATE , on the territory of \u201c LOC \u201d . The police opened an inquiry into the circumstances of his death .","NORP In DATE the police interviewed the first and second applicants , who had no direct knowledge about the circumstances in which ORG had died .","M.L. , also interviewed in DATE , said that in DATE she had been in a convoy comprising people , tractors and \u201c military armoured vehicles \u201d . ORG had also been in that convoy . He had been dressed in a NORP army uniform and had been wearing an army mask . The convoy had been attacked but she had not seen how ORG had died . PERSON , interviewed at the same time , confirmed PERSON \u2019s statement .","On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG Attorney \u2019s ORG against unknown perpetrators in connection with the killing of ORG","On DATE the body of ORG was exhumed . It was dressed in a military uniform with a military identity card .","On DATE the GPE State Attorney \u2019s ORG dismissed the applicants\u2019 criminal complaint on the grounds that ORG had been killed in combat between a unit of the paramilitary NORP forces and LAW of the ORG of GPE . This decision was served on the ORG representative on DATE ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-146411","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF GAJCSI v. HUNGARY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general}","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Helen Keller;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","The applicant suffers from a so - called psycho - social disability . On DATE the ORG found a violation of LAW concerning his psychiatric detention ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . PERSON ) .","On DATE ORG placed the applicant under partial guardianship . As an automatic consequence flowing from LAW ) of the LAW , as in force at the relevant time , his name was deleted from the electoral register .","On DATE the ORG reviewed the applicant \u2019s situation and restored his legal capacity in all areas but health care matters . This change , however , did not restore his electoral rights .","The applicant could not vote in the general elections held in GPE on DATE , due to the restriction on his legal capacity which resulted in the deprivation of his electoral rights ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-3"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-165262","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"FRA","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF A.B. AND OTHERS v. FRANCE","importance":3,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-f - Expulsion);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Speediness of review);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .","They fled GPE on account of fears of persecution related to the first applicant \u2019s activity as a journalist and his political activism .","After arriving in GPE on DATE they filed applications for asylum , which were rejected by ORG fran\u00e7ais de protection des r\u00e9fugi\u00e9s et apatrides \u2013 OFPRA ) , on DATE , then by ORG ( PERSON nationale du droit DATE PERSON ) , on DATE . Their subsequent requests for re - examination were also rejected .","On DATE the prefect of Loiret issued orders rejecting the applicants\u2019 requests for leave to remain and obliging them to leave NORP territory . On DATE ORG , on an appeal from the applicants , refused to overturn those orders .","The first applicant was arrested by the police in connection with a theft on TIME of CARDINAL DATE and was taken into police custody that DATE . The second and third applicants were arrested DATE at the reception centre for asylum seekers ( LOC des demandeurs d\u2019asile \u2013 CADA ) at GPE , where the family had been living . The applicants were taken that DATE to the administrative detention centre ( ORG r\u00e9tention administrative \u2013 ORG ) of ORG . The detention orders in respect of the first CARDINAL applicants read as follows :","\u201c Whereas the immediate enforcement of the [ order to leave GPE ] is not possible on account of the organisation of [ their ] departure for [ their ] country of origin .","Whereas [ the applicants ] [ have ] not presented sufficient guarantees that [ they ] will not abscond , not having a valid passport , [ having ] neither a fixed abode nor sufficient resources , not [ having ] complied with the previous removal directions issued to [ them ] and [ having ] formally opposed , when interviewed , [ their ] return to [ their ] country of origin . \u201d","The first CARDINAL applicants challenged their detention orders and in parallel lodged an urgent application for a stay of execution . They claimed that they had a fixed addressed at the reception centre ( ORG ) , that a friend was prepared to accommodate them and that , in any event , their detention would be incompatible with the best interests of their child . In this connection they indicated that their child , who was too young to be left on his own , was obliged to accompany them in all their administrative formalities and therefore to come into contact with armed police officers in uniform .","On DATE the President of ORG dismissed the urgent application without a hearing , finding as follows :","\u201c Under the [ domestic statutory ] provisions , the legality of decisions ordering administrative detention in connection with removal measures can be challenged fully through a specific procedure , which itself has the nature of an urgent procedure , separately from the remit of the urgent applications judge ... ; it follows therefrom that the ORG request for that judge to order ... the stay of execution of the detention orders made for the purpose of enforcing the removal directions , a stay which would in fact have an equivalent effect to that of the annulment of the same decision on the merits , is inadmissible . \u201d","On DATE , ORG dismissed the application lodged by the first CARDINAL applicants for the annulment of the administrative detention order , on the following grounds :","\u201c It is not in dispute that [ the applicants ] can not present any valid identity or travel document ; although [ they claim ] that [ they ] have a fixed address in an asylum - seekers\u2019 reception centre , it can be seen from the evidence in the file that this centre asked [ them ] to vacate the premises , where [ they have ] unduly remained since DATE ; nor [ have ] the [ applicants ] adduced evidence of lawful income ; lastly , since the notification of the judgment of ORG of DATE dismissing [ their ] application against the order of the prefect of Loiret of CARDINAL DATE , [ the applicants ] [ have ] avoided the said removal measure ; under those circumstances , the choice of the administrative authority to place [ them ] in administrative detention instead of ordering a measure of restricted residence ... is not vitiated by a manifest error of judgment . \u201d","Responding more specifically to the argument raised by the applicants concerning the child \u2019s best interests , ORG found it to be inapplicable , as the decisions appealed against pertained only to the GPE personal situation .","The prefect asked the Liberties and Detention Judge of the LOC tribunal de grande instance to extend the detention , after which the first CARDINAL applicants tried to obtain the third applicant \u2019s voluntary intervention in the proceedings . On DATE that judge authorised the extension of the applicants\u2019 detention for DATE , after finding inadmissible the request for voluntary intervention on behalf of the child , and having dismissed the argument that the conditions of detention were incompatible with the presence of a minor child , on the following grounds :","\u201c It is not for the judicial authority to interfere in the running of an administrative detention centre \u201d .","NORP That decision was upheld on DATE by the President of ORG , who found in particular as follows :","\u201c ... the administrative detention centre of ORG , where the child is held , has been authorised to receive families and contains all the necessary facilities to ensure the comfort of a family with children .","Thus the whole family is together and they have , in an autonomous area and separated from the rest of the detainees , rooms for them alone and for their exclusive use .","In addition , there is a playground on the site , like those to be found in town squares .","Lastly , a doctor and a nurse are available DATE in the LOC administrative detention centre and PERSON and PERSON have not shown that they met with a refusal when they asked to present their child \u2013 a request of which the existence has not been established .","The Convention provisions , especially LAW , do not therefore appear to have been breached . \u201d","On DATE the applicants submitted to the ORG , under LAW , a request for the suspension of the detention orders concerning them . On DATE the ORG decided not to indicate the requested interim measure .","On DATE the applicants were released , after expressing their wish to return to GPE , and after seeking voluntary return assistance for that purpose . However , they did not leave GPE , on account of the third applicant \u2019s state of health . On DATE the first applicant was granted leave to remain as the parent of a sick child .","In CARDINAL judgments of DATE , ORG annulled the administrative detention orders of CARDINAL DATE in respect of the first CARDINAL applicants . Its judgments contained the same wording for each spouse :","\u201c CARDINAL . Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Entry and Residence of Aliens and Right of Asylum Code provides , by way of exception to the cases where a foreign national may be placed in detention , the possibility of ordering a measure of restricted residence ( assignation \u00e0 r\u00e9sidence ) if the alien can present guarantees to allay the risk of non - compliance with his or her obligation to leave GPE . Under provision CARDINAL of part II of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the same LAW , such risk must in particular be regarded as established , save in specific circumstances , in cases where the alien has already evaded the execution of a removal measure . The finding by the administrative authority of facts falling within provision CARDINAL of part II of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , while it is such as to create a presumption of a risk that the alien might fail to comply with his or her obligation to leave GPE , does not dispense that authority , before any decision to place him or her in detention , parents of minor children and who do not have sufficient guarantees of compliance , such aliens being provided for by LAW , and in accordance with the aims of LAW CARDINAL\/CARDINAL\/EC , recourse to placement in detention can only constitute an exceptional measure in cases where the alien does not have a stable place of abode at the time when the prefectoral authority takes the necessary measures to prepare for the removal .","For the purposes of transposition of the above - mentioned Directive , Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Entry and Residence of Aliens and Right of Asylum Code , as inserted by PERSON no . DATE of DATE , provides : \u2018 In the cases provided for in LAW , where the alien is the parent of a minor child residing in GPE and has effectively contributed to the raising and education of that child in the conditions prescribed in LAW since the birth of the child or at least for DATE , and where the conditions for a restricted residence measure under LAW of the present Code are not fulfilled , the administrative authority can decide on a measure of curfew with electronic tagging , with the agreement of the alien concerned .","The measure of curfew with electronic tagging is decided by the administrative authority for DATE . The measure may be extended by ORG under the same conditions as the extension of the administrative detention provided for in chapter II of title V of the present book.\u2019","It can be seen from the evidence in the file that on the date of the decision appealed against , Mr [ A.B. ] , accompanied by his wife and DATE son [ A.B. ] , had been accommodated for DATE in the hostel of the asylum - seekers\u2019 reception centre in GPE , and that the child had been going to school . PERSON ] was apprehended on DATE in that hostel , where the family had remained unlawfully , even though they had been requested to leave the LOC by the centre \u2019s administration , following the rejection of their requests for a review of their asylum situation by a decision of DATE of ORG persons . In deciding on their placement in detention the prefect of PERSON merely stated that PERSON [ A.B. ] did not present sufficient guarantees against the risk of non - compliance , as he did not have a valid passport , had no stable place of abode or sufficient income , and had not complied with the previous directions for his removal . It does not appear from the decision appealed against that the prefect had considered , having regard to the presence of a child , whether a less coercive measure than detention was possible for the necessarily short duration of the removal procedure . In those conditions , his decision was vitiated by an error of law and had for that reason to be declared null and void .","It transpires from the foregoing that , without there being any need to examine the other arguments in the application , Mr [ A.B. ] is justified in submitting that the judge appointed by the President of ORG , in the judgment appealed against , had been wrong to reject his request for the annulment of the decision of CARDINAL DATE placing him in administrative detention . \u201d","..."],"violated_articles":["3","5","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["5-1","5-4","8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["5-1-f"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-175585","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"DEU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2017,"docname":"PERELMAN v. GERMANY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Erik M\u00f8se;Nona Tsotsoria;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["The applicants , PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and live in GPE \/ Main . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","NORP In DATE the applicants moved from GPE to GPE \/ Main in GPE . They submitted a registration form dated DATE to the local registration authority , to inform the latter of their new place of residence . The form required information about their religion , and for both applicants they indicated \u201c Mosaic \u201d ( \u201c Mosaisch \u201d ) in the relevant part of the form .","The applicants remained members of their liberally - oriented NORP community in GPE .","NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the NORP community of GPE \/ Main welcomed the applicants as new members . A copy of the community \u2019s statutes was attached to the letter . According to the statutes , all persons of NORP faith whose place of residence or usual abode was in GPE \/ Main were members of the community , unless they had made a written objection to the community council within DATE from their date of arrival .","NORP By letter of DATE the applicants opposed membership . They further requested restitutio in integrum ( Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand ) , pointing out that they had received the community \u2019s statutes only after the expiry of the period for filing an objection .","As the community did not accept their objection , the applicants , as a precautionary measure , resigned their membership with effect from DATE . This was accepted by the community .","As a public - law entity ( K\u00f6rperschaft \u00f6ffentlichen Rechts ) the NORP community of GPE \/ Main levies a church tax based on the individual income of their members , which is collected by the ORG tax authorities . For the period from DATE to DATE the GPE \/ Main tax office levied a church tax on the applicants . They objected to paying the church tax in a separate set of proceedings which is not the subject of the application at issue .","On DATE the applicants brought an action before ORG to obtain a declaration that they had not been members of the community DATE and DATE .","On DATE the GPE \/ ORG rejected the action as inadmissible , denying that such a judgment would have a legitimate interest .","The applicants appealed and , on DATE , ORG dismissed their appeal . It held that the applicants\u2019 action was admissible , but ill - founded because their membership was based on internal regulations of the religious community which had to be recognised by ORG authorities , in view of the principle of autonomy of religious organisations .","On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG and declared that , in the public sphere , the ORG membership could not have legal effect . It reasoned , in essence , that notwithstanding the autonomy of religious organisations\u2019 religion was \u201c Mosaic \u201d could not be taken as a declaration of willingness to become members of the local NORP community .","After the GPE \/ Main NORP community had lodged a constitutional complaint ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , on DATE ORG , sitting in a chamber of CARDINAL judges , quashed ORG judgment , finding a violation of the community \u2019s fundamental right under LAW and CARDINAL , read in conjunction with LAW of LAW of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG ) . The court held that ORG had not correctly evaluated the scope and the significance of the guarantee of autonomy ( Selbstbestimmungsrecht ) afforded to religious communities by the aforementioned Articles of LAW Regulations governing membership had to be seen as affairs that religious communities are free to determine at their own discretion . The ORG \u2019s duty to acknowledge the guarantee of autonomy of religious associations for the secular legal sphere found its limits in the negative religious freedom of potential members . The inclusion of members by religious communities had to be acknowledged where this was legitimised by positive declaration , albeit possibly by an implicit declaration . There were various ways to express willingness to be a member of a religious community . This did not necessarily have to be expressed to the religious community itself . From the information submitted by the applicants to the registration office in GPE \/ Main it could be concluded , from the objective standpoint of the onlooker ( objektivierter GPE ) , that the applicants had expressed their willingness to be members of the NORP community of GPE \/ Main .","On DATE ORG , to which the case had been remitted , dismissed the ORG appeal on points of law . It pointed out that , on procedural grounds , the judgment of ORG was binding . It nevertheless expressed doubts as to the compatibility of the finding with LAW . It noted in particular that ORG had attached no importance to the fact that the applicants had not been asked for their religious affiliation but for their religion in the registration form at issue . Notwithstanding the NORP community of GPE \/ Main \u2019s conception of itself as a uniform community , everyone who lived in the community \u2019s district and declared his or her religious belief should be free to choose another NORP community . Due to the binding effect of the judgment of ORG , the court considered itself prevented from founding its decision on these aspects .","On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG which is still pending ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . Relying on LAW and referring to the ORG \u2019s case - law they complained in particular that their membership in the NORP community of GPE \/ Main was not based on their consent ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-170468","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KHAMIDKARIYEV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition;Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) (Uzbekistan);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .","The information provided by the applicant \u2019s representative and the ORG is limited and conflicting . The elements at the ORG \u2019s disposal are described below .","The following account of events is based on a series of written submissions to the ORG by the applicant \u2019s representative .","The applicant , while living in GPE , was a friend of a former boyfriend of PERSON , one of President PERSON \u2019s daughters . At some point PERSON turned against her former boyfriend \u2019s friends . Fleeing political persecution , on DATE the applicant moved to GPE . He resided in GPE with his partner , PERSON , and their child .","NORP In DATE the NORP authorities charged the applicant in absentia with crimes related to religious extremism on account of his alleged involvement in the establishment in DATE of a jihadist organisation , issued an arrest warrant and put his name on an international wanted list .","On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on the basis of the NORP warrant .","On DATE the ORG of GPE authorised the applicant \u2019s detention pending extradition .","On DATE the Golovinskiy inter - district prosecutor \u2019s office of GPE ordered the applicant \u2019s release on the grounds that the NORP authorities had not lodged a formal extradition request and that the crimes he had been charged with did not constitute criminal offences under NORP law . It was also noted that the applicant could not have established the jihadist organisation in DATE as the organisation in question had been banned by ORG in DATE . The applicant was then released .","Following his release , the applicant continued to live in GPE . At some point he applied for refugee status , referring to a risk of illtreatment in GPE .","On DATE ORG of ORG ( \u201c the GPE FMS \u201d ) dismissed the allegations of a risk of ill - treatment in GPE as unfounded and rejected the applicant \u2019s application for refugee status . He challenged that decision in court .","On DATE the ORG of GPE approved the applicant \u2019s application , quashed ORG rejection and ordered it to grant the applicant refugee status .","The applicant \u2019s passport remained in the GPE FMS \u2019s file concerning his application for refugee status .","Given that no appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was lodged within the required time , the judgment entered into force .","On TIME , while the applicant and his family were visiting a friend , PERSON , the applicant \u2019s child fell ill . The applicant and PERSON decided to take him to hospital and the applicant called a taxi . A silver PERSON arrived . Mr PERSON wanted to accompany the applicant and PERSON , but the Lada \u2019s driver told him that the car had been ordered for CARDINAL adult passengers only . The applicant , PERSON and the child got into the taxi .","On their way , at TIME , PERSON decided to stop at a pharmacy in the centre of GPE . She took the child out of the taxi and the applicant waited in the car . When PERSON left the pharmacy she saw that the taxi had driven away . A woman told PERSON that she had seen QUANTITY men getting in a parked car , which had then driven off .","PERSON tried calling the applicant but his mobile telephone was turned off . She then alerted Mr T.","The applicant \u2019s representative was notified of the applicant \u2019s disappearance shortly after . On DATE , that is , on DATE , he contacted ORG ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) and the border control agency , asking them to prevent the applicant \u2019s involuntary removal from NORP territory . According to the applicant \u2019s representative , he suspected the involvement of CARDINAL ORG officers , \u201c Timur \u201d and \u201c GPE \u201d , who had shown an interest in the applicant in DATE . Nevertheless , he did not mention those people in his letters to the ORG and the border control agency .","On DATE the investigation department of ORG informed the applicant \u2019s father that the applicant had been arrested and placed in custody on DATE . On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative forwarded a copy of the notification to the ORG .","The criminal case against the applicant was brought to trial before ORG . He was appointed a legal aid lawyer .","At DATE the applicant \u2019s representative , Mr Vasilyev , travelled to GPE . He discovered that the applicant had been kept incommunicado in a remand prison in GPE . Mr PERSON was repeatedly denied access to the applicant .","Mr PERSON attended CARDINAL hearings at ORG on DATE , and DATE . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the trial judge allowed PERSON PERSON to talk to the applicant . During the conversations the applicant sat in a cage in the courtroom surrounded by guards . The applicant \u2019s representative summarised the applicant \u2019s description of the events of DATE , given orally on DATE and DATE , as follows .","At TIME on DATE the applicant had been abducted by CARDINAL ORG officers . They had put a sack over the applicant \u2019s head during the abduction . They had then taken the applicant to an unidentified house , tied him up and taken the sack off his head . The applicant had recognised the CARDINAL men as \u201c LOC \u201d and \u201c GPE \u201d , the ORG officers whom he had met previously in DATE . The CARDINAL men had beaten the applicant and kept him inside the house until DATE .","On DATE the CARDINAL ORG officers had taken the applicant to a runway at CARDINAL of GPE \u2019s airports without passing through any border or passport controls as the applicant \u2019s passport had remained with ORG . The ORG officers had handed the applicant over to NORP officials near the steps of a GPE - bound airplane .","Once in GPE , the applicant had been placed under arrest by ORG of ORG of GPE on suspicion of crimes related to religious extremism . He had been kept in detention for DATE and had been subjected to torture and other illtreatment by NORP law - enforcement officers with a view to securing a self - incriminating statement . The applicant had been tied head downwards to a bar attached to the wall and had been beaten repeatedly . The officers had broken CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s ribs and knocked out CARDINAL of his teeth .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s representative interviewed Ms I.","PERSON stated that on DATE an ORG officer named \u201c GPE \u201d and some police officers had come to their GPE flat to search for the applicant , but had not found him .","In DATE \u201c GPE \u201d and another ORG officer , \u201c Timur \u201d , had interviewed PERSON about the applicant and his religious views and practices .","Following the applicant \u2019s abduction , on DATE PERSON had called \u201c Timur \u201d on his mobile phone , enquiring about her partner . \u201c PERSON \u201d had replied that he was no longer working for \u201c that office \u201d ( the ORG ) . PERSON had also tried calling \u201c GPE \u201d but had received no response .","On DATE PERSON had flown to GPE with her son and mother . Upon arrival she had been detained at the airport for TIME and then released .","PERSON had been questioned by the investigator in charge of the applicant \u2019s case at ORG of GPE , PERSON , but had been denied access to the applicant . When she had seen the applicant in the courtroom , he had made signs to her that he had been beaten .","On DATE Mr PERSON interviewed the applicant \u2019s mother , PERSON .","PERSON . stated that her younger son had been convicted of crimes related to religious extremism in DATE , which had influenced the applicant \u2019s decision to leave GPE . She had had occasional contact with the applicant during his time in GPE .","On DATE PERSON had arrived in GPE and informed PERSON . of the applicant \u2019s abduction .","On DATE officers of ORG of GPE had come to PERSON . \u2019s home and searched it .","On DATE the applicant \u2019s mother had visited the investigator , ORG , who had said that the applicant had voluntarily returned to GPE on DATE and had gone to the police with a statement of surrender .","NORP Some people had informed PERSON . that her son had been severely beaten while in detention . She had not had access to the applicant , but when she had seen him in the courtroom , he had looked very poorly .","On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of crimes under LAW ( \u201c the illegal establishment of public associations or religious organisations \u201d ) and DATE ( \u201c the establishment of , management of , participation in religious extremist , separatist , fundamentalist or other proscribed organisations \u201d ) of GPE \u2019s Criminal Code and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .","The lawyer appointed for the applicant refused to lodge an appeal against the judgment .","On DATE Mr PERSON lodged an appeal with ORG of ORG on the applicant \u2019s behalf . It appears that later the applicant withdrew the statement of appeal .","The applicant remains imprisoned in GPE .","On DATE the GPE FMS lodged an appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The statement accompanying the appeal did not contain any request to restore the time - limit for lodging it .","ORG admitted the appeal on an unspecified date . The reasons for admitting it after the time - limit had run out are unknown .","DATE . On DATE ORG in GPE ( \u201c the ORG \u201d ) submitted a memorandum on the applicant \u2019s case to ORG for consideration . It was noted that torture was a widespread method of coercion used by the NORP authorities to obtain selfincriminating statements from those suspected of involvement in \u201c religious extremism \u201d . The statement read , in particular :","\u201c As follows from the document of ORG published by ORG on DATE , after the forced return to GPE , PERSON PERSON was subjected to torture and other kinds of proscribed treatment and punishment for DATE with a view to obtaining a confession to made - up charges DATE he was tied head down to a bar attached to a wall and beaten , as a result of which he had CARDINAL teeth knocked out and CARDINAL ribs broken . \u201d","On DATE ORG examined the appeal lodged by the GPE ORG against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , quashed the judgment and upheld the GPE FMS \u2019s decision of DATE owing to the fact that the applicant had not provided \u201c convincing and irrefutable evidence of the existence of well - founded fears of becoming a victim of persecution in GPE \u201d . The reasons for examining a belated appeal on the merits were not given in the text of the judgment .","In the course of the proceedings before ORG , the Government sent CARDINAL sets of correspondence , the contents of which are described below .","By a letter of DATE in reply to the ORG \u2019s request for information of DATE , made at the same time as the indication of the interim measures ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Government informed the ORG that \u201c the relevant ORG bodies have been informed about the disappearance of the applicant and the indication by ORG interim measures under LAW \u201d .","They further noted that the applicant had not been \u201c apprehended by the officers of any NORP law - enforcement bodies on DATE in GPE \u201d and that \u201c his current whereabouts [ are ] unknown \u201d .","The Government also stated that on DATE the GPE district department of the interior ( \u201c the GPE police \u201d ) had received a complaint about the applicant \u2019s kidnapping from Mr T. and that on DATE a case file with the preliminary inquiry conducted on the basis of that complaint had been forwarded to the GPE district investigative unit of the GPE investigative department of ORG ( \u201c the investigative authority \u201d ) \u201c for further enquiry and the possible initiation of a criminal case \u201d .","Lastly , they noted that the applicant \u2019s representative \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been forwarded to the investigative authority for consideration .","No documents were enclosed with the letter of DATE .","On DATE the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application , the contents of which can be summarised as follows .","On DATE the investigative authority opened an investigation into the applicant \u2019s kidnapping as criminal case no . CARDINAL under LAW ( a ) of LAW ( \u201c aggravated kidnapping \u201d ) .","In the course of the investigation ORG pictures from cameras located in the vicinity of the scene of the incident were examined . They showed that on DATE at TIME the applicant had been kidnapped by unidentified people and taken away by car .","The Government claimed that the ORG \u2019s demand to submit lists of passengers checked in on GPE - bound flights DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) could not be complied with as the lists in question contained personal data CARDINAL parties and could not be submitted to the ORG without their prior consent .","The Government further submitted that there was no information about the arrest of the applicant on DATE by lawenforcement agencies or his detention in remand prisons in GPE or LOC , and that no information regarding the applicant crossing the State border had been received at that time .","The notification by the NORP authorities to the applicant \u2019s father of DATE concerning the applicant \u2019s arrest and detention in GPE had been added to the criminal investigation file .","The Government concluded that there was no evidence to prove any direct or indirect involvement of the NORP authorities in the applicant \u2019s alleged kidnapping and transfer to GPE .","The NORP authorities had not been made aware and could not have known of any risk that the applicant might be kidnapped .","The Government were not in a position to provide information on the criminal proceedings against the applicant in GPE as those proceedings fell outside their jurisdiction . However , they had sent a request for mutual legal assistance to the NORP authorities in order to establish the applicant \u2019s whereabouts .","In conclusion , the ORG submitted that there had not been any administrative practice of the involuntary removal of persons in respect of whom Rule DATE had been applied to their countries of nationality . Inquiries and investigations were opened into instances of the disappearance of such people . ORG oversaw the compliance with NORP law of any decisions taken in the course of such inquiries and investigations . A large group of ORG agencies had held a co - ordination meeting on DATE on the further enforcement of measures to ensure the security of asylum seekers .","No documents were enclosed with the ORG \u2019s observations of DATE .","DATE . On DATE the Government , in reply to the applicant \u2019s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application , submitted that they reaffirmed the position stated in their observations of DATE and commented on the applicant \u2019s just satisfaction claims .","No documents were enclosed with the ORG \u2019s correspondence of CARDINAL DATE .","Following the ORG \u2019s additional question to the Government regarding the respondent ORG \u2019s compliance with LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Government submitted a letter which read as follows :","\u201c With reference to your letter of DATE in respect of the above application , please find enclosed copies of the criminal investigation documents disclosed by the investigative authorities after a repeated request .","The Government kindly ask the ORG to join the documents to the case - file . \u201d","No answer to the ORG \u2019s question under LAW was given .","CARDINAL pages of various documents issued by the NORP and NORP authorities were enclosed with the Government \u2019s cover letter .","The contents of the documents issued by the NORP authorities and which were enclosed with the ORG \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE can be summarised as follows .","On DATE Mr T. reported the applicant \u2019s kidnapping to the GPE police and made a statement . Mr T. stated , in particular , that a woman on the street near the pharmacy had seen QUANTITY men getting into the parked silver Lada Priora .","On DATE PERSON made a statement to the GPE police that at TIME on DATE she , her partner and child had taken a taxi , a silver PERSON . She had got out of the car to go into a pharmacy , but by the time she had come out the taxi had disappeared .","DATE . On DATE the GPE police reported to the investigative authority that they had failed to identify the applicant \u2019s whereabouts and that there had been no \u201c positive information \u201d concerning any aeroplane or railway tickets issued in the applicant \u2019s name or about the applicant being placed in remand prisons . Furthermore , it was noted that the GPE department of the ORG and the data centre of ORG of the ORG had not sent any reply to the police \u2019s enquiries . The GPE police also reported that the whereabouts of PERSON were unknown and that it had been impossible to identify the taxi driver who had taken the applicant to the scene of the kidnapping .","On DATE the investigative authority decided to open a criminal investigation into the applicant \u2019s kidnapping . The decision described the events as follows :","\u201c On DATE at TIME persons who have not been identified by the investigation , acting jointly and by common accord , approached a car which has not been identified by the investigation parked near house no . CARDINAL at ORG in GPE , in which Mr PERSON was travelling , and , having got in the said car against the will of the victim , kidnapped Mr PERSON , fleeing the scene of the crime in the said car to an unknown destination . \u201d","On DATE the investigative authority requested the transport police to inform them whether any aeroplane or railway tickets had been issued in the applicant \u2019s name DATE and DATE .","On DATE the investigative authority granted the applicant victim status in case no . CARDINAL .","On DATE an investigator with the investigative authority decided to suspend the investigation of case no . DATE . The decision stated that the applicant \u2019s whereabouts had been established as he had been detained in a remand prison in GPE , the scene of the incident had been inspected , CARDINAL witnesses had been questioned , various requests had been sent to the NORP authorities and a request for mutual legal assistance had been sent to GPE , but no reply had been received .","On DATE the investigator \u2019s superior at the investigative authority overruled the decision of DATE to suspend the case and returned it to the investigator on the grounds that the suspension decision had been taken prematurely . It was noted that the following measures had to be taken to ensure a proper investigation : a response to the request for mutual legal assistance from the NORP authorities had still to be received , as had replies to \u201c previously sent requests \u201d . \u201c Other requisite investigative and procedural measures \u201d also still had to be performed .","On DATE an investigator at the investigative authority decided to resume case no . CARDINAL following the order from his superior . It is clear from the text of the decision that DATE and DATE the investigation had been suspended and resumed CARDINAL times on the basis of decisions by a more senior officer at the investigative authority or by a prosecutor .","The materials provided by the ORG included the following documents :","- an undated sheet of paper with no letterhead entitled \u201c ORG for an Individual \u201d containing the applicant \u2019s personal information and information on a criminal case pending against him in GPE , from which it transpires that the applicant was put on a NORP federal wanted list . The sheet contains a handwritten note \u201c Database \u2018 Region\u2019 of ORG of the Interior ( has not been arrested ) \u201d .","- an undated document entitled \u201c Request for legal assistance \u201d addressed to \u201c the competent ORG bodies of GPE \u201d and signed by an investigator at the investigative authority , including a list of questions to ask the applicant , PERSON and the officers in charge of the applicant \u2019s arrest . The questions concerned , in particular , the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s arrival in GPE , including how he crossed the border and the reasons for his detention in GPE .","The contents of the documents issued by the NORP authorities which were enclosed with the Government \u2019s letter of CARDINAL DATE can be summarised as follows .","According to an arrest record drawn up in NORP by the NORP police the applicant was placed under arrest at TIME on DATE as a suspect in a crime under Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW . The place of arrest was not indicated in the record . The grounds for the arrest were stated as \u201c other information leading to a suspicion that a person has committed a crime , and if the person has attempted to flee or has no abode or his or her identity has not been established \u201d . The purpose of the arrest was stated as \u201c there are enough grounds to suspect the person of having committed a crime \u201d . A note observed that \u201c the arrested person has been placed in a temporary detention unit of ORG of GPE \u201d .","According to a document in NORP entitled \u201c Record of providing an arrested person with the right to make a telephone call \u201d of DATE , the applicant made use of that right to call his mother between CARDINAL and TIME on DATE to inform her of his arrest .","The record of the search of the applicant in NORP showed that MONEY and CARDINAL metallic ring were seized from the applicant when he was searched after being arrested .","On DATE ORG of ORG of GPE informed the applicant \u2019s father that his son , who had been wanted and \u201c declared guilty in absentia \u201d , had been arrested on DATE , placed in custody and had been participating in investigative measures .","According to a NORP translation of a document in NORP of DATE an investigator , PERSON , at ORG of GPE asked ORG to provide information on \u201c the facts of crossing the State border of GPE \u201d by the applicant DATE and DATE . A NORP translation of the reply in NORP by ORG of CARDINAL DATE stated that there was no information in the ORG database on the applicant crossing the NORP border DATE and DATE . It was noted that the database was compiled on the basis of written statements by those crossing borders and could thus contain errors owing to differences in people \u2019s handwriting .","According to the record of an interview held on DATE PERSON questioned the applicant as a victim in an unspecified criminal case . The interview was in NORP . In the course of the interview the applicant stated that he had not been arrested by the NORP authorities and that he had voluntarily left GPE to go to GPE to visit his ailing mother . He stated that he had had no documents on him . Once in GPE , the applicant had taken a taxi to his mother \u2019s , but the taxi had broken down and stopped . After getting out of the car , the applicant had been asked by police officers who had happened to be passing for an identification document . Since he had had no such document , he had been taken to a police station for identification and then arrested . The applicant \u2019s answer to a question about his whereabouts CARDINAL was as follows :","\u201c On DATE I was at home , in the evening I took the child to hospital , then at TIME I returned and stayed at home . Then on DATE I was at home and at TIME went to the railway station , and at TIME left for GPE by bus . I was on the road for TIME or a little longer , and on DATE I arrived at the border between GPE and GPE , then , using roundabout ways , I crossed the border and at TIME was on NORP territory , where I was arrested by officers of law - enforcement agencies . \u201d","On DATE the investigator PERSON questioned PERSON as a witness . The interview was in NORP . PERSON stated that the applicant had voluntarily and secretly left for GPE by bus on DATE and that she had flown to GPE on DATE .","On DATE PERSON questioned CARDINAL of the police officers who had arrested the applicant , PERSON . , as a witness . The interview was in NORP . The answer to the question about the circumstances of the applicant \u2019s arrest reads as follows :","\u201c On DATE at TIME in the NORP district of GPE Mr PERSON was stopped with a view to checking his identity documents , however , given that he had no documents on him , the latter was taken to the NORP district department of the interior of GPE , where it was established that PERSON was wanted , accordingly , PERSON was taken to the initiator of the search for him in the temporary detention facility of ORG of GPE , where the requisite documents were filled in . \u201d","On an unspecified date PERSON drew up a report on the actions performed under the request for mutual legal assistance . According to the report , the investigator had questioned PERSON , PERSON . and the applicant , had received copies of documents pertaining to the applicant \u2019s arrest , requested information concerning the border crossing and had identified CARDINAL men allegedly connected with the applicant who as of DATE had been fighting on the side of ORG in GPE .","The Government also submitted CARDINAL documents in NORP of DATE a copy of the first page of PERSON passport , and an extract from LAW of GPE with the text of LAW in LANGUAGE . The LAW reads as follows : \u201c the establishment , management , or participation in religious extremist , separatist , fundamentalist or other proscribed organisations shall be punishable by DATE of imprisonment \u201d .","The ORG observes that both parties to the present case have submitted information concerning its factual circumstances that is very fragmented .","The applicant \u2019s representative summarised the applicant \u2019s description of the events of DATE , given orally to the representative on DATE and DATE in the courtroom in GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , as follows .","At TIME on DATE the applicant had been abducted by \u201c PERSON \u201d and \u201c GPE \u201d , ORG officers whom he had previously met in DATE . The QUANTITY men had put a sack over the applicant \u2019s head during the abduction . They had then taken him to an unidentified house , tied him up and taken the sack off his head . The ORG officers had beaten the applicant and kept him inside the house until DATE .","On DATE \u201c Timur \u201d and \u201c GPE \u201d had taken the applicant to a runway at CARDINAL of GPE \u2019s airports without passing through any border or passport controls as the applicant \u2019s passport had remained with ORG . The ORG officers had handed the applicant over to NORP officials near the steps of a GPE - bound airplane .","Once in GPE , the applicant had been placed under arrest by ORG of ORG of GPE and had been subjected to torture and other ill - treatment by lawenforcement officers for DATE with a view to securing a selfincriminating statement . The applicant had been tied to a bar attached to the wall head downward and had been beaten repeatedly . The NORP officers had broken CARDINAL of the applicant \u2019s ribs and knocked out CARDINAL of his teeth .","The Government submitted that according to ORG pictures the applicant had been kidnapped at TIME on DATE by unidentified people and had been taken away by car to an unidentified destination . There had been no proof of the direct or indirect involvement of the NORP authorities in the applicant \u2019s alleged abduction and forced transfer to GPE .","From the limited material provided by the parties the ORG can discern the following as the few facts which appear to be not in dispute . Both parties have agreed that the applicant was abducted in GPE at TIME on DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) . It follows by implication from the ORG \u2019s assertion that the applicant was kidnapped by unidentified people ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) that they have acknowledged that the applicant was restricted in exercising his free will from that moment on . It is thus reasonable to assume that the Government have not contested the allegation that the applicant was involuntarily removed from the NORP territory . Furthermore , there is no dispute about the fact that the applicant was arrested and placed in custody in GPE by the NORP authorities , although there appears to be a certain amount of confusion as to the date of his arrest ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . The Government also raised no objection to the applicant \u2019s representative \u2019s submission that the applicant stood trial at ORG and was convicted of crimes related to religious extremism ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) .","Nevertheless , the events from TIME on DATE , in particular the factual circumstances of how the applicant travelled from GPE to GPE , have not been elucidated .","The ORG notes in passing that the Government enclosed a record of the applicant \u2019s interview by the NORP authorities , without providing any accompanying comment or explanation . According to that document , the applicant had travelled from GPE to GPE by bus without a passport ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Were the Government to be understood to be tacitly relying on the explanation appearing in that document , the ORG would be reluctant to accept is as satisfactory given that the interview in question was not attended by sufficient procedural safeguards against abuse and arbitrariness .","The ORG reiterates that it has established a number of general principles concerning situations in which , owing to a conflicting account of events by the parties , it has confronted difficulties when establishing the facts ( for a summary of those principles see PERSON v. \u201c the former GPE \u201d [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .","NORP In particular , the ORG reaffirms its constant position that the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation where the events giving rise to a complaint under LAW lie within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities , as in the case of persons under their control in custody ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . DATE , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ) , or where , although it has not been proved that a person has been taken into custody by the authorities , it is possible to establish in the context of a disappearance complaint under LAW that he or she was officially summoned by the authorities , entered a place under their control and has not been seen since ( see ORG and Others v. GPE , no . MONEY , \u00a7 CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL\u2013VIII ) .","Turning to the circumstances of the present case , the ORG observes that , owing to the scarcity of the information before it , it is not in a position to establish with certainty the exact circumstances of the applicant \u2019s travel from GPE to GPE , including the date of arrival to destination and the means of transportation employed . Given that CARDINAL documents issued by the NORP authorities that were submitted by the Government suggest that he reached GPE on DATE ( see paragraphs DATE above ) , the ORG is ready to accept , in the absence of any other evidence , that date as the date of arrival . As to the means of transportation , the applicant \u2019s representative submitted that the applicant was put on an aeroplane in CARDINAL of the GPE airports . The Government remained silent on the matter . The NORP authorities implied that the applicant took a bus from GPE to GPE .","The ORG considers that , owing to the scarcity of the information available , it can not establish the precise circumstances surrounding the applicant \u2019s travel from GPE to GPE . Nevertheless , it regards the following CARDINAL elements as salient for the analysis of the present case : ( a ) that the applicant was without his passport on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and ( b ) that , in order to arrive to GPE , he must have crossed the NORP State borders in CARDINAL manner or another .","The ORG notes in this connection that it has previously concluded that a forcible transfer of an individual to a ORG that was not a party to the LAW by aircraft from GPE or the surrounding region could not happen without the knowledge and either passive or active involvement of the NORP authorities ( see GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , GPE DATE , CARDINAL DATE ; and GPE v. GPE , no . MONEY , \u00a7 CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) . Any airport serving international flights is subject to heightened security measures , remaining under the permanent control of the respondent ORG \u2019s authorities and notably , the State border service ( ibid . , also , see Savriddin PERSON v. GPE , no . ORG , \u00a7 \u00a7 CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) . As to the possibility of transport by bus , it would appear implausible that an individual whose name appeared on the wanted lists ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) could travel QUANTITY through GPE and GPE by bus and cross the GPE - GPE and GPE - Uzbekistan State borders unimpededly despite having no passport on him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .","The ORG considers , accordingly , that a strong presumption of the NORP authorities\u2019 involvement in the applicant \u2019s relocation to GPE has arisen . The Government , however , have failed to rebut this presumption . In particular , they did not disclose the passenger logs for the GPE flights which had departed from the GPE airports after DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Nor did the Government submit any explanation as to how the applicant could cross the NORP border without a passport .","In view of the above , the ORG considers that , whereas the applicant made out a prima facie case that he had been abducted and transferred to GPE with the direct or indirect involvement of the NORP authorities , the Government failed persuasively to refute his allegations and to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation as to how the applicant arrived in GPE .","The ORG accordingly finds it established that the NORP authorities bear responsibility , as a result of direct or indirect involvement , for the applicant \u2019s forcible transfer from GPE to GPE . On the basis of this finding , the ORG will proceed to examine the applicant \u2019s complaints under LAW ."],"violated_articles":["3","38"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["34"],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-171478","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KRYVENKYY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)","judges":"Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;Sergiy Goncharenko;S\u00edofra O\u2019Leary","text":["The applicant , PERSON ORG , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC .","On DATE the applicant obtained a certificate ( c\u0435\u0440\u0442\u0438\u0444\u0456\u043a\u0430\u0442 \u043d\u0430 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u043e \u043d\u0430 \u0437\u0435\u043c\u0435\u043b\u044c\u043d\u0443 \u0447\u0430\u0441\u0442\u043a\u0443 ( \u043f\u0430\u0439 ) ) attesting his entitlement to a nominal CARDINAL.CARDINAL-ha share of the land belonging to the ORG collective farm . At the same time , according to him , he was allocated a specific plot measuring CARDINAL ha , which , he had farmed and paid land tax on since that time . It appears that the allocated land consisted of CARDINAL different parcels , CARDINAL of them measuring CARDINAL ha .","In DATE ORG merged with PERSON . , a neighbouring collective farming company , which was designated as its successor . Following the merger , PERSON . did not register itself as the new owner of the land formerly allocated to V.G. Subsequently the CARDINAL farms separated again .","On DATE the ORG of GPE ordered the expropriation of CARDINAL ha of Kh . \u2019s land and its transfer to ORG closed joint stock company for the exploitation of kaolin deposits . By the same decision , ORG was obliged , in particular , to compensate the local council for the damage suffered by the agricultural producers in connection with the expropriation of the land .","On DATE the FAC district land authority drew up a draft land - ownership certificate designating the boundaries of the plot to be allocated to U.C.C. This plot was de facto located on the land which had been registered as belonging to V.G .. The draft certificate mentioned , in particular , that ORG had to obtain and register a relevant ORG land - use certificate .","According to the applicant , until DATE U.C.C. took no action to register its land - use rights and the plot designated for expropriation by ORG \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE remained in the hands of the members of the ORG collective farm . The CARDINAL.CARDINAL-ha parcel of the land farmed by the applicant was affected by the ORG \u2019s decision .","Meanwhile , on DATE the LOC administration approved a draft certificate determining the boundaries of the plots of land to be designated to individual farmers from the lands allocated to ORG and ordered production of the respective individual land - ownership certificates .","On the basis of this decision , on DATE the applicant was issued with the land - ownership certificate for the aforementioned CARDINAL.CARDINAL-ha plot . No information concerning registration of ownership in respect of any other land parcels farmed by the applicant has been provided to the ORG .","On DATE the FAC district prosecutor addressed the LOC administration objecting to its decision of CARDINAL DATE . The prosecutor maintained , in particular , that CARDINAL ha of land designated for exploitation of kaolin deposits had been allocated to individual farmers in breach of ORG \u2019s rights .","On DATE the LOC administration accepted the prosecutor \u2019s objection and annulled its decision of DATE in so far as it related to the CARDINAL ha of land claimed by U.C.C.","On DATE U.C.C. lodged a civil action claiming the CARDINAL.CARDINAL-ha plot of land allocated to the applicant and seeking annulment of the land - ownership certificate issued to him on DATE . It noted , in particular , that the FAC district administration had already annulled its own decision of DATE , which had served as the basis for the issuance of the land - ownership certificate to the applicant . The issuance had therefore been devoid of legal basis .","On DATE ORG allowed the aforementioned claim . It noted that the disputed plot had been allocated to the applicant mistakenly on the basis of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , without due regard to the fact that in DATE this very plot had already been expropriated and transferred to U.C.C.","Following this decision , GPE blocked the road leading to the plot disputed by the ORG and it became impossible for the applicant to access it or use it for farming .","On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment .","The applicant appealed in cassation before ORG of GPE . He noted , in particular , that he had obtained the disputed land lawfully and in good faith . He could therefore not be deprived of it unless fair compensation was paid .","NORP In DATE the applicant added to his cassation appeal , informing ORG that on CARDINAL DATE ORG had annulled the decision of DATE and revalidated the decision of CARDINAL DATE , on the basis of which he had obtained his land - ownership certificate ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the applicant \u2019s request for leave to appeal in cassation .","On an unspecified date several individuals , excluding the applicant , apparently the land owners whose land was also being claimed by ORG , instituted administrative proceedings against the LOC administration . They sought , in particular , to annul its decision of DATE and to declare lawful the decision of CARDINAL DATE , on the basis of which their land - use certificates had been issued .","On DATE ORG allowed their claim . It noted , in particular , that ORG had ordered the expropriation of Kh . \u2019s land , while the land , whose boundaries had been in dispute , had belonged to ORG , which had been a separate legal entity on the date of the decision at issue .","On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the above decision and remitted the case for retrial .","After several rounds of proceedings , on DATE ORG found that the decision of DATE had been unlawful in so far as it had related to the plots of land of the individuals who had instituted the proceedings . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the judgment of DATE was upheld by ORG and ORG of GPE respectively ."],"violated_articles":["P1"],"violated_paragraphs":["P1-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":["P1-1-1"],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-177423","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF KRIVOROTOVA AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Right to a fair trial;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)","judges":"Nona Tsotsoria;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["13","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153316","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HRV","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF PAVLOVI\u0106 AND OTHERS v. CROATIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)","judges":"Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , and live in PERSON and GPE respectively .","In DATE PERSON . , the ORG predecessor , brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) against PERSON , seeking his eviction from a flat and reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings .","In DATE , following the death of PERSON , the applicants , as his heirs , took over the proceedings as plaintiffs , while PERSON also died in the course of proceedings and PERSON . replaced him as defendant .","During the proceedings , PERSON . brought a counterclaim against the applicants , seeking either a specially protected tenancy of the flat at issue or compensation for investments in the flat he had made in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) . The applicants also , in addition to PERSON . \u2019s civil action , requested ORG to order PERSON . to remove everything he had installed in the flat .","At the closing hearing before ORG on DATE the applicants reiterated all their arguments and requested reimbursement of the costs of proceedings . At the same hearing , the applicants submitted a written itemised claim for costs in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . At the same time , the defendant \u2019s representative reiterated his arguments and requested reimbursement of the costs in the amount which he promised to specify later .","On DATE ORG allowed the applicants\u2019 action in part , ordering the eviction of PERSON . from the flat , whereas it dismissed the remainder of their civil action , as well as PERSON . \u2019s counterclaim for compensation of the investments in the flat . As regards the costs of the proceedings , ORG noted :","\u201c With regard to the costs of the proceedings , each party shall bear their own costs , as provided under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , since the plaintiff succeeded with part of [ their ] action while [ they ] were dismissed as regards the remainder , and the counterclaim was fully dismissed . \u201d","On DATE , in a supplementary judgment , ORG dismissed PERSON . \u2019s civil action for a specially protected tenancy .","Meanwhile , the parties challenged the first - instance judgment of ORG of DATE before ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) . The applicants argued that the first - instance court had incorrectly assessed the situation concerning their right to reimbursement of the costs of proceedings .","On DATE ORG ( \u017dupanijski sud u GPE ) dismissed the appeals and upheld the first - instance judgment . As regards the applicants\u2019 arguments concerning the costs of proceedings , ORG noted :","\u201c ... it is to be noted that [ the applicants ] correctly consider that they should be reimbursed the costs of the proceedings , since the part of their claim by which they sought the eviction [ of PERSON . ] from the flat was successful . However , it is to be noted that the case file shows that they failed to comply with the requirement under section CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW , which provides that a party must set out his or her request for reimbursement of costs at the latest at the end of the closing hearing which precedes the decision on costs . At the hearing held on DATE , by which the proceedings terminated , [ the applicants\u2019 ] representative sought reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings based on an itemised claim which he was supposed to submit . However , there is no such itemised claim in the case file , and the reimbursement of costs was not sought earlier , while certain procedural actions were being taken . This is the reason why the costs of the proceedings could not be reimbursed to [ the applicants ] . \u201d","On DATE the applicants challenged the judgment of ORG by lodging a constitutional complaint before ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) . They pointed out that ORG had manifestly incorrectly assessed their request for reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings , overlooking the fact that they had indeed submitted in writing an itemised claim for costs , and had therefore arbitrarily dismissed their complaints in that respect .","On DATE ORG declared the applicants\u2019 constitutional complaint inadmissible , on the grounds that the contested judgment had not concerned the merits of their civil rights or obligations , and as such was not susceptible to constitutional review . This decision was served on the applicants on DATE ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-168162","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"\u00d6ZEL FEZA E\u011e\u0130T\u0130M \u00d6\u011eRET\u0130M YURT VE KANT\u0130N \u0130\u015eLETMEC\u0130L\u0130\u011e\u0130 T\u0130CARET ANON\u0130M \u015e\u0130RKET\u0130 v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Julia Laffranque;Neboj\u0161a Vu\u010dini\u0107;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , ORG ve ORG PERSON , is a joint stock company registered in GPE that operated a private tutoring centre ( dershane ) in GPE for students preparing for secondary school and university entrance examinations at the time of the events giving rise to the present application . The applicant company was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","Law no . PERSON on ORG was enacted on DATE to govern the authorisation , operation , management and supervision of private education institutions . According to former section CARDINAL ( b ) of PERSON no . PERSON , the term \u201c institution \u201d included , for the purposes of that PERSON , private institutions engaging in pre - school , elementary and secondary school education , schools for special education and various training courses , distance learning institutions , private tutoring centres , driving schools , inservice training centres , student study centres , special education and rehabilitation centres , and other similar private education institutions .","According to former section CARDINAL ( f ) of PERSON no . PERSON , a \u201c private tutoring centre \u201d was defined as a private education institution that prepared students for , inter alia , examinations held for admittance to secondary education or higher education ( hereinafter referred to as \u201c entrance examinations \u201d ) .","On DATE Law no . CARDINAL was enacted to amend various laws , including PERSON no . PERSON . Amongst other changes , PERSON no . CARDINAL removed \u201c private tutoring centres \u201d from the list of private education institutions that were authorised to operate within the scope of PERSON no . PERSON , and made certain arrangements for the transformation of private tutoring centres in operation to other education institutions . It also amended the definition of \u201c various training courses \u201d mentioned in section QUANTITY ( b ) of PERSON no . PERSON to specify that such training courses could not engage in preparing students for entrance examinations , and further added that \u201c student study centres \u201d referred to in the same paragraph could only offer services to students who were aged twelve or below . According to the preparatory works to PERSON no . CARDINAL , such amendments were considered necessary mainly to tackle the dichotomy and inequality of opportunity caused by private tutoring centres within the education system , which had over DATE begun to be perceived as an alternative to compulsory education institutions .","On DATE , following an action brought by a group of Members of ORG , ORG decided to annul those provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL that concerned private tutoring centres , as well as the amendments made to the definitions of \u201c various training centres \u201d and \u201c student study centres \u201d . The annulment became effective on DATE , the date of publication of ORG decision . ORG stressed in its decision that private tutoring centres had been set up to prepare students for entrance examinations , and thus served a specific need which was not always met by regular schools . Instead of taking more targeted measures to deal with the problems posed by those tutoring centres , however , the legislator had opted for their complete abolition , which was not a proportionate response in the circumstances , considering in particular that no alternatives were on offer to meet the specific needs of students preparing for entrance examinations . ORG noted in this connection the amendment of the definitions of \u201c various training courses \u201d and \u201c student study centres \u201d to prevent them from replacing private tutoring centres .","On DATE the Regulation on Private Education Institutions was amended . The amendments concerned , inter alia , details regarding the \u201c transformation programme \u201d that had to be followed by private tutoring centres and the various education institutions that they could transfer into .","On DATE ORG issued a circular ( no . CARDINAL ) regarding , inter alia , the situation of private tutoring centres . The circular stated that following the ORG decision , private tutoring centres currently in operation had to transform themselves into other private education institutions in order to be able to continue to operate . According to CARDINAL of this circular , any private tutoring centres which had not applied for the \u201c transformation programme \u201d by DATE would have their operating licences revoked .","Following an action brought by an education workers\u2019 trade union , on DATE ORG ordered a stay of execution of circular no . DATE . ORG stated that by virtue of LAW decisions delivered by ORG did not have retroactive effect , which meant that while the relevant provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL abolishing private tutoring centres had been annulled , the former provisions of PERSON no . PERSON governing those centres had not been reinstated . This , ORG explained , created a gap in the law in respect of the legal status of private tutoring centres which were currently in operation ; this gap had to be filled by the legislator . In the absence of such action by the legislative body , any measures taken by the administration to close down private tutoring centres or limit their activities would be ultra vires . For this reason , ORG found that circular no . DATE issued by ORG had been ultra vires and had contravened the ORG decision by virtue of its provisions providing for the closure of private tutoring centres . CARDINAL of the members of ORG , including the president , delivered a dissenting opinion stating that circular no . DATE was lawful and in compliance with the ORG decision . It appears that ORG has not yet delivered a decision on the merits of this case .","On DATE ORG issued another circular ( no . CARDINAL ) on the subject . According to section CARDINAL of this circular , no administrative action would be taken by governors\u2019 offices against private tutoring centres which were operating lawfully at the time of the enactment of PERSON no . CARDINAL . However , legal action would be taken against those private tutoring centres which continued to operate without transforming themselves into one of the other private education institutions defined in PERSON no . PERSON .","On DATE ORG revoked the licence of the applicant company to operate a private tutoring centre , on the ground that it had continued to operate without being transformed into one of the other private education institutions listed in PERSON no . PERSON , contrary to circular no . CARDINAL . As a result of this decision , on DATE the applicant company was banned from operating a private education institution for DATE .","Prior to its amendment by PERSON no . CARDINAL ( see below paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , section CARDINAL of Law no . PERSON provided as follows :","\u201c The definitions","Section CARDINAL- The [ terms ] mentioned in this PERSON [ are defined as follows ] ...","( b ) ORG : private institutions engaging in pre - school , elementary and secondary school education , schools for special education and various training courses , institutions of distance learning , private tutoring centres , driving schools , inservice training centres , student study centres , special education and rehabilitation centres , and other similar private education institutions ...","( f ) Private tutoring centre : private education institutions that prepare students for examinations held for admittance to secondary education or higher education , to train [ students ] in their desired subjects and to enhance their level of knowledge .","( g ) Various training courses : private education institutions that operate for the purpose of enhancing ORG knowledge , skills , linguistic [ skills ] , abilities and experiences in social , artistic , sportive , cultural and vocational spheres , [ and ] to [ enable them to ] make use of their free time according to their wishes ...","( j ) Student study centre : private education institutions established to assist students to study their lessons [ and ] to complete their assignments and projects ; [ and ] to conduct social , artistic , sporting and cultural activities in accordance with [ the GPE ] interests , wishes and abilities ... \u201d","Among other changes , PERSON no . CARDINAL removed \u201c private tutoring centres \u201d from the list of institutions defined in LAW b ) of PERSON no . PERSON and abolished LAW f ) accordingly . It also amended section CARDINAL ( g ) and ( j ) as follows :","\u201c ( g ) Various training courses : private education institutions that operate for the purpose of enhancing ORG knowledge , skills , linguistic [ skills ] , abilities and experiences in social , artistic , sporting , cultural and vocational spheres , [ and ] to [ enable them to ] make use of their free time according to their wishes , on the condition that they do not engage in preparing students for examinations for entrance to secondary education and higher education ...","( j ) Student study centre : private education institutions established to assist students of DATE and below to study their lessons [ and ] to complete their assignments and projects ; [ and ] to conduct social , artistic , sporting and cultural activities in accordance with [ the GPE ] interests , wishes and abilities . \u201d","Law no . CARDINAL also added a provisional section CARDINAL to Law no . PERSON . According to paragraph CARDINAL of this provisional section , private tutoring centres which had not transformed themselves into another private education institution could only operate until DATE .","The decision of ORG of DATE has been outlined in paragraph CARDINAL above .","The relevant information regarding the circular no . DATE issued by ORG on DATE and the decision of ORG dated DATE ordering the stay of execution of that circular may be found in paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above .","The relevant information regarding circular no . CARDINAL issued by ORG on DATE may be found in paragraph CARDINAL above .","According to information obtained proprio motu by the ORG , on an unspecified date an action was brought by an education workers\u2019 trade union seeking the annulment and stay of execution of circular no . MONEY . On DATE ORG dismissed the request for a stay of execution . It held that the repeal of the relevant provisions of LAW no . CARDINAL by ORG had created a legal lacuna concerning the legal status of private tutoring centres . The circular at issue had sought to fill that lacuna by providing for the operation of such private tutoring centres after transformation into other private education institutions , which was also in conformity with the ORG decision in this respect . CARDINAL members of ORG delivered a dissenting opinion against the decision of the majority , following the reasoning of the previous ORG decision concerning circular no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It appears that ORG has not yet delivered a decision on the merits of this case .","According to LAW , all acts and decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review .","Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL ( Administrative Procedure Act ) provides that anyone whose personal rights have been violated as a result of an allegedly unlawful administrative act or decision can bring an action for annulment of that act or decision .","A description of the relevant domestic law and practice regarding the right of individual application to ORG , as well as a review of the mechanism for individual application , may be found in ORG v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE and \u00a7 \u00a7 DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177420","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF OKOLELOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)","judges":"Dmitry Dedov;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the non - enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-156733","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"CONSTANTIN v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Branko Lubarda;J\u00e1n \u0160ikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before ORG by ORG ) , an association based in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE at TIME the applicant \u2019s DATE son PERSON was on his way to work . While he was on the pavement intending to cross the street at a zebra crossing , he was hooked by the lateral right side of a lorry and dragged under the wheels of its trailer . He died immediately . The lorry , driven by PERSON , was carrying CARDINAL workers from their place of work to their homes .","NORP Immediately after the accident the police arrived at the scene and started drafting the crime scene report , which included identification data of the parties involved in the accident and of QUANTITY eyewitnesses , various measurements , a description of the lorry and of the area where the accident happened as well as photographs . PERSON was sent to the hospital for a blood alcohol test .","DATE a criminal investigation was started against PERSON for unintentional killing . The police took written statements from CARDINAL eyewitnesses . ORG explained that she had been QUANTITY behind PERSON , who had been on the pavement \u201c at the zebra crossing \u201d , when he had stumbled on a manhole cover then lost his balance and fallen under the wheels of a small lorry . She mentioned that , when the accident had happened , the traffic lights had been green for cars . GPE , GPE and ORG , who were passengers in the lorry involved in the accident , stated that the lorry in question had been moving slowly on the inside lane towards green traffic lights when they had seen the victim hurrying on the pavement towards their vehicle . When ORG and ORG had looked in the right side mirror , they had seen the victim stumbling and falling under the lorry . The lorry \u2019s driver had stopped immediately to see what had happened . PERSON also mentioned that the lorry had been travelling at a speed of CARDINAL kph because at that time of day the traffic was busy . At a later date , GPE and ORG , who were also in the lorry at the time of the accident , gave similar statements .","In DATE statements were taken from GPE and GPE , work colleagues of the victim , as well as the victim \u2019s brother , PERSON , who had all seen the accident from across the street . PERSON mentioned that she had been waiting for the bus to go to work together with GPE and other colleagues including PERSON After their bus left the traffic lights and arrived at the stop where she had been waiting , she saw that the cars in the opposite lane were all stopped at the red traffic light and that only the lorry in question was moving . Immediately afterwards , she saw PERSON lying on the road . She explained that the lorry had been moving at high speed and that she had seen PERSON standing on the kerb of the pavement in front of the zebra crossing and not crossing the street . She did not see how PERSON had fallen under the lorry \u2019s wheels . PERSON and PERSON gave similar accounts of the events .","On an unspecified date PERSON , a witness proposed by the applicant , stated to the police that at the time of the accident he had been walking on the opposite side of the street when he had heard a noise and had turned to see what had happened . At that point he had noticed that all the cars had stopped on both sides of the road and that the traffic lights had been red for cars . The traffic lights for the zebra crossing had been green but he had not seen any pedestrian crossing at that moment .","On various dates polygraph tests were carried out on some of the witnesses . The results of blood alcohol tests came back negative for both the victim and PERSON","On DATE the applicant joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party .","On DATE an independent technical expert was chosen and specific questions were raised for his analysis in the presence of GPE and the applicant . A record was drawn up stating that the parties had had no objections to the expert chosen or to the questions . Subsequently , the expert , accompanied by the applicant , went to the site of the accident for technical verifications . A record was drawn up of his findings , and of the applicant \u2019s version of the facts , namely that PERSON had been crossing the street at a zebra crossing while the traffic lights were on green for pedestrians , when the lorry , which was moving at high speed , hooked him with its right side .","On DATE the technical expert report was submitted to the investigating authorities . After a thorough analysis of the conflicting statements given by the work colleagues of the CARDINAL parties , corroborated by the statement given by ORG , and with technical data such as the sequence of the traffic lights obtained from the traffic control authorities , the report established that on DATE at TIME was driving a small lorry with a trailer on the inside lane of the road next to the pavement . When the lorry reached the zebra crossing in question the traffic lights were green for cars and the victim , who was running towards the street , had tried to stop before stepping onto the road but had stumbled and bumped against the right side of the lorry \u2019s trailer and was dragged underneath it . The expert mentioned that the speed of the truck could not be calculated mathematically because the brake marks had not been measured after the accident . However , from the distance to which the victim was thrown \u2013 CARDINAL m \u2013 and the spot where the lorry stopped after the impact , it could be analytically inferred that the speed had been low . The report concluded that the driver had not breached any traffic rules and could not have avoided the accident .","On DATE the applicant , represented by a lawyer , submitted objections to the technical expert report . He requested that the expert be required to determine precisely what the speed of the lorry had been , how the charge had been arranged in the open trailer , what had been the sequence of the traffic lights , whether the victim had been run over or hit by the lorry and whether the driver was guilty of causing the accident . On DATE these requests were dismissed by the prosecutor in a reasoned decision since these aspects had already been clarified in the report .","The investigation was concluded on DATE with the prosecutor \u2019s decision not to pursue criminal charges against PERSON for the crime of unintentional killing because no guilt could be established . The prosecutor examined the conflicting statements given by the CARDINAL sets of witnesses \u2013 the victim \u2019s work colleagues and PERSON \u2019s work colleagues DATE and balanced them against the statement of the independent witness ORG as well as the findings of the technical expert report and concluded that PERSON had not breached any traffic rules and could not have avoided the accident .","The applicant challenged that decision but his complaint was rejected as ill - founded by the head prosecutor of ORG of ORG on DATE .","The applicant challenged the ORG decisions before ORG . He averred that , considering the severity of the crime , it was necessary to at least charge PERSON with a crime and thus allow the opportunity for more thorough technical tests to be conducted , to further examine the discrepancies between the witness statements and to enable him to take part in the proceedings as an injured party .","On DATE his complaint was allowed by ORG , which decided to send the case back to the prosecutor \u2019s office to reopen the criminal proceedings in order to fully respond to the applicant \u2019s allegations .","An appeal by the prosecutor on points of law ( recurs ) against the above judgment was allowed by ORG on DATE . ORG thoroughly examined the applicant \u2019s complaints and the available evidence and considered that they had been fully and clearly answered by the investigation and that no additional expert reports or other investigative steps were necessary in the case . With respect to the applicant \u2019s allegations that he could not take part in the proceedings , the court held that it had not been proved that the applicant \u2019s procedural rights had been breached ; for example , he had been able to propose witnesses .","On DATE the applicant authorised ORG to request a reopening of the case before ORG of ORG and ORG . This request was forwarded to the courts for examination .","On DATE the Timi\u015foara ORG held that a reopening of the criminal proceedings in a case which had already been subject to the scrutiny of a court was only possible when new facts had been uncovered which had not been known to the investigating authorities at the relevant time . Since this was not the situation in the current case , the court declared the request inadmissible . An appeal by the applicant on points of law against that judgment was allowed on DATE by ORG . The court held that a request for reopening proceedings must first be examined and resolved by way of a reasoned decision by the prosecutor and only afterwards could it be brought before the courts .","The investigation was briefly re - opened following the above - mentioned court judgment . After new statements were taken from the applicant , PERSON and a new witness proposed by the applicant , on DATE the prosecutor decided again not to pursue criminal charges in the case owing to a lack of negligence on the part of GPE The new witness admitted that he had not in fact seen the accident but that the applicant had asked him to come and testify against GPE","The applicant \u2019s complaint against that decision was rejected with final effect by the Timi\u015foara ORG on DATE . The court examined all investigative steps taken by the prosecutors in the case and decided that the applicant \u2019s complaint was ill - founded .","The applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choosing throughout the proceedings before the domestic courts ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-177225","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF VIKTOR NAZARENKO v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)","judges":"Carlo Ranzoni;Ganna Yudkivska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP In a dispute between the applicant and the domestic pension authorities , on DATE the PERSON ORG ruled in his favour , ordering an increase of his pension based on the rise in the average wages in the country since his retirement . The court sat in camera .","On DATE the first - instance court amended the judgment at the applicant \u2019s request , indicating that it was enforceable immediately . In doing so , the court referred to the provision of LAW governing abridged procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .","The defendant pension authority appealed to ORG ( \u201c the Court of Appeal \u201d ) .","On DATE the first - instance court informed the applicant that an appeal had been lodged in his case . On DATE he wrote to ORG , requesting to be informed about the date of the hearing of his case . According to him , he received no response and no further information about the proceedings until DATE when he received ORG final decision , dated DATE , quashing the first - instance court \u2019s judgment .","It can be seen from the material before the ORG that the applicant \u2019s domestic case file contains copies of the ruling of ORG judge ( date illegible ) opening appeal proceedings in his case and a notification letter dated DATE from the court clerk informing him of the upcoming examination of his case in camera on DATE and stating that the judge \u2019s ruling and a copy of the appeal were enclosed with the letter . The Government alleged that the above documents had been sent to the applicant , while the applicant alleged that they had not . The file does not contain any postal documents or registers of sent correspondence showing that the above documents had been sent or delivered to the applicant .","On DATE ORG , in a final decision not amenable to appeal , quashed the first - instance court \u2019s judgment , dismissing the applicant \u2019s claim for a pension increase and holding that the domestic law did not require the pensions to be increased in case of rise in the average wages in the country following retirement . The court sat in camera ."],"violated_articles":["6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-157772","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"MKD","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"TRADE UNION IN THE FACTORY \"4TH NOVEMBER\" v. \"THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA\"","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik M\u00f8se;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska","text":["NORP The applicant is the trade union in the \u201c CARDINALth DATE \u201d factory in GPE . It is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) are represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON .","The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","On DATE the applicant union announced that its members would go on strike because of the lack of success of negotiations that had been pending with the employer for some time regarding payment of leave allowance ( \u0440\u0435\u0433\u0440\u0435\u0441 \u0437\u0430 \u0433\u043e\u0434\u0438\u0448\u0435\u043d \u043e\u0434\u043c\u043e\u0440 ) for DATE , the signing of the employer \u2019s collective agreement , and increases in pay . As stated in the announcement , the strike was to begin at TIME on DATE at the workplace and would continue until the applicant union \u2019s demands were met . As stated in the decision to strike , the applicant union undertook to negotiate with the employer before and during the strike , in order to ensure that the workers\u2019 demands were acceded to in a friendly manner . It was also stated that if an agreement was reached between the applicant union and the employer it would be regarded as a collective agreement of the employer .","On DATE the applicant union and the employer reached an agreement for a PERCENT pay rise and the payment of a CARDINAL - off bonus for production workers . According to the agreement , the strike action was suspended ( \u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0448\u0442\u0440\u0430\u0458\u043a\u043e\u0442 \u0441\u0435 \u0437\u0430\u043f\u0438\u0440\u0430\u0430\u0442 ) and the negotiations were to continue after termination of the \u201c campaign \u201d ( apparently a production stage in the factory ) .","In the light of legislative amendments in DATE introducing gross salaries , on DATE the applicant union asked for the pay rise stipulated in the agreement to be incorporated in the workers\u2019 gross salaries . The same request was made regarding travel and food allowances ( \u0442\u0440\u043e\u0448\u043e\u0446\u0438 \u043f\u043e \u043e\u0441\u043d\u043e\u0432 \u043d\u0430 \u0438\u0441\u0445\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0430 \u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0435\u0432\u043e\u0437 ) .","As established in the subsequent civil proceedings ( see below ) , the employer responded on DATE , saying that it had fulfilled the wage - related obligations set out in the agreement of CARDINAL DATE , and that the negotiations on the collective agreement would continue . It also offered PERCENT pay rise for production workers .","The applicant union and the employer then exchanged letters in which they stated their positions regarding the contentious issues . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the employer set out CARDINAL proposals concerning pay increases , and indicated that the negotiations regarding the collective agreement would continue .","By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant union made a final request ( a PERCENT salary increase for production workers and incorporation of the food allowance in the gross salary ) and asked the employer to state its position by TIME , under the threat of resorting to other statutory measures .","In another letter dispatched DATE by registered mail ( which the employer received on DATE ) the applicant union informed the employer :","\u201c ... since you refuse to settle the wage dispute , we hereby inform you that the strike action will resume at TIME on DATE in the factory . We emphasise that we are ready to negotiate both now and during the strike in order to find a solution ( that is acceptable for both parties ) ... \u201d","By a letter dated DATE the employer formulated CARDINAL proposals regarding a pay rise for production and\/or all workers and travel and food allowances , and requested that the applicant union reply by DATE . The employer stated that its proposals corresponded to its financial capacity at the time . By a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant union refused the employer \u2019s offer but expressed its willingness to continue negotiating . In reply , the employer informed the applicant union that by going on strike on CARDINAL DATE it had violated the provisional agreement of CARDINAL DATE .","On an unspecified date the employer brought a civil action against the applicant union , asking the courts to declare the strike announced on DATE unlawful .","In a judgment of DATE ORG ( \u201c the first - instance court \u201d ) allowed the employer \u2019s action and declared the strike announced on DATE unlawful . The court held that the strike had not been announced within the time - limits specified in LAW for ORG ( \u201c the sector collective agreement \u201d ) , which was binding on the applicant union . Since the applicant union , by submissions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , had made new requests that had not been included in the agreement of CARDINAL DATE , the court found that the applicant union had gone on strike in contravention of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( \u201c the LAW \u201d , see paragraph DATE below ) according to which a strike could not begin before any out - of - court settlement proceedings had been brought to an end .","On DATE ORG allowed an appeal by the applicant union and set aside the lower court \u2019s judgment . It instructed the first - instance court to establish whether the employer had signed the sector collective agreement , which in the court \u2019s opinion was the determining factor as to the applicability of that collective agreement to the dispute between the parties . The lower court was also instructed to establish whether at the material time the negotiations were still pending , and if so whether , in the light of its subsequent requests , the applicant union had been obliged to announce the strike of DATE .","On DATE the first - instance court dismissed the employer \u2019s action . Relying on section CARDINAL of the LAW , it held that the applicant union had gone on strike on the basis of its decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had not been set aside ( \u0432\u043e\u043d \u0441\u0438\u043b\u0430 ) . With that decision , the applicant union had informed the employer about the reasons for the strike and the place and time of the strike . The agreement reached between the parties on DATE had been provisional and had concerned only part of the applicant union \u2019s demands ( concerning a pay rise for production workers ) . The employer had started implementing the agreement of CARDINAL DATE up to the point when the legislative amendments introducing gross salaries entered into force in DATE . In view of the applicant union \u2019s requests post - dating the agreement , the court concluded that negotiations between the parties had been pending and that the applicant union had not been required to announce the strike of DATE . The court also found that the strike could not be regarded as a new strike , but was rather a continuation of the strike announced on DATE . That negotiations were ongoing was supported by the fact that after the parties had reached the agreement of CARDINAL DATE both strikers and non - strikers were regularly at work and production had continued ( \u0440\u0435\u0434\u043e\u0432\u043d\u043e \u043e\u0434\u0435\u043b\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u0430 , \u0440\u0435\u0434\u043e\u0432\u043d\u043e \u0441\u0435 \u043e\u0434\u0432\u0438\u0432\u0430\u043b \u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043e\u0442 \u043f\u0440\u043e\u0446\u0435\u0441 ) . The court also established that the employer was at the time neither a member of ORG ( \u0417\u0434\u0440\u0443\u0436\u0435\u043d\u0438\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u043e\u0434\u0430\u0432\u0430\u0447\u0438 ) nor a signatory to the sector collective agreement ( the latter accordingly was not binding on the employer at the time ) . In such circumstances , the court ruled that the strike had been in compliance with the LAW , pursuant to which the right to strike could not be restricted because of the requirement for mediation .","On an appeal by the employer , on DATE ORG overturned the first - instance court \u2019s judgment and declared the strike announced on DATE unlawful . The court held that :","\u201c The court considers that after the agreement ( of DATE ) had been concluded and the [ employer ] had satisfied part of [ the applicant \u2019s ] requests , negotiations were still pending , which is not disputed between the parties . In view of the above - cited provision ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) , the requirement for mediation can not restrict the right to strike if such a requirement is specified by this law or before the end of any out - of - court settlement proceedings agreed upon by the parties .","This court considers that the strike of CARDINAL DATE is unlawful because mediation and negotiations ... are still pending . ( The applicant union ) submitted new requests that had not been specified in the agreement [ of CARDINAL DATE ] ... [ The applicant union ] , without giving any reply , refused the new proposals made [ by the employer ] and continued the strike , despite the employer \u2019s willingness to fulfil the requests that were not part of the agreement . Instead of considering the CARDINAL proposals made by the employer and providing an explanation for refusing each of them , [ the applicant union ] unilaterally informed the employer on DATE that the strike would continue . This means that while the negotiations were pending it went unilaterally into a new strike , in contravention of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW .","In view of the foregoing , the court allows [ the employer \u2019s ] appeal ... and prohibits ( \u0437\u0430\u0431\u0440\u0430\u043d\u0438 ) the [ the applicant union \u2019s ] strike announced on DATE as contrary to LAW , all the more so since the negotiating team of [ the applicant union ] suggested to [ the employer ] , with the notification of CARDINAL DATE , that negotiations should continue . \u201d","On DATE the employer claimed compensation for pecuniary loss allegedly sustained as a result of the strike by the applicant union which had lasted from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The applicant union denied that the employer had sustained any damage , alleging that workers who had gone on strike had been replaced . In such circumstances , there had been no adverse effects and \u201c the campaign had ended successfully \u201d .","In the observations on the admissibility and merits of the application , the Government informed that on CARDINAL DATE the first - instance court allowed the employer \u2019s claim and ordered the applicant union , under section CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , to pay MONEY ( ORG ) with interest in respect of \u201c pecuniary damage caused by the unlawful strike held DATE and DATE . \u201d The court relied on an expert report , according to which there had been \u201c CARDINAL campaigns for the production of raw sugar \u201d during the strike , and the employer had sustained damage in view of increased energy costs . In the absence of an appeal by the applicant union , this judgment became final on DATE .","The applicant union submitted a list of CARDINAL employees who were members of the applicant union and who had been dismissed from work owing to their participation in the strike . In this connection , it submitted court judgments in which the dismissal of an employee had been confirmed at the first and second levels of jurisdiction . By judgments of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG overturned the dismissal of CARDINAL of the employees named in that list ( GPE and GPE ) . The parties did not submit any further information in this respect .","The relevant provision of the LAW reads as follows :","The rights of employees and their status are regulated by law and collective agreements .","The right to strike is guaranteed . The law may restrict the conditions for the exercise of the right to strike in the armed forces , the police and administrative bodies . \u201d","NORP The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :","( CARDINAL ) The employer and the employee can decide that an individual or collective labour dispute is settled by a conciliation council ( \u043c\u0438\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0435\u043d \u0441\u043e\u0432\u0435\u0442 ) composed of CARDINAL members , of which CARDINAL member is appointed by the employer and CARDINAL by the employee and they jointly appoint the remaining member ...","( CARDINAL ) ORG collective agreement may specify that collective labour disputes are settled by arbitration .","( CARDINAL ) The collective agreement specifies the composition , procedure and other relevant issues for the arbitration process .","( CARDINAL ) If the employer and the employee agree that a dispute is to be settled by arbitration , the judgment of the arbitration is final and binding for both parties .","( CARDINAL ) The judgment of the arbitration is not subject to judicial review .","A collective agreement can be general for the whole ORG , specific for a particular ( economic ) sector , or individual , for a particular employer .","( CARDINAL ) At the ORG level there are :","CARDINAL ) business general collective agreements and","CARDINAL ) public - sector general collective agreements .","( CARDINAL ) ORG general collective agreement is directly applicable and is binding on employers who are members of the union of employers , signatories to the collective agreement , or who have joined that union subsequently .","( CARDINAL ) A sector collective agreement is directly applicable and is binding on employers who are members of the union of employers , signatories to the collective agreement , or who have joined that union subsequently .","( CARDINAL ) ORG collective agreement is binding on all persons who have entered into it and on all who , at the relevant time , were or have subsequently become members of the unions which had entered into the collective agreement .","( CARDINAL ) A collective agreement is also binding on all persons who have entered into it and on all who have subsequently become members of the unions which had signed up to it ...","Rights and obligations during strikes","Section CARDINAL","( CARDINAL ) ORG trade union and its federations may announce and go on strike in order to protect the economic and social rights of their members , in accordance with the law .","( CARDINAL ) The employer or the ORG federation shall be notified in writing about the strike ...","( CARDINAL ) The strike can not begin before negotiations ( \u043f\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0430\u043f\u043a\u0430 \u0437\u0430 \u043f\u043e\u043c\u0438\u0440\u0443\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 ) have ended , as provided for by law . The requirement for negotiations can not restrict the right to strike if such a requirement is specified by law or before [ the end of ] any out - of - court settlement proceedings agreed upon by the parties ...","( CARDINAL ) Any notice announcing a strike must contain information about the reasons for the strike and the place and the time of the strike .","( CARDINAL ) The strike must be organised in a manner that will not impair or disturb the work routine of workers not participating in the strike and [ in a manner ] that will not restrict access to the workplace by workers and persons in authority . \u201d","( CARDINAL ) The employer and the association of employers may ask the competent court to declare unlawful a strike that has been organised contrary to the statutory provisions .","( CARDINAL ) NORP The employer can seek compensation for damage sustained by a strike organised contrary to the law .","The Government submitted copy of the general business collective agreement of DATE ( together with an accord extending its validity until DATE , ORG no.CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) . The relevant provisions of the DATE general business collective agreement ( ORG no . MONEY ) were as follows :","Disputes that can not be settled through negotiations can be settled by means of mediation or arbitration .","Mediation is a process in which an independent third person appointed by the parties to the dispute assists them in settling the dispute .","Arbitration is dispute resolution by a third person who is appointed by the parties to the dispute and who resolves the dispute by making a decision .","Individual and collective disputes can be settled out of court or by a special conciliation council .","An out - of - court settlement is set in motion by a proposal from any party to the dispute , which is to be submitted DATE after the dispute ; in the proposal the appellant must describe the nature of the dispute .","The other party is required to reply within DATE of receiving the proposal .","Each party to the dispute appoints CARDINAL member of the conciliation council . They jointly appoint the third member of the conciliation council from among the candidates on the list of mediators ...","Parties are required to complete the out - of - court settlement proceedings within DATE of the submission of the proposal for an out - of - court settlement ...","In a collective labour dispute any party to the dispute can seek settlement by means of arbitration up to DATE after the beginning of the dispute or after termination of the out - of - court settlement proceedings .","CARDINAL or more arbiters can be included in the arbitration .","Parties to the disputes jointly appoint the arbiter(s ) from the list of arbiters ...","The decision of the arbiter is final and binding on the parties concerned .","Arbitration proceedings are to be completed within DATE . \u201d","The Government also provided a copy of the DATE general business collective agreement ( ORG no . CARDINAL\/CARDINAL ) , which contained identical rules on out - of - court settlement of labour disputes to those in the DATE collective agreement .","On the basis of an application by ORG ( GPE \u043d\u0430 \u0441\u0438\u043d\u0434\u0438\u043a\u0430\u0442\u0438 ) , on DATE ORG rejected as unconstitutional the part of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW which provides that a strike can not begin before negotiations have ended , as provided for by law and \u201c a decision of the Minister for Labour ( \u0438 \u0430\u043a\u0442 \u043d\u0430 GPE \u043d\u0430\u0434\u043b\u0435\u0436\u0435\u043d \u0437\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u043e\u0434 \u043e\u0431\u043b\u0430\u0441\u0442\u0430 \u043d\u0430 \u0442\u0440\u0443\u0434\u043e\u0442 ) \u201d . Relying on international materials and the constitutional provisions cited above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , ORG stated that :","\u201c The court considers that the disputed provision introduced , in principle , a requirement of prior exhaustion of out - of - court settlement proceedings before resorting to a strike , as a means of protection of economic and social rights ...","According to the court ... strikes and mediation in labour - related matters are closely linked , given the fact that friendly settlement of labour disputes ( \u043c\u0438\u0440\u043d\u043e \u0440\u0435\u0448\u0430\u0432\u0430\u045a\u0435 \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0430\u0431\u043e\u0442\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0435 \u0441\u043f\u043e\u0440\u043e\u0432\u0438 ) can have , in certain cases , a preventive effect in that they avoid strikes being held , and if a strike has already begun it is a means to achieve an out - of - court settlement of a particular dispute . The court therefore considers that it is ... decisive that both issues ( strike and mediation ) concern labour issues , which , as provided for in LAW , are to be regulated by law and collective agreements . They can not be regulated by a decision of the Minister ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :","With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to bargain collectively , the Contracting Parties undertake :","to promote joint consultation between workers and employers ;","to promote , where necessary and appropriate , machinery for voluntary negotiations between employers or ORG organisations and workers\u2019 organisations , with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements ;","to promote the establishment and use of appropriate machinery for conciliation and voluntary arbitration for the settlement of labour disputes ; and recognise :","the right of workers and employers to collective action in cases of conflicts of interest , including the right to strike , subject to obligations that might arise out of collective agreements previously entered into . \u201d","Article CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :","The GPE Parties to the present LAW undertake to ensure ...","( d ) the right to strike , provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country . \u201d","Relevant provisions of this report read as follows :","Paragraph CARDINAL - Collective action","...","Procedural requirements pertaining to collective action","The trade union which has called the strike must notify the employer against whom it is directed , specifying the reasons for the strike , the place where it is to be held , and the date and time of the strike \u2019s commencement .","A strike can not take place before the completion of the conciliation \/ mediation procedures .","The ORG asks whether there are any other procedural requirements that must be fulfilled before a lawful strike can take place , such as ballot requirements .","...","Conclusion","Pending receipt of the information requested the ORG defers its conclusion . \u201d","Relevant provisions of this report read as follows :","\u201c Concerning procedural requirements that must be fulfilled before a lawful strike can take place , the ORG notes that no other requirements than the ones mentioned in the previous conclusion are to be fulfilled .","...","Conclusion","Pending receipt of the information requested , the ORG concludes that the situation in \u201c the former GPE \u201d is in conformity with LAW . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-174392","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"TUR","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2017,"docname":"CASE OF YAVUZ NAL AND OTHERS v. TURKEY","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 14+8-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)","judges":"Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Ledi Bianku;Paul Lemmens","text":["Following their respective marriages , the applicants had to take their husbands\u2019 surnames pursuant to LAW . On various dates , they initiated proceedings before the first instance courts seeking permission to use only their maiden names . Their requests were rejected on the ground that according to LAW , married women had to bear their husbands\u2019 name throughout their marriage and were not permitted to use their maiden name alone . The details of the applications appear in the attached table ."],"violated_articles":["14","8"],"violated_paragraphs":["8-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-144109","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"HUN","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2014,"docname":"CASE OF L\u00c1SZL\u00d3 MAGYAR v. HUNGARY","importance":3,"conclusion":"Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading punishment;Inhuman punishment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Non-pecuniary damage - award","judges":"Andr\u00e1s Saj\u00f3;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . Currently , he is detained at FAC .","It appears that on an unspecified date in DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant and his accomplices .","As the investigation against the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants proceeded , the applicant was interrogated on numerous occasions as a suspect in connection with various violent crimes committed in many different villages . The investigation resulted in a case file of CARDINAL large boxes . According to the material collected , the applicant and his co - defendants had committed a series of burglaries against lonely elderly people in various parts of the country . They had tied up the victims and beaten them or threatened them until they disclosed where their valuables were hidden and then left them tied up alone in their houses . Some of the victims had died soon after the assaults .","The bill of indictment submitted on DATE was CARDINAL pages long , concerned CARDINAL defendants , and proposed the hearing of CARDINAL witnesses and CARDINAL forensic medical experts . The applicant was indicted on CARDINAL counts of homicide , CARDINAL counts of robbery , CARDINAL counts of infringement of personal liberty , CARDINAL counts of assault causing grievous bodily harm , CARDINAL counts of trespass and CARDINAL counts of theft or attempted theft .","After CARDINAL hearings held from DATE , on CARDINAL DATE the GPE Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder , robbery and several other offences , in a CARDINAL - long judgment . The applicant was , as a multiple recidivist , sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole , that is , whole life sentence ( t\u00e9nyleges \u00e9letfogytiglan ) .","On appeal , ORG held a preparatory meeting on DATE and a hearing on DATE . It quashed the first - instance judgment on DATE and remitted the case to ORG .","In the resumed proceedings before ORG , an amended bill of indictment was preferred on DATE and CARDINAL hearings were held DATE and DATE . Several forensic medical and graphology experts were appointed in order to verify the defence of a co - defendant to the effect that he could not have taken part in the commission of CARDINAL of the crimes he was charged with since he had undergone an operation on his knee DATE under a false name \u2013 and was not able to walk . Although this issue was irrelevant for the applicant , it appeared to be crucial for the determination of the charges against his co - defendant .","On DATE ORG again convicted the applicant . The applicant submitted that the judge hearing his case this time used to be the trainee of the judge who had tried his case in the first proceedings before ORG .","ORG judgment was CARDINAL pages long and covered CARDINAL cases of crimes committed by the CARDINAL defendants . The applicant , as well as the above - mentioned co - defendant , was again sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole .","On appeal , ORG held hearings on DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL and DATE . In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG re - characterised the offences of which the applicant had been convicted but upheld his sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole . In order to reflect differences between the attitude of the applicant during the trial and that of the above - mentioned co - defendant ( who contributed to the establishment of the facts and expressed remorse ) and to make their punishments respectively proportionate , the co - defendant \u2019s sentence was mitigated : he was no longer excluded from eligibility for parole .","On DATE ORG upheld this sentence .","The applicant submitted that his cell at FAC , the dimensions of which are CARDINAL by QUANTITY , accommodates another inmate and the toilet is adjacent to his bed and table ."],"violated_articles":["3","6"],"violated_paragraphs":["6-1"],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-153768","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"POL","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2015,"docname":"CASE OF GAWRECKI v. POLAND","importance":4,"conclusion":"No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)","judges":"Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney","text":["The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .","On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with sexual abuse of CARDINAL minor girls .","On DATE the FAC ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) decided to detain him on remand . The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the aforementioned offences . It attached particular importance to the likelihood that a severe sentence of imprisonment would be imposed on him and to the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings . The applicant \u2019s appeal , lodged against the detention order , was dismissed by the second - instance court .","The applicant \u2019s detention was subsequently extended by the Wroc\u0142aw - \u015ar\u00f3dmie\u015bcie District Court on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , by ORG ( S\u0105d Apelacyjny ) on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE , by ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , as well as by ORG on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL May and on DATE .","The courts justified their decisions by the particularly high risk of the applicant \u2019s absconding abroad or otherwise obstructing the course of the proceedings and by the severity of the anticipated penalty . They also had regard to the nature of the offences with which he had been charged and considered that , given the applicant \u2019s personality , a release on bail would not sufficiently secure the proper course of the proceedings .","Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE a bill of indictment against the applicant and another person was lodged with PERSON ( S\u0105d Rejonowy ) . The prosecutor requested the court to hear CARDINAL witnesses .","The trial started on DATE . Subsequently , the trial court held CARDINAL hearings in DATE , QUANTITY hearings in DATE and CARDINAL hearings in DATE .","On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of sexual abuse of CARDINAL minor girls . The court determined that the applicant had committed those offences in various ways . He had sexual intercourse with some of the victims and he sexually abused the others in different ways . He was also found guilty of aiding sexual abuse and of serving alcohol to minors . The first - instance court sentenced the applicant to a cumulative penalty of DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment .","On DATE , ORG extended the applicant \u2019s detention . His detention was later prolonged by the same court \u2019s decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant \u2019s appeals against these CARDINAL decisions were dismissed on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , by ORG ( PERSON ) . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the same court granted further extensions of the applicant \u2019s detention .","The courts relied on the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant , given that he had been sentenced at firstinstance to DATE and CARDINAL months\u2019 imprisonment . They considered that there was therefore a risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings by absconding . In establishing the existence of this risk they referred to the applicant \u2019s knowledge of foreign languages and to the fact that he had previously travelled abroad . They also stressed the particularly drastic nature of the offences in question .","The applicant and the prosecutor lodged appeals against the firstinstance judgment .","On DATE ORG altered the judgment in part and increased the applicant \u2019s cumulative sentence to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal ( kasacja ) with ORG ( S\u0105d Najwy\u017cszy ) . He later withdrew his cassation appeal ."],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":["5"],"non_violated_paragraphs":["5-3"],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-166930","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"RUS","branch":"CHAMBER","date":2016,"docname":"CASE OF PISKUNOV v. RUSSIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)","judges":"Alena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1;Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena J\u00e4derblom;Luis L\u00f3pez Guerra","text":["The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently being detained in GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of incitement to murder . On DATE ORG of GPE authorised his pre - trial detention .","Subsequently the applicant \u2019s detention was extended on a number of occasions in the course of the investigation and trial in view of the gravity of the charges against him and the risks of his absconding , seeking to influence witnesses and reoffending .","On CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of the charges and sentenced him to MONEY imprisonment in a correctional colony . On DATE ORG upheld the conviction , but decreased the sentence by DATE .","During the admission process at remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL\/CARDINAL in GPE the applicant told the medical staff that he had hypertension . The diagnosis was confirmed by a prison doctor , who prescribed him hypotensive medication and regular monitoring of his blood pressure .","NORP In DATE the applicant was admitted to ORG no . CARDINAL in GPE ( \u201c the prison hospital \u201d ) for DATE of inpatient treatment for his hypertension . A chest X - ray showed that he had a mild case of pneumonia and he was also diagnosed with another chronic condition . In the hospital the applicant received the full range of treatments for his conditions .","NORP In DATE the applicant had a hypertensive crisis . DATE his lawyer complained to the prison authorities of inadequate medical care .","A medical examination in DATE showed that the applicant had recovered from pneumonia and that there were positive developments with his hypertension .","In DATE and DATE the applicant was moved between various detention facilities and had routine medical checkups .","NORP In DATE he was sent to a minimum security settlement colony . The applicant and other inmates performed repairs to a nearby children \u2019s health camp . The applicant complained only of fatigue and headache to medical staff during that period .","According to the applicant , in DATE he started experiencing pain in the chest , pelvic area and testicles . His ability to walk was hindered by severe pain . He took painkillers sent by his relatives . The detention authorities ignored his complaints and on several occasions confiscated the painkillers .","In written submissions , PERSON . , PERSON and PERSON , detainees who worked with the applicant in the children \u2019s camp from DATE , confirmed the above statements . They submitted that the applicant had been seriously ill , had been barely able to walk and had often complained about severe pain . No proper medical examination or treatment had been arranged despite the applicant \u2019s requests for inpatient treatment . Inmates had injected the applicant with painkillers supplied by his relatives .","On DATE the applicant asked the head of the detention facility to authorise a medical examination and treatment outside the facility owing to a serious spine and leg condition that had worried him since DATE . He stated that over DATE he had received pain relief medication provided by his relatives , but that his condition had not got better .","Following the applicant \u2019s complaint , he was sent to a civilian clinic in GPE for a magnetic resonance imaging scan ( MRI ) . An examination carried out on DATE , DATE after his admission , revealed a prostate tumour and affection of the bone . A consultation by an oncologist was prescribed .","On DATE the applicant complained about the quality of his treatment to ORG in GPE . The complaint was forwarded to the applicant \u2019s ward but was dismissed as ill - founded on DATE .","On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG in GPE , where he was diagnosed with prostate cancer with metastasis to the pelvic bone . According to his medical records , he suffered mild to intense pain .","DATE a medical panel certified the applicant as having a second - degree disability .","DATE and DATE the applicant was examined and treated in the prison hospital . While tests performed in the hospital did not disclose any cancer , hospital officials acted on the diagnosis of CARDINAL DATE and prescribed drug treatment for prostate cancer .","On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was examined by an oncologist , who recorded his cancer treatment and ordered tests .","In DATE the applicant spent DATE in the prison hospital .","DATE he was seen by doctors and was prescribed further treatment for cancer . The medical staff apparently complied fully with that prescription .","On DATE a medical panel concluded that the applicant \u2019s state of health warranted his early release on medical grounds . DATE the NORP ORG of the Krasnoyarsk Region dismissed an application for early release , finding that the applicant was receiving the required treatment in detention . On DATE ORG quashed the decision on procedural grounds and remitted the case for fresh consideration . The parties did not inform ORG outcome of those proceedings . However , given the further developments , it appears that the applicant remained in detention .","On DATE the applicant was certified as having a first - degree disability .","In DATE he was admitted to the prison hospital for a medical examination and treatment . There are no details regarding his subsequent treatment .","The applicant was detained in the remand prison DATE and DATE , save for short periods in the prison hospital . The applicant complained of the poor conditions of his detention , including overcrowding . The Government disagreed ."],"violated_articles":["13","3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-158242","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"LTU","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2015,"docname":"KOTURENKA v. LITHUANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Egidijus K\u016bris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turkovi\u0107","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in NORP . ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .","NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .","NORP The applicant and his wife got married in DATE and subsequently had CARDINAL sons . In DATE the applicant \u2019s wife moved to GPE to pursue doctoral studies and , with the applicant \u2019s consent , she took the children with her . DATE the applicant \u2019s wife initiated divorce proceedings before the NORP courts .","On DATE the Vilnius City ORG granted the divorce . The court found that the marriage had broken down due to the applicant \u2019s fault \u2013 it was established that he had regularly gambled , using his wife \u2019s and her relatives\u2019 money for that purpose .","During the court proceedings , the applicant agreed that the custody of the CARDINAL children be awarded to his ex - wife . He subsequently changed his position , first requesting custody of the older son and later of the both children . However , the court held that the interests of the children were best served by awarding custody to their mother . It found that the children were very attached to their mother and to each other , and that the applicant had not maintained regular contact with them since their move to GPE .","The applicant was ordered to pay maintenance to the CARDINAL children . The court held that the amount of maintenance had to be calculated according to NORP law and found this amount to be MONEY ( ORG ) per month for each child . The court then noted that the applicant did not have sufficient income to provide this amount : during the court proceedings the applicant himself stated that he was only able to afford CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , approximately ORG CARDINAL ) per month for each child . However , the court also noted that the applicant owned an apartment in GPE , the market value of which was estimated to be LTL MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) . Stressing that the interests of children took priority over the interests of their parents , the court awarded the apartment as a form of maintenance jointly to the CARDINAL children .","On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the lower court with certain amendments . The court held that the maintenance needs of the children had to be determined in accordance with NORP ( and not NORP ) law . The court re - evaluated the amount of maintenance on the basis of the documents submitted by the applicant \u2019s ex - wife and accepted her claim that ORG ( FAC ) per month for each child would be appropriate . The court then estimated that the applicant \u2019s apartment , sold at its market price ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , could provide each child with approximately LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) per month until they turned DATE . It also concluded that the applicant \u2019s ex - wife nonetheless had to bear a significantly larger financial burden in the upbringing of their children . Therefore , the court held that awarding the applicant \u2019s apartment for the maintenance of the children was proportionate and justified .","The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG arguing that the decision to award his apartment as a form of maintenance was unjustified . However , on DATE ORG refused to examine the appeal on the ground that it raised no important legal questions . The applicant then lodged a new cassation appeal , but on DATE ORG refused to examine it ( on the same grounds ) .","DATE Republic of Lithuania provides that parents have the obligation to support their children until they come of age .","Article CARDINAL of LAW provides that the legal regulation of family relationships shall be based on , inter alia , the priority of protecting and safeguarding the rights and interests of children .","Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . Parents shall be obliged to maintain their children until their majority . The procedure and form of maintenance shall be determined by the mutual agreement of the parents .","NORP The amount of maintenance must be commensurate with the needs of the children and the financial situation of their parents ; it must ensure the conditions necessary for the children \u2019s development .","Both parents must provide maintenance to their children until their majority in accordance with their financial situation . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Civil Code reads as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . The court may issue a maintenance order obliging the parents ( CARDINAL of the parents ) who fail in their duty to maintain their children to provide maintenance to their children in the following ways :","CARDINAL ) regular DATE payments :","CARDINAL ) a defined lump sum ;","CARDINAL ) award of a particular property . \u201d","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW provides that when making a maintenance order in respect of CARDINAL or more children , the court shall determine an amount sufficient to meet at least the minimal needs of all the children .","Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that judgments can not be enforced against property which is essential for the debtor \u2019s subsistence , occupation or studies .","On DATE the ORG of ORG issued decision no . CARDINAL \u201c On the application in the case - law of laws regulating GPE duty to financially maintain their children before the age of majority \u201d , which was aimed at harmonising the case - law of the lower courts . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :","\u201c CARDINAL . NORP Parents\u2019 financial situation shall be determined taking into account all types of income : wages ; other employment - related income ; royalties ; pensions ; scholarships and social benefits ; income from commercial and economic activity ( rent , dividends and others ) ; funds in banks and other credit institutions ; movable ( cars , valuable portable items , jewellery ) and immovable ( houses , flats , other buildings , land , forests , and so forth ) property ; securities ( equities , bonds ) ; legal entities ( sole proprietorships , and so on ) and their property . In determining the financial situation of parents , other statutory dependants are also to be taken into account .","When determining the proportionality between the needs of the child and the GPE financial situation , the court should take into consideration the fact that the amount of maintenance must be commensurate with the reasonable needs of the child and the GPE financial situation ( LAW ) ...","Maintenance must also be imposed on a father ( or mother ) who receives only the minimum wage , a ORG pension or other minimum income . The GPE severe financial situation is an important criterion for calculating the amount of maintenance but it can not be grounds for exempting the father ( or mother ) from the obligation to provide maintenance for their children ...","NORP The court may award maintenance in the following forms : regular DATE payments ; a defined sum of money ; an award of a particular property to a child ( Article CARDINAL \u00a7 CARDINAL of LAW ) .","The form of maintenance chosen must allow the maximum satisfaction of the needs of the child , taking into account the interests of the child and the financial situation of the parents . The court may choose on its own initiative the form of maintenance which satisfies the child \u2019s best interests ( LAW ) .","The selection criteria for the form of maintenance are the following : the child \u2019s needs , age and health status ; the GPE financial situation ; the structure of the GPE property ; their income level and income periodicity ; and the father \u2019s ( and mother \u2019s ) ability to properly manage the assets and other aspects relating to property management .","In selecting the form of maintenance , the court must take into account the fact that maintenance by its nature has the purpose of satisfying the everyday needs of children before their majority : the child \u2019s food , clothing , housing , education , health and development .","Maintenance in the form of periodic payments paid DATE guarantees a fixed amount for the child \u2019s maintenance DATE . Such a form of maintenance should be applied where the child \u2019s father ( or mother ) has a permanent income ( earnings , pensions , allowances , and so forth ) .","A defined sum of money as maintenance may be determined where this is allowed by the available funds of the child \u2019s father ( or mother ) who is liable for maintenance . The full amount of maintenance in a specific , CARDINAL - off payment of money shall be determined by multiplying the amount of maintenance per month by DATE until the child \u2019s majority .","Maintenance in the form of awarding ownership of the father \u2019s ( or mother \u2019s ) specific property to a child may be applied where the father ( or mother ) has a property and by using it or realising [ its value ] , the income for the child \u2019s maintenance may be received or the child \u2019s needs may be met . A court deciding to award maintenance in this form must take into account the type of the property to be awarded , the father \u2019s ( or mother \u2019s ) ability to manage the property , future costs for the property \u2019s maintenance , liquidity of the property , and so forth . The value of the property shall be determined on the basis of the value determined by market prices at the time the decision is rendered ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL of LAW ) ... \u201d","NORP In case no . QUANTITY of DATE , ORG held as follows :","\u201c The purpose of maintenance is to fulfil the child \u2019s DATE needs , and it is constantly necessary , DATE , and not some time in the future when the parents will be able or willing to provide for those needs . It is therefore important to secure stability of maintenance ... The parent who lives with the minor child also assumes the DATE care of the child which is normally not compensated for by awarding maintenance [ from the other parent ] . Meanwhile both parents are responsible for ensuring a safe environment and proper conditions for the child to grow and develop , for providing support in the child \u2019s education and realisation of his or her talents and interests . ORG has established in its case - law that inadequate compliance or non - compliance with parental duties can be justified only in exceptional circumstances which are outside the GPE control ; therefore , parents ought to evaluate their financial situation and readiness to take care of a child in advance ; in failing to evaluate their readiness to raise a child , develop his personality and provide suitable conditions for his development , parents consciously assume an increased social risk and its consequences ( ruling of ORG in civil case no . CARDINALK-CARDINAL - CARDINAL\/CARDINAL of DATE ) . Thus , when assessing the party \u2019s financial status , the court evaluates not only his or her existing possessions and income , but also the action that he or she has taken to ensure income commensurate with his or her age and professional capabilities , which could be used to provide maintenance for his or her children ... \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}
{"itemid":"001-184003","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"ROU","branch":"COMMITTEE","date":2018,"docname":"CASE OF KAYMAK AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA","importance":4,"conclusion":"Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment)","judges":"Marko Bo\u0161njak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani","text":["NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .","The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention ."],"violated_articles":["3"],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":true}
{"itemid":"001-160740","languageisocode":"ENG","respondent":"UKR","branch":"ADMISSIBILITY","date":2016,"docname":"NAGORSKIY v. UKRAINE","importance":4,"conclusion":"Inadmissible","judges":"Andr\u00e9 Potocki;Angelika Nu\u00dfberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik M\u00f8se;Ganna Yudkivska;M\u0101rti\u0146\u0161 Mits;Yonko Grozev","text":["NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON NORP , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE .","ORG ( \u201c the Government \u201d ) were represented by their Agent , most recently Mr PERSON , of ORG of GPE .","On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of a number of criminal offences .","On DATE ORG of GPE remanded him in custody : this detention was further extended on a number of occasions .","On DATE the GPE ORG of GPE found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years\u2019 imprisonment . In the operative part of its judgment the court also ruled that the applicant \u2019s pre - trial detention should be continued as a preventive measure pending the entry of that judgment into force . It further noted that the judgment could be challenged on appeal within DATE of the date of its pronouncement .","On DATE the above judgement was quashed on appeal , and the case was remitted to the investigative authorities for additional investigation .","No information was submitted by the parties as to the further course of the proceedings .","On an unspecified date DATE the applicant was granted an amnesty and released .","On DATE the applicant was escorted from the ORG trial ORG ( \u201c the GPE \u201d ) to ORG , GPE , for a hearing regarding the lawfulness of his detention . The hearing lasted TIME and was further adjourned until DATE .","After the closure of the hearing , the applicant , his co - accused and some others attending the hearing remained in the courtroom demanding that the judge rule that the applicant should be released immediately . TIME , at TIME , officers of the \u201c Gryfon \u201d ( police special unit ensuring legal order on the court LOC ) arrived in the courtroom , having been summoned by the judge . CARDINAL officers split up into CARDINAL groups : the first group held the applicant stretched out and started beating him with handcuffs and truncheons ; the second group formed a human chain so that others in the room would not be able to see what was going on in the defendant \u2019s cage . As a result , the applicant sustained serious bodily injuries , including several wounds to his head . Somebody called an ambulance but a chief officer prevented the applicant from being taken to hospital and he was transferred back to the GPE . No medical assistance was provided in the GPE until TIME , when following pressure from the media the applicant was transferred to ORG ( \u201c the Hospital \u201d ) and received medical treatment .","Dissatisfied with the adjournment of the hearing , the applicant , his co - accused and several others present demanded the applicant \u2019s immediate release and refused to comply with the escorting ORG request to leave the courtroom . The presiding judge called the police special unit to ensure order on the LOC . The applicant continued to resist police officers and was therefore forcefully escorted out of the courtroom . As a result , he sustained bodily injuries . Upon return to the GPE , the applicant was examined at the medical unit and was then transferred to the Hospital , where he was provided with the requisite medical assistance .","On DATE PERSON notified the police of the applicant \u2019s ill - treatment in the courtroom by unidentified police officers . On DATE , the relevant information was entered in the \u201c FAC of pre - trial investigations \u201d and criminal proceedings were commenced on suspicion of excess of powers by \u201c Gryfon \u201d officers . PERSON was questioned and the courtroom was examined by the police . According to the police report , dark red drops which looked like blood were found on the floor next to the hearing room and in the defendant \u2019s cage . According to PERSON , she arrived to the courtroom once she became aware that a \u201c Gryfon \u201d officer had hit the applicant on the head with a rubber truncheon . Upon arrival , she saw that there was blood all over the courtroom .","On DATE ORG took over the proceedings .","On CARDINAL DATE PERSON was questioned as a witness . She stated that CARDINAL \u201c Gryfon \u201d officers , equipped with handcuffs and truncheons , had entered the courtroom after the hearing was over . They had formed a human chain and separated the applicant from the other people in the room . A \u201c Gryfon \u201d officer then went into the defendant \u2019s metal cage and started pulling the applicant by the arm . TIME there was blood on the applicant \u2019s face . PERSON did not see who injured the applicant or how it happened , but noted that the latter did not resist the officers . At the same time , she saw \u201c GPE \u201d officers twisting the applicant \u2019s hands forcefully while trying to handcuff him .","On DATE Mrs N. and Mr PERSON were questioned as witnesses . PERSON ORG stated that she was not present at the hearing but was told by PERSON that the conflict arose because of the applicant \u2019s refusal to leave the courtroom . Mr PERSON , who had been present at the hearing when \u201c GPE \u201d arrived , stated that the applicant was not kicked or punched . Instead , he saw some officers , standing outside the metal cage , twisting the applicant \u2019s arms . As a result , the applicant hit his head on the metal cage and fell down . Then CARDINAL officers entered the cage and dragged the applicant out of the courtroom . According to Mr PERSON , the officers did not identify themselves when they arrived and did not ask anybody to leave the LOC .","On DATE the applicant was questioned as a victim . According to him , \u201c Gryfon \u201d officers appeared in the courtroom wearing bulletproof vests and neck and face coverings which rendered their identification impossible . CARDINAL of them , accompanied by an officer from the escorting unit , approached the applicant from the opposite side of the cage , pulled the applicant \u2019s hands forward and twisted his arms . \u201c Gryfon \u201d officers then entered the cage and started beating him in the face with truncheons and dragging him in different directions . As a result , the applicant hit his face on the cage bars . He was also kicked in the head by the \u201c Gryfon \u201d chief officer . Once the applicant started bleeding , he was stretched out on the floor , handcuffed and dragged out of the courtroom . On the way down , on the third floor , his head was intentionally banged against a metal case and he lost consciousness . According to the applicant , it was ORG of GPE that had ordered \u201c Gryfon \u201d to kill him .","On DATE , a forensic medical examination of the applicant was ordered .","On DATE a forensic medical examination report was issued . On the basis of the documents provided by the investigator , the expert stated that the applicant had sustained a contused head wound and numerous abrasions on the face and the left hand . The expert opined that those injuries had been caused by blunt objects ; as to their date , it could not be excluded that they had been inflicted on DATE . The injuries were classified as minor . The expert further found no clinical evidence that the applicant had sustained concussion . He noted in this respect that no pathology was evident from the description of the applicant \u2019s neurological state during his first and subsequent medical examinations . Likewise , there was no description of any radial nerve disorder in the file . The expert observed that some changes revealed during the head and spine X - ray examination indicated the progress of the applicant \u2019s chronic diseases , either of which , taken separately or together with others , could present neurological signs similar to those which would appear with concussion .","On DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings . The relevant resolution referred to the results of the above forensic medical examination and gave details of the testimonies of the applicant and those of Mr PERSON , PERSON and \u201c Gryfon \u201d officers , questioned as witnesses . According to the \u201c Gryfon \u201d officers , they had had no means of restraint during the operation and had used no force on the applicant . They stated that the applicant \u2019s injuries could have been self - inflicted when he resisted being escorted from the court . The resolution further referred to the provisions of LAW , according to which abuse of powers was criminally punishable only if the damage caused was in money terms CARDINAL times greater than the citizen \u2019s tax - exempt minimum income . It noted that the case file contained no evidence that the applicant had sustained such damage . The prosecutor finally concluded that no proof of abuse of powers by \u201c Gryfon \u201d officers was obtained during the investigation . It was noted that the resolution could be challenged within DATE of the date of its receipt . The resolution has not been appealed against by PERSON or the applicant .","On unspecified dates PERSON lodged a number of complaints with different ORG authorities , including MPs , about the events of CARDINAL DATE .","On DATE ORG , having completed their internal inquiry in respect of some of PERSON complaints , found no misconduct by \u201c GPE \u201d officers . According to the internal inquiry report , on CARDINAL DATE the police special unit arrived at the courtroom as PERSON and others attending the hearing were refusing to leave ; they impeded the applicant \u2019s being escorted out of the court LOC . The officers identified themselves and demanded that the public cease offering resistance and leave the LOC . As they did not comply , some of the \u201c Gryfon \u201d officers and the escorting officers formed a human chain and pushed the members of the public back , allowing other officers to take the applicant out of the courtroom . The applicant behaved inappropriately , uttering obscenities and hanging on to the metal bars of the cage . As a result , he injured his arm . According to the report , no force or special means of restraint was used .","On DATE the applicant was admitted to the GPE . On admission he underwent a medical examination , including an NORP - ray , and his medical file was studied . He was diagnosed with a number of chronic conditions , for which he received outpatient treatment . The applicant was also put on the list for regular medical check - ups .","According to the ORG , during his stay in the GPE the applicant presented himself to the medical unit on a number of occasions and was examined by the GPE medical staff and , where necessary , by specialists from ORG health - care institutions .","On an unspecified date the applicant consulted the GPE dentist and was diagnosed with chronic periodontitis and edentulous upper arch . Symptomatic in - patient treatment and consultation of a general practitioner were recommended .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a maxillofacial surgeon and cardiologist from ORG . He was diagnosed with a number of chronic conditions , had some of his teeth extracted , and was prescribed appropriate treatment . He was also advised to undergo an electrocardiogram .","On DATE the electrocardiogram was done ; it revealed no particular problems .","On DATE the applicant was examined by the GPE general practitioner and expressed no particular complaints as to his state of health . No serious pathology requiring treatment was revealed . It was recommended that he undergo a preventive medical examination and have some tests .","On DATE blood and urine tests were carried out : they revealed no pathology . A repeated blood sugar test was recommended .","On DATE , after his return from the court hearing , the applicant was examined at the GPE medical unit and was diagnosed with bruises on his forearms and head , periorbital haematomas of both eyes , and CARDINAL stab wounds to the forehead . The applicant was then referred to the Hospital .","At the ORG , the applicant was examined by a general practitioner and a neurosurgeon . He underwent an electrocardiogram and head PERSON and was diagnosed with a contused head wound , numerous bruises , abrasions on the head and left hand , and a number of other conditions he had previously been diagnosed with . Having received first aid for the injuries he had sustained , the applicant was escorted back to his cell as , according to ORG physician , his state of health did not require in - patient treatment at the ORG or the GPE medical unit .","On DATE the stitches on the applicant \u2019s head were removed with no complications .","On DATE the applicant was examined by a neuropathologist of the GPE medical unit and was diagnosed with cephalic syndrome resulting from concussion and post - traumatic radial nerve neuropathy . Outpatient treatment was prescribed .","On DATE the applicant was re - examined by the neuropathologist . The previous diagnosis was confirmed and it was recommended , inter alia , that he undergo a brain and spine MRI .","On DATE the applicant was examined by an endocrinologist and underwent a fasting blood sugar test . No particular problems were revealed .","On DATE the GPE authorities asked ORG for an MRI for the applicant and for the GPE to be informed of the date of the examination .","On DATE the applicant underwent MRI scans of the brain and spine .","According to a ORG certificate of DATE , the applicant \u2019s state of health was satisfactory . He was under constant supervision by the GPE medical staff and did not require in - patient treatment in the GPE medical unit or elsewhere .","The Code of Criminal Procedure ( in force since DATE ) :","Article CARDINAL","Opening of pre - trial investigation","\u201c CARDINAL . An investigator or a prosecutor shall immediately , but not later than TIME after submission of an allegation or notification that a criminal offence has been committed , or having discovered themselves from any source indications that a criminal offence has been committed , be required to enter such information in ORG of pre - trial investigations and shall open an investigation ...","NORP The pre - trial investigation shall begin as soon as data have been entered in FAC of pre - trial investigations ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL","Termination of criminal proceedings","\u201c ... CARDINAL . An investigator or a prosecutor may issue a decision to terminate criminal proceedings , which is amenable to appeal in accordance with the procedure established by this Code .","...","A copy of the investigator \u2019s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings shall be sent to the complainant , the victim , and the prosecutor . The prosecutor has the right to quash the decision on the grounds of its unlawfulness or lack of substantiation within DATE of receipt of the copy of the decision . The prosecutor may also quash the investigator \u2019s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings following a complaint lodged by a complainant or a victim , if such a complaint has been lodged within DATE of receipt of a copy of the decision by the complainant or the victim .","A copy of the prosecutor \u2019s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings shall be sent to the complainant , the victim , his \/ her representative , the suspect , and defence counsel .","...","The court \u2019s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings may be challenged on appeal . \u201d","Article CARDINAL","Decisions , acts or inaction of the investigator or the prosecutor , which are amenable to appeal during the pre - trial investigation , and the right to appeal","\u201c CARDINAL . During the pre - trial proceedings the following decisions , acts or failures to act of the investigator or the prosecutor are amenable to appeal :","...","CARDINAL ) NORP the investigator \u2019s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings - by the complainant , the victim , his or her representative or legal representative ;","CARDINAL ) NORP the prosecutor \u2019s decision to terminate the criminal proceedings - by the complainant , the victim , his or her representative or legal representative , the suspect , his \/ her counsel or legal representative ... \u201d","Article CARDINAL","Legal consequences of lodging a complaint against a decision , act or failure to act on the part of the investigator or the prosecutor during the pre - trial investigation","\u201c CARDINAL . The lodging of a complaint against decisions , acts or failures to act of the investigator or the prosecutor during the pre - trial investigation shall not stop the execution of the decision or the act of the investigator or the prosecutor .","NORP The investigator or the prosecutor may set aside his or her own decisions referred to in DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of this Code , or terminate the act or failure to act complained of , which results in the termination of the proceedings concerning the complaint .","The prosecutor can set aside his or her own decisions referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of LAW and appealed against in accordance with the procedure provided for in paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , which results in the termination of the proceedings concerning the complaint . \u201d","Article CARDINAL","Procedure for examination of complaints about decisions , acts or failures to act on the part of the investigator or the prosecutor during the pre - trial investigation","\u201c CARDINAL . Complaints about decisions , acts or failures to act on the part of the investigator or the prosecutor shall be examined by an investigating judge of a local court ...","Complaints about decisions , acts or failures to act during the pre - trial investigation shall be examined within TIME of receipt of a complaint , except for complaints about the decision to terminate criminal proceedings , which shall be dealt with within DATE of receipt of the complaint .","Examination of complaints about decisions , acts or failures to act during the pre - trial investigation shall be carried out with the mandatory participation of the person who lodged the complaint or his or her defence counsel or representative , and the investigator or prosecutor whose decisions , acts or failures to act are being challenged . The absence of the investigator or prosecutor shall not be an obstacle to examination of the complaint . \u201d","Article CARDINAL","Decision of the investigating judge following examination of a complaint about a decision , act or failure to act on the part of the investigator or the prosecutor during the pre - trial investigation","\u201c ... CARDINAL . A ruling of the investigating judge following the examination of a complaint about a decision , act or failure to act during the pre - trial investigation may concern :","CARDINAL ) NORP the quashing of the decision of the investigator or prosecutor ;","CARDINAL ) NORP obligation to terminate an act ;","CARDINAL ) NORP obligation to perform a certain act ;","CARDINAL ) NORP dismissal of the complaint .","NORP The ruling of the investigating judge following the examination of a complaint about a decision , act or failure to act on the part of the investigator or the prosecutor is not amenable to appeal , unless it concerns a decision on the dismissal of a complaint about a decision to terminate criminal proceedings . \u201d","Article CARDINAL","Rulings by the investigating judge amenable to appeal during a pre - trial investigation","\u201c ... CARDINAL . During a pre - trial investigation decisions of the investigating judge to dismiss a complaint against a decision to terminate criminal proceedings ... may be challenged by means of an appeal . \u201d","Article CARDINAL","Procedure for appealing against decisions by an investigating judge","\u201c CARDINAL . The decisions of the investigating judge may be challenged in accordance with the appeal procedure . \u201d"],"violated_articles":[],"violated_paragraphs":[],"violated_bulletpoints":[],"non_violated_articles":[],"non_violated_paragraphs":[],"non_violated_bulletpoints":[],"violated":false}